My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-09-1987 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1987
>
02-09-1987 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/3/2026 1:29:35 PM
Creation date
2/3/2026 1:22:54 PM
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.
/
670
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
Lake should be of int -set to LMCD because of the number of different ways that <br />problems similar to Lake Minnetonka's are handled in a different setting. For <br />example, "public" access is provided through both public and private launch <br />ramps on a fee basis, with smaller boats paying significantly smaller fees <br />(e.g., $2 versus $10.). <br />New York <br />In New York the interest centered on the Finger Lakes and I = George. <br />There has been remarkably little lake management work done on the Finger Lakes, <br />probably a a result of their size (most are two to three times the size of Lake <br />Minuetonka), their distance from large population concentrations, and their un- <br />complicated shape and shoreline conditions. <br />The only one with any comprehensive planning activities at all is Lake <br />Canandaigua, a 17 aqua.: mile lake near Rochester, New York. A plan has been <br />prepared that looks at most aspects of this lake, but it is a rather general, <br />beginning document. <br />A significant amount of planning has been done on Lake George in eastern up- <br />state New York. This is a 44 square mile lake, about twice the size of Lake <br />Minnetonka. While it is remote from population centers and its shoreline is <br />not as heavily developed as that of Lake Minnetonka it is interesting for two <br />reasons. <br />First, the issues addressed in its plan are very similar to those for Lake <br />Minnetonka. Water quality, shoreland and upland development, and surface use <br />conflicts are paramount. The way the issues are stated and the solutions pro- <br />posed should be directly applicabLe to the Lake Minnetonka situation. <br />Second, the planning environment of Lake George is worth examination. The lake <br />is "within" a state park - Lake George Park - which is a subunit of the <br />Adirondack State Park. Lake George Park is almost contiguous with the Lake <br />George watershed. The plan was done by the Lake George Commission, an agency <br />created under New York statute. The state "park" purposefully includes much <br />private land and a variety of existing and planned land uses. It is more of a <br />cultural designation than a public park as this term is defined in Minnesota, <br />and even elsewhere in New York. The allowance for a multiplicity of uses with- <br />in a publicly -designated resource area and the focus on the lake itself as the <br />primary planning objective are the items of interest. However, most of these <br />recommendatiune are couched in terms of "Should" and "may". <br />California <br />The discussion centered around Mission Bay, San Diego. While this a salt -water <br />body, many of the shoreline and surface use issues parallel those of Lake <br />Minnetonka. The bay is planned and managed by the City under Federal and state <br />coastal management legislation. Controls consist mostly of shoreland zoning an <br />some water use restrictions, mostly of speed and activities. The problema of <br />the Bay are seen wire as land use and water quality problems than as surface <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.