Item 6.5 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• To: 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 ct,(\.0%isQ• 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 as 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 realize that attaining this 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 from 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 increase in land values) it would be detrimental to the desire to retain a semblance of ruralness in the city. The high iikresidential 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