6. SR 08-13-2007
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Redevelopment Framework Task Force
CC:
Mayor and City Council
FROM:
Scott Clark, Community Development Director
DATE:
August 13, 2007
SUBJECT:
Highway 10 Discussion
Attachments
. Revised Pages 30, 31 and 33 of Draft Plan
. Elevated Roadway Image
. Depressed Roadway Image
. "As-Is" Roadway Image
Issue
Based on direction from the City Council (see attached minutes dated July 9, 2007) the Task
Force was asked to reconsider their initial recommendation of eliminating the Main Street
crossing at Highway lOon the Illustrative Master Plan. Also attached are the minutes from
the Task Force's meeting of March 5, 2007 where the subject of Highway 10 was originally
discussed. From a recommendation standpoint there appears to be four design options:
1) Keep Jackson Avenue and Main Street "as is" (on-grade). Attachment I.
2) Eliminate one of the aforementioned streets per the original recommendation.
3) Elevate the roadway as shown on Attachment II.
4) Depress the roadway as show on Attachment III.
As described on the attached "Roadway Design Option "(from page 31 of the first approved
Draft Plan each option carries with it a series of advantages and disadvantages. Part of the
reason for these difficulties is the need for balancing the needs and objectives of MnDot
versus the City's wants, and secondly, design options are limited due to the edge of the
existing core downtown buildings on the south and the railroad line to the north.
It should also be remembered that in the Task Force's discussions three other over- riding
principles were addressed:
1) Visibility and a direct access to the greater downtown area is critical to long term
economic health
2) Determining an agreed upon City /MnDOT Highway 10 layout is critical in order to
prevent redevelopment projects being built and creating expensive acquisition issues
in the future, even if that future is 20 years out.
3) A geometric study is critical to determine not only a future Highway 10 layout but
also the interior roadway layouts that support a redesign,
Recommendation
In order to move the Draft Redevelopment Plan forward for Board and Commission review
and public open houses, staff recommends the following:
1) The Illustrative Master Plan should show Jackson Ave. and Main Street being at
grade (this would represent the idea that it is a placeholder, albeit the text of the Plan
will strongly argue for a geometric study).
2) The text of the Plan will contain plan illustrations that represent the various options
that had been considered.
3) The matrix found on the original Draft (page 31) will be modified as shown on the
"Roadway Design Option" attachment.
4) The Plan's Highway 10 conclusion is that a geometric study is critical to avoid any
new redevelopment efforts causing conflict with future design and construction.
S:\Downtown Revitalization\Master Redevelopment PlanUask Force\Memos\Task Force memos\8.13.07 hwy IO.doc
t:1
M
~
::i!
~
(j)
g..~~(ll~
(ll~~~g-
n ::;:',.0 g """'0
~. (ll 0 (ll
9~p...g=
o ~ ~ g
: ~. ~. g.. .
~(llg~O'tI
>:xJ:=t>~ ~S
~-. ~ p.. ~ ~
(ll en ~ ~ ~.
t"t ~ M ~ ~
~(ll0'tl~
en' ~ (ll ~
~l;5'"enp..
en ~ ~ ~
r::!..p..~::+
p-~ p..~
(ll~~e--
g. ~. ~ S
~.::s p.. (ll
(ll "'Ij -1 ~
('l ~ ~ r-t
~. ('l ~ en
-1 r-t r-t ~
1]~~~
o >-<1] en
H-)r-tcrS"
U'~~ r-t
o .... en (ll
g..~8.~
~p..U'(ll
b g" s..g
o g 0 ~.
~ (t ~ g
~ p.. en
S-g-
r-t
o
....,
'--!
c::
~
....
:?
N
o
o
-.,J
w
o
~ S' 'E. g.. 'E. "T' Z "TI
('l('l~(ll~&0~
1rS'"~ en P::r"r-t c:
o g.g..g.>~ irci
~ en ~~. "'Ij ~ g I
IJl r-t (ll "'Ij '--1 .
~ g.. ..... ('l M ......
(ll (ll en ;: 0 oO'tl ::r
(ll S'!5" M "'Ij "'Ij ~ ~
r" r-t Pi"' ~ t;1. M n ll)
(ll (ll ~ (ll .....
:::ip..~(t~~
(llr-tp..........~..........o
l;5'" 0 ~ Et ~
~. g.. $. p.. ~ ~ III
g(ll~~et:J~
g: ~ ~ ~ S. 0 lJ:
"'Ij' ~ S ~ ..g ~
en ........"'Ij ~ (ll ~
r-tg.~~('l::g
o en ('l ~ ::r" ~
g.. ..... Et,.o ~ 0
(ll ~ ~ 0 (ll ~
S. 0 ~ ~ ~ p..
.......~ ~0'tI
fi ~ ~ g. ~ ~
~ c}q' ('l ~ 0 e:.-
('l ::r" t;1. U' ~0'tI
~. ~ g. 0 ~. (ll
o ~ to:> r::!.. en 0
~ '--1 i-o P- H S
~~~g..8.~
....... ~ "'Ij 8 ~ ~.
~~g~!!.('l
~. g: Et ~ 0 g.
S ('l 0 "'Ij en
::r" ....... ~ S .....
~ g:s-g~
p.. en' r-t r-t 0'
o H
~8't:Ij
g H s-
o%' ~ 5
'" v!}.
8 0 0
~..,~
(n ~ 0
" "-
e,o.
" C;)
"" H
1"-0
h ::;!.
8 1t
" 0
<>.C;)
r:i C;)
~ 0
g'~
,,:
Vi
tIl
""
g.
"
<>.
o
"
~
s;:
5
t/>
fl
~
S.
a
'"
()
<>.
o
"
:r: e, S. v
~ a ~~.
~ M ~ ""S
~ g ~ :
O\rt;;g
'" S 8 v.
~. 8] ~
s;: g 8. t;;
s. ~ g '"
~~~~
a ~ ~ A
~. Q. a
~. '" ~.
~. 8 g-
o :r'tit
t:j ~ =-=
~ g.
~ s:- 0 ~ ~
w 0 ~ ~
~ (J'l t::) ~
o'..g :;yo :r' g a.. e
;. g ~ 9- g..g a
~. ~ ~ r& ~ ~
.... ~ s ~ ~ ...,. 0
~g.0"tl8~
~""So.a"
~~8~co.:~
~&gn~g~
8 ~ ;:; Q t:j ~ ~
~ 0 ~ t'b g 0.. g.
~ ~ ~ :r' g rJQ
tl ~." 0 0 "
0. '" ;,. ...., 5
~. 0. ~ :r: 9
(it ~ b'~ 0'
o ~~
~
tIl
r
"
<>.
o
"
o
....,
'-<
:>;
""
o
"
~
"
ii
S.
a
'"
()
<>.
o
"
o tIl
~r
~ g.
'< "
- 0
0....,
'-<
:>;
""
o
"
:>-
r:i
"
"
'"
()
o
"
"
'"
()
<>.
"
""
S. '"
" ()
" ~
2 ~
$ g
o ....,
" ~
:r: '"
01;."9
~a
~~
- '"
0'"
r
I"-
~
o
og.
g
:;;
~ t/> tIl
~~~
~ ~ ~.
g.P..~
~ ~ ~
g~o
o tT 8
~ 0 "
@ J~:
~ 8 -<
~ g-
!1 ~
() '"
?i~
@ g.
~ t
~ c.. 0 ::r:""
8~:r0l;g.
Er a ~~~
~ 0 (b $:I) Ul
~ ~ tI1~ ~
~. ~ ~ p -
'" ~ ~. 9 tl
~ g~o.
~ ~ Jg' ~
~ ~. So ~
Q ~ 8 t:j
o 4gg"
g. eoS-
E """:1 i:j (J'j
i:j n 0 ~
o g e. Dl
; '" ()
~ ~ ~
~
'"
"
'"
()
~
~
'"
0.
S
~
~
~
'"
'"
0.
~""""'d
8 8 ~
:r:s;:5t
~ S. ~
E en ~
~ ~ &
~ ~ g
~ ;;-
C;) S
",C;)
~ ::<>
" 0
~8
8'$
9 ~
s;:~
5.
~~gfr
] & ~ ~
8- "0 @ ~
~: ~ tr ~
ag.o "'d
8~~a
~~2g
Er ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ 9
g ~ ~ ~
g..g ;1 ~
" 9 :;;. ~
g 5' g
2 ~
8
8 ~ :>
9 C;) 0.
~ ;J -Q
0'" g. ~
~ ::3 ~
~ ~ 0..
8 ~ S
~%~
~ ~~
" s;: ~
; S.~.
~ ~~.
~1
0.",
~ ~ t:rj
~~r
" "
t/>"
>1 ~
~ ~
~ '"
.J" S.
~~
~ i'i
~. g.
~ ;:
~ 0
g ~
~ S.
'" R"
~
~gJ
j g.
. ~
- '"
o~
C;) "
~g;
s. ~
"" '"
~ p.
~ g
~
S
~
'"
"
o
e-
:>-n
;:!. ~
9- tl
9 0.
B 8
~ .,
'It!1
-.!::3'Q:
'"
C;)
a
'"
0.
H
o
~
~
~'"O
'" s
() 0"
o "
~ g:
0.'<
o '"
~ s-
a S'
~ ~
" Vi
~ ~
<;.
'"
p.
:>;
()
~
S.
S
~~
"" 0
g ~.
t/>""
>1 :>;
~ @
~ ~
s;:S
5. go
t/>~
fl ~
~ ~
0"
'<
0"
o
~
() t/>
~~.
~.~
~ tl
o ~
~~
~]
1t'"
., "
'" 0
.ge-
9 0
g @
01;.
~
~
::;
~ ~
s.~
5; Er
~l
:r: '"
riQ'g
r.a
~;J
o g.
""
~
'"
"
o
e-
tl
0.
o
C;)
<>.
o
"
tIl
;;-
.,
"
"
0.
S
~
~
~
;llI
o
~
:c
~
~ c
~ m
"" oliO
~ ::I
~ 0
~~
o'
::I
g"~9'
~C;) ~
s;:;J '"
S. &. ~
t/> S. B.
>1 " I"-
a ~ 2 c
tl g. ~ ~
~:) ~ "'I
R. ~~. j
g ~. ~ gO
t/>"" ~
~ g ft
~ ~
S
t/>
9
~
S.
g
'"
~
'"
S.
o
r:i
g,
~
'"
~
~
'"
'"
0.
8 s;:
~ s.
""R"
~)f
0.,,"
o
"
t/>
fl
~
:>;
()
~
Vi
~
o
&
0"
'"
~
~
...
~
..
~
.,
i!.
o
....,
~
~
,;- C
(b in-
~ ~
~. ~
tl ...
~ i
o
C;)
<>.
o
"
n
o
::I
..
a:
lD
i
o'
::I
t:'
M
~
;::::>
~
00
~ S' S' 0 ~ ~
5. e:.. SL :' ~ tn.
~ '" ("D '" ("D n
~ g S' &. ~ a:
v'" -.:::r "'0 ~ "'00 Q
.... ............ ~
on("Do~'-<1
~ g s ~ v ~.
:t'~("Dn("D::S
<; 0... ~ n <::t "'0
~~~0<10
v'" ~ ~. s ~ ....
("D~g%~g
o ~o ~SL"'"
rt ....., ..... ("D SL
g. S' &: &: 0 ~
SL ..... '" "'.r-t .....
0'"d("D'-<;~
~S~5.bS'
I-< ("D P '" 0... e:..
g::~1-<5~:r:
e ~ ~. ~ b ~
~. ~ e:.. v ~ ~
~fto("D~~
'"d:;....b~.......
....... ("D .......0
~ ~ n Ef ct. 0...
PtnOsP-("D
~ i. ("D ;~.
s ("D ~ ("D
("Do...~'"hV
~ ct. ("D I=' ("D
ft ~"'O ~ 8
s ..... ~. ~ s
~ 0 :3 ("D
~.CtCI '"
~
o
.....,
'-
c::
.~
.......
P
N
Q
Q
-...1
w
w
SLo...Or-J
("D ~ "'0 ::r
.... e:.. ~. ("D
("Dogr-J
p;.3:'" ~
..q ("D ~ ::>;-'
("D n ~
0" ~. 0... ~
"'O~nH
1:1 0 n
~ S. ~ ("D
~ ......t:nH
..... ~ ~ ~
~ '" H 0
~ ("D ~ ~
0... S' g. ~.
~,..., ~ ("D
rJ) V'w( r.n CJJ
~ ~ s ct.
..... ~ ~ p-
o S'-<1 ~
v n v 0
("D 0 ("D SL
~ ~(t'~
t;!... ~ ~ ~
r< CtCI ....... ~
~::rg:("D
~ ~ ("D ~
g:~SL"E..
ro~~o
....... ..... H
ova.
~ ("D H
~ ~ 0
0... ~ ~
~ ~ ~
o ;;:j ~
~. ~ '-<1
CtCI SL
("D
~ ~>g-tP
o 0 ..q ("D ~
s g. g '" ("D
("D 0... ~ ~ 0...
a. v ("D ~ g
n ("D ~ H
'" S' ~ ("D SL
8"..... ~ ~ ("D
%.a ~ Q a-
n H S' ~ H
~ ~ C/l "'0 ("D
~ ("D ..... H S
vo...H("D("D
("D~~(t'~
n '" ..... ~ ~.
o ~ ,,~("D 0
S '"d 1ii 0... ~
"'0 t.;"' ....... ~ ~
(b 5 "'~ ff ;
....."'0 H ~
("D....... ~ ~
o...~~~.......
. ~ ~.~
::r ",' ~ tn.
s..~ v SL
0...~~("D
~ "'0 ..... I-<
~ g-: S' g::
~ Q ~ '"
a ~ ~ ~
~.g ~~.
s' ~ ~ i
("D ~ '" ~
~'-<~
SL g. ~ ~
~~ir'"d
~ 0......
~ b
City Council Minutes
July 9, 2007
Page 5
Q
Commission would like to hire a part-time energy city coordinator, who would be
responsible for putting together the Energy Expo in 2008.
Discussion took place regarding software and scanning equipment and to contract with a
company to scan the building division and planning fues. He wants his staff to start the
gravel mining area study and would request funds to hire a planning consultant to assist in
the work.
B. General Government Departments
The administrative department budgets were delayed until the August Worksession.
Council Open Forum
The Council wished to discuss the Mississippi Connections Redevelopment Framework
Task Force Study.
Mayor Klinzing expressed concerns with the plan and how it was presented to the Council.
She also expressed her concerns with the decision to have Hwy. 10 at grade in the plan,.
even though MnDOT stated that Hwy. 10 will not be at grade. She wishes that they would
have presented the plan to the Council ftrst before it went to the public so these concerns
might have been addressed before being released. She has already received phone calls and
comments from the public and wasn't sure how to address them.
Councilmember Motin expressed concerns with how he received the plan.
Mr. Clark explained that a copy of the draft plan, maps, and details were e-mailed to the
Council on June 29.
Mayor Klinzing stated she did not remember getting this e-mail. Councilmember Gumphrey
stated he did receive the e-mail.
Councilmember Motin expressed that he didn't receive the e-mail and was concerned that
this wasn't enough time to review the plan, given that July 4 was a holiday. He stated
concerns that the Council wasn't able to give input. Another concern was the Highway 10
proposal not being at grade. Mr. Clark stated staff didn't know of the Highway 10 decision
was a ftrm consensus of the council. He stated this is a draft only and it isn't the Taskforce's
recommendation to the Council but merely a starting point, knowing there is at least 5
months more work which needs to be done. They wanted input from the stakeholders in
the community that will be affected by this long-term plan in order to return to the Council
in the future with a more ftnalized version of the plan.
Mayor Klinzing stated the Highway 10 issues need to be determined before the plan can be
ftnalized. She also stated it's a 20 year vision which needs to remain flexible. Ms. Johnson
explained the taskforce is aware this may change and the need to do the geometric study in
order to determine how it ftts into the plan. Ms. Johnson said the Taskforce knows they will
have to adjust this plan accordingly and be flexible to MnDOT and the Highway 10 needs.
Councilmember Zerwas asked how this improves the connection between upper and lower
downtown with trafftc. He felt this will isolate downtown instead of joining both areas.
City Council Minutes
July 9, 2007
Page 6
Ms. Johnson stated this will certainly be something that should be discussed and ideas
such as this are needed. She felt the time and effort the taskforce put into this project
shouldn't go to waste.
Councilmember Gumphrey stated the Taskforce should have come to the Council and that
in the future the Council should be informed before the public.
Councilmember Zerwas suggested they move ahead with the stakeholders meeting but
wondered if there was time for a few more versions of this draft.
Councilmember Motin concurred with Councilmember Zerwas to move forward with the
plan.
Mayor Klinzing has already received calls from the public and will not support cutting off
Main Street. She wants to support the Taskforce decision and most of it is great but
feels the Highway 10 issue will draw negative attention
Mr. Clark stated decisions can be made after the geometric study is completed.
Councilmember Motin questioned what was behind the reasoning for the taskforce's
decision to stay at grade with Highway 10. He further questioned the benefit of closing
Main Street.
Mr. Clark stated the cut and cover plan would hide the downtown and go against the
taskforce vision of trying to keep it more visible from the highway due to its uniqueness to
visitors in the area.
Mayor Klinzing stated that she doesn't accept that argument and this plan will not meet the
IRC study's goals or MnjDOT's plan. She stated this doesn't meet Council's goals. After
receiving this plan, she spoke with Stewart Wilson, a member of the taskforce, and asked
him about the highway issues. Mr. Wilson stated this is the better alternative than what is
currently in place.
Councilmember Motin stated perhaps going up 20 feet in the air may be the best thing
for downtown.
Mr. Clark suggested canceling the stakeholders meeting so the Taskforce could meet to
present another plan to the Council.
Ms. Johnson stated there are very good aspects about the plan if you can get past the
Highway 10 issue, and reiterated the Taskforce worked hard to develop this plan.
The council concurred to go ahead with the stakeholders meeting on July 24 but to make it
clear to the public that the Council is not in approval with the plan but recognize there are
many good things about this draft.
Mr. Clark suggested, and was agreed by the Council, that the Taskforce will review the
Highway 10 issue at an August meeting and will be sent back to the Council for a review of
the same at the August 20, 2007 council meeting.
Ms. Johnson will have the City Clerk put together a notice of a possible quorum in case the
Council is in attendance at the stakeholders meeting.
MEETING OF THE ELK RIVER
DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PLAN TASK FORCE
HELD AT ELK RIVER CITY HALL
MONDAY, MARCH 5,2007
Members Present:
Stewart Wilson, BRA Chair; Louise Kuester, BRA Commissioner; Larry
Toth, HRA Commissioner; Jean Lieser, BRA Commissioner; Lance
Lindberg, Heritage Preservation Commissioner; Dan Tveite, EDA
Commissioner; Dana Anderson, Planning Commissioner; Dave
Rymanowski, Business Representative (First National Bank); Keith Holme,
Business Representative (Kemper Drug); Molly Nadeau-Peterson, Resident
Representative; John Anderson, Resident Representative
Members Absent:
Mike Niziolek, Parks & Recreation Commissioner and Mark Urista,
Business Representative (Coldwell Banker Vision)
Staff Present:
Community Development Director Scott Clark, Director of Economic
Development Catherine Mehelich, City Engineer Terry Maurer, Assistant
Director of Economic Development Heidi Steinmetz and Planner Chris
Leeseberg
Others Present:
Stacie Kvilvang of Ehlers & Associates, Inc. and Michael Schroeder of
LHB Architects and Engineers
1. Approve March 5. 2007 Agenda
The March 5, 2007 agenda was approved.
2. Approve February 5. 2007 Minutes/Recap of Last Meeting
The February 5, 2007 minutes were approved.
Ms. Kvilvang provided a recap of the last meeting. She highlighted the following items that
the developers discussed with the Task Force:
. There is a market in Elk River for senior housing.
. An appropriate land use for downtown north of Hwy 10 is one that provides jobs to
support the core downtown.
. The dynamics between appropriate land uses for the north and south sides of Hwy
10 are complex.
. Otsego is not a competing threat to downtown Elk River.
. There may be a better future use for the funeral home property.
. The single family neighborhoods are important to the downtown area.
3. Public Participation Process & Final Plan Outcome
Ms. Kvilvang stated that there were questions among members about the public
participation process. She explained the following examples of ways the public will
participate in this process:
. The Task Force itself is part of the public participation process because the
members represent the community via Boards and Commissions, businesses and
residents.
. Monthly updates are expected to be provided by Task Force members to their
respective Boards/Commissions.
Downtown Redevelopment Plan Task Force Minutes
March 5, 2007
Page 2
. The public will have the chance to review the draft plan when it is presented to
various Boards and Commissions for input.
. There will be a community/stakeholder open house.
. Communication tools will be used such as the City Website or newsletters.
Member John Anderson asked is staff could ask the Elk River Star News to run an article to
inform the community about the Task Force. Director of Economic Development
Catherine Mehelich explained that in respect of the City Council, they need to be updated on
the Task Force status prior to the general public. The update is scheduled for March 12th.
In addition, it was important that the Task Force select a chairperson, establish a mission
statement and develop a focus area boundary prior to launching a public communication
campaign.
Ms. Kvilvang also reviewed the final outcome of the Task Force process, which is the
Redevelopment Plan. She referenced the sample redevelopment plans that she passed
around at the first Task Force meeting and that the Task Force itself would not be expected
to write such a "thick" document. She stated that staff would be writing the plan based off
of Task Force discussions.
Member Lindberg asked how many Task Force meetings are remaining. Ms. Kvilvang
answered that there will be four to six more meetings. She anticipates that at least three
meetings will be spent converting the Task Force's policy discussions and other thoughts
and ideas to paper.
4. Purpose of March 5th Meeting
Ms. Kvilvang stated that over the course of the first series of meetings, the Task Force
members have made numerous comments about issues relating to Hwy 10. Tonight's
meeting is crucial in addressing many of those issues.
Due to a scheduling conflict with one of the visioning facilitators for the April meeting, Ms.
Kvilvang asked if the next meeting could be held on April 9th instead of April 2nd. All
members agreed that this would be fine.
5. Hwy 10 Presentation: City Engineer Terry Maurer
Ms. Kvilvang introduced guest speaker City Engineer Terry Maurer.
Interregional Corridor Study
Mr. Maurer provided a PowerPoint presentation focusing on the results of MnDOT's 2002
Interregional Corridor (IRC) Study, specifically focusing on the stretch of Hwy 10 from
approximately Hwy 101 to Proctor. His presentation highlighted the following information:
. On October 14, 2002, the City Council adopted a Resolution Accepting, Supporting
and Adopting the TH 10 Interregional Corridor Management Plan, which included
the following statements relating to the downtown area:
o Consideration should be given to lowering 10 below the surrounding grade
vs. raising it above.
o Consideration should be given to a raised alignment on the north side of
the railroad tracks.
o There are significant concerns over the IRC Plan and the impact it may
have on the downtown area.
Downtown Redevelopment Plan Task Force Minutes
March 5, 2007
Page 3
. MnDOT has placed higher priority on Hwy 169 over Hwy 10.
. Traffic counts on Hwy 169 are estimated to be double the amounts on Hwy 10 in
the year 2025.
. Even if $21 million (2001 dollars) suggested by the IRC results is spent on elevating
Hwy 10 downtown, MnDOT's Level of Service will still be an"F".
. The Tinklenberg Group will submit a 3rd request for $500,000 of Federal funding
to further analyze Hwy 10 through the downtown area.
. Terry Humbert, MnDOT Project Manager for Hwy 10 has indicated that there is no
funding in MnDOT's 30 yr. plan for Hwy 10 downtown.
. Scott Bradley, MnDOT Chief Landscape Architect stated that it would be Terry
Humbert's decision whether or not to bring the Context Sensitive Design group at
MnDOT into Elk River to enhance Hwy 10 improvements. (Mr. Maurer suggested
that this may be an option if the $500,000 of Federal funding was awarded to
further study Hwy 10 downtown.)
Member Holme asked if traffic issues along Hwy 10 downtown are going to get worse
within the next fifteen years if nothing is done. Mr. Maurer stated "yes" according to
MnDOT's projections. He expanded with the following:
. There is no funding available for thirty years; however MnDOT's 30-year plan may
change.
. MnDOT will likely fund improvements in the Anoka/Ramsey area prior to funding
improvements to Hwy 10 downtown.
. MnDOT District 3 will fund Hwy 169 projects prior than Hwy 10 projects.
Member Dana Anderson asked Mr. Maurer if safety issues would motivate MnDOT to make
improvements to the highway even though the Level of Service would still be rated an "F."
Mr. Maurer stated that most reported deaths occur on 2-lane undivided highways and
Highways 10 and 169 are considered relatively safe highways.
Conceptual Options
For the purposes of Task Force policy discussions, Mr. Maurer provided an overview of the
following four conceptual options:
. Lower highway
. Elevate highway
. Eliminate one intersection
. Do nothing
Mr. Maurer expanded on the "eliminate one intersection" option explaining that this option
may be the fastest way to improve traffic since eliminating an intersection is more cost
effective than lowering or elevating a highway.
Planner Chris Leeseberg presented animated images of how Hwy 10 would appear to
travelers both from a lowered and elevated perspective. He also presented a still image of
how local traffic may be realigned if one intersection in the downtown area were to be
eliminated. He used the example of eliminating the Main Street/Hwy 10 intersection. He
reiterated that the images were concepts, not designs.
Downtown Redevelopment Plan Task Force :Minutes
March 5, 2007
Page 4
Member Lindberg asked how long the construction of an elevated Hwy would last. Mr.
Maurer stated that he couldn't say for sure since the area is so confmed but that it would
more than likely last for an entire construction season.
Member Holme asked if there is enough Right of Way to elevate or lower the highway. Mr.
Maurer stated "yes" especially if MnDOT eliminates several access points to allow
for six lanes of traffic.
Ms. Kvilvang asked what would happen to The Bank of Elk River's parking lot located on
the north side of Hwy 10 if the highway was elevated or lowered. Mr. Maurer said that he
believes most of the parking lot currently is built in MnDOT's Right of Way so MnDOT
would probably remove the parking lot.
Member Wilson inquired whether closing the Jackson Avenue/Hwy 10 intersection would
make sense. Mr. Maurer explained that one of the reasons Main Street was chosen as an
example is because of the super-elevated railroad tracks at that intersection. Mr. Leeseberg
added that the Fire Department may have concerns with closing the Jackson intersection
because of the nearby fire station.
Mr. Maurer mentioned that another option would be to eliminate both Main Street and
Jackson Avenue intersections and create a new one altogether.
Member Lindberg stated that he prefers a Hwy 10 improvement option that would cause the
least amount of buildings to be removed.
Member Tveite reminded the group that the Main Street intersection is confmed by the
Parrish Avenue bridge, the railroad tracks and Hwy 10 and that it is a tough intersection no
matter what MnDOT decides to do with it in the future.
Member Rymanowski mentioned the cost/benefit to eliminating one intersection versus
elevating or lowering the highway however eliminating one intersection would cause a major
land acquisition impact. Mr. Maurer concurred.
Member Lieser asked if the Main Street/Hwy 10 intersection was closed, would Proctor
remain open. Mr. Maurer stated that Jackson, Proctor, Upland and Joplin would remain
open but MnDOT may eliminate the Waco intersection.
Small Groups
The Task Force broke into three small groups and discussed the following three policy
questions:
1) Is it important that downtown be "seen" and/or accessed from Hwy 10?
o Which option for Hwy 10 is least detrimental to downtown?
· Elevated
· Lowered
· At grade
The Task Force consensus was that leaving Hwy 10 at grade would be the least detrimental
to downtown due to the importance of maintaining a sense of place and image that one is
entering the downtown. The Task Force also agreed that it is important for downtown to be
accessed from Hwy 10, although recognized that the downtown does not draw or depend on
customer traffic from Hwy 10.
Downtown Redevelopment Plan Task Force Minutes
March 5, 2007
Page 5
2) Is the land area north of Hwy 10 an extension of the core downtown and should the
Plan recognize this?
The Task Force consensus was that the north of Hwy 10 downtown is not an extension of
the core downtown but that the land uses on the north side should compliment the core
downtown.
3) Should the Plan reflect the downtown area extending further west along Main Street?
The Task Force consensus was that the natural progression of downtown redevelopment
will most likely extend west along Main Street as driven by the market.
More details of the small group discussion are attached.
6. Photo "Homework" Summary
Assistant Director of Economic Development Heidi Steinmetz stated that the photo
summary provided tonight is meant to generate ideas in preparation for next month's first
visioning meeting but that the photos will be used as references to assist the Task Force in
transferring ideas to paper. The summary included groupings of similar photos taken by
members during the month of January. Many members explained to the group why each
photo was taken.
Member Wilson expressed concern that the summary only included Elk River photos and
that he understood the assignment was meant to obtain photos outside of Elk River. Ms.
Steinmetz stated that he understood the assignment correctly and that the rest of the photos
would definitely be used during the visioning process.
7. Next Steps
Ms. Kvilvang stated that the Task Force would be breaking into two visioning groups at next
month's meeting on April 9th, which will be facilitated by Michael Schroeder of LHB
Architects and Engineers and Planner Chris Leeseberg. Ms. Mehelich reminded the group
that there is an EDA meeting prior to the Task Force meeting so the Task Force meeting
would begin at 6:30pm.
8. Final Comments
Ms. Kvilvang asked each Task Force member to talk about his/her reactions to tonight's
presentation. The comments are listed below:
. Dave Rymanowksi: It doesn't "pay" to spend $21 million on Hwy 10 if the Level of
Service will remain an "F".
. John Anderson: concurred with Mr. Rymanowski
. Stewart Wilson:
. Jean Lieser: Any improvements to Hwy 10 are "out there a ways."
. Molly Nadeau: MnDOT doesn't seem to be under any pressure to improve Hwy
10.
. Keith Holme: The north and south sides of Hwy 10 should be developed
separately. We need to wait to redevelop further west along Main Street until there
is a market for it. We need to make sure we maintain a nice buffer between the
commercial and the residential located along Main Street.
. Larry Toth: Redevelopment along Main Street should not extend futher than
Lowell Avenue.
Downtown Redevelopment Plan Task Force Minutes
March 5, 2007
Page 6
. Dana Anderson: It is time for the City to make some tough decisions regarding
Hwy 10 traffic downtown and we need to come up with some better land uses to
alleviate those transportation issues.
. Lance Lindberg: There is no easy answer for dealing with Hwy 10.
. Dan Tveite: We need to figure out the best land uses for north and south ofHwy
10. The natural progression for redevelopment in the area is to extend west along
Main Street and we need to make sure we maintain good transitions.
. Louise Kuester: The Task Force has really changed its focus regarding the north
and south sides of Hwy 10. It is odd that we've never talked about the railroad
because it is just as much of any issue as Hwy 10. We need to be proactive with
Hwy 10.
Submitted by,
~J~7
Heidi Steinmetz
Assistant Director of Economic Development
Downtown Redevelopment Plan Task Force
March 5, 2007 meeting
Small Group Question #1
Is it important that downtown be "seen" and/or accessed from Hwy 10?
. Which option for Hwy 10 is least detrimental to downtown?
o Elevated
o Lowered
o At grade
Group 1
. A visual is needed so that Hwy 10 travelers know they are entering downtown Elk
River.
. Access from Hwy 10 into downtown is important for local traffic but for Hwy 10
commuters.
. Keep Hwy 10 at grade and study other options.
. Local residents' access in and out of downtown from Hwy 10 takes precedence over
commuters' access.
. The "as is" option is preferred but there is a need for safe pedestrian access between
the north and south sides of the highway.
Group 2
. It is important that downtown Elk River is seen and accessed from Hwy 10.
. The "at grade" version of Hwy 10 is preferred.
. The removal of a Main Street access into downtown from Hwy 10 better allows
redevelopment opportunities north of Hwy 10.
Group 3
. The "at grade" or "do nothing" approach continues to serve the area the best
because of the disruption Hwy 10 reconstruction would cause, etc.
. The elevated option has poor aesthetic appeal.
Small Group Questions #2
Is the land area north of Hwy lOan extension of the core downtown and should the Plan
recognize this?
Group 1 (same responses as Group 2)
Group 2
. The north side of Hwy 10 should compliment the south side in relation to land use
and architecture.
. The north side of the highway is not an extension of the core downtown.
Group 3
. The north and south sides of Hwy 10 are two separate areas. The north side is not
an extension of the south side.
. The south side of the highway is the core downtown.
. There are concerns with increased train traffic and access to the core downtown.
Small Group Questions #3
Should the Plan reflect the downtown area extending further west along Main Street?
Group 1
. If redevelopment extends west along Main Street, will it thrive and what will it look
like or be?
Group 2
. The answer to the question is yes and there may be a better use or opportunities for
the funeral home.
. The redevelopment plan should recognize that extending west along Main Street is a
natural "growth" area.
. Extending west along Main should be driven by the market and it is a logical place to
continue redevelopment is the current construction projects are successful.
Group 3
. The answer to the question is yes and redevelopment should extend to Lowell Ave
(there was some disagreement on this among Group 3 members).
. The market will dictate whether this happens or not. There is a need to fill the
existing and new commercial units prior to thinking about adding new commercial.
Summary
. Hwy 10 will always be a barrier to downtown Elk River's redevelopment.
o The "at grade" option is the best option.
o Money should be earmarked to find out if the "cut and cover" (lowered
highway) option is even an option.
. The Task Force recognizes that downtown customers are local, not commuters
driving by on Hwy 10.
. Are there opportunities or how we can move businesses currently located along the
river or the south side of Hwy 10 over to the north side of Hwy 10?
. The south side of Hwy 10 has more residential appeal for redevelopment than the
north side.
I r I DC. .......
I ~ Z "I1 n ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 n ::r: ~
o c::: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ..... tI1
;g a ~ G') 0
C/) ~ "I1 Z ~ ~ ~ n ::r: )o-l
I-i c::: o g; tI1 () -. z 0 tI1 ~ g ~
c::: tr1 ~ n tr1 0 C') c
~ ~ c C3 ~ ~ ~ ~ C/) ~ n Z 0
C/) ~ ~ VJ Ct1
tl:l :r: VJ c o ~ z ;d , ~ @
0 tIl ~ ~ ~ ~ C/) c G;
c::: 0 ~ o :> :::l z ~ ~ VJ g; ~
z VJ
o ......... ~ ~ ~ :> G') fri C () ~ ~
:> 8 C/) ~ g; ~ o tI1
~ ~ Q :> ~ a
tI1 @ 0
0 C/) ~ ~ I-i tI1
0 > z
~ ~ Q t""' :j
C/) :>
a t""'
tI1
VJ
-<
3:
Q
>-
N
o
~
>-
~
<
H
en
H
o
Z
(~:-;2
IDealllllla
z Z n ~ 0 I"Cl
~ ~ "'tl C
>-j ~ tn tl:l
tn C Z ~
~ ~ ~ C/) n
:>
~ ~ n ~ C')
~ I"Cl n () ~
I-i tI1 tI:j tI:i
< C/:l tI1
~ 0 C/:l Z
tT.l n
en :> ~ en
~ n 0 ~
n en n
tT.l en t:r:l
:> C/:l Z
Q en .........
tI:i C) ~
.........
c ~
0
C/:l
0
_,,_n
, -----------")
I
TI-- 0'-- 0
~
o
tIj
........
(D
~
.,~'
M"
(b
~
i
i
i
L... ... .... - -- _--~ ~
b ~.- ~ ~O.~ -(J 0,1
o 0 .I
o 0 . ~r:=J I i
o CJ OD 0 Q11 I;.} : I
1f~~.~..-~---~=-~.:~~
r:=J 0 ,i;'/ 0 i I'
o (/ CJ 0 il!
// c:::=::J1 :
,1{/ c::J II;
9J 0 /:/ [:=::J :
~ (J/ !I
,/ / r;==J D Oil:
.// U ill
~ ----- ~
1? Q D j:l
;1 II
l! : I
'1JM~,i
I( hi
2111 :\~
~~. If~
In, i-;
:"'e.:~; I'~
t........, , .:..,a.i..... 1.....1. lr!l
"( I .'t 'i It
r)i\ 1\
1,-..............,
] 1\'- "1
~'p'~j r :: g] ~ D~gp~I;~~~~1 ii, ~
~ ( Bbn~;i ~ :8 ~ Og~~----~-~i1:1 II
DiD [S 0 LJ g 0 LJ 0 I 0 0 0 0 CJ 0 !I: I
, ~, ~ ~ ~ R 02381 r 090, l6~Q, ~g~ll\ II
~ D. I, 0 U CbC2JD CJ~ Cl 0 l1J D l? ~ ;:.i~.. \:
_ ~ " Cl Ll 0)1 :
'~.\ C::::). .~. z> 0. s:)~OCJ~9_~s.:~.\~ oc=::::J r:::::::J D' '.1 I
'\ 0; "tO~, " 'aQo \0"<. / D 0 0 \
\, <J:" '...'- 'oD G \ ~ GO . i I
'\,~~$}~~~~~~_:_:~~ r "I
~ ~ ~VJ-1
-_...._~,_..._-_//-.._j~'~/~ ~
/--&9\ }J'N en C V> >-
o en ~ t-.-4
z ~ f:5 · ~J
~~:3t-j
o
CJ
cP.
00 !
c::J 0 l
CJ ;
'..... ....
. "
~/ //
-
,{ 0 ULJU U [I:l
11 0 I
~\';""~'- -
o II:::J 0 ~
.D ~l "
..." r ,."""""",--,.-.--- I"'~'
I
~
m.:~""
'11I'
~
o I
s;
o
~
: 11
VJ ::l ~
~ ~ c
~ ~ ~
tI' ~ ~
o ~ ~
co>
z ~ """'I
~ 8 ~
~ ~
o
o
~
VJ
-11'---
D~!. .......
5 5 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 ~ ~
~ ~ z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ c z ~ ~ ~ m - ~ 9
o ~ ~ n ' Z 0 g 0 c
~ VJ Q ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~
VJ a - ~ m VJ ~ Q ~ 0
~ 0 ~ ~ z ~ I ~ - m
~ VJ 0 VJ C ~ ~ ~
n > ::l Z ~ n ~ -
~ ~ > Q g a ~ ~ ~
a > ~ ~ 0 s ~
~ @ ~ ~ ~
VJ 0 Z 0
~ ~ ~ m
m ~ > Z
Z n ~ j
_ tI:1 >
g ~
VJ
--.--- - ..(,-,
0, /
~~
om
~8'
oR
~~
-' ,
IDeallllla
z Z n E: 0 "Cl
~ ~ ~ -< ~ C
~ C ~ ~ Z ~
~ ~ ~ > VJ n
tI:1 ~ ~ n ~ Q
~ "d n n ~
~ ~ ~ ~ tI:1
t!1 F v VJ tI:1
VJ > n Z
C5 R b ~
~ ~ ~ n
C) VJ Z m
~ Q ,
, ~
@ ~
VJ
~
~ ~
>
tv
o
I
.-<
tr1
>
~
<
~
CFJ
~
o
z
_ ___________.J
~
~
tJ:
j l
'i;j '"Ij I ·
~. .~ ~'-"~'_...--_.--_...-----
~/..-/- C
..to tJ ~
Or-l~
C/)C/)N
t1in~
C/) C 'oJ
OC/)~~
Z~O
t'-10~
>< z t-1
~
o
'/~q' ~\\
i-Ou 0
---)
: 11
DC.
Z"I1("')~tod~~~O
o c:: 0 ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ c: tI:I ()
b ~ td ("') ....... Z t:J tt1
~ (J) Q tIl ~ G) @
~ d (5 ~ ~ ~ ~
tJ ~ ~ c: (I) c:: ~
("') ~ < z ~ ~ (J)
~ fij :; c;J g 8 8
~ > ~ fij ~
~ tIl 0
:> "I1
a=: "I1
tn n
Z tI:I
a
tIl
(J)
.......
(') ::I: a=:
o ~ tIl
g:: ~ 8
~ g ~
~ Z tJ
~ ~ ~
~ (I)
~ ~
~ ~
~ (J) ~
Z 8 ~ g
~ ~
:;
t""4
~ ~ ~
a ~ d
~ ~ ~
o tI1 :j
c:: tJ 5:
~ ~ ~
~ ~
o
~
(J)
Qoo(
~~
E8z
>
N
o
~
>
~
~
Cf:;
~
o
z
......
---,
,
\
" \
'~,
" ,~
\ 3:
\~
,~
'1J
I~
I~
'7"
\
\
'111---
IDCalllllEJ
z z ~ ~ 0 ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
tt1 c:: t-1 ~ z t:
~ G; (') > (J) ("')
~ ~ F: ("') ~ G)
~ iil ~ ~ ~
tt:i tJ (J) Z
(J) :> (") (I)
(;) ("') b ~
Z (") (J) (')
~ rn 2 ~
~ C) ~
o
(J)
~
j
,_.-..-..-"~
~I
0",
~~
/' /
. .. .... ..~.J
~~
C/J~
"
" 0
.,--/ ""'6q'''~~
~~ tj,1
c 0 ~ ~'_J,r" ,-
~ _.~. "C"~ '
~-td r-1 t-l
" 0 ~ K:
cncnN
t'Jjn.;::.
~~~'::i
z~o
~o-J
~z
~ - -- .~_..'\
0'0 0