INFORMATION #2 04-27-2009•
O L
~,
n
F '~
O C
:4~ Y
y
tt "'~
N
~ N
4~
,O
w ~
c ~
a
c
0
r
y y
-y L
7
cG C
L
C
F!
~-' d ~
"O
:tl L
]J N
~+ ~ ~
O ~y ~
.c Y.
D > ~
G O y ~
C A L ~.. .O
~ -~ ~, L ~
Y C O Y
O
V G ~ ~ .--7
•
•
,~ fit) `4
+a' ~ ~~~ ~~~ ,.
~i
di
•_..1./
~~. =~ :.
I
~
s i o
t
ti
c y
n c
~ ~
~ ~
O `~
c.. C
~ ~
F
._
tC ~
O L
v ~-
N ~ _
C ~ ,*Jj'
O b_U
r~
o-0
t ~ v
., O.~
y
C ~
L Y
L p L y
a
5 ~ = bn
} o .5
V ^J ~
D11 ~
G O " ~
J ~ ~
X - O
" '-- a
0
`p ~ "' n
v r„
'o bq ~
g
b°n Y `
v ti v >,
bu - -c
G ~ c3
r3 ~IJ 5!
L ... J^,
:1 M' ~ ~ Q
v
C rq = ~ o<J
.. O G ~y O
.- ~~
^~J d N ~
V] J `~ _
O ~ ~ a! '~
C _ ..
n~ n ~
C O u ^- ^.
O ;~ °Z~
CJ ..
~~~
~iiiii3
C7
0
m
.,.
C7
0
3
c~
_~
Focused Area STudy ~u~t~
and project schedule.
The Gity o f Elk IZi/er is nearin~ completion o f itS 1 ~ 1St A~/enue 1'ocuSed
Area STdy (FGEST•). O/er the next month, the Gity'S EDGE and Plannin~
GommiSSion will re/iew and make recommendation to the Gi~Fy Govnul for
appro/al of the final Plan. The EDGE will meet on May 1 1th; the Planning.
GommiSSion wi II meet on May 1 Zth, and the Gity Govnu I wi II re/iew the
~nal Plan on May 18th. Yov are in/ited to re/iew the final draft and
Submit comrnentS, either in whin or in Person. Yov may /iew the
cornPlete Plan at wwwelkri/erfaS~com or wwwu.elk-ri/errny~.uS. I f you
ha/e any r~veStionS, contact P~rvice Gharnberlain at 612/252-~ 14D or
Jeremy 13avnha--~I; Plannin~ Mana~r at ~6 j/635-1034.
EconomlL Dcvclopmcnt <Evthorit~
May 1 1th at 5:30 at Elk IZi/er Gity (tall
P-annin GommiSSion
May 1 ~th at 6: 3D at Elk fZi/er Gity hall
Gity Govnu I
May 18th at 6:30 at Elk IZi/er Gity Hall
o~~ss NIA `aa~rg eta
~ti:~~a~d ouoa0 S90~I
aa.~i2l `II3 }o ~ut~
aan x~
~~~ l~~
~, :~
~~
How do I
~~~ ~~ more
~~~
information?
Visit the project website at:
www.ElkRiverFAST.com
or contact Jeremy Barnhart, Planning
Manager at:
763.635.1034 ,,, jarnhart@ci.elk-river.mn.us
or Bruce Chamberlain, Project Manager
with HKGI at:
612.252.7140 ~ Bruce@hkgi.com
You are receiving this newsletter by mail if you
are a property owner inside or within 350 feet
of the study area boundary shown on the
inside map. At least one future newsletter will
also be sent.
~~~a~~
a-r~ -~-
• Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. ~®
• ~e
Meeiting 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 (20-30 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 cleanup current safety and traffic problems caused by intersections. An t
interchange could happen independently of other highway improvements. f~~ (; ~ (;r7!)1PS`~~~~
• OT will ~ ely close 'tional medi~ crossings ~essmg the ~dy area from Highw~l0 in the
next venal years o improve s ty. It will li7~ely limit all access points tbdthe study lea with exception
to 171 ~ 165' ton t-in/right-ou 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.com ~ r'QJ ~ ~y~-~'t.,~i~ dA~~--
• Northstar Rail is not currently planning areverse-commute train. Ridership demand may pressure one.
• When thinking about land uses supported by rail, recognize that unless our transportation patterns
radically shaft, 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 for transit-oriented, compact development.
Land Use:
;fit 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.
•
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, MN 55401-1659
Ph (612) 338-0800 Fx (612) 338-6838 www.hkgi.com
Direct (612) 252-7120 Email mkoegler@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 residenfial 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 "eeo-focused" development - ~ ~~ ,~~ ~~
especially eco-industrial. Even as few as 5 synergistic 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. L
• RDF plant could be beneficial use. Its visual character should be revamped. ' (~ ~
• The study area seems like a plaice that could play to the market niche of low impact, eco-based. ~U ~
• 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 trail/sidewalk links will 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(FAS7~I3 Meetings) expert panel minutes 3-4-09.doc
•
r~
LJ
•
~~~.I L%r-~ (~r~ ~~
~~
Elk River FAST Study -- IMPACT AREA ANALYSIS
Acreage Calculations
3.16.2008
PreparedFoi~ The City of Elk River, Minnesota D RA F T
PreparedBy.• Hoisington Koegler Group Inc
CITY IMPACT DEVELOPMENT YIELD DEVELOPMENT VALUE JOBS POPULATION
CODE ACRES (BUILDING SQUARE FOO Per SQ. FT. VALUE CREATED HOUSING 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/ace a $285,120,000 288 864 1,814 3,629
Medium Densi MD 47 based on 8 units/acre 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
Office Villa e
Light 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
High Density HD 80 based on 18 units/acre a $316,800,000 320 960 2,016 4,032
Medium Density MD 30 based on 8 units/acre avg. $52,800,000 120 360 252 758
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 Density HD 16 based on 18 units/ace a $63,360,000 64 192 403. 806
Medium Densit MD 28 based on 8 units/acre avg. $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 - BuilUing Sq. Ft. i 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 Showro om
D. 100,000 SQ. FT / AC Yield for Office (6 sto ry w/ structured parking)
DEVELOPMENT VALUE
E. $75 / S . Ft. for industrial
F. $100 / Sq. Ft. for Office Showroom
G. $150 / S . Ft. for Retail
H. $140 / S . Ft. for Office
I. $220,000 r unit
JOB CREATION
J. 4 Jobs / 1000 S . Ft. of Office S
K. 2.5 Jobs / 1000 S . Ft. of Industrial Space
L. 1 Job / 1000 Sq. Ft. of Commercial / Retail S ace
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 Densi Housin
~~~~~ '7 ~-1ln
• Evaluation of northerly vs. southerly locations for possible Highway 10 interchange
• Match 171St 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 fixture 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