PRC 1987 10 07
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL AND
PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION
JOINT MEETING
"....., OCTOBER 7, 1987
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Councilman Geving, Councilman Johnson,
Councilman Boyt, and Councilman Horn
COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Sue Boyt, Carol Watson, Larry Schroers,
Jim Mady and Curt Robinson
COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Mike Lynch and Ed Hasek
STAFF PRESENT: Lori Sietsema, Park and Rec Coordinator and Don Ashworth,
City Manager
Councilman Geving called the meeting to order.
COMPREHENSIVE TRAIL PLAN.
Councilman Geving: Just to start out, let's start with Mark and we'll
take it from there. Hopefully our ideas tonight is to, we're going to
hopefully go beyond what is in the capital budget. We'll talk about some
philosophies as well right? Isn't that really what we're after? I hope
that's why we're here.
,.....
Lori Sietsema: I wanted to just point out that Dick Potts is here.- He'f
with the Snowmobile Club and he wanted to give a brief presentation
before we started.
Councilman Geving: I think we're already set so go ahead Mark.
Mark Koegler: I'll be fairly brief and informal in keeping with the mood
of the meeting. You all got a copy of the trail plan which I think
everybody is familiar with that essentially we're updating the
Comprehensive Plan. As a part of that we're updating the recreation
chapter of the Comp Plan and then in the last tier of the hierarchy, the
trail element is a part of that. The trail plan was addressed in the
1980 Comprehensive Plan. The emphasize that was placed on it within that
document was minor I guess at best. There was just kind of a cursory
review of the trail situation. That emphasize has changed for a number
of reasons. I think this is the primary one. The Park Commission
commissioned a survey in the middle of this year which showed that 5 out
of the 10 top categories of recreational demand or at least interest by
Chanhassen residents was trail related with numbers 1 and 2 being paved
bike paths and walking paths. As we point out in the trail plan, I think
that coupled with the exposure that anybody that lives in Chanhassen has
to trails. Whether it's the trails within this city or the the ones they
see when they pass through Eden prairie or Chaska, going to school or
whatever it is, certainly helped heighten that awareness and perhaps
that's indictitive of some of the results of the survey. The Plan
~ that's been put together, philosophically is one which advocates
~
'"
"....
"'"
City Council/Park and Rec Commission Meeting
October 7, 1987 - Page 2
connecting major points of interest throughout the City of Chanhassen.
Whether that be schools, parks, neighborhoods, commercial areas,
employment centers and certainly the trail connections to the adjacent
municipalities. principally Chaska and Eden prairie who have very active
systems. The plan itself essentially calls for two types of trails. The
first is categorized as a walkway-bikeway which the way it's called out
in the trail plan, I don't want to say all by any means but a good
portion of that is projected to be, or at least is recommended to be a 8
foot wide bituminous path as you would see in some of the adjacent
municipalities. The width really being set by some minimum standards
that 8 feet, 4 feet per lane if you will, is pretty much a minimum
reasonable safety distance. It also is a good width because it
accomodates a small truck or something with a plow for maintenance
purposes so that is the section and the typical type of trail that we're
looking at for the hikeway/bikeway facility. I should add to that, that
in the residential areas the Commission has discussed that, and I think
actions recently have reinforced that, that we're not locked into that by
any means. 5 feet or 6 feet might be appropriate depending upon the
right-of-way that's there. Depending upon the setback situation of
adjacent residential units and so forth. So the 8 foot is more of a
guide that's, I guess you might refer to more of an open country
situation. Along some of the county roads. Along some of the city
streets in some cases. The second type of trail that's called out in the
plan itself is a pedestrian trail and the pedestrial trail will be a
trail of either woodchip or perhaps a compacted rock type of material and
it's the trails that are in the scenic areas such as Chanhassen Pond~
some of the areas down in the southern part of the communi ty and then
with some future expansions in some other areas. The board that's behind
Clark and Jay, if you'd be kind enough to set that up on the easle, the
lines that are on that map are the same ones that are in the copy of the
report that you got. There is a distinction there that may be hard to
read from the far end of the table. The solid red lines on there are the
trail sections the Commission has identified as their recommended Phase I
priority. The red that shows up with a little less intensity, which is
actually kind of a hatched pattern red is what's been labeled as the
second and third phases of the trail program with then the black dot
pattern representing those trails which are identified only for
pedestrian uses. I should indicate this is a composite map. It does
include both existing and proposed trail segments. I think everybody is
aware of where the existing segments are. The first phase is identifed
as being over the first five year period with Phases 2 and 3 roughly
being probably 10 years out and 15 years out respectively. So the
alignment that is on there, again consistent with the philosophy that I
referenced before, is the same one that's in the documents before you.
I'd like to indicate and emphasize that the lines that are drawn on that
map are really more or less planning oriented lines. They're not meant
to be actual alignments. Any actual alignments certainly would be
subject to more of a detailed feasibility review just as you would any
other transportation improvement. Whether it be a street or sidewalk or
whatever it might be. So those are expressing desired movements of the
trails throughout the community itself. The plan then goes on to address
,
City Council/Park and Rec Commission Meeting
October 7, 1987 - Page 3
several other factors that certainly are of importance. In terms of -'
capital cost, there is a reference that generally the cost that we have
used for referencing in coming up with some ballpark figures and
corresponding to the various phases, range from $28,~~~.~~ to $47,~~~.~~
per mile. There's a fair amount of variance in that number and that
variance really takes into account whether or not easements have to be
acquired. Whether there's a great deal of grading and slope work that
needs to be done. Soil corrections that need to be done and so forth. I
think regardless of which of those numbers you use, the high end or the
low end, probably everybody would agree that it's a sizeable investment
and we're certainly looking at some numbers here that are very
significant in terms of overall budgets and so forth that the City gets
involved in. The phasing that I referenced before, the first phase of
the plan which again is the heavy red lines on that map, represents a
total cost of about 1.35 million dollars. We have looked at that in some
detail in terms of which segments might be fundable through various
sources and have provided within the plan at least an intitial breakdown
which indicates that due to the geographic location of some of those
alignments, approximately $24~,~~~.~~ of that cost is potentially
retireable through tax increment revenues. $2~~,~~~.~~ of it is
anticipated to be the collection that the City will have in trail
dedication fees over the next 5 year period. We've labeled about
$33,~~~.~~ to be funded from Chapter 429 assessments and some existing
funds. As you can see, that leaves a balance of about $868,~~~.~~ which
needs to be funded through other methods. Other methods is a nice
general term. Put with that what you may. A referendum is certainly a
potential. Either that or just absorbing that over time with some of the~
numbers that are referenced there. So of the 1.3 million, approximately
$85~,~~~.~~ of that is still outstanding in terms of how that would be
funded and would need some further action. The Commission was attentive
in it's review of the plan and unfortunately this page was in the first
packet the Council got and not this one I noticed. The copying machine
was kind enough to drop this one off. There was an analysis of
maintenance costs that was performed. It was a very cursory review
perhaps in some regards but the Commission recognized early on that
looking at the capi tal costs was simply a one sided way to approach the
whole situation. As you can see from some of the items that are noted
on there, generally the recommendation is for sealcoating about once
every 5 years for any individual trail segment. That's consistent with
the programs that I think most of the cities and established trail
networks are now do i ng. Eden pra i r ie I know is. Plymouth is and some of
the other communities. That would result in an annual cost for the first
phase only once the whole thing was up and running of approximately
$3~,~~~.~~ in simply maintenance costs due to sealcoating. Typically
most of the communities during the summer months will take on additional
personnel to do nothing more than patrol the trails. I mean patrol more
in a maintenance sense. Do light sweeping. Clean up glass. Get sand
off of it. These kind of things and note any problems that are occuring.
We've labeled that as approximately a $3,~~~.~~ expenditure based on the
1987 wage rate and that in essence is a college intern type of person who
would do that kind of activity. That person obviously can't walk around
..."".,
City Council/Park and Rec Commission Meeting
~ October 7, 1987 - Page 4
a 313 mile trail segment so there are costs in there for a vehicle of
about $4,51313.1313 which is a pushman type thing with a little area on the
back for a shovel and some minimum maintenance equipment itself. So
increase maintenance just as a result of the first phase of the program
which is about 313 miles of a total trail, it could run in the
neighborhood of $33,131313.1313 to $34,131313.1313 per year in added maintenance
costs in 1987 dollars. That's certainly another factor that has to be
thrown into the whole process. In essence I guess that's a quick run
through of some of the components in the plan. I think the primary
reason other than the demand that we exhibited at the beginning of this
evenings presentation, we're doing the trail system plan is simply to get
it into effect. Whether or not it's fundable right now in total or in
part, those parts are falling into place as development takes place
throughout the City. It is certainly advisable and helpful for staff,
the Council, the Planning Commission and Park Commission to have a plan
in place so when a developer comes in they know what's reasonably
expected of them for segments of the trail network. So for whatever
reason, funds are not available immediately to implement this, at least
there is a valued effort in doing that. With that let me conclude and
I'm prepared to answer any questions.
Councilman Geving: One thing that I would like to see in addition to our
trail plan that's those trails reach out into each of our park areas so
,... we can over lay and see how the tra i 1 s do connect or if they're miss i ng
segments. I think for the very first time we have something now on paper
and some of the plans that I've looked at in other communities, Eagan and
some of the others, they started just like this. They had to have a
plan before they could go forward because every developer came in and
asked the same question. Where are the trails? What do we have to do?
Of course, what we're interested in as we go along through these
developments is making sure that we get the acquisition of the right-of-
way. We don't want to have to go back years from now and buy the right-
of-way because that's when they get expensive. Get them when we're
developing and we've been trying to do that. The Council has really been
working on this, through your efforts of course. When we see a
development, we're looking for trails and how it can connect with an
overall system so this will be really good. How about questions?
Councilman Horn: I guess the question I have is probably what Dick is
going to bring up later. The comments about snowmobile trails. I think
you called them a supplemental type of trail.
Ma~k Koegler: There is reference Clark to the specialty use corridor.
.~
Councilman Horn: I think you said you didn't addressed those because
they were economically unfeasible. I guess .1 disagree with that and I
disagree with the other statement too about that at some point in time
when we become more urbanized that snowmobiling will be limited only to
trail arranged parks. I think that will only happen if we don't plan for
it. I think when you talk in terms of acquisition expense and
maintenance expense, snowmobile trails are the cheapest thing to keep up
City Council/Park and Rec Commission Meeting
October 7, 1987 - Page 5
if you plan for them and provide the corridors up front. I would like to
see that as a part of this plan because I think it can happen. There's -'
no reason that it shouldn't.
Counc i 1man Boyt:
easement?
Councilman Horn:
Councilman Boyt:
Councilman Horn:
Councilman Boyt:
Would it be possible to run a snowmobile trail in an
Yes.
If we gave you an easement, then you're set?
Yes.
Snowmobiling seems like an easy enough thing to do.
Councilman Horn: I think it's very simply. And it's no cost at all to
the City. As a matter of fact, Dick will tell us later that we may get
some benefit from doing that.
Councilman Geving: How about the width of the proposed bikepaths. Don't
you think 8 feet is...
Councilman Horn: When you look at the diagram, you don't want people
locking handlebars and things when they meet.
Councilman Geving: I guess I have a hard time distinguishing between a
bikepath and pedestrian trail. I look at some of the other trails that
I'm familiar with in Eden Prairie. Do they have an actual bike path or ......;
are they all the same width? Are you familiar with that Lori?
Lori Sietsema: I'm not familiar extensively with their trails but I
think what this plan, one of the things that we have talked about is that
along the major roads it would be 8 feet wide. In front of homes it
would be your 5 foot or 6 foot width.
Carol Watson: Streets like Frontier Trail obviously we're not going to
have that but for maintenance purposes and stuff, the easier it is to
maintain because nobody's going to like our trail systems if they aren't
properly maintained. If we can't keep them clean. Especially if they
run through neighborhoods.
Councilman Geving: I like this idea of running one of these little
Cushman vehicles that you can drive around.
Carol Watson: Have a person who's main thrust probably in the summertime
is nothing but making sure that the trails are in good repair so they're
not a hazard. So people aren't getting hurt on them and constantly
calling the City and saying guess what happened on your trail today.
Councilman Horn: That's the other question I had and that is, I've
talked to bicyclist in Eden prairie and you continually seeing them
"""""
City Council/Park and Rec Commission Meeting
October 7, 1987 - Page 6
~ riding on TH 4 right next to a bicycle path and I say why don't you use
the path. They say it's too rough. The bicycle paths are too rough so
they ride on the highway anyway. We don't want to have something like
that.
Larry Schroers: Some of you probably don't know me but my name is Larry
Schroers and I work for Hennepin Parks and I have some experience with
trails. One of the reasons you would want an 8 foot width on the trail
is for additional maintenance work like clearing tree branches and that
sort of thing that have to be done on pretty much a regular basis. Every
couple years you have to go through the trails and in the wooded areas
brush them back and a Cushman type vehicle just doesn't do the job. You
need a 4 wheel drive truck and possibly a tractor and other things. If
it's not 8 foot wide you're breaking off the edges or you're running in
the ditch and if it happens to be wet and muddy then you're cutting a rut
in with one wheel then you start getting washouts and various things like
that so 8 foot is real...
Councilman Geving: So you have to have a fairly good base underneath
this too to take on a 4 wheel truck.
Larry Schroers: Yes, we like to have at least 6 inches of Class V for a
base and a 3 to 4 inch bituminous mat over that.
Sue Boyt: I think that's similar to what Mark has in the specs.
~
Councilman Johnson: It will be a lot more cost effective to put in a
good surface the first time rather than go back and tear it down. Rather
than do Laredo Drive down here where this is the first year in memory
that it hasn't been dug up and redone.
Councilman Geving: On Monday night we authorized a project on North
Lotus Lake. will that meet those specs?
Lori Sietsema: I'm quite certain that they will.
Councilman Geving: We're going to count on you and this group when those
kinds of issues come before us that they follow this spec.
Lori Sietsema: Gary is aware of it and he's the one who's going to have
to end up maintaining them so he's aware that it's got to be done in the
quality too.
Sue Boyt: It sounds like council members are pro trail. I think it
would help us to hear about how you would go about financing or your
ideas on financing.
Councilman Geving: Well, let's get through the first part first. Jay,
go ahead.
,....,
Councilman Johnson:
One thing, just impressions, I'd like to see more of
City Council/Park and Rec Commission Meeting
October 7, 1987 - Page 7
a nature trail on the north side of the City whether we get some with
Lake Lucy or some other place. We've got Chan Ponds. We've got the ~
little stretch there. I guess we've got access for these. They're not
actually trails now but the one along the road.
Sue Boyt: That's there.
Councilman Johnson: I have trouble finding it. At least going on the
north side. I was going to Carver Beach you could see a trail this
morning going off over some trees and stuff. It looked like some packs
of kids made up.
Lori sietsema: That one is rough. They went in there and they
woodchipped it but woodchips float so when it rains they float away.
Councilman Johnson: I don't know if there is any other place around Lake
Harrison or some of these other ponds or stuff to be looking at possible
nature trails as people come in to develop. We had that designated for
Chan Ponds and the developer came in. We've got a lot more ponds here
over on this side.
Larry Schroers: We do have a nature trail proposed for North Lotus Lake
Estates. Lori, don't we have a nature trail proposed for North Lotus
Lake?
Lori Sietsema: Yes. It's questionable though whether we can get through
or not because it's a wet area.
...,.,
Councilman Johnson: That's one of my concerns. Overall I'm very much
in favor of the plan. I assume these ending trails up here are hitting
the Carver County Park up there and that's why they're ending is because
they're connecting with their trails. I'm not sure what those are,
walking through the industrial area.
Councilman Geving: Do you mean this Phase 1 is a 5 year phase? A total
5 year phase? When you do planning though and then actually do the
implementation of the plan, you look at some shorter alternatives like
what are we going to do next year? What are we going to do the following
year within that 5 year plan? Have you got that scoped out?
Jim Mady: The initial 5 year has been laid out as to which particular
items we want in year 1, year 2, year 3.
Sue Boyt: Would you like us to go through that?
Councilman Geving: No, that's not necessary. Just so we know that's
being done. One of the dreams that I've always had, from my own personal
perspective is that I'd like to see the Lake Ann trail all the way around
Lake Ann. I think of Lake Harriet and some of these little lakes, people
just love to get out and walk around the lake and I know this guy he'd
walk around it every morning and I probably would too. It just seems
""'"
City Council/Park and Rec Commission Meeting
October 7, 1987 - Page 8
~ like such a natural and it's a good place to start now. Did we have
trouble with that trail on the east side?
Carol Watson: We simply haven't been able to acquire the land.
Councilman Geving: Yes, but the trail that we did build, is that
working?
Carol Watson: Yes. It gets a tremendous amount of use daily. They park
over by us so they don't have to pay to get into the park.
Councilman Geving: But that to me would be a real objective to do
something that I know we could complete and have a loop that really goes
someplace and shows that we've completed part of the plan.
Larry Schroers: You'd have unanimous support on that I'm sure if we
could acquire the property.
Councilman Geving: Let me pursue that for just a minute. A lot of that
property belongs to Prince right on the north side, northwest side.
Don't you think we've got a fairly good chance of getting some of that
donated if we work at it?
Carol Watson: I don't think that section is ultimately going to be a
problem. When you have the one private homeowner on there who's personal
.~ del ight is in knowing that he can mess up that.
Councilman Geving: Mr. Gorra would probably stick it to us.
Carol Watson: Yes, he's very candid about it. He knows that we have to
get through his to go all the way around.
Councilman Geving: That's just my own personal opinion.
Jim Mady: When we set up our personal priorities in the first 5 years,
the Lake Ann, the connection all the way around Lake Ann was, as I
recall, that was our number one priority but we also realized that
nothings probably going to be done number one but as soon as it's
available we're going to do it. It's shown as the second phase but if
it becomes available next week.
Councilman Geving: Bill, let's here from you.
Councilman Boyt: Are there any questions on my comments on paper here?
Councilman Johnson: Actually there was one other particular thing that
bugs me but I don't think it's in the general trail plan. It's on the
particular implementation and that's Kerber Blvd.. That we're crossing
Kerber Blvd. twice to get to the grade school. When the kids come play
soccer, baseball whatever, riding their bicycles, we've got to do
something.
,....
City Council/Park and Rec Commission Meeting
October 7, 1987 - Page 9
Larry Schroers: Didn't we have an underdrive for that?
Councilman Boyt:
issue?
They're building it.
How can you say it's not a dead
......"
Councilman Johnson: I presented a feasible alternative that nobody
seemed to even want to discuss yet.
Councilman Geving: Talking about something similar to that, why haven't
we mapped out this plan through here to get to there? We're going to
have hundreds of people up on this area, all along in here that are going
to have to get to that park. I thought we had one shown.
Carol Watson: We did when we had the streets but when the plan, when
Chaparral West or whatever it was going to be called, when that street
plan was there then we had a nice trail system running right over to Lake
Ann Park through that trail system but the minute we lost Chaparral West,
the trails when with the streets and that was the end of that but there
still will have to be something with good sight distances up there
because are not going to want them filtering down CR 17.
Councilman Geving: I'd like to see that on the plan. Whether there's a
road there or whether there's a big outlot, we're going to get to the
park by not coming off TH 5 but CR 17.
Carol Watson: But you know Eckankar isn't going to hold onto that land
forever.
...."
Councilman Geving:
string across there.
I'd just like to show it on the plan. Just run a
I'd like to have you present this Bill.
Councilman Boyt: The key point in that paragraph for me and I guess
given what Jay just said, maybe we differ there but I think this is
important enough to do it and fund it in one shot. I actually think that
tha t might be smar t given tha t the way we've set it up now, wha t we're
building is to the north and we're saying to the folks in the south wait.
I think that's what we're saying to them. The difference between
building it all and building some of it is not a great deal of money. I
agree with what you said Dale about circling the lakes. I think when we
get the chance to do that, that's an excellent idea. I like what I see
there. It's a nice network. I can hardly wait until we have it.
Councilman Geving: Thank you and I guess we don't have any other
questions of Mark at this time?
Mark Koegler: Can I summarize real quickly the major points I'm hearing.
Look at addressing snowmobile trails as a proponent of the plan. Look if
there are areas where nature trails can be expanded. Those are
relatively low cost items by the way. And then the last thing was the
connection between Lake Ann Park and the Saddlebrook area.
"""'"
City Council/Park and Rec Commission Meeting
October 7, 1987 - Page 10
,....
Councilman Johnson: I just had the one other that I brought up ~nd
didn't get to finish. This should have been brought to you Mark. Have
you looked at cutting through Chan Park with the existing trail on this
new cul-de-sac? We've got a trail connection to the grade school right
here on this cul-de-sac. We've got a trail coming down here. We've got
trails coming to here along the east side of the road. There's no
topography to prevent this trail from continuing here, cutting through
this park and up to here where the kids don't have to cross here, come
down here, cross here, come over here, come down here and cross a third
time to get to the grade school. If we can say that is safe, the Mayor
can say tha t we can send a guard down here and a guard down here and a
guard down here but it ain't going to happen and it's not going to happen
for youth athletics in the evening when the kids come in. You've got
some real bad soils down here. I know that. I've walked the area but it
still will be feasible for kids on bicycles or kids walking to put
something other than the nature trail on the short segment, come down the
side of the hill. The side of the hill is going to be a slight
challenge. The kids will love it and then bring it up part of Kerbers
over the farm path which is a dedicated trail to us right now. We own
it.
Sue Boyt: The nature trail won't be woodchip so I don't know if it's
been decided.
I""
Councilman Johnson: I don't want the whole area bikeable per se but the
cut through here. The property is there.
Sue Boyt: I'd like to keep the kids off Kerber too.
Councilman Johnson: You know what they're going to do? They're not
going to cut across three street crossings, they're going to take Kerber
Bl vd. .
Carol Watson: Like they do right now because that's the only my son can
get there.
Councilman Johnson: But you give them a fun little hill to go down and
back through, we may be able to get them off of Kerber Blvd. and away
from traffic.
Councilman Geving: How would they get to the school then Jay?
Councilman Johnson: We've got an asphalt path running from this cul-de-
sac into the backyard of the school. Now the school has to complete a
path from this end of the school property. This part of Chan vista.
It's already asphalted, culverts and everything is in there.
Sue Boyt: We could probably share in the cost in the trail and the
school property because that's owned by kind of both groups.
Councilman Johnson: I thought somebody was already working on that.
I"""'
City Council/Park and Rec Commission Meeting
October 7, 1987 - Page 11
Kids are already taking it with their bikes. They're cutting their own
path through. ~
Councilman Boyt: I think we cross Kerber for some pretty good reasons.
Even though we didn't like to cross Kerber, the topography forced us to
cross Kerber with the trail we put along Kerber and this may offer an
alternative.
Councilman Geving: If there was a walkover type facility over Kerber.
Councilman Johnson: They're expensive.
Councilman Geving: They're expensive but...
Councilman Johnson: The only time I've ever seen them actually utilized
is when there were fences to prevent the kids from just cutting through.
Councilman Geving: I see it all the time in Edina. You see it in a lot
of locations.
Carol Watson: On Highway 100.
Councilman Geving: Let's move on. Let's hear from Dick.
Dick Potts: I appreciate the opportunity to talk to the Council and the
Park and Rec. I'm Richard Potts and I live at 6991 Tecumseh in
Chanhassen. I'm here tonight, I found out about the corridor before
there was a joint meeting just in the trail map and I'm here as past
President of the Snowmobile Club and I'm currently Chairman of the Board
of the Snowmobile Club. I just wanted to give you a couple thoughts I
think from a snowmobilers point of view. I don't know who snowmobiles
and who doesn't and who understands what is going on in town. What's
going on in the southwest area. The snowmobilers, the club in Chanhassen
is available to all volunteers. The Chanhassen club is one of seven
clubs that makes up a network of southwest trails system. The southwest
trail system is Eden prairie, Chaska, Chanhassen, clubs in Minnetonka,
out in St. Boni, victoria and we go all the way out the Luce Line. We,
through the grant and aid trail system, we get our money through the DNR,
the grant and aid system. They're all volunteers and we go out and seek
permission from the landowners. We get written access for their
property. We work with governmental agencies like the Hennepin County
Park Reserve system which we're currently operating a system through
Minnewashta Park. We're apparently operating a system through Carver
Park and grooming it through there. We're out there to promote safe
snowmobiling. We mark them. We maintain them and widen them out and
groom them. We're currently operating two groomers. We're currently
marking and maintaining about 90 miles of trail systems out here. We go
through Chanhassen, south all the way across the river and the bridge
across the river at Chaska and we can go across the TH 169 br idge to
Shakopee and hook up to the Minnesota Valley State Trail system. We mark
and groom all the way up the Luce Line which is a state trail system so
...",.
-'
City Council/Park and Rec Commission Meeting
October 7, 1987 - Page 12
If""'.
like I said, we're the southwest trail system. We hook up to the
northwest trail system and subsequently to Prior Lake and Dakota. Right
now you can get on a snowmobile, if we get snow this winter, and you can
ring the 7 county metro area. Chanhassen is an important part of that.
We like to work with police. We work with Carver County Sheriff's
Department. We want to promote safe snowmobiling. We want to collect
our 1 icense money. All the money w.e get is from the DNR 1 icense money so
we want the snowmobilers licensed. We want them to stay on the trail.
Back in the old days it was 1 i ke the bad motorcycle guys g i v ing the
motorcycles a bad name and then of course there's the 1% or 5%, the guys
that run over everybody's backyards that wrecks it for the snowmobilers
too and I know of you do and some of you maybe don't. The whole trick is
that we're trying to promote a trail system. We feel that if we can
maintain a system, we can mark it, we have a better opportunity to keep
them on it. You talk about lights and walkways, the more walkways we
have the safer it's going to be for everybody that's biking and walking.
The same way with snowmobiles. We've had problems over the past few
years with the development occurring out here. We keep getting pushed
and pushed and pushed but we still want to maintain a system out here and
I brought some trail maps along.
Councilman Geving: Maybe you could just show us on this major map here.
Dick Potts: What we really want to know I guess, if we could work with
the Councilor work with the Park and Rec for an overall plan to see if
we can get some of these trails that mayor may not have been in our
~ current plan into a multi-use plan. You're not going to bike on all of
them in the wintertime. We operate a system right now that comes into
Chanhassen, right through the downtown area, moves right out of Chan Lawn
Sports. We've got two rooms there. Comes down to the intersection of TH
5 and Powers Blvd.. Goes on the north side of TH 5, through Lake Ann
Park. We'd like to go around in here but we can't there either Dale. We
currently go across Lake Ann. We currently have permission. We mark and
maintain a system through here and north along up to a point about in
here and it winds through over to CR 17 and onto the Minnewashta Park
system. Across Minnewashta, north up to the Fire Station up there. We
go down TH 7 to hit the railroad bed. The railroad bed we mark and
maintain out to victoria. We also mark and maintain a system that goes
through the Business Park. It goes all the way down CR 17 to Chaska.
There's another route that comes around this way on the north side of
Lake Susan. There's a sewer easement there we ride. Behind the Legion,
across from Rice Marsh Lake right down through here and then into the
Eden prairie trail system.
Councilman Johnson:
summer.
It'd be a good place for a nature trail in the
Dick Potts: Absolutely. We don't ride there in the summer. There's
been all kinds of articles that the DNR has put out about how many inches
of snow you can run over. You need 4 to 6 inches of snow... Basically
we're heading for the downtown area. We've got one run that ends around
,.....
City Council/Park and Rec Commission Meeting
October 7, 1987 - Page 13
Lake Ann and across to Minnewashta this way. Another run that goes down
CR 17, over CR 18 this way and down CR 17 all the way down to Chaska.
...",.,
Councilman Johnson: You're running basically in the road ditches.
Dick Potts: We're running the road ditch south. We keep winding around
through the Business Park. We used to go through the middle of the
Business Park and now when the big bad wolf just went in, we run around
the corner of that. So we're having problems up in this area with the
development starting to the south of Prince. We're having trouble
getting across there. We're considering moving our trail system around
in this area. We've had some troubles over there the last few years.
Another alternate we've got is down TH 5. We've got a bridge to
construct over this creek right here. Get the groomers across there and
we've got to clear that right-of-way out of there which is not a problem.
Over across Galpin Blvd. and we've got permission from the landowners and
permission from NSP to run an easement north along the power lines.
There\s problems associated with that though. We've got some problems
over here right across from Prince so I guess what I'm trying to tell you
is if you could, in your trail system, put easements in here whether they
are required as trail easements, if you don't have any problem with a
multi-use plan, give us an opportunity to use that trail system.
Councilman Johnson: If you put asphalt down, it's going to melt snow off
and stuff and it won't be a good trail.
Larry Schroers: We've been doing experimentation with that for the last -'
two years and when you've got adequate snowfall and if the groomer packs
it, once it's packed, it doesn't melt any faster there than it melts
anywhere else. We've been running cross country ski trails and
snowmobile trails right on top of it with real good luck. Provided we
have adequate snow. That's the key to the whole thing. If we don't have
enough snow you can't run anywhere. Until you get enough snow, you can
go almost anywhere.
Councilman Johnson: In looking at the cross country ski trails, I would
like to personally keep them separate from the snowmobilers.
Dick Potts: You're absolutely right.
Councilman Johnson:
snowmobiler.
It's kind of tough on the shins to get nailed by a
Dick Potts: We've got the same problem.
Minnewashta Park maintains a ski system.
through there. Carver Park is the same
that come very close together.
Through Minnewashta.
We maintain a snowmobile system
thing. We've got a couple trails
Larry Schroers:
there.
I know where that is. That's right along the dike
...."
City Council/Park and Rec Commission Meeting
October 7, 1987 - Page 14
Dick Potts: Yes, we've got a problem on the dike there. We've got to
~ get that out of there. We rope it off. There is a problem. You can't
run them on the same trail systems. The skiers lose every time. We've
got two groomers. If you're interested we can make the city a deal and
get into, all we do is take our same equipment and all we have to do is
cut enough in there to cut your ski trails for your cross country ski
trails. Same equipment.
Councilman Boyt: I have a comment for you. I think if you work with
Mark, and you probably should have been doing this, seek those easements
especially where you already have them. Maybe we can see if we can't do
something to formalize it before development comes in. It sounds like
you have excellent relationships with many of the property owners and
that would help us get this underway. I personally, although I think in
the summertime there would be alternate uses for that trail, I would
really encourage to stick to a single purpose and that would be
snowmobiles. I think that would eliminate a lot of future problems for
us. In the winter the trails you have there would be dedicated to
snowmobiles. As a cross country skier, I know firsthand that the two
aren't real compatible. Yet I know that the best way to allow for
snowmobile use in Chanhassen is to have a trail system. I really support
your effort.
Councilman Horn: I think the key there too is the fact that all you
really need is an easement. It takes no maintenance and there's no
acquisition cost for you to use it.
,....
Councilman Geving: I think the key to getting an easement and keeping it
is goodwill. You've created it before and as long as there isn't any
problem.
Dick Potts: So long as the club is around we'll still mark that. We'll
still maintain that. As far as compatibility, the only non-compatibility
is cross country skiing. There are a lot of cross country skiers along
these trails right now. Just because we groom them. You walk down here
and go around the corner, they're on a snowmobile trail and there are
signs that say no motorized vehicles except snowmobiles, etc., etc.. The
Luce Line is a typical example and I'm sure the Park systems has got a
lot of them, it's a bicycle and walkway in the summer.
Larry Schroers: Multi-use makes just all kinds of sense because of the
work and expense involved in developing and maintaing a trail, you want
to get the most use out of it that you can and I don't see a problem with
running over parts of our bike trail in the wintertime for snowmobiling.
Where it runs in line with the rest of our trail system and also there
are certainly enough other parts of the trail where we can mark it for
cross country skiing, is really just a matter of signage.
Councilman Geving: Any other comments for Dick?
r""'
City Council/Park and Rec Commission Meeting
October 7, 1987 - page 15
Jim Mady: On the trails, do you have a time when they're open and
closed?
....",
Dick Potts: No.
Jim Mady: As development is going further out, if we put up a trail
easement along a development and you've got guys running their
snowmobiles at midnight, we've got real problems. You're going to have
phones ringing off here.
Sue Boyt: Chanhassen is one of the only cities that doesn't have a
curfew set for snowmobiles. All the other cities have curfews set.
Dick Potts: The City of Chaska is one example, as far as the southwest
trail system. You can't ride the outskirts of Chaska after 10:00. Once
you leave the trail system, it's the closest direct route from the trail
to your house. So Chaska has a snowmobile ordinance. I think Victoria
has an ordinance. Eden prairie has an ordinance.
Jim Mady: The only other thing I wanted to mention and make sure we have
an understanding, some of the trails we've got on there, in the winter
will be plowed for runners because there are a lot of runners who run all
year long and they will be running on the trail so we've got to realize
that those people are going to be out there also.
Councilman Geving: Okay, I think Dick made his point and I think the
message is there.
....."
Jeff Hanson: I represent Southwest Trail and I'm the current Vice
President this year and I also represent Chanhassen Lawn and Sports.
Being a businessman in this town and knowing what people are using the
trails along here for, as far as the Southwest Trails is concerned, a lot
of developments are not aware of the fact that during trail acquisition,
such that you're talking about now, if you were to set aside hiking
trails or bicycle trails, our money that we get in a grant can go towards
those acquisition fees. As a matter of fact, this year we've got
$25,000.00 to draw on for our trail maintenance and that can go for
snowmobile, cross country ski, hiking, as long as that trail is to be
used in the wintertime for snowmobiles so there is another fund there for
you to draw on.
Councilman Geving: That's good for Lori to know.
Jeff Hanson: If we have a year in advance time to promote to know what's
going on through the DNR, through the grant aid system, we can apply for
those trails.
Councilman Johnson: Outside of the snowmobiling, there may be some other
funds the DNR has with a grant in kind.
Jeff Hanson: Our purpose is to maintain these snowmobile trails.
--'
City Council/Park and Rec Commission Meeting
October 7, 1987 - Page 16
~ Whether it's grooming it, to maintain our machinery, to buy land, to buy
buildings for our equipment, it's for anything we can use it for.
Dick Potts: Using it in the summer doesn't create a problem.
Jeff Hanson: No, it doesn't create one problem at all. As long as that
trail can be used for snowmobiling, that's the only stipulation.
Shorewood is a good example. That was being closed down and you talk
about an ordinance and you talk about fighting with people. We did a
sound test, and I don't have the test results with me but none of the
machines that were tested were anything louder than a lawn mower.
Councilman Horn: In answer to Jay's question about other sources, what
you have to look at is there's got to be a revenue source. You license
snowmobiles. Some places are licensing cross country skiers. That's a
revenue source that you get so you won't get any activity, sponsoring
activity that isn't licensed somehow.
Carol Watson: So there are funds available so it can come from
somewhere.
Jeff Hanson: Plus you're bringing other people in to Chanhassen.
Snowmobilers come out of the metro area, unload the machines at Filly's
or our store or down at the Legion, you're bringing people here.
Councilman Geving: Okay, I think we're going to move on and I thank you
~ very much for coming. Let's move on to the third item in the agenda
which is the 1988 capital improvement program. Lori, do you want to
start out with this?
Lori Sietsema: In your packet I included what the Park and Recreation
Commission is recommending for the capital improvement program for park
development in 1988. I also included the Minutes of the discussion of
this so you had an idea of where we were coming from. Do you want me to
run through it? Everybody has read it. I think just go around with
comments starting with the City Council.
Councilman Geving: Before we do that, I'm under the impression that
there was $100,000.00 in the budget. Is that correct? For park
development this year. Isn't that right Don? Isn't there approximately
$100,000.00 in the Park Improvement Program for 1988?
Don Ashworth: The program as recommended by the Park Commission has been
included in the 1988 budget.
Councilman Geving: Okay, whatever the number is, it's there. Now the
individual pieces of that budget is what we're expecting this group to
come to the Council and give us an idea of what you're priorities are
going to be, right? That's really what we'r~ talking about but the
budget is there. It's set. We approved it tonight.
.~
City Council/Park and Rec Commission Meeting
October 7, 1987 - Page 17
Lori sietsema: I think it's the end dollar amount for our three funds.
We have our capital improvement program where all these items come out of -'
fees for service and then individual smaller programs. Those three items
came to I think it was $93,700.00 or something like that. These are
just the identified projects.
Councilman Geving: Any comments?
Councilman Johnson: You mean specifically on the projects?
Councilman Geving: Anything that's not here that you have?
Councilman Johnson: I was curious about why we have parking for
Chanhassen Pond for the nature trail. Is there something I'm missing?
Sue Boyt: We talked about having parking for every park in Chanhassen.
Jim Mady: Probaby four spots right where the trail starts at Laredo. So
a car can drive in and people can walk around the pond.
Councilman Johnson: People can park there now anyway.
Councilman Horn: What you're saying is it sounds kind of funny to give
people a place to park to go for a walk?
Jim Mady: Put them on a trail so they can walk to the trail.
....."
Councilman Johnson: The other one is Greenwood Shores.
Carol Watson: We'll only get something if we have parking spaces. If we
don't have parking spaces we won't get anything. It's real simple. It's
a block down the street from me. It's real easy. It's a fact of life.
Councilman Johnson: I've spent a lot of time this last year going to
Greenwood Shores. Evenings, weekends, just driving by to see the
problems. That, Carver Beach and that little old outlot that we had so
much problem with where they were talking about the nude bathing and
everything and I'd like to report that I never saw any nude bathing.
With the increase patrol we had this past year out there, and that was an
issue we were discussing a little while ago, I was there right behind the
patrol one night as he stopped to talk to the local residents who were
having a party and tell them to move their cars out of the no parking
area. Over the last year that's the only cars I had seen parked in the
no parking area has been one case there where they were blacktopping or
sealcoating their driveway.
Jim Mady: Was the chain up?
Councilman Johnson: The chain was always up. They were on the street in
the no parking area. They were having a party. Not using the park.
They were using their own house.
......""
City Council/Park and Rec Commission Meeting
October 7, 1987 - page 18
".... Carol Watson: We can get permission from the police to have a party and
use off street parking.
Councilman Johnson: If they called and asked Frank was unaware of it.
He just happened to be there at the same time that I happened to be
there.
Councilman Geving: Okay, let's stay with this now. Comments from any of
the Council members.
Councilman Johnson: Grass for the infield is one of the Lake Ann park so
we can have some Little League there. We are trying to establish a
Little League this coming year, or Little League type. Not a sanctioned
Little League and one of the things that everybody is saying is a Little
League quality pitcher mound and grass in the infield.
Councilman Geving: The only diamond that would fit is the first one.
Lori Sietsema: No, Little League is small. The ideal field out at Lake
Ann right now would be Field 3, the one that's closest to the lake.
Councilman Geving: How does the Park and Rec people feel about that
suggestion?
Jim Mady: Unfortunately that field gets so much use with all the
softball teams and they're not compatible uses. You can't play softball
~ on a Little League field. Softball would wreck it and the fences are too
short. It just wouldn't work.
Councilman Johnson: We take care of our adults very well. What are we
going to do for our 5th and 6th graders?
Sue Boyt: Next year they're going to play at Lake Ann on a non-
sanctioned field as Little League and we're hoping that between now and
two years from now we acquire some property to build some Little League
baseball diamonds on.
Jim Mady: One of the things we could do if we do expand Lake Ann now, do
the grading, we could put in, we could upgrade 1 to a Babe Ruth field by
putting grass in the infield and fixing up the infield bases.
Sue Boyt: They would have to have dugouts.
Curt Robinson: We're concerned about the same thing Jay and that's one
of the reasons I'm on the Park and Rec Commission is because I complained
to Lori about having to run 1~ miles to have my kid play baseball and
soccer and she said why don't you get on the Park and Rec Commission and
do something about it.
Jim Mady: If we expand Lake Ann, then we can make the field next to the
proposed Babe Ruth field a sanctioned Little League field. Then we have
,-
City Council/Park and Rec Commission Meeting
October 7, 1987 - Page 19
two other fields.
~
Councilman Geving: This is how I feel about this and it involves a lot
of what you're talking about. We own the existing 20 acres of
undeveloped Lake Ann Park now for 3 years I believe. 3 or 4 years. It
would make sense to me, thi s year, if we could get a fa i r ly good est ima te
and maybe Mark would help us on thi s, get a very good idea of wha tit
would take to come in with leveling equipment, heavy duty equipment, to
level off the site the way you have sketched it Mark. I'm sure you must
have figures somewhere of what that grading dollar is.
Mark Koegler: We have already done that. I don't have it on the tip of
my tongue but we do have a grading plan for expansion of the park.
Councilman Geving: Is it a lot of money?
Carol Watson: Yes.
Lori sietsema: $300,000.00 to $500,000.00.
Councilman Geving: Just for grading?
Carol Watson: Just grading.
Councilman Horn: As I recall, we were going to try to work it with part
of the development.
-'
Councilman Geving: That's what our plan was but the developer went away
and two or three times we attempted to do that. It just kind of died.
Maybe we can't look at the whole picture. Maybe we can take a look at a
piece of it.
Sue Boyt: We've looked at that too haven't we?
Carol Watson: I'll bet in the next 12 months there will be developer
there. When you have $500,000.00 assessments, you can't just sit on it
and say isn't this a pretty pasture to grow corn in. Something'S going
to happen and it's going to happen soon.
Councilman Geving: The only problem is when we get into the development
mode, we're talking 2 or 3 years from now. We really are.
Don Ashworth: I wouldn't count on that occurring. They called and said,
how was it they phrased it. Would it be alright if we bring in the
$500,000.00 in cash on Friday?
Lori Sietsema: They're working on getting it all fenced.
Councilman Geving: I have a hard time believing that it can't be graded
and put into some sort of ball diamond. I just can't believe that can't
be done reasonable. I don't know why.
......"
City Council/Park and Rec Commission Meeting
October 7, 1987 - Page 20
,....,
Jim Mady: I would love to see this put in in a private park. To get the
money to build that and a couple other park projects... There's a couple
other projects that we've addressed the Commission need to be looked at
including putting a park in south and the trail plan and just tie it all
together.
Councilman Johnson: I think we need to grab that parkland on the south
side before it gets developed.
Councilman Geving: Don, why don't you give us some input on it?
Don Ashworth: We looked at the trail plan and we're down to a figure of
approximately $800,000.00. We do have $100,000.00 in reserve for future
development at Lake Ann park. You're looking at $300,000.00 to
$500,000.00 expense. By combining the trails and Lake Ann, I did check
with our attorneys and verified that that can be one question. We would
be at a level of approximately 1 Million Dollars between the trail
system and improving Lake Ann. I think that that is about the size of a
package. In other words, as a question itself which could be very
pallable to the voters. I'm wondering if for Park Commission members,
Ci ty Counc i 1 has already heard so maybe you would ra ther me do thi s
another night.
Councilman Geving: No, go ahead.
,...., Don Ashworth: I could just briefly go through the funding techniques
that we're looking to for our major facilities including trails and the
park system. City Council reviewed a number of facilities approximatey
two weeks ago. We have a community facility committee. They're working
on a community center right now. We're hoping that that can come in
somewhere in the area of 2 1/2 to 3 million dollars. Fire Department has
been working over the course of the last four years and they have
developed now a plan that they would like to see completed as an addition
onto the Fire Station. That has a cost factor of roughly 1 million
dollars. If we look to a combined trail and expansion onto Lake Ann
Park, and again that total figure then being about 1 million dollars, you
would literally be presenting all three of those questions to the voters
at the end of this year. Potentially it could be four. Potentially the
community center at 1.5 million and an ice arena an 1.5 million
separating those two issues.
Councilman Geving: That seems to make some sense to me.
Don Ashworth: But in either case you're talking about roughly 5 million
dollars. I think for anyone in the community, that has to be a figure
that's scary. The fact is that the City has a maximum limitation of
approximately 3 million dollars so if you present all of the issues,
having a cost factor of 5 million and the citizens vote for all of them,
the most you can sell in bonds currently would be 3 million dollars. The
council, looking at this said, maybe that's not a bad idea. Why not
~ present it to the voters in exactly that fashion. Tell them that this is
City Council/Park and Rec Commission Meeting
October 7, 1987 - Page 21
a 3 to 5 year plan and tha t if they do vote for all of them, it would
appear as though that we could carry out the construction of all four
facilities. ...on that property when it comes to January 1st of 1988.
The first time there will be any value on that piece of property is going
to be January 1, 1989 for collection in 1990 so when we plot this value
valuation line in here, we are not plotting something that is
hypothetical. We're taking only actual construction up to, this went
back, through the end of August so we have seen some additional
construction that could actually be plugged in here but it's only actual
construction. We then flatten that out for what might be the future
years. If you now look at the difference between our new valuation line
and also as a part of this study what we did is we went back and measured
each one of these various debt issues to see how well they were doing in
comparison to the original projections. In every case we found that
those funds were doing better than had originally been anticipated. So
in other words, instead of requiring a debt payment of roughly
$600,000.00 in the year 1993, in fact when we get into the year 1994, the
actual debt payment at that point in time will be $470,000.00 to
$480,000.00. There's been that much improvement in each one of those
funds. The average is $230,000.00 per year. That will support a bond
issue of roughly 2 1/2 to 3 million dollars. The bottom line out of all
of this is that by restructuring the city's existing debt, in comparison
to actual known new valuation, we're going to be into a position of
telling the voters that there will not be any tax impact for this
proposed referendum. There's no way we can exceed the 3 million dollar
limitation. So the voters are reasonably assured that the city in fact
will not create a property tax increase as a part of this package we're
proposing. Similarly, our limitation would be 3 million for this year
but we're anticipating that, as a part of this, that we would be able to
bring on an additional million dollars in debt capacity each year for the
nex t two year per iod of ti me. So tha t means tha t in a way you would
actually structured this would be saying to the voters that if they would
vote for this and tell us which priorities they choose, that we would be
in a position to sell bonds at a level of approximately 2 1/2 to 3
million dollars in 1988. That we would anticipate a secondary sell
during the timeframe of 1990 to 1991 for an additional million dollars.
That we anticipate a third bond issue during the timeframe of 1991 to
1993, a little overlap in there for the last million dollars. If we do
not get the valuation for that secondary facility, whatever it may be,
we'll be back in the same position. State law will kick back in and
will not allow us to sell the bonds for that second million dollars or
the third million dollars. Again, you're reasonably protecting the
voters. One of the things that we discussed upstairs, and this was part
of the budgetary portion, was recognition that the City does have a
relatively high tax base right now. In going back to the community and
explaining these options, one of the options will have to be if they
choose to deny all of the facilities, there is the ability to reduce
property taxes as a result of really this chart. Our finding. That in
fact the reduction can occur of approximately $230,000.00. The valuation
levels currently is at 70 million and we're anticipating over the next
two years it will rise to 80 million and 90 million. That's for assessed
...""
....,;I
...",
City Council/Park and Rec Commission Meeting
October 7, 1987 - Page 22
""'"
value so that means each mil reduces today $70,000.00. In two years it
will produce $90,000.00 so in essence this $230,000.00 representS
approximately 3 mils which You can equate to approximately 3%. So if you
feel that your property taxes are very exorbinate, you do not need any of
these facilities, then you should vote no and as a result of that, you
reasonably should be able to see your property taxes reduced by 3% of
your bottom line property tax bill as it is today. So if it's $2,000.00,
you can expect a $60.00 reduction by voting against any and all of the
facilities.
Councilman Geving: Any questions of Don?
Councilman Johnson: A comment. All of this is proposed. There has not
been a vote that we are absolutely going to have a referendum and all
these things are going to go before the voters as it was said in several
newspapers a few weeks ago when this kind of stuff was first presented to
Council. It came off as this is going to happen. We're going to build
and we're going to have a referendum for this. We're in the very early
planning stages of this whole thing and obviously I'm saying that for
Mary's purpose.
Councilman Geving: But Jay is absolutely right. We are playing with
about four pieces of a major puzzle here and a million dollars is going
on the table here for the Park and Rec is something that a lot of people
would vote for. A lot of indication came back from the survey that
II'" people want trails but will they want trails over an ice arena or will
they want trails over the sports complex or the fire station? Those are
the issues and in order to be real fair, at least this is my feeling and
I don't know how the rest of the council feels, I think that every
citizen has a right to hear and vote on each of those four items. The
other option would be for the Council to say well, if we're only got 3
million dollars, we'll pick and choose and give the voters a chance for
the two i terns or three i terns that we want them to vote yes or no on.
We're not going to do that. At least that's my opinion. I would prefer
to have them see all four of them and let the voters decide back to us.
I think that's the fair way to do it. If it all comes back and they say
I want the fire station and I want the trails, then fine. That's the way
we go. The sports complex and the ice arena is another time.
Councilman Horn: The only disadvantage of having a referendum is it will
cost money to have a referendum but once you have one, you can put as
many items on it as you want and it costs very little more to add.
Carol Wa tson: We can cover, if we take the time to work it out, we can
cover everything we will need in one referendum and it .will be worth the
price to know again what people want.
Councilman Horn: We already know what they ~anted in the poll but now
we're going to say...
,...,.
City Council/Park and Rec Commission Meeting
October 7, 1987 - Page 23
Carol Watson: Now we're going to say do you want to pay for it? You .....,;I
said you wanted it, now do you want to pay for it.
Councilman Boyt: I think that the issue that I would like to see Park
and Rec work out is, as I pointed out in this little memo, I happen to
feel that personally there's an advantage to spending 1.5 million on
trails. I happen to think there would be a real advantage to buying 100
to 150 acres of parkland in the south of town. The referendum is a way
to do that. What I would look for the Park and Rec to do is consider
that and make some kind of recommendation to the City Council about what
do we want to spend our money on and what's the priority? Maybe you
spend all 3 million but what's your priority? Then I guess the Council
can take your top couple items. If they say, we're giving Park and Rec 1
million or 1.5 million that's what we're going to do with it but I think
this group is the one that should come to us and say, from the Park and
Rec's standpoint, this is our number 1 and this is how much we think
we'll spend on it and then personally, if you come up with that, I'll buy
it. If you're going to spend $800,000.00 on trails, even though I want
to spend 1.3 million, I'll buy your $800,000.00 because your the group I
want to make that decision. Personally.
Councilman Geving: Are we going to finalize this tonight?
Lori Sietsema: Yes, any questions, additions or anything you want taken
out, should probably be talked about.
Jim Mady: I just wanted to clarify, there are three items are reserved. .....,;I
In our discussion those had numbers.
Lori Sietsema: There is a spot in the budget on that page that has the
capital improvement program for Lake Susan, Lake Ann and Herman Field.
There is a reserve fund. There's $35,000.00 in reserve to develop Herman
Field. There's $50,000.00 for Lake Susan and $100,000.00 for Lake Ann.
Councilman Geving: One of the very important concepts that I learned
about 10 years ago from Al Klingelhutz is that you never want to spend a
dollar of your park fees unless you can spend somebody elses $2.00. That
really important because that $100,000.00 that we keep in the bank can
buy you a lot of grant activity. So as long as we continue to bank that
$100,000.00 we can take advantage of a deal that comes along and match
funds or whatever. It's just something that we have to keep in the back
of our mind and it's worked. It worked for 10 years.
Councilman Boyt: And we don't want to spend that on the trail program.
I don't want to spend that money. I want to keep that $100,000.00
available to do what Dale suggested we do with it. To match funds with
it. I think if we're going to go a trail system, we don't want to spend
that reserve fund building those trails.
Carol Watson: And we have to have money available if land becomes
available and suddenly we have an opportunity to buy some land that we've
.....,;I
City Council/Park and Rec Commission Meeting
October 7, 1987 - Page 24
,.... a 1 way s wan t e d . We h a vet 0 h a v e so me pIa c e tog 0 sow e k now we. cap _ m? k e a _
deal. We can buy that land that's available and not think here lt lS bUt
where are we going to get the money to buy it.
Councilman Horn: I just have a comment on putting priorities of
development. I'd like to see Lake Ann Park developed as quickly as
possible too but I think it makes some sense to do things in their time.
If you can develop Lake Ann park for half the price in conjunction with
development next to it, you should take serious consideration about
moving that up and spending a lot of extra money to do it.
Councilman Geving: I'd like to set a time limit of 113:1313 for this
meeting. We're all getting kind of tired. Let's begin with the next
item, the revised park and trail dedication ordinance. I didn't know
what you're talking about there.
Lori Sietsema: The Park Dedication Ordinance has been changed with the
codification of all the ordinances. I included the revised ordinance in
your packet. Basically what I wanted to cover here is so that everybody
is on the same wavelength and we're talking about land being dedicated
for trails and for park plan and why do we give some people credit and
how come we get some people only half credit and how do we come up with
these figures so I tried to outline that in the memo. Do you want me to
go through this or do you just want to start with questions about it?
~ Councilman Geving: Who's got questions? Everybody clear on what we're
trying to do? So I suspect the next time we'll see this is at the
Council.
Sue Boyt: I had a question about the annual resolution stating average
acquisition and development costs. Has the Council set an acquisition
fund for this year?
Councilman Geving: Don usually gives us a recommendation.
Councilman Johnson: I remember discussing that crazy formula that was in
there. We spent a considerable amount of time trying to figure it out.
Councilman Boyt: Mark, when it says in here established on 14-33-782, it
says the standard, there shall be 1 acre of neighborhood parkland for
each 75 people. Who set that standard? To me, if you put 75 people on
an acre of land you've got a heck of a party.
Lori Sietsema: You've got to realize that not everybody in the
neighborhood is going to be on that one acre at one given time though.
Don Ashworth: The Council went through the codification too.
Councilman Boyt: I appreciate the improvement but 1 in 75 seems like a
lot of people. Let's suppose that one-fourth of them use it. What are
~ you going to have? About 213 people on that 1 acre of ground?
City Council/Park and Rec Commission Meeting
October 7, 1987 - Page 25
Mark Koegler: Bill let me respond in just one way. There are all kinds ~
of standards out there that you find in various reference sources as to
what you need for a "neighborhood park". 1 for 75 is very little
standard as far as what most of these that we reviewed around the country
for park determination. It is solely based on the fact that they won't
all show up at the same time and I think we're using this number in the
Comprehensive Plan Update.
Councilman Boyt: Let me ask one quick question, what's Minneapolis got?
Mark Koegler: I couldn't tell you.
Councilman Boyt: It might be interesting to see what's in surrounding
communities. What Eden prairie has.
Councilman Geving: It seems like it was 100 but it's just real vague.
Mark Koegler: A lot of communities, by and large, have gotten away from
using standards because they just frequently don't fit that well. When
you look up standards you'll find that for instance one ball diamond is
needed for every 30,000 people. That of course is absurd from the
practical sense. 75 is quoted is here is a fairly liberal number.
Councilman Horn: I thought when we went through the ordinances we
allowed animals in the park as long as they were leased. We talked about
that.
...""
Councilman Geving: No. You were the only one that was for it as I
recall.
Carol Watson: I remember talking about it too.
Councilman Johnson: This city does need a pooper scooper ordinance.
Councilman Geving: I don't know. I don't know what we've done in the
pats but it seems to me that the policy has been that we do not allow
animals in the parks.
Councilman Horn: You can walk your dog in the streets of New York.
Lori Sietsema: I think on the trail system that that's a perfect spot to
allow pets and I don't think there's anyway you're going to not.
Larry Schroers: Hennepin Parks, and what we've come up with there, there
are an awful lot of people that enjoy taking their dogs for a walk in the
evening. They pay taxes and they deserve a right to have a place to do
that so what we have had to do is designate certain portions of trails to
certain areas as pets on leash area.
Councilman Geving: But that's on trails. How about parks?
--'
City Council/Park and Rec Commission Meeting
October 7, 1987 - Page 26
,.....
Larry Schroers: picnic areas, swimming beaches, that sort of thing, no
pets allowed.
Councilman Geving: That makes sense. Now do you agree with that?
Councilman Horn: Yes.
Councilman Geving: So you're only talking about the trails?
Councilman Horn: But what I do disagree with is a lot of people take
their dogs with them when they go fishing. They can't do that in our
public access. That's where I have a problem because we make rules to
live with. You don't make rules to be broken. If you're breaking them,
you should change them.
Councilman Boyt: I agree with you. I don't know what the right answer
is on that issue but I do agree that we shouldn't have anything we're not
going to enforce.
Councilman Horn: I have the same problem with this selective enforcement
of no parking. Calling up and getting permission because you're having a
party is ridiculous to me.
,...,
Carol Watson: I think in all honesty Clark, it may have happened twice
in all these years. It's not a major problem.
Councilman Geving: Does anyone have a major problem with the ordinance?
Councilman Boyt: Yes I do. I have another comment on 786(b). The way
this is written, it's back to enforcement I guess, because I happen to
believe in these. Consuming intoxicating liquor. I think that we are
taking a terrible liability problem at Lake Ann and if they want to have
beer out there they should have dram insurance.
Sue Boyt: It says that malt beverages are allowed.
Councilman Boyt: The softball league out there, unless they changed it
last year. I don't know how many people actually take part in the keg
that's up there every time there's a softball game but all I know is
somebody is at risk and I don't want the City to be at risk for that. I
think if they're going to do it, they should take out dram insurance.
Councilman Geving: Don, have you got any comment on that?
Don Ashworth: You can have beer at the park. You can't sell it because
if you sell it then in fact you're back to the licensing. We all know
that they do take a collection so it's almost the same as the sales. If
you made a requirement, there would have to be liability insurance and it
would cease because there's no group that could afford the $300.00 to
$500.00 in insurance.
".....
City Council/Park and Rec Commission Meeting
October 7, 1987 - Page 27
Councilman Horn: Are you talking about selling it or just having it?
....."
Councilman Geving: Consuming it.
Councilman Boyt: I'm saying that if anybody goes out there and it's
certainly not policed very well from the standpoint of knowing, as far as
I know you can have anybody standing by the kegs saying you've had too
many buddy so it's pretty much open. We get somebody out there and they
run into someone when they pullout of that park or when they get down
the road and somebody's going to pay that bill. I don't want it to be
the City.
Don Ashworth: Potentially you have to make it, does the City condone the
act. It was the sale of liquor under the ordinance and the City should
have enforced that ordinance in requiring that individual to obtain a
license and as a part of that license to obtain insurance.
Councilman Horn: So you're talking about something similar to firemen's
expecting to sell it but I think what Bill's talking about is if some guy
brings his own out there and consumes it in the park.
Don Ashworth: That's what they contend and I think no one is actually
watching what they're doing and because of the fact that they do take
donations which is a psuedo form of sales.
Councilman Johnson: What's the definition of intoxicating liquor? I
have no idea what that is. --'
Councilman Horn: Anything over 3.2.
Councilman Johnson: So they can't have a 6-4 keg out there?
Councilman Horn: No.
Curt Robinson: I think it's an enforcement thing. It says right here.
It says no person shall consume intoxicating liquor in a public park or
have in his possession.
Councilman Geving: I don't think that's new. I think we've had that
since day one out there.
Councilman Boyt: We give them an exception right?
Lori Sietsema: I've always told them at the meetings.
Don Ashworth: They're supposedly having 3.2 beer.
Lori Sietsema: In talking to Jim, the way this reads though, it says
except for malt liquor so we said strong beer is legal.
Curt Robinson: Who made that definition?
""ItIII"
City Council/Park and Rec Commission Meeting
October 7, 1987 - Page 28
IfI"""
Lori Sietsema: Jim Chaffee.
Councilman Johnson: It says right here in the ordinance. Except malt
liquor.
Lori Sietsema: Malt beverages and that's beer so he's saying that he
can't enforce 3.2.
Don Ashworth: I think that's a change from the previous ordinance.
Councilman Boyt: My point is simply, I don't care what it is. If we
say, if people are drinking on public property with our permission, we
have a liability there. I don't see how we can not have a liability
there. I can assure you if somebody gets around to suing the person who
ran over them, they are going to sue the city.
Councilman Horn: You're talking about the Firemen's?
Councilman Geving: He's talking about anytime.
Larry Schroers: I played softball out here for about 12 years and what
has almost always been the case is the teams agree to take turns to
purchase and supply the beer for the game and it's not like we are
selling it. We are taking our turn at providing the beer for ourselves.
~ Councilman Geving: Is it 3.2?
Larry Schroers: No. It's strong beer in a keg but it's not as if we're
selling beer to everyone and anyone who is there. Each team takes a turn
in providing the beer for ourselves. It is for the teams. It's not for
anyone else.
Councilman Geving: Let's refer this one to Roger before this comes to
the Council and leave it at that. Okay, let's move onto the last item
and I don't know what the thinking is on the Council members in this.
Sighting of potential parkland. I'm sure you have identified some areas
for the southern part of the city and maybe you could identify quickly
for us Lori.
Councilman Horn: Did I get voted down again on the dog issue?
Councilman Geving: Yes.
Lori Sietsema: I had asked Mark to address this issue because he has
been in on our conversations about parkland in the southern area.
Mark Koegler: The draft of the Comprehensive Plan as it sits right now
does recommend a park in the southern portion of the City. I've heard
all kinds of numbers and I've heard some more numbers tonight that are
bigger than what I've heard previously. The park plan itself right now
,..... recommends a minimum size of about 15 acres. The intent was to get an
City Council/Park and Rec Commission Meeting
October 7, 1987 - Page 29
area and start something so that in the future that can be expanded.
There has not been a specific site tabbed to date. The closest we came
was a number of months ago when we were faced with all the rural
subdivisions coming in. We took a look at those sites specifically and
decided that there seemed to be better sites available. So the intent is
to basically start the park with a ball facility to help relieve some of
the pressure on Lake Ann and then to expand that in the future. For
example a 15 acre park will handle three ball diamonds, a couple tennis
courts and a full sized soccer field, two hockey rinks, associated
parking and a picnic shelter. That's with a fair amount of open space
still not facilitated.
-'
Councilman Geving: It's obvious we're not going to get real heavy
development let's say south of Lyman for quite some time. Is your
thinking south of Lyman?
Mark Koegler: Yes. We have some concern there and it's a real long
range concern but if and when TH 212 comes through and bisects the city,
that the new park would even be south of TH 212 because north of TH 212,
particularly now that you're getting down into Lake Susan Hills again,
there are reasonable park facilities more closely available to residents
say along Lyman.
Councilman Geving: That's the one addition I'd like to have you make on
this plan. Put TH 212 on there because we know where it is. Anybody
have any comments or questions on that particular long range site.
Councilman Johnson: Being a little facetious, we're talking long range -'
something we could use for a long time in the future. The TH 212
corridor itself might be a good spot for it.
Jim Mady: One thing to look at, the west side of Lake Minnewashta around
Lake St. Joe. I believe we need about 5 acres up there. It's not being
developed currently but I would guess that it will shortly. It still is
sewered area and I think it's important for us to identify right there
and maybe even around the whole lake. Not necessarily for an active play
field but a minimum of 5 acres. Those people are really set out from the
whole rest of the City.
Councilman Boyt: Something we talked about in the Council several months
ago is the thought that you would identi fy where you want the parks.
Maybe you could work with staff and get some of this land donated but if
we don't have a plan like that, we don't have a shot of anybody saying I
want to call that.
Councilman Geving: I like your idea Jim. I'd like to put it on this
plan for no other reason just a big P in there. Potential parkland makes
sense or maybe somewhere down in here. Just mark off 15 acres Mark and
put a P down there for potential parkland. We don't know if it's within
half a mile of where it's going to actually be. We know that you have
indicated to be south of Lyman.
-'
City Council/Park and Rec Commission Meeting
October 7, 1987 - Page 30
~. Carol Watson: And fairly centrally located. That's what we've run into
so far.
Councilman Geving: Any other areas that You can think of that are fairly
park deficient?
Sue Boyt: Those are the two and those we need to acqui re wi thi n the nex t
year really. That's our top priority for the next year is the
acquisition...
Councilman Geving: Any other thoughts on parkland sighting?
Larry Schroers: Just in Carol's comment there, my point is I view
parkland as I don't feel that every sight that we look at is something
that has to be developed into ballfields and soccer fields and whatever.
I remember just when I was growing up I spent as much time out in a
natural area as I did on a ballfield and I think that's where young
people learn and develop a sense of appreciation for the natural things
and the few beautiful things that we still have and I'd like to see us
look at setting some natural land away and not putting anything in it.
Just leaving it the way it is.
Councilman Boyt: I like your thought about an archery range.
Councilman Geving: What is a real good potential spot for an archery
.,...... range?
Larry Schroers: I would say Lake Ann really.
Councilman Geving: That's where we've got plenty of parking.
Councilman Johnson: One of the most unique archery ranges is up at 3M's
park on the far east side of town where they've got actually a series of
paths going through the woods with some areas within the woods that are
targets so where you can walk along and nail a target here and go down.
It's kind of like a hunting course except for it's a lot tamer.
Larry Schroers: We already talked about something like that.
Councilman Johnson: Something I wanted to bring up was the possibility
of the Park and Rec looking into getting that DNR fishing pond. Some of
those ponds, if we develop this pond here, we talked about expanding that
pond up for sedimentation. We could convert that to a DNR fishing pond
there very easily is we're making it into a wider sedimentation pond. We
had talked about moving that down on that little sedimentation pond
between TH 5 and the railroad tracks.
Larry Schroers: When you say that Jay, when you say DNR fishing pond,
are you referring to something that is continually stocked by the DNR to
provide fish and where people can go and expect to catch fish?
II"'"
City Council/Park and Rec Commission Meeting
October 7, 1987 - Page 31
Councilman Johnson: That's correct.
..."""
Councilman Geving: We recently put in a Minnesota wildlife Refuge at
Fort Snelling. We built some bass ponds for little kids to go and fish
and we put on twice a year a fishing clinic. The DNR brings out
thousands of crappies and bass. The kids they've never seen a fish.
They've never caught a fish and they just have a ball.
Larry Schroers: That's an excellent idea and it's going to draw
attention to the City of Chanhassen for their parks. If we can offer
something special like that that are a little bit out of the ordinary.
Councilman Geving called the meeting adjourned.
Submitted by Lori Sietsema
Park and Recreation Coordinator
Prepared by Nann Opheim
..."""
..."""