HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-03-20 CDRB Packet
AGENDA
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
Tuesday,March20, 2018
6:00 P.M.
Council Chambers -Maplewood City Hall
1830 County Road B East
1.Call to Order
2.Roll Call
3.Approval of Agenda
4.Approval of Minutes:
a.December 19,2017
5.Design Review:
a.Consider Approval of Design Review, Wakefield Community Building, 1725
Prosperity Road North
6. New Business:
a.Rice-Larpenteur Vision Plan Review
b.Election of Officers (No report)
c.Recap of Presentation of Annual Report to City Council –February 12, 2018 (No
Report)
7.Visitor Presentations:
8.Board Presentations:
9.Staff Presentations:
10.Adjourn
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2017
1.CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Kempecalled the meeting to order at6:01p.m.
2.ROLL CALL
Chairperson, Bill KempePresent
Boardmember,Jason LamersPresent
Vice Chairperson,Matt LedvinaPresent
Boardmember,Melissa PeckPresent
Boardmember,Ananth ShankarAbsent
Staff Present:Michael Martin, Economic Development Coordinator
3.APPROVAL OF AGENDA
BoardmemberLedvinamoved to approve the agenda as approved.
Seconded by BoardmemberPeck.Ayes -All
The motion passed.
4.APPROVAL OF MINUTES
BoardmemberLamersmoved to approve the October 17,2017,CDRB minutes as submitted.
Seconded by Chairperson Kempe.Ayes –Boardmember’s Lamers,
Ledvina & Peck
Abstention –Chairperson Kempe
The motion passed.
5.DESIGN REVIEW
a.Wakefield Park Community Building Design
i.Economic Development Coordinator, Michael Martin introduced the Wakefield Park
Community Building Designand turned the discussion over to the two presenters.
ii.Todd Halunen, Kimley Horn, 2550 University Avenue West, Suite 238N, St Paul,
addressed and answered questions of the board.
iii.Tim McIlwain, Kimley Horn, 2550University Avenue West, Suite 238N, St Paul,
addressed and answered questions of the board.
Boardmember Ledvina moved to approveOption 2 with the lighter accent colors and Kasota
Limestone product for the Wakefield Park Community Building Design.
Seconded by Boardmember Lamers.
December 19, 2017
Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes
1
Chairperson Kempe made a friendly amendmentto go with all cedar on the window wall on page
13 of the design plans.
The friendly amendment failedfor lack ofa second.
Boardmember Lamers made a friendly amendment that the base of the columns and the
courtyard materials match.
The friendly amendments made by Boardmember Lamers were accepted.
Ayes –Boardmember’s Lamers,
Ledvina& Peck
Nays–Chairperson Kempe
Chairperson Kempe voted nay because he preferred the contrast with Option 1 and he doesn’t
care for the look of fake wood. Chairperson Kempe commented he still feels it’s a great design.
The motion passed.
This item will come back before the CDRB for review.
6.NEW BUSINESS
a.2017 Community Design Review Board Annual Report
i.Economic Development Coordinator, Michael Martin gave the 2017 Community Design
Review Board Annual Report.
Boardmember Lamersmoved to approvethe 2017 Community Design Review Board Annual
Report.
Seconded by Boardmember Peck.Ayes –All
The motion passed.
7.VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
None.
8.BOARDPRESENTATIONS
None.
9.STAFF PRESENTATIONS
None.
10.ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned by Chairperson Kempeat6:39p.m.
December 19, 2017
Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes
2
MEMORANDUM
TO:Melinda Coleman, City Manager
FROM:Michael Martin, AICP, Economic Development Coordinator
DATE:March13, 2018
SUBJECT:Consider Approval of Design Review, WakefieldCommunity Building,
1725 Prosperity Road North
Introduction
Project Description
Audra Robbins, on behalf of the City of Maplewood Parks and Recreation Department, is
seeking city approval to build a 3,300 square foot community use building at Wakefield Park
which is located at 1725 Prosperity Road. This new multi-purpose facility at WakefieldPark
would serve as a local “hub” and gathering place for residents. This facility will also provide
programming space for youth/adult dance classes, arts and education programs, preschool
classes and City Special Events.
Request
The applicant is requesting the Community Design Review Board (CDRB):
A.Design review.
Background
April 18, 2017: The planning commission and community design review boardwere introduced
to the Wakefield Community Building project.
October 17, 2017: Joint Board and Commission meeting to discuss the building’s proposed
colors and materials.
December 19, 2017: The community design review board reviewed and made
recommendations regarding the proposed materials and colors
Discussion
Design Review
Site Plan
The proposed building is well beyond the required setback of 30 feet from the front property line.
Wakefield Lake is classified as a Class III public water in the City’s shoreland ordinanceand
nonresidential developments must maintain a 50-foot setback from the ordinary high water mark
of Wakefield Lake. As proposed the Wakefield Community Building will maintain a 104-foot
setback to the ordinary high water mark of Wakefield Lake. There is a Manage B wetland
located around the edges of Wakefield Lake and the wetland ordinance requires a 50-foot
minimum buffer for Manage B wetlands that are adjacent a lake. The building, grading, and all
stormwater structures will be constructed outside of the required 50-foot wetland buffer.
In addition to the community building, the parking lot will be slightly moved east and expanded,
the hockey and pleasure skating rinks will be rebuilt and an additional picnic shelter will be
added. The existing playground areas will remain in place and unchanged.
Architectural
The exterior of the proposed building will be sided with a combination of vertical cedar tongue
and groove boards and cementitious fiberboard siding. The fiberboard siding will be in shades of
green and brown. There will also be a “black mocha” trim added to the building. The roof will be
constructed with grey standing seem metal panels.
Parking
City ordinance requires recreational buildings to have 1 space for every 200 square foot of
building space. For a 3,300 square foot building, this means 17 spaces are required. The
submitted plans show 45 parking spaces being provided withspaces that are nine feet wide.
The existing parking lot’s parking spaces are also nine feet wide and it has been past practice of
the City to allow the continuance of existing nine foot wide spaces in public uses.
Some of the neighborhood comments staff received regarding this project discussed park users
parking on the street. Staff appreciates the neighborhood impact a park can have but believes
there is also a balance of not building a parking lot that will sit empty most of the time.
Landscaping
Seven significant trees will be removed with the development of the Wakefield Park Community
Building. Five of those trees are ash trees. The landscape plan calls for 29 new trees to be
planted with the development: 25 deciduous (2.5 caliper inch trees) and 4 evergreen (8-foot
high trees). The Wakefield Park Community building meets the requirements of the tree
ordinance. In addition to the trees numerous trees and shrubs will be added near the new
building making for an attractive site.
Lighting
The parking lot and trail leading to the community buildingarea willbe lighted. The applicant’s
lighting plan indicates four light poles near the parking lot and four along the trail. City code
limits light pole height to 25 feet. The submitted lighting plan meets ordinancecompliance and
ensuresthat light spillage does not impact nearby residential properties.
Department Comments
Engineering
Please see Jon Jarosch’s engineering report, dated February 13, 2018, attached to this report.
Building Official, Jason Brash
Applicant must meet the City’s green building code and all MinnesotaState Building Code
requirements.
PreviousReview
Planning Commission
February 20, 2018: The planning commission will hold a public hearing and review this project.
City Council
February 26, 2018:Approved the conditional use permit and referred design reviewback to the
CDRB for final approval.
Recommendations
A.Approve the plans date-stamped January 31, 2018, for the Wakefield Park Community
Building. Approval is subject to the applicantcomplying with the following conditions:
1.This approval is good for two years. After two years, the design-reviewprocess shall
be repeated if the developer has not begun construction.
2.All requirements of the fire marshal and building official must be met.
3.Theapplicants shall comply with all requirements of the MaplewoodEngineering
Report from Jon Jarosch,datedFebruary 13, 2018.
4.The applicants shall comply with all requirements of the MaplewoodEnvironmental
Report from Shann Finwall,datedFebruary 12, 2018.
5.If a trash dumpster is to be kept outside,build an enclosure for any outside trash
containers for this facility (ordinancerequirement). The enclosures must be 100
percentopaque, match the color of the building and have a closeable gate that
extends to theground.
6.All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of environmental andeconomic
development may approve minor changes.
Citizen Comments
Staff surveyed the 256surrounding property owners within 500 feet of the proposed site for their
opinion about this proposal. Staff received 12responsesas shown below.
For
1.In response to the letter I received concerning the community use building to be built at
the Wakefield Park, I wholeheartedly agree with the plan and urge a “go ahead”. I live
nearby, am retired and am on or near the park a few times a week. It is quite often full of
people and an attractive building would serve the area students and users well. I also
agree that all measures should be taken to improve the water quality and perhaps turn it
into a decent pan fishing fishery. Thank you. (Jon Kalata, 1575 Christie Place)
2.Every suburb has a community center. Let’s have one too. There is lots of trash in the
lake. I can’t keep up to it. (Leonard A. Jablonski, 1763 Maryknoll Avenue)
3.It really looks good! I’m already thinking about arranging a multi-state, multi-national
family reunion at Wakefield! (Lee Egerstrom, 1808 Prosperity Road)
4.My wife Diane and I live 1 block from Wakefield Park. We are both in favor of the
community building, and see the value it adds for community purposes, as well as the
potential opportunities with renting on occasion to families and community groups. I don't
see this as a wasteful use of tax funding, and know that as the construction costs are
paid-off, the annual maintenance costs will have little impact on annual property taxes.
Definitely great for rain or shine events!
On a related issue, we also realize the importance ofgetting the water condition of
Wakefield Lake cleaned from its current distressed state. It's been a shame that a place
of such beauty has had such treatment of the water over the years. We understand that
some years back, people could safely swim in the lake.One other issue is that we are
baffled at all the tree and bush cutting along the east side of the park -with all the
stumps left behind. Does that serve some purpose?Anyway, thanks for your time!(Bob
Muldoon, 1885 Maryknoll Ave N)
Against
1.I am 100% against the project. (Ricky Stubbs, 1860 Barclay Street)
2.I would rather the city put money into improving water quality in Wakefield Lake. No
need for another community center when there is one less than a mile away.(No name
or address given)
3.I am against this project.*(No name or address given)*Staff could not read the
handwriting on the rest of this letter.
4.I am opposed to the plan for 1725 Prosperity Rd N that is currently written for the
following reasons:
1.) I have been a resident near Wakefield Lake for over 20 years. Over 15 years ago,
Wakefield Park was updated with waking paths, the restroom building was taken down
and the lights an the field lights were taken down. The neighborhood was presented a 3
phase plan that included additional walking trails, sand lot volleyball, lighted trails and
other enhancements. None of this was ever completed. The area for the sandlot
volleyball was started and is now just grass grown over sand. The sliding hill was
supposed to have been re-graded for recreational use with lights added. When the street
re-development was done and the water gardens were added, the existing culverts were
just buried and you can see the exits of them along the north side of the lake, too.
2.) Wakefield Park was also discussed by the city as a neighborhood park. Adding this
large development would change this.
3.) There are issues in the park now with after hours use and things going on at night in
the woods at the southeast end of the lake.A walk through of this area will uncover a lot
of trash and evidence of over night use. The area behind the East Twins ball park is
treated like a yard compost site and also has trash.
4.) The park as it is now is not as well-maintained as I think it should be. The current
paved paths are broken up in places, park benches are sometimes left broken for long
lengths of time, and trash barrels and picnic tables are thrown in the lake. Tree damage
from storms and old age have usually been left un maintained for long lengths of time
and the rock fishing piers have sunken in. The ball fields have been getting over used for
volleyball to the extent that the grass gets worn out. The ball field closest to
Hazelwood/Ripley has the recreational ice rink dirt mound as a hazard in right field. The
general condition of the ball fields is bad.
I would prefer that funding be used to clean up the issues that I have mentioned,
remodel the warming house, move the recreation rink away from the Hazelwood/Ripley
ball field, fix up the ball fields and enhance the walking paths and spruce up the area
with more attractive benches, trash containers and better-looking portable bathrooms. I
would like to see the winter accessibility of the warming house increased and
communication ofits availability improved (Add signage). I would like to see the
volleyball area completed and maybe add more to offset the over use of the baseball
fields. The boarded ice rink area looks bad in the summer and I could see it being
improved with a concrete surface that could be used in the summer for roller hockey or
other activities.
I think the addition of the building that is being proposed would be a target for vandalism,
too, without proper oversight.Instead of the building as proposed, how about
another/larger picnic area similar to Oakdale's Walton Park? Maybe include an outdoor
entertainment stage...(Tim McKane, 1491 Ripley Avenue)
5.We have lived in our home for 28 years at 1523 Ripley Ave.Unfortunately we will be
unable to attend the meeting onTues. Feb 20th but would like to have the following
points discussed:
a.When the park was originally redeveloped the main reason of eliminating the 3rd
softball field and parking lot was reduce the traffic and parking issues in the
neighborhood.
b.It was determined back then that the neighborhood roads were not meant to
handle high traffic flow.
c.When there is any event at the park currently -the roads are packed with
vehicles parking in our yards, people walking across our yard, garbage from
them left in our yard.
d.A 3,300 sq foot building is larger than 3 homes in the area.
e.This building would be built right out of our picture window -eliminating our
peaceful view of the rolling hills of the park.
f.If this building is built the park would then have a warming house, Gazebo and
this building.
g.If a place is needed to have exercise classes -why not have them at Gladstone
or the YMCA?
h.Another building to encourage vandalism and encourage homeless to seek
shelter (we see them staying in the park on a regular basis during summer
months)
i.Many people also park along Frost Ave and it is very difficult to see oncoming
vehicles when trying to pull out from Hazelwood onto Frost Ave.
j.Overflow parking also happens at Cross Lutheran Church in their parking lot
which shouldnot be happening as that is their private lot.
k.I do not believe having this building will help property values either -in fact for us
we feel this will cause our home value to decrease. (Tim and Debbie Walker,
1523 Ripley Ave)
Other Comments
1.Before this project goes anywhere, Wakefield Lake needs to be cleaned up. There need
to be a plan to address the asian milfoil in the lake. I have been a resident here for over
30 years and this is as bad as I have ever seen the water quality. Please feel free to
send me an email to let me know how the water quality will be addressed. Thank you.
(Jeffrey C. Brastad, 1887 Dieter Street)
2.Will the ice rink and hockey rink stay? Along with the warming house?
Will the play area stay? –Add more benches and tables
Improve the amount of parking –the lot is too small
I can’t tell if the outside Gazebo is staying
Will the building be for rent and will it have a kitchen?
They need to have at least a side walk going from Frost Avenue to the Park
on the side of the street that the park is on and not the side the houses are
on. This is a very active park in the spring, summer and fall with groups and
families playing volleyball. They park along the street, making it difficult to
walk to the park. I don’t know why it wasn’tdone when they did the
Hazelwood of Frost Avenue. John Glenn middle school takes the children
with physical and intellectual disabilities to the park in the spring and fall.
(Deborah Tschida, 1941 Hazelwood Ave)
3.Before moving forward on the proposed building of a 3,300 square foot building at
Wakefield Park there are several questions we would like to have answered:
a.It appears that the building would displace the two skating rinks as well as the
sand, volley ball area….Is that correct?
b.Is the current Eagle Scout wildflower garden going to be retained?
c.What is being done to improve the quality of the lake? Will it ever be clean
enough to swim in?
d.Is the lake still being stocked with fish by the DNR, and if so, how can the city
encourage fishing from a lake too polluted to swim in as one that’s OK to eat fish
from?
e.Is the increased parking area going to displace one of the ball fields?
f.Are there plans to add a sidewalk on Hazelwood, along the west side of the park,
too?
Other concerns:
a.The shorelineof the lake is not being taken care of…excessive growth and years
of debris.
b.The Boy Scout trail along the southeast part of the lake should be improved.
c.The sliding hill has been fenced off –will the site be cleaned up and improved so
that winter activity will be available for kids again?
These are questions and concerns we feel should be addressed before adding the
community use building, especially the lack of parking and loss of existing facilities
and activities. (Richard and Judith Steenberg 1854Barclay Street)
Reference Information
Site Description
Site Size:34.32Acres
Existing Land Use: Park and associated building and structures
Surrounding Land Uses
North: Frost Avenue and a church
South: Residential properties
East:Residential properties and a church
West:Residential properties
Planning
Existing Land Use:Parks(P)
Existing Zoning:Open Space and Parks (OSP)
Attachments
1.OverviewMap
2.Land Use Map
3.Zoning Map
4.Applicant’s Letter
5.Applicant’s Site Plan
6.Applicant’s Building Elevations
7.Shann Finwall,Environmentalcomments, dated February 12, 2018
8.Jon Jarosch, Engineering comments, datedFebruary 13, 2018
9.Project Presentation
10.Applicant’s Plan Set (separate attachment)
Attachment 1
1725 Prosperity Road North
January 31, 2018
City of Maplewood
Legend
!
I
Source: City of Maplewood, Ramsey County
Attachment 2
Xblfgjfme!Qbsl!.!2836!Qsptqfsjuz!Spbe!Opsui
Gfcsvbsz!24-!3129
Djuz!pg!Nbqmfxppe
Mfhfoe
!
I
Gvuvsf!Mboe!Vtf
Tpvsdf;!Djuz!pg!Nbqmfxppe-!Sbntfz!Dpvouz
Attachment 3
Xblfgjfme!Qbsl!.!2836!Qsptqfsjuz!Spbe!Opsui
Gfcsvbsz!24-!3129
Djuz!pg!Nbqmfxppe
Mfhfoe
!
I
\[pojoh
Tpvsdf;!Djuz!pg!Nbqmfxppe-!Sbntfz!Dpvouz
Attachment 4
Wakefield Park ImprovementsNarrative
Project Introduction
Project Background
Attachment 4
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Attachment 5
Attachment 6
Attachment 6
Attachment 6
Attachment 6
Attachment 6
Attachment 7
Environmental Review
Project:
Dateof Plans:
Date of Review:
Location:
Reviewer:
Background
Discussion
Shoreland Ordinance:
Shoreland Impacts:
WetlandOrdinance:
Wetland Impacts:
TreeOrdinance
Attachment 7
Tree Impacts:
Attachment 8
Engineering Plan Review
PROJECT: Wakefield Park Community Building
PROJECT NO: 18-04
COMMENTS BY: Jon Jarosch, P.E. – Staff Engineer
DATE: 2-13-2018
PLAN SET: Engineering plansdated 11-21-2017
Attachment 8
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melinda Coleman, City Manager
FROM: Shann Finwall, AICP, Environmental Planner
DATE: March 13, 2018
SUBJECT: Rice-Larpenteur Gateway Area Vision Plan Review
Introduction
The creation of the Rice-Larpenteur Gateway Area Vision Plan was a collaborative effort of the
Cities of Maplewood, Roseville, St. Paul and Ramsey County. The primary purpose of the
planning process was to create a strategy to manage future growth within the corridor in a
manner that will foster an attractive destination with strong businesses, vibrant neighborhoods,
and beautiful places. The study area includes the intersection of Rice Street and Larpenteur
Avenue, and extending along Rice Street north to County Road B in Maplewood/Roseville and
south to Sylvan Street in St. Paul.
Background
February 2017: The three cities entered into a Cooperative Funding Agreement to hire a
consulting firm to assist in the planning process. Request for proposals were released, and the
consulting firm of Perkins + Will were hired to manage and facilitate the planning process, and
draft a vision plan for the gateway area.
March 2017 through February 2018: The Gateway Planning Committee (GPC) and Community
Advisory Group (CAG) were established to guide the Vision Plan.
GPC: The GPC developed and evaluated the Vision Plan alternatives and made
recommendations on a preferred plan, they also appointed members to serve on the
CAG. The GPC was made up of elected officials from each city and staff from each city
and Ramsey County. Mayor Slawik, Councilmember Juenemann, Economic
Development Coordinator Michael Martin, and Environmental Planner Shann Finwall
represented the City of Maplewood on the GPC. The GPC met seven times during the
planning process.
CAG: The charge of the CAG was to provide community input to help shape the
development of plans for the Rice Street-Larpenteur study area. The CAG was made up
of a planning commissioner from each city, residents, business owners, and other
stakeholders in the area. Planning Commissioner Ige, residents Joseph Gould and Joan
Phillips, and business owners Dennis Prachl and Ty Haschig represented the City of
Maplewood on the CAG. The CAG met six times during the planning process.
June through October 2017: Three public workshops and three pop up meetings were held to
provide opportunities for the community to be involved in creative and practical ways that will
help shape the future of the Rice-Larpenteur corridor.
1
November 2017: The Urban Land Institute (ULI) conducted a Healthy Corridors review of the
study area. Healthy Corridors is an initiative that develops approaches to create commercial
corridors that improve physical, social, environmental, and economic health for all who work,
live, and travel along the corridors, as well as identifying approaches that can spur real
changes. The ULI Healthy Corridors national experts visited the project area in November 2017
to hold a series of focus group conversations and public forums. Key recommendations from
the study are identified in the vision plan.
Discussion
Market Analysis
The market analysis evaluated the socio-economic conditions of the study area, the market
condition of various real estate sectors, including housing (both rental and for-sale), retail, and
office, as well as a number of development indicators. The study identified the following
conclusions from the data:
M
because of the concentration of naturally occurring affordable housing.
There is a strong market opportunity to capitalize on the growing population of the study
area.
Children are an important component to the local market, and new housing and retail
development should consider how children will drive market demand.
Diverse cultural mix of area residents is an opportunity for entrepreneurial activity, which
is currently emerging but not fully leveraged.
Strong demand for housing of all types; however, supportable rents/prices will likely
require new construction subsidies, though key sites could support market rate product.
Market rate housing is most likely to occur north of Larpenteur Avenue in closer
proximity to Lake McCarrons and possibly on the Rice Street Garden site.
Lack of small retail spaces is a barrier to start-ups/mom-and-pop businesses.
Office demand is limited to local services because the core of the study area is too
distant from major highways to appeal to large office users.
The market potential of the study area will be expanded if the amenities are focused
around water and open space.
Retail opportunities are constrained as much by competition, parcel sizes, and building
stock as they are by trade area incomes. Potential retail services that could be
accommodated along the corridor include home furnishing stores, sporting goods/bike
shop, appliance store, uniform shop, daycare, fitness center, salon/barber shop, tailor,
mailing/packaging store, martial arts/dance studio, veterinarian, dry cleaner.
Transportation
Throughout 2017 Ramsey County conducted a Rice Street Transportation Study. The study
area included Rice Street from University Avenue to Larpenteur Avenue in St. Paul. The
primary purpose of the study was to identify future investments, design a corridor that enhances
safety for all modes of traffic, promote economic growth and community investment. The key
findings include:
It is estimated that there are over 2,800 daily pedestrian crossings along the length of
the corridor.
2
There have been 12 documented pedestrian collisions along the corridor between 2011
and 2015.
There are an estimated 140 daily bicycle crossings of Rice Street.
There have been 4 documented bicycle collisions along the corridor between 2011 and
2015.
The Gateway planning process also reviewed the bus routes in the area and found that the bus
route 62 runs 15-20 minutes during the rush hour. However, the route runs less frequently north
of Larpenteur Avenue during the morning and evening.
Vision Plan
Purpose: The Rice-Larpenteur Gateway area will be a safe, engaging and inviting
neighborhood center that includes common spaces, a high quality pedestrian environment and
robust reinvestment for the diverse people of the surrounding communities to live, conduct
business, and play together.
Urban Design Principles:
Develop a livable design
Strive for land use diversity
Promote neighborhood compatibility and character
Create a sustainable and resilient gateway area
Goals and Objectives:
Provide safe connections for walking and biking to and through the area.
Create a walkable and bike-able center that feels safe and inviting for users of the
commercial spaces.
Improve the aesthetic quality of street design to improve the quality and condition of
streetscape elements (lighting, benches, bus stops, etc.) and sidewalks.
Capitalize on development and redevelopment opportunities associated with the
revitalization of the corridor.
Provide opportunities and support (education, financing support, etc.) for local residents
to develop unique eating opportunities.
Develop a marketing and branding strategy for the area to reinforce a desired identity.
Encourage supportive retail and commercial businesses that contribute to the wellbeing
of the community.
Create an environment for people first, and the automobile last.
Design Concept: The intersection of Rice Street and Larpenteur Avenue (the Gateway) is
envisioned as a high energy mixed-use area that serves the neighborhoods and broader
community. The Gateway will be linked by a continuous multi-modal transportation network with
streetscape improvements and access to natural features/amenities. Design and
redevelopment will promote pedestrian activity, support business vitality and create a greater
sense of place in a compact, connected walkable built environment.
3
Big Ideas:
Enhance Streetscape and Lighting
Develop the Marion Greenway
Make it Walkable
A Park at the Heart
Tame the Streets
Recommendations:
Short Term
1. Adopt the Vision Plan Into the
2. -
3. Develop a Public Gathering Space at Southwest Corner of Rice-Larpenteur
4. Define Opportunities to Enhance Recreational Programming
5. Help People Bike and Walk to the Rice-Larpenteur Gateway
6. Work with Metro Transit to Provide More Frequent Bus Routes north of Larpentuer
7. Reconstruct Rice Street from Maryland Avenue to Larpenteur Avenue
8. Enhanced Pedestrian Crossings
9. Create a Demonstration Area for Landscape Improvements
10. Create Comprehensive Design Standards
11. Sustainable/Green Energy Building Standards
12. Create a Zoning Overlay District
13. Redevelopment in the Catalyst Sites
Long Term
1. the Parking Lot and Expand
Recreational Activities
2. Park Redesign for the Rice and Arlington Field
3. Reconstruct Rice Street from Larpentuer Avenue to County Road B
4. Reconstruct Larpenteur Avenue from Galtier Street to Sylvan Street
5. Greenway)
6. Redevelopment in Remaining Catalyst Sites
Implementation
The Gateway Vision Plan recommends short and long term implementation strategies.
Strategies for the next one to two years include:
1. Each of the partner cities should adopt the Rice-Larpenteur Gateway Area Vision Plan in
its entirety as part of their overall comprehensive plan.
2. Partner cities and Ramsey County should form a Rice-Larpenteur Alliance that will
continue to meet and guide future decisions along the corridor related to redevelopment
and public realm improvements.
3. The partner cities should develop a cohesive set of design standards for the corridor to
support the recommendations of this plan. The design standards can be part of a
4
cohesive set of zoning recommendations that can be adopted by all cities or a special
set of standards that can be included as part of an overlay district.
4. The partner cities should coordinate infrastructure and pedestrian improvement projects
with Ramsey County to ensure future projects meet and exceed the vision and
recommendations outlined in this plan.
5. Define a series of interim improvements to enhance the corridor. Examples include, but
are not limited to, temporary wayfinding signs, parklets, moveable planters,
additional/relocated pavement marking, or an organized open street event.
6. Develop a streetscape framework plan to ensure coordination between partner cities and
the county prior to the design and reconstruction of Rice Street in the near future.
7. Provide additional seating nodes and benches at key locations along the corridor.
8. Provide additional landscaping along the corridor.
9. Define opportunities to incorporate public art created by local artists.
Next Steps
February 20, 2018
Community Design Review Board Review (Rescheduled to March 20, 2018)
Planning Commission - Review
March 12, 2018
City Council Review and Adopt Rice-Larpenteur Vision Plan
April 2018
City Council Review and Adopt Comprehensive Plan Rice-Larpenteur Vision Plan
Addendum and Land Use Change From Commercial to Mixed Use
Recommendation
No action required.
Attachments
ATTACHMENTS WERE SENT WITH FEBRUARY CDRB PACKET
1. Rice-Larpenteur Gateway Area Vision Plan Presentation
2. Rice-Larpenteur Gateway Area Vision Plan
5