Loading...
8. Review Greenwood Shores Parking Issue 1 4 CITY OF 1 HANHASSEN ,0, _ 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 ' (612) 937-1900 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council ' FROM: Don Ashworth, City Manager bA/ Gary Warren, City Engineer ' Jim Chaffee, Public Safety Dire or DATE: July 10, 1989 SUBJ: Greenwood Shores Park/On-Street Parking ' Background In July of 1988 , the Council adopted a park plan for Greenwood ' Shores Park. The decision was controversial on various issues - most salient being whether off-street parking could be accom- modated. A separate motion stated: ' "Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded that the City Council direct City staff to do no additional work in the Greenwood Shores Park on either parking, totlot or ' increased equipment. Also that the Public Safety Director review the no parking signs to determine if any of them can be removed, and if they can, they should be removed. Mayor Hamilton, Councilman Geving and Councilman Horn voted in ' favor of the motion. Councilman Hoyt and Council;an Johnson voted in opposition to the motion and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2" . 1 Staff Position ' As will be noted, this memorandum is being signed by the City Engineer, Public Safety Director and myself. During the past (1) year, each of us has had the item placed into our individual offices for final disposition. At issue is one of whether staff ' is adhering to City Council directions or, to say it in another way, under what authority is staff not following City Council direction. As can be seen from some of the attached enclosures , if the public safety issue referred to by the Council in July, 1988 was related to motorist safety, the only area which would be justified for no parking signs would be the curve itself at 1 ■ Mayor and City Council July 10, 1989 Page 2 1 Greenwood Shores Park. However, the item was not sent to Engineering. It was given to Public Safety. Accordingly, staff is questioning if it was the neighborhood' s safety which was the basis for the motion. The best example of this type of concern was seen on Holly Lane during the late 1970 ' s/early 1980 ' s . Holly Lane is a public street off Powers Boulevard and running into Christmas Lake. A lift station exists at the end of Holly Lane and, accordingly, a chain exists across the end of the road to allow access for utility personnel. Christmas Lake is a highly desirable lake for divers, boaters and fishermen. Driveways were continuously being blocked, altercations con- tinuously occurred between illegal parkers and property owners, and the chain was constantly being cut. No parking signs were installed on both sides of Holly Lane from the lake to Powers Boulevard. The problem did not cease. The next request was to go 300 feet north and south of Holly Lane on Powers Boulevard. The problem only grew worse. Now, people parking on Powers Boulevard would walk the shortest distance possible to get to the lake. Continuous trespassing occurred over the Howard Viken prop- erty and other similar properties which invited parkers to take the shortest line to the lake. The signs were moved to 800 feet down the road. The problem partially occurs today, but is more remote. If the public safety being considered in that example was the safety of the property owners, the signs were reasonably necessary. The above example is germane in that the primary issue was one of ' how to best provide access to Christmas Lake. Once the decision was made that the access should not occur on Holly Lane, the signage became a secondary and probably necessary part of the first decision. Having more CSO patrols would not help the Howard Viken problem and could arguably be debated as not solving the problem faced by Greenwood Shores owners. If the City can ' acquire sufficient land to accommodate proposed land uses, including parking, we can confine any problems to our property and reasonably control such. When we cannot fully control all aspects of the usage of the property, it will typically only wor- sen the problem by trying to use or not use signage as a substi- tute. We are not saying that the Council' s decision to not consider parking in Greenwood Shores Park was good or bad. We are saying that, once that decision is made, that you cannot then expect that problems will be negated if you allow parking on the street. In fact, history has shown that a small amount of signage only makes the problem worse. If all of the signs were to be removed, the Holly Lane experience would probably reoccur and in another year we would have exactly the same level of signage that currently exists. Staff needs direction as to the City Council' s intent of July, 1988. 1 gt . ` t 1 CITY O r, I , ► `i- - , , 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council 1 FROM: Don Ashworth, City Manager DATE: June 26 , 1989 SUBJ: Greenwood Shores Park/On Street Parking 1 In July of 1988, the Council adopted a park plan for Greenwood Shores Park. The decision was controversial on various issues - most salient being whether off-street parking could be accom- modated. A separate motion stated: "Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded that the City Council direct City staff to do no additional work in 1 the Greenwood Shores Park on either parking, totlot or increased equipment. Also that the Public Safety Director review the no parking signs to determine if any of them can ' be removed, and if they can, they should be removed. Mayor Hamilton, Councilman Geving and Councilman Horn voted in favor of the motion. Councilman Boyt and Councilman Johnson voted in opposition to the motion and the motion carried with 1 a vote of 3 to 2" . The motion had ambiguity in that what started as a park item 1 ended in Public Safety' s hands for a decision departing from typical policy, i .e. Centex, Frontier Trail, North Lotus Lake Park, etc, were all handled by engineering/engineering con- 1 sultants . After various rounds between departments , I assigned the task to engineering. Attached please find the memorandum from Mr. Warren stating his perplexity, i .e. from a traffic safety standpoint, only the signs at the curve are needed. If ' the original citizen petition regarding general safety ( kids parking to party, conducive for illegal activites , etc. ) were the primary "Public Safety" concern, all of the signs could legally 1 stay. Mr. Warren ' s March 8 , 1989 memorandum was seen as a means to report that nothing more would be done on this issue unless requested by Council. I continue to receive inquiries as to when staff is going to put the item back on the agenda. 1 Mayor and City Council June 26 , 1989 Page 2 My plan did not work. There remains no authority to "do nothing" (March suggestion) . I need help. Possible courses of action include: 1. Doing nothing, in which case I am forced to put the item I on the agenda; 2 . Recognize that this will go on the agenda to decide the two perspectives presented by the engineer (hearing notices? ) ; 3. Pull the item from the administrative section and vote to confirm the staff position of March; or 4 . Something else. Personally, I like #4, but I have not figured out what it is . tair-) ^ .C) ICity Council Meeting -( ly 11, 1988 Councilman Geving: They don't have one. ICouncilman Johnson: The other thing I'd like to do is a little more general. In the special assessment loan fund establishing a City fund to help people who ' like have an $18,000.00 special assessment. Who own their part of their annual payment or whatever, can go against their special assessment and then it will be placed against the property...at the time the property is subdivided or sold at sometime in the future that they would then, that money would be paid back into the revolving fund. Something to help these people with these large, you'd have to start that fund and build it every year. It's not something we can do tonight obviously but it might be something to consider to be available in the ' next few years. Mayor Hamilton: Any more comments? If not, a motion would be in order. Resolution #88-74: Councilman Johnson moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve PP rove the adoption of the Lake Lucy Road Final Assessment Roll as presented over an 8 year period. All voted in favor and the motion carried. APPROVAL OF OFF-STREET PARKING PLAN, GREENWOOD SHORES PARK. Lori Sietsema: This item was discussed a year ago at which time the Park and I(_ Recreation Commission was directed to monitor the concerns brought up by the residents at that meeting. Having done so, we found a minimal number of calls to the Carver County Sheriff's Department and therefore we began to review the parking plan that was proposed last year. The Commission heard a number of ' concerns from the residents concerning the limited turn around area. There were conflicts witn cars and pedestrians using the same entrance and it was difficult to monitor the parking situation from the street. Also, they had concerns that ' we were letting cars down into the park. Taking these concerns into consideration, staff was directed to revise the parking plan. The revised plan shows four parking spaces just inside the park entrance and Mark Koegler is nere to discuss the details of that design. ' Mark Koegler: The direction that we were given py start ana the Park ana Recreation Commission was pretty well summarized, which was to look at ' alternatives and if the decision was made to put parking in that park, where would be the best location to place it. After serious discussions with the Commission, it was decided that by placing the parking at the top end of the park, there were several advantages. First of all, the spaces were easier to assess by somebody coming in as to whether or not they were full yet to a certain degree the berm that is in place at the present time, which exists primarily off on this side, would be retained to screen the parking to some degree from the street. The previous plan, you may recall, we had parking spaces down on the lower level. Obviously, by moving them up, that lower portion can be returned to the park as green spaces if you will. All or part of I the gravel that serves that lift station area can be removed depending on.. . From there we planned really to complex a series of embellishments for this. Also, having some landscaping around it to improve the appearance of the area. The bicycle path which would connect down to the existing bituminous which stubs out here and comes around to Lake Ann. Initially the concerns of the 17 City Council Meeting - Jul( _1, 1988 bollards.. .to control the lift station area to control rkin only ' pa g ly into that upper area. That is the philosophy behind making that a shared parking from the lower section to the upper. Mayor Hamilton: Thank you Mark. Councilmenbers have any questions they'd like to ask Mark? ' Councilman Boyt: How big is the parking area is square footage Mark? Mark Koegler: The spaces are 9 feet wide and counting then all, there's four of ' them by the way, and counting the aisle width behind them, they are about 42 feet in width. The other being the driveway coming in so the parking area, with the exception of this driveway, we have dimensions of 36 feet by approximately 42 feet. Councilman Boyt: 8 feet or so of that is driveway down to the lift station? , Mark Koegler: That would not include any of the driveway down to the lift station. Through the parking area, yes it would but once you cross to the other side of the bollards, the control point would have to be calculated in with the additional gravel extending on down. Councilman Johnson: If you've got four in this park and the fifth car comes ' down, can they turn around and go out of there forwards or do they have to back out? Mark Koegler: No, they would have to back out and that was part of the reason that it was placed up above so that a car could come in and you could readily see the four spaces just as you entered the area. It would require a backing movement. The thinking was to try to keep to a bare minimum the amount of improvements that would have to go into the upper portion of the park. Councilman Johnson: I certainly don't like people backing out onto streets. Another thing is, is one of those parking spots going to be reserved for handicapped? Mark Koegler: That could be. That's at the discretion of the City as to how that sign is proposed. Councilman Johnson: I would certainly want at least one spot in there reserved for handicap. I think anyplace we have parking we should reserve a handicap spot. What do you think it would take to give us adequate room in there to turn around? A little bubble down at the end or something. ' Mark Koegler: To be honest with you Mr. Johnson, I think we would have to think about relocating the parking down at the lower part of the park. There's kind of a neck, if you will, that comes out here as you approach Utica and it really, physically, to try and lessen the impact on either of the residents on either side. At least my recommendation would be, if you're going to look at a turn around...you have to go back down to the lower portion of the park and probably [11 use some of that existing gravel to the lift station access. There may be other ways to do it but I think you're going to have impact to the adjacent properties. 18 • ' II 137 - City Council Meeting .y 11, 1988 Councilman Johnson: I'm not trying to get a 50 wide and Y g g 50 foot radius lit cul-de-sac or anything in here but some method to where somebody could back up. I know probably in my little Horizon I could probably do it but with my wife's station wagon I couldn't. ' Mark Koegler: Conceivably you could put a little "T" hammerhead type thing off on the north side. So when you pull in and point vehicles...is going to impact that residence somewhat also. ' Councilman Johnson: It's a narrow street. It's curved. There's quite a few kids down there. I'd rather people be looking at where they're going with the amount of child traffic in here. I'm in favor of the parking but I want it to be where we can back out of there face first. Councilman Geving: Mark, I'm looking at your estimate of costs here and it ' comes to $6,900.00. Pay particular attention to $2,200.00 that you have included in your estimate for bituminous walkway and bike lane. Why do feel that that's necessary to connect that Lake Ann bikeway that's blocked off now at the bottom of the hill to this park? Mark Koegler: That item specifically came from the Park and Recreation Commission that they wanted a safe access into the park where the pedestrian and ' bicycle access would be totally separate from the other access...into the other bike path area. Councilman Geving: So you're circling the bike path and trailway in front of the parking area. If we were to put this in, what would be your estimate of annual maintenance and upkeep of this little four unit parking area? Do you have a figure for that? ' Mark Koegler: I don't have a number that I can give you that I think would have a lot of credence off the top of my head. It would be a relatively low number because you're maintaing that access for the lift station purposes year round anyway. Then it becomes an issue of are you going to open it up in the winter or not and so forth but the actual maintenance of the gravel parking area, if it's graded properly, is very, very slight. Councilman Geving: So you didn't give me a dollar figure. ' Mark Koegler: I don't have a dollar figure on me. Councilman Geving: You feel it's negligible and not a major... ' Mark Koegler: I certainly think so in light of the fact that you're got a lift station there that you maintain access to. ' Councilman Geving: Are you showing a parking area that would be sufficient for a medium size car? Mark Koegler: Yes. The spaces are 9 feet by 20 feet. Councilman Geving: What's your reaction to Councilman Johnson's suggestion for a turn around? Obviously you're going to pull into this parking lot area and then when you reverse, you'll be backing up and making a turning movement. Is 19 i City Council Meeting - July 11, 1988 it feasible in the space that you've got there to do that? That you could have a slight turn around area where we could be pulling out into the street heading face first? Mark Koegler: That's certainly possible. One way to look at that would be to ' extend the parking lot further to the west. Add another space, if you will, and use that for turn around purposes. The practical problem of that is going to be enforcing that as a non-parking area. You can sign it but that's going to be a problem and we're trying to avoid making problems and enforcement problems. The only other reasonable solution that I see again is to go back down to the road area where there is one.. .and come up with a sign down there. ' Councilman Geving: Does your plan also call for the removal of that rock down there by the lift station and placement of sod over that? Is that the plan? Mark Koegler: With the exception of the...used for lift station access. Councilman Geving: How much are you going to have to dig out of that lot area 1 to make it work with the park itself. What's the depth that you're thinking of? Mark Koegler: It's sporatic. We just dug down a little bit in a couple of areas and the rock that was there, ...washed down to that area. ...all of that would have to be removed and top soil brought in. Councilman Geving: For $100.00, I don't think you're going to get much rock ' removal. Mark Koegler: We're hopeful that, that was just basically a cost of straffing that and transporting it back to the top side. We'd like to use as much of that as possible. A portion of it will have to be done... Councilman Geving: I'd like to ask you one more question. A good share of your ' costs are associated with the bollards. Is that a pretty safe way of putting in a parking area and making sure that it will stay there over time? Is it a physical chain that you would place between the bollards? Mark Koegler: It's very much the same approach the City of Minneapolis uses around their parkway system. It's a substantial 10 by 10 bollard with a cap on it with a heavy duty chain that swings inbetween. In gravel parking lots situations such as this, that is commonly used. It's effective and as aesthetically pleasing as possible to control that. To have an improved parking lot with the curb and gutter and so forth, obviously you won' t have the definition problems that you would here. Councilman Geving: Talk for just a moment with us, if you will, on the plantings. The Ninebarks and the Crabapples. Is that your suggestion for the area? Mark Koegler: Yes, it is. Obviously a simple planting plan, we're trying to I provide screening of the area. We're trying to provide a little bit of seasonal interest in color. The area will be largely screened by the berm which we had kind of around to the north. There will be more impact to people that are til coming from southbound in terms of actually seeing the parking lot. We would certainly be willing, that's a suggestion at this point. I think that's 20 11 Q t, I City Council Meeting - y 11, 1988 called...for next year and the residents that abut that, have a particular choice of...they wanted to see. Councilman Geving: Thank you Mark. I appreciate it. That's all I have. Councilman Horn: What was the original price of the totlot that was proposed for that park? ' Lori Sietsema: $5,000.00. Councilman Horn: Wasn' t there something else? I guess it was just the bollard and chain improvement for the park entrance. ' Lori Sietsema: At one time they had talked about volleyball but without clearing trees, they didn't know if they wanted to clear trees to make room for a volleyball court. Councilman Horn: I assume it would be a Park and Recreation recommendation that if we approve this to put the parking in that they would also put the totlot in. Is that correct? Lori Sietsema: That's correct. ' Councilman Horn: So in effect we're talking about an additional expenditure of approximately $12,000.00 rather than $7,000.00 just for the parking lot? I( Lori Sietsema: We have budgeted for the totlot. Councilman Horn: I thought that was taken out of that budget when the parking ' was not added. Lori Sietsema: That's true. They would budget again for it in the next year. ' Councilman Horn: So in effect we'd be looking at 1989 budget item of $12,000.00 for that park, if that was put in. If I recall, that's what percipitated this in the first place was spending money for a totlot and volleyball court. I have no other questions. Councilman Boyt: I've already asked my questions of staff. I'd like to use ' that transparency before you take any comments. The Park and Rec and the Council has been discussing this over the past year. We received several letters and I tried to take that information and summarize what I thought I heard the community saying were their concerns. The community of Greenwood Shores. They were basically safety problems. The added traffic and the entrance and exit visibility that Jay talked about. The fact that we might be destroying the natural beauty of the park. Increasing crowding of the park and leading to noise and parties. I think those topics have been discussed very thoroughly. There must have been 60 pages of Minutes with this item. Mayor Hamilton: Is that it? Do you have any other comments? Councilman Boyt: If we're going to take a vote, I've got some comments but before that, no. ' 21 ■ City Council Meeting - Jule1, 1988 Mayor Hamilton: I know there's a lot of people here from Greenwood Shores area. Is there someone who wants to make any comments as a spokesperson group. We've all had an opportunity to read all of the Minutes from the Park and Rec Commission so we're aware of your comments. We're aware of their comments. We have received all of your letters. I would appreciate it if you don't hand out that much information. Jan Lash: We highlighted the important parts. Mayor Hamilton: We can't take the time to study it. Jan Lash, 6850 Utica Lane: You don't have to do it. I thought you could read it over the next year. We've got a petition here with 132 signatures out of 83 homes. Councilman Boyt, I think did cover most of our major concerns. We have been to 4 or 5 Park and Rec meetings this year. Several people have discussed these. They did address some of our concerns. It didn't ever really put a stop to the idea of the parking. Last week I checked into the history of the whole thing a little bit, which I think should weigh a little bit on the decision here. I sat up until after 1:00 in the morning one night reading Minutes from ' the Greenwood Shores Association. Minutes that date back into the 60's and correspondence with the City Council and Park and Rec and everybody. I think that a lot of people feel very strongly about this issue. A lot of people have lived there for over 20 years. Initially when they moved in, it was for neighborhood use only. It isn't anymore and we know that but at that time it was neighborhood people who cleared the lot. Paid their own pocket money to haul in the sand. Spent many, many Saturdays making it a nice park. Therefore, they feel that they have a personal interest in it and they would like to see it stay that way. I guess we feel that that $7,000.00 or $12,000.00, if you put in the totlot, we would rather see you give it to Lake Lucy Road assessments and make everybody here happy because we really don't see the point in it. The people who are willing to use it, obey the rules of it, are willing to walk the 540 feet or whatever it is that we've been told it is. Personally, my family has a speedboat and we would like to try to use Lake Riley. We've gone to Lake Minnewashta. We've never been able to get in. There's never any parking spots available. I don't call up and complain because I can' t get in there because I'd have to get up really early in the morning to get there in time and I choose not to do that. I would rather go somewhere else. I guess I feel that that applies to this situation also. If you don't want to walk 540 feet, you could possibly find another facility that's closer but I really don' t think you'll find anything that is much different. We've done some checking over at the main beach at Lake Ann. The walking distance is very comparable. We've done checks with the Chaparral Park with the baseball diamonds. The distance is very comparable there. To other facilities we think it's comparable and we think the way it's set up right now, it perfectly suits our needs and anyone else who wishes to come over there is perfectly welcome to come. I don't think anyone has ever been chased out of there except for the p people who come and break the rules and then they're chased out by the residents. Not by the police. I can' t think of anything else right off but if I do I'll come back. Mayor Hamilton: Did Bill's overhead adequately address your concerns Jan? The I neighborhood's concerns. Jan Lash: I think the traffic. The safety, visibility factor. We have a video 91 that we brought tonight to show you actually what driving a car. I don't know 22 , ■ City Council Meeting - (..y 11, 1988 =' ilif we would be able to do that. I think those are the two main fears. The increased crowding. I think now on many, many days when I'm down there during the week, there is probably for sure 30 people. On the weekends there's quite a bit more than that and I really don't see that it can accomodate a great many more people and I think it would detract from the people who do want to use it. One of the reasons they look forward to using it is it's not as packed as a lot I of the other beaches. To put more people in there, its probably going to take one of the main attractions away. I Councilman Geving: May I ask you Jan, of the 30 people that you saw down there, were they mostly residents? Did you recognize most of them? I Jan Lash: Sometimes they are. On Father's Day we were down there and there were over 50 people and until 3:00 in the afternoon, I did not know one person down there. But we did count that day 7 violations as far as parking and dogs and other things like that. ■ Councilman Geving: How do you feel most of those people got to the park? I Jan Lash: Most of them walked or rode their bikes. A lot of people ride their bikes. I see a lot of people coming over from Chaparral on bikes. I see people taking the trail system from the main lake beach. IIMayor Hamilton: I just had a couple of comments I'd like to make. In looking at the plan that's been developed by VanDoren, Hazard, Stallings, four parking spaces, $1,730.00 per parking space. The way it's laid out, they're going to have the bike path coming kind of around the south side of the parking. Also, with the trail going directly into the parking area so you could, I suspect if - you put that there to park so people will get out of their car and walk directly I down this path to the beach, which they probably won't use anyway. But it's certainly an attractive spot for kids to be riding their bikes or to be walking and to be walking behind cars as they're coming out or going in. So I certainly don't like that part of the plan. I guess generally on the whole idea of having II parking there, it seems to me to spend the amount of money and the time that we've spent on this particular project for four parking spaces is not the most intelligent use of time. I can't think of any reason why there needs to be I parking in this park. It is used by a great many people. People can walk there. They can ride their bikes there. They can drive up and drop their kids off or people off, whoever wants to go there. People can walk over there and I ride their bikes from the Lake Ann main park. It can be accessed in many different ways and to put in four parking stalls does not seem to me as though we are opening it up for the general public to use. I'm not sure what some people are trying to prove by trying to ram this down the neighborhood's throat I and I really don't like it. All other parks in the City do not have parking by them so I would suspect that if the Council should prevail and pass this, then we better go look at every other park and make sure that we have parking in each I and every one of those other parks that don't need it so we can waste some more money. This should continue as a neighborhood park. It serves the neighborhood well and I think as the neighbors had stated, it was developed by the I neighborhood. It was paid for by their funds. They did turn it over to the City a number of years ago. The City has maintained it since. It serves a great many people and I think the people who are, or anybody who wants to use it 4 can use it, as I said before so we're not eliminating anyone from the use of Ithat park. So if we can by tonight's action put this to bed once and for all I 23 • ■ 1424 City Council Meeting - Jul 1, 1988 ' t and whatever the action would be, whether it's to open the beach or deny it, we would also say this will not be reviewed for a period of time. ' Councilman Geving: I'm kind of the senior member of the Council and so I can refer to historical problems that we've had with this area along with some other problems at Carver Beach. We took steps to eliminate and try to resolve the problems that we had. For example, a number of years where there were parties and it was a great hangout. It was a great place for kids. Beer parties and 3 to 4 years ago, maybe even longer than that, we decided to get tough and do something about it and that's when we really tried to close off the access to this particular area. I think it's working. I think it has been working. I've had a chance now to go to the park. In fact I walked all the way over from Lake Ann because I wanted to see how far it was. One of my original comments way back in 1980 I believe when I tried to get to the had to ways and I realized that this was not an easy way tordoaiitt because ofkallitheano parking signs but I found that it wasn't really that tough. If you go down to the park at Lake Ann, walk along the paved trail, it really isn't very far to get to this place if you want to get there. My personal feeling is let's leave it alone. I really think that we've solved the problem once and for all and I I don't believe that we have to treat all parks alike. I think that there is a difference in parks. Differences in neighborhoods. Differences in how we view a park and how it's supposed to be used by our people. Originally the 75 homes or so in the Greenwood Shores area, it was really only maybe 35 or 40 and it's grown up a lot in the last couple of years. We've added Chaparral. We've got a lot of area in Carver Beach. People can still walk across the road and get to this park so I believe that we don' t have to treat every park in the City the I same. They are different. To make a blanket statement that every park should have parking, I don't believe is correct. I believe that there is enough sentiment on this particular issue that really we should listen to the people. They're trying to tell us that they're the ones that use the park. They will police it for us and that's exactly what we told the commission, the people a year ago. We said, let's test this area for one year and then we'll take a look at it. I believe that based on our guidance here tonight, that there has been a minimum number of calls to the Carver County police. There has been virtually very, very few instances that I'm aware of, where major problems have occurred at this particular park in Greenwood Shores. I don' t know of any major problems so I think there is a certain amount of policing going on by the residents and the fact that that really is closed. I believe too, that there is a realtionship with our people who are residents of the area. They've tried to make this an attractive area. Again, I walked down there just yesterday. It's clean. It's nice. It's a nice family area. It's the kind of place where you want to bring your kids to play in the sand and swim. I agree with the Mayor. I think we ought to leave it alone. Settle this issue once and for all. We've been at this now for 4 or 5 years and let's just leave it nice and let the community enjoy it. That's all. Councilman Horn: I have no problem with leaving this the way it is. I think the thing that really precipitated this item and where the idea got across is when we, in my opinion, went overboard with the no parking signs. I think we can have no parking signs if they serve the primary purpose which is safety. I think if our public safety group goes down there and determines which no parking sign are necessary for safety reasons, we can leave those in. Any other no parking signs can be taken out because it...of trying to keep something for the exclusive use of an area. I think that's what the Park and Rec Commission is 24 ' 7J City Council Meeting - -ly 11, 1988 L�� trying to get rid of by saying that they're trying- to develop exclusive use so I have no problem with this. I said originally when this item came up,- I felt that if we are going to have restrictive parks, that the City and it's general funds should not spend any more money on adding new equipment to it and I still agree with that. But the neighborhood didn't seem to have any problem with that either. In fact I haven't heard anybody in the neighborhood say they want a totlot down there. I think we should eliminate any of the unnecessary no parking signs. Not spend any extra money down there except to maintain it and enforce the laws that exist down there and just leave it at that. ' Councilman Boyt: I haven't heard anybody want to take, off the Council, say that we should take the parking out of Carver Beach. You put it in there last year. Councilman Horn: We put it in earlier. ' Councilman Boyt: Last year we reopened the parking for Carver Beach. It was closed. We didn't have 100 people show up in the neighborhood but the issue was the same. It's accessibility to the park that couldn't be accessed easily ' otherwise. We've had that park open and that park had a previous record of complaints years ago. It doesn't have a record of excessive complaints today but there is open parking there. Those two issues do not follow hand in glove. The issue is enforcement. The issue isn't availability. We have on the Council committed the resources to enforcing park regulations. I want you to explain to the people at Carver Beach why they have parking on a difficult road to drive on but they've got it there. But we're not going to put it here. Or what are you going to tell the people at Chan Estates Park where the ballfield is? Where it's right in somebody's backyard. What are you going to explain to them why there are places for 20 cars to park over there but we're not going to put in ' this park? That's not equal treatment. Every park is not the same but that is a narrow twisty road. It's somebody's backyard so it's very closely related, some are backyards to houses and yet the City hasn't hesitated to put parking in ' there. This is an issue in which, it really is, accessibility. Four spots in a park are not going to turn that park into some sort of public fiasco. Especially if we follow Jay's suggestion and make one of them limited to handicap. We're talking about a place where people can go, drop off their kids ' and probably on a good many days, park there and make the park easier to use. We're not talking about a dramatic change in that park. People already park there in the access that's used by the City and chained off. Residents park t there in the access chained off. You look at the complaints that were called in and I assume the neighborhood is calling complaints in and we have 14 complaints called in last year. That's not a dramatic number of complaints for a public park or for a private beachlot. It's unfortunate that there have to be any but anytime we have an open piece of property, you're going to have to police it and I think that's where the City's efforts should be. We've got a street there - that's certainly not safe. One of many in our town that are too narrow to ' handle traffic. I don't think that we're going to be able to go down there and remove those no parking signs but I'd hate to say to somebody, you have to walk 540 feet because we can't put a parking spot in. Where we could very well put a parking spot in, is not appropriate. If you look at the Park and Rec's discussion and the fact that they unanimously voted to put this in there, it indicates that the general public feels there should be parking in their parks. I went down and talked to some of the residents. I know, given your turnout, I'm glad that your organized and you're presenting your point of view. When I ' 25 ■ 144 ' " City Council Meeting - Jul (- 1, 1988 talk to people who don't live in our neighborhood ezghborhood about this issue, I haven't found anybody who said, you know, I really don't think there should be parking there. I know that in your letters you've indicated that yes, you have people who live in several of the developments outside of yours who use the park and say, gosh we'd rather not have parking there so I've seen those comments. I'm telling you that what I've heard and talking to people is a little different than that. To me this is an issue of policy. I guess unlike some of the other members on the Council, it's my position that the parks that the public is involved in, that the public pays for any service, should be open to the public and that means there should be parking available there. Dick Lash: You can park wherever you like. Councilman Boyt: I'm telling you that every park should have parking available so people can access it directly. I'm not treating your park any differently than any other park. I agree with Mr. Geving when he says the City should be responsive to the neighborhoods. This is an extremely difficult issue but my particular position is different than his and I feel that the Park and Rec group has established this can be done with reasonable safeness. Councilman Johnson: I'm in pretty much agreement with Bill's comments. I've been driving by for the last year, both this park and the park at Carver Beach. I've utilized the park at Carver Beach several times when the folks from Scotland came to town. We took them down there to Carver Beach to show them the beautiful little park there and have a little picnic and did a little fishing. Probably 3 to 4 times a month, sometimes several times a weekend or in the evenings driven by and I have yet to discover an incident going on at the park. The closest I got was somebody parking in the roadway there which when I called them, they stayed in Greenwood Shores when they went home. A lot of people stop in there, drop the kids off and then drive their car up a few blocks and then walk back so they can take their innertubes and whatever out. I don't think 3 parking spots and a handicap spot is going to deteriorate this park. The only other park that I know of without parking right now is at Lake Susan and that doesn't any access right now because there's no way to get access to it. It's not feasible to have access to that until we get Lake Drive West put through. There maybe be another neighborhood park that has no parking signs around it but I don't know. Clark's idea of getting down to only those required for safety means, to me that there would only be a few signs. I'm not sure if Public Safety has even looked at this issue at this point and how far away from the park that would be. I would assume it would only be on the curb so there would only be maybe 100 foot of no parking in there. But I don't like parking on that narrow street. I'd rather see 3 spots plus a handicap spot. I don't think it's going to deteriorate. Opening up Carver Beach Park has not caused a problem at Carver Beach. There was one evening where some fishermen were playing some music a little bit loud, after 10:00 and the Sheriff stopped by and asked them to leave. The park closes at 10:00. Beyond that, I know of no other incidents at Carver Beach Park that I've seen. There may have been some. I haven't seen the police record on Carver Beach. I don't think that opening up this one is going to cause anymore problem than anyplace else. The way the set-up is here, the officer or CSO will be able to drive into the parking area and have a better look down and see the park actually better than they can now from the street. Resident: And back up onto the street. 26 ' II 145 City Council Meeting - 'T y 11, 1988 Councilman Johnson: Yes. I'm not for backing out because that's what you've g Y got right now is the people pulling in and backing back out onto the street. That's the situation you have now but when we put parking in here, I want the people to be able to turn around. Whether we take one of those four parking spots or add a half spot or whatever. It looks like we're not going to do it ' until the 1989 season so I would like to see that ability to turn around somehow added to this park. That is not a good intersection to back out of. That's my only complaint with the design of the system. I think if I lived in the neighborhood I'd probably be complaining just as much. I know when they were developing behind me I was as wild as anybody else complaining. Most of the things I said have somewhat come true. I'm still in favor of it. That's how I'm going to vote. ' Councilman Horn: As one who pushed very long and strong to get parking back into Carver Beach, I think there's an important factor in here and I totally ' disagreed with the previous Council in closing that parking off. I hate to see a right that was granted to a particular area taken away because of an enforcement problem. You're penalizing everybody for what a few people do. However, I think we have to be sensitive to what precedent this is going to set. The difference between this park and Carver Beach Park is the original intent of the Carver Beach Park was that there would be parking there. This body took it upon themselves to take it away. All we did by restoring it was to put it back ' to the original intent that it was put there for in the first place. That's what I see we're doing here. This park never had any parking in it. We're changing the intent of what this park was established for and that has an effect on people just like taking away the right that people enjoyed has an effect on people. I was one of the people that used to park my canoe Carver Beach Park and couldn't launch it anymore because the parking was closed off. It affected a lifestyle that I had become used to. What we're doing here is doing the same ' thing. I think that's what we're looking at. It's fine to have a consistent philosophy on how we do things but we also have to keep in mind the reason things were done the way they were in the first place. We have to study history ' to find out what was what. What you see here is that this park was developed as a City park. Was given to the City by the people. I think that's something we have to consider that might be different. Councilman Johnson: A lot changes with the years. Councilman Boyt: I have a question for you. When did the City put in the no ' parking signs? Mayor Hamilton: Since I was here 10 years ago. ' Councilman Boyt: When they put the no parking signs in outside of this park, they took away parking. They took away parking. There was parking there and ' they took it away. Councilman Horn: That's my point. Mayor Hamilton: That's why Clark is saying he thinks the no parking signs on the street should be reviewed and those that don't need to be there should be removed, if I understand what you're saying correctly. 27 ILt6 • City Council Meeting - Jul( 1, 1988 C Councilman Boyt: This is what we started on a year ago. We want some parking access. The question was discussed at that time or shortly after that, can we take the no parking signs off the street. I think we had a request from one of the neighbors to do that. We didn't do that. We didn't do it because it's not a good corner for people to park on. That's what got us into where can we put parking? There's been a fairly logical process followed in getting to this point. If we decide to not put parking in the park, there isn't a good place to put it for 540 feet is what they said. So the issue is, do you want people to be within 540 feet of that park or not? Councilman Horn: Can I ask Jim Chaffee one question? Did we o along with recommendation on where the no parking g e zor yo p ng signs should be for public safety or did we increase that to cover areas that were not raised as an issue of public safety? Jim Chaffee: I can't answer that. I wasn't here at that time... ' Councilman Geving: Let me ask the same question in a little different manner Jim. Clark's suggestion is to review those no parking signs and remove those that don't fit. Or based on your best estimate, your knowledge Jim, come back to the Council and tell us. Those that either should remain or pull some of then. Would you have any problem with that? Jim Chaffee: No, I would not. Councilman Geving: What is your assessment of this area right now in terms of the no parking? Jim Chaffee: Along the curve there, there certainly should be no parking. Exactly how far it extends back, I haven't been there for a while. I'd have to look at it. Mayor Hamilton: I think we need to move on with this. I'd like to make a I motion. Dick Lash: Mr. Mayor. One thing. Could I make one comment before you vote on this? My name is Dick Lash of Greenwood Shores. Mr. Boyt.. .I think is the one with a conflict of interest with his wife on the Park and Rec Commission. I just think that would swing his vote. It would swing mine if my wife was there. Ed Hasek: You've heard from the neighborhood on their comments. I'd like to just take a few minutes to put something together for the Park Board to tell you maybe where we're coming from. First of all we're generally acting under, what we feel is your direction on this issue. Policies trying to make parks accessible to the general public within the City of Chanhassen. Not to specific neighborhoods. I would suggest that if we do not put the parking in this park, we should consider changing the policy to have parking in no parks. I feel very strongly about that. The reason that we have looked hard and strong at this particular park is because it has a beach. Beaches are becoming very hard to come by. I would submit that if we go through any development that comes up on L!! the lake anyplace in the future, the chances of us getting property to put a beach into that lake from that developer are virtually non-existent. They're not going to allow that to happen. It's too valuable so we have a commodity here that we'd like to use and we'd like to use it for the citizens of 28 ' 11 II 3 zs; . City Council Meeting -( .ly 11, 1988 111-1 Chanhassen. Four stalls again, is not too many to request for that particular park. Personally, I would like to see the original 6 to 10, I think we were talking about. 6 or 8. 500 feet is not close enough to any particular recreational area. They keep making the comparison with Lake Ann. Now I would submit to you that we've got a lot that's immediately adjacent to what is ' considered the beach area down there. Not the sand per se but it is adjacent to the beach area. Actually, this particular park, I believe if we had the graphic up here, is probably still about 200 feet from the sand so there is a comparison ' between that particular park and this one. If in fact there was parking on that street closer than what exists out there today, then in fact you have taken parking away as you did in Carver Beach and we as a commission would like to see ' that replaced. I guess in viewing the situation out there on site and looking at where the parking exists, I would have to agree with where the location of the parking signs is because it's going to be very difficult to get it much closer unless we consider something in the neighborhood of the parking bays which would have to be built adjacent to the existing parking lanes out there. I don't know that there's right-of-way that could accomodate that. It's a very hazardous corner. Granted, parking doesn't belong on that corner. However, 500 ' and some feet, plus or minus, can not be considered accessible. The whole point is to get people into that park. Whether you can walk there or if you have to drive there and pull your wheelchair out of the back of the car to get down to the beach. You have to be able to use that park. Thank you. Mayor Hamilton: I'd like to make a motion for consideration. I'm going to move that the City Council direct City Staff to do no additional work in the Greenwood Shores Park on either parking nor totlot or increased equipment or trail connections. A trail connection I guess needs to be done at sometime but the park should not be improved in any way at this time. It should be left as it is for use by the people who are currently using it which is a great many people. That is my motion. Councilman Geving: I'll second the motion. Councilman Horn: Do you want to add to that the review of the no parking signs? Mayor Hamilton: Oh yes. I would put that in there. Councilman Geving: I'll amend my second. Mayor Hamilton: That the Public Safety Director review no parking signs to determine if any of them can be removed and if they can, they should be removed. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded that the City Council direct City Staff to do no additional work in the Greenwood Shores Park on either parking, totlot or increased equipment. Also that the Public Safety Director review the no parking signs to determine if any of them can be removed, and if they can, they should be removed. Mayor Hamilton, Councilman Geving and !! Councilman Horn voted in favor of the motion. Councilman Boyt and Councilman Johnson voted in opposition to the motion and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. i 29 152 City Council Meeting - Julk_l, 1988 ' Jan Lash: Mr. Mayor, could I ask you how soon it will be up for review again or are the residents going to have to go through this each year? Councilman Geving: Four years. Another Council can bring it back. CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW TO AMEND A PLANNING UNIT DEVELOPMENT, CHES MAR FARM OFD' OF TH 41, LOTUS REALTY. Jo Ann Olsen: The Planning Commission reviewed the proposal. The original PUD , was to...existing uses to the farm to the zoning. There was a duplex, an apartment building, two duplexes and a single family residences. The applicant now is proposing to increase the units and the single family lots. One of the plans to include the single family home located up here now has been sold off to another individual so that's not included. Also, the duplex has been sold off and that is not included. The six unit apartment that's being proposed is split into two lots so it can be developed as duplex. The house that was moved onto the site, is proposed to be a single family lot. Then they are proposing an additional sixth single family lot. The area is in the unsewered area. It does not have water. The ordinance currently now regulates a minimum of 1 unit per 10 acres. The proposal far exceeds this. The ordinance also requires a minimum lot size of 2 1/2 acres for lots not serviced by sewer and water. The lots that are proposed are below this minimum. There are steep slopes on a majority of these lots. The lots located on Lot 2, Block 1 have a lot of improvements to the existing structures on then. Staff has visited the site with a soils consultant. It's going to be difficult to site two approved septic sites per lot. Staff is recommending that the concept plan does not meet the requirements of the ordinance. We are recommending that it not be approved. The Planning Commission also agreed with that. They felt that it was not in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance and that they should come in with a new proposal. For the City Council tonight it's a four-fifths vote for approval of the concept plan. Mayor Hamilton: Councilmanbers have questions of Jo Ann? If not, Bradley, did , you want... Brad Johnson: If you guys would pass this around. This is the original photograph of what Ches Mar Farms used to look like, for your own information. It was taken from an airplane in 1930. Basically, the reason that we are proposing something...is that the property itself has been deteriorating over a number of years. I think in the case of the Planning Commission, they don't have to deal with economic issues but it's a problem that the City. .. The property has gone through three owners in the last several years. Each time, it never quite worked out the way they had planned and slowly but surely the buildings have been burning down and/or deteriorating. At a certain point in time, we felt it would be necessary to correct it. Mr. Kirt came in here about 4 years ago and had it...basically any existing zoning. Through the assistance of the planning staff with the thought that he'd be able to sell the parcels off. He has been able to sell a parcel that is located here and a parcel that's located here. The duplex is back here and there's a single family gatehouse here and then this is...the Gross' that is located here. He was unable to sell any of the balance of the property. The main problem is there is a six unit apartment building that has existed there as long as that photograph has been in 91 existence and it's had probably some great days and some bad days. In real life, it's a real nice duplex but it's not a six unit building. It is difficult 30 ' I f„ - . „.., 1 -;i: . - (-- C I 2' y' G 690 COULTER DRIVE •• P.O. BOX 147 •• CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 \ , :. CEANHASSEN 1 "' (612) 937-1900 1 MEMORANDUM -"r - ': .....-r, - I., TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager _ . - IFROM: Gary Warren, City Engineer c.:_„3/.91gq__ Dlre .._. . . _ , :. .:, 1 DATE: March 8 , 1989 ��___ SUBJ: Greenwood Shores Parking ,311:.z,101 File No. PW056 ------ 1 As you will recall, last July, 1988 , City Council directed staff Ito do no additional work in the Greenwood Shores Park on either parking, totlot, or increased equipment, but did direct Public Safety to review the no parking signs to determine if any could 1 be removed and, if so, to remove them ( see attached minutes ) . While Public Safety would have input to the process , typically the Engineering Department is responsible for applying standards for determining the location of no parking zones . IAs a result, I have done a preliminary review of the engineering files on this issue and have found that in November of 1986 City 1 staff conducted a survey of the Greenwood Shores area to poll the overall opinion regarding leaving the no parking signs in place. As noted in the attachments , the overall feeling was that the I street was too narrow and that a traffic problem would be created on the curve if parking were allowed. Council action at that time was to deny the request of the property owner at 7120 Utica Lane, and leave the no parking zone in place. IFrom an engineering standpoint, cursory review would indicate that, with the exception of the no parking signs located on Utica I Lane curve at the park area, the remaining no parking signs could be removed at least on one side of the roadway. As you noted in your December 15 , 1986 memorandum on this issue, I staff found it difficult to make a recommendation on this item as the original installation did not involve traffic control cri- teria, but rather was authorized in reaction to requests from the 1 neighborhood itself. It would likewise be my conclusion that we would no doubt receive the same or similar input if we polled the neighborhood at this time and that therefore the no parking zone IIshould remain intact as presently signed . 1 ■ Don Ashworth March 8 , 1989 Page 2 Don, please let me know if further engineering analysis is necessary on this issue. If so, I would recommend that we hire ' Bill Engelhardt to conduct a similar study to that which was done by him on Frontier Trail for reviewing roadway widths, and cur- vatures and design speeds for defining, in engineering terms , the proper no parking zone for this area. Attachments 1 1 . December 15 , 1986 City Council meeting minutes. 2. October 27 , 1986 letter from Kathy and Bill Engebretson . 3 . November 13 , 1986 report from Jim Castleberry, Public Safety Director. 4 . November 17 , 1986 report from Jim Castleberry, Public Safety Director. 11 5 . December 1 , 1986 letter from Don and Mary Chmiel . 6 . December 15 , 1986 memorandum from Don Ashworth. 7 . December 29 , 1986 letter to Mr. and Mrs . Engebretson. 8 . July 11 , 1988 City Council meeting minutes. cc: Jim Chaffee, Public Safety Director I I • I City Council Meeting - December 15, 1986 Jr- Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to note the Minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated December 2, 1986. All voted in favor and motion carried. Councilman Geving stated that the City Council should meet with the Park and Recreation Commission as soon as possible in January to go over their Capital Improvement Program as well as any other goals and long range plans to ' establish common goals. REQUEST TO REMOVE NO PARKING SIGNS ON UTICA LANE, WILLIAM AND KATHY ENGEBRETSON. tMayor Hamilton: When we acted on this previously and we asked Jim Castleberry to go back and talk to some of the neighborhood people and you have that ' information before you. Don Ashworth: You have the survey from Jim and you have a petition letter IIfrom the Engebretsons as well. y-, x.��f Councilwoman Watson: The no parking signs were originally requested because of very definite parking problems in relationship to the park. I would say ' those problems have been solved. From reading this, it is apparently the consensus of opinion among the people along there that they want the signs to stay. I guess it was a case of majority rules. They went up and I suppose Iit is a case of majority rules whether they come down or not. Councilman Geving: I seem to recall that when we did this action back in the early 1980's, we don't just put up signs arbitrarily. These were requested by ' the neighborhood. We were having a lot of problems along Lake Lucy Road and in the Carver Beach area and as a result of the input from citizens, we went ahead and installed no parking signs in both of those areas. I think they ' accomplished a purpose. I think we have diminished a lot of the problems that we had at both Carver Beach and Greenwood Shores because of the parking situation. I have to believe that even the people who are making this ' petition tonight were part of the original petition that wanted the signs. Let me understand though, is this the end where the Engebretsons live, is this the last sign on Utica Lane? Councilwoman Watson: No. Councilman Geving: So this would be right in the middle of the signs? ' Councilwoman Watson: Sort of in the middle of the signs. ' William Engebretson: This is at the end of the signs. What we're asking for is just take down the signs in front of our property so when we get company we're not violating the parking ordinance if they park out there. Mayor Hamilton: We realize what you're asking for. William Engebretson: We're not asking to take down all the signs all over the '�- area. We're at the end of the line and I think the parking problem has been 7 • i^ i '- I City Council Meeting - December 15, 1986 II greatly diminished. In recent years the people walk in from the adjoining areas and parking really hasn't been that much of a problem in the area that I've seen in the last few years. What the original concern was in the neighborhood was a lot of other people coming in and using the park and making a lot of noise at the park. I don't think it's a problem with parking. I Councilman Geving: If we remove this sign in front of your home, would there still be no parking signs to the east of where you live? IIWilliam Engebretson: No. Councilman Geving: Yours is the last home? I William Engebretson: It's the last one on the west side of the street. Councilwoman Watson: It's not supposed to be the last one of the west side of II street however. It is only because the sign just doesn't happen to be in Way's yard anymore but the signs are to run up so they are even. It is to run up to Way's and Marcy's property line just as they do on Mr. Benson's II side of the street. Right now, you are right but technically, there always should have been one up there. Way's always had a sign until like last summer s'-i when it disappeared one night and it never got put up again but they were to >> / run, they ran to our property right II p pert line and ri ht across from us on Marcy's and Way's property line. That was the ending point of the signs and Mr. Benson still has one on our side of the road but like I said, Way's disappeared !_ during the night last summer and it was never replaced but techically, when we were told they put up, they had to be on both sides of the street and run uniformally within whatever area but the pattern had to be uniform as far as parking in order for the officers to have any idea of where the beginning and I ending of those signs are to take place. If the vote is to keep the signs up, then that sign on Way's property should be put back so the uniformity exists but they are right right now, they have the last sign because it disappeared last summer. II Councilman Geving: One of the points that you made Bill was that if you parked in the street and you had visitors over, you would be violating the I Ordinance on no parking. It is my understanding that you could call the Sheriff's office for that event, let's say it was a holiday event or party that you were having and they would disregard the no parking. I William Engebretson: I've called several times and it usually takes 3 or 4 calls to get to the right person to get it on the patrol car list. Getting back to the parking thing, the original problem was not the parking, it was II the noise in the park. Councilman Horn: First of all, I am appalled to hear that last statement II about if you call the Sheriff's Department you won't have it enforced. 'ghat is the purpose of having the sign there in the first place if you don't enforce it. My other concern is the fact that we put up City Parks and then we put no parking signs in front of them so people can't use them. In my opinion, if we are going to put no parking signs out so they become private parks, we shouldn't spend any money on improving them. Ell 8 II II ' City Council Meeting - December 15, 1986 III Mayor Hamilton: So you are saying that you would not be in favor of... Councilman Horn: I think all the signs should come down. ' Mayor Hamilton: Being able to call the Sheriff's Department for an evening? Councilman Horn: Yes, I think the signs there should be enforced uniformally ' and if you like, the City Attorney could comment on it. Mayor Hamilton: I think it's a matter of we're not a Gestapo I hope yet and ' it would seem to me that if we want to have good relations with our fellow citizens and with the Sheriff's Department, we would be able to do those types of things without offending anyone or causing a great deal of problems within our community. ' Councilman Horn: Selected enforcement? Mayor Hamilton: I don't know if that's selected enforcement if you call ahead of time and you state that you going to have additional cars parking in front ' )J ; of your house and you would like them not to enforce the law for that evening and the Council has already approved that, how is that selected enforcement? 11 Councilman Horn: Why would it be some special event? Why couldn't� y ldn t somebody call in and say they want to use the park the next day? I I Mayor Hamilton: I suppose they would have that opportunity to do that. ' Don Ashworth: I think you have to look at the purpose and intent of anything that is passed by the City Council. You have a number of examples of where we have no parking overnight in the residential areas. If someone did have a party and it went past 12:00 at night, technically they would be in violation. ' The intent of that type of regulation is to insure that in case of snowfall we can clear the streets. If there is no problem, I don't see where it harms the purpose and intent of the Ordinance to allow parking on a street for a party or in this case, if they had guests over and to allow parking in that instance. ' Councilman Geving: The only other point I want to make is that we did get a letter expressing quite a bit of sentiment from the neighbors that they want to leave the signs up. I have indications here of seven neighbors in that neighborhood on Utica Lane and Tecumseh, all indicating that they want to ' leave the signs up. They feel that it is a police enforcement measure. It controls the traffic and it gas quieted the neighborhood down so I get the impression that the neighbors of the Engebretson's would like to see the signs ' left as is. There was one suggestion in that is kind of intriguing. They said leave the signs up on one side of the street. That's a possibility. Councilwoman Swenson: That was going to be my comment. If the people on the other side of the street haven't any objection, why don't we just leave it on one side? The concern seems to be that the street is too narrow and that there would be a traffic problem created on the curb if parking on both sides were to continue. If we were to park on one side, if that would alleviate the i 9 City Council Meeting - December 15, 1986 II problem. I think if there is a dangerous curve there then by all means the II sign should be up at a minimum around the curve. Mayor Hamilton: But don't you think that is going to create the same problem I again in the summertime when the park opens and they are parking on the side where parking would be allowed to use the park? Councilwoman Swenson: I don't think there are any easy solutions. II Don Chmiel: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, I live at 7100 Tecumseh. I think the real intent of having the signs is probably what you are reading. ' It has eliminated a lot of the problems, a lot of the concerns. Mainly during the early morning hours at 2:00 we've had different situations arise where there are still parties going on down at the lake and then in addition to I that, when those people left afterwards, you were cleaning up behind them picking up the beer cans, the pop bottles, the other bottles that they were _ 1:1/ also consuming and it did leave an undesirable amount of problems within the \ i area. I think by keeping the signs as they are and if Bill and Kathy do have II problems with parking, I myself have called the Sheriff and I haven't called them anymore than one time and indicated that we were having a wedding reception or having a bunch of guests over and they would adhere so they knew II that, we never had any problems at all but there were existing problems as far as the park is concerned. It is not too much of a pleasure waking up at 2:00- 3:00 a.m. with car doors slamming and people running around and different things occurring so with that I would ask that those signs do remain. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilwoman Swenson seconded to deny the request to remove the No Parking Signs on Utica Lane, to leave them as they are and ask II that the Engebretsons work with the Sheriff's Department and City Hall. All voted in favor except Councilman Horn who opposed and motion carried. STREET CONNECTIONS: II A. FRONTIER TRAIL B. FOX HOLLOW DRIVE II Mayor Hamilton: These items were both on the agenda December 1st. Public input was taken at that time. It was stated by Councilman Geving at that II meeting that there would be no further public input this evening. We will vote on the issue. However, there were several questions raised that evening about some concerns that residents and we would like to have Barb respond to those questions and we will proceed to vote. II Barbara Dacy: Both myself and Mr. Engelhardt will respond to the 10 or 11 questions. I would just like to start out with five of them. First of all, II there was a question as to whether or not a community that contains a number of cul-de-sacs is a safer community. We asked Jim Castleberry, the Public Safety Director to contact various State and Federal Agencies. His information , back to me was that he could not find any studies to prove or disprove that particular statement. Secondly, there was a question as to why the street was not connected several years ago and there is a two point answer to that particular question. One is that the City will undertake it's own improvement 10 II ■ 1 7120 Utica Lane ' Chanhassen, MN 55317 (612) 474-5634 ' October 27, 1986 City of Chanhassen ' Attn Don Ashworth City Manager 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, IAN 55317 ' Don Ashworth and Council People Please approve removal of the "No Parking" sign at the east end of our yard. When we have company we ould like to be able to park on the street without our guests being in violation of the parking ordinances. ' Thank you for your time. Sincerely Kathy and Bill Engebretson OCT 2 8 1986 ' CITY OF CHANHASSEN ` - n 1 F :,...i.it ._:_, A., ,\ , ,‘ ; J . r ,. ,, rr ? 1 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 I �{ ' / is {.✓. Z.-, �• i_ :ti.. ...MEMORANDUM TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager �"� � FROM: Jim Castleberry, Public Safety Director L/rte I DATE: November 13, -1986 _ SUBJ: No Parking Sign Removal - Greenwood Shores II Per your direction, I went out and visually inspected the site at II 7120 Utica Lane, where no parking signs are currently posted. It is my understanding that the history behind the placement of signs in this area was to prohibit people from parking in that II area during the summer months when large numbers of people want access to the park and lake area. I believe it was the resi- dents of this area at that time that requested no parking I signs be placed; therefore, it would be important that a greater sampling of the residents from that area be contacted prior to making decisions relative to this matter. From a traffic safety standpoint, there does not appear to oe a II need for the no parking signs . I spoke with the Engebrecson ' s who explained to me that they had no initial desire at the time I of this no parking provision, to have their property signed as such. However, to maintain some continuity with the rest of the neighborhood, they agreed. Since that time, it has been their observation that there is not a problem with volumes of people II wanting to gain access to the park and that removal of the signs by their home would in no way infringe upon their normal use and enjoyment of their property. Rather, it prohibits friends and I relatives from parking there. This office has no objection to the removal of the no par.;ing I sign in front of the Engebretson property; however, I would suggest that the other homeowners be contacted to determine whether a need still exists for the remaining signs to a lessor extent, if at all . If the no parking ordinance is to be II enforced, there will have to be some continuity to its layout or it becomes confusing to the public not familiar to the area as well as the officers who are tasked with Its enforcement. II Jim: Please notify the Engebretson ' s that you will be polling other residents and that the item will most likely be considered I by the Council on December 1st or 15th. / I ■ • c .�l I k 2 i . i - COF 4.- . lj t C 1 \\k 1 `Y - a 1", 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 I --, (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM ITO: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Jim Castleberry, Public Safety Director'�-4 cL IIDATE: November 17 , 1986 SUBJ: Removal of No Parking Signs - Utica Lane I On November 15 , 1986 , a survey was conducted of the Greenwood I Shores area. The overall opinion was to leave the no parking signs up. The survey went as follows: I7100 Tecumseh Lane Definitely in favor of leaving the signs up. t7101 Tecumseh Lane Leave the signs up. I 7101 Utica Lane Remove the signs if the City makes more parking available. 7116 Utica Lane Leave the signs up - very good traffic Icontrol with them. 7100 Utica Lane Leave the signs up - expressed a need Ifor more police enforcement. 7050 Utica Lane Leave the signs up on one side of the street. I 7090 Utica Lane Leave the signs up, at least on one side of the street. IThe overall feeling was that the street was too narrow and `nat there would be a traffic problem created on the curve if parking III were to resume. I I • C I-- . ,... • •.. ....4311111:0 , 0 0 ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (JD in V' re) 0 — 0 0 _ _ — 0 — _ 01 0.1 I LIU_AC L AN E \ I I I CI 11R/Snlbas if I -2.,,p...■,L.Q.,,,../ rn ,I H E liL a3CL4 r:IT 41.., ifizzapp■•■•- ox \i- '.7utt_atc.,70( I R D 1V)---';' 1 LA:re VLIFC Alf (‘ 1 , . 1 /. .. - .. 53 R- • -. - . . ,. c- I-- ., LIST III ..0N, \I fo- - , - - R I Rr-I P1 ".5ANt • Ili 1 ir''''''' 'C' ' — --____ . . lu.... , - -- V. 4 . , 4 grA6 - I.' ' '' ;■ 1 NW : ....„,7- ......, . • , ''T / 4, INP..„,44111111.01 wi no ....■•,.. t .._ Alp R-I A / :-: v_ 1/4. . cn, - c, Vita,,hita;■■• N. 1 1- ?-: 0.-- If■ U Y M.- q ' . NM ' ' ROAD /6 11V , e Nei . , --- i . . • '') - I I su • \ \ 1.4„, .,y „, 4 . • \ \1 1 HIIAWAYH,"arL' a. a, , 1 ,4 • I:4... 1 , -_ / '- - 1•.,'• .I 1 \ •0 1., \N ---- 1 r..::__ h'.* 1 1---fl-L -4 tak.. i". ...." .. - .,.A•• • -- 1-.• I r-\\:) , . `I:\ Vs''"'"-1 C,t... . •• V 4 . ii;i_T _e\ ' ,c+. 't"---,._, • nt..,_„,,. ...4 .; . (..;) .1. --. \ V 4 :si ._(••- •. ''''• •Sl •' t I '-7:4711R 4 _, -) Lt31,./-k(21 \''-':e'-.1kk,N .''(•' '' ij fk V\:;.5 'L ' , ,,,_,.. ^.. . .x.,e, , • .4c, , . , i___L\_L-j ---'-~L__'`----1 ''IL 4-"4-.1' 0 ■-, ---',- ` '-\::-" \--:_ A \-- ---j 1-__ , . ,..-- , s.,'--'---2E-I_ ___- "--'----' -----,,c■,:;:_"- ---..-.—__________. _,, - . -,,---......},,\\ - C:4‘`, I , \''' •;440 )41t_64 9 :"5 ‘` \_..---.."'"' L?"---',0.4...,_1.Ccl---"4,V‘I' `' - _ LA KE LUG,' -, v. .\■ • - RD - " ----.r•-•)m.• -u 7t.7i 1j,"-,,4 F-I • Samos\ - i. ,1 ----7-1-Vv-- A./ 1 H T I CA (. 'A, ' I 7 1 20% ■Vio:, IWinaa ',.." -* \ A V \ II .F ------' /, I Ellta /.. (....\ • i i , L A X Le.: A ,Y N i 1.lc) I ...,...- , i , l`e E.A.. 0 4 \---"Illid I RD ,IX / 7 -- -- m-Y- _____ , ? ..1. r / -_____ , *i ' ' ,-;-------" ' _., R- 1....--,-,:- /1111••■•-----, 1 I ' s I 4.r:• C1 I SAHA:, ima ........L....."_4\ j _i_1 4c-i!, ?ct 1 , f 1 I Cr- 1 ■ 1 1.. .---- .7...-"T t.T.-E r C 1 r-•--•-•-•-4'''■All i 1 I (: I •C .11111RODIIR . ,L $ 11---; :if::: iI � • I ^ /2 '-,Y '_ "/ �,��.•� t • 7' y / _. I Li-4 , ' I / v r/�:2�:¢-'�Z4_ .V ,/, L 1 Le.--gig-1..-:i !i its i' ✓J ri lam U ',/,' � / :Yy ; .e }✓ ��� � G�? 'Vr _ {G/7 �.4✓s �.(% /„���- I ,/Cl&t,z,„24;..%,yz„ ...„.e.....„2,..) -.,8e J � `� '� ' 3:4;;;;',40:%.11.- �.�... . ," y 4 A29-7 .1`= ,//'L>c,c � 4..,..,. .)6. ......1-./L-C.. f �'u--1. . \..1‘..) ,A-4..' iL. , J G� " 7 i ..... .7"."1/1-..... .7"."..... .7"."1/1-6.-� 4 i; ... / ...4,y'.4 p''" A /./ • %,... 7/ I4v v1L e," ✓�/.- `� -di•c'y[�/Zd-:-.a�"�-1 `:G -;4L-c_.<,:___. ll/�'��0 ��.����l ZL. ) /.. �� it oy , �• .il/,?/-42.- 1- = /71-->> (�1,,1 v /j� -../.,./c�E:��' �'-�' -t/. / ' —.,1 -G' L: �/- I N II I .., _ ^� ' `-tr/ !1 `i 1 � i c�J + `L ( c G� f t Li... ...�rG - . ry✓/ \L y L r_� \� ,(--li,'- -,LL-s. ; ?� fr�c.�.`'•� �-, i ` •-- -� „//' v ! L •l , v = ./ • - G %'z- 4.--i- / 1 w�+ - =Y1,,am,,y ! - / �_ � ? y . t6?-71---',7-^"--. I 1it'7 t j ::::... ' '/ i � `� r' /� am L. J A.. -✓. � - / � ` , 'L i� . i Z� • ) 24 JV— 'f � j j,''7 � ja--// : %i� , ��i� lT c-; ` , _ L _ _ �/ ii / ' � - .� C....a'l(, G.... .;. 'J,/, •v=.., ,• -'`�/ , .. ,/ i •27k / , f ;/ ,r _,—I.::./. 1 1;.i �i / rte• ' • r �,I • Lr` � ; t/, : ,, ^ � •,' . t.: l � i � / 1 ' �71-tf�'Ls I//),(.., • �1 y�� � // - r ' ` C...'•+ '-r /Y ,, if ...-1--C G:....i _ /J1-! li`Z�/,/�',,', •.1 i +s- ' 1 •y 7�i �� / �?.,i ,; 2'.- ly✓ 'N / 34,-..-•- r ■ c - .,' - CH 'KJF ......_ t L - p ,)s6l _____ , 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 1 (612) 937-1900 1 MEMORANDUM I TO: Mayor and City Council I FROM: Don Ashworth, City Manager DATE: December 15 , 1986 1 SUBJ: Request to Remove No Parking Signs on Utica Lane, I William and Kathy Engebretson Attached please find a request to remove the no parking signs on 1 the Engebretson property in Greenwood Shores . Designation of no parking areas must have easily identifiable 1 starting and ending points so as not to confuse the motorist. Attached please find the map showing the existing no 1 g parking area in Greenwood Shores . Also included is a survey of property owners in that area as conducted by our Community Service Officers . Staff finds difficulty in making a recommendation on this item as 1 the original installation did not involve traffic control , out was authorized in reaction to requests from the neighborhood 1 itself. n 1 i\--y ( c -- I I I I ■