The URL can be used to link to this page

1a. Greenwood Shores On-Street Parking C ITV OF CHANHASSEN i ,::t__ 690 COULTER DRIVE. P.O. BOX 147. CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900. FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Todd Hoffman, Park & Recreation Director DATE: December 2, 1997 SUBJ: Receive and Approve Recommendation; Greenwood Shores On-Street Parking On November 25, 1997, the Park & Recreation Commission reviewed their initial recommendation conceming the Greenwood Shores Park Accessibility Report. At the conclusion of public comment and commissioner discussion, the following motion was forwarded to the city council: "}'1anders moved to extend the "no parking" designation on the west side of Utica Lane in the vicinity of the Bluff to a point opposite the existing "no parking" sign on the east side of the road. In turn, the area where parking is allowed will he extendedfi'om the most northerly "no parking" sign on the east side of Utica Lane in this same vicinity, southward to a point opposite the most northerly "no parking" sign currently posted on the west side of Utica---efJectivel.v switching the area where on-street parking is allowed from one side of the street to the other. Roeser seconded the motion and all voted in fa \'Or, except Franks who opposed. " Commissioner Franks opposed because he feels the "no parking" zones at the east end of Utica and along Tecumseh are excessive. In addition, the commission requested staff to investigate the possibility of posting street signs alerting motorists to the presence of the park. A visual portrayal of this motion is attached. ATTACHMENT November 25, 1997 Park & Recreation Commission Report. c: Park & Recreation Commission Neighborhood Mailing List g: ,park',lh grl'Cn\\'{llKbhlll\'~pkg.d0C f-----' \ \--r~ \ --1 _, _,-', \, \.----- ~. ",,' -------'\ \ ~'--~--\ \/ ';.- , I/"/'C /, \,' " / \--- -/ \',//'\ \ -- , ( / \" /;\'/>~A '~'__-/\ /.~'\ . ./ /" -" "" /" ......\ / \%---==-~/ / ;./ J / \ ,.- ~./'" ,--- l- " _'y---'" .J \------." , ' ---\~:.J~ '----" ~- --- /'y-l - ~ - , /'TiT- - -i WJiJ" / 1,1 ;/i __,---1.. 1---'/ 't 1JH' 1.-1 ~ I /1/ I~J!_ i - ,t--T~ , / ------;-LJ : r \ r- 1---:1-. I h---"- , ~_l/, r-:\/, '--'1-"',~ I I- __J \ ...~ \ \ ""'"--<...y/ f ! --- ......... \ \ f.-.-_.. ., :-__ 1_\ \~0;~lN~ E --\ \/ /~ ---"--", '--,y \ \'---,:/ IftHJ \ ,,' \ '\ / 'f~ I '\....\ " '~ ! I I I: ' \ \ ( I , , / Parking Alternatives l~l~ /" / / / , ) ~ Lake Lucy J ~---=:r / /~- GreellwQod Shores Park.---. ---' '--------- TT I \:\ \, Existing "No Parking" Area I ! ;' L.. -/' Lake Lucy _._f\-J "", -~- -==1 ' --- G,.,~"d s:~~ Piirk.---. ___.--J / / ! '\'''' \~\ Recommended "No Parking" Area ~/./ ", \,; " , / '\' f_____.,., " "\ \, , L ", ',' \'/\ \ I '" -, "\ /,1 I_ I "j- IL..,,/ \\\-/~:/ I'F !'-- r/ r, ': i I / \ i-----j i , --I I ,1 ,I .JL_l~L PARK & RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES, NOVEMBER 25,1997 REVIE\V RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING GREENWOOD SHORES ACCESSIBILITY REPORT. Hoffman: Thank you Chair Lash, members of the Commission. On November 10th City Council received your recommendation on the above mentioned issue. That recommendation was forwarded by you on September 23rd. On October 28th you held a public meeting to discuss, with interested residents, that recommendation. This public review process has been initiated this past summer by a citizen complaint over the lack of public access to Greenwood Shores Park. The commission's motion of September 23 rd was clarified, as they typically are. Summarized Minutes. Motion presented at that October 28th public meeting read, Commissioner Meger moved, Commissioner Berg seconded to recommend the City Council remove all no parking signs currently installed on Utica Lane, with the exception of those required at the curve near the entrance to the park for safety reasons. Furthermore, that the access area around the gate be widened and surfaced with asphalt. All voted in favor and the motion carried. There was some question over the clarity of that motion and whether it met the original intent so we reviewed the audio tapes of the September 23rd meeting and the commission's original motion read, Commissioner Meger moved to ask the Engineering Department to look at the area to detennine which signs would make the most sense to take down as far as no parking and also look at widening the entrance to the park. The motion was seconded by Berg and all voted in favor. In response to that motion I conducted a staff, or a site visit with staff member Dave Hempel, our Assistant City Engineer. Dave's typically the person who takes a look at these parking and on street/off-street no parking areas. Again the specific purpose of our visit was to identify, in Mr. Hempel's opinion, opinion which signs should remain no parking for safety reasons. The area as identified in my report to the City Council states the areas where again Dave felt that it was safe to take those signs down. .. The area Dave talked about were pretty much the entire inside curve and then about 30 feet on either side of the entry. During that site visit that day we talked about the commission's discussion, which you certainly did have during those.. .about bringing this back up both sides considerably farther around that curve. Dave's opinion of that. . .you would simply be arbitrarily extending the no parking area and he felt would add no additional safety to pedestrian.. .Again Dave's specific reason for not extending it was he felt very strongly that to simply extending it in front of, no parking in front of this house would then push parking farther down the block... It was clear at the City Council's November loth meeting that that recommendation, that result did not meet with the approval of some of the neighbors, and clearly when the commission made that motion back in September you relinquished some control over the final outcome of that decision. Likewise I relinquished control over that decision to our engineering department and we're back today. So I look forward to resolution of this issue. I know many of the neighbors have their own opinions on safety and where the parking should stop and start. I also should note that there are additional letters which have come in to my office and have been distributed to the commissioners and there's public copies over on the desk. One dated November 24th from Alice Fowler. One dated November 16th from Marcie...and one dated November loth. With that I'll be glad to answer any questions of the commission. Lash: Okay. Anyone have commissioner questions for Todd? None? We'll open it up for public comments. If you'd like to make a comment, can you please step forward to the podium and state your name and address for the record. Judy Christensen: Good evening. My name is Judy Christensen and I live at 7100 Utica Lane. Tonight I have a copy for each of you, the petition that we had passed around through several different.. . neighborhood and I'll pass it around now so that you have an idea of what this petition has on it. On that petition what we did is we had a variety of different neighbors get together and try to put together some core issues and concerns that they had. On the top you'll note that there is a position, Greenwood Shores Neighborhood Association position letter of which on there, if we go through it very briefly. It addresses the fact that there are some safety concerns. It also then refers to Jan Lash's letter which is dated November the 9th and on there there were some additional comments that people added. What I did is on your second page, it's a summary of the different signatures that we have and here are the signatures themselves. You really didn't have to look at them independently. You could look at it from a collective perspective. Since this was developed, however the Lambrecht family has decided that they would like to withdraw their petition. I have not included it in that major stack that you just got. I think one of the things that we have tried to do is to provide something in a clear manner so that it's easy for you to read. I'll let you do that right now. One change that you want to make a note of is with the Lambrecht's withdrawing their petition, Richard Lynch was unable to have his petition with him at the time that this was gathered so that the counts are offby one. It's negated by one. Okay? I believe that there are other people from the neighbor that can also speak and instead of us being redundant we each take a part. Thanks now. Roeser: Can I ask, before you get up. Do you agree with what's here, allow on street parking be located directly north of the Greenwood Shores park entrance on the east side of the street only where the street straightens out and does not obstruct bike and foot traffic? That's basically all of your feelings? I saw the list. I'm just curious because we really have discussed this and discussed this and discussed it and my feeling is still that we've got to have some access to the park. I don't care ifit's 4 or 5 cars on Utica, then widening it in so you can get a wheelchair in there, but we're hearing the same things over and over. Judy Christensen: Again on this summary sheet you'll notice that there were some families that wanted daytime parking only, and that was daytime parking only on, in an area where you would nOffilally be removing the signs or if you're going to... Roeser: Well, the park would be pretty much the same as Lake Ann anyway. There are, you know they do close at 10:00. That's not anything new. Judy Christensen: So again I think in the. Roeser: I think we're just going over and over the same thing over and over again. Lash: Let's Just take the comments Ron and then we can, we'll do the commissioner comments then. 2 Judy Christensen: I've had great lengthy conversations with Ms. Lash and I haven't found that there's anything that I'm in huge disagreement with. However again as a collective body, not everyone has the same exact opinion. What I try to do is consolidate and find some common ground where everyone agrees. Those individuals that did not agree, did not sign the petition or went ahead and forwarded a letter to you. Lash: Okay. Alice Fowler: I'm Alice Fowler and you have a letter from me. Originally I did sign the petition and since that time I have driven those roads carefully with the idea in mind that there would be no parking and as I looked at the issues involved, my concerns are greatly enhanced. And in part because the map that you have is a flat map. It does not show the grade that is involved in this access issue. And as you drive down Utica towards the lake, you are about 50 yards, at the most, from the entrance before you can even see the entrance to the park. Because you're coming down a hill. From the other direction you cannot see the entrance of the park until you have made the turn. Now this is the area where we're talking about the most traffic being located. If people are, If we've increased the traffic by allowing parking to occur on those streets, we're increasmg the hazard of this area tremendously because drivers cannot see. They can't see the entrance to the park as you're approaching it. Originally the park was developed as a neighborhood park. With that intent it has really served well in that capacity. However, and I am one that is filmly, I firmly believe having access to parks for all citizens. However, I firmly believe that safety needs to be our primary concern. That we cannot allow an increase in traffic here when the access is not a safe access. We're setting people up for, I mean it's just dIsaster right in our own back yards. And my concern is not only for the adults who can see beyond parked cars, but for children to have to be walking on the road, between parked cars in order to get to this park. I think it's really irresponsible. Berg: Help me out here. In your perfect world then, where would you have the no parking signs be? Alice Fowler: I would not change the parking situation. I would allow for, if you want to add, if you want to increase the access, then put it in the park. But the other, with Lake Ann Park so near by with beautiful access for all people in a real appropriate way, I think part of the problem is that this park was developed and the entrance was located where it was because it was a neighborhood park. Now it's a city park. That doesn't mean that the function really applies to greater usage and I think that's one of the real problems here. Howe: Is it your belief that allowing more parking on the street will increase in a significant way the usage of the park above what it's being used now? Alice Fowler: I would assume so. And I'm for public use of parks. I mean that's not, that's not my concern. I think it's important for people to be able to use their parks, but I think they need to be able to do it in a safe manner. 3 Howe: Give me an understanding, just what your impression is about the number of people, the percentage breakdown, of people who are utilizing the park on a typical day in the summer, that are of the neighborhood origin or that are from outside of the neighborhood. Alice Fowler: I don't know. Because I'm new to the area so I don't know. But someone else who has lived there would probably be able to answer that. Howe: Okay. Lash: Thanks Alice. Alice Fowler: You're welcome. Dale Carlson made a comment that was not picked up by the microphone. Lash: Dale, can you just state your name so it's on the record so we know who said that? Dale Carlson: Dale Carlson... Lash: Okay, Dick. Dick Lynch: Dick Lynch, 7120 Utica Lane. I've got some panoramic photos here that were taken at Dale's...You know it seems to me to bejust madness tojam all these cars, the potential to create this hazard in there when you have all of the people. Yau know I sit in my yard and watch mothers pushing babies and carriages. Or strollers. Kids on bicycles. All of the stuff going on and you create this hazard and it's obvious looking at the photos. What you've got with the no parking alTangement. Plus the fact that there's a telTific grade down into that park so 1 don't see where any of this deals with the access, accessibility thing from a handicap standpoint. Joanne Lambrecht: Joanne Lambrecht, 6990 Utica. I'm home all summer and 1 work in my yard a lot and I'm in the area where you're talking about opening up more parking. And as I'm working in my yard, I notice dozens of children walking down to that north end of Utica Lane. Every day to that park. They're walking. Some of them accompanied by adults and some of them not, and they're in strollers and on bikes, trikes, carrying their floatation devices along down the street and I think it would be very unsafe for them to be walking among parked cars. Lash: Thanks Joanne. Anyone else? Greg Blaufuss: Greg Blaufuss, 7116 Utica Lane. Again. I'm on record, or I have signed the petition that's included in the numbers that Judy presented earlier, but I'm just here for a little wake up call for staff and commission, if you don't mind. Not meant to be derogatory but we're back here for a second time, okay. Ron is it? Roeser: Yes. 4 Greg Blaufuss: I think you said you were tired of hearing about this. Well, we're tired of hearing about it too. Okay, with all due respect we're tired of hearing about it. I think some mistakes have been made here. Todd and I have talked about the mistake with the initial meeting dates. You know the neighborhood had plans initially to get together and talk about what it was that was being proposed down at the beach. We didn't have the chance because the meeting date was said to be two days prior to, or actually two days earlier than when it was actually noticed. Notified or when we were notified of it. There's just a lot of things. I think you people yourselves would admit to some mistakes. Obviously you must admit to some mistake at the last time we were here because we're back. Am I wrong? Manders: I would disagree because I wasn't here that time. Lash: Jim's off the hook. Greg Blaufuss: Then Jim you're off the hook. However, I don't mean for this to be a blood letting. I'm just trying to, you know sometimes it doesn't hurt to look in the mirror. Look at the bureaucratic process and understand what it is we're doing. First of all, Todd 1 have a couple questions for staff, if it's appropriate at this time. One is, when you just referred to the public review process. What is that? Hoffman: Public review process is the, a complaint was entered by... parks and recreation about an accessibility issue to Greenwood Shores Park. I think Ms. Manteuffel was astute in her approach that she was really annoyed about the parking but she knew that that was a local issue, which we had little control over. But the fact that federal legislation mandates accessibility, that was her approach. Greg Blaufuss: But the law states, the American Accessibility law states that unless there's some kind of modifications being done to a particular facility, a public facility, those people are not required to make any use of that facIlity to accommodate...is that cOlTect? Hoffman: The opinion which was rendered by the architect from RSP Architects said... commission did not. Greg Blaufuss: So my question is, and I say this you know in good faith again. It doesn't mean to be blood letting against staff or commission but my next question is, why did we hire an accessibility? Why did we.. .by professionals if we were within the law and not making any improvements to the park and not making any improvements to the park weren't required by law to make the park... Hoffman: Again I think the commission that evening felt that they had a responsibility to take a look at the no parking.. .and they went beyond. They were not bound to go ahead and enter into making parking in the park. Hard surface access to all the facilities. They clearly understood... They went beyond that and took action and chose to eliminate parking. Greg Blaufuss: I have to back up a little bit. Did you say the commission or the Council? 5 Hoffman: The commission. Greg Blaufuss: But who initially ordered? Hoffman: The commission. Lash: We did. And I guess. Greg Blaufuss: Did you understand when you did that it wasn't necessary? Howe: We didn't know that we were in, we had no idea what we were going to find until we hired the consultant. Lash: I think the ADA law is really confusing to a lot of us, and I think a lot of times we don't necessarily know that we're following exactly within the law until we have someone who totally understands it. You know none of us are specialists and Todd doesn't, you know he doesn't specialize in that area either, and I think when you have somebody filing a complaint, you know, at that point in time you need to make sure that when you're acting on a complaint, and especially when someone's contacted the state, you need to make sure that whatever response you make is going to be in compliance with the law just to make sure it's not going to go... Greg Blaufuss: The function of staff is to, isn't the function of the staff to advise the commission as to the law as it relates to requests by citizens? Hoffman: Not my function to advise the commission regarding ADA law. I'm not a trained ADA specialist. Greg Blaufuss: Okay, well let's go back just one step. I'll try to make this briefer but my point is, let's pretend for a moment. Okay, I work in construction management in the restaurant business for a long time and from time to time we would have someone in the restaurant who was handicapped and they were able to get to a table. However, when they went to a restaurant in an old Perkins restaurant at the time, they weren't able to get to the restroom facilities. We weren't required by law, no matter how many letters they wrote, to upgrade that restroom to allow handicap accessibility until which time we started to remodel the facility. That's the law. Unless you start to remodel a facility, and granted you know Perkins would love for all handicap people to be able to use their facilities but can you imagine the cost as it relates to 300 restaurants being remodeled to accommodate handicap. The point is the feasibility study didn't need to be made. The accessibility didn't need to be made. I don't think that the letter even needed to be responded to by this body or the City Council, and then yet again back to this body. Had staff said to this person, we're not required to make this beach accessible to you because number one, we have accessibility at our first beach. At our main beach. And number two, we're not making any improvements to the beach. 6 Berg: That being done, that being said and the fact of the matter is, all those things were done so I'm not exactly sure where you're going with this. Greg Blaufuss: Where I'm going with it is, I have spent no less than, you know in the two months that this has been going on, I've spent no less than 20 to 30 hours you know meeting with neighbors. Coming to meetings. Back and forth. My point is, why are we doing all this if it didn't really need to be done? The request by the citizen to have access for a handicap person to the beach was made and shouldn't have been, in my opinion, shouldn't have been responded to in the first place and shouldn't have gone to commission and we shouldn't have been notified that there was somebody. But now there's no handicap accessibility issue that I see in any of the Minutes, except now we're talking about parking, which is a whole complete different issue than what this. Does anybody understand what I'm talking about? Roeser: Yeah. What happened with this letter was it did open up the discussion about it. I think that. Lash: General accessibility. Roeser: That's something that happened. All of a sudden we realized that there is no accessibility. If you've got no parking all over the streets, nobody can get into Greenwood Shores... talk about. Greg Blaufuss: I know and the reason Ron that you keep hearing these same things agam and again since 1980 whatever, the many times that this has come up over the years, is the reason that you keep hearing the same concems about safety on the curve and parking on the curve and the reason that the no parking signs are there is because it is a safety problem and I don't know why the different people have to keep rethinking the issue and reconsidering and drawing new people and new residents back into meeting after meeting after meeting to rethink what people have already thought. Okay, I don't mean to drag this out but I think that common sense should prevail in that we don't need to keep going over this and over this and over this and now it's going to go to Council and who knows what's going to happen there but I don't think that it really should be back and forth. And I think that this, you people volunteer your time. I really appreciate that as a citizen. I do. Jan has been here for 10 years. Some of you have been here maybe longer. I appreciate that. I don't very often get a chance to look into the windows of City Hall but this little peak into the window of the process is a little bit.. .so I hope that common sense will prevail and, if you people have to go down there, if we have to table this thing until there actually is peak activity at the beach and you can see these kids and the people and the wagons and the strollers and everybody coming and going, and imagine some cars parked there, down there or even park some cars down there for the day and have a look at it, please do but don't make any decisions based on what it is, I mean unless you've been down there. I've taken care of my kids for 3 summers now. I've been home with the three summers and my window overlooks the street that we're talking about. The curve, the hill, the whole works and with no cars parked there I've seen near accidents several times, okay. Enough said, thanks for your time. 7 Lash: Greg we hear your frustration. Greg Blaufuss was making a comment from the audience that did not get picked up by the microphone. Lash: Okay, and I'll be the first one to say. I might be the first and the last one but I felt I guess concerned too that we weren't very clear, we were clear in our recommendation but I think we should have waited until we had an actual plan in our hand to send a motion onto City Council and I think that was what, when I saw the plan I really felt truly that it wasn't in following what our discussions were at that meeting and that was why I contacted some, the commissioners I could reach that weekend to see if it was what they were thinking or not and checked with City Council and said I really felt like, and I'll take the blame being the Chair, that we allowed this to go to City Council before we really knew what we were sending on. I like to hope that it was the first time we've ever done that and I certainly hope it's the last time that we'll ever do that. I learned a lesson in that process by saying, you know let engineering take a look at it and I'm sure whatever they say will be fine with me and obviously I don't think like an engineer and I don't know, maybe that's good. Maybe that's bad, I don't know. But I think there are other people up here who don't think like engineers... (There was a tape change at thiS point in the discussion.) Hoffman: Could I respond to, after...? Lash: Sure. Hoffman: As staff! certainly don't take on issues to create headaches for citizens and create headaches for my office. Especially in light of the fact that I'm a new resident of Greenwood Shores. I happen to live on Utica Lane. Liz and I and our four kids all utilize this park. We rely on the public process to provide for our safety, welfare and public access as well for this facility. After being called by Ms. Manteuffel, she had infornled me that she had contacted the State Department of Accessibility. At that time, in my position, given my training, given the fact that the City has completed it's ADA evaluation back in 1991. The federal law mandated we do that. I'm certainly familiar with that and am familiar with the fact that as a city we need to be moving forward to meet the requirements and the specifications put forth in that ADA document, which includes Greenwood Shores Park and does talk about the accessibility. I contacted the State Department of Accessibility and attempted to find out who Ms. Manteuffel spoke to. Through the data privacy act I was unable to do that but I talked to people in that office. I also contacted our City Attorney, Roger Knutson who was very concerned about any complaint wagered against the city and recommended that I move forward and...I did. Lash: Okay. Thanks Todd. Jim. Manders: I've traveled through that park quite a bit and Utica Lane, and one question that strikes me is, with all the no parking, essentially that whole street is no parking. What do the residents along that street do given that they have visitors over? I don't see where they have enough space 8 in their own driveways for them to park. Where do they park? So there's no parking on the street ever? Audience: There is parking... Manders: Can you draw that out on the map or I guess, I'd appreciate where that actually happens at. Bill Lambrecht: Bill Lambrecht, 6990 Utica. ...I did bring a whole map of... Manders: I don't follow how that works. Lash: No. Turn it back because the park was up in the comer. There's the park up in the upper right hand comer. Okay, so there's Utica. Bill Lambrecht: Here's the park in question. There's no parking... There is parking from my home... Lash: There's parking everywhere else. Bdl Lambrecht: There's no parking on the east side. So if you open up parking on...on both sides. .. Manders: So you're saying from your finger, or wherever it was, going to the north, that there is parking on the bluff side or? Lash: On the house side. Manders: So where is the closest parking that they could park at? Where is that? Right there. Bill Lambrecht: Right there... Lash: But you can park on the east side? Bill Lambrecht: You cannot park, there's no parking... Lash: All the way along there, okay... So would you prefer that it be in front of the homes that there's allowed parking or on the other side of the street? Bill Lambrecht's answer were not picked up by the microphone. Lash: So you'd rather have parking in front of your house? Roeser: ... no parking signs on the house side, the west side of the street. 9 Audience: That's correct. Roeser: Open up like a section, the east side of the street. Not a whole lot. I don't think any one of us here ever considered having parking on both sides of the street. Lash: No. Roeser: That never occurred to anyone... Lash: Well and see that was where we turned it over to an engineering viewpoint. You know take out what's unnecessary and what we were thinking was unnecessary and what the engineering department thinks is unnecessary I think was two different things so that's where the confusion set in. Roeser: Now I never.. .parking on both sides of the street. That never occurred to me. Dale Carlson: My name is Dale Carlson. I just have one point to make, that hasn't come up in this. I do think it's in one of the letters. Why was the no parking signs put up there to begin with in 1970 or 71? The reason they were put up was to discourage the traffic, in the evenings in particular, of what was going on in that park. That is also the reason that Greenwood Shores deeded or sold that park to the City for a dollar or whatever it was back in those days. Because Greenwood Shores, it had nothing to do with the maintenance of the park. It had to do with the policing of the park. So the signs were put up in an attempt to discourage, in particular the evening line of traffic that that area was, I can't think of the word. Attracting, exactly. But we seem to be ignoring why the signs were put up. Apparently things have changed. Maybe since 1970, take the signs down, it won't matter. I think it's going to matter more than you think. Roeser: I don't think.. .on the east side of Utica. Make sure that if no parking on the house, on the west side. You know that should be no parking. We certainly don't want cars on both sides of that street. That's something that we never intended... Lash: .. .and I was wondering, I wanted to ask Todd that. Can you designate a spot on the street for handicap parking or not? Hoffman: Sure. Lash: Okay. Yeah, one would be ample. Hoffman: Commission's done that at Carver Beach Park. Manders: It doesn't necessarily have to be going down Utica Lane. It could be coming across that lower part and flat. I mean I understand what you're saying getting into the park itself is downhill but the lane along the lake is a lot flatter than the road coming down to the lake. Comments from the audience were not being picked up by the microphone. 10 Lash: Part of you know and we don't need to sit and nit pick this to death either but people get hung up on handicap meaning in a wheelchair and that's not necessarily the case. People have handicap stickers for all kinds of different disabilities and if we can get them to be at the first spot. You know maybe they're just older and have a hard time walking and they've qualified for a sticker. Maybe they have difficulty breathing and they qualify for a sticker. We have no idea what all the different kind of disabilities people can have but if we could designate the first spot, you know I think it could possibly put this to rest for a long time. I would hope... Manders: You have accessibility with that one stall. Maybe it isn't timely but. Audience: If you are going to have a handicap. Lash: We haven't decided. We're just kind of kicking that idea around. No, we wouldn't have to. Meger: One of our original concerns. Audience: Then you're in a different town than I'm in because we've modified... Lash: But we're not making modifications to the park. We're not doing anything within the park. Audience: But then how are you complying with ADA? Lash: We're not. Roeser: We don't have to. We were just told we don't have to. Lash: If, once we start making modificatIOns to the park, if that ever happens, then the law would say that we would have to. Audience. ., Lash: You know at some point you need, you know when somebody files a complaint, you Just want to make sure that you're not ignoring that and that can turn into just a nightmare for us and for the City itself so you know, if we were erring there, I think we're erring on the side of caution at making sure that this isn't something that could have blown up into a big legal thing that we wouldn't have wanted to see so. Meger: ..one of the things that we talked about was the fact that there are two parks on Lake Ann and we asked would it be a problem if we put signage up saying there is handicap accessibility at Lake Ann Park, and at the time the answer was no. We could not, we could do that but it could potentially be discriminatory because we have an access fee at Lake Ann. Well that has since gone away so that's another thing that has changed since then that has changed 11 some of my point of view on what I would recommend this evening. To get to our recommendation point but that to me is a big change that we, as a commission need to make sure that we are working for all of our residents and trying to provide reasonable accessibility and now with that waiving of the fee at Lake Ann Park, I think we can do that and we would be able to respond to the letter. .. feel free to access at Lake Ann Park. Lash: Okay, should we, how about if we do this in an orderly fashion. We'll go through the commissioners and I think I was going to start with you Jim, right? Can we start down at your end? Manders: Well my initial question was about parking and evidently there is parking on one side of that street. My preference would be to retain that parking and whichever side is appropriate, go with that. I mean I don't particularly, I never did have the intention in mind that we'd open up parking on both sides of the street. It never was my thought. That's the presentation of.. .or whoever it is, their viewpoint. Not my viewpoint. My intention all along has been to provide some accessibility to that park. As close as possible, but certainly within safety. And one side of the street, in my preference would be, that it would be on the bottom side along the lake. Along the bluff. Audience: .. . fire hydrants... Manders: Then if that's it, then leave it on the house side and go with that. I mean I... Lash: Okay, Ron. Roeser: I defimtely...open up the parking on the east side... We can work out the tire hydrants. You can park near fire hydrants ever and... I would switch it. I would put no parking signs down there... where the houses are, allow some parking on the east side. Quietly. We don't have to make a big noise about this. Nobody has to, you know it doesn't have to be headline news. And do it that way. Open up the parking... Manders: I don't know this would make that park any more used now, or later, than it is available now. I mean if they can park by your house now, what's to say that they aren't going to do it. Roeser: I think it would be safer on the other side. Lash: On which side? Roeser: On the east side. Lash: On the bluff side? Roeser: Parking on the east side and no parking on the. 12 Lash: In front of the homes. Roeser: Right. Lash: Fred. Berg: I have a couple things. First of all we're here because the residents basically. That's our role. It's been 9 or 10 years since this issue... I don't think that's over doing it. But we're here because of a resident's concern and perhaps more residents concerns about the. . . pointed that out. A few things that I'm just taking notes of, as people were speaking tonight. Certainly this is a neighborhood park but I don't know that neighborhood parks aren't open to everybody. We can't say that this is my neighborhood park so nobody else can come. I don't think that was the intention of anyone this evening but I heard that and that bothers me maybe a little bit. And maybe what I'm going to say next is... with the fact that we have taken out parking fees at the main Lake Ann that I'm uncomfortable telling people that because there's this other way to go, they shouldn't be coming in here. Again, I'm soft on that one.. .no charge.. .big beach and... Greenwood Shores. Weare a commission made up of human beings and as human beings I think everyone in this room probably has made a mistake or two to date and I've made more than my share. I think we did make a mistake when we didn't recommend that we see the report... which was the spirit of our motion. It wasn't the letter of the motion. As far as the ADA ruling is concerned, we mayor may not have been informed before...I honestly don't recall. We en-ed on the side again of caring about somebody and we look more at the spirit of what ADA's about instead of the letter of the law. Someone mentioned that they had a problem getting their grandmother into the park. We were concerned about that. We were concerned again that perhaps it was more than one person and we wanted to look it so we hired a consultant to tell us what she thought, or what the consulting firm thought was the most appropriate thing to do. Upon doing that we found out that to keep up in compliance with ADA and we didn't have to do anything. Again, I don't know that I knew that before. I can't honestly say. I don't think so but I'm not going to swear to it. Again however though we en-ed on the side of being concerned about the citizen or citizens. And I guess as a commissioner I can't apologize for that. I don't think it's appropriate to apologize for that and I won't. Some other things about the road Itself and signage. I think it would be a good idea to have the number, and the position I know that we've heard other times too. I think it'd be very appropriate to put up warning signs. I haven't heard that. .. tonight. That we've got a park area coming. Slow down. Whatever. I noticed when I'm driving and turning off Highway 5 and Utica that it was very prominently displayed at 30 mph speed limit, which doesn't mean anything I realize but it is there. We're trying to warn people it's further down. I noticed tonight that like at about 7090 Utica there, if we start putting some signage there about getting close to the park, that you can't see. ..but put that on both sides. That you're coming up to this area. Slow down. There are children present. Whatever, whatever. I know that as recently as tonight that that road is extremely narrow. Maybe it's because of the. . .because of the snow. I made a notation to myself when I was out there that I'm concerned about having parking on either side. Whichever side. I right now would be in favor of not having parking at all from, I don't know what the address is. The next house is 7090. The one that abuts the park. All the way up to Tecumseh. On both sides I would like to see no parking. That's my feeling on that. I think that's all. 13 Lash: How about down the other direction? Berg: As far up as Tecumseh? Lash: No, down. Going down the hill. Berg: Going around the curve there? Lash: Yeah. Berg: I would like to see the no parking, and I'm sorry I can't give you an address. Put the warning sign by Utica and put the no parking on the north side of the driveway of the house that abuts the park. Is that the north side? Hoffman: Is that the north side? Berg: The side closest to Highway 5. CR I 7. Lash: You're still on the wrong side. I'm talking about after you go down the hill so then you're down by Lake Lucy. The straight stretch. Berg: Am I going up the hill? Where am I coming from? Lash: You're coming from 17. You're going down the hill. Berg: Put me on Tecumseh. I take a right on Utica. Hoffman: Right here. Lash: Okay. Berg: All there, there's still no parking there. There. That's right where I'm talking. Lash: Okay. I don't think I can add a thing. I think everybody knows where we're going here so Rod. Franks: Well I was here the night that we ordered the feasibility study according to ADA and so I'lljust have to take the one on that one so I can't get out of it Jim. But I was in favor of that knowing the fact that the American with Disabilities Act is a complex piece of legislation that's going to be defined by case law and being fairly new, there's not a whole large body of case law that's defining it. And so the necessity to have an expe11 come in that does this for a living I thought was very valid. We knew right from the bat I believe that this wasn't necessarily a handicap accessible issue but an accessibility issue. And needed to find how that would be defined under ADA, if at all. So I think that was money well spent by the commission. We got a 14 whole list of recommendations according to that study and we were more concerned about accessibility I think for all residents and that's where the parking issue came up. It doesn't appear to me that there's any question really, at least I haven't heard any, about removing the parking signs on Tecumseh. I was just out there. Those are still up there. It doesn't seem that that has even come up at all. I would agree, the times that I've been down there taking that comer on Utica, that that is a narrow and sharp comer and that hill just makes things worse. The park entrance does come up fast, unless you're really expecting it. So there is a concern for people that would be coming from outside of the neighborhood, not knowing the terrain. Thinking that here's a great park to come to. So I do believe that there are some very significant safety concerns. We've talked a lot tonight about instituting parking on the east side of Utica down below the curve. My only concern about that is, that means that people are going to be crossing the street to get to the park. Crossing possibly out from between two cars. Coming around the comer. They may not all cross at the same place. There's no crosswalk instituted at this time. That just strikes me, struck me as maybe taking care of one issue and potentially adding another safety issue. I'm not sure exactly how that will be resolved. In looking at things and coming into this meeting of course I was lining up on actually instituting parking along the park side of the street, which would be the west side. Or going up, is that the north side? Going up towards Tecumseh from the curve? Lash: That's going up Tecumseh? Franks: I mean up Utica to Tecumseh. Lash: That'd be going east... Franks. That's east... Hoffman: North is up... Franks: North is up, okay. Sorry. You know I've walked it a couple of times now. In fact I \vas thinking to myself, the neighbors are going to start calling the Chaska Sheriffs Department because you know, who's this man in the green Explorer driving up and down and walking and... Luckily Chanhassen is a good and friendly community and nobody did call so I appreciate that. But that is a concern of mine. Parking on the east side, although I was struck by being able to park on the bluff side since none of the homeowners property comes right up to the road there of course. It's all bluffs so we're really not impinging on anybody's right-of-way in front of their house. I guess though I would still like to consider alternatives on the west side of Utica. I don't lIke the idea of people having to walk down that hill into the park. I would rather see them walking up. I did sit and watch traffic for a while. It was difficult for me to tell whether there's more traffic coming up the curve or coming down the curve. I don't know if there's anyone of the residents that can shed light on that or is it pretty even? What goes up, comes down... I had been wondering since the access is 17. Lash: Well it comes out at the other end on 17 too so. 15 Franks: Right.. .both sides so I was wondering which way people are actually going to turn in off 17. Lash: It depends on if you're going to Excelsior or Chan. Franks: Don't complicate this for me now. Yes, I can think with walking with little children in hand and having to walk that kind of distance, you're also creating some risk factor too. It's a long distance to have to go with kids in tow to get to the park. If they're going to be parking that far away, I think it's about 600 feet or so either direction from the park entrance. So my ideal would be to bring parking as close as is feasibly possible. I was a little dismayed, I never expected the engineer's report saying 30 feet on either side of the entrance. I just would never have expected that coming down. But yet staying at a distance of 600 feet is not real palatable to me either so I would like to see some parking coming closer. The idea of the handicap space being the first space, I'm not so sure that that would do it anyway. If people are going to put in a handicap space, I'd rather see it you know cut in just to either side of the park entrance on a cut in on some of the parkland... But then again I don't know if that's necessary that we've not been asked for that. Thanks. Lash: Jane. Meger: I could say ditto to pretty much everything that's been SaId tonight. Obviously I made the initial motion, which I'll admit to. I thought that perhaps some common sense in what I was thinking would come into play and I did not expect the outcome and I did mention that at the City Council meeting. I just did not anticipate this.. . removal of the signs. Quite honestly I didn't think that anything.. .additional support of our position would be... In looking at everything that has changed and all the data that's come in and hearing from the residents and being at the City Council meeting, and hearing some of the Council's comments, I am at the point, and again with the access changes at Lake Ann Park, that I'm at the point right now where I understand that we... provide accessible parks to our residents. I do think that we have several parks in the city of Chanhassen and in this case I believe that the individual who... was trying to access this park was coming in a vehicle and so I feel that.. .other parks. I want to try.. .go to this park, go to that park, but I do think that there is a reasonable alternative available. So at this point my thought would be to... Lash: Mike. Howe: I understand your concerns. I was actually driving on your road the way you took those great pictures and I wondered what was going on. I turned about in somebody's driveway and... A blue van? That was me and the whole family, so it's a narrow road. I understand that. I tend to agree with Jan. I think leave it the way it is. I like Ron's idea of the bluff parking and I think if we're concerned with accessibility, put one sign. One handicap sign near the entrance. I think we need to do that. No one seems to have complained about the park being too far. I can't walk there other than someone who's disadvantaged or disabled so make one sign for them. Leave everything as it is now. 16 (There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.) Franks: .. . handicap parking space and we're making an assumption that the entirety of the park is going to be accessible for handicap individuals who we're providing the parking space for someone that is designated as handicapped. I'd hate for them to come back and say you've got the parking space but you know, I can't get down the hill. I can't get to the outhouse. I can't out into the water.. .so that would be my concern. I'd like to see the commission to continue to look at the issue of accessibility, since that was necessarily the issue that was put before us in the first place. Howe: Bring it back to... Lash: Here's where I get a little confused is when you say the word accessibility. Are you talking about handicapped accessibility or general population accessibility? Franks: I'm talking about the letter that was sent to us by the person, the original complaint that it wasn't accessible to him. Her. It was my understanding that that person did not qualify for like their sticker or the handicap license plates. But yet was still raised this accessibility issue, referencing the ADA as a means of initiating the process. Lash: Thanks. Ron, did you have something else you wanted to add? Roeser: No, I got it clarified. Lash: Okay. Given all of those comments, is there someone who is interested in making a motion? We have to remember, must before we start. Part of the old motion also was to try to somewhat widen, and we will be very, very clear in this direction. That next to the gates be widened and surfaced, which would then require a bollards probably to be moved. And I do recall very clearly saying at one of the meetings, bollards are placed strategIcally to keep vehicles from gaining entrance to the park so. Meger: That's what I was going... Lash: I don't know. Would that be considered as an improvement to the park? Which would then get us right back to the. Manders: If you want to split hairs about improvements... Howe: Well there's already the path that goes around the.. .and in a sense we're talking about widening that. .. I mean trying to get your Burley around that thing and down into the park is going to be an issue. I mean that's the way it looks to me. Lash: Burley? Howe: Your bike trailer. 17 Lash: Okay. Roeser: How old are your children? Lash: They don't ride behind me on the bike anymore. (Jim Manders microphone did not pick up all of what he was saying.) Manders: I'll make a motion to extend the "no parking" designation on the west side of Utica Lane in the vicinity of the bluff to a point opposite the existing "no parking" sign on the east side of the road. In turn, the area where parking is allowed will be extended from the most northerly "no parking" sign on the east side of Utica Lane in this same vicinity, southward to a point opposite the most northerly "no parking" sign currently posted on the west side of Utica- effectively switching the area where on-street parking is allowed from one side of the street to the other. Lash: You draw a line in your motion so we know exactly. Hoffman: Draw it right on that map Jim. Manders: And I'm not sure where that line goes. Berg: Where on that map is 7090 Utica? Audience: .. .right here is... Howe: Which side of the lot line is it that it starts? On the north side. ... that's the first no parking sign? Lash: No, that's, yeah. Berg: On both sides? Roeser: No parking on, no just on... Lash: Just on the lake side? Berg: Just on the lake side. Lash: How about on the other side? Berg: How far does it come up from the bluff side to parking? Audience:. .. 18 Roeser: How much is it? Lash: Well two lots. So that's about 100-150 feet. 200 to 300 feet... Manders: We're not talking both sides though. Audience: You are if you're talking opening... Manders: We're talking one side. That's all my recommendation is. Roeser: The east side, yeah. The west side would have no parking. We're only talking about one side of the street. Lash: Okay, so starting at about Ward's house? Is that right? On the east side. Franks: For point of clarification Jim if 1 could. Could we add in, where the engineers report would show it ending? As far as the engineers report on that map? Where the engineers report indicates that the no park1l1g signs could be removed. On the west side of Utica. Lash: That's the entrance, yeah. Here's the engineer report over here. Franks: Yeah, but I mean...so I could compare...so right about to there? Lash: It would be close. That was what the report showed. Franks: Thank you. Meger: Do we know where there are fire hydrants 1I1-between those two lines that were just drawn? Manders: .. .yeah, neither one is a problem because it's not between the lines. Berg: How about on the other side of the park? Where's the closest one to that? If you keep going up Utica past the park. Audience: Oh I don't know. Lash: Do you know where they are Greg? Up by. .. You don't know where the fire hydrants are? Berg: How about continuing up Utica towards Tecumseh.. .okay. Lash: So in front of your house Dick? No, the other side. Okay. You know, we were right in the middle of a motion here Jim. Do you think you can keep this going or did you get stalled? 19 Manders: Well, my motion is to provide for parking between two lines that are drawn on the map on the bluff side and given that there's a fire hydrant there, then that should be you know, no parking for whatever, 10 feet around the fire hydrant or whatever it is. But that's where the parking would be allowed. And there would be no parking on the west side. Lash: So we would have to add signs? Manders: Just move the faded out signs from one side to the other. Roeser: Yeah, your signs don't read anymore. Lash: So are you talking about from, I want to make sure I know now. Manders: It's on one side, that's all. Lash: Right here? Manders: Right there. Lash: From this point on there would be parking? Manders: From that point up to the other line. Lash: There would be parking? Manders: Correct. Except for the fire hydrants. Roeser: And there's nothing, we're not going to indicate. We're just going to open up. Hoffman: Just going to move the signs from one side. Roeser: So if somebody complains about not being able to park for that park, we'll say yes you can. Right there. Lash: Don't call the Villager. Berg: Point of clarification Jim. On the curve right by the park, that bluff side of the parking... pull out parking in your motion? Lash: No. Berg: So there would be no parking on either side. Manders: All the same no parking, flip the side of the street. Put it on the bluff side between those lots that are indicated. 20 Berg: They'd have the west side of the street? Lash: Right. Berg: Todd, does that make sense to you? Hoffman: I've got the motion. Lash: Okay. Is there a second to that motion? Hoffman: Did we finish? Are we talking about the other side? Berg: I need clarification. I'm sorry, I'm real slow. I'm a visualleamer. Lash: That's all right. Berg: Where does the no parking on either side begin? Manders: Right where I have the two red lines. Berg: Right there? Meger: This is where we want them to park... Berg: Where the red pen is, is that where the no parking is on both sides? Lash: Right. Towards the park. From the red pen towards the park. Coming towards the park. Berg: Okay. Lash: No parking either Side. Berg: So between the two pens is on the bluff? Roeser: Right. There's just going to be one little section. Berg: Gotchya. Okay, now let's talk about the other side. Manders: Now what was the question? Berg: Now past the park, now we're going up Utica towards Tecumseh. Manders: So we changed. There's no parking... 21 Berg: So there's no parking on Tecumseh? Hoffman: Currently. Manders: If that's the way it is now, leave it. Yeah. I'm not concerned about that uphill because I want to leave that alone. I realize that that's a narrow, downhill grade that. Roeser: The flat part of the road along the bluff. Lash: Are you following Fred? Berg: Where's the flat, show me the flat part that he's talking about. Roeser: Okay, there and there. Not there. Berg: I want to make sure in my own mind, because where you are Jim, right there. Everything south. There's no parking there. It goes all the way to Tecumseh. No parking. Then I'm okay. Lash: Okay. Is there a second now? Audience: Whoa, whoa. I've got a question. Before you second. Lash: Actually what we'll end up doing is just switching from one Side to the other. Are you going to make that part of this? Manders: No. The entrance to this park is left alone. I don't want to sign anything handicap. The only thing I want to provide for is parking someplace in a reasonable area to get to the park. Someone was making a comment that was not picked up by the microphone. Lash: We're not doing anything handicapped. ...no. Roeser: From my own personal standpoint, I bike through there a lot and... where the end of the trail that comes into the park but that we'll talk about some other time. Lash: Okay. Is there a second to the original motion now? Roeser: I'll second that. Manders moved, Roeser seconded the motion. All voted in favor, except Franks who opposed. Lash: Okay Rod for clarification would you like to, it goes to City Council so they know. 22 Franks: Yeah, I'm just concerned that we're waiting until the whole point disappears to begin our parking. We're looking at an engineers report and we rely on their opinion to provide for our safety throughout the rest of the city...and here. We're looking at the tree that was taken out here. Obviously most people coming down and picking up speed and having trouble with the corner. You're going to be coming down this direction. I would agree with going north, or whatever direction this is up towards Tecumseh. Keeping it no parking but once we get to about here or so, it's difficult for me to why not begin our ability to park right through here. Lash: Okay, you know what. We don't need to discuss it. We just wanted it clarified for the record Rod's point. Franks: The other issue is the no parking signs that are currently on Tecumseh. I'm not so sure that those are absolutely necessary either. Lash: Oh. We want to go also with Berg would like to I think make something about the warnmg signs. Berg: Yeah, I'd like to make a motion that we consider proper signage also at the point of entry where there's no parking such as maybe a limit on the sign that there can be parking there. Perhaps 1 0:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. or 8:00 a.m., whatever.. .city already. And also that we put warning sides in both places that you are approaching a park. Children at play. Just the Children at Play? Roeser: Or watch out. Hoffman: First part of that motion Fred? Berg: The signs...l don't want to have that park. Let's not do anything with that. Let's just have Children at Playas a warning sign. That would be the only part of my motion. Meger: Second. Berg moved, Meger seconded to recommend that warning signs stating Children at Play be installed near the park. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Hoffman: Clarification. Typically when we take a look at a policy such as the Children at Play or park signs. Those are not utilized at any of our locations in town. When you start... the engineers and public safety are going to have to want to look at that comprehensively. Berg: I think, only speaking for myself, it's like other things Todd... Note that this is a special circumstance. Due to the nature of the unsafety of the, not the safety at the corner.. .but this is a special. .. Lash: Okay, thanks. 23 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 3 --- 690 COULTER DRIVE. P.O. BOX 147. CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 . FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Park & Recreation Commission FROM: Todd Hoffman, Park & Recreation Director DATE: November 12, 1997 SUBJ: Review Recommendation Concerning the Greenwood Shores Park Accessibility Report On November 10, 1997, the city council received the Park & Recreation Commission's recommendation on the above mentioned issue. This recommendation was forwarded by the commission on September 23, 1997. The commission received public comment on your position at a public hearing held on October 28. This public review process was initiated by the commission upon receiving a citizen complaint over a perceived lack of public access to Greenwood Shores Park. The commission's motion of September 23 was clarified by staff prior to inclusion in your summary minutes. The motion presented at your October 28 meeting reads: "Commissioner Meger moved, Commissioner Berg seconded to recommend the city council remove all of the no parking signs currently installed on Utica Lane with the exception of those required at the curve near the entrance of the parkfor safety reasons. Furthermore, that the access area around the gate be widened and surfaced with asphalt. All voted infavor and the motion carried. " In reviewing audio tapes of the September 23 meeting, the commission's original motion reads: "Commissioner Meger moved to ask the engineering department to look at the area and determine which signs would make the most sense to take down as far as no parking and also look at l'v'idening the entrance to the park. Motion seconded by Berg. All voted in favor and the motion carried. " Park & Recreation Commission November 12, 1997 Page 2 Acting on this motion, I conducted a site visit with Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer. The purpose of our visit was to identify the areas of Utica Lane which should remain signed "no parking" for safety reasons. The areas identified in my report to the city council indicate, in Mr. Hempel's opinion, the areas where parking can and cannot be safely accommodated. It is Dave's opinion that signing additional areas "no parking" would be an arbitrary decision. Traffic levels, street width, site lines, pedestrian movement and past experiences were all considered prior to arriving at this recommendation. It is clear that the final outcome of the commission's actions does not have the approval of some members of the Greenwood Shores neighborhood. Recognizing this, the city council chose to table action on this item to allow the commission the opportunity to review their decision at your November 25,1997 meeting. Please be reminded that actions of the commission as a public body may only be discussed and reviewed at a public meeting. I look forward to the resolution of this issue. A TT ACHMENTS 1. City Council Report dated November 10, 1997 2. City Council Minutes dated November 10,1997 g:\park\th\grnwdshorespk 11-25prc.doc ~~ Current Owner 6990 UTICA LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 Current Owner 7120 UTICA LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 Current Owner 7000 UTICA LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 Current Owner 7126 UTICA LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 Current Owner 7050 UTICA LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (;' '\ l: \-'; /' ~ Current Owner 7130 UTICA LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 Current Owner 7090 UTICA LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 Current Owner 690 COULTER DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 Current Owner 7100 UTICA LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 Current Owner 7100 TECUMSEH LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 Current Owner 7101 UTICA LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 Current Owner 7101 TECUMSEH LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 Current Owner 7131 UTICA LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 Current Owner 7116 UTICA LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ./ \ ..~ ',,' j ,1/ j C/ ...t i \ ',,-, 3nt Owner UTICA LN NHASSEN, MN 55317 Current Owner 6991 TECUMSEH LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 Current Owner 7061 SHAWNEE LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 3nt Owner UTICA LN NHASSEN, MN 55317 Current Owner 7001 TECUMSEH LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 Current Owner 7071 SHAWNEE LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 3nt Owner UTICA LN NHASSEN, MN 55317 Current Owner 7051 TECUMSEH LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 Current Owner 7081 SHAWNEE LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 3nt Owner UTICA LN NHASSEN, MN 55317 Current Owner 7091 TECUMSEH LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 Current Owner 7101 SHAWNEE LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 3nt Owner UTICA LN NHASSEN, MN 55317 Current Owner 7080 SHAWNEE LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 Current Owner 7141 UTICA LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 :Jnt Owner UTICA LN NHASSEN, MN 55317 Current Owner 7050 SHAWNEE LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 Current Owner 7090 REDMAN LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 :Jnt Owner I REDMAN LN NHASSEN, MN 55317 Current Owner 7000 SHAWNEE LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 Current Owner 7070 REDMAN LN CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 ent Owner TECUMSEH LN NHASSEN, MN 55317 Current Owner 6990 SHAWNEE LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 Current Owner 7050 REDMAN LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ent Owner TECUMSEH LN NHASSEN, MN 55317 Current Owner 6970 SHAWNEE LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 Current Owner 6901 REDMAN LN CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 ent Owner TECUMSEH LN NHASSEN, MN 55317 Current Owner 6960 SHAWNEE LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 Current Owner 6991 REDMAN LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 Current Owner 7001 REDMAN LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 Current Owner 7031 REDMAN LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 Current Owner 7051 REDMAN LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 Current Owner 7071 REDMAN LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 Current Owner 7091 REDMAN LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 Current Owner 7101 REDMAN LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 Current Owner 7136 UTICA LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 Current Owner 7140 UTICA LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 Current Owner 7146 UTICA LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 Current Owner 7150 UTICA LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 !nt Owner UTICA LN --JHASSEN, MN 55317 Current Owner 6801 UTICA TER CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 Current Owner 7000 TECUMSEH LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 !nt Owner UTICA CIR --JHASSEN, MN 55317 Current Owner 6800 UTICA TER CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 Current Owner 6996 TECUMSEH LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 !nt Owner UTICA CIR --JHASSEN, MN 55317 Current Owner 6830 UTICA TER CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 Current Owner 6990 TECUMSEH LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 .nt Owner UTICA CIR --JHASSEN, MN 55317 Current Owner 6850 UTICA TER CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 Current Owner 6986 TECUMSEH LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ,nt Owner UTICA CIR \jHASSEN. MN 55317 Current Owner 6890 UTICA TER CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 Current Owner 6980 TECUMSEH LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 nt Owner UTICA CIR \jHASSEN, MN 55317 Current Owner 6900 UTICA LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 Current Owner 6960 TECUMSEH LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 !nt Owner UTICA LN --JHASSEN, MN 55317 Current Owner 6930 UTICA LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 Current Owner 6950 TECUMSEH LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 !nt Owner UTICA LN --JHASSEN, MN 55317 Current Owner 7090 TECUMSEH LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 Current Owner 6940 TECUMSEH LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 !nt Owner UTICA LN --JHASSEN, MN 55317 Current Owner 7050 TECUMSEH LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 Current Owner 6930 TECUMSEH LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 !nt Owner UTICA TER \jHASSEN, MN 55317 Current Owner 7040 TECUMSEH LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 Current Owner 6920 TECUMSEH LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE. P.O. BOX 147. CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900. FAX (612) 937-5739 November 12, 1997 Dear Resident: On November 10, 1997, the Chanhassen City Council received a recommendation regarding accessibility to Greenwood Shores Park as forwarded by the Park & Recreation Commission. Residents of the Greenwood Shores neighborhood voiced concern over this recommendation and asked the city council to reconsider the motion. In lieu of sorting out the issues presented by the neighbors that evening, the city council elected to table the item. They asked that the item be reviewed again by the Park & Recreation Commission on November 25. The item as presented to the city council on November 10 and the resulting minutes are attached. My report to the commission for their November 25th meeting and the corresponding agenda are also attached. Upon conclusion of their meeting of November 251\ the Park & Recreation Commission may elect to forward a motion to the city council. In the event this action is taken, the city council will consider the item at their December 81h meeting. If you would like to discuss this matter in further detail, please feel free to contact me at 937-1900 ext. 121. Sincerely, "Jc'z\-A ;1'II"Li" v Todd Hoffman Park & Recreation Director THY \Ig: Ipark It h Igm wdsh orespk .doc FF'I]t" F'ana:;:,on i c FR: < S'I'STEt'" F'HOHE HO. 612470123:::: tlo". 10 1'3'37 O1:':.t:Pi" F'l Patricia C. ward 6960 Utica Lane Chanhassen, MilUlesota 55317 ~ Phone (612) 474-4850 Fa\: (612) 470-1238 E-mail Patsy50(fYao1.com November 10, 1997 Mr. Don Ashworth: Greenwood Shore~xk..Accessibili1.v I would like to o;;ubmit my comments regarding the proposal to remove all of the no parking signs cunently installed on Utica Lane...except those on the inside c\.u-ve and an area 30 tect on either , - side of the park entrance. T have Jived on Utica Lane for over twenty two wars, and have alwavs been concerned about tI III. . safety issues on the curve near the park entrance. Over the years, I have driven around the curve to be confronted with children on bicyc.1es and families "'1th small children and dogs, walking on the street. Pedestrian traffic increases during summer months when families and children on bicycles use the beach. On July 4 of this year, my eJ\.1ended family came to view the fireworks display trom Greenwood Shores Park_ My mother had to be carried on a chair into the park entrance as she was unable to walk. the distance required. I did the same thing Ms. Rachel Mantel.tffel seems to do with her mother~ - dropped the supplies and my mother off and then went and parked a distance a\,,-ay. Yes, it was inconvenient, but I would prefer inconvenience to II safety hazard. Is there another solution? Could the City ofChanhassen give a free sticker to Ms. Manteuffel so she can bring her mother to Lake Atme Park? T believe the curve and summer truffie already constitute a safety hazard. I believe allowing cars to park alone "Utica Lane will increase the safety hazard bec<luse the Greenwood Shores park entrance is located on a curve. Sincerely, ;avrt~ -6. ~!~ Patricia C. Ward VERBA TIM EXCERPT OF CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 10, 1997 RECEIVE RECOMMENDATION OF PARK & RECREATION COMMISSION CONCERNING GREENWOOD SHORES ACCESSIBILITY REPORT. Public Present: Name Address Gwen Hennessey Alice Fowler Joanne & Bill Lambrecht Steve Cuodziwki Ann Archer Butcher Judy Christensen Dick Lynch Stephen Schmitz Jason & Jan Adair 1. W. P. Gerry Maher Rocky Waldin Barbara Klick Greg Blaufuss 6800 Utica Circle 7050 Utica Lane 6990 Utica Lane 7090 Utica Lane 7100 Utica Lane 7120 Utica Lane 7101 Shawnee Lane 7061 Shawnee Lane 7090 Tecumseh Lane 7101 Utica Lane 7100 Utica Lane 7116 Utica Lane 7116 Utica Lane Todd Hoffman: Acting Mayor Mason, members of the City Council. And members of the neighborhood. Welcome and thank you. During the week of August 5, 1997, this past summer, Ms. Rachel Manteuffel contacted my office concerning the complaint she had about the lack which she perceived of as a lack of reasonable access to Greenwood Shores neighborhood park. I informed her that she should write a letter to the Park and Recreation Commission. Submit that letter and then the Park and Recreation Commission would talk about that report. She did that. The Park and Recreation Commission felt it appropriate to order an accessibility study by an independent group. RSP Architects was consulted to do that study. Ms. Julee Quarve-Peterson, an accessibility expert, who in fact did the 1991 city wide accessibility report for the community, prepared that report. It talked in depth about a lot of issues, not just parking at Greenwood Shores neighborhood park. And really to focus on the issue, what their recommendation regarding parking was, was to build an internal parking area within Greenwood Shores neighborhood park. An issue which was discussed at length back in the late 80's as well and was not approved by the City Council at that time. So in lieu of developing this internal parking lot, the commission thought it was appropriate that at least a portion of the no parking signs along Utica Lane come down with the exception of those that were required for safety purposes around the curb as you enter that area of Utica Lane. So they made a motion which again is a summary motion which was included in your report. That Commissioner Meger moved, Commissioner Berg seconded to recommend the City Council remove all of the no parking signs currently installed on Utica Lane with the exception of those required at the curve near the entrance of the park for safety reasons. Furthermore, that the access area around the gate be widened and surfaced with asphalt for the purpose of allowing easier access by those who are handicapped. It also makes it easier to get through there with a bike and the bike carriers. All commissioners voted in favor of that motion and it carried unanimously. There has been some confusion over whether or not staff acted in accordance with that motion of that evening. Since those are, those are not verbatim Minutes but are summary Minutes, to date Karen Engelhardt, our Office Manager went back to the tapes which are recorded from those meetings and took the verbatim Minutes from that motion. I, in turn then take notes and clarify the motion for the summary Minutes. But for the record the verbatim motion was that Commissioner Meger moved to ask the Engineering Department to look at the area and determine which signs would make the most sense to take down as far as no parking. And also look at widening the entrance to the park. Seconded that and all voted in favor ofthe motion and the motion carried. In a staff work session we discussed taking this recommendation to the City Council. At that meeting Mayor Mancino asked that it go back for a public hearing, or chance to comment by the neighbors before the Park and Recreation Commission. On Tuesday, October 28th the Park and Recreation Commission held that public hearing. Four residents spoke. There were more residents there that evening. And talked about their concerns with the commission. The area of greatest concern was knowing exactly what portion of the no parking zone would be retained around the curve and in front of the park. A map depicting that area, as determined by Dave Hempel, our Assistant City Engineer, is attached and I have an overhead which I want to put up for you as well. And what the area is defined as, to give you a little real world perspective here... This is the section of Greenwood Shores which we're discussing this evening. Utica Lane as it enters. Down where it curves with the entrance. And again in Dave's opinion, we talked about, during our site visit, taking this black line, not only on the inside of the curve for no parking, but on the outside curve as well. Essentially covering these two home lots which are adjacent to the park. It was Dave's opinion that if we are indeed attempting to accommodate parking in safe areas, that these portions of the outside curve and again in his opinion were indeed safe for parking and provide some convenient parking to the site. And did not arbitrarily push that parking up farther along each side of Utica Lane. So again the commission, during their conversations talked about the fact that the signs may be taken down in this area and down in this area. And that they thought that the no parking areas would remain on both sides of Utica Lane within that curve, but in their motion they felt that recommendation to the expertise of the engineering department. Councilman Berquist: Where are the current no parking areas? Todd Hoffman: The current no parking areas, it will be easier to show on here. Extend to the north really at the edge of the photo and they extend to the east where you can actually see the signs here. They extend to the east to this point. And down Tecumseh a short ways. The closest, in the current configuration, the closest parking is approximately 600 feet. With that the Park and Recreation Commission made their original recommendation on September 23rd. Again, they did not confirm or change that recommendation at their October meeting so in lieu of other direction from the Council, it would be staffs recommendation that you follow the recommendation of the Park and Recreation Commission made on September 23rd of this year. Acting Mayor Mason: Any questions for staff at this point? Councilman Berquist: The widening of the entrance. The letter from the individual that was lamenting the inaccessibility, was there something in there that said that the entrance wasn't wide enough? Todd Hoffman: So there's no confusion. There's an entry gate and then on the right side of the gate is a little gravel path that goes around that would not easily accommodate a handicap person. That's all we're talking about widening is that little gravel path. It would take moving a boulder out. Cutting down a berm a little bit and then asphalting that area. That was the extent of that. Councilman Berquist: When the thing was built, what was the reason to making, for making it as narrow as it was? Todd Hoffman: Really accessibility at that time was not considered a prime objective. The prime objective at the time the entrance was gated was to prohibit vehicles from going down. The path came as a natural aside from people just having to, both pedestrian and bike travel, having to enter by some fashion, just went around the gate. Acting Mayor Mason: Any other questions for staff at this point? I'm sure there are a number of people that would like to comment on this. We'll certainly get to that. I do see, I'm going put someone on the spot here. I do see a Park Commissioner present. Would you care to comment? Jane Meger: Sure. Acting Mayor Mason: Thanks. And this was not pre-planned. Jane Meger: Jane Meger, Park and Rec Commission. As Todd stated, a lot of our discussion originally was around making the best decision to make it accessible for disabled individuals. We talked a lot about, did it make sense to put some parking down the path at the bottom near the park. And based on the size of the park, we thought that that was not probably the best idea for this park. And as Todd said, when we made our motion we were thinking of no parking signs being removed and I'll be quite honest, I thought that they would go out further around the curve. That the no parking signs would stay out further so I guess I can't speak for all of the commissioners but I would ask maybe to think a little bit further that if we do remove some of the no parking signs as indicated this evening, closer to the entrance of the park, that perhaps we may be consider signing some of that area as disabled parking and leaving up some of the no parking further back. I guess that would be my additional recommendation to what was originally. Acting Mayor Mason: Okay, thanks. Jane Meger: Any questions or? Acting Mayor Mason: Thanks Jane. I do, for the record, there is a letter here from Jan Lash, who is the Park and Rec Chair person who has stated some of the concerns that Mr. Hoffman has already alluded to about, I'm sensing what happened here is engineering has one view of things and Park and Rec has another view of things and perhaps Park and Rec erred in not asking engineering to bring it back to them first. Right now I guess that's neither here nor there. In her letter it is stated that she would like to see the item revisited by Park and Rec Commission or City Council should consider their new position, which I believe is similar to Commissioner Meger's comments. With all of that, I will tell you this, this isn't a public hearing but with this many people here I think if you have some comments you'd like to share, if you could keep their fairly concise, that would be appreciated but I think now would be a good time for that. If someone would like to step forward. Dick Lynch: Good evening. My name is Dick Lynch and I live at 7120 Utica Lane and I'm speaking in consideration of the time things here, for most of the residents that live adjacent to the park and our concerns and our issues that come into play here. I've got some handouts for you to look at. .. panoramic photos if you will of the area in question. I think the operative word here is neighborhood park and it's a real concern. On a warm summer day or any type of days during the summer you can find as many as 50 people either bicycling or walking. You see mothers pushing children in strollers. Children in wagons. On their way down to the park. Bicyclists. It's a pedestrian type of situation and it just seems ludicrous to tighten up the street and park all kinds of cars in there or to try to make the park something that it isn't. It's just, the pictures are pretty much self explanatory. The blind curve, the sight lines on Utica Lane are, leave a lot to be desired as far as traffic and pedestrians moving through that area. Cars parked on the side of Utica Lane will cause congestion and obstruction for bike and foot traffic and access to the park that the neighborhood has again depicted in the photos. Also you have a situation with children running out of their yards, through the parked cars and not visible to the traffic and the narrowing down if you will of the street. We feel that an alternative, the recommendation that was put forth in the letter to the Mayor and Council members dated November 9th from Jan Lash on behalf of Commissioners Howe, Berg, Meger and Roeser, it seems to be safe and a reasonable recommendations being proposed to put that parking on the east Side of Utica Lane as it goes north. There are no homes. There are no situations where you would have children running out onto the street. And to the best of my knowledge very little use of people coming to the park as you'd have from Tecumseh or the other streets up there where people come down to the park. If you should decide to consider this matter this evening, we ask that you consider the following. Allowing on street parking to be located directly north of Greenwood Shores park entrance on the east side of the street only. Where the street straightens out and does not obstruct bike and foot traffic. On the east side of the section of Utica Lane there is no houses or driveways, hence safety concerns are minimized. If anyone else from the neighborhood has something they'd like to add or bring forward, fine. I think this is kind of a summary of a meeting that we held on the subject. Councilman Berquist: I've got a quick question Mr. Lynch. These panoramas that we're looking at. I mean if this is a no parking sign, I'm assuming that this is a no parking sign. And posted down here is a no parking sign. Dick Lynch: Yes. Councilman Berquist: What's going on that everybody's parking? Dick Lynch: We did that to illustrate. Councilman Berquist: Illustrate the closeness that, the restrictiveness. Dick Lynch: ... what happens... Councilman Berquist: I thought we had a lawless neighborhood. Councilman Senn: They were having a block party, come on. Acting Mayor Mason: Did you have a permit for that? Councilman Engel: I tell you, where was Barney Fife when we needed him. Acting Mayor Mason: Thanks Dick. Alice Fowler: I've just got a, Alice Fowler, 7050 Utica. A couple of things. One is, on the map that you have of the street doesn't really, it doesn't show that Utica Lane does make the curve but it also curves back so that it's not, as you come down along the park, the road curves and then it also continues to curve back to the east somewhat. It doesn't straighten immediately at the bottom of the hill, so that as you're coming down around that curve, you can't see further down Utica until you get really quite a ways onto Utica along the lakeshore. And the other thing is that, if you can note the size of the park itself is small. I mean we're talking about a very small park. And so the amount of traffic that would be really appropriate for the park, we're not, I don't think it needs to be a large amount of parking that we're providing for because the park itselfis not very big. There's like one picnic table. There's a little bit ofa swimming beach and really the major park facilities are at the other end of the lake at Lake Ann. So I think all of those need to be part of what we consider in terms of what we're providing. The other pieces as well that the park is not easily patrolled because there is not easily accessed to, there's the park butts up to some private land. Prince's private land and apparently that is a party area for kids and... that activity on his land, which has been a problem in the past. Of kids going into the park and then going onto the private land from there. And it's not easily accessible to the police to patrol that area. So those would be things that I. Acting Mayor Mason: Thank you. Joanne Lambrecht: Joanne Lambrecht, 6990 Utica Lane. One thing that we mentioned at the homeowners meeting that wasn't mentioned here is if you take the no parking signs down, we would like it to be parking for daytime only. Because we have no much vandalism because of the draw of the beer parties that are all summer long in that little park. We've had 5 separate incidents in the last 3 years of damage to our property by the kids going by there because of the huge draw at that park. So we'd like the parking to be daytime only. Acting Mayor Mason: Thank you. Bill Lambrecht: Bill Lambrecht, 6990 Utica Lane. I concur with Alice Fowler and her concerns about the parking. There is now, there is parking allowed on the west side of Utica Lane from the fourth house down which that's my property. So they can park in front of my property all the way down to the curve on the north end of Utica. And there's presently no parking allowed on the east side and I'm just up here saying that if you allow parking on the east side of Utica Lane, which there aren't any houses, then would you then therefore close parking on the west side of Utica Lane, which there are houses and any child or person would, if they're coming through cars, there may be some visibility problems so again, if you open parking on the east side, would you close the parking that's presently now on the west side so that's a concern and consideration. Acting Mayor Mason: Good, thanks. Dick Lynch: I think that the letter addressed from the Park Commission stated the east side and that the no parking would remain on the west side. Barb Klick: Good evening. Barb Klick and I reside at 7116 Utica Lane. I've been there 10 Y2 years. I think the issue is really public safety tonight. It really is quite an inconvenience for me to have all the no parking signs. I mean I think people always think oh, we love that. Whenever you have a family event, I'm having a baby shower this Saturday for 20 ladies. We usually have the New Year Eve's party. Everyone has to park far away from us and I'm willing to go through that inconvenience for the public safety. I have young children. You can see one here tonight, and on those pictures I hope you can see on the curves, on one end of the curve where I have a mailbox with my neighbor, that was taken out a few years ago. And this summer, on the other side of the curve there used to be a pine tree down on two houses next to the park, and it's not just the neighborhood but it's the young kids who drive in the neighborhood. And it was a car versus tree and they ended up back boarding that young man and took him away on a back board and his friends and they lose the tree and so the concern really is for the children. You can see the cars parking down there. They come down with everything, and after 10 'l'2 years I never ceased to be amazed. They come down with the Fun Islands. They come down with the fishing poles and the tackle box and a stringer. They do all that. We have no sidewalks there so they come right out onto the street. It's been great that you're putting more and more lights at the great Lake Ann Park at the other end but there is that asphalt path that connects there and so more and more kids are playing soccer. It's all the rage in Chanhassen now. They come back through that park at the end of the night, even in the fall now, and come and dump right back out onto that street. There's no sidewalk and no lights so there really needs to be no parking on both sides of that curve. And that's all I have, thank you. Acting Mayor Mason: Thank you. Well I, oh, oh. I'm sorry. Judy Christensen: ...I'm Judy Christensen at 7100 Utica Lane and I live, it's Barb's house, the park and my house. Tonight I have 17 signed statements from the neighbors and what we've done is we've tried to kind of do a summary of what we have presented thus far on paper and you'll find that there are 30 individual signatures of which 16 were present in the audience tonight of those 30. What's interesting is of these 17 signed statements, it's a neighborhood comprised of 84 homes and this represents 20% of them. There were some people that had some additional comments. I'll just give you these now so you can have a chance to start to look at these. I don't know that you're going to, this is basically again just a recap of what we've already provided you. And on here there are four families that had desired daytime parking, where it would be in that section of area if they were going to remove no parking signs. That they would be replaced with daytime parking signs and I think that the parameters were 8:00 a.m. till 8:00 p.m. Of those three families again on those signed statements, there were three families that desired that the no parking signs remain as, exactly as they are. However, at the top of the no parking where they had suggested removing some, there's two bus stops at Utica and Tecumseh intersection as well as Utica and Shawnee Lane. And there were three families hoping that those no parking signs would remain there so that children as they access the bus to and from school, that they would be able to not have parking there and obstruct any kind of, or cause any kind of. . . for the children getting on and off the bus. There's one family that also wanted to increase the area of no parking signs by an additional 30 feet that's been proposed in Jan Lash's letter that she put together this weekend on the 9th of November. And one family that wants to omit a second alternative. Now I realize that you have this all on audio tape so that will help you if you need all those specific details but I tried to summarize them as the papers get distributed so that that would facilitate your... Acting Mayor Mason: Thank you very much. Is there anyone else? Well, I'll just say this and then I'll turn it over to the rest of Council. With Chairperson Lash's letter wishing it to go back to Park and Rec, I personally think under the circumstances that's a good idea. That's where I'm headed with this but I'd like to hear what other people have to say too. Councilman Berquist: I'm curious. The individual that wrote us twice. Councilman Engel: Rachel Manteuffel. Councilman Berquist: The individual that wrote us twice, does she, are there residents of the area? Todd Hoffman: Yes. Councilman Berquist: That neighborhood. Todd Hoffman: No, downtown Chanhassen. Councilman Engel: Where does she live? That's what I wondered somewhat the same thing. Todd Hoffman: Downtown Chanhassen. Councilman Berquist: Thank you. I'm always amazed. You can go along for 100 years and someone sees, someone perceives an inequity and they raise a little cane and look what happens. The inclination that I have is to do exactly what Mike said but having said that, I don't want to do anything. Councilman Engel: I'm with you. I want to know how many parks possibly Ms. Manteuffel drives by on the way to this one.. .she does, and I know there's two directly in the area. Acting Mayor Mason: That's not the issue here. Councilman Engel: But I'm just saying. And it may not be the issue here but I think the point I want to make is, there are parks in Chanhassen and that one is a particular burden. Use another one. There's a lot of them. Acting Mayor Mason: Oh, be very careful Councilman Engel. Be very careful. Councilman Engel: . ..problem when I think in common sense terms and I sit in a seat like this but. Acting Mayor Mason: Well, be very careful. Councilman Engel: I'd just as soon do nothing. Mr. Berquist, I'll cut myself off there. I'djust as soon do nothing. Now that I've gotten myself in trouble. Councilman Senn: I don't know. From my perspective I guess, I guess I don't share the notion of sending it back because all it means is we're going to have it back two weeks from now again. I think we ought to just make a decision and go forward. I mean there's three sides you have to weigh here. I mean one side is, it's a city park and most of our city parks have some parking or accessibility to them. There's an issue, which we need to deal with nowadays and have spent a great deal of money in dealing with it in many areas relating to the ADA legislation. Whether we are in total agreement it or not is immaterial. I mean it's law. It's what we have to deal with. And thirdly, and by no means least important is the concerns of the neighborhood in relationship to you know what has been and also you know the safety concerns, etc. It seems to me that, you know if you don't deal with all those issues, this issue isn't going to go away. I mean if you take one element of it and try to deal with it, I somehow feel that some other element of it's going to be back. It seems to me that it's reasonable to suggest that that parking be allowed on the east side as is being suggested on the north leg, but not on the west side, even extending down further than it is now to balance out where you would allow it on the east side. It would seem to me that it would be reasonable to maybe furnish one handicap stall posted as such close to the park entrance. And it also seems very reasonable to me to maybe put up some additional park signage relating to both governments and hours of park use, that sort of thing if in fact it is a neighborhood park. I mean ifit's a neighborhood park, it should fall under our guidelines for noise and I mean all that other stuff which means there really shouldn't be a lot of use there beyond 10 and other things like that so I mean it seems to me that those are rules that should be posted and instituted along with that. But at the same time would provide a somewhat of a solution to each one of the elements that we really need to do, and it sounds to me like that's something the neighborhood, you know isn't. I'm going to say it's probably not the best of all worlds but it's. Acting Mayor Mason: All the more, with all you've stated Councilman Senn, it seems all the more reason to send it back for Park and Rec and get their specific comments on that. I mean I hear what you're saying about dealing with it tonight. When I see five different commissioners expressing a concern about an action, I'm loathe to take any action on it tonight. Councilman Berquist: I don't want to see it back either but. Councilman Senn: Well, they're a recommending body to us. I mean it's that simple. We have most of their recommendations and/or comments at this point. I don't know what's going to change. Councilman Berquist: I don't want to see it back but they have expressed, they have expressed a desire to have it back. I think, have you not? So. Councilman Senn: I don't think that's true Steve. Acting Mayor Mason: Well. Councilman Berquist: Isn't that true? Acting Mayor Mason: The letter. Todd Hoffman: As a body they sent the Council a recommendation. As individuals they may have spoke to you otherwise but not as a recommending body. Councilman Senn: I haven't heard from anybody. Acting Mayor Mason: This letter, written by the Chairperson says, and I quote. Now, you're right Todd. I mean with what you're saying but this letter does also state, received November 9. I have spoken with Commissioners Howe, Berg, Meger and Roeser. I was unable to reach the other commissioners over the weekend. Weare all in agreement that this item needs to be revisited by Park and Rec Commission or that City Council should consider our new position based on the actual staff input. And it goes on to say some more stuff and it is signed by Jan Lash, Park and Rec Chairperson. Now, what Todd, what you're saying is absolutely right. What I personally think happened here is that engineering made a recommendation based on needs of engineering, and they did their job. They did what they were asked to do. If anything, I think Park and Rec may have overlooked the fact that they should have asked to have the recommendation go to them instead of go to Council so they could take a look at it. Now that's what I'm reading into this letter. IfI'm incorrect, so be it. I would rather yes, commissioners are recommending bodies and I believe that we owe them at least that too. If they feel the need to have the second go at it, so be it. Councilman Berquist: Move to table. Acting Mayor Mason: Second. Any more discussion? Councilman Senn: Before we do, we're not under any time lines? Okay. Just wanted to make sure. Acting Mayor Mason: Motion has been made and seconded to table this until the next Council meeting, with the understanding that it will go back to Park and Rec for their recommendation. Todd Hoffman: Clarification. Just for everyone's notice. It will be the week of Thanksgiving. That Tuesday, November, somebody help me out who's got a calendar. 22nd? Councilman Engel: Last Tuesday in November. Todd Hoffman: 25th? November 25th. Acting Mayor Mason: Okay. So it will not be on the 24th agenda then for City Council. I'm assuming It would be on the December agenda. Councilman Senn: December 8th. Acting Mayor Mason: Is that for sure? Councilman Senn: That's the second Monday. Acting Mayor Mason: December sometimes you just have one meeting and it's on the 3rd. I'm just not sure of the date but. Audience: Well there would be public notice...ofthese meetings, right? Acting Mayor Mason: Yes. Yes, that's correct. So the next Park and Rec meeting is November 25. So this is when this would come up with them. Assuming this motion goes through. Any more discussion? Councilman Berquist moved, Acting Mayor Mason seconded that the City Council table action on the recommendation by the Park and Recreation Commission concerning the Greenwood Shores Park accessibility report. All voted in favor and the motion carried. C ITV OF CHANHASSEN G 690 COULTER DRIVE. P.O. BOX 147. CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900. FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager #/' FROM: Todd Hoffman, Park & Recreation Director DATE: November 3, 1997 SUBJ: Greenwood Shores Park Accessibility; Receive Recommendation of the Park & Recreation Commission During the week of August 5, 1997, Ms. Rachel Manteuffel contacted me to inquire about the lack of reasonable public access to Greenwood Shores Park. Ms. ManteutTel followed up her telephone inquiry with a written letter dated August 20. This issue was presented to the Park & Recreation Commission on August 26 (see attached report). In response to the commission's directive, an individual facility accessibility report for Greenwood Shores Park was prepared by RSP Architects. On September 23, 1997. Ms. Julee Quarve-Peterson of RSP Architects presented her findings to the commission. Her full report is attached. Following her presentation and upon the conclusion of commissioner discussion that evening. the following action was taken: "Commissioner Meger moved, Commissioner Berg seconded to recommend the city council remove all of the no parking signs currently installed on Utica Lane with the exception of those required at the curve near the entrance of the park for safety reasons. Furthermore, that the access area around the gate be widened and surfaced with asphalt. All voted in favor and the motion carried. " The commission made this recommendation in lieu of developing a parking area within the interior of the park as recommended in the accessibility report. On Tuesday, October 28, 1997, the Park & Recreation Commission held a public hearing on this recommendation. The minutes from that discussion are attached. Four residents presented their views and discussed their concerns with the commission. The area of greatest concern is knowing exactly what portion of the no parking zone would be retained around the curve in front of the park. A map depicting this delineation is attached. Mr. Don Ashworth November 3,1997 Page 2 During my site visit with Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer, the inside curve and an area 30 feet on either side of the park entrance were identified as necessary no parking zones. The remainder of Utica Lane in this area will safely accommodate on-street parking. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Park & Recreation Commission's motion as stated above. ATTACHMENTS 1. Letter from Ms. Manteuffel dated August 20, 1997. 2. Letter from Ms. Manteuffel dated August 24, 1997. 3. Staff report to Park & Recreation Commission dated August 20, 1997. 4. Staff report to Park & Recreation Commission dated September 16, 1997, including Individual Facility Accessibility Report. 5. Letter dated October 23, 1997, distributed to area residents notifying them of the action of the Park & Recreation Commission with correction notice. 6. Response from Gwen Hennessey, 6800 Utica Circle. 7. Map depicting the "no parking zone" that will remain. g:' ,pa rk\t h Igreen woods h ore see .doc August 20, 1997 To: City of Chanhassen Park and Recreation Commison From: Rachel Manteuffel Recently my family and I visited the Greenwood Shores city park We learned that there is no parking for disabled individuals Also, there is no handicapped accessible entrance into the park, nor is there appropriate access to the beach or picnic facilities. This presents a difficult situation for disabled persons. , believe that it is essential for the City of Chanhassen to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and provide accessible parking areas for handicapped individuals. In addition, the City has a responsibility to provide reasonable access to the park's picnic and beach facilities for disabled persons. Thank-you for your attention regarding this matter. Sincerely, --I \. /-,,, -J-- 1/' /' a " I. ,;; ( -11 '(j ,/? (, I~ I' ( \. .../ ,~'1_ ~ (,J '~L{__ 1'/ . --..... 'y...~. _.I '_. "",I __' Rachel Manteuffel August 24th, 1997 To: Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Director From' Rachel Manteuffel Thank-you for sending me a copy of the accessibility Inquiry you prepared on August 20, 1997. I would like to correct a couple of items in the inquiry. During the week of August 5, my family and I took my grandmother to Greenwood Shores park for a family gathering and picnic. My grandmother is disabled and had difficulty with accessibility at the park, not my mother as indicated in your letter. My mother dropped the family off with our picnic supplies while the rest of the family assisted my grandmother to the picnic area. Thanks for your attention regarding this matter, Mr. Hoffman. For the record, could you please make the corrections as indicated above? Sincerely J --) ~~ " ./) j' ,J'Vl /f ~ )...-r;- 6,1;; I l./ v.A./"- ,'.J:-. \, 7 f ;(A../ U:....c r~;:.Q/L.J IV Rachel Manteuffel :;2. CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE. P.O. BOX 147. CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900. FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Park and Recreation Commission FROM: Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Director DATE: August 20, 1997 SUBJ: Accessibility Inquiry, Greenwood Shores Park During the week of August 5, Rachael Manteuffel, a Chanhassen resident, contacted me to inquire about the lack of reasonable public access to Greenwood Shores Park. Ms. Mantcuffel explained that she enjoys visiting the park with her mother who is uncomfortable walking the extended distance from the park to the nearest available parking. From the entrance to the park, it is an additional 300 feet to the beach. The streets in the area of the park are signed "No Parking" for a distance of600 feet in all directions. To access the park, Ms. Manteuffel drops her mother and their picnic belongings off at the park entrance prior to parking her car and re-joining her mother. TIllS situation does not meet the intent of Federal American with Disabilities (ADA) kgislation, and again raises the question of what constitutes reasonable access (for vehicles) to a public facility. This issue as it relates to Greenwood Shores Park was debated extensively from 1987 to 1989. At that time the neighborhood successfully lobbied the City Council to reject a plan to install 4 off-street parking stalls by a 3 to 2 vote. This action was taken prior to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The City has the obligation to comply with this legislation. Ms. Ivlanteuffel has discussed her concerns with officials of the State of Minnesota. It was their position that if the park is cunently out of compliance, a plan must be put in place to provide accessibility. Recommendation It IS recommended the Park and Recreation Commission appoint an accessibility consultant to prepare a feasibility report detailing the necessary steps to bring Greenwood Shores Park in compliance with the American with Disabilities Act. Park and Recreation Commission 08/20/97 Page 2 Attachments 1. Greenwood Shores Park Inventory 2. List of Accessibility Consultants 3. History of parking plans for Greenwood Shores Park, May 1987 -July 1989. c: Rachael Manteuffel, P. O. Box 174, Chanhassen Mayor and City Council Planning Commission Don Ashworth, City Manager Kate Aanenson, Planning Director Charles Fo1ch, City Engineer Scott Harr, Public Safety Director TH.ns File RA-132 g:\parJ...\th' GreenwoodShoresParkAccesslbi Ilty PARK INVENTORY PARK NAME Greenwood Shores Park PARCEL J.D. NUMBER 25-3000850 ADDRESS 7110 Ul1ca Lane ACRES AND DESCRIPTION 3.3 ACQUISITION CLASS Neighborhood FACILITIES AND FEATURES AT PRESENT Archery Range Player Benches, Wood, _ Metal Ballfield(s) I Portable Restroom(s) Basketball Court(s) ReservatIon PICniC Slte(s) Bike Rack Sand Volleyball Court(s) Bleacher(s) x Shore Fishing Boat Access Skating RlI1k, FamIly 2 Charcoal Gnlls SlIdll1g Hill I Dock(s) Soccer Field(s) FIshll1g PIer Soccer Goals (sets) Hockey RlI1k(s) x S WlllUlll11g Beach I lorseshoe PIt(s) SWll1g Unit Open Field Tennis Court(s) I Park SIgn x Tratls. Bltumll1ous. - Turf Park Benches Wanlll11g House x PIClllC Area(s) Wetlands 2 Picnic Tables, Wood; -..K.. Metal x Wooded Area PIcnIC Shelter Canoe Rack Play Area(s) I Park Rules Sign PARKING On-Street Off-Street No. of Spaces No. HDCP x Not Present Spaces GREElSWOOD SHORES PARK Faclhty and Equipment SpecificatIOns: Beach: 2L- x ..EL Dock: ~ x 32' Matenal' Alummum Type: roll in, 12' L-sectlOn Manufacturer: Shoremaster (Lake Shore Equmment) Notes and Observations: Construction of Lake Ann Park utilities resulted in extensive turf dlsmrbance in Winter/S finO' 1992. ~ GREENWOOD SHORES PARK NO MASTER PARK PLAN KE LUCY '/ \ I II I, , ~ , MEADOW GRE.~N ~ - ,,-......... . ~- -- --' -"-' ~...... -' . -- - ~. -"- ~ -= ~-_. #'.. ,,/ , '" --' ' , , , KE ANN -,,4J~ ~ ~:ilWJ' .<<ala- J RESOURCE LIST FOR Tnt AMERICANS \VITH DISABILITIES ACT AND OTHER DISABILITY RELATED ISSUES October 1995 CE TB ---, Access Assoeiat Curt Wiehle)... . . .. . . ... . .. . . . .. . .. 612-925-5471 Access Design. D~7 ~ _....... _ _ _ - - - -........ 612-455-7744 Access One, Inc., Blair Ferguson ....................... 612-462-3444 Accessible Building Consultants, Harold Kiewel . . . . . . . . . . .. 612-653-7469 Accessible Environments, Inc., Pallia Mariucci Harter ....... 612-867-7338 Accessibility Design, Jane Trimble ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 612-925-0301 Akcess Associates, Rick Cardenas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 612-222-6370 Cindy Blomgren, Accessibility Specialist ................. 612-934-1777 lQP, Inc., Juke Quarve-Peterson. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 612-374-3031 Sue Lasoff, U of M Disability Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 612-624-403 7 Deborah Leuchovius, Access Consultant. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ., 612-698-3919 Shannon McGurran. Residential Access Specialist .......... 612-449-0150 E1\fPLOYME:NT Access Associates, Curt Wiehle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 612-925-5471 Akcess Associates, Rick Cardenas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., 612-222-6370 Carolyn Emerson,. Consultant.. .. .... . .. . .. . . .. . . . .. . .. 612-729-7402 Lighthouse Group, Stephanie Cunningham. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 612-338-8142 Sister Kenny Vocational Services ........... . . . . . . _ . . . .. 612-332-7036 Van Wagner & Associates, Dick Van Wagner. . . . . . . . . . . . .. 612-854-1707 GENERAL lNFOR1\'1A TION Courage Center. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., 612-588-0811 V 612.520-0410 TDD Metropolitan Center for Independent Living. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 612~646-8342 VffDD l\1innesota State Council on Disability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 612-296-6785 VrrDD 800-945-8913 VITDD Minnesota Multiple Sclerosis Society. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 612-870-1500 VITDD Michael Patrick, Consultant ........................... 612-827-4110 80Q-972-9537 GoodwillJEaster Seal of Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 612-646-2591 V .TOD - Ext. 162 THIS LIST OF RESOURCES IS PROVIDED FOR YOUR IN FORlVlA TION ONLY. APPEARANCE ON THIS LIST DOES NOT CONSTITUTE ENDORSEMEl'l'T BY THE l\~'NESOTA STATE COUNCIL ON DISABILITY. C ITV OF CHANHASSEN '/ c=-" 690 COULTER DRIVE. P.O. BOX 147. CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 . FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Park and Recreation Commission /JI' FROM: Todd Hoffman, Director of Parks and Recreation DATE: September 16, 1997 SUBJ: Receive Individual Facility Accessibility Report, Greenwood Shores Park Attached please find the Greenwood Shores Park Accessibility Evaluation prepared by RSP Architects, Ltd. Ms. Julee Quan'e-Peterson, an Accessibility Specialist with the finn, will be present next Tuesday to review t)lis report with the commission. A TT ACH;\IENT I. Individual Facility Accessibility Report, Greenwood Shores Park. pc: Rachael Manteuffel, P. O. Box 174, Chanhassen Mayor and City Council Planning CommiSSIOn Don Ashworth, City Manager Kate Aanenson, Planning Director Charles Folch, City Engineer Scott Harr, Public Safety Director ~ J1ar~ 111 (jrccl1\\oL)odSl1ores.\ccess\kll1 Individual Facility Accessibility Report Facility Name: Greenwood Shores Park Facility #: GSP City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen i\1N 55317 Todd HoITman Tel 612-937-1900 Fa:--. 612-937-5739 Report Date Friday, September 12, 1997 Audit Date' Wednesday, September 03, 1997 Auditor" DEM Pr"'Pared b~ RSP Architects, Ltd. 120 First Avenue North Minneapolis, MN 55~0 1 Tel (612)339-0313 Fax: (612) 339-6760 RSP Archih.'ctS Ltd. (Cop~ngl1t 1997) 6326.96001.0 Greenwood Shores Park General Description: Greenwood Shores Park is a neighborhood park. Amenities provided at the park include' a beach, dock, two picnic tables, two grills, and a portable toilet facility An asphalt path replaced the previous limestone path the runs throughout the park. The following briefly describes the accessibility modifications recommended at the park. Please refer to the attached report for more detailed information. Parldng Parking Stripe to prO\'ide a stall that is an appropriate wichh for van parking. Provide a permanent upright sign identifYing the a=sible parking stalL plus a "Van A=ible" sign. Provide a sign indicating tile access aisle. Picnic Areas Picnic Tables Provide a minimum of one accessible picnic table. Provide an accessible path of travel (asphalt or concrde) leading te' one of the picnic tables. Provide an accessible picnic table with appropraite kne.: c1eama~. Provide an accessible clear area around the picnIc tables. Provide a le\ d. firm (asphalt or concrde) surfa", at the picnIC tables. Picnic Areas Grills Provide a nunimulJl of one accessible grill Provide an accessible path oftravcl (asphalt or CXlncrde) leading to the grilL Provide accessible clear ground space surrounding the grill. Provide a grill positioned at an appropraite helgllt. Dock Dock Provide an a=sible path oftravd to the dock (conl.Tde. wood. plastJ" decking. mats. etc.) Beach Access Beach Access Provide an a=sible path of travel to the wak'T's edge (concrete. wood. plastIC deckmg. mats. etc.) Portable Toilet Facilit). Porfuble T oiJ(.t Facilit). Provide an a=sihle portable toilct facilitv Provide an acu...~ible path oftravcI leading to the portable toilet facilit\ Detailed Facllit). ReIX>" :it). or Chanhassen - Greenwood Shores Park :e~note It= Location ?arking -:'urrently only on-street parking is provided at the park. TIle avarlable public parking is ocated on a steep lull and is a considerable distance (600') from the park entrance. Once nside the park. persons are required to negotiate a steep asphalt road to reach the asphalt 7ath the runs through the park. The road levels out and makes a "u" turn to a lift statio11. It s approximately 300' to the acth'ites areas within the park from the park entrance. rt is recommended that 1 "van accessible" parking stall be provided at the 1011-eT part of the 'oad to the lift station. This "van accessible" parking stall will provide a means for persons I,ith disabilities to park their car in close proximity to activity areas, instead of negotiating a lteep and potentially dangerous path of travel. VOTE: Currently a gate is provided at the drive....1'CT)' entrance to the park. The natural surface 'Jathfor pedestrians to walk around the gate is not accessible sill/ace. Parking 05H Stall Size - Van ADA Rqrnt. 1 of eyer: 8 accessible stalls (mth a minimum of 1) are to be designated for yan use. "Van accessible" stalls are 8' Wide \\1th an adJ3cent S' mde access aisle (preferable on the nght side of the stall) (ADA..A.G.+ 1.2 5 b) MN Rqmt. (UBe 1107, CABO/ANSI.+ 6'+) Recommendation: Stripe to pro~'ide a stall that is an appropriate widtlzfor \'1m parking. Photo #: 0] 051 Signage - Van ADA Rqmt Van accessible parking stalls are to be designated as reseryed b~ a sign showing the international white-on-blue wheelchair access symbol as well as a sign With the phrase "Van Accessible". (ADAAG.+ 6'+) MN Rqrnt In :Minnesota include the phrase "$200 maximum fme" (MN Rules 1/96) Recommendation: Prm'ide a permanent upright sign identifying the accessible parking stall, plus a " Van Accessible" sign. 0511 Signage - Van - Access Aisle - MN MN Rqrnt. Van access alsles shall be identified b~ a sign located at the head of the aisle. The sign shall be poSItIOned so there is '+8"-60" between the bottom of the sign and the parking surface The sign shall indicate "No Parkmg", "Access AIsle" or similar. (MN Rules 1- 96) Recommendation: Prodde a sign indicating the access aisle. Page - 3 RSP ..\rdlitccts L1d - A=sibi!tl~ Servi= (Cop~ngJ11 1997) Ci~' of Chnnhassen - Greenwood Short.s Park Drtailed Farili~' Report ~~note Item Location Picnic Areas Two picnic areas are provided ar the park. The picnic areas consist of picnic rabies, grills and waste receptacles. It is recommended that a minimum C?f one C?f the picnic tables be mod[fied so that an accessible path of travel is provided leading to the picnic table. Position the table on an accessible pad. In addition, it is recommended that a path C?f travel be provided leadingfrom the picnic table the nearest grill. See following issues for more detailed information Picnic Tables Two picnic tables are provided at the park. It is recommended that a minim 11m 4 one of the picnic tables be modified to be accessible. 5IA Picnic Tables - Accessible Number ADA Rqmt: All ne\\ picnic tables, whether being installed In new construction or replaced in retrofits, must comply with accessibility guidehnes. (ADAAG 16.2 - Proposed) Recommendation: Prm'ide a minimum of one accessible picnic table. Photo #: 02 5IB Picnic Tables - Path of Travel - Ground Materials ADA Rqmt When picruc tables are pro\ided in highl~ de\'eloped (urban/rural) or moderately developed (natural) settings. a majority of thc tables must be located adjacent to an outdoor recrcatIOn acccssiblc routc. (ADAA..G 163 - Proposed) Recommendation: Prol'ide an accessible path oftra~'el (asphalt or concrete) leading to one of the picnic tables. SIC Picnic Tables - Table Height / Knee Clearance ADA Rqmt: The top of an accessiblc picnic table must not be lugher than 32" above the ground. To acconunodate a person in a wheelchair. the seating space at the picnic table must have adequate knee space. The knee space must measure at lea set 28" high. 30" wide and 19" - 24" deep. (AD.A..AG 16 5/6 - Proposed) Recommendation: Provide an accessible picnic table with appropraite knee cleamace. Photo #: 03 5ID Picnic Tables - Clear Area Surrounding the Table ADA Rqmt. An accessible picnic table must hayC clcar ground space of at least 36" around the perimeter of the table, although 48" is recommended. this spacc may overlap with the clear space required for other elements, but msut neyer be encroached upon by another clement. (ADAAG 16.7 - Proposed) Recommendation: Prm'ide an accessible clear area around the picnic tables. 5IE Picnic Tablcs - Surface and Slope ADA Rqmt: The surface of the clear ground space around the picnic table must be stable and firol. and cyenly graded. With a maximum slope of 3 percent in all direction. (ADAAG 168 - Proposed) Recommendation: Prm'ide a level, firm (a!>phalt or concrete) surface at the picnic tahles. RSP .\rdlitccts I.1d - Ao..=sibilny Scn'i= (Cop\Tight 1997) Page - 4 it)' of Chanhassen - Greenwood Shores Park Df'llliled Facilit)' ReJlQrt ltan Location c~note )icnic Areas Grills Two grills are prOl'ided 01 the park It is recommended that the grill associated lI'ith the accessible ricnic table be upgraded to be accessible. 51FI Grills - Number ADA Rqmt: All new grills, whether being installed in ne\\ construction or replaced in retrofits, must comply with accessibilit) guildelines. (ADAAG 17.2 - Proposed) Recommendation: Pro~'ide a minimum of one accessible grill Photo #: 0-1 51F2 Grills - Location ADA Rqmt: Pcdestal grills, ifpro\1decL must be locatcd adjacent to an outdoor rccreation access route. (ADAAG 17.3 - Proposed) Recommendation: Prm'ide an accessible path oftra~'el (asphalt or concrete) leading to the griLL SIF3 Grills - Clear Ground Space ADA Rqmt. Pedestal grills must have a clear. lcvcl ground space of at least 36" on all Sides. although 48" IS recommended. the space ma: overlap with the clear ground space required for other clements, but must never be encroached upon by another clement. (ADAAG 17.4 - Proposed) Recommendation: Provide accessible clear ground space surrounding the grill. 5ln Grills - Height ADA Rqmt. Pedestal grills must have cookmg surfaces that arc 30" to 36" abovc the ground and the grill must be able to rotate 360 degrees to allo\\ users to adjust it based on \\1nd direction. (ADAAG 17.1d - Proposed) Recommendation: Provide a grill positioned at an appropraite height lock I small dock is pro\'lded at the park. It is recommended that an accessible path of tral'el be lrovided leading to the dock. 'fllis may be in conjunctIOn with the accessible path of travel '.!ading to the waters edge. Dock 59A Dock - Path of Travel ADA Rqmt: Pro\'lde an accessible outdoor recreation route leading to the dock. (AD.-\AG - Proposed) Recommendation: Provide an accessible path of travel to the dock (concrete, wood, plastic decldng. mats, etc.) Photo #: 05 .SP ,\r..::hitC>.1-' l1d . A=sibilit\ Services (Cop\Tight 1997) P3gC - 5 Ci~' of Chanhassen - Greenwood Shores Park Detailed FlIcilit). Report I\:c\note Item Location Beach Access A beach is provided at the park. It is recommelJded that alJ accessible path of trend be provided to the waters edge. Beach Access 63A Beach - Path of Travel ADA Rqmt: At least one accessible route of travel must connect the public accessible path oftra\'el to a point 36" beyond the water's edge. To the maximum e.\1ent possible, the accessible route must coincide "ith the route of travel for the general public. The path of travel should be a minimum 60" "ide to allow wheelchair users to transfer from the surface of the sand while permitting others to use the access route. (ADAAG 5.3 - Proposed) Recommendation: Prm'ide an accessible patlt of travel to tlte water's edge (concrete, wood, plastic decldng, mats, etc.) Portable Toilet Facilitv OlJe portable toiletfacility is pro\'ided at the park. nl/l portable toilet facility is lJot located OlJ alJ accessible path of travel alJd does lJot ilJCOlporate accessibTlityfeatures. It is recommended that an accessible portable toilet facility be pro\'lded. In addition, it is recommended that either an accessible path be pro\'ided leadilJg to the? existing location of the accessible? portable Toilet facility or that the toiletfacility he relocated to be positioned in close proximity to all accessible path C?ftrmd. One potentiallocatiolJ is to position the accessible portable toilet facility near the proposed location of the "van accessible" parkilJg stall mId COlJlJect an accessible route from the access aisle. Portable Toilet Facilit~. 64A Portable Toilet Facilit~. - Accessible Portable Toilet Faeilit~. ADA Rqrnt. For single user portable toilet units clustered in a smgle location, at least 5'Yo but not less than 1 toilet unit shall be accessible (AD.A.AG - Proposed) Recommendation: Prm'ide an accessible portable toilet facility. 64B Portable Toilet Facilit~. - Path of Travel ADA Rqrnt (ADAA,G - Proposed) Recommendation: Prm'ide an accessible patlt oftrave/leading to tlte portable toilet facility. Recommendation. It is recommended that a/7 accessible portable toiletfacilitl' be provided that is located on an accessible path of travel Rpt Individual Facility Report (Chanhassen) RSP ,\rehited'" I1d - '\o..=sibilit~ Seryices (Cop\TIght J 997) Page - 6 ,,- ------.- .,," ",,' " I - - - - - - - - - - - II I -- - I //, -------," / ,.------ ."..' / '--- I -- '" yo I ~ '" / ---~... ,I' ",...~ ./'" /1 / " ",,"",/ " ,/ "" / , ___ ",--_ / '" / I ..... ,/ ---"" /// /, { / ~, --~ ,/, '" ,,'" .... "" \ ",/ ",,' L ....::-- \ " "/~ '..... ----- '''''-...... I ...-'" ,,"" ,,' ,--- -, -----" ... ,,- / ",",,~ -........... ;'.,..-- '" /.,,"" '- -- -.. ............ ---" /'" "'-......- -................. -- -- -"""'" " ........... -...... ............ ------ ....... .",. ,'......-..-:-~~~---_....~_....-~ ..... ............ ......, ......------- ",."," " ........-......, '.............. ---~ ........ ................. ......-- " .......................... ......, .....------/--- ....................." .- ....-------...... , ........ ..,."""--- ,,-- -~~------ \ \ 1-1 I I I I I ~~ I -~ "" '- " .... -- --- I \ \ \ -" --- I { , 1 I ". '" "" ".J--- -"7---r----'---- , ! , I \ ........ .... .... -- ..... --- '- \ f, \: \ y \ \ ,~ \ , \ u ------ . I ../ri " " -- I ---------1 _-----1 --- a;;:~_:j -"'" a ",.-- ,.." ..: ""'-..........---,," ........",......,..., /""'1 ...- ","" ",'" - ... '" ,,/" '" -- "" - ,/ I ,/ -- "",- ~,/ I,/"t >- _/ -~::,,,./,,'/,/ "f f-< '" ',,,,,/,,, ..... -~ ",," "" ~"" ./ ,I It 0:::::: ::::l "--""'''-''' ",,'" ./ ./ ..- .. u .................-'.,.,,",.." """ 1 '-=-- < ....- "" "" """',, ./ Z -- ",,"" ", ", ./ o'-=-- "."'".'" ","',/" / .... _f-< ". ", " / ./t f- ~ ./ ... "" ",,, J <-l ", ""..."" ",'" / Uo '/'" / I 0' "./ I / /. .....l r' ''''", ", ,/ ,/ / t ~", / / V c.?-l "'" / 1 / Z ~ ,/ I f=< ,....-/ /1 ~l;2 I "I :><0' ./,/ ~cI. I ",/ " " ,/ / ",'" I ", I' --- '" \ \ ,'..... \' , \ .... . \ , , \ \ , \ , \ \ ' \ ,,'-------- , ..... , , , ..... , , , .... \ \ , "- ..... ..... , , , "- - ---- \ :::::: o '-=-- --z ~\ ~ o ~ t~, ,f=-l ....." < ~ ~o t:1:l U < :~ A.. Q t2 ~ . 'z v~ -of-<' :> c...~: :9 .' ~ ~;::::: ;~ Z -l :<: ~u 0.. l.1.1 ~ '-=-- :.0 t.IJ -lVlf-< ,....J.....l ~ ~ ~ j.'~ ~. o ti 0 r -' tEl (/) c... < f-< I f~ g;. \ I hOc::J \ I I ~,p:< <: ~ g ". lA.., 0 \ 1./ I I /..I.. I r:TJ I I ", I; z/..I.. 1.-1/1,'" I I 00 \ \ / I r ..... _ I _ ::c ,/ \ \ \ ~( I"" ,- / ~ W ~ !::: <f-" \ \ \ \ /"".....l..... \ \ \ \ ~) I I / a, o::l U 0.. / \ ' \ \ I I "Q. / c.? <l: 3 W)I \ ' \ \ / I / Cl Z E-< .;....J \ \ \ / I I ~ ' - U W e:J \ \ \ .... I I I ..Y/' 1;; z e3:~ .._"._.._.."'-.._"._.t_'._..~..--.!j - S< ~ -.,.J ~~, \ \ I \ I I 0, Wo.. " ou \ \ I' /.:li, I ti:.<: \ \ I \ I , ,I I / --I' \ \ \ \ I / I I \ \ \ \, / '" I , \ , \ \ I / . I I \ \ \ \ I / ~< / " \ I /.., " \ \ \ 1/.... , \ \ \ "I ~ I / ~ I' I \ \ " / ~ .... , , "- , t t ./ ~ <, ~ v ~ /~ i', I / r: I I , c5 I ,0 JlIJ3 .....l< co_ ~~ L>~ ZO Uc 5::-l o-l zP2 r::c.? ~~ J ~,< -.... "- , , , , , \ \ . , ", , ." \ ../ \ \ ", \ ..... \ "" \ \ \ \ \ \ -----....... --... Accessibility Report Photographs Facilit) :\am~: Greenwood Shores Park RSP Architects Ltd (Copyright 1997) 6326.960.01-0 lay .1I" ("~l:lnhass(.'n - (;I'l'l'nWlJotl Shun.'s l):lT!, .\l'n..s~ihility al'pol1 ~)~lUtlJ'.!r:lph"~ ~ ... I ..' .. J-' ~.. ..... ."""?7 ., ' .,. ?..:\..';:~\ P:lr~ln~ -) jUr, I - ) If !::, ,';,.'C..Jllj......nc!e:i th,;t ~;:./ \ r:n :::::,:,.,'!cfc:" P(:r:~.lJn? s!a!! hi.! pr~")~, flied af :h..: r':,~'~. (l(,:'IOil f.... ~l /11..' l(l'.:er t,.'\ t,'! ui !/':..' .:,,:;/!,;U (d';~ c",t(:\ !t!ading ru ';'C} fi/i ,:(:t.'or no! c:n!::1/ ~-- -- ---- ----------- ~-- :."," ,11 ::. ~'"::--\ ;...,...::' !"r:::,.:t ('a~' ')( ('l1~Jlh~,sen - (;n"'llw"IJd .')hon's l':lrk \l'l'l..':):-;illllir:,' ~~~'port Photf)'~raphs ~..._" ~ ~.' . .......... - .. '-~ .' ..... 1.~"';:,:~_' .. - l~il: .~..:;:~::~.. ,.~,.,' );~"'i/ ~.i1.'u.,,- f,,;,?-f1?> . ."'.~. ~>i~ .- ~'I ~j.~.,.. J') :~ ',. f. --......... ~- =--~~- fa --l ...J.:.J.f-,.~~~-&\\~,.~'''' "-. --:O;~''''_~____ ~:... .' .. ._~.~ :., Picnic T:!blcs :~"r.~\ ','IO!O -. n~ If i,) reL'()/llJllt!Jl,/ed ;h~~!.: r!JiliiJl!lJ.'l or ~;ilt! (y"'zh-.: pic/;'jc ;aot!s _~r! .,.'odl./il.!:I \() r/:,'" .7" f.:..:.:..J.,s,'.... 't! "::1/1 ul 'r:11ef i"pnl\ or,;':. 1..'::din:;. [0 ',;..' ricni:.:: ;(ID!l.,' P~)\lii(li! [,'j';.' rah!t! ('il,;n .:......':.~\.. .'il (N/Jit ~/n iT. " ~'."" L di.!u' tJl..r a ~'.!!/! o'n' I' el \.: rru~ i:.r;.I.;' ;.'.:(I!:!'Z 'rl)i!' !I\' ~- ~" . t,'.':! ihll.J"....J{ '..!,/"!// '.\ ..,':, ....1- h...." 'il;~\ s....:.,:......"" (l'!":-i;.;~t 'J- '\"'1\' " ('port Ph"tu.!r.lphs \l'Cl'S'il lW. I\. . . _ {. rL'l'nwoIHl Shun's P:lrk ('jty III { lwnh;l:-;srn ~'.~":. ;o.t" 1;,. ....4..... -v'_ ~~~.~.cn,; ~... _~-:" ....~/:~:.t:;..; .-.-.' ,'.:c.~~~~.~::..;~,~..~...:..!~. ,...' t..... -..- t ~""-Y,...,. I ,'1-.... .'. '1r......... ...... ,-". ."-~.,.r'\~.::-~..lji:;-l!tf,',;m;cl '.Yi,.,~~._ : ..-::.:.::......... '.'-. ~. . ~,.t::n~,..'.'..m::;-.:Ti:Tr~. ... N 1~::i(I.,i.. ~ '(.....t~ft.~~... ''i1'''+:'/:.\!ii:r.';:JI ...'!.. . .... ... ... "..-.. .... ~ ': .:~ :..: . ':7 /~ ..'~ ~ l._: . r: ~ PICntC T.lCkS ) It,,{'! - ).; :-r S j"(,C..JJ1! ~':;.') :;/i.' . ',::.:r .: ./. ..~. ;I;"' rah!e.\' .'Ji-! iNOt!Uli...d to rr)' ICt! 'J,' ()i:e O.! :t?e' .J lL, ,. ( . 'l!lnlln~lin / . {,.;i:~ n{jo!.:n ale s ...... ior ft'r":;OiJ,' .:.::.!:r(lpr.;i'..' ,-r..':.: k .: ;,".: ""'>..." \ . .. ~.' ; ,,: - "'11.:' S..:r' .......~ C;ty l)fC~~anh;t'iSl'n - t.n'f.'nwol}d ....;hun.s P:uk _\l"l'l'ssihWty R..~purt ~)!lot'}~r;lf1hs - -- ---.--.- - "-- ~-- - -- --- .-- - :c Ii ,......."l .. '10" \r .:..;-. ,..>...., "'. ;.... "'" .'\.:~'" ..~ -. .... .<f'!'l~~PI~:f; .1\~~ -~''::;;''''~.''':.:'::f:'', 1..~', r'" ,.,. ..;. ~'. -:'-.' ..;,~,.;,",.~.~: ".'<;'~';' ......7_~.V;:,.Z...JZ'>-;. "_..;.".' .... _.;....~ :.... .\,I:".......'!;~., ~...' ,~. (/ .~. 'f ..#....t:;: -:". ....;...~......_. l"~ ....1.\ ,~....""\.... .-:~<~~" - ~.. . ~:'.'!':l"~'r-'''~1r~~~~~..~y ~ ..~;../ 1,':'~~~::'~':-'k:~:'~~i"'j. :~..:,,::..,-:\'~."'.I-.... '..Ir.'fJ!~':'~.Jo':":t~, ,(,J'..,:..t ~'~"1 ~{~-t;~~~.r.. .....1.'~(..\"~...:~ Yl J. 'ft.~~. ~\ ~~.~ .,.,.,...~...~.. 'Jj'~""" '''''4 #.......1.,. ..... .~I\,,'''),.... .~" ....\...~... .....-~~......... J. ,(:~ . ~ ~ ".J'.'~:............. ~,..... ".........r:.~... .,~ i-...J~..~.. f ~t ': ,.....: ;;~~.V.h ;. '-":.' ,,"'~ -;'-.;r .~\"'.~'''.:..;..... ";';';'~.., ~ S-i~:'c:.\'.I"',,:.t ....... ('.'.,4',,':;) I ~ ..:.r~_~-:.~.t.."4ro "'"........:..:.-t.l........-.;........1I'~..~iJ~ ..:.;.6...U(~...:...:~~~'...._ ......_....c~..-1L._W..U....'---.....~.J,;. ..........~ ........ . .. .~:::.-. ~;\~~..:. -/T.'~..~ ~-'..' I ,\ .,A~. '*' / 'p,:-:t> ; ~&~ .,.~ ~ .,'\. '.J '-n-rt;' ~~~~ ~ .". . .~ :~~~~ "' - .... ~.'!",.~-. ....~.. '1i~~q..-<<':l .~-.~~L~...:Pd.....:.G.~.' :.;_"'~',... ~.~~";;?~.....::~ -- ..... ~ " "I ..- Grill, ".. ~ '! ()! (J. 1";' ~\t'O :!.rifls :;r...' pru1'i{/:.,j .:f :hi! pr:r,~- it.s ...::!C()/):J,'};!n~:.....d rhr;: :h.! '!'..:/ ,lS:J(~C.;.:-!;' / '~' ..,::,'C:""'SI,".:! ..:.....j.L.J1ic '.:'~';! n,' 'i::'.!.rfJd...J.; . . . '0 "t' .:cc.....\,;j.f'J ';., \ ",'1 _;..:....::, ':J. ........... ~.... ":...T\!.....~ !";1 j~t ( .t) I)f ('~l;lnhas;-,t'n - (;rc....tnwOIJII Shon's Park .\n'l'ssihility :~l'pt)11 Pho(o'!raphs ")~ -- "'_.,-"'~';;E~ ;; ,',', ';;:~\~-:J:~~1;~~~1~t0' .."'~ ___"" .____...Y...~~.~_.,~..-'~-- ---. . - -, . ". ~~.l"1! :t.:~Lt~.,...:. _..~....-.,.. ",.,. .. .........-...- - ..,.-.... i:'~~~:~f',~:.'h. . I 'I':i~ 1, . ~..' ".-" .--:. ,'" ;. - j, ' ~~','~ .~. ...1..~;::~ F1.~~ (~ ' ~'.' - ~v:.f. - ;'f'~ ~\ .~:. . ;X'l'J: !t~,' ~.,.., .. :'.!)J~.~y~~ W~i; i~~~t:i' 1':-'.. 'r~t , Dock . .....}..!:~".......r....)rfr'..\;!!b:..} l "'71ri" :(1 '.:\ ~fll": ~':J,' l' ~Jre nur\- !; is r::coininc,!dt!u '}U:l ..7/1 .,C~'"' \,)0/ It. !",(" . ,.' 1 ~I . l ., l \ "f . ...... .,. - _.r.." ',,~ I'" ',r;(,' . ';',1 ~;"'} "C/"")\\'!,;'!c! ~. "/1 uf tr.7\ r.,:, ""f)\"'(;' ,: ,',> .,:i"'(ll r() ,'.' "IC.,'\- 1I!f.\ iJl.;' ,~;! IiI ((N,j" C. ..,11 II ' ,... d '-"- . .. f', j L. ,....... 1.::- ' .... .i....ld!,!,! U ,';,' fr.!.. t'\ _'~t';..,'..' ;) :{)[O . 05 ;'...' \ :... ...:~." I.~~! . ,I:.:, )..'1" ,,' l,t' r:)ll ',)- CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE. P.O. BOX 147. CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900. FAX (612) 937-5739 October 23, 1997 Dear Resident: On September 16, 1997, the City of Chanhassen Park and Recreation Commission received an individual facility accessibility report for Greenwood Shores Park. The commission ordered this report on AU!,lUst 26th after reviewing a citizen complaint over the lack of reasonable public access to Greenwood Shores Park. The findings of the report include: Parking Stripe to provide a stall that is an appropriate width for van parking. Provide a permanent upright sign identifying the accessible parking stalL plus a "Van Accessible" sign. Provide a sign indicating the access aisle. Picnic Areas Picnic Tables Provide a minimum of one accessible pIcnic table. Provide an accessible path of travel (asphalt or concrete) leading to one of the picnic tables. Provide an accessible picnic table with appropriate knee clearance. Provide an accessible clear area around the picnic tables. Provide a level, firm (asphalt or concrete) surface at the picnic tables. Picnic Areas Grills Provide a minimum of one accessible grill. Provide an accessible path of travel (asphalt or concrete) leading to the grill. Provide accessible clear ground space surrounding the grill. Provide a grill positioned at an appropriate height. Dock Provide an accessible path of travel to the dock (concrete, wood, plastic decking, mats, etc.) Beach Access Provide an accessible path of travel to the water's edge (concrete, wood, plastic decking, mats, etc.) Greenwood Shore Neighborhood Letter October 23, 1997 Page 2 Portable Toilet Facility Provide an accessible portable toilet facility. Provide an accessible path of travel leading to the portable toilet facility. Upon reviewing the finding of the accessibility report, the commission took the following action: "Commissioner Meger moved, Commissioner Berg seconded to recommend the city council remove all of the no parking signs currently installed on Utica Lane with the exception of those required at the curve near the entrance of the park for safety reasons. Furthermore, that the access area around the gate be widened and surfaced with asphalt. All voted in favor and the motion carried." The commission made this recommendation in lieu of developing a parking area within the interior of the park as recommended in the accessibility report (see attached diagram) The Park and Recreation Commission will accept public comment regarding their decision at their October 28th meeting. The meeting starts at 7:30 p.m., in the City Council Chambers. After this meeting, the Park and Recreation Commission will forward their recommendation to the City Council. If you have any questions in this regard, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Todd Hoffman Director of Park and Recreation TH:gmb g:\park\th\GmwoodShrsNcighborLtr CITY OF CHAHHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE. P.O. BOX 147. CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900. FAX (612) 937-5739 MEETING DATE CORRECTION NOTICE October 23, 1997 Dear Resident: On October 6, 1997, a letter was mailed to you regarding accessibility at Greenwood Shores Park. The letter invited you to attend a Park and Recreation Commission meeting on October 30th. This date is in error. The Commission meets on the fourth Tuesday of each month which is October 28th. The meeting will be held in the City Council Chambers at City Hall starting al 7:30 p.m. I apologize for any confusion or inconvenience this error has caused. If you have questions in this regard, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, ~~ Todd Hoffman Park and Recreation Director TH:v c: Park and Recreation Commission A II ef\ -!-WY/"",' .~/.?E ~)P/c -rode! , CITY OF H~r\({J0C H AN HA SSE N 690 COULTER DRIVE. P.O. BOX 147. CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900. FAX (612) 937-5739 October 23, 1997 .\ \. Y '. r: ^ ->'~c fit \ I) I....;.';' f':.f. t . I~. \..,,'" ~ v'" I l2-o-nl f/!\1~4'\Jt"$ ~f' tl t.. U ~. ~i){f Yo (;[ '7'1 reel YiiO'LL [I \ It) "tY,_.:" @ 41 0 _ +05 ~ ;:. v~;/ '1 (:/ .:z.o 4.[; S 2 d (l \} Dear Resident: On September 16, 1997, the City of Chanhassen Park and Recreation Commission received an individual facility accessibility rep0l1 for Greenwood Shores Park. The commission ordered this report on August 261h after reviewing a citizen complaint over the lack of reasonable public access to Greenwood Shores Park. The findings of the report include: C:} " ,'. r. .-, I" l i ':~. ";, /., (. r, l' l' ....{, \ '-~/ V , ~.., ...)' .~' I') Parking - - "v u Stripe to provide a stall that is an appropriate width for van parking. C-;. D(}-'{ J ~ H /' j .:i I'.. Provide a pennanent upright sign identifying the accessible parking stall, plus a "Van Accessible" sign. Pro\'ide a sign indicating the access aisle. / /(JO) IJ ,Ii i" o l~' '(; (..(, 1 ) {{( { If ( J i._,' Picnic Areas Picnic Tables Pro\'ide a minimum of one accessible picnic table. Provide an accessible path of travel (asphalt or concrete) leading to one of the picnic tables. Provide an accessible picnic table with appropriate knee clearance. Provide an accessible clear area around the picnic tables. Provide a level, finn (asphalt or concrete) surface at the picnic tables. Picnic Areas Grills Provide a minimum of one accessible grill. Provide an accessible path of travel (asphalt or concrete) leading to the grill. Provide accessible clear ground space surrounding the grill. Provide a grill positioned at an appropriate height. Dock Provide an accessible path of travel to the dock (concrete, wood, plastic decking, mats, etc.) Beach Access Provide an accessible path of travel to the water's edge (concrete, wood, plastic decking, mats. etc.) \.- ',' '- .::. ".; _.:: Greenwood Shore Neighborhood Letter ."'" _ ~:-~:.: Octobq,'2--3, 1997 'z::,..:::::: Paae 2(.... o .::::-; .~ -.0.:'>.... Por.table Toilet Facility -r.":: Provide an accessible portable toilet facility. -;2' ..;-..:::: _\= .~~rovide an accessible path of travel leading to the portable toilet facility. .-;,...... ---........ > .~.~; ':(_' UpQn !eviewing the finding of the accessibility report, the commission took the following action: ': .~, \. ~. ~~"commissioner Meger moved, Commissioner Berg seconded to recommend the city ~) .-~.~ ;- -::: :::: ~ounci! remove all oft~e no parking signs currently installed on Utica.~~h the ~;/ ..... J::.~ :~i-..J SJxceptlOn of those reqUired at the curve near the entra~ce of the park for safety ~.:> ~ // ~. _ .. --=_._.:: i-Furthermore, that the access area around the gate be WIdened and su~ced WIth asplffiIt. ~) 1/ :: ... ~:: ,~:::.., All voted in favor and the motion carried." I 1 i :"""'. /f '--' -,.. II V("r., (f. .'1', I. ""- The commission made this recommendation in lieu of developing a parking area within the interior ,I i 'I ' ," of the park as recommended in the accessibility report (see attached diagram) .'! .' , , . '.... --- '- '- ...... --:.::.. ... '.- '-.,. --.J ; --'. :'/;.- " " ,: I . l The Park and Recreation Commission will accept public comment regarding their decision at their ) ~'; Oct2!>~r 28th meetin.~a. The meeting starts at 7:30 p.m., in the City Council Chambers. After this; I , " meeting, the Park and creation Commission will forward their recommendation to the City '. Council. .J r I ~ /__" ", I If you hme any questions in this'regard. please feel free to contact me. I,'J , ", """'-, " "'-. , i~) ! l.~ ~ I '-. " ......"...... () i , I ,.,. I I - , ' '-.... Sincerely. ---7: ~~ -;M~CdV- Todd Hoffman Director of Park and Recreation I ' .( > .' .... ~ 10 If l' C 1\ ,. " I " ..' r Ie' . V f.tl( .au)/ > { 'b I u -;-- '. '------ rJ I' ',//\ f ;( .-'1' \ ~ f'~ ~\. ( L t,..v .....1-1,.. '- b..{tA ~L ) Y1. ()(L( V,) tc j L1' g:\park\th\Gm\\oodShrsNeighborLtr t'0 e/K-iC{ ^ c( +11\.,[ I/VO ,:'/i. k }~ nV c;! I '} D n 0 ('fL, ',': ()/':,'i (\ L' i hi, a \ ....-.) I!. (.f J ./" tJ.~ I 1[., . ); 'I/" rlr;} I" / , --j- ( c...- r lv,~, 1 'I U t., I' .'. r, t.' l:; .'Lv"~ t. ~.~ t;. I vL J_ !..V'I Li...- L;! i) /\ r, , .. - . t \ 10 f ,I t...; f - IIj r. '" /~ I r"\ I!. -:In J I Ui' ;t~.. }' i, 1 '1'....[! ; C i lj{j<..> j.";; L (;u': ! (:; lL/ -- Y) J -r--r< (,i f /1..; Lx.!/' :. , n .J L.{, f ,)c. tt:) {}" c_y C (){l ,"::f" /1" / dr:' d DlA)}t . f), '.1 S h~ /- [ C): .L) 'Lt i I'" L'f j/;, ('.'J . l) '! l( () LU i't J~. I t~ (:) a-J'" (J ( ttCl..l).-{ Ii It t( :'\5}'j (I t(>:,~ C (;)) ';t [ihli,U n) s ( Y'. i; iL 'd U ( ;u,L L '/ pad" l.-- : i,;' ! /' IJ:') (( i:.' (' "S i{;' f. .-/ l) f:. /' ~." l S (J(I c.::; i ( (( I c :S (;e{ e.. .e/I I!!: iL /1 TH:gmb I , I ,__I ; It,. , /, 1001 {',; / l' -"'/-' ('. I' ; u~. -u ~ I \ L.'. , t':J ~_ L' v . J1 \ (j 111\ C,{)' i ! : /./ ,.r "./, --I U -X./ j ~ L,/v. _'_ _ t-- ~ )., I ' i :../1. 'fOCL Greenwood Shores Neighborhood Association Position "Greenwood Shores Park 'On Street' parkinf]" As a resident of Greenwood Shores neighborhood I support the position put forth by our neighborhood association representativ~ feel that the items listed below are critical to the safety of our neighborhood. I ask that you take these items into consideration as you review the Park and Recreation Staff recommendation, November 3, 1997 and the Commissions letter of recommendation, November 9,1997. e> W-'2-- --pr7Per- '-no CJ.n~ elrz /pan~- ~~I ur 0/74 a/1f10"1 Safety Concerns ~ w/-#t.6/ Ilbs f!9-7'1.~ ~ ~,:y/~a.rfI/x- / U >I< Warm summer days: up 50 eople, walk OR bike on tica Lari' as access to the park *' When cars are parked, as proposed, cars meeting on Utica Lane cannot safely negotiate the curve and attend to safety of pedestrians (2 blind curve photos). '" Cars parked on the 'park side' of Utica Lane will cause congestion and obstructions for bike q foot traffic as this is the only access to the park from this neighborhood (other photos). ... Children playing in nearby residential yards are subject to being screened by parked cars when crossing the street. '" The closer park users are allowed to park to Greenwood Shores Park the more traffic that will be generated, compromising the integrity of the park AND increasing concerns previously mentioned. The configuration of the street and the size of the park do not accommodate large volumes of street and park traffic. Alternative To Allowing Parking On The Hill/Curve On Utica Lane *' The recommendation put forth in the letter to Mayor Mancino and Council Members, dated November 9th, 1997, from Jan Lash, and on behalf of Commissioners Howe, Berg, Meger and Roeser, is seen as a safe and reasonable. *' If you should decide to consider this matter this evening, we ask that you consider the following: Allow 'on street' parking to be located, directly north of the Greenwood Shores Park entrance, on the east side of the street ONLY, where the street straightens out and does not obstruct bike and foot traffic. On the east side of this section of Utica Lane there are no k houses or driveways, hence safety concerns are minimized. *' W~ T.~. /'{P Ta r * A-NN ArLc HE_fL CBuTZ- ~ iu.)/;' i.,?' +IJI.5 -r{//~ IS --r Name(s): ~ - ----- - - - ----gjJ;~~~~:{B~ Address: X9(Lj)~~--1J-~- q; /-h-eS Signature(s): J- __.L2!::dZ.~---_L~--?-~-Tl- J! €.~---- - ---- - - - 7;r--- - /gtA~ ' Date: -.Lf/-io/-i-/:::-------------------------!..! _e:J2~-f-::t:.-------- Greenwood Shores Neighborhood Association Position "Greenwood Shores Park (On Street' Parkina1J As a resident of Greenwood Shores neighborhood I support the position put forth by our neighborhood association representative. I feel that the items listed below are critical to the safety of our neighborhood. I ask that you take these items into consideration as you review the Park and Recreation Staff recommendation, November 3, 1997 and the Commissions letter of recommendation, November 9,1997. Safety Concerns * Warm summer days: up to 50 people, walk OR bike on Utica Lane as access to the park * When cars are parked, as proposed, cars meeting on Utica Lane cannot safely negotiate the curve and attend to safety of pedestrians (2 blind curve photos). * Cars parked on the 'park side' of Utica Lane will cause congestion and obstructions for bike Er foot traffic as this is the only access to the park from this neighborhood (other photos). * Children playing in nearby residential yards are subject to being screened by parked cars when crossing the street. * The closer park users are allowed to park to Greenwood Shores Park the more traffic that will be generated, compromising the integrity of the park AND increasing concerns previously mentioned. The configuration of the street and the size of the park do not accommodate large volumes of street and park traffic. ernative To Allowin Parkin On The Hill Curve On Utica Lane .;; he recommendation put forth in the letter to Mayor Mancino and Council Members, dated November 9th, 1997, from Jan Lash, and on behalf of Commissioners Howe, Berg, Meger and Roeser, is seen as a safe and reasonable. * If you should decide to consider this matter this evening, we ask that you consider the following: Allow 'on street' parking to be located, directly north of the Greenwood Shores Park entrance, on the east side of the street ONLY, where the street straightens out and does not obstruct bike and foot traffic. On the east side of this section of Utica Lane there are no houses or driveways, hence safety concerns are minimized. . . Address: I}lif-~Mlgd-<:.~~k.L_______ ---6:tt:tQ---___U_6,_~____LE h~_________________ ~ -------- ~- --~---------------------- -----~~-~~-~-- --~-------------------------------------------- Name(s): Signature(s): Date: ... ~;tW ;r;/~ ~ As a resident of Greenwood Shores neighborhood I support the position put forth by our neighborhood association representative. I feel that the items listed below are critical to the safety of our neighborhood. I ask that you take these items into consideration as you review the Park and Recreation Staff recommendation, November 3, 199 i and the Commissions letter of recommendation, November 9, 199i. ~ ~ c~ e,+. C'B (\.~~~~ (~.;~~. -1'\ \\ \. ~ t, [~: ,\.t: ""N 1 ,~, ' H . r \:1, , (. ~ K- r..... ::..' i. j '\ Greenwood Shores Neighborhood Association Position "Greenwood Shores Park 'On Street' Parking" Safety Concerns :(< Warm summer days: up to 50 people, walk OR bike on Utica Lane as access to the park :(< When cars are parked, as proposed, cars meeting on Utica Lane cannot safely negotiate the curve and attend to safety of pedestrians (2 blind curve photos). :;. Cars parked on the 'park side' of Utica Lane will cause congestion and obstructions for bike & foot traffic as this is the only access to the park from this neighborhood (other photos). :(< Children playing in nearby residential yards are subject to being screened by parked cars when crossing the street. :;. The closer park users are allowed to park to Greenwood Shores Park the more traffic that will be generated, compromising the integrity of the park AND increasing concerns previously mentioned. The configuration of the street and the size of the park do not accommodate large volumes of street and park traffic. Alternative To Allowing Parking On The Hill/Curve On Utica Lane :(< The recommendation put forth in the letter to Mayor Mancino and Council Members, dated November 9th, 1997, from Jan Lash, and on behalf of Commissioners Howe, Berg, Meger and Roeser, is seen as a safe and r:a~o~abl~. ~'L / I.JljiJmv I-/'(\:,(j *' If you should decide to consider this matter this evening, we ask that you consider the following: Allow 'on street' parking to be located, directly north of the Greenwood Shores. Park entrance, on the east side of the street ONLY, where the street straightens out~does not obstruct bike and foot traffic. On the east side of this section of Utica Lane there are no houses or drivewa~s, hence safety concerns are minimized. Name(s): _ifiliyJ:WfJ"-~<l~_~Q~:1Llci1LsJd{Lr ? t (. L I. ~/ L " /_ , I., 'r Al t -" . "7' Ao1...,...., '/j ," 1/ .7 ___________~__~~~_____LJ/_~{_L_~~_~. f~~_L~ ~~-~i~~~------------- ."- . _______[~~:lS~~!{?1~~_~1J{~~l'J21~_LL_~~2'~i~___________~_--------------------- ) . I L f ll,l() (</- -----------------------;------ -~---------~------------------------------------ Address: Signature(s): Date: '- j' , ~ - -<, " '- , " , ' . . ...,. _., l) \ . --- ~~ ,:) r~ I rj _~ ~ -.., ..... , ., r-' ,j ( ., " -... ".~. r....... ........... !'"'-.;. ,-..... ~:-.:- ~ l': r- " ,) 'l-! .', ".J '" ~ ........' "- "j "..<..,j Greenwood Shores Neighborhood Association Position "Greenwood Shores Park cOn Street' Parkin9" As a resident of Greenwood Shores neighborhood I support the position put forth by our neighborhood association representative. I feel that the items listed below are critical to the safety of our neighborhood. I ask that you take these items into consideration as you review the Park and Recreation Staff recommendation, November 3,1997 and the Commissions letter of recommendation, November 9, 1997. Safety Concerns * Warm summer days: up to 50 people, walk OR bike on Utica Lane as access to the park * When cars are parked, as proposed, cars meeting on Utica Lane cannot safely negotiate the curve and attend to safety of pedestrians (2 blind curve photos). '" Cars parked on the 'park side' of Utica Lane will cause congestion and obstructions for bike Er foot traffic as this is the only access to the park from this neighborhood (other photos). * Children playing in nearby residential yards are subject to being screened by parked cars when crossing the street. *' The closer park users are allowed to park to Greenwood Shores Park the more traffic that will be generated, compromising the integrity of the park AND increasing concerns previously mentioned. The configuration of the street and the size of the park do not accommodate large volumes of street and park traffic. Alternative To Allowing Parking On The Hill/Curve On Utica Lane '" The recommendation put forth in the letter to Mayor Mancino and Council Members, dated November 9th, 1997, fromJan Lash, and on behalf of Commissioners Howe, Berg, Meger and Roeser, is seen as a safe and reasonable. '" If you should decide to consider this matter this evening, we ask that you consider the following: Allow 'on street' parking to be located, directly north of the Greenwood Shores Park entrance, on the east side of the street ONLY, where the street straightens out and does not obstruct bike and foot traffic. On the east side of this section of Utica Lane there are no houses or drivewa~s, hence safety concerns are minimized. Name(s), O/}J\,- OAyf );} (i'eLI (J}..tLt..J Address: *=-~~ --=_0~L== Sign a tu re (5): -------~-1f..~~:::J::::-..0^:..fJ.'-~J:!l________________________________________ (late, _______~~~~____________________________________________________ Greenwood Shores Neighborhood Association Position "Greenwood Shores Park 'On Street' Parking" As a resident of Greenwood Shores neighborhood I support the position put forth by our neighborhood association representative. I feel that the items listed below are critical to the safety of our neighborhood. I ask that you take these items into consideration as you review the Park and Recreation Staff recommendation, November 3,1997 and the Commissions letter of recommendation, November 9, 1997. Safety Concerns '" Warm summer days: up to 50 people, walk OR bike on Utica Lane as access to the park ;(< When cars are parked, as proposed, cars meeting on Utica Lane cannot safely negotiate the curve and attend to safety of pedestrians (2 blind curve photos). '" Cars parked on the 'park side' of Utica Lane will cause congestion and obstructions for bike & foot traffic as this is the only access to the park from this neighborhood (other photos). ;(< Children playing in nearby residential yards are subject to being screened by parked cars when crossing the street. " The closer park users are allowed to park to Greenwood Shores Park the more traffic that will be generated, compromising the integrity of the park AND increasing concerns previously mentioned. The configuration of the street and the size of the park do not accommodate large volumes of street and park traffic. Alternative To Allowing Parking On The Hill/Curve On Utica Lane ;(< The recommendation put forth in the letter to Mayor Mancino and Council Members, dated November 9th, 1997, from Jan Lash, and on behalf of Commissioners Howe, Berg, Meger and Roeser, is seen as a safe and reasonable. :;. If you should decide to consider this matter this evening, we ask that you consider the following: Allow 'on street' parking to be located, directly north of the Greenwood Shores Park entrance, on the east side of the street ONLY, where the street straightens out and does not obstruct bike and foot traffic. On the east side of this section of Utica Lane there are no houses or drivewa~s, hence safety concerns are minimized. Name(s): T!' ~ . ., ' ~). ~ -." _~____~-L:J_--~~~--~~~~~_i)-J-------~~~-~-;~~~:~~-~2-~1 Ll~_~___________________ Address: __/ ~~i C~/: __7I'7:',{ "'--_~~i::;..!7~~-r_____~!i.2.~~. ~__________________ -----~~}:~~:~~~_:~-~-~--~~~:::_~~~~-------------------------------------------- Signature(s): / /' Date: !, I, " -') ----------------~--~--------------------------------------------------------------- Greenwood Shores Neighborhood Association Position "Greenwood Shores Park 'On Street' Parking" As a resident of Greenwood Shores neighborhood I support the position put forth by our neighborhood association representative. I feel that the items listed below are critical to the safety of our neighborhood. I ask that you take these items into consideration as you review the Park and Recreation Staff recommendation, November 3, 1997 and the Commissions letter of recommendation, November 9,1997. Safety Concerns * Warm summer days: up to 50 people, walk OR bike on Utica Lane as access to the park * When cars are parked, as proposed, cars meeting on Utica Lane cannot safely negotiate the curve and attend to safety of pedestrians (2 blind curve photos). " Cars parked on the 'park side' of Utica Lane will cause congestion and obstructions for bike Er foot traffic as this is the only access to the park from this neighborhood (other photos). .... Children playing in nearby residential yards are subject to being screened by parked cars when crossing the street. " The closer park users are allowed to park to Greenwood Shores Park the more traffic that will be generated, compromising the integrity of the park AND increasing concerns previously mentioned. The configuration of the street and the size of the park do not accommodate large volumes of street and park traffic. \Iternative To Allowing Parking On The Hill/Curve On Utica Lane * The recommendation put forth in the letter to Mayor Mancino and Council Members, dated November 9th, 1997, from Jan Lash, and on behalf of Commissioners Howe, Berg, Meger and Roeser, is seen as a safe and reasonable. .... If you should decide to consider this matter this evening, we ask that you consider the following: Allow 'on street' parking to be located, directly north of the Greenwood Shores Park entrance, on the east side of the street ONLY, where the street straightens out and does not obstruct bi ke and foot traffic. On the east side of this section of Utica Lane there are no houses or drivewa.>,:'s, hence safety concerns are minimized. Address: ~flJ:l~~~~__________________________________________________ C- )S._Q~li~..UQ~~~~. ....------------------------ I'~ /J -('".0i ~~,) 0{c --------~---~-~-=------~--------------------------------------------------- /(- Yi/).- 92 __L________________ _______________________________________________________ Name(s): Signature(s): Date: Greenwood Shores Neighborhood Association Position ccGreen~1/ood Shores Park 'On Street' Parking" As a resident of Greenwood Shores neighborhood I support the position put forth by our neighborhood association representative. I feel that the items listed below are critical to the safety of our neighborhood. I ask that you take these items into consideration as you review the Park and Recreation Staff recommendation, November 3, 1997 and the Commissions letter of recommendation, November 9, 1997. Safety Concerns '" Warm summer days: up to 50 people, walk OR bike on Utica Lane as access to the park '" When cars an:: parked, as proposed, cars meeting on Utica Lane cannot safely n~gotiate the curve and attend to safety of pedestrians (2 blind curve photos). .. Cars parked on the 'park side' of utica Lane will cause congestion and obstructions for bike & foot traffic as this is the only access to the park from this neighborhood (other photos). *' Children playing in nearby residential yards are subject to being screened by parked cars when crossing the street. *' The closer park users are allo\'\Ied to park to Greenwood Shores Park the more traffic that will be generated, compromising the integrity of the park AND increaSIng concerns previously mentioned. The configuration of the street and the size of the park do not accommodate large volumes of street and park traffic. Alternative To Allowing Parking On The Hill/Curve On Utica Lane ... The recommendation put forth in the letter to Mayor Mancino and Council Members, dated November 9th, 1997, from Jan Lash, and on behalf of Commissioners Howe, Berg, Meger and Roeser, is seen as a safe and reasonable. * If you should d~cid~ to consider this matter this evening, we ask that you consider the following: Allow 'on street' parking to be located, directly north of the Greenwood Shores Park entrance, on the east Side of the street ONLY, where the street straightens out and does not obstruct bike and foot traffic. On the east side of this section of Utica Lane there are no houses or drivewa~s, hence safety concerns are minimized. Name(s): L. } G - r f\- )d~ - '. _____ _ b.. K'.5~__L___'::EJ~~.Y..---. _1_~!S._-_------_~__--_______--_ Address: ? I ~ I a / it It- L A /,' : L: f/ ,t,' /. ,I ,i ; S I. /... =--=--=-~_~~~~~~~;2;YiIE=== ______._...L:L!~0'_:/.._________________------------------ Signature(s): Date: . 0 0 tn tn Ol <C ~CU~ .... c:: (/)1 (/) (/) (/) "C "0 COOl m m m ('I') C1> a.. ._ eIlj 0 1: o (/) ::J 0 C1> Z m .c: ell C1> s... .... C1> Ol >-1 a. 0 C1> E .!: ...J 0 0 0 0 .c cr: ~-c zl T- T- T- T- ~ I I I I ell COCOa 00 00 00 00 J:: .~ Cla.. en E .- "0 C::j Q) CO U. C1> .2 Z ..... c:: ='=1 N N N N N T- T- T- N T- N N N T- N T- to Ol- N 0 U5 ~I tn ~ 0 ~ 0 N 0 .c ell c:: CIJ 0 :;:; C1> C1> C1> C1> 'C - ell C1> C1> c:: C1> c:: c:: C1> C1> c:: CO CO CO c:: 0 a.. ell co c:: ...J c:: ...J ...J co ~ co C1> co C1> 0 to C1> C1> C1> C1> ...J ...J C1> ..c: C1> ~ ...J C1> ..c: ~ ..c: ...J T- "0 c:: c:: c:: c:: C1> c:: C1> c:: c:: C1> C1> C1> ~ "0 co co co co C1> c:: co ell co C3 c:: co ell C3 ell C1> <( ...J ...J ...J ...J c:: co ...J E ...J co ...J E E c:: c: ell co co co co ~ E co ::J co co E co ::J co ::J ~ (.) (.) (.) (.) co "0 (.) (.) (.) .2 "0 (.) (.) .2 (.) co Q) C1> :;:; :;:; :;:; :;:; ..c: C1> :;:; C1> :;:; C1> :;:; C1> C1> ..c: Q) E ::> ::> ::> ::> (/) cr: ::> t- ::> 5 cr: ::> t- 5 t- (/) 0 s... I 0 0 0 0 T- T- o T- to 0 0 T- o 0 0 T- ~ LO C'l 0 C'l to 0 C'l LO T- o ('I') 0 ~ ('I') C'l 0 ~ 0 C'l T- o 0 C'l 00 0 T- oo C'l T- C'l 00 0 T- to 00 r-- to r-- r-- r-- to to r-- r-- to to r-- to to r-- r-- T- ell c:: ell ~ .!: ell Q) "0 :i2 ::J >. a. - (ij ~ ..... :c "0 ..c: ell ::J C1> (.) s: c:: 0 co ell co N C1> ~ .... m ell ~ "0 c:: '- >. C1> 'N E C1> C1> .... c:: ='= Ol C1> .0 ~ ..c: '- C1> "0 ell Ol c:: ell C1> co 'Q) C1> E 'ii) ~ E (.) (.) 'm E 0 c:: ~ c:: ::J ..c: I ? ell ..c: '5 ~ co ..... 0 co 0 "0 >. ::J C1> .... co (.) 0 (.) 0 U. ...J 0:: m <( m () Cl G I ~ ~ ~ a 0:: (/) .... (1)' ~ Q('j c:: c:: co - c:: Q('j c:: C1> ~ C1> ~ E C1> C1> EI (.) m C1> 0 c:: - co co ~ E' > .0 co '- co :.::; (5 c:: "0 ell 0 Cl ~ Cl ~ C1> C1> E ~I Q('j C1> ~ co E a.. .2 G 0 G - Q('j ell """) Q('j 52 Q('j C1> Q('j (/) ::J C1> c:: Q('j Q('j co Q('j Q('j G Q('j >. Z C1> c:: C1> 0:: C1> c:: .2 c:: - '- ~ ~ C1> c:: ell Q('j c:: "0 ell c:: 'ii) c:: c:: ~ co 'C C1> co 'C co ~ ell <( C3 0 ..c: ..c: """) co .0 G ell 'C c:: """) e '- ~ ~ co () :2 co C1> >. <( m ~ """) "0 c:: ::J c:: """) <( Greenwood Shores Neighborhood Association Position "Greenwood Shores Park 'On Street' Parking" As a resident of Greenwood Shores neighborhood I support the position put forth by our neighborhood association representative. I feel that the items listed below are critical to the safety of our neighborhood. I ask that you take these items into consideration as you review the Park and Recreation Staff recommendation, November 3,1997 and the Commissions letter of recommendation, November 9, 1997. Safety Concerns *' Warm summer days: up to 50 people, walk OR bike on Utica Lane as access to the park *' When cars are parked, as proposed, cars meeting on Utica Lane cannot safely negotiate the curve and attend to safety of pedestrians (2 blind curve photos). *' Cars parked on the 'park side' of Utica Lane will cause congestion and obstructions for bike q foot traffic as this is the only access to the park from this neighborhood (other photos). *' Children playing in nearby residential yards are subject to being screened by parked cars when crossing the street. *' The closer park users are allowed to park to Greenwood Shores Park the more traffic that will be generated, compromising the integrity of the park AND increasing concerns previously mentioned. The configuration of the street and the size of the park do not accommodate large volumes of street and park traffic. Alternative To Allowing Parking On The Hill/Curve On Utica Lane *' The recommendation put forth in the letter to Mayor Mancino and Council Members, dated November 9th, 1997, from Jan Lash, and on behalf of Commissioners Howe, Berg, Meger and Roeser, is seen as a safe and reasonable. *' If you should decide to consider this matter this evening, we ask that you consider the following: Allow 'on street' parking to be located, directly north of the Greenwood Shores Park entrance, on the east side of the street ONLY, where the street straightens out and does not obstruct bike and foot traffic. On the east side of this section of Utica Lane there are no houses or driveways, hence safety concerns are minimized. Name(s): !, . - ;; I! , II ___~~_L_~_2_~:_!~~_~_____~=:_~~_~__~___________________------------------------- Address: 7 1-::: U L. . r I C '-I ,J.. I ; ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Signature(s): _) I . / ____~~----P~~~~------~~~~~~~-{:-~------------------------------------------------ I Date: ! I / / .? ~/ ,./c>....~).I. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FPor 1 F'3na':;.on i 0:. FH:x.: S\'STEt'l F'HOt.1E NO. 612470123:::: tJc",. 10 1'j'j-;' CH:5t::,F'j'l P1 Palricia C. Ward ~ Phone (612) 474-4850 Fa'( (612) 470-1238 E-mail Patsy50@aol.com 6960 Utica Lane Chanhassen, MilU1esota 55317 : November 10, 1997 Mr. Don Asl1\volth: Greenwood Shore~ax.k..Accessibilitv I would like to '\ubmit my comments regarding the Pl'oposal to remove all of the no parking signs CUlTently installed on Utica T.ane...except those on the inside C~U"Ve and an area 30 feet on either side of the park entrance. T ha\"e liYed on Utica Lane tor over twenty two years, and have always been concerned about sat~~ty issues on the Curve near the park entrance. Over the years, I have driven around the curve to be confronted with children on bicycles and families \\ith small children and dogs, walking on the street. Pedestrian traffic increases during summer months when families and children on bicycles use the beach. On July 4 of this year, my e},,1ended family came to view the fireworks display fTom Greenwood Shor~s Park. My mother had to be carried on a chair into the park entrance as she was unable to \\'aIk the distance required. I did the same thing Ms. Rachel Manteuffel seems to do with her mother; - dropped the supplie~ and my mother off and then went and parked a distance away. Yes, it was inconvenient, hut I would prefer inCOlll'ellie/lce to a safety hazard. T s there another Solution? Could the City ofChanhassen give a free sticker to ~v1s. ~1anteuffeJ so she can bring her mother to Lake Anne Park? T believe the Curve (lnd slimmer trnffic already constitute a safety hazard. I believe allowing cars to park alone Gtica Lane will increase the safety hazard becnuse the Greenwood Shores park entrance is located on a curve. Sincerely, tPCltoi "-<, ~. ~ "'-4 Patricia C. Ward -2- Todd Hoffman Also, the complainant's letters specified "disability access". I am curious as to how this escalated into a "general" accessability problem, apparently without any prior knowledge by anyone of why the signs were installed in the first place. Removal of these signs would almost certainly increase existing problems at the park and undoubtedly create many new ones. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, If />,..." ... I l.:.,)_/;.:"'~ ~/... /',-c.l /.....// ( ~ ~ <. __ ., r --/ Mrs.Marcy Kurimchak 7130 Utica Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317-9528 mk " f November 16, 1997 Todd Hoffman, Director Parks & Recreation City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive, PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Mr. Hoffman: Once again the Greenwood Shores Park is the center of a controversy, only the names and faces have changed. Having lived here since 1960, I discovered long ago that this park is just about the only factor capable of bringing residents together. When this area was first developed in the late '50's and early '60's, this area was dedicated to the residents as a walk-in neighborhood park. Many of us early residents more or less developed the beach and park area with our own labor and at our own expense. Even the children helped out where they could. It served us well for several years until the Lake Ann Park came into existence. Our little park was then "discovered" by individuals seeking a secluded place for beer parties and skinny dipping. This resulted in noisy parties, area children being exposed to lewd activities by the skinny dippers, and property damage and vandalism to nearby homes. The No Parking signs were requested by the residents to perhaps discourage to some extent this type of activity. They also served as a safety factor for the many children and families using the park. Although the parties still continue, undoubtedly due to the difficulty in patrolling the park, removal of the No Parking signs would only create a much more serious situation in the park itself, and jeopardize the safety of the children and families using the park on a walk-in basis. I would also question the feasibility of allowing parking on the east side of Utica Lane beyond the bend, not only because of the poor visibility factor, but the fact that the roadway at that point does not appear wide enough to safely accommodate a parking lane, two lanes of active traffic, and of course, the pedestrian traffic which \vould resul t. The proposed on-street parking, unfortunately, only serves to create a more hazardous situation for those entering and using the park. Increasing on-street parking would serve to: 1. Increase the pedestrian traffic, which is street access; and at the same time, 2. Parked cars would reduce to a greater extent, the already limited vision available to drivers and pedestrians on the street. Pedestrians trying to negotiate traffic, parked cars, limited visibility, all in an attempt to approach the entrance of the park. Drivers reduced visibility with the hill, parked cars, pedestrian traffic, the curves - all of which is focused at the entrance of the park, which is where the pedestrian traffic '.vill be the greatest. This makes for a deadly combination. The situation would be bad enough for adults who can see beyond parked cars, and can attend to traffic, but for children, it would be an accident waiting to happen. I am not against on-street parking in residential areas. In fact, every place I have lived has had residential on street parking, and I have appreciated the convenience it offers to me as a resident, and our visitors. In this situation, however, I much prefer, to forgo the personal convenience of on-street parking for the personal safety of our community members. The other safety concern, I have is that of providing increased access to a park that is already difficult to patrol. In so doing, the city would further burden the local police, and would put at greater risk those persons interested in using the park in appropriate and safe ways. I hope you will consider changing your position about access and usage of Greenwood Shores Park, keeping the specifics of this park, and the safety of all persons concerned formost in this consideration. Cordially yours, aiuc3~ Alice Fowler Alice Fowler 7050 Utica Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 November 24, 1997 Park and Recreation Commission and Chanhassen City Council City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: GreemAJood Shores Park Accessibility Dear City Council Members, and Park and Recreation Department, A couple of weeks ago, at the City Council Meeting, I signed a letter, and submitted it to the City Council about the proposed access to Greenwood Shores Park. Subsequent to that meeting, after careful consideration, and review of the issues at hand, I am withdrawing the support indicated in that letter. Access to our city parks is a serious and important issue. I firmly believe that persons in all communities should be able to access their city parks in a safe and reliable manner. The city in providing access, to any public use area, has the responsibility to do so with all safety issues carefully considered. I hope the follovling concerns will be considered as you determine accessibility to Greenwood Shores Park. This park vIas designed originally as a neighborhood park; and as such, has functioned well. It is now a city park, and it seems INe are faced with the inherit limitations of trying to make it function for a larger community, when the design and means of access is congruent with a smaller, local usage plan for which it was intended. The primary difficulty for expansion of usage is that the entrance to the park is located mid-way on a hill, and also at the beginning of a curve. Therefore, safe access to the park is highly problematic. { ~ ~" ~~. ~: ,..~ , \ ~ ,~~~':. . J~n\ ~~ ~\ i:,97 EDWIN & CORREEN G NEWINSKI 6930 UTICA LN CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 WILLlAM B & PATRICIA C WARD 6960 UTICA LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 WILLIAM 0 LAMBRECHT & 6990 UTICA LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 HEIDI JO CARISCH 7000 UTICA LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DICK & ALICE FOWLER 7050 UTICA LN CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 ALDEN L & ANN ARCHER BUTCHER 7090 UTICA LN CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 JUDY CHRISTENSEN 7100 UTICA LN CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 DONALD & MARY LOU CHMIEL 7100 TECUMSEH LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 GERARD W & KRISSAN MAHER 7101 UTICALN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JAMES ROSENDAHL 7090 TECUMSEH LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DAVID W BERGSTROM & 7050 TECUMSEH LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 STEPHEN F & CARRIE F SCHMITZ 7101 SHAWNEE LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MARK & DONNA PLOOF 7040 TECUMSEH LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 GREGORY BLAUFUSS & 7116 UTICA LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 REED P & MARY P NOBLE 7000 TECUMSEH LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 RICHARD LYNCH 7120 UTICA LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 RICHARD J & JANET K LASH 7001 TECUMSEH LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MARK MOTZKO 7126 UTICA LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DANIEL R & MARILEE DUNSMORE 7051 TECUMSEH LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JOHN C & MARCELLA M KURIMCHAK 7130 UTICA LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 VLADIMIR GRIBOVSKY JR. 7091 TECUMSEH LN EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 THOMAS J & MARY KRUEGER 7136 UTICA LN CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 JOSEPH & CAROL YNN BIEKER 7101 TECUMSEH LN CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 CAROL WATSON 7131 UTICALN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 RONALD G & G PAULY 7080 SHAWNEE LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 GORDON & MARILYN L SMIDA 7081 SHAWNEE LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ".--....._---- / -....., t. ----- - ".-.... "..,..... -,,/ '......_---' ................",,,, "'''1 ...- .", -' "1' ".... "..... "''';1''''' , -----... ....-...-...." -.". / / " ",'" ",,"" ","',1/ ,1"'rl. ~-", """,," -"" ", ", ", , r ""''''''' -~ """',,,,"" ,,"" ", ", ,II "--"" ",," _'" ", ", t/ ,.... ". ..- '-", 1 ::.....................--- ",........... ," '" " ,.. ~ ""/ ,." ,,"" ",,'" ", ", ... " "" ",'" ", ", I ", ",,"" -- ,," "1' " " " " ", ", "" I' I' ", ", I' ,I ",1 '" " ,.. 1'", I -"" 1'1' I' ", r ,I I' I ", Y "....-1' I II ( ,,1 I / "'" / "", " " I' I' ,,'" I' " / ,-.:------------- - ",,' I'j" 1'1' _-- -_-----,,-,.. ~",I ", I ,..________ ~, --:,,1 II """,,- """,," /' -"" I' ,."" ,...",,"" /// --,,'" ""--.... ",/ ","" ",/ " (,/ .... - - ,.. ",,,,'" ,,~ __J '" ",'" "",' _ ... ""I' \ / ,,- f ....-- \ " " / ....._--" ", ,," --;" ..... -............ I -- "" ~,.. --- ........, .....-----" ." ,;' ::;:-.....- .....,.................... ~-'...-" .,,' ...::--::........... .............- ......-----" -",;/. ..... .................. ---- -- ,. "...........:-............,------~ --~ " ............ ......, ..............-------- ,~.... .... .... .... .... .... .... - .....,/'"'" ...... .............. '...... ..........._---..' ,,'......, " '...........--.............---- ....... ......." .. ----.... \ ... .-- --- -~~-..:~-- -... \ ~ I I'I Y \\ I' \ \ \ I ....--__ I "'_ 990 ----- I . ,"'" J-- .,.--/"" __ -..t. - ---, I I \ ........ ................ ......, .....-- ....... \ ... \ " \ ... \ " \ \ " \ " \ , \ ", '....------........ " .... , .......--- \ --- , " , \ " .... -", " " " , \ , \ \ . \ / " /. \ .. \ \ / \ ..... \ \ \ \ \ \ I ""-----...... " \ \ '" I . , V', ( / ~, , / , -- ~ t:r:- od ~u z-< o~ _f-; !<~ Uo Of-; .....:I~ 0.....:1 ~~ ~f-; ~~ u I I I \ -" --- I I I I /-1 I' I I I ",.." I ",,"" I ',--' ,r --- -----"", I \ \ ..",.-------- . /,. II // r... I' I I ", ", I I ..- GJ 0, If ~' ~ c:G }t~ g; !< I U I g j~ ~ ~f: f-;Z u~ zb S2S 0.......:1 O.....:l zC2 f:0 ~o xz _/ lil < Greenwood Shore Neighborhood Letter October 7, 1997 Page 2 Portable Toilet Facility Provide an accessible portable toilet facility. Provide an accessible path of trave11eading to the portable toilet facility. Upon reviewing the finding of the accessibility report, the commission took the following action: "Commissioner Meger moved, Commissioner Berg seconded to recommend the city council remove all of the no parking signs currently installed on Utica Lane with the exception of those required at the curve near the entrance of the park for safety reasons. Furthermore, that the access area around the gate be widened and surfaced with asphalt. All voted in favor and the motion carried." The commission made this recommendation in lieu of developing a parking area within the interior of the park as recommended in the accessibility report (see attached diagram) The Park and Recreation Commission will accept public comment regarding their decision at their October 30th meeting. The meeting starts at 7:30 p.m., in the City Council Chambers. After this meeting, the Park and Recreation Conm1ission will forward their recommendation to the City Council. If you have any questions in this regard, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, -- .--/ _____ /?o / //..- _-;;-'. '--- / r ,//t(l( ~. // .-1~ {C------., / Todd Hoffman " Director of Park and Recreation TH:gmb g: \pa rk \t h \Gm woodShrs Neighbor Ltr C ITV OF CHANHASSEN s 690 COULTER DRIVE. P.O. BOX 147. CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900. FAX (612) 937-5739 October 6, 1997 Dear Resident: On September 16, 1997, the City of Chanhassen Park and Recreation Commission received an individual facility accessibility report for Greenwood Shores Park. The commission ordered this report on August 26th after reviewing a citizen complaint over the lack of reasonable public access to Greenwood Shores Park. The findings of the report include: Parking Stripe to provide a stall that is an appropriate width for van parking. Provide a pennanent upright sign identifying the accessible parking stall, plus a "Van Accessible" sign. Provide a sign indicating the access aisle. Picnic Areas Picnic Tables Provi,::e a minimum of one accessible picnic table. Provide an accessible path of travel (asphalt or concrete) leading to one of the picnic tables. Provide an accessible picnic table with appropriate knee clearance. Provide an accessible clear area around the picnic tables. Provide a level, finn (asphalt or concrete) surface at the picnic tables. Picnic Areas Grills Provide a minimum of one accessible grill. Provide an accessible path of travel (asphalt or concrete) leading to the grill. Provide accessible clear ground space sun-ounding the grill. Provide a grill positioned at an appropriate height. Dock Provide an accessible path of travel to the dock (concrete, wood, plastic decking, mats, etc.) Beach Access Provide an accessible path of travel to the water's edge (concrete, wood, plastic decking, mats, etc.) ~ Greenwood Shore Neighborhood Letter October 23, 1997 Page 2 Portable Toilet Facility Provide an accessible portable toilet facility. Provide an accessible path of travel leading to the portable toilet facility. Upon reviewing the finding of the accessibility report, the commission took the following action: "Commissioner Meger moved, Commissioner Berg seconded to recommend the city council remove all of the no parking signs currently installed on Utica Lane with the exception of those required at the curve near the entrance of the park for safety reasons. Furthermore, that the access area around the gate be widened and surfaced with asphalt. All voted in favor and the motion carried." The commission made this recommendation in lieu of developing a parking area within the interior of the park as recommended in the accessibility report (see attached diagram) The Park and Recreation Commission will accept public comment regarding their decision at their October 28th meeting. The meeting starts at 7:30 p.m., in the City Council Chambers. After this meeting, the Park and Recreation Commission will forward their recommendation to the City Council. If you haw any questions in this regard, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, -;;?i~CC(V- Todd Hoffman Director of Park and Recreation TH:gmb g: \park \Ih \Gm\ \oodShrs Neigh borLtr C ITV OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE. P.O. BOX 147. CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900. FAX (612) 937-5739 October 23, 1997 Dear Resident: On September 16,1997, the City ofChanhassen Park and Recreation Commission received an individual facility accessibility report for Greenwood Shores Park. The commission ordered this report on August 26th after reviewing a citizen complaint over the lack of reasonable public access to Greenwood Shores Park. The findings of the report include: Parking Stripe to provide a stall that is an appropriate width for van parking. Provide a permanent upright sign identif)ring the accessible parking stall, plus a "Van Accessible" sign. Provide a sign indicating the access aisle. Picnic Areas Picnic Tables Provide a minimum of one accessible picnic table. Provide an accessible path of travel (asphalt or concrete) leading to one of the picnic tables. Provide an accessible picnic table with appropriate knee clearance. Provide an accessible clear area around the picnic tables. Provide a level, finn (asphalt or concrete) surface at the picnic tables. Picnic Areas Grills Provide a minimum of one accessible grill. Provide an accessible path of travel (asphalt or concrete) leading to the grill. Provide accessible clear ground space surrounding the grill. Provide a grill positioned at an appropriate height. Dock Provide an accessible path of travel to the dock (concrete, wood, plastic decking, mats, etc.) Beach Access Provide an accessible path of travel to the water's edge (concrete, wood, plastic decking, mats, etc.) , , , , , " ,/ ,,..--" ............,# , , o c' g , , I , \ \,-- ) --- ! -~: ---~;)<, ,/' -r~ /' [,/ \ '~',,/ " ,I ~ \ ,__, i ~/' \~ ";-~,_,,'_.._/I-,,,L.._.,_.._.'._..+.._..- ...=.., fP'~"-' d) \" \. .' , ' i 5 / "/ ,~ * " ',' ./i' / "- /! ~', l'/g. ," I \ '. ,.',' \.. I ,. I "/"~' l ,/ " ,/ " ,/" \ I:, ~ --;;.:. ~.~o // .;..:". \\ ;' 1 - ;' : ~ ". \ \ 'I"" C ',' ,0. \ ........' ~,' j/ J' ';-'/','" . I I' .- ,':J: : " I "1' ,'0. I " . , . - " : - ;' i I _ ~l, \, ,/1- ,'~/ - I - . --: -'!--" D---- '. />---, .. :; \..b........ ,... -{ --___ __ ....'_, "- ','" ,<",i " -'<'. ~." 1 - "",,1 0"" I \ , co .~- " 1-' \ ,/' A 1',;,,- - '\ /' /': : /'<~ \ ,_ ' 1 I"" /' ,/:" ~ ..../ ... : _#.__~_U-h,L-..__.:, " / I,' " __ ,"""-. " , ':./<'" : ,~'>~L::;~~;,~~>J-'-', ~'-: -- ,/' ,,' I ',' , A " ,;/-:,:, ~f<~"<' , ' -, I , ",/ ;: ~:';:~'~ ..~~::-..:.,:.:.. -:r-'--.':-~'o,,;;-:: j ,/~~~~:~?~:/>~~::~~r:~=-~~: ,~~"<:-.~..j / "'.. i j: l 0 j : \ I . t" ! j " ill :' " '~""'___.__,'------OGJ'-',! I; : \L I / I " . ' : 'I \ ',,' ! '.,'-1 i ,-- - r l> ^ fT1 r c n -< r l> ^ fT1 ~-! II l> Z Z j / I , -.........." ' ~, z o :c ~ Proposed "No Parking" Safety Zone lIll3 8ln Hoisington Koegler Group Inc Greenwood Shores Park City of Chanhassen, Minnesota ili/9i Creath'.. Solutions for land Planlllng and DeSIgn 123 -';orth 3rd Street, Suite tOO ~lnneapOIL9, ~LnIlE"ot. 55401 612/336-0800 " , , , , " \', Master Plan SHEET 1 of 1 - .............. I. - " ... ,,-.... ..." -"'1 ."", ......--- ...----",.." --- ".... ,,'" /'- ".-- ,,-- ." '" "" / ",. . ...........-.......... --' / / / "" ... " " "1 "" "" " " [' ~-" -"''''''''''''' ' -.. """ --' .","""",,.......,/ / /1 ".........,,- ..." ...-/ "" ,/ r/ ,.-,.. -' "....1 .-..- ."... ,. ", - ," .,.,.-'"...... " .,If ." ,.,. ""'/ .,..',,'" ",.,.'" " " .... '" ... ,," '" "'I '" ... - "'''} ". ,"" *"," ".'" '" . " ... " " " '" " " "I .." " "". /" . -... """,,, ~ '" I '" Y ......._'" /1 /1 f "1 " "''' / "'" '" " '" " .... " ... ,. _ ..----- -. ..,- ..,.---" /...------- // ------- "I ,..______ "--- I I -~ I --" '" " ... , ift I: I y " \ ,~ \ \ --- ... ... ... ...... ... --.... ...- ... ... ", ", " " ,,--...... / / ..........._; \ I ....--__ ~_ 990 ---- ----- ----- --- / .. -'" ..- , , , \ , \' , " .... \ , ' \ , \ , \ , , . , '- \ " ------............ , '- , .......---- , , , , , , '- --- ---........ \ , , .... , , , , , - -, , , , , , , \ \ . , / 'to /- \ .- \ '/ \ "'. \ .... \ \ \ \ \ \ ....._---..... , /I C7\ , . , ~(/ .., , , u I I I I I \ -'" --- I I /-1 " I " I ......... I "... I ... -----..."'..f I ----------1' -----i --- ...--_..... \ \ '-,----- ,..--....._--- " -- ... ~ ~...... 0::: ~u z~ Of-< ......w ~d Uo Of-< .....lw e".....l ~~ f-<f-< ~o::: f;J?j? . ,," II / r-.. " I " " " I I .-- 8' Cl I ~' o 0.. ;::J ~ " 0 / /t~ ~~ I / 1= I f c:5 f 3 JW.....l .....lc< co...... <f-< E-Z UW _E- ZO uc.. c::~ o:::l zo::: f:O ~Cl x~ j L:3~ Greenwood Shores Neighborhood Association Position "Greenwood Shores Park cOn Street' Parkin9" As a resident of Greenwood Shores neighborhood I support the position put forth by our neighborhood association representative. I feel that the items listed below are critical to the safety of our neighborhood. I ask that you take these items into consideration as you review the Park and Recreation Staff recommendation, November 3, 1997 and the Commissions letter of recommendation, November 9, 1997. Safety Concerns *' Warm summer days: up to 50 people, walk OR bike on Utica Lane as access to the park *' When cars are parked, as proposed, cars meeting on Utica Lane cannot safely negotiate the curve and attend to safety of pedestrians (2 blind curve photos). " Cars parked on the 'park side' of Utica Lane will cause congestion and obstructions for bike 4 foot traffic as this is the only access to the park from this neighborhood (other photos). *' Children playing in nearby residential yards are subject to being screened by parked cars when crossing the street. '" The closer park users are allowed to park to Greenwood Shores Park the more traffic that will be generated, compromising the integrity of the park AND increasing concerns previously mentioned. The configuration of the street and the size of the park do not accommodate large volumes of street and park traffic. Alternative To Allowing Parking On The Hill/Curve On Utica Lane " The recommendation put forth in the letter to Mayor Mancino and Council Members, dated November 9th, 1997, from Jan Lash, and on behalf of Commissioners Howe, Berg, Meger and Roeser, is seen as a safe and reasonable. *' If you should decide to consider this matter this evening, we ask that you consider the following: Allow 'on street' parking to be located, directly nortb_ Qf~he Gree~~~od Shores . ';:: Park entrance, on the east side of the street ONLY~wnere the -street straightens out and does not obstruct bike and foot traffic. On the east side of this section of Utica Lane there are no ;, , " houses or drivew3%s, hence safety concerns are minimized. \ I 'I 'I I I . I' ',I _ 1.:.... I . ~ , r" ! ' ~ Address: ",_'~_._-- .; i _ ~~._~) /' J / . "0, ):! \-)\ ,_ 1.-/21\-' 1" 11\1:':-;('1 -'f'- 1',_, - !;. " / l1'/) ,', ',: :~____~__~__~~__~__~~~__~~_~~--L~~__L_-L_~~__________~____~-_:~__~___~___~1_~_' ' , ~ _-':.1.. ,.~_~_, I (/. .' / _ __.' i __:_j__[i_~_____~_~~-~'']/~--~Jl~(/ -------------~---------------~------- --'1---! j./,-'..'f I :. /- I (j . -( / J /, ,/ I ' -' . ____~~~~~____~______~~_~_~~.~____~_:~~~___L_~~__~__~~____~------~~-~~ , .--' I .' ; , \, j . . - L) / " / I ' -:. I i I .' . " . / -' ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name(s): Signature(s): Date: ; \ ,'" I . ~ t'" ~ ~ , . , I 1_ '. / l Ii! <,;' j I . _\. i-- . I, 1'..... L'Ttll("'" I :,I,j....L '/ If ~ I~,tlk\ \"/~......)~ ,l;, [.~\...(~.~\t""'l';~~"'\-: ~ \. ~ ~.. i ",.......... '._. '"~. I ,_ . ",_) r.....) 1 , ---j-' I \ i ' . - fl. " 1 \.) _ j '" ~ I.....:.: '1,)_;...., '..~ I," I..., '-'\ - : l....('. ,I.J t t \"-1... t L \,it r t \ ...-/ :~ j _ 1 ~ I ~ (' ; \" \ ;! ~ -' ~ , .. ;" I ' . j ~\ ~ , I r \ ,~ ~ I); \1 - t'." I . I \ ' .-' \ i , \, r, ., i . " \ - , , I...: i j \ 4 ",\ 1 . ,,~ \ ~t: ~ I I I I i i : " f/ I . Greenwood Shores Neighborhood Association Position "Greenwood Shores Park 'On Street' Parking" As a resident of Greenwood Shores neighborhood I support the position put forth by our neighborhood association representative. I feel that the items listed below are critical to the safety of our neighborhood. I ask that you take these items into consideration as you review the Park and Recreation Staff recommendation, November 3, 1997 and the Commissions letter of recommendation, November 9, 1997. Safety Concerns '" Warm summer days: up to 50 people, walk OR bike on Utica Lane as access to the park '" When cars are parked, as proposed, cars meeting on Utica Lane cannot safely negotiate the curve and attend to safety of pedestrians (2 blind curve photos). :1< Cars parked on the 'park side' of Utica Lane will cause congestion and obstructions for bike q foot traffic as this is the only access to the park from this neighborhood (other photos). *' Children playing in nearby residential yards are subject to being screened by parked cars when crossing the street. :1< The closer park users are allowed to park to Greenwood Shores Park the more traffic that will be generated, compromising the integrity of the park AND increasing concerns previously mentioned. The configuration of the street and the size of the park do not accommodate large volumes of street and park traffic. Alternative To Allowing Parking On The Hill/Curve On Utica Lane '" The recommendation put forth in the letter to Mayor Mancino and Council Members, dated November 9th, 1997, from Jan Lash, and on behalf of Commissioners Howe, Berg, Meger and Roeser, is seen as a safe and reasonable. *' If you should decide to consider this matter this evening, we ask that you consider the following: Allow 'on street' parking to be located, directly north of the Greenwood Shores Park entrance, on the east side of the street ONLY, where the street straightens out and does not obstruct bike and foot traffic. On the east side of this section of Utica Lane there are no houses or drivew~s, hence safety concerns are minimized. Signature(s . '/ ',~ . --/ . ~ ~!-~~~--.1:-~~~:1-~~~~~________________________________ {~.30' ~(2. e_ /,;JlJ. 7) ,- '1 112 ' -- h~/ ?' 1C:t._____ WL2.--~-12_____(dJff.L~~ J.l2.__2~~__ ~:.. .~--------------------------------------------- --~L'~--~:_~~L:________________________________________________________________ Name(s): Address: Date: Greenwood Shores Neighborhood Association Position "Greenwood Shores Park 'On Street' Parking" As a resident of Greenwood Shores neighborhood I support the position put forth by our neighborhood association representative. I feel that the items listed below are critical to the safety of our neighborhood. I ask that you take these items into consideration as you review the Park and Recreation Staff recommendation, November 3, 199i and the Commissions letter of recommendation, November 9, 199i. Safety Concerns * Warm summer days: up to 50 people, walk OR bike on Utica Lane as access to the park * When cars are parked, as proposed, cars meeting on Utica Lane cannot safely negotiate the curve and attend to safety of pedestrians (2 blind curve photos). '" Cars parked on the 'park side' of Utica Lane will cause congestion and obstructions for bike & foot traffic as this is the only access to the park from this neighborhood (other photos). * Children playing in nearby residential yards are subject to being screened by parked cars when crossing the street. '" The closer park users are allowed to park to Greenwood Shores Park the more traffic that will be generated, compromising the integrity of the park AND increasing concerns previously mentioned. The configuration of the street and the size of the park do not accommodate large volumes of street and park traffic. Alternative To Allowing Parking On The Hill/Curve On Utica Lane * The recommendation put forth in the letter to Mayor Mancino and Council Members, dated November 9th, 1997, from Jan Lash, and on behalf of Commissioners Howe, Berg, Meger and Roeser, is seen as a safe and reasonable. * If you should decide to consider this matter this evening, we ask that you consider the following: Allow 'on street' parking to be located, directly north of the Greenwood Shores Park entrance, on the east side of the street ONLY, where the street straightens out and does not obstruct bike and foot traffic. On the east side of this section of Utica Lane there are no houses or drivewa~s, hence safety concerns are minimized. -- ~-::. .--? Q N a me(s): ___.J..8.:!~.t...{'d-,}---.:--~~~---~U~t~t~Le_-_------------------------------------ Add ress: ~~~!l...~J~l.;.~[l.6!..---.L[J hL_____________________________ ~ ~~ LJ 5 i gna tu re(s) :'---_ --L-I~:1L'_ll(.;.~_y...-'--/:;!..~J~---------------------------------------- II /, ~'1 J Date: /(u/~ -----------)------~ ------------------------------------------------------------- /' . /""('( 1",,'...1 c.-'-/ U/,(/1 c- 'feu,,"',;>I, t ;' 1\( 'c.... -' "<->....... '- ~/ ,I /_ - ';--/A' " ,.' ! ,;- ( ,/ / ,.:P (..f.Sc/) l. S /':>:"'U .5 oj'J., "I,t 'f] O't- /'/11 (IC i.. ~~r- .....-- J , , , I" 'f ,/ J ,I) ;: - c - - I ,'.- _(u ,L1,>J.(('/z.. he:.. ().j(~1I./C>/ /11; s ,~/-1r--' t, I C' UC ,./.:',/J,':c,. t.)C-c-/ ) [[ll',-1 t. ~_f(",~;N~e / ( C (,,{ r'c./ he' Greenwood Shores Neighborhood Association Position "Greenwood Shores Park 'On Street' Parking" As a resident of Greenwood Shores neighborhood I support the position put forth by our neighborhood association representative. I feel that the items listed below are critical to the safety of our neighborhood. I ask that you take these items into consideration as you review the Park and Recreation Staff recommendation, November 3, 199i and the Commissions letter of recommendation, November 9, 199i. Safety Concerns '" Warm summer days: up to 50 people, walk OR bike on Utica Lane as access to the park '" When cars are parked, as proposed, cars meeting on Utica Lane cannot safely negotiate the curve and attend to safety of pedestrians (2 blind curve photos). '" Cars parked on the 'park side' of Utica Lane will cause congestion and obstructions for bike Er foot traffic as this is the only access to the park from this neighborhood (other photos). *' Children playing in nearby residential yards are subject to being screened by parked cars when crossing the street. '" The closer park users are allowed to park to Greenwood Shores Park the more traffic that will be generated, compromising the integrity of the park AND increasing concerns previously mentioned. The configuration of the street and the size of the park do not accommodate large volumes of street and park traffic. Alternative To Allowing Parking On The Hill/Curve On Utica Lane *' The recommendation put forth in the letter to Mayor Mancino and Council Members, dated November 9th, 1997, from Jan Lash, and on behalf of Commissioners Howe, Berg, Meger and Roeser, is seen as a safe and reasonable. '" If you should decide to consider this matter this evening, we ask that you consider the following: Allow 'on street' parking to be located, directly north of the Greenwood Shores Park entrance, on the east side of the street ONLY, where the street straightens out and does not obstruct bike and foot traffic. On the east side of this section of Utica Lane there are no houses or driveways, hence safety concerns are minimized. Name~~ ~~_~~.) Address: Jf~ ~<-'4L?Uy-d_!::17. C-/Jq~dfh;;. Signature(s): --~--:~-.::;."--.l!~'7:.s:..0E?~~ ___________ / , Date: __-A~ Cj!._-L_Q ~~. -1122-----___________________ Greenwood Shores Neighborhood Association Position "Greenwood Shores Park 'On Street' Parking" As a resident of Greenwood Shores neighborhood I support the position put forth by our neighborhood association representative. I feel that the items listed below are critical to the safety of our neighborhood. I ask that you take these items into consideration as you review the Park and Recreation Staff recommendation, November 3,1997 and the Commissions letter of recommendation, November 9, 1997. Safety Concerns *' Warm summer days: up to 50 people, walk OR bike on Utica Lane as access to the park *' When cars are parked, as proposed, cars meeting on Utica Lane cannot safely negotiate the curve and attend to safety of pedestrians (2 blind curve photos). * Cars parked on the 'park side' of Utica Lane will cause congestion and obstructions for bike & foot traffic as this is the only access to the park from this neighborhood (other photos). * Children playing in nearby residential yards are subject to being screened by parked cars when crossing the street. * The closer park users are allowed to park to Greenwood Shores Park the more traffic that will be generated, compromising the integrity of the park AND increasing concerns previously mentioned. The configuration of the street and the size of the park do not accommodate large volumes of street and park traffic. Alternative To Allowing Parking On The Hill/Curve On Utica Lane * The recommendation put forth in the letter to Mayor Mancino and Council Members, dated November 9th, 1997, from Jan Lash, and on behalf of Commissioners Howe, Berg, Meger and Roeser, is seen as a safe and reasonable. * If you should decide to consider this matter this evening, we ask that you consider the following: Allow 'on street' parking to be located, directly north of the Greenwood Shores Park entrance, on the east side of the street ONLY, where the street straightens out and does not obstruct bike and foot traffic. On the east side of this section of Utica Lane there are no houses or drivewa>,:s, hence safety concerns are minimized. / ____' ~~D+-__t~~S._~!LL_---/--_=}-t~{?..Q.--j/\.5:~~l!.>"-~- __tG!i!:lQ--_~ .L,=-l,.lij~~b.___l.LLLu-------------------- jk~_dA_~~--.-!~~_1lli.,IlAL_~ <'/ ~ /; ___~~__-~~--~:t-_~_-_--_--_--_--_-_--~-___-----____---_-_------ Name(s): Address: Signature(s): Date: Greenwood Shores Neighborhood Association Position ccGreenwood Shores Park 'On Street' Parking" As a resident of Greenwood Shores neighborhood I support the position put forth by our neighborhood association representative. I feel that the items listed below are critical to the safety of our neighborhood. I ask that you take these items into consideration as you review the Park and Recreation Staff recommendation, November 3, 199 i and the Commissions letter of recommendation, November 9,1997. Safety Concerns * Warm summer days: up to 50 people, walk OR bike on Utica Lane as access to the park * When cars are parked, as proposed, cars meeting on Utica Lane cannot safely negotiate the curve and attend to safety of pedestrians (2 blind curve photos). * Cars parked on the 'park side' of Utica Lane will cause congestion and obstructions for bike Er foot traffic as this is the only access to the park from this neighborhood (other photos). *' Children playing in nearby residential yards are subject to being screened by parked cars when crossing the street. * The closer park users are allowed to park to Greenwood Shores Park the more traffic that will be generated, compromising the integrity of the park AND increasing concerns previously mentioned. The configuration of the street and the size of the park do not accommodate large volumes of street and park traffic. Alternative To Allowing Parking On The Hill/Curve On Utica Lane * The recommendation put forth in the letter to Mayor Mancino and Council Members, dated November 9th, 1997, from Jan Lash, and on behalf of Commissioners Howe, Berg, Meger and Roeser, is seen as a safe and reasonable. * If you should decide to consider this matter this evening, we ask that you consider the following: Allow 'on street' parking to be located, directly north of the Greenwood Shores Park entrance, on the east side of the street ONLY, where the street straightens out and does not obstruct bi ke and foot traffic. On the east side of this section of Utica Lane there are no houses or drivew~s, hence safety concerns are minimized. Date: -----~~~-----~'==~~~~i:~~____________________________________ ___JI Q.(_Qi~~.i~':::l.:J:_______C:....G.j"-,,-~-.__Clf..~ 4!i.!~~____ ...----- ,/ , ~~~~ ----------------------------------- --_____L_~_::_ ~!-~~~--~-7-------------___________________________________ --- I,,,, fJ {.... _, I,... r_.....::..,."'[,,; I I.... -rLL '0 rvv.,' t.v ..: ""' ~.................. --.;> v -\:Lf Name(s): Address: Signature(s): B-,:~ '5-tzrS ::5" + '- r '-<., f'.. CJ k~J c...:-> . Greenwood Shores Neighborhood Association Position "Greenwood Shores Park 'On Street' Parking" As a resident of Greenwood Shores neighborhood I support the position put forth by our neighborhood association representative. I feel that the items listed below are critical to the safety of our neighborhood. I ask that you take these items into consideration as you review the Park and Recreation Staff recommendation, November 3, 1997 and the Commissions letter of recommendation, November 9, 1997. Safety Concerns * Warm summer days: up to 50 people, walk OR bike on Utica Lane as access to the park * When cars are parked, as proposed, cars meeting on Utica Lane cannot safely negotiate the curve and attend to safety of pedestrians (2 blind curve photos). *' Cars parked on the 'park side' of Utica Lane will cause congestion and obstructions for bike & foot traffic as this is the only access to the park from this neighborhood (other photos), ,.. Children playing in nearby residential yards are subject to being screened by parked cars when crossing the street. *' The closer park users are allowed to park to Greenwood Shores Park the more traffic that will be generated, compromising the integrity of the park AND increasing concerns previously mentioned. The configuration of the street and the size of the park do not accommodate large volumes of street and park traffic. Alternative To Allowing Parking On The Hill/Curve On Utica Lane ... The recommendation put forth in the letter to Mayor Mancino and Council Members, dated November 9th, 1997, from Jan Lash, and on behalf of Commissioners Howe, Berg, Meger and Roeser, is seen as a safe and reasonable. ;.. If you should decide to consider this matter this evening, we ask that you consider the following: Allow 'on street' parking to be located, directly north of the Greenwood Shores Park entrance, on the east side of the street ONLY, where the street straightens out and does not obstruct bike and foot traffic. On the east side of this section of Utica Lane there are no houses or drivewa~s, hence safety concerns are minimized. Name(s): __J ~ V- .J ~ 0'-\ ~ , .- Date: 1l;1"L~ha.wllee LIV _ qC0Y\jd{UAJ~ ~kl\t __~___l1j_1!!I9, 7 - b:(); )ALl)- t&I/k.- /1110 /17 l1ntp U-h~ 1\h " ~\ I, ~J\ 1.,\1 U C;> J ( 7 \..-'A\u \. \\ Address: Signature(s): , "'- \ - Greenwood Shores Neighborhood Association Position "Greenwood Shores Park cOn Street' Parking" As a resident of Greenwood Shores neighborhood I support the position put forth by our neighborhood association representative. I feel that the items listed below are critical to the safety of our neighborhood. I ask that you take these items into consideration as you review the Park and Recreation Staff recommendation, November 3, 1997 and the Commissions letter of recommendation, November 9,1997. Safety Concerns * Warm summer days: up to 50 people, walk OR bike on Utica Lane as access to the park * When cars are parked, as proposed, cars meeting on Utica Lane cannot safely negotiate the curve and attend to safety of pedestrians (2 blind curve photos). * Cars parked on the 'park side' of Utica Lane will cause congestion and obstructions for bike Er foot traffic as this is the only access to the park from this neighborhood (other photos). ;;. Children playing in nearby residential yards are subject to being screened by parked cars when crossing the street. ;;. The closer park users are allowed to park to Greenwood Shores Park the more traffic that will be generated, compromising the integrity of the park AND increasing concerns previously mentioned. The configuration of the street and the size of the park do not accommodate large volumes of street and park traffic. Alternative To Allowing Parking On The Hill/Curve On Utica Lane ;;. The recommendation put forth in the letter to Mayor Mancino and Council Members, dated November 9th, 1997, from Jan Lash, and on behalf of Commissioners Howe, Berg, Meger and Roeser, is seen as a safe and reasonable. ;;.. If you should decide to consider this matter this evening, we ask that you consider the following: Allow 'on street' parking to be located, directly north of the Greenwood Shores Park entrance, on the east side of the street ONLY, where the street straightens out and does not obstruct bike and foot traffic. On the east side of this section of Utica Lane there are no houses or driveways, hence safe concerns are minimized. " I I ,1 Name(s): -~)JIl___i / _,jftt-_______________________ Address: ~___..:., /~----------------------- Signature(s): ~-: '~A~ [)ate: ~~~~~~~~----::.~-::.-::.-::.-::.~-::._::._::.~_::.~_::.~_::~-:::::: Greenwood Shores Neighborhood Association position "Greenwood Shores Park 'On Street' Parking" As a resident of Greenwood Shores neighborhood I support the position put forth by our neighborhood association representative. I feel that the items listed below are critical to the safety of our neighborhood. I ask that you take these items into consideration as you review the Park and Recreation Staff recommendation, November 3, 199i and the Commissions letter of recommendation, November 9, 1997. Safety Concerns < * Warm summer days: up to 50 people, walk OR bike on Utica Lane as access to the park * When cars are parked, as proposed, cars meeting on Utica Lane cannot safely negotiate the curve and attend to safety of pedestrians (2 blind curve photos). *' Cars parked on the 'park side' of Utica Lane will cause congestion and obstructions for bike E.r foot traffic as this is the only access to the park from this neighborhood (other photos). *' Children playing in nearby residential yards are subject to being screened by parked cars when crossing the street. *' The closer park users are allowed to park to Greenwood Shores Park the more traffic that will be generated, compromising the integrity of the park AND increasing concerns previously mentioned. The configuration of the street and the size of the park do not accommodate large volumes of street and park traffic. Alternative To Allowing Parking On The Hill/Curve On Utica Lane " The recommendation put forth in the letter to Mayor Mancino and Council Members, dated November 9th, 1997, from Jan Lash, and on behalf of Commissioners Howe, Berg, Meger and Roeser, is seen as a safe and reasonable. ,I ~' cJ .{\),,' '+1 f Jl L- - 'YL-0Z" ;.. If you should decide to consisl-6 thisimatter this Jvening, we ask that you consider the following: Allow 'on street'1>arking to be located, directly north of the Greenwood Shores Park entrance, on the east side of the street ONLY, where the street straightens out and does not obstruct bike and foot traffic. On the east side of this section of Utica Lane there are no houses or drivewa)::s, hence safety concerns are minimized. Address: cu ,~ _______ ~~~1~~-~~-~~--~~(~~~!~~------------------------------------------ .-;~..:)Z; !lh.!:L>.-- L /~&'-L----------------------------------------------- /'\ I ',," J " . . // J.. . .;,' . /' __~_~~L-l~-~--_~~~ii~{~1-------~!~~~J~--~;:=~~~:~~~~-------------------------- Name(s): Signature(s): Date: --~~~~?j~-------------------~----------------------------------------------------