Laserfiche WebLink
Management Plan <br />Page Six <br />because the metropolitan area was not subject to the state-wide <br />shoreland rules, the DNR was not able to approve the Minnetonka <br />shoreland ordinance standards. <br />The LMCD proposes to act as a clearing house to encourage <br />communities to adopt a shoreland ordinance that follows a model <br />that was developed by the 14 shoreland communities. The <br />shoreland regulations contained in the LMCD model are <br />essentially the same as the DNR regulations. The LMCD encourages <br />cities to adopt the model as minimum standards but would allow <br />the cities to be more restrictive. <br />While staff does not disagree with the philosophy that the LMCD <br />is promoting with this objective, it is felt that Minnetonka is <br />better served with its own shoreland ordinance that is <br />negotiated independently with the DNR. The reason for this is <br />because we already have a shoreland ordinance that reflects the <br />development values of the community along Minnetonka lakeshore. <br />More importantly, there are numerous other lakes in the City <br />that are also governed by the shoreland ordinance and by the DNR <br />shoreland rules. It is felt that we should not treat Lake <br />Minnetonka any differently than any other lakes within the <br />City. Lastly, in terms of implementation, it is felt that the <br />City is more able than the LMCD to assure consistent regulation <br />of the shoreland rules within the City. <br />A second major objective of the LMCD Management Program is that <br />the LMCD encourages cities to "exhibit restraint in approving <br />variances and conditional use permits for buildings that will be <br />visible from the lake surface and shoreline". Apparently, this <br />objective was added because of concern some have expressed about <br />the Carlson towers. Staff agrees that the LMCD does have <br />interest in regulating building height for lakeshore properties, <br />but questions the LMCD's objectives in reviewing all height <br />variance requests in the City, for example, in the Opus area. <br />This management objective contradicts the stated intent of <br />commenting only on requests that could be seen from the Lake and <br />is beyond the appropriate area of concern for the LMCD. <br />Interjecting the LMCD in reviewing height variances also adds <br />one more level of review that may result in time delays not <br />commensurate with the value obtained, especially for properties <br />not visible from the Lake. <br />It would also seem reasonable to consider different standards <br />for the urbanized, eastern, end of the lake than those utilized <br />for the more rural and residential western end. Staff does not <br />have an issue with the LMCD reviewing and commenting on <br />variances for any lakeshore parcel but takes exception to such <br />involvement for all other variances. In any event the authority <br />to grant the variances rests with the City. \\A