Laserfiche WebLink
Mm <br />4,-. ■^., <br />' • 4t:. <br />i-vr^,:-,viii-jS»- <br />> ■■■ . * .<^V-‘ <br />If p <br />%'-'-p <br />b-ilfv'" <br />:s« <br />-*--7- <br />■J <br />".SS <br />pp<Sf-> <br />iMf'- <br />Slk. <br />W ■..... <br />:v <br />Is^;..>>%-;a.j-!'j;KMm'■mm,pi . - . <br />■• ' '■•••,' ■ ■ill' ■i.Ea;v: <br />^1- :. <br />®:' <br />-•* ' <br />!•' *f-:# <br />III. other Issues <br />Outlets <br />Gene <br />the <br />new <br />Stromraen distributed a memo he had prepared summarizing <br />LMCD’s concerns regarding such lots being utilized in <br />developments to provide lake access to backlots. <br />Requirements in the DNR shoreland regs for such lots were <br />discussed. and the concensus of the members seemed to be <br />that incorporation of these standards into the cities’ <br />shoreland controls would sufficiently handle the issue. <br />B.Lighting of properties <br />Gene Strommen reported that the L.'ICD has been receiv ing <br />increasing complaints over the past several years about <br />lights shining out over the water and generally degrading <br />the night-time esthetics of the lake. He also mentioned <br />that the LMCD has developed draft regulations which would <br />address the problem by requi;ing a LMCD dock 1icense if a <br />property has lights that shine beyond the length of the <br />dock. He said the draft regs have been distributed to the <br />cities for comment, but that the proposal is not receiving <br />much support from them. He indicated the LMCD would rather <br />see the individual cities hand 1 the problem. J. Uttley <br />suggested the LMCD might considei working with thi LMLOA to <br />educate landowners about the problem and try to achieve <br />voluntary improvement. J Hurr suggested that cities could <br />address the issue by just requiring landowners not to light <br />areas beyond their property. <br />IV. Next meeting <br />April 9, and to then meet <br />of each month after that, <br />height limit issue on 4/9 <br />Members decided to meet again on <br />at least every second Thursday <br />They also decided to address the <br />and try to settle on an acceptable definition, number, and <br />situations (such as properties screened by topography) which <br />could be exempted. <br />i'.' r v4‘/vE -. ^ ' <br />-‘A-