04-14-1986 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

In October of 1985, the Council and the MCTFLM approved -. mission statement and a review procedure, including a work schedule. MCTFLM PLANNING PROCESS Following a November meeting with Lake Minnetonka communities, lake managing agencies and other concerned parties, the MCTFLM prepared a planning approach for its work on the iSSLIeS. A letter from MCTFLM Chair Scully (Appendix A) explains the process in detail. In summary, the municipalities and other public agencies were asked to show how they would implement the 1933 Lake Minnetonka Task Force (83TF) recommendations (see Background section) for creating reliable parking spaces for car/trailer combinations at or near public boat launches and for shoreline access sites. During December and January, the MCTFLM met to review data, to hear from members and informed sources on various aspects of the problems and to develop its own report outline. An outcome of those deliberations was a de^.ision to make process recommendations rather than attempting a point by point review of known sites. Another was the decision that implementation of the 83TF recommendations would to an appr,)priate way to begin to meet public needs for improved access to Lake Minnetonka. 'TASK FORCE DELIBERAi10NS The MCTFLM collected and considered the input communities sent in response to the Novembe- request. (Community input is attached a5 Appendix B.) The MCTFLM also developed draft position statements, inciuding findings and recommendations on eight issues identified as the areas which the task tome could analyze, make findings and produce recommendations (sometimes as a list of alternatives), as the central part of its report. The issues are: 1. Adequacy of Boat and Shoreline Access on Lake Minnetonka 2. King's Point Boat Launch Site 3. Non-iucal Fu^d ng for Land Related Development Costs 4. Non -local funding for on -lake costs 5. intergovernmental coordination 6. Municipal policies atout lake use and development 7. Commercial access 8. Status of research on lake use Education was mentioned fregUently as another issue area. During task force discu•,!:i.)n, the topic was addressed within several other issues and is included in the discussions on funding (no. 4), coordination (no. 5) and research (no. 8) . The community responses and draft positions rn the eight iss,.�r- were distri- buted prior to two public meetings which MCTFLM held. One was at Minnetonka on the lake, the other in Edina. 2