PRC 1987 08 25
CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
,.... 'UGUST 25, 1987
Chairman Lynch called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m..
MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Schroers, Carol Watson, Jim Mady, Ed Hasek, Sue
Boyt, Curt Robinson and Mike Lynch
STAFF PRESENT: Lori Sietsema, Park and Rec Coordinator
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Watson moved, Mady seconded to approve the Minutes of
the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated August 4, 1987 as amended
by Jim Mady on Page 18 and the Minutes of August 11, 1987. All voted in
favor and motion carried.
SITE PLAN REVIEW OF LAKE RILEY MEADOWS.
Sietsema: Lake Riley Meadows, this subdivision is 42.1 acres and it's
proposed that they are going to subdivide this into 12 single family lots.
The parcel is outside of the MUSA line along pioneer Trail to the east of TH
101. Basically what I've said in here is although the Commission is looking
for a 15 acre park, we've had some other parcels develop in this area and
they were considered too far east and this is even more so so I did not feel
that you probably would consider this for that 15 acre parcel. We do want
to make sure however that we continue the trail along the south side of
Pioneer Trail. The other thing was that, being consistent with other
,... evelopments, we have asked for trails along the streets and being this is f
.ural development, an on-street trail should be sufficient. Other than that
I don't have any changes or additions to my staff report. If you have any
questions.
Robinson: We did have a planned trail along pioneer Trail?
Sietsema: Yes. That's already installed in Eden prairie and if you look at
the location map, we have it through the Halla property that's right next to
the west of this so we have a significant chunk in there and this provides
another chunk of that piece.
Mady: We're on the same side of the street as Eden prairie's trail?
Sietsema: Right. We did originally have a piece easement on the north
side through the Lake Riley Woods and we abandoned that so now we have it on
the south side through Lake Riley Woods south and the Halla property.
Boyt: I would rather see off-street trails wherever possible and I think
it's possible here.
Mady: By the looks of it, it's a 60 foot right-of-way. I'd like to see
them off-street anywhere, put them off-street before we give any reduction
in fees. It would have to be with off-street. On-street I don't see where
we have to give any reduction in fees.
JI"""
Park and Rec Commission
August 25, 1987 - Page 2
,...,
6ietsema: That's for the acquisition of that land. We haven't given any
reduction in fees for trail easements but this is trail dedication for along
pioneer Trail.
Mady: Should we take over constructing it? Starting it? Halla's is going
to be developing fairly soon maybe.
Watson: He says that he got in the 2 1/2 acres before we changed it to 10
but he intends to kill time as long as he can. He just didn't want to get
stuck with 10 acres.
Sietsema: So you're proposing that we have them construct the trails too?
Mady: The one inside the development anyway. If pioneer Trail is not going
to be developed on either side, I guess it's not going to go anyplace, it
would just be a short piece of trail that's going to go back.
Hasek: What has the policy typically been? Simply to dedicate the right-
of-way or the easement for the trail and not construct the trail?
Sietsema: In these rural ones, it's been real hard because with 12 lots,
your trail dedication at $138.00 a lot is not that much and so along Pioneer
Trail we have gotten the dedication for a trail, a 20 foot wide strip
dedicated but within the developments we have been able to get the trail
~uilt within the street easements so we haven't taken any additional
roperty. We haven't taken any land away from them and then we've required
them to construct them but we're dealing with a different situation here and
I don't really know how you want to handle it. We're talking about taking
additional property along pioneer Trail so we have two costs there. We have
construction and acquisition rather than in most of the urban developments
we're talking just construction.
Hasek: I guess I have to agree. If there's a chance we're building a new
street and we've got the possibility of putting the trail off of the road, I
would like to see that done. Sometimes we're going to get stuck where we
have to put it on the road but that's a situation we have to live with.
Sietsema: The reason I recommended it as I did is because you had a similar
piece right next door to this on Lake Riley Woods and you decided it was not
necessary to have it on the street. I had recommended an off-street and you
guys decided that you didn't think it was necessary so I really think we
need to be consistent from one parcel to the other.
Robinson: Are we talking pioneer Trail now or the public street?
Boyt: The public street.
Mady: The cul-de-sac.
'tJ a t son: Lor i, did we get the t r ail de d i cat ion fee fro m D a v e H a n son w hen he
~ubdivided that property?
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 25, 1987 - Page 3
Sietsema: Along what?
'-"
Watson: Along pioneer Trail.
Sietsema: On the north side?
Watson: East of Mr. Vogel's property.
Sietsema: On the north side of pioneer Trail?
Watson: It's right next door, is that the north side?
Sietsema: This one goes north and south of pioneer Trail. Are you talking
about north? You must be. No. We did not.
Watson: We didn't get anything because he subdivided and I wondered about
that.
Sietsema: He's on the north side so we wouldn't want to cross over and then
cross back over.
Schroers: I agree with Lori on needing to be consistent here and I wonder
if we can't just try to set a standard that we don't even have to deal with
this on-streetjoff-street. It's just off-street wherever possible and
':hat's that.
Mady: We're in a lot better position being off-street.
.."",
Robinson:
that's all.
But this is on that public street that services all 12 lots but
It dead ends at the cul-de-sac.
Schroers: If we're inconsistent we're going to run into problems in the
future because somebody is going to say, look you didn't go off-street with
them, how come I have to.
Robinson: To me, if it terminates at the cul-de-sac, I don't see why that
can't be just an on-street trail. There's not going to be that much traffic
there and it services 12 lots.
Hasek: Is there any chance that we should be considering a connection
between this cul-de-sac trail system and the property that's directly to the
west?
Sietsema: No, that won't happen.
Mady: There are steep slopes there.
Sietsema: I believe that the slopes are prohibitive and I asked planning
about that and that's not ever going to happen.
.....",
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 25, 1987 - Page 4
"",......
Masek: They don't think that's a necessary connection. How do the people
next door going to ever develop? We've got something shown to us on that
already.
sietsema: To the west?
Hasek: Wasn't that one of the first things that I think I looked at when I
got on the Commission.
Sietsema: Yes. We talked about it but we didn't act on it. We didn't ask
for one. I believe they do have a beachlot. I can't recall the exact the
configuration of that parcel.
Hasek: Was it Mark's opinion that there would never be a need for a
connection between this property and the next?
Sietsema: No, it wasn't Mark. That would be a planning decision so we
didn't address it because evidentally the planning department, Planning
Commission, whatever, decided that wasn't either possible or necessary. The
developer is here and I think he wants to make some comments.
Richard Vogel: Fi rst of all, the fi rst I've heard 1 i ke thi s and Herb
Baldwin was laying the property out with me was when I got this letter. I
was gone on vacation and I got the letter last night when I was home. On
~he south side of pioneer Trail there's a bank that goes up, I don't know
,here the end of the road right-of-way goes. I'm assuming it's the top of
the bank. I can't see anyone wanting a trail on the side of the bank and
anyone can go out there and look at that if they want. I stepped out seven
steps from the top of the bank towards my house, that's 20 feet or 21 feet
or whatever it happens to be I'll be within 14 or 15 feet of my porch.
Lilac trees, bushes and I think one tree will have to go. This is our wind
break to the north from our house.
Lynch: Would you show us on the map Mr. Vogel where your house is?
Richard Vogel: There is a garage here and the line is here.
Hasek: Are the trees that are shown on that fairly accurate? There are
some to the north there.
Richard Vogel: This is the house. There's a group of trees here. These
are bushes, lilac trees, there are apple trees in here which are not shown
or at least I don't think there are many of them.
Hasek: Is the large structure down and to the left then is a barn?
Richard Vogel: That's a garage. Tractors are stored there and other
machinery.
~asek: And the tree that you feel is going to be lost is where in
elationship to the house?
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 25, 1987 - Page 5
Richard Vogel: Here's the house. These trees here. All along here there'~
a lot of lilac bushes in here but you have to see. I don't think they are
all along here but I guess anybody can drive up and look if they want.
Sietsema: 20 feet is a wide enough easement so we can work around anything
that's there. We wouldn't be corning in and taking out all your trees.
Richard Vogel: Then I would like to show me that on my front lawn how it
can be worked around. You would have to go right next to the house there.
The top of the bank comes right up to thi s one I i I ac tree and I think th i s
is the one that is here that shows right on the edge of the rim.
Hasek: Is it possible to put the trail down in the ditch between the road
surface and the lilacs?
Richard Vogel: They don't want it on roadside. I don't know where the road
right-of-way is. I'm assuming when they made that road in 1974 they graded
this thing from my lawn. I'm assuming they keep the right-of-way there. I
don't know if they do or not. I did not have time to look into that.
Lynch: How wide is the right-of-way that's shown on here now? Is this 80?
Richard Vogel: If these little dotted lines in the center are the roadway,
then if this solid line is the highway right-of-way, that takes in some of
these trees, just the highway right-of-way without going the extra 20 feet.
Mady: I think that's the intent. I don't know whether the topography is
correct or not but it seems to me like those dash lines are the surface of
the road because they almost follow the center line as drawn there.
....".,.
Hasek: Lori, do we put trails in the county road right-of-ways?
Sietsema: We have been able to in the past. We have to get their approval
to do so.
Hasek: Lori, if we look at this graphic, does this thing indicate to us
that the setback on the south side of the road is shown as 50 feet? Is that
about right compared to the others on the south side of pioneer Trail? That
looks about the same dimension as the 50 footer that the building setback is
shown on the other side of the public street into this project. If that's
50 feet, taking 20 should leave you about 30 feet in front of your house
plus or minus.
Richard Vogel: If this here dark line which cuts into this tree here, that
is the highway right-of-way end and you can take 20 feet and there's going
to be 30 more? I would have to measure to see if there is that.
Hasek: That would have to be verified obviously and somet~mes ~raphics.
aren't quite right but it appears as though that setback llne klnd of nlcks
two corners of your house there and obv iously it could be off by 4 feet but
it seems to me like if we took 20 there would be 26 to 30 feet left as
"."
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 25, 1987 - Page 6
,.....
opposed to...
Richard Vogel: But I think she said you would work around trees and shurbs.
You wouldn't take them out. Then you're going to get coming off the house.
sietsema: But it would be more, if we could work with the County and get it
into the road easement. We don't want a trail next to your house either.
It's only going to be problems for us in the long run.
Mady: It just gives us a better opportunity to put it in where it works the
best. In other words, if we can get away from going up the bank, we may
just put it down by the road. Right now we're not saying where to put it in
this 10 feet. It's going to go wherever it's going to make the most sense
to go. It just gives us the flexibility right now.
Hasek: I think you also have the opportunity to work with the designer
that's going to laying that thing in there and when that is staked out and
so forth, the engineers that will stake it out, talking to them and working
with them.
Richard Vogel: And when is this going to be staked out?
Hasek: It's
taken right
,.....
.Jietsema:
hard to say. I don't know. Is this something that is being
away but the trail is scheduled? This is on a third phase part.
At least the second phase. It's 5 to 10 years down the road.
Richard Vogel: Let's just say I build a house down by the lake on one of my
lots and I want to sell this farm home as hobby farm and you were going to
buy that. Would you pay more if you had a trail going right up by your
house or if it was down by the road?
Hasek: I definitely from your standpoint would like to see it down by the
road and I th ink you ought to work with the eng i neer to try and do tha t and
make the suggestion when this thing goes before Planning Commission and
Council that that's your...
Richard Vogel: But the way it's stated, it says it's off the roadway side.
Sietsema: Off-street. Off the actual tar so there would be boulevard
between the road and the trail. Now whether that's going to be within the
street easement or not, I can't because it's a county road.
Richard Vogel: I would like someone to go out there and look at that and
see because there is a bank. You can cut it with a lawnmower but you have
to be careful and it goes up right from the tarred road. You would have to
cut that bank off completely straight up and down to get it alongside the
road the way I understand it. You want 20 feet.
~asek: We would want a 20 foot easement. The trail section itself would be
o more than 8 feet wide. This is the road right now. We've got an 80 foot
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 25, 1987 - Page 7
easement going through there for that road. We want to acquire a 29 foot ...",."
easement, this is a right-of-way. A dedicated right-of-way and we want to
acquire a 29 foot easement. We have got the right to build between the edge
of the road right here and this line so if you've got shrubery that's
growing on your property line which is your house sits back in here
someplace, we can build that trail here if necessary. Off-street simply
means that there is going to be grass between our trail and the edge of the
road. That's what off-street means. It doesn't mean off right-of-way. It
means off-street.
Richard Vogel: Let's say this is the edge of the tar on the road. There's
a white line, there's a little tar, right here this bank goes up to here
like this. Now if you're going to build it in there you're going to have to
take that bank away and make it straight up and down.
Hasek: We've got that situation in a number of places in town. There's
just no question about it and it's going to be up to you as a property owner
to talk to the engineer and decide with them, along with the City, where
that has to go. Our policy is to take the right-of-way and we obviously
don't want this trail to go up here if it can go anyplace else. If it can't
go anyplace else, it may end up in here but that's not where we would like
to see it. If you want to save these trees, if you don't want it up next to
your house, obviously we would like to work with you because sometimes that
just doesn't work out and it's better for you to push that through than it
's for us. That is our policy to try and work with the landowners.
Schroers: Put it where it works best for them.
.."""
Mady: What we need to do is keep the trail as safe as possible. pioneer
Trail is going to be a main street in town. It's going to be a major trail
connection for us also meeting Eden prairie and extending down to Chaska so
it's going to be an important piece of trail for us. What we want to do is
make sure it's as safe as possible for the kids and all families going up
and down with their bicycles and hiking. We don't want them roaring next to
your house and by the same token we don't want it right next to, right on
the tar either.
Richard Vogel: Maybe you want to buy the house. Is that a solution? See,
I'm not trying to be hardballed but I don't think anyone in here would like
to have a trailway going right next to their porch of their house where
right now you've got a nice growing. you've got a nice bank you can look
down if you want to sit on it a lot. That will all be gone.
Hasek: What are you suggesting as an option?
Richard vogel: Well, I don't know. I did talk to Eden Prairie. They have
no plans to build up to Carver County. Their main thing is to get the trail
down to Riley Lake Park and they've got a hold on that because their last
bond issue was defeated but they have no plans to go from, back here is
where the road goes to Lake Riley in Eden Prairie. Right now the trail is
~bout here. They want to go here and then down to Lake Riley Park and
...",;'
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 25, 1987 - Page 8
.~
chat's as far as they plan to go.
Watson: But if more trail was in, I think they would be interested in
making the connection.
Mady: They've already indicated the desire to pursue the connections with
us once we get ours going.
Richard Vogel: Okay, I talked to the planner the other day and that's what
he said. They had no plans now to put in that trail.
Lynch: Yes, they don't until we have something to connect to.
Hasek: It doesn't make sense for them to put in a lot of those stubs to the
city property line if there's nothing to connect to and it's up to kind of
us now to show that we are making a commitment to make those connections and
that's what we're trying to show here. If we could, we would put it on the
north side. However, we've already acquired right-of-way on the south side
adjacent to you and adjacent to that property all the way out to TH 101 and
to put a small piece of this on the north side just wouldn't make any sense.
Richard Vogel: What about people coming down this trail here and wanting to
go down to the lake? They're going to cross that traffic.
~asek: Right, that's a few people crossing to get into that plat but it's
.ot the general public that's using that trail. What have you got, 12 lots
in there. That's 12 families having to cross it as opposed to 3,000 that
are in the city that may have an opportunity to use that trail.
Richard Vogel: The trail here, who puts that trail in?
Sietsema: It would go in with the street. The developer would put that in.
On-street.
Richard Vogel: We've made no plans. There was never any mention of this
until I got this letter that there had to be a trail with the road. It's
not in our budget at all. It was never mentioned. Herb Baldwin didn't know
about it until I called him yesterday afternoon when I got home.
Hasek: Herb, when he came to the city and started investigating setbacks
and so forth, did he ask if there was any trail dedication or park
dedications would be necessary?
Richard Vogel: Park dedication yes.
Boyt:
Trail dedications is rather new.
Richard Vogel: I talked to one person up in Chanhassen today and he didn't
know that there were trail dedication fees and this guy gets around
~hanhassen. I'm jus~ saying, it wasn't pointed out to us. We had no plans
n here. You're saYIng that we have to build this trail and tar it down to
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 25, 1987 - Page 9
the street.
-II'
Sietsema: It's just addi tional street width. It's just a striped line on
your road.
Boyt: That's what it is right now but we're asking that it's off-street.
Schroers: We haven't made a motion yet.
Boyt: But that's what we're discussing is the possibility of an off-street
trail rather than an on-street.
Mady: Still within the right-of-way.
Watson: How long is your cul-de-sac?
Richard Vogel: I'm not sure.
Hasek: It looks like it's about 900 feet. Does that sound about right?
Richard Vogel: Alright. And how wide is the paved street width? The city
street. How wide is that?
Hasek: Is it 28 or 26?
Jietsema: I'm not sure what engineering would require you to have for the ...."I
street width down there but I know that it would have to be 8 foot wider on
the side for a trail.
Richard Vogel: So instead of a 28 foot street we build a 36 foot street, is
that right?
Sietsema: Right.
Richard Vogel: And you would have to tar an extra 8 feet and that would be
up to us to do that?
Hasek: An example. You've got roughly 900 feet, our estimates have come in
for an 8 foot wide trail depending on the topography and the work that has
to be done, we've been between $5.00 and $10.00 per foot.
Sietsema: On-street would be on the lower end of that.
Hasek: Obviously. It probably would be under the $5.00 because it's a part
of the surface and grading. But let's say it's off-street. Separate ~rom
the street surface but in the road right-of-way so you don't have to glve us
any additional dedication.
Sietsema: Have you driven along Lake Lucy Road?
~ichard Vogel: No I haven't.
.....,,#
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 25, 1987 - Page 10
,...,
Sietsema: If you get a chance, that's basically what it would look like.
Hasek: About $6,000.00 in cost for 900 feet of trails. That's a
guesstimate.
Richard Vogel: Above and beyond what the street would cost?
Hasek: Above and beyond wha t the street wou Id cost if it were on the
street. Now building with the street as a part of the hard surface of the
street would be considerably less because you wouldn't be doing additional
grading. It's just part of it and putting a stripe down along the road. I
guess it's unfortunate that Herb didn't find out about that. I happen to
know Herb and I gues sometimes those things just aren't mentioned but that
fact withstanding, you still have to go through a review here and I think it
sounds like let's go ahead and require that. If you have any problems with
that, if you would like to discuss it with the Planning Commission and
Council, ours is simply the policy of recommending to the City Council and
Planning Commission the act as we suggest. That doesn't mean that they
necessary will act that way and you certainly have the right to state your
opinions and protest when you get before those two bodies. We aren't
approving bodies, we are just recommendation bodies.
Lynch: What we're trying to look at is 10 to 15 years down the line and
some property owners that are ecstatic about this kind of an operation.
"""'ome of them just hate it and some really don't care. Putting a trail
~hrough the property. Some developers have thought enough of it that they
came in here and said I'm going to build this and this, it's part of my
package. They think it's a great deal with the subdivision. The next guy
comes in and says nobody would ever use it.
Richard Vogel: I'm not saying there's anything wrong wi th a trai 1 system.
I think it's nice for these people down here if you want it. There are 11
lots in here the 12th one is on this side so I'm assuming that these people
who want to bike down here or walk down here to go back there is fine but if
it's going to be limited to those 11 lots. Not limited but those 11 lots
will use the bulk share of it, I would think the least expensive way to do
it would be the way to do it.
Mady: You also have to look at the safety aspect. To me, by putting an
off-street, we avoid one kid being hit by a car in 20 years, that was money
well spent.
Richard Vogel: In other words, this is going to be different than Gagne's
development? And where does the trail have to be? On the street?
Boyt:
We just recommended that 't'
1 s off street.
Richard Vogel:
,.....
And what is the Gagne development?
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 25, 1987 - Page 11
Sietsema: It's on-street. So your trail would be required to be within the'"
street easement but disconnected from the actual street pavement similar to
a sidewalk.
Robinson: If the motion passes.
Hasek: The question stands. Are we being a bit inconsistent here? Is it
necessary to be off-street? I guess the way I looked at it is, granted we
would like them to be off-street where possible. However, we've got 900
foot cul-de-sac serving 11 lots here in a rural setting. Is it necessary to
construct off-street? I'm not saying yes and I'm not saying no but we've
kind of had the policy in the past where it's gone on-street. Are we going
to now change our policy? That doesn't bother me either but I think we've
got to be consistent one way or the other.
Robinson: That's where I'm coming from Ed. Is it practical or really
necessary to go off-street here and I don't think it is to serve 12 lots.
Lynch: I guess I agree with Curt. Off-street certainly for pioneer Trail
but on a 900 foot cul-de-sac, I don't think it's particularly necessary.
Schroers: I would agree with that also but I'm just worried about maybe
setting a precedent where everyone is going to come in and say, okay, Gagne
doesn't have off-street, why should I have off-street? All of a sudden,
~hat's going to be our policy.
.....,tI
Lynch: I'm not worr ied about precedence so much as I am a case by case
evaluation.
Robinson: If this was going through that cul-de-sac and through some
adjoining property on the other side, would get heavy use and we would
probably not arrive at the same opinion.
Lynch: If there was a possibility of through traffic here, either
pedestrian or motorists, either one, I would want off-street. Something
that's short and one-way.
Robinson: So I think it is more a case by case situation. I think they all
maybe could be just a little bit different.
Mady: I guess I have to disagree. We have the opportunity here, from this
point forward of putting every trail off the road. If we were the City of
~'nni~~G1\~ 1~~ Ve~t6 ij~O, evetybody in town thought ~hey were nuts by .
nH\\\\t~~~. ~ b ilt Evety town in th1.S countl:Y. wou1.d l.~~e do
building the p~~;s ~r~~e;~eoYli: ha;. We have the OP1:;,~U~;;! ~~g::tn;; years
to have park;; 1 e 5 to 10 years from now we , ssary there or who
something rlght. MaYb~de there's a street connectlon nec~i ht now putting
from now, t~er may, de~lo be like 20 years from now but bYtti;g it off-street,
knows what lt s gOln~ have it off-street. By pu
, th street, we 11 never
lt on e f that problem.
~e've taken care 0
.....,
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 25, 1987 - Page 12
,.....
Hasek: We have another option that we haven't discussed and that's the
possibility of taking, actually two things. One, leaving it an on-street
trail and taking a 113 foot easement for future possibility of moving it off
should that ever happen. I guess what I'm thinking is that the only way I
could see where this could go through and things might change is if there
was any possibility of dividing these lots and this development became more
residential in character than it is right now. Less rural and more
residential in character. More urban in character. In that case, two sides
of parking on the street may become required and if we had the extra 113 feet
of right-of-way of trail easement on one side, we could at that point allow
that 8 foot trail to become a part of the established street and reconstruct
the trail off. Obviously that would be at the city's expense but at least
we would then have the land in which to do it and that would also probably
affect the building setbacks for those lots then too. That's another
option. Jim, I guess I tend to agree with you. I don't want to make the
mistake. However, at the same time, I don't feel that it's necessary in all
instances to necessarily hold the developer accountable for something that
may happen 213, 313, 513 years down the road. I think there's a little bit of
unjustness in doing that too. Maybe there's a middle ground between the
two. Maybe it should go on the street now and if we ever consider taking
the 113 foot right-of-way for future off-street.
Lynch: If it is possible, and I assume this is possible in the 613 feet now,
~o put the road and a separate trail in, if we put a trail and an on-street
rail on now, why can't we later put an off-street trail?
Hasek: Okay, we've got 613 feet and we've got 36 feet of surface, that
leaves us 24 feet or 12 on each side. So if we put in an 8 foot trail that
would give us 4 foot separation and the trail would then go right up to the
property line or within 513 feet, if that's the setback, within 513 feet of
the house and maybe that isn't so bad. Maybe there is room to do it.
Lynch: That is if they split they difference but let's say you take it, you
give your 24 foot remaining. You leave 6 on one side and 18 on the other.
Hasek: You mean put the road surface off center. That's a possibility too.
Lynch: How would they structure it now? If they were this and said fine, I
want to put a separate trail in, how would they construct the road and trail
within the 613 foot? Obviously we don't normally ask for more.
Sietsema: Right.
Lynch: So would he set the road off center? I mean who cares whether it's
off center or not as long as it's in the right-of-way and there's adequate
shoulder.
Hasek: The policy is to put the road surface on center within the right-of-
way so that both sides have the same benefit for setback from the road but
~at doesn't necessarily mean we've got the road right-of-way to work with.
.e can certainly recommend, that's another option we haven't talked about.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 25, 1987 - Page 13
Lynch: I'm dumb here. If this hadn't come up, how would he have gotten
separate trail in the 60 feet? Would he have gone like I figured out right
up to the boundary?
.....",
Sietsema: Probably. Being a residential street, it would have been a 6
foot trail so I'm sure they probably would have kept it on center and put it
on one side because there would be room to do that. As long as there was
room to do that but I'm not sure that we couldn't off center something
either.
Mady:
I think it's very easy and it's done in a lot of places.
Hasek: Maybe part of our recommendation, we could let this one fail and
restructure it. I don't know if he's going to have an opinion here but have
you changed your mind at all Jim?
Mady: No, I really haven't. I feel it has to be off-street.
Boyt: That's one of the things the City Council has asked us.
Mady: Why are we giving up right now. Basically what you're telling me is
let's give up on this right now and put it on the street. I look at the
street I live on, 25 years ago when they built my house, they could have
done it then but they didn't. They didn't even think about it and now we
"lave the opportunity to think about it. Last time we were looking at
~rails Mark was in here telling us Frontier Trail, he's trying to tell us -,"
it's almost impossible to put an off-street trail in there because we waited
too long. Now we're saying we'll put it on-street and 10 or 20 years from
now maybe we will put it off-street and Mark is going to come back 20 years
from now and say well, we can't because all those property owners won't want
to do it.
Robinson: But your was never a cul-de-sac street when it was originally
planned was it?
Mady: Yes it was. It was a cul-de-sac up until about 3 months ago.
Robinson: Yes, but a long ways more than 900 feet from your house and a lot
of adjoining streets inbetween there.
Mady: I just think it's a mistake. I really do.
Lynch: I'm just stuck on that 60 feet. Were the roads in your area, do you
know what that width was?
Mady: I don't know. I believe it was a 50 foot easement in there. I've
got a 24 foot street in front of my house.
Hasek: One of the reasons why I don't see that there is any problem with
i.t, and I certainly am very much aware of the safety things that are going
In. We had a little kid who was just nicked in our neighborhood here not
.....",
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 25, 1987 - Page 14
,.....
coo long ago but I think that safely you can get a 36 foot wide street
here. It would be another project designed by Herb Baldwin going into
Farm. That's his project as well. You can certainly drive in there.
open as that is and the people in there use that street all the time.
don't think they've had any problems in there. I have a relative that
lives in there.
in
Hesse
As
I
Boyt: I wouldn't want my preschooler riding their trike on this winding
road on an on-street trail but on a sidewalk the could. On a trail they
could. Dads and moms can take the strollers out in the evening and go down
the trail. I hate to see that on a street.
Hasek: I guess there's perhaps a little difference there too. I would
guesstimate that Hesse Farm Road is probably a 24 foot surface at a maximum.
That's a private street and it didn't have to be built to public
specifications. This one is going to have to be built to public
specifications and if it's going to be 36 foot wide, that's considerably
larger- than Hesse Farm.
Richard Vogel: Do we know it's 36 foot wide?
Hasek: I don't know what city policy is. I'm guessing it's 28 and if it's
on the street.
~ietsema: 28 sounds right.
Richard Vogel: This is in the rural area, is that what it is?
Sietsema: That number sounds right to me but again, I can't tell you that
for absolute positive.
Schroers: This is just a little bit off the wall but referring back to the
Gagne property, has that plan been totally approved by the City Council?
Sietsema: I believe the north portion of it has been.
Schroers: So there is no question about it. They do have on-street there?
Sietsema: That's right. Even if final plat had not been approved, at this
point we would not have the opportunity to go in and change.
Schroers: I wish we could do that over again. You know, to me Ed's option
sounds logical and reasonable but I'm just afraid that we could get
ourselves in a situation where it's going to be difficult from this point on
to get off-street in a development if we continue to go with the on-street
trails. Ever since I've been here it's been the opinion ot ev~rv~n~ ihnr w_
do wan t the off-s treet tra i 1 and I th' k th till J VII., ~IIW ~ "~
~hUarts~~~sinn,ta jam, we should ado t In at we should bel
~treet and th:~~e to keep comingP upsome so~t of a POlicy' t or~ WQ gat
s that. as an lSsue. Pa k 0, that effect so
r traIls are J'ust
off-
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 25, 1987 - Page 15
Hasek: Can we perhaps do this? I guess part of the reason that I'm having-'
a little trouble with this. Number one, I don't know that it's necessary
but number two, the situation is down the road we've done one thing and now
we're going to change it. We have had policy. I'm hearing that Council is
looking for off-street trails but have they told anybody that we got
anything that has ever said that or is this just a feeling that you've had
in discussion.
Schroers: Mark Koegler has said that every time that we talked about trails
that that is desirable wherever, whenever possible. That is what we want
and I think we should just make that our policy so we can stay consistent.
Hasek: Then that's exactly what I'm suggesting. If it is going to be our
policy, perhaps let this motion fail. Set the policy and then re-establish
it. Do it like it should be done.
Watson: We try to improve things and improving things occasionally we do
change the policy. If things have one way and then in order to make the
situation better we start doing it a different way, it's not inconsistency,
it's simply improvement.
Hasek: Maybe to make myself feel better, Jim do you mind if we just simply
amended your motion to our new policy?
~ady: No, I would like to see the motion stand as it is.
Hasek: See I couldn't vote for it. I would let it fail right now but I
need the policy first. If you attach the policy to your motion and then
I'll vote yes, of course.
...."
Robinson: What pOlicy?
Hasek: The policy that from now on we're going to ask to require off-street
trails.
Sietsema: What Ed is proposing is that we let this motion fail. Make a
motion to set a policy and then you re-establish your motion just as it is.
Lynch: Why don't we just reform your motion?
Hasek: You could do that but it's got a second now and a question has to be
called but you could amend it and premise it by saying based on the policy
,~\~~ l~ ~Q~lQ li~e to im~lement fot off-street trails.
. ust for procedute. . n because i t wo~ld be
Lynch: Maybe) thing come up agal ise your motlon
ko 1 would hate to see ~~ew:~m:oUld siml?lY ;~ab:d ~ne: that would be
Hase 0 me way. The ea let the mot1on
stated the. sa ta temen t and then ....",
with a pollCY s
~ine.
Park and Rec Commissio~ Meeting
August 25, 1987 - Page 16
."'"
watson: Otherwise, you would have to vote inconsistenly or fail it.
Hasek: Exactly and I would just as soon approve the motion that was made as
opposed to deny it and then turn around and pass the same motion.
Schroers:
motion Jim.
I think what we're saying is that we are in agreement with your
We just want to set the policy before.
Hasek: All you've got to do is premise the statement. That's all you've
got to do is tell Lori to premise the statement and amend it in terms of the
motion with a new policy statement that simply says that we will from now on
ask to require off-street trails wherever possible and that's really what we
said isn't it?
Mady moved, Boyt seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend
to state a policy of having all trails off-street whenever and wherever
possible and that an off-street trail be constructed along the west edge of
the public street through the development consistent with that policy.
That the City obtain a 20 foot trail easement along the southern edge of
pioneer Trail. 100% of park dedication fees be paid by developer and trail
dedication fees shall be waived in lieu of construction. Mady, Boyt,
Schroers, Watson and Hasek voted in favor and Lynch and Robinson opposed and
motion carried with a vote of 5 to 2.
J!IIII""""
Lynch: Not let's jump on this policy thing. I can say my piece quickly.
Uniform policy is fine if the situation we have to deal with is uniform. It
seldom is. There is great differences from one property to the next and I
don't want to get locked into a policy that in some cases I feel is
personally defensivable. It doesn't bother me for a developer to say, you
did such and such next door and you're doing this different here. If I've
got what I feel is a good reason, what I think the Council will accept is a
good reason, say this is our reason. This is our reason and we'll see what
the council says. I just don't like to get locked in. I don't feel that on
a small piece of property like this that that's necessary. We have 60 feet
of right-of-way and if an off-street trail will fit in that now, an off-
street trail will fit it in 10 years from now or 20 years from now.
Schroers: I think the way the policy is stated, we're not locked into it
because the way it's stated, it says wherever and whenever possible so we've
left ourself open there and basically what we're saying is we want off-
street trail whenever we can get it and wherever it's good but in a
situation where it's just impossible or it's not logical or it doesn't make
sense, we still have the option to put it on-street.
RObinson:
been where
along with
,.....
Okay but that isn't the h
possible and practical o:a[ I. eard the motion.
that but it was J'ust h oglcal or whatever I
w erever Possible. '
I~ 1't:
I: would have
would have gone
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 25, 1987 - Page 17
Hasek: The way that I understood it and the reason I insisted that it be .~
done is because, from a developer's standpoint I've been working on a number
of things recently where policy hasn't been set in the ordinances or in the
city policy whatsoever and it's been interpretted and we find ourselves more
and more and more and more finding landowners going to litigation simply
because there is no policy. They're fighting for lack of policy and
arbitrary and capricious decisions that are being made by Planning
Commissions and Councils. If we've got a policy, any kind of policy,
obviously we have the option of backing away from it if we so desire and
also because it's a policy, because it's stated, the developer has a chance
to prove that maybe in this case it does not apply. If there is no policy,
all you end up with is just a big rhubard and it's really ridiculous some of
the things that the planning commissions and councils have been laying on us
in various projects that we've been trying to get approved. Rational,
reasonable developments, meeting city code right to the letter but because
there is a lack of policy on some things, I guess the opinions of the people
on the planning commission and council have been ridiculous and you see it
all the time.
Watson: It's the cry of the developer. For today, tomorrow, 50 years from
now you sit down with the same people and say the same thing. There's no
truth to that. It's the developer wanting one thing and somebody wanting
something, that's...
9asek: You've got to admit it's unfortunate from the developer's standpoint
~itting out there trying to get something done because you work with all of
the rules that have been set forth before him and all of a sudden somebody
decides that well, there's kind of an unwritten rule here that we should be
considering. If it's unwritten, get it written. That's why I'm simply
saying that's why I thought the policy was necessary and to get the rule
written so that we had something that we could use if we needed.
-'
Lynch: I have no problem with general policy. Like I say, I just don't
want to be locked in.
Hasek: I don't think we are. We can back away. We have the option. We can
back away from any ordinance that we have we have the option to back away
from it if you want to. The city has a policy or the right to do that if
they find a reason to do it or if the developer can prove it or the engineer
says it's ridiculous and this is a variance that has to be granted or we're
being arbitrary and capricious and I don't think we're locked in at all. I
think actually this gives us more flexibility than we had before. My
~~1UiQth
, they a~e ~ecommending
e clear what your motlon w~s, on the south side
Sietsema: So tha~lY~~a~r a trail dedicati~n b~ acqu~~~i~lde~ached from the
to the Clty co~ncl d that a 6 foot wide bltumlnouS nt along the public
of pioneer Trall an d within the street easeme
avement be constructe
rsotardeePt wl'thin the development. l' -
motion regarding this po lCY1-,
somebody like to construct a
~ynch: Now would
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 25, 1987 - Page 18
,....
Mady: We already have.
Schroers: That whole thing was a little bit confusing. I wasn't aware that
Sue had seconded Jim's first motion. I thought it was kind of stopped right
in the middle of the motion.
Hasek: I don't know what the rules are but can the policy be stated within
a motion? I'm certain it can.
Sietsema: I would think so.
Hasek: So really the policy that Jim stated was one that is going to be
this Board's policy to try and acquire off-street trails or try to require
of developments wherever and whenever policy and I think that's exactly what
we said.
Mady:
of us.
And it makes Lori's job easier when she brings these things in front
She doesn't have to ask off-street or on-street.
Schroers: That's just the way it is and it's up to someone else to tell us
why it shouldn't be.
Watson: For instance because of topography or something, it will be off-
~treet for a short ways and then go back off-street again for whatever
eason it could alter. The leeway is still there to vary it.
sietsema: I'm comfortable with it.
1988 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
Seitsema: Last year we approved our Capital Improvement Program after the
budget was adopted. I want to make sure that we get that in before so there
isn't any confusion at a later date. It's hard to get things adopted and
resolutions made so we do it the proper way this year. Not that it was
really improper last year but this is a better way. Anyway, so I want you
to be thinking of what things you would like to include in the Capital
Improvement Program. The Capital Improvement Program includes park
development projects. It can be major maintenance items. It can be
additional facilities. It can be improvements to what's there. Generally
it's considered development. I listed what we had in our Capital
Improvement Program for 1987 and the status of those projects and I also
listed, I went through the Comprehensive Plan which has each park listed and
what the recommendation for each park was and that was as of 1979. I tried
to list everything that was still feasible or practical for us to do with
each one of these parks Some of them are 80m h t t t' 1
want ~o reconsider some .of tho ew a no pra~ l~a "AU m""
asterlcks by se recommendation h · 10 a~
that we're li:r~:dt~~ tO~~s that I added to the ~ist: eT~~esd that I put an
~ould be appropriate IS by any means. Anything that IS oes not mean
.0 you want to move t~\;:l;~xt M,rt Chairman, as long as YDOi~~OW~~gU~sw~th
1 em and have him give h' ere,
IS presentation?
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 25, 1987 - Page 19
PRESENTATION OF PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION CHAIRMAN, RICHARD WING.
...".,
Dick Wing: I want to take just 30 seconds of your time. The Public Safety
Commission this year is just trying to get out and introduce themselves to
the other commissions within the city. Our primary concern is Planning
Commission because we're been butting heads with what they're doing to off-
set the Public Safety's actions. I guess we wanted to be sure that there
was an interaction or at least a thought of interaction between the
Commissions because what you people do could affect what we do. An example
of the Planning Commission, should they elect to go to a 3 story building
in the city, they automatically tack on a half million dollar aerial truck
that the Fire Department simply doesn't have the equipment so if they give
us large buildings or tall buildings, then they're going to bump heads with
equipment needs and the same with Park and Rec. I think if you plan
anything that's going to have impact on public safety, let us know or at
least think about us because if things kind of begin shifting, all of a
sudden there's this need caused by somebody else not thinking that we don't
really the equipment to provide that service. I don't anticipate a lot of
problems with the Park and Rec at all. Really, we just wanted to let the
other commissions know that we're here and we're pretty active. We've had
strong support of the City Council. We've been a real active commission
within our own little realm. The other thing that we did want to point out
is that the City is on a contract system for pOlicing. We feel very
strongly, very supportive of that. I think Carol you're familiar with the
'1ackground of this and we have every intention of trying to stay on it as
Long as possible. We heard the complaints where people have come and said ...".,
we ought to have our own department, and our answer simply we do. People
say we have no control and we simply say we do and that's one reason we put
on a Publ ic Safety Director to insure that we do have the contract under
control. Maybe this would relate back to some minutes that reflected on the
Park and Rec back in December-January. I'm not sure when it was. Somebody
made a comment about a problem with the park and not having our own police
department and they're not related items. Every single year, especially in
the spring we have trouble with the parks. We know where the problems are
and we normally ask the deputies or sometimes the sheriff assigns a car to
hit that 2 or 3 times a night for a couple weekends and the problems
generally blow over so we have not been aware of any significant problems in
the park. Obviously you people have seen some and the City Council has
reacted. We now have an officer patrolling the parks. Again, any problems
we would love to hear about them. Any input you have, any insight you have,
any complaints from neighbors or yourself about the service, we really need
to know because as the city changes we have to adjust also. Right now we're
rrn1'V \\~ij iutQ the conttact. We're real~y com~ortable with that unless
~~1.i! d It's been wOIKlng qUlte well for us.
'tIs no goo, 1
somebody says 1 , th oldest member here
. the past and I me. hb hood
roblem we've seen ln , . nd screaming nelg or
Lynch: The p h h some of the real yell1ng.a. . to it myself that...
d I've gone t roug . put enough tlme ln b t
an , had over parklng. ticular problem a ou
fights that we ve d half regarding one par t . s not our
I tried that for ~y::: :~ldabY one of the ~eputies t?a\;~:ioln that he was
four years ago a? th first time and lt was my lmp ...",
c>olicy to give tlckets e
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 25, 1987 - Page 2~
,......
the City of Chanhassen employee during his time here and if the Council
requested staff to request that they do that, they say yes sir and do it.
Now, I haven't gone through that same thing recently but I do know that
we've had things exist. For instance we had our vagabond camping on
Greenwood Shores Park and his abode down there was checked out a couple of
times. People weren't home so they didn't disturb anything. I mean that
should have been scarffed up and taken to city hall with a note left and if
you would like your stuff come down and claim it but I don't think it's good
enforcement.
Dick Wing: We did have a real void during the switch over in the Public
Safety Director and things didn't get done. One reason we brought a Public
Safety Director was to insure control so when this problem exists, he says
this is what I want done and I want this cleaned up. Here's where I want
the cars. Here's where I want the man moved. If that's not happening, he's
not doing his job. That complaint is his responsibility. The Council says
x, he's supposed to follow through on x and we're assuming it's getting
done.
Lynch: I'm watching that now. I hope that's going to work. I hope that's
going to be but those are the problems. You said have you problems in the
past? Yes. Those have been the problems we've had.
Dick Wing: One other thing that comes into this is that for years, for
~nstance on snowbirds, the city has not put up a million signs saying no
~arking and here's the rules and the law because we said let's not fill the
city full of signs so on snowbirds, we hand out little cards all through
November. We give warnings and then they handle the person on a one to one
basis and we've been fortunate enough to have that personal level of service
so that it's kind of live, let live operation. We prefer to keep it that
low key. We don't tag. They don't ticket. An example, maybe you're
familiar, well you've been around long enough to understand the problems at
Lake Ann where it carries 2~~ cars and on a hot day suddenly you let in 4~~
cars and then in come the deputy and the ordinance says you can't park on
the grass so he issues 2~~ tickets. Well, that wasn't reasonable and we
went to the City Council and they said no, it's not so we went by the intent
of the law versus the letter of the law and the deputies have been
instructed to ease off. They don't tag you for doing 3~ in a 2~ zone.
That's chicken. They don't set up radar traps. They're not tagging on a
hot day for parking on the grass at Lake Ann and it's because it's come from
the Council. The Council said no, we don't want it handled this way so part
of it has come from the deputies, part has been lack of communication and
thirdly, lack of a Public Safety Director so hopefully we're doing a good
job for everybody. If not, speak up because the city has got a
responsibility to handle these problems. We sure want to hear about it.
Lynch: I talked to the Public Safety Director about these same concerns
when he came on and his response was, immediately when something like this
comes to your attention, call me. Come over. We'll go take care of it
~ight then. So if there isn't any action anyplace else, I'll go take care
f it right in front of you. I'll do it so I said fine. Next time we have
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 25, 1987 - Page 21
something like that, expect a call.
--'
Dick Wing: He's the one that's in charge of that job. We have control of
hours and direction and duties of the officers. Discipline and procedures
corne from the County but they're really trying to turn over the deputies to
us more and more now and we have the same deputies, the same people working
the City year after year with dedicated equipment. Our own radios and our
own radar so it really is in fact our own little department. It's just that
instead of spend ing $530,000.00 we're spend ing $226,000.00. It's a big
difference. Our contract costs are going to be around $230,000.00 for 1988
and our own department would cost a minimum of $400,000.00. Just a minimum.
He uses a per capita number of $60.00 per capita times the population is a
realistic cost of a department so if somebody wants a department, I support
it but it's going to cost you better than twice what we're paying right now
and are we going to get that much more service for more than twice the money
so that's been the argument.
Watson: Because Chanhassen is the plum in the Carver County Sheriff's
Department, we always get the officers with lots of time in. We really get
the top bunch of officers simply because this is where they want to be.
This is the neat part of the job rather than driving around out there in the
boonies where you don't see a house for every 20 miles. This is where they
want to be.
~asek: Just a quick question. You had mentioned the possibility or the
~ituation where maybe at the request by City Council expenditure in your ~
department that is just unforeseen or just not thought of and you corne up
with a situation on the Park Board that you think that might be.
Dick Wing: It just occurred that we felt that the deputies with proper
direction could handle the park. The one you're talking about really has
been a nuisance. That really has been a problem. I think the sheriff's
department and the deputies on duty could handle that easily if they chose
to and I don't like the attitude and behavior that occurred throughout. Just
like the sprinkling thing, it was a real head-on collision between the City
and the deputies over the sprinkling thing and failure to enforce it and
that's left a bad taste but Dick Hasward at the County is reacting quickly
to this. He doesn't want these problems. He likes Chanhassen and they know
they need this contract. The reference to the problem in the park
necessitated the City Council reacting saying we want the parks patrolled
which necessitated the Public Safety Director citing a few blow-ups which
really were not going to park police duties which he felt that was a little
overbearing. I didn't know that we needed park policemen yet. I felt we
just needed more direction but Frank Ellering now is in a city car working
half of his CSO shift just on park duties. He's out there tonight acting as
a park officer patrolling specifically.
Hasek: Are you comfortable with his ability to do that or is it just...
ryick Wing: He's very capable. I think we have a concern in Frank in that
.le's young and we've had a real low key personality with Larry King and Mik(
....."
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 25, 1987 - Page 22
""
Douglas, Al Long. Suddenly we've got a young kid that's aggresive and his
eyes are a little bit cynical and we just don't want anybody bothering.
We're not ready to enforce conversion people and we tried to maintain that
level and I think Frank's doing an excellent job and is getting a lot of
support and really working hard. He's putting in twice the hours. He
really knows what he's doing. He's taking the parks very seriously.
Boyt: What's the total budget for the County? Do you know? What
percentage of that do we pay?
Dick Wing: Without having that here I can't quote. Our contract is by far
the largest. As a matter of fact, we're the main contracting city. The
rest of them are trying to get out and having all these costs and trouble.
I would say we pay the vast maj or i ty of the contract. Of the contract
dollars, we pay the vast majority but that's just a small portion of the
actual budget.
Schroers: What you're saying then is that by having the park officer on
duty on a regular basis, that has actually put a strain on your budget?
That was an unexpected addition to your budget?
Dick Wing: It's not necessarily going to affect our budget in that we
created tri-city animal control which costs $13,~~~.~~ a year, 2 hours of
~. atrol a day wasn't it Carol. When you voted on this it was pretty well a
oss up and put on 2~ hours with two part-time CSO officers and bought
..I...for the same dollars. Suddenly, our CSO program is being used for other
things and they took one of our CSO officers, who both are certified
policemen or could be activated as such, and put one of them in the park
services. Now, Clay McGee doesn't have time to do his CSo duties so now
they want to hire another CSO officer and we're saying, this wasn't our
agreement. We didn't recommend to Council that our dog catcher suddenly
become policemen and now we don't have a CSO program. One is being used as
a fire inspector. One is being used as a park policeman and now what
happened to our animal control. Suddenly now the government begets
government which is our fear every time we add one, he insists he has to
have two. That car might break down and we've got to have a back-up and it
just never stops so we're trying to keep tabs but still provide a good level
of service to the City. I have a report here that gives a chronological
order. We've been meeting with the neighborhood groups and when we put this
together in April to give a history of why we went contract and what we
intend to go, how the city evolved chronologically and the report on the
cost and then the back page talks about our response times which on the
average calls is 12 minutes for a non-emergency call. Emergency response
times are all in the 4 minutes. The City of Minnetonka and Minneapolis
doesn't even do that well so we're really providing incredible service to
the City including your parks. The parks are under 4 minutes. I'll leave 2
or 3 of these.
Lynch: One thing we should tell you is that we've got 2 or 3 parks right on
~he edge of being activated so there is going to be an increasing number of
acilities to be watched by whoever is directed to watch but there's just
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 25, 1987 - Page 23
that many more potential beer bust sites.
-'
Dick Wing: Does the Park and Rec feel that we need in a city this size with
the limited parking that we have, do we need a park policeman? I'm really
asking myself that.
Hasek: I don't know if we need a park policeman but I think that certainly
if problems are identified we need some sort of patrol on a regular basis to
take those problems into consideration but no, I don't think we need one
person running from park to park.
Mady: As long as somebody, a police officer in the community right now has
the time, he should be able to respond to whatever needs to be responded to
that is most urgent. With County back-up I would think we could handle just
about everything.
Dick Wing: We actually buy a 24 hour car. We have a car dedicated to
Chanhassen with a deputy 24 hours and the County because of their wanting to
retain the contract because they have what they call base level service,
we're on a three nights a week now where we have power shifts so we in fact
have two cars on three days plus supervisory cars coming in so they're doing
everything they can to bolster patrol and visibility. I think any problems
really should go directly to Jim Chaffee so he can document immediately,
keep track of them and then if they're not followed through, crack heads a
little bit.
Lynch: I'm kind of hoping for a problem so we can give him a workout where
it's not convenient.
....."
Dick Wing: There's a lot happening upstairs. He's being put in charge of
inspections and public safety of the pOlice and fire and the whole
inspection things, it's just expanding incredibly. They've got a Fire
Marshall and as a matter of fact, the number two fellow in line for Police
Chief has just been hired under Jim now. It was really a toss-up. Jim
Chaffee and this fellow named Scott Harve were just neck and neck and it was
heartbreaking to pick one over the other so Jim's the chief and the other
fellow is now his assistant and I don't even know where that position came
from. Ask Lori, she works here during the day.
Schroers: I may be able to give you a little more insight on that. I'm a
full time employee of Hennepin Parks and we have our own full time ranger
staff and that question has been asked a lot. Do we need full fledged, a
whole force of police officers armed in our parks all the time? Wf!ve
conducted surveys of park users, random surveys of the general public and
keep records of everything. We do reports filed by the rangers and from our
experience, the rangers may not be totally busy every minute of the time but
their presence is a definite deterrent from vandalism and other things like
that. They are a very positive force in our organization and the response
we get from everyone in-house, general public and allover, they're glad
that they're there. People feel safe in the parks. Vandalism and that sort
If thing is just practically non-existent anymore and it's created a lot
....."
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 25, 1987 - Page 24
,....
better environment.
Dick Wing: Let's make some notes. I think the City Manager's goal for 1988
is to really drastically increase our pOlice department for that primary
reason. He just wants more visibility.
Hasek: It sounds to me like that might be able to be accomplished. I can
see where a large system like Hennepin County has got a lot of areas where
there is potential for, half of those parks you could drive in off of the
street with 4-wheel vehicle for a beer bust and nobody would know you were
there unless somebody complained.
Schroers: That was going on on a regular basis. The kids in certain areas
had it set up. They had their own walky talky radios and they said he comes
the man, he's coming in this end, we'll meet you out on the other side.
Bring the keg. Okay. They were running them around in circles and playing
games with them out there and that created just a very real liability for
the park. The way things are with liability and insurance, it was almost
imperative that we had to get that situation under control. We have
approximatey 26,000 acres around the metro area here so that is quite a
large hunk of property and with just one or two people, you couldn't keep a
handle on it at all but it will be interesting to find out how many acres of
parkland the city of Chanhassen is going to have in the foreseeable future
~ike the next 2 or 3 years and look at it from that point of view. How many
> cres do we have and how much time is it going to take for a CSO officer to
ldequately patrol those areas and may get a better idea of just how much
time we would need to spend.
Dick Wing: Let us know about that. That's something we could look into but
if somebody wanted to slip us that information, we certainly would like it.
I'm wondering where all the parks are in the city right now. I live out in
Lake Minnewashta, north Chanhassen. Well, I don't want to break up your
meeting. I wanted to say hi and introduce that and let you know where we're
coming from policewise and if there are any problems let us know and we do
have a park officer out there now working half of 20 hours I guess. 15
hours a week so Jim Chaffee has reacted to giving some help and the history
of where we're at and where we're going and costs are somewhat interesting
if you get a chance to look at our report.
Sietsema: We've got about 280 acres of park right now.
1988 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM CONTINUED.
Watson: I have a question about the 1987 Capital Improvement Program. So
much of it's incomplete. Do we hope to complete these projects in 1987?
Sietsema: Yes, in fact I just met with Dale yesterday and kind of got an
update on when some of this stuff would be done. Water and electricity for
~he shelter is whenever the shelter gets done and I've got a very nasty
etter in to the guy, the Legion has finally hired someone to construct it.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 25, 1987 - Page 25
He gave me a completion date of two weeks ago and I wrote him a letter and I""""
said I realize a year of delays are not your fault but I expect from the
very least a completion date that you can honor and I have not yet heard
from him back. I know that there is some potential problem. It's
Christenson and I can't remember the first name of the company but it's Ron
Christenson is the name of the contact person. Anyway, the building
department requested that they have engineers sign off on it so Christenson
took it to the engineer. The engineer said if that material has been
sitting out there for a year it might not be good anymore. If things have
happened and it's weathered or whatever, it may not be good so the
$10,000.00 worth of materials we have out there may not be good and the last
I heard they were supposed to go out and check it but they haven't gotten
back to me.
Hasek: They being the city's engineers? Who's going to check it?
Sietsema: Ron Christenson.
Hasek: That makes me a little uncomfortable.
Sietsema: No, the inspection department will probably go out with him. The
building department. Ron will probably go out with him so as far as when
the construction, I am anticipating a letter within a very short time back
from Christenson with a completion date and if I don't hear from him by the
~riday, I've called him a couple of times and he hasn't been able to return
JY calls. I am going to take steps to go ahead and have it done ourselves ~
and just bill the Legion because I don't think, if we leave it sit out there
another winter it's for sure not going to be good next year if it is still
good this year. If the materials are not good, I don't know what we're
going to do. I'll have to bring that back to you at that time. If we're
going to junk the project or try to salvage whatever is there, whatever, I
just can't tell you so as soon as the shelter is up, then we get the water
and electricity up there. I have the estimates. All I have to do is call
the people, the electrician to get the electricity up there and stuff.
Mady: We brought electricity in for number one to get the lights in. Did
they also throw in the water line in that same ditch at the same time?
Sietsema: No. They're going to have to start up. The kitchen facilities
and the light at Lake Susan, that's just a matter of me getting somebody out
there to say what we need so that could still be done this fall. The play
equipment at Greenwood Shores and the volleyball court we're not going to do
because there's no parking and that was the stipulation of the approval of
this budget was if there was parking available.
Schroers: We also met down at Greenwood Shores one night. Mike was there
and Jim and myself and we looked over the area and at that time it kind of
appeared to us that there's not room there for a volleyball. We thought
that a totlot or whatever would be fine but there's not adequate space for a
volleyball court even if parking is open.
....."
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
~ugust 25, 1987 - Page 26
Sietsema: North Lotus Lake they wanted to get the grading done before we
put the park sign in. The ballfield construction will be put in as soon as
the grading is done. The contractor who did the grading has turned in his
final bill and said he's done but the engineer still is not satisfied with
the work. He says that he's left it a couple feet high in some places so
that should be ironed out this week and then as soon as that is done, they
will be able to go in there and put in the backstop, the parking and when
they put in the ice rink they'll just shovel out an area and flood it and
that was a project that is more easily done in the fall because they don't
have to keep up with the grass as much either. Tennis court is in progress.
The City Council approved the plans and specs and authorized the advertising
of bids so that has been sent to the publisher right now so we're just in
the process of accepting bids.
Hasek: Were there any problems of putting that through? Did they agree
with what we proposed?
Sietsema: Yes, it was on the consent agenda so there were no comments. It
was just approved as proposed. The play equipment is on order and I can't
believe that that's not in yet because that was ordered in the beginning of
the summer so as soon as that is in, they will be installing that.
Lynch: Do you actually order things like that or is there a city purchasing
~gent that would do the acquisition?
Sietsema: No, I order it. I go and get the price quotes from different
vendors. I'll either send something out that says this is what I want, what
would you charge us and they send it back or other wise I just call around
and ask them. It depends on what it is. In this case, we've gotten most of
our playground equipment from Earl F. Anderson which is nice because then
everything is kind of the same. They do all of our wood signs too. South
Lotus Lake, the park sign is there. It's not installed yet. The gate house
is up.
Robinson: Lori, a question on the gate house. Is that manned now in light
of the change in the number of cars? It's still going to be manned?
Sietsema: On the weekends just so we can make sure that people know where
they can and can not park. I think that we may even schedule someone there
next year even though we're not going to close it off so people know that it
is monitored.
Mady: It's nice that they get the rules. Last weekend I saw a guy water
skiing the wrong way on the lake and I just can't believe it.
Sietsema: And the park monitor also k
sure that peopl, eeps an ey d
until the re uI:r aren t using the private ro e on OWn there and makes
,-q.Iso pacifiei the ~~:~~w~now what's going Pon,pe:t{hi~ekxt. t~oor. I think just
dSP about getting that Ii;:: ~round the lake. The Iig;t s a good idea. It
ock is in. Tire swing is . In. Dale is working on th t we're talking to
In. The old access th a one. The fishing
, ere has been a berm put in
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 25, 1987 - Page 27
....,.,
there. We're just going to put some landscaping on it yet too this fall.
There are some plants and bushes that are being taken out of one si te Dale
said this fall so he's going to put them in there and then that will be
completed. Bandimere Heights, totlot, I think that that's not picked up. I
think that's still on order. All the totlot equipment was ordered at the
same time so that will be installed this fall. They are going to upgrade
the park shelter this fall yet. The master plan for Chanhassen Pond Park is
underway. We should have that by the next meeting and then if it's just a
planting plan, if that turns out, a trail with some plantings, that probably
could be completed this fall as well. The totlot, the trail portion of it
may be an eagle scout project or a scout project or what not and then the
plantings could be done in-house.
Lynch: That's going to take quite a bit of bobcatting. It still might be
done by scouts but it's going to take a lot of imagination.
Robinson: Because of the slopes?
Sietsema: We're not going too much on the slopes.
Lynch: I know but even at that, it still will be awfully pitched.
Sietsema: Perhaps that won't get done this fall. The plantings probaby
would get done and maybe the trail would be left until next spring.
Lynch: I just took a course, two days worth of how to build recreational """"'"
trails. The scientific way the National Forest Service Codes, State of
Georgia Code, State of California Code. A lot of codes.
Sietsema: What is the deal with the trails? Do they recommend woodchips
because I think woodchips are rotten? They make a terrible trails.
Lynch: For side hills they recommend no more than 1 inch per 36 inch down
slope unless they're going along the side of a hill. You want a 45 degree
angle cut up slope. You want 30 degree crown for 24 inches on the down
slope. I've got these all at home, the exact way to do it. This is all
tried and true method. How to put waterguards in at what angles. What kind
of steps. How to make them and how wide and how many. The ones that break
your tail are the ones that are either too close together and people have
heart attacks. They're not thought about. You can walk them sure, but you
take too many steps when you go down, it's a disservice to the general
~ublic. It was a very interesting course because who knows better than the
, ~ney have ~tofessionals out there ttying to screw your
t'ot~~~ ~~t~iC~. .
ttai1s up. . ts thete wete slmply
een park, the totlot ~mprov~me~ ting. Tennis coutts
sietsema: On Mea~ow Gt he did that eat11e7 th1~ p ndin the access
to add the b~9 sw 1ngs ~nd t fO~ bids. Herman ~le1d 1S p~ t th; city eng i neet
again are be1ng ad~~~t~::~da for three times 1nt~:~:a~ib1ity of the accesS ...."
plan which was on t with Mark to go ove~ t There have just been a
'1as not been able to m~e sute that he had an 1npu .
plan. He wanted to ma e
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 25, 1987 - Page 28
.,....
lot of things going on that he was hoping to get to it next week so that
should be on the next agenda as well. I can't see the park development
would get down this fall yet. If we get an access in there we're lucky.
And all the tables and benches that were to be purchased have been
purchased.
Robinson:
completed.
The dollars I suppose correspond to pretty much to what we
In other words, will we be well under...
Sietsema: We were over budgeted on a number of items. Specifically the
totlot equipment and let's see what was the other thing.
Lynch: How's the running total?
Sietsema: I haven't put that all together yet. I will get that to you so
you can see it but I can't give you some definite figures or what percent
we've spent and what percent we have left. There are some items like in
Greenwood Shores that we're not going to do so we do have a little bit of
leeway in there but we were over on the totlot equipment for sure I know
that. ...Even is we could just, maybe not a master plan per se but
something that would just show us the boundaries and the topo to scale so we
know what we're dealing with. I know Dale said the soccer field that's
there is as big as he can possibly get it. He couldn't really figure out
~where to put parking unless we could maybe just right off-street similar to
lhat's at Meadow Green Park. But if we want to start with the recommenda-
tions that were in the Comprehensive Plan, Minnewashta Park, it was
recommended that a park shelter that would serve as a warming house be
installed. The park is not that big and if we put a warming house up there,
it stands to reason we would have to have a warming house attendant up
there. I'm not up there enough to know if it would be worth it.
Hasek: I guess the way to look at that would be demographics. Is there any
way we could figure out how many kids are up there? I know for quite a
while that tiny little park could potentially be just a dynamite little spot
because it serves such a large residential neighborhood there and it keeps
them from going across the street or crossing over to Cathcart. I certainly
don't think it would be out of line if it's warranted if there's enough
children there to use it anymore but I don't know.
Sietsema: We could put it in the budget and then before we approve...
Hasek: I know we'd go over there and use it ourselves or at least we did
until they put the warming house up at Cathcart. We went over there for a
number of years and I'm certain that if there was a warming house in there,
that would be a real popular spot because the kids could walk in there.
Sietsema: Is th
ere enough room to put a w '
H~sek: I think so armIng house?
~,lnd of Ion . The Open space on
it wouldn't gb.e :he~e are only trees alothe west sid.e, actually the park .
glant Spot but I th' k ng on one slde of it . 1S
1n there's probabl . I th1nk so.
y room for a free
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 25, 1987 - Page 29
...."
skating area and probably you could put boards in there for hockey. I don't
know how flat it is. That would be real nice but like you say, if you're
going to put a warming house in, you're going to need an attendant and
that's going to cost more.
Sietsema: Putting boards up for hockey doesn't serve the open skaters. You
can't have both unless there was room to put in two rinks up there. I
couldn't see putting up hockey boards.
Mady: Is it possible to put something like a bus shelters which are acrylic
glass that are clear so you can see in from the road. It serves as a wind
break then more or less for the kids. They have a place to sit down and
take their boots off, throw their skates on out of the wind yet they can see
what's going on inside that. You can see if kids are doing something.
Watson: And then you wouldn't have to have an attendant then because it
would be visible.
Mady: It doesn't have to be that big. Some of these bus shelters like
the one right by the Legion is fairly good size. It would hold 8 kids
sitting in there at one time. I don't know if that's a possibility or not.
Watson: I don't think, just judging from my brother and sister-in-law live
in that neighborhood, I don't think judging from the useage that would
:eally warrant a person sitting there hour after hour for maybe 2 or 3,
maybe 5 to 8 skaters that might be there.
--'
Mady: But at least provide them a shelter. I don't know.
Hasek: Cathcart is real popular but the kids can't walk over there from
across the street. The smaller children anyway.
Lynch: Let's do this. Let's sharpen the budget and ask the neighborhood
associations in that area. Let them poll the neighborhood. If they don't
even have interest in polling the neighborhood, we'll poll it.
Mady:
I would like to go see it.
Sietsema: Okay, we could do that. Go up and look at it. I'm not going to
be filling in most of these. I'm just going to get a feeling for what you
want and then I'll come back with cost estimates for each thing and then we
~an do a final recommendation. Next time we'll just stick it on there and
d th olish it up a little bit and then
't ana go over the c~sts an ote e:e ~ave to send this to the city
go o,,~! 1 do have tlme bef
send it because we , h t park service
council. 'l? NoW 1S t a
t about a bike tral
Lynch: On carver Beach "lwhtahat, s in there?
existing tral It was not
taking the 1 had Suggested. bike like ~
, 's The Comp P an would accomodate a
That'S what ~t b1 t. something that
3ietsema: a paved trall u
necessarilY
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 25, 1987 - Page 30
"....
the graveled trail that's at Chan Pond.
Lynch: Are we going to run that all the way up to Fox Hollow then?
Sietsema: Yes. Fox Chase and then Fox Hollow.
Lynch: All the way down the line. Did you get a chance to check the
property ownership. When we were talking that night you said you didn't
know is we owned the whole strip.
Sietsema: No, I haven't done that. I'm going to make a note of it too.
Lynch: That does exist. Gordon Tock, I think it is who lives in that
first house is handicapped, crippled and he always had a boat out there and
the Lotus Lake Homeowners Association made the City have him remove his boat
which was such a sweet thing to do. One of the few things that the poor guy
can do. But anyway, we do own that. That's how we're going to get it.
Watson: That's how we can make Gordon Tock take his dock down.
Lynch: That's right. You remember that.
Watson: Distinctly.
"....
.ynch: Now, just a note for you. There are a couple of places which are
going to have to be culverted along there. There are some real heavy duty
wash areas in there. Now, when you noticed, I was going to go over and cut
that back the other day and I blew up my brush cutter, when he said removal
of access and swimming area on the north end, there's that little sand beach
that the people there put in. Is that what we're talking about putting soil
in there?
Sietsema: It was the whole access where the old boat access was up there so
part of that is already done. Where the raft is?
Lynch: Yes.
Sietsema: Yes, that should be taken out.
Lynch: Yes, that definitely needs some...
Sietsema: That's a violation anyway.
Lynch: You'll never build a trail across that anyway. There's two feet of
sand in there. Another thing too I was looKing at there, that ~t!ppr, iR
that still rock? ~~~ ,~
Sietsema: Lotus Trail? It'
~. s still gravel.
Jasek: S '
o we re okay with everything with Carver
Beach, is that right?
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 25, 1987 - Page 31
Sietsema: Yes. Well, let's just go down park by park as I have it so I
don't get mixed up and forget something. So do you want to put in the park
shelter in and figure out a cost estimate for that? In Minnewashta?
--"
Hasek: I think we might as well investigate it.
Sietsema: Planting plan. I don't think we need a planting plan. It's
pretty much done.
Hasek: It's just an open playground.
Sietsema:
activity.
To put anymore plants in there would obstruct some other
We don't have a park sign on that park though.
Mady: I would like to see us just have the pOlicy of where we have a park
we have a sign.
Sietsema: We haven't done it on parks that haven't been developed. We
haven't put in signs like at North Lotus Lake.
Hasek: At least, if we had a sign on North Lotus Lake people would know
they could take their dog. Well, maybe they couldn't take their dog.
Lynch: One of my neighbors didn't know that was park.
Hasek: If you're buying a house in that area, you drive by and say oh gee,""'""
there's a park here and then they can contact the city.
Sietsema: But it has to be included in the Comp Plan. I can't just go out
and buy a sign as soon as the park is dedicated. Herman Field, development
is depicted on the master plan there. There is a concern by the residents
up there about the plan that was put together and as soon as we get the
access figured out, we are going to be bringing that plan back with the
residents for their input. The access might be a screamer. The access is
what is going to be the screamer. I don't think that the park plan is going
to be that big of a deal.
Lynch: They still want the access off the highway?
Watson: It's still off Forest?
Sietsema:
Either Forest or Oriole are
" ~~ ^~'\1 t~o reallstic options. If ,you liv~ by Oriole you want it on
~~~ll~ tn~ UU1l , by Forest you want lt on Orlole.
Forest and if you llve worked out. There
, 1 if it can be
watson. Forest actually looks moreo~o~~~aproperty.
. h'P mix ups on some
was some owners 1 - . have to change
just ln case we .
We may want to put in some money nd the budget at a later tlme
plan though so we don' ~ ha~ed~~,~m:now. Then we want to roll
be premature to do tha .
That's where we're looking at.
sietsema:
:he master
but it may
-'
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
~ugust 25, 1987 - Page 32
over the money so we can follow through on the access and develop that.
General development and access, roll that money over from what we had
allocated last year. That's what I'm proposing. Carver Beach playground, I
think the Carver Beach, my own personal opinion is Carver Beach playground
is the least attractive park in our city. I think we could gut the totlot
equipment.
Lynch: It gets used pretty heavily.
Sietsema: Yes, I think it does and we do have a playground program there.
Hasek: How big is the ball diamond? Is it softball size or just a little
one.
Sietsema: It's a pick up game an I don't know if we want to do that. If it
might interfer with where the ice skating rink goes in the wintertime. I
talked to Dale about that one and he really thought that that wasn't a very
good idea.
Hasek: Possibly putting a fence in along the street side to prevent balls
from rolling in the street.
Schroers: There is a fence there. There is fence along both streets.
~arver Beach Road and the other street there that turns north.
Hasek: How about a planting program? Is that necessary?
Sietsema: I think we could use more trees. Something that would grow fast
and prov ide some shade so there could be some picnic areas there near the
totlot equipment for the parents.
Lynch: Trees yes but I wouldn't want a lot of shrubs in there because it
would be hard to see what's happening.
Schroers: And a lot of shrubs constitute sort of a hassle for maintenance
too.
Hasek: Fencing a ball diamond is out per who's suggestion? Who looked at
it?
Sietsema: Dale. The maintenance foreman.
Boyt: Should we include picnic tables?
Sietsema: Dale and I usually just go through and see how many he thinks he
needs next year and we take the old wooden ones and put them in some of the
outer parks and put the new steel ones at Lake Ann where they get the most
use. Eventually we should be minimizing how many we need because these
~teel ones are supposed to last so much longer but I would 1 i ke to see some
ew play equipment and I don't know that we need to get rid of everything
chat's there.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 25, 1987 - Page 33
Boyt: Could we sell it?
-'
Lynch: The swingsets are nice for instance but that darn culvert, that's
where everybody throws their beer bottles at.
Sietsema: And the monkey bars I think have had it. That area is all sanded
in around, so just give me an idea of what kind of totlot equipment you're
talking about. Do you want to go with a full scale thing? Something like
we've got at Meadow Green Park. Should we allocate $7,000.00 and do it good
right away or do you want to go in stages and go $3,000.00 or $4,000.00 at a
time?
Mady: With an existing neighborhood with existing equipment, if we're going
to spiff it up we should do it right.
Watson: Because that's an old park. I was a little kid and that was a
while ago.
Schroers: That is an older neighborhood and consequently there aren't a
whole lot of young children there but with that proposed trail going from CR
17 up to the park, there's gobs of little kids in Chaparral area that that
trail will service. I would anticipate some use out of it.
Sietsema: Carver Beach, we've removed the public access. We talked about
:emoving the swimming area that's illegal there. That's not necessarily
money, that's just something we got to go out and take care of.
......""
Hasek: Could we do it maybe by just posting a sign there? Do you actually
have to excavate the and.
Lynch: We're running a trail there and we have to get rid of the sand. As
long as it's sand it's going to get used as a beach and as long as we allow
them to have their floating dock in the lake right opposite that...
Sietsema: I'm not going to put in the bike trail in this because we're
going to have a capital improvement funding deal for trails alone so I'm not
going to include bike trail in this fund. We may want to landscape that
whole strip up and down. By landscaping I mean planting. Do some plantings
and just make it, not to discourage use but to discourage people launching
boats wherever it gets low enough to the water that they could do that. I
think that we might want to just do some kind of a planting program along
that whole strip. Taking out some old dead trees that are in the steep
area.
Lynch: I think it will put us in good stead with the neighborhood if they
see that we're upgrading it.
Mady: Make sure we have the trail back to where it's going to go first
though.
....,,'
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
~August 25, 1987 - Page 34
sietsema: It's in there. There is a trail, in the steep part yes. There
is a trail that goes pretty much all the way along. North Lotus Lake. The
next step, if we get the ballfield, the tennis courts and the parking area
in there this year, and the totlot will go in this year, the next thing in
the plan is a park shelter. The tennis wind screens are needed to be put in
here and the other thing would be boardwalk type trails through the wetland
area. That would be more of an interpretive type nature center.
Lynch: We had originally planned a boardwalk, and we have an easement for
it, from Lotus Lake Estates. They have an outlot right here. I guess right
on the bump. See that? We have an easement all the way around there.
Sietsema: And it's all wet and it's all in a wetland.
Lynch: That's right. So that's all floating. Now, once you get over to
the base of our park, right back at the end of this bay, that's solid and
there's a sewer pipe that runs across there.
sietsema: The reason I know that is because Mark and I were going to put
the paved trail through there to get those neighborhoods to that park and
there's no way we can pave anything in there. Boardwalks run, it's
expensive as heck. I'm trying to think what the estimated costs on that
Chan Estates. It was $60,000.00 to go 600 feet or something like that.
~aybe it was $30,000.00. $30,000.00 to go 600 feet of boardwalk.
Schroers: Are you talking cedar with styrofoam underneath?
Sietsema: I can't really tell you that. I don't know what the specs were
exactly but it was floating.
Schroers: I could get information on the floating boardwalks.
Lynch: We're going to need that kind of a specification in the trail plan.
Schroers: I know the person that built the one at Lowry Nature Center and
that's been going on for a long period of time and this individual is a very
concerned and conscientious person about his work and if I were to ask him
what would you do next time to make it better or whatever, I could get some
real solid information from this person which might be helpful.
Sietsema: The trail's getting graded with the grading project and I think
that the Bloomberg project is going to come in and finish that off in that
trail so really what's going to be left is to do some landscaping, some
planting program for that area around the parking lot, around the
ballfields, around the tennis courts. Identify a picnic area. picnic
shelter. The totlot equipment will be in. We may want to expand our totlot
equipment. We may want to pave the parking area. Those are just some
suggestions. We may want to put some kind of a warming house in there as
well that would double as a park shelter for the ice skaters. Those are
~ust some suggestions of things that were identified in the plan. I don't
Know if you want to do all that stuff next year or not because we are doing
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 25, 1987 - Page 35
...""
a lot in that park this year.
Lynch: One you may cons ider there to wa tch for from now on, is I th i nk we
should always consider an open sided shelter next to totlot equipment
anytime we've got wide open parks. There's nothing more miserable than
taking your children up to play. They don't care but you're standing there
in the sun. North Lotus Lake is not going to have a tree on it that will be
in the shade for another 10-15 years so that kind of thing is really
necessary.
Boyt: That kind of thing is required in Florida in the parks where children
at schools. That they provide a certain percentage of shade play area.
Hasek: When I lived in Excelsior we lived off of, I can't think of the road
anymore but across the street from us there was a park and what they had
done is they had an open sided shelter with a stone fireplace in it and in
the wintertime when they flooded the area outside they enclosed three sides
of this picnic shelter area and then peole could come and the picnic tables
were there and they would let a fire in there so it served kind of a double
purpose. It was never completed closed and was always open so that the
police could see what was going on. It was kind of neat little deal. In
the summer time they took the boards down.
Lynch: We built a number of those enclosable things in scout camps.
:ireplaces are a real high buck item.
Those
--"
Hasek: They probably would be more simplistic with a fireplace in a middle.
Mady: One thing, maybe just enclose using like an acrylic panel of some
sort like storm windows. They snap in.
Lynch: That may be a concern when we have the skating rink in because
that's a windy spot.
Hasek: There are a number of things you can do. You can enclose those
things but we were talking about a shelter from the sun but you can also
enclose one quite simply and...
Lynch: Let's face it, once you get the shelter up.
Mady: Maybe that's what we should do at Minnewashta Heights.
Sietsema: Okay, so you want me to include tennis wind screen, boardwalk.
Do you want me to put the boardwalk in there?
Boyt: Get some numbers on it.
Lynch: Now the boardwalk you're talking about is just at the south end of
the park through the loop?
Sietsema: Yes, and then you want me to look into an open sided shelter. I~
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 25, 1987 - Page 36
""'"
there anything else for North Lotus Lake? Okay. Meadow Green Park. We
want to put some kind of planting program with relocation of the basketball
and the tennis. You talked about a trail going from that park over to .the
east side of Kerber and we do have an easement through there but again, I
don't want to put trails in this capital improvement program because we will
have a trail plan. Something that we might want to consider that the Comp
Plan brought up was an ice rink in this area. There isn't one there but
there is one at City Center Park and Dale just wanted to point out that an
ice rink does have a tendency to kill the grass. It takes half the summer
for it to come back good and if we're starting another one up at North Lotus
Lake, we've got one at Minnewashta, we've got one at Carver Beach, we've got
one at City Center Park and down at Chan Estates.
Lynch: Is that anything you can put into the infield on a balldiamond where
there isn't any grass?
Sietsema: I don't know.
Schroers: That would be fairly small.
Robinson: I don't think we need one here at Meadow Green Park do we?
That's pretty close.
~ietsema: That's really the question. Do we want an ice rink at Meadow
ireen Park or not?
Lynch: Not unless it's for a lot of itty bitty kids that can't make it over
there.
Boyt: within a couple years, with all the new development that's going on,
depending on the use at City Center so that's something we could just watch.
Lynch: Are there a lot of people there?
Sietsema: Yes. It gets some pretty consistent use.
Schroers: There's a general skating area there right? You don't have to
belong to a program? You can just go there and skate.
Sietsema: up at City Center.
Schroers: And that's right here? And there are two hockey rinks. Now, do
you have to be in an organized to go in there and play or can you just go up
there and play?
Sietsema: We have teams that come up there and sign in that reserve it to
practice so it is team practice but if it's not reserved, anybody can go up
there and skate.
~.chroers: Are there certain times when it's reserved or they can reserve it
dnytime they want?
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 25, 1987 - Page 37
Sietsema: They can reserve it anytime they want at an hour at a time.
can't reserve it for more than an hour at a time.
..."""
They
Boyt:
There's also the indoor rink.
Sietsema: Yes, the indoor rink is now open so that has taken a lot of the
structured team practices out of the outdoor rinks.
Boyt: And that's a great place for open skating too and it's free during
open skating.
Lynch: Is that signed?
Sietsema: There's a sign over the top of it that says Chanhassen Ice Arena.
Lynch: Is it permanent enough that we should have a park sign?
Boyt: It's not a park.
Lynch: I realize that but it's a public facility and it's a park type use
so should we...
Sietsema: We could have an informational sign on the street that would give
a directional sign because a lot of people can't find it.
Schroers: And that's just open to the city residents. You can go in there-'
and skate whenever?
Boyt: There's an open time and then teams playa lot of the times so you
just have to check the hours.
Sietsema: There's an open skate time in the past has been from 3:00 until
6:00 and then it's all rented out in the evening usually until around 9:00
or 10:00.
*A tape break occurred at this point.
Sietsema: I know Clark has a problem with spending any money at Greenwood
Shores if there isn't parking available.
Hasek: But I thought the other guys said they wanted us to do something
with it.
Boyt: If parking is not available, we won't spend money.
Lynch: Of course Clark isn't the whole Council either. If we can see that
parking isn't going to go, I see nothing wrong- with us setting up an item
for a totlot. Say we're going to put a totlot in and let them fight it out.
~atson: Or that hand launch on Lake Lucy. I think that would be neat.
.....",
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 25, 1987 - Page 38
,......
Sietsema: We own over to Lake Lucy.
Watson: We do own over there and Lake Lucy is kind of a fun lake to get on
with like canoes and stuff because there are funny little islands, it's kind
of wild. It really would be kind of fun to be able to launch a canoe or
something like that at a launch area but that would be kind of fun think I
think.
Sietsema: I would think that would be a high buck item. It would just be
clearing it out.
Watson: Yes, because we own the land. As far as like planting and
picnicking, you can't really have a lot of plantings in there.
Sietsema: So do you want to put money in there to put define a parking
area?
Mady: Yes, bollards and chains. We're going to put one in. We can't just
open the gate up.
Hasek: Can we just say instead of landscape, just line?
Lynch: That gets fairly expensive by the time we get chain and bollards and
~ome landscaping in there because we're not talking one or two bollards.
Sietsema:
with a few
mentioned.
to add?
I think Mark was talking about $2,000.00 plan when he carne in
plans. Lake Ann Park, there were a lot of things that were
Were you done with Greenwood Shores? Did you have anything else
Boyt: Are we going to do a picnic area at Greenwood Shores?
Watson: There is a picnic table there.
Sietsema: It's one of the nicer picnic areas. Lake Ann Park, the Comp Plan
talked about developing paths of areas for hiking trails. The whole west
area where the woods are, to develop hiking trails through there. It also
talked about expanding to the west. It talked about a bath house down by
the beach with restroom facilities with a large picnic shelter down there.
Interpretive signage along trails. Widen and landscape the trail going
downtown and extending that trail from downtown all the way down to the
beach.
Hasek: That's winding along, I'm assuming that roadway that's in there
right now? Is that where it would go?
Lynch: Between the two sets of balldiamonds?
Sietsema: Yes. You go up along the trees.
,....,
~chroers: Up on the top of the hill. By the edge of the cornfields.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 25, 1987 - Page 39
Sietsema: Yes. Where the three new ball fields are proposed. Between those-'
and the existing and then go right by where the park shelter building and
the trails are and then down the gravel road that was put in this year down
to the trail.
Hasek: From a softball standpoint I see a problem with that. The problem
is, that's one of the few places that ball players have to warm up. It gets
used for that lawn. If that trail could be moved over towards the existing
roadway where nobody uses the land, that would leave that function open.
Otherwise, there is no place to warm up except for, it's not a good place to
do it but at least it's someplace to do it and if you're proposing putting
three more ball fields in there, that's going to even more intensify that use
when it's really busy out there.
Boyt: Maybe it could go to the east of the new development.
Mady: Because the inner parking is going to get moved too.
Hasek: I think that's something I think Mark should look at. It's a
function that's very necessary for the ballfield.
Sietsema: I think the bike trail should be kept along the outside just
because the trails are going to be used to walk dogs and if we don't walk
dogs in the parks, the trail should be along the outsides of the parks. You
3hould be allowed to walk your dogs on trails and if you start at Greenwood
Shores and you get on the trail in Greenwood Shores and you walk around th~
lake and you stay on the trail and then you go around down out to downtown
and then up Powers Blvd., you've been on the trail the whole time and that
should be perfectly legal but if you bring them down the middle of the
access road or down between the two sets of ball diamonds, what's to say
that you can't just go off and sit and watch a game for a while with your
dog and that shouldn't happen so maybe we shouldn't look at a bike trail
until we do develop ~hat expansion area and put it in with that. Okay. I
don't really know how much room or what exactly the Comp Plan was thinking
about with hiking trails in that wooded area. I don't know if we want to
take down trees to walk through there. There is a road that goes through
there and I don't know if we want to do more than that.
Hasek: Couldn't we just put in a sign that says nature area basically. I
hate to see us put in actual trails through that.
Mady: What do you do, put a 2 foot wide path in?
Lynch: If you put a trail in you have to have an easement trail and then
you're going to have to cut trees and you're going to have to have a bobcat
in there to dig stumps.
Sietsema: So you want to bunk that one?
iasek: Which one?
. ...,.,
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 25, 1987 - Page 40
,....
Sietsema: Develop paths of areas for hiking trails in that wooded area.
Mady: How about if we just sign it. Just make it well known to the people.
Schroers: There's really not enough room for hiking up there is there?
They've got the trail that goes around the lake over to Greenwood Shores and
they're going to have the trail that's going to come in with the new
development of the new fields and all that.
Sietsema: And there is that gravel road that goes down to the beach that
goes through those woods.
Schroers: I think that's enough.
Lynch: Expand to the west is an interesting move.
Sietsema: It's not for sale.
Lynch: How interested is the Council in that?
Hasek: There's a nursery and stuff in there, is that what they're talking
about?
~ietsema: Yes. I think what this means would be something that we would
1ant to identify on the Comp Plan as potential parkland so we would have to
come sign off on it if it ever came up for sale for future development.
Boyt: Who owns it?
Sietsema: Gorra.
Boyt: And they're not interested in giving it to us?
Sietsema: He wants to hunt geese on it.
Mady: He was in last week for the goose hunt. He stated he bought that
property to develop it and because it's outside the MUSA line, he doesn't
want to develop it yet.
Hasek: If we're interested in expanding the park and keeping the shoreline,
maybe we better get it on the Comprehensive Plan.
Mady: The whole point is, if it's on the Comprehensive Plan...
Sietsema: If it goes for sale then we would have first crack at it.
Watson: We should try to buy the piece from Greenwood Shores P k th h
the woods there too. ar roug
~asek: Sure, Prince's property.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 25, 1987 - Page 41
Schroers: prince's property is one of the last.
......,
Sietsema: Prince owns all the way between the two lakes all the way up to
the park.
Watson: Did he buy that piece too because that wasn't part of what he
originally was going to buy.
Sietsema: On the record it's Prince R. Nelson.
people are walking on it or anything.
I don't think he cares if
Watson: Nobody ever cares as long as they didn't damage it. Larson never
cared.
Hasek: Wasn't it part of our policy to go all the way around Lake Ann?
Sietsema: Yes, it's identified. It's in the land use plan.
Mady: We're a long ways towards acquiring that right there.
Sietsema: Anyway, bath house with restroom facilities, that was in the Comp
Plan but since then we have been applying for LAWCON grants to build more of
a community type shelter down there that would be more multi-use and it did
rank high again but we didn't get it. I think we should stick with that
idea. I think it's a better plan than just having an open shelter. Also
tal ked about a large picnic shel ter. Interpreti ve signage along the trai ls........
The widening of the Lake Ann trail from downtown to Lake Ann is going to
happen this fall with whatever is going on out there. The other thing that
I put in there was to develop the expansion area because we did get approved
for the grant to develop the first phase of the new 20 acres.
Hasek: What is the first phase?
Sietsema: It's $104,000.00 project.
field. Extension of the access road.
ballfield.
It includes a regulation sized soccer
Additional parking and another
Hasek: Which ballfield? The south ballfield?
Sietsema: Yes.
Hasek: Okay, so basically it's the south half.
Sietsema: Yes. That was a $104,000.00 project. The ~ost we can get
because they have a grant ceiling of $40,000.00 per sIte. Because we got
the ballfield lights under this same kind of grant, there's ?nly $1~,500.:0
left that we could get so on $104,000.00 project they ~re gOIng to gIve u
$12,000.00 which probably doesn't cover our cost to wrIte the ~rant. What
we really need to know is whether we w~nt.the.grant ~r not or If we want to
-ake this whole project and consider stIckIng It on wIth a referendum or
~omething. It's a $300,000.00 project or $400,000.00 to get all three of ......"
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
~ugust 25, 1987 - Page 42
those ballfields and the soccerfield and the additional parking and all the
grading and the landscaping and get it all done.
Lynch: We can afford to do it the way it sits right now with the
$12,000.00. I think it needs to be done.
sietsema: I don't know if we can afford to. We could but it's going to
totally deplete our LAWCON matching grant fund if there's even that much
left in it because that leaves us with $100,000.00 project and that's about
how much was supposed to be in there.
Hasek: I'm assuming this is in anticipation of expanded usage. That's why
we're looking at the softball field and baseball field. How much more usage
could we get out of a park if we lighted the two fields as compared to
developing two more fields?
sietsema: Lighting the two other fields would be $120,000.00.
Hasek: It cost us $60,000.00 to light the one we've got? Okay, so this one
would probably be something a little bit less but maybe not much. The
fields are 30 feet shorter or something like that.
sietsema: Right and the electric is already in there.
.tf1"""
iasek: As compared to developing the other two fields which was how much?
Sietsema: The other three fields with the soccer, the grading alone was
$300,000.00.
Hasek: So maybe that's an option that we should look at.
Sietsema: The thing that this was going to achieve, by getting this other
field, is that we would still have three softball fields but we could take
field #3 and make it into a Little League field which is a very big need
right now. The regulation sized soccer field is the only soccer field we're
going to have available now to us, would be because Minnetonka West Jr. High
is opening so they're not going to let us use that this fall. We don't have
a regulation sized soccer field that anybody over 6th grade can play on.
Hasek: We don't have one because the grading isn't there? This one that is
proposed on the plan...
Sietsema: I was talking to Don about this, he's going to appeal because
this was a policy change. A different interpretation of the policy of what
the legislati~e i~tent of this grant was to be. we're going to appeal to
them. The th1ng 1S, when we applied for the grant we didn't know that we
were only.goi~g to be eligible for $12,000.00. There's no way I would have
made apPl1cat1on! spent the time or the money on preparing an application
~o~ $1~4,0~0.00 If I had known all I could get was $12,000.00. The other
h1~g 1S, 1f we had called the Lake Ann Park Expansion something else
oes1des Lake Ann Park, we would have been okay. It's new acreage. There's
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 25, 1987 - Page 43
...."
no development on there. We could have called it Sunnyslopes or anything
else. Chanhassen Park. Any other name and it we could have gotten up to
$40,000.00. If we would have known that we would have done that. We would
have called it something else. We would have called the project something
else so if they would have let us know that they were going to have this
change then we would have applied differently. We would maybe just have
submitted the soccerfield or maybe just the ballfield so we do have an
argument that they changed the rules on us so therefore, they should maybe
hold off on their policy change until next year. So there may be a chance
that we still get $40,000.00 and then I think it's worth doing. That's a
pretty significant chunk. $12,000.00, that's really going to deplete us.
Boyt: We need to see our budget too so we have some ideas of the funds we
have.
Hasek: $12,000.00 obviously wouldn't do the grading necessary for just a
soccerfield with a ballfield underneath it as proposed on here. I guess the
design that I have looked at here must be outdated. The soccerfield is
going to go on top of the baseball field down there? Is that how it's
proposed?
Sietsema: There's a soccerfield proposed right underneath your finger.
Hasek: Could that be accomplished with the $12,000.00?
Sietsema: The problem with that is that if we cut out the ballfield we lose-"
up to nine points on our grant application and then Lakeville would have
more points than us and we wouldn't be qualified for the grant. We could
cut out the soccerfield and do the ballfield but we can't cut out this
ballfield because that earns more points than a soccer field because it's
multiuse. It's soccer and it's baseball and it's softball.
Hasek: Could we rough grade in the ballfield and put in the second proposed
soccerfield, grade that thing in there and have kind of a less developed
ballfield there which is actually more for soccer use than baseball use?
Sietsema: It would have to be used for what we said in the application.
Hasek: It could be. They could be graded and the infield could be laid in
there but just not structured.
Sietsema: The big cost is the grading. If we can get it graded in that's
the biggest cost. $12,000.00 will cover the backstop and putting in the
infield and that's about it.
Hasek:
What are you suggesting that we do then? What are you asking us?
Sietsema: I guess right now I would say.
. ynch. She would 1 i ke to take the whole package, she would 1 i ke to defer O' ..
~his ~rant and take the whole package and development and that half and ~
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 25, 1987 - Page 44
,....,
chuck it into the referendum.
Sietsema: That's one option. The other thing is if Gretchen will
reconsider changing the policy. If we get anywhere with her tomorrow. Then
that's different. Then I think we should budget for $64,000.00 to do that
project. Our share of the project.
Mady: Let's leave it on here until we start throwing numbers.
Sietsema: Okay, let's look at this the next time because we will be
bringing this back. Chan Pond Park. Do you want to provide parking off of
Laredo Drive?
Mady: I don't know if we have room to put it.
Sietsema: Yes, we could put in four spaces.
Mady: If you can do it off street it's a heck of a lot better because it's a
busy street.
Robinson: Do we want to do it next year?
Mady: The trail is going in this fall. It should be done next year and I
~ould think it should be pretty cheap. If we can do a whole parking lot for
1,000.00 this has got to be like $300.00. I would say we should do it now.
Hasek: Does anybody see anything in Chan Park that's been left out?
Schroers: Yes, I have one thing. That we provide housing, roosting areas
and food for wildlife. That is not a very neat thing to have in a visual
park. Back in a refuge someplace that is out of the public's eye, that's
fine but if you do that down at Chan Park in that whole entire area
surrounding that, there's not going to be any grass left. It will smell
worse than a barnyard.
Hasek: We just got rid of the geese.
Schroers: It gets to be a real undesirable thing to have. It's get real
smelly in the summer and there is such a concentration of animals in that
immediate area that it just gets pretty unsightly. I think it's a good idea
off, if we could find a natural area as parkland someplace back out of the
mainstream of things and away from urban development and that sort of thing,
then a feeding area would be nice and a refuge.
Sietsema: Okay, what I'm going to put in this one is parking off Laredo,
implement the master plan which we will approve this year within the next
couple of meetings so whatever the budget comes to to implement that we'll
put in there and then include some benches and that kind of thing. I don't
think it needs to go into the budget as far as money goes for moni tor ing
~'ater quality. I think it's just some people we need to contact to ask them
~o do that for us occasionally.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 25, 1987 - Page 45
.."""
Sietsema: City Center Park.
Boyt: Do we share ownership of the course with the school?
Sietsema: Yes.
Boyt: Is it their turn to pay for the windscreens.
Sietsema: We share the cost. When I bought them I billed them for half the
cost. They did not bill us for the replacement of the lights though. They
put those in.
Hasek: Planting includes trees basically for shade?
Sietsema: Basically Dale said there isn't anything to be planted there.
There would be anywhere so that was just something in the Comp Plan that
doesn't need to be in there. Tennis windscreens is really.
Mady: One other thing there. Around the hockey boards, those are recessed
down into the ground, you can walk right off that ledge and they have to be
fenced around there. It's terrible.
Boyt: Or fill it in.
1ady: Whatever. It's unsafe. Well, it still has to be fenced because the
boards corne right to ground level and right now there's about 18 inches, tw~
feet between them. You can fall in because it's landscaped with timbers and
you've got the boards and it's very dangerous.
Boyt: Do the lights work at night at the tennis courts?
Sietsema: They do.
Boyt: How do you turn them on?
Sietsema: There were two ways you could do it. You could go in there and
push the button. It used to be you went in there and pushed the button and
they stayed on for 45 minutes and they were broken and the box was torn up
so they pu t someth i ng in there so you either had to have a key to get in
there and turn them on or else it automatically went on every night at 8:00
and turned off at 11:00 whether anyone was using them or not. I brought
that to Max's attention and I don't know if he got the electrician back out
there to correct it the way it was supposed to be put back in or not.
Boyt: I can't figure out looking at it how to turn the lights on.
Hasek: Those aren't strange lights or anything are they?
Boyt: I hadn't seen where you would stick the key into it unless it's
mderneath.
..."",
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 25, 1987 - Page 46
,II""
Sietsema: Then it's a timer type situation.
Boyt: There's no timer on it. It's like they soldered the whole box
together.
Sietsema: I thought I had fixed it because I hadn't gotten any calls
lately. Chan Estates Park. The boardwalk, nature walk. Master park plan.
In the Comprehensive Plan it talks about Chan Estates Park is becoming a
community type park that would be a very nature center type park. The
problem with tha tis number one, you got to dr i ve all the way through a
residential area to get down to it. It's almost all under water except for
the two acres where the ballfield is and the park equipment is so I don't
know.
Mady:
...because it will take 15 cars or something like that.
Sietsema: That's another thing that really should be done is landscaping
that parking area so it's more defined and we may want to blacktop that as
well.
Mady: We need a master park plan for that.
Boyt: Is the picnic structure sound?
,.....
,ietsema: They're working on that this fall. That's part of this year's
budget. Okay, so I'll put master park plan for the entire thing. Do you
want to landscape or blacktop the existing parking area?
Hasek: That sounds like something that's fairly straight forward and then
based on that, maybe we could landscape from the master plan would tell us
what else needs to be done.
Sietsema: So you want to blacktop and have the master plan. And construct
a path down to the water for hand launching. That would have to be a
boardwalk.
Hasek: Why not let the master plan tell us that.
Sietsema: Lake Susan Park. In the master plan it talked about baseball,
softball, picnic areas, boat access, vita course, jogging. That was when
they thought they could put a ballfield down in that lower area closer to
the road and that's going to be a pond so that really isn't feasible anymore
but we did acquire that additional 8 acres of property where we could put
that kind of use in. That park is supposed to be geared for the Industrial
Park. It's supposed to serve the Industrial Park because they are on the
ones who donated it. It's a community use park geared toward use during
noon hours and that kind of thing where all the industries could use it so
the vita course is still an option.
"""'asek:
~ast.
I think you'll find those vita courses are almost a thing of the
A lot of them are just sitting there. The usage for the cost, I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 25, 1987 - Page 47
-'
think if you did a survey as to how well they're doing, you'll find that
they're really down.
Sietsema: I do see people use the one up here once in a while. I'm not
here at night sitting in there watching but when I'm walking in and out I
notice them.
Schroers: There's one around Normandale Lake in Bloomington that's used
constantly. For some reason or another, the trail around Normandale Lake in
Bloomington is worn out. That's really being used a lot.
Boyt: What's the total acreage that we will have out there?
Sietsema: That's hard for me to tell you because Lake Susan includes this
meandering pieces that go up through the Industrial Park that eventually
will lead up to it.
Hasek: That's part of that 18 acres in the new development.
Sietsema: No, I think it's 27 all together.
Hasek: This says 18.
Sietsema: It's 18 I think and then with that additional 8 acres we just
lcquire I think we have 26 we have now.
-'
Hasek: That 8 is down below to the south right along the 8, is that where
the 8 is?
Sietsema: No, it's to the north of the park shelter. Not up against the
tracks. It doesn't go all the way up to the tracks. With the addition of
that 8 acres I think we need to have a master park plan for that park as
well.
Mady: We need to know where the road's going to go in and what's going to
happen.
Sietsema: I think there still isn't any word as far as when Lake Drive East
is going to go in and I would like to see us just rough cut in an access
road along what the Lake Drive East alignment would be so that when they go
in there and construct, it will be along that. We won't have altered
anything. We could still do some work within the park knowing where that's
going to be.
Hasek: That's an access coming in front a different direction other than
what's accessed from right now?
Sietsema: Right. Where I showed you that line is, that would be also the
alignment of Lake Drive East so we'll be coming in straight off of that
:oad. We won't be coming in off of CR 17 at all.
--'
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
~ugust 25, 1987 - Page 48
Mady: Actually it's the developer.
sietsema: They will be putting in Lake Drive East but we'll have to put it
in from Lake Drive East into the park within the park so I don't know what
the figures would be but I can get them because we had that included in the
Lake Susan grant that we had applied for. It would be a real rough thing
but it would be safer than what's there. Bandimere Heights. A master plan
just so we could have the outline and know where everything that's there
fits in and parking were the two biggest things.
Robinson: They need a planting plan there too.
Boyt: There's nothing there.
Sietsema: That would be included in the master plan.
Mady: I would think that should just be part of the master plan. What
trees are going, what kinds.
Sietsema: Bluff Creek Park. It said in the Comp Plan that there is some
debris in the upper area. If there is, I don't know exactly where that is.
Hasek: Has it been cleaned out?
,...,
Hetsema: That's what I mean. I don't know if it's been cleaned out or if
I just don't know where exactly you're talking about.
Hasek: I think really all it is is an old farm dump site.
Sietsema: That should be cleaned up and that could proably be done in-
house. In fact I could probably just tell Dale to do that.
Hasek: Is there going to be a trail going down through the culvert someplace
then? Isn't there a big culvert on the south end of that thing? When I
was out there looking at it there was huge culvert.
Sietsema: That's not part of that piece that we own but it is along Bluff
Creek. It goes underneath the railroad tracks?
Hasek: Yes.
Sietsema: That would be eventually, we would hope to, I don't know how we
go through that exactly. South Lotus Lake. That was proposed to be a
neighborhood type park up on the top. It was proposed that we have a
backstop up there with a small ballfield, totlot equipment. We also have a
triangle that's over next to the wellhouse site. I'm not sure if it's ever
been recorded or not but we were supposed to get that with the Bloomberg
addition so there's a couple 2 acre pieces there that could be used for
~arkland.
Robinson: The wellhouse site there, that's a good size piece of property.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 25, 1987 - Page 49
...."I
Sietsema: I think it's used for park purposes too. Kids use it for
recreation but that triangle piece is adjacent to that so if we wanted to
put some facilities on those two pieces to serve that area. The Meadows
doesn't have anything. They would still have to cross TH 101 which is
unfortunate. So, do we want to put ballfield at South Lotus?
Boyt: If we need ballfields.
Sietsema: Totlot?
Mady: Yes.
Sietsema: It was one time talked about tennis on that wellhouse site.
Robinson: That would be a good place for a tennis court on that wellhouse
site.
Sietsema: Why don't I include it and we can talk about cutting it when we
do the review. Not Jerry Boucheau may have a say to say forget that noise
down there. Chanhassen Hill, basically I have on there Master Park Plan.
I don't know that we can even think about implementing the plan when we
don't know how long it's going to be until they get to that point. They're
going to grade it for us, it's a 7.8 acre parcel and they're going to grade
it for us but it's not until their 2nd or 3rd phase and I'm not sure where
;hey are righr now so what I would like to do is have Mark identify where
the boundaries are on the topo. That's all I have.
..."",
Boyt: I got a notice about a golf tournament being sponsored by the
Chanhassen Park and Rec and Chanhassen American Legion. I would like you to
change the name of the tournament to the 4th Annual Chanhassen Open.
Sietsema: Women are allowed.
Boyt: It doesn't say that anywhere. It's called the Men's Open and I can't
as a Park and Rec Commissioner support something called the Chanhassen Men's
Open.
Sietsema: It was mens for the last two years. This year the City has taken
more of a progressive organizing role in it. When it was the Legion's, it
was more or less I did the adverti sing for it and they ran the tournament.
This year Todd is running the tournament and women are allowed.
Boyt: Where does the money go from the tournament?
Sietsema: The money goes into the tournament. Into prizes.
Boyt: What do we put into it?
Sietsema: We just put in the time of organizing it.
Mady: That's self supporting.
-tI
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 25, 1987 - Page 50
,....
Sietsema: Everything goes back into it. It's a self supporting thing. All
of it goes into the steak dinners. It goes into the prizes. It goes into
the golf fees.
Boyt: I would like to say if we're going to support it that they change the
name of it next year.
Hasek: This one, if I'm not mistaken, is replacing the old Jaycee's Open.
It pretty much took over when the Jaycee one qui t and then the next year
this one came in. That didn't make money for the Jaycee's either so I'm sure
this one isn't making any money for them.
Sietsema: It's not designed to make any money.
Hasek: One more thing I want to get it on the record. We had Men's Over 35
Tournament this last weekend and there were a number of sour grapes
expressed by a number of people to me, know i ng tha t I was on the Park Board,
that several of the teams that were not able to qualify for State received
trophy's for posi tions dur ing league. I know it's something that's kind of
given this Park Director a lot of concern over the last year because it's a
lot of old guys giving her a hard time all the time and that's
understandable. However, I think we have an opportunity now next year, and
especially with Todd to finally and once and for all play in a league, it's
~mportant I think that the City represent itself, if we're going to have a
.eague, to represent itself properly at the State. I'm not by any means
slapping hands at all. I just think I would like to be involved and make
sure that year when we have our meetings with that particular league, that
it's understood that it's an over 35 year and that I think is appropriate.
Sietsema: Let me give you some background. The league was an over 30
league and last year they changed to over 35 knowing that there was many,
many people within the league playing that were not 35. It was understood
among everybody that nobody new under 35 was supposed to be added to any
roster but anybody that was under 35 at that point, they had to be over 30
but they could be under 35, could play last year but nobody new this year.
They had to have been on the roster last year. We knew going to over 35
tha t we wouldn't qual i fy a lot of teams would no qual i fy to go to Sta te but
what they wanted to do was make sure that most of the guys that started the
league were around 30 when they started the league and now they're around 40
or 45 and they felt like they were getting too old to be playing with 30
year olds so that's why they wanted to switch over to 35 so they could move
the league up and clean it up but they knew it was going to be a slow
process.
Hasek: When 1 talked to Todd, he suggested that you haa the Io~teI~ tInm
the last two years. I guess what I mi ht. VIII
rosters plus maybe a littl g suggest IS that we take the
was first discussed and ev:r~~~~~ ;~sback threde years when I believe the 30
~nd use those rosters to establish th supp~~e to be over 30 at that point
n this league. Any new members or e gran athered members that can play
chree years ago, will not be eligibl:nYOTnhe thalt's not on the roster within
. e on y reason I say that is
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 25, 1987 - Page 51
...."
because one team in particular and I hold nothing against the team members
but it's just the attitude I guess that really kind of irks me a little bit.
One, the league using a lot of young players, they came into the tournament.
They were informed that things were not going well for them and that they
would have to have an legal team. They did it and they won the tournament
with legal ball players and there's no reason in the world why those ball
players couldn't have been playing all year.
Sietsema: Were they on the roster?
Hasek: Everyone that showed up for the tournament was on the roster. It
was a completely legal team but they didn't use them all year. They brought
in ball players.
Sietsema: I think the rules state that they have to play more than two
games during the season.
Hasek: Anyway I wanted to get it on the record because people were saying
that I was complaining at the end of the year here and it's not true.
Actually when I first came on this commission, right at the beginning of the
season, I ment i oned it then and I would like the Ci ty to be able to clean it
up and actually run a decent league because there's a lot of interest from a
lot of other cities in getting into this and it could very well end up being
one of the better over 35 leagues in this entire state if it's orchestrated
~roperly and I think it can be very simply and very easily. It's going to
take a little bit more than simply you or Todd sitting up and I know how """"
difficult those meetings are because I've sat in them myself and there's a
lot of complaining and moaning and if it takes perhaps the elimination of
beer to make the league legal, I'm totally in favor. I'm not playing
anymore in the league but that has no bearing on it whatsoever. I think
it's a good opportunity for the City to make a name for itself and I think
it should be done properly.
Boyt: I have a comment about our members leaving early. I didn't know that
we had a time limit set on meetings. There's no time limit set and I
think it's important that the Commissioners be here for the meeting because
there's a lot of stuff that has to be covered. If they're going to come, I
would like them to stay for the end unless it's an emergency if they have to
leave.
Schroers: Let me refresh my memory on this. When we decided to meet twice
a month rather than once a month, the decision that we made at that time was
\ ~O m~~t twice a month but at 9:30 we're going to CU~ to off and
we are go~n~ ., . to be carried over to the next meetIng.
whatever IS left, It s gOIng
blems for the City Council in that we
Boyt: Can I tell you tha t crea tes pro 1 k t They're going to
don't get things accomplished that they have to 00 a.
look at them without our input.
3ietsema: I don't think it was 9:39 though.
.-,.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
~August 25, 1987 - Page 52
Mady: I think it was 10:00.
Boyt: I think it's more important that we cover the information. I think
our meetings could be run differently so that we covered all the information
in that time. I don't think we need to convince each other of every point.
I think we need to state our views on a topic, take a vote and leave it at
that and the City Council can read what our views our. We don't need to
convince everyone here to vote one way but I think we need to be here for
the whole meeting and get our agenda finished. There's a lot of
development going on and they need our input.
Hasek: I tend to agree however, the pol icy tha t we set was tha t we were
going to two meetings because a lot of us, the City Council was requiring
that we make a 75% commitment to the meetings, if that's the case, I would
just as soon sit here until 12:00 once a month and that I can probably do.
I happen to have a job which is going to meetings exactly like this in other
cities and it's very difficult for me to sometimes rearrange my schedule and
when I applied for this it was once a month. I made the commitment to go
twice a month with the understanding that it was going to be an early
meeting because it's entirely possible that I can rearrange my schedule and
still make a meeting in another city after 10:00.
Boyt: Should we meet earlier?
,.....
lasek: I don't think that's reasonable either because some of us don't get
home, myself sometimes I don't get home and I've come directly from work to
be at these meetings. No, I don't think that that's necessary. I think if
perhaps running the meetings more efficiently is the steps that we have to
take but I don't think based on a general consensus of the people that were
here when the decision was made that we have to stay here past 10:00 if we
don't want to.
Mady: The motion that they set a time under Robert's Rules and when the
time comes it stops.
Sietsema: And I do try to schedule all of our important things that are
going to go on to another commission or City Council at the beginning of the
meeting so we are talking about, some of these things that don't necessarily
need a motion or the things that you guys bring up at the very last minute
that aren't quite as important, I do try to do that.
Schroers: I agree with the whole thing that we should stay, we should
attend business and get it over and done with and perhaps be more efficient
wit h 0 u r me e tin g s i s go in g to bet h e an s w e r . Jus t 1 i k e Ed sa i d w hen I fir s t
came here, I was, under the impression that I was going to be one night a
month too, and th1s month I've been here three nights until after 10.00
Everyone 1S busy you know. . .
~Si:tse~a: Especially like when Gloria was here, she just couldn't handle
>e1ng ere after 10:00 when she had to be to work at 6.30 in the morning.
You can't do that and that's one of the reasons why we.switched.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 25, 1987 - Page 53
...."
Boyt: ...it doesn't sit well for the commission that we don't get our work
done.
Sietsema: But I don't think we haven't addressed.
Boyt: That's happened.
Hasek: That again is not unreasonable. I've worked in cities where I'm on
the agenda and the meeting goes until 12:00 at night and at 12:00 they cut
it off. I'm on the agenda. I'm prepared to make my presentation, 12:00
comes and everybody goes home and I'm extended another month. 30 days which
costs the developer money. It's policy.
Sietsema: I understand what you're saying and I know that there are
developers who are going to go to the Planning Commission next and then
they're going to go to City Council but I think if we get our pressing items
done first, then I don't have a problem with moving things to the next
agenda because there may be people here that do not feel they can make a
valid decision.
Boyt: I don't want to convince people of this. I'm stating a concern and
I'm willing to leave.
Jasek moved, Boyt seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and
motion carried. ~
Submitted by Lori Sietsema
Park and Rec Coordinator
Prepared by Nann Opheim
""'"