04-11-1988 - Agenda Packet City Council - regular meeting

Home Browse Search

U mented. An appropriate plan will delineate an adequate process for issue resolution as well as setting appropriate policies for the lake's future. The major drawback of the CAP is the amount of continued involvemert it requires of the Council, which is seeking to reduce the time and effort spent on this part of the region. One possible way to deal with the issue would be for the Critical Area designation to recommend LMCD, with appropriate technical and policy advisement, to function as the responsible planning agenc-F. In essence, this could utilize an existing planning strunture but ensure the implementation of the plan which ensues. This alternative combines elements of the second recommendation and the third, which follows. The Council, if satisfied with assurances which LMCD may be able to provide, could decide to pro- d with an amended and accelerated plan process conducted by LMCD. It would r—otinue to rely on existing struct.:res and authorities and would not require legislative action, or at 'east, not until comprehensive plan made recommendations for legislative action o improve t`,e process now in effect for managing the lake. R E COrVEN DA T I ON That the Metropolitan Council: 1. Convene a meeting or meetings chaired by the Council for policy and staff representativ-3 of existing governmental bodies and agencies which have lake -wide authorities over Lake Minnetonka, including at least Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Hennepin County, Carver County, Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District, Minnehaha C.-eck Watershed District and Lake M'nnetonka Conservation District, to determine if a simplified managerial process for the lake is feasible, using the exi. �q authorities of these and other agencies. The meeting should consider t.__ report and the thoughts cf all concerned agencies in its deliberations. The Council, after the meeting, should consider whether adequate agreement exiz;t%d among the agencies to propose a memorandum of understanding for ratifiUa`.lon by concerned parties. 2. If the Council's understanding, following the meeting in 1'ecom:nendation 1, is that there is not adequate unanimity among the parties responsible for the lake to ratiiy an effective managing process, the Council should request that the E-vironment:l I--t.lity Board submit a recommendation to the Governcr of Minnesota that Lake Minnetonka should be designated as a Critical Area and that a comprehensive surface use management plan rhould be developed and implemented under the Critical Areas Prcgram. The Cc•.ncil should offer to coordinate planning +y state, regional anJ local agencies responsible for the lake. The designation should call for a state approp- riation to the Council to cover plane:..;; casts n^ to provide grants to reimburse municipall. planning costs as consistent wi'.h the Critical f.reas Planning process. JG011A/FROTX0