11-25-1985 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

E. There exists on an adjacent property a large:, legal, permitted "circulator" to protect the permanent dock which renders lake access unsafe as illustrated by the number of vehic?es which have "sunk" through the ice in past winters. F. On the occasions of such "sinkings", City police routinely tres- pass on the subject property in order to remove the vehicles in `.he interest of "public safety". 10. The Hennepin County Department of Transportation, the Hennepin► County Attorney's office, the Hennepin County Board and the Hennepin County District Court 311 agreed to the settlement to District Court Case No. MC84-4503N. Based on this, these experts seem to have agreed that a fence located even closer to the CSAH 15 roadway then now exists would be safe and permitted. The County Department of Transportation is well aware of the City Lake Access. 11. The fence is not upon the roadway easement except for about 2-6 inches along 4-8 feet in length. Hennepin County permits this by agreement. Fence placement allowed by Agreement is even closer to the traveled surface than the existing fence. 12. The fence is entirely upon other easements now possessed by Hennepin County with the County's agreement. It is, at the very least, questionable whether the City can regulate structures and uses upon county easements. The county is, of course, responsible for public safety upon their roads and easements. 13. Since the erection of the fence in May, 1985 no instances of City Code violations have been reported on the subject property by the Applicants other than vandalism to the fence itself. 14. City Zoning Administrator, on hearing of the problems associated with subject property and the access in 1984, recommended placement of a fence by Applicant. on the subject property. 15. During a meeting with Applicant earlier this year, City Administrator committed the City to place posts and a guard rail on the City lake access along the Applicants property after hearing of the abuses of the subject property. To date this has not, been accomplished. 16. City staff concurs with Applicant that the abuses of the Applicant's property have been unreasonable and compromise Applicants' reasonable use of the property. 17. Applicant entered into an agreement to resolve Hennepin County Oistrict Court Case No. MC84-4503N in substantial expectation and reliance on City staffs: A. Recommendation to erect a fence, and B. Explantion of the intent, meaning, interpretation, and implica- tions of City Code Section 10.03 15(C) and amendment which was explained to the Applicant prior to the amendment thereto.