04/25/2001 Env Bd Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

3) Timing: Many of the goals and policies in the framework are subject to interpretation. As it stands, it is likely that the adoption of the related ordinances that will interpret and implement these policies and goals will not occur until well after the 2001 elections. The eventual adoption of land use ordinances are apt to involve more discussion and negotiation. As a result, it may happen that the comp plan is adopted with a certain understanding that is not followed through in the ordinances. Greenways and Estate Lots are prime examples of where this potential exists, though there are many such instances in the framework, and very possibly some that we may have missed. To avoid this, we advise to make the framework more explicit and/or require that certain ordinances be drafted and then adopted at the same time as the comp plan, or that the comp plan be adopted contingent upon ordinances being adopted bran appropriate specified date. 4) Wooded areas. Forested areas in the city must be protected, as these enhance the value of our community greatly. The handbook contains some advice about this, but . there needs to be more language in the comp plan as well. Language in the document should reflect a wide variety of wooded areas, both of hydric and non -hydric soil types. Forested areas must be a part of a "Preservation Zoning District' (see recommendation #9) or similar protective land use strategy. The environmental board simply cannot accomplish these objectives adequately prior to the April 18, 2001 deadline, and advise an extension of this deadline to work on this and othercrucial areas following incorporation of these recommendations into the framework. 5) Transitions. Special consideration should be in the framework regarding interface areas (transitions between different land uses), particularly pertaining to cluster developments. 6) 50% upland preservation. Open space development that permanently preserves at least 50% of upland must be allowed in all rural areas unless there is a conflict with a stated city need or goal. In this case, residential development or the overall density thereof shall not be considered a city need or goal, meaning that the 50% open space requirement shall not be relaxed simply to accommodate more housing units. As we've stated elsewhere, this type of development is well suited near environmental features that need protection, but is also needed in other areas if we are to address the city goals of maintaining "rural character" and open space. 7) Wetland Protection. This matter needs additional support in the framework. More references to the city's "Local Water Management Plan" of 1994 should be incorporated. 8) Greenways. Greenways are not adequately defined in the framework. The framework itself states in several places that the greenways will be further defined when the environmental inventory is complete. Because this has since taken place, the greenways must be further defined immediately or it is highly unlikely that a meaningful and useful greenway system will ever become a reality. The framework does not call for upland preservation, excludes permanent open space (cluster) development from both the 2010 and 2020 growth areas, does not provide incentive to preserve any lands not already preserved by statute, and treats the greenways as merely an overlay district. Additionally, the framework's handling of the greenways defers all responsibility for establishing a greenway system to the creation and adoption of related ordinances, which would then be a contested issue of questionable outcome most likely not decided until after the 2001 elections. Also consider that recent projec' • Page 10