HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006 04-18 SMAGENDA
SPECIAL MEETING
MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL
7:00 P.M. Tuesday, April 18, 2006
Maplewood Community Center (Theatre Room)
2100 White Bear Avenue
Meeting No. 06-11
B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Acknowledgement of Maplewood Residents Serving the Country.
C. ROLL CALL
Mayor's Address on Protocol:
"Welcome to the meeting of the Maplewood City Council. It is our desire to keep all discussions civil as we
work through difficult issues tonight. If you are here for a Public Hearing or to address the City Council, please
familiarize yourself with the Policies and Procedures and Rules of Civility, which are located near the entrance.
When you address the council, please state your name and address clearly for the record. All
comments/questions shall be posed to the Mayor and Council. I then will direct staff, as appropriate, to
answer questions or respond to comments."
E. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Gladstone Redevelopment Initiative
F. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS
Sign language interpreters for hearing impaired persons are available for public hearings upon request. The
request for this service must be made at least 96 hours in advance. Please call the City Clerk's Office at (651) 249-2001
to make arrangements. Assisted Listening Devices are also available. Please check with the City Clerk for availability.
RULES OF CIVILITY FOR OUR COMMUNITY
Following are some rules of civility the City of Maplewood expects of everyone appearing at Council Meetings - elected
officials, staff and citizens. It is hoped that by following these simple rules, everyone's opinions can be heard and understood in
a reasonable manner. We appreciate the fact that when appearing at Council meetings, it is understood that everyone will
follow these principles: Show respect for each other, actively listen to one another, keep emotions in check and use respectful
language.
Agenda Item E1
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Greg Copeland, Interim City Manager
FROM: Charles AhL Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Melinda Coleman, Assistant City Manager/Comm [}eVDirector
Bruce Anderson, Director Df Parks and Recreation
Dan Faust, Director 0fFinance
SUBJECT: Gladstone Area Redevelopment Improvements, City Project 04-21 —
Public Hearing —7:00 p00— MCC ][heater
Review of Project Information and Recommendations
DATE: April 12,20O6
INTRODUCTION
/\ public hearing On the Gladstone Redevelopment Project h@SbSHnC8Uedfnr Tuesday, April 18.3OO6.at
7:00 pm. The intent of this hearing is to begin the process of the City Council receiving all the data and
information collected over the past 2years; and also tn receive the recommendations nf the Task Force,
and City Commissions and Boards on their perspectives regarding the proposals. The hearing will bn
conducted @Sfollows:
1. Presentation of the pnonanm — Brad Scheib, HKG| — (approx. 45 minutes)
Note: Presentations bwTask Force and Commissions are approx. 5- 0mminutememch
2. Presentation of the Task Force Recommendation — Wayne Sachi, Gladstone resident
3. Presentation Of Planning Commission Recommendation — Dale 7 and Micheal Grover
4. Presentation of Parks and Recreation Commission Recommendation — Peter Fischer
5. Presentation nf Open Space Task Force ReonmmendaUon — yWorhGarnnmnrA|Singnr
8. Presentation of Community Design Review Board Recommendation — Linda Olson
7. Presentation Of Housing and Redevelopment Authority Recommendation —Tom
COnnS|mUVeQ'BriHn
8. Presentation of Historic Preservation Committee Recommendation — George Rossbach
9. Public Hearing Testimony
AS noted, presentations are expected tO last approximately SO minutes followed bv public testimony. Staff
has mailed nearly 400 notices to residents, property owners and interested parties along with publishing
public notices Cf the meeting. The evening will be dedicated to the City Council receiving information and
FeCVrOD1HDd8tiOOS. At the conclusion of this stage of the process, the City Council should provide staff
questions OD the information. Additionally, staff is looking for direction from the Council on what additional
information is required for the Council to make @ UOG| determination on this important initiative.
Background
The Gladstone Redevelopment initiative was first discussed 8s@ top priority with the City Council inthe
Council/Staff Planning Retreat iD March 2OO4. The Council adopted @ goal Of exploring the redevelopment
Of the Gladstone Area. During 2O04 the Community Development staff worked with 8D urban designer,
Rich McLaughlin, to prepare a redevelopment concept plan. Mr. MoLauQh|in'n services were paid with a
grant from the Metropolitan Council. The McLaughlin concept proposed redevelopment to include slightly
more than 3OO new housing units and 174 feet Of commercial space, but did not include
anything related tO the Tourist Cabin property. During this planning pPOceSS. the Gladstone Neighborhood
Coalition developed a number of redevelopment concepts for consideration. |n November 2OO4. the City
Council determined that a more extensive public involvement process and comprehensive review of the
entire Gladstone area was appropriate and retained the services Of8 master planning consultant. A
proposal from Hoisington Koegler Group (HKGI) and Kimley-Horn Associates (KHA) was approved, and
they were selected on the Master Planners.
Agenda Item E1
/\work Dh3D from HOiSiOgtOD NOeOlerG[VUp. Inc., KjOOkev-HV[D and Assoc., Inc., and 8EH. Inc. was
approved by the City Council inDecember 2004. The plan proposed an extensive meeting and review
process over a minimum nine-month period. /\20-oernnn Task Force was established in January 2OO5to
help guide the process. From the December 2OO4 staff report: "The intent nf the Task Force im not tnlimit
participation, but to make SUPe that all interest gnJUpS are represented." The report from HKG| K8G3te[
Planner, Brad 8Chieb.iSattached. The Task Force recommendation will be presented by Wayne 8@Chi.@
resident of the Gladstone area. While a majority nfUlel[amkFonnnoQnaedonthnUna|reoommnndabon
opinions were excluded and thus other opinions are also shared in their final report.
On August 8.2005, the city council authorized the preparation of@O Alternative Urban AreawideReview
k\UAR\ for the Gladstone Area Improvements. A proposed redevelopment nf this size exceeds the
threshold for environmental navievv, requiring that the city council designate a process for this
environmental review tOoccur. The City expanded the services 0f the consultant team 0fHOiSiDQtOD
KOeg|e[GnOUp. Inc. /HKG|\ Ki[n|ey-Horn and /\S3QCiGteS. Inc. /KH/\\ 8EH Inc. and E][@UD |DtedeC, Inc. to
prepare a draft Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) for the maximum development scenario. The
final draft document isavailable for review. Public comment OO the AUAR has been received, but until @
final development scenario is selected, a mitigation plan cannot be prepared and the final AUAR cannot be
submitted for review and action.
A0AR and Master Framework Plan Process
The master planner's scope of work included the preparation of an Alternative Urban Areawide Review
(AUAR) and a Master Framework Plan as deliverable documents. The AUAR has been prepared in lieu of
@n Environmental Assessment Worksheet /E/YW\. The AUARiB@ more extensive version Of the EAVV
process and has been determined as necessary due to the extensive number of parcels that may be
impacted by the redevelopment initiatives. The AUAR provides the city with o guide to the development
process and ensures that proper environmental procedures are followed to protect the roadways, storm
water and other environmental features Of the area. The /\U/\R will ultimately include 8 mitigation plan for
the redevelopment initiatives that the city will be required to implement as part of the infrastructure
improvements. The AUAR was prepared to consider the most intensive development proposal. The more
intensive nature is being studied only to measure the impact of the proposals on the local utilities and
environment. |t does not provide @ reason tO approve the development @t that level. The AUARalso
extends the moratorium iO the area until the final document iSadopted.
The Master Framework Plan im the guide document for the area. The Master Framework Plan will beused
by property owners and the city to facilitate a plan that includes financial incentives (if appropriate) along
with guides on building On@te[i8|S, infrastructure irDp[OverDeDtS |80dSC@piDg investments and other public
and private improvements that will provide for the future of the Gladstone Area. The Master Framework
Plan is the guiding document that the City Council will eventually adopt to define the entire redevelopment
pnJCHSS. It has been prepared assuming a development level of approximately 800 units. |f@lesser
intensity of development is selected by the Council, many of the principals with the Master Plan will remain
appropriate, although some of the density levels would need to be revised. This document, however, ia
appropriate for any of the proposals in order to ensure that the redevelopment vision is realized.
Following are @ summary Ofthe major findings Of the AUAR and Master Framework Plan:
The current project area contains approximately 475 housing units /1OOmanufactured homes, 188
single family homes, and 187 multi-family units) plus 180,000 square feet of commercial
development Vf which 3O.000-4O,OOOiS neighborhood retail. The project area also has nearly 60
acres of park and open space.
Agenda Item E1
• The studied (most intensive) redevelopment scenario includes the addition ofapproximately 900
new housing units cons of a combination of stacked condominium/apartment units and
attached town homes, along with approximately 50,000 square feet of new or relocated existing
neighborhood retail. An additional 15,000 square feet of an existing office/service use is proposed
to remain within the area. A portion of the open space at Frost and English was studied ano
development area for town homes to determine the impacts. Note: This was studied [odetermine
the environmental impacts not 88@ recommended level Vfdevelopment.
• The ned8vH|OpD1eDt p|8D calls for approximately $18 [Di||iOO of public iOOp[VverOeOt8 including Op8D
space enhancements, Flicek Park improvements, streetscape and roadway improvements mainly
to Frost and English Avenues, burial of power lines along Frost and English and site contamination
clean-uo/remediotion. Implementation of the redevelopment in assumed b) occur over a period of
5-1O years ormore.
• A reconfiguration of the Park and Open Space system is proposed, including the redevelopment of
Gloster P@rk, the re-programming Of F|iCek Park to @ CO0biD@tiOD of open space and storm water
overflow area. Redevelopment or reconfiguration of the Gladstone Savanna toallow
environmentally-sensitive development options is not recommended within the plan. &bddQe
structure is proposed to allow pedestrian, storm water and habitat connections between the
Savanna and F|iQek Park.
• A key part of the Master Plan calls for an improved pedestrian circulation system. LOCG|
connections 0o the Gateway and Ventn Trails are proposed. /\ combination of pedestrian ways,
green streets, plaza streets, off-street trails and nidevva|hn are necessary to meet this requirement.
• Natural, cultural and physical resources were studied as part of the study and will be recognized as
part of the development plan. Natural PeS0UrCeS will require major improvements to alleviate
current conditions where runoff is directed into Lake Phalen without significant treatment. APh83e
| Environmental Site Assessment has been conducted. Fourteen sites will require additional
studies and cleanup which will be accomplished through Phase 11 evaluation and development of
response action plans.
• Existing utilities (sanitary sewer and water) are adequate tOserve the area. Improvements tVthe
storm water system are needed to properly manage discharged runoff waters. Five wetland areas
exist within the project anaa. Efforts will bo made tn avoid impact to these areas.
• The traffic analysis reviewed the proposed impacts of additional traffic through 2030. The key
finding in that the proposed redevelopment concept will not require major nnibgatinnrneamurea.
Some improvements will be needed @t Frost and l[HS1. The traffic engineer found that the
proposed redevelopment will have less impact than the proposed Comprehensive Plan, which
permits significant commercial/industrial development patterns.
• The need for increased fire and police protection is identified within the AUAR. However, the
report concludes that an increase in activity within the area will also nnaedn a renewed interest in
property maintenance and public safety that will help minimize the public safety department
impacts.
• The study concludes that students from the proposed development will help support declining
enrollments in the school facilities.
Financial Planning Considerations
The City Council requested further information on the financial planning considerations should the project
be implemented. For purposes of illustration, staff has prepared a potential financing plan for Council
consideration. We have selected the $18.15 million plan for illustrating one possible scenario. /\B page 5-
1[J the Master Plan sUQQ8sts /s8s8en�a/ and "PUb�c�nan�a/p8r�z�ab0ncreates
ab�fvtOinfluence0UACQ/nes. This financial plan iS illustrative and does not include the detailed financial
planning required tO make the process workable. This concept will be consistent with the final adopted
financing plan for the improvement project.
Agenda Item E1
Financial Planning Considerations (continued)
Proposed Improvement
Land Acquisition (could be payments b}deve|Opep):
Demolition (could beby City Or payments tOdeve|OperS\:
Environmental (could beby City or payments todnvn|opena\:
Street Reconstruction (100%byCitv):
8trHetSc@pe |0pFOvH0HDtS (100% by City):
Frost B[idg8/BSbO/10O%byCitv\:
Savanna Improvements (10O%byCitv):
F|iCek Park Improvements /1UO%by[|itv\:
8t0rOOvvGter|[npnOveOneDtS /100% by City):
Power Line Burial /100% by City):
Total Project Budget:
I am MY N
/\B noted above, only $7/1 million Ofthe proposed $18]5 million budget, O[13-2%.are potentially
development subsidies. Kim likely that this percentage will be less than 109&. The remainder will bopublic
improvement projects and would be implemented through the City improvement process. For purposes of
illustration, assume that $2/1 million for land acquisition, demolition tO clear property and environmental
clean-up iS funded through development agreements, the remaining expenses Of$15.75 million would be
under City control through the improvement process.
Following are revenue sources assumed for @nimprovement project Of this scenario:
Special Assessments and PAC charges to Developers: $ 2
City's Electric Franchise Fee: $ 300.000
Tax Increment Financing /lF|F\:
Total Project Revenue: $18
ItiS important hJ note that the Special Assessments to Developers amount Of$2.SOO.000i8 exactly equal to
the budget amount proposed for the Savanna and F|icek Park improvements. AS noted in the Master Plan
(page 5-6), tax increment financing (TIF) cannot be used for park-type improvements. This budget amount
is consistent with the potential payment of $2.4 million for land acquisition or payments to developers. The
scenario assumes that this is necessary to make the developable parcels attractive to developers (as noted
On page 5-8tO page 5-13nf the Master P|@n). This financial scenario will be more complex 8Sother
improvements to the property may be assessed to developers, including street costs that might increase
the park availability charges to allow for the improvements to the Savanna and Flicek Park.
The City's Electric Franchise Fee was started in 2005 as potential revenue source to pay costs of
operating street lights, traffic signals and as a potential funding source for power line burial. It is
fee applied on all electric bills bv)Cce| Energy nn behalf nf the city. This scenario proposes that the
franchise fee be increased b}finance the power line burial cost. One option would betOincrease the
franchise fee from the current rate of$O.50 per month OD@home to $O.G5 per month for two years. This
would increase annual franchise revenues by$15U Another option would bet0 issue bonds
and increase the fee by a smaller amount for a longer period of time to pay off the bonds. Again, similar to
park improvements, an assessment to developers will be needed (at least 20% of the cost of the power line
burial) iD order tO sell the bonds necessary for this cost. This scenario provides for proposed subsidies k]
ensure developers provide the type and style of improvements included within the vision for the area.
Agenda Item E1
The budget revenue Vf$15.25 million i8the major source Of financing for the redevelopment initiative. Tax
increment financing iS@ tool whereby the City captures the increase property value OD the land. Again, iti8
the property taxes on the increased value that is captured, not the current taxes paid. The developers
continue to pay the actual property taxes nf the increased property value. |n rough calculations, ithas
been assumed that each residential property added to the Gladstone plan will generate an additional
$22 |n87 planning scenario, the property value increase Of all the redeveloped parcels will
be captured by the City and used to support the payments of various bonds that would be sold to pay the
cost of the public improvements. The bonds would likely be structured to capture this increase for a period
UptO2Oyears. Upon full payment of the bonds, the property taxes on the increased value would be
allocated tO all taxing districts /SChOO| county and Citv\ |DDV cases would itbe proposed that developers
not pay the increased property taxes within the tax increment districts as this would be counter productive
Uo the payment o{ the bonds. This is the most complex portion of the financing scenario and could vary
substantially. In some cases, the City may wait until development is secured and bond payments from TIF
can be reasonably guaranteed. |D other scenarios, the City may wish hJ invest iD some improvements to
"jump-start" the redevelopment and capture the future revenues of the TIF to pay the bonds. Financial
planning will be 8 C[ihc8| O8x[ step in the Omer8|| iDlp|8[D8Ot@ti0O phase of this project.
FiD@|kyUDdH[thiSSCHD8hO,thHCdvwiU|ikelyh@ve significant 8dditiOD@| operation expenses from the new
development. Much of this cost will be for maintenance of the newly installed improvements within the
Savanna, the streetscape and roadway improvements, such as sidewalks. |tim proposed that a
development fee be included in all the developer agreements associated with the new improvements. A
service district (page 5-9 of the Master Plan) might also be considered, but it is the basic intent that the
redevelopment pay for itself both for the improvements, but also for the on-going maintenance
requirements. Again, financial planning during the iDlp|e[DeD[8[inD phase will be critical.
It is recommended that the City Council conduct the public hearing for the Gladstone Redevelopment
Project. The Council should receive the reports of the master planner, the Gladstone Task Force, and the
City Boards and Commissions. At the conclusion nf the public testimony phase, the City Council should
provide city staff direction on questions and methods to proceed to ensure final resolution of the overall
redevelopment. Once the Council adopts @ plan, staff can initiate the Implementation phase 0f the project.
While two development scenarios, the 800-unitand the 490-unh plans, have been presented for
consideration, each plan can be revised to increase or decrease based on the extent of various
innpn}vHnnHntS. Compromise between the plans iS8 reasonable scenario. We, 8S the senior staff
responsible for this pnOCeS8. can see the importance to maintain the concepts and financial stability of the
800-unit plan, but we also recognize that the threshold of acceptance from the surrounding neighborhood
has been exceeded. This may call for compromise and prioritizing of the various improvements. We have
suggested to each of the COrnnnitteeo. Boards and Task Force to consider this issue. The Council may
also wish t0 consider this approach, making the necessary value judgments Of the various phases t0reach
8 final decision oU the project. We firmly believe that doing nothing is not 8Oacceptable option. |tiGthe
recommendation [fthe staff that this "value decision making process" is best made by the City Council.
VVe hereby recommend, consistent with @ vast majority Vfthe@Fe8pFDpertvOvvDenS@DdnHSidHDtS.th@t
improvements be made within the Gladstone area and that the debate should be limited to the extent Ofthe
improvements and the level of density necessary to support those improvements.
Agenda Item E1
Attachments to this report:
1. Report from HKGI (dated April 13, 2006)
2. Map of Illustrative Master Plan and Land Use (HKGI, dated December 1, 2005)
1 Map of Plan B Public Improvement Plan (KHA, dated February 2006)
4. Gladstone Cost Estimates (dated January 6, 2006)
5. Task Force Recommendation Minutes from March 23, 2006
6. Recommendations from Planning Commission — March 20 and April 3, 2006
7. Recommendation from Park and Recreation Commission with Open Space Task Force
8. Community Design Review Board Minutes from April 11, 2006
9. Housing and Redevelopment Authority Minutes from April 11, 2006
10, Historic Preservation Commission, letters of recommendation
11. Master Plan (provided to City Council previously)
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. MM
MIN
To: City of Maplewood City Council
From: Brad Scheib, AICP
Subject: Consideration of the November 14 2005 Draft of the Gladstone Neighborhood
Redevelopment Plan
Date: 13 April 2006
INTRODUCTION
The meeting on April 18"' is a public hearing on the draft Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan. The consultants Nvill
be making a 30 to 40 minute presentation at this meeting followed by short presentations from representatives of the Various
advisory boards and commissions. Comments from the public will be expected at this public hearing.
The objective of this public hearing is for the City- Council to take input from the community, deliberate and if possible take
action to adopt a Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan. The Council can adopt the November W' draft of the master
plan as presented or it can adopt the plan with certain modifications identified through the course of the public hearing.
Following action on the plan, staff will prepare the final document and will complete the ALTAR mitigation plan The final
ALTAR and mitigation plan will be brought back for Council consideration following final review according to Minnesota
Rules.
I 41 X"01111561
Over the last several years, the City of Maplewood has been exploring redevelopment concepts for the Gladstone
Neighborhood. In December of 2004, the City retained the services of a consultant team to conduct/facilitate a planning
process and develop a master plan for the neighborhood. A Task Force representing City Council, boards and commissions,
community residents and neighborhood businesses was assembled to provide guidance to the process and to serve as a conduit
to the neighborhood and greater community. The process has included five public meetings and eleven meetings of the task
force over the last 14 months. In November of 2005, a draft master plan -, presented to the public and to advisory boards
and commissions. In December of 2005, newly appointed Council member David Bartol requested that an alternative concept
be developed and explored. At a City Council meeting in January, the Council authorized staff to develop the, alternative
presented by Mr. Bartol and to put this alternative through the, same analysis and public review as the November 2001 draft
plan. Consultants and staff completed this review over the months of January and February of 2006, presented the concept to
the Task Force and presented the concept to the public the first week in March of 2006. In March and April of 2006, the plan
was discussed one last time by the various advisory boards and commissions as well as the Gladstone Task Force. Their
respective recommendations and discussions are attached to this agenda report.
THE PLANNING PROCESS
The Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan was developed through a detailed planning process that has taken over a
year to complete. The process included the following key steps:
• technical site analysis and document search conducted by the consulting team
• public discussions and dialogues to establish core direction/ vision
• analysis of land use and development alternatives to achieve the vision
• public review and shaping of the concepts
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, MN 55401-1659
Ph(612)338-0800 Fx (612) 338 -6838 www.hkgi.com
Direct (612) 252-7122 Email bscheib@hkgi.com
April 18 Council Background Report
13 April 2006
Page 2
• technical analysis of concepts (public improvements, analysis of financial and market feasibility
• refinements and adjustments to the concepts to make them feasible
• technical analysis of the environmental impacts of the development concept (draft ALTAR prepared)
• preparation of draft master plan
• public review of results and draft environmental review (ALTAR}
• further refinements and adjustments to the, concepts to incorporate public concerns
• presentation of master plan with refinements to advisory boards and commissions
• preparation and analysis of additional concept alternative introduced by Mr. Bartel
• public review of additional concept and comparison to draft master plan
• final review by boards and commissioners to formulate recommended action
• consideration by City Council
• implementation (to be commenced upon approval al'the master plan)
Throughout the process, the Gladstone Neighborhood Task Force met at key points (I I meetings) to review public discourse
over the project and to guide the consultant team's work and actions. These meetings generated significant debate and dialogue
that fed into the public meetings and that is reflected in the final master plan,
THE MASTER PLAN
The November 14 Draft of the Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan establishes a number of key directions
including:
• A vision and set of guiding principles.
• A pattern of land use including park and open space areas and an illustrative diagram of building orientation and site
design
• A desired level of public improvements and infrastructure investments (trails, parks, open space, roads and
strectscape, powerline burial) that achieve the vision and principles.
• Urban design and environmental polics directives to help guide future public and private redevelopment
actions /projects.
• Detailed discussion of each area to further provide direction to property owners and developers regarding the desired
form and pattern of future redevelopment and an acceptable level of development intensity/density.
• Implementation strategies including detailed discussions on Tax Increment Financing(TIF) and other public finance
tools to help fund redevelopment initiatives.
• Detailed discussion of public actions necessary to implement the plan including advancing financial strategies,
regulatory tools and policies (zoning), and detailed design of public improvements.
Density and public improvements
Two areas of significant public discussion relate to the level of public improvements proposed for the project and the
supporting development magnitude or density of new development. At the beginning of the process for the Gladstone
Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan, a number of meetings were held. These meetings included the Gladstone Neighborhood
Task Force, the Park Advisory Committee and Open Space Task Force, and a well attended public workshop. In addition to
these meetings, the consultant team reviewed numerous public comments received from previous city initiatives including a
survey issued to the businesses community. Two directives became absolutely clear from the public's discourse.
1) , \ , o general funds (caxes) should he used to facilitate redevelopment orimproi the Gladstone Neighborhood, and,
2) doing nothing is not acceptable."
April 18 Council Background Report
13 April 2006
Page 3
This core direction has been a constant consensus throughout the process and confirmed at virtually every public meeting. The
result of this directive, was to establish a redevelopment plan whereby redevelopment generates the, necessary revenues to
support the desired level of public investments in parks, open space areas, streetscapc enhancements and other amenities.
Without redevelopment, the public improvements do not happen. Furthermore, in order for redevelopment to occur,
adequate market forces must be present. The technical analysis relied on recent market stu dics and discussions with Tsvin
Cities developers to confirm the market feasibility of the concepts. The market analysis confirmed that the Gladstone
Neighborhood has a significant value largely due to its location and the recreational amenities nearby. The market research also
identified challenges associated with drawing commercial uses and a stronger market for residential uses. The discussions also
indicated that without a larger vision for the area and a commitment to improve the Savanna and other areas of the public
realm, the risk to a developer is significantly Ucater if not a deterrent to the, marketplace.
The planning process first established an estimate of the public improvements for the project in the range of 3 22 to $ 24
million. Technical analysis was then done to determine how much new re- development was necessary in order to make this
level of public investment feasible given the directive form the community and an understanding of market forces. The first
results of this analysis proved to be too dense. The consultant's analysis looked for ways to reduce improvement costs and
reduce overall development density. A Task Force meeting was held to review the preliminary results of the analysis and
confirmed the concerns about development density. Through task force discussions, public improvements and development
density were further refined to a more reasonable level. This analysis was presented to the community in a public meeting
format.
The November 14 Draft Alaster Plan is a result of these community dialogues and the technical analysis to ensure that the project can be done
with redevelopment in Gladstone funding the public improvements in the Gladstone project area. The master plan identifies a range of 800 to
1,000 new housing units, 50,000 to 75,000 square feet of commercial space and roughly $18 million of public improvements and other
redevelopment costs.
The alternative concept
Staff was directed in January of 2006 to prepare and evaluate an alternative concept. This concept reduced the amount of
development to 490 new housing units and a limited amount of commercial development. The level of public improvements
that could be supported by this development was reduced to $11 million. Essentially, the analysis demonstrates that fewer
units can be achieved in the area with a reduced public improvement budget. Flowever, by reducing the degree of public
improvements proposed for the area, the risk of no future redevelopment occurring is increased. Redevelopment may likely
still happen at some point in the future, but is more likely to occur in a piecemeal, haphazard manner, unlikely to frilly achieve
any of the desired principles or community vision. A lesser investment in the, public realm typically results in a lesser quality of
adjacent private development.
The consultant team's analysis concluded that the either concept {the November 14 draft plan or the alternative concept}
works from a financial perspective. The alternative concept with the lower public improvement budget and lesser
development magnitude runs a greater risk of not achieving the broader vision and guiding principles established through the
planning process.
Based upon the Task Force meeting deliberations and the public process it is evident that the November 14 draft plan
exceeded the level of acceptance for some members of the community. It is also evident drat the alternative concept with the
lesser public improvement budget and resultant development magnitude may underachieve shat the Gladstone Neighborhood
could or should be.
TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION
After much discussion, the 20 - x - person Gladstone Neighborhood Task Force reached the following conclusions:
April 18 Council Background Report
13 April 2006
Page 4
The Gladstone Task Force recommends the City Council take action to approve the November 14 2003' Draft Gladstone
Neighborhood Redevelopment Master Plan with the following statements emphasized:
1. That the total amount of new housing units that result from future redevelopment efforts not exceed 800 units.
2. That the plan allow flexibility to accommodate commercial development such that existing neighborhood businesses
have an opportunity to remain in the neighborhood.
3. That improvements to the Savanna be provided with a budget as reflected in the November 14 draft plan ($ 2 million
as funded through area redevelopment.)
4. That improvements to Fhcek Park be provided with a budget as reflected in the November 14 draft plan ($600K.)
5. That efforts be made to include the Bebo structure instead of a box culvert.
6. That strectscape improvements along the Savanna side of Frost and English could be downgraded to reflect a more
natural appearance consistent with the open space character... fewer street trees, no irrigation, or street furniture.)
7. That taller structures (4 stories for example) could be supported provided certain public objectives can be met such as
accessible housing.
In addition, a number of minority opinions (opinions reflected by 2 or 3 members but not widely accepted) were presented:
1. That a middle ground could be agreed upon somewhere between the alternative concept of 490 units —,vith a reduced
public improvement budget of $ fl million and the November 14 draft plan of 800 units with a public improvement
budget of'$ 18 million.
2. That the Savanna needs improvements but not necessarily to the tune of $2 million.
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
The following items are offered as supporting information for City Council deliberation in formulating action on the Draft
Master Plan:
1. The Draft Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan dated 14 November 2005 (distributed in November of
2005.)
2. The Draft Alternative Urban Areawide Review (ALTAR) (distributed in November of 2005.)
3. February 21 Memorandum to the Gladstone Task Force describing the alternative concept and evaluation.
4. Po-,verpoint presentation slides from public workshop/task force meeting presentation presenting alternative
concepts and comparison to the November 14 draft plan.
5. Summary of public meeting #5 survey questions evaluating the alternative concept compared to the November 14
2005 draft. This summary is of the evaluation form filled out by participants at the March 2 2005 public meeting.
6. Evaluation questions. These questions were developed by staff and consultants to help facilitate a review and
discussion of key items of the plan.
Also as supporting information are minutes or meeting notes from the various advisory boards and commissions that have
discussed and offered recommendations or directions on the Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Master Plan.
RECOMMENDED NEXT STEPS
The Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan contains a significant amount of information and detail intended to guide
future development and public improvements.
The plan DOES NOT displace any property owners from their property or business. A specific action would be required by
the City Council or individual property owners to displace property owners or tenants from their residences or businesses.
April 18 Council Background Report
13 April 2006
Page 5
The plan DOES NOT result in an entitlement to any specific property. Rezoning, site plan approval and/or a comprehensive
plan amendment will be needed depending upon the, project being requested.
In order for redevelopment to occur in the Gladstone Neighborhood, a developer must initiate a project. In most cases, this is a
private developer or land owner. In some cases, the City will act as a developer by assembling land to attract a development
project. In either case, due diligence is required.
At its bare minimum, once adopted, this plan can serve as a policy basis for evaluating projects within the Gladstone
Neighborhood, particularly projects that are inconsistent with the current Comprehensive Plan and zoning ordinance.
In order to facilitate redevelopment, barriers must be removed. Barriers to redevelopment include conflicting land use
guidance in the Comprehensive Plan, conflicting zoning regulations, environmental contamination, incompatible land uses,
lack of public infrastructure, lack of public amenities or unassembled parcels of land.
The implementation chapter of the November 14 h draft plan provides a thorough dialogue on the keys to implementation.
The consultant team recommends that the, City Council consider the following next steps after acting on the Gladstone
Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan.
1. Amend the Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the land use and policy directives from the Gladstone Neighborhood
Redevelopment Plan.
2. Establish an approach and begin preparing the City's regulatory tools (zoning and subdivision) ordinances that
implement the policy directives and design guidelines established in the plan.
3. Establish a detailed financial plan to coordinate public improvements with potential redevelopment projects.
4. Market the master plan to preferred developers.
5. Begin detailed design work for public improvements (burial of power lines, park and open space improvements,
roads, strectscape, storniNvater management)
If you have any questions regarding the planning process or the contents of the plan, please do not hesitate to contact me prior
to Tuesday evening's meeting. I can be reached at 612.252.7122.
.c.
�
i
•
•
u
OL")L')
O
OOOOOOOOO
O
O
a
L)
O
r
c0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O)
d
O
O
O
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
O
d
d'
O
N
1l-
O
C5
CT
0
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
m
LO
Imo
h
LO
U')
O
LO
O
O
LO
0
O
Ln
LO
O
N
r
c0
N
N
d'
LO
O
m
L.{)
N
d'
LO
N
1l-
O
U
C6
Imo-
Lt)
r
r
CL
N
(N
GS
6
6r)
ug�
6r)
6q
6
r
O
LC)
Ut)
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
O
O
c0
I
O
r
CO
O
O
O
O
O
0
0
0
0
O
O
(D
O
c0
Oa)O
O
OOOOO
O
CD
CD
CD
O
O
c0
Co
W
O
N
1--
O
0
0
66
0
0
666
O
O
N
UC)
h-
1l-
Ln
O
LO
O
US)
O
O
O
O
O
O
LO
N
z
r
CO
N
N
U)
CO
O
I-
(D
O
CO
LO
O
O
r
6q
W
1—
LC)
r
r
V),
In
tr)
C+')
N
N
e
r
N
CD
CO
�.
N
N
6s
y>
ua
09�{f}lce
U�l
U)
r
r
GS
O
LC)
Un
UX)
O
O
N
O
0
0
0
0
Imo-
r
LO
1-
O
r
CO
O
M
O
O
r
0
0
0
0
O
d
LO
r
ti
O
d)
O
r
0
C
C
0
C
C
C
0
C
O
r
O
u)
O
N
i*-
It
Uf)
O
O
N
O
O
O
O
LS)
N
CO
`—
N
O
1`-
N
tO
O
LO
O
m
O
O
O
O
Co
Uf)
r
N
W
O
00
r
d7
c0
(O
Lf)
N
O
LO
co
O
O
m
O
O
U)
It
Cl)
d'
d
N
N
ua
r
N
CO
N
w
n
N
va
ea
U>
6s
64
�
te
�
N
Z
N
O
N
0)
a)
C)
O
N
_
N
p
ih
O
U
O
O
>
O
�-
t
O
O
O
0
(�
+ r
CD
CO
O
L
Q
O
E
0-'!--
E
co
U
c
O
a)
a)
U)
U
t6
m
-
C
N
d
J
U
O
CO m>
J
a
75
.�
N
N
0
}
O
<
(n
JJ
O
c
+"
"
O
C
•-
O
O
:3
0
c:
W
0W(�ct)u-CO
d
H
z
u
Agenda Item El
MINUTES OF THE GLADSTONE TASK FORCE MEETING
1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD MINNESOTA
THURSDAY, MARCH 23, 2006
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Speaker, Brad Schieb said the recording secretary is present to take notes and record the
discussion tonight. A sign in sheet was passed around the room for attendance.
11. PEOPLE PRESENT
City Consultant
Brad Schieb, HKGI
City Staff
Melinda Coleman, Assistant City Manager
Chuck Ahl, Public Works Director
Bruce Anderson, Park and Recreation Director
Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary
Gladstone Task Force Members Present
Will Rossbach, City Councilmember
Dale Trippler, Planning Commission & Environmental Committee
Linda Olson, Community Design Review Board
Peter Fischer, Parks Commission
Mark Gernes, Open Space Committee
Joe O'Brien, HRA
Business or Property Owners in the Gladstone Neighborhood
David Gageby
Charlie Godbout (representing Metro Funeral Home)
Richard Horvath, Richards Market
Larry Johnson, Maplewood Marine
Dan Fischer, (representing Moose Lodge No. 963)
Gladstone Residents
Joy Tkacheck
Wayne Sachi
Kim Schmidt (sitting in for Jan Steiner)
Erika Donner
All Galbraith
Agenda Item El
Ill. Melinda Coleman distributed an open letter to the Gladstone Task Force Committee from
Bruce Mogren who could not be present for the meeting.
IV. Brad Scheib said we are here tonight to formulate a recommendation on the Gladstone
Neighborhood Redevelopment Master Plan from the task force. If there is not a clear
consensus recommendation, a minority position will also be put forward. This is the last
Gladstone Task Force Committee Meeting. The next step is to have a joint and
commissions to make a final recommendation to the city council. After the final decision is
made by the city council then the city council will need to take additional actions in order to
facilitate the redevelopment process.
V. Brad Scheib discussed the public meeting results from the Gladstone Public Meeting on
Thursday, March 2, 2006. There was around 90 people present for the meeting. The results
are as follows:
First Choice:
Plan A (800 units):
30 votes
• Plan B (490 units):
38 votes
• Plan C (0 units):
16 votes
• No Vote/Comment:
04 votes
• Plan A/B combo:
02 votes
Second Choice:
• Plan A (800 units):
16 votes
• Plan B (490 units):
22 votes
• Plan C (0 units):
33 votes
• No Vote/Comment:
17 votes
• Plan A/B combo:
02 votes
VI. Brad Scheib said he would like to go around the room and have each person speak for 3 to
5 minutes regarding how their board or commission voted or what step they are at.
VII. Peter Fischer, Parks Commission, gave a handout to staff to distribute to the Gladstone
Task Force from the Parks and Recreation Commission and Open Space Task Force
regarding their final position statement regarding the Gladstone Redevelopment Project.
The discussion was then opened up to the Gladstone Task Force Committee.
IM,
VA'flf I'M AI'll W W W glf
Then Melinda Coleman handed out the Gladstone Advisory Board Discussion Questions sheet.
Ms. Coleman went through the questionnaire briefly and each commission member was asked to
take this home and go through it to assist them in formulating a final decision to vote on the
Agenda Item El
Gladstone plan. The Planning Commission will be meeting • Monday, April 3, 2006, to discuss
their feelings on the Gladstone Plans and preparing their recommendation to be made to the city
council.
Peter Fischer, Parks Commission. He presented the findings of the Parks Commission and Open
Space Task Force (handed out) and then referred to the statement during his discussion. He
summarized by saying the parks and open space are key to what is going to happen in this area of
the Gladstone neighborhood. If this is going to redevelop and redevelop right, we have to focus the
proper resources and money on parks and open space for this area to have a chance. What we as
a commission and task force used as the guiding line was the principles we set out when we
originally had our vision for Gladstone. We looked at making Gladstone a compelling quality of life
choice. We want to make sure the regional trails are celebrated village corridors. We want to make
walkability the standard. We want to make it a plan for others as we go down the road. Most of
these issues tie directly into the parks area. They said that they feel strongly that the Savanna
should be developed at the current estimate of $2 million along with Flicek Park at another
$600,000. They did not take any position on densities. They feel these are resources that are
needed and whatever actions the city needs to take in order to come up with the resources for
parks and open space, they will need to do. There was a lot of discussion regarding the bebo
concept. If we want to do it right and follow the vision we must do the bebo underpass structure
and not the box culvert underpass. We feel there is a very large difference in the two and we
should spend the money on the bebo underpass.
Mark Gernes, Open Space Committee, said they have been meeting and have had five meetings
with the Parks Commission. The Open Space Committee did not have a meeting themselves but
have all along have felt the Savanna is the central, crown jewel of this area and neighborhood. As
an open space parcel we have been very committed to its integrity but at the same time they are
willing to explore the possibilities of a development concept and we have crossed that bridge.
There were several e-mails from several open space committee members and they were all in
favor and support of all the statements and conclusions Peter Fischer presented. There was some
conversation regarding how hard we have worked on this plan for the 18 months and we should
not step back where we are at this point. Essentially we need to maintain the opportunity of the
Savanna being the crown jewel and build around that.
Linda Olson, Community Design Review Board, said the CDRB has only discussed this casually
so far. The next CDRB meeting will be on Tuesday, March 28, 2006, to discuss this but she said
she would be out of town at that meeting. Linda Olson said the CDRB recognizes they will have to
come up with some type of design guideline standards probably specific to this particular project
and they were looking at using the Hillcrest plan as a reference point to that. The CDRB would
look at different types of building materials and a variety of units but the CDRB hasn't gotten there
yet.
Ms. Olson said she spoke to Shann Finwall to see if the CDRB could start in April and possibly
have someone from the Planning Commission to come and speak and talk about how we could
coordinate the efforts for design standards. Ms. Olson said the CDRB doesn't address density
issues or park issues they are going to look at the structures and how they affect the community.
Chuck AN, Public Works Director, spoke on behalf of the Historic Preservation Commission. Staff
made a presentation to the HPC on Thursday, March 16, 2006, which was the second meeting
with the HPC. Similar to some of the other groups they don't have an opinion on the density. There
Agenda Item El
is a 100 year old historic home (the Sundgard home) that is located in the area where the 490
units would not call for redevelopment of the site but where the 800 unit plan does call for
redevelopment of this home site. The open space needs to talk about the past and the historic
nature of the area and they thought that in the Savanna that was important to make sure that
those concepts are known and identified in the overall approval. They were concerned about some
of the cutbacks for funding into the Savanna.
Joe O'Brien, Housing Redevelopment Authority, said the HRA has not had any formal discussion
regarding the Gladstone Redevelopment Area yet but will be meeting Tuesday, March 28, 2006,
the same evening as the CDRB. The HRA has briefly touched on the fact that if this plan does go
through the HRA would have more input on development projects for this.
Wayne Sachi, Gladstone Resident, asked if the Gladstone Task Force was to believe they were to
recommend either the 800 unit plan or the 490 unit plan or is there a possibility of a compromise
after we discuss everything?
Brad Scheib stated that the objective of the task force is to forward a recommendation to the City
Council on the Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Master Plan. The recommendation may
be for either the alternative concept or the November 14 Draft Master Plan or it may be for
something anywhere in between. The key is that as a task force, there is a majority agreement on
a preferred plan. We recognize that there may be minority opinions, and those minority opinions
shall also be reflected in the recommendation.
Wayne Sachi, Gladstone Resident, said the most important things on the memo you sent out
earlier was in the paragraph about valuation. It says it is imperative that we fully understand the
feasibility and the financial market aspect on this. Somewhere in the process some of that has
gotten lost whether it is financially feasible or market perspective. He did not attend the public
Gladstone meeting but he appreciated getting the information sent to him. 80% of the people at
the public meeting are in favor of redevelopment and that goes with the statement made by Brad
Scheib that we can't do "nothing" here. We have to do something. Somewhere between 490 and
800 units there has to be a common ground. He is in favor of the 800 unit plan and he thinks that
is the only plan that gives this area enough money to provide the amenities needed to attract high
quality developers to this area. If you don't attract high quality developers or builders to this area
you are going to end up with low quality housing and what a lot of people are afraid of. He wants a
project that he can be proud of and the master plan with 800 units is the way to go.
Mr. Sachi said however, shortly after the November general election he said he was told in no
uncertain terms that the master plan would not pass with the city council with the master plan with
800 units. Mr. Sachi said if that is the case that puts everyone between a rock and a hard place so
to speak. So then do where do we go? That is why he asked earlier if it is either 800 units or 490
units. Mr. Sachi said he is looking for a compromise to do this plan so we can do something here
that would meet most people's desires. At the last task force meeting he proposed that we look at
the amenities that we think we need to attract high quality developers and from that hopefully we
could determine how many units would be needed to support that kind of development. Regarding
what Peter Fischer said to raise the Savanna development you need another $750,000 to go back
to the master plan. That is 23 more units to build to go from the 490 units and up to provide that
kind of money to give $2 million to provide far the Savanna. We could add some more units to add
Agenda Item El
some nice streetscape rather than the level 1 or the basic level. What do we really want to make
this area look nice and attract a high quality builder. If we had to go with the 490 units we could
add units to the 490 units to get a better development. So this may not be possible. With the lower
number of units he is worried about only having 10,800 square feet of retail or commercial space
in the alternative concept or (plan B). No matter what concept we approve or recommend tonight
we have to maintain the basic footprint of the redevelopment area. He is very concerned if we
don't, we will have spotty redevelopment and you will end up with junk.
Dale Trippler, Planning Commission, said he appreciates everything Wayne Sachi said and all of
those things are good things to think about. However, when he goes back and he thinks what the
task force has agonized about for the 18 months it seems the task force has already done all of
those things. We started off by developing the goals and objectives for redevelopment in this area.
We talked about it and struggled with what kinds of things we need in this area to make it attractive
and make it a project that would go forward. Once the task force settled on that then we talked
about what types of amenities were needed to accomplish those goals and objectives and the task
force came up with streetscapes and other amenities. We were at about $22 million range at 1,000
unit range and everybody agreed that was too much and too high density. We decided to cut that
down but still make it attractive enough so that people would like to live in this area. The task force
got it down to 800 units to $18 million and we decided if we cut it down anymore it will not be
attractive enough to draw people in to buy these units. The process was very difficult and it was
logical and it got us where we needed to be. The David Bartol or plan B did just the opposite. It
started off with how many units do you want to have and then it focused on if you start off with 500
units how much redevelopment can you afford and then came up with $11 million. In his humble
opinion the $11 million dollar plan is dead on arrival. The streetscapes are not significant enough
to know there had been any improvements and he has a list of things he doesn't like about plan B
with 490 units. The alternative plan was constructed in such a way that it fit a model that was
based on a number of units and not whether or not the plan would work or not. If you trim any
more money off the amenities the plan is not going to work.
Wayne Sachi, Gladstone resident, said he agrees with those comments and prefers the 800 unit
plan but it isn't going to pass with the city council.
Dale Tripple Planning Commission, said he is not sure the task force should be formulating a
recommendation regarding what we think will or won't pass with the city council. He said he gave
up a long time ago trying to figure out what the city council is thinking.
Wayne Sachi, Gladstone resident, said he noticed under Dale Trippler's comments that he wants
the 800 unit plan or nothing.
Dale Trippler, Planning Commission, said he would like to point out that he got the election results
and during the regular election there were only 24% of the eligible voters that voted. In the special
election only 12% of the eligible voters voted. So if you assume that everybody that voted for
Rebecca Cave for city council supported the alternate plan or the 490 unit plan; that is 7 1 /2% of the
eligible voters. So basically 92 1 /2% of Maplewood either don't support Rebecca Cave, don't support
any of the Gladstone Redevelopment Plans or don't care.
Brad Scheib said let's try to stay on track.
Agenda Item El
Dale Tripple , Planning Commission, said he has heard people say the lower plan is
overwhelmingly supported and that is the position the city council has. But 80 to 90% didn't vote.
The people on the city council are in office and can do whatever they want.
Al Galbraith, Gladstone Resident, said he would like to call a point of order to this meeting; this is
not an open forum. On the results, pro and con of the Maplewood Special Election, the people that
came out and voted came out and voted. This is not a judgment on the city council. We are here to
discuss the pros and cons of plans A and plans B and he takes offense to the comments made.
Brad Scheib said lets move forward and focus on the task at hand.
Linda Olson, Community Design Review Board, said she would be okay giving up the boulevard
trees and other streetscaping such as irrigation on the Savanna portions of Frost Avenue and
English Street and let the view of the Savanna speak for itself. She also thinks we could
compromise with a 4 story building or two as long as they are "accessible" housing units. She has
looked at this plan and if there are 800 units that is still only 80 units of accessible housing and
that is not enough in this neighborhood in her opinion and those are two compromises that should
be considered. They have to have elevators and be accessibility for wheelchair friendly situations.
The report says on page 2 of the task force memo the maximum building height of any structure in
the attached concept plan is three stories so she is saying if you make the building taller with four
stories and increase density, she wants to make sure this makes for more green space.
Staff stated that the building code will likely require accessibility features such as elevators for
taller structures.
Erika Donner, Gladstone resident, said in principle she agrees with everything Wayne Sachi said.
She said she wasn't able to make it to the last public meeting but at the first meeting where we
went through and ranked the different priorities and she was surprised not only with the people at
her table but with the final results at how important it was to keep the current businesses in the
Gladstone area and that stuck with her then and has stayed with her to this point. The alternative
plan, plan B with the 490 units does not adequately accomplish that. She said in terms of a
recommendation she would be for somewhere between both plans. She has had a lot of formal
education but nothing that has prepared her to say this is feasible or not feasible so she has to rely
on what people are telling her and the rest of the group and the smaller plan for 490 is not entirely
feasible. Ms. Donner said the hard work that Brad Sheib and the group have done may not agree
with her comments but she doesn't think we know enough to say for sure it is entirely feasible
enough so she is not ready to endorse the lower unit plan. If she had to pick between the two she
would pick the master plan with the 800 units but preferably something in between the 800 units
and the 490 unit plan.
David Gacleby, Property Owner, said many of the comments that have been made about going
back to the original vision and some of the premises that got us to this point are all very valid. He
would encourage people to read the letterfrom Bruce Mogren who could not be here tonight. He is
in the business and is familiar what it takes to get the job done. He was personally pleased with
the November master plan because it was incredibly and amazingly very similar to the plan his
company had submitted prior to that. His company did their homework, they met with every single
land and business owner, they did the numbers, their premise was always maintain the existing
Agenda Item El
businesses and give everyone of them the opportunity to stay, to take advantage of an absolutely
jewel of the Savanna. It is an extremely unique situation to have that much acreage in the center
of a first tier suburb and they always felt that as that was upgraded in the master plan and his plan
to make it nice, make it walkable, to maybe have an amphitheatre and fountain and make it terrific
and make it something that people would like to have around and where people would be willing to
pay a fair market price to be able to live there and enjoy that. His company never wanted a dime
from the city and in order to accomplish that you need to have a certain level of density because
there is only so much money that you can make per unit and if a lot of that money is going to the
city to help with the amenities. In his original plan his company was going to kick the money in and
the amphitheatre. The point is that it does come down to the decision of a worthy core values and
core premise, the core assumptions that were made that got us to the 800 unit plan which did
include bonuses for developers to kick in extra amenities and 800 units was the baseline not the
maximum and was workable. He feels that the alternative plan for 490 units which includes 150
units in the St. Paul Tourist Cabin site so that means only 340 units in the Gladstone which is 20
times larger than the St. Paul Tourist cabin site truly will not be able to be done either with
significant tax payer input or not at all. He would favor the master plan with 800 units only because
that plan would be an asset to the city and to this city and is doable and many generations would
be very proud of. He would be crushed to have nothing happen or the minimalist approach which
ultimately when the next group looks at that says what were they thinking and why did they do
that.
Kim Schmidt, Gladstone resident, said when she has discussions with her husband and she
comes down on a certain opinion, and he says to her "is that going to work for you." If it is a
general belief that this master plan won't get passed maybe we should come up with a plan a
commingling of the two plans that will work for us. She doesn't know how the city council stands
on this and she thought Will Rossbach would have a better idea and can give us a better insight
into that. She said, she believes if this plan isn't going to work we need to find something that will
work for us so it is not an all or nothing situation. This may be what you want this may be what an
overwhelming majority of the task force may want but if we can't get this through the city council
we are not going to have redevelopment and then the work hasn't gone anywhere and that would
be a shame because this has been a long process.
Ms. Schmidt said we don't have to go with the basic streetscape if that is all we can provide from
the plan because we can provide developers to do a little more than that. That is part of the other
boards and they can require more landscaping from the other developers. We were talking about
green building and part of the highest part of the amenities was irrigation systems in the
boulevards and Maplewood is at the forefront of raingardens and there are a lot of areas in
Maplewood that are not irrigated and when they dry out the grasses are ragged and don't
necessarily need to be irrigated to have a higher level of amenity. The HRA has just said that they
really didn't talk about the Gladstone area yet but as far as this plan goes technically the St. Paul
Tourist Cabin site is not part of it and has been excluded and the 490 units have been included
and excluded in the plan. The HRA has made a recommendation for a certain type of development
to go forward on the St. Paul Tourist Cabin site and she would like the HRA to share what their
recommendation was so the rest of the Gladstone Task Force can be made aware of that.
Brad Scheib said we have always included in the analysis the St. Paul Tourist Cabin site in the
plan, we just didn't take the time to show how it would be laid out in the same manner as we did
other areas of the plan.
Agenda Item El
Joe O'Brien, Housing Redevelopment Authority, said the HRA had a meeting on Tuesday, March
14, 2006, and Central Community Housing Trust (CCHT) came to make a presentation. CCHT is a
nonprofit development agency that builds and develops multi-family housing in St. Paul and
Minneapolis and are expanding into the suburban areas. They can bring together additional funds
using the 501 (3) (c) status that perhaps a "for" profit may not get because they don't share in the
same tax advantages. CCHT proposed a 120 unit structure for affordable housing to be built on
the St. Paul Tourist Cabin site. At the HRA he made a motion to approve the concept and approve
CCHT as a likely candidate for developing that St. Paul Tourist Cabin site.
Larry Johnson, Maplewood Marine, said what he doesn't understand is all along the residents
have been saying no Section 8 and now you are going to approve section 8 housing, if he is wrong
correct me he said.
Joe O'Brien, Housing Redevelopment Authority, said Larry Johnson is wrong. Section 8 housing
no longer exists. This would be all different ranges of housing, it would be market rate and different
income levels of housing.
Melinda Coleman said she would like to clarify what Section 8 housing is. Section 8 is a different
program now and they don't even accept applications to give Section 8 vouchers. Primarily
Section 8 is primarily for the elderly and the handicapped people of low income. It is a voucher that
goes with people and not with projects. CCHT is talking about an affordable component which
deals with income levels only. It could be that a person with a Section 8 voucher could move into a
house right next door to you and rent a home. They could move anywhere they want if they can
rent. Section 8 is a voucher that goes with a person not for a housing development. Ms. Coleman
said the city cannot control that. Linda Olson and Joe O'Brien were at the HRA meeting and they
can update you on the facts.
Linda Olson, Community Design Review Board, said she was at the HRA meeting and she was
very impressed with this organization and with this proposal concept. They have a commitment to
high quality housing and long-term residents, they will evict people if they are a problem. They
offer housing to people who earn about the $8-$12 an hour earning capacity which could be
clerical, cashiers, restaurant staff etc. Underground parking was mentioned as something they do
often to allow for more green space on the site. She was concerned about storage needs and they
said they provide storage for people who need certain storage needs. This concept was for
everything from an efficiency unit to a three bedroom unit. They service affordable housing but this
would not be an exclusive affordable housing and people have to qualify for the housing. She was
impressed with the presentation and the concepts and their dedication for "quality housing and
quality residents" and if there are any problems they have in-house management and they move
forward getting people out that may be any type of a problem. Their design concepts as we saw
them are very attractive and they could make a very attractive development. (CCHT) has met with
every resident of the trailer park and because of their funding status they not only would address
the environmental issues which are substantial but they would be relocating every person in the
trailer park and another developer may not be required to do that. (CCHT) mentioned that another
developer could give each resident about $2,000 each and evict them. At least that is what she
heard at the presentation.
Charlie Godbout, representing Metro Funeral Home, said he started this process as a skeptic as
Agenda Item El
to the economic feasibility of this project and the aesthetic possibilities and the more the Savanna
became part of this the more he became convinced this project could work. One thing he sees as
a compelling argument in favor of the master plan is that plans like this don't just drop out of
heaven and everything is just as you see it on paper now. Even after it is approved and goes into
implementation and economic conditions could change and the master plan with (800 units) allows
for flexibility and adaptation to things that happen over the time it takes to complete a project like
this as the alternative plan with (490 units) does not come close to that and he thinks that is
something very important for the task force to consider.
Kim Schmidt, Gladstone resident, said the St. Paul Tourist Cabin site is prime real estate property
as the city is trying to expand the tax base and we are having budgetary issues she thinks it more
important to incorporate affordable housing within the Gladstone redevelopment. The St. Paul
Tourist Cabin site is prime property and it should be maximized to its potential.
Joy Tkacheck, Gladstone resident, said she agreed with Kim Schmidt that the St. Paul Tourist
Cabin site is prime real estate and with plan B we are already concerned about the type of quality
with a lower density. Being in the neighborhood and wanting to stay here until the rest of her life.
She wants to have a walkable lifestyle community so we can attract the "right type" of people that
are going to be staying here and are not transient. People who can afford the housing now but as
soon as they can afford something else will move. Ms. Tkacheck said if we cannot afford that
quality with the lower density we need to look at the master plan with 800 units or maybe come
down from the 800 units if the city council is not going to pass the plan A for 800 units. She thinks
the city council because they are elected officials will listen to what the commissions and boards
will say. From the results people want to do something. We may have to compromise in between
the 490 and 800 units. Ms. Tkacheck said it needs to be high quality, so it attracts the right people
so that all of us who are living here want to stay here. If we don't stay in our present locations we
have an option to move to senior housing in this area. We need commercial and retail space, if
you put in sidewalks where are you going to walk to if there is no retail to go to? She enjoys being
able to run to Richards Market and to the Maplewood Bakery. We need those commercial
amenities to draw people. We are a first ring suburb and are a part of the city.
Will Rossbach, City Councilmember, said Kim Schmidt stated he would know more about what
the city council was thinking but he said he doesn't. He said it would be his opinion that you as a
group should not care what the city council is going to do the idea here is to give your opinion and
he would think it would be best that you give your "true opinion" of what you think should be done
instead of thinking of a plan because we don't know what the city council is going to do. Your right,
we don't know what the city council will decide in the end, so give your own opinions and let the
city council figure things out. Kim Schmidt said the ideal situation would be to mix affordable
housing into the other housing. However, there are drawbacks or problems to that there is usually
funding for that so it is difficult to get funding unless you have a site your working. There would be
multiple developers and it would be very difficult in most cases to get funding to put a unit here and
a unit there so there is some government regulation that makes it somewhat difficult to divide the
housing up. In the concept plan that was presented by (CCHT) there would be market rate housing
mixed in with the affordable housing. The city tried to do the same thing in the Legacy Village and
hit the same drawback, there is no mechanism to fund scattered units with multiple developers so
that could be a problem. His observation is that we do have two manufactured home sites in the
Gladstone area and to him the city council swore throughout the whole process that no one in the
city was going to use eminent domain to do anything here but he fails to see the difference when
Agenda Item El
we displace people in the manufactured home parks and say you can't live here anymore, what is
the difference from that and eminent domain? Either way we are telling the residents to go
somewhere else and sees the process the same. It is very important to him that somehow we
provide for them so that they can stay residents of Maplewood.
Dale Trippler, Planning Commission, said he would agree with Will Rossbach. Our job isn't to try
to figure out what the city council might approve or not approve. If we are an advisory board we
are to figure out what we think is the right thing and make a recommendation. Mr. Trippler said it
is then up to the city council to decide whether they like the recommendation or not. We presented
a plan for 800 units, David Bartol countered with a plan for 490 and we could go back and forth
counter offering the number of units. We have to make a decision so that people can move on with
their lives. This has been going on for 18 months now. It is not fair for people who are business
owners and residents in this Gladstone area to keep dragging this on. People want to move
forward with their lives. He would strongly recommend that we pick a plan and make a
recommendation and let the powers that be decide. Mr. Trippler said he sees 5 problems with the
alternative plan as opposed to the master plan. The most important thing he noticed was the
elimination of the commercial space and what he heard throughout the whole process was that
everybody wanted to keep the commercial businesses that are here. Mr. Trippler said we insisted
the commercial space be put back in. Mr. Trippler said and the alternative plan cuts out room for
all the businesses except for Richard's Market and the Maplewood Bakery. Taking the bebo out of
the plan and putting in the box culvert style underpass in and cutting back the funding for the trail
system for the walkways would be a major drawback to a major of portion that he would foresee
who would want to buy into the area. That would be senior citizens or people closer to the elderly
side. If they can't get to the Savanna that looses a big draw for people who want to invest in this
area. Everybody has said we don't want high density. If he looks at David Bartol's plan with the
490 units the units are all crammed together. The 800 unit plan has units that are more stacked
but there is green space for people to enjoy the outdoors. That is lacking in the 490 unit plan.
Mark Gernes, Open Space Committee, said pretty much what he wanted to say has been said.
So he will echo what has been said. Retail has been clearly articulated from the beginning as
important to us and that is the clear distinction between the two plans. The whole concept of
walkability is for people to enjoy the Savanna and they want to get to the trails, to attend
entertainment opportunities, to visit retail businesses. We spent 18 months on this and we have
done our work as a task force and he doesn't feel at this late stage it is important to notch back.
Let's make the recommendation and move forward, let the city council decide. If the city council
already has their mind made up there is nothing we can do to change their mind. He feels the right
plan is the master plan that we came up with for the 800 units. If the city council turns this plan
down they turn it down but he hopes the next step isn't to do nothing.
Peter Fischer, Parks Commission, said about 35 years ago people in Maplewood said, we need a
mail, Roseville had their own mail, and Maplewood needs their own mail. The neighbors were up
in arms that a mail was going to be built. Look at what the mall area has become, the amount of
jobs it has drawn, and the tax dollars it has brought to the city and it's a major draw to Maplewood.
Then the Nature Center was going to be built. The neighbors were up in arms that a Nature Center
could be built, look at what it has brought to the city and all the good things the Nature Center
does for people and for the city. It's very educational and is a good source for people and for the
Agenda Item El
city. Today it is the keystone of the open space natural preserve program and it took guts to ignore
the concerns of the neighbors.
Mr. Fischer said when the park went forward in the Hillside area located off McKnight and
Larpenteur Avenue, the neighbors who live around it were screaming that they did not want a park
with trails in it. There is no equipment there and it has a mowed area and a lot of open space. Mr.
Fischer said fortunately the Parks Commission and the City Council held their own regarding what
the vision was. After the park went in many of the people in the neighborhood were commenting
afterwards how happy they were they put the park in and were wrong in what they said. He thinks
this is where the city is with the Gladstone process. The Task Force has put together a great
vision, not everyone is going to appreciate it and for some with the changes we have proposed, it
is scary. Peter Fischer said there are requirements for higher density but for the community as a
whole, if you follow the vision statement, which is very clear, making Gladstone into a village which
is integrated land uses, the 800 unit plan addresses that very well. There is a co-mingling of
everything that was provided by input from the citizens. When the citizens said to save the bowling
alley and other retail areas, which the earlier plans did not have, we heard the neighbor's requests.
Mr. Fischer said the task force heard from the people, make Gladstone a compelling quality life
choice, and a life cycle for all ages. When you go through the mission statements, we have met
that with the 800 unit plan and support the amenities for the 800 unit plan. To a point we should be
concerned with which way the city council votes, but if we can't support the vision, the vision will
die. We celebrate the vision with the value statements and if the city council truly agrees with the
vision and value statements and accepts them, that would guide the 800 plan. If the city council
doesn't agree with these vision and value statements, which they are free to ignore, they can
develop their own value statements and go in a different direction.
Al Gabraith, Gladstone resident, asked if the city staff was prepared to handle the major increase
in building and grounds acquisition, inspections of buildings, problem areas, utilities, police, fire,
maintenance, and snow plowing that the 800 unit plan would bring to the city? If the city isn't
prepared, they are going to have to be, which is going to increase the city budget, which will
probably come from increasing taxes. At the very beginning of this process at the Fire Station he
said he asked who is going to pay for this, and several people said there will be no new taxes and
the developers would be paying for it all. Are they going to pay for everything or aren't they?
Would the developer pay for new squad cars, new fire trucks, new snowplows, taking care of the
gardens, the boulevards, the sprinkler systems that may or may not go in? He said he sees a
maintenance crew working at the roundabout about once a year in the spring, the rest of the time it
fends for itself. He said we see plans with beautiful trees, shrubs and flowers, the trees, shrubs
and flowers die and nobody replaces them and then we are back to that grungy look again.
Brad Scheib said this is a redevelopment project so all the infrastructures are there today, there is
demand there today that is being serviced, 800 additional units, yes there is an impact, it is an
impact that is incremental with growth, it has an impact on the budget, an impact on the service
levels, but it's not significant enough of an impact that anybody is going to notice if your taxes go
up $2 from this project alone. The maintenance being discussed is largely going to be taken care
of by property owners. The same way it is by any other development project.
Brad Scheib said the public infrastructure however, will have a city crew that deals with those
things. The city deals with them now on Frost Avenue and other areas in the city. Those
implications are not significant and we did not factor them in because we know we are not dealing
Agenda Item El
with a capacity where they are significant. Brad Scheib said when you have a project that is 10
times this size then you have implications on the city and the county, the school systems, etc. and
we are not at that level with this Gladstone development proposal.
Chuck Ahl, said he can assure you that exactly what Brad Scheib said the city is prepared for. As
an example, the Legacy Village area has landscaping, irrigation systems, plantings, etc. and we
built that into the project and have maintenance agreements that are paid for by charging dues to
the people that have moved into that area. Mr. Ahl asked if there an increased work load, yes. Is
there increased funding from the development itself, yes. That does not go back to the residents
as a property tax. It supports that and as those property tax increases and it will more than offset
and pay for itself.
Richard Horvath, Owner of Richard's Market, said in the City of New Brighton, near the
downtown area, has a senior housing building that is about four stories tall. It's a beautiful building.
This area could have a nice building like that. The Savanna needs to be dressed up. With the
commercial retail end we need to make sure the businesses are going to be able to survive. If it's
too fancy the businesses won't be able to afford the rent. Richard's Market is not a Cub or a
Rainbow Foods. We need this to be a small town development. People want to be able to drive up,
park, go in and get what they want and leave. If people have to park far away to get into the store
people won't shop there. People want to have easy access. People don't want buildings right up to
the street and the parking in the back. People want to be able to park quickly and get to the front
door as soon as possible.
Dan Fischer, Representing the Moose Lodge No. 963, said he apologizes for not being at the last
few meetings. He is speaking on behalf of the Moose Lodge at the corner of Frost and English
Street. The majority of the people that attend the Moose Lodge are your neighbors and they are
concerned about loosing the Moose lodge and their neighborhood themselves. The majority of the
people that have spoken to him have said to "keep it simple". They are concerned if the Moose
Lodge decides that they don't want to sell that is a key space for development to occur. Will
Rossbach brought up the question "what about the businesses that want to stay"? What is the
city's alternative to an establishment that does not want to move or sell? Those are objectives that
need to be factored into this. His private opinion is the master plan for 800 units. Representing the
Moose Lodge and the membership there people want to keep it simple and they like the area
improved, but they do not want to see large costs or to be displaced. The people don't want to see
four story developments. He wonders how the plan would be affected for the businesses that don't
want to move.
Joe O'Brien, Housing Redevelopment Authority, said he prefers the master plan with the 800
units. This is a filtering process and through the result of this, decisions will be made that will affect
the ability and the potential for the development of the site and he doesn't want to limit the size of
the filter from day one that could choke us in the end so we can't afford to do the amenities we
want to in the end.
Joe O'Brien said we don't have a final plan in front of us. This is only a "concept" and this is going
to be market driven when it gets developed and will be based on construction costs. What if
nothing happens for 5 years? He said by then we don't know what materials and labor costs will be
and that will be market driven with the cost of the development. He said you are shooting yourself
in the foot if you start with too low a number of housing units and limiting the options of getting
Agenda Item El
anything done here. The Savanna is a beautiful area for people to look out their windows at and if
you are in a four story building you can have a great view. He would rather have three tall
buildings than five short buildings so there is more green space. He would support the master plan
with the 800 units.
Wayne Sachi, ' Gladstone resident, said in conclusion, it sounds like the majority of the group
would prefer the master plan with 800 units. We are mostly concerned about providing sufficient
funds for the amenities that would be needed to attract high quality developers. Retain enough
space for existing businesses as well as offer new commercial space. Mr. Sachi said it sounds like
there is a necessity for handicapped and accessible housing. Mr. Sachi said he is the only one
here that lives on Frost Avenue and he is strongly in favor of the master plan but he really wants
"something" rather than nothing done to this area.
Al Gabraith, Gladstone resident, said he prefers plan B with the 490 units. He said there are
several commercial businesses that have been good neighbors to Maplewood. Now we could
displace all of those businesses with high density with this plan. He asked what is wrong with the
possibility of rehabbing those businesses that are in relatively fine condition to keep them there
rather than giving Maplewood a glitzy look like New Hope or Blaine. Why not keep the old town
feel, which Maplewood was and still is. He said granted there are some blighted areas, and the
two manufactured home areas. He asked why the manufactured homes were allowed to get to this
poor of condition? Now there are water system problems, and we are paying the piper, so to
speak. He would like to see something done to preserve these buildings with federal or local
grants and keep those companies into the development plan. Many of the businesses here can't
afford new construction. Fixing up the businesses would not be as costly as new construction
costs and it would give the business owners a boost. They have been good neighbors to the City
of Maplewood.
Linda Olson, Community Design Review Board, said she doesn't want to see anyone be
displaced that doesn't "want to" be displaced. Most of the people in the manufactured home park
are over 65 and are on a fixed income and they want to continue living in this area as well.
Richard Horvath, Richard's Market, said just in case you didn't know, Gladstone Door and
Window Company is going to be moving their business to Highway 61 somewhere in the fall.
Kim Schmidt, Gladstone resident, said she represents the opinion the Gladstone residents and
neighbors have so she would prefer the 490 unit plan. However, she likes the master plan with the
800 units but wonders about the competency of the City of Maplewood.
Ms. Schmidt said Sibley Cove is one project that lacked implementation and lacked design. She
said with Legacy Village she wondered what the area would look like in 20 to 30 years and she
sees a "lack of vision" there. She wonders if Maplewood is even capable of implementing a plan
like this. Doing it in a way that it comes to fruition, in a way that we would like to see it done. Ms.
Schmidt said she has a hard time supporting this plan when the St. Paul Tourist Cabin site was left
out. She really feels that should have been included in this plan. She said that area is prime real
estate and it should not be given to low income housing. You can say we are incorporating other
housing into it but then you say we can't scatter low income housing into the mix. Based on what
she has heard the site would be predominately low income housing. She has a huge problem with
that on that prime real estate. She said we need to concentrate on expanding our tax base and
Agenda Item El
^ • - - • • ••^
Melinda Coleman said the city does not own that land. The buildings will be worth about $24
million dollars and will generate a lot more taxes than what is generated now on that land.
Brad Scheib said when a project comes forward and the developer asks for funding from a
government agency, that is when we have some control of the project.
Kim Schmidt, Gladstone resident, said you can increase design standards and have the
standards be so high that they are beyond what "affordable housing" could afford and is no longer
realistic for the developer to build.
Joe O'Brien, Housing Redevelopment Authority, asked if we could define low income housing and
affordable housing for people that don't have the correct definition? There is always a
misconception of affordable housing.
Melinda Coleman said that's a discussion for another evening. There will be a lot of time for public
comment when things have moved farther along.
Brad Scheib said in conclusion, the group appears to be recommending by majority the November
14 Draft Master Plan (800 units) as the preferred plan. The recommendation should emphasis a
budget of $2 million for the Savanna and $600,000 for Flicek Park; adequate funding for public
amenities that will attract quality development, retention of existing businesses and provision of
commercial space, and considerations for design amenities as mentioned in the draft plan and the
accessibility discussion. Scheib also noted a couple of minority opinions. A couple of opinions
were expressed that represent a middle ground (in terms of units and public improvements)
between the two concepts. The notion of reducing streetscape costs by not providing street trees
and irrigation along the Savanna frontage of Frost Avenue and English Street and the idea that the
level of improvements in the Savanna might be less could contribute to a lesser public
improvement budget. However, other amenities could be included to attract quality development. A
minority opinion for the alternative concept with 490 units was also expressed.
Linda Olson, Community Design Review Board, asked about preserving the historical home?
Brad Scheib said he thinks we can incorporate that and it is mentioned in the master plan.
Chuck Ahl said we will need a spokesperson from the task force to present to the city council. We
will need a spokesperson from each board and commission to be a spokesperson. Staff will be
asking the city council at their meeting on Monday, March 27, 2006, if there can be a special
meeting on Tuesday, April 18, 2006, to only discuss the Gladstone Redevelopment plan, so
tentatively mark your calendars.
Brad asked if anyone wanted to be the spokesperson at the city council meeting to report to the
city council.
Erika Donner, Gladstone resident, recommended that Wayne Sachi, Gladstone resident be the
spokesperson.
Agenda Item El
Peter Fischer seconded.
Wayne Sachi accepted the responsibility.
Betty Schultz owner of the Maplewood Baker spoke from the audience and said they want
accessibility to their building. People want to park close to the building and run in and get what
they need and leave. If people have to look for a parking place and walk to the front of the building,
they will go elsewhere.
David Bartol, former city councilmember 1249 Frisbee Avenue, Maplewood. He spoke from the
audience regarding plan B for the 490 units and the differences between the lower unit plan and
the higher unit plan of 800 units.
Dale Trippler, Planning Commission, reminded people that the planning commission will be
meeting Monday, April 3, 2006, to discuss the Gladstone plan.
Brad Scheib thanked the Gladstone Task Force Committee Members on behalf of staff and
everyone involved in this process for all their time and efforts in this process. He said he's proud of
what has been compiled.
The Gladstone Task Force Committee Members thanked Brad Scheib and everyone involved for
all their hard work regarding this process during the past 18 months.
P:/comdevpt/Gladstone/task force meeting minutes 3-23-06
Agenda Item El
MINUTES
• THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
MONDAY, MARCH 20,2006
VI. NEW BUSINESS
a. Alternative Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan Review (7:03 — 8:35 p.m.)
The city is nearing the point in the planning process where the City Council will need to converge
on a preferred master plan for the Gladstone Neighborhood. The redevelopment planning
process includes a review by City advisory boards and commissions. The objective of this review
is for each board/commission to offer a recommendation on the plan or its key aspects relative to
the board/co mm iss ion's individual mission or purpose. The Gladstone Neighborhood
Redevelopment Master Plan is an important part of the community and virtually every advisory
board or commission will be involved in the ongoing implementation of the master plan.
Staff recommends that the board/commission discuss the master plan from November and the
more recent concept alternative with supporting documentation and offer recommendations or
opinions on the concept and relevant aspects of the plan. Your recommendation (s) will be
assembled with all other advisory board/commission's recommendations and the
recommendation from the Task Force and submitted to the City Council for their use in
considering the plan at their meeting tentatively set for April 18, 2006.
The core difference between the two concepts has to do with the level of public investments that
form the basis of the plan (those public investments include improvements to parks, open space,
trails, road reconstruction, burial of power lines, streetscape, stormwater systems). In the
November 14, 2005, draft, a public improvement budget was established at roughly $18 million.
In order to find this investment without using general tax dollars, redevelopment to the magnitude
of roughly 800 new units for (plan a) would need to occur. That level of development also would
support 50,000 to 75,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial development. The alternative
concept (plan b) reduced the public improvement budget about of $11 million in order to reduce
the development levels to 490 units. This concept also would support approximately 10,800
square feet of commercial development. Reductions in public improvements were achieved by
reducing the scope and magnitude of the $18 million dollar improvements.
Chuck Ahl, Maplewood Public Works Director spoke as he went through the power point
presentation for the planning commission and members of the audience. This is a development
"concept" it is not a "plan". If this were approved this development concept would not look exactly
like this. This is a development concept of how it "might" look. Mr. Ahl said that the majority of
people in the Gladstone area strongly believe improvements are needed.
Commissioner Grover asked between the June estimate and the November and February
estimates with regard to total land acquisition, is that because the city is not including the area
around the northern part of Edward Street in the plan?
Mr. Ahl said part of the land acquisition budget was intended for the city to make the
development happen faster and provide quality improvements, and payments for land rights in
Agenda Item El
order to get a higher quality development within the area. It was a budget for support for various
types of improvements that would be privately installed.
Mr. Ahl said this was significantly reduced and went to the approach that very little support from
private developers would support improvements. An example might be asking a developer to
provide a green roof and have the sustainable type of development we talked about, having more
raingardens, more landscaping, more landscape treatments on the private site, and installing
electrical generator systems or solar panels for that area. The quality of the structures, with the
larger budget in June, was to try to attract the developers and get the highest quality. We have
now taken a lesser quality in the November and February plan. We've already taken some of that
money out but we didn't reduce that money from the November to the February plan because
that was the first area we attacked when the city began cutting costs.
Chairperson Fischer asked what land was planned to be acquired?
Mr. Ahl said in two approaches the city looked at it as not being likely the city would be the
master developer but these would be land agreements between the city and the developer so the
city would not necessarily be acquiring land. Although it is possible the city may act as the middle
man so to speak in the overall negotiations. For example, the Hmong Funeral home is reluctant
to relocate. Relocation expenses might need to be paid for that site in order to entice the Hmong
Funeral home to relocate to another location in the City of Maplewood. We put that into a
category called "land acquisition" because the city may have to acquire the land and pass it onto
a private entity. That allows the development to allow quality in to the overall project and it also
allows the concept to be implemented in a shorter period of time.
Mr. Ahl said residents and business owners are concerned about the deteriorating Gladstone
area. It's not going to get better on its own. If you don't do something now the city will be going
through this difficult process again in a few years, trying to come up with a concept and a guide
for this Gladstone area. The city wants to improve the tired look of the Gladstone area; people
drive by this area and say the city has to do something. On March 2, 2006, there was an informal
pole and from the people that voted, 68 people said do one or the other plan but don't ignore the
Gladstone area. Only 17 people said don't do anything to the Gladstone neighborhood. We need
to prevent the spread of blight and improve the condition of the Savanna. The city has said time
and time again; make the public improvements "without" general property taxes. The staff's
conclusions are the 800 unit (plan A) has appeared to exceed the acceptable level of density
threshold for many of the Gladstone neighborhood residents. The 490 unit (plan B) while it is
feasible, it appears to underachieve the abilities of the area. These are the choices and the
planning commission has to determine what they want the city to do for the area.
Thursday, March 23, 2006, is the final task force meeting. The planning commission needs to
formulate a recommendation for the city council. Staff is going to ask the city council Monday,
March 27, 2006, to have a special meeting dedicated just to the Gladstone Redevelopment Plan
which staff is planning for Tuesday, April 18, 2006, and that would be a public hearing.
Chairperson Fischer asked what they foresee the demolition sites to be and are there any
contaminated sites?
Mr. Ahl said there are two budget items on that. Yes there are contaminated sites. There is nearly
$1 million dollars for environmental and demolition put in the budget. There are a number of sites
Agenda Item El
that in the phase 1 analysis are contaminated and need to be cleaned up. There is contamination
on the open space. If the city were to acquire or buy the Hmong Funeral home, the city could
demolish a building very cheaply and then sell the bare land to a developer.
Mr. AN said those are the types of structures that would be demolished. The plan for concept A
and concept B are concepts and not actual "site" plans.
Chairperson Fischer asked if in any of these concepts, the city is considering eminent domain to
change it from one private use to another private use?
Mr. Ahl said it's the city's goal to not use eminent domain. However, it doesn't mean that at some
point and time they may need to. When the roundabout was built the project was delayed for
more than 6 months due to trying to acquire easements. As staff we're saying don't say the city
won't ever use eminent domain. It's probably safe to say the city would not use eminent domain
to acquire single family homes. But for a single business, eminent domain could happen. The city
has heard from the League of Minnesota Cities that there is legislation for this session being
considered regarding eminent domain. If that bill should go into affect, that may take eminent
domain out of the possibilities for the city to use on this project.
Melinda Coleman asked Mr. AN to include the history regarding how many times the City of
Maplewood has used eminent domain?
Mr. AN said in the 10 years he has worked at the City of Maplewood he has only seen eminent
domain occur 1 time. That occurred in the early 1980's in the Gladstone area when the Whirlpool
Corporation owned the Savanna and the city had to condemn property for the storm water ponds
that exist.
Chairperson Fischer asked staff if they are comfortable going from the bebo style underpass (the
more expensive option) to the box culvert type underpass (the less expensive option) and that it
is still safe and meets the standards of the industry.
Mr. AN said the box culvert type underpass meets the standards of the industry. You need
properly lighting for these underpasses and the city needs to send someone from the city through
the tunnel once in awhile to check things out. Deciding between the two different types of
underpasses is a value type decision for the city to consider and it's a significant cost saver at
$1.6 million.
Chairperson Fischer said with basic level 1 and the cost of the lineal roadway foot at $1 versus
level number 2 at $4.50 a lineal roadway foot, but noting that number 1 did not have irrigation for
the boulevard type planting, what would that have added to the cost if irrigation would have been
included?
Mr. AN said typically irrigation is about $1 a foot extra.
Commissioner Pearson said if the city were to go ahead with the plan for the higher density with
level 4 amenities, is Maplewood prepared to increase the future budgets sufficiently to maintain
those areas? This is going to be a whole other level of involvement that Maplewood has never
had to deal with. A lot of what Maplewood maintains along its streets and drives is pitiful. The city
does a terrific job at the parks, but in other areas the grass gets a foot tall before it gets cut and
Agenda Item El
then it lays there turning brown the rest of time until the grass grows through it again. If the city is
going to commit to this level of decorative amenities and landscaping it is going to take a
considerable larger budget than what the city has to work with to maintain these areas.
Mr. AN said that is a very good question and statement. The city thought of that before the city
did the improvements along Kennard Street and Legacy Parkway and has thought about it in this
case as well. This is not a new expense that the city wants to take on, it is something the
homeowners will take on as an expense. Every development agreement in the area will be
informed that the city is doing the improvements as a charge to the homeowners association.
Each homeowner in that area understands when they buy their house they are paying an extra
charge for the city to maintain these areas. Whether the Gladstone area is approved for 490 or
800 units there would be an agreement in their homeowners association that discusses the
annual charge to help pay for the maintenance of those areas. Either a homeowner association
does it under a contract, the city does it for a contract, or the city does it with city forces. Although
the city does not have the work force to send their own people out to take care of that. One thing
you don't want to do is invest either $11 million or $18 million on a development plan and not plan
for the overall future maintenance of the area. The city doesn't make that mistake with the city
sewer system, the roads, or the water systems, we make sure the city maintains things and has
the employees to do that.
Commissioner Pearson said for example, the strip of land along White Bear Avenue is pitiful and
does not come up to this level of landscaping.
Mr. AN said he would agree that improvements need to be made in that area.
Chairperson Fischer asked if the reduced costs for the Savanna still include the trails or
walkways?
Mr. AN said yes although some of the trails and walkways will be wood chips or mowed areas
other than paved areas but they will be "walkable".
Chairperson Fischer said with the storm water improvements the cost seems to be equal across
the board, are these costs necessary improvements or are they at a higher level of service?
Mr. AN said those storm water improvements are the necessary improvements needed and is
something the city cannot cut from the redevelopment plans.
I TURNER ENIMIMPITT-M
Mr. AN said in the mid 1980's when Frost Avenue was built, the city's goal was to get rid of the
water as fast as the city could and move it down to Lake Phalen. Over the past 20 years the city
has discovered that wasn't a good decision because it puts pollutants into the lake.Mr. AN said
the city needs to get back to infiltrating and allowing some of the plants to use up some of the
nutrients and treat the water and slow it down so it can infiltrate into the ground water system.
Commissioner Yarwood said regarding the background of this planning process for the Gladstone
area, the original plan was for 800 units, but wasn't the full range considered from the low end to
the high end in the beginning and where did the low number of 490 units come from?
Agenda Item El
Mr. Ahl said this question has been asked a lot. The process was put together with the idea of
establishing the goals and wish list so to speak of what people would like to see in the Gladstone
area and for the Savanna. People said they would like to see streetscapes, sidewalks, storm
water improvements, and a quality development.
Mr. Ahl said the city started reducing the number of units from 1,000 to 800 units and that is
where the planning process stopped. Then former City Councilmember Bartol asked if the city
could cut more units, so the city developed a plan and reduced the costs down to a pretty bare
minimum. The city started with a wish list and it came up with the 1,000 units, narrowed it down
to the master plan or plan A with the 800 units at $18 million and further reduced the plan down
to see the number of units it would take to get to the bare minimum and that is alternate plan or
plan B with the 490 units at $11 million.
Chairperson Fischer asked if those figures were fairly accurate and if there wouldn't be any costly
expenses that could pop up?
Mr. Ahl said that is a very good question. Staff is very comfortable with these figures. Keep in
mind that with the lower number of units of 490 (plan B) which is the lower cost plan you have
increased your risk and the amount of time to develop the area has increased, but it is a feasible
plan. There is a lot less risk involved with the 800 units (plan A) and is a very feasible plan.
Commissioner Desai said he noticed the retail space has been reduced significantly in the two
plans. He asked what the total amount of square footage of retail space is currently in the
Gladstone area?
Mr. Ahl said currently there is about 170,000 — 180,000 square footage of commercial retail
space in the Gladstone area. In plan A there would be about 50,000 - 75,000 square feet of
commercial retail space, plan B has about 10,000 square feet of commercial retail space, so
there is a major reduction in commercial retail space.
Commissioner Desai asked what the reason for the sidewalks to be built in the area is if there
isn't much commercial retail space for people to walk to? Part of the reason people would need a
sidewalk would be to visit the grocery store, a coffee shop, bakery etc. Now if plan B with the 490
units gets approved with only 10,000 square feet of commercial space, where will people go,
there would be hardly any commercial space? People will have to get in their car and drive where
they need to go. He asked if we can cut out the sidewalks and that additional cost then?
Mr. Ahl said he respectively disagrees with the analysis that sidewalks are not needed. To have
commercial or not to have commercial was a value decision. It's a proven fact that residential
homes bring in more tax dollars compared to commercial property. Mr. Ahl said in the master
plan (plan A) with the 800 units would probably have more of those types of retail shops such as
a coffee shop or a deli shop for example. With (plan B) the 490 units those retail spaces are not
there. That doesn't take away the fact that more and more people want walkable communities to
visit with the neighbors, visit the parks, and get some exercise. As an example, when the city built
the sidewalk on English Street there was a strong community debate as to whether there should
be sidewalks or not along English Street between County Road B and Frost Avenue. Staff
strongly recommended to the city council there should be sidewalks. The City Council took a
survey of the neighborhood and finally decided to require sidewalks be built. Since then Mr. Ahl
Agenda Item El
said he has received many phone calls from the neighbors thanking the city for putting the
sidewalks in because they use them so frequently. In fact, the neighbors were so supportive of
the sidewalks that as soon as the sidewalks were installed, people started walking on them when
the concrete was still wet and the city had to go back and rope off the area so people would not
walk on them until they were completely dry. So for this reason, staff would strongly recommend
sidewalks because they are needed and wanted.
Commissioner Desai asked if it's the responsibility of the homeowner to maintain the sidewalks or
does the city take care of them?
Mr. AN said in this case the city maintains these.
Commissioner Desai said with the Gladstone plan the city would be requiring the homeowners to
maintain the sidewalks. He asked how the homeowners going to feel about that?
Mr. AN said that's a good point. The city provides maintenance to many sidewalks in the city. The
city may need to continue to do that with the general tax dollars with snow plowing. However, the
maintenance of irrigation systems, trees, and decorative street lights, are things the city does not
maintain and those are the types of things that would be charged to the homeowners association.
Chairperson Fischer asked if there were going to be medians for all of the plans or just some of
them?
Mr. AN said in the 800 unit concept there are a lot more median improvements on Frost Avenue
and in that area which would go all the way to East Shore Drive. When you get into the
roundabout there would only be one lane in and one lane out and those medians would be
extended. In the 490 unit plan the extent of the medians are limited to right in front of where the
bowling alley is and significantly reduced.
Chairperson Fischer asked what the purpose of the medians is in the neighborhoods?
Mr. Ahl said that's a very good question. Medians help calm traffic flow. The city sees cars driving
much too fast in this area. Even though the speed limit is posted on Frost Avenue people are still
driving 45 mph and higher. That is not the type of neighborhood and walkable community people
want and at those speeds the area isn't walkable. Enforcement cannot reduce speed limits when
people feel like they should be driving the speed that feels comfortable to them. Mr. AN said
medians restrict the vision and move things closer; they also change the overall appearance and
reduces the speed. This makes for a safer and walkable community.
Chairperson Fischer asked if there are any differences in the safety factors?
Mr. AN said a pedestrian walking across a four lane roadway with a median is safer for the
pedestrians than without a median.
Commissioner Grover asked if either of the plans change the number of units on the St. Paul
Tourist Cabin site or is that number firm?
Mr. AN said the number of units is at 150 for both plans on the St. Paul Tourist Cabin site.
Agenda Item El
Commissioner Desai said he received information regarding a possible development on the St.
Paul Tourist Cabin site that would be for low income housing. He asked if the St. Paul Tourist
Cabin site is going to be for low income housing won't that be a burden for those people being
asked to help pay for the maintenance of the amenities in the area?
Melinda Coleman said the current developer that is working on this site is Central Community
Housing Trust (CCHT) and they met with the HRA group on Tuesday, March 14 to discuss who
they are and the types of projects they work with. (CCHT) doesn't have a specific proposal for the
St. Paul Tourist Cabin site yet other than it will be rental and mixed use and provide some
affordable housing as well as some market rate housing. (CCHT) prides themselves on taking
care of their properties and the grounds. You will be hearing more from (CCHT) later on and you
will understand what types of projects they do. But this area is not intended to be 100%
affordable housing as staff understands it. One of the things the city likes about (CCHT) is that
they have been working with All Parks Alliance for Change (APAC) who tries to protect the rights
of people who live in mobile home parks and they have been working together to talk about
relocation issues. These little cabins tend to attract people of the transient nature and this type of
housing is not up to code and is very unsafe. This group would work to find a safe, clean place
for these people to relocate. As this plan moves forward the number of units would be better
known.
Commissioner Desai asked if it was safe to assume that the number of units at 150 is safe to
consider as part of this Gladstone plan or should it not be counted in the number of units for the
Gladstone plan?
Melinda Coleman said the 150 units on the St. Paul Tourist Cabin site should be included in the
density count. The 800 units (plan A) the number of units were around 120-130 units and the 490
units (plan B) which is the alternative concept the density was increased to try to and promote the
higher number of stacked housing on that site. The first meeting staff had with the developer
(CCHT) estimated the number of units at 100-125 but that number may shift when (CCHT) knows
how the land is guided and what happens with the Gladstone plan.
Chairperson Fischer said she understood from the HRA meeting on Tuesday, March 14 that
(CCHT) would bring a proposal to the city after the Gladstone plan was in place and (CCHT)
would comply with whatever the decision was that was made for the Gladstone Redevelopment
Plan.
Mr. Roberts agreed with those comments.
Commissioner Pearson said regarding the (APAC) meeting that was held at the city a few years
ago and the ordinance that did not pass; the developer (CCHT) would help the current
homeowners at the St. Paul Tourist Cabin site 2-to-3 times more than the (APAC) ordinance ever
would.
Melinda Coleman said when you get an organization like (CCHT) they can tap into a lot of
different funding sources that a typical developer would not be able to. The partnership with
(APAC) will likely bring a bigger benefit to the relocation amount to those residents. The more
money those residents can get to relocate they could possibly even buy their own home. It gets
Agenda Item El
the residents out of that sub-standard housing and gives them a lift into the community and the
ability to purchase their own home.
Commissioner Kaczrowski said with plan B which cut some of the amenities and things like
burying the power lines and road improvements are these things that are still going to need to be
done in the near future?
Mr. Ahl said those are all value decisions and again this decision could affect the long term
solution or the future. The city may want to start at a lower level and as funds become available
we may be able to add some of that back in to the plan and still stay at some of the lower level
units. With the burying of the power lines, he doubts all the power lines in the city will ever all be
buried because it is very expensive. Regarding building the bridge verses the lesser expensive
box culvert style, once you start it you can't go back. Adding irrigation and streetscapes can be
added at a later date so if the project doesn't pay for itself those are things that would not be
installed for two to three years anyway. This is a three to five year plan and those amenities are
value decisions for the different commissions and boards to make.
Commissioner Grover said based upon what he just heard staff say, would you like to hear from
the commissions and boards identifying what money they think should be put towards things in
this plan?
Mr. AN said absolutely. Melinda Coleman has a handout that she would like to give to the
planning commission and to the audience.
Melinda handed out a Gladstone Advisory Board Discussion Questionnaire. This form is for each
persons use to assist them in the decision making process and is for your own use. Staff went
through the questionnaire one by one. Staff showed a power point presentation which had
different photos of what developments could look like, different street scapes and the different
levels of street scapes, setbacks from the street, etc. Staff encouraged the commission as they
go through this process if they have any questions to contact Melinda or Chuck by telephone or
e-mail and staff would be happy to assist them.
The planning commission decided to fill out the form on their own and bring this back at their next
planning commission meeting and review it as a group. This way the PC will have more time to
go through it on their own.
Chairperson Fischer asked if it would be acceptable if commissioners wrote whether they had no
opinion one way or the other regarding certain changes?
Commissioner Trippler said he has been on the Gladstone Task Force for over 1 year now and
he has some idea what the task force dealt with and how things were addressed. If the PC is not
going to deal with this at this meeting he would propose that if the commission wanted to meet at
6:00 or 6:30 p.m. before the next commission meeting in the Maplewood Room if people had
questions he would be happy to respond to any questions regarding what the task force thought.
Melinda Coleman said the city council is meeting in the Maplewood Room that evening Monday,
Agenda Item El
April 3, 2006, from 5:00-7:00 p.m. but the planning commission could meet in the city council
chambers under a work session before the regular pc meeting begins.
Commissioner Yarwood asked if that would be the time to formulate a response to the city
council for the Gladstone Redevelopment Plan?
Melinda Coleman said city staff would need the recommendation from the planning commission
under their public planning commission meeting. The planning commission can still meet prior to
their regular starting time to go through issues and have a discussion.
Chairperson Fischer said in the past the planning commission has had differing opinions to
things, would staff accept a minority report from the planning commission if it came to that?
Melinda Coleman said yes. With the Task Force it is city staffs intent that if the city can't get a
unanimous report, the city staff will take a minority report and pass everything onto the city
council for the final decision. City staff wants everything to be an open record regarding what the
boards and commissions are discussing.
IRENE N INTIRMON
Mr. AN said the Maplewood Bowl will be relocated somewhere else but not located in the
Gladstone area.
Commissioner Trippler said it was his understanding that the bowling alley was the busiest and
most profitable business in the Gladstone area and they have not expressed any interest in
moving, is that correct?
Mr. AN said he is not aware of that. The owner of the bowling alley has been extremely involved
in this process and interested in redevelopment in some of the facilities. The 800 unit plan
discusses redoing the bowling alley site possibly with an underground facility or first floor facility
and puffing commercial and housing above it as a combined overall facility. That is shown in plan
A. The bowling alley is used and it is a busy site but to make that leap and say the owner of the
bowling alley wants to absolutely stay he is not aware of that.
Commissioner Pearson said in the master plan the task force had allocated the bowling alley to
remain in the general area along with having ample space for the businesses that currently exist
and some additional businesses. When he looks at plan B all of the units that are north of the
Savanna are single units but where are the garages?
Mr. AN said not all of the units on the bowling alley site which goes from English Street to Flicek
Park north of the Savanna are individual stacked homes. They are not individual attached
townhome units. The city cannot achieve enough density and came up 80 units short by trying to
go with all townhomes. So some of the units are stacked and that may be a senior housing unit.
Parking on that type of unit would have to be underground. He cautions the commission from
looking at this plan as a "site" plan verses a "concept" plan. Details of exactly where things will be
located are steps down the road.
Commissioner Trippler said plan B crams enough units in to meet the density number of 490
Agenda Item El
units but with little commercial space.
Mr. AN said the intent is to show the types of units shown in the slide show that Melinda Coleman
showed with the types of units that would work in this type of redevelopment plan. A value choice
is to look at going to more of a single attached unit. That gets more expensive because it takes
more property up. As soon as you start stacking units you start achieving more green space
which allows the site to look less cramped.
Commissioner Trippler asked what the value of the individual boxes shown would be?
Mr. AN said most of the units would be around the $199,900 to $299,900 unit prices. Those are
the financial assumptions in order to make this work.
Commissioner Trippler said for the benefit of the planning commission, the one location where
commercial property is designated on the southeast corner of Frost Avenue and English Street
where the funeral home currently resides, would be 10,000 square feet of commercial space and
everything else on the site is residential, is that correct.
Mr. AN said yes.
Commissioner Trippler said the trails would not be paved but would have wood chips or
something?
Mr. AN said yes.
Commissioner Trippler said that may not be very attractive to the elderly who want to use the
trails or for someone who is handicapped and needs to use assistance to get around.
Mr. AN said correct.
Chairperson Fischer said back in February of 2004 the Maplewood Historical Preservation
Commission sent a letter regarding their concerns of the mixed use zoning ordinance and the
Gladstone area. Do any of the concerns of the Maplewood Historical Preservation Commission
factor into the Gladstone Redevelopment Plan?
Mr. AN said staff met last week with the Maplewood Historical Preservation Commission and
they have been involved in this process and this plan.
• • • a • • 1111111111 1!11 . . 0
IM 0=1 002VA 9 as N - @ e 110silml
Agenda Item El
DRAFT
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
MONDAY, APRIL 3, 2006
a. Alternative Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan Review (7:23 — 8:36 p.m.)
Vale Trippler gave a handout to the planning commission prior to the Gladstone
"tedevelopment discussion.
Mr. Roberts said the purpose of this meeting is for the planning commission to discuss the
two different Gladstone Redevelopment plans and forward a recommendation to the city
council at the special Gladstone meeting on Tuesday, April 18, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. The
Planning Commission will need a representative to speak on behalf of the planning
commission at that meeting.
Commissioner Dierich asked if staff could compare the density between the Gladstone
Redevelopment plan of 490 units to the number of units in the New Century development,
Legacy Village development, and the future Carver Crossing development so she could get a
feel for the differences in the density?
Mr. Roberts said the density in the Gladstone area varies, the highest density concentration
would be around the roundabout and as it moves out towards the perimeters of Gladstone the
intent is to have lower density to better transition into the single family homes that will remain.
The Gladstone plan will have a range of 8 to 20 units per acre depending on where you were
within in the site plan. The Carver Crossing development that the planning commission will
see review soon will be at 4.1 units per acre, the New Century development is at about 5 or
5.5 units per acre over the PUD, and the Legacy Village development is an average of 14 to
15 units per acre.
Chuck AN said on the Legacy Village plan there is a lot of open space combined in the
development so you have compacted units and private streets. The Gladstone area doesn't
have that many private streets so it's difficult to compare the two areas. Some of the Legacy
Village units that are being built north of St. Johns Hospital is fairly intense there, if you
compared apples to apples with the Gladstone plan, the Legacy Village development would
be about 18 to 20 units per acre.
Commissioner Dierich asked how many acres in size the Gladstone Redevelopment area
was?
Mr. Ahl said the entire redevelopment study area with trails, the right of way and open space
comes to 195 acres. Some of the 195 acres has existing housing in the total because that
includes the entire study area.
Chairperson Fischer asked how close the streets in the area are to capacity or if the city is at
comfortable tolerance levels?
Mr. AN said Frost Avenue is a very wide road with four lanes of traffic. Typical traffic on a four
Agenda Item El
lane roadway is 15,000 cars a day. Current traffic on Frost Avenue is about 7,000 cars a day
so it is not even 50% capacity. The city did a traffic analysis assuming 1,000 new units when
the original analysis was done so that does not double the traffic level.
Mr. AN said it has an increase to around 10,000 cars a day but it is not at the capacity. The
roundabout would have been stressed under a doubling of the traffic of 13,000 cars a day
assuming 1,000 housing units, but we are not close to that.
Chairperson Fischer said she drove to the Legacy Village development to look at the box
culvert under the power lines at Kennard Parkway and Legacy Parkway and she noticed a 15
mph traffic sign at the roundabout. She asked why that speed sign was posted at this
roundabout and not at the other roundabout? Is this something new that the city is
considering posting elsewhere?
Mr. AN said the speed signs at the roundabout at Kennard Parkway and Legacy Parkway are
advisory. The city advises people that 15 mph is the appropriate speed. 15 — 20 mph is what
the city designs a roundabout for. At 25 mph your driving starts to feel uncomfortable and
anything above that you are starting to exceed a safe operation. The 15 mph is an advised
speed while driving around the roundabout.
Chairperson Fischer asked if the reason there wasn't a speed sign posted at the roundabout
at Frost Avenue was because it's a County Road?
Mr. AN said no. The roundabout at Frost Avenue is larger and can handle slightly faster
speeds. One thing the city learned was there were too many signs posted there and people
couldn't figure out which sign to follow.
Chairperson Fischer asked if the narrow stretches or the more broad areas were higher
accident rate areas?
Mr. Ahl said no these areas are not higher accident rate areas until Highway 61 and Frost
Avenue. At East Shore Drive the city sees as a potential problem because of the sight
differences. There was a problem at Frost Avenue and English Street but that has been taken
care of after the roundabout was added.
Commissioner Dierich said even if you take 700 units for the 195 acres for the Gladstone
Redevelopment site, that puts the units at 2.8 units per acre. If we have a new development
the Met Council has something to say about low density. She asked if the Met Council has
anything to say about redevelopment?
Mr. AN said yes the Met Council has something to say about density. The lower density plan
of 490 units is something the city will have a very difficult time getting any grants for. The Met
Council does not come back and say you must have a certain number of density. But they do
provide financial incentives and the city would like to get Livable Community grants for
projects like this but with the low unit count of 490 the city will have a very difficult time
applying for grants. With the 800 unit density the city will have a much easier time applying for
and getting grants. Mr. AN said that is the type of competition the city would in for
redevelopment grants. The Met Council would be supportive of the 490 units since that is a
Agenda Item El
higher density than what is currently there, but the Met Council would not be "financially"
supportive of the 490 units with grant money.
Commissioner Dierich said it doesn't seem very fair that the rest of Maplewood would have to
have a higher density than what the Gladstone area would be required to have. Not everyone
is going to benefit from this redevelopment and if the city has to put tax dollars into this
development it is going to come out of the Maplewood resident's pockets. She knows these
decisions are all political, but why can this area push so hard to have a lesser density when
the city knows they can develop a nicer development with more units and make this work for
everybody.
Commissioner Yarwood said it's his understanding that this area is revenue neutral and he
isn't sure tax wise if this redevelopment is a tax burden on the rest of the city.
Mr. Ahl said you are correct. Both plans for the 490 units and 800 units are feasible and are
theoretically self supporting without city tax dollars.
Commissioner Dierich said this area is a gateway to our community in Maplewood. The
Gladstone area bumps up against two very nice areas. She said she is willing to support the
higher density plan because it is one of the gateways to Maplewood and she thinks the city
wants to put their best foot forward. If we get chinchy or cut costs on the infrastructure and
amenities, we are not putting our best foot forward and we are not improving the
neighborhood in the best way possible.
Commissioner Dierich said when this process began she thought differently but has since
changed her mind and prefers the higher density plan for the amenities and the look of the
plan.
Chairperson Fischer said when the final decision is made for the Gladstone area it will be a
decision to weigh density and amenities and whether to have build bebo or a box culvert.
There are many conclusions to add up before deciding what is best for the area.
Mr. AN said these are all value decisions. That's another reason staff provided everyone with
the Gladstone questionnaire so people would have a way to measure these factors.
Commissioner Dierich said she's aware nobody "wants" development in their backyard but
doesn't everyone in the city have a say in what happens here? We all have density in our
backyards in the twin cities. If we as a city are putting in street infrastructure she thinks the
residents of Maplewood should have a say regarding this area.
Commissioner Grover said excluding the St. Paul Tourist Cabins, how many units does this
plan bring the number of units down to? "He said he knows both plans already include the St.
Paul Tourist Cabins in the total number of units.
Mr. AN said yes both plans include 150 units for the St. Paul Tourist Cabins. Plan A(800
arfrts�-rni�rm-s-�541 arfltsr&kaAas��51- 4 Ffarr a arfits
341 housing units.
Agenda Item El
Commissioner Grover said he knows there's a developer who has shown interest in the St.
Paul Tourist Cabin site. When he looks at the total number of units he purposely excludes the
St. Paul Tourist Cabins from the total. He asked how many manufactured homes are currently
on the St. Paul Tourist Cabin site?
Melinda Coleman said about 50 manufactured homes, give or take a few.
Commissioner Grover said one of the things he doesn't like about this is that there are only
two plans to choose from. To him that is like having a yes plan or a no plan and personally he
likes certain things from both plans.
Chairperson Fischer said at the joint CIDRB and HRA meeting she understood that the 490
unit plan is a riskier plan compared to the 800 unit plan which is not as risky? She also
understood if people didn't care for the 490 plan but thought somewhere between the 490 unit
count and the 800 unit count would be better than that is what we could recommend to the
city council. Possibly as a minority decision.
Mr. AN said that is correct. City staff provided a lower unit plan and a higher unit plan. For
example, if you as a commission chose 620 units and you want certain amenities in the plan
and it costs $14 million dollars in order to do that plan, then you could recommend that to the
city council. It's all up to the commission and boards what they want to recommend to the city
council.
Commissioner Grover asked staff to provide more detail such as the risk analysis between
going with the 490 units compared to the 800 units?
Mr. AN said the risk to the city for the 800 unit plan is small. In around 3 to 5 years that plan
could be implemented as proposed. The 490 unit plan comes with more of a significant risk, it
will be harder to implement, it will take longer and could take 8 to 10 years to develop as
funds become available, it would be more difficult to redevelop certain sites because the city
doesn't have the funds available to work with developers, and it may not be as attractive for
developers to move on the property. The city may have to wait for certain things such as
blight to occur. You have a very good opportunity to get grant funds with the 800 unit plan and
with the 490 units your risk is greater that the city wouldn't get any grant money.
Ms. Coleman said the city made a submittal for Livable Community funds this year with 500
units with Mr. McLaughlin's plan and the city was turned down. There are more requests for
grant money than there are funds, but part of the reason Mr. McLaughlin's plan was turned
down was because it didn't have near enough density to qualify for their programs. Regarding
the risk assessment, if you go with the 490 plan, the easier parcels will probably develop such
as Johnson Boatworks, the storage yard, those will go because there are no structures on
them and will happen easily. The difficulty will be where there are businesses that are ready
to go and they have indicated to the city that they either want to reinvest in their business or
relocate. The city is not going to be able to help those businesses because there is no money
put in the 490 unit plan to provide financial assistance to those businesses. Then there is the
cost of demolition, contamination clean up, relocation and all of those things cost so much
that it isn't going to happen.
Agenda Item El
Commissioner Trippler said he has spent over a year serving on the Gladstone Task Force
and he would strongly recommend that the planning commission pick one plan or the other. If
you start cutting corners and nickel and dime things, this plan will never be finalized because
we will be going back and forth.
Commissioner Trippler said the task force sat down and tried to figure out what they wanted
the Gladstone area to look like. If you look at the Gladstone plan dated November 14, 2005,
on page 3-1 through 3-2, it talks about the vision the task force had, the guiding principles and
the look of the neighborhood and they used this vision to get a better handle on what
amenities the task force would like to see and how to make this vision happen. Plan B or the
Bartol plan set the number of units and then took a look at the amenities and started cutting
amenities until they got down to the dollar amount that fit with the number of units. To him that
doesn't include a vision, doesn't have principles and is a backwards way of planning. The task
force paired down the amenities from $24 million to $18 million and then they said if you start
pairing down anything more from this plan it's either not going to be any different than what
exists or it will be so poorly done that it won't be attractive. If the area is not attractive you
won't sell the units and if you don't sell the units, the area is going to fail. One example is
whether to build the bebo versus the box culvert. When the Gladstone task force looked at the
bowling alley property they thought those units would be attractive to senior citizens. The
Savanna could be a good way to draw people to the area but it can only be attractive to
people if they can get to and utilize the Savanna. If you have ever been through a box culvert,
it is very restrictive and it is not very attractive. He would not want to go through the box
culvert unless he was on a 10 speed bike. If you put in a box culvert, it won't be attractive to
families with young children or to senior citizens. If you don't have paved trails on the
Savanna, and you use wood chips to save money, older people will not be able to use the
trails which won't be an attractive feature in order to draw people to live here and it will lose its
appeal.
Commissioner Trippler asked if he should read his comment sheet that he provided the
commission with aloud so they would be included in the minutes for the record.
Ms. Coleman said those comments could be included in the minutes so everyone would have
the comments available to them. The recording secretary inserted the comments in the
minutes below.
Date: April 3, 2006
To: Maplewood Planning Commission
From: Dale Trippler, Planning Commissioner
Subject: Alternative Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan Review
I respectfully submit the following reasons why the Alternative Plan should not be recommended to the
city council. I find the Alternative Plan deficient in the areas:
It has eliminated commercial space for the bowling alley, liquor store, Laundromat, Mike's LP,
the pet groomer shop, boat works, Moose Lodge, Hmong Funeral Home, and several other
viable businesses in the Gladstone area. One of the universal elements sited by citizens and
the Task Force was to provide for existing businesses that wanted to remain in the area. Except
for Richard's, the bakery, and the barbershop, that seems to be a huge missing piece. In
Agenda Item E1
addition, the alternative plan does not provide space for any new businesses to move in like
restaurants, a coffee shop, etc.
2. It has cut the street budget to the point of not making enough improvements to make any real
difference. The changes will not significantly change the look of Gladstone as it appears today.
3. The budget for improving the Savanna and building trails and pathways iS reduced tOthe point
where elderly people may not be able to use most of the amenities. The box tunnel, instead of
the Bebo, would be far less attractive to the elderly and to families out for a walk. The savanna
and trails are viewed 8B one Vf the major re8SOnsvvhyH|derlyp8Op|ennightbeint8r8StSdin
buying and living in the units north of Frost and east Of English. If the elderly can't get to the
Savanna and can't use the trails, o significant selling point inlost.
4. The @Jtenl@Uve D|@D 88 | view it D@CkS SO many 8D1@U UDd3 into the @v@ii8Ne space that the
oneness of the Master Plan is gone. By limiting the height of buildings to no more than 2 stories,
the housing in the Maplewood Bowl area and along English Street im completely crammed.
There is almost no room for yards, play areas, or commons. The Alternative Plan may achieve
its goal of limiting the number of units, but it does so at the expense of packing housing into a
small area. This i8 exactly what many people in the Gladstone area said they DID NOT WANT.
5. Unlike the Task Force Master Plan, which is fully documented and spelled out in detail, I have
very little idea about most Cf what the /\Ke[nGtk*e P|@D is purposing, so it is iOnpn33b|e to fully
and completely evaluate it. From the "Plan B~ drawing i0 our packet, | don't like any Of it. |nDly
op|DiUD OOUViOQ ahead with the Alternative p|8n VV0V|d be worse than doing nothing at all
because I believe the Alternative Plan is doomed to fail before it even begins. And I would not
want tO see anyone invest $11 million VO@failure.
8. The Master Plan is based on guiding principals, goals and objectives that ALL 20 members of
the Gladstone Task Force agreed to (see pages 3-1 through 3-2 in the Draft Gladstone
Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan dated November 14 The Master Plan iSthe plan the
Task Force members felt had the best chance of fulfilling our goals and objectives for what we
think Gladstone GhnV|d |noh like when the p|@O is fully implemented. The /\|terUEdime Plan is
based on a set number of units and everything e|en is modified to achieve that goal. Most
members of the - [8Sk Force think the Alternative P|GD will [8SU|t in Gladstone |0VkiOg pretty
much like it does now with very little chance Ofsuccess.
COnlOniSSODer Trpo|er said | think you should know 81 the last Gladstone Task Force meeting
rejected the/\ltHmn8UvH/B@rtO| Plan. The Task Force rnernbenS overwhelmingly support the K48StHr
In my opinion the /Xb*mnative/Bartm| Man was thrown together by one (or more likely a few
individuals) who are catering to their own special iDteneSt group, and does NOT represent the best
interests of the City of Maplewood.
Sincerely, Dale Trippler, Planning Commission
Commissioner Trippler8aid he wanted everyone to know that the task force overwhelmingly
supported the Master Plan twice. Even though the city council never looked at the Master
Plan because the BBrfOl plan took precedence over it, atthe end Of March, the majority 0fthe
task force members overwhelmingly accepted the Master Plan /A00 units) and the majority
declined the Alternative Plan (490 units). - [he[eVVeFekNO people On the task force that voted
for the Alternative Plan (490 units). He Said the Cif» did a Ve[V good job ensuring that the
Agenda Item El
Gladstone Task Force was a balance of people. Those people on the task force included
residents from the Gladstone area, people throughout the city, from the Gladstone Coalition,
people representing boards and commissions, and business members and property owners,
so the task force represented a good cross section of the community on this redevelopment
plan that took place over 18 months.
Community Yarwood said even though the city provided the worksheet, at this stage he does
not feel qualified to make even small changes to the plan because there are people that have
a lot more invested in this and have a lot deeper understanding of the issues of the area. It's
important to pick one plan or the other. He doesn't want to see a half baked plan go through.
This is a chance for Maplewood to make a statement. To him that means recommending the
Master Plan (800 units) to the city council. There has been some discussion regarding the
misconception that higher density means higher crime. That is a red herring, statistics stand
behind that. There is an important fact in doing research and that is correlation does not
necessarily equal causation. This is particularly true for the high density idea correlating with
crime. That has more to do with price point and the types of development that we are looking
at which will attract and create the type of community that will be healthy, low crime and will
look very nice. He strongly supports the Master Plan (800 units) and he hopes the planning
commission speaks in a unanimous voice to make this heard to the city council. This is very
important to him.
Chairperson Fischer asked Mr. AN if he could go through some of the cost reductions that
could be made if the commission were to decide to go with a number of units somewhere
between the 490 unit count and the 800 unit count?
Mr. AN said shortening the length of the area to be redeveloped can be a cost reduction.
Instead of extending the improvements on Frost Avenue all the way to Hazelwood Street you
could stop at Ide Street. Improvements on English Street could not go as far to the south so
the improvements would be reduced significantly. Originally there was a street extended
between Clarence Street and English Street near the Bruce Vento trail south and that street is
no longer in the improvement plan and in fact that area is not in the 490 unit plan any longer.
Mr. AN said there are areas in the 800 unit plan that is not identified in the 490 unit plan.
Those are single family homes that were identified as possibly being redeveloped. The other
improvements related to scale are streetscape improvements rated 1 through 4. The higher
the rating the more extreme the streetscape improvements are and the lower the rating is for
the very basic improvements. In the Park and Recreation improvements there would be a
savings of $1.6 million between choosing to build the bebo versus the box culvert. There was
a $750,000 reduction in the overall park improvements to the Savanna, reduction in grading,
removal of a plaza and park area and reduced grading at Flicek Park.
Commissioner Trippler said he would like the record to reflect that when he was campaigning
for city council, people said the 800 unit plan would have way to much concentration. He
would like the commissioners to take a look at the diagram in the packet in pencil. If you
compare the two and look at the area that is north of the Savanna and look at the housing
that is packed in there because the housing height is limited to no more than two stories.
Compare that to the openness the task force tried to maintain with buildings more than two
stories in height to allow for more green space or open space for people to enjoy. The density
may be higher and the height of the buildings may be taller but it gives the feeling for more
Agenda Item El
space for people to enjoy. The Bartol plan or the Alternative plan with 490 units shows
everything at two stories or less and everything is packed in tightly and there is very little
green space. That is exactly what people said they did not want when he spoke to them
while campaigning.
Commissioner Trippler said people said they wanted the existing businesses to stay if they
wanted to. Neither plan A nor plan B is going to force any business out. The Bartol plan only
shows 10,000 square feet for commercial space. That would only allow for Richard's Market,
the barbershop and the Maplewood Bakery. There is nothing provided in the plan for the other
Gladstone businesses.
Commissioner Grover asked if it was fair to compare the two schematic drawings? He also
asked if the Bartol plan limits the height of the buildings to two stories?
Mr. Ahl said yes the Bartol plan has a height limit of the buildings. There were a few units that
could go to three stories in order to achieve the density, but the intent was for the fewest
number of units possible. Plan B (490 units) started to get into site planning, how many units,
the height of the units and the layout of the site. Plan A (800 units) was clearly a concept of
potential. Staff is suggesting for us to make a recommendation one way or the other. It is time
to make a final decision so people can move on and move forward with things. The public
hearing will be on Tuesday, April 18, 2006, at 7:00 p.m.
Commissioner Grover said given that information, can a plan such as this specify heights of
buildings and other site plan issues since the planning commission will be dealing with zoning
changes?
Mr. Ahl said the city is going to be involved significantly with either one of these plans.
However, the city involvement will be less with the 490 unit plan. With the 490 unit plan it will
difficult to control things with zoning rules and zoning controls, it is much easier to control
things when there is a financial stake. When the city is involved financially you can specifically
control what happens on a property. With a higher unit count such as the 800 unit plan, you
can have more financial control and can control what types of commercial businesses are put
in. Where it is going to be difficult is trying to put full zoning controls on to get the building
quality and zoning types and uses you want.
Commissioner Grover said he thought the city couldn't force builders to stay to a certain unit
count.
Mr. Ahl said the intent "is" to control the unit count. To find a way to put some type of zoning
controls on the properties and make sure that exists. Mr. Ahl said a three story building is all
that is allowed by code without a conditional use permit (CUP).
Mr. Roberts said correct. The city envisions the city council approve a plan, assuming they
pick either plan A or plan B; the city would then have to look at putting together new land use
controls or zoning standards such as what happened with the Hillcrest area. It may become
an overlay district. The city would set design standards, set height limits and set architectural
standards for that area to make sure the plan gets implemented as envisioned. So that will
take more work. Hopefully some of what was adopted in the Hilicrest area could translate to
this area, but not necessarily all of it. What ever master plan is adopted, the city can make it
Agenda Item El
work and have the controls set so everyone that would come in would know these are the
rules you have to follow in this Gladstone area.
Commissioner Dierich said in thinking about the Alternative Plan (490 units) those homes are
going to be smaller and will be less in value compared to other developments in the city that
have been built. To her that represents a certain type of person that may not be able to afford
a nicer place to live and maybe won't have the money to maintain their property. Are those
the type of people you want to draw to this area as your neighbors? Holding the quality and
the property value will happen with the 800 unit plan. In today's market you can't build a big
house well because you can't have a lot of square footage and still stay under $200,000. It's
not possible anymore. By going with condominiums or townhomes, you can raise the quality
of the construction and the type of home and it can still be affordable. Affordable, at least
according to the Met Council's standards. Density doesn't necessarily equal ugly, or not
livable. She said she was just down in Savannah, Georgia, where there housing is very dense
and basically feels like one house is right on top of the other because the houses are so close
together. Charleston, South Carolina, has the same type of housing. These areas are two of
the most charming cities she has ever seen in her life. So if you have a good plan with high
density it can be a very nice development. Everything is a process. There will be a process for
the new Carver Crossing are in south Maplewood. There was a process with Legacy Village
and the New Century development and now there will be a process with the Gladstone area.
The process is to get feedback from everybody and the city has gotten wonderful feedback for
this development plan over the past 18 months. This has been as much open government as
you can get and many people participated in this process. The planning commission should
give a recommendation based on what we know and see in front of us.
Commissioner Hess said he likes the idea of having a unit count somewhere between 490
and 800 units. He said according to the results of the Gladstone public meeting it appears the
public prefers the lower unit count. He thinks it would be nicer to have more commercial
business in the plan to help with the tax base to generate more revenue.
Commissioner Grover said he has had a problem with the plan all along and doesn't
necessarily agree with one plan or the other. Overall the Gladstone Task Force, the
consultants and the city did a fine job putting the plans together but that doesn't mean he has
to like one plan or the other. He likes things from both plans. You can still have an opinion
that certain things are not a good use of public money or where the city should be using their
time. He agrees with Commissioner Trippler that we need to move on with this. It has been a
long time coming and people want to move on with their lives. He likes a longer list of things
to pick and choose from. He agrees whatever comes from this plan, whether or not he agrees
to vote "with" it or "against" it. He thinks there are certain things like the streetscape that do
not need to extend this far. There are things like building the bebo versus building the box
culvert, to him that is a no brainer decision. He personally doesn't want to walk through a box
culvert. There is a wise investment to be made regarding that. Anything to do with the park,
Savanna and the trails, which are the amenities to that area are very important decisions to
make. The park and the trails are the amenities so if we are to focus any of the public dollars
they should be focused on these amenities. If we aren't going to focus on those amenities
they aren't going to attract developers to build a nice development. He doesn't think we
should extend the streetscape this far but there are some things that he would agree that the
city would be selling themselves short on for things such as a box culvert or other things like
Agenda Item El
that which are problematic to him.
Chairperson Fischer said she would disagree. If a box culvert is good enough for the Legacy
Village development why isn't it good enough to build in the Gladstone area? She thought she
understood the planning commission could have a first choice and a second choice regarding
the plans.
Mr. AN and Ms. Coleman said that the planning commission can recommend what ever the
commission wanted and it will be passed onto the city council.
Commissioner Grover asked Mr. AN what connects to the other side of the box culvert at the
Legacy Village development? In this area we would be connecting a major regional park trail
to the Savanna which is a pretty large open space. This is the area we want the center of the
neighborhood to be.
Mr. AN said the box culvert in Legacy Village connects to the Lakes Link trail up to the Bruce
Vento trail and will eventually go over to Century Avenue and up around White Bear Lake.
Ms. Coleman said the box culvert and that connection was made almost at the completion of
the zoning and land use approvals. It was an after thought and during the park planning
process the city renegotiated, splitting the cost with the developer over some park land and
other things that weren't part of the first planning process and came as an after thought. The
city learned as the city went along.
Mr. AN said the box culvert in Legacy Village is under a much narrower street and is about 60
feet long. The box culvert for the Gladstone area would be around 120 feet long. If you've
ever been to the Shoreview Community Center and driven down the five lanes of traffic on
Highway 96 there is a box culvert underneath Highway 96 which is the same size as this box
culvert would be. It meets the industry standards and is very acceptable. These amenities are
all value decisions that will be decided by the city council after the groups make their
recommendations. Mr. AN said he heard someone say they weren't sure they wanted to take
their family through a box culvert; that is a value decision that the city staff can't make. The
city would make sure there is enough light inside. If you ask the question will the bebo be a
nicer structure and would it cost more money; absolutely.
Commissioner Trippler asked if the length of a box culvert make it acceptable or not
acceptable? The longer the box culvert, the more enclosed it feels, the shorter it is the more
comfortable you feel being inside a box culvert.
Mr. AN said when you have a box culvert 100 feet in length you don't have enough natural
light from end to end so you have to bring in artificial light to the center of the box culvert. If
you have a shorter box culvert such as 60 foot culvert there is usually enough natural light.
Commissioner Trippler said there are many businesses and people within the Gladstone area
who would really like the city to make a decision and get moving on this so these businesses
can decide if they are going to stay, go or redevelop or not. One of the problems he sees with
recommending three or four different options to the city council is that it will prolong the
process. Although he said he believes the city council already knows how they are going to
Agenda Item El
vote anyway. The planning commission should make a decision and send it to the city council
and let the city council make the final decision. Let's not drag this out any longer for the
people in the Gladstone area.
Commissioner Dierich said this process is like building a house. The task force has decided
the essential things, the city has put a price tag on those things, once people have committed
to this and someone changes things, you start the process all over again. Vote yes or no, 490
or 800 units. Then if the city has to start the process over again then we start the process all
over again. But let that be on the city council's shoulders to spend money doing this process
all over again. The Gladstone Task Force has done their work. They started off at 1,000 units
and narrowed it down to 800 units. Then a request came in from the city council to come up
with for a lesser unit count (490 units) with fewer amenities to see what the cost could be
reduced to. When you go through all the information, this process doesn't have to be second
guessed.
Chairperson Fischer asked if the city council should have to be limited to 490 units or 800
units? She doesn't think so. She thinks the 490 unit count is too risky and if the city council
can't be comfortable with the 800 unit count which is less risky then she would recommend a
number in between?
Commissioner Dierich said the city council is going to make a decision either way regardless
if you give them another option or not.
Ms. Coleman said Commissioner Dierich is correct; the city council is going to make the final
decision either way. At the other meetings staff has told the boards and commissions they
should make a recommendation and if everyone can't agree with the decision there can be a
minority report given as well. Then the information is public record and the city council can
take the information and make their final decision from all the compiled information offered.
Commissioner Desai said in the interest of time he won't echo all the comments that have
been made. He said he is more of a visual person and after reviewing the information that
was given to him he took the opportunity to go visit some of the suburbs that are doing similar
type of work on the west end of town. Commissioner Desai said he had a chance to see a
couple of communities outside of the twin cities area and he is convinced to the master plan
(800 units) is the plan to choose. It has the amenities people are likely to look for when they
are looking to purchase property. He has already seen it happening in other areas where the
city went the cheaper route with the lesser amenities. The area starts off looking good and
begins to look tired and old which has been happening in areas that are only two to three
years old. He would prefer to have more retail space. Personally if he was looking for a home
he would want retail close to him. There is going to be walking paths and sidewalks and
people are going to use them to get to a coffee shop, retail store, restaurant etc. to stay in
their community. But you have to have the retail present for people to walk to first.
Commissioner Pearson said normally he isn't fond of high density but in this case he feels the
master plan or higher density is the way to go. Plan B affords a continuation at the junction of
Frost and English with the funeral home which he believes is a big detraction from getting
anything moving on this development. The closest thing to this plan is the St Louis Park
development called Excelsior on Grand. They have an intersection like this roundabout that is
Agenda Item El
proposed, which is the anchor to the area, and they have three story buildings. You need the
higher investment that you would have with the 800 units to be sure you get the appropriate
control and that you are able to buy out the businesses.
Commissioner Pearson said this is not going to be an eminent domain project no matter what
has been reported. It will probably be more expensive to obtain properties than what has
been allocated. This area will have to have the utilities buried and the farther you do that
along Frost Avenue the more attractive the development will be. The addition of the trees and
landscaping will add a lot to the area. When you picture a park for example, before the trees
are planted and in bloom, think of how plain it looks. Once the trees are matured and
developed, it will really add to the development. He is less concerned about whether a bebo
or a box culvert is built. Neither the bebo or the box culvert will be lit very well from natural
light and that is a necessity. He would prefer to have around 600 units but he believes you
have to go with the master plan with the higher density number to make sure you have the
necessary public funds to make this area successful. He also believes the roundabout at
Frost Avenue and English will have to be the anchor of this whole area.
Commissioner Kaczrowski said he prefers the master plan (800 units), he believes you need
to revitalize the area and the amenities are necessary to make this area look nice. He agrees
the utilities need to be buried and he doesn't want to see corners cut to make this a nice
development. He pretty much agrees with the other comments that were made by everybody
else.
Chairperson Fischer asked if there was a motion that carried could we add a minority report?
Ms. Coleman said yes.
Commissioner Trippler moved to recommend to the city council approval of the Master
Plan (800 unit plan) for the Gladstone Redevelopment area put forth by the Gladstone Task
Force.
Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes — Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover,
Hess, Kaczrowski,
Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood
The motion passed.
Chairperson Fischer, Commissioner Grover and Commissioner Hess would like it noted
for the record that they are not in favor of plan B (490 unit) plan but would be agreeable to
looking at an alternative unit count somewhere between 490 and 800 units (such as a 600
unit plan) along with a little more flexibility with the amenities. They represent the minority
report.
Commissioner Grover moved to appoint Commissioner Trippler to be the planning
commission representative at the April 18, 2006, city council meeting.
Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes — Desai, Fischer, Grover, Hess,
Kaczrowski, Pearson,
Trippler, Yarwood
Agenda Item El
Nay — Dierich
Commissioner Dierich said she would recommend there be more than one person as the
representative. The city council should hear from a more neutral voice, there is enough
tension around this plan and she believes someone else should be represent the minority
report at the April 18, 2006, city council meeting.
Ms. Coleman said this will be a public meeting and everyone from the planning commission
as well as the other groups of people are welcome to give their opinion.
Commissioner Grover said he would be happy to present the minorit report at the April 18,
2006, city council meeting.
19jT14W1r*TC#TA#T1r=- 141
Agenda Item El
MAPLEWOOD PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
OPEN SPACE TASK FORCE
FINAL POSITION STATEMENT REGARDING
GLADSTONE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
INTRODUCTION
The Maplewood Parks and Recreation Commission and Open Space Task Force have held five joint
meetings during the past year to discuss and review the status of the Gladstone redevelopment project. To
our knowledge, we may have spent more time than any other city commission with the exception of the
Gladstone task force and of course, the city council.
From the beginning the position of the Open Space Task Force and Parks and Recreation Commission was
to keep an open mind and if you will, approach the project from a blank slate perspective. One of the first
ideas that came from our joint efforts was the concept of having Gladstone become an eco-village.
The concept was to predicate all planning decisions based on an environmental perspective. Initial thoughts
included green roofs, expanded green corridors, increased open space, unlimited walkability, potential
access to light rail, use of rental cars by the hour, and creating vest pocket parks to define the important role
that the environment plays within our community. This concept was founded on the basis that recreational
opportunities are abundant in the Gladstone area, including the Gladstone Savanna, Bruce Vento and
Gateway Trails, Phalen Regional Park, Keller Regional Golf Course, and five neighborhood parks within
one mile.
One of the outgrowths of that perspective was the concept of potentially developing on the open space. This
was predicated on redefining how we look at open space. Parks do not need to be in rectangles or squares,
but rather they should be integrated into the entire planning process or larger environmental scheme.
As the planning process evolved, the concept of an eco-village unfortunately never did surface.
Our joint commission and task force response to basic planning principles were focused primarily on parks
and open space issues. They are as follows:
We believe the overriding principle and concept (greater than density and traffic) is the role that
parks, open space and recreation plays in the success of this project. As the planning process evolved
it became abundantly clear that the savanna, Gloster Park and Flicek Park must be looked at as one
inter-connected system rather than as a series of parks. Each of the three park sites serves a specific
purpose ranging from natural open space to informal play areas to storm water management. They
add immeasurable value to the Gladstone neighborhood. The number one priority that we heard from
the neighbors was the important role the Gladstone Savanna open space and parks play in the final
development and success of this project. We believe preservation, protection and restoration of the
0 1
Gladstone Savanna is essential to the overall project's success. Furthermore, the funding for the
Gladstone Savanna should be at the current estimate of $2 million.
2. Following a lengthy discussion, the Open Space Task Force and Parks and Recreation Commission
adopted the following language by consensus:
Agenda Item El
We do NOT support development on the Savanna based on the current master plan configuration.
The Parks and Recreation Commission pursued the development of open space based on the concept
of the eco-village theme and that there would be a positive ecological gain by having flexibility over
the open space boundaries. The Open Space Task Force and Parks and Recreation Commission feels
strongly that the Gladstone master plan would have benefited from wider green corridors between
buildings, significant green connections to the state trails, and increased native plantings and
interpretations along the sidewalks.
Unfortunately the master plan concept does not go far enough in developing these ecological
connections to justify developing on the Savanna.
3. The Gladstone Savanna was discussed by community residents as the key factor and potential
driving force for redevelopment of the neighborhood. It was agreed by consensus that the Savanna's
current status was not acceptable and that major improvements needed to be made. It was the
consensus of the group that this was the first priority for the Gladstone redevelopment project and
that the level of funding required to do this should be the original $2 million.
Having once established the budget for $2 million, there was a great deal of discussion regarding the
importance of the plaza. The initial estimate for the plaza was $750,000. It was the consensus of the
group that if additional prioritizations or reductions in funding were required, the plaza would be an
area that monies could be reduced or it could be phased in.
4. The consensus of the group is that Flicek Park served the neighborhood better as proposed in the
original master plan. This agreement was reached recognizing there was not a need for an active ball
field in this space and that storm water and passive park land was a greater priority, along with the
development of a tot lot that would serve not only the neighborhood but the Gateway Trail visitors
as well. Recommendation: The funding level for Flicek Park remains at $600,000.
5. It is the consensus of the group that Gloster Park development would meet the following objectives:
a. Become part of Gladstone Savanna Neighborhood Preserve
b. Provide flood storage for water runoff
c. Preserve and/or construct a tot lot area as part of the monies from Gladstone Savanna
d. Provide paved trails on the western portion of the Savanna
6. The group spent a great deal of time on the bebo and the pros and cons of a larger underpass as
contrasted with a smaller culvert. It was the consensus of the group that they support the concept of
a bebo underpass structure or similar structure. The final design of the underpass must ensure the
walkability of the neighborhood and transform regional trails into celebrated village corridors. In
addition, the underpass should make Gladstone a compelling quality of life choice and create a
neighborhood for all stages of life. The group does not support a narrow box culvert, as it would not
meet the aforementioned vision and guiding principles of the Gladstone redevelopment plan.
CONCLUSION
It was the conclusion of the joint group that the Gladstone Savanna is the "center" of the proposed
Agenda Item El
redevelopment. It was also agreed that it should be the first project developed with capital improvement
bond monies at a minimum of $2 million.
The joint group further endorsed the planning process in support of whatever level of density would be
necessary to generate enough revenue to fund the amenities of Gladstone Savanna at $2 million and Gloster
and Flicek Parks at $600,000.
Agenda Item El
Community Design Review Board Meeting
Gladstone Redevelopment Plan Recommendation to the City Council
April 11, 2006
The Community Design Review Board (CDRB) unanimously recommended approval of the Gladstone
Master Plan (800 unit plan).
Following are some discussion points from the meeting:
➢ The CDRB members expressed their gratitude to all who participated in the lengthy planning
process including the Gladstone Task Force, city staff, consultants, members of the commissions and
boards, and the public.
➢ The area has significant amenities that support and justify planning at a higher density including the
Gladstone Savanna open space, access to recreational facilities such as parks and trails, excellent
transportation connections and existing city improvements associated with the roundabout.
➢ The Master Plan concept provides greater leverage for obtaining significantly higher property values
with a relatively marginal increase in cost.
➢ The conclusion of the lower density plan in ten years, if chosen, will be that the city should have
done better with this opportunity.
➢ The Master Plan, with additional density, additional improvements, more housing choices, will be a
stabilizing factor for the existing neighborhood.
➢ The population growth in the Metropolitan Area is expected to grow substantially within the next 20
years; the City of Maplewood should do our part in providing housing for this additional population
growth.
➢ The higher density, more stacked housing will create more energy efficient housing.
➢ With stacked housing the city council should consider an increased setback or stepping back of
floors, especially around the round-about.
➢ With the Master Plan the city council should consider financial options for allowing compatible
businesses to remain.
➢ The location of the Gladstone Neighborhood, with the two bike trails in proximity to St. Paul, will
provide for alternative modes of transportation for future residents.
➢ The Master Plan is more likely to ensure quality building materials within the developments.
➢ The city council should consider adding the Look Out Point Park back into the Master Plan.
Agenda Item El
The Master Plan, with the stacked housing, would allow for handicap accessibility housing, which
the city is in need of
➢ The Master Plan will ensure a spectrum of price points for housing.
➢ The Master Plan will allow for some affordable housing units adjacent a lake setting, which is hard
to come by in the Metropolitan Area.
➢ The city council should consider the use of pervious pavers in the Master Plan.
➢ The Master Plan allows for the construction of a Bebo as opposed to a box culvert under Frost
Avenue. The Bebo is much more aesthetically desirable, inviting, and seems safer.
➢ The city council should consider wide sidewalks which allow for added pedestrian amenities in the
Master Plan.
➢ The Master Plan enhances the trail system and allows for better connections.
➢ The Master Plan allows for more commercial uses.
➢ The city council should consider preserving and enhancing historic and environmental features.
➢ The city council should not force displacement of home or property owners.
➢ There should be no low-quality housing.
➢ The Master Plan addresses stormwater more appropriately.
➢ Higher stacked housing will create smaller footprint.
➢ Support gazebo structure on the savanna.
Plan B has too man y rowhouses.
➢ Plan B has no accessible housing.
A Plan B has only two housing types.
➢ Plan B will offer no senior housing.
➢ Plan B will offer to low income senior housing.
Agenda Item El
Housing Redevelopment Authority Meeting
Gladstone Redevelopment Plan Recommendation to the City Council
April 11, 2006
The Housing Redevelopment Authority (HRA) unanimously recommended approval of the Gladstone
Master Plan (800 unit plan). They felt the 490 unit plan is too marginal to be viable and attractive to
developers. If on the other hand, the 800 unit density is a prime concern, rather than choosing the 490
unit plan, the HRA would like a compromise between the 490 and 800 unit plans. They would
recommend scaling back on some of the amenities, the length of streetscaping and recommend the
box culvert to help reduce costs. Thus, making it possible to bring the unit density down to between
600 to 700 units, which could be still attractive to developers.
The following were discussion points from the HRA meeting:
The HRA commissioners felt that the box culvert could be built to reduce costs and it
would still serve its purpose.
2. The HRA commissioners felt the utilities and the amenities to the area were key to
making this a nice development.
3. Widening Frost Avenue to four lanes would be important for the amount of traffic the
area would be receiving with this many density units.
4. HRA commissioners felt the length of the streetscaping could be reduced to help cut
costs.
5. Unless the funeral home property is acquired the plan will not fall into place. The area
where the roundabout is planned would require three story buildings and shops to make
the plan work.
Ri i • • i III 111 111! 111 1 11ATAEOINA - 1 0
7. Stop signs could be used to slow traffic in the area until the city knew for sure that a
roundabout would be necessary .
MAPLEWOOD HISTORICAL PRESERVATION COMMISSION
1830 East County Road 13, Maplewood, MN 55109
George Rossbach, Chair Telephone: 484 -3081
April 7, 2006
City of Maplewood
1830 East County Road B
Maplewood, MN 55109
51:00 1[*] a iT, IA 0 k 0 W An
RECEIVED
P `.
At the March meeting of the Maplewood Historical Preservation Commission, Chuck Ahl and Tom
Ekstrand provided us with information on "Plan A" and "Plan B" for the Gladstone Redevelopment
project and asked for our opinions, concerns and /or suggestions.
As a result of our discussion following their presentation, the consensus of the members present is a
preference for Plan A, (November 14 Concept, with 800 housing units), for the following reasons:
The plan for the Savanna creates a much greater likelihood for recreational use and social
interaction.
2. Whether the housing units are 800 or 450, we believe the increased population will require the
level of commercial development set forth in Plan A, giving the new residents recreational,
social and shopping destinations within walking distance. By having these amenities nearby,
vehicle traffic will be less and there will be more opportunities for interaction between "new"
and `old" residents, thereby creating a better sense of community and, most likely, encourage
those residents to stay in the area rather than making it a temporary home before moving on
to an area with better amenities.
3. The streetscapes in Plan A would greatly enhance the objectives stated in Item 2, creating
greater comfort and "hominess ". We feel whichever plan is adopted should have at least
Level 2 streetscaping, with Level 3 near the Savanna.
The Maplewood Historical Preservation Commission still stands with the opinions and suggestions
stated in our letter of February 27, a copy of which is attached.
If you have any questions regarding the above comments please contact either Chairman George
Rossbach or me.
Sincerely,
Lois N. Behm
Staff Liaison to MHPC
651- 770 -8941
attachment - 1
MAPLEWOOD HISTORICAL PRESERVATION COMMISSION
1830 East County Roar! B, Maplewood, MR 55109
George Rossbach, Chair Telephone: 48463081
February 27, 2006
City of Maplewood
1830 East County Road B
Maplewood, MN 55109
ATTENTION: MAYOR DIANA LONGRIE
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY MANAGER RICHARD FURSMAN
SUBJECT: GLADSTONE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
I1
APR 7 200
At the January meeting of the Maplewood Historical Preservation Commission Chuck Ahl and Tom Ekstrand
provided us with an update on the status of the Gladstone Redevelopment project and suggested we inform
you of our opinions, concerns and /or suggestions by "March 1. We had further discussion of the project at our
February meeting and agreed to submit the following:
We are pleased that there is no commercial or residential development planned for the Savanna, but
would like to see a commemoration of the railroad activity which was the original use of the land. One
suggestion is to have plaques telling the story of the railroads, another is to have something, perhaps a
fountain and /or a circular seating area, to indicate the size and location of the well. These would
provide a point of interest to draw people into the area, especially if walking trails are to be added.
2. With regard to residential development, we feel it is important for the architectural style to complement
the existing homes in order to maintain the character of the neighborhood. Any multiple housing
should be no more than 4- stories and have a residential rather than a commercial exterior appearance.
We also feel strongly that any of the new development should not detract from existing historic homes,
such as the Sundgaard house at 1865 Clarence Street, at the edges of the redevelopment area.
3. We prefer that any commercial development should also be of a style compatible with the character of
the neighborhood, possibly reflecting the railroad history. With that in mind, enclosed are pictures of a
development in Wisconsin on the site of a former railroad depot which we believe would be fitting in
that context. Included in these pictures is a fountain and seating area which would fit nicely on the
Savanna as suggested in Item 1 above.
If you have any questions regarding the above comments please contact either Chairman George Rossbach
or me.
Sincerely,
�Behm
Staff Liaison to MHPC
651 - 770 -8941