10-22-1990 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The Sh'^reland Management Chapter and Appendix C has come under sharp attack in the past months. A vocal minority of the cities oppose the Chapter, primarily because they perceive that adoption of this chapter and appendix will limit their future options to redevelop their communities. But those argunents are counter to policy set by the State Legislature, rules as implemented by the DNR, and demonstrably detrimental to the water quality of Lake Minnetonka. The Shoreland Management Chapter and Appendix C need to be adopted with only minor change for three reasons: 1. Without it, there are no effective environmental controls for the lake; water quality will seriously degrade over the coming years. 2. Without it, the cities will be subject to the same regulations because the DNR will enforce its program; we have made only minor changes in the DNR program. 3. Without it, the LMCD will suffer serious loss of credibility with other cities supporting the plan, and the other managing agencies. If the shoreland management chapter is not adopted, we will have to completely rework the Environmental Quality Chapter, seeking other means of protecting the lakeshore. Environmental protection of the lake is totally dependent upon restrictions on redevelopment within 1,000 feet of the shoreline. Wayzata has taken the lead arguing that our rules are too inflexible. But in fact, our suggest standards and criteria to be used as a guide for developing local shoreland ordinances offer more flexibility than the DNR existing rules and regulations. The DNR has indicated in meetings that they will accept the less restrictive elements of our program as contained in Appendix C. The October 12 outline distributed by Wayzata repetitively argues that our chapter (and the DNR's rules) "do not give sufficient attention to the existing development patterns, cr the future land use objectives of the individual lakeshore communities." (This same point is reiterated on pages 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9). But the LMCD Board should give serious consideration to rejecting that argument. If the State Legislature and the DNR believed that existing development patterns or future land use objectives posed no threats to state lakes, there would be no legislatively mandated Shoreland Management Program. It simply would not be needed. But the State Legislature has mandated that lakeside cities cannot continue development without regard to the adverse effects to the lakes. Under our Shoreland Management Chapter and Appendix. Wayzata and Spring Park can continue to redevelop their downtown areas, maintain their present character, and continue traditional uses within the shorelands. Outside of the shorelands, Wayrata can redevelop and expand without these restrictions. But within 1,000 feet of the lake, Wayzata will be precluded from redevelopment inconsistent with the DNR regulations, whether or not the LMCD Board adopts this chapter. Various cities, especially Spring Park, have suggested various changes in wording and Intent. We have accommodated most of those to assure reasonable flexibility, without allowing unrestrained development that will unquestionably degrade the water quality of the lake. The Cliapter before the Board on Wednesday is significantly Improved, less restrictive and more flexible than the Public Review Draft issued in April. But it still achieves the reasonable environmental protection goals. RECEIVtU OCT 22 1990 L.M.C.D. David J. Arndorfer