PRC 1988 05 24
~
PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 24, 1988
r-
Chairman Mady called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m..
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Mady, Curt Robinson, Mike Lynch, Larry Schroers, Ed
Hasek and Sue Boyt
MEMBERS ABSENT: Carol Watson
STAFF PRESENT: Lori Sietsema, Park and Rec Coordinator and Todd Hoffman,
Recreation Supervisor
COUNCILMEMBER PRESENT: Councilman Jay Johnson
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Robinson moved, Lynch seconded to approve the agenda
as amended to move item 12, City Center Park Layout to after item 5 and
to add discussion on Seeding Hockey Rinks and Carver Beach. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Hasek moved, Mady seconded to approve the Minutes
of the Park and Recreation Commission meetings dated April 26, 1988 and
May 10, 1988 as amended. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
GREENWOOD SHORES REVISED PARKING PLAN - MARK KOEGLER.
public Present:
,.....
Name
Address
Don Chmiel
Dick and Janet Lash
Bruce Arnold
Mike Koch
Jeff Farmakes
7100 Tecumseh Lane
6850 utica Lane
6850 Utica Circle
6870 Utica Lane
7100 Utica Lane
'"'
Mark Koegler: ...take a look and see if it's possible to get parking in
the upper portion of the park instead of the lower portion. The area
that we were looking at specifically was keeping it as close to Utica
Lane as possible and was tucking the parking back in this area. The
reason for doing that is the tree line on this side and there's a
residence over on this side, a car would head in away from that
residence. There's adequate room there to accomodate pulling in
movement, backing out, circulation in terms of cars that can utilize the
parking lot. The thinking was that when the four spaces are full,
anybody that even remotely starts to drive up this entrance can see that
they're full and hopefully exit and leave and find parking elsewhere or
come back at a later date or whatever. This scenario has not been
developed just beyond a quick sketch to see how it could be done. It can
be done with fairly minimal grading and tre~ removal. I think there is
one tree that presently sits right in here that's an inch or so in
caliper that needs to be relocated. Then we have to cut a little bit on
this side and fill a little bit on this side which we can handle without
a major retaining wall or anything else. That would require presumably
some kind of control point then to be put here in addition to here so
that the City would still have the option of closing off the lift
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
May 24, 1988 - Page 2
-'
station. The advantage to putting parking on the upper portion would be
that it would be possible then to remove some of the gravel area that's
part of the circulation pattern down below because that's not really
needed to service the lift station. That then would be space that could
be used for other purposes. Whether it's an active play area or just
open space or whatever. So in summary, the only major change is keeping
the same number of spaces but bringing them up to the top portion instead
of down in the lower.
Hasek: Mark, you've got a dash line that runs around the "grassy area"
down below by the transformer there and the lift station. Is that
currently gravel and going to be grass?
Mark Koegler: If I remember correctly, that is grass at the present
time. I guess it falls...what that line delineated. There's a wall I
know only on this one side. That was a remnant from the existing
conditions. That's not part of the plan. The only thing that's changed
on this plan is really adding this little nodule of parking here and
moving this area down below.
Schroers: Mark, in your opinion, would that new proposal delete safety
hazards from having to drive up from down below where you can't see? Do
you feel this is a safer area to park?
Mark Koegler: Presumably it's safer. Certainly it's more convenient in ~
terms of the public being able to easily assess whether or not the lot
has space available or not and not having everybody to have to drive in
and try to turn around to corne back out.
Schroers: And you don't have to pick up speed to get up over a hill
where you may have visibility problems?
Mark Koegler: There's a rise kind of where the posts are that is kind of
reflected in the berm being off on the west side there so there is
somewhat of a rise that still exists. You're not corning up...
Schroers: Can you see the street from there?
Mark Koegler: I believe you can. We don't have any elevations. Again,
this was just scratch form. We'll illicit your comments and we'll take a
look at some of those in detail.
Schroers: If we decide to go along with this, you could probably put in
there that as you sit in your car in the parking lot we would want to be
able to see the street without having to go up a rise.
Mark Koegler: It could be.
asphalt the existing gravel
know. Again, we don't have
rise there.
It may mean that off of the width of that
may have to be cut down somewhat. I don't
calculations on that. It's not much of a
""""
Hasek: I recall when we were out there that there was about a two car
landing at the top there and it went back beyond those posts. I don't
""
~.
'""
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
May 24, 1988 - Page 3
recall exactly how far...but two cars could stop at that landing there
with a flat turnaround. The only other problem that goes to visibility
was the location of the sign where you park. We want to think about
maybe relocating that too based on discussion.
Sietsema: Another thing to consider with this layout is that it's much
easier for public safety to drive by and see what the parking conditions
in the park are. See if people are parking illegally. They don't have
to drive into the park either to just check on parking.
Mady: I'll open it up for public discussion.
Dick Lash, 6850 utica Lane: A couple of things I'd like to address here.
First of all, I believe this here kind of represents a debate on this
thing. In the last meeting I was to up here, I've been to several, we,
concerned citizens, viewed our point and then the Council had their say.
Any debate I've ever seen you have one side, another side and two
rebuttals. I think we should have a rebuttal here for one thing. We got
into a little bit of an argument last time because there was no rebuttals
allowed. The second thing I'd like to bring up is there is another
option here and this is my opinion only but this thing the way
I understand it, Greenwood Shores Beach was a neighborhood park at one
time. I have not heard anybody on this Councilor at the City Council
address maybe making it a neighborhood park again. There are other
neighborhood parks in Chanhassen, which you're well aware of, and I don't
think anybody wants the City to move in and do anything to them. The
City has spent minimal money on this thing up to this point. They paid
no money for that lot down there. I believe it would make Greenwood
Shores happy. It would be a headache off this Council and it would also
benefit our taxpayers. Putting four parking spaces in there at the
taxpayer's expense, I don't see as spending good money. Putting four
parking spaces in there, I live as far away from the beach as you can get
in Greenwood Shores, just about. I'm just about as far as you can get
from there. I believe by putting the four parking spaces in, you're not
going to bring murderers and rapists in there. What you're going to
bring in there are kids. You're going to have beer parties down there.
You're,going to have littering. My yard's got litter ever since the darn
beach has opened up. The more people that know about it, the more my
yard shows it. My van has been ripped off from my driveway. I've had
bicycles stolen out of my garage. This is since the beach has become
public. Granted it's been public since I've lived out here but the more
people that know about it the more damage I see around my house. The
more it's advertised and four parking spaces and being expanded to 8 or
12 or whatever phase 2 is going to be on this thing, is more advertising.
You people don't live there. There are certain people on this Council
that do live in areas that have neighborhood beaches. Those of you who
live there think of it as if the City were to take over your beach and
say we're going to do this to your beach. How would you feel? Thank
you.
Jan Lash, 6850 utica Lane: This plan to me is, not that I'm in favor of
it at all, it's the best of the ones that I've seen and it says on it
that it's out of proportion or it's estimates or something like that
.Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
May 24, 1988 - Page 4
...."",
because it looks like you'd have to have maybe a little matchbox cars to
fit into those parking spots there. The beach looked really big and the
parking spots looked really small so anyway, I think you'd end up with a
lot of grading and different things because there is quite a slope right
there. I guess I feel that bringing in fill and grading and leveling and
all the stuff that you'd have to do is going to cost quite a bit of money
for something that I really haven't heard very many people ask for.
We've come to many meetings on this. We were here last summer. We've
been here before about it. We've been here three times so far this year.
Each time we're fewer in numbers because it's getting to be pretty old
and the season is getting into sports and people have a lot of activities
and we don't have time. It wasn't publicized this time in the paper at
all which kind of upset a lot of people who had no notice at all about
this meeting but I haven't seen you guys produce anyone other than the
people on your board who are in favor of it. You say you took a survey.
You heard from people, you want improvements. I guess improvements is
kind of an abstract interpretation on everyone's part. The people who
have been here and they've given you petitions with over 100 signatures
of people who don't consider this to be an improvement. Not to the value
of their home. Not for the neighborhood and not to this small beach. We
think it would be more of a detriment. It was closed by the City years
ago after they took it over from Greenwood Shores because there were so
many problems with it. Many of you maybe didn't live here back then. I
really don't know how long you've lived here but there were a lot of
problems down there that have been solved by closing it and I really am
opposed to opening it and having all those problems back. Now that we
have them under control, I don't really see the point of it. As a
citizen and taxpayer of Chanhassen, I'm opposed to the wasting of tax
dollars, which I think this is, along with a lot of other changes that
I along with a lot of people in Chanhassen that I've talked to, do not
like. We're sick of change and we're starting to get to the point where
we think it's change for the sake of change, whether it's good change or
not. We feel a lot of these things are getting rammed down our throat.
When we come to meetings that is suppose to be a democracy in this City,
when we voice our opposition and people kind of rise over and do what
they want. I for one am getting really sick of it and I think a lot of
other people in town are too. So, it's coming down to mostly the
principle of the whole thing. Like I said to start with, this is
probably the best of any of the plans that I've seen but I basically am
opposed to opening up all these problems again. Mr. Hasek must not agree
with my point but there are many other people in favor of it. I would
like to see someone at this meeting other than the Board who I feel is
your responsibility to fulfill your job and doing what the people of
Chanhassen want. People have come and said they don't want this. We
don't understand who we're fighting when we'd like to be working with the
City on things. It seems like all we do is fight with you.
Don Chmiel, 7100 Tecumseh Lane: I guess one of the things that I would
like to bring out so it's put into the Minutes is number one, the City
Council has taken a position on this particular park back in June 1,
1987. And to quote the last paragraph contained of the motion and I'd
like to read this verbatim. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving
seconded that Greenwood Shores Beach not have any parking added. That
....,I
....."
,...
,......
.JI"'"
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
May 24, 1988 - Page 5
the no parking signs on the streets remain as they are. Access to the
beach be available only to the City personnel to work at it's lift
station and it remain a neighborhood park. There will be no boat
launching at Greenwood Shores and staff will meet with Jim Chaffee to
patrol and enforce violations occurring at Greenwood Shores and the City
be instructed to look at devising a new gate system for the entrance into
Greenwood Shores Park. Also, that Carver Beach Park and it goes on. I
guess the position that I'm taking here is, from my understanding, the
Park and Recreation is an advisory council. Council has last and final
decision and has taken that position by the June 1, 1987 Minutes of that
particular meeting. I've also had discussions with a couple of the
Council members and it is their opinion that this exactly as they so
stated. I feel that there is pre-emption by the board or by the
Commission overriding the rule of the Council who has the jurisdiction.
Therefore, I am very hopeful that this does go back again to the Council,
which I see no reason for, that the Council will support our position.
Thank you.
Jeff Farmakes, 7100 utica Lane: I'd like to address a couple issues in
regards to parking at Greenwood Shores. I was here two weeks ago when we
had the meeting. I apologize that I got upset but I felt that the
dialogue here was not any type of situation that was conducive to us
arriving at some sort of settlement on this issue. You have on record
over 100 taxpayers who are opposed to this issue. I think that it's
worth more as far as the discussion goes than to simply cut one and
another off. I think that we verbalized what our opposition is to this
issue. I still do not believe that this proposal addresses those issues.
I think that when you consider the amount of taxes that are paid by that
many individuals and the amount of people who show up here at these
meetings, that constitutes obviously significant concern on the part of
the people who live there. We are not opposed, I believe, to the issues
that you are talking about in allowing access but I believe that there
are other options available. I do not see those options up there on the
board. Going back to last year, I saw again one proposal brought to the
City Council. It was a plan similar to this. It showed no relationship
to the parking issue in relationship to the park as it stood. It was
simply a plot plan with no surrounding area for relationship for that
plot plan into the park itself. The other issue I'd like to bring up is
that if you're going to come up with a counter proposal here, that it
certainly would be in keeping with what we're talking about here that it
be in relationship to the park as it stands. Certainly if you're going
to put park by the parking within a park that size which is where it is
stated as 3 acres, it is not. The cleared area is much under that. It's
probably not much more than an acre. If you're going to put four parking
stalls in that area in relationship to single family homes, you certainly
should want to show the homes in relationship to that area to show the
recreational facilities that are there in relationship to that area and
it should be a specific relationship. It should not be an approximation
and yet we continue to show these approximate plans in the issues that
we're discussing. What we're bringing up over and over again is
concentrated access for our children and to that park. Two, it's
relationship to single family homes in the area and three, the size of
the park itself. It's a very small park and to sort of kill the patient,
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
May 24, 1988 - Page 6
...""
to make your issue in regards to all parks must have parking in them,
regardless of how they were designed, penalizes the people who have been
living there for 30 years. The fact of the matter is that when that park
was built this whole area was farm fields and those issues were simply
not addressed when those roads were designed and those houses plotted.
If the City can not put those in to put in parking facilities in that
particular area without penalizing either the homes in the area or the
people who use the park presently, they should look to alternative
methods of putting in parking. Now there is an area that Larry mentioned
that is also adjacent to that area where there are presently paved trails
leading up to that park. That area the most probable fact will be
developed within the next one to two years. That's an opportunity for
the park board to work with the developer and with the City Council in
addressing the issue of building parking that is secluded and not
objectionable to single family residence homes in the area and is
a position to concentrate parking for our children into the park.
think it would certainly be more beneficial and the citizens here
think that you were considering their views if you would look at
alternative plans rather than the two here that we've actually seen up on
the board. Thank you.
not in
I
would
Dick Lash: I'd like to say one more thing here. I'd like it noted that
this is not good representation of the opposition to this plan. It would
have been had this thing been publicized. I got a phone call last night
from one of the few people in the neighborhood that got a letter saying ~
that this meeting was here. In the future if you're going to dink around
with my neighborhood, I would just as soon that it show up in the
newspaper so I can read it on my own without a phone call. We would have
had the place filled if it would have been advertised.
Mady: That is the extent of public discussion. The first question Lori,
who was contacted for this meeting tonight?
Sietsema: The people that live within 500 feet of the park.
Boyt: I think we need to, if this comes up again, we need to notify
everyone who's been here.
Hoffman: That 500 feet of the park does fulfill our legal obligation.
That is the ordinance that we are required to fulfill so she is not
delinquent if those people were notified.
Mady: Could it show up in the newspaper though next time? Is there a
problem with that?
Sietsema: No.
Mady: We do have a problem from time to time getting our portion of the
agenda in the space.
Don Chmiel: My suggestion would be that at the last particular meeting ~
that we had people here, everyone had signed in and that list I think
should have been notified. If they were here with interest they should
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
May 24, 1988 - Page 7
11"'"
have been notified.
Boyt: We do that sometimes don't we?
Sietsema: Yes.
Schroers: Several things have crossed my mind. The first thing I'd like
to say is that what I'm expressing I'm just expressing from my own
personal experience. Having worked in parks and recreation for more than
10 years and from the input that I've received from the other members of
the Commission as well as the residents from Greenwood Shores. A number
of things have been said that their concern about the problems
redeveloping if the park is opened. My experience has been, when you
have an area that is an undeveloped area, an area looks like no one's
really doing much with it, not taking much care of it, it just kind of
looks like an open area, that's the type of place that kids are looking
for to go and drink. If you have an area that's developed and well taken
care of and patrolled on a regular basis, that is a deterrent. That's
been my previous experience there. Your point of bringing up what the
City Council has already moved on makes me think that I would like to
talk to members of the Council again because I was under the impression
that we had a directive of sorts that we wanted to be consistent with
what we were doing in the parks and that we wanted to have parking and we
~ wanted it to be fairly accessible to all the residents of the City. I
think we need to get back together with the Council and sit down and get
the uncertainities out of that and see if we want to address each par~ as
an independent situation and look at it or if we want just an established
policy and say that each park is going to be accessible and that it's
going to have so many parking spaces depending on what the useage is or
the size of it in relation to the size of it or whatever. I see that
there still needs to be a lot of work done before we come to any
conclusion.
Hasek: I've got just one quick question of Lori. Last time we talked a
little bit about the boundaries of this park compared to the property
that seems to be discussed as potential future residential piece. Does
it? Does the park abut that piece of property?
Sietsema: Yes I believe it does. The whole trail around the lake does.
Schroers: Lori, would you say that we have 75 feet on either side of
that trail?
Sietsema: There's an 80 foot strip around the east side of the lake.
Schroers: 80 feet from the shoreline?
Sietsema: Yes.
"'"
Schroers: That was a good point that Mr. Farmakes made that I'm sure
that area is being considered for development and to work with the
developer to acquire access where there probably would be a reasonable
solution to look at. The problem that I see there is that there is a
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
May 24, 1988 - Page 8
-'
really steep hill going down along that whole area that I think may have
something...
Hasek: I guess my comments in relation to that are, first of all that
neighborhood is not proposed and just because it's planned doesn't mean
that it will be developed. The market goes up and down in a very short
period of time. We've seen a lot of single family developments in the
last couple of years here and there is no indication that that's going to
continue. We want to have accessibility into that park which is, like
Larry has stated, our feeling that was necessary, then I think we should
work to get it into the park as it exists and if we want to expand that
park and add parking when and if the new neighborhood comes on line, we
can do that at that time. I just wanted to respond to some of the things
that were said. First of all, a public hearing is not a debate. It's
handled very separately. If debates are going to be needed in this thing
than that will have to be set up but a public hearing is simply comment
by the public by the governing body. ...governing body but we are
commissioned. The Council has the ultimate word and you are correct, all
we do is give directives and they can at any time choose to bring an
issue to their attention and have a motion on it and that's basically
what we're doing here. Whether it's closed or not by a motion passed
doesn't mean that we can't bring the issue up again if we so choose.
That's what we have chosen to do at this time. There was some discussion
about the drawings. Scale of the drawing. Designation of the parking
stalls. The sketch format that's shown here. I believe the gentleman
is correct, it would be nice to see it in context. However, at this
level, this drawing, as it's labeled sketch plan, is completely
appropriate. This is the type of thing that I myself presented to Park
Boards, Planning Commissions and Councils almost on a daily basis in my
job and the scale I'm sure is within a tenth of what it should be.
There's no reason to assume that the parking stalls are smaller than they
have to be to accomodate parking and that the parking area is any smaller
than it needs to be to accomplish parking. I would like to suggest that
I think it's one way of solving the problem that seems to be security. I
think that working with, perhaps move some of the berm that's out in
front there with minimal grading and perhaps removing the side of this,
could be recommended for a faction of the cost of the previous plan. I
certainly think it's a valid approach and would like to pursue it. A
comment was made as to the value of the homes and a negative impact. I
would challenge anyone to find a relator who would stand on his career
that a park next door would negatively impact anyone's home value. Quite
the contrary. I think that you would find that for everyone person who
wouldn't want to live next to the park would probably be drawing more
people that would want to live next door to it and may in fact make the
marketplace for your home larger than it was previously to having the
park not there. An observation on my part. It was stated that there was
some discussion about giving the park back to the neighborhood. I
certainly wouldn't go for that. I don't think that is even in the
ability of the City to do that. They've got the park in public trust
right now and it's my understanding that when the park was in fact
acquired by the City, it was generally understood that the neighborhood
didn't want it. Potentially one of the reasons was because they felt
that it was in their neighborhood and if they could get the City to
..."
....""
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
May 24, 1988 - Page 9
,....
participate in maintaining that park that it would be to their benefit.
Robinson: I apologize for missing the meeting two weeks ago and I guess
I wasn't aware of the fact that the City Council made that move to June
of 1987. That's less than a year ago. Yes, I agree Ed that we can bring
it up again. We can bring it up as often as we want but I've been on the
Park and Rec Commission for 2 or 3 years now and I don't know how many
times we've talked about this park and as you voice your opinion, I would
have hoped that June, 1987 with that motion by the City Council and
you're exactly right, we are an advisory board to the City Council, I
would hope that would put it to bed. That's my only comment.
,....
Lynch: Most of the business that we see in rather routine and our
actions are prescribed by City Ordinance, State Law, Metro Council
guidelines, our own multi-year plan that we work on constantly.
Occasionally there are issues such as this that are interjected on the
schedule. Two years ago we had scheduled a short, informal meeting with
the City Council that is a conversational get together to make sure that
we're going in the direction that they like to see us going since they
are the authority. I kind of felt that in the last meeting we were
directed to see that there was parking in these parks. This is the
reason why we took this up again in the first place. We were directed.
I guess I'm kind of like Curt and Larry. I'd like to see the Council
decide what they want to do here. We're volunteers and you guys spend
your time coming down here. We spend our time here and sometimes it
seems a little frivilous when we're told to do one thing and then it
stops on the way and gets upstairs again. I agree, I think we ought to
have some sort of consensus from the Council where they expect us to
continue. We're using our time, Mark's time, staff time and citizenry
time. The issue looks like it may be dead. Jay, do you have any
comments?
Councilman Johnson: Actually I believe the June 1st meeting was a
petition to have the parking signs removed from the street from one of
the residents who lived along the street. As far as I was concerned, we
had a one year timeframe that we were going to have Greenwood Shores not
have parking and we were going to observe what was going on during that
one year timeframe and get the Public Safety Director to see what's going
on and that Carver Beach would be opened and Carver Beach would be
watched to see if there was a problem at Carver Beach. So we've taken a
two part approach. Open one park and leave the other one closed. There
was a time period. That's how I remember it.
Mady: That's what the discussion was at the June meeting. The motion
that was made by Tom did not reflect all that discuss prior to. However,
if you read the complete set of Minutes of the Council meeting, Mr.
Geving started out stating that he had to walk from Carol Watson's house
to even get to the park and it went from there. In that discussion the
,..... Council told staff that they would like to see the park closed for a
year's time. After that we would then review it again. So the motion
was to close the park down, make sure the gate was up and keep everything
that was supposedly happening there, from happening for at least a year
to see what we could do. We have succeeded in that doing that. That is
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
May 24, 1988 - Page 10
....."
what is in those Minutes if you read the complete set of Minutes.
Jeff Farmakes: We read the complete set and that is an inaccurate
statement.
Mady: Excuse me, you are out of order here. That's where I'm going with
this.
Councilman Johnson: That's the way I understood what we voted on the
first time. This was a one year trial basis...
Jeff Farmakes: If you have the Minutes and read them, that's an
inaccurate statement.
Boyt: When I talked to Bill about this he was under the same impression
Jay was. That he wanted this reviewed so that's two of the guys. I
didn't talk to Dale or Tom or Clark but Clark was the man who said we
want parking spaces in all the parks so he directed us to look at that.
That was the private meeting between Park and Rec and the City Council.
Lynch: And Dale was at that meeting also.
Jeff Farmakes: The only issue in regards to the year was reviewing
whether or not the police was enforcing the law.
Mady: Can we go back to the format that we were going to have for this
meeting.
....."
Boyt: This is the interpretation that Bill has and Jay has and so that's
what they're going to work from. They won't necessarily take them, I
guess the verbatim Minutes, they want us to look at this again? What we
recommend they might not approve when it gets to City Council. My
concerns were the berm at the top of the hill blocks viewing of the park
and I think that adds to the danger down there. Kids meandering. I
drove up there, I couldn't see into the park so I think we...berm. The
design of the park itself with the woods, it's beautiful. That adds to
it being a great park place. I think we need to look at a separate trail
entrance for children that goes next to the road. That's one of the
concerns that I've heard over and over again is kids getting in and out
of the park so it could go along just adjacent to the road. I would not
consider giving this park back to the neighborhood. I don't think we
could do that. I don't think the rest of the City would be pleased with
us if we did that. I think we need to do a better job of just letting
the neighborhood know when... It addresses the concerns that Pat brought
up when she was here last summer.
Hasek: One last quick question and I'm sorry... I guess it was stated
in the last meeting that we had with the neighbors that I was unclear in
reading through the Minutes as to exactly what the motion is. There's
just a paragraph that was made however the motion was actually started
much before that and there was a lot of discussion that happened during
that and it's really unclear and I guess I would like to have some idea
as to what actually the motion was and what was voted on. I guess I'd
.....,."
""""
,....,
,.....
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
May 24, 1988 - Page 11
have to agree with some of the other commissioners that if this is a dead
issue that we should get off of it. However, if it's not a dead issue, I
would like that we move quickly, as quickly as possible to get it
established that parking spaces within that park and move onto other
things. It's become just...to work out this issue.
Mady: First thing, the comment concerning why are we looking at this
again. Because the Council did close the park a year ago does never
preclude us from in the future doing something there or anywhere else.
Life changes. Everything changes and if we corne with an idea of something
that seems to be appropriate, that's what our function is as an advisory
body to the Council is to bring ideas to them. Be talking with our
neighbors. Other people in the community. Finding out what the needs
are. What the desires and wants are. What the dislikes are and that's
what we try to do twice a month up here is discuss various opportunities
to the City. It is my firm belief that this is an opportunity for the
entire city. I think it's going to enhance the park for both the
residents who have been appearing here as well as the rest of the City.
We are not giving up the opportunity of closing down the park by putting
this parking stalls in. We will continue to have the gate at the top of
the hill right off the street. With this proposed plan there will also
be one right after the end of the parking area to prevent cars from going
further down but would allow the City engineering department to go down
and check the lift station at any time as they need to do that. I think
the plan that Mark has corne up with here, the sketch that you've got now
is a lot better than what we've seen previously. It keeps more of the
park just the way it is as park. A park shouldn't be a parking lot
although it does need to provide access to all people. Sue's point of
concern the trails around the driveway is a good point. We need to
delineate exactly where the parking and what other surface is in that
park. It's more than just gravel. Gravel is to prevent people from
driving there if they so desire. Our earlier plan showed bollards and
chains going through and along the entire parking and roadway area. That
would prevent vehicle travel on any portion of the park other than the
parking and driveway area. The comment concerning looking at options in
the future on the other parcels adjacent to are very well taken. We will
definitely once that parcel of concern becomes developed, look at that
piece because it is adjacent to our trail and between two park areas. We
would probably get additional parkland here. That isn't any real
guarantee that we will get anything. It is my feeling that we need to
provide the citizens of Chanhassen access to this park as easy as
possible with minimum impact and I think this might be the best plan that
does that. If we were to build an access in the other area, undoubtedly
we would have to build an extensive road down to it. The earlier
estimate that Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the parking plan for Greenwood
Shores I believe was in excess of $4,000.00 but by moving it to the top
of the hill I'm guessing that we can get this done pretty darn cheap
probably using city staff to do the bulk of the work. If we had to build
a road from another area we'd be talking thousands and thousands of
dollars and we simply don't have that money to be spending at this time.
We could get by with a $2,000.00 to $5,000.00 expense to enhance this
property at this time but I don't believe we're going to be looking to
spend $30,000.00 plus to put a road into a park that we already have
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
May 24, 1988 - Page 12
sufficient access itno right now with the current road. All we need to
do is delineate parking area so our tax dollars, and actually it's not a
tax dollars as much as capital improvement fund which comes out of fees
charged against building permits. Those are the monies that we're
spending and I believe that's money better spent. What I'd like to do is
at this point make a motion to direct staff to come back to us with a new
drawing of this plan showing scales, bollard and chain and a gravel
parking surface with a trail going along side of the road into the park
and connecting into the Lake Ann Trail. To investigate whether or not
the berm is providing an obstruction from viewing the street and if so,
to come up with the cost estimates to rectify that situation.
Investigate whether or not the berm is there for, what purpose the berm
is actually there for. I'm not sure if it's there to obstruct view of
the park or if it's there for water runoff purposes or what. Why the
berm was constructed there. Maybe you should look into that. Ed had
mentioned the trees so we do need to move the park sign because it's
probably, if I recall, it is preventing your view from coming down into
this park. It probably could move down some. Somewhere off the driving
area so that it opens up the site more.
-'
Mark Koegler: Just a clarification. Should we make the drawings, there
have been comments this evening about scale, the drawing is to scale. It
was based on field measurements that were triangulated with a tape
measurer rather than on a survey. Under those circumstances we always
like to put a note on there saying those distances are approximate. The
parking stalls for example on that plan are 10 x 28 feet. The extra
length being to allow turn around room. The beach Lori and I taped off
and if I remember right it was somewhere in the neighborhood of 97 feet
wide. The actual sand blanket area itself so they are essentially to
scale however they are not survey dimensions and they are not totally
accurate. So I'm not sure what the context of your motion means in those
terms. Does it mean that's a suitable level of definition for now?
-'
Mady: Yes it is.
Mark Koegler: Otherwise you're talking about incurring costs.
Mady: I don't see any reason to incur survey costs.
Dick Lash:
it's noted
showing up
is greater
I'd like to point out that from the sand beach to the trail
on here as approximately 10 to 15 feet. That certainly isn't
that way on this map. If that's the case, that distance there
than all four stalls.
Mady: Mark, you'll have to check that out.
Mark Koegler: The trail that was shown in there may be off. That wasn't
part of the measurements so much as the upper area, the light post, the
large tree which is where the picnic table sits and then the relationship
to the beach area but we can pin that down a little bit more.
Mady: Also throw in the relationship to the other homes in the area.
Specifically Jeff's home.
--'
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
May 24, 1988 - Page 13
,....,
Jeff Farmakes: There are two other homes also adjacent to the park. One
across the street and one that is on the east side as well.
Schroers: I wanted to ask Mark, on your plan you're drawing in the
access and then you're parking off to the left. What I had envisioned
was basically just off-street parking where that berm is and not going
down into the park at all. In your opinion, is something like that
feasible?
Mark Koegler: I guess we're operating under different assumptions. The
assumption I had going in was to try and retain the berm as much as
possible and use it, in fact to a certain degree, at least from a certain
view angle, to a limited degree, hide the parking so it had less impact
on the surrounding residential properties. So we were trying basically
to leave the berm undisturbed and tuck the parking back in behind it.
The other option is certainly viable one if the sense of the Commission
is that you want to open up the view of that park more in general. It's
my understanding and I guess after a number of these meetings that the
berm along with some of the rocks and the bollards and the trees that
exist are acting as deterrents to keep vehicles out of there and we're
trying to leave that as undisturbed as possible.
~ Mady: One of the reasons, just the discussion I would like to see us
avoid right at the street level because they'll be backing out on that
curve and right on that hill. That would be a worse situation forcing a
person to have to back out onto that hill.
Dick Lash: Mr. Mady and Mr. Hasek say this is a good plan. Maybe it is
but a month ago or three weeks ago I was up here to a meeting and Mr.
Hasek thought that last plan was just dandy. As a matter of fact he
wanted to expand that plan. Mr. Mady was in favor of that plan too. Now
they're in favor of a different plan. If we corne up with five more maybe
they'll be in favor of them. It just seems like any plan you put in
front of these two gentlemen they're in favor of as long as it involves
parking.
Robinson: I'm still concerned about the Council's reaction and the fact
that we're going to go ahead, spend some more money. Why? Further
studies with the possibility of it being shot down by the Council. I
wonder if we should get a reading from them again.
Mady: I'm not sure what Jay's feeling is. I've talked to Bill and one
other council member. Right now there are only two Council members that
I've talked to...
Robinson: But to go back to the last June motion.
Mady: The motion is not the entire feeling of the Council. The Council
~ Minutes were very extensive on it and I sat through that entire meeting.
Boyt: There are new council members elected in the fall, they could
change their minds on anything ...so whenever they change members they do
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
May 24, 1988 - Page 14
change their directives. Lori and Don talked about this.
-"
Sietsema: It was staff's interpretation that this was to be reviewed
after a year. Based on the opinion of Public Safety was and whether we
could control the park or not.
Councilman Johnson: ...is that Dale modifies his motion but the motion
is not even in there. There's a summary of what the typist thought the
motion was at the end but the motion is totally missing from the Minutes.
I just sat here reading and I couldn't find the motion.
Jeff Farmakes: We also had about 30 people in that meeting and what was
in those Minutes was our understanding.
Mady moved, Boyt seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission direct
staff to come back with a new drawing of this plan showing scales,
bollard and chain and a gravel parking surface with a trail going along
side of the road into the park and connecting into the Lake Ann Trail.
To investigate whether or not the berm is providing an obstruction from
viewing the street and if so, to come up with the cost estimates to
rectify that situation. Investigate whether or not the berm is there
for, what purpose the berm is actually there for and to show the adjacent
homes in the new drawing. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Mady: Once Mark has prepared the final plan that we put in the motion, -'
please contact everyone in Greenwood Shores who signed in at the previous
meeting. We'll attempt to get it published in the paper. We,
unfortunately are low on the totem pole. We've asked for it every time
but we don't always have it.
Jeff Farmakes: I have a question. You made a statement that two
councilmembers are positive on this issue. I'd like to ask, are they
positive on the parking or are they positive on the review issue?
Boyt: They want us to review.
Jeff Farmakes: Is that what you're saying Jim?
Mady: No, I'm saying both.
Jeff Farmakes: My question is, in fact if the Councilmembers are
already...even before you make a recommendation, what are we even having
a hearing for?
Mady: We have to discuss these things.
Jeff Farmakes: Are we also allowed to come to the City Council meeting
and express our opinion?
Mady: Yes.
......"
Jeff Farmakes: And is that to make any difference?
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
May 24, 1988 - Page 15
,.....
Mady: Your voice is as good as my voice.
Jeff Farmakes: I don't think that that is true. When these decisions,
as you're apparently saying, are taking place outside of these meetings.
Mady: There are no decisions being made outside.
Jeff Farmakes: You just said...
Mady: I talked to my neighbors and people I know in the community and
since I'm on a city commission and they're involved in the city, we
usually talk a lot about city items. That was one of the city items we
happen to talk about at that time. What they do at Council meetings may
be totally different from that.
Boyt: I think you implied Jeff that those two councilmembers had already
made up their mind.
Lynch: I think each of the councilmembers has a personal viewpoint
regarding whether there should be or should not be parking in all parks.
I think that is probably a preconceived philosophical opinion of theirs.
So what we're asked to look at here is how we're going to accomplish it.
,.....
Jeff Farmakes: That's what I understood of the direct interpretation of
the Minutes. In fact there were some confusion from Geving as to,
stating that what you were doing was not what he was requesting. If you
can address those when you're rereading those Minutes. I don't have them
in front of me now but whether or not that's true, because he was one of
the ones that brought it up at that initial meeting you had in January.
Mady: We've got a number of things on our agenda and whether or not you
agree with us looking at this or not, at this point is inmaterial. We've
been looking at it for four meetings now and we will possibly look at it
again.
Jeff Farmakes: I just don't believe it's inmaterial.
MASTER PLAN FOR CHANHASSEN POND PARK - MARK KOEGLER.
Sietsema: If I could make a quick comment before we start on this. I
did get some questions regarding this being on the agenda without
notifying homeowners within the area of Chanhassen Pond Park. The reason
that I did not notify people was because we were at such a preconcept
plan that I knew that the Commission wasn't aware of all of the area that
we owned out there. About the trail and I don't you to appear like you
don't know everything that's going on so I wanted you to know exactly
what we have. Where we are with it and come up with some ideas and when
we actually do start getting some things that gel, we will invite
everybody within 500 feet of this park.
,......
Schroers: I want to ask that before we address this issue in public
again, that we get together with the City Council and that we come up
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
May 24, 1988 - Page 16
with something solid that we all agree upon. Either the Council wants ~
parking or they don't want parking or it's us that wanted it and not them
but we need to be together if we're going to get something accomplished.
We can't be split. We can't be uncertain of whether the Council's given
us a directive to request parking or did they not. I think that we need
to get together with the Council and really decide and get together on
this program before we pursue it any further.
Sietsema: So do you want me to set up a special meeting with the council
before we bring this back to you or before Mark even does anymore work on
it?
Lynch: We haven't had our meeting with them that we normally have.
Schroers: Either that or if it could be added to the Council's agenda
and just say, does the Council want us to have or develop a policy
regarding parking for the Chanhassen parks or do we want to look at each
park individually and what makes the most sense but I do think that we
need to get the gray area cleared up because in my opinion we don't
appear to have our act together here. It's like we're saying one thing
and the council might be saying something else and then they're both
being misinterpretted.
Sietsema: I don't think that you're going to get a clear concise answer
out of the Council of if they want parking or not. I don't even know
that you'll get a clear concise answer of whether their interpretation -'
was that we should review this again this year. I don't know that you're
going to, I could get a motion. I could probably get a majority one way
or the other.
Schroers: Anything would help.
Mady: A comment there. I don't believe it's our chore or our task to
voice whatever it is the Council wants us to do. I think it's our vote,
what we're up here for is to look at each individual item, determine what
we feel is best and our opinion for the City of Chanhassen and make an
effort to present that to the Council. At that point the Council will
determine whether or not they agree with us or not but I don't think we
should have to try to state what the Council wants us to state. In other
words, we should be stating what we want so want we think the city wants,
the citizens want. Take that to the Council and let them make a decision
based on what they know.
Schroers: I agree with that. I think just what's happened in the past
here with the motion, whatever it was, it just kind of reflects a bad
image of us as though we're really not on top of our situation here and
it also sort of reflects that on the Council so I was just hoping that we
could get together a little bit and reach an understanding so we know
what direction we're working towards.
Lynch: I do think the Council has the right to expect us to address
items that they're particularly interested in. That's all I see this as.~
It's not something that would have been addressed, I don't believe.
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
May 24, 1988 - Page 17
,......
Sietsema: But also, you are the park and recreation experts and the
Council isn't always aware of everything that's going on in the park and
recreation area of the City and you're supposed to be the ones that are
bringing pertinent things to their attention. Whether they are
interested in them or not, at least to bring them to their attention. I
know this is a gray area because the Minutes aren't clear. There was a
summar of the last part of that meeting where the motion was made and it
is unclear but I have no doubt that all through the season that we were
going to bring this back. In fact, Don directed me to bring this back to
the Commission so it was his interpretation.
Schroers: I remember that. I remember that we had discussed all that.
That we were going to close it for a year and monitor it to see what the
situation was and kind of use Carver Beach as an experiment. Have it
open. I remember all of that so I don't have a problem with that at
all.
Councilman Johnson: We're missing 7 minutes here because just a
paragraph or two before where this summary motion is in there, which Nann
does, she summarizes the motion at the end of every thing. Geving says
I'd like to amend your motion Mr. Mayor. Now I went back through
,....... everything Tom said according to those Minutes in front of that and
there's no motion who Geving seconded, is amended 50 somehow the actual
verbatim motion didn't make the Minutes but the summary at the end did.
I remember the Council in our joint meeting last year directing it.
Clark has brought it up. I know Clark is completely for it and we just
passed the money to do it Monday night.
Sietsema: The other thing is I wrote a memo to the Park and Recreation
Commission as an update on this item for the June meeting last year that
summarized what happened at the Park and Recreation Commission so it was
clear in my mind then.
Mady: What we're seeing here is what I said in our Minutes of the last
meeting to them, is they're picking and choosing pieces out of the
Minutes to suit their point of view, which they have the right to do but
the Minutes don't always necessarily reflect what actually took place at
the meeting. Let's go on. We need to get our other stuff.
Mark Koegler: Just to clarify Mr. Chairman. The work that we did most
recently, doing this little sketch is not something that we charged you
for at all. It was a couple of hours worth of work. Very minor and we
just wanted to see it get done. Now that this thing keeps kind of snow
balling, I realize as it goes on, the clock has to start somewhere.
We're talking minor costs but still you should be aware that a decision
like that do have financial...
,...... ~~,~~i~~~tonight I think Lori provided a good opening reason for
not being surrounded here by Chanhassen Pond area residents with their
view. All I'm essentially on right now is a fact finding mission for
this evening and I think we started that off with the tour which, at
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
May 24, 1988 - Page 18
least for me, opened up some new opportunities that I didn't know were
being considered with the road improvement and the trail and possible
potentials there. Wanted to just kind of walk through some of the
assumptions of what I have absorbed over dealing with this site over any
number of years, 8 or 9 actually by now and just to make sure that we
have some parameters defined so we can come back to you with an option or
options that attempt to meet those. I laid some of those out in my
memorandum in the form of a couple of things. First of all the series of
assumptions on what type of use and what activity the park would see and
then finally some specific questions aimed more towards you getting down
to issues of what do you want in the park in terms of facilities. Who do
you want the users to be? How accessible? Those kinds of things. The
trail for instance that we're reviewing. The City's is an 8 foot
bituminous concrete mix, depending on where you are, multipurpose path
which obviously services bikes and whatevers. Connections to the park.
How do you envision those being handled is a real issue that I thought of
tonight. The park right now is really more pedestrian oriented. Is it
to take on a pedestrian and bicycle type of interest or is it to be
pedestrian and maybe wheelchair or something only? ...Those are some of
the things that I guess I would like to hear from the Commission tonight.
Who do you assess as being the users? What kind of facilities do you
want to provide? How much of a natural environment versus, I don't know
what you would call an enhanced, man-made environment with some of the
wildlife nesting platforms and some of those kinds of things that we can
move within that space. How do you want to approach this whole thing?
I guess I'm kind of letting it back to you. Perhaps with first of all
are the assumptions that I have made correct? If not, I think those
should be corrected by this body because that obviously is the course
that I'm trying to head it in. Then specifically some of the questions
that have been raised.
....,.,.
....,.,
Lynch: I like the roadside trail that's going to follow the inland park
contour on that ridge next to Kerber Drive. I think the combined
overlook and sledding area is a great idea. It's new. We hadn't heard
of that before but that's tremendous. It's another way to get a use out
of the park. If we could work up entrances and exits from the park on
the southwest/northwest corners to Kerber Drive and the northeast corner
for the easement we have with the neighborhood to the north and then our
existing southeast entrance. All but the existing entrance should be
able to be accomplished where the ramp might be because it doesn't
require steps or the existing one was too steep to attempt with any other
method. Back to the overlook and sledding area. If we can work in the
southeast entrance right next to that on some sort of a gradual
switchback. That will give us an opportunity to have a sledding area
with an easy walk right back up the hill that would keep the kids from
walking up the hill in front of the sledders and being injured. You have
to make it real convenient or they won't use it. I'd like to see an in
park path completely sort of navigate the lake and we have what was I
think was about a year and a half ago, met out there and walked off the
contours. I think the contour is about 4 foot above the water level with
the contour level that we decided could go all the way around.
"""""
Schroers: Did you state that in there?
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
May 24, 1988 - Page 19
,......
Sietsema: I recall 952.
Lynch: The only other item, last but not least is we had always depended
on that cattle underpass to be an outlet directly into the land that we
had for a trail on the north side. Now we've got a trail on the north
side that starts nowhere and goes noplace. I'm really interested in who
decided to close the overpass. Why we didn't hear about it first.
Sietsema: It was brought up here before.
Lynch: The road being opened?
Sietsema: Yes, it was. I talked about it another time but I think it
wasn't in a formal presentation, it was in passing but I will research on
why that was not an option. There were summaries and that that was not
going to be possible to use it. I don't know if it was going to have
water in it or what but I'll look it up and bring it back to you.
Lynch: I really think to cover the tracks now that you can't get under
the highway easily and it would have been a neat feature.
Councilman Johnson: I discussed that with our City Engineer because he
~ is the person responsible for doing that. He was of the opinion that it
wasn't a good access. That it was too short, too narrow. That two
people couldn't pass~ Walking down that, one person would have to back
up to get out of it. It was kind of an emergency situation. Bill and I
have given him a lot of hard time for doing that without a wetlands
alteration permit too but they did it under an emergency powers deal that
they had to get rid of the dirt and whatever and they put it there. It
did give us a better opportunity to put trails on that side which is
something I wanted instead of the trails being on the other side of
Kerber Blvd.. I'd like the engineer to look at whether it's possible to
get back underneath there and do it because I totally agree with you but
I think it was pretty much Gary Warren's decision to drop the dirt on top
of it.
Mady: At this point they can easily dit it back out. I would think you
can dig it back out again.
Lynch: I've been through it and I never thought it was that narrow. It
may turn out to be very difficult to extend. I don't know what the cost
of that would be.
Sietsema: I'll look up why. I know that I was given a reason why and it
sounded like a good reason to me and I thought that I had let the
Commission know but I'll look it up and let.you know next time.
Boyt: I heard a rumor that we hadn't actually finished acquiring that
,......, property.
Sietsema: We do. They went to closing and it's all done. Park didn't
pay for it. It's part of the project.
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
May 24, 1988 - Page 20
-'
Boyt: But the City had first choice in buying that property. The guy
went behind our back and sold it to someone else who then sold it to us
at 10 times the market value.
Councilman Johnson: You're saying that Kerber...
Sietsema: Sold it to Rick Murray and Rick Murray sold it to us.
Councilman Johnson: Rick Murray sold it to us for what he bought it for.
Sietsema: It didn't come out of Park budget.
Boyt: I'm sorry. I wasn't at the walk through. Did you talk about
putting parking on Kerber?
Mady: Yes. Cut down those two knolls.
Boyt: I think we need to decide if we want to continue to have a
sliding hill in Pryzmus' backyard.
Mady: The way we were looking at the...
Boyt: Do you know which lot it is up there?
...."
Mady: I'll show you where we were looking at. The overlook is probably
going to be right in here. We've got it sufficiently wide enough where
we can do it in this area.
Boyt: Right here is the sledding hill. Do we want it to stay there?
Mady: Unofficially it's not a problem.
Boyt: Well, does it look good continuity wise? We've got this nice
grove and then all of a sudden there's a slash through there with nothing
growing.
Schroers: Another thing there is that that is basically a south or west
facing slope there and you don't design a sliding hill on a south or west
facing slope because of the cost of it.
Councilman Johnson: You're doing an east facing slope on this site over
here on Kerber.
Boyt: I just have a few things to say about this. I want Novak Fleck to
get out there and clean up the pond because that's their garbage in the
pond. It looks like an industrial waste area out there. There is stuff
in the pond and around the pond. In the bushes. Then I would like to go
to the teachers at the elementary school and ask them how they would like
to use this. """"'"
Sietsema: I called Mack and he said anything that was natural that would
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
May 24, 1988 - Page 21
,....
enhance the wildlife and the different kinds of plantings and stuff. He
said also if the trail is put in all the way around the pond with some
interpretive signing that where you stand there and you look out and if
you look to the left you'll see a certain kind of tree or watch over the
pond you might see some certain kind of birds or geese. Some
interpretive signage along the way. He said that the school's been using
that park to take classroom for outdoor study for years.
Boyt: I would like signage there. I see that's one of the points in
here.
Lynch: In fact we had a resident at one of the meetings during the land
acquisition on the north side that talked about being a volunteer mom and
taking the troops down there every spring to take their little walk
throughs.
Councilman Johnson: I'd like to see a little nature study center. I
picked up some stuff at the Conservation Commission Service that talked
about school nature centers. This is to build one in the backyard of the
school. Put the pond in. The school settling pond and stuff just fits
right in with that kind of thing.
Boyt: Maybe the school can take that on as a project. Just my things
"'" are the Pryzmus sledding hill.
Sietsema: So you want to see it taken out?
Boyt: I would like to see trees planted in there. I would like to see
it look like the rest of the hill.
Lynch: We've talked about that in the past. As long as 3 or 4 years
ago.
Mark Koegler: Mr. Chairman, could I pursue a couple of questions? First
of all you brought up the issue of parking. The overlook parking to me
has a different context than parking serving park users, if you will.
It's shorter term. More apt to turn over kind of thing I would presume.
Does that agree with your thinking and if so, do you want to get into the
issue of do you have 4 spaces or 5 spaces or something else for park
users? For somebody that wants to spend an hour or two there.
,.....
Lynch: I think you can be double duty. I see no reason why we can't
have an overlook with, you're not going to have an overlook that fits one
car. You're going to have to have an overlook where you can have 3 or 4
cars perhaps just to give enough room to turn around and make it safe.
If there is going to be a sledding area there, then you're going to want
some small little parking spot of 4 to 6 cars. Maybe I'm being naive but
that spot for parking seems very inoffensive as far as neighbors would be
concerned because they're so far away and you laugh. Maybe I am being
naive. I'd like to see parking right next to that overlook area so they
can get in and walk down.
Sietsema: Off of Laredo?
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
May 24, 1988 - Page 22
.....,.,
Lynch: No, not on Laredo. On Kerber where we're talking about the
overlook. I'd like to see to drop an entrance in there, a little
switchback entrance that is relatively low grade so they can walk back up
from sledding so in the summer they can park there and walk around into
the park. I think you're asking for a rutted foot path down the hill to
put an overlook there. Think about every State overlook you've ever been
in that overlooked anything neat and you drove there and they've got a
neat fence and you look on the other side of the fence and there's these
scuffed, dirty, washed out paths going down to whatever there is to look
at so let's put something there.
Sietsema: How about some Eagle Scout steps?
Lynch: No, I really don't like the steps. I would like to see us
develop, if this Kerber Drive that we're looking out at the park, from
the grading work they're doing, they're going to do more in there. There
is no reason at all why they can't switch, run south and then curve back
north and one switchback fairly level grade, 8 foot wide path to match
everything else that's down there. I think that should be paved even
though the flat trail of the park should be gravel because the assorted
yellow is going to wash out like the other old one did but as soon as you
get into the steps, you're forced to on the other side. There's a safety
consideration. There's accessibility by senior citizens, handicaps and
so forth. I'd like to see two entrances on that side and I'd like to see
them both fairly flat grades that people can get in and out of.
....,.
Boyt: I have two more. We talked about bikes. I know it's used for
bikes right now. The kids are using the hill and the bridge to get home
so we need to decide if that's okay or not okay. I'm wondering if Lori
or whoever, when are the trails going to be put in with Novak Fleck
development?
Sietsema: That will be the City that does that and it will sometime this
summer when they start getting out and doing that. They will go allover
but right now they are overwhelmed with what has to be done. It's on the
list.
Lynch: The new paving on the Laredo side?
Sietsema: That was my question. There was originally some talk about
having 2, 3 or 4 parking spaces right at that entrance.
Lynch: I don't think it would be a bad idea.
Boyt: I'd rather see it on Kerber.
Mady: I would like to see on both places.
Lynch: I would too but I'd like to see as much easy access as possible.
Sietsema: I don't know if there's enough room to have turn around area -'
at that site. Would they have to back onto the street?
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
May 24, 1988 - Page 23
,.....
Mady: We have the opportunity there. Point of information, the Council
approved putting a trail along Laredo last night as part of our Capital
Improvement Program and that will be done this year. Now talking with
Larry Brown, there's sufficient area on both sides of Laredo in the City
right-of-way to build a trail. I would think there would be sufficient
space to maybe put an off street wide spot on either side but probably
across the street from it, to allow three cars to sit there parallel.
Parallel park.
Lynch: I wouldn't want to see head in.
Mady: No, not head in but that way you can keep them off the trail. You
don't want them pulling back and forth over the trail but you're going to
have a safer spot for people to pull off and park and walk across the
street and go into the park.
Councilman Johnson: There's kind of hill on the other side.
Mady: Yes, it might have to be cut down.
Councilman Johnson: I think the west side of the street would be easier.
One of the neighbors already parks his car out there on the trail.
,.....
Mady: Since we're building the trail probably on that side of the
street, I'd like to keep the cars away from the trail.
Mark Koegler: Clarify parking for me. You want parking off Laredo. See
what can be accomodated off-street. If there is nothing that can be done
there, we'll look at limited adjacent to the street parking. Somewhere
in the 1 to 4 vehicle range, depending on...
Mady: No more than 4. 2 to 3 should be sufficient.
Sietsema: And you wanted 2 parking spaces off of Kerber then? Two
parking areas?
Mady: If we can. I like Mike's idea. If you can put another small spot
at the top of one of the hills.
Mark Koegler: I might have missed that. Run that by me again.
Sietsema: Two parking areas with park entrance.
Lynch: Kerber is here. We really don't show the full extent of the
parkland now but where the curve does that, we're coming around and as we
had explained tonight, their idea was to run the on-street trail,
actually inland in the park and around the contour here through the woods
and come out on this side. We have just enough land, I was told anyway,
originally where it hits up Kerber that we do have an access way here.
~ So what we talked about years ago would work well. The overlook here
with a little entrance to get down in to the bottom of what would be the
sledding area or the bottom of the overlook. The trail comes through
this area. A couple of picnic tables in here on that knoll. Beautiful
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
May 24, 1988 - Page 24
....".
spot. You can park there and walk down to that. The trail itself would
corne up to Kerber here. You'd then be able to access the around the lake
trail here, there, from Laredo and our easement here. The trail will go
all the way around the lake at about the same elevation and Y back into
the existing trail right through the edge of this little woods.
Sietsema: Okay, but you were talking two entrances into the park,
pedestrian entrances into the park off of Kerber. Not two parking areas.
Lynch: Right there and one parking area which would be against the knoll
exactly right here. But this entrance will be right next to that
overlook parking. No other parking on Kerber so we're talking parking
here and parking up one, Laredo and I don't think it's probably
suitable...
Hoffman: Mike do you feel that if you're going to develop a sledding
area in that area, it's going to become popular and 4 to 6 spots are
going to handle the load if that becomes a popular area to use?
Lynch: Maybe not. There is sufficient room along that, it appears as
though there's sufficient room along that area to develop more if we ever
had to because they were talking about taking the grade out where that
existing fence line, not shown here. I wish we had just a little more
here but a fence line that runs right along here. They had bulldozed out
back to about here then you saw it start again here and run along and -'
they're going to take that whole hump out and use that for fill someplace
where they're trenching. Well, that would be a fairly wide area there.
There's reason at all why in the future if we wanted to put additional
off-street there that you could put, what do they call that, lay-in curb
where you corne off the street. Like a lot of the State pull-offs. You
corne up off the street and there's a curb here and there's actually a
little roadway here and you have parallel parking all the way along the
side but there's a lot of room there so if it got to be a real popular
thing, sure, no problem. One of the few accessible hills in the City.
Mady: The road is going to be a 44 foot wide curb and gutter street so
there would be, unless they put no parking signs along it, would allow
for parking along the street. Safe parking along the street.
Hoffman: Along four lane?
Mady: A 44 foot wide street that's two lanes. They're not going to mark
off four lanes to my understanding.
Schroers: How wide is the street at Kerber as it exists right now? Is
it 44 feet now?
Mady: It's like 32. It's the standard.
Schroers: Because I jogged through Kerber earlier tonight before the
meeting and where the cars were parked across from the school field up
here, when there was traffic corning from both ways, it was pretty tight.
-'
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
May 24, 1988 - Page 25
""
Mady: He showed it was going to be another 6 feet off the asphalt mat
now. One other thing, in your assumptions Mark you were talking about
man made wildlife shelters, nesting platforms, bird houses. I know we've
talked about it previously. We would just as soon not put in nesting
platforms for like geese and that. One of the things we do have is kind
of goose control problem.
Schroers: We're paying to ship them out now.
Mady: We don't mind seeing a few down there but we're not going to
invite them in either necessarily. Now wood duck houses would be fine
because they don't seem to be messing up our beaches. I guess I move for
nesting platforms for geese and that type of thing unless they're for
deer and things like that. As a matter of fact, it'd probably be unsafe
for deer with all the development going in there. You're going to have
homes along the entire area there with a lot of traffic. You probably
wouldn't want to invite deer to come crossing those roads.
Mark Koegler: The one assumption that I had outline is on the opposite
spectrum to Sue's comment on the more active kind of nature observance
with signage, with interpretive sign boards or something. That will be
changed to reflect in general thinking. How far do you want to go with
that? I pose the question because part of the planning we had done for
Chanhassen Estates that was part of a LAWCON grant we had done little
~ keyask kind of structure with some intrepretive type boards telling
here's what you might see kind of thing. Do you want to go that far or
do you want to have just little signage boards? Numbers along the way?
Little box, take a pamplet. Here you're at number 3. You're overlooking
a certain type of habitat. Here are the species that frequent that
habitat. Do you want to wait to hear from the school further?
Boyt: No, I think we have enough information from them. I don't know
anything about what the alternatives are.
Mady: I don't know, I've seen a keyask, I don't think I really care to
see them right in the middle of a park. Right at the entrances, at the
various entrances that would be nice right there but once you get into
the park, I want it to be as unintrusive as possible.
* A tape break occurred at this point in the meeting.
Lynch: ...pictorials and there was a lot of defacing of those.
,....
Schroers: We're not using the plexiglass anymore but we are using very
good signs. I guess the best way to say it is that our system feels as
though signs are totally essentially. We have a sign staff that's full
time person in there who makes the signs and he can't keep up with them.
We are going completely by demand on signs. Basically what it is, we
have picked out a color that we call park brown, it's more of a dull
brown and we use white lettering and there's a variety of signs. We use
symbolism in some places. pictures of a dog on a leash with a slash, no
dogs. In other areas the signs are just lettered and written out
specifically stating what we want to state. We have difficulty signs.
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
May 24, 1988 - Page 26
Parking signs. We've got signs that will tell you when it's time to go
home. We just leave nothing to anyone's imagination really. My personal
feeling on that is that we have gone overboard. It's almost an insult to
a person's intelligence. You can stand at any given point in the use
area and count 50 signs. I wouldn't think in an area that we want to get
too carried away with signs but they are helpful and they are beneficial
and what you want to do is do them in good taste. Have nice signs. Not
red, white and blue that jump out at you in a natural area. Just keep
them natural brown and maybe sometimes just a diagram of an oak leaf on
it saying directly in front of you is a stand of natural white oaks and a
diagram of an oak leaf on it. You don't have to get real carried away
saying that this oak tree here is 55 years old... A lot of them are
wooden signs bolted to posts that most of them are 8 foot posts and we
drive them so, we like to have the bottom of the sign at 42 inches so
these 8 foot posts are driven in. If you want them out, you have to work
at it. They generally end up tearing the sign off and it's easier just
to bolt another sign on than it is to try and... so I guess that's our
basic concept right now is to make the sign that somebody is going to
come and vandalize and that you can later replace. We're using large
black heavy metal posts and signs. I would just say that we would want
to have something that practical and that does the job and that's not
expensive.
.."",
Boyt: I'd like to see some plant identification.
Robinson: I'd like to see it left natural as much as possible. I was -'
wondering if anybody had any ideas. In the southwest of the pond where
it's kind of marshy, will we leave that? Is there water in there?
Councilman Johnson: We're having the Fish and Wildlife is coming out to
evaluate that area as far as wetland and whether it's a protected
wetland. I think it's currently on the map as a protected wetland. The
little pond that's in there, the settling pond which Chan vista was doing
is undersized for what they wanted and it was going to be expanded but
the City obtained the upper area so the little shape of that little pond
is supposed to change. How you do that and what shape it does end up
eventually probably will be up to you all too to look at. That was a
trade-off in the development there is that they only had to build half of
their pond at this time and when we obtained the other ground we'd build
the other half of the pond. How that's been put into your plans or if
you guys even vote on that part but as far as I was thinking that... The
pond as is, they just dug it straight out. They didn't do the Fish and
Wildlife recommendations of having gently sloping sides. They just
mucked it out. It drops from 0 to 4 foot deep right now so you're not
going to get your emergent vegetation and the things you want. The
little pond, if we're going to create it into a wildlife, otherwise it's
going to sit there.
Robinson: I'd like to see it kept as natural as possible.
Mady: When we do expand it, that would be a good idea to expand it with -'
the gentle slopes.
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
May 24, 1988 - Page 27
,....
,.....
Schroers: Quickly, Mark asked about users. I go through that area
frequently and you have a good cross section of the community using the
area along Kerber Blvd. now. You have kids biking. You have people
jogging. People walking dogs and there are couples in evening just going
for a walk so everyone is using it now and it's used a lot. I would
expect the use to get even more as the developments increase and the
improvements are made that will make it more attractive. One thing that
we want to take into consideration as far as the parking is concerned.
You're also going to have to be dealing with snow removal. The city is
going to have to plow that and there is going to have to be a place to
push the snow so that it doesn't interfere with the sliding operation.
And if in fact we have a declared wetlands down below, are you sliding on
that? I guess I would have a question there. Then, that nice mature
knoll of trees where they plan to run the trail in off of Kerber a little
bit and maybe put picnic tables or whatever in there. I think that is
fine with the exception that I am intimately opposed to the disturbance
of any of those mature trees. As far as construction damage near them or
removal of any of them, I am definitely opposed to it. On the wildlife
situation, I agree that I don't think we want to try to attract any geese
into there. They seem to like that area on their own so I'm sure that
there will be an opportunity to observe geese. However, the wood duck
houses would be a very desirable addition I think and if we could get up
maybe four wood duck houses, I think that would be welcomed. Other than
that, the area is just naturally going to support a few shore birds and
swallows and snipes and the type of birdlife that inhabits the area. I
think that will pretty much take care of itself. We definitely don't
want to have any feeding stations. I guess that's all I have.
Lynch: One thing that I think is important to get into the record right
now since this is the planning stage, we want to find out about the
cattle path. Other than that, what's the neighborhood just south of
that?
Sietsema: Chan vista.
Lynch: Chan Vista, okay. The turn around from which our access, we have
that easement access that goes down to the corner of that steep hill.
The Chan Vista access that's shown here. I feel for all intensive
purposes is sort of out of the question. Our original concept there was
to try to pick up an access on that corner because we didn't know at that
time what the acquisition was going to be like for the western side of
the property. We didn't know what it was going to be like for entrances
from Kerber into the park so that was sort of an ace in the hole. We
realized that the grade was tremendously steep and that it would be a
very difficult entrance but it was one of those things, we didn't dare
walk by. If we get it, we've got it in case we needed it but in light of
the development possibilities that we have here I don't believe that that
particular access is useable.
"'"
Councilman Johnson:
It's not steep at all.
That's an old farm road.
Boyt: We really need to do something with that because there's a big
erosion problem through there.
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
May 24, 1988 - Page 28
...""
Lynch: We went out and looked at it and walked up and down it. I don't
think I'd want to put safe access down there without steps. Again, if we
want to discuss that.
Councilman Johnson: It's hard to tell exactly where it is. That's one
of the ways, the school has the path on Chippewa Trail and if they're
coming down, they'll probably go down Chippewa Trail or they may go out
to Kerber and down.
Lynch: They can really go down Kerber or Laredo. We're going to have a
trail there.
Councilman Johnson: They have a trail connection now, an asphalt into
the school from Chippewa as they're working on making that trail all the
way out to the school property.
Boyt: Is that trail our maintenance problem because it's coming on the
neighbors on each side of that trail that don't have grass yet and...
Sietsema: Yes, it is ours.
Boyt: They need to put up some erosion control.
Mark Koegler: Two quick items. We talked a little about bikes down in ~
there. It's going to be pretty hard to preclude them. I assume we
should definitely encourage them? Is that a fair statement?
Mady: I don't have any problems with kids bikes going down there.
Mark Koegler: But you're not intending that to be part of the planned
use to go down and around that pond and back out.
Boyt: I think we need to put up a sign saying no motorized vehicles,
that's our policy because there are some kids that drive down there.
Sietsema: There was a sign.
Mady: There is a sign that says no motorized vehicles.
Boyt: Is it still there?
Sietsema: It was there last year.
Lynch: I think we might require a lot of these entry points now, what
Larry does in the metro are is they have these bollards out there that
you can walk through but you sure as heck can't drive through them.
Schroers: We've had double no unauthorized vehicles signs beyond this
point and I was standing right there the other day and it said Hennepin
Parks right on the side of my truck and a guy comes driving through. I -'
said hey, don't you see those signs? You're not supposed to drive in
there. He says, that's okay I ain't going to stay. He thought if he
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
May 24, 1988 - Page 29
,.....
was just going to drive in there for a little while it would be alright.
Signs aren't the total answer. It's just a means of controlling.
Councilman Johnson: Neighbors that I've talked to as far as the path all
the way around the pond are really looking at a walking path. Not really
a biking path or anything like that. I just talked to some new
neighbors, Mr. Castleberry and his wife who are going to be living around
the pond here. They bought the third lot down from Kerber. She was very
concerned about keeping the path as far away from the pond and where it
stays as much as nature. So that's the same kind of people moving into
Chan vista as what we had had out here. People getting next to here want
to see it as low level useage as possible.
Robinson: What was your other point Mark?
Mark Koegler: Building platforms? There's one viewing observation
platform over there to the east where that circle and cross there is.
We've talked now about it automobile/pedestrian oriented observation on
the west side. Our other platform areas appropriate to let people sit
down and take a look at things and we're going to handle that with
benches.
Lynch: Benches would be the most appropriate because the hill on the
south is awfully steep to try to route somebody up. The only really good
,..... viewpoint spot is that large tree on the north and that's in a nature
easement. A conservation easement. I've been told that we can't put a
trail there and we can't cross it. If the trail on the west side does go
through those mature oaks, we have a couple of picnic tables there,
that's another nice spot. As long as we don't get cluttered like with
the signs, you maybe can have a little sit down spot on either side. The
north and south side. That's where we can have our bench.
Boyt: By the tree?
Mady: Yes, about halfway down.
FINAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVIEW - MARK KOEGLER.
,.....
Mark Koegler: There are two topics that we talked about previously and I
don't think we really need made any corrections in terms of text. The
policy that currently has been proposed for walkway trails and then some
discussion on Moon Valley. As you recall the Commission had expressed an
interest in somehow at least identifying that facility as a recreational
resource and leaving some ambiquity if ever anything happen in the
future, if the circumstances were right, perhaps some ownership or user
could be agreed upon. So that's the text we brought back to you tonight.
You will still see this one last time because there are more editorial
comments. Number changes and things that we pointed out before that
we'll make in the final draft once it is typed and available. The main
thing this evening is to review these two blocks of text that you hadn't
seen previously.
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
May 24, 1988 - Page 30
......."
Mady: I had a comment on the walkway trail areas. It says, Chanhassen
has adopted a policy of placing walkways/sidewalks adjacent to all new
public streets excluding cul-de-sacs. I have no problem with saying
that, I just hope, I think that's what we've done.
Boyt: We've tried to put some on some long cul-de-sacs so we could put
excluding cul-de-sacs of less than a mile. Something like that.
Mady: Excluding short cul-de-sacs.
Sietsema: Cul-de-sacs of a reasonable length.
Schroers: I'm glad to see that you've got this Moon Valley included. I
think that's real nice.
CITY CENTER PARK LAYOUT, JIM MADY.
Jim Mady: Two weeks ago Sue and I were out there, we were coaching our
daughters playing ragball and we were just sitting up there watching our
kids play ragball and I asked her, I said don't you think that maybe how
we could design this park so we could utilize the space a little bit
better. There are only three diamonds out there. A lot of space.
They've got that running track in off by itself and there's a baseball
diamonds that are kind of hit and miss up there. We talked a little bit
about maybe putting some kind of a nice play structure area... To me
that whole park should just be, take all of the raw land there and say,
what's the best way of utilizing the whole space. Now realizing that we
have to work with the school for a lot of that but I'm also looking at
there's approximately 4 acres of land north of the tennis courts. We may
want to acquire that. There's a strong possibility that there's a,
working on the Community Center Task Force was that a community center
site in the coming months that that whole parcel of land up there may get
a look at.
...,;11
Boyt: Do you know who owns that?
Mady: Yes, Klingelhutz owns that piece of land. That's what I
understand.
Councilman Johnson: My wife's been investigating that piece of land.
The ownership of that is a very big question. It used to be Tom. It was
Tom, then it was Doug. The taxes were getting paid but the County
doesn't know who's paying them. Tom said he sold it... There's barbed
wire running along the edge of the school playground and that's one of my
wife's issues. She's trying to find out who the heck the landowner is to
get the barbed wire. Tom very politely told her he sold it 8 years ago.
Mady: Anyway, why I was looking at the park is hopefully by the end of
summer we're going to know, a lot of us, what we can and can't do up ....,;11
there and then come back for an overall use for that. I'm thinking that
we should start from scratch saying where everything is doesn't
necessarily mean it's going to be there. The warming house needs to be
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
May 24, 1988 - Page 31
,.....
improved anyway. It's just kind of eye sore sitting up there anyway.
It's just a mess up there and I'd like to see us just design that whole
park so keeping that in mind when we start talking about trails along
here. . .
Mark Koegler: The reason I get a kick out of that is that whole thing,
as you well know, kind of grew in stages. The school did their thing and
then when this building started taking shape we go the bright idea let's
turn that into more of a park with the hockey rinks. Okay, let's put a
plan together and Don, at the time, you know how Don is, we don't need a
plan. He had a guy out there on a P-9, back and forth... That's
indictive of the way that whole thing just kind of grew and it probably
looks like that. It serves a purpose.
Mady: We could probably put in two more fields up there with a plan.
They could probably accomplish a lot of things out there and handle a lot
very nicely.
Sietsema: I think that in there somewhere we had money to do a master
plan so we could have a picture that we can look at when we're talking
about it.
Boyt: It's not listed.
,...., Sietsema: What would it cost to do a layout of what is existing and put
the boundaries on paper so that we have a plan?
Mark Koegler: The problem I'll have with that is the same problem you
have with Greenwood Shores in that we don't have any information to go
from. There is no topography. There are no good boundaries so it
depends on how far you are willing to go with that. The site obviously,
for the most part is flat with the exception of some of the contouring
that was done around the rinks so I would think we would need some field
shots just to verify the grades.
Sietsema: So it needs to be surveyed then?
Mark Koegler: I wouldn't say surveyed per see We could just take a few
elevations out there and get some distances so it's probably in the
normal...
Sietsema: The $2,000.00 range? Do you want to put something like that
in the 1989 Capital Improvement Program?
Mady: I think we need to.
Sietsema: From a staff's standpoint, when we come up and talk about
these different things in parks, it's nice to go to the file and say this
is the boundaries and this is what we have here. I'm trying to work
toward getting that on each one of the parks.
,....,
Boyt: It sounds pretty responsible. It sounds like the right thing to
do.
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
May 24, 1988 - Page 32
......"
Mady: By doing that, we need to include all the area including like
where the Fire Hall is, the school, right from Laredo to Kerber.
Whatever this street is now that we created.
Mark Koegler: Coulter?
Mady: From Coulter all the way over to Santa Vera. Probably that whole
area because there's that whole approximately, what I think is about...
That might be a nice addition. I know we are looking at the tennis
courts, they're going to be redone in the coming couple years.
Sietsema: Again, we don't have the money in the 1988 budget to do that
but it would be something that would be put in the 1989 budget.
Mady: But that's something I want everbody to be aware of that that's
what I'm looking forward to is starting to redesign some things. With
Kerber being redesigned and trails coming in.
Mark Koegler: I don't know if you noticed the plans tonight but they are
talking improvements on the school property.
Mady: They're talking an 8 foot bituminous walkway. I'm a little leary
of doing that right now because I think we need a plan out there before
we start throwing some more asphalt out there. We need to know where -,.
we're going. I don't think what we've got there is good. It's functions
right now but as the City grows, we need to find out from the school
board if they're going to expand the school.
Boyt: They won't be... They're so poor...
Sietsema: At my high school we have 8 temporaries that have been there
since way before I graduated which was 10 years ago. There was only four
when I was there and now there's 8 and we just built a new school that
was completed 3 years ago and they're going to have 2 new temporaries out
there next year.
Mark Koegler: They're doing a fairly extensive amount of grading back
there. Just for your information, it goes basically around the tennis
court area and then ties into that outlot trail connection over on
Chippewa Trail.
Mady: Who designed that? We didn't even...
Sietsema: The school district was involved with that. The trail that's
in here.
Mark Koegler: Where the tennis courts are there in the middle, Kerber
over here, all the shaded area is new. They will putting in this trail.
Robinson: Where are the tennis courts?
-'
Mark Koegler: Right over here.
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
May 24, 1988 - Page 33
,.....
Sietsema: Outlot A or whatever it is.
Councilman Johnson: That's Outlot B. Sue was talking about the dirt
being on it.
Sietsema: That's already paved.
Councilman Johnson: They had to pave it to bring the kids in the school.
The kids are already starting to use it. There are a lot of kids in Chan
vista. That's a lot of asphalt.
Boyt: I don't think that's going to interfere with what we want to do.
Councilman Johnson: If you extended this way right here, you could put a
full ballfield into here if you got some more territory right there.
Mady: Any kid that I'm looking at, to me that tennis court...
Schroers: Mark, when you guys look at a development or something, in
your original plan or sometime before it gets to the point where it's
just too late, is maintenance taken into consideration. An area that's
going to need to be mowed. Do you look at it as in terms of the grade is
.,..... not too steep so they can run the mower on it?
Mark Koegler: Generally yes. It depends on the parameters of the
project. If it's a private residential development and a homeowners
association kind of thing, certainly that's a concern that usually goes
into the covenants. If somebody has to maintain that, we want to make
sure that it's maintainable. If it a municipal project, we usually work
with the maintenance people to see what areas they want to maintain and
what areas will just be allowed to maybe go natural or be planted.
Schroers: The reason I ask, we have a considerable ongoing development
projects and I don't think that is even taken into consideration and we
have some hillsides immediately adjacent to entrances where we know that
they're going to want to be manicured and highly maintained and they
don't make lawn mowers to go up those hills.
REVISED 5 YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
Mady moved, Boyt seconded to table the Revised 5 Year Capital Improvement
Program. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
1989 LAWCON GRANT APPLICATIONS.
"".....
Sietsema: LAWCON grants applications will be due in early July.
Generally we don't usually get this much time to prepare our applications
but every minute is needed so I want to get your ideas and it has to be
approved by Council what we actually submit. If there are new projects
they take a lot of time to prepare. Mark gets involved so it looks like
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
May 24, 1988 - Page 34
....",
a nice package when we present it. The Lake Susan Park entrance road and
boat access is something that was done last year so it's just a new cover
letter and beefing it up so it will earn more points. The Lake Lucy-boat
access, I put a question mark by there because I don't know how much it's
going to cost. I don't know if there's land available that we can
acquire. I don't know if it's possible to put a boat access on the lake.
I'm setting up a meeting with the Watershed District and with DNR to
review the whole lake and get DNR's, what they accept as a standard, as
an approved boat access for this whole chain of lakes clean-up project
and where they would suggest that we put it in. I don't know that the
channel between Lake Ann and Lake Lucy is definitely not possible but it
looks pretty slim. Because of the water elevation we may be draining
Lake Lucy into Lake Ann. There may be a possibility that DNR would
accept a portage type situation but if we do that they may require that
we make that into a non-motorized lake. I don't know all those things
yet. I will be meeting with those people within the next week to week
and a half to get that firmed up and I can bring that back to you. We
can still work on that later. The Lake Susan Park, if you recall in the
last year and a half we acquire 6 to 8 acres adjacent to Lake Susan Park.
It would be the area from the current boundary to where Lake Drive East
will be put in. We didn't want to have industrial between the park and
the road. There is a possibility that we could use that for more active
uses so that was something that is a possibility for the athletic type of
grant.
.."",
Boyt: How many...could we put?
Sietsema: Not more than two.
Boyt: I was thinking about, since there's such a need, I don't know how
much that affects...
Sietsema: There is a lot of need there but the intent of Lake Susan Park
is to serve the industrial park. So if we put a ballfield there, I was
thinking and this is just my own concept of what I've been thinking all
along, is a practice field for the industrial leagues. For the adult
leagues because we don't have extra fields for anybody to practice on but
Little League is definitely possible too. Also, maybe a fitness Vita
Trail or whatever those are called, that they could do on their noon
hour. There's also going to be a lot of trails that connect in that you
can get from the business park over to Chan Estates and different areas
once we have all our trails connections. That was a possibility.
Submitting a grant to acquire the land in the southern area so we
wouldn't have to necessarily use all of our $300,000.00 or maybe get a
bigger chunk. Typically you don't get a grant for more than $40,000.00
from the athletic type grant. The next one was Herman Field. It looks
like our access road will be off of Forest Avenue so we do have to
acquire the easement there and get in there and make a development.
Again, that project was put on hold to see what the development on TH 7
and TH 41 was going to do. One of the things we'd like to do is to ~
submit a smaller grant that would be a $30,000.00 to $40,000.00 project.
Don's thinking is that maybe to have a $20,000.00 that hasn't been spent
and they'll put it towards a small project. I don't know if in reality
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
May 24, 1988 - Page 35
,.....
that's the case or not because they really go by the point system.
Especially after last year when we had a $300,000.00 project that they
granted us $12,000.00 for.
Boyt: Have you found a project for that?
Sietsema: I guess the Herman Field or the Lake Susan Park. Again, these
are ballpark figures that I have put in here. I don't want to exclude
the possibility of our Lake Ann park shelter that we have applied for
continuously. That continues to score quite high. Just hovers
underneath the approved projects so if we can beef that up with more
water uses and more mutli-purpose type uses, that may be approved
eventually too.
Robinson: Is the park shelter, are you saying...
Sietsema: I neglected to put it on. It's always in my head and I just
didn't get it typed. I think that we should continue to apply for that.
Robinson: The $1,000.00 range is that?
,....
Sietsema: That's $100,000.00. The boat access, the Lake Susan boat
access one scored very high last year too and I think if we include a
fishing pier and beef up the trails and the multi-purpose uses there,
that we may have a good chance with that one too. Especially if we show
how all the trails in that area that we have acquired so they will be
going with the Lake Susan Hills West subdivision. We got the rest of the
west side of Lake Susan. The trail along that side of the lake so that
may give us some more points. The other thing is the community support,
letters, give us a lot of points too. But anytime you increase the
amount of use that you can have on the water. Increase the different
types of uses. Increase the different more seasonal uses, you score more
points.
Mady: Do you need a motion on that?
Sietsema: I don't know if we want to do all of these. I need some
direction as to which ones to approve. I don't know that we should go
with more than four. Typically we go with three. Especially if they're
new projects. It's costly to prepare the application and what not if
it's a new project but again, the Lake Ann Park one with the park
shelter, that one's no cost. Lake Susan Park boat access and entrance
road, that would be minimal cost to do that one. I would definitely say
we should go with those two.
Robinson: I'd say the Lake Susan Park, that fitness area-ballfields,
that's your $30,000.00 to $50,000.00 one? That's your low cost one?
,.....
Sietsema: Yes, or Herman Field too.
Mady: I could see putting both of those in. I'm not sure about southern
Chanhassen one because we just don't have any information for that.
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
May 24, 1988 - Page 36
......"
Sietsema: Yes, that one would be pretty tough to get the information in
a month.
Mady: And your Lake Lucy boat access, until we get some definitive
information.
Sietsema: That one's really iffy but I think it's really key. I think
if there may be a possibility that they would beef up some points on that
one because this million dollar project depends on it. I don't know if
LAWCON gives a rip or not if we improve our water quality.
Mady: I can see throwing that in there.
Sietsema: I can bring that one back to you because I'm not going to know
anything for about another week and a half to two weeks anyway so I can
bring that one back to you.
Mady: Are you including canoe racks on any of the lake ones?
Sietsema: No, we don't have canoe racks on any of them.
Mady: I can see the City getting into the business of renting canoe rack
space.
Sietsema: On the Lake Ann Park shelter, that had a boat rental.
....."
Mady: That had boat rental but I can see us some of what Minneapolis
does on their lakes. Putting two canoe racks and renting out space.
Hoffman: They have specific items, specific facilities if this is
included. It scores a point. If a canoe rack is not in their repetoire,
then it doesn't even matter.
Sietsema: I think that I included some of the things that they look
highly on.
Schroers: Just a brief comment. I know that rental facilities are
another taxing situation on maintenance. I don't care what it is, if
it's a canoe rack or whatever, but it is definitely a maintenance item.
It's something that the maintenance is going to, at one point in time,
have to spend some time and money on. That's something that we want to
keep in mind.
LAKE ANN PARK DEVELOPMENT, VERBAL REPORT.
This item was tabled.
APPROVE PURCHASE OF TOT LOT EQUIPMENT.
...."
Sietsema: These were all projects that were approved in the budget last
night at the City Council. This first one is for Lake Ann Park. If you
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
May 24, 1988 - Page 37
,...,
recall, we needed the totlot equipment acquisition for up in the
ballfield area but we didn't want to approve the totlot equipment at the
beach area and remove what is existing. There are two structures down
there that have, we would be taking both of those and putting in this
that would have swings on both sides, a slide off of this side with the
four platforms and then this would be a chain ladder here. It's got most
of the stuff that was there with the school. This is $5,000.00.
Robinson: We're talking Lake Ann?
Sietsema: Yes, this is Lake Ann down at the beach. This includes the
redwood board enclosed around it with the peat gravel in the middle and
then that would be equipment in that area. We had the representative go
out with Dale and make sure that there's enough room between the trail
and the trees that it will fit in there without having to cut any trees
down or move the trail. That is slightly over budget but because the one
at Chan Estates is slightly under, the bottom line is that it's within
the budget.
Lynch: Any leftover cast away playground equipment you have, I need. If
Dale wants me to go out and do some work to save it, unless they're just
going to drive a bobcat over it and crunch it out. We need some for one
of the scout camps for the family area.
,...
Sietsema: This one is for Chanhassen Estates replacing the old broken up
equipment with equipment that's there. We're taking out the teeter
totter and the merry-go-round.
Boyt: Are there any swingsets?
Sietsema: There are a lot of swings. This will be putting in a tunnel
slide, chain ladder, and tire swing. This would also enclose the area
where the existing horizontal bars are so that includes... This one is
Greenwood Shores.
Robinson: I'd like to wait and see what happens. If we go through that
we're not going to put any parking up there, we sure as hell aren't going
to spend money on a totlot are we?
Schroers: They have already indicated the fact that along with the
parking they would not like to see totlot so that's going to another
whole issue.
Mady: Our budget has already been approved. This is money we've already
been allowed to spend. It doesn't have to go to the Council.
Boyt: It doesn't have to go to the neighbors either.
~
Mady:
Neighbors either.
Sietsema: I don't know that they're against totlot. It means they have
to have parking to have a totlot.
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
May 24, 1988 - Page 38
....."
Lynch: Or that means an additional outside neighborhood draw.
Schroers: They are basically against any development at Greenwood
Shores.
Boyt: That's just some of the people. There are other people in the
neighborhood.
Mady: There were a couple of people who wrote letters to the City saying
they were in favor of parking.
Sietsema: So do you want to proceed with this one then?
Mady: Sure.
Robinson: I will disagree with that until we find out. I don't think we
should spend any money out there if we're not going to have parking in.
Mady: The only thing that will prevent us from putting parking in is if
this board told Lori not to put parking in. The Council is not going to
be reviewing this any further.
Sietsema: They will be looking at the parking.
Mady: The parking budget's already been approved.
....."
Sietsema: They'll still review it. The interpretation was that they
wanted to review it after a year. They approved it in the budget but
that doesn't mean that they necessarily, I would never go out there and
put parking in there without it going to Council first.
Boyt: So we do need to wait on this until the parking is approved.
Schroers: Let's just deal with this contingent on if we get our parking.
Mady: Approve it contingent on parking going in.
Sietsema: This is the four platforms going up to and then another one
with a chain ladder, swingset, slide. There's a hanging bar here.
There's a fire pole. At any rate, within this yellow line indicates
what's there and that is within the budget or very close to it. It's
only $317.00 over budget and this would be $1,700.00 more at phase 2.
Also included in the budget was a boardwalk for North Lotus Lake that
would go out into the marshland. Out into the open water. What they
have is what they call a superdeck. It's this plastic material that
floats on the water. There's no maintenance. They leave it in all winter
long. It can be chewed down a little bit but it won't get cut through.
Schroers: What is the life expectancy and the cost?
..."
Sietsema: It's expensive but it lasts forever.
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
May 24, 1988 - Page 39
IfI"""
Schroers: They give you something in writing that says it lasts forever
or they will replace it?
Sietsema: 15 years I think is what they have.
Lynch: Lifetime guarantee.
Sietsema: And it comes in beige, green and white.
Lynch: What's the width on it?
Sietsema: It can go almost as wide as you want.
Boyt: How many feet can we afford this year?
Sietsema: I think 100. I don't remember what the cost per section is
and I apologize for that. I was going to look it up before I came down
but I remember when we figured it out, it was about 100 feet that we
could afford. What I don't know is how many feet it is out to the water.
I don't expect you to make a decision on this tonight. It's just that I
wanted to show it to you. What could potentially happen like is in that
last page there, is having a fishing pier at the end of that out into
Lotus Lake.
,-....
Lynch: A fishing pier better be a floater too. You could drive posts to
China.
Sietsema:
or not.
I need an action on whether you want me to buy this equipment
To order it.
Mady: I'll make a motion that staff go ahead with the plans to buy the
equipment as shown on the budget contingent on the Greenwood Shores piece
of equipment, that that be contingent on the parking area being approved.
We are not holding the play structure over the heads of anyone. We're
just simple realizing that Council will not approve spending money in a
park area that is not being allowed to utilize for the entire public.
Boyt: We could order it at any rate and then just put it in another park
if Greenwood Shores isn't approved. Even two.
Hoffman: Lake Ann.
Boyt: Yes, Lake Ann could use another one.
Hoffman: By the ballfield.
Boyt: Or down at the beach where there's a picnic area. There's lots of
kids.
"...., Mady: That's my motion. It includes the play decking too.
Sietsema: Do you want to buy that right away? Do you want to order that
or do you want to wait on that to see how many feet we're going to need
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
May 24, 1988 - Page 40
"""""
utlimately? I'd hate to just go halfway out and then stop.
Lynch: I don't want to be the guy who has to go measure.
Mady: I don't see any problem with us buying 100 feet of it. If we need
200, next year we can buy the second hundred.
Schroers: We don't want to install half of it.
Sietsema: What color do you want? The green or the brown or the beige?
Lynch: Sand, tan or green?
Sietsema: I like the green personally.
Mady: In the winter and in the late fall, green is going to look
terrible.
Sietsema: But it will at least be seen in the winter so the snowmobilers
don't...
Lynch: You don't want it to match the reeds so well that people with
some vision problems will walk right off the edge. My mother has only
20% vision and she does things you don't realize until you have a family
member like that, what a hazard some things are. She walks into glass
doors that don't have a safety line.
...."
Mady: We're looking at green I guess.
Mady moved, Robinson seconded to direct staff to order the equipment as
shown on the budget contingent on the Greenwood Shores parking area being
approved. Also, ordering 100 feet of green superdeck. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
Mady: Were there any other items Lori that you needed to have? I think
we've got people signed up long enough that we can handle the Council
meetings.
Sietsema: Yes.
Robinson: Can all this wait for two weeks?
Sietsema: Yes.
Schroers: I have one thing. On our next agenda I would like that we
add, in writing to our agenda that we're going to look at additional
maintenance personnel and invite Dale to the meeting and see what it is
that he feels that he needs. Right now the only thing he feels that he
can do is just keep up with the mowing.
"""""
Sietsema: I don't have an argument with that but it's not really our
jurisdiction. Park maintenance is under engineering.
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
May 24, 1988 - Page 41
I"""
Boyt: Maybe you can make the Council aware of it.
Mady: What Larry is saying, we want to look at it and we're not getting
done what we want to get done so we need a recommendation that the
Council review their budget next year, maybe we can get a little help so
we can get some things accomplished instead of waiting until September to
do park improvements which aren't going to get used for 9 months. Maybe
to build them in April.
Schroers: We may want to bring in somebody on line who can tune into
what's happening before we get into all this stuff. All this stuff comes
on line at one time, there's going to be a lot of work to do. There's
seems to be, at least a slow down on the shelter at Lake Ann. Nothing's
going on with that.
Sietsema: I'm glad you brought that up. I did want to update you on
that. I called the Legion and asked them if the City could take it over
and I've contacted two carpenters. They're going to submit quotes by the
end of the week and we're just going to have them go out and finish it.
Mady:
month.
I thought they were going to have it through at the end of the
I get a lot of comments out there on Wednesday nights.
1""". sietsema: The Legion defies procrastination. Don't ask me. I've had so
many deadlines from them. Two years ago it was going to be Memorial Day.
Then it was going to be the 4th of July. Then it was going to be Labor
Day and then it was going to be the next Memorial Day. This has been
going on for three years. I did contact them. I think the shakes are on
now.
Mady: They had them on one side.
Sietsema: They had them on partially the other day but I don't know if
they're completely done.
Schroers: I hadn't noticed that anything had been done lately.
Sietsema: I will update you the next time on who we contact to finish it
and what their time line is.
Lynch: One other thing. My favorite pet peeve, the trail over at Carver
where there's sand and all that good stuff. I'm sorry I missed the
meeting and I mentioned to Jim to have it looked at. I'm getting senile,
I don't remember real well but I'm certain that floating docks, sailboat
moorings and such items were handled by the Lake Study Commission because
I was on that for 3 years. The guy has to have a permit from the City to
have a stationary floating overnight anything.
.~
Sietsema: I checked the park ordinance and the water surface useage
ordinance and I called Roger and I called the DNR and I called the County
and no, they can not have a dock and no, they can not moor boats
overnight but there's nothing in there that says that you can not have a
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
May 24, 1988 - Page 42
~'
raft. There's nothing that prohibits anybody from putting a raft in the
water and taking it out in front of your house and leaving it there. As
long as it's so many feet out, so many feet deep, so many feet high, has
reflective whatever and I think they need a permit from the County.
Lynch: I could park one in the channel.
Sietsema: It can't be more than 100 feet out. You can put it anywhere.
Lynch: The channel is certainly 100 feet across. ...right now saying,
how come that's out there? We were told we couldn't have one.
Sietsema: Beachlots, under the beachlot ordinance there's something
different.
Lynch: The lake's the lake you're telling me.
Sietsema: But under the beach lot ordinance there is but because this is
not a beachlot, it's different.
Lynch: Once you get on the lake, you're telling me you can't tell
anybody where they put anything as long as they're so far out, so deep
and has reflectors on it.
Sietsema: Maybe I spoke wrong. You can get it out in front of the park -'
and you can put it out in front of private property. I think the only
place you can't put it is beachlots.
Hoffman: No difference. The beachlot ends at the shoreline of the lake.
Lynch: Once you get in the water...
Sietsema: All I'm saying is it's lack of verbage of in other ordinances
and what we have to do is include the definition of a raft.
Robinson: I think we better leave it unclear.
Lynch: We're going to have some more line up out there. Now, right now
there's the same rowboat, the same canoe plus a new canoe. A brand new
shiny canoe with a brand new shiny chain laying down there.
Sietsema: Where?
Lynch: On the trail right where they always were.
Sietsema: South of the old boat access?
Hoffman: We had a person call from Greenwood Shores wanting to take his
canoe down there and chain it on park property. He didn't see why that
was such a bad idea. Dick Lang, then he asked about the boats that are
moored out there at this time. There's the paddle boat that's always
moored out there and the sailboat or something that they moor out in
front of Greenwood Shores.
...,.,
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
May 24, 1988 - Page 43
"'"
Lynch: Now, on property north of the old boat landing, there's 3 or 4
boats overturned on that and there's one sailboat moored right off of it.
One thing I meant to say too when I read the Minutes of last week, I was
in on putting the original trail in. The amount of sand that was in
that spot was minimal then and we did the whole trail through there. If
you walk the trail now, the trail stops there because nobody in their
right mind is going to walk through 18 inches of loose sand to get to the
other side so the other side is totally grown up now. That trail was
built and shipped all the way down to the boat landing from the beach.
Somewhere underneath there was a woodchip trail.
Sietsema: I have that on the agenda and I'll put it back on because you
didn't want to get into it tonight but I'll put it back on for the next
meeting. I need clear direction on where you want me to go with this.
Are we going to have Carver Beach wars? Are we going to have ordinance
amendments?
Mady: We need to discuss it.
Lynch: I'd like to see those boats taken out of there.
Sietsema: I will contact Scott Harr.
,....
Lynch: One's got a Iowa registration on it and one's got an 1986
Minnesota registration, the other has no registration.
Boyt: Maybe this is one of those things that we need to talk to Public
Safety about when we get together with them.
Lynch: Perhaps, but if the neighborhood is made aware, several people
get fined $50.00, the boats aren't going to be down there anymore.
Otherwise, you're going to tell them to take them out and they'll say
okay, take them home for a couple of weeks, long enough for you to go
check and then they're going to go right back down hill.
Sietsema: That's pretty much what happened.
Hoffman: The day after our previous meeting, after our walk down there,
I did write a note to Public Safety listing the license plates and the
description of the boats down there so they were made aware of it at that
time.
Robinson: Did they do anything?
Hoffman: I didn't follow up on it. I've not asked them since that time.
Sietsema: I'll talk to Scott tomorrow and find out.
,...
Mady: We also need to talk to Public Safety concerning, Curt mentioned
that a boat trailer that was parked in the Bloomberg's new development
down by Peter's house. Public Safety was called. The officer showed up
and ticketed the boat. He put a warning ticket on it. No $50.00 fine
Park and Recreation Commission Meeting
May 24, 1988 - Page 44
ticket. That guy, who cares? He got away with it. He's going to get
away with it next time probably. We've got the ordinance. Council has
looked at it and said let's do it. I think the Sheriff's got to be made
aware that we want it done. They don't have the flexibility of putting
warnings out there. The neighborhood, every time I talk to somebody in
that neighborhood, they're screaming about the boats on the lake. It's
got to be done. We can't let the Sheriff's department be making those
decisions for us.
..."."
Schroers: I've got one question and I'll shut up for the rest of the
night. Can anybody tell me why the trail between Lake Ann and Greenwood
Shores has chains between the entrances?
Sietsema: Because they didn't hold shut. What happened was they had
designed them so that they would hold, they locked in that position so
you could walk between the two and someone came with a car and pushed
them open so they just flopped. The only way you could keep it closed
was to chain them then.
Schroers: So now you have to go around to get on the trail?
Robinson moved, Lynch seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned.
---'
Submitted by Lori Sietsema
Park and Rec Coordinator
Prepared by Nann Opheim
-'