Laserfiche WebLink
13. Given the changes resulting from the above Issues, what should the scope of <br />authority be for the 14 Local governments? <br />ScapMvernsients must provide for the administration and enforcement of their <br />shoreland management controls by establishing permit and^fillinm <br />construction, installation of sewage treatment systems, and grading and filling <br />(6120.3900. Subp. 1). Consensus _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ <br />14. What restrictions, if any. should be place on granting variances, <br />conditional uses and nonconformities (6120.3900, subp. 3, 3a, and )? <br />Municipilikes on Lake Minnetonka may grant varlances^^eg^j e^pdltlona^us^^ <br />and upgrade nonconformities that are consistent with the Management^an.- <br />Consensus_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ <br />15. What should the adoption schedule be for the changes resulting from the <br />above issues? <br />f sho«laSd ordinance consistent with the <br />be adopted by each lakeshore community within 12 months of the adoption and <br />imolementation of the Management Plan-.f , Consensus _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ <br />A <br />PROBLEMS AND ISSUES - SHORELAND AESTHETICS <br />In developing the Management Plan for Lake Minnetonka, two perspectives must be <br />maintained. First, developments and policies that apply to^e^ke s 5 j <br />shorelands have direct and indirect effects on people who ««« the lake. Second, <br />people who use the lake have direct and indirect effects on the <br />in the shorelands and the uses of the shorelands. For these reasoM. we need to <br />explore three additional topics to determine if the controls in effect on the <br />lake are sufficient. <br />These topics are vegetation removal, restrictions on li^ts shi^ng out <br />lake and. perhaps, noise. The first two help protect the <br />vho use the lake's surface. The last is included to determine <br />detection needs to be offered to shoreline residents as much as those that use <br />the lake. <br />1. What restrictions should be placed on vegetation removal and grading/filling <br />in the shorelands? <br />^ere seem to be two ways to approach this. The first is to dev(^op and <br />encourage adoption of a^separate vegetation removal ordinance. The second is to <br />include*addltional provlsiLs in the Shoreland Manapment Ordlnape that we have <br />been addressing. The latter seems to be the best alternative, since both <br />developers and administrators would have to comply with only one ordinance. The <br />potential for overlap, conflicting rules^and confusion would be reduced. <br />■ <br />■ <br />■ <br />e <br />s <br />fe <br />fe <br />K <br />a <br />a <br />a <br />a <br />a <br />a <br />a <br />a <br />a