Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-03-20 Parks Packet• MAPLEWOOD PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION JOINT MEETING WITH THE OPEN SPACE TASK FORCE MONDAY, MARCH 20, 2006 MAPLEWOOD CITY HALL MAPLEWOOD ROOM 7:45 P.M. Parks and Recreation Commission will tour the Maplewood Community Center at 7 p.m., prior to the meeting. AGENDA 7:45 pm 1. Call to Order *7:48 pm 2. Approval of Agenda • *7:51 pm 3. Approval of Minutes a. January 17, 2006 b. February 21, 2006 *7:55 pm 4. Gladstone Redevelopment Project *8:30 pm 5. Annual Report *8:45 pm 6. Hazelwood Soccer Grant Submittal *8:55 pm 7. Step Up to Health 9:05 pm 8. Commissioners' Comments 9:15 pm 9. Director's Comments 9:30 pm 10. Adjournment 0 * Items that need formal commission action • TO: Parks and Recreation FROM: Bruce Anderson, DATE: March 15, 2006 for the March \ ar and Recreation Commission Meeting SUBJECT: MCC Tour As part of our regularly scheduled meeting for March, I have arranged for a tour of the Maplewood Community Center at 7 p.m. on Monday, March 20. The tour will be conducted by community center manager Linda Crosson. The intent of the tour is to share with you a brief overview of the community center and highlight some of the needed capital improvements. The Maplewood city council recently approved the reconstruction of the pool slide steps. The project took approximately three weeks to complete at a cost of $30,000. The second project recently approved by the city council was the repainting of the community center pool ceiling. We will observe firsthand the condition of the pool ceiling and discuss the bid that was approved on February 27 by the city council. The pool ceiling will be repainted during the pool shutdown in late August. The third major issue is the gym floor. We have experienced moisture inside the gym that has caused • buckling and warping of the gym floor. This issue has not been resolved at this time as we are still analyzing where the water is coming in and how to ultimately resolve the problem. It is obviously not cost effective to repair the gym floor if we do not know where the problem is coming from, meaning it may return following repair of the floor. In addition we will be discussing potential capital improvement projects necessary within the community center. Potential projects include the need for fitness and childcare expansion. There are a number of additional projects ranging from security cameras to birthday room improvements to replace the outdoor sign that would be beneficial to the community center. There currently is $250,000 allocated in the 2006 Capital Improvement Plan for fitness expansion at the MCC. Based on cost estimates, it does not appear that this is feasible at this time. Staff will be reviewing some options for commission consideration on Monday evening. Please note the tour will begin at 7 p.m. at the community center. We will meet in the upper area by the customer service area for a one-half hour tour followed by a brief question and answer period. Once we complete the tour of the community center, we will return to city hall to conduct our meeting in the Maplewood Room. kph\mcc tounmem.comm 0 PLEASE NOTE THAT WE WILL MEET AT 7:00 P.M. AT MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY CENTER AT THE UPPER LEVEL BY THE CUSTOMER SERVICE AREA Following a tour of the community center by community center manager Linda Crosson, we will meet in the Maplewood Room at City Hall for our formal meeting no later than 8 p.m. C� PLEASE NOTE THE TIME CHANGE THE COMMISSION/OPEN SPACE TASK FORCE WILL MEET AT 70045 P.M. IN THE MAPLEWOOD ROOM AT CITY HALL 0 • • MAPLEWOOD PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION JOINT MEETING WITH THE OPEN SPACE TASK FORCE TUESDAY, JANUARY 17, 2006 MAPLEWOOD CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER MINUTES Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 8:15 p.m. Commissioners Present: Rick Brandon, Craig Brannon, Audrey Duellman, Peter Fischer, Peter Frank, Carolyn Peterson Commissioners Absent Tom Geskermann, Don Christianson Open Space Task Force Members Present. Dominic Ramacier, Char Brooker, Mark Gernes Staff Present. Parks and Recreation Director Bruce Anderson, Open Space Coordinator Ginny Gaynor, Lead Naturalist Ann Hutchinson Guests: Mayor Diana Longrie, Ron Cockriel 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA A motion was made by Commissioner Brannon, seconded by Commissioner Duellman, to approve the agenda as submitted. The motion passed - 6 ayes, 0 nays. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A motion was made by Commissioner Fischer, seconded by Commissioner Brandon, to approve the December 19, 2005 meeting minutes as presented. The motion passed - 6 ayes, 0 nays. 4. JOINT MEETING WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION Prior to the parks and recreation commission meeting, the commission and open space task force met with the planning commission in the city hall council chambers to hear a presentation regarding the status of the Gladstone redevelopment project. The parks commission and open space task force members excused themselves from that meeting at 8:10 p.m. 5. GLADSTONE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN Director Anderson provided an outline of the status of the Gladstone redevelopment plan. Mr. Anderson indicated that 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. The city council appointed a 20 -member task force that has met almost monthly during the past year and hosted a series of public meetings at the Maplewood Community Center. The final proposed redevelopment plan dated November 14, 2005 has been distributed to local policymakers for their input and comments. The proposed plan for the Gladstone neighborhood has several key components: a. Proposes intense development at the corner of Frost Avenue and English Street b. Nearly $18 million invested into public improvements c. Integrated land use patterns including 800 new housing units and 50,000-75,000 square feet of new neighborhood retail d. Continue dialog about developing a portion of the savanna as a long-term improvement • Staff indicated that there was a series of guiding principles throughout the planning process. They were as follows: a. Design the future of Gladstone as a "village" b. Transform the regional trails into celebrated village corridors c. Make Gladstone a compelling quality of life choice d. Leave both natural systems and ecological functioning in recreational fabric e. Allow Gladstone's future to whisper the story of its past f. Make walkability the standard g. Think of Gladstone as a neighborhood for all stages of life h. Make Gladstone a master plan model for others to follow i. Make multiple links between Gladstone and areas beyond Director Anderson reviewed the staff report and requested the commission address a number of specific issues for city council and task force review. The first question was whether there should be development proposed in the Gladstone savanna. The opinions were wide and diverse in range as follows: ■ Dominic Ramacier and Char Brooker both indicated that development should not occur on the savanna. ■ Mark Gernes felt that the open space language was appropriate and that he wished the master plan would have reflected additional green space or the eco village concept that was initially discussed. ■ Commissioners Duellman and Peterson felt that no development should occur. ■ Commissioner Fischer felt that the open space language could be appropriate if modified. ■ Commissioner Brannon felt that there was not enough benefit to justify the development at this time. ■ Commissioner Frank asked questions regarding the financial feedback. Following a lengthy discussion, the open space task force and parks and recreation commission adopted the following language by consensus: "We do NOT support development on the savanna based on the current master plan configuration." The parks and recreation commission pursued the development of open space based on the concept of an eco village theme and that there could be a positive ecological gain by having flexibility over the open space boundaries. The open space task force and parks and recreation commission felt strongly that the Gladstone master plan would have benefited from wider green corridors between buildings, significant green connections to the state trails, and increased native plantings and interpretation along the sidewalks. Unfortunately, the master plan concept does not go far enough in developing these ecological connections to justify developing on the savanna. The plan as proposed would be stronger ecologically with no development on the savanna. Director Anderson briefly reviewed the proposed amenities and budgets that had been proposed under the HKGI plan and the modifications that would be necessary under the "council member Bartol plan." Staff requested direction as to what improvements and budgetary limits should be set for each of the proposed improvements. It was understood that the initial HKGI plan proposed $1.75 million for open space redevelopment and the Bartol plan reduced that by $500,000. it The Gladstone savanna was discussed by community residents as the key factor and potential 2 development. They discussed the proposal to use P.A.C. monies exclusively for the Gladstone neighborhood. The group concurred that due to the uniqueness of the project, this was permissible but would want to ensure that it would not be a precedent for future redevelopment. In conclusion, the group did not make a specific recommendation on the pros and cons of 800 units versus the reduced 500 -unit proposal. The unanimous consensus was that the Gladstone savanna is the center of the proposed redevelopment and that the first project developed with capital improvement bond monies should be the Gladstone savanna project at a minimal funding level of $1.75 million with $1.25 million for renovation of the open space, $250,000 for the tot lot, and $250,000 for trail and signage improvements. The commission further endorsed the planning process and supported whatever level of density would be necessary to generate enough revenue to fund the amenities of the Gladstone savanna at $1.75 million, including Gloster and Flicek at $450,000. 6. P.A.C. Fees Chairperson Fischer requested that director Anderson provide a staff report on the status of the current 2005 P.A.C. rates. Director Anderson indicated that the park development fees had not been increased by the city council in the last five years. The current P.A.C. rate is $450 for residential property, which is placed into the formula and provides a range of park dedication rates with a low of $1,125 for mobile homes to a high of $2,430 for a double dwelling. Staff reviewed the 2005 park dedication survey of suburban and out state cities. The residential rate for single dwelling units range from a low of $320 in New Ulm to a high of $4,800 in Bloomington. The 2005 average for all cities for single dwellings was $2,496 and the average in the Twin Cities is $2,601. Staff recommended that the rate be increased to at least $700. Following discussion and based on the 2005 survey, it was the consensus of the commission to recommend to the city council that • the rate be increased to $900. The $900 rate for the formula would establish the following residential rates: single dwelling - $3,060; double dwelling - $4,860; mobile home - $2,250; townhouse - $2,430. The formula would remain the same for an apartment complex and elderly apartments. The commission also concurred that the current commercial/industrial rate of 9% of the market value of the property remains in place as well. Chairperson Fischer made a motion seconded by Commissioner Brannon to recommend to the city council that the park dedication rates for residential property be increased to $900 and the formula remain the same based on population per unit and the densities as outlined. It was further recommended that the commercial/industrial rate remain at 9% of the market value of the property. The motion passed unanimously (6 ayes, 0 nays.) 7. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Fischer moved that due to the lateness of the hour, the meeting be adjourned at 10:35 p.m. and thalthp deer management item and commissioners' and director's comments be carried over to th,PrTeqruary meeting. Commissioner Duellman seconded (ayes all.) r of PsKs aM Recreation kph/0117.06. min.comm 4 • driving force for redevelopment of the neighborhood. It was agreed that the savanna and its current status was not acceptable and that major improvements needed to be planned. The minimum improvements include restoration of the open space including plantings, removal of • non-native species, and addressing needed soil correction issues. Staff indicated $1.25 million was needed for this project. The group concluded this was the first priority. Open space task force member Gernes asked staff to review the cost estimate. There was split sentiment regarding the development of the plaza. Staff indicated that the estimated cost for the plaza is $750,000. As the group began prioritizing items, they indicated that the plaza could be minimized. The group further prioritized expenditures indicating that the tot lot proposed at $250,000 and related amenities would be the second priority. The third priority would be an additional $250,000 for trails, and related site amenities including signage. The total breakdown was $1.25 million for open space restoration, $250,000 for the tot lot, $250,000 for trail amenities, and the lowest priority was $750,000 for the plaza. Flicek Park Staff indicated that Flicek Park was proposed to include an informal play area and primarily open space. The three existing ball fields would be removed, a trailhead picnic area including a tot lot, access to the regional park and a passive open space site would be the proposed improvements. Funding for Flicek Park ranged from a low of $450,000 in the Bartol plan to $600,000 in both the June estimate and the current estimate. The group said that they support the Flicek Park improvements as proposed and feel that the minimum funding as outlined in the Bartol plan of $450,000 would be adequate. They discussed the concept of having two tot lots, one on the north side and one on the south side of Frost Avenue and agreed that it made sense as they would serve different purposes. The Flicek tot lot • would primarily serve the users on the Gateway Trail and the larger tot lot in Gloster Park would serve the neighborhood. Gloster Park Staff indicated that Gloster Park development included 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 Staff indicated that there are no specific dollars provided for Gloster Park. The group recognized that they addressed this issue as part of the savanna improvements. Their recommendation was that $250,000 for tot lot and site amenities for an active space on the west end of the open space would be appropriate. Staff outlined the proposed bebo and/or bridge connection between the open space and Flicek Park. The HKGI plan proposed a bebo at a cost of $2 million contrasted with the Bartol plan of $500,000 for an eight -foot culvert. Several people expressed concerns about safety and graffiti if an eight -foot culvert underpass were installed. Some believed that no underpass was better than a culvert. It was the consensus of the group that they could not justify the $2 million for the bebo. It should be noted that there was a minority that felt that there would be more "bang for the buck" for the neighborhood from a bebo than a proposed plaza structure. The group discussed that should there ever be a sale of open space, that the monies should go into the park development fund and not be specifically earmarked for either open space or park MAPLEWOOD PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2006 MAPLEWOOD CITY HALL • MINUTES 1. CALL TO ORDER Acting Chairperson Christianson called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. Present: Commissioners Rick Brandon, Craig Brannon, Don Christianson, Audrey Duellman, Peter Frank, Carolyn Peterson, (Peter Fischer arrived late) Absent: Commissioner Geskermann Staff: Bruce Anderson, Parks and Recreation Director Visitors: Mayor Diana Longrie; Ron Cockriel, Jeff Viner 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA A motion was made by Commissioner Brannon, seconded by Commissioner Duellman, to approve the agenda as submitted. The motion passed, 6 ayes, 0 nays. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. September 19, 2005 • A motion was made by Commissioner Duellman , seconded by Commissioner Frank, to approve the September 19, 2005 meeting minutes with the correction that Commissioner Christianson was in attendance and Commissioner Peterson was not in attendance. The motion passed, 6 ayes, 0 nays. b. January 17, 2006 Parks and Recreation Director Anderson requested that the commission review the minutes closely, as they will become part of the formal record for the Gladstone redevelopment process. There was a lengthy discussion by the commissioners regarding the minutes. Commissioner Frank questioned what the final prioritization was by the commission in paragraph three on page three. Commissioner Peterson indicated that she was pleased that the importance of the bebo was included in the minutes. Chairperson Fischer discussed the priority question as to whether the commission accurately prioritized them. Following a discussion, a motion was made by Commissioner Duellman, seconded by Commissioner Peterson, to further review the January meeting minutes and directed staff to review the meeting tapes to see if there were any additions or modifications. The January meeting minutes will be placed on the March agenda. 4. GERANIUM PARK DISCUSSION Director Anderson said that he had received a phone call from Jeff Viner, a resident in southern Maplewood living adjacent to Geranium Park. Mr. Viner outlined to him a number of issues that occurred at Geranium Park relating to loitering, noise and vandalism to both the park and his property. He indicated that he had contacted the police department on a number of occasions. Mr. Viner was present at the meeting and spoke requesting that security lighting be installed and that • the site have additional police protection. He also questioned whether motion detectors would be beneficial. Commissioner Duellman said she thought security lights were beneficial and that a motion detector might be the answer. Commissioner Christianson said that he opposes the lights. Mr. Viner said he is concerned about retaliation. Staff assured him that his name would not be mentioned in any comments with the public. Following discussion, it was agreed that staff will develop a survey and mail it to the Geranium Park neighbors to determine how they feel about the need for security lighting at Geranium Park. He also said he will request the police department do additional patrolling in the • area. 5. RECREATION DIVISION UPDATE Assistant to the parks and recreation director Pauline Staples distributed a report regarding recreation program offerings by the Maplewood parks and recreation department. Director Anderson said the division had recently been restructured and that Pauline, a long-term employee, was in charge of the recreation division. Ms. Staples outlined her current staff and indicated the recreation division offers year-round programs, classes, events, trips, team sports and sports clinics for youth, adults, seniors and families. She said the parks and recreation department has a reputation as a leader in the area of recreation programming, particularly in the area of youth and adult athletics. Ms. Staples distributed an extensive list of recreation program opportunities. She indicated that the priority, focus and new programs to be established in 2006 and beyond include a greater emphasis on health related programs, teen programs and 55 -plus aged programs. The commission thanked Ms. Staples for her long service and tenure to the city. 6. MCC DISCUSSION Staff reviewed a memorandum that outlined capital improvement programs necessary at the community center. Mr. Anderson indicated that the city council has approved the hiring of a firm to rebuild and repair the pool slide steps. He said the project is currently underway and should be completed within the next month. He also said the MCC pool ceiling and beams need to be repainted and primed. This issue is scheduled to go before the city council on February 27. The third improvement at the MCC is the gym floor. The city is currently experiencing water infiltration and has caused the gym floor to buckle in four to six places. Staff indicated that a tour of the MCC highlighting the areas needing improvement is scheduled prior to the March commission meeting. 7. PARK PROJECTS Director Anderson distributed a memo outlining proposed park improvement projects for 2006. The proposed improvements included the following: a. Construction of the Walter Street corridor from Walter Street to Labore Road in Little Canada b. Harvest Park is scheduled for irrigation and turf improvements c. Community Center is scheduled for $250,000 to expand the fitness center. Staff indicated that we would be reviewing the status of the MCC to look at alternative projects due to projected cost overruns for the fitness center. d. Maplewood Heights tot lot will be installed by June 1, 2006. e. Applewood Park will receive two new playgrounds systems. f. Sterling Oaks Park will have new playground equipment installed. • g. Afton Heights Park restoration will be seeded and finalized Staff indicated that they will be submitting a grant for artificial turf improvements for the Hazelwood • soccer complex that will be reviewed with the commission in March. 8. VISITOR PRESENTATION Staff introduced Mayor Diana Longrie who indicated that interviews were being scheduled for the existing commission vacancies on Monday, February 27. There currently are four vacant commission positions and the city was fortunate to receive seven applications. Mayor Longrie indicated that the city council approved increasing P.A.C. fees to $900. She further indicated that she has spoken with staff regarding the feasibility of providing a residents' rate for nonresidents at the community center who are members for a three-year period or longer. Staff indicated they are currently reviewing the financial feasibility of this issue. She said the council will be scheduling a joint meeting with the commission in the near future. Ron Cockriel indicated to the commission that he is interested in being a part of coordinating the city's fiftieth birthday party celebration regarding bicycles. Mr. Cockriel is an avid recreational biker and would like to coordinate a program called "Pedal Our Parks" or "Pedal Our Preserves." Staff thought it was a wonderful idea and indicated that we would be in touch with him. Representatives of Maplewood Athletic Association joined the commission meeting and said they would like to see improvements or modifications made to existing parks. The proposed improvements were to have dugouts installed at Gladstone school along with a higher backstop as there were many lost foul balls. They said they would like the Edgerton fields expanded and modified to accommodate 75 -foot fields. Staff indicated that Harvest Park is scheduled for turf renovation and irrigation in 2006 and that he would work with M.A.A. to make the necessary requested • improvements. 8. COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS Commissioners Brannon, Frank, and Duellman had no comments. Commissioner Brandon asked when the art sculpture committee would be meeting again. Staff responded that a meeting will be scheduled within the next month. Commissioner Christianson asked the status of Sandy Lake. Staff responded that city of St. Paul and Ramsey County have backed away from the soccer field project and the site is currently being filled. Commissioner Peterson said she will be attending a Legislative hearing on the Bruentrup Farm on Wednesday, March 22. Commissioner Fischer requested information regarding Earth Day and the city clean up day. He also recognized that the deer removal program was successful. He asked the status of sculptures at the sculpture park. Staff responded that he has contacted a number of service organizations to have sculptures installed, but at this time no final dollar commitments have been completed. 9. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Director Anderson reviewed the February monthly update report and indicated that the Afton Heights . Park restoration went well and that the staff reorganization process is in place. He further indicated that recreation brochures are being distributed on a six-month basis with three of them going directly to the schools. 10. ADJOURNMENT A motion was mad Commissioner Fischer, seconded by Commissioner Brannon, to adjourn the meeting at 9:56 ph.�yes all. • Director of kph/0221.06.m in.com m • 0 • TO: Parks FROM: Bruce DATE: March SUBJECT: Glads n Commission Meeting Enclosed is a variety of information from Brad Scheib from HKGI regarding the Gladstone neighborhood redevelopment plan and recent alternative concept. I have included a copy of meeting minutes as well as comments from residents in attendance at the March 2 meeting. The time has come for the parks and recreation commission and open space task force to make your final recommendations and position statements for council and task force review. I recognize that you have been inundated with paperwork on this issue and I hope the enclosed information will provide some clarity for your final decisions and recommendations. The commission and task force addressed this for an extended period of time at the January 17 joint meeting. I have included a copy of the January 17 meeting notes that in effect did establish your priorities. The commission did not adopt the minutes and we'll be looking for thoughts from the open space task force prior to not only adopting the minutes, but thoughts regarding your final positions on • the Gladstone redevelopment plan. I have included a copy of my January 12 staff memorandum that outlines the six questions that you addressed in depth on January 17. Please review the enclosed information and come prepared to make a final position statement for council to review in April. As always, should you have any questions, please contact me directly at (651) 249-2102. PLEASE NOTE: The park commission is meeting for a brief tour at the MCC from 7-7:45 p.m. The meeting will with the task force will begin in the Maplewood Room commencing at 7:45 p.m. kph\gladstone redevelopment final comments. gladstone.mem Enclosures 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Parks and Recreation Commission • Open Space Task Force FROM: Bruce K. Anderson, Director of %r0#Tvq FJ fgXeaVbn DATE: January 12, 2006 for the JanuarA-q[Joinj CpmWs?; cn 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 B. 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. is 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. 2 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 redevelopment3.mem Enclosures • 3 � 3 rr i3t f • t i ...- Ore o • �, .�eCti. `ti \ ,.. p a � ' •}l]tj' ,rte'" .ra � y\\�` - 4 it �"s sates+ • �� v� � 1 �� , i . mtem �t�aa >L \` \ INS `} a VhL —'s t r a � Y � 7 O Q) h0 � y Q a o i m c� L) a a = 3 ;Olp O v-aoo3 m c j a=• O U to cd as U = r N n � c •O O N U N t C Q U ID (n o c a a =° �r m EQ�c � C N E O m y OL o m o Q m y � •_'• to � o � 3 C b h r - Q � � r? b E =tw1L-mo a aci c° 0 Q o E a a i O •O �0, cu a1 y E m O E c E °�' E N > O a M C =0 40y i N -C m Tm Vi a) c N .O o as v y 3 O a O a) w d h a7 j O C O as ,O O O Y a5 a.• E i A -t) Q q 8�a O O O a) O h Q 3 Q E m OM m m 3 m E M o E - E _ w m m m c � E ;E CL G t6 0 3�ton�a c y C Q p 03 m m b � as m o••°'a_ o� mcQ to U O y_ O O Q Q) > j b V O C C✓ to a7 a3 � d O G U = 3 U a+ m ha f6 t0 d pCj � y O O C C O, O a1 O O O, O 40 O O C -O '"' m oO a) •-' ctscn m�Qf__ra�a_ y O O O yr6 C ,3 N U O O,u u 3 zi d ns > `a E Y- a E y OIn N a5 ai w OOL a) w v Q H t O Op •_.O _ Op , O � Q t 't1a O =0 16 N t0 �Q Z O t6 'ty W 0 o G � Q o o a y a ca Q c o °� 'ate Qc m...a O d O b 0Am a3 y Q, O> fC6 O p V a) �.=m tvabim C abj N cc C a) C O p to a) •-. ,vl .O O a m 3 Q m o a � G ns > E � c . b E C N C = a) U to O p 0 al O a) C O b O O L w O p c6 aS 2 0 0 0 b a) as � Q � O• .t,,, b6 � a c a3 fm oay o U o (n .0.. c p byp m C C U O - Q O U Q l6 U Q,n E U U O CL Esst_:s=m m M° Q `a, 8 a ai � :ti 0--U)n Q. C M F C O Q O 7 N a) O -E O m Z O C O M M 0 C m FZ .41 m m • • Memorandum TO: City of Maplewood Advisory Boards and Commissions FROM: Brad Scheib, Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. DATE: 14 March 2006 SUBJECT: Review of Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan and recent alternative concept INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND Over the last several years, the City of Maplewood has been exploring redevelopment concepts for the Gladstone Neighborhood. In December of 2004, the City retained the services of a consultant team to conduct/ facilitate a planning process and develop a master plan for the neighborhood. A Task Force representing City Council, boards and commissions, community residents and neighborhood businesses was assembled to provide guidance to the process and to serve as a conduit to the neighborhood and greater community. The process has included five public meetings and ten meetings of the task force over the last 14 months. In November of 2005, a draft master plan was presented to the public and to advisory boards and commissions. In December of 2005, newly elected Council member David Bartol requested that an alternative concept be developed and explored. At a City Council meeting in January, the Council authorized staff to develop the alternative presented by Mr. Bartol and to put this alternative through the same analysis and public review as the November 2005 draft plan. Consultants and staff completed this review over the months of January and February, presented the concept to the Task Force and presented the concept to the public the first week in March. WHERE WE ARE AT IN THE PLANNING PROCESS We are nearing the point in the planning process where the City Council will need to converge on a preferred master plan for the Gladstone Neighborhood. The redevelopment planning process includes a review by City advisory boards and commissions. The objective of this review is for each board/ commission to offer a recommendation on the plan or its key aspects relative to the board/commission's individual mission or purpose. The Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Master Plan is an important part of the community and virtually every advisory board or commission will be involved in the ongoing implementation of the master plan. SUPPORTING INFORMATION To assist you in preparations for your upcoming meeting we suggest reviewing the following items (note: some of these items were distributed in November while others are attached for your use): 1. The Draft Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan dated 14 November 2005 (distributed in November of 2005) 2. The Draft Alternative Urban Areawide Review (ALTAR) (distributed in November of 2005) 3. February 21 Memorandum to the Gladstone Task Force describing the alternative concept and is evaluation 4. Powerpoint presentation slides from public workshop/task force meeting presentation presenting • alternative concepts and comparison to the November 14 draft plan 5. Summary of public meeting #5 survey questions evaluating the alternative concept compared to the November 14 2005 draft. This summary is of the evaluation form filled out by participants at the March 2 2005 public meeting. 6. Evaluation questions. These questions were developed by staff and consultants to help facilitate a review and discussion of key items of the plan. The core difference between the two concepts has to do with the level of public investments that form the basis of the plan (those public investments include improvements to parks, open space, trails, road reconstruction, burial of power lines, streetscape, stormwater systems). In the November 14 draft, a public improvement budget was established at roughly $18 million. In order to fund this investment without using general tax dollars, redevelopment to the magnitude of roughly 800 new units would need to occur. That level of development also would support 50,000 to 75,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial development. The alternative concept reduced the public improvement budget to the tune of $11 million in order to reduce the development levels to 490 units. This concept would support approximately 10,800 square feet of commercial development. Reductions in public improvements were achieved by reducing the scope and magnitude of the $18 million dollar improvements. A more detailed summary of the changes is included in the attached information. The consultant team's analysis concluded that the either concept works from a fmancial perspective. The alternative concept with the lower public improvement budget and lesser development magnitude runs a greater risk of achieving the broader vision and guiding principles established through the planning process. • Through the task force meeting deliberations and the public process we know that the November 14`s concept exceeded the level of acceptance for some members of the community. We also know that the alternative concept with the lesser public improvement budget and resultant development magnitude, underachieves what the Gladstone Neighborhood could or should be. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the board/ commission discuss the master plan from November and the more recent concept alternative with supporting documentation and offer recommendations or opinions on the concept and relevant aspects of the plan. Your recommendation(s) will be assembled with all other advisory board/ commission's recommendations and the recommendation from the Task Force and submitted to the City Council for their use in considering the plan at their meeting tentatively set for April 18''. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact staff. FA MINUTES OF THE GLADSTONE TASK FORCE MEETING 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD MINNESOTA • THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2006 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6:30 p.m. I. INTRODUCTIONS Speaker, Brad Schieb said a request was made to have the Gladstone Task Force meeting recorded. The recording secretary is present to take notes and record the discussion tonight. II. PEOPLE PRESENT City Consultant Brad Schieb, HKGI City Staff Melinda Coleman, Assistant City Manager Bruce Anderson, Park and Recreation Director Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary Gladstone Task Force Members Present Kathleen Juenemann, City councilmember (sitting in for Will Rossbach) • Dale Trippler, Planning Commission and Environmental Committee Linda Olson, Community Design Review Board Peter Fischer, Parks Commission Al Singer, Open Space Committee Mark Gernes, Open Space Committee Business or Prooerty Owners in the Gladstone Neiqhborhood David Gageby Charlie Godbout (representing Metro Funeral Home) Richard Horvath, Richards Market Larry Johnson, Maplewood Marine Gladstone Residents Joy Tkacheck Wayne Sachi Kim Schmidt (sitting in for Jan Steiner) Erika Donner Al Galbraith At -Large Bruce Mogren 0 III. Presentation Objectives IV. Vision • V. Overview — Power Point Presentation VI. Streetscape Cost Comparisons VII. Public Improvements Park/Savanna Frost Ave Bridge VIII. Summary of Changes in Public Improvements Chart IX. How have we paid for Public Improvements X. Alternatives to Funding Public Improvements XI. Photos were displayed of developments in suburban areas to represent what certain density, streetscaping, sidewalks, garage spaces, lighting, crosswalks, setbacks, step -backed architecture, and street level retail would look like as an example of what was built in other areas as a comparison of what it could look like in the Gladstone Area. XII. Public Presentation will be Thursday, March 2, 2006, at 6:30 p.m. at the Maplewood Community Center. City council consideration is expected some time in April • At this time Brad Schieb opened up the discussion. David Gageby, Property owner. Mr. Gageby said Mr. Schieb gave an excellent presentation as usual. He said there is a tremendous cost involved in the plans we have reviewed. He asked where the funding is going to come from to accommodate existing property owners and business owners in the new David Bartol plan? He said he submitted his own plan 18 months ago that would use public money but nobody liked that plan. There are three key issues to be considered for the redevelopment. He said we need to accommodate the existing business and land owners. The people that own businesses and land in this area are the true staples in the community. The open space is 23 acres that could be a central amenity to the central core of the city. He said any plan to be economically viable in order for this to be accomplished and cost is a major factor. He said to forget about including the St. Paul tourist cabins. We are talking about 300 units in David Bartol's plan to be located on this property in the Gladstone area. There needs to be enough density to justify the cost of doing this project. If the project ends up costing so much that the developers aren't going to make any money, developers won't be interested in pursuing this project. He said you can't buy land for $750,000 to $1 million an acre, pay to replace or relocate businesses, tear down their facilities and build townhouses when the underlying costs are that much. The standard formula is if you are going to build a house for $300,000 and the land costs over $50,000, the project can't be done. If he was going to build 300 townhouses and he bought the existing businesses and property, he would have to sell 300 townhouses for about $1 million a piece which just isn't feasible and it would not support this plan. The fact of the matter is you need a high enough density to justify this project going forward. Mr. Gageby said based on that analogy, 300 units of density is not going to work. Many companies such as Ryan Companies, Welsh Companies, KA Construction, and United • Properties have been to the Gladstone area and looked at the figures. They have walked away due to costs of redevelopment. He said they use the same financial people he uses for developments and it's not feasible to do this project with the density numbers proposed and come out ahead in anyway. Another question is who is going to pay the business owners for their property if they have to move or relocate? Joy Tkacheck, Gladstone Resident. Ms. Tkacheck said the community is already supporting the existing businesses in the Gladstone area. She asked why those businesses can't continue to exist and survive? She asked with this plan does that mean the business owners will have to relocate their businesses elsewhere? She asked why someone would have to buy them out? She said if the businesses are forced to relocate it doesn't sound like the businesses are going to be able to relocate in Maplewood. David Gageby spoke again. He said if the business owners are forced to relocate the state statute requires that the businesses are relocated at someone's expense but not the business owner's expense. Brad Schieb, HKGI. He said to clarify; we are at 340 units of density within the core area of the Gladstone neighborhood, not 300 units, plus 150 units on the tourist cabin site. He said this plan will work, you can disagree, but it's shown in the plan that it can work. Nobody is suggesting that the city buy out any businesses. They are suggesting . you change the land use and zoning in the area. If someone wants to buy Richard's Market for $3 million dollars for example, that is an easy decision for Richard. The problem is that someone could operate a business like Richard's Market and be charged the rent for "new" space, but can they still make it work financially? Probably not. They know that fact from work they have done in other cities. He said when the group toured the City of Burnsville they were told by the Mayor of Burnsville that the retail space is lagging behind. Why, because the rent is not quite there yet and this is typical for this type of situation. In the November concept plan we talk about trying to retain the key businesses and services such as the grocery store, coffee shop, bakery, liquor store, meat market etc. and they plan on doing that if they can. The only way a business would be reimbursed for relocation is if the city is to get involved. However, a private developer can work with the business owner and they could strike a deal. Dale Trippler, Planning Commission. Mr. Trippler said in the revised plan that was requested by city councilmember David Bartol the plan only allows for 10,000 square feet of commercial space. That square footage would allow for a business like Richard's Market, the barber shop and one other business. The city knows the Maplewood Bowl wants to stay in that location, the liquor store, the bakery, the Moose Lodge and a few others want to stay in their location also. If you want people to invest money in the community and redevelop, and you want people to move to this area, you must make the area look attractive. There needs to be a good mix of retail and residential property here. If you do nothing, the area will continue to go down hill and this will be an area no • one will want to invest money in. In order to draw investors you must improve the Gladstone area in Maplewood. Linda Olson, Community Design Review Board. Ms. Olson said she came to this meeting with an open mind and did not prejudge the David Bartol plan. She said you • have to look at all the options. She believes it's important to look at the least amount of impact and the lowest cost option first because of the amount of money this is going to cost. She wouldn't recommend going down to the bare bones in spending. With this plan 58% percent of the housing is going to be attached rowhouses which require steps inside and outside. There is no accessible housing in this plan. She is a strong advocate of senior housing, accessibility and sidewalks. She believes there should be a variety of housing units in this plan. If you are going to have rowhouses then you must have ramps and elevators for people that need assistance. These homes must be insulated for sound and they should be attractive units. They could have screened in porches, underground garages, a community room and good storage. She would prefer to see a 20 foot setback. High density is not necessarily a negative thing. If it's done right it can be very attractive and will draw people to this area of Maplewood. Sidewalks and accessibility options are very important to her and she will continue to have a strong voice regarding those issues in this development. She was disappointed that one -level housing was not an option in the Legacy Village development. However, there are sidewalks in the area, it is a walkable area, and it will have a nice park and a new library which will be a real draw to the area, so it has those qualities going for it. Peter Fischer, Parks Commission. Mr. Fischer said the November concept plan is a big change from this plan. He said this plan lacks the quality and the charm. We need to do something with the green space and make it versatile and enjoyable. You only get one chance to do it right the first time. Money is not going to come from the residents or from • the city. As you have more units of density there will be more money for the amenities that are necessary to make this area look nice. The developers will come if this is a financially feasible plan for them. Let's make this the crown jewel of the open space. Density is the important factor and density is not necessarily a bad thing if it's done right. Having higher density would allow for more money to be spent on improving the amenities that would be possible in the area so that is the important factor to keep in mind. You have to look at the whole plan in order to make this development work and this can't work with only half a plan. Al Galbraith, Maplewood Resident. He said large density numbers cause problems. He sees this development as an additional strain on the police and fire department and to the educational system in Maplewood. He said taxes are going to go up because the money has to come from somewhere. The class size at Maplewood schools is already at 37 kids in the fifth grade. The kids are coming from the Legacy Village development. Does this mean we need to build more schools? To him this means more property taxes. He said they were told taxes are not going to go up because of the Gladstone redevelopment plan but he doesn't believe it. When the city started this process 2 years ago he was assured his taxes would not go up. He said that statement would be reflected in the minutes if they were ever kept. In fact he was told his property taxes would go down with the development of this plan. He said there would have to be an environmental impact study done on the Savanna before anything can be done there because it is a historical site. He wondered if that was put in the budget or not. The cost of the roundabout at East Shore Drive is another factor. He said that roundabout is an accident waiting to happen. He asked who designed it anyway. Mr. Galbraith said in today's paper (February 23, 2006) there is an article. about • preserving Minnesota and all the open space in Minnesota that is getting developed. The article says Minnesota is the fastest growing state in the Midwest and the open space is being developed. Mr. Galbraith said the open space is being developed by developers so the developers can get wealthy and line their pocketbooks. He said developers aren't in the business for the goodness of Minnesota they are in it to line their pocketbook. He said he thought the business owners have a stake in the redevelopment of the area and thought the residents have a stake in the area after they have paid their property taxes all these years? He said the Savanna is "open space" and is a buffer, it's not a park and he thinks there is beauty in the Savanna. The newspaper says funding for the environment is proportionally less than in the past; demands on all types of recreation will increase. He said evidently the newspaper knows something we don't know. Brad Schieb, HKGI. He said the improvements in the Gladstone area will not raise your taxes but it will raise the market value of your home. When an improvement gets done in an area the surrounding area benefits from those improvements. If the economy continues to rise your property value will increase without doing any improvements. Regarding an EIS (environmental impact study) nothing is planned for the Savanna in this current plan. In the November concept plan it says we are not sure if anything is going to happen but we aren't saying it isn't either. There was an AUAR (alternative urban area review) study done as part of environmental study. More detailed analysis may be needed on some sites. The roundabout at East Shore Drive is designed to be a traffic calming device and has been identified as such. Regarding the impact on the • schools, as part of this process we sent a copy of the plans to the school district. He spoke to a representative of the schools and they didn't believe this would have any negative impact on the surrounding schools. Mr. Galbraith, Maplewood Resident. He asked how that could be when the schools are crowded already? Melinda Coleman, Assistant City Manager. She said the schools in Maplewood are crowded now because some schools have had to close due to low enrollment numbers. That means the kids have to transfer to other schools in the area and the class size is going to be larger now. There is a revenue problem, which means teachers have to be cut and that means the teachers that stay will have more kids in their class. It's a larger issue that we can solve. Wayne Sachi, Gladstone resident. Mr. Sachi said he is disappointed that the city council was directed by one of its city councilmembers to go back and come up with another plan after all the work that was done with the master plan on the Gladstone Redevelopment Plan already. He is even more disappointed in the plan that was just presented. He asked what was wrong with the plans the task force came up with already? He thought the work the task force did was to determine what would look nice in the area and what the people would like to live with in their neighborhood. He believes the city would've been better off asking the residents and business owners what the minimum amount of public improvements they would be happy with to estimate what the cost would be. Mr. Sachi said then determine what the density or number of units it would take in order to make the plan work for those improvements rather than coming up with the plan that was requested by city councilmember David Bartol. Mr. Sachi said he wouldn't support this plan but he will support a higher density so the public improvements and amenities will be greater which would make for a nicer looking plan. Kim Schmidt, Gladstone resident. She said this plan is more realistic to the residents who live in this neighborhood in terms of density and amenities. It may not have all the bells and whistles but it's more realistic of what could be handled in this area. Ms. Schmidt said just because you put a mass amount of units in this plan so that you can have the amenities doesn't mean it can be handled in this neighborhood. If the November concept plan would've been accepted by the residents this plan would not have been requested by city councilmember David Bartol and supported by two other city councilmembers. The last election sent a clear message that the city is ready for a change and the city needs to listen to what the residents are saying and what they want. The residents are stake holders in this community. As far as accommodating all of the business owners, some of the residents would be offended if they needed to relocate a business that is on the verge of failing. There are businesses that are thriving and some businesses that are not. She said to hold all the businesses equally isn't fair and people will have a real problem with that, just as she does. She doesn't believe more amenities are needed as much as the garbage needs to be cleaned up. She said some of the areas don't look very nice but let's keep the businesses that we have, make them shine and keep the Savanna. Bruce Mogren, At -Large and Business Owner in Maplewood. He said this has been a • long process that we have gone through. There is a pretty good cross section of people on this task force. He came into this meeting with an open mind and did not prejudge the new plan. He said to remember there is a difference between "fact" and "perception". The perception in this case is that density is "bad". He said he developed over 300 senior housing units and he invites anyone to take a look at it, it's a beautiful project. His development provides a lot of green space, landscaping and a lot of open space. This increases the accessibility. His units have three elevators and good sidewalk accessibility to the business community. He said people love living there. It's close to retail and seniors can walk or drive to the surrounding businesses. If businesses are willing to make changes and upgrades to their property means that customers will come. In order to do this development you have to be able to attract developers and business owners here to spend money in the area. In order to get people here to spend money you have to improve the area and make it a nice community for them to live here and do business here. He said density is not necessarily a bad thing if it's done the right way. It seems like the city has already put a lot of effort into the plans and it would be a shame if this did not go forward because people are afraid of density. He prefers the November concept plan that the task force put together compared to this plan recommended by city councilmember David Bartol. Kim Schmidt, Gladstone Resident. She said the residents want lower density and they won't accept anything other than lower density. She agrees that more density would allow for more amenities or features but density scares people and this kind of density can't be handled in this area. She said when she drives around the city she doesn't see the City of Maplewood handing density very well in other areas of the city. Bruce Mogren, At -Large and Business Owner in Maplewood. He said he understands peoples "fear" of change, but change can be a good thing if it is done right. The reaction • is because of the fear of change and the fear of the density, people are reacting with "okay then I don't want to change anything and let's leave things the way they are". He said that doesn't mean the project is going to be bad just because the plan would change the look of the neighborhood. It would be changing the look of the neighborhood for the better. He invited Ms. Schmidt to visit his development and see what it has to offer. Mr. Mogren said the city approved his project and it's a nice development that is enjoyed by many people. He has been asked to build more developments like it because the senior housing has sold out and filled up so quickly. Al Galbraith, Gladstone Resident. He said people built and made modifications to their homes. Businesses have been running without any help from outsiders or the city. People may think they don't need help with their neighborhood now either. The residents and business owners have a stake in their neighborhood. This whole plan upsets everybody in the neighborhood. The fear of the unknown is scary. He asked what if the developer comes in and suddenly goes belly up in the middle of the project. What guarantee do we have that once this plan is built it will continue to look nice after the developer is gone. What guarantee do we have that it will look like the plan shows? What if a snow plow knocks down a tree or light post, who will be responsible for fixing or replacing things? Mr. Galbraith asked who will trim the grass, who will sweep the sidewalks, who will go around and pick up the trash, replace trees that have died, and keep the area in good condition. We have trash there now but it is "our" trash. The people have to have the confidence in the developer or developers for this Gladstone plan. What about eminent domain? He said downtown Gladstone is a blue collar area of Maplewood and should stay that way. Al Singer, Open Space Committee. He said there are a million and one reasons why "not" do something. One has to think what the "vision" is and what the "principles" are regarding what this area should look like. If that is the test of what the task force did then you should apply those visions and principles to the low cost approach of the plan. He has a hard time believing this plan is feasible. This doesn't seem to be what the task force collectively said they wanted to see in the plan. He realizes the tensions between residents and business owners with the City of Maplewood in terms of the direct impacts of this plan and the preconception of taxes going up. There has been a consensus that we have to be sensitive to the residents of the Gladstone area recognizing the time many have lived in this neighborhood. He said we are talking about 50 to 80 years down the road. The city could be found very foolish if you think about emphasizing the "low cost" approach to a plan this size. You not only get what you pay for, but if you don't emphasize the Savanna to make this plan very different it will be the same type of development that you see across the metropolitan area. Let's "emphasize" the Savanna and make it into a nice gathering spot. You need to be creative and do something different in this plan to make the Savanna a nice place to be. Unless the investment is made for the Savanna now and we think about the Savanna as a long term investment, it will remain in the minds of developers and others for years to come. Do it right the first time and let's not regret what could happen with the Savanna • in the future. If you don't develop it into something nice now imagine what could come about 10 years from now. Mr. Singer said as the speaker Brad Schieb said, think of the "vision" and the "principles" you want to see and if this is something that can be agreed upon, use that to • determine if this is what the city wants to see before making a final decision. Joy Tkacheck, Gladstone resident. She said this new plan falls short. She asked why we are trying to build another development like Legacy Village? She thinks it's awful over there. She said in the beginning we envisioned the walkable life cycle community. When we think about taking that into the future we need to consider everything that goes with it. Ms. Tkacheck said some communities are trying to bring communities and businesses back to the way things used to be, such as having a meat market, bakery and coffee shop. Well we already have those things now, we just need to expand upon what we have. People like getting to know their neighbors. Preserve the green space and preserve the open space; that represents community. It's very important. Ms. Tkacheck said she appreciates the fact that the city council directed this study to be done and that the plan was followed but this plan doesn't do what the people want. Charlie Godbout, representing the Metro Funeral Home. He said if you do nothing this area is only going to get worse and everybody in this neighborhood will be a stake holder in the decline. When you get down to the nuts and bolts of redevelopment in the Twin Cities you need to be sure you have a plan and that it's marketable. If it is marketable and it is profitable then a developer will buy into it. This area needs to be improved. He said this plan has the potential to fail and he thinks the November concept plan is a much better plan; it's marketable and could be successful. If you sit and do nothing in the Gladstone area, this area will continue to deteriorate and fail and the . residents and business owners will be living in the middle of it. Larry Johnson, Business owner. He said he doesn't like this plan and thinks it will be an unsightly development. He said he compares this plan to a housing project because that is what it looks like when it is laid out. Kathleen Juenemann, City councilmember and Maplewood resident. (She is here for Will Rossbach, City councilmember who could not be present.) She said no vision, no future for the city. The city has a vision of what this Gladstone area could look like and have been doing their best to involve everyone in the input of what this area could look like. This area is the oldest in the city of Maplewood. Things need to change before it's too late. There needs to be a vision and it means things will have to be different. Different means something other than what people are used to. She said she has lived in her home in Maplewood for 31 years now. She likes her house, she likes her neighborhood and she is used to living there. But she isn't so foolish as to think that when she is dead and gone that it's going to stay looking the same for someone else. She hopes one day someone else can enjoy her home and neighborhood. Structures don't continue to look nice forever and things need to be revitalized and improved. She said what she likes is not the same thing that someone else would like. If someone moved into her house they may make many changes to the house so it is to their liking. That's okay. It's called the evolution of life. Change and improvements are inevitable for the future to keep neighborhoods and businesses growing and lively which will attract • customers and residents. People don't like change and she understands that, but change is needed for this area of Maplewood to become alive and appealing. Ms. Juenemann said in order to do that we have to be willing to take a risk. The city is trying to do their best with the economics we live with just as other cities are. • Mark Gernes, Open Space Committee. He asked if we are interested in a "face lift" and how long would the face lift last before something more permanent has to happen. Or do we have a vision for redevelopment and plan on investing for the future? Mr. Gernes said Brad Schieb asked everyone to look at the vision and the principles that the task force worked on. They essentially provided a vision and it's around those principals that the November concept plan reflects what is needed. In his opinion, this new plan doesn't reflect the principles the task force put together. There has been a lot of focus put on the Savanna. We never committed to doing a development on the Savanna, we looked at it, but we wanted to weigh the options. Mr. Gernes said there have been multiple steps, stages, and options to getting where we are now. There hasn't been a final decision made regarding what should happen on the Savanna yet. People will continue to look at the Savanna even if this plan does not proceed forward. Somebody will always be wondering what could be done with the Savanna? If this development goes through, and the Savanna sits vacant, people will continue to wonder how to get control of the Savanna and what they could develop there. If you build this area right, put the public improvements and amenities in, and develop the Savanna space to its fullest, nobody will wonder what they could put on the Savanna or what could be done with the Savanna after the fact. The Savanna could be planned out and built cost effectively the first time with no regrets and make it a nice area for everyone to enjoy. Dale Trippler, Planning Commission. From a planning standpoint, if we were to adopt an alternative plan the comprehensive plan and planning map would only allow the city • to designate the parcels as commercial. Melinda Coleman Assistant City Manager. She said not necessarily. We could do a mixed-use district similar to what was done for the Hillcrest area. The city would formulate the new district. You are correct from a planning standpoint we would probably concentrate commercial on the corner. She said there is some flexibility to create the overlay district like in the Hillcrest area. She said we are going to have to work with that later; it needs to be done one step at a time. David Gageby, Property owner. He said if you change the zoning and make the bowling alley residential, you owe them money. Brad Schieb, HKGI He said not necessarily and we will have to discuss that further next time. Mr. Schieb opened up the discussion to the public. Diana Longrie, Mayor of Maplewood. Mayor Longrie said she thinks there should be more retail in this mix. She said she is trying to understand the difference between the initial November concept plan and this new plan? She asked what the city anticipated the average cost per unit to be? She asked how much the units are in downtown St. Paul going to cost and how fast have they been selling? Mayor Longrie agreed with Linda Olson's comments that there needs to be some senior housing and handicap accessibility in this development and it's very important. Maplewood has some great examples of senior housing in the city already. Mayor Longrie said with this type of development it's a big concern in the community if there is going to be section 8 housing incorporated into this plan? Mayor Longrie said she is not saying if that is good or bad but if there is section 8 housing mixed into this • she asked how the owner occupied housing units at $315,000 will be marketable if section 8 housing is so close to units that cost that much money? Melinda Coleman, Assistant City Manager. She said we have had a very robust economy in terms of housing and have had great luck with the townhouse market. She said the Legacy Village development is ahead of its projections for how fast they would sell out. The Carriage Homes of Maple Hills (the townhomes on the old golf course) have sold out very quickly. Basically all the townhouse projects in Maplewood have done remarkably well. The senior condos on Hazelwood Street sold like hotcakes. However, the rental apartment market has not done as well but is starting to pick up. She said affordable housing like Emma's Place and the Van Dyke Village project has received some assistance and has done very well in the market. Ms. Coleman said in terms of Section 8 housing, more of those programs are mixing affordable housing with market rate housing so you can't tell the difference between the two housing markets. Section 8 is no longer stand alone housing. The whole point of federal funding and other funding sources that go into projects are to encourage the mix of market rate and the section 8 housing so there is no ostracizing. She said basically things have changed for the better over the years. Del Beniamin, One of owners of the Maplewood Bowl spoke. He said the task force has worked very hard to come up with a plan for the redevelopment of the Gladstone area and it's a pretty good plan. He said he can't believe city councilmember David Bartol requested another plan be done for the Gladstone Redevelopment area at the very end of the process. Councilmember Bartol could have been and should have been at all the rest of the Gladstone meetings but now magically requests another plan be done. He said he likes David Bartol but is highly offended that a single person has the power to change everything that has already been done after months and months of work that has been done. Wayne Sachi, Gladstone resident. He said the new plan was not only approved by David Bartol but was supported by two of the other city councilmembers. Barbara Lighter, Maplewood resident in the audience spoke (no address given). (She was very hard to understand because the microphone was too far away.) She said she liked the plan. She is wondering if the commercial properties on the corner should overlook the Savanna? Should some of the commercial properties be moved to a different location? She agrees there should be some senior housing in the mix. Addy Beniamin, One of the owners of the Maplewood Bowl. She is upset and offended as a property owner of the Maplewood Bowl regarding this project. Nobody came and talked to us and it's as if the people and the Maplewood Bowl don't matter. She said there is a long-term lease with AMF and if the Maplewood Bowl is told to move that's going to cost a lot of money. You can't just take people's livelihoods away. She said the building has been there since the 1960's and remodeled in the 1970's and now we would like to add another eight bowling lanes. This is an important business to the area and to the residents to keep the bowling alley here. Ms. Benjamin said she has lived in her home in Lakeville for 27 years and has seen many changes and a lot of new development in Lakeville including a number of new schools built. Her taxes haven't gone up but her "property value" has because of all of the new development. She said new development does draw people to the area when you spend money to improve property. She thinks the current plan should have more retail in the mix. As far as senior housing goes, seniors will want to walk to the retail areas but if there is not more retail for them to walk to they will be forced to find a ride in order to get their shopping and errands in. She said it feels like the business owners do not have any say in what goes on here. She is also concerned about who will pay for the parks to be maintained when the developer is gone. Colleen Hampl, Gladstone resident in the audience. (No address given.) She asked how many people in this room had actually walked from one end of the Savanna to the other? A number of people raised their hands. She said she would like to make the Savanna into a gathering area for people to sit and enjoy. If the Savanna is left alone it will sit ,vacant and unused. She used to live in Minneapolis where people enjoy their parks. People visit the parks by themselves, with their families or friends and with their animals. This is very important to her. She believes it would be nice to have a place to enjoy coffee and a donut with her dog. Ms. Hampl said she believes the Savanna could be made into a very nice place for people to enjoy and it seems a shame to leave it in the condition that it is. Mrs. Galbraith (Address unknown.) She said she likes the new concept plan and thinks it fits well into the neighborhood. She wants to keep businesses like Richard's Market and the Maplewood Bakery. She also likes the new idea of making the Gloster Park into • a nice gathering place. She would love to go to the Gloster Park and sit and have coffee and a donut with her dog. It would be a wonderful gathering place for all to enjoy. That was the end of the discussion. Brad Schieb, HKGI, said the next task force meeting will be Thursday, March 23, 2006, at 6:30 p.m. at the Maplewood Community Center. The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. 40 Bruce K. Anderson From: Chuck Ahl •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.x1s 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 is(Attached spreadsheet might be easier to read) 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: $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 Land Acquisition * - $1,250,000 (* - difference between Land acquisition (190%) and land sales) Demolition - $ 450,000 Environmental - $ 500,000 Streets New & Recon - $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 in 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: is 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 VX 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 $10,000 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 ii: 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) U) W CQ C W U) V LU O H N 0 Q J 0 C7 oLOLO o 000000000 0 0 0 0 000 0 000000000 o O 0 14- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 14,(0 ONr- O 000000000 O O N rl LO r- r- LO LO o 0 0 0 LO LO 0 LO LO O N c- 0D N N 't O O 00 O N Ct O N [` O 64 0 � LO T- V Eli 69 N V- 6% V- 69 V -:V � r - CN NN Eq &3. 64 6R 69 69 6% 6% m 69- F- O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 00 W O 000 r 00 O O 0 000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O 00 co to O N r-7 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O N O I- r` O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O N Z r O N N O ED 0 r-- O_ O CD O O 0 r 6R W h 0 � r 6% 6% C'M M N N6% 1 N t0 O Q. N N 69 6% 6F9, H9 6% 6% 6% 6R - r Ir 69 6% 6R M U O O O O O O N 0 0 0 co ti O 1- 0 r co O M 0 0 V- 0 0 0 0 0 It LO r � 0 0 0 T- CL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O — O O O N ti IT 0 0 0 N O 0 O O LO N Co `- N U) OI`N CD OOOM00000 O r N LLJ O 00 — 0 O Co O N OO CD Co O 0 0 69 O U") [f M 64 64% .' N N (A �- N 00 N ZCY) N� 69 V) 6 R 6~i 64 64 64 ER c M to N N C N N C p o E U > a� > C fq U p ppa C O 7 V N d> p CL •C p U �O m E E ` cn .. C<CL V p p E Y m p .. N C 7 G C O N N t0 ;O S O ` tUS ) acn C0 o o� m` c0 �Y 3 .� W � tu�- �� a W c c `_° E owU')C-0 '> N N U)> v o 3 m f- y _(6 F°- iiniiCDa. CL 0 N M '-t O CD r, 00 0 IT, I I Z 0 C7 Bruce K. Anderson From: Chuck AN •Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 8:43 AM To: 'Brad'; 'ion.horn@kimley-horn.com, Cc: Melinda Coleman; 'Bruce Anderson; Richard Fursman; 'Rusty' Subject: The Bartol Plan Brad and Jon: 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 Page Virginia Gaynor . From: Virginia Gaynor T 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. 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 be can 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 Flicek. To at make a strong connection, we'd need to move the parking area and/or playing area at FGcek. 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 concerned 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. 1 think I cut folks off on this so I'd like us to revisit this in the future. Have a great holiday weekend! Ginny �J • 1/12/2006 • 16 0 Participant Survey Public Workshop #2 - April 7, 2005 Results of Participant Survey Response tigquenCX 1 Gender Male 42 51% Female 38 46/0 No Response 3 4% 2 Age Under 25 3 4/0 25 to 44 10 12% 45 to 64 45 55% 65 or older 24 29% No Response I 1% 3 Do you live in the Gladstone Neighborhood? Yes 61 72% No 21 25% Business Owner 3 4% 4 If YES, how long have you lived in the Neighborhood? Less than 5 years 11 13% 5-10 years 11-20 years 8 10% More than 20 years 35 42% No Response 20 241K 5 Do you own or rent your home? Own 74 89% Rent 3 4% No Response 6 79/b 6 How many people currently live in your house? 1 14 17% 2 32 39% 3 22 27% 4 9 11% No Response 6 7% 7 Where do you work? Maplewood 18 22% 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? Yes 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% Word of Mouth 32 241/o Other 28 21% Are you willing to pay more property taxes if needed to implement YOUR 11 plan for the Gladstone Neighborhood? Yes 15 18% No 32 39% Depends on the Amount 34 41% No Response 2 2% 12 Comments Yes 35 42% No 48 58% The following points were recorded as written from the comments section of the survey forms. They are • numbered only for the sake of reference. 1) Parks and savannah are a source of pride to the Gladstone residents and business owners. Preserving the Savannah and parks will impact the quality of life for generations to come (both new and existing residents). As the population in the Gladstone Neighborhood continues to grow w/the proposed redevelopment, it's critical that the City acts now to manage these lands effectively, preserve open space for the future, and make these areas accessible to all people today and tomorrow. 2) As a business owner in the Gladstone area, what are you doing to help my growth in the City? All of the concept plans have eliminated my business totally. 3) As a family and business owner we do not plan to stay in the area. We feel this has been all or nothing for business owners. I feel that the City officials will do what they want in Maplewood. I see nothing from the people that are already there and have their properties are being addressed. We all know that money talk the high density the more money. Granted I have missed some task force meeting I did not expect the large density. 4) I'm living at Ripley and Edward. I want Edward to remain closed. If Edward Street open up to Frost, Edward will have to go through partial of my property. That will decrease my property value. The reasons my family moved to the resident because of the big space, peace and quiet. Keep Edward Street closed as is. Thank you. 5) 1 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) 1 believe that there are many options that could be used on the master plan. I was in favor of everything except the green roof. In my view a master plan is a great idea but the most important dimension is to build higher end ($ 300,000 or more) units. If we start by building lower end units it will set the precedent for more lower priced units. 8) Density.':::::: character 9) The Garden City concept is my preference, but Gloster Park needs to be improved and maintained, as well as retention of Gladstone Elementary. Additional residents will increase the need for parks, playgrounds and educational space, as well as indoor recreation such as the bowling alley which includes video games. 10) Garden City concept plan is acceptable. Downtown Maplewood concept is unacceptable. 11) Mixed use needs to remain a traditional village look. Small village concept in the middle a large metro • area. Survey Form Response Talley and Comments Page 2 of 4 12) Please do not build on the open space. Designating other small portions does not meet the concept of • open space. I have no problem with paths (preferably not hardscape) in the open space. 13) Tax - depends on amount --it already costs us, in a little 2BR home, over a hundred dollars a month for the privilege of living in the area! Why the need to remove the Gladstone school? Senior Center? What do you propose would replace it? Flicek? We don't need fewer ball fields, we need more! 14) Major concerns about open space security. Major concerns about rising taxes for cost of development, esp. with open space. Who will maintain these spaces--County/City? I like the Downtown concept the most. 15) I question the region's ability to fill the amount of retail that is planned. I think this neighborhood is a tight knit group that will not allow for the removal of any single family homes or the Gladstone school. On the other hand, I would strongly encourage the cleaning of the commercial properties. I hope the City is able to accelerate this process. Re -zoning land is going to produce slow results. 16) I thought there were good attributes to all three plans but can not support any intrusion into the Savannah. It is barely large enough as is and any shrinkage makes in unviable as a restored natural space. Dicing and slicing nature spaces means none are viable - more ecological concern and input please. 17) Medium density at quality restoration is not necessary or appropriate. 2) Too many townhomes placed on the St. Paul Tourist Cabin site. 3) If Tourist Cabin site is redeveloped it would be nice to save or leave half of the old growth oaks located there. 4) A referendum to incorporate the Tourist Cabin site • into open space should be considered. 5) Open space should not be reduced in size and a swap is not appropriate; when continuous open space is reduced in size the overall value of the open space is reduced. 6) Narrow lot - traditional - the lot size is not similar to Gladstone lot size. Lots are larger than this and include garages, often attached or next to home. 7) Marine does not need to be medium densit - inappropriate level of density. 8) No development of Flicek Park - a very busy park in the summer/spring. 9) Frost Ave. in Garden City - make it a parkway rather than swooping into the open space. 18) The options have been narrowed so that we can only pick from options in your plans. The residential options do not reflect the side of Gladstone by the lake. Homes are too close to the road. 19) Flicek Park remain 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. Survey Form Response Talley and Comments Page 3 of 4 23) We are currently remodeling our home at 1960 Clarence Street. If the plans that you're wanting to do go through, it means you would be tearing down our house so you can put 2 or 3 new houses there (we own 3 lots on Clarence). My question: when was anyone planning on telling us not to bother re- modeling because you're going to bulldoze it anyway. And, how much are you going to give me for my house? P. S. Why should we be charged to put in new streets and sewers if you're taking my house? Diane Meyer 651.747.0236 24) Please contact all who are affected by this plan. We have seen on the internet a plan that would be taking our land, how are we suppose to sell our houses? Jeffery Meyer 651.747.0236 25) Please contact any and all affected property owners 26) We just had our streets redone 3-4 years ago. We are still paying for it and will be for the next 12 years - we can't afford any more increase. How will this be funded? NO MORE TAX INCREASES PLEASE! Are there people that want to utilize this redevelopment or are you hoping that 'if we build it, they will come? 27) No dense buildings. Low buildings 28) Save Gladstone 29) Not everyone got a notice mailing. How many people actually live in Gladstone. is 30) Leave our area as is. We like it. 31) Leave our area alone. • 32) Dont touch the Savannah!! You cannot touch Flicek Field. Garden City concept is the best except do not touch the Savannah. 33) Kiss 34) No use but minimal interpretation for open space. 2) No trading off of space for space. 35) Do not touch the open space. 2) How is the City going to control the extra traffic? 3) What happens when the State wants to make the trail that goes to Lake Phalen into light rail? 4) Does the City need to hire extra police and fire? 5) How much will taxes increase for the current homeowners? 6) How is English and Frost going to handle the extra traffic? 7) How will this development increase/ decrease the value of my home? 8) How much is the pedestrian walkway on Ripley going to cost each homeowner? 9) What is the maximum amount of traffic can the roundabout handle? 10) Where is the parking area? Survey Form Response Talley and Comments Page 4 of 4 I* Table Number Your Name Your Address Gladstone Public Meeting Small Table Discussion/Questions March 2, 2006 Housing and Neighborhood Character 1. In ten to twenty years I want the Gladstone Neighborhood to be a vibrant, welcoming, safe and appealing neighborhood in terms of quality building design, quality landscaping design, quality streetsca a improvements and attractive pedestrian and outdoor -gathering opportunities. Ye No 2. How important is quality building materials and design to you in a redeveloped Gladstone Neighbo ood? _verimportant mo erately important not mportant 3. What typ of new housing units do you envision in a redeveloped Gladstone Neighborhood? all ttached townhomes all tacked housing (i.e., condominiums) a cgmbination of attached townhomes and stacked housing othTr (please describe in space to right) The following questions are directed at understanding concems about density from redevelopment. 4. Traffic created by new development Very concemed So rewhat concerned Not concemed 5. Height (3 4 stories) of new buildings Very concerned So ewhat concerned Not concerned 6. Type of p ople living in new housing Ve concemed So ewhat concerned No concemed 1 I L J I* 7. Impact onl value of my house Verb concerned Somewhat concerned Not concerned 8. Increased crime Very concerned Somewhat concerned Not concerned 1. Is a rede eloped Gladstone Neighborhood more appealing to you than the current commercial develop ent along English Street and Frost Avenue? Ye' No 2. You are standing at the corner of Frost Avenue and English Street ten years from now. The type and character of commercial development along Frost and English is the same as exists in 2006. How acceptable is that to you? vend unacceptable don't care very acceptable 3. You live in the Gladstone Neighborhood ten years from now. There are no retail businesses in the neighborhood. How acceptable is that to you? very unacceptable --don't care _____yery acceptable 4. How impc rtant is it to you to help retain the existing businesses that want to stay in a redeveloped Gladstone Neighborhood? _____ver important Moll erately important not important 5. What types of commercial and retail businesses would you like to see in a redeveloped Gladstone Neighborhood in the next ten to twenty years? shops ch shops restaurants oth r (please describe in space to right) • 2 6. What type of retail/commercial would you prefer in a redeveloped Gladstone Neighborhood? • stand-alone mixed use with commercial1retail below and housing above Public Improv' ments 1. How impo ant are improvements to the public realm (streetscaping, sidewalks, decorative lamp posts, etc) to the success of redevelopment in the Gladstone Neighborhood? ve important mo erately important not mportant 2. How imp rtant is it to make the Gladstone Neighborhood more walkable through improvements to sidewalks trails and pedestrian crossings? ve important mo erately important not important 3. How imp rtant it is to use redevelopment as a means to rebuild streets and municipal utilities without cgst to homeowners in the Gladstone Neighborhood? very important mo i)( rately important • notmportant Park/Open Spce 1. You are fing the Gladstone Savanna ten years from now. The character of the Savanna is the same asists in 2006. How acceptable is that to you? • ve unacceptable do 't care ve acceptable 2. Prioritize the following park improvements from one to six (one being the highest priority) in your vision of a redeveloped Gladstone Neighborhood: opon space restoration including grading, planting and removal of non-native intoImal trails Fli k tot -lot GI ster tot -lot Fli k restoration pu lic plaza at corner of frost and English tra'l or tunnel connection between open space and and Flicek parking lot 3 3. An underpass under Frost Avenue is proposed in both redevelopment plans to ensure pedestrian and storm ,mater passage from the open space to Flicek Park? Do you prefer a bebo (wide, • curved, ani decorative underpass) or a box culvert (narrow, box -looking underpass) to be installed udder Frost Avenue with a redeveloped Gladstone Neighborhood? • • , this improvement is not needed Implementatio 1. I would beatisfiied with little or no changes in the Gladstone Neighborhood in the next ten to twenty years. Yes No 2. How impo ant is it to you to ensure that a redeveloped Gladstone Neighborhood sets an example and leaac4for all other redevelopment projects in Maplewood? ve important moc erately important not mportant 3. Check the statement below that best matches your opinion. I c o not want any increase in the density of housing in the Neighborhood. I would accept some increase in housing (approximately 500 units) to encourage re Jevelopment and make a minimal level of public improvements. I E upport the proposed plan with approximately 800 housing units and the related level of PL blic improvements. 4. For each of the proposed areas of improvement, put an "X" in the column that best matches your opinion. 4 I Make higher level Make higher level of public Make low level of of public improvements — Proposed Don't make any improvements — improvements — Use general Improvements improvements Hold down density Fund by accepting property taxes to of redevelopment more housing achieve lower density Streetscape Sidewalks and trails Streets and municipal utilities Gladstone Savanna Flicek Park 4 • If public im the imorov Proposed Improvements Environmental Cleanup of Sites Overhead oowerline burial Improvements to help Lakes Streetscape and street lights ents need to be limited within the Gladstone area, how should the City prioritize completed in the area? Don't make any improvements Make low level of improvements — Hold down density of redevelopment Make higher level of public improvements — Fund by accepting more housing Make higher level of public improvements — Use general property taxes to achieve lower 6. Street width and roadway design issues on Frost Avenue has been expressed as a concern for the Gladst ne area. How should the City prioritize the improvements completed on Frost Avenue? Please use the space below and on back of this page for any additional comments. 5 Make higher level Make higher level of public Make low level of of public improvements — Proposed Don't make any improvements — improvements - Use general Improvements improvements Hold down density Fund by accepting property taxes to of redevelopment more housing achieve lower density Roundabout at East Shore Drive Parking bays along Open Space Center medians Sidewalk extensions to are Please use the space below and on back of this page for any additional comments. 5 • INFORMAL POLL OF THOSE ATTENDING MAPLEWOOD PUBLIC MEETING GLADSTONE ALTERNATIVE PLAN March 2, 2006 First choice: Option A: 800 units + $18 million 30 Option B: 490 units + $11 million 38 Option C: 0 units + $0 16 No Response 4 Other responses: 600 Units 1 Between 490 and 800 units 1 Second choice: Option A: 800 units + $18 million 16 Option B: 490 units + $11 million 22 • Option C: 0 units + $0 33 No Response 17 Other responses: 300 Units 1 Between 490 and 800 units 1 Created on 3/3/2006 9:21:00 AM MAPLEWOOD PUBLIC HEARING GLADSTONE ALTERNATIVE PLAN March 2, 2006 Name:1 7V Address: IR 2 � Phone: /;7 5-/_ 77 � /0-7 My FIRST choice of the three plans is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million >(B 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 If I don't get my first choice, my SECOND choice is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million )B 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 Comments: S - n % / ____ ✓Y?�.,.,�1� . 'leen.-,� 1�1.; �J �r'lES�C�J^1 / r � ,s 0 b w ou� hy w ham' G; 04 15ov 'd b 7- 0- GYM p,,-D cps. is 17.b w p ver �t lyes, P! -elt clrcc, 0�- Soo© , is 1� Aon � y � s �ccc�qV a15 0okily peopl-C Y-hct-�' - c)) PJ,�5 Ir Iae-Oof-ty orl r-�pvG-d s? r^�S�S ap�S "jolAjrj MAPLEWOOD PUBLIC HEARING GLADSTONE ALTERNATIVE PLAN March 2, 2006 Name. rt al ,,7 e Z -,g4 Address: 1750 611RG-;4'11y' Prone: 77`x,. 1 '/;Or My FIRST choice of the three plans is: ❑ A 800 units $18 million X B 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 If I don't get my first choice, my SECOND choice is: 19 A 800 units+ $18 million ❑ B 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 Comments: rIte%lig �Gw Ol of t � 01 -�X e 1) w/%/ nevev 6e W-6�flc ,�ee,.-I�T , � f � s. iInp ro ilei 0 • MAPLEWOOD PUBLIC HEARING GLADSTONE ALTERNATIVE PLAN March 2, 2006 Name: 1,0 rr, z ' v►^ � 4-5 G Address: 2 0 Rhone: `7') 2 `L �- �- �✓ My FIRST choice of the three plans is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million XB 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 If I don't get my first choice, my SECOND choice is: 4A 800 units + $18 million ❑ B 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 Comments: T a .�c M L © ,C G f ve T ✓ 4e— c9p TGA 4" o r`p % / -D �`� iC = 1 �� 4� S c` i% S T PL r s Jjc. t i 5 /' tv ✓ -f— P, ,-2 "'A (;j j p l-1 '5 5-C T ✓ 4e— c9p TGA 4" o r`p % / -D �`� iC = 1 �� 4� S c` i% S T S c � rd ✓�t' rw�P � r r-2 • Name: AddreE Phone: MAPLEWOOD PUBLIC HEARING GLADSTONE ALTERNATIVE PLAN March 2, 2006 My FIRST choice of the three plans is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million 10 B 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 If l don't get my first choice, my SECOND choice is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million ❑ B 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 Comments: ':i t I If --,e-. A .� t 0 • 4 MAPLEWOOD PUBLIC HEARING GLADSTONE ALTERNATIVE PLAN March 2, 2006 Name: i L.� c.,,� Nam GG Address: cj l v LA-,lCale e Phone: (oj�- -)")7-%3-3 My FIRST choice of the three plans is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 If I don't get my first choice, my SECOND choice is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million -B 490 units + $11 million l Cgs 0 units + $0 1 Comments: 00 o• Ca bhz-- 74 G av a 10 /0 e,, C► U C �U� o ,'i 6 ,* \ice � S e,rf ..e e 0 7 r� L M MAPLEWOOD PUBLIC HEARING i GLADSTONE ALTERNATIVE PLAN March 2, 2006 Name: Mn Address: )o ��r Phone: 6,Q -7M - 3-) i 3 My FIRST choice of the three plans is: 800 units + $18 million 7 C �7D(i C ~$._ 490 units'+ $1:1 million;'? ❑ C 0 units + $0 If I don't get my first choice, my SECOND choice is: *A 800 units + $18 million "., +. B 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 Comments: / i n� J--) J of J c L., T (G � C Grp s�I © aA4 w�C,A+ - o blyn, 40 CTL. ; on @.r -s,;J1ACa - x f� `� I� CL a°t ''c" ir\ e �"�1�1 r4ri 4-o I-,j - �PVW koIj -Ott,, r �� y 0 C] MAPLEWOOD PUBLIC HEARING GLADSTONE ALTERNATIVE PLAN March 2, 2006 Name: 1A) Address: /Iwo t Phone: Ca V %% % My FIRST choice of the three plans is: XA 800 units + $18 million ❑ B 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 If I don't get my first choice, my SECOND choice is: *'A 800 units + $18 million El B 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 Comments: p JT no%a r 7 /a, f .� � G1v� 17,1 is 1 01- J 1 —T `,� kcL ric E � *' -hv -4 ll� (O�Ivl ��. W a d a. -v t t I , ov.] Poo- � V� b"YVI MNat f V. to l �- tot f OL �C ' 0 MAPLEWOOD PUBLIC HEARING GLADSTONE ALTERNATIVE PLAN March 2, 2006 Name: Address: Phone: 226 _O My FIRST choice of the three plans is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million ❑ B 490 units + $11 million C 0 units + $0 If I don't get my first choice, my SECOND choice is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million ❑ B 490 units + $11 million C 0 units + $0 Comments: N E Al -7— E A 1Z N E "D I d (Y Nf LPzd�ffe� M Y Ne k.g080R- Z 111 , S LIME P20G2ESS� � rta�5 613/-E D12tV�_T� h C 17-1 Z.. liP p T fl Al 1 Z C- 7`N eM 7-9 FCA 7' P�5 V)AIK -M Crop JOT- Dry -w i MAKS SENS:; 11J T IS pICTop e • • MAPLEWOOD PUBLIC HEARING GLADSTONE ALTERNATIVE PLAN March 2, 2006 Name: Address: Phone: My FIRST choice of the three plans is: 800 units + $18 million ❑ B 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 If I don't get my first choice, my SECOND choice is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million 490 units + $11 million--0"�`ll`'�-� ❑ C 0 units + $0 Comments: r v f Name: AddreE Phone: 6 S/ — "� 7r2,1-- Z MAPLEWOOD PUBLIC HEARING GLADSTONE ALTERNATIVE PLAN March 2, 2006 My FIRST choice of the three plans is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million B 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 If I don't get my first choice, my SECOND choice is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million ❑ B 490 units + $11 million )(C 0 units + $0 Comments: 4 4 MAPLEWOOD PUBLIC HEARING GLADSTONE ALTERNATIVE PLAN March 2, 2006 Name: Address:��'Dy' M.an-c�- -u Phone: S — -7 �::Z - &1 lD My FIRST choice of the three plans is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million B / �490units �$l million �� ❑ C 0 units + $0 If I don't get my first choice, my SECOND choice is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million ❑ B 490 units + $11 million ❑ C � 0 units+ $0 Comments: MAPLEWOOD PUBLIC HEARING GLADSTONE ALTERNATIVE PLAN March 2, 2006 Name: Address: Phone: My FIRST choice of the three plans is: �(XA 800 units + $18 million ❑ B 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 If I don't get my first choice, my SECOND choice is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million �B 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 Comments: "ea evv "T - . rc4vlrl 4e,�d MAPLEWOOD PUBLIC HEARING GLADSTONE ALTERNATIVE PLAN 'March 2, 2006 Name: co -,Ot Address: Phone: b / i -7 �? UV 0 My FIRST choice of the three plans is: O<A 800 units + $18 million ❑ B 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 If I don't get my first choice, my SECOND choice is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million ❑ B 490 units + $11 million KC 0 units + $0 Comments: S �� CMG � ,� �' ���lt N� $D ! �°'✓�fv � r�"' v MAPLEWOOD PUBLIC HEARING GLADSTONE ALTERNATIVE PLAN March 2, 2006 Name: rdct> i2 cE /J & Z Led W �v Address: 10,4 Phone: My FIRST choice of the three plans is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million ❑ B 490 units + $11 million C 0 units + $0 If I don't get my first choice, my SECOND choice is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million A B 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 Comments: MAPLEWOOD PUBLIC HEARING GLADSTONE ALTERNATIVE PLAN March 2, 2006 Name: /.)/ 6aILrL 1T(,., Address: 1% 7 0 d caw A !2 J ST ' Phone: — 7-71—A767 My FIRST choice of the three plans is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million OB 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 If I don't get my first choice, my SECOND choice is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million ❑ B 490 units + $11 million ,20 0 units + $0 Comments: ,; El/ z:�^e MAPLEWOOD PUBLIC HEARING GLADSTONE ALTERNATIVE PLAN March 2, 2006 Name: S 0 &45— 0 Address Phone: My FIRST choice of the three plans is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million ❑ B 490 units + $11 million XC 0 units + $0 If I don't get my first choice, my SECOND choice is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million ❑ B 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 Comments: Name: Address Phone: MAPLEWOOD PUBLIC HEARING GLADSTONE ALTERNATIVE PLAN March 2, 2006 My FIRST choice of the three plans is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million ❑ B 490 units + $11 million 'AC 0 units + $0 If I don't get my first choice, my SECOND choice is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million ❑ B 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 Comments: Name: Address: Phone: _ MAPLEWOOD PUBLIC HEARING GLADSTONE ALTERNATIVE PLAN March 2, 2006 L— S r... My FIRST choice of the three plans is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million ❑ B 490 units + $11 million 0 units + $0 If I don't get my first choice, my SECOND choice is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million ❑ B 490 units + $11 million A, 0 units + $0 Comments: Name: Address: Phone: - MAPLEWOOD PUBLIC HEARING GLADSTONE ALTERNATIVE PLAN March 2, 2006 / ;/ 743 My FIRST choice of the three plans is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million ❑ B 490 units + $11 million z C 0 units + $0 If I don't get my first choice, my SECOND choice is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million XB 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 Comments: MAPLEWOOD PUBLIC HEARING GLADSTONE ALTERNATIVE PLAN March 2, 2006 E Name: Address: /-- Prone: l�2 My FIRST choice of the three plans is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million ❑ B 490 units + $11 million . �1 C 0 units + $0 If I don't get my first choice, my SECOND choice is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million ❑ B 490 units + $11 million V C 0 units + $0 Comments: Name: AddreE Phone MAPLEWOOD PUBLIC HEARING GLADSTONE ALTERNATIVE PLAN March 2, 2006 My FIRST choice of the three plans is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million ❑ B 490 units + $11 million A -C 0 units + $0 If I don't get my first choice, my SE_ choice is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million B 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 Comments: i Name: Addre: Rhone: GSl- IT) Co '?9-�I MAPLEWOOD PUBLIC HEARING GLADSTONE ALTERNATIVE PLAN March 2, 2006 My FIRST choice of the three plans is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million ,CB 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 If I don't get my first choice, my SECOND choice is: ,4!�A 800 units + $18 million ❑ B 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 Comments: Ste-- Ck ,A ag., '0,� � foo - �, E -1 . , ! ., . _ i _ vl ►. , rA _._.- S/i tTr 1 MAPLEWOOD PUBLIC HEARING GLADSTONE ALTERNATIVE PLAN March 2, 2006 Name: h �`eac- Address: Phone: My FIRST choice of the three plans is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million WB 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 If I don't get my first choice, my SECONQ choice is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million ❑ B 490 units + $11 million XC 0 units + $0 Comments: V e -f- bl.Jc,s T cV_a� S,- PS -4F /k,:' /-42-/, UG f/L'y e�a D U f:+L /i c mak G .1 cl'7Vjr,.h 4 �Zrz_I fw e.4, c m- , MAPLEWOOD PUBLIC HEARING GLADSTONE ALTERNATIVE PLAN March 2, 2006 . Name: Address: � `� C� �.L Prone: My FIRST choice of the three plans is: ❑ d 800 units + $18 million -'�XB 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 If I don't get my first choice, my SECOND choice is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million ❑ B 490 units + $11 million �C 0 units + $0 Comments: MAPLEWOOD PUBLIC HEARING GLADSTONE ALTERNATIVE PLAN March 2, 2006 D, Name: L Address: Phone: --1-2-k- My FIRST choice of the three plans is: 0 A 800 units + $18 million kB 490 units + $11 million 0 C 0 units + $0 If I don't get my first choice, my SECOND choice is: t<A 800 units + $18 million 0 B 490 units + $11 million 0 C 0 units + $0 Comments: 4t MAPLEWOOD PUBLIC HEARING GLADSTONE ALTERNATIVE PLAN March 2, 2006 Name' Address: 14 3'7 c aTk-- Phone: t 7"71 g39 My FIRST choice of the three plans is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million M B 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 If I don't get my first choice, my SECOND choice is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million ❑ B 490 units + $11 million Is C 0 units + $0 Comments: MAPLEWOOD PUBLIC HEARING GLADSTONE ALTERNATIVE PLAN March 2, 2006 �i��V- , c. a Name: y- � Address: to )Gy S l Phone: —_ 27�o My FIRST choice of the three plans is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million 11 B 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 If I don't get my first choice, my SECOND choice is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million ❑ B 490 units + $11 million 21 C 0 units + $0 Comments: ekr f `1� P ~� E'.p 1i�7 G�Y°l/�"� V �G.� �✓-P .. s /?,,'( Name: Addres Phone: `7 '? -, b tea t! S MAPLEWOOD PUBLIC HEARING GLADSTONE ALTERNATIVE PLAN March 2, 2006 My FIRST choice of the three plans is: KA 800 units + $18 million ❑ B 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 If I don't get my first choice, my SECOND choice is: �ZA 800 units + $18 million ❑ B 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 Comments: 1 Name: Addre: Phone: I l e' 0 l 4'� MAPLEWOOD PUBLIC HEARING GLADSTONE ALTERNATIVE PLAN March 2, 2006 My FIRST choice of the three plans is: P�A 800 units + $18 million ❑ B 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 If I don't get my first choice, my SECOND choice is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million ❑ B 490 units + $11 million Ea -"C 0 units + $0 Comments: C e� N MAPLEWOOD PUBLIC HEARING GLADSTONE ALTERNATIVE PLAN March 2, 2006 Name: Address: Phone: S'/ , �7 , My FIRST choice of the three plans is: El A 800 units + $18 million ❑ g�t� 490 units +x$11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 if I don't get my first choice, my SECOND choice is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million 19 B 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 Comments: 1 4 4 MAPLEWOOD PUBLIC HEARING GLADSTONE ALTERNATIVE PLAN March 2, 2006 Name: Address: Phone: VIA ke w v U f My FIRST choice of the three plans is: Z A 800 units + $18 million ❑ B 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 If I don't get my first choice, my SECOND choice is: 9A 800 units + $18 million ❑ B 490 units + $11 million El C 0 units + $0 Comments: Name: AddreE MAPLEWOOD PUBLIC HEARING GLADSTONE ALTERNATIVE PLAN March 2, 2006 r25 My FIRST choice of the three plans is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million XB490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 If I don't get my first choice, my SECOND choice is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million ❑ B 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 Comments: MAPLEWOOD•PUBLIC HEARING GLADSTONE ALTERNATIVE PLAN March 2, 2006 Name: V I V"P1 Address Phone: My FIRST choice of the three plans is: X A 800 units + $18 million ❑ B 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 If I don't get my first choice, my SECOND choice is: X A 800 units + $18 million ❑ B 490 units + $11 million 11, C 0 units + $0 Comments: r MAPLEWOOD PUBLIC HEARING GLADSTONE ALTERNATIVE PLAN March 2, 2006 Name: ���/��.� �.� k E,.�.. " , Address Prone: My FIRST choice of the three plans is: WA 800 units + $18 million ❑ B 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 If I don't get my first choice, my SECOND choice is: J&A 800 units + $18 million 0'13 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 Comments: 4 e a Name: Address; Phone: MAPLEWOOD PUBLIC HEARING GLADSTONE ALTERNATIVE PLAN March 2, 2006 My FIRST choice of the three plans is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million ® B 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 If I don't get my first choice, my SECOND choice is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million I B 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 Comments: 4 4 r- MAPLEWOOD PUBLIC HEARING GLADSTONE ALTERNATIVE PLAN March 2, 2006 Name: 514-0 �f C Address: / �r Si G_i %�R f T A)wz. TJf , odf,/£�.r<<f 77GSA Phone: (a S-1- 7 If --IP- . V My FIRST choice of the three plans is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million (Ei) 490 ,units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 If I don't get my first choice, my SECOND choice is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million ❑ B 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 Comments: MAPLEWOOD PUBLIC HEARING GLADSTONE ALTERNATIVE PLAN March 2, 2006 Name: C V7 k�� Address: It Z0 C-316 a -D Phone: s S CD 3 —Oyjo C1 My FIRST choice of the three plans is: (%0 800 units + $18 million ❑ B 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 If I don't get my first choice, my SECOND choice is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million ❑ B 490 units + $11 million r'1 '0 units + $0d�� Comments: I Uj 0 �.------------------- t 1 4 4 MAPLEWOOD PUBLIC HEARING GLADSTONE ALTERNATIVE PLAN March 2, 2006 Name:�Y' Address: Phone: 1A My FIRST choice of the three plans is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million A B 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 If I don't get my first choice, my SECOND choice is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million ❑ B 490 units + $11 million A C 0 units + $0 Comments: MAPLEWOOD PUBLIC HEARING GLADSTONE ALTERNATIVE PLAN March 2, 2006 Name: 0dq C _ t - Address: Phone: My FIRST choice of the three plans is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million �<113 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 If I don't get my first choice, my SECOND choice is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million ✓XIB 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 Comments: 4 4 4 MAPLEWOOD PUBLIC HEARING GLADSTONE ALTERNATIVE PLAN March 2, 2006 Name: �� OVJU Address: -t K Phone: -7-72 21i6.: My FIRST choice of the three plans is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million R B 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 If I don't get my first choice, my SECOND choice is: 91 A 800 units + $18 million ❑ B 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 Comments: I A r5 uic- Kk Z,5 I vj euoO roeAfi e A o Kofi Wq e i - nrecec auk b- t�� aV- ea Z G n e- r- �� b u a v ►� 0 oo aveh- (h tA vtA 5 I Vt a r e. q, l a ok ko e -J i0 v- (� or w rt0 a df�c. w a V"T n u v4 C 07-� I o U) Ce. ilt 04v avt e MAPLEWOOD PUBLIC HEARING GLADSTONE ALTERNATIVE PLAN March 2, 2006 Name: �'O f,��(j ¢ ,4fa NG,,Y`' L / Y Address: -5-77 Prone: .6-j) r My FIRST choice of the three plans is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million iii B 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 If I don't get my first choice, my SECOND choice is: 0 A 800 units + $18 million ❑ B 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 Comments: A J 3ry' .Ave r L MAPLEWOOD PUBLIC HEARING GLADSTONE ALTERNATIVE PLAN March 2, 2006 Name: Address: :1(Z(VI 1 Vl viii S� Phone: My FIRST choice of the three plans is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million W B 490 units + $11 million , t"L"It5 Dss{61p) U ❑ C 0 units + $0 If I don't get my first choice, my SECOND choice is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million ❑ B 490 units + $11 million C 0 units + $0 Comments: a f U 1 O b��FG@S MAL, 7 9 �t •Dll 01Y- 1��1��LNsI•am G+.vt a �� f �D�D� � �1n�- h�Cl.l �,i2�r �n,t�.� U��- 1�� -f'1��D�cr � , Jd m a pr av t m IJJP� t Gt a 4tkard II i 4- i MAPLEWOOD PUBLIC HEARING GLADSTONE ALTERNATIVE PLAN March 2, 2006 r` - Name: O t -t r, - Address: i) -1 13 F- . L R 11 R Phone: C 251 ' D 3 - \• "t Z Z / 6.5 1 - 33 `_ .38 My FIRST choice of the three plans is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million x 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 If I don't get my first choice, my SECOND choice is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million ❑ B 490 units + $11 million .0 0 units + $0 Comments: E ''ie- S 5 C\ E �' ec p Irv-, S'n, U a ti Al J-\ 1J�kt i��e� �� C. b �, l� dam. �< e ,� s ►-, ,�, .� pass 1 13L c, U/ (f Gr n e -PC) r� �S CJ y eu %^ S .. � � ►� � � t3 � fZ ?-� e V F E FOR o F ! T l-4 0 V PC/, b f , i 4 i MAPLEWOOD PUBLIC HEARING GLADSTONE ALTERNATIVE PLAN March 2, 2006 Name: Address: ' Phone: Y My FIRST choice of the three plans is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million ❑ B 490 units + $11 million )(C 0 units + $0 If I don't get my first choice, my SECOND choice is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million ❑ B 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 Comments: MAPLEWOOD PUBLIC HEARING GLADSTONE ALTERNATIVE PLAN March 2, 2006 Name: .._..�.) a.�Q_e._ ��ti�.�Q,� Address: A-L,� Phone: 0" I My FIRST choice of the three plans is: ,WA 800 units + $18 million ❑ B 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 If I don't get my first choice, my SECOND choice is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million 490 -units + $11 million 0 units + Comments: r 4 4 MAPLEWOOD PUBLIC HEARING GLADSTONE ALTERNATIVE PLAN March 2, 2006 Name: Address: Phone: G' My FIRST choice of the three plans is: XA 800 units + $18 million ❑ B 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 If 1 don't get my first choice, my SECOND choice is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million ❑ B 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 Comments: AK zmw D MAPLEWOOD PUBLIC HEARING GLADSTONE ALTERNATIVE PLAN March 2, 2006 F Name: Address: Phone: My FIRST choice of the three plans is: �5-A 800 units + $18 million ❑ B 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 If 1 don't get my first choice, my SECOND choice is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million ❑ B 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 r ' / f / Val �� r 1 i R4wl, �I F A / / // / I /,/ MAPLEWOOD PUBLIC HEARING GLADSTONE ALTERNATIVE PLAN March 2, 2006 Name: Address: Phone: My FIRST choice of the three plans is: 0 A 800 units + $18 million 10 B 490 units + $11 million 0 C 0 units + $0 If I don't get my first choice, my SECOND choice is 0 A 800 units + $18 million 0 B 490 units + $11 million 19 C 0 units + $0 Comments: Y'lel be- 7�,- IYJ 4AC nem04 21 d0w4f'rtblp i�2 MaA�f 17'- 42!;iY10k tt-,' 40�'e v -. VMS, rhe fe a I-V.Azv S- ib, 97'L- d-IL2 -i-here lr5Q jUS,7t IM /I I OCA 02z!Ivf'ptiv �'j //7" 17k- rxe-) e? feet 1 4 ee.,,)),- //a e e,-)') bn"e I I. )'011? MAPLEWOOD PUBLIC HEARING GLADSTONE ALTERNATIVE PLAN March 2, 2006 Name:_ JOHM E J k2 SofJ - Address: 1 l q L4 R 1 P t. E `f Aid Phone: (y51- 221- l 0150 My FIRST choice of the three plans is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million ❑ B 490 units + $11 million '2,C 0 units + $0 If I don't get my first choice, my SECOND choice is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million 0�13 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 Comments: i'y E L w co ) N G t.A 0 sr oiVE r p k '570 Y676,21 6 /F`5 E 5 5E8v 7-1'q " Y S � m E A NO N Gz�-o pe2 5v�►" LEfY �artldV/n�f- ,q Ivo G+/gcJz-,I !��'E�E S PL/�n� +`l�' S J �L. �� rim TGJd it �/ LS WL-'' ���] � t/� %� /�% ��✓G`�%�`�^P. ,El„S � /��F �5 r.✓�'�; � !� �nfG7� ��� 7� f� �'���"�'FN��rv► t� fd fir! �S' I/ / J� /J D sh 4 ret: I/P MAPLEWOOD PUBLIC HEARING GLADSTONE ALTERNATIVE PLAN March 2, 2006 Name: XAddress: z Prone: M FIRST choice of the three plans is: 7A 800 units + $18 million ❑ B 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 If I don't get my first choice, my SECOND choice is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million KB 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 Comments: a C'u"Id �r nrA rd SAA 1 ( ftL h ro Inc livo I� �•uv��s Name: Addre: Phone: MAPLEWOOD PUBLIC HEARING GLADSTONE ALTERNATIVE PLAN March 2, 2006 My FIRST choice of the three plans is: )(A 800 units + $18 million ❑ B 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 If I don't get my first choice, my SECOND choice is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million 0`�B 490 units + $11 million ( '' ❑ C 0 units + $0 Comments: 14 i Name: Addre� MAPLEWOOD PUBLIC HEARING GLADSTONE ALTERNATIVE PLAN March 2, 2006 Phone: ����`c'✓ ' ��,"/ — My FIRST choice of the three plans is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million ❑ B 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 If I don't get my first choice, my SECOND choice is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million ❑ B 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 Comments: Name: _ Address: Phone: _ MAPLEWOOD PUBLIC HEARING GLADSTONE ALTERNATIVE PLAN March 2, 2006 My FIRST choice of the three plans is: 12(A 800 units + $18 million ❑ B 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 If I don't get my first choice, my SECOND choice is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million �dB 490 units + $11 million '❑ C 0 units + $0 Comments: /l/rt roo rpt ,` jot]`���lC� 13�ss��ss Ov�� r� 3 `LPm itio�f� �-G o0 y- V", Plo! �ti< Noy w,�o a r h G 4— �r roor�t Gl Ski o P a le- © ✓d MAPLEWOOD PUBLIC HEARING GLADSTONE ALTERNATIVE PLAN March 2, 2006 f Name: Address: Phone: My FIRST choice of the three plans is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million 9 B 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 If I don't get my first choice, my SECOND choice is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million ❑ B 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 Comments: MAPLEWOOD PUBLIC HEARING GLADSTONE ALTERNATIVE PLAN March 2, 2006 Name: ✓�-'^ "`, Address: ��-1 L P+..: Phone: 6 My FIRST choice of the three plans is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 If I don't get my first choice, my SECOND choice is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million ❑ B 490 units + $11 million �;KC 0 units + $0 Comments: V71 MAPLEWOOD PUBLIC.HEARING GLADSTONE ALTERNATIVE PLAN March 2, 2006 Name: _ �F����...-- rC Address: 17,34 GUiPU Phone: My FIRST choice of the three plans is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million AB- 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 If I don't get my first choice, my SECOND choice is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million ❑ B 490 units + $11 million K,C 0 units + $0 Comments: k/ 4'j a! C t/ A)o �' Name: Addres Phone; MAPLEWOOD PUBLIC HEARING GLADSTONE ALTERNATIVE PLAN March 2, 2006 My FIRST choice of the three plans is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million ❑ B 490 units + $11 million JKC 0 units + $0 If I don't get my first choice, my SECOND choice is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million ❑ B 490 units + $11 million C 0 units + $0 MAPLEWOOD PUBLIC HEARING GLADSTONE ALTERNATIVE PLAN March 2, 2006 Name: C 1AW1151 / /'- /V 9, "'- t:7 -=- Address: 'K 77- Phone: Com/- 777 --fes/ - My FIRST choice of the three plans is: My 0 A 800 units + $18 million If B 490 units + $11 million 0 C 0 units + $0 If I don't get my first choice, my SECOND choice is: IR A 800 units + $18 million 0 B 490 units + $11 million 0 C 0 units + $0 Comments: C '-/ 4!- df Az ­ z Name: Addrw Phone My FII 1A ❑ B 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 MAPLEWOOD PUBLIC HEARING GLADSTONE ALTERNATIVE PLAN March 2, 2006 (// / 'C,0 -7r v % If I don't get my first choice, my SECOND choice is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million ❑ B 490 units + $11 million C 0 units + $0 - Comments: �, � A� , T �kR O�G�o4'�T/h 1 /'ham j� -b ?�r) ��j MAPLEWOOD PUBLIC HEARING GLADSTONE ALTERNATIVE PLAN March 2, 2006 Name: Address. Phone: My FIRST choice of the three plans is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million ❑ B 490 units + $11 million C 0 units + $0 If I don't get my first choice, my SECOND choice is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million q B 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 Comments: 1 lzlelAz, ;7 O n � C s MAPLEWOOD PUBLIC HEARING GLADSTONE ALTERNATIVE PLAN March 2, 2006 Name: GN Address: Z �� "7 c,� . x , i C - Phone: Z -7 6 / C My FIRIST choice of the three plans is: [�-800 units + $18 million ❑ B 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 If I don't get my first choice, my SECOND choice is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million ❑ B 0 units + $11 million 0 units + $0 Comments: MAPLEWOOD PUBLIC HEARING GLADSTONE ALTERNATIVE PLAN March 2, 2006 Name: J£F-re—fX /�t4A�/ -- 4t4& 9— Address: C -!-AR EAICA "57- - Phone: !n 5"/ 7 cwt 7- My FIRST choice of the three plans is: dA 800 units + $18 million ❑ B 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 If I don't get my first choice, my SECOND choice is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million ❑ B 490 units + $11 million SKC 0 units + $0 Comments: ;\-n-�C-e.- aVg gas 0 V-1" oe--104-w coo ��` r e t� 10Ax/ MAPLEWOOD PUBLIC HEARING GLADSTONE ALTERNATIVE PLAN March 2, 2006 Name: � j �j b k 6 Lr�0 f,,3 Address: -r (,14� Phone: ► ► t l �1p'�.- 0 My FIRST choice of the three plans is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million ❑ B 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 If I don't get my first choice, my SECOND choice is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million ❑ B 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 Comments: T� :�7A D J-9 64� c -.>ack L CPr6YvN 6Z4,L M/ MAPLEWOOD PUBLIC HEARING GLADSTONE ALTERNATIVE PLAN March 2, 2006 Name: Address: // lUbT�l L -b Phone: tL �i — -7D 1 %4 it'S My FIRST choice of the three plans is: 0 800 units + $18 million S0 ❑ B 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 If I don't get my first choice, my SECOND choice is: ❑ A 800 units $18 million . ❑ B 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 Comments: MAPLEWOOD PUBLIC HEARING GLADSTONE ALTERNATIVE PLAN March 2, 2006 Name: pL v O cacti C. l� Address: f //7 X CCD [-62a r- cl - Phone: 5f�`�oZ My FIRST choice of the three plans is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million X B 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 If I don't get my first choice, my SECOND choice is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million ❑ B 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 0 Sao r Comments: c , a /i//iY /kV -e liv.�rlvrcik Y0 9V - e � J/ S S d'� ,e r( Sd boll Cc` Q ��� 5 XT (: 5? 4 4/' Lo 71 2 / G G 5 v G o�c iso e e Cie e'rrss�n G cn �nc-- 737 DCG Q / r aT A, o� /� -EG S d �l 45/P MAPLEWOOD PUBLIC HEARING GLADSTONE ALTERNATIVE PLAN March 2, 2006 Name: Address: Phone: `Mry FIRST choice of the three plans is: jx A 800 units + $18 million `❑\ B 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 If I don't get my first choice, my SECOND choice is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million XB490 units + $11 million ❑ 0 units + $0 Name: Addrw Phone MAPLEWOOD PUBLIC HEARING GLADSTONE ALTERNATIVE PLAN March 2, 2006 My FIRST choice of the three plans is: XA 800 units + $18 million ❑ B 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 If I don't get my first choice, my SECOND choice is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million B 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 Comments: es�oP��oN s r�� MAPLEWOOD PUBLIC HEARING GLADSTONE ALTERNATIVE PLAN March 2, 2006 Name: cPet e Address: ki Cg Phone:` f My FIRST choice of the three plans is: T ` - 800 units + $18 million ❑ B 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 If I don't get my first choice, my SECOND choice is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million KB 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 Comments: 1• Cwt �� ��.� ���.�- � 1 R � 1 G� (� E S Yk,P 4tA r�C 3 t P, Ail MAPLEWOOD PUBLIC HEARING GLADSTONE ALTERNATIVE PLAN March 2, 2006 Name: J, I a n. 13 Y Address: Idyl L U4. -Aug Phone: r! 651) Til- 3371'1 My FIRST choice of the three plans is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million E� B 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 If I don't get my first choice, my SECOND choice is ❑ A 800 units + $18 million ❑ B 490 units + $11 million 0 units + $0 ✓�����/� > Comments: ),a*11,-, A 14 6L c Z 12 11"o Name: Address: Phone: _ MAPLEWOOD PUBLIC HEARING GLADSTONE ALTERNATIVE PLAN March 2, 2006 u^. V k My FIRST choice of the three plans is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million B 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 If I don't get my first choice, my SECOND choice is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million XB 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 Comments: s i 4 r MAPLEWOOD PUBLIC HEARING GLADSTONE ALTERNATIVE PLAN March 2, 2006 Name: Address: �� _ �,�L Phone:— -7-),:7/ e % --.W- My FIRST choice of the three plans is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million ❑ B 490 units + $11 million 0 units + $0 If I don't get my first choice, my SECOND choice is: ❑ AA 00 units + $18 million L5�'B 490 units +11 million n ❑ C 0 units + $0 Comments: MAPLEWOOD PUBLIC HEARING GLADSTONE ALTERNATIVE PLAN March 2, 2006 Name: I-loecy S Ol� Address: Phone: 777-7,6-15 My FIRST choice of the three plans is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million ❑ B 490 units + $11 million ,�<C 0 units + $0 If I don't get my first choice, my SECOND choice is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million 490 units + $11 million .,)<B ❑ C 0 units + $0 Comments: 4 4 MAPLEWOOD PUBLIC HEARING GLADSTONE ALTERNATIVE PLAN March 2, 2006 Name: r) C®V\ Address: 1R,91 Ckr c, oc c°. Z Phone: My FIRST choice of the three plans is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million ❑ B 490 units + $11 million P C 0 units + $0 If I don't get my first choice, my SECOND choice is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million X B 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 Comments: I B (AX n ©- - Q l I T e- w enec �S' 0-r)t �a Y'(".� M f T �1 c" Iyc, na - t4 r n ac -A Y .40 a u e. Cz- c-V d e - h d T � P g tr�) 7Le MAPLEWOOD PUBLIC HEARING GLADSTONE ALTERNATIVE PLAN March 2, 2006 Name: �)Izcl * Address: % / & -- L/�Qt�� C Phone: �I s l ' �/z 77 - My My FIRST choice of the three plans is: 74- 800 units + $18 million ❑ B 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 If I don't get my first choice, my SECOND choice is: 800 units + $18 million ❑ B 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 Comments: MAPLEWOOD PUBLIC HEARING GLADSTONE ALTERNATIVE PLAN March 2, 2006 Name:Qr rCf,16 k�/�it� Address: 014 rk,0: r- AE Phone: 6-Tt- "2-2Z- g123 My FIRST choice of the three plans is: ] A 800 units + $18 million B 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 If I don't get my first choice, my SECOND choice is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million -�5 B 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 Comments: ST2`T('AiC ti a. r3�F��BVF �.s- -7-l �C�3t �,>� ��� ©�I ���646 a r PO i >Z)JAA1 FROG- At1& j ,qs til& L4- A-, G 04 's7 kS4i s� A 4ZA i t 0 kk-5 Name: Addre: Phone: � 5—1 ;74, MAPLEWOOD PUBLIC HEARING GLADSTONE ALTERNATIVE PLAN March 2, 2006 My FIRST choice of the three plans is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million ❑ B 490 units + $11 million C 0 units + $0 If 1 don't get my first choice, my SECOND choice is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million ❑ B 490 units + $11 million RC 0 units + $0 Comments: :5' ase t r MAPLEWOOD PUBLIC HEARING GLADSTONE ALTERNATIVE PLAN March 2, 2006 Name: Y 7'� 11Yv or - Address: o` Prone: 7%Z:2 — My FIRST choice of the three plans is: 800 units + $18 million ❑ B 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 If I don't get my first choice, my SECOND choice is: A 800 units + $18 million ❑ B 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 Comments: �9 Name: Addre! Phone MAPLEWOOD PUBLIC HEARING GLADSTONE ALTERNATIVE PLAN March 2, 2006 My FIRST choice of the three plans is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million A B 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 If I don't get my first choice, my SECOND choice is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million ❑ B 490 units + $11 million )(C 0 units +$0 Comments: s rra 11 S/ e`�f' re e�o `s �6 e4 � / de,,ilv, A C�%Sion S' t�f��1 hQ �►rl�tc �f GJ 0 SC bd� i` d GGt cr csy Jp LOL/1�" l ccY h l �C4 . 1 r S-av ar�l1 .yam p 4r1111-,.).1i^"T 111)v •^/., N M r •� �� 1 1 I L 4 MAPLEWOOD PUBLIC HEARING GLADSTONE ALTERNATIVE PLAN March 2, 2006 Name: ALKo �C' L) ( c Address: %.» (r ccr) z Phone: 2 " My FIRST choice of the three plans is: 800 units + $18 million ❑ B 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 If I don't get my first choice, my SECOND choice is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million ❑ B 490 units + $11 million , 0 units + $0 Comments: a,(- 6a eto�� MAPLEWOOD PUBLIC HEARING GLADSTONE ALTERNATIVE PLAN March 2, 2006 Name: Address: ( %�?✓L L Phone:l My FIRST choice of the three plans is: A 800 units + $18 million ❑ B 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 If I don't get my first choice, my SECOND choice is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million ❑ B 490 units + $11 million C 0 units + $0 Comments: MAPLEWOOD PUBLIC HEARING GLADSTONE ALTERNATIVE PLAN March 2, 2006 Name: Address: I1 9! FfkI EN C AL -#c M/%I Phone: My FIRST choice of the three plans is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million XB 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 If I don't get my first choice, my SECOND choice is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million ❑ B 490 units + $11 million v 0 units + $0 Comments: I L�kZ ALAN B. li / S �4 qO b 4L,�,wce' D A P00,4cj4 MAPLEWOOD PUBLIC HEARING GLADSTONE ALTERNATIVE PLAN March 2, 2006 Name: Address:% Phone:�a My FIRST choice of the three plans is: V ❑ A 800 units + $18 million Q ❑ B 490 units + $11 million CJ 7 ❑ C 0 units + $0 011w,",/ I E If I don't get my first choice, my SECOND choice is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million ❑ B 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 jlp rj� �I`5 Comments: 21477? FEA Name: AddreE Phone; MAPLEWOOD PUBLIC HEARING GLADSTONE ALTERNATIVE PLAN My FIRST choice of the three plans is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million ❑ B 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 e�9 i If I don't get my first choice, my SECOND choice is: ❑ A 800 units+ $18 million t ❑ B 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 Comments: N 22M) V A -7 0 1' a M 4 4 r MAPLEWOOD PUBLIC HEARING GLADSTONE ALTERNATIVE PLAN March 2, 2006 Name: T O h n --5 Cn Address: g 3 5 f Rhone: %1(,o- a Z -f My FIRST choice of the three plans is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million 9 B 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units+ $0 If I don't get my first choice, my SECOND choice is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million ❑ B 490 units + $11 million 5� C 0 units + $0 Comments: ,� li faj °* r t� Grt G t c'r «"E'tE d f� rf 'w. �, .6 ! .' , ./ og' 4.C4 -,e c "' : z•'.�.i" ( t^ar. <.`e� ,moi C �E �w yfuc ,¢...P`#`" Y a s s ;.f _.. L of t 1 l ; ..6F,'. •$• E�..: F j`:d,,.. L+ ✓l 4 .-. hFr:.'a' .. dh �' „✓.'', .;'...,r ,.' xC..� • i.yr" a �' +.:.•- ..,;s*s` ..�".. n .g.� 'n`.Gc'' o'4� 1n; ., . .4h i Et j1 i MAPLEWOOD PUBLIC HEARING GLADSTONE ALTERNATIVE PLAN March 2, 2006 Name: --.-_..-�- Address: Phone: My FIRST choice of the three plans is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million ❑ B 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 If I don't get my first choice, my SECOND choice is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million ❑ B 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 Comments: J / i Name: Addre: Phone: 7 17,2. - '1��T Z,' MAPLEWOOD PUBLIC HEARING GLADSTONE ALTERNATIVE PLAN March 2, 2006 My FIRST choice of the three plans is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 If I don't get my first choice, my SECOND choice is: ❑ A 800 units + $18 million ❑ B 490 units + $11 million ❑ C 0 units + $0 Comments: L, TO: Parks and Recreation FROM: Bruce Anderson, Parks an DATE: March 16, 2006 for the March k"rks4and Recreation Commission Meeting SUBJECT: Annual Report Staff will be providing a draft copy of the 2005 annual report on Friday, March 17. It will be mailed under separate cover. This item has been placed on the agenda for discussion on Monday, March 20. kph\06memo.annual report.comm 0 March 16, 2006 0 Dear Mayor and Councilmembers: In compliance with Article II, Section 21.20 of the Maplewood city ordinance, the Maplewood Parks and Recreation Commission hereby submits its 2005 annual report and 2006 activity plan. We reviewed the accomplishments of the past year and discussed the various programs and activities we wish to pursue in the coming year. Our continuing goal is promoting our city parks, open space, community center, and maintaining a quality park system geared to the continually changing demographics of our community. We recognize that this will be a continuing challenge from a budgetary perspective. The financing of our city park system's operating budget and capital improvement project remains our number one priority. We would like to take this opportunity to thank the city council for increasing the P.A.C. fees for 2006. We welcome and encourage continued communication between the city council and commission to identify permanent long-range funding sources for this critical community service. We appreciate your past support and anticipate continued interaction between the city council and commission during 2006. With the advent of a new mayor, two new councilmembers and three new commissioners, the need to establish a joint planning/goal setting session is more critical than ever. On behalf of the parks and recreation commission, I'd like to invite the mayor and council to attend a spring park tour as well at your convenience and look forward to hearing from you regarding a potential date. 2005 was a year of growth not only from a capital improvement perspective, but a management • perspective as well. Park development improvements for 2005 included construction of Sterling Oaks Park, Applewood Park, and the Priory open space. In addition, continued improvements were made at Legacy Village sculpture park and the Afton Heights Park redevelopment process was completed. Projects scheduled for 2006 include the completion of the Highline Trail from Walter Street to Century Avenue and installation of new playground equipment at Sterling Oaks, Applewood and Maplewood Heights Parks. Additionally we will be working to make capital improvements to the Maplewood Community Center including expansion of the exercise area, childcare area, and physical improvements to the pool and gymnasium area. Should you have any questions regarding the enclosed report or the parks and recreation commission's priorities, please contact me at 651-770-4984. Respectfully submitted, Peter M. Fischer, Chairperson Craig Brannon, Vice Chair Donald Christianson, Secretary Rick Brandon, Commissioner Audrey Duellman, Commissioner Peter Frank, Commissioner Carolyn Peterson, Commissioner Tom Geskermann, Commissioner Daniel Enga, Commissioner (resigned 10-1-05) kph\05 letter.annual report.comm PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT 651-249-2101 FAX: 651-249-2129 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST MAPLEWOOD, MN 55109 MAPLEWOOD PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2005 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD The mission of the Maplewood Parks and Recreation Department is: To provide a community environment for all citizens to participate in and enjoy cultural and recreational activities on an equitable basis. The Maplewood Parks and Recreation Department continued to work toward meeting its mission statement in 2005. The number one challenge for the parks and recreation department and the city remains development of a permanent funding source for parks. The Maplewood City Council increased the P.A.C. fees to $900 in February 2006. This is a significant policy improvement for our department, but the issue remains that the city is 95 -plus percent developed, which means that the lack of a permanent funding source (particularly levied tax dollars) for capital improvements remains a significant issue. The 2005 annual report is broken down into six sections for your review and consideration. 1. Maplewood Parks and Recreation Commission The major accomplishment for 2005 was the coordination of the Gladstone redevelopment process. The Parks and Recreation Commission took a bold stance to request that the planning process consider development within the Gladstone Savanna. The commission has prided itself for years in thinking "out of the box" and looking at planning as an opportunity to develop long- term solutions for tomorrow's urban planning challenges. The proposed concept of development on the Gladstone Savanna was always predicated on a no . net loss of park land and that in effect the park acreage may have been greater if the commission's ideal master plan were to have been created. The final position statement by the Parks and Recreation Commission regarding development on the open space reads as follows: The Parks and Recreation Commission and Open Space Task Force does NOT support development on the savanna based on the current master plan configuration. The Parks and Recreation Commission and Open Space Task Force pursued the development of open space based on the concept of an eco -village theme and that there would be a positive ecological gain by having flexibility over the open space boundaries. The Parks and Recreation Commission and Open Space Task Force felt strongly that the Gladstone master plan would have benefited from wider green corridors between buildings, significant green connections to the state trails and increased native plantings and interpretation along the sidewalks. Unfortunately, the master plan concept does not go far enough in developing these ecological connections to justify developing on the savanna. The plan as proposed would be stronger ecologically with no development on the savanna. The commission focused the vast majority of our time on the Gladstone redevelopment planning processing in 2005. The commission is pleased to also have been involved in coordinating a number of major park improvement projects, as well as hosting a series of neighborhood park planning meetings and community surveys. 2. MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY CENTER In 2005, the community center started the Blue Cross Blue Shield Blueprint for Health Fitness discount program. Currently we have over 400 members enrolled in this program and receive over $5,000 a month in reimbursements for memberships. We added the UCARE fitness discount 0 program in February. We had five members enrolled in this program before we even started advertising it. It's a great start to a new program. We are hoping to start the Medica • reimbursement program by April 2006. We doubled the number of group fitness classes in 2005 from 42 to 84 classes a week. We have a wide variety of classes from Spinning, Yoga, and Water to Cardio Dance. In 2005 we had over 36,000 participants in our classes. Along with the busy group fitness classes, child care has been extremely busy. We have had over 8,400 children use our childcare facility in 2005. It has been a very busy year at the community center. The large number of users and the age of the facility really wear on the facility. The community center will be facing some of its largest maintenance projects in 2006 including painting and repairs to pool ceiling and support beams, reconstruction of pool slide steps, and determining a long-term solution and repair of the gym floor. 3. RECREATION DIVISION The Recreation Division was very active in 2005 offering new programs and increasing program participation numbers. Summer Kick Off, held at the MCC, was extremely successful. This event is the official start to the summer for recreation. Youth preschool gymboree was a total success in 2005. On average, there were 20 to 25 families that attended each session. The summer day camp program was bigger and better than ever. We averaged 45 to 50 participants per week for 12 weeks. The participants took on the extra task to plant a garden and remove buckthorn from the MCC. Our adult Lunch Bunch program is new and very exciting. We toured and dined at many eateries in and around St. Paul. This program is always full and maintains a waiting list. We offered three teen adventure activities— canoe trip, bike tour and rock climbing. All were successful and we plan to increase offerings to teens throughout the 2006 calendar year. Youth leagues were strong in 2005. We had 150 youth basketball teams, 60 senior high basketball teams, and issued over 4,000 basketball permits. At the conclusion of the youth t -ball season a jamboree and barbecue was held. Carver and Edgerton Community Gyms continue to grow in use. Program offering and outside community rentals have increased dramatically in 2005. 4. MARKETING The marketing division was very successful in 2005. There were four Parks and Recreation Brochures produced, twelve City News, four MCC member newsletters, 24 email blasts, MCC banquet room and theater promotions, several promotions for the MCC and working closely with the National Night Out event to ensure success. One of the highlights in 2005 was the Twelve Days of Fitness promotion offered in December at the MCC. Over 3,500 participated in this event. 5. NATURE CENTER AND PRESERVES • a. Promote and market nature • Vadnais Heights Festival • Lions Club presentation • Monarch Garden Party/fundraiser 2 • Coordinated Earth Day with environmental committee • Rainwater garden presentations to national conferences • • 3M Science Fair • Updates on websites • Several photos and articles in Lillie newspaper • New sign on Century Avenue installed • Importance of open space illuminated at Gladstone redevelopment meetings • Halloween event • 245 programs total (includes all groups) • Deer hunt • City Hall buckthorn removal and planting • Hillside buckthorn removal • Fourteen homeowners removed buckthorn and paid co -pay for removal • Two townhome associations removed buckthorn • Erosion control with development projects - Summerhill project - Angie Cronk • Bluebird monitoring program started b. Create Gladstone Savannah restoration plan in conjunction with redevelopment project • Gladstone Task force—many meetings attended • Concept plan for open space - Lots of publicity - Generated newspaper articles • Maplewood citizens VALUED open space is c. Develop a landscape plan for the nature center campus to include newly purchased property, bike trail connection to Brand, and picnic shelter/garage • RFP developed and sent to landscapers, concept plan created • Purchase of land investigated • Worked with engineers hired to assess site wetland issues with neighbors d. Increase adult landowner contact hours • 3M brown bag seminars • Fall deer program for city council member Will Rossbach's citizen group • Winter botany class e. Become the educational "arm" of Maplewood's environmental committee • Helped low input lawn care program • Coordinated new Earth Day program with environmental committee • Attended all committee meetings f. Work with city staff to implement the signage, native plant design, and restoration of the city campus • Planning with environmental coordinator • Interpretive rain garden and butterfly garden signs installed on several city sites g. Other accomplishments • • Volunteer hours • Watershed watchers and rain gardens planted • Priory bridges installed 3 • Coordinated budget changes • Buckthorn removal • . Weed wrench check out • Landscape seminars • Water Quiz board • Buckthorn seminars Began research on Friends group • Kohlman Creek stream restoration -worked with Watershed • Applewood Park & plan and seven -acre outlot (32 acres total) • Eagle Scout installed stairs to nature center rain garden Wetland Walkabouts — three programs done with RWMWD • Rain gardens -national conference tours at two other sites 19,000 visitors 6. PARK MAINTENANCE The park maintenance division had an extremely successful year in 2005. The park maintenance division is responsible for maintaining over 600 acres of park land and open space. Some specific projects that were undertaken by the park maintenance division in 2005 included: a. Resurfacing the basketball and tennis courts at Maplewood Heights and Western Hills Parks b. Replacing the concrete retaining wall at the front entrance of the Maplewood Community Center c. Installing new park signage at the newly redeveloped Afton Heights Park d. Completed the initial installation for the floating aeration fountain at Legacy Village isculpture park e. Fix, repaired and repainted seven park tennis bang boards sets f. The Four Seasons park building was repainted, both on the interior and exterior, new windows were installed, as well as a new furnace and new flooring. One of the major undertakings of the park maintenance division is graffiti elimination and reduction. The park maintenance division has a policy to remove all graffiti reported within a 24-hour time period. Respectfully submitted, Peter M. Fischer, Chairperson Parks and Recreation Commission kh\05.annual report.comm 0 2 MAPLEWOOD PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION 2006 GOALS AND PRIORITIES • 1. Coordinate and supervise one citywide park tour for city policymakers including the city council, planning commission, senior staff and interested residents. The tour would include new construction as well as review proposed and upcoming projects. 2. Schedule a meeting with the city council to discuss long-term priorities, particularly focusing on the issue of funding and determining council priorities. 3. Work in close cooperation with city staff to implement the 2006 park capital improvement projects including: a. Installation of a new tot lot facility at Maplewood Heights Park to be completed by June 1. b. Complete the design and installation of two new tot lots at Applewood Park to be completed by September 1. c. Complete the design and installation of new tot lot equipment at Sterling Oaks Park to be completed by September 1. d. Complete the trail corridor from Walter Street to Labore Road for the Highline Trail to connect Sunset Ridge Park to Little Canada to the west to be completed by October 1. e. Complete the final restoration issues at Afton Heights Park to be completed by June 1. f. Complete the modifications to the ball fields at Afton Heights and Edgerton Parks as requested by the Maplewood Athletic Association to accommodate 75 -foot base paths. g. Complete the turf re-establishment program at Hazelwood and Harvest Parks including irrigation and over -seeding. h. Work with city staff to design and formulate a process to implement the Ramsey County soccer grant (if funded) for the blending of astro turf and natural turf. 4. Continue an ongoing orientation program for the commission and particularly the new commissioners, to include staff training, tours and increased background information regarding parks and recreation. 5. Work with city staff to "brainstorm" new concepts and/or ideas for recreation programs not only related to health and fitness, but also for the 55 -plus age group, teens and expanded walking programs. kh\06 goals priorities.annual report.comm MEMO • TO: Parks and Recreation Comm FROM: Bruce Anderson, Parks and F DATE: March 16, 2006 for the March 20 SUBJECT: Ramsey County Soccer Grant INTRODUCTION Commission Meeting The parks and recreation department has received two $100,000 grants from Ramsey County for enhancements and improvements to Maplewood soccer fields. The first grant received was to light four fields at Hazelwood Park. The second grant was to construct two new soccer fields at Afton Heights Park. Enclosed is a grant submittal to Ramsey County Soccer Partners Program for a third and final grant. Ramsey County is in the process of closing out this program and I have submitted a grant proposal to utilize astro turf on the heavy use portions of the soccer fields, which would include the four corner, center area and two goal areas. BACKGROUND Ramsey County has allocated $1 million for soccer field improvements, construction and enhancements for 2006. As I indicated, I have submitted and received two prior grants from Ramsey County Soccer • Partners Program for lighting and construction of two new fields. Enclosed is our third submittal, which will be reviewed in the next two weeks by the Ramsey County technical advisory board of which I am a member. The grant proposes to utilize a combination of astro turf and natural turf to resolve the longstanding maintenance issue of establishing turf in high use areas that include the four corners, center area and two goal areas. I have spent a fair amount of research and time on this concept in the past two years. To date no one has come up with a good design to meld the natural turf in with artificial turf. I worked with four suppliers last year and believe we are getting closer to a permanent solution that would include use of a combination of astro turf and natural turf. The key is to "feather' the two areas with the antro turf "melting" into the natural turf around the high use areas. My experience has been by creating a hard edge, we end up with a border if you will and potential tripping place. The grant would propose to document our process and provide our results to Ramsey County. This has been an issue in the area of soccer for years and one which I think will benefit not only Maplewood, but the greater soccer community. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the commission provide input and direction regarding this grant submittal. It should be noted that the city would be responsible for matching the grant with an additional $100,000 that would come from the city P.A.C. fund, which would necessitate reallocating or delaying an existing is project. kph\soccer turf grant.hazelwood.parks-os.mem Enclosure March 10, 2006 Mr. Greg Mack, Director Ramsey County Parks & Recreation 2015 Van Dyke Street N. Maplewood, MN 55109 Dear Greg: Enclosed is a soccer grant application from the city of Maplewood. The grant request has a bit of a different spin as we are proposing to address the long-term issue of soccer maintenance at the heavy wear points. As you are well aware, soccer field maintenance has been a challenge for years given the concentration of play in the center circle, two goal areas and four corner points. I spent a great deal of time last summer attempting to resolve this problem and worked with three astro turf suppliers as well as a local firm to devise a product to correct this issue. The challenge is in creating a smooth is transition from natural turf to astro turf to avoid injuries and make for a smooth playing surface. • The city of Maplewood proposes to enhance a minimum of four fields with two different products and methodologies utilizing astro turf in the high use areas. We will provide in-depth analysis of the products' wear, safety concerns, transition periods, etc., and report back to you, the Ramsey County Board and our fellow soccer players throughout Ramsey County. I firmly believe that if we are able to resolve this issue we will greatly enhance field availability, reduce maintenance costs, and provide an overall improved soccer environment. It is our intent to complete this project no later than June 1, 2007. Should you have any questions regarding Maplewood's approach to this long-term problem and/or the specific grant application, please contact me directly at (651) 249-2102. Director of Parks and plecreation bruce.k.anderson@ci aplewood.mn.us kph\ramsey co grant application.ftr06 Enclosures PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT 651-249-2101 FAX: 651-249-2129 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST MAPLEWOOD, MN 55109 RAMSEY COUNTY SOCCER PARTNERS PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT PROJECT GRANT APPLICATION • A. Local unit of government responsible for the project: City of Maplewood B. Primary contact person for the project: Name Bruce K. Anderson Title Director Maplewood Parks and Recreation Department Street Address 1830 County Road B East City and Zip Code Maplewood, MN 55109 Phone 651-249-2102 C. Name of the project: Hazelwood Soccer Complex D. Type of application (check one): X Category 1 (large grants) — maximum county share $50,000 per full-size soccer field Amount of grant request: $ 100,000 Category 2 (small grants) — maximum county share $15,000 per full-size soccer field S Amount of grant request: $ E. Documented need: Estimate number of youth soccer players within your jurisdiction There are currently 2,600 registered soccer players (see attached) in the jurisdiction of the Maplewood Parks and Recreation Department. This includes Northeast Soccer Association, our summer and fall leagues, and programs that we issue formal permits to. 2. Identify the number of soccer fields (differentiate between full-size, dedicated soccer fields and multi-purpose athletic fields) available within your jurisdiction to serve youth soccer players. We currently have 16 soccer fields within the city of Maplewood. See attached list and map. 3. Include a map illustrating the location and number of existing soccer fields and the proposed facility within the jurisdiction I have included a park map identifying the soccer field locations as outlined in E. 2. F. Project documentation: • 1. Location map See Attachment 2. Site plan of the proposed soccer facility See Attachment • 3. Narrative description of the project The city of Maplewood is requesting a $100,000 grant through Ramsey County Soccer Partners Program. It is our intent to "retrofit" a minimum of four soccer fields at Hazelwood Park with astro turf. The intent is to develop and design a model for all soccer programs throughout Ramsey County utilizing artificial tun` in the heavy use four comers, center area and two goal zones. This has been a significant problem for soccer fields throughout Minnesota. The city of Maplewood is willing to take the initiative to work with a minimum of two astro tun` suppliers to identify the "perfect" solution to resolving heavy use areas that are constant maintenance problems. In addition to doing a minimum of four fields with two different systems, the city will document the findings and provide specifications, plans and material specs to all Ramsey County soccer providers. The benefit to the county may be immeasurable. If we are successful in designing and refining the "perfect" blend of natural and artificial turf, field life will be extended, greater use during inclement weather will occur, and general overall increased play and participation will transpire. 4. Project budget (identify estimated cost for each major component of the soccer project, . e.g. field construction, irrigation system, parking lot, lighting system, etc.) The project budget is for a minimum of four fields at $50, 000 per field of astro tun, which will include the goal areas, four comers and center areas. G. Source of local funding share (identify specific sources and amounts of public and/or private funds on hand to undertake the soccer project.) The city's matching share will come from the city's park development fund. The money is currently available and budgeted for these proposed improvements. H. Proof of property ownership (supply documentation of fee title, easement or long-term lease applicable to the proposed site). See Attachment Operations and maintenance plan (identify who will provide these services and the long-term source of funding.) The ongoing operations and maintenance (see enclosed department organizational chart) will be provided by Maplewood parks and recreation department's maintenance division. We currently have a full-time maintenance supervisor, eight full-time maintenance personnel and eight to sixteen seasonal people who would be responsible for operating and maintaining the fields. In addition, we are currently in the process of developing a long-term relationship with • N. E. S.A. who will be providing ongoing maintenance and supervision including labor services for Hazelwood Park. Describe in general how the facility will be programmed and scheduled (identify access priorities.) • The facility is currently programmed for not only Maplewood youth, but also Northeast Soccer Association, which in effect serves all of Ramsey County. In addition we will continue to make the fields available to outside users, particularly adult user groups. One of our primary users at this time is the Hmong community, who we will continue to serve. It is our position that there will be additional programming scheduling availability throughout Ramsey County if we are able to resolve the long-term maintenance issue of high maintenance areas. K. Identify and summarize any cooperative agreements with other governmental jurisdictions relating to the proposed soccer facility. The cooperative agreements we have with other govemment jurisdictions include School District #622, as well as private schools including Hill Murray and Mounds Park Academy. Hazelwood soccer complex is also used extensively by the private sector including Comer Kick, which is located in Maplewood. L. Describe the timeline for project implementation. The timeline for project implementation will be to develop plans and specifications that would be forwarded to a number of manufacturers no later than June 1, 2006. It is intended that the • final design and cost estimates will be completed by July and August and the first field will be installed and completed no later than September 1, 2006. M. Identify when (month and year) the project will be open for public use. Note: Soccer field development under this program must be available for public use within two years of a development partnership grant award. The project will be open (all four fields) and available for public use no later than June 1, 2007. The intent will be if we find the ideal solution to complete all the fields by November 1, 2006. N. Include a resolution from the governing body of the jurisdiction making application authorizing the submittal of the application and accepting the terms as outlined in the request for grant applications. The resolution from the Maplewood city council formally approving the application and submittal, including a council resolution, at their regulariy scheduled meeting on March 27, 2006. The parks and recreation commission reviewed this issue at their regularly scheduled meeting on February 21, 2006 and authorized staff to proceed. I do not envision any concerns regarding our city council support. The city of Maplewood would agree to language that the grant application and monies would be approved pending formal approval of the resolution by the Maplewood city council. 0 Ramsey County Soccer Partners Program Number of Soccer Fields Submitted By City of Maplewood Parks and Recreation Department Following is a list of dedicated soccer fields in Maplewood; these sites are highlighted in blue on the attached location map: Hazelwood Park — five full-size fields and one junior -size field (two fields are lit) Sherwood Park — one full-size field Playcrest Park — one full-size field Geranium Park — one full size field Following is a list of multi-purpose soccer fields in Maplewood; these sites are highlighted in yellow on the attached location map: Afton Heights Park — two full-size fields Edgerton Park — one junior -size field Gethsemane Park — one full-size field Goodrich Park — two junior -size fields Harvest Park — one junior -size field Kohlman Park — one junior -size field • 0 Ramsey County Soccer Partners Program • Estimated Number of Youth Soccer Players Submitted By City of Maplewood Parks and Recreation Department The City of Maplewood currently has an estimated 2,600 youth participating in organized soccer programs using our fields. Following is a summary of those programs and the estimated number of youth in each program. Maplewood Parks and Recreation Fall Soccer ......................1,300 Northeast Soccer Association ...................................................370 Maplewood Parks and Recreation Spring Soccer.....................200 East Side Soccer Association ....................................................220 Local School Teams (Parochial Schools).................................200 Summer Rental Groups.......................................................... 320 Total Youth Participants........................................................26-0 Participants in all of the above groups come from Maplewood and surrounding communities. All City of Maplewood recreation programs are open to non-residents with many of our participants coming from Little Canada, Roseville, White Bear Lake, Vadnais Heights, and St. Paul. i • 0 Ramsey County Soccer Partners Program SITE MAP Submitted By • City of Maplewood l� u HIJAMELWI(0010 8OVu CLEn HELD L0CM"1°D5HB P r!�',L-arm. M V:�i }1��,���. M 1Lbf�i�J�I" CiN"IN il['rC��� .T%1Wnnlia�v V R LL'. T,./L COUNTY ROAD C j BEAM AVENUE ="I F RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF GRANT APPLICATION FOR RAMSEY COUNTY • SOCCER PARTNERS PROGRAM AND ACCEPTING ITS TERMS WHEREAS, the Ramsey County Board of Commissioners has established the Ramsey County Soccer Partners Program to accelerate the acquisition and development of youth soccer facilities in Ramsey County, WHEREAS, the city of Maplewood is directly involved in providing soccer programs and facilities for over 2,600 youth each year, AND WHEREAS, Ramsey County intends to award matching grants totaling $1 million in 2006, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA: 1. The City Council hereby authorizes staff to submit an application for the Ramsey County Soccer Partners Program Grant. 2. The City hereby accepts the terms of the grant program as set forth in the "Request for Grant Applications." The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly moved by Council Member and seconded by Council Member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof and the following voted against the same Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted the day of March Pm • � 0 I* I* vD ,0 0 --N -uc N c K OD N N N N N OD CCD N � N �D !D CL rm 3� a N as N N W N Gn O O O O O O O 1010 .0 3 C Al N W a� W D O : Y,Z O 0 Wo Nov 0a mA m rt N fD U) N (D N N to Al n (D CD -s O O O CL n O .N+ 'O O O V CA) U1 N O O O ? O O �.• Ct O O (Q 3 : Q rt O O O ca ca N (D y rr N vD ,0 0 --N -uc N c K OD N N N N N OD CCD N � N �D !D CL rm 3� a N as N N W N Gn O O O O O O O 1010 .0 3 C Al N W a� W D O : Y,Z O 0 Wo Nov 0a mA m rt H a O O O V CA) U1 N O O O O O O �.• Ct O O rt O O O O O C Q. y rr vD ,0 0 --N -uc N c K OD N N N N N OD CCD N � N �D !D CL rm 3� a N as N N W N Gn O O O O O O O 1010 .0 3 C Al N W a� W D O : Y,Z O 0 Wo Nov 0a mA m rt The Beginning of Soccer in the City of Maplewood 1974 (March) — The City of Maplewood was interested in starting a youth soccer program and contacted • Fred Abbott, a British immigrant and"rocal area resident, for his assistance. At that time, soccer was being played in almost every nation in the world but was still a relatively obscure sport in the United States. 1974 (August) - The City of Maplewood announced a sign-up. Seventeen potential players expressed an interest in this new game. These players were urged to recruit others in order to form a league comprised of a minimum of three teams with eleven players each. 1974 (September) -Me City of Maplewood Soccer League began its first season. Since there were only three teams, they spent the entire season playing in a continuous round robin. Weekend games were played on the lower Hazelwood Soccer Field; weekday evening games were played under the floodlights at Lions Park. The league endured several challenges including frequent flooding at the Hazelwood field and suffered from limited resources such as a limit of one ball per team. The league was fortunate in that many of its early participants, like Fred Abbott, were European immigrants and contributed their significant knowledge of the sport 1975- The second sign-up meeting was held and the number of players more than doubled. Other fields were added, but because the lower Hazelwood continued to flood, many of the games were played on the top field, which lacked goal posts. The teams improvised by marldng the goals with jackets and sweatshirts. On one Saturday, Fred Abbott and a player's parent, Tommy Goulding, took it upon themselves to move the goal posts to the upper field. 1976- Interest in the league exploded, increasing demand for more fields, coaches and referees. Fred Abbott organized clinics to train new coaches and recruited and certified new referees. Arrangements were made to use other fields including Hillside and Goodrich Park. 1977 ( November)- Interest in soccer continued to grow at a tremendous rate. To accommodate the growing demand, Fred Abbott and two other coaches, Allan Eastwood and Gil Leiter formed the Northeast Soccer Association (MESA). Fred Abbott served as the organization's first president- 1978 resident1978 (Spring)- NESA began by sponsoring a spring clinic in the month of April. Though the initial request to use local school gymnasiums for these clinics was denied, Fred Abbott persisted and successfully lobbied the local school board to reconsider. The money collected from the modest $5 per person participation fee was used to buy professional quality uniforms for NESA's new traveling teams. NESA sponsored two teams in the first year of the program, and four in the second year. Within a few short years, NESA was sponsoring 16 traveling teams for young men and women each summer. 1978 (Fall) - The City of Maplewood was awarded a Federal grant to develop the Hazelwood fields. Another local sports group tried to sway the City into using the grant to construct baseball fields on the land. However, Fred Abbott brought the issue to the attention of some local elected officials was ultimately successful in convincing the City to make Hazelwood a top quality soccer facility. Working with the developer, Fred Abbott was able to design the top field to be equivalent to a full-size World Cup field. The facility was the envy of soccer groups throughout the region. 1979- Suffering from a lack of facilities at which to play nighttime games, NESA officials _ sought to place lights on the upper Hazelwood soccer field. Since neither NESA nor the • City had the funds to do so, Fred Abbott and a team volunteers laid the new sod on the upper Hazelwood field by hand so that the money saved by not paying for professional _ sod installation could be used for lights. 1980s- Fred Abbott continued to play a pivotal role in guiding the growth of youth soccer in the area. He focused his energy on improving the refereeing program. During this time he recruited, trained and qualified over 100 referees. He then served tirelessly for years as the City's referee coordinator scheduling officials for the many games that were played each week 1985- Fred Abbott and his family moved from the area leaving behind a soccer organization serving more than 1,700 youth players, substantially more than the 17 that formed the league many years before. 1999- The City of Maplewood designated the upper Hazelwood soccer field as Fred Abbott Field in honor of one of the founders of soccer in Maplewood; Nfumesota. • 0 I MEMORAN TO: Parks and Recreation Com sion • FROM: Bruce Anderson, Parks a Rec I ct r DATE: March 15, 2006 for the Ma?*C�Park �'hd Care�atin�Commission Meeting SUBJECT: Step Up to Health INTRODUCTION The National Recreation and Park Association sponsored a statewide Step Up to Health symposium in February. The one -day seminar was held at Como Park and eight of the parks and recreation department staff attended. Health related issues including rising health care costs, obesity and the impact of sedentary activities on our youth is arguably the number one issue in our nation. The Maplewood Parks and Recreation Department has been an active player in health and fitness for over 40 years. BACKGROUND The NRPA Step Up to Health program recommends that incremental changes be made within local parks and recreation departments to promote the importance of health within the community. Our department is and has been actively involved in providing healthy alternatives through all of our recreation programs and parks. • Our new theme for health-related programs will be a "spin" on the old Maplewood in Motion newsletters We are going to use Maplewood in Motion as our byline on all future health-related programs. One of the programs that we are going to be promoting and working on through the next six months is establishment of neighborhood walk and bike programs. We have heard from many people that safety, the need for reminders and coordination are three of the major stumbling blocks keeping people from walking and/or biking on a regular basis. Maplewood is blessed with an outstanding regional trail system including the Bruce Vento and Gateway Trails. With the recent completion of the Highline Trail and local neighborhood parks, Maplewood is an ideal place to promote walking and biking on an informal basis. The basic premise of the program will be to establish a minimum of three walking and biking clubs throughout Maplewood. The proposed locations will be Maplewood Community Center, Harvest Park in the north, and the Maplewood Nature Center in the south. These general locations will be utilized as starting off points and we are looking for volunteer coordinators to schedule weekly hiking and biking trips. We are intending to expand on this concept with a variety of clubs ranging from walk your pets to family bike and hike rides to biking and walking clubs for specific age generations. Recreation program supervisor Doug Taubman will coordinate this program on behalf of our department. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that any thoughts, comments or feedback you might have regarding the concept of establishing walking and biking programs in Maplewood. • kph\step up to health commission.mem MEMORANDU TO: Maplewood Parks and Recreation m JRJ 0 Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Bruce K. Anderson, Director of P dtion DATE: March 15, 2006 for the March 20 P�rkkaVJWcreaNQY Commission Meeting SUBJECT: Monthly Update—February 2006 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. Welcome New Commissioners Enclosed are applications of the three new commissioners: Michele Gran, Bruce Roman, and Gaoly Yang. For your information, Gaoly is pronounced "gow lee." I have asked each of the commissioners to provide brief introductory comments on Monday so that we can begin to know each other a little bit better. I will be asking the same of the "old timers" as well. We did have a brief training session on Monday, March 13, to bring the new commissioners up to speed. 2. Pool Bids The ceiling of the pool at the Maplewood Community Center is in need of repair and repainting. Formal bids were opened on Wednesday, February 22 and ultimately approved by the city council on February 27. The painting repairs are $97,000 and the monies will be paid from the MCC's operations fund. In addition, the pool steps have been repaired and replaced and the pool slide will be opened on Thursday, March 16. 3. Gethsemane Park Staff has had a series of meetings with representatives of Gethsemane Lutheran Church regarding the status of their project. Enclosed is their most recent schematic regarding the proposed senior housing complex. The church representatives hope to receive council approval no later than June1 and break ground on this project by September 1. At this point staff is working with Gethsemane representatives to construct a two -acre park and develop what we are calling the Gardens of Gethsemane passive park area in the southern end of Gethsemane Park where the existing hockey rink is located. This will be a significant change in our park system, as Gethsemane currently provides four ball fields, a hockey rink and playground equipment. With the construction of the small, two -acre ball field overlay soccer field and tot lot area, we will at least be able to meet some of the neighborhood park needs. We are also looking at developing an internal trail system that will connect to not only Birmingham Street, but also to the nature center to the east. Staff will continue to keep the commission apprised of this issue as it works its way through the city planning process. 4. Boy Scouts Are Me I am currently working with four Eagle Scouts for their projects. One of the fine Scouts is Peter Fischer's son, who will be working with another Scout doing some plantings along White Bear Avenue in front of the community center. I truly enjoy this part of my job and seeing the lasting legacy that the young men leave on our community. 5. Internship Every two -three years our department takes on a student intern from the University of Minnesota. This year's intern will be Katie Young, a Roseville resident who is a senior majoring in recreation, parks and • leisure services with an emphasis on commercial recreation. Her direct supervisor will be community center manager Linda Crosson. I have included a letter to Ms. Young that outlines her responsibilities as well as a copy of her resume for your edification. 6. Council Member Rebecca Cave I had the opportunity to meet with new council member Rebecca Cave on March 6. Ms. Cave is well aware of the Maplewood Parks and Recreation system and asked positive and insightful questions. I look forward to working with Ms. Cave and her fellow councilmembers in the months ahead. 7. New Custodian The Maplewood Nature Center recently hired Charles Deaver, a "retired professional handyman" to serve as part-time custodian at the nature center. Mr. Jerry Seeger retired in December after ten -plus years in that position. Mr. Deaver will work approximately 16-20 hours/week not only doing custodial duties at the nature center, but also grounds and general repair work. We are pleased to have Mr. Deaver be a part of the Maplewood Parks and Recreation Department family. 8. MRPA Conference The MRPA conference will be held in late November at the Radisson Hotel in Plymouth. I am currently serving on the MRPA conference committee and involved in the program section. 9. Walter Street Update One of the 2006 Capital Improvement Projects is the construction of the trail from Walter Street west to • the Labore trail in Little Canada. I have met with the neighbors and the consultants on this project and we all appear to be on the same page. It is a pleasure to work with a resident who (we are securing a trail easement across his property) actually can't wait to have the trail completed. I am currently in the design phase for the trail and hope to have this project completed by July 1. Once this trail connection is completed, we will have the Highline Trail in place (once County Road D is opened) from Walter Street on the west all the way to Century Avenue on the east. This could rival the Gateway Trail for usage and recreational impact within our community. 10. Resolutions of Appreciation The city council unanimously adopted resolutions of appreciation for Commissioners Brandon and Duellman on Monday, March 13. 1 have included a copy of the resolutions staff has framed and will be delivering to the two commissioners in the coming week. In addition, staff forwarded a thank you letter on behalf of the commission to both Audrey and Rick. What does the commission about providing a commemorative tree on behalf of commissioners who serve nine years or longer? I would welcome your comments on this thought. 11 Nature Center Friends Group The nature center has been working for the past six months on establishing a "friends" group. They have had two meetings to date and are currently in the process of establishing a mission statement and structure relating to nonprofit status. The mission of the Friends of the Nature Center is to establish a support group for the nature center that can be utilized to provide outside funding and generate dollars for the nature center. The long-range hope is to have an advocacy group who could establish a long- term foundation to ensure financial success for the nature center for generations to come. kO/0206.mu.Comm Enclosures 2 • NAME ADDRES PHONE] 1) 2) CITY OF MAPLEWOOD BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS APPI Ir -ANT INFnRMATiON FORM How long have you lived in the City of Maplewood? Will other commitments make regular attendance at meetings difficult? Yes No 3) On which Board or Commission are interested in serving? (please check) Community Design Review Board Park & Recreation Commission �r> Housing & Redevelopment Authority Planning Commission Human Relations Commission Police Civil Service Commission Environmental Committee 6—yt Historic Preservation Commission 404) Do you have any specific areas of interest within this Board's or Commission's scope of responsibilities? 5) 6) List other organizations or clubs in the Community in which you have been or are an active participant: Why would you like to serve on this Board or Commission? - 00( �r ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: 4%AS� lG THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS APPLICATION SHALL BE CLASSIFIED AS PUBLIC EXCEPT FOR HOME AND WORK TELEPHONE MEIMBER& Return or snail this applieation to: City of Maplewood, 1830 County Road 0 East, Naps MIM 55109 3'1C1'Y M(31tR19o®ds & CmmRi®i�s Appliatioadoc 03115!04 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD � • BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS APPLICANT INFORMATION FORM NAME k� 1-4 ADDRESS 11 1 3 L ��. J 12 t M a a tr £ L t" . C b PHONE NO. DATE = (3 L I Z U U( 1) How long have you lived in the City of Maplewood? q y I -7 Y 2) Will other commitments make regular attendance at meetings difficult? Yes No Comments: I-kjk\14 S -1C, -ruClS, TtaPv, keR. S 3) On which Board or Commission are interested in serving? (please c eck) Community Design Review Board Park & Recreation Commission Housing & Redevelopment Authority Planning Commission Human Relations Commission Police Civil Service Commission Environmental Committee Historic Preservation Commission • 4) Do you have any specific areas of interest within this Board's or Commission's scope of responsibilities? 1wt.htT TutlROTL`T- Ttrt DGile—" a1-4.1�-,5 C= It1a, Lic01`�, lid UI'�hl TO C.\1 E. Q,_1 o ,4 -7c►N T �A-t. (-(T"Ll Wi4b i4l-VE c: UC,'TlCNS �+'i:J i T1� `. 7UKkCL-) i.JF+P.T T1.J1%NT :�tyn '�A1Z` Sc�;2��TH.t;4 L(,rV Ctir3aJ S 5) List other organizations or clubs in the Community in which you have been or are an active participant: 1 —Ifal 5 ►�1���'C c� r= Tt-t � J ��S �_��: � rl , K � G.1�11: K N u £.ice ► 5 1:� r. ► lel G ► 4_L 6 i-1 N . � ��► D t.J r� 5 t' �� �' S t 1� � ry •T r -C> : -' C,rrl c i� �� P. � 1 a- A l 5 C, rF =►a'k p 1 7'if E7f:�/ l) to rh 4. NT )=u 1 J, L . S 1 T� L 5 C, f3�1.0 N 6 t J li l� 1 hal J C . S N N 1] vN -r H 5. Q 9— iA l) r {_ i - H~ i��j 5 � WI A N ,�rCr�tS4�Zu.=auDt.'3�,, SlG4'rt=v ✓1E]o�f frl�J r�/2C� c wtiV' A L11�s T CU 6) Why would you like to serve on thisloard or Commission? l� �="-) L'Z I 5 £.R � 4 T H (L(:", rn 1-1 v :i 1 -r4 1 N A .V A 1: $� T h a. `-S i P. -A 0'rr r: 7 _\ ivT, lrl.G C?VCL ci:y� ;�Jyl�it-1�� ��( 1���1� IU ►'1��i�I� r�H t� 41 ►-► a , L Ir �� w-^1 I t�Z J'1 1 T. is K t�.V t,. S C �- ► p `•� ti �-�` t`'1 R N 1� \ W i�. r1 T T (r! �4r�, t� 1 T "G !� \'(' tiry �� ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: .= G R w v 1� , N M IN t-1L� L, -)c 0 D W£ T? � H Z = c� j:-) Sc- Hvc` L� j0kr4 (2-'.LLN1Q A,"D tvo;:TA STP►-\L)_ r11e�I sct400L 5 c+ -t 0 C J N G TC, L P,, J G E 1.J J. C vett Tr/ l N AV 0 c i\'-C:L M 1-\P_ i.,J OZ--' H LG 1-1 V 1-a-1 S T-0 t: G 1-' CsZ.O i� y�/ar�►�'< N D C1Z s r' ,� C E S . r�, ►v t'� T t -A � � �. �` a -•+ ►tom 1� C, RTI - -A T ►� a. tiT tJ T � THE INFORMATION CONTAINED /N THIS APPLICATION SHALL BE CLASSIFIED AS PUBLIC EXCEPT FOR HOME AND WORK TELEPHONE NUMBERS. u Return or mail this application to: City of Maplewood, 1830 County Road B East, Maplewood, MN 55109 SACTY MMBoazds & Commissions Apptication.doc 03/18/04 7 N+�T p c, �► i 1. �t t �v ►r'I J. r>� c.v't' D i� ►`1 �'l �.�G `—� I i �• �,�C IMFCI:cilT1-^"NT- Tu �� B`��tJSE T t-t� c�aN �� �',vJG� Lam' r-�.V 1°l cv N Ci LI F- F /� V 1 LA U Sl� I r y 0 L. i -/E-A �/ i� /A-/\[ Ll G� v I s 7( c N S, fa` _4S �' C,14- L L .. . RECEIVED CITY OF MAPLEWOOD OCT S 1 1005 BOARDS AND COMMISSIONSCRYof APPLICANT INFORMATION FORM MaPlewood NAME -94 /L AZA 'v./r I J-4.4 F41 PHONE NO. 1) How long have you lived in the City of Maplewood? 2) mwm Will other commitments make regular attendance at meetings difficult? Yes No # 0 r♦ 3) On which Board or Commission are interested in serving? (please check) Community Design'Review Board �i_ Park & Recreation Commission Housing & Redevelopment Authority Planning Commission _ Human Relations Commission Police Civil Service Commission Environmental Committee Historic Preservation Commission 4) Do you have any specific areas of interest within this Board's or Commission's scope of responsibilities? 5) List other organizations orrJ cY! lubs in the Community in which you have been or are an active participant: � C�l7Q3 Q �' ex"o .0 J no -4 / qYS 620 • � � bir�x,7'.e2 /,Qr�ns ��c4?a�� �+ �i � /.,,ao i 980 - ��o � ro �.� 6° Why would you like to serve on this Board or Commission? ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS APPLICATION SHALL BE CLASSIFIED AS PUBLIC EXCEPT FOR HOME AND WORK TELEPHONE NUMBERS. Return or mail this application to: City of Maplewood, 1830 County Road B East, Maplewood, MN 55109 SACTY MGR\Boards & Commissions Application.doc 03/18/04 s� otowwwX4 c&dydloeS R4lAf SZY 6O-ACtAds A •LIIAJ sem- k4 • 0 /94',y- zero (;,yrs) ,uoi-amq. (-Lg�) ....,._i�r.,.- R�-.,..s^' '+� i,"r��3°�f.., ... •� ! ,:... ,+;'traf� .... .�.�r. { e �"�.;1`<� t./'�._...-..-....�"�'�`'...'�R.,t. � �. JOI NT RESOLUTION OFAPPRECL4TION J. WHEREAS, Audrey Duellman has been a member of the Maplewood { C' '. . , Parks and Recreation Commission since January 1997 and has served faithfullyf A ' Yin that capacity to the present time; and 3 ih r 44 ` . WHEREAS, the Parks and Recreation Commission has appreciated her, experience, insights and good judgment and ' % 11 ; WHEREAS, she has eel fr y given of her time and, energy, without compensation, for the betterment of the City of Maplewood; and ^ k WHERE '' AS, she has shown sincere dedication to her. duties and has consistently contributed her leadership, time and effort for the benefit 5 { of the City. t I 11 3N NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOL VEDfor and on behalf of the I gw City of Maplewood, Minnesota and its citizens, -that Audrey Duellman is hereby extended our heartfelt gratitude and appreciation for her dedicated service,': and we wish her continued success in the future. Passed by the Maplewood , City Council on Diana Longrie, r 4 fS Passed by the Maplewood Parks and Recreation Commission on ' so- `- Peter Fischer, Chairperson Attest. ' -- t' Karen Guitfoile, Ci ClerkK, :a 4 1 f " i s March 3, 2006 Together We Can S Ms. Katie Young 401 11th Avenue S.E. Minneapolis, MN 55414 Dear Katie: This is a short note to follow up on our meeting on Thursday, March 2, regarding a.possible internship with the Maplewood Parks and Recreation Department. On behalf of Linda and myself, I want to share with you that we enjoyed the opportunity to'meet with you and would like to formally offer you an internship with our department. - I understand you have another opportunity with the city of Eagan and it is your intent to make a decision within the next week. Let me expand on what the University of Minnesota internship/Maplewood style would look like. Linda Crosson, Community Center Manager, would serve as your direct internship supervisor. Linda has over 15 years of professional recreation experience and community center management background. We would provide you a"private office, albeit very small, within the Maplewood Community Center, including phone, computer, desk and file space. The internship period would run for 14 -week period beginning in May through August. The major project that you would be responsible for would be to develop an M.C.C. survey of both, current members and past members to determine not only why they chose to join the M.C.C., but also why they chose to depart. The survey would be mailed to at least 1,000 patrons and would be tabulated and survey conclusions would be reached. We estimate that this would .take four to six weeks to prepare and complete. The second phase of the internship project would be to utilize the data to assist both Linda and marketing director Heidi Carey to develop a marketing plan for not only membership retention, but also membership recruitment. The marketing program would be implemented in a three- to five-week period and completed. You would be responsible for following through with the actual implementation of the marketing piece prior to the completion of your internship. In addition to this significant project, you would have an opportunity to understand and "touch" all phases of the Maplewood Parks and Recreation Department including the nature center, park maintenance, administration and recreation programming. I would meet with you at a minimum of four flours per week, probably a luncheon meeting, to review your internship to date and talk about current citywide issues. As part of the internship, you would be responsible for attending at least two parks and recreation commission meetings and one city council meeting. From a programming perspective, you would have an opportunity to get involved as extensively as you desire. At a minimum, Linda would like to see the development of one membership -wide benefit and/or program. We currently do a major pancake breakfast in the fall of each year that is attended by 500-700 members. The membership program would be of your choice and you would see ,it through from program idea to implementation. In addition, we discussed briefly you becoming involved in the • triathlon that is currently coordinated by Ron, as well as the MS30-60 program and other recreation programs that you would find of interest. PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT - 651-249-2101 FAX: 651-249-2129 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD 1 830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST MAPLEWOOD, MN 55109 Ms. Katie Young .March 3, 2006 • Page 2 After reviewing our budget icapabilities, we would provide you a $3,500 stipend for your 14 -week internship: 1 am sure that Eagan is in a position to offer more money; but they are just not as much fun as we are! The hours would be flexible, but would probably consist of 35-40 hours per week. It was a pleasure to meet with you and it is clear to us that .you have the enthusiasm, energy and background to be an outstanding'young park and recreation professional. Should you have, any -questions•regarding the proposed internship; duties and/or stipend; please contact me directly at 49-2102. Si cer s- Director of Parks ecce tion Bruce k.anderson@cinaplewo d:mn.us kphlyoung.WO6 c: Linda Crosson, MCC Manager February 15, 2006 . Bruce Anderson Maplewood Parks and Recreation 1830 E. County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 Dear Mr. Anderson, I am a senior at the University of Minnesota majoring in Recreation Park and Leisure Studies with a concentration in Commercial Recreation. I am seeking an internship or similar opportunity in commercial recreation that will cap off my education with a well rounded exposure into the professional world of leisure services. I am a responsive person whose customer service and communication skills are sharp. I have the energy and desire to learn first-hand the workings of the park and recreation field including facilities management, budgeting, marketing and more. I believe your agency has a lot to offer and I would be excited to be a part of your team. You will see that I have worked at Three Rivers Park District: Hyland Hills Ski School, the City of Roseville Park and Recreation, City of Edina Adaptive Recreation and at the St. Paul Gym, which has helped prepare me for my internship experience. I feel that • these experiences have given me a beginning background into the field and have instilled in me a desire to work hard and be creative. This is why I feel I would be a strong candidate for an internship with your organization. I look forward to putting my knowledge gained at school and from work experience to use. I am confident that I could play a key role in furthering the growth and success of the facilities and programs in the City of Maplewood. If you have any further questions or would like to schedule a time to meet please feel free to contact me at 651-308-1020 or email me at youn0569@umn.edu. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Katie Yo J9 0 l_ Katie Young`' 1896 Merrill St '. : 1 . Roseville, MN 55113 rim,, youn0569@umn.edu 651-308-1020 }jt{ 1 Objective To utilize my education and experience to obtain an internship, or similar experience within the recreation field. Education University of Minnesota, B.S. Recreation Park and Leisure Studies emphasis: Commercial Expected graduation May 2006 Work EWdence Three Rivers Park District: Hyland Hills Ski School Ski Instructor and Supervisor; Winter 2003—Present • Taught group and private downhill ski lessons to children and adults of all ability levels. • Managed Holiday Skids program, and supervised 15+ instructors. St. Paul Gym: University of Minnesota Receptionist and Supervisor; Summer 2005—Winter 2005 • Provided customer service to members utilizing the facility. • Maintained a safe and clean environment for all users. •City of Roseville Parks and Recreation Department Sports and group Leader, Summer 1999—Summer 2005 • Coached children ages 4-12 in sports, including t ball and soccer. • Assisted with the implementation of various after school programs and special events. Andersen Windows Assembly line worker; Summer 2003 & 2004 • Assembled special order awning windows, window flames and hanging of sash. • Earned safety award within the department. Volunteer Work Alpha Gamma Delta Sorority Vice President of Operations; 2004-2005 • Responsible for minutes, chapter correspondence, and membership. • Served as the link between officers and International Headquarters. City of Edina Parks and Recreation Adaptive Recreation Volunteer, 2005– Present • Helped with bowling program for youth with disabilities. • Assisted with special events for adults with disabilities. Alpha Gamma Delta Sorority Philanthropy Chair, 2003-2004 • Managed all philanthropic projects of the chapter, including the design and implementation of the chapter house recycling program. • Organized and administered car wash and Pancake breakfast, raising $2100 for the Alpha Gamma Delta Foundation. The Friends Group met on January 24, 2006 at Page 1 of 2 Bruce K. Anderson From: Ann Hutchinson Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 2:18 PM To: Bruce K. Anderson Subject: frmin1-6.doc Here are the meeting minutes from our friends group. ANN The Friends Group met on January 24, 2006 at Maplewood Nature Center See attached for the list of those in attendance. Handouts: Agenda and notes from staff meeting Oakley's research. The meeting was called to order by Oakley Bizanz at 1:05 p.m. Barbara Kroll was appointed Secretary. Since this was the first meeting there were no prior minutes to review. The state of the Nature Center Budget was presented by Ann. Oakley presented four pages titled "Informational Meeting/Discussion for Staff and Volunteers" • based on a staff meeting and her research of other organizations. Everyone present indicated they want to form a "friends" group and indicated that they prefer to create a nonprofit group. Brainstorming took up the rest of the meeting. The following were the words and phrases that were captured and discussed. Advocacy, Emissary, Ambassador Support a structure for Growth Tasks: Create Bylaws 1. Create and finalize a mission statement of friend's group 2. Decided the structure (nonprofit, city budget, or through another nonprofit) 3. outline job descriptions, tasks for board 4. Recruit members for a board Need accountant & attorney & business & development 5. Decide on the election process. 6. Extend friends support from more than Maplewood. Communication Thread between Staff and friend's group and board. Also between city council and parks commission and Friend's group. 0 3/13/2006 The Friends Group met on January 24, 2006 at Page 2 of 2 • Recruitment problems Discussed incentives for volunteers • Free admission Dinner Training T -Shirt What do we want a Friends Group to do: Support the Growth of MNC & Preserves in its mission and goals. Advocate for MNC & Preserve Raise funds for special projects and programs Assist with special programs, projects or events ---volunteers Assist with marketing ---volunteers Assist in procuring equipment ---volunteers, provide money for equipment --friends Evaluate programs ---volunteers Fund research of program's effectiveness ---friends Hire consultant to fund -raise or to write grant proposals. Options: Nonprofit 501 (c) (3) Keep fiscal responsibilities internal with city. Dodge Nature center could be the fiscal agent. Parks Commission appoints Friends Board Announcement: 2007 will be 50 year Anniversary of Maplewood. Perhaps our goal could be to have the friends group created by our anniversary. Next meeting dates were set: March 6, April 3, May 1, June 5 from 4:30 to 7:00 p.m. The next meeting will be devoted to writing a Mission Statement for the friends group. The April meeting Oakley will invite Dan Faust. Meeting was adjourned about 3:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted; Barbara Kroll 3/13/2006 Minutes of the Friends Group Pagel of 3 Bruce K. Anderson From: Ann Hutchinson Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 2:19 PM To: Bruce K. Anderson Subject: frdmn366.doc minutes from 2nd meeting. ann Minutes of the Friends Group March 6, 2006 The Friends Group met on March 6, 2006 at Maplewood Nature Center See attached for the list of those in attendance. Handouts: Minutes from January Maple Grove Library Friends of the Library brochure, City of Richfield Wood Lake Membership application and information; Como Zoo & Conservatory Society information and application; and Friends of Wehr information. National Park Service Friends Group, Bylaws from Friends of Parks and Trails of St. Paul and Ramsey County, Articles of Incorporation of Springbrook Nature Center Foundation, and Bylaws of the Friends of Wood Lake Board of Directors were distributed at the end of the meeting. The meeting was called to order by Oakley Bizanz at 4:40 p.m. with pizza served. • Barbara Kroll was appointed Secretary. Ann Hutchinson asked that we affirm the type of group that we would like. After a little discussion the consensus of the group was that the friends group should be a nonprofit. The meeting was dedicated to creating a Mission Statement for the friends group. This discussion was facilitated by Barbara Kroll. The following are the ideas discussed or generated: Friends of Wehr: Groups, families, individuals, corporations and foundations. Support and expand programing. Friends of Maple Grove Public Library. -Community member with varied interests and a shared passion: they value, support and champion the public library. -Increase awareness, raise funds, volunteer assistance, sponsor special programs. Mission of Como Zoo & Society is to promote, support, preserve and enhance Como Zoo by: - Raising funds for capital and programs. - Develop and maintaining solid relationships with the city of St. Paul and general community. • - Advocating for the zoo on behalf of those who use and are in interested in 3/13/2006 Minutes of the Friends Group the facilities. • Wood Lake Friends Mission Statement: -Aid, Assist, Advise in matters related to Wood Lake. - Capital improvements -Recreation programming -Educational programming -Staffing levels -Finance -Fund-raising -Environmental concerns. Sustain, Consult, Cornerstone, Foundation, Structure. Who are Potential Friends Members? -Community members -Families -Individuals -Corporations -Foundations -Obtain endowments or life insurance Page 2 of 3 What would the Friends group Do? • Support, assist, consult, champion/advocate, sustain, solicit, procure, Augment. Value? Shared commitment to Maplewood Nature Center's and Preserve's Mission. HOW? -Beg for money. -Sustain donors -Maintain relationships with city government, politicians, and parks commission. -Partner with groups in general community. -Raising funds for capital improvements and program needs. -Advocate for Maplewood Nature Center and Preserves on behalf of those who use and are interested in the Nature Center. Page 2, March 6, 2006 3/13/2006 Minutes of the Friends Group After much brainstorming and discussion the group created a draft of The Friends of Maplewood Nature Center and Preserves Mission Statement: The mission statement of the Friends of Maplewood Nature Center and Preserves is to promote, support and enhance growth of the Maplewood Nature Center and Preserves. Three primary goals of the Friends group were identified: Page 3 of 3 1. Raising funds for capital expenditures and programs. 2. Develop and maintaining solid relationships with the city of Maplewood and general community. 3. Advocating for the Nature Center and Preserves on behalf of those who use and are in interested in the facilities. A discussion was held regarding recruiting other members. The next meeting was changed from April to Monday, March 27 at 4:00 p.m. The 4:00 p.m. time will be tried to see if traffic is a little less for the participants. At the next meeting we will continue to discuss the goals. Respectfully Submitted; Barbara Kroll Page 3, March 6, 2006 3/13/2006 • • • • • 0 n � O o O i I y O } OND (i O c O a O i c fi 10 0 N cn O T :3 CD Ham„ y Q T O O I N II n n CL �0 �I n O O N N I O O nO N of n• 1 C O "' O i H c c (D o C/) W S N W O O_ -� O O a o Q I � I m O. I � N G I ' � c CL Q `CG Q � I N C 7 Q • • �J I n3cn 3-0 c n c p fCD mm c CD! CD O0. CL ( J 71� Q Q Q _ CD Q I (D 0 QCD a n c � j 3 Q H nN O (P � I 0 C c CD - a- -. a O Q (n n' Ln ( n Q(Q I V O W ° / : �• c CL N 0(D f O 01.1 nNc)TN „On' J n� p co 5 N Q 1 0 (D (Q Cn -' R. Q Q GT Q c y r 3 (Q Q m CQ °(D n Q n(a 1 �Q N gi Q cn 0 =M n n CA QCD _ CD n W r c . 0 rn a (0(0 c 5' c W N 1° N O W ° N C 7 CL 0 -c • • �J • • • N CCD i3 n -� Q QZ (D CD o CD CD CD y m -1 y 3 CL 00 0 cQ n °< 0 n CD rnCD CD CD p ( CD W CD O. CD -'0 N 7C O =37, 2_ Q 7C Q H ( y 1 lV / D Co CL O O W r -j v O W � A a I N Q 1 N _ Cs CD CD CD D 3 CL e O O 01.1 C � �O N T 0 0 QCL C C o n PO v N cn ;a� CD W a Q_ C OCQ n � O ? to Q n o Q Q y.0 C) o C y yFL Q Q � N n coo N la v H C 7 CL {#Q}Ek on;x ±37@9\G 0(D00- G _:3 /22® . 75=mn- jafE�� -c- n/ eenC)n/ 2:3 CD 3 /m 7ƒ777\ \\/�a\\ \\ f n \�n/ \ ///f / �\ /] f q \/ a \ \\ 3) 3 { n ) . _ � .7 /¥2\}E\ o -n;x� 0CD0a \ oc�_ o/§E9EG E� w . . //\f0a \§\\2a i��,o �QC7 �f E7§_$\]e DRa-0.0 /i§_§55 £ nn C 5* 370 0 { 0 CL m. n-5 kms$ \ /) \ / \// \ / . . . . CD . 00 > 0 % on°; £a 7r =�moc22 §�33ff-t,- - (D =��c ¥=L7a im«E] a=r0 a -£«] Ge\=/\a f ■ . &e§o§n - 0 c) n]n /oon]oo0. 7 mm=r; m gE,c=::r 0 n -0 E , n'n] / 2§2� 7®�3 a0 EO®�2»� g. a E f §_= n j\2 m\ § \ \® -�=/// �Q\/ƒ \c-- & co %//f\/ /CYOn n}§/ ///\f2 _ n-0-0 /0=0 \ Q2 _ / n\ 9 ; o 2]2 CL a \ \ § g . # _ ] Q ._ � <®=±-cu C=0 3-< ±®®o o —30 esu -1 --1 s%=--3 � ---1 10 7r e 2 � �/Eno =%=-=c- 63 (ToCYa en -o57 3 =0a 2] k EI§g\]R R-:Ec= -¥\§n] .=_=cam \»cc 7 2s o _°°]__§ G]ca22 z%/] �c ]_ ° 2 / //k //k/f `\\/ 'a 7 C ] 2 \ � ] ��(a E 9 . x = 20 � c \ c � � © n / � CL n . Pr . % G 2 . 0. . a 0 0 E � O o� 2#\"cam �on}&� > (7) -E§Eo® \a\oc 0 �§ z=m=22 I5= =[fig "e0 &_*/ Sn j\ \§}cf 7e /�3 \g r/§ 3 k�\� . a ■ /�\]\ r -n \ / }3/ ' t k 2n . F }\ \ � » . D. f a \ 3 3 . _ . . ¥>r§\ \_//G a@E2 n /0cra \/ \\/2 CD . . <�� \@/]n = a// �// ; . acr a3 .� t £ f /. \/_ƒ / C . . . r\ m/ 2 _ . . --q Ell {32\�� <�oocn �jEEk_0 =�o�� 7r k/ «moa R�70 g=od e!gn a ^&°n .ernE \-a 3o °{o/2 0 E/2 f ƒ00 A . . E\E=0 = 0 0 CA -70 n 7§ 0 ~3 0 .G . . 2 3 \ / 3 � 3 /\\E% \_�/_b . aiEG 0 \)\n ��ƒ a.n »Ma -0 \/n k620 .// / �/\ / 3 // @ �\ . E /( / O) n . 3 .-0 x #arc® ecce o«oe 000- - Jerk *±-w 0 ƒ\\/\ ��\/ So . 9REf} ƒ/§ /a/ .§/\� �0c . RC) ® 0 2 ] �[ CL . 00 \ �\ e -0 3 . _ . 10 /% g c ] 2 0 J7 0 � / 0 \ q & % kCA . / 0 CL J / . cc)�N p j Dp02� p 0 1 „pv I Q nQ 3 nCD CD cpm m n I i n p 3p �c3nn I &3o of p a p� �° O pa O 7 j� a — i CL 1 1 3n ap j! a 3 �! 3 a I I N 0 N j p N Q p 0 Cr CD O p 00 CA { p 0 p I p CD p na rn CD nenm� n p p 3 p p3 n 0 o 63:r n p c 3 n -O �c 3 n 3 p 3 a a Q p 0 O. O�p n 3 _0 CD 0 KnN i n pW 3 nnp CrCrCD p<n � CA 0 �y a�nO Q n Q�o � ) 3 ( °• a n 3 j °c � p 2 —� (D T Q o W Q oon R-3 nCD pUCD � 6 o ONn 1n.1 `(c n 3 Q p n 3n ° n 3 Q n i C a 3ao =3� 0 s 3 a a 3 Q I N, I Q O1 000 Ol �o nQ 3o p< (a 0< �� 3n 3n Qn -,% Q a a 3 a .p N N D C I{ � 1 'SCC v N o w °` N C 3 O. • • • • • CL N � 1 c M CL 0 o w a i m a CL ONo N J ( v �• rn S c a e I � 10 00 �+ N Qi O 3 a O W _ O� N N N C i a 0 N C O. O W O N W Ol 10 N O 7 Q. LAI N v o W c M Cn OD co Q. co a O lJ a � N Ul O 3 � Q � V N O 14 o W °l O O� C. NCA N V N Q C CL to N W _. N C 7 Q. .7 • • r� • j N j 4 N p W p` j tC N 00 N V H C N N a 0 � N OD a f �'o N CL ^°c O O W p� 10 N < rn V 3 a CL ,V N o W O O „ p11-1 Q fl N Ln _ D c a N a `� N Cr CA C 7 a • • �0 CL 0 ON. �O N N N i �° v o w °l �o CL CL 00 N A V H S C. V C `G N _ 00 -10 CL (a f O W p. �O N H 0 c CL c � V O N C 7 CL • • FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION CITY OF MAPLEWOOD 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST MAPLEWOOD, MN 55109 2006 COUNCIL MEMBERS Diana Longrie, Mayor 1771 Burr Street Maplewood, MN 55117 Phone: (651) 774-1490 Fax: (651) 730-9125 Email: diana.longrie@ci.maplewood.mn.us For Confidential Email Communication: mayorlongrie@yahoo.com Term Ending: December 2009 Kathleen Juenemann 721 Mount Vernon Avenue E. Maplewood, MN 55117 Home: (651) 771-3670 • Email: kathleen.juenemann@ci.maplewood.mn.us Term Ending: December 2009 Erik Hjelle 874 Sterling Street South Maplewood, MN 55119 Phone: (651) 217-2172 Email: erikhjelle@comcast.net Term Ending: December 2009 Rebecca Cave 2020 Prosperity Road Maplewood, MN 55109 Phone: (651) 773-7059 Email: rebeccacavel@hotmail.com Term Ending: December 2007 Will Rossbach 1386 East County Road.0 Maplewood, MN 55109 Home: (651) 484-5427 Work: (651) 779-0220 Email: will.rossbach@ci.maplewood.mn.us • Term Ending: December 2007 H.\Boca..c—i.i--DvraDi-dttion-2006-ax OSUMI Nature Center to be funded 1/3 with $80,000 by Environmental Utility Fund dollars which more accurately reflects our commitment to educating the community about citywide environmental issues. Maintain existing program services with minimal (less than 5%) increase in tax impact. Past three years have averaged less than 1.4% per year. Increase recreation program revenue by 10% through combination of fee increases, new programs, and increased program participation. Continue MCC 2004 financial "bottom line" of revenues exceeding expenditures. ai Establish $100,000 in general funds for park development improvements. Administration Divisio 2006 Goals Completion of Applewood Park Master Plan Acquisition and construction of major trail corridor from Walter Street to LaBore Road to the west. This trail corridor will ultimately link the east/west connection from Rice Street in Roseville to Century Avenue with the completion of the Joy Park off-road trail system Determine a formal funding source for the nature center to include use of the environmental utility fund, potential grant opportunities from other municipalities, and the development of expanded public/private partnerships. ® Resolution of the July 4t" community fireworks display with the Ramsey County parade and fair. This issue will address potential financial/budget shortfalls envisioned in 2006. t r Continue to cover facility's operating expenses through revenues Increase membership reimbursement program by 10% by adding other insurance providers (Currently offered for Blue Cross/ Blue Shield of Minnesota only) Expand "free" fitness class participation by 10% Implement on-line registration for MCC membership and programs h [i • Expansion of adult and teen recreation program offerings. Expand All Star Summer Kick Off to become a community wide event as opposed to an event for program participants. Despite decreasing numbers of school age children, increase youth sports participation by 0% through promotion and program revisions. Continue to expand our preschool program offerings to meet a growing community need. Nature Center & Neighborhood Preserves 2006 goals I * Educate public on wetland buffers by restoring a wetland and implementing a neighborhood backyard buffer improvement project. * Continue increasing nature center education focus on service projects, (decrease public open hours of visitor center- closed on Sundays) * Implement landscape plan for picnic shelter/garage at nature center. * Implement plan for Gladstone Savannah * Implement plan for Kohlman Preserve. Tennis and basketball resurfacing and color continuing at three neighborhood parks. Finish construction details at newly constructed parks: Sterling Oaks, Apple Wood and Legacy Village. Continue buckthorn removal and rain water garden improvements. Awards and Grants MRPA Award of Excellence- Best Community Center and Marketing MCC ranked #8 in the State by The Business Journal Voted Best Fitness Center by the Lillie News three years in a row Northern Lights for 2003 Award of Merit- Maplewood Community Center Video Project Award of Merit- Maplewood Community Center Corporate Membership Packet Award of Merit- Maplewood Community Center Web Page DNR Education Partnership Grant for Nature Center LEAP Award- Landscape Ecology Award for Nature Center's prairie planting at the Community Center MCC voted best place to hold a reception` In-kind Contributions In Kind Contributions for Marketing Grants, Gifts, Partnerships 0 Fed Ex Kinko's $5,500 Afton Heights Soccer Grant $100,000 0 The Donut Family $3,750 Ramsey/Washington Metro a City & county Credit Union $3,750 Watershed District $20,000 Family Times $2,300 DNR Exhibit Grant $20,000 MN Parent Magazine $2,000 Hazelwood Soccer Grant $100,000 Children's World $1,500 DNR Partnership Open Space $20,000 Hejny Rental $1,000 * Nature Center Volunteers $60,000 Noodles Cub $750 $750 ® Youth Sport Volunteer Vendstock $500 Coaches $500,000 Skyhawks $600 ® Qwest $550 Great Clips $350 TOTAL $820,000 Merit Chevrolet $100 Volunteering: The Park & Recreation Dept. creates opportunities for residents to give back to their community over $820,000 value. - zA' en �` ti`4 f \�1F anLll �{i �4rH z _ a cFl �s k y�.7 rya r #;ate Vii_ E JLI]Ilor Volunteers help clear trails, plant gardens, pick up litter, and more. Here they pose with their families and council member Kathy Juenemann. Volunteer Coaches for sports teams are a valuable asset to Maplewood ® Recreation scheduled over 4,600 Games and 8,000 practices. Over 1,200 pages of marketing materials were produced in 2004. ® Nature Center students planted over 50,000 plants by hand in rainwater gardens all around the city. 300,000 hours of in -pool swim instruction were taught at the community center. 450 acres are maintained by Park Maintenance. 9,000 youth sport coaches volunteer for the Recreation Department. Web Page Hits for the MCC, 2807 the past 30 days which is the #1 site in the City. 5 Parks and Recreation is valuable contributor to policy objectives such as job opportunities, youth development, public health, and community building. Parks have long been recognized as major contributors to the physical and aesthetic quality of neighborhoods. Recreation provides opportunities for children to build the skills and strengths they need to lead full and rewarding lives. The assets children and youth need for healthy development fall into four domains: physical, intellectual, emotional, social.