1997-01-23_AgendaPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Noise issues: The buoy put up in Aug. 96 to mark 150' from shore was placed near the railroad trestle because owners there had noise complaints; their houses are very close to shore (GVV). Noise ma_y 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 other sun~eys carried out by the Shoreview ad hoc committee on lake regulations. Publicity for the 1:!29/9~ public input meatifig was discussed: North 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 to Owasso? Will this affect other lakes in any way? We need to assure fair representation for everyone affected. Various interests, ilcluduIg public, private, and group, were identified oI2 10/2 as needing examination by the LOTF. The 1/29 meeting is to obtain 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 topics on which we 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 residents (or lake users) regarduIg the IIO-wake buffer ordinance (or tivater surface use ragulatiotts)". Written or oral comments will be solicited. The article should specify the issues on wrhich 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 h~letro section (e.g. Ben Chanco's column.; BVv). North will contact Ben Chanco about this possibilit}•. The above means of publicizing the meeting maybe adequate to infolm all residents (SP, JS). Alternatively, a letter to Lakeshore owners would assure maximum input from those most directly and frequently affected by an ordinance change (G~', 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 then would be sent to both Shoreview and Roseville (G~', DA). Potential impact on other Roseville lakes might justify letters to non-Ovi~asso Lakeshore ow~Ilers as w-e11 (PE). A city letter to all Roseville residents is not possible (SN). Perhaps a letter could be sent to Roseville boat- ott-ners (GW}. IViembers 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. Venous suggested that input is not the same as voting, and that maximum input from all residents is best. Sending the city letter to Lakeshore residents and residents across perimeter streets was seen as a compromise. A IIIOtlon t0 SeIld a Cltti' letter to Owasso Lakeshore residents and residents across Owasso perimeter streets was passed, 5 (Wood, Anklan, Gramer, Various, Wolfangle) to 3 (Prok, Stark, Egli). Fleeting adjourned, 9:25 Pl~i. P. Egli., secretary. 11-'15196