PRC 1987 03 03
PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
~"~RCH 3, 1987
Chairman Lynch called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m..
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mike Lynch, Jim Mady, Curt Robinson, Ed Hasek, Carol
Watson, Gloria Gorpian and Larry Schroers.
STAFF PRESENT: Lori Sietsema
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Ed Hasek moved, Curt Robinson seconded to approve the
Minutes o~the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated February 20,
1987. All voted in favor and motion carried.
PARK NEED SURVEY RECOMMENDATION, PAT PFAHL.
Lynch: We talked and most of this fits with what we were looking at. I have
only one question. When we discussed or you discussed in here the phone
approach, telephone survey and how many hours it would take and so forth,
would that be something you would be interested in seeing the Commission do?
Commission members as a boiler room type of approach? Several nights in a
row or is this something you had thought of doing yourself.
Pat Pfahl: There is a possibility and that was one of the things that I
". nted to look into tonight. In talking with Lori, she has some people that
_e possibly going to be available, about five including me. I was also
looking if any of the Board members would be willing to come in maybe one or
two nights and make some phone calls. If there are 10 people making 20 calls
a piece, we would be quite active on two nights. I put some numbers down in
my proposal. I would like to get 340 responses. From the research that I've
done, to get 340 responses, we probably have to look at between 500 and 600
phone calls. I would like to do them on two different nights. Like say a
Tuesday night and then the following Thursday oi so~ething. Or maybe a
Tuesday night one week and a Wednesday night the next week. To stagger them
then we can go back and pick up some that weren't there. To your question,
yes, if that's a possibility.
Lynch: I would like to be involved in it just to kind of get a feel for it
and I'm sure some of the other folks would be too.
Ed Hasek: What nights did you have in mind?
Pat Pfahl: Evenings probably Tuesday or Wednesday evenings.
Lynch: Is there a bad night in town like a church night?
Sietsema: Wednesday is bad. I would say your best nights are Tuesday and
Thursday.
~n~t Pfahl: Tuesday and Thursday. I would like to not do the same night two
eks in a row just in case somebody is gone regularly on Tuesday.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 3, 1987 - Page 2
"""'"
~
Pat Pfahl: When we do set two dates, I can send it to Lori.
Lynch: Why don't we run down who is interested so Pat has that information.
Hasek: I would interested on a Tuesday night.
Watson: On an on-call basis.
Robinson: One or the other night.
Lynch: I'm interested but I need to know what night because I have a myriad
of other meetings and some of I can get out of and some of them I can't.
Mady: I'll be interested probably for Thursday night.
Corpian: You'll have to call me.
Schroers: I can be available on Tuesday.
Pat pfahl: Any other questions?
Robinson: How would you select the 340 or 500 households to call?
Pat pfahl:
"''"lat.
Via the mailing list through Lori.
Maybe Lori wants to address
~
Sietsema: We get mailing labels for all of the water bills that go out all
over the city so what we would do is probably go every fifth one and they are
grouped by neighborhoods so we get one whole section of the downtown area,
one whole section of the Greenwood Shores area, one whole section of the
Carver Beach, so that way we'll get the appropriate distribution of each area
if we go every fifth one or every third one or whatever. Then you can just
take that label off and put it on the actual survey that we fill out for that
phone call so we know what area we have covered.
Lynch: What are you going to do about outside the water area?
Sietsema: I haven't quite figured that out yet but we do have labels that we
get because we mail out the brochure. I'm not sure how we work that but I
know that we do label a number of them in the Excelsior area and in the rural
area that don't get water so I just have to get with Karen on that.
Lynch: It's not that many to dig out?
Sietsema:
problem.
It's not that many people and I don't think it's going to be a
Lynch: Just as long as we don't miss them. Does the City Council want to
see a finished copy and put on their seal of approval before phone call one
,;...s mad e ? """".
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 3, 1987 - Page 3
~etsema: Yes. They have asked to see the final survey in it's final form
before it goes out.
...",
Lynch: Now is this what they are going to see?
Sietsema: Any changes that you make on this. It will be this and any
changes or additions or revisions that you might want to make. If you don't
have any changes then it will be just like this.
Robinson: Is phoning the only really practical way? Could it be
supplemented? Some phoning and some in person?
Pat Pfahl: We did a little discovery on three choices. Three things that I
look at. One was the personal interview, the other was themail survey and
the last was the telephone survey that I looked at. The personal survey,
as far as time and cost, it's almost out of hand for what we're looking at.
They do some of this type of survey during the summer time. If you go in the
park and they do a spot survey of users in the park. This might be practical
but when you start knocking on doors, you're going to be wasting a lot of
time and a lot of energy for the little results that you're going to get. As
far as the mail survey is concerned, tha t was cost prohibitive as far as wha t
I cou~d find out. On the low side it runs about 50 cents per household
mailed to and when you're mailing to 500 households, you're talking quite a
substantial cost.
,-nch: Then your returns are unpredictable.
Pat Pfahl: You can do something to insure your returns by the first mailing
you drop your cost but then checking your responses and sending a reminder.
60% to 75% return rate isn't out of hand for something like that but it takes
a lot of time and it takes a lot of effort and quite a bit of money too.
Then the telephone survey was looked at. We looked at our resources. We
have some people tha t would vol unteer to do it and then you have qui te an
interest in it anyway, hearing first hand what the responses are so that's
the primary reason that was chosen.
...",.
Lynch: We can even drag some 18 year olds along if we have some problems.
I was going to say, if you ever want to do that at the parks, we've done that
for the Metro System.
Sietsema: The other thing with doing it that way would be your park users
are there in the summertime and we didn't want to drag this out into the
summer because we need to get the results.
Lynch: No, if you ever have anything you want to do in one of the parks in
the summer for the actual user, the actual person that comes there. Metro,
we did it three years in a row, they were intere.sted in certain parks like
Fort Snelling was a big one. We had troops out there almost all summer and
they wanted to know what every person in the park came or what they wanted to
~o in that park and what they would like to see in that park to give a
velopmental edge and they were going to have to spend their money
',-
-
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 3, 1987 - Page 4
J{//III'.
~
someplace. We surveyed something like 3,000 to 4,000 people over the summer.
We organized something like that. If you ever wanted to do something like
that.
Sietsema: I could see doing something like that out at Lake Ann. That would
be pretty appropriate. The other thing with the mailing is again the time.
By the time you.get it mailed out, it gets in the household and they read it
and they fill it out, you have to allow them a little bit of time to mail
that back so considering we wanted to get the results back as soon as
possible, we figured that the telephone method would suit our needs the best.
Lynch: I have a question for Pat. Let's just try to run through this
straight forward. Item 1, how long have you lived in Chanhassen? Does
anybody have any comments or questions on that? Nothing. 2, how many people
live in your household? I'll just r~n through this and stop me if you have
a question. Do you have any children in your household under l8? How could
your residence be described? Now, I was going to ask a question in here. Is
it of any benefit as far as survey background goes in our case, to know
whether it's rented or owned?
Pat pfahl: I was looking at that possibility. When I first set it up I put
a whole bunch of questions in and I weeded out for time purposes and cut
questions and that's one of them that I weeded out thinking that really for
~ur purposes it doesn't make any difference. lean 't see it as a factor. ..........
1% of the homeowners use the park or don't use the park. I don't know if
you're going to be targeting any specific group or park uses or needs other
than if they live in an apartment building you might want to put a sign up
there.
Lynch: I didn't know if during park demographics IV, back in your junior
year somebody made the statement that rental use doesn't really make an
impact on a park system. I don't know if it's important. I wouldn't have
asked it. With the age of people renting units here would use that much.
Sietsema: We don't have that many rental units in Chanhassen anyway. The
Meadows and the ones down on Lake Riley are the only ones.
Mady: How are we going to try and put those together? Having people
calling?
Sietsema: By the water mailings.
Lynch: By area.
Mady: Do apartments get one of these?
Sietsema: No, but I can get a list of who lives in the apartments as well
from the apartment owners.
~ady: Okay, so you would take a sampling of them as well.
.~.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 3, 1987 - Page 5
..........
Lynch: 5, recreational facilities there we grade. The beaches, boat
launching, paved bike paths, campgrounds, walking paths, tennis courts, ski
trails. Does anybody see anything here that we missed?
...",
Hasek: I'm wondering if we can't put something in a center column and just
vote for too many or too few and they can make a choice.
Pat Pfhal: That's a possibility definitely.
Watson: It's kind of a long list. It should be four things.
Hasek: I just went through here, just now by myself and I was going to pick
the ones that I had and I have so many just enough but I know that's probably
not true. If you make them pick too many or too few, at least they've got a
black or white decision.
Pat Pfahl: Given this survey a number of times myself to people I know
primarily and I know their tendencies and what they say is just enough is
what they don't care about. What they say is too few is what they use and
wha t they say is too many is wha t they don't want. So with three opt ions I
thought we could get around possibly them mushing together the don't use and
don't care about and define them a little better because when we talk about
the trail system, the logic behind the trail system here, just one question
l~ter, is that there are five things in here that refer to trails specifically
j to find out if people don't want to use or don't care about trails. ....".,
'--
Lynch: You think a neutral response is important then?
Pat Pfahl: Yes.
Watson: It takes quite a while, I've given surveys several times and it
takes quite a while to go through that list and you sense a little boredom
with the whole thing by the time you get to the 24th question.
Corpian: Everybody has a particular interest too.
Watson: Yes, and when you're over the telephone, seven minutes is a long
time to simply answer questions over the telephone. Kids are doing
something, the TV is on, you're making dinner, something is going on for
seven minutes and when someone starts a list of 24 things. Do you like them
a lot, a little bit or not at all and you say, give me a break. By the time
you get to the 24th one the person is going and then you say now, I would
like to start another list of 18. I have a feeling we're going to have
people saying I guess I've taken all the time I can and they're going to
leave us in the middle of this.
Corpian: Are we going to tell them first how long it's going to take to do
the survey?
.- -,ek: I think you have to because I'm the type of person if somebody says
'-lTe you got just a few minutes and after 2 or 3 minutes I'll ask them how
-'
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 3, 1987 - Page 6
,...
~
long is this going to take. Well, are we talking 5, a few or are we talking
10? Between 5 and 10 minutes and I say well, I've got 5 minutes.
Pat pfahl: I think I can answer that question. I did some research on
typical telemarketing. For a solicitation call, you've got about 3 minutes.
4 on the outside. 3 is good or under 3. This is a different type of
telephone conversation. It's not solicitation. It's low pressure. You can
get up to 6 minutes real comfortably on the phone statistically. You start
getting on the 7 minutes side, that's where you conversation besides the
survey will intermix with it and interfere with the survey and that might
push it a little bit. But sticking with the survey strictly without any
noise from the outside, the survey can be done in about 5 minutes but given
questions in the meantime, I put an average of 7 minutes to give this survey
down for time purposes in figuring out how long it's going to take and how
many people hours it going to take to do it.
Watson: But you get to number 5 and you say I will read off a list of
recreational facilities and there are 24. Then there is number 6 and you say
I will read you a list of activities and you do 18. Number 9, we're back to
1';1 read you a list of major services and I just think by that time they'll
think not another list and that wasn't very long. Just six things. Is there
anyway you can consolidate the things within the list?
Schroers: That was one of the things I was looking at and it seems to me lik~
"e're asking questions about some things here that we don't have as far as I
..now. A nature center for example and a gol f course. I don't thi nk the
Chanhassen has a golf course and I'm wondering if people are going to think
that we're wasting our time by asking questions about things we don't have.
Watson: We have Bluff Creek though. We do have a golf course.
Robinson: Isn't one of the questions is walking paths, another one is
jogging trail.
Watson: And hiking trail. Walking, jogging and hiking.
Schroers: Sometimes in a survey you ask the same question three different
ways.
Pat Pfhal: What I heard when I was trying to put together this survey was
tha t the tr ail system was a very large concern and if noth i ng el se to get a
grasp of the trail system and the community center. I think there was like
four things. What facilities are needed and what people expect in those
facilities and the programs. Those were the four major areas so I tried to
form the entire...
Lynch: Mark has worked with the trail system and as we develop it we're
going to have to have some information on do we have Class I, Class II, Class
III walking, biking.
,...
---..
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 3, 1987 - Page 7
~s: In reading through this, maybe some of this is directed towards a
community sports center. Is that right? Racquetball and weight1ifting and
those kind of things.
...."
Watson: The community center is addressed in one of those things. I was
just trying to think of some way to cut it down because people I ask, they
get bored with lists.
Corpian: Is there a chance we could use a communi ty newspaper to run an
article first in there and say there is going to be a survey done and people
will be contacted randomly and please give us the time so our community can
be better? If somebody says they don't have the time, we've got lots of
other numbers to call.
Lynch: Special people will be selected.
Corpian: But I mean, if people won't give us the time Carol, then maybe we
just have to make another phone call and get the right survey done the right
way and get all these questions asked.
Pat Pfahl: They will be chosen randomly.
Robinson: That is a good point. We do need all the information.
t Pfahl: What you have to do is be up-front with them and tell them it is
","",ing to take 5 to 7 minutes and there are going to be some 1enghty ....",
questions. I think a little ad in the paper is a good idea.
Sietsema: I think it's a good idea too.
Hasek: At least some people won't be so surprised.
Pat Pfahl: There is a possibility of taking a couple things out. Is there
ever going to be another golf course in Chanhassen?
Watson: I would be real surprised if there was. A private course, whether
people are interested in, it doesn't belong to the City or whatever would
belong to us so probaby it's use would be of concern to the owners of the
golf course as opposed to the residents.
Pat Pfahl: There are a few things on here. It pretty much picks up
everything. A golf course. The nature center, I was primarily thinking in
light of the regional park, are they using the nature center?
Hasek: Maybe that's the question. Is there some things that don't need to
be there?
Corpian: Nature area in parks, if there is nature, there are birds and
stuff. Natural areas.
'-"
...."
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 3, 1987 - Page 8
,..
..--...
Sietsema: We have made applications to put in a nature center down at
Chanhassen Estates Park where it is that marshy area and putting in those
boardwalks and the nature center.
Lynch: Passive areas that we've looked at in the past are costly to develop
and unless you just say here's a woods, go walk around in it, but if you're
going to have nature walks in capital letters across the swamp and signs
saying this is this kind of a tree and so on. It's the same kind of money to
develop an active area. It's important to note.
Hasek: Pat, the question probably reads I will read off a list of recreation
facilities...it goes through too many, just enough or too few adequate
facilities of that kind convenient to you. Now it doesn't say necessarily in
Chanhassen so I think a lot of these things we're going to get, and I think
it is the way it should be set up, is whether they are in our city or
available somewhere else like the Luce Line and some of those things. I
think it's inappropriate myself.
Lynch: There are folks that live on the edges of the community which are
using other township's facilities but fine, if they feel their area is
adequately serviced right now.
Watson: We don't duplicate services.
~~sek: I have to agree with you too Pat that there is no way we can develop c'--'"
..a ture center wi th the Arboreteum, Carver Park.
Corpian: How many questions or how many choices are you going to give for
each question? Is someone was calling and they gave me 4 or 5 choices, I
would forget number 1 by the time you got past 3.
Sietsema: They're the same choices for each facility though. It's either
too many, too few or just enough. Do you think we have too many, too few or
just enough indoor tennis courts and then we ask the next facility.
Lynch: Pat's point was that if you were unfamiliar with baseball personally
or didn't have any kids in that age group or your husband didn't play
softball, you would have a tendency to say just enough. It's a neutral
answer. If was next to your house and kids are putting balls through your
window all the time, you would say there are too many.
Corpian: Are you going to be saying that at the beginning of all your columns
for instance?
Lynch: Yes.
Corpian: Then I would be more attentive and answer the questions if I knew.
Robinson: There is a reason for tennis courts and indoor tennis courts?
~lates to the community center?
One
~
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 3, 1987 - Page 9
~etsema: Yes.
...."
Pat Pfahl: There are several questions directed specifically towards the
indoor community center. I didn't think in question 8 that we could address
it and get a straight enough response with a yes or no answer without picking
apart some of the main facilities or equipment within so by looking at the
two, how many wanted it and then how many said they wanted the facilities,
you might find a variance here that would be kind of interesting to look at.
Wa tson: How do expect the response to a sw imm i ng pool to be too many, just
enough or too few when we don't have one?
Sietsema: There is one in the high school available to us in the Chaska
school.
Mady: plus the one in Eden Prairie.
Lynch: Our end of town uses Minnetonka East Jr. High.
Corpian: Plus West is reopening.
Mady: I think my general comment, even in reading through the whole thing,
we probably got hung up on one part that's probably the most difficult in the
whole thing. I think generally it's a good survey.
~roers: That's the opinion I have.
....,
Pat pfhal: Maybe just a little logic behind the survey. Why it was set up
that way. The first four questions are your household information. I was
kind of trying to set up the person in the household, put up in the front of
their mind who they are talking about. When I say answer for your household,
I want the person I'm talking to to know that you're answering for everybody
that lives with you so by asking those four questions, even if there might
not be a whole lot we can do with the data, is setting them up to answer.
The next two questions,S and 6 are probably the most crucial in the entire
survey because they are probably going to give the most important data that
we're going to get. 7 and 8 are just specific questions that will show some
data. 9 is a question that I hope the data we get from it will show where
the emphasis should be put on parks as far as the populous feels. That came
specifically off the survey that was already set up.
Hasek: I did have a question on that piece. Did you think about setting
those up against each other? Having them make a choice? Which would you
rather have?
Lynch: That might stain their memory.
Hasek: You're going to get a choice though. Granted it might make this
thing a little longer than you want but I was just wondered if he had thought
,1: that.
'-"
....,
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 3, 1987 - Page 10
,.,.
~
Pat Pfahl: On question 9?
Hasek: Yes. Would you rather buy parkland or set up an organized recreational
program? Would you rather put in landscaping or...?
Pat Pfahl: To do it scientifically we would have to ask about six times and
probably have about 100 questions. This way, I'm thinking that by 340
responses, we'll be able to find out in some kind of priority order what
people feel is important. Maybe it will be a little muddy on the top two or
the middle few but there is going to be a definite top one or two and there
is going to be a definite bottom one or two so that will give you an idea to
make some decisions. 10, I think I've reworded that about 4 different times
now. The first thing I did was I gave the option of the three and pick the
one you feel is the least painful. Then, the copy here is choose each one,
yes or no if you feel this is appropriate. There is a danger in that they
are going to say no in all of them and I think it's a pretty big danger but I
think there is going to be enough of a response that we'll be able to
prioritize those too. Like 9, there is going to be enough that say user
fees, yes, to get some idea. Then the last questions, those are specifically
for validating the test. If we're talked to all women or 18 to 34 year olds.
Hasek: I f we get through with someone ta king a survey on the phone, and we
get through number 7 or number 6 and they lost their person on the other end
of the line, would there be enough information for you to use or have we lost~
~1at person all together? Obviously you can fill in whether they are male Ol
_emale.
Pat Pfahl: No problem. This sample size that we're using, when it is
entered then we'll just quit right there but as far as the calculation goes,
it's only going to calculate the number of resposnes so we'll work with the
numbers we do get. That's why the last several questions, they aren't that
important. They aren't crucial. They would be nice to have but if they
hang up on you, if we get 5 and 6, if we get those, that's the meat.
Schroers: What information are you going to get from finding out whether or
not they are full or part time employees and what city they work in?
Pat Pfahl: Like I said, that would be more validation data than anything.
As far as when we look at the study itself, who did you talk to in the study?
Specifically the people that you talked to. We talked to 40% of the people
we talked to were between the age of 18 and 34, employed working full time
outside of the city. That's the kind of stuff I was hoping to get with that
data. Rather than say just households, the specific people we talked to.
Watson: Are you going to give them that whole list and let them make a
choice because otherwise you might get a retired person saying they currently
have no paying job because it came first.
Pat Pfahl: That's why it's stated that way on 12. The question itself,
~at's what meant to be said over the phone. The response may just be ~
ritten over. Do you work full or part time? And if they don't work either
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 3, 1987 - Page 11
""'-ae, they say well, I'm not really. I'm going to school and I'm a student.
You can mark that down. I'm thinking that the person will interject at that
point.
....,
Mady: Are you going to be asking the specific person who answers the phone
or are you going to be asking for a particular person in the household like a
parent? I'm thinking of the situation where you call my home and my 6 year
old daughter answers the phone. They are not going to get good responses.
Pat Pfahl: I'm hoping that people will ask for the head of the household.
When we get together to start making the phone calls, or before we start
making phone calls, we'll kind of discuss that a little bit. Who you would
like to talk to and who you can. I don't think that a 6 year old is going to
give a good enough response, no.
Lynch: I don't see any other problems.
Watson: Were you going to try and cut like the gol f courses and maybe cut
the list down just a little bit if there are things you feel that you could
have any need?
Pat Pfahl: That's the only thing I carne up with, the golf course.
Watson: Then don't worry about it.
. nch: I would really like to leave it in there and see what percent of ....""
~lfers we have. All of those are recreational needs.
Corpian: I think we should strongly suggest that they go with the way it is
because they may think it is too long.
Sietsema: A copy of the Minutes will be attached with the survey.
Mady moved, Curt Robinson seconded to accept the Park Need Survey as
presented and recommend that the City Council approve the survey. All voted
in favor and motion carried.
NORTH LOTUS LAKE PARK REVISIONS.
Lynch: This is the part as it has been discussed and moved on. Basically
the contractors have the earth moved. There is equipment sitting out there
now. This is about 3 blocks from my house. Something I've been looking for
for a lot of years. What we have on the west side or left side of the print
is Fox Hollow Drive. A piece of land that Bloomberg and Company will
develop. We swapped them that piece of land for the land at the South Lotus
Lake Access was put on and park downt here so that's Bloomberg. To the top
of the print is the Fox Hollow property line. There are houses that back
right up against that with no berm or artificial or natural barrier. Just
,...ight there. You see Lotus Lake to the right. Down below is a swamp which
basically impassable. You can drown trying to walk through that. The
....",
'-'
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 3, 1987 - Page 12
,....
~
dotted line shows the edge of the wetland is real iffy. The first solid
ground tha t you're go i ng to corne to down there is where we have a tra i 1 shown
on the utility easement. That's where the sewer main goes through and it's
been built up to keep the sewer pipes from floating up out of the ground"so
that's part and would be very simple to put a trail on. What Mark is here
about here tonight, you folks from Fox Hollow, initially the road went Fox
Hollow from Pleasant View and then right straight to the dotted lines to run
into the cul-de-sac that carne out of Fox Hollow. The residents there were
worried about cut through traffic. Going on through their subdivision from
TH 101. The City Engineer has said yes, that is a likely possibility. What
can we do about it? The answer that we have here is we make it as difficult
to drive through there as possible so it is not handy to drive through.
Mark, I have one question for you as far as I noted here. When you put that
subdivision in initially, we said they were going to have to have a back
access because of safety entrance. Where if we have something, there has to
be two ways of getting in there for fire and emergency vehicles. Is that
still the case because there was some talk of waiving that at one time?
Mark Koegler: Are you speaking of Fox Hollow itself?
Lynch: Yes.
Mark Koegler: I can't honestly comment on what the City is looking at
standards there. The Council has made a decision appartently that they need ~.
""'10 means of access to that neighborhood, this being the second one.
Lynch: That's why we initially thought about putting the road in there is
that we weren't going to do it. They said you have to do it because we need
that.
Mark Koegler: There were several reasons. This road was proposed or has
been proposed for the last probably 7 or 8 years. This is something that has
been kicking around for that long. There have been different development
scenarios for this piece of property here right now some of which had
different lot configurations fronting on that road so that road was more than
a connection, it also was a frontage to service some lots. The present
configuration that is being proposed now, I think is down to 12 lots or 13
lots. I'm not sure of the exact number. All the lots take access of this
cul-de-sac loop up here with the exception of two lots that are being
proposed that will take access of this cul-de-sac.
Lynch: Is that actually going through City process approval now?
Mark Koegler: It will be, yes. It will be submitted this week is my
knowledge. We're not involved with that but we have been working closely
with the developer's engineer.
Hasek:
Those are all double frontage lots aren't they?
JllIIW.ark Koegler: Yes, there will be a whole string of double frontage lots all ~
Je way around by Pleasant View. Essentially, I think you have summarized
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 3, 1987 - Page 13
~e rationale. The reason for the street connection being more primarily of
public safety. The Council made a decision that that connection was to occur
in some form or fashion and chose to put in basically a downgraded type of
connection. That connection became essentially what is shown right here
conceptually as a 20 foot park road type of approach. It is not intended for
everyday normal traffic. That's not to say that one or two people won't
wander through there on occasion but essentially it's to service the park
from both directions as well as provide an emergency access connection
between the two. I should also indicate that the grades that will be looked
at in this area are still being worked out. That is somewhat contingent upon
what the developer is doing on the other side. They had a few problems in
balancing some of their earthwork quantities and it looks like they may be
asking us to cut the swale down a little bit further which we think we
reasonably can do. We'll know more on that in the next week or so.
-'
Hasek: :So the reason the connection has to be made is because of
secondary access to Fox Hollow?
Lynch: That's what I understand. At one time the developer asked for that
to be waived and there was some talk about it but it kind of disappeared and
we never did get it directed back that that was no longer, and I'm assuming
since the Council is saying we still want to do this, that they still need
it.
rk Koegler: Historically the City has allowed those on a temporary basis.
~anhassen Estates neighborhood is probably the most predominant one. That
neighborhood for years and years and years had one means on ingress and
egress off of TH 5 and Dakota. Now that Hidden Valley is developed, there is
a secondary means. There will be street connections there. The City's
longterm intent has always been to provide at least two means of access and
hopefully live within the Subdivision Ordinance which calls for no longer
than 500 foot cul-de-sacs.
-'
Hasek: That's strictly an emergency backdoor is really all it is
right?
Mark Koegler: Yes and no.
Sietsema: It also serves access to the park for that neighborhood.
Mark Koegler: The primary purpose is to provide this connection and do it in
a manner that downplays or minimizes the type of facility that is required.
In doing so, to service a parking lot in here that will allow parking for the
tennis courts and some of the other activities, it will allow people from
this neighborhood to gain vehicular access to the park as well.
Dave Felthouse: Can two cars pass side by side on that road?
Mark Koegler: Yes.
~~e Felthouse: Then in essence you have nothing more than a turn in the ~
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 3, 1987 - Page 14
."'"
...........
road. My understanding was from the last meeting that the people of
Chanhassen had proposed either speed bumps be installed on this road to slow
traffic down or a four way stop be put at the corner prior to and after the
park parking lot and tennis courts. They made no mention of the fact that
there would be a road moved over into the park. When I purchased the lot
that backs up to this park, I was shown a map showing this road going through
and not moving behind my property. I bought my property on the basis of not
having a road behind that property. Now, the parking lot is probably about
513 feet from our property line. I paid $3,131313.1313 extra for that lot and I
didn't buy that lot to have a parking lot in my backyard.
Hasek: Did you see any kind of a plan for that park at all when you purchase
your lot?
Dave Felthouse: Yes.
Hasek: Where was the. parking lot then?
Dave Felthouse: It was on the main road. Now, you've in essence moved the
main road adjacent to our property.
Hasek: So really the only different between the parking location prior to
this plan is that it's moved over 1513 feet.
~~ve Felthouse: It's more like 21313.
.............
Hasek: Are you on the corner?
Dave Felthouse: No.
Hasek: You're the next one in. There was no parking lot behind your house.
Dave Felthouse: The other thing I'm not sure I understand is the people who
purchased lots on what was being listed as cul-de-sac did not pay any lot
premium. They were informed that there would be a road put through.
Rosalind's map showed that road connecting up here to your main Pleasant
View. That was all shown to them. They chose those lots. We chose our lots
and paid lot premiums so we would not have a road behind our house. Nowall
of a sudden they are going back, taking the plans, changing them so our lots
are basically not premium lots and all of a sudden these lots on the corner,
which were not paid as premium lots, are now premium lots.
Hasek: What is the elevation difference between this gentlemen's lot and
that road that you've shown? Is it higher or lower?
Mark Koegler: The road drops to this point. We're at 9113 here and 912 here
so it drops slightly to his property. About 4 feet or so difference in
grade.
,wasek: I think the thing that would disappoint me from his standpoint is .~.
)mebody going through there. I don't know whether that can be blocked up in
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 3, 1987 - Page 15
~ytime traffic. I don't know if that would bother me necessarily but,
having somebody drive through at night shining lights on I'm assuming your
bedroom windows, would irritate me.
...,;t
Dave Felthouse: Also, I'm looking at this saying you have a plan now with
basically your tennis courts isolated from your park. That's going to be a
road. Whether you want to call it an emergency access route or whatever,
it's going to be a road that connects two points. Somebody is going to use
that road. People are going to be using the tennis courts. If they want to
go anywhere else in the park, they have to cross the road. You in essence
have a park with tennis courts and now you have this other big park.
Mady: Mark, two things. One, I noticed the parking lot has been doubled
and I have some concerns whether that's going to be used only for, did we
turn softball through?
Mark Koegler: No, it stayed where it was. That's one thing I need to
comment on. The parking lot, the size can be changed. Right now this lot
was originally showed at 30. That's hasn't been changed so far. That could
be pared back to the 6 which were shown previously. There is no magic number
about that.
Mady: The other think I was concerned about, by putting that driveway on
three sides of that tennis courts, are we going to do some safety concerns
3t I don't think I can live with in this park. Whether you like it or not,
~~'re going to have to go driving through there. A lot of kids.
-'
Dave Felthouse: You're going to have children playing tennis that may knock
the ball over the fence. The logical thing to do is run out there and get
the ball back. You're running out into the street now.
Mady: They want to narrow the street down, that's fine. Speed bumps is
great but putting three curves in the road to try and halt traffic, I don't
think we're doing justice to the park. That's the problem.
Mark Koegler: I have to I guess indicate that this plan is being prepared
specifically in response to Council directive which is to provide access
through there in an indirect manner so as to discourage through movement.
Through movement discouragement is being done two ways. One, by narrowness
of the roadway surface and the other by the extremely tight curves that you
see on there. We would not advocate that speed bumps be added simply from a
maintenance standpoint. It's almost impossible to plow with speed bumps and
normally we have snow in the wintertime. I can't stand here and tell you
that it's not going to have much more impact on the park than the previous
plan did. It will. There is no question about that. The previous plan kept
all vehicular access off to the side. As you quite accurately pointed out,
this begins to encircle a facility with vehicular movement. That's not
ideal. The traffic volumes are presumably the low volume basis which will
help minimize that problem but won't remove it completely.
.........
....",
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 3, 1987 - Page 16
""
~
Dave Felthouse: Where you have that road coming through Fox Hollow Drive,
what would be the problem with inserting your parking in Fox Hollow Drive?
Having an entrance at say the left most portion of that parking lot and exit
at the right most portion? In that respect, if you wanted emergency vehicle
movement, you would come straight through. There is nobody in your parking
lot, you whip through there. Is you want to slow down traffic, very few
people are going to chose to come into a parking lot, go down, across a set
of parking spaces and you've stopped that and you've got a nice parking lot.
You don't encircle the tennis courts and you don't have a parking lot behind
my house.
Mark Koegler: If you do that you might as well effectively put the street
through. You will have one visual sight line all the way through and in
essence you have a through street. You can't hide a parking lot in the
middle of a street and only off-set 20 to 40 feet. This whole study, what's
happened here is based on the study that the city staff did which showed that
if this connection occurred, it would apparently significantly increase
traffic volumes through your neighborhood specifically. Apparently there is
a fairly strong turning movement south on TH 101 particularly in the a.m.
peak hours and this was a means to try and minimize the traffic impact on
your neighborhood while still supplying a secondary access point and that is
the rationale why this is an attempt to do that.
~ave Felthouse: I disagree. I don't believe that if you put a parking lot ........
1 that street and you have a 40 foot off-set, if you put cement barriers anc
... row of parking places, if you were driving through there and you had a stop
sign at the corner and then you had to go up a drive into a parking lot,
making a complete left hand turn down the parking lot, complete a right hand
turn out of the parking lot, go back down another driveway and hit another
stop sign, you would do that once I think in the morning and you would decide
that there has to be a better way to get to work.
Gloria Morehosue, 6559 Grey Fox Curve: These curves aren't going to stop
people from going through there. We paid premium for out lot also and not to
have a parking lot in our backyard. We had the understanding that there was
going to be a park back there. We knew there were going to be tennis courts
and all that but not a parking lot in my backyard. All this is going to do,
is the cars are going to come around and they're going to end up in our
backyard with the parking lots. That tennis courts is going to be a hazard.
You've got a road completely around the tennis court. I've never seen
anything like that. What kind of a nice tennis court is that out in the
country in a park area with a road around it and a parking lot?
Lynch: Do you have any idea what the financial difference is? The cost
added?
Mark Koegler: To the park development? That really hasn't been looked at
yet. There is a strong possibility that whatever street improvements,
whether it be this alignment or something else ultimately approved may be
~rt of the improvement project for this development.
~
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 3, 1987 - Page 17
~nch: They will want maybe assessments over there?
..."
Mark Koegler: I don't know the mechanics of how it is proposed to be worked
out Mike.
Lynch: Because that would worry me. You triple, what is that 60 feet, so
instead of 60 feet you have 180 and that bothers me a little bit. I guess
that I would pass this along with you. Are you going to try like Duck Lake
Trail, they came along with the next road to the south which is Valley View
and I kept driving Duck Lake because I was used to it. Then they put a stop
sign every block and a half. Twice through there and they had me on Valley
View where they wanted me. The road was bui I t for tha t and I've got a
feeling that if we put it straight through, as in the old plan and offer stop
sign opportunities, Pleasant View whatever winds up going to the north off of
Fox Hollow at the park entrance and if traffic continues to be a problem, a
couple of additional stop signs in Fox Hollow. If people there think that
they are getting too much traffic through, that's the time tested method of
slowing it down. Pop them in there but Jim's comment on the safety hazard,
the aesthetics, the light and so forth. The traffic behind these folk's
houses. I can't see that that is a really responsible solution.
Mady: I guess I keep getting back to that. Somebody obviously at one point
took that 50 foot road easement because they saw that it would be connected
through there. Is that an emergency vehicle only?
~rk Koegler: First of all, this street connection, at least to my knowledge ~
as of today, is not there. That has not been platted. There is no public
right-of-way there at all. Any reference to any planning documents in the
past, that's always been expressing a future desire. That's not a fact.
Dave Felthouse: This isn't actually a plat then, this is just a drawing?
Mark Koegler: That's correct. There will be, as I mentioned, a preliminary
plat coming in sometime this week or next week for this property which I
believe will show this as platted right-of-way, that entire area. That
development is proposing a street system that comes in this way and
additionally they are proposing two lots off of what would be an improved
cul-de-sac right here. In response to the comment, I can't argue with the
kind of points you're bringing up. They are reasonable. This, as I
indicated, is being prepared specifically in response to the Council
directive. If you would like us to look at an alternative, which is more in
line with what this gentlemen mentioned, we certainly would be glad to do
that.
Watson: Mark, what if we put the parking lot where that paper right-of-way
is right now? If you came in and Fox Hollow Drive is going to go into that
curve there, come off there of that very narrow road, put a stop sign there,
put your parking lot where that right-of-way is, come out of the south corner
of that parking lot with a relatively sharp turn, then would come up into
this cul-de-sac sort of over here and have it almost come out of the end. It
uld still be all north of the tennis courts. The first time I saw this
'-"
-"
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 3, 1987 - Page 18
"....
~
when I was on the Council, I honestly didn't know anything about how close
the houses were here. We didn't know anything about premium prices being
paid. I'm sure that that's logical because they were backed up to a park and
nobody is ever going to develop behind them and they would be nicer lots~
Dennis Morehouse, Grey Fox Curve: Can't you put the speed limit in the park
to bring it down to say 25 mph instead of going 40?
Lynch: Yes you can. Our experience in our neighborhood which is right next
to yours in Pleasant View, is that with the level of enforcement that we now
have in town, people will drive in a manner that the road will accommodate so
if it's wide and straight they go 40. I don't care what the speed sign says
but they will generally observe stop signs.
Dennis Morehouse: Right put stop signs in and drop the speed limit down
might help.
Lynch: That isn't going to give them a chance to get going fast if you put
the stop signs close enough and that's the way it was attacked on Duck Lake
in Eden prairie to curtail high speed cut through traffic.
Dave Felthouse: That's what people that were at this last meeting really
came a way with the sense of. They thought tha t the Counc i 1 was go i ng to go
back and say, okay we need to put stop signs in. We're going to put maybe ~
~me speed bumps in. I don't think they really had an idea that all of a
wadden there was going to be a U shaped road around the tennis courts. When
I heard this was happening, somebody brought that up and I said I can't
believe they are going to do this but I'm afraid they really are. Those are
the same people who came to this last meeting and they went away with the
impression that they didn't listen to what we said. They are just going to
put a moat around the tennis court and call it good.
Hasek: Mark, to get back to my question one more time, emergency vehicles, is
that really what the Council is thinking of more than anything else? I'm
wondering if you have considered, if that's what the thought is, of like sub-
grade road that would make the connection there and maybe two separate
parking lots. One off of the cul-de-sac and one off of the road on the west
side with the connection, that would be a hard surface underneath grass or
something so if in an emergency and a vehicle needed to get through they
could.
Mark Koegler: That has been talked about in this community for a number of
years. That came up the first time I remember it back in about 1978 in the
Near Mountain area. The City has generally tried to avoid those situations
because if it's a clear cut emergency vehicle path, other vehicles will use
it. It has to be maintained in the wintertime and it becomes almost a false
connection. Chanhassen has at many times looked at having locked gates on
those kind of things or having knock off barricades or something like that
and all of that has ultimately been dismissed as not being real workable.
~is scenario that we're talking about here is one that can go in. I think
~
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 3, 1987 - Page 19
~timately what we're dealing with and it's really important that the
resident that is there, is that we've got two choices. We can, from a
traffic standpoint, severly slow down and hopefully help curtail this
movement or we can have a more direct connection. The more direct connection
is going to increase traffic in that neighborhood. If that's acceptable to
the residents, fine. I think that definitely is a benefit to the park but
this kind of connection is going to have more impact than this kind of a
connection is on these homes from a traffic perspective.
....."
Dave Felthouse: How much of the park on the northwest corner, the softball
fields and soccer fields and parking lot and skating rink, how much of that
was redesigned based on what you've done?
Mark Koegler: None.
Dave Felthouse: Have you looked at perhaps rearranging that?
Mark Koegler: Yes, we looked at that and quite honestly, we don't have much
room to play around up in here. We have very limited space to put the large
scale softball, soccer fields. They literally are locked into this location.
From there, we have a few areas where we could tuck some facilities in nicely
and we could create kind of a hub here of winter activities with hockey
rinks, skating rinks and sliding hills and maybe a warming house. The tennis
courts originally were located up in there to a large degree to have those be
close proximity to the residents. So there really is not much
~exibility. All of this gets into steep slope as you can see from the -'
contours and we've got some soil problems down here, some drainage swales.
It's fairly well defined. The only flexibility that we really have is do we
go around this side of the courts or do we essentially punch straight
through? We can look at the straight through option if you prefer in more
detail.
Schroers: How many residents are effected by the straight through?
Mark Koegler: The entire neighborhood from a traffic standpoint.
Schroers: Is that a pretty dense area in there? I'm not real familiar with
it.
Mady: Yes, they will get a volume through there.
Corpian: Did the people that bought the property originally think that the
road was going through?
Mark Koegler: To my knowledge yes. I remember this gentlemen at the other
meetings.
Corpian: So all the residents to the north of that knew there would be a
road going through?
'-
--'
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 3, 1987 - Page 20
"...
~
Mark Koegler: I would guess that most of them were not as attentive to that
issue as some of the people that were probably looking at lots back in this
area but if they saw an overall plan they probably saw a street connection
through there.
Dave Felthouse: Rosalind's plan didn't show that. They had all the lots
layed out and had listed on each lot...so they had the map and the map
encompassed the area and did show the road going through.
Hasek: I guess my impression when I first saw it, not knowing where people
were and not having that map available to me, was that I just didn't like the
way it was layed out, plain and simple. It seems to me that we do have some
people that are specifically concerned about what it's going to do to their
marketability of their land that maybe there is an opportunity to redesign it
that we're missing here someplace. I don't know what that might be.
Watson: With that design, you still could make it a slow trip. I mean it's
straighter but if you stop them all the time, you're not going to make it
something that it's going to really make it faster for somebody or anything.
It's a straighter route. From that standpoint I can see it but it sure
wouldn't be convenient.
Mark Koegler: It's a shorter distance obviously and if you stop at one time,
somewhere in through there, people can't get much momentum so from that ~
":andpoint, you can control speed just the same way you can with curvatures.
~nese are probably 10 mph curves. There was reference before to speed.
Speed won't be a problem.
Watson: You're going to have that curve coming out of that parking lot be at
10 mph curve or less.
Mark Koegler: The directive and again, we're trying to respond specifically
to what the Council told us and I think the thing they had in mind was trying
to cut down the sight lines through there. That's going to be there but we
can mitigate that with some stop movements and some uncomfortable driveway
kind of turning movements. If you so desire we can bring back a plan that
will show just that as an alternative to this.
Mady: I'm looking at this knowing that area a little bit, I'm trying to
figure out why anyone would be driving down Fox Hollow Drive. If you're
going out to Pleasant View...
Dave Felthouse: It goes right to TH 101 if that's where you've got to get to
and Fox Hollow Drive, you're not going to be cutting any time by going
through or around the park. It just doesn't make sense to me that we're
trying to do what the Council is aSking. All we're doing is making something
difficult for people that maybe doesn't need to be made difficult.
Mark Koegler: The Staff Report that was done, the City's planning staff
~port that was done on the traffic movement does not support the statement
"'""
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 3, 1987 - Page 21
............ d .
you Just ma e. It reputes It.
through that neighborhood area.
...,
It did show significant traffic would go
I don't know the numbers.
Mady: Who did the traffic study? Was that done in-house?
Sietsema: Bill Engelhardt. He was the Acting City Engineer at the time.
Mark Koegler: The counts were done by the planning staff and then the Ci ty
Engineer provided input into that.
Hasek: He was the acting engineer?
Sietsema: Yes, it was after Bill Monk was gone and before Gary Warren was
hired.
Robinson: Can we leave this as that we don't like the proposal and give us
another alternative?
Lynch: You can make a motion Curt and see if you can agree with it. I can't
do a whole lot more than what we see here. I don't anybody here likes it
including the residents so I'll make the motion.
Dave Felthouse: When you did the study or when the study was done concerning
ling traffic through the Fox Hollow area, was that done just considering
~e present state of affairs on the road, the present conditions of the road?
--'
Mark Koegler: I can't honestly answer that. The only thing I know that was
done was assuming a full street connection through there.
Dave Felthouse: Okay, which probably means a full improved street not a
street with stop signs?
Hasek: My guess is that they were asked to predict what the traffic levels
would be.
Dave Felthouse: Then if that's the case, then I think it's safe to assume
that if it were a through street you would see a great increase in traffic as
opposed to if it was a through street with stop signs.
Lynch: Sometimes it's a question of asking the right questions.
Mady: Lori, where it says proximity to the tennis courts, in there I would
like to add that the proposed drive would be passing within less than 25 feet
of an active soccer field with children running outside the soccer field.
Watson: There are alternatives to this one and" the original one and I would
just as soon as let Mark have a little time to see if he could come up with
something more secuitous and not just with stop signs.
'--
-'
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 3, 1987 - Page 22
IfI""
~
Mark Koegler: I assure you Carol, I'll have one in my back pocket at the
Council meeting.
Hasek: Mark, if it was your choice is this how you would have done it?
Mark Koegler: No.
Lynch moved, Hasek seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend
that the park plan shown on the or ig i nal VanDoren, Hazard and Stall i ng' s
print dated 3/24/86 and Job #85-326 design be retained with the inclusion of
stop signs where appropriate at Pleasant View Road, the intersections that
adjoin Fox Hollow from the north, Fox Hollow Drive where it meets the
existing Fox Hollow streets and any additional sites necessary in Fox Hollow.
The Commission would request this due to the additional costs of the
newly proposed design, not dated but same job, of safety hazards on blind
corners in proximity to the tennis court, the proximity of the eastern leg to
Fox Hollow residents (light and noise intrusion), and it making for an
ungainly design. Also that the proposed road would be passing within less
than 25 feet of an active, unfenced soccer field. All voted in favor except
Carol Watson who opposed and motion carried.
TRAIL PLAN REVIEW, MARK KOEGLER.
IfI""
~rk Koegler: We talked last time and we indicated this time that we would
6J e coming back to you with kind of the opening session, if you will, of the
trail discussion and we assembled some material that was in your packet and
some discussion material in that regard. As I referenced, the whole trail
issue is one that is going to be receiving a more detailed and critical
review this time around than it did last time around. In order to most
effectively address that topic we have to start at the beginning for all of
our benefits. First of all, and to have you provide, Lori and I with
feedback on types of trails that you envision. There was a little bit of
background material in your packet that talked about the definition of the
various types of trail types but even more importantly than that, before you
get to that stage you somewhat have to define what you envision for trail
usage. What kind of recreational activities you want to accommodate? That
sets the tone certainly for the types of facilities then that one puts in.
The previous plan that was done in 198~ really focused primiarly on walking,
cross country skiing, bicycling, lower intensive type of activities. I think
there was also snowmobile trails map in the previous plan but it was simply
one that was in essence in existence at that time and probably still is. The
one that seems to have the terminous of Lion's Tap down in Eden Prairie.
Given the emphasis of this group and the City Council and the Planning
Commission has had lately on recreation in the rural area, I think it's
reasonable to talk maybe about equestrian trails and some things that maybe
weren't addressed as much the first time around. Whether or not those are
implementable from a financial perspective is another issue but at this stage
of the game is to discuss what your desires are and what you would like to ~
I"""ee in a tr ail sys tern for th i s comm un i ty. Once we get past. tha t, then we car
)cus on some of the specific types of trails. We talked a little bit in the
.""""
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 3, 1987 - Page 23
~morandum about some generalized locations. Whether you place trails along
streets. Whether you enclose them within parks such as the one around Lake
Ann Park right now. Whether you actually have them going through private
developments in a mid-lot line kind of configuration where you have private
property on both sides. There are pluses and minuses to all of those and I
think pretty much all of those ultimately will be components of the system in
one form or another. With that, I think what I would like to do, if it's
agreeable to you, is kind of turn it back to the commission and we would like
to get some feedback on the types of activities that you want to accommodate.
We talked about a trail system for the City of Chanhassen. What is that? Do
we want the horses with the roller skaters with the joggers with the bikers?
What types of activities do you reasonably want to accommodate on this
network.
'-'
Lynch: I'll start it off because I guess historically, when I came on the
Commission, which was 8 years ago, the primary purpose of the trail system
was to provide access to all of our parks but especially Lake Ann because
it's the center community park. It was to provide easy and safe access with
as few hazardous areas as possible for all the residents that were within a
reasonable distance. To get there, use the park, kids in the soccer and
baseball programs. Anybody that may want to go there and swim in the summer,
if they want to walk there. That was almost the downtown nucleus. I guess
you could figure a reasonable area would be two miles as the crow flies all
the way around there. In those days we were talking about a center of
~nhassen. The next thing that was on there for priority was the trails as
~use feature for activie sports like jogging or bicycling. Cross countrying
skiing wasn't really going then. It came along later but that's another
separate item. Third priority was to provide enough trails to all
neighborhoods so that almost every neighborhood had a nice walk where mom and
dad could go out and take a walk after dinner and not necessarily be on a
street. Walk into their neighborhood park. Have the walk in park. Have it
between that park and the next park. Something close to everybody that they
could use. That's traditional intent. What we're looking at with the survey
is to try and find out which of those uses is high priority. That's what we
always thought was high priority but we'll find out what really is.
...."
Corpian: We can't take a position until we get the results of that can we?
Lynch: I kind of feel that way. We're on unknown ground and we only have
several short sections of trail in now. One is paved. A couple of others
are woodchip. They do see use. We don't really know what use. They don't
always go from someplace to someplace else. Some are open segments. We know
very little about costs of what kind of surface to use. When we discussed
each one of the items on our discussion list with the Council, we had a
little meeting shortly before you all joined and we said what do you guys
think about trailways? What do you think about surfacing materials and I
think of all the surfacing materials that were discussed, everybody was
against all of them. Woodchips will disipate, they're not permanent enough.
The gravel is too dangerous and hard to maintain. Hard surface such as
'Qhalt are too expensive and hard to maintain. So we need to be able to
~Jelop some information as to which of those styles or some other style is ~
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 3, 1987 - Page 24
,....
""""
the most appropriate to the use we want to adapt the trail system and what
the cost of that is and that's what we're supposed to be doing for the
Council. Develop that bulk of information and take it up to them and say,
this is what we think we should do and why we think we should do it and this
is what it's going to cost. If you have a better idea let us know. That's
kind of where we are now. On the map here, this is something I don't
remember seeing. Is this the old one out of the Comp Plan?
Mark Koegler: Yes and no. It's old and new. Actually, you're jumping the
gun on me. I should have kept this turned around for the time being. The
black lines on there do indicate the trail desires that were shown on the
previous comprehensive plan. The purple dash lines that are on here are the
planned trails of Eden prairie and Chaska. The solid ones are the existing
trails that are in place for Eden prairie and Chaska as well as the links
that are in right now in Chanhassen. I supposed you probably could have
included the sidewalk trail along Kerber as another one. This one right now
is the components being shown, you're proably aware, as part of the downtown
public improvement project.
Lynch: That one over on Lotus Lake on the west side, we have a segment in
from Carver Beach, a park and swimming up to the old boat landing.
Mark Koegler: That's on the alignment that was shown on the previous Comp
Plan.
,....
..asek: Is this thing going through the area we just talked about at all?
...........
Lynch: Yes, it's through the park. The green is the park.
Hasek: Is that shown on the plan though? The parking lot plan?
Mark Koegler: Yes, it is.
Schroers: Wherever the trails run, it's kind of immaterial in relation to
the surface that you want to have. The type of trail that you want to have.
You're not going to be able to please and accommodate everyone with one type
of trail surface. That's just won't go. I have quite a bit of experience in
trails and what I'm finding works the best right now is what they call a
multi-purpose trail and what that involves is having one pavement or
bituminous trail for the bicycle riders, the joggers, the walkers and then
having a woodchip trail or natural turf trail for equestrian use and cross
countrying skiing. The equestrian more or less and the cross country skiing
are both basically seasonal. You don't find that many people riding horses
in the wintertime and you don't find many people cross country skiing in the
summer so they generally compliment each other and that seems to work pretty
well. Actually, the trails in many areas can run side by side. If the land
is available there, you have your pavement here and you have your turf trail
or woodchip trail right next to it and they run parallel.
~sek: Have you run across very much maintenance problem with the turf ~
Jrtion of that with horses tearing it up?
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 3, 1987 - Page 25
~hroers: No.
.,
Hasek: How about snowmobiles running on it?
Schroers: You can't run snowmobiles on an equestrian trail. You're going to
run into problems there. The horses aren't going to like the snowmobiles and
the snowmobiles aren't going to like the horses.
Lynch: It accommodates the skiers.
Hasek: That was my question. Was that asked in this about snowmobile
trails. I hate snowmobiles myself and I know there are a lot of people who
like them.
Lynch: On any of these trails that are north of the MUSA line, there has
never been any intent to have that be snowmobile use. It's non-motorized
vehicle use period.
Hasek: But there are trails available in the City right?
Sietsema: Yes there are and they have a whole system that connects to the
Minnetonka system and to the Chaska system and Eden prairie and everything.
They get the rights to go over pr i va te property themse1 ves and they get
grants to groom those trails.
~rk Koegler: I don't know if you can see this but here is a line that goes
through the city at one point in time and eventually went over into Eden
prairie and went down south. As Lori said, that was totally a private
action. The verbage that's in the Comprehensive Plan basically considers
snowmobile trails as interim use and that as Chanhassen becomes more and more
urbani zed and the sewered area beg ins to fill up more and more as it has, and
will continue to do so, that is questioned whether or not that is a suitable
activity.
....."
Lynch: In the past, the snowmobile club has given us a report about every
other year. It didn't really effect us. They just wanted us to know what
they were doing. They have been real responsible. As far as I've heard there
haven't been any enforcements problems. They do their own policing and
they've been able to maintain real good relations with the private landowners
and I always felt that if there had been a problem, the private citizens
would have shut it off right now.
Hasek: Is this saying we don't need to consider snowmobiles?
Lynch: For this area. For the southern area and we start talking about uses
down there, for instance on equestrian paths, is snowmobiling something we
want to look at. That's another question but up here, we're talking people
traffic.
* A tape break occurred at this point.
~
...,
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 3, 1987 - Page 26
~
~
Mark Koegler: ...that specifically was some movements that the City, we're
working on at the time is the movement through here for instance. Given the
park that I hope was acquired through the industrial park in some form or
fashion on down ultimately through the Ward property, TH 101, Rice Marsh
Lake. There were trail easements secured through the lower sections of the
Hidden Valley subdivision for example when that took place.
Hasek: Should that be dashed on there then? In the purple.
Lynch: We do have a great deal of those black lines already taken care of.
We've got easements or we own the land or conservation easement of some sort.
Mark Koegler: The movement then on up and around through the northern part
of the city has been one that again has been part of the City's planning when
developments came in, Fox Chase for instance and so forth as you progressed
on down, there has been an attempt to secure at least easement rights if not
dedicated ownership rights for trail connections in that portion. The
Regional Park was in the process of condemnation at the time the last
Comprehensive Plan was prepared. That was always felt to be a major draw. I
think you would hopefully still conclude that that would still be a major
draw. That there would be some kind of a link connection between other
components of the park system and that facility. The Arboretum unarguably is
another major plus and at that time there was assuming some kind of
~onnection down to Chaska. Since then this has come into being which ~
~esumably would shift that but there is a lot more interest now in trails
_aen there was. A specific answer to your question is the underlying
philosphy is still valid. I think this will probaby work with that and
expand that and then begin to look at prioritizing what segments to look at
first and what's affordable and how financing mechanisms can be put into
place.
Sietsema: I can tell you what easements we have and what we'll never get
that are on there.
Lynch: Could you reduce that for me so I can include it because that was one
of the things we were going to include in that little packet. It's kind of a
trail system.
Sietsema: We've got these easements through here and this along here. We've
got something through here.
Lynch: We've got that all the way down.
Sietsema: Put in too?
Lynch: It's not put in but we own it.
Sietsema: He's got the woodchip trail here. We don't have this connection
here but we have a trail easement that goes right through here into the
~reenwood Shores.
.........
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 3, 1987 - Page 27
~sek: A trail easement or does it just go right through the park?
..,.,
Sietsema: It's a trail easement that goes from this park.
Mark Koegler: You're in Chaparral. That was proposed as parkland as part of
that PUD.
Sietsema: We got an easement but we didn't actually acquire it. We've got
this land here around Chan Pond and we'll put a trail across there. We just
talked about the trail across Saddlebrook so we asked for that. This one is
still proposed. We have this link and it's in. Lake Lucy, we'll never get
this and we'll never get this side of Lake Ann.
Hasek: Not out of this owner but maybe the next owner.
Sietsema: It came back to us after it was proposed in the last plan and we
couldn't afford to buy it so we gave up our rights to it more or less. Do
you remember?
Mark Koegler: No, I didn't know that.
Hasek: How about the one that goes out towards the Regional Park there?
From there north?
':tsema: We have an easement across the bottom of this property here. It
""",ed to go thr ough like th i s and when they dec ided to deve 1 op tha t, we moved
it so it's across the bottom of that. This whole section in here, nothing
has happened since I've been here.
..,.,
Hasek: Because the land hasn't been developed so it's just kind of sitting
there but it's still on the plan and anybody that is going to develop that...
Sietsema: We've got this, through the pond, over to here, we've got a gap
right here that has not been developed and we do not have the easements. We
do have the easements across the bottom of Hidden Valley from this park over
to the end of Hidden Valley. We have, this is still proposed but it hasn't
been developed along that side of the lake. I can't remember if we gave that
in Chan Hills or not. Do you remember Carol?
Watson: There is something that goes up through that kind of marshy area.
Sietsema: Remember when we talked about the easement around the bottom of
the lake through. Curry didn't want to give it.
Watson: I don't think we kept it because it started nowhere and went
nowhere.
Sietsema: But we do have the parkland that goes all along the side of
Curry's property there.
'-
..,.,
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 3, 1987 - Page 28
IfI1II'"
.-.-..
Hasek: I think it's really strange that all of our connections to Eden
prairie don't meet any of their connections. It looks like their's is coming
together fairly well over there. Maybe we should think about realigning so
we can match with them.
Mark Koegler: That will happen now. Bear in mind Eden prairie's trail plan
has absolutely mushroomed in the last five years. To my knowledge they never
approached this city and said where do you plan to have connections? They
simply went ahead and did their thing and now Chanhassen in turn can match
what they're doing.
Lynch: I've approached them two or three times in the last five years and I
said let's sit down and figure this out how we can meet and they said, who
wants to meet? We don't care to meet yours. We've got our own facilities.
We don't want to meet yours so your people can come use our facilities. It
was a semi-hostile attitude and a little odd but that's the way it went. Our
people pay the taxes in Eden prairie and they're view of where the trail
should be are the only people who will be taken into consideration.
Mark Koegler: Their attitude has changed a little bit. At least their
Community Services Director's because he was very enthused that Chanhassen
was looking at developing a trail system that would tie in with Eden
Prairie's. If you look at who else Eden prairie neighbors, they don't have
;g.uch future. They've got the river on the south. They've got Edina on the ~
1st. Edina will not develop trail systems. They've got Minnetonka
..,asically on the north and they said they have not had much positive feedback
from Minnetonka so they were very enthusiastic, thelr staff was, about the
connections and the possibility. They were excited when I told them Chaska
had trail plans as well and they started seeing that begin to fit together as
a system. Then ultimately would have tie ins to the Minnesote River Valley,
National Wildlife Refuge.
Lynch: Also, we're starting to get some parks developed that we can offer.
The folks that live on the one side of TH un can come over to North Lotus
Lake Park if there is some reason to go there. We're not funneling into
their neighborhood. One thing I might mention on that loop around Lake Ann,
there are a number of people in town, shakers and movers, that have always
wanted that. Always, always, always and we've just never gotten to the point
where the time was right to do it but I would think at least there is some
possibilty that when and if the west side of the lake starts to be developed
and we start to look for a corridor over the Minnewashta Park, that I
wouldn't say condemnation isn't out of sight of the thing. If the right
people in town decide that we're going to have a park there or a trailway,
we'll have a trailway.
Watson: If you a road runs right through the middle and it's better coming
down onto that gap. It's a little more straight in there because nobody can
do anything with that anyway. Water's got to be about a foot under the
surface of the ground.
,... ,~
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 3, 1987 - Page 29
.........
Lynch: We wanted that for a long time just as park. This was before Lori's
time. We talked about and talked about getting that neat area. Lakes on both
sides and it naturally would join up Greenwood Shores and it falls into
place.
...""
Watson: Larson still owns that piece doesn't he. Prince didn't buy that
part.
Lynch: It's own legally by the jocky club.
Mark Koegler: Responding to another point you raised, we've still got a
trump card on this one. The Lake Ann sewer is going right through there.
That will be a beautiful bench for a trail. Now that's still going to
present some problems with regard to Prince's property. They hadn't acquired
easements the last I knew through his property. They were looking at that as
being an obstacle also but essentially that comes up through and winds it's
way up to TH 41 so it goes right through the heart of the area tha t we need
the connection through.
Hasek: What has your charge meant to the State so far? Are we supposed to
be giving you direction on our thoughts or are you supposed to be putting
something together for us to review?
Mark Koegler: What's we've done. There are all kind of elements at play
re. I think you're well aware the City has a community facilities task
~rce or something to that effect that is looking at the whole community
center issue. This mayor may not ultimately be a part of that. It's
unknown but we're on a course to try within the next 69 to 99 days to corne up
with a preliminary draft of a trail plan for this community. .
...,
Hasek: For the Comp Plan update?
Mark Koegler: As a part of the Comp Plan update but again it may fit in with
other things and that's totally undefined right now because nobody knows what
those findings will be. What we were trying to do tonight was specifically
get some input back from the Commission, directive to us, to set the tone for
what kinds of trails you're thinking of. What kind of uses do you want to
accommodate and just provide some general information on how they are
acquired. What the costs are? Where they normally sit? The pluses and
minuses and just a general overview kind of thing. As we get into this
further, undoubtedly there will be all kinds of spinoff detail issues that we
will address. The thing that we haven't talked at all about right now is
maintenance and maintenance is a significant item.
Hasek: So you haven't taken a look at whether this trail system is going to
serve our needs into the next 7 or 19 years during the comp plan? The only
thing is and it's a real personal thing is I find it really strange that we
go around Lotus Lake and we go around Lake Ann and we've got the biggest lake
in the City, and even Lake Riley, I would think that even that be connected
~e how, but Lake Minnewashta is virtually avoided and we've got the Luce
,--"ne Trail that goes up through the system and I understand that that Luce ...",.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 3, 1987 - Page 30
""'"
~
Line wasn't understood to be within this last planning period but it's there
now. I guess I feel that it should be connected in a real positive way. I
happen to live out on the left hand side on the northwest corner of Lake.
Minnewashta and the reason why I mention a trail system is because we've got
nothing out there. We've got to cross a major highway to get to a park.
Minnewashta Parkway is nothing to jog on so I finally settled for running
around my own neighborhood, just running around cul-de-sacs and I'm bored.
It seems to me there ought to be a system to include the entire north part of
the lake and there's no reason why it shouldn't come down and tie right into
the trail system and go through the Arboretum and down into Chaska.
Mark Koegler: That's part of what we wanted to talk about tonight. I don't
know if this circulated. Eden prairie has trail plans that looked they took
spaghetti or something and threw it on a sheet. It really covers an
extensive system. Some of it's in place. Some of it isn't. This map is not
even very accurate as to what's there and what isn't right now. They are to
the point right now where they are trying to determine how in the world they
are going to fund all of this in the future as well as maintain what they've
got. They started a few years ago when there were some grant monies around
to help construct those. They have done some street reconstruction on
Municipal State Aid Streets where they have tied the trail to that but those
kinds of things are becoming few and far between. Their council, it's my
understanding, either was to have met late last month or will be meeting over
~h e n e x t wee k 0 r so ink i n d 0 f bra ins tor m in g s e s s ion tot r y to fig u reo u t .~
~at they're going to do. Are they going to go back to the voters as one
~xample for a referendum for trails? They indicated to me, and I was unaware
of it, that the City of Lakeville has recently adopted a dedication
requirement for trails that is over and above their park dedication. They
were in the process of securing a copy of that Ordinance from the City and
we'll take a look at that kind of issue as well. But there are communities
that are taking a pro-trail stance as Eden prairie obviously has, that are
trying to find different ways to fund those. Getting back to the point, this
system is so extensive it literally probably connects everything in the
community by the time it's implemented. Hopefully, in the future Chanhassen
will have that luxury. That mayor may not be the case. What we wanted to
do though was to get some input from you on the types of facilities and
specific facilities that you would want to connect. You have just called out
one. The west side of Lake Minnewashta which was not shown before and it was
not. That is accurate. I'm aware of the needs of the residents and the
desires of the residents probably more so to have that connection because
I've met with a couple of your neighbors on several occasions and they have
been pretty vocal and I know are very interested in this issue.
Lynch: We've had a group of 10 meetings here.
Mark Koegler: The same individuals that have been in my office discussing
the issue. Presumably you are going to want to connect schools, parks, major
recreational facilities, regional recreational facilities, the wildlife
refuge that was referenced before, the Regional Park, things like a Campfire ~
~irl's Camp probably a little more questionable. They may not want a trail..
Jnnection for security reasons and so forth. The development proposals that
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 3, 1987 - Page 31
,-. .....,
are under review right now, under the rural conversion thing that we talked
about. Connection from neighborhood to neighborhood. Those are all valid
kinds of things. Again, we wanted to get some input from you tonight on what
are the key components? What are the 1 inkages that you want to see
established? Again, more importantly, before we get to that point, how do
you want to let people get there? On foot? On skateboard? On roller
skates? On snowmobiles? On skis? Multi-uses becoming a huge facility if we
accommodate all of those. It's not practical.
Corpian: How can some of us say what we want when we're going to send a
survey out to the community. It seems like we should wait to see what they
say.
Robinson: We didn't tell them do you want on your trails, do you want roller
skating, skate boarding, horse back riding, cross country skiing. I think we
can determine that to give Mark an idea.
Hasek: I think on even a bigger scale than that, we can make the
determination as to whether we want a major linkage between the nodes of
activity in our City without the survey. Do we want a trail system? Do we
want a basic trail system or don't we? That's really what we're talking
about here. We're not talking about detail at all. At least if we compare
to Eden Prairie's system and I don't know that that is necessary. I think
;IISt in looking at that graphic, it reads more like a street map more than a
1il system. I guess my own personal feeling is that a trail system is
~posed to connect those things and offer an opportunity for the community .,
to get from one place to another should they desire to do so and not
necessarily allow everybody to walk out their backdoor to a jogging trail.
If they have to jog half a mile to get to a jogging trail, that's fine. It
depends upon where the traffic is and so forth and I think that's part of
Mark's job is to tell us when it starts getting down to detail where things
have to go. If I'm reading him correct what he's saying is what do you want
to connect?
Mark Koegler: I think it was Mike that brought up the point before that I
think is very valid. That Chanhassen has two distinct areas. The urban area
and the rural area and the urban may be somewhat of a misnomer but it's the
developed area.
Lynch: It will be someday.
Mark Koegler: Arguably yes. Undoubtedly there are different kinds of uses
that go with that kind of land development. You don't want horses trompsing
through your backyard necessarily but you don't mind if Lori walks through
your backyard as long as it's on the easement and she doesn't get on your
property. Those kind of things I think are fairly black and white issues and
they are not going to be that sensitive in a survey because this group has to
make some judgment calls that despite what anybody might want, what's
appropriate. You may get people who want to ride motorbikes on all of the
. . '~e paths. Just because they want to do that, does that mean the ci ty
~uld allow that? -'
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 3, 1987 - Page 32
",...
~
8chroers: What you're talking about here is connecting one to the other.
What you're talking about is getting people from one place to the other and
the mode of transportation that they use to get there. They're going to
walk. They're going to jog. They're going to bicycle. Someone might want
to push a skateboard along, whatever but the main thing that you're going to
have to deal with is the surface that they're going to use and the most use
you're going to see is on a bituminous type of surface and trail. For
connecting one point to another, that's definitely the kind of trail that you
would want to consider and look at. The other type of trail for the cross
county skiing and horse riding, those people are not necessarily doing cross
country skiing to get from point A to point B or they are not riding their
horse to get from point A to point B. They're just out doing it just for a
place to go. What I'm saying is that would almost be secondary.
Mad y : La r r y, the p eo p 1 e who use you r t r ail S, the y us u a 11 y go 1 i k e w her e ? 0 u t
to one of the parks and then take off from there and they'll bike for 10
miles?
Schroers: Basically we have connections to existing residential areas and
neighborhoods where people can walk or bike or skateboard or whatever they
want to do to get in and then there are also parking areas where they can
drive in and park, unload their bicycles or whatever they want and then use
the trails that exist. We do have the luxury of having different trails so we
~an accommodate ju~t ~bout anyone as fa~ as whatever, they want to do a~d ~
. e're really not fIndIng that we're havIng any conflIcts or problems wIth
_uings like skateboarders having difficulty with bicyclers or roller skaters
or anything like that. They just all seem to use the trails and not get into
each others way at all.
Mady: I think you always end up with those conflicts even in Minneapolis
when you try to separate things. Lori, we don't allow dogs in the parks. Do
we allow dogs on trails?
Sietsema: We have never set a policy. It's not addressed in the Park
Ordinance or anything. Pets would not be allowed on trails ~ are in the parks.
Mady: I'm worried about the horse situation also. Horses do cause a
considerable mess.
Lynch: I don't think we consider that an acceptable use,~~maybe below the
MUSA line.
Sietsema: We've had a couple of cases where horses have gotten loose in Lake
Ann Park and they've created havoc with the softball fields. It's takes days
to get all those holes filled in the spring. We don't have enough trails out
there to have made a policy about anything like that. Basically no animals
are allowed in the parks period.
Schroers: The equestrian trails that we have are basically in the outlying .~
"""~eas and no one goes out and cleans up after those horses. It's just natur~
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 3, 1987 - Page 33
........... ....,
cakes it course and it just goes away on it's own. You don't get that much
traffic that it builds up.
Mady: I was just going to say if you had an equestrian trail, the horses are
used to their own thing.
Robinson: I don't think we would get enough to justify a trail.
Mady: That's what I was wondering. We're going to have very few funds to
spend but sounds as though, even if Larry wanted to put together an
equestrian trail, it seems to me like that would be a very inexpensive thing
to do through easements as long as it's maintained. It's just simply a
matter of acquiring an easement for a trail and marking the thing and that's
it.
Lynch: There are areas in Lakeville and some of the border subdivisions way
out where for some reason, there is an extremely high interest in horses.
They have that sort of development, we go to 10 acre plots below the MUSA
line and everybody say we can have a barn and buy horses. If that develops,
then I'm sure that we'll have citizen interest in that area in having some
trails. Again, we're not going to see it north of the line because it's
already inappropriate for those areas.
~~sek: Do we have a feel for how many people out here own horses?
'-retsema: Do you want me to find out?
.....,
Hasek: If we did begin to suggest that we were going to implement an
equestrian trail, would that encourage more horses? Is that good or bad or
who cares. My feeling is that we have very limited funds and very limited
places to use them and we're really looking at equestrian trails is not
necessary at this time.
Robinson: I agree with that.
Hasek: It's just going to be such a small percent of the population. We're
talking less than 5% of the population.
Lynch: The Refuge is going to have one. We have one on the east end and on
the south end.
Mady: I could care less about horses but if there are enough people out
there, would it be logical to connect a point in the south end someplace to
that refuge so at least there is a way of getting down there.
Lynch: That may happen but not until and if that area starts to develop.
We've got to get a feeling for what's going to happen now that we're not
talking 2 1/2 acre lots. We're talking 10 acre lots. Is that going to
encourage development? Is it going to discourage it? Most of the feeling in
~ City is that it's not going to develop at 10 acre lots. That's the
~son why we're going with 10 acres. Another thing I might add is I do a .,-
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 3, 1987 - Page 34
,..
~
lot of work through Scouts with the Minnesota Valley Refuge and their plans
keep being revised but supposedly by 1990 we're going to be able to go from
~ort Snelling to Jordan, Minnesota on trail systems and with cutbacks and
cutbacks, quite a few nice links are in there. Some links go in each season
but I know we're going to see the year 2000 before you're going to go the
whole way but it's the multi-use type of area that you Larry are used to and
it's going to be sort of a web that will go down through there. It will be a
nice system and we should consider any time any of that property develops
down on the bluffs, any type of access to that system, let's get it and see
what we'll use it for later.
Hasek: Larry, I have a question for you. Do you find that you get the real
hard core bikers out there on your paths or is it just recreational family?
Schroers: I would say just off the top of my head I would say that 95% of it
is recreational family, neighborhood people just coming to take a little bike
tour through the park in the evening. The hard core bikers, I guess the way
I would define it are the people who put on the little pack and want to go
for 25 to 30 miles and they're not interested in going around a trail 10
times around the same trail. They're getting out and they're going down the
road so it's mainly the recreational people. We also have a rental facility
and people do come in and rent bikes. We do quite a bit of use out of that.
Hasek: It just seems like the trail system that we're talking about here is ~
"~tually a bunch of connected segments is really all it is. It's not like .
~omebody is going to get in up in my neighborhood and want to be able to ride
a bike or skateboard or jog into downtown Chanhassen. It's not so much
destination oriented as it is a matter of getting out there and running as
far as you want to go or getting out there and biking with the family. I've
gone down to the Arboretum a number of times and jogged around and gone home
again. It's a nice little 5 mile loop but it seems to me that we've got the
nodes to connect that and that's our basic trail system. By policy we should
think about making connections from the neighborhoods as they develop to the
trail system.
Lynch: Eventually, I think we would want to be able to go from your
neighborhood down. There are just so many developmental obstacles now. For
us to draw a line on the map and say...
Hasek: No, don't misunderstand me. I think that it should be connected as I
think our system should be connected to Eden prairie should be connected to
Bloomington and so on and so on but the fact that somebody is going to leave
my neighborhood and want to go to South St. Paul on the trail system is
absurb. I think the distances traveled on those trails are very short and
what we've actually got is a bunch of little connections going from there to
there.
Lynch: Minneapolis has a trail system where people go across the entire city
on that bicycling, jogging and hiking trail. I know all kinds of friends of
~ine that go use that system because they can go 25 miles. ~
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 3, 1987 - Page 35
'-- ....."
rtasek: But I think that that one is a little bit unique and the reason it is
unique is because you can't ride a Minneapolis street on a bicycle.
Lynch: I noticed in the Minutes of the last meeting they kind of skirted the
questions of how are we going to get across here? How are we going to get
across there on the lake. The lake you were discussing once that property
develops.
Sietsema: Halla.
Lynch: We still have a real stumping problem on how to get the people south
of TH 5 across into Lake Ann without having the troops going across TH 5 with
no stop light. That makes me real nervous. That's the light that's shown
right south of Lake Ann there that goes down southeast. TH 101's a real
mess. It's not wide enough for bikes but people still ride on it. People
sti 11 run on it. I'm amazed more people haven't gotten hi t. I cleaned up a
runner that came out of Valley View two years ago and had runners cramps and
went right into a pick-up that was in front of me. I did first aid on him
and laid him out for the troops but if you have roads like TH 101 and TH 5
and CR 17 and the rest of them, we're going to have problems. One of the
things I wanted to discuss with Mark tonight was what are the traditional
cures for that don't involve a $200,000.00 boring job under the road or
$150,000.00 bridge which is hard to use anyway because it's Slippery all the
Time and you can't get a bicycle across. What are the alternatives to these
. Iffic problems with the trail system?
."- .....,
Mark Koegler: There are not many to be quite honest. The bridge idea first
of all almost universally never works. For pedestrians or bicycles. Nobody
wants to go up, across and back down. They'll go across the street.
Ultimately, Chanhassen is not in as bad a position as it may appear when you
look at the map. TH 5 is going to be undergoing improvements between now and
1995. 1995 seems like a long ways away but it really isn't that far away
when you consider this plan was put together that many years ago that we're
now talking more so at that point in time hopefully there may be some design
solutions to consider some of these movements through the community on a
north/south direction. TH 101, your guess is as good as mine. We're going to
address that tomorrow night with the Planning Commission but that may undergo
some change. Hopefully have some improvement. Ultimately though really it's
just an issue of when you get grade separations or whether you can control
surface crossings.
Lynch: I know we've got the TH 212 thing and straighten TH 101 and all these
things coming up, should we making the Planning Commission aware and the
Council aware that certain areas that we would like to get pedestrian
underpasses or whatever. Should we say let's get this work into the State
Highway Fund and let's negotiate for these things because once the highway is
in there, you're telling me you're dead. To walk across the street or to try
something is impractical.
rk Koegler: And cost prohibited. You're absolutely right. That's exactly
~y we're going through this exercise is so this plan that you put together -'
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 3, 1987 - Page 36
"...
~
will be passed onto the Planning Commission and City Council and become part
of their thinking.
Sietsema: Not only that, the Planning Commission is very conscience of trails
right now. They are very concerned that the Park and Recreation Commission
address trails so they can back us up with their recommendations. If we
don't address trails, they will. That's more or less the message I've
gotten.
Lynch: Working with industrial projects, I would like to do this
$200,000.00 bit and the funding authorities fall over, however, if you have a
2 1/2 million dollar job going and you say you want to put this $200,000.00
add-on plant, money is all relative when you're looking at the project.
Robinson: So that's what you're saying with the development on TH 5?
Lynch: TH 212 and TH 101 straighten job. Anytime we get a shot at it.
Anytime we can move a road or do a major improvement or four lane it or
even leave it where it is, they're going to do something major, let's see if
we can't get something underneath it.
Hasek: That's going to be based on that plan. That's the whole point in why~
""'e' r e up her e sow e can 1 e t p eo pIe k now t hat t his i s w hat we wan t to do and
.. hen the grad i ng comes through and the Counc i 1 rev i ews it, they say just a
second we've got a shot at a trail system crossing right here, why don't we
consider a means of getting across.
Watson: I think the survey will address some of the things of thinking of
trails in the last 6 years. It's not that the Council isn't interested in
trails or anything like that. The ultimate problem isr, ~il1_people pay
for them. Not do you just want one but are you actually willing to pay for
it and maintain it after it's built? Ultimately it doesn't have anything to
do with whether you like it or not, it's the fact that the city budget simply
doesn't have the money to build the trail and maintain it year in and year
out. People are going to actually have to make a commitment to a trail
system and be willing to pay taxes every year on a referendum basis. It's
not going to be just do I like them or I don't like them.
Hasek: They have to be paid fQr but we also have to have a policy together
on location for those trails so when it comes up and a piece is developed we
can grab it. I know that we lost a couple of opportunities on the west side
of Lake Minnewashta already which I couldn't believe slipped past but they
did. It just makes any thought of putting a trail over there just that much
more difficult simply because this hadn't been updated or looked at for so
long. I'm sure that there are a number of plats that have gone through where
there might have been an opportunity for trail easements that weren't taken.
~ady: Lori, do we have the opportunity of time to wait for the survey to ~
)me back? Possibly have a special meeting of the Park and Rec on
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 3, 1987 - Page 37
~ ~
specifically just trails. Have nothing else on the agenda and hammering out
really what we want and spend just a couple of hours just simply on trails?
Hasek: My question is do we need that? Can we get things moving now without
direction of the survey? I think that we can. I don't think there is any
reason. What we can do is make some decisions on what we would like to see
connected if we had a ma j or tra i 1 system. Get Mark work i ng on it. I f the
survey comes back and nobody wants a trail system, then throw it in the
garbage but at least we haven't lost any time.
Mady: I think we have to be somewhat specific on where we want to go.
Hasek: No question. That's what we're talking about. Where do we want to
connect.
Mady: I know we want to build a park but what route?
Hasek: I don't think we have to do that. As a group here we don't have to
make that decision. That's Mark's job.
Mady: But if we don't get specific in the Comp Plan, as each development
comes in we say we want a trail along TH un, as we saw with the Halla
property, do we put it on the left side of the road or do we put it on the
right side of the road. We may end up with one development where it's on one
3e and the next road it's on the other side and just a mess.
'-" ..."",
Hasek: Again, that's Mark's job. That's why he's been retained.
Schroers: An observation and a suggestion. What I see going on right here
is that we're just skipping allover the place and we're not really
accomplishing a whole lot. My suggestion is I wonder if Mark could list the
information that he would like to obtain from us in order of importance and
then address each one of those issues and deal with them that way so tha t we
have some order and we take one thing at a time and get it accomplished and
move onto the next.
Watson: Very specific what we're talking about.
Hasek: Tonight?
Schroers: No, I'm saying probaby at our next meeting. I don't think we have
time right now.
Mark Koegler: If I may, let me interject a few comments on the schedule. I
was asked by Lori and the City Manager to address the likely schedule for
completion of the trails item. That schedule which is still on course so
far called for the meeting tonight to be the initial discussion of this issue
including some of the points that we've gone over. At the next meeting in
April that we would bring back to you a proposed trail, what we call a
'~liminary trail plan, which will be agraphic showing alignments. At that
,,-,-.ne we would also talk about development standards for those trails and ...""I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 3, 1987 - Page 38
""
~
different types of trails that you would want to include within those
alignments. The meeting in May then was labeled as a final trail plan. It
would be refinement of that preliminary one based on discussions that we
would have next month. In tandem with that we would have a cost estimate
that would address in a very general sense, capital costs and operational
costs of trail systems and break that down as finitely as possible. Also,
then couple that with the discussion of implementation. How can the things
be built and so forth. Finally, the June meeting was labeled as a session to
modify the trail plan as needed per survey results. All we want to do
tonight was kind of lay some groundwork and if I may paraphrase just some of
the conclusions that I think I'm hearing on a consensus basis is that we do
have this definition of an urban versus a rural area that will be different
types of trail systems potentially within those areas. There is interest in
the presumption that we would connect the major nodes being the
neighborhoods, the parks, the schools. The regional trail networks. If
there is anything else that's not included in that list, I would like you to
bring to our attention at this time. If there are any other specific
interests that you have. We didn't get into some of the things yet that we
were going to talk about but those can be covered with some of the other
things. If you just gleemed through the memo you saw that trails are
expensive. You can find any number of sources for cost estimates and they
vary tremendously depending upon the specific conditions of the alignment
that you're dealing with but in a general sense in the neighborhood of
~40,000.00 per mile is not unreasonable these days. The one example of ~
2terial segment along CR 17 on the existing road from Excelsior down to
uyman Blvd., that's somewhere in the $100,000.00 to $130,000.00 expense so it
is a very capital intensive operation. There are all kinds of little subtle
maintenance costs that you get into also. Eden prairie as an example is
right now buying a vacumm machine to go over and vacumm their trails instead
of sweeping them because when they sweep them they would sweep the sand and
debris into people's yards and they would complain. There are any number of
little detail items that you are going to have to be aware of at least going
into this because all of them have an impact on what kind of system you want.
personel costs. Using them as an example, they have one person full-time in
the summer who does nothing but ride a Cushman on their trail system. Sweeps
up glass, notes areas that need to be shovel a little bit by hand. That's an
indication of the kinds of things that we will be getting into. The whole
policing issue. When you start talking about trails that are going through
neighborhood areas, you'll get all kinds of public statements about how that
provides a new route for criminals into the community and everything else and
the facts don't bear that out. They use the streets.
Robinson: Do you have enough general discussion?
Mark Koegler: I think so yes.
Schroers: Do you see anything there that we didn't cover that you
specifically want?
~rk Koegler: The only comment I guess I would have is the preliminary trail~
lan that we will bring back to you will undoubtedly have a mix of trail
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 3, 1987 - Page 39
'rocations. Eden prairie has taken the tact that they are showing most of
their trails along major roadways. Undoubtedly, this plan will have that as
a component but it will also have trails that will be wholely contained
within parks and trails that, by easement, will go through residential
neighborhoods. If anybody has any real problems with any of those segments,
I think those should be known because there are pluses and minuses as we
pointed out to each of those components. Realistically, they are part of a
system. That is just a preview to what you'll see next time. With that, I
think we have enough direction to proceed.
...",
HERMAN FIELD ACCESS PLAN.
Mark Koegler: The park without a way to get to it. We have, at the request
of this group and the City Council, taken a look at alternatives to providing
access into Herman Field. Essentially, in looking at the issue there, it's
probably no great surprise. There were three essentially that were reviewed
and that is shown on page 5 of the feasibility study. You're well aware that
to the south and to the west access is precluded because of the Regional Park
and because of the residential neighborhood that is in the process of being
constructed there. That left us really two avenues, the east or the north.
There were essentially three alignments approaching from those directions
that were possible. The one is the alignment along Oriole Lane that this
group or at least members of this groups have seen in the past. The second
ternative was to bring an access through from TH 41 and provide a link into
~ park at that point. Both of those coincidentally tie into the northeast
corner of the park which is where the parking is to be located right now
under the Master Plan that was approved back in 1985 or so. The third
alternative is to look at Forest Avenue which is along the north side of the
park. Back in 1887 Forest Avenue was platted as right-of-way. The street is
not in there and a portion of that but it is public right-of-way from the
records that we have been able to discern so far. With those three options,
the feasibility study goes through and reviews each of those. The graphics
are there with regard to each. The TH 41, the Oriole Lane and Forest Avenue
alignments as to what would be required in terms of right-of-way. The Oriole
Lane is the only alignment of the three that would not require additional
public right-of-way unless there is a certain option that is employed there
and I'll go through that very quickly here in a moment. Just going through
rapidly the options that are proposed. Option 1, which has been labeled
State Highway 41 would require completely acquisition of the right-of-way for
that segment. The total cost for that alignment is the most costly of the
three at $36,400.00. It has some obstacles. There are a couple of buildings
that would have to be acquired. They are small out buildings but they are
building that are in use nonetheless and all of the property would have to be
acquired from existing private landowners. The second option, which is
labeled Forest Avenue is the next one within the report, on page 9 there is a
graphic that shows that will require a mix of a .couple of things. It would
require the park access road to take advantage of existing street right-of-
way along Forest Avenue and that's the grayed area. The dark grayed area on
~~at map and then the red hatched area would be additional right-of-way that
~J1d have to be acquired from a private landowner to provide access down
""'"
....,
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 3, 1987 - Page 40
"'"
~
into the park area. I think it's obvious to this group that that also would
mandate a revision of the Master Plan that has been approved to relocate the
parking lot over to that side. However, in some of the previous discussions
way back when when we went through site plan options on that park, there were
a couple that showed the parking over on that side so that's not a traumatic
change by any means.
Mady: Where the gray hash marks start up on Forest Avenue, is that where it
actually stops now?
Mark Koegler: The street actually stops up at the top. The northern most
part of the gray there is a manhole there that I think you can see. The
street terminates right there.
Lynch: I've seen that a couple of times but I always get turned around in
there.
Mady: It just stops. There's a driveway about where the 0 is in the scale.
Lynch: So the remainder of that whole south loop is not there?
Mark Koegler: No, you would have to install a new park access drive that
would lie within both the existing right-of-way and the newly acquired right-
~f-way which is the dark gray area versus the red area. ~
~ynch: When and if these lots get developed, that is where the road is going
to go?
Mark Koegler: Yes, under the land that was platted 100 years ago. That is
correct.
Sietsema: And chances are that portion of the road would be assessed to
those landowners.
Mark Koegler: Depending on the nature of the street improvement that was
decided upon. The premise of this study was to provide a rural type of road
section to provide access to the park. It was viewed as being an aggragate
road and not a hard surfaced road. If the City, in pursuing this further and
if this option really does seem to be the one that gets the nod, may look at
that as being a street improvement to that point with the assessment back to
the abutting properties so there are alternatives there with regard to the
implementation of the street.
Watson: What is going to be the basis of your assessment? How are they
going to benefit?
Mark Koegler: They are landlocked parcels at the present time. In terms of
improved public street. Lot 31 is a landlocked parcel right now.
~dy: I think Lot 34 is also. I don't think the street goes up to that ~
.:mhole.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 3, 1987 - Page 41
~rk Koegler: I believe you're correct. Lot 34 is landlocked also because
to the east of there there is another parcel that abuts Oriole Lane right
away which is just off this map.
"."
Watson: So really Lot 31, 32 and 34 that could be considered to benefit?
Mark Koegler: I wouldn't argue with you Carol. It's not a clear cut case
because the proeprty was platted 11313 years ago and it has not developed in
that timeframe.
Watson: Sometimes you think you are providing a wonderful benefit and they
look at you like I don't want a road to the park and I didn't know that there
ever was one and you can't make me believe that I'm being benefitted. All
you want is a road to your park. You don't really care that you're freeing
up my landlocked property.
Mark Koegler: That's why we specifically took the assumption that this would
be park access road with no assessable cost. Therefore, the total cost on
this one of just under $213,131313.1313 would be born by the City.
Mady: Does Marsha Wills owns Lot 31, she's hooked to 32 and she's got 34. Is
that all part of the whole plat? The road is platted?
Mark Koegler: Yes. The road is platted. Without further research that land
s dedicated and conveyed to the city of Chanhassen.
.""" ...."
Watson: Does she live there and have any house or anything on that property?
Mark Koegler: No. Not to my knowledge. She is the owner of record on those
properties. They could be sold on contract and that wouldn't be picked up.
Anyway, this alternative would require some research specifically of the
ownership of the owner of that parcel and then subsequent negotiation with
that party to try to acquire the needed right-of-way to get into the park.
Hasek: Roger Kelly, I talked to him, he's the one who's on the corner on
page 11 there and he's got the notion that he owns all the way to the park and
I wonder if he knows that this is all possibly platted in here. How about
Oriole Lane. Is that platted?
Mark Koegler: Yes, that is publically owned land.
Hasek: Okay, because he was aware of that. He said there was a road through
there.
Mark Koegler: Let me skip ahead to that one since you touched on that one.
The Oriole Lane alignment is the third one. Historically has been the one
that we have looked at as being the most probable way to get into the park
and it still is a very valid access to Herman Field. There are two options
there. One is to stay totally within the existing 413 foot right-of-way
.~at's there right now. If you've been out there, there is a fence line that
~ heavily treed. That unfortunately is located about one-third within that ~
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 3, 1987 - Page 42
,....
~
area which will basically require removal of all those trees to construct
that road. Therefore, option two was also looked at, which is on page 13,
which requires some right-of-way from the western property owners along that
side which then allows that road to be shifted over to save not all but
certainly a majority of the tree cover in that area. There was some real
early discussions with the landowners in that area a couple of years ago now,
and that was not really overly conclusive. It really was not pursued to the
point of preparing an easement agreement and having it in hand and going to
talk to the people. You'll notice also that there are two 24 inch drainage
structures that are in there. Drainage and soils are a problem in this area
compared to the other options that were reviewed. They are known problems.
We did take some borings throughout that alignment a couple of years ago and
there will be some soil corrections that are needed that certainly have
somewhat of a cost impact. The bottom line on Oriole Avenue is still that it
is feasible and depending on which of the alignments are chosen, it's a
$22,000.00 to $22,800.00 projected cost.
Watson: They came in just a few months ago to split his property this whole
issue came up because by an error on someone's part it ended up being that
they wanted to run that road back there and try to assess Gary Reed's
property for it. It brought all the neighbors out and they're not the least
bit thrilled of the idea of that road going back to the park. What they're
not thrilled about is they don't want to be assessed for it. They don't think
~t is a benefit to them to have that road go back there. Gary Reed said he .~
~n develop his property without it and the Ziegler's don't want to pay for
_t and as long as we wanted to build it, I don't think they would object but
they don't see any benefit to having it and they do not want to be assessed.
Lynch: These numbers aren't computed with any assessments in mind.
Mark Koegler: No, again the assumption here was that the City would be
putting in a low scale rural section road to serve the park use only and then
the cost correspondingly has been prepared with that scenario in mind not
assuming that any of this would be used as a street access for the future
development of any properties.
Watson: See, that carne up.
Mark Koegler: And that issue will come up again. It has surfaced several
times and has never really been resolved.
Hasek: I took a trip out there to take a look at what was going on. Along
Oriole Lane to the west side, there is a line of trees that goes across
there. It's a fairly narrow band of trees but there are a lot of mature ash
trees. Not very many elms at all so it's not as though we would taking out a
lot of garbage because that is a long stand of trees. In fact, somebody has
been back in and there is a heck of a pile of ash, cut and stacked already. I
would like to get a hold of some of tha t. The same th i ng happens on opt i on
3, between Benjamin Gowan's and Gary Reed's parcel. Again, there are a lot
'-f mature trees along that fence line. The one thing I should say is that .~
ley are all top heavy which means they are not going to real strong trees.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 3, 1987 - Page 43
~eY're not going to last very long. I think Gary Reed is wrong. If that
road ever went in there, eventually that Forest Avenue ever developed, and I
think it will at some point in the future, that he has at that point the
option of subdividing his lots. I think he could gain benefit.
....,
Watson: He can subdivide it now. 64th is more than sufficient for him.
Hasek: If that ever did go in, on Oriole Lane there and were upgraded, and
this other thing when through, we obviously would have the potential for
three beneficial parties. One is taking the access at the corner right now
of 64th Street but the benefit would eventually be there so it would be
assessible at some point in the future.
Mark Koegler: The residents in that area had a real strong interest in the
preservation of the tree cover that's there.
Hasek: Do they realize if this park goes in and we don't put in this road
that they're going to have to drive around the neighborhood to get into it or
are they going to want us to put a trail system on Oriole Lane so they can
get into the park?
Mark Koegler: That's never been addressed in that manner. I suspect it
wouldn't bother them too much if they either had to drive around or walk in
in some other manner and that's a fairly typical reaction. I think option 3
':sonally is out of the works because what it does is make everybody that's
~ng to be a user of the park drive around the neighborhood.
."""
Corpian: I guess I would have to disagree with you because I live right out
in Minnewashta there and we all just walk through the woods to get in there.
We don't even have a trail system to get there. We just walk through the
woods.
Hasek: If that ever gets platted through, you won't be able to do that
because you're going to have to go around and come in from TH 41. That will
all be private property.
Mark Koegler: There obviously are advantages and disadvantages to each of
these. The Oriole Lane and the Forest Avenue are the two that in our view
are the most feasible of the alternatives that were looked at. TH 41
entrance, the major discounting factor there is the fact that it...the
residents it was designed to serve. That was the primary reason, that and
cost, that that one was dismissed. When we get to the other two, the cost
aspect is very close between those two and it is close enough that we had to
ask ourselves why should we continue necessarily to push for Oriole Lane when
Forest Avenue may be another reasonable approach. Again, it has the
advantage of being the one access that locates the entrance to the park the
closest to the individuals that it is designed to serve or closer to a
nucleus of that neighborhood. Based upon that and cost, it is our
recommendation that that one be reviewed further to see, first of all was
- ~est Avenue actually dedicated to the City? Is that public land? If it's
,-"c that may create another issue that will throw it over to Oriole Lane but ....,
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 3, 1987 - Page 44
,...
~
we see no reason why that one should not be investigated as the primary
access to the park.
Lynch: I have been jumping on for three years and couldn't get our esteemed
City Engineer to go look up these things and find out if it was there and if
it was available but that on two tours that I've been on over the years with
the neighborhood residents and the Commission, when we walked out there and
stood there and walked around the property and walked into the neighborhood,
talked to the neighbors, that's what looked like the best avenue. It looked
like the easiest shot in. It looked like the least soil problem. I was
amazed that the prices were that close and I guess it was because of there
being more road in there then I thought there was going to have to be to get
in. I may have been cutting across somebody's property. It seems to me that
we went right to the end of the existing spur and just took a look and it
goes right into the park. I think people walk through there now and there's
kind of a little trail. Forest Avenue, even it was evenly matched, dollar
for dollar, I guess I would like the Forest Lane best. I also prefer some of
these things to be a little bit harder to find for the outside world because
there has been enough situations around here where something is too easy to
find. Outsiders find it. It becomes a party spot and then we wind up having
to have no parking, fence it off and have all kind of enforcement problems so
having it a little bit more difficult to find isn't a bad deal.
~ady: What does this do to the layout of the park?
dark Koegler: It will force the obvious relocation of the parking lot
itself. When you do that you have to really second guess the decisions that
were made on some of the other facilities like picnicing and the play lot
and things of that nature. Those would be shifting over in the proximity of
the parking lot and the area that was previously shown for those uses would
be some of the expanded play type activities that was proposed. It really is
a shift. It's not a deletion or addition of any facilities. It does not
necessarily complicate the Master Plan of the park.
~
Lynch: A major topography limited feature, as I recall, was the ballfield
and it wouldn't interfere with that because there really wasn't another place
to put that based on the soils so the rest of it, the trails and the viewing
stands, they can go a lot of different places out there. That's a pretty
flexible piece of property. We don't have a lot of fixed heavy tree cover
except for the left hand side of the print you can see there are some there.
There is a wetland area at the left hand side also that is going to be under
water parts of the year. There is also a wetway where it is just boardwalk
over wet area. It will be dry most of the time but sometimes you'll need hip
boots so the right hand side and left hand side will be developed at will
once we decide where are parking places are going.
Schroers: Is there anything at all developed there now?
Lynch: No, it's just natural. There had been hay cut off of it years ago
"ut I don't think any hay has been taken out of there for 20 years.
.~
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 3, 1987 - Page 45
~etsema: People do use it.
...",
Lynch: You'll also notice at the left hand side of the print there is a mark
for walking path through new development. The folks who come down through
there. That's a wet area and that would require a boardwalk also but it does
directly access a neighborhood where it would be half mile wouldn't it if
those residents were to walk by road? This way it's a straight shot and
that's one feature I kind of liked about that originally. We had not talked
about development of Herman Field because of some problems and we felt that
maybe there weren't really enough people living there and then the second
time we visited it and they were developing on the left side there, we saw
how nicely it would match up to two directions.
Hasek: Mark, is there any chance that the piece that's shown on Forest
Avenue as a 40 foot wide street coming into the park could be taken as a park
dedication out of that larger parcel from Marsha Wills once it develops or
subdivides?
Mark Koegler: That's possible however, I doubt that the timing will work
well in that regard.
Hasek: Is it possible that we could take it now and then somehow assess it
back against the property once it develops?
rk Koegler: I'm not aware of any vehicle that you can use to do that
~cause Marsha Will could argue that we're only going to put one house on
that property and that's a lot of record right now therefore it's not subject
to park dedication. Forest Avenue may have ownership complications. This
has not gone into that deep enough to ascertain that so by no means is this a
black and white issue.
....."
Lynch: What kind of research is required to come up with an answer on that
aspect?
Mark Koegler: Timewise I don't think more than a week or two. We should
have some answers depend i ng on who we have to get a hold of and how long it
takes to make those contacts is the concern.
Lynch: But not a major thing?
Mark Koegler: No.
Schroers: Mark, as it is proposed right now, do you have any statistics
saying what percentage of this is being developed and what percent of that is
left natural?
Mark Koegler: Of the actual park itself?
Schroers: Yes.
"""'" ....,.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 3, 1987 - Page 46
""....
"""
Mark Koegler: We did have those at the time. The vast majority of that park
is being left in a natural state. The only predominant grading activity in
that entire park is going to be to accommodate a probably woodchip pedestrian
type trail through there and a lot of that will just be hand work. In fact
the city was looking at one time on a day labor basis. It's not a major
development project. The only essential grading that will be done will be
for the parking lot itself and cutting the road in and then some area around
the ball diamond. The ball diamond is meant to be more of a casual play
facility. It's not a league field by any means. It's literally a
neighborhood low intensity park. The thing that is very unique about this
one in Chanhassen system is the emphasis on the expansive play activities
which again, don't require major modification of the landscape. It's meant
to compliment that.
Sietsema: Would you like to also request City Council to determine if Forest
Avenue can be constructed as a public improvement project? Do you want to
include that with your motion?
Lynch: You mean as an assessed road? I think that's really up to the
Council. We want a road that we want to get in that way. How they want to
handle that, Staff and Council can determine.
~ietsema: If they don't address that it will all just be considered a park .,"""
:cess and the total cost will come out of park fund. If you request them tt
dt least look at it as a public improvement, it may come out of the GO.
Lynch: Why don't you work into Jim's motion somehow state the funding
possibilities. This may be accomplished...
Mady: If it's possible to do it without park funds, so much the better for
us.
Sietsema: Why don't you just ask them to look at it as a public improvement
project?
Mady moved, Hasek seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend
that the City Council approve the Forest Avenue/Herman Field access proposal
as presented in the feasibility study and that the City Council look at
Forest Avenue as a public improvement project. All voted in favor and motion
carried.
4TH OF JULY FIREWORKS CONTRACT.
Sietsema: The fireworks display quotes are in front of you. I'll apologize
for not having them in your packets but I did not have them so I couldn't. I
am recommending that we go with Banner. I know that the Arrowhead looks like
more and maybe it is more but I know that Banner describes their's as the
.~iameter of the shell instead of the circumference and that makes the
ifference. The reason I recommend Banner is simply because I know them.
~
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 3, 1987 - Page 47
~ey have been recommended to me before. We've had them for the last three
years. They do a good job in clean-up. They do a good job in set-up. They
are really low worrisome for me on that very, very busy day.
-'
Robinson moved, Mady seconded to recommend to City Council that they approve
the bid with Banner Fireworks as they have been good in the past and the
other prices are all about the same. All voted in favor and motion carried.
ANNUAL EASTER EGG HUNT.
Sietsema: This item is just in here to make you aware that the Easter Egg
Hunt is coming and I count on you for your help. The next meeting I'll be
taking a head count of who can actually be there and I would rather you say
that you don't know so I don't count on you if you don't know for sure but if
you say definitely you're coming, plese be there because if I count on you.
It happened at the Halloween party. I had so many people that said that they
would and then there was a few people who didn't show up and I had doors
without people handing out candy and stuff so when I get your numbers I
really count on those bodies being there because I never have an
overabundance of people.
UPDATE ON CITY COUNCIL ACTION REGARDING PARK RELATED ITEMS.
~tsema: This item doesn't require any action on your part.
~r information.
It is only for
....,
Lynch: Did everyone get a chance to read through those and does anybody have
any questions?
The Park and Recreation Commission set up a schedule for Commission members
to attend City Council meetings as follows:
March 16, 1987
April 20, 1987
May 18, 1987
June 15, 1987
July 20, 1987
August 17, 1987
Jim Mady
Carol Watson
Mike Lynch
Ed Hasek
Gloria Corpian
Larry Schroers
Sietsema: I would like to talk about Saddlebrook again. Planning and
engineering have come to me asking me to clarify the motion that was made.
They want to know where exactly you want this conservation easement and the
reasons why we want the conservation easement. If we want the conservation
easement, we have to be aware that you can't put trails through conservation
easements so the trail, if you recall, the trail that was along the south
where the conservation easement was, will have to be defined around that. The
other thing is what kind of trails do we want, we talked about trails through
~~e development and along each side. We talked about off-street trails but
~ we want those bituminous? Do we want them sidewalks? They want us to be -'
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 3, 1987 - Page 48
"""
~
more specific and if we do want them to be developed at the same time as
development, they are probaby going to want some park credit for it.
Hasek: If we make it a sidewalk, is there a policy in the city to implement
sidewalks with developments right now?
Sietsema: We can. It's in the Ordinance that we can request them to provide
sidewalks but as far as I know, we never have except for the Chaparral which
is north of what we're talking about.
Lynch: We were told that the conservation easement is what we've got. Now
it sounds like they're asking us, do we really want it? Do we have a choice?
Sietsema: We're talking about Saddlebrook, not Chan vista. We talked about
this last time. It is located between Kerber and Powers and just south of
Meadowgreen Park, Chaparral.
Lynch: All we want there is trail access.
Sietsema: Right but what they want to know is do we want sidewalks or do we
want off-street bituminous trails?
Lynch: We're not going to know that until we complete our whole trail
.-iYstem. ~
..,ietsema: It's going to Planning Commission on Wednesday and the developer
is moving right along and the developer really needs to know.
Lynch: But all he needs is the easement right?
Sietsema: So you're going to ask him to develop it with the project?
Mady: I would like to see the trails go in.
Hasek: I sure would. Is there any reason why we shouldn't be asking for
sidewalks?
Sietsema: Personally I would like to see us ask for sidewalks on one side of
the street in every urban development in the City but the past engineer has
not been in favor of that.
Schroers: Lori, is that being developed right up to the very edge of where
we want our conservation easement?
Sietsema: Yes, so those lot lines will go into the conservation easement
but they won't be able to do anything to the land within the conservation
easement.
Schroers: In your opinion, do you think it would be wiser to go with the
~ment and the sidewalk because it would fit in with the development plans
atter?
.........
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 3, 1987 - Page 49
'sietsema: I think that we should go bituminous along Powers and Kerber and
within the development, I guess I don't care if we do sidewalks or bituminous
but I would like to see them paved one way or the other. Along the
conservation easement on the bottom, I would say woodchip turf trail there.
-'
Schroers: It's real hard to make a decision on this without something to
look at.
Watson: Sidewalks always had that urban flavor that people in what they
thought they were moving to the country and they don't want a sidewalk. They
have this thing. I'm moving out to the country. We know it's not anymore
but they still think so and they think sidewalks, that's Minneapolis. Those
people have sidewalks.
Schroers: A lot of people don't want the maintenance. They're afraid
someone is going to say it's a sidewalk, you've got to plow that thing in the
winter.
Sietsema: Here is the park piece that they wanted to give to us but we said
if you want to give it to us fine but we're not going to pay you for it.
Well, they want to give it to us but they want to get credit for it. I'm
going to be meeting with them tomorrow. Maybe they can get one more lot or
two more lots in there. I told the planners we've got parks allover the
place, we need ways to get to them. What I need to know is what kind of
, rface do we want along these trails? I am recommending that we do
~tuminous here. On the other side of the street here we've got sidewalks
and I guess Eden prairie has bituminous on almost all of their residential.
....",'
Schroers: I like bituminous myself.
Sietsema: And have woodchip or turf surface.
Lynch: As long as we can get through that conservation easement.
Sietsema: We would go around it. I'm saying we could get by with a woodchip
trail.
Hasek: Rather than do that, why don't we have them put the ag lime down in
case we want to upgrade it. Could we do that. That would be an ag lime
trail and if we ever want to surface it, then all we have to do is surface it
rather than take the chips out of there.
Sietsema: Chips have to be replaced every year.
Hasek: You still have to remove them before you put anything else down.
Sietsema: I need a motion to amend your past motion.
Watson moved, Hasek seconded to amend the motion for Saddlebrook to have an
lime along the conservation easement on the bottom and all other trails to
.~ bituminous surface. All voted in favor and motion carried. ~
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 3, 1987 - Page 50
",...
~
Watson moved, Hasek seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and
motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m..
Submitted by Lori Sietsema
Park and Recreation Coordinator
Prepared by Nann Opheim
"
~
,..
~