The URL can be used to link to this page

PRC 1988 12 13 3 (' - ) CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 13, 1988 Chairman Mady called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Mady, Sue Boyt, Larry Schroers, Curt Robinson, Ed Hasek and Carol Watson STAFF PRESENT: Lori Sietsema, Park and Rec Coordinator~ Todd Hoffman, Recreation Supervisor~ Mark Koegler, Planning Consultant and Scott Harri APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Hasek moved, Boyt seconded to approve the Minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated November 22, 1988 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Public Present PUBLIC HEARING: BOAT MOORING AND DOCK ORDINANCE. Name Lynn Hall Fred Osleschlager ~ Michael & Marie Schroeder . Cindy Gi Iman Greg Blaufuss Ray Roettger Gerry W. Maher Mary J. Moore Jeff & Laura Bros Roger Byrnes Mike Wegler Address 3980 Hawthorne Circle 7410 Chan Road 6600 Lotus Trail 6613 Horseshoe Curve 7116 Utica Lane 3221 Dartmouth Drjve 7101 Utica Lane 3231 Dartmouth Drjve 6771 Chaparral 6724 Lotus Trail 6630 Mohawk Drive Sietsema: This item was presented to the City Council on September 12th. The Planning Department presented an amendment to the Water Surface Useage Ordinance which would, basically it cleared up the language in the ordinance regarding mooring boats and putting out rafts in the lake. Essentially what jt does, and a copy of the amendment is on the screen here, what the amendment would do is require that the boat, if you were going to moor a boat, would have to be registered in the name of the lakeshore owner on the lakeshore site on the lake or in the name of a member of a household. Also, if moored in the waters overnight, it would have to be out directly in front of a home that is owned by the landowner which has a house on the site. The other item on the amendment addressed swimming rafts and similarly it would require that a swimming raft would be launched out in front of the property that was owned by the lakeshore owner with the dwelling unit on it. In Barbara Dacy's memo, she discussed an alternative so there were a number of people that are affected by this ordinance that do not have a dwelling unit on the property or have been mooring a boat in a situation that is different that would be affected by this. What she recommended to the Council at that tjme is that an amendment take place that would allow a variance situation to occur so r Park and Recreation Commission Meeting December 13, 1988 - Page 2 'J that a person who had been mooring in the past could get a variance. Another discussion has been that people currently mooring boats and can show a history of having moored a boat in a spot could maybe be grand fathered in. What we're discussing here tonight, because the City Council looked at all of these items and they were interested in knowing if the Park and Recreation Commission had any problems with this amendment, in looking at it strictly regarding the parkland and park use. So we brought it back to you, the Park Commission, to look at the amendment and see how it affects our plans for parkland. This item will be going back to the City Council and I believe that some of the other issues will be addressed again at the City Council level. Schroers: What about the raft that is currently moored out in front of Carver Beach? Would that be grand fathered in? Sietsema: According to what this amendment is, it would be grandfathered in. Mady: But that has to be part of our discussion. Boyt: Yes, that's part of our discussion. Sietsema: But it would have to go by what's in the current ordinance. It has to be so many feet up off the water and so big and out so deep. It has to have certain structural standards as well and be registered. Then~ the owner of the raft would have to be stated on the raft. Swimming rafts left overnight in the waters on any lake must be anchored directly out from and within 100 feet of the lakeshore site upon which a dwelling unit has been constructed and owned by the owner. All swimming rafts must have identification plaque containing the name, address and phone number of the owner so that would have to take place as well as the other stipulations that are in the current ordinance. Mady: We have really two distinct items in this ordinance being amended. One dealing with the boat mooring issue and then the second dealing with rafts, swimming rafts and docks and that kind of thing. We're opening the public hearing, actually open up a public discussion. Not just have a public hearing but actually a full discussion. We ask you if you do want to make a comment, present some information to the Commission, please corne up to the front to the podium. State your name and your address and make your comment. We invite your comments at this time. Lynn Hall, 3980 Hawthorne Circle: I didn't want to be first but I guess I got elected first. I kind of walked into this issue and I've learned a lot about the Water Surface Use age here in Carver County, specifically on Lake Minnewashta. My position is that I'm supporting the amendment with one exception. I feel that my situation, where I can back up and explain or if anyone has any questions but as an overview, I'm supporting it with the exception that I feel that my position, no other hurdle should be put . in my path. That my existing non-conforming use which has been verified ~ and reverified not only by the City but by the people in the community. Some actually, people that are in opposition have recognized it and it's use...3 times. I feel that the current amendment is a good amendment. I Park and Recreation Commission Meeting December 13, 1988 - Page 3 ~ know that standing here there's a bating question as to why Park and Rec would be asked to mediate then what might be considered a private matter. I guess at this point my point of concern is a discriminatory nature in which it addresses those people that are non-conforming use that it is there. I guess I would ask that the advisement to Council would be that the amendment go forth but those that have proof of the non-conforming use, be allowed to continue that use. I don't know if there's any questions. I don't want to repeat information that you've got, I guess it would take up time. Mady: Yes, the amendment does consider non-conforming use and this is a situation if the non-conforming use...for a period of one year, than it no longer exists. Lynn Hall: My contention is simply that with a variance necessary to continue my use, that's a hurdle that I don't think I should have to jump at this point. Because of the legal nature of the use. I understand your reasons for it. Mady: One thing I want to instruct to staff. On the mooring issue, my understanding was that the Council asked us to look at the mooring issue as it related to parkland. So in your situation, it's actually private property that's being discussed here and that probably will be better ~ handled, will be handled at the Council level versus...private property. We don't have any jurisdiction on that. Lynn Hall: I understand. Mady: I'm surpri sed that maybe the Planning Commission might be getting involved. Boyt: We look at boat mooring as it pertains to all of the lakes in Chanhassen and what our recommendation would be. Robinson: Is this your situation that you were before the Council on September 12th? Lynn Hall: Correct. r Mike Schroeder, 6600 Lotus Trail: I guess I'm probably the reason you're here. I'm the one with the boat moored down on the parkland and had it moored there since we purchased the land in 1986. We purchased it from Mr.... He also had his pontoon. I guess my point of view on this whole thing is that this ordinance seems to be pretty much directed towards me and my use. As you read the ordinance, it states all seasonal docks, moorings and other structures shall be removed from the lake before November 1st of each year. All non-conforming moorings and other structures except docks and swimming rafts, once removed may not be returned to the lake which seems to pretty much leave me out. I'm not sure why that is. I don't think it's, I don't know of anybody else that's been mooring along in there... We've been doing it for a number of years and I think Mr....also was using that. Can I answer questions? Park and Recreation Commission Meeting December 13, 1988 - Page 4 '\ --' Mady: Are you actually mooring it off the shore or is the shore in front of your house? Mike Schroeder: We're the last house on the end of the parkland and it's about, I don't know, I suppose 30 feet or so from the property to the lake. We file every year with the DNR for a permit. Boyt: But they didn't respond to... Mike Schroeder: No. I understand that the City wants to kaboosh that somehow... I don't think anybody else on the lake has ever tried to register. Hasek: Your boat is moored off shore. How far off shore? Mike Schroeder: I suppose 20 feet or something like that. Hasek: How do you get to your boat? Mike Schroeder: I wear shorts. It's fairly shallow. In referring back to the meeting of September 12th. I think that I agree with the grandfathering in the raft and the dock that's also down there. The house, next house to us has a dock and he's had it out there for years. My impression of the meeting from September 12th was that you guys would " take a look at how we could take advantage of that parkland and develop it-' for use. I think it was donated by the people in Carver Beach and I think we have an interest in that area and developing it to the best use for the City but especially I think we should take into account the people in Carver Beach and how we would like to use that. I think there are many of us that are interested in working with the City on improving that whole area and cleaning it up and things like that. Rocky here will speak more to the raft. Boyt: That's what we had thought. That Park and Rec... Mike Schroeder: But anyway, I think it should say except docks... Mady: We have questions concerning boats that have been moored and the dock on private property. Those aren't considered non-conforming uses because you're not talking about your own property. Sietsema: The dock is a different situation because, is that Mr. Taucks? And he is a parapelgic I believe and was granted permission by the City a number of years ago to have his dock. I believe has a boat out there too? Mike Schroeder: Yes he does. Sietsema: And he has had a long standing agreement with the City to be able to do that. ...." Hasek: Based on his condition. Sietsema: Based on his condition, right. Does that answer your question? Park and Recreation Commission Meeting December 13, 1988 - Page 5 ""'" Mike Schroeder: It is on parkland? Mady: Yes. Sietsema: It's also on parkland. Mady: The question is, can you have a non-conforming use when you don't actually own the property? Hasek: It's a granted use. The question is, is it really a non-conforming use? Mady: I'm still not sure. I think they have... Sietsema: I'm not real sure on that Jim. Mike Schroeder: But it is off the parkland. The way the rules are, you've got to be a landowner to have any rights and I think that's where... The people at Carver Beach who have always for years taken care of that area and used it. Robinson: Is this city jurisdiction only or is the DNR involved? ,......, Sietsema: The DNR doesn't really have much regulations on this. Mike Schroeder: But the DNR has to approve what you have. Sietsema: Right, they have to approve our Water Surface Useage Ordinance and any amendments that we put on so they would have the last word on it but they don't have... Schroers: Are you right next to the old boat access? Mike Schroeder: Yes. I'm down at the way far at the end last house. Schroers: And there's just a thin strip of parkland between your house and the lake? Mike Schroeder: That's right. Roger Byrnes, 6724 Lotus Trail: Lori says this clarify the issue. It seems like the issue was an ordinance that said what rafts had to be and Now, I don't know what...what the wording said. sense. Why do we need this ordinance? I can't whole ordinance was to pretty clear. They passed docks and what they were. It doesn't make any understand it. ""......." Sietsema: One of the things that the Planning Commission wanted to clear up is that, the way the ordinance is stated right now, it says that a lakeshore owner can launch or moor a boat in public waters. That means if you own lake shore property on Lotus Lake, you could launch a raft or moor a boat on Lake Minnewashta or Lake Riley or Lake Ann or Lake Lucy. Park and Recreation Commission Meeting December 13, 1988 - Page 6 r ....."" Roger Byrnes: Lake Superior or any. Sietsema: But being a non-lakeshore owner, you didn't have that right. I think that they wanted to clarify it that yes... Roger Byrnes: I don't agree with that. I think it said anybody could launch anywhere but nobody wanted to. That's why nobody ever did. Only people that wanted to, was the people in Carver Beach with the raft. It didn't say that I couldn't launch or put a raft over on Lake Riley. Sietsema: What they wanted to clarify is that a lakeshore owner could moor a boat but it had to be in front of their own property. They couldn't moor a boat out on... Roger Byrnes: That's what you're trying to say. That isn't what the ordinance said before. Sietsema: That's what we're trying to clarify. Roger Byrnes: That's no clarification. That's just banning another law out to the thing. They're not really trying to clarify anything. You're just trying to put some more restrictions upon people who want to have rafts out there or mooring. Hasek: It's all a matter of how you want to straighten it out is really ....." what their question is. The way that it's set right now, if you own, if I understand it properly, if you own land on Lotus Lake, by the ordinance it gives you the right to put a raft on Lake Minnewashta. The way it was written, the understanding, the lawful reading of the ordinance, that was the clarification that needs to be straighten out and the question is, how will you clarify it. What did we want to say what was the intent of what we wanted? Roger Byrnes: The way I read it, it didn't have any restrictions on anybody putting the raft anywhere. Hasek: But is that the way we want it to state? Roger Byrnes: But nobody wanted to. The only reason it even came up was because of one raft. Hasek: That's the situation. Roger Byrnes: But that's not a problem. One non-conforming person or group of people or one little thing wasn't creating a problem. Hasek: But you're a member of the city just like any of the rest of us. Why isn't it a problem? Sietsema: It's a matter of being proactive. ...", Mike Schroeder: Did you have someone... Park and Recreation Commission Meeting December 13, 1988 - Page 7 ,...... Roger Byrnes: Did somebody else try to put one out there? Mady: We had a pro'blem wi th them. To be honest wi th you, we do. Roger Byrnes: We're the problem. Mady: You're not the problem. The raft is a problem. Roger Byrnes: But we are the raft. Mady: ...and you have a swimming beach down there. It's not a safe beach, what the City considers a safe beach. Since it's a city park, we need to fix that. That's what we're getting to. Roger Byrnes: That's fine but why put restrictions on. To fix something, you don't restrict it, you just fix it. I don't understand your train of thought. She comes up like you're trying to fix a problem that's there but there isn't a problem. Sietsema: The way the ordinance is written, there is a potential for a problem and to be proactive, we want to take care of that before we have the problem. .,...... Roger Byrnes: Yes, but the potential has been there for 30 years and it's never materialized so why worry about it now? That's what I don't understand. Now all of a sudden worry about it now when it may not ever occur. Let's have a problem and then fix it. If it's not wrong, don't fix it. Mady: We have a problem in one, liability. Just because no one has been seriously injured there does not mean it won't happen this summer. Now the City recognizes that what's happening there, we need to make sure that we don't cause a problem. Roger Byrnes: At the Council meeting, the City Attorney said that the City is not liable. If it's not the City's raft, the City is not liable. The City doesn't own that water. The City can't be responsible for people that are out on that water. The City doesn't own that raft and they can't be responsible for people that are on that raft. Mady: But if it's out from a city beach you see, our understanding is that it's out from a city beach. Roger Byrnes: But it's not even a city beach according to you guys. Mady: It's park property. When you're out ~rom city property, it's there at the knowledge of the City so the City does have some liability in that they have active knowledge of the situation. If it's a problem situation, ~. they can be liable sometimes. Boyt: We would like to make it a nice beach. We would like to make it nicer than it is now. We would like to clear out the poison ivy and poison oak. Put in a raft that meets all the conditions. Park and Recreation Commission Meeting December 13, 1988 - Page 8 ....." Roger Byrnes: That raft there met all the conditions. The raft that was there, in fact that was probably the only raft on the lake that met all the conditions. That met all the conditions for that ordinance that was passed. Boyt: Well, it didn't look safe at all. Mady: It's not considered safe by a number of us who have been on the water and been to the raft. That raft doesn't have a permit. Roger Byrnes: No raft on the lake has a permit. Mady: Oh yes. Roger Byrnes: They all have permits? Mady: I know the one on Sunrise Hills has a permit. I hemmed it on. It's been on there for 5 years that I've lived here. Roger Byrnes: The raft has to have a permit on it? Mady: Yes it does. The permit's on it right now as a matter of fact. It's a little steel tag. ...."" Roger Byrnes: Who gives it to you? Mady: The Sheriff does. Roger Byrnes: The Sheriff wouldn't give us a permit. How would you get one? Mady: This is the Minnesota Boating regulations. Roger Byrnes: That's right and they say every raft and every thing in that lake is supposed to have a permit from the DNR. I've been begging the Sheriff for a permit. He said no way. He said he won't let me give you one. I said forget it. How did you get one? Mady: Through the Sheriff. Roger Byrnes: You must have a little pull there. Mady: The State says that obtaining a permit for swimming area markers from the County Sheriff... Roger Byrnes: You've updated it every year? Mady: Structures such as swim rafts, boat lifts, bouys... All structure~ placed under a permit must have the permit number painted on and you ...."" obtain your permit from the County Sheriff. It's here if you'd like to read it. Park and Recreation Commission Meeting December 13, 1988 - Page 9 I"'" Roger Byrnes: I understand. I've read it and I begged the Sheriff for a permit. He wouldn't give me one. Boyt: I think that's between you and the Sheriff. Roger Byrnes: No, it's between the Sheriff and the City who it's for because the City tells the Sheriff not to give away permits and he don't give away any permits. So there you are. What are you going to do? Have you talked to the Sheriff about issuing permits Lori? Sietsema: No. Roger Byrnes: You haven't said one word to him to issue a permit or not issue a permit? Sietsema: I never have, no. Roger Byrnes: Has anybody in the City to your knowledge? Sietsema: No. Roger Byrnes: Well somebody has because he said I won't issue any permits ~ until the City tells me they want permits issued on that lake. That's exactly what the Sheriff told me. Sietsema: That's the first I've heard of it. Roger Byrnes: Well, I've been hearing it for 2 years. He said the city guy won't. He says I call down there. In fact, he was going to issue it one time and the day he was going to issue them, he said no, I can't. I got a call from the City and they said don't issue no permits. Can't do it. Robinson: Can we look at that Lori? Can we look into that? ;""" Roger Byrnes: That was a bouy permit that time but I've been trying to get a permit for the raft too. What I can't understand why, I had my boat laying down there. I had it down there and the kids used it...and let them play down there which is probably wrong. I let them play down there anyway... It's park property. It's not really private. They kept saying private use of public property. Now they tell me I can't have my raft out there but all these other rafts, everybody that lives on that lake has a raft and a dock on that lake and that seems to me, that's private use of public property. That lake is public. Everybody who has a raft sitting out there or a dock or a boat moored out there or a dock, a fishing dock or whatever they've got out there, that's private use of public property. I'm public too just like them. Why can't I have my raft out there too? I can see if it goes off the shore, that belongs to the City, the shore because we gave it to you. I can see that but anything that, if I've got a mooring bouy, I keep my boat out in the water. If I've got a swimming raft, I keep it out in the water. Why shouldn't I have the same right to have my raft or my boat out there as anybody else who lives on the lake. Park and Recreation Commission Meeting December 13, 1988 - Page 10 ..." Just because people live on the lake don't give them any more right to that water than anybody else. If they think that way, they're wrong. That water belongs to everybody. Now, if you want to restrict it and- tell everybody, get all their boats, all their rafts, all their docks off that water, fine but if you're going to let some, you should let everybody. Everybody that wants to. I realize you think that's going to cause a big problem. You're going to have 87 million rafts out there but it's not going to happen. Most people don't want it and I think the people that do want it, should be able to have it out there. Boyt: That's what we're here to talk about tonight. I think we understand where you're coming from. I think we need to talk to the Sheriff and find out how he makes the decision and who he's in contact with with the City. We'll ask Scott to do that. Roger Byrnes: Find out who's directing this guy not to issue any permits because up to this date, before this law was passed, there was no ordinance that said I shouldn't have a permit or Lori shouldn't have a permit or you shouldn't have a permit. Anybody can get a permit and the law hasn't passed yet and this guy's been holding a permit for 2 years. Mike Wegler: My name is Mike Wegler. I live at 6630 Mohawk Drive. As far as the raft and stuff was concerned, I've lived here for all my life, 35 years and since I was a kid, I've always swam on that raft and learned..." to swim down there. I have 3 children and they swim and they use that now. To take this right away from them, this isn't right. This issue really, as far as me building a raft and stuff, we've always taken care of it and we knew it needed some redoing but it was not unsafe. I've been out there and been on it myself and jumped up and down. It had brand new plywood out to the...wall. It was not unsafe. It had reflectors on it. It went by every standard that was in the book as far as being conforming and it did. Like they said, it was probably one of the only ones that did. I think the park should look at the situation there and try to get us, work something out so we can use it. It's not hurting anybody. It's a benefit to everybody. Thank you. Gerry Maher: Garry Maher. I live at 7101 utica Lane across from Greenwood Shores beach. I'd like to give you each a copy of some information I received from calling 10 or 12 other municipalities. The Lake Minnetonka Water Conservation District. Also, the DNR. I've lived there for 13 years at the present location and Chanhassen for 16 years. I am also one of the problems. I have a sailboat, Hobie Cat and a paddleboat that I've kept at Greenwood Shores beach for a little over 6 years. That boat has not caused any problems or have I been made aware of any problems. Both the boats are licensed. When the boats were originally put in, I talked with Don Ashworth at the City to see if there were any problems regarding parking the boats where I did. They happen to be adjacent to public property. At that time there were no words spoken as if it would be a problem or anything else. There was also a letter on file wi th the Ci ty regarding the information when I was asked to remove -' the boats. Also, I'd like to make a note that I was told in several letters from the City that I would be notified regarding this meeting. unfortunately I haven't been. These boats, as I said, are properly Park and Recreation Commission Meeting December 13, 1988 - Page 11 I"""'" licensed. When I first put the boats out in the water, I kept them out a substantial distance and under the circumstances, had problems with the kids that went down at night and various other problems with parties and things at the beach. After doing a little further investigation I found out that most other people that moored boats and the situations such as that kept them close to shore for two obvious reasons. One is that if you kept them close to shore, nobody wanted to swim out to it and cause any problems. The other reason being, if you worried about any of the small kids getting out onto them or causing any problems you wouldn't have to. So consequently both those boats are moored in less than 2 1/2 to 3 feet of water depending on the water depth conditions. I purchased both of those boats at the same time and after getting consent from Don Ashworth. Lori, I also talked to you several years ago regarding it and under the circumstances, I kept those boats there for 6 years up until last August when I was notified that I had to remove them because of an ordinance. "..., Mary Jo Moore: I'd like to go on record that I do approve of the proposed amendment to the ordinance. However, I object to the conditional approval of non-conforming rafts, docks and boats. I think each one should be reviewed on an individual basis. Currently on Lake Minnewashta just down from us there is a raft that has been there all summer. I don't know who the owner is. It sits about 3 inches above the water. It's color is blue. It has no reflectors. I keep thinking, somebody's going to hit that raft because boats can hit it. You can hardly see it in the daytime let alone at night. We've also had problems on 2 or 3 occasions so if we have problems, once it's approved, they're not a conforming use, that really hasn't even had a test of legality as far as the non-conforming, it gets out of hand. The Council, the Planning Commission..., it's left up to the neighbors and it does cause problems. They're the ones who wind up controlling what is passed through the Council and by the Mayor and Planning Commission. Nobody follows through on it so I want to be on record that I do approve of this proposed ordinance amendment. I"""'" Ray Roettger, 3221 Dartmouth Drive: I think I agree with Mary Jo. I happen to be on the other side of an access of Sterling Estates that really wasn't intended to launch boats for the people living off the lake. Number one, I'd like to state that I think everybody has a freedom to buy lakeshore property. If they want to pay the price and they want to pay the taxes. I don't think that everybody should have the same kind of rights unless you acquire those rights. I think if you live on the lake, you certainly should have the freedom to keep a boat there and if you don't live on the lake, you should be able to launch boats but there is a public launch. I think that I certainly agree with Mary Jo. We've had quite a problem in the access road because I think I was kind hearted. A fella came down from across the road and put in a big, quite a large dock. An L shaped dock. The contractor who was working on my house being a rather wise fellow said that I would stop it right now and do something about it but I allowed it and I've regretted it ever since. The trouble was that the dock went in and he put his boat in. It was a nice expensive dock but really there was very little maintenance but he did do some maintenance like cut the grass. Since 1976 I have, you might say, other than those few years when this fellow lived there, he since sold the property. Ever since that time I have maintained it. Cut the grass. Park and Recreation Commission Meeting December 13, 1988 - Page 12 ..."",,' Helped with the City. Had the road repaired. We have a lot of water coming down which is another problem. It drains off of Dartmouth Drive so all the water comes down and it has washed out and created just one heck of a mess. The City Engineer has been down there. ...came down a couple years ago and put an underground pipe in to drain the water off of Dartmouth Drive because the Sheriff got stuck and a school bus would go through it and it would build up and be like a foot deep. So they kind of solved that problem. A couple years ago when we had the heavy rains, everything washed out. There's a real delta built out there now. In spite of that, the people that have moored their boats there, there were 4 of them and they ended up being 40 foot boats. They have never been out there with a shovel or a rack or cleaned up or picked up cans. All of that stuff I've done. The problem with the delt~ and the reason I mention that is because it constricts the water flow all along the shore and everything gets trapped really on Mary Jo Moore's property. So there has been help. They said, one fellow said he'd send somebody down. Well, I never saw anybody down there. They piled up the dock. They put a boat lift out there. They piled that up... What I'm trying to tell you is, since 1976 it has gone from bad to worse. Now they're fighting between themselves, the offshore people and the City said they could put the same number of boats out there and a dock if there was one even though I had the pictures to prove it. We've done a lot of work, Mary Jo and I, taking pictures. Sending older pictures that I had of the property into Barbara Dacy. We had documented it and verified it and I even had the air photos There was no dock there but they allowed the dock and like I said, pretty-' soon 4 boats, big pontoon, tied a couple of those that previously got loose. It is a hazard because it's an outlot and it belongs to Sterling Estates. All of us are making it liable for them or it couldn't happen. There's no reality so I'm saying, if you do not do something to restrict, and I guess I appreciate the people's position here, that can be handled on a situation by situation basis. Give them a permit. If they've had it out there for a long time, they maintain it, take care of it, issue them a permit...but if you project this problem of allowing anybody to dock a raft or a boat, they could come and put boats right along my shore can't they? Lake Minnewashta Park, the people, they could launch a boat. They could leave it there all night. They could circle that whole park with boats. Rafts. So you do have to have some restrictions. I think that those people that were there first or had something or want to get a permit because they want to put some in there that meets the requirements of the law, I think you should allow them but I don't think you can possibly miss, you'll open the door. I'm to the point where I'm ready to sell because unless the City does something, I'm not going to put up with it. I'm paying the taxes so one of the people that feel deprive and they think they can buy lakeshore. I think that getting on the lake is a right and knowing the lake but I don't think you can just have all the freedom of doing whatever you want. I can't living on the shore and I don't think anybody else should. Gerry Maher: I'd like to make just one comment more if I may briefly to what he had to say. For those of you who may have not been familiar with~ what happened years ago with Christmas Lake. I can sympathize with his attitude concerning the fact that there are many people parked possibly in front of his property or near his property or in a beach area that aren't Park and Recreation Commission Meeting December 13, 1988 - Page 13 ,;I"""- taking care of it. There again, he moved into the area and he knew at the time he bought a house adjacent to a public access, that's part of the reason the house might have been valued at a certain reason or whatever. But under the circumstances, it's some of those attitudes that are saying, if you can afford lakeshore, you can buy it. If you don't, then too bad. Well, unfortunately there is only so much lakeshore available at any given time and it's going to be decreasing as time goes on. It's up to the Park and Recreation to make sure that that lakeshore is useable for all of those people that aren't able to get to it. More importantingly, his particular attitude is what prevailed about 20 years ago. When I grew up as a kid and used to go to Christmas Lake swimming and there was a public access and a diving platform out there and we used to go scuba diving out there. It was readily accessible and everything else. As time went on, people started to complain that number one, there was a problem with the fire road so they didn't want to widened it. People...were able to say, well, we don't want to widened the road therefore we have to close off the public access. So what happened. 15 years went by with no public access on Christmas Lake. It took almost an act of Congress in order to get that changed. It's that attitude if it prevails, will cause the same problem again. Somewhere down the line there will be no public access on Lake Minnewashta. Maybe none on Lake Ann. Who's to say that somewhere down the line Lotus Lake or any other lakes are all going to be tied up. Under the circumstances it becomes very equitable. If!""" Ray Roettger: Can I rebutt that? Number one, the property between Mrs. Moore and my property is a private outlot that gives rights to Sterling Estates. Number two, I think you can go out and talk to the fishermen and the older couples you'll find that I welcome with open arms anybody that wants to park in the street, walk from my property or down that road to go to fish on the lake. In fact, I've let them use my boat. It is not those people that I'm concerned about. I'm concerned about the people that think they have a right and abuse it. As long as I can get down to that lake, I can park anything down there and I don't have to take care of it and I don't have to pick up and I don't have to clean up. That's what I'm talking about restricting. But for him to bring his fish house down along side of my property, why he can do it as long as he doesn't block my driveway. Like I said, I've even let some older people who live down around on surrounding property, I've seen them go across... people travel through there all the time and I've let some other older people use my fishing boat so. Mady: Before we start repeating here, is there anyone new that would like to have a word? Cindy Gilman: I'm Cindy Gilman. I represent Lotus Lake Association and read the amendment. I think it's good. I think it helps clarify. I think it leaves it open for someone who wants a raft regulation to get on there. I know Sunrise Hills is not the only one with a permit on Lotus ~ Lake. There are 4 others so there should be a way for them to get a permit to have a raft out there. We like the way it reads and I think it helps clarify. Thank you. Park and Recreation Commission Meeting December 13, 1988 - Page 14 -' Mike Schroeder: I guess I got a little confused here on what was the purpose of this whole ordinance. I've heard that it's so people who own lakeshore can't go to another lake and have a dock. That we want to protect the people from the raft on Rocky's area, that that's been grandfathered in or do you have more instances of people setting up and mooring a boat on a different lake than what they own lakeshore on I guess. Then we have the people over here and they're matters. All of these things seem to be, I'm not sure it's clear what the City is really trying to do. It kind of seems to change as the discussion goes here. All I know is that at the end of the whole thing, I end up losing my mooring so for me, that's the purpose of the whole thing and that's where I'm corning from. If you want to work with Carver Beach and that area and developing that area, it sounds like you have some plans to do that. think we'd love to hear it. What are they? I thought that was a lot the discussion for tonight was going to be. What we can do with that to develop it and improve it. We're interested in that but... I of area Mady: ...how we usually handle these things. Typically we open up the public discussion and we get all your thoughts out right away. Then once everybody has kind of said what they want to say and we start discussing through the panel. We'll open up at one side and go to the other. You'll sample what our posture is on this concerning Rocky's raft and...we've got some pretty good ideas for you that we can help the whole situation. We haven't gotten down to that point yet but when we discuss that, you will be allowed to put your comments in at that time too but right now what ~ we're trying to do is get as much information out from you as we can so that when we start talking about it, we can also address all of those things too. There might be something that we didn't think about. That's kind of how we have handled it in the past. Mike Wegler: I don't know if you are aware of it but that land there was donated by the people of Carver Beach and stuff like this. There's 3,000 feet there and that's a lot of land. There hasn't been a lot done there for many years. The useage of it has not really increased since I was a kid. There were a lot of kids down there when I lived there as there is now... The raft, I have a neighbor just up the hill, the raft's been there for over 30 years. I don't know if you were aware of this but that parcel of parkland down there, that 3,000 feet that was donated. The park up on the hill where that skating rink and the ball diamond stuff is, that park down there, that was donated. Carver Beach did not belong to Chanhassen. Carver Beach was it's own. We could have went to Shorewood. We could have went to Chanhassen. We elected to go to Chanhassen. We felt that Chanhassen would do a better job working or whatever. Now we're thinking. . . Hasek: City? I have a quick question for you. What was the land donated to the Why would anybody want to give 3,000 feet of lakeshore away? Mike Wegler: At the time we had a few homeowners paying taxes on it who figured it would be better to give it to Chanhassen for parkland so that -' everybody could use it and that it would be... Park and Recreation Commission Meeting December 13, 1988 - Page 15 ,.... Roger Byrnes: There used to be a clubhouse where the ballfields is now. The Carver Beach Association...clubhouse...and that's how we paid the taxes on the land. When the clubhouse was torn down...generate any money so we said, let's donate the land to the City. We gave the land to the City with the stipulation that it would always be for the people of Carver Beach and will always be for the public. That's the way it's supposed to be. Now we feel that they're trying to run the people of Carver Beach off of the land. We feel we have a right to use that land. We feel like we're getting slighted. We gave the land to the City. At that time the Council...understood the situation. In fact it was the first neighborhood park Chanhassen ever had. The people in Carver Beach worked with the City. When that beach was built out there, the City said, well, we ain't got no labor. We can't put in a beach. Those people were saying, you guys find some labor and all the people in the neighborhood went down there and cut the trees down. They did what they had to do and they built that beach. They maintained it. When the torando went through, all the people in Carver Beach went through there and cleared the roads and we've been clearing dead trees out there ever since and this and that and trying to keep it up. All we ever get for effort is get out of there. It seems like all the neighbors get out of the city is, you guys...is get out of there and let it be junk in there. It seems like the City has never, they've spent minimal. They've spent thousands of dollars on these other parks but their oldest park they have and they've shut it down to a ,.... minimal out at that park. There's great potential down there. It's a nice piece of property. It's no good for playing ball and it's no good for flying kites but it's great for fishing. It's great for swimming. It's great for boating. That's what it should be used for. Nobody seems to understand that. They don't want to. They want to just let it be full of poison ivy and dead trees and keep everybody off of there. Mike Wegler: really burns. Taking the little bit that we have, taking it away, it One thing it doesn't do... Roger Byrnes: When there's 3,000 feet of lake on the other side of the lake looking over, it looks like you're looking through the north woods. I can see why the people don't want it to be developed. They don't want to fix that land up a little because they live out across the lake and they look like they're up in the north woods because they don't see nothing but trees and dairy cows. But if you get close to it, it looks pretty bad... Mady: I think you recall last year the Park Commission toured your, last year when we talked with you then. Roger Byrnes: ...1 was down here talking to you and it seemed like you guys were really down here trying to figure out what you can do and how people can use that land. I walked over... I don't know who it was but I heard somebody, I was standing up here and somebody told the guy he had to get the hell out of there. I couldn't believe my ears. The Park Commission runs a guy off the park. I""" Mady: We asked him if he was catching fish. Park and Recreation Commission Meeting December 13, 1988 - Page 16 ....." Roger Byrnes: Somebody told him he was parked illegally and he had to get out of there. Mady: leave. No, we told him he was parked illegally but we didn't tell him to We asked him if he was catching fish. Laura Bros: I live at 6771 Chaparral Lane but I grew up on Lake Minnewashta so I feel like I do have a vested interest. My parents still live there. My in-laws still live there and a concern that I have, there's always a battle between lakeshore owners and non-lakeshore owners as to rights. I think the lake is public property and everyone has the right to use the lake but my concerns are that some of these outlots need to have some policing or some restrictions or some way of checking up. You may not have a problem on Lotus Lake. You may not have a problem on Lake Ann but we do have a problem on Lake Minnewashta with some of these outlots. One in particular just down between my parents and in-laws. It's very small. It was small enough that it doesn't warrant a dock out there and yet we've had a raft out there and 2 boats and someone even came in and put a boat lift with a pontoon boat on it in a space that's so narrow there i.sn't hardly room for it at all. I think people, maybe they're conditional use permits, whatever, but that needs to be looked into on an individual basis, like he said, so that you can decide, yes there's room there and how it should be used so you don't end up with all this. The raft that's been out there and placed so far out into the lake that it's dangerous. People coming down in boats with skiers, you can't see the ~. raft it's out so far. And it sticks way out into the lake so if they're going to have a raft, then maybe that needs to fall within the guidelines of where it can be placed too. So that was just a concern of mine. I agree with you on that amendment but I think it needs to be looked at carefully and have some restrictions or some way of checking up to make sure that things are being followed through on. Hasek: Where do your in-laws live on Minnewashta? Laura Bros: My folks live right on Minnewashta Lows and my mother-in-law lives on Minnewashta Parkway. Is it Minnewashta 2nd Addition that has the outlot there. It's been a real problem the last couple of summers. Thank you. Resident: Some of these people, the complaints they have, unfortunately, if they checked into it as it says in that deal from the DNR, the DNR and if you talk to the gentleman, I gave you the name that works for the City of Prior Lake. One of the reasons that they no longer, they did have some ordinance for a period of time and they no longer do and it's for some of these very reasons. Of the battles between non-lakeshore owners and lakeshore owners. Due to the fact that they've got the same kind of problem. The guy with an outlot should be able to keep a boat there. If you can keep 5 boats, 6 boats, whatever it happens to be. The DNR has specific rules regarding that. Regarding a raft that's too far out in thr water. The water laws state that if it hinders navigation, all you have ~ to do is get ahold of the DNR. It's going to be pulled out. If it's not licensed, it's going to be pulled out. The DNR takes care of those things. The same thing on an outlot. If somebody owns that lot, maybe Park and Recreation Commission Meeting December 13, 1988 - Page 17 ,..... they've given somebody permission to use it of which they're allowed to do under the Department and State regulations to have two boats on there. Whether it's theirs or anybody elses. If it's somebody's property and it's somebody elses boats, then you ought to get ahold of those people and let them know about it. A lot of these things can be taken care of under existing rules as they've stood for years and years and years. It's unfortunate that people haven't taken advantage of those and I think that's the very reason, as the gentleman told me from Prior Lake, that they let it go back to this so they didn't have to go through some of these things. Resident: Just as a side comment, I think it's interesting. I happen to be a member of the Association that owns the beachlot that was just talked about. I've been president of the association for 2 years and we've never had a single complaint. In fact, we've had all of our neighbors over at the parties on that beach so it'd be interesting to hear from those owners to see what the problems are because the abutting property owners don't have any problems. Mady: Any other comments? We'll open it up for Commission discussion. We'll start with Larry. ,... Schroers: I am in favor of the amendment. I believe that as our community grows, everybody sees all the development...and more and more people are using our parks and our waterways and if we don't regulate them, it could get out of control so I like the amendment as it is. I do like the grandfather clause. I don't feel that we're going to try to take your raft away as long as it conforms to the regulations. I'd like to see it there. I'm not in favor of taking away anything that currently exists as long as it's maintained and it's safe and it conforms with the regulations. In regards to the improvement of the Carver Beach area, we as a Commission have discussed putting in a fishing pier, boat moorings, a trail that will run along the lake and canoe racks. I think our intent is to continue with that effort and try to get some of these things installed. If it works out at Carver Beach, I don't know why it couldn't work out at Lake Ann or anywhere else so I would like to see that happen. I also think that we need to direct staff to speak with the sheriff and find out the procedure for obtaining permits for the moorings and rafts and make sure that it's publicized so the residents know how to go about obtaining permits. That's really all I have. Mady: It's interesting, as Tom Hamilton said a number of times, the lakes, the city lakes in Chanhassen are beautiful. They supply a lot of enjoyment and tribute for their residents. They also happen to be the biggest headache for the City that could even exist because some of you...try to regulate that. Here again tonight, we have that again... hoping we can address this. Dealing with Lake Ann, Gerry mooring his two boats, we've attempted a number of times in the past through the grant application process, to improve Lake Ann Park. That included a 2 store bath house. Canoe rental areas. Boat mooring slips. All this type of thing. We're continuing to try to do that. We just haven't been granted the money from the State and it's our intent to do that. We have a plan. We need to address that because the ordinance as it's drafted is going to ""' Park and Recreation Commission Meeting December 13, 1988 - Page 18 ....", affect, we need to look a little bit harder this year and maybe more next year. Maybe we need to look at a specified, limit the number of permits per year. I don't know if we're ready to jump into the whole issue, feet first and do it all the way across the board but maybe we can start doing a little bit of testing the water so to speak and find out how it's really done. What the ramifications are. The legal liability. All those things. At Carver Beach, we toured that park. This year's capital improvement has $3,000.00 in it for improving Carver Beach trailway. That 3,000 foot strip of land there. What I would like to see do and one of the things I plan pushing for tonight is to have the City improve that beach. That means marking it with swimming buoys so it is a marked, safe beach. We have to do that. If the City went in with a backhoe and pulled all the sand out, your kids are still going to swim there so we might as well make it right. I think we need to replace the raft. I'd like to see your raft be thrown off and I think the City should put one in. A nice, legal, properly maintained. You don't have any responsibilities. The City does it and does it right every year that it's there. We can do that. We have the money to do it this year. I think we should do it right. Roger Byrnes: That sounds well and fine but if...and then 5 years from now you're out of here and somebody else is out of here and all of a sudden, now the City puts a raft at Carver Beach is kind of rundown, we can not put that back and we ain't got no money to replace it. 3 years from now, 5 years from now the kids are out of a raft again. What's to assure us that the City will keep it there? ....", Mady: There are no guarantees in life unfortunately. Roger Byrnes: Well, there is with you. Mady: unsafe. The raft that you have is unsafe and I'll tell you why I feel it's You have a pontoon sticking out from under the wrong side. Roger Byrnes: It's been there for over 30 years. Mady: Yes. You falloff that side of the raft, you're going to break your back. I think we should be doing a better job. It's the City's property and we need to have the City take care of it. We've had these problems other places where individual homeowners have taken care of city property. That's not right. We need to make sure the City is doing it. The City's got the budget. The City's got the staff to do it. Let's make them do it because it's open for everybody. It's a city park. It's the public's right. Cindy Gilman: Can't you put something in there so that the people of Carver Beach that actually donate the land and stuff, still can have some control if the raft does go, if the City says 5 years down the road we don't have the money, the raft has to go, that the owners can say fine, we're putting one out there. Too bad. There should be something there -' still because they donated the land. Sure, the City can put a raft out there and take care of it and everything but something there so they still feel they've got a little bit of control. Otherwise, why give the City Park and Recreation Commission Meeting December 13, 1988 - Page 19 " anything? Mady: They can always look back and somebody can take it out or put it in. Resident: That's why we want to protect it so after 30 years. If you put one in and it goes, give us the right to put it back in. We're a non- conforming use...we'll put it back in. We'll make it to the standards and everything else. It doesn't say anything in the standards about the point stuff. We realize that was an old pontoon. We made it. We didn't have the money to go out and buy a nice aluminum pontoon. Mady: It's the City's responsibility. You do have a liability in that raft right now if you have a problem unless we get rid of that liability. There's no reason for you to have it. If something happens now... ,..... Roger Byrnes: I agree with you wholeheartedly. All I want is some kind of assurance that 5 years from now it's still going to be there and 10 years from now when my kids have kids and my grandkids come over. I moved into this city and I've been here for 15 years and I plan on being here for the next 15 years. I ain't one of these guys who moves in and moves out and come in here and screw things up and tell me I've got to get my raft out and then leave. You know? Here I'm sitting with no raft. I'm going to be here and my grandkids are going to be here and I want that raft out there for my grandkids. Mady: I don't know how we can do that. We can have staff look into that. Boyt: I have a recommendation. Mady: Okay. The other thing I want to talk about and concerns we were talking about the fishing place. There are a lot of people that use that area to fish in. It's wonderful. It's a great beach area. It's a great fishing area. They should be allowed down there. Unfortunately, with all the no parking signs down there, they can't get there. I would like to see us allow parking in a designated area along the street. I don't really even care which side of the street it is. I know you've mentioned that you don't have a problem with this before. It doesn't have to be many spots but at least that guy who was down here last year with a couple of other people that were fishing for sunfish and caught a couple. He should at least be able to be...and when he sees us and we're the City coming at him to... That's what he did basically. He saw us coming and he started packing up right away. It's unfortunate. He shouldn't have to worry about that. We need to improve that situation. Roger Byrnes: I've got a comment there too.- We and Mike were looking out there and Mike works for the City. There are some places on that land where it could be cut in there with maybe 2 or 3 little trees cut down, .~ that a few parking spaces could me made here. There. A couple here. A couple there. All the way around that whole strip. There's some over there by the new beach. I don't know, the other park is facing with no parking signs go up and down about weekly. Once in a while you park there and sometimes you can't. What could be made is a couple parking spaces Park and Recreation Commission Meeting December 13, 1988 - Page 20 ....." and then some place where the road is wide enough where you can take down a couple no parking signs. I don't think there's a problem with that. I'd like to see people get access to it too. Mady: Our aim is to improve the utilitization of our parks. That's what we want to do. I think I covered by points. Hasek: I guess that I feel that if we've got public property on the lake that it should be, actually any public property whether it be just a normal park in the middle of a neighborhood or a beach such as this. Use property on the lake that's some 3,000 feet long, that it ought to be maintained for the citizens of Chanhassen. That's everybody. It's not just the people who are abutting that particular park or live in that particular neighborhood. I think that they ought to be accessible. By accessible I'm not just talking about parking spaces. I'm talking about handicap accessible because at some point in time I'm going to qualify for that and I want to be able to drive down and use the parks and I don't want to have to walk 5,000 feet to get to a park to use it. Some of this is related to another issue but nonetheless it's still pertinent. I also feel that if the City is going to allow for mooring or tackle the situation of perhaps canoe racks, rental canoe racks, that they like what is thought to be equally available to every member or every citizen of the City. Not just the abutting property owners. The beach was given up but it was given to the City and it sounds like it was given because it -' couldn't be maintained by the Association and that's understandable. We've had that situation occur in another case and in my opinion we've created a private park for a neighborhood and I don't feel very well about that at all. I would hate to see that happen to this particular park as well. I would like to see more parking spaces put in if it's at all possible. I think that they ought to be spread out so that the entire park can be used. Again, I think if the city is going to put a park in there, they ought to at least have the courage to take the responsibility for keeping it clean and to maintain it. I guess just a side issue to that. You have a park. I live in an area of the City that doesn't have a park. That's the way it is... Robinson: I agree with the ordinance as it's amended. I think there has to be some restrictions on parkland or lakeshore or lake close to the park so we don't have 50,000 boats out in front of the parkland. I think it's also, we've got to let these people at Carver Beach have their swimming raft out there. I mean, that's ridiculous. So I think we control that by permits or a variance or something. Whether they be grandfathered in or, I'm not sure if that's the right approach. Maybe we do it by permit or allow a variance. There are variances on everything else. There's an exception to every rule. I think there's got to be some exception here. Boyt: I would like to see us form a committee with some of the Carver Beach neighbors to look at what can be done with the park. What they would like to see done with it. We've talked about putting rafts, a swimming area. We want a raft there and I think let's work with the ~ neighborhood and see what they want. I am interested in boat moorings being made available to the people of Chanhassen on our lakes at our parks. One possible way to do that is, there are a lot of ways to do it Park and Recreation Commission Meeting December 13, 1988 - Page 21 ,.... but it's an interest that's been shown in the community. be able to leave their boats there overnight and that's a support the ordinance amendment. I would volunteer to be to work with the Carver Beach owners. People want to way to do it. I on the committee Sietsema: We may be able to accomplish that by having a meeting that's specifically, with the entire group and invite the whole neighborhood but specifically just for that item too. Mady: That's sounds logical. Boyt: I think we need to take advantage of their interests. If they're interested in even raising the roof. I don't think we should turn down an interest like that in the park. Mady: I guess I don't look for us to form a committee. I think you can handle it here. Especially this time of year. Our agenda usually allows for us to do that. I would hope that we'll work with staff to get something accomplished in that realm. We do have money available in our budget to do something. It sounds like you're willing to do a little bit there. We need to cover that whole park. We recognize we need to do a trail easement. There's poison ivy down there. There are trees falling over. That needs to be cleared out. There are ways for us to do that ~ with both Eagle Scout projects that have been very successful to the larger beach such as Carver Beach. The beautification that was done with the parking area was an Eagle Scout project and did, in my opinion, a very nice job up there. We can utilize some of the Scouting skills to take care of some of that. They do a nice job. They gain some recognition. Get a few points for their Eagle Scout Badge and it really works out well for all parties involved. Hasek: What kind of action is required with this discussion? Sietsema: The City Council directed the Park and Recreation Commission to review the amendment to see that it was in compliance with what we wanted to do in the parks. If you're in favor of it, you just simple need to make recommendation for approval. Boyt: We can go beyond that too and deal with boat moorings because we can go beyond this and allow boat moorings in our parks. Sietsema: This would not prohibit us from putting boat moorings in our parks. Boyt: The way it was stated, I thought it was implied from the City Council that they would like us to discuss that, the boat mooring issue. I""'" Mady: I think we need to find a little bit more information on the liability. On access. Find out how other cities have determined the numbers that they allow. Where they're put in place. Right now the ones that are coming up are people are putting them out near their homes. I'm not so sure that if we did it as a park, the situation of allowing moorings or that people felt they wanted them. Park and Recreation Commission Meeting December 13, 1988 - Page 22 ....", Boyt: You can see on the parkways, the Minneapolis parkways, they have designated areas for boat moorings. Mady: Minneapolis, the parks, the lakes are entirely, outside of a couple areas around Cedar Lake, those areas are entirely public so they have some ...situation. Resident: I have a pamphlet, actually it's a stack of papers that dictates for the Park and Rec Director for the City of Minneapolis on it's way to... It was used for the City of Bloomington in their new program at Normanda1e Lake where they're going to put in their canoe racks, etc. and it was also, the same plan was used by the City of Deephaven many years ago. Mady: Thank you. A side to that also. The ordinances that we have concerning our lakes, a lot of them were drafted by the White Bear Lake ordinances. They've dealt with a lot of these problems prior to us. We typically steal whatever we can from other cities so if we can use something from Minneapolis, we certainly will. We can always find out what problems they've had and try to get around those things. A motion is in order. I'll make a motion that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the amendment to Chapter 6 of the City Ordinances and instruct staff to investigate the possibility of moorings in the city lakes and set up a meeting with the Carver Beach .., residents to look to improvements to the Carver Beach linear park. Boyt: I'll second it. Robinson: Are there any exceptions? Is that just black and white? Mady: There's always the ability for a variance. Robinson: Okay, and I've seen the discussion that the City Council wanted the grandfathered in in that. Is that in the ordinance or is that a part of that? Sietsema: If you want to recommend that a section be written up allowing for a variance, you should include that in your motion because that's not included in this amendment. Roger Byrnes: ...because the way the ordinance is written, we're already grandfathered in. Sietsema: This is allowing a variance for mooring of boats. The rafts are grandfathered in but the moorings are not so that would require an amendment to Section 23 of Chapter 6 allowing for a variance. Hasek: It says right at the bottom, removal of seasonal docks and moorings and other structures shall be removed from the lake before November 1st of each year. All non-conforming moorings and other structures... .."", Park and Recreation Commission Meeting December 13, 1988 - Page 23 ,.... Sietsema: With the exception of rafts. Read on. Hasek: Except docks and swimmi ng rafts. I apolog i ze. Once removed may not be returned to the lake. Non-conforming docks are regulated by Section... Sietsema: So the moorings would require, you either want to grandfather those in or look at them on a case by case basis and have a variance. Mady: I guess I would like to see us, in my motion, to allow for a variance opportunity and it would not come under 6-23. That's concerning structures. Moorings would have to corne under... Sietsema: I believe it's outlined in Barbara Dacy's letter. Mady: I would like to see us allow for variances to the ordinance. Schroers: And will the variances allow us to address a specific situation? Mady: It would have to be in response to a specific situation. That situation would have to come in front of the Council and the Council votes on it. It takes a four-fifths vote of the Council to approve or deny. ~,..... Sietsema: 6-23 is variances. Mady: Yes, but that's only structures. Moorings would go under number 1. Structures are a thing... Sietsema: Okay, Roger would figure that out. Mady moved, Boyt seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the amendment to Chapter 6 of the City Ordinances. To instruct staff to investigate the possibility of moorings in the city lakes. To set up a meeting with the Carver Beach residents to look to improvements to the Carver Beach linear park. And to allow a variances section in the Ordinance to cover moorings. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Fred Oelschlager: I just had one question. Others brought this up a while ago but the meeting went along pretty well as far as understanding and so forth. I'm Fred Oelschlager at 7419 Chanhassen Road. I'm also a lifetime residnet of Lotus Lake. I've had no problem with the raft at Carver Beach. I'd like to see it cleaned up and so forth. I go along with them fine. I just want to hear something from, I think it's... ,...... Boyt: Sue. Fred Oelschlager: Sue, on the mooring of boats on park property. Can you just explain that quickly? Park and Recreation Commission Meeting December 13, 1988 - Page 24 ....."" Boyt: I want to look into it. Fred Oelschlager: Is it the numbers you're talking about? Boyt: We're not talking about numbers yet. Fred Oelschlager: You're going to open up a real can of worms there. Boyt: That's something that you guys will come in and talk to us about. Fred Oelschlager: ...and you have a brand new public access on the lake. You open up one of the best area, and I think that should be all that's necessary. I don't even live on that end of the lake is what I'm saying. Mady: You have 3 park areas on Lotus Lake with South Lotus Lake Park, North Lotus Lake Park and Carver Beach. Fred Oelschlager: Like Lotus Lake Estates, Sunrise Hills. They're limited to the amount of boats that they can put on the lake basically and now you want to start mooring boats out in front of park property. I just want to let you know where I'm coming from. Mady: You recognize the issue there. We're probably going to have a fairly heated discussion when it comes to that and we recognize that. -' Fred Oelschlager: Alright, thank you. Ray Roettger: That boat mooring business, you'd better really be careful. I appreciate where these guys are. They're fine people but they better also be very concerned because I could take a boat and moor it right in front of your swimming raft and you wouldn't want that. Mady: Not in a public beach you can't. Ray Roettger: If I can ride by water over to the area that you would use. Resident: ...anybody from Lotus Lake could go and park their boat here. The people don't do that. Ray Roettger: But once it's written in and you get some smart attorney, that's not kind hearted, he could really create a problem. Mady: That's what we're trying to employ all the problems. We have a tendency, this Commission has the tendency to be very proactive and look out for the problems so they don't occur. We try to be fair to everyone. Mary Jo Moore: I'm a little confused when you say that the non-conforming rafts that are currentry there will be grand fathered in? Mady: As long as they're legal. There are certain requirements and they-, can still. If they've got a raft in your situation, it's too low in the water, doesn't have a permit, even though it's non-conforming, it's still illegal. Park and Recreation Commission Meeting December 13, 1988 - Page 25 ,..... Mary Jo Moore: It's non-conforming to the structure standards also. That's my conclusion. So that would go? That would not be grandfathered in? Mady: I guess that's a question for the City Attorney. Boyt: If it doesn't fit our standards right now, then it could be taken out right now. We have standards set for rafts. I don't know who it is. The Sheriff or someone but I think notify... Mary Jo Moore: Of course now it's out, the lake is frozen. Boyt: But someone needs to notify the sheriff. Mary Jo Moore: But that type of thing would not be grandfathered in? Boyt: Not if it doesn't meet the standards set. Ray Roettger: How many are out there that can be grandfathered in? Mady: It sounds like 4. You've got one. There's one next to you. Jerry's got 2. I thought you said there... ~ Ray Roettger: No, that's a dock. Sietsema: There's probably quite a few. We wouldn't know until they came in and asked us. Mady: Again, when we go to public hearing this thing is going to have to be very defined out. Resident: Hasn't anybody corne forward and said, that they've applied for a permit and they've gone through the whole process legally. Now this issue comes up to take it away. Resident: Wasn't everybody ticketed? Mady: The attempt was made, yes. Resident: So how many people does that involve? I know about only on Lotus Lake. Mady: In some situations, the boats were removed prior to the enforcement officer getting there so we really don't know. Robinson: The only boats that were removed, as I understand it, were boats that were actually on land. All boats that were moored were ~ contacted. Lori, isn't that correct? Sietsema: I think so. Robinson: There are only 4 boats. Park and Recreation Commission Meeting December 13, 1988 - Page 26 ....", Mady: There may be more. Things seem to always come out of the woodwork. Resident: Okay, but why can't citizens who were here and we're representing ourselves and we've come to both meetings, why can't there be a clause just to grandfather us in? Because we have proof that we have had it there for 2 years or longer or whatever. If you can grandfather in the raft, how come you can't grandfather in these? Mady: The raft that's there is a non-conforming use. I'm not sure the raft is a non-conforming use. I really don't. Resident: It's been listed as a grandfathered in raft. Mady: I guess I'd feel a lot more comfortable if Roger Knutson was here, the City Attorney and he told me whether that's a non-conforming use because my understanding is that a non-conforming use goes to the person who owns the property. In this situation, the City owns that property. The land. I'm talking about the land. That's where non-conforming use comes to. Resident: But the raft is in the lake which is not city property. Mady: But see, that I don't know. That's what we need to find out. Hasek: suggest they're ....." It really doesn't matter. All we do is make recommendations and a policy. The City Council is going to have to act on it and really your, right there are yours... Mady: What we say doesn't necessarily happen. Resident: I understand that may be the case but certainly you have a number, there's been an adjustment for a raft and somewhere there's been an adjustment for docks but there has not been an adjustment for moorings. That just isn't there. There's a reason why you've ignored those and I don't know why you've omitted it. You know it's something that's going to be a problem or what? Why are you ignoring it? Hasek: I'm just not in favor of it. Resident: Is that a bottom line? Hasek: Personally I'm not in favor of it. If someone had suggested it in a motion, I would have probably voted against it myself. Resident: I appreciate your honesty and openness on that because it seems 1 i ke . . . Hasek: I'm more concerned about, I guess what I'm very concerned about is the fairness to everybody in town. Just because someone has been doing something forever does not give them the right to continue to do it. -' Park and Recreation Commission Meeting December 13, 1988 - Page 27 ~ Lynn Hall: I understand that but then the same case can be made, because the raft has been there, or the dock has been there, does that mean they should be grand fathered in? You're making a differentiation between moorings and dock that doesn't, the logic falls through there. Hasek: I think you're maybe right. Lynn Hall: I guess in my situation it's unique, completely in the County as far as I'm aware of and in this particular instance I will, this property is fee simple title owned by myself. We've talked about public park property and mooring boats off of that property. Right now if your recommendation lacks that grandfathering clause in, potentially with a four-fifths vote, as I spoke earlier, there's a hurdle that I'm going to have to jump once again for a use that's been acknowledged and verified by the City. In my situation, from a single owner and that property is valued in accordance with the use of that property so it's critical at this point. Your position and your recommendation, obviously you hold weight as a voting body to make a recommendation to the Council. The point is made here that the difference between those two particular items, the raft and that particular structure of a moored boat, I fail to see the difference if a craft's in the water, one's moored and one isn't but it's obviously from the standpoint that people like myself in this unique situation that grandfathering is also very important. ,...., Mady: In your situation, you're a non-conforming use has been established and you're covered under the amendment. Sietsema: No. Mady: I thought it was a non-conforming use? Sietsema: No, he's a mooring and not a raft though. Hasek: Would you help by just explaining exactly what your situation is? Lynn Hall: Prior to the sale of the property, there was acknowledgement from the City as an authorization... Hasek: What is the property like? I mean how much shoreline do you own? Lynn Hall: There's 20 feet of shoreline. Hasek: Is it a pie shaped piece of property? Do you own an outlot across the street? Lynn Hall: It's an outlot down at the end of a cul-de-sac between two properties. ,...... Hasek: Then it's an old fire access or something? Lynn Hall: It used to be the old boat landing from my understanding years gone by. The asphalt that I pulled out this summer, I'd say there was a road there at one time. Park and Recreation Commission Meeting December 13, 1988 - Page 28 ......, Hasek: How did that corne to you for sale? Lynn Hall: That was included in the parcel. It's been attached quite some time ago to the property with the house that I own. It's fee simple title. Hasek: So the owner of that house must have subdivided the property and kept that piece as an access for himself? Lynn Hall: It was added onto the property at some point in time. It was separate years gone by but it's not clear. The Abstract unfortunately was lost on this property a number of years back and has been recreated. Somebody did some recreation from what the attorney says at this point. Nevertheless, the way it's titled currently, it is fee simple. But with the current amendment, no, I am not grandfathered in so I would be stripped of a use, a non-conforming use that I have. That gets into a completely different situation again. Hasek: Not in terms by virtue of the fact that you only own 20 feet of shoreline instead of 100 feet and you don't have a residence on the property? Lynn Hall: Yes. Boyt: It was my understanding that part of the public hearing tonight is-' to discuss boat mooring and I don't think we've done enough of that as a commission. Mady: I don't know. I guess my feelings are that we've handled boat moorings. I feel sorry for you. I don't want to open up a can of worms however in the mooring situation right now. I think the City needs to address it as a whole instead of allowing 1 or 2 moorings to take place. I think there's a better way that would be fair to all parties. Not to discriminate. Just because somebody has been, and this is my feeling, just because one person has been doing something and this mooring issue carne to us.' we didn't go to it. Lynn Hall: I understand. Mady: If there are people who have problems and it's going to affect you but it also affects the people who live next door to you, according to everything I've read here. They have a real concern too. My opinion is, I fall on the side that I don't want to open a can of worms right now for just a couple of people. I'd rather see us deal with the whole issue for the entire city. Lynn Hall: I'm in agreeance in the amendment change with the exception of the grandfathering. I'm not asking you to open a can of worms and take a public vote on who would like it and who wouldn't like to begin mooring their boats. The ramifications are far beyond us sitting here today. If~ I'm stripped of a right, obviously a devaluation of my property, then we'll be forced to take issue with that. That's where it comes in. I Park and Recreation Commission Meeting December 13, 1988 - Page 29 ,.... understand what you're saying Jim and there's two sides to the coin. If one argument is the devaluation of the property value because what I think to be a decent boat, not restricting any access from either neighbor. On the other side of that coin is why should I have my property devaluated based on those concerns? I might add that this is a concern of one particular individual. The other neighbor has offered to let me use his dock even but he unfortunately can't. Hasek: I think our charge is to look at the broader issue. I think the grandfathering will have to be argued by the individuals with the Council. Mady: ...handle some of these situations. It's the councilman's job and when you get to the Council, it will be their responsibility to make that decision. Not ours. Robinson: But Jim, the agenda said boat moorings and dock ordinance. Mady: And we talked about it. Unfortunately, it didn't go the way you wanted it to go. We did discuss it. I talked about it. Ed's talked about it. We did talk about it for maybe half an hour... Lynn Hall: I can understand what you're saying but on the other hand you're saying that it's an issue that you don't want to get into because ~ there isn't enough people here or whatever. They all had the same opportunity that we had to be here. Just as I had to find out, even though I should have been notified, and under the circumstances it's an issue that's going to have to be dealt with sooner or later so isn't it an issue that at this point as far as you've gone with it, that isn't it an issue that maybe should be, as Sue said, dealt with a little bit more? Boyt: If we're against it, we can say we don't like the idea of boats being moored at our public beaches and lay it out flat like that. But, they can apply for a variance with the City Council. Right? That's what we're saying. Lynn Hall: So it is going to be in your minutes, that at least it's going to say that it has to be looked into even harder and there is going to be another meeting. At that point you're saying it's not going to be the Park and Rec but it's going to have to be City Council that does the next step? Mady: No. What we said is, we recommended to the Council to approve the ordinance as it stands and to look into a couple other things. One of the things we do intend to look at and have always intended to look at was the mooring issue off of city property because that's where we get involved is really city property. I'm not real sure why the mooring situation, specifically at Lynn's property, came in front of us. It's usually handled in the planning area. It's not something we have gotten involved in before. .~ Boyt: We are also dealing with, we have right now some folks who are at our public parks. We're saying with our ordinance amendment that that will no longer take place unless they're... Park and Recreation Commission Meeting December 13, 1988 - Page 30 -' Lynn Hall: Are you specifically stating public land? Hasek: We're involved with public land. That's what I keep trying to tell you. The private sector should be the job of the Council. I certainly don't want to start getting involved with every private feud that there is on ordinances in this City. I'm not getting paid to do that. I think if we continue just to deal with the public land in the best way we know how and trying to help the Council with that, I think we're doing our job. Boyt: we're It says in our amendment that no watercraft shall be moored and talking about all watercraft. Mady: But at this point in time that's when we ask for a variance situation would handle you. Lynn Hall: But your jurisdiction is over public. That's what I just heard you say. Not private and then you're saying overall so. Mady: We really don't have any jurisdiction at all. We're simply a park board that comes here and invites the public to make their comments. Those go into the Minutes. They go to the Council. The Council reads all of that hopefully and takes it into consideration when they make their decision because sometimes the Council doesn't open it up for public discussion. Sometimes they do. This is your opportunity to get your thoughts out. ....." Sietsema: The includance of the whole thing about the variance only indicates to the Council that the Park and Recreation Commission feels that it's something that they should consider. It's not really this Commission's area to even talk about the variance situation except where it applies to public land. So it's really an issue that's got to go back to City Council and they just made a comment on it so that the Council knows that they've listened to you. That they've discussed it. Lynn Hall: But you are also saying, and correct me if I'm wrong, that if I get permission from another landowner to moor my boats in front of his property, if I don't own the land, I can't park there? Sietsema: That's right. Lynn Hall: So that goes for somebody who owns land, let's say these two people right up here on Lake Minnewashta. If they want to have their son park their boat all next summer in front of their yard, or in front of their property, they can't do it unless they get a variance? This is the only city in the 7 county area that will have done that. Boyt: It says a member of the owner's household. Lynn Hall: So it's a cousin? ...,., Park and Recreation Commission Meeting December 13, 1988 - Page 31 ,...., Hasek: I don't know if you made all the discussions with the LMCD but on Lake Minnetonka it is illegal for you, unless you are a property owner. Lynn Hall: No it isn't. You can have 2 boats. Lake Conservation District, you can have 2 boats or less. or less. Anybody can own them if you get permission. have 3 boats or more, they all have to be licensed to immediate family. Minnetonka Re ad it. Two Anybody. If you or your boats you Hasek: I guess I would differ with you on that but I don't have the ordinance here and... Lynn Hall: I'm very aware. The gentleman who's in charge, his number's right here and you can call him. Mady: Let me interrupt you right now. I don't believe we're getting anyplace. We've made our recommendation. Before this gets to the City Council. We have other items on our agenda. We need to get to them. We're not going to resolve this tonight. You've heard our recommendation. We've listened to you and now we're rehashing and we need to move on. You have your opportunity, hopefully the City Council will bring your ideas up there. Again, if you haven't signed the sheet in the back of the room, please do so. ""....., PUBLIC HEARING: REVIEW CHANGES AND PLANS FOR SIDEWALKS ALONG CARVER BEACH ROAD AND LAREDO DRIVE. Public Present Name Address Ron and Ann Kleve Jeff and Cathy Clem Jerry Paulsen Joy Javurek Chuck Snyder Ray Roettger Jeff and Anne Keeler Dave Rahe Mary Jo Moore Jeff and Laura Bros Wally Schwab 6770 penamint Lane 1011 Carver Beach Road 7305 Laredo Drive 6780 Redwing Lane 500 Highland Drive 3221 Dartmouth Drive 6771 penamint Lane 1021 Carver Beach Road 3231 Dartmouth Drive 6771 Chaparral 950 Carver Beach Road Sietsema: I'd like to introduce Scott Harri- tonight. He's the engineer that worked on the plans and he will go through the plans and specs as he's prepared them. .~ Scott Harri: Thank you. I'm going to be making a presentation this way so if there's anybody interested, I know it's hard to get any kind of good functional thing. My name is Scott Harri and it's my pleasure to be here Park and Recreation Commission Meeting December 13, 1988 - Page 32 tonight to present to you our findings of the final design for the two sidewalk segments. One on Laredo Drive in front of Chan Elementary to Frontier Trail and then also the other segment on Carver Beach Road from Powers Blvd. over to the park. I wrote my staff report with the Laredo Drive first so I have a hard time laying out the order so I'll start with this thing. What I intend to do I guess is to simply highlight some of the design features. Some of the construction related, I guess some of the replacement things that we discovered in both surveying the alignments and also trying to fit the sidewalk in amongst trees, shrubs, bushes, retaining walls, fences, hydrants, etc. so with that as a prelude, the Laredo Drive trail is in general located on the west side of Laredo Drive all the way from Chan Elementary over to Frontier Trail down in this location. Some of the specific, it's a 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk as you perhaps have been earlier led to believe. Some of the specific design features will be, there's a group of Russian Olive trees here located by the apartment complex that are somewhat overhanging the sidewalk alignment and we propose trimming some of the overhanging branches to allow for an adequate and safe head room for the users of the sidewalk. Then along this location we have to extend the retaining wall in this location to provide a ladder or level surface to install the sidewalk over here. A very minor repair job to an existing catch basin to permit the pedestrian or handicap access ramp at this intersection with Long View Circle. Then following down to almost the northern end of the project, right here on the intersection of Highland and Laredo, the sideyard here has a fairly steep slope to it and what we propose to do is simply cut a little bench in there so that the sidewalk will lay more level than would be installin~ a sidewalk in that manner right there. And then terminating it over at Frontier Trail. Some of the consistent things that we're going to be doing is painting cross striping at each one of the street intersections over here to denote that it is a pedestrian crosswalk and all areas disturbed by this construction would be sodded. Thirdly, all the improvements that we've got shown here are going to be made available right away. Essentially what that means is, from the back of the curb in the public right-of-way which is a distance of about 12 to 13 feet, all of the regrading, sidewalk improvements, etc. will be installed in that location. Some additional things regarding the project, each cross street intersection has a stop sign on it so all, I guess motorists traveling and intersecting with Laredo Drive will be stopping at that to further insure that there will be at least the cross traffic stopping the automobile traffic. Does anybody have any questions right now on Laredo Drive based on this comments? I can go through and then open it up for discussion and afterwards or if anybody has any questions now. ..."" Ed Hyland: Yes, I have a question. Ed Hyland. Where you're going to be recreating that sloped area, you don't have any indication as to how much of a slope you're going to be putting in there? Scott Harri: The grade, there's a small typical section shown kind of in the center of the plant just left of the north there on the scale and we'd be providing a 3 to 1 slope starting at the right-of-way line going then, I guess it would be towards the street and then just follow this sidewalk~ and continuing a variable slope then down to the top of the curb or the edge of the street there. A 3 to 1 slope would be I guess maintainable Park and Recreation Commission Meeting December 13, 1988 - Page 33 .",...., with the lawnmower and stuff, like that. Boyt: Is the electrical box at the Elementary school in the way? Scott Harri: No. The existing sidewalk has been installed just past it or north of it so it would be connecting on right there. Mady: to it. ...Kerber's retaining wall at all. You're going to be abutting up Do you anticipate having to disturb what's there? ",...., Scott Harri: No we don't. All the construction work will be up kind of close to it. It's stuff we don't anticipate to do to the depth of the excavation or any of the reworking in the area that will actually disturb it at all. This segment of the sidewalk system is proposed from Powers Drive over to a general, the park. The park starts about right here on the plan and goes all the way to Nez Perce over in this location right here. Our proposal is to construct a 5 foot concrete sidewalk entirely along the southern alignment of Carver Beach Road all the way from Powers over to the park. Some of the specific features that we would be looking at is we would be making some jogs in the trail to avoid a hydrant in this location. To avoid a very, very large tree over in this location and then running along the edge of this steep embankment where we would be proposing a rail on the edge of the sidewalk to prevent anybody from I guess going over the edge and down into the abyss down in here. Some of the other features of the system and perhaps some of the reasons why the trail was actually originally contemplated in initial discussions to jog and to cross Carver Beach here, some location at Redwing Drive and then be constructed along the northern right-of-way. We found through the survey that there's only about 8 to 9 feet of space from the curb to the right-of-way line over here and with the existing mailboxes, hydrants, hedges, trees, there's storm sewer in this and some other features, that it required additional right-of-way either to be acquired, purchased, or negotiated or something in order to get the trail to be constructed over along the north side. We discovered that initially when we first got the survey and plotted out all the data, so we looked for an alternative. A way that we could still, I guess meet the attention of getting both bicycle and pedestrian movement over to the park from where I guess I would consider dominant residential neighborhoods here to the south. Get them to move them safely over here. Now in addition to that, the crosswalk that we are proposing over here, we're proposing a number of warning devices and also what we hope will be a security device in that we'd have two pedestrian warning signs erected for both eastbound and westbound traffic and also two pedestrian crossing signs to be erected right on the trail crossing. In addition to that, we are working with NSP to get a street light installed over here that would obviously be compatible with the type of small area security lighting and still be compatible with the residential neighborhood back over in this location. Additionally we'd be doing some drainage improvement work. There's the large I guess impression in the front of this yard right here. We'd be filling it in and hauling it in the street and we'd have to relocate this catch basin over here. There are a number of cable TV boxes and telephone boxes along. Some of them will have to be moved a foot or two to permit the sidewalk to be constructed. Again, all areas disturbed by """' Park and Recreation Commission Meeting December 13, 1988 - Page 34 construction would be sodded following completion of the sidewalk and all ~ of the improvements that we do have shown on here would be made within the available right-of-way. I guess with that I'd open it up for questions. Jeff Keeler: I have a question. My name is Jeff Keeler at 6771 penamint Lane. My particular question is, I have a watering system, sprinkling system that I had installed quite some time ago which enables the lawn to be watered automatically for my particular needs. with what you're proposing, I'm going to have to be moving all my sprinkling heads. Who's going to pay for that? Scott Harri: I guess we were unaware that you had a sprinkler system but that would be the type of cost that would be born by this project is to accommodate I guess relocation of the sprinkling lines to facilitate the installation of the sidewalk. Hasek: Are the sprinkler heads in the public right-of-way or on your own property? Jeff Keeler: They're on my own property. Hasek: And does your sprinkler sprinkle at night or in the morning? Anne Keeler: It's an automatic sprinkler system and it was put in to make maintenance of our lawn easier... ~ Hasek: Sure, absolutely. I understand that. Anne Keeler: There are extensions below the ground. It extends out toward the edge of the street. We have had problems in the past with the street being reblacktopped and whatever and destroying our sod and we've had to fight with the City to get even our lawn repaired from the damage done already. Hasek: That's a city problem. Am I to understand that maybe you do have some sprinkle heads that are on public property? Anne Keeler: They're at the edge of our green lawn. Hasek: Along the street? Anne Keeler: They're at the edge of the lawn, yes. Sietsema: So that isn't the right-of-way. Scott Harri: We will be replacing those as needed. Anne Keeler: It wouldn't be logical for us to put a sprinkler head however, 5 feet in from the lawn to water our lawn. Scott Harri: What was your address Jeff? ......", Jeff Keeler: 6771 penamint Lane. Park and Recreation Commission Meeting December 13, 1988 - Page 35 .,....., Anne Keeler: We're at the corner of penamint and Carver Beach Road. It's the property which is half of the woods in addition to the corner. So we go halfway down where you've proposed construction. Right after the drainage easement there. Scott Harri: Here's the culvert and the drainage easement. Okay, and then back over here. Fine. We'll certainly take a look at that and make sure that there is, in most cases along the trail system or the sidewalk system, a variable boulevard between the sidewalk and the edge of the curb and it varies depending upon what types of improvements were already existing now. We're trying to avoid what in general along the property, we're prosposing about a 2 1/2 foot sodded boulevard between the edge of the sidewalk and the street. It's extremely likely that your sprinkler heads may, from what you describe, fall within that zone already and therefore maybe all we have to do is lower the pipes down so that when we install the sidewalk it wouldn't be a problem but we'll certainly want to look at it and find out where they've been installed and there will be some, I guess minor inconvenience during the construction but we'll work with you on getting them relocated so that you still have the same type of combination and effective watering that you have right now. Cathy Clem: My name is Cathy Clem and I live at 1011 Carver Beach Road where the giant cottonwood tree is. That great big tree that you plan to ~ go around. Now you say that there's going to be a boulevard. Is that going to be all the way along the length of the sidewalk? Scott Harr i: Yes. Cathy Clem: How big of a boulevard? Scott Harri: If this is your residence right here? Cathy Clem: 1011. Big trees and the... Scott Harri: Yes. Okay, it varies. Into the west side of your driveway will be very narrow. In fact, perhaps about zero feet in that location and then on the east side of the driveway it will start off the...back to perhaps about 10 feet back from the curb as it goes behind the tree there. So it kind of takes a circuitous route. Jeff Clem: That dead box elder, you're going to be taking that out of there aren't you? Cathy Clem: I worry about it falling on someone. Jeff Clem: On the west side. That has to be taken out. ,...... Cathy Clem: It's like about 3 feet from the road and I was worried, with the sidewalk running there, we were planning on checking into how they handle that anyway. I don't know if the City's responsible or what but we have had branches fall. Park and Recreation Commission Meeting December 13, 1988 - Page 36 Boyt: Is this on your property you say? --' Cathy Clem: Yes, it's on our property within the right-of-way. Mady: What they do in Minneapolis, even with boulevard trees, it's your responsibility for the trees. If we're doing this, it might be an opportunity for us. Boyt: Taking down trees is really expensive... Jeff Clem: Another thing on that cottonwood, when you're coming west, that cottonwood sits right at the bottom of the hill. The kids are going to be kids and there's going to be more than 1 of the kids that are going to be able to make the turn and they're going to smack right into that bottom. Cathy Clem: We worry about the bikes coming down that hill. We're real concerned about our kids on the sidewalk or anybody's kids on their bikes coming down that wonderful steep sidewalk... I realize that would be a problem on either side. Resident: While we're talking about the big hill, ...we wanted the sidewalk on the other side of the road across from Redwing Lane. The crosswalk is at the top of the hill. Cars come around the road...going into Powers Blvd.. Anyway, people whip around that corner and they go, n lie, 60 mph to book up that hill. You can't see anybody at the top of -' that hill. Going up or coming down and the kids at the top aren't going to see them coming either. Cathy Clem: When we're walking we have to come all the way up to the edge of the hill and look down before you can see and that's an adult. You can't see. It's very bad. Wally Schwab: My name is Wally Schwab at 950. I am at the property adjacent to the park on the north side. These people are talking about people coming from Powers Blvd. and the kids tearing up the street that way. I have an opportunity living where I live to see all the kids tearing down the street and they can't see the people down at the park so it's a two fold situation. Where we've got to do something about controlling the speed of the traffic going... Mady: Can I ask a question on that? I know when we looked at this originally we referred you to the Public Safety. Have they dealt with that at all? Wally Schwab: No. Mady: That's their job. We can recommend that they do something but... Resident: They will if someone dies. Mady: Unfortunately, that's why the trails didn't pass is that people don't feel there's a problem yet and we'll probably have to kill somebody -' Park and Recreation Commission Meeting December 13, 1988 - Page 37 JI!II"'-. to get the problem. I feel sorry about that. Resident: I've almost been hit on Carver Beach twice myself. Once Halloween night and there happen to be a police officer who lives on our block. It happened that he was right there and we told him and he went after and arrested 3 kids and they ended up in jail. But there were about 6 of us adults there that almost got wiped out. Anne Keeler: Could I also make a comment, being that we are unsatisfied with the street and I'm out frequently at night with our dog. It's very dangerous on that side of the street. As a matter of fact, there is often automobile tracks on our grass because people are so careless. When they whip over the hill, they're driving onto our property. They've also driven onto our property in the wooded area. The minute they pass that drainage easment, there's also tracks there on the grass. I don't know that people are going to see that when they come over that hill. The problem is really terribly dangerous at that corner and our side in particular is dangerous. I find it safer to cross the street to walk out at night than to be on our side of the street. Also, the other concern was the fact that the woods, if you've looked at that area where the drainage easement begins, it drops off immediately into a steep hill. I don't see where you're going to find 5 feet even to put in a sidewalk without it dropping off. ~ Hasek: Is that station 1250-1415 that you're kind of addressing here? Scot t Harr i : Right. Cathy Clem: I have a question. I'm the one who started the petition originally...and I went specifically to the homeowners on the north side of Carver Beach Road and every single one of them signed the petition and said if you have to cut through my hedge or cut my hedge back a little bit, if I have to do this, I don't care. I'm in favor of putting a trailway in here. So my question to you is, did you check with any of the homeowners on that side? Mady: No. Resident: I'm sorry. ...As first time homeowners, I didn't know about right-of-ways. Now I do. Cathy Clem: How are you going to put 5 foot concrete sidewalk in there and not disturb our trees? And there's a watermain right there. What do they do with those? Do they just move them closer and repipe them and all that? I don't know. Anne Keeler: There's no corners on the other side of the street. We have 3 blocks... ~ Mady: The concerns we have, we recognize the safety problem. Unless we can get those right-of-ways given to us, the bottom line is budget. The trail thing failed. We don't have any money. We scraped this thing through last year. We just stole a tennis court out of another park and Park and Recreation Commission Meeting December 13, 1988 - Page 38 ....." that's where this came from. Sorry Curt. That's where we got the money last year because it's such a serious problem and we recognize it but to have to go out and buy additional easements, I don't know if we've got, we really don't have the money to do that. Jeff Keeler: So what you're saying is money is worth more than life? Mady: No. Jeff Keeler: That's what you're saying. Hasek: That's what the people of this community told you. Mady: We don't have an opportunity to spend anymore than we've got. That's what I'm telling you. That's it right there. Could we maybe put it on both sides ultimately but this is an opportunity, if we can get kids off the street that we can do. We don't know when we'll have the money honestly. We tried the trail thing twice and it's failed twice. Resident: I don't understand. When you've got 9 feet and the sidewalk is only 5 feet wide, that gives you an extra 4 feet to play with so I don't understand where you're having problems when you've got 9 feet of existing right-of-way right? The sidewalk is only 5 feet and that gives you 4 feet of play. My recollection of that north side of Carver Beach Road, that 4 feet should be more than enough play in there. More s than on the south side. .....,;' Scott Harri: I think your recollection is quite accurate. There is a lot of space that is available. The biggest stumbling block is coming with this hydrant that's located over here. with this, I guess a monument type mailbox. There are a number of real large evergreen trees here. That trunk and stuff is perhaps 15 to 18 feet behind the curb but they're so humongous that we'd have to just literally chop half the tree away in order to put the sidewalk there. I'm looking, personally I'm looking at those things as far as some of my decision making and recommendation. I'd like to perhaps address some of the philosophy about why I guess we were recommending that this be the preferred alternative. Even though I recognize, I think your arguments and your suggestions, I feel that the predominant location is going to come from people traveling from the south to the north up these three streets. If we propose a crossing here, that doesn't permit necessarily a safe crossing for people using penamint over here. By placing the sidewalk entirely on the south side, it allows for the majority of the users to have direct access without having to cross Carver Beach Road at anyplace except over here where there really is a more formal designated location. The traveling motorists, it would be my hope that they would recognize this as a more predominant pedestrian area seeing as that is located... Resident: We have cars... Resident: Why wouldn't you bring it all the way up to Nez Perce where ~ there's a 4 way stop so that all traffic has to stop there anyway and have people crossing there? Park and Recreation Commission Meeting December 13, 1988 - Page 39 .",..... Scott Harri: The location of most of the child active play equipment sits down here on the west side so it's most likely that, and here's the fence, the end of the fence is right here, it's more likely that people would jump off, cross Carver Beach Road, sneak around in to come and use the park over in this location as opposed to coming around... Jeff Clem: That's a park so the old lady... Scott Harri: That would be the place to park. That's correct. That's where you'd park. Resident: First there was Lori's petition and hopefully we got a lot of this started and everybody agreed... Mady: We spent a lot of time looking at that street. Specifically about this trail and we need to do whatever we can do. Whoever wants to do something and you're looking for the best thing. We may not be able to do the number one best thing this year but by god, if we can get those kids off the street because right now they're on the street. They have no choice. Anything is better than what we've got right now. We're not looking to create a problem situation but we definitely will be giving them something that they don't have right now. That's where I know I'm coming from. I feel sorry for those kids every day and we've got to do ",..... something about them. Boyt: ...bends around the corner. Continue the sidewalk, not all the way to Nez Perce. A little further so it's over the crest of the hill. Make a nice entrance into the park for the kids a third of the way down, half the way down. Something that's very inviting for them to go into. Resident: So they're crossing at a 4 way stop. So all traffic stops. Is that what you're saying? Boyt: We're not allowed to put stop signs I don't think. I wasn't talking about going all the way to Nez Perce but we could. We could send it down there. Make a new entrance into the park there. We've talked about landscaping needs to be done at that park. Move the entrance down th~re for the kids. Make it very exciting. Resident: I do have a trail for people taking the shortcut from the street up into the park. We're talking here about a path to make things safer for the kids, which I'm all in favor of as I've got a kid myself but the one thing I keep hearing over and over again is controlling the traffic on that street. Boyt: But we can't control that here. ,... Resident: ...if we can't control that, all the sidewalks isn't going is... Resident: But if you're going to plan a sidewalk that requires crosswalks, than it would be better to have the stop signs as a part of Park and Recreation Commission Meeting December 13, 1988 - Page 40 ..."" the proposed plan wouldn't you think? Boyt: We can make the recommendation about those stop signs but from what I've heard, they don't like you to put them in the middle of the road where there's not an intersection. It's real tough to get one there so we'd have to go down to the corner. Hasek: What's wrong with the corner of penamint Lane here? Mady: I know Jim Chaffee's talked about this. It's been in, not this particular street maybe but other streets. They won't put a stop sign in to control traffic. To slow traffic down. Resident: Why not? Mady: I don't know but that's what we're told. Resident: But Near Mountain got all these stop signs... Mady: I feel sorry for you and I agree with you 100%. We don't have the opportunity to do anything about it. That's a public safety. I'm surprised they have not... Sietsema: Well, it isn't exactly public safety. Stop signs and traffic is really engineering and that's probably why Public Safety Commission ha~ not seen it because it's really an engineering issue because it's got to go by what MnDot's standards are. We can't just arbitrarily go up and say this is a busy street, let's put a stop sign to slow down traffic. MnDot mandates when and where and how you can put up stop signs. To put it up on a through street... Resident: ...peop1e who need to know, listen to the tape of this conversation and see if we can convince them that something needs to be done. Resident: Or just tell us to show up someplace and we'll show up. Boyt: We did. We asked you to go to the Public Safety Commission. It's a group of volunteer people like us. They need to hear your concerns about fast cars. You need to go to the volunteers. You need to go to the Commission so the can make a recommendation on what can be done in your neighborhood. Sietsema: I will talk to Jim Chaffee and ask him where that petition is and what the status is and I will also talk to Gary Warren who is the City Engineer and ask him what the status of this is as well. Hasek: Can we get back to the trails then. The sidewalks. Resident: Than it seems to me that it's not in the best interest to approve the sidewalk on the south side until we have addressed the real concerns which is the safety, just because it's more cost effective. Safety is the issue. ..."I Park and Recreation Commission Meeting December 13, 1988 - Page 41 """"" Mady: You're right but what I'm trying to tell you is that we're not going to have any extra money this summer. Resident: Than don't do it. Wait. Sietsema: You'd rather have no trail? Mady: You'd rather have no trail and have kids in the street? Resident: I'd rather have you look seriously into the north side of it and the cost comparatives. Hasek: What you understand is you're bypassing an opportunity here because your opportunity is gone. You've turned down an opportunity that you had. There are other places in the City where this needs to be done and the money which was slated for this is going to go someplace else. Do you want to wait? I'm talking years for this to happen again because that's what it's going to be. I've got a trail that doesn't exist in my neighborhood and I'm not going to sit around and wait. I'm pushing very, very hard to get it done. This tells me that if you don't want it, that this is dollars available for me. Resident: This tells me that somebody is still going to be killed ~ whethere there's a sidewalk or not. Hasek: we have now. I because What we're trying to do is to put it in. It's an opportunity that and we're trying to get it done to the best of our ability right certainly don't want to recommend not approving the trail simply there's an issue that we have no control over. Resident: But you've got the right to qualify it right? Hasek: Qualify what? Certainly, we'll make recommendations. Absolutely. Resident: I have a question for you. Do you feel that you have adequately checked the north side that you would have the right not even saying that the...is unfeasible to run it on the north side? Scott Harri: Well, without acquiring additional some right-of-way. Hasek: We don't have the money. Mady: Unless the people are willing to give it to us, we don't have the money to acquire it. Resident: Do you have the time to check on that? To get together with any neighbors to see? .~ Mady: Sure. Certainly. Resident: I understand if we can't run it up the north side, than I guess I would feel most comfortable with it crossing where we've got a Park and Recreation Commission Meeting December 13, 1988 - Page 42 """"'" controlled cross and not just arbitrarily across Carver Beach Road someplace and relying on flashing signs. If we're going to do it, if it's going to go on the south side, let's run it all the way to Nez Perce where it's a 4 way stop. Everybody has to stop and let's let our kids cross safely and let's put a park entrance around the back. We're not cutting across his lawn down and get them that way. Rather than not doing the trail at all, then let's do it that way but I really feel like I'd like to have them check into the north side if at all possible. If that is not feasible, then let's run it up the south side and up to that 4 way stop. Hasek: Scott? Scott Harri: Yes. Hasek: What's the possibility, I guess I didn't track all of this, what's the possibility of crossing at, I mean is that a real bad vertical elevation right there? Scott Harri: The actual top of the hill is right at penamint right now. So therefore, if we propose a crossing to get them north across at that location, the hydrant just on the north side and east of penamint and the large evergreens that exist right there on that piece of property, that's the major obstacle on the north side is this area right in here with the hedge and the mailbox are and the hydrant and the large evergreen trees right there. ...there's the one evergreen and when you chop it... ...." Resident: ...chop that much, it would be right next to the sidewalk would be right next to the road? Scott Harri: There would be a...would have to come off. Resident: The City of Minneapolis has sidewalks going right around fire hydrants on both sides. Why couldn't that be done here? Scott Harri: I guess we never did consider putting a dual thing like that but it's...close enough to the street where we could possibly go behind it. Resident: ...I've been aware of this situation for quite some time, about the sidewalk situation. I've done a lot of this work as far as sidewalks and dirt work and everything and this is really the best feasible plan to do. On the south side you're going to butcher up, just like you said, that evergreen, moving fire hydrants, acquiring land is much, much more costly. This way you're going to get it in and I agree with stopping it there is very bad. This is true. There's nothing we can do right now but I can see it going up to Nez Perce. It's not hard to do. It isn't that hard. If I would have time, I could have probably gotten you enough fill to do that whole run all the way up there...where you wouldn't need a handrail. I could have sloped it and whatever. I've done it allover thf. place in a lot of different situations here in the city. You've got to g~ with it and it's going to take time but this is the way it should be done. All of your kids are on the south side. You're going to have them cross the street? Kids aren't going to cross the street ever. They go across Park and Recreation Commission Meeting December 13, 1988 - Page 43 "'" there and then go down penamint and then they're going to go down to Redwing and cross at the crossing? They're going to go right across. This way they're on the south side. There's only a few on the north side. Resident: Do you live facing the street? Because you're saying all the kids are on the south side and I guess I wouldn't agree with that based on the observation... Resident: The concentration of kids. Mady: Yes, where are the kids corning from that will go to that park? Resident: That black area where he's got it going across to the park now, that's a flat area for the kids. On their bikes, they can go right straight down if it's easy for them to do. If it's hard, they're not going to do it until it gets flat and that is a flat area. ...keep going, you go up to Nez Perce and then cross them there later. At least for now you're getting them off the road in a very bad situation on that hill. Resident: It says in here that you propose to put up a 30 mph speed limit sign west of the Nez Perce intersection. Why would you want 30 mph? That's way too fast. Mady: Because we can't post less than that. Legally you can't post less ,...... than 30. Resident: Why? Mady: It's a State law. Resident: 30 mph is too fast down that hill. Resident: Then don't post anything at all. Put a safety sign up. Caution, Children Playing. You don't even post the speed. Resident: Tonka Bay has them. Resident: I've seen signs with 20 and 25 before. Mady: You'll have to go to Council. You'll have to take this to Council. If we get back to this subject again, that again is a public safety situation. Resident: It's still part of this. I just wanted to bring that up. I live at the bottom of that hill and if the speed limit is 30, they're going to go 40. Resident: A recommendation looks better for 20 from you guys than it does ~ 30. Even though... Park and Recreation Commission Meeting December 13, 1988 - Page 44 ..""" Mady: Don't misinterrupt that. It's not going to do any good from us. You're going to have to go to Public Safety for that. We'll try for you but don't get your hopes up based on us. Resident: What is the propose...on whole area along the sidewalk? Is it basically 3 feet feet along the whole thing? Scott Harri: It's about 2 feet across over here to Chaparral. It varies from 3 feet and in general about 4 feet with one exception over at this location. All the way across here to this point is 4 feet and in here it narrows down to 2 feet and gets right along adjoining the street at about zero feet here. Then it varies back at this location from 3 feet to 10 feet as it jobs around the large tree and it follows about 3 1/2 feet to this point where it jobs back to the street at about 0 feet. Follows at 0 feet to avoid a very large tree over in this location and then jogs back to about 3 feet and 2 1/2 the rest of the way until it gets right along the street here again. Resident: How will you handle that going around the...and you're moving our fence. Scott Harri: We are proposing, yes your fence to be moved back, it's about 3 feet so it moves back up against that existing tree. You'll still the same alignment there but we'll have enough space in front of it ~ between the fence and the street to put the sidewalk in. Resident= And that tree, you say it will fit? Scott Harri: Yes, that tree will stay. We don't have to take that tree as a result of this construction. In fact, not along any of this corridor are we proposing to taking any trees. Resident: I don't know how you can fit it in by our Spruce. It's close. I hope you can...great. We don't have a backyard. If you take over our frontyardr what do we have? I want a sidewalk, believe me but the closer to the road it is, the happier we'll be. Scott Harri: Exactly and that's one of our desires also is to keep the sidewalks as close to the road but still at a reasonably safe distance from the existing road. But we don't want to see the sidewalk run so it's like right outside your front window. That's defeating the whole purpose also. Resident: Why did you have concrete proposal over asphalt? Scott Harri: Concrete is proposed in all urban built up areas. Sietsema: Because it goes in the front of homes, it was felt that it was a more attractive surface. ...",.I- Mady: In previous public meetings, one of the concerns was people didn't want blacktop in front of their house. They didn't mind cement sidewalks so much but blacktop. Park and Recreation Commission Meeting December 13, 1988 - Page 45 ,......., Resident: I'd probably have to agree with you but I think it's also... concrete sidewalks with creases every 10 feet. Scott Harri: There will be joints in the sidewalk every 5 feet. BecauSe this will be new construction, perhaps it's not like you found where the joints are really faulted and these are terribly large bumps and things. This should be a fairly smooth transition across each one. Schroers: I have a question that hasn't been brought up yet. When you cross the driveways with the sidewalk, particularly at just west of Redwing Lane, the corner house there has a driveway that's at a very steep angle. When you run your sidewalk across there, do you run it across or do you just come up to the driveway and then taper it off and then start the sidewalk again on the other side of the driveway? ,..... Scott Harri: I guess this plan actually depicts the sidewalk starting and stopping on each driveway. I guess taking different recommendations to the Commission and you right now, for a number of reasons, what we've proposed, constructing the sidewalk through everyone's driveway and there is, I guess some really good reasons to do that. Number one, and this has to do really with the maintenance of the sidewalk. If we stop the sidewalk in everybody's driveway, who's going to be responsible then for the upkeep of what would be kind of a private driveway in the public sidewalk area so our recommendation would be to extend the sidewalk through there. Then when the snowplowing and...things occur, there's less chance to damage that portion of the driveway and other things. We would prefer to see, let's say for instance if a puddle developed in your driveway for instance, where it's along the alignment of this thing, who would have to come out and repair the pothole in your driveway? If we come in now and install a sidewalk through there, I guess the City would be in a position to respond... Resident: You mean there's going to be a lip that we have to drive our car over? Scott Harr i : No, there wouldn't be. It would all be constructed' to match the grade and be very level with your present driveway. Schroers: So on that driveway that has a very steep angle, on that driveway the sidewalk would conform to that angle? Scott Harri: Exactly. That's correct. Schroers: So he's not going to have to go up over a bump? Scott Harri: No. It wouldn't be this real bumpy thing. Now there may be some slight transition in there if the crossload gets too expensive on the thing. We don't anticipate that happening though. ;: ",--. Resident: Is this entire trail going to be wheelchair accessible? Scott Harri: Yes. Park and Recreation Commission Meeting December 13, 1988 - Page 46 .....""" iJerrypautsen, 73135 Laredo": 1 lj,ve at the end of Laredo. I anxiously ,',wait' the i,ns'tallation of the s'idewalk. I have children who have to walk to' school" or they can not be bused. I think it's a very cr i tical issue for the City. I hope the next time the referendum comes up it passess by 2 votes or tA7hatever. I think e'Veh in the winter if they're not shoveled, I ,think it's a good feature. . Rel:iident: One of her question about the split rail fence and that would be replaced. Will our hedge also be replaced? Scott Harri: There's a hedge~~~ere too? Unde~neath the fence? Yes. That' will be'... .' , Resident: Also, you said the money is there already. will there be any assessments? Mady: No. None. Zero. Resident: Is there two sidewalks... Mady: Yes. Res ident: Thi:3, may sound stupid but what can I say. We've got the baby ......" hill that goes down right across f~om the park that we're all talking about okay. The way I understand it, as years go by, they'll get steeper. They do. They 'wash away. The ground washes away and stuff will squash right down the hill. Mady: with that situation, what the City has...the City has a continuing process where they fill in those things. They fix them. They repair them as they occur. They try to watch out. Resident: Does it have to be a 5 foot sidewalk? If you went to a narrower sidew~lk on the north side, would that... Scott Harri: The safe recommended separation, or I shouldn't say safe but a good use width for two people passing and the walking space is 5 feet. Allow 2 1/2 feet per person. Anything narrower and you're likely going to find people walking ont~et.rails. And interestingly, the standards, the more y6u giVe '-to a person',' the less space you actually need. . ,f Hasek: I guess I have a quick question related to that. You've got, apparently where there's a fairly steep area you've got a handrail running alongside which effectively decreases the width of that sidewalk. Is that something that we should maybe take a second look at? Scott Harri: I think there's 6 inches that we could expand that out to to insure that there's a nominal of 5 foot width in there. This is one of ~. those areas that compromises. It's an area that's a little bit more difi:icult~ I believe that there is 6 inches that we could expand out because that actual flash brought up there varies from about 5 to about 7 feet wide before it actually drops off so there's an adequate space up Park and Recreation Commission Meeting December 13, 1988 - Page 47 ~ there that we can get a few more inches. Resident: Now that you mention .thatl)andr.ail, .wha.t' s the handrail g.oiog to be like? Is it going td be ~ rail tha~'s only like 2 1/2 feet~ff the ground or is it going to have a spot there that kids won't fall through? Scott Harri: It will be a regular round, inch and a half diamete~.pipe handrail that will be about 42 inches high... . It will be fairly strud~. Mady: That's one of the t~in9s...and I think I mentioned it to Lori when we were talking about this. Maybe you want to consider a chainlink fence there instead of a handrail. Hasek: I don't want to se~ ~ chainlirik fence. I'd rather see another couple of rails woven into the railing than a chainlink fence. Resident: That is a steep hill and we do have small children walking around there that just, I've got them too. Resident: Maybe if the top rail was a little wider so it'd be a problem for kids to hang onto, maybe it'd be a little bit less attractive. You know 1 1/2, 2 inch pipe, a kid can wrap their hand around pretty well. Mady: I think we need to maybe move a little bit on this. The r' Commissioners need some discussion. See what their thoughts are. Resident: Can I toss one more questiori in about that portion of the sidewalk. Apparently sir you feel confident that there is not a flat surface there. That down the road a few years that sidewalk iSQ't going to start sliding on down the hill? You aren't going to have to do a lot of filling in down along the hill there? Boyt: I think we ought to go with the sidewalk that's proposed. Robinson: It sounded like the majority recommends going down here on the south side and then go acro,ss. ,Oh, is that what ,y~u' x:e saying? "i, .:1 (.iI Boyt: Yes. . . ",\ ,':.c. Robinson: That's what I would prefer. .; (j :.: :; Hasek: I think we to Nez Perce and I traffic hazards to about it. . .' . ought to go. wi.t'h' it as, think we ought to send the Council just to let 'T . .' .- . [.;, proposed with thee,ctens-ioQ', q-pwn along a little comment about the them know that we're concerned Mady: I have a question of staff. of going up the other side? "\ ,:. ~,:,'r:J. n ; '0' ~ . ~', . ;"'i J f: Do YOu feel that there's just no way: .. J "'::OJG Sietsema: ,,-.. Not if we have to acquire easements. .": :)[1' Mady: Do you think if we allow the residents a month, 6 weeks to contact those residents to see what they can work out with them, that we. might be Park and Rec,re..tion Commission Meeting December 13,1988 -()8ge50 lu ---- " Mark Koegler :;"'They're iaunediately east. This property line right here is the common property: line of Rosemount. The road: sits about over in here. there will be a wooded area between the two, that it's my understanding won't be disturbed. Mady: And we also own all that land. The City has all that land between Rosemount and the l~ke. Right at the bottom. Mark Koegler: This segment here which hooks:;up'on this side of the plan. Mady moved, Robinson seconded that the Park 'and Recreation Commission recommendto'approve the site plan for Lake Susan park as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried. " Schroers: I just have one quick question for staff. Could staff check kwith maintenance to see if they could flood a small area in the south ; Lotus park area, Curt's neighborhood, just for small kids in that area? Boyt: It looks so flat out by the football. Schroers: Yes, right out in that area. If we could get just a little rink to pacify some of those kids in the area. - '" -.-/' Hoffman: We've all three taken a look at that area and Dale has stated that there's a possibly that he could get a real low grade, small, not a real satisfying job done out there. If you choose to tell him to do that, to recommend that he do' that, he probably would. He just doesn't feel real comfortable about it because he went out there and walked it and you can see it. First of all, it's an uneven grade. It's a slope and then it's got hills and dales and that type of thing. Schroers: Actually we would be better off looking ahead at doing some minor grading work there in the summer and then possibly doing it next year. Heffman: Yes. Schroers: 1 did have aome residents contact me in regards to that and I would 11keto be able to' give them some kind of a reasonably positive infermation. Sietsema: The other thing is that we've added quite a few rinks this year and our staff is really... Robinson' moved,Schroera seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned. Submitted by Lori Sietsema Park and Ree Coordinator -' prepared by Nann Opheim