PRC 2001 04 10CHANHASSEN PARK AND
RECREATION COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
APRIL 10, 2001
Chairwoman Lash called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jan Lash, Fred Berg, Jim Manders, Rod Franks, David Moes, and Mike Howe
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Director
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None.
ROUNDHOUSE PARK, RESIDENT MEETING.
Hoffman: I'lljustgiveabriefupdate. Plenty of information has been going about via the mail and just a
little background that was again presented in the letter. City Council did not feel comfortable awarding
the project at a cost of approximately $125,000. They instructed the Park and Recreation Commission to
conduct a neighborhood meeting. Discuss with the residents the changing issues or the increasing costs.
The changing costs regarding the project and talk about whether or not the neighborhood felt that was a
good investment in their neighborhood park, and then to investigate some options. Those were mailed out
to the residents and then we received approximately 20 some pieces of correspondence since then. There's
additional ones I have to pass out to you this evening, and for the audience I'm also making copies of all
the correspondence that we've received to date. It'd be fair to say that the strong majority of the
correspondence has pointed towards a desire to demolish the round house as it presently stands and either
build a separate post and slab shelter or do something else with the money. There are some that are in
favor of renovating the round house but they're in the minority. So I'm eager to hear from those present
here this evening and then to discuss with the commission and audience the issue of whether the round
house should stay or not stay. For those of you who don't know, the night, I think the bam was buming and
the commission visited the Roundhouse Park land that evening and the round house was to be bumed the
next day and they came back and said, let's talk about that. And that was a split vote that evening to save
the round house at that time. An attempt to preserve it as both a landmark so, it would have been long
gone but there was a desire to save it at that time and I think there still is some of that desire remaining so,
that's all I have to add and I'd like to get started hearing from the residents.
Lash: Okay. Is there anyone on the commission first who has a question for Todd before we open it up?
Franks: Todd, I'm just wondering, do you have some of the graphics from what the completed restoration
would have looked like?
Hoffman: Sure do. Bring those down.
Franks: Because I'm not so sure that any of the people, or most of the people have any sense of what the
architects were considering.
Park and Recreation Commission April 10, 2001
Hoffman: Okay. Commissioner Franks, I don't see the plans set right here. I'll have to go upstairs and
get that. Go ahead and start.
Lash: Okay. Anyone else with a question for Todd before he goes to get the plan? Okay. Okay, when we
open this up for public comment, the thing that we request of you is that you come forward to the podium.
State your name and address so we have that for the record. So who's interested in speaking? Go ahead.
Nancy Simpson: Good evening. My name is Nancy Simpson. My address is 3980 Country Oaks Drive.
I'm just a couple, 3 blocks from the round house, and I've lived at that location for 10 years. I also grew
up in this area. Went to St. Hubert's school so I do have some heritage and historic roots in this
community. But I would like to give you roughly 6 reasons why I would like to support the demolition of
the round house. I also have no children so I look at this park not exclusively for my benefit but for after
knowing several of my neighbors and having been in that area for 10 years, and having some insights on
what I perceive as the population there. Anyway, this is why, number 1. I would see our neighborhood as
meant to be an area where most of the residents desire outside traffic. This is a local park. I think of a
historical marker as being a nice thing to have but it's also meant to draw traffic. This is a little more
isolated. Not terribly well lit. Not that highly patrolled. This is not a location that I think a historical
monument, just based on the location, any kind of historical monument has any value. Now that particular
historical monument, in my opinion is of no value. It's not a worthy landmark. Nothing interesting really
happened there. It's not important to the current population. It's not important to me and I grew up here.
It's not unique enough to warrant taking a limited budget and throwing that kind of money in that way
when there's other needs that could be accomplished for the territory. Basically it is an eyesore and the
one proposal that suggested minimal effort to make it look minimally presentable, because I drive by the
thing every day, I conjure up still an image of an eyesore and I've been looking at that eyesore for quite a
few years now. The next item is the continued liability concems me for a couple of reasons. There's
future cost uncertainty to the continued liability of an old building where we've already determined that
there's asbestos and lead paint. It concems me that there might be future financial uncertainty to that. I
also am concemed about, as the kids in our area get to be a certain age, it's certainly appropriate that they
go to this park, either unattended or maybe with older kids, but they're kind of unsupervised by adults.
I'm concemed about the attractive nuisance of a building that has questionable structural integrity no
matter what we do to try to preserve it. I'm also, along the lines of attractive nuisances, I'm also a member
of the homeowners association down by Minnewashta and my husband is on the Board of Directors and we
already have continued problems with that area being an attractive nuisance to teenagers, and most of the
local residents don't even wish teenagers to be down there and smoking whatever they smoke and throwing
firecrackers and that kind of stuff. I just see this as another attractive nuisance in an area that's once again
not extremely overly lit or highly patrolled. So anyway I think that's the end of it. Sorry to going on a
little longer, but those are my reasons for recommending the demolition and using the money for what I
think to be a more feature that would attend to the needs of the kids in the area. Thank you.
Lash: Thanks Nancy. Anyone else wishing to address the commission?
Janet Carlson: My name is Janet Carlson and I live on Kings Road. I would like to see it kept. We just, I
don't know, we just keep getting rid of older buildings and more and more and more and pretty soon it's
just going to be little Edina. We just have to, I don't know why nobody wants to keep any of the old
buildings. I have a very special place for that. I lived in that house and I think it's wonderful. I would
like to see it refurbished or whatever. Kept. Would it ever be used like for family picnics or anything?
What is, you know I guess that's what are the plans are going to be used for.
Lash: Well we have a couple of different ideas. One, in the winter it could be used for a warming house.
And in the summer we hoped that it could be used, at a minimum, the plan was that it could be used to, for
2
Park and Recreation Commission April 10, 2001
the summer programming that goes on out there for the children, that they need to be indoors or for
keeping the supplies and some of those kind of things.
Janet Carlson: I think this would be absolutely great for it. And it's just, I have a lot of friends and my
girls have worked out in different places and when they come out, the first thing they said, what a neat deal
that place is and everybody asks about the round house and I think it's just something that I would like to
see kept in the neighborhood. I hate to see it get tore down or maybe I'm getting old where I like to have
old stuff.
Lash: So Janet, would you be supportive of the complete renovation?
Janet Carlson: I think so, yes. I would. Thank you.
Lash: Okay, anyone else in the audience?
Deanna Bunkelman: Hi, I'm Deanna Bunkelman. I live at 4191 Red Oak Lane. Have been in the
neighborhood for about 2 V2 years. I lived in Eden Prairie prior to that for about 10 years and just wanted
to get out a little further west. And 3 things that I really wanted to state. I'm definitely in favor of keeping
the round house. I think it's unfortunate that we're having the meeting tonight. It's actually spring break
so half of our neighborhood is actually gone and I think that is part of the reason for the bad tum out. And
the other thing is we have talked to several neighbors in the neighborhood and several of them are willing
to volunteer to help out if need be. We obviously wouldn't take the one option which I think said that we
would manage it and therefore invest $50,000. Definitely not that option. But they're definitely willing
to put labor and do what they can do to help preserve the round house. And then I guess I didn't realize
this until I read it in the paper but I'm under the understanding that the walk bridge that was built over
Highway 5 cost $750,000. And when I look at that and the use of that, to me this is just a drop in the
bucket. For something that is going to be widely used by the neighborhood. I don't know if it's going to
attract that many outside people that it's really going to increase the traffic, but I have 2 little kids and we
just have so many kids in the neighborhood and I just think it's going to be a great thing for them to utilize.
Not only as a wanning house during the winter, but also for the activities. They're involved in the summer
activities down there and I know when it rains they have to cancel and I don't know that the round house
would be big enough to do that but I just think it's unique. I think we can make it structurally sound so
that we don't have to worry about vandals. I think some of the concems that were presented as far as
lighting and things like that, that's going to be a concem whether the round house is there or not. And
those are issues that we probably have to address beyond the round house. I don't know that some of that is
associated with the round house. So I guess I'm in complete favor of keeping it. I just think it's kind of
fun history. I've run into people when I'm down at the beach and they tell me all sorts of stories about the
land around there and the round house so I think there's a lot of history that people just aren't aware of,
and I think we could actually have some fun activities around that where we could plan activities and have
people go down and listen to the stories and the history with the resort that used to be there and just all
sorts of stuff so I'm in favor.
Lash: Of complete renovation?
Deanna Bunkelman: Um, well complete renovation I think would be the best. Now I know I was here at
the public meeting that was probably a little over a year ago and some of the things they wanted to do
sounded pretty fancy and I don't know that we need to get that fancy because I know they were going to
vault it up and do all sorts of stuff and have a copper roof and, you know and so I guess when you say
complete renovation, I think we have to really look at what you mean by that and potentially scale down
Park and Recreation Commission April 10, 2001
because I don't think you have to make it that fancy. It's really just renovating it to the point that it looks
like a round house is supposed to look. It doesn't have to be extravagant.
Lash: Okay. I think the vaulting of the roofI think, are you talking about the exterior.
Deanna Bunkelman: They were talking about, yeah...putting in copper.
Lash: I think structurally that has to happen. No, that's not copper.
Deanna Bunkelman: Okay, that's all.
Lash: Thanks Deanna.
Franks: Do you have that picture Todd?
Hoffman: This is one of the models that Locus Architects presented. And just a schematic of the potential
clear story, lighting in through the eave, under the eave and then the enclosed structure. And then the
building as they exist today of course. Everybody recognizes that. The plan that was eventually agreed
upon was not that elaborate. It did include the glazing around the ring of the round house, just undemeath
the eave to allow for lighting into the structure. Locus estimated high on the bidding of about $81,000 but
that was not to be the case. The reality was that their estimate was low in the bidding climate, in today's
construction world is elevated and continues to go up at 10 to 12% per year for these types of projects so
we, the city attempted to bid it twice to bring the cost in line and a second time we bid it I think those
costs were real based on the plans and specifications that were presented in the contract.
Berg: Todd, can you talk about what the outside would look like because we talked about not painting the
outside if you recall.
Hoffman: The commission recommended that the council strip the exterior of the building, of the paint
and then clear seal it so it would be a redwood finish with a clear seal on it so it'd have a much more
natural appearance than if it was preserved and renovated.
Lash: Because the siding is, what's the siding made out again?
Franks: Some old growth Douglas fir.
Hoffman: I'll check. Yeah, that sounds right.
Lash: What was explained to us by the gentleman that did the plan is that the exterior siding is some type
of wood that's quite rare and that it would be very attractive if the paint was removed and clear coated,
which also would have a longer preservation and it wouldn't need the maintenance of painting. So that
was one of the reasons why we thought that might be a good idea. And then when he's talking about the
glazing, I don't know about you but I didn't know when they first explained that what that meant. It means
a row of windows right around the top. And then the cone roof needs to be put on for structure and for
drainage. So the other windows would be gone, that's my understanding, isn't it?
Hoffman: No, they would stay.
4
Park and Recreation Commission April 10, 2001
Lash: The other windows are still there? Okay, but then the row around the top and then there's kind of
an overhang thing over the door, just to make kind of an entrance and also to protect it from ice and those
kind of things.
Audience: Could the structure be bought unless...picnic spot or?
Lash: I think if it was for something like that, it'd have to be on reservation basis. Like any other shelter.
Hoff`man: The report identifies that the stays in the round house building, most likely Douglas fir. And
must of the materials were grain, lumber from old growth forests, and so that's what the lumber is.
Lash: Okay. Anyone else in the audience wishing to.
Terry Nicholson: I'm Terry Nicholson. I live at 6971 Country Oaks Road. I have a beautiful view of the
structure, 24 hours a day. I have two concems. One is vandalism. I see a lot of things that happen in the
park because my children are down there a lot and I also see a lot from my windows. With a good set of
binoculars you can really see a lot. And I have witnessed kids smoking things that smell funny in that area.
I've witnessed kids trying to kick down in the door just to get inside. They're down there with crowbars
trying to get in. I don't know if that same problem would exist with a new painted structure or not, but I
would suspect that it would so I see it more as the attractive nuisance. I do understand the significance of
having a historical landmark and something unique. It would be nice if in some way we could preserve, if
we put a posted inside thing, maybe it could be left. If there was some other way that we could preserve
some history, that would be nice but I personally don't see the full renovation as being a good investment
of park money. Our children could use some more equipment. Maybe make that a round house park
equipment thing that looks like the round house but it's just a bunch of slides. That's my two cents.
Lash: Okay, thanks Terry.
Ron Morgan: My name's Ron Morgan. I live on White Oak Lane... I guess I'm in favor of restoring the
structure. I think parks attract kids. I think if you had a little shelter there, you'd have the kids smoking
pot and vandalizing things. I don't think it's this building that's attracts vandalism. I think public spaces
do. This structure, you know everything out there is new. Well I shouldn't say, there are some older
houses there but a lot of the houses out there are real new or whatever. At least it's something that has a
little character or whatever. If the structure, or the outside of it was cleaned off`and restored, I have a
cedar house. I don't have the maintenance free siding. I like the wood I think is beautiful so I would love
to see the exterior, I think it would be much, much nicer than the... If you're out to save money, then those
shelters as far as I'm concemed, they're not much. Just knock it down and put anything up. I mean there's
your ultimate savings so, you know and I don't know. I guess we all paid a lot of taxes out there too and to
feel like we can get something on our end of town like the rest of the people in the rest of the town feel, so
I would be much more in favor of, in fact I'd do the complete renovation or Option 2 1 think it was where
you get someone to do it for $50,000. Whatever you can do to keep it up I think would be wonderful.
Lash: Okay, thanks Ron.
Craig Anderson: Hi, I'm Craig Anderson. I live at 7507 77th Street. Been in the neighborhood for longer
than the park has been there. That building has been there as long as I can remember. It's as ugly as the
day it was, I first got there. It is getting worst. I'm in favor of demolishing it and putting up what we call a
shelter. If we left that building up and we locked the doors, it's really not a shelter. It's just a locked
building again, subject to all the problems it's already been having. Ton of maintenance. I'd suggest we
tear it down and build a post and slab park shelter. Thank you.
Park and Recreation Commission April 10, 2001
Lash: Okay, thanks Craig.
Linda Scott: I'm Linda Scott. I live at 4031 Kings Road. I'm just across the road from the park. I've
owned my land since 1985 and I've lived in my house since 1990. When I first moved out there I thought
that the round house was the quaintest little building I ever saw. I can't say that about it now but I'm still
in favor of trying to bring that back. I think it's a landmark for our, not just our neighborhood but for our
city. There's a lot of history behind it. I too have seen the vandals. Fortunately I'm protected by shrubs
and trees so I don't see probably as much as you do. My binoculars can't see through the branches. One of
the things we did was we named it the Roundhouse Park, and we have a budget for fixing up the round
house and I'm in favor of doing that however we can. Whether it's the total rehab. If there's money for
that. If not, I know I'm also willing to dedicate some labor. I think it was Option 4 that was having
citizens do some demolition and then having a contractor take it from there. I know that I can easily tell
people where to turn to get to my house by telling them to turn at the round house. They've all seen it and
they know where it is. So I'm in favor of keeping it somehow. Thank you.
Lash: Thanks Linda.
Ann Osbome: My name is Ann Osbome. I live at 3815 Red Cedar Point, and have lived in that house for
29 years. I moved into it 3 months before my daughter was bom. It's a very favorite place. In fact tonight
when I got home my daughter said you're not at the meeting. You've got to go to that meeting because to
her the round house is very important. It's a very special place. I walk my dog every moming back and
forth by it. It's the center of the neighborhood. We used to have Leech's Resort there that kind of was a
central spot and now that's gone. A lot of people who've moved into the area don't have any sense of the
history of the area. Or of the uniqueness. We have so many houses that look exactly alike. House after
house. You can tell which builder has built in each area because they look exactly alike. This house, this
building is unique. We used to love to just drive by it when there were buildings nearby. It was special. I
would very much like to see us do something to preserve it. I certainly would be able to, would be willing
to put in tearing down or whatever needs to be done in order to preserve it. My ultimate would be
spending that $125,000 for that. I certainly think it's much better. I drive under that lovely bridge that
goes across 5 that doesn't get used. I think I've seen many 6 people on it, and I work on the other side of
the bridge and I go there every single day, back and forth, and it's not being used. But occasionally it's
being used by some kids, but not very often. But this is very special. It's very, very unique and I was so
delighted, there's a gentleman that used to walk with me who passed away this last year and he'd pass me
in the momings at 5:00 in the moming and he'd be walking up and down Minnewashta Parkway. And his
wife knew how special it was to him because there's a bench a short distance from that house and it was
put there because that spot is very unique and special and she and the people that knew him thought it was
special, that park was very special. It wasn't just common. It was a beautiful place to sit and look at the
lake and a very wonderful spot. I hope that somehow we can convince the city to spend the money to do
the $125,000. However I was at the meeting where they didn't look like they were interested in doing it,
even with your motion that you had urged them to do it. So I think we may have to go to a cheaper route
just to get to keep the house. I think the reason it's an eyesore is that at the time the place wasn't bumed
down, nothing was done. The reason it's costing us so much to do this is nothing was done. If it had been
attended to at the time and said okay, neighborhood what do you want to do with this? How much do you
want to put your labor into it? I think you would have gotten people who live there to pitch in. I know my
kids would come back and pitch in to help with it. They're all adults now but it's a very special place and
I would hope that somehow we would manage a way to keep it going. I really don't want a post and slab.
To me that just, that takes away from that very special spot. It's a very, I don't know, it's a cozy spot in
my mind. It's always been a part of Lake Minnewashta and I hope that there is some way that we can save
it. Thanks.
6
Park and Recreation Commission April 10, 2001
Lash: Thanks Ann.
Lori Kling: ...my husband won't be, he can't be here so. And I wanted to too. It's just... There a couple
things I'd like to say. I am in favor of restoring it.
Lash: Can you give us your name?
Lori Kling: Oh I'm sorry, Lori Kling, 4169 Red Oak Lane. We moved into Chanhassen 2 years ago and
we were so happy about moving here because you know, Chanhassen's keeping up with the modem things.
The stores and everything but the beauty of it is that they...beautiful building. And it really, I think for
what it's worth, I don't think $125,000 is that much when you think of what it can do for everybody. I
recently, this last winter we went to a park that I grew up in and we went into the wanning house in the
winter and it just, so many memories came flooding back to me. The smell and just being there and I want
that for my kids. And I appreciate the mobile home that you bring in in the winter. I really don't want to
go over there. I think that is an eyesore. I just don't think that's appropriate. I mean I just don't think
they can...mobile home. And a slab shelter is not going to provide any shelter in the winter either for the
wanning house. When you're skating, those kids love to skate out there. It's good exercise. It's good for
them. Nice to go and get something wanned, to be wanned up a little bit. And my daughter, I have to
bring up a point. My daughter's 10. She wanted to bring up the point, and somebody did mention this.
What are we going to call the park if they tear down the round house? She's just so sick about it. She
wanted to come, but I mean really it was named after, the park was named after the round house for a
reason and I think it is, it can be very unique and it is fun to tell people when they're getting to our house,
look for the round house. It looks really old and it'd be great if it was restored and it looked nice. It
doesn't have to be extravagant but something would be nice. I'm trying to think what else. Oh shelters.
Yeah, shelters I don't think are very attractive. Actually I think slab shelters are not, I think they are an
eyesore personally. I've never liked them. And they also get vandalized so, and I think actually that's
about it. I just feel like Americans as a whole, have such a tendency to just tear down the old stuff`and put
up the new and it doesn't last as long and it's not as unique and it doesn't have any history but that's what
we do and I just think this one little building, I just wish we could keep it. If nothing it brings a lot to the
uniqueness to the area. Thank you.
Lash: Okay, thanks Lori.
Tom Lotto: Hi. My name's Tom Lotto. I'm at 6991 Country Oaks Road. I'm right next to Terry looking
at it every day, but I think everybody that drives by it looks at it. I mean I just think it's, it's ugly right
now but I've been in the architectural field for many years. Right now I'm renovating a building that's, it
was built in 1823 in Shorewood. Helping out a couple and we're mnning into a stmctural problem because
really the house itself was basically, let's do this and do this and it tums out to be more so we have to go
the bank and get more money. Okay. So I don't know if you guys are all in the constmction field or
whatever but you know, my feeling from an architectural point, I guess everybody's giving their opinions
here about the g's and a's and man I'd hate to be in the point of making a decision of which way to go
because I don't know myself. I really don't know. It's directly in my back yard. She sees it in the winter
time when there's no leaves on it. I might a little bit but still. Vandalism, may I agree with that because I
call the cops down there but I bet you every other park where I grew up in Minnewashta Heights, we've
hadalotofproblems. So l mean basically we could probably use a few more law enforcement. Butwe
only have 2 1 hear so this is what I hear from, but. I really don't know what to do. I was part of that
playground put together with Todd and that came out pretty good. It was a neighborhood volunteer. We
had some neighbors. You know it was a young group from the new neighbors and the old neighbors and we
put it together one day. Just like what Todd had planned. I think that's a little different than lead base
7
Park and Recreation Commission April 10, 2001
paint. Rotten roof. No door. I mean is there a header on it, you know? I mean is it going to last forever?
Is it going to last for 20 years? I know Mrs. Carlson over here. I understand her history behind it because I
was going down Minnewashta Parkway years ago and working at Leech's Resort and seeing that and the
gravel roads and man I tell ya, I know it's, it was an object that was there. I never lived there but now after
I found out about the history, it's kind of a neat deal. Structurally I would probably, ifI know what I know,
structurally is it capable of holding up to what our ideas are all about? I mean scraping paint off`isn't
structural. Putting a roof on is structural. That's gone so that's one-third of the building. You've got to
put doors, windows. You've got to remove the paint. You've got to put something in there for kids to go
the ice arena. My feeling is structurally, I'm going to tell you right now, if it isn't structurally sound, it's
not going to be a safe place. I don't care if you've got kids smoking pot. You've got kids painting on it.
If it falls down. Or we've got to put $200,000 into it or $125,000 into it, I tell ya, you're talking a lot of
money for an old building. I'll tell you right now that's a lot ofmoney to put into that building. Somy
feeling is, if it's structurally sound, you want to keep it. The ones that are wanting it there, then it's there.
Then I think you probably do the neighborhood thing to get it upgraded. But if it's not structurally sound,
you've got to get rid of it because I've got kids and I'm seeing kids every day. There's other things I'd
like to see in the park done, but this was part of the program from day one and I've been there for 3-4 years
and I'd like to see little kids with their playground equipment. That was supposed to be coming up. I
believe the park has kind of been a little unattended from the city and I'm not going to hold it strictly to
Todd, but I mean it has to be as a group effort here, public and the proof. Man, I'd like to see the
playground equipment get done at the same time that's getting done with the little kids because if you've
got the kids swimming over there, you've got the little billy, that gets tipped over. The trash, that's a
public thing we should pick up the trash no matter what. Just like the people with their dogs. They've got
to pick up their whatever. I think the public has to be involved, but it's a hard decision and I know you
guys are going to, it's going to be a hard one for you. And I think with everybody's ideas, I just think
number one structurally it should be, has an engineer been in this thing? Tell me about the structure.
Hoff`man: The preliminary investigation and condition review was put together on July 20th, 1999 by
Locus Architecture. It's about a 7 page document. They hired an engineer to go through the structure and
it's.
Tom Lotto: It's sound?
Hoff`man: Oh sure. Yeah, there's not a crack in the foundation.
Tom Lotto: See I didn't know that.
Hoff`man: Their one recommendation was that a series of metal plates be placed around the interior base of
the structure to anchor it more securely from the concrete foundation to the wood frame structure itself.
Right now it just more or less sits on the foundation.
Tom Lotto: That color, that little model to me, you can't see the roof when we're on the ground. We're
looking at it from a bird's eye view. Secondly, the model right there doesn't do us anyjustice. Theway
it's taken so I think if these people here see that model from a man level, eye level, I think they might get a
different opinion of that. But also I don't think that looks like kind of like a diving board out there on the
end of that.
Lash: That's a canopy over the door.
Tom Lotto: Architecturally, whoever is doing this, they've got to come up with a little bit better.
8
Park and Recreation Commission April 10, 2001
Hoffman: The full architectural plans are here.
Tom Lotto: But if people, the more I'm getting into this, because basically I've just been kind of going la,
la, la, you know. And I'm on the comer. I'm the guy with the broom. You know I'm out there sweeping
every day and I talk to everybody walking by, and I asked last night halfa dozen people, and I'll be honest
with you. I asked them, you going to the meeting? Well, I don't know. I don't know. I'd like to get rid
of it but I'd like to keep it. No wonder why I get confused, I talk to my neighbors. It'd be a lot easier, if
we put the money, ifI say, if everyone of them here, and I know pretty much every one. If we put the
money in somebody else's pocket, if it was private money, would you remodel? That's the key. To me it
means if it was my money, no way. I couldn't do it. I just could not see that. Even though I've been, I
grew up for 30 years in Minnewashta Heights and I used to drive and work with Roy over there and I
understand Mrs. Carlson lived there and I know there's been Bible classes in there. The house I grew in
might get tore down in 2 years because they're going to move the highway. Man I feel bad but you know
what, that's to take care of all the fast traffic and everything like that so, if they want to get this thing
done, I think the neighborhood should get it in concrete that they're going to help with the labor because
sometimes they say things, and sometimes you don't follow through on what you say. And the ones that
don't, then they've got to come up with something else. Maybe you've been a taxpayer for a long time.
So has my dad. But I really have a hard time deciding which way to go here. I really do. Stmcturally,
Todd answered the question. Architecturally, it could be dressed up a little better. Safety wise, I'm sure
in today's society we can do a lot of safety and that is, the only way to get safety down there is lights.
Lights and cops. Okay. And neighbors, you know. Do the crime watch thing you know. Everybody gets
together. I think this, with Sergeant Potter with this neighborhood thing, if everybody follows that mle,
because on Project Leadfoot we can kind of revert that to our neighbors to do that. Safety is a piece of
cake because I see something, I get on the phone and call 911. Bango. You know take care of it. They're
there within 15 minutes maybe. So I think safety there can be handled, but stmcturally, money, it's going
to have to be labor. It's going to have to be a labor thing. I can't see spending $125,000 on a building and
then keeping the siding on it and stuff like that because how much does a roof like that cost?
Hoffman: About $20,000.
Franks: You know Tom, do you mind if I just ask you a few questions because I'm trying to kind of feel
you out for what your opinion...
Tom Lotto: Yeah, I'm just trying to get this whole thing because I've been kind of.
Franks: I'm looking at the engineer's summary and it's the one from July 20th '99 and they're not saying
that there's, there were no evidence of serious deficiencies or deterioration that would make the adaptive
re-use unfeasible. So we've been working under the assumption that although there's needing to be some
improvement to the stmcture, just as a part of any kind of restoration effort, stmcturally it's sound. And
are you suggesting that although you can cook a perfect dinner from food bought at Byerly's, that same
food bought at Cub for half the price tastes just as good? I mean does that make a difference for you?
You're talking like that 125 is a big number.
Tom Lotto: Well the reason why I'm saying that is because $125,000, you've got people over here that
want playground equipment.
Franks: Right, but if you could get a solid adaptive re-use out of the building on a Cub Foods budget, does
that.
Tom Lotto: I think then that would pacify.
9
Park and Recreation Commission April 10, 2001
Franks: What does that do for you?
Tom Lotto: To me, I've been in the architectural field forever and a building looks good. If you're happy
and you're happy and you're happy, I'm somehow or another, an architectural in my standpoint, I'm happy.
From a taxpaying standpoint, $125,000 because ifI had to pay it out of my pocket, I wouldn't be happy.
Franks: What about $50,000? One of the options in there was to.
Tom Lotto: Then again too, what are we getting for $50,000? For structural usage versus $125,000 for
structural usage, you know. I don't believe that. I don't believe you can put those two packages together
without any neighborhood labor right now. Putting a roof on that, you're not going to get a neighbor, I
don't think that's going to build a $20,000 roof like that and save 20 grand. I don't believe it. It's just too
complicated to do that round thing. If you're a carpenter, no. You couldn't do that. Not as a laymen
neighborhood, so basically the roof is kind of out of the question. For me. I can't see the neighbors. What
part does the neighbors want to take forth in this thing? Is it, I mean you're not going to paint it so now
you're removing the paint. You're going to shellac it I suppose. Is there going to be plumbing in it?
Franks: No.
Tom Lotto: Okay, to me you've got a beautiful beach. You've got a beautiful ice rink. You've got a
beautiful park and you've got all these houses. Everybody's all around it, but no bathroom. You put a
little port-a-potty in there, it tips over, you've still got to run home. I'm just talking normal talk here
because these are the neighborhood.
Franks: Plumbing with sanitary sewer would.
Tom Lotto: Yeah, is there sewer in there?
Audience: There has to be. There were people living in it.
Tom Lotto: Is it useful?
Audience: It's hooked up to the city sewer.
Hoffman: No, it's not hooked up any longer.
Audience: No, but it was.
Hoffman: Yeah. There's certainly sewer and water available at the site but the costs again go up another.
Tom Lotto: There was never nothing said about bathrooms and I believe bathrooms is a big issue. I mean
it's to the point you've got, I'll tell you, I get up. I'm downtown anywhere between 6:00-6:30 in the
moming, there's guys, women and men jogging, running their dogs, I mean it looks like a freeway. And if
somebody had to go to the bathroom, it'd be kind of nice. But I don't think it's going to work because you
can't leave a door open because they're going to get vandalized. So really is a bathroom for picnics?
Franks: Well for example the bathrooms at the Lake Susan park shelter are open by reservation, when the
shelter is reserved. Other than that I believe that they're locked.
10
Park and Recreation Commission April 10, 2001
Tom Lotto: Okay, so is this thing going to be something to where you don't live around the area and you
want to rent it out, you can rent it out?
Franks: You mean as far as the city?
Tom Lotto: Well like a family reunion.
Franks: Well any person can reserve any of the park facilities in this city that are open for reservation.
Tom Lotto: Okay. But ifI want to go to Lake Ann, yeah I know.
Franks: Now like the shelter at Power Hill, there's no reservation policy for those?
Hoffman: No. Just in the community parks.
Tom Lotto: Well if we're going to go the 9 yards here, make sure there's a bathroom. I mean I'm just
saying you've got to put some kind of bathroom facility. The other thing, you know this ice skating rink
thing, I'm just throwing all these things out at you because the ice skating is great. I see a lot more people
were using it this year than any other year, and I think it's just starting to get more involvement. But in my
eyes, when I go to the community center, they have a beautiful skating rink because my kids have been in
there, and it's on one level. Okay. On this trailer, am I right Todd, you have to walk up steps to get into
it. That's a safety issue. A little kid, 6 years old, got to go inside to warm up, take his skates, climb up the
metal steps and into the trailer. That's a safety. But the community center over here has a rubber mat all
the way, one level, straight in. There's a reason for the rubber. Safety I think. There's no rubber mat.
Any playground equipment we had to have when you fall down, you have to have rubber. What's the
difference? So this trailer thing that you drag in here, you've got a key for that I would imagine too, right?
Hoffman: That's correct.
Tom Lotto: And you're putting a light up there and you've got to pay an electrician for that...it costs
money to do that. Put it out there permanently. Have it done. Spend the time to have it all ready for, and
then have something on one flat basis.
Lash: So Tom, can I try and summarize what you said. Are you in favor of Option 4?
Tom Lotto: I don't even know what them options are.
Lash: 4 is the $50,000 combination neighborhood and local contractor. $50,000 for renovation.
Tom Lotto: I'd say, I think if you're going to get the neighbors, you're going to get some neighbors. I
know that they're out there. I mean I'd be willing to do it too. It all depends on how much they all want to
spend too. So I don't want to put my, everything on this 50 grand.
Franks: Do you think that's worth exploring?
Tom Lotto: Right, because number one. You're going to come into another point, oh no. We've got to
spend a little more money here and then the ball drops and I hate to put that on park. Where are we going
to get this money from? I can see it down the road. So I think we've got to get all that in order first
before.
11
Park and Recreation Commission April 10, 2001
Lash: So you'd be in favor of us exploring 4?
Tom Lotto: Yes.
Lash: Okay, thank you.
Tom Lotto: Definitely. There's lots more exploring to do than meets the eye.
Lash: Thanks Tom.
Franks: Todd, just for the benefit of those in the audience, could you give us a number again about what
the cost per unit for the portable wanning houses are for the season.
Hoffman: About $2,500 per season.
Lash: Okay, anyone else in the audience wishing to address the commission? Why don't you come on up?
Emily Bloudek: I'm Emily Bloudek. I live at 1171 Homestead Lane. I'm kind of new on this topic but I
guess I'd like to provide a kid's point of view. I've lived in Chanhassen for 14 years now. When I moved
here I still remember the 3 bars down on main street across from the old St. Hubert's. I remember
Klingelhutz' farm. I know Kerber's farm where Byerly's was. There was a little white house where the
new apartments are going in. I remember that. Around fall festival times I've talked to the older people
and they have wonderful stories to tell. I leamed, I actually met the guy that was bom in that house up in
one of the rooms and I just leamed about his childhood and that house actually had meaning to me there
because I leamed the history. The people that grew up there. What happened there. The farm. The
stories, and I don't know too much history about the round house but I think what makes Chanhassen
interesting is all the houses and the old buildings around here. Eden Prairie doesn't have very much any
more and it's just a modemized town. I mean they have a few but, and they're actually saving those. I
think the round house is great. It doesn't have too much history like big history but if it disappears and a
kid goes oh, a park. The Roundhouse Park. Why is it called that? Because there's no round house there
and they go look it up and they find a picture. Most likely the kid will say, oh I wish it was still there.
Man that would have been a cool place to explore. I mean if you go to a library and you look up Mudcura,
that old hotel, the library can tell you every single book it's in because kids go up and look up and want to
know the history about it. And if you talk with the elementary kids and probably more middle school now,
that did projects on that, I mean they can, if you just talk to them they go, I wish it was still there because
that would have been so cool just to see it and to know the history and to experience just walking through
it and I think Chanhassen should keep it because, just because it's old and it has stories. I mean probably
all the older people around here and everybody has a story about it, and like someone said before, if you
tear down the round house, what's the point of having a round house park. So that's kind of my point of
Lash: Thanks Emily. Anyone else in the audience wishing to address the commission? No? Okay.
Seeing no more people wishing to participate, we'll lose comments and open it up for commissioner
comments. Fred, do you want to start? I'll start in the middle.
Berg: Jim and I had a bet. I lost. Yeah I just have a couple things to say and I won't bore the audience,
now the commissioners with my dyatrid that you've all heard a million times already and I'll just say part
of it one more time and yield certainly financial concems in this day and age are an important item.
Something we can't ignore. Unfortunately finances sometimes rule the day. The question of vandalism
came up. I'm of the same opinion as one of the gentleman I believe who said the vandalism's going to
12
Park and Recreation Commission April 10, 2001
happen anyway, whether we renovate the round house or tear it down and leave a hole. There are going to
vandals. I'd like to think that they're getting together to discuss the incredibly exciting history class they
had with me that aftemoon, but perhaps they're talking about things less profitable. Which gives you a
little guide I guess of my background and also where I'm coming from with this whole thing, and that has
to do with history. History's not just about I don't think the historic nature of a building. Because we
can't trace the round house back 100 years and say that Henry Rice spent some time in there before he
went and fought the Dakota, doesn't make it any less of an historic building. It makes it a building that
isn't particularly famous but it's still I think in my mind a building with a historic nature. It's about what
our community is about. It's about what Chanhassen has stood for in the past and it's about what I would
hope Chanhassen stands for in the future. We've had a number, as Emily pointed out, we've had a number
of unique buildings in this town. We've save the depot. We've saved a couple other buildings that I've
noted. We lost the school house one day to Chaska. They came and literally stole it one night and moved
it to Chaska because they wanted to be known as the place that had education first in Carver County. Well
we've lost that now because Chaska was better thieves than we were I guess. I think it would be
unfortunate to tear down one more building that represents our history. We've, I started making notes
about alluding to the fact that we're retuming to the days of Eden Prairie and Bloomington, and then I
started thinking of Bloomington and Eden Prairie are saving their buildings. If you've been in
Bloomington you know about Pond Park. You know that that's a rich history there in terms of again the
Native American history in the area. There are buildings, I'm sorry I don't recall the names right offhand
at Eden Prairie but when they have their festivals or whatever they're talking about this farm and that farm
and they seem to have a sense of their history too and I'm feeling a little guilty for dishing Eden Prairie
and Bloomington, maybe just because it was so easy. Maybe we should be more like Eden Prairie and
Bloomington in some regards. I think that history gives us an idea of not only where we've been but where
we want to go. I think that having sat on this commission for 8 years I've heard a lot of people come in,
residents come in talking about their parks and inevitably sometime in the discussion they'll talk about
why they moved to Chan. And I haven't kept track, and purely antidotal but it seems to me that an awful
lot of the people say I moved to Chanhassen either because of the parks or because of it's unique nature.
There was something about Chanhassen that was quaint. There was something about Chanhassen that made
it different than the other places I've lived. Whether it be in Minneapolis where I grew up, or whether it be
in any of the other suburbs or out of state or different states altogether. There's something that was unique
about Chanhassen. I think I would like to deliver a message to the city. Not just to the citizens of
Minnewashta that you've got a building there, that we have a building there, excuse me, that's unique and
historical. From my perspective historical anyway. But a message to the entire community that not only
do we have this but this is the direction we're going to go. You have a city that is interested in your past
and it seems to me again, from an extremely biased point of view, that if the city is concemed about their
past, they're concemed about their future and I think that's a pretty nice message to deliver to the people
still moving to this community. We cracked 20,000 people with the last census. There's an awful lot of
those people that are here because Chanhassen represents something special to them. To me the round
house is special. It's also expensive and I understand the ultimate, people who are going to be making this
decision are the council and they've got to wrestle with that. I don't have to. I can just revert to my nature
as to what I think is right and I think it's right to preserve our past. That's all.
Lash: Beautifully stated.
Berg: Well, thank you.
Lash: Okay. I can't even begin to compete with Fred. He lectures for a living and I don't. I have to
speak in little.
Berg: Thank you for staying awake by the way.
13
Park and Recreation Commission April 10, 2001
Lash: ...able to do this at a really reasonable cost, and if that means we can get some volunteer labor, I'd
love to see that happen. Plus I think the beauty of something like that is, the neighbors are involved. They
take ownership. They take pride. That helps cut down on vandalism. Helps cut down on problems. And
it increases the neighborhood watch because you now have ownership in something in your park. This
began 5 years ago for us and given the comments tonight, and the very differing opinions, you can
understand how difficult this is for us. We've had many split votes. We've gone back and forth on the
issue, the same as what we heard tonight. So it's a difficult decision to make, and I agree with, I think it
was Janet Carlson who said part of the problem is nothing has been done for so long. And part of that is
our responsibility. Part of it is the process. We began it 5 years ago but the bidding process, all those
things have bogged us down. IfI would have had my way, it would have been done 5 years ago. And I'll
agree with everyone who says, it's an eyesore. It is an eyesore. We know it's an eyesore. And we would
like to see it be a beautiful landmark for your area. We've waited a long time. It was, when I started on
the commission 12 or 13 years ago it was a goal of this commission to get a park in that area, and it took
many, many, many, many, many years of budgeting and watching for the perfect site and we really take a
lot of pride in that site. We think it was the best spot we could have waited for and because we take so
much particular pride in that park, we want it to be especially special and the round house does make that
unique and special. I would be in favor of Option 4 if we can get the neighborhood support that we would
need to be able to keep it at a reasonable budget that the City Council will approve. I guess that's all I
have to say on the issue too. Rod.
Franks: Deanna, I was a little surprised by your comments initially because they're hard to reconcile with
the e-mails that we're getting that are mnning pretty much in favor of demolishing the round house and
then you're saying that you've talked to neighbors and people are interested and want to keep going and I
really didn't expect to hear that and so, it's difficult with the tumout tonight to try and, it's a lot of those
people that sent their e-mails and then someone said half the neighborhood's on spring break vacations.
Without that kind ofa tumout to really get a good gauge of where people are at so I'm stmggling with that
a little bit. And Terry, you were the first to bring up the public safety concems and I agree that that is a
very important issue and one that we've heard from a lot of residents over the years about the type of
vandalism that goes on in their parks. Unfortunately at this point there's not a citizen oversight committee
on public safety that you can really bring those concems to, but we hope that there will be a way for the
community to work together to have this addressed, but I think with just about anything that we do in our
park that's got an open space with shadowed comers somewhere, we're going to have the kids
congregating and maybe some unsavory activity. And then Emily, I was very pleased to hear some of your
comments because it's not often that we get to hear from residents your age that are so able to express
themselves. You brought back for me a lot of memories I had when I came to this town 10 years ago of
walking into the hardware story with creaky wood floors and dust up to my nose and thinking this is just
like the hardware store of my childhood and here it is. It's all here for me. All that's gone now. And
Fred, that brings me back to you about thinking there are things that are of value to us, that may not be of
value in the greater, larger community because they are our's and they are part of our heritage. I do, you
probably picked up, have a little bit of problem with the big price tag, full $125,000. Yet I do like the
idea of hearing that the neighborhood is interested and that there may be people willing to take on that
type of a challenge. That you've already worked together as a neighborhood in the installation of the
playground equipment so there's some history of that neighborhood pulling together and really doing
something. This is a bigger project, but yet also understanding that it will be necessary to have the
experience and expertise of a contractor to really lead on that project so I think it is time to really make a
decision one way or the other. So what I would be in favor of really is, really seeing if the neighborhood
can develop a person to work as a coordinator with this project and if we could identify a contractor in the
community that would be willing to take a look at this project and really seeing if the two come together
can actually get an adequate and acceptable job done on the round house. If not, I really think then we
14
Park and Recreation Commission April 10, 2001
need to move forward and if it can't be done, it can't be done and we need to really look at a demolition
and then at that point, either doing nothing or erecting a structure. At that point I would be in favor of
erecting some structure because the design of the park is centered on having a structure in that spot and the
park would appear incomplete I believe without that kind of focal point. Todd, are we under a specific
time line for actually like moving on the project?
Hoffman: Council wanted to hear back within, I think it was 60 days I think they specified. Other than
that, no other deadlines on the project itself.
Franks: Chairperson Lash, would it be okay to direct a question to.
Lash: Sure.
Franks: Deanna, you're going to be the target. So I'm just like wondering what your feeling is, since you
kind of brought it up, but of actually finding someone that could volunteer as a coordinator, volunteer
coordinator in a sense for this project. Do you think that person exists in your neighborhood and about how
long do you think it would be to secure that person?
Deanna Bunkelman: With holiday and spring break, I would do it in about a week. And assuming that
you're not talking about Option 3.
Franks: I'm not talking about Option 3.
Deanna Bunkelman: Good. Does anybody know...
Franks: No. The project is I think really technically beyond the scope of what a neighborhood could do
and it really will need a professional contractor but I think to get it done it's going to require that effort of
people in the community to assist with that effort.
Hoffman: The $50,000 would be, always would be city funds.
Deanna Bunkelman: Okay. Yeah, a week.
Franks: That soon huh. Todd, since this has gone out, any of the local contractors expressed any interest
at all in taking a look or.
Hoffman: There's nobody. I've talked to a few over the years and there's nobody busting down our doors
to get at the 50 grand.
Franks: It's not going to be a money maker I imagine.
Hoffman: Well the contractors, unless somebody steps forward, the people that you solicit are going to
want to make money or they're not going to be interested in the job. And so there's very slim margins in
here and we discovered that the first time around. And so there is some fear in going back around again,
even though we moved up from $25,000 to $50,000. That's all we can throw at the project because of the
bidding laws. Once we get above that then we're back to bidding plans and specifications and then bid it
so. It might, all things might not get done. I've always had some fears about the extent of community
involvement simply because of the difficulty of the project. We have a structure which is two story. It
presents some dangers when you're demolishing and taking off the roof. Then you have an unsound
structure because you do not have a, holding onto the outside of the building. Lead based paint is not
15
Park and Recreation Commission April 10, 2001
going to be scrapped off and cleaned by volunteers so there is, about the few things. There's some hand
labor that could be involved but depending on the contractor they may not want to have a volunteer near
that building when they're working on it due to insurance issues. But then clear coating it, the neighbors
could certainly clear coat the structure after it's all said and done so there are some things, some
landscaping that could be done. But from the day we started talking about volunteers, it's a difficult
project to get them engaged in and so the value there I don't think adds up to a large dollar amount. It's
something that's on the lower end.
Lash: Do you have a?
Audience: Yeah, has anybody thought of, oh one place I lived a local Vo-Tech.
Lash: Checked into that. Did that. We pretty much have covered all of our bases.
Berg: You have another question on the floor here. Tom.
Tom Lotto: I just know out of the, just kind of to go along with Todd here. That roof right now in the
bidding was 20 grand for the roof alone. You've got the rest of the structure to support...so what are you
going to do, have 30 grand to finish the rest of the house and 20 grand for the roof? Is that how it is?
Hoffman: I don't know.
Tom Lotto: I mean I'm just looking at number 4 here because if all of a sudden you're going into this
thing and all of a sudden you're scraping the paint oft; because I know asbestos has to be...with the white
coats and the gloves and that could run you 20 some thousand, $30,000 right there. Because right now I
have a bid out right now on a social room about 30 x 40 and I can't even scrap up the tile. It's going to
cost us 23 grand to have it scrapped and hauled away. You have to remove that and haul it away. They
don't just let you dump it anywhere.
Hoffman: The interior asbestos is such a small square foot amount that it's not going to meet the warrants
for those type of removals. We would do that prior to contractor stepping on the site. But the lead in paint
on the exterior would require a contractor to remove that.
Tom Lotto: What was your price on that Todd?
Hoffman: Estimated right around the $20,000 range for the paint removal and clear coating.
Lash: And clear coating, so that could be done volunteer. Okay. David.
Moes: Thank you. First of all I want to thank everyone for coming. I appreciate the input that everyone
has given tonight, as well as the e-mails that have come in. It's certainly been an educational and
enlightening process hearing everyone's responses. I was going to give just a general comment but I
thought I'd touch on a few of the items that were brought up. Rod kind of hit on the one which was the
volunteers with Deanna. I know people have had the opportunity to respond and give their thoughts and
ideas and that was one that really didn't come out very loud and clear as far as people wanting to volunteer
to work on the structure itself so I'll be very interested to see from Deanna, your standpoint, what exactly
does come from the neighbors around your area in regards to the volunteer and the people that you get and
the time commitments. Secondly, I think there were a couple of comments about the bridge that seemed to
have come up and $750,000. I was trying to think of a comparison to use on that one and the only thing I
could come up with, so bear with my story here, was it's like the 4 person family, husband and wife and 2
16
Park and Recreation Commission April 10, 2001
kids, and both parents are working at that point in time and you know a $5,000 vacation sounds pretty
good. So they go on their $5,000 vacation. However, a couple years later only 1 parent is working and so
the funds are a lot tighter and the money isn't there so all of a sudden the $500 vacation sounds a little
expensive but they'll do it. So there is a little bit of a difference of I can't say specifically what the
funding was for the bridge, however we are under a little bit tighter financial constraints now than I believe
when the bridge went up so we do need to operate within.
Lash: There was a lot of grant money involved with that bridge.
Moes: So I wanted to say that because it was brought up a couple of times and I'm not sure we're talking
apples and apples in this scenario here. So just to throw that one out. A third component that runs through
my mind is, if we're looking at trying to restore the, or keep the historical heritage here and restore the
round house, in my mind it's like when you attack a project. You need to attack it and complete it. And
the options that we're really been looking at here are not really going to get it to where it's a completely
functional facility. I mean I was hearing running water. I was hearing restrooms, etc. At this time we do
not I believe have the funding to take it quite to that extent, and get it to that fully functioning facility that
I believe people would like to see it get to. So from, when I look at it I like to see projects started and
ended and the residents at the end of the project get the full benefit of it. Even looking at the Option 4
which has been talked about a little bit, is that it will get the outside of the structure looking presentable,
although the inside still is a minimal or non-use, is that correct? It can be used as a shelter if we get the
volunteer work so, I mean so that gets us a little bit closer. And lastly, the last scenario that goes through
my mind is, maybe I'm coming at this a little differently but Fred, what's an old vintage car?
Berg: Well it depends on ifyou're asking me or my wife. Serious. There was something we saw today
that they were giving away a classic, vintage, antique car and it was a 1955 Ford. She was very upset
about the fact that that was considered to be a vintage car.
Lash: Makes her vintage.
Berg: That's right. She's into a lot of denial these days. I have a '69 MGB that's considered a classic car
and that's also an antique or a vintage so it really does depend on who you're asking.
Lash: And how old you are.
Moes: Maybe we have to go older than that then. 1955 Ford, okay. What I was trying to build an
example in my mind as to what I could use on this and I'll take the 1955 Ford and assuming that it doesn't
have an engine in it, but yet it still looks good on the outside. There's going to be, no offense here Fred, it
will be a group of individuals that would like to spend money to refurbish this 1955 Ford so that it looks
good and that people can walk by it and it does have a lot of class, a lot of history and a lot of heritage to
it. And people are very interested in restoring it, although as far as it being able to be driven, that's a non-
functioning vehicle. But it looks good. Then there's other people that would walk by that 1955 Ford
vehicle and say well it looks really nice. I wonder what kind of gas mileage it gets because I'd really like
to buy a new car and use it. Or a different kind of car and in essence this vehicle is something that's nice
to look at. It's got heritage. It's got history to it and it's nice to look at. But then there are other people
who would like to take the funding and use the dollars that, is that a sign? There are other people that
would like to take the money and spend it on a car that they could drive. And my viewpoint on it is that, I
prefer spending the money on something that people could drive. I understand the historical heritage and
the desire to restore things that have been important and hold a lot of meaning to people. At the same time
I struggle with the use of the funds and having people utilize facilities in today's environment and being
able to bring families to the park and use it so, I'm a strong proponent of Option #2 here. To get something
17
Park and Recreation Commission April 10, 2001
that is useable for the park and the facility. For the people that come to the park. That's what I had.
Thanks Fred.
Lash: Thanks David. Mike.
Howe: Thanks Jan. A couple things. First I apologize for being late. I missed some of the first speakers.
I've kept up on the e-mails. I want to thank you all very much for your eloquent and often emotional views
on this topic. It's a difficult topic. Flatly I would like to keep the round house, but not for $125,000. I
think that is too much. I always did like Option 4. I think that in a project like this if it was, I think
marketed is the wrong word but if we approach it from the right angle, I think you could have volunteers
from more than just a neighborhood. I don't think that I would expect the neighborhood to shoulder all
this. I think if we could enlist the Villager to talk about this, you might get folks from all over
Chanhassen. I don't live in your neighborhood. I'd certainly be happy to be there and put the gloves on
and roll up my sleeves. The second thing. Maybe I'm naive about this but I don't know in a $50,000 bid,
working with a local contractor, to what extent you could get some local businesses to kick in on some of
the supplies. Some of the lumber. I'd be willing to make some of those calls myself. I have no idea what
you'd find. It used to work for some things. That's something that's worth exploring. That might allow a
contractor like that to have a higher margin for what he or she might make. And again, I'm in favor of
Option number 4 but if that doesn't get past the council, and we do have to tear this building down, I
would like some way to save some elements of it. One thing that always intrigued me about the
architectural report and engineering report was that lumber. The Douglas fir that I think when he was here
a couple of months ago he said that they mount expeditions in Lake Superior to dredge old lumber boats
that sank to get this lumber. This is special stuff, and I'd hate to see it get chopped up and taken to a
dump. If there was a way let's say that we were going to build some kind of shelter, a regular concrete
shelter or benches, it would be nice as just a remembrance if we used some of that nice lumber. If it comes
to that. I hope it doesn't, but if it does, I'd like to save parts of it so I'm for number 4.
Lash: Thanks Mike. Jim.
Manders: Pretty tough body to follow after all of that. I'd also like to thank everybody for coming this
evening and expressing your views. I'm trying to think of the approach. Essentially I'm in favor of saving
it and some of the reasoning I got behind it maybe goes back to some of the initial decisions on getting
some kind of an estimate on the facility. Also some of the logic and decisions behind the support of the
referendum that we had a few years back. And I've got a few other comments that I just want to bring up,
but my thought on preservation is that is probably the foremost thing that pushes me in on a decision,
particularly on say the referendum. There were several components to the referendum, preservation being
one and that preservation was acquiring land for parks and usage down the road. Other components were
trails and the third component was to maybe revamping some of the facilities in the parks. My view on
those other two, the trails and revamping is that that can essentially be done at any time. Whenever
funding is available, but if you don't preserve or save the land, you're not going to have a park to build
there. And that's kind of my thinking here is that preserving this facility is something that certainly there's
a valid question on cost, but preservation still comes back to retaining some kind of history. And that's
been well explored so far so we don't have to talk about the historical component, but in my mind it's more
than just a novelty that has been pointed out in some e-mails. I think history is something certainly more
than having a railroad depot and a school and church kind of all in one comer here and we're saying okay,
that's the history of Chanhassen. I think it needs to be spread out a little bit and quite frankly some of the
other facilities that were mentioned, we can't save everything. Even trees. You know a lot of times that's
a big component of a park decision or new development. You know somebody owns the land. They're
going to get it developed. Is it our right to say that we should have the trees saved so that they don't put up
another park building? Well now that I live in Chanhassen, I'd like to see that but where do their rights
18
Park and Recreation Commission April 10, 2001
come in as far as preserving? I mean this brings me back to the idea of the facility itself, which is certainly
something more than what you see more the modem angle of Chanhassen, which is a bunch of new
commercial buildings with green gabled roofs that all kind of blend in and look the same. I would prefer
to see some of these older components retained. To me it certainly is an eyesore and I liken it to some old
fumiture that has been sitting up in the attic or out in some out building and you think it's junk and you're
going to throw it away, and you take it in and get it refinished and it's probably your prized possession that
you have in your house. And I've got some old chairs that I did exactly the same thing to. Now 1 of the 6
chairs was kind of a piece of junk but I spent a lot more to fix it up but it's as nice as all the other ones, and
I think this has the same potential. Some of the questions I have are certainly along the lines of using the
facility. When you talk about renting it out and maybe not even renting it but having it as far as
reservations. I think that's in the realm of possibilities for neighborhood gatherings or family reunions or
whatever. I don't think it would be the kind of facility that was mentioned in one of the e-mails like
Starring Lake has that cabin. I don't know how many ofyou are familiar with that rental facility. Imean
that's quite a bit, I think a larger area that is more conducive to renting out, but I've been there several
times and it's kind of a quaint little thing that's off to the side of Starring Lake and has a fireplace in it
and kind of a meeting area room. This area is, I think it's a lot smaller. Just by being vertical instead of
spread out, this probably wouldn't work for that but I think it would certainly qualify for a meeting area for
whoever wanted to use it. Costs of similar facilities. I mean if we were to build some other kind of facility
out there, I seem to recall some statement saying the cost would be $75,000 to $150,000.
Hoffman: For an enclosed stmcture.
Manders: Yeah, well that's what we have is an enclosed stmcture. So if we're talking some type of
similar facility like that, we're talking basically the same price, give or take. So and maybe my give and
take on $25,000-$30,000 as you're saying, well that's kind of, well I'd like to keep that. But my point is
that there isn't all that much difference between building a new enclosed facility than what we're talking
about spending on this one. I guess one question I would have on any other cities. Is there anything that
you can think of that another city has tried to refurbish something that has been anywhere's close to this
that rings any bells with you?
Hoffman: There are many communities, suburban communities have renovated or refurbished a living
history farm of sorts and some other communities we talked about this evening, so those take considerable
investment to Eden Prairie as a variety of the other communities. Brooklyn Park.
Manders: Yeah, I mean that's kind of the whole building site and out buildings and.
Hoffman: It varies, yeah. I'm not familiar with a stmcture, very many stmctures around that I know of, in
public park systems, that have been preserved similar to this.
Manders: Okay.
Lash: That's our point. It's very unique.
Manders: So I guess what I'd like to wrap up with saying you know, I'd like to see some preservation of
the facility. As far as there being a balance between development and preservation. Certainly we could
build some other facility for less but it would be quite a bit different. You're going to have an open air
thing that's still going to need a warming house there if you're going to have some type of skating rink or
what not. I agree with one of the comments earlier about bathroom facilities. It would be nice to have
something like that but to me that's something that can be dealt with later. So I guess one of the points
19
Park and Recreation Commission April 10, 2001
about the materials and everything, wood being so irreplaceable, you know that, what was the comment?
The existing materials are irreplaceable. This was the architect making the comments about that...
Lash; So Jim, is there one that you're in favor of? Are you leaning towards 4? Or what?
Manders: Well I guess I'm leaning towards 4. Certainly not spending any more than we have to but I was
thinking spend what we need to to have a facility that's going to work.
Lash: Okay, thanks. Anyone else on the commission who wants to add anything? Okay. Seeing no more
comments, is there someone who would like to entertain a motion?
Franks: I would entertain a motion that it is the recommendation of this commission that the round house
be restored for an adaptive re-use as a park shelter. And that the restoration effort take place with a
volunteer effort of the community working in conjunction with a local contractor. That the cost, actual
cost to the city of this project not exceed $50,000 and that if by, I'm thinking sometime next summer,
sufficient progress isn't shown, that the commission move forward with a recommendation to demolish the
round house and solicit bids for a park shelter to be erected there. Post and slab park shelter.
Lash: You want that all together in one motion?
Franks: You know it's a big, long monster of a motion but I think what I'm attempting to accomplish is to
really tie this up and to really create some solid direction here. And one way or another to move forward
with completing that park.
Lash: Is there a second to that motion? Okay, there's not a second to that motion. So the motion dies for
lack of second.
Howe: I liked your motion but just, I don't like the part about the shelter. I would just rather wait and see
what happens. I was with you til there.
Franks: How long are you willing to wait?
Lash: No, erecting the slab.
Howe: You can put a time period on, if we can find a contractor and some of these other things fall into
place but that's another discussion mind you that a shelter. What do you want to do with it? I mean once
you tear it down, if that happens to be what the course is.
Berg: I think that enters into the realm of our 5 year CIP.
Howe: It changes things.
Franks: I'd be willing to delete the portion of my motion if the commission can come to consensus about
what time that we really take a look at moving forward in that direction if progress isn't being made.
Howe: Okay, what kind of progress? I mean work starting? Getting a contractor? A completion date?
What are you thinking?
Lash: And I'd like to actually move that back to even September. If by fall nothing has happened, then
but mid-September, I mean mid-summer might be, this is already into April so just by the time it goes
20
Park and Recreation Commission April 10, 2001
through council, get the neighborhood organized, get everybody scheduled. Try to locate a contractor. I
mean I can see where potentially it could take several months even just to get some of that all put together.
Howe: Could you live with September?
Franks: September would be fine. That's under 6 months so that's doable.
Lash: And that would still give them plenty of time, if they needed to demolish it, to take care of it in the
fall.
Franks: Demolition is something that Todd, the city, is that able to be handled in-house?
Hoffman: Demolition of this, with the hazardous materials would probably be contracted out.
Franks: My concem is that then we're looking at it probably standing for another winter.
Howe: Not necessarily.
Lash: How long would that take do you think, to find a contractor to demolish?
Hoffman: Not very long. It's pretty easy.
Franks: Can that be done into the fall?
Hoffman: Sure. Sure.
Franks: Alright.
Lash: So would you like to rephrase your motion?
Franks: Well if we can go then in and delete the portion about from mid-July on and just say that the
commission will review the round house project no later than their September meeting to decide whether to
continue with the restoration effort or to move in a new direction.
Manders: So can I get a re-mn on what it is that you're.
Lash: So you're looking at Option 4 with the end of September as the deadline?
Franks: Correct.
Lash: For potential progress being made. And if there's no progress, we haven't pulled anything together
by the end of September, we tear it down.
Berg: We discuss tearing it down is what I heard you say the second time.
Lash: Is that what you said?
Franks: Well personally, I would like to see it go by winter if we're not going to be able to pull it together
by then. I think we really need to move forward and take it down.
21
Park and Recreation Commission April 10, 2001
Berg: I would be happier if you motion said we will consider in December whether or not we want to
continue or demolish. September, whether or not we want to continue or demolish. Knowing full well
what's going to happen, I don't know if this is according to the rules or whatever, I'm having a difficult
time supporting any motion that says we're going to tear it down. In September or July or November. But
that.
Hoffman: Chair Lash, you need to call for a second before conversation.
Lash: Alright, we'll call for a second. And Rod can you just.
Franks: I'll withdraw the motion.
Lash: Okay. Who wants to try and frame a new one? I think we're very close. What I was hearing, I
can't make the motion but what I was hearing is we move forward with Option 4. The September meeting
to discuss progress. To discuss the progress, either there is progress. If there's no progress, then we re-open
it to another option.
Franks: I'll offer another motion.
Lash: Okay.
Franks: I'd move that the commission move forward with Option 4 leading to an adaptive re-use of the
round house as a park shelter. And that the commission will review progress to that end in their September
meeting. If the consensus of the commission is that progress is not satisfactory, that the commission would
then entertain demolition of the round house at that time.
Lash: Is there a second to that?
Howe: Second.
Franks moved, Howe seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend approval of
Option 4 leading to an adaptive re-use of the round house as a park shelter. The commission will
review progress to that end in their September meeting. If the consensus of the commission is that
progress is not satisfactory, the commission will then entertain demolition of the round house at that
time. All voted in favor, except Moes who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1.
Hoffman: Chair, a couple of clarifications.
Lash: Yes.
Hoffman: That's a recommendation to the council.
Lash: Right.
Hoffman: And they will receive their recommendation on the 23rd of April. Who hires the contractor?
The neighborhood volunteer coordinator or the city?
Lash: You're assuming the city would be hiring the contractor.
22
Park and Recreation Commission April 10, 2001
Hoffman: Okay. Because the relationship between the contractor and the neighborhood is going to be key
if they rely on, and so ifI go out and solicit quotations from a contractor, and I state that when you respond
to this RFP be aware that you'll be working with the neighborhood volunteer coordinator to perform a
portion of the work, that's going to raise a huge red flag.
Lash: How could we do it any other way? I mean they can't go hire someone. I mean the city's got.
Would you want them to try to find the person ultimately who wants to work with them and then we would
hire them?
Hoffman: Well the City Council has the authority to allow the neighborhood to go ahead and work with
the contractor on a time and materials basis, up to $50,000. If they want to take that leap of faith and I
think that puts a lot more flexibility into the hands of the contractor and the neighborhood. If the council is
uncomfortable with that and they say no, we want competitive quotes on what you're going to accomplish
out there, then I'm left with identifying what we are going to accomplish with a $50,000 getting
competitive quotes for and then hoping to engage these volunteers in some form of the construction.
Lash: So if the neighborhood found the contractor, they'd already be doing, they'd be doing their own
competitive bidding, wouldn't they?
Hoffman: They should, yeah.
Lash: So if the City Council is comfortable with that and seeing the information that they gathered, so in
the end we'd still be paying but they'd be coordinating with the contractor.
Hoffman: I just want to make sure when I present that to the council, we present it in a fashion that.
Lash: Is that what people?
Franks: That would be my understanding is the volunteer coordinator would really be key in that process
of soliciting their contractor to work with that effort.
Hoffman; Okay.
Lash: Deanna, does that sound doable?
Deanna Bunkelman: Yes.
Lash: Okay.
Deanna Bunkelman: Yeah, we actually have some thoughts about some people in the neighborhood. Some
people that have actually done homes in the neighborhood. About contacting them and we'll be contacting
them tomorrow. And I was curious.
Lash: Can you hold on one second though. David, do you want to go on the record about your vote?
Moes: Sure. I think I captured a lot of the thoughts earlier in the conversations. And thinking through it, I
respect the efforts of pulling the volunteers together and having the community move forward with
refurbishing it. At the same time I still look at a completed, fully utilized facility and based on Option 4, I
don't think we get to a fully functional facility based on what I was hearing from the audience as well as
from the letters from those that wanted to restore it so, when I take that into account in my thought process,
23
Park and Recreation Commission April 10, 2001
I lean more towards the demolition and the building of a facility that is fully utilized. It's an open facility,
concrete slab, pole etc but it is a facility that's ready for use and available in a shorter time period versus
trying to stand a refurbishing project over a 1, 2, 3 year time period and people start losing interest in it so
I'm much more comfortable staying with the demolition and the slab and pole environment .... facility for
the community to use in the neighborhood.
Lash: Okay, thanks. Okay Deanna.
Deanna Bunkelman: I was curious. When you go to the park in Excelsior, that's down by the lake, and I
guess the park there was put together by neighborhood volunteers and they have a place that.., and all these
different businesses that actually donated. Have you actually contacted businesses in the area to see if they
would be willing to donate? Okay, so that would be another option that we could explore. And would that
be an option then if we get people to do that, then say hey, we'll put a plate with your name?
Lash: Sure.
Deanna Bunkelman: Okay.
Lash: We're not proud.
Hoffman: ABC Lumber would be a good place to start.
Lash: Thanks so much for coming in tonight. Hopefully this will all work out and you'll end up with
something to be really proud of in your neighborhood.
Berg: Thank you very much.
COMMISSION MEMBER COMMITTEE REPORTS. None.
COMMISSION MEMBER PRESENTATIONS.
Lash: Do we have the Arbor Day, Park Pride Day coming up pretty soon?
Hoffman: Yep.
Lash: When is that?
Hoffman: May 5th.
Franks: Update on the city survey?
Hoffman: The city survey was approved by the City Council last night. 172 questions and I have a copy
upstairs if you're interested in looking at it.
Lash: Can I just ask for clarification on the YMCA? Did they mention it by name or not?
Hoffman: No.
Manders: On that city survey, did you hear that Eden Prairie just did one, or got the results or something
was published in the paper about a survey?
24
Park and Recreation Commission April 10, 2001
Hoffman: No, I didn't hear about that.
Manders: Just recently. Evidently there were some results...
Lash: Okay, anything else? Alright, and we don't have an administrative packet, right?
Hoffman: No.
Lash: And you don't have anything else for us? Okay. Seeing nothing else on the agenda, is there a
motion to adjoum?
Howe moved, Franks seconded to adjourn the Park and Recreation Commission meeting. All voted in
favor and the motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
Submitted by Todd Hoffman
Park and Rec Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
25