Golf committee withholds endorsement of paved cross-country loop on Pleasant View Golf Course land

The Pleasant View Golf Course advisory committee on Monday reviewed a proposed cross-country (CXC) trail site plan that shows a paved loop crossing onto golf-owned parcels and declined to endorse that portion of the design until Parks staff provides additional information.

Committee member Jeremy said the plan’s horizontal loop would place paved trail segments near the ninth tee and along the eighth fairway and raised safety and operational concerns for golfers and staff. "I just do not agree with it. I don't think we should pave on Pleasant View Golf Course land," Jeremy said, asking Parks to explain why the loop was sited there.

The committee noted the trails are used in winter as cross-country ski routes under a longstanding, informal agreement with the CXC; members voiced support for continued seasonal use but drew a distinction between winter grooming and a permanent paved path. Members cited recent complaints about noise from an adjacent pump track and warned that a paved path nearer tee boxes could create safety and use conflicts.

Several members asked that Yuri from the Parks Department present the design rationale and alternatives such as rerouting, bridges or shifting the loop farther north. One member proposed approving the preliminary design for areas north of the golf-course property line while excluding pavement on the golf-owned parcel, but the group ultimately decided it could not endorse or approve the trail as shown on Pleasant View property without more information.

Committee members said they had no opinion on elements north of the property boundary but emphasized "serious operational and safety concerns" where the plan intruded on their land. Jeremy asked that Parks return with parcel identifiers, clearer alignment options and an explanation for why the loop was routed on golf property.

The committee did not take a formal binding vote to block the overall project; rather, members issued formal guidance that they will not endorse the paved loop on golf-owned parcels and requested a Parks presentation before any further approvals. The committee asked staff to include the item in future meetings and provide written guidance so the Parks Department and Common Council can incorporate the committee’s operational concerns.

Next steps: Parks staff were asked to appear before the committee (Yuri was specifically mentioned) to explain the design intent and alternatives. The committee also suggested that any approvals could be conditioned to exclude work on the identified golf-course parcels until the concerns are resolved.