The URL can be used to link to this page

85-1320 WHITE - CITV CLERK P�NK - FINANCE .Q, CANA-r2V - DErPARTMENT GITY OF SAINT PAiTL CounCil .��i � �3�0 BLUE - MAVOR File NO. 1 - �� C u �il Resolution Presented By Refer Committee: Date Out of Committee By Date WHEREAS, the Saint Paul City Council has the responsibility and authority to review and comment on the proposed design concept for the I-35E Parkway between Grand Avenue and I-94; and WHEREAS, staff of the City Planning Division and Public Works Department, staff of the Minnesota Department of Transportation, and the consulting firm of Strgar-Roscoe-Fausch, Inc. have developed the I-35E Design Concept Document as the proposal for design of the Parkway between Grand Avenue and I- 94; and WHEREAS, the Lower Cath�dral Hill Design Task Force, representing all major group and individual in�terests concerning the I-35E Parkway, was appointed to study design proposals and advise the staff and Saint Paul Planning Cornrnission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Comnission held a public hearing on August 22, 1985 to consider the I-35E Parkway Design Concept Document, comments from members of the Lower Cathedral Hill Design Task Force, and comments from the public; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommends approval of the I-35E Parkway Design Concept Document contingent upon the following conditions: 1. Access from the Parkway to Grand Avenue only be to and from the south; 2. Minnesota Department of Transportation be particularly careful to minimize temporary impacts created by construction; 3. The City and Minnesota Department of Transportation develop the most efficient and effective maintenance scheme possible for Parkway improvements; 4. Planning staff to evaluate the potential use/reuse of residual parcels of land and make recommendations back to the Planning Commission; 5. Planning staff to deal with St. Albans Street traffic by evaluating origin and destination of traffic, evaluating the degree to which the problem is a temporary one, and suggesting possible remedial actions; COUNCILMEN Requested by Department of: Yeas Nays Fletcher 0'8"' [n Favor Masanz Nicosia scneibe� __ Against BY Tedesco Wilson Adopted by Council: Date Form Approv by City Attorn Certified Passed by Council Secretary BY v" B�, A►pproved by Ylavor: Date _ Approved y yor for Su ission to Council By BY +Q�� _:.,as:;�;; WHITE - CITY CLERK �A,ARV - OEP R`T ENT GITY OF SAINT PAUL F1ecilNO. D�-. �l3� D BLUE - MAVOR Q � � ' �C un i.l Resolution Presented By � Re Committee: - Date Out of Committee By -- Date 6. Minnesota Department of Transportation work with United Hospitals to ensure that vibration and noise from blasting does not disrupt hospital operations; 7. City will reconstruct the Walnut Street stairway with adequate lighting included; and 8. City staff work with Park Machine for adequate street access to their facility. WHEREAS, the Saint Paul City Council will subsequently review for approval the final construction drawings when completed in late 1985 or early 1986; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Saint Paul City Council approves the I-35E Parkway Design Concept Document as the design concept for the Parkway between Grand Avenue and I-94 with the following conditions: l. Access from the Parkway to Grand Avenue only be to and from the south; 2. Minnesota Department of Transportation be particularly careful to minimize temporary impacts created by construction; 3. The City and Minnesota Department of Transportation develop the most efficient and effective maintenance scheme possible for Parkway improvements; 4. Planning staff to evaluate the potential use/reuse of residual parcels of land and make recommendations back to the Planning Commission; 5. Planning staff to deal with St. Albans Street traffic by evaluating origin and destination of traffic, evaluating the degree to which the problem is a t�mporary one, and suggesting possible remedial actions; 6. Minnesota Department of Transportation work with United Hospitals to ensure that vibration and noise from blasting does not disrupt hospital operations; 7. City will reconstruct the Walnut Street stairway with adequate lighting included; and 8. City staff work with Park Machine for adequate street access to their facility. COUNC[LMEN Requested by Department of: Yeas p�� Nays Masanz � [n Favor Nicosia Scheibel � Sonnen �_ Against BY Tedesco W ilso� .. �CT � � Form Approv d y City Attorne Adopted by Council: Date Certified P e y ouncil , t BY By' �. Approv Kavor: Date App v by ayor for Submis n to ouncil By B - PU811SHF� OCT � � 19@5 PED DEP RTMENT �"�1�0 0 � . N. 2 6 �5 Peggy Reichert CO ACT 7494, ext. 253 PH NE � A� � September 16, 1985 DA E �v e ASSIGN NUN�ER FOR ROUTING ORDER Cli 11 Locations for Si nature : 1 tment Director 3 Director of Management/Mayor Finance and Management Services Di ector 4 City Clerk Budget Director 2 City Attorney WHAT WILL BE ACHIEVED BY TAKING ACTI ON THE ATTACHED MATERIALS? (Purpose/ Rationale) : The Minnesota Department of Transpor ation, in consultation with the City, will be able to develop the final design for the I-3 E Parkway between Grand Avenue and I-94. Construction to comnence in late 19a6 and end in ate 1989 or early 1990. R��i 1/�p COST/BENEFIT, BUDGETARY AND PERSONN L IMPACTS ANTICIPATED: SEp 7$r' y98� The Federal Highway Administration and Minnesota Department of Transpc��'�r��l pay for all the improvements except for 4 as n ted in the Design Concept Document: Realignment of one block of 6th Street ($56,000); Ped strian mall improvements on Walnut from Smith to Pleasant (�50,000); Parking lot adjacent t Arierican Linen ($95,OOD); and Reconstruction of the Walnut Avenue steps off of Sumnit ($65,0 0). This will be more than offset by the increase in accessibility to downtown and eco omic development potential as a result of such access. Maintenance costs for such improv ments will be somewhat higher than current maintenance costs in the area. FINANCING SOURCE AND BUDGET ACTI ITY NUMBER CHARGED OR CREDITED: (Mayor's signa- ture not re- Total Amount of Transaction: quired if under $10,00Q) Funding Source: Activity Number: ATTACHMENTS List and Number A1 Attachments : 1. Letter from Peggy Reichert to Mayor Latimer. 2. �raft letter from Mayor La imer to City Council . 3. Draft City Council Resolut on. 4. Planning Commission report and resolution. 5. ��li nutes from the P1 ann i ng Corr�ni ss i on Publ i c Heari ng. 6. One copy of 35E PARKWAY D SIGN CONCEPT DOCUMENT. DEPARTMENT REVIEW CITY ATTORNEY REVIEW X Yes No Council Resolu ion Required? Resolution Required? Yes No Yes �No Insurance Requ red? Insurance Sufficient? Yes No Yes X No Insurance Atta hed: (S E REVERSE SIDE FOR INSTRUCTIONS) Revised 12/84 HOW TO USE THE GREEN SHEET The GREEN SHEET has several PURPOSES: 1, to assist in routing documents and in securing required signatures 2. to brief the reviewers of documents on the impacts of approval 3. to help ensure that necessary supporting materials are prepared, and, if required, attached. Providinq complete information under the listed headings enables reviewers to make decisions on the documents and eliminates follow-up contacts that may delay execution. The COST/BENEFIT, BUDGETARY AND PERSONNEL IMPACTS heading provides space to explain the cost/benefit aspects of the decision. Costs and benefits related both to City budget (General Fund and/or Special Funds) and to broader financial impacts (cost to users, homeowners or other groups affected by the action) . The personnel impact is a description of change or shift of Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) positions. If a CONTRACT amount is less than $10,000, the Mayor's signature is not required, if the department director signs. A contract must always be first signed by the outside agency before routing through City offices. Below is the preferred ROUTING for the five most frequent types of documents: CONTRACTS (assumes authorized budget exists) 1. Outside Agency 4. Mayor 2. Initiating Department 5. Finance Director 3. City Attorney 6. Einance Accounting ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER (Budget Revision) ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS (all others) 1. Activity Manager 1. Initiating Department 2. Department Accountant 2. City Attorney 3. Department Director 3. Director of Management/Mayor 4. Budget Director 4. City Clerk 5. City Clerk 6. Chief Accountant, F&M5 COUNCIL RESOLUTION (Amend. Bdgts./Accept. Grants) COUNCIL RESOLUTION (all others) 1. Department Director 1. Initiating Department 2. Budget Director 2. City Attorney 3. City Attorney 3. Director of Management/Mayor 4. Director of Management/Mayor 4. City Clerk 5. Chair, Finance, Mngmt. & Personnel Com. 5. City Council 6. City Clerk 7. City Council 8. Chief Accountant, F&MS SUPPORTING MATERIALS. In the ATTACHMENTS section, identify all attachments. If the Green Sheet is well done, no letter of transmittal need be included (unless signing such a letter is one of the requested actions) . Note: If an agx�eement requires evidence of insurance/co-insurance, a Certificate of Insurance should be one of the attachments at time of routing. Note: Actions which require City Council Resolutions include: l. Contractual relationship with another governmental unit. 2. Collective bargaining contracts. 3. Purchase, sale or lease of land. 4. Issuance of bonds by City. 5. Eminent domain. 6. Assumption of liability by City, or granting by City of indemnification. 7. Aqreements with State or Federal Government under which they are providing funding. 8. Budqet amendments. . � ��. ��- �3� a CITY OP` SAINT PAUL � OF'P'IC� OF TH� CITY COIINCZL ` :..�.........� �••••.ar.a••i �'� • 0 a t e ; September 23, 1985 COMM (TTEE RE PORT TO = Sa�nt PQU I Cifiy Councii FROM � Commii�te� ph City Development and Transportation CI�AIR William L. Wilson � 1 . Resolution pertaining to the design of 35E Parkway (Committee recommends approval ) cc,c a r�► a�d c d. � _ _�.. _ CTTY HAI-I- SEVEN'TI3 FLOOR SAII�I'I'PAUL,MINNESOTA SSI02 .�.,. . �� -l�� . , � WHITE - CITV CLERK PINK - FINANCE COUflCIl CANARV - DEPARTMENT (r I TY OF SA I NT PAIT L File NO. BL�UE - MAYOR � � • C u cil Resolution Present By � • Referred To �� 1J�C=(--e�01��.�1� Committee: Date � ' C�� Out of Committee By ; Date WHEREAS, the Saint Paul �ity Council has the responsibility and autho ity to review and comment on th� proposed design concept for the I-35E Par ay between Grand Avenue and I-94; a�d WHEREAS, staff of the Ci�y Planning Division and Public Works D artment, staff of the Minnesota Department of Transportation, and the consulting irm of Strgar- Roscoe-Fausch, Inc. have� developed the I-35E Desi n Conce t cument as the proposal for design of the Parkway between Gran Avenue an - ; and WHEREAS, the Lower Cathe�dral Hill Design Task Force, re esenting all major group and individual interests concerning the I-35E Parkway was appointed to study design proposals and advise the staff and Saint Paul lanning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Cammission held a public h ring on August 22, 1985 to consider the I-35E Park a Desi n Conce t Docu nt, comments from members of the Lower Cathedral Hill Design Task Force, and mnents from the public; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommen approval of the I-35E Parkway Design Concept Document contingent upon the fo owing conditions: 1. Access from the Parkway to and Avenue only be to and from the south; 2. Minnesota Department of Tr nsportation be particularly caref ul to minimize tempor�ary impac created by construction; 3. The City and Minnesota epartment of Transportation develop the most efficient and �ffecti e maintenance scheme possible for Parkway improvements; 4. Planning staff' to valuate the potential use/reuse of residual parcels of land and make r ommendations back to the Planning Commission; 5. Planning staff' o deal with St. Albans Street traffic by evaluating origin and d �ination of traffic, evaluating the degree to which the problem is temporary one, and suggesting possible remedial actions; and COUNCILMEN Requested by Department of: Yeas Nays Fletcher °fe1N In Favor Masanz Nicosia scnetbe� ' __ Against BY Tedesco Wilson ' Form Ap o ed City Attorney Adopted by Council: Date Certified Yassed by Council Secretary BY By Approved by 1Navor: Date Approved b ayor for Submission to Council By , BY . ��-�3a d WH17E - CITV CLERK �.. P�NK _ F�NAN�E G I TY O F SA I NT �A U L Council CANARV - DEPARTMENT BLUE - MAVOR File NO. � Council Resolution Presented By Referred To Committee: Date Out of Committee By Date WHEREAS, the Saint Paul City Council will subsequently review for approval the final construction drav�ings when completed in late 1985 or ear 1986; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Saint Paul City C ncil approves the I-35E Parkwa Desi n Conce t Document as the design con pt for the Parkway between Grand Avenue and I-9 with the following cond' ions: 1. Access from the Parkway to Grand Avenue ly be to and from the south; 2. Minnesota Department of Transportatio e particularly careful to minimize temporary impacts created construction; 3. The City and Minnesota Department f Transportation develop the most efficient and effective mainte ce scheme possible for Parkway improvements; 4. Planning staff to evaluate e potential use/reuse of residual parcels of larnd and make ecommendations back to the Planning Comnission; ar�d 5. Planning staff to dea with St. Albans Street traffic by evaluating origin an destinati of traffic, evaluating the degree to which the problem is a temp ary one, and suggesting possible remedial actions. COUIVC[LMEN Requested b Department of: Yeas Nays Fletcher Drew [n Favor Masanz Nicosfa scnetbei __ Against BY Tedesco Wilson Form A ov d y City Attorney Adopted by Council: Date Certified Yassed by Council Secretary BY By t�pproved by Mavor: Date Approv ' by ayor for Submission to Council By _ By �� - ,3�� t�*�.� GITY OF SAINT PAUL o ; OFFICE OF THE MAYOR � nii iilii ; �o �� 347 CITY HALL ,... SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55102 GEORGE LATIMER (612) 298-4323 MAYOR September 13, 1985 Council President Victor Tedesco and Members of the City Council City Hall , Seventh Floor St. Paul , Minnesota 55102 RE: Design Concept for I-35E - Grand Avenue to I-94 Dear Council President Tedesco and Members of the City Council : On September 13 the Planning Commission recommended approval of the 35E Design Concept. Their action culminated a review process begun in October of last year and which involved all major groups and interested individuals. The basis for the design concept came from a staff team including Planning and Public Works staff, MnDOT staff and members of the consulting firm of Strgar- Roscoe-Fausch, Inc. The result of their work is a design concept that has satisfied concerns of residents, businesses and, to some extent, event RIP 35E. I believe this design concept to be the best possible solution to accommodating the roadway in this very sensitive area of our City. I urge you to read the Planning Commission report and minutes from their public hearing to get a good sense of the level to which people seem satisfied with the �� design and some issues that relate to actual construction of the Parkway. I strongly recommend your support for this design concept. Sincerely, eorge atimer Mayor GL:ss �48 �...., { �S�/3� b :�,,� '� , CITY OF SAIN? PHUL INTERDEPAR7MENTAL MEMORANDUM UATE: August 28, 19�5 T0: Planning Connnission FROM: Economic Development Committee RE: I-35E Design Concept Review I. INTRODUCTION Interstate 35E from Dakota County to downtown has been in the active planniny stages for the past 5 years. Next year I-35E will be completed from Dakota County to the Grand/Ramsey interchange, leaving less than a one mile segment between Grand/Ramsey and I-94 to be built. Under consideration is the design concept for that short segment. The Planning Commission' s responsibility is to help develop and review the design for I-35E and make a recommendation to the City Council for their approval . Subsequently, the Minnesota Department of Transportation will develop final construction plans for final approval by the City Council in late 1985 or early 1986. II . AUTHORITY FUR REVIEW According to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 462, Section 462.356, the Planning Commission shall review capital expenditures proposed by the city or any other government agency to deterrnine their conformance with St. Paul ' s Comprehensive Plan. In addition , Chapter 161 , Section 161 .174 requires that layouts for proposed interstate construction be approved by the affected municipality. III . BACKGROUND In O�tober, 1984 the Planning Commission established the Lower Cathedral Hill Design Task Force to advise on the development of a design concept for I-35E, its appurtenant design features and related city street improvements. Staff of the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) the consultants (Strgar/Roscoe/Fausch, Inc.) and City Planning _ and Public 4Jorks staff ass�isted the Task Force in the development of the 35E Parkway Design Concept Document. This document represents the staffs recon�mendations, and includes consideration of elements such as: - landscaping - lighting - special seating areas - fences and bridye rails - siyn structures - retaining walls - pedestrian/bicycle system - roadway cross-section design - local street system changes . ., . �A-i,��o � � � ` J� ��_� � � , Ste[e Capltol � � �� , �� c�� ,� ��r�� \ !�, �� '� /`/ 9Q� fJ� f S��'eie,\�/'�y�°i> r� -- �� +� a � . . � coneora:: � l��A J� � - Dorncown 5:. ?au_ � � Cathedra ��n 1� � S'^s, � t ' ke�� `�'�o � DESlGN C NCEPT � � � � G"'°�p�Y STUDY AREA ✓ � � � -- S��.�� . ._ . CMStPBPRR A � �— '• �� hMer�on Avs � � y�/ ' � 7�'/ � �....... Rw�d�ph Ave � I I' I�1 � � W � 1 � s �, �� . �� SOURCE: JSE FINAI EIS �.- _1 35F' PARKWAY � DES1Gr! CONCF_PT TEAM 3 5E PA RK{+1/A Y � •NiNNE50TA DEOARTMENlOF F/GURE 1 TRANSOONJATION q/ignment From West 7th Sfreet to /-94 . 'CllY OF SAINT iAlll ' 'STRGAR�ROSCOE-FAUSCH,INC. � ___ . . �'.�—�`�/��d The result is a design which fits the Parkway into a narrow and sensitive corridor; accommodating transportation needS while trying to minimize disruption of the area. Beyond that, the design tries to actually enhance the historic character of the hill area and the west end of downtown with decorative designs and extensive landscaping. IU. PLANNIPJG ISSUES A. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. The Street and Highway Plan as well as District 9, 16 and 17 Plans pertain to development I-35E. Although the Street and Highway Plan predates much of the specific discussion on I-35E, it does set out 3 basic criteria for major projects: "l . Uoes the roadway adequately handle the volume of traffic expected to use it? 2. How does the traffic flow affect adjacent land uses? 3. How does the "streetscape" look? Is it a pleasant place to walk or drive?" 1 . Capacity and Access: The Parkway design has two lanes in each d� rection with adequately lony ramps at Grand (NB-off, SB-on) . Traffic projections for the year 20U0 done by MnDOT indicate that the lanes and access points available will be more than adequate to accommodate the traffic. Other access for southbound off- ramps and northbound on-ramps is not needed because of insufficient demand. In addition to I-35E access to downtown, access from I-94 eastbound will be greatly improved. Minar improvements will be made to the lOth Street exit. The 9th Street exit will become 5th Street and give direct, unencumbered access to Fort Road and 5th Street in front of the Civic Center. In addition, the Marion exit will lead directly into downtown via realigned Kellogg Boulevard. 2. Effiect on Land Uses; Since the roadway right-of-way has been - acqu� red for some time, impact on adjacent property is less than it might otherwise have been. Specific issue arose concerning United Hospitals, the J.J. Hill Wall , Irvine Hill Condos, American Linen Supply, Catholic Youth Center, Labor Center and St. Joseph' s Hospital . Without exception, representatives of these land uses have stated their support for the general design of the Parkway as well as almost all specific des�gn elements. In a11 instances, the land uses can remain and function generally as they do today. Special care has been taken to meet individual needs of property owners such as retention of veyetation and accomodation of parking bays in front of the Irvine Hill Condominiums. � \ ,,��t�''��}� �1 n j�! "' ,� � ,,.�-j!^ C ' 7. .�� . I � � �,,-� ' ^�,�`� Y,� � � �1�`y• �-� �' S tn n D� nl W ' '�//� ' !\� �L �2a. `C ,f'��C .k. e� �.1 �; � ��.v � a � 2 � r^ r - e � . . 1i'�- � �� n �c Z 2 I.� �+1 --- . '+. \: �' �' ...t i�.! . � A �.�.� � � m �'- � ��S�j. _ I! O '� .� ,, .e r i .. � . ` y �� Z ' � ..s+. 4 ��: R� �r�r '� �_.�. � O n y a , (� � . .. \ � •��}i'? � �4 ;� � '`��y P,0 �..�►r',� �� 4� , ,. � c� y -•.. O D ._ � '., r,�_ �S�v._.,`_�_• {�.� �';; "t�:9 �j. ,+��, Y~'� }�' ' � O O'� 1 Z � �s:�. .S� ..: ,. w- . ��! y�1i.^<� r7 ��t� .;�h ,tl , ��•. i '� y 2n f (' _ ' /' -� �"-' �i'�i �,� ;. .�� p ` �,� � ; P:' _ �' � � s � •�. I b � a I o, ,'tir c� ��'- � l ` Y �sP . 1 ,� � e' i C i i = �� - �. ��' . 'S .> 'g�J �- �i . r r ' i i N n �1 � �' Ra Q�?� €. q �y � • � ,. n 2 y � � �C�^�,.°;�t Yc '��.!'Z+ S � �^�'.: ., h'9 �P? .i ' ?. 2 � Rl n � 1 kI�`�T2y.-a'�4RC �'� t�`� t `� � ?:'� F��.�c',' e •- n 1 n ,,,! `r'.-- _ ! ��L�9 .L.�n....�.; Ki ' ;r ,`. i ' , N{ � Y9 � '. . � � � \ � � �F�.�ro� ��' ' �, t�" "��-J° � : T� ' . . 'c '� . I. � � �� ,'s � ; � � �-� �, i �� w�' -,� � � �:�: �� ;� � T ��F `` �'`� ',�,,, x �c: �`� _ '� ,�� k;f_�-� �' ; r � . �� ?� � .. "� , ; � ,, I� �' �'`''�`°.i . 'a. -:a., t- � � �"�.rr �1- �- . �, a� � '��,.'�''�-�, t��.�� ; ;; ,r - � � ,, ��• � • ♦ 1� ` '` y ,:,"�'� + � � ' v-J ,r �� t �. % .. •,� �' �.. �i �:� � �. �� . , - : �; , :_ �ry{` �, �r : � . . � �� - - _ .. - A ` i V }� _ - 1 I , ` 1 J �� " ., � - ,), � .. � 1 1 � A,n .� �.� _ �� 1 �. ^ -^',� i� i ^, ` ��i;�� y� �i'..�� .,,k-`�� .� ti A''E ..� E� i � /, � �%' ° � r�1f;�� ` � ' � 'l �� "� "' - �,_,r�+. -� .74s� � �� . �.�nl �,p•,'S:.- . � -:. `:��3��s... r. .�`` r�4+,;. � � i; . �1 � . tt p� SY...'�^. �\ �� 4"�.15�C'��Q'��A ( Y � -" -. . �,.\ �. { � A�1. c�'�'.'C vt t�at� +:iE� �� .1`f"-1 ,. .+ � .L � ` � � ` \ � �d�F �� ,'�� I , } 1 e ' '!-..3�" y ' �� /' .� _"�� 4��• �j �� n�`�-r�„"'.r ��,,�^�'�'` �, / � � � �i �.�- � �+`L{r,. t � •(� i " ,- : '� o Kx �.✓�..�C';��5 ' x / �M ( � � � J � i ."�1 � � .. � A,! •� � .'�1;� K � . � .) �y � �_Q1 '� _. i _�.yr'JSq 5�... --� � '. � � i I ��!y t i�� ' . �'1.—. �•� �� 'I'� � �I � '�w`' �YY1 ,_• � ��j��;�tv,�yi .�. ��i - . W i ��. I � � '.�� _ � '1�.�."w;��Y ' ` .I � - • 1 I . ��J � "__ 'i�r, \ ~ ` - _.._ ! `�..�/t � �. _� ` !�,(V irr (� � �,.Lw4..� `��i l _-, �F ~^�~'�.��I � ..�r I O �1 r� -m _ ;`1 �'�:> .:�',`_ 1 '+1 \` \ , r ;- *' .T� � �i � ,1 � , ss � � *� t-:�'�` �" i `��' � �r. �-,� i � 2 r C �, t �y�. � f f�. ��'�:1. � � i�c .,. I. Q � � �� ; ` �� 3 �--; �Il;��s J�. �� I,� �. �� , I O � � * ` 3 �` �.y. ��'T �� !� I . '� � � �=-��i� , � i ro. � �. i .�d � ) O � �•, r � I � /� : ' t` � �' ��' '� � ' _ I O � q . . �. � � ,��"� se�, _ � �y''C, '�'_�-e.�� .�, I �G � j � l� � �' ,�' �� .:y >, .... -: 't - ti: ' " . , � D► V � 1`�4 � f �~' ?�.� ` ,,'r- 5 r ` I � � i � j ,( , �-` t �,,��// �= � � . S;�I�f '�. + ;� �! z , �� O \ I �� . '1�'_ 1 1f1 (' �� '� _ �.L :I�F _ � . t ' r � ` °�`1 y t -� -� : '` s 4` '�� , 1 , 1 . ,� e � {"�.,,, P +' � : -- � �� 1�s R �-� � -�� ,,., � �, ,. S I i � � j � ',y�,,: t - * ' '� i �� _ AKt p`(�� l q � .t. R ' .J. l .�� i n;��.� � : � � � �' ' / ._W 11 y � /? ' cr�,� d' . _i j . . �� . � � � � � �F_ _ ,�. � �i'' `�..� y � '.l, r' n�S ; I �� 1 j�. . i� /' � r_ \" /�^: ��'� 1� Vy t t 1... � !w ��' fj ' { � 1�� .� =) � :f � ,�• � ��' � �J�`= �`' l J�f� 1'; .i � + � j � !3" $ ' �_ ' �,� � ��, 1 ` � ,� ' I � r i � `i� i � �"'� I�� r _ � � / �� `�'` '-��/ �� % � i � a ` ` � �' �^' � � -` :�f _I :� f ¢ $ _�+�*��._ ". �. - I � - � i � / �1 � � •, c ' � j e� �� : .. . � �p�. / j �� 1 �� ' t �� i� ��± . �� % ,�i.'� � �y�'Z i� i� � 7� � � ; �_ � ; € 1 ; ? � � .� �� ,, � ' �`��'� � . ( { ir�� r �Y �t 4 ��, � a Y � I � j/!t� =c 4' ,��i4� d � l�?`�`' �� t'. �. � ' -• ,�� l . �� /��j . I. _ /' F.�c �' +t .��. I � •1 � . d�, � � �,�� L' b '� y� � � '�• � Y.�Y .. /�- � � ,�+ �� I�� 7`� i,�_�1 '/ �t' A �� Jf . � �'� � I�`� ��7 Y;g� �� ' l � � 1^ � I '� f � �y!� ,�� trs� � 1, �. � 3 * ° , .i ••t•, � `�•' �5� , � y '�Z� � ', .� �,� �' �( � �,,- ;�'�� I �'�.� � �: ' � .� • j � -- d±� �I,/� - Y.: � r _ 1 g _�r .,., , ,:�� . {�/,�� . �� . � � , 4- '�� . . F, r'e, � , I ,�,y �)� } r _ f I � I $_ • j� ...I . �f/ � � p �� 'F' ��:, � • � �� ' �� , •'1 p' ,',.�% �` ��'I� --e ��f ^._s" �\ 1 , ,� i � d}�,� �1 i��,, , y.. :.� ._ i � � _ � �,�� ° � � � �-- �"E�k I '"~-,,�:. !, -�rS.� ^'�J '�s�� .`�. ��., e��' � � �z:� � 1;° , . � I �:$ , p `. .� �,�� 1 = �",,� ��r �; ,:.�-: 1�-.� �,::i 1 ;�. , � �a�,�� ,�c�. ��t: :�� . I � �.,� X�'�.�,�(!��i` y ,r� mx G+`.)�_ i �" �`5` � + �� _• ifi'� !�(r Y_ _.a' 1 I I� ciG�7 .' . A��y'�.�,� . ( � -O _.__ 1.� � •�91 �' �jE..nrt �` �;�; O '�:� � tj ! ,� . � ��` , �� p �� ' ! , `°� ' �i�,.' ��.,,'r!� '�. I ,�. � {y.f� , ° e o� �c-er`�� ' ,'� ; �,�� r6�{h� I �,�,I'�a•�(� �x�j �� ta� / .1'1 .��f ,'��j � � I; �� ' % . . ��D 3. Streetscape (Pedestrian and Vehicle) : Great effort has been taken to ensure that the visual as well as functional aspects of the Parkway project accommodate the needs of the surrounding area. The Parkway design features incorporate both the urban and historic nature of the area. The Parkway is depressed and within as narrow a right-of-way as is safe and reasonable. This helps to minimize visual and noise impacts on the surrounding area. To further buffer the traffic, extensive landscaping is included along the Parkway, as well as along Kellogg Boulevard, 5th and 6th Streets. Accommodations for pedestrians are extensive. Extra wide sidewa1ks (15 feet) are included along Kellogg (both sides) , 5th/6th (both sides, Fort Road to 35E) , Fort Road (northwest side, Kellogg to 5th Street) and on all 4 bridges (Kellogg, 5th/6th, lOth and Mulberry) . In addition, an exclusive bicycleJpedestrian path will be constructed from Grand to Kellogg and from the Parkway at Kellogg to John Ireland Boulevard. Also, a wide and inviting pedestrian bridge will be built at Walnut Street with a pedestrian walkway down Walnut to Smith Avenue. Finally, there will be 7 different plaza/seating areas, with a major downtown "plaza/entrance" at 5th and Fort Road. The lighting, bridge railings, fencing and seating areas are all designed to match the character of the area. Lowertown, Rice Park and Lantern lighting fixtures will be used on city streets and the bicycle/pedestrian path. Iron stake fencing will be used along the Parkway. And the John Ireland Bridge Railing design will be used on all bridges, including the Walnut pedestrian bridge. The District Plans deal more specifically with the Parkway but because they were adopted some time ago, the recommendations are no longer relevant. All three Plans recommend that a roadway be built. The District 9 and 16 Plans sugyest a roadway similar to Johnson Parkway. At the time these Plans were reviewed, the Planning Commission reserved final recommendations until the EIS was complete. Subsequently, the City Council approved the basic Parkway concept which is no�,� being refined in this plan. B. Grand Avenue Ramps In late 1984 the issue of a full intersection at Grand Avenue was raised. The Economic Development Committee held a public meeting to receive comments on the relative merits of adding the north ramps. The Committee, and the Planning Commission, subsequently recommended that staff investigate with the Lower Cathedral Hill Design Task Force the addition of ramps and make recommendations back to the Commission. ' . _ _ �- i3�� ; � _ _ _ _ - = aa"" - � �"— . . a -_ —:-- .. .�'. ,.�._ .'— �'' ,-�� '`� .. —� „ �—,�.� — _ ._ 1 � \1 � � .�t� af�'I�' _^ ' . •� � ''' �~ � K�r��._� '+ _'N� rl.�_ ,�A`�,^ � � y> �- {t'..1�1( � S� _. *4 _.._ ^!" _ '— .Y 's . . ..._ / _ ,. . . - ' ! �; �� F� - �,. J-�+U. _ `�_._ — -�i 1. t ' `� - � ' , : � ' ( . ' . ` ' _ ��',k; �1� �� , ' � '' _ � . -a�e...,,,.�.y:e ' _ �' - )_ _ � � � � •��=. ; . . . . . .i�� . - --- �---:_�� .�� !� .. � 4 1� � 'e .�. , _ _ ). � ..- �.�,�,.. . . t ,_,;�.,,r ' `�# 1, 1''{11 �. �'•' � , _y.'�n+, � �__ .. � ,,.c-7 :' .. '. . � 1.s;f .a .r ^. �. `nl�,�"�"1; Y ',�..��.l�, —, 1 'P�� }"1 ��- �� / -� ..G"`i, -i_s ��.4-��`��'r•'�j . �'A��.«M'�.yK ,w. ,.,.y r.r t. �.S�g.� - 1 �1 ll �"� ,V� y ' � _ � � �( ! C ,f � ,�-,� � ~`� �"4 ♦ y�4�. -�y�r� � �?!��'li � " - r .--�Y_-y � �i� �� •�'°� f/!in t'",r�� r .��i' '� ,c ° < �:,.. �`� �,,._ .��..�—, 7 f•, . - ��:i I s 4'=�'x;:,,, �� r �;-C ,�j .^J � ! , 1. l'C � S' . �y� � $.' �� tf7 �'•.l 12' .'` S 1- _ ✓ � _ �^i r �rr+ ,�_y' Y i`- y. �_i'; ' �� r1' J ��,� �^'��';S��yj' '� t„1,��: , 6 � . ��_ `F;rt Y� '��'. ��` �� t�f�� . . � «3 � 1� . � �.' �� _l� -.'� � ;� +�, .� i-. a'�e»i �� *c° : � c� ��1' . Y � . - , �`':'� 1� �!��ea�� e�,�, �� .1'. .r • .r ,P�" � h. . .• . 1 s I 'M�` � x--• - g•3; 7 �\\ � .- ' T / '• .. .WC ys � � ��. � 11 ' - .� ��4j� , � l � �"��! .,. -�.C-"t.- '.:�, �. s. '!C( 1 I ir a a-Y � �S'"`=� � 11 v' �'- . !1.� t� Y �Y' O. �_ S � �y � ; , r � ' . . �'�at1a L. .;.1 ^ t• t _:s��'�'`�'t-4� > •i•` � � � ' . . .'�s�� . ,r�� . r ��.3. � d � ;�. ,. C.Zr'��+ • .�..��:� �'., � +`,� :�r Y;,v .I� �, r � .�q,t'f "�.".`�} -^�� • .. '�,1- .��uY � . . �j._ '� � -f-�gyy �Y r��,4�j _ ,� _ __ � . . . . . i 7 �`�, ' �:��j� �� .!R�v + f° � �•� � l��` -___ — -�_ M �� f I �H � . � � `� ' � � ,"�,p �"�h"�� p � � t'�.. �, � � :t� � � _ . ' � �d �.". cN .�`= `_ ' s:'-"`e, P J f;s � 1 �1. �; a = � .-, �: � n "', t� .� n s y L+1)Y c y 'y� � :] � �` � .� � n'. I .� jt.��- ... ;. " �l� ��y ,�,a$If� :� ��f I ,IP'��-� 1; L7 :3 � r 2 � .�.•�� I .. �J' �.�� . - ✓ ��i* ,r:� ' \��,�i'c .1�;�,��j"�i� �=f � i �'A" �'� _ __ 1� ' _ _ '-. -�,/F� ---�'! ' _�y. £ , d'h�n A tE -j• �".ArP _ �;_ {1�'• � � ' � ,-� �� :;F �.,--� �, --��:��>�,�=F�� A a - - - -- � . � � �'�` ��-.�� -�. ra+�{,.G.;T;.c �r�' f�M iii��,-%.s r� � �`� 'fr„�� ' ��- s _'� Q C JZvJ j �. 3 � �._.,_Y � V. ` ��i(�*. � az.�.H y.1 � ; '��1� , :, •�,y /��` � �,�, �`�'� ,�,�•t j��"' �r f.�7.�Y',q�t�w i' �a .. ., . `' � �� "� I.a :� P�� k>'�'"� . � , �i ;�?��r�,-�r'' , � r i'��„�t't�';ri `��.-/-� -� i �/J�� '(� k. -.� � i, ..,i 4 V' � w��G�i , .. -' � �+ '\��' /� ��".l- �'p � Y � f!.. l h�1��'��4'; R , a r�../ .. / �� '�1-!��i�' ��,� /�t++-�-� -1 � � i�"`•z°�'�Y� � 5 ��`�� i" �%� . / � } ' � ,� ��.3't,s/ �_ j?, �-- 'r7`' }��3p��- j i l � � �E,�.,�'.-'',��,�":;; �::-'°.�,-`n/ �`, �'�f,_ /2r'-k''r ,P,�C p��-x �d�, � '�?.� '��`� t ��(� �a /��;� r '��.y;�, • , � �i 9"�° � /� ��} �� Il�i � �✓' -�',� y�L '�',AG'-.3° /\ "7 �"ii"�'/.'�-z�� ;'�' - ��y�� // �.,�F i ' .,�+:�]��t> .: ' ��V t"�:�1� . �.' r� �N�. ./�. '`-=-�✓ / � ��` t ` _ � ��t�rj �� + f '�"fi. '� � ,',�-` `��r � �y ' ��-f'�`� �'"��.. ` '`...... � f:\ �„'� �t� i�+��',(:�%+'s�V " 1 � � r�i'� ��'I?`�� x.----^-�---� ,,.."/ tx ��. � VV ��. _�� .(',�� e� ,'i�,��i I Y� ��.y�� / \ � +� �� .� '�' �. ��, � �� Y�, ��i{` �� RX1�.-�M�4 � ��l,y � � � % .`��,�, ^ y . (] � .�."''.C, ,� i \� s$�a,�.rk.t�-��i!� � ' r . '�° i,r� o , �\ � ."�� r t�h -L � ,1 gl !P��_" �� kj •-� 1 i � � /'� � �/ l �.C„_��i.�,y ,�yy� y� I U j°L 'c'�� Y \ f�^�� ' rY`"�.��V`T�l� ��,'l�, Y I p. ' � � I i � 4 -. - \ . ,f'r ��-Y >( s.�. J' � '' /�,��.`��;� r � '• � _�` �1 :-r'�*c: °`^r:� � .��r�':= 4 t ,�;r•,.� 1 � `r: `- � — � . . X�'' J r� �' y�y`Srl��' ` - _-' � '. ';1/ C'�'''�,.�j�e� ��i�,�`Y{ �,t. • �� `'c� �_�� 'r• : R� f y,_,�j� .� i '�i�p��° ;+_r-�%�/�: , K',��1�� _ ,':%+'�'" K", ',�� r}�e�c� ��r' rt��'. r,� , i ��' � � r. , , �� , '� ��4 �Yi j� �° � �'��,-��r.,�w��r� _ �- � �, ��.� � ��:... �� ,./, � , r� , :�/;� �� ,�,� � �� , � . � .• , 3,; �,/�:.. ZY'^a i 4' i �`�� i � � v v;� ��.�+� � � a 4 .. �.; .� � � �`��f R��a��.Ft . ! J�yv`'`4u,�raza4f vt�Y,4'cy;.3 G __ . � RECOPltifIAENDED DESIGtd C0�ICEPT � DRAWING PREPARED BY JOSEVN PASSONNEAU ANO PARTNERS 35E PARKWAY � DESIGN COIVCEPT TEAM 35E PAl7J� WAY 1 1)f }�/++ _/K� •M/NNESOTA OEOARTMEN7OF ' F/GV�Rir �/ TAANSPONTITION perspecfive ��PiW; � 'CITY OF SAINf i�UL , ' . 'STRGAR•ROSCOE-FAUSCM,IN0. � � � � . _ �� /��o The staff' s and Task Force's conclusion is that the north ramps at Grand Avenue are neither warranted nor desired. While these ramps would pravide additional access to and from the regional highway system, this type of access is not warranted based on regional travel demand. In addi�tion, the auxiliary lanes on the Parkway that would be necessary between the Kelloyg Boulevard ramps and Grand/Ramsey ramps would not provide for safe and efficient merging traffic oper•ations. Also, auxiliar•y lanes would eliminate the space for the Un�ted Hospital service drive. At the final Task Force meeting the West 7th Federation, Irvine Hill CondoS and RIP 35E supported staff' s recommendation against a full int�rchange. GABA did not testify at the Public Hearing nor did they participate in the last Task Force meeting, but they indicated to staff that ramps were no lonyer a priority for them. For• these reasons, additional ramps at Grand Avenue are not recorn;nended. C. Construction Impacts During construction there are temporary negative impacts that affect adjacent property. Tem�orary problerns include noise and vibration from excavation activity, closing off access to property, dust and sand in the air and pedestrians crossing the construction site without permission. MnDOT has procedures that have protected public health and welfare along the Parkway portion already completed. Since this section is particularly sensitive, MnDOT needs to be especially attentive to minimizing problems in this segment as much as possible, D. Maintenance Long term maintenance of the improvements in the Parkway corridor has been raised as an issue by residents of the area. They reyuest that assurances be made by the City that such things as grass cutting, watering anci snow clearance be done to high standards. The City and h1nDOT shauld develop the most effective maintenance scheme possible, and seek to minimize costs through cooperative agreements and coo��eration of adjacent property owners. E. Use of Resi<ival Lands Con�truction of the Parkway will not require use of all the lands previously acquired by MnDOT when a 6-lane freeway was contemplated. l�he proper use/reuse of residual lands is important to preserving and enhancing the character of the neighborhood. Under MnDOT' s land disposition gu�idelines, the property is to be sold at market rate and the Federal Hiyhti�ray Administratior� reimbursed. Therefore, the buildable parcels will be sold and some development may occur. Since the landscape will have radically changed, current land use plans and - zaning regulations may r�o lonyer be appropriate. � � � �s_i,3a r� F. St. Albans Street Traffic Some residents are complaining about an increase in traffic on St. Albans Street. Currently, the Parkway terminates at St, Clair and temporary on- and off-ramps from the south have been constructed. When the Parkway is completed, there will be no ramps from the south retained at St. Clair, only ramps from the north. City staff has already been in contact with the neighbors and has collected information on the oriyin and destination of traffic on St. Albans. In September, staff will meet with the neighbors to discuss the nature of the problem, the degree to which the problem is a temporary one, and potential remedial actions. V. FINDINGS/RECOMMENDATIONS The Planning Commission should find the I-35E Design Concept is consistent with the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan and recommend approval by the City Council subject to the following: 1. The access from the Parkway to Grand Avenue should only be to and from the south. 2. The Minnesota Department of Transporation should be particularly careful to minimize temporary nuisances created by construction of the Lower Cathedral Hill segment of the Parkway. 3. The City and Minnesota Department of Transportation should develop the most effective maintenance scheme possible for Parkway improvements, and seek to minimize costs through cooperative agreements and cooperation of adjacent property owners . 4. City staff should evaluate the potential to use/reuse of residual parcels and make land use recommendations to the Planning Commission. Adjacent property owners should be consulted as well as an overall land use scheme developed. 5. Staff should work with the neighbors on St. Albans to determine cause for increased traffic, to evaluate the extent to which the problem is a temporary one, and to suggest remedial actions to the neighbors. VI . COMMITTEE ACTION After discussion and recommended changes , Van Hoef moved for approval , secorded by Ferderer and approved 4 to 0. � - ..y ��- ��3ao :o.: CITY OF SAINT PAUL INTERDEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM DATE: September 13, 1985 T0: Planning Cortunission FROM: Allen Lovejoy � `�" RE: I-35E. Comments Made Outside the Public Hearing Record Seven groups participating in the Lower Cathedral Hill Design Task Force made additional comnents outside the Planning Commission public hearing. This memo summarizes those comments and suggests potential additions to the proposed resolution. 1 . United Hospitals of Saint Paul (letter dated 12/11/84) a. disappointed in lack of north on- and off-ramps at Grand Avenue (dealt with in current resolution) b. concerned about blasting taking place during construction: noise; vibration; and dust (accomnodated in current resolution) c. access to loading dock is important during and after construction ("during construction" dealt within current resolution; "af ter construction" accommodated by new frontage road - Thompson Avenue) d. concerned about noise reverberation from north wall of Parkway (to be dealt with in the Implementation Plan) e. concerned about desi n of Walnut pedestrian crossing (dealt with in the Concept Document� � f. concerned about lighting and elimination of reflection potential . (dealt with by light fixture design of the Concept Document) g. want environmental standards adhered to regarding construction, vibration, noise, aesthetics and air quality (the construction will adhere to all state and federal environmental guidelines plus MnDot is including specific requirements associated with blasting) h. wants access off of lOth Street to the Miller Hospital site (provided by the Design Concept) i . wants access to Miller Hospital from Sur�nit Avenue (Task Force process moved access to Mulberry which is now acceptable to United) �-'�� 3a 6 j. wants Miller Hospital site accessible to district heating and downtown skyways (construction of the Mulberry bridge will allow for district heating access; skyway connection is not precluded by the design of 35E) RECOMMENDATION: Add a condition from point "g". Minnesota Department of Transportation work with United Hospitals to ensure that vibration and noise from blasting does not disrupt hospital operations. Z. American Linen Supply Company a. staied support �or the design b. reiterated support for design which enables trucks to retain access to their f acility and a parking lot (listed on the Design Concept as "done by others") RECOMMENDATION: No change. 3. Port Authority a. calls for adequate replacement of parking at the Labor Centre (replacement of parking is being negotiated between the Port Authority and MnDOT) RECOMMENDATION: No change. 4. Archdioese of St. Paul and Minneapolis . a. concerned about a lack of accommodation of replacement parking for CYC Facility (this is committed to in the Design Concept and City staff are working on a parking lot design for CYC and American Linen - see #Z above) RECOMMENDATION: No change 5. James J. Hill House a. concerned about disrepair of upper part of Walnut Street stairway: maintenance; lighting; repair; and security (this is not addressed directly by the Design Concept) b. concerned about final design of the walkways (to be dealt with as part of final design) RECOMMENDATION: Add a condition from point "a" City will reconstruct the Walnut Street stairway with adequate lighting included. 6. State Historical Society a. concerned that Mulbery Street access the Miller Hospital site rather than Summit � b. concerned with the Design Concept on 5th and 6th Street design RECOMMENDATION: No change � �� -�3�a 7. Park Machine, Inc. a. wants a left turn onto 6th Street for east-bound traffic to serve Park Machine (the consultants and City staff are evaluating that movement for safety) RECOMMENDATION: Add a condition City staff work with Park Machine for adequate street access to their f acility Therefore, staff recommends that 3 additional conditions be added to Planning Correnission resolution. . . ��.v C��/ C�` 5�� J�l,l� ��;�� :��'�R�� ?.��.�� '�� .�y�`��:� II5-74-- � � �i'S.e d ��+� ..,,a..S.�.ter��ber.�.,l�,,.,.�,�i . �JHERFAS, the Saint f'aul Planning Commission has the responsibility and authority Lo revie4�a and comment on the proposed design concept for the I-35E f'ark��ray be�k.ween Grand Avenue and I-9�; and 4JHEREAS, the Plar7ning Carnmission appointed the Lower Cathedral Hill Design 7ask For��ey Y�cpresenting all major grou� and individual interests concern�ir�g the I-35E Park��ay, to study and advise them on Park4��ay d�sign issues; ar�d ��lNERE�S, the� Planning Commission, upon receiving staff recommendation and comments f�om the Lo�-�er Cathedral Hill Design Task Force in the form of the I-35F P�rk4•�ay Desiyn Concept, held a public hearing on Nugust 22, 1985 on t �e speci��cs o� the Task Force' s recomm�ndation; and WHEREAS, the Pl anni ny Cornmi ss�i on fi nds the I-35E Parka��ay Desi gn Conce�t �to be consistent with the Saint Paul Cor�prehensive Plan; and WHEI�EAS, i,he Planning Cor��mission finds that the on- and off-ram�s to the north at Grand Avenue are noi, warranted by exp�cted traffic levels and that inclusion v��ould create less than optimal safety on the Parkv�ay; and WHEREIIS, the Planniny Commission finds that temporary nuisances due to construction such as noise ancf dust are particularly important in the Lower Cath�dral Hi11 area; and t�1�iEREAS, the P1 anni ng Cornmi ssi on �fi nds that some adj acent property owners are concer�ned about maintenance of public improvemer�ts; and t�dNEREAS, the Planning Comrnission f�inds that use/reuse of residual vacant 1 ands nat ta'r.��n by Park��ray constr•ucti on may becoi�� an i ssue after construct.ion is cornplete; t�JHEREAS, the Plannin� Com�nissiori finds that vibration due to construction may be a cr�it.ical factor in th� operat�on of United f{ospital ; and " � McDonnel i�`��.�t�y.� �....�`�.�'__w.___-._____.�....«.....�,��.�,.. .� ��f��'^r�Y^�-�r�!�=,�-'f �-,,, VanHoef ��J�41'Y G�O.✓.��'w.✓ft..[S �� .�....w�rerw+�.�m.vn.wna I� ��t�,��..�11�._,_�. .� �a��..�',.s�3�.._... —� — � � � ��1-/3�° ��i;�' U� S��rl� ��:�w�� 3 ..�..,�....�� rs�- ��4�a..,��'1 I'�:��,,l�� y. 4.: ��r'� i Oi� .�� '��3�'`"1 �d ai.� `��...?1��:�._,�. d�ar � . ,W.r..........m..�. c�� _ i�IFiE:RERS, the Pl anni r,g Commi ssion fi nds that the Wal nut Street stai rway i s in an unsafe state of disrepair and that sucl� stairway is important to pc�destriar� maveinent down Cathedral Hil l ; and GJNEF�AS, tNiF� Planning Commission finds that vehicular access to Park hSach;ne, Inr„ may be inadequate; N0�l, THEREwFOR�, BE. IT RESOLVED, that the Saint Paul Planning Comrnission recomr��end; approval of the prepared design concept as stated in the I�35E Parkway Uf�sign Concept Document; contingent upon the folloUring condi�ions: 1 . Access fram the Parkway to Grand Avenue only be to and from the south; 2. Minnesota Department of Transportation be particularly careful to minim�ize te�i��orary impacts created by construction; 3. Tfic City and h1innesota Department of Transportation develop the most efficient arrd effective maintenance schei�ie possible for Park�vay irnprovements; 4. Plan�ing staff to evaluate the potential use/reuse of resid«al r�arcels of land anci make recommendations back to the Planning Commicsion; 5. Planning staff to c'eal with St. Albans Street traf��ic by evaluatiny origin and destination of traffic, evaluating the degree to which the problefn is a tempora�y one, and suygesting possible remedial actions; 6. P1innesota Department of Transportation 4vork 4vith United Hospitals to ensure that ��ibration and noise from blasting does not disrupt hospit�l operations; 7. City ��rill reconstruct the 4lalnut Street stairway with adequate lighting i ncl u�ae�l; and 8, City staff vrork with Park f�achine for adequate street access to their facility, I�� °� � �� J � I�1 ��0��'._._..� � � �� v,r—./.� e'L U PLANNING COMP�tISSION OF ST. PAUL 25 t,lest Fourth Street St. Paul , P�innesota 55102 A meeting of the Planniny Commiss�on of the City of St. Paul was held on Thursday, Rugus�t 22, 1985 at 7 :30 p.m, in the City Council Chambers, 3rd floor City Hall , St. Paul , Minnesota 5510?_. COP�PIISSIONFRS Mmes. Morton, Summers, Tracy PRESEPdT�_ Messrs. Ferderer, (aalles, Horak, Lanegran, Levy, McDonell , Pangal , VanHoef COt�IP1ISSI0NERS P�1mes. Trei chel , Zi eman ABSENT: P�essrs . {�nderson, Brown, Christenson, Indihar, Luna, Park, � Youny E�LSO PRESEPiT�: Di ck Fl asky, Mr�DOT; Peter Fausch, Frank Strgar and Randy Gerdes, Stryar-Roscoe-Fausch; Al1en Lovejoy, Peggy Reichert and Leda Murphy of the Planning Division I-35E Design - Public Heariny Mr. Lanegran read the statement of purpose and rules of procedure for the public hearinyo P1s. Reichert stated that the Planning Comrnission has been working on design of I-35E for the last 5 years and that the City Council approved a preliminary plari two years ago. Final design of the Parkway is being approved in stages and the last area, to be discussed toniyht, was the most difficult to design. ShQ said that ti�e Lower Cathedral Hill Design Task Force was established one year ay� to study this area, and the presentation tonight is the final recommeridation of the Task Force to the Planning Commission. Ms. Reichert introduced Dick Elasky, from the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnUO"f) �and Peter Fausch, project manayer from Stryar-Roscoe- Fausr_h, the consultar�ts for this project. P�r. Fausch gave a presentation descr�ibing the overall concept of the I-35E Parkway. He ex.plained topography, location of retaininy walls and ramps, and the type of lar�dscapiny, lighting and railinys that will be used, He said that tnere will he a rnajor connection of the Parkway to Kellogg at llth Street, as well t�s s�rne modification of the streets at 5th and 6th and Fort Road. Kellagg ti��ill be rerouted near John Ireland Blvd. and streets in that - area will ai �o nc�ed to be modified. There will be a two lane street in front of the Irvin�� Hill Condominiums and full access will be allovaed for the loadin� ar•eas �f United Nospitals. There will be a new lOth Street bridye access and a ped��strian and bike system will run along the Parkway. Nt said tt�at dur-iry Task Force discussions there were three major areas of concern. Tt�c� first concern was adding ramps at Grand Avenue. The Task Force recommende� ayainst these ramps for four reasons . One, there was insufficient projected traffic ta justify the ramps. "fa�o, provision of ramps would campromise safety standards due to sriort spaciny available for yetting on and off the Parkway. Three, the traffic that would be served is primarly destined for the High Bridge and that traffic would create severe congestion at Grand and Smith. And four, ramps would require extra space for the parkway between the ,l.J. Hill Wall and United Nospital that is not available for roadway use. .. . . ��/3�b Page Two The second cc�ncern avas a History Center deck over the ram��s. This deck would have cost ap��roxirnately $10 million. it was determined that the benefit of the deck was not worth the expenditure. A third concerr was a deck in front of the I-lill wall , which would have cost approximately �6 million. This was also not recommended due to the cost. Mr. Fausch stated th<�t they are recommending a pedestrian walk in front of the Hill wall ancl � 2.U' wicle pedestrian bridye connection near Walnut to serve the pedestrian d�mands. P1so Reichert stated that the railings will look like wrought iron, that liyht�iny will be r.ornpatible with present lighting, and that historic lights will be located ir� the Rice Park area. f�1r•, Fausch said they also looked at the possible need for a pedestrian bridge at Duke Street, but school children no longer need to cross the Parkway to yet to school . In addition, there is a minimal amount of pedestrian traffic crossing the Parkway to use the buses. The Duke Street bridye is therefore not recommended, Commissioner t_evy asked which is tYie first exit off the Parkway going south after the connection to I-94. Mr. Fausch said the first exit will be St. C1 ai r. TESTIMUNY 1 . Jill Fisher, staff to the Minnesota Capitol Area Architectural and Planning Baard, spoke in support of the design. She said that the Miller Hospital site v�ill be the ne�v History Center in the future. She said that instead of t�aviny decking over the 5th/6th street ramps, the History Center recommends vertical retainir�g s,ralls along 5th/6th and a mini pedestrian plaza along John Ireland Blvd. They also agree with the recoinm�ndati or�s for access to thei r site at P�ul berry and are i n favor of the railings and liyhtiny proposed. They are also in support of the lOth Street rarnp alignment. She submitted a letter from the Architectural and Pl anr►i ng l3oard sumrnari zi ny t:hese statements. `L. Don Knutsor,, 677 f"airmount, stated that he was concerned about increased traffic��t �FairiY�c�iant and St. Albans, since there are many small children in the area. Ne said that big trucks are driving on St. Albans and that - the speeci limit is not beiny followe�l. He said that if there is an exit on St. Clair, the traffic will increase further since the fastest way to Grand is by going u� St. Albans. Fle said that people are not walking in the neighborhoad as much n�w, because it is too dificult to cross the st reet. Ms. Reichert said that they had received a petition from th2 neighborhood stating these concer•ns, The traffic is being monitored and there will be further discussion with the neighborhood after Labor Uay. 3. Karen Avalos, 330 Irvine, stated that she is a member of RIP 35E, but was representiny the West 7th Street Federation. She said that originally they «ere very against 35E �oing throuc�h their neighborhood and that the past 15 years has been a painful experience. She stated that they are now satisfied with this proposal , and that tt�is design does much less damage . . ��i.�� Page Three than the oriyinal design. She thanked Strgar-Roscoe-Fausch for all their work on this project . She read a letter in support of the proposed design from the 6•�est 7th Street Federation, urying acceptance of this design. She outlined the contents of the letter. West 7tti Federation opposes north rar;ips at Grand Avenue. They support the Walnut pedestrian bridge. The walls alony new Pleasant need to be refined to allow for easier pedestrian access to the Walnut pedestrian bridye. Landscaping is needed as soon as possible after construction. Requests lantern liyhts along back side oF hospital . Maintenance needs to be improved along alleys running u� the hill . And the West 7th Federation is concerned about the usz of residual parcels along the Parkway. 4. Cindy Yor�k, 311 Pleasant, Irvine Park Condominiums, said that she served on the Low�r Cathedral Hill Design task force. She commended Mr. Fausch and others th�t worked on this project over the last few years. She said that she r��on't be thrilled with 35E, but is glad that there are no ramps at Grand Avenue, and that trucks will be limited. She is satisfied with the liyhtiny and landscaping proposed. She said that she is concerned abotat accessibility to their condominium and noise during construction. 5. Dick Neivelson, 311 Pleasant, Irvine Park Condominiums, said that he appreciates the design concept team' s work, He said that he walks to downtown St, Paul and to the bus from his condo, and he is concerned about � accessibility duriny and after construction. He is also concerned about parking and access for delivery and emergency vehicles during construction. He said that some residents in the rear of the building have not heard any warning signals before blasting, and was concerned about this as well as dust and dirt to be generated by construction. 6. Bette tiart, 311 Pleasant, Irvine Park Condominiums, said that she was pleased with the plan, but had two issues of concern. She said that she walks to work and wants a safe route. She would like to see the pedestrian bridye at Walnut constructed before work starts on 35E. She also would like only southern on and off ramps at the Grand Ramsey exchange. 7. Dwight Robinson , 311 Pleasant, Irvine Park Condominiums, stated that his concerns were weeds, trash, dirt and snow. He hopes to see the bike paths maintained, the streets swept, and wants Pleasant to remain a snow emeryency route. 8. Giles Y. Gamble, 676 Goodrich, stated he lives at the corner of Goodrich and St. A bans. He said that he sent the letter and petition that was mentioned when Mr. Knutson spoke. He is concerned about increased traffic, and its effect on local safety, He said that trucks should not be using these roads, and that one way streets should be considered. 9. Richard h1iller, 242 Goodrich, stated that he was concerned about the area o�5th, oth and Smith. He said that there are three historic buildings in the area and that this is a visual corridor from the former 7 corners site to the Capitol . He asked that staff be careful to maintain this visual corridor. _ ��°- /3� 0 Paye �our 10. Judy P�1cCormick, 311 Pleasant , Irvine Park Condominiums, said that her concerii ti�as for safety during completion of the roadway for residents walkiny in the area. She saic; this is a hiyh crime area, and is concerned about reduced lighting duriny construction. 11. Susan Rose t�lard stated she lives at the corner of Goodrich and St. Albans. She was conr.erned about increased traffic, and said the option for one-way streets sho�ild h�e considered. She said that school kids cross the street to get ihe �us which, uncler current conditions , is unsafe. 12. Gordon Schwab, 14�30 Randolph, stated he was concerned about a particular parcel� o� prciperty owned by the First Trust Company. Mr. Lanegran stated that aftE�r the public heariny that he could discuss this property with the Planninc Con�rnission and Mr. Fausch. Mr. Schwab agreed. Hearing no further testimony, the publ �ic hearing was closed. r � - / . _ . ��-- �� : . , Karen A. Avaloz 330 Irvine Avenue . ' St. Paul � � Member RIP 35E President West 7th/Fart Road Federati�n - "� . Lower Cathedral Hill Design Task Force participant -- I have b�en ii�volved in the 35E controversy for 15 years. It � has been a p��irifttl experience. I am relieved that the issues • are about. to be resolved. . � There ar.e �people, opposed to ttie construction of 35E, who sti1l believe it should never have been built in the�Pleasant Avenue - - corridor. I am one of those people. . . However, gi.ven the circw-nstances, I am satisfied with this final design for 35E. 'I'he freeway wil.l serve th� people for whom it was built. Four St. Paul neighborhoods have been and will _ continue to be adversely affected by t�ie freeway but the design � yau now review does less da_„age to the inn�r city than Lhe . origi_nal plan. The desi�n te�-n �;as irinovative in its efforts to camoufla;e and enhance the road. I carm�r�:i t}-►em for that. - - It is u.nf.ortt�riatE� that this approach ��as not used �or the entire - cc�rY idor. " I want tv publ�c ly tharik tl�e d��sign f irm of Strgar-Roscoe-Fausch wlia le�zci t}�� 3`�E Parl:�aay D��sign Concept tea��. It was a pleasure - wo�'r.ing wi#h t.h�.m. 71z�y are tliorough and professional. It was . the f irst tilr.; in a lono pr_o�ess that I iaas treated �,Tith respect an:� conside�ation. It is a rare and wo:�derful thir� to see saneonP'^ in a p�w��r p:>sitic�n a�t with intellig�nce, grace ar�d style. On behaif of tt�e W�•st 7thJi or� P,cad Fe��er.ation I have the following , specific points to addr.ess for th� record: � 35E P1�1ZKl�1AY D�SIGN ISSUES �� 1,) G;�� are_ox�sed to the coilstruction of additional no�-th ramps at - Grand rvenue. We support the findings of Strgar-Roscoe-Fausch, Inc. There is no justification for adding more ramps. They 4�ould create unacceptable levels of air and noise pollution, diminish the saFety an�1 efficiency of the freeway and compound probicros i.n thE= .hospital area. 2.) We su��:�rt the [�?alnut pedestrian bridge. It is an excellent d�sigt�, an acceptable alternative to the originally proposed � cut-3n�i-cover tunnel. The pedestrian bridge reinforces the link between historic St. Paul., the central business district, Irvine Park and the area beyond the Mississippi River. The. relationsh� af the sound abatement walls and t�vo pedestrian w�lks need to be clarified. The walls a) at the north end of the Irvine Hil1 Condomirnuns arid �b) from Su�•r�nit Avenue along the Hill �aall c�t�struct a direct peclestrian route. T"ney need to be short- ened or� designed with pedestrian openings. j�e a��.ee ta havin� Walnut Street vacated to vehicle tra�f?c bet��een �Ieasant and S�nith Avenues but want to know that the pedestrian walk desi�riatecl for that site is assured. 3. ) I1.e_lan�lscapi_r� plarls are _admir.abl.e. T7ze size and selection of ��_t,,:�-�;�t S �1�,:ting are crucial. We ask t'nat the trees be large el»u^;tz to have im�;�ediate �mpact wi thout jeoprodizing ttieir survival and i��.,,,,�i.�te ;�owtl-i. ��'e would like la.ndscapino to be done as - cvn�truction arezs �re completed. 4. ) �,'e_ a__� J�leased with the d��c.orative fenc�s, railin�s and lightinQ iixtures. 'I"nese exceilent tou�hes serve to unify the corridor " an:' f��:pt�asize the historic residential character of the area. � T;��y �ecoonize t.hat the Lre�way passes th�-ough a viable .inner city enviroment. 5��t straw street lightino is designated for use behind Ch?ldren's/ U��ited Hospital alang 35E. . - . - �� '.S=�3� To comply with tne city ordinance we request that laritern fixture J_i.ghts be installed in their_ place. In the past high intensity l.ights from the hospital parl:ing area interferred - with the cornLart oiitside and ins�dc� our homes. We want this problem remedied. 5. ) W� consi_der the tcao narrow roads connecting Irvine and Pleasant Avenues to be an inte�ral part of the exit/earess needs of the nei�hborl-iood and expect the city of St. Paul to establish and �naintain them suitable to local traffic needs. They are a) between the German Bethlehem Presbyterian (Cass Gilbert) . Church a.nd I'l.esant Hill Care Center b) the houses at 322 ar�d 318 Irvine Avenue. It is imperative that we have as many altei-nate routes to and from our homes as in other neighborhoods to �insure safety and year round access. tae urge you to accept this design and by so doing reassure us that our concerns will be met and that what �•ae see in this final. design is w�iat will actual.ly be completed in the Pleasant Avenue corridor. Thank you, � (%i,1.t1�LL.�'�. /�Jj t LL.,t,,tf.�/ Karen H. �valoz U ��- �3� 6 22 August 1985 r ADDENDUNi: ti�lest `%th/Fort Road stat�ment regarding 35E Parkway design � 6. 'rJe are concerned about what will happen to the .parcels of unused rite-of--wa land. a� the 35E corridore If they are to be so'ld we would lik.e ta be not�f�.ed, If they are purchased we want to know by wham and for wha.t uses '�le expect the city to enforce the curr�n� zoning regu�.ation.s axzd a:su�e that any develop�ent on these parcels is subject to the cityss notification policy. - Karen H. Avaloz President . �� , � VP�� s ; � . ,. _ . � �v��—/�f . . `ti , . � _� �e�� . ,_.`" ;t �ru � ' � ��(NM� k� I f � . i�� I �n py,r.. ]It�'1'�I: ,� �� a�'' � ""i ia ac�,«� �� „� �.��., � . HILL �, � �;�«�.� a,�m,, � ,!,�,,�� , . `J+�, �"` i,�` �' .} • �� CU;�I)C>'�1I?�Il''�� -� � :�°�,•1 � _ f� _ �� 1��'-,J --- 31] Fleas:u�t A��enur A�S�CI_'�7'1 U;� �.��, �� •« ,,�:�.;,�� .� '� �� . St. I'ai�l, A9'� SSlU2 � ��: � � � �i� �� Y,;_ 1�' __ ,.L, August 20, 1985 T0: Richarci E1asky Assistar�t District Engineer Minnesotu D�,par��tment of Trans�ortation � FROfi: Ci ndy York �;� �'�� Irvine Hill Condo'r�inium Association RE: I-35 E Uraft Design Concept Document Roada�ra�_Ues i�n 41e are satisfied 4rith th� current par�kway desiyn, ��hich does not include north ramps at Grand Avenue. We agree with the Design Concept Team that there would be undesirable effiects should these rarnps be added. Given the understar�ding that the frontage road which will service our building can be n2oved approx�imately 10 fe��t closer to the parkway than originally planned and that the hillsicle betv�een our building and the frontage road will remain with all its existing mature trees , we find the design of the frontage road acceptable. We are especially pleased 4;iih the plan for parkiny bays on the north side of the frontage road. We reque�t that another• parking bay be added on the frontage road near the garage for ou►� buildiny, thus assu�°ing as niuch available public parking as possible. We are plE�ased that tf�e r�arne of the frontage road which runs in front of our building . 4v�i11 be Pleasant Avenue. ti�Je are concer�ned about the alleys vfhich ��,�ill tie into Pleasant Fivenue frorn Irvine Avenue. These ��;ill need acf��quat;� rnaintenance to insure that we may continue to use them. Irvine t�ver��,e �•.ill also r��ec} to be maintained so that we may use this road in the winter and throughout t.he y��ar. I dar�� 't knoH� how em�r°_yency equi pment coul d travei on thi s road in any seasor�. Retair;_in� 4�'alls We'd 1 i ke to see r�edgt�, ev��rg�°eens , or some type of shrubbe��y pl anted al ong or on top of the retaining waiis on Pleasant Avenue to soften i;he appearance of these walls and to - provide �-isual ;creening. _ . . ` �= �5- 13�a . . . . , There are steps just west of our bu�i1d�ing which run fror� Irvine Avenue to �rhat is now a parking lat used by United Flospital . This is a route used by pedestrians from the Summit Nill area. b1e are concernEd that these steps tie into the frontage road and that pedestrians wi]1 be allowed to move freely in either direction along Pleasant Nvenue. Care should be given in the planning of the retaining walls so as not ta block this route or the one to the Walnut Street bridge. All pedestrians should have easy access to both Grand/Ramsey and Walnut Street pedestrian routes. Lighting and Seatir��reas We are pleased to see the type of light fixtures and seating areas which have been proposea. We'd like to see the more decorative lighting on the hospital side of the park��ay to b1 end i n a�i th t: , fi xtui°es on the north si de. Si nce the hospi tal al ready has lighting from th� roof of their building, it would seem that the bent straw fixtures along their frontagL road ti,�ould not be necessary. The question af safety along Pleasant Avenue a�d the pedestrian path has been raised. Will there �e enough light fixtures to insure that this area is well lit? Bike Path The bike path alonc� the segment of the parkway which we've addressed on the Task Force is a positi�:e feature. However, contirr,uity of the bikeway is a concern and while it may not be an issue open for discussion du►�ing meetings of the Task Force, this issue should be given due consideration. Landscaping The landscaping plan which calls for trees of approximately 4" in diameter to be planted along the parkway is pleasing. 4Je especially like the double row of trees between the frontage road and the parkway. As noted previously, we are concerned that existing trees remain, particularly on the hillside in front of our building. We certainly hope the landscaping a1ong Pleasar�t and along the pedestrian path will be completed as soon as possible. Planting trees and shrubbery before the mainline of the parkway is completed will provide visual scre�ning and give the trees some time to mature a bit before the parkway is opened. Walnut Street Bridge We had hoped to see a deck located at Walnut with pedestrian/bike traffic on top of '� the deck. 4Jhile the current plan may no± he as desirable, it is apsth�tical?y pleasing. We expect tha� this bridge will be built before the parkway construction begins in this location. There needs to be a good way to walk dovrntotivn during parkway construction without walking to Grand Avenue and backtracking. � Other Issues Proper maintenance of the parkway, frontage road, pedestrian/bicycle path, and landscaped areas is crucial . It must be well maintained for the benefit of the city and for those of us living adjacent to the parkway. Another concern relates to the construction phase. We must have adequate access to our building and ou� garage. Also, we must have adequate parking �for guests during the construction �hase. Thank you for the opportuni�y to respond to the Draft Design Concept Dacument. _ _ __ _ �, ��1—/3�� ;�ti,� �,,;'^•�� CAPITOL AREA ARCHITECTURAL AND PLANNING BOARD n.�-- -•; �r�3a�- ,:,�''�� '� � ��i�`F ROOM 8-46 ��, a3,>��",� STATE CAPITOL `� ��s�;-,'�.;� SAINT PAUL, MIIvP•IES07A 55155 �"� �` ° PHONE: 612 • 296 • 7138 _,� � ,�'' �� .>'h'� August zz, ��xs Richard Flasky Assistar�t Dis�trict Engir�eer MN C�ep�rtment of Transportation Distr•ic2 9 34t35 North Hadley Street, Box 2050 St. f'aul, MN 5510J. RC: 35E Parkway Design Elements adjoining the H istory Center site Dear Mr. Elasky: W� would like t� take this apportunity to inform you of the Capito( Area Ar•c:hitectur�l and Pf�nning Board's approval in concept of the 35E Parkway Design Concept Document. We wish to note that final designs for those portions of tl�e design concep2 pfan concerning access to the selected site for the Minnesota Histary Center (the Old Miller Hospital Site) and certain adjoininy parcels will need to be reviewed and approved by the Board under its recently exte�ided jurisdictional authority. The following comments, for•med after a presentation by Aflen LoveJoy of the St. Paul Planning and Econr�mie Development Uepartment at the August 1, 1985 Board meeting, should provide the basis for ongoing discussions to finalize the 35E Parkway plans. The pr�possil to access the History Center site via a bridge at Mutberry Street (a��ross the 5th and 6th Street ramps off I-94) rather than Summit Avenue w�s agreed to because of the additional flexibility it affords the design ot the History Center builciing. Our approval of this change from previoas piar�s was� contigent upon the premise that pedestrian connections to tf�e �ite �vili be enhanced via 15-foot wide sidewalks and special design elements wtlic!-� rnitigate the impact of the ramps. Elimir��stincJ the �revious CAAF'B and Nistorical Society requirement for decking ov�r the 5th and 6th Street ramps is based on the understanding that ver#ical r�t�ining walls far the ramp cuts Nril1 be built in order to preserve ��s miich of the History Center site as possible and to minimize any visual discon#inuity between the site and the triangutar parcel of open space to tr�e soiatl�west. With the greater flexibility for building design pravided by movi�g the site arcess southward to Mulberry, it was determined that t's�e der.k was no longer critical to achi�ve a "park-like setting" for the buiiding. It was also understaad tha# special design features to enhance the pedestrian connections ta the History Center site at the intersectian of realigned Kellogg and John lretand Bou{evards and over the 5th and 6th Street ramps will be provided. ��5'_/3�0 .� Richard Elasky "� August 22, 1985 Page Two The chanc�es praposed for the 10th Street bridge and ramp with the corresponding retocatian of access t� the site eastr��rd were viewed by the Board as desirable since they aliow greater overat; co*�±inuity of the site and safer ingress and eyress. The Board concurred with the plans which indicate enhanced pedestri�,n corinections to the �Ainnesota Science Museum. With thFSSe agreerrients then, and the continued review with regard to design details wiih the �3oard's Architectural Advisors, we are pleased to indicate our apt,roval in c�ncept of your current plans as contained in the 35E Parkwav Desic�n.._CQnc�„�t DQ�ument. Th�nk you far this oppflrtunity to share otar views of the 35E project. We look for�vard to cantinuing our jaint planning on this project critical to St. Paul and its Capital Area. Sinr.e:reiy, a� ��. � Gary Gre�enb�rg Executive 5ecretary JEFctaw cc: Lt. Governor Marlen2 Johnson Chair, CAAPB ' ,. �.�-�.�� 1 35E P�RK � DESI GN C ;UMENT 1 6 � DRAFT JUL Y 22, y � 1 _ __ . i"'�E�k7gy��Byef�"ti� �a�[` i - �.f.�Y . �- - i - �.. -,, ..- - ��t.�{�..—"r r l �.i � � c�°�d �---- _�� ^a.. , -' �, _��.. �y 5°' 7&�'(° G`F � '� A ��l: �'� �.N' �p:Jz'r�^�"��':� ' _ - �_ '_ �� _ I'r� ,��: � ,�.. � - � � �� - _ �� 1 �/' � ��?[g��F_`— �,, h z- i +�ce� �'�I � � .-. i �.. � - �^' ��s�k�� - �'—� ,�"`—� —� - -- ,b.=�� -�" _�'Y'"-,�.j�Jc 'j7 �' ' , .�� - .. ��✓,��y�� S..c' � i ( 0 1��ti �_ _'> ��_� :1.8��'l r�'/,_�' � - _ �„�- ,ti o_ �.-r. � w�� s � a e �LLC �,�I� � — �. � ��'"�*,'�r��c i��'✓' " µ� ".�t' �� e,� ;.. ;�I �y��, °° � , � x � F' : �` . � "� ,� �r @ � �' ��. S.� ��,r �,y' ,.� e, r �i l \� �✓' �,. i ,, � �� f-aa "� �-�,r- ;� �� .ji �e m � —�- � v;'� �µ � � cn a �8 1 m� t j ..� �' � �✓�,. � ��rl`�.,��I I I � � � 0�II� �0 . �. �� m ' r ,, , �A �� y �, ��-r �� e� � � �a "�`�I (�.� ��.�,�� - �1 I ; �' ,. � 1 �` .� � ey \� � �� e ji� � �� ' ��+r`�`' e ; .� -� .;;� . � I o/ 1 ' ;,'��r"�'Y y� _ �'I � '- � fi� � 'A ��k �,?�.�.��,;/r �, , h :l ' ' I � f d��.,1"� � v��i, �'� ,� ,� � � � � � �� ',��%b�.�� i M- a�..�__ � .��' � _�� , � e � 'L 4�� -/ � . \ /� � � i i ��. � r/ _ . \=--_ ' r _ h � -____ � ` w.. ' .. �' o � _� _ . :v`&:�" w.. �.. / '�� / i � � _ � �� ' ' PREPARED BY: 35E PARKWA Y DESIGN CONCEPT TEAM t . Minnesota Department of Transportation ■ City of St. PauO ' ■ Strgar-Roscoe-Fausch, Inc. ' ' �'��5- �3�0 TABLE OF CUNT'ENTS ' CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION , A. INTR011UCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 tB. ISSUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 C. PROCESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 ' li. UESIGN CONCEPT DOCUMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 ' CHAPTER 2 - GENERAL DESIGN GUIDELINES A. IiVTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 ' B. LANUSCAPING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 ' C. LIGHTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 U. SPECIAL SEATING AREAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 , E. F�NCES AND BRIDGE RAILS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 H. OTHE:R GENERAL DESIGN TREATMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 ' G. PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE SYSTEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 ' CHAPTER 3 - PARKWAY CORRIDOR DESIGN GUIDELINES A. INTRODUCTIUN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 IB. PARKWAY CURRIDOR : SEGMENT DESCRIPTIONS . . . . . . . . 18 tCHAPTER �1 - GATEWAY CORRIllOR DESIGN GUIDELINES A. INTRODUC'TION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 ' B. GAT'EWAY CORHIDOR: SEGMENT DESCRIPTIONS . . . . . . . . 35 ' ' ' , ' ��a 6 � FIGURES ' FIGUHE 1 35E PARKWAY ALIGNMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 ' FIGURL 2 35E PARKWAY COMPOSITE OF SEGMENT ALTERNATIVES . . 7 FIGURE 3 35E PARKWAY PERSPECTIVE VIEW OF THE PARKWAY . . . 8 ' FIGURE 4 35E PARKWAY STREET AND WALKWAY LIGHTING . . . . . 10 FIGURE 5 35E PARKWAY PLAZAS/SPECIAL SEATING AREAS . . . . . 12 IFIGllRE 6 35E PAHKWAY BRIDGE RAILINGS �1ND FENCES. . . . . . 13 , FIGURE 7 35E PARKWAY OTHER GENERAL DESIGN TREATMENTS . . . 15 FIGURE 8 35E PARKWAY SEGMENT MAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 , HIGURE 9 35E PARKWAY SEGMENT ALTERNATIVE - GRAND/RAMSEY TO WALNUT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 ' FIGURE 10 35E PARKWAY IMPACTS OF NORTH GRAND RAMPS . . . . 22 FIGURE 11 35E PARKWAY CROSS SECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 ' FIGURE 12 35E PARKWAY WALNUT PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE: PLAN VIEW AND ELEVATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 ' FIGURE 13 35E PARKWAY WALNUT• PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE. . . • • . . CROSS SECTION . . 27 ' FIGURE 14 35E PARKWAY CROSS SECTION - WALNUT TO KELLOGG . . 29 FIGURE 15 35E PARKWAY CROSS SECTION AT 10TH STREET BRIDGE ' AND 10TH STREET LAYOUT . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 FIGURE 16 35E PARKWAY GATEWAY CORRIDOR LOOKING WEST . . . . 33 ' FIGURE 17 35E PARKWAY GATEWAY CORRIDOR LOOKING EAST . . . . 34 FIGURE 18 35E PAHKWAY SEGMENT ALTERNATIVE 4B . . . . . . . 36 ' PIGURE 19 35E PARK`�JAY GATEWAY CORRIDOR CROSS SECTION WEST OF THE PARKWAY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 ' FIGURE 20 35E PARKWAY PLAZA PLAN VIEW & DETAILS . . . . . . 40 FIGURE 21 35E PARKWAY SEGMENT ALTERNATIVE 5D . . . . . . . 42 , EIGURE 22 35E PARKWAY PLAN VIEW AND DETAILS GATEWAY PLAZA AT FOHT ROAD . . . . . . . . . . . 44 ' , ' , 1 ' ' 35E PARKWAY � DESIGN CONCEPT DOCUMENT 1 1 i . CHAPTER ONE. 1 /NTRODUCTIOIV 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 i ' CHAPTER ONE - INTRODUCTION ' il. PUHPOSE , This report is the Design Concept Document for the Interstate 35E Parkway from Grand/Ramsey Streets to I-g�4 in St. Paul , Minnesota ( see Figure 1 ) . It was prepared for the Minnesota Departcnent of ' Transportation , City of St . Paul and the Federal HigYiway Adr,linistration . The Design Concept Document facilitates the efficient cornpletion of a compatible final design for this much needed gap in the Interstate highway system . , The history of Lhe I-35E design process has been long and difficult , culminating in the cornpletion of a Final Environmental ' Impact Statement (FEIS) , a federal court order permitting the parkway design and construction to continue , and this document. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) and the City of ' St . Paul recognized tYie concern of affected neighbors and businesses regarding final design issues not fully resolved by the FEIS or the court order . Thus , a decision was made to include an additional product in the final design process -- the Design ' Concept Document. This step addresses unresolved final design issues within the parameters set forth by the FEIS and the court order and firmly establishes the final layout and design guidelines ' which will Ue used in final design. The Design Concept process was undertaken with the understanding that no particular agency would be obligated to fund the extra cost of special design treatm�nts . ' The segment of the 35E Parkway from Grand/Ramsey to I-94 provides an opportunity to design a highway facility which simultaneously meets a regional transportation need and provides two gateway ' corridors into downtown St. Paul and the Minnesota State Capitol complex . This general corridor has been recognized as a desirable visual and transportation link between the Mississippi River and t the State Capitol since at least the turn of the century when Cass Gilbert , the State Capitol Architect , proposed a radial landscaped approach to the Capitol . In the 1920' s , the current 35E alignment was first proposed in an official plan for St . Paul and has been ' the subject of design studies by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) since 1955 . ' B. ISSUES t The FEIS and the Memorandum of Agreement between FHWA and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation established the following design guidelines for tYie 35E Parkway. ' • Depress roadway in Grand/Ramsey area • Heavy truck prohibition • 45 mph posted speed 1 imit ' • Noise barriers 5-7 foot high to be designed with neighborhood input ( in areas south of Grand/Ramsey) • Landscaping and architectural treatments • A bike/pedestrian corridor and three pedestrian crossings ' • Special consideration to landscaping in areas of historic properties • Special procedures to minimize vibration during blasting ' - 1 - , ' � J ,�,;,,�g�v ' State Capitol +"' � ,�g��` r9n 1 �� 4� � � S'P�- i . �� ,m ' Concorafe l0�' J� Down[own SC. ?aul ' Cathedral 60�ae, 5'^� �� ' DESIGN CONCEPT °`�"°"'� STUDY AREA , ' S SI Clu A�e � .__....._..._.............CMStPBPRR /r� ' _ I ,leMeraon Ave ' Randaph Ave • , ' w � 1 1 Y�` �1 ' ' SOUfiCE: �6E FINAL EIS 35E PARKWAY ' DESIGN CONCEPT TEAM 35E PARKWA Y •MINNESOTADEYARTMENTOF / F/GURE 1 TRANSPORTATION Alignment From West 7th Street to ��I •C/7Y OF SAINT PAUL � •S TBGAR-ROSCOE-FAUSCN,INC. ' ' ' The level of design detail in the FEIS left two major areas of de- sign unresolved which could have major local impact: • Connections to the local street system were not designed; thus , ' some issues of regional access to businesses and hospitals , lo- cal traffic circulation , and bike/pedestrian access were unresolved . ' • Landscaping and architect;ural details were not specified and are of utrnost concern to adjacent properties and the City of ' St. Paul . These issues were the primary focus of the Design Concept phase of the 35E final design . In addition, the City of St. Paul requested , that Mn/DOT address several other specific issucs in the Design Concept phase. These issues included the following: ' � The feasibility of further narrowing the Parkway to minimize the impact of separating parts of the City. ' • The feasibility of adjustments in horizontal and vertical alignment of the mainline to insure that the Parkway blends with the surrounding environment to the maximum practical extent. ' • The feasibility of maximizing the gateway concept while preserving as much usable land as possible in developable , parcels . • The feasibility of accommodating pedestrian crossings in the Cathedral area. ' • The conceptual study of architectural and landscaping details consistent with the historical and urban environment including ' lighting, fencing , retaining wall treatments, signing , bridges and landscaping. , C . PROCESS The history of the project, through legal and environmental ' processes, has focused on the need for highly sensitive design and public involvement in tPie final design process. Recognizing the problems posed by the narrow right-of-way and the multitude of ' individual needs and concerns in this segment , the Minnesota De- partment of Transportation and the City of St. Paul developed and agreed on a process for finalizing design of the 35E Parkway . The process required a customized design of the segment from ' Grand/Ramsey to I-94 with sensitivity to the narrow right-of-way, the historical features of the area, and the double gateway nature of the corridor . Mn/DOT and the City agreed that this process � would continue to involve affected property owners and businesses. ' - 3 - ' ��--,3a �. � ' To accomplish this goal , Mn/DOT and the City of St. Paul estab- lished two committees : the Design Concept Team (DCT) and the Lower Cathedral Hill Design Task Force (Task Force) . The DCT is a man- ' agetnent group made up of representatives from Mn/DOT, the City and others. The DCT has been responsible for all decisions relative to the 35E Design Concept . The Task Force includes representatives from local resident and business groups appointed by the St. Paul ' Planning Commission . The Task Force participated in the identifi- cation of issues , the evaluation of alternatives and the develop- ment of design guidElines for the 35E Parkway . ' The process adopted by Mn/llOT and the City of St. Paul involved careful consideration of all unresolved issues . These issues were ' identified by the Design Concept Team and the Task Force. Beyond those issues described above, representatives of the Task Force re- quested the consideration of other major design issues. ' • The need for , and feasibility of, north ramps at Grand/Ramsey. Funetional analyses led to a decision that the ramps were not needed from a regional perspective, were not technically ' feasible, and would have undesirable impacts on local streets. • The feasibility of a deck over the "critical section" between United Hospital and the James J. Hill Wall . Studies concluded ' that such a deck would be aesthetically desirable to enhance the historic Hill property, it would be technically feasible, but a deck would increase construction costs by $5 . 6 million. , Because a deck is not eligible for State or Federal highway funds and since other funding sources are not available, an al- ternate design was chosen. ' • The feasibility of a deck over the 5th/6th Street Ramps near the proposed History Center. Studies indicated that this deck also was aesthetically desirable, technically feasible, but ' very costly . There , it was concluded that a deck would not be constructed over the 5th/6th Street ramps unless funding is obtained by the developers of the Minnesota History Center . ' Provisions for a future deck could be included in the retaining walls along the site if the History Center commits to building the deck in the future. , Alternative solutions to unresolved issues were sketched as alter- native design layouts and evaluated by the Design Concept Team and the Task Force. The primary objective of this process was to ' develop a final Design Concept which effectively resolved remaining final design issues without compromising the integrity of a safe and effective Interstate highway. ' Several functional analyses were completed to determine the most effective means of refining the layout. The major areas studied were: ' • Street System/Traffic Control • Pedestrian/Bicycle System ' • Land Use and Redevelopment Patterns • Parking • Transit System ' - 4 - ' A series of strategies and alternative design layout refinements ' within the pararneters of trie PEIS and court order were developed to address the unresolved issues identified by the Design Concept Team and Task Force . These strategies were reviewed for each subarea in ' the corridor by the Design Concept Team. Based on these discus- sions and input from the Task Force , a total of fifteen feasible segment alternatives were identified and evaluated . ' Based on clearly defined evaluation criteria and considering input from the Task Force , the Design Concept Team adopted the Composite of Segment Alternatives shown in Figure 2. The Composite repre- ' sents the most feasible and effective design solution for the por- tion of the 35E Parkway from Grand/Ramsey to I-94 . (A more de- tailed 50-scale layout is available for r�eview at the Minnesota De- ' partment of Transportation , District g or the City of St . Paul , De- partment of Planning and Economic Development . ) The composite in- cludes refinements to the base layout within the parameters of the FEIS. These refinements improve the visual and funetional effec- ' tiveness of the 35E Parkway while maintaining a safe highway facility. The aesthetic design of this segment of the Parkway will both buffer and enhance adjacent land uses. Architectural and ' landscaping elements will be consistent with the Historic Hill District and downtown St. Paul . The perspective drawing in Figure 3 illustrates the general design concept for the Parkway. ' This document provides the basis for the final design of the 35E Parkway from Grand/Ramsey to I-94. The Planning Commission will review this document and consider input from the Lower Cathedral t Hill Design Task Force , as well as comments from the general public . The City Council will receive an information briefing . During the final design process , informal public involvement will ' continue and the Design Concept Team will remain active in review- ing design details . When the final design is complete , the Plan- ning Commission will review the plans and execute any necessary ' agreements . The City Council will be kept informed of the progress throughout this approval process . Final approval of the plans by the City Council is required before Mn/DOT may proceed with their own final approval process . It is anticipated that construction ' activities will begin following a bid letting in November of 1986. ' D. DESIGN CONCEPT DOCUMENT This "Design Concept Document" reports the findings and decisions of the Design Concept Team. While not all concepts were feasible ' for implementation in the Final Design Concept for the 35E Parkway, the process for developing the Final Design Concept involved Task Force members , Mn/DOT, the City of St . Paul , and the Design Concept ' Team. This process resulted in a better , more sensitive design so- lution to a long struggle that can now be resolved as the Parkway is completed and its objectives are achieved . 1 , - 5 - 1 ' ' Ttie Design Concept Docurnent is or�anized as follows : Chapter 1 - This chapter describes the history of the 35E Parkway and gives a very brief summary of the results of the ' 35E Design Concept development process. Chapter 2 - The general Design Guidelines which are included in , the overall Design Concept are described in Chapter Two. The locations within the project area where each of the design elements will be applied are shown ' on maps. Chapter 3 - The specific Design Guidelines which will be applied in final design of each segment of the 35E Parkway ' Corridor between Grand/Ramsey and I-94 are described in detail in Chapter Three. ' Chapter 4 - Chapter Four describes the Design Guidelines which will be applied in final design of the Gateway Corridor , which includes Kellogg Boulevard and the 5th and 6th Street ramps. , Appendix A - Appendix A provides a detailed description of the study process including the identification of issues , ' the development of layout refinements , the evaluation of alternatives , and the development of design guidelines . tAppendix B - Appendix B outlines the issues which were addressed in the Design Concept development process , describes the "givens" established in the Environmental Impact t Statement and Memorandum of Agreement , and identifies other issues which will be addressed outside the De- sign Concept development process. ' Appendix C - Appendix C describes the alternative refinements the base layout which were developed for segments of the corridor in response to unresolved issues identified ' by the Design Concept Team and the Task Force. Appendix D - The evaluation of segment alternatives and the devel- ' opment of a Composite of Segment Alternatives are de- scribed in detail in Appendix D. ' Appendix E - Appendix E is a detailed inventory of the specific architectural elements and landscaping materials which were considered in the design concept process . ' A separate document will be prepared to address implementation and coordination through the final design and construction of the 35E Parkway. The Implementation and Coordination Plan includes a proc- ' ess for coordinating final design activities , a discussion of con- struction process issues and their resolution , a financing plan , a maintenance plan , guidelines for future development , and an en- ' forcement plan for the 35E Parkway . - 6 - ' �'�'y/�a 1 1 1 �.�P �-,�-- - �-� �- -� -�--- -�---�-- �� -- � �,� �-_ ._ � _ �. �'-° r - = ...��— ,�,,,...� �=�� f� -�`� - _ � Y -�e € - +_-•. � . .:. �t w �y .��= E�'L!� ' "�r p_ �-rt�s� _ �. _f�.. '�.yr- '��- �-�-- , _ _- - ��. '- � ..- �+. . . ,��-- .-� ,i' '�"�' 1 �:"�_, � ,�... I�• � �. ,':,,4�"��p F � h�o �� s o'r+�_�y��_�--�� ,�'� ��' 1 f �,�� i , z � G " � —� T : � ".. �� r — � — � � � � / � � � ��,.�,„„ '--�° ` , ''�� "l �'^_'. r • � n �.^ n� �.�� —_ �-�,i I� �e 0 It � � `�'�, I"li �I r1� �_ ' � _,� � �� ?Z"',��++� ��-°��.�,�„�t� ,,,��g` i�i�� :�i, ' '� ��,_ _(` -,� 1 11 � � Q �`�,f ,°,�i.-�j—=—�.I I r�f �a`WM'�` . 1 ,��,l�. � ��.� �� `/ � �� .��` �: � � fµ m ��I �1 - �_ __ s-`,��°� � :��;°'�'� ' ��L L f� � �' - / �, . �� o � � �� , ��- �� ,- � � � ,��'� �� ,u -�"` �� , -- ��, , f�t � �,�, � ;�_ . . � ,a,��, � �— � ('� } �-,� i :�• _ � �� i � . '� 1 I // ^��d\�� 7"�"� 4' -i.�p 1 1 • �� - y k I � � � _ ti.;��.F��i IY��t• . �. �� .- p s�:-_ _ , �y�+.fl� �; 7� �sti°1 �� >i ; �iiQ y r,�� _�� ,�, � � � .� �, r -.� �� t� v--�� ' � � t�� . — - ' �� -� `, � tccc� � -�� ' ��,, �, � ,.�,� , � <;' �, I% ,y _ "�� ,� .,, - c�c� , ° , '� � � V. , ` ,, + , �, � �- ,. � ema��. :;r.�l `��"�'""6 r„y �� _"'� `\r. ? 4C`� ' �,„,L � ��t a �i`4` `r�I�"��` �� ;,�i i� , i R�. . ��; �.. �. .;� .,�`: g ��r�,�. � .'� - _- �� , �.� ��,, ��,��r �, ,�� .� >y �.�,:_ � � � a� � „ � ,��•;' �,'d °. p�'" �,1��. � = h ; , ��-��°`�..t_ r' .) �,�, , , I � � a � � � , �� ,� � ,. �';Z, � m � � ��, � - ,a.�-' . .,/..,iM', � _.. a ,,., .�� , � � � � �� . �' � � � �m 15"tl�. YI � ��,�� . ��i � � � `� � � t- p i � � ': ' � ��:�� -�� -�' � I � I� � � � � � fly � � � �� :.; r � ��V o-��- � �i� ,9z VI�� ! � � � � � � � � g�,. ,.�, ;�'' a ll �,_ , a e - .I� � �j� �' d � � �_�, + � � � `t� �l rf�,t�=. ". ./ .��0 600'j ��. . � � '�� p�\\ �\��\�\�� _ _ �,� », _ i� ��A�� A�� `� B, . . g, .\\\ 0 . � � � � �f� \\\\\\:\��\ �a�� v, � � ��; �� ,.�� o0 _ �� i� �� ,�. �� _�. �J� � -�� I� .� "`.n'�I�� 1 ' �� ' va} ��, � � 4 :-� I/ � �I I � ,,�' ti, ��_ � o _ / �' � ��' , � �� `°� Y � ' ' �� "� � � '�:.F... I �[ _ // � I � / ' � \ o .-�� .� / � � � ��-��'�� ,r "�� / � � I ;��""'�eia' ;�� a ,.1 , '� � ,�I �� , I, t i--' � i b I �� ,�, �� , � � -�.� ,�r� + � '/ �� ..I � � � � �w� �. �ti� c.. �.. I� / �,� �,� ._..� `�j;, � /%�'" ' �0 � \J'� � � �.,:�'"i �� ' o �� %� � r�'� �_ � � � �� `ti � � : !i i/ _ � / ` / r � �' , � /. 1 � � . � ' . %� � �� . �r , RECOMMEIVDED DESIGN CONCEPT ' DRAWING PREPARED BY JOSEVH PASSONNEAU AND PARTNERS 35E PARKWAY ' DESIGN CONCEPT TEAM 35E PARKWA Y •M/NNESOTA DfPARTMENT OF FI GURE 3 TRANSPONTATION •C/TVOFSAINTPAUL Perspeciive �/%@W � ' �STRGAR-NOSCOE-FAUSCH,/NC. ' ' , I 3�E PARKWAY � DESIGN CONCEPT DOCUMENT 1 1 � CI'-�lAP1`ER T VI/Oe � GENERAL DESIGN GUIDELINES 1 1 1 i i 1 1 1 1 1 ' ' CHAPTER TVI/O - GENERAL DESIGN GUIDELINES ' A. INTRODUCTION Onc� of ttie highest priorities of the 35E Desi�n Concept Developrnent Process was to select landscaping and architectural design ' treatments which unify the corridor and blend it in with the char- acter of the adjacent historic area . A wide range of design ele- ments was considered and an Inventory of Design Treatments was de- ' veloped (see Appendix E) . From this ran�e of design treatments , specific types or styles were selected by the DCT for application in various portions of the project area. F'ollowing is a brief de- scription of the design elements selected for this project and the ' graphics included in this chapter identify the areas where the de- sign elements are to be placed . ' B. LANDSCAPING ' Landscaping is probably the single most important asethetic treat- ment to be included in the 35E Parkway Design Concept . With an ef- fective landscape design and proper care, the plantings will mature and bec:ome a dominant; element in the Parkway design . Along the ' Parkway mainline , plantings will be used to screen the roadway from adjacent properties and to soften the appearance of architectural elements such as bridges and retaining walls . Along the city ' street level , plantings will b� used to enhance pedestrian areas and to create focal points. Care will be taken to avoid plantings which create hazards to personal safety or traffic operations. ' C. LIGHTING (see Figure 4) 'There are two primary types of lighting in the study area : ' • Street Lighting • Walkway Lighting ' 1 . Street Lighting: There are four types of street lighting which wi�l be used as described below: , • Interstate Light Fixtures are normally 40-50 feet high and are spaced approximately 80 feet apart. The fixtures chosen are the same as the fixtures used on the Parkway ' south of St . Clair. They will be used on the Parkway iNainline , on the 5th/6th Street Ramps west of the Parkway, in the median of Kellogg Boulevard and for in- ' tersection lighting wherever necessary. These fixtures will be painted dark brown. ' . ' - 9 - , ' ' ' t � ' ' I� iljll II I �,I il�l ,I� j;l,''I lil. �'f:i ' I I� I�� I� U i!l ' P W Y B L 35E ARK A � ENT � LANTERN � ST. PAU � RICE FIXTURE STRAW FIXTURE LOWERTOWN PARK ' KEY � o 0 0 0 0 � � � � � �Ic �Ic �c � , � � ;�: � ' �,�; '�' i , ' � '�' ' .��ak � �• � �. ,�. e . , � ��,.� . � �� , e;r„.� x� .. ..., ��,�;��;y.-�" ' � ..� .;� �.. � �..� ,�...�.. �. �*;;:��:r+�:.:.:'�..�..�*� .� -,�_.,.,� .,,, •_,,:,.:� = ;� ------ �000 o ;��: � o000 00 00'�` o .�/.� ;� ' � ��, �� ;� :�: '�`,,�,�` ' :1: �. .� � � :1; * •� * � � � .ee ,. - *: � ,�. ,` 1 . _ � ' _ '1 1 , 35E PARKWAY DES/GN CONCEPT TEAM 35E PARKWA Y •MINNESOTADEPARTMENTOF F/GURE � TflANSPONTATION - - •CITY OF SAINT PAUL 3treet and Wa/kway� Lighting , �STRGAR-NOSCOE-FAUSCN,INC. �s- �,�� 1 • "Bent Straw" LigYit Fixtures are 25 feet high and are , norrnally spaced 150 feet apart . These fixtures are commonly used on City streets in urban areas and will be used on Thompson Avenue (East Frontage Road) and other ' City streets adjacent to the downtown area . • "St . Paul Lowertawn Cluster" Light Fixtures are 12-15 feet high and are normally spaced 0 feet apart. They ' will be used on all of the bridges in the project area . These fixtures will be painted dark brown and are com- patible with the historic character of the project area . ' • "Summit Avenue Lantern" Light Fixtures are also 12-15 feet high and are usually spaced about 100 feet apart . ' They will be used along city streets and frontage roads adjacent to the historic district. These will be painted dark brown and are compatible with the historic character of the project area . t2. Walkway Light;ing : Two types of lighting will be used for pedestrian fdcilities as described below: � • "Rice Park" Light Fixtures are 12-15 feet high and are normally spaced 60 feet apart. They will be used along the pedestrian/bikeway and along the sidewalks on Kellogg , Boulevard . These fixtures will be painted dark brown . • St . Paul Lowertown Cluster Light Fixtures are 12-15 feet ' high and will be used on the Walnut Street Pedestrian Bridge and in seating areas and plazas . , D. SPECIAL SEATING AREAS (see Figure 5) In an effort to blend Lhe roadways with the adjacent land uses , ' a variety of pedestrian-scale spaces have been included in the design concept. Extra landscaping and lighting , a simple wrought-iron Victorian bench and , in some cases , so�ne special ' paving treatment will be used to create these "resting spots" for pedestrians and bicyclists . Extra attention will be paid to scenic views and vistas in the exact location and design of ' these areas. E. FENCES AND BRIDGE RAILS (see Figure 6) ' Iron stake fencing was selected because of its compatibility with the adjdcent historic area . The fencing will be placed ' along the top of retaining walls or in a concrete rnaintenance strip in grassy areas . The finials will be rounded for safety reasons . ' A special bridge railing design , similar to the one developed for the John Treland Bridge over I-94 , will be used for the bridges in the project area . This railing also has iron stakes ' with finials and will be set in a concrete parapet with arches and decorative granite trim . The bridge railing meets Mn/DOT and AASHTO standards . , - 11 - ' 1 I �z �y� �� .`'�` d �=� ' - „ -- _ -� � � � � �� - � � i,�: - _ y�,c � r N � -°mG � i�� aL- - ' s � �� . � `�� ' -�,� .�y ) ��- �- ,� .�� °� �.� � � �� ' � D �a.yw.cv w.•w.r+��MMvt� t^''""" ' � DRAWING PREPARED BY JOSEPN ASSONNEAU AND VAqTNERB ' ' T.i ' ......._ ._. . ' 3 ,y T' 1 .,... ..,.. ...,,.. ....._. ....... y . � �{. T .:: , , .�. . T _, *i .. .. ,.. .,�. � .,. .. . . , ._ . ., ,. . * .: 1 ...._. ,,, , ....�* .* : * * » , ., .. * �' * .. • .. .. ..... * �� ... ' .._. ,.... .,, , .,.. ,,.,. . :. .... ._ .... ::...,. ..._. ' ' .i: �, . ,. 1 ' 35E PARKWAY DESIGN CONCEPT TEAM 35E PARKWA Y •MINNESOTA DEYARTMENiOf FIGURE 5 TNANSPONTATION Plazas/Sealing Areas �C/TY OF SAINT PAUL ' �STHGAR-NOSCOE-FAUSCN,/NC. ' ' KEV ' s� � ��—f I'. I ; IRON STAKE BRIDGE RAIlINGS , -° - � ' F. QTHER GENERAL DESIGN TREATKENTS (see Figure 7 ) ' Throughout the project area there are some standard roadway elements which have been given special attention in the design ' process with sensitivity to the character of the adjacent areas . While these elements are not necessarily aesthetic features , an effort was made to select the most unobstrusive ' style or design . The following elements were among those con- sidered in this process: • Sign Structures: The sign structure shown in Figure 7 was , designed to unify and simplify the appearance of signage necessary for the safe operation of the roadways in the pro- ject area . In addition , the signing plan was refined with ' sensitivity t;o the surrounding environment. Uniformity of sign size and the layout on tYie message boards will be rec- ognized in the detailed design stage. The sign structures will be painted dark bl•own . ' • Retaining Walls: Similar to the portion of the Parkway south of St . Clair , poured-in-place concrete walls will be , used along the Parkway and the 5th/6th Street ramps . Strip forms will be used to create simple , vertical striations . Unlike the walls south of St . Clair , these walls will remain ' unpainted . G. PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE SYSTEM ' In addition to the trail which was included in the FEIS, it was decided to provide a continuous pathway along the west side of , Lhe Parkway from Grand/Ramsey to Kellogg Boulevard . This path- way will connect with a trail proposed in the median between Kellogg Boulevard and the 5th/6th Street ramps ( from John , Ireland Boulevard to Fort Road) . Pedestrian crossings were also addressed through the Design Concept process. The Duke Street Pedestrian Bridge , located , just south of Grand/Ramsey , was thoroughly analyzed in terms of need and justification . The school district boundaries and the transit drainage area were identified and analyzed . Based on ' pedestrian and bicycle counts taken on similar pedestrian bridges , a relatively low volume would be anticipated in the Duke Street location . This location was initially proposed due to two schools located adjacent to this site which have since ' closed. In addition to the lack of demand for the bridge , the grade of the adjacent slopes would require a very costly bridge ' ' , - 14 - , ' ' ' , , ' ' ' C.4NTlLEVERED SIGN STRUCTURE � ' � �_.z � ' • � , ��Z � ��< i i �� :; II li � ' � !, � i'I G�_ � i I t I I i � II , '. f= .'� . -_ .- i !I � / �, ' / _ � l --�,,,� �,�, � �c . ' ' STRIP FORMED CONCRETE RETAINING WALL ' 35E PARKWAY DESIGN CONCEPT TEAM 35E PARKWA Y •MINNESOTA OEPARTMEN7 0F FI GURE T TNANSPORTA710N Other Design Elements �CITY OF SAINT PAUL •S TRGA R-ROS COE-FA US CN,INC. t ' design to accommodate bikes and wheelchairs. Since the Grand/Ramsey arad St. Clair Bridges are each within approxi- ' mately 1/3 mile Duke Street, and because there are so many limitations related to this site , it was recommended that a pedestrian bridge not be built at Duke Street. The Walnut ' Street Pedestrian Bridge is addressed in Chapter Three. No other exclusive pedestrian. crossings were found necessary. ' All of the vehicular bridges in the project area are designed with extra wide sidewalks to safely accommodate bikes and pedestrians. In addition , 15-foot sidewalks will be on both sides of Kellogg Boulevard and the 5th/6th Street Ramps east of , the Parkway. On the west side of the Parkway, a 10-foot side- walk will be placed on the south side of Kellogg and in the boulevard between Kellogg and the 5th/6th Street ramps . tDecorative paving treatments are being considered for sidewalks and pathways , in addition to plazas and seating areas . ' The diagram below shows the location of the recommended pedestrian/bike system. It should be noted that some of the pedestrian/bicycle connections in the project area will be ac- ' commodated on relatively low volume streets. These connections are also indicated on the diagram below. ' ' —— SIDEWALKS ' — PATHWAYS " '� � BRIDGES �� ON—STREET ACCOMMODATION �' � , __. �'� �� ... ' �� .: _ __ .. . � ` � W,� � '� �� ' �., �� µ'� ��'� � n, . � o�„ � ——�� °��.� �� ;��. ' � � � �� ,,� � �a 1 � �... H �, . . „ �.� �� - . �..m ' , � ........ .. . ...� � ......_ ... ._..., . �� ;,.,.. � ' 35E PARKWAY PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE SYSTEM ' - 16 - ' ' ' ' � 3�E PARKWAY 1 DESIGN CONCEPT DOCUMENT 1 1 � CHAPTER 7`HREE: 1 PA RK WA Y" C ORR/D OR DESIGN GUIDELINES 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' CHAPTER THREE - PARKWAY CORRIDOR DESIGN GUIDELINES tA. INTRODUCTION ' 'The portion of the 35E Parkway from Grand/Ramsey to I-q4 is located in ar� unusually sensitive corridor . The ri�ht-of-way is extremely narrow--only aUout 15U feet wide at the "critical section" between ' the James J. Hill Wall and the United Hospital complex . The corri- dor is framed on one side by the Historic Hill District on the bluff and on the other by the skyline of downtown St . Paul . Major ' vistas include the Capitol Complex , the St . Paul Cathedral and the Jarnes J. Hill Mansion . The dual challenges of the 35E Design Con- cept study were to develop a higtily functional highway which is an aesthetic asset to both the historic district and downtown St . ' Paul . This chapter describes in detail the design treatments and �uide- t lines which will be used in the final design of the portion of 35E from Grand/Harnsey to I-94 . In this corridor and in the Gateway Corridor , late Victorian period architecture compatible with the ' adjacent historic district , and extensive landscaping will be used to create an aesthetic design which blends well with the historic character of the area. The Design Concept is compatible with the design of other segments of the 35E Parkway and is intended to ' create an attractive visual gateway to downtown St . Paul . The relationship of a roadway segmEnt with its connecting segments ' and with the adjacent land uses is a primary consideration in high- way design . South of Grand/Ramsey , the 35E Parkway follows the gently rolling land and its scale and grade fit well with the adja- cent neighborhoods. The architectural treatments , including , li�hting , fences and walls are unobtrusive and provide a somewhat unique character to the roadway. The landscaping design includes closely spaced trees on the neighborhood side of low noise walls , t with informal planting on broad sideslopes on the Parkway side of the noise walls . Substantial median plantings were possible due to the wider right-of-way. These general characteristics should be ' applied consistently throughout the entire 35E Parkway corridor from West Seventh Street to the I-94 Common Section . North of Grand/Ramsey the urban landscape changes abruptly and , ' therefore , the character of the Parkway must also change. Along the westi side of the Parkway, the land use changes from the underdeveloped , mixed uses found south of Grand/Ramsey to an area � including multi-story condominiums and St . Paul ' s rnost distinguished historic residential district . On the east side of the Parkway , the land use south of Grand/Ramsey is almost entirely ' single family homes . Much of the land north of Grand/Ramsey is currently underdeveloped , but the eight story United and CYiildren ' s Hospital complex indicates the density of anticipated future development . ' ' - 17 - , , ' There are several constraints affecting the design of the Parkway through this area. On the south end , i�t must tie into the connect- ing segment of 35E from St . Clair to Grand/Rarnsey. It must be squeezed through the constricted space (approximately 150 feet ' wide) between the Jarnes J . Hill Wall and the United Hospital . On the north end , it must align with the I-94 Common Section. Therefore, the alignment could only be moved horizontally a few , feet in either direction. But there are other techniques available for fitting the road into this dense, historic neighborhood : ' • Cross Sections of the Parkway will be designed to restrict the space allocated to the mainline to the minimum necessary for good highway geometry and safe operations. Instead of broad side slopes , the mainline edges will be terraced to preserve ' space for the urban activities that would otherwise be dis- placed by the backslopes. Figure 3 ( in Chapter 1 ) provides a perspective view of the Parkway cross section. ' • Landscaping will be more formal and urbane than other sections of the Parkway in response to the urban landscape. Consistent with the remainder of the Parkway, planting will be denser and ' more varied than on normal Interstate highways. Trees will be spaced about 20 to 30 feet apart . However , the narrowness of this section will not allow the median plantings which are in- ' cluded along the remainder of the Parkway. • Architectural Details , such as lighting , fencing, bridge ' railings and street furniture, will be designed to fit in with the late Victorian character of the adjacent historic district and will be applied consistently throughout corridor . Chapter Two addressed the general design guidelines for these elements t and the application of these elements. The Inventory of Design Treatments in Appendix E provides a detailed description of the range of treatments considered for use in the Parkway design . , • Seating Areas , such as small plazas along the city street level adjacent to the Parkway, will be created to provide ' aesthetically pleasing pedestrian activity and resting areas . In addition, these areas will focus attention on the spectacular vistas of the Cathedral , Capitol and other St. Paul landmarks . Chapter Two (see Figure 5) identified the general ' characteristics and locations of these Focal Points. ' ' , , - 18 - ' , B. PARKWAY CORRIDOR: SEGMENT DESCRIPTIONS , The Parkway Corridor from Grand/Ramsey to I-94 was broken into sev- eral segments for detailed analysis and development of design al- ' ternatives ( see Figure 8) . Following is a description of each seg- ment of the Parkway, the issues that were addressed and the design details which apply to each segment . ' 1 . GRAND/RAMSEY TO WALNUT STREET (See Figure 9 ) : ' This area includes the Grand/Ramsey Interchange with the 35E Parkway. In response to concerns raised by the Grand Avenue Business Association (GABA) , two segment alternatives were de- ' veloped to consider the feasibility of adding north ramps to that interchange. Both alternatives considered a vehicular bridge over the Parkway at Thompson Avenue to provide local circulation . The issues addressed by these alternatives ' included : • Additional regional access to the Grand Avenue businesses , tUnited Hospital , and other properties in this area • Additional local access to the Irvine Hill neighborhood via the Thompson Bridge . ' The impacts of both segment alternatives , which are summarized in Figure 10, are very similar since they are minor variations , on the same strategy: to add north ramps at the Grand/Ramsey interchange . An extensive analysis was completed on the need __ or justification for adding the ramps . While these alterna- ' tives would provide additional access to and from the regional highway systern , this type of access is not warranted based on regional travel demand. In addition , the auxiliary lanes on the Parkway that would be necessary between the Kellogg Boule- ' vard ramps and Grand/Ramsey ramps would not provide for safe and efficient merging traffic operations . Also , auxiliary lanes would eliminate the space for the United Hospital service ' drive. For these reasons , the alternatives were set aside and the base layout became the preferred alternative for this cor- ridor segment . ' The design concept for this segment includes the following fea- tures (Figure 3 in Chapter 1 provides a perspective view of , this concept) : • Cross Section (see Figure 11 ) : The east side of the Parkway ' will be constructed with a single retaining wall . The west side will be terraced using two retaining walls with a ped/bikeway in the terraced section . Pleasant Avenue (West Frontage Road ) will be as close to the retaining walls as , possible. Parking will be allowed on the west side of Pleasant Avenue as space allows . ' - 19 - ' , l_ .-- I T. TER W � a < � o � ' X ° 3 � ' � J ' O 0 � W W r V a ; ' �' � ��y� � Q O � r � 3 � Ili . N� �. Y= W V/ i � 4 ° � °` � aW �.� , , '" �;a � ii � �u , �il � � 1 ��a �� _ b,� u � � � � � � ,� 6� ' �8' � � � y � ' �' �,i�' I � 'LL D=0 W , C� , ¢ � 6 � a V Q� �:' ..�:�. � � ' � � �� aW � � � 3 Y � W �� ` Y o � & o� � ' � ` oa a °C �� Q � 3 , _� 4 �, oc Y .� � � IU Q � � � , � � m >- U i� y ' FN Q W �-• t'f3 Z � a� � ' J ::_ � Q � 1�Y a M 6 � 76 3 ~ ; 4 �� a � ' � _ Y > ' � a W a y c� � �° � � �a � w � _ �� m � ° ' r � V) Z = � �� 'e � W o = SW W� Q F� F. _ � iw �tzi � Ir W y ' Z W aW W< a � ; � J N Ja ='s � U � � 3 Q Q a� `W � Q p` ? U ' oc �a a � �� y � ' � � Z ' W � 2Z ° � Q � � y 2< '' � � Q��,/� Mo �� ti � I , , I' �V �� I O I O �� ST. ' o -------,.- � W � DONE BY OTHERS WALNUT � = N 7 � O � ` j j v O� ' / � � ' � i # � N � � � ' �% q' � � � � / • il +'`r � �� , � / o i � W ' , /� � `_ ° � � � �� { � "�`\ '� � o m Z < ' o W r 1 1 I / y �� N % 1 ° W > � _ � i i J o � �' O � " x � Z � _ �i .� ,----. 1� = a.� 1 I I I o / W`�' __ _ ~ � � � �� o %/� � � � � '�' � � I � l u / / � �. �\ � i � � � �-I� I � f�/o*�� F► j � � � �� l N +.� l , � W �j,,* � Z I � I I ��\�_� n,,, I I � � �� 1 a �I I I @ I I�� Q � I {� � �� l W ; o � �� J � �'— � ' e 3^y � � � o / ---_ +� 1 �� a ; , > � --_,, ti�.,. � � � � � Q� a .� os, .. ^ y I i � � � °��YO ;`'�v ' � � � � � �— � �' ��'`� �'�i� � O�C 2 �Q � � \6 i d C � 4 II � ° W , � Q _,_r j � � -�� (j O � � �I � � � �'r • � ' j � �� ' , - I �•e \\ � � ; � `� �, P;�. � � o__-= , _ 0 0 � -- ; a�� ;-� � o , , �� - ;, o� o °o° I i P ,;� I Q ' // I �:� � o � � �� '' Q�P a . ° ,� 1 � �.� � Q J �\ � O �IJ =� \\\ \ 0 � /P i i ' 2 ccW, p\�\\ 1/� i� � � �� \` �� ° �% ^`�` � W o ? � Q� I � \� ``_ — ; ° Qi' � � `(S '��' ' a � J � ' �--_�_ _ '� �C W ¢ � � /� � i i � V y2 n w V / � f/ < Z WO � U `� n i r\j\ Q Q O 1� ? � ' )\ �`- / %%/ `\� � U �O y 2 ' �� 1�� Z � � O�f� �� // O � C� WN � t � . �� / � /e � o � W �` c,~i y~i ��\�� .� �/ �� 0 � / .. � �r' y/.'"_� / M ' ' �W< WO� ��0 � ' DV= II II A W � ' ' Ci � � � ' r_fi I I I � 1 1 1 ' I 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 � � � I I ' I W 1 1 I � I � 1 � h ' ' � . y = � � �0 � �� ; � � � ; ' � � Q e , � , 1 ' b � v " 1 � � ' ' � O 1 1 � I = � M I � ` 1 O W � ' 4� c �+r� o .� w � v ' � � � y � � y � Q� ' � . � O� — -,. � � ' � V � � , � . I ' I I � � � ' i ' I , i � , ' � � O O ' t o � �+ Q ,� ci � n� � � � _ I � 4 � J � ' � W a � � � V v2ow s� � � p� 2ti _: I � V �►�. t0 ' �� y Q �p Z �� ¢ ■o �1A (} WN � R � �+ y 2` � � M WO �� C1 N ' �'�= i�� ' • Landscaping: The pedestrian/bikeway on the west side will be framed with a double row of inedium size canopy trees , which will also frame the west side of the Parkway. A single row of similar trees will frame the east side of the t Parkway where right-of-way is available. Evergreen plantings and vines will be placed to soften the top edges of retaining walls on both sides of the Parkway. ' • Architectural Details : ' LIGHTING: - The Lantern light fixture , which is used along Summit Avenue, will be used along Pleasant Avenue (West Frontage ' Road) . - The Rice Park light fixture will be placed along the ' pedestrian/bikeway in the terraced section along the west side of the Parkway. ' - The "Bent Straw" light fixture, which is similar to the Parkway light fixture but smaller , will be used along Thompson Avenue (East Frontage Road) . t BENCHES: A seating area will be provided along the pedestrian/bikeway on the west side of the Parkway with a bench and extra landscaping. (Figure 5 in Chapter 2 indi- ' cates the general location of these focal points) . • Pedestrian/Bicycle System. ' - On the east side of the Parkway, a trail will connect with the Parkway' s southerly trail segment at Grand Avenue and continue to Thompson Avenue . At that point ' the City street system will accommodate bikes and pedestrians. ' - On the west side of the Parkway, a trail will be con- structed in the terraced portion of the retaining walls. It will run from Grand/Ramsey to Kellogg Boulevard . ' 1 ' t ' - 24 - ' ' 2. WALNUT STREET PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE (See Figure 12) ' The segment of the 35E Parkway between the United Hospitals and the Hill Wall is most the critical section due to the unusual ' narrowness of the space available for the Parkway. The Memo- randum of Agreement for historic preservation requires approxi- mately ten feet between the face of the Hill Wall and the Park- way retaining wall . The "Hill Wall" is actually a part of a ' historic building which housed the power plant , green houses and gardner ' s residence for the James J. Hill estate. The Minnesota Historical Society has expressed strong interest in ' restoring the site to its original design . Therefore , sensitivity to the future use of this site has been exercized . ' While the Parkway to the south includes a planted center median to create the Parkway design , this is not physically possible in this segment. Also this critical segment requires a pedes- ' trian crossing at Walnut which further complicates the design . To analyze the options in this area , and to address the strong interest of the Task Force in this segment , a number of alter- ' natives were prepared . While the Parkway can be physically fit through this segment , the alternatives considered how to accom- modate the tight fit as well as leave some Parkway-like charac- ter to the section . In addition , these alternatives were de- ' veloped to satisfy the Mecnorandum of Agreement. An alternative was initially considered that included a , cut-and-cover tunnel with a landscaped deck. Additional rock cut and blasting was required for this alternative but it pro- vided an exceptional pedestrian crossing opportunity and better ' mitigation of the visual impacts. However , more detailed analysis and the unusually high cost resulted in elimination of this alternative from further consideration . Instead , a wide pedestrian bridge was designed to provide a link between the ' Historic Hill District and the areas east of the Parkway. A cantilevered walkway in front of the J. J. Hill Wall will pro- vide pedestrian continuity along the west side of the Parkway ' ( see Figure 12) . The Design Concept for this segment includes the following , features : • Cross Section: (see Figure 13) The pedestrian bridge will be constructed across the 35E Parkway from the corner of the ' Hill Wall to Walnut Street . The bridge will be 20 feet wide and will include an ornamental railing. The west end of this bridge will connect to a 15-foot wide cantilevered ' walkway, which will continue along the length of the Hill Wall to provide pedestrian continuity along the west side of the Parkway. This walkway also provides better access to the historic structure connected to the James J. Hill Wall ' which is likely to be restored as a historic landmark. The east end of the bridge will cross over Thompson Avenue (East Frontage Road) and connect to Walnut Street with a combined ' staircase/ramp. - 25 - ' ' � JAMES J. HILL WALL , f5' CANTILEVERED WALKWAY ' _ � .— W : : �- C7 O m 35E PARKWAY x ' ,. _ ` — -- — — � W � -� � � � W ' n 0 N THOMPSON AVENUE !W. FRONTAGE RD.7 ' _ i ' ( ' � , , J UNITED HOSPITAL ' COMPLEX ' , 3, 3 : '� , ' AVENUE SMITFI � ' Prelimfnary Concapt: SubJsct to Revlsion t 35E PARKWAY DESIGN CONCEPT TEAM 35E PARKWAY FIGURE •MINNESOTAOEPARTMENTOF Walnut Street Pedostrian Bridge A TNANSPOR7ATION �/ •CITY OF SAINT PAUL �� , •STRGAR-NOSCOE-fAUSCN,/NC. ' ' � W � ' � � � t � 1 I ; , II ' .g ,^ WW V >Q ' << si O � N� M n LL W �r 0 F W � � ' " � a Q � Z o � � � , , a � � � a � N a � y 0o W W o ' � , � � � < � y 3 < � , � � � W � n M � °'� 3 ' � N ' �~ � ' � �6� ��ak � I � � S S� i ,�� i I! O ' ��° � .+ �a'6 � „B I I i �� i I ' � W�I I' ' I z ,, i � .� <I � i - °s ` . Q''� i I ' �j (,��OU tUi� ' � '� I�� I I�. �y�r� � °� I E-1 0�i �-��:� , �� i i III r/�c�G�, �. � „�s I ��°�s� ' I I ; � , ` I � j i I� �; � 1 � , � ' ` ' • Landscaping : Both ends of the Walnut Street Pedestrian Bridge will be landscaped to tie in with the landscaping along the Parkway edges . In addition , Walnut Street will be vacated and a landscaped pedestrian wall will be completed ' in the right-of-way by the City . • Architectural Details : ' - BRIDGE RAIL : A special bridge railing design, similar to the one developed for the John Ireland Bridge over I-9� , ' will be used on the pedestrian bridge and the walkway. The railing includes iron stakes with finials set in a concrete base with decorative granite trim. ' - LIGHTING: The St. Paul Lowertown Cluster Lights will be included in the bridge railing on the bridge. ' 3 . WALNUT STREET TO KELLOGG BOULEVARD This segment of the Parkway offered relatively simple design issues. The prirnary refinements were focused on mitigating the ' visual impacts of the Parkway and entrance ramp on the College Hill Condominiums. The main concern was to pull the ramp as far away from the Condominiums as possible. In addition, pro- ' viding a visual buffer between the condominiurns and the ramp was a high priority. , The Design Concept includes the following features in this segment: • Cross Section : The cross section just north of Walnut ' Street will be similar to the design south of Walnut Street. Closer to Kellogg Boulevard , the cross section was refined to accommodate the entrance ramp (see Figure 14) . ' In this area, the entrance ramp will be separated from the Parkway mainline by a backslope and a retaining wall . A retaining wall will separate the grade of the ramp from that , of the pedestrian/bikeway. Between the pedestrian/bikeway and the College Hill Condos , a short stone wall (2-�1 feet high) will be constructed to separate the grade of the ped/bikeway from the backyard of the condominiums . ' s Landscaping : A double row of inedium sized canopy trees will frame the pedestrian/bikeway on the west side of the , Parkway where right-of-way is available. A single row of trees will line the east side of the Parkway. Evergreen plantings and vines will be placed to soften the top edge of retaining walls on both sides of the Parkway. ' • Architectural Details : ' BENCHES: Seating areas will be provided along the pedestrian/bikeway on the west side of the Parkway with benches , additional lighting and extra landscaping . , LIGHTING: The Rice Park Light will be used along the pedestrian/bikeway . ' - 28 - ' ' . � � ' � � ' ' ` > ' m N = � � ' i < �' O W � J� w V7 ' � O m � tV y � ' — ' w � � Po � � ' � � � O ' o � y Q o � � W � ' � � y M y h O , ► C) � � 3 ' Y � R 4 ' U Z , W LL {ib � ' y ) t '_ � Q 4 = Y� ,1 W m 0o � � O = � } 3 F� W N ' n � a ~ J < aD � W m � � < � 0 Qp o� iy J � _ � a � <� � o 1 W"o �� y � o c°� °, y � � i 2 � c9 ° � y 2a � � Mw �� ti 0 ' --- �.s� `i3�a 1 4 . KELLOGG BOULEVARD TO I-94 COMMON SECTION ' This segment also offered relatively simple design issues. One of the primary objectives was to narrow the cross section as ' much as possible (see Figure 15 ) . The other area of concern was improving the alignment of the 10th Street bridge over the Parkway and the connecting 10th Street ramp from eastbound ' I-94 . The recommended layout is also shown in Figure 15 . The Design Concept includes the following features in this ' segment: � Cross Section: In an effort to minimize the width of this segment of the Parkway, it will not be terraced but will be ' framed on either side by single retaining walls. • Landscaping: A single row of trees will frame both sides of ' the Parkway. Evergreen plantings and vines will be placed to soften the top edge of retaining walls on both sides of the Parkway. t • 10th Street Bridge: This bridge will be of a similar design to the John Ireland Bridge over I-94 ( iron stakes with finials in a concrete base with granite trim) and will have ' the Lowertown Cluster Lights. Sidewalks on the bridge will be 15 feet wide. ' 1 , ' ' ' ' ' ' - 30 - ' � �f�:�� '��3°��r"n .� .� Y� � i 3�`"� .ri'ufti`ti. � � � ��`'�pt�° / l � �' /e f -;� �fl"°�� s� �� __ , � o � �� _ �,-�, � �: .,,,a �.w,� ' �: : . _ , �°°�, _ � _ �. �,.,,. ..�..,� � _ ,_. — -- —— —— __ �._ �_ — — — _._ _ _ _ i� ' ,o� .... ,�� „� � I „� „� .... �, ,� ' i�� F-r!MEDIAN 1�-E M.B � ' PARKWAY CROSS SECTION ' , �, — �- —� �—— � MULBENRY STREET � ' I I W I I MINNESOTA HISTOFIY ¢ 1 11 � � � CENTER SITE y I I I � � _ � i I ~ , 11 �\ �i / �� \ �� // / I \\�\\ �---------------- '/�j� i %'i I � —_ ' I \ ----------r==-- � A ��-- --- � I � I� � , � �� il , -- � I --' Wav i/ ' / //S�QPa// ~�O� ,.�,�� a �r -�// �' '�ry /% �� EyUt apMP f s�'9 // H.�pYlM � J� F�.T 1 — � p0� �� .�P�' �P`�6 ' ' RECOMMENDED LAYOUT ' ' 35E PARKWAY 35E PARKWA Y DES/GN CONCEPT TEAM •M/NNES07ADEPARTMENTOF 10th Street Bridge F/GURE 1 S iNANSPOR7ATlON �CITY OF SAINT PAUL ' •STHGAR-ROSCOE-FAUSCH,INC. �'�_ /3�d ' t ' 1 35E PARKWAY 1 DESIGN CONCEPT DOCUMENT 1 1 I CHAPT°L�R I�OUR: 1 GA TEWA Y CORR/DOR DESI GN GUIDLINES 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , CHAPTER FOUR - GATEWAY CORRIDOR DESIGN GUIDELINES ' A. INTRODUCTION ' The backbone of the City street system in the study area is Kellogg Boulevard . This roadway will be realigned starting at a point near the Civic Center and ending at the intersection of John Ireland ' Boulevard and Concordia Avenue. This realignment makes Kellogg Boulevard a key element of the capitol/downtown transportation sys- tem and provides many opportunities to adjust and enhance the , appearance and function of this arterial street and thereby improve the area through which it passes. Flanking the new alignment of Kellogg Boulevard to the north will be the 5th/6th Street ramps to I-94 . These ramps will be at city street level on the east side of ' the Parkway and will lie below grade as they travel west towards I-94 . The combination of these two diverse roadway corridars referred to as the "Gateway Corridor" , presented a unique design ' challenge. One of the primary urban design objectives of the 35E Design Con- ' cept Study was to utilize the Kellogg/5th-6th Street Corridor to create a visual and functional "Gateway" into downtown St. Paul . This was accomplished in �che design concept by providing a linear corridor of landscaping and pedestrian amenities from John Ireland ' Boulevard to a plaza encircling the Fort Road intersection. The area around this intersection will be developed as a pedestrian plaza emphasizing views of the State Capitol , the St . Paul ' Cathedral , and downtown St . Paul (see Figure 16) . Another key objective of the Design Concept study was to minimize the isolation of properties adjacent to the Gateway Corridor . One ' especially significant property is the site bordered by John Ireland on the west , I-94 on the north, 35E on the east and the 5th/6th Street ramps on the south. This site has been selected for , the proposed Minnesota History Center . Providing visual and func- tional continuity between this site and the Cathedral area was a strong consideration in priority in developing the 35E Design Con- ' cept (see Figure 17) . Summit Avenue served as a model in developing the Design Concept for Kellogg F3oulevard . On Summit Avenue, hardwoods planted by the ' City frame both sides of the streets. A backdrop of spruce, cedar , white pines, scotch pines and other evergreens are planted in less formal arrangements on private property. The combination will be , particularly effective in the winter , when the pines provide green relief for otherwise barren streets. A similar form of landscaping will be used along the Gateway Corridor. , ' ' - 32 - , ' `�� ' 1(�` '� I/ 4II � ��o�� II I �� ' ee° o� I ( ' �� I � �� a;; � ', i� 1� � ' o a. � � � ��;� �� !� 0 � �C � � . � � � � � '� � � \ � � a� � � � , 0',�� v. e , I I �� 41 �� I �S�r �I , '� ��i � ( � �_ �� '��; ( � `1 � '� il � � �� I ' i �, ��' � ,��q '� , � i � � � � �j�t��,�\,;t� l/�' r ;��'� � " � �' � � �! � � � � � �� _ �� ' � �� ,� � %�� `� �� I� r �� ::. � � _ �� `�'��, '" '� ''' � i � � k`; � � � � � 3 �� I �r ` � �:� (�� i �� '��, r - � � w►y ��; �� 'la i�Uh ��I ., �� - a � ��'` � i�l��'ihl ��. �'i- � �.t� o - � "" � . � I L�' �� !i � � �� i�i��Ii'''� �/,y P 5 �;�I �� "' _n a� � � � ' � �' � � � q� /i � i � �� i $!� � �� 1� � a�� / � � �!v _!� ,u� � 'I ,` l� �X�� _ � ' ;9 ��'�0` � � � \ I il �' ia i � ;j 7 , _�i / �` . I � �� / I 7 �!� �r C I� /� i ,�'. - �J!� � - �// 1 C - I�r 1 - i { ( � I ' I .� `l � �'✓'�s. = � v,*�q��' �/ / -- I I"/� ��% . � ��iti �� / �� '�`;c, + 1� � � �7 ° _ � � �/ / � .I ;�'f i�g�� , ' !I � I / � �� ;`' -'�� ".C� '�� 1_ �/I / i � �" � � �./ �' � � I� 4,:�� rl �'' �� I �.. r��r I � ' ,,�- �� i T, . � , ��'� ;/�� C ` / � `�mm� '^ � i I 7�I (� �+�' �� / r � � �� / � �, �, �� m m �� wr i, �� m �� ti � y i �} � � a1 � �, g� 3` � �'�/r . _ w � � � � �� z �� `� � " � �� V �m �� 3 .-,(,� � �"� ��/ � � � 'i' w � l S :" ' � � �1 �� . ✓�-�� `iS �� - � ;( 6 L }� yiii�i i ii = _]: � & � \ ( � \ I 0 .�C I'I '�.._ i� i Ctl..� �� 1 1� �� Z �il -�',. �� :��}��" �� .� 1 � � �� t �V'�-� .� �� ".�i' ��,,��• - /�i d��1'\ �� I I � � C II �, £ p�., � L; a�; `\ ;�, �� III �I � � �JI � � � j�� A'�S� �� `,� � 0 ` � "` � i� �� i � �I�m2� ��' -- � �� u'�� j � �i J � ;�, �,� �� /,:� " a- // � �, ;" � � � �� '-�,_ �� F � f Q p � � -r�.�� _ -i � �, _ '� _ '� � � � � �� ,� i . �_� ��'�1��'� �I _ " � i � ��1 � \ W O �''� � �� _ �� - I� � �� ' ,� �� , �. � `` ,, � �.._:�i — �' � M V � � � � �� '� � � � , ��—�� =� �� '� — �� ,— � � ,,� � �� i ' "� �r �� , � ` 3 � � �I %� � I �—� �� M � � �:. i , � � � ��.I �� .� �� m� a �_ � � �� ' � ' 1 ,� _ i � ��I � �(� �j �g.. { � '�� =s S� �il �'� al, \ �� I� I � ''f� ' h�(� z-�� '° ri�i 3:' � I � �u�l� �i � � .�� r } � �� I � �� _ � � / y ' � �. ��,,, �+ � I� � � - �� ,1 �� ,' �r� �� I �'� �� , �, �� d�a G� -� ��,;�,, �' �Q _ =i�'\ �� ; � � ��',� �t �� ;�` 9�"r � �� , �- 0 V �'�� , r �i �� ?�, ;�,�� , - ;�� i �� . �/ �� /�, �i� i , �� 1 � ��,�, �� r � ,. �� a � /� �� o '� ( �.�� I �/�i'�� ' r `�'� �`� �` � �,�' ��'I'� �\;"�, �� I� � � �� ' _ � �' ,� �r�,.� 3� � i � � � i � � ( _ � i,` � -� , d � \ � � ; � � U a < A -s, � � '��"" - . � 2 1 � � - � � � o�� , �;� �� ;�t�� : �� j � �z� � , � --�;� W � � � ,�,� , ��;�. �� = Q � ° _ � r � �� ^ �� .v� ��` �� r �� ,� � �� 1 � � ` �' I� w °, y ��4 ,� 1�'?� � ';�,�' � t ��, � �I ` ' .'� � W e � � �� w�� '�' v � �� ' I I �� U Q x a w � �� ' ��;,i, I '� `� ��I � Z w� � v � � � � �� I��w. '�'��?'`y' -1 .,�,� " I�; � � � a V �F C p r �.`y+�, � y�,' ��-�_ r Z �O �- � � �� .� - F` y ��'�tbJ� �� i�� rr ' � � W y � i � �� / ,A � 22 > � � /4 `�+ y 2i �- � , � ' �� s; ��%�� i� �. �, ,,, ,�/ % c+� o �� y � ,��_ ' ' V � �. ' ' ' r � ,��; �� a �b._ �� r,, , � _ �f�a ```�F� '°'�a i, y . _pl� �� r. , � i-� -- \�ii��i w 1�� '- X�� _ �. � �� ,:J r�; , .il� `(� \��,�.� — _ �� `�� A�tl� �j�,,,.,��Y� � � ,: I� �� r�dr:y ��'�� ,.0 �� t�r,� _ ;�`� J = � _ i � , -! F I �N . \�� - � I' 1�t�a �� ;� _ C€ `� ��., � � , =_ I .,; ' l �� r-� � ��.� �� " i �^� ;a' � � I r ,_ � � � e � .�� i� �a `I, �2=.,., ,J �y 1��` � �: V F ' � �- {f '�, ii �'. �F�r _ '.�� = � i .�� !�� __ . ��F� , _ s,� s� � �i� j - _ i >+.��r f = r'� I �" � � _ � .�'1�� i�At 't,�,�1�'s"_ . �� ' ��r�� . Q�\ � �,� i- _ 1a��.-�'r �•\ � ` �I ,� .�.�"?�?. � y� � � -� �s ,�� '��` � ��°� .p' - 'II�UI; ��..� .�x� i tF - �� ,, _ � i 10 v- � - � �' i �-h<y� '�T� � � � '.��C _ � w,y* f ,r. -�}� �� .��C p. 'm^�� ' �,,, ' � _ � f t �t��F -e � ''1�t `V � � ,E' � � -. ,[ �� *.�.t y r `� `�r r � �.. „�< �' � �;�., k� �� ,� ` 4��'«�.g�`,ai. °��` ,� ,:x �� ,�� <i � _ g � �1�a.�. �� .c_ : '� z � r'„� :�x�.� v,. ,'i :: ,� ��.� ��.�`��r�o� .� , .:% � �' S :y -� � � ��- '� ��. (-� � .c °_-.� • � °° ! r Y:� �..°�'� , s' � � -- 3 2'_ w �'�^``- p�,� Q � t°V ��i. �' '�.b�+ se. �. .,��-�i�' i%'✓.<t :� A,� $n .��,Y,. q ��S`` J � g ; �`' �` � , :�� !� ., �5�� `��. � i� '��,;,Vv .�� ..'�� ,ID!� �� ,Ig'� 'I� E -�.,,;�t ��r - �� -�� t�,�� , � � �` ��`;�,�" �' � _ =.�4 �%3'.�" , � ��,y-� ' � �'"'�' i � ° . _�� T..i1 j?� �.r i �,r a` �� `"� °'�q': � �t � `� � -� �,�� '��a �� -- �x ^ & � 4 � �a �e �.w€ °�` °� �'°� / � 'a = .1 i M� � ;� �� = �.,f' E � � � a�.�°�,p � _ 3 _ _ t... .S� _ +��.�� ^� � �'___ � � ; "k _ ,,m' �`�3bL,. � 2�L 4 _ � 3 A . �'� r � �� =I v� �� ,i � �� $ � II.• L� � I � �,.. � .c tY�?`y�� . .,n_ .�ar y ��. 1 F�' +N � �A'w+n_ ��:�� ,... 1 . <`�'.Cr-,: �.�a� � yt i � e � cl� j �'��'� �. .. � � � � t + ��a,y, n.,.r �"`.� \,. 3"` 'w_ �v � 11 �� '.� �P ��G� F�� '� .. _ I 11_ { � ��c� �`- � � � � _ ' �F� ,�'?�,;�� I G �t� � � ;�,�� j�=_ _ �� I� t�;v�r �1- �..� ,``�'� _ = � � � I � � �seae � �� 4+. �. _ ��. _ ' � • E _' �1�J' '�� a '4`�°`°�,� "°k = � ��n °� I ' ��E,d9 � ;�l� �r �.�: � _ ��.�t�=' , w , �; :Q � i, �W�., 8�r. S�� "�� , 1 .�j��p: � ��.�a �� 1� >= k I '� � �;:� �'�' �y�'��f. � �— �� ;< �'� ��- , � , �:� a — " _ "' _ � ��1 ,� �� _ �"� ;� _�- ��'�;'� �f`� n!�!� ,,��'�lI)I��; �, ;�. �,,,,,,,,,:� ,,; Illuhm�mimmiiuo��u�� , , ;_� _ ,,,:- • ,� = : _; :� �� ' .�- - . - -- . : i I . � ;I��i � ,,, � �� ' �1i � ; . � B. GATEWAY CORRIDOR: SEGMENT DESCRIPTIONS ' Following is a description of each segment of the Gateway Corridor , the issues which were addressed , and the design details which apply ' to each segment. 1 . THE GATEWAY CORRIDOR WEST OF THE PARKWAY ' This area includes the "Gateway Corridor" on the west side of the Parkway. Three study alternatives were developed by the Design Concept Team to address the circulation and aesthetic ' issues in this area . Alternative �4b (see Figure 18) was se- lected as the preferred alternative. This design includes changes to the street circulation patterns which are intended ' to improve the level of service on Kellogg and reduce through-traffic impacts on residential streets due to the Kellogg realignment. Old Kellogg Boulevard and Summit Avenue will no longer connect to John Ireland Boulevard and will oper- ' ate as two-way roadways instead of the existing one-way restriction. Access from new Kellogg will be limited to one full intersection at Mulberry, with right turns only in and out ' at the other streets. Mulberry will also provide the vehicular and pedestrian access over the 5th/6th Street ramps to the His- tory Center site , instead of Summit Avenue. The Mulberry ' Bridge will replace a pedestrian bridge previously proposed over the 5th/6th Street ramps at College Avenue and a vehicular bridge previously proposed for Summit Avenue. Mulberry is a more logical location for this bridge than Summit or College ' Avenues in terms of spacing and pedestrian travel patterns . This location also provides better vehicle storage for the left turn from Kellogg to John Ireland Boulevard. ' Special attention has been and will be paid to coordination of design efforts with the planned improvements on the John ' Ireland Bridge. The issues addressed by the design concept in this segment included: , • Improving traffic flow on Kellogg Boulevard by reducing in- tersection spacing ' • Reducing through traffic on residential streets ' ' 1 ' - 35 - ' , ' � �� Q ._ . � � I' �� \ � � � � \\� � � • o � o ' o X'� e�v Q o . o e * }o d � � * �;. d'� i � < �, \R� t� \ � v a\ ' -o •�,�..� �ONN , � Q ` ��.. ?-. �� .,� y �;� �s �` ' � \ , \\\ . l•,9 . �� ° ° i *o � ' O -4 1-I 8 � , I e ' ,a.,.,�, � �`F � ° � � W � e�ll � i * > •W .w. - ► WI �l � ° .��, ' � f"��?� �� y� .� ST ,e - K, �� L 1 61 I, _ � / tG .E.� ' � �� j j I � � � �� ; �h � W � / �� t ��/ j �— � � � �� I � � Z� � 0 4� I -- � � o � �� o I�//�o I _ � !'t� � t _Jl: o� I j � �J o � 'r`— �,:_ I ST. � MIULBERRYr---�---°---°-i � � � � _i � � `Z`\ G�� . w q � � --� � - - --- ' '� � � �k, I I \ � 1 I �� I � � # ARCNDIOCESE � I I � � � OFFICES � �- I 1 � � � � � i ��.I----o---- � r�i �y� � �"6� o 0 ' 4 aD M�OOm ryMO� \� •�W ! -.�- � � COLLEGEw .w AVE. •� � (�t 'w �y•�w=,� _ � V ° � r ? W r COLLEGE / t � � �pND05 � I � � a � �° � ��" ,!'-� U i. o / t 1>> Q / � / � � � �� / � ° pqNCE RAMP , � � � �� . .� � __ �. � � , ------ 1 i = -- �� . _ ____--� --- , , � � — � o 0 00 � . - ,._____, i - ° , � � i 1 35E PARKWAY 35E PARKWA Y ' DES/GN CONCEPT TEAM F/GURE •MINNESOTA DEPARTMENi OF STUDY AL TERNA T/VE 4b TRANSPORTATION � A �C/TY OF SA/NT PAUL GATEWAY CORR/DOR WEST OF PARKWAY a •S iRGAR-HOSCOE-FA US CH,/NC. ' ' Following is a surnmary of the features of the design concept ' for this segment : � Cross Section (see Figure 19) : Kellogg Boulevard will be an ' at-grade, four-lane divided roadway with 30 foot minimum width boulevards on either side of the street , where space allows. West of the Parkway the 5th/6th Street rarnps could ' be contained between single, vertical retaining walls in a narrow cut. The final design and construction of this seg- ment could provide for a future deck over the 5th/6th Street ramps between Jorin Ireland Boulevard and Mulberry Street. ' The deck will provide visual and functional continuity be- tween the History Center Site and the Cathedral Hill area. These design provisions would be made contingent on a com- ' mitment by the Minnesota Historical Society to construct and finance a future deck . ' • Landscaping: A double row of trees will be planted along both sides of Kellogg Boulevard. Along the north side of the 5th/6th Street ramps a single row of canopy trees will be planted . Evergreen plantings and vines will be placed to ' soften the top edge of retaining walls on both sides of the ramps. ' • Walkways: A 10-foot pedestrian/bicycle path will be located in the middle of the boulevard between Kellogg and the 5th/6th Street ramps . Ten foot sidewalks will also be ' placed along the south side of Kellogg. • Architectural Details: ' LIGHTING: Rice Park Lights will be used on the sidewalks and the pedestrian/bikeway Kellogg Boulevard with higher in- tensity lighting (similar to the Parkway mainline lighting) ' in the median. Parkway mainline lighting will also be used along the 5th/6th Street ramps in this segment. BENCHES: Special seating areas will be provided along the ' ped/bikeway in the center boulevard between Kellogg and the 5th/6th Street ramps. Benches , special paving, extra light- ing and special landscaping will be provided in these areas. , • Mulberry Bridge: A design similar to the one developed for the John Ireland Bridge, with iron stakes and finials in a t concrete base with granite trim, will be utilized on this bridge, including Lowertown Cluster Lights. Sidewalks on the bridge will be 15 feet wide. ' 1 ' - 37 - , ��- �3a � � I I y S f � ¢ s �\ a � o � z n� ° �,\ Q �e � . �� . ��o I = �LI �� _ � :.�� i o ' ��,: I ` � �` o = I y �� o � ' 1 ' m 0 W Q �i _� ` 6 W i � 6 , � I Q K O � , I.� ` � _—W �'1 � , — � a ��_ 4 � & v. , ,�b° ' O r�� .�y��-f t� �� 4f �� o'' aa, � ' �� `>e Q � � G Q � � �` ;,�� :_; � " � �� i � , � y sr ` 4 O -- �' � � ' � V � � O I � � � ' __ _—� C� I � � 3 ' -- � d a � ;p �;�� °°�� ` .�- __ ��,�. , ,�� , � a p ,,. � I Y . 11`4 ' ° y e �st °� o I � � �Q ° / ° �_ sc, � �� — I � ,.,..� � �$ � ' r— � — �� Q � V o \ W 0 ? ❑ � � ~ 2 U � � � a W Q � � � � � ; � � � o � W m ` � � � V 4= 4W � i � O w, ►. o� 2y o � � � U o a (� i1`. Q O ❑ i �S y C ' ° � � � � Z yy � C °-❑_.---- --�-� I �,A � ?? � t�7 � ° `�J � 2 i � FC. I� � � � � M OW �� U t!, 0 � F-� �� ! ' - --- , ' 2. GATEWAY CORRIDOR AT THE PARKWAY BRIDGES In an effort to tie together the two Parkway crossings , and to reduce the visual impact of the gap between these two bridges, ' the following features have been included in the Design Concept: ' • "Plazas" : Special seating areas will be provided on both the east and the west sides of the bridges. These areas will tie the two bridges together visually and reduce the ' impact of the gap between the bridges (see Figure 20) . • Landscaping: The plazas will be framed with medium sized canopy trees. ' • Architectural Details: ' PAVING: Concrete pavement with granite strips will be used as paving treatment in plaza area. BRIDGE RAILINGS: A decorative iron stake fence with finials ' set in a concrete base with granite trim similar to the John Ireland Bridge will be used as bridge railings . ' LIGHTING: Lowertown Cluster Lights will be used along the edges of the bridges and plazas. , WALKWAYS: Sidewalks on both the Kellogg and the 5th/6th Street Bridges will be 15 feet wide. BENCHES: Extensive informal seating will be provided in the ' plaza areas. 1 , 1 ' ' ' ' - 39 - ' ' _� � x_.� �,t, �., , � I � - _ � � � � �� G° �,� �_ . : ' `��j � I� � L / , � /� � l�"� ' � ' � ` ' i � �. � � I I ' � ,_ �. � D , 'C' �.A "a ' -. —I--- --- - "a --�Jr--- 8ECTION A-A� � � � . ,�� :�'�� I � � 4 �II� I I lil� -�,� � .,� �:.\ f� , �� ,,�' �� i �� . 1 � � �� „ � � � _ � , -- ��- � ../' � �� ,�� I� , r �� i - , , � J; I ;� +�.� , �i l � I ,c-- � ''"� - � / �- ; - � % c' � � -�-�.-----=� ��i l �� ,'� � I � m � � � � , � , � � � , � � �� '� �'" '�s ,- s = � , � ' ' � ��I �� i'�� .� -,-r. � �� `,� .'�t �- � '� � � � C �- t -�-,'�� :t .�� _ � � � - �I � � II ( � � : Z �iT � / � r€ �� } i I I i I �, � � " / � � � , d � � �- ` . _/ i � ` e _ _ , ,� r � ' �_.� -- --— ' _ _ —— -- �,i: .�� ' � I I � �� ,j \ r � � -� ��; '1 � �� I � I� I��I ;'// , A __ --- -- -- / i 'i _ __ `�� , I � i i � �� ; . � -� � �__- - -�- - -- - _ � � �: � �� _ -� -- � ;' � i � _� _ , , -__ , , � ' ' — � �� - �� , , � -- _ _---- /' , / , � ;' _ I� i — - �� I — - / �� _ __ � � �� i - - - - - - - - � � � � �' -- _ - ��i I � ��i � - ------— / ,� , i: / � i'�i I / � ,i� �I� ��'I , �, ', � � ' � � --- - / �� i % Y � � -- I � � p j ' , �'� ,- _�� , �i I� I �'� �"�� _r`-C` /.�.., r�_ �� I� a �. � % / / � ��r �;� � , � � � i � I � �i s � - , �� i i � , , -�r �, �� ;� �� i li� •� ; o �, �`�,� � �. ,� �/ %� � � � O � � � ' � � � �� O / _ � / / /f r� _ ��-� �.__� ��>' ��'�, , � � � � i � � � � �� DAAWINfi PREPARED�BY JOS�EPM PAS ONN AU�ND�� I ��'. � ARTNERS , 35E PARKWAY 35E PARKYI�A Y DESIGN CONCEPT TEAM •MINNESOTADEPARTMENTOF P/an View and Details �I�� 20 TRANSPORTAiION •CITY OF SAINT PAUL of Seating Areas at Parkway Bridges ' •STROAR•NOSCOE-FAUSCN,INC. , 3 . GATEWAY CORRIDOR EAST OF THE PARKWAY ' This area includes the Gateway Corridor (Kellogg Boulevard and the 5th and 6th Street ramps) on the east side of the 35E ' Parkway. For the most part, the base alternative did not in- clude connections between the Interstates (35E and I-94) and the local street system. Therefore, the segment alternatives ' in this area required a much higher level of detailed analysis . In addition, since the area adjacent to the Parkway is currently underdeveloped , consideration was given to poten- tial redevelopment scenarios and providing flexibility to fu- ' ture developments. Aesthetic issues were also involved due to the high priority placed on creating an attractive gateway into downtown St. Paul . Six study alternatives were developed to ' address the highly complex access and circulation issues in this area. ' Alternative 5d (see Figure 21 ) was selected as the preferred alternative for this area. The design includes more vehicle storage for the left turn to the 6th Street ramp from Fort Road by adding an outbound access adjacent to the inbound (5th ' Street) ramp. The right turn to the 6th Street ramp would occur at Old Sixth Street. An extension of Old Sixth Street east across Fort Road would connect with existing Sixth Street , near 7Lh Place. An important feature of this alternative is that it includes a ' full , signalized intersection at Kellogg and Smith Avenue. In addition , it provides for a future extension of Smith Avenue from Kellogg Boulevard across the 5th/6th Street ramps to con nect to Main Street . ' The issues addressed by this alternative include: , • Improving traffic flow to westbound I-9�4 by providing ade- quate storage for the left turn off Fort Road to the Sixth Street ramp , • Providing flexibility for future development by accommodating the possible future extension of Smith Avenue ' • Maintaining local circulation by providing a full , signal- ized intersection at Smith Avenue and by keeping the access to Main Street open ' • Maintaining the open space at Fort Road for aesthetic treatments , ' , - 41 - ' �'v,- /3�D ' I 'l �� y I � . .. . p O � � �� • � t ;r ~ � v I � o $T. � ► FtY , � �d1ULBER ---�--o__�_o�_-I � `�` G�,l� . . _ ' •_ _ .a }J,�II Q I I I •c�Y � I I I / I o � � � � � ♦�CMD�OCESE I � I I_ � � pFF�CES 1 � � ' I � i ' � ----- I ` I I � i I I � . / �------ � � I ` � � �. r - O I ` � I ' ° ° � . . COLLEGE� �- AVE. � - .� _ — _ � � ' � � � /. _ , � � �� p��E&E � � N�� ( I �pND05 O • ' "° � ` - � Y . /K�►A � ,-- E A � ' P , , 35 � � . ', 1 � ��. - , i � ' \ \ �� \ � � mA ��----� �O v • \\O r---�� -�° sE'q / .� c. �.. ( / �o� � ( � ti, r �� y EX/ AMp / I %��,�'' �� 5�•� � o�'.e ' �� i I�. ... i �; / '�'�� I� �� ! \ m .,. � DONE BY j F %y�e°��,r �,, r r, �� .�`I` OTHERS �', j � �,,+ �� j.� � � , � � � `'�` `� � 1 1�', /�� '/ ��y G�'1 � c' 1 P'/ `° s �` � � �' \ �`F, L,O� �S i 1�, S� (� fi p�% \ F9 � � \ �� p ' � / � � �iL o I I,� \ '�°�' ' � � �`\ � r � � � .. � .., -� �' `�+ � � �,- „y W f ' ' ` � — � �� `��r� y�' \ S`�� N ,''�'r 1y, I \ ��s+�' � y ..,. a+� �'P ' � � � �,...,� . , � . 17 � '� s�� j____ I y j �1�, , '` J �� I la �c-c-='- _ - C _ M � �� t � ,,;;;==� � FORT ROAD � �h � � _ ��.�. -�� .�. --— ' , v _y --- T � �� • � a o` ° � o f '° � � � ` * R�` --�_ .,. o < �� 4 0 I �a �.., p � ,,/ N� o � po ' o � yF � � �� O�, 1 ` y� __` 9�4 CIVIC CENTER � �� ' \ �\ ` `` � 3 5E Po RKWA� 35E PARIrWA Y F/GURE ' •MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF S TUD Y AL TERNA TI VE 5d /� � 7RANSPONTAT/ON L •C/TYOFSA/NTPAUL GATEWAY CORR/DOR EAST OF PARKWAY •S TRGAR-ROSCOE•FA USCN,INC. ' ' The key features of the design concept for this segment are ' summarized as follows : • Cross Section: Both Kellogg and the 5th/6th Street ramps ' will be at the saine grade as they intersect with Smith/Main Streets east of the Parkway. The inbound (5th Street) ramp will widen from one to two lanes as it crosses the Parkway . Kellogg will remain the same widtt�. , • Landscaping: A single row of canopy trees will be placed on both sides of Kellogg Boulevard and the 5th/6th Street ' ramps . • Plaza (see Figure 22) : A large , circular Gateway Plaza will , be located at the intersection of Fort Koad and the 5th/6th Street ramps . This plaza will be framed with a double row of trees. A circular walkway with special paving treatment will be included in the plaza . Benches and other pedestrian ' amenities will also be provided in the plaza area. Low walls will be included near the intersection corners to sep- arate the paved area from the grassy area and to create in- , formal seating areas . A circular band of special paving treatment will be placed on the roadways intersecting in the Gateway Plaza area , as shown in Figure 22. ' • Architectural Details: LIGHTIKG: Lowertown Cluster lighting will be placed along ' walkways and within the plaza. Rice Park Fixtures will be placed along the other sidewalks . , WALKWAYS: 15 foot sidewalks will be provided on both sides of Kellogg Boulevard and the 5th/6th Street ramps . ' t ' ' ' ' ' - 43 - ' ' � ��.- `� � 't`-�-y n � , �� ! l -- � - � s � ' i +��_ ' ..�_ -` y � � � � k v � � � , - ' ��r' � � �\ -'°wG i .�'��1.- � �`j' � �. ��' y �0 � �' � � � _ �� , .�� , � �� 1 � � ..��...�..� � . v _ . . . . . .� �..��. �DqAWING PREPARED BY JOSEPH ASSONNEAU AND OARTNERS ' I � � 1 i KROLL'S I � 6ATEWAY m.�� T T BOAD ��I I � � / \/ � -- � / �� `" __ � CATHOLIC CHARITIES � � _�__ — —__ °------ � ' � �_� __ ---.--- __— _ I �� I I �� AMERICAN UNEN SUPPLY � � I I �.\� \ � J I I I I \ �\ / � � � � ` �," � � � ` i \ .-' �i� � ' � � � �� PABK MACHINE � _� ��- � ��'�,�, � �� , , �% . �- � , - �� ,� � I � �� ; I � \. , � I I I. � ',, , �� DOROTHY DA v � � , 1 �� 1 � '� � � CENTER --_-_- --- J--_ � �\__ \ --- - - , �r „_ � ,- - -- . -�- - , '� �l��_� - _ -- - -_ _ ' -- _ __ --- --- � - ;_ ' _ - � �� _- �i__ -� �- � , ----- � -- -_ \_ ` - --- - -- � __- - � _ , �'1' �- �_. -. _ = - __� _ . . ' \ �\ CiwC C�p � i 4 � � , � � t � �.. \�� . DRAWING PREPARED BY JOSEPH PASSONNEAU AND AR ERB , ' 35E PARKWAY DESIGN CONCEPT TEAM 35E PARKWA Y •MINNESOTADEPAXtMENTOF F/GURE 22 TNANSPORTATION Gateway Plaza At Fort Road •CITY OF SAINT PAUL , •STRGAH-HOSCOE-FAUSCN,INC.