My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
5. EDSR 06-11-2007
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
Boards and Commissions
>
Economic Development Authority
>
EDA Packets
>
2003-2013
>
2007
>
06-11-2007
>
5. EDSR 06-11-2007
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/15/2009 10:17:31 AM
Creation date
1/15/2009 10:16:08 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
EDSR
date
6/11/2007
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
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
<br />wer <br />MEMORANDUM <br />TO: Economic Development Authority <br />FROM: Jeremy Barnhart, Planning Manager9~ <br />DATE: June 11, 2007 <br />SUBJECT: Gateway Business Park <br />At their meeting on April 9t~, 2007, the EDA discussed the Gateway project and provided direction <br />to staff to develop three conceptual layouts for discussion. This memo discusses those options. <br />Direction. The consensus of the EDA was that the park should be more of a retail component. <br />Some members of the EDA felt that the plan should include a big box type commercial, similar to <br />the Wal-Mart/ Home Depot shopping center. <br />Assumptions. In the development of the plans, staff made the following assumptions: <br />1. Access to the site would be largely limited to a fizll access off of 171St, as an extension of <br />Ulysses street. <br />2. There is potential for a right in access off of Hwy 10, if the City can convince MnDOT that <br />the closing of several individual accesses balances out an increase of turning movements to <br />one location. <br />3. There is potential for right-in access off of 171St for a small portion of the Powell piece <br />(northwest corner of the site). <br />4. The gas main will not be moved or relocated. <br />5. City would follow its policy that wetlands can not be filled to create a building pad, although <br />wetlands could be filled for parking lots. <br />6. It is advantageous and preferred to mitigate as much as possible, wetlands on site, rather <br />than purchasing land elsewhere. <br />7. The success of the project relies on land owned by other parties and the assembly of these <br />large parcels maximizes the usable land in the area. <br />The three options are described below. Additionally, Staff has put together a spreadsheet using <br />rough numbers for purposes of comparing potential costs only. This spreadsheet is attached. <br />Option A. Option A includes a variety of lot sizes, including 3 big box lots (10-17 acres), three <br />smaller commercial lots, and 9.57 acre industrial parcel in the southeast. The plan includes aright-in <br />off of Hwy 10. The smaller commercial lots are served via a `backage' road between Hwy 10 and <br />Ulysses. Option A has the greatest impact to existing wetlands, and a big portion of property west of <br />C:\Documents and Settingsljbarnhart\Desktop\Gateway\EDA memo RE Gateway 6-11-07.doc <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.