Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-01-24 Parks Packet• MAPLEWOOD PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MONDAY, JANUARY 24, 2005 MAPLEWOOD CITY HALL MAPLEWOOD ROOM 7:00 P.M. AGENDA 7:00 PM 1. Call to Order *7:02 PM 2. Approval of Agenda *7:03 PM 3. Approval of Minutes *7:05 PM 4. Applewood Park Master Plan *7:30 PM 5. Gladstone Redevelopment • 9:15 PM 8. Commissioners' Comments 9:25 PM 9. Director's Comments 9:30 PM 10. Adjournment * Items that need formal commission action • MAPLEWOOD PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MONDAY, DECEMBER 20, 2004 • MAPLEW_OOD PITY HALL MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. Present: Commissioners Rick Brandon, Don Christianson, Audrey Duellman, Peter Fischer, Carolyn Peterson, Peter Frank. Commissioner Craig Brannon arrived at 7:23 p.m. Absent: Commissioners Tom Geskermann, Daniel Enga Staff: Bruce Anderson, Parks and Recreation Director; Mike Graf, Recreation Program Supervisor 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA A motion was made by Commissioner Christianson, seconded by Commissioner Duellman, to approve the agenda as submitted; ayes—all. 3. TOBACCO -FREE POLICY Director Anderson indicated that students from North High School were attending the meeting to .propose a tobacco -free policy for the city outdoor parks and recreation areas. The purpose of their request is to protect the health and welfare of our citizens and park visitors. Director Anderson indicated that the Coalition for a Tobacco -Free State has been in existence for a number of years. Students from North High School under the direction of the chemical dependency counselor, adopted as one of their goals to make the Maplewood park system tobacco -free in 2005. The Maplewood Parks and Recreation Department currently prohibits tobacco use of any kind inside of park buildings, as well as in the Maplewood Community Center. Director Anderson said he supports the concept of a tobacco -free policy `when youth are present." He stated that he supports the argument regarding adult role models and in particular, the negative impact secondhand smoke provides to other park users. Staff supported the policy as presented that was based on a compromise after meeting with the students and staff at North High School in November. Two proposed exemptions to the policy were to permit smoking in designated patio areas at the Maplewood Community Center and to permit smoking at adult softball games. Chairperson Fischer welcomed the students from North High School and they made a formal presentation to the commission. Allisha Thorson, 2323 Cowern Place, North St. Paul, is a junior at North High School. She expressed concerns of tobacco usage in parks relating to her family, particularly her younger brother who she feels experienced a negative impact from smoking in park areas. Carolyn Wiger, 2200 Eastview Avenue, North St. Paul, is a senior at North High School. She indicated she is a frequent user of parks and expressed her concern of peer pressure to smoke to •be "in" or "cool." Kayla Helkamp, 1997 Price Avenue, is a senior at North High School and stated her position that not permitting tobacco in parks would be a positive aspect for our community. The students presented a petition with over 500 signatures and identified other cities that have adopted a similar ordinance, as well as discussing in more depth negative role modeling and secondhand smoke impacts. Andrea Vento, 2998 Frank Street, president of Friends of the Parks, indicated her personal as well as Friends of the Parks support for creating tobacco -free zones. Pat Gallagher, 1989 Payne Avenue, indicated her support that there should be a consistent policy between schools and parks for smoking. Mickey Sanders, 2425 Hazelwood Avenue, indicated she believes tobacco -free parks create a better city and public environment. Kristi Phill, 2353 Dorland Avenue, stated she doesn't think the outdoor parks should cater to smokers. Sharon Starks, 728 Laurie Court, indicated she is a frequent user of Maplecrest Park and supports the tobacco ban. The commission thanked the members from North High School and city residents. Commissioner Duellman indicated that this was a tough decision for her as she supports a 100% ban of smoking. Commissioner Brandon asked if there is a possibility of grandfathering in existing users, for example in the adult softball program, setting a date a year in the future when the ban will go into effect. Commissioner Frank requested clarification from those present identifying their specific objective. Commissioner Peterson indicated support of the proposed compromise. Commissioner Christianson did not support the proposal and indicated there are many role models outside of public parks that provide negative impact on society. He further stated that there are currently rules regarding litter and questioned the enforcement of the proposed policy. Chairperson Fischer moved to adopt the smoking ban where youth are present, with the exception of the Maplewood Community Center in the two designated areas and the adult softball program from 5:30-10:30 p.m. Commissioner Brandon seconded the motion. Voting: ayes -6, no -1. Commissioner Christianson voted no. 4. APPLEWOOD PARK MASTER PLAN • Chairperson Fischer requested this item be tabled until January. 5. STERLING OAKS PARK MASTER PLAN Director Anderson briefly reviewed the Sterling Oaks Park planning process and highlighted the proposed park master plan. The commission commended the neighbors for their strong support and involvement in the park planning process. Commissioner Frank made a motion to recommend to the city council that they adopt the Sterling Oaks Park master plan with the understanding that it may exceed the existing park development fund budget and also, that bid options be included to stay within budget if necessary. Commissioner Brannon seconded the motion. Voting: ayes—all. 6. GLADSTONE REDEVELOPMENT Director Anderson reviewed the Gladstone redevelopment process with the commission. He stated the city council has established the redevelopment of approximately 50 acres of the Gladstone neighborhood around the Frost Avenue and English Street area as their number one planning priority for 2005. On Monday, December 13, the city council retained Hoisington Koegler Group as the master developer for the Gladstone redevelopment site. The city manager then appointed public works director Chuck Ahl, assistant city manager Melinda Coleman, and parks and recreation • director Anderson to serve as the three staff coordinators. 1 Staff reviewed the process in detail and requested the commission make every effort to attend the three major park planning/open space meetings scheduled for Monday, January 24; Monday, March •21; and Monday, April 18. In addition, there is a tour of comprehensive planning projects scheduled for Saturday, January 29. It was agreed by consensus that Chairperson Fischer will represent the parks and recreation commission as the official commission liaison. 7. LEGACY VILLAGE PARK Staff reviewed the progress to date on Legacy Village park indicating that the hardscape phase of the project was 98% completed. The landscaping portion bid was awarded and is scheduled for completion by July 1, 2005. Chairperson Fischer hosted a general discussion on the establishment of an arts committee. Commissioners Christianson and Brandon indicated their interest in serving on an arts committee. The commission requested that staff publish an article in the newspaper and that committee members' names be solicited for the commission's review. It is hoped that approximately seven to nine members will serve on the arts committee, who would in tum report to the parks and recreation commission. 8. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Commissioner Christianson had no comments. Commissioner Brannon indicated that he would like an update on the Beam Avenue trail construction as well as the Highway 61 crossover. Director Anderson said he will contact public works director Chuck Ahl to have either a written report or to • attend a future meeting. Commissioner Duellman stated her displeasure at there being no hockey rink at Edgerton Park. Staff apologized for this and indicated that it was not completed due to scheduling and budgetary concerns. Commissioner Peterson updated the commission on the Bruentrup Farm. Commissioner Frank said that there are currently 170 teams in the youth basketball program and stated his strong support for the parks and recreation department. 9. ADJOURNMENT Chairperson Fischer adjourned the meeting at 9:42 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Bruce K. Anderson Director of Parks and Recreation kh/1220.04.min.comm 0 MEM013ANDUM • TO: Parks and RecraIag Sion f` f Parks nd Recreation FROM: Bruce K. Ander , r; DATE: December 16,11 04 . r e e b 20 Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting SUBJECT: Applewood Park Final Master Plan introduction Applewood Park is a 34 -acre site located in southern Maplewood, east of Sterling Street and north of Schaller Drive. The site is 34 -acres of which eight acres have been designated as a neighborhood park and the remaining 22 acres will be managed and developed under open space standards. Enclosed is the preliminary master plan that has been developed after a series of four neighborhood meetings, a community survey, and numerous phone contacts and individual meetings with abutting property owners. Background Applewood Park was acquired in 1998 utilizing both open space and park development monies. The original concept was to have Applewood Park serve the neighborhood park demands as well as the open space needs of the Sterling Street neighborhood. The park planning process was initiated with a community survey followed by a walking tour of the neighborhood to look at other neighborhood site options. Initially a strong percentage of the neighbors were advocating no development and/or preservation of the open space area with concerns regarding the more active neighborhood park planning component. Following a series of meetings where a number of individuals representing their families and young children in particular, indicated the strong need for development of an active park component. The preliminary master plan received strong neighborhood consensus, leaning toward almost unanimous. There are still a few neighbors on Sterling individually who have and I believe reached an agreement aressed concerns s regarding noise and views. Staff has met with each of themY to the city's willingness to provide additional screening in the spring of 2005. The plan in summary is as follows: 1. The neighborhood components are condensed to approximately two acres instead of the initial eight acres. 2. The neighborhood component provides the best ease of access to the majority of the neighborhood served. Access presented challenging design issues and we are still looking at options. The final design will detail how we will access from the south off of the O'Day Street cul-de-sac. 3. The neighborhood component is located to reduce visual access from abutting property iowners as well as providing good security and patrolling. 4. The neighborhood component was moved 20 feet to the east compared to the preferred concept to provide greater separation from residential. 5. Erosion will be reduced by realignment of the trails. 6. Restoration and preservation of the natural areas was taken into consideration. • 7. A winter skating area was added at the request of residents. The park planning process proved to be very effective. In particular, the cross section that was prepared by Brauer and Associates really addressed the major concerns expressed by neighbors. Enclosed is a copy of the proposed preliminary master plan cost estimate totaling $765,000. The city has allocated $350,000 for this project so priorities will need to be established in the spring of 2005. Recommendation Staff recommends that the proposed master plan be approved and forwarded to the city council for their final approval and consideration with the understanding that prioritization of phases will need to be done as part of the bid letting and final design phase. Wmaster plan final.applewood.parksosp.mem Enclosures 2 C r� • Applewood Neighborhood Park and Preserve PRELIMINARY MASTER PLAN COST ESTIMATE December 3, 2004 is • Item Play Area Development Description Est. Cost 1 General removals, clearing of brush, etc. 6,500.00 2 Gradin / earthwork 30,000.00 3 Cul-de-sac modifications to allow for parking (curb and striping) 1,500.00 4 Play Containers including: curbing, wood chip surfacing, tree house themed play equipment, etc. 85,000.00 5 Shelter building: concrete slab, masonry columns, prefab roof structure with cedar shakes to blend in with naturalized theme, etc. 25,000.00 6 Drinking Fountain (budget cost - may be more if pipeline crossing becomes a difficulty) 12,000.00 7 Miscellaneous site amenities near play area: benches, tables, bike racks, trash recept, etc. 9,500.00 8 Regional trail 10' wide asphalt) 14,500.00 9 Internal paved trail connections for hc. Accessibility 12,250.00 10 Cast in place concrete retaining walls with nature themed imprints adjacent to play area (budget allowance for 300 facial feet) 24,000.00 11 Pedestrian footbridge adjacent to O'da Cul-de-sac 30,000.00 12 Concrete walkways adjacent to play containers 12,500.00 13 Concrete steps with handrail 16,200.00 14 Identification Signage (budget cost to develop sign with character & typeface to blend in with naturalized theme 7,500.00 15 Turf seed / sodding 10,750:00 16 Landscape Improvements: planting tree and shrub plantings near play area (budget cost) 15,000.00 17 Construction Surveying & Staking 7,500.00 Subtotal: 319,700.00 Contingency 10% 31,970.00 Fees consultants topographic basemap surveying, testing 15% 47 955.00 Play Area Development - Total Estimated Cost: $ 399,625.00 Item Trail Development Description Est. Cost 1 General removals, clearing of brush, etc. 9,500.00 2 Grading / earthwork 35,000.00 3 Stormwater culverts to minimize erosion along trails 4,500.00 4 Internal aggregate and/or woodchip trails 4-6 ft wide 35,000.00 5 Boulder retaining walls along trails (budget allowance for 800 facial feet) 22,750.00 6 Seating areas along trails (budget cost for benches or hand selected stone boulders) 10,000.00 7 Overlook areas with seating (budget cost for pond area overlook and top of central hill) 8,500.00 8 lConstruction Surveying & Staking 5,500.00 Subtotal: 130,750.00 Contingency @ 10% 13,075.00 Fees, consultants, topographic basemap surveying,testing 15% 19,612.50 Trail Development - Total Estimated Cost: $ 163,437.50 Brauer Associates, Ltd. CADOCS12004104-30 applewoodlmasterplan - estl.xis Page 1 of 2 0 Item Native Restoration Description Est. Cost 1 General removals & cleanup, etc. 5,000.00 2 Buckthorn removal (approx $7,500 per acre @ 12 acres) Budget cost - could be less 80,000.00 expensive with volunteer program efforts 3 Naturalized restoration (prairie mixtures, upland, lowland, etc.) Budget cost - costs can 66,000.00 range dramatically depending on extent of"live plugs" used for planting forbes Subtotal: 161,000.00 Contingency @ 10% 16,100.00 Fees, consultants, topographic basemap surveying, testing 15% 24,150.00 Native Restoration - Total Estimated Cost: 1 $ 201,250400 Summary: 1 Play Area Development 399,625.00 2 Trail Development 163,437.50 3 Native Restoration 201 250.00 Preliminary Masterplan Development - Total Estimated Cost: $764,312.50 • Brauer Associates, Ltd. C:\DOCS\2004\04-30 applewooMmasterplan - estl.xls Page 2 of 2 • m :z Qft 44 E t It a a 3 --� .% 'Tr fR fee In Q4p c _ _ _. sa�'1S- tea... Frew 't�r r c: - ._.am } y.y a k \ i Y mow', x �r Z � ` � Zg .4 �ry x i t•3 -23 i IV 3� • IT 5 Y xti 7 1 �s: l + I w 's< • IT aN -4; - R� l + w 's< # �r r tr a • i� S`^•�. `�^`" yip""` w+�v �M Ak y•� tt a'': • IT -4; - R� ti + • IT r w 's< • • 9 b � X _ all. } a x:13 St .� t` C7 + � �' �' .�., ). �y 3, .� a .. �'� �i� _ j" .� `( � +4:. ti, �•`' .. _ 0 ivy �7 tll F � tat f 4' Si-a�.ftW�-p �.a 9 QO iG o � O':by f 4' Si-a�.ftW�-p QO iG o � O':by n t i E NAME, w VMS' t�It5i' Int{t.t: ,l,i Ett � a7 r11 01 I m A • • J Prioritization of Improvements o cr, CO cs3 o U1 r 0 Play Equip Paved Trails Interpretive Areas Picnic Tables 1 Shelter t'D Trails a Q Playfield 3 o Hardcourt 3 Landcaping Parking Tennis Prioritization of Improvements o cr, CO cs3 o U1 r 0 Restoration t'D 4 Q �C i'D • C3 a� L! Prioritization of Improvements o cr, CO cs3 o U1 r 0 Densely Wetlands & Law Areas rs Slope Accessibility • • 0I � yk t V rs Slope Accessibility • • 0I • TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Introduction MEMORANDUM Parks and Recreation Commission Bruce K. Anderson, Director of Parks and Recreation December 16, 2004 for the December 20 Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment and Planning The Maplewood city council has established redevelopment of the Gladstone neighborhood approximately 50 acres surrounded by the intersection of Frost Avenue and English Street as their number one planning priority. During the past year the city planning department received a Metropolitan planning grant and hired a consultant to develop a preliminary concept plan. The plan had mixed reviews from the neighbors and business owners and was never formally presented to or adopted by either the planning commission or city council On Monday, December 13, the Maplewood city council retained Hoisington Koegler Group as the proposed master developer for the Gladstone redevelopment site. The city manager has appointed public works director Chuck Ahl, assistant city manager Melinda Coleman and myself to serve as the • three staff coordinators. Background The Gladstone neighborhood arguably was downtown of Maplewood in the early 1970s. City hall was located at 1380 Frost Avenue, Gladstone fire station was adjacent, and in its heyday the Gladstone House, a catering firm, served some of the finest food around by its owner Donna Funk. In addition, Roger's Market now known as Richard's and the Maplewood Bakery have been mainstays in the Gladstone neighborhood for 40 -plus years. I am intimately familiar with this neighborhood having lived on Maryknoll Avenue for ten years through the 70s. The redevelopment of the Gladstone neighborhood will be the largest planning project the city has undertaken with the exception of the city's comprehensive plan. City staff and the city council realize the importance of doing this project "right." The original planner, Rich McLaughlin, is known nationally for his innovative concepts in urban planning. I have enclosed a copy of the initial concept plan which for a myriad of reasons never was formally approved by the city council. In mid-October the project took on a new focus following a meeting with the local business owners. The business owners turned out in force and expressed their strong support for redeveloping their community. Following that meeting, internal discussion was had by staff and council as to how new life could be breathed into this project. Enclosed is a memo dated October 20 that outlines my perspective regarding the integral role that the open space and parks play in the 01adstons • redevelopment. I believe itis fair to say that the biggest change in the planning process has been the increased role of also the not only the parks and recreation commission, but aopour rode asp public policymakers s critical parks consist of approximately 60 percent of the study area, y to the success of the project. A formal planning meeting was held on Wednesday, December 15, at which time meeting schedules were tentatively determined. There are three planning workshops specifically designed for the parks and recreation commission and open space task force. The three dates are Monday, January 24, Monday, March 21 and Monday, April -18. All three of these meetings will coincide with our regularly scheduled parks and recreation commission meetings. The meetings will be jointly attended with the open space task force members. In addition, a tour of comparable planning sites is scheduled for Saturday, January 29. Participation by the parks and recreation commission and open space task force is critical to the success of the Gladstone redevelopment. 1 have included a variety of background information for the commission. The first meeting. scheduled for January 24 will be your opportunity to really begin exploring options, concepts and soliciting your input. I can safely say that this planning opportunity will provide each of you as commissioners a direct link to changing the look, feel and face of Maplewood for generations to come. This will be big planning concepts, big dollars, big visions and implementation over potentially a 5 -to 20 -year time period. I look forward to working with you as we look to the future to make Maplewood a better place to live, work and play. Recommendation Staff will provide a verbal update as well as more. detailed planning calendar for the upcoming Gladstone redevelopment process. In addition, we will utilize direct mailing pieces and the city web page to inform residents and commissioners of the Gladstone redevelopment process. kh\gladstone redevelopment. mem 2 10 • Maplewood, Minnesota Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan Master Scope of Work — Draft 2 December 2004 Objectives . The Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. (HKGi) approach to the Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan seeks to achieve several important objectives: Build from previous work This process does not begin from "square one." The City and the Neighborhood have already invested time and money into planning for the redevelopment of this area. These efforts have not reached a conclusion. The continuation of a new process must begin where the previous process ended. We will seek an understanding of what worked, what was unacceptable and what remained unresolved. Create a participatory process that builds a successful plan Meaningful participation in redevelopment planning is a commitment not a commodity. It is not a canned routine applied in the same manner to every project. It is not merely hoops to jump through to get to the end of the process. For HKGi, participation in the planning process means: • Making key stakeholders a part of the process. • Engaging people with divergent views in a meaningful and respectful way. • Building and leading an effective team of staff and other consultants to address the myriad of technical challenges that exist in the Gladstone Neighborhood. • Creating a forum for the exchange of ideas. • Helping people learn about the intricacies of redevelopment. • Reaching a consensus and commitment among the stakeholders to act. • Ensuring that the plan matches the vision for the Gladstone neighborhood and the Maplewood community. A successful redevelopment plan grows out of a planning process based on these principles. Make an effective plan More than any other type of planning, redevelopment must have solutions. Redevelopment planning occurs in places where buildings and uses have become out of date. In these settings, illustrations of design concepts for new development offer an exciting contrast to what exists today. These concepts will not magically happen simply because they are set forth in a plan. Redevelopment requires public and private investments. An effective plan guides the City in making best use of limited public funds to attract and sustain private investment that is consistent with the plan. HKGi's experience with redevelopment projects shows that an effective plan includes: • A vision for the future of the Gladstone neighborhood - an articulation of the qualities and characteristics the community seeks in promoting the redevelopment of the neighborhood. • Clear local objectives for uses and character with flexibility for private investment to • create viable and sustainable development. Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. — Kimley-Horn and Associates I Maplewood, Minnesota Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan Master Scope of Work — Draft 2 December 2004 • A "manual" for undertaking all aspects of the plan to remove uncertainty. • Guidance on how to make the best use of limited public resources. • Project Team The HKGi approach to the Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan involves a seasoned team of professional consultants with the necessary disciplines to complete the project. This team includes the following firms and consultants: Prime Consultant: Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. (HKGi)—Lead Master Planning, Strategic Planning, Landscape Architecture, Urban Design and Implementation Sub -consultants to HKGi: 106 Group—Archeological/Cultural/Historical investigation In addition to those firms above, the following firms/ consultants are retained by the City of Maplewood through separate contract and will be instrumental in completing this project. Kimley-Horn and Associates (KHA)—Project Civil Engineers (utilities, street reconstruction, civil, traffic and transportation) Braun Intertec —Geotechnical investigations and analysis Short Elliot Hendrickson Inc. (SEH)—Project Engineers (miscellaneous civil and • environmental analysis) Rich McLaughlin—Urban Designer Project Management Administration of the project will be conducted primarily by Brad Scheib with HKGi and Jon Horn from KHA. All work will be directed by the project managers with approvals gained through City Staff or City Council direction. • Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. — Kimley-Horn and Associates 2 Maplewood, Minnesota Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan Master Scope of Work — Draft 2 December 2004 Work Program for Maplewood • The following work program draws on HKGi's experience in redevelopment and on our 'q' P understanding of the unique situation of the Gladstone Neighborhood. This scope is supplemented with the experiences of KHA and their work on recent engineering projects in Maplewood. Task 1 Assess what has been done This task focuses on the investigations needed to achieve our objective of building from previous work. We will begin the process by developing a clear and comprehensive understanding of the current setting and previous planning. This understanding will grow from both data and from perceptions. This task will also be used to organize the planning process. To ensure a successful start for the Gladstone Neighborhood planning process, HKGi will: 1.1 Conduct a "kick off' meeting (Staff meeting #1). The project will be a collaborative effort of HKGi, City Staff and other consulting partners including Kimley-Horn and Associates, Short Elliot Hendrickson Inc. and Rich McLaughlin. This project must begin with these parties at the table. The meeting will be used to clarify the roles and responsibilities of each party in this process and to set a detailed meeting calendar. 1.2 Collect and analyze existing data. The HKGi team seeks to build on the existing base of knowledge. We want to establish a strong working knowledge of Maplewood, the Gladstone Neighborhood and prior planning. A key step in making effective use of the • project budget is avoiding duplication of information. The work program assumes that background information will be collected and provided to the consulting team by City Staff. Among the data sources desired by the consulting team are: • Current comprehensive plan and infrastructure system plans. • McLaughlin design plan and related background information. • Redevelopment plans created by the neighborhood with any supporting information. • Preliminary designs for street and streetscape improvements, including timetable and finance plan (if available). • Maxfield 2003 market research. • Development regulations affecting Gladstone Neighborhood. • Policies on economic development, business subsidies, public improvements and special assessments. • Phase I or Phase II environmental assessments for any area within or adjacent to the project. Task 1.2 will also include a critique of the McLaughlin Plan from a real estate market and an urban design/site context perspective. HKGi will invite a select number of developers experienced in first ring suburbs to evaluate and comment on the marketability and the urban design appropriateness of the McLaughlin Plan. Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. — Kimley-Horn and Associates 3 Maplewood, Minnesota Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan Master Scope of Work — Draft 2 December 2004 1.3 Create ne 2hborhood profile. A profile of the Gladstone Neighborhood helps our team grow in its understanding of the area. It also creates tools to be used throughout the planning process. Redevelopment planning relies on mapping to illustrate current conditions and future scenarios. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) parcel data helps us gain an initial understanding of the Neighborhood. The City will provide the consultant team with electronic mapping files, GIS parcel data, contour data, any existing topology and current aerial photography. Information about the Neighborhood will also be collected on site and where possible cataloged in the GIS database. Our team will walk the area to gain a first-hand understanding of existing land uses and relationships. In this task, we will: • Create base maps depicting key elements of the physical setting including parcel configuration, building outline and location, streets, sidewalks, parks/open space, and trails and existing infrastructure systems including public and private utility systems and their associated characteristics. 1.4 • Investigate the feasibility of the burial of existing overhead utilities (telephone, electric and cable TV) within the redevelopment area. This will include discussions with the various private utility companies and the identification of existing overhead utilities that may be candidates for burial as a part of the redevelopment plan. • Complete an assessment of water resources issues and opportunities in the redevelopment area and develop a preliminary storm water routing plan. . • Gather existing traffic studies, traffic counts, and background information for the redevelopment area. Initiate discussions with Ramsey County regarding the proposed redevelopment plan and gather their initial comments on the plan and its impact on existing County roadways in the area. • Gather existing subsurface information for the project area and identify additional geotechnical exploration requirements. Initiate a geotechnical exploration program to gather additional subsurface information as needed to help determine the viability of proposed public and private investments in the area. • Prepare inventory of the natural features of the Savanna. • Build GIS database including current land use, parcel size, building size, building age, property valuation, and infrastructure deficiencies. • Create a community demographic and economic profile using 2000 Census data. • Prepare photo inventory of all parcels, structures, infrastructure and public spaces in the Neighborhood. Inform the community. HKGi will take several steps to inform the general populations of the Neighborhood and the community from the outset of the planning process. Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. — Kimley-Horn and Associates ¢ Maplewood, Minnesota Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan Master Scope of Work — Draft 2 December 2004 • Prepare general news release. HKGi will prepare and distribute a news release that provides an overview of the planning process and an announcement of Public Meeting #1. At a minimum, the news release will be sent to the Pioneer Press, the Star Tribune, Real Estate Journal, and Business Journal. In addition to reaching the general population of Maplewood, this news release alerts potential developers about a pending redevelopment project. • Prepare and distribute newsletter #1. We propose using a periodic newsletter specifically to inform the Neighborhood and the community about findings and upcoming events in the planning process. The newsletter would be mailed to residents and businesses in the Gladstone neighborhood and posted for general distribution on the City's website. • Explore cable television alternatives. 1.5 Conduct Staff meeting #2. The likely agenda for this meeting will include: • Present and review the Neighborhood Profile to obtain staff feedback prior to using this information in the planning process. • Reach agreement on the final content and plans for distribution of Newsletter #1. The initial issue will introduce the project and invite people to the first public meeting. • Finalize plans for upcoming Park and Recreation Commission, Task Force and public . meetings. 1.6 Conduct workshop with Park and Recreation Commission. The HKGi approach uses a dual path process to plan for the Savanna area. HKGi will work with Staff and the Park and Recreation Commission to focus on specific issues and opportunities for this important element of Maplewood's park system. It is essential, however, that the Savanna is an integral part of plans for redevelopment in the Neighborhood. The initial meeting with the Commission will be used to introduce the planning process, review the results of the Neighborhood Profile (including the Savanna) and learn about Commission objectives for the process. 1.7 Establish Gladstone Redevelopment Task Force and Conduct Task Force Meeting #1. This Task Force will serve as the steering committee for the planning process. The group will be made up of key public and private stakeholders. It should include both supporters and skeptics. As part of this task, we will: • Prepare a "project manual" for use by staff and Task Force members. The project manual serves as an ongoing reference document including contact information for the consulting team, work program, project schedule, and communications suggestions. • Conduct Task Force meeting #1. The agenda for this meeting would include setting roles and expectations, a review of the planning process, evaluation of the McLaughlin plan, and exploration of elements for the vision and guiding principles. Task Force • meeting #1 will also include a tour of recent redevelopment projects within the Twin Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. — Kimley-Horn and Associates 5 Maplewood, Minnesota Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan Master Scope of Work — Draft 2 December 2004 Cities Metro area that may offer insights and "lessons learned." It is likely that this meeting will need to occur on a Saturday in order to accommodate schedules. 0 1.8 Design and conduct Public Workshop #1. This meeting will be used by HKGi to inform and to learn. We will inform the community about the redevelopment planning process - the steps, the objectives and means of public participation. We will learn from the participants through a series of small group discussion exercises designed specifically for this meeting. The issues to be explored through the group discussions may include an evaluation of existing concept plans including the Gladstone Coalition, the McLaughlin plan, developer concepts and elements of a vision for the future of the Gladstone Neighborhood. We suggest that the presentation portions of these meetings be video taped for use on cable television. Using cable TV to replay the presentation makes accurate information about the project available to a larger part of the community. 1.9 Conduct stakeholder interviews. These one-on-one sessions provide the opportunity for key parties to provide information and guidance to HKGL These parties may include certain property owners, business owners, interested developers or special interest groups. City staff will assist HKGi in identifying an appropriate list for these interviews not to exceed eight (8) interviews. 1.10 Draft vision and guiding principles. HKGi will prepare a draft statement of vision and guiding principles for the redevelopment of the Gladstone Neighborhood. The vision and guiding principles become a means of articulating and reaching consensus on the desired • outcomes of redevelopment. Task 1 Deliverables: Task 1 Meetings: • Project manual . Kick off meeting with Staff. • Neighborhood Profile 0 Staff Meeting #2 • News release • Park/Recreation Commission Meeting • Newsletter #1 #1 • Summary of Public Meeting • Task Force Meeting #1 • Summary of interviews • Public Meeting #1 • Draft vision and guiding principles Task Refine approaches and explore alternatives With the foundation of understanding gained in the previous tasks, our team will begin to develop a series of multi-level concepts for the Neighborhood. Concept development will begin with the "big picture" looking at land use, densities and elements of the public realm including: pedestrian linkages, use of the Savanna, other parks and public spaces, street character, streetscape, utility • Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. — Kimley-Horn and Associates 6 Maplewood, Minnesota Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan Master Scope of Work — Draft 2 December 2004 systems, transit connections, parking and circulation. This level of conceptual thinking will • examine broad scale opportunities and will illustrate variations of the long-term vision for the Gladstone Neighborhood. It will also provide the basis for the second stage of the exploration of alternative concept development. The second stage of concept exploration will focus on "private sector" investments including building form and character, materials and context appropriateness. Concepts will identify preferred locations for specific land uses. They will clearly illustrate the way in which redevelopment relates to the existing uses and the possible redevelopment of key properties. Collectively, the big picture and private sector alternatives that will be explored will address a broad array of planning concepts for the project area at a master plan level of detail. HKGi will create alternatives for consideration that depict varying approaches to the "big picture" and "private sector" components. Elements of the public realm will then be advanced to a conceptual design level of detail. The exploration of the concepts must address feasibility. From a public perspective, feasibility means actions and investments needed to remove the barriers to redevelopment. Private development issues will include market demand and financial sustainability. 2.1 Conduct Task Force meeting #2. This meeting will be used to update the Task Force on the results of the process to date and to obtain guidance before beginning a further • exploration of redevelopment alternatives. The anticipated agenda for the meeting includes: • Review of the results of Public Meeting #1 • Summary of interview findings • Review/ discussion of the draft vision and guiding principles • Consensus on aspects of previous plans to explore alternatives 2.2 Conduct in-house charrette. HKGi will host a planning and design charrette that will include various disciplines within HKGi, representatives from Kimley-Horn and Associates, Rich McLaughlin and City Staff. The charrette will be organized around the evaluation of the McLaughlin Plan and generating alternative redevelopment plan concepts addressing such elements as land use patterns, building forms, open space systems, park programming, pedestrian connections, infrastructure systems, vehicle circulation and urban design. We anticipate the charrette to be conducted over the better part of a full day. The charrette will be conducted at the offices of HKGi. 2.3 Conduct Staff meeting #3. This meeting will be used to review the refined results of the charrette and to discuss development alternatives. 2.4 Prepare development alternatives. The charrette leads to the creation of a series of (2-4) • alternatives for redevelopment in the Gladstone Neighborhood. The alternatives will Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. — Kimley-Horn and Associates 7 Maplewood, Minnesota Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan Master Scope of Work — Draft 2 December 2004 include identification of key land use patterns, a general orientation of building footprints and a summary of development units, and a characterization of public realm improvements (streetscape such as lighting, plantings and signage) at master plan level of detail. The alternatives will also integrate park concepts for the Gladstone Savanna. 2.5 Explore feasibility. In reality, the exploration of feasibility has been a part of the planning process since the beginning. Our team has looked for opportunities and barriers that affect the ability to implement the plan. This task focuses on the specific implications for the identified development alternatives. As part of this task, we will: • Identify potential public actions and investments; • Identify infrastructure needs (sanitary sewer, storm drainage, public water and private utility needs); • Identify scope of private utility burial work; • Identify transportation needs (roadways, intersection improvements, transit); • Create redevelopment "proforma" and assess financial "gap" for redevelopment projects at key locations; and • Determine appropriate funding tools available for the plan. 2.6 Conduct Staff meetinu #4. This meeting will be used to review proposed development alternatives and the results of the preliminary feasibility assessment. This meeting lays the foundation for upcoming reviews by the Task Force and Park and Recreation Commission. 2.7 Conduct Task Force meeting #3. This meeting will be designed to present and gain feedback on the alternative redevelopment concepts. We will use this meeting to focus on the relationship between redevelopment concepts and implementation. It is important that the Task Force members understand the nature of public and private actions required to undertake these concepts. This meeting will also be used to establish plans for the second public meeting. 2.8 Conduct Park and Recreation Commission workshop #2. We will meet with the Commission to review concepts for the Savanna area in context with the overall Neighborhood. 2.9 Prepare concept modifications. The guidance received from the Task Force and the Park and Recreation Commission will be used to make modifications to the alternatives. 2.10 Prepare newsletter #2. The concepts will be distilled into a newsletter (not more than four pages) for mailing and Internet publication. This newsletter will contain information about the public meeting. 2.11 Conduct Public workshop #2. HKGi will design the format of this meeting to promote meaningful interaction with the public on the redevelopment concepts. The first portion of the meeting will be informational - building on the newsletter and providing the participants with information needed to comment on the concepts. HKGi will conduct group discussion exercises designed specifically for this meeting. • Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. — Kimley-Horn and Associates 8 Maplewood, Minnesota Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan Master Scope of Work — Draft 2 December 2004 2.12 Conduct Staff meeting #5. This meeting will be used to review results of recent meetings i(Task Force, Park and Recreation Commission and Public), to discuss upcoming meetings in Task 3, and to consider elements of the preferred alternative. Task 2 Deliverables: • Alternative development concepts in graphic form and textual description • Technical memorandum on initial feasibility assessment • Technical memorandum detailing required infrastructure needs • Newsletter #2 • Summary of Public Workshop #2 Task 2 Meetings: • Charrette • Staff Meetings 3-5 • Park/Recreation Commission Workshop #2 • Task Force Meetings 2-3 • Public Workshop #2 Task.3 - Reach consensus on preferred alternative The guidance received from the Task Force and the public leads to the creation of a preferred concept for redevelopment in the Gladstone Neighborhood. In this task, HKGi will continue to • refine land use, design and implementation details of redevelopment. Throughout task 3, HKGi and the engineering consultants will be formulating a preferred plan in graphic and written format. This will be an evolving plan in draft form that will be confirmed at the end of task 3 and compiled in full report form during Task 5. 3.1 Conduct developer review. HKGi will convene a process to obtain input on the alternatives for redevelopment from successful developers of urban infill or redevelopment projects. The process will involve a series of one-on-one discussions with developers that have experience in similar settings. We have found that this step provides valuable "real world" input and results in important adjustments to the concepts. HKGi will also use these meetings to test ideas and alternatives for soliciting development proposals. 3.2 Conduct Task Force meeting #4. This meeting will be used to report on the results of Public Meeting #2 and the developer reviews and to reach consensus on the elements of a preferred concept for redevelopment in the Gladstone neighborhood. 3.3 Conduct Park and Recreation Commission workshop #3. This meeting seeks to establish the Commission's preferred scenario for the Savanna as input to the Task Force consideration of the overall redevelopment of the Neighborhood. 3.4 Conduct Staff meeting #6. This meeting will be used to review information collected from the developer reviews, to discuss preparations for the next Park and Recreation Commission and Task Force meetings, and to consider approaches for the environmental • review process. Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. — Kimley-Horn and Associates 9 Maplewood, Minnesota Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan Master Scope of Work — Draft 2 December 2004 3.5 Prepare Newsletter #3. HKGi will prepare a newsletter that introduces the preferred • alternative and announces the next public workshop. 3.6 Conduct Public workshop #3. This workshop will be designed to receive guidance from the community before the process moves from concept to plan preparation. 3.7 Conduct City Council update workshop This will be a workshop (potentially a joint workshop with other advisory boards) with the City Council to provide an update on the project. Task 3 De/iverab/es• Task 3 Meetings: • Modified development concepts • Developer reviews • Modified infrastructure needs • Staff Meeting #6 memorandum • Park and Recreation Commission • Summary of developer reviews Workshop #3 • Newsletter #3 • Task Force Meeting #4 • Public Workshop #3 • City Council Update Workshop Task 4 - Establish implementation manual Previous tasks have identified various implementation tools. Like most redevelopment projects, the • Gladstone Neighborhood will not transform overnight, but rather will change gradually over a matter of years. This task will focus on establishing a manual that will guide the short and long term phasing of implementation of the "big picture" elements and the "private realm." It is likely that actual redevelopment in the Gladstone Neighborhood will trigger the need for an environmental review process. There are several factors that may influence the degree and form of the environmental review including specific uses, density, utility and infrastructure needs, timing of developer or land owner initiatives and/or public petition. State law allows for two forms of environmental review: environmental assessment worksheet (EAW) or an alternative urban areawide review (AUAR). Each approach has its own advantages. The EAW is typically focused around one specific project and ends with the determination of whether a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is necessary. The AUAR is an "alternative" form of review that evaluates the "cumulative" impacts of a number of related projects over a larger area. The AUAR ends with the development of a Mitigation Plan that must be followed. The AUAR generally satisfies the environmental review needs for most projects within the area as opposed to doing individual EAWs. Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. — Kimley-Horn and Associates M 10 • Maplewood, Minnesota Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan Master Scope of Work — Draft 2 December 2004 • Both methods follow the same requirements as stipulated by Minnesota Statutes requiring environmental reviews. The scope of work includes conducting the necessary level of planning and engineering analysis to complete the environmental review via either means. Furthermore, Task 4 will outline the process, timing, preliminary budgets, funding options and priority of the various elements of the plan. It will specifically examine sources and uses of funds for property acquisition and it will define the appropriate roles for both the public and private sectors in implementation. A phasing plan will also be established to identify which public improvements will provide the greatest return in terms of facilitating redevelopment and use of public finances. This task will also include a general indication of the timing of private sector redevelopment parcels. 4.1 Review Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance impacts. It is likely that the plan may require changes to existing policy and zoning regulations. The master plan will determine how design guidelines, zoning, and other municipal regulations can be used to implement the vision for the Gladstone Neighborhood. 4.2 Determine environmental review needs and format. This task will establish a basis for the environmental review (ALTAR or EAW) and will provide a detailed schedule for completion of the process. 4.3 Establish public improvements budget. Capital improvements associated with the public realm (streets, parks, infrastructure) will be developed based off of the master plan and • subsequent concept development plans. 4.4 Develop a phasing strategy for public improvements. Public projects will be scheduled on a need basis and the projects ability to meet the goals of the master redevelopment plan. 4.5 Develop a phasing strategy for private redevelopment To the extent known, a phasing plan will be identified for private redevelopment parcels in conjunction with the public improvements. 4.6 Identify obstacles to successful implementation. Certain obstacles may pose challenges to successful implementation of the plan. Identifying these obstacles upfront better enables decision makers to minimize "hiccups" along the way. Obstacles may include: relocation of infrastructure, funding, assembly of parcels for redevelopment, etc... 4.7 Develop a community outreach mechanism. Once the plan is completed and implementation begins, community outreach and involvement should be maintained. A plan for ensuring ongoing communication between City officials, developers and the Gladstone Neighborhood will be developed. 4.8 Conduct Staff meeting #7. The subject of this meeting with staff will be to review and refine the implementation manual and prepare for meetings in Task S. is Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. — Kimley-Horn and Associates 11 Maplewood, Minnesota Task 4 Deliverables: • A review of needed Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance amendments • Schedule for completion of environmental review process • Project budget spreadsheet for public improvements • Phasing strategy for public and private investments including exhibit detailing proposed phasing plan for public infrastructure • Memorandum outlining potential obstacles • Memorandum outlining a community outreach approach Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan Master Scope of Work — Draft 2 December 2004 Task 4 Meetings: • Staff Meeting #7 Task S - Prepare draft redeye%pment p/an and environmental assessment report The HKGi team will refine the preferred alternative into a draft redevelopment plan for the Gladstone Neighborhood and an environmental assessment report. HKGi will prepare an illustrative document with photographs, sketches, diagrams and supporting narrative to allow people to fully understand what is desired for the Gladstone Neighborhood and an environmental assessment report that satisfies statutory requirements for environmental assessments. It will also provide: • The framework to ensure that reviews of development proposals are substantive and credible. • The information required to make the findings for a "statutory" redevelopment plan. This is equally true of physical changes that are recommended in the master plan. The plan is likely to reflect anticipated changes in land use; vehicle and pedestrian circulation; the qualities and character of public open spaces; connections to adjacent trail systems; architectural character for new structures; identity elements; and the character and location of special features that help create a new and exciting neighborhood area. Key areas of the master plan may be developed to a greater level of detail to demonstrate how specific areas fit the overall plan. While every detail will not be defined in the redevelopment master plan process, the plan that results will provide a solid direction for subsequent planning and design efforts and it will demonstrate how the vision of the community is articulated through key implementation strategies. Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. — Kimley-Horn and Associates 12 • r11 is Maplewood, Minnesota Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan Master Scope of Work — Draft 2 December 2004 The master plan is only a "paper plan" at this point in the process. Actual implementation requires • the identification of specific strategic steps that will need to be undertaken to achieve desired results. Building from task 4, our team will work with the City to refine the responsibilities and procedures for implementation of the ideas generated during the redevelopment master planning process. The current environment for city government places greater importance on the implementation elements of redevelopment plans. Implementation must look well beyond the simple listing of action steps. Recent court cases point to the importance of building a strong link between redevelopment plans and public actions. One element of the legal challenge to the Best Buy Project in Richfield was the public purpose in the actions taken by the City. The process will set forth the steps and findings needed to comply with the statutory requirements for a redevelopment plan under the HRA Act. The redevelopment plan for the Gladstone Neighborhood will include (as a minimum) the following outcomes: • Vision and guiding principles. • Land use plan for the Gladstone Neighborhood. • Illustrative master plan depicting design character and patterns for private development, infrastructure, and the public realm. • Concept master plan for the Savanna and any related improvements • Identification of potential redevelopment sites and strategies for undertaking redevelopment. • Recommendations for vehicle and pedestrian circulation in the Neighborhood and the development of a master transportation plan. • Comprehensive manual for implementing the plan • Technical evaluation of environmental implications (form of ALIAR). (with assistance from engineering consultants) • A master plan for infrastructure systems including storm water, sanitary sewer, public water systems and private utility services. The storm water master plan will identify improvements that are required to meet storm water quality and quantity requirements for the area, and will define both proposed public and private facilities. • Preparation of a feasibility report detailing the proposed scope of work, estimated costs, financing plan, and schedule for the burial of existing overhead private utilities. • Compilation of information used in developing the plan. In preparing the draft redevelopment master plan for the Gladstone Neighborhood, the HKGi team • will undertake the following tasks: 13 Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. — Kimley-Horn and Associates Maplewood, Minnesota Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan Master Scope of Work — Draft 2 December 2004 5.1 Compile complete draft of master plan. We will prepare a draft of the Redevelopment Master Plan for the Gladstone Neighborhood as described above. • 5.2 Compile complete draft of environmental assessment report. HKGi in collaboration with KHA and SEH will assemble the various components of the selected environmental review documentation and will begin the public process for environmental reviews. 5.3 Prepare Newsletter #4. HKGi will prepare a newsletter that highlights the draft plan and announces the next public meeting. The newsletter will be fmalized after the Staff and Task Force review of the plan . 5.4 Conduct staff review. The draft plan and environmental assessment report will be submitted to staff for review and comment. We will facilitate a working session (Staff' Meeting #8) to obtain feedback on the plan. Following staff review of the environmental report, the draft environmental report will be distributed to key agencies for review consistent with processes outlined in State Statutes. 5.5 Conduct Task Force plan review #1. HKGi will lead the first of two meeting designed to present and receive feedback on the draft plan and environmental assessment report. 5.6 Conduct Board review workshop. This workshop assembles the City Council and all key advisory boards for a plan review meeting. This approach ensures that all parties receive the same overview of the plan and environmental assessment report. It is also beneficial to hear comments on the plan from a wide range of perspectives. 5.7 Conduct Public workshop #4. We will design and conduct a workshop to obtain feedback on the draft plan and environmental assessment report from the community. The format • of the workshop will be designed to obtain needed and meaningful input on the draft plan and satisfy statutory requirements of the environmental review process. 5.8 Prepare modifications. We will prepare proposed modifications to the draft plan to reflect feedback received from the previous plan review meetings. 5.9 Conduct staff plan review. This meeting will be to review proposed modifications to the plan and prepare for the final Task Force meeting. 5.10 Conduct final Task Force review workshop. The objective of this meeting is to reach agreement on the contents of the final plan and environmental assessment report to be forwarded to the City Council. Task 5Deliverables, • Task SMeetingy- • Draft Redevelopment Master Plan • Developer panel • Newsletter #4 0 Staff plan reviews (2) • Task Force plan reviews (2) • Council and Board plan review • Public Workshop #4 • Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. — Kimley-Horn and Associates 14 U Maplewood, Minnesota Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan Master Scope of Work — Draft 2 December 2004 Task 6 - Prepare fins/Plan/seek city approval The guidance received in Task 5 will lead to the preparation of a final Redevelopment Master Plan for the Gladstone Neighborhood. This plan will be submitted to the City Council for its consideration and approval. This task also becomes the springboard for actions needed to implement the plan. To conclude the planning process, our team will: 6.1 Prepare final master plan and environmental assessment report. The final master plan and environmental assessment report will be prepared incorporating reviews from task 5 and distributed to the City Council for final review and approval. 6.2 Present plan to CiV Council for review and approval. A presentation in a public hearing format will be made for the Council to consider the plan and environmental assessment report for adoption. 6.3 Make necessary final revisions to the plan and environmental assessment report. 6.4 Produce the final report in printed and electronic form. One printed hard copy and one CD with reproducible electronic files will be provided to the City. 6.5 Produce executive summary of the plan in the form of the final newsletter. An executive summary will be produced to provide an easy guide for interested businesses, developers or residents. This will be produced in conjunction with production of a final newsletter to end this planning phase of the project. Task 6Deliverables• • Final plan- printed and electronic • Executive summary • Final Newsletter Next Steps - Implementation Phase Task 6 Meetings: • Council presentation Upon the completion of the final master plan and environmental assessment report, the redevelopment will be ready to move into the implementation phase. A staging/phasing strategy for the implementation of the various public and private improvements in the Gladstone Neighborhood will be developed as a part of Redevelopment Master Plan (see Tasks 4 and 5). It is expected that the initial implementation task will include the preparation of a feasibility report detailing the scope of work, estimated costs, financing plan and schedule for the construction of the first phase of the public infrastructure required to support the proposed redevelopment. Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. — Kimley-Horn and Associates 15 Maplewood, Minnesota Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan Master Scope of Work — Draft 2 December 2004 Schedule The following is a tentative schedule for completion of the work scope. This project assumes a kick-off meeting the week of December 13`h and will require the first Task Force meeting to occur in mid January. The first public workshop would be scheduled for early February. Task Time Line (start date) Fees The following fee schedule provides a total project budget to complete the tasks identified in the work scope and an allocation as to fees for HKGi led work and KHA led work. Task Description HKG1 * KHA** Total Budget 1 Build the foundation 2 Refine approaches and explore alternatives $ 16,700 $ 35,000 $ 51,700 3 Reach consensus on preferred alternative $ 27,300 $ 28,000 $ 55,300 4 Establish Implementation Manual $ 11,200 $ 5,000 $ 16,200 5 Prepare draft plan and environmental $ 7,600 $ 20,000. $ 27,600 assessment report $ 32,400 $ 57,000 $ 89,400 6 Prepare final plan/Seek approval Expenses $ 10,000 $ 6,000 $ 16,000 Totals $ 4,800 $ 10,000 $ 14,800 $ 110,000 $ 161,000 $ 271,000 * Includes fees for 106 Group to conduct Cultural/Historical Resource Assessment ** Includes fee estimate for S E H (civil engineering) and Braun Intertech (Geotechnical Services) • Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. Kimley-Horn and Associates 16 • is 0 r� U U Gladstone Neighborhood - Redevelopment Planning Planning Team Contact Information Firm or Agency Name and Contact Info Project Role Brad Scheib Project Manager/Planner Hoisington Koegler Group 123 North Third Street Suite 100 Key point of contact Minneapolis, MN 55401 Direct: 612.252.7122 General: 612.338.0800 Fax: 612.338.6838 Email: bscheib hk hcom Bruce Chamberlain Lead Staff --Urban Design/Master Hoisington Direct: 612.252.7140 Email: blc hk '.com Planning/Park and Open Space Koegler Group Rusty Fifield Lead Staff --Public Facilitation Inc. Direct: 612.252.7133 Implementation Strategies Email: rusty@h_kZi.com Public Finance Rita Trapp Planner Direct: 612.2 52.713 5 Mapping/ GIS Email: ELLaW@hkgi.com Environmental Review Reporting Lil Leatham Park and Open Space Planning Direct: 612.252.7127 Mapping/ GIS Email: lii hk Lcom Brady Halverson Urban Design/ Master Planning Direct: 612.252.7122 Email: bkh@IkZi.com Jon Horn Project Manager /Engineering Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Kimley-Horn and 2550 University Ave. West, Suite 345N Associates Saint Paul, MN 55144 Tel: 651.643-0406 Fax: 651.645-5116 Email: ion.hornnkimley-horn.com Chadd Larson Project Engineer Tel: 651.643-0409 Fax: 651.645-5116 Email: chadd.larsonnkimley-horn.com Tom Sohrweide Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc. Traffic Engineer Short Ellliott Hendrickson 3535 Vadnais Center Drive St. Paul, MN 55110 Tel: 651.490-2072 Fax: 651.490-2150 Email: tsohmeidenasehinc.com City Of Maplewood Project # 04-21 Page 1 Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Planning Ron Leaf Storm Drainage Engineer • Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc. Tel: 651.765-2998 Fax: 651.490-2150 Email: rleafn ehinc. com Jon Carlson Geotechnical Analysis Braun Intertec Corporation Braun Intertec 11001 Hampshire Avenue South Corporation Bloomington, MN 55438 Tel: 952.995.2440 Fax: 952.995-2020 Email: icarlson(ct�braunintertec com Anne Ketz Historical/ Cultural Resource The 106 Group Ltd. Investigations 370 Selby Ave. 106 Group LTD St. Paul, MN 55102 Tel: 651.290.0977 Fax: 651.290.0979 Email: anneketz 106 rou .com Chuck Ahl City Engineer/Public Works City of Maplewood Director • 1902 County Road B East Maplewood, MN 55109 Dir: 651.249.2402 Fax: 651.249.2409 Email: chuck. ahlQci. maplewood mn us Melinda Coleman Assistant City City of City of Maplewood 1830 Manager/ Community County Road B East Development Director Maplewood Staff Maplewood, MN 55109 Dir: 651.249.2052 Fax: 651.249.2059 Email: melinda.coleman ci.ma lewood.mn.us Bruce Anderson Parks and Recreation Director City of Maplewood 1830 County Road B East Maplewood, MN 55109 Dir: 651.249.2102 Email: bruce.k.andersonnU ci maplewood mn us L_J City Of Maplewood Project # 04-21 Page 2 • • hadaLne Nalghharhaod RetlewdapmeM Mm an ar Mapa wood Fraied t 94.21 SWF Meedrry e2 (1-S) aty Cmmc9 aW*M Task Farce SW.Wft I.W, M(1.9) SLB MedIN Y3 (23) SLR MHWW s4 (2,6) SLR MCChg.AS (214 DeMWw Rwi :w (3.1) Stall Mewing 97 (4.8) SLR Man Revew (S.4) Board Review Workshop (5.6) Public Wodshw e4 (5.7) SLR Man Review/2 (5.9) RNI Task Faro Moo" (SSD) Paahlicand Task Foam Meadaagcst utat 6.30 p n& Task Ponce Macaw wip be held at the Gladstone Me Haff NomnpM Koa9l r haw Inc PaddlC Meetings at the Maplewood Cmauanadly Canter Ravind - Dacenher 13, 29D4 EN, �®©�® z -'�, ft -Wm, a� x k •. �.�u�'0aB �w.a"Lw'i:9��� an ar Mapa wood Fraied t 94.21 SWF Meedrry e2 (1-S) aty Cmmc9 aW*M Task Farce SW.Wft I.W, M(1.9) SLB MedIN Y3 (23) SLR MHWW s4 (2,6) SLR MCChg.AS (214 DeMWw Rwi :w (3.1) Stall Mewing 97 (4.8) SLR Man Revew (S.4) Board Review Workshop (5.6) Public Wodshw e4 (5.7) SLR Man Review/2 (5.9) RNI Task Faro Moo" (SSD) Paahlicand Task Foam Meadaagcst utat 6.30 p n& Task Ponce Macaw wip be held at the Gladstone Me Haff NomnpM Koa9l r haw Inc PaddlC Meetings at the Maplewood Cmauanadly Canter Ravind - Dacenher 13, 29D4 ill 1 -4 ill LW kl—'l 10 10151 Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. To: Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Task Force From: Brad Scheib/Rusty Fifield Subject: Task Force Meeting #1 Date: January 12, 2005 Thank you for agreeing to serve on the Task Force for the Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Planning Process. Our first meeting will be Wednesday, January 19. The meeting will be held at Maplewood Fire Station No. 2 (1955 Clarence Street) from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. The agenda for this meeting will include: 1. Welcome and Introductions a. City Staff b. Consulting Team c. Task Force Members 2. Distribution of Project Manual 3. Overview of planning process 4. Task Force orientation a. Project organization b. Role of Task Force • c. Meeting schedule d. Meeting format S. Discussion of Redevelopment Project Tour a. Purpose/objectives of Tour b. Schedule c. Tour sites 6. Discussion of Public Workshop #1 a. Overview of Workshop objectives and format b. Notice and communications 7. Review of Communications Plan a. Objectives b. Strategies for alternative sources media 8. Task Force input on issues 9. Preview of next meeting The remainder of this memo examines several of these agenda items in greater detail. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, MN 554-01-1659 Ph (612) 338-0800 Fx (612) 338-6838 www.hkgi.com Direct (612) 252-7133 Email rusty@hkgi.com January 19 Task Force Meeting January 12, 2005 Page 2 • Project Manual Each Committee member will receive a project manual and notebook. The project manual gives you important information about the Gladstone Neighborhood planning process including detailed scope of work and consultant contact information. The manual will be part of a larger project notebook. This three-ring binder will be used to compile information provided to the Committee throughout the process. Some initial base mapping and data will be included in the notebook you receive at the meeting. Planning Process To facilitate the successful and timely completion of the planning process, an overall meeting schedule has been established. We have found that this approach is an effective tool for guiding efforts of the consulting team and promoting participation of task force members. Please mark you calendars for the dates listed below. We will discuss the upcoming calendar of events at the meeting. • Saturday, January 29 — Task Force Redevelopment Project Tour (We are trying to schedule this tour to begin in the morning around 8:30 and end in the early afternoon around 1:00 or 1:30. A detailed schedule will be provided at the meeting on Wednesday.) • Monday, January 29 Public Workshop #1 • Thursday, February 17 — Task Force Meeting #2 • Thursday, March 24 —Task Force Meeting #3 • Thursday, April 2 — Public Workshop #2 • Tuesday, April 19 — Task Force Meeting #4 • Tuesday, May — Public Workshop #3 • Monday, May 9 — City Council Update • Tuesday, June 7 — Task Force Plan Review Workshop Committee Perceptions About Gladstone The first meeting of the Steering Committee provides an opportunity for us to learn about Gladstone Neighborhood. In preparation for this discussion, please think about the following questions: • What are the boundaries of the area you consider to be "Gladstone Neighborhood"? • What are your views on the strengths and weaknesses of previous plans and concepts? (Note: These concepts will be available on the website for your review if you are not already familiar with them and will be briefly discussed at the meeting.) • What are the most important issues to address through this planning process? • Are there key opportunities for change that we need to recognize? We look forward to meeting you all on the 19`'1 • C, TO: Melinda Coleman, FROM: Bruce K. Anderson DATE: October 20, 2004 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Gladstone Redevelopment The purpose of this memo is to follow up on our meeting on Tuesday, October 19, regarding the Gladstone redevelopment and particularly, the role of the parks and recreation department. The parks and recreation commission has discussed the Gladstone development project at two or three formal meetings. It has been the consensus of the commission along with me that the redevelopment of the Gladstone neighborhood plays a critical and important role in the future of Maplewood. Having been a resident of the Gladstone neighborhood during its heyday in the early '70s, I know firsthand the importance and role this neighborhood has played in Maplewood's history. It truly was downtown for a 25 -year period from 1960 through 1985. The neighborhood is prime for redevelopment given the aging infrastructure, commercial building deterioration and turnover • within the neighborhood. The parks and recreation commission position from day one has been that we should be an active player in the redevelopment process. I'm not sure of the exact acreage, but 1 believe city parkland is somewhere between 30 and 35 acres of the 54 -acre study area or approximately 60 -plus percent. Being a major landowner, it appeared obvious to the commission that the open space, Gloster Park, and possibly Flicek Park needed to become an integral part of the overall redevelopment process. We understand the "potential contentiousness" of placing public park land on the table for consideration, but we believe that to ignore the elephant if you will in the middle of the living room does an even greater disservice to the overall city planning process. The parks and recreation commission or staff have never signed off or agreed that we were willing to "give" park land to the city, but we certainly believe that proposals and concepts should be developed utilizing existing park land as an option may benefit the redevelopment of Gladstone and ultimately the overall the city. We envision that the concepts utilizing parkland would potentially include some financial benefit open space and/or parks department. I have recently heard figures of anywhere from $500,000 to $750,000 per acre for prime commercial/industrial land within the redevelopment zone area. I can assure you that the parks and recreation commission would give careful study to a proposal that provides the city with a $5 million to $7.5 million payment for ten acres of land that could be utilized for future development and/or acquisition of open space and/or park land. The commission is very aware of the minimal dollars available for park development The city council and parks and recreation commission have also seen firsthand the benefits of real estate • through the sale of seven residential lots at Gladstone Park. I believe that it is the role of a consultant to be "the dragon slayer if you will or bearer of bad news and It IS She or he that needs to get out in front of the process and sell concepts and/or ideas that are brought forth by the residents, city staff, city council and other city planning • bodies. There has been some excellent planning that has occurred to date. I don't suggest that we throw the baby out with the bath water, but rather that we utilize all of the tools in our tool box, i.e., parkland as at least one potential alternate concept for consideration by the city council and neighbors. It should' be noted -that the commission and staff have gone on record supporting the concept of "no net loss" of parkland. Although this is all of our ultimate goals, it should not be the only factor when developing final concept plans. My final thought is that redevelopment is always a difficult process and to propose change on such a major scale is difficult for even good consultants, great city planners, and visionary council members to grasp. We MUST continue to pursue the Gladstone redevelopment project. I believe that we will only be successful if the final master plan is created by a visionary, ecologically minded, politically astute, strong, well-spoken consultant and/or planning firm. I'm not sure that person exists, but I think the project is important enough that we need to continue to pursue .the redevelopment planning process for not only the future of the Gladstone neighborhood, but arguably the city of Maplewood. I look forward to meeting with you and Chuck on Friday, October 22. khigladsto • c: .Parkss & & Re Rec. Commission Mayor & City Council Richard Fursman, City Mgr. Tom Ekstrand, City Planner Shann Finwall, Assoc. Planner Rose Lorsung, Planning Intern Ginny Gaynor, Open Space Coordinator • 2 Gladstone Neighborhood - Redevelopment Planning Park and Recreation Commission - Open Space Committee Workshop Agenda Location: ? Time: 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. Monday, 24 January 2005 Meeting purpose: • To share information that has been collected by the consulting team so far; • To gain additional information and insights about open space and recreation that influences the Gladstone neighborhood; and • To brainstorm core ecological and recreational values that can translate into guiding principles for the neighborhood master plan. Agenda: 0 1. Introductions 2 General project overview and meeting purpose 3. Review compiled "neighborhood profile" (analysis) with emphasis on recreation and open space a. What we've learned so far... b. What else should we know about the Gladstone neighborhood??? c. What are the controversial open space and recreation issues we need to be aware of? 4. Brainstorming exercise: recreational and ecological values (group facilitation by HKGi) a. What words or phrases represent your recreational and ecological values? b. What recreational experiences should the Gladstone neighborhood offer? c. Should concept alternatives "push the envelope" or be conservative in regard to: • Innovative redevelopment and open space practices? • Controversial recreational and ecological issues in the neighborhood? \ \Fileserver\Active\Maplenood\Meetings\Park and Recreation Commission Meetings\Workshop 101? -3 05.doc City Of Maplewood Project # 04-21 � MEMORANDUM TO: Bruce Anderson, Melinda Coleman, Ann Hutchinson FROM: Ginny Gaynor DATE: 10/28/04 RE: Gladstone Redevelopment Thank you, Bruce, for leading our Open Space Task Force in such a good discussion. Below are some summary comments and thoughts regarding the RFP. Task Force Meeting Summary 1. The Open Space Task Force supports the concept that we need a master plan for redevelopment that integrates the Gladstone Savanna Neighborhood Preserve into the neighborhood. 2. The Task Force is open to exploring land exchange and other options. 3. In addition to Gladstone Savanna, all the parks, trails, and potential green spaces in the project area should be included in the plan. Connections between these sites, Lake • Phalen, and Wakefield Park are especially important. 4. Open Space staff and task force representatives need to be participants in the planning process. 5. Member Al Singer sparked our imaginations with his idea of an eco -village. His concept went far beyond native landscaping in the project area to include sustainable design features as solar energy, green (living) roofs, infiltration on site, and so forth, for all new development in Gladstone. Members. felt that if the redevelopment plan were to go to this extent, we may be willing to be much more flexible about how we think of open space property boundaries. The preserve would spill over its boundaries and become part of the fabric of the entire neighborhood. If the latest in green design is to be pursued, I would think the RFP would need to indicate this and the design team would include experienced green designers. RFP and a Master Plan for the Preserve For the preserve. itself (the contiguous block of land), I would hope the Master Plan process would generate a very detailed Landscape and Restoration Plan, not just a general plan of where things will be. The landscape design will be our main tool for communicating the vision for the preserve. Below are comments and questions for you as you are developing the RFP. They refer only to the open space plan, not the bigger redevelopment plan. 0 1. Preserve Landscape and Restoration Plan. I would hope that one of the deliverables of the Master Plan is a detailed landscape design and restoration plan for the Preserve. This • would include: 1. Landscape design for preserve showing entrances, trails, target plant communities for restoration, design features, focal points, and interpretive stations. 2. Detailed designs for entrances, gardens, focal points, and amenities. 3. Illustrations and text supporting the landscape design. 4. Restoration Plan identifying target plant communities and restoration strategies. On other plans, I have worked very closely with consultant on this part and sometimes have written the text for it. It would be ideal if the planning team includes someone with land reclamation experience to pull the restoration plan together. Were you envisioning something of this scope and detail? 2. How can we make certain the landscape design and ecology aspects of the Preserve Plan don't get lost by bringing in a large firm focused on the big picture development? a. Ideally, we would be hiring one of best landscape architect/ecologists in our region to do the master plan for the preserve. (I am a little concerned that this person work may not work at a big engineering firm.) I would hope the team hired would include these two positions: ' i. Landscape Architect with extensive experience using native plants in urban streetscapes and parks. ii. Restoration Ecologist with extensive experience in prairie, savanna, and woodland restoration, and preferably someone with experience in land • reclamation. b. How do we get a top notch landscape architect/ecologist? Can we give bidders a higher score if their team includes experts in these areas and encourage them to bring in the best? Will we require CV's for these team members? (I hope so.) 3. Costs. The high bid we had for our Priory Master Plan was $17,000. Gladstone will be much more designed so I would expect we'd have to dedicate at least $25,000450,000, depending on what level of detail we wanted.• Bruce, you'll have a much better handle on this than me. The only reason I mention cost is that I hope the RFP reflects that the design of the preserve is a key component of the project. Were you envisioning the preserve plan requiring this large a percentage of the $150,000-$200,000? Or am I way off and we not going to end up with a landscape design/master plan for the preserve? 4. Documents Available. We have several documents the planners may be interested in: 1. Ecological Analysis of Gladstone Savanna (I put a copy on S: drive, Parks\Nature Center\GladstoneAnalysis for you to print out if desired.) This contains site history, maps, photos, and ecological analysis. 2. File regarding the old well. 3. Some files related to Phase I Environmental Assessment 5. Contamination of the Gladstone Savanna Site. Don't forget the preserve is a brownfield. Any building on the preserve would require further environmental testing. If there is a recommendation to put buildings on the open space, would environmental testing be part • the Master Planning process to make sure building on the open space are feasible? Or is this beyond the scope of the Plan? Here's an excerpt from our site analysis regarding site contamination: In 1994, American Engineering Testing, Inc. (AET, Inc.) reviewed Phase I and limited Phase II environmental assessments that had been conducted for various parties interested in purchasing the site. AET, Inc. concluded that, although low levels of diesel range organics and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons were present, "...the detected contamination at the site does not pose a significant risk to public health, safety and welfare." They clarified that additional testing would be necessary if any use other than open space were to be considered. In addition, a 1993 letter from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency states "Since the contamination detected during the limited investigation is below action levels, no further action by VIC Program staff will be taken on this site at this time." 7. Vision for the Preserve. We've had a general vision for the preserve in place for several years. We will expand our vision as brainstorming and discussions progress but I wanted to share this with you. Gladstone Savanna Neighborhood Preserve — written May 2002 Gladstone Savanna is extremely degraded ecologically. Invasive species like spotted knapweed, cypress spurge, and yellow sweet clover dominate the preserve. Soils are very compacted and in areas concrete and stone are buried just below the surface. However, if one looks beyond the degradation, glimpses of the site's former glory are evident — a grand old bur oak spreads its branches over a nursery of younger oaks, and a few clumps of native prairie plants bloom brightly in July and August. Majestic cottonwoods line the northern border, creating a cathedral -like canopy and providing relief from the summer sun. Our vision for Gladstone Savanna is to return to that long -gone oak savanna—a dramatic panorama, bright with prairie flowers and grasses, and dotted with oaks. The savanna will grade into patches of oak woodland on the borders, buffering residences and streets. Trails and benches will make this oasis a place to relax and enjoy nature. But the preserve will also be an outdoor classroom for children and adults. The rich industrial history of the site and the vestiges of remaining prairie plants create a dynamic juxtaposition of worlds, which make the site ripe for interpretation. Interpretation will focus on three themes: 1) site history—from glacier to savanna to railway industry and back to savanna, 2) natural history of prairie and savanna, and 3) groundwater, pollution, and the importance of clean water. MEMORANDUM 0 TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Bruce K. Anderson, Director of Parks and Recreation DATE: January 19, 2005 for the January 24 Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting SUBJECT: Monthly Update—December 2004 The following items are provided to the City Manager and Parks and Recreation Commission to provide an overview of our day-to-day operations. Each of the items is informational and not intended for formal City Council or Parks and Recreation Commission action. 1. Legacy Village Sculpture Park Staff forwarded a completed application to the Minneapolis Downtown Council on Monday, December 27. The deadline for applications was January 15 and staff received word on Wednesday, January 19, that we are one of the finalists being considered. There currently is an additional screening process and background work that staff will be coordinating in the coming weeks and months. Acquisition of the "Northern Lights" sculpture would truly put the new sculpture garden at a different level and provide us some instant credibility if you will. Staff will keep the commission apprised of this process as it evolves in the coming weeks and months. • 2. Gladstone Redevelopment Process The Gladstone redevelopment process is currently in full swing. A meeting was held on Thursday, January 6, with the master developer Hoisington Koegler, to outline the upcoming process. The Maplewood city council appointed 20 city residents to the task force on Monday, January 10. The parks and recreation commission will be meeting with the open space task force on Monday, January 24, to begin the long-range planning process. 3. Bimonthly Meetings with Park Maintenance Division In the past I have met informally with each of the staff members on an irregular basis. One of my management objectives for 2005 is to meet with each of the divisions every other month and have two department -wide meetings annually to keep everyone apprised of issues that impact our department. The meetings have been very productive and an excellent means to get feedback and communication both ways. 4. Minnesota Recreation and Park Association Annual Meeting The MRPA annual meeting was held on Thursday, January 13. It was a pleasure to attend this year's meeting without any official responsibilities now that my "three-year reign" as president has drawn to a conclusion. The state association is an excellent tool to keep apprised of what is occurring in other departments and our profession as a whole. I am pleased to announce that community center manager Linda Crosson was nominated for the Dorothea Nelson Award, which is one of the most prestigious awards given within our state association. Although Linda did not 0 receive the award in 2004, just to be recognized is an extreme honor. Congratulations, Linda. 5. Council/Department Head Retreat City department heads will be meeting with the city council on February 24 and 25 to outline and . discuss long-range goals and objectives. I have enclosed a copy of a letter from councilmember Will Rossbach that will be mailed out in the February city newsletter. Councilmember Rossbach has expressed an interest in discussing programs and policies on a citywide basis to better define what the role is of local government. This will be an interesting process and our department will certainly be immersed in the discussion, as unfortunately we are looked upon by some as the "low hanging fruit' and the importance and/or we serve to the public. Staff is in the process of preparing general information for council consideration. 6. Surreys We have retained two survey consulting firms, SEH and WSB to do topographic surveys for both Applewood and Sterling Oaks Parks. The surveys have been completed and will provide the detailed data that we need for plans and specifications for both park projects. As an interesting side note, I received an interesting phone call from a resident adjacent to Sterling Oaks Park who was quite excited about city representatives "trespassing" on her property. Much to her chagrin, she found out a week later that not only were we not trespassing, but her garden and flower plantings were on public property. She has been requested and agreed to relocate her garden onto her property in the spring of 2005. 7. Afton Heights The redevelopment of Afton Heights is officially completed. The city council approved and we have completed protective netting over the three baseball backstops for spectator safety. Afton Heights should be available for play by July 2005. • kh\12042.mu.comm Enclosure V • Dear Residents The city recently completed the 2005 budget process and I, as a council person, feel that I need to issue an apology because I was caught off guard. This was my first time through the process and I was not sure exactly how it would go. At the beginning of the process, it all seemed to be easy. I had determined that with consideration of the programs and projects that the council wanted to pursue that I would be comfortable with 5% increase in taxes on a median valued home. Both the staff and the council agreed that we would be able to shape a budget within that increase. It was only later that the city learned from Ramsey County that due to changes in both commercial and residential property values, that our proposed 5% increase would translate into about a 15% increase. The process for me then turned into a race to find additional areas to cut with the effort directed to at least getting the increase back below double digits. We didn't quite make that goal and ended up at about a 10.5% increase. In reflecting on the process I've determined that we didn't start the process soon enough and when we got the new information from the county, we were left with too little time to properly examine the programs and projects to be able to make the additional cuts needed to bring the tax increase down to an acceptable level. I hope to have the city take a different approach this year. I am suggesting to the council and staff that we essentially start our work on the 2006 budget now. The final budget process, of Maplewood e in Sump The Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) treats the wastewater (sewage) for Maplewood. MCES plans on incorporating surcharges for those communities that do not meet peak flow limits. These excessive peak flows are caused by clear water v' that enters r the sanitary sewer collection system. Clear water, also known as inflow and infiltration (I/I), puts undue stress has to run its set course because information from the county, public hearings and predetermined dates set by the state all are needed and beneficial. The city is, however, in a good position to set up a process of analyzing its programs. Past councils and staff were smart enough to change the way we track the budgeted items so that each item is tracked separately and has set performance standards. I believe that now is the time to start analyzing those programs. I also believe that our approach should be to determine what items are essential to the city's operation along with determining which items we are good at and what we are not. We should work to strengthen the programs that we are best at and, of course, the programs that are essential and eliminate those items that we either are not all that good at or just are not necessary to the operation of the city. This type of process, of course, will require a lot of time and discussion because everyone has their own ideas about what is essential. Take, for example, the nature center or dispatching center or even how we deliver our fire service. With just mentioning those three items I've raised the hackles of half the people in the city. If, however, we are going to do a complete analysis, every budgeted item needs to be looked at and discussed. If you would like to talk to me about this or any other Maplewood business, please call or email me. Will Rossbach 651.484.5427 w*ill.rossbach@ci.maplewood.mn.us Pump, Protyr system by eliminating sump pumps that may be connected to the sanitary sewer system. The Maplewood City Council has approved ordinance changes that will assist in the inspection of private properties to assure that sump pumps. in Maplewood are not contributing to the I/I problem. Your sump pump should discharge outside your house, preferably to a grassed drainage swale. If you are connected to a floor drain or internal system, you may be improperly connected. The City of Maplewood will be divided into four to five districts, with one district inspected each year. An inspector will be visiting your home during the next four to five years to determine whether your home is properly connected. In each district, prior to the start of inspections, there will be a public information meeting that will explain the program in detail. This inspection program is an essential part of controlling the costs of sanitary sewer bills for the Maplewood rate payers. Please assist the City of on Maplewood in making this program a success so that we Maplewood's and the MCES collection systems and increase not only preserve water quality today, but that we also the cost of wastewater treatment. The result is that Preserve it for our children and grandchildren. For more - a e hIb costsfor use of me azy o o ��� o P vee p- I -- - % er g area 651 <49.2430. collection system• kin upon a sump pump The City of Maplew Tde Is of the program is to reduce inspection Program lewooa salutary sewer collection the 1/1 that enters the map "V100 - F Q < �N � a� aZ W Au Q� J W = p j? z3 m W o O Q a 2 a w J m U ir- co MT w a z¢ ^ W U W a Z o N W z y O g to C) 0 WW 5 • 12� W ^ z N r o d . J m cCL R N 0 0 U ° .N CL � m � N >r F OO ui 4-0N J 0 m w 0. 1 . a a C • d C/)• a m ITT Ramsey County Parks and Recreation Department 2004 Deer Hunt Summary Ramsey County Parks and Recreation Department's special permit archery hunts have ended for 2004. Between September 18 and December 12 2004, there was 56 days of hunting, with multiple hunts on most days. Eight different county sites and two Maplewood sites were included in this year's program. This was the most hunts in one year since the start of the program. Five different municipalities partnered with Ramsey County. A total of 159 deer were harvested, of those were 28 antlered. This was an increase of 68 deer over 2003. This large increase was due to the addition of Battle Creek and Vadnais Lake Regional Parks, which accounted for 84 of the deer harvested. The antlerless harvest rate was 82%. This high rate shows that the archers were helping in population control by removing a high proportion of does. The metro average for antlerless deer in 2003 was 67% and the state average was 65%. The overall success rate for the special hunts was over 70%; state average for archery is 20%. Minnesota Bowhunters Resource Base (MBRB) was used to provide archers. We used 225 archers for this year's hunts. MBRB also provided 9 volunteer hunt coordinators who did an excellent job running the hunts. Special permit archery hunt participants participated in MNDNR Chronic Wasting Disease testing. Over 25 samples were collected in Battle Creek hunt alone. No Safety problems were reported during any of the hunts. Some park users continued to use the park trails during the hunts, even with "park closed" signage. Some park users were upset that their favorite trails were closed. There were always other trails available in the same park or adjacent parks. Illegal hunting and poaching activities were reported from Battle Creek and Fish Creek. MNDNR conservation officers and Ramsey County Sheriff are investigating and have issued a citation for illegal hunting and failure to register a deer. Hunters reported a couple of incidents of potential harassment, but nothing was organized or traceable. The incidents did not appear to negatively impact the special archery hunts. 0 2004 Deer Harvest by Park Site Hunting Period' Vadnais 1 14 2 4 3 4 total (#of antlered) Otter Lake 2 0 7(2) 1 6(2) 31(4) Poplar Lake 7 0 2(2) 1(1) 1 4(1) Pigs Eye Grass Lake 5 6 2 9(3) 2 10(2) 18(3) Turtle Creek 3 3(2) 5(3) 17(5) Fish Creek Battle Creek -- 3 _- 2 0 1(1) 1 3(1) 1 9(2) -- 30 23(10) -- 53(10) Priory Applewood 5 -- 4 3 6(3) 1 16(3) 1 -- 4(0) Total 41 48 51(21) 19(9) 159(28) • •