The URL can be used to link to this page

89-823 - . ,.. ;, 4 � , �:,v �,.�.��.r��m�, .-��_.��-�� . �:�:. .��.�:�,a�. �c� , . .Y� .�.,..�,;. x; w�:��.��„� � � . � �`�� n � CITY OF ST. PAUL COUNCIL FILE NO. FINAL ORDER .' �� s� � °, By r�,,,. � ,{ �;�,�.l � ._.. File No. S-$4"'02 thrv 3-89-Q5 Voting In the Matter of Ward "SfdeNalk Recoastruction for the fo Ioping projects - to be donc in accordsnce aith th� Depart�ent of u lic ilorks Seco�sendatioaa aad the Heritsge Preserratioa Com�issian R s lution 89-1 : 2 S-89-02 5outh eide S M IT AVBHIIB fro� Heather Drive to Bae►sey Stree 1 S-89-03 North side S K T AVB�iDE fros E�ortlaad Avenue to Rent Street . 1 S-89-04 North side S ti IT AVENUE froa Salb� Avenua to We:tern Aven e 2 5-89—OS South side S MM ? A�ENUE fro� �a�ae� 5treet to approziostel d feet east of the extende�d esst line of Nina 5t eet. � under Preliminary Order " ' approved � ` � ` � The Council of the City of Saint Paul has ond cted a public hearing upon the above improvement, due notice thereof having been given as prescribed by the Cit Ch rter; and WHEREAS, The Council has heard all persons obj ctions and recommendations pertaining to said proposed improve- ment and has fully considered the same; now, the for , be it RESOLVED, That the Council of the City o Sa' t Paul does hereby order that the above-described improvement be made, and the proper City officers are hereby di ecte and authorized to proceed with the improvement; and be it FURTHER RESOLVED, That upon the co ple 'on of said improvement, the proper City officers shall calculate all expenses incurred therein and shall report the sam to he City Council in accordance with Chapter 14 of the City Charter. COUNCIL PERSON Adopted by the Council: Date Yeas��d Nays ��t� • Certified Passed b Council Secretary �� Rettto,ltn In Fa or By Scheibel � Sonnett Agai st i6Tilson Mayor . . � � � ,�&A 3/22/89 ��a3 DE ARTMENTlOFFICEICOUNqI DATE INITIATED � 2 31 Pub 1 i c Works S i dewa 1 ks 2�24�89 G EEN SHEET No. INITIAL/DATE INITIAL/DATE CONTACT PERSON 8 PHONE � p ENT DIRECTOR �CITY OOUNqL Thomas P Keef.e - 292-6283 �� ❑ �rv oRNev �CITY CLERK �us��e�n��ty��er�t's ce no �� ❑ uoa DIRECTOR �FlN.a AAOT.SERVICE8 DIR. � nr �oa nssisr�r► �]G�ut�GLl Re TOTAL N OF 81GNATURE PAGES (CLIP ALL LOCA ION FOR SIGNATUR� AC110N REOUE8TED: Reconstruct Old Defective and Unsafe Sidewalk n ard 2 F14B �/0• 5-89-02 S.S. SUMMIT AVE. - Heather Dr. to Ramsey St. This ls a historic preservation district. Con q ntly this order contains special proposals and cons d o RECOMMENDATIONS:Approve(l�or R�JsCt(R) COUNCIL COMM EARCFI REPORT OPTIONAL _PLANNIN�OOMMI9310N _qVIL 8ERVICE COMMISSION ��Y� PM�NE NO. qB COMMITTEE _ A �� _ COMMENTB: _DIBTAICT OOURT _ SUPPORTS WHICH COUNqI OBJECTIVE7 INCTIATINO PROBLEM,18SUE,OPPORTUNITY(Who,Whet,Whsn,Where,Wh�: The problem "defective sidewalk" was created be ause of tree roots, deleterious subgrade material , alternating freeze/thaw cycies, s vi e life limits, che�nical additives, extreme temperature variations, etc. These problems c r on a citywide level and must be addressed and corrected on an annu�basis. Left unco re ted the sidewalk condition would worsen to a state where it would be rendered unusable a d u6ject to increased pedestrian in,juries from falls and possible litigations. ADVANTA(3ES IF APPROVED: The co�nuntty will benefit from this proJe t cause it will provide safe defect free side- walks for its many citizens. The sidewalk on racts are executed by private contractors, so it follows that private sector Jobs are cr at d as a result of this activity. DISADVANTAGES IF APPROVED: Nistorically the sidewalk reconstructions ha e created negati�e feedback in the area of constructlon procedure and assessment. Si pl stated property owners detest assessments, and despite the #'act up to one-half the a se sment is City subsidized, it still remains controvers(al . DISADVANTA(�ES IF NOT APPROVED: This optlon would allow the infrastructu e f sidewalk stock to deteriorate, which in turn will generate more personal in,jury suit , ltimately resulting in the expenditure of larger doilar amounts in eventual repairs and/ r eplacement, as well �"�}�ii� ��y-oufi�s� ��,�.��. �`;�i�R (�,� �i i:,C,%'J TOTAL AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION i 3� ,750.00 �T VENUE BUDOET CIRCLE ONE� YES NO FUNDING SOURCE 89-1"�-�65� /�. P IA ��9 � 38 r� � ACTIVITY NUMSER 1422�� 02�50 FINANGAL�NFORMATION:(FJ(PWN) m C. CIB89 = 5 ,00 NOTE: COMPLETE DIRECTIONS ARE INCLUDED IN THE GREEN SHEET INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL AVAILABLE IN THE PURCHASING OFFICE(PHONE NO.298�4225). ROUTING ORDER: Below are preferred routings for the five most frequent rypes of documeMs: CONTRACTS (assumes suthorized COUNqL RESOWTION (Amend, Bdgts./ budget exists) Accept. Cirants) 1. Outside Agency 1. Department Dfrector 2. Initiating Department 2. Budget.Director 3. City Attorney 3. qty Attorney • 4. Mayor 4. Mayor/Assistant 5. Finance&Mgmt Svcs. Director 5. Gty Council 6. Finance Accounting 6. Chief Accountant, Fin�Mgmt Svcs. ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER (Budget COUNqL RESOLUTION (all others) Revision) and ORDINANCE 1. Activlry Manager 1. initisting Department Director 2. Department AccouMaM 2• �Y Ano►�Y 3. Departm�t Director 3. Mayor/Assistant 4. Budget Director 4. C:ity Council 5. City Gerk 6. Chief Accountant, Fin&Mgmt Svcs. ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS (all others) 1. Initiating DepaRment - 2. City Attomey 3. MayodAssistant 4. City Clerk TOTAL NUMBER OF SIGNATURE PAGES Indicate the�l of pages on which signatures are required and reli each of these pages. ACTION RE�UESTED Deacribe what the project/request aeeks W accomplish in either chronologi- cal order or order of importance,whichever is most appropriate for the issue. Do not write complete sentences. Begin each item in your list wfth a verb. RECOMMENDATIONS Complete ff the issue in question has been preseMed before any body, public or private. 3UPPORTS WHICH COUNCIL OBJECTIVE? Indicate which Council objective(s)your project/request suppoRs by listing the key�nrord(s)(HOUSING,RECREATION, NEIGHBORHOODS, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, BUD(iET, SEWER SEPARATION).(SEE COMPLETE LIST IN INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL.) ° COUNCIL COMMITTEE/RESEARCH REPORT-OPTIONAL AS RECtUESTED BY COUNCIL INITIATING PROBLEM, ISSUE, OPPORTUNITY Explain the situation or conditions that created a need for your project or request. ADVANTAGES IF APPROVED _Indicate whether this is simply an annual budget procedure required by law/ charter or whether there are speciflc ways in which the City of Saint Paul and its citizena wfll beneflt from this pro�ecUaction. DISADVANTAGES IF APPROVED � What negative effects or maJor changes to existing or pest prxesses might this projecUrequest produce if it is passed(e.g., traffic delays, noise, tax increases or assessments)?To Whom?When7 For how long? DISADVANTA(3ES IF NOT APPROVED What will be the negative consequences if the promised action is not approved?Inability to deliver service?Continued high traffic, noise, accident rate? Loss of revenue? FINANCIAL IMPACT Although you must tailor the information you provWe here to the issue you are addressing, in general you must answer two questions: How much is it . going to c�st?Who is going to pay? . � . � � � � ' V&A 3/22/8 ��°� DE,PARTMEN7/OFFICE/COUNdL DATE INITIATED � ��Q Pub 1 i c works S i dewa l ks 2�24�89 REEN SHEET NO. ,Nm�� CONTACT PERSOM 8 PHONE � P ENT DIRECTOR �CITY COUNqL Thomas P. Keefe - 292-6283 ��, ❑ � �N�v 0 cm c�rac MUST BE ON COUNdI AQENDA BY(DAT� ROUTIN�i � U DIRECTOR �FlN.8 MOT.SERVICES DIR. Must be in City Clerk's Office no �r coRnssisr�wn � Counci 1 Research � � TOTAL#�OF 8KiNATURE PAGES (CLIP ALL LOCA 10 FOR SIQNATUR� ACTIdr RE�UESTED: Reconstruct Old Defecttve and Unsafe Sidewalk in ard 1 F��F �• S-8'9-03 N.S. SUMMIT AVE. - Portland Ave. to Kent St. This is a historic preservation district. Con eq ently this order contains special proposals and considerations REOOMMENDATIONB:APP►we W c►Rslsct(1� COUNCIL COMAA EARCH REPORT OPTIONAL ANALYBT PNONE NO. _PLANNINO COMMIBSION _GVIL SERVICE COMMI9810N _CIB OOMMITTEE _ A_STAFF _ COMMENT8: _DISTRICT COURT — SUPPORT3 WHICH OOUNqL OBJECTIVE9 INITIATINO PROBLEM,IS8UE,OPPORTUNfTY(Who,What,WMn,Where,Wh»: The problem "defective sidewalk" was created be ause of tt`ee roots, deleterious subgrade material , alte�nati�g freeze/thaw cycles� s vi e life limits, chemical additives, extr,eme temperature variations, etc. These problems c r on a city�wide level and must be addressed and corrected on an annual�asis. Left unco re ted the sidewalk condition would worsen to a state where it would be rendered unusable a d bJect to increased pedestrian inJuries from falls and possible lttigations. ADVANTAOES IF APPROVED: The community will benefit from this proJe b cause it will provtde sa:f.;e defect free side- walks for its many citizens. The sidewalk n acts are executed by private contractors� so it follows that private sector jobs are cr t as a result of this activity. DI$ADVANTA(iE8 IF APPROVED: Historically the sidewalk reconst�uctions a created negative feedback in the area of construction procedure and assessment. Si pl stated property owners detest assessments, and despite the fact up to one-half the a se sment is City subsidized, it still remains controversial . DISADVANTAOES IF NOT APPROVED: This option would allow the infrastructu e f sidewalk stock to deteriorate, which in turn will generate more personat injury suits u timately resulting in the expenditure of larger dollar amounts in eventual repairs and/o r placement, as well_�s:z��i��,r„qc��s��;�;EC . ��aR � � �� TOTAL AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION 45�ZOb.OO �pgT EVENUE BUD�TE�GRCLE ONE) YES NO �Na�� 89-M-0658 A, P 1 A 89 = 384 00 ACTIVITY NUMCER A2201 - 02150 FIW4NCIAL INFORMATION:(EXPWN) B• A = � G� CIB 89 � 5 �0 NOTE: COMPLETE DIRECTIONS ARE INCLUDED IN THE GREEN SHEET INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL AVAILABLE IN THE PURCHASING OFFICE(PHONE NO. 298-4225). ROUTING ORDER: Below are preferred routings for the five most frequent types of documents: CONTRACTS (assumes authorized COUNqL RESOWTION (Amend, Bdgts./ budget exists) Accept.Grants) 1. Outside Agency 1. Department Director 2. Initiating DepaRmeM 2. Budget Director 3. City Attomey 3. qty Attorney 4. Mayor 4. Mayor/�4ssistant 5. Finance&Mgmt Svcs. Director 5. City Council 6. Finance Accounting 6. Chief Accountant, Fln 8 Mgmt Sv�cs. ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER (Budget COUNCIL RESOLUTION (all others) Revision) and ORDINANCE 1. Activiry Msnager 1. Initiating Department Director 2. Department Accountant 2. Gty Attorney 3. Depertment Director 3. MayoNAssistant 4. Budget Director 4. Gry Council 5. Gty Clerk 6. Chief Accountant, Fin &Mgmt Svcs. ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS (all others) 1. Initiating Department 2. Ciry Attorney 3. MayoNAssistant 4. . Ciry Clerk TOTAL NUMBER OF SIf�NATURE PAGES Indicate the#of pages on which signatures are required and reli each of these pages. ACTION REGIUESTED Desaribe what the projecUrequest aeeks to acCOmpllsh in either chronologi- cal orcler or order of Importance,whichever is most appropriate for the issue. Do not write.complete sentences. Begin each item in your I(st with a verb. RECOMMENDATIONS . Complete if the issue in question has been preseMed befwe any body, public or private. SUPPORTS WHICH COUNCIL OBJECTIVE� Indicate which Council objective(s)your project/request supports by listing the key word(s)(HOUSING, RECREATION, NEIGHBORHOODS, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, BUD(�lET, SEWER SEPARATION). (SEE COMPLETE LIST IN INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL.) COUNCIL COMMITTEEIRESEARCH REPORT-OPTIONAL AS REQUESTED BY COUNCIL INITIATIN(3 PROBLEM, ISSUE,OPPORTUNITY Explain the situallon or�nditions that created a need for your project or request. ADVANTA(�ES IF APPROVED Indicate whether this is simply an annual budget procedure required by law/ charter or whether there are specific ways in which the City of Saint Paul and tts cttizens will benefit from this projecUactlon. DISADVANTAC3ES IF APPROVED What negative effects or major changes to existing or past processes might this projecUrequest produce if it is passed(e.g.,traffic delays, noise, tax increases or aasessments)?To Whom?When?For how long? DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED What will be the negative consequences ff the promised action is not approved? Inebiliry to deliver service?Continued high traffic, noise, accident rate?Loss of revenue? FINANCIAL IMPACT Although you must tailor the information you provide here to the issue you are addressing, in general you must answer two questions: How much is it going to cost7 Who is going to pay? . , , � . V&A; 3/22/$9 ��O�� DEPARTMENTR)FFICEICOUNpI 2%24%89 � ��+ Publ ic Works Sidewalks EEN SHEET NO. INRIAU DATE INITIAUDATE OONTACT PEHSON 6 PHONE � P ENT DIRECTOR CITY OOUNqL Thomas P. Keefe - 292-6283 �� RN�r g aTV c�wc MUBT BE ON COUNpL AQENDA BY(DAT� 3 Z$ H9 �OU71N0 � U DIRECTOR FIN.&MOT.SERVICES DIR. Must be in City Clerk's Ot ice no v �oR�saisr�n Counci 1 ReSearch TOTAL#�OF SIl3NATURE PAGES (CLIP ALL LOCA O FOR SIGNATUR� ACTION REOUES7ED: Reconstruct Old Defective and Unsafe Sidewalk in ard t - �ttEN� , S-p9-Oy N.S. SUMMIT AVE. - Selby Ave. to Western Ave. This is a historic preservation district. Con eq ently this order contains special proposals and considerations. RECOMMENDATIONS:�PP►�GU a►�le�(� COUNCq.COM EARCH REPORT OPTIONAL ANALYST PHONE NO. _PLANNINO COMMISSION _GVIL SERVICE COMMI8810N _GB COMMfTTEE _ A STAFF _ COMMENTB: _DISTRICT COURT _ $UPPORTS NMICH COUNqL OBJECTIVE7 INfTIATIPKa PROBLEM,ISSUE,�PORTUNITV(Who,Whet,Whsn,Where,WhYI: The probiem "defective sidewalk" was create b cause of tree roots, deleterious subgrade materiai , alternating freeze/thaw cycles, s rvi ce life limits, ci�emica�l additives, extreme temperature variations, etc. These problems oc ur on a citywide level and must be addressed and corrected on an annuaT�basis. Left unc r ted the sidewalk condltion would worsen to a state wheFe it would be rendered unusable d ubJect to increased pedestrian in_juries fran falls and possible litigations. ADVANTAOEB IF APPROVED: The community wtll benefit from this pro� t ecause it will provide safe defect free side- v�talks for its many citizens. The sidewalk co tracts a�e executed by private contractors, so it follows that private sector ,jobs are c ea ed as a result of this activity. DISADVANTAOES IF APPROVED: Historically the sidewalk reconstruction k� ve created negative feedback in the area of construction procedure and assessment. imp y stated property owners detest assessments, and despite the fact up to one-half the as ssment is City subsidized, it still remains controversial . DIBADVANTAOES IF NOT APPROVED: This option would allow the infrastruc ur of sidewalk stock to deteriorate, which in turn will generate more personal inJury sui s, ultimately resulting in the expenditure of larger dollar amounts in eventual repairs and or replacement, as wetl�'`e as ctaim pay outs. ""J..a�'.✓., .��;��,��3� C��IL.�,r -� �:, �, ,_: I� . .., r:N � l..�..� TOTAL AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION s 66,590.�� gT EVENUE BUDGETE (CIRCLE ON� YES NO FUNDINO SOURCE 8 "'M-O6 H A. P IA 89 n S4 OOO ACTIVITY NUMBER AllO� - O2�SO FlNANCIAL INFORMI1T10N:(IXPLAIN) B, AST = O1 0 0 C, CiB 89 = 50 000 NOTE: COMPLETE DIRECTIONS ARE INCLUDED IN THE GREEN SHEET INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL AVAILABLE IN THE PURCHASING OFFICE(PHONE NO.298-4225). ROUTING ORDER: Below are preferred rouNngs for the five most frequent types of documents: CONTRACTS (assurt�es authorized COUNGL RESOLUTION (Amend, Bdgts./ budget existsj Accept.Grents) 1. Outside Agency 1. Depertment DireCtor 2. Initiating Depar[ment 2. Budpet Director 3. Gry Attomey 3. City Attorney 4. Mayor 4. MayoNAssistant 5. Finance&Mgmt Svcs. Director 5. Cfty Council 6. Fnance Accounting 8. Chief AccouMant, Fin&Mgmt Svcs. ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER (Budget COUNCIL RESOLUTION (all others) Revision) and ORDINANCE 1. Activity Manager 1. Initiating Department Director 2. Department Accountant 2. Gty Attorney 3. Department Director 3. MayoNAssistant 4. Budget Director 4. City Council 5. Gty Clerk 6. Chief Acc�untant, Fn&Mgmt Svcs. ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS (all others) L Initiating DepartmeM 2. C1ty Attorney 3. MayoNAsaistant 4. City Clerk TOTAL NUMBER OF SIGNATURE PA(3ES Indicste the A�of pages on which signatures are requfred and paperclip each of these pages• ACTION REQUESTED Describe what the projecUrequest seeks to accompNsh in either chronologi- cel arder or orcler of importance,whichever is most appropriate for the issue. Do not write complete seMences. Begin each item in your list with a verb. RECOMMENDATIONS Complete if the issue in question has been presented before any body, public or private. SUPPORTS WHICH COUNCIL OBJECTIVE7 Indicate which Council objective(s)your project/request supports by listing the key word(s)(HOUSIN(i, RECREATION, NEICiHBORHOODS, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, BUDGET,S�WER SEPARATION).(SEE COMPLETE LIST IN INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL.) COUNCIL COMMIlTEE/RESEARCH REPORT-OPTIONAL AS REQUESTED BY COUNCIL iNITIATING PROBLEM, ISSUE, OPPORTUNITY Explain the situation or conditions that c�eated a need for your project or request. ADVANTAGES IF APPROVEO _Indfcate whether this is simply an annuat budget prxedure required by law/ charter or whether there are speciflc wa in which the City of Saint Paul and its citizens will beneflt from this pro�icUaction. DISADVANTAGES IF APPROVED What negative effects or major changes to existing or past processes might this projecUrequest produce if it is passed(e.g.,traffic delays, noise, tax increases or assessments)?To Whom?When? For how long? DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED What will be the negative consequences if the promised action is not approved�Inability to deUver service?Continued high traffic, noise, accident rate? Loss of revenue? FINANCIAL IMPACT Although you must taiior the information you provide here to the issue you ere addressing, in general you must answer two questions: How much is it going to cost?Who is going to payt . . . . . . � . V&A .3/2�/89 �,��'a$ DEP�IRTMENTIOFFlCE/COUNqL °2�zbi�9 REEN SHEET No. 1 2 3� Public Works Sidewalks CONTACT PERSON d�PHONE � P ENT DIRECTOR INITIAU DATE ❑��N�L INRINJDATE Thomas P. Keefe - 292-6283 �� crrr TTORNEY �GTY CLERK MUST BE ON COUNCIL AGENDA BY(DAT� 3/2 g/g 9 ROUTMI�i BU ET DIRECTOR �flN.d MOT.SERVICES aR. ust be in City Clerk's Of f ice no Mav �oR nssisr,�rm �]Gounc i 1 Resea rch > > TOTAL M OF SIGNATURE PAQES (CLIP ALL L O S FOR SIQNATUR� ACTION REQUE8TED: Reconstruct Old Defective and Unsafe Sidewatk in ard -Ftl1/ND. S-�9•O,S'� S.S. SUMMIT AVE. - Ramsey St. to approxima�e -7 feet east o� the extended east line of Nina St. This is a t�istoric preservation district. Con eq ently this order contains special proposals and considerations. RECOMMENDAT1�18:MP►�U)o►�Ne�(R1 COUNCIL COM EARCH REPORT OPTIONAL ANAI.YST PHONE NO. _PLANNINO OOMMIS810N _CIVIL 3ERVICE COMMI8810N _CIB COMMfREE _ �_�� — COMMENT3: _DISTRICf OOURT _ SUPPORTS WFUCH COUNqL 08JECTiVE4 INITIATINO PR08lEM�ISSUE.OPPORTUNITV(Who�What.When�Where�WhY). The problem "defective sidewalk" was create b ause of tree roots� deleterious subgrade material , alternating freeze/thaw cycles, s rvice life limits, chemical additives, extreme temperature variations� etc. These problems oc ur on a citywide level and must be addressed and corrected on an annua�basis. Left unco re t�d the sidewalk condition would worsen to a state where 1t would be rendered unusuable nd subJect to increased pedestrian inJuries from falls and possible litigations. ADVANTAOES IF APPROVED: � The community will benefit from this proJe t ecau�se it will provide safe defect fr.ee side- walks for its many citizens. The sidewalk on racts are executed by private contractors, so it fol.tows that private sector Jobs are cr at d as a result of this activity. DIBADVANTAQEB IF APPROVED: Historically the side�valk reconstructfons ha e created negative f eedback in the area of construction procedure and assessment. Sf pl stated property owners detest assessments, and despite the fact up to one-half the ss ssment is City subsidized , it still remains controversial . DIBADVANTAOES IF NOT APPF�VED: This option would allow the infrastruct re of sidewalk stock to deteriorate, which in turn will generate more personal injury suit , ltimately resulting in the expenditure of larger dollar amounts in eventual repairs and/ r eplacement, as well a�5.;�cl�itn p��-:A�u,t�,s?� ��.`��. �V�� u � �;:;;�� TOTAL AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION a 64,700.OO Cpg VENUE BUDGETED CIRCLE ONE) YES NO FUNDING SOURCE 89-M-0658 A. P i A 89 = 38 �0 0 ACTIVITY NUM�R �2201 - 02150 FlNANdAL INFORMATION:(EXPWM B. AST � , 0 C. GIB 89 � 0, 0 . � NOTE: COMPLETE DIRECTIONS ARE INCLUDED IN THE aREEN SHEET INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL AVAILABLE IN THE PURCHASING OFFICE(PHONE NO.298-4225). ROUTING ORDER: Below are preferred routings for the five most frequent types of dxuments: CONTRACTS (assumes suthorized COUNCIL RESOLUTION (Amend, Bdgts./ .budget exiats) Accept. Grants) 1. Outside Agency 1. Department Director 2. Initiating Department 2. Budget Director 3. Clty Attomey 3. Ciry Attomey 4. Mayor 4. MayodAssistant 5. Flnance 8�Mgmt Svcs. Director 5. City Council 6. Finance Accounting 8. Chief Accountant, Fln 8�Mgmt Svcs. ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER (Budget COUNCIL RESOLUTION (all others) Revision) and ORDINANCE 1. Activity Manager 1. Initiating Department Director 2. DepaRment Axountant 2. City Attorney 3. Department Dtrector 3. MayoNAssistant 4. Budget Director 4. City Council 5. City Clerk 6. Chief Accountant, Fin &Mgmt Svcs. ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS (all others) 1. Initiating Department 2. City Attorney 3. Mayor/Assistant . 4. , Ciy Clerk TOTAL NUMBER OF S�GNATURE PAGES Indicate the#of pages on which signatures are required and paperC�iP each of these pages. ACTION RE(�UESTED Deecrfbe what the projecUrequest seeks to accomplish in either chronologi- cal oMer or order of importance,whfchever is most appropriate for the issue. Do not wrtte complete sentences. Begin each item in your list with a verb. RECOMMENDATIONS Complete if the iss�e in question has been presented before any body, public or private. SUPPORTS WHICH COUNCIL OBJECTIVE? Indicate which Council ob)ective(s)your projecUrequest supports by Uating the key word(s)(HOUSING, RECREATION, NEIGHBORHOODS, ECONOMIC DEVEWPMENT, BUDGET, SEWER SEPARATION).(SEE COMPLETE LIST IN INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL.) COUNCIL COMMITTEE/RESEARCH REPORT-OPTIONAL AS REOUESTED BY COUNCIL INITIATING PROBLEM, ISSUE,OPPORTUNITY Explain the situation or c�di[lons that created a need Mr your project or request. ADVANTAGES IF APPROVED Indicate whether this is simply an annual budget procedure required by law/ charter or whether there are speciflc wa 1n which the City of Saint Paul and its citizens wfll benefit from this pro�ict/action. . DISADVANTAOES IF APPROVED What negative effects or major changes to existing or past processes might this projectlrequest produce if it is passed(e.g.,traffic delays, noise, tax increases or asaessments)?To Whom?When? For how long? DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED What will be the negative consequences if the promised action is not approved?Inability to deliver service?Continued high traffic, nase, accident rate? Loss of revenue? FINANCIAL IMPACT Although you must tailor the information you provide here to the issue you are addressing, in general you must answer two questions: How much is it going to cost?Who is gang to pay7 �. . � - � � �. PAU ITY CO�UNCIL � '� S T c�,� ,�.,., PUBLIC H RING NOTICE ��3 SIDEWAL ONSTRUCTION File No. S- 9- Dear i'roperty Owner: City Council District I12 Planning District Council 1116 P U R POS E To consider the re onstruction of all or part of the public sidewal in front of you p operty. The limits of this project are as follows: AN D South sid S IT AVENUE from Heather Drive to Ramsey Street LOCATION RECEIVED qpR 2 419a9 CITY CLERK H EA RIN G Thursday, May 1 , 989, at 9:00 A.M. City Council Ch mb rs, Third Floor City Hall - Court House --------------- -- -------------------------------------------------- Please note t}�a tie Public Works Committee of the City Council will discuss this it m nd develop a recommendation to the full City Council. Pleas b ing any unresolved concerns that you may have to this meeting on Wednesday, May 3, 1989 in Room 707 City Hall - Court House at :0 A.M. IN FO R M ATIO N If tlie Council pp oves the orders (or any part thereo , a port on of the costs wi 1 e assessed (after construction) against benefitted properties. Yo w 11 only be assessed for sidewalk work that abuts your property. Th estimated rate for this pro3ect is as foll.ows: $2.75 per square foot Please Note: 'I' e idewalk reconstruction will be done in accordance w th the Department of Public Works' recommendations a d he Heritage Preservation Commission Resolution 8 -1 Ti�e sidewalk re on truction will consist of poured concrete sidewalks t}iat will be sc re (not saw-cut) in a two-foot square pattern where .t- ---------'' --JJ t_ ..�.� t....� ....� .... 1.1,...L.. ...t....-., ..e.., .,�..u_Fe.e�t r.t�An � � � ST�. PAUL i Y C�UNCIL C' '� ,�. � PUBLIC HE ING NOTICE �,�� SIDEWALK NSTRUCTION File No. 5-89-03 Dear Property Owner: cicy Council District � 1 Planning District Council �18 PU RPOS E To consider the re n ruction of all or part of the public sidewal in front of your p op rty. The limits of this pro,ject are as follows: AN D North Side S I AVENUE from Portland Avenue to Kent Street LO CAT I O N RECEIVED ppR 2 41989 CITY CLERK H EA RIN G Thursday, May 11, 98 , at 9:00 A.M. City Council Cham er , Third Floor City }�all - Court House ----------------- -- ----------------------------------------------- Please note that }�e Public Works Committee of the City Council will discuss this item an develop a recommendation to the full City Council. Please ri g any unresolved concerns that you may have to this meeting o W dnesday, May 3, 1989 in Room 707 City Hall - Court House at 9: 0 .M. IN FO R M ATIO N If tl�e Council ap ro es the orders (or any part thereo , a port on of the costs will be assessed (after construction) against benefitted properties. You il only be assessed for sidewalk work that abuts your property. e stimated rate for this pro3ect is as foll.ows: $2,75 per square foot Please Note: 1'1► s dewalk reconstruction will be done in accordance wi h he Department of Public Works' recommendations an t e Heritage Preservation Commission Resolution 89 1. T}ie sidewalk rec ns ruction will consist of poured conerete sidewalks that will be sco ed (not saw-cut) in a two-foot square pattern where the current widt i ten feet and on blocks where new nine-foot wide poured concrete id walks with a two-foot square scoring pattern already exist, a d cored in an 18-inch square pattern where the current width i n e feet with 18-inch tiles, and expansion �oints will match the co ing. Also, the Depart en of Public Works proposes to provide all property owners in this e the option to have the public sidewalks along t}ieir property ep aced with new poured and scored concrete sidewalks under City cont ac in 1989, or to have the existing tile sidewalks repaired to Dep rt ent of Public Works Gtandards and specifications in 1989 under p iv te contract and a permit issued by the Department of Public Works (i a property owner cliooses the repair option but fails to comple e he work in 1989, the Department of Public Works proposes to imp em nt the pour-and-score option under city contract in 1990) . Notice sent 4/24/89 by the Real Estate Div. Dept. of Finance & � Management Services 218 City Hall - Court Nouse, St. Paul, MN 55102 Please call 298 42 5 for construction questions or - QU ESTIO N S (Voice or TDD) or assessment questions. Also, City staff will be available to an. we any last minute questions on the project in Room Z18 City H 11 from 8:30-9:00 A.M. the same day as the hearing. � � � PAUL I Y CQUNCIL e '�`'` S T. �/�,.�. PUBLIC HE ING N4TICE �?,��3 SIDEWALK C NSTRUCTION File No. S-89-04 Dear Property Owner: eicy Cotmcil District ll l Planning District Council ll8 PURPOSE To consider the rec st uction of all or part of the public sidewa in front of your pr e ty. The limits of this pro�ect are as follows: AN D North side SU1�fIT V UE from Selby Avenue to Western Avenue LO CAT I O N �CEIVED APR 2 41989 CITY CLERK HEARING Thursday, May 11, 98 , at 9:00 A.M. City Council Chamb rs Third Floor City Nall - Court House --------------- - ----------------------------------------------- Please note that t e ublic Works Committee of the City Council will discuss this item nd develop a recommendation to the full City Council. Please b in any unresolved concerns that you may have to this meeting o W nesday, May 3, 1989 in Room 707 City Hall - Court Nouse at 9: .M. If tlie Council ap ro es the orders (or any part thereo , a port on INFO R M ATIO N of the costs will be assessed (after construction) against benefitted properties. You il only be assessed for gidewalk work that abuts your property. T e stimated rate for this project is as foll.ows: $2.75 per square foot Please Note: T'ti s ewalk reconstruction will be done in accordance wi h he Department of Public Works' recommendations an t e Neritage Preservation Commission Resolution 89 1. The sidewalk rec ns ruction will consist of poured concrete sidewalks tliat will be sco ed (not saw-cut) in a two-foot square pattern where the current widti i ten feet and on blocks where new nine-foot wide poured concrete id walks with a two-foot square scoring pattern already exist, d scored in an 18-inch gquare pattern where the current width i n e feet with 18-inch tiles, and expansion joints will match the co ing. Also, the Depar me t of Public Works proposes to provide all property owners in this re the option to have tt�e public sidewalks along t}ieir property ep aced with new poured and scored concrete sidewalks under City cont ac in 1989, or to have the existing tile sidewalks repaired to Dep rt ent of Public Works Gtandards and specifications in 1989 under p iv te contract and a permit issued by the Department of Public Works (i a property owner chooses the repair option but fails to compl te the work in 1989, the Department of Public Works proposes to im le ent the pour-and-score option under City contract in 1990) . Notice sent 4/24/89 by the Real Estate Div. Dept. of Finance & • Management Services 218 City Hall - Court Nouse, St. Paul, MN 55102 Please call 29 -4 55 for construction questions or - QU ESTIO N S �Voice or TDD) fo assessment questions. Also, City staff will be available to a sw r any last minute questions on the pro3ect in Room 218 City al from 8:30-9:00 A.M. the same day as the hearing. . . . � r, ' ! ST. PAUL CI CO�UNCIL C/er �.,, PUBLIC HEA I G NC�TICE �� SIDEWALK C STRUCTION File No. 5-89-05 Dear Property Owner: cicy Co�mcil District �l 2 Planning District Council 118 P U R POS E To consider the recon tr ction of all or part of ttle public sidewa in front of your prop rt . The limits of this pro3ect are as follows: A N D South side SiJhIl�IIT VE UE from Ramsey Street ta approximately 70 feet east of th e tended east line of Nina sc��EIVED LOCATION APR 2 41989 CITY CLERK H EA RIN G Thursday, May 11, 1 9, at 9:00 A.M. City Council Chambe s, hird Floor City Hall - Court House ------------------- -- ---------------------------------------------- Please note that th P blic Works Committee of the City Council will discvss this item a d evelop a recommendation to the full City Council. Please br ng any unresolved concerns that you may have to this meeting on ed esday, May 3, 1989 in Room 707 City Hall - Court House at 9:00 A. . IN FO R M ATIO N If tlie Council app v the orders (or any part thereo , a port on of tt�e costs will e ssessed (after construction) against benefitted properties. You w 11 only be assessed for sidewalk work that abuts your property. Th e timated rate for this pro�ect is as foll.ows: S2•75 per square foot Please Note: Ttie id walk reconstruction will be done in accordance wit t Department of Public Works' recommendations and th Heritage Preservation Commission Resolution 89- T}ie sidewalk reco st uction will consist of poured concrete sidewalks t}iat will be scor d not saw-cut) in a two-foot square pattern where the current widtl� is ten feet and on blocks where new nine-foot wide poured concrete s de alks with a two-foot square scoring pattern already exist, a s ored in an 18-incii 4quare pattern where the current width is i feet with 18-inch tiles, and expansion �ointa will match the s or ng. Also, the Depart en of Public Works proposes to provide all property owners in this a ea the option to have the public sidewalks along tt�eir property r pl ced with new poured and scored concrete sidewalks under City contr ct in 1989, or to have the existing tile sidewalks repaired to Depa tm .nt of Public Works Rtandards and specifications in 1989 under pr va e contract and a permit issued by the Department of Public Works (if a property owner chooses the repair option but fails to comple e work in 1989, the Department of Public Works proposes to imp em t the pour-and-score option under City contract in 1990) . Notice sent 4/24/89 by the Real Estate Div. Dept. of Finance & • Management Services 218 City Hall - Court House, St. Paul, MN 55102 Please call 298 42 5 for construction questions or - QU ESTION S (Voice or TDD) or assessment questions. Also, City staff will be available to an we any last minute questions on the pro�ect in Room 218 City H 11 from 8:30-9:00 A.M. the same day as the hearing. �� 3 p ��$ . . council File rio: s9-s79—sy scheibeY,lvi�nisa�L.wilson—. In the Matter of si�dewaIk co tructic►n fo�tbe follo�viagp�aje�t�:tQ b��i�e in accordance;with the Depa�t en of F'.tib;li�.Works Recommendations and�:the ' Heritage Preservation Commi io Aesolution$9-i: - Voting : Ward _ : 2 5-88-02--�outh side Su it�A e.�mm F#eather Dr.to Ramsey.St.' 1 5.89-93-North side Su 't A e.'from Po�tland Ave. to Kent St. � 1 S�04-Nost}i side 5u 't A e.fmm Seltiy'Ave.�a West�sn A�+e. ' i 2 S-8g-06—�tt3'side Sum t A .ir�'Ramsey St.to app�im��e�y 7�fee+E �ast oi t.�ie ea�tended east ii e of ine'3b. ' _ ' The�ou�cil of tl'ie C9ty of ' t aul�aving receive�l�e repaxt of.:E#�e 7�dr ` � upon the above improvement hav�ng=conside�d sa3t� rep�rf, -�tesep�t resolve.s: . , � ,. , L Tl�at the said report c# the same .is hereby approvei� wf€'Eh no: , � � ,�,=a3texAa�t�;�ies,•„�a-�►�: �h�„��}mated,'cost thereof is fi#t�ncec� by E assessmezets./l,tl.benefit ec# operEi�erq�#��ass�SSed��Et,��r�t3::2&�_�i , Per ssjua�e�oot of sidew ik onstnieted. � 2. That a ptiblic hearing be ad ssid imprr�vement on the�2th d y ct�� I989,at�:�0 o'Elock a.m. i� Catmcii=�a�bers o� e � � o�u x ing in h e 'ty o f�S a i a a i t PauL' 3. That notice of said pwb o�h aring be �ven to the peat"so�E�anei i��t15� mannez provided by the h erR stating the time and place of h��g, the nature of�t2�e improv ' a�d the total cost ther�of�rs-��;' File No.Sc89-(�Z:thru 5-89�5. At��e�€-�the C9cme�ll Apri �, .#prt,l 5,:I9�: _ , . - . : ' 15,1�89) _ _ , � . - �. , . C�-�i�� Members: � CITY O AINT PAUL Roger J. Goswitz� chair . , ��,,;n Janice Rettman im tn u , OFFIOB3 FI� CITY COQNUIL Tom Dimond Date: May 3, 198 Co ittee Report RECEivE� To: Saint Paul City Cou ci MAY 4 3�989 From :Public Works, Util ti s, and Transportat�ioncr.ER� Committee Roger J. Goswitz air � The Public Works Committee at ts meeting of May 3, 1989 took the following action: • l. Approval of min es of April 19, 1989. Hearing Date 2.�"��'��$,9 FINAL ORDER: id alk reconstruction for the Laid Over following pro ec s to be constructed in Committee to accordance with th Department of Public Works 5-31-89 recommendations an the Heritage Preservation _ Commission Reso ut on 89-1: , � S-89-02 - Sou h side SUrII�IIT AVENUE from Hea he Drive to Ramsey Street S-89-03 - Nor h side SUMMIT AVENUE from � ' Po la d Avenue to Kent Street S-89-04 - No th side SUMMIT AVENUE from Se by venue to Western Avenue � 5-89-05 - So th side SUMMIT AVENUE from ' Ra se Street to approximately 70 " ft e st of the extended east line of Ni a Street 3. 5/11/89 FINAL ORDER: Si ewalk reconstruc on at the Laid Over In • following: Committee To 5-31-89 5-89-08 - Wes s de NINA STREET from Summit Av u to Maiden Lane 4. 5/9/89 RATIFICATION 0 AWARD OF DAMAGES: For Approved permanent an emporary easements for the 3-0 ' STARKEY/PLATO ST RM SEWER PROJECT. 5. 5/16/89 FINAL ORDER: aking a permanent easement on Approved land descri ed as part southeasterly . of 3-0 SEVENTH STREE o Lot 1, Block 12, Brunson's Addition for t e purpose of improving and maintaining e ridge. CITY HALL SEVE TH LOOR SAINT PAUL.� MINNESOTA 55102' ��s . , . � . ' - �i! " ��3 r - � � 6• RESOLUTION 89-621 Concurring with action Approved taken by the Boar o Water Commissioners and 3-0 approving water ai easement on property owned by Andrew Re lt Corp, known as SEEGER SQUARE. (Referred o ommittee 4/11/89) . 7• RESOLUTION 89-623: ending C.F. 88-1757 by Laid Over In changing the widt o construction of PASCAL Committee To from Marshall to C nc rdia from 44 feet, with 5-17-89 parking on both si es to 36 feet, with parking on one side. (Refe re to Committee 4/11/89) . 8. RESOLUTION 89-624: H lding the State harmless Approved for granting a var an e to MSA width standards 3-0 on a portion o URLINGTON ROAD between Springside Drive a d otem Road. (Referred to Committee 4/11/89) . 9. RESOLUTION 89-625: H ding the State harmless Laid Over In ' for granting a var' nc to allow existence of Committee To three utility pole thin the two-foot clear 5-17-89 zone required by S standards on CHESTNUT STREET between W. th and Smith. (Referred to Committee 4/11/89) . 10. RESOLUTION 89-626: uthorizing proper City Approved officials to pay Tr ns City Investment the sum 3-0 of $97,680 for the cq isition of ponding area . in connection wit he STILLWATER/NOKOMIS SEWER PROJECT. (R ferred to Committee 4/11/89) . 11. RESOLUTION 89-627: uthorizing proper City Withdrawn officials to dep si with the Clerk of District Court $35 12 for easement interest in land owned by Ad el , Inc. in con�unction with the MARSHA L/ AMLINE SEWER PROJECT (Referred to Commit ee 4/11/89) . 12. RESOLUTION 89-361: uthorizing proper City Denied officials to le se to Naegele Outdoor Advertising, Inc. , ro erty located at 1060 W. 7TH STREET to displ y dvertising sign. (Laid over in Committee 4 19 89) . 13. RESOLUTION 89-693: uthorizing proper City Approved officials to execut a agreement with Ramsey 3-0 County and the cit es of Roseville and Falcon Heights for the c st, maintenance and operation of traff c ignals on LARPENTEUR at Hamline, FERNWOOD, UNLAP and LEXINGTON PARKWAY. (Referred mmittee 4/20/89) . 14. RESOLUTION 89-323: P1 n to phase out certain Laid Over In water systems. ( ai over in Committee Committee To 3/8/89) . 5-17-89 , 15. CABLE ACCESS REPORT. No Action Required 16. SOLID WASTE UYllATE N Action Required . � � ��'�'I-��3 � 4' FINAL ORDER: Sidewalk ec nstruction for the following projects to e econstructed �n Approved 4-0 accordance with the De ar ment of Public Works recommendations and th H ritage Preserva ' � Commission - Resolutio g _� ; tion � S'8902 - South side M T AVENUE from Heather. Drive to Rams reet; � 5-8903 - North side SU IT AVENUE from Portland Avenue to Ke t treet; 5-8904 - North side UM IT AVENUE from Selby �. - Avenue to Western Ave ue '= S'8905 - South side .�` Street to approximate y OTfeetNeastrof thesey extended east line of Ni a Street, and S'8908 - West side IN STREET from Summit Avenue to Maiden Lane (0 der on Nina Street to � be amended for work with the Heritage Pr se ation Commission�ce (Laid over in Commit ee 5/3 89 , 5' FINAL ORDER - 89-746 sewer and service co ne tionsUiniHALLaLANEry Approved 3-0 from Delos Street to 35 feet north of Delos Street. (Referred ba k o Corr�nittee 5/11/89) . I 6' 6�29/89, RATIFICATION OF ASSE SM NTS: For the radin and paving of the N th South/East-West alleys Approved 3-0 in Block 1 , King's c e Park Addition (bounded by Wheeloc , cade, Sherwood and Walsh). (Laid over in Committee 3/22/gg), �• RESOLUTION 89-821: Am nding the 1989 bud et by adding �545,248 o he Financin and 9 without Spending Plans for ub ic Works Traffic Signa) Recommendation Lighting Maintenanc F nd. (Referred to Committee 5/11/89). 8• REPORT of the Park a Recreation Division on N/A the PIG'S EYE WOOD RE CLING CENTER. 9• UPDATE - Signage, tc for traffic signal N modifications at v ri us locations along I-94 �A corridor in downto n t. Paul . 10. RESOLUTION 89-770: R questing the Mayor to direct the Departm nt of Finance and Denied 3-0 Management to redu e y �28,000 the 1989 assessment agains p perties which did not receive promised tr t cleaning services in the Fall of 1988. ( aid over in Committee 5/17/89). , � � / Members: (�ITY�.OF INT PAUL Roger J. Goswitz, chair � Janice Rettman OFFICE OF A CITY COUNC�IL Tom Dimond Date: rlay 31, 1989 Com itt e Report � . To: Saint Paui City Council � . From :Public Works, Utilitie , nd Transportation Committee � r� - Roger J. Goswitz, C ai -.; . . 1. Approval of minutes o M y 17, 1989. Hearing Date . 2. 6/6/8�3 FINAL ORDER: Acquisi io of a part of Approved 3-0 Lot 1 , Block 19, Beav r ake Heights. Purpose is to bring ALGONQUIN ST EET up to MSA standards. 3. 6/13/89 FINAL ORDER: Sidewal c nstruction and/or . reconstruction at fol o 'ng locations: S-8909 - North side A AVENUE from S. Approved 3-0 Fairview to S. Wheel reet�. � S-8910 - North side I ERSITY AVENUE from Approved 3-0 Pillsbury to Hampden v ue with integral curb; � S-8906 - South side RE NEY AVENUE from Etna Laid Over to Hazelwood Street, an East side ETNA STREET Indefinitely from Reaney Avenue t B sh Avenue; S-8907 - Both sides IL ON AVENUE from White Withdrawn - Bear Avenue to Ruth tr et. Cl'TY HALL SEVENTH FL UR SAINT PAUI.� MINNFSOTA 55102 �e � MMARY F EN INE R G RE MMENDATI N HEARING DA E: May 11, 1989 ar 2 mmi Av n - H r Drive R m e re This order was initiated by the Director of u lic Works as a public necessity on the basis of 1 complaint, 2 requests for repair th request of Joseph Koenig (City Engineer) and an inspection of the walk. This walk is old tile with broken tile, holes n ti e, asphalt patches, uneven tile, settled tile and heaved tile. The Engineering Recommendation is for pp val of the order for reconstruction as per the Heritage Preservation Commissio (H C) resolution 87-4 passed on July 9, 1987. This resolution pertains to the repl e ent criteria for sidewalks on Summit Avenue. The resolution states: 1. Any proposed Department of Publi W rks activity within a Heritage Preservation District and requiring ity Council approval should be reviewed by the Heritage Preservation Commis on before going to the City Council for approval; the recommendations of t e eritage Preservation Commission should be sent to the City Council a on with the Department of Public Works proposal; and 2. The concrete tile public sidewalks a on Summit Avenue between Selby Avenue and Dale Street and along tre ts which intersect Summit Avenue between the alleys and Summit Av nu should be replaced with poured concrete sidewalks with the followin c nditions: The need for replacement is d cu ented; The sidewalks are a width of 1 fe t and scored (not sawcut) in a 2 foot square pattern where the curr t idth is 10 feet, and a width of 9 feet and scored in an 18 inch pattern w er the current width is 9 feet with 18 inch � tiles; The expansion joints match t e coring; and Handicap ramps are installe as on the northeast and northwest corners of Summit and Western Avenu s, ith a section of granite curbing lowered and the ramps on the inside f t e curbs as part of the poured concrete sidewalk; and 3. Stone slab sidewalks along Sum it venue generally should be maintained and repaired as necessary with o igi al materials; asphalt and concrete patches should not be used; and 4. Any historic public sidewalk, curb ng, street lighting or other public property, including brick and stone paving, h uld be protected by property owners, contractors, the Department of P bli Works and utitfities from damage due to construction, snow removal or ot er easons; and historic property that is damaged should be repaired wit or' inal materials; asphalt and concrete patches should not be used. Because of the historic aspects of the a ea the amount of pedestrian use and the resolution by HPC, the Engineering Div sio of Public Works will not be making the normal recommendations for replacem nt f sidewalks. Our recommendations are as follows: 1. Replace all old tile (2 feet by 2 f et, 18 inch by 18 inch, hexagon or other) with new mono walk as indicated on he rawings (approximately 847 lineal feet). 2. The new mono walk will be eith r 9 eet or 10 feet wide. 3. The new mono walk will be scor d not sawcut) to either 2 feet by 2 feet or 18 inch x 18 inch and the expansio jo nts will match scoring. Where a new 9 foot wide mono walk exists with 2 fe t 2 feet scoring, the new walk will match the 2 feet by 2 feet score tile look. 8 i ch by 18 inch scoring will take place only if C1?'Y Gr SA1N7' PALJL NERlTAGE PR�SERVATION MM1SS10N RESOLUTION FILE NUMBER 89-1 DATE Fcbruary 9, 98 WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Hcritagc Prc er tion Commission is authorized by Chapter 73 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code to re ie and make recommendations concerning all city activity to change the nature or appear nc of designated Heritage Preservation Sites or Heritage Preservation Districts; and WHEREAS, Chapter 73 stated purposes ncl de to safeguard the heritage of the City of Saint Paul and to enhance the visual an a sthetic character and interest of the City; and WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Department f ublic Works is proposing to replace sections of public sidewalks along Summit Avenue et ecn Selby Avenue and Kent Street, within the Historic Hill Heritage Preservation Dist ict whcre the sidewalks are deteriorated and where the sidewalk grade needs to be r 'se to ensure adequate drainage; and WHEREAS, the City is responsible for ai taining public sidewalks in a safe condition and can be held liable for accidents an in ury resulting from sidewalks with holes, heaves, sharp changcs in grade, and inadequate dra'nage; and WHEREAS, the Summit Avenue Plan, a op ed by the City Council as part of the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan on September 9, 19 6, alls for replacement of the tile sidewalks on Summit Avenue east of Dale Street wit po red concrete sidewalks scored to resemble the old tiles by 1990; and � WHEREAS, the Heritage Preservation om ission, on July 9, 1987, unanimously adopted Resolution 87-4 setting design guideline f r sidewalk replacement on Summit Avenue; and WHEREAS, the Department of Public or proposes to install new monolithic poured concrete sidewalks at a width of either in or ten feet to match the existing width where replacement is necessary, as called for i H C Resolution 87-4; and WHEREAS, the new monolithic poured on rctc sidewalks will be scored (not saw-cut) in a two foot square pattern where the curr nt idth is ten feet and on blocks where new nine foot wide poured concrete sidewalks wi h two foot square scoring pattern already exist, and scored in an 18 inch square pattern wh re the current width is nine feet with 18 inch tiles, and ezpansion joints will match t e s oring, as called for in HPC Resolution 87-4; and WHEREAS, handicap ramps will be ins 11 as necessary according to the HPC - recommendation in Resolution 87-4; an WHEREAS, the current diversity of sid wa k materials along Summit Avenue reflects the historic contribution of original owners ar hitects and builders to Saint Paul's sidewalk system; and WHEREAS, several property owners in he rea have expressed an interest in repairing the eaisting concrete tile sidewalks along th ir roperty; and _ I7:��. 1'... .�:,�. . ,.. •- . " � P:1�:. I�'ur) w'HEREAS, HPC Rcsolution 88-4, ado tcd on lunc 9, 1983, calis for repair rathcr than replaccmcnt of sidcwalks along a num cr f Summit Avenuc properties; and 1�'HEREAS, the Dcpartmcnt of Public o ks has since rcccived estimates for repair of existing concrete tile sidewalks as wel as or replacement with new concrete tile sidewalks, and thc cost of such work would gene all be substantially higher (estimated to be two to four times higher) than replacement 'th oured conerete sidewalks scored to resemble the old tilcs; and WHEREAS, the Dcpartment of Public o ks proposes to provide all property owners in the area the option to have the public sid wal s along their property replaced with new poured and scored concrete sidewalks undcr ity contract in 1989, or to have the existing tile sidewalks repaired to Department of ubl c Works standards and specifications in 1989 under privatc contract and a permit is ue by the Department of Public Works (if a property owner chooses thc repair opt on ut fails to complete the work in 1989, the Department of Public Works proposes o i plcment thc pour and score option under City contract in 1990); NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLV D, hat the Heritage Prescrvation Commission � recommends approva! of the Departm nt f Public Works proposal to rcplace deteriorated sections of public sidewalks along the no th side of Summit Avenuc from Selby Avenue to 329 Summit, 345 Summit to 365 Summ t, 15 Summit to 5 Mackubin Street (Summit Avenue side), and 526 Portland Avenue (Sum it venue side) to 533 Summit, and along the south side of Summit Avenue from 516 Sum it to 456 Summit, 432 Summit, 400 Summit to 340 Summit, and 324 Summit to 294 Sum it s bject to the following conditions and ezceptions: 1. The ezisting hexagon concrete til si ewalks at 245 Summit, 251 Summit, 79 Virginia Street (Summit Avenue side), 361 u mit, 365 Summit, 445 Summit, 465 Summit, 344 Summit (the square concrete tiles sho ld be replaced), and 324 Summit should be repaired as necessary, using hexa on oncrete tiles taken up elsewhere to replace broken tiles, if the property own rs gree; if the property owners do not agree to pay the gencrally higher cost of repai , t e sidewalks should be replaced with scored concrete as recommended by Pub ic orks; and 2. The existing square concrete tile id walks at 275 Summit, 285 Summit, 301 Summit, 495 Summit, 470 Summit, 432 Su mi , and 366 Summit should be rcpaircd as necessary, using square concrete tiles takcn p lscwherc to rcplacc brokcn tiles, if the property owners agree; if the property ow ers do not agree to pay the generally highez cost of repair, the sidewalks should be r pla ed with scored concrete as recommended by Public Works; and 3. Sidewalks on the north side of S m it between Selby and Nina which are replaced should be replaced with 9' wide on lithic poured concrete sidewalks scored in a Z' square pattern to match the exist ng pattern; and 4. The hexagon tiles between the si ew Ik and the street at 265 Summit and the brick driveway crossing at 362-364 Su mi should be preserved; and 5. Driveway crossing paving at 295 Su mit, 301 Summit, 526 Portland (Summit Avenue side), 344 Summit, and the open t etween 294 and 266 Summit should be replaccd with poured concrete scored to atc the existing paving or should not be changed; and , � � ` iii''_ ..,. :i;, .,. ,.. �:;'i- i . P1;_ Tnr:_ 6. Thc sandstonc sidcw�lk along the as half of thc lot bctwccn 29�1 and 266 Summit shouid not bc changed; and 7. Thc stone panels in the sidewalk lon the wcst half of the lot between 294 and 266 Summit should be lifted and re-la d, ith the asphalt patches cleaned off, rather than replaced (in one place where a pi ce f stone panel is missing, it should be patched with concrcte; if the entire panel ee s to be replaced, it should be replaced with a 5' by 10' conerete panel without sco in ; and 8. Asphalt handicap ramps installed in 986 at Portland, Kent, Oakland and Heather should bc rcplaced with handicap ra ps installed according to the recommendation in HPC Resolution 87-4, with a secti n f granite curbing lowered and the ramps on the insidc of thc curbs as part of the o rcd concrete sidcwalk; and 9. The existing 6' wide mono walk t e northwest corncr of Summit and Arundel should be replaced with a 9' wide monol thi poured concrete sidewalk scored in an 18" square pattern. MOVED BY Committee SECONDED BY IN FAVOR 8 AGAINST 0 ABSTAIN 0 . ` MMARY F EN NE RIN RE MMENDATI N HEARING A E: May 11 , 1989 ard 2 mmi Aven e Ra e r e A r xim ei 70' E. of the Ext nd d E. Line of Nin r e This order was initiated by the Directo of ublic Works as a public necessity on the basis of 1 complaint, 1 request for rep ir, he request of Joseph Koenig (City Engineer) and an inspection of the walk. This walk is old tils with broken tile, ho es n tile, asphalt patches, uneven tile, settled tile and heaved tile. Also, some blue on panels that are broken, heaved, patched and uneven. The Engineering Recommendation is r pproval of the order for reconstruction as per the Heritage Preservation Commi io (HPC) resolution 87-4 passed on July 9, 1987. This resolution pertair�s to the r pl cement criteria for sidewalks on Summit Avenue. The resolution states: 1. Any proposed Department of P bli Works activity within a Heritage Preservation District and requiri g ity Council approval should be reviewed by the Heritage Preservation Com is ion before go�ng to the City Council for approval; the recommendations of he Heritage Preservation Commission should be sent to the City Coun il long with the Department of Public Works proposal; and 2. The concrete tile public sidewal s long Summit Avenue between Selby Avenue and Dale Street and ai ng treets which intersect Summit Avenue between the alleys and Summit Av nue should be replaced with poured concrete sidewalks with the foll wi g conditions: The need for replacement s d cumented; The sidewalks are a width f 1 feet and scored (not sawcut) in a 2 foot square pattern where the ur ent width is 10 feet, and a width of 9 feet and scored in an 18 inch patte n here the current width is 9 feet with 18 inch tiles; The expansion joints mat h t e scoring; and Handicap ramps are insta led as on the northeast and northwest corners of Summit and Western Ave ue , with a section of granite curbing lowered and the ramps on the insi e the curbs as part of the poured concrete sidewalk; and 3. Stone slab sidewalks along Su m Avenue generally should be maintained and repaired as necessary with ori inal materials; asphalt and concrete patches should not be used; an 4. Any historic public sidewalk, cu i , street lighting or other public property, including brick and stone pavin , s ould be protected by property owners, contractors, the Department of u lic Works and utitlities from damage due to construction, snow removal or th r reasons; and historic property that is damaged should be repaired wi h riginal materials; asphalt and concrete patches should not be used. Because of the historic aspects of the re , the amount of pedestrian use and the resolution by HPC, the Engineering Di isi n of Public Works will not be making the normal recommendations for replace ent of sidewalks. Our recommendations are as follows: 1. Replace all old tile (2 feet by 2 f et 18 inch by 18 inch, hexagon or other) with new mono walk as indicated on he drawings (approximately 1,830 lineal feet). 2. The new mono walk will be eith r 9 feet or 10 feet wide. 3. The new mono walk will be sco d not sawcut) to either 2 feet by 2 feet or 18 inch x 18 inch and the expansio jo nts will match scoring. Where a new 9 foot wide mono walk exists with 2 feet by f et scoring, the new walk will match the 2 feet by 2 feet score tile look. 18 in h 18 inch scoring will take place only if the walk is 9 foot wide and no new s' e alk exists. 4. Handicap ramps installed where ne de . Follow the HPC recommendation on the installation. �. The Department of Public Works p p ses to provide all property owners in the area the option to have the public de alks along their property replaced with new poured and scored concrete s de alks under City contact in 1989, or to have the existing tile sidewalks re ir d to Department of Public Works standards and specifications in 19 9 nder private contract and a permit issued by the Department of Public Work (if a property owner ch�oses the repair option but fails to complete the w rk i 1989, the Department of Public Works proposes to implement the pour d core option under City contract in 1990. . HPC has reviewed our recommendatio fo reconstruction in 1988 and then again in 1989 and passed resolution 89-1 (see a hed) on February 9, 1989. The Department of Public Works has r vie ed the HPC resolution 89-1 and agree with it in principle with the following ex ep ons: 1. Items 1 and 2 under resolved a e ready discussed above. 2. Item 4 asks for the driveway br k cross the sidewalk at 362-364 to be preserved. This is contrary to ta dard sidewalk policy. We question the preserving of this brick. 3. Item 5 discusses that drivewa cr ssing patterns should not be changed at certain locations. We agree o t is except at 526 Portland and the open lot between 294 and 266 Summi . ese patterns are in front of open areas and no driveways exist. c� ,-�f o� s��N; PAUL HERITAGE PRFSERVAT'10 C MMlSS10N RESOLUTION FILE NUMBER 89_� DATE Februsry 9, 19 9 WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Heritage Pr se ation Commission is authorized by Chapter 73 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code to r vi w and make recommendations concerning all city activity to �change the nature or appea an e of designated Heritage Preservation Sites or Hezitage Preservation Districts; and WHEREAS, Chaptcr 73 stated purposes in lude to safeguard the heritage of the City of Saint Paul and to enhance the visual a d sthetic character and intcrest of the City; and WHEREAS, thc Saint Paul Department of ublic Works is proposing to replace sections of public sidewalks along Summit Avenue be etn Selby Avcnuc and Kcnt S[rcet, within the Historic Hill Heritage Prescrvation Dis ric , whcre the sidewalks are detcriorated and where the sidewalk grade needs to be r ise to ensure adequate drainage; and WHEREAS, the City is responsible for ai taining public sidewalks in a safe condition and can be held liable for accidents an in'ury resulting from sidewalks with holes, heaves, sharp changes in grade, and inadequate dr inage; and WHEREAS, thc Summit Avenue Plan, a op ed by the City Council as part of the Saint Paul Comprchensive Plan on September 9, 1 6, alls for replacement of the tile sidewalks on Summit Avenue east of Dale Street wit p rcd concrete sidcwalks scored to resemble the old tiles by 1990; and WHEREAS, the Heritage Preservation om ission, on July 9, 1987, unanimously adopted Resolution 87-4 setting design guideline f r sidewalk replacement on Summit Avenue; and WHEREAS, the Department of Public or proposes to install new monolithic poured concrete sidewalks at a width of either in or ten feet to match the existing width where replacement is necessary, as called for i H C Resolution 87-4; and WHEREAS, the new monolithic poured on rcic sidewalks will be scored (no.t saw-cut) in a . two foot square pattern where the curre t idth is ten feet and on blocks where new nine foot wide poured concrete sidewalks wi a two foot square scoring pattern already exist, and scored in an l8 inch square pattern h re the current width is nine feet with 18 inch tiles, and ezpansion joints will match th sc ring, as called for in HPC Resolution 87-4; and WHEREAS, handicap ramps will be inst lle as necessary according to the HPC - recommendation in Resolution 87-4; and WHEREAS, the current diversity of side al materials along Summit Avenue reflects the historic contribution of original owners, arc itects and builders to Saint Paul's sidcwalk system; and � � WHEREAS, several property owners in t e a ea have expressed an interest in repairing the � ezisting concrete tile sidewalks along the r roperty; and + � ! � i , , 1.,''. i� _ . ,i'... ,., �Z , ' . P;i;:, I'�.�� w'HEREAS, HPC RcSOlution 83-4, adoptc on Junc 9, 1988, calis Cor rcpair rathcr than replacemcnt of sidcwalks along a numbcr of ummit Avcnue propertics; and w'HEREAS, the Department of Public Wo ks as since received estimates for repair of existing concrcte tile sidewalks as wel! as fo replacement with new concrete tile sidewalks, and the cost of such work would generall b substantially higher (estimated to be two to four times higher) than rcplacement wit po red concrcte sidewalks scored to resemble the old tilcs; and WHEREAS, the Department of Public W rks proposes to provide all property ownezs in the area the option to have the public sidew Iks along their property replaced with new poured and scored concrcte sidewalks under Cit co tract in 1989, or to have the existing tile sidewalks repaired to Department of Pu lic orks standards and specifications in 1989 under private contract and a permit issu d y the Department of Public Works (if a property owner chooses thc repair optio b t fails to complete the work in 1989, thc Department of Public Works proposcs to im lement the pour and score option under City contract in 1990); NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVE , t at thc Heritage Preservation Commission � recommends approva! of the Departme o Public Works proposal to replace detcriorated sections of public sidcwalks along the n rt side of Summit Avenue Crom Selby Avenue to 329 Summit, 345 Summit to 365 Summit 41 Summit to 5 Mackubin Street (Summit Avenue side), and 526 Portland Avenue (Summi A enue side) to 533 Summit, and along the south side of Summit Avenue from 516 Sum it t 456 Summit, 432 Summit, 400 Summit to 340 Summit, and 324 Summit to 294 Summi su ject to thc following conditions and ezceptions: 1. The cxisting hexagon concretc tile id walks at 245 Summit, 251 Summit, 79 Virginia � Street (Summit Avenue side), 361 um it, 365 Summit, 445 Summit, 465 Summit, 344 Summit (the square concrete tiles o Id be replaced), and 324 Summit should be repaired as necessary, using hexag n oncrete tiles taken up elsewhere to replace broken tiles, if the property ownc s a ree; if the property owners do not agree to pay the gencrally higher cost of repair th sidcwalks should be replaced with scored concrete as recommended by Publ c orks; and 2. The eaisting square concrete tile ide alks at 275 Summit, 285 Summit, 301 Summit, 495 Summit, 470 Summit, 432 Su mi and 366 Summit should be repaired as necessary, using square concrete tiles takcn p Iscwhere to replace broken tiles, if the property owners agree; if the property ow ers do not agree to pay the generally higher cost of repair, the sidewalks should be r la ed with scored concrete as recommended by Public Works; and 3. Sidewalks on the north side of S m it between Selby and Nina which are replaced should be replaced with 9' wide o lithic poured concrete sidewalks scored in a 2' square pattern to match the exis ng pattern; and 4. The hexagon tiles between the si e alk and the street at 265 Summit and the brick driveway crossing at 362-364 Su m t should be preserved; and 5. Driveway crossing paving at 29 Su mit, 301 Summit, 526 Portland (Summit Avenue side), 344 Summit, and the open lot etween 294 and 266 Summit should be replaced with poured concretc scored to at h the existing paving or should not be changcd; and . . - � � .;'�_ ;<._:�,lu�: ;n �;i �-1 P'�a_ T'cl:_� 6. Thc sandstone sidewalk along thc east alf of thc lot bctwccn 294 and 266 Summit should not bc changed; and 7. The stonc panels in the sidcwalk along he est half of the lot between 294 and 266 Summit should be lifted and re-laid, wi h e asphalt patches cleaned off, rather than replaced (in one place where a piece of sto e panel is missing, it should be patched with concrete; if the entire panel nceds to e replaced, it should be replaced with a 5' by !0' concrete panel without scoring); n 8. Aspfialt handicap ramps installed in 19 6 t Portland, Kent, Oakland and Heather should be rcplaced with handicap ram i stalled according to the recommendation in HPC Resolution 87-4, with a section of gra ite curbing lowered and the ramps on the inside of the curbs as part of the poure c ncrete sidewalk; and 9. The existing 6' wide mono walk at the or hwest corner of Summit and Arundel should be rcplaced with a 9' wide monolithic ou ed concrete sidewalk scored in an l8" square pattcrn. MOVED BY Committee SECONDED BY IN FAVOR 8 AGAINST 0 ABSTAIN 0 � ,I � i � MMARY F EN IN RIN E MM N ATI N HEARIN D TE: May 11, 1989 ard 1 N. . ummi Av n I n Av n K n r This order was initiated by the Direct r o Public Works as a public necessity on the basis of 1 complaint, 1 request for re air the request of Joseph Koenig (City Engineer) and an inspection of the walk. This walk is old tile with broken tile, le in tile, asphalt patches, uneven tile, settled tile and heaved tile. The Engineering Recommendation i fo approval of the order for reconstruction as per the Heritage Preservation Com iss n (HPC) resolution 87-4 passed on July 9, 1987. This resolution pertains to th re lacement criteria for sidewalks on Summit Avenue. The resolution states: 1. Any proposed Department of Pu lic Works activity within a Heritage Preservation District and req iri City Council approval should be reviewed by the Heritage Preservation Co ission before going to the City Council for approval; the recommendati ns f the Heritage Preservation Commission should be sent to the City C n il along with the Department of Public Works proposal; and 2. The concrete tile public side al s along Summit Avenue between Selby Avenue and Dale Street and alo g streets which intersect Summit Avenue between the alleys and Sum it venue should be replaced with poured concrete sidewalks with the oll wing conditions: The need for replacem nt s documented; The sidewalks are a wi h f 10 feet and scored (not sawcut) in a 2 foot square pattern where t e urrent width is 10 feet, and a width of 9 feet and scored in an 18 inch p tte n where the current width is 9 feet with 18 inch tiles; The expansion joints m ch he scoring; and Handicap ramps are inst Ile as on the northeast and northwest corners of Summit and Western Av nu s, with a section of granite curbing lowered and the ramps on the in de of the curbs as part of the poured concrete sidev�ralk; and 3. Stone slab sidewalks along S m it Avenue generally should be maintained and repaired as necessary wit o ginal materials; aspha�t and concrete patches should not be used; a d 4. Any historic public sidewalk, c rbi g, street lighting or other public property, including brick and stone pavin , hould be protected by property owners, contractors, the Department of u lic Works and utitlities from damage due to construction, snow removal or th r reasons; and historic property that is damaged should be repaired w h riginal materials; asphalt and concrete patches should not be used. Because of the historic aspects of the re , the amount of pedestrian use and the resolution by HPC, the Engineering Di isi n of Public Works will not be making the normal recommendations for replacem nt of sidewalks. Our recommendations are as follows: 1. Replace all old tile (2 feet by 2 f et, 18 inch by 18 inch, hexagon or other) with new mono walk as indicated on e rawings (approximately 1 ,300 lineal feet). 2. The new mono walk will be eithe 9 et or 10 feet wide. 3. The new mono walk will be scor ( ot sawcut) to either 2 feet by 2 feet or 18 inch x 18 inch and the expansion 'oi ts will match scoring. Where a new 9 foot wide mono walk exists with 2 fes by 2 feet scoring, the new walk will match the 2 feet by 2 feet score tile look. 1 in h by 18 inch scoring will take place only if the walk is 9 foot wide and no new de aik exists. 4. Handicap ramps installed where ne de . Follow the HPC recommendation on the installation. 5. The Department of Public Works pr p es to provide all property owners in the area the option to have the public s de alks along their property replaced with new poured and scored concrete si e alks under City contact in 1989, or to have the existing tile sidewalks rep ire to Department of Public Works standards and specifications in 19 9 u der private contract and a permit issued by the Department of Public Works (if property owner chooses the repair option but fails to complete the wo i 1989, the Department of Public Works proposes to implement the pour a s ore option under City contract in 1990. HPC has reviewed our recommendation r construction in 1988 and then again in 1989 and passed resolution 89-1 (see att c ed) on February 9, 1989. The Department of Public Works has rev ew d the HPC resolution 89-1 and agree with it in principle with the following exce tio s: 1. Items 1 and 2 under resolved are Ir ady discussed above. 2. Item 4 asks for the driveway bric ac oss the sidewalk at 362-364 to be preserved. This is contrary to st d rd sidewalk policy. We question the preserving of this brick. 3. Item 5 discusses that driveway c os ing patterns should not be changed at certain locations. We agree on t is xcept at 526 Portland and the open lot between 294 and 266 Summit. he e patterns are in front of open areas and no driveways exist. CI i Y O� SA1NT PAUL HERITAGE PRESERVATION MMISSION RESOLUTION FILE NUMBER 89-1 DATE Fcbruary 9, 1 89 WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Heritage Pres rv tion Commission is authorized by Chapter 73 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code to re ie and make recommendations concerning all city activity to change the nature or appeara ce f designated Heritage Preservation Sites or Heritage Preservation Districts; and WHEREAS, Chapter 73 stated purposes i cl de to safeguard the heritage of the City of Saint Paul and to enhance the visual and ac hetic character and interest of the City; and WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Department o P blic Works is proposing to replace sections of public sidewalks along Summit Avenue b tw cn Selby Avcnuc and Kent Street, within the Historic Hill Heritage Preservation Distr ct, hcre the sidewalks are deteriorated and where thc sidewalk grade needs to be rai ed o ensure adequate drainage; and WHEREAS, the City is responsible for m int ining public sidewalks in a safe condition and can be held liable for accidents and ' ju y resulting from sidewalks with holes, heaves, sharp changes in grade, and inadequate d ai age; and WHEREAS, thc Summit Avenue Plan, ad te by the City Council as part of the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan on September 9, 198 ca ls for replacement of the tile sidewalks on Summit Avenue east of Dale Street with ou d concrete sidewalks scored to resemble the old tiles by 1990; and WHEREAS, the Heritage Preservation Co mi sion, on July 9, 1987, unanimously adopted Resolution 87-4 setting design guidelines or idewalk replacement on Summit Avenue; and WHEREAS, the Department of Public Wor s roposes to install new monolithic poured concrete sidewalks at a width of either ni e o ten feet to match the existing width where replacement is necessary, as called for in P Resolution 87-4; and WHEREAS, the new monolithic poured co cr e sidewalks will be scored (not saw-cut) in a two foot square pattern where the current i th is ten feet and on blocks where new nine foot wide poured concrete sidewalks with t o foot square scoring pattern already exist, and scored in an l8 inch square pattern w ere the current width is nine feet with 18 inch tiles, and ezpansion joints will match the s or' g, as called for in HPC Resolution 87-4; and � WHEREAS, handicap ramps will be install d a� necessary according to the HPC � � recommendation in Resolution 87-4; and � WHEREAS, the current diversity of sidewa k aterials along Summit Avenue r f � historic contribution of original owners, ar hit cts and builders to Saint PauI's sidewalk e � system; and WHEREAS, several property owners in the re have expressed an interest in repairing the ezisting concrete tile sidewalks along their ro erty; and ► � � � � . . . - � � i{i'�. ;�._ :�;; ...�,:. �- , �- i �:�a� r��,�, 1�'HEREAS, HPC Rcsolution 88-4, adoptc o Junc 9, 1988, calls for rcpair rathcr than replaccmcnt of sidcwalks along a numbc of Summit Avenuc properties; and VVHEREAS, the Dcpartmcnt of Public W rks has since reccivcd cstimates for repair of existing concrcte tile sidewalks as well a fo replaccment with new concrctc tile sidewalks, and thc cost of such work would general y b substantially higher (estimated to be two to four times higher) than replacement wit po red concrete sidcwalks scored to resemble the old tilcs; and WHEREAS, the Department of Public W rks proposes to provide all property owners in the area the option to have the public sidew lks along their property replaced with new poured and scorcd concrete sidewalks under Cit co tract in 1989, or to have the existing tile sidewalks repaired to Department of Pu lic orks standards and speciCications in 1989 under private contract and a permit issu d y the Department of Public Works (if a property owner chooses the repair optio bu fails to complete the work in 1989, the Department of Public Works proposes to m lement the pour and score option under City contract in 1990); NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED th t the Hezitage Preservation Commission � recommends approval of the Departmen of ublic Works proposal to replace detcriorated sections of public sidewalks along the n rth side of Summit Avenuc from Selby Avenue to 329 Summit, 345 Summit to 365 Summit, 415 Summit to 5 Mackubin Strcet (Summit Avenue side), and 526 Portland Avenue (Summit Av nue side) to 533 Summit, and along the south side of Summit Avenue from 516 Summi to 456 Summit, 432 Summit, 400 Summit to 340 Summit, and 324 Summit to 294 Summit ub ect to the following conditions and ezceptions: 1. The ezisting hexagon concretc tile s de alks at 245 Summit, 251 Summit, 79 Virginia Street (Summit Avenue side), 361 Su m t, 365 Summit, 445 Summit, 465 Summit, 344 Summit (the square concrete tiles sh ul be replaced), and 324 Summit should be repaired as necessary, using hexago co crete tiles taken up elsewhere to replace broken tiles, if the property owners gr e; if the property owners do not agree to pay the gencrally higher cost of repair, he idewalks should be replaced with scored concretc as recommended by Public o ks; and 2. The existing square concrete tile sid w lks at 275 Summit, 285 Summit, 301 Summit, 495 Summit, 470 Summit, 432 Summ t, nd 366 Summit should be repaired as necessary, using square concrete tiles taken up els whcre to replace brokcn tilcs, if the property owners agree; if the property owner d not agree to pay the generally higher cost of repair, the sidewalks should be repl ce with scored concrete as recommended by Public Works; and 3. Sidewalks on the north side of Sum it etween Selby and Nina which are replaced should be replaced with 9' wide mo oli hic poured concrete sidewalks scored in a 2' square pattern to ma:�h the existin pa tern; and 4. The hexagon tiles between the side al and the street at 265 Summit and the brick driveway crossing at 362-364 Summ t s ould be preserved; and 5. Driveway crossing paving at 295 Su m t, 301 Summit, 526 Portland (Summit Avenue side), 344 Summit, and the open lot et een 294 and 266 Summit should be replaced with poured concrete scored to mat h t e existing paving or should not be changed; and ... . .. _ . .. ... ,.. .x.?'i-I P::•,. T;tr__ ,.: 6. Thc sandstonc sidewalk along thc ca t alf of thc lot bctwccn 294 and 266 Summit should not bc changed; and 7. Thc stone panels in the sidewalk al g he west half of the lot between 294 and 266 Summit should be lifted and re-laid w' h the asphalt patches cleaned off, rather than rcplaced (in one place whcre a piec of stone panel is missing, it should be patched with concrete; if the entire panel a eds to be repiaced, it should be replaced with a 5' by 10' conerete panel without scori g); and 8. Asphalt handicap ramps installed i I 6 at Portland, Kent, Oakland and Heather should bc replaced with handicap r m s installed according to the recommendation in HPC Resolution 87-4, with a sectio o granite curbing lowered and the ramps on the inside of the curbs as part of the p ur d concrete sidewalk; and 9. The existing 6' wide mono walk at he northwest corner of Summit and Arundel should be replaced with a 9' wide monolit ic oured concretc sidewalk scored in an 18" square pattcrn. MOVED BY Committee SECONDEDBY IN FAVOR 8 AGAINST 0 ABSTAIN 0 1 ° UMMARY F EN IN E IN RE MMENDATI N HEARING D T : May 11 , 1989 ad1 N. S. mmi Aven I Av n W rn Av n This order was initiated by the Director f P blic Works as a public necessity on the basis of 2 requests for repair, the reque t o Joseph Koenig (City Engineer) and an inspection of the walk. This walk is old tile with broken tile, hol s i tile, asphatt patches, uneven tile, settled tile and heaved tile. The Engineering Recommendation is f r pproval of the order for reconstruction as per the Heritage Preservation Commi io (HPC) resolution 87-4 passed on July 9, 1987. This resolution pertains to the r pl cement criteria for sidewalks on Summit Avenue. The resolution states: 1. Any proposed Department of bl c Works act+vity within a Heritage Preservation District and requi ing City Council approval should be reviewed by the Heritage Preservation Co mi sion before going to the City Council for approval; the recommendatio s o the Heritage Preservation Commission should be sent to the City Co nci along with the Department of Public Works proposal; and 2. The concrete tile public side Ik along Summit Avenue between Selby Avenue and Dale Street and lo g streets which intersect Summit Avenue between the alleys and Sum it venue should be replaced with poured concrete sidewalks with the f Ilo ing conditions: The need for replacem nt documented; The sidewalks are a wi h f 10 feet and scored (not sawcut) in a 2 foot square pattern where t e urrent width is 10 feet, and a width of 9 feet and scored in an 18 inch p tte n where the current width is 9 feet with 18 inch � tiles; The expansion joints match th sc ring; and Handicap ramps are installed s n the northeast and northwest corners of Summit and Western Avenue , wth a section of granite curbing lowered and the ramps on the inside o th curbs as part of the poured concrete sidewalk; and 3. Stone slab sidewalks along Sum it enue generally should be maintained and repaired as necessary with o igi al materials; asphalt and concrete patches should not be used; and 4. Any historic public sidewalk, cu ing street lighting or other public property, including brick and stone paving sh uld be protected by property owners, contractors, the Department of ub c Works and utitlities from damage due to construction, snow removal or o he reasons; and historic property that is damaged should be repaired wi h riginal materials; asphalt and concrete patches should not be used. Because of the historic aspects of the ar a, the amount of pedestrian use and the resolution by HPC, the Engineering ivi on of Public Works will not be making the normal recommendations for replace e t of sidewalks. Our recommendations are as follows: 1. Replace all old tile (2 feet by fe t, 18 inch by 18 inch, hexagon or other) with new mono walk as indicated n e drawings (approximately 2,042 lineal feet). 2. The new mono walk will be ith r 9 feet or 10 feet wide. 3. The new mono walk will be co ed (not sawcut) to either 2 feet by 2 feet or 18 inch x 18 inch and the expa si n joints will match scoring. Where a new 9 foot wide mono walk exists with 2 f et by 2 feet scoring, the new walk will match the 2 feet by 2 feet score tile lo k. 18 inch by 18 inch scoring will take place only if ' the walk is 9 foot wide and no new id walk exists. 4. Handicap ramps installed where n ed d. Follow the HPC recommendation on the installation. 5. The Department of Public Works ro oses to provide all property owners in the area the option to have the public sid walks along their property replaced with new poured and scored concrete id walks under City contact in 1989, or to have the existing tile sidewalks r ai ed to Department of Public Works standards and specifications in 1 89 under private contract and a permit issued by the Department of Public Wor s f a property owner chooses the repair option but fails to complete the or in 1989, the Department of Public Works proposes to implement the pour n score option under City contract in 1990. HPC has reviewed our recommendati f r reconstruction in 1988 and then again in 1989 and passed resolution 89-1 (see tt ched) on February 9, 1989. The Department of Public Works has evi wed the HPC resolution 89-1 and agree with it in principle with the following e ce tions: 1. Items 1 and 2 under resolved re Iready discussed above. 2. Item 4 asks for the driveway b ic across the sidewalk at 362-364 to be preserved. This is contrary to st dard sidewalk policy. We question the preserving of this brick. 3. Item 5 discusses that drivew y c ossing patterns should not be changed at certain locations. We agree n is except at 526 Portland and the open lot between 294 and 266 Sum t. hese patterns are in front of open areas and no driveways exist. C� ,—': G; �;;;'�i r;L' L Hci�lTAC� PR�S�3�VATION CO , ISSION rZ�SOLUT�ON F1LE NUMBER s9-i DATE Fcbruary 9, 1989 WHEREAS, thc Saint Paul Heritagc Preserv ti n Commission is authorizcd by Chapter 73 of thc Saint Paul Legislativc Code to revic a d makc recommendations conccrning all city activity to change the naturc or appearanc� of designated Heritage Preservaiion Sites or Hcritagc Prescrvation Disiricts; and WHEREAS, Chaptcr 73 stated purposes inc ud to safeguard the heritage of the City of Saint Paul and to cnhance thc visual and a sth tic charactcr and interest of the City; and WHEREa.S, the Saint Paul Dcpartment of ub ic Works is proposing to rcpiace sections of public sidcwalks along Summit Avenue be e n Sclby Avenuc and Kent Street, within thc Historic Hill Hcritage Prescrvation Distric , here the sidewalks are deteriorated and wherc the sidewalk grade nceds to bc rais t ensure adequate drainage; and WHEREAS, the City is responsible for ma nta ning public sidcwalks in a safe condition and can bc held liablc for accidcnts and i ju v resulting from sidew•alks with holes, heaves, sharp changcs in gradc, and inadequatc d ain �ge; and WHEREAS, thc Summit Avenue Pian, ado te by the City Council as part of the Saint Paul Comprehcnsivc Plan on September 9, 198 , c lIs for rcplac�ment of the tile sidewalks on Summit Avenue east of Dale Stre�t with ou cd concrete sidewalks scored to rescmble the old tiles by 1990; and �'HERE:�S, the Heritage Preservation Co m ssion, on July 9, 198�, unanimously adopted Rcsolution 87-4 se;ting design guideIines for sidew�alk replaccment on Summit Avenue; and WHEREAS, the Department of Public W rks proposes to install new monolithic poured concrete sidewalks at a width of either ne or ten feet to match the existing width where replaccment is nec�ssary, as called for i H C Resolution 87-4; and WHERE.�S, the ncw monolithic poured on cte sidewaIks will be scored (not saw-cut) in a � two foot square pattern where the curre t idth is ten feei and on blocks where new nine foot widc poured concrcte sidewalks wi a two foot square scoring pattern already exist, and scored in an ]8 inch square pattern h re the current width is nine feet with 18 inch tiles, and ezpansion joints will match th s ring, as called for in HPC Resolution 87-4; and WHFREAS, handicap ramps wil] be inst 11 as nec�ssary according to the HPC recommendation in Resolution 87-4; an WHEREAS, the current diversity of sid w k materials along Summit Avcnue reflects the historic contribution of original owner , ar hitects and buiIders to Saint Paul's sidcwalk system; and ' WHERE�S, sevcral property owners in the area have ezpressed an interest in rcpairing the � ezisting concrete tile sidewalks along t ei property; and , ; t�,.�_ I ,� , , «'HERE�S. HPC Rcsolution 88-4, adoptcd an Junc 9, 1983, calls for r�pair rathcr than rcplaccmc:�t of sidcw�alks along a numbcr f ummit Avenuc propc;tics; and w'HEREAS, thc Dcpartmcnt of Public Wo ks as since rcccivcd estimates for repair of existing concr�tc tilc sidewalks as well as for replaccmcnt with new concrete tiic sidewalks, and thc cost of such work would generall b substantially higher (estimated to bc two to four times higher) than replacement with po red concrete sidewalks scored to resemble the old tilcs; and WHEREAS, the Dcpartment of Public Wo ks proposes to provide aIl property owners in the area the option to have the public sidewa ks long their property replaced with new poured and scorcd concrcte sidewalks undcr Cit co traci in 1989, or to have the existing tile sidewalks repaired to Department of Pub ic 'orks standards and spc�ifications in 1989 under privatc contract and a permit issu d b thc Department of Public Works (if a property owner chooscs thc repair option bu fails to complete the work in 1989, thc Department of PubIic Works proposes to m �ment the pour and score option undcr City contract in 1990); NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED th t the Hcritage Prescrvation Commission ' recommends approval of thc Department of ublic Works proposal to re�lace deteriorated sections of public sidcwalks along the n rth side of Summit Avenuc from Selby Avenue to 329 Summit, 345 Summit to 365 Summit, 41 Summit to 5 Mackubin Strc�t (Summit Avenuc side), and 526 Portland Avenue (Summit Av nue side) to 533 Summit, and along the south sidc of Summit Avenue from 516 Summi to 456 Summit, 432 Summit, 400 Summit to 340 Summit, and 324 Summit to 294 Summit su 'e�t to thc following conditions and ezccptions: 1. The existing hexagon concrctc tile s de •alks at 245 Summit, 251 Summit, 79 Yirginia Street (Summit Avenue side), 361 S m it, 365 Summit, 445 Summit, 465 Summit, 344 Summit (the square concrete tiles s oul be replaced), and 334 Summit should be repaired as necessary, using hexago c nc:ete tilcs takcn up elsew�here to replace broken tiles, if the property owncrs ag e�; if the property owners do not agret to pay the gencrally higher cost oC repair, hc sidcw•alks should be replac�d with scored concrete as recommended by Publi W rks; and 2. The existing square concrete tile si ew lks at 275 Summit, 285 Summit, 301 Summit, 495 Summit, 470 Summit, 432 Sum it, nd 366 Summit should be repaired as necessary, using square concrete tiles taken u el cw•herc to replacc brokcn tiIcs, if the property owners agree; if the property owne s d not agree to pay the generally higher cost of repair, the sidewalks should be rep ac d w•ith scored concrete as recommended by Public Works; and i I 3. Sidewalks on the north side oC Su mi be:w�een Selby and Nina which are replaccd should be replaced with 9' wide m no ithic poured concrete sidewalks scored in a 2' square pattern to match the existi g p ttern; and 4. The hexagon tiles between the sid wa k and the street at 26� Summit and the brick driveway crossing at 362-364 Sum it hould be preserved; and 5. Driveway crossing paving at 295 um it, 30l Summit, 5�6 Portland (Summit Avenue side), 344 Summit, and the open 1 b tw�een 294 and 266 Summit should be replaced with poured concretc scored to m tch the existing paving or should aot be changed; and I � . l�:.:y:. i .�i�_ . . 6. Thc sandstonc sidcwalk along thc cast al of thc !ot bctwccn �94 and 266 Summit should not bc changed; and 7. Thc stonc pancls in the sidcwalk alon th wcst halF of thc lot betwcen 294 and 266 Summic should be lifted and re-laid, ith the asphalt patches cicancd off, rather than rcpl�ccd (in onc placc where a picce o st nc panel is missing, it should be patched with concrcte; if the entire panel nce s t be replaccd, it should be rcplaced with a 5' by 10' concretc panel without scoring) a d 8. Asphalt haadicap ramps installed in 1 8 at Portland, Kent, Oakland and Heather should bc rcplaced with handicap ra ps nstalled according to the recommendation in HPC Resolution 87-4, with a section f g anite curbing lowcred and the ramps Qn the inside of thc curbs as part of the pou cd concrete sidewalk; and 9. Thc existing 6' widc mono walk at th n rthwest corner of Summit and Arundcl should be replaccd with a 9' wide monolithi p rcd concrcte sidewalk scored in an 18" square pattcrn. MOVED BY Committee SECONDED BY IN FAVOR 8 AGAINST 0 ABSTAIN 0 � i � � _ � , I � . � ti�� ST. PAU ITY COUNCIL �� -,%-��`� � �',�� - ING NOTICE y � � ,�, PUBLIC H R c1� � �`� � �� SIDEWAL ONSTRUCTI4N �)� `/^ .s �-�✓ File No. S-89-02-03-04-OS-08 l� Dear Property Owner: Cicy Cou�cil Aiatrict ��1 & ��2 Planning District Council 4t8 & �116 To consider the ec nstruction of all or part of the public sidewalk PURPOSEin front of your pr perty. The limits of this project are as follows: AND South side S I AVENUE from Heather Drive to Ramsey Street. ' North side S I AVENUE from Portland Avenue to Kent Street. LOCATION North side S I AVENUE from Selby Avenue to Western Avenue. South side S I AVENUE from Ramsey Street to approximately 70 feet east f he extended east line of Nina Street. West side NI S REET from Summit Avenue to Maiden Lane. H EA RIN G Tuesday, June 27 1 89, at 9:00 A.M. City Council Cha be s, Third Floor City Hall - Court House �'fCEIVED JUN 151989 CITY CLERK I N FO R M ATIQ N If ti�e Council a pr ves the orders (or any part thereof), a portion of the costs wil b assessed (after construction) against benefitted , properties. You wi 1 only be assessed for sidewalk work that abuts your property. he estimated rate for this project ia as follows: RESIDENTIAL TE (one, two or three family home) 9 foot w de sidewalk - $12.38 per front foot 10 foot w de sidewalk - $13.75 per front foot COMMERCIAL RA ES (more than a three family home) $2.75 pe s uare foot Please Note: Tl�e si ewalk reconstruction will be done in accordance wi t e Department of Public Works' recommendations and th Heri[age Preservation Commission Resolution 89- . The sidewalk reco st uction will consist of poured concrete sidewalks that will be scor d (not saw-cut) in a two-foot square pattern where the current width is ten feet and on blocks where new nine-foot wide poured concrete s'de alks with a two-foot square scoring pattern already exist, an s ored in an 18-inch square pattern where the current width is in feet with 18-inch tiles, and expansion joints will match the sc ri g. Also, the Departm nt of Public Works proposes to provide all property owners in this ar a he option to have the public sidewalks along Notice sent 6/15/89 their property re la ed with new poured and scored concrete sidewalks " under City contra t n 1989, or to have the existing tile sidewalks by the Real Estate Div. repaired to Depar me t of Public Works ctandards and specifications Dept. of Finance 6 in 1989 under pri at contract and a permit issued by the Department Management Services of Public Works ( f property owner chooses the repair option but 218 City Nall - Court fails to complete th work in 1989, the Department of Public Works Elouse, St. Paul, MN proposes to imple en the pour-and-score option under City contract 55102 in 1990) . Please call 298-4 55 for construction questions or 298-4513 QU ESTIO N S (�oice or TDD) fo a sessment questions. Also, City staff will be available to answ r ny last minute questions on the project in Room 218 City Hal f om 8:30-9:00 A.M. t}ie same day as the hearing. * . . � � ,�� , , r ST. PAUL CI COUNCIL � �s%-�`� � a ,�. ,.�� - y ,�� PUBLIC HEA I G NOTICE c/��- � `-�j ��f�' SIDEWALK C STRUCTION �; �;� � �T �r�� '� � File No. 5-89-02-03-04-05-08 Dear Property Owner• Cicy Council District 411 & ��2 � Planning District Council 4t8 & �616 PURPOSE To consider the recons ru tion of all or part of the public sidewalk in front of your prope t . The limits of this project are as follows: AND South side SUMNIIT VE E from Heather Drive to Ramsey Street. North side SUP'IlriIT VE E from Portland Avenue to Kent Street. � LOCATION North side SiTI�tIT VE UE from Selby Avenue to Western Avenue. South side SIJMMIT V E from Ramsey Street to approximately 70 feet e ended east line of Nina Street. est side NINA ST EE from ,.A,y�..,.��., iden�TLane:'� Tuesday, June 27, 19 9, t 9:00 A.M. H EA RIN G City Council Chamber , hird Floor City Hall - Court House RfCEIVED �ura � 5198� Cl�Y CL�RK IN FO R MATI�N If ti�e Council appr ve the orders (or any part thereof) , a portion of the costs will b a sessed (aEter construction) against benefitted properties. You wi 1 nly be assessed for sidewalk �ork that abuts your property. Th es imated rate for this project ie as follows: RESIDENTIAL RAT S one, two or three family home) 9 foot wid s dewalk - $12.38 per front foot 10 foot wid s dewalk - $13.75 per front foot COMMERCIAL RAT ( ore than a three family home) $2.75 per sq re foot Please Note: Tiie id walk reconstruction will be done in accordance wi[ t Department of Public Works' recommendations and th Heritage Preservation Commission Resolution 89- . The sidewalk reco st uction will consist of poured concrete sidewalks that will be scor d not saw-cut) in a two-foot square pattern where the current width is ten feet and on blocks where new nine-foot wide poured concrete s'de alks with a two-foot square scoring pattern already exist, a ored in an 18-inch square pattern where the current width is ni e feet with 18-inch tiles, and expansion joints will match the s or ng. Also, the Depart en of Public Works proposes to provide all property owners in this a ea the option to have the public sidewalks along Notice aent 6/. 15/89 their property r pl ced with new poured and scored concrete sidewalks � under City contr ct in 1989, or to have the existing tile sidewalks by the Real Estate Div. repaired to Depa tm nt of Public Works �tandards and specifications Dept. of Finance S in 1989 under p va e contract and a permit issued by the Department Management Services ag public Works (i a property owner chooses the repair option but 218 City Nall - Court fails to comple e he work in 1989, the Department of Public Works t�ouse, St. Paul, MN proposes to imp em nt the pour-and-score option under City contract 55102 in 1990) . Please call 29 4 55 for construc[ion que5tions or 298-4513 QU ESTIO N S (voice or TDD) fo assessment questions. Also, City staff will be available to a sw r any last minute questions on the project in Room 218 City al Erom 8:30-9:00 A.M. the same day as the hearing.