05-21-91 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

last 13 years via these sites as well as casual access up and down our street has not caused complaint or hardship, nor calls to the park board or sheriff's department. We are grateful to the City of Lake Elmo for providing this park property and maintaining the grounds and access as a natural wildlife area. If potential park users are unaware of existing access sites we suggest these sites be posted as park entrances. They are currently not identified as park entrances. If it be determined these two entrances are inadequate for park access we then encourage the park board to seek a suitable site which would benefit the public but not cause disruption and hardship to the community. We feel the access easement between lots 13 and 14 was ill- conceived for the following reasons: The lots along the north side of Highlands Trail were never plotted to allow for an 8 ft. park walkway access easement; none of the lots were allowed the buffer required for such an easement. The lots were plotted all the same width, narrow and deep, and simply do not lend themselves well to the proposed thoroughfare. The access easement was granted after development had begun in the neighborhood, with most homes already in place. The easement was also granted without consulting the current residents at that time. At the time Derrick Land Company granted this easement Derrick was engaged in a legal dispute over lot lines with Robert and Patricia Jungmann, owners and residents of lot 13. The easement was granted adjacent to the disputed lot line, effectively restricting the Jungmann's from land aquisition or variance for a driveway already in place at that time, as well as causing considerable delay in a timely resolve of the lot line dispute. (Jungmann has moved the driveway at his own expense) In 1982 the Lake Elmo City Council viewed the access site on a visit led by Jeanie Novak and determined at that time this site to be one of the poorest locations for a walkway into the park. The main reason for that judgement was the close proximity of both dwellings to the shared property line. For whatever reasons, these two homes are located closer together than any two on the street. Because of the location of the Jungmann's home on lot 13 and the location of the Cusick's home on lot 14, this proposed walkway will pass directly adjacent to their family areas. Both families' privacy and future enjoyment of their homes will be disrupted; property value will be adversely affected as well. Also, concerns of vandalism, trash, noise, burglary, parking, maintenance, etc. have been voiced by the residents of this area. A fenced and blacktopped walkway will breakup the continuity and openness of our neighborhood, a prime reason for moving into this area in the first place. We are not a community that puts up fences; there are currently no fences in our area. We also wish to halt encroaching urbanism and maintain our open rural setting. A fenced and paved walkway is a very inappropriate addition to this end!