PRC 1988 09 27
~
CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION
~ REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 27, 1988
Chairman Mady called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m..
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Mady, Curt RObinson, Carol Watson, Sue Boyt, Larry
Schroers and Ed Hasek
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mike Lynch
STAFF PRESENT: Lori Sietsema, Park and Rec Coordinator and Todd Hoffman,
Recreation Supervisor
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Robinson moved, Watson seconded to approve the
Minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated September 14,
1988 except for pages 7 and 8 which were missing from the packet. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC INPUT AND DISCUSSION OF CHANHASSEN POND PARK.
Public Present:
II"'-
Name
Address
John & Ann Olsen
Craig & Brenda Jerde
Mark & Deb Olufson
Duane Anseth
Sandy Anderson
Bonnie Coffee
Dennis Karstensen
Patti Flakne
690 Conestoga Drive
7220 Sinnen Court
761 Sierra Trail
7470 Saratoga
7472 Saratoga
7474 Saratoga
7482 Saratoga
7261 Sierra Court
Sietsemsa: This item is on the agenda. As you may recall a while back
the Chan Vista development was approved and part of that development
included the acquisition of additional parkland around Chanhassen Pond
Park. At that time we talked about ways that that park could be developed
and it was the general consensus of the commission that it should be
developed as naturally as possible with the idea of bringing the people
out there to enjoy nature. Funds were allocated in the 1988 budget to put
together a master park plan which involves putting together topography and
boundary lines and water levels and that kind of thing. Mark has prepared
a preliminary park plan to start discussion with the Commission as well as
we've invited the residents in the area in to get their input as well as
to how they would like to see the park in their area developed.
'"
Mady: First off, since there's a lot of new residents here, this is Mark
Koegler. He's a consultant with the firm of Van Doren, Hazard and
Stallings and he does a lot of consulting for the Park and Recreation
Commission.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 27, 1988 - Page 2
......"
Mark Koegler: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to back up just one notch earlier to
some material that Lori mentioned. Back to kind of some of the origins of
this park and some of the thinking that's gone to date, at least what's
happened to date. The park was originally acquired in pieces, as she
mentioned. Probably the earliest pieces happening in the early 1970's as
part of the Western Hills development on the east side. In 1978 the City
began preparation of it's Comprehensive Plan which addressed parks as one
of the... It was adopted in 1980 and it has been in effect since that
time. At that time the park was known as Western Hills Park.
Consequently the name has been changed now to Chanhassen Pond Park but
there are recommendations that were in that plan that we'd like to bring
for review because that essentially has been the City's thinking for the
past 8 years and it may be helpful in terms of putting it into
perspective. The first recommendation that was in the original plan was a
limited parking area should be constructed and the location as close to
Laredo Drive as possible. Such an improvement should be adequately
screened and landscaped. Item 2 was develop a master plan and planting
plan for the area emphasizing native Minnesota plant materials. That's a
portion obviously of what we're finally doing now. Item 3 was provide
natural environment for a variety of species of wildlife. Number 4 was
develop a trail network which permits observation from high points as well
as close to habitat areas. Such trails should contain grades suitable for
access by handicap and elderly individuals. Item 5, the seating area
should be provided for observation purposes. Item 6, the water quality 0
Western Hi 11 s Pond should be conti nuous ly moni tored in order to conti nue .....,
it's safe useage by wildlife. And item 7 was the City should acquire
title for easements on the land surrounding Western Hills Pond. Obviously
the past 8 years that item 7 has occurred as a result of the Chan Hills
development so the City now has land entirely bordering on the park and
even extending further south probably than was originally envisioned. Let
me stick an overhead up so everybody can see hopefully what we're looking
at. As Lori mentioned, as we put together, and I've got a larger scale
board that I'll put over there... The purpose for the park, the master
plan that's been put together, as Lori mentioned, is really a draft plan
at this point. It's a draft plan with two purposes. To seek...and
receive public input which is the process we're beginning this evening.
The purpose of the plan which is stated on this is to establish a passive
park area accomodating the observation o,f plants and wildlife in a natural
environment. The facilities that have been shown to date really represent
kind of a summary of some of the discussion comments that have occurred
with this group over the past several months. Again, they're not...,
they're drafted for the purpose of beginning discussions. Accompanying
that is just some general landscaping recommendations at this point which
are intended to provide more of a natural attraction to some of the
wildlife species that again, we've been talking about. The plan itself
calls for a trail network which is in this dark line. Basically it goes
around the park. The purpose of orientation, Kerber Blvd. is o~er o~ this
side. The older Western Hills portion of the development down ln thlS
portion and the new development up basically tO,the north side. The p~rk
Commission has looked over on this side and havlng an overlook area WhlCh.....,
would be accessible from Kerber Blvd. was shown conceptually now as a one
way circulation pattern with a drive in with about,? parking stalls: The
orientation being down the length of the pond and lt'S a very beautlful
,.....
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 27, 1988 - Page 3
vista from up there and it certainly is not blocked by any of the tree
cover or any of the grade that occurs in some of the other portions.
There's an existing bituminous trail that is now in that runs along Kerber
Blvd.. There potentially are tie ins to that that would allow on grade
access to get down to the park at this point with accesses then coming in
possibly. There's a steep walk and a possible cul-de-sac here. There's
of course the entrance of Laredo now and there's the entrance that now has
been put in on the north side. The plan at the present time identifies a
couple of picnic areas on the upper portion, which again is something the
Park Co~~ission had talked about. Scattered around in some of the
locations that are denoted by the s's there are some seating areas which
are just meant to be basically benches to allow observation of the pond
itself and the wildlife. The surfacing of trails has not been determined
at this point. It certainly needs some additional input from the Park
Commission. You talked in the past about several viable alternatives.
Being either bituminous surfacing or possibly a crushed compacted rock
surfacing again, to maybe reinforce more of a natural type of approach.
The vegetation that's shown on that plan is essentially existing with the
planting selections being those that are king of a general category meant
to attract wildlife based on various...and cover type plantings that are
available. Mr. Chairman, that's a brief summary of what's been put
together to date. Again, the intent now is to seek further input from the
Commission and from the public for the desired components of the plan so
this should very much be considered a draft at this time.
""""
Mady: What I'd like to do is open it up for public comment on the plan.
We'd like to find out what you want to see in the park. It has been our
intention all along to put a nature trail through the park. We want to
find out what your comments are to make sure the park is going to be
useable for the citizens.
Dennis Karstensen: I'm Dennis Karstensen. I live at 7482 Saratoga Drive.
I do border the pond and part of the Western Hills Addition. I live right
adjacent to that. In general I'd like to speak in favor of what you've
proposed so far tonight which is probably unusual for most things that you
guys have people come to talk about. The reason I bought my home was
because of the natural plants for the wildlife area in the back and I'd
like to see you keep it that way. One thing that should be kept in mind,
if it is going to be a nature preserve, I'd like to see some signs put up
to that effect. There's been two problems I've seen living by the pond.
Some people have their dogs out there and having them chase the geese. Not
just dogs...tell them to go chase the geese in the pond and the water and
that so I see a problem. If people understand it's a wildlife area and
keep it in terms of that. There's also some children are building forts
down there which in itself isn't bad but there was a fire down there the
other night. Someone had a fire going under the trees behind my house and
that's where I think it should stop so there are some problems in that
area as far as informing people what can be done down there. What the
"""" developer has put in for the pond permits, the developer said he would
support wildlife. I guess I'd like to, I'm not really...but I have seen
owls out there. I've seen bats, hawks, geese, blue herons. Just about
any of the bigger birds have been out there...to support wildlife that's
out there now and if we improve, will do a lot better job in that area.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 27, 1988 - Page 4
.....".
As far as the trail surfacing, I think I'd like to keep it somewhat of a
low speed trail. A path gravel where you can't ride bicycles on it or not
necessarily ride them fast. I guess that's what I was kind of... A
nature trail to... One thing that could be looked at, it's supposed to be
a wildlife area, what happens in the winter time? There's some
possiblities to use it as, skating in the wintertime possibly, doesn't
affect the wildlife at all. Or sliding, I think is something you want to
look at for wintertime use. Summertime it's pretty well wildlife but in
the wintertime it turns into almost, it's wild but people can use it on
top of that without destroying any of it. Keep that in mind. That's all
I have. Thank you.
John Olsen: Mr. Chairman, members, I'm John Olsen, 690 Conestoga Trail
which is just to the north of here and several of my neighbors are here
tonight as well. This is the first time that we as a group have seen this
particular proposal and from our quick discussion back here, one
recommendation that we would make would be along this western edge, if you
will, of the pond area, if you could incorporate or consider incorporating
some type of apparatus for children. A great number of us are of the age
bracket where we're just getting to the point we either have young kids or
will have very shortly. We all feel that it's important that any part
element preserve the natural beauty of course but also incorporate in a
tasteful fashion if you will, some type of jungle gym, for lack of a
better term, that could be incorporated up here with the picnic tables so-,
a family can go on a picnic to the pond and we're not that far from our
houses. I would agree with the gentleman that the use of a crushed stone
or an aggregate on the trails would cut down speeding people. People
speeding through there on their bicycles or whatever and we could still be
able to take walks with strollers and that sort of thing. It might be a
little bumpy but depending on what you use, I think it would be workable.
Mady: Are you aware that there are currently, we have two parks in your
neighborhood. One up at the City Center Park right up here and in our
budget this year we've asked, we're looking to put up... Also, the
Chaparral Park which is just down the other side of the pond, on the other
side of Kerber. 3 or 4 blocks. You're on that side of Kerber already so
there's a trail going into there, there is playground facilities there
also.
John Olsen: I don't think it needs to be a major development or anything
like that but 1 or 2 pieces I think would probably be sufficient.
Patti Flakne: I'm Patti Flakne and I live at 7261 Sierra Court. My
question is one, will there be trash receptacles like at the entrance
there? At the trail head? There's just so much garbage down there.
Mady: One of the things that's been complained at our meetings
previously, there's a lot of flying paper around. A lot of it they tell
us is due to the developer and the builders.
.....",
Patti Flakne: ...the builders don't throw those things. There are those
candy, Nerds but it would be nice to have garbage receptacles at least at
the trail heads if possible.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 27, 1988 - Page 5
,.....
Debra Olufson: I just wanted to get in, for sure that there is going to
be a walk parkway around the pond. I'm even concerned about wildlife. We
live right on the pond and I've seen blue herons and all kinds of wildlife
and it kind of scares me that there's going to be a walk completely. Is
that for sure that there is going to be a walkway around the pond?
Mady: It's been our intention and something that we'll be recommending
one way or another tonight.
Debra Olufson: It scares me because I've seen 6 families of ducks and
geese this spring and muskrats. Owls. I've seen owls and herons. 6 blue
herons and egrets. Then I see a lot of kids who are throwing rocks at the
ducks, the baby ducks. Also, there was a near break-in at someone's house
just down the street. Just down the pathway about, I think Labor Day
weekend. We're worried that that's going to be a problem too.
Boyt: You're worried about the traffic?
Debra Olufson: Yes, I'm worried about the traffic and then also the
wildlife. I just think that if we're going to have, if we really want to
keep it a wildlife area, I think we're going to lose it. It's going to go
if we're going to have a walking path.
,.....
Sandy Anderson: My name is Sandy Anderson and I live on Saratoga Drive
right on... and I guess I feel the same way that she does. I think...10
years and have just seen the wildlife decline and go away. It's not like
it used to be. It's kind of sad that we lost that nature.
Mady: Okay, if there's no other comments, if you have a question while we
have Commission discussions, we'd invite your comments at that time too.
I'm sure we'll be addressing some of your concerns at our Commission
discussion. Start off with Larry.
,.....
Schroers: Basically I like the plan. I'm encouraged to hear that the
residents are also in favor and are concerned about keeping the area as
close to the natural environment as possible and yet have it acceptable
for public use. I think the crushed aggregate of one type of another
would be fine for a trail around the park. I'm in favor of having a
picnic site or two provided that it's a very rustic and it's only kept
within an acceptable standard for keeping the environment as natural as
possible. Treated timber. As far as the wildlife concerns, I work in an
area where there's a lot of wildlife and there's also a lot of people. As
long as the wildlife isn't being harassed by the people, they adapt very
quickly. They're real used to you being there even the large birds, the
herons, the egrets, ducks and geese. I think it's the responsibility of
the parents to teach their children not to throw rocks at whatever
wildlife is there. I think if we use the park the way it's meant, I don't
see a great threat to the wildlife. Other than that, I don't know, we're
probably in pretty good shape as far as skating rinks are concerned in the
wintertime but we had talked about a sliding hill earlier and I would be
in favor of taking a look at that. I guess that's all I have right now.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 27, 1988 - Page 6
..-;
Robinson: Mark, have you done any preliminary costs?
Mark Koegler: No, we have not. We'll do that as the next step after
you've decided as kind of a core group of recommendations in what you want
to see.
Robinson: I couldn't see anything in 1989, did we have any costs with
this in 1989?
Sietsema: No.
Robinson: ...we talked about project status. The master plan...park and
development the summer of '89. Parking and development.
Sietsema: Right. That was something that we would rollover and I don't
believe that it was a significant amount of money. I think it was like
$1,000.00 so if we wanted to do more than $1,000.00, it came under park
development but actually what it was was like tables and benches.
Robinson: Okay, so as far as the landscaping and what not, it's safe to
say that you can tell the people that that probably wouldn't happen until
1990?
Sietsema: Right, unless you wanted to include something tonight still -'
because we will be discussing that on a later item in the agenda.
Robinson: Just a couple of comments.
the people said. The crushed rock or
appropriate in that area. Signage.
it is necessary down there.
I agree with almost everything that
the rock trail I think would be
We talked about before I believe that
Sietsema: That could have been included in that $1,000.00. All we've
ever budgeted for Chan Pond is for the master plan to be done and then
initial park benches, maybe some signs. $1,000.00 is what I recall.
Robinson: Definitely the paper receptacles. There's nothing worse. I
walk down to South Lotus Lake all the time and pick up junk laying around.
I despise that. Some kind of receptacle in appropriate spots are
necessary. I guess I would like to see the walkway around the park with
the hopes that we can do something to preserve the wildlife. It's such a
nice area and I think we have to...something to preserve the wildlife down
there and keep the walkway would be my position. That's all I have.
Watson: I would like to see it stay as natural as possible. If it's
possible, improve the habitat around that lake... Making areas where the
birds can nest and they can try to get away... We don't have to settle
for... You should still be able to walk around it. ...there's only so
much we can do. The people will have to police themselves and each other
as far as the wildlife and the garbage on the ground. It's everybody's
responsibility...
'--'
Boyt: In the past we've talked about a sledding area and when they went
through and worked on Kerber Blvd., the engineer...graded the side of the
.~
,....
,....
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 27, 1988 - Page 7
hill, that's the area that was used as a sledding hill. There has been a
portion kind of in your neighborhood that's been used as a sledding hill
but that won't be used anymore. It should have been done. They cut down
trees and bushes. I live adjacent to this area and I've gone before and
followed dirt bikes home after they've come out of that park and talked to
them. I've talked to kids who are down there working on the bridge.
Working under the bridge building dams. It's a fun place for kids to
play. They need some supervision down there. If you're walking down
there, say something to them. Don't be afraid that they're going to do
anything. Tell them that what they're doing is wrong. Get them out of
there. Ask them their names. You really scare them once you ask them
their names. I like the crushed rock trail. I lived on a pond in Florida
that was completely surrounded by homes and we had a lot of wildlife.
Some wildlife, the geese don't care if you live there. They're going to
be there anyway. They like the fresh cut grass. The egrets are going to
be there. The muskrats will be there. We have mus~rats living next to ur
house. A lot of that wildlife will stay if we provide food and coverage
for it. I don't know if you've seen the planting list up there but there
are lists and lists of plants that will sustain wildlife. Birds. Deer.
There won't be deer there anymore but there were deer there a few years
ago.
Mady: I think we're all pretty much in agreement of the park use. It's
always been our desire, that the park is going to remain a low impact
park. I perceive that we will be putting a trail in the park. However, I
don't see any of us wanting to do any grass cutting down there say. I
don't see this becoming a...like around the lakes in Minneapolis where
they cut every piece of grass right up to the lake. This is supposed to
be a natural area. By keeping the grass long and leaving the trees and
bushes there, we're providing the protective areas for the wildlife that
already exist. You are going to lose the deer. The remainder should
remain. The birds. As long as they have protected areas so they can get
away from people and be sheltered, they'll stay. The deer however,
because they're losing, development takes place the entire circle of the
park and the other side of Kerber Blvd., they're going to leave. You may
see a couple of occasions when you're not going to have a family of deer
necessarily in that area any longer. I'd like to see us continue the idea
of just a few parking spaces. We've got what looks like maybe a half a
dozen on Kerber Blvd. on the overlook area and they're all diagonal so we
have a one way drive and that's very important for safety. Further to the
north of that area, the other curve in the trail. It might be nice to put
in a couple of stalls for a picnic area. I think it's important that we
have a few picnic tables in the park, all around...on the outside edges of
the park. That way we can keep our garbage containers on the outside
edge. We're not inviting garbage into the middle of the park. I think it
would be more appropriate on the edge. The plantings that you're
showing, I like. I guess I want to make sure that we don't do a lot of
plantings. What we do, I want to make sure is protective and provides the
natural feeding areas but I don't want to see us putting everything in
there either. It's a pond, as it is right now, is a very nice natural
area. It needs a few plantings maybe but we don't need to do the detail,
let's say that the downtown has done. It doesn't have to look pretty. It
just has to provide for natural wildlife. Concerning the trail down there
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 27, 1988 - Page 8
...""
and maybe throughout the trail, especially if it's a gravel trail where
you have loose rock, kids can throw them at the ducks. It's an
enforcement problem and it's also an educational problem. The City's
trying to hire some CSO officers, safety officers who will go around and
do public awareness type of education. Come into the school and tell the
kids what is appropriate and what isn't appropriate. And an officer to
patrol from time to time so they can make recommendations to the kids.
As long as they define to their kids what is appropriate and what isn't, I
think we'll take care of most of that.
John Olsen: How long does this rock last? This crushed rock. You would
have that coming from Laredo. How long does this last as opposed to
asphalt or whatever? We come from a little park in downtown Minneapolis
where...everything from eagles, herons and pheasants and everything else.
What's the...and how long does the rock last as opposed to asphalt?
Mady: There are two things that will happen to a rock trail. Heavy rain
can wash it out so if we do the proper plantings on both sides of the
trail, that will prevent a lot of erosion. You will have weeds growing up
through it so we will have to take care of that and maybe do some chemical
treatment from time to time as long as we're careful with it. The
bituminous trail, although it would last longer, for instance the things
that I personally would like to see in the park, would allow for bike
traffic to past by pedestrian traffic. It also allows for skateboarding.
Some of those things. It's my feeling that this should be a passive park-'
and that means hiking through the tall grass or following the trail if
that's easier for you, if that's what you want to do. The trail should go
near the water from time to time but also stay away from the water so it
provides protection areas to the wildlife. We can still get the
opportunity to get close to them because the ducks, the geese, the
muskrats, they'll cover quite... As long as we give them some protected
areas, they'll be there. I'm not real concerned because we've seen that
allover. Minneapolis has done, they've done too much actually...
They've got a real nice area...for wildlife so I think we can still do
that. The last thing I want to talk about is the play apparatus.
Sietsema: Excuse me, Jim? I was wondering if maybe Mark knew what the
life of the compact crushed rock might be since he probably has dealt with
it.
Mark Koegler: You touched on the biggest problem. We have to handle
drainage adequately. If it's handled adequately, if we've got a possible
culvert to let the water go through, there's no reason that it won't
contain itself almost as long bituminous surface. Typically bituminous
surface you have to sealcoat roughly every 5 to 7 years and the life of
...is 10 to 15 years. We've done quite a bit of work with the City of
Minneapolis and St. Anthony Main area, Nicollet Island. They use the
brine red rock that's been packed and it's that kind of reddish brown
color. It's very serviceable and actually the more foot traffic you get
on it the better because it helps keep it compacted. It can be a very ~
durable surface and it's not one that I would suggest you shy away from
for fears of having to replace it every 2 years or something. That
doesn't occur.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 27, 1988 - Page 9
,.....
Mady: Something we have looked at in the past is woodchip trails. They
are were very popular a while back. We don't see many of them anymore
because the woodchips are deteriorating. They flow away in heavy rain.
They don't last long so if there's anything new on that, I guess I would
shy away from... The play apparatus. I believe it's my intent to keep
this park as passive as possible. If we were to put play apparatus in,
the only place I think I could support it would be on the west side of the
park near Kerber Blvd.. I really don't want to see anything structural
put into the park outside of maybe a few benches and maybe an observation
tower where you can get people up about 4 feet. The rest of that, it's...
and we do have play facilities adjacent to or very close to the park in
both the Chaparral Park and there are some now in City Center Park in the
school and hopefully there will be more this coming year. I guess at this
point in time I don't want to see anymore.
Hasek: I have some questions for Mark. When this thing was first
acquired, and the process went...passive park?
Mark Koegler: Yes. I had summarized that, you weren't here at the time I
think. Out of the previous Comp Plan and basically they are all passive
uses including trail networks. It addresses much of the same thing that
you mentioned tonight in terms of plant materials, natural wildlife,
seating areas around and limited parking.
,.....
Hasek: Did you look at all about the possibility of putting some parking,
obviously I think that the reason...did you look at the possibility of
putting parking out closer to where the picnic areas are? I guess just in
measuring off of the scale, we're looking at another 500 foot walk like we
have down to Greenwood Shores. It's hardly accessible. There is a trail
connecting them that is separate from the road but it's still quite a walk
for a person to get to it.
Mark Koegler: I think that needs a little more discussion by this body
because the location on that plan where it is shown, more to the south, is
really the optimum place for that specific use. The picnic area, putting
the picnic area on top, the most optimum location for that is under and up
by the trees. If that's the intent, possibly a secondary small parking
lot, as you mentioned, is appropriate to keep those two uses separate.
That could be factored in. The other thing that is not shown on this but
we talked about is that the entrance over on Laredo, there was previously
discussion about having public parking spaces over there. That area is
pretty tight. Perhaps if you look at a couple more, maybe 2, 3 more,
whatever, on the west side by the picnic tables, that may offset the need
for parking on the east side.
,.....,
Mady: The idea on the parking on Laredo, o~ Laredo we have 16 feet of
road access on both sides of the road. We did get a trail plan approved,
funding approved to put the sidewalk on the west side of Laredo but we do
still have 16 feet of road right-of-way on the east side. It's possible
we could put in some parallel parking spaces, 2 or 3 spaces on that side.
Now it is a curving road there. I'm not sure if that's really adviseable.
That's something maybe Public Safety needs to look at but that's a
possibility if you want to have parking on that side is to put a couple of
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 27, 1988 - Page 10
....""
parallel parking space bays on that side of the street.
Boyt: I'd rather see no parking on Laredo at all. Keep them to the
busier road. Laredo is where our kids are right now. I think keep the
parking out of there. I don't think it would look good.
Mady: We already have people parking on the streets. It's just a way of
getting the parking off the streets so it's not in the way of traffic.
Schroers: I think if we make the parking too convenient and the place too
nice, that it will be overused. That will take away from the passiveness
of the area. I tend to think along the same lines as Jim on the formal
type of play structure in that area. When I was growing up I spent an
awful lot of time just running around out in the woods and having a great
time and I didn't need things, an artificial play structure. When you
have an artificial play structure, that's where your attention is focused
and I think the kids would be missing a lot of what the environment has to
offer. It would distract their attention from it so I would just as soon
not see a play structure. Let the kids use their creative imagination to
entertain themselves.
Robinson: I would agree with that. Especially since what you said Jim.
We've got totlots and play equipment relatively close at Chaparral and the
City Park.
Boyt: One of the things that we haven't mentioned is that, I think Lori -'
was in contact with the school a year ago on this...if the school would
like to use this. They'd bring groups of kids down to the pond to observe
what the plants.
Sietsema: Along with that, Matt did say they currently do go down there
and use the park and observe and he would be in favor of and would
appreciate some interpretive signage in that area that would point out
what the different species of trees or where they might possibly see the
different types of birds or wildlife. For the kids to stand in a spot and
say, if you look out that way there might be a blue heron there or
something or you'll see a big maple tree or different kinds of bushes or
whatever. Then it tells them something about that plant or that animal.
Mady: I guess I have a concern a little bit there. I'd like to see some
interpretive signage. However, I don't think I want to see a sign every
time on the different types of trees. Right in front of us is a maple
tree and an oak tree and you've got a sign, this is white oak. I would
rather see a sign right at the start of the park that says, part of this
is the City Center Park. Chan Pond Park contains various plant materials
including white oaks, red maples, cedars, whatever. That way, especially
for kids, with part of the science class and they identify those things in
their books, the school can teach them by bringing them down to the park
and making it into a learning situation for them. They say, okay find
them instead of having it right in front of you. I don't want to fill th
park with signs. We need a little bit of signs but I don't want to have -'
too many signs.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 27, 1988 - Page 11
",...,
",...,
Hasek: I guess I feel, not having been here over the last 5 years or
whenever the acquisition of this park occurred, it seems to me like the
intent is being met by the design. I have a little concern about the
location of the parking. I would like to see the parking closer to the
picnic area for carrying in... I don't think we need more than 7 spaces
in this park anyplace. I think a passive park, what I think if you're
going to provide parking, we might as well park as close to the area and
the facilities as possible... I think that the path ought to be aggregate
lined because it's one of the intents of the City's policy to provide
accessibility to the residents and an aggregate path would make it
accessible to the handicap in the wheelchairs and the public which is
something that...missing from the intent of that particular were being
used. I guess generally I feel that development around the park should
not in the long run harm the general character of the park. If we take a
look at the wildlife that exists in the small pond that's just off of
Shady Oak Road south of TH 7 in Hopkins, you'll soon realize that wildlife
and humans can live together... I think that this park can serve that
function. I would hate to see any kind of signage at all in this park. 5
miles, 4 1/2 miles down the road you've got the Minnesota Arboretum that
is completely open to kids. A short bus ride out there and all of the
trees that you'd ever want to identify. I think that to put signs in this
park identifying the trees is...so I'd like to see the signs... I think
the point about the children throwing rocks at wildlife is one that has to
be policed by the adults. If my kid throws a rock at a duck...so I think
that's something the adults can take care of. Part of the reason more of
the wildlife has left is because of development. I think when this park
is completed...and the wildlife is used to it, a portion of that will
begin to return. In fact at some point we'll have to find a way to get
rid of some of it because the wildlife, the ducks and the geese are up on
the yards making a mess so I think that over time will take care of
itself. Probably what has happened is that...
Mady: I had a question Mark. The trail going between the two pond
areas. There's the large north pond and the south pond, there's a trail
between those two bodies and you can walk through there. The bottom this
year was fairly soft. Have we looked at a floating type of a trail?
Mark Koegler: What's indicated right now on the plan, if you rad the fine
print, it was a little side condition. Obviously this is not a normal
year but the presumption would be that by springtime we will get a normal
rainfall, that probably will require some type of a floating apparatus or
some type of a wood structure to get across there. That is shown right
now as part of the plan.
Mady: Okay, is there any comment?
Resident: I just had a question. Are there set park hours for the park?
Mady: Yes.
"""
Sietsema: 7:00 to 10:00.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 27, 1988 - Page 12
....",
Mady: We do also have, someone had commented on dogs. Currently the City
Ordinance on dogs is that there are no dogs allowed in city parks period.
Leashed or otherwise. We have recommended to the Council and I believe we
are in the process of amending the ordinance to allow for dogs on leash on
trails so whatever the current leash laws are.
Resident: We've lived there 10 years and we yell at lots of kids and
getting lots of people down there. It's real difficult for us to police
because it's way down and nobody sees it. I haven't heard anything yet
that sounded like it's going to be any better than it has been but it's
terrible there. Beer parties. There's lots of stuff going on.
Resident: We've had to call the police 2 or 3 times...
Boyt: Were the beer parties on the trail that leads up to where you are?
Resident: Yes.
Resident: And the motorcycles going around...
Boyt: We talked at one time about putting some sort of bollards and chains
or just bollards to protect the entrance on Laredo so the dirt bikes can't
get through.
Mady: The only problem is, a dirt bike is that narrow. We can do the -'
best we can.
Boyt: It's not real hard to find where those kids are coming from either.
I live right there. I followed them home. You've got to go to the
parents. Something that we have, ever since we've been up here, wherever
there's a park, there are similar problems wherever there's a park.
Mady: It's an unfortunate situation including kids education and police
and enforcement action. The only option other than that is to have no
parks and I guess that's another option. ...education and enforcement
take care of a lot of it. Try to maybe not make it not as inviting a
situation as possible and maybe through installing some street lights
maybe. I would hate to see that down there but if that would solve the
problems, than that would be done. We'll have to watch it. The City does
have a couple of CSO officers now and hopefully they'll be providing a
little bit more park patrolling so we can enforce the parks we have.
Lori, if there's no other comments, I don't think we need an action on
this do we outside of maybe drafting...
Sietsema:
with this.
I need a motion of your direction on how you want us to proceed
Do you want us to add or delete anything?
Boyt: We need to talk about the parking.
Mady: Yes, that was about the only thing I heard that was...
-'
Boyt: There's an option though of moving the parking and, we have a
seating overlook area. That's what it's for. It's to be a park that
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 27, 1988 - Page 13
,.....
could provide seating for that and parking for the picnic area.
Watson: You could put the parking down here and then they could walk the
trail up here to the overlook.
Boyt: When I drive by, the natural place for parking looks to be to the
north.
Mady: You have to remember the sliding hill would be on the south side.
Schroers: Has the grading already been done for the parking?
Mark Koegler: No. The grading permit along Kerber has been done. It
will accomodate parking either in the location shown there or further to
the north.
Hasek: Where's the sliding hill?
Robinson: South.
Schroers: Will that bituminous trail that is there right now be disturbed
when the parking goes in?
~ Mark Koegler: On this scheme, about 80 feet of it would be disturbed.
Schroers: Just taken out and...
Hasek: The other advantage
on a curve and it's clearly
could potentially design to
it more of an interchange.
I can think of off hand is you've got a road
visible. If you move it to the north, you
exit directly opposite of Saddlebrook. Make
To me it just seems if the parking is more...
Schroers: Is there enough base to accomodate that parking where the trail
curves toward the wood line there just opposite of Saddlebrook?
Mark Koegler: Part of this gets back to the issue of what's planned and
buildable.. .
Mady: ...but I'd agree with Ed, I don't want to see 15 to 20 spaces in
the park either. Maybe we if we allow 3 spaces in the overlook area. Put
4 or 5 down towards the picnic area.
Hasek: What if it's just a pull off parking area with 3 spaces...? The
intent of the overlook is to have people driving by to stop and view for a
minute and leave. Maybe just an off street parallel parking bay can
accomodate that.
Mady: Wouldn't you rather put in parking at the overlook...
,.....,
Watson: It is a lovely view but it isn't the Grand Canyon so I think if
you provide... I have a feeling that 99% of the traffic on Kerber Drive
is going from one place to another and not necessarily...
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 27, 1988 - Page 14
..."
Schroers: It's the same traffic that goes past there time after time and
they've seen it before.
Watson: Right. They're going back and forth to work, to the store, or
they're taking their kids somewhere. It's still pretty and local in
nature and those people aren't necessarily going to pull off and look at
it. They're going to walk down there. They've already decided that
they're going to park and go down there and walk.
Mady: When we were out there and met with Bill Engelhardt a couple of
months back, the possibility of a sliding hill in that location and not
all of us have our kids immediately adjacent to so we're going to have to
drive there. I don't believe we provide a sliding hill in the City right
now so I'd like to see us leave some parking available to us for the...
Hasek: I'd like to make a motion to get this thing off dead center. I'd
like to make a motion that we go ahead and develop the park as we
generally discussed with the exception of moving the parking bays that
were shown to the north and across Kerber Blvd. from Sadd1ebrook.
Hased moved, Watson seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
reco~mend to develop the park as we generally discussed with the exception
of moving the parking bays that were shown to the north and across Kerber
B1 vd. from Sadd1ebrook. Hasek voted in favor and the rest voted in...",
opposition and the motion failed.
Robinson:
described
it's laid
either?
I'd say the same motion, that the development generally as
here with no exceptions to the parking. I like the parking as
out with 7 spaces by the overlook area. You don't like that one
Watson:
I'll second that just to see how it gets the vote.
Robinson:
parking.
That's what I had an exception to on Ed's motion was the
Robinson moved, Watson seconded that the Park and Rec Commission recommend
to accept the plan as Mark Koegler presented for Chan Pond Park's master
plan. Robinson and Boyt voted in favor and the rest of the Commission
voted in opposition and the motion failed.
Mady: This is getting ridiculous. I think we're looking for split
parking and if that doesn't have it, then we're going to let it drop.
Hasek: Let's quite screwing around with this. It's ridiculous. Why
don't we give this to the City Engineer for just one session here and hav
him take a look at it and get his comments. To see if there's anything, -'
based on design that we should be looking at that we're missing. I
guess I honestly don't care if we've got a few in one place or a few in
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 27, 1988 - Page 15
"....
the othere place. Maybe the engineer will be able to tell us where the
best location is for that. Does that sound like something we can agree
on?
Mady: I don't have a problem with it unless there's a public safety
problem. . .
Hasek moved, Watson seconded that the Park and Rec Commission direct the
City Engineer to address the parking issue and give a recommendation back
to the Park and Recreation Commission. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
John Olsen: Mr. Chairman, this may not be germane to the discussion and
obviously this is not the proper venue for it but I think I can speak for
a fair number of the residents in the area that that if you really want to
enhance the park's beauty, either (a), enforce the 40 mph speed limit on
Kerber Blvd. or in fact reduce it down to 30 mph.
Boyt: You know what, you need to go to the Public Safety Commission.
IfI"""
John Olsen: I'm aware of that. I'm just simply bringing that up as a
general discussion about pull-offs and parking and that sort of thing.
REVIEW STANDARDS FOR EQUESTRIAN TRAILS.
Sietsema: As we move closer to the referendum, the trailway task force is
moving into public meetings. Presenting the trail plan to different
groups of people. One of the questions that we are anticipating to come
up is what kinds of uses are allowed on the different trail systems. We
feel we are pretty comfortable with what is and is not allowed on the
paved trails. The sidewalks and the bituminous trails but it's still
unclear what is intended to happen on the nature trails or allow to be
happen on the nature trails. Whether horses will be allowed. I think
that we've all agreed that motorized vehicles should be prohibited but the
question still remains on the horse use of the trails and what kinds of
conflicts there are with pedestrians and equestrians. ...since we do have
a lot of horse trails in Hennepin Parks and maybe Larry just wants to go
over some of the points that he's found out.
Schroers: I did talk to a member of Hennepin Parks Mounted Ranger Patrol
and the information that I received in regards to the surface of the trail
to accomodate horses, they prefer and strongly recommend turf where
expected heavy use or a lot of use for horses would occur. They feel that
the crushed aggregate also works fairly well but it can give some problems
to the horses. Rocks got in their shoes and other things and it seems
like, for whatever reason that the excrement remains longer on an
~ aggregate type of surface than it does on natural turf. Also, a couple of
things that were brought to my attention was that in low areas, especially
under wet conditions, horses tend to sink into the turf and it's not
particularly good for the horses and it pretty much ruins the trail for
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 27, 1988 - Page 16
...""",
walking by pedestrians. At least it's an area, if it's wet and then
dries, it gets pretty hard and rough and it's an area where someone could
easily turn an ankle or trip. As far as the 20 foot is concerned, that's
the distance that we normally ask for in our easements, they feel that two
horses can ride side by side and meet or bypass pedestrians within the 20
foot span so 20 foot should accomodate them. Other than that, they didn't
feel that there was any particular problems with horses and pedestrians
using the same areas.
Sietsema: It was staff's feeling that as long as a 20 foot easement would
be a good width, or plenty wide enough for both uses, that if we got to a
problem where if we mowed a strip that was maybe 5 to 8 feet wide and it
was getting torn up by the horses or soft and muddy or there was enough
pedestrian traffic that they weren't able to pass comfortably, we'd still
have the room to mow another strip that would be exclusively for horses
and one exclusively for pedestrians within that 20 foot easement. I guess
it would be staff's recommendation to allow for horse traffic on the
nature trails. Again, this would be not the paved trails but the nature
trails.
Hasek: Is it possible that we could throw something in where we could put
it on a trial basis? Approve it on a trial basis where it would have to
come up in another 12 months or until any problems occur.
Sietsema: We probably won't have all of our trails in within the next 12 ~
months.
Watson: If you don't allow them there, where are you going to allow them?
Sietsema: If we have conflicts, the City has the option to always change
the ordinance. I wouldn't recommend that we have a trial because that is
really unclear, it gives an unclear message. I think from staff's
standpoint, I would like to see us send a message out to the residents of
Chanhassen that this is where you are allowed to ride your horses and have
that kind of activity and we want to preserve in that area. If it gets to
the point where, obviously our number one use on our trails is going to be
for pedestrian use, but if it can't be accomodated for both users to use
these nature trails within that 20 foot easement, we always have the
option of going back and changing our ordinance. We amend ordinances all
the time.
Boyt: How many miles of nature trails do we have?
Sietsema: Miles, I don't know. The whole thing is 29 but I'm not sure.
Hasek: How many do we have in place right now?
Sietsema: The nature trails that are in place right now are all on Tim
Erhart's property and he doesn't, we haven't obtained an easement from hi~
and he doesn't allow horse traffic on his so right now we don't really... .~
Hasek: Is that going to continue do you think?
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 27, 1988 - Page 17
,......
Sietsema: Until we get the actual easement, that's the way it will be.
Hasek: Do you think he would allow the easement without horse traffic? Is
he that opposed to it? Would that be a whole other system?
Sietsema: I'm not really sure. I'd like to work with Tim on some other
things and talk to him and see if I can find out what the reasoning is.
So far it just sounds like it's a matter that the two don't mix well and
I don't know if these are just on a small area and we can't provide the
two different types of trails in that area or what. I'm not really sure
where he's coming from.
Hasek: To answer your question Carol.
it and this is not personal at all but
doesn't mean that we have to give them
As for example...or is somebody wanted
horse owners. My problems with horses
want to have them on my own yard and I
do that and certainly want to do it if
commission or the City's obligation to
I'm taking kind of a hard stand on
just because a person owns a horse
a place to ride on our properties.
to ride an elephant. I understand
are strictly personal. I wouldn't
think that would be nice if we can
we can but I don't think that this
provide a place.
Watson: We have no obligation to...to allow dogs on the trails or
anything. Obligation doesn't have any real bearing. There are a lot of
~ horses in the City and the rural characteristics of the City brought all
those people out here who are now standing around trying to figure out how
they ended up in the middle of downtown Bloomington practically. I think
that those people are also entitled. As entitled as someone who wants to
walk their dog on the trails or walk around Chan Pond Park. They're here.
Hasek: If, for example, if the City didn't have, if we had a no pet
ordinance and you moved out here with a pet, couldn't you corne screaming
to the City saying I moved in here with a pet, you've got to allow it. I
don't think so. Our job is to provide for the people in the community and
as much beyond that as we absolutely possibly can. I would like to see
horse trails, no question about it but I don't think that we are under any
pressure to provide places for horses to ride simply because people either
moved out here 20 years ago and had horses or moved in yesterday on a 5
acre lot so they could put a horse in and now they want a place to ride.
Watson: I agree that we don't have to but I think the opportunity exists.
Hasek: And that's why I think it's possible...
Sietsema: It's simply meeting our recreational need.
Boyt: It's a nice amenity to have.
Watson: Especially a community with the characteristic of this one,
~. hopefully will retain, at least for a while.
Mady: I've got some comments to make. Corning from strictly an urban
background pretty much, entirely urban, I had to do a lot of thinking on
this because horses and people, to me they were, unless you have a lot of
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 27, 1988 - Page 18
space, although I think Chanhassen is going to remain somewhat rural for -'
the next 20 years. Although we are going to get to the rural area where
Eden prairie is right now, I believe they've pretty much banned horses in
there I think. That's what I heard. That's all hearsay but I don't.think
Eden prairie provides for horses but I don't think Chanhassen is going to
get to that point for at least another 20 years. I do have some concerns
with horses sharing trails. As long as you only have 2 or 3 horses on a
20 foot trail, I don't have a problem with it. My problem would corne if a
riding club or anything like that and 20 horses are going down a trail at
one time. All of a sudden that trail is no longer a pedestrian trail.
There's just no way a kid is going to, unless that kid is used to being
around horses, is going to be near that trail. I don't know how we can
rectify that situation. Put recreational user. The people who live in
town. Will be near it. I have no problems at all because there are going
to be 2 or 3 people going out on an afternoon, Saturday afternoon ride or
after work exercise, of course, I don't have a problem with that. I think
we're going to have to get to the point where we designate areas of the
City as suitable uses. How we're going to do, at least the non-sewered
area would make it easy. Maybe we have to look at each individual trail
and say yes, that is here and no, that isn't there. I think that's where
we have to get to. The nature of the trail, the park is going to have to
be looked at as to whether it's going to allowed along that or not because
we do have a nature trail right here in Chan Pond Park. There's no way
that I would recommend to allow horses in that area so I think that's
where we have to look at each individual area. As long as there's enough
space basically in the non-sewered area, it's the southern area of -,.
Chanhassen. The area on the other side of Lake Ann is where the bulk of
the horses are. There are a few I guess on the other side in your
neighborhood, towards Excelsior but they're kind of getting moved out
because everybody is selling their property to develop it. When we have
pedestrians and horses sharing an area, I would like to see us segating
the trail easement. You can do that by putting in an aggregate trail of 5
to 6 feet for the pedestrians. That's the pedestrian area. That's where
they're supposed to be. The horses can have the rest of it. As long as
people know where they can be and where they can't be on both sides, we
shouldn't have a problem. But if we just leave it all open, then the
horses are going to dictate.
Sietsema: Right. I guess my point was, I think that we can afford to be
reactive rather than proactive in this instance. I don't think we need to
go out there and make two separate trails right off the bat because I
don't think, number one think we're going to have a lot of heavy
pedestrian traffic in that area. Once this becomes more well known and it
is more used, than look at it and determine how you want to separate but I
think we could get by with one at first and then look at it later.
Mady: I would just as soon not. Knowing my family, if I walk down a
nature trail and a horse carne by, my daughter would go nuts.
Watson: That's because her father carne from a totally urban environment.
....""
Mady: But you've got to realize the City is now at 10,000 people and the
bulk of us I would guess carne from a totally urban area and setting so I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 27, 1988 - Page 19
,.....
just want to make sure that people are aware of that concern. Maybe we do
need to put aggregate down right away.
Watson: I don't think so. In the first place, I don't think, we provide,
the few trails we have, we don't even hardly have any nature trails at
this point do we except for Tim Erhart's property who won't let anybody
on. I don't really think that we're going to have riding clubs full of
people riding on the few miles of trails that we're going to have in the
foreseeable future.
Mady: The point though is that we're creating a policy here and people
read the policy and expect to have trails and then they want to see them.
They may in fact move out here with the intent that those trails will be
constructed and having horses in the future. That's why the policy is
important now. Otherwise we'd wait until we bought the land to create the
policy.
Watson: The policy is fine but I don't think we need to be out there
constructing separate trails and directing traffic.
,....
Sietsema: We don't have to make that decision tonight either. All I need
to know is if this Commission is going to adopt a policy to allow horses
on nature trails in the rural part of Chanhassen. If that is so that a
motion to that effect is all I really need because we're going to talk
about trail construction for the next 20 years once this referendum goes
through. We're going to be talking about trail construction a lot. Just
look forward to it. Even if the referendum does not pass, God forbid, but
what I need to know now is what I can tell the people that we're going to
public meetings. When the horse people are corning in, where are we going
to be able to ride, I want to be able to say well we've got all the nature
trails. Either you can or can't. That's going to be their yea or nay
vote.
Carol Dunsmore: Just a comment on what you said before. You're so afraid
of organized trail riding with 10-20 people. These nature trails they're
not accessible to any type of trailer or parking. These trails
specifically south of TH 5 area, you're just going to be the backyard
riders riding to them. I do belong to a saddle club but we're looking at
a humongous parking lot to get 10 trailers so we'd never worry about these
trails being used for an organized club. It's strictly the residents
going out their back yard.
Hasek: If you were to go as club, you would go to the Minnesota River
Valley or someplace else where you could have...
Sietsema: Hennepin Parks.
Carol Dunsmore: I've riden in numerous State Parks, County Parks and
every trail that it horse accessible is...trail. There's no separation
,.... whatsoever from people. We've never encountered any problems with them.
The horses give right-of-way to the people. They give right-of-way to
horses. They work wonderful together. I don't see any problems.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 27, 1988 - Page 20
Mady: Do you realize I'm uninformed... I'm very naive when it comes to
horses so I've just got all these fears like people who are naturally
afraid of snakes.
,.,..
Schroers: I think I can help make you more comfortable on that Jim. We
have highly extensive horse trails in the Hennepin Parks and they are used
probably as much by people as by horses and I haven't heard of a conflict
where anyone has been run over, kicked or any problem like that.
pedestrian and horse related incidents. Maybe a rider has fallen off
their horse but I think I'd be ready to make a motion on this. I would
move that the Park and Rec Commission recommend to staff and Council to
adopt the policy that will allow equestrian use on certain non-paved
nature trails to be specified in the future.
Sietsema: Do you want to include prohibiting motorized vehicles.
Schroers: Right, also prohibiting motorized vehicles.
Watson: I'll second it.
Carol Dunsmore: Is there anyway you can south of TH 5? In the rural
area? you're still making it very leery to horse people.
Mady:
I don't want to omit the areas on the north side of TH 5.
Schroers: That's kind of why I worded it the way I did.
...""
Sietsema: Could you just say in the rural or unsewered area?
Schroers: I don't want to say unsewered. Maybe I would rather say in
the. . .
Hasek: Are there going to be any nature trails in the sewered area?
Sietsema: Yes. Around Chanhassen Pond and along Lotus Trail.
Schroers: I guess I'd just rather state it the way I did. On certain
trails.
Sietsema: How about if you allow them on nature trails with the exception
of the nature trails in the sewered area?
Hasek: What's the difference between that and the sewered area?
Mady: That's kind of an ambiguous term but...
Schroers: Then it would be excluding the use of horses inside the MUSA
line.
Mady: But the people who live right here have sewer. They also have
horses. Tim Erhart's farm is right there.
......"
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 27, 1988 - Page 21
,...
Sietsema: They don't have sewer. All that is sewered is along Lake Riley
Bl vd . .
Mady: In any event, there are some people who do live down there who have
horses and they have sewer. I would rather see it say rural area. It's
kind of ambiguous but...
Schroers: Okay, should I restate this?
Sietsema: How about if I just recap, Larry moved to adopt a policy
statement to allow equestrian use on the nature trails in the rural area
and to prohibit any motorized vehicles on any trails.
Schroers: That would be okay but I think that we have to state in there,
in rural areas on specified trails because if Mr. Erhart's trail is
considered a nature trail but he's not going to allow horses on that, what
do we have to allow for that?
Watson: But when we buy the easement, he won't have a choice. Now it's
his choice because it's private property.
Sietsema: It's not a true public trail right now.
,.....
Mady: I think it's kind of moot point because we always have the ability,
even if he said at some point in time, at that point in time he can...
Sietsema: The bottom line though is that your policy will allow horses on
nature trails. That's the policy. You can put any stipulations on that
at any time but that is our general guideline. Our pOlicy.
Mady: Okay, reread it and let's go.
Sietsema: Larry moved to adopt a policy statement to allow equestrian use
on nature trails in the rural area and to prohibit any motorized vehicles
on trails. Carol seconded.
Schroers moved, Watson seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
adopt a policy statement to allow equestrian use on nature trails in the
rural area and to prohibit any motorized vehicles on trails. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
APPROVAL OF 1989 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
,.......
Sietsema: I made the revisions noted the last time we talked about the
1989 Capital Improvement Program. That is shown on the first attachment.
I also separated the projects that would be monies on reserve such as
Herman Field and also LAWCON grant projects where the money is matching
grant money. The total that I come up with is about $179,990.00 and that
would be newly budgeted money. That does not include anything that's
rolled over. If you wanted to know what was rolled over, it would be
anything on the second attachment that says 1988 ClP project status that
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 27, 1988 - Page 22
says that the project woulde be completed sometime in 1989 such as Laredo-'
and the Carver Beach Road trails. There's $25,000.00 that would be rolled
over to complete that project. Chanhassen Pond Park, I believe that it
was $3,500.00 that we had in the budget for Chan Pond Park.
Boyt: For park and development?
Sietsema: For park and development.
Robinson: How much Lori?
Sietsema: $3,500.00. I looked it up. So that would be rolled over.
That would in addition to that $170,000.00 total. The tree farm was not
restocked because we don't have control over it yet. They're still doing
some final grading and leveling or whatever with the sewer project so we
won't be restocking that unless we get, they turn it back over to us
within planting time that we could still do it.
Mady: I guess I'm a little opposed to it. Let's wait until next year and
buy the stuff next spring. It's getting real late now for stuff that we'd
be hoping to transplant.
Sietsema: We typically do it in the fall though.
Hasek: The best time to do it is right now because you stand the best
chance of those plants surviving next spring. -'
Sietsema: That's why they were hoping they'd still be able to do it this
fall. We also do have available to us off in the MRPA, the Minnesota
Recreational Park Association has trees and bushes and different things
that you can get at a lower cost. We can go up and get a bunch of them
and stock the tree farm. I believe that project is going to be available
again this year so if we have the tree farm, get it back, we'd still be
able to do that. That's the intent. The other thing that I wanted to
talk about that I didn't in here was that, if you notice on the status
attachment, the boardwalk for North Lotus Lake Park, I have a question
mark there and I checked and I do not have that on order because I didn't
get a clear i.ndication from the Commission whether I should and I don't
know how much boardwalk we want. How far out we want to go. The other
question is, I'm still not sure that that's what you want to do. Just
having a boardwalk go out and end in the middle of the lake or out to the
open water and not having a fishing pier leading to anything so I've held
off on ordering that and I will go ahead and order it upon your direction
tonight.
Hasek: Could a fishing pier be stuck into another program of some sort or
not? Similar to what we did on the DNR'S at Chan?
Sietsema: There's a Corps program through the DNR and they give you a
grant and then install the pier. We could make application next year for
a fishing pier like that.
--'
Hasek: Does that make sense to do that?
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 27, 1988 - Page 23
""'"
Watson: Was that the intent when the boardwalk was planned?
Hoffman: At North Lotus? The only problem we'd run into there would be
the stringent requirements of accessible parking with paved handicapped
trails nearby. It's got to be within such a certain distance. At
North Lotus we'd never be able to meet it.
Mady: That part of the lake is shallow so to get into really fishable
waters, you're going to have a heck of a long dock.
Hoffman: South Lotus, if more appropriate, would be the more appropriate
spot.
Schroers: Is there a lot of resident demand for a boardwalk?
Sietsema: No, it came up as an idea a few years back and it's been
included in the budget and I've never gotten clear direction to go ahead
and do it. The last time we talked about the boardwalk was when we were
talking about Chanhassen Estates and that's where we discussed the
problems with, if a kid fell off that dock into that marsh it would be a
very dangerous situation.
""'"
Schroers: Another thing is that we have several boardwalks within
Hennepin Parks and they have proven to be a high maintenance, high cost...
Sietsema: The boardwalk that I brought in, that piece of it, it was
plastic. It's supposed to be a low maintenance thing that floats right on
the water but it will get a little bit wet on the top I guess but it
doesn't get chewed up by the muskrats. It just kind of fit together and
there were some bolts or something that you put in there and you could
leave it in there. It was a real thick plastic stuff. You could leave it
out there through the winter. It does get chewed up a bit by snowmobilers
if they go over it but it still withstands that kind of a beating.
Mady: If you wanted neighborhood input on this, send a letter out to
Lotus Lake Homeowners Association. You'd fill this room with people who
do not want that trail.
Sietsema: What trail?
Mady: I met with those people for the referendum. They do not want a
trail. Specifically, we have an easement along the lake from their area
to ours. They do not want it. They are completely against trails.
Schroers: I guess my idea on that is, if we are not getting a lot of
neighborhood requests for such a thing, I don't think we should spend'
$3,000.00 and just go in and tear up the environment for the sake of
having a trail there. If someone wants a trail there, if there's interest
and if it will serve a purpose and a function, then it's worth looking at.
"...... Otherwi se, let's go wi thout it.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 27, 1988 - Page 24
Watson: Put out a fishing pie~ or something like that. If there was -'
going to be something to do when you got to the end of it.
Boyt: There are other needs of that park too. We put a totlot in
need one at least twice the size to serve the kids that are there.
picnic tables. There's a beautiful view of the lake. I rather see
money used instead of for a boardwalk for more totlot equipment.
and we
Some
the
Mady moved, Schroers seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend to staff that the boardwalk be taken out of the 1988 Capital
Improvement Program. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Sietsema: $170,000.00 is a lot of money for the Park Capital Improvement
Program. Not to say that it wouldn't be funded but it'd be more than has
ever been funded before.
Boyt: We had the potential to bring in a lot of money this past year with
the amount of development going on. That's not a lot of money. They
expect the same kind of growth next year.
Mady: I just want to caution members that they're spending money for some
people who aren't putting in money and we've got to...
Hasek: We also have people living in those areas that are in need of
parks who aren't going to have their land developed.
.....",
Mady: I've got some other comments but let's get through this thing.
Sietsema: Go ahead. Do you want to just start at the top of the list of
the attachment with Lake Ann Park and revise as we go?
Robinson: Revise what?
Mady: Make your comments on...
Sietsema: I just need to know if you want to change this or if you want
it to go to City Council as it is or whatever. So if you want to just
walk through this, and get comments on any possible changes.
Mady: Number one, the 1988 CIP status. The Laredo/Carver Beach trail was
on the Consent last night and approved last night by the Council. I
woulde like to direct staff to move as quickly as possible. If that means
hiring outside people, so be it, to get those bids out. Get the bidding
process started so the bids come back. If we can get that done, it takes
3 weeks to get the bids to come back. We still have an outside chance of
hitting the October 24th Council meeting for approval and we could still
maybe get that thing in the ground this year if we really pushed.
Hasek: Is the thing designed right now?
Robinson: Why is it that important?
"OIIlIIIII
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 27, 1988 - Page 25
""
Mady: To get those kids off of the street that
To me that should have been done back in June.
waited until September but it's September now.
walking on that street. We've got the money to
is get the work done.
have to walk to school.
It's unfortunate that we
We've still got kids
spend. All we need to do
Sietsema: I don't believe that that's enough time to prepare plans and
specs. The Council has to approve plans and specs, authorize
advertisement for bids. That is a certain, I think a 2 week period that
we have to advertise and we have to accept bids and then the Council has
to approve bids. So the soonest that we could go back to Council would be
November.
Mady: Well, early November. If the weather's right, we could still do
cement in November. I'm saying if we drag our feet right now, it
definitely is not going to get done until May of next year.
Sietsema: The trail in front of the Fire Station and the School will be
done this year. I will push it as fast.
""
Hasek: We can certainly make a motion to push for it. It's unfortunate
that things are out there that far. Experience will tell me that there's
just no way that they can get a bid approved before, I think November
would be really pushing it. You've got probably, I don't know how long
the trail is but I can't believe there's any contractor out there who
could do the plans and specs within 30 days. That's just unrealistic.
It's not going to happen.
Mady: Well it won't happen if we don't ask for it.
Sietsema: I can put your motion down or whatever. Gary's the engineer.
This is an engineering project and he's aware that we do want to go as
fast as possible.
Mady: I'm disappointed that we didn't get to Council on this thing until
September. We talked about it back in June and nothing happened until
August... That's all I have to say on that. Going to the 1989 project.
Lake Ann grading plan is something that's...
Sietsema: The Lake Ann grading plan, yes, that's separate. That's
referendum money.
Mady: We get into Bluff Creek access road. We don't even know where
Bluff Creek is right now.
Sietsema: I know where Bluff Creek is.
Mady: I don't want to be the Park Commissioner who has to go to City
Council and ask for $10,000.00 for a park when we don't even know where it
,..... is.
Sietsema: The reason we can't find it is there's no access road.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 27, 1988 - Page 26
.....",
Mady: Next park down, Minnewashta Heights Park. $20,000.00 for a park
shelter. When we discussed this item, it was talked about something
similar to a bus shelter with clear plexiglass so it would be visible. I
called the Metropolitan Transit Commission personally and talked to a man
by the name of Gary Curtis. The MTC pays $6,000.00 for their bus
shelters. He gave me a list of 30 people they buy them from. I said the
list has to be updated again, they're in the process of doing that. I
don't know why we're talking about Minnewashta Heights. It's a small park
but $20,000.00, we'd be a hell of a lot better off spending $20,000.00 and
buying 2 acres of land out there where we desperately need a playing
field. If we put in $6,000.00 to $10,000.00 for a park shelter, we'd
better know what we're doing. $20,000.00, that's a lot of money to spend
on a real small park with a very small service area. I have a tough time
doing that.
Watson: When it's so small, there's not ability to put much activity in
there.
Mady: I'll give this to staff, from the MTC so they have that
information.
Sietsema: I talked to Nann who does our Minutes. She lives up in that
area, fairly close to the park and I asked her what she thought of a park
shelter and she said that a warming house for the kids to get out of the
wind would be nice but what would probably be used more in that park woul~
be a half court basketball court. She said right now it's really geared
to small children with the totlot there but probably it would be used more
by adults and older kids if there was a half court basketball. She said
from her standpoint and the people she had talked to, that may serve more
people than a warming house or park shelter actually would. She also said
that additional totlot equipment, expanding the totlot eqiupment that's
there would be something that would be needed.
Mady: What we need to do is have a public hearing and invite all the
residents and find out what they actually want instead of us trying to put
up a $20,000.00 park shelter. Who even knows if they want it or not.b
Schroers: I think that's what we had in mind was a combination warming
house and shelter type thing.
Hasek: That's what I thought we had talked about.
Schroers: I think that's where that came from and that's where that
$20,000.00 figure and if you look at what we got in the concession stand
up at Lake Ann, you realize you don't get much for $20,000.00.
Watson: Didn't you think too it had to be constructed, because there
wasn't going to be anybody there. We couldn't afford to have anybody at
that warming house so it was going to have to be constructed so it
wouldn't be closed in so you could see and everything so it wouldn't be
more dangerous for the kids to use it than it would help.
......,
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 27, 1988 - Page 27
,....,
,..,
Mady: The comments we had when we were first talking about this, Dale,
the indication was that there were many days that there aren't any kids
who can skate across the ice up there. I think we need better ice for
them. I've got a real problem putting a big park shelter, spending
$20,000.00 for a park shelter when we don't even know if they want it.
$20,000.00 is a lot of money, even today. I have a problem with that. I
had a problem before and I still do. I don't see any plan. A couple
other things I wanted to bring up. We've had input from people on both
Minnewashta Parkway and from Pheasant Hills subdivision for parks. We
need to go out and find 5 acres of land for each of those people so we
have a park. Not a little 30,000 square feet that we can't do anything
with but have a totlot. Yes, they want a totlot right now but 5 years
down the road they're going to want something else. Let's build them the
right thing now and let's start looking at that. I'm not saying you
budget money for it this year but I think we need to start looking
actively for park in both those areas. I think in the Pheasant Hills
area, although that is in the sewered area, they are directly next to a
non-sewered area where we can buy land fairly reasonably. If we can pick
up 5 acres of land for $20,000.00 to $30,000.00, we'd better be looking
hard at funding that next year on our next's year budget. That means this
year we go out and locate the land that we want. We know how much it's
going to cost so we can do that next year. Minnewashta Parkway, in
talking to the developer who was here last week, or two weeks ago, it
sounds like land goes for about $10,000.00 an acre there. That means
we're going to need $50,000.00 to buy 5 acres of land but let's start
planning for that. The longer we wait, the longer it's going to take and
the land's going to get a lot more expensive. If we have to delay a
totlot or a ballfield or tennis court, I'm willing to make that choice so
we can get something that people are already asking for right now. If we
don't do it now, we can't wait until the developer gives it to us free
because there just aren't big pieces of property up there that they're
going to give us 5 acres of land. That's a real problem there.
Schroers: I have to agree with you on that. If you're going to have
parkland, if you want to offer parks to the residents, the first thing you
have to have is the property. If it doesn't look as though it's going to
become available through development fees, I agree that we should look at
purchasing the property that we need in the areas where we need it and get
on it real soon. That's the key to having a park system is getting the
land.
Mady: The last comment I have concerns the new south park that we're
investigating but also the two I just mentioned. We've had the
opportunity to work with the Army Corps of Engineers Reserve to do some
grading in our park areas. We have to ask them like 2 years ahead of time
to get that done. Let's keep that in mind when we're looking at the south
park because Chanhassen is blessed with rolling hills. There isn't a part
of Chanhassen that's got 20 acres of flat land that I know of.
Watson: There's a 1,000 developers who can get it flat.
I""'"
Mady: But we've got to pay for that but since we know we have a very
limited budget, I want to make sure that we remember to use those...source
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 27, 1988 - Page 28
....."
because it's a very cheap source for us. Keep that in the back of our
minds when we start looking at developing these newer parcels that we're
looking at. That's my comments.
Robinson: I disagree with Jim's remarks on hiring outside help on Laredo
and the park trail. I think we should expedite that but not to the point
of hiring outside help. I'd like to thank Jim for not attacking the South
Lotus Park tennis courts. I appreciate that. As far as the $169,250.00
that we spent some time on before, I would like to leave that total with
possibly the exception of Bluff Creek. Jim made a good point, we don't
know where it is. I'm wishy washy on the $20,000.00 for the park shelter
at Minnewashta Heights Park. We'd better go find out. I'm not sure if
there's dollars in there. We shouldn't call it a park shelter and
therefore if we can't define it, I'm not sure if we should have any
dollars in there.
Boyt: I think it's a good idea to get together with the neighbors out
there to find out what the concerns are there because it's a small park.
Robinson: So maybe I guess what I'm saying Lori, the $169,000.00 less the
$31,000.00 to $138,250.00 I feel...
Mady: We need a sign at Bluff Creek so at least we know where it is.
Sietsema: You can't find it because there's no access road to it. You -'
have to go across private property to get to it.
Watson: What would it cost to put a road to it?
Sietsema: I don't know, $8,000.00 to $10,000.00.
Robinson: I see you included Lori the income from park and trail fees
collected to date.
Sietsema: Through August. January through August.
Robinson: You can't prorate that to...
Sietsema: It's going to continue. I get at least 3 or 4 permits across
my desk a day.
Robinson: Is there a relationship between the Capital Improvement
Program's $169,000.00? It looks like you could collect $169,000.00 so is
that...
Sietsema: You don't necessarily want to spend everything you take in.
Number one, you want to keep your reserve funds built up so you have
matching grant funds. So that you have emergency money to dip into in
case something comes up that you don't want to pass up. Also, you want to
reserve some money for the areas that you don't have the land now where w~
may acquire the land, then we don't have any money to develop it.
Especially in the area like pheasant Hills where the fees have already
been collected and they're already in that budget and we're spending them
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 27, 1988 - Page 29
,.....
in other places so if we don't keep some on reserve, we won't be able to
acquire land much less develop it up there.
Hasek: Let's ask a straight out question, how do you feel about it? You
mentioned that it's a lot higher than it's ever been but is it out of
line?
Sietsema: I didn't get any bad vibes from Don. I think the Council will
start cutting and I think that it's better for us to cut back to show
where we think the cuts should come because we have more hands on, we know
what our goals are. If we want to get it back to a number that I think
the Council will be more comfortable with, it's somewhere in the
$100,000.00-$120,000.00 range. That's just a guess on my part. I could
be, maybe they'll breeze through it and they won't give a hang if it's
$200,000.00.
Hasek: When is this going to be on the agenda for them?
Sietsema: They have a special meeting in early October. Again, my point
is, I think if it's going to be pared back, I think that it woulde be
better for us to do it.
Hasek: I guess the question I'm asking is, do we want to pare it back or
~ should we suggest that it could be pared back?
Mady: I think what we want to do is demonstrate what the people want. If
we can demonstrate that the residents of the City want all these things,
they'll vote for it. The Council will approve it but if it's going to be
another one of these Greenwood Shores deals where we're trying to put
something in, we're not going to get it through.
Hasek: Well, we can't take the time to take each one of these through a
public hearing.
Mady: No, but we know that we want the boat access and the Little League
mound has been screamed for. South Lotus Lake has to go in. The Carver
Beach people have been here for it. The linear Carver Beach, we know
we've got to do something there. The people were at the City Council two
weeks ago on that. Basketball at Bandimere Heights, yes. All those
things are wanted. Some of them are a little less understood but
$40,000.00 for the park mechanism up here at the City Center Park with the
APT people are willing to give us $10,000.00 toward that supposedly. That
shows some public input so we might, there's no doubt about it. We've got
people who want it, who have been asking for things and those things come
to well over $100,000.00. We might be at $140,000.00.
",..,..
Hasek: Let's go over a couple of quick items. Miscellaneous, tables and
grills...my feeling is that this is the only time, this year and we have
to develop next year, this is the only time that it makes any sense to
pull trees. If we need them, we'd better buy them now or we'll lose them.
Herman Field, there's nothing in regular CIP for that so we don't have to
worry about that.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 27, 1988 - Page 30
...",."
Sietsema: The $35,000.00 that's there is when the Herman Family dedicated
that parkland to the City, they also gave us $35,000.00 to develop it so
that's been continued to be on reserve for the development of that park.
Hasek: Minnewashta Heights Park, have we in the past slated that money.
That was just put on this year wasn't it?
Sietsema: There was a park shelter, there's money like $5,000.00 last
year that we asked the Council to amend to take that out because there
wasn't much you could get for $5,000.00 in the way of a wood frame park
shelter. Gazebo type with the removal sides.
Hasek: The question I have is, if this so far is a matter of public
record and you did talk about a shelter of some sort, now we take it out,
are we shorting those people. Maybe it should be' $20,000.00 on something
else or maybe $10,000.00 for something else.
Mady: We need to put up what they want.
Hasek: That's true but do we push it out of this budget because we made
an error?
Mady: If I was sitting on the Council and you asked me for $20,000.00 and
said you don't know what you're going to spend it on, you just want it
1 ined up, I'd say no. ...."
Hasek: The question I'm asking is, do we want to have a public hearing as
quickly as possible to see if we can't get it into this budget because we
talked about it? Should we have a public hearing next meeting? Is that
soon enough?
Sietsema: No, the budget has to be ready to go to Council on the 3rd.
Hasek: Then I think that item ought to be just simply waxed...we've got
to wax that one for sure. Bluff Creek, the access road obviously is
something that we should cut as a possibility but I certainly want to
see...get that park developed. Especially if we're planning to put a
...that's what the access road is giving us. Beyond that, I guess I don't
see where...
Sietsema: The alternative to putting an access road into Bluff Creek is
to wait until we have all of our easements that connect up to the Bluff
Creek. As it is a linear park system and that's where all the nature
trails, that's a chunk of the nature trails is that Bluff Creek area. We
own a lot more land around it than 20 feet so if we didn't want to spend
the $10,000.00 to go ahead and put in an access road in there now, we
could hook into it at a later time when we get the rest of the easements.
Hasek: When do you think that will happen?
Sietsema: It depends on referendum. 5 years.
"""""
Hasek: So that's a possible chop item. That's something we could chop.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 27, 1988 - Page 31
~
Sietsema: I'd feel comfortable chopping that one.
Boyt: I have a question about the revenue expenditures. Where's the
money that we approved in past years? Is that in the...account?
sietsema: No.
Boyt: Is that put into the general funds?
Sietsema: No. It's reflected in what's on reserve.
Boyt: I'd like to know what we have in these areas. Do we have enough
money in the north Minnewashta area to purchase land?
Sietsema: I couldn't tell you how much we've collected in those areas.
Boyt: Can Don get that for us?
Sietsema: I don't think so because what they do, well, it would be a lot
of research of going back over the last 10 years and finding out.
Mady: Review every building permit probably. If you could get a ballpark
~ estimate by looking at it...
Sietsema: There are a number of homes that were built up there before the
dedication ordinance went through so you can't just simply count houses.
Boyt: So where's the money now?
Sietsema: It is in the park fund and I don't have a budget down here.
Boyt: Do you know approximately how much is in the park fund?
Sietsema: My guess would be $200,000.00.
Mady: We also have a simple that we're spending money outside of the area
anyway. We spend money where we feel we have to spend money. We don't
worry about where it carne from. You might want to tell people that your
$400.00 is going to go to your area. The simple fact of the matter is, we
haven't spent it that way and we will not be spending it that way in the
future. We will still continue to spend money at parks where there's no
dedication has ever corne in and that's just a mere fact of life.
Boyt: Is this money, the $200,000.00 the money we use for matching funds?
Sietsema: Yes, that's part of that. I really can't tell you how much the
total is.
~. Boyt: It seems to me that if we want to acquire property in the
Minnewashta area, we ought to look to some of this money if it's there.
If we don't acquire any property pretty soon, it doesn't look like it will
get into our budget this year either, an extra $50,000.00.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 27, 1988 - Page 32
.....",
Mady: No, we'd have a tough time doing it. The comments I got early on
from Council members when I first came here was the City has developed
their parks by getting matching grants wherever possible. I had a number
of people tell me that and that's the way we should be doing it. We've
gotten away from that because the matching program isn't there anymore but
that's why people are still a little leery about spending money. This is
a real aggressive program and hopefully we can get it through.
Sietsema: If we would come upon a parcel of property in the Minnewashta
area that was available and at a good price, we could go to the City
Council next year and ask them to amend the budget so we could expend that
money. Show them that it is there and we'd like to spend it and amend the
budget.
Boyt: I think we need to address that we look at property. So we don't
need to put it in the budget?
Sietsema: Because we don't know how much.
Boyt: If we wanted 5 acres, we know approximately...
Sietsema: The thing is, if we spent $100,000.00 on parkland in the
Minnewashta area, we spent our reserve money on that, and then the Lake ~
Susan project was approved by LAWCON, that's a $220,000.00 project.
Boyt: Is that all the money that's in the reserve? $200,000.00.
Sietsema: I can come back with more clear figures. I hate to throw out
numbers when I'm not real clear. All the money is shown in the budget.
Don's in the process of budget so he would have a better figure of what
exactly we have on hand.
Boyt: How many years have we been collecting park fees?
Sietsema: I believe it's been since 1978. I think it's been 10 years now
but areas like Chan Estates, Greenwood Shores. They're over 10 years old
and they didn't pay the park dedication fees.
Boyt: Chan Estates has a $20,000.00 difference.
Sietsema: That's not directly related to Chan Estates. That's a running
total.
Mady: You know what that difference is. It might be what's come in over
the first quarter.
Boyt: A running total from what?
Mady: It's a running total that might be for the quarter.
......"
Boyt: For Chan Estates, $20,000.00?
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 27, 1988 - Page 33
"""
Mady: Yes, because there's a total on there of $84,762.00 in that column.
That might just be a total. The difference from what it was the first
quarter to the last quarter. It's probably a difference in points of
time.
Sietsema: Keep in mind that these are areas so part of the business park
is in the Chanhassen Estates area. So we may have collected $20,000.00
but that's probably out of the business park or out of Hidden Valley.
Boyt: ...if it's in the area, am I really dumb? It says here $20,000.00
for Chan Estates.
Mady: I'm saying, don't get hung up on where the money's corning from
because we don't simply spend it in the area that it's corning from and we
never have and never will. That's just the fact of life. We're going to
spend it wherever we need to spend it.
Robinson: Kind of like tax dollars.
Mady: You just can't worry about that too much. We need to get moving on
this.
,....,
Sietsema: The $20,000.00 would have corne out of Hidden Valley.
would have been park dedication fees paid from Hidden Valley.
That
Mady: We've identified a couple of things that could potentially be
chopped. Is there anything else we're willing to cut out of here or
indicate to the City?
Boyt: We could chop out the electrical to the shelter at Lake Ann Park.
Is it worth putting electrical into that shelter when we have plans...?
Mady: We're going to have to put electrical into the park down further by
the lake at some point in time. I don't know what we need electrical out
there for right now. It'd be nice to have lights out there.
Robinson: For refrigeration or anything?
Mady: No.
Mady: I think a propane stove would take care of anything we need as far
as park activities and until we get...
Schroers: To have a facility out there and then not have services in it.
Sietsema: Right now concessioners are corning out there and using it.
They have to back a generater up to it to run their concessions. That's
what they're doing.
.'"
Mady:
I don't have a problem with that.
Schroers: I guess in the short term, that sounds like something that's
acceptable and we could probably live with but I certainly hope that we
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 27, 1988 - Page 34
"""""'"
don't gear ourself to that train of thought.
Mady: We're going to be putting a major shelters down by the lake where
we have to put...
Schroers: It took us 2 years to get this shelter here or 3 years to get
this shelter here and how many years is it going to take to get
electricity to it?
Mady: What do we need electricity to it for?
Hasek: The only reason would be to run a concession stand. That's what
it is, is to run the concession stand.
Schroers: ...wherever you want to plug in.
Hasek: But you can take care of that with propane stoves in the short
term.
Schroers: You can. There's always a way around it. What I'm saying is
that it kind of makes want to provide a facility like that and spend that
kind of money on it and not have service to it. That's just my opinion.
Sietsema: The park shel ter down at the lake, we've always based that ..
contingent upon that we got a grant. If we don't get the grant, we don't~
get the park shelter, then we wait another year for electrical into the
park. We also wait another year for water in the park and running
bathrooms. So it's always ranked high but never been funded.
Mady: The problem with the bathrooms is it's out of the sewered area?
Sietsema: We can run a drainfield.
Mady: Are there any other comments? We need a motion on this.
Robinson: I'll make a motion that the Capital Improvement Program budget
for 1989 be submitted to the Council as is with the exception of the Bluff
Creek access road of 10,000.00 and the Minnewashta Heights park shelter of
$20,000.00 to take out a total of $30,000.00 which would leave a total CIP
next year for $139,250.00.
Hasek: Second.
Mady: The problem with the Bluff Creek access road, I think Ed made a
good point, that maybe we do need to look at it. I still don't feel real
comfortable with that. We'll see what happens. We do have $10,000.00 in
the trail plan too...
Boyt: ...we have Lake Susan out there with no access. But it's
frustrating for us. We can't get to the park because there's no way for ~
us to get there.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 27, 1988 - Page 35
I""'"
Mady: I wish we had better...
going to go. Off of what road.
We don't even have a plan as to where it's
I don't even know where it is.
Sietsema: It's in your Comp Plan and it's also in your little blue book.
You have to go through Bluff Creek Golf Course to get to it. I need a
point of clarification. You want to take out the $1,000.00 for
interpretive signage at Bluff Creek too? So that would be $31,000.00.
Robinson: Right. $138,250.00
Hasek: I have some discussion here. My question is, if this goes to
Council, and they want it, it's too high for them, will they send it back
to us for recommended cuts or will they do it?
Sietsema: What they would likely do is say that they will approve up to a
certain amount and then send it back to us as to how we want to spend it.
Mady: If you present this to them, you have to be willing to corne here
and defend every item on it in front of them and you feel real foolish.
Boyt: I think the only thing is the park shelter for $6,000.00.
,.....,
Schroers:
That would be my opinion also.
Mady: I don't know if I want to put a bus shelter up there. We don't
even know if people want it there.
Schroers: I would recommend eliminating the $20,000.00 at Minnewashta
Heights Park pending further input.
Mady: Okay, Curt's motion is on the floor and there's a second for
$139,000.00.
Robinson moved, Hasek seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend to approve the 1989 Capital Improvement Program as presented
with the exception of the Bluff Creek road access for $10,000.00 and the
park shelter at Minnewashta Heights Park for $20,000.00 for a total budget
of $139,250.00. Robinson voted in favor and the rest voted in opposition.
The motion failed.
Hasek: I'd like to approve the CIP as listed with the exception of the
park shelter for Minnewashta Heights. The reasoning being we'd like to
have a public hearing on that item before we decide what needs to be done
there. The amended amount woulde be $149,250.00.
Schroers: I'll second that.
Hasek moved, Schroers seconded that the Park and Recreation recommend to
~ approve the 1989 Capital Improvement Program as presented with the
exception of the park shelter for Minnewashta Heights Park for $20,000.00
until a public hearing can be held for a total of $149,250.00. All voted
in favor and the motion carried.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 27, 1988 - Page 36
-'
REVIEW SITE PLAN FOR 330,000 SQUARE FEET INDUSTRIAL BUILDING, ROSEMOUNT,
INC.
Sietsema: What they've proposed is a 330,000 square foot industrial
building on the north side of Lake Susan just east of Lake Susan Park.
The proposal is to be on 57.75 acres of land that is now zoned lOP. This
area here is the property. This is Lake Susan to the south of that and
this area is the existing park, Lake Susan Park. The park shelter lies
right here. We're currently getting access to the park off of CR 117
along a field road that comes down along here and then into the park.
There's park in there as well. I don't know if everybody has been out
there or not. In preliminary discussions with Rosemount, what they've
agreed to and what we suggested, staff has suggested that they dedicate to
us 2 acres of parkland along our eastern boundary which will allow us to
put in our boat access. The only logical place that we really have to put
the boat access in without taking out the stand of trees that's right
along the shore just down below the park shelter. We moved it out of the
line of vision from where the people will be congregated at the park
shelter and 2 acres is really about all that we need. I don't know if you
recall the discussion with Mark and Don when they came in and said that
HRA bought the additional 8 acres of property and showed how we could use
it and the extra 2 acres. That's what was proposed at that time and we
felt that we had gotten general consensus from the Commission at the the
time that that's what we wanted was an additional 2 acres. Originally we
had talked about giving up 4 acres in that area with 100% credit on the -'
park dedication fee. We came back and said it's really unuseable land.
They might as well keep it. We just need the 2 acres to put the access in
and give them 50% credit on the park dedication fee. Not 50% but give
them credit for what the acreage is worth on those 2 acres. That means
the land cost in that area was 24,000.00 an acre which brings the amount
to $48,000.00 leaving a park dedication balance of $12,637.00.
Hasek: That $24,000.00 an acre is for what they're getting as park
dedication?
Hoffman: It's what they paid for that land.
Sietsema: What they paid per acre for the land. So we are giving them a
credit on their park dedication fees which the total of what would be due
on 57.75 acres would be $60,637.00. We'll be giving them a credit of
$48,000.00 and taking in the $12,000.00. We'll get the extra 2 acres of
land. The other thing is that trails, on the trail plan it calls for a
long whole distance of Lake Drive East. That's part of the street
improvement project. It would be an assessed thing. It wouldn't be
something that they're giving us so we would require them to pay the full
trail dedication fee which comes to $20,212.00. Staff feels that this is
a good deal for us. Lake Drive East is finally going to be built so we
can get to our park. We'll have a place to put the boat access in the
logical place. We'll still be getting some money in to do some other
developments to add to the park and it's my recommendation to do so.
-'
Hasek: How do we get into the park?
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 27, 1988 - Page 37
",.,....,
Sietsema: This is the new Lake Drive East alignment. This is the 8 acres
that we recently acquired from the HRA so we would be coming in, and I've
got a park plan here.
Watson: I think it's interesting that we can collect our park dedication
fees and assessed...
Hasek: I did see one thing on here that kind of bothered me and I wanted
to mention it. It seems like they've got a site sign proposed within the
30 foot setback including the building setback. I certainly hope they
don't plan on putting the site sign within the 20 foot trail easement.
It's outside of the building.
Sietsema: No, it's going on the north.
Hasek: It is? It's going to go on the church side?
Sietsema: Yes. It currently is on the north side, on the other side of
TH 101 so it would probably continue on that same side. Lake Drive East
goes all the way down to McDonalds so if you drive from the McDonalds past
the Sinclair station and through the Hidden valley subdivision, you'll
notice that it's on the north side of the street.
,...... Hasek:
there?
Drive?
How about our new Market Blvd.? Which side is it going to be on
The trail proposed on that? It's just going to follow along Lake
Mady: You walk on the east side right now.
Sietsema: And that would continue when it goes all the way down.
Hasek: So then their signs are not within our 20 foot easement.
Sietsema: I wanted to show you real quick, this was the preliminary plan
for Lake Susan. Staff had to just throw a plan together for the
development for what we applied for LAWCON grant money and that shows Lake
Drive East here. This being Powers Blvd. and coming in right along the
eastern boundary pretty much where the existing access is. That existing
access comes out here and comes up that railroad tracks. What we'd coming
is the same place and right where you turn off to go into the existing
parking area, you go straight down and curve over so as you can see, if
there's a park shelter here, when you look out to the lake, if we didn't
acquire the 2 acres of property, this would have to come this way unless
we wanted to take this mature stand of trees out which I personally
wouldn't be in favor of and it would be right in front so it would be
right where that fishing pier would be instead and I don't think that's
something that we want to be our focal point in our park. So the reason
the 2 acres would acquired here. We should be able to put the boat access
here. This shows you how it all fits together. Rosemount would be right
here.
.1"""
Mady: I don't see anything about trail along the lake. Did you talk to
them about it at all?
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 27, 1988 - Page 38
...""
Sietsema: We own all the lakeshore property so that's in this plan also.
Mady: Okay, so we do own that. That's just a comment I had. If they
owned it all and we asked them to put the trail in along there. Obviously
their employees are going to want to use the park.
Schroers moved, Boyt seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend the dedication of 2 acres of parkland on the eastern boundary of
Lake Susan Park, allowing a $48,000.00 credit to park dedication from
Rosemount. Additionally, it is recommended that the City include the
sidewalk in the Lake Drive East street improvement project and that the
developer be required to pay 100% of the trail dedication fee
($20,212.00). All voted in favor and the motion carried.
REVIEW PROPOSAL
FOR 1989 PLAYGROUND PROGRAM.
Hoffman: I would ask that we take a few minutes on this. It is a
recreation item and we don't deal on specific recreation items all that
too often and this is one that does have some bearing and something that
we have to put some thought in at this time if we are going to take this
program over. If you all haven't read through that, basically we have two
organizations which run our summer playground programs for our children i .
Chanhassen right now. Two different school districts, Chaska and ~
Minnetonka. Chaska operates a program up here at the school at City
Center Park. Minnetonka operates the programs at the other parks stated
there, Lake Ann, Meadow Green and Carver Beach. During the development of
this brochure we did have extensive talks with the people down at Chaska
Communi.ty Education. Came up with some agreements as we went through this
on what we should be handling and what they should be serving the public
with. What we should be serving the public with, etc.. I've noted some f
the changes that were made there. One of those changes would have been
the summer playground. It's a recreation program. Community Education is
currently handling it. Should that be one of the programs that Park and
Recreation takes over under that agreement? As noted there, the only
shortfall or the only drawback to that is, if we agree to that, the Chaska
School District Community Education, then we have to approach Minnetonka
on the other end of town to see if they would want to hand over the summer
playground program to the Park and Recreation Department and we handle it
there. Just as an update to this, I have talked to Gayle Madsen who is
the recreation coordinater or the program coordinator for Chaska and she
said Chaska Park and Recreation has agreed to take over the playgrounds
that operate within the City of Chaska so that kind of puts a bind on
their program. If we were to come back to them and say no, we don't want
to take this over next year, you have to do it, they'd be in a limited
spot there kind of. Now they're half way inbetween and they're not so
what I'm looking for, I stated there is your review of the programs. If
you have any questions on the programs which are currently in place, I ca'
answer those and then I need some direction on which way you think we ~
should go.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 27, 1988 - Page 39
,....,
Robinson: Can I ask Todd, why is this brought up? Isn't it working the
way it is?
Sietsema: It's to more clearly define, we're trying to clean up who's
responsible for what type of activity. We've got a lot of people out
there providing programs to the City of Chanhassen and we don't want to
duplicate or compete with each other so by saying, alright community
education is more education geared, they'll run the programs that are in
classrooms. Recreation is more recreation, they should do things in gyms,
outdoor activities, that kind of thing so we are taking over the women's
aerobics and they are taking over the CPR classes. That's one way that we
can clean up and make it more clear to the people, to the residents, who's
providing what types of programs. Because they've done the program, it is
a major undertaking for us to take on. It's not just simple that we'll
run the program like we run CPR. It's a bigger budgeted function and we
do pay for it now. Chaska Community Education runs it and they bill us
and the City pays for it.
Boyt: Don't we lose money on that?
Sietsema: Yes. It costs us something like $2,000.00 a year for
playground that we spend. More than that because we paid Minnetonka too.
,...., Mady: I agree with the concept of what we're doing. We've got to get
support. We ought to take our own programs. By making a division, make
it clear cut. Everybody knows what's going on. It's logical. When I
look through the thing, what it looks like right now, this is Chaska's
program. This is Chaska' program and Chanhassen people are allowed to use
it. We're kind of a secondary, oh yeah, we'll let those people over there
on the other side of the County use it but this is Chaska. That's what I
got out of it. What's happened in the past and I just want to make sure,
when we do ours or take over this park, it's ours. This City deserves to
have something in this town besides being second fiddle to Chaska. We're
still Chaska's school district and Chaska's county and Chaska everything.
We're as big as they are almost now and we don't get a whole lot of
recoginition. If we've got a recreation program to be ours, it should be
ours.
Boyt: I watch for things in the Community Ed Bulletin, you have the ski,
the dance. I'm going to register for it if it's in Chanhassen. I'm not
going to drive to Chaska to register my kids for an activity. You said
you're getting a lot of sign ups for the dance class. That's because it's
here in Chanhassen and not at Chaska Middle School. I'll sign up for
skiing out at Larry's park because we get to sign up here and I don't have
to drive to Hyland.
,....,
Sietsema: There are other programs that are contracted out by Community
Ed that we may want to look at long term. Those being the beach program
is run by Minnetonka Community Ed. Our tennis program in the summertime,
the tennis lessons are run through Minnetonka Community Ed. In the past,
that's worked very well...
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 27, 1988 - Page 40
..""
Boyt: I don't think so because then you sign up through Minnetonka. I
have no idea that I should sign up for tennis lessons for my kids in
Chanhassen through Minnetonka.
Sietsema: It's worked well in the past when we didn't have a department.
When there wasn't an administrative Park and Recreation person or when
there was just one and we were trying to do everything and trying to build
our program but it may be time that we did take ownership of our own
programs. I don't think that we want to do that, jump into that all at
one time. It's a big budgeted expense to hiring a beach director and 12
lifeguards, even though we're paying for it, we have to look at the,
sharing a beach director with 5 other cities is obviously more economical
than hiring our own. There may be some merits to taking it over. That
would be something we'd want to look at in the future too. Right now the
playground thing is really what's on the bench right now as far as who's
going to do this. If Chaska's doing their own, that means Community Ed
has only got half the program to run and they may not be able to hire
someone full time to run those half programs where they were running them
all before.
Hoffman: Yes, they wouldn't go ahead and do that. Their options now,
with Chaska taking over their program would just say to Minnetonka
Community Education, we would like to take over these programs in
Chanhassen or we would like you to take on just one additional, the Chan ~
Elementary and run it as is next year again.
Boyt: I'd like to see more Chanhassen control.
Mady: Ditto.
Boyt: Do you have time for that? Does that fit into your job?
Hoffman: Sure. That's something that I have time to take on. One thing
we have to look at is not only my time but then again, we're not set up in
the department to handle registrations real effectively at this time. We
run them through the receptionists up front. They have a lot of
questions. They call back to my office, etc. and try to work it that way.
As the addition goes here and we move up into the front office, it may
work better where people can actually walk in. We'll be located in the
public safety office. They can walk into there and we can have a
registration type area. We still however, will not have a receptionist
type clerk person at that time so we have some limitations but we can take
it a .piece at a time.
Schroers: How does staff feel? Do you want to take these over control
gradually?
Sietsema: Gradually is better than taking it allover at once. I think
it's important that Chanhassen has more control over the programs.
Especially the recreation type programs. It's not like staff isn't busy -'
now though. It's not like we have time to do it. It's something that
we'd have to make time to do and that may mean that something else has to
be given up or has to be squeezed more but next year it won't be as hard
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 27, 1988 - Page 41
,.....
to run other programs because they're already on their feet so there's
some give and take there. I think that we could handle the playground. I
don't think that we should go ahead and take over the swimming beach the
same year though. I think we should move slower into that one.
Schroers: You're just looking for input right now?
Sietsema: Yes, we want your direction on what you want us to do. Do you
want the City of Chanhassen to run our own and approach Minnetonka? We
don't want to step on their toes either. Any direction by the Commission.
Mady: I'll move that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend to
staff that they take over the summer playground areas and investigate with
the Minnetonka School District as to what is going on with the Chaska
School District and get their input. At a later date review and look at
setting up the same with Minnetonka when staff feels they can handle it.
Does that make sense?
Boyt: Move on the playground and wait on the beach.
Hoffman: The playground, we would want to approach Minnetonka at this
time and take it. If we're going to take over one, Chanhassen Elementary,
we're going to want to do the whole program. I'm not sure if that's what
II"'" he said.
Boyt: That's my point of view. If you're going to take over from Chaska,
take over Minnetonka.
Mady: That's what I was trying to get at.
Sietsema: Do you want me to read your motion?
Mady: Yes, please.
Sietsema: Jim moved to direct staff to work with the Community Education
Departments to take over the playground programs and also to start looking
ahead to taking on the beach program as well.
Mady moved, Boyt seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission direct
staff to work with the Community Education Departments to take over the
playground programs and also to start looking ahead to taking on the beach
program as well. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
UPDATE ON OKTOBERFEST.
Hoffman: All we need are volunteers. All we need is people to volunteer.
We're not going to set out specific duties.
,....,
Mady:
I'll be there at 6:30.
Hoffman: We'll be setting throughout the day. We'll start actual cooking
and preparation of food about 4:00-4:15 for the 5:00 start and then from
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 27, 1988 - Page 42
...""
5:00 on, we don't know what type of crowd to expect. If we're going to
get an early crowd for all the family activities. If we're going to. get a
late crowd for the fireworks but the publicity has gone fairly well. I
think it's been well received and we should see a big crowd out there.
Mady: Have you gotten any comments from people on the food. The concern
is that we didn't really say that we're going to be charging for
concessions but we didn't say that and a lot of things did seem to say
concessions. People are used to corning to the 4th of July thing when we
give away the hot dogs and it didn't say anything up here a year ago,
I hope we don't get a lot of negative input. So just be prepared for
people making negative comments about gee, now I've got to pay for it.
I've heard a little bit already in the neighborhood.
Hoffman: Saying now we've got to pay? People have actually called and
asked how much it's going to be.
Mady: Just so we're aware of it.
Boyt: I heard somene say, I hope they're not giving free food away again.
They said enough of that.
Sietsema: I do have another announcement that's rather important if ~
you're all ready. Mike Lynch is resigning from the Park and Recreation
Commission. He gave me his notice over the phone yesterday and he'll be
sending a letter. Evidently, they had a 2 year plan to collect a lot of
money, like 2 to 3 million bucks and they thought that it would be over a
year before they started getting it. It looks like he'd going to get the
first million by the end of the year and he's got to start spending it so
he's working to figure out what contractor's and developers and what not
to build roads and Boy Scout facilities in the different things that he's
involved with. He's not going to have the time to devote to either the
trail task force or the Park and Recreation Commission and he's resigning.
What I would like is, if there's anybody else who could take his spot on
the trail task force. We only have 5 people on that board already and
they're all taking about 4 meetings a piece the way it is through the
month of October to take the trail plan to different community groups.
Maybe a couple of you could even split some of the, I know Sue's the other
person on the task force. That means there's only 3 people from the
public. Carol's one of them, that's on the task force and we need more
people.
Hasek: I'd love to do that. I need to know what the schedule is. I hate
to commit to something and say I'd love to do it, like to do it and then
have to back out.
Sietsema: What I will do is I will find out when the other people are
taking meetings and find out where we don't have people and I'll start
calling you.
."
Boyt: It's nice to have a Park and Rec Commissioner there. These people
have only been involved in this for 2 months.
,.....
r-
r-
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 27, 1988 - Page 43
Mady: My only concern for me personally is I've been so involved in the
community center.
Sietsema: You'll notice I didn't even look at you when I was asking.
Hasek moved, Watson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor
and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned.
Submitted by Lori Sietsema
Park and Recreation Coordinator
Prepared by Nann Opheim