1997-05-01_AgendaPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Liost people who are reluctant to change to 1 ~0' expressed resen•ations which LOTF can tr}• to address (PE). Some of the issues raised were: noise - T~•pical le~•els are 69-"'1 db. about 60~c of the legal limit (D~). safet}'enforeement - P'~: C misuse and close passage of power boats to shore or other boats are concerns: LOTF should recommend that Rose~•rlle contribute ~ for additional enforcement. future lake use -Current sheriff's polio}• is to appro~•e safe installations (e. g. slaloms) urith eit~• approval. but cit}• and counh• personnel. will. change, as mat• the number of boats and PR'Cs, (KL). Trailer parking at the boat launch and the count~• lot on'_~. Owasso is the. wat• to limit boats on the lake. permitting and public input -Public input to cities is needed for future permit hearings, particularl~• if a SR'-end slalom is requested. The combination of negative public opinion and potential en~•ironmental damage should discourage the cit}• council from appro~•ing requests for a S~: -end slalom (PE). Gar•~• R-god will request a written statement from the sheriff that describes their requirement for cit~• appro~•al. In addition to a recommendation for the 1~0' no-wake buffer that includes towed items!persons, LOTF recommendations to Council could include (1) placement of distance-marking buo~•s at the boat launch and near S. O•-vasso B1~•d. One buoy exists: another should be placed along S. Owasso. The sheriff should decide locations for additional buoy(s) near the boat launch. (2) signage at the boat launch including new laws and D\R map (3) Roseville funding of additional ~t•ater patrol hours. (=~) public input at permit hearings and procedures for recording unresolved complaints. (~) a strong recommendation against cit}' approval of an~• future ST.3: -end slalom course, (6) support for education about the new ordinance and rele~•ant state laws. c•ia mailings to riparians article or insert in the cit~• nect•sletter (e.g.:~pril or June): or handouts for distribution at the boat launch. «.-e can also recommend action on other issues. including (-) participation in goose han•esting. Last ~•ear Shoreview and the Lake _=.ssociation each contributed 5600 but Roseville did not contribute. (8) lake level augmentation • the scheduled removal of the well on \ Owasso. (9) control of purple loosestsife infestation. Other concerns: (10) should the entire lake be no-wake at some gi~•en high water level? This w•as passed b5• Prior Lake (in a "model" ordinance, according to the D\R)(GTt~. Council can act on the no-wake ordinance and then (separatel}•) could pass resolutions or motions to adhere to LOTF recommendations on other issues (S'~). ~: ritten descriptions of the sheriff's permitting polie~• and LOTF's written report to the cit~• will be ~•aluable "histor~•" for future decision-makers (J~-). The 1994 Shore~•iew• ordinance was reviewed for acceptabilit~• b}• the LOTF. 'Members favored adding the 1~0' no-wake restriction for towed persons-equipment. Deleted language requiring 300' boat-boat or boat-swimmer distances (`'02.03) is similar to state boating law (p. 26 of Boating Guide). Shorec•ieu.• code 903.023 (no boat between dock and raft if s~t•immer) w•as acceptable. 3. Prepare recommendation to Cit}' Council. Task Force members voted to support adopting an ordinance similar to Shoreview's, with the additional stipulation that watercraft and~or towed persons or devices shall abide b~• the 150' no- wake buffer: 6 aces, 1 abstention. LOTF minutes 2 2129-