11-03-82 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CITY COUNCIL MEETING, NOVEMBER. 31 1982 —16- 14. DI-MONTREVILLE ACCESS — CONTINUL'Da --Mottaz —if Ym barricad.e it will move the access onto private property. --Brian Crombie, 8120 Demontreville — lousy proposal — would be moving the access onto his property. If barricatdea there is only one place people are going to drive on that lake — that is across our supposedly vacant land. --Dave Garloff—that'sa problem; but we don!t want it where it is. It is not appropriate where it is. --Crombie — it is appropriate where it is because it is City owned. property. It is where it belongs, on City property; and you're talking about putting it on private property. --Eder — not unsympathetic to the problem; but, people have been coming out there for 50 years — now somehow have to find a way to stop it. --Moxgran — suggestion for closing is -to try to get to DM to act quicker.Would this be effective? --Whittaker — DNR does not seem to yield to any kind of pressure. Might call their bluff. --Mottaz — tried in 1965 to get DNR to put an access on this lake. There was no access there at the time and this fact didn.�t burry them at all. --Fou,ks. — DNR indicated that Lake Demontreville is one of the lakes mandated to have public access. MIS/ Novak/Morgan to close the access on Lake Demontreville Discussion - --Novak — this is a very unsafe situation and the City of Lake Elmo should not be sponsoring such a thing, especially since we do not do anything except have it there. Sympathetic to private property owners — but these residents will have to tell those in violation that they cannot cross their land. Time to take some action and place it in the hands of the DNR. --Praser — given the circumstances can see the need and desire to close; but the problems brought up about the use of private property for access may create a worse problem. Before acting on this would like to see a plan for controlling what happens when the access is closed — how will the City go about closing the access — when — with what publicity — what type of signing and police coverage, etc. Would not want to vote to the closing until this would be worked out. --Novak — agrees this should be done but the closing should not be based on the how and whens. --Mottaz — recommended amending the motion to include sending a letter to the County Commissioner and have the County determine.what their legal limits on Demontreville Trail are and that they take the responsibility of access or no access and of people infringing on private property. In closing would not be relieving any problems — would be compounding problems. --.Novak — agreed to the amendment. --Fraser — would like to see a carefully worked out plan — when we close it what do we expect will happen with the people who ordinarily use it — where do we expect them to go — what controls voilMd bo_necessary — what type and where would this action be announced — what type of public hearings would be required. --Novak withdrew her motion — Morgan withdrew second. M/S/P Novak/Mottaz to set up a Council committee to discuss and determine plan of 'action for Council consideration on closing the Demontreville access. The Committee should include a Washington County and DNR representative. Motion carried 5-0. Morgan and Novak offered to serve on the committee.