Loading...
6.2. SR 08-20-2007" °` RE VEST FO~ ACTION ~l . .~ Q River To Item Number Ci Council 6.2. Agenda Section Meeting Date Prepared by Community Development August 20, 2007 Scott Clark, Community Development Director Item Description ', Reviewed by Confirm the Direction of the Redevelopment Framev~rork Plan Lori ohnson, Ci Administrator Task Force regarding Highway 10 Reviewed by Action Requested The City Council is asked to make a motion to confirm, the direction of the Redevelopment Framework Plan Task Force regarding Highway 10. Background/Discussion Per the direction from the City Council on July 9, 2007, the Redevelopment Framework Plan Task Force met on August 13, 2007 (see attached draft minutes) tore-evaluate their recommendation and the design options for Highway 10 as it appears in the Task Force's Draft Plan. The attached staff report outlines the options that were' presented. Following discussion the Task Force approved the following action by a vote of 12-1 regarding Highway 10 within the Redevelopment Framework Plan: 1) The Illustrative Master Plan should show Jackson Ave. and Main Street being at grade (this would represent the idea that it is a placehdlder, albeit the text of the Plan will strongly advocate for a geometric study). 2) The text of the Plan will contain plan illustrations that represent the various options that had been discussed by the Task Force. 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. 5) If a Plan is approved prior to a geometric study conclusion, it is understood that amendments to the original Plan may have to be reviewed and adopted. Upon the City Council's confirmation of the direction >~egarding Highway 10, all of the illustrations and narratives within the Draft Plan will be modified to reflect the change prior to the Draft Plan's review by the City Boards and Commissions and community open houses next month. Attachments • Staff report to Task Force re: Highway 10 Discussibn, dated August 13, 2007 • DRAFT Minutes of the August 13, 2007 Redevelopment Framework Task Force Meeting S:\Downtown Revitalization\Master Redevelopment Plan\Task Force\Memos\Council memos\Action Requested 8.20.07.doc Motion by Second by Vote FOllow Up S:\Downtown Revitalization\Master Redevelopment Plan\Task Force\Memos\Council memos\Action Requested 8.20.07.doc giver MEMORANDUM TO: Redevelopment Framewprk Task Force CC: Mayor and City Council FROM: Scott Clark, Community Development Director DATE: August 13, 2007 I~I 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 10 on the Illustrative Master Plan. Also attached are the minutes from the Task Force's meeting of March 5, 2007 w ere 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 1?,~ttachment III. As described on the attached "Roadway Desi~n 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 101ayout 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 Bete ~'' e not only a future Highway 101ayout but also the interior roadway layouts that s pport a redesign, Recommendation In order to move the Draft Redevelopment Pl n forward for Board and Commission review and public open houses, staff recommends the following: 1) The Illustrative Master Plan should sh w 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 Plan\Task Fotce\Memos\Task Force memos\8.13.07 hwy l0.doc b ;~ C ~-c c N `-.7 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ o o ~~~o~ ~ ~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~ o ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~ Cr1~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ as ~ ~.~'~~'.~ ~ ~ ~ . n ~ ~ ~n ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ g a a ~ - o n GI. ~ U4 ~ ~' ~' ~' ~ A~ ~ y ~ A~ ~ ~+ vii ryl ~ ~ O ~ fD N ~ a ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ CD rn ~. f1 A ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ O N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r -r ~G ~ ~• n ~ ~ (D ^~,$ A~ O fD ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ VJ ~ ~Q ~ Fit ~I ~ O P'r I--i ~ ~ eY ~ ~ ~ O~-+ ~ ~ ~ R5- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~y ¢+ ~ 0 Q 1-1 ~ ~ O F~rQ V 1 ~ O ~ . F~'1 f? i~-~ ~--~ A~ ¢' ~+ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 A~ h W O ~~, ~ . w O' w O P ~ T ~T ~ rryy ~ r~ ~' ~ o v, P ~ 9 .n. C ~ C . . ~ n ~ ~ n c. 0 a I ~ ~ 8 C11 O^ C~7 ~ '~" p ~ ~ n tl . w 5' ' o n w w ~ x o °a `c °n tl0,r~o o°, ~ ~ ~ ~' o 0 ~ ~ +, N n ~. o we ~ o n °° 9 5 g' o ~' ~ n rv o ° n ° , , ~ ~ c. ~ ~ a a~°n ~ I ~ a w ~ -, o, i., q ~ 5- i-, ~ 5. ~ n 5. o n ~ c ~ w ~ ~ o P w ~ ~ "^ ' ~ a. E G a ~ o n ~ ' ~ ~ x~ " ~ a x~ 0 . E d 5 w o ~ ro n ~ w .. ~ w rt ~ rn a p' o a o a ti ro a o 0 o ~ o ° ~ ~ ~ '' ~ ~ g @ O' a~ n ~+'~ 5'd °~ " io ~~ oO 4.~ c ~ ~ r„cn* C ~c1 ~ CI ~ ~ ~ E' ~ ~ n y ' G w n E b i n~ q' 7 'a' '~~' ( 6 c, ~c° ~ w 7n ~ ~o'ro ~ aa.y y ~ O ~ ~' n n W E y ~ ~ q ~ O ~ ~ ~ coo ~ ~ w o 0 0 5; o' S E n 4. ° c o ~ '~ ~ .~ 5 ~. ~a' ~ °n ~ rs`' '~ rv O R. q. w " ° 5 E a a. ° M ~ ~ ~ ~. C. ~ o a ~ ~ o ~ n M~ O ~~ M p" w io w p ~' n O ~ ~. C O p p w ~. R. n y a w ~S ~ n~ ~~ O o ~ o ~ y o ~ O ~' ~, ' aa~x ~^, G ~' S .. n ~ ~ ~' .~, .w. n n ~' g E q ~ w ~ C ~ ~ N O w 5 ~ w C 0 dT n ~+ ~ a p O ~ „ N a vro y O a E o ~ o a 0 0 ~ 5•c~ro x~= ~ ~ ~.N ~ ~' E o m ~ ~, w h y x~ a ~ o o ~ m n ro ~ ~ w '° 'o ~' ~. ~, .,'* O o n ~ Oq ~ 5 O ~ „x a a ~ E ~~ ~' ~ n o E ~ h7 "rotl ~. ~' w .a ,~, to ~ m w o a ~ ~ a ~ P. q ~ n. ~ cn y ~ O b y~ ~ ~ ~ 5; rt w a F, S g n y ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ " x a o n E ~ c n 9 5' ~'< rt ~~ R a ~ n ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ o ~ w o o ~ ?; v. , v ~ 'o^ R ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ E R ~o x~ a ~ o o ~ .., 5:ro O n w y ~ w ~~ E " `a y `a ~ ~ ~ ~ o ro '* a. o n a 5 w a~ a w ~ ~a Fc ~ o 5 n a ~ ~ ~ ~5 K ~ ~' ~ a• p rc: 5 w n n w pa. F' C ~ ~ ° v n, ti O O (,* n O " O n 5 a ~ ~. 5 n N ~ °», a ~ N 5. O I O' q a C O a `C w 0 n u~i 5 ~ n ~ n Q ~ ~ .': C v' ~ c~ 0 w a~ ~,5'~. R n ~ ~~ ~, o , , n w o' E ?~ a ~ , °' '~ E o E ~' ' w p ~ ~ w n w y a 0 w 0 5 n ~ ~ ~ m v' oq n w w -~ w ~ io A' a ~ y ~ ~ ~ 5' o a ~ o o ~ ~' o ` ° ~ D ~ rt O io n n ~ ~ ~ y y ~ E 0 o ,0 a r,,. $. ~ r H G C y ~~ A: o y ro o ~' ~ ~ o ~n . n ro a~ xn w n ~ o x y w ro O ",.} ~ Py ~. 5 0 ~ Ea'' y T x ~ ~ E °o o n. ~ ~ C G ~ ~ O p p. ~' n o .~ o- `? n A n " ~ N [l. O ~ N ~ ~S' n n v A N n 3. k O 7 a w 3 A Vi v N a W 3 w m V1 A O 3 a A Z k ~, a~ O G «„~°' O C ^.I p~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ n ~ ~ n. ~ ~ ~ ~ fb vii '.O7 ~' '`~ „~~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ¢' ~ ~ n ~ '"~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ n tv ~ ~ O cn CIQ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q. '.~ ~ ~ ~ a' a. ~ ~~ ~~ ~ G o ~ ~ c~ ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ p ~ ~ ~ p ~ ~ ~~ ~ AO ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r7 ~ r~ ,~' cn ~ p ~ ~ h O W O ~ ~ 0'q~~, rr '.~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w w City Council Minutes II Page 5 Juty 9, aoo~ Commission would like to hire apart-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 files. 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 wire delayed until the August Worksession. 5.7. / Council Onen 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. 1a will not be at grade. She wishes that they would have presented the plan to the Council fiat 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 Morin expressed concerns with how he received the plan. Mr. Clark explained that a copy of the drat 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 firm 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 dome. They wanted input from the stakeholders in the community that will be affected by thz!s long-term plan in order to return to the Council in the future with a more finalized version of the plan. Mayor Klinzing stated the Highway 10 issues need to be determined before the plan can be fmalized. 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 fits 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 irpproves the connection between upper and lower downtown with traffic. He felt this will isolate downtown instead of joining both areas. City Council Minutes Page 6 July ~, 2007 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 mpve ahead with the stakeholders meeting but wondered if there was time for a few more versions of this draft. Councilmember Motin concurred with Cauncilmember 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.'x, 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 adept that argument and this plan will not meet the IRC study's goals or Mn/DOT'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 gong 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 Task~orce 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 rtaeeting. 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 ~'HE ELK RIVER DOWNTOWN REDEVELORMENT PLAN TASK FORCE HELD AT ELK RIVER CITY HALL MONDAY, MY~RCH 5, 2007 Members Present: Stewart Wilson, I-IRA Cl~~air; Louise Kuester, I IRA Coim~zissioner; Larry Toth, HRA Commissioner; Jean Lieser, HRA Commissioner; Lance Lindberg, Heritage Preservation Commissioner; Dan Tveite, EDA Commissioner; Dana Anderson, Planning Commmissioner; 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. Anbrove Februar,L 2007 Minutes/Recap of Last Meeting The February 5, 2007 minutes were approved. 3. Ms. Kvilvang provided a recap of the lastmeeting. She highlighted the following items that the developers discussed with the Task F rce: • There is a market in Elk River fo~ 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. Public,Participation Process & Final Plan~0utcome 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 commun~tyvia 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/stakelnolder 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 anal 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 he held on April 9th instead of April 2nd. All members agreed that this would be fine. 5. Hwy 10 Presentation: City Engineer Term 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 con erns over the IRC Plan and the impact it may have on the downtown ea. 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 LQVeI 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. (NIr. 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 alotxg Hwy 10 downtown are going to get worse within the next fifteen years if nothing is cone. 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 I For the purposes of Task Force policy discussions, Mr. Maurer provided an overview of the following four conceptual options: I, • Lower highway • Elevate highway • Elitninate one intersection • Do nothing Mr. Maurer expanded on the "eliminate o1~e 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 fox sure' since the area is so confined but that it would more than likely last for an entire construction season. Member Holme asked if there is enough bight of Way to elevate or lower the highway. Mr. Maurer stated "yes" especially if MnDOT ~Ieliminates several access points to allow for six lanes of traffic. I Ms. Kvilvang asked what would happen tc~ 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 ~s built in MnDOT's Right of Way so MnDOT would probably remove the parking lot. Member Wilson inquired whether closing Ithe 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 r~ilxoad tracks at that intersection. Mr. Leeseberg added that the Fire Department may haveconcerns with closing the Jackson intersection because of the nearby fire station. Mr. Maurer mentioned that another optio~i 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 tie Main Street intersection is confined 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 howevelr eliminating one intersection would cause a major land acquisition impact. Mr. Maurer conc rred. Member Lieser asked if the Main Street/ wy 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 polity questions: 1) Is it important that downtown be "seen" and/or accessed from Hwy 10? o Which option for Hwy 1p 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 lalso agreed that it is important for downtown to be accessed from Hwy 10, although recognised 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 ~'xtension 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 Ion 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 Stjreet 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 rneant 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 v~ould 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 ~vlr. Rymanowski • Stewart Wilson: • Jean Lieser: Any improvements do 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 father 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 of Hwy 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 ddd that we've never talked about the railroad because it is just as much of any i~sue as Hwy 10. We need to be proactive with Hwy 10. Submitted by, 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/pr accessed from Hwy 10? • Which option for Hwy 10 is least detrimental to downtown? o Elevated o Lowered o At grade '~ Grou 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 d~wntown from Hwy 10 takes precedence over commuters' access. '~ i • The "as is" option is preferred but the$e is a need for safe pedestrian access between the north and south sides of the highway. Grou 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. Grou 3 • The "at grade" or "do nothing" appro~ch continues to serve the area the best because of the disruption Hwy 10 rec nstruction would cause, etc. • The elevated option has poor aesthetic appeal. Small Group Questions #2 ', Is the land area north of Hwy 10 an extension', of the core downtown and should the Plan recognize this? Group 1 (same responses as Group 21 Grou 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. Grou 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 care downtown. • There are concerns with increased traitn traffic and access to the core downtown. Small Group Questions #3 ', Should the Plan reflect the downtown area extending further west along Main Street? Grou 1 ', • If redevelopment extends west along I~Iain Street, will it thrive and what will it look like or be? Grou 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 recog~hize 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. Grou 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 do 'ntown Elk River's redevelopment. o The "at grade" option is the b~st option. o Money should be earmarked tq 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 ca~1 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. ' MEETING OF *HE ELK RIVER REDEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK TASK FORCE HELD AT THE EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER MONDAY, AUGUST 13, 2007 Members Present: Louise Kuester, IIRA Commissioner; Jean Lieser, I-IRA Commissioner; Lance Lindberg, Heritage Preservation Commissioner; Dan Tveite, EDA Commissioner; Mike Ni~olek, Parks & Recreation Representative; Dave Rymanowski, Business Representative (First National Bank); Mark Urista, Task Force Chair & Business Representative (Coldwell Banker Vision); Keith Holme, Business epresentative (Kemper Drub); Stewart Wilson, HRA Chair; Larry Toth, Commissioner; Dana Anderson, Planning Commissioner; Molly Nadeau-Peterson; Resident Representative and John Anderson, Resident Rep>esentative Staff Present: Director of Economic D''welopment Catherine Mehelich, Parks & Recreation Director Bill ~Vlaertz (6:00-7~OOp.m.), City Engineer Terry Maurer (7:15-8:OOp.m.), assistant Director of Economic Development Heidi Steinmetz and Planner Chris Leeseberg Others Present: Stacie Kvilvang of Ehlers & Associates, Inc. and twenty-three members of the public 1. Appror ve August 13, 2007 Agenda The August 13, 2007 agenda was approvcc~. 2. Apnrove~uly 16, 2007 Minutes The July 16, 2007 minutes were approved) Task Force I~lember Johnrlnderson asked Eor clarification on the Task Force's July 16 motion to accept the Draft Redevelopment Framework Plan based on Task Force modifications as of the same date. Chair Mark Urista responded that the Task Force voted toaccept the Draft Plan in order to prese$~t it to the stakeholders. Member Jahn Anderson also asked when'his comments, which he submitted in writing to the Task Force on June 25 would be incorporated into the Draft Plan. Stacie Kvilvang of Ehlers & Associates responded that all of the Task Force's modifications in addition to Board/Comnussion and public input would be incorporated for Task Force review at their October 15 meeting. 3. Recap of Last Meeting & Purpose of August 13th Meeting Ms. Kvilvang provided a recap of the Julys 16th Task Force meeting when the Task Force considered and accepted the Draft Plan. She also stated that the stakeholders meetings on July 24 were well attended and indicated that a spokesperson for stakeholders of the Morton/Norfolk neighborhood in attendance this evening would be invited to speak during Item 5. Ms. Kvilvang stated that the purpose of tonight's meeting is for the Task Force to further discuss Highway 10 in relation to the Drat Plan as directed by the City Council. She added that a couple of Task Force members req~iested that a discussion regarding the Draft Plan's Redevelopment Framework Task Force Minutes August 13, 2007 Page 2 proposed river trail also be added to tonig~it's agenda. She said that it is not typical in a normal redevelopment planning process tIl© react to the public comments at this point because it is important to let the redevelopment planning process "play itself out". She specifically mentioned the importance of athering all of the public input from City Boards and Commissions and the general public ~rior to making refinements to the Draft Plan. In addition, she said that it is important to b~ consistent by showing the same Draft Plan to the public. 4. Summary Report of Stakeholder Meetingsi Assistant Director of Economic Developrl~ent Heidi Steinmetz summarized her staff report regarding the July 24 stakeholders meetin stn addition to written public comments received as of August 7. She stated that the top tw~ issues of concern submitted via written comments were the river trail and high density housing. She added that staff is not asking for the Task Force to take action regarding her report since staff will be gathering and providing additional public comments to the Task Force in October for review and consideration in refining the plan. 5. Discuss River Trail Concept Director of Economic Development Catherine Iv~Iehehch summarized her staff report regarding a request made by a several residents of the 1\lorton/Norfolk neighborhood, to consider removing the river trail that is currently depicted in the Draft Redevelopment Framework Plan and Draft Illustrati~-e Land Use Plan. She invited John Babcock, spokesperson for the neighborhood, to add any comments regarding the neighborhood's request. I~lr. Babcock distributed a summary of written comments from the neighborhood to the "Task Force and provided additional verbal comments he had received from neighbors regarding the issue. Ms. Mehelich introduced Bill Maertz, Parrs cYc Recreation Director, who was in attendance to answer any questions from the Task Force. She asked the Task Force if they wished to make revisions to its Draft Plan now, or 111ow the process to proceed in order to allow the rest of the. conununit_<r anopportunit~- to ~arovide comments prior to modifying the Draft Plan. Discussion ensued regarding a variety of options for how to refine the Draft Plan in reaction to the. neighborhood's request, including the option of a river trail beginning at the dam and ending at Babcock Park. Task Force member Molly Nadeau asked'~bout a parks and trails map that she heard was circulating around the City. Mr. Maertz responded that the map is two years old and that it reflects the Cin-'s Comprehensive Parks & Trails Plan approved in 1989. He has received comments from property owners recently about proposed trails being included on the map and will replace the map to indicate only existing trails. Member Dana Anderson stated that the Ibraft Plan is not "reinventing the wheel" by including a proposed trail along the Mississippi and Elk Rivers because this trail has been included in the Master Park Plan for years. He asked the Task Force why they were discussing options for refining the Draft lan regarding the trail before answering the question "Do we want the process to pro eed in order to allow the rest of the community an opportunity to provide comments prior t modifying the Draft Plan?" Redevelopment Framework Task Force Minutes Page 3 August 13, 2007 The Task Force continued to discuss the i fferent options and the following related policy issues: • Consistency of all City plans • Precedence that reacting to this request would set for other neighborhoods • Integrity of the redevelopment pl~nning process that the Task Force agreed upon at their first meeting last November.., Member Larry Toth asked if the river trail! could begin on the southwest end of the Draft Plan area ending at Babcock Point. At this point, audience member John Houlton asked to speak since his family owns a significant a}nount of property in the area mentioned by Member Toth. Chair Urista invited Mr. Moulton to speak. Mr. Houlton mentioned that he has envir nmental concerns about the proposed river trail, especially because the area is a floodway ( of just a flood plain). In addition, he spoke of the economic encumbrance that the propose trail puts on lus and other people's property along the river. MOVED BY MEMBER DAN TVEIT!~ AND SECONDED BY MEMBER JEAN LIESER, THE TASK FORCE ELIMINATES THE ENTIRE FUTURE RIVER TRAIL IN ITS ENTIRETY FROM THE DRAFT PLAN, ILLUSTRATIONS AND NARRATIVE. THE MOTION FAILED 7-6. MEMBERS MARK URISTA, STEWART WILSON, LOUISE KUESTER, MOLLY NADEAU, DANA ANDERSON, LARRY TOTH AND MIKE NIZIOLEK OPPOSED. MOVED BY MEMBER STEWART WILSON AND SECONDED BY MEMBER MOLLY NADEAU, THE TASK FORCE REFINES THE DRAFT PLAN, ILLUSTRAIONS AND NARRATIVE TO INCLUDE A RIVER TRAIL BEGINNING AT RIVERS EDGE!, COMMONS PARK (HEADING EAST) AND ENDING AT BABCOCK P1~RK. THE MOTION CARRIED 10-3. MEMBERS LOUISE KUESTER, DAfilA ANDERSON AND MIKE NIZIOLEK OPPOSED. 6. Highway 10 Discussion Prior to the Highway 10 discussion, Chair', Urista stated that he hopes that the Task Force upholds the integrity of the redevelopment planning process from this point forward and that all members remaui stewards of the Plan. He does not want to see the Task Force's year-long planning efforts go to waste. Planner Chris Leeseberg provided a PowerPoint presentation to illustrate Community Development Director Scott Clark's staff ;report regarding Highway 10. City Engineer Terry Maurer stated that he has recommended that the City Council fund a geometric design study to be completed f©r Highway 10 through downtown Elk River as part of the City's Capital Improvements program budget for 2008. Member Larry Toth asked why the Task orce was talking about the different Highway 10 options since the City Council either wan s the highway to be elevated or depressed. Mr. Maurer responded that even prior to e 35W bridge collapse; MnDOT was not Redevelopment Framework Task Force Minutes August 13, 2007 Page 4 planning to fund any improvements to Hi hway 10 through downtown Elk River for at least thirty years. With the collapse, Mr. Maur ~ is assuming that bridge improvement projects will take precedence in the foreseeable future. Therefore, he would still recommend that the City fund a geometric design study. I The Task Force discussed the land north c~f Highway 10 and how they didn't think it was appropriate to leave the area "as is" with rho opportunity to redevelop due to the threat of blight if a design configuration for Highw~y 10 continues to go undetermined for 20-30 years. Member Niziolek added that he came up with a Highway 10 option that would leave it "at grade" but would reconfigure its current a~ignment by going under the railroad tracks and following the realigned Main Street conce' t in the Draft Plan,. crossing over Jackson Avenue and begin elevating and curving up and o er the railroad tracks and Highway 10 (near the grain elevator) and terminating at Main S eet between Lo~~-ell and 1\-Lorton. Ms. Mehelich responded that the City Council has made it very clear that they will not accept the "at grade" option whatsoever. ', Member Dana Anderson stated that the G~ity Council compromised the integrity of the redevelopment planning process when thdy dismissed the Task Force's recommendation for Highway 10 a few months ago. The Task Force continued to discuss the issue, including the disn~ption that elevating or depressing Highway 10 would cause for the communitc-. Member Keith Holme added from a downtown business o«~ner's perspective that if Highway 10 is elevated or depressed "you might as well remove all commercial business from downtown" due to the lack of visibility and direct access. MOVED BY MEMBER LOUISE KU~STER AND SECONDED BY MEMBER DAN TVEITE, APPROVING THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION REGARDING HIGHWAY 10 WITHIN THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN: 1) THE ILLUSTRATIVE MASTER PLAN SHOULD SHOW JACKSON AVE. AND MAIN STREET BEING AT GRADEi,(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 O~IGINAL DRAFT (PAGE 31) WILL BE MODIFIED AS SHOWN ON THE ~~~OADWAY DESIGN OPTION" ATTACHMENT. 4) THE PLAN'S HIGHWAY 10 CONCLUSION IS THAT A GEOMETRIC STUDY (TO INCLUDE SOIL BOILINGS) IS CRITICAL TO AVOID ANY NEW REDEVELOPMENT EFFORTS CAUSING CONFLICT WITH FUTURE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION. ', THE MOTION CARRIED 12-1. MEMB R DANA ANDERSON OPPOSED. Member John Anderson added that while he appreciates the effort that staff put into the Highway 10 options advantages/disadvan ages chart included in the meeting packet, he feels Redevelopment Framework Task Force Minutes Page 5 August 13, 2007 ------------------------------------------ that it is incomplete. Member Niziolek added that more option, need to be considered for Highway 10 in order to attract future redevelopment to the area. Ms. Mehelich responded that the Draft Plan narrative includes the following verbiage `the Task Force recognizes that other unexplored roadway options and configurations may lire feasible". Ms. Mehelich invited Task Force member; to the August 20 City Council meeting when staff will report tonight's Task Force diregtion regarding Highway 10. 7. Next Stets Ms. Mehelich discussed the anticipated T ~sk Force timeline through the end of the year, inviting members to attend Board/Com ''ssion meetings and other. public meetings in which further public comments will be ga hered on the Draft Plan. 8. Final Comments Ms. Kvilvang asked each Task Force merrber to talk about his/her concerns or comments regarding the discussion this evening. Thy comments are listed below: • Mark Urista - He is "O.K." with how thugs went tonight and hopes that the Morton/Norfolk neighborhood will remain true to what they said (that they will be ambassadors of the plan now). • Stewart Wilson - He echoes what Chair Urista said and was. sensitive to the neighborhood because there are several influential people who own properr<~ in that neighborhood. • Louise Kuester -She feels that the Task Force ~riolated the normal procedure of redevelopment planning tonight and it bothers her. Shc is concerned about the precedence this will set and feels that the Task Force needs to remember that they are serving the entire City, not just one neighborhood. • Keith Holme - He agrees with everyone's cotnm'ents so far but admits that he didn't look at all sides of the issues regarding the Draft Plan. He feels that there has not been enough public communications on the project and that more pressure needs to be put on the Star News. He doesn't feel Q&A newsletters are sufficient. • Jean Lieser - It is nice drat the Task Force was sensitive to the stakeholders. The general public will appreciate that the Task Force '~~istened. • holly Nadeau -She agrees with Jean and would like each and every Task Force member to know that she holds them in high respect.' • Dave Ryamowski - I Ie is normally a "process guy" but is comfortable with the meeting tonight. • Dana Anderson - He feels that Task Force degraded the process tonight and have gone backwards. The neighborhood seems to 12ave a NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) attitude. The Task Force set a precedent that hurts' its integrity and it will be interesting moving forward. • Larry Toth - He was picturing that the Draft Plan would look different on paper. He feels the Draft Plan is a starting point but that the Task Force should've continued work on the plan after the completion of the downtown parking study and the Highway 10 geometric study. He is not happy with taking the initial river trail out of the plan. He hopes that it doesn't take thirty years to implement the plan. • Dan Tveite - He is a "process guy" too t felt that the situation of taking the trail out didn't compromise the Task Force's proc ss because the Task Force solicited the public comments. He feels that the Task Force ~ould've lost credibility if they didn't react to the Redevelopment Framework Task Force Minutes Page 6 August 13, 2007 neighborhood. ', • Lance Lindberg - He feels that the Task Force should've had more information before proposing a trail in the first place. He agrees with Dan Tveite that since the Task Force solicited public comments that it was O.K, to remove the trail. • Mike Niziolek - He feels that today was a'',very difficult day due to his role on the Task Force as an advocate for Parks & Recreation. He feels that it is a very difficult balancing act to appease the property owners while advocating the importance of Parks & Recreation for the community. • John Anderson - He doesn't understand why this process has been rushed. The next meeting will be held on October 15, 200. Submitted by, ~I Heidi Steinmetz '~ Assistant Director of Economic Development : 11 ....... (') ::r: a:: o ....-4 tr1 ~ G) 0 ~ ::r: _ ~ g ~ (') Z 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ C/') ~ ~ ~ s; g ~ Z I:' ~ ~ t-< g t'"l Dr. Z "I] (') ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "0 c: Z ~ ~ Q m n b ~ tr1 (') -. Z I:' tr1 "0 (') t'I1 0 Q C o ~ ::i ~ ~ C/') ~ gj C 0 ~ z ;j I I:' ~ ~ Ci C/') C s; (') > S z :; Q C/') ~ ~ >- Q g C () ~ > ~ ~ ~ t'I1 tr1 -. Vl ~ ~ ~ g ~ lii Vl (J3z Vl S "I] a t'I1 ~ ~ ~ C ~ ::r: ~ g ~ ~ s ~ ~ > 8 en ~ ~ I:' o ~ C/') I II \\ ~\ " " ~,.~~ ~\\ ~\ ':-\ I \ , \",." \\ .---.~ \ ...._-...... ..... ...., , \ . \, \ ~ '\ , \ \ ' ""'\ \ '., j ,j \ \ \ \\, \ :s: \Ui (/) ,~ I~ .~ I~ ";r::J a o ~ G') o ) \ n-< ~3: ~~ ~ -a- n ~_.' =CaallE r-t- ~ Z z (') ~ 0 "0 ~ ~ ~ ~ "0 C t:) ~ tr1 l:P t'I1 C ::i z t"'4 ~ &; (') ~ Vl n ~ ~ > > ~ Q ~ t'"l (') '"0 (') n s; s; tI1 tI:l t'I1 n ~ C/') tr1 tI:l F I:' C/') Z ~ t/) :> n C/') 0 0 ~ Q (') 0 ~ Z n C/') n ~ tr1 C/') tr1 > C/') Z Q C/') -. ..-.(b"- tr1 CJ ~ 0 t-t -. ~ c 0 C/') ~ c... >- N o ~ >- ~ < ~ CFJ ~ o z : 11 -('1;IO-l ~~~~ no ~~ ~~ .~ > N o ~ > ~ ;:S en ~ o z en ::s ":I1 a tXl Q ~ .~ c ~ g: ~ o tIl ~ e 0 Z en ~ 8 ~ ~ ~ t1 o ~ en DL. ....... 6 ~ 8 ~ ~~ ~ ~ .8 t; ~ /~."', !-de: z ~ ~ >:: "1'l ~ 4) ~ 1\.-r72 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ = ~ ~ . n ~ 0 ~ e tXl tIl t1 5 o ~ ~ ~ ~I en ~ ~ ~ en a 0 ~~tIl en tIl D ~ t1 ~ t1 Z Z ~, ~ ~ tIl ~ en ~ e ~ ~ ~ n ~ < z ~ ~ rn ~ ~ ~ ~ Q Q ~ n ~ ~ 4) > ~ ~ 0 s ~ rn ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g t'I1 :!l ~ z ~ g ~ :j ~ tXl en -11I------.- ' / . ,-"--'- '-;:.1'-- " - ~i /F ~~- ~~ 7' . / i i IIC&1I11E1E z Z n ~ 0 "0 trl ~ a ~ ~ g ~ Ei: n ~ Z t: ~ ~ F: ~ ~ g d ~ ~ g n ~ ~ p 0 ~ ~ t'I1 en > n Z C;) n b ~ Z g ~ ~ ~ ~ z tIj tIj 4) ........ ~ ~ o en ~ ............_..h......_..___ ~_......_ ~~ C/J~ " " 0 ~ C3 tji ~ ~ ~'-~.".- _/_// i/// ../-' --~-~ ~ //-/ &9\)J'N ~ ~ "~ ::i z~o t<~-.J .,1 iD o ,_ ..1-- : 11 Vl :S "I:l a tI1 ~ ~ ~ c ~ ::r: ~ g ~ ~ s ~ ~ >- 8 Vl ~ ~ CJ o :::0 CI> III",.., Oi. Z "I:l () o c 0 '"d '""i Z :::0 C Z o ~ ~ ~ ~ g ~ ~ ~ () >- S ~ 55 >- ~ >- ~ B1 @ ~ tI1 Z ~ ti1 Vl . \ " \\ {/I /" j, )~,~.... ~/.1 /,,~ ,.::f' _ ~:.o!) ~y A- c?D /t7~ 1 'i/ 1.. I <0 /' 'I 0 00 ;I~DD _~Q If~-;;- ~ 1.10 O' I. 0 I =-,1 0 J .......lfo- D~ ~ --- I" II CJ 0 ~ e I I..:.... ,C1 0 0 ".... ". n I I (] , ~ Zv> '.1 (] 0... 1 ,t~ d: 'o~ _ ~ ~c:J_ ! i 1....11 e ~ :::0 :::0 ~ :: tI1 0 ~ rg ~ z C CI> Z ~ C) () tI1 ~ ~ ~ 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ z CJ tI1 l"J ~ S; f; '""i tI1 :; ~ ~ t"1 Q en C ......... :::0 8 tIl ~ o '1j "I:l n tI:l r;=Sz ::r: ~ Q ~ ::r: e g ~ Z 0 ~ tI1 ~ ~ ~ ~ 6 ~ ~ 8 g ~ ~ ~ t'"'l ,/",,-,- ': .-,/ 11101.1111(;1131 z Z () ~ 0 "0 ~ c: '"d C ~ '""i ~ tI1 ~ tI:l C Z t"1 ~ R :::0 R ~ F: >- Vl g; () ~ C) ~ '"d () () g; ~ s: tI:l < tI1 tI:l 0 CI> tI1 t!'l F Vl z () Vl >- :::0 Vl Q () 0 ~ Z () Vl () tI1 Vl >- Vl Z tI1 C) Vl ......... tI1 C) ~ ......... c ~ 0 CI> 7' -< 3: ~ > N o I ~ tl1 > ~ < ~ Cf) ~ o z ::t ~... ~. i j s ~. _E;.OI f"" --- Q ~ ///../ _//~ ~ ~ /_. -""i';Ci\ "t'f\~ C/) C G OC/)~ ~ ZC/)N HO s;~g~ (l~flJ--- 0 ~ o t:d ..-. (b ~ _/~- - c-+ (b CL +°^"C 2^ a ~~' f rte- ~, r ~ F~~"~ ~'». 'A r "o: ,,~ ~~ ~ ~' d ~ ~ ~, , ~~ ~~, ~ ~~ ., ~ ~ . ~r ~,ti, ;~ ~' ~~~i ~~~ r ~:;y . ~ D ,. r ~~ a~ z a ~~a . ~~ ~: ~. ~~f nh ~ gi2o~O~ 6,2, r----------~-..-- ~. _ v ICC: n y ~ `~~ q J w N ..~ J ~~ ~ ,. {~ r12ii ~"I,~~~ tii;~I~~ ~" ~~ j ,~,, ~ ~x~ ~~, Q ~ Nth E~~~' .. z. , I ~. ~ ' ~ ~, b uorw n ,a • ~ I I ~.~:1 _~ ~ .~ k~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ x`71 ~ i ~~~~~~~ •{.r~""4 1 y 91.,.,,E ~ ~ ~ ~-, 1 s, ~G~ ~~0~ y~~, k (0 Grruoc~.7 '~ r),~L, ~ 4TI (' C' °1an ~~ ~ 1 0 ~ °'°n ~ ~~ i A~•(5r ~~ y ~ "'~. ~p .'~ J , V flu '-i ~' ( ~ '~ n[~ '4.1 4 !i 1 ! "WpyT~,J " ~ ;~ do c,~ ~ ;,~ T ~~ ~, ~ ~ U r1c(~_ ~( ;+~~. ~'• ' J`" ~ ~® r~ ~ ~ I ~ Iv 8 ~ ` ~ ~1 ~ r~~ ~ >,wN a.,, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ BNEB 'r ~ ---- -------- r a '' ~.~ a n~ ~ ~~~\J. ~ i ~~ ,V r 3 ~ ~ ~ 'S ;~~~d ~~ J ~ ~ f ULY 24, 2007 t.-C,. ~, ~ ~~ ~- ~ FOR D1Sf,~1.1~,5U)N "~ °~'`~°~ n o ( P[?RPOSHS OtvLY ~~ tl . ~ ;,,1~ i ' `rl n ~.~ rU n ` ~. - ~, c,Jl-~ tJ - I .: . I., I ~~ ~,c '~ ^-cr ~, _ ~ HWY 10 -1r TCC ~,~: :~ ~ , r I N..t~ • i,~t~, a111~~,1 -. , MuNSL.,,,,, ..,,.~.~.,a ~ ~ Jv v ,a ~~~~~ .. 1 r+~sasiwc urm I ~,.~,.,` , ~'` ~ ~ I~ ~ eieDati ocusm u ~rouNr l,u ( ,~ NIfN I1PViT IIP.tIDPNT117. "~ { ' ~ ~ mrarww . Cf1NMPY~UI ~ ~ .•`h'~ g~ ~ ~uax~.i ~raM OPPI[fl ~~'~ ® A y ~ ~. I ®Pl:il1C GiBBti SMCB ~ PAIB ~em~DUeB les;eor;orr+<ce ~+ ~/ wuluNC slwurulc ( I ®oeBN lPACB PAtK / UYGN 5YAUE ~ I I ®IIVBR ACCB{E SIwFACP. C..{lIQNG { ' ^fONN2(110N5 YIA S;TF iMF til i.Eti ~ + ,({ , ' ®(,~U,V, PHD (y~p~(~ FUTL7B STUDY Alt'. ~' , . ,_ Nn /IIMf1{FD fry{~(,Fti ~' ~ ... I ©NATL!IIG TiNL MCB55 P ~~.~ •..•.::,. ~ ~ ®INl'61Y1Y'I1V6 SBiVA(:E i KUAC ~•FUTI;IETWW ~~'F ~~jO • ~ V18t YIEDS(Cl1RAl11r1R1 `f"49M~ ~ µ 1~~~ ~ ~ iT17M' II(1tMi1{A1' 3 SOgOl57 ~', ~k,..gypd ~,_ Tom,+'k - I... ~ ~ II~I .. { I'~QIJLJ~1 LJ ~^^~ ~ ~ I~ rr~Y ~ r n _ Y {rrfj f" FrA r 1 fA ++'I C,<q ' ~ ~1 I 1 `~-' ®L_ ~ J.~S/rf.111Ji~/~'.~.Afr~l~:G ' ~i u ,.~ r (",• ~ 11 A 20-YEAR VISION ~L~li ~~ ! I ~`, ~%~, . ~v ~~ .. #b ~~ A a 9 ih 7 ~~~ I,~11Q5~ r r r r AS~~ IW X11 ~` I ~ I+ _ J o ~Q o~+! ~i.+ ~,.~~ ~ u ~ pOdln7g~ 0 nO+R a ~~ r ~ y - 1: a '4~, ~~r°;,~~' + u~ C1 pu ~ na [' u~looc+p ~ ~~f~~ a~~~~ ~~ ~~ I ~ ~` ~ ~n <~~ r l~ ~r ~ u J'1 /.., o *~ ~ "~~ ~;i ~ f~ i; , j' I~oo ~~ °pa ~ °~~, v (~ 4 I 1411 r) IJ 0 q O 'J I ~'~ l~ 61AUNA1 s, I f\ ;~ ® g ` 1 J ~: ~RNER '~ ` PI ~ ~ ~~ ~' '. ~wirun.. ~, .~~ it W ~~.wr . r rrrr~' MAC I!y7_ ':, ~ (i• tJy r(~ ~; ~ ~ `~ ~ S ~~~ ~ ~ 1 ~f~ ~ o ~~~A `=4 [f GOGa Po uC r~ n4~^ Oa C_~ 1 ~ ~ 2 Sl ~~~ ~ ~ ~ o~an ( j/ y~~Jl 5 ~~ tl ~ o c. ~x~a4r' a ur~ Q~~p ; ~~ ~~g 5 fliyl,'~ '1 I' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, 1 1 ~~ ~ 'llrj ~-~+ ~I V r ~ r r R ,~ r r' ~ / ,, ' ~ ,.- Mp FJ.. w$'Y,a ,f ~~A•~~.. y~l+~,'A. I~rrrrrr~rrl 'i.J ~. ,,,~ ~ A kl11~~ .1 ~~IN S~~ s. •~~rs~~tl~Ae~ , ,~ ~ '• .~. ,.,....,s,.~ r• .~ V ~~',.'r . r r r r r,r ... ,~ ~ r r r r ~,, ~ ,.~ MISStSSYM10.1VER 9 C ~~~~ •. p ~rr'~~ W ~ r T ~= I ~~ ! ~ ~, f vholrvwxsrrctrvlu~nilnl. !~ r~ ~flN~II IIF.`fSflYRP,WN.%'ItAt. ~ /~ ~ '° ^ IY9'll l: `.' ® ~ ~ ®Yl`M.il' (~tRly YpAfAi / P.1YK ^Yi1IPL 6SG RRS/IkNM/f]PpICf. ' ~retKlN(5171S:Y1Hh ~ '~ ~ ®I!PI:\5fY.R ^ r.11- ~ I7'I:N!PM:1: ' O elVh.1 df:(Yb M:RiN:G. PAIKI~(: ~ ' 9~: ' ,1 ,y(~. III\YItl"171!1\'IA 411: AAp!tillll:~ fj$ , ;1~1., „~ 1L M~ ,_y ~S~4 ~~'\• ©(RI'It+AI.I'YA 17110.Si~li rl'I'l tliSNIW .W.A ) ~ ~ ' u. YJ '~.,. !f i \~+ ~' ~.1'It qh. 17A11. M:+'hSY ;Ynnnrlnvnr•II.+NCRS ~ ;~. ~ ~ t„ ~1• ~~~ 4~~ ~ V .,*4 ~ - - ~ ®I\~I1~.APllh'1lVh Uli\~Y;h. ~ ki(lil: -- 17mu ~o,,~,a ~ _...~ Yfki NR!~SIfORAiIIUI< ~ "_`~,~~a w r r b'I'I~IH' NI H'NU1M1 4 ~• I~ry ,A~ 7C ~ r ;.. 1 Y~Jf'~/Aft 1 ~~~~~4 ~1'~/~ ' L L,_~.• I .._ ww ~ ~o~ ~ ~`J Uuu~ ,~r L ^~ 1 t~~J~~~~i i~n ~7 ~,~/'~ f• (` ,' ~'~ ~~ c-"~ ~ -- 1 N'OR D15CUJSIf)V ~~ • , ~ +;~Arsa Yn X' {~ ~ ~ ~ ton ( PI'RPOSF?S ()tv1:Y A 20-YEAR VISION C, '••~ ~ ,r ~ `~ ~ ~, ,. ,1 i t ...... r ~„ l o rl ~V ' rK~ t ~," rir 'MC~ ~ oG. oOOGC~ ~ '~ :a~l°r•p C, l),~~ II Q C ~ ~]~M'~. (In`~pQ"~ R ~ +.A ,~('~-.. ~r~r . ~°y., a t_ -_ooL- ~' X51 riG~ ~n7~ y~ '~ i0 Gtau oc~, [71- _"°'M ~ yl,l, (_ •~ ry ~ 1 u C ~r ^~ 1 ~ ~ ry ,~~^Y~ I~ ~~.,i ° I a ~° o r~~ ~~ ~ ~G ~~, ~nn~?c~- °~j :~' • , ,~'. ~~ _ ,-~~ .. ~ HWY 10 Elevated ' r~ ~ sn u[M p n ~l [v Vii.. ~ "39~~ _ ~ L' `-' 1. ~'•~ U a ~ ~ ~ ~ n7J~4Jl [ of ~'+~t ~ ll.~ ~ r ~ .... ~4 o L ~~ ~ ~® ~~ ~ ~ ~.: g , I ~ 'C~ '' ~ - ~I ; HIfRIYER '/ • , h o, ? , _.. ~;'' ~ ~jffM J u~=, 'L+.'' .; • ~ ~ 1 ~~~~~~ ~~~~. ~` - MISSISSIPFIRIVfA '~O~ ~ ~Irr ~~'~~rli iW r~•~Ilur a,wrlr u,slu[• N l i Al 1 ' ~ ~ E• ~mcllnvvrm11~4t>En'n.u. i, ~ ^CM141'JIfIAI x ' „fA .uro ~(WMMH '~I' ® ~n ! ®VI. MIJC G{BBN i-ACA!MiK . r1YED UlP. It.41Cf)rinhYlf:N + q~ 1*pAlK11iU S11{;C'1'1,0.F. ~' ~~ I ®<7PI.\SP.1(~ RUK i l1M:N 1YM;h: ~ ~ r SU~PN3:1'ARKING 22~ ~ ®PIVHR AC(:P1S ~C(1NNl!C'TI(MVS YIA 4Tf!A41:NI:;1.1 ,! + ,.,;~ ' ®f11"11f.,1L-PD C0.0S6PNG rlmlati srurn race SFj ~ ~ =hloncx[xcucreKT;h:N ~ ;,~~' ~ ©Nnnu,rMlL.acess ~~ / ~ aINJT:trumve~u;NK~e;KnlsK • "'eg ~ vu:s rIPJx;CClxul,[NCti ~ ~'~/a~, ~ ~~ YI'I'~IlY IY1C'\I11N1 5 50100E ~oL~ n i.;.. -~ J~W~~~~:e :" ~ ~* I J L, ` U f-,^ I ~ ~ ~L ~, C I~ L fJU i r I-r A I / ni l5( "r ~ .. - L ^ ., ~"na. ;-. C N ~~ ] ~ i ~ JULY 24, 20(17 _ ~oR alscu5sl~)~ ,. ~., ~~.~~ ~ ''+P~ "~` ~ ~' ,, n6 0 ~ goo ( PI;RP()SESONLY A 20-YEAR VISION ~ ~ ~~1 ~,_ ~ _ "~~ ;~ r ~ ~ - o ~~ )~~° ~~ a° ~~ 1 I~ ,~ ~ ,~ a I `~° g'~^I~ , `' 1 I ~ ~ `~) ~ ' x 1 ^ ~ iL"°(~a oar ul.a H ~ r I.I n ~~nn~'~n; b( ~p a ...n... ,t~wiA• 1 ~ /TI 7 oD OC OGCQ ll ~";~ ~.~a~rP ^Ou ,: CG ^~c~v1G ~~ ' y P ~~~C •~ @$.1 f1~ ~ ~Cr, ~ irr~-~, ( ~ HWY 10 s ~'~~ "o ~ 11 ~ it Gr~uacl.7 ~^il~.l ~ l ~ *l,{q~3 ~ ~.' '+-- r ;,.) ~~ ~ G [l ~. o gCg-o ~ qvt •C~ ~ ~ 1P~ "may _~ >1 ~J~ /~ • „ ~+ `~ j 1 ~ 0. ~°~'_.r')7t n' G °, c9 ~~ Q,r a w y ~i I l ~ ~ ,~ `__-'~ ,'n AP' lrul all t.~~ve~ i ~ ~ : u ~j' ~ .!' 1 _ ~ 0 ~r T~"' ` _ _ 1 L I^a srwwll ~ ~ fl '~ ~ ~,l Cv ~ 'i.-U ~ I~«' n ~s. ~~ -~1 1 \. t' O a ~ ~( PL(l(VER ~! ~ h '^ ^, ,s w ,I 'ar:~ ...,.~ ~~ W{INS~~~ ~.~` ~ ~ •.... ~. ~ aN r ~ ~ o r~ ° U ?~ 'fit .~P l: _ i~ u ~- J rwa 1, ~~ ~ ~ 0 - ~ *~A'' '~' ,+ti 1 Z' a ^ ' c N ..~ ~~ 1 ` ~ - ~. MISSISSIPPI ana( x E"~O~ ~ .., I ~ ~ ~~ // ~.-~ e,,, ' ~ I v MW11UM UI.NSPIY NI:.PIIIt~.~1'IIAI 1 ~ ~ N- / 5 luau nNVwtvxaVlnennAl. j ~ / ~, .ff)MN!#ff,1l ~ ' d + w xu nuu ~('P~P' • ~ ® q~l• ~. 1 ~P10.11C G1t•JSN DPACCs+PAUC ^MIKF.D UIB IE.Sif.OliiDPPI(:P ~! 3A ! i PAIKIN(: SI1Ll'IU0.t. ~' •?,P ~ , ®(1PF,N SPM:E ^ PAIK i lW1:N ~PAI;h: ' ~ , o AIVP1 M:(:B81i Y ' V1lI~N:I: PAIKINf, ~Cl1NN1!CIH)NS V7A S~17'.AMI.NI'171.5 ' ,`:1 ~ ' ©ClP17G1.PliD Cl05SDiG PIrtL'lf SnDY Alh:.1 , ` ~ -~: NnruxcntDruAncas ~ ' 1 Qi" ~ ©NAnllrTl,ul.ACrnss ~$._. r' " ~~/ oINT6lI'R6:1)VP IIG.VA(:@; KII)SK ~ hU1Ull'I NAll.1 ~ /'~ ~ • ) VIgQ 91FD5; I:(1ANill(1L ~.~'-~a~,µ ~ ~ 5'Rilri l(lON1)411Y O' _ 6 SCIIOOI~R ,~ r rrrrr r.r r~ rrr r ~" ~~ ~ yr ~ i.._~• 1 i ~ ~4 A Zi)-~i'1::i~~ ~'~JIC)i~i I ~~~ ~': ,gym ~ a~~' ~ ?, 1 ~ ~~ „~ (ae r. 1 ~ r,~,~~ I ~ `Y i* ~r..~rrr ~ Y ~~'s~ 1 ~ 1 ` { 1AA ,_,a 'n~ [i0~~~ ~.1 O G vl' ~jc'(r~~ ~.fl~`~OG~O ~ Y Y P J ~a~ t aril Sr~na~ ro%~ ~1 ~ lal ~~uo~~ ~r7',~ic '~'w lbw 1 1 " 0 d Q' u° 4j n e 'pI~ 'Zi 7 '~' w hop ~ J ~~ ~ '-d:o r. ,C ~. ' ~^ L7 1 ~ n ~ ,~ r~J C ~r~ n .. G Ji-.: ,rFr -ice I 'n • ~ ti ryy !J ~ ~ JF I ~R~ / O ~ ~ I ~ O ~, (~ ~ ~` s ~ J W ~, •... MISSi551PPf RIVEA ~ E Imo"'" i } ~ , Aamuu mu+sm Aes~ner`~ul ,' / ~ ~ ~NIf.N OPV{T'AP{fOFM7At. ~ [( ....: ' ' ~ applce .IlnfhD W6 R65lCONIOFFlCF ~ ~~' ® Y;? ( ~pARRJ~(:9111C'I L'llF. P ~ .;;¢ ^ pAAK / OpeIJ YMCff ( I rv~ -, ~ u APnce rnRKlFlc ^ f ONNef710M5 VIA Sii`: 1MF M'.FS 1 1 ~ '~ . . , , ' ,...._ N(1 PROp(1{efl ('H M('~I:ti ' TkY ' 0 ` ~ ~~ PIM;AE TL11U VIPC {HPDS;f(1PAf11/)p5 ~ ~ Cll'IlY M11'V~IPY ~ -. ~ ~' '~ ,~ _'~~~. ® PLBUC GR88N SMC6 ! NLLC ® OPFN SPACE ® ANEA ACCBK ©cAmcu. pen crosswc ©hAn~ tAAa access O 1N ItRYRe'llvl(SI(;VAf:! ;KIOSK 10 ~~~ rr ~ r ~rr~rrrl .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~:~I c ~, ~~ ~ iii ~ rJU '.n ~ -_~ 1 I Y~""' LJG* ~`~ ~r' o. - ti S ¢u r., (0 ^ ~~O Gq 7 7 1 ~{"^~ o o c p o .~ 1'., UGC it ilk `~ ~ C(;V*1 :; .~ ' r ~~ ~ Ji'IJ~O 7f1t1~ ~ ~(~ 2 rr • ' w ~ '' ~ •~ ~ ~YY p,. COL ~..+;_', hr`^r !t!t' a ~ v x ~, ~u s ~ ' UGC[. rr.. ~ ^c7 (~;,~ , -~ DRAFT'' !~uc,uST ls,2om NOR I)ts~~~~l551t)v PURFOSIiS (1NI,Y '~'"~.~~0^ `- ~~ HWY 10 Elevated _, ~rl ,._~ _ lJ 1 ~1~" {Y ~••l~11YAI1 f t• 1J1YlY•~ ~ O •~ _ ,1 1 U ~~ = ~~ w.Y' fir. ~~ ... rr 11