The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2005-04-18 Parks Packetj Together We Can April 13, 2005 Dear harks and Recreation Commissioners and Open Space Task Force Members: Enclosed is your, background packet of information for the regularly scheduled'meeting on April 18, 2005. Our meeting again wilt focus entirely on the Gladstone redevelopment process. First off,`I would like to commend each of you who attended the public forum meeting on Thursday, April 7. It was an extremely critical meeting as you are aware and we will be hearing the results from those in attendance for the first time on Monday, April 18. I cannot help but editorialize having sat through, a series of the Gladstone, meetings and spoken with hundreds of neighbors. My comment is that we have failed miserably in being able to turn people's passion and priorities for parks and open space into real political and budgetary impacts. The overriding factor throughout the Gladstone redevelopment process in my opinion -has been the preservation of the open space, expansion of the trail system, redevelopment of Gloster and Flicek Parks, and general overall importance of green space to the quality of life within the neighborhood. Unfortunately as I stated, those strong opinions given in small group settings are not reflected at either the polls or in the priority of public services. My comments are not meant to be whining, but rather of pure wonderment as to how we make that transition from backyard to the ballot box. End of diatribe. This will be our third and final workshop on the Gladstone redevelopment process as a separate entity and we will now begin to focus on development and/or restoration of the sites based on the preferred concept plan adopted by the city council: Should you have any questions regarding the enclosed materials, please contact me directly at (651) 49-2102: ,Sin er-.e ', ruse n rso Director of arks a ecreation bruceXanderson@ci.m lewood.mn.us kph1418.ltr05.comm Enclosures PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT 651-249-2101 FAX: 651-249-2129 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST MAPL.EWOOD, MN 55109 0 Park and Recreation Commission Open Space Committee Workshop #3 Agenda Location: City Hall Time: 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. Monday April 18, 2005 Meeting purpose: Kick-off the preparation of park and neighborhood preserve design alternatives. Agenda: 1. Introductions 2. Review park & open space -related results of public workshop. 0 3. Outline the level of latitude inland exchanges between "park" and "neighborhood preserves". 4. Identify program elements to be explored in park & neighborhood preserve design alternatives. M.- MaplewoodlMeetingslParkandRecreation Commission MeetingslWorkshop 3 04 18 05Agenda.doc March 21, 2005 Page I Parks & Recreation Commission Minutes of March 17, 2005 MEMORANDUMHoisington KGrouegler ! Inc. [MIN[MIN©e i 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 plan. 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 554-01-1659 Ph (612) 338-0800 Fx (612) 338-6838 www.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 City Conceit, the Village Concept, and the Downtown Maplewood Concent. 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 ConcT: 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" Workshop #2 Memo March 17, 2005 Page 3 • Village Conc_Q 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 Concept: 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 Edward 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; March 21' Workshop #2 Memo March 17, 2005 Page 4 • • a portion of the Tourist Cabin site would be redeveloped while the remainingportions 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(a,hkgi.com. 0 0 MAPLEWOOD GLADSTONE NEIGHBORHOOD AUAR, MAPLEWOOD • HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 17, 2005 Attendees: Lois Behm, HPC Edna Ledo, HPC Lu Aurelius, HPC George Rossbach, HPC Robert Creager, HPC Virginia Gaynor, City Anne Ketz, 106 Group Handouts: Stepping Stones January 2005 Tables of SHPO and HPC historic properties Map showing location of each property Discussion Items: Accuracy of information presented — additional properties or places of concern Preservation priorities versus interpretive opportunities • Comments: Response to specific questions about any specific buildings that should be preserved include 1) Sundgaard House at 1865 Clarence, and 2) Recktenwald House at 1889 Clarence Neighborhood character was identified as an important element of this community to hold onto. Not just a concern about compatible, sensitive design etc, but also consider negative impact of high-density development that would destroy the neighborhood feel. Mike's Gas (Keller/Pfeiffer/Benson Store) is the oldest commercial building in Gladstone — altered a lot Two additional houses on Frisbie Ave. were noted that are no currently on any inventories. They are probably both railroad works houses. 1254 Frisbie has been extensively altered. 1280 Frisbie has more historic integrity. Both date to 1890. Fire Hall has a lot of local history. 1942 was the first volunteer fire department start in Gladstone. 1944 bought the first fire truck. Architecture of building is not remarkable — they kept adding wings are needs required. Anecdotal information I that there is a painting on the wall in the fire house that Peter Boulay (local historian) is aware of. It includes the names of Gladstone area men who served in WW II. It may be stuccoed over. This should be checked prior to demolition of this building. March 24`x, 2005 Page 1 Markers / commemorative plaques are encouraged if historic buildings are lost, or are • hidden as archaeological sites. Certainly should be markers at the car barns and the plow works. Discussed other fun and creative ways of interpreting historic sties and places other than being just commemorative Buildings to not have to be old to be important or convey and important story/message. Interpretive theme for savanna is the cycle of land use from savanna to railroads/warehouses back to savannah. Story of man's interaction with the land. There is a DNR interpretive kiosk at the intersection of the two trails. Anne talked about the interpretive planning for the Bruce Vento Nature Sanctuary at the end of the BN Trail, which include railroad properties, and also the new Westminster Junction Interpretive Overlook — both of which include railroad history and connect to this place too, both physically and by theme. Two railroad corridors are important, as is "Gloster " — the original station name for Gladstone. Roseville Historical Trail was discussed as an example of a low budget trail. It included 50-75 sites just marked with a number (on wall, plaque or other place). Purchase a book or download sheets off the city's web site to learn more history of each numbered location. Tourist cabin sign — lot of discussion around town on this sign, which no longer is evident. Some say it still exists in someone's basement/garage. No one is sure of its whereabouts. The cabins are a great story and a landmark, though no strong sense of needing to preserve the property — recognition of private landowner rights. Well on the preserve. Virginia discussed how this was capped ca. 2 years ago. A lot of interest in interpreting or exposing a portion of this well. The well is approx. 16ft below current grade and goes down to a depth of 600 ft. It passes through 4 aquifers. It was limestone but was built up with cinder block when filled in. The Health Dept took photos of this event. Soil scientists were on site to monitor water etc. Walking Tour — this was a popular idea. The historical society may be able to assist with this. It could be modeled after the "Walking Tour of Historic Lake Phalen" prepared by Janice Quick for St. Paul Parks and Rec. in 2000. HPC authority. They have no review authority. Have existed for two years. Are not seeking powers or involvement in policy making. More informal gathering. Have only received two reports since they've existed and both were received too late to do anything about it March 24'h, 2005 Page 2 *I NOTES FROM PARK COMMISSION / OPEN SPACE COMMITTEE • WORKSHOP #2 March 21, 2005 General review of the three concepts plans and their implications: Use of the Savanna • Concern about storm water — what is watershed area? • Should actually illustrate rain gardens in one or more of these concepts • Must carefully consider housing units gains and impacts on parks/rec. (relationship between) Flicek • County will get involved if Flicek turns to anything other than parks/open space • Is it low? Could it be part of storm water system? (A: in 40 yrs. never been water) • What is open space? How is it being defined? Open Space Discussion • Is development as proposed the best pattern for this site? • Are we oversimplifying the Savanna? • South and west are lowest quality • Caution on community gardens because of soil contamination. Not such a good place. Maybe better for native demonstrations. • • One option should show zero impact on open space (move McLaughlin Rd. to Village Concept) • Area probably need a lot of management depending on how many people are going to be around and using it. • Need a definition of "park," "open space," and "natural area." • What is reality of reporducing open space at Tourist Cabins/School. Even Marina site. • General Comments • Downtown Concept might have too much height/density • Like some ideas w/regard to storm water and open space • Ideas about stretching green across Frost to golf course • More integration between open space and built environment, less of a wall between open space and development • Show play area on all three concepts (missing on Village Concept now) • As large as this is, it's too small to stand alone. We must therefore enhance conncetions, take advantage of opportunities at perimeter and enhance the core • One possibility should allow for Gloster redevelopment/Marina open to enhance the connection across • A good tradeoff is the connceted greenway that wraps north across Frost, west down Flicek to Tourist Cabins March 24`h, 2005 Page I Brad From: Linda_M_Olson@URSCorp.com Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 6:10 PM To: Brad; Brad Subject: Gladstone I have several comments and suggestions that were generated by last nights meeting. One of your most vocal community residents has been lobbying for a small gazebo at "lookout Park" for several years. If this is incorporated as part of the green trail connecting Phalen to the Savannah, this may make him happy. The Historical map would most likely influence some of my suggestions. I think the word "whisper" in the Guiding Principals is too soft, and should be replaced with something stronger. "Educate" or "celebrate" or something. A fountain with small plaza should be featured over the old well site on the Savannah. • The Ripley corridor between Wakefield and Phalen should be enhanced by bike paths and sidewalks. From my conversations, Gladstone residents identify more with Wakefield park than with Phalen. Wakefield's active play and sports and green space features should be identified and displayed more so that residents realize just how much green space they are actually surrounded by. While the drive path corridors could be narrowed, this street needs to remain car and school -bus friendly. I support some commercial developement on the Savannah, as long as the mature oaks are identified and protected, and it consists of a horizontal single level structures which have open access between them. They should extend all the way down English and along as much of Frost as practical. I support an expanded trail system inside the Savannah that provides access from all . directions. This trail should weave between any commercial structures and connect with as many sidewalks as possible. I support -the idea of expanding Fenton Avenue to the west. I realize there are some grading and wetland issues, and this will affect a very vocal resident on our committee, but if the road is curved to the south, it will provide another valuable link between Phalen and the Savannah. I really like the idea of expanding Edwards street north to Frost. If you are going to suggest taking houses, this may be the place to do so. Promote a high quality 3 -story condo with underground parking at the north end on the west side (marine store site) with views of the golf course, place a 3 story senior development on the Quality Restoration site, and show small row cottages extending south on both sides of the new street. Frost needs a system of sidewalks in residential areas and bit paths in green space areas that extends from White Bear Avenue all the way to Highway 61 - on BOTH sides! I know this has been killed in the past, but I don't think those residents don't realize that if Frost is narrowed with those additional corridors the traffic will inheritably change and become more residential and less of a freeway. I do not think a tree -lined center is a good idea, except possibly at the east end between White Bear Avenue and Wakefield park. Frost will remain a major artery for private transportation, and no amount of constriction will remove that demand. Recognize this as a major connector and treat it as such. Do not illustrate commercial development pushed up close to the round -about yet. Make sure that any.commercial development drawn in shows a sufficient set -back to give the round -about a sense of place. Residents all know about the lady who drove right over the top and landed in the Laundromat parking lot. 0 Replace any references of LRT and light rail with BUSES!!! I have not heard you talk of buses, and every time you mention a future LRT it raises 1 the hairs on the necks of some people. Remove the picture of the LRT from the Design Guidelines and replace it with a Bus Shelter! Consider expanding Frank Street north to Frost. Enhance Gloster park with kid -friendly active play space and tie it to Savannah through the juxtaposition of uses - i.e. mowed grass in Gloster, tall wild grasses in the Savannah. Do not simply remove the Gladstone school from the picture, but consider how to enhance and replace it. That school is extremely busy with Senior Citizen activities, the meals on Wheels program, scouting, ESL classes and ESL graduation ceremonies, and a variety of other community sport programs. While the building is tired, the services are essential and draw people in. Develop this as an advantage, rather than removing it from the plan. Flicek park - in my estimation — could be re -purposed to some extent as long as the green wildlife corridor is maintained between the gold course and Phalen. How many ball games are played at Flicek, behind Gladstone school and at Wakefield - and whether these are negotiable - can only be answered by the park department. Wakefield's ball games at the southeast corner of the park cause traffic jams in the summer. The existing businesses to the east of Flicek and over to Atlantic should be replaced with high density residential. Show this as a stand-alone development with multiple 3 -story units with underground parking, and represent them as condos rather than rental units. The bowling alley lot should be treated as a separate development, with commercial along English and Frost, and residential behind that. If the commercial is a layered multi- story development like in Excelsior, make sure the sidewalks are wide enough for outside cafe dining. Maintain commercial on both sides of Frost East of the Roundabout. Create on -street angled parking, similar to North St. Paul. Tighten up the space between the businesses, give them sidewalks, and place larger parking in back as needed, except at the grocery store where they will probably need a side parking lot. �If more housing needs to be taken, I would suggest acquiring the homes that front on Frost. Those are the homes that take the brunt of noise from traffic, and those residents might be most likely to relocate, especially once assessments for sidewalks and road improvements are presented. Show the Trailer park developed a couple of different ways - rowhouses, cottages and/or high rise with underground parking and a front lawn area that extends down towards the lake. Or any combination. Consider that if it is developed, all of those residents will want to stay there, so show at least that same density in different combinations. Call the development the Tourist Cabin Site. Show any available area around Gloster Park developed as cottages. Have hand-outs that illustrate the slides you showed us. - i.e. "Patterns of Land Use", Ecological Systems" "Green Streets", "Housing options", etc. with small illustrations and descriptions on one page for each topic - laid out similar to the Design Guidelines sheets - so that the attendees can look over options and consider them more easily. Don't keep backing away from the density question, because those numbers should be available. Associate a tentative number with the style building units - cottages yield xx per unit per acre, 2 story townhomes yield xx per average unit per acre, 3 story 2 bedroom units yield xx per unit per acre, etc. and put this on the hand-out. Create large exhibits with the historical photos for public comparison. Not just slides, but put large posters on easels that hang around the room all night and remind people of how it used to be much more crowded, industrial, noisy and dirty place. This should help reduce resistance to future change. ,_*Never use the word rental units if you can avoid if. We all know people need to rent, but whether a condo or townhome is rented or owned should be between the developer and the resident. Refer instead to the building style and let the group make their own assumptions. 2 Try to create a more comprehensive business corridor plan along Frost and English. Mention the existing businesses including the Hmong funeral home and Gladstone Windows and Doors on English and make a couple of SUGGESTIONS for alternatives for the Bakery, Richards, the Marine and RV etc, rather than just deleting them from the maps. If more homes need to be acquired • for businesses, look at the homes along Frost and English. If the marine store and RV place should be relocated somewhere else - for example - on Highway 61 closer to White Bear Lake, bring this up so people can start thinking about options, and make suggestions about how the city can help them relocate. If RV service doesn't belong in this neighborhood, what does? That should be enough to keep you busy for a while. I hope my suggestions help. Linda M. Olson URS Corporation Thresher Square - Suite 600 700 Third Street South Minneapolis, MN 55415 Tel: 612-373-6414 Fax: 612-373-6847 email: linda—m—olson@urscorp.com 3 • • Page 1 of 4 Brad *om: Deleano [deleanob@msn.com] oent: Friday, March 25, 2005 4:52 PM To: Brad Cc: Melinda Coleman; Tom Ekstrand; Shann Finwall; Chuck Ahl; David Gageby; Adeline Benjamin -ATT Subject: Task Force Workshop' Feedback • r ! ! S J I f , h f• .4 1. Brad, (please provide a copy to your team leaders) A You asked for it, so here goes. Following is my perspective. First let me say that I am greatly impressed with the procedures and approaches your team has taken for moving the Gladstone Project along. Inspiring. Others I have talked with feel the same. I also admire the way you have successfully `stretched the boundaries' for maximizing the potential of this project.. Kudos to your entire team. 4 F r I was, however, miffed and embarrassed by the way you abruptly cut me off at the knees during our Thursday 3/24 task force meeting, grid just as I was in the process of making a point.(begrudgingly my first and only of the evening) which, others later agreed, belong's right A the -top of the-,lisi of glaidelir e&s regarding this project. That point is ... "You don't design a whole new city simply to satisy the preferences of the current generation (particularly when it is clearly an aging ge°nezation}E You design � new city, as a legacy, to. serve the needs of at least the next TWO generations. n I can't believe I hadn't thought to bring this crucial issue to the fore right from the git go. I am hereby strongly (, ommending this city -be planned for at least 50-75 years out. If we don't do this, you can almost bet that within 20- 25 years the City of Maplewgod will be confronting the old adage, `.`If you don't have time to do it right the first time, where will you fried the tirne`tand•the�rr7eans) to do it agaiR?,% It had become painfully obvious to me"that-all thi-S effort has been,focusing far too heavily on the wants and demands of the current generation of neighbors and businesses, most bf whom X11 either not even be around in 20-25 years, or many of whom may well have opted to reside/retire within the new city, because of all the beauty and new services to which it holds such great promise. This would be the same new community which has been subjected to such strong resistance from the citizens coalition (which, by the way, your team has been handling most adeptly). I understand, and agree with, your desire to keep the Task Force meetings moving. However, last Thursday you and Bruce kept allowing your presentation to be interrupted by the same handful of citizens who have continually attempted to dominate and bog down this process from its very beginning, with generally narrow and short-sighted perspectives. Then, just when some knowledgeable new insight is proffered, during the legitimate Q&A period, you abruptly shut it down. Not good. A special aside: You should also know that the gentleman in the dark suit you earlier asked to stop asking questions is someone you would be wise to make it a point to get to know. His name is Christopher Hampl, 651-635-1774— Christopher. j.hampl&aexp.com 51-635-1774—Christopherj.hampina.aexp.com . Chris has his own American Express Financial Planning office and lives near the Gladstone. He is astute, educated, intelligent, open minded, forward looking, long-term oriented, expresses himself very well, is intensely interested in this project, and ... perhaps most importantly of all ... asked my advice last Osday regarding his intentions to run for City Council. I would be very surprised if he doesn't win a seat whenew hooses to run. Chris would be an asset to Maplewood. Anyway, regarding that vocal minority on the Task Force, if by chance, you have an underlying objective in mind by giving voice to their. , I of all people would understand and cooperate. Simply trust enough to include me in the 3/28/2005 Page 2 of 4 loop. Of course you have your rules. And I couldn't agree more, that your presentations should proceed without �erruption, with Q&A time reserved for the end. But also consider this. Throughout the history of mankind the . _asses have pretty much exclusively focused on punishing the obvious `Destructive Rule Breaker'. Those same masses have generally thrown road blocks in the way of the source of nearly all social, scientific, and other forms of human progress ... the `Constructive Rule Breaker'. You know that person. That's the oddball who persistently presses on, even in the face of seemingly insurmountable opposition from those who loudly cry "It can't be done!" This person pursues the impossible ... then so often, albeit painfully, proves it CAN be done. Your very own line of work should make this argument quite relatable. The point? Sometimes it pays to break the rules ... even your own. Let the alternates speak! Oh, and by the way, I also clearly recall your long ago assurances to Gageby, Holland, Addie, and me over our get - acquainted breakfast at Perkins that the Alternates would indeed be allowed to speak during the Q&A period of these sessions. And then one has to wonder why alternates aren't eagerly requested to fill any open seats at the Task Force table. If the numbers don't match, a simple coin toss or fair-minded rotation would suffice. It strikes me as more than a little ludicrous to expect busy non -attendees to arrange a replacement when many don't know, or particularly care, who the alternates even are. Now, let's move on to my feedback regarding this particular Task Force meeting. I've always maintained that 3 options is an ideal number for nearly all people. Any fewer options and one risks coming off as railroading. Any more options and people often become confused and indecisive. Well done. First I will address my personal perspectives regarding some general impressions, and then follow with a handful of specific feedback matters on the three options proposed. general: • 1. I very much appreciate your attention to walkability, bikeability, green spaces, rooftop flower/veg/herb gardens, passive & active play spaces, pedestrian streets, connectivity by a complex of off-street trails and sidewalks, a beautiful Savannah designed for appreciation and use by the general public (is there a better definition for 'open space'?), green streets, pedestrian streets, tastefully colorful parkways, numerous rainwater flower gardens, courtyards, a community gathering place in the Savannah, pocket parks, and water features. 2. I recommend that competitive Open Space Sports, usually preferring multiple fields these days as you skillfully outlined, be Master Planned by the City ... elsewhere. I can't help but feel that including such fields in The New Gladstone, along with the parking requirements they generate, would distort the ambiance we are trying so hard to create. 3. I recommend the Community Gathering Place in the Savannah be something very akin to that beautiful little park you toured in Burnsville. Take another look at the photos I took there last summer, showing mothers barefootedly joining their little children in the shallow fountains and streams. Make a special trip to see this park when the water features are flowing and the flowers in bloom. That is one of the most beautiful and cleverly designed little amphitheater parks I have seen anywhere, Europe notwithstanding. 4. I recommend a park similar to the above be planned as the main entrance to the Savannah. It could be abutting Frost Ave., perhaps the NW corner of the Savannah if we open the NE corner to mixed use. It could be on the NE corner of the Savannah as a special courtyard. There could be a tunneled (or attractive corridor between buildings) sightline through a NE cornered mixed use building, ala Europe, where one is teased into following a route toward a most delightful surprise (not unlike the mixed use building tunnels you saw in Burnsville). 5. I see no real reason why all green spaces should not have a least a simple pathway of some kind connecting one to another. After all, our objective is to encourage walkability. Then let's give our citizens as many options as possible for traversing not just the Gladstone but full connectability to the surrounding natural features, by m of delightfully exploring each and every green, floral, and aqueous feature we offer. 6. I recommend we seriously consider omitting any 'native habitat' displays which will not be suitably attractive to the eye. I believe those are better served in a rural setting, and not appropriate to the ambiance this project hopes to achieve. Would you believe that planners of the old Paris Centrum went to extraordinary lengths to make sure 3/28/2005 Page 3 of 4 its builders could not even consider a building, park, garden, or water feature without demands that it harmonize and maintain balance with its surrounding visual impact? Has it worked? Wadda you think? I recommend we make every effort to conceal as much parking as possible, similar to Excelsior, whereby visible parking is limited to relatively short term errands or quick pickup. I can assure you that at least one developer, Gageby, has absolutely no intention of `gobbling up' the Savannah for development. David long ago recognized the unique value a stunningly beautiful Savannah would add toward attracting the level of mixed use condo buyer needed to financially justify this project, alongside warranting the level of pricing that even the citizens committee hopes to see achieved in The New Gladstone. To David this is not just a project ... it is an extraordinary once in a lfietime opportunity to help create a true legacy. 9. Keep in mind that `line of sight to the Savannah' housing will not only attract a better quality of condo buyer, but will also raise that tax base pricing. 10. I don't feel it is at all too early to consider that the strongest and largest attractions to the Gladstone would, and should be, the new 48 lane bowling center with a coopetive adjacent movie theater. These two businesses, in particular, need to be accommodated early in this procedure because of their size, parking, and traffic requirements. However, I don't feel either of these indespensable primary businesses belong on the 4 vital corners of Frost and English. So far, the only two logical places I can imagine would accommodate these two major commercial attractions would be a) in the low spot to the West of the Savannah as shown in the original Gageby drawings (partially conceal the buildings - fill material could otherwise pose a major expense), or b) on the sight of the former Gladstone Elementary school. Both bowling and movies are `destination' businesses not requiring `impulse' placement. Located on either the Eastern or Western outer perimeter of the commercial district, bowlers and movie goers would a) attract large numbers of customers who could readily walk to the nearby central city, and thus support other commercial ventures, b) could enjoy a centrally shared parking ramp either partially concealed like on Excelsior, or behind the buildings to the North, allowing for a dressed up narrow end of each building to face Frost Ave., and c) would provide a significant ongoing tax base to the City of Maplewood. Unless you can come up with a better plan, I would consider any other option to be little short of foolhardy. It bothers me that there seems to be so very little input built into this process from the business community, particularly when you take into account they are the very people, and the only people, with their very lives and livelihoods at stake. This matter strikes me as uncomfortably close to shameful. 12. I can't help but wonder how much energy has been devoted to each of these 3 concepts regarding the very real life issues of economic viability and tax base benefits to the City. 13. I agree with Jan, Will, David, and a host of others who, Thursday night, expressed that it would better serve our purposes if the two styles of concept drawings were reversed for the next public workshop. This is not the time to get bogged down by detail -questions on buildings when the real issue at hand is the basic concept, at this stage of the game. The simplified handout drawings would appropriately serve to focus public synergy toward concept alone. Specific to the Garden City Concept: 1. To begin with, I can't in my wildest imagination conceive of this plan being `economically viable' ... nor would it provide the services and tax base to satisy the demands the next two generations would surely require of greater Maplewood. 2. Unless my notes mislead me, this is the plan calling for a major senior housing project on the current tourist cabin site at the far West end of this project. I see this as totally off base. Wouldn't it make far more sense to continue with planning to house the bulk of the seniors, who will be minimally ambulatory, as close as possible to the services they will require, not to mention the proximity of the beautiful new Savannah Park ... and to conversely encourage housing those younger citizens (including still active seniors), who prefer exercise, toward that outskirts location? Personally, I would like to see the mixed use buildings of the city core feature inter -connecting systems like interior walkways, simple tunnels, or narrow skyways so seniors, visitors, and shoppers can peruse and use the retailers and professional services year round with maximum ease and minimal discomfort from the extremes of our Northern climate. Think more about that please. 3/28/2005 Page 4 of 4 Specific to the Village Concept: ` 1. Have you considered how much fill material would be required to place housing in that low spot to the West of the Savannah ... what that fill would add to the cost ... how long the fill might be settling and unstable ... an how current neighbors might react to their `change of view' brought on by bringing that plot up to grade level . It appears you have already taken runoff into account. 2. Again, I have serious concerns whether this concept also would a) be economically viable, b) meet the needs of the next two generations, c) provide enough business to beget business, d) attract enough housing to support the needed new services, and e) would provide the tax base the City of Maplewood is seeking from this Gladstone Project. Specific to the Downtown Maplewood Concept: 1. To begin with, there is no question that this is the only plan which could be assured economic viablility. 2. This plan would unquestionably provide the most profitable tax base to the city 3. This plan would unquestionably offer the finest array of services, retail, dining, and entertainment options to the citizenry and visitors of the next two generations. 4. I like your proposal for developing the NE corner of the Savannah, particularly if it could feature that tunnel or decorative corridor leading the eye from the roundabout, between or through the buildings, to that special community-garden-park/amphitheatre-entrance outlined above. What a thrill this park and cleverly designed corridor would be for visitors, as an introduction to the Savannah! A powerful surprise to the senses to be sure! Not to mention as a compelling attraction to the city core. 5. I can't help but wonder, however, if this particular group of buildings should be kept low, perhaps specialty retail or dining, so as to maximize the view of the Savannah from the condos across the street. Properly designed, I believe the `architectual visual weight' of the Savannah, sitting serenely behind these structures, would provide ample ambiance to offset the greater height of the buildings on the other 3 vital corners. 6. I recommend you at least look into the prospect of adding, to these 4 corners, rainwater flower gardens, featu* outdoor seating, similar to the greenspace you proposed for the Garden Concept. There should be no questio but what this Frost & English corner would be clearly enjoyed by all as `The Heart Of The City'. It begs to be designed appropriately. 7. You have no doubt gathered by now that I will be throwing whatever weight I can bring to bear on behalf of the Downtown Maplewood Concept. Finally, I close with a simple reminder that your structured approach is to be admired ... but let us not lose sight of the value of thoughtful, astute, intelligent input ... no matter what its source .. even when the timing may occassionally break a rule. Rules are meant to be broken. Constructive Rule Breakers are to be treasured .. not repressed. Keep up the outstanding work. You have earned my admiration. Deleano Benjamin 3/28/2005 i / / .i r � , � , - '/ � � / � � �' r � � /� / � � � / � � ,. � �� ` h /� � � � � / .:1 � /� � i , �, `� �_ � � i � % � � / d*_ / � � j / � %' / / L�� ✓ � / / - � i" ,I � l � / � � r � � � � � � � � / � � � 1 � �. :� � � i r / /� � � - - � � i � �� . - _ f� - ..,� . ,� � / i i � � � / � / � .� � � � , i � ' i .. - � ' � i �- � i� � � i � / � � i i � , � � � � i � i .% i � � � � / l � � / � ..i � � �. . i �i � ' � � � i / i y► � / � -� � � � � / � s � � i / � i /- � � � i i �, � � � �� i � 1 /� � � i f / � , .- �� i / �c� / / , ' � � �i s � � Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. M! a To: Gladstone Neighborhood Task Force From: Brad Scheib/Bruce Chamberlain Subject: Gladstone Neighborhood Master Planning Task Force Meeting #3 Date: March 17, 2005 Included in this packet as attachments to this memo are the following items: 1. an agenda to guide for our meeting discussion (1 page) 2. revised draft Guiding Principles (2 pages) 3. 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 of the eventual master plan. In addition, we have created three concept plan alternatives that explore a broad range of ideas and approaches. Some of you may have seen the very rough beginnings of these concepts at the February 23'd Charrette held at the Community Center. 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 preferred draft master plan. As we prepare for the April 7 community workshop, the Task Force will play a leading role. 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 Thursday, along with input from the Park and Recreation Commission and Open Space Commission on Monday, will let us know if and how we need to modify the concept alternatives prior to the April 7 community workshop. In addition to your participation on Thursday, 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 many elements of concept exploration on which we would like Thursday's meeting to focus on. They are: (Jt -t XM I I"/ • future use of the Savanna, — 2 -1 � � • future use of park facilities in the project area; • future use of the Tourist Cabins; • future use of the former Gladstone Elementary School; • local and regional trail corridors and trailhead facilities; • development/building orientation; • building massing, form and character; 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, MN 55401-1659 Ph(612)338-0800 Fx (612) 338-6838 www.hkgi.com Direct (612) 252-7122 Email bscheib@hkgi.com March 21` Workshop #2 Memo March 17, 2005 Page 1 • integration of ecological systems; • street and roadway character; • character/use of public spaces; • pedestrian systems /green space connections within Gladstone and to regional recreation facilities. Alternatives for most of these plan elements have been explored with the three attached master plan concept approaches titled the Garden City Concept, the Village Concept, and the Downtown Maplewood Concert. Other elements will require supplemental graphics to help demonstrate the alternatives. We will facilitate discussion and bring additional graphics and quantitative information that will help you understand and discuss each concept's approach to the elements. The following provides a general description of each concept approach. These descriptions are general and will be elaborated on at Thursday's meeting. 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 eatest inte along Frpost and English part -near the - intersecri_ off_ o •� t.l cL/�. a • building form and character within this co ept would be o'�d lower ' ity consisting of single story commercial uses, not unlike the form of buildings that currently exist today; • where redevelopment does occur, buildings would be oriented toward open spaces, the trail corridors, or to the major streets of Frost and English; • this concept would include a 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 most of the Savanna as open space with the exception of the community garden idea (illustrated adjacent to Frost in the central part of the Savanna) and that portion of Frost Avenue ttiat ps into the Savanna di in Frost Avenue into th Savanna helps emphasize the significance of the open space to the neighbor ood); • Flicek Park and Gloster Park remain the same use; • the Tourist Cabin site is redeveloped to a residential use;..Cl_�,t_�-64, 3 pedestrian circulation would be provided through the use of non -vehicular green streets (extension of Frank Street to Frost) 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 _ ecting Lake Phalen to Wakefield Park\Lake, and sidewalk improvements along Frost and English • emphasis on the intersection of the Munger and Vento Trails by orienting a commercial use or a retail kiosk close to the trails, providing some services to trail users andincluding_ p dn�g for ail /T head access; N V • a limited service trail head may also be located adjacent to Flicek Park with on -street parking provided. March 21' 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. The key features of the Village concept would include: • a mixture of land uses focused E e Frost and English intersection; • building character would be more organic or random under this concept with varying building heights generally not more than 3 or 4 stories; • uses would include a combination of single -story, single -use buildings and multi -story uses with some opportunities to vertically mix residential uses over retail; • a changing character of Frost Avenue as it approaches the intersection with English Street, going from a parkway character to a more urban character; • conversion of the eastern portion of the Savanna to commercial and residential uses (this area represents roughly 5 acres of the Savanna); • 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,e�re-e • redevelopment of the Tourist Cabin site to a residential use;3— � L ' • redevelopment of the former Gladstone Elementary School site to a mixes � nercial and single family residential units 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; • also part of this system would be sidewalk improvements along new roads and Frost and English (as would be the case with all concepts). .7 C Downtown Ma lewood Conce t: /'?� C" ` The "Downtown Maplewood" concept ' built around the notion that f/becom2samore celebrated destination for the neighborhood and e Maplewood Community. The Downtown Concept represents the highest level of intensity of all three concepts with the highest intensity along Frost and English. Key Downtown Maplewood Concept 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 Edward Street; green streets as illustrated along the southern portion of the Savanna; and the existing regional trail corridors; building character under this concept would be of an urban form, potential to vertically mix uses; multi -story with the greatest • commercial opportunities under this concept are the greatest of all three concepts; March 2I' Workshop #2 Memo • March 17, 2005 Page 4 A/� orientation of buildings would be towards open space areas, trail corridors and, in the case of the v core downtown, all four comers of Frost and English would contain retail uses (a pedestrian corridor would extend into the Savanna area on the southwest quadrant of the intersection); • 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; • 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 designed to provide storm water management; a portion of the Savanna (roughly 7.75 acres) would be developed to commercial and residential uses in this concept. 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. .10 If you have any questions about our intent for this meeting or comments on the concepts, please feel free to contact Brad at 612.252.7122 or bscheib ct)h�kai.com. Also, the information from the last public workshop is posted on the website should you know of anyone who is interested in seeing what resulted from that meeting. Message Page 1 of 1 Brad -rom: Tkachuck, Joy A [Joy.Tkachuck@allina.com] • Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 2:36 PM To: Brad Cc: Jan Steiner McGovern Subject: RE: Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Planning Brad... how is infrastructure capacity determined ? Please provide the process by which engineers determine if support infrastructure is adequate for proposed population density. At what point is critical mass reached in the Gladstone neighbor area? Any information on this process would be appreciated. Thanks Joy Tkachuck This message contains information that may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message. • • 3/28/2005 Page 1 of 1 Brad lrom: Kim Schmidt [phalenplace@yahoo.com] ent: Tuesday, March 29, 2005 4:43 PM To: Brad Subject: open space/parks Brad, I heard a very interesting program today on Midmorning on Minnesota Public Radio. The topic for the hour was Minnesota parks and open spaces. One of their guests was Glen Scolfeild from the Met Council. The Met Council is currently trying to locate three regional parks in the metropolitan area in Scott, Anoka and Dakota counties. I found it curious that one overwhelming theme was finding creative ways to fund the purchase of the land. You asked me if it was realistic to have that much open space (Gladstone) so close to two major cities; well the answer to that is yes. The reality is that is what we have now; we the residents of Maplewood own that land. Residents found the creative funding and passed the bond. For the residents, they found a greater increase in their own quality of life than to keep those dollars in their own accounts but to spend it collectively. During this program it was also stated that the number one thing that people found to be important to their own quality of life was trails; and this was above parks, lakes, etc. Gladstone has two trails and if this development is done properly will have some additional trails in or around the open space. This area will be a desireable location when this redevelopment is completed, however, the residents are not willing to sacrifice the open space to make this happen. They also continued to state that open space only increases the value of the land adjacent to it. Aould also like to point out that residents do not view all green spaces the same. The ballpark is not the same as ster park which is not the same as the golf course which is not the same as the open space. You can call the space„ green, however, the residents veiw them differently and each space holds a different function in this neighborhood. Residents have overwhelmingly voiced their opinion that they do not want to see any of these green spaces go but would instead like to see some upgrade. The program also continued with the ideas that reducing the open spaces diminishes the ecological quality. I would like to point out that there is a reason a hawk has nested in the open space and that would be that the hawk does not feel threatened. Hawks are very easily scared away from areas and if that area is reduced accompanied with increased use, the hawk will probly leave. Additionally, I would like to point out that the name of the open space is Oak Savanna and that where development has been proposed is where the only old growth oaks exist; that appears to be a problem. Those are just a few of my thoughts on the parks and the open space. Thanks, Kira Schmidt Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - TU our new resources site! U 4/4/2005 Summary of Comments from the Concept Evaluation April 7th Public Workshop #2 The following comments are in relation to the Concept Evaluations conducted for the Gladstone Neighborhood Master Plan process at Public Workshop #2 held April 7 2005. The comments are organized by Concept and by the Table which reviewed them. The comments should be reviewed in conjunction with Concept Evaluation Summary spreadsheet that tabulated each tables response to the evaluation questions. Garden City Concept Table ????? • Needs more parking at Flicek • Gloster Park/Mapelwood Marine—Like some green space; not greater density than current; require developer to keep wetlands here • Gladstone Elementary—essential to keep ball park here • Frost/English Core—business/ commercial and not mixed with residential • Regional Trail housing—single family • Do not extend Edward Street Table ???? • Savanna—less trail, eliminate rod deviation into Savanna • Gloster Park improvements; R1 housing rather than attached single ramily residential • • Tourist Cabin—why not single family homes? • Gladstone Elementary building should be improved • No large apartment buildings Table ??? • Gloster Park and Maplewood Marine—don't want to displace a business that wants to stay • Add green space from Downtown Plan adjacent to Frost • Edward should not go through to Frost Table ?? • Group is split on use of Savanna and Tourist Cabin site • Fix up Gladstone elementary and use it as it currently is used • Keep away from street with buildings at Frost and English Core Table ? • Security needed for Trail • Taxes? Table 1 • We like the idea of trails through the savanna—a few: • Do not dip Frost Avenue into the Savanna • Do -not let Edward Street become a through street • Swap the Tourist Cabin concept here for the downtown concept Tourist Cabin r� • • Leave Gladstone Elementary alone Table 2 • Trail head parking needed at Flicek—Keep • Need center for seniors (congregate dining) and community class space like what Gladstone has • Green around roundabout is good. Please lower the pitch of existing center. • Child friendly access to "downtown" and Frost area a must for walkers Table 4 • If Savanna is left alone it's a great concept. If street dips, not acceptable. • Like green median on Frost and one lane each way • Do dipping of Frost into Savanna • Like green fingers from trail to Forst • Like trail connection form Phalen to Wakefield • Want green space around traffic circle • Keep active ball fields at Flicek • Too many trails in Savanna Table 5 • Useable recreation area with trails plaza and preserve for Savanna • Flicek — remain active park • Gloster park prefer residential development—move but keep neighborhood playground • Gladstone Elementary site needs improvement Table 6 • Make trails to walk on in Savanna • Keep for Senior Citizens Gladstone Elementary • Green around the round about to tie it in Table 7 • Like retention of neighborhood parks • Preservation of Opens Space is good • Gladstone Park remains for Neighborhood • Savanna trails good • Overall plan not economically viable • Unobstructed views good, not enough economic development • Edward street not be a through street • English and Ripley possible senior housing Table 8 • Gloster Park needs better maintenance for little kids • Seniors need Gladstone Elementary • May need Gladstone Elementary in the future for school • Don't want Frank to go through to Frost Table 9 Summary of Comments from the Concept Evaluation -- April T' Public Workshop #2 Page 2 • Need to keep Savanna "whole" need to clean it up • Keep ball fields on Flicek Table 12 • Don't dip Frost to the south, dip it to the north • Dip in Forst is wasted effort • 2 out of 4 like tourist cabin concept best assuming low density housing Table 14 • Consider some historic preserve roundhouse, trails need to blend into nature • Underutilized baseball =+, leaves nice gateway interface but needs tending • Higher end value for attached single residential some concern with quality of park • Less density on Tourist Cabin site • Questions of reusability of Gladstone Elementary Table 17 • Add neighborhood preserve area to the Tourist Cabin site on this concept Village Concept Table ????? • Don't want commercial on Savanna • Need Flicek as a Park with Fields • Keep Gloster Park as a park and upgrade it • Keep Sundegarrd House Table ???? • Why not single family homes on Tourist Cabin site • No large apartments • No commercial in Savanna Table?? • Savanna needs more trails like Garden City concept • Gloster Park and Marnia—need more open area • Buildings need to be set back from street like in Garden City Concept Table 1 • Do not make Edward Street a through street on any plan Table 2 • Is it legal to change Flicek Park as it was donated land? • Must have safe pedestrian and bike crossings at roundabout • Need more police if liquor is for sale in this area • Concern about ??? of neighborhood child play and ball areas • We don't see parking places—can't see how you will do this in red areas for all areas • Plant Maples along Frost Summary of Comments from the Concept Evaluation -- April 7`h Public Workshop #2 Page 3 • Table 5 • Fhcek not acceptable—keep as active • Gladstone Elementary needs more green space • Frost and English Core area needs more green space • Regional trial housing—leave good housing that's there Table 6 • East side of Savanna too much "patchwork" • Don't expand commercial east of Clarence Street!! Table 7 • East Savanna development is impractical • Hing use is good • Building on corner of Savanna bad • Tourist cabins in limbo (environmental issues) • Edward Street not a through street • Good mix of hosuing • Not good idea to eliminate Gloster Park • Don't mess with the Svanna Table 8 • Don't eliminate parks as new people will use them • Don't put Edward Street through • Table 9 • Don't want commercial zoning along East side of English from traffic circle to Ripley • Do something to slow down traffic on Frost Avenue Table 12 • Add more bike trails in Savanna • Don't like intrusion on high density on east end of Savanna Table 14 • Some density on Gloster Park/Marina site ok • Where's the dog park Downtown Concept Table ????? • Too Dense overall Table ???? • Too much development for Gladstone area ... totally out of character Table??? - is• If there needs to be town houses, this would be the place to put them "regional trail housing" Summary of Commentsfrom the Concept Evaluation -- April 7h Public Workshop #2 Page 4 • Ripley should become a green street form East Shore to Edward Table ?? • We like the trails on this plan, we agree that some minimal development has to happen on the Savanna but no consensus on how much • Frost and English Core area needs more green space Table ? • Group divided '/z and '/s Table 1 • We like the concept of connecting greenspace. • Table 2 • Concern for loss of homes at certain spots • We have fear of "magnet" concept of bringing more cars down frost • Keep small auto repair in community • Concern for cost of sidewalks—who repairs • We like Sr. Bridge in ? and Richards and Bakery • No ideas for specific concept plans inside circle • One person likes concept for Gladstone Elementary particularly the large open space/habitat • Also the tourist cabin plan adding nature and drainage • Like Ripley -Wakefield connection to Phalen Table 3 • • Like the trial through the Savanna • Like the wetland restoration at the Tourist Cabins • Open Space Good—no school building removal Table 4 • Keep Gladstone Elementary as is for Seniors • Like connections from the trail to streets, businesses and houses • Like connection from wetland on Shore Drive to the Savanna Table 5 • Prefer residential use on Gloster Park and move the playground • No trail to tourist cabin land ...not feasible Table 6 • Don't expand commercial east of Clarence Street!! • Flicek Park is under used in the west side • Little strip of housing on Maplewood Marine is out of place and grade of the land is wrong Table 7 • Best use of land ---economic development • Don't want Gloster Park to stay Summary of Commentsfrom the Concept Evaluation -- April 7h Public Workshop #2 Page 5 •I • Too much development • • Link trailhead to Savanna • Like this plan best, like balance of green space • Need to allow for larger commercial space Table 12 • Trails to straight • Don't like building on Savanna • 2 out of 4 like tourist cabin concept the best • "Regional Trail Housing" keeps continuity best developed use Table 14 • To much space from Savanna • Like connection to east shore drive • Fhcek Park has to feel connected as it really seems separated—want high end units • Don't tear down the school=concern • Like how Frost English Core extends to Marina and flow through trail but concerned about density Table 17 • Too much red area • We do like the open space U Summary of Comments from the Concept Evaluation -- April 7h Public Workshop ##2 Page 6 M .-I N N M .-r M N M N N 1 I I I I I I 1 (N "Z N .--i L) N N N N rl Ln e-1 M 'Z N M N i I t I I I M Ln .--i .--I M I M .-+ M M M M M i ry Z I� �0 .-+ .r N M .-nM N — N I I N 'Z (y .--i Ln N i I N I er I I M I Ln M N M .-+ i i i ti i M N N .-I N Ln Z Ln Ln Ln Ln M .--I Ln I M I Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln M Ln M IZ of M N Ln .-. er I I Ln M I M M ef' Ln •--I .-+ M IZ .--I Ln M M M Ln M I I I I I i I M M , .-I Z N .-. .-r N N Z Z .-. .-. .-. N N (N "Z N .--i L) N N N N rl Ln e-1 M 'Z N M N i I t I I I el N Z d' M * N M M M "Z N — + — N — N i i I N I I M .-+ Z O0 — M N N .-I N N M IZ .--I Ln M M M Ln M I I I N .-+ 'Z M M M , N O Q -I M •--I Z' -I •--I 1 'V 1 V LnV- .--I �--I '-I N •-� J O}.� N 1. 'y to N `""I 'Z N •--I ti M M ti .--I M M I Ln Ln N 4-; 'S" .--i `Z N -C." .--I .--I H .-+ .--I N .-� H I I N N N M bA .b I i i I I O N bp as U U U Ln Z + + M Ln Ln d Ln Z Ln Ln LnLn co N _k N i i i 4 Ln 7 I I U 0 y O ro Ln L+) N Ln d" Ln N M. Ln Ln � O O 4J O Ln 0 \D 1 'V Ln LM Ui Ln Ln LY)ei LI I Ln L%i L N Ln V) 1 I rAQ It �+ Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln � Ln Ln Ln " M Lf 7 'z Ln Lf L+) Ln '•� C14 I I I M N r -I L/) M M M Ln — M M I N .--I Z �D U I I i M M M e} M M M M Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln d' M Ln l.r) rl Ln M Ln Ln Ln M d' Ln Ln Ln M M M Ln Ln Lr) M Ln L) * Ln Id' Ln M Ln L!) Ln Ln Ln — Z u) Cl b Ln a O M I I I � CC U 1,0 w O,n O0 NO id U N .--I M+ Ln r- oD O\ O r -I N M d' Ln �D l— k k x k k O r. 4' o 'Z7U Uo '" y, o ro �' C7 U ¢ * = a � CY Z cG el 4P Comments from Development Character and Form Surveys The following individual comments were recorded on the Development Character and Form surveys filled out at the public workshop held April 7t' 2005. The comments are organized according to each plan feature. Where italics occur, the comments are referencing a specific photo. The bullets are not in any particular order. Plan Feature Individual Comment Parks • Not on Savanna 0 Athletics/Play—Not on Savanna • Community Events—Not on Savanna • Plaza—Only at entry to Savanna with educational kiosk • Athletics/Play—At the Savanna • Community Events—At Flicek • Plaza—at intersection of English and Frost at entrance to Savanna • Keep parks open not confining 0 I can see these areas as being hang outs for teens • How far and how much parking is needed. Phalen Lake is close and has a spot for community events • Active • Athletics/Play - Flicek, back of Gladstone school and Robin Hood • Community Events — too big, shrink by '/z • Plaza — Surround with tall grasses and plce in Savannah; Add to Gloster and Robin Hood and Lookout • Community Events — smaller version possibly OK • Athletics May — plenty of rec land close by • Within the 23 acres I believe there is room for all six (including trails, habitat restoration and lawn from Neighborhood Preserve section) • Parks, Trails and Eco-Zones/Restoration should maximize existing amenities and minimize impervious surfaces (comments apply to Neighborhood Preserve section as well) Neighborhood • Flower Gardens — yes English/Prairie — no Preserve • Connection of Savanna to Phalen, Vento Trail • Some lawn near edges, maybe a single dividing path • Lawn—at Savanna • Good ideas for the Savanna so its all usable • Must be non-invasive • Lawn—No "grooming" on open space • Trails—prefer paths not be hard surfaced • Habitat Restoration — Savannah! • Lawn — Gloster and Robin Hoor and Wakefield and Phalen; not in Savannah • Trails w/benches and kiosk on the history • Prairie Flowers • Ginny Gaynor has plans for our preserve. You leave it alone or talk to her 0 Trails — no paved trails, chipped only, if there are trails Plan Feature Individual Comment • Habitat Restoration — no intrusion on this space • Trails - Use wood chip trails in Savanna • Lawn — not for Savanna; OK in other parks • Trails — much more of this • Habitat Restoration — much much more of this • This area is under used; much better uses for the land • Lawn — some picnic area • Lawn — absolutely not! Frost and English • Frost needs to be wide to accommodate traffic—put in a bike lane • Either non -divided or divided parkway would slow traffic • Need to narrow Frost! • Non -divided streets—maybe • Divided Parkway—on Frost west and east of English • Divided Boulevard—too hard to cross • Divided Parkway—too wide • Divided boulevard—I would not like to see Frost or English get this wide • Divided Parkway — Frost — only between White Bear Ave. and Prosperity • Divided Boulevard — OK in core at Frost and English • Divided Parkway and Boulevard — Too difficult to drive to business or one side if blocked • Non Divided Street — too busy, not enough green • Divided Boulevard — too busy, not enough green • Divided Parkway — can maximize connectivity and minimize traffic/noise concerns Pedestrian Systems • On street path—with two trails probably don't need more bike paths — walldng areas could be in Savanna • On street would work well if path leads somewhere • Will these be mostly for new areas? wait and see how traffic changes before redoing existing side streets • Green Street may work will on Ide—existing alley • On street path—Maybe on Ripley east to Wakefield Park • On street path—yes it is economical, green and accessible • Green Streets—like the green but will space allow for such scattered site? Can this be done at neighboring streets by the Marina? • On street path — Yes!! • Sidewalks — Yes!! • Green Streets — Not sure, depends on location • Green Streets — I really like the idea of turning Ripley (E. Shore Dr. to Edward) into a green street • Green Streets — good for redeveloped areas • On Street Path — not good without sidewalk; bike lane OK • On Street Path — are not entirely safe/parctical in today's high speed driving world. Every effort should be made for off-street paths Ecological Systems 0 Green Roofs—depends on type of building/use going in and if the owner can afford the cost up front Summary of Comments from Development Character and Form Survey—April 7`h Public Workshop Page 2 of 5 • • • • Plan Feature Individual Comment • Corridors—maybe if done well • Corridors—no water corridors • Rain gardens — where appropriate • Green roofs — yes — above underground parking • Corridors — yes H • Rain Gardens — too messy, do not seem to be maintained well • Rain Gardens — yes, much much more of this; every home! I I • Corridors — nice addition as long as it is not a trade for the open space • Rain Gardens — we already have • Rain Gardens — been a positive amenity thus far and the eco -benefits are proven • Green Roofs — maintenance nightmare after 10-15 years • Corridors — too expensive to maintain unless integrated into Phalen/Keller Regional Park Building Character — • Architecturally attractive — yes mixed use English and Frost • Traditional Downtown—Need to build up but keep enough walking room Core Area between building and street • Suburban Contemporary—Need more green space • Traditional Downtown—too tall and bland • Traditional Downtown—too tall • traditional downtown — too big, too close • Suburban traditional style — use more decorative architecture (assume accss to Savannah in between • Traditional Village — I like the traditional village but probably need more mixed use (multi level) at the core intersection • Traditional Downtown — no please • Traditional Downtown — too tall • Traditional Village — under use • Suburban Contemporary — ick! • Traditional Downtown — too many floors • Suburban Contemporary — this didn't work in MN 50 years ago, why now? • Traditional Downtown — looks nice but too intense • Suburban Contemporary - contemporary is not the character of Gladstone • These all suck. Consider more of a 1950s throwback look. New, clean, moderately sized but tied to existing housing. Building Character — • Traditional Downtown --good for core area also English and Frost • Traditional Downtown—too tall Spine • Traditional Downtown—good for main areas • Suburban Contemporary—need less pavement • Suburban Contemporary—This would fit with the new fire department in Gladstone • Traditional Village—too village like and does not blend in • Traditional Downtown—street to close to building • Traditional Village A for edge/not middle of Gladstone • Traditional Downtown—like this look Summary of Comments from Development Character and Form Survey—April 7h Public Workshop Page 3 of S Plan Feature Individual Comment • Traditional Downtown — north side of Savannah only • Suburban Contemporary — as long as it is not too many floors • Suburban Contemporary — character is nice • Traditional Village — like this look but don't see many buildings on Frost/English that could be reused • You're trying too hard. Upgrade/improve existing businesses or you risk transient ownership schemes and a downward spiral. Building Character — • Commonyard---great concept Detached Residential • Common yard—Density restrictor? • Narrow Lot Traditional—will market support this? Who would be target buyer • Common yard—especially the common yard area would work well • We need to allow for aging baby boomers and multi -story residents are not livable for many • Narrow lot traditional—don't like the look and feel of this type of housing. I have lived in a house like this in St. Paul • All of these styles work for me. • Carriage House Unit — how about more elderly friendly (not 2"d floor) for aging parents? • Common Yard — houses OK, don't like the common yard • Narrow Lot Traditional — front porches • There should be an option for more traditional residential sized lots. More like surrounding areas. • Narrow Lot Traditional — Larger lot traditional especially the homes by the Savanna • Narrow Lot Traditional — lots are 75 feet wide at least • Carriage House Unit — Both living areas owned by one owner • Common Yard — Closest fit to existing neighborhood housing • Narrow Lot Traditional — lots should be at least 75 feet wide Building Character — • Twin home—appropriate Attached Residential • Row house—cookie cutter • Twin home—low density —too crowded--closter phobic • Row house—cookie cutter • Townhome and Twin home—as long as they don't look identical, variety of styles • Row House — north of Frost by the trail, Trailer and Park area • Row House — depends on where they are put and what they look like and how many • Row House — very limited application and high end • Townhome — more brick/stone/shakes • Twin Home — also the best fit to original/ existing Gladstone character Building Character — • Mansion Home—Elegant look—pleasing and inviting for people Stacked Residential • Mansion home—not a fit for me • Mansion home—not in character of the area • Courtyard—good for 2"d or 3`d tier Summary of Comments from Development Character and Form Survey—April 7h Public Workshop Page 4 of 5 • • .7 0 Plan Feature Individual Comment • Mansion Home—ick...not appropriate in a blue collar area • Street Front—at the trailer park—tucked in there with trees they would not look so high and are close to lake. The design could be more attractive though. • Mansion home cost? Wasted space? Density? It sends a ritzi feel ... do we want this? • Courtyard—Ncie varied siding and green areas • Street Front—mix the building with green streets to create more green and to lessen dense city impact/feel • Street Front -3- stories only • Mansion home—no higher than 2-3 stories • Street front—too high. Limit to 2-3 floors • Street Front—too tall • Mansion home — by trails and golf course and Phalen • Courtyard — boring • Street Front — no way • Mansion Home — depends on how big, if rental or not, senior or not • Mansion Home — only if it looks this good. In Minneapolis it does not look good. • Mansion Home — all examples I have seen in the metro area look terrible - an obvious apartment • Street Front — very limited application • Mansion Home — nice look but not appropriate for Gladstone • Mansion Home — no • Courtyard — excellent choice, especially with a mixed clientel of 55+ and special needs • Street Front — some potential, if placed correctly Summary of Comments from Development Character and Form Survey—April 7h Public Workshop Page 5 of 5 Participant Survey Public Workshop #2 - April 7, 2005 Results of Participant Survey 1 Gender Male 42 51% Female 38 46% No Response 3 4% 2 Age Under 25 3 4% 25 to 44 10 12% 45 to 64 4S S5% 65 or older 24 29% No Response 1 1% 3 Do you live in the Gladstone Neighborhood? Yes 61 72% No 21 25% Business Owner 3 4% 4 IFYES, how long have you lived in the Neighborhood? Less than 5 years 11 13% 5-10 years 9 11% I 1-20 years 8 10% More than 20 years 35 42% No Response 20 24% 5 Do you own or rent your home? Own 74 89% Rent 3 4% No Response 6 7% 6 How many people currently live in your house? 1 14 17% 2 32 39% 3 22 27% 4 9 11% No Response - 6 740 7 Where do you work? Maplewood 18 22% St. Paul 13 16% Other City 24 29% Not Employed 2S 30% No Response 3 4% 8 Did you attend the previous public workshop on January 31? Yes 55 66% No 28 34% 9 Have you used the Gladstone information on the City's website? Yes 47 S7% No 3S 43% 10 How did you learn about this workshop? (Pick all that apply) Newspaper 14 10% City Newsletter 46 34% City Website 16 12% Word of Mouth 32 24% Other 28 21% 11 Are you willing to pay more property taxes if needed to implement YOUR plan for the Gladstone Neighborhood? Yes 15 18% No 32 39% - Depends on the Amount 34 41% No Response 2 2% 12 Comments Yes 35 42% No 48 58% C11 .-I • The following points were recorded as written from the comments section of the survey forms. They are • numbered only for the sake of reference. 1) Parks and savannah are a source of pride to the Gladstone residents and business owners. Preserving the Savannah and parks will impact the quality of life for generations to come (both new and existing residents). As the population in the Gladstone Neighborhood continues to grow w/the proposed redevelopment, it's critical that the City acts now to manage these lands effectively, preserve open space for the future, and make these areas accessible to all people today and tomorrow. 2) As a business owner in the Gladstone area, what are you doing to help my growth in the City? All of the concept plans have eliminated my business totally. 3) As a family and business owner we do not plan to stay in the area. We feel this has been all or nothing for business owners. I feel that the City officials will do what they want in Maplewood. I see nothing from the people that are already there and have their properties are being addressed. We all know that money talk the high density the more money. Granted I have missed some task force meeting I did not expect the large density. 4) I'm living at Ripley and Edward. I want Edward to remain closed. If Edward Street open up to Frost, Edward will have to go through partial of my property. That will decrease my property value. The reasons my family moved to the resident because of the big space, peace and quiet. Keep Edward Street closed as is. Thank you. 05) I would prefer that there would be no change to our neighborhood. Making Edward a through street would be a mistake in my opinion. 6) Hopefully the adopted plans will be reflective of current, realistic developments and would thus be able to be marketed in the private sector without government subsidies. If it turns out there are some as yet unidentified brownfields, some cleanup funds might be necessary. 7) I believe that there are many options that could be used on the master plan. I was in favor of everything except the green roof. In my view a master plan is a great idea but the most important dimension is to build higher end ($300,000 or more) units. If we start by building lower end units it will set the precedent for more lower priced units. 8) Density = character 9) The Garden City concept is my preference, but Gloster Park needs to be improved and maintained, as well as retention of Gladstone Elementary. Additional residents will increase the need for parks, playgrounds and educational space, as well as indoor recreation such as the bowling alley which includes video games. 10) Garden City concept plan is acceptable. Downtown Maplewood concept is unacceptable. 11) Mixed use needs to remain a traditional village look. Small village concept in the middle a large metro • area. - Survey Form Response Talley and Comments Page 2 of 4 12) Please do not build on the open space. Designating other small portions does not meet the concept of open space. I have no problem with paths (preferably not hardscape) in the open space. • 13) Tax - depends on amount --it already costs us, in a little 2BR home, over a hundred dollars a month for the privilege of living in the area! Why the need to remove the Gladstone school? Senior Center? What do you propose would replace it? Flicek? We don't need fewer ball fields, we need more! 14) Major concerns about open space security. Major concerns about rising taxes for cost of development, esp. with open space. Who will maintain these spaces--County/City? I like the Downtown concept the most. 15) I question the region's ability to fill the amount of retail that is planned. I think this neighborhood is a tight knit group that will not allow for the removal of any single family homes or the Gladstone school. On the other hand, I would strongly encourage the cleaning of the commercial properties. I hope the City is able to accelerate this process. Re -zoning land is going to produce slow results. 16) I thought there were good attributes to all three plans but can not support any intrusion into the Savannah. It is barely large enough as is and any shrinkage makes in unviable as a restored natural space. Dicing and slicing nature spaces means none are viable - more ecological concern and input please. 17) Medium density at quality restoration is not necessary or appropriate. 2) Too many townhomes placed on the St. Paul Tourist Cabin site. 3) If Tourist Cabin site is redeveloped it would be nice to save or leave half of the old growth oaks located there. 4) A referendum to incorporate the Tourist Cabin site into open space should be considered. 5) Open space should not be reduced in size and a swap is not • appropriate; when continuous open space is reduced in size the overall value of the open space is reduced. 6) Narrow lot - traditional - the lot size is not similar to Gladstone lot size. Lots are larger than this and include garages, often attached or next to home. 7) Marine does not need to be medium densit - inappropriate level of density. 8) No development of Flicek Park - a very busy park in the summer/spring. 9) Frost Ave. in Garden City - make it a parkway rather than swooping into the open space. 18) The options have been narrowed so that we can only pick from options in your plans. The residential options do not reflect the side of Gladstone by the lake. Homes are too close to the road. 19) Flicek Park remain asset up for baseball 2) Gloster Park needed for the neighborhood children; needs updating. 3) Edward St. not to go through to Frost: narrow street, curve, difficult to get to Larpenteur with cars parked on Larp. when turning either way. 20) Please do not change area of open space. Paths in Garden City concept are good though. Changes in other 2 concept to open space are not acceptable. 21) The name tags we had at the first public workshop were very helpful. We need them at June meeting. Putting in a playgournd or lots of plants and a garden at the intersection of Ripley, Gordon and Phalen would be nice. 22) 18 year old senior at Mahtomedi here for my final merrit (sic) badge for my Eagle Scout. • Survey Form Response Talley and Comments Page 3 of 4 23) We are currently remodeling our home at 1960 Clarence Street. If the plans that you're wanting to do go through, it means you would be tearing down our house so you can put 2 or 3 new houses there (we own 3 lots on Clarence). My question: when was anyone planning on telling us not to bother re- modeling because you're going to bulldoze it anyway. And, how much are you going to give me for my house? P.S. Why should we be charged to put in new streets and sewers if you're taking my house? Diane Meyer 651.747.0236 24) Please contact all who are affected by this plan. We have seen on the internet a plan that would be taking our land, how are we suppose to sell our houses? Jeffery Meyer 651.747.0236 25) Please contact any and all affected property owners 26) We just had our streets redone 3-4 years ago. We are still paying for it and will be for the next 12 years - we can't afford any more increase. How will this be funded? NO MORE TAX INCREASES PLEASE! Are there people that want to utilize this redevelopment or are you hoping that 'if we build it, they will come? 27) No dense buildings. Low buildings 28) Save Gladstone 29) Not everyone got a notice mailing. How many people actually live in Gladstone. • 30) Leave our area as is. We like it. • 31) Leave our area alone. 32) Dont touch the Savannah!! You cannot touch Flicek Field. Garden City concept is the best except do not touch the Savannah. 33) Kiss 34) No use but minimal interpretation for open space. 2) No trading off of space for space. 35) Do not touch the open space. 2) How is the City going to control the extra traffic? 3) What happens when the State wants to make the trail that goes to Lake Phalen into light rail? 4) Does the City need to hire extra police and fire? 5) How much will taxes increase for the current homeowners? 6) How is English and Frost going to handle the extra traffic? 7) How will this development increase/ decrease the value of my home? 8) How much is the pedestrian walkway on Ripley going to cost each homeowner? 9) What is the maximum amount of traffic can the roundabout handle? 10) Where is the parking area? Survey Form Response Talley and Comments Page 4 of 4 Staff Meeting Agenda (Thursday, April 14, 2005) Location: Maplewood City Hall - Maplewood Room Time: 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. 1. Present/discuss "Composite" Redevelopment Concept 2. Where do we go from here 3. Summary of workshop results a. Survey b. Development Character and Form C. Concept Evaluation d. Build your own e. Emails from participants 4. Upcoming meetings a. Park/rec and open space committees Monday, April 18 Monday, May 16 b. Task Force Meetings Thursday, April 21 Thursday, May 26 C. City Council Update Monday, May 9 d. Public Thursday, June 16 e . Staff Thursday, April 28 (8:30 am) Tuesday, May 10 (2:00 pm) 14 April 2005 01 r� • • It • Agenda Task Force Meeting #4 Thursday 21 April 2005 Location: Maplewood Fire Station #2 Time: 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. Meeting purpose: • Review results of Public Workshop #2 • Agree on Composite Concept for testing • Explain approach feasibility testing of Composite Concept Agenda: 1. Introductions 2. Review results from Public Workshop #2 3. Present/discuss/agree - draft Composite Concept Plan 4. Review and discuss approach to feasibility testing S. Open discussion last 15 minutes of the meeting Next Meeting: Thursday, May 26 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. Maplewood Fire Station #2 21 April 2005 • 0 vqg • a�41 cLi CrI ca a7 0p+ .L cd �j Gi �•. CU Q' y " ^".'Q) U -rte °.: dl al W a� O: •�! O tT F7��"� of .•� .-. N .�eq C �'- Q..,C_ • lo i.;j a C : r3 +._ 4. :.LQ 'a O p rp04. w cc ..+ct a.. ,2wHI >-J. U ��. .O 4- ra,v] p4 D P. . }D" ;._mi003 w +-U- ca ep O pw m Uw�? ._ cis -:4), u)yw U = 4 ca CI 4)i.p ::;.. w w, o m.�0) w. "ca .tip co". q w .m +.R7 w ay cm o o a ' Ca i.. w '.. O UOp�.y O °Ow P4a)FL. O to O IS ~ . cc .:. 1 01 P4 ct w U a w r� :s� as Z~ m. o w y: 0. aP. ca ,�, +' mvXtiC p ccd CL � - O w . .> CU • ca O " F�qy'wb..o aso a :� + � ; O.� .O w w O o DD to by o t>p m. P. , U a ,G .c w 0 o p, o O:_O .� (D :0 r a� to 4)+' w ar �' a°i . s, tw:lvjo " o :° U fit ... '� .O ' 'w ' a a . o b ?' �'O+ to '" '.w ...._o �; a o _ . U _W vi ;� O •w ren O w y +- A' cts aac O w. .F. a� ao •' al �, ''. " crt L w .ti0 -:. • p . b O:u w cC .'91 .0 tw Ix: O 'G .� ., F? O u.O f~ q , N;:4 'c a0. ni i:i p+ `.9 '� a: o w .w w Q as MID : •.. V, 0 ca 'ae.Iy o�.eoar'cx �ru•m o.° al� �;b o_r a: iDi wt•,, q U •O a� w: ai ,,,: •C +.. U.'w _ P4p: cy V • .. a"i:+a _�.=.'o..w p yOj fOr• " p..: ",-.,� '�%. �. w Cd ol 41 .j.� •: . q Z ca Ca;. o w c�Da T" �_ m- " as ,� w w 4), y .wCd :a '10 O .� i3. 4.-4Or 42 s:. 'U •.+- �:�ca. •�. O • " too " w ". � � � •,� o.. tet''° we o' oca (D' o -- a2fi cs. w °i _o p4-'°=0 yY.cs 0. ice.' a-, + :._o 04 �.- vd a�41 cLi CrI ca a7 0p+ .L cd �j Gi �•. CU Q' y " ^".'Q) U -rte °.: dl al W a� O: •�! O tT F7��"� of .•� .-. N .�eq C �'- Q..,C_ • lo i.;j a C : r3 +._ 4. :.LQ 'a O p rp04. w cc ..+ct a.. ,2wHI >-J. U ��. .O 4- ra,v] p4 D P. . }D" ;._mi003 w +-U- ca ep O pw m Uw�? ._ cis -:4), u)yw U = 4 ca CI 4)i.p ::;.. w w, o m.�0) w. "ca .tip co". q w .m +.R7 w ay cm o o a ' Ca i.. w '.. O UOp�.y O °Ow P4a)FL. O to O IS ~ . cc .:. 1 01 P4 ct w U a w r� :s� as Z~ m. o w y: 0. aP. ca ,�, +' mvXtiC p ccd CL � - O w . .> CU • ca O " F�qy'wb..o aso a :� + � ; O.� .O w w O o DD to by o t>p m. P. , U a ,G .c w 0 o p, o O:_O .� (D :0 r a� to 4)+' w ar �' a°i . s, tw:lvjo " o :° U fit ... '� .O ' 'w ' a a . o b ?' �'O+ to '" '.w ...._o �; a o _ . U _W vi ;� O •w ren O w y +- A' cts aac O w. .F. a� ao •' al �, ''. " crt L w .ti0 -:. • p . b O:u w cC .'91 .0 tw Ix: O 'G .� ., F? O u.O f~ q , N;:4 'c a0. ni i:i p+ `.9 '� a: o w .w w Q as MID : •.. V, 0 ca 'ae.Iy o�.eoar'cx �ru•m o.° al� �;b o_r a: iDi wt•,, q U •O a� w: ai ,,,: •C +.. U.'w _ P4p: cy V • .. a"i:+a _�.=.'o..w p yOj fOr• " p..: ",-.,� '�%. �. w Cd ol 41 .j.� •: . q Z ca Ca;. o w c�Da T" �_ m- " as ,� w w 4), y .wCd :a '10 O .� i3. 4.-4Or 42 s:. 'U •.+- �:�ca. •�. O • MEMORANDUM • TO: Parks and Recreation Commission FROM: Bruce K. Anderson, Director of Parks and Recreation DATE: April 13, 2005 for the April 18 Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting SUBJECT: Carl Nesjar-"Northern Lights" Sculpture Update Introduction The city (read that as Bruce Anderson) has been actively pursuing the acquisition of the Carl Nesjar "Northern Lights" sculpture that was decommissioned by the city of Minneapolis for the past three months. The city was formally awarded the sculpture by the Minneapolis city council on Friday, March 11. The sculpture is proposed to be located as the centerpiece of the Legacy Village sculpture park to be located on pedestals in the pond behind the existing pergola. Background Legacy Village sculpture park phase one, including pergola, trails, bridge, floating boardwalk, grading and retaining walls has been completed. The planting for the landscaping and plant materials has been awarded by the city council and installation and construction will begin in mid May. • The city is in the process of establishing an arts committee who will oversee installation, acquisition and maintenance of future sculptures. The committee will consist of three commissioners and four residents at large. We have had discussions with John Hoch from Franconia Sculpture Park to possibly work as an `outside consultant to provide artistic direction to the committee. Carl Nesjar's "Northern Lights" sculpture was proposed to be the centerpiece of the new sculpture garden. The sculpture was acquired in 1991 by the city of Minneapolis for $650,000 and one can argue has an undefined value today. Having said that, the past two weeks have established a very clear value of the sculpture. When 1 initially pursued the sculpture from Minneapolis, we worked directly with Mr. Greg Stokes, who was the initial installer of the sculpture on the Nicollet Mall. Based on our initial discussions, he stated that we would modify the fountain to function primarily as an ice sculpture and avoid the costly pumps, wiring and fountains to maintain it in the spring, summer and fall. The initial estimate by Mr. Stokes was $20,000. We continued pursuing the sculpture based on this information and we were awarded the sculpture. It was my belief that our proposal to have the sculpture function primarily as an ice sculpture and be static during the summer with a series of lights was a much more economical and cost efficient way to relocate the sculpture. The "finar proposal was received from Mr. Stokes on April 8 which is enclosed. As can be noted, after more in-depth research and finer cost analysis, the proposal is now $130,000. Obviously, the city does not have that kind of money to spend towards a sculpture, no matter what the value is. 0 s I have been in contact with Minneapolis and indicated that until we can resolve this, we have requested that the piece be placed in storage. 1 have not quit tilting at this windmill or chasing this rainbow, if you will. 1 still believe it would be a tremendous addition and certainly "jump start" the Legacy Village sculpture garden. I am currently in the process of contacting local corporations, primarily 3M, Marshall Fields, and other art benefactors to determine what the feasibility is of finding a financier to underwrite this reinstallation of the sculpture. Recommendation Staff recommends that this issue be deferred to the Maplewood arts committee (MAC) for further review and consideration in the coming weeks. kphlsculpture-northem lights2.legacy village. parks. mem 2 E • • I P:KI commercial Aquatic _ kL A Engineering March 30, 2005 Pauline Staples City of Maplewood City Hall 1830 County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 RE: Carl Nesjar "Ice Sculpture" Relocation Dear Pauline: On behalf of Commercial Aquatic Engineering, we sincerely appreciate the opportunity to work with you on defining and budgeting the above referenced project. This proposal package will assist you validate the feature design concept as well as feature budgeting needs. This proposal includes: • A picture portfolio of the this fountain and similar fountains to aid in visualizing the proposed fountain concept. • The feature conceptual design review and comments by CAE. • Information about CAE's design and engineering services. • Budgetary cost analysis on proposed feature concept. Commercial Aquatic Engineering specializes in the design, fabrication, and installation of custom, commercial water fea- tures. We understand how to harness the mystical powers of water to achieve the aesthetic, visual and sound effects you desire. Whether you want the feature to be artistic in nature, architecturally subtle or dramatically visual, we understand how to design water elements that create a pleasing and soothing ambience in any environment. Our goal is to be your one-stop resource for water feature design support. We provide a full range of design engineering services to assist in the development of water features that are optimized for their environment. In addition, we are a UL approved facility with the unique ability to prefabricate and pretest water features, greatly reducing the risk of expensive job site delays and cost overruns. We place a high priority on achieving functional performance at the lowest possible cost. When you think water, think Commercial Aquatic Engineering. We bring water to life. Sincerely, Greg Stoks, Principal • S I` `n Y tiilloil s- # . .., 'tea -.Y': M1 •, ., r t ' r :�\ 1 1 1 1 NIX11 11 A^* Y ill f. i y t I t # ;f s. r i . 3r € i w#'�t s s "`� Ei at'+ `,'z t .+,N•„� $ �, ;a' "Y�,$ � t i `` E� zr ..s � sm. i j�}I t�;� e' t x-, A k �•j 1 1 1 1 NIX11 11 A^* Y ill f. i y t I t # ;f s. r i . 3r € i w#'�t s s "`� Ei at'+ `,'z t .+,N•„� $ �, ;a' "Y�,$ � t i `` E� Keview Co nce t ' ' r elomments Feature Description: Water feature to consist of installing the Northern Lights Ice Sculpture by Carl Nesjar in the main pond at Legacy Sculpture Park. During the spring / summer / fall seasons a nozzle effects will spray around base of sculpture creating a nice visual and sound effect for this area. Underwater lighting to be used to illuminate nozzle effects and to cast flickering light onto sculpture. During the winter season, sculpture will have fine mist sprayers that will allow for freezing water to create unique ice formations on sculpture. Lighting to be used to illuminate ice formations for nighttime viewing. Budget Considerations: Because budgets are not unlimited, pricing should be broken into the fol- lowing budgets for analysis: 1. Removal of Sculpture and Delivery to Site Costs. 2. Revamping of Sculpture, (surface cleaning, water feed tubing repair, nozzle replacement) 3. Sculpture Installation Costs. 4. Spring / Summer / Fall Water Feature Systems Costs. 5. Winter Ice Sculpture Systems Costs. Sound Emissions: The spring / summer / fall water effect will create a modest sound emission that will* create a harmonious environment at the main viewing area. Water Containment Considerations: The spring / summer / fall water effect will be a lower nozzle display that will not have splash containment issues. The winter water mist / ice display will have potential of drifting, but because of the location of this feature in a non -pedestrian area, this should not create a haz- ardous conditions. Environment Considerations: Because this sculpture is located in a pond, the spring / summer / fall nozzle display should not spray onto sculpture because it will leave deposits and discolor stainless steel fin- ishes. In addition, the summer time water effect will help aerate pond to help reduce algae buildup. The win- ter ice creation will require an domestic water supply that will need to be protected from freezing during winter use. Periodically ice formations will dissipate due to melting temperatures and when temperatures are lower, water will need to be manually turned on and monitored to create new ice formations. Summary: Carl Nesjar is an world know artist who has specialized in Ice Sculptures elements throughout the world. This sculptural element has not met it's full potential because of the environment and conditions of it's location in Minneapolis. The proposed relocation and implementation of this sculpture in Legacy Sculpture Park in Maplewood does not have the same limitations and will allow for this element to reach it o' full potential. • All 9uatic �cial `� n8tnaerin9 Feature Consulting Services Feature Prototyping Services Feature Engineering and Construction Documents Project Name: Project Location: Proposal Submitted To: Date of Proposal: WATER FEATURE DESCRIPTION: Scope �&rvices Carl Nesjar Ice Sculpture Relocation • Maplewood, MN Pauline Stapes City of Maplewood City Hall 1830 County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 Phone: 651-249-2103 March 30, 2005 Water feature to consist of installing the Northern Lights Ice Sculpture by Carl Nesjar in the main pond at Legacy Sculpture Park. During the spring / summer / fall seasons a nozzle effects will spray around base of sculpture creating a nice visual and sound effect for this area. Underwater lighting to be used to illuminate nozzle effects and to cast flickering light onto sculpture During the winter season, sculpture will have fine mist sprayers that will allow for freezing water to create unique ice forma- tions on sculpture. Lighting to be used to illuminate ice formations for nighttime viewing. Summer time mechanical system to consist of a submersible pump system located within pond creating nozzle effects. Winter time mechanical system to consist of a domestic water supply that is heat traced and protected from freezing as well as a air compressor that will blow out lines from below frost line to nozzles on sculpture after misting / ice formations is completed. WORK INCLUDED IN ESTIMATE: • Design and consulting for water feature development as it relates to water characteristics, sound emissions, splash contain- ment, maintenance and interfacing with other structures / finishes. • Complete feature installation drawings consisting of structural, mechanical, and electrical details as needed for complete relocation project. • Removal and refurbishing of sculpture ready for new site installation. • Installation of concrete foundation for mounting sculpture within pond. • Installation of summer time mechanical system for nozzle effect. • Installation of summer / winter time lighting fixtures and controls. • Installation of winter time mechanical systems for ice formation effect. • Electrical hookup of both summer & winter time mechanical systems, lighting, and controls. • Fountain system startup and balancing. • Provide operation manuals and instruction. 0 BUDGETARY PRICING: •Design & Engineering Services by CAE: Project Management Services by CAE: Removal of Sculpture From Mlps.: Revamping Sculpture: Installation of Sculpture on Structural Foundation: Summer Time Mechanical System & Effects Costs: Winter Time Mechanical Systems & Effects Costs: Lighting Costs: Electrical Hookup & Control Panel Costs: Contingency (10%) Total Budgetary Costs: $ 8,500 $ 8,500 $ 2,500 $ 6,500 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 5,000 $ 12,000 $ 12,000 $130,000 EXCLUSIONS / CLARIFICATIONS: • Owner to provide needed soil tests for foundation design needs. • Owner to have city engineer review structural design of support foundations for sculpture. • Budget for foundation based pond being drained by owner. • Budget for foundations do not include any soil corrections. • Some of the budgets above will be performed by CAE and some outsourced to specialty venders / con- tractors as managed by CAE and contracted directly by owner. • Owner at their option, may self perform some work to save on project costs. • Lighting budget is to fix up existing lights for reuse. • Pricing based electrical power supply being brought to fountain equipment area by others. • Pricing based on water supply with backflow prevention and pressure control valve to maintain 25-30 PSI to be brought to fountain equipment area by others. • Budgeting does not include permitting costs. • This proposal is budgetary only. Additional engineering will be required for final pricing. clus ans/ In ications) Bruce K. Anderson Bruce - here are some transport recommendations for the Nesjar fountain from Kristin Cheronis, our art conservator. I will take the photos and measurements she mentions this week, and send them to you. We are targeting next week for removal. Please call with any questions. -----Original Message ----- From: Kristin Cheronis [mailto:kcheronis@earthlink.net] Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 10:14 PM To: Beth Shogren Cc: Mary L Altman Subject: Nesjar Hi, I took another look at the Nesjar this week and here is what I think: 1. You should thoroughly document the current installation. Take photographs from numerous angles. Even more importantly, you need to create an accurate map of the relationship of the 5 separate units. If the plumbing were still below ground, you could snap off squared chalk lines and make accurate measurements. Alas, the plumbing will prevent you from doing this. You should probably triangulate the measurements of the outer ends of each of the elements from a datum point, at least. Documenting and mapping the sculpture is important and will take one or two people at least several hours. 2. Disassembly looks like it will be pretty straightforward. Be careful to pad everything as scratches in stainless are noticeable and don't polish out easily. 3. My biggest concern is the thinness of the hollow square stock and the delicacy of the welded joins. These structures appear to be delicate. Since the forms are not rectilinear, they are even more weak. The largest form is a double construction at the North end of the fountain. The two large parts are only joined by a few tiny connections. It would be easy to damage. On all of the forms, it looks as though it would be fairly easy to deform/bend/break the long tubular stock at/near the welds. They will be most vulnerable when they are being moved or laying on their sides, after disassembly. Take a lot of care in transport; most importantly, block the forms to support them before strapping them down on a flat surface. Use packing blankets between metal and bed, pad the blocks, etc.. I do not know how you are planning to move/transport them, but I can confidently recommend Andrew MacGuffie, a very good local art rigger. He has a large truck and trailer and could safely block and strap them. His costs are quite reasonable, too. He is at 651-283-5654. 4. When you begin restoration, be sure that ALL elements are either inert plastics, or stainless steel. No mild steel anywhere in plumbing, fittings, etc., so there is no galvanic corrosion. I am happy to give you some advice on cleaning the metal when you are ready for that. Call me with any questions Kristin 1 Beth Shogren [shogren@ewatershed.comj •From: Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 10:23 AM To: Bruce K. Anderson Cc: Michael McLaughlin; Mary L Altman Subject: FW: Nesjar recommendations Bruce - here are some transport recommendations for the Nesjar fountain from Kristin Cheronis, our art conservator. I will take the photos and measurements she mentions this week, and send them to you. We are targeting next week for removal. Please call with any questions. -----Original Message ----- From: Kristin Cheronis [mailto:kcheronis@earthlink.net] Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 10:14 PM To: Beth Shogren Cc: Mary L Altman Subject: Nesjar Hi, I took another look at the Nesjar this week and here is what I think: 1. You should thoroughly document the current installation. Take photographs from numerous angles. Even more importantly, you need to create an accurate map of the relationship of the 5 separate units. If the plumbing were still below ground, you could snap off squared chalk lines and make accurate measurements. Alas, the plumbing will prevent you from doing this. You should probably triangulate the measurements of the outer ends of each of the elements from a datum point, at least. Documenting and mapping the sculpture is important and will take one or two people at least several hours. 2. Disassembly looks like it will be pretty straightforward. Be careful to pad everything as scratches in stainless are noticeable and don't polish out easily. 3. My biggest concern is the thinness of the hollow square stock and the delicacy of the welded joins. These structures appear to be delicate. Since the forms are not rectilinear, they are even more weak. The largest form is a double construction at the North end of the fountain. The two large parts are only joined by a few tiny connections. It would be easy to damage. On all of the forms, it looks as though it would be fairly easy to deform/bend/break the long tubular stock at/near the welds. They will be most vulnerable when they are being moved or laying on their sides, after disassembly. Take a lot of care in transport; most importantly, block the forms to support them before strapping them down on a flat surface. Use packing blankets between metal and bed, pad the blocks, etc.. I do not know how you are planning to move/transport them, but I can confidently recommend Andrew MacGuffie, a very good local art rigger. He has a large truck and trailer and could safely block and strap them. His costs are quite reasonable, too. He is at 651-283-5654. 4. When you begin restoration, be sure that ALL elements are either inert plastics, or stainless steel. No mild steel anywhere in plumbing, fittings, etc., so there is no galvanic corrosion. I am happy to give you some advice on cleaning the metal when you are ready for that. Call me with any questions Kristin 1 MEMORANDUM • TO: Parks and Recreation Richard Fursman, City FROM: Bruce K. Anderson, Dii DATE: April 13, 2005 for the April 18ark ecre ion Commission Meeting SUBJECT: Monthly Update -March 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. State Bonding Bill I had the opportunity to attend both the Senate and House bonding bill hearings, along with representatives of the Maplewood Historical Society on behalf of the Bruentrup Farm grant request. The funding for the farm to be brought up to city code requirements for public assembly was not included in the final bill. On behalf of the city council and parks and recreation commission, I want to thank those members of the historical society, particularly Char Wasiluk, former mayor George Rossbach and Carolyn Peterson for their never-ending support of the Bruentrup Farm. The Bruentrup family continues to be immersed in the day-to- day renovation and restoration of the historic farm site as well. Although this was a setback for • the historical society, they continue to move ahead. The site has been listed in the Who's Who of Barns in Minnesota with an autograph session scheduled for the book and author on May 11 at the Maplewood Community Center. 2. Eagle/Boy Scout Projects During the past three months we have coordinated three additional Boy Scout projects. The Projects entailed constructing blue bird houses, removal of buckthorn, and construction of a split rail fence at the Sruentrup Farm. We do approximately 6 to 8 projects a year and although it is enjoyable, I have to tell you that it is time consuming. I do believe that the benefits to both the Boy Scout and the community are well worth our time. I might add that I am also working with three young women from Maplewood to complete their Golden Award, which is the highest Girl Scout project, in the coming weeks. It appears that their project will be to develop the rose gardens in front of the Legacy Village sculpture garden. 3. Deer Management Enclosed is a variety of information related to the 2004 deer management program as well as the 2005 proposal. The city of Maplewood continues to work in close concert with the city of St. Paul and Ramsey County in trying to reduce the deer herd in the community. Rarely does a week go by that I don't receive two or three phone calls from residents who feel this is a significant issue and would like to have the deer herd culled from their neighborhood. 4. Maplewood in Motion – the TV Show I had the opportunity to speak once again on the Maplewood in Motion TV show on Monday, March 28. The focus was on the sculpture garden and the no smoking policy recently adopted 40 by the parks and recreation commission and city council. I'm not sure if there is a wide viewership for this program, but I think any opportunity we have to get the word out about what we're doing is important. 5. Sculpture Seminar • I had the opportunity to be a panel presenter at a statewide Art in the Park sculpture symposium on Tuesday, March 29. The Legacy Village sculpture garden's reputation appears to precede it at this time. It was a great opportunity to not only tell the Maplewood story, but more importantly glean information from other communities and projects throughout the state. The seminar was held at the Plymouth community center. 6. MCC Expansion Enclosed is a proposal we received from TEMO Sunrooms to do an expansion on the east side of the Maplewood Community Center off of the gymnasium. The proposal to add approximately 2,000 square feet is extremely cost efficient and would be a wonderful solution to serve the expanded needs of the MCC, particularly the fitness component. This item was included in the 2006 Capital Improvement Plan. The 2006 budget appears to be extremely tight at this time so I am not optimistic that it will be funded, but we will continue to pursue this as a future concept. The local TEMO Sunrooms office is located in Maplewood and they have provided us extremely good pricing, as this would be an excellent opportunity on a national and potentially international business to expand this phase of their operation. We will continue to explore this and other options for the MCC fitness space shortfall in the coming months and years ahead. 7. University of Minnesota Intern I have had two interviews with senior students at the University of Minnesota regarding the feasibility of doing an internship with our department. We have hosted four to five interns during the past ten years and I always found them to be challenging, insightful and full of energy. We are currently considering an intern for the summer of 2006 who would be focused on coordinating our t -ball program as well as being involved in projects at the sculpture park and other park projects. is 8. Nature Center Staff Change Heather Kos has been a seasonal temporary employee at the nature center for the past four years. Heather last day with the city was Wednesday, April 6. The nature center hosted a nice going away party for Heather and her family who are moving to the east coast. We thank Heather for her efforts and energy during her tenure with the nature center. 9. Sandy Lake Filling Operation Enclosed is a memo dated March 10 from Chris Cavett regarding the status of the Sandy Lake soccer complex project. There are two phases proposed for the project. The first phase is to bring in 440,000 cubic yards of sand and common barrow that will be done in 2005. This material will then settle for one to two years and phase two would then include bang in five feet of topsoil over that, placing the sand and topsoil in the soccer field construction. They anticipate having the project open to the public in 2008. I was playing with these numbers because I realized that 440,000 cubic yards of material is a large number. Let me put that in a couple of perspectives. The first being that the average tandem dump truck holds ten cubic yards of material, but let's assume that they can get 15 yards into a truck. That would mean that there would be 33,000 trips to fill Sandy Lake. Furthermore, at 33,000 trips it would be 200 per day for 165 days, which would be approximately eight months assuming 20 days per month. This would in effect be a small army maneuver. I will continue to keep you apprised of this project as it evolves in the coming weeks and months ahead. 2 10. MCC Update Enclosed is a copy of a listing from the Minnesota Business Journal that identifies the • community center as the number eighth fitness center in Minnesota. The tabulations are based on enrollment. It should be noted that the top five are listed as an organization which in turn means we are certainly higher as an individual separate entity as contrasted to comparing us to the YMCAs or LifeTime Fitness as a whole. I have also included a copy of the 2004 MCC year-end financial report. After ten years of operations, I am pleased to report that this is the first year that the MCC has shown a positive cash flow for operations. One could argue "shame on us for not having done it sooner" but I want to go on record that I believe we are one of possibly three public fitness/community centers that is showing positive cash flow in the metro area. Furthemore, based on the city's accounting practices, we may be the only public facility whose revenue exceeds day-to-day operation expenses. I will be providing the parks and recreation commission in the next two months with a metro -wide community center survey that will show general fund public subsidies ranging from $150,000 to $500,000 for most community centers in the metropolitan area. Having said that, we are going to continue to work towards increasing revenues and reducing expenditures and operate the MCC as a business. kph\0305.mu.comm Enclosures 141 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 163 deer were harvested, of those were 30 antlered. This was an increase of 72 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. • 2004 Deer Harvest by Park Site Hunting Period' 1 2 3 4 total (#of antlered) County Vadnais 14 4 7(2) 6(2) 31(4) Otter Lake 2 0 1 1(1) 4(1) Poplar Lake 7 0 2(2) 1 10(2) Pigs Eye 5 2 9(3) 2 18(3) Grass Lake 6 3 3(2) 5(3) 17(5) Turtle Creek -- -- 0 1 1 Fish Creek 3 2 1(1) 3(1) 9(2) Battle Creek -- 30 23(10) -- 53(10) Maplewood Priory 5 4 6(3) 1 16(3) Applewood -- 3 1 -- 4(0) Total 42 48 53(23) 20(7) 163(30) • • Ramsey County Deer Car Collisions - 2004 1 0 1 2 Miles RAMSEY COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION (651) 748-2500 0 � • MNDOT(160deer) Maplewood (27 deer) * St. Paul (32 deer) Ramsey County (1S2 deer) RAMSEY COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION (651) 748-2500 0 � • • Ramsey County Parks and Recreation Department 2005 Deer Management Program The Ramsey County Board of Commissioners in December of 1999 approved a deer population management plan. Since the approval of the plan, the Parks and Recreation Department has implemented an archery program and held special permit archery hunts at six park locations, in conjunction with the neighboring municipalities. A number of agencies and municipalities are conducting or planning deer management programs in addition to the management programs on County property. This includes Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant, H.P. Fuller, and the Cities of Maplewood, North Oaks, and St. Paul. The cities of Gem Lake and Vadnais Heights and White Bear Township still allow archery hunting on private property. Ramsey County Parks and Recreation Department in cooperation with the affected municipalities is proposing to conduct special archery hunts on 9 of its properties in the fall of 2005 (table attached). The program will be conducted using special archery hunts during the regular archery season. Participants will be selected through the Metro Bowhunters Resource Base (MBRB). All hunts will be restricted to the dates established by the Ramsey County Parks and Recreation Department. Archers will be allowed to keep the deer shot during the regular season. Archers at each site are required to remove a certain number of antlerless deer before bucks can be shot. These hunts are expected to remove 144 to 201 deer. A total of 143 deer were harvested during the 2004 season. Deer surveys were not conducted during the winter of 2005, except for Tamarack Nature Center and Vadnais Lake Regional Park, because of poor snow conditions. Collisions between cars and deer decreased in 2004. There were over 418 reported car killed deer in 2004, a 15 percent decrease from 2003 for agencies reporting (map attached). cl' O 00 t- en 11 r..( r~ M � ■ • *I *I O r.y ��„� N to N c`1 N til O O O 00 N kn N kn el tr) O OrO rN-I r I N r..( r -I I ■ • *I *I Vadnais Lake Regional Park 0 2005 Aerial Deer Survey 2006 surveyboundary 'C' Fark boundary 0 0 1 Miles Survey was conducted by ,John Moriarty, Ramsey Counter Parks. 23.February 2003. Snow conditions were poor 82 deer seen Tamarack Nature Center and Vicinity .. . . . . . . .... .... . . . . . .. . ....... .. . . .. ... .. 2006 Aerial Deer Survey 3 3 0.5 0 0.6 1 1.5 Miles I NOMENOU- 1 C> 2006 survey 2 boundary <=) Park boundary Survey was conducted by John Moriarty, Ramsey County Parks 23 February 2003. Snow conditions were poor 44 deer seen 0 C7 U • Draft Resolution WHEREAS, The Ramsey County Board of Commissioners approved a Cooperative Deer Management Plan for Ramsey County parks and open space properties on December 14, 1999: and WHEREAS, The cities of St. Paul, Maplewood, Vadnais Heights and Shoreview, and White Bear Township, are participants in the Cooperative Deer Management Plan the involves deer removals on Ramsey County properties: Now, Therefore, Be It RESOLVED, That the Ramsey County Board of Commissioners approves the Ramsey County Cooperative Deer Management Implementation Program for the Fall/Winter 2005-2006, including the following sites: Otter Lake Unit and Tamarack Nature Center of Bald Eagle — Otter Lake Regional Park, Pig's Eye Lake and Battle Creek Units of Battle Creek Regional Park, Snail Lake Regional Park, Vadnais Lake Regional Park, Poplar Lake County Park, Fish Creek Open Space, and Turtle Creek Open Space. Deer Management Questions • 1. Only MBRB members are eligible for the hunts. 2. MBRB = Metro Bowhunters Resource Base, 612-492-8996, 222.strictlybowhunting.com/mbrb 3. Members sign up June -August to be eligible for the hunts. 4. MBRB members request sites they want to hunt on and through a lottery system are assigned to a site. 5. Four 3 -day hunts are scheduled for most sites. A hunter will do the 1St & 3rd hunts or the 2nd and 4t' hunts. 6. The 1St and 2"d hunts are doe only. This helps ensure not only bucks are taken. FAQ's Q1: Why can't I hunt too? It's right by my house and I don't want to join MBRB. Al: No hunting is allowed in Maplewood, except in conjunction with our deer management program. Ramsey County has offered to coordinate bowhunts for Maplewood, at no cost to the City, if we use their procedure. They contract with MBRB. MBRB members cover all their own costs, pass a proficiency test, and keep the deer they • kill. Maplewood staff believe the most responsible use of funds at this time is to work with the County. Coordinating the hunts, and testing and permitting individual hunters, and would require many many hours of staff time. Attachment I ORDINANCE NO. • AN ORDINANCE CHANGING CHAPTER 7; ADDING ARTICLE VII: DEER MANAGEMENT The Maplewood City Council approves the following additions to the Maplewood Code of Ordinances: Chapter 7 Sections 7-215--7-220 Reserved Article VII. DEER MANAGEMENT Sec. 7-221. Prohibiting feeding of deer It shall be unlawful for any person or group to place, or permit to be placed on the ground or within four (4) feet of the ground surface, either on property owned or controlled by such person or on property owned by others, unless it is screened in a manner which prevents deer from feeding thereon, any grain, fodder, salt licks or any other food including feed for birds, which may reasonably be expected to result in, deer feeding thereon. (a) Exceptions 1. Feeding programs or efforts undertaken by to City of Maplewood in accordance with the deer management plan or by the Department of Natural Resources for same; 2. Veterinarians, City animal control officers or county, state or federal game officials who, in the course of their duties, have deer in their custody; and 3. Any food places upon the property for the purpose of entrapping or otherwise taking deer where such trapping or taking is pursuant to a permit issued by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Sec. 7-222 Regulations No person shall, within the limits of the City, hunt or engage in the business of deer removal, unless such person shall be acting on the City's behalf and obtained a special permit in conjunction with the City of Maplewood's Deer Management Program. Sec. 7-223 Application of the deer management program. .(a) Every person desiring to be part of our deer management program (archery hunt or sharpshooting) must become a member of Metro Bow Hunters Resource Base (MBRB). (b) Sharpshooting (rifles), may be utilized, and organizations desiring to provide these services will be required to submit bids annually. Sec. 7-224 Violations of Article or rules, obstruction of deer management program or order of City council; etc. (a) No person shall obstruct or interfere with the City's authorized deer management program or threaten, intimidate, obstruct or interfere with any authorized deer management program or agent providing such services to the City of Maplewood. (b) No person shall touch, damage, manipulate, disengage, make inoperative, or otherwise tamper with a deer trap or other deer removal equipment or material which is being used as part of the City's authorized deer management program. (c) No person shall be within 100 feet of a deer trap or other deer removal equipment or material being used as part of the City's authorized deer management program unless the person is on land which he/she owks or has the express permission of the City, the City's authorized agent, or the owner of the property where the trap or removal equipment or material is located. (d) No person shall enter any area which the City or County has closed to the public as part of the City's authorized deer management program if the City has provided notice of such closure by conspicuously posted signs or other reasonable means. Sec. 7-225 Violations and Penalties. (a) Any person violating, or otherwise refusing to comply with any provisions of this Ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and subsequent penalties shall apply. Sec. 7-226 This ordinance shall take effect after the City publishes it in the official paper. The Maplewood City Council approved this ordinance on W-tIcst.- City Clerk Ayes - Nays - , 2000. Mayor Bruce K. Anderson From: Chris Cavett • Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 3:49 PM To: Chuck Ahl; Melinda Coleman Cc: Bruce K. Anderson; John DuCharme; Chuck Vermeersch; Dennis Peck; Erin Laberee; Tom Ekstrand Subject: St. Paul Parks - Sandy Lake Filling Operation Chuck & Melinda, FYI Today, John D. and I met with the Geotechnical Eng. and Civil consultants for the St. Paul Park Dept's Sandy Lake filling operation. It appears they are going to let a contract in May or June to begin Phase I of the park construction this summer. Phase I will involve: • Placing Geotextile fabric • Install Wick Drains into the 35 -feet of lime sludge to dewater • Place 190,000 CY of sand • Place 250,000 CY of common borrow They expect most of the phase one work to be done this season, (though I think it will extend into winter and even later). Then they will let the soil settle for 1 to 2 years, before beginning Phase IL Phase II will involve: • Removal of 5 -feet of over burden • Placement of sand and topsoil • Soccer field construction • Irrigation and drainage systems • Seed, mulch and Landscaping • _-For Pftase-One they will-meed-a-grading-permit-My-understanding-is-that-they-are-approved-for-all-other--city-requirements-- - and can proceed once they have their grading and watershed permits? I told them that we would only approve two haul routes as these have either few or no residents along the routes: 1. Rice - County Road B to Sandy Lake, or 2. Rice - Roselawn to Sandy Lake I asked for a press release to include in a mailing, City News and possibly the website. Comments? Questions? Suggestions? Christopher (Chris) Cavett, P.E. Assistant City Engineer City of Maplewood 1902 County Road B East Maplewood, MN 55109 651-249-2403 651-249-2409 (fax) chris.cavett@ci.nnaplewood.mn.us C� ST. PAUL BUSINESS CENTER EAST 1983 SLOAN PLACE, SUITE 15 MAPLEWOOD, MN 55117 651-776-TEMo (8366) 800-670-TEMO (8366) FAX: 651-776-0456 TEMOSUNROOMSOFMNQa MSN.COM W W W.TEMO S UNROOMS OFMN.COM Maplewood Community Center Addition Proposal March 23, 2005 Presented to Mr. Bruce Anderson Director of Parks and Recreation City of Maplewood 1830 County Road B Maplewood, MN 55117 "Building dreams one Sunroom at a time" TEMO • 'Every Day u a Vim"' March 21, 2005 Bruce Anderson City of Maplewood 1830 County Road B Maplewood, MN 55117 Dear Mr. Anderson: Thank you for your patience on this proposal. I have attempted to provide you with as detailed a proposal as possible. I have broken down the various project elements and room options in the event you wished to add or scale back the size of the room. Please review and call me if you have any questions or would like to make any revisions to what has been quoted. Thank you again for stopping by our showroom. . TEMO is the largest and most reputable manufacturer of custom sunrooms in North America, with over 250,000 rooms built since 1969. TEMO sunrooms feature the only lifetime, non -pro rated warranty in the industry and have developed over 24 industry patents on its sunrooms. I invite you to visit TEMO's website for more information on their history and technological developments. www.temosunrooms.com Your project overview and room description: 20'x 96' custom solarium room dimensions Foundation projection of 20' and width of 96' • Excavate for installation of perimeter footings. Due to location, this area will be safety fenced. Excavator will back fill after installation and inspection and haul excess fill. Sand will be hauled in as needed for concrete floor base. • Install 136 IN of below grade, 12" block on 8"x 20" concrete footing, 30001bJsq. inch with #4 rerod. Includes 2" rigid insulation installed vertically on interior of block. All installs to International Commercial Code requirements. • Install 130 1/f x 2'9" of above grade, 6" block with additional brick exterior to match existing community center brick as close as possible. Install 2" insulation between brick and block. Weep holes, durawall and wall ties included. Bond beam and core fill with #4 rerod and minimum 3000 lb/sq inch concrete mix. • Concrete floors will be 4" with sand base as needed and will be insulated with 2" rigid horizontally laid insulation. TEMO wall system • Includes 3", 3 '/2 -season front wall system with double thermal break construction with 23 -fixed, non-operating 60" x 441/2" thermo pane windows and 2 -fixed 60" x 41" thermo pane windows with an r -value of 4.0. • Left and right wall projection of 20' includes 1-36"x 60", 3- 44 ''/2"x 60" fixed windows and 2-36" full view out - swing exit doors. • Front wall width of 96 1/f includes solarium design with 23- 44 %2" and 2- 41" wide insulated curved upper glass extending 36" into roof system. • Window system includes tempered glass with upgraded TEMO exclusive HPG 2000 with SPF (Solar Protection Factor) 85, 1/2" double pane insulated glass. DDS 2000 dirt resistant treatment on all exterior glass. Upper curved glass includes Low E squared. • Prime entry door with welded corners, double strength tempered glass, extra security deadbolt and dual door sweeps for commercial strength durability and weather protection. TEMO Roof system • 1632 s/f of 2 -lb -High Density Structural Foam, 41/a" thick to provide maximum thereto protection. Roof system also includes 288 s/f of insulated glass. • Includes 96 l/f 3 -ply x 14" LVL beam with 3- 6" x 6" support posts. • Internal Locking Tongue -and -Groove Connection System • Krystal Coat Roof Coating electrostatically applied to exterior shell for the hardest coating available. Additional costs and optional allowances: • Full architectural cad drawings and drafting fee: (Includes one revision) Included. Project breakdown: Complete TEMO 1920 s/f solarium design, 3 % season room with 3" wall system, insulated glass, exterior entry doors and* solarium insulated curved glass with insulated roof system. Includes excavation, footings, block and brick install with interior insulated concrete Final costs: $207,386.00 Optional In Floor Heat System: Estimate for Wirsbo Radiant Floor System including Cad design of radiant floor, installation inside 1920s/f solarium room, manifolds, tubing, staples, air test, labor and heat loss calculation. $ 6,340.00 Slab sensor included in the above bid because of all the windows and solar gain that will come into the sunroom. The sensor will kick on the heater when the sun goes down, maximizing energy efficiency. The above bid does not include the mechanical part of the radiant floor system for this project. A preliminary estimate for the mechanical will run $7,500-$12,500. An on site estimate and print review of existing building is needed for exact pricing. Optional Slip -Not Clear Coat: Product keeps concrete clean and new looking while preventing slipping by your customers. Product is non-toxic, oder free and environmentally friendly. On site estimate necessary for bid. Electrical Allowance: Electrical can be installed by our electrician, Harrision Electric, by bid only. No allowance included in price. All Prices includes all applicable taxes, materials, labor and clean up. Permit fee is not included in price and is payable by customer upon start of project in accordance with local fee requirements. If you have any questions regarding the work as outlined, please feel free to contact me at 651-776-8366 Please feel free to stop by our showroom in St. Paul as we have a number of fully constructed rooms available to view. Sincerely, I\VIJ AUJd_� Robert J etta President • i SHOWROOM: 1983 Sloan Place, Suite 15, Maplewood, MN 55117 HO Sunrooms' only business is... sunrooms! As sunroom specialists, we're experts in it we do. And because we've been in business more than 30 years, you can depend on quality sunrooms that TEMO manufacturers. artered in Clinton Township, Michigan, TEMO's corporate complex includes the ring department, manufacturing site, warehouse and shipping facilities, corporate customer service and in-house marketing department, as well as our retail P ur hands-on involvement in every aspect of the business, every day, helps us to maintain �rict quality control and customer service. It starts before you purchase a TEMO sunroom and lasts throughout your years of ownership. Superior Enzineering HAL - Rapid Prototype Machine Our sunroom production starts from the concept up. TEMO engineering designs our exclusive product line, continuously bringing our customers the finest in state-of-the-art structures, styles, and features. TEMO innovated the first thermally insulated roof and wall systems for sunrooms, and continues to lead the industry in engineering. TEMO engineering gives special attention to designing our rooms with features that make them maintenance free. We want you in your sunroom — relaxing! — NOT doing maintenance! TEMO Engineering, led by TEMO's on -staff Registered Engineer, has been instrumental in establishing and retaining TEMO's position as the thermal sunroom industry leader through ongoing product development designed to meet both the customer demands for innovation, and evolving engineering standards. TEMO sunroom is designed and certified to meet or exceed all national building codes. voluntarily seeks independent testing to certify our products' structural excellence. Our rations include: • International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO) — Roof, walls • National Evaluation Service (NES) — Deck panels • American Architectural Manufacturer's Association (AAMA). TEMO is among the few sunroom manufacturers to pass this exclusive window testing and certification process to meet standards for performance, safety and •construction. • Underwriters Laboratory, Inc. (UL) - Electrical A TEMO Sunroom on a BEAUTIFUL winter day! Superior Design Options Cathedral Sunroom Each sunroom is hand assembled in our state-of-the-art facility Assembled windows ready to be shipped - All TEMO sunrooms meet strict national engineering standards and are certified by national testing agencies. TEMO sunrooms are built to withstand snow loads and all weather conditions, including hurricanes. In fact, TEMO sunrooms pass standards for use in Miami Dade, Florida — "hurricane country!" Your TEMO sunroom gets personal attention! Every TEMO sunroom design is reviewed and approved by our Engineering Department before production ever begins to assure quality from the start. TEMO proudly designed a full line of sunroom styles that we manufacturer to offer homeowners the best available options. After all, every home and homeowner is different. From the most functional to the ultra elegant, TEMO offers 6 beautiful designs to choose from, with many options available to customize each style to your desires and budget. Your local TEMO-authorized dealer can help you select the right design to fit your home's architecture to create the perfect complement to your home and expectations. Superior Manufacturing Systems Each TEMO sunroom is individually designed to exact customer specification, and blueprinted with the assistance of CAD computer systems for precision manufacturing. TEMO Sunrooms differ from many other sunroom companies that gather parts and are assembled on site, at your home. As a custom order, Each TEMO sunroom is hand crafted, one at a time. Every component of a TEMO sunroom is assembled in our facilities and pre -manufactured in sections. That's why installation on your home is so easy and fast. Often just a day or two, after the foundation is complete! And, we get your sunroom to you faster! TEMO provides a 14 -day turnover from the day your TEMO-authorized dealer orders your sunroom to the day we deliver it to their door. That's compared to an industry standard of 4-6 weeks or more. Superior Product Testing & Ouality Control Hurricane testing on a TEMO Wall System TEMO demands superior workmanship and quality control standards. We invite independent third party testing and inspection to ensure our components are manufactured consistently daily, and meet or exceed all nationally recognized engineering and building codes. All individual runs are assigned an ICBO tracking label/code that enable detailed quality -control identification. Superior Packaging & ShippinE Systems Shipping is made ready with an in-house dispatch office t erior Warranty You'll enjoy your sunroom for a lifetime, our warranty says so! TEMO does everything it can to ensure that your sunroom reaches you in excellent condition — and as quickly as possible. TEMO uses a unique upright linear packaging system that significantly reduces the potential for product damage en route. This system also provides an environment -friendly reduction of packaging. A color -coded component labeling system assures accurate tracking and reduces missing components that can cause frustrating construction delays. TEMO uses an exclusive carrier to ship our sunrooms to our dealers, with an in-house dispatch office located on the TEMO corporate complex. Our carrier uses sophisticated hi -tech tracking systems to provide precision control and quicker, more productive shipping time. We proudly manufacturer a quality product that requires minimum maintenance, all so that your family will enjoy using it for as long as you live in your home. We're so confident in our sunrooms that we warranty them for a lifetime. Here are just some of the many ways homeowners enjoy using a TEMO sunroom. • Breakfast, lunch and dinner room • Playroom for kids • Place to work • Exercise room • Reading room • Place to knit or do crafts • Place to enjoy a spa • • Entertaining for holidays, birthdays, special occasions Game room • Naps • Protected room for pets to enjoy sun and fresh air • Sunny place to grow plants • Smoking room, separate from the house Watch TV, listen to music Features of TEMO Sunrooms Your sunroom's most defining feature is its windows. That's why TEMO takes providing you the best sunroom windows available very seriously. TEMO sunrooms meet or exceed all national engineering codes — and go a step beyond. TEMO windows are AAMA Gold Label Certified! Only the best win the gold. TEMO's standard single -pane and double - pane IG windows offer industry-leading performance in the ways that matter most to you, backed by AMMA Gold Label Certification. To achieve this prestigious and rare recognition, TEMO windows passed 6 demanding tests by the nation's leading independent testing organization — The American Architectural Manufacturers Association. AAMA Gold Label Certification assures you that TEMO windows are: • Built with durable sash -to -glass construction • Air and water tight • Secure against intruders Easy to operate AMMA• Tests and Extended Explanations Air Infiltration — Windows are tested for the amount of air that can leak past the window frame. TEMO windows passed with less than the allowable 0.3 cubic feet per minute rate of air infiltration. Even a windy day is draft -free in our sunrooms! Water Infiltration — This test reproduces rigorous pelting rain for an extended ' period of time and demands that not a single drop of water leak past the Awindow. You'll stay dry in your TEMO sunroom, relaxing and enjoying the rain. Forced Entry — You want to be sure that your windows are secure against intruders. This stringent test applies 200 pounds of force to attempt to pull the window from its latch with a screwdriver and a putty knife. TEMO windows passed with only one latch attached. All our windows come standard with two latch locks. You'll rest easy knowing that your sunroom offers a superb barrier against entry to your sunroom — and your home! Sash -to -Glass Connection — Knowing that your windows are built to last is important. This test places the sash in a jig and extreme force is applied. Our windows recorded minimum sash movement away from the glass, offering excellent assurance of long-term, durable construction. r Ease of Operation — The best windows don't mean anything if they aren't easy ' to use day to day. TEMO windows passed tests for the amount of force required to open and close them. Ours fell far below the 20 -pound allowable requirement with only 12 pounds of force required to operate it. This means that everyone in the family can comfortably use our windows. TEMO Window Engineering Also Includes These Standard Features: • HPG 2000 with SPF (Solar Protection Factor) • High Performance Glass is tempered for safety and strength and designed with integrated protection against UV penetration, while optimally performs to block summer heat, but allow winter light. Available in single and double IG glass. • Interlocking Meeting Rail Double -sliding window designed to meet at a center rail for structural integrity. • Security Window Locks Adjustable locking system can be positioned to personal height preference for convenience or childproof protection. • DDS 2000 Dirt -Resistant Treatment Exterior glass treatment works like Teflon to help keep dirt and water off windows, reducing maintenance. • E -Z Lift Screens Self -healing, puncture -resistant, removable from interior for easy window cleaning. 1.2.0 -lb -Density Structural Roof Thermal Foam Expanded Polystyrene (EPS) provides maximum thermal protection. 2. Thermally Broken Hanging Rail Roof attachment system designed with a thermal break that reduces cold transfer to the roof to increase thermal protection. 3. Interlocking Tongue -and -Groove Roof Construction System Superior panel connection system provides structural integrity, overall roof strength and longevity. 4. Standing Roof Seam (Aluminum Roof Cleat) llows most effective protection against weather and seasonal expansion while providing additional structural integrity. Vinyl Roof Cleat Designed to attractively conceal the interior seam and provide additional seam integrity against weather. 6. Krystal Kote® Roof Coating Electrostatically applied to the exterior shell for the hardest coating available to add luster while protecting against scratches, corrosion, fading. 7. Structural -Grade Aluminum Extruded Gutter System Thicker grade than residential gutters for superior life and performance. 8. Leaf Guard Blocks debris accumulation for maintenance -free gutter performance. THERMAL WINDOW WALL PANEL SYSTEM 9. Internal Weep System Internal system that channels water away from the room. 10. TEMKOR Exclusive indestructible exterior/interior polymer surface. Lifetime warranty against scratching, denting, fading, chalking. Blocks UV penetration to protect insulation bonding from delamination. 11 SBA (Structural Bonding Agent) &lecular bonding process ensures lifetime seal of TEMKOR surfacing to Polystyrene core. 12.2.0 -lb -Density Structural Thermal Foam Core EPS (Expanded Polystyrene) compressed to 2 -lb density for maximum thermal performance. 13. Dual Vinyl Bulb Seal Similar to a refrigerator seal, located at top and bottom channels, offers weather -tight and insect -resistant protection between the walls and the foundation, and between the walls and the roof. 14. Hideaway Screw System • Intemal/extemal screws at the window seams and top and base tracks are hidden from view for a clean appearance. 15. HPG 2000 with SPF (Solar Protection Factor) High -Performance Glass is tempered for safety and strength and designed with integrated protection against iJV penetration. Optimally performs to block summer heat, but allow winter light. Available in single pane and double IG glass. 16. Interlocking Meeting Rail Double -sliding window designed to meet at a center rail for structural integrity. 17. Security Window Locks Adjustable locking system can be positioned to personal height preference for convenience or childproof protection. 18. DDS 2000 Dirt -Resistant Treatment Exterior glass treatment works like Teflon to help keep dirt and water off windows, reducing maintenance. 19. E -Z Lift Screens Self -healing, puncture -resistant (Memory Mesh), removable from interior for easy window cleaning. DOORS 20. Welded Corner & dual Door Sweep Full -View Prime Entry Door • Welded corners provide reinforced commercial strength. Dual door sweeps increase the weather protection. 21. French Handle Attractive brass or color -coordinated powder coat finish option. 22. Deadbolt Lock System Extra security against intrusion. WARRANTY 23. Lifetime, Transferable, non pro -rated. Fully transferable offers protection for all components, including a glass replacement guarantee. 20'-0' 3'-7 112' 5'-0 5'-0 7/8' 11'-3 5/8" g/� Z F 19NIMS01;N �� o"3a 3N 3�tL m 1 Q W ' m J J Nf- n� H X J ' ' Ln d O i a O D- CL Ln X CL } v Q W Ln Z 3 Lq DECO SWING FIT] H � , POST F/F W _N Ln O O Of O W D O 0 W C) C) Q V) U) J J Q 2 3/8 3'-7 1/2'5'-0 7/8' 11'-3 5/8" 20'-0' SZ W U ♦D NS M a � S'+ir ru rnM rusT '-I N � N W rnM 5'i* rus rnM inisil 1VM J a Tru Tru TIM W rnM ib Crus 5 �i4 ti (U rnM I rus rnM W Itis � L) d rnM rus rnM I im N NS ly---ITAI i4 IN rnM � N I N rnM 5•i4 � 't4 N W U a rusT N N ni MT, inisil 1VM TIM W ib Crus u .TIM J d , TIM � I im Ln � rd c i4 IN fNM � N I � N I M1 « LL ¢a � on. a a U U mwm(r88 }te J�Qaaa a N W �WW 00 5 J J J - - jUU V(y �y W a J Q U Cn a tx a O Z _J z = a QO S.:Z �m w to J 10r N W � O to 0 Ln rp O K) 3 U Q O U O W O z � z 3- W J V / O a Q O Q w V) Q' W U o O V) W U Q z m I • T® 'Fasry Day is a Vawri.n' March 21, 2005 Bruce Anderson City of Maplewood 1830 County Road B Maplewood, MN 55117 Dear Mr. Anderson: Thank you for your patience on this proposal. I have attempted to provide you with as detailed a proposal as possible. I have broken down the various project elements and room options in the event you wished to add or scale back the size of the room. Please review and call me if you have any questions or would like to make any revisions to what has been quoted. W-ank you again for stopping by our showroom. TEMO is the largest and most reputable manufacturer of custom sunrooms in North America, with over 250,000 rooms built since 1969. TEMO sunrooms feature the only lifetime, non -pro rated warranty in the industry and have developed over 24 industry patents on its sunrooms. I invite you to visit TEMO's website for more information on their history and technological developments. www.temosunrooms.com Extend of Child Care Center Your project overview and room description: 14'x 16' custom solarium room dimensions Foundation projection of 14' and width of 16' • Excavate for installation of perimeter footings. Due to location, this area will be safety fenced. Excavator will back fill after installation and inspection and haul excess fill. Sand will be hauled in as needed for concrete floor base. • Install 30 1/f of below grade, 12" block on 8"x 20" concrete footing, 30001bJsq. inch with #4 rerod. Includes 2" rigid insulation installed vertically on interior of block. All installs to International Commercial Code requirements. • Install 29 1/f x 2'9" of above grade, 6" block with additional brick exterior to match existing community center brick as close as possible. Install 2" insulation between brick and block. Weep holes, durawall and wall ties included. Bond beam and core fill with #4 rerod and minimum 3000 lb/sq inch concrete mix. • Concrete floors will be 4" with sand base as needed and will be insulated with 2" rigid horizontally laid insulation. • • TEMO wall system • Includes 3", 3 %i -season front wall system with double thermal break construction with 4 -fixed, non-operating 60" x 44 '/2" thermo pane windows with an r -value of 4.0. • Left wall projection of 14', 1- 44 %"x 60" fixed window, 1-36" full view out -swing exit doors, and 71/f of solid wall. • Front wall width of 16 1/f includes solarium design with 4- 44 %s" wide insulated curved upper glass extending 36" into roof system. • Window system includes tempered glass with upgraded TEMO exclusive HPG 2000 with SPF (Solar Protection Factor) 85, 1/2" double pane insulated glass. DDS 2000 dirt resistant treatment on all exterior glass. Upper curved glass includes Low E squared. • Prime entry door with welded corners, double strength tempered glass, extra security deadbolt and dual door sweeps for commercial strength durability and weather protection. TEMO Roof system • • 224 s/f of 2 -lb -High Density Structural Foam, 4 '/" thick to provide maximum thermo protection. Roof system also includes 48 s/f of insulated glass. • Includes 16 1/f 3 -ply x 14" LVL beam. • Internal Locking Tongue -and -Groove Connection System • Krystal Coat Roof Coating electrostatically applied to exterior shell for the hardest coating available. 0 Additional costs and optional allowances: • Full architectural cad drawings and drafting fee: (Includes one revision) Included. • Proiect breakdown: Complete TEMO 224 s/f solarium design, 3 % season room with 3" wall system, insulated glass, exterior entry doors and solarium insulated curved glass with insulated roof system. Includes excavation, footings, block and brick install with interior insulated concrete Final costs: $ 29,763.00 Optional: Remove existing glass wall on front of child care center and frame around. $ 1,632.00 Aftectrical Allowance: ectrical can be installed by our electrician, Harrision Electric, by bid only. No allowance included in price. All Prices includes all applicable taxes, materials, labor and clean up. Permit fee is not included in price and is payable by customer upon start of project in accordance with local fee requirements. If you have any questions regarding the work as outlined, please feel free to contact me at 651-776-8366 Please feel free to stop by our showroom in St. Paul as we have a number of fully constructed rooms available to view. Sincerely, Robert J. ai tta President ACORD CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANC s! nM Lff I/MIDOfYY)PRODUCER S-1 /21/04 THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ERBLAD PARDEE & BEWELL INC ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE 1983 SLOAN PLACE SUITE 16 HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. MAPLEWOOD MN 55117-2004 - ;bone: 651-771-8111 Fax:651-771-8282 INSURER A: TEMO SUNROOMS OF MINNESOTA INSURER B: SUNROOM SOLUTIONS LLC D/B/A INSURER C: 1983 SLOAN PLACE — #15 MAPLEWOOD MN 55117 INSURER D: INSURER E: COVERAGES INSURERS AFFORDING COVERAGE AUTO—OWNERS NLICY PERIOD INDICATED. Y REQUIREMENT. TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOC MEENT WITH RESPECT TO WHAMED ABOVE FOR THEICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR NOTWITHSTANDING MAY PERTAIN. THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS. EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. AGGREGATE LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. LTRSR1 TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER DATE fMM/DDfYYI GENERAL LIABILITY VI dTS A X COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY 0801617804 EACH OCCURRENCE 51,000,000 04/11/04 04/11/05 FIRE DAMAGE (Anyonefire) s 50, 000 CLAIMS MADE ®OCCUR GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER: POLICYn JECOT- n LOC AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY ANY AUTO ALL OWNED AUTOS SCHEDULED AUTOS HIRED AUTOS NON -OWNED AUTOS AGE LIABILITY ANY AUTO EXCESS LIABILITY 7 OCCUR 7 CLAIMS MADE DEDUCTIBLE RETENTION S WORKERS COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY 'KTIFICATE HOLDER BY . Wl I IUNAL INSURED; INSURER LEITER: STATE OF MINNESOTA. DEPT OF COMMERCE LICENSE DIVISION 85 7TH PLACE EAST ST. PAUL MN 55101 ORD 25-S (7/97) MNDEP-1 MED EXP (My one Person) 5 , 000 PERSONAL 6 ADV INJURY S 11000,000 GENERAL AGGREGATE $2,000,000 PRODUCTS-COMP/OPAGG S 2, 000, 000 COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT IS (Ea accident) I (Per pe �j RY is I (POerr accident)Y is I PROPERTY DAMAGE S (Per accident) f LY - EA ACCIDENT S AN EA ACC S LY: AGG S EACH OCCURRENCE S AGGREGATE s S S s E.L. EACH ACCIDENT s E.L. DISEASE - EA EMPLOY s E.L. DISEASE - POLICY LIMIT S CANCELLATION SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES Be CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATIO DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING INSURER WILL ENDEAVOR TO MNL _j&- DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE LEFT. BUT FAILURE TO DO SO SHALL IMPOSE NO OBLIGATION OR LIABILITY OF ANY KIND UPON THE INSURER ITS AGENTS OR REPRESENTATIVES. /J 1UTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE COACORD CORPORATION 1 City of Maplewood, Minnesota Community Center Operations Fund Statement of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Fund Equity Period ending December 31, 2004 (with comparative totals for period ended December 31, 2003) Increase (Decrease) 2004 2003 Amount Operating Revenues- MEMBERSHIPS DAILY FEES CONCESSIONS/MISCELLANEOUS THEATER FEES BANQUET/MEETING ROOM FEES DAY CARE FEES BIRTHDAY PARTY FEES PROGRAM FEES POOL FEES GYM FEES MULTI-PURPOSE ROOM FEES EXERCISE FEES MASSAGE ROOM FEES OAKDALE AQUATICS WHITE BEAR TOWNSHIP AQUATICS MAHTOMEDI AQUATICS Total revenues Operating Expenses - OFFICE ADMISSIONS/CONCESSIONS THEATER BANQUET/MEETING ROOMS DAY CARE BIRTHDAY PARTIES PROGRAMS POOL GYM MULTI-PURPOSE ROOM EXERCISE PROGRAMS MASSAGE ROOM OAKDALE AQUATICS WHITE BEAR TOWNSHIP AQUATICS MAHTOMEDI AQUATICS BUILDING MAINTENANCE UTILITIES Total expenses Operatinq income (loss) before other rev (exp) Other revenues (expenses) TAXES INTERGOVERNMENTAL - STATE AID MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES (EXPENSES) DEPRECIATION INTEREST ON INTERFUND LOAN GAIN (LOSS) ON FIXED ASSETS Total other revenues (expenses) Transfers in (out): TRANSFERSIN Net income (loss) Fund eauity- beginninq Fund eauitv - ending $ 1,017,167 $ 909,798 $ 107,370 11.8% 193,178 211,630 (18,453) -8.7% 117,827 119,014 (1,186) -1.0% 48,117 55,070 (6,953) -12.6% 6 139,894 167,210 (27,317) -16.3% 212 319 (107) -33.6% 29,323 29,538 (215) -0.7% 124,304 115,165 9139 ° 7.9/° 6,115 6,766 (650) -9.6% 20,333 14,865 5,469 36.8% 9,924 11,126 (1,203) -10.8% 42,386 49,803 (7,417) -14.9% 37,548 34,774 2,774° 8.0% 21,906 30,643 (8,737) -28.5% 16,500 16,500 0 0.0% 19,000 0 19,000 0.0% 1,843,734 1,772,222 71,512 4.0% 496,573 517,033 (20,460) -4.0% 142,732 160,568 (17,836) -11.1% 22,263 33,280 (11,018) -33.1% 15,109 21,992 (6,882) -31.3% 30,580 25,513 5,067 19.9% 18,518 30,714 (12,196) -39.7% 36,996 38,330 (1,334) -3.5% 231,502 230,260 1,243° 0.5/o 7,611 9,316 (1,704) -18.3% 205 280 (75) -26.8% 89,080 77,475 11,605° 15. 27,268 25,431 1,837 7.2%% 14,334 19,143 (4,809) -25.1% 12,185 13,839 (1,654) -12.0% 8,912 0 8,912 0.0% 473,206 486,271 (13,066) -2.7% 213,521 219,133 (5,612) -2.6% 1,840,594 1,908,577 (67,983) -3.6% 3,139 (136,355) 139,495 -102.3% 168,822 69,843 98,980 141.7% 6,090 2,608 3,482 133.5% 856 541 315 58.2% (267,595) (255,446) (12,149) 4.8% (2,481) (4,342) 1,860 -42.8% (177,641) (2,445) (175,196) 7,166.3% (271,949) (189,241) (82,708) 43.7% 0 26,000 (26,000) -100.0% (268,810) (299,596) 30,786 -10.3% 9,556,461 9,856,057 (299,596) -3.0% $ 9,287,651 $ 9,556,461 $ (268,810) -2.8% • • • City of Maplewood, Minnesota Community Center Operations Fund Statement of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Fund Equity Month of December 2004 (with comparative totals for the month of December 2003) Increase (Decrease) 2004 2003 Amount % Operating Revenues: MEMBERSHIPS $ 89,958 $ 75,867 $ 14,091 18.6% DAILY FEES 17,312 15,977 1,334 8.3% CONCESSIONS/MISCELLANEOUS 11,637 9,609 2,028 21.1% THEATER FEES 27,248 16,820 10,428 62.0% BANQUET/MEETING ROOM FEES 15,012 11,593 3,419 29.5% DAY CARE FEES 10 52 (42) -80.9% BIRTHDAY PARTY FEES 1,797 1,793 4 0.2% PROGRAM FEES 20,707 16,252 4,455 27.4% POOL FEES 1,452 138 1,314 951.8% GYM FEES 4,756 2,980 1,776 59.6% MULTI-PURPOSE ROOM FEES 1,063 1,577 (514) -32.6% EXERCISE FEES 3,571 4,492 (922) -20.5% MASSAGE ROOM FEES 9,707 8,657 1,050 12.1% Total revenues 204,227 165,809 38,419 23.2% Operating Expenses: OFFICE 48,297 50,290 (1,993) -4.0% ADMISSIONS/CONCESSIONS 15,180 20,944 (5,764) -27.5% THEATER 4,300 8,739 (4,439) -50.8% BANQUET/MEETING ROOMS 776 3,187 (2,410) -75.6% DAY CARE 3,023 1,885 1,138 60.4% BIRTHDAY PARTIES 782 1,766 (984) -55.7% PROGRAMS 863 1,217 (354) -29.1% POOL 20,294 20,078 215 1.1% GYM 1,361 1,340 21 1.6% EXERCISE PROGRAMS 9,616 6,479 3,136 48.4% MASSAGE ROOM 4,909 1,645 3,264 198.4% OAKDALE AQUATICS 163 0 163 0.0% WHITE BEAR TOWNSHIP AQUATICS 82 80 2 2.5% BUILDING MAINTENANCE 39,948 69,834 (29,887) -42.8% UTILITIES 16,125 16,635 (510) -3.1% Total expenses 165,719 204,118 (38,400) -18.8% ODeratinq income (loss) before other rev (exp) 38,509 (38,310) 76,819 -200.5% Other revenues (expenses) TAXES 23,473 7,578 15,895 209.8% INTERGOVERNMENTAL - STATE AID 3,251 2,608 643 24.7% INVESTMENT EARNINGS 1,921 3,169 (1,248) -39.4% MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES (EXPENSES) (785) (93) (692) 744.7% DEPRECIATION (22,299) (20,967) (1,333) 6.4% INTEREST ON INTERFUND LOAN (2,481) (4,342) 1,860 -42.8% GAIN (LOSS) ON FIXED ASSETS (177,641) (2,445) (175,196) 7,166.3% Total other revenues (expenses) (174,562) (14,492) (160,070) 1,104.5% Transfers in (out): TRANSFERS IN 0 0 0 0.0% Net income (loss) (136,053) (52,802) (83,251) 157.7% Fund equity - beginninq 9,423,705 9,609,263 (185,558) -1.9% Fund equity - endinq $ 9,287,651 $ 9,556,461 $ (268,810) -2.8% City of Maplewood, Minnesota Community Center Operations Fund Statement of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Fund Equity Budget and Actual Period ending December 31, 2004 Annual Amended YTD Budget Actual Operating Revenues: MEMBERSHIPS DAILY FEES CONCESSIONS/MISCELLANEOUS THEATER FEES BANQUET/MEETING ROOM FEES DAY CARE FEES BIRTHDAY PARTY FEES PROGRAM FEES POOL FEES GYM FEES MULTI-PURPOSE ROOM FEES EXERCISE FEES MASSAGE ROOM FEES OAKDALE AQUATICS WHITE BEAR TOWNSHIP AQUATICS MAHTOMEDI AQUATICS Total revenues Operating Expenses: OFFICE ADMISSIONS/CONCESSIONS THEATER BANQUET/MEETING ROOMS DAY CARE BIRTHDAY PARTIES PROGRAMS POOL GYM MULTI-PURPOSE ROOM EXERCISE PROGRAMS MASSAGE ROOM OAKDALE AQUATICS WHITE BEAR TOWNSHIP AQUATICS MAHTOMEDI AQUATICS BUILDING MAINTENANCE UTILITIES Total expenses Operatinq income (loss) before other rev (exp) Other revenues (expenses) TAXES INTERGOVERNMENTAL - STATE AID MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES (EXPENSES) DEPRECIATION INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT FEES INTEREST ON INTERFUND LOAN GAIN (LOSS) ON FIXED ASSETS Total other revenues (expenses) Transfers in (out): TRANSFERSIN Net income (loss) Fund equity - beginninq Fund eauitv - endinq $ 915,000 290,000 148,300 50,000 160,000 300 40,000 110,000 6,200 18,400 12,200 56,500 38,000 30,000 16,500 547,050 142,110 25,490 17,350 24,505 21,075 12,365 248,630 10,140 460 75,660 28,680 19,980 10,165 940 471,385 200,000 180,640 0 0 (234,950) (180) (5,410) 0 (59,900) (24,485) 9,556,461 $ 9,531,976 $ 1,017,167 193,178 117,827 48,117 139,894 212 29,323 124,304 6,115 20,333 9,924 42,386 37,548 21,906 16,500 19,000 1,843,734 496,573 142,732 22,263 15,109 30,580 18,518 36,996 231,502 7,611 205 89,080 27,268 14,334 12,185 8,912 473,206 213,521 1,840,594 3,139 168,822 6,090 856 (267,595) 0 . (2,481) (177,641) (271,949) Percent of Actual to Budget 111.2% 66.6% 79.5% 96.2% 87.4% 70.7% 73.3% 113.0% 98.6% 110.5% 81.3% 75.0% 98.8% 73,0% 100.0% 90.8% 100.4% 87.3% 87.1% 124.8% 87.9% 299.2% 93.1% 75.1% 44.5% 117.7% 95.1% 71.7% 119.9% 948.1% 100.4% 106.8% 99.2% 8.9% 93.5% 0.0% 0.0% 113.9% 0.0% 45.9% 0 0.0% (268,810) 9,556,461 $ 9,287,651 1,097.9% 100.0% 01 0 � 01