10-27-1997 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Request for Council Action continued page 3 of 4 October 23, 1997 Stubbs Bay Access to Lake Minnetonka The private property was used for public for many years with no concerns expressed by the previous owner. The new owners of the property have expressed concern about public trespassing on their property and requested that the City solve the problem. The private property is the logical access location, and unless changes are made to this area, it will be extremely difficult to deter people from using this access. The owners have asked about the possibility of installing a fence to block the access. Installation of a fence could be hazardous to snowmobilers, aiKl fences are not allowed within 75’ of the lakeshore by the City zoning ordinance. There are several possible responses to this situation. The first solution would be for the City to gain ownership of the private property on which the existing access is located. A logical parcel to be acquired would be the eastern 33 feet wide extended Stubbs Bay Road right-of-way. The owners have expressed concern about possible liability if someone is injured using their property. The City could approach the owners about the possibility of negotiated purchase of the proper^. In the event the owners are not interested in the City purchasing the property , City acquisition could be very difficult and expensive. The second possible response could be for the City to eliminate the gravel surface access and restore the property to a natural condition. This would involve minor excavation to remove the existing gravel and placement of material to fill the access ramp area. The property owners have indicated a desire to install landscaping to block the access. Installation of landscaping is not feasible now because of the existing gravel surface. Fill and topsoil would need to be installed to allow for successful growth of landscape plantings. This response would discourage use of the private property for lake access. The City could install signs to direct people to the public access. The third possible response would be for the City to not make any changes on the private prope^ on which the existing access is located. Signs could be installed to direct people onto the City owned access property. This response would probably result in continued use of the existing more desirable access, located on private property, instead of City owned land. This situation could result in complaints to law enforcement officials about trespassing on private property.