01-18-83 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CITY COUNCIL MEETING, JANUARY 18, 1983 7. DEMONTREVILLE ACCESS - CONTINUED: --Morgan - If the rest of the Council disagrees with the March 1 ( closing, it should not be delayed more than 30 days and there should be some visable sign of progress from the County and the State - otherwise it should be closed April 1. MIS/ Morgan/Dunn to close the Demontreville access as of March 1, 1983. Discussion: --Eder - would prefer to see this be tabled for 30 days to see if it cannot be resolved. --Dunn - by closing, will bring more attention to this matter and get the County to start moving. Delaying the closing just gives these other agencies more time to drag their feet. --Eder - people who are going to have the problem in the next 30, 60, or 90 days are the property owners. We want them to take a positive approach and qo to the County and ask for this funding - also want:the fishermen's -support - do not want to aggravate all kinds of people. County has said they are in favor - it's the matter of dollars - we need to have them set this as a priority. Do not want to risk loosing the funds. --Mazzara - would resist voting to close the access. Feel there are positive steps being taken to open a new one. Personally talked to the County Commissioners, they seem very positive and receptive about the new plan. Do not think it would benefit Lake Elmo, fishermen or anyone else to close this and wait for a new one to open. Keep the present one open- take precautions for.the safety hazards. --Fraser asked the Administrator if the following statement is correct - Big push with the DNR and the County for the realignment of the road is that we presently have an access that many people want because it serves a good purpose, fishing, and we have a bad safety congestion problem: If we close the access, then that problem has been technically done away with - might this have the effect of slowing down DNR by not providing as much positive pressure to get the County to contribute some funds and defeat our basic purpose. Would this weaken our position? --Whittaker - Yes, County staff has indicated that they think closing the access would , in effect, take them off the hook. There wouldn't be a safety problem on their County road and they wouldn't see any need to immediately invest in a by-pass for a new access. Have tried both approaches with DNR - just have to keep at DNR. Motion failed 2-3. Fraser, Mazzara, Eder opposed. --Morgan - not opposed to an access to the lake. Position was not a spur of the moment reaction - been involved with this situation since 1970. M/S/P Mazzara/Fraser to keep the Lake Demontreville access open and provide the following safety provisions: 1. A barrel of sand be located at the access to be used to provide a saf_ar, slower approach to Demontreville Tr, up the access ramp. 2. Gravel or rock placed at the base of the ramp where the ice has seperated from the shore. 3. Contact the County about plowing the snow along the parking area off the shoulder 4. Warning sign posted notifying the public of the safety hazards and requesting their cooperation for safe use of the access. 5. Notification and request to the County Sheriff for additional patrol, heh;-possible, and eiUJorcement of this area.