My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-25-1990 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1990
>
06-25-1990 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/12/2024 12:21:35 PM
Creation date
11/12/2024 12:14:11 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
563
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
LOS. no LAKES: Enjoyment of a Unique Metropolitan Resource is Threatened 15 <br />DNR approval for less strict standards. The new rules also require planning for sensitive and critical <br />shoreland habitats, which most cities did not do in their comprehensive plans. <br />An attorney representing a Minneapolis citizens group has criticized the new rules. Because of vague <br />language, exemptions, and lack of a deadline for compliance, the new mles might provide opportunities <br />for local governments to avoid state standards. <br />CONCLUSIONS <br />Additional shoreland in the metro area needs to be reserved for public use and enjoyment now and in the <br />future. The demand for public shoreland open spaces is expected to increase steadily into the future. <br />Shoreland must be purchased or reserved for public use now, before further development proceeds. <br />Otherwise, prohibitive costs and other obstacles will make shoreland acquisition next to impossible. <br />Long-range plans and controls on shoreland development are essenual to protect metropolitan lakes and <br />shoreland now and in the future. Development that degrades a lake, the view from it, or adjacent land <br />areas must be prevented. The DNR has failed to implement and enforce its existing shoreland rules <br />effectively in the metro area. We were unable to reach a conclusion on the implications of the new <br />shoreland niles because of a lack of time and information. <br />RECOMMENDATIONS <br />We recommend: <br />□ Local governments should make long-range plans for shoreland <br />development and redevelopment. The Metropolitan Council and DNR <br />should assist in this planning. Planning should be based on the <br />folIowir>g principles: <br />• balancing he present interests of riparians, developers, and the public with future <br />concerns; <br />• presc»’ving a reasonable amount of shoreland for public use; and <br />• preserving the nanrral terrain and vegetation of the «»''^reland. <br />□ By a fixed date, municipalities should be required to adopt shoreland <br />ordinances in compliance with state rules. <br />Although the requirement to enact shoreland ordinances has been ineffective in the past, we ^ieve <br />regulations are absolutely necessary to ensure appropriate shoreland development and must be made to <br />work. We are pleased that the Legislature lias appropriated money to the DNR to help local <br />government*: plan for their shoreland and develop ordinances. The DNR must also assign ac; ^uate <br />funds and .taff to oversee enactment and enforcement of shoreland ordinances. <br />□ The Metropolitan Council should work with local governments and the <br />DNR to explore ways, such as tax incentives and land dedication, to <br />appropriately control shoreland development and encourage <br />niunicipalities to reserve shoreland for public use.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.