Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-01-17-PRC-Minutes_AmendedmotionMAPLEWOOD PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION JOINT MEETING WITH THE OPEN SPACE TASK FORCE TUESDAY, JANUARY 17, 2006 • MAPLEWOOD CITY HALL MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 8:15 p.m. Commissioners Present: Rick Brandon, Craig Brannon, Audrey Duellman, Peter Fischer, Peter Frank, Carolyn Peterson Commissioners Absent: Tom Geskermann, Don Christianson Open Space Task Force Members Present. Dominic Ramacier, Char Brooker, Mark Gernes Staff Present. Parks and Recreation Director Bruce Anderson, Open Space Coordinator Ginny Gaynor, Lead Naturalist Ann Hutchinson Guests: Mayor Diana Longrie, Ron Cockriel 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA A motion was made by Commissioner Brannon, seconded by Commissioner Duellman, to approve the agenda as submitted. The motion passed - 6 ayes, 0 nays. • 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A motion was made by Commissioner Fischer, seconded by Commissioner Brandon, to approve the December 19, 2005 meeting minutes as presented. The motion passed - 6 ayes, 0 nays. 4. JOINT MEETING WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION Prior to the parks and recreation commission meeting, the commission and open space task force met with the planning commission in the city hall council chambers to hear a presentation regarding the status of the Gladstone redevelopment project. The parks commission and open space task force members excused themselves from that meeting at 8:10 p.m. 5. GLADSTONE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN Director Anderson provided an outline of the status of the Gladstone redevelopment plan. Mr. Anderson indicated that the city council retained HKGI approximately 14 months ago to develop a master plan for the Gladstone neighborhood. During the past year the city has undertaken a major analysis and review of the future of the Gladstone neighborhood. The city council appointed a 20 -member task force that has met almost monthly during the past year and hosted a series of public meetings at the Maplewood Community Center. The final proposed redevelopment plan dated November 14, 2005 has been distributed to local policymakers for their input and comments. The proposed plan for the Gladstone neighborhood has several key components: Is a. Proposes intense development at the corner of Frost Avenue and English Street b. Nearly $18 million invested into public improvements c. Integrated land use patterns including 800 new housing units and 50,000-75,000 square feet of new neighborhood retail is d. Continue dialog about developing a portion of the savanna as a long-term improvement Staff indicated that there was a series of guiding principles throughout the planning process. They were as follows: a. Design the future of Gladstone as a "village" b. Transform the regional trails into celebrated village corridors c. Make Gladstone a compelling quality of life choice d. Leave both natural systems and ecological functioning in recreational fabric e. Allow Gladstone's future to whisper the story of its past f. Make walkability the standard g. Think of Gladstone as a neighborhood for all stages of life h. Make Gladstone a master plan model for others to follow L Make multiple links between Gladstone and areas beyond Director Anderson reviewed the staff report and requested the commission address a number of specific issues for city council and task force review. The first question was whether there should be development proposed in the Gladstone savanna. The opinions were wide and diverse in range as follows: ■ Dominic Ramacier and Char Brooker both indicated that development should not occur on the savanna. ■ Mark Gernes felt that the open space language was appropriate and that he wished the master plan would have reflected additional green space or the eco village concept that • was initially discussed. ■ Commissioners Duellman and Peterson felt that no development should occur. ■ Commissioner Fischer felt that the open space language could be appropriate if modified. ■ Commissioner Brannon felt that there was not enough benefit to justify the development at this time. ■ Commissioner Frank asked questions regarding the financial feedback. Following a lengthy discussion, the open space task force and parks and recreation commission adopted the following language by consensus: "We do NOT support development on the savanna based on the current master plan configuration." The parks and recreation commission pursued the development of open space based on the concept of an eco village theme and that there could be a positive ecological gain by having flexibility over the open space boundaries. The open space task force and parks and recreation commission felt strongly that the Gladstone master plan would have benefited from wider green corridors between buildings, significant green connections to the state trails, and increased native plantings and interpretation along the sidewalks. Unfortunately, the master plan concept does not go far enough in developing these ecological connections to justify developing on the savanna. The plan as proposed would be stronger ecologically with no development on the savanna. Director Anderson briefly reviewed the proposed amenities and budgets that had been proposed under the HKGI plan and the modifications that would be necessary under the "council member Bartol plan." Staff requested direction as to what improvements and budgetary limits should be set for each of the proposed improvements. It was understood that the initial HKGI plan proposed $1.75 million for open space redevelopment and the Bartol plan reduced that by $500,000. The Gladstone savanna was discussed by community residents as the key factor and potential 2 driving force for redevelopment of the neighborhood. It was agreed that the savanna and its current status was not acceptable and that major improvements needed to be planned. The minimum improvements include restoration of the open space including plantings, removal of non-native species, and addressing needed soil correction issues. Staff indicated $1.25 million was needed for this project. The group concluded this was the first priority. Open space task force member Gernes asked staff to review the cost estimate. There was split sentiment regarding the development of the plaza. Staff indicated that the estimated cost for the plaza is $750,000. As the group began prioritizing items, they indicated that the plaza could be minimized. The group further prioritized expenditures indicating that the tot lot proposed at $250,000 and related amenities would be the second priority. The third priority would be an additional $250,000 for trails, and related site amenities including signage. The total breakdown was $1.25 million for open space restoration, $250,000 for the tot lot, $250,000 for trail amenities, and the lowest priority was $750,000 for the plaza. Flicek Park Staff indicated that Flicek Park was proposed to include an informal play area and primarily open space. The three existing ball fields would be removed, a trailhead picnic area including a tot lot, access to the regional park and a passive open space site would be the proposed improvements. Funding for Flicek Park ranged from a low of $450,000 in the Bartol plan to $600,000 in both the June estimate and the current estimate. The group said that they support the Flicek Park improvements as proposed and feel that the minimum funding as outlined in the Bartol plan of $450,000 would be adequate. They discussed the concept of having two tot lots, one on the north side and one on the south side of Frost Avenue and agreed that it made sense as they would serve different purposes. The Flicek tot lot would primarily serve the users on the Gateway Trail and the larger tot lot in Gloster Park would serve the neighborhood. Gloster Park Staff indicated that Gloster Park development included the following objectives: a. Provide flood storage for water runoff b. Preserve and/or construct a tot lot area c. Provide paved trails throughout the site Staff indicated that there are no specific dollars provided for Gloster Park. The group recognized that they addressed this issue as part of the savanna improvements. Their recommendation was that $250,000 for tot lot and site amenities for an active space on the west end of the open space would be appropriate. Staff outlined the proposed bebo and/or bridge connection between the open space and Flicek Park. The HKGI plan proposed a bebo at a cost of $2 million contrasted with the Bartol plan of $500,000 for an eight -foot culvert. Several people expressed concerns about safety and graffiti if an eight -foot culvert underpass were installed. Some believed that no underpass was better than a culvert. It was the consensus of the group that they could not justify the $2 million for the bebo. It should be noted that there was a minority that felt that there would be more "bang for the buck" for the neighborhood from a bebo than a proposed plaza structure. The group discussed that should there ever be a sale of open space, that the monies should go into the park development fund and not be specifically earmarked for either open space or park development. They discussed the proposal to use P.A.C. monies exclusively for the Gladstone neighborhood. The group concurred that due to the uniqueness of the project, this was permissible but would want to ensure that it would not be a precedent for future redevelopment. In conclusion, the group did not make a specific recommendation on the pros and cons of 800 units versus the reduced 500 -unit proposal. The unanimous consensus was that the Gladstone savanna is the center of the proposed redevelopment and that the first project developed with capital improvement bond monies should be the Gladstone savanna project at a minimal funding level of $1.75 million with $1.25 million for renovation of the open space, $250,000 for the tot lot, and $250,000 for trail and signage improvements. The commission further endorsed the planning process and supported whatever level of density would be necessary to generate enough revenue to fund the amenities of the Gladstone savanna at $1.75 million, including Gloster and Flicek at $450,000. 6. P.A.C. Fees Chairperson Fischer requested that director Anderson provide a staff report on the status of the current 2005 P.A.C. rates. Director Anderson indicated that the park development fees had not been increased by the city council in the last five years. The current P.A.C. rate is $450 for residential property, which is placed into the formula and provides a range of park dedication. rates with a low of $1,125 for mobile homes to a high of $2,430 for a double dwelling. Staff reviewed the 2005 park dedication survey of suburban and out state cities. The residential rate for single dwelling units range from a low of $320 in New Ulm to a high of $4,800 in Bloomington. The 2005 average for all cities for single dwellings was $2,496 and the average in the Twin Cities is $2,601. Staff recommended that the rate be increased to at least $700. Following discussion and based on the 2005 survey, it was the consensus of the commission to recommend to the city council that the rate be increased to $900. The $900 rate for the formula would establish the following residential rates: single dwelling - $3,060; double dwelling - $4,860; mobile home - $2,250; townhouse - $2,430. The formula would remain the same for an apartment complex and elderly apartments. The commission also concurred that the current commercial/industrial rate of 9% of the market value of the property remains in place as well. Chairperson Fischer made a motion seconded by Commissioner Brannon to recommend to the city council that the park dedication rates for residential property be increased to $900 and the formula remain the same based on population per unit and the densities as outlined. It was further recommended that the commercial/industrial rate remain at 9% of the market value of the property. The motion passed unanimously (6 ayes, 0 nays.) 7. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Fischer moved that due to the lateness of the hour, the meeting be adjourned at 10:35 p.m. and that the deer management item and commissioners' and director's comments be carried over to the February meeting. Commissioner Duellman seconded (ayes all.) Respectfully submitted, Bruce K. Anderson Director of Parks and Recreation 4 kph/0117.06.min.comm 4