10-22-1990 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Nor does the Metropolitan Council have a program that gives them authority over boat densities on this lake, or any other lake in the metropolitan area. It, too, would have to seek new authority with one exception. The Metropolitan Council staff sit on the Metropolitan Access Committee. That committee could change its present rule of one car/trailer parking space for every 20 acres of water. But when this management plan is implemented, all agencies that want an additional access point on the lake will have to receive LMCD approval (under its existing code). Because of the limits set in t 6 management plan, the LMCD can refuse any parking lot expansion associated with an access point over the 700 agreed to in this program. That is a protection that does not now exist. 6. The plan seeks to change the emphasis and the structure of the LMCD that has been stable for ZZ years. Sub-points: a. Instead of the legislatively sanctioned system of checks and balances, derived from shared powers among agencies, the proposed plan calls for legislative action. b. There is a risk that the legislature will alter the LMCD structure and authority. RESPONSE: No part of this plan seeks to change the emphasis of the LMCD in its major areas. The Program does offer new management tectiniques, and clarifies goals and objectives. But there is no change in emphasis. The structure of the LMCD is being changed to add four new members once regional funding is provided. If regional funding is not fortlicoming, there will be no change in the LMCD Board. That is one regional vote for every three local votes. We do not see a substantive change in the legislatively sanctioned checks and balances. Orono feels that there is a risk that the legislature will alter the LMCD structure and authority. We agree that there is this risk. A united front, with 14 cities, the Watershed District, Regional Park District, Hennepin County, Metropolitan Council and the DNR supporting the proposal will minimize this risk. This, coupled with knowledgeable lobbying should make the risk acceptable. 7. The power to review and comment on land use decisions will have two consequences: a. pressure for redevelopment will cause momentum toward the least restrictive standard of communities within the plan. b. this will add additional time to variance review, or additional and unnecessary staff and expense for the LMCP. RESPONSE: It is not in the interest of the LMCD or the intent of the Management Program for Orono's restrictive land use controls to be weakened. Management Objectives //2 and on page 46 could be deleted and replaced with the following: