INFORMATION #1 07-21-2003To: Members of the City Council, Planning Commission, Park and Recreation Commission, Economic
Development Authority, Housing and Redevelopment Authority, Comprehensive Plan Task Force,
Heritage Preservation Commission
From: Mayor Stephanie Klinzing~ ~~_'
Re: Comments on Comprehensive Plan draft
I apologize for not attending the Thursday, July 17 workshop. A family situation arose at the last
minute. However, I am offering this letter a.s my input on the draft plan.
As I have stated publicly at a recent Economic Development Authority meeting, I have very little
objection to the draft plan under consideration at this time. I am very pleased with the work of the task
force. The members were committed to their work, understood the dynamics of the project, and brought
forth a draft plan that is closely aligned with the council's intention as stated in the "kickoff" meeting
held many months ago. We owe them a great deal of appreciation for their excellent work.
My own primary goals for the plan are that it include a mission statement with a target popula-
tion, that it (as closely as possible) reflect the city at full build out, that the urban service district not be
extended much beyond what is included in the current plan except for the inclusion of the mining areas
along the west side of north Highway 169, that the current agriculture preservation area north of County
Rd. 33 be eliminated and rezoned to allow residential development (two and one-half acres minimum),
and that it include a transportation plan that more clearly and specifically guides the development of
roads and streets in the city to efficiently move traffic throughout the city for today and into full build
out.
I am extremely pleased with the target population of 35,000. I reali~_e that attaining th_is will be a
challenge. In fact, public officials of surrounding communities suggest that it is not only a challenge but
also impossible given the extreme pressure for high density development and the city's 44-square mile
size. I am under no misconceptions that this is a simple thing to achieve and I also know that the com-
prehensive plan can, and most likely will be, altered by future councils. I don't, however, see that these
facts should prevent us !,rom taking the steps, at this time, to implement the growth controls that might
possibly prevent the city s population from someday reaching 60,000 to 70,000.
I am convinced that we need to plan the city's future on our desires and not on the possible
desires of future policy makers. It has been very clear throughout the comprehensive plan review pro-
cess that the majority of the people living in Elk River today want to preserve (as much as possible) the
rural nature of the city. Translated into land use terms, they do not want Elk River to be a city of border-
to-border city lots served by municipal sewer and water. I believe that the land use strategy in the draft
plan could very well insure that our desire for a more rural city (even at full build out) can be accom-
plished.
Allowing large lot (two and one-half acre minimum) residential development in the north end of the
city is a major factor to preventing future substantial extension of municipal sewer and water. The
current undeveloped large tracts of land north of County Rd. 33 leave that entire area susceptible to
future extension of municipal sewer and water. While the possibility of someday being served by sewer
and water might be attractive to some property owners in that area (due to the resulting increzLse La land
values) it would be det_dmental to the desire to retain a semblance of ruralness in the city. The high
residential density that would be possible if the north end of the city were served by municipal sewer
and water would also risk the loss of that area's wealth of wetlands, tree stands, natural prairie, and high
vistas. Taking the steps now to allow rural residential development in the north end of the city will set up
$~-0~-1900 16~0~ P~O~
a situation where it will be extremely difficult (maybe even impossible) to ever extend municipal ser-
vices into that area due to economic factors. Also large lot development will give the plarming commis-
sion and city council the flexibility to protect sensitive environmental an:as. Even though the area would
allow for lots of two and one-half acres, most lots would actual be in the three to five-acre range because
of the vast amount of wetlands in the north end of the city.
There were two citizen petitions submitted to the city during the comprehensive plan review pro-
cess and I believe we should respond positively to both. One was from a large number of property
owners in the north section of Elk River requesting that their properties be rezoned to allow for two and
one-half-area minimum residential development. I have already stated my support of the request from
those petitioners. The other was from Pat and Debbie Holzem indicating their desire for their property to
be included in the urban service district. I am also in favor of doing what they ask. The Holzem property
is located across County Rd. 40 from land currently in the urban service district and is bordered on the
opposite side by Burns township. It just makes sense that we should extend the urban service district one
more property to the city's eastern border. There is no need to consider that property as any kind of a
buffer to the large-lot unsewered residential development zone maintained by Burns township along its
border with Elk River. There is no such buffer on the city's western border adjacent to Big Lake town-
ship. The urban sen, ice district is extended right to the border in that area. It is not the city's responsibil-
ity to maintain buffer zones for neighboring communities nor should we base our decisions effecting
property owners within the city limits on what might be the interest of property owners outside of the
city. Also, it is most likely that municipal sewer and water will be extended up County Rd. 40 to serve
the large tracts of land that will be developed on the west side of the road in that area. It would make
sense then that the inclusion of the Holzem property, located on the east side of the road, would make
the project more cost effective.
TOTgL P,02