Laserfiche WebLink
Cit D/ttna <br />P 0. BOX •152. SPRING =APK, MINNESOTA 55254 • SEone: 47t-5Q5l • QN LAK£ MINNETONKA <br />Mayor <br />Jerome P PocKvam <br />471-9515 <br />Councitinemtiers <br />Don Dili <br />471-3185 <br />Pon Kraemer <br />471-7229 <br />wm. 0. Weeks <br />471-7255 <br />June 12, 1990 <br />Mr. Eugene Strcmmen, Executive Director <br />Lake Minnetonka Conservation Di.strict <br />402 East Lake Street <br />Wayzata, 55291 <br />Dear Mr. Strotrnen: <br />Carl Widmer <br />471-3429 <br />Pursuant to the review process whic.h has been established by the <br />LMCD, Spri.ng Park has analyzed and evaluated the draft Lake <br />Minnetonka Long-Term Management Program. On behalf of Soring <br />Park, we are submitting a formal position paper which is <br />attached outlining t.he City's conceins with the LMCD Plan. <br />I.n summary, the LMCD Plan aoplication wit.hin Spring Park is <br />unacceptable with regard to its current form. There is great <br />concern with the Plan's lack of attention to detail and spec­ <br />ifics as it relates to existing land use patterns in shoreland <br />areas. II the LMCD Plan is going to be an effective planning <br />tool, it must specifically address the local exceptions includ­ <br />ing the high density residential, commercial, and industrial <br />land uses found in Spri.ng Park. In this regard, we feel t.hat <br />the LMCD's present plarr.ing effort has fallen far short of a <br />realistic land use treacnent for ail lake area communines. <br />Eased on t.he imolamentution schedule of t.he Plan, tne LMCD <br />would like ail M lake ccmmunitias to adopt the Appendix C <br />Shoreland Regulations wit.hi.n one year of t.he Plan adcotion. <br />The City of Spring Park cannot endorse or adopt an ordinance <br />that would in effect .nake much of its existing land uses non- <br />conforming . <br />Another matter to be emohasized is that Spring Park is very <br />much opposed to the LMCD becoming a review authority in shore- <br />land development matters. There is no desire to see ma;jor <br />increases in LMCD staff, responsibilities, or funding needs . <br />We feel the prooosed LMCD review is a duplication of the City <br />process t.hac will result in additional cost and delays. Frankly, <br />we are also concerned that the proposed advisory role of t.he <br />LMCD will eventually evolve inco approval aut.hority removing <br />the City’s ability to control its own deveiocment.