My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
5.2. SR 01-12-2009
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
City Council
>
Council Agenda Packets
>
2000 - 2010
>
2009
>
01-12-2009
>
5.2. SR 01-12-2009
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/9/2009 9:09:30 AM
Creation date
1/9/2009 9:07:27 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
SR
date
1/12/2009
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
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
Redevelopment Framework Task Force Minutes <br />August 13, 2007 <br />Page 4 <br />Mr. Maurer responded that even prior to the 35W bridge collapse; MnDOT was not <br />planning to fund any improvements to Highway 10 through downtown Elk River for at least <br />thirty years. With the collapse, Mr. Maurer is assuming that bridge improvement projects <br />will take precedence in the foreseeable future. Therefore, he would still recommend that the <br />City fund a geometric design study. <br />The Task Force discussed the land north of Highway 10 and how they didn't think it was <br />appropriate to leave the area "as is" with no opportunity to redevelop due to the threat of <br />blight if a design configuration for Highway 10 continues to go undetermined for 20-30 <br />years. <br />Member Niziolek added that he came up with a Highway 10 option that would leave it "at <br />grade" but would reconfigure its current alignment by going under the railroad tracks and <br />following the realigned Main Street concept in the Draft Plan, crossing over Jackson Avenue <br />and begin elevating and curving up and over the railroad tracks and Highway 10 (near the <br />grain elevator) and terminating at Main Street between Lowell and Morton. Ms. Mehelich <br />responded that the City Council has made it very clear that they will not accept the "at <br />grade" option whatsoever. <br />Member Dana Anderson stated that the City Council compromised the integrity of the <br />redevelopment planning process when they dismissed the Task Force's recommendation for <br />Highway 10 a few months ago. <br />The Task Force continued to discuss the issue, including the disruption that elevating or <br />depressing Highway 10 would cause for the community. <br />Member Keith Holme added from a downtown business owner's perspective that if <br />Highway 10 is elevated or depressed "you might as well remove all commercial business <br />from downtown" due to the lack of visibility and direct access. <br />MOVED BY MEMBER LOUISE KUESTER AND SECONDED BY MEMBER <br />DAN TVEITE, APPROVING THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION REGARDING <br />HIGHWAY 10 WITHIN THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN: <br />1) THE ILLUSTRATIVE MASTER PLAN SHOULD SHOW JACKSON AVE. AND <br />MAIN STREET BEING AT GRADE (THIS WOULD REPRESENT THE IDEA <br />THAT IT IS A PLACEHOLDER, ALBEIT THE TEXT OF THE PLAN WILL <br />STRONGLY ARGUE FOR A GEOMETRIC STUDY). <br />2) THE TEXT OF THE PLAN WILL CONTAIN PLAN ILLUSTRATIONS THAT <br />REPRESENT THE VARIOUS OPTIONS THAT HAD BEEN CONSIDERED. <br />3) THE MATRIX FOUND ON THE ORIGINAL DRAFT (PAGE 31) WILL BE <br />MODIFIED AS SHOWN ON THE "ROADWAY DESIGN OPTION" <br />ATTACHMENT. <br />4) THE PLAN'S HIGHWAY 10 CONCLUSION IS THAT A GEOMETRIC STUDY <br />(TO INCLUDE SOIL BOILINGS) IS CRITICAL TO AVOID ANY NEW <br />REDEVELOPMENT EFFORTS CAUSING CONFLICT WITH FUTURE <br />DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION. <br />THE MOTION CARRIED 12-1. MEMBER DANA ANDERSON OPPOSED. <br />Member John Anderson added that while he appreciates the effort that staff put into the <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.