PRC 1987 05 05
cZ"
--
PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
".... MAY 5, 1987
Chairman Lynch called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m..
MEMBERS PRESENT: Ed Hasek, Curt Robinson, Mike Lynch, Jim Mady, Larry
Schroers and Carol Watson
STAFF PRESENT: Lori Sietsema, Park and Rec Coordinator
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Robinson moved, Hasek seconded to approve the Minutes
of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated April 7, 1987. All
voted in favor and motion carried.
PARK NEEDS SURVEY, PAT PFAHL.
EdHasek : I would like to apologize for not being able to contribute to
this thingc in time. I feel a little remiss about that. I was asking Larry
what he thought the average for the time submitted for each call and he said
he thought it went about 20 to 25 mintues just because he couldn't say no to
these people.
Lynch: I think if we did it again, we would hussle some folks to do it that
don't know anything about the parks because it was really difficult when
somebody said, gee I wish they had a boat landing in town and you would go,
well.
,....
Pat Pfahl: It was interesting when I was going through the results and
coded them all first and then we entered them into the computer. I'm not
sure who was doing it but on a couple of them, we had three categories,
less, the same or more, some of them made an extra category don't know or
other and then they would x other.
Lynch: I was tempted to do that. If I were to do it again, that's what I
would want on there. A don't know or don't care. Complete apathy call.
Pat Pfahl: We coded them 0 and just to run through this quickly. I was
pretty comfortable with what we got. 47% males, 50% females. If you flip
to where the information starts, which is like the third page, you might
want to spend some time on this later on tonight or at some point because
it's tough to just hit it dry and catch what we're looking at. We had .219
samples and you can see for the number in a household, average household
size we got was 3.12. It's a little larger than what the estimates that I
found were. The average household size estimated for Chanhassen was 2.86
and we got 3.12. I don't think it's anything to be concerned about.
Household and personal information was pretty representative of the general
population so we're satisfied with that. Moving into facilities, here's
where we got some of the meat of the study itself. How to interpret that?
Remember on the survey, if you'll notice I put a copy of the survey at the
end, the facilities and it's written in the front here too, how it's
bordered on too few. If you look way on the right side. The frequency,
,.... that's the way it's ordered in that order so if people say we don't have
enough bike paths or whenever asked what do you think of bike paths, 148
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 5, 1987 - Page 2
,.....
people said there were too few paved bike paths in Chanhassen. I keyed off
of the too few just because that was probably the most relevant information
that we're looking at. Just enough was kind of middle of the road. If you
notice which ones are on the top there, one of the major issues that we were
concerned about was the trail network. The first one is paved bike paths,
walking paths and number 6 is hiking trails. If you look at those, those
are the ones that were over 50% on the too few. Those are kind of the ones
I keyed off of.
Lynch: Jogging trails and hiking trails are 6th and 7th so four out of the
top ten, 50% or more all pertain to the same item.
Pat Pfahl: It was pretty consistent with some of the state data that's
available from the Department of Natural Resources too. I checked on some
studies and walking paths are up there when people are asked on a statewide
basis. Swimming pools are up there. Open air shelters. Open air shelters
wasn't in there. We put that one in there ourselves but picnic areas were a
big one. I think open air shelters kind of go right along with the picnic
area so if you look at the top seven, those are probably some of the key
information there. Even the top eight, racquetball courts. That had quite
a big response. Any questions on the facilities section?
Lynch: The program section set up on would you participate call.
"""?at Pfahl: Exactly like Mike said, it's keyed off of the first yes. Would
you participate if it was offered in Chanhassen? I entered another
statistic which if you look at percent increase in participation, it's that
middle statistic there. You might want to draw an arrow down to it. That
relates to the yes in currently participates to the yes in would you
participate if it was offered.
Hasek: So what you're saying is if you look down at that column, that kind
of tells you what the people want. Is that what that does?
Pat Pfahl: Well, the first column itself is the key column. The frequency
of responses yes, they would. As support information on making particular
decisions for looking at say the swimming pool. You might want to look at
how this number might corne in. How many people are using it already. 66%
of the people surveyed said they would use a swimming pool. To look back at
what percent of people are currently using a pool to give you kind of an
idea of increase we're looking at there. 26% increase. Some of them are
kind of interesting. If we look down at the bottom of the page, youth
hockey, 74% increase in the increase in participation if it was offered. I
believe there is already a youth hockey program available.
Lynch: That's what I found. A lot of people didn't have the slightest idea
of what programs were available.
Pat Pfahl: They just don't know and it might be helpful for Lori, that
.~olumn there, when you're developing some promotional programs to key off of
chat. Figure out what people, maybe they're not aware of some of the
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 5, 1987 - Page 3
services that are available like the youth hockey with a 74% increase of
people who said they would if it was available and it is available so I put
that statistic in for those reasons. Use it on an individual basis. Any
other questions. I know there's a lot of data there to try and consume at
one time.
.."",
Hasek: It seems to me like if you could get a 75% up to the top of that
center column, that would be the one big plus. The higher you could get in
that column.
Pat pfahl: The higher you get the better it is, right and you have to look
at your total numbers you're working with too.
Hasek: Your 40%, 43%, 41% and halfway down tennis is a big notation.
Pat Pfahl: Those are key when, a little further into the survey, when we
start talking about indoor recreational facility. You can pull back on
tennis, the later lessons. What are people saying they want here if it's
available? 46% of the people said that they would use it if it was
available and that's a significant raise than are currently using it also
somewhere else. 40%.
Watson: The statistic of people saying they will participate that aren't
now participating for things that already exist, there are several of them.
Pat Pfahl: Exactly, that's why I was saying to Lori it would helpful to us~
that maybe to promote that a little more. Try to target it a little more.
Watson: Maybe those programs are full. If we're getting people who say
they will participate if it's available and yet those programs like the
karate program is growing to the point where she doesn't even know what to
do with it anymore there are so many kids in it. It's a huge program. It
beats gymnastics. There are gymnastics and that's usually a full program.
They usually have people participating if they've got room for them.
Pat Pfahl: One thing, maybe some of the gentlemen that were doing the
survey, Larry and Mike and Jim.
Mady: One thing I noticed when we were calling, when you heard babies in
the background or heard kids screaming in the background they tended to
answer yes to a lot of the questions like youth gymnastics, things like
that. It was almost guarantee on those types of questions.
Lynch: One thing I did notice with parents, especially the young parents,
anybody that had one under 10, when you say children they say oh yes, one
boy age 6. They give you the facts and then their answers depended on
whether they had male or female children. You knew by the time you got to
Little League baseball, youth hockey, just forget it. They've got this girl
and it's dance and gymnastics and that's it. They still don't want Cynythia
to play Little League baseball.
...,.,
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 5, 1987 - Page 4
,.....
Robinson: Will you use in the community task force thing some of this
information? I think it's really interesting that youth hockey thing. I
happen not to be a hockey parent but if you look at how many participate
now, it's down on the bottom, would you participate, household participate,
only 24% next to the bottom and only 4% participate now. We've got some
very aggressive people when it comes to hockey facilities programs in the
city.
Hasek: You find that most of the communities centers that have been put up,
a lot of that has been done by a hockey program has gotten behind it first
and gotten the rest of it involved.
Robinson: And I think that's the way they really pursue it. They are very
aggressive so they look for it but that's a new thing to me.
Pat Pfahl: This is one that Lori put in, what park do you most often use in
Chanhassen? I think people didn't know or they knew Lake Ann and just said
it. We kind of missed out on that question I felt because people didn't
know where the parks were. A lot of responses on that, the no responses, I
put all the Arboretum, all the regional parks that are located around, in
the no response because it's not a local facility and it just didn't make a
whole lot of sense to me.
~Mady: What this thing tells me is that we haven't done our job in letting
leople know what's available. What parks are available for use or they know
there's one down the street but they don't know for who.
Watson: Or they just don't go there.
Lynch: I know in a lot of cases there's no interest.
Mady: A lot of the facilities there's nothing there. It's a nice big open
field and they keep the grass cut but unless you're going to get a pick-up
softball game or football game or soccer game together, there's nothing else
for them to do there.
Watson: Right, and if there are swingsets for kids, they go there because
the kids want to go there so that's where they say they go but if they play
soccer or softball or anything, they're apt to say they use Lake Ann Park.
Schroers: Is there a sign up on the local parks?
Watson: Yes. A lot of them are neighborhood type parks so it would be hard
for people in Chaparral for instance not to know about Meadow Green Park. I
don't see how you could miss it but they may not necessarily go there.
Sietsema: Or they may not go there the most."
Schroers: But then on the other hand, Carver Beach Park is really out of
~he way and a lot of people wouldn't know about that.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 5, 1987 - Page 5
~
Mady: A lot of pos i t i ve response on Ca rver Beach was they use Carver Beach
because they swim there, and take the boat up by there.
Sietsema: But the question was what one do you most often use and they
might go to Carver Beach and Greenwood Shores and all those other parks but
they go to Lake Ann most.
Watson: Because that's where the swimming lessons are and that's where the
baseball and soccer is played.
Sietsema: That's where the lifeguards are.
Lynch: I found that most of the people who were in the residency, 1 to 5
year or better category and had children had some ready answers. If they
were newer than 1 to 5 or if they didn't have children, who cares.
Schroers: What surprised me was how cooperative and nice everybody was. I
think out of all the calls I made, two people said they weren't interested.
Everyone else said, wait a minute I have to turn the stove off and I'll come
back to you and your questions and they were really cooperative.
Mady: Even when we had some of Lori's part time people helping out.
Sietsema: They got through it a lot quicker than some of us who knew thing~
about the parks because they could just say they didn't know.
....."",
Pat Pfahl: The community center. A big response. 79% wanted it. You can
tie it back. This is one of those that I was considering summarizing again
and pulling all the information off but I thought if I started pulling
information out of facilities and programs, it just wouldn't work right
because you couldn't see the order that it was pulled out of the facilities
and programs so on that, you kind of have to flip the page back and look at
what order swimming lessons, open swimming, tennis league, indoor running
track, indoor tennis, those types of things relay them back to the community
center. Things that would be specifically in there.
Schroers: What I think would be interesting would be to find out how these
people were interested in funding the community center.
Mady: Not many people were excited about paying more taxes.
Schroers: There were some people that didn't even think about it, they just
said raise the taxes. That's kind of general. That's hot pertaining
specifically to the results.
Pat Pfhal: Since we're on the topic of users fees and the question, do you
feel the following method is acceptable? 80% say user fees are acceptable.
Grant Scholen the parks planner for the Met Council in February did a
fairly comprehensive survey on the users fees, how to administer them, how
to set them and everything about the user fees in the metropolitan area.
It's quite a thick report. I brought a copy along for Lori just in case yo~
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 5, 1987 - Page 6
,.....,
do decide to maybe looking into implementing the use of fees in parks or
even in the reacreational center and community center if that's built
sometime in the future.
Hasek: Just a general question on that. Does he get to the point where he
breaks down what's an acceptable user's fee for specific services?
Pat Pfahl: He studied everybody that's charging fees in the area so you can
kind of extract what's an acceptable fee by what they're charging over here,
entrances at the door at the gate. It's a good report. To jump back, the
first question for each of the services please indicate, again, I put them
in the order under the frequency of response rate in a decreasing order
there. Improvement to the trail network is right on the top, number 1. 65%
of the people said to spend more on the trails. It kind of drops pretty
steadily although the two are pretty close but after that it drops down. It
seems people are satisfied with the landscaping and the policing that is
going on right now. That was the feeling I got from talking to people.
Mady: We don't have a current real problem area like we did about 4 or 5
years ago with beer parties and those type of things.
Pat Pfahl: So the first three there are probably the most important.
Improvement and enlargement of the trail network and physical improvements
~to programs to enable specific programs and organized recreational programs.
Robinson: There's trails right up there at the top again. Trail network.
Pat pfahl: That's what I was referring to back on facilities. It recurred
here a few times. That's what we try to do in designing this survey. To
put it in a couple of places to verify that and I think it did. It did with
the community center too because swimming and aerobics are right up there on
top of the programs.
Hasek: Number 4, acquiring additional parkland, that's kind of level at the
end there with 42% and 46%. Do you think that's a response not dissimilar
to the previous one which maybe indicated that people didn't know where
parks were. They didn't know how many we had so that was just kind of a
jump off questions.
Mady: That was one when, Larry I don't know what you thought when you were
hearing responses but that's kind of what I felt.
Lynch: I felt they just winged it.
Schroers: I got three or four responses that said they would like to see
our existing parks improved. See money spent on improving the parks and
sticking it into trails rather than acquiring more park. They were probably
thinking of the facilities that have ballfields and these type of things.
That seemed to be the impression that I got.
JIll"'"
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 5, 1987 - Page 7
.....""
Pat pfahl: Larry, was that just a qualifier for an answer to that one
because the question basically asks physical improvements to specific
programs on number 2. They just kind of answered and then reiterated that?
Schroers:
parkland,
improving
people or
before we
Yes, more or less. When I asked a question acquiring additional
they were just real quick to say let's spend the money on
what we have and making it more accessible and more available to
make people more aware of what we have and develop it further
take on anymore property.
Pat Pfahl: This wasn't the order it was asked in. This is the order of the
results so if acquiring it was number 2 when the actual test was given so
that response was given...
Mady: I would say that got the largest negative response.
Lynch: The average person I talked to about this, have always felt that we
should go shopping first for parkland. They don't realize that we have to
do it on a development by development basis and when you explain that to
them they say, gee, how do you do that?
Schroers: Also, when you try to explain that your 7 minute survey turns
into about 213.
Lynch: Oh yes, you can't deny that.
....."
Hasek: One thing people forget is Chanhassen is a rapidly developing
comunity and as you're growing, although we would like to develop every park
we have right now immediately, we have to take the opportunity to take what
land is available now because 113 years down the road that land may not be
there or the opportunity to acquir it then. At least not useable land.
Robinson: I
questionaire
not listed.
Should that
have a question on number 3, program. I notice in the
basketball is listed but in your survey results basketball is
You've got baseball there and you have Little League baseball.
general baseball be basketball I wonder?
Pat Pfahl:
You caught me.
Robinson: The reason is I happen to have kids who like basketball and I
didn't see it on there and I thought basketball was on there.
Pat Pfahl: I had it typed in the afternoon yesterday so it's hard to tell.
Lynch: I thought basketball was oriented wasn't it?
Pat Pfahl: Just generic basketball.
Robinson: Just a comment that I think we sort of got out of this,
everything that we planned to and probably then some and I think a lot of
that goes to Pat's work. I think he did an excellent job. -'
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 5, 1987 - page 8
If!"'"
Lynch: Copies of this I assume are going to the Council? Is Pat going to
take time to explain to them or answer questions for them?
Sietsema: I'm hoping that he is.
Pat pfahl: I put my number on the front too so you can contact me there if
there are any further questions.
PROPOSED EAGLE SCOUT PROJECT, JEREMY JENSON.
Jeremy Jenson: First of all I would like to discuss my project supervisors
I picked out and the main reason I picked these people out is because they
are construction workers or they know about building things and I know them
personally. The first one is Ed Newinski and he's a former scout master and
he is also a construction worker. I already asked him for his help and he
said he would anytime. Next is Chuck Schmidt, he's our scout master
currently and he also is a construction worker and he said he would help me
out. Mark Paul, John Paul's father who has helped John and I put together
the plans, is a contractor and builds houses and we borrowed his tools and
everything to make this. Next is Richard Wrase, I know his son through
school and he is a contractor and he owns his own business for construction
and he builds houses. Those are my project supervisors and basically what
they would be doing is coming down to the project and helping out with their
~)dvice and overseeing everything to make sure it gets done properly.
Basically just watching over and making sure they don't mess up. I'll be
down there too but I just need some extra knowledge to help me out there.
My time of completion, which is an estimate, is July 15th. I plan to have
it done by then. The actual construction won't take very long because
basically this is not like steep stairs work where it takes lots of physical
labor. This is not a gigantic thing. Things needed from the City is a
permit okay and I already went through procedures for that. I filled out a
form and I gave it to them and financing. I will be going in front of the
City Council on the 18th and I will be asking them for financing. I have my
prices here but I will just go in front of them with this?
Sietsema: You have to give the prices to these people and they have to make
a recommendation to the City Council. You have to sell them first.
Lynch: Basically it's just a finished cost. Not where it comes from but we
have to look at that and look at your plans and then we have to recommend
that the Council do it.
Jeremy Jenson: Okay, here are my material costs. First of all cement, I
got John Paul's father, since he knows a lot about building I had him help
me put this together. For cement it's going to cost, we went out to
Menard's and got these, it's going to cost around $150.00. Lumber, I need
17-2 by 10's and that's going to be $199.07 and I need 25-2 by 6's which is
going to be $150.75 then 25-2 by 4's which is going to be $102.00. The
~ardware, including the metal rods which run up through the cement to
;tabilize the bridge so I can pack it good is going to cost $100.00
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 5, 1987 - Page 9
..""",
approximately. The delivery cost to have them deliver it to my house where
we're going to be pre-building the bridge is going to be $28.00 and we'll
have them sent there and then have everybody come to my house which I'll
send out flyers and things and have everybody come and we'll get it pre-
built and cut to size and then bring it out there. Before we do that we'll
have to put the footings in.
Lynch: Put the footings in in a couple weeks and then pre-build the bridge
at your house, tear it back down and take it down there and set it up.
Jeremy Jenson: I called up on tubes and the cost which I figured out is
going to be $144.32. They are expensive but they're needed. They are
sonnet tubes. They are tubes that you sink into the ground and into the
cement so it will dry properly.
Lynch: We're figuring 8 footings?
Jeremy Jenson: Yes.
Sietsema: What was the grand total of the amount of materials.
Jeremy Jenson: $944.29. The actual bridge itself is going to be 26 feet
long and this is to scale, 1/2 inch goes 1 foot. 26 feet ;long and it's
going to be in three sections. The first section is going to be 8 1/2, the
middle is 9 and the other is 8 1/2. It's going to be 4 feet across and thE
construction this way, these are going to be 2 by l0's that look sort of .~
like this. There are going to be three 2 by l0's and then three 2 by l0's
and then three 2 by l0's so there is going to be three all the way across.
Then here, 2 by 6's and these are going to be supporting the 2 by l0's and
they will be going like this. Those will be supporting the 2 by l0's on
cement pillars so it will give the bridge much more support. The railing is
going to be 3 feet high and the total from the bottom of the bridge to the
top of the railings is going to 4 feet, 4 1/2 inches. This is without
spacing. What I'm going to do is have the people take a construction pencil
and just space it, like stick a pencil in and space it that way. That's
the easiest way to do it. The 2 by 4's are going to be along the railing
here and I checked with the City Engineer and it's to code as far as the
space inbetween so it's okay with the City as far as that goes. I did add
the extra support on the railings. They are going each section so I will
have 8 actually, 2 on each. I talked with Mr. Gregory who is the
maintenance man and he said he sees no problem with it and everything is
okay. The construction is going to be on Chanhassen Ponds Park. The creek
is small but it will be nice when it's all finished. One other cost that I
did not tell you is for rocks which will be about $20.00 just to go before
the bridge and after it.
Lynch: And down those sides. Steve is going to have extra railroad ties so
we can bank it. I think he's almost tied in now. I have to talk to him
about two more things up on top but he's going to have 50 ties left over.
Jeremy Jenson: Are there any questions at all?
--'
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 5, 1987 - Page 10
,....
Lynch: The onl y th i ng tha t I do wan t us to wa tch though Jeremy is tha t the
bridge top, the surface that you're going to walk on, be relatively level
with the approach and exit so it will come down steep steps onto the flat.
You should approach it relatively flat from this side and then on the other
side of course the hill goes up a little bit so don't start and get built up
and figure out that you're 3 feet above the approach and have to put steps
up to the bridge.
Jeremy Jenson: I'm expecting to do some digging out so the bridge can go in
flat across there.
Lynch: The one thi ng tha t we wan t to be able to do is tha t people can at
some time in the future depending on what we do with those trails, go
through there with bicycles. Steve left enough room on both sides of his
steps that you walk up the steps and walk a bike but if you have steps going
up to the bridge, you would have to pick the bike up and carry it up and
that would be tough.
Hasek: Is there a possibility Jeremy for those cross numbers between those
four spots we cross the concrete piers that you could use timbers in there?
Those extra railroad ties. That kind of ties the trail into the bridge
then.
Jeremy Jenson: That could be possible.
,.....
Hasek: It's not going to be any cost savings just for those few pieces bi t
it might be nice.
Lynch: Take a look at the railroad ties that are left over and see if they
are solid enough.
Jeremy Jenson: That's what I was going to say because the timbers are so
rough.
Lynch: Now the rest of the lumber you figured as a treated green wood?
Jeremy Jenson: Yes. Are there any other questions?
Lynch: Lori, if Steve finishes up right away we'll have to watch if Dale
goes in and picks those other timbers up. We'll have to have you get some
that you need for the downhill.
Sietsema: I can make a note to Dale to leave them until he's gone through
them.
Hasek moved, Watson seconded to recommend approval of the Eagle Scout
project constructing a bridge as presented by-Jeremy Jenson. All voted in
favor and motion carried.
,.....
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 5, 1987 - Page 11
...."",
SITE PLAN REVIEWS:
MACKENDALE ADDITION, DAVE STOCKDALE, APPLICANT.
Sietsema: This subdivision is on Galpin Blvd.. It's in the
rural area. It's 12 1/2 acres that's going to be divided into 12 ~ingle
family lots and one agricultural lot Basically, because it's in the rural
area there are only 3 lots being proposed. We recommend that we get a 20
foot trail easement along Galpin Blvd. for future trail purposes.
Hasek :
Is that the side that we want it on?
Sietsema: We have nothing in tenn.s of trails
along Galpin at this point. It shows in one of
the phases that's on the trail plan that we're going to look at later to
have a trail along Galpin. I think it's a good idea that we start working
on it now g.!3 the opportunity arises.
Hasek: Is this north of the homes that are in there right now?
Dave Stockdale: Prince's property is right there. There is a house right
here. There are three separate lots. This is not part of the piece in
question.
Robinson: Would this be consistent with what we look for in that?
Dave Stockdale: On the 20 foot easement, there are some real large spruce
trees that are in that 20 foot easement. -'
Watson: It will wind around them.
Hasek: If there's enough room, maybe we could just work with you on it. Is
there enough room to go between that road surface? No, that would have to
go into the ditch then?
Dave Stockdale: I think it's beyond the ditch.
Hasek: That's what I'm saying. Is there room to get around them or are
they actually in the way?
Dave Stockdale: I haven't checked it out but I'm pretty sure they are right
in the middle of that 20 foot path.
Sietsema: Within the 20 foot easement we would typically put an 8 foot wide
trail and it wouldn't have to be right down the middle if that's where those
trees are. We would definitely not take out trees if we didn't have to.
Dave Stockdale: Is there some documentation that would address those trees?
Sietsema: We can work it into the motion if you would like us to.
Hasek: Unless they are surveyed, we don't know exactly where they are.
Would you be opposed to the tr ail go i ng on the ins ide 0 f the trees if the .....",
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 5, 1987 - Page 12
,...
trees are actually closer to the outside of the easement?
Dave Stockdale: When I bought this land 2 1/2 years ago, I applied for a
Conditional Use Permit on this portion which I may be doing again in the
process of development. At the time they requested a berm behind those
trees and we would be cutting into that berm at that point if you did make
that recommendation.
Sietsema: The trail could go between the trees and the berm then.
Hasek: There might be a little wall or something or regrade it a little
bit, that wouldn't bother you?
Dave Stockdale: That doesn't bother me.
Watson: It's a substantial berm that is not goin to affect anyone on the
other side of it.
Schroers: Is this 20 feet that we're asking for, is that 20 feet over from
the road surface or 20 feet over from the road right-of-way?
Sietsema: Right-of-way.
Dave Stockdale:
"""et?
This is the first path, you don't have anything along there
Sietsema: We don't have anything along Galpin to date. This will be the
first section of many.
Watson: It won't be there the day after tomorrow anyway but in order to
provide us with the opportunity to provide a bicycle trail or walking trail
along there, we pick up a piece at a time as we get connected but at this
point it is so that it's there for the use when...
Sietsema: And when you sell those lots you should make sure that the people
you sell them to are aware that it is there because we don't want any
surprises down the road either.
Dave Stockdale: Snowmobiles aren't allowed on these trails?
Sietsema: No.
Schroers: That might even be a good selling feature. Some people like the
idea that there is going to be a trail off the road.
Dave Stockdale: If that does happen, who is liable for people who have
accidents on my property on your easement?
Lynch: It's city property so if the City puts a trail in, they are
~esponsible for the trail and whatever happens on it.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 5, 1987 - Page 13
Dave Stockdale: Does that need to be put in writing?
..""",
Sietsema: Not typically it isn't put in there. It's pretty much
understood.
Dave Stockdale: I understand but it's still on the property.
Sietsema: It's still your property but any injuries I think would go back
to the City but for any damage that would happen to your property, wouldn't
necessarily go back to the City.
Hasek: Who would you talk to, the City Attorney on that?
Sietsema: It's like a sidewalk. It's the same thing as you're in St. Louis
Park and you're on a sidewalk and you fall down off your bike and you get
hurt. That sidewalk is an easement more or less. Of if they throw a rock
from the sidewak into your window, it's the same type of deal.
Hasek: You may just want to check with the City Attorney to find out what
he says.
Dave Stockdale: If he tells me that there is something to file or something
to be specified or come back and talk in person?
Watson: It could be clarified in your final development plan if there is
any legal clarification necessary. ~
Hasek: I think they will also require when you finally submit this drawing
that it has that 20 foot easement shown on it.
Dave Stockdale: Under the recommendation for 20 feet and they put that park
dedication fees in lieu of parkland...
Sietsema: Typically in any subdivision, the developer is required to pay
$415.00 per unit park dedication fee unless he gives a portion of his
property equal to about 10% for park purposes then he would get a credit.
This trail easement would not qualify as a credit for your park dedication.
You would still be responsible for the $415.00 per unit.
Lynch: That $415.00 fee is adjusted annually and you pay that and take it
off your permit for each unit.
Sietsema: When you take out your building permit.
Dave Stockdale: Is there a reason why that piece doesn't deserve a credit
towards park fees?
Sietsema: Because it's an easement and not a dedication for one thing and
the other thing is because you're creating a need for that trail by
developing the land.
..."",
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 5, 1987 - Page 14
,....,
Hasek moved, Mady seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend
to acquire a 20 foot trail easment along Galpin Boulevard to serve as a
future trail connection and to accept park dedication fees in lieu of park
land. Also, that the Staff work with the developer to leave the existing
spruce trees wherever possible. All voted in favor and motion carried.
SITE PLAN REVIEW: SHADOWMERE, HILLOWAY CORPORATION, APPLICANT.
Sietsema: This subdivision lies just to the north of the houses on Frontier
Trail and east of Chan Vista. Big Horn Drive in Chan vista comes right up
here and there is an easement shown for Carver Beach Road to be extended
that would come into Big Horn Drive. This development is along Lotus Lake.
It's 15 acres proposed to be subdivided into 27 single family lots. This is
not a park deficient area. It lies within the service areas of Chan
Vi sta, Carver Beach and Meadow Green, it's not park def ic ient. It's not far
from Chan Elementary which has a park so this is not a park deficient area.
What I'm proposing here is to get a trail easement along the Carver Beach
Road extension so we are sure that we will have the trail that will connect.
Up in Triple Crown Estates we've got a trail easement that goes along the
creek that's in there. So we've got the trail that comes in through here
already. All we need is this connection here and we've got Carver Beach
Road and Big Horn already all connected but the major connection because
~carver Beach is just up and down the road.
Jim Fennig: I would like to have the trail within the right-of-way.
Sietsema: Once the street is put in, it probably will be put into the
right-of-way but for now, without the street in there, to make that trail
connection now, we'll have an easement along the right-of-way.
Jim Fennig: This is not dedicated. This is highway right-of-way so what
you're saying is you want it on the west line of the property. What you're
saying is you want the easement along the west line of the property which is
over here.
Robinson: Why did we only get 10 feet from...
Hasek: I'll bet you because it was originally only intended to be a 20 foot
trail right-of-way would be my guess and they were going to take 10 feet
from one and 10 feet from the other and for some reason they decided to
connect the roads for circulation or for whatever reason so now we have a
road right-of-way which is 20 feet. Is there a natural dedication on the
other side of your property along there or is it just an easement?
Jim Fennig: Here it's only the 40 feet of width and then it runs out to
private property but as you're park person indicated, there is a trail on
the west side, they have an easement for a trail along the dike. That
really makes a lot of sense to have that trail up on that dike if you go
~own Carver Beach Road.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 5, 1987 - Page 15
Hasek: How wide is that little finger that sticks up right there?
Jim Fennig: This is 20 feet wide. That's all the property I own there.
""""'"
Hasek: Was that access to an old farm or something?
Jim Fennig: No, that was the only access to this property before this
property was platted.
Mady moved, Robinson seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend that the City acquire a street easement wide enough to accommodate
a trail for the Carver Beach Road extension along the west side of the
proposed development and that the City accept park dedication fees in lieu
of park land. All voted in favor and motion carried.
SITE PLAN REVIEW:
CREEK RUN, ROBERT ENGSTROM ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT.
Sietsema: This is 4.8 acres that's proposed to be subdivided into 10 single
family lots. It's about a fourth of a mile north of Lake Lucy Road on the
west side of Yosemite. There are no existing parks in the area. There is a
6 acre park proposed for Centex Homes which is down in this area. The one
that we just talked about last time which would then be within the service
area of that park when it is developed. This development is less than 5
3cres so the whole development can't be considered for a neighborhood park
because we have a policy of a minimum of 5 acres. Therefore, we are ...".,
recommending that we get a trail easement along Yosemite as a future trail
connection down to Lake Lucy Road which will have a trail easement
constructed along with the street improvement there. That would be the same
thing, a 20 foot wide easement along the street that would get these people
out to the main trail system.
Robert Engstrom: The topography is extremely rugged in there especially on
this end here. We don't have a problem with the idea of a trail but I don't
know how you could get one in here. The only real trees on the property are
right in this area following these heavy lines here and this looks like it
drops off 15 feet or so. It's just a gorge. It's a deep gorge and I don't
even know if you put the trail in the right-of-way if you could get a trail
in the right-of-way and even if you did have it where you show it, I don't
know who would access it because you would have to go into that deep gorge
and go back up because if it deadends it's going to deadend into the gorge
in Shorewood.
Watson: And there really isn't room between the gorge and the road. Not
for a trail.
Lynch: Is that road permanent the way it is right now?
""""'"
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 5, 1987 - Page 16
"
Watson: It wouldn't have anything much on that side in any case. Any
expansion on that road would have to go the other direction because there is
no way it can go there. You're talking a ditch that's...
Robert Engstrom: It's got to be 20 feet deep.
Hasek: What's the topography like on the other side of the road?
Robert Engstrom: The other side just kind of gently goes up. There are no
drop offs.
Hasek: Do you think that would be a more apporpriate place for a trail
easement on the other side of the road?
Watson: Actually yes. In fact, all along that road it would be all the way
up to Lake Lucy almost.
Hasek: Have we gotten any easements from along there at all?
Sietsema: No.
Hasek: So this is going to set precedent as to which side. Actually, if we
put it on the other side right now, we know that we wouldn't have to cross
,,63rd Street. There obviously is going to be other roads and streets cut in
:here eventually. Maybe, based on somebody other than myself's knowledge of
the area, maybe we should think about taking it on the other side and make a
motion tied to this piece that we'll let it go on this one contingent on
getting it on the other side. I want the Council to understand that we want
a trail along this road but build it on the other side.
Watson: I don't think he could even be able to use it.
Hasek: You can see on here that there's a gorge on there.
Watson: Very deep too.
Robert Engstrom: We're going to clean it out.
Mady: How about a walking/hiking path along the gorge?
Robert Engstrom: Actually water runs through there and in a big rain, it
could be dangerous.
Hasek: If you look at it Jim I think it's pretty steep in there. You would
be quite a bit inside the property line if you put it at the bottom of that
gorge. It kind of meanders back and forth through 1 and 2 and then at 3 it
takes a corner off there.
Watson: You can see in the development that's right adjacent to this that
""""<ie gave them two where they built the houses along the side of that hill.
fhey have beautiful walkouts but to nothing. You walk out to virtually no
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 5, 1987 - Page 17
...."
backyard. You drop right into the hole. It's very pretty but there is
really nothing that can be done.
Robert Engstrom: I can't imagine. If you got to the end of this property,
you would have to stop and go back. There would be nowhere to go and the
people like in Lots 3, 2 and 1 hardly cross to get to the trail. I don't
know who would really use it.
Mady: What about the low ranking corner, it looks like you have a house in
there, how's that property...
Robert Engstrom: It's a little bit below the grade of the road but there's
no problem there.
Hasek: Chanhassen stops there basically doesn't it?
Watson: Right on the edge of this property yes. That goes into Shorewood.
Hasek: Would there be any reason to look at plans.
Watson: They don't have any trail system.
Lynch: They don't plan to have any plans.
Mady: So what we would really need is a trail system that starts basicalli '
at this road down. ~
Hasek: With one exception and that is, if something happens across the
road, if you look at the map, there is a lot of undeveloped land over there
as well and there's going to be another road coming out of that and there is
actually more land over there to be developed so it seems to me that it
makes most sense to put the trai 1 on the east side of the road as opposed to
the west side of the road.
Mady: It probably does but if we don't take an easement now, at least from
the road down, we miss an opportunity.
Hasek: No we won't because we're going to make the motion so Council
understands that we want a trail system along Yosemite and we would like to
see it on the east side and we're not going to take it from this property
with the understanding that we will take it from the other side.
Mady: What's wrong with taking an easement now and abandoning it later?
Hasek: An arbitrary and capricious decision I guess would be my
recommendation is the reason not to do it. If you intend to use it that's
one thing but if you take it with the intent of not using it, that's pretty
arbitrary.
Robert Engstrom: One other thing to consider is a major part of Lot 10 is
house that looks like it's pretty close to the road and if you're going 20""""",
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 5, 1987 - Page 18
,...
feet inside your right-of-way, I think you would be almost on the front
steps of that house. A little white house. It appears to be quite close to
the road and it's a steep hill going up to it. You would have to cut a big
chunk of the guy's front yard.
Watson: The other side of the road would be better because you could
actually put in a useab1e trail that wouldn't be falling into ravines and
stuff along that side.
Hasek: Even regardless, my map and my familiarity is nothing in this area
and I don't know what's north of there, the piece of property that's shown
on the east side of the road, a fairly substantial piece actually extends to
the north and some of that develops would actually develop in two
communities at once. Does this Lilac Lane extend all the way through to
Yosemite?
Watson: No.
Hasek: That's a possibility too there and we might even want that trail to
go a little bit farther maybe even into Shorewood. Maybe there is something
there that we're just not aware of.
Watson: The piece of property across from this is owned by a lady in her
90's.
,....,
~ynch: There are a lot of pieces back in here about to hatch.
Schroers: Have we sent a proposal to Council similar to this before?
Sietsema: Letting them know you want a trail along there but you're not
choosing this?
Schroers: Yes, recommending to the Council that we want a passive trail
here in lieu of having the trail run on the east side of the road.
Sietsema: That would be alright to do that.
Lynch: We have sent advisory notes like that before.
Watson: This would be inappropriate property but we want a trail in the
area.
Hasek moved, Watson seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend to accept park dedication fees in lieu of park land and amend the
Staff's recommendation for a 20 foot trail easement along the east side of
this property or the west side of Yosemite with the understanding that the
Park Commission does desire to have a trail connection from the city
boundary line along the easterly side of Yosemite at some point in the
future. All voted in favor and motion carried.
,....
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 5, 1987 - Page 19
-'
Lynch: Not in the motion but just as an advisory note that topography on
the west side of Yosemite on the Creek Run development is not conducive to a
trail.
CARVER BEACH AND GREENWOOD SHORES PARKING PLAN, MARK KOEGLER.
Sietsema: I would like to just bring you up to date. We did talk to the
City Council at the joint meeting in January and talked about opening up
parking in all of the parks that there was to be parking available. The
City Council agreed to that and asked us to look at that further. We did do
that and decided that we were going to send that recommendation onto City
Council. I have not sent that onto them yet as I wanted to get a parking
plan for each of the parks, being Carver Beach and Greenwood Shores, to show
the Council that we did have a plan in mind and that we may do it on a trail
run the first year and if it works and there aren't any major problems then
we can show how it will be done aesthetically and on a more permanent basis
so we can contain the parking. That's why I brought it back to you. To
approve the parking plan that would then go to the City Council with the
recommendation to open up the parking in Carver Beach and Greenwood Shores.
Lynch: The parking slots at Carver Beach are built.
Sietsema: Right but we wanted to have a landscape plan to bring to them
along with that so Mark's here to present that plan.
...."
Mark Koegler: I want to emphasize at this point that these are just
concepts. It's something that could be done and we're kind of going into
this somewhat blind. Lori said take a look at it and come up with kind of a
phased way to put the parking into both of these park facilities. That's
all this is pending further comments and discussion from you. This is
Greenwood Shores, the park I'm sure most of you are familiar with. There is
a gravel entrance road right now which is the t"easonfor it being constructed
is to serve the lift station that's down there for sanitary sewer. It is
used currently now on kind of a random parking at time when the gate is
open. There is a chain that's connected between two posts up here at the
road and is closed up periodically. In looking at it, there are some
alternatives. Obviously, first of all, how many cars are you going to
accommodate? I think building within these we've got a couple of options.
We've shown 7 here. It's very easy to block one of these off and say we're
either going to have 3 or 4. We started with that. If you're going to go
in with a first phase for instance and provide parking for 7 vehicles, you
would have to slightly expand the gravel area that's there right now over
toward the east side. The existing base is essentially there for the 4 bay
parking that is across the top. We then would suggest also as part of a
first phase that there be some kind of control to delineate the lift station
area to make sure that there are no vehicles that are ever parked and
blocking that and what we propose there is a bollard and chain type of
assembly. It's something that you talked about before. It was something
that was part of the Lotus Lake access plan but was deleted later due to
budgetary reasons. We've shown that basically we would just set up kind ot......".
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 5, 1987 - Page 20
,.....
a barrier there but that could be chained off permanently except for when
the utility people needed access to that. Now bear in mind again the
ultimate control is still up by the street and the posts and the chain are
still in effect there for closing the park after hours and so forth. This
level of expansion in the first phase, if we went to a bollard and chain and
the bollard is typically either a 6 by 6, it could be bigger. There's a
representated detail here that I think is one we used previously that's a 10
inch. Cost of this phase of it, the extra gravel would be brought in, the
bollard and chains and some additional signage would be right around
$2,000.00 by the time you got finished with it. Then taking that one step
further, if it is successful, you move into phase 2. If it's not successful
and does not work very well, the obvious costs to the City are that there
has been gravel material that's been put in here if you go with 7. If you
go with 4 that's not the case. The bollard and chains are salvagable.
Those easily can be used on another park facility so that really is an
incidental cost item. It's not something that should be considered wasted
if indeed this does not work. Let's assume the positive, that it does work.
Then if we move into the 2nd phase, another year or so down the road, we've
shown essentially an expansion of kind of the perimeter controls just to
make sure that all the vehicles stay within the parking area itself with
obviously a provision through this area for the trail connection where we
would have certainly no barriers that the people and bicycles could and so
forth could pass through there.
~~ynch: A bollard with no chains.
Koegler: Yes, we would space them 3 or 4 feet apart depending on what the
layout was and allow pedestrian and bicycle access through there. Then
again, conceptually we've shown some very simplistic plantings that would be
a part of that. The major intent there being simply to screen this a little
bit from the adjacent properties and provide a little bit more visual
interest. It's not proposed at this stage of the game to have a detailed
expanded landscaping plan. Not for that particular park. It's really just
a little bit of screening done in association with the parking itself so the
berms that are shown in there and the crab apples are really intended for
that purpose. Again, the major control point is here. The whole thing can
be chained off. When it's open we're simply trying to control the
circulation here. There will be signage along the entrance road as there is
in Lake Ann Park and I think probably some of the other city parks where you
don't allow parking on the road itself or on the grassy surfaces.
Lynch: Are there any guideline available to us for determining how many
parking spaces versus the size of the subdivision or expected service area
or whatever?
Koegler: It really boils down to being a judgment call that you will make
and that any similar city official makes. Greenwood Shores park is somewhat
unique in that now it's linked to Lake Ann Park via the new bike path,
pedestrian path. They obviously are not a high level facilities entering
~he park itself to create a lot of demand. There is a nice beach area and
;here is access to private property inbetween the two lakes which gets used
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 5, 1987 - Page 21
extensively right now. So just simply saying that because we've got
facility x, y and z we need 5 spaces, that's pretty tough to do with this
one. You're trying to keep it, I assume, a low scale facility that
primarily will serve Chanhassen residents in the immediate area. If you get
too big, I think you're obviously running the danger of setting that up as a
parking facility for people, you can charge fees at Lake Ann and obviously
you don't want to do that and I'm sure the neighbors don't want you to do
that either.
...."
Hasek: Is there kind of an existing demand, is this park open right now?
Can people drive down there and park?
Schroers: No. The gate is open and people do park in there. In the
wintertime actually I think what it amounts to is it's an unauthorized
access for driving onto Lake Ann in the wintertime. People either drive
through here and drive onto Lake Ann.
Jeff Farmakes: There were three cars parked down there today down by the
roadblocks. I live next door to the park.
Hasek: Is this one of the two that was closed because of the beer parties
recently?
Watson: We thought that was interesting. Jeff blocked it off. He went over
to Lake Ann Park which we consider to be open access. It was 140 feet frow
the nearest parking spot to the beach area. It is 150 feet from the neares~
parking spot to the beach area in Greenwood Shores right now. Those are
approximate distances but without the parking spaces down there, that park
is no more cut off from parking than Lake Ann Park as far as your ability to
park relatively close to the beach.
Hasek: That's if you have on-street parking?
Watson: This is on-street parking that is available at this moment is
within approximately 150 feet.
Sietsema: The difference is that this is a neighborhood park and Lake Ann
is a community park so you're not comparing apples to apples.
Watson: Right, but we're comparing parking to parking.
Hasek: How wide is the street surface itself? It's a 50 foot right-of-way
but do we know how wide the street is?
Jeff Farmakes: You could not have two cars side parking and have enough
room for two cars to pass through.
Mady: That's if you know the street. 28 feet is wide enough for one side
parking.
...."
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 5, 1987 - Page 22
,....
Jeff Farmakes: If you notice where the entrance is, there is a steep hill
opposite the access. With the hill there you can't see around the curve.
There was a child hit by a car there last year.
Mady: So are you advocating off-street parking or on-street parking?
Jeff Farmakes: Right now I think it's fine as it is. I'm not here
representing Greenwood Shores, just myself but we're here now to find out
what the plan is and hopefully to bring it back to people in Greenwood
Shores so we can respond to the plan.
Hasek: It just seems to me in looking at it that parking on a curve, any
time you start parking on a curve you're asking for problems. Basically
we've got the pad for 4 parking stalls in place and I think we could
probably do the 4 stalls to start with for something maybe under the
$2,000.00 and just see how that works out. If the park starts to demand a
neighborhood draw as opposed to a regional beer bust draw, then maybe we can
do something to beef it up at that point.
Lynch: We've got $3,000.00 worth of play equipment currently budgeted plus
$300.00 for a volleyball court in that park and that's to go in this summer
I believe. People to use the play equipment aren't going to walk their
kids from one corner, they'll want to drive down there if they use it so we
need some parking places but I agree with Ed that I would rather not do any
~nore work than is necessary. I guess I would rather put some protection for
the lift station even if it was just some concrete parking lot type of
th i ng s and keep them ou t of there and make sure tha t nobody can dr i ve up
that trail to Lake Ann.
Jerry Maher: ...a publ ic off icer go around and ask whether we wanted no
parking signs or not. Would it behoove you if you're actually spending
money now to put in an area park of which there is one on the other side
of the lake that is inadequately used at the present time. That we would
also ask the people in the neighborhood whether in fact that their opinion
is whether they want play equipment and desire the park to be.
Watson: Jerry, the survey that was taken of the no parking signs had
absolutely nothing to do with this proposal.
Jerry Maher: I'm only saying you spent the money to talk about no parking
signs. Would it behoove you as a better interest of the community to spend
money to see what...
Mady: We just got a survey today that shows that the community wants us to
upgrade the present park facilities. That was for Chanhassen in general.
You misunderstood, we did not survey your neighborhood, we surveyed the
community.
Jerry Maher: You just mentioned the neighborhood. Under the circumstances,
,....the neighborhood would prefer to have some parking down there as opposed to
Nalking down there. That's your comment exactly. Now, under the
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 5, 1987 - Page 23
circumstances, if that's one of the items of contention, wouldn't it behoov~
you to find out from the neighborhood what they decide?
Lynch: This is something that I found to be the case over the years. .
Ei ther a young mother is not go i ng to go more than about 2 blocks with some
little ones.
Jerry Maher: I lived there for 10 years and the neighborhood has gotten
along quite well without any difficulty and I guess my only contention is,
I'm not objecting to upgrading the park. I'm not objecting to the parking.
I guess I am concerned about one, how are going to limit that there are only
four cars down there. Are we going to have a little sign that says Lot 1,
2, 3 and 4 and the fifth guy that comes in doesn't have a chance or how is
going to be regulated?
Lynch: We just don't have any more space than that.
Jerry Maher: We don't have any parking down there and we have all the space
in the world that people park on the streets and everywhere else. Now
you're going to take an area that really isn't corded off in any specific
way as I understand it other than the fact that you're going to put up some
type of a blockade. Now, if you went over to Carver Beach, when I used to
live there years ago, seeing what the conversations were.in the past
meeting, Carver Beach is set up under the circumstances that you can only
park four cars in that area. There really isn't any other way to park lowe
or anywhere else. At Greenwood Shores it's an entirely different matter. -'
You have a long driveway that people can park on other side of without any
difficulty.
Hasek: What we're doing right now is looking at park land. Mark, however
says that we would be using signage that informs people that they are not
allowed to park on the grass. If that becomes a problem...
Jerry Maher: We've got no parking signs all the way down the street which
we have to call on several times to take care of. Now you're going to tell
me that I live across the street from there, you're going to put up a sign
that says no parking on the grass and everybody is going to obey it?
Jeff Farmakes: There were three motorcycles on the beach this morning at
Greenwood Shores.
Sietsema: But there's no ~bstacles there now.
Jerry Maher: What do you mean there are signs. There are no parking
signs. It says no parking in the park and closed at 10:00 and no motorized
vehicles. Now you're going to put up some signs and that's going to take
care of the problem? Either you have to go to the point that a road is made
and it's coorded off and curbed and any area down in front of that beach
that you're going to make for parking is going to have to be done in such a
way that there is no way you can park anymore than four cars.
....."
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 5, 1987 - Page 24
,....
Hasek: That's what we've designed.
Jerry Maher: Let me ask you this. What are you going to do where the lift
station is?
Hasek: We already talked about it. We're going to put bollards and chain
up around it to protect the area.
Don Chmiel: I live at 7100 Tecumseh Lane and I overlook the park area. I
think one of the major issues at this particular time is that you're
incorporating the bike path through Lake Ann Park. Much of the area is used
by children on bicycles from ages 5, 6, 10, 15. By accommodating parking
within that particular area I think you are creating a safety hazard in
itself. Because of the accessibility of the cars going in and out, kids are
used to this. Consequently there is going to be some problems with this,
potentially and I think to look at that particular park in itself as it's
utilized by the people within Greenwood Shores and the City of Chanhassen,
it is utilized sufficiently with x numbers of people. They can accommodate
themselves at the beach to go swimming, fishing, whatever. If you live
within the area you see many people pulling their boats with their little
tractors and going down and going fishing. Now, if we want to make the
accommodations to Lake Ann more accessible, why not utilize Lake Ann Park
and have more direction in that particular way. That can accommodate much
more parking and has the availability for taking boats down into the lake.
,....
Mady: This is not intended...
Don Chmiel: I realize that, I'm just summarizing some of the things that
are happening.
Jerry Maher:
the park?
I think Don, isn't that the point. What is the intention of
Lynch: . The Council's intention, I'll be very specific on that point,
is to make every park in Chanhassen available to every resident.
Jerry Maher: It says Lake Ann Park on one side, how is this considered in
the same?
Hasek: They are two different parks. They are tied together by a trail.
Jerry Maher: Under the circumstances, allowing four people to go down there
and park, how is it making it any more accessible than it is at the present
situation?
Robinson:
we've said.
What are you recommending Jerry? You've shot down everything
What specifically would you recommend?
Jerry Maher: I guess number one, the park has been there, as I understand
~it, I've been there for 11 years and the park has been there for some 25
jears or longer. Under the circumstances as when I lived over in Carver
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 5, 1987 - Page 25
--"
Beach, it is a neighborhood recreational park. It was originally developed
by the developer that a park where and by for the people of Greenwood
Shores. Now I have no intentions nor should it be a park specifically for
the people of Greenwood Shores but much as Carver Beach is, it's an area
park for the people that live in that area. Everybody is free to use it.
There is parking up the street in a safe area for those people who want to
use it. If you want to make a park for recreating, if people can't walk a
matter of l5@ yards, which is maybe farther than they walk from Lake Ann
Park at the present time, most of the people walk through my yard all the
time to go down to the beach and that's where it does create a problem on
that corner because the kids will ride their bikes down the hill or whatever
to go down there and create some problems as far as traffic if you allow
parking. Under the circumstances, it's operated for this given period of
time substantially well. As I understand it, there were 4 or 5 people last
year that called and complained that there wasn't any parking down there.
We're talking about a community of 8,@@@ or 9,@@@ people now and we're going
to worry what 4 or 5 people say for the betterment of the community. I'm
saying if in fact you want to put up parking, one of the reasons it never
worked at Carver Beach is Carver Beach was a narrow road and people tried to
park along the beach and it created problems. There was enough parking
there for 4 or 5 people. There were large barricades up so you couldn't go
down the hill obviously but it only allowed 4 or 5 cars. If you're going to
do something down there to allow, if that's what you want 4 or 5 people to
park down there, which it's going to get eaten up by the people in the
neighborhood anyhow that maybe live on the other end of it, but it's got tt~
be done in such a way. You're going to build up some kind of retainer on
each side?
Robinson: I still don't understand where you're coming from? Are you
saying leave it alone? Is that what you're saying?
Jerry Maher: As far as an overall park development I say yes, leave it
alone. If you want to put some parking down there, for whatever reason, it
seems to me that it's a waste of expenditures as far as for the better good.
Robinson: I didn't know what you were proposing or upholding.
Hasek: So you think it's functioning well the way that it is right now with
the on street parking?
Jerry Maher: Certainly. For the usage it gets. For Pete's sakes, look at
Lake Ann last year.
Mady: We would like to increase the usage though and this is one way of
doing it.
Jerry Maher: Why do you want to increase the usage?
Don Chmiel: We have 72 homes within Greenwood Shores that participate, do
go to the park constantly. Day in and day out.
--"
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 5, 1987 - page 26
.tiI"""
Watson: And Chaparral people.
Jerry Maher: You nodded your head when I said four cars for the community.
That's not going to increase the usage. That's going to allow four people
in the neighborhood to go down there and park if they want.
Mady: It will allow four cars to get off the street. You already had one
child hit on that street.
Jerry Maher: That wasn't from parking though. It was from driving.
Mady:
But you're creating a safety hazard by parking on the street.
Jerry Maher: They aren't parking on that street.
Mady:
You just said that's where the parking was.
Jerry Maher: They are parking up the street right now. There always has
been. Maybe you should see the area before you decide what you want to do
with it. Obviously you're not familiar with it and before you make a
recommendation I think you should become familiar with it.
Randy Folsom, 7050 Utica Lane: It really is a small recreation area that is
sandwiched into a residential area and you're making it sound like you want
~o expand it. Right now the street is not conducive to having any more
traffic down there because of the residential area. Because of our children
riding their bicYGles down there. It's just too small an area. It's very
hidden because it's on this curve and to create more traffic will really
create a hazard for us with more cars down in there. It's not conducive to
anymore traffic in the area.
Hasek: Is it still our intent to try and acquire more land in that area?
It is isn't it? Isn't this the area that we're thinking about additional
land between the two lakes? With also a trail system going around Lake Ann.
Even though at this time it's impractical to assume that Prince is going to
allow us to do that, we're still going to put it on the Comprehensive Trail
Plan map with the intent that at some point in the future we might be able
to acquire this.
Watson: We've tried to acquire it in the past.
Hasek: But, in reading the Minutes of the last meeting what we decided to
do and I think it finally showed up on the plan, is to continue to show it
on the plan, a trail system going around Lake Ann assuming that at some
point in the future there is the possibility that Prince's land is 40 acres,
may want to be subdivided and at that time we'll grab it. So it's a pie in
the sky now but it's the intent of the City to show it on the map. A couple
of things, first of all, the four people that complained have the same voice
that you do sir. Everybody has a voice and therefore weigh equally with
~ours. Secondly, I think if there's an opportunity to get parking for this
}ark, if people use this park, drive to this park and park on the street
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 5, 1987 - Page 27
...",,'
where we've had a problem. 28 feet is not a very wide street at all. I've
got one in my neighborhood and I know exactly what it's like. You park one
car on the side of the road and two cars passing are going to be the two
that hit the kid that's behind the car that's parked there and on a curve
it's even worse so I would like to see the people that use the park, park in
the park as opposed to on the street and whether that's inside the park as
far as this is or whether it's along the street as a simple parking bay,
we've got something set up there, we might as well use it.
Don Chmiel: Would it be possible to put the four spots right at the street
prior to the bollard mark? I've been in there quite a few times. I've
worked on the trail.
Jeff Farmakes: The actual park is 45 by 513 yards to actual beach area where
the picnic table is once you get past where the erosion is. It's 45 by 513
yards. There's about enough there for about 113 families to come down and
bring their kids.
Don Chmiel: I think we're all aware of that.
Jeff Farmakes: I'm also aware because I live next door to the park and
I work from out of my home and I see what goes on in the park on a daily
basis, I'm sure some of my other neighbors have called on parties and this
hasn't disappeared. There have been calls on record last year, in the
summer when the parties usually occur. There has been damage to our .
property. I've had people park in my driveway. I've had people park up on~
my lawn next to the fire hydrant that's next to there and on occasion I call
the police and they come and they issue traffic tickets and I'm sure that
might have something to do with them writing a letter complaining that there
is no parking available. However, to me it seems that those are the same
individuals who drive their vans down to the beach and park within 5 feet of
the water. Those are the same individuals who run off the road motorcycles
and create the erosion problem that's down there now. Those are the same
individuals who think it's just fine to have a beer party in your backyard
and if the City is going to allow access, it should review, because it's not
a 5 year problem, in fact the files on record on Greenwood Shores go back 313
years that this is a problem and that's the reason as I understand it that
the whole thing restricted, I shouldn't call it restricted access because I
don't believe it is, there is parking available three homes down from on
either side down from the entry into the park. It's not two blocks as you
said. It's not even a half a block. Mr. Gallery made an inaccurate
statement saying that he had to park 2 blocks away to get down to the beach.
The parki ng signs are there if you would 1 i ke to go down and see them and
walk it yourself. It's 1513 steps from where there is parking down to the
beach. There is actually only 8 homes, 3 on either side of the entrance and
2 over the hill who are able to park in their driveways and go down there.
All the rest of Greenwood Shores has to walk down also so it's not just
saying this is for Greenwood Shores and not for the rest of Chanhassen.
That isn't true because a very small portion of Greenwood Shores is actually
where the no parking signs are so I think it seems to me in reading your
Minutes on your meeting, you should review some of the facts involved in ~
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 5, 1987 - Page 28
""""
this because I think you've got some of them wrong. In your math here,
which seems to me to be out of scale, at least on the width of the road, you
should be reviewing that I think on the space available because the access
as it was three years ago was much smaller than it is now down to the
pumping station. They decided to open it up for ice fishing I believe last
year. They starting dumping more rocks and it eventually now takes up about
313% of the actual park space where the gravel is strewed out and if you go
down there now with the road block signs, which aesethetically look very
nice along the edge, they sort of split the park in half so what is
remaining as far as the park that you're discussing is a 53 by 45 yard
space which seems to me to be totally out of proportion for the area.
Randy Folsom: Also, I would like to really emphasize that we want to open
our Chanhassen parks to all of the people in Chanhassen but I as a neighbor
use the park that is closest to me. I don't drive into town to use any of
the parks up by the school or whatever so you say that the parks are open
for all of the people in Chanhassen. Yes, but the people in Chanhassen use
their neighborhood park. They don't go to a park that's clear across town.
Mady: This is the type of facility that's never going to have a ballfield
so it's basically a beach really is what it is.
Randy Folsom: And it's really sandwiched in there. I would like to
emphasize the path. I think that's just marvelous what they've done here in
~hanhassen. I really congratulate them on what they have done but it is
conducive to beer parties in there and we have been tolerate neighbors down
there because of that. There are lots of times we have waken up in the
middle of the night and said well, let's move the kids down the shore of the
lake and then we go back to sleep because it is kind of a hidden little,
it's on a corner and it's down in there. Again, whenever I've called the
Chanhassen police and mentioned that there is something going on, I would
like you to investigate, they have been there just like that and I'm very
pleased with that too but it is a hassle to the neighbors when it's opened
up to something that is going to be very conducive to a lot of problems I
think. Because of the narrow street.
Mady: One point talking about it being a narrow street, if you're just
telling me that they should park three houses down and walk on the street to
get into the park because obviously you don't want them walking across your
property.
Jerry Maher: I think there is a discrepency between your meeting minutes
where it is recommending that the no parking signs come down and what is
present now, where you're considering public parking in the park. There are
two issues there. I guess overall, you're still concentrating the parking
versus the deserved parking. It's elective parking in other words. This
way you could have cars parking in and driving down for the children access
to park. Whether it's through the street or through the access road down to
the pumping station.
".....
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 5, 1987 - Page 29
....,.,
Jeff Farmakes: This pink area is the park right now. This area right here
from this street, which is Tecumseh to the third house down here on Utica
Lane is no parking area so there isn't any parking there. You don't have to
worry about traffic as far as anybody getting hurt at the present time now
has there been for the last 3 or 4 years now. People can park anywhere down
Tecumseh and from the fourth house down so his comment about 150 feet, most
people end up parking up here and walking through a neighbors yard or
whatever down to the beach so there is a safety problem at the prsent time
in any way, shape or form.
Mady: You advocate people walking through yards.
Jerry Maher: People walk through a parking lot over at Lake Ann. Do you
advocate that.
Hasek: By design Lake Ann is is a 10 mph area. This by design by speed
limit is 30 mph.
Jerry Maher: You're going to take four cars off the road. You want to make
the park have more use so you allow four people to park there.
Hasek: Not necessarily more use.
Jerry Maher: Your intent was to have more use. That's what you said on
three different occasions so four cars is four more cars of use but if you~
intent is to make it more useful, you're going to have a lot more cars than
that. That's go wi th what you're planning. Let's say there are 20 cars,
they are going to have to park somewhere right so you eliminated 4 cars from
parking up on the street. Is that for the betterment of the community? To
spend $3,000.00 or $4,000.00. You've got to be kidding me.
Mady: I don't see how you distinguish between an access road and the
street. They are still driving where the children walk whether it's on the
street or on the access road.
Hasek: I think I would have to agree with, are there major parts of the
trail system in Lake Ann that occur on the road?
Koegler: At the present time, yes.
Hasek: Is that the plan in the future?
Koegler: No, just as this is the not the plan in the future here.
Hasek: Okay, so the trail in the future is going to come and not go down
the roadway right?
Koegler: Parallel to and detached from.
Hasek: So there's actually a phase 3 or 4 that's not shown?
...""
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
~ay 5, 1987 - Page 30
Koegler: That's not a final plan. That's part of what you're doing right
now with the trail plan. That you expressed an interest and eventually have
a trail connection from utica Lane down to the existing stub of the Lake Ann
trail which would be an 8 foot, typically, or less, 6 foot or 8 foot
bituminous strip.
Watson: I live at the top of the hill. I have no no parking signs in front
of my house. You can park in front of my house probably to be half a block
from the park. Greenwood Shores, by it's very nature with the two lakes
there, has one horseshoe shaped street that goes all the way through and
provides two accesses and at Tecumseh goes through and provides a middle
access. Basically, Greenwood Shores doesn't service anything but it's own
residents. It is not a high traffic area. For the most part, the people
you find driving to Greenwood Shores live there or are providing a service
for the people who live there. Walking down the street to Greenwood Shores
is not dangerous.
Jerry Maher: We had a kid hit on the street.
Jeff Farmakes: He was not hit by a resident of Greenwood Shores.
Robinson: Carol is right on the right track. The point is, if you want
more use out of it, what you're looking for is to bring more traffic in on
~the same road.
Randy Folsom: Right now I really believe that my community is using the
park to the highest level that it can control and take care of. And believe
you me, and I don't have these little children. My child is 27 years old
but I dearly love all the children in my community and ask my neighbors, I
have a lot of fun with my little children, and I see parents send those
children down to that park with their little towels over their shoulders
without a worry of any of the traffic in that area. If you start putting
cars down there and I think I would say, Johnny, those cars and those
motorcycles being in and out of there, I don't think I can let you take your
wagon and your little floats or anything down there anymore and it is highly
used by 72 families.
Lynch: I would like to throw some things out here because I hear a lot of
things that don't exactly meet with what history has been. Initially there
was not no parking there. There were some problem with parties and so forth
brought to our attention. What parking is or is not on the street, is not
come under our jurisdiction and unless it's a park street, a street inside a
park, totally enclosed by the park, then we have some jurisdiction. We
don't have any jurisdiction on your street but it came to our attention that
there were some problems in the park and if we made that park somehow less
accessible, that this would be a good thing. Parking then went on the
street for a variety of other reason. Safety at the curve and so on. Now,
that was several years ago and we are an advisory committee. Recently, the
Council told us every park in Chanhassen is to have citizen accessibility.
~he best citizen accessibility we can provide. It was depending on several
people on the council at that time that parking three doors away was too
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 5, 1987 - page 31
...,.,
long a walk. That doesn't necessarily reflect my viewpoint. Also, the long
term concept of a neighborhood park came under a different scrutiny and a
different concept with the change of people on the Council I thought is that
10 years ago, when we were talking about neighborhood parks, we were talking
about parks in a neighborhood period. Now all of a sudden we're talking
about a park that's in the neighborhood that is to be accessible to anyone
in the community. We're talking about big things like ease of access. Is
156 feet too far to walk? If you have to walk down a hill, is that too far
to walk? What we've been told to do here and what we've had to tell Mark
to do is say, if we put parking in this park, where are we going to put it
because we can't affect the street. It's not our jurisdiction. Mark has
come up in these cases with this drawing on where we can put it inside the
park. Whether that goes in or not is up to the Council. We're not
recommending that parking go into these parks. We're recommending that if
the parking goes in, this is where it goes in. This is where it's
physically possible.
Bill Engelbretson: I think you're making a good point here that you should
recommend to the City Council that the concept of keeping this as a little
neighborhood park is highly desirable for our area and recommend to them
what you heard tonight that the neighborhood doesn't want parking in that
park. They want to keep it as a neighborhood park and let the large Lake
Ann Park on the other side be the drive in park.
Lynch: What the Council is saying, this is a lot of tilled soil already.
lot of this has been discussed. I think the Council realizes that most ~
neighborhoods would like to have their park kept for them. The Council is
saying no, that's not proper. Every park is every citizen's park in town.
Again, I don't necessarily approve of this personally but this is what we've
been told.
Watson: Greenwood Shores has never had a park budget. We don't have
anything down there. We got an old fishing dock that Dale Gregory
ressurrected when they put in a new fishing dock and that's it. Basically,
the first comment I heard about this was if we're going to put funding money
and put things into the park, when we spend money on them, they must be
accessible to everyone. That was Clark's comment that initiated this whole
discussion.
Jeff Farmakes: ...people who park up on our lawns and the same people who
drove their motorcycles down on the beach today. The same people who park
their cars down there on the beach and the same people who dump the trash
down or take the picnic tables and put them out on the lake and you're going
to have that element there. My point is, historically you cut down on that
by closing that area off.
Lynch: Again, those points have to made to the Council, not to us.
Jerry Maher: What I would ask though is that you would convey because the
information on there at the joint meeting that you had, the Minutes there
between Councilman Geving and Councilman Horn, that there are inaccuracies ~
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 5, 1987 - Page 32
JIll"""
in there and I would ask that you give them an accurate description of the
present parking available there now. It's not two blocks as Mr. Geving says
in there. It is less than a half a block. You made a statement that
studies have shown with a housewife with small child won't walk more than
two blocks. Then isn't the situation with the present parking available for
50 cars along a non-concentrated area on several different streets that are
available presently to Greenwood Shores.
Mady: You said there are a lot of problems with motorcycles going in,
people going around the barriers if there are any or going around the
chainlinked fence, lifting the chain up. What would you propose to stop
that situation?
Jeff Farmakes: I am only seeing what has happened by closing that chain off
and eliminating parking. First of all you're talking about a very small
area. The area from the lift station, as I said, the encroachment has
gotten larger and larger so the actual area for the park is being reduced
for the area when families come down to the beach. You do not get a size
relationship from this plan in relationship to how much left is available
for park space and that's particular important if you're thinking about
putting in additional facilities, play facilities. Volleyball court. I
have no idea where those are going to fit in in that structure without
eliminating the beach area. The point I'm making is that the history before
~ou had the restricted access, it wasn't really restricted. The chain
;ometimes was left up, sometimes it wasn't but in the last couple years as
complaints picked up while we were there because I've personally called in
two DWI's from there. People being high coming down and driving their cars
around. My question still stands. I'm proposing that it be blocked off is
what I'm saying the way it is.
Mady: Blocked off and left blocked off.
Farmakes: I don't believe that there is restricted access there. I
disagree wi th the facts. The facts si mply are not the same as the Minutes
show. If the chain is up, what would happen to the motorcycles?
Robinson: That we haven't been able to solve. They did move some rocks in
last year a little closer together. That took care of most of the Blazers
and those type of vehicles.
Fa;emakes
trail.
. .
, .
They don't just drive in the park, they go back into the
Don Chmiel: Motorcycles are pretty much taken care of. Once people start
going down to the beach, is pretty much taken care of by the people down
there by saying hey, they don't belong down there or neighbors but most of
the time it's even the kids in the neighborhood that are down there. They
can't ha ve them down there and the pol ice come down and tag you or wha tever.
This time of year it's really hard to solve the problem because if the chain
~~as up, the motorcycles will go down over and into the woods somewhere. No
Jifferent than obviously snowmobiles during the wintertime.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 5, 1987 - Page 33
....",
Mady:
So that situation is a given and you accept that as a given?
Chmiel: The motorcycles, yes. There isn't much you can do about it and
there again, this time of year and in the fall is really about the only time
you have a problem.
Farmakes: We also have a problem though, now that there's been ice
fishing down there, and this has just been recently, most of the people fish
on Lake Lucy. I don't know if the fishing is better or whatever but I think
that the amount of people that came down to the park is highly under-
estimated. In some cases there were up to 12 cars parked down there and I'm
talking about a Monday through Friday situation.
Don Chmiel: And each of those 12 cars were non-residents of the City of
Chanhassen.
Fa~makes: And they would drive through where the parking point is now,
this is the area that was expanded next to the station and I do think it is
quite a significant issue. I called and asked the park to provide
sanitation facilities for these people and garbage facilities. They were
filled up quite rapidly. I also noticed that in coming they would drive
over the beach and then out to Lake Ann. I think at that particular time of
the year, we didn't have a lot of snow and it had gotten warm at some time
and again, if you go down and look, you can see where the erosion has been
created all along that hump there from driving and it's not just
motorcycles. You said they took out 4 by 4's, wagoneers, all kinds of stuf~
back there and I don't see where this plan is restricting that access.
Mady: If the plan did restrict the access, would that be acceptable?
Jerry Maher: I don't see how you're going to do that with parking down
there.
Hasek: We can do the same thing with parking that we could do along the
street. The one thing that we can't control, and you've admitted that's
that impossible, is motorcycles. No matter what we do but we could put in
the parking as we've shown on the plan, 4 spaces or 7 spaces or 3 spaces,
whatever, spend a little bit more money and control the traffic on that
beach to the same extent that it's being controlled right now. Would you
agree to that?
Jeff Farmakes: We do have one problem though that I guess nobody has
brought up. Don started to, he talked about there is probably in the
neighborhood right now and I would say people that come in from either
Chanhassen or out of the neighborhood, on any given period of time, the DNR
has said at one point, there are like 12 to 13 people in the neigborhood
that bring their boats down with lawn tractors. Now, it makes for good use
of the lake and it does create somewhat of a problem when you start putting
in a parking space to try and make it so cars can't drive over it then we've
got a problem that people that usually use it to put their boats in, now
are. . .
--'
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 5, 1987 - Page 34
,....
Hasek:
What I think what you're failing to realize is that...
Mady: It's not a boat access. It's not intended to be a boat access. It
is contributing to you erosion problem.
Jerry Maher: ...it's lawn tractors for Pete's sake. Get your head out.
That isn't even a smart thing to say. It's no different than the lawn
tractor to mow the place for pete's sake is it? I used to go down and mow
the thing before the City did. The same tractor that goes down there.
Sietsema: I think it's getting out of order. I think we need to come to a
decision.
Lynch: Yes, I think we're going over a lot and around again and again and
again here. Again, we're just here to see if this is where we want the
parking spaces. I'm sorry, I'm not allowing any more comments tonight.
We've got many items ahead of us tonight and we keep getting off the
subject. Any other discussion about where these parking places are? I
don't see any requirement initially for having seven. I would like to chop
that piece off.
Schroers: That is the only practical place. If there is going to be
parking, that is the only practical place. One, there would have to be
access to the pump station which is already there. Two, there is already
~rave1 there. I'm a resident of the area. I use this park personally two
to three times a week year round. I jog through there. I fish there. I
cross country ski there in the wintertime. I'm very familiar with what
we're talking about here so, if according to the lay of the land the way the
access if right now, the facilities that are available, if there is going to
be parking available in that park, that is the only practical place for it
to be.
Lynch: Lori, can we get a 10:00 gate closing down there?
Sietsema: Yes.
Lynch: And another thing that bothered me a little bit, I wasn't aware, I
don't think the Commission has ever been aware that that's been opened up
for drive through to the lakes in the winter. I don't know who's idea that
was.
Mady: Our understanding is that's been closed since it was closed up 8
years ago.
Lynch: We recommended it be closed and we were told that it was closed.
Now some city employee someplace took it upon themself to open that gate in
the winter to allow drive throughs.
Schroers: That may not necessarily be the case. It may have been some
"....fisherman took it upon themselves to use a cutter and open that and
;isherman. . .
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 5, 1987 - Page 35
...."
Mady: That was not what I was told by the...
Lynch: It was an employee. At any rate, maybe it was damaged but I WQu1d
like you to mention it to Don what the situation is and that until this is
opened up for parking by the Council that the Park Commission wants that
gate to stay up and locked, period. Now, if they put parking in there, can
we get a 10:00 closing on that gate?
Sietsema: Yes.
Lynch: So whoever is in there won't move, they get locked in.
Sietsema: They will get huss1ed out just like they do at Lake Ann.
Randy Folsom: Can I please just re-emphasize the fact about the children in
that area. By driving more vehicles or opening it up to vehicles in there,
I just do not...
Lynch: Again, that's not what we're here to talk about.
talk about where the place is going to go.
We're here to
Hasek: It's been years since I've been down there and that was by accident,
Larry, are there stones or rocks along the street frontage?
Schroers: There is one big rock that would be as you're entering, it's on .~
the left hand side but the rock is away from the post in a manner so people
can walk around. Kids can bike around or a motorcycle could probably slip
through there. I believe the intent of the rock there was to keep the 4-
wheel drive vehicles out mostly. Otherwise, to pedestrian traffic or small
2-whee1 vehicle traffic, you can get through there.
Hasek: Do you think it would be real difficult to spot rocks. I think the
bo11ards are probably unnecessary through most of this.
Schroers: It wouldn't be but if that was the case, you would probably have
to extend them the entire length of the park property up to private land
which tha tis about all you can do because you put two rocks there and
they're going to go around them. You would have to contain the entire area
that's owned by the park and at that point, if they went around it, they
would be trespassing on private property.
Hasek: And that seems like an impractical solution to you?
Schroers: Maybe not necessarily in this case because
park property to both private gates is not very much.
the left hand side, I would estimate 100 feet. On the
this gentleman's property is a very short distance.
Robinson: To prevent parking down the street though.
going down the street to where the parking is.
the distance of the
As you're going in on
right hand side to
There is nothing
...."
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 5, 1987 - Page 36
,.....
Hasek: If we did that, aesthetically Mark, is that something that could be
done? My understanding is that there is one stone in place right now that's
supposed to keep 4-wheel vehicles out of the park. If we extended those
stones to eliminate 4-wheel vehicles along the park, aesthetically what
would that look like along there? I can't see it myself. I get the
impression from listening to these people that everybody in Minneapolis is
going down to this particular little beach. It must be a very lovely beach
and I don't mean that sarcastically at all because I had a beach that we had
the same problem with only it's a private beach and everybody and their
brother wants to use it but there must be a solution kind of between doing
nothing and building a chain linked fence around it.
Mady: The increase of enforcement, because what I'm hearing is enforcement
problems. The rules are already there. You can't park on the grass. You
can't drive on the grass. It's an enforcement problem more.
Hasek: But enforcement like within every other public park is really left
to the people who use that park.
Robinson: If you design it in such a way that you put something down the
sides so they wouldn't park on the grass, then you wouldn't have a problem
because the road isn't wide enough to support somebody. They can either
part on the grass where parkers will go by or you put something to line the
,.....road so the road is only wide enough for a car to go down. Then you don't
1ave the problem.
Koegler: The Council's charge in this thing, I don't have a depth
perception of what it is. We were directed to look at how parking could go
in there and to reasonably control it. It's my understanding that the
initial premise is to spend very little money on Phase 1. Let it go this
season or whatever. Closely monitor it to see if it works. If it works,
fine, we'll look at Phase 2. If it doesn't work, we go back to square one.
If we start fortressing the entrance, is that part of that charge? I don't
know. Apparently it's been closed off and I haven't heard that there had
been complaints or people requesting a boulder field to go in there.
Hasek: I think the thing is, Lake Ann is done like that. The parking is
delineated. People park on the grass when it becomes crowded. That's the
way it is. I have gotten tags down there myself for parking on the grass.
That's going to be the same situation here as it would be in any other park
and I don't think it's necessary. We can control portions of it but you're
never going to be able to control it all unless you put a fence around it
and that's not the intent of the park.
Koegler: You can effectuate a reasonable, not 100% but a reasonable level
of control of containment within the parking depending on what you want to
do and how much you want to spend. I agree with you that the aesthetics
become a question. There are two ways to approach that and that is to look
at 4 or 5 at the entrance if that's what's necessary or doing a perimeter
~ontrol and extending the bollards up literally along the roadway as well.
Iou have the distinct advantage of at least from Utica you are looking down
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 5, 1987 - Page 37
at the park so someone can tell if the spaces are full. They don't have to~
drive down there and turn around and come back out. But the control can be
put there. Here again, it was my understanding that the charge was first of
all, with a minimal amount of use, let's see if it even works. If it
doesn't work, no more point in discussing it.
Schroers: That was our direction when we first addressed this issue.
Mady moved, Hasek seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend that Greenwood Shores park be opened as proposed in Phase 1
deleting three spaces, utilizing the bollards and chain and closing the gate
at the park as the Ordinance indicates for park hours. All voted in favor
and motion carried.
Koegler: Just a final comment, we will modify the plan in accordance with
the motion.
Hasek: I would like to highly suggest that you folks attend that Council
meeting that this goes to.
Sietsema: It will probably be May 18th and you will be notified. I will
send you an agenda.
Schroers: Also understand that this phase 1 is an experimental situation. ~
That we do intend to monitor just to see for ourselves what we want to do
from that point.
Bill Engelbretson: Just one passing remark before we leave, the situation
that occurred tonight, you will notice that the people who were the most
insiferous are the people who live directly adjacent to the park. For those
of us who live a little further away, there really isn't this kind of
problem that we heard tonight.
CARVER BEACH PARKING PLAN, MARK KOEGLER.
Lynch: We did have this all planned at one time. Do you remember that
Mark? We had landscaping on the high areas and shurbs in there and then
along came this no parking thing so it kind of squashed them. It was just
starting to put in. That's why we've got what we got there now.
Koegler: What's there now, essentially, there is a portion of it that's
gravel and there is a portion of it that's essentially grass. There were
some utility poles put in that define some areas and then there is a
satellite place.
Lynch: If I recall the old plan, it was suposed to be set up with 5 or 6
parking spots that were diagonal to the road that you would actually enter
from this direction.
....""
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 5, 1987 - Page 38
,.....
Koegler: There is plenty of room in there to accommodate, if you call it
off a tangent, 90 degree parking. When we get over in here we're getting
into 26 and 30 feet of depth and if you wanted to carry that further, again,
we're just shooting from the hip. Depending on what you say tonight, we
start out by showing that you can very easily accommodate four spaces in
there. Again, a Phase 1 situation we've used essentially the existing
gravel and defined the edge conditions a little bit. We proposed that there
be some wheel stopes and possibly some signs that would say center your car
on pole or that kind of thing to delineate the spaces. If indeed there are
no problems with that, that can be taken a step further and there can be a
little bit of walkway treatment coming in from either side. There can be
some additional foliage put in to help define the edge conditions for
pedestrian can come through. I think the area then can be facilitated with
additional plantings as well just to increase the attractiveness. So if
experimentation of Phase 1 works, there is a fairly low cost Phase 2 option.
This one, phase 1 we're talking approximately only $800.00 expenditure.
phase 2 somewhere slightly less than $3,000.00.
Hasek: Additional?
Koegler: Yes, additional to that.
Hasek:
~
t<oegler:
total for
Phase 2 in the second one, to go back to the last one?
Right around $4,000.00 additional so that's about a $6,000.00
that one.
Hasek: Is there anything else to access off of this little parking area
bes ides the beach? I a ssum i ng tha t the beach is a t the bot tom of the
stairs.
Koegler: Yes, the stairs is the focal point. Fairly steep slopes on either
side and this is trying to channel people and make them utilize the
stairways.
Lynch: There is some playground equipment and then the beach itself and the
trail that goes north. The trail is in place now.
Hasek moved, Mady seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend
approval of Phase 1 for Carver Beach parking as proposed by Mark Koegler.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
FIRE DEPARTMENT REQUEST TO HOLD THEIR ANNUAL SOFTBALL TOURNAMENT.
Hasek moved, Mady seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission approve
the request for the Fire Department's Annual Softball Tournament to be held
on June 12, 13 and 14 at Lake Ann Park. All voted in favor and motion
~carr ied.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 5, 1987 - Page 39
COMPREHENSIVE TRAIL PLAN, MARK KOEGLER.
....".",
Mark Koegler: You read the comments I'm sure that are in your packet that
talk about some of the funding sources which potentially are available for
trails and there was really one there that I should have included on the
list and that is tax increment financing. Any trails that are within any of
these economic development or redevelopment districts within the city, those
are items that can be funded under the funds from the increments and indeed
there are some monies there. What we tr ied to do was just go through the
gross listing that we did last time and compare that now and see if there
were some that made more sense than others. There were some criteria that
were called out in our memorandum such as safety, cost and so forth but for
some of the general kinds of things that we tried to use. When we do some
highway alignment studies from time to time we'll put together a matrix
going to fairly elaborate measures so a group like you can sit down with
your own little scoring sheets and determine what ranks the highest,
individually and cOllectively. When it comes to trails it doesn't work too
well because we just have these tenacles that go allover the place that
very much intertwine so it really gets down to the fact that it's kind of a
combination of subjective and objective review. ...There were no
preconceived notions going in on that. Phase 1 ended up being at about
$700,000.00 and Phase 2 around $600,000.00 and Phase 3 about $650,000.00.
After we had put that together and after I had gone out, Lori and I had the
opportunity to sit down with some of the other Staff people here at City
Hall, the Planning Department manager and so forth, and got some additiona~
staff input. That's the next item that I'm going to throw at you which is ~
Phase 1 alternate. Exhibit I-A. The Phase 1 alternate that you see in
front of you now, I don't have a mileage tally but I do have a dollar tally.
The total package on that would be approximately $1,140,000.00 and of that
total approximately $125,000.00 would be within tax increment districts so
you would be looking at a net of about a million dollars funded through
sources other than tax increment. Sources for this scheme versus the
sources for the other scheme remain the same. There are park charges, GO
bonds, revenue bonds that the City might Bell, referrendums and so forth.
Mady: How realistic is that number?
Koegler: That, to some degree, is part of your charge.
Mady: What did the Staff have to say about it?
Koegler: They said that there were 4 or 51ikely ways to cover that
expenditure. The first is using some of the park dedication fees that you
collect. Obviously that's not a big pot of money that's going to fall in
your lap at one time but year to year it is a significant amount. I think
Lori is investigating now, the City of Lakevi11e has a Trail Ordinance that
requires an additional dedication of $100.00 and some odd dollars.
Sietsema: $135.00 per unit.
Mady:
So it's still not alot.
...."
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 5, 1987 - Page 40
""
Koegler: No, but that's over and above the other park dedication fees so
that's sandwiched on top of that. That's another potential source of
revenue. There is considerable interest in certain staff here that a
portion of this and perhaps a sizable portion of this may be a potential
target for a referrendum. You're looking at all kinds of other community
facilities right now and I think there is a group that is studying that.
Hasek: That's really not out of line with the survey that we just did.
Koegler: I haven't seen the results of that.
Hasek: It indicates trails, trails, trails, trails.
Lynch: Four out of the top seven items were trail oriented and it is a top
function to the trail system.
Koegler: That's obviously a very strong argument then that that may be
something that the community would support.
Hasek: Are you still looking at like a 5 year development plan or 3 year?
Koegler: That's up to, we're going to be sitting down and looking at the
numbers. That's tough to address. 5 years is probably fairly ambitious.
However, I would think depending on how you handle funding, particularly a
~ignificant portion of it is referrendum oriented, that a substantial amount
0f that could be done in 5 years.
Hasek: The figure that you have here, would that be acquisition then?
Koegler: Yes, where required.
Hasek: If we haven't got it in an easement, we're going to buy it outright.
Koegler: That's correct.
Hasek: There's another option there and that's to complete the portions we
do have or the most important pieces of that and let some of it go so that's
another alternative. There are other options besides all or nothing.
Koegler: Oh yes, definitely and when you actually get into implementing
something like this, you may run into snages with one segment that may make
you prioritize another segment for another year or whatever. The general
thinking was that this level in the first phase is not totally out of the
realm of possibility. It may have to be toned down a little bit, there may
have to be some cuts here and there but the general ballpark framework.
The intent with the alternative scheme is basically the same as the Phase 1
that you received in your packet. It just expands that system a little bit
and provides an initial link between Chanhassen and the Chaska Trail system
down along Audubon which is intended to be more of a school oriented
~connection. It does maintain the connections to Eden prairie and the other
. :onnections in the City of Chanhassen as well as linking the major features.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 5, 1987 - Page 41
Hasek:
like?
That's an alternate Phase 1.
What is Phase 2 and 3 going to look
....",I
Koegler: Good question.
Hasek: Am I assuming you just haven't had time to take a look and stick
with the others.
Koegler: They would again, join at much the same the way the first three
phases laid out. There would be some of the links are ties. TH 101, there
are going to be sections of that that are going to be improved within the
next 10 years. Probably not the entire stretch by any means but at least
north of Lyman it will be improved so you want to coordinate that kind of a
segment for instance so that means it's probably phase 2. South of Lyman
becomes more questionable whether that's Phase 2 or Phase 3. Ideally, that
would be Phase 2.
Hasek: Lake Susan, to the west of Lake Susan we've got a double system
going down through there. What's the intent or idea on that?
Koegler: The parallel lines are not my lines so I can't totally address
that. The eastern most leg of that will be a significantly different trail
segment than the CR 17 one. The City has easement and/or ownership of that
area and it is basically wetland vegetation pattern. It mayor may not be ;::a
multi-purpose trail. It may be a pedestrian trail.
Sietsema:
It's very much right along a ravine.
"""""
Right along a cliff there.
Hasek: We're still thinking about maybe addressing the one that goes up the
creek there?
Koegler: Yes, that would be consistent with Phase 2.
Hasek: Mark, didn't we just ask this guy on the southeast corner of Lake
Minnewashta for a trail easement?
Koegler: Yes, you got two from him. One along TH 5 and one along the
eastern property line.
Hasek: The eastern property line one, is that intended to hook up to
Doogwood then? Is that what we're thinking there?
Koegler: That was a possibility and it still may be. That may be a trail
segment that may be supplementary to all of this. The only concern we have
there is with the Camp Fire Girl's Camp itself and getting access through
that facility. It may be possible to go further east and go around that.
It would be nice to get a lake oriented trail that went right up to the
Regional Park and that still may be possible.
Hasek: I didn't see that on any of your Exhibi ts. The only reason I
brought it was because I didn't see it there and I knew that we had taken .....",
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 5, 1987 - Page 42
JIll"
that and I didn't want it to appear as though we were just granting trail
easements for the sake of doing it. I think we probaby put this thing
before the best people in the city, before the planners, before the
engineers and the Park Board people. I don't see any problem with it
myself. I think it's a very ambitious plan but I don't think it's out of
line with what we have seen in our recent survey. Funding may end up being
a problem in the future but unless we propose something that's ambitious,
we're never going to get ambitious plans done.
Mady: I have a question for Don, at some point in time Don I remember
hearing that our tax base wasn't sufficient to really support much of the
referrendum for a bond. We only had maybe half a million dollars.
Don Ashworth: That's correct. Of course it has substantially increased in
the last years. I haven't done a recent calculation but I would anticipate
that we're somewhere between 1 1/2 to 2 million. I shouldn't even quote
that number. Let me check on that number and I can bring it back to you.
Hasek: What are the plans for the city center redevelopment? How is that
going to be handled?
Mady: That hasn't been determined yet.
Don Ashworth: There is a task force working on that. The timing has been
~et up so that the recommendations from the Park Commission regarding the
crail system as well as the recommendations from the Community Center Task
Force, can both go to City Council at or about the same time. That would
put a potential referrendum back to the voters to consider one or both late
in the fall. It would make the assumption that if we brought back both the
trail program as well as the community center program, that you would be
into the fall timeframe and going back to the community showing them what it
is that is proposed to be done on both sides and again, a potential
referrendum.
Hasek: What are you looking for tonight?
Koegler: Just general comments. We are looking to wrap this item up at the
next meeting. What we need to do is a little bit further investigations of
some of the alignments to make sure they are feasible. We want the plan
tha t you recommend tha t goes to the Counc i 1 be one tha tin fact can be
implemented without any major obstacles.
Hasek: We have missed the Chanhassen Pond trail.
Koegler: I should have indicated that. There are a couple of pedestrian
trails that are not on here. This is attempting to show more of the major
links. The other one would be the one that's all along Lotus Lake and
Carver Beach itself. That one is not on there either.
~Schroers: Is your primary intent Mark to stay with the off-street trail as
nuch as possible as opposed to on-street trails in the areas that are not
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 5, 1987 - Page 43
conducive to going off-street?
"."",
Koegler: Exactly.
Hasek: Obviously, we've got a lot going on here. How is it going to be
weighed? How are you going to determine the need? Which piece goes first?
Koegler: That ultimately is a determination that you are going to make.
Hopefully we will have sufficient agenda time next time to get into that in
detail. That's a very valid question and that's where the criteria that we
would at least for consideration is the kind of things we need to discuss.
What I would like to do is base upon the conversations that Lori and I have
had is to bring back to you the priority recommendations that we would have
here.
Hasek: The list of priorities that you have was not necessarily
prioritized?
Koegler: No. The only thing that was prioritized in the three phases
schedules that we gave you were the general perameters. Here is what we
would like to do as far as phase 1. If Phase 1 if 5 years, fine. If it's 8
years, fine. Here's what we would like to do as a part of Phase 2, Phase 3.
But within those phases there were no distinct breakdowns to say that
Minnewashta Parkway is more important than CR 17.
Hasek: I guess what I was referring to was your general phasing ~.
recommendations allowing the fact that you were taking into consideration
safety, property owner acceptance...
Koegler: Those were taken into account in looking at the city as a whole
and coming up with three distinct pieces. That's as far as it got.
Schroers: I got the impression in the past conversations on this
we would be somewhat of a logical mode of operation. We would be
basically from the hub and more developed areas and working out.
correct in thinking that you're doing that?
topic that
starting
Am I
Hasek: That's one way of doing it. It depends upon what detail you do
that. Do you take two major spokes and go some direction to try and capture
something major or do you start immediately with 6 or 8 spokes and try and
extend those out all at once?
Lynch: In the past we had talked about starting in the middle and going out
where we had the right-of-way. The hitch always comes that you get to the
spot where everybody says, we have to have that and we don't. Do we stop an
easy route and go back and pick this up?
Hasek: No, I don't think that we do. I think there is a very logical...
Lynch: Maybe in some cases it should be.
easy. Maybe we have to take a look at it.
Maybe we don't just do what's
Sometimes easy is not right.
""""'"
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 5, 1987 - Page 44
,..,
Hasek: I think I might just set that aside and try and do it the logical
way.
Koegler: If you have preconceived priorities that you want to bring to our
attention now, feel free to do so. We will bring back to you a
recommendation on phasing and I think that's going to have to be tied to a
litle bit more of financing discussions that we'll have on the budget
aspect.
Lynch: When I look at this, I'm going to look at a two part equation. Two
critieria. What I think the use factor is and the value of the use factor
and how easy and inexpensive is it going to be to get it in there.
Hasek: I think there is a benefit to looking at how much we can get done
how quickly. From a standpoint of getting as many people out there and
liking it so if we need to hit them again for something they have a working
knowledge of what it is they are going to be paying for the second time
around.
Schroers: That coincides with my thinking in that if we hook newly proposed
trails into existing trails so we'll have as much done as fast as possible.
Hasek: And is cost effective.
""Mady: Mark, would it be helpful for you if we were to take these home and
study them a little bit and highlight our personal priorities?
Koegler: That would be very helpful. If you would take that upon yourself
to do that, that would be greatly appreciated and give them back to Lori or
whatever.
Schroers: I don't see the proposed trail around Lake Ann.
Koegler: That's correct. That is shown for a subsequent phase.
of the plans though. It is shown for phase 2.
It is part
Hasek: I think you have to kind of assume that unless there is some glaring
thing that we haven't brought up to Mark that we're looking at Phase 1 and
the ultimate plan is going to be similar to the addition to this plan on
Phase 2 and phase 3.
Koegler: We have not deleted any of the alignments that you specified last
time. They are all still there.
Don Ashworth: A quick note in that area, when you come back with your
priority list, you should note that some of the trails are in the first
phase simply because we have a mechanism to get them accomplished. Like
Lake Lucy Road, we've got the State Aid monies in and Kerber Drive, Lake
Drive East, those are all roadways that we literally have the monies on hand
~for.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 5, 1987 - Page 45
Schroers: Getting back to your funding issue, I think is to the benefit o~
the Park Board and the city as a whole to pursue any outside funding that we
can.
Koegler: As of yesterday that's being done.
PARK AND RECREATION MEETING SCHEDULE.
Sietsema: Last time you met we talked about having two meetings a month
instead of one because we're obviously running late again and in talking to
the planning department, they have an application deadline for site plans
and if we got on the same schedule with them. Meeti ng the 2nd and 4th
instead of meeting the 1st and 3rd like the City Council, it would be better
for me in prepar i ng your agendas so I could get them out to you quicker so
you have more time to read them and also it would be easier in a lot of
cases there are things that come up that need to go right away to City
Counc i I and if we meet the day after they do tha t means two weeks before it
gets to them so it's a better system.
Hasek: For the developer's standpoint it's a better system?
Sietsema: For the developer and for me and for getting your packets sooner.
I would think that the 2nd and 4th Tuesday would be the better deal.
Hasek: The only pr ob lem tha t presen ts to me is tha t I a lot of times get ....."I
involved in Planning Commission and Council meetings in other cities.
Sietsema: What I would propose is that we meet on the 2nd Tuesday and we
would have all the items and when we get to 10:00 we push anything to the
4th. We'd meet the 2nd and I would put everything on there.
Hasek: So we may not be meeting twice.
It was decided that the Park and Recreation Commission would adjourn their
meetings at 10:00 p.m. and hold a second meeting ont he 4th Tuesday of the
month to discuss any items that were not covered on the agenda.
May 26th was set as the next meeting date for the Commission to finish
discussion on this agenda.
Don Ashworth stated he was at the Chanhassen Lion's Meeting this evening and
they donated $10,000.00 to the Chanhassen Park and Recreation Commission.
They would like to see the money go to matching grant programs.
Hasek moved, Mady seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and
motion carried.
Submitted by Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator
Prepared by Nann Opheim
...."",