10-27-1997 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

J COUNCIL MEETING OCT 2 7 199T REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITYOFORONO DATE: October 23, 1997 ITEM NO = /3 Department Approval: Name Gregory A. Gappa Title Director of Public Services Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Administrators Report Item Description: Stubbs Bay Access to Lake Minnetonka Background of Situation An issue regarding public access to Lake Minnetonka at the south end of Stubbs Bay Road has been brought to the City's attention by the adjoining property owner. Lisa Olson has appeared before the Park Commission and sent a letter to the City Council expressing her concerns about this situation. The City own* access to Lake Minnetonka on platted right-of-way for Oak Street. (See attached plat map). The area east of the extended centerline of Stubbs Bay Road is part of the Olseifs^ property. They own the house and property in the northeast quadrant of the Stubbs Bay ^ Road/County Road 84 intersection. Their property also includes lakeshore land south of County Highway 84. They recently purchased this property, which had been owned by the previous owner for many years. There is an existing gravel access to the lake located on the extended east side of Stubbs Bay Road. This access has been in place and used for at least the last 20 years. The City has hauled in gravel to maintain this access and has installed a seasonal dock at this location for many years. This access is also a major snowmobile route providing access from Lake Minnetonka along Stubbs Bay Road to the DNR Luce Line Trail. Snowmobiles are allowed on the Luce Line trail west of Stubbs Bay Road. This access has been used for many years with no concerns expressed by the previous property owner. There are two possible explanations for this use of private property for public access over a long period. One possible reason is that nobody ever checked the exact location of the City owned land, and it was assumed that the public access was located on City owned land. Another explanation is that the property owner was aware of this encroachment and allowed it to continue because it was not a major impact to his property. My understanding is that the location of the lake access was never an issue that was brought to the City’s attention. The location of the existing access is in a desirable spot. The adjacent City land to the west is wetland with a steep bank down from County Road 84. It is quite possible that the shoreland in the existing access area was wetland and was filled years ago to provide more desirable acces*! to the lake.