My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf_02821
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
PF2000 - PF2999
>
2800
>
pf_02821
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 12:13:15 PM
Creation date
12/8/2004 1:19:56 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
2821
Planning Files - Type
Planning-Other
Address
2660 CIVIC CENTER DR
Applicant
LAKE OWASSO ORDINANCE AMEND
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
79
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
<br />distance from shore is required. <br /> <br />8) Some residents asked for clarification (in the joint powers agreement) <br />regarding the City Council authority versus advisory role in setting standards for <br />activities on the surface of the water. (Currently state statute gives this final <br />authority to the Commissioner of Natural Resources.) The Sheriffs water patrol <br />staff has the authority to issue water surface activity permits, but told the residents <br />that if no agreement can be reached between the two cities, no permits and few <br />regulations can be enforced. <br /> <br />Since that meeting, staff has received very few comments (pro or con) but has <br />received calls regarding which ordinances are in effect. Some clarification was <br />provided by Mitch Converse and lake resident Eric Egli. The current Roseville <br />ordinance states that the no-wake setback is 300 feet. The Shoreview ordinance <br />now states that the no-wake setback is 150 feet on Shoreview lakes. However, there <br />is question whether this ordinance currently applies to Lake Owasso, since the lake <br />is in two cities and the cities did not adopt a joint powers agreement stating that <br />they agreed upon a common 150 foot no-wake setback. The city attorney's staff is <br />reviewing which ordinance takes precedent in Shoreview; the old 300 foot no-wake <br />setback or the newly adopted 150 foot no-wake setback. <br /> <br />Alternative Actions: <br /> <br />In all cases, the Council (by city policy) may wish to provide more opportunity for <br />. public comment regarding lake uses and permits that have previously been <br />considered administrative matters. <br /> <br />1) The Council could agree to work with the City of Shoreview City Council to <br />adopt a revised joint powers agreement, making the setbacks consistent, regulating <br />the number and location of slalom courses, providing for enforcement by the <br />Sheriffs Water Patrol and annual environmental quality monitoring and reporting <br />by the Grass Lake Water Management organization. (To date no official comments <br />have been received from the Grass Lake managers regarding this no-wake action.) <br /> <br />2) The Council could decide to retain the 300 foot no-wake setback, but request the <br />city attorney's staff to update the language to more contemporary wording, and also <br />attempt to meet with the Shoreview City. Council over the issues of speed and <br />number of slalom courses. <br /> <br />3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.