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 />Alternative Solutions that should be studied: <br /> <br />1) Adopt a 150 foot No-Wake Zone from the shoreline into the lake <br />because it can enhance the personal and boat safety by providing a common <br />and standard water surface use policy for enforcement purposes. Currently, <br />because of the 300 foot no wake zone in Roseville on some portions of south <br />Lake Owasso, it is nearly impossible to get out of the no-wake zone. ( In order <br />to become effective, the joint powers agreement between the 2 cities must be <br />rewritten.) <br /> <br />2) Work with Shoreview, MnDNR, and Sheriffs staff to see that only one <br />slalom course (existing course) should be allowed on Lake Owasso. <br /> <br />3) A procedure should be established to provide lake neighborhood input <br />into Council and Grass Lake decisions which affect the lake including the <br />activity permits on the lake. <br /> <br />4) Improvement of the environmental quality of the lake and the <br />watershed should occur (perhaps through the Grass Lake Water Management <br />Group). <br /> <br />5) Roseville residents asked to be recognized first (at Roseville meetings) so <br />that they can have some "upfront" communication with their elected officials. <br /> <br />6) Consider a no-wake or speed zone on the south portion of the lake, <br />beyond the "narrows" in the lake, to allow for slower boat, canoeing, and <br />fishing activities. <br /> <br />7) Swimming rafts anchored in the lake may be a boating hazard. A <br />permit is required but no distance from shore is required. <br /> <br />8) Clarification (in the joint powers agreement) regarding the City Council <br />authority versus advisory role in setting standards for activities on the surface <br />of the water. <br /> <br />9) The hours of operation and location on the lake for ski boats/other <br />noisey craft should be reviewed and a consensus developed. <br /> <br />2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.