10-22-1990 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Orono has had regarding this including: Increased staff to review variances Having to work through LMCD in part on the shoreland regulations and with DNR on the balance Additionally during the discussion it was pointed out that LMQD should specifically state (although they indicate that it is incorporated in the plan) what their interests in land use are. During that discussion the intere^^.t in land use were as follows: Traffic on the lake generated by land use Environmental degradation to water quaility Aesthetics/User experience in viewing land use around th' lake It was additionally suggested that they should be fairly restrictive in spelling out their interest in land use otherwise they will become involved in a number of items within 1,000 feet of the lake which do no specifically address their primary concern?. In addition to giving LMCD and therefore the cities around the lake more input on changing land use around the lake through this process and not on the many small variance items which will in total not be consequential, it may be a way for the City of Orono to achieve its objective relating to boat density because the land use has a direct input on the boating densities as is previously outlined. Public Access - 1 boat per 1 to 2 spaces Marinas - 1 boat per 5 spaces Residential - 1 boat per 10 spaces The central question of this approach is what authority or credance by Metro Council LMCD is given in their review of the cities' comprehensive plan amendments. If it is just review and comment, "moral suasion" will depend on how receptive the individual communities are to comment on their plans. If these review and comments are given the "authority" of a Metro Council System Statement then their comments can effectively force the city to conform to LMCD's wishes. The decision for the cities at this point is how much authority are they willing to each give up in exchange for LMCD as a body to be able to affect the proposed land use changes of a particular community around the Lake. In attendance at the meeting on Octobe* 16th were a couple of the LMCD Board members who have been supporters of the plan who did indicate that perhaps they may be willing to table the discussion to take a different approach on the project. They however made