HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-06-18_packetMINUTES
n1ly OF
PARK COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
6:30 p.m.
Council Chambers - Maplewood City Hall
1830 County Road B East
1. Call to Order -
2. Roll Call — Four members present, no quorum. Meeting held as information meeting.
3. Approval of Agenda
4. Approval of Minutes
5. Visitor Presentations — none.
6. Comprehensive Land Use Discussion — Jennifer Haskamp, consultant, explained her
role is to update the Summary Chapter of the Parks, Trails and Open Space Plan for the
Comprehensive Plan. Every ten years the Metropolitan Council requires an update of
Comprehensive Plans. Ms. Haskamp has been working with'Parks Plan Advisory Panel
on several topics: Goals and Objectives; Trail System, and Land Use and Parks. On
May 8 they will look at park needs in South Maplewood.
7. Objectives and Discussion, Items
• Land use classifications have been consolidated to group similar items together.
• The land use plan includes two classifications for parks and open space.
• Natural resources will have its own chapter in this edition of the Comprehensive
Plan.
In south Maplewood, most of the area will be low density residential. But the
proposal calls for the Bailey Farm to be mixed use.
• In the parks plan, all open space will be shown on the map, not just parkland.
8. South Maplewood Discussion
• The Bailey property is proposed to be mixed use. It is 23 acres and as mixed use
could accommodate about 573 units.
• The density proposed for Rural Low Density Residential is .5-2.5 units per acre. To
achieve 2.5 units per acre, a developer would have to incorporate green building and
sustainable design into the development.
• The rural residential area south of Carver is approximately 200 acres.
• Protection measures are desired for both private and public land.
• The Highwood neighborhood planning area for parks is focused on the area south of
Carver.
0
• Ramsey County owns a lot of open space in this area. The plan should include a
policy statement that if the county sells its land, we may need more open space in
this neighborhood.
• A commissioner indicated that the ski jump area may present some opportunities for
partnerships.
• Pleasant View Park has tennis and basketball courts, winter skating area, picnic
area, ballfields and natural areas. It is a multi -use park, approximately 14 acres in
size.
• There are about 67 acres of parkland in this neighborhood, including active and
passive parks.
• A question was raised: What parcel would you like to protect if you had to make a
choice? Commissioners present agreed Fish Creek is the most important area to
protect in south Maplewood.
• A consultant is going to do an ecological evaluation of parcels in South Maplewood
in late May and early June.
9. Discussion on Parks Needs in Other Neighborhoods
• Vista Hills neighborhood has about 18 acres of parkland. There might be opportunity
some day at the gun range property, which is used by police.
• Battle Creek neighborhood is almost all county property. Battle Creek Park is 392
acres and includes a dog park. Afton Heights Park is 12 acres and Carver School
partners with our recreation program.
• Beaver Lake neighborhood has a lot of mobile homes. Geranium Park is 9 acres.
Gethsemane Park is not owned by,, the city and there is proposed development for
this site. If the city cannot work out an agreement for park facilities at Gethsemane,
we will need to find other parkland in this area. The Park Plan will mark a search
area for this.
• Lions Park is 3 acres; Jim's Prairie is about 5 acres; and the Nature Center about 40
acres. Beaver Lake has`county land. Beaver Lake School has ball fields.
• Lions Park is rundown. It's about 3 acres and has a tot lot and drainage problems.
Storm water management will need to occur on part of the site.
• The 3M complex includes a large wetland. This will have a special designation in the
natural resources plan.
•; The Gladstone area parks encompass over 62 acres. The design process for
Gladstone Savanna is on hold. Totlot facilities from Glouster Park will be
incorporated into the Savanna. The Comprehensive Plan will classify Flicek as a
neighborhood park. Commissioner Sonnek stated she would like to have a historical
marker at Gladstone.
• There is an open space parcel at Kennard and Frost. The plan should identify
ownership of this parcel.
• Sherwood Glen neighborhood has 20 acres owned by the city. Sherwood Park and
Robinhood Park serve active park needs in this area. John Glenn fields are used by
the city.
• Maplewood Heights Park is 25 acres; Play Crest Park is 16 acres; Joy Park has 61
acres. Prairie Farm includes the Bruentrup Farm buildings. This area has a total of
125 acres, and is possibly "over -parked."
• Hazelwood neighborhood has wetlands and open space. Parks include: Four
Seasons Park Hazelwood Park (all major soccer fields are here), Harvest Park,
Koh|mun Creek Preserve, and county open space. There are 105acnem of parkland
inthis neighborhood.
w The Koh|rnanLake area has Sunset Ridge, Kuh|nlanPark, Fisnher'aCorner
Preserve, Spoon Lake Preserve. There are about 72acres ofparkland inthis area -
21 active acres and 51 passive acres. There are good trail components inthe area.
m Parksid8 neighborhood iSwest UfHighway 01 and north nfL8[penteur. It has
M8p|eonaot'Edgerton, Roae|3vvn.Keller, and K8DvvO0dParks. The Edgerton School
site has atotal area of22acres and most ofitiSactive. Ros8|8vvniadesignated aa
a stormwater holding pond and is an area of opportunity. We need to determine
whether Roselawn should be a park or an open space. The site needs signage to
show it is public land.
• Mississippi Street park was looked at about a year ago. On the maps it is shown as
open space.
° Western Hills mabout vacres and mu//active
an area that is underserved. St. Paul Regional Water owns Sandy Lake.
• There are a lot of natural areas in Maplewood and Ms. Haskamp will note these on
the Parks map as Open Space.
° Land near mx Murray and otPaul's monastery
group of partners.
° A portion of Sterling Street west oT Hill Murray|mane
is wetland and open space in this area.
~ South of the Priory Preserve there are a lot of wetlands and green space that are
owned bvthe city or thety.
° The group discussed whether there shouldtSterling Oaks.
The area near Priory does not have much active i)arkland.
Hillside Park does not have parking. This could possibly be a neighborhood park.
The trails are well connected in this area. The city needs signage in this area to
designate where parks are.
Ms. Haskamp will update the plan based on the comments provided at the meeting.
A draft of the chapter will be ready at the next meeting.
10. Comprehensive Plan Open House Dates — May 22 nd at Maplewood Community Center.
This will include an ^j in-depththird Open use may
be scheduled.
11. meeting iSMay 21.2O09.stO:O0pm.
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
PARK COMMISSION
Wednesday,1 1.
11 •
Council Chambers - Maplewood City Hall
1 County 'a.• B East
1. Called to Order by Commission Fischer at 6:00 p.m.
2. Roll Call
Commissioners Binko, Brannon and Sonnek were a few minutes late.
3. Approval of Agenda
a. Commissioner Fischer requested that the May 7, 2008 Meeting Minutes be
removed from the agenda. The set included in the packet was not complete.
The May 7, 2008 meeting minutes will be placed on the next meeting agenda.
b. Commissioner Christianson made a motion to accept the amended
agenda and was seconded by Commissioner Schmidt. Motion carried.
4. Approval of Minutes
a. Commission Fischer asked if there were any corrections to meeting minutes:
b. Commissioner Schmidt and Commissioner. Fischer had some corrections to
the minutes.
c. The approval for the May 7, 2008 Parks Commission Meeting Minutes was
tabled until they are complete.
d. Commissioner Brannon made a motion to approve the March 13, 2008
meeting minutes as amended. Commissioner Roman seconded the
motion. All ayes - motion carried.
e. Commissioner Roman made a motion to approve the March 19, 2009,
meetingminutes as amended. Commissioner Brannon seconded the
motion. All ayes -motion carried.
f. Commissioner Roman made a motion to approve the April 16, 2009
meeting; minutes as amended. Commissioner Schmidt seconded the
motion. All ayes -motion carried.
5. `Visitor Presentations — None
Delay update on preserve.
Mr. Konewko requested moving the Park Plan up on the agenda and then have
Citizens Services Update report.
7. Parks, Trails and Open Space Comprehensive Plan Update — Jennifer Haskamp-
and Ginny Gaynor
a. Significant changes from previous plan include:
i. This plan makes a clear distinction between Parks, Trails and Open
Space and Natural Resources. This will allow for greater emphasis on
natural resources.
ii. There will be a greater emphasis on the City's trail system as a more
comprehensive system.
iii. Open Space will be included in this chapter as a part of the overall Parks
system. The Open Spaces will be seen in the Land Use Plan.
iv. A special section on the proposed park and trail system in South
Maplewood.
b. After the Summary is approved the sections and tables will also need to be
updated.
c. The maps are almost complete and should be available for the next meeting
The primary objective for this evening is to have an informal discussion on the
materials in the Draft Summary Chapter.
d. Introduction and Background
i. Separate City Owned property from other property. Commissioner
Fischer asked that the number of acres of county and state owned park
land be made more general because of properties owned by watersheds
and the Battle Creek Ski Jump area.
ii. Commissioner Fischer also requested changing the last sentence of the
first paragraph to read within a half mile of their homes not a half hour.
iii. Background — This section lays the framework for the rest of the
document. Explains the Advisory Panel and their involvement. It also
includes community demographics and what regional studies have been
done in Maplewood,
e. Parks Trails and Open Space Goals and Objectives
i. This section starts with general goals and,,objectives for the system and
then gets more specific.
ii. This talks about how the Parks integrates, with Natural Resources.
Ecological resources which is the tie in to the Natural Resource Systems.
iii. Park land management, acquisition and development section focuses on
management rather than acquisition because theCity is already largely
developed.
iv. Trail Corridors, /Right —of —Way Acquisition and Development has two
goals..
a) Acquire, develop and maintain an interconnected trail system for
trabsportatio'n, recreation, and educational purposes.
b) Promote and encourage residents to be active through the
development of an efficient and accessible trail system
f. Comments on the first section
i. Commissioner Christianson commented that the word holistic is used
quite a bit in the document. What exactly does that mean? Ms. Hasskamp
stated that the idea is how all parts work together to create a system and
how this system integrates with other systems. How Parks, Trails and
TraInsportatioln all work together. There will be one extensive and
comprehensive glossary in the final document. Ms. Hasskamp will make a
note to add "holistic" to the glossary.
g. Community and Partnerships — This section discusses relationship building by
working with school systems and other governmental entities. The majority of
this section looks pretty close to the original draft. Commissioner Peterson
questioned the word neighbors, does that mean neighboring communities? The
answer is yes.
h. Ecological Resources Restoration and Management
i. Commissioner Fischer asked if use of parks was inclusive of animals
such as dog parks. Ms. Hasskamp stated a dog park would be addressed
as a special use type of park. Ms. Gaynor stated the Environmental and
Natural Resource section talks about the intrinsic value of nature of
species regardless of human uses.
I. Park Land Management, Acquisition, and Development.
I. The advisory panel was insistent that archeological objectives be in the
objectives.
j. Trail Corridors
i. Commissioner Fischer asked does the transportation plan include the
trails. Ms. Hasskamp stated yes and she believed that the entire trail plan
will be in the Transportation Chapter also.
ii. Commissioner Schmidt questioned the meaning of "potential easement
where land acquisition is not possible". Ms. Hasskamp stated that if the
other party would not sell the property but would grant an easement so
that the trail could go through that land. Commissioner Fischer asked if
this was limited to voluntary easements or would it include
condemnation? Ms. Hasskamp stated that our goal is to work with the
land owner first and try to work out any problems,first.
III. Commissioner Brannon asked to explain Improveaccessibility". Ms.
Hasskamp stated it would mean classifying the trail system correctly and
letting residents know how to use trails properly by using maps and/or
signage. A way to understand and communicate the trail system to
others. Ms. Hasskamp will support that statement with some examples.
iv. Safety concerns were expressed by Commissioner Christianson and
Commission Schmidt. Ms. Hasskamp stated that when planning a trail
system the City's goal or objective would be,to be conscious of citizens'
safety not guaranteeing the citizens safety.
k. Recreational and Educational Programs
I. Commissioner Fischer asked if fine arts were considered educational.
Commissioner Fischer's feeling is that fine arts are more entertainment
than educational.
ii. Ms., Gaynor stated that artistic and cultural events/programming needed
to,part , of the plan,to include the MCC and its programs.
III. Commissioner Fischer wanted these words added at the higher level. Ms.
Gaynor stated itneedsto be at all levels. Ms. Hasskamp will make that
change.
iv. Commissioner Christianson's concern was including the economically
disadvantaged. He questioned the statement "fair and equitable basis."
Scholarships are available commented Pauline Staples. Ms. Hasskamp
stated that language could be added stating along the lines of continuing
to support programs such as the scholarship fund and developing similar
new. programs. Commissioner Peterson mentioned that Maplewood is
starting programming geared toward seniors who would also need
scholarships to participate in the programming.
I. Funding
I. Ms. Hasskamp explained that you need to maintain the areas
because if you don't you will have un-welcomed guests and the park
would become a determent to the City. She stated that the plan needs
to show how much land the City has — how does the City maintain it,
what is the parcel of land going to be maintained for and do we have
funds to maintain it. If we do not have the funds to maintain it, maybe
land could be used some other way that wouldn't be financially
burdensome. Instead of being an active park maybe it should be an
open space. Discussion took place regarding maintaining the number
of parks in the City.
ii. Commissioner Peterson stated the danger of losing a park that the
City will never get it back.
iii. Commissioner Christianson asked what the difference is between
manage and maintain. Ms Hasskamp stated that manage is daily
activity; maintaining is keeping the level of service. She stated these
words could be part of the glossary.
iv. Commissioner Sonnek stated that she feels this is the first negative
statement in the document.
v. Commissioner Brannon stated there should be a policy for when
dollars are not available to maintain all parks.
vi. Commissioner Yang also agreed that the statement was negative.
Look at it as ensuring a proactive approach on how we manage the
system so that it is cost effective and efficient.
vi i. Ms. Hasskamp stated that this sectioln, was more about being
proactive. The statement is more about who is here and what their
service needs are, and are we meeting the demographic needs. It is
more about planning parks purposefully with a balanced approach.
Are the parks being used for there best, use?
viii. Commissioner Peterson stated we needtolook into a different system
to restore PAC funds.
ix. Commissioner Fischer believes that the last sentence needs to be
reworded. Ms. Hasskamp will look at this objective and bring back
new wording.
m. Existing Conditions section discusses the existing system and identifies areas
where we have made improvements, areas that continue to need improvement
and emerging ,issues and opportunities.
i. Draws attention to what the City has done.
ii. Park and trail classifications are in this section.
iii. The dominant use of a park is how a park will be classified in this
document.
iv. 'Important for citizens to know that you intend to do the things listed in
this document.
V. Ms., Hasskamp can add a sentence to refer that that the dominant use
is how, the park is classified. It doesn't mean it is the only use of the
park area.
vi. Commissioner Sonnek asked if a dog park is active or passive. Ms.
Hasskamp stated it would be an active use.
n. Parks, Trails and Open Space Plan
i. Ms. Hasskamp stated this section is highlighting the plan aspect —
what are we going to do. In this plan there will be an existing trails and
parks map. The proposed plan section will have proposed parks and
trails plans and a parks classification map. There will be a parks
classification map also. Define neighborhood service areas. The
whole table will be updated with ownership and acreage. It will
introduce all open spaces into plan no matter of ownership so that the
areas can be tracked,
ii, Keeping all these areas on the map will make sure that these areas
are on the radar. Categorized by neighborhood (geographic) rather
than classification.
iii. The public schools are on the map, private schools are not.
o. Trails the plan aspect
i. Table 6.5 will be updated. There will be a mileage counter on every
proposed trail, First number is the overall mileage and the number in
parenthesis is what actually developed of the trail.
ii. Discussion took place about having a park or open space within .5
miles of every neighborhood. This is our standard and criteria.
iii. Commissioner Yang is concerned about neighborhood desires to
change an active park to a passive park or an open space. The park
maybe used by "outsiders". We need to be conscious of the
neighborhood needs and the City needs.
iv. Ms. Hasskamp suggested that we have to think of the systems
holistically as the City and neighborhood by neighborhood Ms.
Hasskamp will add bullets to clarify this.
v. Commissioner Christianson questioned how neighborhood parks
could be used.
vi. Commissioner Sonnek questioned having the parks use fit the
geography of the area. What would be practical? Commissioner
Fischer stated that park land has been graded to meet the needs of
the park.
vii. Commissioner Christianson questioned the limit of 4-6 acres of active
park plan in the Carver Ridge area. Ms Hasskamp said that there
isn't a limit, but the amount of land was based on a
formula/parameters: Suggested changing the wording to a minimum
of 4 acres.
viii. Commissioner Peterson had,a concern abouttheHighwood
neighborhood having access to City open space and county open
space. There are trail component that connect this neighborhood to
other parks and open spaces.
ix. Commissioner Schmidt has, a comment about Special Use Parks —
2nd , bullet point — stated that there is a desire for dog park not a need.
X. Commissioner Peterson commented on Bruentrup Farm. The City of
Maplewood,wrote a lease agreement with the Maplewood Historical
Society. She doesn't feel the relationship is described accurately. She
suggested adding a clause to acknowledge the relationship.
A. Ms. Gaynor followed up with Mr. Moriarty, Ramsey County Parks; he
stated Ramsey County does not have a Fish Creek Trial on their plan.
p. Ms. Hasskamp will make changes. Her intent is to have the document back
to you with the changes and the maps possibly at the June meeting.
6. Citizens Service Update/Nature Center/Neighborhood Preserves
a. Taste of Maplewood will be on June 19, 2008.
lb. New programs available at the Community Center include: Latin dance, kids
speed, power kick, senior smart, progressive Pilates, ballroom dance, youth
floor hockey, youth yoga, and senior beat. There is membership special going
on now that when a customer buys a three month membership they would
get the fourth free. table tennis,
c. Banquet Room Activity: The AARP Organization prepared taxes for seniors.
Within a six week period, 750 people took advantage of the service.
d. Wedding season.
e. Theatre is just finished.
f. Upcoming Events include: Blues and BBC in July in the Community Center, a
Fall Bridal Expo, and a Craft Show on November 8th and 9th.
g. MCC Birthday parties have been enhanced to include theme parties.
h. The Community Center will start charging for Child Care starting June 1,
2008. A drop -in day care will also be added.
I. Daddy/daughter dance.
j. Kids Sale — Swim lessons are up and beaches are open tomorrow.
k. July 4th Celebration will feature the Lamont Cranston Band. Melrose
Pyrotechnics will be presenting the fireworks.
I. Adult softball, approx 100 teams. T-ball starts first week in June. MAA softball
160 girls are signed up. Gym Jammers — enrollment is up — after school
program — School dances
m. A lot of energy is going into Recreational Programs and the Community
Center. One concern with the Center is that they want to be self sufficient.
Commissioner Yang asked if the Center is nearing self sufficiency.
n. Commissioner Fischer suggested scheduling the financials for the
Community Center at a future meeting. Mr. Kbnewko will extend an invitation
to Karen to come in July to our meeting.
o. Ms. Staples stated that in the next City News there will be ' an event guide.
Also watch the newspapers there will be a special section in St. Paul Pioneer
Press.
p. Commissioner Yang expressed concern that many banquet facilities do not
offer Chinese food. Ms. Staples stated that four of the five caterers on
contract with the Community Center will work with Asian population to meet
their catering needs.
8. Silver Lake Treatment Discussion/Joy Park
rk
a. In your packet there is information.
b. The president of the Silver Lake Improvement Association, Dr. Manthei, and
Paul Anderson, the vice—president were present.
c. The ENRC had a meeting last evening invited DNR person to speak on
native species grant.,,Lincoln Fletcher, Valley Branch Watershed District was
present at that meeting also.
d. The,ENRC voted in favor of the request to fund the Silver Lake treatment at
the 50% level. Their, concern was ensuring property owners on the lake begin
to implement BMPs a ' s well with regard to mitigating storm water from the
lake and reduce its impact to the lake.
e. Mr. Konewko gave a brief background of Silver Lake: location far east section
of Maplewood, approx 7200 acres. Mean depth of 7 ft, maximum depth 23
feet. Thirty-five residents live on the lake. There are two parks on the lake;
one park owned by City of Maplewood and one park owned by City of North
St. Paul.
f. The Silver Lake Improvement Association is requesting support of City of
Maplewood along with the DNR, the City of North St. Paul, the City of
Oakdale, Valley Branch Watershed District, Ramsey County, and the
residents on the lake to fund the treatment of the lake. The Silver Lake
Improvement Association based their request on the lake shore ownership.
g, in your packet is last year's report of the treatment.
h. The Silver Lake Improvement Association is requesting that this be brought
back to the two Commissions to request funding for the treatment of the lake.
i. Staff requests the Parks Commission to decide whether or not they
recommend approval of funding the treatment of Silver Lake and if the
Commission recommends the treatment, where would the funding come
from.
j If the Commission [ecOD1DleUd8 the funding of this project, staff recommends
that 1/2Dffunds come from Environmental Utilities Fund and the other half
from PAC funds.
k. Commissioner Yang asked if the Commission only recommends paying for Y2
0fwhat the Association iSasking for, what would the Association do. Mr.
KODeVYkOstated that the expenses have already been incurred bythe Silver
Lake Improvement Association.
|. D[. Mike K4GDthei informed the CODlnOiSSiOO of the DOXiOUG VV8Hd situation OO
Silver Lake and what has been done SOfar and what needs tOh8done. The
Silver Lake Improvement Association received 8grant from the DNRtOhelp
offset the costs of the treatment. The DNR is watching the Lake closely. The
new treatment is 5 times the expense of last year's treatment. The
Association has tried to be cost efficient.
m. Dr. Manthei invited Commission members to attend the Association's
n. The Association calculated the City of Maplewood's share would be 33%
which would be $19,800. Staff calculated that the City of Maplewood had
27.5% of the lake shore. Shann Finwall suggested funding 50% of $16,000
which was calculated on the 27.5 % of shoreline.
o. The City of Maplewood only has two parks1with lake shore — Wakefield and
p. Maplewood is the only one that hasn't given the full amount.
q. Commissioner Sonnek stated that there are only. two parks on lakes in
r. M'. K-n-..k_ -'_'_- that the _-'' of Maplewood has 171akes that are impaired,
Silver Lake is not impaired. Kohiman, Lake is,,impaired.
s. Commissioner Roman asked why you wouldn"t"need to spray any more after
five years. Dr. Manthei said there will be continued management of the lake.
There would be spot treatments. It would take 5 years to so the full lake
treatment. Commissioner Roman asked if other things have been done to
help eliminate the problem.
t. The Association will work with Maple , wood for the shoreline preservation and
storm water runoff.
u. Discussion took place. Commissioner Schmidt stated that removal of the
noxious weeds would mainly be for recreational purposes, requests from
other lake associations were not approved for funding in past for recreational
purposes. The Watershed Commission ensures water quality in lakes and
wetlands not to ensure recreational purposes. The emphasis is on
recreational purposes.
v. Commissioner Sonnek stated this is a recreational lake. The City of
Maplewood has a boat launch on the lake. She feels we have an obligation
for the treatment of this lake. This is the only boat launch in Maplewood City
Parks.
x. It is up to the Commission to recommend to staff what proposal should be
brought to the City Council.
yCommissioner Peterson made motion to support the treatment of Silver
Lake at the $16,500 level. Commissioner Sonnek added a friendly
amendment conditional that testing shows progress with the treatment.
A full report would be brought back to the Commission next year. And
to ensure that residents are implementing BMPs and working on the
storm water run offs on their properties. Commissioner Fischer
seconded the motion. 5 ayes and 2 nays. Motion passes.
z. Funding — Mr. Konewko stated that staff recommends that some of the
money come from PAC funds but it is up to the Commission. Discussion took
place. The staff will try to set up parameters.
aa. Commissioner Sonnek made a motion paying % of the recommended
request from parks and recreation approximately $12,300.
Commissioner Fischer seconded the motion. Commissioner Fischer
made an amendment to the motion to be 50%. The motion was
seconded. 5 ayes, 1 nay, I abstention. Motion carried.
bb. Back to the main motion 50% recreational funds , 506/6 environmental
funds. 5-ayes, I- nay, 1-abstention. Motion carried.
Commissioner Fischer adjourned the meeting at 10: 10. The next Parks Commission
Meeting will be on June 4, 2008 at 6:30 pm.
TO: City of Maplewood Parks Commission Members
FROM: Jennifer Haskamp
DATE: June 12, 2008
RE: Draft Parks, Trails, and Open Space Chapter
Parks, Trails, and Open Space Comprehensive Plan Update
General/Background
The attached Parks, Open Space and Trail Comprehensive Plan Chapter is provided for your review and comment. At the
Parks Commission meeting on May 2111, commission members commented and provided suggested changes to the
document. Those changes have been included within this draft. To more easily identify changes a strike -through and
underline method has been used.
Additionally, an implementation plan is included for your review and comment. The implementation plan was developed by
staff and reflects current and projected projects in detail over the next five years, and also includes projects identified in the
CIP for the next 10 years.
AP Update
The Advisory Panel reviewed the draft document on June 12, and at the time of this memo the meeting had not occurred. The
Advisory Panel was asked to review the draft document and identify any substantive issues or concerns and make
recommendations regarding those issues to the Parks Commission. A follow up memo highlighting those issues will be sent
to Parks Commission members prior to the meeting to ensure these comments/recommendations are considered by the
Commission at the meeting on June 181n
Parks Commission Objectives (June 18, 2008)
The objective for the Parks Commission is to review the revised copy of the Chapter, and to focus specifically on the
implementation section. Ideally, the Parks Commission will make a recommendation to the Planning Commission to include
the Parks Chapter in the Comprehensive Plan Draft.
Chapter a Parks, Trails and Open Space Chapter
The City of Maplewood has an extensive park, open space and trail system that requires extensive management,
maintenance and planning. The City's park system provides a high quality of life for all residents and contributes to
the overall appeal of the city as a desirable place for people to live and recreate. The system includes approximately
860 acres of city owned and managed parks and open space land, and residents also have access to an additional
890 acres of county., state, and agency owned park land. The recent Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Deleted: and
Plan (SCORP) prepared by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) stated that, "About two-thirds of
all recreation use in the state occurs within a half hour of home." Maplewood provides recreational opportunities
throughout the entire city, thereby providing residents with opportunities well within a half an hour of their homes, and
in most cases within a half -mile of their homes.
The following plan provides an update to the existing Parks, Open Space and Trail System component of the
Comprehensive Plan that was adopted in December 1999. The previous plan provided an extensive inventory of the
entire parks system, and while some changes or additions have been made to the system, the overall plan remains
valid for purposes of this plan.
The summary includes a set of new goals, objectives and future plans for the parks, trails and open space systems.
A change from the previous plan is the separation of the natural resources section into an independent chapter. This
change was made due to the rising significance of the natural resources system in the community. Maplewood also
wanted natural resources to be a building block for all other sections of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan Update.
Background
The Parks, Trails and Open Space chapter is an important component of the City's overall comprehensive Plan. This
chapter is included in the City's Comprehensive Plan to ensure good planning of Maplewood's parks system, as well
as to meet the requirements of the Metropolitan Council. The City used the existing Parks, Trails and Open Space
plan as a baseline for updating this plan component.
Since the last comprehensive plan update some significant changes have been made and are reflected in this plan.
From a document structural perspective, the city placed increased significance and focus on the City's natural
resources. As a result, that component has been placed in its own chapter to ensure the appropriate attention and
significance is placed on that component of the plan. The Plan also includes additional focus on clear and concise
action oriented goals to help guide future planning efforts. Finally, a shift in focus from active parks to trail
development and connections is presented in this plan. Because the city is almost fully developed, further park
acquisition in most neighborhoods is not necessary, but the trail system will require acquisition and development to
adequately support the parks system already in place.
Parks, Trails, and Open Space Advisory Panel
The Parks, Trails and Open Space update included the participation of an Advisory Panel that was assembled with
participants from the city's various commissions and a few members of the public at large. The purpose of the
Advisory Panel was to review the parks, trails and open space system considering all of the other components of the
Comprehensive Plan, The Advisory Panel reviewed the system and made recommendations on this plan, and
subsequently passed the recommendations along to the responsible commissions.
The meetings held by the Advisory Panel included the following topic areas:
® Goals and objective setting, development, and refinement
® Natural Resources and Natural Area Greenways
• Trails
® Land Use
• South Maplewood — Special Area Discussion
The meetings covered general topic areas of the Comprehensive Plan to give the Panel context for making
recommendations. At the time of this document, the South Maplewood Area (described as area south of Carver
Avenue) was one of the few relatively undeveloped areas in the community. Additionally, in the previous plan a
parks, trails and open space plan had not been prepared for this area. As a result the Advisory Panel spent a great
deal of time discussing this area and understanding its unique attributes.
The Advisory Panel concluded their efforts by reviewing this document and making recommendations to the Parks
Commission and Planning Commission.
Community Demographics
As mentioned in previous chapters, the demographics in the community are changing. (See Chapter X for more
detailed information). Understanding who lives in the community, and how many people are projected to live in the
community helps the City understand potential park and trail needs. According to the Metropolitan Council, the Twin
Cities Metropolitan Area is projected to grow by over a million people by 2030, and the vast majority of those people
will move into the 7-county metropolitan area. Although the area will grow because Maplewood is largely developed,
only an additional 2,500 people are projected to move to Maplewood. Even with a small growth rate, the demands
on the system are likely to increase, particularly for parks or trails that serve the region. Special attention to
commuting trails and regional parks should be considered and monitored as growth occurs.
Another consideration is the changing demographics in the community. The baby -boomer generation is the fastest
and largest growing population throughout the region. This demographic is an active population that enjoys walking,
nature hiking, fishing and other passive recreational activities.
New residents are also changing and different cultures can be seen throughout the community. Although a full
survey was not completed for this plan document, understanding the population in the community will continue to be
important to ensure that residents' needs are being met.
Regional Studies
Over the past 15 years several studies have been completed with respect to regional planning for parks, trails, and
open space. The following discussion highlights some of those studies to provide additional perspective on planning
for the City's system.
University_ of Minnesota -- Leisure Trends in the Twin Cities
In 1996, the University of Minnesota's Survey Research Center published a study of leisure trends entitled, "Leisure
Trends in the Twin Cities". The study looked at resident's desires for a variety of recreational opportunities and their
perceptions on current facilities and future needs. In the previous Parks Comprehensive Plan dated December 1999
a thorough study was completed for the City. Although an extensive survey was not completed for this update, many
of the trends highlighted in the survey will carry over into the current planning effort. In many respects, study findings
parallel those of the Maplewood survey, with natural area preservation and walking areas being high on the list of
priorities. This plan builds on those principles to help create a strong park, trails and open space system. The
Regional study identified the following trends and generalizations:
• Walking around the neighborhood and in large, natural parks.
• Individual sports over organized sports, at least at the adult level.
• People valuing parks even if they didn't use them.
• Especially strong desire to set aside land for nature areas/open space, bike paths, and general use trails.
Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP)
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources prepares the Statewide Comprehensive Plan every five years to
keep apprised of recreation trends across the state. Because the City of Maplewood does not have the resources to
prepare a survey every time it prepares a comprehensive plan update, the SCORP plan and associated surveys can
serve as a good interim survey of needs in the community. The DNR administered a survey in 2004 entitled; Outdoor
Recreation Survey 2004 which revealed similar trends to those identified in Maplewood's 1998 survey. Respondents
identified walking, boating, swimming, picnicking and biking as their top outdoor recreation activities. Additionally, the
survey identified changes in demographics, an increasing metro area population (additional one million residents in
the area by 2030), and rising obesity rates as contributors to the state's mission of increasing overall activity in the
outdoor recreation system.
Ramsey County — Active Livinq Ramsey County (ALRC
The Active Living program is administered at a county level through the Active Living Ramsey County program. The
program has actively solicited participation by local governments to introduce Active Living and Healthy Living
infrastructure into their city and subsequent planning efforts.
Studies have been performed at a state and national level to help support the need for Active Living characteristics
throughout a community. Such principles include well connected walking paths and bike trails, clearly delineated and
signed trails, and pedestrian friendly environments, to name a few. Several programs and grants are available
throughout the County and State. These studies were used directly to help support the parks and trails plan
identified in this plan.
Parks, Trails, and Open Space Goals and Objectives
The following goal and objective statements apply to the parks, trails, and open space plan holistically. These topics
cover many issues that are important to the community including the function of the system, the protection of natural
resources, and city staff. More detailed goals are identified by topic in subsequent sections.
General Goal 1: To prepare and implement a comprehensive park, open space, and trail system plan.
Objectives:
• Inventory and evaluate the existing park and trail system, recreational needs of the community, park and
trail classifications and standards, and acquisition/development guidelines to ensure adequate parks and
trails are provided in the city.
• Prioritize and preserve high quality natural resources that support a diverse system plan.
• Prioritize and preserve areas of historic value.
• Implement the plan for the purpose of guiding parks, trails, open space and recreational facility development
in the forthcoming years.
■ Develop a means for ongoing and systematic evaluation of park and trail system components, thus allowing
for actual and perceived changes in community needs to be reflected in the system plan.
• Enhance the community's and public agencies' understanding of the park, trail and natural resources
system and development objectives.
• Create and establish a strong vision and marketing plan that encourages residents to use the parks system
and participate in associated programming.
• Develop and create clear, concise information about that parks and natural areas system within the
community that is accessible to all residents, policy makers and staff.
General Goal 2: To maintain and support the natural resources system as an integral part of the parks system.
Objectives:
• Enhance the community's understanding of biodiversity and natural systems as a part of the overall parks
system.
• Prioritize natural areas within the community that should be preserved and maintained as a part of the parks
system.
■ Support the Natural Area Greenways as a part of the parks and natural resource system.
• Explore opportunities to support the natural resource system as a part of the parks system.
General Goal 3: To maintain and support a well -trained, highly motivated staff to carry out the City of Maplewood's
mission of developing a quality park, natural resource and recreation system.
Objectives:
• Support and provide professional staffing to manage and direct the park system and programs in a
professional, effective, and efficient manner.
• Maintain and promote high quality staff through communication and coordination of the system holistically.
• Support staff and policy makers through effective long-range planning initiatives.
• Effectively and efficiently coordinate efforts between staff, city and adjacent jurisdictions.
• Create and establish a strong vision and marketing plan that attracts high quality staff and commission
members.
Community and Partnerships
Relationship building and commitment to working with our neighbors and residents will help ensure successful
implementation of this plan. The following goals and objectives identify ways in which we should conduct business
internally and how we should work with other regulatory agencies.
Community Goal 1: To establish effective communication and interactions with residents about parks, open space
and trails.
Objectives:
• Update and distribute park system map and information.
• Create signage to educate park users.
• Promote active and ongoing interaction between the city and residents.
• Actively engage with under -represented members of the community.
• Promote ongoing communication between the Park and Recreation Commission and city residents.
• Develop and support volunteer programs and other organizations that encourage residents and community
organizations to assist in park and natural resources improvements, maintenance, recreation programs, and
educational programs.
• Explore and develop new methods and technologies that promote more effective communication and
accessible information.
Community Goal 2: To maximize the recreational opportunities available to city residents through the development
of fair and equitable working partnerships between the city and the local school district, adjacent cities, county,
churches and civic organizations.
Objectives:
• Communicate and promote the City of Maplewood facilities internally and externally to potential users.
• Fairly and equitably integrate the City of Maplewood programs with those of the other members of the
partnership.
• Effectively communicate programming and facilities available to residents and the region through these
partnerships.
• Work with adjacent jurisdictions and regulatory agencies to provide an efficient and accessible parks and
recreational system that encourages activity throughout the community.
Ecological Resources Restoration and Management
A key component of the parks, trails and open space plan are the preservation, acquisition and management of
important natural areas in the community. These goals and objectives support the creation of environmental
corridors and providing natural areas for the enjoyment of city residents. More detailed natural resource goals can be
found in the Natural Resources Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan.
Ecological Goal 1: To preserve and protect ecological systems and natural resources within the city.
Objectives:
• Preserve and protect significant natural resources within the city.
• Identify, prioritize, and protect sites of high ecological value or sites within Natural Area Greenways that
increase habitat value of the greenway.
• Engage in a comprehensive approach to natural resources planning that includes parks, neighborhood
preserves, Natural Area Greenways, city open space, and other public and private lands.
• Enhance the character and appeal of the community by connecting natural resource areas.
• Increase the value of public natural areas by encouraging adjacent landowners and others in the
neighborhood to maintain natural vegetation on private lands.
• Identify and protect natural areas within active parks.
• Identify opportunities to convert turf grass in active parks to natural vegetation.
Ecological Goal 2: To maintain and enhance ecological systems and natural resources within the city.
Objectives:
• Inventory and evaluate natural areas.
• Prioritize, manage and restore natural areas including neighborhood preserves, natural areas at active
parks, wetland systems, and other city open space sites.
• Develop restoration and management plans for city natural areas including neighborhood preserves, natural
areas at active parks, wetland systems, and other city open space sites.
■ Ensure restoration and management plans are economically and ecologically feasible, are sustainable long-
term, and are based on science and up-to-date restoration methods.
• Adjust natural resource plans as new information on global warming becomes available.
• Increase diversity of plant communities and diversity of species in Maplewood.
• Enhance enjoyment of the natural world and understanding of biodiversity and natural systems within the
community.
• Promote environmental stewardship of public and private lands.
• Educate and engage residents in restoration and management activities on public and private lands.
• Promote environmentally sensitive stewardship of active parklands and other city land that reduces amount
of turf grass and minimizes use of pesticide, fertilizer, and irrigation.
Park Land Management, Acquisition and Development
The City is blessed with a strong parks system that includes various types and sizes serving neighborhoods
throughout the community. The City is largely developed, with some exceptions, and therefore the following goals
and objectives are focused on maintenance, management and development or redevelopment activities for the future
of the system.
Park Land Goal 1: To maintain and enhance existing active parks and passive parks to provide a high quality of life
for all residents.
Objectives:
• Promote the parks system (including open space, and natural areas) as the foundation of the character,
ambience, appearance, and history of the community.
• Create and follow an implementation program that provides for the adequate maintenance and
enhancement of the park and natural system throughout the community.
• Enhance and improve the quality of life within the city by providing adequate parkland and natural resource
areas to fulfill the present and future physical and psychological needs of residents.
Park Land Goal 2: To adequately provide and maintain open spaces and natural areas to ensure each resident has
access to green spaces and nature.
Objectives
• Use the parks and natural resource areas and interconnecting trail corridors as significant factors in shaping
the future of Maplewood.
• Maintain and connect active and passive parks with neighborhoods, community facilities and schools to
ensure accessibility,
• Enhance and maintain environmental corridors, natural areas and open spaces to provide access and
educational opportunities to all residents.
Park Land Goal 3: To acquire land for parks, natural areas and open spaces, that can be maintained and used by
the community and the city.
Objectives
• Maintain and enhance the character and aesthetic appeal of the community through the provision of parks.
• Provide access and space to all residents to escape the hard surfacing of the urban environment and to
provide the opportunity to enjoy nature and the City's park system.
• Maintain and enhance areas in the community that support the character, ambience, appearance, and
archaeological history of the community.
• Plan for the system holistically and in conjunction with adjacent jurisdictions to provide opportunities to
complete a regional open space and natural resources network.
Trail Corridors/Right-of-Way Acquisition and Development
The City is committed to providing trail connections that encourage residents to bike, walk and stay active. The
following goal and objectives support the development of a trail system for recreational and transportation purposes
and are intended to support the overall system.
Trails Goal 1: Acquire, develop and maintain an interconnected trail system for transportation, recreation and
educational purposes.
Objectives:
• Provide a trail system that emphasizes harmony with the built and natural environment.
• Create a network of relatively uninterrupted hiking, walking and biking trails.
• Effectively tie parks together into a comprehensive park and trail system — with an emphasis on enhancing
the recreational experience of the user.
• ,Create trails with an awareness of safety. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
• Work with other local, state and federal entities to effectively tie the City trail system with those of adjacent
cities and the county.
• Work with private landowners to identify potential easements where land acquisition is not possible.
• Delineate trail use categories to improve accessibility and efficiency of the system. (For example clearly
identify bikeways hiking trails walkways etc.)
Trails Goal 2: Promote and encourage residents to be active through the development of an efficient and accessible
trail system.
Objectives:
• Create signage to provide directions and educate users.
• Encourage residents to commute and access natural, commercial and cultural resources using non -
motorized modes of transportation.
• Create user-friendly trail and transit connections to promote transit and trail use in Maplewood and adjoining
communities.
• Promote use of the trail system through creative and innovative tools such as GPS or other technologies
that improve efficiency of the system,
Deleted: Safely protect users from
vehicular traffic.
A critical component of the parks system is the ability to provide recreational, educational and fine arts programs to
the residents. These facilities and programs help improve the quality of life for all residents and provide opportunities
to residents to participate in a more active lifestyle.
Goal Statement: Provide the opportunity for all community residents to participate in recreation education and arts
activities through the implementation of well -designed, cost effective and interesting programs.
Objectives:
• Develop and provide recreational programs that adequately address the recreational desires of all segments
of the community including children, teens, adults, elderly, and the disabled.
• Develop and provide recreation and outdoor education programs that teach people about nature and
environmental issues and empower citizens to be good stewards of the environment.
• Promote and encourage programs that take place out of doors in nature.
• Provide opportunities for artistic and cultural activities throughout the city,
• Find and execute programming and facilities to support a broad diversity of cultures.
• Administer programs on a fair and equitable basis to ensure all individuals and groups receive adequate
representation and opportunity.
• Create and provide programming for up and coming activities and opportunities.
• Continue to support and provide options for all residents to participate in organized programming though
efforts such as the city's Scholarship Program.
Funding
The City acknowledges that a robust parks, trails, and open space system requires significant funding and planning
to be sustainable. The following goal and objectives identifies broadly how the city intends to continue managing,
enhancing and supporting the system.
Goal Statement: To secure the funding necessary to carry out the mission of the Maplewood Parks, Open Space
and Trail System.
Objectives:
• Identify and define the funding options that are available for parks land acquisition and development.
• Create and implement plans for the neighborhood preserves.
■ Identify and establish a sustainable funding source to adequately support the parks, trails and open space
system.
• Research and evaluate available grants that could support the goals and objectives identified for parks,
trails and open space.
• Maintain and improve the existing parks, trails and natural systems.
• Prepare a parkland acquisition and development implementation plan for South Maplewood that depicts the
relative timing and extent of future parkland acquisition and development.
• Create and refine a parks and trails programming plan that responds to current recreation trends and the
changing community demographic.
• Create and prioritize parks, trails and open space initiatives to ensure adequate and available funding.
• Develop and maintain a systematic proactive approach to management of the park system to ensure a
balanced and cost-effective s sy tem.
Existing Conditions
A critical component of the Parks, Trails, and Open Space planning effort is to understand the existing system and to
establish a baseline. Understanding the system as it exists today helps to identify areas where we have improved
since the last comprehensive plan update, areas that continue to need improvements and emerging issues and
opportunities. The following table provides some definitions of Park Classifications to aide in the future plan and
analysis:
Table 6.1 Park and Open Space Classifications
Classification
Function
General Description
Size Criteria
Mini Park
Active
Used to address limited, isolated or unique
Less than an acre
recreational needs, typically at the
neighborhood level.
Neighborhood Park
Active with Passive
Neighborhood park remains the basic unit of
Typically 5 acres or
Areas
the park system and serves as the
more, with 3 acres as a
recreational social focus of the
minimum size
neighborhood. Focus is on informal active
and passive recreation.
Community Park
Active
Serves broader purpose than neighborhood
Varies, depending on
parks. Focus is on meeting community-
function
based recreational needs, as well as
preserving unique landscapes and open
spaces.
Youth Athletic Park
Active
Consolidates programmed youth athletic
Varies, with 20 acres or
fields and associated facilities to fewer
more most desirable
strategically located sites within the
community. Also provides neighborhood -use
functions.
Community Athletic
Active
Consolidates programmed adult and youth
Varies, with 20 acres or
Complex
athletic fields and associated facilities to one
more most desirable
or a limited number of sites. Tournament
level facilities, also provides neighborhood -
use functions.
Park -School
Active
Combines parks with school sites to be used
Varies
in conjunction with or in lieu of other classes
of parks, such as neighborhood, community,
athletic complex and special use
Special Use
Active/Passive
Covers a broad range of parks and
Varies
recreation facilities oriented toward single -
purpose use, such as a nature center,
historic sites, plazas
Neighborhood
Passive
Lands set aside for preservation of natural
Varies, depends on
Preserve
resources, remnant landscapes, open space,
resource opportunities
and visual aesthetics/buffering. Also
and qualities
provides passive use opportunities (i.e.,
nature type trails, overlooks, interpretive
ro ram, etc.
Natural Area
Passive
A full description and analysis of the Natural
Large patches of
Greenwa
Area Greenway system can be found in the
habitat over 200 acres
Natural Resources Chapter
City Open Space
Passive
Natural areas owned by the city that are not
Varies
part of the Neighborhood Preserve system.
These may be lowlands or uplands. Some
are appropriate for park uses such as hiking.
Some are used for storm ponding or other
functions.
County Open
Passive
Natural areas owned and managed by
Varies
Space
Ramsey County. Some are appropriate for
park uses such as hiking. Some are used for
storm ponding or other functions.
Agency Open
Passive
Natural areas or open space owned by
Varies
Space
agencies.
County/Regional
Passive
Parks and recreational facilities owned by
Varies
Park
Ramsey County.
Table 6.2 Trail Classification
Classification
General Description
Description of Each Type
Park Trail
Multipurpose trails located within parks and
Separate/single-purpose hard surfaced
natural resource areas. Focus is on
trails for pedestrians and bicyclists/in-line
recreational value and harmony with the
skaters.
natural environment
Multipurpose hard surfaced trails for
pedestrians and bicyclists/in-line skaters.
Nature trails for pedestrians. May be hard
surfaced or soft surfaced.
Connector Trail/
Multipurpose trails that emphasize safe travel
Type: Separate/ single -purpose hard
Independent
for pedestrians to and from parks and around
surfaced trails for pedestrians and
Bikeways
the community. Focus is as much on
bicyclist/in-line skaters. Typically located
transportation as it is on recreation.
within road ROW
On -Street Bikeway
Paved segments of roadways that serve as a
Bike Lane: Designated portions of the
means to safely separate bicyclists from
roadway for the preferential or exclusive use
vehicular traffic.
of bicyclists.
Bike Route: Shared portions of the roadway
that provide separation between motor
vehicles and bicyclists, such as paved
shoulders.
The existing parks, open space, and trails were evaluated to determine their existing condition and establish a
baseline for system planning. Parks and trails area classified based on their dominant use unless otherwise notated.
While it was found that some parks function very well, others clearly showed the wear of time and no longer
effectively served the intended purpose. In a number of cases, existing park features were simply worn out and
needed replacement. As with many park systems within a maturing city, it was evident that the design for individual
parks needs to be reevaluated in light of current community and regional needs. Table 6.3 describes a summary
assessment for the overall system.
Table 6.3 Summary Assessment of Park System
Issue
Summary Assessment
Overall Park Land Area
The general land area set aside for parks, and open space is adequate and well
positioned to serve the present and future needs of the city. The neighborhood
preserve sites coupled with the city's active park areas greatly strengthens the city's
capacity to meet emerging recreational trends. With the park land largely in place,
most of the future development initiatives will be focused on redevelopment of
existing properties to service community needs.
Overall Design
Design quality varies widely throughout the system. In general, parks developed or
redeveloped in recent years are often well designed and go beyond simple function
to create a pleasant park setting. Pleasantview is a good example of a
neighborhood -level park that serves the neighborhood needs very well. On the
other hand, many of the older parks lack a strong design theme and often only offer
a collection of amenities that may or may not serve neighborhood or community
needs. Many of these parks followed the same general blueprint and offer little in
the way of an individual sense of place or overall park -like appeal.
Aesthetic Quality
A visually appealing setting is lacking in may parks, resulting in a feel that is
functional rather than inviting. This lack of design character does not entice people
to use the park nor develop a level of comfort when they do visit. Since the last
Comprehensive Plan update the city has begun to identify parks in need of
upgrades and is slowly improving parks for aesthetic quality. These initiatives will
continue into the future.
Outdoor Recreation Facility
Current facilities need to be evaluated against definable community needs. The
Mix
extensive use of neighborhood parks for programmed activities in an example of
where short-term solutions for servicing burgeoning demand for athletic fields has
turned into a long-term proposition that is hard to adjust, but may be affecting the
overall quality and accessibility of the neighborhood facilities.
Natural Resource Quality
Signs of degradation can be found within the natural resource areas spread
throughout the city. Examples include: invasive non-native plants (European
Buckthorn) out -competing native plan species (oaks, maples, etc.); surface erosion
in areas lacking native ground cover, and siltation of wetlands and pond/lake edges
resulting in changes in water quality and vegetation diversity. Restoration and
management of these resources is critical to the overall success of the system. In
response to growing demand for protection, and management the City should
initiate a full study of the natural areas in the community. A full analysis and
discussion can be found in the newly created Natural Resources Chapter of this
Comprehensive Plan.
Trail System Development
The State and Regional trails are highlights of the trail system and are vital to the
system plan when considering demand and regional connections. At the local level,
the trail system is slowly being developed and better improvements and connections
are being made as development and redevelopment occurs in the community. The
system continues to be limited to predominantly a sidewalk plan as well as
connections to the existing park system. A primary initiative of this Plan will be to
improve the existing trail system for increased accessibility, interconnectedness,
and efficiency.
The general assessment in Table 6.3 describes the overall existing condition of facilities in the City. While
performing the plan update, an assessment and review of the parks system was completed based on the city's
neighborhood structure to determine existing conditions as well as identify deficiencies or excess areas in the
system. The neighborhood structure became an important structure for evaluation because the overall system was
originally developed on principles related to the neighborhood boundaries. To evaluate park needs, both passive and
active, the following standards were followed:
® All residents should be within a'i/2 mile of a park, which could be active or passive and is independent of
ownership (city, county, state, etc.)
® For every 1,000 people approximately 5 acres of park land should be provided to serve the residents.
These parameters were the standards used to evaluate the existing park system, and were the standards applied to
future planning efforts. Table 6.4 Existing and Future Parks/Open Space (table found in Proposed Plan section)
identifies the existing parks and open spaces by neighborhood, a more detailed inventory of equipment can be found
in Section V of the overall park system plan.
Changes and Improvements Since the Last Plan
Several changes and improvements to the system have occurred over the past ten years. The following information
highlights some of the major improvements and projects that have been completed. These improvements directly
support the goals and objectives that were identified in the previous comprehensive plan.
Development and redevelopment has occurred in the past ten years and ensuring that the appropriate amount of
park land was available and functional was essential to the overall success of the neighborhoods. Legacy. Park was
developed as a part of the Legacy Village master planned development Applewood Park Afton Heights Park
Sterling Oaks Park and Egerton Park were all updated to more adequately serve residents of each neighborhood.
Finally planning efforts for the Joy Park Master Plan were completed and the redevelopment of the park is scheduled
to begin in the summer of 2008.
Several trail improvements have been completed including several segments of the Lake Links Trail a full sidewalk
and trail along Century Avenue as well as trail along Lower Afton Trail In addition to the trails along major road
corridors and the regional system nature trails in the Priory Neighborhood Preserve have been developed to offer
another trail option to residents.
Signficant progress in the Neighborhood Preserves has also occurred Site analyses has been completed for 12
preserves in the community and Master Plans have been completed for four or the preserves. Restoration and
replanting has also begun in the Preserves including a 20-acre prairie planting project at the Prairie Farm Preserve.
Management and restoration efforts of invasive species are underway at several preserves throughout the
community.
Natural Resources
A significant change from the last comprehensive plan is the inclusion of a Natural Resources Plan independent of
the Parks, Trails and Open Space chapter. The City took a proactive and innovative approach to natural resources in
this plan update and felt that providing an independent chapter with a specific natural resources plan gave it more
significance and focus for this planning effort.
12
The natural resources plan becomes an important building block for all components of the comprehensive plan
including this chapter. Throughout this document references to the chapter are made, particularly reference to the
Natural Area Greenways, It is the intent of this plan to support and contribute to building the greenway system, and
to plan the parks, trails and open spaces in a way that is ecologically sensitive and supports the natural resources
plan directly,
13
Parks, Trails and Open Space Plan
This section of the report describes the various components of the Maplewood parks, open space, and trail system,
The plan is based on the findings of previous sections and the framework presented in the existing conditions,
background and goals sections. In line with the goals and objective statements provided, the system plan seeks
balance between servicing the social, individual, environmental, and economic needs of the community. The plan
provides a guide to parks, open space and trail development based on the current needs of the community and the
opportunities and constraints facing the city. It builds upon a solid park and open space infrastructure already in
place in the city. The guiding themes throughout this plan include:
• Continue to develop a comprehensive and interconnected parks, open space, and trail system.
• Manage and maintain only the amount of park and open space land that the city can maintain for its highest
and best use.
• Recognize the limitation of resources (fiscal and physical).
■ Organize and prioritize the system based on the neighborhood structure but also on city wide scale to
ensure the needs of all residents are made.
• Develop a plan that allows for incremental and orderly improvements — be visionary but realistic.
Based on the detailed goals and objectives, the following generalizations can be made:
• Create and maintain an accessible and high quality system that serves all residents
• Prioritize the development of a comprehensive trail plan to help connect residents to parks, schools,
community facilities and the region;
■ Support an extensive network of open spaces that contribute to the natural resource system and natural
area greenways;
• Evaluate the park system to ensure that parks and open spaces are high -quality, safe, and well -maintained
and a benefit community;
• Service neighborhood and community park and recreation needs;
■ Service youth and adult athletics by providing high quality facilities strategically located throughout the city.
Neighborhood Service Areas
As a maturing community, Maplewood has thirteen well -established neighborhoods that are identifiable to residents
and public officials. The park system plan developed in the 1970s was largely built upon this neighborhood structure,
with land selection for parks based on reasonable local service areas, especially as it related to neighborhood park
units. As stated in the Existing Conditions Analysis, the following standards were used to develop Maplewood's park
system:
• All residents should be within a'/z mile of a park, which could be active or passive and is independent of
ownership (city, county, state, etc.)
• For every 1,000 people approximately 5 acres of park land should be provided to serve the residents.
Since most of the land area for parks has already been acquired, the neighborhood service area structure best
serves as a means to:
• Identify the park and recreation needs and desires unique to a given geographic area of the community.
• Understand the potential demands in a developing or redevelopment area of a neighborhood.
14
Organize the park system geographically.
Ensure that the neighborhood park needs of all residents can be met within a reasonable distance from their
home.
Determine where efficiencies could be implemented to make the system of higher quality and affordable.
Of these points, the most important theme is the assessment of needs, demands, and services that can be provided
in a high -quality and effective manner. As stated in the existing conditions section, the parks and open space system
was evaluated by neighborhood based on proximity of residents to recreation type, and acreage per population.
Table 6.4 inventories the existing system and outlines proposed parks. Further discussion on specific neighborhoods
with potentially significant changes follows the table.
Table 6.4 Existing and Future Parks/Open Space
Neighborhood/Park
Classification
Ownership
Acreage
Other - Notes
Western Hills
Western Hills
Mini/Neighborhood
Park
City
6.0
5-Tri-District
Neighborhood
Preserve
City
7.0
Sandy Lake Area
Open Space
St. Paul Board of
Water
59.1
Trout Brook
Open Space
Joint City/School
District
27.3
Parkside
Maplecrest
Mini/Neighborhood
Park
City
2.0
Edgerton
Youth Athletic
City
14.0
6-Roselawn
Nghbd. Preserve
City
5.0
Opportunity to better
serve area
Keller Lake`
County Open Space
County
121.6
Within multiple
neighborhoods
Open Space @ 35
and Miss
Open Space
City
0.9
Kohlman Lake
Sunset Ridge
Mini/Neighborhood
Park
City
7.0
Kohlman
Mini/Neighborhood
Park
City
11.0
1-Regnier
Neighborhood
Preserve
City
6.5
4-Kuslich
Neighborhood
City
30.4
M
Preserve
12-Corbey
Neighborhood
City
17.4
Preserve
Fisher's Corner
Neighborhood
City
17.4
Preserve
Spoon Lake Open
Neighborhood
City
27.5
Space
Preserve
Kohlman Marsh
Open Space
City/County
24.5
Open Space
Keller Lake*
County Open Space
County
-
Within multiple
neighborhoods
Hazlewood
Four Seasons
Mini/Neighborhood
City
10.0
Park
Hazlewood
Youth Athletic
City
50.0
Harvest
Community Athletic
City
25.0
Complex
Legacy Village
Mini/Neighborhood
City
10.0
Park
2-Pearson
Neighborhood
City
7.5
Preserve
Open Spaces — East
Open Space
City/County
70.9
of Hazlewood
Open Space — West
Open Space
City
37.7
of Harvest
Open Space East of
Open Space
City/County
27.9
61 @ City border
Maplewood Heights
Maplewood Heights
Mini/Neighborhood
City
25.0
Park
Joy
Community Park
City
21.0
3-Joy
Neighborhood
City
20.0
Preserve
Special Use
Special Use Park
City
33.0
Sherwood Glen
Timber
Mini/Neighborhood
City
0.5
Park
Gladstone
Mini/Neighborhood
City
3.0
Park
m
Sherwood
Mini/Neighborhood
City
15,0
Better Development
Park
opportunities
Robinhood
Mini/Neighborhood
City
4.0
Park
Gladstone
Gloster
Mini/Neighborhood
City
6.0
Gladstone Master
Park
Planning Effort
Gladstone Savannah
Neighborhood
City
Preserve
Wakefield
Community Park
City
28.0
Reek
Youth Athletic
City
4.0
7-English
Neighborhood
City
24.0
Preserve
Wetlands @Frost
Open Space
City
Look Out Park
Mini Park
City
Needs to be shown
on the map
Park South of
School
ISD 622
1.7
Robinhood
County Park North of
Within multiple
Phalen*
neighborhoods
Historical Marker
Mini/Neighborhood
City
0.5-2.0
Opportunity for
Park
Historical
Marker/Context
Hillside`
Nebraska
Mini/Neighborhood
City
2.0
Park
Hillside
Mini/Neighborhood
City
11.0
Park
Goodrich
Community Athletic
City
24.0
Complex
8-Priory
Neighborhood
City
46.5
Preserve
Sterling Oaks
Open Space
City
11.5
Wetlands Complex
Open Space
State of Minnesota
19.1
@RR
Trust
Holloway Marsh
Open Space
County
37.8
School Site
School Park
ISD 622
17.27
Beaver Lake
M
Geranium
Mini/Neighborhood
City
9,0
Park
Gethsemane
Mini/Neighborhood
City
10.0
Will be replaced
Park
Lions
Mini/Neighborhood
City
3.0
Park
9-Jim Is P.
Mini/Neighborhood
City
5.0
Park
Nature Center
Special Use Park
City
40.0
Beaver Lake County
Open Space
County
23.5
Park
Wetland Area
Open Space
City
34.4
@Maryland
Search Area
Mini/Neighborhood
City
4.0-6.0
To Replace
(Pipeline Properties)
Park
Gethsemane
Battle Creek
Afton Heights
Youth Athletic
City
12.0
Battle Creek
Regional Park
County
292.2
Vista Hills
Crestview
Mini/Neighborhood
City
2.0
Park
Mailand
Mini/Neighborhood
City
2.0
Park
Vista Hills
Mini/Neighborhood
City
14.0
Park
The Ponds Golf
Active Park
County
181.46
Within multiple
Course'
neighborhoods
Gun Range
Active Park
Highwood
Sterling Oaks
Mini/Neighborhood
City
5.0
Park
Applewood
Mini/Neighborhood
City
8.0
Park
Pleasant View
Mini/Neighborhood
City
14.0
Park
10-Kayser
Neighborhood
City
16.0
Preserve
11-Grandview
Neighborhood
City
25.9
Preserve
11
___[
Carver
Nelghborhootl
Preserve
City
22.3
Ski Jump
Active Park
Private
18.7
Open Space at
Open Space
City
10.5
Lakewood
Open Space at
Open Space
City
2.4
Timber
Carver Ridge
Fish Creek Open
County Open Space
Ramsey County
34.9
Space
Haller Woods
City Open Space
Private
8.7
Conservation
Easement
Active Park Search
Mini/Neighborhood
City
4.0-6.0
New Active Park to
Area
Park
be located in Mixed -
Use Area and
determined as part
of a master plan.
Community Centers, School Sites, and Regional Park Facilities
In addition to the facilities identified in Table 6.4, the city's park system is augmented by the Community Centers
(indoor facilities), school sites, and regional park facilities (of which several are included in the previous table).
Community Centers include:
® The Maplewood Community Center — offers extensive indoor facilities including two pools, large
gymnasium, racquetball courts, aerobics room, exercise room, walking/jogging track, massage room, child
care, banquet room, performing arts theater, and other features.
■ Edgerton school Community Center — offers gym space for open play.
® Carver School Community Center — offers gym space for open play.
At the school district level, the city has joint use of outdoor athletic facilities at the following schools:
® Weaver School
■ John Glen School
® Maplewood Middle School
® Beaver lake School
® Carver School
® Edgerton School
The city and local school districts have long-term relationships for jointly using these school sites within Maplewood.
In each case, the school district uses the outdoor facilities for their programs during the school day and for after -
school programs. The city then uses the sites in the evenings for city programs and programs offered by local
athletic associations. The system plan calls for the continued joint use of these facilities to maximize the efficient use
19
of limited land resources within the city, This partnership will be of considerable importance to the city as it focuses
on reducing the extent to which its neighborhood parks are used for programmed athletic uses. The continued use of
the athletic fields provided at the various school sites is vital to the overall success of the system.
Regional parks also play an important role in the local park system. The regional and county -based park areas and
facilities that directly affect Maplewood are administered by the Ramsey County Parks and Recreation Department.
Key regional and county -based park areas include:
• Battle Creek Regional park
• Keller Regional park — 248 acres which is contiguous with Phalen Regional Park
• Beaver Lake County Park — offering picnic sites and trails
• County Ditch 7 Pond Protection Open Space Site
• County Ditch 18 Protection Open Space Site
■ Fish Creek Protection Open Spaces
• Marsh 212 Protection Open Space Site
• Aldrich Arena Special -Use Facility
• Goodrich Golf Course Special Use Facility
■ Golf Course South of Lower Afton Road
Parks and Open Space Plan Analysis
With the assistance of the Parks Commission and Advisory Panel a Park and Open Space plan was updated and
established for the City of Maplewood. Each neighborhood was evaluated for park and open space needs, where
parks referred to active park areas and open spaces that included neighborhood preserves and any formally
protected and accessible open spaces. The preceding table identified all of the park and open space land by
neighborhood with general notes referring to the future plans and development. The following information
categorizes the future park and open space plan according to park classification and includes reference to specific
neighborhoods that need particular attention which can be cross referenced with Table 6.4.
PIE
Parka (Active)
Mini and Neighborhood Park
Description:
Neighborhood parks continue to serve as the backbone of the park system in Maplewood. The park system plan
includes a total of 25 existing mini and neighborhood parks to serve the thirteen neighborhoods. Individually and
collectively, the primary focus of these park units is:
® Providing neighborhood recreational facilities focused on non -structured individual and family activities.
® Creating a social center for the neighborhood.
® Providing open space for informal group play and limited use for organized/programmed activities.
In general, the mini and neighborhood parks in one neighborhood function together to service the localized needs of
that neighborhood. As such, the development of one park in a neighborhood should take into consideration the
facilities and amenities provided in other parks within the same neighborhood to ensure a full palette of recreational
opportunities is available to residents.
Key Developmental/Use Considerations
In general, there are a number of key developmental and use considerations that can be applied to all of the mini and
neighborhood parks, including:
■ General reduction in the extent to which neighborhood parks are used for organized and programmed uses.
The focus of these parks should be on servicing neighborhood needs for recreation and providing informal
open play areas. Programmed activities should be secondary.
■ General upgrading of facilities in response to neighborhood input on the type of facilities most desired.
Particular attention needs to be given to ornamentation and beautification, which Is lacking in many of the
parks.
■ More attention needs to be given to providing a broader spectrum of active and passive recreational
opportunities. Given current trends, much more attention needs to be given to passive park uses and the
concept of having "nature in the back yard."
■ The use of both manicured turf and naturalized vegetation should be considered within mini and
neighborhood parks to add interest and aesthetic appeal and to reduce the cost of maintenance. The
balance between turf and natural vegetation should be determined on a site by site basis.
Specific Neighborhood Plans
During the Comprehensive Plan update process the following neighborhoods were specifically identified as having
additional neighborhood/mini park demands in this planning period:
■ In the Sherwood Glen Neighborhood, Sherwood Park could be better developed to meet the active park
needs of the neighborhood. During this planning period a feasibility and use study should be completed to
fully evaluate the needs of the neighborhood.
21
• In the Gladstone Neighborhood, as the Gladstone master plan progresses the Gloster Park and Gladstone
Savanna area will need to be evaluated to ensure the active park needs of the neighborhood, including
future residents is met.
• The Hillside Neighborhood is light on active park facilities. Hillside Park is currently predominantly used for
passive uses and could be transitioned to provide some active park facilities for the neighborhood. In
addition, there may be opportunities with Hill Murray School and the Marshlands project.
• In the Beaver Lake Neighborhood, a replacement of the active park Gethsemane should be located to
adequately provide active park facilities to this neighborhood, Gethsemane will likely be reduced or
eliminated in the future, and a search area for the replacement park is identified on the future parks and
open space planning map (Figure 6.2).
• In the Carver Ridge Neighborhood a minimum of 4.0-6.0 acre active park should be located within the Bailey
Farm property to serve the active park needs of future residents. The search area is identified on Figure
6.2, and the exact size and location should be identified at the time of development in this area.
Development of this park will be a priority at the time of residential development in the Carver Ridge and
Highwood neighborhoods south of Carver Avenue.
Community Parks
Description
With a strong neighborhood park focus, along with the contribution of neighborhood preserves and the regional
parks, the use of community parks within the park system is limited to the special opportunities provided by Joy and
Wakefield parks because they offer:
• Unique feature that have city-wide appeal.
• Opportunities to accommodate group facilities, such as larger picnic shelters.
• A setting appropriate for facilities that is too costly to duplicate in more than one or two parks throughout the
city. Examples include group picnicking at Joy Park and winter facilities at Wakefield.
Key Developmental/Use Considerations
There are a number of key developmental and use considerations that can be applied to the community parks,
including:
• General upgrading of facilities in response to community input on the type of facilities most desired.
Particular attention needs to be given to beautification in Wakefield Park. Natural resource restoration and
management is a key issue at Joy Park.
• Developing trail linkages to these two parks should be a key priority.
• A mix of manicured turf and naturalized vegetation should be considered within community parks to add
interest and aesthetic appeal and to reduce the cost of maintenance. The balance between turf and natural
vegetation should be determined on a site by site basis.
Youth Athletic Park
Description
22
The concept dthe youth athletic park was spawned from the desire of the user groups to consolidate athletic
facilities to fewer and more strategically located sites to:
° Gain program efficiency,
° Create closer associations between players, parents, and coaches.
° Provide greater conveniences, like parking, roxtmomx.and concessions.
This concept also works well from anoperations and maintenance perspective. The fact is, having fewer and larger
facilities iathe most efficient and effective way tomeet community needs. This approach also ensures neighborhood
parks are not dominated by athletic associations and noise and congestion in neighborhoods is reduced.
Since youth are usually less mobile than adults, youth athletic parks are strategically located throughout the city. The
park system plan defines four sites specifically for servicing youth sports, although some adult cross -over can occur
to service the broader needs of the city. (Note that the community athletic complexes will also serve youth athletic
programs. Additionally, note that each of the youth athletic parks also function as neighborhood parks to varying
dogreeoj
Key Developmental/Use Considerations
There are a number of key developmental and use considerations that can be applied to the youth athletic parks,
including:
= General upgrading of facilities tobetter service the needs of the user groups and Nincrease general facility
safety, Many ufthe existing facilities are old and inneed of replacement.
° Developing trail linkages to these parks should be a key priority to encourage alternative forms of
transportation.
• Continuing the involvement of the user groups inthe design of these facilities toensure that what is
developed ioinline with actual needs.
" Giving more attention to beautification, this is lacking in many of the parks.
° Consideration of neighborhood park needs as defined under Mini and Neighborhood Parks previously listed
inthe table.
Community Athletic Complex
Description�
The concept ofthe community athletic complex was again spawned from the desire of the user groups toconsolidate
athletic facilities tofewer and more strategically located sites to:
• Gain program efficiency.
° Create closer associations between players, parents, and coaches.
° Provide greater conveniences, like parking, mn{momo.and concessions.
As with Youth Athletic Parks, this concept also works well from an operations and maintenance perspective, whereby
fewer and larger facilities are the most efficient and effective way to meet community needs. And again, this
approach ensures neighborhood parks are not dominated by athletic associations and noise and congestion in
neighborhoods iureduced.
23
The primary difference in community athletic complexes and youth athletic parks is that the former services adult
athletic needs in addition to youth. The park system plan defines two sites for community athletic complexes. Note
here too that the community athletic complexes also function as neighborhood parks to varying degrees.
Key Developmental/Use Considerations
There are a number of key developmental and use considerations that can be applied to the community athletic
complexes, including:
• General upgrading of facilities to better service the needs of the user groups and to increase general facility
safety. Many of the existing facilities are old and in need of replacement. Some are poorly designed and do
not function very well.
• Developing trail linkages to these parks should be a key priority to encourage alternative forms of
transportation.
• Continuing the involvement of the user groups in the design of these facilities to ensure that what is
developed is in line with actual needs.
• Giving more attention to and beautification, which is lacking in many of the parks.
• Consideration of neighborhood park needs as defined under Mini and Neighborhood Parks previously listed
in the table.
Park -School Site
Description
Park -School Sites are joint -use sites between the city and school district for shared use of facilities. There are a total
of six school sites that fall under this classification. Of those, Edgerton and Carver are also community center sites,
whereby the city also uses the indoor facilities.
Key Developmental/Use Considerations
Clearly defining development, use, and maintenance of these facilities is important to ensure that all parties
understand their role and responsibility.
Specific Neighborhood Plans
The school sites are unique because they are predominantly controlled by the school district, but coordination and
collaboration is critical. An overall assessment of uses and facilities should be made to determine the extent to which
school sites are integrated into the recreational programming of the city. For example, the ball fields at Beaver Lake
School were being used in current recreation programming but the current status and availability of the facilities is not
known. The availability and use of these facilities should be verified to determine if there are any deficiencies in the
system.
Special Use Park
Description
The Special Use Park classification refers to parks that are unique and do not readily fall under any other
classification. The existing system identifies two such parks:
24
" Maplewood Nature Center nffsmpmteotiomofouniqu*nmtuodmeu on.haouvisKmuenter,andpmvNo
extensive programming.
° DmonUopHistorical Farm atPrairie Farm Neighborhood Preserve ioaopodo|usopark. The city leases
approximately 2 acres to the Maplewood Historical Society which maintains the farmstead buildings and
yard. The city has a lease aqreement that identifies specific activities and opportunities available through
the ioint aqreement and should be referenced to ensure the city recognizes the benefit of the relationship,
Key Developmental/Use Considerations
~ The Maplewood Nature Center is a well established community hallmark that continues to serve an
important function, Continuing its educational programs and maintaining its natural resource qualities and
infrastructure are key priorities inforthcoming years.
= Parks Commission members have identified an interest in develontg, city -owned dog -park._
° Maplewood would like tohave apermanent site for aCommunity Garden.
Specific Neighborhood Plans
During this planning period, the Parks Commission and Advisory Panel identified some opportunity areas for special
uses throughout the community, the areas specifically discussed include:
" In the Highwood Noighborhuod, the ski jump site may have opportunities for special programming and uses
in the community. This site should remain on thooity'o radar as on opportunity site.
" In the Sherwood Glen Neighborhood, at the John Glen site there may be opportunities tocollaborate with
the school on special programming needs related to archery and similar activities.
Open Space (Passive Parks)
Neighborhood Preserve
Description�
The Neighborhood Preserve park classification was created iuintegrate the open space parcels into the larger park
oyotem, thereby more clearly defining their role io servicing community needs and protecting open space. The
neighborhood preserves have toimportant functions:
" Preserve and protect natural areas and open space within the city.
" Create additional opportunities for human use and appreciation of the community's natural areas.
The preserve sites are defined in a neighborhood context to:
• Address trends toward greater demand for natural areas and passive recreational opportunities close to
home.
• Foster |000| sense ofstewardship in the protectiun, restoration and manugamant, and human use of these
pumo|a.
In the neighborhood context, the preserve sites coupled with neighborhood parks will provide a full palette of both
active and passive recreational opportunities for local residents.
25
Key Developmental/Use Considerations
There are a number of key developmental and use considerations that can be applied to the neighborhood preserve
sites, including:
• Completing ecological plans for all sites, including analysis of existing conditions, refinement of ecological
prototypes, and ecological restoration and management plans.
• Integrating human use of the sites within the context of their ecological underpinnings. (The community
should be involved in this process.)
• Developing trail linkages to these parks.
• Looking for opportunities to support, build, and complete the Natural Area Greenways proposed in the
Natural Resources chapter.
■ A not -net loss policy to ensure the preservation of all sites throughout the City.
Specific Neighborhood Plans
The following neighborhoods were identified as having opportunities for additional neighborhood preserves based on
the quantity of active park land or open space that might be better used for a neighborhood preserve:
Maplewood Heights Neighborhood may have some opportunities to revert some active park land for a more
natural or passive use that could serve as a neighborhood preserve, further study of this would be required
prior to any recommendations or plans should be made.
In the Highwood and Carver Ridge neighborhoods a large amount of land is in the County's open space
system. If any of this land were ever to be sold, the City should evaluate and review the feasibility of
acquiring that land for a neighborhood preserve or open space use to help maintain the more rural quality in
these neighborhoods.
Regional Park/County Open Space
Description
Regional parks and open spaces serve a regional population. However, the location of several regional parks in the
city makes them important factors in the overall park system.
Key Developmental/Use Considerations
The most important consideration here is maintaining a strong working partnership with the County to foster
development in these parks that serve the needs of Maplewood Residents.
Specific Neighborhood Plans
During this planning period, the South Maplewood neighborhood including Highwood and Carver Ridge were
discussed heavily due to the relatively undeveloped nature of the area. Currently both neighborhoods have several
parcels that are a part of the County's Fish Creek Open Space system. It is imperative that these open spaces be
monitored by the City because the proposed park plan is based on the assumption that the county open spaces
remain undeveloped natural areas. If these parcels are ever up for sale, or a use change is proposed, the City
should reevaluate the park needs in these two neighborhoods to ensure the City's park standards are upheld.
2
In this Comprehensive Plan Update much more emphasis was placed on the need for a comprehensive trail system
throughout the community. The City has always been blessed with the State and Regional trails that pass through
the City, but connecting to those trails as well as creating a network that is not only for recreational purposes but as a
transportation alternative has never been realized.
This plan identifies an integrated, easy to use and friendly trail system as a key priority and component of this plan.
Since the last planning effort, the city has been dedicated to integrating trail and sidewalk development as part of
redevelopment and road reconstruction projects. Those efforts are recognized, and this plan seeks to build on the
existing system to make a more comprehensive and accessible system.
In spite of the obstacles and difficulties, the idea of creating a city trail system is well worth while when considered in
context of current demands for recreational and utilitarian demands. As fuel costs rise residents will look for
alternative transportation options, and the city can provide an accessible trail system to help provide additional
options. Additionally, as the aging baby -boomers reach retirement demands for recreational opportunities and well
connected facilities will be critical to keeping this population in the community. The trail system will provide those
opportunities and add to the overall quality of life for residents.
The trail system plan presented here is much more robust and plans for a significant amount of trail throughout the
community to create emphasis on interconnected trails that provide essential linkages throughout the system so that
residents can move through the system safely regardless of their purpose for using the trails. The plan is based on
the following principles:
• Focus and priority is placed on primary north -south and east -west corridors that will provide the greatest
access and accessibility to all residents;
• Connections between schools, community facilities, parks, and the region are emphasized to help support
alternative transportation options for all residents;
• Trail construction and specific location (for example north or south side of a street) is not emphasized in this
plan because the City will create a plan for detail at time of development or redevelopment to ensure the
appropriate needs are being met for the area;
• The proposed system is ambitious, and is focused on creating the ideal plan for the future of Maplewood.
As demonstrated in Figure 6.2 Existing and Future Trails, the city has prioritized the creation of an interconnected
trail system as a part of this comprehensive plan update. The table that follows, Table 6.5 Existing and Future Trails,
identifies the existing and future trails, the classification and the length of trail developed and proposed.
Table 6.5 Existing and Future Trails (This table to be updated - MFRA)
Trail
Classification Miles (Proposed)
Key Developmental/Use Consideration
Gateway Trail
State Trail
3.7 (0)
The trail is a state trail corridor with extensive
Segment of the
connections to the metro area and greater
Willard Munger
Minnesota. Connecting residents to this system is
State Trail
a priority of the overall trail plan.
Burlington
Regional Trail
3.3 (0)
Regional trail corridor of over 13 miles in length
Northern Regional
with extensive connections to other systems,
Trail Corridor
including state trail systems
27
Highline Trail
Park Trail
3.9 (?)
Follows existing power line easement east to west
through northern end of the city. Provides
important linkages between key park sites and
linkage to the regional and state trail system.
Developmental Challenges:
® Obtaining trail easement rights
® Varying topography, with some areas
exhibiting steep slopes
• Traversing through developed areas
Beaver Lake
Park Trail
1.6
This trail is developed as a part of the residential
Neighborhood
land development in the area.
Greenwa
Williams Pipeline
Park Trail
3.0
Greenwa
County Road C
Connector Trail
The County Road C Trail is partially completed,
Trail
and the proposed plan connects this corridor
through the northern half of the city to create a
strong east -west connection. This trail will
connect to other major trail corridors to provide
efficiency.
County Road B
Connector Trail
The County Road B Trail will provide key east -
Trail
west linkages throughout the city and will connect
residents to other major corridors and services
along the corridor.
Gervais Trail
Connector Trail
Beam Ave Trail
Connector Trail
Frost Trail
Connector Trail
The Frost Avenue Trail is proposed to create a
connection between the regional trails and the
White Bear Avenue Trail. This trail is proposed for
development at the time of redevelopment in the
Gladstone Master Plan and when/if road
improvements are made in the area.
Century Avenue
Connector Trail
The Century Avenue Trail is projected to be
Trail
completed as a part of an overall street
improvement project. This corridor will be a
primary north -south corridor through the city and
will be constructed to connect to other key trail
corridors in the City.
Arcade Trail
Connector Trail
White Bear Trail
Connector Trail
The White Bear Avenue trail is completed and
provides a key north -south corridor through the
northern part of the city connecting residents to
the greater region.
Larpenteur Trail
Connector Trail
The Larpenteur Avenue Trail is undeveloped and
is proposed as a key east -west corridor through
the City. This trail will be the primary corridor to
link residents between the east and west sections
of the city. The corridor also links residents to key
natural resources and the existing regional trails
that run th�tit .
McKnight Trail
Connector Trail
The McKnight Trail is completed and connects the
south leg of the city with the northern area of
Maplewood. This trail connects residents to the
high quality natural resource areas in the south
le .
Stillwater Trail
Connector Trail
Minnehaha Trail
Upper Afton Road
Connector Trail
The Upper Afton Road Trail is completed and
Trail
provides connections to adjacent communities in
the south leg.
Mailand Trail
Connector Trail
Highwood Road
Connector Trail
Trail
Carver Trail
Connector Trail
Carver Trail is proposed as the only connection
under 494 in the south leg of the community. This
trail connection would be made when Carver
Road is reconstructed. This connection would be
critical at time of development in Highwood and
Carver Ridge neighborhoods.
Sterling Trail
Connector Trail
Sterling Trail in south Maplewood would connect
residents with adjacent communities. This trail will
require a feasibility study as there are significant
topographic challenges in the area.
Henry Lane Trial
Connector Trail
The Henry Lane Trail would connect residents in
the Highwood neighborhood to County Open
Spaces.
Linwood Avenue
Connector Trail
Joy Trail
Nature Trail
South of
Nature Trail
Larpenteur
South Maplewood
Nature Trail _
This trail is proposed as a soft -surface, sustainbly-
designed, hiking trail to provide residents access
(Area South of
Carver Ave.)
to the natural areas in South Maplewood and is
focused on preservation of the creek and other
high guality natural areas
Analysis
The City has prioritized development of a comprehensive trail system in this plan update. With a priority toward
improving the overall extent of the trail system within the city, providing on -street bikeways was extensively
discussed, and although not formally proposed as a part of this plan, the bikeability of the system was prioritized in
discussions. On -street bike lanes should be considered in neighborhoods without trails or sidewalks, and should be
considered along major corridors to help encourage and support biking as a means of transportation.
The overall success of the system will rely on the prioritization of creating and maintaining the system. Historically
the parks have been prioritized above the trail system because new development and neighborhoods were
developing. However, now that the City is largely developed acquisition for park land is no longer the priority it was in
previous planning periods. As a result a shift towards trail right of way acquisition can occur to help complete the
park and open space system in the city. The focus on trails does not eliminate the need to maintain and manage the
parks to ensure a high quality system, but it shifts acquisition to help complete a comprehensive trail system.
IM
Deleted: Fish Creek Area
111)eloe�ted.,,.eThe Fish Creek Trail is identifed
on Fgure 65 as a search corridor due to the
ecolgical nsitivity of the area.
Deleted: , but to maintain the high quality
natural areas along the creek.
This section of the report focuses on establishing a framework and priorities for implementing the park, open space
and trail system plan, This includes:
• Partnership approach to implementation
® Cost analysis
® Evaluation criteria for prioritizing park and trail development
® Prioritization of park and trail initiatives
® Funding sources
® Joint -use agreements
Partnership Approach to Implementation
Success in implementing the park and trail system plan will be based on the strength of the relationships that
includes the Park and Recreation Commission and Environmental and Natural Resources Commission, City staff,
residents, user groups, and adjacent cities, school districts, the county, churches and other civic or business
organizations. These relationships, and partnerships where appropriate, will help ensure the needs and demands of
the system are met, as well as ensure that efforts are not duplicated within the system.
Cost Analysis
The Cost Analysis Table in the report defines the potential costs associated with each major component of the
system plan. The cost figures are intended to be used for budgeting purposes, implementation planning, comparing
the relative cost of one item to that of another, and developing funding scenarios.
A summary of the cost analysis table is as follows:
Table 6.6 Cost Summary for Park and Trail Development/Redevelopment (2008-2013)
Item
Cost Summary (Dollars)
Contingency 15%
Total
Parks
Mini/Neighborhood
Community
Youth Athletic Complexes
Community Athletic
Community Centers
Neighborhood Preserves
Total
$1,460,000*
Trails
Regional
Connector
Nature
$1,300,000*
Neighborhood Preserves
Management and
Restoration
$2,250,000*
Total
$5,010,000
*Figures were rounded up to reflect an estimated projected fee.
30
The range of development and redevelopment scenarios is broad with respect to implementing the system plan
which has the potential to significantly impact the costs associated with the project. These figures provide a general
budget framework from which to plan, and makes the following assumptions:
® The park estimate assumes management and maintenance for the next ten years and does not plan for
large-scale master planned changes for any individual park. An area study and feasibility study would be
required to determine the cost associated with such a project.
® The parks figure assumes only the acquisition of one additional park into the system, to be located in the
Carver Ridge neighborhood.
® The figures are based on a no -net loss policy. This means that parks and open space could change uses,
but could never be taken out of the system entirely, unless comprehensive plan amendment was adopted.
This policy would suggest that acquisition, as well as gain from sales would not affect the system.
® The trails figure was estimated based on a single shoulder off -road, bituminous, multi -use trail. If alternative
materials, or trails along both sides of a road, or shoulders, etc., are proposed that will change the overall
cost of the system.
The following figure illustrates how changes in the system will affect the preliminary budget estimate:
Maximum Level of Plan Complete All Aspects of the System Plan
Implementation
_
o �
_
Eo
Go Beyond basic needs to provide a
Q U
broader palette of recreational
Q
opportunities for residents.
o ID
W -o
Limited Level of Plan Meeting Minimum System Plan Objectives
Implementation
Evaluation Criteria for Prioritizing Park and Trail Development Projects
With limited resources, ranking the development of one park, trail, or development initiative against that of another
will be necessary. Certainly, all development issues identified in the plan are pressing concerns needing attention.
Realistically, the city is going to have to pick and choose those that are the most pressing and those that improve the
services to the residents and user groups most in need. Making this as objective as possible is a key concern.
Through the use of ranking criteria, reasonable objectivity can be infused into the decision making process. This
criteria is based on and evaluated against factors that influence the demand for parks and trails. It must be broad
based enough to consider the important and predominant factors, yet limited enough to be manageable and practical
for decision makers to gain consensus and take action. Evaluation criteria included:
Development pattern and population density
Community demand
lti2
Recreation program demand
• Redevelopment/upgrading of facility or adjacent uses
Funding availability/partnership opportunity
® Preservation of significant natural resource
Prioritization of Parks, Open space, and Trail Development Initiatives
The forthcoming priorities for parks, open space, and trail development initiatives were derived by applying the
evaluation criteria previously defined. The basis for these priorities goes back to the goals, objectives, and needs
outlined in previous sections.
Table 6.7 Parks Plan Implementation 2008-2013 — Key Projects
Topic
Date
Activity
Cost Estimate
Planning
2008
. Seek site for community garden
• Continue discussions on Marshlands project
• Continue discussion on Gethsemane Park
• Conduct feasibility study for Lake Links trail from
McKnight to Joy Road
$20,000
2009
. Update Parks System Plan
$10,000
• Parks Brochure and Map
• Conduct needs assessment and prioritization for
$15,000
upgrading of tennis courts, basketball courts and
hockey rinks
• Evaluate opportunities for natural areas at active
Funding 1 2009+ ( . Develop long-term funding strategy for parks
Active Parks 2008 • Joy Park — Phase 1 $200,000
• Lion's Park — Design and stormwater management
Development & $50,000
Redevelopment
2009 1 • Lion's Park — Phase 1 1 $50,000
2010 ® Joy Park -- Phase II $bU,000
• Lion's Park — Phase II
® Neighborhood Park upgrades $50,000
32
$50,000
2011
a
Joy Park — Phase III
$100,000
0
Lion's Park
Neighborhood Park upgrades
$100,000
$50,000
2012
®
Joy Park — Phase IV
$200,000
s
Neighborhood Park upgrades
$50,000
2013
®
Neighborhood Park upgrades
$50,000
Active Parks—
2008
Upgrade
2009
®
Upgrade fields (Goodrich, Wakefield)
$35,000
®
Upgrade park equipment, courts
$25,000
2010
.
Upgrade fields (Goodrich, Wakefield)
$35,000
®
Upgrade park equipment, courts
$25,000
2011
.
Upgrade fields (Goodrich, Wakefield)
$35,000
®
Upgrade park equipment, courts
$40,000
2012
.
Upgrade fields (Goodrich, Wakefield)
$35,000
2013
.
Upgrade fields (Goodrich, Wakefield)
$35,000
MOM
33
Trails 2003 • Lake Links Trail at Joy Park $50,000
• Overlay Maplewood Heights
• Overlay Pleasantview $25,000
• Beaver Creek Trail $25,000
• Sherwood Park Trail
• Hazelwood to Munger Trail, near Hwy 36 $100,000
(streets funding)
(streets funding)
2009 • Connect Gateway Trail to Round Lake and Hwy 61 $75,000
• Lake Links Trail — McKnight to Joy Road
$100,000
2010 • Lake Links Trail — near Mall $150,000
• Overlay Wakefield
$50,000
• Sterling and Marshlands $150,000
• Stillwater Road
• Overlay City Hall campus
$50,000
2012 . South Maplewood trail $150,000
• Overlay 2 parks
$100,000
2013 1 • Overlay 2 parks I $100
34
Neighborhood
2008
a Priory entrance and shoulder parking
$20,000
Preserves
+ Applewood trail and restoration
Nature Center yard
$50,000
® Gladstone Savanna park and stormwater design
$50,000 +grant
$75,000
2009
® Gladstone Savanna
$900,000
® Demo projects at Priory, Applewood, Farm
® Install rule signs at preserves
$50,000
$10,000
2010
. Beaver Creek restoration
$50,000
® Gladstone Savanna
® Joy Park Preserve trails
$100,000
$50,000
2011
. Gladstone Savanna
$500,000
2012
. Carver Preserve trails and buckthorn removal
$50,000
2013
• Spoon Lake preserve buckthorn removal
$50,000
Table 6.8 Parks CIP 2009-2013
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Total
Joy Park
200,000
50,000
100,000
200,000
550,000
Lions
50,000
100,000
125,000
Gladstone Savanna
900,000
100,000
500,000
Trails
100,000
150,000
150,000
150,000
150,000
700,000
Field upgrade
35,000
35,000
35,000
35,000
35,000
175,000
Parks equip, courts
upgrade
25,000
25,000
40,000
90,000
Preserves
50,000
50,000
50,000
50,000
50,000
250,000
DOES NOt INCLUDE: MCC, Vehicles/mowers upgrades
35
.. z
CrIYOFMAPLEWOOD
2030
COMPREHENSFff PLAN
.9-C.F, P,elm"n
Maplewood Proposed Parks,
Trails and Open Space
= Park Search Area
K( j Proposed Historical Marker
- - - - Proposed Trails
Proposed Road Trails
Proposed Sidewalks
Parks
Open Space
Government
Existing Trails
Existing Road Trails
Existing Sidewalks
Water
Neighborhoods
June 5, 2008
0 0.250.5 1 1.5 2
Miles
11
I }
•€ - � �:� � fir• ----'- -- •
r _._.� � ems.,••-7;•
r
E AV.45
L
�1
Lions Park is located in east -central Maplewood, between Century Avenue and Farrell Street and
south of Margaret Avenue. In addition to open grassed play areas, the Park current has a baseball
field, hard court area and playground. At the time these features were purchased in about 1973,
the ball field, court and playground were estimated to have a useful life of about 20 years. The
Park has also had a long history of drainage problems, including areas of standing water, areas
that are too wet to get maintenance equipment into and areas that are difficult to establish
vegetation. While the Park is used on a regular basis for T-ball, the Park overall is under used due
in part to these drainage issues and out -dated equipment.
The City has budgeted $50,000 in funds in 2008, $50,000 in 2009 and $50,000 in 2010 to
evaluate and implement improvements to Lions Park that would update the Park facilities to
better reflect the needs of area residents, address drainage problems and provide water quality
treatment within the Tanners Lake watershed. The first priorities are to gather preliminary
engineering data, evaluate the drainage system needs and gather input from City Commissions
and residents. These efforts will be conducted in 2008 to produce an overall Park Master Plan.
The City's goal is to implement the first stage of identified drainage system improvements in the
fall of 2008.
As part of the first stage of work in 2008, the Park will be surveyed to obtain site topography,
culverts, trees, facility playground and baseball field features and property boudaries. This survey
will serve as the base mapping for the analysis in 2008 and subsequent improvements in 2009 and
2010. Soil borings will be taken throughout the Park to determine opportunities for infiltration,
Park drainage improvements and fixture playground facilities and structures.
A Master Plan will be prepared for the drainage system improvements and will identify other
park facilities/amenities that are selected by City staff and input form the Parks Commission and
Neighborhood Meetings. The Storm Water Plan will identify opportunities for storm water
infiltration and/or filtration practices, the ability of the City to bank infiltration credits for future
street projects, possible grant funding available to help pay for the improvements and concept
designs and locations of BMPs. The Plan will include a planning level opinion of construction
costs for the various Park improvements.
A budget of $20,000 has been estimated for the preliminary engineering work and development
of the Master Plan. The remaining $30,000 of budget allocated for work in 2008 would be used
for preparing construction documents and constructing the first phase of drainage system
improvements that are defined during development of the Master Plan.
NINEM
V- ......
V - Parks, Open Space, and Trail System Plan
Maplewood Parks, Open Space, and Trail System Plan 5.47
Name: Lions Park
Park Statistics
Classification: Neighborhood Park
Location: 618 Farrell
Approximate Size: 3 Acres
Basis for Park Need/Primary Program Focus
The park services established neighborhood park needs in this
fully developed residential area. The primary focus of the park
Is:
► Providing neighborhood recreation facilities focused on
non -structured individual and family activities.
► Creating a social center for the neighborhood.
► Open space for informal group play (with limited use for
organized/programmed activities.
Interrelationship with Other Parks
Lions, Gethsemane, and Geranium parks work in concert to
service the neighborhood -level park needs for this area. In
conjunction with the Maplewood Nature Center, a full palette
of outdoor recreational opportunities is provided in this
neighborhood, ranging from active play areas to nature trails.
Park Features/Amenities
This park is reaching the end of its lifecycle and will require
upgrading in the near future. As illustrated by the aerial
photograph, current features of the park include:
1) Children's play area
2) Skinned ballfield infield with backstop and players benches
3) Hardcourt area for basketball
4) Open play area.
Visual Characteristics
The park is highly visible from the adjacent streets as shown on
the aerial. Visually, the park is very open and aesthetically
uninteresting. Buffering between the park and residential areas
to the south and north is also lacking.
The general design of the park is functional in character,
offering little in the way of design appeal and park atmosphere.
This has resulted in a lack of an overall sense of place within
the park.
Trail access from the neighborhood is not provided. Pedestrian
access is limited to the adjacent streets. There is also no
internal trail system.
Ecological/Natural Resource Issues
With the majority of the park covered by manicured turf,
ecological issues are limited. Although there is some potential
to introduce a more naturalized landscape, the limited size of
the park will preclude extensive use of native plant
communities. Management of any introduced natural areas
should be included in the city-wide program for restoration
and management of natural areas.
Development Program
Although the park contains many of the amenities typically
found in a neighborhood park, it lacks an overall design
character and theme. The amenities that are there are old and
i do not meet current design standards.
Future development of the park should focus on replacing the
worn out facilities and improving its aesthetic appeal.
Relocation of existing facilities should be considered as part of
any future design to improve the relationship between them
and new features and improve pedestrian circulation and flow
within the park. A drainage problem in the center of the park
should also be addressed as part of any improvements.
In addition to replacing the existing features, potential future
development considerations include:
► Enhanced landscaping to improve site aesthetics and buffer
adjacent properties.
► Small group picnic shelter (3 or 4 picnic tables)
► Loop trail with benches
► Volleyball court —grass or sand
► Sitting areas and architectural features, like an arbor, to
add visual interest
► General amenities enhancements (i.e., benches, picnic
tables, grills, bike rack, drinking fountain, etc.)
Maplewood Parks, Open Space, and Trail System Plan 5.48
SteveTO: DuWayne Konewko — Deputy Public Works Director
Kummer — Civil Engineer
Hazelwood Street Improvements,Project
Bruce Vento Trail Connection to Hazelwood Street
'!2008
INTRODUCTION
On May 12, 2008, the Maplewood City Council awarded the contract for the
reconstruction of Hazelwood Street from Highway 36 to Frost Avenue to Tower Asphalt,
Inc. The contractor's operations started the week of June 2nd, 2008.
The newly constructed Hazelwood Street will be a base width of 28 feet from face-to-
face of curb widening to 34-feet at areas of proposed on -street parking stalls. Along the
east side of the street extending from Highway 36 down to Frost Avenue will be a 6-foot
wide concrete sidewalk that will generally follow the east curb line of the street.
As part of the Hazelwood Street construction contract, City Staff have proposed a trail
connection between the Bruce Vento Trail and Hazelwood Street to be constructed
within the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) right-of-way along
Highway 36. The proposed trail connection will be constructed to the north of
(essentially behind) the properties that line both Sherren Avenue and Cope Avenue
from Hazelwood Street to the Vento Trail crossing.
The Parks and Recreation Commission will consider a motion supporting the proposed
trail construction and will also include considerations for proposed trail amenities.
BACKGROUND
An at -grade marked pedestrian crossing currently exists near the intersection of
Hazelwood Street and Highway 36. City staff feels that a marked, at -grade pedestrian
crossing on Highway 36 is a potentially unsafe situation for pedestrians looking to cross
Highway 36. City staff at this point also feels that the city council is also supportive of
removing the pedestrian crossing and providing an alternate route for pedestrians to
cross Highway 36 in this general area.
City staff has been working with Mn/DOT on a proposed solution that will include a
grade -separated crossing for pedestrians at Hazelwood Street and Highway 36.
given .. timing of Mn/DOT's plans to remove the traffic signalat English
street
City staff feels that the safety of the intersection is important enough that, at the least,
an interim solution, in the form of a bypass to the Bruce Vento Trail from Hazelwood
Street, should be implemented.
PROPOSAL
City staff is proposing to construct a 10-foot wide bituminous trail extending from the
Bruce Vento Regional Trail to Hazelwood Street. The trail would be constructed within
the south side of the Highway 36 right-of-way and behind property owners that have
frontage along Sherren Avenue and Cope Avenue between Hazelwood Street and the
Vento Trail (a sketch is enclosed for your reference). The edge of the trail would be a
minimum of 5 feet off the back property lines of these area residences and businesses.
With the construction of the trail, an approved barricade would be constructed on
Highway 36 to discourage pedestrians from using the Hazelwood Street crossing.
Pedestrian traffic would be encouraged to use the new trail spur and to cross Highway
36 at the Vento Trail bridge about 1,600 feet west of Hazelwood Street.
To discourage trail users from crossing abutting properties, city staff would propose an
8-foot high chain -link fence to be installed along the south side of the trail. Installation
of a chain -link fence versus a board -on -board privacy fence would discourage graffiti
and vandalism.
PROPERTY OWNER INPUT AND RESPONSE
City staff sent out a notice to 15 residences along Sherren Avenue west of Hazelwood
Street and 2 businesses along Cope Avenue just east of the Vento trail regarding the
proposed trail construction. The back lots of these 17 properties are adjacent to the
south side of the Highway 36 right-of-way. Although the properties would not be directly
impacted by the physical construction of the trail, there would be indirect impacts to
them by the increased pedestrian traffic near their back lots.
City staff also held a neighborhood meeting regarding the proposed trail connector on
May 29t", 2008. One resident attended the meeting. Other residents have
corresponded with city staff either individually in person or by phone. Besides the one
meeting attendee, 5 residents and 1 business owner have corresponded with the City
on separate occasions. After the meeting, a follow-up letter was sent to residents
indicating the responses that we received from the affected property owners. In
general, residents do not seem opposed to the trail construction, but have several
concerns that will need to be addressed with the construction and long-term
maintenance:
o Mowing and Maintenance: Will the City be responsible for maintaining weed
and grass growth adjacent to the trail? Mn/DOT does not seem to be
maintaining it today.
Trespassinq: Several residents and one business owner brought up
concerns about people walking between yards and through parking lots to get
to the trail. How will this be a44resse4?
o Vandalism: One business owner near to the Vento Trail has had past
problems with vandalism and graffiti on their building and is concerned about
the increased pedestrian traffic along their back lot.
o Trash: One resident indicated the need for possible trash receptacles along
the length of trail. They are concerned about accumulation of litter along their
back lot.
o Visibility: There are concerns that the trail will not be visible enough at night
and that increased police patrols may be needed to keep suspicious activity
down.
o Aesthetics and Existing Vegetation: Several residents have shrubs, bushes
and trees along their backlot that are actually in the Mn/DOT right-of-way.
Will those trees be removed as part of this project? How will the grading
impact my back yard?
BUDGET
City staff is currently working with Mn/DOT on the design and permitting of the trail to be
constructed within the Highway 36 right-of-way. As it stands, Mn/DOT is supportive of
the project and will provide 50% funding of the trail improvements up to $40,000. The
City would fund the other 50% of the improvements through the Hazelwood Street
contract.
The trail improvements were included in the Hazelwood Street Improvements contract
as an add -alternate. Tower Asphalt came in with a bid of $42,290 to do the work. This
price includes the following:
• Excavation, grading, and paving of the proposed trail surface.
• Minor drainage improvements including an 18" culvert to facilitate back yard
drainage.
• Restoration, including seeding and erosion control blanket installation.
• Clearing of brush and removal of select trees (if necessary).
The price does not include shrub planting, fencing and other trail amenities above and
beyond items facilitating construction of the trail itself. If other amenities are required,
city staff will need to ask for additional unit pricing from the contractor or look to perform
some of the work with city forces.
As a minimum amenity, city staff recommends that chain link fence and shrubs be
installed on one side for the full length of trail connection, which is approximately 1,700
feet. City staff estimates that this will add an additional $39,710 to the project cost,
bringing the estimated total trail cost to $82,000. Mn/DOT would cost -share 50% of the
improvements.
City staff recommends that the commission motion for the following:
1) A motion recommending support for the proposed 1700-foot long, 1 0-foot
wide trail construction in the Mn/DOT right-of-way of Highway 36 connecting
Hazelwood Street to the Bruce Vento Trail.
2) A motion recommending, at a minimum, the addition of 1,700-foot long chain
link fence and shrub screening along the south side of the trail. Included in
the motion would be other recommended amenities.
The motions, if accepted, will be accounted for in the staff recommendation to the city
council for construction of the trail at the July 14, 2008 city council meeting.
Attachments:
I ) Trail Schematic
2) Ramsey GIS showing 17 property owners
3) Meeting Notice to Residents
4) Follow -Up Notice to Residents
RE: Hazelwood Street Improvements, City Project 07-25
Bruce Vento Trail Connector along Highway 36
On May 12th, 2008, the Maplewood City Council awarded the contract for the reconstruction of
Hazelwood Street from Highway 36 to Frost Avenue. Construction on Hazelwood Street is
anticipated to begin on May 27th, 2008.
As part of the Hazelwood Street improvements, the City is proposing to construct a 10-foot-wide
trail within the southern portion of the Highway 36 right-of-way. The new trail construction near
Highway 36 will extend from Hazelwood Street and connect to the Bruce Vento Regional Trail.
A drawing of the proposed trail connection is enclosed for your information.
We would like to invite you to a neighborhood meeting regarding this proposed trail connection
at the following date, time and place:
Neighborhood Meeting for
The Proposed Vento Trail Connection
Thursday, May 29th, 2008
6:30 p.m. to 7:30 pm. at the
Maplewood Public Works Building
1902 County Road B East
(Uphill from City Hall in the Maplewood
Municipal Complex, Engineering Entrance)
Those property owners that are receiving this notice are those owners whose back yard or side
yard abuts the south side of the Highway 36 right-of-way from Hazelwood Street to the Bruce
Vento Trail. Although the trail is proposed to be built exclusively in the Highway 36 right-of-way,
we would like your input on the proposed trail connection since it will be running behind your
properties.
- _1 1 111_ -_
Steve Kummer, P.E.
Staff Engineer
RE: Hazelwood Street Improvements, City Project 07-25
Sherren Avenue Residents
Bruce Vento Trail Connector along Highway 36
On Thursday, May 291", 2008, Maplewood Public Works staff held a neighborhood meeting on
the proposed plans for a 10-foot wide trail that will be built along the southern portion of the
Highway 36 right-of-way. The new trail construction is proposed to extend from Hazelwood
Street to the Bruce Vento Regional Trail along Highway 36.
At the meeting, we showed a plan of the proposed trail alignment and placement of the trail
within the Highway 36 right-of-way. Seventeen (17) property owners, predominately along
Sherren Avenue, were notified of the meeting. Of the 17 property owners, four (4) responded
by phone with comments and one (1) attended the meeting.
Based on the comments received, city staff does not feel that property owners in this area are
squarely opposed to the trail construction, but have concerns that they would like to be
addressed with the trail construction and maintenance as follows:
o Mowing and maintenance. Will the grass and weeds in the area be regularly mowed
and maintained?
o Privacy. Several residents do not have screening from Highway 36. A privacy fence
along certain lengths of the trail was brought up.
o Proximity of the trail edge to the back yard property lines. The edge of the trail will
be constructed a minimum of 5 feet from the back yard property lines along Highway
36. Grading and trail construction will not encroach on private property and will be
contained within the Highway 36 right-of-way.
City staff will take these comments into consideration as we move forward with design. With the
comments received, the City Council will be asked to consider the construction of this trail on
June 23rd, 2008 (the regular Monday council meeting).
If you would like to make further comment regarding the trail construction or have any other
questions or concerns please attend the council meeting at City Hall on June 23rd, or contact
Steve Kummer at (651) 249-2418 prior to the meeting.
Steve Kummer, P.E.
Staff Engineer, Maplewood Public Works
FROM:TO: DuWayne Konewko — Deputy Public Works Director
Steve Kummer — Civil Engineer
Hazelwood Street Improvements,• 07-25
Wakefield Lake Storm WaterTreatment
D 1/:
INTRODUCTION
On May 12, 2008, the Maplewood City Council awarded the contract for the
reconstruction of Hazelwood Street from Highway 36 to Frost Avenue to Tower Asphalt,
Inc. The contractor's operations started the week of June 2nd 2008.
The newly constructed Hazelwood Street will be a base width of 28 feet from face-to-
face of curb widening to 34-feet at areas of proposed on -street parking stalls. Along the
east side of the street extending from Highway 36 down to Frost Avenue will be a 6-foot
wide concrete sidewalk that will generally follow the east curb line of the street.
As part of the Hazelwood Street construction contract, city staff is proposing the
construction of a storm water infiltration basin in Wakefield Park near the southeast
corner of the intersection of Frost Avenue and Hazelwood Street.
BACKGROUND
Hazelwood Street in its existing condition does not have concrete curb and gutter. The
proposed reconstruction of Hazelwood Street will add concrete curb and gutter as well
as a more developed storm sewer system.
PROPOSAL
The drainage from a section of storm sewer to be installed in Hazelwood Street from
Frost Avenue to about 800 feet north of Frost Avenue will be diverted into a constructed
rain garden basin near the southeast corner of the intersection at Frost Avenue and
Hazelwood Street in Wakefield Park. The purpose of this garden is to provide storm
water treatment for runoff from a portion of Hazelwood Street. The treated storm water
runoff eventually drains into Wakefield Lake.
gardenThe - - - the first one inch of runoff from the Hazelwood
street drainage system. City staff will be working to plant the garden with native,
tolerant plant species. City staff believes this is an excellent opportunity to further
implement storm water treatment measures • improve the water quality in Wakefield
RECOMMENDATION
o action is required at this time. However, the Commission may take this opportunity
to give city staff general direction and input on their thoughts about the utilization of City
park land for the purposes of storm water treatment.
Attachment: 1) Infiltration Pond Exhibit — Wakefield Park
T N
O y y i V 3
S,
15 -
r
.. d
-
4
!
C
Co
CC
lr-
I
r
O
C O
cC U
o
O W
TO
E=o
p0
ti N
= U _
vi ad
o a
U 'D
O R.-
U
0 L 0
aW
L U
O �
F =w
W
GJ
O
O
O y O
� � N
`U N
U Y Yc
P bq cd
O � b
1 :b
� OOD O
� UJ
o=u,
_
y N
0 0
o �
T.b
� U
� U
w
� O
� � W
'O� O
= O
O � N
U y
T rn U
U = .
O
� � O
t
U U
y 7
O
y C L
s�F
F �
U
w �o
� N
Q'b N
Q
w
a
O
cn
W—
.—Y.
i5lo
III
d
fI c {9
i33ZJiS DOOM 3 Fi"""`>
It U 14
I
s
Y _
,
.� ✓
X �l
�r -
N
Z
--- 6C
1 e
i �
✓
y,.
_ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE - REVISED 0-8 -
OWNER: CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
PROJECT: BRUCE VENTO TRAIL CONNECTION
Engineer's Estimate
Item No.
Mn/DOT
No.
Item Description
Unit
Contract
Quantity
Unit Price Amount
1
2101.501
CLEARING
ACRE
0.85
$ 1,500.00
$ 1,275.00
2
2101.502
CLEARING
TREE
5
$ 100.00
$ 500.00
3
2101.606
GRUBBING
ACRE
0.85
$ 1,500.00
$ 1,275.00
4
2101.607
GRUBBING
TREE
5
$ 75.00
$ 375.00
5
2105.501
COMMON EXCAVATION P
CY
476
$ 7.00
$ 3,332.00
6
2105.523
COMMON BORROW P CV
CY
247
$ 8.25
$ 2,037.75
7
2105.526
SELECT TOPSOIL BORROW L
CY
100
El8,000
$ EOO$
1,200.00
8
2350.618
CONSTRUCT BITUMINOUS TRAIL - BRUCE VENTO
CONNECTION
SF
$
$ 31,500.00
9
2506.522
ADJUST FRAME AND RING CASTING (SANITARY)EA
3
$ 225.00
$ 675.00
10
2506.602
CASTING ASSEMBLY R-1678-A FOR EXISTING
SANITARY STRUCTURE
EA
3
$ 350.00
$ 1,050.00
11
2531.501
CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER, DESIGN B618
LF
40
$ 9.00
$ 360.00
12
2531.602
PEDESTRIAN CURB RAMP
EA
2
$ 350.00
$ 700.00
13
2557.603
CHAIN LINK FENCE
LF
1,900
$ 14.00
$ 26,600.00
14
2563.601
TRAFFIC CONTROL
LS
1
$ 1,000.00
$ 1,000.00
15
2573.502
SILT FENCE, TYPE MACHINE SLICED
LF
2,000
$ 2.00
$ 4,000,00
16
2575.523
EROSION CONTROL BLANKET, CATEGORY 3
SY
700
$ 2.00
$ 1,400,00
17
2575.605
SEEDING, SEED MIXTURE 250 GR
ACRE
2
$ 1,500.00
$ 3,000.00
Total:
$ 80,279.75
REPORTAGENDA
TO:
Park Commission
FROM:
, Charles Acting City Manager
DuWayne Konekwo, Deputy Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Continued Discussion of 2009 — 2013 Capital Improvement PI
D' - 12, 2008
1-
INTRODUCTION
At the June 9, 2008 City Council meeting, the Park Commission represented that they did not understand
the changes in funding for the currently proposal Capital Improvement Plan. We would like for the
Commission to have an understanding on the decisions and recommendations that has been used for the
basis of the current plan. Following is a summary of the information used in the decision process.
Background — Financial Plan
Let's first examine the balance of funds available in the Park Development Fund over the past few years:
2005 End of Year Balance $ 592,878
2006 End of Year Balance $ 884,950
2007 End of Year Balance $1,236,752
2008 PAC Funding To date $ 481,536
Current Fund Balance $1,735,039
The Maplewood accounting process requires that funds be transferred out of the various funds into a
project fund. These transfers have not occurred but are anticipated to occur in the next few months for
projects that have been approved over the past 6 — 12 months or will likely occur during the second half of
2008:
Lions Park $ 25,000
Joy Park $ 200,000
Trail Improvements $ 100,000
Gladstone Savanna — Phase 1 $ 900,000
Walter St and N. Beaver Lake Trails $ 100,000
Comprehensive Plan 20 000
1• .roject Transfers $1,345,000
Effective Fund Balance $ 390,039
The plan anticipates that there will be additional PAC fees received during the remainer of 2008:
Future 2008 PAC Revenue $ 156,381
Plan for 1• End of Year Balance $ 546,420
Park Commission — CIP Discussion
Page Two
* - Discussion: While it appears that we have a high fund balance currently [$1,735,039], the Commission
and Council have committed funds to numerous initiatives. There are numerous unknowns regarding
Gethsemane and Carver Crossing developments that may require additional funding from the PAC
Development Fund, so it is not recommended that the fund be reduced or projects committed at this time.
We are planning for an additional $150,000+ during the remainder of 2008, which may not be received. A
conservative approach for financial planning has been suggested.
* - Gladstone Discussion: The first phase of Gladstone will likely begin later in 2008. The first
development has been delayed, so we do not know when we will receive the PAC fees from that
development. Again, a conservative approach has been presented. It also should be reviewed on the
status of the current Gladstone plan as it relates to Park Development Funding:
• It is true that at one point, it was assumed that the City would receive $2,400,000 of PAC
fees from the development. However, that was based on the following:
800 new units @ $3,000 per unit = $2,400,000
• The development plan has been revised to a new range of 650 — 690 new units. In addition,
there was discussion that some of these units will be reduced space, such as senior housing
that do not pay full PAC fees. The current plan for PAC revenue is:
665 new units @ $2,250 per unit = $1,496,250
• The recommendation on revenue could be conservative; however, our recommendation is to
not plan for improvements until funding is received.
• We have identified improvements of $1,500,000 that is shown within the plan.
Background: 2009 Capital Improvement Plan
Beginning of year Fund Balance in 2009: $546,420
New PAC Fees planned in 2009: $450,000
Between Gladstone — Phase I and Carver Crossing, we are not aware of any major new
developments or initiatives that will result in significant new PAC fees. We are concerned that this
number is too high. Thus, we did not plan any major improvements for 2009.
Planned Project for 2009:
SpaceOpen o 0
Planned End of
The end of 2009 Fund Balance is predicted on over $600,000 of unknown revenue from development
assumptions that are not eminent. We cannot recommend that we commit funds to projects until we
know more about these revenues, We certainly have a $900,000 commitment to Gladstone that could
be scaled back; however, we believe that investment in Gladstone is necessary in order to facilitate
future development opportunities. In addition, the Gladstone Savanna has environmental
contamination that needs to be coordinated with the overall grading. The PAC fund is not paying for
the environmental •
Park Commission — CIP Discussion
Page Three
There is currently no general tax dollars dedicated for a transfer into the Park Development Fund.
The 2006 — 2010 CIP identified the possibility that general fund levy money would be transferred into
the fund beginning in 2007. This did not occur. The CIP is a planning document, not an official
budgeting allocation. In April 2005, when the 2006 — 2010 CIP was prepared, it was assumed that
taxes may become available beginning in 2007 in the amount of $393,330, and increase by $300,000 in
2008 and another $300,000 in 2009, so that the 2009 allocation was $939,080. The 2007 and 2008
approved City budget did not include any allocations, and it is highly unlikely that $939,080 will be
available for 2009. A CIP for the years 2007 — 2011 was not adopted by the Council. There was no tax
dollars dedicated to the Park Development Fund in the 2008 — 2012 CIP.
It should be noted that the 2009 — 2013 CIP proposes to start a small levy dedication for park
replacements of $60,000. We recognize that there is an annual need of $200,000 - $300,000 for park
equipment replacements and community field upgrades; however, these improvements cannot be
funded from the Park Development Fund and PAC fees due to the legal requirements for use of PAC
fees. The only other current source of funds is property taxes, which will likely be very limited in 2009.
It will not be easy to begin this dedication of tax dollars; however, we are recommending that $265,000
of general levy dollars be dedicated to this purpose during the 2009 — 2013 period.
Background: 2010 - 2013 Capital Improvement Plan
The assumptions for future years include some less conservative assumptions on PAC fees but also a
conservative approach on Fund Balance. The intent is to be planning for projects that may occur in future
years, while also maintaining an appropriate fund balance. Following are the assumptions:
Park Charges by Year
• 2010 $ 400,000
® 2011 $ 400,000
® 2012 $ 450,000
® 2013 $ 500,000
® TOTAL PAC Charges $1,750,000
Projects Planned by Year:
a 2010
$ 350,000
® 2011
$ 900,000
i 2012
$ 400,000
0 2013
$ 200.000
0 TOTAL PROJECTS
$1,850,000
Projected Fund balance at end of 2013 $ 915,140
We fully understand that the Parks Commission has a full list of needs. At 'this point, we cannot
recommend that you program those projects until there is a new funding source. In our analysis, we
has been prioritized oJoy Park.
Park Commission — CIP Discussion
Page Four
It is recommended that the Park Commission continue the discussion of the items listed above.
We fully understand that previous plans have programmed as much as $4,000,000+ in park improvements.
Given the current development scenarios and economic times, we do not see that this type of plan can be
supported. We understand that the Commission has recommended to the City Council that we program
back into the CIP the amount of $50,000 per year beginning in 2010 for neighborhood parks. As staff, we
are okay with that recommendation if the Commission understands the parameters that this is for new park
improvements, when we are having difficulty funding the replacement of the current park amenities. Those
amenities cannot be funded with PAC dollars for replacement. The Commission should discuss whether
we can afford to continue the expansion of our park system.
Attachment:
1. CIP — Park Development Fund (403) Statement of Revenues
2. Packet of information presented to City Council on June 3, 2008
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
PARK DEVELOPMENT FUND (403)
STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE
ACCT.
No.
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Property Taxes:
3011
Current
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
3012
Delinquent
0
0
0
0
0
3017
Interest
0
0
0
0
0
lfterggy_ernmental Revenue:
3523
State homestead market value credit
0
0
0
0
0
3530
Misc. state aid/grants
0
0
0
0
0
3534
County - Other Grants/Aid
0
0
0
0
0
3544
Other Gov t - Misc Grants
0
0
0
0
0
!-Miscellaneous
Revenue:
3801
Investment earnings
10,930
19,130
20,490
10,870
12,080
3804
Sale of property
0
0
0
0
0
3809
Miscellaneous income
0
0
0
0
0
3851
Park availability charges - residential
350,000
300.000
200,000
300,000
350,000
3852
Park avaltability charges - non-residential
100,000
100,000
200,000
150,000
150,000
Total revenues
460,930
419,130
420,490
460,870
512,080
Expenditures
4490 Consulting
4660 Construction - building
4710 Land purchase
4720 Park development projects
4730 Building improvement
4820 Interest payments
4920 Interest on Interfund loans
4930 Investment management fees
Total expenditures
Excess (deficit) of revenue
over expenditures
Other financing uses:
Transfers In (out)
From Public Improvement Project Fund
To Public Improvement Project Fund
Proceeds from tax abatement bonds
Net increase (decrease) in fund balance
Fund balance - January I
Fund balance - December 31
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
56,000
350,000
900,000
400,000
200,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
710
1,240
_11,330
710
790
50,710
351,240
901,330
400,710
200,790.
410,220
67,890
(480,840)
60,160
311,290
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
410,220
67,890
(480,840)
60,160
311,290
6,420
956,640
1,024,530
543,690
603,850
$9E6,�640
$1,O4 530
3,690
$603 50
$915,140
173
•
•
r
i
!
•
a
i
r
•
!
•
r
r
i
s
r
r
r
!
•
r
•
•
i
•
i
i
r
i
r
•
!
r
w
•
•
t
w
w
t
OEM
M
'�
!
r
i
#
i
i
r
i
i
i
•
•
•
w
i
!
•
w
•
•
•
r
!
#
j
i
i
•
i
•
i
•
•
•
•
•
!
ME
MEME
OEM
MEN
#
•
i
f
r
r
•
•
•
•
i
i
•
r
a
•
s
mom
i
•
i
f
i
!
r
•
f
•
i
'
�
r
a
�
mmmm
m�=
.
.i
t
•
f
•.
t
t
a
'
•
•
er
t
1
•
t
'♦
•
•
i
..
t
•
t
t
•
y
Fund Balance 12131/06
884,950
2007 Year-to-date Residential PAC fees
170,230
2007 Year-to-date Non-residential PAC fees
200,313
Other 2007 PAC Revenue
3012 Delinquent Property Taxes
65
3017 Interest
7
3801 Investment Earnings
32,484
Total 2007 Revenue
403,099
Subtotal
1,288, 049
Less 2007 Expenditures
4720 Park Development Projects
48,322
4930 Investment Management Fees
2975
Total Expenditures
51,297
Fund Balance 2007 Year End
1,236,752
2008 Year-to-date Residential PAC fees
16,751
2008 Year-to-date Non-residential PAC fees
481,536
Other 2008 PAC Revenue
3012 Delinquent Property Taxes
0
3017 Interest
0
3801 Investment Earnings
t?
Total 2008 Revenue
498,287'
Subtotal
1,735,039
Less 2008 Expenditures
4480 Fees for Service
2,500
4490 Fees Consulting
24,585
4720 Park Development Projects
3,252
493E Investment Management Fees
4
Total Expenditures
30,337
Fund Balance thru February, 2008
1,704,702
I
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
11 PARK DEVEL&MENT FUND) (403) M
STATEMENT OF REVENUES,-EXPENDfTURES, AND CHANGES IN FUND
ACGT-
NO.
—ELo�Tax�e--
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010 —
3011
Current
$0
$393.330
$639,170
$939,080
$0
3012
Delinquent
0
0
0
0
0
3017
Interest
0
0
0
0
0
Intergovernmental Revenue:
3523
State homestead market value credit
0
0
0
0
0
3530
Wise. state aid1grants
0
0
0
0
0
3534
County - Other Grants/Aid
0
0
0
0
0
3544-
Other Gov t - MisG Grants
0
0
a
0
0
Miscellaneous Revenue:
3801
Investment earning.
0
1.20
50
60
60
3804
Sale of property
0
0
0
a
a
3809
Miscellaneous income
0
0
0
a
0
3851
Park availability charges - residential
306,000
153,000
61,200
61,200
61,200
3852
Park availability charges - non-resideriffal
150,000
0
0
0
1 0
Total revenuer
456,900
546,450
700,420
1,000,340
61,260
emenditures:
44130
Consulting
a
0
0
0
0
4660
Construction - building
a
0
0
0
-0
4710
Land purchase
a
0
0
0
0
4720
Park development projects
450,000
550,000
700,000
1,000,000
0
4730
Budding improvement
0
0
a
0
0
4820
Ipterest payments
a
a
0
0
Q
4920
Interest on interfund loans
0
0
a,
0
0
4930
Investment management fees
a
10
a
0
0
Totil expenditure!
450,00G
550,010
700,000
1,000,000
0
Excess (deficit) of revenue
over expenditures
6,000
(3,560)
420
340
61,260
Other financing uses:
Transfers in (out)
From Public Improvement Proliact Fund
0
.0
0
0
0
From Redevelopment Fund
a
0
0
a
0
To General Fund
0
0
0
0
0
To Pommunity Center Operations Fund
0
0
6
0
0
To Public Improvement Project Fund
a
0
0
0
0
Proceeds from tax abatement bonds
0
0
0
0
0
Met Increase (decrease) in fund balance
6,000
(31560)
420
340
61,260
Fund balance - January I
(IGI)
5,899
2,339
2,759
3,099
Fund balance - oec*mbar m
$6.899
$ 2'339
$2,759
$3,099
$641359
RA
.............
r
'
SAT ' "'a
' -A==
tfsf;3
S S
LIM
€ aG
.
wcm�T
ft
3�
t
LY
Q
SSW�iffi�:
C l'�
9
0
sir
Sfx!3=.�-MwG
i3
is
a2
zM4
SWO ��r7 T��x..yy�
•, tlYilu'{P
' ��gs��$
{��,� �gy��r y'
Spp'3��a3��i�
p „ y ..
wa% F33
f f
Y3i�.�sSGOAA,
�.(yR� p cr
s�Fs� OOO..
"u4II3ifnN'J(
W52-
pN,..
E'aark lb!#j�
s
qq2'
{�p}'�+�bq�ljr
}i��y��
` �
CM
46M
i ce:�tdW
cr
€r
cr
;T
_
a
'
,f.
S7i KiilLSYfll 1' 3
y�y yea
�TJCiSI,
j at, p�Mn
fR�+ ,=
{
am..-
4
� j�
737ii 1 ll [{
0
�i{T
48M
�7.a�ssEaz
0
$fii'
S
�f giir'Y-fY�.wLl1�yFiyt�yyY�i„,,,�
!�}
5 4W
''rl''iTq�b� iai�+llt'Vfi 1LY.S
ty )Y..
-# r��q}�,
j
t{
r� y��it
< L�rTj111
-
Y
�Ey10
.l}f�V
p/+2 �]
i3at�`-'t..
rem
�w
Frmn �lChn s F
ID
u
Ta PuLffim r � F
4i
fa m '.rr €ti". s-
.
472,440
Wl
S
�64
-
c
CITY FMAPLEMOW, MI NNEOTA
PARK-DEWLOPMENT FUND (403)
S AND TA ITEMEM T OF REVENUES, EEXPENDITURE a-, CHANGES IN FUND
BALANCE
ACCT.
NO.
2009 2040
2011
2012
2043-
Propff ty Taxes
V)
$0
$0
3012
Delinquent
0 0
0
t
0
'3017
Interest
0 .0
0
w523
State homestead market value credit
0 0
0
3530
Mjscstate awgrmlts
0 0
0-
D
0
3534
Couft _- OtWof Gfff1NMd
a' 0
a-
a'
a-
3544
Other Gov't - disc Grants
0 G
0
0
0
MiscelUirreous Revenue
'M01 invest, wtefiienrridngs
IS � Sale of property
W9 --Mf6ddIM-wmTginwTiYe
3851 Park avaWfly charges - residential
3852 - Park-avaTability Charges —iron -residential
Total revenues
Expenditures
44-GO
Consulting
4 M-O
'ConsWudt-Inn -hujtklinu,
4710
LmTd purchase
4720
-Park devetopmPrit projects
4730
BuRding Impfov--mefIt
482fl
- Interest -payments
492U
ffiterest on ffiterffindRrans
4930
Investment management fees
Tataf expenditures
Excess (defidt) of revenue
over�xpencfitures
Transfers in(outj
From Public Improvement Pr6ject Fund
to-Pu Fun& bffe -
Proceeds from tax abatement bonds
Net increase (decrease) in fund balance
Fundf balance- - January I
un C p _d balanw. - December 31
'-fi0,_630
f9"_f3fo
_2_Aj4_1k0_
_f 081ro
0
0
-0
0
35£t.000
300,001)
200.Wo
30(1.,000
35010-W
,twpo
lwfluo
-20GOW
150jwo
150010
..
460,930
419,130
420,490
4-60,870
512,080
0
'D
0
0
0
13501,000
900-.000
400-,000
200-00
a
0
G
a
0
0
0
0
OF
6
p
a'
710
1,240
1,330
710
790
fjU,-T-J
354 ,240
9013 ,
M�
400,710
200,790
410,220 .67-,8130 (480;940) .60;160 311;290
0 0 0
0 0- 0-
0 0- 0
646,420 956,640
$9W540 $1,024,550 $54U)99 J0WA50 $05,140
171
PROJECT
NUMBER.
PROJECTTITLE
TOTAL
COST
PRIOR
YEAR5
2006
ALLOCATION OF COSTS BY YEAR
ZM7 20116 2009
2W0
C002.01 0
HOUSING REPLACEMENT PROGRAM
850,00a
250,00
150'aw
150,000
150,000
150,000
CD04.011
GLADSTONE AREA STREETSCAPE
250,000
0
maoo
0
0
0
0
C004.012
GLADSTONE AREA MgETS&PE
600'0w0
a
, ea0000
a
0
0
0
CD04.0-13
GLADSTONE AREA STREETSCAPE
940,000
Q
940,000
0
a
0
0
C004.014
GLADSTONE AREA STREETSCAPE
725,000
0
726,000
0
u
11
0
C004.021
GLADSTONE AREA REDEVELOPMENT
50,0110
50,000
a
0
0
0
0
'CD04.022
GLADSTONE AREA REDEVELOPMENT
750,000
0
760,000
a
0
0
0
=4.023
GLADSTONE AREA REDEVELOPMENT
250,000
0
260,0a0
a
a
a
0
CD114924
GLADSTONE AREA REDEVELOPMENT
2,350,=
0
1,600,000
750,000
0
a
0
CO04.031
HILLCREST AREA ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT
390a00
0
0
0
a
a
3w,000
CDO4.032
HtLLCREST AREA ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT
lzopoo
0
0
a
u
0
1,210,000
C004.033
HILLCREST AREA ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT
140,WO
a
0
0
a
a
14Aa0o
C004.034
HtLLCReST AREA ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT
6WQ00
0
0
a
0
a
800,000
GDO4.041
HILLCREST AREA REDEVELOPMENT
500,000
a
0
a
0
a
500,000
C004.1242
t%LCREST AREA REDEVELOPMENT
125,000
a
0
0
0
0
125,00a
C004-M
HICLCREST AREA REDEVELOPMENT
125,00()
0
0
0
0
a
125,000
CD()4_051
14ILLCREST AREA MEETSCAPE
300,000
a
0
0
a
60,ao0
250,00
CO04.052
HILLCREST AREA STREETSCAPE
200,00(l
0
a
0
0
200,000
0
CD04.063
HILLCRESTAREA. sTREETsCAPE
36o,000
a
a
a
a
a
$60,000
CD04-054
HILLCREST AREA STR5ETSCAPE
1,290,000
a
0
0
a
i,200,0a0
0
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TOTAL
12,0Gsjaoo
momlo
5jl5,00a
900'000
iso'nou
-1,69U,000
3850,0W
FDOI.Dio
REPLACEMENT OF FIRE TRUCK
280,000
G
280,0W
a
0
0
a
FD02.010
OVERLAY STATION PARKING LOTS
02,300
0
.0
92,300
0
0
0
FDOU20
REPLACEMENT OF FIRE TRUCK
372,700
0
0
0
372,I00
0
0
1`004-010
SCBA COMPRESSORS
58,35a
a
a
68,350
0
a
FDO6.01 0
AMBULANCE REPLACEMENT
1f4,000
0
0
0
0
1 f4,000
0
FDO&GIG
STATION REMODEL AND SLEEPING QUARTERS
65,000
0
05.000
0
0
- 1 0
0
Foa(Lo2a
REPLACEMENT Of FIRE TRUCK
395,700
0
0
.0
.0
0
306,700
FIRE OEPARTMENTTOTAL
1,378,050
0
345,00a.
02,300
431,050
1 f4,000
305,760
IT06.010
COUNCIL CHAMBERS AUDIONISUAL UPDATE
53,000
a
63,000
0
a
0
0
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY TOTAL
53,000
0
_220-00
0
0
0
PR01.010
WALTER STREETTRAIL CORRIDOR'!
taa,0aa 1
a
60,000
60.000
B
0
a
PR02-050
HARVEST PARK IMPROVEMENTS
150,00D
a
iso,ow
o"
0
a
a
PRO3.01 D
LIONS PARK IMPROVEMENTS
200,000 I
0
a
2i)0,oa0
0
u
0,
PRO3.060
JOY PARK IMPROVEMENTS
2m,000
0
a
200,000
a
a
a
PRO3.080
KE TRAIL CORRIDOR-'
NORTH BEAVER LAKE
100.0001
0
a
i0a.600
a
0
a
P11134.020
EXPANSION OF NATURE CENTER SITE
.200;000,�
0
0
a
0
D
2001,000
PR04060
GLADSTONE SAVANNA IMPROVEMENTS
ao-
a
0
0
400,D00
0
b
PRII6.0i o
HAZELWOOD PARKTRAILCOORIDOR
.140A00 ..t
0
a
0
MXG
0
0
PRO5.030
JOY PARK REDEVELOPMENT
1,160,000
0
a
a
160,GOU
1,000,000
0
PRO6.010
MCC FITNESS EXPANSION
250,000
G
250,000
a
a
0
a
PARKS AND RECREATION TOTAL
2,900,600
0
460000
550,000
700000
1,000=0
200,1106
PW88,081
HAZELWOOD STREET, FROST AVENUE - COPE AVENUE
1,568,000
0
a
a
250,00
1,3i8,000
0
Pw80L082
HAZELWOOD STREET, FROST AVENUE - COPE AVENUE
56U,000
0
0.
0
a
660,000
0
PW88.083
HAZELWOOD STREET, FROST AVENUE - COPE AVENUE
Ba'soo
0
0
0
0
89,600
P
PW88.084
HAZELWOOD STREET, FROST AVF.NUE - COPE AVENUE
22,400
0
a
a
a
22,400
0
PWO1.010
STREET SWEEPER
131,000.
a
a
131,000
a
0
0
PM2.081
BEAM AVENUE, MITE BEAR - BELLAJRE
300,000
a
0
100,000
2BOA00
a
0
PWO2.082
BEAM AVENUE, WHITE BEAR - BELLAIRE
240,000
a
0
0
240,oaa
0
0
PW02.053
BEAM AVENUE, MITE BEAR - BE-LAiRE
175,000
a
u
a
176,000
0
0
PW'02,094
BEAM AVENUE, MITE BEAR - BELLAIRE
26,000
a
0
a
26,060
0
0
pwaztel
GERVAIS AVENUE, MAPLEWOOD DRIVE- CYPREVC
MOW
0
220,009
a
0
0
0
PW02.107
GERVAISAVENUE , MAPLEWOOD ORIVE-CYPRE
297,000
07,wo
200,DGO
a
a
D
0
PW02J03
GERVAIS AVENUE, MAPLEWOOD DRIVE- CYPRESS
27,500
0
21,5W
0
D
a
0
PWOZI94
GERVAIS AVENUE, MAPLEWOOD DRIVE- CYPRESS
5,5110
0
5,600
a
0
0
a
PlAmf2o
CITY LANDFILL CLOSURE
126,00
25,000
iou'ano
a
0
a
0
Pwo2.i31
KENWOOD AREA STREETS
2,006,406
200,000
1,006,400
0
a
li
0
PW02.182
KENWOOD AREA STREETS
1,476,500
0
1,475.500
0
0
0
a
PW02A33
KENWOOD AREA STREETS
202,500
0
202.600
0
0
0
0
PV40ZI34
KENWOOD AREA STREETS
mjoo
0
133,100
0
0,
0
a
PW02.136
KENWOOD AREA STREETS
30,000
0
30,000
0
0
D
0
PM2,136
KENWOOD AREA STREETS
203,500
0
- =,500
0
a
0
0
PW02,160
ON57RUCK WITH ATTACHMENTS
110,000
a
110'000
0
0
0
0
pvmov
COUNTY ROAD D. McKNtGHT - LYDIA
1,592.600
0
0
a
13
160,000
1,442,600
PW03.022
COUNTY ROAD D, McKNIGHT- LYDIA
1112,000
0
0
0
0
0
192,000
Ft T y a AR am sue,M4 WIN MORA
;V 13 s tyTotal
Revenues 9568,00 1,"TV-0 1J0I57',-3110 _798,42fO 632,$20 4,49IJ-160
Capl+' I Projects 20-0.7t-o 2 A 44 ass out"Ifined last yearto the parks cominism on
2 0 077
20-08 2400-69
20110
2w 4
Lions
200.000
Joy
200,000
200,000
Beaver Sake Trail
100,.
100,000
Gladstone
40-1-11000
400.000
WSJ
Hazelmdm-4Pk Tr
140 000
U,
4 An Ann
I_r%J VWIJ
ia", Pad(
-1,60,0,30 1,000.,00o.
1, 160,000
Goodrich
300,0000
Y.
Leup_y
50 000
Q-1 U
450.000
500,000
500,000
700,000 1,000,0000
350�000
4 55 OF, Am fw% WO n
12 Ann A-0
-nor$ g1d "was SUN 2VU0 A2012
AOU"
_UNI .Muu
;NUITI.-IP
-42
26ii 2m.
5 yr total
t 6 year to
Lion cancel.
0
0
'JOY
0
0
Beaver
50,000
50,000
50,000
100,000
G -1
ladstone
g .-V. 'n
11 () IVV"
90,000
900,000
Good/Wake BdCkk
1100,000
AIOO,O^UIUI
100,000
Goodrich Softball
nfwl,
1000
100,000
300,000
300,000
Ten & Baske Crts
2005000
200,000
200,000
I raffs
410,000
300,000 -300,000
300,000
3A)0,000 400,LIM
1,600,000
1,640,C-.10
90,000
1,550,000 300,000
500,000
400,000 400,000
3,11750,000
3,240,000
Pleas& note, prlo-r Year Y'iquf es are not cou ated in the ab�wf& totals
In Ne years spending is 3,4. tO lim-_ I IV E I, D
t.r; IS
ra:
its $1,650,000
'me 01-4sto vvu'!
Re do cet, fences 300,000
Adult field -Is
3,150,000
Starting point I -or a recommendation
2007
2OC18
2009
2010
2011
2012
5 vr total
6 vear tot
Lion
200,0000
n
0(1,000 n
joy
200,000
0
200.000c
Beaver traits
MI, C_I_*
5 C., 0 CYO
'r'O'OOO
-I00,000 t
Gladstone
900-000
500.000
500-000
500-000
2.400.000
2_4M00O
Fen & eds
100,000
m)
vVzOOO
200,000
200,000 nic
Goodriah Softball
0
0
C� 0 V_
I U-0, U. Un 0
1 C. 0, 0 0
i00,000
1003000
5,00,00a,
6 C. 0, k"M t
An tewood trailq
p
50000
�000
so.
,
Open Stpace
-
t) 000
5 '000
U
100"00
10 0, V^ 0 V- e0
Nelahborhood Parks
50-000
iCIO-000
10o.000
i-OCIMC)
350:000
350010 n
Coeii -unity ,
-M . P!eJg_
1100,000
10000
2 0 0, or -I -V
2 0 0, C. 011
Comr) & Tfall Pla
40,000
0
40,000 n
4990 9 0, 0 G 0,
4,1e 0 D 0 01
-7 M, -a 00. 0
1 .10 -
7 00G
%Q000
400,000
-3, 8 �u- 0 110 0 0
4,340,QQCO
tatlig Accepted
PROJECT
NUMBER
PROJECT TITLE
FUNDING SOURCE
TOTAL
COST
PRIOR
YE S
2000
ALLOCATION OF COSTS BY YEAR
2009 2010 2011
2012
PW08A50
One 1-Ton Truck and Two 10Ton Pickups
Fleet Management Fund
iWJ30
0
0
0
Q
108,730
0
PWGBAOa
one Tractor Leader and One Trailer
Fleet Management Fund
65,390
0
0
0
a
55,390
0
PW08.070
One Snow Plow Truck
Fleet Management Fund
142.460
0
0
0
142,460
0
0
PW06.080
One Jacobsen Lam Mower
Fleet Management Fund
51.900
0
0
0
61,900
a
0
PW07.6Y0
One 4-Whi Truckster, I Crack filer, I Trailer
Fleet Management Fund
79,490
0
a
0
0
a
79,490
PW07.030
Three 1-Ton Trucks
Fleet Management Fund
17%386
Q
0
0
0
Q
17"130,
PVV08.010
One Singte Axla PtowTnrck
Fleet Mansgmrmut Fund
137,300
0
0
137,300
a
0
0
PWO6_040
Five 112 Ton Pickup Trucks
Fleet Management Fund
126,650.
0
0
a
12%r)60
0
a
1,223,070
a
0
253,360
649,640
162,120
256A60
CD04.010 Gtadstom Aroa Skaetscape
PW06A2a Kohiman Lane Area Streets, Water 8 Sewer
Grants 3 aG.000 0 1,000,000 600,000 '40001000 500,000 0
3.8w,000 a 1,804M 60o,000 1,00m000 50rf,000 0.
Ltf 1. Canada
Ct704.01a GtadstmeArea Shwiscape MIdDOT
PW03.1 a White Bear Avenue, Rodatz - Buerkte Mn1DOT
PW03,220 Eliminate TH 36 Pedestrian Crossing at Hszetwood: MOOT
PW07.100 TH36- English intersection improvements M1VDOT
MY02.000 Beam Avenue, WhNeBear -Bellaire North St. Paul
PW03.020 County Road D, McKnight- Lydia North SL Paul
PWOQ,110 Ho0❑way Avenue, N. SL. Paul Road to McKnight Ne ffi SL Paul
ty7,gQ0 Q 0 t57,500 0 0 0
167,600 0 0 167,600 0 0 a
100,DW
0
160,0D0
0.
a
0.
0.
150:0D0
75,000
0.
0
a
75,000
0
250,000
0.
0
0
a
2%000
0
200,DW
0
60,000
50,000
0
IOGIOa0
a
7.50,000
75,000
200,000
W000
0
425,000
a
2WJM
0
0
a
0'
0
200,000
70,000
0
0
a
0
70,000
0.
395,000
0
b
0
395,000
a
Q
665,.aW
0
0
0
396,CW
70,000
2W;000
i'+W02-060
Beam Avenue. While Bear -Bellaire
North SL Paul WA.C. Fund
34,500
0
a
a
0
0
34,500
PWD3X20
County Road D. McKnight -Lydia
North St.. Paul W.A.C. Fund.
80,000
0
0
0
0
80,000
0
114,600
�'0
0
0
0
80;000
34,500
.ate- "-, Gtr„g -
sv
PM03.060
IS Beaver �t�re'�`rerl f'.ordd3t -
Pari,tAevel❑pme❑t Fumi
100,000
50,000
50,000
0
0
0
a
PM05.010
Hazelwood Park Trail Corridor
Park Development Fund
140,000
0
0
140,000
0
0
a
P10071040
Guadd b Park Adult SoOhalt Fields
Park Davei❑Rnerd Fund
2IM000
0
0
0
200,aaa
100,000'
0
PM08.010
GooddchPNakefield Backstops & Sideline Fences
Park Development Fund
100,000
0
100,000
0
0
a
0
PM08.020
Maplaw❑❑d Parks Tennis and Basketball Courts
Parts Development Fund
200,000
0
200,000
0
0
0
0
1,T4Q000
50,000
1.250,000
140,000
200,000
.11 100,000
0
0004.010
Gladstone Amu Stmotscape
Ramsay County
150,000
0
150,000
0
0
a
0
PW03-140
White Bear Avenue, Radatz-Buarkla
Ramsey County
2,750X0
75,000
2,350,000
200,000
50;.D00
76,0M
0
PW05.140
Signal System at Lakewood and Maryland
Ramsey County
150,000
0
160,000
0
a
a
a
PWOS.110
Holloway Avenue, N. St. Paul Road to McKnight
Ramsey County
56,000
a
0
0
66,000
0
0
3, 10j5,000
7.5,000 2,660,000
2W.000
106,000
7,5,OW
0
PW02.080
Beam Avenue, White Bear - Bellaire
Sanitary Sow-rFrmd
67,500
0
0
0
0
0
57,500
iWW3.020
County Road U, McKnight- Lydia
Sanitary Sewer Fund
154,900
0
0
Q
0
164,0(10
0
PW03.110
Femdele Sheet. Maryland- Stillwater Road
Sanitary Sewer Fund
14,40
0
14,400
0
0
0
0
PWf13.i20
County Road D, Snuthtavm -Whirs Bear Avenue
Sanitary Sewer Firad
280,000
0
0
280,000
0
a
0
PWO3.130
Beabo, Read, if gloway- Larpenteur
Sanitary Sewer Fund
9.000
0
0
0
0
5,000
0
PW03.180
Sanitaty Sewer Pips LkdngfSeaHrmt Program
Sanitary Sewer Fund
350,600
100,Q00
5%mu
50'wo
50,000
50,.=
r'0,000
PW03,100
Sanitary Soarer Sump Pump Removal Pl-gram
Ssrutary Sayer Fund
ean,aau
200,0W
120,000
120,WG
120,000
120,000
120,000
PWO3.240
1,19 Salon Upgrades Program
Sanitam Sewar Fund
750,0W
0
160,000
150,000
150,0(m
15000
150,000
PW04.060
FemdatetGeranium Area Streets
Sanitary Sewer Fulri
48,400
0
48,400
0
0
0
0
P'N04.140
Century Avenue, P 94 to Lester Afton
Sardtay Smut Fund
65,000
0
65,000
0
0
0
0
PIN06MO
LarklProsperitylBurke Area Streets
Sanitary Sewer Fund
112,000
0
112,800
0
0
0
a
i"N05.070
MyrtlelStedingIldaho Streets
Sanitary Sewer Fund
5D,QD0
0
50,080
0
0
0
0
PW05.oaa
Pond AvenualDorland Road
Sanitary Sewer Fund
16,000
0
10,000
0
a
0
0
153
+di.•.•f.«=F F+Fll FSY:P lfSFJ: L?R'!'[��'iiStSi �..—ai{ �[j'�./. YG37
TQ6?flill Zifa+:6ta18 �Ade. a'�7�'ee38�pa �7;�T,OQ6 4 ��13i31,�i 'f`,� Y7#ln�ik 4Yy7,ppQ ACiQOi+fl
'F8DP:070
'Mah�iatpnai-£dtxlnni� +
5TMW
'4
57lt"
•0
'i1
a
0
FliOHl)Sa
F_^i?�'�2�I�sk
�,F5t#
U
fl
0
a
83.E
0
_•FMqLMD
tabifel ita73Snnvdtsiiriltms
VIVO
0
6 'Dw
0
0
6
0
iSL3.ti.SY
ix .pP+'S'Y+.•"''� m
.e0r
{J
SQ.tr
0
O
G
K
UTi13=
cay. �s-H�ile- a
rwm
$
0
AAA
. itP"iir�`.'a
p..a'^,i. r^.iu3a'i��mb"!�.
'Ia_.
U
S'i
G'i. ,."""».
y:1,P.ti'"�`
w`iyf£{i
4i
44-foam
3AC7v-PoW wea ` s0
RA
0
iquou
$
0
0
0
R4T#i3KOFi
indaiieFatam*®�
Ate
tk
18
zxvi-r
13.
fl
• FA'i�3G.iR$
nriv� G ow w�i at rhw
':r",[,iy�'•
a
0
:Sr t a4
$
a
Fi
_
- UTOM
F:ap1i'.vhmv-Fwl-Fsli*h
-Km
.D.
.0
• itP'a0.'3 -
yF3all.SadetnT.
i
�?
0
0
73AW
D
v
F.TM14D
'+r"GMrPd
IM4M
a
0
0
09;OCa
dR1Aa
86400
PLMMD
uF
lxjtl ]d
u
0•
9'
a'
(r
tr
PE100,aiJl
`a9',au3Cati�2�..F�P� n.
fl
S
6
p
a
(��0.}u+'
fg'sa.2m=;ciinf30W
0
6
r3
S
-F ans
.t weaver- .;rstt ?aor
ilmto7
_wODU
4 -
-0
•0`
FYQtiT.it
; Ca,.'i'se�lf7eve'apa�nt.
Mum
Am
10wl)
200,=
20AMO
2i'r .0-
200PW
I&78.630
A V#[ti1PFe fiFta&s' It85tnratiWt
i t
-0
6a,4nn
U
T
v
`o
0-
a
n
a
IlAo v.
u stti
PMMLW
aokmaM
0
90g0t1D
4
in"m
mo'pasmom
a
i{Xflfl3
r_
a
MPG
a
6t1 W
a
pmwm,'
tus•: r#E�...i
aim=
.,
&
MD
I=—
Impal
fm3ir
'woo
1=-av
manna
44-00
IADIM
ZMWD
.. 'pta
'$ae�iAvamxe'1Aftile�air�H91kPa
';t5Ct1D0
`1�14
1;aa0D
'6
it
fllmm
f 3,a'a$IikC1a851Lt!
MLAA
0
(i
[k
2Y&ixn
a
t4
PM3.mo
RoadU,L.}f
0
0
(i
260,=
2,440,=
a
{is'.m3.:..-
:.,:rS=.F et 28=t4 - --.
,nrn
Or
a
svmm ,'E'-
O it=*�t:.' ++" '- =t om
«.yam
a3
ti
�°smowa
. FI W AO
%7-mmn
mll=
8024(m
ffmpGO
4&D,me
Z261WD
0
mmlet
3 - -"s
9-
, . &
i4ftwfr
t4opw
•mot>"
Py,3sa,#aor
assmy rr3 E:C S'm4ta9w1ow
imum
fAum
F%c44%
woo
G�m
-PVst LIM
-Salr €Y' nvgt+r�r.YF'siiY t tr F
-OAOW
2w;Qm
920,(M
10,PW
-120,,CW
-M
-Mbm
[+Si�Yf3.fik.2}-
l7iSi ea*1 ' s i'i..C3'+*-sr
75kow
e0
IMWD
IMAM
i3
FaSOX0
`,vttt
i^�1,4f3.21a
fr1"s�{r�ia?1-1: a'e-.?asifii�z.Gm� H*.- hd.
iF a
{�
0
0
2kOOG
0mow
a
mmlln
f=72* ooumiy .dD,�:=--NHfhi--i-atri
e"�Oi�
fi
726, 0
C5
a
0pmt
a
$$ze-
carvx— e-z -ev`...•.. e..wwr1.-r
' •
a'�
a.r,a n?
i`s-
.max-
vs-
i1
-I
0
i€
PM07a
"da.wftmwop fteara
l;mxw
MUM
IlisuMm
0
Porrii A d
`M m
a
0
a
8#
• MkVA$,^
pix! +t:,�.:F4. 1dLC�.i na-a a [a
PSSU05fN3
Stel3yYs�'esLra�^iyttOS�3
4
2aAvYN
4s
0
0
4
PYYd�:e3�
;�'�;z•��-�;.�!'ett,te:a''�aF^'.�.'.,e-
:�s�
fl.
P-
a-�.$�...a
0.
0.
PROjA-;..-t9Zm 'SCHIH DULED— ROIR s"2.M--8
ORGMECT
PRaJECT
COST
Mor-C F-jofAwe a
wowmw
moo Poklm W
aoflavz-
FM5.010
mnmtlr� Rap*cnment
EqWmro"
W.0-10.
-4
-0
Ewilm�hi -
FLM-A 02U
Wme mcal comit-j"im-ft"
Stttmwt
6-, ;Boa
rimim-
pDO8.Mo
SqLvd Cmr L--pft,,- RWmc--Iwt
MMOM
PNW.O*
PMGI
PMWMD
Nollh ere-Wer LaM-- Tr--ff CmTi'-'DT
PZft
5000
'CDP=
PMW ia-0
03Ci
AppIwAmd-Px-----Qr.a Tmb & Resk---affM
peaks
6uloo
IM
C W-Ily Rd Wit a UM Avan Lm
Fubrw WO"
MW14a
W-Afa�oearAiavma, Ra&m-z--SH-ffklw
PVO-M-16a
Wv&e Sdam-MIP "-prmemmerb
MAO
RNMI81i
sq,=
pryMjgo
emr SLqrp Pump Rwwvea Pwomm
&rgwy SI"
12(%mo
MVG�tY
Lar b-baw" t pmgr=
Pifflc VYb,-n
PMAID
EAetang CoWty Rd D, EVA Of -Irl el -b H=dWWd
PubRoWoft
PVW4 TRU
fa LMAW Mw-H
Ptbrfr,'wVorks
4i5,000
PMM4.IBO
IDN-aW Vlf
PVV05.070
-Mre
Pubpcvvoft
.pWoSzMo
P-ondAventlEYMMnd-fload
Fum-v&ft -
pywao%-
-w-,nat System at got^ and count'Read 0
PW=UIVO"
-pVV05_146
sWol 6yatem-a-Uskewood wdiMpilarW
Me-IM
KoMM- ol lz M -6-00 ft,--M Watzr SErww
PWIG Wolf, -
Z.V14, OG
p4VMlW
-EdgeMnIR0!WEtwn braInarige bummeft
-PCWll--Wqlcs
725;m
WqW, -t W-W
Cour.-y- Rd 9-1 Am Q—U tzet% I W, W Mule Avenm
M&O"s
MOO
MOTOSO
-pubroV&k--
Rgim
Pwwow.
NoDclowdirma pm"rrl
PW*C vkyb-
M-00
PW07--IM-
,ivedfftif 1mg-movewtents
-ryi 'ja --�-F norldhirto
Pubricv-lb-�
4-
ml-=
pWBB,W@
Haz--Nwod Steet, Fmd Ave" - Cope Avanw
P%Am-jja
Road D and Y-mxawnod
iv Y C i
260h, M-O
pwm%u
aloft St-d L--- mlew- "effown
PublicWorks
2,30(' UM
--cWtury
pil-hrip,
M. �- - �wj
$24,377fflO
FfVE-YERR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN PROJECTS
GROUPED BY DEPARTMENT
PROJECT
TOTAL
PRIORALLOCATION
OF COSTS BY YEAR
PRIORITY NUMBER PROJECT TITLE.
COST
YEARS
2009
2010
2011
2012
2043
PM03.010 Lions Park Improvements
154,000
50r000
50,000'
;50,Otk5
0
0
0
PMW.060 Joy Park Improvements
550,OQ0
200,000
100,aw
50,000
tc"-0 6
100,QOQ
0
PM07-010 ComnwnlyField Up"des
3IXS,Q00._
0
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,C00
60,000
P1.107.100 Parks.-Trali Development
1,100;000
100,000
200,000
200,000
200;000
20000
200,000
. PM08.020-'--Apptewood Preserve TraTs & Restoration .! --
100,000.
50,00Q
50,000 ..
0
0
0
0
PM0S.040 Part[ Equipment, Fence and Court Replacement
200,000
0
60,000
60,000
80,000
0
0
PM08.050 Giaistorte Savanna Improvements
1.500.0m
gmoa0
0
1 ODD
606,040
0
0
PM03.060 Open Space Improvements
250,000
0
50,DC0
60,000
60,000
50,000
50,000
PM08;070 NeighboRmod Parks.
55Q.00O
0
50,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
2Mwo
4,700,000
1,300000
620;000
670,000
1,09QOrA
510,000
510,000
S
s'pj 000
z; lr�
73 011700
FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL tMPR0VEMENT PLAN PROJECTS
GROUPED BY DEPARTMENT
SWUS. Accepted
PROJECT
NUMBER
PROD€CT7ITLE
TOTAL
COST
PRIOR -
Yt'ARS 2009
ALLOCATION OF COSTS BY YEAR
2010 2011 2012
2013
C002.010
Housing Replacement Program
100,000
0 0
0 0 50,000
50,000
CD04.010
Gladstone Area Streetscape- Phases
5,400,000
2,50n,000 2,000,000
0 0 0
0
CD00.020
Gladstone - Phase ll
3,500,000
0 0
0 3,500.000 0
0
CD09,030
Gladstone - Phase 111
5.750,000
0 0.
0 0 0
6.760,000
FD03A20
FD06.02D
F007.020
F0081010
F009.0t0
14,750,000
2,500,000
Z900,000
0
3,600,000
50,000
5,800,000
Replacement of Fire Truck
415,840
0
0
415,840
0
0
0.
Replaaement of Fire Truck
440,710
0
0
0
0
0
440,710
Ambulance Replacement
95,590
0
96,680
0
0
0
0
AmhuL nce Raplacement
100,250
0
0
0
100.250
0
a
Ambulance Replacement
105,120
0
0
0
0
0
105,120
IT9,010 Phone System
IT9-020 ' FiherOptics
MT08.0%
City Facilit9as Security Systems Enhancement
M108.020
City Halt Boller#2
MT08-040
MCC Exterior Metal Panting
MT08.050
MCC Poet Area Dehurnid7P.astlan8-(eating
MT08.080
MCC Air Handler colt Replacement
MT06.090
MCG Gym. Roof
MT05,110
MCC LaplLeisum Pont Finish
M718.120
City Halt 13aiiar#1
,r
�r MT08.140
MCC Carpel
hiT08.160
City Hall Carpet
' MT09,0t0
MCC Pool Sand Filter
PD06.010 In -Car Video System
PM03.01.a
Lions Park Improvements
PM03,060
Joy Park Improvements
PM07.010
Community Field Upgrades r�
PM07.t00
Forks - Trail govelopment�
PM08.040
Park Equipment,. Fence and Court Replacement"
PM08.060
Gladstone Savanna In pravemenis
_ PM08.060
Open Spare knpravamonts �--
P`NO2.120
City Landfla Closure
PW0 D20
County Read 0,McKnight-Lydia
' PW03.130
Beel7o Read,: Harloway- Lerpentear
PW03.140
WHisBearAverme,Radatz- Bunrkfe
PW03.150
City-wide Sidowaik improvements
- PV401190
-.
Sanitary Sewer Pipe Limagl5esiing Program
Pb1r03.190
Sanitary Sewer Sump Pump Removal Program
PV'd04.680
One 1-Y4n lmek
PW(14.090
Street. Sweeper
F W04A I0
Existing County Rd D, East of TH 6i to Hazelwood
PV405,950
One Tandem Axle Snow Plow Tniek
PW06,070
Stedingfidaho Streets
PW05.060
Pond Avenue/Dcrfand Road
PWo51090
Signal System at Southlawn and County Road D
- PW00.010
Two Toro Lean Mowere and Two Trailers
PW06.020
StaQCats
PW00.030
Mower, Tmckster, Crack Router & Trailer
PW 06.040
Two 1-Ton Trucks
PW06.050
One t112-Ton Trick and Two 112-Ton Pickups
- PW06.060
One Tractor Loader and Three Wheat Tmckster
1,167,500
0
95:680
415,840
100,260
0
546,830
15Pp00
140,500
0
0
0
0
0
22,590
a
35,D00
0
03,000
160,000
0
200,500
0
0
22,500
35,000
83,900
150,000
123,000
0
0
0
0
63,000
80,000
73.400
0
0
0
0
73,400
0
120,000
0
0
0
60,000
60,000
0
70,600
0
0
10,000
0
0
0
81,600
13,600
27,2t10
13,600
27,200
0
0
1701000
0
0
0
0
0
170,000
255,000
0
0
164,000
37,00
0
0
73.400
0
0
0
0
0
73,400
163,400
0
0
0
63,000
40,000
80,400
63,700
0
0
0
53,700
0
0
141.,100
D
0
0
0
82,400
58,700
1,324,000
13,600
27,200
251,600
790,900
318,800
422,600
126,278
0
126,278
0
0
0
0
126,278
0
126;270
0
0
0
a
150,000
50,000
0
0
100,000
0
0
550,000
200.000
0
50,000
100,000
200,000
0
175,000
0
35,000
35,000
35.040
36,000
36.000
700,000
100,000
0
150,000
150,000
150,000
150poo
90,000
0
75,600
25,000
40,000
0
0
1,500,000
900.000
0
100.000
500,000
0
0
250,000
D
50,000
50,000
50,000
50,000
50,000
3,4t5,R00
f,260,000v^�1t0,000
4f0;000
976,000
435,000
235,000
325,000
D
0
325,000
_.
0
0
0
3,060,000
0
0
0
250,000
2,810,000
0
810,000
0
0
0
100,060
710,000
0
3,250,000
0
200,000
2,600,000
250,000
D
200,000
380,0W
00,000
SO,D00
60,000
50,000
50,000
50,000
650,000
160,000
100,0G0
100,006
100.000
10U,000
900,0D0
8U0,000
320,000
120.000
120,000
120,000
420,000
0
68,900
0
613,900
0
0
0
0
160,000
0
0
150,000
0
0
0
720,000
0
0
0
184.000
iv"G00
5
0
0
0
0
1,C10,000
0
0
0
0
2D0,000
Bi0,000
973.000
30,000
3
0
60,000
393,000
0
300.000
0
309,0013
0
0
0
0
90.000
0
0
0
0
90,000
0
76,000
0
0
70,000
0
0
a
78,630
0
0
0
78,630
0
0
119.609
0
119,600
0
0
0
0
114,180
0
0
0
0
0
114,180
69,710
0
D
0
0
0
69.710