Loading...
5. Off-Street Parking Plan, Greenwood Shores , , 5- 1 CITYOF I .,. aj CHANHASSEN 1 LL.: __ ::_. '"—ti 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 ' s (612) 937-1900 Action by City Administrator MEMORANDUM Endorsed 1./ vodito_ I TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager deject ed— ---- j {/n� //7 FROM: Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator Date Sub.nittd to ;J.:.,If.:Jsv3r1 IIDATE: June 22, 1988 `", . ,,,_._._-_t I SUBJ: Greenwood Shores Park Parking Plan .__._7//iL s The Park and Recreation Commission spent a considerable amount of time discussing this issue. As directed by Council, the II Commission reviewed the incidents in the park over the past year and found there to be a minimum number of calls to the Carver County Sheriff' s Office, (as shown in Attachment F) . The II Commission therefore proceeded to review the possibility of opening parking in this park. II The original parking plan showed four parking spaces on the gra- vel pad near the lift station (Attachment H) . Residents expressed their concern that there would not be adequate tur- naround room, park users and cars would use the same access, and I it would be difficult to monitor the parking from the road. Taking these concerns into consideration, the Commission directed staff to come up with an alternative plan that would address Ithese issues. The revised plan, Attachment B, shows four parking spaces at the II top of the hill, just inside the park entrance. This plan also involves a walkway extension from the trail along the lake to the park entrance. The Commission liked this plan because it took the least amount of space away from the park, keeps the I pedestrians away from vehicle traffic, allows the parking to be easily monitored from the street, yet is screened by the existing berm, and limits potential abuse of parking area. This plan also I involves taking out as much of the gravel pad below as possible and returning it to usable park space. It does not invite cars down into the park, but allows off-street parking. __ I The residents of Greenwood Shores have expressed that they do not want parking in the park at all (Attachment L) . They have agreed, however, that of the two parking plans presented, the revised plan I is preferred. Although the Commission is not unsympathic to the residents ' concerns, they feel that all city parks should have off street parking and do not feel this plan jeopardizes the integrity IIof Greenwood Shores Park. { r Mr. Don Ashworth June 22 , 1988 Page 2 The 1988 Capital Improvement Program includes $1500 for construction i of the Greenwood Shores parking area. The total cost of this project has been estimated to be $6923 if contracted out. Staff is recommending that the gravel parking area be done in-house with the installation of bollards, and budget for the remaining in 1989 . It is the recommendation of the Park and Recreation Commission to approve the revised parking plan for Greenwood Shores Park, including four parking spaces, the trail connection through the park, bollards and landscaping to define the parking area. ATTACHMENTS A - Revised plan B - Minutes of June 14, 1988 C - Minutes of May 24 , 1988 D - Staff report and plan of May 16 , 1988 E - Minutes of April 26 , 1988 F - Staff report about police blotter G - Memo from Jim Chaffee dated March, 1988 H - Original parking plan I - Memo from Jim Chaffee dated June, 1987 J - City Council minutes dated June 1, 1987 K - PRC minutes dated April 12 , 1988 L - Petition from Greenwood Shores Residents M - Letter in support of parking N - Letter from Jean McHale 1 1 ' V±; /�,&wiL I �/ CL Van Doren- I Hazard Stallings Architects.Engineers.PIannets 3030 Harbor Lane North Bldg.II,Suite 104 I Minneapolis,MN 55447-2175 612/553-1950 MEMORANDUM I TO: Lori Sietsema IFROM: Mark Koegler DATE : June 22 , 1988 ISUBJ : Greenwood Shores Park IEnclosed , please find a sketch plan which reflects the improvements recommended by the Park and Recreation Commission . II As you requested , a cost estimate has also been completed . For the purpose of the estimate , the assumption has been made that all improvements will be completed by a private contractor . If II City crews were to actually complete all or part of the work , substantial savings could be realized . Project improvements and corresponding costs are as follows : I8 - American Cranberrybush Viburnum $ 280 . 00 14 - Dwarf Ninebark 448 . 00 1 - Red Splendor Crabapple 130 . 00 31 - Wooden Bollards 2325 . 00 150 LF - Chain 750 . 00 I Rock for Parking Area 460 . 00 Bituminous Walkway/Bikeway 2200 . 00 Rock Removal 100 . 00 Sod 230 . 00 ITOTAL $6923 . 00 If you have any questions on this material or need additional I information , please contact me . 1 I 1 --- -- . A . . 1 I . I I LAKE ANN ,,---- 1 5/441, DCAGII i I 1 --1 •-___ __-_ __— /". Z i mil\so. ..„.5„....A.I.,.. /'71 ---"" I --- 1 -------- NI kli r7:<....,G.. ---■..wtrr ' I/ N \ N I V t 4--GICA5sY AREA 1 1 1 ' 7.1-5 A1110,60,4—, .1 x3 TRAMr01,11.R. I I I 1 / I IiturnInaua Walkway/8***** 1 I 0 .4Y--0044711.04.PANEL r, 1 I w 1 TIMM ILCTN41114Er 0 11 Po.H WALL I-Rea Sp1onao,Crabapple-11/4.CaL B. 1J .1 I IF 6 I c41.7-fir.,,y3 14-Owed 11.noba/1.-V 111,US CE 4 11:1 APPROXIMTE I Ar\i 8 I CD6C OF 17, 1 ; LIRE ell 1------",I 1 4 a-A4.41444 OanbalrylausA Viburnum-I'Ht.BAB 41/402.ft• --I'1113/GATC POV1' Bawds a C1141n—a.8/1 1 dr---ahN.Ma a _ _PIILLT i ....... -....'"0 ......V. . i eX13-riN6 GREENWOOD SHORES PARK n VazardOonn feet SKETCH PLAN -Ito Staings I 0 1 2 4 6 8 NOTE:DIMENSONS ON THIS PLAN ARE APPROXIMATE 6/22/88 . ; =:.-._. -...:'... 1 , b-!.411f . (i-Lj,A,� 6 CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JUNE 14 , 1988 Chairman Mady called the meeting to order at 7: 40 N.iu. . MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Mady, Ed Hasek, Carol Watson, Larry Schroers, Mike Lynch and Sue Boyt ' MEMBERS ABSENT: Curt Robinson STAFF PRESENT: Lori Sietsema , Park and Rec Coordinator ; Todd Hoffman, Recreational Supervisor; Mark Koegler and Dale Gregory APPROVAL OF MINUTES : Hasek moved , Mady seconded to approve the Minutes ' of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated May 24, 1988. All voted in favor and the motion carried . REVISED PARKING PLAN FOR GREENWOOD SHORES. Hasek : Mark, is there anything different between this plan and that last one? The 8 1/2 by 11? Mark Koegler : Let me cover that quickly. Not a great deal , no . We don ' t have an elaborate presentation because the only additions that have been put on here were the few items that specifically were requested at the last meeting which essentially were the abutting residences of three. Lori and I went out and we field taped those locations and then I verified those on half section aerial photos so those are quite close. They' re not exact because they' re not surveyed but they' re close. The other item. . . since the print set that went out in the packet was the ' Commission had talked about some type of a walkway extension coming back from this point and coming up to Utica Lane. We have shown one manner in which that can be accomplished for your consideration this evening. One ' of the residents last time pointed out the question, the distance here between the bituminous path and the beach and Lori and I checked that and it was off by about 8 or 9 feet. It' s been moved up so now it is in as accurate a location as we can get again , without having a survey. The parking plan itself remains unchanged. This was the scheme for anybody who wasn' t here before. It looks at including the spaces up on the top area instead of the lower area. We had also talked about and looked at ' the berm and there was consideration by the Commission as to whether or not there was value to retain that. Our reaction after looking at that again in the field is that we will keep that there because I think it — ' serves as a buffer to help mitigate the parking there but it did not preclude view of the parking spaces from this area where somebody might potentially pull in, observe they' re full and than depart the area . So with those modifications, the plan and the location of the spaces ;111, the same. The only additions are the items that I just noted. 4. � y Hasek: When you were out there Mark, did you happen to notice wher ) the location of the park sign was? I guess it' s not so much that it ' s says it on the map. I wondered if you thought that perhaps it was a visual Park and Recreation Commission Meeting June 14 , 1988 - Page 2 barrier for access/egress . ' Mark Koegler : To be honest with you, we didn' t specifically look at it when we were out there. Mady: We talked about doing the gravel in the bottom part of the existing parking area. I 'm looking at all the rest of that gravel that exists there down to the lift station , the lift station that is in private beachlot that I belong to does not have gravel going to it. The City doesn ' t have to go and work on that thing, it' s not that often. I 'm wondering if it's possible to take all that gravel out of there and make it a green space. Are we going to be gaining anything by that or would the street department have a problem with that? Sietsema: Dale might be able to answer that better than I . ' Dale Gregory: Utilities is down there just about every day. Mady: I know they look at it just about every day but they don ' t ' actually have to drive up to it. Dale Gregory: I really don' t know how much maintenance they' re doing or how often they' re working on the lift station. Boyt: At our beachlot they drive down the hill and walk to get to it. I Mady: It would be about the same distance I think with ours . Hasek: Even if they do have to pull maintenance on it , do they have to go right up to it? Dale Gregory: Yes . They have to back their trucks right up to the lift station so they can pull the pumps. Hasek: What ' s the possibility of maybe lightly overlaying the gravel with top soil and seeding it and leaving the bed in place? Dale Gregory: With the gravel underneath you' re not going to get very good growth in your grass. ' Hasek: I know. It' s always a little spotty. Dale Gregory: And this year it would really be bad. As soon as it 's dry 1 it' s going to dry up. Hasek: Have you ever tried that in the City? ' Mady: Another thing I was thinking, I would not go up extending the trail into the street. If we had all this extra gravel there, being used for that gravel . . . What would you use for underneath the path? If you have a paved path? 11 ' Park and Recreation Commission Meeting June 14, 1988 - Page 3 II I Mark Koegler : Class V. To answer your questions , presumably this also would take the gravel out completely. It hadn' t been considered before and I think that' s something ultimately we could refer to Jerry Boucher II and see what his reaction was but there' s no steep grade in there or any reason they couldn' t conceivably drive across turf areas . The concern obviously also is in the wintertime when they have to provide any maintenance to that and if so, what does that do to the grass . Will it I get dug up? If they' re willing to walk in just to check the lift station and for the very infrequent occasions they'd have to actually pull up to service it, I wouldn' t think that could be any problem. IBoyt : I think they plow all the way to ours. They plow the grass . Dale Gregory: During the wintertime they plow up to just about all of II them so when they' re broke down they can go right to them and get them up. Otherwise, if they get a lot of snow, it takes a long time before they can get them plowed out so they try to keep them open all the time. IBoyt: It's never affected our grass . Mady: Dale, do we seed up here where the hockey rinks, the skating rink ;' is every year? , Dale Gregory: We seed all of our family rinks every year . IMady: That would be a possibility. I Mark Koegler : I think the main value to that would be returning the green space to the park more so than using the Class V. It may or may not be suitable for use. IMady: I 'm looking at green space in the park is all . Hasek: Do we want to take advantage of the possibility of talking to the Imaintenance or other people to see if we can . . . Mady: I think the discussion in making it green space, the problem is I going to be whether or not the street department or maintenance department feels it's acceptable for them to get to . Sietsema: Your discussion will be reflected in the Minutes that will go I along with your recommendation and I can ask Jerry Boucher and talk about that in my cover memo to Council as well . ' Mady: There' s no reason for us to have a road going down into the park. As long as it ' s a park there I 'd like to see green space. Hasek: I guess my comments are that I think it accomodates what we had I intended without disturbing the park. . .that it did before with the parking spaces in place. The site has been checked and rechecked and some of the items that were of concern to us before and I 'd like to make Ia motion that we send this to Council for approval . _ .:. .a• .<ta„ _.,.,,.,wr.ai-cry:=:1i,4:%4• .t1.4•w K .at,, _I44...A:.i.K...yV...ti 4di1ia , Park and Recreation Commission Meeting June 14, 1988 - Page 4 Lynch : Is there identification on that sketch that we can refer to? Sietsema: I ' ll have it dated . Mady: It ' s dated June 10th. ' Hasek: That one's revised. Sietsema: I ' ll have it dated June 14th. , Boyt: Do you know if they' ll put, slow them up for this stop sign? Mady: Does this plan include the bollards? That ' s a gate post but that's not going to prevent cars from driving out over the gravel area . Sietsema: No, it doesn' t. Do you want us to put the bollards on the plan? Mady: Yes. As long as we have the money available in the budget I 'd , like to see it done otherwise they' ll just end up driving around it. Schroers : . . .that requires lighting? , Sietsema: There is a light down in the park. Hasek: But it shines towards the beach . Schroers: I know where that light was. My question is , is there additional lighting that goes into the parking lot? Sietsema: Not automatically. If you want to include that in your recommenadtion, you could. ' Hasek: I guess I would just as soon the lighting stay out of it. All it does is just encourage people to stay and park later than they should anyways . Hasek moved , Lynch seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission ' recommend to approve the Parking Plan for Greenwood Shores dated June 14, 1988 with bollards and stop sign. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ' Sietsema : I will be scheduling this for the July 11th City Council meeting and I will be notifying everybody who signed up previously and was on that petition that you gave us and that is on tonight ' s sign up. REVIEW PARK MAINTENANCE STAFF NEEDS, DALE GREGORY. ' Sietsema: I put for your review a memo that I received from Gary Warren on Friday after the packets were already out. It addresses some of the issues that I brought to his attention and I also had talked to him about PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING Ic. MAY 24, 1988 IChairman Mady called the meeting to order at 7 : 40 p.m. . MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Mady, Curt Robinson, Mike Lynch, Larr Schroers,rs, Ed Hasek and Sue Boyt IIMEMBERS ABSENT: Carol Watson I STAFF PRESENT: Lori Sietsema , Park and Rec Coordinator and Todd Hoffman, Recreation Supervisor ICOUNCILMEMBER PRESENT: Councilman Jay Johnson APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Robinson moved, Lynch seconded to approve the agenda as amended to move item 12, City Center Park Layout to after item 5 and ,' to add discussion on Seeding Hockey Rinks and Carver Beach. All voted in favor and the motion carried. I APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Hasek moved, Mady seconded to approve the Minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission meetings dated April 26, 1988 and May 10, 1988 as amended . All voted in favor and the motion carried . IIGREENWOOD SHORES REVISED PARKING PLAN - MARK KOEGLER. It: Public Present : Name Address Don Chmiel 7100 Tecumseh Lane I Dick and Janet Lash 6850 Utica Lane Bruce Arnold 6850 Utica Circle Mike Koch 6870 Utica Lane IJeff Farmakes 7100 Utica Lane Mark Koegler : . . . take a look and see if it ' s possible to get parking in I the upper portion of the park instead of the lower portion. The area that we were looking at specifically was keeping it as close to Utica Lane as possible and was tucking the parking back in this area. The reason for doing that is the tree line on this side and there' s a I residence over on this side, a car would head in away from that residence. There ' s adequate room there to accomodate pulling in movement, backing out, circulation in terms of cars that can utilize the I parking lot . The thinking was that when the four spaces are full , anybody that even remotely starts to drive up this entrance can see that they' re full and hopefully exit and leave and find parking elsewhere or I come back at a later date or whatever . This scenario has not been developed just beyond a quick sketch to see how it could be done. It can be done with fairly minimal grading and tree removal . I think there is one tree that presently sits right in here that ' s an inch or so in it caliper that needs to be relocated. Then we have to cut a little bit on this side and fill a little bit on this side which we can handle without a major retaining wall or anything else. That would require presumably some kind of control point then to be put here in addition to here so that the City would still have the option of closing off the lift Park and Recreation Commission Meeting May 24 , 1988 - Page 2 station . The advantage to putting parking on the upper portion would be I that it would be possible then to remove some of the gravel area that ' s part of the circulation pattern down below because that ' s not really needed to service the lift station. That then would be space that--could be used for other purposes . Whether it ' s an active play area or just open space or whatever. So in summary, the only major change is keeping the same number of spaces but bringing them up to the top portion instead of down in the lower . ' Hasek: Mark, you've got a dash line that runs around the "grassy area" down below by the transformer there and the lift station. Is that currently gravel and going to be grass? Mark Koegler: If I remember correctly, that is grass at the present time. I guess it falls. . .what that line delineated . There' s a wall I know only on this one side. That was a remnant from the existing conditions . That' s not part of the plan . The only thing that ' s changed on this plan is really adding this little nodule of parking here and moving this area down below. Schroers : Mark, in your opinion, would that new proposal delete safety hazards from having to drive up from down below where you can 't see? Do you feel this is a safer area to park? Mark Koegler: Presumably it' s safer . Certainly it' s more convenient in terms of the public being able to easily assess whether or not the lot has space available or not and not having everybody to have to drive in and try to turn around to come back out . Schroers: And you don't have to Y pick up speed to get up over a hill where you may have visibility problems? Mark Koegler : There' s a rise kind of where the posts are that is kind of II reflected in the berm being off on the west side there so there is somewhat of a rise that still exists. You ' re not coming up. . . I Schroers : Can you see the street from there? Mark Koegler: I believe you can. We don' t have any elevations. Again, this was just scratch form. We' ll illicit your comments and we' ll take a look at some of those in detail . Schroers : If we decide to go along with this , you could probably put in there that as you sit in your car in the parking lot we would want to be -- able to see the street without having to go up a rise. Mark Koegler: It could be. It may mean that off of the width of that asphalt the existing gravel may have to be cut down somewhat. I don ' t know. Again, we don't have calculations on that. It' s not much of a rise there. Hasek: I recall when we were out there that there was about a two car landing at the top there and it went back beyond those posts. I don' t IFPark and Recreation Commission Meeting May 24, 1988 - Page 3 Ilk- I recall exactly how far . . .but two cars could stop at that landing there with a flat turnaround. The only other problem that goes to visibility was the location of the sign where you park. We want to think about maybe relocating that too based on discussion. _ _ Sietsema : Another thing to consider with this layout is that it' s much easier for public safety to drive by and see what the parking conditions I in the park are. See if people are parking illegally. They don' t have to drive into the park either to just check on parking. IMady: I ' ll open it up for public discussion. Dick Lash, 6850 Utica Lane: A couple of things I 'd like to address here. First of all , I believe this here kind of represents a debate on this I thing . In the last meeting I was to up here, I 've been to several , we, concerned citizens , viewed our point and then the Council had their say. Any debate I 've ever seen you have one side, another side and two I rebuttals. i think we should have a rebuttal here for one thing . We got into a little bit of an argument last time because there was no rebuttals allowed . The second thing I 'd like to bring up is there is another option here and this is my opinion only but this thing the way .I I understand it, Greenwood Shores Beach was a neighborhood park at one time. I have not heard anybody on this Council or at the City Council address maybe making it a neighborhood park again . There are other I neighborhood parks in Chanhassen, which you ' re well aware of, and I don ' t think anybody wants the City to move in and do anything to them. The City has spent minimal money on this thing up to this point . They paid II no money for that lot down there. I believe it would make Greenwood Shores happy. It would be a headache off this Council and it would also benefit our taxpayers. Putting four parking spaces in there at the taxpayer ' s expense , I don ' t see as spending good money. Putting four II parking spaces in there, I live as far away from the beach as you can get in Greenwood Shores , just about . I 'm just about as far as you can get from there. I believe by putting the four parking spaces in, you ' re not I going to bring murderers and rapists in there.. What you' re going to bring in there are kids. You ' re going to have beer parties down there. You' re going to have littering . My yard ' s got litter ever since the darn I beach has opened up. The more people that know about it, the more my yard shows it . My van has been ripped off from my driveway. I 've had bicycles stolen out of my garage. This is since the beach has become public . Granted it ' s been public since I 've lived out here but the more I people that know about it the more damage I see around my house. The more it' s advertised and four parking spaces and being expanded to 8 or 12 or whatever phase 2 is going to be on this thing, is more advertising . -- IthatYou people don' t live there. There are certain people on this Council do live in areas that have neighborhood beaches . Those of you who live there think of it as if the City were to take over your beach and IL say we're going to do this to your beach. How would you feel? Thank you. Jan Lash, 6850 Utica Lane: This plan to me is , not that I 'm in favor of it at all , it 's the best of the ones that I 've seen and it says on it that it ' s out of proportion or it' s estimates or something like that I Park and Recreation Commission Meeting May 24, 1988 - Page 4 because it looks like you'd have to have maybe a little matchbox cars to fit into those parking spots there. The beach looked really big and the parking spots looked really small so anyway, I think you'd end up with a lot of grading and different things because there is quite a slope -right there . I guess I feel that bringing in fill and grading and leveling and 11 all the stuff that you'd have to do is going to cost quite a bit of money for something that I really haven' t heard very many people ask for . We 've come to many meetings on this. We were here last summer . We've I been here before about it . We' ve been here three times so far this year . Each time we' re fewer in numbers because it' s getting to be pretty old and the season is getting into sports and people have a lot of activities and we don' t have time. It wasn' t publicized this time in the paper at all which kind of upset a lot of people who had no notice at all about this meeting but I haven' t seen you guys produce anyone other than the people on your board who are in favor of it. You say you took a survey. You heard from people, you want improvements. I guess improvements is kind of an abstract interpretation on everyone' s part. The people who have been here and they've given you petitions with over 100 signatures II of people who don ' t consider this to be an improvement. Not to the value of their home. Not for the neighborhood and not to this small beach. We think it would be more of a detriment . It was closed by the City years ago after they took it over from Greenwood Shores because there were so many problems with it . Many of you maybe didn ' t live here back then. I 1. really don' t know how long you' ve lived here but there were a lot of problems down there that have been solved by closing it and I really am opposed to opening it and having all those problems back. Now that we have them under control , I don ' t really see the point of it. As a citizen and taxpayer of Chanhassen, I 'm opposed to the wasting of tax dollars , which I think this is, along with a lot of other changes that I along with a lot of people in Chanhassen that I 've talked to, do not like. We' re sick of change and we' re starting to get to the point where we think it' s change for the sake of change, whether it' s good change or not . We feel a lot of these things are getting rammed down our throat. When we come to meetings that is suppose to be a democracy in this City, when we voice our opposition and people kind of rise over and do what II they want. I for one am getting really sick of it and I think a lot of other people in town are too . So , it ' s coming down to mostly the principle of the whole thing. Like I said to start with, this is probably the best of any of the plans that I ' ve seen but I basically am opposed to opening up all these problems again. Mr. Hasek must not agree with my point but there are many other people in favor of it. I would like to see someone at this meeting other than the Board who I feel is your responsibility to fulfill your job and doing what the people of Chanhassen want. People have come and said they don' t want this. We don ' t understand who we ' re fighting when we 'd like to be working with the II City on things. It seems like all we do is fight with you. Don Chmiel , 7100 Tecumseh Lane: I guess one of the things that I would like to bring out so it's put into the Minutes is number one, the City Council has taken a position on this particular park back in June 1, 1987. And to quote the last paragraph contained of the motion and I 'd like to read this verbatim. Mayor Hamilton moved , Councilman Geving seconded that Greenwood Shores Beach not have any parking added. That Park and Recreation Commission Meeting May 24, 1988 - Page 5 1t. ' the no parking signs on the streets remain as they are. Access to the beach be available only to the City personnel to work at it 's lift station and it remain a neighborhood park. There will be no boat launching at Greenwood Shores and staff will meet with Jim Chaffee_to ' patrol and enforce violations occurring at Greenwood Shores and the City be instructed to look at devising a new gate system for the entrance into Greenwood Shores Park. Also, that Carver Beach Park and it goes on. I ' guess the position that I 'm taking here is, from my understanding, the Park and Recreation is an advisory council . Council has last and final decision and has taken that position by the June 1, 1987 Minutes of that particular meeting. I 've also had discussions with a couple of the ' Council members and it is their opinion that this exactly as they so stated . I feel that there is pre-emption by the board or by the Commission overriding the rule of the Council who has the jurisdiction. ' Therefore , I am very hopeful that this does go back again to the Council , which I see no reason for, that the Council will support our position. Thank you. Jeff Farmakes , 7100 Utica Lane : I'd like to address a couple issues in regards to parking at Greenwood Shores. I was here two weeks ago when we had the meeting . I apologize that I got upset but I felt that the ' dialogue here was not any type of situation that was conducive to us arriving at some sort of settlement on this issue. You have on record over 100 taxpayers who are opposed to this issue. I think that it's ' worth more as far as the discussion goes than to simply cut one and another off. I think that we verbalized what our opposition is to this issue. I still do not believe that this proposal addresses those issues. I think that when you consider the amount of taxes that are paid by that many individuals and the amount of people who show up here at these meetings , that constitutes obviously significant concern on the part of the people who live there. We are not opposed , I believe, to the issues that you are talking about in allowing access but I believe that there . are other options available. I do not see those options up there on the board. Going back to last year , I saw again one proposal brought to the ' City Council . It was a plan similar to this. It showed no relationship to the parking issue in relationship to the park as it stood . It was simply a plot plan with no surrounding area for relationship for that plot plan into the park itself. The other issue I 'd like to bring up is ' that if you ' re going to come up with a counter proposal here, that it certainly would be in keeping with what we ' re talking about here that it be in relationship to the park as it stands . Certainly if you ' re going ' to put park by the parking within a park that size which is where it is stated as 3 acres , it is not. The cleared area is much under that . It ' s probably not much more than an acre. If you ' re going to put four parking ' stalls in that area in relationship to single family homes , you certainly should want to show the homes in relationship to that area to show the recreational facilities that are there in relationship to that area and it should be a specific relationship. It should not be an approximation and yet we continue to show these approximate plans in the issues that we' re discussing . What we ' re bringing up over and over again is concentrated access for our children and to that park. Two, it ' s relationship to single family homes in the area and three, the size of the park itself. It' s a very small park and to sort of kill the patient, .. ._.. _ Park and Recreation Commission Meeting May 24 , 1988 - Page 6 to make your issue in regards to all parks must have parking in them, I regardless of how they were designed , penalizes the people who have been living there for 30 years . The fact of the matter is that when that park was built this whole area was farm fields and those issues were simply not addressed when those roads were designed- and those houses plotted . If the City can not put those in to put in parking facilities in that particular area without penalizing either the homes in the area or the people who use the park presently, they should look to alternative II methods of putting in parking . Now there is an area that Larry mentioned that is also adjacent to that area where there are presently paved trails leading up to that park. That area the most probable fact will be developed within the next one to two years . That's an opportunity for the park board to work with the developer and with the City Council in addressing the issue of building parking that is secluded and not objectionable to single family residence homes in the area and is not in a position to concentrate parking for our children into the park. I think it would certainly be more beneficial and the citizens here would think that you were considering their views if you would look at alternative plans rather than the two here that we ' ve actually seen up on the board. Thank you. Dick Lash : I 'd like to say one more thing here . I 'd like it noted that this is not good representation of the opposition to this plan. It would have been had this thing been publicized . I got a phone call last night from one of the few people in the neighborhood that got a letter saying that this meeting was here. In the future if you ' re going to dink around II with my neighborhood, I would just as soon that it show up in the newspaper so I can read it on my own without a phone call . We would have had the place filled if it would have been advertised . Mady: That is the extent of public discussion . The first question Lori , who was contacted for this meeting tonight? ' Sietsema : The people that live within 500 feet of the park. Boyt: I think we need to, if this comes up again, we need to notify everyone who ' s been here. Hoffman: That 500 feet of the park does fulfill our legal obligation. ' That is the ordinance that we are required to fulfill so she is not delinquent if those people were notified . Mady: Could it show up in the newspaper though next time? Is there a problem with that? --- Sietsema: No . ' Mady: We do have a problem from time to time getting our portion of the agenda in the space. Don Chmiel : My suggestion would be that at the last particular meeting that we had people here, everyone had signed in and that list I think should have been notified . If they were here with interest they should Park and Recreation Commission Meeting May 24 , 1988 - Page 7 ' have been notified. Boyt : We do that sometimes don' t we? Sietsema: Yes . - Schroers : Several things have crossed my mind . The first thing I 'd like ' to say is that what I 'm expressing I 'm just expressing from my own personal experience . Having worked in parks and recreation for more than 10 years and from the input that I ' ve received from the other members of the Commission as well as the residents from Greenwood Shores . A number of things have been said that their concern about the problems redeveloping if the park is opened . My experience has been , when you have an area that is an undeveloped area, an area looks like no one ' s ' really doing much with it, not taking much care of it, it just kind of looks like an open area , that ' s the type of place that kids are looking for to go and drink. If you have an area that' s developed and well taken ' care of and patrolled on a regular basis , that is a deterrent. That' s been my previous experience there . Your point of bringing up what the City Council has already moved on makes me think that I would like to talk to members of the Council again because I was under the impression ' that we had a directive of sorts that we wanted to be consistent with what we were doing in the parks and that we wanted to have parking and we wanted it to be fairly accessible to all the residents of the City. I I . think we need to get back together with the Council and sit down and get the uncertainities out of that and see if we want to address each park as an independent situation and look at it or if we want just an established ' policy and say that each park is going to be accessible and that it ' s going to have so many parking spaces depending on what the useage is or the size of it in relation to the size of it or whatever . I see that there still needs to be a lot of work done before we come to any conclusion . Hasek: I ' ve got just one quick question of Lori . Last time we talked a ' little bit about the boundaries of this park compared to the property that seems to be discussed as potential future residential piece . Does it? Does the park abut that piece of property? ' Sietsema : Yes I believe it does . The whole trail around the lake does . Schroers : Lori , would you say that we have 75 feet on either side of ' that trail? Sietsema : There ' s an 80 foot strip around the east side of the lake. ' Schroers : 80 feet from the shoreline? Sietsema : Yes . Schroers : That was a good point that Mr . Farmakes made that I 'm sure that area is being considered for development and to work with the ' developer to acquire access where there probably would be a reasonable solution to look at. The problem that I see there is that there is a Park and Recreation Commission Meeting May 24 , 1988 - Page 8 really steep hill going down along that whole area that I think may have II something . . . Hasek : I guess my comments in relation to that are, first of all that neighborhood is not proposed and just because it' s planned doesn ' t mean that it will be developed . The market goes up and down in a very short period of time. We've seen a lot of single family developments in the last couple of years here and there is no indication that that ' s going to II continue. We want to have accessibility into that park which is , like Larry has stated , our feeling that was necessary, then I think we should work to get it into the park as it exists and if we want to expand that park and add parking when and if the new neighborhood comes on line, we can do that at that time. I just wanted to respond to some of the things that were said . First of all , a public hearing is not a debate . It' s handled very separately. - If debates are going to be needed in this thing I than that will have to be set up but a public hearing is simply comment by the public by the governing body. . . .governing body but we are commissioned . The Council has the ultimate word and you are correct , all we do is give directives and they can at any time choose to bring an II issue to their attention and have a motion on it and that' s basically what we' re doing here. Whether it' s closed or not by a motion passed doesn' t mean that we can ' t bring the issue up again if we so choose. That ' s what we have chosen to do at this time. There was some discussion about the drawings . Scale of the drawing. Designation of the parking stalls . The sketch format that' s shown here. I believe the gentleman is correct, it would be nice to see it in context. However , at this level , this drawing , as it ' s labeled sketch plan , is completely appropriate. This is the type of thing that I myself presented to Park Boards , Planning Commissions and Councils almost on a daily basis in my job and the scale I 'm sure is within a tenth of what it should be. There ' s no reason to assume that the parking stalls are smaller than they have to be to accomodate parking and that the parking area is any smaller II than it needs to be to accomplish parking . I would like to suggest that I think it' s one way of solving the problem that seems to be security. I think that working with , perhaps move some of the berm that ' s out in II front there with minimal grading and perhaps removing the side of this, could be recommended for a faction of the cost of the previous plan. I certainly think it 's a valid approach and would like to pursue it. A comment was made as to the value of the homes and a negative impact. I would challenge anyone to find a relator who would stand on his career that a park next door would negatively impact anyone' s home value. Quite the contrary. I think that you would find that for every one person who wouldn' t want to live next to the park would probably be drawing more people that would want to live next door to it and may in fact make the — marketplace for your home larger than it was previously to having the II park not there. An observation on my part. It was stated that there was some discussion about giving the park back to the neighborhood . I certainly wouldn' t go for that. I don' t think that is even in the ability of the City to do that . They've got the park in public trust right now and it' s my understanding that when the park was in fact acquired by the City, it was generally understood that the neighborhood didn' t want it. Potentially one of the reasons was because they felt that it was in their neighborhood and if they could get the City to Park and Recreation Commission Meeting May 24 , 1988 - Page 9 I ' participate in maintaining that park that it would be to their benefit. Robinson: I apologize for missing the meeting two weeks ago and I guess I wasn ' t aware of the fact that the City Council made that move to _ June of 1987. That 's less than a year ago. Yes , I agree Ed that we can bring it up again . We can bring it up as often as we want but I 've been on the Park and Rec Commission for 2 or 3 years now and I don ' t know how many ' times we' ve talked about this park and as you voice your opinion , I would have hoped that June , 1987 with that motion by the City Council and you' re exactly right , we are an advisory board to the City Council , I ' would hope that would put it to bed. That' s my only comment. Lynch : Most of the business that we see in rather routine and our actions are prescribed by City Ordinance, State Law, Metro Council guidelines , our own multi-year plan that we work on constantly. Occasionally there are issues such as this that are interjected on the schedule. Two years ago we had scheduled a short, informal meeting with ' the City Council that is a conversational get together to make sure that we' re going in the direction that they like to see us going since they are the authority. I kind of felt that in the last meeting we were directed to see that there was parking in these parks . This is the reason why we took this up again in the first place. We were directed . I guess I 'm kind of like Curt and Larry. I 'd like to see the Council decide what they want to do here. We' re volunteers and you guys spend ' your time coming down here. We spend our time here and sometimes it seems a little frivilous when we' re told to do one thing and then it stops on the way and gets upstairs again . I agree , I think we ought to have some sort of consensus from the Council where they expect us to continue . We' re using our time , Mark' s time, staff time and citizenry time. The issue looks like it may be dead. Jay, do you have any comments? ' Councilman Johnson : Actually I believe the June 1st meeting was a petition to have the parking signs removed from the street from one of ' the residents who lived along the street . As far as I was concerned , we had a one year timeframe that we were going to have Greenwood Shores not have parking and we were going to observe what was going on during that ' one year timeframe and get the Public Safety Director to see what ' s going on and that Carver Beach would be opened and Carver Beach would be watched to see if there was a problem at Carver Beach. So we've taken a two part approach . Open one park and leave the other one closed . There was a time period. That' s how I remember it. Mady: That ' s what the discussion was at the June meeting . The motion ' that was made by Tom did not reflect all that discuss prior to. However , if you read the complete set of Minutes of the Council meeting , Mr . Geving started out stating that he had to walk from Carol Watson's house to even get to the park and it went from there. In that discussion the Council told staff that they would like to see the park closed for a year ' s time. After that we would then review it again. So the motion was to close the park down, make sure the gate was up and keep everything that was supposedly happening there, from happening for at least a year to see what we could do. We have succeeded in that doing that. That is Park and Recreation Commission Meeting May 24, 1988 - Page 10 4 what is in those Minutes if you read the complete set of Minutes . ' Jeff Farmakes : We read the complete set and that is an inaccurate statement. Mady: Excuse me, you are out of order here . That' s where I 'm going with this. Councilman Johnson: That' s the way I understood what we voted on the first time. This was a one year trial basis . . . Jeff Farmakes : If you have the Minutes and read them, that ' s an ' inaccurate statement. Boyt: When I talked to Bill about this he was under the same impression Jay was. That he wanted this reviewed so that 's two of the guys. I didn' t talk to Dale or Tom or Clark but Clark was the man who said we want parking spaces in all the parks so he directed us to look at that . That was the private meeting between Park and Rec and the City Council . Lynch: And Dale was at that meeting also. Jeff Farmakes : The only issue in regards to the year was reviewing whether or not the police was enforcing the law. Mady: Can we go back to the format that we were going to have for this meeting . Boyt : This is the interpretation that Bill has and Jay has and so that ' s I what they' re going to work from. They won' t necessarily take them, I guess the verbatim Minutes , they want us to look at this again? What we recommend they might not approve when it gets to City Council . My concerns were the berm at the top of the hill blocks viewing of the park and I think that adds to the danger down there. Kids meandering . I drove up there , I couldn' t see into the park so I think we. . .berm. The II design of the park itself with the woods , it ' s beautiful . That adds to it being a great park place. I think we need to look at a separate trail entrance for children that goes next to the road . That' s one of the concerns that I 've heard over and over again is kids getting in and out of the park so it could go along just adjacent to the road. I would not consider giving this park back to the neighborhood . I don ' t think we could do that. I don' t think the rest of the City would be pleased with us if we did that . I think we need to do a better job of just letting the neighborhood know when . . . It addresses the concerns that Pat brought up when she was here last summer . Hasek: One last quick question and I 'm sorry. . . I guess it was stated in the last meeting that we had with the neighbors that I was unclear in reading through the Minutes as to exactly what the motion is . There ' s just a paragraph that was made however the motion was actually started much before that and there was a lot of discussion that happened during that and it' s really unclear and I guess I would like to have some idea as to what actually the motion was and what was voted on. I guess I 'd Park and Recreation Commission Meeting May 24 , 1988 - Page 11 I ` have to agree with some of the other commissioners that if this is a dead issue that we should get off of it. However , if it ' s not a dead issue, I would like that we move quickly, as quickly as possible to get it established that parking spaces within that park and move onto other things. It' s become just . . . to work out this issue. Mady: First thing, the comment concerning why are we looking at this again . Because the Council did close the park a year ago does never preclude us from in the future doing something there or anywhere else. Life changes . Everything changes and if we come with an idea of something that seems to be appropriate, that' s what our function is as an advisory body to the Council is to bring ideas to them. Be talking with our neighbors. Other people in the community. Finding out what the needs are. What the desires and wants are . What the dislikes are and that ' s what we try to do twice a month up here is discuss various opportunities to the City. It is my firm belief that this is an opportunity for the entire city. I think it' s going to enhance the park for both the residents who have been appearing here as well as the rest of the City. We are not giving up the opportunity of closing down the park by putting this parking stalls in. We will continue to have the gate at the top of the hill right off the street. With this proposed plan there will also be one right after the end of the parking area to prevent cars from going further down but would allow the City engineering department to go down and check the lift station at any time as they need to do that . I think the plan that Mark has come up with here, the sketch that you 've got now is a lot better than what we ' ve seen previously. It keeps more of the park just the way it is as park. A park shouldn ' t be a parking lot although it does need to provide access to all people . Sue ' s point of concern the trails around the driveway is a good point. We need to delineate exactly where the parking and what other surface is in that park. It' s more than just gravel . Gravel is to prevent people from driving there if they so desire . Our earlier plan showed bollards and . chains going through and along the entire parking and roadway area. That would prevent vehicle travel on any portion of the park other than the parking and driveway area . The comment concerning looking at options in the future on the other parcels adjacent to are very well taken . We will definitely once that parcel of concern becomes developed, look at that piece because it is adjacent to our trail and between two park areas . We would probably get additional parkland here. That isn' t any real guarantee that we will get anything . It is my feeling that we need to provide the citizens of Chanhassen access to this park as easy as possible with minimum impact and I think this might be the best plan that does that. If we were to build an access in the other area , undoubtedly we would have to build an extensive road down to it. The earlier estimate that Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the parking plan for Greenwood Shores I believe was in excess of $4 , 000 . 00 but by moving it to the top of the hill I 'm guessing that we can get this done pretty darn cheap probably using city staff to do the bulk of the work. If we had to build a road from another area we'd be talking thousands and thousands of dollars and we simply don ' t have that money to be spending at this time . We could get by with a $2,000. 00 to $5,000. 00 expense to enhance this property at this time but I don ' t believe we' re going to be looking to spend $30,000. 00 plus to put a road into a park that we already have Park and Recreation Commission Meeting May 24 , 1988 - Page 14 change their directives . Lori and Don talked about this . Sietsema: It was staff' s interpretation that this was to be reviewed after a year . Based on the opinion of Public Safety was and whether we could control the park or not. -- Councilman Johnson: . . . is that Dale modifies his motion but the motion is not even in there. There' s a summary of what the typist thought the motion was at the end but the motion is totally -missing from the Minutes . I just sat here reading and I couldn' t find the motion. Jeff Farmakes : We also had about 30 people in that meeting and what was in those Minutes was our understanding. Mady moved , Boyt seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission direct staff to come back with a new drawing of this plan showing scales , bollard and chain and a gravel parking surface with a trail going along side of the road into the park and connecting into the Lake Ann Trail . To investigate whether or not the berm is providing an obstruction from viewing the street and if so, to come up with the cost estimates to rectify that situation. Investigate whether or not the berm is there for, what purpose the berm is actually there for and to show the adjacent homes in the new drawing . All voted in favor and the motion carried . Mady: Once Mark has prepared the final plan that we put in the motion, please contact everyone in Greenwood Shores who signed in at the previous meeting. We' ll attempt to get it published in the paper . We, unfortunately are low on the totem pole . We' ve asked for it every time but we don' t always have it. Jeff Farmakes : I have a question . You made a statement that two councilmembers are positive on this issue. I 'd like to ask, are they positive on the parking or are they positive on the review issue? Boyt: They want us to review. I Jeff Farmakes : Is that what you ' re saying Jim? Mady: No, I 'm saying both . Jeff Farmakes : My question is , in fact if the Councilmembers are already. . .even before you make a recommendation , what are we even having a hearing for? Mady: We have to discuss these things. Jeff Farmakes : Are we also allowed to come to the City Council meeting and express our opinion? Mady: Yes . Jeff Farmakes : And is that to make any difference? II' Park and Recreation Commission Meeting May 24 , 1988 - Page 15 it II Mady: Your voice is as good as my voice. II Jeff Farmakes : I don' t think that that is true. When these decisions , as you' re apparently saying, are taking place outside of these meetings . Mady: There are no decisions being made outside. IIJeff Farmakes: You just said. . . ' Mady: I talked to my neighbors and people I know in the community and since I 'm on a city commission and they' re involved in the city, we usually talk a lot about city items . That was one of the city items we happen to talk about at that time. What they do at Council meetings may 1' be totally different from that . Boyt : I think you implied Jeff that those two councilmembers had already Imade up their mind. Lynch : I think each of the councilmembers has a personal viewpoint regarding whether there should be or should not be parking in all parks . II think that is probably a preconceived philosophical opinion of theirs . So what we' re asked to look at here is how we' re going to accomplish it. Jeff Farmakes : That ' s what I understood of the direct interpretation of the Minutes. In fact there were some confusion from Geving as to, stating that what you were doing was not what he was requesting . If you I can address those when you' re rereading those Minutes . I don' t have them in front of me now but whether or not that ' s true , because he was one of the ones that brought it up at that initial meeting you had in January. I Mady: We 've got a number of things on our agenda and whether or not you agree with us looking at this or not, at this point is inmaterial . We've been looking at it for four meetings now and we will possibly look at it Iagain. Jeff Farmakes : I just don' t believe it ' s inmaterial . IMASTER PLAN FOR CHANHASSEN POND PARK - MARK KOEGLER. Sietsema : If I could make a quick comment before we start on this . I ' did get some questions regarding this being on the agenda without notifying homeowners within the area of Chanhassen Pond Park. The reason that I did not notify people was because we were at such a preconcept -- I plan that I knew that the Commission wasn ' t aware of all of the area that we owned out there. About the trail and I don ' t you to appear like you don ' t know everything that ' s going on so I wanted you to know exactly what we have. Where we are with it and come up with some ideas and when ILwe actually do start getting some things that gel , we will invite everybody within 500 feet of this park. I Schroers : I want to ask that before we address this issue in public again, that we get together with the City Council and that we come up I Park and Recreation Commission Meeting May 24 , 1988 - Page 16 with something solid that we all agree upon. Either the Council wants I parking or they don' t want parking or it' s us that wanted it and not them but we need to be together if we' re going to get something accomplished . We can' t be split. We can' t be uncertain of whether the Council ' s_given us a directive to request parking or did they not. I think that we need to get together with the Council and really decide and get together on this program before we pursue it any further . Sietsema: So do you want me to set up a special meeting with the council II before we bring this back to you or before Mark even does anymore work on it? 1 Lynch : We haven t had our meeting with them that we normally have. Schroers: Either that or if it could be added to the Council ' s agenda and just say, does the Council want us to have or develop a policy regarding parking for the Chanhassen parks or do we want to look at each park individually and what makes the most sense but I do think that we need to get the gray area cleared up because in my opinion we don' t appear to have our act together here . It ' s like we' re saying one thing and the council might be saying something else and then they' re both being misinterpretted . ' Sietsema : I don ' t think that you' re going to get a clear concise answer out of the Council of if they want parking or not. I don' t even know that you' ll get a clear concise answer of whether their interpretation was that we should review this again this year . I don ' t know that you' re going to , I could get a motion . I could probably get a majority one way or the other . Schroers : Anything would help. Mady: A comment there . I don ' t believe it' s our chore or our task to voice whatever it is the Council wants us to do. I think it ' s our vote, what we' re up here for is to look at each individual item, determine what we feel is best and our opinion for the City of Chanhassen and make an effort to present that to the Council . At that point the Council will determine whether or not they agree with us or not but I don' t think we II should have to try to state what the Council wants us to state . In other words , we should be stating what we want so want we think the city wants , the citizens want . Take that to the Council and let them make a decision based on what they know. ' Schroers : I agree with that . I think just what ' s happened in the past here with the motion, whatever it was , it just kind of reflects a bad image of us as though we ' re really not on top of our situation here and it also sort of reflects that on the Council so I was just hoping that we could get together a little bit and reach an understanding so we know what direction we' re working towards . Lynch: I do think the Council has the right to expect us to address items that they' re particularly interested in. That's all I see this as . II It' s not something that would have been addressed , I don' t believe. Park and Recreation Commission Meeting May 24 , 1988 - Page 17 IC Sietsema : But also , are ou the park and recreation p reation experts and the Council isn' t always aware of everything that ' s going on in the park and ' recreation area of the City and you' re supposed to be the ones that are bringing pertinent things to their attention. Whether they are interested in them or not , at least to bring them to their attention . I ' know this is a gray area because the Minutes aren' t clear. There was a summar of the last part of that meeting where the motion was made and it is unclear but I have no doubt that all through the season that we were going to bring this back. In fact , Don directed me to bring this back to ' the Commission so it was his interpretation. Schroers : I remember that. I remember that we had discussed all that. ' That we were going to close it for a year and monitor it to see what the situation was and kind of use Carver Beach as an experiment. Have it open. I remember all of that so I don't have a problem with that at ' all . Councilman Johnson : We' re missing 7 minutes here because just a paragraph or two before where this summary motion is in there, which Nann ' does , she summarizes the motion at the end of every thing . Geving says I 'd like to amend your motion Mr . Mayor . Now I went back through everything Tom said according to those Minutes in front of that and ' there' s no motion who Geving seconded, is amended so somehow the actual verbatim motion didn ' t make the Minutes but the summary at the end did . I remember the Council in our joint meeting last year directing it. ' Clark has brought it up. I know Clark is completely for it and we just passed the money to do it Monday night. Sietsema : The other thing is I wrote a memo to the Park and Recreation ' Commission as an update on this item for the June meeting last year that summarized what happened at the Park and Recreation Commission so it was clear in my mind then. ' Mady: What we ' re seeing here is what I said in our Minutes of the last ` meeting to them, is they' re picking and choosing pieces out of the Minutes to suit their point of view, which they have the right to do but ' the Minutes don' t always necessarily reflect what actually took place at the meeting . Let ' s go on. We need to get our other stuff . Mark Koegler : Just to clarify Mr . Chairman. The work that we did most recently, doing this little sketch is not something that we charged you for at all . It was a couple of hours worth of work. Very minor and we ' just wanted to see it get done . Now that this thing keeps kind of snow balling, I realize as it goes on, the clock has to start somewhere. We' re talking minor costs but still you should be aware that a decision like that do have financial . . . ho," .1)o VMS P k- kay, basically tonight I think Lori provided a good opening reason for not being surrounded here by Chanhassen Pond area residents with their ' view. All I 'm essentially on right now is a fact finding mission for this evening and I think we started that off with the tour which, at • OuL L 1 I Van Doren- Hazard -- - 1 Stallings - _ Architects•Engineers*Planners I 3030 Harbor Lane North Bldg.II,Suite 104 Minneapolis,MN 55447-2175 II 612/553-1950 MEMORANDUM TO: Lori Sietsema II FROM: Mark Koegler 0 ---- DATE: May 16 , 1988 SUBJECT: Greenwood Shores Park II As we discussed , I have enclosed a concept plan for the provision I of parking at Greenwood Shores Park . The plan calls of the 4: installation of four parking stalls near the entrance of the park . Four stalls could be accommodated in this area with a II minor amount of grading and tree relocation . This location would also not require additional turn- a- round areas since the lot would be readily visible from the entrance on Utica Lane . Construction of parking in this configuration would allow removal II of a large portion of the lower gravel area . This would enhance the active area of the park and potentially create an I advantageous area for play equipment if appropriate in the future . This plan would require additional control such as posts and chain to secure the lift station driveway during times when II the park is open to the general public . II II II .4 I Ic I 1 LAKE ANN �/ / !1 -- 1 SAND BCAGN I ill 1 / I di „ i0 1 CND DITUm.M.WALKWAY C'1.\� LtN 0 pp ( / 1J GRAVEL ARCH I I / I _ I I / \i a[--OVtaUIPiA0 1 �. 0/1,71g EA \ �\ 9 1' \\\ IGT-A.SSY AREA I STATIIOry'� �^/Y.5'TRN�rORMER (v�°//III Q _CONTKOL PANEL I II 1 WADER.NZ-TAMING I O j—1`GATE Pan' r 1 1- j 1 ts3 F-- 1 1 APPROXIMATE 1---------- I 1 CD6E of TREE ADD LINE GRAYS± ( 1 I vVAG ' a ' I.."--GATE POJT 1 1 cr.--,W.I.M.N. PMALT ,nGA✓' I( VHazard • Stallings NOTE:DIMENSONS ON THIS PLAN ARE APPROXIMATE I Architects•Engineers•Planners GREENWOOD SHORES PARK SKETCH PLAN i PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING APRIL 26, 1988 Chairman Mady called the meeting order . I MEMBERS PRESENT: Sue Boyt, Carol Watson, Jim Mady, Ed Hasek and Larry Schroers MEMBERS ABSENT: Curt Robinson and Mike Lynch = STAFF PRESENT: Lori Sietsema, Park and Rec Coordinator and Todd Hoffman, Recreation Supervisor APPROVAL OF MINUTES : Boyt moved, Schroers seconded to approve the ' Minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated April 12, 1988 . All voted in favor and motion carried. REVIEW PARKING ISSUE AT GREENWOOD SHORES AND CARVER BEACH. Pat Albrecht : I 'm vice president of Greenwood Shores Association. I just walked in. Did you say you don't want us to go over what we said last time? Mady: I 'd like to just have one person at a time . Pat Albrecht: What we did was, there were several things we were kind of looking into so we started to divide up and look into different things for different people. I don ' t know if you went over, we were wondering exactly what the City was proposing for this . I don' t think anyone is real clear on that. I think it was four or five parking spots and a chain and bollard? That ' s basically what it was , okay. What we basically wanted to do was just say we understand the purpose of the four I parking spots is to solve the problem with limited access . The Greenwobd Shore Homeowners Association agrees with the City Council to their findings at their meeting on June 1, 1987 . At this meeting Councilman Dale Gevi.ng commented, I 'm not really sure if direction to the Park and : Rec people back in January meant that we' re going to expand this with a bollard and chain and four parking spots. I realize we may be creating more of a problem than we ' re trying to solve. We also feel we may creating more problems than we would be solving. We are here tonight to share with you our questions and concerns regarding this issue. Also, Mayor Hamilton said that he agreed with Dale and went on to say, I 'd like to see all the parking taken out of there and just have access so we can get to the lift station so our city truck can get there and close the park completely to outside vehicles other than the city' s and to use the space that' s being used for parking now, perhaps for a totlot type of facility or swings or whatever else we can put in there and leave it for the neighborhood . If anyone else wants to use the park, they can walk over to Lake Ann, they can ride their bikes , they can walk, they can do II whatever else they want to do, but I think that' s a viable way to use the park and I think it serves a very good purpose at that point. That was what Tom Hamilton said. Then Clark Horn agrees that we should keep it chained as you say. Keep the no parking signs there and we don ' t want to , spend anymore money on equipment but we do enforce it. I think most of IIPark and Recreation Commission Meeting April 26, 1988 - Page 2 IC I us don ' t really care about the totlot but it ' s more about the parking and the safety issue that we ' re mostly concerned about. Then Greg checked into a little bit of the safety part . I think all of us are mostly I concerned that if you made a parking lot go down over that little hill , it would be really hard to see to get out of it . To back up or to come up over it. Like you said, there will be lots of people walking or riding bikes going down the curve and I think that would be a real safety i hazard for the people involved there. Then we talked about the violations last year with people going through other people' s yards. Homeowners being forced to patrol the area themselves. Enforcement. Who I would enforce the parking rules if there were four spots? Who ' s to say that, they would start parking on the street. I think it would be really hard to enforce that. Would someone be there to shut the gate every night? We 've had eight down on the walking path that ' s supposed to be '' closed and it' s never closed so that was not followed through on either . Then again, we' re also concerned about what' s to happen to the four spots? It could turn into more than that. At one point there was a I quote, Jim Mady, you said last year at the Council meeting, what you wanted to do was to allow some parking inside the park, putting in just a few minimal spots to begin with, so right there we' re not guaranteed it' s I not going to be just a thin parking lot . Eventually people say, well I went down there and all the spots were full so then pretty soon maybe it will , well , maybe we should make it bigger . I know that ' s happened to a I few other parks so it' s a concern of ours . Not that it would for sure happen but you can think about that. Jan had done some measurements on how far it is to walk from the big beach to where the parking is as opposed to far it is from our beach to where the parking is for the I Greenwood Shores beach and it was actually farther to walk. There is a drop-off spot at the top -of our little driveway going down that ' s gravel . If they were dropped off there, it would be closer than the drop-off spot I at the big beach so the distance isn ' t a big deal there. Also, we need to consider how many people the beach can accomodate . I don' t know what the statistics are for that. If there' s a certain amount of people, how they determine how many people a beach can accomodate but I think that I needs to be considered too. It is a small beach and it is widely used by more than Greenwood Shores . Chaparral uses it . There are many times last summer when I was down there when I didn' t know one person and that I hadn ' t happened in years before that so I think it ' s really getting to be more used. Also we' re thinking maybe what would be an alternative is to put up a sign there saying , like drop off zone . Take down the no parking sign right in front of the beach. People don' t know that you can use Ithat beach very easily but if you put a sign up and say drop off zone , parking 100 feet or however far it is up the road, people would know they__„ can use the beach . They could just park up the road a little bit where I it ' s safe off the curb. There wouldn ' t be parking on the curb, and walk down to it like most of the people in the neighborhood already do. Also, we ' re thinking of permit parking. If it did end up being a parking lot, ICI think we should maybe consider or you should consider having some sort of permits for that also, just like the big beach has , if that would ever come up and it got to that point. I called and asked how many people I complained about not being able to park there or use the park and they said they didn ' t know because they don' t keep a record of that so as far as I know, maybe it ' s 2 people. Maybe it' s 100 people. I don' t know and .rs.r<aq:YE:. crw1.asusi.a.da:�. eew�,.- Park and Recreation Commission Meeting April 26 , 1988 - Page 3 C they don ' t keep a record so I guess I don ' t really see where the problem comes. I don ' t know if a lot of people have complained about it or not and if not, I think the people would be happy just like it is . To walk a few, 50 feet to the beach like we do and they can still -use it . It' s not II that we want to keep it private, it's just that I think parking would create a lot more problems than it would solve. So that ' s basically what we have to say. Jeff Farmakes , 7100 Utica : I think that this hearing is certainly redundant so I would agree with you Jim that anything that we have to say we' ve said several times before so as not to take any additional time, I guess I ' ll just go over a few points. One point is that I think it' s ludicrous to keep a record of phone calls from May of 1987 to 1988 after the park was closed. That access was closed at the direction of the City I Council . May 18th and the first , it was closed shortly thereafter . Previous to that it was open from November of 1986 to May of 1987 when it was open so I don' t understand the rationale of keeping track of the phone calls when it' s closed to support the issue of keeping it open. That ' s obvious . The second thing I 'd like to bring up is it seems to me very clear on page 93 of the Minutes of June 1st as to what the City Council voted on. Seconded and voted and it was a unanimous decision in I regards to what was done. Pat just read it to you a few minutes ago. It seems unbelieveable to me that that is interpretted as to be reviewed in a year. There ' s nothing in here on that page that this issue should be reviewed again . Now I understand that if you have a yearly budget to direct and that that is an issue that you initiate on a yearly basis with the City Council , that' s a matter we' ll have to take up with the City Council but it doesn ' t seem to me that this is any sort of hearing per se. This decision was already locked in. The decision was among yourselves and us being here is pretty much a formality. Watson : Jeff, Jim was going to try and find the call record from ' November to May. Jan Lash., 6850 Utica Lane : We are trying to check into some of the , II history of the deed transfer from Greenwood Shores to the city back in the 70 ' s when that happened and we do have some residents in the neighborhood who lived there at the time and their recollections all seem II to be the same that there were some agreements between the City and the residents that this beach was to remain a walk-in only beach. We feel that if a judge ruled in that decision, that should probably remain as it is unless there's going to be some kind of legal action taken to try and change that . We' re trying to dig up those documents. Bob Anderson , 7190 Tecumseh: I wasn' t here last week. I was out of town I but I 've had a chance to read through the Minutes and the information that was provided and what I see is a solution apparently to a problem that I don ' t see identified . What is the problem that is trying to be L solved? Mady: We' ve gone over this before sir . It ' s been covered in a number of our meetings. What we' re trying to do is , it ' s been this body' s desire 11 to open every one of our parks up to the extent possible and to better Park and Recreation Commission Meeting April 26 , 1988 - Page 4 ' our park facilities as best we can. We had a survey done a year ago with the citizens of Chanhassen and the citizens of Chanhassen have told us they want us to spend our time and our money improving our current park ' system. That is what we are trying to do. - Bob Anderson : Does your survey or does your planning indicate to what extent this particular park should be opened up? Mady: No it doesn ' t. What it tells us is they want us to look at the entire system. Bob Anderson: It seems that the problem as you stated it is being addressed backwards. That you' re addressing to open up four parking ' spots to create greater access to a park. Four cars to me does not grant bigger access to the park. It ' s a walk-in type park. I see no advantage to having four walk-ins when on the weekend you can go through the adjacent streets and see 20 or 30 cars parked. To me it' s ludicrous to ' think that the four parking spots is going to so call , open up the park, when there is no stated policy as to how much the park is to be opened up. The problem is being attacked all backwards . I would hope that your i' commission would address really what you ' re trying to accomplish rather than just trying to put in four parking spots . 1: Judy Landkammer , 6901 Utica Lane: I have an updated petition from ' members of the Greenwood Shores area . We didn ' t get to all the houses but a majority of them. ' Greg Blaufuss , 7116 Utica : I wonder if we could flash the plans back up on the screen. I 'm curious as to how, I don ' t know if this body or this Commission is in the position to answer this question but I 'm curious as to how, it ' s a dead-end parking situation that you propose to create here and I 'm curious as to how a person that drives in there, finds the parking lot full , is going to get out of there without having to back into the street . Backing up the hill , you have very limited , if any, ' visibility. There ' s a lot of kids and a lot of bikes and stuff that they : use that driveway to access the park only because the way the berms are built up and the way the rocks are placed, it ' s almost the only access to ' get in. Sietsema : I believe there' s enough room. ' Mady: Yes , there is. The standard parking space is 8 feet wide. There are four of them there . That ' s 32 feet. A standard car is less than 20 _ _ feet. There ' s sufficient room in there that you can get your in and u ' around and turn to get back out of there. Boyt: If all four spots are full and another car comes down there? 'C Mady: Yes . Greg Blaufuss : My question was , when the proposed parking lot is filled , ' how does a person that pulls in there, unable to see that the parking is filled from the street , how does he get out of that lot without having to tidstia'i+'ltt-►At.ek_a r ._ ..4a.ix*itids.i,:c+.ii, Park and Recreation Commission Meeting April 26, 1988 - Page 5 C back out into the street? Hasek: I guess we got the feeling from Mark Koegler that even if somebody did pull in there, that they would have the opportunity to turn around. It would take a little bit of maneuvering to do that but it was the intent of the design to limit the parking to as few spaces as we possibly could. Obviously we want to allow for turnarounds down in there. That we could increase the amount of parking stalls and increase the hard surface if that' s what you 'd like to see but I don ' t think that' s what you really want. I know you don ' t want any at all . Greg Blaufuss : That isn' t the point. First of all , I don' t think we see I the purpose in four parking spaces but I personally don' t think, I 've been involved with site development for two major corporations for about 10 years and I don' t think that you can adequately back out of it and maneuver around it in a safe way to pull up in a forward direction on the street. Hasek : I agree with you. I, likewise, am a planner and do a lot of work design. It ' s tight. There ' s no question about it. Greg Blaufuss : My concern was, before you walked in, that kids on bikes , I I: mothers pushing baby carriages , I live just up the hill to the west from the entrance and I work out of my home and through my window I can see that entrance and that ' s where everyone enters the park. Marge Anderson , 7890 Tecumseh: I 'm not real sure but Lake Ann Park is the only park that is a town park that has swimming? Am I right? ' Sietsema : No . Marge Anderson: Are there other parks that have a lifeguard? ' Sietsema : It 's the only one with a guarded beach but there are other swimming beaches in this city. Marge Anderson : It seems ridiculous to put four parking spaces in this place when if they can get in a car , they can go over to Lake Ann Park. You' re only encouraging them a beach that doesn ' t have a lifeguard . It seems if you' re in a car, you can go over to Lake Ann. You' re going to be on the same lake anyway and if they want to come over to that beach , they can walk in. Put in a path. Jeff Farmakes : I 'd just like to point out an interesting little footnote here. If you subtract and take Greenwood Shores Park and you subtract ' the area that you ' re proposing for the parking , in reading the recreational beachlot requirements in the Chanhassen City Code, I don' t even think you 'd make it so that gives us an idea of the size of the park. Jan Lash : I have the measurements , I went down there and did some measuring of our beach and also walked over to the main beach and did some measuring . I don' t know if you' ve all been down there. Do you Park and Recreation Commission Meeting April 26 , 1988 - Page 6 I c I know? Okay. Pat said you measured from the drop-off point to the first part of the grassy area where you even think of spreading a blanket out and that ' s it . It' s not the beach. You'd be sitting in the shade and I that was 82 yards. We measured from the drop-off point at Lake Ann beach to the very first part of the sand area and that was 96 yards so if we ' re talking about accessibility, if that were a 5 minute drop-off zone , that would be easier to get to than the main beach would be. Then we measured I from the drop-off point to the first spot you could park on Tecumseh and that was 180 yards. Over at the main beach it was 60 yards to the very first spot, which I assume the lifeguard probably corners right away in ,' the morning and I think that first lot probably fills up fairly fast so if you got towards the end of that lot, that would be 120. Then if you had to go walk up to the overflow lot, which I think a lot of people do, I then you have to walk 240 yards. So if you' re trying to compare apples and apples here, I think that if we ' re talking public accessibility to our beach , for the size of it, compared to the Lake Ann beach, it is as accessible to the public as any other beach in town. I happened to drive I past Carver Beach to check that out on the way over tonight and we don ' t really think that' s a comparable layout as far as the parking factor goes . You' ve got the spots in there but there ' s no place else that they I can squeak in. Down there, if we ' re worried about maneuverability and backing out of your spots and things , it' s going to have to be big enough 1: to do that but then you ' re going to have a lot of violators and parking in the turn around zones and kind of squeezing all over and at Carver I Beach you can ' t do that unless somebody drove off the cliff so I don ' t think that' s exactly a fair comparison either . If you' re comparing your problems. Also, if you' re moving right into Phase 2, that ' s what you ' re I suggesting this year , you ' re talking about going right to pavement so if it doesn ' t work, it is not a temporary trial period which it was supposed to have been last year when it was voted. You ' re going right into the I asphalt. If it' s a big problem, then we ' ve got a big chunk of asphalt around . That' s pretty significant. Hasek: I have a question for you . How far did you say it was from the Idrop-off to the first parking space? Jan Lash : From the main beach or from our beach? From the drop-off , the Ifirst one was 180 yards. Hasek: Actually I think it' s a lot closer than that . IJan Lash: Okay, so it ' s better than that so it probably is very comparable to the main beach . I think the shorest spot was right around Tecumseh. IHasek: Was there any discussion at all to date about just simply having parking in the park as opposed to parking out of the park? ICMady: No , we haven ' t had any discussion tonight . Hasek: Was there any discussion at all about safety factors or with that I right-of-way and the possibility of putting a paved path of some sort along the street? .fit . _ .-401t,r,..ai: 4:. ..• — _ . .1 Park and Recreation Commission Meeting April 26 , 1988 - Page 7 (7 Sietsema : All we ' ve done so far is listen to public comment . Mady: Okay, any further discussion? If not, I close off the public discussion portion so we can get going here . I ' ll open the Commission discussion with Sue. Boyt : I don ' t like the design of the parking lot and I wish I would have requested Mark to be here but I would like to look at alternatives for this parking . In this area, I know there ' s berming but maybe we could just get rid of the berming and put in parking right here. I don ' t like the idea of a lot of concrete going down into the park. It' s a beautiful I park. That would take up too much. I think Pat mentioned permit parking and I think is a real legitimate concern because we ' re sharing facilities with Lake Ann. The number of people the beach can accomodate, I don ' t II think we have any numbers on that. Driveway safety, if the driveway went in, we could put a trail next to it to accomodate bikes and baby carriages . Locking the gate, I think that was one of the concerns that it wouldn' t be locked at night. That could be assigned to someone on a daily basis . An increase in the number of parking spaces , once that number is established, I don ' t see us , as we are now, ever going in there and putting more parking spaces in. The park isn ' t big enough for that . What I would like is for the park to be accessible , just available to people. Anyone who wants to go there. I think your concerns are real legitimate. Driving up the hill and out into the road is a problem. I think we need to look at some other solutions than what we have right now. Watson: Some of the same ones as Sue. Who would close it at night to be sure that it would be locked up at night? What are the dimensions of that lot? How much lakeshore does it have? Sietsema : I don' t know that right off the top of my head. I could go Up I and look and scale it off on a half section map or something . Watson: So the beach area is 30 yards? I Sietsema : I would guess there' s about 100 feet of lakeshore on Lake Ann . Public: The depth going back to where the gravel area is now is about 140 feet. Ed walked it off . Watson : I think we' re aware of that . . . . How many acres is it? , Sietsema: Three . Watson: Actually for a beachlot , we don ' t have enough lakeshore frontage. The prime issue is we allow people to come and if there ' s parking they would be more apt to come and then walk over to Lake Ann Park if they didn ' t have to have a permit. Because they do walk over there anyways. I don' t like the parking either because if they back out of there onto that road, up the hill and onto the road, that' s going to be a disaster . Unless some people could be parking on that road on the way in, pulling in. . .they' re going to park along that road as it goes Park and Recreation Commission Meeting April 26 , 1988 - Page 8 Ic down that hill . When you get all the way down to the bottom, you ' re going to have a fairly long distance in that road . It goes up the hill and then out. It ' s going to be very difficult to keep people from parking along the road, thereby making it impossible for anybody wanting to get back on. Boyt : I had one other point that I wanted to include. I was talking to ' people today on other lake issues in Chanhassen. One of the major concerns is a public safety concern in that most people would like to see more patrols. They'd like to see the police around patrolling the parks. ' We' re going to have some of this summer aren' t we? Jim Chaffee: We are in the process right now of hiring two CSO' s to work t30 hours a week each. Last year we had 1 CSO working 40 hours a week. Boyt: So they can hit each park every day? ' Jim Chaffee : Hopefully. Jan Lash : I 'm just wondering , why is it that you think that with four ' parking, why is it that parking right in that area is going to make it so much more accessible? I 'm not sure why that four parking spots issue are making it accessible. ' Boyt : It' s a perception difference that you have and I have . To me, if I have to walk 200 yards, it' s not as accessible as parking right there . I would love to make it as accessible to people as I can . ' Jan Lash: It ' s more accessible than the main beach. ' Boyt : I don ' t care about the main beach . I 'm not trying to compare Lake Ann with Greenwood Shores . Mady: We' re getting into a discussion situation here . You ' ve asked a question but I don ' t want to see comments going back and forth because it will just . . . ' Watson : Just something real quick. Can we make sure that we do keep . . . Sietsema: I can ' t take and record calls that our department, that Todd ' or myself get. I don ' t know how you can discern them with the blotter book because they just the skip the bottom. Maybe you could answer that better . t Jim Chaffee : I think from your end of it Lori , it ' s an internal matter . We have a complaint form that we can issue citywide. . . .process in our computer and get handed the data . We ' re asking that everybody, if you ' have a problem with the park system throughout the City, call as soon as that problem is there . Not wait until later and say, did you hear about the problem? You need to call immediately when the problem is occurring . Getting back to your question Carol , we'd like to keep as accurate ' records as possible but sometimes when you get a call say to, I 'm using this as an example, Greenwood Shores . The person who is calling didn ' t Park and Recreation Commission Meeting April 26, 1988 - Page 9 4 give us their address and typically what we' ll find is , in the blotter the call will be associated with that address and not necessarily the park. It' s pretty easy in trying to determine that it had something to do with the park at Greenwood Shores because of the location but if we expand that out to some of these other areas , Carver Beach for example, it' s as clear that it' s park related. It ' s sometimes difficult to get that so I ' ll be working with the County Sheriff for keeping more accurate log so we will try to do that . 11 Watson: As best we can , you can tell something about the nature of these calls? Jim Chaffee: Right. Hasek: First of all , a lot of this hinges on the motion that was made by I Mayor Hamilton last year. In reading through the Minutes I really find it difficult to even find that motion. There ' s a lot of discussion . Some of the council people appeared to want to keep the park open and thought of various ways of closing . Initially when the conversation started, everything was pointing towards keeping it open and someplace along the line there was a swing but that' s what discussion is all about I guess but I 'd really like to see what the motion was that was made 1: because it really isn' t stated in the Minutes that I got . All there are is just a bunch of statements. After stopping down at the beach and talking to a gentleman down on the site and I had some conversation with him, I think that' s probably where the comparison on the numbers but I 'm glad to see that we got those and got that straighten around . What bothers me about the existing parking out there, and what we ' re talking ' about is putting parking into the park is an accessi bility issue . I guess driving out to that park, you certainly can not feel like it belongs to anybody but the people who live there. The reason is just because it is some 500, I rounded out the neighbors are 525 feet I guess from the closest parking spot to the entrance and that ' s quite a distance for anybody to have to walk to get into a park with an automobile . 525 feet is the average. It ' s 510 feet to the north and 540 feet to the east . I of that first parking space from dead center on the access into that park. They are both safe distances I feel from the park entrance. I don ' t know that you could probably get it much closer than that. If you did get it much closer than that , the people would then be parking up on lawns and maybe that' s what is happening right now, I don ' t know. It is a tight corner . I 'm still curious as to how wide the right-of-way is in there for a bike to get, if it ' s possible, if we eventually get parking out, I would like the trail to be in place first . Before we want them parking in the park. If that can ' t be accomplished , then I won ' t push very hard to get the parking into the park. Four spaces , I feel is a minimum. I would personally, I think like to see a few more. The reason I would like to see a few more is because of the maneuvering ability within the park based on four spaces. That 's going to be very tight and Mark Koegler seemed to feel safe with it . I think it' s going to be a little bit close so I personally would like to see that we put parking in and to increase those spaces simply to make it more liveable. Either that or the design should accomodate a person turning around in their car . We have to get into that park anyway to get down there to the lift r ...-._..-. - .. _ Park and Recreation Commission Meeting ICApril 26, 1988 - Page 10 station. The area we ' re proposing covering is virtually the one that ' s there right now. It is not going to change the character down there at all . Like the woman said , where would you lay it? On that hard surface ' area down there. I don ' t know that it necessarily takes away from any except perhaps frisbee or playing catch or something , which might be a little bit hampered by that. The park is 3 acres in size. Eventually, ' if that thing becomes crowded , we have the ability to clear and put some other activies down there. It is not a natural park. It' s being used by someone in the neighborhood to dump leaves . To dump dirt. There ' s a little path down there where somebody has backed in and dumped some soil . ' The tracks that are crossing that you can see standing there, is a very clear trail of 3 or 4 wheel vehicle, a bike. A 4 wheel bike, not a Jeep. Going between two of the rocks and it seems to like if those vehicles are ' in there, those are users of the park that are within the park so it ' s the people that use the park, that live in the area , that I can see are having the vehicles down there. There may be others , that' s true. We didn ' t see a lot of garbage laying around when we were down there . I think that it' s a nice little park. 100 feet of beach is certainly enough, as far as I 'm concerned , to serve quite a few people. We have 36 homes, I think in our neighborhood and a beachlot that ' s 60 feet wide. ' That thing is used to the maximum and I think we could probably put more people down there. I 'm going to say an average day down at our beach probably has in excess of 30, sometimes in excess of 70 people down there • where we' re having parties and so forth. No one is discouraged from coming down to that beach and it' s one of the few areas that the City does has to have a beach on it and I would like to see parking at that beach at all costs . Schroers : I agree with both Sue and Ed on some points . I would like e to look at an alternative parking plan. Possibly moving that berm and having parking immediately adjacent to the road similar to what is at Carver Beach. I don ' t know that that would be the answer but I would like to look at a plan of that type to see what that looks like . The accessibility does seem to be on everyone ' s mind. In my opinion, if a person has to drive from the other side of town and then has to park 500 feet away, if they have to drive up and drop off their things and from the closest parking spot in either direction you can not see the ' belongings that you have dropped off there. It ' s around the corner , whatever it is that you ' ve left there, you lose visual sight of for however long it takes you to go park your car and walk back. That may or ' may not be a threat but it' s an inconvenience . As a full time park employee of Hennepin Parks , it has been my personal experience that any parking improvements , including paved parking , has increased the value and the aesthetics of the neighborhood . People never like it until it ' s ' there but when it ' s there they say hey, this looks pretty nice . It ' s a lot nicer than it was before and we have a nicer park now. I also think we need to check with City Council and see if we have developed a policy as far as making parking available in all our parks . It seems to me that in the past we made some kind of a recommendation to that effect to the City Council and I think we checked with them and get some direction from them so we know better what our guidelines are . Also I 'm wondering , there 's a new development going on in the area, it would be immediately south up on top of the hill above the trail that runs from Greenwood • 1 Park and Recreation Commission Meeting April 26 , 1988 - Page 11 47 Shores to Lake Ann . Are we going to be acquiring more parkland 1 immediately adjacent to that? Sietsema : That' s totally up to this Commission. There' s no site plan or any proposal or application to date. I think that it' s just in the works that that may be considered to be purchased but at the time of application, this Commission would see the site plan for review and make a recommendation to the City Council as to whether to accept parkland or park fees. Boyt : Is that the Eckankar property? , Sietsema: Yes , that' s the Eckankar property. Schroers : Last but certainly not least , it is more than obvious of the interest and concern of the residents of Greenwood Shores and I think that needs to be taken into consideration. I guess what I 'm saying is , I don't think that we have enough facts right now to make a decision and I would like to see us look into the matter a lot further . Mady: A couple of things. First off, she asked us why we' re reviewing II this . I was at the Council meeting that you were reading the quotes from and it was my belief in sitting through that meeting that the Council directed us to review the situation even though the park had been closed down. I have had discussion. . .concerning the park, I think it was essentially through my direction that it ' s on the agenda at this time. That 's why we' re reviewing it. That 's what this body does. We review situations from time to time . Just because the Council did something five years ago does not mean that we do not review it at another time so that ' s what we ' re doing now. There were a number of comments concerning quotes from the Minutes. I believe what you did was taking items out of context from the Council Minutes . Dale Geving was very clearly in his comments that he wanted to see that park available to expand. He made a comment that he had to park up at Carol ' s house to even go see the park. II To him that ' s just too far to go so I think the record should reflect that the council members did make other comments early in the meeting . . . in the Minutes do not necessarily reflect the comments made by the councilmembers at that time . There ' s some discussion concerning the safety situation that exists at the top of the edge of the park right at the street level . Some commission members have indicated maybe to park up there. I guess maybe staff should look at that. It ' s my belief, all comments to date , that I 'm safe to make a stop and make a right turn onto the street at that point but there ' s no way you can back out onto that street . I believe that the parking situation , if it ' s opened , needs to be inside the park. The citizens mentioned something about a drop off point at the top of the hill . Again , you ' re still talking about the same hazard. If you' re going to stop at the top of that hill , the hazard exists so the best thing you could do is to keep cars from that point as possible. You asked about permit parking , that ' s what we do at Lake Ann currently. The Council has asked us to review that situation and hopefully find an alternative to charging residents to enter the park. There are some of us on this commission that feel that it is , I feel personally it' s ludicrous to charge people to enter into the park, any �._._--- ...-+. ..v..w...W'az Park and Recreation Commission Meeting April 26, 1988 - Page 12 r rpark anywhere . Your taxes are already paying for that park. There ' s no reason that the community should have to pay again to use the park. The park is a free and open space that you can go out and recreate at and r spend your leisure time. I know there are other people on this -- Commission that recommend something else. You asked about keeping track of the park after the park was closed off. I believe what the blotter does recognize any situation that ' s existed at the park and Carol made a comment I think that Jim is looking at identifying the situation as it existed prior to. My comments concerning opening the park up is that I firmly believe that every park in the city of Chanhassen should be ' readily available to every citizen in the city of Chanhassen . Walking over 500 feet to get to the park is not accessibility. You 've stated that to get from the closest parking spot to the beach at Lake Ann was , I think you said it was 96 yards . Earlier you made the comment something about our standard that walking from the street to the beach at Greenwood Shores is within our standard we use at Lake Ann. Jeff Farmakes : I did not make that comment . That was Jan Lash. Just to set the record straight. If you ' re addressing some of these comments to me directly, I 'd like to respond . Mady: I haven ' t stated your name. In any event , what I 'm stating is that we do not have a standard for the number of feet a parking space has to be from an area . What we ' re trying to do is make the parks available as much as possible. That ' s where we ' re heading. The Council asked us to review it. The members of the Council indicated the wish that that park be available to the entire city. In my opinion , that park isn' t ' available to me. I , in no way am going to walk 400 or 500 feet. I 'm not even sure where I can park over there. Everytime I drive down the road , I see another no parking sign . If you have a safety situation, four cars is just a minimum number for that park. It will at least allow somebody to get in there during the day. We have the public safety officers or else the Carver County Sheriff is currently locking Lake Ann park every r night . They also lock the boat access every night. Putting a chain up across the parking area at Greenwood Shores would just be another one of their functions . It also brings the sheriff ' s department into your neighborhood one more time a day. I don' t know if they' re coming every r day. I would doubt it and I think it ' s my personal opinion that they' re probably not going by your street every day and this would get them in there at 10: 00 at night every day. I think what we ' re trying to do here r is open up the park to everyone. I think the Commission is to review the parking situation and make that as safe as possible . There ' s no way that I ' ll ask to open the park without having the bollards and chains in place because you' ll have the same situation that existed a year ago. ' Especially in the winter where people are just driving right through and tearing up the park. We need to set that parking up so it ' s defined and make it safe. I believe currently that can be done and that ' s exactly where I 'm heading for . Is there any further discussion? CSchroers : I asked some questions when we were out there a week ago Sunday and looked . Number one, there is no signs anywhere that exist right now that say, caution curve, slow, children at play or anything like that so for the meantime right now, maybe we could look at getting Park and Recreation Commission Meeting April 26, 1988 - Page 13 (7 ' some better signage on that street in the area of the access just because of the curve. There's really nothing telling traffic that 's coming in there to slow down because of the curve and because it' s a more used area so I would like us to look at that right now. Also, I have a question on II what is more dangerous . The curve is naturally going to slow down traffic coming around that point. You' re going to slow down because you' re going to go around the corner but as you get around the corner you' re going to speed up, whichever direction you' re going. If you have cars parked parallel along the street at an area where the traffic is going faster and a kid comes out from between the parked cars , is that more dangerous? Is there more chance of an accident that way or is there more chance of an accident happening because of the congested area in the park? Maybe Jim would know that better than I . I don' t know but that was something that came to my mind. ' Jim Chaffee: Larry, you caught me. It ' s a judgment call in that regard because it' s whatever would be reasonable in that situation. Certainly you can relate any situation to an accident, what usually is true but again, it 's all a hypothetical situation. We really don't know. Schroers : Well , safety has got to be on the top of the list . Until we decide what it is we want to do there but let 's push for some better signage in the area right now. Hasek: I did take some time to take some measurements down and I wanted to make sure that the measurements got into the record. As I stated earlier , it is approximately 540 feet from the east to the entry into the park. Up on top of the hill on the northern part is 510 feet to your closest space . From that point down into what we would perceive as the closest parking space, based on vertical alignment . . . is another 150 feet. That point to the end of the gravel area down there is another 50 feet so from the farther parking spot on the street, the closest parking spot on the street, the one to the east , all the way down to what would be the closest space to the beach, would be over 700 feet. That' s two city II blocks . That ' s a long distance for anybody to have to walk to get to any activity even if it is within Lake Ann Park and I had nothing to do with the design of that park. The landing at the top of the street to the back of the area which would considered flat or sloping towards the ' street is 45 feet. That' s enough landing to accomodate at least two automobiles. If there is a visual problem at the top, the biggest problem there is at the top based on visibility is location of the park sign. I think it ' s located probably right on right-of-way and when you' re stopped up there , it' s dead in your way. I think the sign ought , to be moved from a safety standpoint. Personally I would like to see the plantings along the border of the park there be beefed up. I don' t know that we need more rocks . I don' t know that any amount of rocks that we put in there is going to keep bikes out of there. That ' s a problem we 've got in every park we've got. There are motorcycle tracks across all of Cthe south of Lake Ann . . .design our parks to specifically address that situation. I think that's probably about it other than I just want elaborate a little bit about Larry' s comments about signs . I think the corner should be signed, Caution Curve. I think there could be Slow, Children Playing signs and I think a little bit of signage out there, and ..-e a _e.L.M11:.a. .._.s . . ..r.nY.y;• -i t•.L"L-F::!M .�._. _ . 14fF:uu n.a-� • Park and Recreation Commission Meeting April 2G, 1988 - Page 14 C I don ' t want to see too many signs out there obviously but I think there are a few that are needed and I think from a safety standpoint should be looked at by staff . Mady: One other comment I ' ve got , one thing in this accessibility discussion that we haven' t addressed and I think needs to be addressed is to make the park handicap accessible . I believe they should , no matter where we have our parking for anything, the number one closest spot should be the handicap spot . I don ' t think anymore than one but I think we should have one handicap spot set aside and if you don ' t have proper tags for it . . . I think it ' s time to make a motion on this . Mady moved, Boyt seconded to direct staff to have Mark Koegler review the I parking design for Greenwood Shores to address the safety situation to investigate whether or not parking can be put at the top of the hill to be safe . Further , the situation concerning safety signs along the street be reviewed by the Public Safety Commission. Mark Koegler to come back within a month with a new parking layout so there will be time to go forward with the plan before the beach season. All voted in favor and motion carried . PARK DEDICATION FEES. Sietsema : I contacted a number of people to ask them the question of what the projections for land values in the next 18 months were going to be and no one I knew did anything formally. Al Klingelhutz, well I think that where they' re going to change uses , it ' s going to go up and in the southern area it ' s going to go down and you ' re industrial ' s going to stay about the same. He said maybe you want to call the County Assessor who I called first and he projects that they won ' t change and has nothing I formal as a formal projection either . Therefore , my recommendation stays the same as it was last week . To increase it based on the numbers that" I gave you two or three meetings ago which would bring the single family rate to $425 . 00 from $415. 00 per unit . Duplex to $425 . 00. Multi-family to $295. 00 and industrial to $1, 050. 00 per acre. Hasek: I would like to see them higher but I can ' t see the justification for doing it. . . Mady: Basically my comments are , I don ' t like what I see in total but we have no other way of defending it so we ' ve got to go with what ' s legal . Mady moved , Boyt seconded that the Park and Recreation commission recommend to increase the Park Dedication Fees for 1988 as follows : Single Family $425 . 00/unit Duplex $425. 00/unit Multiple Family $295 . 00/unit Industrial $1, 050. 00/acre Trail dedication fee set at one-third of the park dedication fee . All voted in favor and motion carried . aw. .kG•.!':�-w.a+C�6YZt5tvvt� • .r,•...,• ....t1ir".lino.,r. .. r ,tttti_t_,6,yy,f,,,," CITY OF ,.., ,..1, ! ( \ , .L., , CHANBASS ..... ..,. j 1 1 Ny 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 f MEMORANDUM TO: Park and Recreation Commission I I Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation C ordinator FROM: Jim Chaffee, Public Safety Director I 1 DATE: March 18 , 1988 f SUBJ: Park Patrol 1 As some of you may be aware, the 1988 budget process did not allow the retention of our park patrol officer. Consequently, we found ourselves in a position to look at what it is that we wished to accomplish, i .e. preventative patrol in the parks. From all indications, there appeared not to be a problem last 4: year with criminal or nuisance activities in our parks . This may � I or may not have been as a result of our park patrol. I have discussed this problem with Don Ashworth and Tom Hamilton and we have tentatively agreed on the following course of action: 1 . Work with the Carver County Sheriff to provide as much park 11 patrol as possible. 2 . Seek the employment of an additional CSO for augmentation of the Sheriff' s patrol. 3 . Keep close tabs on all park activity relating to crime and nuisances. 4 . Provide whatever additional patrol services are needed through Scott Harr and myself. I have discussed the park situation with Chief Deputy Jim ICastleberry and he has assured me that he will provide as much additional patrol as budget will allow. I have also discussed the parks with Sgt. Bob Pagelkopf, Carver County Sheriff' s °y . Department, who will be working with me in persuading the on-duty deputies to spend more time in the parks . Already, extra monies have been sought and approved to employ an additional CSO. This will also enable us to augment the regular Sheriff' s patrol. - IF Park and Recreation Commission IC Lori Sietsema March 18 , 1988 Page 2 In the effort to keep close tabs on all nuisance and crime acti- vity that occurs in the parks, we will need citizen support. We ' must receive information on the incidents that occur in a timely fashion. The Police need to be called during the incident or as soon as possible thereafter. We need documentation. ' Finally, if things appear to be getting out of control, Scott Harr and myself are both licensed police officers and will be ' able to provide additional uniformed patrol. These efforts should provide us with a measure of control but most importantly is the reporting of problems by the citizens . We need the documentation. i( O, `,U..(.Avvv,-1,v,t, I C . 1-1" : 1 1 ca --— �, ■ I E ' v — p > p , 1 _21_1- ij-i Cc>.)------- -I(1, q / r O t1 i 4 Aa z r K - \\\ L_ r Q D _ Q D O m o © / X) p o o E co .- 6 ° 1 , II [7,3 -0 D ., II 0 , \):75._ __ -----, 1 1 r (,‘, , . „:, • ., m O die '' /O�_OOO ?F ' N ,0-,'-': 004 -� 06 Z . . a -1zrs ! 1 i i C - 1 I _7-)i ,- DEVEL TOPAS SHOWN _ COUNTERSINK G LAG DOLT TO I r ' PASS THRU AND SECURE CHAIN 24"DIA HOLE V 10"DIA CEDAR POST I r a ' BOLLARD DETAIL 15ANTI DOGWOOD CURNUS STOL ONIFCRA'ISANTI' 1 �(y7 O�►y / O4 111W....Al 0 -- 'O I a- QCa——— DoL .. R D SPLCN.eR P.A. MAL US RSV 5PLCNDOR' IPHASE 2 NC1 CRANt>ti 'i' IIN TRILODUN WHEEL 5TOP5 DOLLARD5 I / IPHASE 1 ,y LOTUS TRAIL C 0 re :o 40 I r UTILITY POLC5 USt� �• rOR WHEEL STOPS mma .'RR TICS Parking Concepts , kJ p RMK _ . I h Greenwood Shores Park o..by C RYM M Carver Beach Park RMK EXISTING city of Chanhassen �sre/87 Joe/. er-av CARVER BEACH PARK Van Doren-Hazard Stallings _� 1 ,� PARKING LOT a°""`' ' I • I . . , ot, CITYO ' -- r .. 3.„ I , CHANHASt i„ „, ,t,,..., , k_ _. ...,- -- 4=-'� 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 II MEMORANDUM TO: Park and Recreation Commission II FROM: Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator DATE: June 12, 1987 II SUBJ: Greenwood Shores and Carver Beach Parks ' The City Council met to discuss the recommendation to open II parking spaces at Greenwood Shores and Carver Beach Parks. The Council looked at the issue extensively and were concerned about a number of things ( see minutes) . First of all, the Council was surprised to hear from the resi- r 4: dents of the Greenwood Shores subdivision that there still remained unsolved nuisances and park abuse problems, and they were II concerned about the park being used as a boat access. The Council took the position that parking should not be con- sidered in this park until the current problems were resolved, II i .e. recreational vehicles driving through the park; loud, late parties; garbage and debris littering the area; etc. The Council acted to reject the parking plan for Greenwood Shores Park and 11 directed staff to meet with the Public Safety Director, Jim Chaffee, to police the area more closely. In addition, staff was directed to design a new gate that would not allow vehicular II traffic (except utility vehicles) to gain access to the park and to prohibit boat launching. The Council also noted that the existing no parking signs should be kept in place. Attached please find a memo from Jim Chaffee regarding this II issue. Jim has visited Greenwood Shores Park to review the problems noted in the minutes and has made some suggestions to II help make policing the area possible. For instance, Jim has hired a police officer who will devote a large portion of his _,.. , time to patrolling parks. He has also contacted the Carver County Sheriff' s Department to alert them to these problems. II Jim has made other suggestions regarding the facilities within the park, which staff will be acting on. I feel confident that together Jim and I will be able to tackle II these problems and concerns this summer. Jim will be on hand at Tuesday' s meeting to answer any questions that you may have. I II Park and Recreation Commission June 12, 1987 Page 2 The Carver Beach parking plan was approved as presented. I have since received calls from that neighborhood stating that they are unhappy with this decision and that similar problems exist at this site as well. i have made Jim aware of these complaints and he will be keeping an eye on this area as well. sy (t.,„ City Council Meeting - June 1, 1987 \\ 4;-1 - Dick Lash: For once in my life I agree with her on every count but she missed a couple. This fellow here says that 5 years ago we'll see if the problem clears up for 5 years ago. Why the hell would the problem clear up when the god danm population is about twice... Mayor Hamilton: Can you keep your language the way it ought to be? I would certainly appreciate it. Otherwise, don't make any comments. Dick Lash: Your signs won't work. What's going to keep people from driving around your chains? The signs and the chains will be destroyed. I've seen picnic tables down there in the last 5 years destroyed. Everybody here has seen them all destroyed and there was a little bit of worry about handicap. Well, I believe the handicaps are down there right now because a lot of people down there must be blind because they're not paying any attention to the parking signs. They are parking up and down where there is no parking now. That's all I've got. ,i Gerry Maher, 7101 Utica Lane: I'm directly across from the park. I've lived there for 10 years. I'm not so concerned about the parking and what happens with the plans at this particular point is that I think a lot of the people in PeP the neighborhood are very concerned with th broken promises that we've had so far. The idea of the park and to expand it as we were explained to by the Park and Rec Commission was to allow more people to use it and to get better usage. Upon discussion that evening it was decided and understood by all the people involved that the area number one, is not in a situation to allow for an extensive use. Because of the type of the road that goes through there and the number of children that go across to the park from the neighborhood. Secondly, the area as it's now designed with the bollards that you have in, has nothing to do with the left hand side of the beach which is really the problem more than anything with the driving vehicles as far as 4-wheel drives, 3-wheel recreational vehicles and motorcycles. The park for a long time we were told a year ago would be policed more than it was. Several people called up and nothing was done about it. Beyond that we were told at the last Park and Rec meeting about 6 weeks ago or so that Lori was told at that meeting to make sure that the chain was put up the following day. Directed to do so. It was put up last week. Now, the other thing is that they said they could direct the public safety to patrol the area more. We were told that last year. Nothing was done about it. What's to say it's going to happen now? Under the present circumstances, we get people who park directly in front of no parking signs. They park on our yards. I've come home at night, 4:00 in the afternoon and had people parking in my driveway. If we're going to get more use out of the park, you put four cars down there so four people in the neighborhood can park. For the most part, none of the people in the neighborhood are really upset with the walking. It's a recreational park. Why not walk down there to take advantage of it? Under the circumstances, if _. you start expanding the park, you're going to bring in more traffic. The possibilities of more traffic problems as far as kids running back and forth to the park are going to be increased substantially and I think it's going to create a safety hazard. Those people that say you can see from the top of Utica Lane down into the parking area are quite misleading because although I may be short, if I stand at the top where the chain is, you would have to drive into the area right now to where the chain is to be able to look down 9 v 0 iT- City Council Meeting - June 1, 1987 IC into the area Now you're talking about a car backing out of an area that has a very good traffic pattern both left and right through a circle that although I the speed should be reduced in that area, for the most part is not. You increase that traffic, you increase the chances of people backing up and causing problems. Why they have bollards on the right hand side right now, if I I may show you, which I can't understand for the life of me. This right now is about a 3 foot drop down to this parking area. What purpose do these bollards serve? Who is going to park down here and how is anybody going to get in here in the first place? This drop right down here has rocks through this area and this drop down here is a substantial task for even a 4-wheel drive or a motorcycle. These bollards are a total waste of money through here. More to the point, these trees as we were told at the Park and Rec I ,.*. meeting are supposed to serve to see that people don't park along this area. If we have people parking right here now in front of a no parking sign, we ° - have people parking here on this side of the street and over here, why aren't they going to park all the way down this line. What you're asking us to do 1� , now to take our time again for a year for which we've already done at this t,-. point and make calls to the City Hall. Make calls to the public safety and I ` say we have four cars parked down there. 20 minutes later they show up and for the most part they don't issue very many tickets if you look on the record. What they do is say, you're not supposed to park there. They move their cars. Very seldom do they ticket the people. How are they going to learn not to park there? As I said, it really comes down to broken promises and I think that is just what this is going to be and it's more hassle for the people in the neighborhood. That is a neighborhood park, enjoy it. IWendy Folsom, 7050 Utica Lane: My main concern is the safety of the area. I do feel that the entrance to the park is not conducive to safety. I had an experience just tonight on my way home from work. There were five boys on I bicycles, 9, 10, 11, 12 years old coming up from the swimming beach. They had swam I suppose 2-3 hours this afternoon. It was hot and humid and they were tired and as they come up the hill on the bicycle, I did because I live in the I neighborhood and I am very well aware of the park there, am aware of all the bicycles and all the children in my neighborhood, had my foot on the brake all the way down to my house. The boys were coming up pumping on their bicycles I like this right in the middle of the road. Two on each side and one right in the middle. Don Chmiel, 7100 Tecumseh Lane: I guess everyone has addressed much of the Iissues except for a couple that I see. For the period of time as we have said the chain has been down since last winter, kids with vehicles coming in and out of that bigger park, more specifically now when it's dry, have been spinning wheels, doing wheelies within there, 3-wheelers and 4-wheelers and so on. That creates a problem within the neighborhood with dust in itself. If you would care to come over to my house and sit on the deck which overlooks that complete full area you're more than welcome to because you can see on a I weekend exactly what happens. The other part that I wanted to address was that there are approximately 76 homes within the Greenwood Shores area. In addition to that it's utilized by Chaparral with a lot of people walking from IL their area down to the park. When someone says that park is not being utilized as it should, I beg to differ with that opinion. Only because I do [E: know how full that particular area is. I've been down there and I've I 10 I t City Council Meeting - June 1, 1987 .7 are all over everywhere going to get hurt instead of just in the lake going to get hurt. I personally don't see the need for a totlot down there. I Gerry Maher: One of the things that was brought up at the Park and Rec meeting was that under the circumstances people that live across from a beach in many respects want to enjoy it and yet try to hold back maybe that it gets to be very public and used by many people. I, myself, we have people that park in our driveways, neighbors and everything else, and kids put their bikes in the yard that live in the area so it doesn't matter, as I said before, it's easy to park there. One of the things that creates a problem at this point, as a homeowner, what you're asking for a year, which is an idea or a projection of the Park and Rec Board or you people at this particular point, i��` that we're going to become much better policeman than you were in the past. I ,,�,. So you put a burden on us that really as a homeowner shouldn't be asked of us under the circumstances. We're there to enjoy the park. We pay our taxes and -' use it but what you're going to ask us to do and in Jeff's case probably even ', more so than myself, although I have the same problem across from it, that we're going to be calling the police with the addition of that being opened which has already been proven in the last three months since it has been open that there are going to be substantially more cars down there than the four cars and we're going to have to call the police that much more often. So at the end of the year then you're going to say, okay, now that we've spent x amount of dollars calling the police waiting for them to show up. You've got to give them your name, put it on record and go through all of that, that's the burden you put on four or five of the people who live close by it and I. don't think it's a very fair thing to do. Councilman Boyt: I think there are several issues that have certainly been brought up and I'm glad to see such a nice turn out here to discuss this issue. It's certainly important. The idea of neighborhood parks. I wish you people would go to the Park and Rec Commission and tell them you want neighborhood parks in Chanhassen. What I've seen in reading the Minutes is pretty consistently saying we're not in a park deficient area when they're talking about your area or when they're talking about the areas around this location and therefore we're not adding parkspace. By not having that space it prevents other neighborhoods from having your feeling about a park or having your access to a park. We have a great many people here who have no way of walking to a park. They have to get into a car and go there. I think as you've indicated, your park, and I hope you do feel it's your park, gets abused and this is not going to help it. It may make it worse. It may not I make it worse. Listening to your description, it sounds like it's pretty bad already in terms of the abuse the park has taken. Being a member in a lake lot association, we have all kinds of problems and we have a private park so I'm afraid Jerry that a lot of responsibility does fall on your shoulders living in that area to call attention to problems that occur. I think you've been calling attention to problems that occur. We have a dilemma. We can't have a public park without having public access so I think the question falls I onto then what is public access? Is 76 or 72 homes sufficient pressure to put on that particular park? So I think in looking at how do we police or protect your park or neighborhood and your kids? How do we have access to a park that I is a public park and do those things together? I'm wondering, one of your neighbors came in not long ago, maybe six months ago, and asked to have the no I 13 , City Council Meeting - June 1, 1987 parking signs taken down. I'm wondering if that is a reasonable compromise to this situation. To take down the no parking signs on the public street and to I see if we can't spend that money that would go into the bollards and chains creating some sort of entrance that could be closed. You shake your head that that's not possible. IIMayor Hamilton: Is there someway we can not have a debate I guess. I realize you want to make some comments but Bill's creating a debate here and I don't think we want to do that. That's not the purpose here. I think we've covered 1 all the issues and we need to get ahead with deciding what we're going to do. Councilman Boyt: Well, it is and I would propose that we solve this problem Iby taking down the no parking signs and not building parking. Councilman Horn: My original intention in bringing this up was that I had no II ` intention of setting this up as a expansion of the park. My concern was spending money on an area that we had closed off and it's still my contention ,;` that we shouldn't spend money and then close an area off. I think that has y happened in this case. I think it's been masked as a safety issue on the I ' corner but if you look at the area, the no parking signs runs far beyond the corner of Utica. They run up on Tecumseh and several other streets adjacent to it so it's an obvious attempt to close off access in my opinion. I have no I problem with that as long as we don't spend money down there. I think if they want a private park that's only good for pedestrian access, that's fine as long as it fits in the park plan but I can't see spending public money for 111: that kind of a park. Also, on the Carver Beach Park, I was a little concerned when I looked at Phase 2 because it appears to me that we're using about a third of the available space over there. It seems to me that if this area works out, which it should now because we do have the other public access on I the lake, this does not have to be the prime public access point which caused the problem in the first place. People would drive down to the Carver Beach boat launching area and bring their trailers up to here. It seems to me that II if things go well in Phase 1, we can expand this parking room and expand it beyond four spaces. This is a great park area for people to come and picnic. In fact I used to use it for that until they closed it off so I have a problem with the Phase 2 portion of the Carver Beach Park also. ICouncilman Johnson: I think we have to become very hard core on our enforcement down there and I think we need to start issuing tickets. If I somebody is breaking the law, we need to cite them. I think this can work. Four parking spots is not much. I know it's more than is there now. If there are cars parking in no parking spaces, I would like our officers to I immediately ticket them. There is no warning. Everybody that has a drivers license can theoretically read. I would like to see a lot of tickets issued. I think we can teach some folks real quickly that we mean business out here. I agree with Clark on Phase 2 of Carver Beach. We may want to look into IIexpanding that after Phase 1. Councilman Geving: I guess I was a little bit surprised tonight to hear that I we are having problems in this particular park and have had some problems for some time. We thought we were going to resolve a lot of this a few years ago 9 with the no parking signs. I like to use the lakes as much as anybody and [E: 1 14 II City Council Meeting - June 1, 1987 C - have found that I had to park my own car way up by Carol Watson's home just to walk to the park. We have a real problem policing all the parks in the City. II There are times when we need the citizens to call in complaints. We need the citizens to advise us when there is a problem in your area because you live there and you know what's going on and I encourage Jeff to continue to do what you've been doing and we'll try to beef up the patrol in that area and will I try to get the Carver County people down there and look at that from time to time. We'll make sure that that happens. I'm not really sure that our direction to the Park and Rec people back in January meant that we were going II to expand this with a bollard and chain and four parking spots. I hadn't really thought that this was going to come out of all this until tonight when I saw these plans over the weekend and started reading my notes and I realized II we may be creating more of a problem than we're trying to solve. I guess I ,l would be in favor of leaving those no parking signs up. Doing a lot more a: . patrolling than we apparently have been doing and not expand this park at this 'f �- time. Not expand it at all until we get the area under control. I would just II as soon take these plans and put them on hold and if we have a good summer and things seem to be coming along fine with the policing aspect, maybe we can bring it back again next year but for this particular park, I think we ought to place our plans on hold and not expand it. I Mayor Hamilton: I think ever since I've been here I don't have a particular problem with neighborhood parks and it seems to me that it is a park that is II being used by the community. If you have 70 some homes there, we have 3.some people per home, that's 200 some people have access to the park. If I want to go to that park, I hop on my bicycle and I can ride over there the same as II anybody else in the community can or you can drive over as Dale has done and park up on the hill up by Don's house or further up and walk down. I don't have any problems spending money on a park that is or could be classified as a II neighborhood park. After all, it's still the city's taxpayers that are using that park and that's why it was developed in the first place. So consequently, I would like to see us, I'll agree with Dale and I'll even go a step further and say that I would like to see all the parking taken out of II there and just have access so we can get to the lift station, so our city truck can get in there and close the park completely to outside vehicles other than the city's and to use the space that's being used for parking now perhaps II for a totlot type of facility or swings or whatever else we can put in there and leave it for the neighborhood. If somebody else wants to use the park, they can walk over from Lake Ann. They can ride their bike. They can walk. They can do whatever else they want to get there so I think that becomes a I viable way to use the park and I think it serves a very good purpose at that point. Wendy Folsom: When we first moved down there about 10 years ago, the squad I car used to go by our house several times a week to the point where I said to my husband, I think we moved into a neighborhood that has to be watched a lot. II There must be a lot of problems. I've never seen the police go by the house so much. Then we had an opportunity about a year later, we don't see the police very often or have a need to talk to them very often but our cars were broken into because of a beer party on Memorial Day weekend, the first year we II had been there, and I said to him, do you have a lot of problems in this neighborhood? I see you a lot. He said, no we don't because it's such a 11 15 r City Council Meeting - June 1, 1987 ' leasant neighborhood P g borhood we like to drive by here. Last year we had an automobile accident, they hit a bicycle last year and it was the first time I ' got to speak to the policeman for a long time and I said to him, you know, I haven't seen you around as much as I did when I first moved in here almost 10 years ago. He said, that's true. We can't. Chanhassen has grown so much that we don't have time to come down in here as much as would like to. Mayor Hamilton: There's no question about that. I think all of you realize that Chanhassen is growing and the demands for patrol are much greater than what they used to be. Even though we continue to put on more patrolmen and have additional hours of patrol people on the road, it continues to be a problem and it's going to be as we continue to grow but we continue to try to IIaddress that problem and to take care of all those types of activities. \\� Councilman Horn: In regards to the Minutes from the Park and Rec meeting, I I �; was disturbed to find out that people had been using that as a boat launching !- area. Apparently people take their trailers down there and launch their boats with their garden tractors. That's not the intent of this park. I was also disturbed, it was very obvious that there was all kinds of 3-wheeler tracks ' down there. That's totally unrelated to the no parking signs. It's totally unrelated to whether we have this chain up or not. To me that park is being ruined by those kinds of things and regardless of what we do tonight, that has ' got to be patrolled. I don't think these no parking signs are even relevant to that issue but the park is being torn up. There is litter all over everywhere. You walk between there and Lake Ann and there are cans everywhere. You see evidence of tracks and they're not 4-wheelers. Those are dirt bikes and things that go in there and I can't believe those come from outside the city. Those are from inside the city and that has to be cleaned up. I go along with all your recommendations on this except for spending money down there. I don't think we should put that totlot in. We should keep it chained as you say. Keep the no parking signs there and we don't spend any more money on equipment but we do enforce it. ' Mayor Hamilton: Just to finish my comments because I want to say something about Carver Beach too, I do like the plans for Carver Beach. It is an entirely different beach. Again, the access to that is very poor. It's a hilly area. I think four parking spaces at that particular beach would be good just for the people who live there because it's a difficult beach to get to. The streets are not good there and it's difficult to ride your bike or ' even walk in that neighborhood so four parking spots in the Carver Beach area I think would be a positive thing to see how it works out because we've had problems there in the past also. ' Councilman Boyt: I agree that it looks like we may need to look at this in phases and maybe the phase to look at is to get the park cleaned up and safe and secure. As you've pointed out Tom, a lot of people do use the park in the ' neighborhood. I've got to tell you that eventually I would like to see that park opened up to people in Chanhassen as a whole but I think your issue is an important one so let's see if we can get it policed and stop what's happening there that's inappropriate. [E: 16 1 l— g. II City Council Meeting - June 1, 1987 4:- - Jeff Farmakes: The present chain has enough slack where you restrict ii 9 y tract access and you can easily pull it up and drive a car underneath it and that's what happens when people accessed it before. You've got to tighten that chain. II Put a second lower chain in. You would also be restricting access to these 4- wheelers and dirt bikes. Mayor Hamilton: What we should do is put a gate on there similar to what we II have at the South Lotus Lake access now so the gate can swing shut and our city people can just open it and you can't lift it up or down. You have to have a key or a lock to get in. That would be much more secure. II V‘S( Councilman Geving: Could I add to your motion Mr. Mayor. I want to go back to Greenwood Shores. I want to pick up an item. You mentioned three items. II'- I want to add a fourth one that there be no boat launching. That we direct -.2 Staff to meet with Carver County police patrol and have that area patrolled II regularly. That somehow we need to clean up the debris. Whether we hire it done or have the Boy Scouts do it or some other means. Then finally, the last one that you had I think should be in the Minutes as a motion and that is to instruct Staff to look at the gate and devise a new gate system instead of II that chain and I would like to add to your motion those three other comments. Mayor Hamilton: I'll add them changing the one to say that the policing of I the area should be done through Jim Chaffee, the Public Safety Director of the City and it should be an enforceable type of enforcement where if there are violations, there will be tickets issued and we would like to see the reports L back for review. Either here or at the Public Safety Commission so we know II that it is being taken care of and the problem is hopefully being solved. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded that the Greenwood Shores I Beach not have any parking at it. That the no parking signs on the streets remain as they are. Access to that beach be available only to City personnel to work at the lift station and it remain a neighborhood II g park. There be no boat launching at Greenwood Shores. Staff should meet with Jim Chaffee to patrol and enforce violations occurring at Greenwood Shores and the City Council or Public Safety Commission receive reports for review and that Staff be instructed to look at devising a new gate system for the entrance into II Greenwood Shores Park. Also, that the Carver Beach Park have four parking stalls installed as depicted on the plan with the chain and bollard system as outlined by Mark Koegler. All voted in favor and motion carried. I ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ESTABLISHING CONDITIONS FOR RECREATIONAL BEACHLOTS IIIN AGRICULTURAL DISTRICTS, FIRST READING. Mayor Hamilton: I would just like to make one comment. I agree with the I plan. If you look at the recommendation which would be the rural recreational beachlot portion of the recommendation as suggested to the Council by the city 1... staff, I was not comfortable with the last sentence. Rural recreational II beachlots. I would like to strike "any future lots resulting from subdivision shall obtain permission to use the recreational beachlot from the Homeowners 17 II „i IF CITY OF I( \ .',.1 _ CHANHASSEN 1 /,./ 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 -. _ (612) 937-1900 i MEMORANDUM ITO: Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator Park and Recreation Commission 1 FROM: Jim Chaffee, Public Safety Director DATE: June 10, 1987 1 SUBJ: Greenwood Shores Park II recently had the opportunity to tour Greenwood Shores Park and to speak with some of the residents in the area. I listened to their concerns and assured them that Public Safety would do 1 everything in our power to assist them in alleviating their problems. This will include strong enforcement action, frequent 1: patrols, and a dedication by the Chanhassen part-time police officer to the city parks . II would like to suggest, however, some changes that would make patrolling Greenwood Shores somewhat easier. The satellite faci- I lity should be relocated from its present hidden position in the trees . In addition, the existing light should be placed in a more central location within the clearing. Finally, the picnic tables could be locked to imbedded concrete to insure that they Iare not moved or otherwise tampered with. I am making these suggestions for you consideration in making Ipreventive patrol easier for the Public Safety personnel. In an expanding effort to meet some of the parks enforcement 1 issues head on, we have hired a part time police officer. Officer Frank Ellering will be working approximately 32 hours a week and his primary responsibility will be patrolling the city parks in Chanhassen. In his capacity as a sworn police officer, he will 1 have the ability to respond in a timely manner to the city parks when called. Unfortunately, there will be days when Officer Ellering is not on duty so the responsibility falls back to the ___ 1 Carver County Sheriff' s Deputies. Please be assured that the Sheriff' s Deputies will also be making themselves much more visible in and around the parks. lcThe summer is young and I think that by taking a strong position now we can prevent these problems from becoming worse. We will 1 1 . _ • Lori Sietsema 1 June 10, 1987 Page 2 c1 do the best we can, pro-actively with Officer Ellering and re- actively with the Carver County Sheriff' s Deputies. I look forward to meeting with members of the Park and Recreation Commission to respond to any suggestions or questions you might have. cc: Don Ashworth City Council Public Safety Commission 1 i 1 1 C CI 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 f - k+.w.:•.W��F:,+� - CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING IICAPRIL 12, 1988 Chairman Mady called Thi S ,►NA. tA)o,S a6ver-4-t, ci. -Io I MEMBERS PRESENT: Su Larry Schroers n IMEMBERS ABSENT: Cur _ STAFF PRESENT: Lori SA- w�.5 -+-,, r/ cu ud- �,. 1 Recreation Super vi so '"YYLP.A/Z.CJ/kli,�an, I APPROVAL OF MINUTES: `�'U� i , s of the Park and Recr ��.�-Q.�i�t cM— U March 22, 1988 . All 1 41M- rY co,v,' 53 iU,n C: GIAJal dl sGs S( GREENWOOD SHORES : c,L ht.. ;' f Chris Maher , 7101 Utica Avenue: We went around the neighborhood and got, it's probably three-quarters of the people who couldn' t be here tonight that is against parking at the beach . Boyt: Do you know that the Council does not want us to develop the park ) ariy further unless there' s parking? IChris Maher : We went through this whole thing last year . I Boyt: They wanted some steps to be taken to be reviewed a year later . From what I 've heard, there haven' t been complaints to the public safety. IChris Maher : That ' s not right because just the other day there were - parking tickets again on several cars . IBoyt : Have you made phone calls to the public safety? Don Chmiel , 7100 Tecumseh: I 've called the police at least 15 times. ISietsema : That ' s the input that I didn ' t have at the time that I wrote up this report. IDon Chmiel : I 've personally gone down there and told people to move their vehicles. That it wasn' t a permitted use for them to park. That if they did they would wind up getting tickets and I 've done that several -_ Idifferent times. Hasek: Isn ' t the chain up? IL , Don Chmiel : Yes , the chain' s up but they' re pulli.ng on the grass adjacent to the street. That ' s just what happened the other day as Chris Maher said. The Maher ' s called and he issued tickets for that so it' s Istill happening . .._ .w:, . . Park and Recreation Commission Meeting ' April 12 , 1988 - Page 2 C ' 1 Boyt: Is it nighttime parties or daytime gatherings? Jeff Farmakes: The majority of the people are teenagers . ' Boyt : From outside the neighborhood? Mady: What are they doing though? ' Jeff Farmakes : Drinking . Don Chmiel : I saw two girls going down with a bunch of guys that came down later with a bag. Mady: What kind of time was it? Don Chmiel: Probably pretty close to 8 : 30-9 : 00. , Jeff Farmakes : It' s not always at night. It just depends. Boyt: Do you have any ideas on what we can do besides calling the public 1 safety all the time? Chris Maher : That' s what we were told to do. Any infraction they were I to be called so they had a record all the time. That was last year after 1: the meeting when it was down. Cars were coming in, lifting up the chain and riding across the park. Things like that started happening. They I were down there real quick when they were called but it ' s kind of hard to catch them unless they' re over at the park. Jeff Farmakes : There was a decrease however when the chain went back up. The previous November it was kept open. . . Once that chain went back up, the beer busts slide. I would say about once a week rather than probably every other night and they got smaller. Eventually what we've got now,_ for about month. . . Boyt: Do you think some landscaping instead of a parking lot would go? Put trees and bushes up there instead of parking lot? Mady: What we' re trying to do is open up the park. Right now it' s a private park. Chris Maher : No it' s not . Don Chmiel : I guess that ' s a debateable issue. When you say it ' s a private park, there are people who go to Chaparral who use that park consistently. You have approximately 80 homes within that area who really support and use that park. Any resident if they want to park beyond the no parking signs and they can walk there just as they do as they park in Lake Ann Park and walk down to their beach. It ' s the same distance. ' Boyt: It sounds like the problem is the people driving to have parties so they need to get a place to park. rEAbge rain e'-I�ia+:Br�aJis+pe`:arabi'r:::. Park and Recreation Commission Meeting April 12, 1988 - Page 3 IC ' Mady: The parties are happening at night . . . We can' t even discuss that issue until we see what Public Safety brings to us . ' Boyt : . . .what we can do with the park for the neighborhood . If you pull the parking lot. . . Chris Maher : The thing is, that beach is really small . It' s not very big and it can' t support a lot of traffic. . . .so people who do live close can utilize it easily. There would be cars parked . There would be all kinds of people. A lot of kids down there. . . It just isn't big enough to have a lot of people using it . There are no patrols. There' s just not enough police staff to be going there everyday on the weekend and during the summer to check to see if you have five parking spots , are there five people or are -they overflowing all over onto the grass and parking wherever they want to. Who enforces it? Mady: Our plan though for that park is to line the parking area with poles defining where the parking area is. Not along here because those kids they' re getting more cars in. Chris Maher : Right now you basically can ' t get things in there . 1: Hasek: Right now you can probably walk from. . . ' Chris Maher : No , there ' s no parking . Hasek: I 'm saying you can get in. The gate will come down and you can drive anyplace you want. Mady: What we' re saying is we' re going to define the area and fix it. Jeff Farmakes: Under the circumstances, when I saw the plans that you were proposing , you' re using 50% of cleared area into a parking lot. ' When you refer to it as a park, what it is is a parking lot that will be used as a neighborhood park in the area that ' s developed . They' re using it. ' Lynch : Part of the plan, there wouldn ' t be anymore area with boulevards on it than is already gravel now. The little road would go down. ' Jeff Farmakes : There ' s no parking there right now. Lynch: I realize that but there wouldn ' t be anymore land eaten up. ' Jeff Farmakes : That was put in there to service the pumping station and not a parking lot which is different. I Lynch : Agreed but a gravel driveway is simply not used for park. Forget the parking for a minute and it always bothers me, and I 've been around long enough and I ' ve gone through this party problem in several parks . You don ' t see any practical solution , mechanical solution? Could the ' - - ---- ;• ---- --- - -._w�r^YifPw----`a:i--X..YiiIG51lMY.n++:+•-i- ---*S:.tavLnti+bn-.,• - — Park and Recreation Commission Meeting April 12, 1988 - Page 4 C Jeff Farmakes : There is a light . Lynch: But I mean down further in the park. Is there anything else that we can do? _ Jeff Farmakes , 3100 Utica: I think the real issue here is there is parking there and within your own parameters of 200 feet walking to the car , it fits your own guidelines and refuse parking that people choose three different areas. Three different streets to go down. Park their car . There is a drop-off existing there and the real issue here is that there isn' t any parking there. Your alternative is to take half the park I and turn it into a parking lot . Now we keep on again, referring to it as a park where we see this pasture scene and full moon. That' s just a lot. Chris Maher : The parking down below, this was discussed before too , there's such a hill , an incline up to the street, that it' s hazardous to kids on their bikes . They can not see from the parking lot, when they go onto the parking lot, they can ' t see to that street until you are up on that incline and kids on their bikes and walking and it' s just dangerous . I It's just not worth it. I have small kids and most of the people there do and it' s just not worth it. Jeff Farmakes : I resent the issue that we heard at the meeting once and 1: Iithink the issue is a non-issue. One of our children got hit there by a hit and run driver , I think it was three years ago and it was on that I corner . I don' t think this should be referred to as another issue. That area that the traffic flows was designed 30 years ago when there were three homes there. Mady: Can I ask a question? What you' re telling us is you don' t want to have parking there, they should park on the street 200 feet away? Chris Maher : Right . ' Mady: So those kids then should be fine on the street which is where I this kid got hit by a car . What we' re asking to do is, we may ask to do , is to open up the parking to 4 or 5 stalls whatever , I can' t recall the exact number on the plan anymore, which would allow people to park inside the park so they don' t have to walk on the street . ' Jeff Farmakes: But our children walk through the street to get to the park. That would be like putting them in a target area . Mady: Maybe what you need to do is talk with all your neighbors and get -- them all to agree to allow us to put in an off-street trail along that road then we don' t have the problem anymore but that street isn' t wide enough for us to put the right-of-way and it ' s not wide enough for us to put the trailway on the street in there so we ' re stuck. We can ' t do it unless we went out and buy the land from you. ' Jeff Farmakes: But you' re ignoring the issue that you' re encouraging further outside traffic into an area that wasn ' t designed for it . That in itself is inherently unsafe. The children are there and they' re Park and Recreation Commission Meeting April 12, 1988 - Page 5 1,7' ' coming out of that parking lot or anyone else is walking down there or riding their bike or anything else. Schroers : I think we' re having a problem with the interpretation here. What we' re trying to do is to make the park available to the citizens of Chanhassen who want to use it. We' re not trying to encourage additional parking. I live in Carver Beach right across from Greenwood Shores and I go to Greenwood Shores quite often. I drive to there and if I decided that I wanted to go fishing through there on Lake Ann or Lake Lucy and I wanted to take my canoe down there, how would I get there? 1 Mady: You want to get to Lake Lucy from where? Schroers : . . .Greenwood Shores , park there with a canoe or down to Lake Ann. Mady: There ' s a drop-off point in front of the beach there. Schroers: What if I don ' t want to go all the way around. What if I just wanted to go down to Greenwood Shores park? Chris Maher: There's not supposed to be boat launching there. 1: Schroers : Yes , but people in the neighborhood go down there with their garden tractors and pull their boats down there and launch them. What we' re talking about here is what ' s fair is fair . Jeff Farmakes: Excuse me, on Greenwood Shores park, there is an area between the fence and the road where you can pull flow of traffic, off Utica, dispose of your canoe,yturnc around, fgomuthe half a block, park your car and walk back down. p Mady: But that 's not legal . Jeff Farmakes : No it ' s not. Mady: What you ' re telling us is that it ' s unsafe to have kids walk up there. It's unsafe to have cars trying to drive by that parking lot that we put in but it ' s safe for Larry to park his truck and on top of that take his canoe off? Jeff Farmakes : Wait a minute now. He asked me a specific question of where there was an area and I responded to i.t. I don' t see how that ' s any less safe in encouraging cars to drive back and forth through there all day and someboby can come in, make a temporary stop, drop their canoe Y off and turn around and park somewhere else. The point is that he asked where a facility was available and I responded to him. Mady: But not a legal facility. It 'd be the same as parking in your frontyard. Exact same thing. I Schroers : If there were signs all around that said no parking , if the authority wanted to be a jerk about it he probably could give me a ticket 1 . „ . , I CITY OF X•• ' . s.„4411. \I k\ CHANHASSEN , - - 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 April 25, 1988 Dear Homeowner: This is to notify you that the Park and Recreation Commission will be discussing the parking issue at Greenwood Shores Park at their meeting on Tuesday, April 26. The meeting will be held in the Council Chambers at 7 : 30 p.m. The Park and Recreation Commission welcomes your comments and concerns. Sincerely, ctt.1• • —,G- Lori Sietsema Park and Recreation Coordinator LS:ktm //A:el y,5 c� 4, / i� ell /� ,c)c c 4� �U lu Z�:Y G.7 LIB ,, / �v�:0. cif 0 I C(,1� .' t ti 0 U / //14-4--1-U-- -- t•Z,'i Lc rt.A O (,wL_ •TC' ,fn✓,c ch. - •J--4,;....(4.___ 6t.uG31____ t CL'V il 9 , et l,GI. .u,�O 14L2- a, .. v I O 14/1-1 J2c l.i) h-cG.( /I4G9 — t[�� r 7 �/t a t��4 a 53( ) H'i -5 `_C 3 / 7 IF 4 t ✓ ' Tom Hamilton 224 Chanview Chanhassen MN I'm writting in referance to the parking that is proposed to be put in at Greenwood Shores beach. I live in Greenwood Shores, three houses from th`e ' highway (cnty 17) so I have to admit since we use the beach quite regularly that it would be nice to drive rather than walk on those 90 degree days. But I think ' that to put parking there would only increase the amount of people at an already semi crowded beach. Ithink it would also destroy the natural beauty of the park. ' The beach gets very crowded on hot days I count between 30 - 50 People swimming in that little beach area, without a life guard its hard enough to keep tra of my kids without adding more people. People from all over use this beach. I have talked to ' people from Chaparel, Excelsior, and Greenwood Shores, they use the beach because its pretty much undeveloped and a nice quiet place to come, no cars pulling in and ' out, not too many teenagers with thaar boom boxes blaring in your ears. My children ride thaar bikes to this beach adding ' traffic would also be a safty problem since there, is a hill and a bend in the road right by the beach. ' Since I work nights I have not been able to attend any of the city meetings on this issue but that doesn't meen I am not strongly opposed to this. Thank you for your time in reading this letter, please inform the ' other councilmen of my views. Sincerly, Jean McHale ' 6940 Tecumseh Lane Chanhassen MN