Loading...
PRC 1997 11 25CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 25, 1997 Chairwoman Lash called the meeting to order at 7~30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jan Lash, Fred Berg, Ron Roeser, Jim Manders, Jane Meger, Rod Franks, and Mike Howe STAFF PRESENT: Todd Hoffman, Park and Rec Director; Patty Dexter, Recreation Supervisors, Priscilla APPROVAL OF AGENDA: The agenda was approved with the addition by Todd Hoffman under Administrative Presentations regarding recent budget cuts by the City Council which will affect the Park and Recreation Commission. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: A REQUEST TO RE-INSTATE PLEASURE SKATING RINK, MINNEWASHTA HEIGHTS PARK, CINDY HANSON~ 6201 DOGWOOD AVENUE. Cindy Hanson: My name is Cindy Hanson and I brought with me signatures from the Minnewashta Heights Association... sheets here. We had a skating rink that was in our Heights park for approximately I believe 19 years and it was removed last year. And the reason that I was not told directly but we heard that it was removed because the person who plowed the park did not see tracks when he would come to plow the rink and there could be many reasons for this. Some may being that when there is a lot of snow you're not going to be out skating. And we do not have a wanning house at that park so when it's bitter cold, there's not going to be a lot of people skating also. Within a four block walking distance of our park we have no fewer than 150 school aged children and in the Minnewashta Heights Association we have approximately 45 children and we believe that it's a safe place for the kids to be. It's a good alternative for not going out on the lake. You never know what the conditions are going to be there. So we're requesting that you reconsider the decision and hopefully that we can get a skating rink back at our park so that we've got something for the kids to do that's safe and get us through another winter I guess is the main. So I can present these too? Berg: How many do you have there, just for the sake of discussion? Cindy Hanson: I believe there's about 70. Berg: How many are in the Association? Someone from the audience made a statement that was not picked up on tape. Berg: Were there any other.., from the neighborhood as to why? Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 25, 1997 Cindy Hanson: As to why it was removed or? Berg: Why there was a sense that it wasn't getting any use. I mean were they all saying well we all use it? Cindy Hanson: The people that we talked to with kids, there's also the age that there are a lot of small kids that are not getting to skating age. So I can't explain why people felt it was not being used. I live right across the street from the park myself and most days there were people out there using the park and using the skating rink. So unless they're driving by at odd times, you know during the day when obviously the children are in school and it's not going to be used. You know I can't explain why some people would say it's not being used but I live in there. I know for a fact that it was. I've got children myself that would go over after school and put on their skates and go skating so I know it was used. Whether it was used to the fullest capacity, I can't say. Lash: Is there a light there? Cindy Hanson: There is a light but it's not directed at, where the skating rink is. That may make a difference. If it was on the other side of the pole because they put there's play equipment on one side of the pole and that's the light, the side the light is on. So if it was on the other side of the pole, maybe that would make a difference .... it makes it nice for skating on, especially on snowy evenings. It's a great source of entertainment and enjoyment so we'd really like to see it come back. Lash: Okay. Does anybody else have a question for Cindy? Howe: Where are the next closest rinks to that? Cindy Hanson: In Chanhassen, the next closest rink would at the Recreation Center or they're going to now, this year put a skating rink at the Round House Park so we have within the western half of the city, there are no other pleasure rinks. Lash: Probably how about the one that's in. Hoffman: Cathcart. Lash: Yeah. Does that one have one? But that's on the other side of TH 7 so that's hard for kids. Cindy Hanson: Yeah, I mean you can't cross the highway very safely. So I know out of all the parks, there will be like 6 pleasure rinks on the eastern side of Chanhassen and only 2 on the other side and we're going to have to drive to go to a skating rink if we can't get a skating rink in our neighborhood. And the chance, you know that cuts down usage considerably. Lash: Anybody else have questions for Cindy? Okay, thanks Cindy. 2 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 25, 1997 Cindy Hanson: Thank you very much. Lash: Can we discuss this? But if we want to motion on it, would we have to table it or can we move? Go forward tonight? Hoffman: You probably should wait to the next agenda, December 10th... I'd like to know the discussion. I think I can lend a little bit of quantification to the insight that the park maintenance employees giving us as far as use. Minnewashta Heights would certainly rank at the bottom of all the pleasure rinks which they were actively flooding. It's actually when they're flooding, which they do on a daily basis, the rink is not a lot of use that day or that series of flooding. And they do this many times in the evening when there is active participation on the site. And over the years, as budgets became more restrictive and you've got to take a look at where.., that was the information the commission took as the dagger, the end of Minnewashta Heights skating rink. I can certainly understand the value of these rinks. I've lived in other neighborhoods where the rinks were not highly used but certainly are nice to have for times that you would like to. Lash: I think it might be worth us, if we table this also having a discussion on do we want to start looking at service areas for these also as the city's growing and the number of neighborhood parks are expanding. Is there a motion to table this until the next available agenda? Meger: So moved. Lash: Is there a second? Roeser: I'll second. Meger moved, Roeser seconded to table action on the request to re-instate a pleasure skating rink at Minnewashta Heights Park until the next meeting. All voted in favor, except Berg who abstained, and the motion carried. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Lash: I had one correction that I noticed. Jane, I'm assuming you noticed it too. Where Patty's comments regarding the softball residential deals, anyway. That was all listed as Jane and those were Patty's comments. Hoffman: Which page Jan? Lash: Oh, was it page 17 did it start? Right, page 17. It says Meger. You know ifI could share some of my experience in my former place of employment. And then there was a couple others that followed. Patty was following up on questions. Anybody else have? Berg: I had one on page 11 that's real minor. The first pearl that I had on that page at the top. Because I think it should read because it is unreasonable. Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 25, 1997 Lash: Those kind of changes make a big difference. Berg: A big difference when somebody looks later on and thinks oh! Lash: Okay. Anybody else? Is there a motion to approve the Minutes as corrected? Roeser: I will. Lash: Is there a second? Howe: Second. Roeser moved, Howe seconded to approve the Minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated October 28, 1997 as corrected on pages 17 and 11. All voted in favor and the motion carried. APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF A LAND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL~ CHURCH/INSTITUTIONAL USE ON 273 ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF HWY 5 AND NORTH OF COULTER BLYD AT STONE CREEK DRIYE~ LAND GROUP~ INC. AND BLUFF CREEK PARTNERS~ BLUFF CREEK CORPORATE CENTER. Todd Hoffman presented the staff report on this item. Lash: Okay. Do we have questions of staff'? Okay, can we move onto the applicant? Liv Homeland: Hi. I'm Liv Homeland, President of Land Group. We've been working on this development for some time and have put in place now office warehouse on the properly. We originally, about lwo years ago came in with housing and were told they didn't want townhouses so we came back with something else. In the process too the Family of Christ Church has been working with us for some time and have selected this as their site that they would like to locate on, and part of the reason is that they're in a position where they have the creek and access to community center. That proximity and that value of that creek area. One of the things we've been looking at is, we had proposed dedicating both sides, the east side of the creek and the west side of the creek and in discussions with Todd, I think that there is more merit to the east side of the creek being dedicated than the west. The west is kind of more of a secondary creek corridor from what he has expressed. But on the east side you are right next to your trail system and to the school along that portion of it that is going to be an open area for some time. So I think we are still requesting that perhaps that one acre, the other side is large. It's about an acre, 1.35 acres. That that perhaps might be a dedication and an ofl~et against the park fees. Part of this too is... the church is very excited about the site and has been working actively to develop this and they're also concerned with park fees too and would like to see some of it be dedicated and be part of the planning you know for their church with trails and so on. We are at this point at concept plan. We're not in final stages for all the things that we propose to do on our site and it's concept plan only and certainly we will want more input from Todd and, on trails and so on as we 4 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 25, 1997 go and certainly from the Park and Recreation Board. I think the site is extremely attractive and I've been really pleased when I drive down Coulter and I see the new bridge and the trail and it's a very, very nice amenity so we are very pleased about the way that it's turned out. It's done some nice planning and nice work there and we're pleased about that. We're certainly willing to you know dedicate an easement. I think Todd is saying perhaps easement is more preferable than dedicating a portion where the trail crosses the site. We have some concerns also because there was a ponding created in that part of the portion that we're talking about dedicating here and I think there would probably need to be an easement there too if it's not dedicated but there are, we can certainly work through that process. So I guess as a result we would ask your consideration of that one side as a possible dedication. Randy, we have someone here from Family of Christ Church also who would like to speak. Randy Kapsul: I'm Randy Kapsul with Family of Christ in Chanhassen and we would like to be the owners of this particular parcel as drawn here.., parcel closest to the park. And really if you take a look at this, it really is a continuation of the park. Across Bluff Creek. Up to the border of the property. I think Liv said the east side but it's the west side. So the west side is really the continuation of our property. The west side of the recreation center. With all of the setbacks and everything in this particular parcel or development. There is a lot of green space developed and this would make it much more reasonable situation for the developer. Obviously we have a vested interest and we'd very much appreciate your consideration. Lash: Thanks Randy. We'll open this up for commissioners comments or questions. How about if we start down with you Mike. Howe: Thanks. The west side, that's the part of the creek that we're going to keep as Outlot A. Liv Homeland: Yeah, Outlot A. Lash: Do you have anything else? Jane. Meger: Not right now. Lash: Rod. Franks: You had indicated earlier that the setback requirements would basically cover the whole of Outlot A. Is that what you had mentioned earlier? And you're not considering the designation of the Outlot B, which is on the east side of the property? Liv Homeland: Right... Franks: And I did get a little confused when you were talking about the east side and the west side too. Liv Homeland: The west side is Outlot A. 5 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 25, 1997 Franks: And which one was the 1.3 acres? Liv Homeland: 1.3 acres... Franks: And Outlot A is approximately 1 acre? Liv Homeland: Yes. Franks: Thank you. Lash: I have a question I guess for Todd. To us, or to the city, ultimately what is the difference between it being protected and being dedicated to the city? I mean we own it if they dedicate it to the city. They own it if it's protected but they can't really do anything with it. Is that? Hoffman: That's it. Lash: Okay. I just wanted to make sure I understood. Would there be maintenance issues for them that if they were to dedicate it to the city they would be relieved of maintaining it? Or if it's protected, I mean if it's just protected and they can't do anything with it, if it the kind of site that they would have to do something to maintain it so would they be better off just dedicating it to u so they don't have to deal with it? Hoffman: Those conversations typically lead to tax implications. You don't have to pay taxes on it... Lash: But this is a church so. Hoffman: Well yeah. Depending on who owns outlot A as you go through the platting process. But that's going to be it's natural creek vegetation and buff'er zone. A corridor that's not a great deal of maintenance that goes with that area. Lash: Was this an area that we ever had envisioned as putting a trail along? Hoffman: The comprehensive trail plan identifies a trail in the creek corridor which has been initiated on the west side of the creek and will continue to the north under Highway 5. Lash: On the west side of the, on the west side? Hoffman: Yep. Lash: That's kind of, we have creek on both sides, east and west, right? Hoffman: Yeah. Lash: So you're talking the west side? 6 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 25, 1997 Hoffman: The west side. Right here is the existing sidewalk as it comes up, has a path that's constructed on the recreation center site. These are the soccer fields, the little soccer fields right on... Roeser: But it won't be right down by the creek? Hoffman: No. It's across that. Up on the hill. Lash: But do we have the east side? Is that part of the Rec Center properly? The west side of the west? Hoffman: Correct. Lash: Okay. Hoffman: Too many creeks. Lash: Too many west sides. Okay, thanks. Berg: And that trail's not scheduled to be finished until the work on Highway 5... Hoffman: As far as it continuing to the north, yeah. There wasn't a need to... We didn't feel we should dead end it up there because the match, the construction activity will come a long ways down... Lash: Okay. Ron? Jim? Roeser: I was just curious, we really don't need that... Nobody can build on it or anything... dedicating for parkland... I have some trouble with that. Lash: Is that it Ron? Jim. Manders: Just a little more additional clarification on the existing boundaries of the creek. The Rec Center park.., all the way up to the creek. So this properly would border on the west side. Lash: It'd be on the east side. Of the west creek. Manders: So that would be all the way up to the creek on the east side. So what they're talking about is some kind of a boundary on that east side. Hoffman: Yep. Manders: And then is the other branch of the creek bordering on the other side of the properly? Is that how the property's configured? That that creek follows all the way on that side? 7 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 25, 1997 Hoffman: Yeah, there's two creeks there. Or I mean two branches that split. The school is here. The main branch comes down. Winds across Galpin .... down, drops under Highway 5. Parallels the site on the west side of the property.., crossing underneath Coulter... This is a branch that comes north to this connection point where they connect and across Coulter... Manders: Those lines in there are just, what? Elevation lines or. Hoffman: Tributaries... Manders: Tributaries... ? Hoffman: This is the main branch... Manders: But I mean that secondary branch still goes through there. Hoffman: Yep. Their boundary on the west side. Manders: Is there consideration for two underpasses under TH 5 I thought? Hoffman: The other one would be at Lake Ann. Manders: Oh, that's further back? Okay. Hoffman: Back at Riley Creek. They've got Bluff Creek and Riley Creek. Manders: And then the right-of-way that we're asking for is right in the comer by TH 5? Hoffman: Yep. Right down here. Manders: Oh down there? So it's by Coulter as opposed to? Lash: And that right-of-way is for what? Hoffman: That trail... Lash: Okay. Howe: One more thing ifI can. There's some wording in the narrative about the continuation of Stone Creek Drive up to TH 5 and the right-in, right-out. Does that cut right through their property or is that, what would that be? Liv Homeland: Right now, in factjust... Howe: Thank you. 8 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 25, 1997 Lash: Anyone else? Franks: One more question ifI may. My map is kind of hard to read but is this dashed line here the setback line for the property? Hoffman: The 100 foot creek setback. Franks: The 100 foot creek setback. Is that this line here? Thank you. Lash: Okay. Anyone else? Anyone willing to venture a motion on this? Berg: I move that we recommend to the City that they collect full park and trail dedication fees for the development and that the applicant is encouraged to plan.., internal trail connections from their site to surrounding trail systems thereby maximizing benefit to the recreational system of the employees. In the event that the applicant deems dedication of the creek outlet into public domain desirable, the Park and Rec Commission would review this when the off'er is made. But again no park fee credits be granted. And we also recommend the applicant dedicate a 20 foot trail easement over the trail segment located in the southeast comer of the site that lies outside the Coulter Boulevard right-of-way. Lash: Is there a second to that motion? Howe: Second. Berg moved, Howe seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend that the City collect full park and trail dedication fees for the development and that the applicant is encouraged to plan internal trail connections from their site to surrounding trail systems thereby maximizing benefit to the recreational system of the employees. In the event that the applicant deems dedication of the creek outlet into public domain desirable, the Park and Rec Commission would review this when the offer is made. But again no park fee credits be granted. And we also recommend the applicant dedicate a 20 foot trail easement over the trail segment located in the southeast corner of the site that lies outside the Coulter Boulevard right-of-way. All voted in favor, except Meger who abstained and the motion carried. REVIEW RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING GREENWOOD SHORES ACCESSIBILITY REPORT. Hoffman: Thank you Chair Lash, members of the Commission. On November l0th 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 rd commission s motion of September 23 was clarified, as they typically are. Summarized 9 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 25, 1997 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 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. The motion was seconded by Berg and all voted in favor. In response to that motion I conducted a stafl} 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 l0th 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 l0th. 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 10 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 25, 1997 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 off by 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 if it'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 normally 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. 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 11 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 25, 1997 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 increasing 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 firmly, 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. 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. 12 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 25, 1997 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 be just madness to jam all these cars, the potential to create this hazard in there when you have all of the people. You 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 arrangement. Plus the fact that there's a terrific grade down into that park so I 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 I 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. Greg Blaufuss: I think you said you were fired of hearing about this. Well, we're fired of hearing about it too. Okay, with all due respect we're fired 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. 13 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 25, 1997 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 I 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. Manteufl'el 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 correct? 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? 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? 14 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 25, 1997 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 staffis to, isn't the function of the staffto 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. 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? 15 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 25, 1997 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 again 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 concerns 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. 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 16 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 25, 1997 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 I 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. Manteufl'el, she had informed 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. Manteufl'el 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 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. 17 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 25, 1997 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. Bill 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. 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 18 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 25, 1997 engineering department thinks is unnecessary I think was lwo 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 717 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. 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. 19 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 25, 1997 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 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 evidentially there is parking on one side of that street. My preference would be to retain that parking and whichever side is appropriate, go 2O Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 25, 1997 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 blufl~ 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 definitely.., open up the parking on the east side... We can work out the fire 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. 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 ofa 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 21 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 25, 1997 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. We are a commission made up of human beings and as human beings I think everyone in this room probably has made a mistake or lwo 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 may or may not have been informed before... I honestly don't recall. We erred 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 erred 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 ofthe...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. 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? 22 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 25, 1997 Hoffman: Is that the north side? Berg: The side closest to Highway 5. CR 17. 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'll just 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 expert 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 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 23 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 25, 1997 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 was thinking to myself, the neighbors are going to start calling the Chaska Sheriff's 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 blufl~ 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 any one 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. 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 24 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 25, 1997 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 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. (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? 25 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 25, 1997 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. 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 mm, 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 Utic~ 26 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 25, 1997 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:... 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. 27 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 25, 1997 Lash: Okay, so starting at about Ward's house? Is that right? On the east side. Franks: For point of clarification Jim ifI 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 parking 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 in-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? 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. 28 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 25, 1997 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. 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 visual learner. 29 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 25, 1997 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... 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 blufl~ 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. 3O Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 25, 1997 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. 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 comer. 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. 31 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 25, 1997 Lash: Oh. We want to go also with Berg would like to I think make something about the warning 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 10:00 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... I don't want to have that park. Let's not do anything with that. Let's just have Children at Play as a warning sign. That would be the only part of my motion. Meger: Second. Berg moved, Meger seconded to reconunend 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 comer.., but this is a special... Lash: Okay, thanks. PROGRAM REPORTS: A. CHANHASSEN RECREATION CENTER MONTHLY REPORT. Priscilla: Chairman Lash and Commission. This has a lot to do with our past, present and upcoming programs at the Rec Center. I'll start out with the past programs. We had the Halloween Party at the end of October and it was a huge success. We have record breaking numbers attendance. We had a lot of you, or a few of you here, of the commission volunteering and we want to thank you for that. Space camp was another program that also was filled to capacity. As for the present program we have 3rd through 5th grade floor hockey, which started last week. Also preschool basketball. The YMCA sponsored program also started last week. And the first session was filled. The second session is also filled now... Okay, the upcoming programs and special events that we're looking forward to are the Santa Branch in December and 32 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 25, 1997 the Daddy Daughter Date Night in February. We started taking registration and selling tickets for both of those. Berg: What's the age for the daughter? Lash: You're too old. Berg: What about my daughter? Never mind then... Priscilla: Space camp is coming up again. The new one, Pioneer Camp is starting a two day program. Howe: What do they do there? Priscilla: They, it's a two day program and it's the same guy who.., learn how to hunt. It's a new program. A couple more then, our babysitting clinic, sports spectacular. The second year of 3 on 3 basketball, the adult basketball league. Self defense and then the three different photo sessions that we have. Memory books, photo organization and photo album workshop. As for the ongoing programs that we offer all year long, the dance for fun program, which Patty will talk about later, is doing well. There's been an increase in the enrollment which new classes have been added and also a new instructor has been hired to help out with that. Tai Kwon Do Doe is another.., and we have started offering an after school class which has also helped ofl~et some of the growth in the evening classes. And again we've been offering the 50% off the community room rental rate and that has brought in some new groups. And has been busy. And then another note. One of our facility supervisors, Bob, which you.., because he was here a month, has left and we have a new facility supervisor. His name is Tom who we want to welcome... Lash: Okay, does anybody have a question or anything for Priscilla about her report? Sounds good. Thanks. Okay, we'll go onto the next item. B. CHANHASSEN RECREATION CENTER 10 MONTH FINANCIAL REPORT. Dexter: Thank you Chairperson Jan. You know I'd just like to try and keep the commission updated as to where we're at as far as our revenues and... We're doing well in revenue, but like I stated at my six month report, which revenue that we brought in, a large portion of it is for.., a lot of that to the Y program. Only 35% of that so brought in more revenue but it also brought.., so that's kind of the flip side of that. So you know we're doing good. I feel good that overall, all of our revenue sources have increased versus last year and that's a good sign. However though we're looking for the remainder.., as far as our expenditures so with that I have really tighten the wallet a little bit. And we'll be looking at... Lash: And our goal is how many years out for us to be operating? Hoffman: Original goal was 3 years to be 100%. We will not reach. We have lots of ground... Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 25, 1997 Lash: Is that something we need to talk to City Council about? Hoffman: They're aware of it. Lash: They know, okay. C. HALLOWEEN PARTY EVALUATION. Lash: That was from Jerry, and he was very thorough. Anybody have comments you want Jerry to know about? Hoffman: He wants to thank all of you for your contributions. Lash: ... well it was a great job. I was there. It was huge. And I did think that he had a good point with moving something from the front lobby because it did get really pretty congested there so. Face painting, was that what it was? Yeah. Okay. The next item is fall dance registration Patty. D. FALL DANCE. Dexter: All right, thank you. I once again wanted to kind of share with you a different look at our dance program and give you an idea of where our participants are coming from. Kind of where we were 2 years ago to where we are now. Like Priscilla said, we have now hired our third dance instructor. Caroline Anderson... and she also teaches at a private dance studio. We're very fortunate to have her and she is picking up, we're offering.., class now and she will be teaching that. And right now the way it sits, the aerobics.., and that open time because our evenings are packed solid with either aerobic or dance. Just solid. And then we just hope that our, well we expect our winter enrollment which is taking place now. We're going to probably.., and I do want to give credit to my dance coordinator. Lash: And these are their mailing addresses, right? Because that's not always reflective of really where they live so. Okay. Thanks Patty. E. 1998 FEBRUARY FESTIVAL. Lash: Jerry gave us a pretty nice little report here. Does anybody have anything? Roeser: I'm not going to get my cross country trail... Lash: You know I made some notes tonight Ron and why can't we do that right at Lake Ann? We have trails right. Roeser: We already cut it out... 34 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 25, 1997 Lash: Yeah because tonight I was looking this over and I tried to come up, I thought maybe we could sort of rejuvenate this whole thing by trying to throw in a few new things that we, or resurface some old things and find out maybe they were ditched because they really weren't popular. I don't know but I know in the past we had golf. Did that not go? It didn't go? Hoffman: Well it didn't go. Lash: One year it did and one year it didn't. Roeser: Scuba diving. Hoffman: ... tough to get organized as well. Get people out there to do it. Lash: Well these were just some ideas that popped into my head that I thought sounded fun and something Jerry could just do in his spare time to organize. I've always been trying to push for snow sculpture contest. Right down there where we have.., why not try and do that. That's something kids can do that's fun. Since we didn't have the medallion hunt in the summer, I thought we could shoot for that in the winter. That'd be fun down there and to try and see if we can put skiing in the trail. And then I know you can get from Lowry Nature Center, I don't know if you can take them out but I was wondering about snowshoes. Is that something we could offer and have a race or just rent them for people to try or I don't know. Worth looking into. And then with the open skate, I thought well maybe it'd be fun to do races. Have kids race. Skating and have little prizes for that and that might get the kids, or with the hill there, I don't know how this would work, but snow tubing. That'd be kind of fun wouldn't it? Yeah, snow tubing I thought would be fun. Hoffman: We really don't have a big hill with a mn out at Lake Ann. Parking lot... Roeser: But if you could mn out onto the lake... Lash: ... power trip going down but if there was enough. I don't know if there's enough slope or not but. Well maybe not. Who knows? They try it once. We could get them to pay for it once. Hoffman: There's not a real good slide at Lake Ann. Lash: Well anyway, I thought it was worth thinking about to investigate to see. Then the other thing, my suggestion. Having worked the prize board now numerous years, I was wondering if maybe we could opt for fewer but better or, betters not a good word. Larger prizes. Well you know, we can make it different than. No, every 30 seconds. And what happened was, you know they'd come up and then they'd get this little bag and it had a bobber and you know something in it and then the kids would be, you know, they'd open it up and they'd go you know. And the men would go. So it was, you know I think people would be happier and then I thought well maybe if you want to have them be prize amounts. If you want a $3.00 bin and a $5.00 bin or whatever and let them come up and dig into the $5.00 bin and take one out so they're not getting something 35 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 25, 1997 they already have 15 of and they might be a little happier that way. But that might be kind of messy to supervise. Berg: You're letting yourself open for about... Lash: Well if we didn't have to draw so many prizes so fast and have so many runners and keeping track of the prize list, I think it would be a little easier to take. You know if you had a wash bin and you had ziploc bags that had you know some different things in and that was the $3.00 one and then you had a $5.00 one and a $10.00 one and whatever. You take.., pick a prize. Berg: maybe just put it in a brown paper bag so they don't know what it is. Lash: No, but that's what they do and then they open it and it's like, well I already have 15 of these. Well, that's true too. Hoffman: Yeah, the snow sculpture I would think would have to take place during the event, near the lake. Howe: ... ballparks. Hoffman: I'd want to keep them all close... Lash: But there's a little more space there to do some of those things that we haven't had in the past...just can't quit talking about it. Okay, anybody else have any ideas? Berg: I like your prize board idea. Lash: Anybody else anything? Are you looking for volunteers yet? Hoffman: Not yet. Not yet but he will be. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: A. REFERENDUM PROJECT STATUS. Todd Hoffman presented the staff report on this item. Lash: Can I ask you a quick question on that one? How come it starts out on the east side and then cuts over at Majestic later, the west side. Is that just topography things that necessitate that? Hoffman: The trail currently initiates on the east side north of Highway 5. And then at Majestic Way a strong correlation to make a crossing there because of the large expanse of Prince's property on the east which will not be developed or, we're assuming it will not be developed for a long time. The people on the west want to connect directly to that trail and we also have a park at that location... These crossings, they're not ideal but in some cases they... 36 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 25, 1997 Todd Hoffman continued with the staff report. Manders: Todd could you, when you talked about those trees. Is that on the east side of Powers between Kerber and.., where that berm comes up and then that split rail fence is in there? Hoffman: As the guy in his barefeet on a portable phone explained to me so explicitly from his deck.., there are those stakes. Berg: ... speed limit on Powers? Hoffman: I talked to them today about that. About 50 mph. I think we've talked as a commission before, the speed limits are set by how people drive. People continue to drive... I questioned him on... I think we've got 40, 45 in the south, 50 in the center. Lash: Yeah, and you've got a right turn and a left turn lane at every single intersection. It's a four lane road on the other side and it's 45. Berg: What about a stop sign... Hoffman: Those are all conversations. Those agendas need to be pushed. I've voiced that as a citizen I think that would be a good idea. I haven't found the avenue to take... Berg: It's also a recommendation. Lash: Public safety. Could we get them to think about it? How many, there's some kind of accident rule isn't there? You have to have so many accidents before they'll. I think we would probably have reached that there. Hoffman: And then as we go farther north on Powers, we have a variety of issues. Lash: How many calls have you gotten since this went out from people who are hot? Hoffman: Well we're getting mailings are up over 700 in mailings. We're not on, directly adjacent to it who are interested. I've received.., probably a dozen calls. Construction manager, Dave Nyberg raises.., the road right-of-way. Manders: ... for example along Powers. The road right-of-way. Does that extend, to that split rail fence so we'd be putting the trail on. Hoffman: There are many places where this trail is staked... Todd Hoffman continued with the staff report. 37 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 25, 1997 Lash: On the next one, where's that starting? I see it ends at about the Chan Hill development, which is Lyman, isn't it? Down there? Hoffman: No, it's midway up. Just across from that little telephone building... Lash: Oh, okay. So then where's it starting at the top there? Hoffman: It's starting at the existing trail. Lash: I don't know where that is. Hoffman: That east west trail that travels. Lash: Oh yeah, okay. And the lake is on, okay. Hoffman: The lake is on the west side. Lash: Yeah, okay. And this is... other the side of the road too, right? Hoffman: We're going to have to mandate... Lash: You know these just make me so uncomfortable when it has to flip to the other side, especially on TH 101. You know what kind of a crossing are we going to provide for people to. Roeser: Well you can put bike crossing signs... Hoffman: Well we had to cross, it was either to cross directly when you left the Chanhassen Hills development. There's a ...crossing at that point. Lash: So is this one over here already existing? Hoffman: No. Lash: So why did we have to cross? Hoffman: Well people, all the populous is coming out of Chanhassen Hills. Lash: Oh, okay. Hoffman: To get to the trail they would either have to cross at that point or take the trail north and then cross at the intersection. Lash: Well eventually there's going to be houses on the other side too, isn't there? Hoffman: That's State Highway 101. 38 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 25, 1997 Lash: Yeah. Hoffman: There's a little pot of commercial and more... And then the final segment, State Highway 7, I've already spoke to. Or excuse me, not the final segment. And the final one would be... is Bluff Creek trail connection. Some people are concerned about this trail due to the proximity to back yards. Berg: To what? Hoffman: Proximity to back yards. On the Bluff Creek trail where it's going through the rear yards on the cul-de-sac. The final stretch.., segment from Highway 5 to Lyman Boulevard. Lash: ... Which one you said is? Hoffman: Bluff Creek. Lash: It's tough? Hoffman: It's not tough. It's just, there's some residents there that have called in... Lash: They don't want it in their back yards. Roeser: Not in my back yard. Hoffman: So that's the trail update. Again, very contentious.., get into the public process. We want your input. We need to hear, both on behalf of the public, their interest. On behalf of the project. We will not be moving these things forward... Lash: I guess I'd like to find out how many people think that they can attend next week? Either the 2nd or the 3rd or both? Manders: I guess I'm looking at the 2nd. Roeser: What day is that? Lash: Tuesday and Wednesday. Roeser: This coming week? Lash: Yeah .... what'd you say Fred? Berg: I can come the 2nd. Lash: And Jim, you can come the 2nd? 39 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 25, 1997 Manders: Yes. Lash: Ron? Roeser: I can probably come both. Lash: Rod? Franks: I may be able to make the 2nd but definitely. Lash: Okay, Jane can you? Meger: Definitely not. Lash: How about you Mike? Howe: Maybe the 2nd. Definitely not the 3rd? Lash: What's going on on the 3rd? I must be missing something. Berg: My daughter's birthday. Lash: Oh, it's a Wednesday. We should never have this stuff on Wednesday. That's religion night for people. Hoffman: There's also a town meeting for the CAA on Tuesday night. Lash: ON which night? Hoffman: Tuesday night, the 2nd at 8:00 at the Recreation Center. Town meeting the CAA is organizing... There's also a special meeting on the 1st with the City Council which I'll talk to you about... Lash: Well I could make it on Wednesday so I'll put me down for Wednesday. Then we've got, I could probably make it both of them too but I'll for sure go Wednesday because that's the fewest people. I made a note on this to myself that I thought we need to all make an effort, not that any of us really are desiring any more meetings or commitments, especially this time of year but I think we all need to try to make a conscience effort to try to attend as many of these things as we can so we're hearing directly what people are saying and the feel. You know there's a lot more that you can pick up from what's being said and how it's said than you know, hearing it from somebody else so I think it's important for us to make the commitment to try and attend as many of these as we can. And saying that, I was wondering do we want to split it up somehow? I just did that for that but we have neighborhood parks. We have trails. We have community parks. Do people want to try and just go to all of them that they can or do we want to have a 4O Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 25, 1997 couple people say they're, want to make a commitment to community parks and a couple to trails and a couple to neighborhood parks? What do people feel? Howe: ... I attend as many as I can and ifI can't, I can't. Roeser: I think so too. Lash: Okay. So you'd rather just keep trying to go to as many as you can rather than just trying to make it to all of the particular ones? Hoffman: You will continue to receive all the notifications. Berg: ... way they handle the public. They were good. He was slick.., very, very good at... everybody's question and making contributions. Doing what... He was just... Hoffman: He was highly recommended. Great to hear that. Lash: Yeah, he did a super job. And a lot of us were there that night and I think that was when my idea popped in that we need to be there because I think, plus I think we can help with well... when we got into the tennis court thing. And I opened my mouth but the thing is, it was getting, the residents by Bandimere were kind of going down this track that they wanted the tennis court to be in their neighborhood instead of up in the community park. Hoffman: They're meeting. Lash: Well I can about imagine. But anyway I thought you know, we need to just clarify that we have a policy regarding how and why we locate these things and if there's lights, that there be lights and would they really want that down in their neighborhood park and those kinds of things and it wasn't very well received and I probably didn't necessarily explain myself very well. But I do think it's helpful in cases like that when we know, when we have some of that information, why let them get way off track on something and leave the meeting thinking, oh this is going to be great. We'll have a tennis court right in our back yard when chances are it's not going to happen that way. Hoffman: The right move to make. Lash: Well, keep them a little reality based before things snowball out of control so that's why I'm encouraging all of us to stay really involved in this. Hoffman: Neighborhood parks. You will pick up after the first of the year. Land acquisitions are continuing and there are added work sessions at City Council. Lash: How are you planning on doing the neighborhood park one then? Park meeting. Are you going to have them here? Are they with us or are they like that, where it's going to? 41 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 25, 1997 Hoffman: It's going to be here with you. I will run past the ones that I feel require... Lash: Okay. Hoffman: Other referendum project status updates. The City Council is very concerned that Highway 101 trail, Highway 101, the development did not occur. The ISTEA funding did not get approved. Hennepin County and the State of Minnesota really led the City Council to believe that this had a very good chance... The Council wants to meet on Monday night at a special meeting specifically to talk about how they can accomplish the 101 trail. That is at 5:30 in the upstairs courtyard conference room. Staff has requested... What Mayor Mancino would like to consider, at least how she portrayed it to me today is three options. Build the trail using other forms of revenue. Delete a trail or trails that were approved as part of the referendum and build 101 instead. Or do nothing. Or others. So the Council wanted to, they felt strongly about discussing this priority during those meetings on Tuesday and Wednesday night.., make a decision affects those trails. They want me to be able to tell the people they made that decision and... Berg: Are they looking at... anymore? Hoffman: One of the options. Roeser: Well you can't do anything with the referendum money, can you? Hoffman: They can. Legally they probably can. When a referendum is approved, the language will be fairly broadly. The publications obviously did... I attempted to, at last evening's Council meeting I attempted to remove that as an option... Lash: Would it be helpful to have us at the work session? Are they looking for that or not looking for that? Hoffman: I have no idea. Public meeting... That's it on referendum project status update. B. MINNESOTA RECREATION & PARK ASSOCIATION ISLE OF INNOVATION PRESENTATIONS: 1997 Park, Open Space and Trail Referendmn. Chanhassen Recreation Center Hockey/In-line Skating Rinks. Hoffman: Minnesota Recreation & Park Association Isle of Innovation presentations were very well received. Other communities were inspired by the fact that Chanhassen forwarded the referendum under very difficult circumstances and were successful. Then Patty had the presentation which was given on the hockey/in-line skating rinks which received a great deal of attention. Lash: Okay, wait. What is this now? Out at the rec center? 42 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 25, 1997 Hoffman: The inline skating rink which was surfaced on the side. So this is a national piece of interest, receiving nationwide.., the contractor. The cities. The Rollerblade Association. In-line skating association. A lot of people. Lash: That's ice... That's paint? That's the way it looks all the time? I thought it was just a blacktop. Manders: Is there a track record on how long that lasts? Hoffman: This one admittedly is a test case. We have the backing of the manufacturer and the contractor. Berg: Who paid for it? Hoffman: If it fails, they will be back. Other administrative points of interest. The City Council is heavy the budget preparation... I like the little note on there that it does not include the levy passed. Programs. We are down to the point to where we can no longer reduce cuts, additional or new programs or growth programs. On the chopping block today are goose removal and the Lake Ann lifeguards. And that totals about $24,000.00. Park and Rec, after our initial cuts was requested to cut about an additional $30-35,000.00 from our budget so we are dealing with program cuts. Requests such as additional attractions at the February Festival will be difficult to accomplish .... 500, 600, 800,000 dollar range being extracted out of program budgets, 145 specifically.., program dollars. So there's things such as... They're considering cutting two, right now we do quarterly brochures. We're considering taking that to twice a year, which would be a very big departure from.., programs .... City Manager Ashworth is getting down to the point where he feels he's comfortable with those cuts, program cuts but he is outlining other potential cuts to take it down to where the City Council would like to see that budget. It does include not flooding skating rinks. Not maintaining street lights. A variety of other fairly significant.., type of cuts... I wanted to make you aware of it because it does... Lash: Okay. Roeser: You know the only thing that's going to happen is... I mean people are going to be upset about it. Hoffman: Next summer, yeah. Lash: Well you know, we'll have to get buoys. There are buoys but the floating dock. You can't have that floating dock out there I don't think without lifeguards. Can you? Berg: Put signs up... Hoffman: Well, with the Council and their work to bring down the budget, we as staff need to be there to advise... We have all of that structure in place... We have maintained the land, maintained 43 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 25, 1997 the parks and.., and to save the $4,000.00 in time or $5,000.00 in time that it takes to flood it, then in the interest in saving that cash... I speak to those... Lash: Are they talking about all the rinks? What are they talking about? No skating rinks? Hoffman: There's a variety of items up. Not flooding skating rinks. Not turning on the lights. Not having the wanning houses. Not plowing roads during.., plow at 8:00 in the morning... Lash: Then we've got people coming and wanting more skating rinks. Okay. COMMISSION MEMBER PRESENTATIONS: Lash: Mike, let's start down at your end. Rod? Franks: No. Lash: I'll go. I got a call and obviously a lot of things, Todd touched on I heard at length on Sunday. I got a call from Mayor Mancino and we talked for quite a while about some of these different items and she did want me to bring some of these things up at the meeting too. And I think Todd has probably hit on some of them. One was regarding neighborhood meetings and making sure that we're involved and that we're helping the residents with the reality check along the way. Financially so that they're not having expectations of things that aren't going to happen. The TH 101 thing. She was very concerned about that. She mentioned to me too the different possibilities and I questioned using the referendum money because I thought that was very explicit how it would be used and I thought that would be opening a can of worms but she said they'd talked about it last night and want, I got the impression they wanted help from us in figuring out some ways to seeing that that was done. And then she wanted to see if I remembered, and I know some other people at the meeting upstairs, the court room where we talked about TH 101 and we talked about the referendum and we were trying to figure out how could we make sure that TH 101 got done and with it being questionable at that time, could we put it on the referendum and, or shouldn't we put it on the referendum and how could we make sure if the state thing fell through, we'd still have the money on the referendum and in the end we dedicated we just couldn't and we'd have to assume the State would do it. Now we're stuck. The State's not going to do it. Roeser: Well at that time it was.., they had led us on to believe it was going to be done too so. I don't think we were wrong about that. Lash: But she said, you know she really had the feeling in the room that everyone in the room was very supportive of seeing it... Roeser: Well I want it done... Berg: ... because then you're taking trails from someone else. The referendum was pretty definite about where the trails were going to be... 44 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 25, 1997 Lash: Well I think in her mind it is because of the level of population that's there, compared with some other areas in town so. So anyway, I do know that that's a high level of concern and maybe we can help in some way with that. She was at the Bandimere and City Center meeting, along with many of us and also wanted to make sure. She wanted to check with me as to where I thought we were involved in this process and what I said I had hoped would happen is that before these plans circling back to the public, that they'd come to us so that we have input into this before people get ideas of what's going to happen that maybe we wouldn't agree with or we don't have the money for or whatever. So she wants it to come to us. I know that. The other thing she was hoping we might be able to do, when we look at these plans, if it appears that some of them are coming in you know over budget or things that people are, at this brainstorming meeting last week, if they're saying things that would put it over budget, for us to be in the position where we would prioritize and possibly phase some things in so if it was a tennis court or if it was, you know shelters or whatever kinds of things pop up on these plans, that we would be open to phasing in some of these different facilities. And she asked me, and I wasn't 100% sure of my answer but it sounded pretty good. She wanted to know why, well and I want to make sure I was on the right track. Why with all the referendum money did we now put additional money in '98 at City Center and Bandimere? She said we have like $100,000.00 in the budget for both of those on top of the referendum money. And my answer was that I thought when we went for the referendum, we kind of cut some things out that we thought we could possibly phase in and now we want to put them in. Is that right? Hoffman: Right on. Lash: Okay. I got that one right. Then another thing she wants us to do. We're supposed to have this work session on what, December 15th or something with them, about Coulter. Us and engineering and City Council. Right? Is it the 15th? I think that's what it was. I'm pretty, I'm like 99% sure it's the 15th. Hoffman: The Coulter Boulevard extension. Lash: Yeah. And she would like, and actually it was my idea but she thought it would be very beneficial for all of us to take a field trip to that site to see what's happened there from when we looked at it last time and I think she said that we'd be very. Hoffman: Eye opening. Lash: Yeah, shocked. Because you know what our whole intention here with this difference of opinion on Coulter was that we did not want to disrupt that wetland area and just by putting in sewer and water, it's already been massively. Manders: Therefore permanently disrupted. Lash: No, that's, no. That's not her point. But she wants us to see what's already been done there, you know and if we want to try and still have this viewpoint, she's fine with that. She says she's totally on the fence with the whole thing but then we need to think about, how are we going 45 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 25, 1997 to go back in there and try to rebuild that. You know are we just going to let nature take it's course and let it just grow or do we want to try and help it in some way to restore it or what? What do we want to do with it? And then, and her feeling there is that you know it's upsetting when we have these philosophical debates about preserving nature and then as a city we go in and do that kind of damage. You know ourselves. Because it wasn't a developer. It was the city you know putting in sewer and water and stuff so we need to step back a minute and look at how things we're trying to preserve, sometimes we end up... hold the developers to higher standards than we set for our own city. So those are the end of my comments from here. One other thing though that I know we don't have any money, I was wondering if we could have a house decorating contest for Christmas. Talk to Jerry? Not this year? No money. Too late? Okay. Franks: Like with lights and everything? Lash: Yeah. Hoffman: Chamber of Commerce's typically do that. Lash: Okay. That's fine. I just thought it'd be fun. That's the end of mine. Fred, do you have any? Berg: Not a thing. Lash: Ron? Roeser: Nothing. Lash: Jim? Manders: No. Lash: Okay. Howe moved, Roeser seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned. Submitted by Todd Hoffman Park and Rec Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 46