My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PRECM 06-05-1985
NewBrighton
>
Commissions
>
Commissions-OLD
>
Parks And Recreation
>
Minutes Park & Recreation Commission Meetings P&R 01200
>
MINUTES
>
1985
>
PRECM 06-05-1985
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/12/2007 2:49:05 AM
Creation date
3/30/2007 11:33:08 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
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
Council Minutes <br />May 14, 19$5 <br />Page Twelve "` <br />In response to a question concerning next year's boat activity, <br />Anderson responded this recommendation is for 19$5 approval, <br />19$5 would be monitored and 1986's plan would be determined <br />early in 19$6. <br />Anderson discussed the safety aspect of the proposed plan, <br />staining the proposal includes bauying a channel that would <br />be separate from the eastern area of the swimming area and <br />would be totally separate from the beach. <br />Resident expressed concern far enforcing the "No Wake" signs <br />on bouys, and felt the city should be responsible for enforce- <br />ment. <br />Benke noted we have na control on the traffic on the water; <br />Ramsey County's Water Patrol would have to enforce the regu- <br />latianS. <br />Resident asked why this issue was being contemplated now, <br />and felt nothing should be done until 19$7 per the Master Plan. <br />Schmidt noted that although it wouldn't cost us any more to <br />have a temporary boat launch in 1985, in 196 we will have <br />the question on control. <br />Benke stated if we provide a temporary access for five boats, <br />we have the opportunity in 1985 to find out if that level of <br />activity is going to create operating problems; at the end of <br />19$5 we may decide operating problems are so great that we <br />have to remove the boat launch. <br />Another resident felt it should wait until 19$7 when it could <br />be done properly. <br />A resident has never seen anything temporary for the public <br />taken away, noting it's usually there to stay. <br />Blomquist asked if we could be challenged in 1985 to provide <br />access to the lake,and if there would be any restrictions in <br />1986 when the beach on the south end is closed. <br />Anderson responded that the city petitioned the Watershed <br />District to clean up Long Lake eight or nine years ago at <br />the request of the Long Lake homeowners; the 4atershed Dis- <br />trict petitioned the EPA far a demonstration grant; the PCA <br />now says the EPA could decide to sue the city to recover its <br />monies. Anderson stated that, as far as 19$6 is concerned, <br />if we do take the pasture that it is not safe to launch boats <br />because of swimmers, if the swimmers are removed and placed <br />an the east side, justification to remove the boat launch is <br />no longer present. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.