Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-05-16 Parks PacketMAPLEWOOD PARKS AND RECREATION, COMMISSION JOINTLY WITH OPEN SPACE TASK FORCE MONDAY, MAY 16, 2005 MAPLEWOOD CITY HALL MAPLEWOOD ROOM 7:00 P.M. Prior to the meeting, a tour of the Confusion Cottage 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 Redevelopment 9:15 PM 4. Commissioners' Comments 9:25 PM 5. Director's Comments 9:30 PM 6. Adjournment Items that need formal commission action Parks and Recreation Commission meeting minutes of April 7, 2005. Participant Survey Public Workshop #2 - April 7, 2005 Results of Participant Survey Rc'. Frequency 1 Gender Male 42 SI% Female 38 - 46% No Response 3 4% 2 Age Under 25 3 4F'° 25to44 10 12% 45 to 64 45 55% 65 or old, 24 29% No Response 1 1% 3 Do you live is the Gladstone Neighborhood? Yes 61 72% No 21 25% Business Ower 3 46 -- _ 4 If YES, how long have you lived in the Neighborhood? Less d. 5 years 11 13% 5-10 years 9 11% I I-20 years 8 10% More than 20 years 35 42% No Response 20 24% 5 Do you own or mot your home? Own 74 89°'6 Rent 3 4% No Revpmon, 6 7% 6 How many people currently live in your house? 1 14 17°'0 2.. 2 32 39% 3 22 27°0 4 9 1190 No Response 6 7% 7 Where do you work? Maplewood 18 229'0 St. Paul 13 16% Other City 24 29% Not Employed 25 30°% No Response 3 4% 8 Did you attend the previous public workshop on January 31? Yes 55 66% No 28 34% 9 Have you used the Gladstone information on the City's website? Yev 47 57% No 35 43% 10 How did you learn about this workshop? (Pick all that apply) Newspaper 14 10% City Newsletter 46 34% City Website 16 12% Ward of Mouth 32 24% Other 28 21% 11 Are you willing to pay more property taxes if needed to implement YOUR plan for the Gladstone Neighborhood? Yes IS 18% No 32 39% Dependsm the Amount 34 41% No Response 2 2% 12 Comments Yes 3S 42% -. No 48 58°16 The following points were recorded as written from the comments section of the survey forms. They are numbered only for the sake of reference. 1) Parks and savannah are a source of pride to the Gladstone residents and business owners. Preserving the Savannah and parks will impact the quality of life for generations to come (both new and existing residents). As the population in the Gladstone Neighborhood continues to grow w/the proposed redevelopment, it's critical that the City acts now to manage these lands effectively, preserve open space for the future, and make these areas accessible to all people today and tomorrow. 2) Asa business owner in the Gladstone area, what are you doing to help my growth in the City? All of the concept plans have eliminated my business totally. 3) As a family and business owner we do not plan to stay in the area. We feel this has been all or nothing for business owners. I feel that the City officials will do what they want in Maplewood. I see nothing from the people that are already there and have their properties are being addressed. We all know that money talk the high density the more money. Granted I have missed some task force meeting I did not expect the large density. 4) I'm living at Ripley and Edward. I want Edward to remain closed. If Edward Street open up to Frost, Edward will have to go through partial of my property. That will decrease my property value. The reasons my family moved to the resident because of the big space, peace and quiet. Keep Edward Street closed as is. Thank you. S) I would prefer that there would be no change to our neighborhood. Making Edward a through street would be a mistake in my opinion. 6) Hopefully the adopted plans will be reflective of current, realistic developments and would thus be able to be marketed in the private sector without government subsidies. If it turns out there are some as yet unidentified brownfields, some cleanup funds might be necessary. 7) I believe that there are many options that could be used on the master plan. I was in favor of everything except the green roof. In my view a master plan is a great idea but the most important dimension is to build higher end ($ 300,000 or more) units. If we start by building lower end units it will set the precedent for more lower priced units. 8) Density = character 9) The Garden City concept is my preference, but Gloster Park needs to be improved and maintained, as well as retention of Gladstone Elementary. Additional residents will increase the need for parks, playgrounds and educational space, as well as indoor recreation such as the bowling alley which includes video games. 10) Garden City concept plan is acceptable. Downtown Maplewood concept is unacceptable. 11) Mixed use needs to remain a traditional village look. Small village concept in the middle a large metro area. Sumer Form Response Taller and Comments Page 2 of 4 12) Please do not build on the open space. Designating other small portions does not meet the concept of open space. I have no problem with paths (preferably not hardscape) in the open space. 13) Tax - depends on amount --it already costs us, in a little 2BR home, over a hundred dollars a month for the privilege of living in the area! Why the need to remove the Gladstone school? Senior Center? What do you propose would replace it? Flicek? We don't need fewer ball fields, we need more! 14) Major concerns about open space security. Major concerns about rising taxes for cost of development, esp. with open space. Who will maintain these spaces--County/City? I like the Downtown concept the most. 15) I question the region's ability to fill the amount of retail that is planned. I think this neighborhood is a tight knit group that will not allow for the removal of any single family homes or the Gladstone school. On the other hand, I would strongly encourage the cleaning of the commercial properties. I hope the City is able to accelerate this process. Re -zoning land is going to produce slow results. 16) I thought there were good attributes to all three plans but can not support any intrusion into the Savannah. It is barely large enough as is and any shrinkage makes in unviable as a restored natural space. Dicing and slicing nature spaces means none are viable - more ecological concern and input please. 17) Medium density at quality restoration is not necessary or appropriate. 2) Too many townhomes placed on the St. Paul Tourist Cabin site. 3) If Tourist Cabin site is redeveloped it would be nice to save or leave half of the old growth oaks located there. 4) A referendum to incorporate the Tourist Cabin site into open space should be considered. 5) Open space should not be reduced in size and a swap is not appropriate; when continuous open space is reduced in size the overall value of the open space is reduced. 6) Narrow lot - traditional - the lot size is not similar to Gladstone lot size. Lots are larger than this and include garages, often attached or next to home. 7) Marine does not need to be medium densit - inappropriate level of density. 8) No development of Fhcek Park - a very busy park in the summer/spring. 9) Frost Ave. in Garden City - make it a parkway rather than swooping into the open space. 18) The options have been narrowed so that we can only pick from options in your plans. The residential options do not reflect the side of Gladstone by the lake. Homes are too close to the road. 19) Flicek Park remain as set up for baseball 2) Gloster Park needed for the neighborhood children; needs updating. 3) Edward St. not to go through to Frost: narrow street, curve, difficult to get to Larpenteur with cars parked on Larp, when turning either way. 20) Please do not change area of open space. Paths in Garden City concept are good though. Changes in other 2 concept to open space are not acceptable. 21) The name tags we had at the first public workshop were very helpful. We need them at June meeting. Putting in a playgournd or lots of plants and a garden at the intersection of Ripley, Gordon and Phalen would be nice. 22) 18 year old senior at Mahtomedi here for my final merrit (sic) badge for my Eagle Scout. Snrver Form Response Taller and Comments Page 3 of 4 23) We are currently remodeling our home at 1960 Clarence Street. If the plans that you're wanting to do go through, it means you would be tearing down our house so you can put 2 or 3 new houses there (we own 3 lots on Clarence). My question: when was anyone planning on telling us not to bother re- modeling because you're going to bulldoze it anyway. And, how much are you going to give me for my house? P.S. Why should we be charged to put in new streets and sewers if you're taking my house? Diane Meyer 651.747.0236 24) Please contact all who are affected by this plan. We have seen on the internet a plan that would be taking our land, how are we suppose to sell our houses? Jeffery Meyer 651.747.0236 25) Please contact any and all affected property owners 26) We just had our streets redone 3-4 years ago. We are still paying for it and will be for the next 12 years - we can't afford any more increase. How will this be funded? NO MORE TAX INCREASES PLEASE! Are there people that want to utilize this redevelopment or are you hoping that 'if we build it, they will come?' 27) No dense buildings. Low buildings 28) Save Gladstone 29) Not everyone got a notice mailing. How many people actually live in Gladstone. 30) Leave our area as is. We like it. 31) Leave our area alone. 32) Dont touch the Savannah!! You cannot touch Flicek Field. Garden City concept is the best except do not touch the Savannah. 33) Kiss 34) No use but minimal interpretation for open space. 2) No trading off of space for space. 35) Do not touch the open space. 2) How is the City going to control the extra traffic? 3) What happens when the State wants to make the trail that goes to Lake Phalen into light rail? 4) Does the City need to hire extra police and fire? 5) How much will taxes increase for the current homeowners? 6) How is English and Frost going to handle the extra traffic? 7) How will this development increase/decrease the value of my home? 8) How much is the pedestrian walkway on Ripley going to cost each homeowner? 9) What is the maximum amount of traffic can the roundabout handle? 10) Where is the parking area? Sarver Foran Rcaponse Taller and Comments Page 4 of 4 Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. ©® To: Gladstone Team From: Brad Scheib Subject: Master Plan Process Date: 10 May 2005 The following is a proposed schedule update for remaining meetings with the exception of staff meetings as outlined in the scope of work. May 16" Park and Rec and Open Space Committee Workshop • Review of Park Concepts (Flicek, Gloster, Savanna) • Review of Ecological Systems May 26`" Task Force Meeting • Review evaluation findings (infrastructure, fiscal, developer review) • Agree on concept refinements based on evaluation findin s . Distribute Newsletter #3 June 136 City Council Update (;,,: "�, June 16'" Public Workshop/Meeting #3 June 286 City Council Issue Order for Environmental Review (A UAR) July 14" Task Force Review -Meeting #1 Distribute Newsletter #4 July 296 Council Review Draft AUAR approve submittal for public review and Master Plan July 28" (Aug 4 alt.) Public Open House to review draft Master Plan and draft AUAR August 1" Submit Environmental Review to EQB August 11" Task Force Review Meeting #2 (FINAL TASK FORCE MEETING) August 31" EAW Comment Deadline September 26" City Council takes action on the Master Plan and Environmental Review 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, MN 55401-1659 Ph(612)338-0800 Fx (612) 338-6838 www.hkgi.com Direct (612) 252-7122 Email bscheib@hkgi.com 28 April 2005 treet Type Diagram Frost Avenue Street Type "A" - Flicek Park Zone Boulevard Tree 35' O.C. Ornamental Tree 25' O.C. Concrete Walk Planted Median Concept Street Section 1 "= 20,_0„ Concept flan 1"= 20,_0» Concrete Walk in Park 8' Parking Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. Concept Street Section 1 "= 20'-0" Street Tree 30' O.C. (in grate) Lights 60' 0.1 Concrete We Unit Pavers Planters 60' Concent Plan Parking Lane Both Sides Concrete Walk Tree Lawn 1"= 20'-0" Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. MIN Frost Avenue (and/or English Street) Street Typ "C" - Commercial Zone (East of English) Concept Street Section 1 "= 20'-0" Street Tree 30' O.C. (in grate) Trash Can 90' O.C. Lights 60' O.C. Bench 90' O.C. Planters 60' O.C. Parking Both Sides Concept Plan 1"= 20,-0" Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. Frost Avenue Street Type "D" - East of Ide Street to Hazelwood Boulevard Tree 35' O.C. Ornamental Tree 25' O.C. Concept Street Section I"= 20,_0„ Tree Lawn Concrete Walk No On -Street Parking Concept flan I 20'-0" Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. MUM English Street - Frost Avenue Street Type "E" - Commercial Zone (with Tree Lawn) Concept Street Section 1"= 20'-0" Ornamental Tree 30' O.C. Boulevard Tree 30' O.C. Parking Both Sides Concrete Walk Tree Lawn Bench 90' O.C. Concept flan 1"= 20'-0" Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. (Residential Street Street Type "F" at Vento Trail Concept Street Section I"= 20,_0„ Boulevard Tree 30' O.C. Single Lane Parking Concrete Walk Tree Lawn Concept flan I"= 20,_0" Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. Plaza Street Street Type "G" - One -Way Street Concept Street Section 1"= 20'-0" Rain Garden 2 Trees Each Boulevard Tree 30'0.C. Concrete Walk Tree Lawn Concept flan P= 20'-0" Concrete Walk Lights 90' O.C. Bollards 15'0.C. Unit Pavers 3 Spaces for Parking 22' Each Flat Concrete Curb Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. IMIN Plaza Street Street Type "H" - One -Way Street Street Section 1"= 20'-0" Rain Garden 2 Trees Each Boulevard Tree 30'0.C. Concrete Walk Tree Lawn Concept flan 1"= 20'-0" Concrete Walk Lights 90' O.C. Bollards 15'0.C. Unit Pavers 3 Spaces for Parking 22' Each Flat Concrete Curb Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. Plaza Street Street Type I - Two -Way Street Conce.pt Street Section l'- 20'-0" Boulevard Tree 30' O.C. Lights 90' O.C. Bollards 15' O.C. Concrete Walk Parking with Unit Pavers Tree Lawn Concept Plan 1"= 20'-0" Rain Garden with Fieldstone Wall Flat Concrete Curb Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. MR Typical Green Street Street Type "J" Concept Street Section I"= 20'_0„ Boulevard Trees 30' O.C. Concrete Walk Rain Garden Tree Lawn Concept Plan 1"= 20'-0" Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. Urban Residential Street Street Type "K" - Town Center Area Concept Street Section l'- 20'-0" Boulevard Trees 30' O.C. Lights 90' O.C. Parking Both Sides Concrete Walk Tree Lawn A I Concept Plan 1 "= 20'-0" Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. Typical Green Street Street Type "L" at Park Open Space Street Section 1"= 20'-0" Boulevard Tree 30'0.C. Tree Lawn Concrete Walk Concepi 1"= 20'-0" Plan Y v -r, ) Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. IMIN L TO: Parks and Recreation Richard Fursmaneft FROM: Bruce K. DATE: May 12, 2005 for SUBJECT: Monthly Update April 2005 Recreation Recreation Commission Meeting The following items are provided to the City Manager and Parks and Recreation Commission to provide an overview of our day -today operations. The items are informational and not intended for formal City Council or Parks and Recreation Commission action. 1. Franconia Sculpture Park Staff has had a series of meetings with artistic director John Hock with Franconia Sculpture Park. John not only manages the Franconia Sculpture Park, but he also coordinates two other public art areas in St. Paul (the first at Bethesda Hospital and the second behind Sears on University Avenue.) Enclosed is a proposal for services from John that encompasses a number of issues from serving as artistic director to administrating the facility and securing the sculptures. I will be reviewing this concept in more detail with the identified representatives from the parks and recreation commission and formally establishing an art council in the coming weeks for their thoughts and consideration. I will be including $30,000 in our 2006 budget request which would provide for tan sculptures for a three-year period based on the enclosed proposal. I think this concept has some real merit and will need to be reviewed in greater depth by the commission and ultimately the city council. I would welcome your comments and thoughts on this issue, but I think that this is an extremely reasonable manner for securing sculptures. It is my intent to have a park tour in June to Franconia Sculpture Park so that you can see firsthand their site and some of the potential pieces that could, become a part of Legacy Village sculpture park. 2. Budget Presentation Staff will be making a presentation to the city council on June 6 regarding our department to better help the council not only understand the various roles and responsibilities, but also to provide a better background of our future needs and directions. I will be making a similar presentation to the commission .at our June meeting. 3. Kennard Tunnel The under road tunnel at Kennard and County Road D was completed approximately two months ago. The tunnel will serve as the main thoroughfare for the Highline Trail, which will ultimately connect Rice Street to Century Avenue. The Kennard trail will not only provide a safe, easy, accessible access within the Legacy Village development, it will also provide direct connection to the creative tot lot area that will be constructed in 2007. The monies for the tot lot in Legacy Village park will be funded through a tax abatement bond, which was part of the Legacy Village sculpture park bond sale. 4. Sterling Oaks Park Bids Enclosed is a memorandum outlining the Sterling Oaks Park bids that were opened on Monday, May 2. We received very favorable bids and the city council formally awarded the contract to Hoffman & McNamara Company in the amount of $223,000. We have a pre -construction meeting scheduled for Tuesday, May 17 and hope to begin construction the week of May 23. The bids were approximately 30 percent under the architects estimate. I am looking forward to getting this project off and running. 5. Priory Specifications Staff is working with Barr Engineering Company to finalize the plans and specifications for the Priory development. The master plan has been approved by the city council and we are currently doing a number of modifications to the proposed plans and specs. This will be our first major development of an open space site and staff has been much more "hands -.on" than on other park planning projects. Due to the sensitivity of the site from an ecological standpoint, we will not only be field staking this site, but working in daily concert with the contractor to make sure that the trails and pathways have minimal impact on the surrounding eco systems. It is anticipated that we will bid the project in three phases: the first being the paver system and trails the second being the landscape materials and the third being bridges. Enclosed is a copy of some of the mapping that has been prepared to date for this site. 6. Applewood Park We are currently finalizing plans for Applewood Park and hope to have the plans and specifications out for bid by June 15. This project also has great ecological sensitivity and requires more staff time and "hands-on" work with the park planning firm. 7. Drinking Fountains I had an interesting and diverse conversation with my staff regarding the role and importance of drinking fountains within the city park system. We currently have four fountains outside in park settings and fountains in each of our buildings for another five. I have raised the issue at the staff level that we should expand drinking fountains into more of our public park sites. Much to my surprise I heard a number of people feeling that drinking fountains are not appropriate within park settings. I would welcome a conversation individually at a future meeting as to whether you think drinking fountains play an important role in parks or whether people bring bottled water and feel that the fountains are unsanitary and not an item that we should be considering. 8. Joint Ventures Our department, like all other departments, is always looking at ways to cooperate with other agencies. We are currently looking at a major joint purchase for tables and chairs at the Maplewood Community Center with the cities of New Brighton and Plymouth. In addition, our recreation staff is pursuing joint use of the Roseville puppet wagon. The city puppet wagon, one of our major programs for 20 -plus years was eliminated due to budget cutbacks, yet we still receive calls from families, day care centers and large youth providers to bring this program back. We hope to work with Roseville to offer a limited puppet program in 2006. 9. Park Dedication The park dedication rates have not been increased for four years. We are currently in the lower 25 percent for housing units and we are in the top 25 percent for commercial/industrial. Enclosed is a letter that I forwarded to LeJeune Development, who is proposing a 32 -acre development along Highway 61 for five car dealerships. The proposed park dedication fee for the project would be $250,000. The developer is pleased with my recommendation, but this may be an item that city policymakers want to review in the future. Again I must remind everyone that park dedication provides approximately 95 -plus percent of all park acquisition, development and redevelopment costs within the city. 10. Diversity Training Audra Robbins, recreation supervisor, attended a cultural diversity program last week focusing on ethnic minorities. The ethnic minority population continues to grow within Maplewood and we are 2 making considerable efforts to reach out and develop programs and meet the park needs of all residents. Audra's attendance increased our cultural awareness and we hope to use her "expertise" to bridge the cultural gap. 11. Ramsey County Courthouse The Ramsey County Courhouse is scheduled to open to the public on June 18. The city has been requested to provide snowplowing and lawn maintenance services on a contract basis. We are looking at negotiating the maintenance agreement with the county in the coming weeks. kh/0405.mu.comm Enclosures 3 May 9, 2005 Mr. Wayne Pisinski VP Operations LeJeune Investment, Inc. 9393 Wayzata Blvd. Minneapolis, MN 55426 Dear Mr. Pisinski: It was a pleasure to meet with you and Mr. Hanson on Thursday, May 5, to review the proposed Maplewood Imports/Audi Dealership project located on Maplewood Drive and Highway 61. First off, again welcome to our community. We look forward to working with you and LeJeune Investment, Inc. to have a successful public/private partnership. I had the opportunity to review the project at great length with city planner Ken Roberts and the city engineering department and I commend you and your firm for your environmental foresight and commitment to a quality development. The 2005 park dedication rate is nine percent of the estimated land value for commercial/industrial property. The park dedication code technically does not provide any process whereby park dedication can be reduced due to wetland mitigation. After reviewing the project in depth and speaking with the city attorney, it is my formal recommendation that your project be granted credit for the 11.3 acres of green space provided for within your project. I have come to this conclusion and recommendation based on your commitment to not only a quality project, but to the goals and ideals of environmental and wetland preservation which we hold highly within the city of Maplewood. In addition,your understanding and commitment to rainwater gardens and the parking/storage lot creating less impervious soil are to be commended. Based on the information you forwarded in your May 6, 2005 correspondence, the purchase value of the property is $4,294,956.30. The total cost per acre would be $134,218. The proposed developed acreage is 32 acres, less the 11.3 acres of open space which leaves 20.7 acres of developable property. The total value of the 20.7 acres is $2,778,321.60, which would be a total park dedication fee of $250,048 based on our current nine percent rate. It is .my understanding that your phase one development will include 6.52 acres. The park dedication rate for the 6.52 acres would be $78,759. Park dedication fees are payable upon issuance of a building permit for each respective project. PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT 651-249-2101 FAX: 651-249-2129 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD 1 830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST MAPLEWOOD, MN 55109 Mr. Wayne Pisinski May 9, 2005 Page 2 Based on this formal correspondence, the city is willing to commit to a park dedication rate for the remaining project at the current nine percent rate based on $134,218 for the remaining 14.18 acres. This rate is based on the aforementioned agreed upon land value even if the land/acre appreciates and should the park dedication rate increase as well in future years. Should you have any questions regarding the park dedication rates for Maplewood Imports/Audi deatership on behalf of_eJeune Investment, Inc., .please .contact me directly _at.(651) 249-2102. Director of Parks .us kphlmw imports audi.ttr05 c: Ken Roberts, City Planner Denny Peck, Sr. Eng. Tech. Melinda Coleman, Asst. City Mgr. Patrick Kelly, City Attorney City of Maplewood Priory Neighborhood Preserve Sustainable Trail Specifications Overview The following specifications have been designed to create long-lasting, unpaved trails that will help protect the Preserve's natural resources. The trails are routed to gently traverse the land as much as possible, running parallel to the topographical contours rather than directly up and down the hills. Water is to be routed off the side of the trails, rather than down their length, to prevent runoff from gathering momentum, creating channels and eroding soil. The goal is to encourage sheet flow — a dispersed flow of water down a hillside. Trails constructed in a manner that does not accomplish these goals and meet the requirements set out below will NOT be accepted. Definitions Tread. The walking surface, composed of mineral soil; a clear path for travel Tread width. The edge -to -edge measurement of walking surface, generally 3 feet here. Corridor width. The tread width, plus a clear area (free of trunks, branches or other tall plants) on either side of trail to ensure pedestrian comfort and safety. Generally 5 to 6 feet here. Ceiling. Any overhead obstruction (e.g., tree branches) the occur within the trail corridor. The desired ceiling here will generally be 10 feet. Sideslope. The general grade of the hillside adjacent to the trail. Trail 4 Ceiling Side Critical Point/ Slo e (rounded) Backslope/ (Gently blended) Trail Tread (outsloped 5%) Trall Corridor. Typical Trail Section. Dotted line indicates original hillside profile Outslope. The slope across the width of the trail toward the downhill side. This slope minimizes erosion by encouraging sheet flow of water across the trail. The tread should always tilt slightly away from the high side at 3 to 5 percent. Sometimes called crossslope. Backslope. The slope above the trail. Sheet flow. A wide, dispersed flow of water down a hillside, as opposed to channel flow Grade reversals and grade dips. Subtle undulations in a trail that diminish erosion by redirecting water off the trail. The steeper the grade, the more grade reversals should occur, perhaps every 20 feet. Grade reversals act as a backup to the other design elements to prevent water from focusing. Social trail. An "unofficial" trail or shortcut created by people walking off the constructed trail Proper design and construction discourage social trails, which contribute to erosion and disturbance of plants and animals. Control points, Places that influence where a trail goes. The beginning and end are basic control points. Others include trailheads water crossings and other trail spurs. Fall line. The most direct route from the top of a hill to the bottom; the path that water naturally flows. No trail will be constructing on fall lines. Mineral soil. Stable earth composed of sand, gravel, silt and/or clay with little discernible organic matter. Soil that is firm when compacted, not spongy or in a state of decomposition. Rules for Design and Construction • Trails will be marked with pin flags on the downhill edge prior to construction. Pin flags should remain in place during excavation to help the construction crew envision trail flow and the depth of bench cut. Trails shall not deviate from flagged path without permission of Landscape Architect. • Trails shall not exceed 15 percent in any location. • In most preserve locations, trails will be 3 feet wide. They may be narrower in heavily wooded areas or other challenging locations. See "Process" below, and seek direction from Landscape Architect. • The trail corridor will usually be twice the width of the trail tread. For example, a three-foot trail will have approximately 11/2 feet clear zone on each side for a total corridor width of 6 feet. Wooded trail corridors may be slightly narrower. • The trail ceiling will usually be 10 feet above ground. • All trails shall exhibit an outslope of 3 to 5 percent to route water off the side of the trail, rather than down the trail longitudinally. Since the tread will compact over time, effectively reducing the slope, no trails shall have an outslope of less than 3 percent. • In grassland areas, entire trail corridor must be graded at a 3 to 5 percent slope to facilitate mowing. • The trail tread grade shall not exceed half the grade of the adjacent hillside or sideslope. If the grade does exceed half the sideslope, it is considered a fall -line trail. Water will flow down the trail rather than sheet across it, thus defeating the sustainable design. • Subtle undulations in the trail (grade reversals and dips) are intentional measures to help diminish erosion by redirecting water off the trail. However, obstacles in the tread surface, such as roots or rocks, are not acceptable. iran & corridor: &rasslonds D3 -FT. TREAD 6 -FT. CLEAR ZONE GRADED 3 - ENTIRE WIDTH TO ACCOMMODATE WIDE MOWER Frail & Corridor: Woodlands D3 -FT. TREAD 5 -to 6 -FT. CLEAR ZONE GRADE MAY CHANGE FROM PATH The Half Rule: If building across a hillside with a 20 percent sideslope, for example, the grade of >,(half il should not exceed 10 percent FaU kne ipe). alll ne 20%Or e Traillread 1ik'f grade Trail7read:15%grade This trail is properly designed to be well below 50 percent of This trail is poody designed becaiiae a its cent of # ' coming down the hillside wiff oross the trail ^ i # e. Water will run down il, bLWIng volume and velocity ant ►. f # # :eRla away.f meter, t erosion. �loosenu 1y users. This trail should ve been designed with a ma)dmum grade of 10 p 3 Safety Safety precautions shall include, but are not limited to the following: Contractor shall provide supervisor with at least 3 years construction experience and abilitiy to read, speak and understand the English language. All crew shall wear appropriate protective gear and understand an emergency plan. Process 1. Clearing the Trail Corridor Using the downhill pin flags as a guide, clear the tread and corridor of trees, shrubs, long grasses and other herbaceous plants. Next, rake the leaf litter and debris from the tread area onto the uphill side. If too steep to rake uphill, rake downhill into large piles. Organic litter can be used later to cover dirt removed frons the bench cut and give the trail a more finished look. The trail corridor will generally be twice as wide as the tread width. Exceptions to this rule are discussed below. Herbaceous vegetation. During initial clearing, leave grasses and short herbs that will fall outside the 3 foot trail tread. Woody plants. Remove trees and shrubs within the 6 foot trail corridor, but do not remove trees larger than 1% -inch diameter unless marked for removal. EXCEPTION.' Buckthorn of any size shall be removed from 6 foot trail corridor, roots and all. Do NOT leave buckthorn stumps in or near trail corridor. In general, all oaks are to remain. Do not disturb, remove or trim any oaks in April, May or June. Trees larger than 1% -inch within the corridor may mean that corridor will be narrower than 6 feet for a short section. Trail width may also be slightly narrower, if necessary. Get approval from the Landscape Architect if there is any question about trail width or removal of a particular tree. When removin small trees and shrubs do not cut 2. cut slightly outside branch junction to promote healing X 1. on large branches, cut lower part first to avoid tearing bark below g them flush with the ground. They must be dug out, roots and all. (Cutting them at waist level leaves a handle for levering them out.) Fill the resulting hole to match the tread. El Trim tree branches that extend into trail corridor (within 11/, feet of path edge); always cut just outside the branch junction. The resulting nub helps prevent disease frons infecting the tree, and the cut will heal quicker. Do NOT leave sharp or ragged branch cuts. When removing larger branches, start by making a partial cut underneath. Then when the branch falls it won't strip protective bark. (See diagram on page 4.) Remove from site all branches larger than ''/z -inch diameter. Smaller branches may be placed at least 10 feet from the corridor, with the cut end pointing away from trail. Scatter dirt removed from the bench cut no deeper than '/z inch over the downhill area. Cover it with the duff and leaf litter. 2. Constructing Trail Excavate down and into the hillside to put the entire tread width on native mineral soil. This is called full bench tread construction; see illustration on next page. Full bench tread construction creates a consistent and stable tread. Do NOT use excavated soil to fill the downhill side of the tread. This fornss a half or partial bench (see illustration below right). The tread rarely compacts consistently, and eventually it begins slipping down the hill. In the unlikely event that a partial bench is unavoidable, a rock crib wall may be constructed to stabilize trail edge. Before doing this, consult Landscape Architect. INWMPLE£E PULE UNH Leh. Milb uJlintshud t licnl hack eut x•111 M01 siaugh .U. makink "2 n r xrer. Ohtruslve bark cuLafsa farces ddv to nalsideof tread. PROPER TECHNIQUE EE1LlhF. d CUT li'm 6sad wldlh is M W. nrin miaara[ sun. Triedad rompacts udilaem6y aaJ is eustaEnaiile_ 5». aa(zlape f1,WiCl WSiEt tread.Back zu1iSshlea 1i0lq0 ak.,bhlkaa�peeaaL.1.,a.d fall mmrm�maameaaece INCOMPLETE FULL BENCH HALF BENCH: DO NOT USE THIS TECHNIQUE R1NtiN� oR1Wlt�l t:&IMl'AtC SI1lLwi�l io � LMim a�uw aJyJ kn,�ei: J„�demmPelm,� UNLIKELY BUT ACCEPTABLE an�na�„ ndac.eyexy ra mwruu 0.V M42iNry MMOKdxe f.Mp-6m.Y bIN. rCwK9 - HFt65lUl8lEphllNAfL '�3� YegetnLLan keaps 1vaYet "-ss,: ev"'a°ire^'0B YK-i+atilrgsimrly dmvehpl. INWMPLE£E PULE UNH Leh. Milb uJlintshud t licnl hack eut x•111 M01 siaugh .U. makink "2 n r xrer. Ohtruslve bark cuLafsa farces ddv to nalsideof tread. PROPER TECHNIQUE EE1LlhF. d CUT li'm 6sad wldlh is M W. nrin miaara[ sun. Triedad rompacts udilaem6y aaJ is eustaEnaiile_ 5». aa(zlape f1,WiCl WSiEt tread.Back zu1iSshlea 1i0lq0 ak.,bhlkaa�peeaaL.1.,a.d fall mmrm�maameaaece INCOMPLETE FULL BENCH HALF BENCH: DO NOT USE THIS TECHNIQUE R1NtiN� oR1Wlt�l t:&IMl'AtC SI1lLwi�l io � LMim a�uw aJyJ kn,�ei: J„�demmPelm,� UNLIKELY BUT ACCEPTABLE Backslope Often, the first rough cut of a full bench tread produces a vertical backslope, at a 90 degree angle to trail. Blend the backslope into the grade of the hill to produce a minimum 130 degree angle. (See illustration on page 5 labeled Proper Technique.) The area where backslope meets existing hillside must rounded (see illustration on page 1). If left vertical, water can cascade onto the tread and undercut the backslope. Outslope Trail tread shall a 3 to 5 percent outslope. Tread Surface Remove loose rocks and sharp, pointed rocks from tread surface. Large, stable, round rocks and reasonably square or rectangular rocks can remain, so long as they are firmly in place. Sharp rocks tend to force users off trail and loose rocks will work out, leaving holes in tread. During construction, remove all roots with a diameter larger than a pencil. But do not cut large tree roots near the downhill side of a living tree. Trail Edge Throw excavated topsoil several feet downhill, away from the trail, at a maximum depth of inch. Slope ground adjacent trail downhill, away from trail. Move branches or other materials that are parallel to the tread at least 10 feet away from trail, downhill, with cut ends facing away from tril. If topsoil is left near the edge, it can settle and become a berm that causes water to puddle or flow down the trail. Parallel branches or logs can encourage channel flow. 3. Finishing Double-check trail tread to ensure a smooth surface with a 3 to 5 percent outslope. Rake off any loose rock or debris Rake existing leaf litter and other small debris onto corridor edge outside trail. Do NOT leave any debris on trail surface. Large disturbed areas may require seeding and/or temporary erosion control measures. Consult Owner or Landscape Architect for guidance. Remove from site all branches larger than '/ -inch diameter. Be sure that a clear zone of approximately P/� feet remains on either side of trail; cut additional branches or grasses as necessary. Again, always cut just outside the branch junction and leave no sharp or ragged branches. Agenda K2 MEMORANDUM TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Bruce K. Anderson, Director of Parks and Recreation DATE: September 21, 2004 for the September 27 City Council Meeting SUBJECT: Priory Neighborhood Preserve Master Plan Introduction The Priory open space property was acquired in 1995 and is located northwest of Larpenteur and Century Avenues. The Priory site is one of the three premiere open space properties within the city and was acquired from the Sisters of St. Benedict. The city retained Barr Engineering to assist and coordinate the park planning process. The master plan park planning process occurred during the spring and summer of 2004 and involved three public meetings, as well as a number of onsite visits. The Maplewood Parks and Recreation Commission was intimately involved in the Priory master plan process and have formally reviewed and unanimously adopted the Priory Neighborhood Preserve master plan as submitted. The city council has allocated $200,000 for phase one construction in 2005. Background The Priory property was dominated by oak savanna prior to European settlement. In the late 1800s, portions of the site were developed for agriculture and a farmstead can be identified south of Larpenteur Avenue in a 1940s photo. Unfortunately, the ecological quality of the preserve has been degraded by invasive species, primarily buckthorn and canary grass. The need to restore the site is critical. The park planning process outlined five guiding principles: 1. Nature first—but preserve protection over all other concerns 2. Provide safe access 3. Encourage walking and nature watching 4. Offer places for rest and reflection 5. Offer educational opportunities The proposed master plan was developed with input from city residents as well as the consultant, Barr Engineering. The proposed master plan is the first extensive master plan adopted for city open space property. The plan is fairly straight forward and includes a series of trail loops ranging in distance from .15 mile to loops over 2 miles. One of the major issues that was discussed was trail surfacing. Following extensive discussions with not only the consultant but onsite visits also, it was determined that trails should be done with small machinery or by hand which will minimize the disturbance during the construction process. The end product of the trail would be a dirt trail that would reduce erosion issues and provide a surface that would be compatible with the natural environment. The trail path itself would be 3 to 4 feet wide with a 4 %:- to 5 -foot clear zone. The trail discussion was adopted by all parties involved with strong input from abutting property owners. In addition to the trails and proposed restoration of the site, minimal amenities and peripheral features are being proposed including a small pull -off parking lot on Larpenteur Avenue, large sign or kiosk at the entry point, and minimal benches—no more than one per trail loop. Recommendation Staff recommends that the city council formally adopt the proposed Priory Neighborhood Preserve plan as presented and that Barr Engineering be retained to provide the final plans and specifications for construction and restoration of the Priory site. kh\pdory2.parks pensp.mem Introduction The Priory Preserve is a jewel in the Maplewood open space system, and in the Twin Cities metropolitan area. Comprising 46 acres of rolling topography and varied plant communities, the site allows nature -lovers to wander uninterrupted open space, view wildlife, and discover rare patches of native prairie, savanna and wet meadow. This report sets forth long-term goals and a general design for the Preserve. The features of the design, including entryways, trails and plant community restoration, are distilled in the Master Plan map, which accompanies this document. Building on information presented in the 2001 Priory Preserve Site Analysis and Ecological Survey, the plan incorporates desires of Maplewood residents, aims of City staff, and reflects the Maplewood Neighborhood Preserves Statement of Purpose and Policies, approved by the City Council in February 2001. This document and supporting maps were produced by landscape architects and ecologists at Barr Engineering Company under direction of the Maplewood Depart- ment of Parks and Recreation. Description and Context Prior to European settlement, the Priory was dominated by savanna, a community that Francis Marschner, in his Original Vegetation of Minne- sota map, called `oak openings and barrens." (See Fig. 1.) This landscape is characterized by areas of open grassland interspersed with oaks, grown singly or in groves. The area supported a much wider variety of animals than it does today—large and small mammals, reptiles and amphibians, birds and insects. In the late 1800s, portions of the site were developed for agriculture. A 1940 airphoto (Fig. 2) shows a farmstead located just south of Larpenteur Avenue, wide expanses of herbaceous upland and wetland, and sparse tree City ofMaplewood/Barr Engineering 1 Introduction The Priory Preserve is a jewel in the Maplewood open space system, and { inthe Twin Cities metropolitan area. Comprising 46 acres of rolling J topography and varied plant communities, the site allows nature -lovers to wander uninterrupted open space, view wildlife, and discover rare patches Za of native prairie, savanna and wet meadow. This report sets forth long-term goals and a general design for the Preserve. The features of the design, including entryways, trails and plant community restoration, are distilled in the Master Plan map, which accompanies this document. Building on information presented in the 2001 Priory Preserve Site Analysis and Ecological Survey, the plan incorporates desires of Maplewood residents, aims of City staff, and reflects the Maplewood Neighborhood Preserves Statement of Purpose and j Policies, approved by the City Council in February 2001. J This document and supporting maps were produced by landscape architects and ecologists at Barr Engineering Company under direction of the Maplewood Depart- ment of Parks and Recreation. Site Description and Context Prior to European settlement, the Priory was dominated by savanna, a community that Francis Marschner, in his Original Vegetation of Minne- sota map, called "oak openings and barrens." (See Fig. 1.) This landscape is characterized by areas of open grassland interspersed with oaks, grown singly or in groves. The area supported a much wider variety of animals than it does today—large and small mammals, reptiles and amphibians, birds and insects. In the late 1800s, portions of the site were developed for agriculture. A 1940 airphoto (Fig. 2) shows a farmstead located just south of Larpenteur Avenue, wide expanses of herbaceous upland and wetland, and sparse tree City of Maplewood/Barr Engineering l f canopy. Sometime after 1953, pines were planted in the southeast portion of the site, while other trees and shrubs were beginning to take hold around wetlands and other ungrazed areas. By 1974, the current configuration of closed canopy and open land had mostly taken shape (Fig.3), with about -� half the site dominated by woody plants. For a map of the site's current vegetation and areas of concern, see Fig. 4, adapted from the Site Analysis and Ecological Survey, produced in 2001. The property passed from farmer -owners to the Sisters of St. Benedict in mid 1900s. Living directly across Larpenteur at St. Paul's Monastery, the sisters wished to preserve the site as a place for solitude, reflection and 1 appreciating natural beauty. In 1995, the City of Maplewood acquired the majority of the property, and designated it part of the Neighborhood Preserve system, distinct from other parks in that it emphasizes ecology rather than development, passive recreation (that is, walking and wildlife - watching) as opposed to organized sports. (See full Preserve Policy in Appendix A.) This distinction has been a critical informant in the Priory master plan process. In 1999, the City acquired an 8 -acre parcel of oak jwoodlands in what is now the southwestern portion of the preserve. rifrrr r... -.....PS {, rFM1F� City of Maplewood/Barr Engineering 3 Introduction The Priory Preserve is a jewel in the Maplewood open space system, and in the Twin Cities metropolitan area. Comprising 46 acres of rolling topography and varied plant communities, the site allows nature -lovers to wander uninterrupted open space, view wildlife, and discover rare gF"tMr,*a of native prairie, savanna and wet meadow. This report sets forth long-term goals and a general design for the Preserve. The features of the design, including entryways, trails and plant community restoration, are distilled in the Master Plan map, which accompanies this document. Building on information presented in the 2001 Priory Preserve Site Analysis and Ecological Survey, the plan incorporates desires of Maplewood residents, aims of City staff, and reflects the Maplewood Neighborhood Preserves Statement of Purpose and Policies, approved by the City Council in February 2001. This document and supporting maps were produced by landscape architects and ecologists at Barr Engineering Company under direction of the Maplewood Depart- ment of Parks and Recreation. Description and Context Prior to European settlement, the Priory was dominated by savanna, a community that Francis Marschner, in his Original Vegetation of Minne- sota map, called "oak openings and barrens." (See Fig. 1.) This landscape is characterized by areas of open grassland interspersed with oaks, grown singly or in groves. The area supported a much wider variety of animals than it does today—large and small mammals, reptiles and amphibians, birds and insects. In the late 1800s, portions of the site were developed for agriculture. A 1940 airphoto (Fig. 2) shows a farmstead located just south of Larpenteur Avenue, wide expanses of herbaceous upland and wetland, and sparse tree City of Maplewood/Barr Engineering I Figure 4: Existing Vegetation (Data Source: Priory Preserve Site Analysis and Ecological Survey, 2001) For decades, the ecological quality of the preserve has been degraded by invasive species (particularly buckthorn and reed canary grass), lack of fire (which historically has kept prairie areas from being taken over by trees) and hydrologic changes, caused by runoff from adjacent impervious surfaces being routed into the area's lowlands. While Maplewood Nature Center staff has made significant strides in improving the site, much remains to be done. Plant community restoration is discussed further in subsequent sections. Even though degraded, the Priory is unusual in the metro area because of its diversity of species and the relative rarity of its plant communities. This diversity contributes greatly to the regional system of natural areas, including the Keller -Phalen and Lake Elmo Regional Parks. The Priory also offers an important component from a land use and parks perspective; along with other Maplewood neighborhood preserves, such as Jim's Prairie and Spoon Lake, the Priory offers a distinctly different outdoor experience than do nearby athletic fields, playgrounds and more programmed natural areas like the Maplewood Nature Center. See Fig. 5 for a map of area parks and ecological patches. 4 Priory Preserve Master Plan Process The Neighborhood Preserve Statement of Purpose set the direction of the master plan, but also left room for interpretation_ and input from Maplewood citizens about how the Priory would be developed and main- tained. The planning process involved a series of meetings designed to elicit input from Maplewood residents, city staff, members of the Parks and Recreation Commission and the Open Space Task Force, which advises the commission. The meetings also aimed to educate residents about the unique attributes of the preserve and inform them of the plan that emerged during May and June 2004. Before any meetings were conducted, however, consultants familiarized themselves with the site by paying a half day visit with key city staff and members of Open Space Task Force. Designers made subsequent visits to further explore vegetation conditions, landform, erosion and view opportu- nities. See top photo at left. The first public meeting, facilitated by Barr on May 6, 2004, was focused on information -gathering, using a group process called ORID (Objective, Reflective, Interpretive, Decisional). Two facilitators, each working with a separate group of about 20 individuals, asked participants to consider: "The Priory master plan has been implemented and you are in the pre- serve. What activities are you and the other people present doing?" Par- ticipants wrote their responses on large adhesive notes, which were then read aloud by facilitators and organized in categories. All these responses are listed, verbatim, in Appendix B. Consensus came easily, and ideas were grouped under the following primary headings: 1. Nature Study/Observation/Wildlife Watching 2. Walking/Hiking 3. Meditation/Spiritual Reflection/Quiet Time 4. Stewardship/Education/Demonstration 5. Green Connections 6. Nature First The "nature first' directive encompassed a number of concerns, such as avoiding paved trails that would encourage bicycle or motorized vehicle traffic, which participants agreed would compromise the quiet, reflective nature of the site. Some division was apparent in terms of the nature of education to occur on the site (e.g., How many schoolchildren should City of Maplewood/Barr Engineering 5 i l gather on the site at one time? How much signage should be part of the design?). But, overall, nearby neighbors, parks commission members and parks department staff were in agreement on a restrained, limited - intervention approach to the site. At the second meeting, May 20, consultants reported back the findings, and posed a preliminary concept of trail loops, benches, and points of interest. The designers attempted to offer access to the site's wide variety of plant communities and offer wildlife viewing opportunities while avoiding adverse impact. Current problem areas, such as eroded slopes, overly steep trails and paths impinging on sensitive wetland were called out. A final meeting, on June 22, 2004, presented the final design and elicited reactions. Aside from two residents' concern about visitors disturbing ducks on a path located near a wetland, the response from approximately 30 attendees was positive. Following the public meeting process, consultants and City representa- tives received final input from Nature Center staff, the Parks and Recre- ation Director and Open Space Task Force members. The Master Plan Guiding Principles The issues gathered at the initial public meeting, and from communica- tions with city staff resulted in a set of guiding principles, which di- rected the Preserve master plan design. 1. Nature first put preserve protection over all other concerns. This principle encourages natural communities be preserved and restored throughout implementation of the master plan. It suggests that the trail system remain unpaved and that signage be kept to a minimum. 2. Provide safe access. This encompasses both access at busy street entryways (e.g., school buses unloading on Larpenteur) and access within the preserve for elderly and/or handicapped individuals. " 3. Encourage walking and nature watching. This principle guides the plan toward an improved trail system—both the overall pattern and From top: Trail mowed in Priory prairie. Crossing wetland via makeshift log "boardwalk." An eroding ravine with concrete debris. Buckthorn -choked woodland. City of Maplewood/Barr Engineering 7 trail surfaces—that allows access to a variety of landscape types. 4. Offer places for resting, reflection. This translates to employing benches and exhibiting sensitivity to spatial relationships of humans to landscape. 5. Offer education opportunities. To fulfill this directive, the plan should be sure to route visitors to meaningful locations in the preserve, include sufficient space for gathering small groups and consider offering educational information via an entryway kiosk and, perhaps, demonstration plantings. Trails If one envisions the natural communities of the Priory as a patchwork of plants, water and topographic conditions, then the trail system is the thread that connects the varied elements. After the natural features, the trail will be the most significant element at the preserve, but to be true to the guiding principles, it should be unobtrusive and have as little impact on its surroundings as possible during construction and subsequent use. Establishing an unpaved trail is an aesthetic as well as ecological decision, as it will send a subtle signal to users that this place is different from active -recreation parks, and not designed for skating or cycling. Unpaved 'does not mean `un -designed"; to be safe, long-lasting with little mainte- nance, and pleasant to traverse, trails must be carefully planned and constructed. The first step of trail design was establishing a system of loops that will route visitors to the major features of the preserve. As shown on Figs 6 and 7, the new trail system eliminates many short spurs and closely spaced loops in favor of long, sweeping, connected arcs. Each loop passes at least one point of interest—a unique feature, viewpoint or plant community type—and includes one bench. Individual loops and spurs range from 0.15 to 0.5 mile, for a total trail length of 1.69 miles: Trails are spaced far from one another in order to discourage informal crossings that could disturb plants and produce erosion. The trails run parallel to hill contours as much as possible, in order to requirements, the trail surfaces should be primarily native soil, except in B Priory Preserve Master Plan Figure 7: Trails avoid extremely steep, erodible routes. Due to the generally hilly terrain of the Priory, however, it was deemed unfeasible to provide accessible trails (as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act) throughout the entire Preserve. That would require a longer, more complex network and a much more intensive construction process. But the master plan does offer gentle, easy -to -navigate trails in one portion of the site, beginning at the main entrance and running south to the primary vista point. Grades in this section should not exceed 5 percent. The trails surfaces and profiles should be constructed with an eye toward long-term stability and ease of maintenance. We recommend a style of trail advocated by Mike Riter, who developed sustainable trail guidelines for the International Mountain Biking Association (IMBA) and has consulted with parks and natural resources managers across the country. Riter advocates trails with a cross -slope that routes rainwater across the trail tread rather than down the trail length in order to avoid erosion. The grade of the tread should be no more than half the grade of the slope of the adjacent hill. (See Fig. 8.) While some sections of the trail maybe as steep as 15 percent, the overall grade should not exceed 10 percent. To minimize maintenance City of Maplewood/Barr Engineering 11 Good Design 40% SIDE SLOPE <�o°m gtada gvtNx The grade of the bead should be no more than half the side slope of the adjacent hill, This ball slope falls well below that threshhold, so water will flaw across and off the hall, minimizing erosion. It could have been as steep as 20 percent and still functioned well. Poor Design 20%SIDE SLOPE This trail is poorly designed because its grade exceeds 50 percent of side slope. Water will run down the length of the trail, building volume and velocity and carrying away tread material loosened by users. This hail should have been designed With a maximum grade of 10 percent. rlgure a: I ne rule of rlalt, aoapteo from UMBA Trail Guide areas that are too wet, too high in organic matter, or in prairie areas, where weed concerns warrant a mown turf surface. This style trail must be carefully laid out in the field, to take into account subtle topographic varia- tions and vegetation not evident on maps. Much of the construction work can be done with small machinery or by hand, which will minimize disturbance during construction. Forgoing added surface materials, such as woodchips or gravel, will avoid the need to groom and replenish materials; ensuring proper drainage over short distances will eliminate the need for frequent regrading or erosion control devices. Trail width will vary throughout the preserve, depending on soil, slope and surrounding vegetation. Wherever feasible, trail surface will be 42 inches wide, to accommodate two people walking side by side. In densely wooded areas, the trail might be as narrow as two feet, while open grass- lands might see trails as wide as four feet. Trail width is distinct from the "clear zone' —a mown or trimmed area on both sides of the trail to allow unobstructed passage. See Fig. 9 for a cross section of trail width and clear zone. To link portions of the trail system, two boardwalks and a short bridge will be installed, helping to formalize wetland and ditch crossings that are now made only by loose logs. (See photo on page 7.) A significant addition to the long-term Priory trail system is a long board- walk traversing the southern wetland. This will complete the loop system and allows visitors direct access to the wetland community. Disturbance of vegetation is a minor concern here, as the vast majority of the plants are vigorous, invasive species that will quickly fill in following construction. The boardwalk should be designed with a low profile and a lip on edges in Preserve W lieu of railings in order to reduce visual impact. From many vantages, it is likely that tall wetland vegetation will camouflage the boardwalk. Amenities & Peripheral Features -� Entrance features and other amenities at the Priory must balance two of the guiding principles: "nature first" and providing safe access, as well as offer opportunities for resting and reflection. The concept for the main entrance reflects the preserve's educational mission, and also helps set an appropriate tone and expectations for those I using the area. Plantings should be selected to prevent erosion, minimize maintenance requirements, and to reflect the plant communities within the preserve. Plant identification markers could provide unobtrusive educa- tion. The entry always should be neatly maintained to show visitors that the preserve is valued and cared for by the city and to set up expectations of respectful behavior. A paved pull -off parking lane, basically an extension of the gravel shoul- der, is included along Larpenteur Avenue, to allow safe egress from buses and cars without significant impact on natural com- munities. A simple large sign or kiosk is recom- mended, to briefly explain history and ecology of the area, note rules and allow changing phenology postings (for example, flowers in bloom or sighting of a particular migratory bird). While signage within the preserve itself is not required, small num- bered posts at points of interest could be coded to information at the kiosk and/or a pamphlet to offer more detailed information about specific plant communities. In addi- tion, small or temporary signs may be required to help explain restoration pro- cesses and use limitations. Figure 9: Trail cross-section City of Maplewood/Barr Engineering 13 Other items that may be appropriate include a trash receptacle, bicycle rack and gate or other control structure to deter prohibited vehicles. The neighborhood entrance at Idaho Avenue will remain unadorned, though erosion and dumping problems there should be addressed. At the Montana Avenue entrance, native grasses and wildflowers, to replace rock flanking the short bituminous path there, will better reflect the vision and purpose of the preserve. Throughout the park, one bench per trail loop is recommended. Benches should be located to take advantage of good views, but not at hill summits or the very best viewpoints; the focus should always remain on nature, not manufactured elements. Bench materials should be selected to visually blend in the setting, as well as for durability and ease of maintenance. Finally, a gated service entrance, accessible from Xcel Energy property, is to be installed at the far southeast corner of the site. To be used only occasionally by small maintenance vehicles, this entrance can be sited to minimize steepness of approach and to disturb the fewest number of oak trees. Restoration & Management The long-term plan for restoring and managing Priory Preserve plant communities builds on the target areas recommended in the 2001 Site Analysis and Ecological Survey, and continues efforts made by the Maplewood Parks and Recreation Department over the past decade. Sensitive fern (top and bottom) The most significant change from the Analysis and Survey is and sedges thrive in Priory expansion of prairie/savanna areas to better conform to topographic wetlands. conditions, and encouraging an herbaceous transition between prairie and wetland communities in the central section of the preserve. Most locations of target plant communities from the Analysis and Survey remain intact, with only slight simplifications of borders. In addition, the master plan maps include adjacent land, most significantly that owned by Xcel, which has been supportive of prescribed burns and other restoration efforts at the 14 Priory Preserve Master Plan Priory. It is recommended that City staff approach Xcel managers to suggest cooperative maintenance and restora- tion efforts on the Xcel property. This could be an impor- tant collaboration, since adjacent open land can provide either a source of invasive plant propagules or a healthy vegetative buffer for the preserve. See Master Plan (Fig. 6). This buffer principle is equally applicable to adjacent residential properties. In 2002, the Neighborhood Wilds Program, a Department of Natural Resources program, funded buckthorn removal and native plantings on proper- ties near the southern Priory boundary. While that program is currently unfunded, more homeowner participation in similar efforts would be helpful. In order to prevent further degradation of high-quality areas and to maximize cost-effectiveness, this plan recom- mends a methodical, phased approach to restoration, l focusing first on the most ecologically intact communities f and those sites where effort has already been expended. This means vigilant, ongoing management of small wet From top: Burn management in meadows still characterized by a diverse species mix and of woodlands Priory woodland. Native rueanemone amid sedges emerge where burning has already eliminated much buckthorn and opened up the I post -burn forest floor to desirable herbaceous and shrub species As at most natural areas in the region, invasive species control is one of the main challenges at the Priory. Buckthorn has a strong hold in large portions of forest, woodland and savanna, accompanied by exotic honey- suckle. Wetland invaders include reed canary grass, hybrid cattail and purple loosestrife. Prairie areas are challenged by spotted knapweed, in particular. As has become apparent in the newly rejuvenated woodlands to the south of the preserve, deer management is an important component of restora- tion. Deer tend to consume tender young native plants, so city staff will delay introduction of new plants until the deer population is better con- trolled. The Maplewood deer control plan, along with the Minnesota DNR deer control policy and procedures, is included in Appendix C, along with l City of Maplewood/Barr Engineering 15 An overabundance of deer can decimate forest floor vegetation. information on managing oak wilt, a disease with serious implications for the preserve. For reasons of sequencing, it would be best to repair large-scale erosion in the north part of site early in the process, so plant recovery and restoration could begin soon, rather than be disturbed at a later date. The plan does not mandate a complete site restoration; budget and technical limitations will most likely prevent large expanses of nonnative wetland, especially those dominated by cattail and reed canary grass, from being restored. However, by designating such areas generi- cally, as "wetlands," restoration remains a possibility in the distant future. While Maplewood prefers using such methods as mowing, burning and overseeding to restore native plant communities and discourage invasive species, chemical use will be necessary in some situations. Battling mature buckthorn, in particular, requires chemical as well as physical intervention. Further, it may be more cost-effective to eradicate badly degraded seg- ments of prairie and start over, rather than nurture small quantities of native species amid many invasives. In a start -from -scratch restoration area, desirable plants can be harvested and later replanted. When employing equipment -intensive management tools like fire, the city should seek contractors who use all -terrain vehicles (ATVs), rather than road -scale trucks, for transporting equipment and water. Not all trails will be sufficiently wide to accommodate vehicles, and ATVs will make much less impact on prairie plant communities they traverse. Education and Partnership Education is not only a benefit to preserve visitors, but a tool in ensuring the site's continuing health. Citizens who understand an ecological system, its values and challenges, are much more receptive to helping maintain it, 16 Priory Preserve Master Plan y l a W ff y 11 , r _A Appendix A Maplewood Preserve Policy Maplewood Neighborhood Preserves Statement of Purpose and Policies Approved by Maplewood City Council 2/26/01 _I 1. Purpose of Preserves The Maplewood Neighborhood Preserves were set aside by and for the citizens of Maplewood to -� preserve natural resources, scenic areas, and landscape buffers. They are protected natural areas where people can enhance their understanding and enjoyment of the natural world through passive- use activities such as nature study and hiking. I 2. Commitment to Preservation The preserves are the only sites in Maplewood's Park System where preservation of natural re- sources is placed above all other activities, uses, and priorities. Preservation of natural resources will guide site plans, recreational activities permitted, rules, type of trails, and management. Maplewood has a special commitment to areas of the preserves with high ecological quality and MI will insure they are not degraded due to trails, recreational activities, or neglect in management. 3. Commitment to Restoration and Management Restoration and management of natural resources is a primary focus of the Neighborhood Preserve Program and takes precedence over recreational use of the preserves. Where ecologically and economically feasible, the city will restore the preserves to native plant communities so residents can experience the prairies, savannas, woodlands, and wetlands that historically dominated this landscape. Management may include, but is not limited to, the use of prescribed burns, controlling �I the population of wildlife species, herbicide application, removal of exotic species, planting of native species and enhancing wildlife habitat. 4. Recreation, Access, and Amenities 1 The preserves are open to community use and activities that have minimal ecological impact. Passive activities such as hiking, bird watching, and nature study have priority over other recreational activities at the preserves. Amenities such as improved parking, trails and benches may be needed at some preserves to make them more accessible to hikers and to help prevent environmental degradation. There is no mandate that every preserve have trails or other amenities. Routing regional or city trail systems through a preserve is discouraged; however, such a trail may be permitted if alternative routes on nearby roads or along the site perimeter are seriously evaluated and determined to be impractical or undesirable. Decisions on trails and amenities will be determined individually for each site and will be based on site ecology, terrain, soils, activities permitted, and use patterns. 5. Commitment to Education As places for people to enhance their understanding and enjoyment of nature, the preserves are open to informal and formal learning experiences such as self study, guided tours, interpretive signs, brochures, and school programs as long as environmental impact of these activities is mini- mal. Appendix 21 Appendix B Responses From Workshop Participants Results of ORID (Objective, Reflective, Interpretive, Decisional) Brainstorming Process Priory Preserve Workshop 1 Maplewood City Hall May 6, 2004 EAST Group (Jeff Lee, facilitator) Categories Nature Study/Observation Observe trees ' What kinds of vegetation do I see? Butterflies Bird -watching Looking for deer and birds Looking for animals—deer, raccoons, possums, red fox Looking at the wildflowers jLook for signs of different animal species with my daughter Nature hiking Walldng Walking and watching for new things • Walking .i Walking Walking with family and talking about things Having no motorized vehicles in Priory - Walking the "mowed" trail Not Black Top Meditation/Spiritual Reflection Quiet Time Sitting on a bench watching the scene; "mental break" I'm sitting in a grassy area, just enjoying the quiet Dreaming—stress reducer Enjoying scenery and moments of quiet meditation Stewardship/Education Restoration activities (volunteer, guided) Counting the trash left by people the day before Education/information WEST Group (Diane Hellekson and Ginny Gaynor, facilitators) Categories Wildlife Watching Watch birds and listening to them Bird sanctuary; no loud noisy activities Bird -watching Bird watching Animal watching Wildlife watching Watch/leam. about native wildlife Hiking (All -Year) I like to do winter hiking in the area Hiking Hiking Walking dog Walking Walking with dog (on leash!) Sharing with out-of-state family and friends Family walks Snow shoe Nature First I do not want to see wide paved trails Listening to the sounds of nature Observing nature Walking and enjoying the peace of the woods and nature Nature hikes, walks on natural paths Woodchip paths—No Blacktop Walker friendly—not available to skateboards, bikes, no motorized trails All natural paths—no woodchips or dirt Make sure paths are environmentally friendly—no blacktop Subset of Nature First Relaxing Peace and quiet Sitting quietly Enjoying the wildflowers Flower -plant study Nature Really First I would like to see an area in Maplewood that is Primitive If you build it, they will come (minimal development) Education Take scout group to area—work on nature activities Small group outdoor study (science class) School groups working with Maplewood to restore/manage preserve Entrance/Demonstrate/Educate Prototype for good ecological practices for general community Arboretum, manicured area (front) Semiformal entrance 26 Priory Preserve Master Plan L Green Connections Expand to other areas; proposed bus site (Century?) Connect to Oakdale Priory site Several entrances. Not one big parking lot Trail connection to other sites/relationship to other green spaces Acquire casement or land use agreement with Excel "Structures" in Park Points of interest/History/Monuments; Jim's prairie, Fernholz farm, Priory ownership Points of interest Being able to identify native plants (markers) Amphitheatre "natural" Read a book on a bench _i Vehicle Issues - Off street parking '- I Safety on Larpenteur i i i _I ■I ■I ,I ', �� Appendix Appendix C Deer and Oak Wilt Management ti ,.I. Deer Management Ramsey County has conducted aerial deer counts during winter for several years. Counts for the Priory area (from the railroad to Holloway Avenue) are as follows: Year # deer 1999 13 2000 28 2001 18 2002 no count taken 2003 39 2004 54 ri Neighborhood meetings to discuss deer management at the Priory Neighborhood Preserve were held in 2000 and 2001. The city partnered with Ramsey County and Metro Bowhunters Resource Base for deer removal. Bow hunters removed deer in 2000 and 2001 and city staff believed this was a very effective way of managing the deer herd in the neighborhood. No deer removal was done in 2002 and 2003 due to changes in staff. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources recommends a maximum of 15-25 deer per square mile in urban areas that have deer habitat. A Deer Management Plan for the Priory Preserve area (Maryland to Larpenteur) was approved in 2001. It stipu- lates: 1. Recommended maximum herd size for the preserve is ten deer. _ 2. Initial plan is to maintain zero population growth at herd size of 18. 3. City will schedule annual bow hunts to achieve this goal. 4. City will hold neighborhood meeting or send notice annually before the scheduled removal. 5. Staff will conduct studies to determine the impact deer have on the vegetation and restoration efforts. Additional methods of removal may be introduced if the impact on the vegetation is significant. Oak Wilt Management On August 3, 2004, forester Glenn Olson from Kunde Company met with city staff to evaluate the health of oak trees at the Priory Neighborhood Preserve. r 1. Several trees have died from oak wilt in recent years. There is a good mix of pin oaks, white oaks, and bur oaks at the preserve. Oak wilt is more devastating to red and pin oaks, than to white and bur oaks. Since oak wilt is mostly spread through root graphs, the mix of red and white oak groups at the preserve will help prevent complete devastation of the oak woodland. �' 2. Nine trees were marked for removal before spring 2005. These are trees that are dying, or died recently, and have spore mats or staining under the bark. 3. Some of the oak trees show signs of anthracnose (brown leaves in the lower branches). This is often due to 9 wet weather in very early spring. It occurs more on the white oaks and bur oaks. In mid to late summer, one often observes new green leaves near the brown leaves. This disease is generally not fatal for the tree. Management of oak wilt at the preserve: 1. Monitor site for oak wilt in July and August each year. Oak Wilt Management (continued) 2. Check recently dead or dying trees for spore mats or staining under the bark. (Bur oaks will not show spore mats.) 3. Cut and remove trees that have spore mats and die in July or August. 4. Do not bring heavy equipment into the woods. Have contractors climb the trees and cut limbs. 5. After cutting down trees, cut everything > 6" in diameter to 4' chucks. 6. Remove everything > 4"-6" in diameter from site before the spring. It should be taken to a place where it will not infect other oaks. 7. OR, instead of removing cut trees from site, pile the wood, wrap it in 4imn black plastic, and trench the sides m of the plastic into the soil. Leave the pile wrapped for one full year. This will contain and kill the spores. Preserve FRANCONIA SCULPTURE PARK 29815 UNITY AVENUE SHAFER, MINNESOTA 55074 651-465-3701 PHONE & FAX Website: www.franconia.org EMAIL: info@franconia..org JOHN HOCK, ARTISTIC DIRECTOR BPARD OF DIRECTORS: b--ORAH KARASOV, CHAIR C. FULLER COWLES, SECRETARY NICHOLAS P.SLADE, TREASURER MICHAEL D. BIGGER M. J. CZARNIECKI JOHN HOCK JON ISHERWOOD TRISHA MCGOVERN PAMELA MONDALE- ALUMNI ADVISORY BOARD: CHRIS LARSON F -FORD MIRLING WILLIAM RANSOM 10 May 2005 Mr. Bruce K. Anderson Director of Parks and Recreation City of Maplewood 1830 County Road B East Maplewood, MN 55109 Dear Mr. Anderson, I hope you are very wellM Enclosed are the first three pages of a seven -page exhibition agreement contract (including artist addendum) for you to look at as a sample contract. This is what I propose for Maplewood, Legacy Village (Sculpture Park): 1. Maplewood partner with Franconia Sculpture Park. 2. That FSP contract at sixty-five dollars an hour to administrate the project/Artist exhibition program for Maplewood. 3. That FSP contract with Artists (national call to artists) to provide sculpture for Maplewood exhibition. That the artist(s) receive an honorarium of two thousand dollars for the first two years of exhibition (as a loan) and then one thousand honorarium for each additional year. All honorarium fees paid to an artist would be subtracted from a mutually agreed upon sale price for the sculpture. That, if Maplewood would like to purchase the art work at some time in the future. 4. That Maplewood would be responsible for all expenses (in a timely manner) for casual labor, transportation, materials and installation for sculptures. 5. Other terms and expenses as need be. What I would like from you is a letter of commitment that would note these guidelines as acceptable. Perhaps you would like another meeting? In consideration of the big picture you should consider that I am an expert in selecting Artists/Sculptures. Also that I have the best contacts in the industry with: artists, trucking, crane operators and installation support. You get serious "more bang for your buck" because I am frugal. Would you like to sit down and work on a budget for 2005 and then 2006? My best to you. Sincerely, John Hock Artistic Director cc: Pauline Staples SCULPTURE EXHIBITION PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT This Agreement (the "Agreement") is made effective ("Effective Date") by and between the City of Maplewood, Parks and Recreation Department (Maplewood), 1830 County Road B East, Maplewood, MN 55109, and Franconia Sculpture Park (FSP), 29815 Unity Ave., Shafer, MN 55074, and upon execution of an Addendum attached to this Agreement, the artist named in the Addendum (the "Artist"). RECITALS A. Through FSP's ongoing exhibition program (the "Exhibition Program"), FSP agrees to contract with the Artist(s) to supply Maplewood with the sculpture or sculptures indicated on the applicable Addendum for the Term of Exhibition as defined in paragraph 5a. FSP further agrees to negotiate with the Artist for sculptures for subsequent years; provided that no agreement for subsequent years shall be executed without the prior consent of Maplewood. B. Maplewood agrees to reimburse FSP for the transportation, installation and honorarium for the Artists in accordance with paragraph 3c of this Agreement. C. Maplewood has granted FSP permission to install and curate the Exhibition Program at Maplewood. D. Maplewood and FSP have established an Exhibition Advisory Panel (the "Panel") to advise Maplewood and FSP on issues related to the design, development and implementation of the Exhibition Program. E. Artist is a sculptor who has created sculpture or sculptures described in the applicable Addendum and wishes to have the same included in the Exhibition Program. F. The parties wish to define- the terms and conditions under which the Sculptures will be included in the Exhibition Program. G. Maplewood agrees to pay FSP sixty-five dollars and hour for administration. TERIVIS OF AGREEMENT For good and valuable consideration, which is hereby acknowledged to be sufficient, the parties hereby agree to the following: Approved Sculpture. FSP has selected and approved the sculptures (the "Sculptures") described by Addendum to this Agreement for exhibition at Maplewood. The sculptures described by Addendum may be changed from time to time, but no substitutions or variations (different castings, sizes or color, etc.) of any Sculpture shall occur without prior written approval of FSP and Maplewood. Page 1 of 7 2. Exhibition Agreement. FSP hereby agrees to arrange the loan of the Sculptures by the Artists to Maplewood for display in the Exhibition Program for the Term of Exhibition described below. FSP will arrange to exhibit the Sculpture in the Exhibition Program, subject to the terms and conditions set out in this Agreement. The Term of Exhibition may be extended or reduced by written agreement between FSP, Maplewood and the Artist. 3. Terms and Conditions. The following terms and conditions apply to the inclusion of a Sculpture in the Exhibition Program at Maplewood: a. Transportation and Installation of the Sculpture. The Artist shall work with FSP's designated Exhibition Program Coordinator to: i. Arrange for transportation of the Sculpture to Maplewood. The Artist is responsible for loading the Sculpture onto the transportation vehicle and for confirming with FSP that the Sculpture is in good and displayable condition at the time it is loaded; ii. Provide complete, detailed instructions for the proper and safe installation of the Sculpture at Maplewood. Such instructions must assure that the Sculpture can be installed by FSP so as to be completely stable and safe. Installation of the Sculpture will be implemented by FSP and its subcontractors based upon the Artist's instructions. The Artist can participate in the installation of the Sculpture, at the Artist's expense of time, travel and other costs. b. Exhibition Program Documentation. FSP shall provide Maplewood with a biography and narrative information about each Artist and Sculpture for use in Exhibition Program materials. c. Payment. In full consideration for arranging the loan of the Sculptures for exhibition, Maplewood will pay (time and materials) the following sums to FSP: An administration fee of sixty-five dollars an hour; ii. Risk of Loss and Liability insurance(s); iii. A $2,000 honorarium for the first two years and then $1,000 per additional year to be paid by FSP on behalf of Maplewood to each Artist. FSP shall be responsible for paying the Artist, and the Artist shall have no claim against Maplewood if FSP fails to make such payment. At the Honorarium paid to the artist will be subtracted/prorated from the retail sales value if Maplewood would like to purchase the sculpture. iv. All expenses for office supplies, materials, postage and production of "Call to Artist" brochures. V. All fees for casual labor, materials for installation. vi. All fees for transportation and installation (including crane costs) of sculpture. Page 2 of 7 d. Warranties. i. The Artist represents and warrants to FSP and Maplewood that: 1. the Sculpture is the original product of the Artist's own creative effort and Artist owns all rights, title and interest in and to the Sculpture; 2. the Sculpture does not infringe on any other person's copyright or other intellectual property rights; 3. the Sculpture is the same work represented in the material submitted by the Artist for consideration by FSP and selected and approved by FSP for exhibition at Maplewood. 4. the Sculpture will, at the time of execution of this Agreement, be free and clear from all liens, including those from material suppliers and subcontractors; 5. as of the date of this Agreement, the Artist is not aware of any threatened or pending claims or suits alleging facts inconsistent with the foregoing Artist representations; 6. the Sculpture will, at the time of its loading onto the transport vehicle, be free from material defects which cause or accelerate the destruction or deterioration of the Sculpture; 7. the Sculpture will not require any extraordinary maintenance or cleaning during the term of exhibition; 8. the Artists have all necessary authorities to enter into the Agreement. ii. The Artist further warrants to FSP and Maplewood that the Sculpture will be free from defects in materials and workmanship and, at the time of its loading onto the transport vehicle, are in good condition. It is understood that this warranty will not include conditions, which arise out of vandalism or misuse once delivery of the Sculpture to Maplewood has been accepted by FSP. In the event of breach of this warranty, the sole liability of the Artist will be the workmanlike repair or replacement of the affected portions of the Sculpture with conforming elements. iii. The Artist will not permit (and will promptly discharge) any liens or encumbrances against the Sculpture attributable to the Artist. iv. FSP represents and warrants that: 1. it has all the necessary power and authority to enter into this Agreement; 2. it is not a party to any pre-existing agreement which would be the cause for any breach of this Agreement or render this Agreement impracticable by FSP, Maplewood and the Artist. e. Title, Risk of Loss and Indemnities. i. The Artist will retain title to the Sculpture at all times. Neither FSP nor Maplewood will have any obligation to purchase the Sculpture. Page 3 of 7