Laserfiche WebLink
LMCD's Plan is misdirected in focussing on the promotion of <br />increased use of the lake and the establishment of new access <br />points and recreational land destinations.” <br />RESPONSE: No where in the Management Program do we promote <br />increased use of the lake. There is a significant difference <br />between allowing growth to occur within a strict regulatory <br />framework and promoting increased use. Participants in the <br />development of the Management Plan were unwilling to close the <br />lake to further growth. <br />Does Orono wish the LMCD to close the lake to increased use? <br />If so, we wish that Orono had sent a representative to the <br />subcommittee meetings to present that view. The representative <br />would then have been a party to the discussions leading to the <br />formulation of that part of the Management Program. However, if <br />Orono does not favor closing the lake to further growth, but <br />instead favors carefully regulated growth, then the City of Orono <br />and the Advisory Committee are in agreement. <br />New access ramps are advocated for two reasons. Some need <br />to be replaced because of unsafe conditions. Construction of <br />other ramps has been proposed by the Metropolitan Access <br />Committee in accordance with their stated policy of one <br />car/trailer parking space for each 20 acres of lake surface. <br />The Metropolitan Access Committee members each have the <br />independent legislative authority, financial resources, and <br />policy commitment tc nure that standard is achieved on Lake <br />Minnetonka. The LMC .nnoc prevent it, even though it does <br />regulate access points vithin its Code. <br />The Management Program promotes the establishment of <br />recreational destinations whether or not they include upland <br />areas. But since the LMCD has authority over all lands used for <br />access to the lake, it would have authority over any such areas <br />created. <br />Is Orono opposed to creation of destinations? <br />If so, it would have been helpful if Orono had sent a <br />representative to the subcommittee which discussed these issues. <br />We could have addressed those concerns at that time. Perhaps <br />having Orono's position available to us at a timely point in <br />Program development, we cduld have had the kind of communication <br />that would have prevented so many of these misunderstandings and <br />misinterpretations reflected in Orono's letter of comment. <br />We are willing to meet with Orono to review the work of the <br />subcommittees that led to the formulation of the policy on <br />destinations, access and continued growth of use on the lake. We <br />are confident that that meeting will result in a very different <br />view on the part of Orono.