Loading...
00-503CITY OF ST. PAIIL FINAL ORDER � �,� o 0 � � 1 � �.� R � � �� COUNC FILE O. �d-SO3 By � "`.�` File No._SO 092 Voting Ward_3 Ia the Matter of new sidewalk construction at the followiag location: az 500092 - East side South Howell Street from Palace Avenue to James Avenue at 1876 Palace Avenue Only_ *ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION RATES RESIDENTIAL RATES (One, two or three family structur s) Reconstruction (replacement of old sidewalk) -$9.6 per front foot for a five (5) foot wide walk and $11.58 per front foot for a si (6) foot wide walk. All other widths will be prorated accordi gly, i3ew construction (where no walk existed) - 1000 of the actual c t estimated to be approximately $4.32 per square foot. All corner residential properties will rec ve a credit up to the first 150 feet of new or reconstructed sidewalk alo and abutting the "long side" of the property. ML7LTI-RESIDENTIAL (More than three f�ly structures), NON RESIDENTIAL RATES For new and reconstructed sidewalk; 0� of actual cost estimated to be approximately $5.84 per square foot under Preliminary order � O _ The Council of the City o Saint Paul has conducted a public hearing upon the above improvement, due notice hereof having been given as prescribed by the City Charter; and WHEREAS, The Council as heard all persons, objections and recommendations pertaining to said propo d improvement and has fully_considered the same; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That th Council of the City of Saint Paul does hereby order that the above-described impro ent be made, and the proper City officers are hereby directed and authorized to pr ceed with the improvement; and be it FURTHER RESOL D, That upon the completion of said improvement, the proper City officers shall ca ulate all e�enses incurred therein and shall report the same to the City Council n accordance with Chapter 14 of the City Charter. �i4 t��E,€> COUNCILPERSO �-by Council: Date�oc Yeas Nays Benanav ✓ Certified Passed by Council Secretary i'-�. ' Harris Lantry Reiter ✓ ✓ — {��OS�r� � f � � In Favor 6 Against .�. A`os�,,.� , ` Mayor �l>-.Sd.� Si7MMARY OF ENGINEERING RECOMD�NDATION Wazd 3 � � �, PRO.IECT: CONSTRITCT NEW SIDEWALK E.S. S. HOWELL ST. from Patace Ave. to 7ames Ave. at 1876 Palace Ave. Only. IIVITIATING AC'I'ION: This order was initiated by the D'uector of Public Works as public necessiry on the basis of a petition with six (6) signers and an inspection of the walk. EXISTING CONDITION5 This walk as first time construcuon. Works - Sidewalk Division 2� !OO GREEN : I� DEPAR"fMENi DIRECTOR I�CRYATTORNEY � BUOGET DIRECTOR I� MAYOR (Ofl ASSISTMR) � � ASSOCIAiE New Sidewalk in Ward 3(See attached list) �� � �f/Zl�f�a ���d.3 � NO. 102751 � INRIAUDATE _ ❑ CITY CQUNCIL � _ ❑CRYCLEFK ❑ FliJ. & MGT. SERVICES DIR. _ �j Council Research _ °`�� "' �"`"' "'� PERSONAL SERVICE CANTRACTS MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUES710NS: �y _CMLSEAVICECAMMISSION 7, Hasthisperso�rtneverworkeduntleraconVactforthisdepartment? YES NO — 2. Has this persoNfirtn ever been a city employee? — YES NO 3. Does this personJfirtn possess a skilt not nomially possessetl by a�y cunent city employee? YES NO oB,�ECrivE? Explain all yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green sPeet OPPORTUNI7V (WHO, WHAT, WHEN, WHERE, WH`n: The prob4em "defective sidewalk" was caused by multiple problems, tree roots, poor subgrade materials, freefthaw cycles, service lite limits, chemical additives, extreme temperature variations, etc. These problems occur on a citywide basis and must be addressed and corrected annually. Left uncossected, the sidewalk condition would worsen to a state where ii would be unusable and subject to increased pedestrian injuries from falls and possibie litigations. IF APPROVED: The community will benefit from this project because it will provide safe defect free sidewalks for its citizens. The sidewalk contracts are done by private contractors generating public sector jobs as a result. IF APPFOVED: Historically, the sidewalk reconstruction has created negative feedback laecause of construction procedures and assessments. Property owners question the assessments, despite the fact that up to one-half the assessment is City subsidized. Having to assess for walk reconstruction remains a controversial issue. IF NOT APPROVED' This option would allow the infrastructure of sidewalk stock to deteriorate, which in turn, will generate more personal injury suits, resulting in the expe�diture of larger dollar amounts in repairs a�d replacement, as well as claim payouts. f�B��CC�1 �:?�j ,.� �.��# {OUNTOFTRANSACT{ON$ 2,�S2.4O COSTIREVENUEBUDGE7ED(CIRCLEOtdE) !ES No souece 00-M-0671 A, PIA 00 = 620,000 ACINI7YNUMBER C00-2T753-0784-00000 INFORMAT70N:(IXPlA1N) Q� aST - 3 • c. c�a oa = so,oao �l S43 CITY OF ST. PADL COUNC FILE NO. O� �'��.� PRELIMINARY ORDER By �`�� '�"�� � 1 File No._50�092 � Voting Ward_ 3_ Ia the Matter of new sidewalk coastructioa ia the following loaatioa: 500092 - East side South Howell Street from Palace Avenue to James Avenue at 1876 Palace Avenue Only. *ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION RATES RESIDENTIAL RATES (One, two or three family structures) Reconstxuction (replacement of old sidewalky -$9.65 per front £oot for a five (5) foot wide walk and $11.58 per front foot for a six (6) foot wide walk. All other widths will be prorated accordingly. Nem coastruction (where no walk existed) - 100� of the actual cost estimated to be approximately $4.32 per square foot. Al1 corner residential properties will receive a credit up to the first 150 feet of new or reconstructed sidewalk along and abutting the "long side" of the property. MULTI-RESIDENTIAL(More than three family structures), NON-RESIDENTIAL RATES For new and reconstructed sidewalk; 100� of actual cost estimated to be approximately $5.84 per square foot. The Council of the City of Saint Paul having received the report of the Mayor upon the above improvement, and having considered said report, hereby resolves: 1. That the said report and the same is hereby approved with no alternatives, � that the estimated cost thereof is *SEE ABOVE for estimated construction rates, financed by assessments and 2000 Public Improvement Aid. 2 3 That a public hearing be had on said improvement on the 24 dav of Mav. 2000 5:30 o'clock P.M. in the Council Chambers of the City Ha11 and Court House Building in the City of Saint Paul. That notice of said public hearing be given to the gersons and in the manner provided by the Charter, stating the time and place of hearing, the nature of the improvement and the total cost thereof as estimated. COUNCILPERSONS Yeas Nays �� enanav r/Blakey ✓� ostrom ✓Coleman ✓Harris ✓Lantry �Reiter �In Favor � Against Adopted by Council: Date pa Certified Passed by Council cretary BY ��.�:�-�$^ Mayor �� s�.� NIINUTES OF TI� LEGISLATIVE HEARING SIDEWALK ISSUE - 1876 Palace Avenue Thursday, Apri127, 2000 Room 330 Courthouse Gerry Strathman, Legislative Hearing Officer The meeting was called to order at 2:31 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Larry Lueth, Public Works; Gerald Tvedt, Public Works Gerry Strathman stated this mee6ng is being held to get points of view and have discussion about a sidewalk at 1876 Palace Avenue. Gerald Tvedt reported the sidewallt is missing on Ha11 Street between Palace and the alley to the south: Public Works was awaze this segment of walk was missing, but it was brought to their attention that people in the area wanted the sidewalk. 1876 Palace has pine trees growing on the boulevard; therefore, Public Works is proposing building a five foot sidewalk that is closer to the curb and not take any pine trees. This is the long side of the properly so there is no assessment to the homeowner. It is the onty piece of sidewalk not completed 'm a three block square area. What is the City's policy with respect to sidewalks, asked Mr. Strathman. Mr. Tvedt responded they are trying to complete the sidewalk system where it is practical and needed. There aze some areas where there are no pedestrian or school traffiq but this is not the case here. NIr. Strathman asked are there other sidewalks not completed in Saint Paul. Mr. Tvedt responded there are all kinds of them. David and Sue Keenan, 1876 Palace Avenue, appeared. Mr. Keenan stated they are opposed to having the sidewalk there. They did not have anything to do with a petirion to ask for a sidewalk and did not lrnow there was a petirion being circulated, but they did get a copy of it. They have been at this property for 25 yeazs, and there has never been a problem on that corner. Howell is not a long street: it ends there and T's off. They talked to a lot of neighbors and severai people with children, people who have raised children in that azea, retired people who walk in that area; all those people are on their petition in opposition to the sidewalk. Industry and apartment buildings wall not come into the area to change the tr�c patterns. There are more cars than in the past and there is a stop sign there. When they bought the properry, they were attracted to the yazd because it is unique. It is pazk-like. Some people said they see the yard as a big asset to the neighborhood. Little kids coming through the alley see the end of the sidewalk as a visual reminder of their boundaries. There aze 27 names on their list representing about 23 different properties all opposed to the sidewalk. Mr. Strathxnan asked is the sidewalk to be constructed on the public right-of-way. Mr. Keenan responded yes. Mrs. Keenan responded it will affect their property. D�-Sd� LEGISLATIVE HEARING, SIDEWALK ISSUE, 1876 PALACE AVENUE, 4-27-00 Page 2 Mr. Strathman stated usually people oppose the sidewallc because they don't want to pay for it. It is not clear what harm this sidewalk will do to this property. Mr. Keenan responded they were attracted to the uniqueness of the property. They like it aesthetically. Even though they wiil not be paying for it, Mrs. Keenan responded, it is still a waste of taxpayer money. Mr. Strathman stated one of the proposals was to move it closer to the curb and asked haue they considered mm�ing it along the curb. Mr. Tvedt responded they would move it out so the e�sting trees would not be effected. For the safety of pedestrians, Public Works prefers to keep the sidewalk back a bit. Mr. Lueth responded another reason to keep it back is for storing snow in the boulevard. The current proposal is curb, then 3%2 foot buffer of grass, and then a 5 foot wide sidewalk, asked Mr. Strathman. Mr. Tvedt responded that is conect. Frank McCann, 1879 James Avenue, appeared and stated he lives directly behind the Keenans on James and Howell. He has never heard anyone say they want a sidewalk in there. He was surprised when he was approached to sign a petition in favor of the sidewalk. He told the person that the Keenans were friends of his and he would not sign a petition. The properry has an attached garage to the house. If a sidewalk is installed, they will ha�e to back out of that garage, and there may be a problem when kids are riding their bikes. Trees are very close and they will be butted against the sidewalk. It is safer without a sidewalk. The property is more amactive the way it is now. Beth Hannon, 1874 Palace Avenue, appeazed and stated she and her husband live next door to the Keenans. It is intriguing and nice that there is not a sidewalk there. It looks like a park. The drawings she saw for the proposed sidewalk would require bumping out into the existing street in order to preserve the trees. Howell is already a narrow street. For Dave Keenan to get his caz out of the driveway would endanger his car and any cars pazked on the other side of the street because of the difficulty backing out. Mr. Srathman asked does she have occasion to watch children in the neighborhood. Ms, Harmon responded yes. The family that has proposed putting in the sidewalk and started this petition takes their children in a red wagon through the alley. If they are so concemed about sidewalk safety, she wonders why they do not use the e�sting sidewalk in front of their home. Mr. Strathman asked do kids cross the street because of the lack of a sidewalk. Ms. Harmon responded some will and some won't. Numerous children walk on the grass or on the street next to the grass, and some will cross to the other side. She does not see how the sidewalk would improve the safety or make it a bigger problem because she does not see how it would effect it at ail. This is a two block section of street that dead ends into a`T.' There are nice neighbors all around them and people watch out for each other and offer help when its needed. This petition was done behind the Keenans back. The people who posited the pe6don did not go to the �d S4� LEGISLAT'TVE HEARING, SIDEWALK ISSUE, 1876 PALACE AVENLTE, 4-27-00 Page 3 Keenans because they were confident the Keenans would be opposed to it. This has nothing to do with safety of children as much as enl�ancing someone's ego. Donald C. Aston, 1883 James Avenue, appeazed and stated he is opposed to the sidewalk for many of the reasons already stated. There is no safety issue without a sidewalk, but there may be safety concerns with it. It will narrow the street for half a block. There is pemut parking on the street because of the College of St. Catherine. One side of the sidewallc would be no pazking which would mean the Keenans could not park by their house. The driveway is so short, the end of their caz hangs over the sidewalk. There could be a problem with turniug onto the street with another caz waiting. As for the children, he is surprised that there are so many children in the azea because he does not see them in the evening. If the children are not old enough to cross the street or use the sidewalk on the other side, they are probably not old enough to be out of sight of the house. A couple of months ago, Mr. Aston had a City engineer at his house to look at his driveway. This engineer noticed a new sidewalk was going to be installed, and she went to talk to the Keenans. That is how the Keenans found out about the sidewalk. If this engineer was not out that day, the sidewalk would have gone in, and the Keenans wouidn't haue known anything about it. Also, the person that started the proposal is in the middle of the block. Steven J. Mongin, 1857 James Avenue, appeazed and stated he would like to see a sidewalk there. In accordance to the development in the neighborhood and addifion of bumpouts, the streets are becoming less safe for pedestrians. He is asking for a change, but the environxnent calls for it. In the time his three kids go through grade school, they will pass through thaz area over 6,000 times just going and coming home from school. There are other children in the neighborhood. Kids go to the alley and then across the street. For safety reasons,lvIr. Mongin would prefer they take a sidewalk up Howell to a stop sign and then cross there. That corner is normally a bus stop. One of the signers of the petifion has a son that waits there for a bus. If a child ran after the bus, that child could slip under it. Mr. Mongin would like his kids to ride their bikes around the block without going into the street. He has told them not to do that, but kids aze not completely obedient. If a bump out is installed without a sidewalk, the kids would be going out fiuther into tr�c than they do now. The proposed reconsriucfion with the new bumpouts could endanger the kids even more. Older people should be able to walk around the block without going into the street. One of the signers ofthe petition is a jogger. Mr, Mongin went on to say if City residents are asked why they choose the City over suburbs, the desire to have sidewalks is almost always mentioned. He talked to the Keenans before putting together a petition. Mr. Mongin spoke with the City to see if it would be possible to add a bumpout for the length of the properry line and install a sidewalk without harinnig the trees. One tree looks like it would have to be removed. The net loss of soil and green space is minunal because the buxnpout would bring new grass. As far aesthetics, a lantern would be placed there, and all the trees get to stay. Mr. Mongin regrets any bad feelings that this petition has caused. The City should be mare forthright and uniform in getting this done. Timothy Ciccarelli, 1878 Palace Avenue, appeared and stated he is on the corner of Palace and Howell and adjacent to the proposed sidewalk. It is reasonable for the people in the community �� s�3 LEGISLATIVE HEARING, SIDEWALK ISSLTE, 1876 PALACE AVENUE, 4-27-00 Page 4 to ask for a sidewalk there. His sidewalk does get a lot of use. Although there might be an inconvenience for lack of pazking, it is a small price to pay for uniformity of sidewalks in the neighborhoods. With the street construction, it is reasonable to visit this proposal, The four houses adjacent to Howell have driveways that cross the sidewalk. There is an alley that also crosses it. A lazge nuxnber of children and people use the azea. Mr. Strathman asked is there anythiug that should be clarified. Mr. Lueth stated the sidewalk would not be snuck in. Adjacent property owners aze notified of proposed sidewalk construcrion, and public hearings are held. The corner is a school bus stop, stated Mr. Keenan. Saint Paul Public Schools Transportation Deparhuent works out where the bus stops will be so it may not be a bus stop all the tnne. He does not want to lose pazking spaces alongside the house. Mrs. Keenan stated there is a sidewallc on the other side. Kids can go to the corner, cross over, and walk up Howell to go to school. She has seen kids swing into the street against traffic on theix bikes and zipping into the a11ey. If a kid is so young that he can fall under a school bus, an adult should be taking him to the bus. Mrs. Keenan does not think a person should change a neighborhood when moving in; rather, they should blend in and try to be supportive of their neighbors. Mr. McCann stated with a sidewalk there and with the bushes alongside the house, it may be more of a hazard than a help. Mr. Strathxnan stated this sidewalk is on a public right-of-way and the City has the right and the authority to build a public improvement on public right-of-way if the City believes it is in the public interest. It is not necessary that the adjacent property owners agree. In looking at the legislative code, sidewalks are always referred to as public improvements. It seems the rationale is that if the City is going to build a sidewallc at public expense, it is inherent that it constitutes an improvement. Some people say it is not an improvement, but a detriment. Some people say it does constitute an improvement. Gerry Strathxnan recommends that this sidewalk not be constructed. He does not believe that the conshuction of this sidewalk represents a significant improvement in the City. Given the cost involved, he does not believe there is a reason to install this sidewalk. The City Council has the final word on this matter and they will make their decision on May 24. Anyone that wishes to appear before the City Council to testify in opposirion to his recommendation needs to give notice to Public Works before May 17 so that staff will know they need to be present. The meeting was adjoumed at 3:24 p.m. fi�q CITY OF ST. PAIIL FINAL ORDER � �,� o 0 � � 1 � �.� R � � �� COUNC FILE O. �d-SO3 By � "`.�` File No._SO 092 Voting Ward_3 Ia the Matter of new sidewalk construction at the followiag location: az 500092 - East side South Howell Street from Palace Avenue to James Avenue at 1876 Palace Avenue Only_ *ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION RATES RESIDENTIAL RATES (One, two or three family structur s) Reconstruction (replacement of old sidewalk) -$9.6 per front foot for a five (5) foot wide walk and $11.58 per front foot for a si (6) foot wide walk. All other widths will be prorated accordi gly, i3ew construction (where no walk existed) - 1000 of the actual c t estimated to be approximately $4.32 per square foot. All corner residential properties will rec ve a credit up to the first 150 feet of new or reconstructed sidewalk alo and abutting the "long side" of the property. ML7LTI-RESIDENTIAL (More than three f�ly structures), NON RESIDENTIAL RATES For new and reconstructed sidewalk; 0� of actual cost estimated to be approximately $5.84 per square foot under Preliminary order � O _ The Council of the City o Saint Paul has conducted a public hearing upon the above improvement, due notice hereof having been given as prescribed by the City Charter; and WHEREAS, The Council as heard all persons, objections and recommendations pertaining to said propo d improvement and has fully_considered the same; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That th Council of the City of Saint Paul does hereby order that the above-described impro ent be made, and the proper City officers are hereby directed and authorized to pr ceed with the improvement; and be it FURTHER RESOL D, That upon the completion of said improvement, the proper City officers shall ca ulate all e�enses incurred therein and shall report the same to the City Council n accordance with Chapter 14 of the City Charter. �i4 t��E,€> COUNCILPERSO �-by Council: Date�oc Yeas Nays Benanav ✓ Certified Passed by Council Secretary i'-�. ' Harris Lantry Reiter ✓ ✓ — {��OS�r� � f � � In Favor 6 Against .�. A`os�,,.� , ` Mayor �l>-.Sd.� Si7MMARY OF ENGINEERING RECOMD�NDATION Wazd 3 � � �, PRO.IECT: CONSTRITCT NEW SIDEWALK E.S. S. HOWELL ST. from Patace Ave. to 7ames Ave. at 1876 Palace Ave. Only. IIVITIATING AC'I'ION: This order was initiated by the D'uector of Public Works as public necessiry on the basis of a petition with six (6) signers and an inspection of the walk. EXISTING CONDITION5 This walk as first time construcuon. Works - Sidewalk Division 2� !OO GREEN : I� DEPAR"fMENi DIRECTOR I�CRYATTORNEY � BUOGET DIRECTOR I� MAYOR (Ofl ASSISTMR) � � ASSOCIAiE New Sidewalk in Ward 3(See attached list) �� � �f/Zl�f�a ���d.3 � NO. 102751 � INRIAUDATE _ ❑ CITY CQUNCIL � _ ❑CRYCLEFK ❑ FliJ. & MGT. SERVICES DIR. _ �j Council Research _ °`�� "' �"`"' "'� PERSONAL SERVICE CANTRACTS MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUES710NS: �y _CMLSEAVICECAMMISSION 7, Hasthisperso�rtneverworkeduntleraconVactforthisdepartment? YES NO — 2. Has this persoNfirtn ever been a city employee? — YES NO 3. Does this personJfirtn possess a skilt not nomially possessetl by a�y cunent city employee? YES NO oB,�ECrivE? Explain all yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green sPeet OPPORTUNI7V (WHO, WHAT, WHEN, WHERE, WH`n: The prob4em "defective sidewalk" was caused by multiple problems, tree roots, poor subgrade materials, freefthaw cycles, service lite limits, chemical additives, extreme temperature variations, etc. These problems occur on a citywide basis and must be addressed and corrected annually. Left uncossected, the sidewalk condition would worsen to a state where ii would be unusable and subject to increased pedestrian injuries from falls and possibie litigations. IF APPROVED: The community will benefit from this project because it will provide safe defect free sidewalks for its citizens. The sidewalk contracts are done by private contractors generating public sector jobs as a result. IF APPFOVED: Historically, the sidewalk reconstruction has created negative feedback laecause of construction procedures and assessments. Property owners question the assessments, despite the fact that up to one-half the assessment is City subsidized. Having to assess for walk reconstruction remains a controversial issue. IF NOT APPROVED' This option would allow the infrastructure of sidewalk stock to deteriorate, which in turn, will generate more personal injury suits, resulting in the expe�diture of larger dollar amounts in repairs a�d replacement, as well as claim payouts. f�B��CC�1 �:?�j ,.� �.��# {OUNTOFTRANSACT{ON$ 2,�S2.4O COSTIREVENUEBUDGE7ED(CIRCLEOtdE) !ES No souece 00-M-0671 A, PIA 00 = 620,000 ACINI7YNUMBER C00-2T753-0784-00000 INFORMAT70N:(IXPlA1N) Q� aST - 3 • c. c�a oa = so,oao �l S43 CITY OF ST. PADL COUNC FILE NO. O� �'��.� PRELIMINARY ORDER By �`�� '�"�� � 1 File No._50�092 � Voting Ward_ 3_ Ia the Matter of new sidewalk coastructioa ia the following loaatioa: 500092 - East side South Howell Street from Palace Avenue to James Avenue at 1876 Palace Avenue Only. *ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION RATES RESIDENTIAL RATES (One, two or three family structures) Reconstxuction (replacement of old sidewalky -$9.65 per front £oot for a five (5) foot wide walk and $11.58 per front foot for a six (6) foot wide walk. All other widths will be prorated accordingly. Nem coastruction (where no walk existed) - 100� of the actual cost estimated to be approximately $4.32 per square foot. Al1 corner residential properties will receive a credit up to the first 150 feet of new or reconstructed sidewalk along and abutting the "long side" of the property. MULTI-RESIDENTIAL(More than three family structures), NON-RESIDENTIAL RATES For new and reconstructed sidewalk; 100� of actual cost estimated to be approximately $5.84 per square foot. The Council of the City of Saint Paul having received the report of the Mayor upon the above improvement, and having considered said report, hereby resolves: 1. That the said report and the same is hereby approved with no alternatives, � that the estimated cost thereof is *SEE ABOVE for estimated construction rates, financed by assessments and 2000 Public Improvement Aid. 2 3 That a public hearing be had on said improvement on the 24 dav of Mav. 2000 5:30 o'clock P.M. in the Council Chambers of the City Ha11 and Court House Building in the City of Saint Paul. That notice of said public hearing be given to the gersons and in the manner provided by the Charter, stating the time and place of hearing, the nature of the improvement and the total cost thereof as estimated. COUNCILPERSONS Yeas Nays �� enanav r/Blakey ✓� ostrom ✓Coleman ✓Harris ✓Lantry �Reiter �In Favor � Against Adopted by Council: Date pa Certified Passed by Council cretary BY ��.�:�-�$^ Mayor �� s�.� NIINUTES OF TI� LEGISLATIVE HEARING SIDEWALK ISSUE - 1876 Palace Avenue Thursday, Apri127, 2000 Room 330 Courthouse Gerry Strathman, Legislative Hearing Officer The meeting was called to order at 2:31 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Larry Lueth, Public Works; Gerald Tvedt, Public Works Gerry Strathman stated this mee6ng is being held to get points of view and have discussion about a sidewalk at 1876 Palace Avenue. Gerald Tvedt reported the sidewallt is missing on Ha11 Street between Palace and the alley to the south: Public Works was awaze this segment of walk was missing, but it was brought to their attention that people in the area wanted the sidewalk. 1876 Palace has pine trees growing on the boulevard; therefore, Public Works is proposing building a five foot sidewalk that is closer to the curb and not take any pine trees. This is the long side of the properly so there is no assessment to the homeowner. It is the onty piece of sidewalk not completed 'm a three block square area. What is the City's policy with respect to sidewalks, asked Mr. Strathman. Mr. Tvedt responded they are trying to complete the sidewalk system where it is practical and needed. There aze some areas where there are no pedestrian or school traffiq but this is not the case here. NIr. Strathman asked are there other sidewalks not completed in Saint Paul. Mr. Tvedt responded there are all kinds of them. David and Sue Keenan, 1876 Palace Avenue, appeared. Mr. Keenan stated they are opposed to having the sidewalk there. They did not have anything to do with a petirion to ask for a sidewalk and did not lrnow there was a petirion being circulated, but they did get a copy of it. They have been at this property for 25 yeazs, and there has never been a problem on that corner. Howell is not a long street: it ends there and T's off. They talked to a lot of neighbors and severai people with children, people who have raised children in that azea, retired people who walk in that area; all those people are on their petition in opposition to the sidewalk. Industry and apartment buildings wall not come into the area to change the tr�c patterns. There are more cars than in the past and there is a stop sign there. When they bought the properry, they were attracted to the yazd because it is unique. It is pazk-like. Some people said they see the yard as a big asset to the neighborhood. Little kids coming through the alley see the end of the sidewalk as a visual reminder of their boundaries. There aze 27 names on their list representing about 23 different properties all opposed to the sidewalk. Mr. Strathxnan asked is the sidewalk to be constructed on the public right-of-way. Mr. Keenan responded yes. Mrs. Keenan responded it will affect their property. D�-Sd� LEGISLATIVE HEARING, SIDEWALK ISSUE, 1876 PALACE AVENUE, 4-27-00 Page 2 Mr. Strathman stated usually people oppose the sidewallc because they don't want to pay for it. It is not clear what harm this sidewalk will do to this property. Mr. Keenan responded they were attracted to the uniqueness of the property. They like it aesthetically. Even though they wiil not be paying for it, Mrs. Keenan responded, it is still a waste of taxpayer money. Mr. Strathman stated one of the proposals was to move it closer to the curb and asked haue they considered mm�ing it along the curb. Mr. Tvedt responded they would move it out so the e�sting trees would not be effected. For the safety of pedestrians, Public Works prefers to keep the sidewalk back a bit. Mr. Lueth responded another reason to keep it back is for storing snow in the boulevard. The current proposal is curb, then 3%2 foot buffer of grass, and then a 5 foot wide sidewalk, asked Mr. Strathman. Mr. Tvedt responded that is conect. Frank McCann, 1879 James Avenue, appeared and stated he lives directly behind the Keenans on James and Howell. He has never heard anyone say they want a sidewalk in there. He was surprised when he was approached to sign a petition in favor of the sidewalk. He told the person that the Keenans were friends of his and he would not sign a petition. The properry has an attached garage to the house. If a sidewalk is installed, they will ha�e to back out of that garage, and there may be a problem when kids are riding their bikes. Trees are very close and they will be butted against the sidewalk. It is safer without a sidewalk. The property is more amactive the way it is now. Beth Hannon, 1874 Palace Avenue, appeazed and stated she and her husband live next door to the Keenans. It is intriguing and nice that there is not a sidewalk there. It looks like a park. The drawings she saw for the proposed sidewalk would require bumping out into the existing street in order to preserve the trees. Howell is already a narrow street. For Dave Keenan to get his caz out of the driveway would endanger his car and any cars pazked on the other side of the street because of the difficulty backing out. Mr. Srathman asked does she have occasion to watch children in the neighborhood. Ms, Harmon responded yes. The family that has proposed putting in the sidewalk and started this petition takes their children in a red wagon through the alley. If they are so concemed about sidewalk safety, she wonders why they do not use the e�sting sidewalk in front of their home. Mr. Strathman asked do kids cross the street because of the lack of a sidewalk. Ms. Harmon responded some will and some won't. Numerous children walk on the grass or on the street next to the grass, and some will cross to the other side. She does not see how the sidewalk would improve the safety or make it a bigger problem because she does not see how it would effect it at ail. This is a two block section of street that dead ends into a`T.' There are nice neighbors all around them and people watch out for each other and offer help when its needed. This petition was done behind the Keenans back. The people who posited the pe6don did not go to the �d S4� LEGISLAT'TVE HEARING, SIDEWALK ISSUE, 1876 PALACE AVENLTE, 4-27-00 Page 3 Keenans because they were confident the Keenans would be opposed to it. This has nothing to do with safety of children as much as enl�ancing someone's ego. Donald C. Aston, 1883 James Avenue, appeazed and stated he is opposed to the sidewalk for many of the reasons already stated. There is no safety issue without a sidewalk, but there may be safety concerns with it. It will narrow the street for half a block. There is pemut parking on the street because of the College of St. Catherine. One side of the sidewallc would be no pazking which would mean the Keenans could not park by their house. The driveway is so short, the end of their caz hangs over the sidewalk. There could be a problem with turniug onto the street with another caz waiting. As for the children, he is surprised that there are so many children in the azea because he does not see them in the evening. If the children are not old enough to cross the street or use the sidewalk on the other side, they are probably not old enough to be out of sight of the house. A couple of months ago, Mr. Aston had a City engineer at his house to look at his driveway. This engineer noticed a new sidewalk was going to be installed, and she went to talk to the Keenans. That is how the Keenans found out about the sidewalk. If this engineer was not out that day, the sidewalk would have gone in, and the Keenans wouidn't haue known anything about it. Also, the person that started the proposal is in the middle of the block. Steven J. Mongin, 1857 James Avenue, appeazed and stated he would like to see a sidewalk there. In accordance to the development in the neighborhood and addifion of bumpouts, the streets are becoming less safe for pedestrians. He is asking for a change, but the environxnent calls for it. In the time his three kids go through grade school, they will pass through thaz area over 6,000 times just going and coming home from school. There are other children in the neighborhood. Kids go to the alley and then across the street. For safety reasons,lvIr. Mongin would prefer they take a sidewalk up Howell to a stop sign and then cross there. That corner is normally a bus stop. One of the signers of the petifion has a son that waits there for a bus. If a child ran after the bus, that child could slip under it. Mr. Mongin would like his kids to ride their bikes around the block without going into the street. He has told them not to do that, but kids aze not completely obedient. If a bump out is installed without a sidewalk, the kids would be going out fiuther into tr�c than they do now. The proposed reconsriucfion with the new bumpouts could endanger the kids even more. Older people should be able to walk around the block without going into the street. One of the signers ofthe petition is a jogger. Mr, Mongin went on to say if City residents are asked why they choose the City over suburbs, the desire to have sidewalks is almost always mentioned. He talked to the Keenans before putting together a petition. Mr. Mongin spoke with the City to see if it would be possible to add a bumpout for the length of the properry line and install a sidewalk without harinnig the trees. One tree looks like it would have to be removed. The net loss of soil and green space is minunal because the buxnpout would bring new grass. As far aesthetics, a lantern would be placed there, and all the trees get to stay. Mr. Mongin regrets any bad feelings that this petition has caused. The City should be mare forthright and uniform in getting this done. Timothy Ciccarelli, 1878 Palace Avenue, appeared and stated he is on the corner of Palace and Howell and adjacent to the proposed sidewalk. It is reasonable for the people in the community �� s�3 LEGISLATIVE HEARING, SIDEWALK ISSLTE, 1876 PALACE AVENUE, 4-27-00 Page 4 to ask for a sidewalk there. His sidewalk does get a lot of use. Although there might be an inconvenience for lack of pazking, it is a small price to pay for uniformity of sidewalks in the neighborhoods. With the street construction, it is reasonable to visit this proposal, The four houses adjacent to Howell have driveways that cross the sidewalk. There is an alley that also crosses it. A lazge nuxnber of children and people use the azea. Mr. Strathman asked is there anythiug that should be clarified. Mr. Lueth stated the sidewalk would not be snuck in. Adjacent property owners aze notified of proposed sidewalk construcrion, and public hearings are held. The corner is a school bus stop, stated Mr. Keenan. Saint Paul Public Schools Transportation Deparhuent works out where the bus stops will be so it may not be a bus stop all the tnne. He does not want to lose pazking spaces alongside the house. Mrs. Keenan stated there is a sidewallc on the other side. Kids can go to the corner, cross over, and walk up Howell to go to school. She has seen kids swing into the street against traffic on theix bikes and zipping into the a11ey. If a kid is so young that he can fall under a school bus, an adult should be taking him to the bus. Mrs. Keenan does not think a person should change a neighborhood when moving in; rather, they should blend in and try to be supportive of their neighbors. Mr. McCann stated with a sidewalk there and with the bushes alongside the house, it may be more of a hazard than a help. Mr. Strathxnan stated this sidewalk is on a public right-of-way and the City has the right and the authority to build a public improvement on public right-of-way if the City believes it is in the public interest. It is not necessary that the adjacent property owners agree. In looking at the legislative code, sidewalks are always referred to as public improvements. It seems the rationale is that if the City is going to build a sidewallc at public expense, it is inherent that it constitutes an improvement. Some people say it is not an improvement, but a detriment. Some people say it does constitute an improvement. Gerry Strathxnan recommends that this sidewalk not be constructed. He does not believe that the conshuction of this sidewalk represents a significant improvement in the City. Given the cost involved, he does not believe there is a reason to install this sidewalk. The City Council has the final word on this matter and they will make their decision on May 24. Anyone that wishes to appear before the City Council to testify in opposirion to his recommendation needs to give notice to Public Works before May 17 so that staff will know they need to be present. The meeting was adjoumed at 3:24 p.m. fi�q CITY OF ST. PAIIL FINAL ORDER � �,� o 0 � � 1 � �.� R � � �� COUNC FILE O. �d-SO3 By � "`.�` File No._SO 092 Voting Ward_3 Ia the Matter of new sidewalk construction at the followiag location: az 500092 - East side South Howell Street from Palace Avenue to James Avenue at 1876 Palace Avenue Only_ *ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION RATES RESIDENTIAL RATES (One, two or three family structur s) Reconstruction (replacement of old sidewalk) -$9.6 per front foot for a five (5) foot wide walk and $11.58 per front foot for a si (6) foot wide walk. All other widths will be prorated accordi gly, i3ew construction (where no walk existed) - 1000 of the actual c t estimated to be approximately $4.32 per square foot. All corner residential properties will rec ve a credit up to the first 150 feet of new or reconstructed sidewalk alo and abutting the "long side" of the property. ML7LTI-RESIDENTIAL (More than three f�ly structures), NON RESIDENTIAL RATES For new and reconstructed sidewalk; 0� of actual cost estimated to be approximately $5.84 per square foot under Preliminary order � O _ The Council of the City o Saint Paul has conducted a public hearing upon the above improvement, due notice hereof having been given as prescribed by the City Charter; and WHEREAS, The Council as heard all persons, objections and recommendations pertaining to said propo d improvement and has fully_considered the same; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That th Council of the City of Saint Paul does hereby order that the above-described impro ent be made, and the proper City officers are hereby directed and authorized to pr ceed with the improvement; and be it FURTHER RESOL D, That upon the completion of said improvement, the proper City officers shall ca ulate all e�enses incurred therein and shall report the same to the City Council n accordance with Chapter 14 of the City Charter. �i4 t��E,€> COUNCILPERSO �-by Council: Date�oc Yeas Nays Benanav ✓ Certified Passed by Council Secretary i'-�. ' Harris Lantry Reiter ✓ ✓ — {��OS�r� � f � � In Favor 6 Against .�. A`os�,,.� , ` Mayor �l>-.Sd.� Si7MMARY OF ENGINEERING RECOMD�NDATION Wazd 3 � � �, PRO.IECT: CONSTRITCT NEW SIDEWALK E.S. S. HOWELL ST. from Patace Ave. to 7ames Ave. at 1876 Palace Ave. Only. IIVITIATING AC'I'ION: This order was initiated by the D'uector of Public Works as public necessiry on the basis of a petition with six (6) signers and an inspection of the walk. EXISTING CONDITION5 This walk as first time construcuon. Works - Sidewalk Division 2� !OO GREEN : I� DEPAR"fMENi DIRECTOR I�CRYATTORNEY � BUOGET DIRECTOR I� MAYOR (Ofl ASSISTMR) � � ASSOCIAiE New Sidewalk in Ward 3(See attached list) �� � �f/Zl�f�a ���d.3 � NO. 102751 � INRIAUDATE _ ❑ CITY CQUNCIL � _ ❑CRYCLEFK ❑ FliJ. & MGT. SERVICES DIR. _ �j Council Research _ °`�� "' �"`"' "'� PERSONAL SERVICE CANTRACTS MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUES710NS: �y _CMLSEAVICECAMMISSION 7, Hasthisperso�rtneverworkeduntleraconVactforthisdepartment? YES NO — 2. Has this persoNfirtn ever been a city employee? — YES NO 3. Does this personJfirtn possess a skilt not nomially possessetl by a�y cunent city employee? YES NO oB,�ECrivE? Explain all yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green sPeet OPPORTUNI7V (WHO, WHAT, WHEN, WHERE, WH`n: The prob4em "defective sidewalk" was caused by multiple problems, tree roots, poor subgrade materials, freefthaw cycles, service lite limits, chemical additives, extreme temperature variations, etc. These problems occur on a citywide basis and must be addressed and corrected annually. Left uncossected, the sidewalk condition would worsen to a state where ii would be unusable and subject to increased pedestrian injuries from falls and possibie litigations. IF APPROVED: The community will benefit from this project because it will provide safe defect free sidewalks for its citizens. The sidewalk contracts are done by private contractors generating public sector jobs as a result. IF APPFOVED: Historically, the sidewalk reconstruction has created negative feedback laecause of construction procedures and assessments. Property owners question the assessments, despite the fact that up to one-half the assessment is City subsidized. Having to assess for walk reconstruction remains a controversial issue. IF NOT APPROVED' This option would allow the infrastructure of sidewalk stock to deteriorate, which in turn, will generate more personal injury suits, resulting in the expe�diture of larger dollar amounts in repairs a�d replacement, as well as claim payouts. f�B��CC�1 �:?�j ,.� �.��# {OUNTOFTRANSACT{ON$ 2,�S2.4O COSTIREVENUEBUDGE7ED(CIRCLEOtdE) !ES No souece 00-M-0671 A, PIA 00 = 620,000 ACINI7YNUMBER C00-2T753-0784-00000 INFORMAT70N:(IXPlA1N) Q� aST - 3 • c. c�a oa = so,oao �l S43 CITY OF ST. PADL COUNC FILE NO. O� �'��.� PRELIMINARY ORDER By �`�� '�"�� � 1 File No._50�092 � Voting Ward_ 3_ Ia the Matter of new sidewalk coastructioa ia the following loaatioa: 500092 - East side South Howell Street from Palace Avenue to James Avenue at 1876 Palace Avenue Only. *ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION RATES RESIDENTIAL RATES (One, two or three family structures) Reconstxuction (replacement of old sidewalky -$9.65 per front £oot for a five (5) foot wide walk and $11.58 per front foot for a six (6) foot wide walk. All other widths will be prorated accordingly. Nem coastruction (where no walk existed) - 100� of the actual cost estimated to be approximately $4.32 per square foot. Al1 corner residential properties will receive a credit up to the first 150 feet of new or reconstructed sidewalk along and abutting the "long side" of the property. MULTI-RESIDENTIAL(More than three family structures), NON-RESIDENTIAL RATES For new and reconstructed sidewalk; 100� of actual cost estimated to be approximately $5.84 per square foot. The Council of the City of Saint Paul having received the report of the Mayor upon the above improvement, and having considered said report, hereby resolves: 1. That the said report and the same is hereby approved with no alternatives, � that the estimated cost thereof is *SEE ABOVE for estimated construction rates, financed by assessments and 2000 Public Improvement Aid. 2 3 That a public hearing be had on said improvement on the 24 dav of Mav. 2000 5:30 o'clock P.M. in the Council Chambers of the City Ha11 and Court House Building in the City of Saint Paul. That notice of said public hearing be given to the gersons and in the manner provided by the Charter, stating the time and place of hearing, the nature of the improvement and the total cost thereof as estimated. COUNCILPERSONS Yeas Nays �� enanav r/Blakey ✓� ostrom ✓Coleman ✓Harris ✓Lantry �Reiter �In Favor � Against Adopted by Council: Date pa Certified Passed by Council cretary BY ��.�:�-�$^ Mayor �� s�.� NIINUTES OF TI� LEGISLATIVE HEARING SIDEWALK ISSUE - 1876 Palace Avenue Thursday, Apri127, 2000 Room 330 Courthouse Gerry Strathman, Legislative Hearing Officer The meeting was called to order at 2:31 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Larry Lueth, Public Works; Gerald Tvedt, Public Works Gerry Strathman stated this mee6ng is being held to get points of view and have discussion about a sidewalk at 1876 Palace Avenue. Gerald Tvedt reported the sidewallt is missing on Ha11 Street between Palace and the alley to the south: Public Works was awaze this segment of walk was missing, but it was brought to their attention that people in the area wanted the sidewalk. 1876 Palace has pine trees growing on the boulevard; therefore, Public Works is proposing building a five foot sidewalk that is closer to the curb and not take any pine trees. This is the long side of the properly so there is no assessment to the homeowner. It is the onty piece of sidewalk not completed 'm a three block square area. What is the City's policy with respect to sidewalks, asked Mr. Strathman. Mr. Tvedt responded they are trying to complete the sidewalk system where it is practical and needed. There aze some areas where there are no pedestrian or school traffiq but this is not the case here. NIr. Strathman asked are there other sidewalks not completed in Saint Paul. Mr. Tvedt responded there are all kinds of them. David and Sue Keenan, 1876 Palace Avenue, appeared. Mr. Keenan stated they are opposed to having the sidewalk there. They did not have anything to do with a petirion to ask for a sidewalk and did not lrnow there was a petirion being circulated, but they did get a copy of it. They have been at this property for 25 yeazs, and there has never been a problem on that corner. Howell is not a long street: it ends there and T's off. They talked to a lot of neighbors and severai people with children, people who have raised children in that azea, retired people who walk in that area; all those people are on their petition in opposition to the sidewalk. Industry and apartment buildings wall not come into the area to change the tr�c patterns. There are more cars than in the past and there is a stop sign there. When they bought the properry, they were attracted to the yazd because it is unique. It is pazk-like. Some people said they see the yard as a big asset to the neighborhood. Little kids coming through the alley see the end of the sidewalk as a visual reminder of their boundaries. There aze 27 names on their list representing about 23 different properties all opposed to the sidewalk. Mr. Strathxnan asked is the sidewalk to be constructed on the public right-of-way. Mr. Keenan responded yes. Mrs. Keenan responded it will affect their property. D�-Sd� LEGISLATIVE HEARING, SIDEWALK ISSUE, 1876 PALACE AVENUE, 4-27-00 Page 2 Mr. Strathman stated usually people oppose the sidewallc because they don't want to pay for it. It is not clear what harm this sidewalk will do to this property. Mr. Keenan responded they were attracted to the uniqueness of the property. They like it aesthetically. Even though they wiil not be paying for it, Mrs. Keenan responded, it is still a waste of taxpayer money. Mr. Strathman stated one of the proposals was to move it closer to the curb and asked haue they considered mm�ing it along the curb. Mr. Tvedt responded they would move it out so the e�sting trees would not be effected. For the safety of pedestrians, Public Works prefers to keep the sidewalk back a bit. Mr. Lueth responded another reason to keep it back is for storing snow in the boulevard. The current proposal is curb, then 3%2 foot buffer of grass, and then a 5 foot wide sidewalk, asked Mr. Strathman. Mr. Tvedt responded that is conect. Frank McCann, 1879 James Avenue, appeared and stated he lives directly behind the Keenans on James and Howell. He has never heard anyone say they want a sidewalk in there. He was surprised when he was approached to sign a petition in favor of the sidewalk. He told the person that the Keenans were friends of his and he would not sign a petition. The properry has an attached garage to the house. If a sidewalk is installed, they will ha�e to back out of that garage, and there may be a problem when kids are riding their bikes. Trees are very close and they will be butted against the sidewalk. It is safer without a sidewalk. The property is more amactive the way it is now. Beth Hannon, 1874 Palace Avenue, appeazed and stated she and her husband live next door to the Keenans. It is intriguing and nice that there is not a sidewalk there. It looks like a park. The drawings she saw for the proposed sidewalk would require bumping out into the existing street in order to preserve the trees. Howell is already a narrow street. For Dave Keenan to get his caz out of the driveway would endanger his car and any cars pazked on the other side of the street because of the difficulty backing out. Mr. Srathman asked does she have occasion to watch children in the neighborhood. Ms, Harmon responded yes. The family that has proposed putting in the sidewalk and started this petition takes their children in a red wagon through the alley. If they are so concemed about sidewalk safety, she wonders why they do not use the e�sting sidewalk in front of their home. Mr. Strathman asked do kids cross the street because of the lack of a sidewalk. Ms. Harmon responded some will and some won't. Numerous children walk on the grass or on the street next to the grass, and some will cross to the other side. She does not see how the sidewalk would improve the safety or make it a bigger problem because she does not see how it would effect it at ail. This is a two block section of street that dead ends into a`T.' There are nice neighbors all around them and people watch out for each other and offer help when its needed. This petition was done behind the Keenans back. The people who posited the pe6don did not go to the �d S4� LEGISLAT'TVE HEARING, SIDEWALK ISSUE, 1876 PALACE AVENLTE, 4-27-00 Page 3 Keenans because they were confident the Keenans would be opposed to it. This has nothing to do with safety of children as much as enl�ancing someone's ego. Donald C. Aston, 1883 James Avenue, appeazed and stated he is opposed to the sidewalk for many of the reasons already stated. There is no safety issue without a sidewalk, but there may be safety concerns with it. It will narrow the street for half a block. There is pemut parking on the street because of the College of St. Catherine. One side of the sidewallc would be no pazking which would mean the Keenans could not park by their house. The driveway is so short, the end of their caz hangs over the sidewalk. There could be a problem with turniug onto the street with another caz waiting. As for the children, he is surprised that there are so many children in the azea because he does not see them in the evening. If the children are not old enough to cross the street or use the sidewalk on the other side, they are probably not old enough to be out of sight of the house. A couple of months ago, Mr. Aston had a City engineer at his house to look at his driveway. This engineer noticed a new sidewalk was going to be installed, and she went to talk to the Keenans. That is how the Keenans found out about the sidewalk. If this engineer was not out that day, the sidewalk would have gone in, and the Keenans wouidn't haue known anything about it. Also, the person that started the proposal is in the middle of the block. Steven J. Mongin, 1857 James Avenue, appeazed and stated he would like to see a sidewalk there. In accordance to the development in the neighborhood and addifion of bumpouts, the streets are becoming less safe for pedestrians. He is asking for a change, but the environxnent calls for it. In the time his three kids go through grade school, they will pass through thaz area over 6,000 times just going and coming home from school. There are other children in the neighborhood. Kids go to the alley and then across the street. For safety reasons,lvIr. Mongin would prefer they take a sidewalk up Howell to a stop sign and then cross there. That corner is normally a bus stop. One of the signers of the petifion has a son that waits there for a bus. If a child ran after the bus, that child could slip under it. Mr. Mongin would like his kids to ride their bikes around the block without going into the street. He has told them not to do that, but kids aze not completely obedient. If a bump out is installed without a sidewalk, the kids would be going out fiuther into tr�c than they do now. The proposed reconsriucfion with the new bumpouts could endanger the kids even more. Older people should be able to walk around the block without going into the street. One of the signers ofthe petition is a jogger. Mr, Mongin went on to say if City residents are asked why they choose the City over suburbs, the desire to have sidewalks is almost always mentioned. He talked to the Keenans before putting together a petition. Mr. Mongin spoke with the City to see if it would be possible to add a bumpout for the length of the properry line and install a sidewalk without harinnig the trees. One tree looks like it would have to be removed. The net loss of soil and green space is minunal because the buxnpout would bring new grass. As far aesthetics, a lantern would be placed there, and all the trees get to stay. Mr. Mongin regrets any bad feelings that this petition has caused. The City should be mare forthright and uniform in getting this done. Timothy Ciccarelli, 1878 Palace Avenue, appeared and stated he is on the corner of Palace and Howell and adjacent to the proposed sidewalk. It is reasonable for the people in the community �� s�3 LEGISLATIVE HEARING, SIDEWALK ISSLTE, 1876 PALACE AVENUE, 4-27-00 Page 4 to ask for a sidewalk there. His sidewalk does get a lot of use. Although there might be an inconvenience for lack of pazking, it is a small price to pay for uniformity of sidewalks in the neighborhoods. With the street construction, it is reasonable to visit this proposal, The four houses adjacent to Howell have driveways that cross the sidewalk. There is an alley that also crosses it. A lazge nuxnber of children and people use the azea. Mr. Strathman asked is there anythiug that should be clarified. Mr. Lueth stated the sidewalk would not be snuck in. Adjacent property owners aze notified of proposed sidewalk construcrion, and public hearings are held. The corner is a school bus stop, stated Mr. Keenan. Saint Paul Public Schools Transportation Deparhuent works out where the bus stops will be so it may not be a bus stop all the tnne. He does not want to lose pazking spaces alongside the house. Mrs. Keenan stated there is a sidewallc on the other side. Kids can go to the corner, cross over, and walk up Howell to go to school. She has seen kids swing into the street against traffic on theix bikes and zipping into the a11ey. If a kid is so young that he can fall under a school bus, an adult should be taking him to the bus. Mrs. Keenan does not think a person should change a neighborhood when moving in; rather, they should blend in and try to be supportive of their neighbors. Mr. McCann stated with a sidewalk there and with the bushes alongside the house, it may be more of a hazard than a help. Mr. Strathxnan stated this sidewalk is on a public right-of-way and the City has the right and the authority to build a public improvement on public right-of-way if the City believes it is in the public interest. It is not necessary that the adjacent property owners agree. In looking at the legislative code, sidewalks are always referred to as public improvements. It seems the rationale is that if the City is going to build a sidewallc at public expense, it is inherent that it constitutes an improvement. Some people say it is not an improvement, but a detriment. Some people say it does constitute an improvement. Gerry Strathxnan recommends that this sidewalk not be constructed. He does not believe that the conshuction of this sidewalk represents a significant improvement in the City. Given the cost involved, he does not believe there is a reason to install this sidewalk. The City Council has the final word on this matter and they will make their decision on May 24. Anyone that wishes to appear before the City Council to testify in opposirion to his recommendation needs to give notice to Public Works before May 17 so that staff will know they need to be present. The meeting was adjoumed at 3:24 p.m. fi�q