Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-06-27 Parks PacketARK MAPLEWOOD PARKS AND RECREATION R ATiON COMMISSION MONDAY, JUNE 27, 2005 MAPLEWOOD CITY HALL MAPLEWOOD ROOM 7:00 P.M. Prior to the meeting, a tour of Sterling Oaks and Legacy Village Sculpture Parks will depart city hall at 6 p.m. sharp. AGENDA 7:00 pm 1. Call to Order *7:02 pm 2. Approval of Agenda *7:03 pm 3.Gladstone Update *7:45 pm 4. Maplecrest Basketball s* a. Request/Joel Schurke b. Response/Neighborhood Group *8:15 pm 5. Sculpture Policy a. John Hoch/Artistic Director b. St. Paul/Sjoden Sculpture c. July 9/Symposium Event 8:45 pm 6. Commissioners' Comments; 9:00 pm 7. Director's Comment 9:15 pm 8. Adjournment * Items that need formal commission action • • • TO: Parks; FROM: Bruce [SATE: June 2 SUBJECT: Gladsi ommission Meeting Enclosed is a variety of information regarding the status of the Gladstone redevelopment project. In my opinion we had a very positive meeting last Thursday, June 16. The park people truly showed" up. I would like to extend my compliments and kudos to chairperson Peter Fischer, Al Singer and Mark Gemes, who spoke eloquently, forcefully, and with conviction regarding the status of parks and open space within the Gladstone redevelopment. I asked chairperson Fischer to give an update from his perspective, which I can assure you will be far more meaningful and insightful than anything I can share with you at this time. The main issue that needs to be reviewed and discussed by the commission at this point is the concept of Flicek Park being considered as a possible exchange for open space land development. This is going to be a key issue in the Gladstone redevelopment process, along with the proposed density. The enclosed memo that was drafted by Ginny Gaynor and me articulates the pros and cons of this issue and has my wholehearted support. In addition to the environmental discussions as outlined in Ginny's memo, I believe the preliminary concept proposed also does the following: 1. Makes the city if you will, a "player' in the overall development. One of the concepts is that the money generated from the initial land sale could be used to acquire other parcels potentially to make the entire project a success. All of this of course has to be with the understanding that the two -plus million dollars comes back to the open space fund as an endowment for future development. 2. The second major benefit is that it does make for a better overall environmental piece. Flicek ball fields are not necessary, based on the current participation in youth baseball. It should be noted that Robinhood and Wakefield Parks and John Glenn are within six to eight blocks and provide nine ball fields. I totally understand the history of Flicek Park as to why existing neighbors would like to see them remain as ball fields. 3. The benefit of utilizing a portion of Flicek Park as a trailhead really starts to tie the entire area together as well as on a regional basis. Staff will be reviewing the preliminary concept plan for commission consideration. Recommendation Staff recommends that the commission review the proposed memo on the use of Flicek Park and take a position regarding not only Flicek Park, but the overall preliminary concept plan. kph\gladstone redevelopment concept plan.parks-opspace.mem Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. To: File From: Brad Scheib Subject: Notes on Developer Review Date: June 9`", 2005 Karen W.—Small time investor • Was looking into the Tourist Cabin site as an investment with a group of investors. • Sees area as a great redevelopment opportunity and is looking into possibilities to establish options on sites as an investment • She is not a "developer" but will front the money if the project meets her satisfaction—she does her due diligence well • Thinks the roundabout should be wider and their needs to be adequate parking for retail users • Doesn't think it is a real strong site for larger retailers but is well suited for the service oriented retailers • Sees the trails as a huge asset to potential new development • Sees the Moose Lodge site as a great starting point for mostly MF housing with some small retail component that could tap into the trail users on a seasonal basis • Has found the housing market to be strong in the Maplewood area particularly SR housing (her investor group was exploring 12 unit per acre stacked condos for seniors on the Tourist Cabin Site) • • She still thinks the Tourist Cabin site is a good project but the timing is not right for what the owner wants out of the deal... at this present time anyway • Said the Savanna needs to be improved • Development on the Savanna would be great provided city took care of clean up (she then indicated that would help out on options because in theory if she had an option on property north of Frost and development went first south of Frost it would increase the value of the option greatly) • She felt our assumptions were pretty close but somewhat conservative. She was not willing to share the assumptions she used in doing her due diligence. Beard Group—Bill Beard and Paul Gamst mid sized project developers • Very interested in the project—wants to be kept up to date as to progress • Also were aware of the area because of the Tourist Cabins which they looked at a few years ago—knew of Shelter Corporation investigations—did not pursue due to property owner expectations and mobile home relocations challenges • They are doing a similar project in Brooklyn Park that includes a Bowling Alley—there they are at densities of 11 to 14 units per acre—challenges with a bowling alley are the low rents—Brooklyn Park could be a good lesson to investigate their challenges—maybe a case study example • They felt our assumptions for land use and financial analysis for the adjusted scenario was consistent with what they would look to do. They would not do any single level retail because it doesn't work in redevelopment settings. They felt the area presented limited commercial viability but suited to service level retail in the short term and maybe longer term potential for a destination oriented restaurant. • They emphasized that park and open spaces need to be "useable" to add value to a development project. Recreation, lawns, trails, gathering spaces, interpretation etc... • 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, MN 55401-1659 Ph (612) 338-0800 Fx (612) 338-6838 www.hko.com Direct (612) 252-7122 Email bscheib(&'hkp-com Developer Review Notes June V 2005 Page 2 • They would prefer to be a master developer but would also consider doing pieces of the overall project. • They see the Savanna as a political lightning rod making it less attractive (they made this comment before I was really able to explain the background of the project which led me to believe they maybe did a little research) • They could see development on the Savanna but would want to make sure that something will happen north of Frost in a timely manner. Ideally, both sides of Frost happen at the same time to help sales... otherwise if they did development on the Savanna, they would want some assurance of redevelopment north of Frost written into a developer agreement. • They asked about contamination of the Savanna based on past use. When I informed them that environmental studies to varying degrees existing including a partial phase I, that increased their interest level relative to development on the Savanna. • They expressed interest in district # 11 (north of Savanna between Frank and Atlantic) because of its adjacency to Flicek, the Savanna and the trail provided the owners are willing to sell. They see the bowling alley next as pressure would grow as a result of increased values spilling over from the first phase of the project. They could see the bowling alley as part of a concept or not part of a concept. • They inquired about depth to ground water ---I informed them that depth to bedrock generally is greater than 50 feet based on preliminary study by Bruan and that the water table I thought was close to that. • They said, ideally public improvements occur at the same time as development to minimize disruption to the neighborhood. They could see something Napping next year if all the plans fall into place, property owners are willing to sell and public infrastructure improvements can commence. • Bruce Mogren—Mogren Development Co.—Local developer and Task Force Member • Mogren Development Co. develops, owns and manages a variety of development products in the area. They have a long history of doing development in the Maplewood area. • Bruce sees a strong market for a range of senior housing products • Sees the area as more of a neighborhood commercial area as opposed to a more community or regional commercial area • Sees the Savanna as a "Community" asset and suggested that development on the Savanna be considered as a means to provide revenue to other projects within the community as well as revenue to improve the Savanna while maximizing the ability to leverage more private investment • He suggests some development on the south side of the Savanna to replace back yards, so that development fronts the Savanna on all sides... could be medium to low density senior housing • He asked why not consider developing the entire Savanna... referencing that the area has great community parks and regional parks within walling distance and two great regional trails for recreational uses ... the entire site could then be cleaned up at little public cost • Feels the process was flawed because of the composition of the Task Force being too heavily loaded with neighborhood representatives and not a big enough community wide representation • Suggests that we try to reach out to special interest groups in the area to get their input on the project Rottlund Homes/David Bernard Builders and Developers—Bruce Pankonin and Tim Hemmer • The company needs a project that can generate at least 50 units for each product type they introduce (i.e. if a project were to have urban townhomes, urban lofts, and senior condominiums they would need at least 150 units) • • Generally, they like to created mixed communities ... mixed income levels and mixed age groups specifically Developer Review Notes June 9`h 2005 Page 3 • what parcels and if the area would be done as one large project a pieced out? • They were asking who owned p g p J • They see the Maplewood market ripe for the 55+ age group. They see a need to try and keep units affordable for that age group because many of them are retiring and they would expect much of their buyers to come from the immediate neighborhood area. • An example of land costs for one of their product types in Maplewood is about $ 20,000 a unit for a 5 unit per acre development project. • They sited an example of a similar project to this that they did in St. Louis Park called Village in the Park. The project was of similar size to what is illustrated at the core of this project and developed at a density of near 30 units per acre largely due to a 4-5 story senior project. • They questioned the viability of commercial development here due to low volumes on Frost and English. • Bruce Pankonin is skeptical of vertically mixed-use and would not be interested in it here ... he stated he has not seen a good example where a corporate/franchise retailer has not subsidized the rent and does not see a corporate/franchise retailer interested in this area, at least in the near term. • They consider this a "dynamite" place to live because of the regional recreational resources and the open spaces • They see the Savanna as a public benefit that will support and add value to redevelopment around the open space... building on Savanna should be a last resort option which they could understand why it would happen • They are very interested in the project and asked us who else we were sharing the concepts with. They would like to informed as to the final plan and would respond to an RFP if the City were to opt to solicit developers through the RFP process. • Schaeffer Richardson—Brad Richardson and Meme Sjogren • Schaeffer Richardson is doing a couple projects similar to this. Cedar Grove in Eagan (which has a bowling alley as part of it) and a project in Columbia Heights which is an infill. /redevelopment project of a similar size to the area around the Savanna. • They believe Urban infill is where redevelopment is at today and in the future. They also believe that the presence of a dedicated fixed transit line (not regular bus services) makes the project a "slam dunk." • They envisioned 3-5 story development, mostly housing with some limited commercial uses • Brad Richardson was somewhat familiar with the area for personal reasons • They were asking how big parcels were and who owned them ... a testament to their interest level. They suggested that to make it work, multiple parcels would best be assembled together. • They asked would the City be willing to condemn properties to assist with assembly or is everyone interested in selling. In Columbia Heights, the City had to condemn one property to make it work. • The Columbia Heights project might be a good experience to share with the task force... 20 acre site - 560 units (280 townhomes and 280 condo/aprts.) with some mixed use 10,000 to 15,000 square feet of retail. The site has frontage on University Avenue • Appears to be political support and neighborhood opposition... they felt that if they could come in and demonstrate the ability to "improve" the area they could win the neighborhood... that is what happened in Columbia Heights. • They could see development on the Savanna as an asset and liability. • They talked of staging: they could see building north of the Savanna first because once you build on the Savanna, it tends to raise the value of the redevelopment parcels—you would want to get all parcels under contract before you start building ideally. 0 Developer Review Notes June 9" 2005 Page 4 • • Their experience is that as long as builders know that a plan exists to redevelop other areas of the project, they don't care being first to go. • Maybe want to just build around the bowling alley unless they want to leave... otherwise, they are an anchor tenant • See the area as a great site because of many existing amenities and great potential for future amenities • They see the retail market more of a "street corner" type retail market. • They see housing unit values ranging from the high $100K area to the mid to high $ 300K area. TOLD Company—Gary Dreher (not set up yet but received positive voice mail) • TOLD is the developer of the Excelsior and Grand project in St. Louis Park 0 70 units per acre on a net basis o mix of apartments and condos ... the apartments went first because it was the strongest market o completed and occupied apartments helped raise the value of the for sale condos that were part of second and third phases because buyers could "see" the vision in real life rather than on a paper 2 dimensional plan ... helped make for sale units viable 0 often there is a misperception at the community level about the amount of commercial development a project can handle—St. Louis Park envisioned twice the amount of commercial that the project ended up with. Commercial kills project because of the amount of parking it needs and structured parking for commercial is not ideal. o Project provided 1.1 to 1.5 parking spaces per unit of housing that was dedicated to the housing units ... all of which was in the parking structures. Parking on street was extra. Structured parking and on street parking accommodated commercial users at a lower ratio than desired from • commercial standpoints. o The City of St. Louis Park had a "war chest" built up for redevelopment ... built through TIF o Challenge was to make the economics work o Ideally city can assemble and clear parcels using the "war chest" • Savanna, trail system, Keller Regional park, Lake Phalen... all make this a great housing site • Asked about our assumptions for economics... agreed that they seemed reasonable maybe on the conservative side • Asked if we were doing our fiscal analysis just to make it work or does the City see this project as a money maker? ... if the later ... will the City be up front about its expectations? • Said its all about density and relates to both what the market will support economically but more so what the area "feels" like it would support (not an excelsior and grand type area... Excelsior Boulevard had 27,000 ADT) • Not a fan of large public open spaces... supports some development on the Savanna ... but development should "face" the Savanna' • Was supportive of the notion that the Savanna could be a good start... easy start (provided there are not too many contamination issues) • Gary suggested that it would be a great first project if the City were committed to using the revenues from the land sale to assemble and clear the redevelopment sites north of Frost. • Bowling alley is not an issue... it could go or stay as an anchor tennat. • Savanna should be improved ... useable ... should fill a niche in the community. Asked what is the niche for Maplewood. (sighted as an example, Blaine ... they really embrace youth and athletics ... sports center, hockey rink etc... ) • Thought Sr. Housing would be strong Developer Redew Notes June 9" 2005 Page 5 • • Does not see how commercial would work • Liked the idea that there were a couple of neighborhood favorite retailers (bakery and grocer). Gary envisioned them as being an asset if they could move them into a project ... i.e. two tenants they don't have to go find. Gary felt that a franchise coffee shop might be interested in this site but might take some work to get. • Was skeptical of too much density in this area but is highly interested. Gary indicated that he was going to go do a site visit looking at the project area as well as the surrounding neighborhood. He is also going to look into the demographics more. • Gary felt that one of the points we should emphasize is that new development that may not be affordable helps contribute to affordable housing in the neighborhood because it facilitates the "cycling" of the older single family home stock: in the immediate neighborhood that he expects is more affordable. His site visit might verify that more. • Gary also suggested that we focus emphasizing the value of active open space or "useable" open space especially in urban settings such as this. • Gary emphasized his interest in the project and asked many questions about the City's ability to help make the economics work. He asked what the City's approach to implementation will be ... is the plan simply a guide to help developers understand what is acceptable and help the City decide what they would help with ...or does the City plan to facilitate making this happen. Ideally, the City gets control of the entire project and brings in a developer. • They might respond to an RFP but would prefer a qualifications selection process and a "courting" process to agree on a plan and a financial program to make the project work. • TO: Bruce Anderson, Melinda Coleman, Chuck Ahl FROM: Ginny Gaynor, Open Space Coordinator WATE: June 15, 2005 : Gladstone Savanna and Neighborhood Redevelopment In May, the Open Space Task Force reviewed proposals for Gladstone Savanna Neighborhood Preserve. None of the proposals included development on the savanna. However, we were asked for an opinion regarding the possibility of developing part of the preserve. A synthesis of my discussions with Open Space Task Force members follows. Three-fourths of our members have had an opportunity to review this memo. Response The Open Space Task Force supports the possible sale of 4-6 acres of land at Gladstone Savanna, if there is no net loss of open space in the neighborhood. The preserve is currently 24 acres; after development, there would still be 24 acres of preserve land in the project area. In addition, the following conditions are understood: 1. Flicek Park would become part of Gladstone Savanna Neighborhood Preserve, connected by an underpass. The ball fields would be removed and much of Flicek would be managed as a natural area. 2. The oak "nursery" on the northeast corner of Gladstone Savanna would be preserved. This includes two large oaks and dozens of small oaks. 3. Land would be sold at fair market value. 4. Revenue from the sale of land would be put into a fund to support Maplewood's Neighborhood Preserve Program. Minor amounts, if any, would be allocated for Gladstone Savanna improvements. • 5. Gladstone Savanna is unique among our Neighborhood Preserves because of its industrial history and classification as a brownfield. Sale/exchange of a portion of this site shall not set a precedent for other Maplewood preserves. We support the idea of sale with no net loss (hereafter referred to as "the proposal") for the following reasons: 1. In essence, the proposal simply changes the property boundaries. There is no net loss of open space. 2. The proposal creates a green corridor connection from Gladstone Savanna to the Gateway Trail, and ultimately to Lake Phalen. Given the small size of the preserve, linking to a green corridor is more advantageous ecologically than remaining a single isolated block of land. 3. The system of walking trails and access to the Gateway Trail is greatly improved if the Savanna is linked to the state trail with an underpass. Since much of this trail will wind through natural vegetation, there is improved opportunity for experiencing and learning about nature. Discussion 1. Changing Boundaries. Because there would be no net loss of open space, we view the proposal as changing the boundaries of the neighborhood preserve. The current configuration of 24 acres south of Frost Avenue, would change to include 18 acres south of Frost and 6 acres north of Frost, connected by an underpass. The existing property boundary for the preserve is based on previous land ownership, not .on ecology or natural features. In this exchange, we will not be losing high quality natural areas. Concerns: The primary concern for selling a portion of the preserve is public perception that Maplewood is selling open space that was supposed to be preserved into perpetuity. • Response: We believe that if the concept of no -net loss is carefully explained, most residents will understand it and concur that the proposal is essentially changing the preserve boundaries. 2. Ecological Impacts. a. Current condition. Gladstone Savanna is a former industrial site that has been classified as a brownfield. It was purchased as part of the Neighborhood Preserve system primarily because it was the last large parcel of land in this neighborhood. The most ecologically significant features of the site are: • i. The oak "nursery" at the northeast corner of the preserve; ii. Small patches of prairie plants scattered throughout the site; iii. Mature cottonwood trees along Frost Avenue; iv. The process of recovery that has been slowly unfolding since industrial uses were abandoned, including increasing numbers of native prairie plants and lichen colonizing asphalt slabs. Along with these positive changes, however, there has been widespread encroachment by invasive species such as spotted knapweed and Siberian elm. b. Ecological Potential. A 24 -acre natural area is not large enough to be a wildlife refuge or a wilderness area. Due to the small size of all the Neighborhood Preserves, our goals are to make them places where citizens can enjoy nature and see examples of our natural heritage, especially the pre -settlement vegetation of our region. The invasive species and compacted soils on the site make restoration of the savanna challenging. However, management activities over the past seven years (invasive tree removal, prescribed burns, and biological control of leafy spurge) have been very encouraging. With adequate time, funding, and management we can achieve our vision for restoring the savanna. Would we lose or gain any ecologically significant areas? Under the proposal, the mature cottonwood trees on Frost would likely be removed. While these provide great beauty, shade, heat reduction, food and shelter for wildlife, and would be sadly missed, they are out of their ecological niche at the savanna. (Cottonwoods often colonize disturbed areas. In healthy ecological systems they are found in lowland hardwood forests and along rivers.) No other • significant ecological features would be lost. There are several mature cottonwoods at Flicek Park that would be acquired under the proposal. d. Is the proposed shape beneficial or detrimental? In its present configuration, the savanna is an isolated natural area. It is surrounded by concrete on two sides, and on two sides by residential development, mowed parkland, and commercial use. Small isolated natural areas tend to have fewer types of habitat and less immigration of plant and animal species to the site. Ecologists advise linking isolated natural areas by green corridors. The proposal creates a green corridor that would link the savanna under Frost Avenue to the whole Gateway Trail corridor. Ecological benefits of green corridors include: i. More types of habitat; ii. Safer passage for wildlife; iii. Potentially better health for some animal populations due to increased opportunity for genetic exchange. Ecologists have studied the size and shapes of natural areas for large sites and wildlife refuges. For example, for grassland bird habitat, wildlife scientists in Wisconsin recommend a minimum 40 -acre block of grassland, preferably 80-250 acres, and most desirably 250-1000 acres (Sample and Mossman, 1997). Shapes that reduce the amount of edge are generally preferable (square, rather than long rectangle). Because the savanna is so small, this type of study is not applicable. 3. Recreation. We believe the Savanna can become the heart of this neighborhood if it is better integrated • into the neighborhood. Currently many people enjoy the view of large cottonwood trees as they drive by, but very few people venture into the savanna. The savanna has much to offer beyond simply viewing it from the outside. Under the proposal, there would be walking trails from east, west, and south neighborhoods through the Savanna and all the way to the Gateway Trail. Once on the Gateway, walkers can stroll to Lake Phalen or trek as far at Pine Point Park in Stillwater. Such a trail system has great benefits to the neighborhood and the community. • We questioned the loss of ball fields at Flicek Park and we were informed that due to declining enrollment in baseball leagues, the ball fields at Flicek are not needed. 4. Access, Education, Support The long-term protection of the Maplewood Neighborhood Preserves depends on a citizenry that connects to nature emotionally, is knowledgeable about nature, and believes in preservation of natural areas. Many nature lovers prefer the lack of typical park facilities such as trails when using and enjoying the Preserves. However, another important goal of the Neighborhood Preserves Program is to provide places and opportunities to directly experience and enjoy the natural world. In some instances, it is desirable to provide additional access to and through the preserves. The Gladstone Savanna is one of the places were this should be enhanced. 5. Financing for Neighborhood Preserve Program The Neighborhood Preserve program needs funding to manage and restore Maplewood's 14 preserves. Invasive species, altered waterways, pollution, and human impacts are all threats to the preserves. Without management, the quality of the preserves will decline. Under the proposal, all revenues from the sale of land would be set aside for the Neighborhood Preserves. This would provide the means to undertake restoration and management projects at several preserves. 0 Page 1 of 1 Bruce K. Anderson __ __ _ __ __ • From: Virginia Gaynor Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 4:52 PM To: A[.Singer@CO.DAKOTA. MN.US; bill@rwmwd.org; brook05l@tc.umn.edu; dominic.ramacier@state.mn.us; jack.frost@metc. state. mn. us; mark. gernes@pca.state. mn.us; Ann Hutchinson Cc: Bruce K. Anderson Subject: Gladstone Preserve - stormwater management I attended a meeting with the engineers to talk about plans for stormwater at Gladstone Savanna. They addressed several of the concerns we raised at our last Task Force meeting: 1. About 8 -acres of the preserve would be part of the stormwater system. This would include one deep pond with a clay liner, an infiltration area planted with wet prairie species, and an additional overflow area that would rarely be wet (planted with mesic prairie species). An additional 4 acres of grading may be necessary to soften the grades so the areas look more natural. (Keep in mind the city already has a stormwater easement over some of these 8 -acres.) 2. The pond would be deep enough that the engineer feels water quality should not be a problem. We can explore wind powered agitators and other technology if necessary. 3. There would be water in the pond year round. 4. New development in the neighborhood will be required to infiltrate a 1" rain event so this system is for the big rain events. This is a lot of land to disturb, but much of it is in areas of knapweed and compacted soils. Because the site is so disturbed, I think this plan is okay. The benefit to Gladstone Savanna is that excavation may remove some of the knapweed seed bank and loosen the soil, giving us a better chance at success in restoration. In addition, keep in mind the big picture -- we are capturing and infiltrating water so less untreated water ends up in Lake Phalen. (Also, planners and park people think open water at the preserve will be a great amenity.) What are your thoughts? Do you have any problems with grading so much of the site? If anyone would like to see the stormwater plan, I have a copy in my office and can bring it to the Gladstone meeting on Thursday. If we have any concerns, the engineers need to know now, before they progress much further. Please let me know this week whether you can support this or not. Thanks, Ginny • 6/17/2005 • I* • Page 1 of 1 Bruce K. Anderson From: Virginia Gaynor Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 8:21 AM To: Ann Hutchinson; Bruce K. Anderson; Lisa Kelly; Melinda Coleman; Chuck AN Subject: Gladstone Preserve Attachments: Memo-land-exchange.doc Hi, Attached is my first stab at a position statement regarding sale of preserve land. I'd like Open Space Task Force members to review this before I send it, so we won't be ready to distribute until Wed or Thurs. One of the issues we still need to discuss is the amount of land being used for more active recreation. My gross estimates: 2 acres — 2 tot lots 2 acres - picnic area, trail head, parking 2 acres — lawn 1-2 acre — plaza/entry That's over 7 acres of the 24 acre preserve. I'm not sure task force members will swallow that. Can we reduce that number? Or if we just sell 4 acres and get 6 acres in exchange, it may be an easier sell. See you at 9:00 at Bruce's to discuss this. Ginny 6/17/2005 m TO: Parks a FROM: Bru a K. Al DATE: June 23; 2( SUBJECT: Maplecrest Introduction MEMORANDUM Recreation and Recreation Commission Meeting Staff has received from a resident, Joel Schurke, a request that the backboards be reinstalled at Maplecrest Park. This issue has been reviewed at great length at both the city council and commission levels in 1999 and 2001 and direction by the city council was to remove the backboards at Maplecrest Park. Background I have included a variety of information regarding the Maplecrest basketball status including neighborhood petition, staff memorandums and previous correspondence. This issue has been raised once again by resident Joel Schurke requesting that the backboards be reinstalled. Enclosed is a copy of Mr. Schurke's original request, as well as correspondence by me and a memorandum from police chief Thomalla. Mr. Schurke may well attend Monday evening's meeting to state his position. I have indicated to Mr. Schurke that it is my position that if the commission decides to reopen this public policy, we will need to do a similar neighborhood meeting as we did in 2001. Unfortunately, I think this is going to be a lose/lose situation as you have two very strong opinions on both sides of this issue. Recommendation Staff requests the commission provide direction as to how you would like to proceed with Mr. Schurke's request and provide direction as to the communitywide input process you desire to follow. kph\basketball. maplecrest.parks-opspace. mem Enclosures 0 Page 1 of 3 Bruce K. Anderson . From. David Thomalla Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2005 1:59 PM To: 'Joel Schurke' Cc: Bruce K. Anderson Subject: RE: Maplecrest Park Joel, Here are the numbers you requested for Maplecrest Park: 6-9-01 Damage to Property 7-6-01 Fireworks Complaint 8-12-01 Noise Complaint 7-5-02 Juvenile Curfew Violation 6-5-03 Suspicious Vehicles 6-18-03 Disorderly Juveniles 6-18-03 People playing basketball in the park 12-13-03 Noise Complaint 9-26-04 Complaint on Barbecuing in the park 10-14-04 Noise Complaint 12-13-04 Suspicious Vehicles There have been no complaints in 2005. • Let me know if you need anything else. Dave From: Joel Schurke [mailto:jschurke@factor-10.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 3:52 PM To: David Thomalla Cc: Bruce K. Anderson Subject: Maplecrest Park Hi David. I am writing in regard to a request I have made to Bruce Anderson to have the basketball hoop replaced at Maplecrest Park. I am interested to obtain data on police calls to Maplecrest Park prior to the time the hoop was removed and in the two years since. Specifically, I would like the police calls (or crime data depending on what is tracked) for Maplecrest Park for the periods: June 2001 to May 2003 and for the period June 2003 to May 2005 If the reports are not complete for May 2005 then I would appreciate the data most recently compiled for the 6/17/2005 ■ Page 2 of 3 period that is closest to the above. If I should be communicating with someone else in regard to this request I would very much appreciate if you could forward the message and copy me so I know who I should be contacting. Bruce has placed this request on the agenda for the June 20th Park Board meeting. I would very much appreciate receiving the data prior to the meeting. If you are curious as to the request below is the text of the email I recently sent to Bruce and the local councilmember. Thank you very much. Joel Schurke 2170 Arcade Street Maplewood, MN 55109 Feel free to call me should you have any questions. My home phone is 651-772-1922. <<Following is my email to Bruce>> From: Joel Schurke [mailto:jschurke@factor-10.com] Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2005 9:22 AM To: Bruce K. Anderson Cc: Kathleen Juenemann Subject: Maplecrest Park Basketball Court Hoop • Hi Bruce. Thanks for the return call and background information as to why the basketball hoop at Maplecrest Park was removed. I am writing to request that the basketball hoop be put back up. As a neighbor and parent of three active girls Maplecrest Park is a favorite spot to play. We play at Maplecrest park many times each week - as weather permits - and have enjoyed playing in this park for nearly the past ten years. As a parent volunteer coach for the Maplewood Community Basketball this past season I can attest to the need for this hoop as a number of the team members live in the neighborhood and - along with myself - would like to have the opportunity to play basketball at the park as we did before. While I understand that there was a public process involving area neighbors which resulted m* the hopp being removed, I personally feel that this is • not a decision that should be made by testing who can muster the most and loudest voices at a public meeting. Public parks are meant to be used 6/17/2005 by all. It seems to me that the City of Maplewood needs a clear policy and process (assuming there is not such a policy/process now existing)in regard to responding to requests to remove publically owned equipment meant for public use from public property. Such a policy might require that specific notification be made of any proposed changes to park users (I personally was not aware of the meetings at Arlighton Hills church until after the hoop was removed) and such a policy might require unbiased documentation that supports a decision to make change based on factual safety concerns. I respectfully request that the hoop be replaced immediately. If in the event that there becomes real safety issues of concern then citizens could request that the City review whether the hoop should remain - following a clear process in light of a clear policy. I look forward to playing basketball with my girls as well as the chance for 40 girls on my Maplewood Community Basketball team to improve their skills this coming summer. n Thank you. Joel Schurke 2170 Arcade Street Maplewood, MN 55109 6/17/2005 Page 3 of 3 Together We Can I J June 2, 2005 vutl Mr. Joel Schurke 2170 Arcade Street *tthe Maplewood, MN 55109 Dear. JoelThis is'a short note to follow up on our phone conversation on Thursday regarding the -Maplecrest-Park'basketball courts. Enclosed is a variety of correspondence regarding this -issue. As you can see, there was a great deal of community discussion regarding.the basketball hoops and the city council unanimously supported the neighbors, not withstanding staffs recommendation that the . hoops not be removed. The city council is, ultimately the public policymaker who will make the final decision. The process that I would suggest would be to submit a formalletter requesting that the basketball hoops be reinstalled and I will .bring it before the parks and recreation ,commission at their regularly scheduled meeting on Monday, June 20. If is the role of the parks and recreation commission to provide recommendations to the city council, who in -turn make the ultimate decision. You may want to contact city council member Kathleen Juenemann who lives in your neighborhood g and l know has thoughts on this Issue,.. Council member Juenemann can be reached directly at (651) 771 -3670 - Should you have any questions regarding the enclosed information and/or the public park policy process, please contact me directly at (651) 249-2102. Sin eK.An r Director of P a cr ation bruce.k.anderson@ci.maplew od.mn.us kph\schurke.ltr05 a Peter Fischer, Chair, arks and Recreation Commission Kathleen Juenemann, City Council Member Richard Fursman, City Manager PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT 651-249-2.101 FAX- 651-249-2129 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD 1 830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST MAPLEWOOD, MN 55109 2140 KENWOOD DR E MAPLEWOOD MN 55117 May 16, 2003 MR 5RUCE K ANDER50N, DIRECTOR OF PARKS & REC MAPLEWOOD CITY HALL 1830 EAST COUNT RD 5 MAPLEWOOD MN 55109 RE: Maplecreot Park Dear Mr. Anderson: We've been meaning to write to thank your department for the fantastic upkeep of the ice rink thio past winter. We greatly appreciate it!! With 5pring'S arrival, once again we need to addre55 the iooue of the basketball court. -We are being challenged by large groups who dominate the court and line Kenwood Drive East with their caro. They Stay at the park for hours playing basketball and take breaks only to urinate in the trees by our home! We are bothered by the conotant presence of large numbers revolving through the park. We watch caro cruise by, turn around, pass by again ao if they're looking for an open court. We oee u - turns in the middle of Kenwood. Every available opportunity for resident -use is taken by the incoming groups. For example, on April 27 from 4:00 p.m. – 6:00 p.m. there were 20 people on the half court. At 6:00 p.m. - 8:30 p.m. there was a new group of 15 people on the half court. Does Maplecreot. Park have to become like the Phalen/Keller area where it i5 monopolized by people who think that because it'o a public park they have the right to otay all day long? What hao alwayo been a quiet neighborhood park now oeemo more like. a circuo. You stated in your letter to uS dated June 12, 2001, "Maplecre5t i5 a neighborhood park primarily nerved for the walk -to, bike -to, otroll-to neighborhood population." The majority of the baoketball uoero drive to the park, Monday through Sunday. We are not willing to otand by and watch other groups take thio park away from uo in the name of public policy. Generationo of familieo live in thio neighborhood. The people who otarted thio neighborhood have Supported it with taxed for 30+ yearn—we're not about to give it up without defending our cauoe. Thio io the third time we've addreooed thio iooue with you. What i5 the best Solution for this problem? Lowering the hoop for a few weeko did not eliminate our neighborhood's problem. At thio point it oeemo the only oolution would be to remove the baoketball hoop --permanently. We'd like to hear your ouggeotiono. Drake and Mary Ho meo Block Leadero cc: Bob Cardinal Sincerely, . Tim and Jana Sand dy and Lorrie lane 21 Kenwood Drive Eaot October 1, 1999 Dear Resident: This is a short note to follow-up on the petition that was submitted by residents abutting Maplecrest Park. I have received a copy of the petition and will be preparing a staff report for the Parks and Recreation Commission's consideration at their regular scheduled meeting on Monday, October 18, 1999. - In addition, I will tje attending a neighborhood meeting on Sunday, October 10 at 3:30 p.m. The meeting is scheduled at Arlington Hills Methodist. Church, located on County Road B. It is my understanding that the purpose of the meeting is to discuss your concerns regarding Maplecrest Park. In addition, I will be reviewing the proposed park referendum scheduled for November 2, 1999: I have invited representatives from the police department to attend and your local neighborhood officer will be providing current information regarding police, contacts within your community. Should you have any questions regarding Maplecrest Park and/or the upcoming park referendum, please contact me directly at (651)770-4573: : ruce K. A on Director of Parks and R creation kd\maplecre. ftr PARKS` & RECREATION DEPARTMENT • : 651-249-21.01 FAX: 651-249x2129 CITY -OF MAPLEWOOD 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST MAPLEWOOD, MN 55109 October 18, 1999 Ms. Jana K. Sand 2140 Kenwood Drive E. Maplewood, MN 55117 Dear Ms. Sand: This is a short note in response to your letter dated October 18, 1999 regarding the Maplecrest Park petition to remove the basketball backboards. Enclosed is a copy of my staff recommendation that will be reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Commission at their regular scheduled meeting on Monday, October 18. I am recommending that the height be lowered to eight feet six inches, with hopes that this will reduce the amount of play from outside the neighborhood and will focus on a younger population. We will continue to monitor the situation to determine if further action needs to be taken. 1 have also asked the police department to increase their patrol of Maplecrest Park, along with our volunteer park patrol. I trust you will see.a greater police presence during the next few weeks and beyond. In response to the gang graffiti, I have requested that the park crew sand down and refinish the benches and picnic tables. We did repaint them a week ago, but I feel that a completely new renovation is in order. I appreciate your concerns regarding the Maplecrest Park neighborhood and have included a copy of the police report which outlines the incidents within your neighborhood. As can be noted in the enclose_ d report as well as the comments from Lt. Dave Thomalla, Maplecrest Park has been one of our safest and most enjoyed neighborhood parks. One of the reasons that this park has remained such a positive amenity over the years is the continued involvement and support of the neighbors. I appreciate your commitment. If I can be of further assistance, please contact me directly at (651)770-4573. 651-770-4570 CITY OF MAPL.FWOOD 1830 EAST COUNTY ROAD B MAPLEWOOD. MN 55109 MEMORANDUM • TO: Parks and Recreation Commission FROM: Bruce K Anderson, Director of Parks and Recreation DATE: October 15, 1999 for the October 18, 1999 Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting SUBJECT: Maplecrest Park Petition INTRODUCTION Staff received the enclosed petition on September 26, 1999 requesting that the basketball hoop be removed from Maplecrest Park. I forwarded a letter to each of the petition signers indicating that I would be attending a meeting on Sunday, October 10 to hear their comments and concerns about Maplecrest Park. A very positive meeting was held with approximately 100 residents and staff indicated that the issue would be discussed with the Parks and Recreation Commission on Monday, October 18. BACKGROUND The city currently has outdoor basketball hoops at 17 neighborhood parks, plus the elementary and middle school sites. Basketball has proven to be a very popular sport. The basketball courts have risen in popularity in Maplewood for two reasons. The first is increased interest in basketball in general and second, the fact that we have quality court facilities. Because of the. high quality of our facilities, we tend to get individuals on occasion from outside the Maplewood boundaries. The Parks and Recreation Commission and staff have discussed the issue of residency "requirements for use of our city parks. It has generally been agreed that there is no reasonable approach to reducing or eliminating nonresidents from using our parks and, more importantly, the Commission has expressed strong sentiment that this is not a desire or priority for staff, Commission or Council consideration. Staff recommends that the basketball hoops remain at each of our outdoor parks. This position is strongly supported by the Maplewood police department. Of the 17 basketball sites, we have three standards that have adjustable heights. Two of them are located at Edgerton Park and the other at Maplecrest Park. My recommendation is that for all future basketball installations, we purchase adjustable hoops for our neighborhood park sites and that basketball courts be designed as half -court facilities, rather than full -court facilities. a Specifically, my recommendation for Maplecrest Park in response to the petition is that we reduce the height of the rim to eight feet six inches to encourage play by the younger children. I expressed this position to the residents at the Maplecrest Park residents meeting and it seemed to be received favorably. The major down side (no pun intended) to this concept is that we may experience greater vandalism with youth hanging on the rims and we would discourage play from park patrons desires at the ten -foot height. My rational is that in the small, neighborhood parks we are mainly focused on serving younger age population and I believe the eight -foot six-inch height will encourage younger children and discourage larger outside groups to use our neighborhood parks. I also believe the older population is more mobile and could avail themselves of other park sites. Lieutenant Thomalla attended the Maplecrest Park meeting with myself on October 10. He did a background report on the incidents of police calls to the park. He reported that there were 10 incidents over the past two years. He further stated that the church we were meeting at (Arlington Hills) had almost double the number of police calls during the same period. Maplecrest Park is a very safe, positive amenity for the neighborhood. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the basketball hoops remain at Maplecrest Park and that we not remove the hoops based on the neighborhood meeting and comments from residents opposing the removal of the basketball standards at Maplecrest Park. Wmperest. mem f • 0 Thsc it A "etetinss- to have the ba he p ra4tmoved from Maplocrest park. ` � 6,j,, 73c/4-6) �v 7 =l I t5 �. O '� 4; IIVV-�- 5� 77c�z 67) dv 913 f� t TED) 12) 13). 14mi. .% LZ^ /0 =s@ntiSt �jz). rl 1 I C, 65:400A,177 �.� 5Z (%y 00,177 Liu �7 r 7l 34.11 dmed,�g Al EA,7 Mawi IF 37) ± s 39) x, e--. E Cl • • N T E R O F F I C E MEMORANDUM To: Director of Parks and Recreation Bruce Anderson From: Chief of Police Donald Winger/�✓ Subject: Safety in the Parks Date: October 15, 1999 In response to our conversations regarding safety in Maplewood parks, the following information is offered. The parks are very safe. I base this response on the following: • My perception. When I visit Maplewood parks, I personally feel very safe. • By listening to the police radio and hearing very few calls to the parks. • The crime statistics I review indicate a low number of incidents in the parks. • Responses from citizens during the MidSummer Night celebrations at the parks. As you know, I attended all but three of the celebrations this summer, and I did not hear any comments from citizens regarding safety or crime issues. A number of years ago, George Kelling wrote a series of articles regarding the "broken window theory. This theory states if one window is broken and not repaired, additional windows will be broken. When an area appears not to be maintained, vandalism and other criminal acts occur. Your department has done a tremendous job of maintaining our parks, removing graffiti, and keeping the parks clean. This contributes to people's perception of safety. In the future, to maintain the safety of our parks, we can do the following: • Continue with random checks by police officers, community service officers, and the police reserves. • Continue and expand our citizen park patrol. This program started in Maplewood in 1997 and has been a model for other cities. • Continue to encourage citizens to report suspicious activity. We could place signs at each park encouraging residents to report suspicious activity. • Fliers could be distributed to residents near the parks to encourage citizens to keep an extra eye out for suspicious activity at the parks and to report that. • By increasing the number of block clubs and neighborhood groups, especially near the parks. • Finally, the more usage a park gets, the more it reduces vandalism and other criminal activity. It should be noted that the Maplewood Police Department Park Patrol spent 293.50 hours patrolling the parks this summer (up from 214 hours in 1998). Further information can be received from Lieutenant Dave Thomalla, 770-4543, or Lieutenant John Banick, 770-4502, and I have attached crime statistics for the City of Maplewood for the period of January -September 1999. Please feel free to contact me with other questions and concerns. DSW:js Attachment 0 • 2140 Kenwood Drive East Maplewood, MN 55117 October 18, 1999 MR BRUCE ANDERSON PARK & REC DIRECTOR MAPLEWOOD CITY HALL 1830 COUNTY RD B EAST MAPLEWOOD MN 55109 RE: Maplecrest Park Dear Mr. Anderson: I was not available to attend the last meeting where park concerns were addressed, but I have been told that you are planning to recommend that the basketball hoop at the above -referenced park stay at the newly lowered level. My husband and I feel that this will probably be an acceptable compromise to most in our neighborhood. However, we truly feel that removal of the same would be better. Please hear the following: I have been a Maplewood resident for over 18 years. Our yard connects with Maplecrest Park. I have grown up and felt safe in the Maplecrest neighborhood but my husband and I now question our security. We have seen bizarre gang graffiti on the picnic table at the park featuring the O.M.B. and gun symbols. It is only reasonable that the shooting incident at the Edgerton basketball court raises a red flag regarding Maplecrest's basketball court. This, along with the news reports of gang activities—specifically of the O.M.B.-justify neighborhood concern. 0 MR BRUCE ANDERSON MAPLEWOOD CITY HALL PAGE TWO OCTOBER 18, 1999 We have witnessed that some outside groups monopolize the basketball court for longer periods of time. Thus, when making suggestions at the meeting today, please consider posting a sign that could read "Be Courteous. Please limit your playing time to 45 minutes." Another idea if it meets with city -government guidelines could be a sign that reads, "This basketball court is intended for younger children." Thank you for your attention to this matter. Concerned resident, Jana K. Sand • 1 KID Together We Can May 29, 2003 Tim and Janna Sand 2140 Kenwood Drive East Maplewood, MN 55117 Dear Tim and Janna: The Maplewood Parks and Recreation Commission, Maplewood City Council, and staff are wrestling with the role and purpose of our neighborhood parks. The issues that you raised at Maplecrest Park regarding use of the outdoor basketball court have been discussed, at the Commission level for the past year. Maplewood is a first-tier suburb and at times we have become victims of our own success. The reality is that many of our neighborhood parks have better facilities than the core cities and they are within driving distance for a large population. The irony is that we spent tens of hours and thousands of public dollars trying to find ways to recruit and market our public facilities to our residents. We are now experiencing issues of overuse, in particular our soccer fields and now our neighborhood parks, which are designed for walk -to neighborhood use. I have come to the conclusion, which is shared with the Parks and Recreation Commission, that a moratorium be "placed" on the construction of any future outdoor basketball courts. It appears that basketball has become an activity for driveways, cul-de-sacs, and private neighborhood backyards, at least for Mapiewood. We are still discussing how to address the 17 existing basketball sites we have. They are being reviewed on a site -by -site basis. Parks and public spaces do not have participation boundaries, which is good, and I believe that Maplewood residents are probably winners when it comes to utilizing core city facilities such as Como Park, Lake Harriett, Lake Calhoun, Minnehaha Park and other regional facilities. It would certainly be a travesty if Maplewood residents were limited to only utilizing Maplewood parks, yet we are being faced with limiting use of non-residents to our city parks. I trust you appreciate the irony and dilemma that we as public administrators are facing. It is my belief that the issue of public outdoor basketball courts will be formally addressed by the City Council before the summer is over. The Parks and Recreation Commission will address this issue in June following the Edgerton meeting and I believe a citywide or possibly a site -by -site recommendation will be provided to the City Council. I will continue to keep,you apprised of this issue as always. I appreciate your comments and thoughts. • PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT 651-770-4570 FAX: 651-770-4506 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD 1 830 EAST COUNTY ROAD B MAPLEWOOD, MN 55109 Tim and Janna Sand Page 2 May 29, 2003 Give me a call to schedule a neighborhood meeting at Maplecrest Park at (651) 770-4573 to discuss your specific concerns. Is Monday, June 16 at 6:15 p.m. a possibility? z A Director of`Rarks and R creation BRUCE. KANDERSON@CI.MA EWOOD.MN.US kdlsand.ItrO3 c: Mayor & City Council Parks & Recreation Commission City Manager Richard Fursman it Page 1 of 2 Bruce Anderson 40 From: Randall Fane [brucefane@msn.com] Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2003 4:55 PM To: BRUCE.K.ANDERSON@CI.MAPLEWOOD.MN.US Subject: Maplecrest Park Dear Mr. Anderson, Thank you for responding to the letter that we sent you regarding the use of the basketball court at Maplecrest Park. We appreciate your attention to this matter as it is becoming increasingly critical that something be done. Being directly across from the park, we would like to share with you a bit more of what happens in the park with the drive-in basketball groups. First, traffic is a huge problem. We regularly have 5 to 8 cars parked across from our home. On one occasion last week, there were cars on both sides of the street, and another car and pulled along side one of the parked cars to talk. Returning from work, I was unable to get to my driveway (and they ignored by presence). We also have lots of "cruising" by to see if the court is available. We were awakened at 3:00 a.m. Saturday, May 30th by a group that decided to play a little basketball after the bars had closed. We regularly need to pick up garbage from our lawn, the street and the park that is left by these groups. Last week they left a large container of used motor oil in the street that got hit by a car and splattered all over the street. As was mentioned in the letter that was sent to you, we often see people (men AND women) urinate in the trees near the Sand's property. If neighborhood kids are on the court (usually roller- blading), the basketball groups start playing around them, and the kids just leave. None of these are uncommon incidents, and we have discussed keeping a log of the activity at the basketball court. If you think this would be helpful, we would gladly do so. When we bought this home three years ago, we understood this was a neighborhood park. We would not have bought this property had we realized the traffic and problems that the park would bring. Indeed, we believe we would have trouble selling the property during the warm months because of the basketball court and the crowds it attracts. We had company over last weekend who asked if we had gang trouble in the neighborhood after observing activity in the pa rk. You stated in your letter that the neighborhood parks were designed for "walk -to neighborhood use". Therefore, it does not seem quite right to compare Maplecrest to large regional parks like Como, which have parking areas and are set up for large groups. Mapelcrest has become a basketball extension of Keller and Phalen, which it is not set up to be. We do not believe "participation boundries" are an answer, and we do not want to limit children and families from using the park. We would like to see the basketball hoop removed. We will be out of town on June 16, but encourage you to continue with the meeting so that it is not delayed. Any member of the neighborhood can attest to the problems with the drive-in basketball groups. Again, we thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Lorrie and Randy Fane 2121 Kenwood Drive East (651)778-3477 6/2/2003 Page 1 of 1 Bruce Anderson is From: Randall Fane [brucefane@msn.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 4:09 PM To: Bruce.K.Anderson@ci.Maplewood.mn.us Subject: Maplecrest Dear Bruce, We just wanted to drop you a note to thank you again for your help in removing the basketball hoop in Maplecrest Park. The park has become a wonderful, family -friendly place that attracts parents and young children. We have seen more children in the park in the past few weeks then at any other time since we've lived here. Just last night, a group of moms sat at the picnic table while their children played in the sand and rollerbladed on the court - something that would not have previously been possible. Thank you so much. Sincerely, Randy and Lorne Fane MSN 8 helps ELMNATE E-MAIL VIRUSES. Get 2 months FREE*. • 0 7/9/2003 FYIJUN 19 2003 • 6/17/03 Dear Mayor Cardinal This is intended to give you a "heads up" that as a result of a meeting at Maplecrest Park on Monday, 6/16, there will be several local residents attending the next Maplewood City Council meeting. The issue is the basketball court in the park and it's status as an "attractive nuisance". We have corresponded and met with Bruce Anderson with no good results. One of our primary concerns is decreasing property values due to the continued unsavory behaviour by the (primarily) drive -to teens and young adults that congregate nearly every evening at the court. We also fear, with decreased availability of courts, that rival groups could clash, with serious results such as occurred at Edgerton Park a few years ago. This formerly quiet area is changing, and not for the better. And, while we feel that most of these kids are not from the neighborhood, if some from the 1 neighborhood are also causing trouble we need to address that as well. Sincerely, Mary 1. Holmes 770 E. Burke Ave. Maplewood, MN 55117 Tel. 651-774-9266 s N • Y/ E" N {{Q� /Yl L Z� u J r aW am 0� I� M� W Q W z Q z z Q CO 00 Oo co I- (O Q) O N In co O M N C� f, (DM r N O ch F- 0 t1� O r (O M m �- N r O O I` O O O T f0 O M (3) d (O N Cl) v T CO N N N � r d A d T (O r (O O T I CO LO Ln (O CO N qq' r LO r r C%4 O a) C) T a) R IZ E O to L Q a r.. L Lo 0o co to a' N O T LO tt Cfl T t!7 r 'nLLi ca O N LCA F- O (� T O O t` CO O N O Nr M M O 1q" O LC) O Nr M T I` I Ed '� � t d O (3) 0:) Qi d CO N v(O Iq O — r. v_ w t (V T LO T r T T N r d O T cn r to O co co v I` I` Lf) I-- I-- M (D t3 r T r cm L m _. V' O (O �t O) r O O ti ti I- M O r' w O N N co T T N R N N a Cl) W F N J LLI W J < Q o OU W Y w N U Z lr w D Z Q O O O O O H J (� = O O Q (� 2 J LLJ LU -jn� 3 LU fn a W a J ( �? = LL z w c o a (� d. Y Z cn 0 2 m m > 2 J r N Cl) tt (a h co O O r 1 MEMORANDUM • TO: Parks and Recreation Commission FROM: Bruce K. Anderson, Director of Parks and Recreation DATE: October 15, 1999 for the October 18, 1999 Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting SUBJECT: Maplecrest Park Petition INTRODUCTION Staff received the enclosed petition on September 26, 1999 requesting that the basketball hoop be removed from Maplecrest Park. I forwarded a letter to each of the petition signers indicating that I would be attending a meeting on Sunday, October 10 to hear their comments and concerns about Maplecrest Park. A very positive meeting was held with approximately 100 residents and staff indicated that the issue would be discussed with the Parks and Recreation Commission on Monday, October 18. BACKGROUND The city currently has outdoor basketball hoops at 17 neighborhood parks, plus the elementary and middle school sites. Basketball has proven to be a very popular sport. The basketball courts have risen in popularity in Maplewood for two reasons. The first is increased interest in basketball in general and second, the fact that we have quality court facilities. Because of the high quality of our facilities, we tend to get individuals on occasion from outside the Maplewood boundaries. The Parks and Recreation Commission and staff have discussed the issue of residency "requirements" for use of our city parks. It has generally been agreed that there is no reasonable approach to reducing or eliminating nonresidents from using our parks and, more importantly, the Commission has expressed strong sentiment that this is not a desire or priority for staff, Commission or Council consideration. Staff recommends that the basketball hoops remain at each of our outdoor parks. This position is strongly supported by the Maplewood police department. Of the 17 basketball sites, we have three standards that have adjustable heights. Two of them are located at Edgerton Park and the other at Maplecrest Park. My recommendation is that for all future basketball installations, we purchase adjustable hoops for our neighborhood park sites and that basketball courts be designed as half -court facilities, rather than full -court facilities. • Specifically, my recommendation for Maplecrest Park in response to the petition is that we reduce the height of the rim to eight feet six inches to encourage play by the younger children. 1 expressed this position to the residents at the Maplecrest Park residents meeting and it seemed to be received favorably. The major down side (no pun intended) to this concept is that we may experience greater vandalism with youth hanging on the rims and we would discourage play from park patrons desires at the ten -foot height. My rational is that in the small, neighborhood parks we are mainly focused on serving younger age population and I believe the eight -foot six-inch height will encourage younger children and discourage larger outside groups to use our neighborhood parks. I also believe the older population is more mobile and could avail themselves of other park sites. Lieutenant Thomalla attended the Maplecrest Park meeting with myself on October 10. He did a background report on the incidents of police calls to the park. He reported that there were 10 incidents over the past two years. He further stated that the church we were meeting at (Arlington Hills) had almost double the number of police calls during the same period. Maplecrest Park is a very safe, positive amenity for the neighborhood. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the basketball hoops remain at Maplecrest Park and that we not remove the hoops based on the neighborhood meeting and comments from residents opposing the removal of the basketball standards at Maplecrest Park. W\mperest. mem 0 October 1, 1999 Dear Resident: This is a short note to follow-up on the petition that was submitted by residents abutting Maplecrest Park. I have .received a copy of the petition and will be preparing a staff report for the Parks and Recreation Commission's consideration at their regular scheduled meeting on Monday, October 18, 1999. In addition, i will tie attending a neighborhood meeting on Sunday, October 10 at 3:30 p.m. The meeting is scheduled at Arlington Hills Methodist. Church, located on County Road B. It is my understanding that the purpose of the meeting is to discuss your concerns regarding Maplecrest Park. In addition, I will be reviewing the proposed park referendum scheduled for November 2, 1999. 1 have invited representatives from the police-department to attend and your local neighborhood officer will be providing current information regarding police contacts within your community. Should you have any questions regarding Maplecrest Park and/or the upcoming park referendum, please contact me directly at (651)770-4573: race K A on Director of Parks and R creation kdXmaplecre.ltr PARKS' & RECREATION DEPARTMENT 651-249-2101 .: FAX ::6511-249-2 129 ; CITY OF MAPLEWOOD 1830 COUNTY ROAD'B EAST MAPLE\AIOOD, MN 55109 , October 18, 1999 Ms. Jana K. Sand 2140 Kenwood Drive E. Maplewood, MN 55117 Dear Ms. Sand: This is a short note in response to your letter dated October 18, 1999 regarding the Maplecrest Park petition to remove the basketball backboards. Enclosed is a copy of my staff recommendation that will be reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Commission at their regular scheduled meeting on Monday, October 18. I am recommending that the height be lowered to eight feet six inches, with hopes that this will reduce the amount of play from outside the neighborhood and will focus on a younger population. We will continue to monitor the situation to determine if further action needs to be taken. I have also asked the police department to increase their patrol of Maplecrest Park, along with our volunteer park patrol. I trust you will see a greater police presence during the next few weeks and beyond. In response to the gang graffiti, I have requested that the park crew sand down and refinish the benches and picnic tables. We did repaint them a week ago, but I feel that a completely new renovation is in order. I appreciate your concerns regarding the Maplecrest Park neighborhood and have included a copy of the police report which outlines the incidents within your neighborhood. As can be noted in the enclose_ d report as well as the comments from Lt. Dave Thomalla, Maplecrest Park has been one of our safest and most enjoyed neighborhood parks. One of the reasons that this park has remained such a positive amenity over the years is the continued involvement and support of the neighbors. I appreciate your commitment. If I can be of further assistance, please contact me directly at (651)770-4573. Si Director of Pa ecr ation kd\sand. ftr PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT 651-770-4570 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD 1 830 EAST COUNTY ROAD B MAPLEWOOD, MN 55109 01 MEMORANDUM TO: Parks and Recreation Commission FROM: Bruce K. Anderson, Director of Parks and Recreation DATE: October 15, 1999 for the October 18, 1999 Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting SUBJECT: Maplecrest Park Petition INTRODUCTION Staff received the enclosed petition on September 26, 1999 requesting that the basketball hoop be removed from Maplecrest Park. I forwarded a letter to each of the petition signers indicating that I would be attending a meeting on Sunday, October 10 to hear their comments and concerns about Maplecrest Park. A very positive meeting was held with approximately 100 residents and staff indicated that the issue would be discussed with the Parks and Recreation Commission on Monday, October 18. BACKGROUND The city currently has outdoor basketball hoops at 17 neighborhood parks, plus the elementary and middle school sites. Basketball has proven to be a very popular sport. The basketball courts have risen in popularity in Maplewood for two reasons. The first is increased interest in basketball in general and second, the fact that we have quality court facilities. Because of the high quality of our facilities, we tend to get individuals on occasion from outside the Maplewood boundaries. The Parks and Recreation Commission and staff have discussed the issue of residency "requirements" for use of our city parks. It has generally been agreed that there is no reasonable approach to reducing or eliminating nonresidents from using our parks and, more importantly, the Commission has expressed strong sentiment that this is not a desire or priority for staff, Commission or Council consideration. Staff recommends that the basketball hoops remain at each of our outdoor parks. This position is strongly supported by the Maplewood police department. Of the 17 basketball sites, we have three standards that have adjustable heights. Two of them are located at Edgerton Park and the other at Maplecrest Park. My recommendation is that for all future basketball installations, we purchase adjustable hoops for our neighborhood park sites and that basketball courts be designed as half -court facilities, rather than full -court facilities. Specifically, my recommendation for Maplecrest Park in response to the petition is that we reduce the height of the rim to eight feet six inches to encourage play by the younger children I expressed this position to the residents at the Maplecrest Park residents meeting and it seemed to be received favorably. The major down side (no pun intended) to this concept is that we may experience greater vandalism with youth hanging on the rims and we would discourage play from park patrons desires at the ten -foot height. My rational is that in the small, neighborhood parks we are mainly focused on serving younger age population and I believe the eight -foot six-inch height will encourage younger children and discourage larger outside groups to use our neighborhood parks. I also believe the older population is more mobile and could avail themselves of other park sites. Lieutenant Thomalla attended the Maplecrest Park meeting with myself on October 10. He did a background report on the incidents of police calls to the park. He reported that there were 10 incidents over the past two years. He further stated that the church we were meeting at (Arlington Hills) had almost double the number of police calls during the same period. Maplecrest Park is a very safe, positive amenity for the neighborhood. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the basketball hoops remain at Maplecrest Park and that we not remove the hoops based on the neighborhood meeting and comments from residents opposing the removal of the basketball standards at Maplecrest Park. W\mperest.mem 10 I * 55117 `�°tess s_s vulptitinfte ttm %warab the b=Is fta im removed from Maplec*rest park. ,. -- U l LLi wj v "zi ✓AVZ J� �, —ad t IZI 19) G '7 i l iv, �����■��lTJiTL�[i1`�i'i r/ 5 U , 39) u • 0 1 • I N T E R O F F I C E MEMORANDUM To: Director of Parks and Recreation Bruce Anderson From: Chief of Police Donald Winger �/�✓ Subject: Safety in the Parks Date: October 15, 1999 In response to our conversations regarding safety in Maplewood parks, the following information is offered. The parks are very safe. I base this response on the following: • My perception. When I visit Maplewood parks, I personally feel very safe. • By listening to the police radio and hearing very few calls to the parks. • The crime statistics I review indicate a low number of incidents in the parks. • Responses from citizens during the MidSummer Night celebrations at the parks. As you know, I attended all but three of the celebrations this summer, and I did not hear any comments from citizens regarding safety or crime issues. A number of years ago, George Kelling wrote a series of articles regarding the "broken window theory. This theory states if one window is broken and not repaired, additional windows will be broken. When an area appears not to be maintained, vandalism and other criminal acts occur. Your department has done a tremendous job of maintaining our parks, removing graffiti, and keeping the parks clean. This contributes to people's perception of safety. In the future, to maintain the safety of our parks, we can do the following: • Continue with random checks by police officers, community service officers, and the police reserves. • Continue and expand our citizen park patrol. This program started in • Maplewood in 1997 and has been a model for other cities. • Continue to encourage citizens to report suspicious activity. We could place signs at each park encouraging residents to report suspicious activity. • Fliers could be distributed to residents near the parks to encourage citizens to keep an extra eye out for suspicious activity at the parks and to report that. • By increasing the number of block clubs and neighborhood groups, especially near the parks. • Finally, the more usage a park gets, the more it reduces vandalism and other criminal activity. It should be noted that the Maplewood Police Department Park Patrol spent 293.50 hours patrolling the parks this summer (up from 214 hours in 1998). Further information can be received from Lieutenant Dave Thomalla, 770-4543, or Lieutenant John Banick, 770-4502, and I have attached crime statistics for the City of Maplewood for the period of January -September 1999. 0 Please feel free to contact me with other questions and concerns. DSW:js Attachment • 2140 Kenwood Drive East Maplewood, MN 55117 October 18, 1999 MR BRUCE ANDERSON PARK & REC DIRECTOR MAPLEWOOD CITY HALL 1830 COUNTY RD B EAST MAPLEWOOD MN 55109 RE: Maplecrest Park Dear Mr. Anderson: I was not available to attend the last meeting where park concerns were addressed, but I have been told that you are planning to recommend that the basketball hoop at the above -referenced park stay at the newly lowered level. My husband and I feel that this will probably be an acceptable compromise to most in our neighborhood. However, we truly feel that removal of the same would be better. Please hear the following: I have been a Maplewood resident for over 18 years. Our yard connects with Maplecrest Park. I have grown up and felt safe in the Maplecrest neighborhood but my husband and I now question our security. We have seen bizarre gang graffiti on the picnic table at the park featuring the O.M.B. and gun symbols. It is only reasonable that the shooting incident at the Edgerton basketball court raises a red flag regarding Maplecrest's basketball court. This, along with the news reports of gang activities—specifically of the O.M.B.-justify neighborhood concern. 0 • MR BRUCE ANDERSON MAPLEWOOD CITY HALL PAGE TWO OCTOBER 18, 1999 0 0 We have witnessed that some outside groups monopolize the basketball court for longer periods of time. Thus, when making suggestions at the meeting today, please consider posting a sign that could read "Be Courteous. Please limit your playing time to 45 minutes." Another idea if it meets with city -government guidelines could be a sign that reads, "This basketball court is intended for younger children." Thank you for your attention to this matter. Concerned resident, M&I 1 -141 Jana K. Sand 0 • May 29, 2003 Tim and Janna Sand 2140 Kenwood Drive East Maplewood, MN 55117 Dear Tim and Janna: The Maplewood Parks and Recreation Commission, Maplewood City Council, and staff are wrestling with the role and purpose of our neighborhood parks. The issues that you raised at Maplecrest Park regarding use of the outdoor basketball court have been discussed, at the Commission level for the past year. Maplewood is a first-tier suburb and at times we have become victims of our own success. The reality is that many of our neighborhood parks have better facilities than the core cities and they are within driving distance for a large population. The irony is that we spent tens of hours and thousands of public dollars trying to find ways to recruit and market our public facilities to our residents. We are now experiencing issues of overuse, in particular our soccer fields and now our neighborhood parks, which are designed for walk -to neighborhood use. I have come to the conclusion, which is shared with the Parks and Recreation Commission, that a moratorium be "placed" on the construction of any future outdoor basketball courts. It appears that basketball has become an activity for driveways, cul-de-sacs, and private neighborhood backyards, at least for Maplewood. We are still discussing how to address the 17 existing basketball sites we have. They are being reviewed on a site -by -site basis. Parks and public spaces do not have participation boundaries, which is good, and I believe that Maplewood residents are probably winners when it comes to utilizing core city facilities such as Como Park, Lake Harriett, Lake Calhoun, Minnehaha Park and other regional facilities. It would certainly be a travesty if Maplewood residents were limited to only utilizing Maplewood parks, yet we are being faced with limiting use of non-residents to our city parks. I trust you appreciate the irony and dilemma that we as public administrators are facing. It is my belief that the issue of public outdoor basketball courts will be formally addressed by the City Council before the summer is over. The Parks and Recreation Commission will address this issue in June following the Edgerton meeting and I believe a citywide or possibly a site -by -site recommendation will be provided to the City Council l will continue to keep,you apprised of this issue as always. I appreciate your comments and thoughts. PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT 651-770-4570 FAX: 651-770-4506 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD 1830 EAST COUNTY ROAD B MAPLEWOOD, MN 55109 Tim and Janna Sand Page 2 May 29, 2003 Give me a call to schedule a neighborhood meeting at Maplecrest Park at (651) 770-4573 to discuss your specific concerns. Is Monday, June 16 at 6:15 p.m. a possibility? P.I d n Director of cs and R creation BRUCE.KANDERSON@CI.MA EWOOD.MN.US Wsand.ltrW ! c: Mayor & City Council Parks & Recreation Commission City Manager Richard Fursman .I JUN 19 2003 • 6/17/03 Dear Mayor Cardinal This is intended to give you a "heads up" that as a result of a meeting at Maplecrest Park on Monday, 6/16, there will be several local residents attending the next Maplewood City Council meeting. The issue is the basketball court in the park and it's status as an "attractive nuisance". We have corresponded and met with Bruce Anderson with no good results. One of our primary concerns is decreasing property values due to the continued unsavory behaviour by the (primarily) drive -to teens and young adults that congregate nearly every evening at the court. We also fear, with decreased availability of courts, that rival groups could clash, with serious results such as occurred at Edgerton Park a few years ago. This formerly quiet area is changing, and not for the better. And, while we feel that most of these kids are not from the neighborhood, if some from the . neighborhood are also causing trouble we need to address that as well. Sincerely, Mary 1. Holmes 770 E. Burke Ave. Maplewood, MN 55117 Tel. 651-774-9266 1 0 Bruce Anderson __ __—__— _------ --- From Randall Fane [brucefane c@msn.com] Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2003 4:55 PM To: BRUCE. K.ANDERSON@CI.MAPLEWOOD.MN.US Subject: Maplecrest Park Dear Mr. Anderson, Thank you for responding to the letter that we sent you regarding the use of the basketball court at Maplecrest Park. We appreciate your attention to this matter as it is becoming increasingly critical that something be done. Being directly across from the park, we would like to share with you a bit more of what happens in the park with the drive-in basketball groups. First, traffic is a huge problem. We regularly have 5 to 8 cars parked across from our home. On one occasion last week, there were cars on both sides of the street, and another car and pulled along side one of the parked cars to talk. Returning from work, I was unable to get to my driveway (and they ignored by presence). We also have lots of "cruising" by to see if the court is available. We were awakened at 3:00 a.m. Saturday, May 30th by a group that decided to play a little basketball after the bars had closed. We regularly need to pick up garbage from our lawn, the street and the park that is left by these groups. Last week they left a large container of used motor oil in the street that got hit by a car and splattered all over the street. As was mentioned in the letter that was sent to you, we often see people (men AND women) urinate in the trees near the Sand's property. If neighborhood kids are on the court (usually roller- blading), the basketball groups start playing around them, and the kids just leave. None of • these are uncommon incidents, and we have discussed keeping a log of the activity at the basketball court. If you think this would be helpful, we would gladly do so. When we bought this home three years ago, we understood this was a neighborhood park. We would not have bought this property had we realized the traffic and problems that the park would bring. Indeed, we believe we would have trouble selling the property during the warm months because of the basketball court and the crowds it attracts. We had company over last weekend who asked if we had gang trouble in the neighborhood after observing activity in the park. You stated in your letter that the neighborhood parks were designed for "walk -to neighborhood use". Therefore, it does not seem quite right to compare Maplecrest to large regional parks like Como, which have parking areas and are set up for large groups. Mapelcrest has become a basketball extension of Keller and Phalen, which it is not set up to be. We do not believe "participation boundries" are an answer, and we do not want to limit children and families from using the park. We would like to see the basketball hoop removed. We will be out of town on June 16, but encourage you to continue with the meeting so that it is not delayed. Any member of the neighborhood can attest to the problems with the drive-in basketball groups. Again, we thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, •Lorrie and Randy Fane 2121 Kenwood Drive East (651)778-3477 6/2/2003 r Bruce Anderson 41 From: Randall Fane [brucefane@msn.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 4:09 PM To: Bruce.K.Anderson@ci.Maplewood.mn.us Subject: Maplecrest • • Page 1 of Dear Bruce, We just wanted to drop you a note to thank you again for your help in removing the basketball hoop in Maplecrest Park. The park has become a wonderful, family -friendly place that attracts parents and young children. We have seen more children in the park in the past few weeks then at any other time since we've lived here. Just last night, a group of moms sat at the picnic table while their children played in the sand and rollerbladed on the court - something that would not have previously been possible. Thank you so much. Sincerely, Randy and Lorne Fane MSN 8 helps ELIMINATE E-MAIL VIRUSES. Get 2 months FREE*. 7/9/2003 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Parks and Recreatic Bruce K. Anderson, June 23, 2005 for thi Legacy Village Sculf MEMORANDUM Meeting This item is an update of our status to date. The project is about 90% completed with landscaping scheduled in the next two weeks. It appears that f will be requesting a change order from the council"to install an irrigation system for the formal gardens in the front. In addition, I am working with a local Boy Scout to complete an Eagle Scout project with hybrid tea roses on the front two triangles. Staff will be conducting a general discussion as to where we go regarding the hiring of an artistic director and/or policies for future art sculptures. Staff forwardedunder separate cover a copy of`a proposal from John Hock of Franconia Sculpture Park to serve as the artistic director. I think John's proposal makes great sense and we will be having a conversation as to how you would like staff to proceed with this issue. in addition, we are working with Ramsey County to relocate the Sjoden sculpture from downtown St. Paul to the sculpture garden in the coming weeks. I`have also included a copy of a symposium event scheduled July 9 at Franconia Sculpture Park. I think it would be a great opportunity to take a bus tour some Saturday or evening to Franconia Sculpture Park for you to observe firsthand the site and get to know Mr. Hock on a personal basis. Should you have any questions or need additional information on the sculpture park, feel free to contact me directly at (651) 249-2102. kphVegacy sculpture update. lvs.parkopspace.mem Page 1 of 2 Bruce K. Anderson • From: John Hock Dohnhock@franconia.org] Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 12:55 PM To: info@franconia.org Subject: Three Dimensional Saturday Nights/Second Saturday Symposiums Upcoming Event - Saturday 9 July 6: 00 pm sharp Franconia Sculpture Park Artist/Critic Symposium Event Saturday 9th July Please arrive at the Park at 6:00pm sharp @8:00pm(ish) BBQ $8.00 donation for BBQ & beverages The Artists that will be presenting work on 9 July are: Su -Chen Hung, CA* and Andrea Stanislav NYC/MN for a preview, visit www.andreastanislay.com www.suchenhung.com *also see Su-Chen's current show at hftp://www.marmoriewoodgallery.com/exhibitions/hung Three Dimensional Saturday Nights/Second Saturday Symposiums. 6:00-10:00 pm. A partnership between Franconia Sculpture Park and V.A.C.U.M. (Visual Arts Critics Union of Minnesota). Public/community is warmly invited to this lively evening for a (free) interchange of ideas between artists and art critics. Franconia artists and Minnesota's most interesting art critics will converge, once a month, from June through September for Three Dimensional Saturday Nights. A no -holds -barred dialogue among artists, writers and anyone in the public interested in art of three dimensions. Three Dimensional Saturday Nights will take place at the cavernous Hock Observatory/Barn, a half -mile from the grounds of Franconia Sculpture Park. The Symposia will include a slide show of current resident artists' work, a freewheeling discussion between artists, critics and public. Meet at "the Park" and we'll proceed from there. $8.00 donation for BBQ dinner & beverages, after the event. Donations to the Park are always welcome! Please RSVP. Franconia Sculpture Park 29815 Unity Avenue Shafer, Mn 55074 USA 6/23/2005 MORANDUM • TO: Parks a FROM: Bruce K: Ar .Pirett- jf of Parks and Recreation DATE: June 13, 2 SUBJECT: Gladstone Savanna and Neighborhood Redevelopment Enclosed is a memo that Ginny Gaynor and t prepared regarding the proposal to reconfigure the open space property. During the past six weeks we have had some contentious discussions with the city planners as well as internally as to how the open space parks and trail systems fit into the overall Gladstone redevelopment pian. Very briefly, one of the proposals that is on the table at this time is to possibly sell four to six acres of land within the savanna for future development. The enclosed memo attempts to outline the positive and negatives of this concept. It is my understanding at this time that HKGI will be presenting both the potential development of the savanna as well as not touching the savanna as two alternatives on Thursday, June 16. 1 am still finalizing my thoughts and recommendation on this issue, but the enclosed memo reflects fairly well my position. • This will be an item that we will be discussing on Monday, June 27 and I hope to have better mapping to show you how the relationship between Gloster, Flicek and the open space work together. This item has been distributed somewhat prematurely, although it is public record of course. I hope that you can keep some level of confidence until it becomes more public. Should you have any questions, feel free to contact me directly at (651) 249-2102. kph\gladstone redevelopmenUrnem Enclosure TO: VOM: Ginny Gaynor, Open Space Coordinator ATS: June 13, 2005 RE: Gladstone Savanna and Neighborhood Redevelopment In May, the Open Space Task Force reviewed proposals for Gladstone Savanna Neighborhood Preserve. None of the proposals included development on the savanna. However, we were asked for an opinion regarding the possibility of developing part of the preserve. A synthesis of my discussions with Open Space Task Force members follows. Response The Open Space Task Force supports the possible sale of 4-6 acres of land at Gladstone Savanna, if there is no net loss of open space in the neighborhood. The preserve is currently 24 acres; after development, there would still be 24 acres of preserve land in the project area. In addition, the following conditions are understood: 1. Flicek Park would become part of Gladstone Savanna Neighborhood Preserve, connected by an underpass. The ball fields would be removed and much of Flicek would be managed as a natural area. 2. The oak "nursery" on the northeast corner of Gladstone Savanna would be preserved. This includes two large oaks and dozens of small oaks. 3. Land would be sold at fair market value. 4. Revenue from the sale of land would be put into a fund to support Maplewood's Neighborhood Preserve Program. Minor amounts, if any, would be allocated for Gladstone Savanna improvements. 05. Gladstone Savanna is unique among our Neighborhood Preserves because of its industrial history and classification as a brownfield. Sale/exchange of a portion of this site shall not set a precedent for other Maplewood preserves. We support the idea of sale with no net loss (hereafter referred to as "the proposal") for the following reasons: 1. In essence, the proposal simply changes the property boundaries. There is no net loss of open space. 2. The proposal creates a green corridor connection from Gladstone Savanna to the Gateway Trail, and ultimately to Lake Phalen. Given the small size of the preserve, linking to a green corridor is more advantageous ecologically than remaining a single isolated block of land. 3. The system of walking trails and access to the Gateway Trail is greatly improved if the Savanna is linking to the state trail with an underpass. Since much of this trail will wind through natural vegetation, there is improved opportunity for experiencing and learning about nature. Discussion 1. Changing Boundaries. Because there would be no net loss of open space, we view the proposal as changing the boundaries of the neighborhood preserve. The current configuration of 24 acres south of Frost Avenue, would change to include 18 acres south of Frost and 6 acres north of Frost, connected by an underpass. The existing property boundary for the preserve is based on previous land ownership, not on ecology or natural features. In this exchange, we will not be losing high quality natural areas. Concerns: The primary concern for selling a portion of the preserve is public perception that Maplewood is selling open space that was supposed to be preserved into perpetuity. Response: We believe that if the concept of no -net loss is carefully explained, most residents will understand it and concur that the proposal is essentially changing the preserve boundaries. 2. Ecological Impacts. a. Current condition. Gladstone Savanna is a former industrial site that has been classified as a brownfield. It was purchased as part of the Neighborhood Preserve system primarily because it was the last large parcel of land in this neighborhood. The most ecologically significant features • of the site are: i. The oak "nursery" at the northeast corner of the preserve; ii. Small patches of prairie plants scattered throughout the site; iii. Mature cottonwood trees along Frost Avenue; iv. The process of recovery that has been slowly unfolding since industrial uses were abandoned, including increasing numbers of native prairie plants and lichen colonizing asphalt slabs. Along with these positive changes, however, there has been widespread encroachment by invasive species such as spotted knapweed and Siberian elm. b. Ecological Potential. A 24 -acre natural area is not large enough to be a wildlife refuge or a wilderness area. Due to the small size of all the Neighborhood Preserves, our goals are to make them places where citizens can enjoy nature and see examples of our natural heritage, especially the pre -settlement vegetation of our region. The invasive species and compacted soils on the site make restoration of the savanna challenging. However, management activities over the past seven years (invasive tree removal, prescribed burns, and biological control of leafy spurge) have been very encouraging. With adequate time, funding, and management we can achieve our vision for restoring the savanna. c. Would we lose or gain any ecologically significant areas? Under the proposal, the mature cottonwood trees on Frost would likely be removed. While these provide great beauty, shade, heat reduction, food and shelter for wildlife, and would be sadly missed, they are out of their ecological niche at the savanna. (Cottonwoods often colonize disturbed areas. In healthy ecological systems they are found in lowland hardwood forests and along rivers.) No other significant ecological features would be lost. There are several mature oaks at Flicek Park that would be acquired under the proposal. These provide an excellent base for restoration of oak savanna or oak woodland. d. Is the proposed shape beneficial or detrimental? In its present configuration, the savanna is an isolated natural area. It is surrounded by concrete on two sides, and on two sides by residential development, mowed parkland, and commercial use. Small isolated natural areas tend to have fewer types of habitat and less immigration of plant and animal species to the site. Ecologists advise linking isolated natural areas by green corridors. The proposal creates a green corridor that would link the savanna under Frost Avenue to the whole Gateway Trail corridor. Ecological benefits of green corridors include: i. More types of habitat; ii. Safer passage for wildlife; iii. Potentially better health for some animal populations due to increased opportunity for genetic exchange. Ecologists have studied the size and shapes of natural areas for large sites and wildlife refuges. For example, for grassland bird habitat, wildlife scientists in Wisconsin recommend a minimum 40 -acre block of grassland, preferably 80-250 acres, and most desirably 250-1000 acres (Sample and Mossman, 1997). Shapes that reduce the amount of edge are generally preferable (square, rather than long rectangle). Because the savanna is so small, this type of 40 study is not applicable. 3. Recreation. We believe the Savanna can become the heart of this neighborhood if it is better integrated into the neighborhood. Currently many people enjoy the view of large cottonwood trees as they drive by, but very few people venture into the savanna. The savanna has much to offer beyond simply viewing it from the outside. Under the proposal, there would be walking trails from east, west, and south neighborhoods through the Savanna and all the way to the Gateway Trail. Once on the Gateway, walkers can stroll to Lake Phalen or trek as far at Pine Point Park in Stillwater. Such a trail system has great benefits to the neighborhood and the community. We questioned the loss of ball fields at Flicek Park and we were informed that due to declining enrollment in baseball leagues, the ball fields at Flicek are not needed. 4. Access, Education, Support The long-term protection of the Maplewood Neighborhood Preserves depends on a citizenry that connects to nature emotionally, is knowledgeable about nature, and believes in preservation of natural areas. Many nature lovers are content to bushwhack through the preserves. But a goal of the Neighborhood Preserve program is to help more Maplewood citizens experience nature. To do this effectively, we need to provide better access to some of the preserves. Because of its location, Gladstone Savanna is one of the preserves where it is appropriate to have good access and walking trails. Financing for Neighborhood Preserve Program The Neighborhood Preserve program needs funding to manage and restore Maplewood's 14 preserves. Invasive species, altered waterways, pollution, and human impacts are all threats to the preserves. Without management, the quality of the preserves will decline. Under the proposal, all revenues from the sale of land would be set aside for the Neighborhood Preserves. This would provide the means to undertake restoration and management projects at several preserves. 1� 0 Together We Can June 13, 2005 Dear Parks and Recreation Commissioners: My life is in flux. I recognize that this is my problem and not yours, but unfortunately it is going to become yours as well. Given that introduction, I would like to request that we move the'June 20 parks and recreation commission meeting one week later to June 27 at 7 P.m. at city hall. l am extremely involved in the local Maplewood Rotary Club and the International Conference for Rotary is scheduled in Chicago on June 19, 20, 21 and 22. 1 have an opportunity to attend and am scheduled to go. realize this is short notice, but hope your schedule can be adjusted: as there is a great deal we need to talk about. 1 have included a variety of information, in particular relating to the Gladstone redevelopment project to give you a heads up on things that we will discuss with that project as well as some other issues. Should you have any questions, please contact me directly at (651) 249-2102. Sin' Director of Parks a Recreation bruce.k.anderson@ci.maplewood.mn.us kph\62905.ltr.comm Enclosures PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT 651-249-2101 FAX: 651-249-2129 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD 1830 COUNTY ROAD $: EAST MAPLEWOOD, MN 55109