06-25-1990 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CHAPTER 3: Shorcland Access and Development 1974 to 1987. The Minneapolis Chain of Lakes arc the most heavily used parks, with 1.8 million visits in 1988. Eleven regional parks were used at or above their esumat' ^ capacity on summer weekends and holidays in 1988. Shoreland Development Pressures to intensify development around lakes continues in many parts of the metroi area, including those that are already heavily developed. Because people like to live by ’''kes, shoreland throughout the metro area is now being developed and redeveloped to meet the increasing ocmand for lakefront property. In the outer suburbs. i ;eAv homes being built on undeveloped shorcland, while in develops areas, small famj! / cabif *' >re being replaced by larger, more expensive homes. High-rise apartment buildings have beci. proposed several limes for the already fully-developed shoreland of Lake Calhoun in Minneapolis. In 1969, the Minnesota Legislature adopted the Shoreland Management Act :.o protect shoreland. The DNR promulgated rules setting minimum standards for setback size, height of building, and amount of impervious surface allowed within 1,000 feet of a lakeshorc. The shoreland rules originally were directed to counties and applied only to land outside incorporated areas. The statute was amended in 1974 to extend the requirement to shorcland within municipalities so citiv^ could not attract developers by having less stringent sr^rdards than neighboring communities. Municipalities were required to adopt shoreland ordinances by 1975 in compliance with the DNR's shoreland rules. Most have not done so. and the DNR has avoided forcing municipalities to comply. If municipalities did not adopt shoreland ordinances, the DNR was empowered to adopt ordinances for them. This has never been done in the metro area, although it has been done for Pine County. Today, only 30 of 138 municipalities in the metro are** have shoreland ordinances consistent with DNR standards. The DNR believes about 100 cities in the area need ordinances, and in 50 of these the need is great Political and economic constraints have limited shoreland plartning and zoning in the metro area 'The original DNR shoreland rules were entirely regulatory a"* ‘ j not require municipali?’>.s to compreb sively plan for their shoreland. ">e munici . have hesitated k> impose restrictive centroL. r.i development of shoreland \y " pru .ax value. Other cities have been concerned about the effects of new she dices v^ri existing plans and dcveiupmeni. Representatives of the DNR say it has I k s and staffing for implementation of the shoreland rules. Two DNR staff members have worK,. pa-t-time on shoreland ordinances for the metro area. The agency set priorities among metropolitan cities, because it did not have the money or staff to get all the ordinances reviewed. Priorities were assigned based on miles of shoreland, density of development, projected use and development, and existing ordinances in neighborin«» cities. At least once, the DNR apparently approved a shoreland ordinance that did not ccmpiy with its own niles. In 1984, Minneapolis adopted a shoreland ordinance that dealt only with budding height in certain parts of the city. The ordinance said no maximum height limit existed for buildings on subsjjitial portions of the city’s shoreland, although the DNR shoreland rules set a maximum height of 35 feet Three years after the Minneapolis ordinance was submitted to the DNR, it was approved. kecenuy, the DNR received an appropriation of SI .5 million to assist local govemm* throughout the state in developing shoreland ordinances. The DNR will give S5.000 in matching g\,*.- municipalities for comprehensive planning for shorclands and adoption of shorcland ' ■. .ai ces. The DNR recently adopted new shoreland rules; opinions differ on their implicatio;: . . metropolitan lakes. TTie DNR believes the new rules give greater flexibility for developing and approving shoreland ordinances. Standards can be based on a lake's existing development and cities' comprehensive planning. Local governments can establish standards that are more strict than the state's bu, must get ! :