Laserfiche WebLink
These alternatives have the »ost potential of affecting the City of Minnetonka <br />Management Plan, yet an issue that has significant implications for the future <br />aesthetics of the lake. <br />Given our planning context of "Limits of Acceptable Change" we need to make a <br />conscious decision with respect to building height out of the shorelands. If <br />there are to be no limits, let all involved understand the implications of that <br />decision. If there are to be limits, there needs to be full understanding of <br />the costs to be borne by selected communities. <br />We need to discuss this at the February meeting. <br />ALTERNATIVES: <br />A. Leave building height as a local option. <br />B. Select different building heights based on zoning district. <br />7. What limits should be placed on the use of outlots for lake access? <br />POINT OF INFORMATION: _ ^ <br />Another subcommittee will address the issue of lake access. That subco^ittee <br />will need to address whether controls should be imposed on the growth of boats <br />stored on or gaining access to the lake. One alternative is to consider placing <br />a ban on the use of outlots to give non-riparian residents of subdivision access <br />to the lake as one part of an overall control program. This issue is addressed <br />in 6120.3300 Subpart 2(E). ^ <br />We would like to receive your guidance, thoughts and concerns about that <br />alternative. Specifically, we would like to discuss: <br />A) community reaction <br />B) impact on community development <br />C) impact on tax base <br />D) position likely to be ta!-en by your council <br />SUGGESTION: Controls already exist through the LMCD that limits the number of <br />watercraft that may be placed on the outlot. Those standards could replace <br />those proposed by the DNR since they already accomplish the Intended purpose of <br />the DNR's proposed regulations. Standards applying to the upland areas could be <br />adopted as they appear in the regulations. <br />a) the outlot must meet the ^inimvyn area and width requirements ot tne <br />applicable zoning district.Consensxis _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ __ <br />b) must be suitable for development under the requirements of the <br />applicable zoning district. 'U ^Consensus j-tS_ _ <br />c) the nvimber of watercraft allowed must be consistent with the rules and <br />regulations of the LMCD. .Consensus _ _ _V <_ _ _ _ __ <br />d) must be jointly owned by all purchasers of lots in the subdivision. <br />Consensus _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ __ <br />e) must met the requirements of the local subdivision ordinance. <br />Consensus V <br />ALTERNATIVES: <br />A. Adopt the DNR proposed rules for number of watercraft allowed. <br />B. Adopt less restrictive standards for upland areas. <br />C. Adopt more restrictive standards for upland areas.