My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
5.6. PCSR 06-08-2010
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
Boards and Commissions
>
Planning Commission
>
Planning Packets
>
2006-2010
>
2010
>
06-08-2010
>
5.6. PCSR 06-08-2010
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/11/2010 11:00:21 AM
Creation date
6/4/2010 3:30:40 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
PCSR
date
6/8/2010
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
83
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
CONCEPT EVALUATION <br />• <br />EVALUATION OF CONCEPT ALTERNATIVES AND <br />SIGNAL & INTERCHANGE OPTIONS <br />As part of the evaluation of the planning process, each of the four concept alternatives <br />went through a public and stakeholder review process. Newsletters were mailed to <br />all landowners in the project area and individual meetings were conducted with key <br />land owners. A public open house was held at Elk River City Hall in February zoio and <br />project web-site was created to review presented materials and to post comments. <br />Additionally, the consulting team facilitated a panel of experts roundtable evaluation <br />of the concepts. The round table provided expert professional opinions on a broad <br />range of topics relative to the concepts and the FAST area in general. The following <br />are summaries of the comments from the general public, key landowners, and panel <br />of experts leading to the refinement of a single preferred master plan direction for <br />the FAST: <br />Public Comments <br />Most of the comments from the public open house focused on the location of the <br />interchange. Generally, a preference for signal and interchange option A with limited <br />disturbance to existing single family neighborhood worked best as most felt it afforded <br />a connection for existing & future businesses. However, some felt the roadway design <br />in this concept had poor trafi^ic flow to the new interchange. Most agreed that land <br />uses along Highway ~o fi69 should remain commercial on both sides. Other comments <br />suggested it was nice to have housing within walking distance of the station and at <br />the intersection of the entry to the Northstar station and Twin Lakes Parkway traffic <br />control and pedestrian safety is a priority. Additionally, consideration for bike facilities <br />such as bike racks and bike lockers should be considered for commuters at the station <br />and more trail connections to the station should be implemented. Residents and <br />business owners both agreed there was a need for strong wayfinding and signage <br />to direct patrons from Highway io~i6g to businesses not immediately adjacent to the <br />highway. <br />Landowner Meetings Comments <br />The consulting team met with five of the larger landowners in the project area about <br />the future plans for their property. All expressed a desire for their existing businesses <br />to remain and expressed concerned about future transportation changes and impacts <br />to their existing business. The consulting team also met with residential groups, the Elk <br />River Station, Pulman place and the townhome association on Yale Avenue. <br />Panel of Expert Comments <br />Early in the phase one process, an effort to gain broaderfeedback from the professional <br />development community outside of Elk River, the consulting team conducted a panel <br />of experts round table meeting on the concept alternatives in order to gather input <br />from a broad spectrum of expertise outside of Elk River, but familiar with the market ;tG,;= <br />conditions surrounding the FAST. Participants ranged from commercial and residential ' ~'""~' <br />T118t. cyverx.ie Focused Area STudq jlg <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.