Laske Owasso Task Force - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Noise issues: The buay put up in Aug. 96 to mark 150' fram shore was placed near the railroad trestle because owners thare had noise complaints; their houses are very close to shore (GW). Noise may affect salability of some homes (SP). Egli requested that North obtain for the task force (i) Section 903 of Shoreview code and (ii) a copy of the 1/94 survey or otlier surveys carried out by the Shoreview ad hoc committee on lake regulations. Publicity for the 1/29/97 public input meeting was discussed: Narth will ask Mitch Converse to clarify how other lakes partly or wholly located in Roseville might be affected by ordinance changes aimed at water surface use regulation on Owasso. Can an ordinance be written that is specific ta Owasso? Will this affect other lakes in any way? We need to assure fair representation for everyone affected. Various uiterests, includ'uig public, private, and group, were identified on 10/2 as needing examination by the LOTF. The 1/29 meeting is to obtaui public opinion, primarily from Roseville residents. We need to set "rules" for the 1/29 meeting; speaker time limits, and identification of one's place of residence are possible examples (SN). We may also limit the topies on which wa will take comment. About half of the boaters on Owasso enter via the public access. North will add wording in the city newsletter article about the 1/29 meeting such that "input is sought from Roseville reszdents (or lake use�•s) regard'uig the no-wake buffer ordinance (or water surface use regulatzons)". Written or oral comments will be solicited. The article should specify the issues on which we would like comments (BW, PE). The public meeting will be publicized in the city newsletter, cable TV, the Roseville Review, the Focus, and (ideally) in the Pioneer Press' North Metro section (e.g. Ben Chanco's column; BW). North will contact Ben Chanco about this possibility. The above means of publicizing the meeting may be adequate to inform all residents (SP, JS). Alternatively, a letter to lakeshore awners would assure maximum input froni those most directly and frequently affected by an ordinance change (GW, JG). Lakeshore residents and residents across the street from the lake could receive a city letter, as was done by Dennis Welsch for the neighborhood meeting on this issue last spring. The Lake Owasso Association could send letters, but they would be sent to both Shoreview and Roseville (GW, DA). Potential impact on other Roseville lakes tnight justify letters to rion-Owasso lakesliore owiiers as well (PE). A city letter to all Roseville residents is not possible (SN). Perhaps a letter could be sent to Roseville boat- owners (GW). Members Prok and Stark felt that a city letter to lakeshore owners was unnecessary in light of other publicity and that it might unfairly skew the input we receive. Vanous suggested that input is not the same as voting, and that maaumurn input from all residents is best. Sending the city letter to lakeshore �residents and residents across perimeter streets was seen as a compromise. A motion to send a city letter to Owasso lakeshore residents and residents across Owasso perimeter streets was passed, 5(Wood, Anklan, Gramer, Vanous, Wolfangle) to 3(Prok, Stark, Egli). Meeting adjourned, 9:25 PM. P, Egli, secretary, 11/15/96