04/25/2001 Env Bd Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

• The proposed urban growth seems highly aggressive and unwarranted when compared to other cities. Lake Elmo, for example, is under development pressure on both sides— from Stillwater /Oak Park Heights and from Oakdale/Woodbury—yet there is no MUSA expansion in its draft comprehensive plan. Lake Elmo has 120 total sewered acres and will stay that way. • There are seven municipalities in Washington County alone that are actively seeking to preserve open space through a very useful tool commonly referred to as "duster housing," yet the framework intends to use this tool, not for open space, but as a staging tool for "future development when utilities become available." Lino Lakes is an ideal candidate for permanently preserved open spaces via clustered development. • During the development of the comp plan and its subsequent revisiting by city council, how much effort has been made to understand the philosophies and approaches used in other cities, or other states? Observers have commented that it seems as though only one source of information and advice has been considered in Lino Lakes, that being the team who drafted the plan, the consultant NAC and the economic development department. Has there been any planning information under any kind of consideration that hasn't been filtered through this team? This is like the person who is considering buying a home, and only looks at one house before making the decision. • Because the proposed framework defers the issues of upland and open space preservation while carving out huge growth areas for urbanization, our rural character and nearly all our open space are in jeopardy. In addition, the framework has no binding plan to prevent the continued degradation of our lakes, wetlands, and wildlife. • It is clear that the framework was developed in top -down fashion. At the top was the vision of the development of the entire city, and the underlying details appear subordinate to that vision. Economic concems have been given precedence over both environmental and cultural aspects. There are statements on environmental issues, but adequate remedies are not borne out in the substance of the plan. The plan was essentially completed before the environmental inventory occurred, not the other way around. The growth areas were drawn up before the forecasted land demand calculations were agreed upon, not the other way around. The plan was submitted for approval in 1998, yet how much acreage and of what types are in the growth areas was unknown until August 1, 2000. Amazingly, most of the important numbers in the plan, such as numbers of homes, populations, and acreage simply do not pan out. We are concerned about these inconsistencies. A bottom -up approach is the key to any truly effective management plan. A sustainable community is one where the three legs, economy, ecology, and culture, form the basis upon which the city is built. The blueprint for such a community should be a comprehensive plan built on valid information that is cognizant of our resources and utilizes a realistic strategy for giving the residents what they want and what they need: a sustainable community. Much assistance in this area has been provided to the city as a result of the environmental inventory and associated efforts (see appendix 1). These Environmental Board comments are intended to transform (or replace) the top - down comprehensive plan into more of a bottom -up plan to provide for a sustainable community. • Page 2