My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-11-1990 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1990
>
06-11-1990 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/5/2024 11:28:43 AM
Creation date
11/5/2024 11:25:56 AM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
380
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
•- <br />Page 7. This references the appendix A that specifies the <br />authorities with each area. In those two there are, from the <br />City's standpoint, two things not specifically addressed. <br />1. The City's ability under Minnesota Statutes 412.221 <br />Subd 12 to manage and control docks and harbors within <br />its own jurisdiction regardless of the LMCD or other <br />potential subdivisions. <br />2. The fact that while the City's ability to do a joint <br />powers agreement is precluded where there is a County <br />established lake management district (MS459.20). LMCD <br />is not a County established conservation district and as <br />such the City's may not be precluded from doing that. <br />REGIONAL SETTING - <br />Page 10/11. Physical Features - While discussing various aspects <br />of the lake there is no discussion of the interface between the <br />lake and the underlying aquifers (in part because there is no <br />clear scientific evidence of it only best guesses by those <br />familiar with the lake.) <br />II. RECREATION MANAGEI4ENT <br />Page 17. Perspective - The discussion centers around the <br />expectation for growth and that there is a need for LMCD to <br />convert from a passive to an active enforcement and this level of <br />enforcement is going to increase as density increases. The <br />expectation is that such regulation will rectify any conflicts. <br />Although emphasized to a great degree in other parts of the <br />report, the report states that without this regulation further <br />access will need to be terminated. <br />Page 19. Lake Access and Use Management - This area is one of <br />greatest concern because it relates to the growth. As noted on <br />page 19 the program does not establish an upper limit be allowed <br />on the lake and discusses the philosophical reasons for that. <br />Page 21. Historical Patterns - It is interesting to note that the <br />actual amount of storage by lakeshore owners has decreased since <br />1974 with a low being in 1980. The graph on boat storage however <br />does not relate boat storage to level of use at peak and off-peak <br />times nor does it indicate the maximum amount of potential for _ <br />storage, which in turn translates into use on the lake. There is <br />also a concern that relates to what is classified as public_^. <br />' ■ tr'
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.