Loading...
Public Works Cte Minutes 03-23-1988 � � �� � ��� � � Roger J. Gos`witz,Chair MINUTES OF PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE Wednesday, March 23, 1988 - Room 707 City Hall PRESENT: Roger J. Goswitz, Chair Councilmember Tom Oimond Councilmember Janice Rettman OTHERS PRESENT: Dick McCann, Jack Trajia: Lyle 0. Hefneck, Susan Girling, Bill Buth, Tom Sawyer, A1len Coulter, Don Nygaard, Darrell Butterwick, Allen Lovejoy, Jan Gasterland, Ed Warn, Roy Bredahl, Leon Pearson. Paul Kirkwold, Al Shetka, John Showalter, Lore� Sultze, Connie M. Hilis, Tom Kuhfeld, Marc Bernhardson, Maggie Schwichtenberg. 8ecky Love Yust. Ann Warner, Bob Roscoe, Lucy Thompson, Peggy Reichert. Don Ahern. 1. Councilmember Dimond pointed out several corrections in the minutes of March 9th as follows: On page 5, first paragraph, first word should read "Highwood" instead of "Highway". In second paragraph of page 5, name shoutd read "Margaret Fernlund" instead of Margaret Firmand. In seventh paragraph, third line, the word "lighting" shoutd be inserted so it reads: "asked if he was recommending deleting lighting if they do not rescind....." Corrections were so • noted and the minutes were approved as corrected. 2. VACATION: Petition of Postat Service for the vacation of the atleys in Block 6, Lorena Park and Slock 14, Denslows Rearrangement (bounded by Etna, Reaney, Birmingham and Minnehaha). Purpose: to build a new post office Jack Trajia, Real Estate Section of Post Office, said they would . like to see the vacation proceed without delay. They have just completed a 10� design phase and are ready to proceed with the 30y. design phase. It is their feeting that if the vacation does not proceed, they cannot continue with the design of this building. In answer to Councilmember Oimond's question, Mr. Trajia said they have financing for the design and hopef�lly will have some money freed up the first part of their fiscal year for the building. Sue Girling, District 2 Cortxnunity Organizer, said District 2 is not against the Post Office, just against granting the vacation at this time. In April 1987. she continued, at an informal meeting with post office officials the question of a PUD (Planned Unit Development) was discussed. Because the cortxnunity was given assurance financing was in place and the Post Office would not back out of the project, and further that there was a need to replace the Dayton's Bluff station, this idea was dropped. Now, however, it appears funding is questionable and the cortununity's concern is that building will not proceed and that the property will be sold. Since • the property has already been rezoned, District 2 feels their only control is to hold up the vacation until the funding for the actual building is provided, she added. -i- • f_i yt��'t�= i � fT1►?f(1��1" �'►?tt(Tl�il �5��?� �1ftrlFt M��C:i �1'fil l � k e C' 1 tY Attorney. i f any stipulation could be put on a vacation approval. He responded by saying once the Council makes the determination there is no need for the easement and then restricts its use, they could be taken to court. The only legitimate terms or conditions allowed on vacations wou]d be for those having to do with preserving easements for NSP, NW Bell, etc. or sometimes conveying back to city for purpose of a turnaround. Councilmember Dimo�d said he would move to not approve this vacation. If this project does not go through, he said, we may need that right of way. The Post Office has said they cannot proceed ahead if the vacation is not apptoved, but in my opinion that is their choice and there is no reason they can't, he added. The Chair noted that this decision is a Post Office regulation and not Mr. Trajia's choice. The neighborhood. Mr. Dimond continued, has said they support the Post Office but is concerned what other development may go in on that site if this does not happen. The alley should not be vacated without knowing if the Post Office will be proceeding ahead, and when funding does come through the vacation can be rapidly put through. It is important for the comrnunity, he said, to have some assurance on what is happening here. In answer to Ms. Rettman's question, Mr. Trajia said the vacation is needed because their building wili extend over the alley and they • cannot proceed to the 30� phase design unless the vacation takes place, because without the vacation they do not have a buildable site. He again said they hope to have the design completed by early fall and if funding is released, then they can proceed with the project. Mr. Dimond reiterated the community is willing to support the Post Office but don't want to give up the vacation until the funding is available. Councilmember Rettman pointed out that with the B-1 zoning only certain type businesses could go in there. There are some real soil condition problems involved with this property and the site is one that is not the most marketable. Ms. Girling stated that with the vacation the property wouid become much more marketable. Answering a question of what District 2 wouid want there instead of the Post Office, Sue Girling said they have no plans and will not oppose the vacation when the Post Office has the resources to proceed. Further discussion followed. MOTION: by Councilmember Oimond to not approve the vacation was defeated on a 1-2 vote - Rettman and Goswitz voting "NO". MOTION: by Councilmember Rettman to recommend approval of the vacation passed on a 2-1 vote, Dimond voting "NO". . -2- • 3. DISCUSSION: Annual Street and Alley Maintenance and Storm Sewer Separation Charae mailinqs. Ed Warn, Valuations Department, explained after looking at various options for handiing the two major service charge mailings. it was the decision of Don Nygaard and himself to keep the two mailings separate. The purpose of appearing today is to advise the Council of this action. Aiso, he said, when the original resolution was approved it was agreed the rates for the storm sewer charge would be reviewed after two years. It is the recommendation of the Pubiic Works Department that the rates be kept the same as the previous two years, at $32.00, he said. The timing of the two mailings will be approximately June lst for the storm sewer charge and around the end of September for the street maintenance mailing. The Council will be advised of the exact dates and will aiso be given a copy of the mailings before they are sent out. Councilmember Rettman said her concern is that these statements instill a lot of fear in people and pack the Council Chambers when they are heard. These char.ges should probably be just a line item on the tax statement and maybe•�we are wasting more money in postage than its worth. We were told last year that some of these problems would be corrected. She said she was glad to see the amount kept the same, but is upset about the confusion it causes to property owners. The method of billing should be discussed, maybe not today, • she added, but I do think it is a policy decision and should be done as painlessly, as caring and as unconfusingly as possible. Mr. Warn responded by saying he shared all of Ms. Rettman's concerns, however, the issue of whether or not to send bitis out is not a policy issue. The City is re�uired by State law to give the property owners an option to pay before it goes on their tax statement. He agreed to work with the Committee on the wording to make the bills as unconfusing and painless as possible. John McCormick, Attorney, further explained that two years ago the State Legislature changed the taw requiring a notice be sent to individual property owners of what they are being assessed and also a notice giving them the opportunity to pre pay and who to prepay to, the method of billing is left to the city. The Chair stated a meeting of the committee would be set up to work on the wording and timing of sending out these statements. It was agreed to send this resolution on to the Council and when it appears on the agenda the Chair will advise them the Cortmittee has reviewed the rates and are comfortable with keeping the rates the same as last year. The method of presenting the mailing to the people will st i t 1 be worked on i n Cor�ni ttee. MOTION: by Councilmember Rettman to recortmend approval was • unanimously carried. -3- • 4. DISCUSSION: Sprinkler System Policy. Mr. Warn, Valuations Department, explained this policy will allow for assessment financing for fire protection systems in buildings that are required by the fire code or building code to have sprinkier systems. This covers oniy those buildings where PED is currently working with the owners on some type of small business assistance program. This resolution was previously discussed in Committee and was before the Council and the changes agreed to have been made with the exception of one which is not in the current copy that will need to be made. Correction in second Whereas, ....protection systems in existing buildings (adding) "which are required by the fire code or building code" in which the owner thereof ..... The change previously agreed to was in paragraph c, we eliminated the city's right to reject the contractor and amended it to say "contractors or installers licensed or registered with the City of St. Paul or State of Minnesota". Councilmember Rettman said she is convinced this is a good idea, we are not talking about a lot of peopie because it is limited in usage and tied to a small business program and it does provide us with a financing tool to make sure we have safe buildings. • Councilmember Dimond said in his opinion this is a very bad policy. because we are talking about getting into the banking . business. When you're talking about the safety factor, it's pretty hard to differentiate between putting in wiring to make sure it's safe or a good sewer or water system. This financing is great, he said, but where do we stop government involvement and where does the private sector role begin. We are continually encroaching on the private sector financing and there is no justification for doing this. These people should be dealing with banks to get their financing. It is very dangerous for us to be getting into this and for that reason I do not support it, he added. Bob Kessler, Mayor's Office agreed this is a very significant policy change for the city but feels it is justified. The small business programs are designed not to replace, but to provide gap financing. We provide a very small part (5-10� of total package) because they are not able to obtain the full amount. Usually deals we do cannot be done privately and effects a very small part of the market and we are dealing with those that eventually might go bankrupt, so we are providing an important tool, he said. In answer to Councilmember Dirnond's question, Mr. Kessler said the bank is comfortable with this assessment and had no objections. Mr. Dimond responded, this is a different message than what he had • gotten and also said there are other businesses out there and we are limiting this as to who it goes to and as a result are creating an economic disadvantage for other businesses. The Chair cornmented we are helping businesses that can't get help otherwise. -4- • Ms. Rettman pointed out that this is not a give away program and pass through costs are also included so she feels this is a win-win situation and will move approval. Frank Marzitelli, representing Dave Cossetta, applicant for this service, said in checking with City Clerk's Office he was told this matter cannot be put on tomorrow's agenda and since timing is very important because Mr. Cossetta's work is proceeding and his financing is rather limited, he would appreciate it if this could be brought up under suspension of the rules tomorrow. Contract to be signed by Mr. Cossetta should be submitted before day is over, he added. He was advised that if suspension is not approved, it would probably appear on Thursday's agenda. MOTION: by Councilmember Rettman to recommend approvai was passed on a 2-1 vote, Dimond voting "NO". At this point the Chair called a recess. Meeting called to order at 10:20 A.M. 5. Committee of the Whole - Discussion: Shepard/Warner/East CBD Bypass Environmental Impact Statement. Atlen Lovejoy, PED, stated two weeks ago segments A, B, and C, the • roadway which runs from Randoiph through downtown was discussed. This morning, he said, we will be talking about D. E, F, the East CBD bypass. Both presentations are in preparation for the City Council public hearing on April 28th. His presentation followed. The need for building the East CBD Bypass is to divert through- traffic from downtown streets; to provide a good access to an underdeveloped partion of downtown St. Paul and the East Side; as an alternate truck route for the 35E Parkway; to connect the city's street system east of downtown and distribute traffic more effectively on these streets; and to connect the riverfront trail with the regional trail system to the north and east of downtown. Proposed design for East CBD Bypass would be a 4-tane, divided roadway with 10 ft. shoulders, and a median and turn lanes at signalized intersections. The alignment of the Bypass is fixed because of the location of the railroad tracks which are expected to remain active for many years and is limited by bridge piers from the Kellogg, I-94. E. 7th and Lafayette bridges. Two alternatives for Segment D were considered: D-) Grade-Separated Connection elevated over raitroad tracks and Warner Road at estimated cost of $8.0 Million and D-2 - At-Grade Connection at estir�ted cost of $6.2 Million. Both alternatives meet the primary objective of separating the � railroad tracks from the Bypass. While D-1 provides safer connection with Bypass and allows traffic to flow more freely, D-2 affords the best views of downtown. the river valley and the open space along the river, due to the elevation of Warner Road. so D-2. is the preferred alternative. -5- .� . • Segment E includes the Bypass from 650' north of the existing Warner Road alignment to 400' east of the I-35E northbound entrance ramp. E-1 is Bypass with no Local Street Connections and is estimated at $8.3 Million, E-2 is Bypass with Local Street Connections at Kellogg Blvd. via E. 4th Street, to E. 7th Street via Kittson and University via Olive at estimated cost of $11.9 Million. Only E-2 fulfiils the objective of improving access to downtown and the East Side; and only E-2 fulfills the objective of encouraging the redevelopment of underutilized parcels adjacent to the proposed Bypass. The noise impact of local and roadway connections along the Bypass is essentially identical to that of the Bypass without local connections, d�e to relatively low traffic volumes and speeds and significant distance from the receptors. E-1 has the least potential for vehicle conflicts, but provides no access to adjacent parcels. E-2 would improve overall safety by diverting traffic from congested local streets downtown while providing access to underdeveloped parcels along the Bypass. The difference in cost between alternatives is not a major drawback, due to the access and potential land development provided by the more expensive E-2. The most important objective for Segment E is consistency with the comprehensive pian - implementing the ring route concept, improving access to the eastern edge of downtown and East Side neighborhoods and improving the redevelopment potential of areas adjacent to the • Bypass. E-Z is the best alternative for these purposes. Segment F inciudes the portion of the Bypass from 400' east of 35E northbound entrance ramp to the entrance ramp. and the portion of Mississippi St. from 450' south to 700' north. Only one alternative chosen to connect Bypass to 35E at the existing Pennsylvania Interchange at an estimated cost of $1.5 Mitlion. This may be a temporary connection due to MnDot's plans to reconstruct 35E north of I-94 but the connection is necessary to complete the ring road system and to provide an alternate truck route for the 35E Parkway. The noise in this segment will be attributable to through-traffic on 35E, not the addition of a Bypass connection to the existing 35E/Pennsylvania interchange. Both federal and state noise standards are exceeded under both the existing No-Build and F-1 scenarios. Following Mr. Lovejay's presentation questions were asked by the Cort�nittee members and it was agreed there are a number of issues that need to be defined before the plan is approved, such as more accesses are needed and some of those we have are causing problems so that needs to be balanced out; there is a need to deal with noise issue in residential neighborhoods; gateway entrance; Phalen Creek, Trout Brook Creek, Swede Hoilow and how they relate to rest of plan; concern about relocation problems so neighborhoods aren't wiped out, such as PHA units. � Oiscussion of Shepard/Warner Road will continue at the March 30th meeting. Meeting adjourned at 11:00 A.M. -6-