04-20-82 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CITY COUNCIL MEETING, APRIL 20, 1982 7. REGIONAL PARK AMENDMENTS - Continued --Eder - let the County Board develop a policy to be followed by the Park Manager. Policy should not be written in the plan. Fishinq Decks, page 7 - asked for clarification - wouldn't -input be more appropriate from DNR? --Fox - DNR specifically recommended local fishermen for input. --Mottaz - questioned the change in the number of fishing decks, from l-to 12. Won't increases such as this and the horses put the County in a position of being over 20% active use: --Lockyear - 20o has to do with land development. Additional fishing docks will change this. --Mottaz - Disagrees - a certain amount of land area is necessary to accomodate a certain number of people. Plan should indicate how many people a fishing deck can accomodate. --Lockyear - share the concern about the 80/20 balance. Way to measure the horse density in any area by determining how many horses can be allowed on a trail at one time. This can be done. This is true of fishing pressure on the lake. Can develop standards on how many fishermen can be reasonably allowed at any one time. --Fox - original concept was to have four people per deck. This in response to the Met.Council's questions on the liability of one deck. --Eder - why not put these figures in the Galan? Design should be - centered around the number of persons or horses that canbe accomodated in'the park "-something measurable., --Lockyear - will talk to DNR about fishing pressure. --Fox - the cooperative Water Access Task Force is the Metropolitan Task Force that has been active for several months that is attempting to come up with reasonable use parimeterE: for public accesses. Their proposals will be followed by the County. pg 10. --Eder - this should be an -agency that recommends uses with. said recommendations_ adopted by the County aCnd/or_City, the enforcing agency. Page 12 - Kelvin Ave. should not be a service entrance -- access across the tracks should be closed,- the City has always maintained this position. --Lockyear - problems with the present entrance - entrance road shown on the plan will have to be realigned. --Eder - Page 14 - opposes the statement limiting the bounce on Eagle Point to 1 ft. --Fox - presently have a limited habitat there now. In order to provide clean water for all uses down stream and wildlife, a marsh is required. In order to maintain a marsh need low water body about 3 ft. deep. Marsh cannot survive fluctuation of several feetabovenormal poolwithoutcausing an economic hardship to reestablish the marshland. Weighing the economics against the stewardship - reason this is here is that the marsh won. Today, it is poor to non-existant as a marshland. --Morgan - lake has had considerable bounce over the years and wildlife has survived. Lake Elmo needs the storage area that Eagle Point can provide. For every area of marsh created aye flooding an acre of marsh downstream. Vital to the City to have 200-300 acres of storage site on that lake. --Al Dornfeld, Valley Branch - Watershed is concerned about the 1 ft bounce. Eagle Point has always been planned for a storage/ holding site. The ultimate plan calls for a 6 ft bounce if a 100 yr flood event occurs. Water quality is important; but presently there is no outlet to move these waters downstream.