PRC 1988 04 26
~d:1
PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION
~ REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 26, 1988
Chairman Mady called the meeting order.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Sue Boyt, Carol Watson, Jim Mady, Ed Hasek and Larry
Schroers
MEMBERS ABSENT: Curt Robinson and Mike Lynch
STAFF PRESENT: Lori Sietsema, Park and Rec Coordinator and Todd Hoffman,
Recreation Supervisor
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Boyt moved, Schroers seconded to approve the
Minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated April 12,
1988. All voted in favor and motion carried.
REVIEW PARKING ISSUE AT GREENWOOD SHORES AND CARVER BEACH.
Pat Albrecht:
just walked in.
last time?
I'm vice president of Greenwood Shores Association. I
Did you say you don't want us to go over what we said
Mady:
I'd like to just have one person at a time.
"
I"""
Pat Albrecht: What we did was, there were several things we were kind of
looking into so we started to divide up and look into different things
for different people. I don't know if you went over, we were wondering
exactly what the City was proposing for this. I don't think anyone is
real clear on that. I think it was four or five parking spots and a
chain and bollard? That's basically what it was, okay. What we
basically wanted to do was just say we understand the purpose of the four
parking spots is to solve the problem with limited access. The Greenwood
Shore Homeowners Association agrees with the City Council to their
findings at their meeting on June 1, 1987. At this meeting Councilman
Dale Geving commented, I'm not really sure if direction to the Park and
Rec people back in January meant that we're going to expand this with a
bollard and chain and four parking spots. I realize we may be creating
more of a problem than we're trying to solve. We also feel we may
creating more problems than we would be solving. We are here tonight to
share with you our questions and concerns regarding this issue. Also,
Mayor Hamilton said that he agreed with Dale and went on to say, I'd like
to see all the parking taken out of there and just have access so we can
get to the lift station so our city truck can get there and close the
park completely to outside vehicles other than the city's and to use the
space that's being used for parking now, perhaps for a totlot type of
facility or swings or whatever else we can put in there and leave it for
the neighborhood. If anyone else wants to use the park, they can walk
over to Lake Ann, they can ride their bikes, they can walk, they can do
whatever else they want to do, but I think that's a viable way to use the
park and I think it serves a very good purpose at that point. That was
what Torn Hamilton said. Then Clark Horn agrees that we should keep it
chained as you say. Keep the no parking signs there and we don't want to
spend anymore money on equipment but we do enforce it. I think most of
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
April 26, 1988 - Page 2
...."
us don't really care about the tot lot but it's more about the parking and
the safety issue that we're mostly concerned about. Then Greg checked
into a little bit of the safety part. I think all of us are mostly
concerned that if you made a parking lot go down over that little hill,
it would be really hard to see to get out of it. To back up or to come
up over it. Like you said, there will be lots of people walking or
riding bikes going down the curve and I think that would be a real safety
hazard for the people involved there. Then we talked about the
violations last year with people going through other people's yards.
Homeowners being forced to patrol the area themselves. Enforcement. Who
would enforce the parking rules if there were four spots? Who's to say
that, they would start parking on the street. I think it would be really
hard to enforce that. Would someone be there to shut the gate every
night? We've had eight down on the walking path that's supposed to be
closed and it's never closed so that was not followed through on either.
Then again, we're also concerned about what's to happen to the four
spots? It could turn into more than that. At one point there was a
quote, Jim Mady, you said last year at the Council meeting, what you
wanted to do was to allow some parking inside the park, putting in just a
few minimal spots to begin with, so right there we're not guaranteed it's
not going to be just a thin parking lot. Eventually people say, well I
went down there and all the spots were full so then pretty soon maybe it
will, well, maybe we should make it bigger. I know that's happened to a
few other parks so it's a concern of ours. Not that it would for sure -'
happen but you can think about that. Jan had done some measurements on
how far it is to walk from the big beach to where the parking is as
opposed to far it is from our beach to where the parking is for the
Greenwood Shores beach and it was actually farther to walk. There is a
drop-off spot at the top of our little driveway going down that's gravel.
If they were dropped off there, it would be closer than the drop-off spot
at the big beach so the distance isn't a big deal there. Also, we need
to consider how many people the beach can accomodate. I don't know what
the statistics are for that. If there's a certain amount of people, how
they determine how many people a beach can accomodate but I think that
needs to be considered too. It is a small beach and it is widely used by
more than Greenwood Shores. Chaparral uses it. There are many times
last summer when I was down there when I didn't know one person and that
hadn't happened in years before that so I think it's really getting to be
more used. Also we're thinking maybe what would be an alternative is to
put up a sign there saying, like drop off zone. Take down the no parking
sign right in front of the beach. People don't know that you can use
that beach very easily but if you put a sign up and say drop off zone,
parking 100 feet or however far it is up the road, people would know they
can use the beach. They could just park up the road a little bit where
it's safe off the curb. There wouldn't be parking on the curb, and walk
down to it like most of the people in the neighborhood already do. Also,
we're thinking of permit parking. If it did end up being a parking lot,
I think we should maybe consider or you should consider having some sort
of permits for that also, just like the big beach has, if that would evel
come up and it got to that point. I called and asked how many people""'"
complained about not being able to park there or use the park and they
said they didn't know because they don't keep a record of that so as far
as I know, maybe it's 2 people. Maybe it's 100 people. I don't know and
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
April 26, 1988 - Page 3
,....
they don't keep a record so I guess I don't really see where the problem
comes. I don't know if a lot of people have complained about it or not
and if not, I think the people would be happy just like it is. To walk a
few, 50 feet to the beach like we do and they can still use it. It's not
that we want to keep it private, it's just that I think parking would
create a lot more problems than it would solve. So that's basically what
we have to say.
,....
Jeff Farmakes, 7100 utica: I think that this hearing is certainly
redundant so I would agree with you Jim that anything that we have to say
we've said several times before so as not to take any additional time, I
guess I'll just go over a few points. One point is that I think it's
ludicrous to keep a record of phone calls from May of 1987 to 1988 after
the park was closed. That access was closed at the direction of the City
Council. May 18th and the first, it was closed shortly thereafter.
Previous to that it was open from November of 1986 to May of 1987 when it
was open so I don't understand the rationale of keeping track of the
phone calls when it's closed to support the issue of keeping it open.
That's obvious. The second thing I'd like to bring up is it seems to me
very clear on page 93 of the Minutes of June 1st as to what the City
Council voted on. Seconded and voted and it was a unanimous decision in
regards to what was done. Pat just read it to you a few minutes ago. It
seems unbelieveable to me that that is interpretted as to be reviewed in
a year. There's nothing in here on that page that this issue should be
reviewed again. Now I understand that if you have a yearly budget to
direct and that that is an issue that you initiate on a yearly basis with
the City Council, that's a matter we'll have to take up with the City
Council but it doesn't seem to me that this is any sort of hearing per
see This decision was already locked in. The decision was among
yourselves and us being here is pretty much a formality.
Watson: Jeff, Jim was going to try and find the call record from
November to May.
Jan Lash, 6850 utica Lane: We are trying to check into some of the
history of the deed transfer from Greenwood Shores to the city back in
the 70's when that happened and we do have some residents in the
neighborhood who lived there at the time and their recollections all seem
to be the same that there were some agreements between the City and the
residents that this beach was to remain a walk-in only beach. We feel
that if a judge ruled in that decision, that should probably remain as it
is unless there's going to be some kind of legal action taken to try and
change that. We're trying to dig up those documents.
Bob Anderson, 7190 Tecumseh: I wasn't here last week. I was out of town
but I've had a chance to read through the Minutes and the information
that was provided and what I see is a solution apparently to a problem
that I don't see identified. What is the problem that is trying to be
solved?
,....
Mady: We've gone over this before sir. It's been covered in a number of
our meetings. What we're trying to do is, it's been this body's desire
to open everyone of our parks up to the extent possible and to better
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
April 26, 1988 - Page 4
......"
our park facilities as best we can. We had a survey done a year ago with
the citizens of Chanhassen and the citizens of Chanhassen have told us
they want us to spend our time and our money improving our current park
system. That is what we are trying to do.
Bob Anderson: Does your surveyor does your planning indicate to what
extent this particular park should be opened up?
Mady: No it doesn't. What it tells us is they want us to look at the
entire system.
Bob Anderson: It seems that the problem as you stated it is being
addressed backwards. That you're addressing to open up four parking
spots to create greater access to a park. Four cars to me does not grant
bigger access to the park. It's a walk-in type park. I see no advantage
to having four walk-ins when on the weekend you can go through the
adjacent streets and see 20 or 30 cars parked. To me it's ludicrous to
think that the four parking spots is going to so call, open up the park,
when there is no stated policy as to how much the park is to be opened
up. The problem is being attacked all backwards. I would hope that your
commission would address really what you're trying to accomplish rather
than just trying to put in four parking spots.
Judy Landkammer, 6901 utica Lane: I have an updated petition from
members of the Greenwood Shores area. We didn't get to all the houses
but a majority of them.
....""
Greg Blaufuss, 7116 Utica: I wonder if we could flash the plans back up
on the screen. I'm curious as to how, I don't know if this body or this
Commission is in the position to answer this question but I'm curious as
to how, it's a dead-end parking situation that you propose to create here
and I'm curious as to how a person that drives in there, finds the
parking lot full, is going to get out of there without having to back
into the street. Backing up the hill, you have very limited, if any,
visibility. There's a lot of kids and a lot of bikes and stuff that they
use that driveway to access the park only because the way the berms are
built up and the way the rocks are placed, it's almost the only access to
get in.
sietsema: I believe there's enough room.
Mady: Yes, there is. The standard parking space is 8 feet wide. There
are four of them there. That's 32 feet. A standard car is less than 20
feet. There's sufficient room in there that you can get your in and
around and turn to get back out of there.
Boyt: If all four spots are full and another car comes down there?
Mady: Yes.
-'
Greg Blaufuss: My question was, when the proposed parking lot is filled,
how does a person that pulls in there, unable to see that the parking is
filled from the street, how does he get out of that lot without having to
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
April 26, 1988 - Page 5
."'"
back out into the street?
Hasek: I guess we got the feeling from Mark Koegler that even if
somebody did pull in there, that they would have the opportunity to turn
around. It would take a little bit of maneuvering to do that but it was
the intent of the design to limit the parking to as few spaces as we
possibly could. Obviously we want to allow for turnarounds down in
there. That we could increase the amount of parking stalls and increase
the hard surface if that's what you'd like to see but I don't think
that's what you really want. I know you don't want any at all.
Greg Blaufuss: That isn't the point. First of all, I don't think we see
the purpose in four parking spaces but I personally don't think, I've
been involved with site development for two major corporations for about
10 years and I don't think that you can adequately back out of it and
maneuver around it in a safe way to pull up in a forward direction on the
street.
Ha se k :
design.
I agree with you. I, likewise, am a planner and do a lot of work
It's tight. There's no question about it.
Greg Blaufuss: My concern was, before you walked in, that kids on bikes,
mothers pushing baby carriages, I live just up the hill to the west from
the entrance and I work out of my home and through my window I can see
that entrance and that's where everyone enters the park.
,......
Marge Anderson, 7890 Tecumseh: I'm not real sure but Lake Ann Park is
the only park that is a town park that has swimming? Am I right?
Sietsema: No.
Marge Anderson: Are there other parks that have a lifeguard?
Sietsema: It's the only one with a guarded beach but there are other
swimming beaches in this city.
Marge Anderson: It seems ridiculous to put four parking spaces in this
place when if they can get in a car, they can go over to Lake Ann Park.
You're only encouraging them a beach that doesn't have a lifeguard. It
seems if you're in a car, you can go over to Lake Ann. You're going to
be on the same lake anyway and if they want to come over to that beach,
they can walk in. Put in a path.
Jeff Farmakes: I'd just like to point out an interesting little footnote
here. If you subtract and take Greenwood Shores Park and you subtract
the area that you're proposing for the parking, in reading the
recreational beachlot requirements in the Chanhassen City Code, I don't
even think you'd make it so that gives us an idea of the size of the
park.
"""
Jan Lash: I have the measurements, I went down there and did some
measuring of our beach and also walked over to the main beach and did
some measuring. I don't know if you've all been down there. Do you
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
April 26, 1988 - Page 6
....,."
know? Okay. Pat said you measured from the drop-off point to the first
part of the grassy area where you even think of spreading a blanket out
and that's it. It's not the beach. You'd be sitting in the shade and
that was 82 yards. We measured from the drop-off point at Lake Ann beach
to the very first part of the sand area and that was 96 yards so if we're
talking about accessibility, if that were a 5 minute drop-off zone, that
would be easier to get to than the main beach would be. Then we measured
from the drop-off point to the first spot you could park on Tecumseh and
that was 180 yards. Over at the main beach it was 60 yards to the very
first spot, which I assume the lifeguard probably corners right away in
the morning and I think that first lot probably fills up fairly fast so
if you got towards the end of that lot, that would be 120. Then if you
had to go walk up to the overflow lot, which I think a lot of people do,
then you have to walk 240 yards. So if you're trying to compare apples
and apples here, I think that if we're talking public accessibility to
our beach, for the size of it, compared to the Lake Ann beach, it is as
accessible to the public as any other beach in town. I happened to drive
past Carver Beach to check that out on the way over tonight and we don't
really think that's a comparable layout as far as the parking factor
goes. You've got the spots in there but there's no place else that they
can squeak in. Down there, if we're worried about maneuverability and
backing out of your spots and things, it's going to have to be big enough
to do that but then you're going to have a lot of violators and parking
in the turn around zones and kind of squeezing allover and at Carver ~
Beach you can't do that unless somebody drove off the cliff so I don't
think that's exactly a fair comparison either. If you're comparing your
problems. Also, if you're moving right into Phase 2, that's what you're
suggesting this year, you're talking about going right to pavement so if
it doesn't work, it is not a temporary trial period which it was supposed
to have been last year when it was voted. You're going right into the
asphalt. If it's a big problem, then we've got a big chunk of asphalt
around. That's pretty significant.
Hasek: I have a question for you. How far did you say it was from the
drop-off to the first parking space?
Jan Lash: From the main beach or from our beach? From the drop-off, the
first one was 180 yards.
Hasek: Actually I think it's a lot closer than that.
Jan Lash: Okay, so it's better than that so it probably is very
comparable to the main beach. I think the shorest spot was right around
Tecumseh.
Hasek: Was there any discussion at all to date about just simply having
parking in the park as opposed to parking out of the park?
Mady: NO, we haven't had any discussion tonight.
....",
Hasek: Was there any discussion at all about safety factors or with that
right-of-way and the possibility of putting a paved path of some sort
along the street?
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
April 26, 1988 - Page 7
",.....
Sietsema: All we've done so far is listen to public comment.
Mady: Okay, any further discussion? If not, I close off the public
discussion portion so we can get going here. I'll open the Commission
discussion with Sue.
Boyt: I don't like the design of the parking lot and I wish I would have
requested Mark to be here but I would like to look at alternatives for
this parking. In this area, I know there's berming but maybe we could
just get rid of the berming and put in parking right here. I don't like
the idea of a lot of concrete going down into the park. It's a beautiful
park. That would take up too much. I think Pat mentioned permit parking
and I think is a real legitimate concern because we're sharing facilities
with Lake Ann. The number of people the beach can accomodate, I don't
think we have any numbers on that. Driveway safety, if the driveway went
in, we could put a trail next to it to accomodate bikes and baby
carriages. Locking the gate, I think that was one of the concerns that
it wouldn't be locked at night. That could be assigned to someone on a
daily basis. An increase in the number of parking spaces, once that
number is established, I don't see us, as we are now, ever going in there
and putting more parking spaces in. The park isn't big enough for that.
What I would like is for the park to be accessible, just available to
people. Anyone who wants to go there. I think your concerns are real
~ legitimate. Driving up the hill and out into the road is a problem. I
think we need to look at some other solutions than what we have right
now.
Watson: Some of the same ones as Sue. Who would close it at night to be
sure that it would be locked up at night? What are the dimensions of
that lot? How much lakeshore does it have?
Sietsema: I don't know that right off the top of my head. I could go up
and look and scale it off on a half section map or something.
Watson:
So the beach area is 30 yards?
Sietsema:
I would guess there's about 100 feet of lakeshore on Lake Ann.
Public:
140 feet.
The depth going back to where the gravel area is now is about
Ed walked it off.
Watson: I think we're aware of that.
...How many acres is it?
Sietsema: Three.
,.....
Watson: Actually for a beachlot, we don't have enough lakeshore
frontage. The prime issue is we allow people to come and if there's
parking they would be more apt to come and then walk over to Lake Ann
Park if they didn't have to have a permit. Because they do walk over
there anyways. I don't like the parking either because if they back out
of there onto that road, up the hill and onto the road, that's going to
be a disaster. Unless some people could be parking on that road on the
way in, pulling in...they're going to park along that road as it goes
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
April 26, 1988 - Page 8
.....",
down that
to have a
then out.
along the
back on.
hill. When you get all the way down to the bottom, you're going
fairly long distance in that road. It goes up the hill and
It's going to be very difficult to keep people from parking
road, thereby making it impossible for anybody wanting to get
Boyt: I had one other point that I wanted to include. I was talking to
people today on other lake issues in Chanhassen. One of the major
concerns is a public safety concern in that most people would like to see
more patrols. They'd like to see the police around patrolling the parks.
We're going to have some of this summer aren't we?
Jim Chaffee: We are in the process right now of hiring two CSO's to work
30 hours a week each. Last year we had 1 CSO working 40 hours a week.
Boyt: So they can hit each park every day?
Jim Chaffee: Hopefully.
Jan Lash: I'm just wondering, why is it that you think that with four
parking, why is it that parking right in that area is going to make it so
much more accessible? I'm not sure why that four parking spots issue are
making it accessible.
....."
Boyt: It's a perception difference that you have and I have. To me, if
I have to walk 200 yards, it's not as accessible as parking right there.
I would love to make it as accessible to people as I can.
Jan Lash: It's more accessible than the main beach.
Boyt: I don't care about the main beach. I'm not trying to compare Lake
Ann with Greenwood Shores.
Mady: We're getting into a discussion situation here. you've asked a
question but I don't want to see comments going back and forth because it
will just...
Watson: Just something real quick. Can we make sure that we do keep...
Sietsema: I can't take and record calls that our department, that Todd
or myself get. I don't know how you can discern them with the blotter
book because they just the skip the bottom. Maybe you could answer that
better.
Jim Chaffee: I think from your end of it Lori, it's an internal matter.
We have a complaint form that we can issue citywide. ...process in our
computer and get handed the data. We're asking that everybody, if you
have a problem with the park system throughout the City, call as soon as
that problem is there. Not wait until later and say, did you hear about
the problem? You need to call immediately when the problem is occurring.~
Getting back to your question Carol, we'd like to keep as accurate
records as possible but sometimes when you get a call say to, I'm using
this as an example, Greenwood Shores. The person who is calling didn't
",.....
,...
~
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
April 26, 1988 - Page 9
give us their address and typically what we'll find is, in the blotter
the call will be associated with that address and not necessarily the
park. It's pretty easy in trying to determine that it had something to
do with the park at Greenwood Shores because of the location but if we
expand that out to some of these other areas, Carver Beach for example,
it's as clear that it's park related. It's sometimes difficult to get
that so I'll be working with the County Sheriff for keeping more accurate
log so we will try to do that.
Watson: As best we can, you can tell something about the nature of these
calls?
Jim Chaffee: Right.
Hasek: First of all, a lot of this hinges on the motion that was made by
Mayor Hamilton last year. In reading through the Minutes I really find
it difficult to even find that motion. There's a lot of discussion.
Some of the council people appeared to want to keep the park open and
thought of various ways of closing. Initially when the conversation
started, everything was pointing towards keeping it open and someplace
along the line there was a swing but that's what discussion is all about
I guess but I'd really like to see what the motion was that was made
because it really isn't stated in the Minutes that I got. All there are
is just a bunch of statements. After stopping down at the beach and
talking to a gentleman down on the site and I had some conversation with
him, I think that's probably where the comparison on the numbers but I'm
glad to see that we got those and got that straighten around. What
bothers me about the existing parking out there, and what we're talking
about is putting parking into the park is an accessibility issue. I
guess driving out to that park, you certainly can not feel like it
belongs to anybody but the people who live there. The reason is just
because it is some 500, I rounded out the neighbors are 525 feet I guess
from the closest parking spot to the entrance and that's quite a distance
for anybody to have to walk to get into a park with an automobile. 525
feet is the average. It's 510 feet to the north and 540 feet to the east
of that first parking space from dead center on the access into that
park. They are both safe distances I feel from the park entrance. I
don't know that you could probably get it much closer than that. If you
did get it much closer than that, the people would then be parking up on
lawns and maybe that's what is happening right now, I don't know. It is
a tight corner. I'm still curious as to how wide the right-of-way is in
there for a bike to get, if it's possible, if we eventually get parking
out, I would like the trail to be in place first. Before we want them
parking in the park. If that can't be accomplished, then I won't push
very hard to get the parking into the park. Four spaces, I feel is a
minimum. I would personally, I think like to see a few more. The reason
I would like to see a few more is because of the maneuvering ability
within the park based on four spaces. That's going to be very tight and
Mark Koegler seemed to feel safe with it. I think it's going to be a
little bit close so I personally would like to see that we put parking in
and to increase those spaces simply to make it more liveable. Either
that or the design should accomodate a person turning around in their
car. We have to get into that park anyway to get down there to the lift
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
April 26, 1988 - Page 10
..-;'
station. The area we're proposing covering is virtually the one that's
there right now. It is not going to change the character down there at
all. Like the woman said, where would you lay it? On that hard surface
area down there. I don't know that it necessarily takes away from any
except perhaps frisbee or playing catch or something, which might be a
little bit hampered by that. The park is 3 acres in size. Eventually,
if that thing becomes crowded, we have the ability to clear and put some
other activies down there. It is not a natural park. It's being used by
someone in the neighborhood to dump leaves. To dump dirt. There's a
little path down there where somebody has backed in and dumped some soil.
The tracks that are crossing that you can see standing there, is a very
clear trail of 3 or 4 wheel vehicle, a bike. A 4 wheel bike, not a Jeep.
Going between two of the rocks and it seems to like if those vehicles are
in there, those are users of the park that are within the park so it's
the people that use the park, that live in the area, that I can see are
having the vehicles down there. There may be others, that's true. We
didn't see a lot of garbage laying around when we were down there. I
think that it's a nice little park. 100 feet of beach is certainly
enough, as far as I'm concerned, to serve quite a few people. We have 36
homes, I think in our neighborhood and a beachlot that's 60 feet wide.
That thing is used to the maximum and I think we could probably put more
people down there. I'm going to sayan average day down at our beach
probably has in excess of 30, sometimes in excess of 70 people down there
where we're having parties and so forth. No one is discouraged from
coming down to that beach and it's one of the few areas that the City -,.
does has to have a beach on it and I would like to see parking at that
beach at all costs.
Schroers: I agree with both Sue and Ed on some points. I would like to
look at an alternative parking plan. Possibly moving that berm and
having parking immediately adjacent to the road similar to what is at
Carver Beach. I don't know that that would be the answer but I would
like to look at a plan of that type to see what that looks like. The
accessibility does seem to be on everyone's mind. In my opinion, if a
person has to drive from the other side of town and then has to park 500
feet away, if they have to drive up and drop off their things and from
the closest parking spot in either direction you can not see the
belongings that you have dropped off there. It's around the corner,
whatever it is that you've left there, you lose visual sight of for
however long it takes you to go park your car and walk back. That mayor
may not be a threat but it's an inconvenience. As a full time park
employee of Hennepin Parks, it has been my personal experience that any
parking improvements, including paved parking, has increased the value
and the aesthetics of the neighborhood. People never like it until it's
there but when it's there they say hey, this looks pretty nice. It's a
lot nicer than it was before and we have a nicer park now. I also think
we need to check with City Council and see if we have developed a policy
as far as making parking available in all our parks. It seems to me that
in the past we made some kind of a recommendation to that effect to the
City Council and I think we checked with them and get some direction from-,
them so we know better what our guidelines are. Also I'm wondering,
there's a new development going on in the area, it would be immediately
south up on top of the hill above the trail that runs from Greenwood
,....,
,.....
""
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
April 26, 1988 - Page 11
Shores to Lake Ann. Are we going to be acquiring more parkland
immediately adjacent to that?
Sietsema: That's totally up to this Commission. There's no site plan or
any proposal or application to date. I think that it's just in the works
that that may be considered to be purchased but at the time of
application, this Commission would see the site plan for review and make
a recommendation to the City Council as to whether to accept parkland or
park fees.
Boyt: Is that the Eckankar property?
Sietsema: Yes, that's the Eckankar property.
Schroers: Last but certainly not least, it is more than obvious of the
interest and concern of the residents of Greenwood Shores and I think
that needs to be taken into consideration. I guess what I'm saying is,
I don't think that we have enough facts right now to make a decision and
I would like to see us look into the matter a lot further.
Mady: A couple of things. First off, she asked us why we're reviewing
this. I was at the Council meeting that you were reading the quotes from
and it was my belief in sitting through that meeting that the Council
directed us to review the situation even though the park had been closed
down. I have had discussion...concerning the park, I think it was
essentially through my direction that it's on the agenda at this time.
That's why we're reviewing it. That's what this body does. We review
situations from time to time. Just because the Council did something
five years ago does not mean that we do not review it at another time so
that's what we're doing now. There were a number of comments concerning
quotes from the Minutes. I believe what you did was taking items out of
context from the Council Minutes. Dale Geving was very clearly in his
comments that he wanted to see that park available to expand. He made a
comment that he had to park up at Carol's house to even go see the park.
To him that's just too far to go so I think the record should reflect
that the council members did make other comments early in the
meeting...in the Minutes do not necessarily reflect the comments made by
the councilmembers at that time. There's some discussion concerning the
safety situation that exists at the top of the edge of the park right at
the street level. Some commission members have indicated maybe to park
up there. I guess maybe staff should look at that. It's my belief, all
comments to date, that I'm safe to make a stop and make a right turn onto
the street at that point but there's no way you can back out onto that
street. I believe that the parking situation, if it's opened, needs to
be inside the park. The citizens mentioned something about a drop off
point at the top of the hill. Again, you're still talking about the same
hazard. If you're going to stop at the top of that hill, the hazard
exists so the best thing you could do is to keep cars from that point as
possible. You asked about permit parking, that's what we do at Lake Ann
currently. The Council has asked us to review that situation and
hopefully find an alternative to charging residents to enter the park.
There are some of us on this commission that feel that it is, I feel
personally it's ludicrous to charge people to enter into the park, any
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
April 26, 1988 - Page 12
.....",
park anywhere. Your taxes are already paying for that park. There's no
reason that the community should have to pay again to use the park. The
park is a free and open space that you can go out and recreate at and
spend your leisure time. I know there are other people on this
Commission that recommend something else. You asked about keeping track
of the park after the park was closed off. I believe what the blotter
does recognize any situation that's existed at the park and Carol made a
comment I think that Jim is looking at identifying the situation as it
existed prior to. My comments concerning opening the park up is that I
firmly believe that every park in the city of Chanhassen should be
readily available to every citizen in the city of Chanhassen. Walking
over 500 feet to get to the park is not accessibility. You've stated
that to get from the closest parking spot to the beach at Lake Ann was, I
think you said it was 96 yards. Earlier you made the comment something
about our standard that walking from the street to the beach at Greenwood
Shores is within our standard we use at Lake Ann.
Jeff Farmakes: I did not make that comment. That was Jan Lash. Just to
set the record straight. If you're addressing some of these comments to
me directly, I'd like to respond.
Mady: I haven't stated your name. In any event, what I'm stating is
that we do not have a standard for the number of feet a parking space has
to be from an area. What we're trying to do is make the parks available
as much as possible. That's where we're heading. The Council asked us
to review it. The members of the Council indicated the wish that that
park be available to the entire city. In my opinion, that park isn't
available to me. I, in no way am going to walk 400 or 500 feet. I'm not
even sure where I can park over there. Every time I drive down the road,
I see another no parking sign. If you have a safety situation, four cars
is just a minimum number for that park. It will at least allow somebody
to get in there during the day. We have the public safety officers or
else the Carver County Sheriff is currently locking Lake Ann park every
night. They also lock the boat access every night. putting a chain up
across the parking area at Greenwood Shores would just be another one of
their functions. It also brings the sheriff's department into your
neighborhood one more time a day. I don't know if they're coming every
day. I would doubt it and I think it's my personal opinion that they're
probably not going by your street every day and this would get them in
there at 10:00 at night every day. I think what we're trying to do here
is open up the park to everyone. I think the Commission is to review the
parking situation and make that as safe as possible. There's no way that
I'll ask to open the park without having the bollards and chains in place
because you'll have the same situation that existed a year ago.
Especially in the winter where people are just driving right through and
tearing up the park. We need to set that parking up so it's defined and
make it safe. I believe currently that can be done and that's exactly
where I'm heading for. Is there any further discussion?
...."
Schroers: I asked some questions when we were out there a week ago
Sunday and looked. Number one, there is no signs anywhere that exist
right now that say, caution curve, slow, children at play or anything
like that so for the meantime right now, maybe we could look at getting
.....",.,
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
April 26, 1988 - Page 13
,.....
some better signage on that street in the area of the access just because
of the curve. There's really nothing telling traffic that's coming in
there to slow down because of the curve and because it's a more used area
so I would like us to look at that right now. Also, I have a question on
what is more dangerous. The curve is naturally going to slow down
traffic coming around that point. You're going to slow down because
you're going to go around the corner but as you get around the corner
you're going to speed up, whichever direction you're going. If you have
cars parked parallel along the street at an area where the traffic is
going faster and a kid comes out from between the parked cars, is that
more dangerous? Is there more chance of an accident that way or is there
more chance of an accident happening because of the congested area in the
park? Maybe Jim would know that better than I. I don't know but that
was something that came to my mind.
Jim Chaffee: Larry, you caught me. It's a judgment call in that regard
because it's whatever would be reasonable in that situation. Certainly
you can relate any situation to an accident, what usually is true but
again, it's all a hypothetical situation. We really don't know.
Schroers: Well, safety has got to be on the top of the list. Until we
decide what it is we want to do there but let's push for some better
,..... signage in the area right now.
,.....
Hasek: I did take some time to take some measurements down and I wanted
to make sure that the measurements got into the record. As I stated
earlier, it is approximately 540 feet from the east to the entry into the
park. Up on top of the hill on the northern part is 510 feet to your
closest space. From that point down into what we would perceive as the
closest parking space, based on vertical alignment...is another 150 feet.
That point to the end of the gravel area down there is another 50 feet so
from the farther parking spot on the ~treet, the closest parking spot on
the street, the one to the east, all the way down to what would be the
closest space to the beach, would be over 700 feet. That's two city
blocks. That's a long distance for anybody to have to walk to get to any
activity even if it is within Lake Ann Park and I had nothing to do with
the design of that park. The landing at the top of the street to the
back of the area which would considered flat or sloping towards the
street is 45 feet. That's enough landing to accomodate at least two
automobiles. If there is a visual problem at the top, the biggest
problem there is at the top based on visibility is location of the park
sign. I think it's located probably right on right-of-way and when
you're stopped up there, it's dead in your way. I think the sign ought
to be moved from a safety standpoint. Personally I would like to see the
plantings along the border of the park there be beefed up. I don't know
that we need more rocks. I don't know that any amount of rocks that we
put in there is going to keep bikes out of there. That's a problem we've
got in every park we've got. There are motorcycle tracks across all of
the south of Lake Ann...design our parks to specifically address that
situation. I think that's probably about it other than I just want
elaborate a little bit about Larry's comments about signs. I think the
corner should be signed, Caution Curve. I think there could be Slow,
Children Playing signs and I think a little bit of signage out there, and
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
April 26, 1988 - Page 14
~
I don't want to see too many signs out there obviously but I think there
are a few that are needed and I think from a safety standpoint should be
looked at by staff.
Mady: One other comment I've got, one thing in this accessibility
discussion that we haven't addressed and I think needs to be addressed is
to make the park handicap accessible. I believe they should, no matter
where we have our parking for anything, the number one closest spot
should be the handicap spot. I don't think anymore than one but I thi.nk
we should have one handicap spot set aside and if you don't have proper
tags for it... I think it's time to make a motion on this.
Mady moved, Boyt seconded to direct staff to have Mark Koegler review the
parking design for Greenwood Shores to address the safety situation to
investigate whether or not parking can be put at the top of the hill to
be safe. Further, the situation concerning safety signs along the street
be reviewed by the Public Safety Commission. Mark Koegler to come back
within a month with a new parking layout so there will be time to go
forward with the plan before the beach season. All voted in favor and
motion carried.
PARK DEDICATION FEES.
Sietsema: I contacted a number of people to ask them the question of
what the projections for land values in the next 18 months were going to -'
be and no one I knew did anything formally. A1 K1ingelhutz, well I think
that where they're going to change uses, it's going to go up and in the
southern area it's going to go down and you're industrial's going to stay
about the same. He said maybe you want to call the County Assessor who I
called first and he projects that they won't change and has nothing
formal as a formal projection either. Therefore, my recommendation stays
the same as it was last week. To increase it based on the numbers that I
gave you two or three meetings ago which would bring the single family
rate to $425.00 from $415.00 per unit. Duplex to $425.00. Multi-family
to $295.00 and industrial to $1,050.00 per acre.
Hasek: I would like to see them higher but I can't see the justification
for doing it...
Mady: Basically my comments are, I don't like what I see in total but we
have no other way of defending it so we've got to go with what's legal.
Mady moved, Boyt seconded that the Park and Recreation commission
recommend to increase the Park Dedication Fees for 1988 as follows:
Single Family
Duplex
Multiple Family
Industrial
$425.00/unit
$425.00/unit
$295.00/unit
$1,050.00/acre
....."
Trail dedication fee set at one-third of the park dedication fee.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
,.,...,
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
April 26, 1988 - Page 15
REVISED 1988 CIP.
Sietsema: This is the revised 1988 Capital Improvement Program. I took
your comments from the meeting of March 22nd when we discussed this and
put them in order of priority as I heard what you were saying. So if you
want to make any changes to that or add anything to the capital
improvement program, now is the time. If you approve this, I'll send it
to Council with the changes for their approval.
Boyt: I have a couple of additions. North Lotus Lake, if we could
include sand lot volleyball and horseshoe pits as requested by the
neighborhood.
Watson: Is that park shelter, is that going to be anywhere where it
could be used by the people using that...
Sietsema: It's deleted.
Watson: Because there's a lot of people that use that skating rink down
there and there's no place to change your skates so the dog can run off
with your boots while you're skating. You go down there on a Sunday,
there are about 20-30 people skating on that rink down there. They all
~ end up using their cars and stuff to change skates and stuff. If there's
anyway that something attractive. We don't want something ugly because
it is right off the road.
Sietsema: The reason it was deleted is because we had only put like
$1,000.00 in for each one and these little park shelters that are going
to be worth anything, are worth looking at, are more like $15,000.00 or
$20,000.00 so that's why I deleted all of them and thought we would look
to putting them in next year. Maybe one every so often and we do have a
little bit extra money to do these things that have come up.
Watson: Because even something relatively simply out of construction
...but something to get you out of the wind and there's a bench to sit
down.
Boyt:
Maybe just benches.
Watson: Yes, maybe just some nice benches or something. Anything that
would give them an opportunity to do it without sitting down in a
snowbank.
Boyt: We have just plain park benches outside.
Sietsema: Park benches would be good.
Watson: Yes, because it's fun to be out there and on Sunday afternoons
~ lots of people are using it.
Boyt: I had another question. Can number 1, 2 and 3 all be done at the
same time?
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
April 26, 1988 - Page 16
....-'
Sietsema: Yes.
Boyt: So we can start on the trails after the Council approves this?
Sietsema: Yes.
Hasek: I don't know if the question was asked but...did we take them out
and not replace them?
Sietsema: At Lake Ann?
Hasek: The one at Lake Ann by the ballfields was going to have the
block. Block it up. In fact he might have already done that. I don't
know if he was told about it.
Mady: Fix that and once we grade the other side and get that one, we can
look at puting them all in at the same time.
Watson: It isntt really falling down or anything?
Sietsema: No, it's a safe structure.
Mady: The only thing I didn't see on here was phase 2 of Carver Beach
parking for the beach beach parking. I drove by it tonight and it's not
really delineated as to where the parking area is. I'd like to see -'
bollards installed.
Sietsema: I'm going to add then on Carver Beach the parking. Phase 2.
Hasek: Even phase 1.
Sietsema: That's right. We didn't get to it last year.
Mady: Because it still is basically, they took the no parking signs out
and the bollards should get installed. We need to get those up and then
put no parking signs up to the bollards so everything is perfectly clear
where you park and where you can't park. I don't see any reason to
blacktop it at this time. To me, everything is still in that transition
stage. If the problems come up again, I have no problems closing that
off again but as long as, the problems that have been showing up with
water, are problems that occur at every park no matter what you're going
to do but if you have a situation where the motorcycle gangs are coming
back and having beer busts and that, then we've got to take a hard look
at it but I don't see that. That was one thing I didn't see in here that
I thought was very important.
Schroers: Lori, you have these numbered 1, 2, 3. Is that in order of
occurrence and importance?
Sietsema: This is in order of priority which is basically just for -'
staff's benefit. When Gary and Dale are trying to figure out what they
have to do this summer and what has to be first, this is the order of
priority. It doesn't mean that they're going to do one before they can
,.....
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
April 26, 1988 - Page 17
start the next. They can do 1, 2 and 3 at the same time but I wanted him
to know that North Lotus Lake, getting that done and the grass growing
and everything, that's a top priority. This is priority.
Schroers: Also it says, here we go again, Greenwood Shores-hand launch
to Lake Lucy and there's a question mark.
Sietsema: That was a flag for someone to catch because I wanted to...
Schroers: I think that's our ace in the hole right there. It really is.
If we put in hand launch to Lake Lucy, there's got to be someplace where
you can park your car so you can take your canoe into Lake Lucy. The
most practical place for that would be at Greenwood Shores.
Sietsema: I just wanted to double check to make sure that we wanted to
do that. One of the things that, this gets back to what we talked about
last time, about the Chain of Lakes program, if it comes up that we can
not get a bonafide access, DNR approved access onto Lake Lucy, they would
accept a hand launch. Even though it would be no motorized boats
launched there, something that they have to park their car and carry off
their car down there, they may compromise with us given the situation. If
there's any other way that we can get access onto Lake Lucy, they're
,..... going to make us do it but the more I look at that, the more difficulties
I see.
Schroers: You mean over on the north side?
Boyt: Do we own that land?
Watson: We own access to Lake Lucy now.
Sietsema: We have a little strip of land that goes to Lake Lucy as a
park. It's a little fork. There's 100 feet on Lake Ann and then there's
a little fork that goes over to Lake Lucy.
Schroers: It is actually part of Greenwood Shores Park.
Watson: I walked through that woods and did you see Mr. Pemoxes' yard?
It runs right behind his yard is what it is.
Sietsema: There's a little line there before the creek.
Watson: There's a bog kind of that moves in there. Some parts of the
year it can get to be a real problem. There will have to some
maintenance. I don't know that you could get a hand launch in there but
there's no reason...
,.....
Sietsema: I'm hoping that that would be a reasonable compromise. We
don't want cars with trailers going down through that neighborhood. I
would never propose that. That we open that as a car-trailer boat access
but if we got the clearing down there so they could lift their canoe or
their boat or whatever off of their car and walk it down there, if that
could be a compromise for DNR. They're not very good at compromising but
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
April 26, 1988 - Page 18
...",;'
given the situation, I don't know if they're going to make us give up a
million dollar project because we can't get an access on the lake.
Watson: They didn't bring it up and every time I've gone down to the
park, I was real surprised that tonight...
Sietsema: They don't want the hand launch?
Watson: No.
Hasek: The gentleman next door, the reason he tried to give us four, he
walked away when Larry and I were down there, said this doesn't make any
sense. Look at, this big thing just blew in yesterday and this one's
been sitting here for a couple of weeks. All this stuff moves around the
lake and I wanted to say, so what. That means we don't want to put a
launch on anyplace on this lake because all this stuff moves around.
What he was telling us is put it over there.
Sietsema: He wanted us to further investigate, that was Jeff Farmakes,
he was in here when he was looking up those minutes and we talked for
quite a long time and he wanted us to investigate the outlot over at
Lake Lucy Highlands which cost $55,000.00. There's 5.9 acres of which
5.3 is under water and you'd have to go out 400 feet of dredging out the
stuff that would take maintenance very year to keep it clear. I don't
think that we do want to get into that but again, that may be an option. ~
I'm not saying we're closing the door on that either but that may be an
option if that's the only way the DNR will approve an access. I guess
personally I would rather do that than see cars and trailers corning
through the Greenwood Shores neighborhood and parking within that park.
That's going to take a lot and if it's going to be DNR approved, it will
take, it's a 100 acre lake, that will take 5 spots for car/trailer
parking that we'll need for that and I just don't see that that park has
it. That would ruin the intent of the park.
Watson: But the hand launch, there shouldn't be any problem.
Sietsema: I just wanted to make sure that you still wanted to do that.
Schroers: I definitely want the hand launch in there. Also, I have to
believe that ultimately, especially the homeowners on the lake and the
people, other neighborhood people in the area would much rather see a
hand launch with only electric motors or the same type of regulations
that we have on Lake Ann, as opposed to an access where people can have
motorized boats out there.
Sietsema: That's another option that we may have. If we can only do a
hand launch on there, they may require us to water surface zone that lake
so no motorized boats are allowed.
Schroers: That's pesonally what I would like to see.
--".
Sietsema: I don't know how many people are affected.
IfII"""
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
April 26, 1988 - Page 19
Boyt: There are only a few people on that lake aren't there?
Mady: Jeff told us that nobody uses that lake. He wouldn't mind seeing
it all opened up because there aren't any.
Sietsema: He says there's one guy that has a speed boat that skis on it
but the rest of them have small motor boats.
Watson: There are about 10 houses in Greenwood Shores on Lake Lucy.
Sietsema: Maybe if we put it to them that these are your choices. Five
car and trailer parking spaces in there plus the non-trailer parking
spaces with the drive in boat access or a non-motorized lake.
Hasek: Right now there's a sign that says no motorized boats. Electric
motors only.
Sietsema: That's for Lake Ann.
Hasek: But still, what that really implies is that we've got a hand
carry launch in there right now, right?
""""""
Watson:
For Lake Ann, yes.
Hasek: Is there anything that precludes you from doing a boat into Lake
Lucy?
Watson: Only the access itself.
Schroers: Only the fact that you have to carry it on your shoulders for
500 feet.
Mady: Every time they corne in front of this commission, they've told it
was 200 feet to the nearest parking space.
Boyt: I have one other thing. To have Park regulation signs posted.
There were motorcycles driving through Chan Pond Park and I stopped the
guys and said did you know that this isn't allowed. They hadn't seen any
signs and they didn't think...
Schroers: That's a good point. I'm sorry that I brought this up but
let's erase that question mark right there.
Sietsema: I put in there as a flag because I was unsure of how you felt
about it.
,.....
Watson: One other thing at Lake Ann Park, it's on the wish list. Up in
that oak grove, wouldn't it be nice to have maybe just some little rough
kind of benches or something up there at some point where people who just
want to walk through there and sit up there and listen to the birds.
Something where people can sit up there and just enjoy it.
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
April 26, 1988 - Page 20
-'
sietsema: We don't own a lot up there. We don't own a whole lot of that
up there.
Mady: One or two benches up there. The east side we're talking about.
Boyt: How about the west side?
Mady: We need to brush out that area because it's pretty dense in there.
Watson: Just so that in our areas there are passive where people can
just have space to look around. It's really tought to find a woods that
isn't somebody's backyard so if there are areas that people can go and
sit and just enjoy the fact that there are just trees and birds and
everything.
Hasek moved, Schroers seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
accept the revised 1988 Capital Improvement Program as presented by staff
with the appropirate changes discussed. All voted in favor and motion
carried.
DISCUSSION OF PUBLICIZING TELEPHONE NUMBERS.
Boyt: Since Bill's had his in for a year and a half, he hasn't had any
crank phone calls to the house and he's controversial. Some of his calls...........
have been the animal control people...
Mady: I can't recall ever seeing any of the other commissions having
their names and numbers and published. We do all the time as a part of
our Park and Rec News Update but I don't recall seeing the Planning
Commission people ever in the paper or Public Safety Commission. It's
just us and City Council basically.
Watson:
I don't care whether my number is published or not.
Hasek: The only concern that I have is that I've got a number that for
some reason I get calls for Buzz and Sally. I get a ton of phone calls.
I don't know if that's a number that's real close to something else. I
just can't tell you the number of phone calls we get at odd times of the
day just asking for people that used to live there or used to have that
number. It's just incredible and I just didn't want to have to put up
with more people. You know all of a sudden this number shows up and
they're saying...oh, wrong number. That's the way it goes.
Mady: But as a public official on a public body, you should be somewhat
available. All it says is if you have questions contact these people.
Sietsema: The reason why this commission is publicized more than the
others is because we have a quarterly brochure that goes out with
recreation and park news with programs and where the parks are and what -'
facilities are available and that goes out quarterly. with that we
include your names because it's a Park and Recreation Information
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
April 26, 1988 - Page 21
JIll"""'-
brochure. That's just so people know there is a Park and Recreation
Commission and if they have any concerns regarding parks or programs or
whatever, they can contact you through us because the City Hall's number
is published but just so they know who's doing what.
Watson: But isn't that part of it, if they want a specific commissioner.
Mady: Maybe that's just what we should do is just make that statement.
They usually call me anyway so what the heck. They call during the day
looking for me at home and of course I'm not there, I'm at work.
Sietsema: It came up last time and if you wanted me to put your phone
numbers in then I would need direction to do so otherwise I'll just go on
as I always have.
Boyt: You could put Chairman and Co-Chairman numbers in there.
Mady: To me it would make more sense if we were all in there or not at
all.
Watson: I think the City could provide it and if they want a specific
person and they recognize the names, it's probably not going to hurt.
~ Schroers: Just to reflect on what we were talking about. The heated
issues that may arrive around the boat accesses and all the other things
that we may be dealing with in the future. I'd rather not have my phone
number where people can do that. If somebody has something legitimate
and wants to call City Hall and ask for somebody if I could be helpful,
that would be fine.
Sietsema: There's a cooling down period too. If they're really ticked
off because there are cars and trailers parked along South Shore Drive
and they're really mad, they have to wait until Monday to call City Hall
to get your number. It may alleviate some of the real hot heads.
Schroers: I agree with that.
Watson: The thing about it is though, when I was on the Council, I
didn't get any phone calls that were really abusive or anything.
Mady: Unless there's a motion to publish our phone numbers, let's go on
to 7.
REVIEW PARKING ISSUE AT CARVER BEACH.
~
Sietsema: Because it was our interpretation that this should be reviewed
after a year, I wanted to let you know what was going on at Carver Beach
Park. Again, of the 79 phone calls received at different city parks, 12
were at the Lotus Trail/Carver Beach area. One was for boat launching
and I have to assume that that's at the old boat access that's supposed
to be closed and people have been told that they should call because
that's not legal anymore. Parking complaints were 9 and I know we got a
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
April 26, 1988 - Page 22
lot of those right at the beginning when a lot of people didn't know that-'
there was parking allowed in that area. People did call and because
there were cars in that parking lot. On the park rules sign, the number
one rule on there was there is no parking allowed in this park. We put a
piece of tape over it and someone ripped it off who wanted there not -to
be parking there so now we've painted over that but I believe that a lot
of those 9 were from people who didn't realize that the parking had been
opened. There's also no parking all the way along Lotus Trail. From the
beach area all the way down to the old boat access. So if there are
people that are parked along there, there might have been calls there
that might not have necessarily have been at the beach area. One dog
complaint and one camping. It's the recommendation of this office to
make the landscaping improvements around the park area as depicted in
Phase 2 of the parking plan.
Hasek: But Phase 1 hasn't been done yet. Do you want to change that to
Phase l?
Sietsema: I think we should do both. Phase 1 and 2. Perhaps not the
paving but at least the landscaping because what happens is people are
parking right in front of that steps and you can't get around the car to
get down the steps. I would like to see us do as much of that as
possible.
Watson: You made a statement in here too that it would bring...I feel
confident that together Jim and I will be able to tackle these problems
and concerns. You may have that priviledge in regards to Greenwood
Shores.
--'
Hasek moved, Boyt seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend to make the landscaping improvements around the Carver Beach
parking area as depicted in Phase II of the Carver Beach Parking Plan
without the paving. All voted in favor and motion carried.
CHANHASSEN TRAVELING GIRLS SOFTBALL DONATIONS.
Mady: I have some discussion on this one. I think we're all probably
read through the request that the City provide some type of financial
donation to the girl's traveling softball team. Tonight on the phone I
received a call from Rick Moleno who is the coach of the boy's Babe Ruth
baseball team in Chanhassen and he was looking for some type of financial
help in the uniforms for the Babe Ruth team. I told him that the City
had not in the past been doing that type of thing and those things are
usually handled by CAA or through some type of private donation or fund
raisers and although we haven't done it in the past were reviewing the
situation with the girl's softball team and I'd put it on with the same
thing and we could talk about it and vote on it. I feel personally,
I'll start off, it would be nice if we could do all this but we don't
provide the funding for any of the hockey teams and they spend a lot of
money. We don't do it with any other team that I'm aware of and I """""
believe if we start with the girl's softball team, we would be opening
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
April 26, 1988 - Page 23
If1'"
the hugest pandora's box we could ever do. You could spend tens of
thousands of dollars on equipping and uniformning teams so I believe, my
feeling personally that the function of a city Park and Recreation
department at this time is to provide facilities for all citizens and
that if there is a specific team that requires something additional, than
they need to address that themselves through either private fund raisers
or donations.
Sietsema: The girl's have withdrawn that request because they figured it
out. It doesn't really need any action.
Tape Break.
Mady: ...within the next year to accomodate baseball, both Little League
and Babe Ruth. It's unfortunate for this year but there are scheduling
problems and we've addressed the situation. We know it exists and we're
rectifying it. It's just going to take a matter of getting it all
finished.
Watson: Is there another night? If they were on a Monday Thursday
schedule, is there another night?
Mady: Their league plays Mondays and Thursdays and I just don't think
~ there's any, unless Todd knows of anyplace available in the city.
Sietsema: Is the Babe Ruth combined with Chaska?
Mady: No.
Boyt: Could we play with Chaska facilities?
Watson: They have a field that we could maybe use.
Sietsema: Do you know if they checked with Minnetonka Intermediate
School?
Mady: I know they have some kids on a team from Shoreview and...
Hoffman: I've received a schedule already from Minnetonka Community
Services and that field is being used by Minnetonka teams.
Mady: I don't imagine there's anything available but anything you and
Todd can do to find a spot.
Boyt: Can they use Lake Ann?
Mady: They need it from 6:00 to 8:30.
,....
Sietsema: There are two games for an adult league. There are two
things. One, our stuff is already in place but our policy has been that
city programs go first and then after that, anybody who wants to come in
and we've pretty much given CAA first, we've worked with them. I don't
know what we're going to do when we get to the point when we don't have
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
April 26, 1988 - Page 24
~
enough fields. If things don't expand as quickly as we'd like them to
except to say, CAA we have this many fields for you, you can combine your
teams so you have less or whatever. The only problem with that is that
the other teams they're not really competeing with because they need the
Field 1 at Lake Ann. It's the only field in the City that we have that
would work but if they could be more flexible in their schedule or
something.
Boyt: I think the CAA can. We don't really own the fields anyway...
Sietsema: Perhaps if they could, I don't know if Babe Ruth could play on
the elementary school fields.
Mady: No, they've got to be so long.
Boyt: Is there anyplace in town?
Hasek: Could Chaparral be used on Thursday nights for girls?
Hoffman: Thurday nights?
Mady: Chaparral just wouldn't handle Babe Ruth.
Schroers: What we're suggesting I think is maybe we could look at taking
one of the fields at Chaparral and turning it into a useable facility for.
Babe Ruth and Little League. Are the requirements so different that Babe~
Ruth and Little League...
Sietsema: They have to have 90 foot bases and all of the softball bases
are at 60 feet.
Schroers: But what I'm asking is, is it the same for Babe Ruth and for
Little League or is Little League...
Sietsema: No. Little League is less than 60 feet.
Schroers: And there's more need for Babe Ruth right now?
Sietsema: There's a need for both.
Mady: It's about even. It's just we don't have the facilities and it's
unfortunate that our new park isn't going to be ready for another year.
Schroers: Well, if that's true, I'm just wondering how much good it
would do to turn one of those at Chaparral Park.
Hoffman: It would be a considerable amount.
Mady: In Babe Ruth we'll have enough kids who are capable of hitting a
baseball in excess of 300 feet so you're putting the homes in jeopardy.
..."
Sietsema: The thing is that you couldn't use the other field too because
they share an outfield. That's fine for smaller kids and for softball
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
April 26, 1988 - Page 25
"
practices and that kind of thing but if you've got a girls softball on
one, the traveling girls softball on one, you could no way have Babe Ruth
on the other because they'd be hitting the back of the head all night
long so that means that we now only have one team taking up two fields
and we already have the girls scheduled out at that.
Hasek: We're not trying to tell to...
Sietsema: I know you're not but just so you know, that's the difficulty
of it. That's a problem.
Mady: Is there a possibility that you might be able to have Little
League and Girls softball or Babe Ruth and Little League, those two.
Sietsema:
Is there a problem with Little League right now?
Hasek: I know last year when I was out there and we were talking about
tournament time I think it was.
Hoffman: At which field, Meadow Green?
Hasek: No, at Chaparral. The year started and I was thinking about the
possibility, we had to kick some teams over there from the men's over 32
,.... league and I was looking at the possibility of putting fences up there.
What I discovered was, that was 10 feet short of being long enough to put
in two fields like the short one we've got over at...
Hoffman: 275?
Hasek: Yes. I paced off one and then I went out there and walked that
whole distance and I think, if I remember correctly, it was only 10 feet
short of being able to accept two fences or a fence for each field which
isn't so bad. So I'm wondering maybe if the Little League and the Babe
Ruth could play, if they could shorten up one enough to accomodate the
Little League and take some expansion, obviously from the infields in
both directions. All you have to do is move the bases in Little League.
Sietsema: There's still the problem though of a ball going over the
fence and hitting a kid in the back of the head.
Mady: You have to have a proper fenced off area.
Hasek: I guess the question is, if they really want to play, will they
make some sacrifices in order to have a field. We're not obviously going
to redesign that whole park to accomodate them.
"
Mady: To me it would make more sense to move softball teams over to
Chaparral and leave the baseball field over there. I guess I would
direct staff to review the whole situation because if we put softball
over there we could have some problems with neighbors but if it gets us
through a 1 to 2 year situation, maybe that's something we can do.
Boyt: Isn't there a baseball diamond at Carver Beach?
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
April 26, 1988 - Page 26
...,."
Sietsema: It's very short.
Hoffman: That's for ragball. That doesn't even have a dirt infield.
Sietsema: Before we would do that and I'm not trying to nix all the
ideas you're coming up with but we're making some compromises to a policy
that we tried to stick with in not having organized league sports in the
neighborhood parks because you definitely have conflicts. We are
compromising that right now by having Pee Wee in the neighborhood parks
and by having the girls traveling softball in the neighborhood park but I
don't have as big a problem with that because it's kids and kids are out
there, the little kids, are not hitting the balls as far. They're not
using rough language. They're not verbally abusing people as they go
through their yards so when we start getting older kids that hit the ball
harder and adults, I'm having more of a problem. That's more of a
compromise than I'm comfortable with right off the bat. I would have to
look at it in detail.
Hasek: Those are exactly the type of comments I would look for. The
policy things because I think there are a few of us on here that actually
don't know what the policies are and if you're got a policy that's set up
and there's good justification for it, I don't have any problem with that
whatsoever. I think if that is a policy, it was obviously set because
there were some problems in the past.
-'
Sietsema: So I guess what we will do is try to work with Minnetonka to
see if we can't squeeze some nights out of that because that's their home
field too for whoever's using it that night. They may be away some
nights that we can play on there. We just have to get their schedule.
There are still some options. The same with the Legion field. There may
be nights that once they get their schedule down, that we may be able to
get in there.
Watson: If Babe Ruth is a little more flexible.
Sietsema: They're in a big league.
Watson: So Monday and Thursday is all they can get?
Sietsema: Yes, but what I'm saying is it's a home field so possibly
games are played away. It may be the same games that they play home that
the other team is using that as a home field. I don't know. Maybe we
can accomodate one and they'll have to combine and have try-outs or
something. It's going to be tough until we get that field expansion.
Mady: I guess you can talk to Rick and tell him we're going to try and
help him and look at it the very best we can and do our best. For a
couple years it's just going to be real tough for the City.
Boyt: There was one thing, we ha~ talked about half size wind screens -'
for the tennis courts. I'd really, it doesn't make any sense to me. I'd
really rather see a full size wind screen...
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
April 26, 1988 - Page 27
,....
PARK DEDICATION MARCH BUDGET REPORT.
Mady: Lo and behold we're a quarter of the way through the year and
we've got about the quarter of the money we envisioned we might get and
everything looks good. I appreciate staff giving this to us.
NEIGHBORING CITIES' POLICIES ON EQUESTRIAN TRAILS.
Boyt: Did you see the picture of the guy riding a horse down the bike
path in Chanhassen?
Watson: Great picture of Russ Stoddard and he's lived here forever.
Riding down the bike path and there were bicycles going and he's right in
front of the horse as he's marching.
Hasek: We should give him a ticket.
Watson: The thing about it is, where should he have gone?
Sietsema: That was on Lake Lucy Road? On the striped path?
Watson: There are a lot of horses along Lake Lucy Road.
,...,
Hasek: I think the problem here is the nature of development in
Chanhassen is changing and the question is, are we going to encourage
people to own horses by putting in trails? Are we going to discourage
it? Are we going to just ignore it and kind of coexist? We have to
think about that a little bit. If somebody moves into a neighborhood and
there's not a horse trail there, does that mean that they can ride
anyplace that they want to or are they... That's part of the issue.
Here historically people have riden their horses along the roads and the
ditches and so forth and certainly if we're going to encourage people to
own horses here we should probably...
Mady: One thing I'd like to look at is, if the City is going to continue
to allow horses in the City, and I guess they are to a certain point in
time, we have now required dogs to be licensed and horses provide some of
a safety hazard... If we have to address that with trails for them,
maybe we'll get to the point of setting up a horse license.
Hoffman: They have a stable permit for a maximum amount of horses per
stable per site.
,...,
Sietsema: It would be similar to our kennel. If you have more than
three animals you have to have a kennel license.
Hasek: I live in a fairly organized neighborhood and for me to walk out
in my yard and all of a sudden see this big pile of droppings sitting
there, really is disgusting.
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
April 26, 1988 - Page 28
.....""
Watson: I grew up within a mile of this place and there were horses over
every square inch of this area. It's very disturbing to me to realize
that there isn't a prayer for my kids having anything even remote. My
horse was loose in the cornfield where my house is and I see Russ
Stoddard riding down there and I realize when you say give him a ticket.
Russ Stoddard has been here, I'm 42 years old and I remember him when I
was a kid and he lived across the street from where he lives now. He had
horses then and he has horses now and he's going to probably die riding
one of them on Lake Lucy Road because he's been riding there for 40
years. There's something wrong with the fact that you look at that
picture and you say, okay Russ you shouldn't be on the bike path, where
should you be?
Sietsema: The intent of that bike's only is not because horses can't be
there. It's the cars.
Watson: You couldn't help but look at it and see bikes only in front of
this horse marching down the path.
Mady: You should change that to non-motorized, at least for the time
being, to non-motorized. I guess what I'm seeing here is the cities
around us are doing away with horses. I would like to see Chanhassen
kind of stay the way they are. We'll allow but I don't see us
encouraging additional horses corning into the City. 10-15 years from -,.
now, basically they'll be gone.
Boyt: I would like to include it.
Hasek: Is there someway that we could contact the woman that was in here
before? If we could get some input from people who own horses. I don't
understand anything about horses.
Sietsema: What kind of input?
from them?
What kind of information did you want
Hasek: Kind of where they ride now. How they see it changing? Are they
being completely restricted? Are there still places out there? Can they
ride in the ditches if they're mowed and so forth? Can a horse ride on a
tar road for any distance? Is that safe?
Sietsema: It's not very safe.
Hasek: I would think that they would slip.
Sietsema: If it's wet they slip and it's not the best place for them to
ride for hooves but the biggest thing is that in the area that we're
talking about where the horses are, not in the Lake Lucy area but in the
southern area, you've got TH 101, pioneer Trail, Lyman Blvd., CR 17.
Those are very narrow roads and the ditch sections in there are not very,,.,
they don't accomodate horses very well.
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
April 26, 1988 - Page 29
"'"
Watson: I think it will be a very sad day when we cease to accomodate
them and somebody says it's more important to be able to bicycle than
ride a horse.
Sietsema: I don't think that on our paved trails that we should have
horses. _ But there's nothing saying we can't have,
within the 20 foot right-of-way that we can't have a dirt path that
horses can ride on or in the nature trails, if we groom them large enough
or whatever, they're not that busy. People don't even know where they
are right now but as people become more aware and are using them, even if
everybody is aware and they're all in place and we have all the easements
that we need, they're not going to be packed like at Calhoun so when you
come across, you meet a horse, it's not like...
Hoffman: Larry, have you dealt with horse trails somewhat with Hennepin
parks and once you designate it a horse trail, there is some maintenance
problems and I'm not sure if you could give us a little more insight on
that?
"'"
Schroers: What we do maintenancewise on the horse trails is we mow them
and we keep them brushed back. That is the new growth. We don't allow
it to come into the trail. As far as the droppings are concerned, mother
nature deals with that unless some person complains. There's an area
that has a particular problem and needs some attention for one reason or
another. Whether it's the thing to do or whether it's not the thing to
do, just to keep people happy and smiling, the boss will send someone
down to do it.
Boyt: Another thing we talked about was when we acquire our southern
park we use the perimeter or part of that as a horse trail.
Hasek: I don't understand enough about horses to know what direction we
should even be going with this. I don't think they're asking us
specifically for horse trails.
Sietsema: No, what they're asking is that we don't exclude them on the
nature trails. They're not interested in our paved trails. They just
want in the nature trails along Bluff Creek and what not, to remember
that they are around and they have a use for those trails too. The other
thing is they would like us to remember that the Minnesota Valley
Wildlife Refuge along the river has some excellent horse trails and if we
can get our trail system connected to that in a safe way that could get
them from where the population of horses is and get them to that, then
they're home free but right now they have to go underneath that tunnel on
TH 101 and who's going to ride a horse under that tunnel. That's a one
lane tunnel. There is no way that they're going to take that chance.
Hasek: But at the same time, I would really hate to see Bluff Creek
become a horse trail back and forth there. If you've ever been down to
~. the bottom of that ravine down there, it's the most beautiful place. It's
gorgeous down there. I guess I could see it if there were a lot of
people but if you start encouraging people to go in this area with horses
because they can't get onto that system or one of our parks, have we
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
April 26, 1988 - Page 30
......"
eliminate that as a natural park and actually turn it into a horse trail.
Watson: I really don't think it would constitute that big of a problem.
I think there are people who would use it, yes and maybe on trail rides,
etc. but you will find that most of the people who ride horses, the same
people work and they maybe have an hour there and they're going to use
whatever is close to home. Long rides, most people don't have a lot of
time to go a long distance because you don't go very fast.
Hasek: The people that were in here, they don't have any kind of a local
club or anything?
Watson: Yes, they do. Carol works upstairs. She works here.
Hasek: It would be nice just to see how organized they are. If they can
police themselves on some of the potential problems like safety and
ramrodding their way down the trail someplace. If they can police
themselves like snowmobilers.
Mady: I think that's what we directed them to do. The best thing was to
come up with a situation to see if they can do some of that at this time
and when we address the southern park...
Schroers: That's the direction that you do want to go to because we
don't even such a thing as a designated horse trail period. At certain
times of the year that particular portion of the trail is a snowmobile
trail or a cross country ski trail or whatever. That falls into the
multi-use and horse riding is a seasonal type of thing. You have very
few people that go out in the middle of winter.
......"
Sietsema: Again, this doesn't require any action. I just put it in
there because you wanted to know what other cities were doing.
MASTER GARDENERS - VERBAL UPDATE.
Sietsema: I don't have a whole lot to say except that when we were
talking about our wish list, on the wish list there was a desire to have
flower gardens and shruberies and whatnot planted around some park
identification signs. I contacted the Master Gardeners and they are
going to be having a meeting in the next couple of weeks. He indicated
that they would be willing to do maybe two or three sites, build flower
beds and put stuff in if we're willing to pay for the material that they
need. What they wanted us to do was identify where we wanted them to do
it and how big and give them some direction of what we wanted.
Hasek: Maybe what we should do is try and think of some spots where we'd
like to see it and take it over to Mark or maybe Ben and then come back.
Sietsema: Yes, I think if we just identify what areas we want done. .-,
Mady: Community parks first.
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
April 26, 1988 - Page 31
"
Sietsema: Then tell them to do something nice and send us a bill, within
limits.
Hasek: Is there anything around City Hall or high visible areas?
Sietsema: City Center Park is one area. Lake Ann already has some
plantings around there.
Mady: The only concern I have is that they keep them somewhat away from
the very active play areas because kids are going to run through them no
matter what you do.
Sietsema: I thought what we talked about was just right around those
park signs.
Mady: To my knowledge, most of the park signs are somewhat away from the
very active play areas so that's okay but if they were to put them right
by backstops or by totlot equipment, there's no way those flowers would
last more than a couple of weeks. But as long as they're away from the
very active play areas, I think it's a great idea and I'd like to see it
get started off in the community parks first and then expanded off into
all the neighborhood parks.
Hasek: Is there any chance at the Lake Ann sign?
,....,
Sietsema:
It's landscaped with shrubery and bushes.
Hoffman: That's real attractive there. Inside the park it could use
some.
Sietsema: I was thinking maybe around the tennis courts, in that area.
Or even around the little gate house.
Schroers: By the gate house, that's a real good idea. People's first
impressions, That's one of the first things they see when they stop at
the gate house.
Hasek: Will the gate house be moving?
Mady: With the expansion of the park we're looking at moving the park
entrance road. Also with a soccer field being put in, the gate house had
to get moved so that's the situation we can delay it until that whole
thing's been redesigned. No sense in spending money to put a flower bed
in this year when it's going to get torn out next year.
Boyt: Maybe Herman Field.
LETTER TO CHASKA.
~ Mady: Did you receive any comments or response to this from Chaska?
Sietsema: No.
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
April 26, 1988 ~ Page 32
......."
Boyt: There's a park next to the development. I wasn't aware of it.
Mady: How big is it? We're talking 384 acres of development with a 7
acre park. 340 acres with 3 lots per acre is...
Boyt: There's a different philosophy in Chaska about development in
that, from what I've heard, I know the City Planner there you accomodate
the...as much as possible.
Sietsema: I think that is comparable in size. If all of that does get
developed, there is a lot of question of what actually is going to happen
there with the road alignments of TH 212 going through and the
realignment of possibly TH 41 and different things. If it were to be
developed as proposed, it's very comparable to what Lake Susan Hills West
is in size. We required 37 acres and they're requiring 7.
Boyt: It's a difference in philosophy.
Sietsema: We can't make them do anything.
Boyt: Other than express our concern.
Mady: They understand that we want to be accomodating neighbors whenever
possible and if they're going to take the position that they don't think
they need the parkland there, we've got to work together as cities. This~
is telling me that they don't care. I care a great deal about it.
Boyt: It was suggested by their planner that we meet with them. The
Chaska Park and Rec Commission.
Sietsema: I think it would behoove us too to make sure that we know what
the other parkland in the area is. To go in there and act like we know a
lot more about it and they're not doing it good enough. People get a
little offensive to that. I will talk to John Redman and ask him what
their existing parks are and express that we have a concern that it's not
going to be enough and tell them what we've done in Lake Susan Hills
West. I'll let you know what the outcome of that and possibly we can
meet. I don't know how far they are in their process. If they've
already gotten preliminary approval...
Boyt: Even if they're through with it, I think it would be helpful to
meet with them sometime.
LOTUS TRAIL CLEAN UP.
Hasek: I think the real issue here is the sand isn't it?
Mady: There are a couple of issues here. The sand and the storage.
Sietsema: The boat storage, word got out right away that we were going
to be removing boats or notifying people so those boats got out of there.
There is still one canoe and Scott's going to tag it and give them a
~
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
April 26, 1988 - Page 33
".....
reasonable amount of time to get the canoe out of there and if they don't
them we will remove it. Scott's philosophy, Scott Harr is the Code
Enforcement Officer so he's in charge of this area and his philosophy is
let's not play hardball right away and go and take their boat and make
enemies but give them some notice and do it in an appropriate manner. If
they consistently store their boat there when they know full well that
it's not a legal thing to do, than we can get nasty about it. So he will
be tagging it. He told me that he would be. I don't know if it's done
yet and I'll follow up on it and let you know.
Mady: I drove by there tonight. The canoe is no longer down there.
However, the raft is out in the lake now.
Sietsema: We have no ordinance to prohibit that.
Mady: There is a license requirement on rafts. That is out from public
property. You can't have a raft outside of your front land so that means
that it's our raft.
Sietsema: Where do you know that?
Mady: I drove by it today.
Sietsema: How do you know that they can't have a raft out there?
,.....,
Mady:
It's just like parking a boat. You can't do it.
Sietsema: I looked it up today because Roger Burn carne in and he wanted
to know why he couldn't have the raft there and wanted to see the
ordinance and Barb and I spent a considerable amount of time looking it
up and there is absolutely nothing in the ordinance that we can find that
says you can't have a raft out in the water. It's public domain and as
long as you have it deeper than 7 feet and it's not too high and it's not
too low and it's got reflective license on it and it meets all those
requirements, you can pull that around the lake and put it anywhere you
want. You can put it out in front of your house. Anybody's house. We
have nothing to say about it as long as they don't store it on park
property.
Mady: Can you check with DNR on that?
Sietsema: I will.
Mady: I don't think that raft is legal. I really seriously don't. Does
it have a city license on it?
Sietsema: It doesn't have anything to do w~th the City.
,......
Mady: My raft on Lotus Lake has a little tag issued by the City that was
required when we purchased it. I believe it was $5.~~ for the beachlot
ordinance and I believe that one has to have the same thing. If nothing
else, we have a serious safety situation down there. I read through this
thing, these people think they've got their own private little beach.
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
April 26, 1988 - Page 34
'--'
It's not marked. If the city owns the land there and this is a city
beach, then we have to have it properly maintained and we have to haye it
properly designated and marked. There are no swimming bouys out there
yet our water surface rules require that I believe. It's within two
blocks of another city run, safe swim beach. I have some real serious
problems with this thing and I talked to Mike Lynch Monday night and he
was furious with what's going on down there. I think we've got to take a
good hard look at this thing. If we allow any resident and he decides
that he wants to put sand and swim off of any given point and put out a
raft.
Sietsema: The resident didn't put the sand there though. The City did
because it was, I checked with Jerry Schlenk and Dale about why the sand
was there and they said because there has always been sand there and when
a lot of it washed out in the big rain last summer, that they replaced
it. There wasn't a trail there before though Jim. It was always sand
there.
Mady: A nature trail went right through there. Right now there's a
mound of sand that high. There's no trail right now.
Sietsema: There wasn't a trail their either. It led to there and it
stops at that sandy spot and it went on. There was never a trail through
the sand. -'
Mady: All the sand on Lotus Lake has been placed there by people. The
lake has no sand bottom.
Sietsema: But what I'm saying is that the trail that was there was put
in after there was sand there. There was never a trail across that sand.
It led up to that sandy spot and it started up as soon as that sandy spot
quit because there always was a sandy area there. Whether it's natural
or whether it was put in by somebody else, since the City has ever taken
it over from the homeowners, there's always been a sandy spot there. I
guess I'm jumping from side to side on this one because my first reaction
is they can't use that public property as if it was their own to store
their boat and put out their own dock and raft and stuff but from the
research I've done so far, I haven't found any reason why they can't have
a raft. They can not put up their own dock and I let them know now that
they can't store their boat there but other than that it's city property
and we've been encouraging people to use city property, park property
everywhere else. If they're using it and enriching their lives on city
property, park property, why not let them? Why not? They feel it's the
safest spot to swim there than at the narrow spot.
Boyt: If it is a swimming beach, then we need to make the steps to the
lake there.
Hasek: Maybe the question is, is it a swimming beach? If we put stuff
out there then we're encouraging swimming. Maybe it should be boats and -'
no swimming. What is the criteria? What do you want to do with it? I
guess the other, the dock I'm still a little confused. I can see it
maybe within the ordinance there's nothing we can do about putting it out
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
April 26, 1988 - Page 35
".....
there but I was under the understanding that the dock was actually stored
on the park.
Sietsema: Yes, the raft was pulled up. I told them that they can't
store the raft on the park property but it's out in the water now. As
far as I know, I can't do anything about that.
Hasek: I guess what I'm saying is, next year, if that raft shows up this
fall on park property, my suggestion is, if we really have a problem with
that, is to take the thing and dispose of it.
Sietsema: We can tag it. Public Safety would handle it. They would tag
it that it has to be removed within a certain amount of time and if it
isn't, then we would remove it.
Hasek: Is that what we would do with like a fishhouse that was stored
down there?
Sietsema: Yes.
Mady: If you check with the DNR, I don't believe that raft is legal.
I don't think you can place things in the water anyplace you wish to
place them. They can only be a certain distance from shore.
~. Sietsema: That's right and he knew all about that and I'll check with
DNR.
Mady: That sandy spot can't be more than, it's 15 yards wide. That's
the length of it and then towards the road maybe it comes back 10 feet.
It's just a very, very narrow spot and to tell people they're going to
swim there when we have a marked beach just down the lake.
Sietsema: I understand that. I'm not saying that we should promote
swimming there. All I'm saying is, do we want to prohibit them? Do we
want to put up a bunch of signs now that say no swimming along this whole
shoreline?
Mad y :
them.
What we've done is we've just thrown some more sand down there for
We dumped it on top of the hill.
Hasek: I guess I was under the understanding that it was the maintenance
crew's suggestion or solution to an erosion problem.
Sietsema: No, that was wrong. The correct answer is that it was washed
out in the big rain so they replaced the sand that got washed away.
Schroers: Where did they get that sand from?
Mady: The City put it there.
,....,
Schroers: Yes, but where did the City get the sand from? Did they just
go to a pit someplace and buy a few truckloads of sand and take it over
there and dump it?
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
April 26, 1988 - Page 36
~
Sietsema: I really have no idea where they get the sand.
Mady: It didn't come out of the lake.
Schroers: Yes right but did they get some direction from somewhere to do
something like that?
Sietsema: No, maintenance thought of it. Maintenance saw that it was a
gully all washed out and decided to go and replace it.
Mady: What they've done now is dump sand at the top which was dirt and
it still is underneath that on either side of the mound of sand.
Basically it extended the beach up to the road now.
Hasek: Maybe what we should do is just put this back a little bit and
I'll go take a look at it and try and decide what we want to do. I
haven't seen it. It sounded to me originally as though the solution, the
sand there was a solution to a problem which didn't bother me at all but
now it sounds like really what we have is an issue.
Sietsema: There's a lot of issues with this whole strip. One person who
lives right across from the park mows it themselves. The part that's
right directly in front of their house so I think we need to look at the
whole piece of property and decide how we want it to be maintained and
how we want it be used. Do you want it to just grow natural and not
invite anybody to use it or do we want it to be like a boulevard. The
only thing I can think of that's similar to it would be like Lake Calhoun
is only there is no trail system in there right now. There's a nature
trail that's kind of overgrown right now. But do we want it to be a nice
boulevard type that encourages people to go and use it? It is park
property and it has been our philosophy to encourage people to use park
property. Again, we don't want to encourage them to store their boats
and they know that they have to launch their boats at the public access
and they do. They may hand carry across but I don't really have a
problem with that.
....,,;
Mady: How do have consistency? Last year we looked at the fire lane
which is directly across the lake from this little piece of property. We
told all those people that even though it was city property at that time
that they shouldn't be swimming down there. They shouldn't have their
canoes down there. They shouldn't have all this and that down there.
Sietsema: That's a different situation because it's not park property.
Mady: The way this sounds, this isn't being maintained as park property.
I have a real problem with anybody taking care of park property other
than city employees. There's a liability problem. There's also a
problem, that person thinks it's hiw own private land and he maintains it
as he wants.
~
Hasek: Maybe what we should do is take a look at it. How long would it
take us to walk the problem area that you're talking about?
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
April 26, 1988 - Page 37
,.....
Sietsema: We could go down there at 7:00 before our next meeting.
Hasek: I'd like to do that I guess.
Mady: I'm still a little upset and I'm voicing both my comments and
Mike's comments that two weeks ago we asked staff to get that boat ramp
removed because we asked for it a year before and the year before we were
told it's out in the water, we'll wait until it comes back in again. Not
it's back out there again because somehow those people all got a wind of
it and got it done and I believe part of it is because there is at least
one person on city staff who lives close by and that's become that
person's private little beachlot. I feel we have a real serious problem
by allowing a given neighborhood to decide how the park property, they
can set that aside as their public beach when we already have one beach
on the lake that is very close to it. Everything I see is not legally
set up the way it should be. It's not wide enough in way, shape or form
to be a public beach. It's not a safe situation in having residents take
over public property.
Hasek: Did I hear you say you called the DNR?
,.....
Hoffman: Yes, on the raft. They don't have any jurisdiction over rafts
on lakes. It's the County Sheriff that license them and they do need to
be licensed through the County Sheriff and if they are not, they can be
ticketed. They need to have reflectors on all four sides and a license.
Mady: So what you're saying is, any citizen of the City of Chanhassen
can go to a public park and put a raft out. That to me is ludicrous. I
can't believe that's allowed.
Boyt: If there's concern about this you could contact City Council and
say would you consider an ordinance?
Mady: Yes, but I can't believe there isn't one existing. Otherwise, you
can put ski jumps anyplace you want. You can put anything you want
anywhere.
Hasek: Most of the regulations are directed at beachlots though aren't
they? Most of the ordinances and the regular resident can have 15 boats
and 10 diving rafts.
Boyt: No.
Hasek: They can have substantially more than beachlots.
Boyt: Those with riparian rights can have...
,.... Boyt: I don't think they've addressed those wi thout lake rights.
Mady: This whole thing is ludicrous to me the way it's all set up. We
need more information to look at it.
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
April 26, 1988 - Page 38
....."
Hasek: Maybe what we should do is take a look at the ordinance and see
if we've got a problem with it. Maybe there is a loophole in it.
Sietsema: Do you have direction to staff for what you want done?
Hasek: I personally like to take a look at the park first of all. If
we're going to act on that, I'd like to know what's going on down there
myself.
Mady: I know right now there's a tree stump right down there. There's
somebody throwing their minnows in the water right there. I don't know
what the specific regulations are there but I know if you're a duck
hunter you can't leave your decoys in a public area overnight. It seems
to me it would apply to minnow buckets and boats any anything else. I
guess probably I'm upset about what's going on up there and I think it
needs to be cleaned up. It's a mess. It's an eyesore and it's the
citizens who live right there who think it's there to do what they want
with it. Let's put it on the agenda for next meeting and go down there
and look at it. Hopefully we'll have something accomplished here.
Hasek: Maybe what you should do is kind of take that one on your own and
give them a call and see what's going on.
Mady: Otherwise, if you could do it outside the Hennepin County Park,
one of their beaches and put my own raft out in front of it.
Hasek: I think what the point is, at least they considered if you
carried it across the park, which we don't approve, and then stuck it in
the water and there's nothing keeping them from putting it in the water
anyplace they want to because it's exactly what the ordinance allows.
Then what we have to do is change the ordinance.
.....""
CLARIFICATION OF CONFERENCE POLICY.
Sietsema: Does anyone have any questions on that?
Hasek: When is the next one coming?
Mady: This fall in Bloomington. The last one was in Duluth I believe.
COUNCIL ACTION ON LAKE ANN PARK PARKING FEE.
Mady: Any bright ideas?
Hasek: Both of them. I don't know that the suggestion of moving the
house really changes what I felt about the park down there. If it's
parking fees, if they're fees specifically for boats or those things that"""'"
are beyond the ballpark, that doesn't bother me. I just can't see giving
up what we're getting to maintain that park. To a lot of people that
doesn't seem like much but I think there's some comment in here, I don't
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
April 26, 1988 - Page 39
"""
see where it's going to come from if it doesn't come from there. To me
one way or the other, I guess if it comes either from inside the gate or
it comes from the parking for the beach and the boat launch and some of
those things, it doesn't matter to me. I think if you're going to have
it, you might as well have it in the front door. It's like charging
somebody to come to your house and use the bathroom.
Mady: I have a couple of concerns. One, if we charge over by the beach,
everybody who uses the beach is going to use all the other parking spaces
so they don't have to go there so there's no way of separating the two.
Either you do or you don't the whole thing. That's the only lifeguarded
beach in the whole city. Do we know how much we spend for lifeguards
every year?
Sietsema: $12,000.00 I think was last year.
Mady: We do not charge a parking fee to people in the swimming lesson
classes.
Sietsema: I don't think so.
"....
Mady: I don't understand. There's is a $2.00 but if you're playing
softball and paying a fee to use the fields for that, we have to pay the
parking fee but people swimmi.ng at the beach for swimming lessons don't
have to. To me anybody who enters that park, unless they're a seni.or
citizen, then should be paying the parking fee. It should be across the
board.
Sietsema: I'd need a motion for direction to change that policy.
Hoffman: Because we did have a call from the beach director on that.
Boyt: Who's the beach director?
Sietsema: Her name's Julie Light.
Boyt: She does it for Minnetonka?
Sietsema: Yes.
Mady: I just don't understand charging fees to use parks. I never will.
I don't know where the City is going to get the extra $20,000.00 a year
if that's what they're trying to do. If that's what they're trying to do
with this park, why aren't we trying to cover our maintenance costs and
other associated costs at any of the other parks? Right up here at City
Center Park we've got a rink attendant. Every year it's costing us money
and we don't charge kids to walk into the warming house door. I don't
see the difference.
11"'"
Sietsema: This doesn't really require any action. It's something that
we'll put probably at the end of the year instead of at the beginning so
we make sure we have it addressed by the first of the year. I just
wanted to bring it your attention what their action was and that they are
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
April 26, 1988 - Page 40
....",
thinking of doing something different and get you thinking so we have
maybe some alternatives or options thought up by the time it's time to
act on this.
Mady: Is there any reason why the swimming people should not be paying a
parking fee?
Sietsema: No.
Mady moved, Schroers seconded that anyone using Lake Ann Park for
whatever purpose, unless they are senior citizens and can demonstrate
that, should be charged the appropriate parking fee. All voted in favor
and motion carried.
Hoffman: Do you want to designate in there that non-residents are
required to pay the $10.00 fee?
Mady: We've already got that addressed. We're just talking about the
special permits.
Sietsema: The non-resi.dent swimmers and softball players at this time.
Mady: If they're non-residents, they pay the non-resident fee.
.....,I
Hoffman: At this time all softball players just pay the $5.00 for a
sti.cker.
Mady: If they're a non-resident they should be paying the non-resident
fee.
Boyt: Maybe we should start allover...
Sietsema: Right now if you're involved in a city sponsored program, you
have to just pay the resident fee so the softball players that are non-
residents pay the $5.00 for the season sticker.
Schroers: That seems reasonable.
Mady: Everyone at this park should be paying a fee unless there's a
special situation such as the 4th of July.
Sietsema: One time we just charged $1.00.
Mady: Whatever, but we should at least be consistent and charge
everybody the appropriate fee as policy shows.
Hoffman: Who do we direct the complaints to?
.."",
Mady: I get all the calls anyway.
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
April 26, 1988 - Page 41
,...
Hoffman: We've got a lot of problems out there anyway and I try to
inform the gate attendant out there those are 15 year old kids out there
getting harassed and badgered so anytime we make these changes you're
putting a certain amount of more responsibility on those people to try
and explain the situation. The beach people are used to not paying so
Julie will get it in her information to inform those people that they now
will be paying the gate fee. They also have totlot programs out there
which mothers drive out there Mondays and Fridays I believe with their
children and are involved in totlot programs. I'm not sure last year if
they were charged or not but as the motion was...
Mady: If we're going to charge a fee in the park, we have to be
consistent. All users pay the fee. I don't know what they're paying for
the totlot program.
UPDATE ON ADULT SOFTBALL.
Sietsema: Item 16 is just for your information so that you have the
background in case you're accousted by some angry softball player.
Hoffman: Could I just ask for the direction, if you have any feel on the
direction we want to go with these leagues? As the City continues to
,... grow, our open league grows quite a bit faster than some of our other
leagues. Right now, guessing, we probably have 40% of our people that
play in Chanhassen leagues are non-residents. 35% or something like
that. If we go to like Eden prairie, you go to any community farther in
that's more populated, it's where they work. If we would do that at this
time, we would have our 35 and over league would just raise chaos again.
Our open league would work because you would eliminate, this year we had
19 to 20 teams that wanted to come in. You would fill the league with 14
teams. It would eliminate our women's league basically. There are teams
there that are composed of outside sponsors. Chanhassen ~ponsors.
People that live here. People who do not. I'm just trying to get some
feeling on what you want to see happen in future years for the direction
of the softball league.
Boyt: Keep the same proportion of male and female teams open. We're
going to have to limit it until we get more facilities.
,...
Hasek: I hate to say that and I think you're right. At some point you
have to start drawing the line and I don't know, maybe the thing is to
set the policy and begin to let everybody know right now what the policy
is going to be so there are no surprises down the road. If we're going
to support leagues like that and try to establish leagues like that then
I think we should probably be trying to keep them full. The question
that you raise is with who. I would say for example that the teams that
win who wanted to play in the league and live and work entirely, the
whole roster, within the city, it would be very difficult to me to allow
a Chaska team into the league even though they had been here in past
year.
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
April 26, 1988 - Page 42
~
Hoffman: That's what we did with the open leagues this year which was
quite a substantial job. We had to get all the rosters in. Try to get
them to put down their honest people who lived or worked in Chanhassen or
lived in two school districts. District 112 and District 276. Had to
analyze all those rosters and come up with these percentages and make the
cut-off. It's not the way to do it year after year but again, if we
instate the live or work policy next year, inform them this year, it
would really decimate our league so at some point I want to do it but.
Hasek: Can we set the policy based on projections? Is there someway
that we can push it out there two years? I guess I don't really know. It
would be my suggestion that we begin to establish a policy that we know
we're going to have to start to follow based on available facilities.
Sietsema: I think one of the things we can do is let them know up front.
The first teams to be allowed in the league will be for people who live
and work in Chanhassen.
Tape Break.
Sietsema: That's what our goal is to do. As the league fills to do it
that way like you did in the open league and then you had to eliminate
some teams. The question comes in, should we be having a women's league
where 80% of the teams are from out of town. Roughly 75% of the teams
are non-Chanhassen teams. -,.
Hasek: Non-Chanhassen teams, sponsored by someone other than...
Hoffman: It's not that high.
Mady: The way I see it is, in any given league, the teams that are 100%
live or work in the city of Chanhassen have first shot. Then from that
point forward it becomes a percentage. Some team that's been in the
league for 10 years but only has half their players that live and work in
the City and you've got a brand new team that's got 80%, the old teams's
gone. I'm just sorry but the people who are taxpayers in this city have
the first right.
Schroers: What about a situation like this? We've got to have on our
team a number of players, and I'm talking like at least a half a dozen
whose families, relatives and they themselves were born and raised and
grew up in Chanhassen and have played softball here their whole life but
now they're married and they live wherever. Maybe they live in
Bloomington or something and they don't work in Chanhassen either but
their roots are here. They've played ball here forever. They're
families have all paid taxes here forever. Now are they not going to be
able to play ball here?
Mady: Yes. I'm looking at the guy who lives here right now. The guy
who lives here right now has more rights over the person who doesn't liv~-,
here. We are short on facilities, we have to handle our current
residents. Just because the guy lived here 40 years ago doesn't mean he
can dictate what the policies of the city are right now.
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
April 26, 1988 - Page 43
,....
Boyt: It might help if we implemented some plans to encourage other
groups besides white male anglo-saxons to participate in jobs. We want
to encourage women and other minorities and what you're saying is we may
eliminate a lot of women leagues. I think we need to take a look at
encouraging more, giving them an equal opportunity.
Mady: But does equal mean that they have 2 1/2 nights a week at the ball
park?
Boyt: What ever is equal.
Mady: How do you define equal?
Boyt: I don't know...
Mady: What I'm looking at is a half a dozen teams from Shakopee
shouldn't come in here with women's teams and kick out our open league
because there's 70 to 80 women who wish to play softball someplace and
they can't do it in Shakopee. That's what I'm saying. If the City of
Chanhassen parks are maintained by the city of Chanhassen taxpayers, then
they go to the city of Chanhassen people first.
~ Sietsema: So if I'm hearing you right, you're saying if there are 28
teams of men's open softball players who all live and work in Chanhassen
and half of our womens teams are from out, so that means that they
wouldn't be able to play so we wouldn't be able to have a women's league
because there wouldn't be enough teams. How far do you go with this?
Hasek: That's a good question. I think that's a very valid question.
Sietsema: The reason we are allowing the women's teams from outside is
so the people who live inside Chanhassen have somebody to play.
Hasek: Let's look at it completely openly here. Let's say for example
that all of the men on all of the teams are from Chanhassen. Let's say
all of the women that were playing on all of the leagues were from
Chanhassen. You would try and give them equal time based on how many
teams you had. If there were 14 women teams and 28 men teams and the men
would need twice as much time as the women. That would be equal time.
The problem is, the way I see it and what I'm hearing is that maybe we've
created a false demand for a womens league. There were a group of women
who wanted to play and wanted to start a league but they didn't have
enough teams so we had to capture some teams from other areas. Now
that's fine as far as I'm concerned as long as there is room but if
you're eliminating a valid demand on the system by resident with teams
outside of the area, I don't care if it's men or women, I guess it
doesn't matter to me, it seems to me like you're creating a false demand
for the facilities.
,.....
Boyt: I don't think it's just...with that.
Hasek: I'm sure it's not. There's no question about it. I guess the
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
April 26, 1988 - Page 44
....""",
question is, how do you look at it? I can see where we do that this year
and then all of a sudden, I don't know where the teams are coming from.
Chaska for example decides they're going to build a park and they put in
a field down there and all of a sudden, boom we come up with nothing but
men. There are no women down there but all of these other teams that
are, and these are just hypothetical examples, all of these other teams
now that are in the women's league come from Chaska or are sponsored by
Chaska teams, we are carrying their demand on our parks all of a sudden
and I don't think that's fair to the taxpayers of this city.
Sietsema: That's exactly what happened with the women's league is that
Excelsior's was filled so they carne here and asked if they could get on
ours. I then advertised for a women's league and we got three Chanhassen
teams and two Excelsior teams. I don't remember if that's the correct
number for sure but there was a significant enough, we had to have at
least four teams to have a league and ideally six to make it interesting.
So we did invite teams from outside of Chanhassen that couldn't in other
leagues to play on this league so we could get the ball rolling. Now, we
probably have it substantial enough that we probably do have six
legitimate Chanhassen teams. six teams only will take two fields. Do we
kick the other 2 or 3 that have been playing a lot, that have gotten the
ball rolling on this league, out now so we can put more open league on
Monday night? I mean where do we go with this? How far do we go? Do we
cross over? Right now we've got Monday nights for womens, Tuesday night
for industrial, Wednesday for over 35, Thursday for mens open and Friday....""",
for Co-Rec. Do we cross the day lines or do we just... I don't think
Todd meant to open it up into this depth but that's things to be
considered too. You say Monday night is for women's night and when you
get to more than 14 teams, then you start chucking out the out of town
teams. That's what we've pretty much done with the Thursday night
league.
Hasek: That's exactly the way I think it should work with the men's
league. If we start overflowing, we've gotten to the point now where
we're using three fields. It's entirely possible that here in the next
year that all of the sudden the demand for one of those fields, maybe
it's the Babe Ruth field if that's an in-town team. We've got a Babe
Ruth field sitting there and a team that can't play, I think we've got to
start thinking about where they're going to play. Maybe the way that
that happens is that we, as an over 35 league, are going to be forced to
cut back the number of teams that are able to play on one night because
that's really where the demand for the fields in this city are. It's
not, how many teams do we have?
Hoffman: Which league?
Hasek: Men's Over 35.
Hoffman: 15.
Hasek: But two of them are from outside the city? Two are from Chaska? ~
Hoffman: No. None of the teams have all outside players.