Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2006-01-17 Parks Packet
i MAPLEWOOD PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MAPLEWOOD, OPEN SPACE TASK FORCE TUESDAY, JANUARY 17, 2006 MAPLEWOOD CITY HALL MAPLEWOOD ROOM 7:00 P.M. AGENDA 7:00 pm 1. Call to Order *7:02 pm 2. Approval of Agenda *7:03 pm 3. Approval of December 19, 2005 Minutes 7:15 pm 4. Joint Meeting with the Planning Commission and Open Space Task Force (to be held in the city hall council chambers) *8:00 pm 5. Gladstone Redevelopment Plan *9:00 pm 6. Pac Fees 9:15 pm 7. Deer Management Final Report 9:30 pm 8. Commissioners' Comments 9:45 pm 9. Director's Comments 10:00 pm 10. Adjournment * Items that need formal commission action MAPLEWOOD PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MONDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2005 MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY CENTER 0 MINUTES 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was not formally called to order as it was a joint presentation for all of the city commissions. Present: Commissioners Rick Brandon, Craig Brannon, Audrey Duellman, Peter Fischer, Peter Frank, Carolyn Peterson Absent: Commissioners Tom Geskermann, Don Christianson, Daniel Enga Staff: Bruce Anderson, Parks and Recreation Director 3. GLADSTONE REDEVELOPMENT Brad Scheib, Vice President of HKGI, presented an overall view of the status of the Gladstone redevelopment plan and a question and answer session followed. It was understood that the commission would meet on January 17 at 7 p.m. in cooperation with the open space task force to provide a recommendation on the final Gladstone report. 8. ADJOURNMENT The presentation by HKGI and the commission meeting was formally adjourned by kh/1219.05.min.comm 0 • • MEMORANDUM TO: Parks and Recreation Commission Open Space Task Force FROM: Bruce K. Anderson, Director of Parks and Recreation DATE: January 12, 2006 for the January 17 Joint Commission Meeting SUBJECT: Gladstone Redevelopment Plan INTRODUCTION The City Council retained HKGI approximately 14 months ago to develop a master plan for the Gladstone neighborhood. During the past year the city has undertaken a major analysis and review of the future of the Gladstone neighborhood. A combination of numerous task force public meetings, commission meetings, and internal staff meetings has been conducted. The final proposed redevelopment plan dated November 14, 2005 has been completed. The city planning process requires the open space task force and parks and recreation commission to provide a review of the proposed master plan. BACKGROUND The proposed master plan for the Gladstone neighborhood has several key components: 1. Proposed intense development at the corner of Frost Avenue and English Street 2. Nearly $18 million invested into public improvements including: a. Savanna (trails, plaza, restoration, historic interpretation) b. Bridge structure connecting the savanna to Flicek Park and the Gateway Trail c. Streetscape and street improvements to Frost Avenue and English Street d. Area -wide stormwater infrastructure improvements e. Burial of overhead utility lines along Frost Avenue and English Street 3. Integrated land use patterns including 800 new housing units and 50,000-75,000 square feet of new neighborhood retail 4. Continued dialog about developing a portion of the savanna as a long-term improvement. The master plan was developed following a series of meetings with not only the task force, but neighborhood residents, business owners and city policymakers. Throughout the process a number of plans were developed, including an initial concept plan completed by Rich McLaughlin. A series of citizens' plans and an evolution of plans prepared through HKGI. Throughout the planning process there was a series of vision and guiding principles established. The overall vision statement was: "The vision for Gladstone is to be an inspiring, vital and stable neighborhood always striving to protect and portray its history, its sense of open space and ecological presence, and its qualities as a great neighborhood to live, play and work in." The guiding principles were as follows: 1. Design the future of Gladstone as a "village" 2. Transform the regional trails into celebrated village corridors 3. Make Gladstone a compelling quality of life choice 4. Weave natural systems and ecological function into the built in recreational fabric 5. Allow Gladstone's future to whisper the story of its past 6. Make walk ability the standard 7. Think of Gladstone as a neighborhood for all stages of life 8. Make the Gladstone master plan a model for others to follow 9. Make multiple links between Gladstone and areas beyond The master plan has evolved as I indicated through a long and lengthy process. The parks and recreation commission and open space task force should address the following issues: Provide an overall response and reaction to the proposed master plan. Issues that need to be considered include: a. density b. proposed infrastructure improvements c. costs and future tax impact d. feasibility of the project e. long-term vision 2. One of the major discussion points was the potential development of the savanna. This consumed a great deal of time and a formal position statement from the open space task force and parks and recreation commission regarding this critical issue should be made. The proposed master plan proposes an alternative option for potential development on the southeast corner of the savanna. The notion of developing a portion of the savanna was explored at great length as I indicated and no clear consensus was ever reached. It would be appropriate for the commission and task force to take a specific vote on this issue as to how you feel about development on the open space and in particular, the proposed alternative option as suggested. 3. The open space task force and parks and recreation commission should specifically focus on the proposed development or redevelopment of the savanna. The numbers for proposed redevelopment have ranged from a low of $1.25 million in the Bartol plan to $2.5 million in the original plan. What type of amenities do you feel are minimum to make the savanna an asset to the neighborhood? Proposed development could include: a. Improvements to the savanna to ensure that it becomes a stronger asset including restoration of the site through removal of nonnative species and replanting of the site to reflect the identified open space goals and objectives b. Provide historical interpretation and educational elements within the Gladstone savanna c. Protect the integrity of the existing high-quality areas within the savanna d. Remove the pollutants and industrial uses within the site e. Ensure key corridors are included in the savanna for excellent vision from public rights-of- way f. Maintain the size of the savanna The specific dollar amount ranging from $1.25 million to $2.5 million should be address by the parks and recreation commission as to what you believe are the minimum improvements required to make the savanna a vital asset. iq • • 3 4. Flicek Park is proposed to include an informal play area and open space. The three existing ball fields would be removed and a trailhead picnic area, including a tot lot, access to the • regional trail and a passive open space site would be the proposed improvements. Funding for Flicek Park has ranged from a low of $450,000 in the Bartol plan to $600,000 in both the June estimate and the current estimate. Questions the joint group needs to respond to is what you feel are the necessary minimal improvements for Flicek Park and what would be the necessary funding minimums. 5. Gloster Park development proposes the following objectives: a. Provide flood storage for water runoff b. Preserve and/or construct a tot lot area c. Provide paved trails throughout the site At this time there is no specific dollars provided for Gloster Park and the monies would be part of either the savanna or Flicek monies. Specific questions the joint group needs to respond to is how to respond to the proposed uses of Gloster Park and address the funding issue. 6. Our joint group needs to address the status of the bebo and/or bridge connection. The planned funding sources range from a strong underground bridge attachment at a cost of $2 million to the Bartol plan of $500,000 for an eight -foot culvert that would just serve the stormwater drainage issue. How important is the bridge structure and connection between the savanna and Gloster Park and the Gateway Trail and Flicek Park? 7. In addition, the joint group should address any other issues that you feel are relevant including: • a. The concept of how monies should be allocated should there be a sale of open space or parkland in the future. b. What is your response to the dedication of park fees remaining solely within the Gladstone neighborhood? RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that a joint report be developed from the parks and recreation commission and open space task force that would fairly represent all opinions, both where there is agreement as well as areas of disagreement. kph\gladstone redevelopmentImem Enclosures 3 C7 0 N ��.+ C :�tio 3 m voice n ac' u N a o a ai c m a`ni m O N o a m m m cQ e o C 0 '3 m 0 m c a 1 m O N o N a O > OA >; o 3 > m m a•- p Z"3 a C N o a N N C U cep N N 'C m m C w a aNi CL CL U B N m 0 O u CL Q) Q 76 N Ea a `� 4- mC� O C °Do ca m c m m mo m °' oiE cntm s m m p m a Q N N o o � c 3 m . 0 o a O m U <6 a 'O CL N ao c6 a) i U 3 o c� m a m Q oU m > 'op N N O C p E C m > a) 'm C U N a c o m O F- a> CL p m �.- N Vi i 5 N .0 N c 1�p1)p Q> o O. m tg v C O �4- Nom cl a w a o m Q m o aNi c c 3 m 0 5 m .00 a �' c m c )Qa 0 U Q T p C p a) a i s a m a N c .N o m m Ta w m o m m� m a a>> 3 O ci N o> m m a c c m 'anF- m a m o a o ao m p Q 70 o N p G Q O 5 a E o a :;0-,7, o c c X m a CL i p m m o m m m m c> N N N v�>om --a1oo Io CO 0 ?A d N L C� V O C C m aNi Q moa C N C'4 a) @ c N a E C O O m Q) a) LO U N> a'C.+ O U m o m mIn m a N Q) C C C cB U O C N N c m e c m m E qp U N YS *�' N CL C a ai a T m o m m o a o ac a N m S -.2 as m N m m m a N c co m c c m 3 > ro mm o m a> m o s c E 3� c mri m- > •p C O O wl a) m u N N j+ C +- c�7 O p 7 C ra—N .O O E i m n 0 Q) C Y10 ,�, m 4 m m m �' o m ami m a y cbo "'a m m o �0m 3 m oma M _ m :a m > C •C C ate, .0 C Q j U Q m Q U m= —Cl) i O. O. Q p E C U Q 3 w O O i NO o0.arz 30 N CL m N N m N N C m m mm o E � :3 C) M,@ N Q) O m m oCl) a m m F o--cn E CLE �E 2 a 0 Bruce K. Anderson •From Chuck AN Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 9:54 AM To: 'Brad' Cc: Melinda Coleman; 'jon.horn @kimley-horn.com'; 'Bruce Anderson'; Richard Fursman; 'Rusty' Subject: Gladstone - Bartol Plan Attachments: Cost Est w-Bartol Plan 010906.xls Brad Per your phone call, here is my understanding of Council Member Bartol's thoughts on his Minimal Plan. Until the Council decides on this tonight, there is no action required or requested from you. This is just informational. To best understand, here is what we estimated with Rusty's analysis in June 2004: Land Acquisition * - $3,964,104 (* - difference between Land acquisition and land sales) Demolition - $ 805,035 Environmental - $ 650,000 Streets New & Recon - $4,500,000 - - Streetscape - $4,232,012 Frost Bridge - $2,000,000 Savanna Improve - $2,500,000 Flicek Improve - $ 600,000 Stormwater Improve - $1,600,000 Power Line Burial - $2,065.000 TOTAL - $22,916,151 This required 1015 units without development on Savanna • (Attached spreadsheet might be easier to read) N Cost Est w-Bartol Plan 010906.... Here is what we estimated in October, based upon discussions that Jon, HKGI and our staff team considered and decided to be used within the Master Plan (w/assumptions on Land and demo): Land Acquisition * - Demolition - Environmental - Streets New & Recon - Streetscape - Frost Bridge - Savanna Improve - Flicek Improve - Stormwater Improve - Power Line Burial - TOTAL - The Bartol Plan: •Land Acquisition * - Demolition - Environmental - Streets New & Recon - $1,250,000 (* - difference between Land acquisition (190%) and land sales) $ 500,000 $ 650,000 $3,900,000 $3,750,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $ 600,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $18,150,000 This required 800 units without development on Savanna $1,250,000 (* - difference between Land acquisition (190%) and land sales) $ 450,000 $ 500,000 $2,050,000 Streetscape - $1,800,000 Frost Bridge - $ 500,000 Savanna Improve - $1,250,000 Flicek Improve - $ 450,000 Stormwater Improve - $1,500,000 Power Line Burial - 1 250 000 TOTAL - $11,000,000 This required 490 units without development on Savanna Council Member Bartol used a straight line calculation of dollars to units. Thus, in June 2004 we estimated $22,916,151 it costs with 1015 units for a per unit cost of $22,577. Our Master Plan used $18,150,000 for 800 units or $22,688. His plan calls for $11,000,000 for 490 units or $22,449 per unit. He has picked 8 sites for redevelopment (his words for description) as follows for his 490 units: Tourist Cabins: Boat Storage / Impound Lot: Bowl to Flicek: Ripley to Funeral Home: Funeral Home site: Moose and Laundry: Rich/LP/Mechanical site: Gadeby property: TOTAL 151 units 28 units at 6 units per acre (low density = his words) 190 units at 14.4 units/ac (medium density = his words) 22 units at 6 un/ac 26 units at 14.4 un/ac 56 units at 14.4 un/ac 10 units at 6 un/ac _ 7 units at 6 un/ac 490 units His areas are based upon a current net area of each site plus a 15% increase to consider gross area as allowed within our current code. Not sure on this calculation, but it is his reading of our current code based upon a meeting with Tom Ekstrand. It is an important issue to him based upon the current property owners rights. He has excluded any development on the school site and the dental clinic, plus the property south of Richard's Market. My thoughts on how he came up with a $7.15 Million reduction in improvement costs: Land Acquisition: We reduced this in October, when we decided to use an acquisition estimate of 190% increase over • market value to acquire and the same sales number. This would be our land write down account. I think we all agreed that this would not be something that the Council would be readily excited to undertake as payments to developers and that we might as well keep this to an absolute minimum. Demolition: Again, this is dollars within an account where the City would be paying or using TIF to enhance a development. We reduced this in October and David took another 10% off the top. Environmental Again some rough estimates. David has talked or heard from Dale Trippler who believes we can get grants for this cleanup and that the City should not need a lot of money for this. Additionally, David has said that maybe we should consider our Environmental Utility Fund for this expense since it is not directly related to the Development. His thought process seems to be that we would do this whether or not the redevelopment occurred and thus should not be part of the development funding requirement. An interesting debate question for the Task Force and City Council at some point in time. One that I am firmly on the side of using the development financing to cover these costs rather than existing City funds that can be used throughout the City. New and Reconstructed Streets: David proposes to reduce this significantly. We would still be building some streets within the Maplewood Bowl property, but Frost improvements would be begin at Frank or Edward on the west (although the entry roundabout is still within his plan) and end at Birmingham. We had improvements from west of East Shore Drive to Hazelwood. This would include not constructing any sidewalk or median/boulevard improvements past these points. English improvements would be limited to Frisbee to the Gateway trail and scaled back. Streetscape: Again, David proposes to scale way back on this expense. He proposes to concentrate streetscape expenses between Edward and the Vento Trail, limited on English and outside this concentrated area. He figured that since he reduced the improvement area by 50% he could reduce the expense by 50%. Frost Bridge: This is out in his plan. He did leave $500,000 to put in a 8'X 8' culvert similar to the one we have under Kennard Street north of Legacy Parkway. It is a minimal version of the Bebo structure. • Savanna Improvements: David met with Bruce and discussed reducing this. As I understand Bruce suggested that the minimal expense would be $1,750,000, so David cut that to $1,250,000. His justification is that we had money designated in 2007 or 2008 for the Savanna and should continue to use this money for this expense. Again, an opinion here: another debate item for the Implementation Team to facilitate with the City Council. Do we bring in outside funds that could be used elsewhere in the City? •Flicek Improvements: Again, David met with Bruce and thinks we can leave at least one ball field as is. He thought that would save us about 25% on this item. Stormwater Improvements: He cut $100,000 out of the plan due to the improvements within the plan that are outside the area at Larpentuer and on East Shore Drive. He said those should be funded by the Environmental Utility not by this project. The remainder of the improvements are needed and he supports these. Power Line Burial: He thinks we should only bury power lines from Phalen Place to Birmingham and along English from Frisbee to the Gateway Trail. He believes we cut 40% of the improvements and thus 40% of the costs. So, that is basically a summary of over 9 hours of time I have spent with David on this. Sorry for the long e-mail but I needed to put it all down so as not to forget. Regarding my estimate within the background report. I was thinking that if the Council approves this as an option to explore, we would spend some time on the estimates that David developed. As noted above, a lot are just "thumb in the wind" guesses and need a little more analysis. Additionally, we should run an analysis of his thought on the $22,449 per unit feasibility assumption. Finally, I think that if this is really going to be an option, that we should review it with the Task Force and conduct another Public Information Meeting. While we haven't developed that process yet, i wanted the Council to identify that we would need another $1.0,000 to $15,000 to add this plan to the consideration -process. The budget numbers aren't real clear in my report (bad job by me), but we have currently spent nearly $319,000 to date. I expect that if we don't consider the Bartol Minimal Plan that we will be spending another $5,000 - $6,000 to complete the process through February 2006. Adding this $21,000 ($15,000 + $6,000) to our current expenses of $319,000 gets us to the new budget limit of $340,000 within the report. If we decide in February or March to proceed, which seems to be the will of the current Council Members based upon my read of them on Thursday evening, then we would ask for an entirely new budget authorization to begin the Implementation Planning. •So, there it is. As much as I know about David's plan, and probably more than everybody copied on this e-mail wanted to know. I have told David that as staff we are still recommending the 800 unit plan. Not sure at this point if that has been clear. As I noted at the start, there is no action required by anybody on this until the full Council decides if they want to proceed. We can talk tomorrow or Wednesday after the Council debates and hopefully makes a decision tonight. Everybody have a great day. Chuck Charles Ahl, P.E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer City of Maplewood 1902 East County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 651-249-2402 651-249-2409 (fax) n U) W QC 6 F" N W F— U) U W Z O U J (n 0 O O O O r o o or 0 0 00 r 0 0 00 000000000 O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O N I� N O (fj O O N O O O O O OOOMOOC) o Cp O (j N rn c C6 o rn o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 O o o O rn M f V a O N I O 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N � O O C V p cnO r 0�0 N N 0 Vt0000 U to 0 0 Luo) 0 N 0 [tON 0 0 O O O C O CT N f� In r r N m m 69 6% N r 64 r 64 r .. c I- C O Qco cX 0 a f0 6R m L 60- 0 64 fA cc 64 N N 'Y E N 64 r 69 CA 64 r r O CU C .. .`� • V 0 O owcncnU-cna 7 O C cn O aZ `- N M q1 O 00 CA 64 rO Or 00 O 000000000 O O p 000 W 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 00 co Z O N I N O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O C) N N O (0 (A B O O CO O O O CA O N r r ��64646 Ci Ci NF? r 64 N 6969 N 64 64 646 - • O O O O r o O O O O N O O O O O M O O r 0 0 0 0 p f r O O O O r p O p 0 0 0 0 0 0 O cO- p CO O N I� N ro CO (fj O O N O O O O O OOOMOOC) (�j Cp r (j N w 0O^ O r C6 0 CO O N O O CO CO O tcy O r O N 0 L q EA 69 � 64 Z CY) CN � eg 6 639 � � 6N9 EA N M E9 N � ' O N cnO 0 0 U M, U O ; Bruce K. Anderson From: • Sent: Cc: Subject: Brad and Jon: Chuck AN Tuesday, January 10, 2006 8:43 AM 'Brad'; 'jon.horn@kimley-horn.com' Melinda Coleman; 'Bruce Anderson'; Richard Fursman; 'Rusty' The Bartol Plan The City Council, on a 3-2 vote, decided to analyze the Bartol Plan, that I conveyed to you yesterday. I would suggest our next steps are the following: • Jon and Chuck need to work with the engineering team to determine the extent of the improvements. Basically, what can we build for the $11.0 million dollars. I think we will just back into what we can build and then put together some exhibits showing a comparison between the $18.1 million plan and the $11.0 million plan. Rusty should begin to consider running an analysis of the Bartol plan. I don't know that we ever ran the $18M plan either. We need to decide whether this is our method of analysis to determine how best to proceed. We need to know what information is necessary for Rusty to run this analysis. Brad should begin to consider the density of development on each lot. I know that Melinda is having Ken Roberts review some of the "net intensities" of our existing developments. It might be something that we can make some assumptions and comparisons between the two plans. Again some exhibits might be needed comparing the type of densities and improvements between the two plans. Our goal should be to answer: Can we achieve the type of property values that the original plan suggested and thus the TIF revenue with the reduced density, or will we end up with some down zoning expenses that ratchet up our expenses? 1 would suggest that we need to reassemble our team to agree on a game plan, including a revised schedule and the likely need to add another public meeting. Let me propose the following times: • Thursday, Jan 12th at 3:30 pm (I know Jon is not available) • Friday, Jan 13th at 2:30 pm (again I know that Jon is out of town) • Tuesday, Jan 17th at 3:00 pm • Wednesday, Jan 18th at 3:00 pm • Let me know your availability for these times and I will attempt to arrange the meeting. Anybody with other thoughts on this, please let me know. Thanks Chuck Charles Ahl, P.E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer City of Maplewood 1902 East County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 651-249-2402 651-249-2409 (fax) 0 Virginia Gaynor • From: Virginia Gaynor+ Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 3:51 PM To: AI.Singer@CO.DAKOTA.MN.US; Ann Hutchinson; bill@rwmwd.org; brook05l@tc.umn.edu; dominic.ramacier@state.mn.us; jack.frost@metc.state.mn.us; mark.gernes@pca.state.mn.us Subject: Gladstone meeting notes Hi everyone, Once again, thanks so much for a very good discussion last week. Below is a brief summary of our meeting. NOTEM THIS IS NOT A POSITION STATEMENT. This is just a summary of our initial discussion, held BEFORE members read the master plan. 1. Development on the savanna. We do NOT support development on the savanna. We were willing to consider development on the savanna because we believed there were possible ecological gains to be made from being flexible about our boundaries. Especially intriguing was the idea that the savanna could spill over its boundaries right into the neighborhood. This would mean wide green corridors between buildings, significant green connections to the state trails, and native plantings and interpretation along sidewalks. The Master Plan concept does not go far enough in developing these ecological connections to justify developing on the savanna. The plan is stronger ecologically with no development on the savanna. 2. Environmental Clean-up. The Phase II assessment done previously indicated environmental clean- up on the savanna would NOT be needed if the site was used as a park or preserve. At this point, we do not believe we need an environmental clean-up of the whole site. Obviously, areas excavated will • require clean-up. But other areas should only undergo clean-up if tests indicate there are specific problems with toxicity. 3. Stormwater Management. The City has a stormwater easement along the west side of the preserve. Because of the benefits to water quality in Lake Phalen and aesthetics of making ponds fit into the landscape of the savanna, we support the concept of ponding outside the easement. However, we would like to minimize the amount of excavation that occurs on the preserve. We agree with the concept of having a deep pond but still have questions about water quality in the deep pond. We'd like the engineers to consider a bench area in the pond so emergent vegetation can be established which will provide habitat for macroinvertebrates and help improve water quality. It was unclear on the drawing we reviewed whether Flicek park would be an overflow ponding area. We hope it will take some runoff since if this helps reduce the amount of excavation at the savanna. 4. Environmental Design / Green Building. We support these concepts strongly. We will review the Master Plan to see how these concepts are presented. 5. Pedestrian systems. The Master Plan does an excellent job in making the neighbor pedestrian friendly. 6. Parks. The Master Plan does an excellent job of merging parks into the fabric of the neighborhood. 7. Green Corridors. One of the biggest disappointments of the Master Plan is that ii does not make a strong ecological connection from the preserve to the Gateway Trail. This was one of the key requests the Open Space Task Force made. On the Master Plan, the pedestrian corridor goes from the savanna to the open playing field and parking area at Flicek. To make a strong connection, we'd need to move the parking area and/or playing area at Flicek. Is there any possibility of moving the playing field to Gloster Park? Since this is not intended to be a field that can be scheduled, we would • not anticipate it would bring a lot of out -of -neighborhood traffic back onto Frisbee Avenue. 8. Bebo. We question whether the $2 million price tag on the Bebo is worth the benefits. We believe 1/12/2006 Page 2 of 2 there may be benefits to pedestrians, but we believe there will not be ecological benefits. It seems to us that a divided roadway, with planted medians and proper signage, will greatly improve the current crossing on Frost Avenue. In addition, we are concemed that a Bebo would require lights and irrigation for plants to grow and it would be difficult to do this in an environmentally responsible way. 9. Our comments must be submitted by February 1. In addition, we had some discussion about plaza and trail. I think I cut folks off on this so I'd like us to revisit this in the future. Have a great holiday weekend! Ginny • • 1/12/2006 • TO: Parks & Recreation FROM: Bruce K. Anderson, DATE: December 23, 2005 SUBJECT: 2006 P.A.C. Rates Enclosed is a survey that highlights the 2005 park dedication survey rates across the metropolitan area. I have also included a copy of the 2005 Maplewood P.A.C. rates. Mayor Diana Longrie has requested that the parks and recreation commission review our rates and consider an increase for council consideration at your regularly scheduled January meeting. I believe the data speaks for itself -and will let you come to your own conclusions. Ascan be noted, the average of all cities per unit P.A.C. fee is $2,496 and the average for the Twin Cities is $2,600. This contrasts with Maplewood's single dwelling rate of $1,530. Our commercial value based at 9% is considerably higher than most urban and statewide commercial/industrial rates. To give you an example of this, the current value of the land selling by the Maplewood Mall is $6-$8 per square foot or an average of $300,000-$400,000 per acre. Assuming a value of $400,000 per acre at 9%, the park dedication fee would be $36,000 per acre. We are currently working with a major developer for the golf course property at Highway 61 and Beam Avenue totaling 18 acres. The preliminary estimate may be approaching close to $10 per square foot. The park dedication fee in rough numbers for this particular site could be $550,000-$600,000. Staff will be providing a more detailed report for you, but l wanted to get this to you so you could have some time to review it prior to our January 17 meeting. I have also included a copy of the memo dated April 12, 2002, which was the last time the council increased the park dedication rates. Should you have any questions, please contact me directly at (651) 249-2102. kph\pacfees06.mem Enclosures c: Richard Fursman, City Manager Mayor & City Council 40 2005 P.A.C. RATES Pnn B Ini+ n.,a__ Single Dwelling 3.4 $450 $1,530 Double Dwelling 5.4 $450 $2,430 Mobile Home 2.5 $450 $1,125 Townhouse 2.7 $450 $1,215 Regarding P.A.C. fees for apartment complex: If 3-4 units/building - 2.7 persons X rate X number of units If 5 units/building - 1.9 persons X rate X number of units If elderly apartments: 1 bedroom - 1.1 persons X rate X number of units 2 bedroom - 2.0 persons X rate X number of units The commercial/industrial rate is 9% of the market value of the property or as • negotiated. 0 0 U� c o I « o y O I �i ciz N N •tm O O O N p V i ag 7 W p co ooa OO 0 0 o O � O o Co c� cn0 0 �2 f cc 0 0 0 o 0 N ° i S? a E iA a o co o o 0 LO� N a � ... W m IBM A w o O W w- O d mo W 'm 'O o [C6 = lGC O e R W I N e a W 0 `o `o `o et m '`o i v c o W o o m m e W d o m m m$ v m c Q m m e c o m c°o m W c m W -o d> a x t6 7 m 0 O Z U m m> m O Z O C 11 p a R m> m a O Z O = 07 a I d 0 N 06 c N e 0I v t0 m 'O > m 'G m E O W m o a m m - m m m E ° `ot m� o da 0 L m° �` H v r v o x v x U L" m H W x m x cc c LL U O U>p 0 x O A e N W o m o 0 o Q o N C W) = N co° Z OD O M ^� LL .... w C LO N O O W O O CD (D O p Cl O i Ul) cn N N o = co N 0 m 0 � N r .. N 00 O + m F O °'V O O O Cl O O ;. _ 0 r =C O Nc co 0 M On cj �%i ~ N N d W N 0 N to m �+ w vs •A � I x 'E O o w O O v N 7 CN7 N R fOD N m fJ N to W � _C •� LL .t0 O O O O - O O O O I C.2 N N < � co N M O f0 N N I W i wL m W ; Y 1 d W Z G cli NcC OVW c CL c c cae oo xa>E W— Co m mcm m m v a om m=.Lq O 0 ID > am a W m ) Q. a m m d o c > 0n a o�0+m oO>mZ 1 m oc w -E a) c m m o0 1 -LO 0>,0 o � m c o m o m > oo a> tl7 0 `o S mo aW 0-o c ° :3 m Qm m> ac "'m m :ncmy x0 aN x O QOG�0) dOO CL m a t° 00 0.yr m a2: O) � L 0 11 c to 69c W E 9CDd c m co o W 3 lQ O."o. N •Q 1p c o .. t0 N m m N r m o p> 9 c m m d C t E L N O L x L L L ? O m L c++ 0 N �. an O U cyc (.i O V> r~ i x C a m d 0 O W u W m cri a_ .2 e O Y O p o im E .0 c = E m !C L C7 d m o mLO $ c O c°o 7 ..� N 7 N Y W G =E C m V5 N C <1 2 m W m m L U O 0 Uo 7 W 0 wLL 'O w 'O w W LL ti 0 co 1 = W _ 0 . cm L°. 0 1An_ + . o 0 4w. rw m O'n N9 N -0- cc V W G m L_ to O O O Ob O ^ z m o �••�� y V N t0 �_ � Q � N O O 0 p=g^ 3 D N M N m 10 Z 'O' 10 N Y�r C 1D t�Z wp xo O O* R m 0 v r� m O p Q O p 0 0 EW Lo N C r Z LID N O O V -o° D O D D D O D -O .- d .. N N O 0 0 _- AO m� W p 14 m m c cc O1c atf E .�+ o oV W o W o 0 U cc om 16y cc"inm o�m3 CD o CL o 6 10 U7 W 7 m 7 m W 7 d m W m C CO 0 U VJ l0 m O' u7 •.• U U >. m m m d L ° m _UUs m m d d W m m W m m O m m 0 m D O)c Y m aL L U m Q. m a.s 0Tc D m Q m U C W m D >' D m D> C D m c a m c N W 0. d - m i W c —�.m am O)m cOW W C M D Z m D O 17 E E A A w N o— c�a W N R l0 = m m a E ° m`o E.o O w> m N Xv 3zo m c> c a mD o m V x, x y mr m aDi m m y5 L) y m aia xo it c m ci = w o c - v' m m N m, e m^ o y e 0 N d D x c - C 0 C m .O 0 0 o W m E U U LL y C N co m C 0 10 p p m 10 I� O Q O O 0 N C c N Z y,..M 10 N l0 O. O 10 rl O p .M_.O-DO LA 7� N O N O tt N N M N CD CD 0 r p= C V O N - O L. 0 p co t0 c I x Lo fR 7 N m GA M R M t- M N 1 r t.. = CD N in o 0 LO o O O o D o O C p O 7 F N CAD N O N O C AO N � N t2 p� m x 10. 'OV 100 d9 7 C7 _ N 0:N x C 7- p O N O to G O O m c O A O O 0 O O O Q cC�a 1° . p N N C N 100 IL -0 M M M LL a 7 i�ODM N 1p O O O O 10 A p p C p p p C W O N c 'OV N N 100 -Lo M C st � - N Cl) M L m cc Qi p c c c c aWj 41) O) T ui c ' ap o c c 7 01 m 01 0 d W c m 0 O C C C 9i° C dam° L DtOr E �T10 C 3 m o o m'30 m m ;D lC TO W O m `o D c m d U,O o W D C m��07`o m°d Sy °f �N�i = a E WLm oL 1U'0° Q .., 11 d o n m W 7 A 7 .T a°i a D j� C am U U m m m m mD > mO Td Q> Q> n C', yt°r' c cs�N m CD W m OT D C; a l6 �O m m c m c d m n .GU e d p tl1 mM m>� QO m a m m m m m m e�m o a D W ° c a: $ D D w D oai D o o D (P m ° m a o m E A `o 4x- cW m us m m m x C x D 1fir W m po Oi ID 0) o® L U_x Y U 0 W o Z e o my U° a m > m o Lf� _ vm C V.� m W O Y D m t � m o E � c � Y m as—w99 c c t c o o m = r c O N Y v 0 M 2 �m_m 0 ca o z z 2 z aET a` O U N O)C 01 CD O a,� = m c' o a o c`o a�• n p m m m E o o gng r 'O m O 2 O V m U) "' 0 y C S= m A L O~ d N O C m CD p 3 w 3°Emc N g� 0 - O A o O o O m C LL N L C N C O a O Y g c w a � m cn w O�tEg CD U V mLL V R C O O C C N C C m co ch = 8 p O U Dpi O N O co � "7 w w -�-�� m CD > �© `o m r q ° m G O m CL _O \ O OOt p E So m co X mm o mmm W -6 m m C m T C m C0O U G C L o D- C Z 11 6 o .0 co cc a10 E m mE ` m d c co c-62 10 �m> c — o L m 02 o? > ° Ny L W>m L> m m - -0 m I o m 10 E y o o Cc LD C M loon 0 w N {L r 0 C m LO C g 2 w M r- co c m I O N I N r r = c C O $ po m C o O 0 N w � M c apo N 75 � y i r N 3 O O O O C m 7 w p O C `^ w cn d N C13 U. r I C O O C O C 22 a LO O N O Cb 70 C 70 - w C C N a LD O a N _ n N w w _U) d `o m•� _ 0 0 OM- m g a O = 0 L C 0 U c m W o, �c nrn o ��n^co`o- m ma ma ❑ h m ami 36 °� m m ami ;m�cw `o o� ma o �n ; ov ;. °m��0,it m e E��c c m`o m` 0 0 ,m o a �� e m O 2 m d E u m Dov N m y C y O m> L .0 mi O m a:.: vrna`i ; c L h 3w m rID 'm o r ° s oa mm co o O nm`oCL m5 _a6IrvU) cc��l`��i� �c omc m� c o m Em C O c= m a w o= o y e e a Lo p NCa E m m o m m e c x— s � X- > m T o Z y V° j v m .O > m QU m eNo `o e 71 ^°�v °f9�"°' 4) Z= GI `oma m` d .c m `m 40 V ` — C C 9 c m m a m ° d II a d Clm o�om c�m c a c mm 9 v cm c° ° a m 'm a 2 3` V m `o ac m m cv m ROA v'c comWV) m E `oR m °- n mm t0 g -o m' as vo N om m m o= t X L C m U C V D O N m — y 7 C O 3 I Q ° U `c vO `� L a;ccomcmc�m °> cm i> c o Q �C avE� Q n d mm . a `o 1A ra y O m wa O (.i L m d CD W O m . m L to y co C O O O O > m _L O ...1 D_ 'CO D� O in E O t r. N F o o�n in h >s > 3 TO: Parks and Recreatio FROM: Bruce K. Anderson, DATE: April 12, 2002 forth( SUBJECT: Park Dedication Fee., INTRODUCTION )mmission Meeting Park dedication fees have provided 95 -plus percent of all park acquisition, development and trail funding for the city of Maplewood for the past 25 years. Our current rate is based on the density formula that was developed by the city attorney in the early 1970s. The current park dedication rates for the city of -Maplewood are $1,020 for a single family home -and prorated based on density for townhomes, duplexes and multiple family homes; the current rate for commercial is nine percent of the fair market value. BACKGROUND Park dedication fees have traditionally funded the majority of suburban park systems. Maplewood has traditionally had a low park dedication fee for residential property. Our commercial rate has been relatively high. The park dedication revenue for the past five years has steadily declined and I have included a copy of our rates for the past four years. We are .currently averaging about $250,000 per year. The last time the city reviewed park dedication rates was 1995 at which time they increased substantially. The city has not reviewed or increased the park dedication fees for the past five years. I have included a survey for park dedication fees comparing 20 suburbs and their current rates. As can be noted, Maplewood is in the low quadrant for residential park dedication rates and the top quadrant for commercial. Maplewood is currently 85 percent developed. It would be my recommendation that the park dedication fees be set at $450 per residence, which extrapolates to $1,530 for a single family residence. I have included a sheet outlining the proposed 2002 rates for your consideration. I further recommend that the commercial rate remain at nine percent of the fair market value. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the park dedication rates be increased to $450 per unit with the rates extrapolated as per the enclosed sheet and the commercial rate remain at nine percent of the fair market value. kd\padees2.mem • • • MAR -05-2002 15:32 CITY OF ELAINE PARK/REC 4 N ew O z L A 612 785 6191 P.02iO3 a ~ ~ p �i c� cvC e3 N 0 06 06 C6 P6 Q, c G1 j d 0000~o to �1 0 00 c�n.a O M4 �Od+n 01 O� o0QCDCDCD N 00 O fy .d- O° O .D m m ° M �o N cr i d• 47� c+1 N •-+ in c+� i� p N 41 �N w 0 A a b > b b ? cud a'"i a'"i a'"i a� oo��ao ooh. oo000 o CD C) e�+o O c1 00 p V► vS M e` �/ 1 �o I O a\ `ct �1 .� N O O U -+ N M M t '7 .-+ en ky 110 H off¢ go¢¢S 9Z z .. z li_z ,�zzz4-4 - ►-7 coo o +no'oo c�a oa0000 00 0 p ONO o Ln { (D in 00 ".4c- r - ,-. tV ..� 4 I W �No o0 0 o c> aoa°oo *tomo aaC* OONada000 0o a to 4) W)M tom- d to v C --O O M 0 0 Vl O O to �oOaO OO 00 a O Q O N O 000 Ln 41 V'1 to V M y') r- O V 0 1^ Co 0 0 O O O O O O N x -4 w ON [ . -+ ry ..� �-+ N 00 1-n .-4 N V ch -+ i i I o O o O O C+ V C- --q C'� r? o O O d O O O O O O O N O O O a O Q d d 0 W� 10 ,--i C:) V 7 M v1 Cr O Vy O M 0 O v� i i � W .moi i w✓'{ O b Q tci p O O ,�yS•"' O iS!L' '•"a ✓U b 6i 4) O �a�UoUo(5 1 WFC x Oa,wv� MEMORANDUM • TO: Maplewood Parks and Recreation Commission Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Bruce K. Anderson, Director of Parks and Recreation DATE: January 12, 2006 for the January 17 Parks and Recreation Commission Joint Meeting SUBJECT: Monthly Update—December 2005 The following items are provided to the City Manager and Parks and Recreation Commission to provide an overview of our day-to-day operations. The items are informational and not intended for formal City Council or Parks and Recreation Commission action. 1. Afton Heights Park Erosion The number one project for the past month was the coordination of the restoration of the erosion issue on the west side of Afton Heights Park. The city received a wetland restoration order from Ramsey Conservation District on November 28, 2005 to repair the significant erosion that occurred due to the Afton Heights Park construction. Staff retained Short, Elliott and Hendrickson to re-engineer and redesign the stormwater ponding area to the west of the parking lot and ball field. The bottom line is that the erosion issue has been resolved and a permanent solution has been put in place. I have not received a final invoice for the repair work, but estimates are in the $40,000450,000 range. The initial estimate was over $300,000. We will still need to do some final planting and soil erosion control issues in the spring 2006. Staff will now begin working with the contractors and landscape architects to determine who should be responsible for the costs incurred to resolve the stormwater drainage problem. Staff will keep the commission informed of this issue as it evolves in the coming weeks and months. 2. City Receives Conservation Award Ironically, the city was an Outstanding Conservation Award recipient by the Ramsey Conservation District in November. The award was received by council members Juenemann and Rossbach, along with nature center director Ann Hutchinson and open space coordinator Ginny Gaynor. The city received the award for their outstanding efforts in the areas of rainwater gardens, open space conservation, and the Maplewood nature center programs. The award was formally presented to the city council on Monday, December 12. 3. Department Reorganization Enclosed is a copy of the parks and recreation department's organizational chart. Effective January 1, 1 restructured the department to make best use of the skills and talents available within our department. The reorganization of staff is in place and initial feedback has been fairly positive. Through the reorganization we have made better use of the existing skills and talents of our staff members while streamlining the organization and creating clearer lines accountability. 4. Applewood Park Applewood Park is 98% complete. I have included photos of the shelter, which has been very • well received by the neighbors even though it hasn't been fully utilized yet. The next phase of construction will be some finishing touches on the landscaping, shelter building and installation of playground equipment that is scheduled for spring 2006. 5. Maplewood Heights Park As winter came early, we were not able to install new playground equipment at Maplewood Heights. The site was regraded and the equipment has been ordered and received and will be installed as the first priority by May 1. 6. MRPA Student Scholarships The Maplewood parks and recreation department has been an active supporter of the Minnesota Recreation and Park Association for the past 30 years. As you are aware, I had the honor of serving as president for a three-year period approximately two years ago. Pauline Staples is currently the president of the Minnesota Recreation and Park Foundation, currently chairing the student scholarship program. Involvement in the state professional association has provided many benefits for our department, both personal and professional. The annual meeting for the state association was held on Thursday, January 12 at Brooklyn Park. In addition to Pauline's and my involvement, a number of our recreation staff and community center staff serve on aquatics and programming committees where we have received many ideas and positive suggestions as to how to improve and enhance programs and leisure services delivery. 7. Step Up to Health One of the major efforts at the national level of parks and recreation is to create a more direct tie between the relationship of health and parks and recreation departments. A number of our staff will be attending a national training session on January 27 to learn more about this important national program. 8. Community Center Data I have included four charts prepared by community center manager Linda Crosson that identify some of the major program initiatives and participation at the community center. As can be noted in 2005 there were 2,493 new memberships. We have increased our membership total every year for the past ten years. Possibly more important is the community center usage, which you can see has increased dramatically in 2005 along with child care participation. We believe one of the major factors for the increased participation is the free fitness programs, which have seen a 78% increase in attendance. The community center continues to be a major focus in our department with over 250,000 individuals attending events and programs annually. 9. Volunteer Annual Report Enclosed is a copy of the volunteer annual report for the nature center. This year the nature center had over 3,000 hours with a value of over $50,000 to the city in volunteer hours. A • breakdown of hours and tasks accomplished by volunteers has been included for your edification. One of the nature center's major undertakings currently is to develop "Friends of teer ram, but to the Nature Center" to not only expand the nces that ghey conduct daily at he nature center. te a broader base of support for the programs and outstanding services 10. Jerry Seeger Retirement The Maplewood nature center's custodian for the past eight -plus earshand Jerry Seeger, retired e i redre. in mid November. Jerry was much more than a custodian and wasY We are currently in the process of filling his position and will miss his expertise, tremendous commitment and skills that he brought to the job during his career with the nature center. Thank you, Jerry, for your outstanding commitment and service to the Maplewood parks and recreation department and Maplewood nature center. 11. Maplewood Community Center Repairs We are currently experiencing some major maintenance issue of the at theMmnlas um loor1caused center. One of the three most significant issues is the buckling gY by water that appears to have either seeped through the walls or blown in under the eastern doors. We are currently entertaining proposals to remove the damaged floor which would be preceded by a major drying out process through large dryers. The second major issue is concrete and damage to the steps due to chlorine and water issues. We are currently receiving proposals to resolve the step issue with estimates in the $30,000440,000 range. The third and biggest issue is a need to repaint the ceiling and beams in the pool area. We are currently out to bid for this and will be opening bids in the first week of February. The cost to repaint and seal the steel beams and ceiling in the pool area is estimated to be $100,000 -plus. Staff is currently working with the finance department as to what funding source we will utilize for these required repairs. kph/1205.mu.c0mm Enclosures • 0 matj cu L U (D ry T!,07 U) Cu n • • 0 � � � 1° » � : ) ! \�<.\\�: ?�\\�\\\\�i .� �� . d\f���.. §. �� � � y� � : ;\ � \�; \d9�§ � � ? » v. � \�� � � � � . \ � � � � � � \ 2 Ll "a 4� v r w. x 1 s qs =.ter..... I •4 v # de 2 Ll "a 4� 1 s qs =.ter..... I `f „E qs =.ter..... •4 v # de R � e 4 op ummaw I pt,lowab— IA Il` t�� e d IA Memorandum To: Bruce Anderson, Ann Hutchinson, Virginia Gaynor, Jean Nelson, Jan Hayman From: Oakley Biesanz, Volunteer Coordinator Maplewood Nature Center and Neighborhood Preserves bate: 01/04/06 Re: Volunteer Annual Report 2005 Volunteer Annual Report Maplewood Nature Center and Neighborhood Preserves volunteers continued to generously donate their time in 2005 for protecting, conserving, managing and interpreting Maplewood's natural areas. ,Some examples of volunteer efforts this past year included teaching educational programs, buckthorn removal, open space monitoring, erosion control projects, animal care, rain garden planting and maintenance, trail work, and more. Volunteer efforts this year have taken place at the Nature Center, the Neighborhood Preserves, the Gateway Trail through Maplewood, Kohlman Creek, and at Maplewood City Hall Campus. In 2005, naturalists led hundreds of service learning students (middle school, high school, and college) in planting rainwater gardens, pulling buckthorn, and other land management projects. Many other youth and adult groups continue to donate their time to the Nature Center, Neighborhood Preserves, and Rainwater Gardens with enthusiasm. Together these volunteers gave 3,034 hours to the City of Maplewood. Those hours, calculated at the 2005 National Volunteer Wage Estimate amount to a gift of over $50,000 to the City! Volunteering also has many intangible benefits for the City such as giving residents a sense of ownership and pride for their contributions to their community, and the natural areas of the City of Maplewood. Maplewood Nature Center and Neighborhood Preserves 2005 Volunteer Hours Report r ' First Name Last Name 2005 Volunteer Hours Stan and Leila Allison 57 John, Char & Darrell Anderson 69 Rosemary Baatz 50 Metta Belisle 65 Peggy Boege 39 Cristy Brusoe 20 Beau and Amanda Bureau 53 Mary Cavin 15 Chase & Christopher Cleary 55 Brenda Danner 17 Steven Dobihal 17 Johanna Henly 40 Ann Fox 33 Judy Horsnell 77 Jim Krache 96 Dotty Lane 22 Edna Ledo 45 Shirley & Harley Luttrell 95 Rita Macy 50 Alisha McGuire 21 Lisa Peterson 33 Daniel Sadoff 29 Janice Soeffner 84 family Witzel 120 Occasional volunteers 237 Total 1439 Buckthorn Service Learning 144 Jr. Volunteers 105 Other Junior/Senior High Service Groups 89 Century College Classes 125 Eagle Scout Project- Phillip 120 Total 583 Task Force (estimate) 70 Monitoring Program 82 Century College Biology Class 246 Scout -Kyle Droeger-Bird Houses 127 Bluebird Monitors (estimate) 30 Mike Perry 36 Others 7 Total 597 Includes City Hall buckthorn pulling by Cen College Does not include service provided by Metro BowHunters:15 hunt days' 2-4 hunters ii 51; lill Watershed Watchers -Weaver 120 Watershed Watchers -Talmud Torah 15 Century College - Bio 106 Backyard Buds 165 Others 9 Total 415 • r ILI E CD c Fn N o Fh a) cu O o � 0 0, ui L 4+ L- O z 0Ua� z a, C) o, �� a o L c i O Q 0, ui L 4+ �� V C- C) o, �� U -� O a) a) _ Q •Cl) a� E E a) EML W Oi■■ (a U�- a) o Z57 CUo N N Q O 0 (1) z c� G a) � � c i O Q o L 4+ C) o, �� a) a) _ Q •Cl) a� W I CD u M ti CN O f CD �f�^ V! -- N ti V ,I W CD .0 to c- U') O �_ N UO ti co O m LO W O E. V Op 0 O . , Q co r-- N tU9 ^ ii ❑ M co m ~ EC>O z CD CV • Co M00 C-4 LOO O O C CO O CO Lo I-- LO co CC) O O N O }+ W u M ti CN O CD �f�^ V! U') O �_ N UO ti co O m LO W O 1 . , Q co r-- N ^ ii ❑ EC>O CV • 1 LOO O O C Lo I-- eN— O O N }+ • (D co CD coI� 0) � N /� p O N M N co M .��. coO O O lA N -qr co LOm LL cu CO to LO O N CDOS CN LO N COO Ch C'7 co cn M LL r— Mm 00 M 1- OO p O) co _. cc O �•-- O O 00 c O O O O O O O O O � O O N O O M O O V• O O CD O O N — co V N O OOD COO N N — — .- .-- N ■ N ® N ■ N N ❑ slis!A jo jegwnN • .Q O U N a7 c L .nr C (D i ICT N O Z 'fid' N O U O �— L N N m co L^—' U -- T C L a - rn =3 Cn N O �M rn C:,U 75; _ O O ; `+� M � z o cu o CV O 0 o O N O N N N U - c U m i � I = M O LCA O LO (=:> U) O LO C7 M M N N T i z c c c I sJIsin;o aagwnu • • CL V C) qtt c0 a. OO EO O L c4 cv c V V c c c I sJIsin;o aagwnu • •