Loading...
2. SR 03-16-2009CITY OF ELK RIVER SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OFTHE CITY COUNCIL,, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, ANDTHE PLANNING COMMISSION ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AGENDA Monday, March 16, 2009 5:30 p.m. Elk River City Hall ITEM NUMBER MEETIN ACTION TAKEN 2. 171ST AVENUE FOCUSED AREA STUDY 3. ADJOURNMENT I '~ CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS are considered to be routine and noncontroversial by the Council and will be approved by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember, staff member, or citizen so requests, in which case the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered under the regular agenda. "This'agenda:is available in alternate formats' upon a 72 hour advanced notice. "Auxiliary aids and services are also available upon a y2 hour advanced notice. Please contact the City Clerk at (763)635-I OOO to make a request. Examples of alternate formats may include:'large print, Braille, audio tape, etc.°' Examples of auxiliary aids may" include a sign language interpreter, assistive listening device, etc:' CITY OF ELK RIVER SPECIAL MEETINGS NOTICE SPECIAL JOINT MEETINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING COMMISSION, AND ECONOMIC 11~'L~~•] ~ t ~ `- fl PSI. C~1;3_~_~"1 Tuesday, February 17, 2009 Monday, March I6, 2009 Monday, April 27, 2009 5:30 p.m. Elk River City Hall 13065 Orono Parkway Elk River, Minnesota 55330 I, Stephanie Klinzing, Mayor, hereby request special meetings of the Elk River Ciry Council, Planning Commission, and Economic Development Authority on Tuesday, February 17, 2009; Monday, March 16, 2009; and Monday, April 27, 2009, 5:30 p.m., at Elk River City Hall, 13065 Orono Parkway, Elk River, Minnesota. The purpose of the meetings is to discuss the 171St Avenue Focused Area Study. In accordance with State Statute, I hereby request the city clerk to post this notice at least three days prior to the meeting date. I further request the city clerk to notify each member of the Ciry Council, the Planning Commission, and the Economic Development Authority of these special meetings, in writing, at least one day before the meetings. ~°~~" anu 13 2009 ~~~ Stephanie 'zing, Mayor Date I HEREBY CERTIFY, that this notice has been posted and that I have served this notice upon the members of the City Council by mail at least one day prior to the above-called special Ciry Council, Plannin Commissio d Economic Development Authority meetings. .~ Allard, City Clerk Januar~l3, 2009 Date S:\Council\Forms\Meeting Notices\Joint w Other Boards.DOC of Kiver MEMORANDUM TO: Focused Area Study participants FROM: Jeremy Barnhart, Planning Manager DATE: March 13, 2009 SUBJECT: March 1 bth meeting On Monday, March 16`}', the HKGI team will summarize the findings froxri the panel discussion and observations obtained from the public meetings. With this information, HKGI will facilitate a group discussion to decide on some key directions that will lead us to a preferred plan, which will be refined over the next month. Key issues anticipated to discuss include the interchange, new street connection to Carson, land uses, and future strategies. If you have any questions before the meeting, please do not hesitate to contact me. 4 ~, G C L` C y ~ N O d ~ :ti. C ~ ,~ G . ~ ii -L .'~. -!7 ~ ~ ~ C G '" ^J ~re ~ ~~ N J ~ S1 4 ` ~ -~"qQ'~~ '- /mil ~&y 1~ '•~ '°` o o c ~ G Y , ~~[o~~"'dAK ~i~5 4~. ~t'. . ~~ °7 -° da ~ cC ~1J T OL 'G ... ::. p~ $~ ~~ ~,~' L ~ L ~ y : ~ ~~a ,~ .,~~_~ :J ~ N 0 a: $~ gyp. ~,~~'~ - ~! ~: ~ ~ `~ C O p ~ O - U ~~~ @d$'R~'G `~''.~ .~ 'J ~U n o ~+~ ~~ ~a~„' ~. ' 8 cn r ~ Y a~ G ~ . : 6b - G Q J .a.~- ~~~ J ~b'.v ~iy b C 1 ?G- Z ~ c ~ . Y tress _ U . - 3 -I 1~ -~ Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. ~~ ~® Meeting Date: March 4, 2009, 9:00 -11:30 a.m., Elk River City Hall Client: City of Elk River, Minnesota Project: Elk River Focused Area Study (FAST) Purpose: Advisory Panel of Experts -roundtable discussion about alternative land use concepts Present: Gen McJilton, Ryan Companies; Rusty Fifield, Northland Securities; Jill Brown, Northstar Rail; Craig Robinson, MN/DOT; Michael Noonan & Deb Ridgeway, Rottlund Homes; Sam Newberg, Joe Urban Market Consulting; Derick Dahlen, Avant Energy; Bruce Chamberlain, Bryan Harjes, & Paul Paige, HKGi; Jeremy Barnhart & Terry Maurer, City of Elk River. The meeting was held to gather input from a broad spectrum of expertise with no vested interest in the study area. The meeting opened with an overview of the project objectives and assumptions and review of the three land use alternatives. The remainder of the meeting was an open discussion among the panel members about the project. Comments below were made by panel participants. Highlighted comments ~' resonated with the group as critical elements. Transportation: • Reconstruction of the 101/169 interchange as a comprehensive project will likely not happen within our planning horizon (20 ~0 years) due to funding realities. Alternatively, "band-aid" transportation improvements that are required by traffic problems will be the norm. • New Highway 10 interchange accessing the site is possible and would be looked at favorably by MN/DOT in order to clean up current safety and traffic problems caused by intersections. An ~ interchange could happen independently of other highway improvements. ~~Y~A I ~ L~ne<a~?S1'riC~~ • OT will ' ely close 'tional meth crossings essmg the dy area from Highw 110 in the next venal years o improve s ty. It will lil~ely limit all ess pointsthe study lea with exception to 171 ~` 165` ton t-in/right-o nly. • Northstar rail is expected to open in November 2009. The Elk River train station is projected to have 900 riders/day. Northstar information is at www.mn-GetOnBoard.corn ~ r~J S~ ~y~-crl,-~,ida~.i- • Northstar Rail is not currently planning areverse-commute train. Ridership ~cmand may pressure one. • When thinking about land uses supported by rail, recognize that unless our transportation patterns radically shift, the raiUauto modal split in the impact zone around the train station will not exceed a 30/70 ratio. • LRT studies suggestthat'/4 of employees/residents in the walking zone of a station will use transit. Commuter rail usage will be less than LRT. • When choosing where to live, many people "drive" to the point they can afford. • There is some talk of legislatively limiting or surcharging "vehicle miles traveled". This could create a market incentive fortransit-oriented, compact development. Land Use: ~C • Rail station will have little to no impact on commercial development opportunities in the study area with exception to relatively small amounts of convenience retail. ,~ Highway and train noise is a big issue for residential development - a land use buffer is needed between corridors and housing. {~Ci v~Q at)i- ~3 123 North Third Street, Suite lOQ Minneapolis, MN 55401-1659 Ph (612) 338-0800 Fx (612) 338-6838 www.hkgi.com Direct (612) 252-7120 Email mlcoegler@hkgi.com Elk River FAST Expert Panel Minutes March 4, 2009 Page 2 of 2 • Housing demand is built on job creation. Job creation in the study area should be key focus. Reverse- commute train could be anoffice/industrial marketing bonus for the study area. • FHA financing of residential development is dependent on noise levels. • Job-based commercial development market is currently declining. • Development objectives outlined in the three alternatives could not be realized without Highway 10 interchange. .~ Long-term market assessment: o Easiest: senior & rental housing, industrial o Moderate challenge: office,. residential condos o .Tough: retail (interchange would impact this), strict eco-focused industrial • Absorbtion of the amount of office shown in some concepts would belong-term (more than a decade) ~¢ Existing and adjacent uses make the study area an opportunity for "eco-focused" development - ~ ~C ~,~ DF especially eco-industrial. Even as few as 5 synergisfic uses would be a great success. • Need to think about development that could occur on the river side of Highway 10 in order to put the study area in better context. • RDF plant could be beneficial use. Its visual character should be revamped. ~~ ((~~ • The study area seems like a place that could play to the market niche of low impact, eco-based. #1t7u~ • Maybe two development scenarios need to be explored, one that assumes rapid economic recovery with business as usual in real estate development and another with protracted recovery and an altered real estate/transit climate. Amenities: • Rail station will be a residential and commercial development marketing bonus. • It will be in the study area's best interest to get areverse-commute train. • Excess steam from GRE could stimulate commercial market interest. ,~ • Creating a pedestrian environment and trai]/sidewalk linkawill be critical. Finance: • City will likely need to subsidize development in some form. • In today's dollars, a new Highway 10 interchange budget would be roughly $15 million. This would likely need City financial involvement to occur. M.•IELKRIVER108-65 FocusArea Study(FAST)13 Meetingslezpertponed minutes 3-4-09.doc Elk River FAST Study -- IMPACT AREA ANALYSIS Acreage Calculations 3.16.2008 Prepared For. The City of FJk River, Minnesota D RA F T Preparedey.• Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. CITY IMPACT DEVELOPMENT YIELD DEVELOPMENT VALUE JOBS POPULATION CODE ACRES (BUILDING SQUAREFOO Per SQ. FT. VALUE CREATED HOUSIN G UNITS GROWTH TOD Low End High End Li M Industrial LI 152 2,280,000 $171,000,000 5,700 Office BP 61 1,525,000 $213,500,000 6,100 Mixed Use MU 18 360,000 $54,000,000 360 Commercial HC 20 400,000 $60,000,000 400 High Density HD 72 based on 18 units/acre avg. $285,120,000 288 864 1,814 3,629 Medium Densi MD 47 based on 8 units/acm avg. $82,720,000 188 564 395 1,184 Park OS 10 TOTALS 380 4,565,000 $866,340,000 12,560 476 1,428 2,209 4,813 ©ffice Villa e Li M Industrial LI 110 1,650,000 $123,750,000 4,125 Office BP 60 6,000,000 $840,000,000 24,000 Mixed Use MU 25 500,000 $75,000,000 500 Commercial HC 64 1,280,000 $192,000,000 1,280 Hi h Density HD 80 based on 18 units/acre av . $316,800,000 320 960 2,016 4,032 Medium Densit MD 30 based on 8 units/acre avg. $52,800,000 120 360 252 756 Park OS 11 TOTALS 380 9,430,000 $1,600,350,000 29,905 440 1,320 2,268 4,788 Eco-Ener Light Industrial LI 153 2,295,000 $172,125,000 5,738 Office BP 118 2,950,000 $413,000,000 11,800 Mixed Use MU 50 1,000,000 $150,000,000 1,000 Commercial HC 7 140,000 $21,000,000 140 High Densty HD 16 based on 18 units/acre avg. $63,360,000 64 192 403 806 Medium Density MD 28 based on 8 unit5/acre av . $49,280,000 112 336 235 706 Park OS 8 TOTALS 380 6,385,000 $868,765,000 18,678 176 528 638 1,512 ASSUMPTIONS: YIELD - Buildin S . FL /Land Use A. 20,000 SQ. FT / AC Yield for Retail B. 15,000 SQ. FT / AC Yield for Industrial C. 25,000 SQ. FT / AC Yield for Office Showroom D. 100,000 SQ. FT / AC Yield for Office (6 story w/ structured parking DEVELOPMENT VALUE E. $75 / Sq. Ft. for Industrial F. $100 / Sq. Ft. for Office Showroom G. $150 / S . Ft. for Retail H. $140 / Sq. Ft. for Office I. $220,000 per unit JOB CREATION J. 4 Jobs / 1000 S . Ft. of Office Space K. 2.5 Jobs / 1000 Sq. Ft. of Industrial Space L. 1 Job / 1000 Sq. Ft. of Commercial / Retail S ce POPULATION GROWTH M. 2.1 Residents /Household N. 4-12 Units Per Acre for Medium Densi Housin O. 12-24 Units Per Acre for High Density Housing Evaluation of northerly vs. southerly locations for possible Highway 10 interchange • Match 1715Y Avenue alignment Pros ^ ties into existing local street infrastructure ^ brings traffic into heart of FAST study area ^ strong synergy with rail station Cons ^ significant land loss from existing, newer commercial operations ^ relatively higher land acquisition costs (financial and otherwise) ^ challenges access to existing adjacent businesses (due to grade separation) ^ does little to improve access to east Elk River • As shown in TOD concept Pros ^ adjacent to existing commercial operations within study area w/o direct land loss ^ allows new retail development potential w/o displacing existing operations ^ strong synergy with rail station Cons ^ partially within wetland area ^ impacts highway-oriented businesses west of 10 ^ relatively higher land acquisition costs (majority west of 10) ^ does little to improve access to east Elk River • As shown in Office Village concept Pros ^ could be accomplished with relatively low disruption to existing development ^ could serve future development west of 10 ^ allows new retail development potential ^ creates stronger possible link to east Elk River Cons ^ likely land impact to RDF plant ^ less synergy with rail station ^ does less to promote redevelopment of northerly study area ^ potential gas main impacts • As shown in Eco-Business Park concept Pros ^ no impact to existing development ^ strongest possible link to east Elk River ^ could serve future development west of 10 Cons ^ distant from core study area ^ impacts Cargill lands with no prospect of adjacent development ~., ~_' - ~ ~,} - ~, R..~ ~ "` ~ ,~ - `f ,%'~ I ;,, l r r -^- ' _ _ ~. `\` - ! ~ ~~ ~ 4 ~ _,_~ ter ....-„ r -..- ._......, ~ ~ d3 # rA ~c~a ~~~~ t ~ n ~~fi~~ 0