My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-20-79 CCM
LakeElmo
>
City Council
>
City Council - Final Meeting Minutes
>
1970's
>
1979
>
11-20-79 CCM
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/18/2025 6:41:56 PM
Creation date
10/1/2019 3:58:03 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
18
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
LAKE' ELMO CITYCOUNCIL MEE,'TING, NOVEMBME 209 1979 —2-• <br />ART SCTIAEF'ER, JR., COUNTY COMMISSIONER <br />Regional Park — The Council asked the status of the launch <br />designated in the south/west corner of Lake Elmo and also the <br />type of boats the planner is suggesting for 12 boats the lake <br />will handle. Commissioner Schaeffer said he thinks the planners <br />were referring to runabout type boats. The Council .repeated <br />it concern about high horeepowered boats on the lake and want <br />the launch designed to restrict their access, The Council does <br />not feel this is an unreasonable request as any design limits <br />a type of -use; and this should be addressed before the park <br />is opened.. <br />Pott suggested that if the Council does not want water skiing <br />on -the lake and design an access to restrict this, their should <br />also be an ordinance prohibiting water skiing on the lake. This <br />would make the regulation applicableto all, lakeshore owners as <br />well as non—lakeshore owners. <br />Mottaz feels water skiing is not compatable with any other <br />use of the lake; but does not feel at this point such an <br />ordinance is necessary and control can be exercised by not <br />providing a facility to launch ski boats. Pott said if the <br />City had an anti —water skiing ordinance the idea of the carry— <br />over access may be easier to sell to the park planners. <br />Armstrong feels the same type of access would be constructed <br />even with such an ordinances and the City would be left with <br />policing and enforcing the law; design of the access is the <br />key. <br />Morgan feels the planners are making this park much more <br />active than its definition of "park reserve". Ile feels <br />the City must keep pressuring to keep all uses as passive <br />as possible, and make the park an asset to the City rather <br />than a liability. <br />The Administrator sad the City has some responsibility to <br />the lakeshore owners as they will bear the brunt of cleaning <br />up after park users. Again' enforcement of regulations is <br />a, major question; design of the access is imperative, the <br />law won't help. <br />The Council restated its desire for access to the park from <br />County 17. Thane Tiudeau suggested contacting, Bob Notherout <br />or some Met Council Representative to attend a meeting. <br />has indicated in the past the desire for local input to set <br />up programs to run these regional parks. <br />Johnson feels the meeting the City had with Brauer and the <br />County adequately explained, what the City wanted and suggested <br />those alternatives to presented. to -the consultant end request <br />detailed concepts of how those can be accomplished. They are <br />there to present alternatives, not ,just one concept. <br />The City wants to be involved as planning continues for the <br />park. Presently, there is much confusion who to contact <br />with questions or problems, the City requests the County <br />Board, the consultant or•,**00ver is -responsible fbr decisions <br />to'keep the City of Lake Elmo informed of all phases of deve-topment. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.