HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-03-21 - Parks Packetr
MAPLEWOOD PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
MONDAY, MARCH 21, 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. Gladstone Redevelopment
9:15 PM 4. Commissioners' Comments
9:25 PM 5. Director's Comments
to- 9:30 PM 6. Adjournment
* Items that need formal commission action
4w
Gladstone Neighborhood - Neighborhood Master Plan
Park and Recreation Commission
Open Space Committee
Workshop #2 Agenda
Location: City Hall
Time: 7:00 to 8:30 p.m. Monday March 21, 2005
Meeting purpose:
• Review guiding principles previously established for the neighborhood master
plan.
• Discuss alternative approaches to master plan initiatives with emphasis on
recreation and open space impacts.
• Collect comments from tonight's meeting to help refine master plan initiatives
prior to April 7 community open house.
Agenda:
• 1. Introductions
2. review guiding principles established for the neighborhood master plan
3. Review approach taken to exploring alternative master plan concepts
a. Identification of multiple initiatives
b. 2-3 alternatives for each initiative as menu of options
4. Facilitated discussion of master plan initiatives and the concept alternatives
created for each of them so far (focus on impacts to recreation, open space &
ecology)
a. What are the initiatives and the range of alternatives for each?
b. Are there initiatives missing?
c. Are there different/better ways to explore particular initiatives?
M.•IMaplewoodlMeetingsTark and Recreation Commission Meetingsl Workshop 2 03_21_05.doc
City Of Maplewood, Minnesota
• M 1'I I a "I 'a'
zfn M Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
To: Maplewood Park and Recreation Commission and Open Space Commission
From: Brad Scheib/Bruce Chamberlain
Subject: Gladstone Neighborhood Master Planning -- Park and Recreation and Open Space
Commission Workshop #2
Date: March 17, 2005
Included in this packet as attachments to this memo are the following items:
1. an agenda to guide our workshop discussion (1 page)
2. results from the first workshop with the Park and Rec and Open Space Commissions (2 pages)
3. draft Guiding Principles (2 pages)
4. draft concept master plan graphics (3 pages)
The redevelopment planning process is a critical component of a successful plan. Our goal for the process is to offer
Maplewood a visionary and feasible master plan and set of implementation tools that are rooted in community
values. In order to achieve this, the process must respect meaningful public involvement. Thus far we have
gathered information about the community's values and interpreted those values into a set of guiding principles that
will form the foundation for the eventual master plana In addition, we have created three concept plan alternatives
that explore a broad range of ideas and approaches.
Our task at this point in the process is to facilitate community dialogue about the alternatives that will help us refine
these alternatives into a single draft master plan. As we prepare for the April 7 community workshop the Park &
Recreation Commission/ Open Space Committee and the Task Force can again play key roles in the planning
process. What we ask of you on Monday evening is to resist the urge to pick your favorite concept elements just yet
and instead wear your "community leader" hat to tell us: 1) whether or not we are exploring the right set of ideas
in the concepts; and 2) whether or not the concepts explore that set of ideas broadly enough.
Your input on Monday, along with input from the Task Force on Thursday, will let us know if we need to modify
the concept alternatives prior to the April 7 community workshop. In addition to your participation on Monday,
we hope all of you will participate in the April 7 workshop to wear your "citizen hat" and weigh in on the best ideas
contained in the concept alternatives.
There are six elements of concept exploration on which we would like Monday's meeting to focus. They are:
• future use of the Savanna
• future use of Gloster Park
• future use of the Tourist Cabins
• future use of Flicek Park
• local and regional trail corridors and trailhead facilities
• 123 North Third Street Suite 100 Minneapolis, MN 55401-1659
Ph (612) 338-0800 Fx (612) 338-6838 A,mm,.hkgi.com
Direct (612) 252-7122 Email bscheib@hkgi.com
March 21° Workshop #2 Memo
March 17, 2005
• Page 2
• integration of ecological systems
Alternatives for each of these plan elements have been explored with the three attached master plan concept
approaches titled the Garden Citv Conceit, the Village Concent, and the Downtown Maplewood Concet. We
will facilitate discussion and bring graphics and quantitative information that will help you understand and discuss
each concept's approach to the six elements. The following provides a general description of each concept
approach. These descriptions focus on the first five elements above and attempt to address the expressed policy of
no -net loss of open space. The integration of ecological systems will be discussed in a more general context at the
meeting on Monday. However, the Garden City concept and the Village Concept illustrate the greatest extent for
surface treatment of stormwater because of the lesser intensity of development. We will also provide a greater level
of detail in the explanation of the concepts at the meeting Monday.
Garden City Conceit:
The "Garden City" concept focuses on the Savanna and green connections to other key features of the
Gladstone Neighborhood. This concept is the least aggressive concept from a physical redevelopment
perspective. Key features of the Garden City Concept:
• a mixture of land uses with the greatest intensity along Frost and English particularly near the
intersection;
• a consistent parkway character along the entire stretch of Frost Avenue through the Gladstone
Neighborhood;
• overhead utilities would be buried along this stretch of Frost Avenue as well as along English
. Street (burial of utilities would be consistent across all concepts)
• retains the most of the Savanna as open space with the exceptions being the community garden
idea (illustrated in the central portion of the Savanna adjacent to Frost Avenue) and that portion of
Frost Avenue that dips into the Savanna (the idea of Frost Avenue dipping into the Savanna helps
emphasize the significance of the open space to the neighborhood);
• Flicek Park and Gloster Park remain the same use;
• the Tourist Cabin site is redeveloped to a residential use (some opportunity exists to replace open
space lost from the Savanna, due to the community garden and the diversion of Frost Avenue, at
the Tourist Cabin site);
• pedestrian circulation would be provided through the use of non -vehicular green streets
(extension of Frank Street to Frost Avenue) and portions of Fenton Avenue creating a connection
to the Tourist Cabin site;
• Also part of the pedestrian connection system would be striping of a path along Ripley Avenue
connecting Lake Phalen to Wakefield Park\Lake and sidewalk improvements along Frost and
English.
• create an emphasis on the intersection of the Munger and Vento Trails by orienting a commercial
use or retail kiosk close to the trails that would provide some services to trail users (a shared
parking arrangement could be made for trail head access, and a limited service trail head may also
be located adjacent to Flicek Park with on -street parking provided).
The Garden City concept has the greatest challenge in preserving the no -net loss in open space because it
does not convert many new areas to open space. The former Gladstone Elementary School site provides an
opportunity to recapture the open space lost to the community garden and diversion of Frost Avenue
• (roughly 4 acres). The Tourist Cabin site also presents a limited opportunity to recapture lost open space.
March 21 s Workshop #2 Memo
March 17, 2005
• Page 3
Village Concept:
The "Village" concept represents a slightly more dense development concept than the Garden City
Concept. Key features of the Village Concept:
• a mixture of land uses focused near the Frost and English intersection;
• a changing character of Frost Avenue as it approaches the intersection with English Street;
• conversion of the eastern portion of the Savanna to commercial and residential uses;
• reuse of Gloster Park for residential uses in the form of carriage homes;
• incorporation of green streets for pedestrian connections on the east and west edge of the
Savanna;
• conversion of Flicek Park from its current active park use to open space;
• redevelopment of the Tourist Cabin site to a residential use;
• redevelopment of the former Gladstone Elementary School site to a mix of commercial and single
family residential with a small piece of open space retained adjacent to the Munger Trail;
• the eastern portion of Flicek Park would be retained as a parking facility to serve as a trail head to
the Munger Trail;
• a looped trail system would be created through the use of pedestrian friendly streets designed to
integrate pedestrians and bicycle traffic with slow moving vehicles, as illustrated along the west
end of Ripley Avenue and south end of Frank Street; green streets as illustrated along the eastern
and western edge of the Savanna; and the existing regional trail corridors;
• • sidewalk improvements along new roads and Frost and English (as would be the case in all
concepts).
The Village concept takes approximately 5 acres from the Savanna. Opportunity to recapture open space
lies with the conversion of Flicek Park and the elementary school site as well as limited opportunities with
the Tourist Cabin site.
Downtown Maplewood Concent:
The "Downtown Maplewood" concept is built around the notion that this area becomes a more celebrated
destination for the neighborhood and the Maplewood Community. The Downtown Concept represents
the highest level of intensity of all three concepts with the highest intensity along Frost and English. Key
features:
• a looped trail system would be created through the use of pedestrian friendly streets designed to
integrate pedestrians and bicycle traffic with slow moving vehicles, as illustrated along the west
end of Ripley Avenue and Edgard Street; green streets as illustrated along the southern portion of
the Savanna; and the existing regional trail corridors;
• Gloster Park would be retained as a neighborhood park facility in this concept;
• a community garden would be the planned reuse of the site north of Gloster Park;
• storm water would be handled in smaller systems throughout the site and in an expanded system
on part of the Tourist Cabin site;
• the middle portions of Flicek Park would be converted to residential development while each end
would be restored to an open space pattern;
is
March 219 Workshop #2 Memo
March 17, 2005
• page 4
• a portion of the Tourist Cabin site would be redeveloped while the remaining portions closest to
Frost and East Shore Drive would be restored to open space and wetland or storm water
management;
• a portion of the Savanna would be developed to commercial and residential uses in this concept.
In keeping consistent with the "no net loss" of open space policy, additional open space would be picked up
near the tourist cabin site, conversion of a portion of Flicek Park and conversion of a portion of the former
Gladstone Elementary school site. The Downtown Maplewood concept takes the most open space out of
the Savanna, approximately 7.75 acres. However, with the above mentioned opportunities, the no -net loss
policy could easily be met.
Please understand also that this stage of the process explores land use and general approaches to land areas within
Gladstone. When the three concept alternatives have been refined into a single draft master plan, we will explore
programming and design alternatives for parks and open spaces and once again ask for your review and evaluation.
See you at the meeting on Monday and feel free to contact Brad if you have any questions at 612.252.7122 or via
email at bscheib&hl d .com.
•
•
•
n
U
•
INCIPLES
Design the future of Gladstone as a
"village": villages are marked by their
organic building patterns, mixed &
integrated land uses, intimate human -
scale spaces and the presence of people.
Transform regional trails into celebrated
village corridors: Gladstone is blessed with
two relatively new regional trail corridors -
over time, the village pattern can adjust to
celebrate them rather than relegate them.
Make Gladstone a compelling "quality of
life" choice: Gladstone should be a live/
work/play environment that accentuates
its inherent qualities with great design and
lasting maintenance.
Weave natural systems and ecological
function into the built and recreational
fabric: all village development should
have the infrastructure to support its core
functions as well as facilitate habitat
value, rainwater infiltration, and resource
cycling.
17 MARCH 2005
•
sr
PAVu Allow Gladstone's future to whisper the
ore-
story of its past: Gladstone has a rich story
to tell - designs for the future can function
as an interpreter of the past.
Make "walkability" THE standard: design
and maintenance for pedestrian
connectivity, comfort and safety should be
a top priority for all public and private
spaces.
Think of Gladstone as a neighborhood
for all stages of life: Gladstone should
accommodate all stages in life with
lifecycle housing options, business and
employment opportunities, transit
accommodations and recreational
alternatives.
Make the Gladstone master plan a
model for others to follow: Gladstone is
the first redevelopment project of this
magnitude for Maplewood and should
provide a success story for future projects.
Make multi -modal links between
Gladstone and areas beyond: Gladstone
should embrace the transportation choices
it has.
NC PRINCIPLES
17 MARCH 2005
C
C7
�'_NA
•
=c
�6�
•
U
9
• Ill 1111 [�] NG1► I �1�1 t11 ■ Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
To: Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Task Force
From: Brad Scheib
Subject: Task Force Meeting #2
Date: February 10, 2005
The 2"d meeting of the Gladstone Neighborhood Task Force will be held at Maplewood Fire Station No. 2
(1955 Clarence Street) from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. on Thursday February 17''. The agenda for this meeting is
attached.
We will primarily focus on three items at this meeting.
What we have learned
First we will provide you with summaries of the various events we have conducted over the last month
including the first Task Force meeting, the redevelopment tour, the Public Workshop and the Park and
Open Space Committee workshop. Some of that background material is attached as part of this packet. In
our evaluation we have also considered public comments from previous years meetings: however, we have
not included a summary of those comments.
• Review of existing conditions
Secondly, we will have our engineering team members at the meeting to present some information about
existing conditions from a storm water, traffic and utility perspective. Th"r emphasis in the presentation will
be to share some information about how the site currently functions ant to provide us with some general
thoughts on engineering constraints. To put it in simple terms, the engineers will talk about constraints such
as when we manage storm water runoff, it rarely flows up hill so there are certain places in the project area
that are better suited for storm water management practices than others. We will hear about existing traffic
patterns, and traffic capacity, in other words how muchtraffic is the current system capable of handling and
how much is there today. We will also hear about utilities and the burial of overhead utility lines. We have
also conducted some preliminary cultural/historical resource investigations and some environmental site
assessment work which we will briefly share our findings. This information will be presented to you for your
information at the meeting.
Vision and Guiding Principles
The third and arguably the most important part of the meeting will be to review and discuss a vision
statement and set of guiding principles for the project area. The vision is an overarching statement about the
Gladstone Neighborhood in the future. It should be a statement about what this place aspires to be and
should capture the essence of the future Gladstone Neighborhood. Guiding Principles represent the basic
goals of the plan and reflect the expressed needs and desires of the people of the Gladstone Neighborhood
and Maplewood Community. The guiding principles will be used to guide the creation of the plan and
together with the master plan should be used as a tool for guiding improvements and future development,
evaluating proposals and furthering the Gladstone vision.
123 North Third Strcct, Suitc 100, Minneapolis, MN 5 5401-16 59
Ph (612) 338-0800 Fx (612) 338-6838 www.hkgi.com
Direct (612) 252-7133 Email rusty@hkgi.com
February 17 Task Force Meeting
• February 10, 2005
Page 2
Our initial explorations with the community have enabled us to craft statements of value that will provide a
basis for the Vision and Guiding Principles. These statements have emerged as common statements that have
been reiterated throughout the process thus far. They are as follows:
• quality of life
• innovation
• quiet neighborhood
• neighborhood esthetics
• ecological integrity and function
• natural open space
• walkability
• recreation
• neighborhood commerce
• safety
• knowing neighbors
• pedestrian/bike/ecological connection beyond neighborhood
• transit links?
• celebration of history
These DRAFT value statements are meant to offer some "food for thought" prior to our task force meeting on
Thursday. We will present a draft vision statement and core set of guiding principles at Thursday's meeting.
Please spend some time prior to the meeting reflecting on the public input to date and on the value
• statements. What might these statements mean for the future of the Gladstone Neighborhood. At the
meeting we will engage the task force in a discussion to help refine the draft vision and elaborate further on
the guiding principles.
The last item on the agenda is to provide an overview of upcoming meetings. Most notably, we have revised
our approach to the Charrette (scheduled for the day of February 23'") that was originally designed for the
consultant team at our offices. Given the high level of interest in this project, we need to make efforts to
ensure our process is transparent and that we give ample opportunity to the community to be involved along
the way. We feel through the public workshops, open communications and through a 20 person task force
involvement we are accomplishing this. The Charrette has an express purpose of using technical expertise in
a concentrated and un -interrupted amount of time to understand the parameters of a project and explore
alternative design solutions to the challenges that redevelopment in Gladstone presents. The results of the
Charrette will not be the final solution, but will be the subject of further evaluation, review and refinement
by the consultants, the Task Force, and the community. These alternatives will also be the subject of more
detailed evaluation for utility and infrastructure impacts and overall environmental impacts. At the meeting
we will discuss the process for the Charrette and provide opportunity for the Task Force members to
participate. We will also provide an overview of future task force meetings and workshops.
We have a lot to cover at this meeting within our 2 hour time frame and we plan to stick to the 2 hours.
Please review the packet materials and come to the meeting with your thoughts. If you have any questions
please feel free to contact me at 612.252.7122. I look forward to seeing you all on the 17"'1
0
r�
0
Agenda
Task Force. Meeting #2
Thursday 17 February 2005
Location: Maplewood Fire Station #2
Time: 6:30 to 8:30 p.m.
1 Review of Meeting Agenda
2. What we have learned from recent events
a. Task Force Meeting #1
b. Park and Rec Workshop
c. Redevelopment Project Tour
d. Public Workshop #1
3. Review of Existing Conditions
a. Historical/Cultural Resources
b. Storm Water
c. Traffic
d. Other Municipal Utilities
4. Discussion of Vision and Guiding Principles
a. Presentation of Drafts
b. Task Force Discussion
5. Update on upcoming meetings
a. Consultant Team Charrette
b. Task Force Meeting #3 (March 24')
c. Public Workshop #2 (April 7)
6. Wrap up questions and comments
171=3r13ruaq, 2005
NOTES FOR TASK FORCE MEETING #1
At the first Gladstone Task Force meeting held January 19t6, we reviewed a significant amount of
information related to the process for redevelopment planning. Towards the latter part of the
meeting, we conducted an exercise focused on identifying the "Assets and Issues" of importance to
each task force member. Each member was provided a worksheet to write down a number of assets
and issues. These are tabulated below.
Assets and Issues
ASSETS
1. Owner/operators of businesses who are on their premises daily
2. Residential property housing stock
3. Convenience to other areas, e.g. Roseville, White Bear, East Side
4. Potential park area, lakes, etc.
5. Developed recreation, golf courses, trails
6. Ability to put together larger parcels for development
ISSUES
1. Maintain spirit of individuals, businesses and residents who are already here
2. Balance trade-offs between individuals and new developers
3. Maintain beneficial traffic flow for convenience in and out
4. Effect on other areas of Maplewood in regard to City resources
5. Private v. Public investment
• ASSETS
1. Gladstone Savanna
2. English/Frost traffic circle
3. Recreational opportunities w/trails/savanna/parks/killer golf
4. Uniform housing
5. Vibrant small businesses
ISSUES
1. How best to mix residential with commercial and still focus on the savanna and
recreational opportunities
2. Save both existing housing and businesses and create a place where new people will want
to live and develop a business
ASSETS
1. A strong history as a neighborhood — downtown Maplewood in 60's and 70's; great
bakery/Richards
2. Tremendous public open space and parks
3. Regional trail corridors; connections to Phalen/Wakefield
4. Time is ripe for development
5. Bowling alley —
ISSUES
1. Possible sale and/or future disposition of open space
40 2. Buildings are deteriorating
January 20th, 2005
Page 1
ASSETS
1. History
2. Environmental resources
3. Close knit feel. Strong sense of community
4. Many recreational opportunities
5. Affordability! !
ISSUES
1. Balance of park and open space, developing a good evaluation tool for these lands for
swapping. Some parcels never looked at by original open space
2. Blending of communities from retail to multiple to single family
3. Address tired commercial buildings, trailer parks
4. Best use of land
5. Affordability, grounded, community feel
ASSETS
1. Location — convenient to city/work areas
2. Location —freeways and highways
• 3. Location — concentrated populated area
4. Location — near parks
•
ISSUES
1 Development that fits the neighborhood
2. Traffic flow
3. Complimentary uses; balance of economics, density
4. Architecture fits character of neighborhood
5. Neighborhood concerns: mixed use, light pollution, transition certain types of business,
parks and density around park
6. Open mind
ASSETS
1. Savanna
2. Trails, Vento and Gateway
3. Parks, Gloster, Wakefield
4. Lakes, Wakefield, Phalen
5. Proximity to metro area, Mpls/St. Paul
ISSUES
1. Density — something that blends in the neighborhood, transitional housing densities
2. Type of density — concerned about apartment buildings
3. Design/Character — continuity, high standards
4. Funding sources — not too dependent on tax dollars, TIF
January 206, 2005 Page 2
•11A a :q sv 3.:;
5. Feasibility of design — what is planned will work, do not want to be an experiment
ASSETS
1. Lake Phalen Gateway
2. Biking/Hiking Trails
3. Location in relationship to highway and freeways and other shopping centers
4. Convenience of local businesses
5. Feeling of a small safe community
ISSUES
L No real paths to walk to existing businesses
2. Increase in traffic
3. Visible decrease of Frost Ave.
4. Lack of investment back into the neighborhood
5. Lack of development in the neighborhood
ASSETS
I.
Access: proximity to Phalen Lake and Hwy. 61 on one side, White Bear Ave. on the
other, Frost and English
2.
deep sense of community roots from longtime residents
3.
small owner -operated businesses, no big box retailers
4.
larger lots — more open space
. 5..
new fire station
ISSUES
1.
Traffic management
2.
density — high density residential=no place to park, no storage outdoors, no elbow room,
no yard space/gardens, no privacy
3.
Resistance to change — stubborn east -siders
4.
Restore historical flavor
5.
Create a functional neighborhood
ASSETS
1. It is in Maplewood
2. I believe the consensus is that the area is ready for redevelopment
3. The open space
4. It is close to major roadways but not on them
ISSUES
1. The balance between residential/commercial
2. Development of Gladstone that does not create a traffic nightmare
3. Open space/park usage
4. Respecting the neighborhood around the area of actual redevelopment
5. Providing a broad range of housing for different income groups
January 20'h, 2005 Page 3
• ASSETS
1. Activism amongst community
2. Lakes/parks/trails/trees
3. Convenience (to Cities; to malls, etc.)
4. Doesn't feel suburban (unique homes, trees, etc.)
5. Safe — little to no crime
ISSUES
1. Over development
2. Beautification
3. Public transportation access
4. Commercial vs. residential = balance; not losing current businesses
5. Making better use of the Savanna
ASSETS
1. Local, small town community
2. Proximity to freeways, large shopping areas, etc.
3. Lakes
4. Recreational opportunities
ISSUES
1. Addressing business concerns, ones that do not fit new plans
2. Traffic flow if our business stays
•
ASSETS
L
Green space
2.
Trail sy stem
3.
Parks
4.
Golf
5.
Highway access
•
ISSUES
1. Land use/Zoning
2. Density
3. Future Dev (?)
4. Tax Base
5. Keeping a neighborhood that will stay nice over the long haul
ASSETS
1. Open space
2. Parks x2
3. Long term commitment on part of property owners
4. Residential concern over past years
ISSUES
1. Listen to residents
January 206, 2005 Page 4
•tlx: 9 'Si � �: 5 i.? iA-
2. Let's be reasonable to scope, to plans and goals
3. If these plans are for the long haul; safeguards in place to see that the plan is followed
4. Possibly if over building and crowding
ASSETS
1. Family oriented, long time residents
2. The parks and trails including Phalen Lake — Keller Lake, Savanna
3. Location — St. Paul, freeways
4. Historical Maplewood (Gladstone), potential for hometown center
5. Front porch community
ISSUES
1. Density — rental vs. ownership
2. Establish hometown center identity
3. Keeping up neighborhood and small town feel
4. Increased traffic and crime
5. Build main look to the past: garages in back, walkable, tree -line sidewalks, lighted, front
porch community
6. Keep Gloster Park
7. Keep Frost 2(4) lanes
ASSETS
1. Community — everybody is a neighbor
. 2. Choice of family activities — parks, lakes, golf courses
3. Strong community programs for children — Maplewood Archery Club, North St. Paul
Athletic Club
4. Heart of Ramsey County Fair Ground
5. Small town attitude
•
ISSUES
1. Aging of infrastructure, urban blight
2. Need to develop Savanna
3. Improve roadways
ASSETS
I. Businesses the residents want to keep and their concern
2. Concern of residents about the area's living conditions, types of housing
3. Very livable community
4. Residents concern on keeping in context of Gladstone
5. Work at keeping nature preserve and parks
ISSUES
1. Density kept at minimum
2. Keeping businesses that want to stay
3. To keep the concerns of the homeowners
January 20`b, 2005
Page 5
off- M1 " " "I, MT11 11", MINE MIN 51"M MMMMM "A Mr. OM
• ASSETS
1. Closeness to natural attributes - lakes, trails, savanna
2. Very good housing stock - large yards, well kept
3. Well established neighborhood, trees, quiet, etc.
4. Close to highways, transportation
5. Within reach of major shopping areas
ISSUES
1. Improve appearance of redevelopment area
2. Better use of land
3. Develop savanna to be user friendly
4. Bring in more retail - improve sales for existing businesses
5. Respect neighborhood, restrict development around Frost and English
ASSETS
1. Open space and lakes and trail junctions as amenities to new housing/commercial
development
2. Good road and transportation access
3. Good general location within metro area
4. Existing conditions and business are rundown, depressed and ready for revitalization
5. Lack of currently available housing will help in the take-down of 1600-2000 new units
ISSUES
1. Economic viability
• 2. Timing
3. Adequate housing density
4. Create a destination area for business and residences
5. City participation w/relocation, infrastructure, parking ramp
•
ASSETS
1. Potential of savanna to attract more good people
2. Potential for whole new cohesive community
3. Opportunities for new business
4. Opportunity to live, work and play/socialize in one place
5. Good people in City Hall, progressive
6. Great recreation potential
ISSUES
1. Fates of businesses
2. Public attitudes barring progress
3. Citizens impacting live of businesses
4. Possible under development
5. Over -consideration to impeding citizens coalition
6. Can replace current hodge-podge; getting old
7. Gladstone label...mature? or deteriorating?
January 21' , 2005 Page 6
1�r?4 5M
Once all members had the opportunity to identify their individual assets and issues, each member
provided two top assets and issues for discussion that were summarized on a flip chart as follows:
Group Assets and Issues
ASSETS
1. Recreational opportunities - golf, open space, park, Lake Phalen
2. Gladstone Savanna
3. Owner -operated business
4. Well-maintained homes
S. Conjunction of two major trails
6. Location, location, location
7. Access to regional roadways
8. Proximity to big shopping, big city
9. Community involvement: small town pride in metro area; committed community
10. Character that exists today: openness; ease of access, quiet life styles
11. Long time residential, family orientation
12. Historical context (identity ... home town feel)
13. Lakes
14. Doesn't feel suburban - older homes, trees, character
15. Agreement on/recognition of change
16. New fire station (public facility, commitment to community)
17. Safe
18. Private recreation/entertainment - bowling alley
19. Roundabout
. ISSUES
I. Concern of overbuilding
2. No Radio Drive experience
3. Walkability (not a walking community)
4. Traffic volumes/speed
5. Density - what type, tenure, crime, traffic
6. Redevelop while respecting existing adjacent neighbors
7. Make better use of Savanna
8. Certainty of what happens to existing business - financial
9. Accessibility to business post -redevelopment
10. Serving existing community while also serving greater community
11. Evaluation/worth of park/open space ... what is best use of land?
12. Beyond project area
13. Minimize neighborhood impacts of development
14. Keep business who are impacted "whole" economically
15. Home ownership vs. rental
16. Loss of parkland
17. Define "What Gladstone ought to be"
18. Make redevelopment plan happen without impacting assets
19. Economic viability of plan
20. Solve problems
21. Public vs. private investment
This concludes the notes for the Gladstone Task Force Meeting #1.
January 20'. 2005
Page 7
• NOTES FROM PARK COMMISSION / OPEN SPACE COMMITTEE
WORKSHOP #1
Workshop #1, held January 24, 2005 was intended as an overview of the planning effort,
a sharing of information about the Gladstone Neighborhood and a forum to identify core
values about ecology and recreation in the neighborhood. A series of questions were
considered by the participants. Their responses are documented below.
Question 1: What do you want the consulting team to know/consider as we move through
the planning process?
• Savanna is one of seven open spaces/parks in Maplewood that is over 20 acres in
size
• Prairie in Savanna is managed with controlled burns — will redevelopment limit
this management practice? (concerned about that)
• The open space acquisition referendum held in 1997? directed that acquisitions be
distributed across the City (in 13 neighborhoods)
• Property evaluation and acquisition selection process took one year
• Savanna is a unique among open spaces in Maplewood because it is quiet— no
freeway noise
• Savanna is unique as an urban natural area
• Acquisition of savanna was controversial — Park Commission opposed it because
of cost (cost was higher because a residential plat had recently been approved for
• the property)
• There is a plan that we should be familiar with - The Phalen Chain of Lakes Plan
• Savanna has a hawk nesting site — an indication of diverse habitat
• Flicek Park has parking problem
• Vento trail is earmarked for future LRT
• What level of "destination district" should Gladstone be???
.7
Question #2: What are your recreational and ecological values?
• Neighborhood parks for all residents within walking distance
• Spaces in the community that have ecological integrity (enough size, quality
habitat) — Savanna is premier
• Blurring of the lines between private and public open spaces
• Maplewood has a history of being innovative in regard to ecology and
infrastructure — the Gladstone plan should follow this lead
• Ecological systems should drive development pattern rather than development
neglecting them
• Ecological principles should be the basis for redevelopment _
• Open space and development should be seamless
• Honoring the open space referendum is a sacred trust with community
• Neighborhood evolution should focus on preserving and enhancing quality of life
January 20'x, 2005 Page 1
--------------------
VI
• • Understand ecology of Gladstone and use that understanding to drive the
development plan "eco village"
• Think of typical maintenance needs as "eco village" opportunity
• Some level of public access to open spaces
• Some recreational development of Savanna without compromising ecological
quality
• Savanna as trade-bait for innovative ecological enhancements throughout the
redevelopment???
Question #3: What recreational experiences should Gladstone offer?
• Use savanna as a laboratory/model for ecological evolution
• Rail history interpretation
• Corridor links to Gladstone from elsewhere
• Remember personal safety in design (lighting, secluded areas, etc.)
• Service facilities (restrooms, concessions)
• Programmed and field recreation opportunities as they exist today
Question #4: Should concept "push the envelope" or be cautious in regard to...
Innovative practices?
PUSH THE ENVELOPE
0 Controversial issues?
PUSH THE ENVELOPE
•
This concludes the notes for the Gladstone Park Commission/ Open Space Committee Workshop
#1.
M.*MaplewoodlMeetingslPark and Recreation Commission Meetingsl Workshop 1 results.doc
January 2(Y', 2005 Page 2
•ESS i :y FV[.:� L.1 i Ti
The Redevelopment Project Tour was conducted on Saturday January 29t'. A bus of approximately
30 to 35 people including task force members, some non -task force members, City Staff and
consultants toured the Twin Cities metro and looked at several redevelopment projects including:
Burnsville Heart of the City (walking tour narrated by Burnsville Mayor and City Engineer)
Richfield Urban Village (drive by)
Excelsior and Grand in St. Louis Park (walldng tour)
Regency and Market Place lofts in Hopkins (drive by)
Wesley Commons and Downtown Golden Valley (drive by)
Along the way we also drove by projects at S& and France Avenue in Edina, Highway 55 west of
downtown Minneapolis (Heritage Park), a mixed use building at Snelling and Larpenteur in St. Paul
and a project at Rice Street and Little Canada Road in Little Canada. The tour ended by driving
through the Gladstone Neighborhood en route back to City Hall.
Each tour member received a form to record comments about the different projects as they might
or might not relate to Gladstone. The following is a brief summary of those impressions:
Burnsville Heart of the City
What we liked:
Public park / plaza
• Streetscape
Preservation of existing business
Storm water treatment in park
Mix of retail and housing (rental and ownership)
Use of art and historic interpretation
•
Overall, some components of Heart of the City could be envisioned in Gladstone, particularly the
public plaza or central park. The architectural style of buildings and lack of useable balconies on the
condo project were often sited as negatives.
Richfield Urban Village (66d' and Lyndale)
What we liked:
Transition from higher density to lower density residential.
Downward reflecting street lighting.
Separate entrances to higher density housing units.
Parking was hidden.
Overall, however, it was generally felt that this project was more dense that preferred in the
Gladstone neighborhood.
- ------------ --- ------- 111101 --------------- ------------
St. Louis Park/Excelsior and Grand
What we liked:
Good mix of uses (retail/housing/open space)
Parking hidden/well integrated
Amphitheatre/public spaces
Wide sidewalks
Center island/entry features
Use of a special service district to fund improvements
Public restrooms for activities
Good overall look
Good streetscape and amenities (art and plazas)
Walkability '
Housing design
Street parking, underground parking and ramp parking available
Generally, this project was well accepted and many of its components could be envisioned in the
Gladstone Neighborhood.
Hopkins
. What we liked:
The Market Place Lofts project
Not too much else.
•
Overall, the Market Place Lofts project on Mainstreet was very well liked. Particularly the
architectural style, the balconies which were noted as more useable than those in Burnsville, St.
Louis Park and other places, and the underground parking.
Other Comments
Several people also commented on the Golden Valley project, specifically that they liked the feel of
the townhouses and that they liked feel and character of the "tired looking" strip mall.
Copies of the complete forms will be retained in the project files should anyone be interested in
reviewing all of the comments.
January3l", 2005
Page 2
•
•
0
Public Workshop #1 Results
The Public Workshop on January 31' was attended by about 70 area residents and business owners. Over 65
percent of those attending live in the Gladstone Neighborhood, while over half have lived in the
neighborhood for over 20 years. In addition, two attendees who do not live in the neighborhood did note that
they own one of the neighborhood's businesses. All but one of the participants own their own home. Almost
one third of the attendees are not employed, while 24 percent work in Maplewood, 15 percent work in St.
Paul, and 30 percent work in another city. Participants were also asked how often they used a business in the
neighborhood, visited the Savanna, and used mass transit. The results are summarized below.
How often do you use a business in the neighborhood?
• 36% More than once a week
• 40% Once/week
• 18% Once/month
• 6% Never
How often do you visit the Savanna?
0 11%
Once/week
• 12%
Once/month
0 29%
Once/year
• 48%
Never
How often do you use mass transit?
• 3% Daily
• 1% Once/week
• 8% Once/month
• 88% Never
During the first part of the public workshop each individual was asked to evaluate the importance of thirteen
proposed redevelopment objectives. The chart on the following page summarizes the results of the individual
evaluation.
Attendees then worked in 15 small groups to identify any objectives which were missing. With this expanded
list, each group was asked to identify their top five objectives. The following summarizes how many
objectives were selected by three or more groups as part of their top five list. The number of groups which
selected that objective is shown afterwards in a parenthesis.
• Maintain and Enhance the quality of life for existing residents (14)
• Make the overall appearance of the area more attractive (9)
• Enhance the physical appearance of commercial buildings (8)
:L0 FEBRUARY 2005
•
0
•
• Provide a place for existing businesses that want to remain in the neighborhood (7)
• Improve the ability to walk/bike to businesses in the Neighborhood (4)
• Attract businesses to provide new goods and services (3)
• Increase housing options for seniors (3)
• Traffic - concerns about increases and flow (3)
Additional objectives which were identified by the small groups included:
• Ensuring adequate parking for the neighborhood
• Connecting the neighborhood to Lake Phalen
• Making Gladstone a destination and maintaining the spirit of the neighborhood
• Creating an attractive streetscape
• Cleaning up the City impound lot
• Retaining and upgrading Gloster Park
• Maintaining or improving public safety
• Balance between business and housing
The small groups were then given a map of the neighborhood on which they could identify any thoughts they
had about what could happen in the neighborhood. The reoccurring themes from all of the maps are
summarized on the Public Input Summary Map on the following page. The themes included desired
businesses, businesses to remain, housing, and desired amenities.
Participants in the workshop were invited to submit comments if they would like. Twelve individuals
submitted comments. Reoccurring themes included:
• Desire for senior housing
• Interest in recognizing history of area
• Concerns about rental housing
• Traffic issues
• Concerns about overbuilding the area
• Desire for passive use of the Savanna
• Belief that existing businesses in the area should not be forced out.
PUBLIC WORKSHOP #:L RESULTS
10 FEBRUARY 2005
•
s s m o •n' n m 3 er m S e w '� w w m n oc ^° w m u can
—
�
<�
n a 6 m r ^ n n m y L9
m o
r�
U
Design the future of Gladstone as a
"village": villages are marked by their
organic building patterns, mixed &
integrated land uses, and intimate human -
scale spaces.
Transform regional trails into celebrated
village corridors: Gladstone is blessed with
two relatively new regional trail corridors -
over time, the village pattern can adjust to
celebrate them rather than relegate them.
Make Gladstone a compelling "quality of
life" choice: Gladstone should be a live/
work/play environment that accentuates
its inherent qualities with great design and
impeccable maintenance.
Weave natural systems and ecological
function into the built and recreational
fabric: all village development should
incorporate infrastructure necessary to
support its core functions as well as
facilitate habitat value, rainwater
wwaE infiltration, and resource cycling.
It
1
•
•
0
ci
Allow Gladstone's future to whisper the
story of its past: Gladstone has a rich story
to tell - designs for the future can function
as an interpreter of the past.
Make "walkability" THE standard: design
and maintenance for pedestrian
connectivity, comfort and safety should be
a top priority for all public and private
spaces.
Think of Gladstone as a life-long place:
Gladstone should accommodate all stages
in life with lifecycle housing options,
business and employment opportunities,
transit accommodations and recreational
alternatives.
Others?
2005
L.i
Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment
Maplewood Community Center -- February 23, 2005
• DESIGN CHARRETTE AGENDA
8:00-8:15 Welcome and Introductions
8:15-9:30 Technical Overview
• Utilities
- Any underground utilities outside the r.o. w.
- transmission lines
- force mains, lift stations
- fiber optic
• Streets
- CIP
- Current design standards
• Stormwater
- Mains passing through Gladstone
- Outlet points serving Gladstone
• Recreation/open space
- Parks and trails in the study area
- Non -recreational open spaces in study area
- Deed restrictions
- Recreation /open space adjacent to study area
• Transit
- Metro Transit and local circulator bus routes
- Future plansfor trail corridors
• Current business mix
- types
- range of rents
- known redevelopment /sale plans
- civic uses
9:30-9:45 Break
9:45-10:00 Community values / draft guiding principles
10:00-10:30 Strategic Questions
• Who will be the Gladstone market?
- Retail /commercial /entertainment reach
- Recreational draw
- Housing targets
• What are realistic development intensity/density limits?
- Building heights
- Structured parking
- Housing tenure
• Are there any strategic new uses to design for?
10:30 -12:00 Approaches to Concept Alternatives (2-3)
12:00-12:45 Lunch
12:45-4:30 Studio Time
4:30-6:00 Task Force Pin-up
23 February 2005
IVIEIIJIC RAI'4 0UM
i TO: Parks and Recreation Commission
Richard Fursman, City Manager
FROM: Bruce K. Anderson, Director of Parks and Recreation
DATE_ March 16, 2005 for the March 21 Parks & Recreation Commission Meeting
SUBJECT: Monthly Update—February 2005
The following items are provided to the City Manager and Parks and Recreation Commission to
provide an overview of our day-to-day operations. The items are informational and not intended for
formal City Council or Parks and Recreation Commission action.
1. Legacy Village Sculpture Park
Staff has been working with Jason at Brauer & Associates to close out the hard surface project
phase of Legacy Village sculpture park. The project is 95% complete and we will be doing the final
punch list in April 2005. One issue that was discussed at great length was the benches that were
installed. Next time you are up at the site, look at the backs of the benches and you will see that
there are paint drips on them. This is the standard look for this bench and after lengthy discussion
with the supplier and sales representatives, the city has decided to accept them at a discounted
price. I'm not sure that this issue would even be noticed by most observers, but it gives you an
idea of the level of detail and attention that staff looks at projects before final acceptance is made.
Contact has been made with Rum River Farm for the landscaping materials and we hope to start
• in late April or early May with planting of the native gardens, as well as construction of the rose
gardens.
2. Sculpture Update
I attended a series of meetings with the Minneapolis government process during the past three
months regarding the Carl Nesjar sculpture acquisition. The process culminated following six
meetings with final approval by the Minneapolis City Council on Friday, March 11. We are
currently working with Greg Stokes to install the sculpture in the front pond that the pergola
overlooks. I have included a brochure from Mr. Stokes' firm that shows the sculpture in its
formation. Mr. Stokes was involved in the original installation and is extremely pleased to be a part
of its relocation. The cost to relocate the sculpture is estimated at $15,000 to $20,000.
I met with Ms. Sjodin, sculptor of the Ramsey County piece located in front of the St. Paul
Courthouse on Kellogg Boulevard. This piece will be installed at Ramsey County's expense in the
center of the park where the floating boardwalk begins. We are excited about acquisition of both
pieces.
Pauline Staples will be convening the sculpture committee in the next three weeks to begin
developing criteria for future acquisition of public sculptures.
.As a side note, we also recently purchased two of the bronze casting sculptures which will be
placed in local neighborhood parks in the spring.
3. No Smoking
Enclosed is a copy of the staff report that was presented to the city council, as well as newspaper
articles regarding the no smoking policy. Following commission approval of the no smoking policy,
the city council formally adopted this policy in February. We are currently working with students at
North High and the Ramsey County Coalition for Nonsmoking to install 100 park signs throughout
the city's park system. In addition, we will be identifying means to promote this new citywide policy
in the coming months. I did write about this program in the summer recreation brochure.
4. Final Park Plan Approval
Chairperson Peter Fischer did an excellent job of presenting the final park plans for Applewood
and Sterling Oaks Parks at the February 28 city council meeting. Both projects were approved and
we are currently in the final design and specifications phases. It is anticipated that the Sterling
Oaks project will be awarded in mid April with the Applewood project in late April to early May. It is
hoped that construction will commence in June with Sterling Oaks completed for the most part and
Applewood somewhere between 75-80/0 completed in 2005.
5. Budget Update
Attached is a copy of notes from the city councillstaff retreat held on Friday, February 25. The
council established a number of goals for 2005, with their second priority being to determine a
permanent funding park source. One of the challenges staff will have is to stay within the council
guidelines of a budget increase of no more than 5%. In addition to the staff notes, I have also
included some background information regarding city budget increases throughout Ramsey
County in 2005.
6. Bruentrup Farm
Staff has attended a series of Senate and House hearings regarding a $300,000 city request for
improvements to Bruentrup Farm. It is proposed that the grant for $150,000 would be matched by
$150,000 of money from the city. Although the matching source has not been determined yet, my
best guess is that the park development fund will be a serious contender for matching dollars. At
this point the funding request proposal has passed the Senate and House committees and
currently is being reviewed by the joint committees for final inclusion and possible approval.
7. Maplewood Community Center Improvements
Staff met with representatives from Terno Sunrooms on Thursday, March 10 to discuss the
possibility of adding fitness expansion with a sunroom concept on the east side of the community
center with doors off of the gymnasium. We are waiting for a proposal from Temo Sunrooms, who
are the world's largest sunroom manufacturers, to see if this is feasible.
kph/0205.mu.comm
Enclosures
2
2005 Council/Staff Retreat
•
What went right?
1. Good goals (accomplished)
2. Discuss informal way
a. Open communication
3. Strong message from Council, clarity of goals
4. Everyone there and working
5. Topic identification
Incomplete
1. Lack of focus
2. No budget target
3. Lack of depth. No closure
4. Council/Staff roles not defined
5. No tie together
6. Group think N diversity
7. Ranking
Do Better
1. Clarify goals (rank)
a. short-term
• b. long-term
2. Greater understanding of Council
3. Tie together Consensus Budget -Goals
(Target) %
4. Where's the meat
5. Review of 2004
6. Periodic status reports
7. Preagendas > meet more often
8. News
Top 5 on List
Park funding *
D -
EMS **
F _ B
Infrastructure ***
C+
800 Mhz *
D+ - B
Gladstone **
C+
a Neighborhood Revitalization **
C
Communication
I
MATP
B
Code E
B
• Identify items that have no budget impact
M
1
Goal Review
tivi5 Kerention/stability N Long-term $
Team B
New Goals
❑ PSAP-ASAP N Communication plan
❑ Process -program priorities
❑ Nature Center service level
❑ Examine all recreation programs and fees and eliminate offerings or raise fees
❑ Identify D & I service / impacts of infrastructure / future development
❑ Quality and funding on Parks
10 o Study city debt
2
•
•
•
A
B
C
D
IT
C
C
C-
C
Neighborhood
Revital
C-
C
C
C_
Environment
B
B
B
B+
Budget Growth
D
C
F
F
Park Funding
D
D
F
X
Survey
B
A
A
A
800 Mhz
C
D+
B
B -
Courthouse
A
A
A
A
Safety Program
B+
B
B+
A -
Business
Rentention
D-
D
D
D
Scattered Site
D-
D
B
C_
Metro Transit Hub
A-
A
A
A
4th of July
C
I
F
F
Deer
B
C
A
C+
Farm
C-
F
F
D -
Code E
B+
B+
C+
B
Communication
D
I
C-
I
Hillcrest
C
I
C-
C
EMS
F
B
C
B -
Gladstone
C
C-
B
C+
MTP
C
C-
B
C+
Infrastructure
C
C
B
C
tivi5 Kerention/stability N Long-term $
Team B
New Goals
❑ PSAP-ASAP N Communication plan
❑ Process -program priorities
❑ Nature Center service level
❑ Examine all recreation programs and fees and eliminate offerings or raise fees
❑ Identify D & I service / impacts of infrastructure / future development
❑ Quality and funding on Parks
10 o Study city debt
2
•
•
•
•
El
n
U
GOAL — Services should be run as efficiently as possible.
Taxes on Average Home
10%
7
5
COLA
3
0
EMS Model
1. Followed plan
2. Paid -per -call retention
EMS Process
Communication & more knowledgeable Problem Definition
Followed Plan has changed Long-term impact
Paid -per -call Retention
Good Information FF inside process
Report
(+) SPEED (-)
Involvement was great
Hiring Process
Change is difficult
Too Fast
Time -Resources too much
More discussion on options
FF — Access to Council
3
K
rpt
IMPORTANT!!! 2.2 GPA
Gladstone
Bus Tour Undershot
New Understanding Bad consultant
Communication Neighborhood underestimated
Taking time Lost control
What does red mean?
Now on track
Not shooting high enough Going on
Poster child for clarification Our own example
Parks as an economic dev. tool
MATP
Staff ahead of Council
❑ On Chuck's shoulders
o Many entities
More Council involvement
Work -in -progress
❑ Learning process
Infrastructure Plan
Assessment Hearings $ Earlier in process
❑ Doing enough?
❑ Losing the battle?
❑ 75 years rebuild/last 35
❑ -Good process —Great
Streets/underground/ park
Survey - Didn't share enough. "A"
IT — Work in progress „CIF
❑ Costs not translated
Neighborhood Revitalization ,ACri
❑ More definition
Environment "B„
❑ Now has good funding, look for program
❑ Environmental Committee
Park
❑ Funding
4
-•
*I
1. Budget
2. City message
Shovel coal or/and Pick cars
Establish goals
Positive Positive
Low taxes Great Service
•
5
800 Mhz
D+ - B
•
Business Rention
Group effort
Scattered Site
Good results, poor resources
4th of July
No decision
Farm
❑ Resources not voted for
❑ No strategy (Grant $'s — no plan)
Strategy session
Code
❑ Penalties/Actions
_
❑ Grey areas
❑ Envi-ronmental
Communication
Hillcrest
❑ Need update/relation with St. Paul
•
❑ Need direction
Role Council
❑ of
1. Budget
2. City message
Shovel coal or/and Pick cars
Establish goals
Positive Positive
Low taxes Great Service
•
5
Budciet Direction and Roles — Long range
People don't leave
More involved Experts
Clear direction Trust
Council direction Staff direction
Bottom 5
Farm
*** D_
4th of July
** F
Deer
** B
Business Retention
*** D
Scattered Site
C_
Hillcrest
** D+
Code E
B
Communications
D+
Develop Standard Communications Goal (Strategy)
NEWMEW 5
Communication
Neighborhood Revital.
EMS
Gladstone
Park Funding
Infrastructure
r�
B
B, W
K, J, M
K, J, M, W
B, K,J,M
B, K, J,M,W
Study down City Debt
PSAP
Process Priorities
Direct service impact
of dev. projects
B
M, W
K,J,W
11
-01
61
Cl
b
U
W
•
v
o
en
e0 N H
r00
N
r
O
O r
tD N�
M
M ti
O CO
d'
t0 h
d'
O
N tD
C�
O N
C1
N
�•
00 . O
O
M
N
LCA r
r O M
1�-
M 00
M W
O
C1 r
'r- N
Lo
Co
CO -0
r N
q'
N
Lo Cl
r r
O�
T-
S p Ji w?
" N
r
r
r
r r
N N r
N
r r
N r
r
r
o O
K� U w F
i'Cs
Cl)
Q1
r
CV
M r
r~
O CD
O M
to
d:
U)
H
ti C�
h
O
O
Ci CO
r r 06
Lo
t, 00
LO C7
N
O N
00
4
00 O
N
W ti
(Ai
h
0
0
01 0
0 0 0
01
0 0
o 0
0
0 0
0
0
0 0
0
IT
CD
I,
CO 00
r
m
h
t-- I-
M 1,- 00
N
Nr CO
1,- t--
to
O ct
M
N
CO N
N W
-
A O
'I cpLri
LO
C0
C6 lV
Ch c7 CV
4v'
v
N N
d'
T--' T
n1
M*
� M*
N N
M
N
CD N
N
N'
N
N
N
N N
N
N N N
N
N N
r r
N
N N
N
r
i
CA
0
0
0
0
0 0
-0o
0 0
0
0 0
0
o
�
0 0
�
0
o
0 a
0
-0-0
0
0
[� i
0 0
CA ti
co
CY1
'1t
co O
CD r
co
r- CA
CA
T aD
N
M
CA t�
O
C
CA r
r
O
d" O
cd
T
00
00 r
co T
in
O 'ter
M c?
L[] O
O
C?
moi• 00
LC)
v
A
bC '
�
C7
V i
o
0
0 0 0
0
0 0
0
0 0
0
0 0
0
0 0
0
O N
r
O
N
. CO
N Lq ►,-
N
00 O
� �
CO
00 N
CA
O
C0 CA
tq
t0
N
r
VM
t` T`
co
CO
r
CD L[)
(7 N
r
C'O
O r
r r
0 0
LA
r
to 0
r N
CO
r
M
O O
r r
r
N
N
r r
CO
r
N
r
r r r
ro 1
6
W
0 0
4
0
-0,0
0 -0,0
0 0
�00-
-o,-
0
0
0 0
-.,o
0 0
0
0
Q
I 7
o o
I` O
0
O
0
r
0
Lo CD
0 0 0
N LO i-
r
CD Cn
O O
N
to O
O
O
O N
-t
v co
0o
CO
U
06 CD
C;
c
O)
6 00
O CA O
Or
06 00
CO CD
CA
CA
CA CA
CA
CA o0
00
CIO
I
m q
r.:bcu
0
0-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
�
0
\
0
\
0
\
0
\
0
\
0
c
0
\
0
c
0lop,
\
0
\
0
o
0
0
e,
O_
_
OOOO_
_
O__ __
OO__
O_
_
OO_
oOO_
C)O
OO
U
tri
Lri
Lo
L6
Lri
LLi
L6
tri
L6
Lri
Lri
L6
Lri
L6
vi
L6
L6
L6
0
in
O CC
eq 'tj
O
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
O
0
O
O
O
O
O
�
a2 a
14Tc0
CA
co
I-
N _
M
ti _
OA _
.-
CO _
LA
N
(3 __
N
Lr __
N
N
y
.0
M -
(3
C7
N
LC)
CA
N
O
CC)
co'
CO
N
N
00
COC]
O
cl
N
co
to
N
CD
co
Liz
M
M
r
N
(0
0
CA
r
CO
CO
r
N
V
r
r
r
a H
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
m
O 61
cq
O
O
O
M
O
N
O
LCI
O
O
O
r
O
Lo
co
1-
O
LO
O
r- _
M
M _
I-
CCLI
r
co- -
N
� -
C7
L()
Ln
CD
00
CO
N
CSC ' 0
N
m
h
N
CO
Lo
'r
d
ti
M
cr
O
CO
�-
CO
�t
CO
r
to
r
O
r
I
VM
GF3
r
T
r
r
r
Ir-
"IT
r
r
r
r
T
a H
p
O
M
M
It
M
CM ";r
N M d
r
N
N
N N
N
r M
N N
N
O
Ln
N
r M
N N
r
N
r It
N N
V
N
V
N
v
N N
CD CD
N
CO
N
CD
N
CO
N N
CO CO
N N N
CO CD CO
N
CD
a0
N CD
CD CD
CD
CD CD
N
CD
CD CD
0
O CD
0
m
rACO
.
N
�p
c
5
Il
rn
�
F—
NN
CU
CI)
O
L
Y
ca
0
�,
C
?�
a)
Y=
O
6)
L-
cu
"
w
-beLo
w
-0
�.
C
cat7)
3
_0m
(CI
y ;
N
O
W
CO
tV,
C
O
CU
.
N
C
L>
C
CO
a.
2
C
C
+(1)
(1)
¢
L
Q
LL
N
I CD
I J
:t:!
I J
cuO�
2
Z
O
Z
O
Z
O
Q.'
Cf)
U)
fn
C2
fA
CO
>
i CL
O
O CL
U N -�
ccs
t—
oQ, c
C N Q C
a L
x '� +
H m N
C
CL
1
M 3
C
�4) C
Cff= = a
C M -@ Z
> .0 a
cD O E Z
ts' c E
c N U
u
0.. a �
C '•a
cc �N
U -
d
d
0 L
wo
'aLD
N
Q O
�a
C
LAn
O
a
c�
=`o
v a
d
d
H E
E In
I O
a_
._
D o
d J
to
CL
m
n
e
q
N
a�
N
Z,
y1
0 o a
I m
a
o
0
0
a
co
N
v m
cR r
m
0 o
a'
o
-.z
-.z
#k
UI
w
tL V
9
o
c
m
v of
o n7
.- o
v�
m
n o
.= v
I N
o
N
o
o
e
r'a
i.il
N
N
#k VI
rt+
VI
N
o
m
N
w m
vi v
.C.1
•L
C
N
CV
v
•L.
LiI
O N
N
N
IQ 01
•`
e a
v as
N
N
v o
I
d
"l
m m
Zr n
°i
m m
N
s.
co co
of
.
❑
so 'i
ai of
�..
N
m co
Q
d
W
N
r-
d
N
6.N
e 0 0
>
0
0
L
�I
IN
ui
❑
CI
ici
d
NI
t? G N
m
N
1 N
CD
c
m
N m
N
C
r
N
t
C
N
N
N
N N
N N
N
O
'N N
r
m m
m
G
m
m m
m m
C
m m.
m �c
•N
.N
0
C
N
V
l4
C
=
t
•E
s
N
m
N
m
in
s
N
m
C
rg
No
to
)
•�
N
Z
wI
m m m
m
m
m m
cn
O
C
N
J
O
L
d
O
CIf Y
E
a1 C
V
V
cL
pl
O
z
v=i
cCL
V
w
3
b
3o
19
a
m
�{
[l
i4T
rn
[1
a
m
�{
ft I
tu n
S
a
rn
L Y
Z !I
d
d
0 L
wo
'aLD
N
Q O
�a
C
LAn
O
a
c�
=`o
v a
d
d
H E
E In
I O
a_
._
D o
d J
to
CL
m
n
Z,
I F-
I m
at
o
0
0
a
co
N
v m
cR r
m
0 o
a'
o
-.z
-.z
#k
UI
w
tL V
9
o
c
m
v of
o n7
.- o
v�
m
n o
.= v
I N
o
N
o
o
e
r'a
1
r
v
#k VI
rt+
o
a!p
CV
o
m
N
w m
vi v
...
•L
L
.f•r
N
rnl
e a
0
fY
m qq
r
I
d
"l
m m
Zr n
°i
m m
m m
s.
co co
of
.
r
so 'i
ai of
ri co
m co
Q
d
m
C
r-
>
O
-
0 O
0
N o
.N
c
m
N m
N
C
110
N
t
NN
N
N
N
N N
N N
N
N N
'N N
m m
m
m
m
m m
m m
m
m m.
m �c
o
0
C
V
l4
to
=
t
v
in
yy-�f
No
m
)
Z
z
m
Q a
cn
C
N
J
C
L
d
O
CIf Y
N=
a1 C
cL
pl
z
v=i
cCL
d
d
0 L
wo
'aLD
N
Q O
�a
C
LAn
O
a
c�
=`o
v a
d
d
H E
E In
I O
a_
._
D o
d J
to
CL
m
n
0
lei
0
•
Z,
o
oo
at
o
0
0
a
In
N
v m
cR r
m
Q
N
o
o
e
r'a
1
r
v
m
#k VI
rt+
o
a!p
CV
o
m
N
w m
vi v
...
L
C
CD
co co
d
m
C
>
O
-
0
N o
0
y
m
N m
N
C
110
00
100
fNCi fNO
Ul
�
Of
o
C
V
l4
to
=
t
v
in
yy-�f
No
Z
z
Q a
cn
0
lei
0
•