The URL can be used to link to this page

01-671CITY OF ST. PAUL �� G�� .�� . COUN FILE b� G� I I _ t00 FINAL ORDER By �`�'�e`�� — J`��a� � Fil o SO 039, 50105 , 501067, 501139 ��1 Vo g ard_1,3,4 In the Matter of sidewalk reconstruation at the following locations: ;!501039 - Both sides L ( f � rom Far to Nina Str Q ��i�e� TY�� ( lC}C I YC$�C� S TLIY' 3� ` L.C�IY � I'�Vt� 4�� Lc,...r� �YI 501067 - Both Sides Fairmount Avenue from South Prior Avenue to South Howell Street 501139 - North side West University Avenue from Aldine Street to Fry Street. (Laid over from June 6, 2001) Soio53- 1��. v��S�S�� osr �wrc..�o '�-o T1ar'� t'� 9"�•1�2X�v�'�+ S�v ae'C"" � V £�1'v�. �cr�c"�4-. � J L Y�� -o! O`� �� ar�� e� b e\ 5��: v. c�� Y�or�h S i� e. G� .�(�� (�" 17-C ` � 2�� 'V� C: r . �. M.� xah C� --� � J e�C\�l L.1 Sfir �'-vow. Sc�-.e 'a-� �� 4S'ti' S� � �,� � `S l5 �c�c�'cr �� ORIG��iAL o�-�� *ESTIMATED CONSTRIICTION RATES RESIDENTIAL RATES (One, two or three family structures) Reconstruction (replacement of old sidewalk) -$10.06 per front foot for a five (5) foot wide walk and $12.07 per front foot for a six (6) foot wide walk. Al1 other widths will be prorated accordingly. New construction (where no walk existed) - 1000 of the actual cost estimated to be approximately $4.50 per square foot. All corner residential properties will receive a credit up to the first 150 feet of new or reconstructed sidewalk along and abutting the "long side" of the property. MULTI-RESIDENTIAL (More than three family structures), NON RESIDENTIAL RATES For new and reconstructed sidewalk; 100$ of actual cost estimated to be approximately $6.09 per square foot. under Preliminary order approved The Council of the City of Saint Paul has conducted a public hearing upon the above improvement, due notice thereof having been given as prescribed by the City Charter; and WHEREAS, The Council has heard all persons, objections and recommendations pertaining to said proposed improvement and has fully considered the same; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the Council of the City of Saint Paul does hereby order that the above-described improvement be made, and the proper City officers are hereby directed and authorized to proceed with the improvement; and be it FURTHER RESOLVED, That upon the completion of said improvement, the proper City officers shall calculate all expenses incurred therein and shall report the same to the City Council in accordance with Chapter 14 of the City Charter. COUNCILPERSONS Yeas Nays �enanav ✓Blakey ✓BOStrom +�(.`ol eman vAarris vLantry �iter � In Favor � Against Adopted by Council: Date�2-oc�i Certified Passed by Council Secretary or �1 C 6- ;7UN� 2 oi �► _ T.M.SJREAL ESTATE DIVISION Da�� June 14, 2001 Green Sheet Number: � 1 � � Q$ ontact Persou and Phone Nnmber: EPAR1'MENT DIRECTOR 1 Cl'CY COi1NCII. Tom Sawyer 266-8850 A.rl.ox�v�Y rr� c�,exx 0�-(�? � i1DGET DIliECfOR FFICE OF FINANCIAI. SVCS ust be on Council Ag�da by:�E �f' � nA' YOR (OR ASSISTANT) WV OTAL # OF SIGNATURE P GES 1 (CLIP ALL LOCATTONS FOR SIGNAT[7RE) CTION REQUESTED: � ` econstruct sidewallcs in Wards 1, 3& 4. � COMII�NDATIONS: APPRO (A) OR REJE (R) ERSONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING: . Has the person/firm ever worked under a rnntract for this depar[ment? YES NO PLANNING COMMISSION A STAFF ' . Has this persodfirm eva bcen a City employee? YES NO CIVII.SBRVICECOMML9SION - . Does this persodfirm possess a slvli not normally possessed by any YES NO cm co�irree �+'�t City emploYee7 , I E Iain all YES answers on a s azate sheet and attach UPPORTS WHICH COUNC OBJECTIVE? COUNCII. WARD(S) ��Q DISTRICT PLANNING COUNCIL IATING PROBLEM, ISSUE, OPPORTUNII'P (Who, What, When, W6ere, Why?): The problem "defective sidewalk" was caused by mul6ple problems, treet roots, poor subgrade materials, freeze/thaw cycles, service life limits, chemical additives, extreme temperature variaEions, etc.-'Fhese problems -- o occur on a citywide basis and must be addressed and corrected annually. L,eft uncorrected, the sidewalk condition would worsen to a state where it would be unusable and subjeM to increased pedestrian injuries from Fal�s �p�� possible litigations. �,�S�2Pu�1 Le DVANTAGESIFAPPROVED: ,, , `°j � � ��' The community will bene�t from this pmjeM because it will provide safe de£ect free sidewalks for its citizens. The sidewalk contracts aze done by private contractors genera6ng public seMor jobs. ISADVANTAGES IF APPROVED: Historically, the sidewalk reconstruction has created negative feedback because 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. ISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED: This option would allow the iufrastructure of sidewalk stock to deteriorate, which in turn, will generate more personal injury siuts, resulting in the expenditure of larger dollar amounts in repairs and replacement as well as claim payouts. OTAL AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION: $ COST/REVENUE BiJD(:ETED (CIIiCLE ONE) YES NO ING SOURCE: ACTIVi1'Y NUMBER: INANCIAL INFORMATION: (EXPLAI� 01-C�i I'7�Z�7�11 r _ r� � Le�v r � � [ �7� � c e � Date: June 15, 2001 Tune: 1:30 p.m. Place: Room 330 City Hall 15 West Kellogg Blvd. Gerry Strathman Legislative Hearing Officer Aropeal of sidewalk construction at 1515 Scheffer Avenue Legislative Hearing Officer recommends that the sidewaik not be completed at this time, except for six feet to the driveway. d` (O� � ��. MINLTTES OF 'i'I� LEGISLATIVE AEEARING SIDEWALK ISSLTE - I515 Scheffer Avenue Friday, 7une 15, 2001 Room 330 Courthouse Gerry Strathman, Legislative Hearing Officer The meeting was called to order at 133 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Allan Czaia, Public Works-Sidewalks, Matt Reinartz, Office of Council Member Pat Harris Gerry Strathman stated this meeting is being held to heaz an appeal regazding an order to construct a new sidewalk. The appeal was filed by Mazk Palmquist. Mark Palmquist, owner of 1515 Scheffer Avenue, appeared and stated there is a proposal to build a sidewalk along the side of his property. He is not against sidewalks. Philosophically, the needs of the individual need to be subordinate to the needs of the comxnunity. The proposed sidewalk would run between the curb and his house. There is very limited space there. The sidewalk would not add value to the property. It is a very narrow strip of grass. The downside for him is the lack of privacy. (Mr. Palmquist showed photographs to Gerry Strathman.) Mr. Strathman asked how far would the sidewallc be from the house. Mr. Palmquist responded he is not sure, but it appeazs to be less than eight feet. A person could look right into his bedroom. The area by the curb is not his properiy, but he maintains it like it is his lawn. Pedestrians currently walk on it, and they know they haue the right to. Because it seems like it is his lawn, they aze respectful and do not loiter. The public gets what they need, and they pass through. Was there another sidewalk on the other side, asked Mr. Strathman. Mr. Palmquist responded the house is on a corner and the front has a sidewalk. Mr. Strathman asked about the sidewalk behind him and was there a sidewalk that would connect to the proposed sidewalk. Mr. Palmquist responded this proposal would complete the sidewalk on the biock. Mr. Strathman asked has he had any conversations with neighbors about this. Mr. Palmquist responded no one has requested the sidewallc. If this proposed sidewalk connected to Snelling Avenue, he wouid not oppose it because people need to get to the bus route. A1 Czaia reported that he got a ca11 a year ago about some panels out of alignment. An inspector went out and indicated this street would be a likely candidate for sidewalk repairs. This is what put Mr. Czaia on the block. On the east side of Saratoga, there were 33 panels that required ��b�� LBGISLATiVE HEARING-SIDEVJALKS-1515 SCHEFFER AVEN[7E, 6-15-01 PAGE 2 replacement, but it is an incomplete sidewalk down to the corner. His office has a standard policy that when a block is incomplete, they propose to complete it. They are proposing to at least get one side completed so there is access from one end of the block to the other without the pedeslrians going into the street. This is the long side of the properiy so there is not an assessment to the properiy owner. Mr. Strathman asked how far it would be from the sidewalk to the house. Mr. Czaia responded it would be a two foot offset from the property line because there is a hill. If the house has a normal setback, probably four feet, the sidewalk would be six feet from the home. Mr. Strathman asked is this unusual that the sidewalk would be that close to the house. Mr. Czaia responded no. On almost any corner in the City, the minimum setback on the side is four feet from the home. Mr. Palmquist stated he took a survey of the homes in the neighborhood and took some photographs. It is rare for a house to be as close as his house. It drives the homeowner to do things that aze unattractive to the neighborhood, such as installing fences along the side. For privacy, he would install a solid wood fence in front of the windows; however, that screens anyone that wants to climb into the window so it is a security issue. Mr. Strathman stated this is public right of way and there is a public interest in having a sidewalk system because it serves the interest of the community and the City. In the winter, people may be forced out into the street when a sidewalk is not available. He asked is there a formal City policy or mandate regarding completion of sidewalk systems. Mr. Czaia responded he is not aware of a mandate. There aze many streets like this. Every tune he sees this type of situation, he makes the proposal to complete the sidewalk. It is not a fun call because it is a change to the house that residents are not accustomed to. Mr. Strathman stated there are some trees on the curb near 1515 5cheffer. NIr. Czaia responded he does not propose removing them. Is there anything the City can do about location of the sidewalk that would make it mare palatable, asked Mr. Strathman. Mr. Palmquist responded trees and light posts aze in the way. The trees have been under stress. The destrucrion of their roots could be their downfall. Mr. Strathman asked how much distance trees needs to keep them out of danger. Mr. Czaia responded it depends on how the tree is growing and the soil. Mr. Palmquist stated he owns a compact truck and pazks close to the garage there. If an owner had a big vehicle, the owner would not have off street pazking anymore because of being in the way of the sidewalk. Because of the development of the azea, placement of the house, placement of the garage, the trees, loss of the green space, loss of privacy, security, he does not think the sidewalk should be done. o `-t��l � LEGISLATIVE HEARiNG-SIDEWALKS-1515 SCHEFFER AVENiJE, 6-15-01 PAGE 3 Mr. StratUuiui stated he is not hearing any clamoring for a sidewalk. He asked if someone wants a sidewalk completed in the future, can it be done. Mr. Czaia responded it can always be introduced at another time. He talked to Matt Reinartz from Council Member Pat Harris' office. Right now, the sidewalk ends, then there is dirt, and then there is driveway. Mr. Czaia recommends at least completing it to a driveway so that people in wheelchairs have an out at the driveway. He has to consider other modes of tr�c, besides walkiug. Mr. Palmquist responded he does not have a strong objection to the completion to his driveway. That area did not turn to dirt until his neighbor started driving his golf cart there, which may be an illegal use of the sidewalk. Gerry Strathman recommended that the sidewalk not be completed at this time, except for the six feet to the driveway just discussed. Mr. Reinartz is here; if there is a community uprising about not building this sidewalk, Mr. Reinartz will heaz about it. He suggested Mr. Palmquist remain in contact with Councilmember Harris' office. Mr. Palmquist may want to attend the City Council meeting and testify in front of the Council. The meeting was adjourned at 2:00 p.m. rrti CITY OF ST. PAVL FINAL ORDER � �� Ia the Matter of sidewalk recoastruction at ORfGIN��_ S01039 - Both sides Laurel Avenue from Farrington Street to Nina Street. � 53 - o�._�--,'? s Saratoga Street fr �°'- f_�_ _avenue to Hartford Avenu 501067 - Both Sides Fairmount Avenue from South Prior Avenue to South Howell Street S�M 01139 - North side West University Avenue from Aldine Street to Fry Street. .5 ��"�� (Laid oner fro� June 6, 2001) � . � �� COUN FILE 6 � `�' /�� By �0 Fil o SO 039,50105 ,501067,501139 � Vo g ard_l , 3, 4 � 1 � r�9 t Y the follawing locatioas: D �i� �'� e � � � ` \ `�'� �� r � � �� ,� 5�� _ � - S � �--� oS� � � �� P � �'� 0�° °�`�� ' �� , �„�-�' � �`�s�i�'.�� ,., �� L� �� `�`� � � ORIGCNAL o�-��, � *�STIMATED CONSTRUCTION RATES RESIDENTIAL RATES (One, two or three family structures) Recoastxuctioa (replacement of old sidewalk) -$10.06 per front foot for a five (5) foot wide walk and $12.07 per £ront foot for a six (6) foot wide walk. All other widths will be prorated accordingly. Diew coastructioa (where no walk existed) - 100� of the actual cost estimated to be approximately $4.50 per square foot. AlI 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 $6.09 per square foot. under Preliminary order approved � The Council of the City of Saint Paul has conducted a public hearing upon the above improvement, due notice thereof having been given as prescribed by the City Charter; and WHEREAS, The Council has heard all persons, objections and recommendations pertaining to said proposed improvement and has fully considered the same; now, therefore, be it �BE.R[]iS7Fn mhat rh r.,� 'l f rh f�'t f Q-' 1- p l a }yp 7� ci 'a that T�hP _„� above-described improvement be made, and the proper City officers are hereby directed and authorized to proceed with the improvement; and be it FURTHER RESOLVED, That upon the completion of said improvement, the proper City of£icers shall calculate all expenses incurred therein and shall report the same to the City Council in accordance with Chapter 14 of the City Charter. COUNCILPEI2SONS Yeas Nays Benanav Blakey Bostrom Coleman Harris Lantry Reiter _In Favor Against Adopted by Council: Date Certified Passed by Council Secretary � Mayor CITY OF ST. PAUL �� G�� .�� . COUN FILE b� G� I I _ t00 FINAL ORDER By �`�'�e`�� — J`��a� � Fil o SO 039, 50105 , 501067, 501139 ��1 Vo g ard_1,3,4 In the Matter of sidewalk reconstruation at the following locations: ;!501039 - Both sides L ( f � rom Far to Nina Str Q ��i�e� TY�� ( lC}C I YC$�C� S TLIY' 3� ` L.C�IY � I'�Vt� 4�� Lc,...r� �YI 501067 - Both Sides Fairmount Avenue from South Prior Avenue to South Howell Street 501139 - North side West University Avenue from Aldine Street to Fry Street. (Laid over from June 6, 2001) Soio53- 1��. v��S�S�� osr �wrc..�o '�-o T1ar'� t'� 9"�•1�2X�v�'�+ S�v ae'C"" � V £�1'v�. �cr�c"�4-. � J L Y�� -o! O`� �� ar�� e� b e\ 5��: v. c�� Y�or�h S i� e. G� .�(�� (�" 17-C ` � 2�� 'V� C: r . �. M.� xah C� --� � J e�C\�l L.1 Sfir �'-vow. Sc�-.e 'a-� �� 4S'ti' S� � �,� � `S l5 �c�c�'cr �� ORIG��iAL o�-�� *ESTIMATED CONSTRIICTION RATES RESIDENTIAL RATES (One, two or three family structures) Reconstruction (replacement of old sidewalk) -$10.06 per front foot for a five (5) foot wide walk and $12.07 per front foot for a six (6) foot wide walk. Al1 other widths will be prorated accordingly. New construction (where no walk existed) - 1000 of the actual cost estimated to be approximately $4.50 per square foot. All corner residential properties will receive a credit up to the first 150 feet of new or reconstructed sidewalk along and abutting the "long side" of the property. MULTI-RESIDENTIAL (More than three family structures), NON RESIDENTIAL RATES For new and reconstructed sidewalk; 100$ of actual cost estimated to be approximately $6.09 per square foot. under Preliminary order approved The Council of the City of Saint Paul has conducted a public hearing upon the above improvement, due notice thereof having been given as prescribed by the City Charter; and WHEREAS, The Council has heard all persons, objections and recommendations pertaining to said proposed improvement and has fully considered the same; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the Council of the City of Saint Paul does hereby order that the above-described improvement be made, and the proper City officers are hereby directed and authorized to proceed with the improvement; and be it FURTHER RESOLVED, That upon the completion of said improvement, the proper City officers shall calculate all expenses incurred therein and shall report the same to the City Council in accordance with Chapter 14 of the City Charter. COUNCILPERSONS Yeas Nays �enanav ✓Blakey ✓BOStrom +�(.`ol eman vAarris vLantry �iter � In Favor � Against Adopted by Council: Date�2-oc�i Certified Passed by Council Secretary or �1 C 6- ;7UN� 2 oi �► _ T.M.SJREAL ESTATE DIVISION Da�� June 14, 2001 Green Sheet Number: � 1 � � Q$ ontact Persou and Phone Nnmber: EPAR1'MENT DIRECTOR 1 Cl'CY COi1NCII. Tom Sawyer 266-8850 A.rl.ox�v�Y rr� c�,exx 0�-(�? � i1DGET DIliECfOR FFICE OF FINANCIAI. SVCS ust be on Council Ag�da by:�E �f' � nA' YOR (OR ASSISTANT) WV OTAL # OF SIGNATURE P GES 1 (CLIP ALL LOCATTONS FOR SIGNAT[7RE) CTION REQUESTED: � ` econstruct sidewallcs in Wards 1, 3& 4. � COMII�NDATIONS: APPRO (A) OR REJE (R) ERSONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING: . Has the person/firm ever worked under a rnntract for this depar[ment? YES NO PLANNING COMMISSION A STAFF ' . Has this persodfirm eva bcen a City employee? YES NO CIVII.SBRVICECOMML9SION - . Does this persodfirm possess a slvli not normally possessed by any YES NO cm co�irree �+'�t City emploYee7 , I E Iain all YES answers on a s azate sheet and attach UPPORTS WHICH COUNC OBJECTIVE? COUNCII. WARD(S) ��Q DISTRICT PLANNING COUNCIL IATING PROBLEM, ISSUE, OPPORTUNII'P (Who, What, When, W6ere, Why?): The problem "defective sidewalk" was caused by mul6ple problems, treet roots, poor subgrade materials, freeze/thaw cycles, service life limits, chemical additives, extreme temperature variaEions, etc.-'Fhese problems -- o occur on a citywide basis and must be addressed and corrected annually. L,eft uncorrected, the sidewalk condition would worsen to a state where it would be unusable and subjeM to increased pedestrian injuries from Fal�s �p�� possible litigations. �,�S�2Pu�1 Le DVANTAGESIFAPPROVED: ,, , `°j � � ��' The community will bene�t from this pmjeM because it will provide safe de£ect free sidewalks for its citizens. The sidewalk contracts aze done by private contractors genera6ng public seMor jobs. ISADVANTAGES IF APPROVED: Historically, the sidewalk reconstruction has created negative feedback because 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. ISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED: This option would allow the iufrastructure of sidewalk stock to deteriorate, which in turn, will generate more personal injury siuts, resulting in the expenditure of larger dollar amounts in repairs and replacement as well as claim payouts. OTAL AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION: $ COST/REVENUE BiJD(:ETED (CIIiCLE ONE) YES NO ING SOURCE: ACTIVi1'Y NUMBER: INANCIAL INFORMATION: (EXPLAI� 01-C�i I'7�Z�7�11 r _ r� � Le�v r � � [ �7� � c e � Date: June 15, 2001 Tune: 1:30 p.m. Place: Room 330 City Hall 15 West Kellogg Blvd. Gerry Strathman Legislative Hearing Officer Aropeal of sidewalk construction at 1515 Scheffer Avenue Legislative Hearing Officer recommends that the sidewaik not be completed at this time, except for six feet to the driveway. d` (O� � ��. MINLTTES OF 'i'I� LEGISLATIVE AEEARING SIDEWALK ISSLTE - I515 Scheffer Avenue Friday, 7une 15, 2001 Room 330 Courthouse Gerry Strathman, Legislative Hearing Officer The meeting was called to order at 133 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Allan Czaia, Public Works-Sidewalks, Matt Reinartz, Office of Council Member Pat Harris Gerry Strathman stated this meeting is being held to heaz an appeal regazding an order to construct a new sidewalk. The appeal was filed by Mazk Palmquist. Mark Palmquist, owner of 1515 Scheffer Avenue, appeared and stated there is a proposal to build a sidewalk along the side of his property. He is not against sidewalks. Philosophically, the needs of the individual need to be subordinate to the needs of the comxnunity. The proposed sidewalk would run between the curb and his house. There is very limited space there. The sidewalk would not add value to the property. It is a very narrow strip of grass. The downside for him is the lack of privacy. (Mr. Palmquist showed photographs to Gerry Strathman.) Mr. Strathman asked how far would the sidewallc be from the house. Mr. Palmquist responded he is not sure, but it appeazs to be less than eight feet. A person could look right into his bedroom. The area by the curb is not his properiy, but he maintains it like it is his lawn. Pedestrians currently walk on it, and they know they haue the right to. Because it seems like it is his lawn, they aze respectful and do not loiter. The public gets what they need, and they pass through. Was there another sidewalk on the other side, asked Mr. Strathman. Mr. Palmquist responded the house is on a corner and the front has a sidewalk. Mr. Strathman asked about the sidewalk behind him and was there a sidewalk that would connect to the proposed sidewalk. Mr. Palmquist responded this proposal would complete the sidewalk on the biock. Mr. Strathman asked has he had any conversations with neighbors about this. Mr. Palmquist responded no one has requested the sidewallc. If this proposed sidewalk connected to Snelling Avenue, he wouid not oppose it because people need to get to the bus route. A1 Czaia reported that he got a ca11 a year ago about some panels out of alignment. An inspector went out and indicated this street would be a likely candidate for sidewalk repairs. This is what put Mr. Czaia on the block. On the east side of Saratoga, there were 33 panels that required ��b�� LBGISLATiVE HEARING-SIDEVJALKS-1515 SCHEFFER AVEN[7E, 6-15-01 PAGE 2 replacement, but it is an incomplete sidewalk down to the corner. His office has a standard policy that when a block is incomplete, they propose to complete it. They are proposing to at least get one side completed so there is access from one end of the block to the other without the pedeslrians going into the street. This is the long side of the properiy so there is not an assessment to the properiy owner. Mr. Strathman asked how far it would be from the sidewalk to the house. Mr. Czaia responded it would be a two foot offset from the property line because there is a hill. If the house has a normal setback, probably four feet, the sidewalk would be six feet from the home. Mr. Strathman asked is this unusual that the sidewalk would be that close to the house. Mr. Czaia responded no. On almost any corner in the City, the minimum setback on the side is four feet from the home. Mr. Palmquist stated he took a survey of the homes in the neighborhood and took some photographs. It is rare for a house to be as close as his house. It drives the homeowner to do things that aze unattractive to the neighborhood, such as installing fences along the side. For privacy, he would install a solid wood fence in front of the windows; however, that screens anyone that wants to climb into the window so it is a security issue. Mr. Strathman stated this is public right of way and there is a public interest in having a sidewalk system because it serves the interest of the community and the City. In the winter, people may be forced out into the street when a sidewalk is not available. He asked is there a formal City policy or mandate regarding completion of sidewalk systems. Mr. Czaia responded he is not aware of a mandate. There aze many streets like this. Every tune he sees this type of situation, he makes the proposal to complete the sidewalk. It is not a fun call because it is a change to the house that residents are not accustomed to. Mr. Strathman stated there are some trees on the curb near 1515 5cheffer. NIr. Czaia responded he does not propose removing them. Is there anything the City can do about location of the sidewalk that would make it mare palatable, asked Mr. Strathman. Mr. Palmquist responded trees and light posts aze in the way. The trees have been under stress. The destrucrion of their roots could be their downfall. Mr. Strathman asked how much distance trees needs to keep them out of danger. Mr. Czaia responded it depends on how the tree is growing and the soil. Mr. Palmquist stated he owns a compact truck and pazks close to the garage there. If an owner had a big vehicle, the owner would not have off street pazking anymore because of being in the way of the sidewalk. Because of the development of the azea, placement of the house, placement of the garage, the trees, loss of the green space, loss of privacy, security, he does not think the sidewalk should be done. o `-t��l � LEGISLATIVE HEARiNG-SIDEWALKS-1515 SCHEFFER AVENiJE, 6-15-01 PAGE 3 Mr. StratUuiui stated he is not hearing any clamoring for a sidewalk. He asked if someone wants a sidewalk completed in the future, can it be done. Mr. Czaia responded it can always be introduced at another time. He talked to Matt Reinartz from Council Member Pat Harris' office. Right now, the sidewalk ends, then there is dirt, and then there is driveway. Mr. Czaia recommends at least completing it to a driveway so that people in wheelchairs have an out at the driveway. He has to consider other modes of tr�c, besides walkiug. Mr. Palmquist responded he does not have a strong objection to the completion to his driveway. That area did not turn to dirt until his neighbor started driving his golf cart there, which may be an illegal use of the sidewalk. Gerry Strathman recommended that the sidewalk not be completed at this time, except for the six feet to the driveway just discussed. Mr. Reinartz is here; if there is a community uprising about not building this sidewalk, Mr. Reinartz will heaz about it. He suggested Mr. Palmquist remain in contact with Councilmember Harris' office. Mr. Palmquist may want to attend the City Council meeting and testify in front of the Council. The meeting was adjourned at 2:00 p.m. rrti CITY OF ST. PAVL FINAL ORDER � �� Ia the Matter of sidewalk recoastruction at ORfGIN��_ S01039 - Both sides Laurel Avenue from Farrington Street to Nina Street. � 53 - o�._�--,'? s Saratoga Street fr �°'- f_�_ _avenue to Hartford Avenu 501067 - Both Sides Fairmount Avenue from South Prior Avenue to South Howell Street S�M 01139 - North side West University Avenue from Aldine Street to Fry Street. .5 ��"�� (Laid oner fro� June 6, 2001) � . � �� COUN FILE 6 � `�' /�� By �0 Fil o SO 039,50105 ,501067,501139 � Vo g ard_l , 3, 4 � 1 � r�9 t Y the follawing locatioas: D �i� �'� e � � � ` \ `�'� �� r � � �� ,� 5�� _ � - S � �--� oS� � � �� P � �'� 0�° °�`�� ' �� , �„�-�' � �`�s�i�'.�� ,., �� L� �� `�`� � � ORIGCNAL o�-��, � *�STIMATED CONSTRUCTION RATES RESIDENTIAL RATES (One, two or three family structures) Recoastxuctioa (replacement of old sidewalk) -$10.06 per front foot for a five (5) foot wide walk and $12.07 per £ront foot for a six (6) foot wide walk. All other widths will be prorated accordingly. Diew coastructioa (where no walk existed) - 100� of the actual cost estimated to be approximately $4.50 per square foot. AlI 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 $6.09 per square foot. under Preliminary order approved � The Council of the City of Saint Paul has conducted a public hearing upon the above improvement, due notice thereof having been given as prescribed by the City Charter; and WHEREAS, The Council has heard all persons, objections and recommendations pertaining to said proposed improvement and has fully considered the same; now, therefore, be it �BE.R[]iS7Fn mhat rh r.,� 'l f rh f�'t f Q-' 1- p l a }yp 7� ci 'a that T�hP _„� above-described improvement be made, and the proper City officers are hereby directed and authorized to proceed with the improvement; and be it FURTHER RESOLVED, That upon the completion of said improvement, the proper City of£icers shall calculate all expenses incurred therein and shall report the same to the City Council in accordance with Chapter 14 of the City Charter. COUNCILPEI2SONS Yeas Nays Benanav Blakey Bostrom Coleman Harris Lantry Reiter _In Favor Against Adopted by Council: Date Certified Passed by Council Secretary � Mayor CITY OF ST. PAUL �� G�� .�� . COUN FILE b� G� I I _ t00 FINAL ORDER By �`�'�e`�� — J`��a� � Fil o SO 039, 50105 , 501067, 501139 ��1 Vo g ard_1,3,4 In the Matter of sidewalk reconstruation at the following locations: ;!501039 - Both sides L ( f � rom Far to Nina Str Q ��i�e� TY�� ( lC}C I YC$�C� S TLIY' 3� ` L.C�IY � I'�Vt� 4�� Lc,...r� �YI 501067 - Both Sides Fairmount Avenue from South Prior Avenue to South Howell Street 501139 - North side West University Avenue from Aldine Street to Fry Street. (Laid over from June 6, 2001) Soio53- 1��. v��S�S�� osr �wrc..�o '�-o T1ar'� t'� 9"�•1�2X�v�'�+ S�v ae'C"" � V £�1'v�. �cr�c"�4-. � J L Y�� -o! O`� �� ar�� e� b e\ 5��: v. c�� Y�or�h S i� e. G� .�(�� (�" 17-C ` � 2�� 'V� C: r . �. M.� xah C� --� � J e�C\�l L.1 Sfir �'-vow. Sc�-.e 'a-� �� 4S'ti' S� � �,� � `S l5 �c�c�'cr �� ORIG��iAL o�-�� *ESTIMATED CONSTRIICTION RATES RESIDENTIAL RATES (One, two or three family structures) Reconstruction (replacement of old sidewalk) -$10.06 per front foot for a five (5) foot wide walk and $12.07 per front foot for a six (6) foot wide walk. Al1 other widths will be prorated accordingly. New construction (where no walk existed) - 1000 of the actual cost estimated to be approximately $4.50 per square foot. All corner residential properties will receive a credit up to the first 150 feet of new or reconstructed sidewalk along and abutting the "long side" of the property. MULTI-RESIDENTIAL (More than three family structures), NON RESIDENTIAL RATES For new and reconstructed sidewalk; 100$ of actual cost estimated to be approximately $6.09 per square foot. under Preliminary order approved The Council of the City of Saint Paul has conducted a public hearing upon the above improvement, due notice thereof having been given as prescribed by the City Charter; and WHEREAS, The Council has heard all persons, objections and recommendations pertaining to said proposed improvement and has fully considered the same; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the Council of the City of Saint Paul does hereby order that the above-described improvement be made, and the proper City officers are hereby directed and authorized to proceed with the improvement; and be it FURTHER RESOLVED, That upon the completion of said improvement, the proper City officers shall calculate all expenses incurred therein and shall report the same to the City Council in accordance with Chapter 14 of the City Charter. COUNCILPERSONS Yeas Nays �enanav ✓Blakey ✓BOStrom +�(.`ol eman vAarris vLantry �iter � In Favor � Against Adopted by Council: Date�2-oc�i Certified Passed by Council Secretary or �1 C 6- ;7UN� 2 oi �► _ T.M.SJREAL ESTATE DIVISION Da�� June 14, 2001 Green Sheet Number: � 1 � � Q$ ontact Persou and Phone Nnmber: EPAR1'MENT DIRECTOR 1 Cl'CY COi1NCII. Tom Sawyer 266-8850 A.rl.ox�v�Y rr� c�,exx 0�-(�? � i1DGET DIliECfOR FFICE OF FINANCIAI. SVCS ust be on Council Ag�da by:�E �f' � nA' YOR (OR ASSISTANT) WV OTAL # OF SIGNATURE P GES 1 (CLIP ALL LOCATTONS FOR SIGNAT[7RE) CTION REQUESTED: � ` econstruct sidewallcs in Wards 1, 3& 4. � COMII�NDATIONS: APPRO (A) OR REJE (R) ERSONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING: . Has the person/firm ever worked under a rnntract for this depar[ment? YES NO PLANNING COMMISSION A STAFF ' . Has this persodfirm eva bcen a City employee? YES NO CIVII.SBRVICECOMML9SION - . Does this persodfirm possess a slvli not normally possessed by any YES NO cm co�irree �+'�t City emploYee7 , I E Iain all YES answers on a s azate sheet and attach UPPORTS WHICH COUNC OBJECTIVE? COUNCII. WARD(S) ��Q DISTRICT PLANNING COUNCIL IATING PROBLEM, ISSUE, OPPORTUNII'P (Who, What, When, W6ere, Why?): The problem "defective sidewalk" was caused by mul6ple problems, treet roots, poor subgrade materials, freeze/thaw cycles, service life limits, chemical additives, extreme temperature variaEions, etc.-'Fhese problems -- o occur on a citywide basis and must be addressed and corrected annually. L,eft uncorrected, the sidewalk condition would worsen to a state where it would be unusable and subjeM to increased pedestrian injuries from Fal�s �p�� possible litigations. �,�S�2Pu�1 Le DVANTAGESIFAPPROVED: ,, , `°j � � ��' The community will bene�t from this pmjeM because it will provide safe de£ect free sidewalks for its citizens. The sidewalk contracts aze done by private contractors genera6ng public seMor jobs. ISADVANTAGES IF APPROVED: Historically, the sidewalk reconstruction has created negative feedback because 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. ISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED: This option would allow the iufrastructure of sidewalk stock to deteriorate, which in turn, will generate more personal injury siuts, resulting in the expenditure of larger dollar amounts in repairs and replacement as well as claim payouts. OTAL AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION: $ COST/REVENUE BiJD(:ETED (CIIiCLE ONE) YES NO ING SOURCE: ACTIVi1'Y NUMBER: INANCIAL INFORMATION: (EXPLAI� 01-C�i I'7�Z�7�11 r _ r� � Le�v r � � [ �7� � c e � Date: June 15, 2001 Tune: 1:30 p.m. Place: Room 330 City Hall 15 West Kellogg Blvd. Gerry Strathman Legislative Hearing Officer Aropeal of sidewalk construction at 1515 Scheffer Avenue Legislative Hearing Officer recommends that the sidewaik not be completed at this time, except for six feet to the driveway. d` (O� � ��. MINLTTES OF 'i'I� LEGISLATIVE AEEARING SIDEWALK ISSLTE - I515 Scheffer Avenue Friday, 7une 15, 2001 Room 330 Courthouse Gerry Strathman, Legislative Hearing Officer The meeting was called to order at 133 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Allan Czaia, Public Works-Sidewalks, Matt Reinartz, Office of Council Member Pat Harris Gerry Strathman stated this meeting is being held to heaz an appeal regazding an order to construct a new sidewalk. The appeal was filed by Mazk Palmquist. Mark Palmquist, owner of 1515 Scheffer Avenue, appeared and stated there is a proposal to build a sidewalk along the side of his property. He is not against sidewalks. Philosophically, the needs of the individual need to be subordinate to the needs of the comxnunity. The proposed sidewalk would run between the curb and his house. There is very limited space there. The sidewalk would not add value to the property. It is a very narrow strip of grass. The downside for him is the lack of privacy. (Mr. Palmquist showed photographs to Gerry Strathman.) Mr. Strathman asked how far would the sidewallc be from the house. Mr. Palmquist responded he is not sure, but it appeazs to be less than eight feet. A person could look right into his bedroom. The area by the curb is not his properiy, but he maintains it like it is his lawn. Pedestrians currently walk on it, and they know they haue the right to. Because it seems like it is his lawn, they aze respectful and do not loiter. The public gets what they need, and they pass through. Was there another sidewalk on the other side, asked Mr. Strathman. Mr. Palmquist responded the house is on a corner and the front has a sidewalk. Mr. Strathman asked about the sidewalk behind him and was there a sidewalk that would connect to the proposed sidewalk. Mr. Palmquist responded this proposal would complete the sidewalk on the biock. Mr. Strathman asked has he had any conversations with neighbors about this. Mr. Palmquist responded no one has requested the sidewallc. If this proposed sidewalk connected to Snelling Avenue, he wouid not oppose it because people need to get to the bus route. A1 Czaia reported that he got a ca11 a year ago about some panels out of alignment. An inspector went out and indicated this street would be a likely candidate for sidewalk repairs. This is what put Mr. Czaia on the block. On the east side of Saratoga, there were 33 panels that required ��b�� LBGISLATiVE HEARING-SIDEVJALKS-1515 SCHEFFER AVEN[7E, 6-15-01 PAGE 2 replacement, but it is an incomplete sidewalk down to the corner. His office has a standard policy that when a block is incomplete, they propose to complete it. They are proposing to at least get one side completed so there is access from one end of the block to the other without the pedeslrians going into the street. This is the long side of the properiy so there is not an assessment to the properiy owner. Mr. Strathman asked how far it would be from the sidewalk to the house. Mr. Czaia responded it would be a two foot offset from the property line because there is a hill. If the house has a normal setback, probably four feet, the sidewalk would be six feet from the home. Mr. Strathman asked is this unusual that the sidewalk would be that close to the house. Mr. Czaia responded no. On almost any corner in the City, the minimum setback on the side is four feet from the home. Mr. Palmquist stated he took a survey of the homes in the neighborhood and took some photographs. It is rare for a house to be as close as his house. It drives the homeowner to do things that aze unattractive to the neighborhood, such as installing fences along the side. For privacy, he would install a solid wood fence in front of the windows; however, that screens anyone that wants to climb into the window so it is a security issue. Mr. Strathman stated this is public right of way and there is a public interest in having a sidewalk system because it serves the interest of the community and the City. In the winter, people may be forced out into the street when a sidewalk is not available. He asked is there a formal City policy or mandate regarding completion of sidewalk systems. Mr. Czaia responded he is not aware of a mandate. There aze many streets like this. Every tune he sees this type of situation, he makes the proposal to complete the sidewalk. It is not a fun call because it is a change to the house that residents are not accustomed to. Mr. Strathman stated there are some trees on the curb near 1515 5cheffer. NIr. Czaia responded he does not propose removing them. Is there anything the City can do about location of the sidewalk that would make it mare palatable, asked Mr. Strathman. Mr. Palmquist responded trees and light posts aze in the way. The trees have been under stress. The destrucrion of their roots could be their downfall. Mr. Strathman asked how much distance trees needs to keep them out of danger. Mr. Czaia responded it depends on how the tree is growing and the soil. Mr. Palmquist stated he owns a compact truck and pazks close to the garage there. If an owner had a big vehicle, the owner would not have off street pazking anymore because of being in the way of the sidewalk. Because of the development of the azea, placement of the house, placement of the garage, the trees, loss of the green space, loss of privacy, security, he does not think the sidewalk should be done. o `-t��l � LEGISLATIVE HEARiNG-SIDEWALKS-1515 SCHEFFER AVENiJE, 6-15-01 PAGE 3 Mr. StratUuiui stated he is not hearing any clamoring for a sidewalk. He asked if someone wants a sidewalk completed in the future, can it be done. Mr. Czaia responded it can always be introduced at another time. He talked to Matt Reinartz from Council Member Pat Harris' office. Right now, the sidewalk ends, then there is dirt, and then there is driveway. Mr. Czaia recommends at least completing it to a driveway so that people in wheelchairs have an out at the driveway. He has to consider other modes of tr�c, besides walkiug. Mr. Palmquist responded he does not have a strong objection to the completion to his driveway. That area did not turn to dirt until his neighbor started driving his golf cart there, which may be an illegal use of the sidewalk. Gerry Strathman recommended that the sidewalk not be completed at this time, except for the six feet to the driveway just discussed. Mr. Reinartz is here; if there is a community uprising about not building this sidewalk, Mr. Reinartz will heaz about it. He suggested Mr. Palmquist remain in contact with Councilmember Harris' office. Mr. Palmquist may want to attend the City Council meeting and testify in front of the Council. The meeting was adjourned at 2:00 p.m. rrti CITY OF ST. PAVL FINAL ORDER � �� Ia the Matter of sidewalk recoastruction at ORfGIN��_ S01039 - Both sides Laurel Avenue from Farrington Street to Nina Street. � 53 - o�._�--,'? s Saratoga Street fr �°'- f_�_ _avenue to Hartford Avenu 501067 - Both Sides Fairmount Avenue from South Prior Avenue to South Howell Street S�M 01139 - North side West University Avenue from Aldine Street to Fry Street. .5 ��"�� (Laid oner fro� June 6, 2001) � . � �� COUN FILE 6 � `�' /�� By �0 Fil o SO 039,50105 ,501067,501139 � Vo g ard_l , 3, 4 � 1 � r�9 t Y the follawing locatioas: D �i� �'� e � � � ` \ `�'� �� r � � �� ,� 5�� _ � - S � �--� oS� � � �� P � �'� 0�° °�`�� ' �� , �„�-�' � �`�s�i�'.�� ,., �� L� �� `�`� � � ORIGCNAL o�-��, � *�STIMATED CONSTRUCTION RATES RESIDENTIAL RATES (One, two or three family structures) Recoastxuctioa (replacement of old sidewalk) -$10.06 per front foot for a five (5) foot wide walk and $12.07 per £ront foot for a six (6) foot wide walk. All other widths will be prorated accordingly. Diew coastructioa (where no walk existed) - 100� of the actual cost estimated to be approximately $4.50 per square foot. AlI 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 $6.09 per square foot. under Preliminary order approved � The Council of the City of Saint Paul has conducted a public hearing upon the above improvement, due notice thereof having been given as prescribed by the City Charter; and WHEREAS, The Council has heard all persons, objections and recommendations pertaining to said proposed improvement and has fully considered the same; now, therefore, be it �BE.R[]iS7Fn mhat rh r.,� 'l f rh f�'t f Q-' 1- p l a }yp 7� ci 'a that T�hP _„� above-described improvement be made, and the proper City officers are hereby directed and authorized to proceed with the improvement; and be it FURTHER RESOLVED, That upon the completion of said improvement, the proper City of£icers shall calculate all expenses incurred therein and shall report the same to the City Council in accordance with Chapter 14 of the City Charter. COUNCILPEI2SONS Yeas Nays Benanav Blakey Bostrom Coleman Harris Lantry Reiter _In Favor Against Adopted by Council: Date Certified Passed by Council Secretary � Mayor