1g. Parking Along Lotus Trail CITY OF MEMORANDUM
CHANHASSEN TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
7700 Market Boulevard FROM: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director
PO Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317 DATE: June 14, 2010 A
vq
Administration SUBJ: Adopt Resolution to Post Parking Restrictions Along Lotus Trail
Phone: 952.227.1100
Fax: 952.227.1110
Building Inspections
PROPOSED MOTION:
Phone: 952.227.1180
Fax: 952.227.1190 "The Chanhassen City Council approves a resolution authorizing parking
restrictions along Lotus Trail."
Engineering
Phone: 952.227.1160 City Council approval requires a majority of City Council present.
Fax: 952.227.1170
• Finance EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Phone: 952.227.1140
Fax: 952.227.1110 In 1992, three parking spaces were established parallel to the small public beach
located on the north end of Lotus Trail. One of the parking spaces is designated
Park & Recreation as handicapped accessible. The current signage restricts parking from April 1St
Phone: 952.227.1120
Fax 952,227,1110 to October 31 and the accessible space is not properly signed.
Recreation Center Staff is proposing to post signs restricting the hours vehicles may be parked
2310 Coulter Boulevard (6:00 am to 10:00 pm) and to post a handicapped sign. The proposed signage is •
Phone: 952.227.1400 consistent with city park rules.
Fax: 952.227.1404
Planning & RECOMMENDATION
Natural Resources
Phone: 952.227.1130 Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motion:
Fax: 952.227.1110
"The Chanhassen City Council approves the attached resolution to post parking
Public Works restrictions along Lotus Trail."
1591 Park Road
Phone: 952227.1300 ATTACHMENT
Fax: 952.227.1310
Senior Center 1. Resolution
None: 952.227.1125 2. City Council Minutes dated August 24, 1992
Fax: 952.227.1110 3. City Council Staff Report August 24, 1992
Web Site
www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us
g: \park \th \carver beach parking.doc
Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA
DATE: ,Tune 14, 2009 RESOLUTION NO: 2010 -
MOTION BY: SECONDED BY:
A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A NO OVERNIGHT PARKING ZONE ON THE
NORTH SIDE OF LOTUS TRAIL AT THE PUBLIC BEACH
WHEREAS, safety concerns have been raised over vehicles parking overnight at the
north public beach on Lotus Trail;
WHEREAS, in 1992 the city council established a parking zone for three cars at this
location (including one handicapped accessible space);
WHEREAS, the city desires to limit overnight parking and have it consistent with
parking lot regulations at other city parks, and to post such regulations for enforcement purposes.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Chanhassen City Council that street
parking will be allowed only in the designated parking area between the hours of 6 am and
10 pm from April 1 to October 3 land that one designated handicapped accessible parking space
shall be posted.
Passed and adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this 14 day of June, 2010.
ATTEST:
Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor
YES NO ABSENT
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 24, 1992
Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.. The meeting was opened
with the Pledge to the Flag.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Mason, Councilman Workman, Councilman
Wing and Councilwoman Dimler
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Todd Gerhardt, Roger Knutson, Todd Hoffman, Jo Ann
Olsen, Kate Aanenson, Sharmin Al -Jaff, Scott Harr and Charles Folch
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to
approve the agenda as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Councilman Workman: I was just upstairs, and I don't know how well it was
publicized. That's why I want to make sure that it gets publicized so people
have time. We discussed at 6:30 tonight that the stop signalization of West
78th Street and so it's a rather important meeting. We're going to have the
second and final one in September 14th. Courtyard room just like we did tonight
before the Council meeting. Last chance.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I think probably a lot of people have missed it.
Councilman Wing: Including me. I wasn't notified.
Mayor Chmiel: You and I both. And if need be, with one that was tonight and I
see there was about 2 people present outside of Council. We may have to take
this on a 3 run stint. Maybe have two afterwards but we'll see what happens on
the next one. Any other? If hearing none, we'll move right along with the
agenda.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve
the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's
recommendations:
a. Wetland Alteration Permit for Alteration within 200 feet of a Wetland, 7201
Juniper Avenue, Greg Datillo.
b. Wetland Alteration Permit for a Right Turn Lane Adjacent to a Wetland,
Cheyenne Trail and Highway 101, City of Chanhassen.
d. Carver Beach Park Vehicle Parking.
e. Resolution #92 -93: Resolution Approving Membership in the Southwest Drug
Task Force for 1993.
1
City Council Meeting - August 24, 1992
f. Resolution #92 -94: Approve Plans and Specifications for 1992 Sanitary Sewer
Rehabilitation Program; Authorize Advertisement for Bids, Project 92.11.
g. Resolution #92 -95: Call for Assessment Hearing on West 79th Street
Improvement Project 91 -8.
Approval of Bills.
j. City Council Minutes dated August 10, 1992
Planning Commission Minutes dated August 5, 1992
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
C. BLUFF CREEK ESTATES, SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 5 ON THE EAST SIDE OF AUDUBON ROAD,
KEYLAND HOMES.
Councilman Wing: The Bluff Creek Estates, I don't have any issue with that
other than the Williams Pipeline runs right through the middle of a house and I
think that's a significant issue on this development. I think the Pipelines
going to be marked. I just wanted to ensure that the developer, the sellers,
whatever the case were, other than the owner getting it through the Abstract,
disclose the fact that the Pipeline is there. That the lot is on the Pipeline.
That there is an easement. That the easement has restrictions. I also didn't
understand, I thought that the Williams Pipeline, from my knowledge, required a
50 foot from center line easement and we're taking a 37 1/2 foot so I didn't
understand the difference there. Not that it matters but, and also that a
driveway required 3 feet of cover. A roadway required 5 feet of cover. I just
want to ensure that those were being met. So disclosure being my first concern.
The second concern is that the people understand that in that easement there
can't be any trees, any digging, planting, decks of any kind because the
pipeline could be directly under the soil. I think there's a hazard in that
setup so I guess summary was, disclosure to the buyer to make sure they're aware
of the Pipeline. Understanding the ramifications of the easement. Making sure
that we have 5 feet of cover where the roadway goes over the pipe. If that's
required. That's all the information I had. I think that's adequate.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I think that's a good point. Only because often times
people are not aware but upon purchase of those properties, normally it's
contained within their deed indicating what 'those requirements are. But how
often do we really look at those. That's a good point to be brought up. Thank
you. Would you like to move item (c) then with those concerns.
Councilman Wing: Yeah, with the addition of the disclosure. I guess the
disclosure's the only issue. And the addition that the people on the Pipeline
understand the dangers and ramifications of digging of decks, planting of trees
and so on. I'd move.
Councilman Workman: Second,
Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve Bluff Creek
Estates, South of Highway 5 on the East Side of Audubon Road, Keyland Homes with
the understanding that the developer provide a disclosure regarding Williams
2
C ITY O F • -�--
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager
FROM: Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Coordinator
DATE: August 18, 1992
SUBJ: Carver Beach Park Vehicle Parking
The concern over the lack of accessibility via ,I,,Csr vehicles to the northerly portion of Carver
Beach Park was initially brought to the Park ano ` reation Commission's attention on May 19,
1992. A person or persons in a vehicle can o io y drive by the park; however, the absence
of a legal parking area prohibits access to any - se • this park when arriving by motor vehicle.
The Park and Recreation Commission co cted . ite visit on May 19, prior to formally
addressing this item. The report present- • o the C• ssion that evening and the resulting
minutes are attached. As can be seen, th- ommissio lected to table the item and to call for
a neighborhood meeting on June 23 to . for residen put on the issue. The report prepared
for the Commission and the reside ,e in the area . 8i the resulting minutes are attached.
Residents attending the meeting tha 4 ening were Mr. 8c s. Gunderson (Keith and Pat), 6660
Lotus Trail, and Mr. Roger B , 6724 Lotus Trail. e th the Gundersons and Mr. Byrne
addressed the Commission . me that evening. U.po onclusion of the discussion, the
following motion was ap”': • • for recommendation to the r 'ty Council:
Schroers rri• 'FIVA Recreation Commission
recomm g•<_ „ tato :.� v • • • arallel
parking spar ring 60 feet on the south side of Lotus Trail for • Beach
Park, with one o s • . ces for persons with disabilities • ecified and
shown on the attached maps, . • tha 0e 1 , g � � : Bering Departments
take a very close and careful look to � f sur,'that there is no- damage done to any
existing trees in the area. All vot • 3 ' avor except Lash who opposed, and
Andrews who abstained. The motions ied with a vote of 4 -2.
As you are aware, in scheduling this item for Council review, it was determined that the - ”
Commission's recommendation was routine and conformed with the approved Park Master Plan
for this area of Carver Beach Park. As such, the item was included as an informational item
dated July 9, 1992, in the administrative section of the July 27 City Council packet (attached).
t
Ne PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Mr. Don Ashworth
August 18, 1992
Page 2
Upon receiving no comments on this item, staff was prepared to begin planning for the signage
needs to designate the four parking spots. Prior to commencing this action, however, I received
a call from Mrs. Pat Gunderson. The results of this conversation are detailed in the attached
memo to the Park and Recreation Commission dated August 4, and presented to the Commission
on August 11. The resulting action taken by the Commission that evening was to rescind their
previous recommendation of June 23, 1992, and to instead make the following recommendation:
The Park and Recreation Commission recommends the construction and signage
of three parallel parking spaces on the south side of Lotus Trail at Carver Beach
Park consistent with the Park's Master Plan, one of the three for persons with
handicaps, and that this project be carried out with the assurance that no damage
will be done to any existing trees in the area.
This motion was made by Commissioner Lash and seconded by Commissioner Erickson with all
voting in favor.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Memo to Park and Recreation Commission dated May 15, 1992.
2. Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated May 19, 1992.
3. Memo to Park and Recreation Commission dated June 10, 1992.
4. Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated June 23, 1992.
5. Memo to Don Ashworth, City Manager dated July 9, -1992.
6. Memo to Park and Recreation Commission dated August 4, 1992.
3
C ITYOF
cHIINBAssEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Park and Recreation Commission
FROM: Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Coordinator
DATE: May 15, 1992
SUBJ: Carver Beach Park - Vehicle Parking
*We will be conducting a site visit of this area prior to the regular meeting. See agenda
for details.
The attached retouched Park Master Plan for Carver Beach Park depicts the parking
restrictions, parking availability, and recreational facilities at the park. I was not
involved in the events that led to all streets abutting the park being posted "No Parking ",
but I presume strong support for this posting by the majority of adjacent homeowners, in
addition to the road's narrow width, was the catalyst for this action. The only parking
available to allow use of this park by persons arriving by vehicle are the four spots at the
main beach to the south.
This spring, as is with the case throughout the summer, people utilize the park to fish
from the dock and shore, and to experience other recreational activities. Parking
appeared to be allowed due to the absence of three of the no parking signs which had
been removed by construction and snow removal activity. Due to the presence of parked
vehicles, a complaint call was received from a neighboring resident. It should be noted,
as confirmed by the caller, that parking of vehicles by people wishing to use the park
does occur on a routine basis, but for the most part is tolerated. However, when a
complaint call is received, Public Safety is required to issue a warning or citation due to
the no parking status of the streets. Additionally, we must now consider the mandate of
ADA, Americans with Disability Act, to provide handicapped accessibility to all public
facilities (the park, dock, canoe rack, beaches, etc.). The city is currently in violation of
this act. A community service officer was questioned in this regard upon informing two
elderly women fishing from the dock, who identified themselves as handicapped, that
parking of their vehicle along the street was not allowed. This confrontation occurred as
ILO PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Park and Recreation Commission
•
May 15, 1992
Page 2
a result of a separate complaint call received by the Public Safety Department. The city
also provides a canoe rack at this location with no parking available for its users.
It is the opinion of staff that by maintaining a park containing facilities in which to be
reasonably used, need to be accessible by motor vehicles, and then choosing not to
provide parking, is unacceptable. It is further recognized that by providing recreational
facilities which are unaccessible by persons with handicaps, due to the absence of
parking, we are in violation of the ADA. Staff fully understands the position of residents
in this area, but I also identify their concerns as self interests, not representing the
universal interests a Park and Recreation Commission and city park system need to
provide for. The development and use of this park is debated on nearly an annual basis.
Residents of the area have been very interested in this process, and the commission has
accepted their input and continue to improve the park. However, by not providing some
access by vehicles to the developed north side of this park. the city is not allowing for
reasonable use of the park.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Park and Recreation Commission hold a public hearing to
discuss vehicular parking at Carver Beach Park on Lotus Trail. It is recommended that
3 parking spots be identified with one of the 3 being designated for persons with
handicaps. This parking to be facilitated by the construction of a widened shoulder, for
a distance of 60 feet, on the south side of Lotus Trail, as depicted on the attached
diagram (the absence of residences across the street from this location makes it the most
desirable location). Upon conclusion of the public hearing, it is recommended that the _
Park and Recreation Commission make a recommendation to the City Council in this
regard.
waoa Ome , I
ten„m�.00s) , y ,
. , 1 „
,
1 I
-, ' � CANOE RACK
- � � ;
FISHING DOCK
m I I 1
m 3 , I a' -r—',--r't
_ _
m; i � ,'• a ii
i gi2 ' ....; ' , [ F
> e- . J0 0
r i ? i k , , I (1 ' P i ..
\ y r
I 1 t ( 1 i _
44 li
1 . . II S E c -r. if
\ I - \ \ m
\\/ :\ \ PROPOSED PARKING
4 V -■ \
\ \ NO PARKING
ooh,,, Sh AA \•\ \ , > 1
n. l \�
S z
: \
PARKING (4 CARS)
: g \ \ ' , . c. : � I i i : , I
1 1 I, �.
o f `R -,..„ , j , i
I A
I
, ,,or„,
a # 1 ` _ `
t C BEACH PARK
—II i Y MASTER PLAN City of Chanhassen, Mimesota ri0
/anDorEn Hazard ,Stallings architects Engineers planners R ;.,a `"
•
•
Chanhassen Public Safety
Complaint Form
• Date Received -3
Received By-_____z_z
Review Date
COMPLAINANT
•
Location of Complaint 1 -0 7
J
Type of Complaint A r k 6 -7-7
Animal Debris Storage Bldg Code Fire Code Noise
Criminal Complaint �S Parking Traffic Nuisance
Other
SUBJECT:
Last (..)4.)‹ First Middle DOB
Street Number Street Name
APT#
City State
Zip Phone
Phone
Action Taken /Comments (INCLUDE DATE) ci.i5C. 9-z : .J
Gam --, -
Action Taken:
•
1. Advisory Letter 8. Referred to:
2. Certified Letter Disposition:
Carver County Sheriff Complaince
.3. Certified Notice Engineering Department
Action Pending
4. Phone Call
5. In- Person Meeting Util t .-nt No Further Act.
6. Warning Issued Court Referral
6 Citation Issued City Attorn Oth
Other g.4 P4 E 7
•
Chanhassen Public Safety
Complaint Form
Date Received 3(3-
Received By �
Review Date
COMPLAINANT
•
Location of Complaint Lv`f M C kez,-1 � a S St-%
Type of Complaint PKr kin
, / )
•
Animal Debris Storage Bldg Code Fire Code Noise
Criminal Complaint ----\-- Parking Traffic Nuisance
Other
* SUBJECT:
Last U/--< First Middle DOB
Street Number Street Name
APT#
City State
Zip Phone
Phone
Action Taken /Comments (INCLUDE DATE) ` 3c• 92 :- 2tyd J�,,A - ,,? --`-`
i/o 64.1c-4-0 A „IA.- ' 071 tetl. 1 ....ti ,, .35 ‘4 Jetz6 21, ....--A...u.t.,..
/14f,, '9, - mac) ti e -)�- o
hRo t a,..-i-i? r � f
- .eP -
! • , /
Action Taken: •
1. Advisory Letter 8. Referred to:
2. Certified Letter Disposition:
Carver County Sheriff Complaince
-3. Certified Notice Engineering Department
4. Phone Call Action Pending
5. In Person Meeting i t •_ _ :nt No Further Act.
6. Warning Issued - Court Referral
f. Citation Issued Other 4 YAK n i7•' Other
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 19, 1992 - Page 5
way to generate revenue for us as well. As long as we can meet the service
needs of the area.
Erickson: Has there been any consistent policy in terms of taking that
money and developing the parks that are closest to that development?
Schroers: No. That wasn't really identified. It's more like city wide.
What are the most pressing needs at the time.
Lash: When is Power Hill in line for?
Hoffman: Potential development? Currently they are working on Flamingo
Drive which skirts the, just about the entire eastern border of the park.
The developer in that location is bringing in the parking lot for the park
and then the city will follow with final restoration work and begin mowing
the sliding hill over the next 2 to 3 years. I don't recall specifically
in the 5 year CIP but the play equipment does make it in that time span.
Schroers: Any other questions? Can I have a- motion? Well I will make a
motion then. First on park property. I'll move that the Park and
Recreation Commission recommend to Council to require full park fees be
paid as a condition of approval of Bluff Creek Estates and the fees are to
be paid at the time of the building permit approval in the amount of the
park fee in force at-the time of the building permit application. Secondly
on the trail, I move that we recommend to the Council that we acquire
ownership of Outlot A allowing for continuation of the Bluff Creek
preservation corridor and require the installation of an 8 foot bituminous
trail surface from proposed Road E to the rear of Lot 1, Block 1 and Lot 1,
Block 3 as a condition of approval of this plat. In consideration for
this, it is recommended that the City give full trail fee credit to the
applicant. Is there a second?
Koubsky: I'll second.
Schroers moved, Koubsky seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend to require full park fees be paid as a condition of approval of
Bluff Creek Estates and the fees are to be paid at the time of the building
permit approval in the amount of the park fee in force at the time of the
building permit application_ Secondly on the trail, recommend to acquire
ownership of Outlot A allowing for continuation of the Bluff Creek
preservation corridor and require the installation of an 8 foot bituminous
trail surface from proposed Road E to the rear of Lot 1, Block 1 and Lot 1,
Block 3 as a condition of approval of this plat. In consideration for
this, it is recommended that the City give full trail fee credit to the
applicant_ All voted in favor and the motion carried.
CARVER BEACH PARK; VEHICLE PARKING_
Hoffman: Item 3 has to do with the vehicle parking at Carver Beach Park.
A portion of the members of the Commission toured that site this evening. I
believe the ones that did not have either been there in person or have been
there during other Commission tours as well. The map which is included in
your packet that picks the current situation down at Carver Beach in that
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 19, 1992 - Page 6
the entire road sections abutting the park are currently posted no parking.
This has been an ongoing issue but one which I feel necessitates some
further review. Essentially due to ADA but then again it's due to being
reasonable as a city providing services to it's residents and other park
users. To briefly review the scenario which has led us to this point.
This spring, again as is always the case, persons started to utilize the
park for fishing, recreating in the spring. Getting out of doors. Shaking
out cabin fever. Those types of things. Many times you'll notice, you'll
witness cars parked in the no parking zone and for the most part, the
residents in the area tolerate that activity until it exceeds a certain
level or until they just decide to go ahead and give a call either to the
Park and Recreation Department or to the Public Safety Department to come
down and have those persons informed officially that they cannot park in
those locations because of the street designation. That was the case this
spring. On at least 3 occasions that I'm aware of, that persons received
warnings that they were parked illegally and they would have to pack of
their gear and move because the area was posted no parking. One that
stands out is the two elderly women brushed into the CSO on duty that day
that was called out to this location as to their rights under the new ADA
Act. Identified themselves as handicapped and questioned the officers as
to where they should park for utilizing this public facility. He did not
have an answer. In fact this was a Saturday afternoon and gave me a call
at home. I had the same answer back for him. We do not offer any parking,
either handicapped or non - handicapped at that location in the city. I
believe it behooves us to take a look at this. To consider installing some
parking, although it be minimal at this park location. To offer
utilization by persons arriving at the park by motor vehicle. I do not
believe it is reasonable to expect the use of that park to occur without
access by motor vehicles. As the map shows, there are currently 4 spots
which were developed within the past 5 years at the south main beach
location. Those are off street parking. Pull in, pull out type of parking
off the street. It's currently a gravel lot and recommending to our street
maintenance and park maintenance crews that we go ahead and invest the time
and material to blacktop that. To stripe the lot into four spots and to
mark one of those handicapped parking as well. So we have that end of the
park cleared up. What remains is the issue down on the north end in the
area between the mini - beach, the so called mini -beach and then the existing
dock. The fishing dock which was purchased 2 years ago and canoe rack
which as well as recently was installed and is utilized as well. We as a
city and a Park and Recreation Department offer the service of a canoe rack
where you would presume for a person to get their canoe there, they would
have to drive a vehicle, unless they're very close to the canoe rack and
then if they want to come down and use it, would drive and park their
vehicle to go ahead and utilize their canoe on the lake. So again this
evening it is my recommendation that the Commission hold a public hearing
inviting the residents of that area. Discuss this issue and then for the
Park Commission to go ahead and make a recommendation in this regard to the
City Council. Whether that be for 3 parking stalls or 4 parking stalls. In
referring to stalls, it's just the widening of the shoulder 4 to 6 foot
Class V aggregate shoulder and then posting it parking between signs and
then designating the handicapped stall. That would be all we are
recommending. Forward that type of recommendation up to the City Council
for consideration.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 19, 1992 — Page 7
Schroers: This would then be parallel parking basically?
Hoffman: Correct.
Schroers: And it would seem to make sense then that the handicapped
designated parking spot would be the closest one to the facilities. The
canoe rack and the fishing dock and at that point I realize that there is
quite steep topography along this area. When you get down that close as it
graduated to the point to where a handicapped person could actually
negotiate from that parking spot to either the dock or the canoe rack?
Hoffman: It's flat. We discussed while we were there the distance issue
and it is. It's right at the edge of being reasonable. But if we move
parking farther up the street, then it would be directly in front of homes
which would be more controversial.
Schroers: I'm wondering why staff feels it's necessary to have a public
hearing.
Hoffman: Simply because of the.
Schroers: To keep peace?
Hoffman: That's one way of putting it.
Schroers: Might as well get right to the bare bones.
Lash: Well if it's been a controversial issue, you hate to go ahead with
this without telling people what's going on.
Hoffman: In my view, the entire development history, just going ahead and
looking back into the file, this park has been perhaps not controversial is
the word but residents in that area are certainly interested in what's
going on there.
Schroers: They are interested and they've been receptive and interested in
the past to work along with the city on projects in that area. I guess
just as an information thing to let them know what's going on without kind
of surprising them is a good idea but I think it's unreasonable for us to
develop new facilities like this and not provide parking. I mean that
doesn't seem reasonable.
Lash: Well we're not developing a new site. This is an old site.
Schroers: This portion of the is actually pretty new. There used to
be an access there and now we took out that access. We put in a canoe
rack. We've put in a fishing dock. We designated that area as a mini-
beach and did some work in there.
Lash: We haven't...money lately but it's not a new site?
Schroers: No, it's not a new site but it kind of, it is and it isn't.
Lash: We've been investing money into it.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 19, 1992 - Page 8
Schroers: Yeah. We've had the property for a long time but like within
the last couple years we've started to do something with it.
Lash: I guess I'm going to admit my confusion a little bit. When we were
doing all of this, I thought it was at the one farther south and that's
where I thought the canoe rack was located, which then would have had
parking by it. And then a question I have about the ADA, just for my own
clarification. Does this apply to all existing park sites or is to new
park sites and one that we are remodeling or whatever?
Hoffman: That's to all park sites. All public facilities.
Schroers: It's a State mandate right or a State law that applies to
everything.
Lash: It makes it kind of difficult when you have an existing site. Say
you had Bluff Creek or say it was Power Hill and say Power Hill was
basically just a sliding hill and the topography just would make it
difficult for a handicapped person to negotiate it no matter what. What do
you propose to do with something like that?
Hoffman: You're supposed to find a reasonable compromise. At this site
it's reasonable that we could provide both services and access for persons
with disabilities. If you're at a site or a building or a facility which
it is not reasonable to assume that a person with handicaps is going to
want to participate in and if it's not reasonable from a financial
standpoint to retrofit that facility, then you're not mandated to do so.
Lash: Okay.
Schroers: This is a little bit off the particular subject here but for
many organizations this ADA is just more than extensive. Doors have to be
widened. Pay phones have to be lowered. Electrical things have to be
rerouted. It's really extensive and it's going to hit lots of agencies
real hard right in the pocketbook.
Lash: I guess I don't understand why we put the canoe rack down there to
' start with.
Koubsky: I think the canoe rack is on the southern one.
Hoffman: No, it's at the northern location. Canoe racks were scheduled
for both the north and the south. The canoe rack was put at the northerly
location simply because of the ease of getting to it. Albeit the lack of
parking in the other location...
Lash: ...but you could launch your canoe at another site and get into the
canoe rack.
Schroers: You could but you know if everything was at the main facility
there, then that 4 cars parking lot wouldn't serve the needs of that
either. That was another reason for kind of spreading things out there and
not trying to cram everything into one spot. Because there really isn't
room there to develop more parking.'
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 19, 1992 — Page 9
4
Lash: Well I don't have a problem with it. Are you looking for a
recommendation to have a public hearing?
Hoffman: Correct.
Lash: So we're not voting on the actual action.
Koubsky: I guess one thought I had Todd. When the people call in, are
there 3 or 4 cars down there? I guess I'm wondering how many people are
parking down there. It seems to me you could put 4 cars in there without
getting too far in front of the resident's home there.
Hoffman: I would say 4 cars would be an extreme in it's current use.
Koubsky: You mean too much?
Hoffman: No, that would be an extreme of the current use that you would
see. I'm not saying that's too much but more likely that there's one or
two cars presently parked there when we receive calls.
Lash: Well I can understand the no parking signs on the road as it exists
now. Being down, having gone down there, it would be a safety hazard I
think to have cars parked on the road. But if we can widened it into a
safe, to make it accommodate cars and still make it be safe to drive down
the road, I don't see a problem with that.
Schroers: It should be safe because it's not on a curve there or anything.
Visibility should be good.
Koubsky: It's a very easy fix.
Erickson: Todd, would it be appropriate to maybe consider 4 spots and then
if we need to compromise we could say, okay we'll go with 3?
Hoffman: Sure.
Erickson: That way it looks like we're giving in but if they'll go with 4
and they think 4 is fine, that would just make that much more room for more
people to appreciate the park.
Hoffman: The thing you need to consider is if we're looking at 3 spots or
we're looking at 2, with the handicapped we only have 4. We're looking at
3 with a handicap. Now keeping the cars out of the handicap stall is
another story.
Koubsky: We can always expand another parking spot too. It's just a
matter of pushing some Class V over there.
Hoffman: I would prefer once you go through a public hearing to put in 3,
you're going to have to do the same type of issue to expand it to 4.
Schroers: I agree with Randy that we should for.4 and push that issue and
say, and just explain it at the hearing that we need one spot for
Park and Rec . Commission Meeting
May 19, 1992. - Page 10
handicapped and that just leaves 3 additional. It would hardly be worth it
for less than that.
Erickson: The handicap would be on the end and that would be the one used
the least so that would most often be open anyways. So the one that kind
of, the one that you are down there by the one house that would have the
sight of that, there normally probably wouldn't a car there anyway. I
would assume. I mean most handicapped spaces aren't utilized as often as
the other spots so that may be one way to approach it and mention it to.
Koubsky: I'd go for 4. Good idea. I think there's room for it.
Schroers: Okay, then if someone would like to make a recommendation in
regards to having a public hearing regarding parking at the north end of
Carver Beach Park.
Lash: I make a motion that the Park and Rec Commission hold a public
hearing for the residents of Carver Beach regarding the parking at Carver
Beach Park on Lotus Trail.
Berg: Second.
Lash moved, Berg seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission hold a
public hearing to discuss vehicular parking at Carver Beach Park on Lotus
Trail. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Lash: How far will you be notifying people regarding this?
Hoffman: As it exists, it's 500 feet. I'll make a judgment whether or not
that brings in everybody that's potentially a real interested party.
Koubsky: We'll indicate on that too that we're recommending 4 spots
instead of 2?
Hoffman: Correct.
Lash: And make sure they have ample notification of the meeting.
LAKE SUSAN PARK TO RICE MARSH LAKE PARK. TRAIL CONSTRUCTION.
Hoffman: This is essentially an informational item and one which is pretty
exciting. Hopefully if all goes well, within a month we'll have that piece
of trail constructed in the city without hardly an ounce of controversy in
the recent arena. It has taken 2 1/2 years to get all the easements
associated with this piece of trail cleared up. Now that that has taken
place and then in coordination with that Market Blvd., TH 101 extension of
south leg, we raised the question whether'or not we should go ahead and
construct this piece of trail along with that project. Underneath the
funding of the road project. Those questions were answered to the positive
so we are again moving forward with this project.
Schroers: Question. What about extending that trail along the north side
of Lake Susan to connect with Lake Susan Park? I have ridden along that
Vf 3
CI TYCF
\ CHANHA EN
SS
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Park and Recreation Commission
FROM: Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Coordinator
DATE: June 10, 1992
SUBJ: Neighborhood Meeting, Carver Beach Park, Vehicle Parking
Following a motion by the Park and Recreation Commission at the May 19, 1992, meeting to call
a neighborhood meeting in regard to vehicle parking at Carver Beach Park, the attached notice
was sent to the residents listed. A copy of the staff report presented to the commission in May
is attached for your use in addressing this item. To reiterate, the installation of four parallel
parking spaces, with one of the four being designated for persons with a disability, is being
recommended. This action is needed to bring the city into compliance with the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA), and to provide reasonable access to a public park facility. These parking
spaces are to be accommodated by a widening of the shoulder of Lotus Trail (a gravel road) for
a length of approximately 80 - 100 feet. The location of the parking is to be just north of the
small beach on the east side of Lotus Trail. This design has been discussed with the city's -
Engineering and Planning Departments. The placement of signage designating the parking spaces •
will be coordinated with the Engineering and Public Works Departments.
• Recommendation •
It is recommended that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend the City Council
approve the construction and signage of four parallel parking spaces; one of the four for persons
with a disability at Carver Beach Park, as specified in this document and as shown on the
attached maps.
til, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
C
cHANHAssEN
1 - 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
June 12, 1992
Dear Residents:
With the intent of providing reasonable access to a public park facility, and in order to comply with the
mandates of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), the Chanhassen Park and Recreation
Commission will be making a recommendation to the City Council to construct and sign an area at Carver
Beach Park near the north beach for vehicle parking. The need to address the issue of accessibility was
recently reaffirmed by events occurring in the area of Carver Beach Park. Specifically, there have been
a number of occasions when persons using the park have parked along Lotus Trail, resulting in a report
of illegal parking being called in to the city or Sheriff's Department. In one instance, the persons using
the park (the fishing dock) identified themselves as being disabled. It is my understanding that residents
in the area typically tolerate the parking of vehicles along Lotus Trail to a certain degree; however, if the
city is notified, we are forced to issue citations if the persons will not move their vehicle. Obviously, the
solution to the lack of access via motor vehicles to this park can only b a addressed by making appropriate
accommodations for parking being sensitive to the site limitations.
The attached diagrams show in some detail the location for the parking spaces. These parking spaces are
to be accommodated by a widening of the road shoulder of Lotus Trail (a gravel road) for a length of
approximately 80 to 100 feet. The location of the parking being just north of the small beach on the east
side of Lotus Trail. The placement of signage designating the parking spaces will occur. This location
has been chosen for two reasons: 1) its proximity in relation to the facilities maintained at the park, and
2) the lack of direct residential contact on the opposite side of Lotus Trail.
This letter is being sent as notification that the Park and Recreation Commission has scheduled time at
their upcoming June 23 meeting to allow residents to comment on this item. Both the Park and Recreation
Commission and the Chanhassen City Council freely welcome citizen comment. The commission would
be glad to hear from you prior to making a recommendation to the City Council An agenda for the
meeting is attached for your information. This item will be discussed shortly after 7:30 p.m. If you
cannot attend and would like to submit written comments for the commission's review, please mail them
to the City of Chanhassen, Park and Recreation Department, 690 Coulter Drive, Chanhassen, MN 55317;
or if you would like to speak personally to me, I can be reached between the hours 8:00 a.m. and 4:30
p.m. at 937 -1900.
Sincerely,
63re6,/, •
Todd Hoffman
Park and Recreation Coordinator
TH:n
vo41 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
C
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
June 16, 1992 -
Dear Residents:
This is a follow up to my letter dated June 15, 1992, regarding the upcoming informational
meeting on vehicle parking at Carver Beach Park. Attached please find the diagrams that were
referenced in that letter, and mistakenly not included in the mailing. I am sorry for any
inconvenience this may have caused you.
On an unrelated matter, you may be aware that trees were recently cut illegally in Carver Beach
Park. The story of this incident has appeared in the Chanhassen Villager newspaper, and recently
on WCCO Television's Community News series. I would like to remind all residents that the
cutting, trimming, or removal of trees from public park property, and the dumping of yard waste
into the park are unlawful activities.
As stated in my previous letter, the Park and Recreation Commission informational meeting will
be held on Tuesday, June 23, 1992, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall. I look
forward to seeing you then.
Sincerely,
Todd Hoffman
Park and Recreation Coordinator
TH:k
Enclosure •
ss
t a PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER _.
I' .
. �� /,,
�/ / CANOE RACK
• 0 0 • • f _ ,..FISHING DOCK
n 6" '# I / ' . ■
1 >< F T fr i •
y Jlj Z
Z C
r , 1 I� 3. I — 1
!
. , _ ! •
1 -\ I
•
\. I ti
� •• 1 PROPOSED PARKING
\ . •
•` ., _ ....— NO PARKING •
o
L
1 i `\
1 • PARKING (4 CARS)
Fz
4 . \ \ ' 1'
,
; i I 1 t
is .0a f / .I1 //‘
8
1 40.,,
if
! J ' '_ _ i CARVER BEACH PARK
.+ -+ 1 1 i MASTER PLAN Cky of Chanhassen, Minnesota (,1
Hazard,�'StaiCfngs . ¢. ,e c Ect -a--
anDore� dk
�` sxvztix,. Ar hit s' ___. .s planu►ers
�sl .'r E:� :
i
•
.
I.. f ■:." .. • ' A" • :.••• . 1 :, ,i,r; ,,• 4 . c VA: .5 A Vu G .% 7' bit ;.1: c
It �, ti
C:'F ;' - A O, •:c: S0:14:i5 1H:5 MAP
.: >►s
r .
e
t ` e = i < s.• -`.e s s,; 434 I. O • / I ! •
714* 4- $% i` 411418 N 41 i 1 .
::::-....r 0 81 4:
41 I •
i 7i.; 4.,
. a i rMi ram..._ O oft . i I
t. 1 1 ft , . J o 47,-- -
. ---.._ ga 41 I .
\ • . d$ 414 --,._. - 4Il
3 p� I. :
) t .--... t
� 1!! 484■., ft, 11 %r4 IP 1 - 4 1 ' .- • •
pRtVE ...... 4 (.1 Z
L I wESTERN rt„„,4?..,„,„;--;-;; - - • lie a P k
//III
0 N - .. ‘ � %�
4,..._ PAWNEE DRIV .: ,. i "
4 .
,ti , • 0sole\Nt o s-s porth Beach
: \ /r. s �,� ,
.. '®
■ ' / ��' �� ' $ ROA D
‘11:0 O� \\ ) ,. . - - r.,.
f, .
- CARVER o ``
BEACH R�. ` � i
•••■ \
c • 1, t — •t + ; •
i
23 \ \ ‘, ,
MEEK VP%
i ' : I . P. . " d°1 1 1 0,, .. 09 2
' CREE DR IV® WA 1 \ •
ANDERSON S' ��
-' FIRST ADD ;I � ! 1 .;, Wiliii. „o
IMPERIAL CSR ' •
. 4'. liiill '66! 0 %;
;.x.1 'I�, .eo -c
r Oti •
III
CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 23, 1992
Chairman Schroers called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m..
MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Schroers, Jan Lash, Wendy Pemrick, Randy Erickson,
Jim Andrews and Dave Koubsky
MEMBERS ABSENT: Fred Berg
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Hoffman, Park and Rec Coordinator; Jerry Ruegemer,
Recreation Supervisor; and Dawn Lemme, Program Specialist
Schroers: Since we have quite a few people in the audience here tonight
and some things to attend to, we're going to move ahead to items 3 and 4
first and get those taken care of and then we'll move back to the rest of
the agenda after that. So we'll start with item 3.
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING, CARVER BEACH PARK, VEHICLE PARKING.
Public Present:
Name Address
Pat & Keith Gunderson 6660 Lotus Trail
Roger Byrne 6724 Lotus Trail
K
Hoffman: Chairman Schroers and commissioners. Following a motion by
the Park Commission at their May 19th meeting, to call a neighborhood
meeting in regards to vehicle parking at Carver Beach Park. The enclosed
notification in your packet was mailed for that neighborhood. To reiterate
the installation of four parallel parking spaces with one of the four being
designated as handicapped parking is being recommended. This action is
needed to bring the City into compliance with the ADA, the American with
Disabilities Act and provide reasonable access to a public park facility.
These parking spaces are to be accommodated by a widening of the shoulder
of Lotus Trail, which is a gravel road, for a length of approximately 80 to
100 feet. The location of the parking is to be just north of the small
beach on the east side of Lotus Trail. This design has been discussed with
the City's engineering and planning departments. The placement of signage
designating the parking spaces will be coordinated with the engineering and
public works department. Again, following the comment by the neighbors who
are here this evening, it is recommended that the Park and Recreation
Commission recommend the City Council approve the construction and signage
of four parallel parking spaces, one of the four to be for persons with
handicaps, at Carver Beach Park as specified in the documents and shown on
the attached maps. Over to the exact location. North being directly up,
we have the length of Carver Beach Park with the main beach and the four
parking spots currently existing at the park in this location. Then
traveling to the north, the mini -beach is located in this location.
Fishing dock and then the canoe racks are down in this location. Again as
stated in the letters, parking does occur down there and is tolerated to a
certain degree. However, the City does receive a call, a complaint call,
Park and Rec Commissio Meeting
June 23, 1992 - Page 2
to enforce it and then you go down, because it is currently signed no
parking. Either write a ticket or give a warning and inform those persons
that parked there that they must move. Obviously they're confused many
times because they parked there previously and nobody in the neighborhood
has chosen to call and report that the vehicle is parked there. They're
receiving mixed signals from the city. This would rectify the situation in
placing four stalls in this location. That dashed line does show the
extent of Lotus Trail which is posted No Parking all the way along the
lakeshore in that location. This recommendation is to place four parallel
parking spots in that location. On a little larger scale, this shows you
the parking as it would fall just to the north, I mean to east of Lotus
Trail. Directly across from this parking...
Schroers: Okay, thanks. At this time then we'll entertain any comments
from the residents of the Carver Beach area or any other residents of the
city that wish to comment on the parking there. If you'd be so kind as to
come to the podium and state your name and address for us please and we'd .
like to hear what you have to say.
Roger Byrne: My name's Roger Byrne. I live at 6724 Lotus Trail there.
Right across from the mini - beach. I don't know if I've got too much for
comments. I've got some questions. I'd be interested to know why that
location was picked for the parking, for one thing. It seems there's some
better spots probably. I don't know if anybody, I don't know who was down
there and who looked at it. Who decided what, where. What was best or
what. For one things there's a lot of trees there. Some are going to have
to be removed to facilitate this deal. And we've got a problem with trees .
out there right now it seems like. And to cut anymore down doesn't seem to
be just the right thing to do at this point in time really. Another thing
is, there's the park actually goes a lot farther than what it shows on that
map there. I mean there's a lot of land down past Lotus Trail that isn't
even on a road which would be a lot better for parking. That could be used
you know. I don't know if anybody even took that into consideration.
Schroers: Down where the old access used to be? Is that where you're
talking about?
Roger Byrne: Right, past the old access. That's all parkland down there
too. That's the same as what, from the access to the mini - beach. On down
the other way from the old access down is parkland also. And there was
something else I can't remember right now but. Oh, as far as the
handicapped thing, I don't know. From what I heard, they said that
somebody was using the dock out there and they said they had to park there
because they were handicapped. Well to put a handicapped parking spot down
there by that dock, you don't want to encourage any handicapped people to
use that dock because that's not a handicapped dock. They'll end up in the
lake. If you try to roll a wheelchair or something out there, that's not.
I don't think that's a good idea. If you take a look at that dock and then
take a look at what handicapped people need, that's not a handicapped dock.
You don't want to encourage anybody handicapped to be down there on that
thing. I don't know, I just wondering. I'm just looking for some answers
to them questions. That's my deal.
Park and Rec.Commission Meeting
June 23, 1992 - Page 3
Schroers: Okay. Todd, do you know if the site further down, past the old
approach was looked at in regards to parking?
Hoffman: The parkland which would be farther to the north, once you turn
up and take Lotus Trail onto, is it Mohawk? Is park property. It's not on
a city street so it would be somewhat more difficult to go ahead and
install parking in there. They would be backing up and turning around.
Roger Byrne: That is a city street. Doesn't the street up through
there? It's all gravel just like Lotus Trail. In fact it must be part of
Lotus Trail.
Hoffman: That site would not be as clean to develop. Would not work as
well as the site which is being proposed this evening.- To go ahead and
address Mr. Bryne's question, the reason why this site was chosen and as
the Commissioners who were that evening noticed, there's an absence of a
residential homefronts just opposite this location. It's a hillside. If
you were to move the parking farther to the south or the north, you would
be installing parking stalls in front of homefronts. The issue of removing
trees. No trees will be removed as a part of this project. Currently
we're thinking probably the shoulder would be widened by an extent of 4 to
6 feet with additional gravel. The issue of what is handicapped
accessible. It's simply not the city's position to designate what is and
what is not a handicapped accessible piece of city park equipment or a city
facility. That is really left up to the individuals who choose to use each
park site within the city.
Schroers: Okay, I think that maybe to help clarify. As well we're talking
about here is not a full scale parking lot. All we're talking about is a
little widening in the road so people can get out of the way so other
traffic can continue to pass by without a hazard and we don't anticipate
that it's something that's going to be busy or heavily used either. It'_s
just going to be a little widening of the shoulder so a car can safely pull
out and park.
Koubsky: I don't think we were anticipating taking any trees down either
were we Todd? It's just a matter of putting some Class V on there so if
people did pull off, they wouldn't get stuck if it started raining or
something.
Roger Byrne: If you extend the curb 4 to 6 feet out from right where
you're talking about there, you're going to be hitting those trees. Now
you can maybe put the rock around the trees and leave them there. One way
or the other the trees that are going to be there are going to die. I
really think that if you insist that that's where it's going to be, I think
you should have an environmental impact study on it because it's awful
close to the lake right there. It just seems to me there's a lot better
places on down the line or maybe back up the other way...we're going to
lose some trees there one way or the other if you insist on placing it
there. I'm sorry but that's, apparently you people haven't looked at it
very closely because I live right there and I've lived there for 20 years
and I know how wide it is there. If you extend the curb out 4 to 6 feet,
you're into the trees. And there are some pretty good sized trees down
there too...but that's exactly the way it is.
•
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 23, 1992 - Page 4
Schroers: Okay, thanks.
Keith Gunderson: My name's Keith Gunderson, 6650 Lotus Trail. I'm just
north of the site. Proposed site. I've got a couple of questions I'd like
to have answered. The dock that we have down there right now, in the past
2 years has changed locations twice and right now it still is not in the
location that it was originally proposed for. So I'd like to know where
the dock is going to stay. Okay. From what I understand, Rocky touched on
a couple points here as far as not a handicapped dock. And I think there
is a regulation as far as it should have a ramp. It should have rails and
it should have a better access. This is not safe at all. Then your map on
the proposed parking. The grayed in area really leads a person to believe
that there's a lot of room down there and Rocky's right. There's just not
a lot of room down there. If you're going to make this wider, to make this
safer for handicapped parking, you can go into any handicapped parking
stall and you can measure out and find out how wide it is. It's got to
have access on both passenger and driver sides. And if you're going to get
into this kind of distance, I just think that possibly there's going to
have to be a retaining wall put in. There's going to have to be trees cut
down. I think this should be measured out a little bit closer. And is it
going to be paved or is it just going to be like you say a Class V going to
be put in there? It should be checked out a little bit more. Okay, I've
had several conversations with the officers in the area because of the
trouble in the area. I'm sure you're aware of the swing that was down in
the park area for quite a while. That is now since been removed. The
officer that I did talk to said there was over 70 arrests down there and .
none of these are local people. Now if we're going to be putting in more
parking, and it's just going to be inviting more trouble. I think 4
parking spots is totally out of line. At the south end of the beach, the
large beach which you call it, has got 4 parking areas. You're calling
this the north beach. Mini - beach, which is a lot less than a third of the
size and you want to put in the same amount of parking. If you're going to
put any kind of parking in at all, it should maybe be one space for
handicapped. One space for other people. This beach was put in years and
years ago for the local people in the surrounding area and I think that's
probably the way it should stay. The public beach on the south end, again
has a bathroom location on there. Is the north beach going to have a
bathroom in it? Where is that going to be located at? Is that going to be
handicapped equipped? I think the whole issue here is get something for
the handicapped and make it safe for the handicapped. I think the better
location for these parking areas is the area that Rocky talked about...
North of the pump house. It's in a dead end street. It's safer. There's
ample room to fill. To make parking spaces. To put in a bathroom. The
dock can be moved over there. It's out of the way. It's easy accessed and
it's easier to turn around in and you're off the road. You're off the main
stream of traffic. It's not going to cost anymore. There's going to be a
lot less maintenance. I don't'think you have to put any kind of retaining
wall in. It's just a better location all the way around. There's no
problems. No cost and little or none maintenance. I think we should look
at this a little bit closer and if any or all of these answers can't be, or
questions can't be answered, the only other solution is just take the dock
out. That will alleviate all the problems totally because again, the main
thing here is the city has received several calls on handicapped parking
for the use of this dock which is not handicapped equipped. Take it out.
Park and Rec Commissioi1 Meeting
June 23, 1992 - Page 5
Get it out of there. Put it on the north or on the south beach. The
bathroom's already there. The parking's already there. Thanks.
Hoffman: Chairman Schroers, if I could address those issues. This
recommendation is more than just to adequately address needs, facilities of
residents or persons with disabilities. There's been a number of
occasions, not only this year but on previous years where again, parking is .
tolerated to a certain degree. I think if you ask the people who speaked
tonight, they'll let you know that on certain days, there are vehicles who
are parked there. Who are there using the beach. Using the canoe rack.
Utilizing the dock or fishing from shore and many times that is tolerated.
However again, when it is not tolerated, when we receive a call, we're
forced then to go ahead and inform that person that they must move their
vehicle or they will be ticketed. A distance of 4 to 6 feet can be
accommodated in that location. That was measured out. Park Commissioners
were there that evening. You can respond to that issue as well. No
retaining wall is necessary. No trees would be cut to accommodate this
parking. The area will not be asphalted. Four parking stalls do exist at
the south beach. Or excuse me, at the south of the larger beach and that
is just simply a beach location. There is also a Satellite, portable
restroom there. The north beach or the mini -beach also has the fishing
dock and the canoe rack. There are six spaces on that canoe rack so
parking needs to be made available to that as well. Portable restroom
cannot be installed on the north site because of it's proximity to the
lake. If there was a spillover or runoff into the water, is what we need
to stay away from. The issue of moving the parking lot to the north of the
old access or the current pump house there, just does not make any sense.
In my thinking it over, if you drive in there, then you're going to have to
necessitate or allow for back -up and turn around. You're going to have to
take and improve a much larger surface into a gravel turn around type of
situation. I'm not sure if this is just an issue of moving it farther down
the street. It is not my belief that that would make a better location for
parking.
Schroers: What about cost of developing parking down there? Do you think
it would be roughly the same?
Hoffman: Costs are insignificant. The maintenance in this type of thing
is insignificant. It's simply you would have to drive into that location.
Park. If you park parallel there you're going to have to turn around and
exit traveling the opposite direction from which you traveled into there.
You're going to have to do a full 180 degree turn around.
Lash: Where, if we have the parking on the street, how are the people who
are parking on the street supposed to get turned around? Would they have
to go down to that area, turn around and then get out?
Hoffman: Well presumably they would go up, whichever direction they came
from. If you're parking on the right hand side of the road, if you came
down Lotus Trail, then you would exit on Mohawk.
Lash: Is Mohawk not shown on this map?
Park and Rec Commissioh Meeting
June 23, 1992 - Page 6
Hoffman: Not on this map, no. It's just off the picture to the north. So
again, that area's in the residential homefronts abut that property
directly. The area being recommended for parking in that regard is the
only area on this side of the park. Which lends itself to being out of the
way. To not being visible from the front of homes.
Koubsky: That was one of our major concerns too when we went down to look
at that area is that we select a place that people aren't going to be
looking into. Instead at a high bluff on the west side. Our intent here
isn't to make a three lane highway down there. It's just to give enough
people to pull off the side so cars can pass.
Roger Byrne: What I hear is they're more interested in what's somebody
view is then what the impact has on the environment. The big problem we've
got right down there right now. That's the crux of the whole thing when
somebody cut some trees down there. But you were the other way around on
that. Now this one, you're flip flopped around. You don't care about the
environment. You just care about what somebody's going to have to look at.
You don't worry about what the other way around. I don't understand.
Schroers: That's not all we're saying. We're saying that we don't intend
to cut down any trees in order to do this.
Roger Byrne: But you haven't looked at it then. Even if you don't cut
them down, you fill around then, they're going to die. If you fill around
trees, they die. It has to have... If you have cars parked there, there's
oil leaking down there. When it rains, gravels going to wash down there.
You're going to ruin that whole stretch of trees right there. You've got
land right on down just a little ways where there is no trees. They've
already been cut down. It's closer to the dock. I don't understand what
his problem is with moving this parking down. I'm all for parking. I
think people should access to that park. I've always said that for 10 -15
years. I've been trying to get you people to do something with that nice
piece of land down there so people can use it. If I was you I'd move it.
But let's do it right. Why wreck some more of it just to accommodate so
somebody don't have to look at cars in front of their house you know. It
doesn't make any sense. You people are flip flopping back and forth.
Everytime you turn around just to accommodate what, I don't understand.
Resident: How about our driveway that accesses onto that road? If we're
not so worried about that. Our driveways go out that way too. Now only
that Mr. Hoffman, can you tell me how many calls are received every month
for parking down there? You tell us that we okay it. How many are
received actually per week down there for parking?
Hoffman: I could not respond to that without going ahead and checking with
Carver County Report record.
Resident: It's a bunch. We've talked to the officers. There is problems
down there and there are big problems down there. How are you going to
patrol this? Who's going to maintain it?
Keith Gunderson: We've talked to the officers in the area that have made
some arrests on the swing and I think parking's going to just add... The
Park and Rec Commissiol. Meeting
June 23, 1992 - Page 7
officers said they can't even catch these kids because they're literally in
the middle and bottom of the park and you just can't catch these kids.
Resident: He said that they lay down. They can't even see them. The
swing back there.
Keith Gunderson: ...pump house. You already conceded the fact that you
can have...and they're very easy. It's like getting in and out of a
parking stall...
Schroers: Did staff say that the City Engineers have looked at this
project? •
Hoffman: Correct. The City Engineers and City Planners were..to that area
and neither department had a problem with this proposal. The area in
question is located up in this area? If we were to install parking in
there, there are 3 homes which directly front this piece of property. You'd
be taking lake frontage which is currently maintained...and pull that up
and fill it with gravel to make that a parking area, turn around which
would then be situated right in front of those homes. The area which is
being recommended down here, you'd do much less damage to the park. You
need to rip up much less turf. In fact all you're doing is widening the
shoulder in the area where there is a sloping area down to the tree line
which is in question there. Again, it's not our intent to kill trees. I
do not believe that we will be killing trees...establishing those 4 parking
spots. That 4 to 6 feet of gravel to the addition of the shoulder area is
simply a precautionary measure to make that parking safer. Parking
currently takes place on the shoulder as it exists. Any widening that we
can do is simply making this a better situation.
Keith Gunderson: If I could address the houses.
•
Andrews: Could you go to the mic please just so we can have this for the
record. Otherwise we have no to refer back to what you're saying.
Keith Gunderson: The houses in front of, north of the pump house. If
there's 3 houses up there right now. One has got a dock in there at this
time.
Tuck's I believe has that which nobody else can have a dock. I don't know
why he does and the next door neighbor I noticed for the last month or so,
they've got a big dump truck parked on this land here also. Now this is
park property. This should be used as public land. This guy is using it
for his own parking lot. I'd like to see somebody address that also. I
think a better look should just be taken at the proposed site. Because
right now there is parking going on right now but when you open up the
trees, or open up your door, it's right in oak trees. So yes, there's
going to have to be fill put its and if you take a closer look at it, I mean
just over the side it drops down about a good 5 feet. So where is this
fill going to go when it rains? Where's it going to wash?
Erickson: Would there be room near there for one head in spot that we
could make wider for like a handicapped van? Are these large enough for
that?
Park and Rec Commissiotr Meeting
June 23, 1992 - Page 8
Keith Gunderson: Sure. You can make all the room you want if you cut trees
,• and put in fill and put in a retaining wall.
Erickson: Without taking out trees or changing the shoreline.
Keith Gunderson: I don't know what the regulations are as far as what you
have to have for footage on each side of a vehicle on a handicapped
vehicle. But as far as a van, some of the vans that I have seen, they're 8•
feet wide. Your door swings open on either side a good 3 feet and right now
there's not even close to any kind of room like that.
Lash: Part of our perception problem here might be in everybody's mental
image of handicapped. For some reason when we talk about handicap, people
assume a person is in a wheelchair. I don't know for sure the people, the
women who were down there before, my impression of the memo that we got, it
was not a wheelchair bound person. I can relate personally to my mother -
in -law who has a handicap sticker on her car. She was not in a wheelchair.
She was just, her lung capacity was such that she couldn't park way out far
away from Target or something so she had the right to a handicap spot. Now
I haven't even seen the dock but I trust your word that it would not be the
kind of thing a person in a wheelchair would want to go onto and I don't
even know if that's what we are intending by saying that we think that
there should be a handicap spot there. It's just basically the law that
it's supposed to be there and if the dock doesn't accommodate a wheelchair
and there's no access for a wheelchair to get to the dock, I really rather
doubt that someone in a wheelchair would be going there. But it could be
someone else with some type of a handicap that gives them the right to a
handicap sticker with the right to a handicap spot. So I just want to
clarify that I think everybody gets real hung up on the fact that handicap
just assumes that a person's in a wheelchair and I think we need to look at
a bigger picture here of what that definition is.
Schroers: That's exactly the point when we discussed the issue previously.
What we were going to do was make one handicap spot available at the front
edge of the parking so that anyone that has some degree of a disability
would have less of a distance to go to get to the lake. But this has not
been designed as a full handicap accessible facility down there and that's
not what we're advertising. All we wanted to do is provide some parking.
We stuck money in the park. We developed the park, which is what the
neighbor said that they would like to have, and if we invest money and
develop a facility and not provide parking, that's ridiculous. I mean we
need a couple of places to park there and we're not talking about a great
big elaborate parking lot here. We're just going to widen the shoulder a
little bit and try not to hurt anything in so doing. And we don't
anticipate that it's going to attract a lot more people to the area. Only
people that know about it now. It would just give them a place to park
whereby they would not be ticketed for parking there. And that is our
only...
(There was a tape change at this point.)
Andrews: Todd, was the intent to more aggressively enforce no parking if
we were to provide spots there designated as legal parking?
Park and Rec Commissio. Meeting
June 23, 1992 - Page 9
Hoffman: Parking is currently enforced, from my understanding, pretty
routinely down there currently.
Andrews: Well it sounds like it's on a complaint only basis rather than an
actual what I'd call enforcement by patrol at least.
Hoffman: I can't respond to the patrol schedule down there but certainly
once we install parking, to see to it that it doesn't get abused and they
don't start parking additional vehicles there past the 3 normal stalls and
then the handicap we can ask the Sheriff's Department to do those.
Schroers: As far as problems with teenagers and that sort of thing down in
the park, that's really not our jurisdiction at all. That's law
enforcement and all you can do, if you bring it to Park and Rec, all we can
do is request to the law enforcement people that they, that we can just
notify them that we've had concerns from the citizens and ask them if they
could step up their efforts in the area but we don't have any authority as
far as law enforcement is concerned in the park.
Keith Gunderson: In either location, whichever one you choose, when you do
put up the signs, are there going to be any kind of hours posted at all?
Because I know when you get into any other parks in the state here, there
is always hours. You've got boats running across the lake at 10:30 and
11:00 at night.
Erickson: Todd, aren't all the lakes posted to 10:00?
Hoffman: Park hours are 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m..
Erickson: And that one sign is at the mini -beach which would be near where
the parking. They're supposed to be closed at 10:00 as it is.
Keith Gunderson: Okay, and that will be patrolled on a regular basis I
would imagine.
Hoffman: Again we would make that request to the Sheriff's Department that
they patrol that portion of the city. The Department did respond to the
issue of the rope swing. We received two calls on that issue directly to
the department. The swing was probably 40 -45 -50 feet in the air.
Keith Gunderson: A lot of fun. Did you get on it?
Hoffman: The park department crews did go down there and remove the swing.
Remove the steps to the swing and the other trash which had accumulated in
the area due to that swing being in that location.
Schroers: Okay. And did you note the personal property that is being
parked on park property right now? He mentioned that there was a dump
truck and stuff parked there. In the beginning when we were starting to
develop this area, there was a lot of boats and things that were tied up
down there to the trees that did not have a right to be there and we
pursued that and got them all removed. We appreciate you bringing that to
our attention because we do not want private property parked on the park
property.
Park and Rec Commissio, Meeting
June 23, 1992 - Page 10
Roger Byrne: I guess I've got an idea Todd. If you insist on having it
there, which I have no personal problem with per se. Parking being right
there in that location. Why not just take down a few of the no parking
signs there. Let them park there. Why do you have to widen it? They've
been parking there anyway. Let them park there. You don't have to widen
it and kill them trees and stuff... Just take a couple signs down and let
them park there. Put up one at the end where you want to and I mean
they've been parking there now. Why do you have to wreck something so they
can park there when they're already parking there? I'd go along with that.
If you don't want to move it down. If you want to put gravel and stuff,
put it down there where it belongs. If you want to just have them park
there, just let them park there.
Schroers: Your point is well taken and I guarantee there's nobody sitting
here that wants to see any trees be killed. We don't want that.
Roger Byrne: I don't want to see stuff wrecked down there you know and
that's what's going to happen. If you insist on widening it out there.
Erickson: The only thing we want to do is if we allow people to park,
right now if you give people an area to park that is now dirt and grass and
sod and they get down there and it gets rainy. It's going to get mucked up
and I think there's going to be a lot more damage to the side of the road
than if we put a dumpload of Class V down there and spread it out.
Roger Byrne: I could see it spread out from what it is right now you know
but he's talking, he keeps saying widen it 4 to 6 feet wider you know and
you're into the trees.
Schroers: I'll recommend that we have the City Engineers to look at it
again and specify that we definitely do not want any damage occurring to
the trees there. But we also would like to create as safe a situation as
possible and try to get the cars off the traffic lane if we can.
Roger Byrne: I guess that's all I'm looking for. I still think it's safer
and better down farther but you know. If you have to put it there, you
know, just don't wreck anything, that's all.
Schroers: I think we can modify our recommendation to accommodate that.
We'll try.
Lash: I have a couple of quick questions that I want to ask just so I get
my bearings since I wasn't able to go down there and look. Is there
parking up on Pawnee?
Hoffman: Pawnee?
Lash: Or on Mohawk? Mohawk has just been...
Hoffman: Mohawk contains no parking. Pawnee farther up, I'm not sure if
that's signed or not. I believe it may be.
Schroers: Most of those roads in there are really pretty narrow.
Park and Rec Commission. Meeting
June 23, 1992 - Page 11
Lash: They're all so narrow that I just can't see putting anything on
there. And then this other area further north, is that closer to the dock
than what we have?
Hoffman: Depending on where you install the parking there, it could be
closer to the dock by some certain amount of feet.
Lash: And I'm assuming from the map that there's no parking on either side
of Lotus Trail?
Hoffman: Correct.
Schroers: Do any of the other commissioners have any specific thoughts
regarding this issue?
Erickson: Just to reassure the residents a little bit. If you didn't,
weren't already aware of this. We're also the Tree Board for Chanhassen so
we spend a fair amount of time talking about saving trees and putting trees
up so your concern really hits home with us about the trees so we want to
make sure that, like Larry said. The City Engineer's know for sure that
the trees aren't going to come out when the parking is widened a little
bit.
Keith Gunderson: At the start of all my paperwork here is, I asked where
the dock is going to stay. Is it in the location where it's going to be
from now on? Or is it going to go closer to the beach?
Hoffman: The current location of the dock is where it will stay.
Keith Gunderson: Going to stay, okay.
Resident: Was that the original proposed site?
Hoffman: As shown on the map.
Resident: The one that we all voted on. I don't think that was the
proposed site is where you have it right now. Down by the old beach, just
a little ways away from it. Somehow it ended up way at the other end.
Hoffman: The master plan was developed off of the neighborhood meetings
and then recommendation by the Park Commission and it shows the canoe rack
is located here and the fishing dock is located here. Those are currently
where those two facilities exist.
Schroers: And they exist where we had wanted them?
Hoffman: Correct. There certainly may have been discussion about other
locations at the site. I have no reason to believe that it was shifted for
some reason in final development anyway.
Resident: When it's installed, is it something that's removed each year?
Hoffman: Correct.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 23, 1992 - Page 12
Resident: So when the maintenance people go to reinstall it, how do they
know where it's supposed to go? Do they look at it.
Hoffman: They'd know where it was from the previous year.
Resident: ...never stayed in the same spot, okay?
Schroers: I mean does it matter if it's 10 feet one way or the other?
Resident: Well if you're voting on parking and all that. I mean this
wasn't the original spot it was supposed to be in that we voted 2 years ago
when...
Keith Gunderson: It was supposed to go right next to the mini - beach.
Resident: This was not the original spot. I don't know...
Roger Byrne: We were supposed to have a Satellite down there too. We
never did get that. I don't know what happened to that.
Resident: Somebody shifted here from the original plan. You know like I
said, I don't know how long it's been or I don't think it's been very long
but this is not the original plan that we all voted on and we came here for
and they were going to.
Schroers: You're saying that this was 2 years ago?
Resident: Well 3. 3 years ago.
Schroers: Okay, I've been here that long and part of the thing is, when we
make our recommendations and then it goes, the job gets out and the actual
contracting takes place. Like Todd stated previously, the proximity to the .
lake made it not suitable for putting another portable toilet there. It-
was too close to the lake. Some of these changes that occured during the
development, happen after they leave here and they're due to a variety of
things. Usually it's not something that really greatly alters the plan a
lot. It may move the dock a little bit one way or the other but if it was
changed from original, there was a reason for that.
Roger Byrne: ...the reason for the Satellite was, everybody was whizzing
in the weeds down there so, you're worried about the Satellite tipping
over, well they don't even have to tip it over because everybody's going on
the ground already. Same thing. So why not take a chance with a
Satellite.
Lash: They don't have to tip it over but trust me, they do tip it over.
Roger Byrne: I know but even if they don't, everybody's going on the
ground anyway...so what are you going to do?
Resident: Why can't you take the dock and put it down at the nice beach,
at the nice public beach that you have down there? There's a spot right
there that there's no swimming there... You have 4 parking spots up there
and you could have a Satellite. Why does that dock have to be down at
the...beach that can't facilitate, can't handle it?
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
June 23, 1992 - Page 13
Lash: I don't imagine it does have to be down there. I thought this was,
my impression was that you people were the ones that wanted it.
Roger Byrne: Well we did but we also wanted it with the Satellite and with
the other stuff that we were going to have. But then all of a sudden, one
thing gets put in and everything else gets left out. That just doesn't
work out. It doesn't seem right.
Resident: And you're not facilitating us. We don't need parking spots.
We live there. Obviously you want to facilitate other people. So when you
say, you thought that's what we wanted, well you're not dealing with we.
You're dealing with the public... As far as I'm concerned, it should go to
the big, beautiful beach that we have down on the south end or put it where
your public access is.
Schroers: I was at that meeting and several of the residents from Carver
Beach told us that that is where they always have fished. Fishing was good
there and they liked to fish there and that is why we put the dock there
and it wasn't anybody else. It was people who lived right in that area
told us that.
Roger Byrne: Right, but we were also told we'd get the Satellite too...
Then you don't, and then you've got a reason why. Because it might tip
over. I don't know why you put them trash cans but it just goes on and on
and on and on and we're really frustrated.
Schroers: There isn't a why...
Roger Byrne: ...come down and look at it. Where these engineers went to
school to say that that was'the best place to put in parking. Sure, best
place if you're looking at the people that don't have to look at the
parking. I'm sure you'd get less heat there but environmentally, for
that... It's not the best place. I don't care. I didn't even go to _
engineering school and I can figure that out. It's common sense. All
you've got to do is look at it. I know what these people are doing. All
they're worried about is who's going to cry because they have to look at
this car parked out in front of their house. Well, put them here, nobody's
going to have to look at it. So let's just go on from there. You people
just keep doing the same thing over and over. You know what you're doing,
why do you do it? Why do you keep doing it and then sit there and say,
well this is the best from safety. From this and from that. I tried to
get something for that park...people down there and all you people do is
give us the run around. Bad plan. Bad ideas. When you do give us
something, you take half of it back and leave the crummy stuff down... I'm
sorry. I'm sorry, but this really frustrates us. It's a great park. It's
a beautiful park and people could use that park. I've been telling you
people that and you just.
Hoffman: To respond to the issue of the Satellite. I believe at the time
that it was reviewed that it was the City's intention to install that
Satellite there because there was not a concern or an ordinance in place
restricting the installatin of Satellites within that proximity of the
lake. After the fact, after that time, there was an ordinance passed and
approved by the City of Chanhassen restricting the distance from a lake for
the installation of a portable restroom.
Park and Rec Commissic Meeting
June 23, 1992 - Page 14
Schroers: Okay and as we have it right now, we can't meet those
requirements anywhere in that area. The entire area is too close to the
lake to install. Okay, there's a regulation.
Roger Byrne: ...if you can't put the Satellite in, how can you encourage
people to come down there by putting up the dock and putting up the canoe
racks and doing all the other stuff there? If they're just going to be
going in the weeds all the time like they were before. It's like walking
on the deck and there's guys standing there whizzing in the weeds. You
wouldn't want it out in front of your house would you? I don't mind people
using it but you know, it's either the dogs or the guys or there was a gal
off a pontoon boat went over there the other day. I mean I'm standing up
there on the deck.
Schroers: I guess that's something that we don't have - control over. We'd
like to think that people would have a little more, what's the right word?
A little more discretion but unfortunately that's not under our control. I
apologize for all these frustrations but there are a lot of issues to deal
with here. I think that in general, my opinion is that the area has gotten .
better and we'll continue to work at it to try to make it better still. I
don't see why we can't have a garbage can there. We should have a trash
container there and we will ask in our recommendation that one gets placed
there. We can't put in a Satellite if there's an ordinance against it. I
mean we just can't do it and it's not a perfect world. I'm sorry.
Lash: Were there other things that you thought were going in that have not
gone in yet?
Roger Byrne: Well I thought there was going go be a path put in there.
That never materialized.
Erickson: Part of that trail system? Or just a path?
Roger Byrne: No, they were tacking about wood chips and stuff. Somebody
came through about 10 years ago, the Boy Scouts were down there and cleaned
it out and put some wood chips in but it's got grown over. You can't
hardly get down there...
Lash: Are there benches or picnic tables or anything like that there?
Roger Byrne: Well they were talking about picnic tables too but that never
did materialize.
Schroers: Okay well, I think at this point we're kind of whipping a dead
horse because there's not a whole lot we can do about some of those thing
at this point. It's hard to remember exactly but we at one point were
considering installing a limestone path from the north to the south. What
happened with that?
Hoffman: The trailway which exists there, is over grown. It's used by some
people in the area. The tree cutting which took place blocked the trail
for a period of time. I would recommend that tree trimming and clearing of
the area be the best solution. I'm not sure that installing Class V
aggregate in that area would make it any more pleasant of a trail or
Park and Rec Commissic Meeting
June 23, 1992 - Page 15
useable. The packed black dirt which currently exists is quite useable.
It just could use a clearing out.
Schroers: Okay, I think that we have discussed this issue before and
decided that just periodic clearing of that trail would be better than
going in and trying to build a formal aggregate trail in there.
Lash: I think when we cooked at that there were a lot of areas that we
thought would be wash outs didn't we? With wood chips or anything there.
Schroers: Yeah. We thought we would have a problem with either wood chips
or limestone and that the anticipated use would not justify the cost in
paving it so we just thought that we would use volunteer groups. Scout
projects and that sort of thing to try and keep the area clear so that
there was a walking path.
Hoffman: In closing, I would encourage that the residents that are in that
area, if they notice things which are deficient or which need attention,
simply to call the department and we will take every measure to respond to
their request.
Schroers: Okay, thanks. Anything more from any of the Commissioners on
this? Okay. I would like to ask for a recommendation then that would
include paying special attention and special care as to not damage trees
and also to ask for proper waste receptacles in the area along with the
normal recommendation.
Lash: Would we like to possibly re- evaluate the number of spots...?
Schroers: It seemed like the area, the idea that I'm getting is that the
mental picture we're receiving of this is a lot bigger program than it
actually is going to be. I think that what we intend to do is going to be
really hardly noticeable. All we wanted to do was expand the shoulder a
little bit for that distance. Remove the no parking signs in that area so
that people wouldn't be ticketed for parking there and that's basically it.
We're not going into a great big elaborate thing here. I think that to,
it's not going to make a difference if there's 3 spots or if there's 4.
Andrews: I have a question or comment and that would be, by putting in an
aggregate or a Class V or whatever, are we then going to be, have this
brought back to us with a request for paving and a path so it be further
accessible? Are we really solving a problem or just starting to scratch
the surface?
Schroers: We certainly wouldn't be paving that unless the road was paved.
The road itself was gravel and we wouldn't be paving a little parking area
on a gravel road.
Andrews: Does the Federal law state anything about what'd be require as
far as a base goes?
Hoffman: It'states make reasonable access and again it does not define
what reasonable is. And Jan was correct, under 3% of persons labeled with
disabled are in wheelchairs.
Park and Rec Commissic Meeting
June 23, 1992 - Page 16
Schroers: Okay. Is anyone ready to make a recommendation? If not, then I
will. I'm going to recommend that the City Council, or that we recommend
to City Council 3 parking spots with 1 being designated or assigned as a
handicap parking spot. That we are also going to ask that when this is
facilitated, that the Planning and Engineering take a very close and
careful look to insure that there is no damage done to any existing trees
in the area. And that also upon completion we would like to have proper
waste receptacles at that location. The parking is to be facilitated by
construction of a widened shoulder for a distance of 60 feet on the south
side of Lotus Trail as depicted on the attached diagram. That is my
recommendation. Do I have a second?
Erickson: You said 3 spots Larry. Did that include the handicap spot?
Schroers: Yeah, 3 spots includes the handicap right? -
Hoffman: The recommendation on the floor this evening is for four stalls
with one being a handicap.
Erickson: One of those being a handicap.
Schroers: Okay, I stand corrected. There will be three designated parking
spots and one additional spot designated as handicap for a total of 4. But
it will still, they will all be within that 60 foot distance on the south
side of Lotus Trail.
Koubsky: I think we can put the garbage can at the earliest convenience
instead of at the completion of the project.
Schroers: Okay, well that's something. I don't even think that that has
to be on the recommendation. We can just ask staff to request maintenance
to get a receptacle down there. Okay, now do we have a second?
Kousky: I'll second.
Schroers moved, Koubsky seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend the City Council approve the construction and signage of four
parallel parking spaces within the 60 feet on the south side of Lotus Trail
for Carver Beach Park; one of the four for persons with disabilities, as
specified and shown on the attached maps; and that Planning and Engineering
take a very close and careful look to insure that there is no damage done
to any existing trees in the area. All voted in favor except Lash who
opposed and Andrews who abstained. The motion carried with a vote of 4 to
2.
Andrews: I'm going to abstain. 1 have to see that site better before I
can make a decision.
Lash: I'd be interested in getting more information on the other, further
north location.
Schroers: Okay, what do we have?
Hoffman: A carried motion with 4 votes.
Park and Rec Commissic.,, Meeting
June 23, 1992 - Page 17
Schroers: Okay. Thank you very much for coming in and for your interest
in this. Okay, let us move on.
Lash: Before we move on can we...signs designated. To let people know
that it's only open until 10:00 like the rest of the parks.
Koubsky: Parking hours?
Schroers: Do we have those signs available Todd? -
Hoffman: Yes. They will be incorporated. We intend to do a very thorough
job in signing that so it is clear where the parking begins and where it
ends and the inclusion of park hours on those signs or on a separate sign
can be accommodated.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS ON MOSQUITO CONTROL:
A. ERIC RIVKIN, RESIDENT.
B. ROSS GREEN, METROPOLITAN MOSQUITO CONTROL.
Public Present:
Name Address
Ross Green (MMCD) 2380 Wycliff St., St. Paul
Dave Neitzel (MMCD) 2380 Wycliff St., St. Paul
Renee Wagner (MMCD) 2380 Wycliff St., St. Paul
John Thompson (MMCD) 6100 Sunny Road, Minnetonka
Susan Palcheck (MMCD) 2380 Wycliff St., St. Paul
Ernest Wermerskircher (MMCD) 7757 Valley Drive, Jordan
Harold Trende (Carver Co. Comm) 9010 Co. Rd. 140, Cologne
Al Klingelhutz (Carver Co. Comm) 8600 Great Plain Blvd., Chanhassen
X c 5�� ,q, ektoeft 64/82 m't,9 v / , '/y
Hoffman: We'll take a couple minutes to set up and then we'll get rolling
from there.
Ross Green: Okay, thank you. My name is Ross Green. I'm a Public
Information Officer for the Metropolitan Mosquito Control District. At
this time I'd like to introduce some of the people that came with us just
for in terms of questions that may be asked. Just so you know who these
people are. In the back is Ernie Wermerskirchen who is the supervisor in
the Scott /Carver Operating Division of the Mosquito Control District.
Sitting next to him is Dr. Susan Palchick who is the Aedes Program Manager
for the Metropolitan Mosquito Control District. In front of Ernie is Dave
Neitzel who is the program leader for the LaCrosse Encephalitis Prevention
Program and the Lyme Ticks Surveiiience Program. Sitting next to Dave is
Renee Wagner who is a foreman in the Chanhassen area for the Scott /Carver
Operating Division. And next to her is John Thompson who is our Data
Processing Manager, who happens to live near the area and he was with us
this afternoon, or this evening. So if you have some questions, at least
you know who we are and you can address those that way. I'd like to
basically give you, I'll be very brief if I can, about 15 minutes to go
through what mosquitoes and their control is all about here in Chanhassen.
I'll try to address specifically the park issues as to what our involvement
CITYOF
CHANHASSEN
r
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
• - .r te
MEMORANDUM
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager
FROM: Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Coordinator /
DATE: July 9, 1992
SUBJ: Vehicle Parking Plan, Carver Beach Park
•
Consistent with the adopted -Carver Beach Park Master Plan dated January 10, 1992, an area for
vehicle parking will be designated at the north end of Carver Beach Park. The Park and '
Recreation Commission reviewed this item at their May and June meetings. The Commission
conducted a site visit in May, and held a neighborhood meeting at their June 23 meeting to allow
for citizen comment on this addition to the park. Upon conclusion of the discussion on June 23,
the Park and Recreation Commission approved the designation of four parallel parking spaces,
with one of the four being for persons with handicaps. This action is consistent with the
approved Master Park Plan; however, the number of spaces are being increased by one regular
and one handicapped space over the original designation. Park Maintenance/Public Works crews
will perform the necessary work associated with this project.
•
�a PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER -
j
I TY C OF
of CHANHASSEN
be ,,,
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
"` ' (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
-
MEMORANDUM
TO: Park and Recreation Commission
FROM: Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Coordinator 7
DATE: August 4, 1992
SUBJ: Carver Beach Park Vehicle Parking
Upon receiving the Commission's recommendation in regard to the designation of four (4)
parking spaces at Carver Beach Park, I consulted the City Manager prior to forwarding this item
to the City Council. Finding the Commission's action consistent with the Carver Beach Park
adopted master plan, the Manager suggested I include the item in the July 27, 1992, City Council
administrative packet as an information item if no comments were received, I would then move
ahead with the designation of four (4) parking spaces at Carver Beach Park.
No comments or questions were heard from the Council, but prior to moving ahead with this
project, I received a call from a resident of the area This person stated that they did not believe
all their questions had been addressed satisfactorily at the Park and Recreation Commission -
meeting. In talking with the individual, I could not resolve their concerns, and they voiced their
desire to speak with the Mayor
The Mayor, upon receiving this call, talked with the individual at length. Mayor Chmiel then
took the time to arrange a site inspection with me, after which a meeting between all parties was
scheduled to discuss their concerns. This meeting was held on the morning of July 31, 1992.
The result of that meeting is this recommendation to reconsider your previous action of
recommending a total of four (4) parking spaces be designated, instead, designating a total of
three (3) parking spaces for Carver Beach Park
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Park and Recreation Commission rescind their previous
recommendation of June 23, 1992, recommending the City Council approve the construction and
signage of four parallel parking spaces on the south side of Lotus Trail for Carver Beach Park,
one of the four spaces designated for persons with disabilities as specified and shown on the
attached maps, and that Planning and Engineering take a close and careful look to ensure that
r
�«1 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER -
there is no damage done to any existing trees in the area; and to instead make the following
recommendation:
The Park and Recreation Commission recommends the construction and signage of three
(3) parallel parking spaces on the south side of Lotus Trail at Carver Beach Park
consistent with the park's master plan, one of the three for persons with handicaps, and
that this project be carried out with the assurance that no damage will be done to any
existing trees in the area.
Action taken by the Commission at the request of Mayor Chmiel will then be forwarded to the
consent agenda of the Chanhassen City Council's August 24, 1992, meeting for City Council
approval.