CCP 01312022 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

RCA Attachment D is little to no oversight by the DNR and is rarely out on this lake. He noted there are four different habitats on the south end of the lake which will be directly impacted by the docks. There is also seven hundred feet of wetland habitat in front of the proposed development and somehow the property owners will have to get their boats through them to get to their dock. He explained he also had concerns about runoff after the lots are developed. There is no regulation for pesticide application, no regulation for fertilizer application and will run into the lake and cause impacts. Ms. Wanda Davies, 767 Hynal Drive Ms. Davies expressed her concern with the traffic in the narrow space between the lily pads and cattails. She thought it should be a no-wake zone and would like to see Roseville make some effort to do that. She was also looking at the dimensions of the dock in the shared access for the conditional use permit and the dock is fifty feet long. That is a really long dock that could hold up to six docks. Given that the DNR is allowing cities now to regulate docks and some other regulation on the lake, she thought a decision on this CUP should be deferred until the Council has an opportunity to look at a new Ordinance with respect to regulating dock use and other things that the City is now permitted to do within the lake. Mr. Andrew Walz, 3097 Sandy Hook Drive Mr. Walz explained he has a bunch of concerns. He was concerned about the shape and quantity of the lots. The number one thing the City can do to preserve the wetlands is to reject this plan as proposed and reduce the number of lots or at least revisit the judgement call that was made about the irregular shape. He believed that was an exhibit of poor judgement and he did not think the exterior boundaries are so irregular that it warrants creating the hockey stick shaped lots with docks coming out of them. He thought the City, with this plan, will be setting the DNR up for failure in their ability to be able to protect the wetland areas. He would encourage the Council to have conversations with the DNR and watershed on some unanswered questions. Mr. Joe Bester, Shoreview Mr. Bester explained he has many of the same concerns that previous speakers have. He wanted to emphasize the sensitive nature of Lake Owasso. He reviewed the surrounding watershed around the lake with the Commission. He indicated the Bar Engineering report referenced in a letter he wrote the City the hypothesis going into it is internal excess nutrient loading was from in the lake and after some additional research Bar Engineering was surprised to find that in fact that it came from Central Park. This does underscore the fact that things that are close by really have a major impact on lake. Anything the City can do to help preserve trees and minimize impervious pavement and other things will help Lake Owasso in the long term. Mr. Ben Eide, 519 Hynal Drive Mr. Eide agreed about the density. He believed it is more than should be allowed in that area. Currently there are three lots, and the development should be allowed those three lots, but the development is going from three access points to the lake and trying to get six access points with their added access point. That will be a lot of docks going through that area. The docks will have to be at least two hundred to two hundred fifty feet each to get through the cattails out to the water and is a lot of dock Page 12 of 65