10-22-1990 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

REVIEW OF WAYZATA'S SHORELAND PROTECTION OUTLINE A review of the October 12, 1990 Wayzata Shoreline Protection Material reveals very serious flaws in the approach. The study outline that they propose is inappropriate for the LMCD in part and redundant in the remainder. Mr. Licht has stated that this outline was developed to assist cities in developing their, shoreland ordinance. It would serve that purpose, it does not serve the LMCD. The redundant portions relate to the study outlines steps for defining goals and policies. Examples are listed below: Page 4, step 1. "Determine the 'Development Capacity'...." In preparation for the subcommittee meetings held from December, 1988 to February, 1989 we did major portions of this and presented the material to the attendees (14 communities, DNR, Metropolitan Council, and the Watershed District). Much of the material is presented in the Working Paper and the Preliminary Plan. Page 4, step 2. "Establish a Shoreland Development Data Base". We did that part which was appropriate for the LMCD in the fall of 1988 and used it throughout the four months of the Shoreland Management Sv.l)commlttee proceedings. The remaining parts are a«ipropri;<te only for the individual cities. Page , step 3. "Identify the lake use and land use issues...." We also did that in the fall of 1988 and the work appears in the "Shoreland Management Working Paper" and "Shoreland Management Preliminary Plan". Page 6, step 4 "Develop policies and guidelines...." We have developed specific policies, and this was accomplished by the 14 cities, the DNR. Metropolitan Council. Watershed District and the LMCD in meetings held from December 1988 to February, 1989. All cities were represented, including Wayzata. The participants from Wayzata are no longer in that city's employ We also performed parts of steps 5 and 6 to the extent that it was appropriate for a lake protection agency without significant jurisdiction over upland areas. Most of the work suggested is beyond the scope of LMCD authority and interest. It is our conclusion that the City of Wayzata wants us to go back through the process that we have already completed because they now disagree with the decisions that were made with all 14 cities, the Watershed District, Metropolitan Council and the DNR participating. The parts that are Inappropriate would involve the LMCD in land use de ^slons and policy that would do grave harm to the District's constituency. Ti : is, the outline calls for the LMCD to determine, city by city, what land uses are appropriate. We believe that is clearly beyond the authority of the LMCD and solely the purview of the individual cities and the Metropolitan Council. Examples from the outline are: Page 4, step 1. "Determine the development capacity...." This involves "preliminary land use allocations (l.e., low density residential, high density residential, commercial, water-oriented commercial, industrial)". The LMCD should not do that, the individual cities need to make these determinations. If the LMCD attempted this step, it would likely alienate the cities that now support us in our current efforts. 1