Laserfiche WebLink
CITY COUNCIL MEETING, NOVEMBER 16, 1982 <br />-14- <br />14. DEMONTREVILLE ACCESS - Continued: <br />Morgan - realize this is not a threat, that would rattle the <br />DNR into activity; but, at least it will bring it to their <br />attention. If given the land it will transfer more of the <br />responsibility of the problem to them. Believes this is one <br />of the more dangerous areas of the City. Has been at least <br />one accident there. Also understand the need to provide <br />access to the lakes, yet, feel there are less Lake Elmo <br />residents fishing and more Lake Elmo people being annoyed <br />than Lake Elmo people being satisified by fishing there. <br />--Mottaz - presented background of the access. <br />1968 - East Oakdale Park Plan called for this access area <br />to be developed for park purposes, including boat <br />access. <br />1969 - Resolution was passed petitioning the State to deed <br />the land (access location) to the township. Read <br />resolution ..... paragraph two critical - and, WHEREAS, <br />the land is desirable and needed by the township <br />of East Oakdale.... for recreational purposes and <br />public use <br />1969 - East Oakdale Park Plan, and <br />1974 - Lake Elmo Park Plan was an extension of the earlier <br />township plan and called for public access, lake access <br />and park land in this general area. <br />Lake Elmo Park Committee also accepted a plan proposal <br />making the area in question a 'mini -parkland would be <br />included in the Lake Elmo Park system. <br />- City of Lake Elmo has every right and responsibility <br />to establish public access as does any other City in the <br />State. Have just as much business doing this as they <br />have establishing tennis courts, ba11£ields, or ski <br />trails or whatever else is part of a park system. <br />Letters have been received about trespassing on private <br />property.- County owns as part of their right-of-way <br />33 ft. west of the center line in this area, or .201 <br />beyond the blacktop. If someone drives on a sodded <br />area but within the 33 ft. r-o-w they are not trespassing <br />on private property. <br />Safety Issue - explained the County's design standard <br />for sight distance at an intersection. This area meets <br />County safety standards and is considered a safe intersection <br />by the County. <br />--Novak- Asked why this material was not brought up at the Committee <br />- meeting. <br />--Mottaz- opposed the closing of the access. There are reasons why <br />the access should not be closed. If it is unsafe now, the <br />only thing closing - would;adcbmplish would be to move <br />the unsafe situation away from someonelis.;house and onto <br />private property ".front of someone elses house. <br />--Fraser - believe the material the committee presented was what <br />was asked - job done well and adequately. Reluctancy <br />to close it is based on consideration of the facts. <br />--Mottaz - this access, not by size, but by usage, one of the <br />major park facilities the City has to offer. The City <br />would be ill --advised to close this by pressure from some <br />residents without holding a public hearing. <br />