Laserfiche WebLink
,. • r <br /> �. <br /> • Page 3 <br /> . . Resolution No.�„� = <br /> Opposing State Public Access • <br /> on King 's Point Road <br /> d) The public access would not be consistent with <br /> Metropolitan Council ' s Recreation Open Development <br /> Guide/Policy Plan. The most recently amended Development <br /> Guide/Policy Plan shows no recreational facilities on <br /> Halstead Bay. In fact, though an initial draft of the <br /> Development Guide/Policy Plan showed a regional facility on <br /> Halstead 's Bay, the Metropolitan Council rejected that <br /> proposal and provided for no such facilities on Halstead 's <br /> Bay since it was found to be inappropriate. <br /> e) The public access would result in incompatible land <br /> uses which would conflict with existing and proposed <br /> residential activities. <br /> f) The development of a public access would conflict with <br /> these existing and potential residential activities because <br /> of increased noise levels, additional dust from the gravel <br /> road, high vehicular and boat traffic volumes, vehicular and <br /> • boat traffic congestion, policing problems, parking <br /> difficulties, detrimental environmental effects, negative <br /> impact on aesthetics, detrimental effect on property <br /> valuations, and deterioration of the road. I <br /> g) The public access would have very inadequate road ' <br /> access. The higher volume of heavier vehicles would require <br /> costly and extensive improvements to King 's Point Road. <br /> These construction costs and additional maintenance <br /> responsibilities would require the City to divert its scarce <br /> funds from other needed facilities and services to prevent <br /> the road from deteriorating further. <br /> h) The public access would require increased police and <br /> fire services, especially iri regard to traffic and parking <br /> problems inherent with a public access. <br /> 5. The Department of Natural Resources should not acquire <br /> and try to develop access sites with the type of problems outlined <br /> above. <br /> 6 . The City of Orono has and will in the future support <br /> efforts to provide public access to Lake Minnetonka where needed <br /> and where the access is appropriate. However, an access such as <br /> that proposed which is not appropriately located should not be <br /> � acquired or developed. Neither the general public, the present <br /> and future users of Lake Minnetonka, or the affected residents are <br />