Saint Paul logo
File #: RES PH 21-49    Version: 1
Type: Resolution-Public Hearing Status: Passed
In control: City Council
Final action: 4/14/2021
Title: Final Order approving the reconstruction of streets in the 2021 Saint Paul Streets Program. (Project 19233, Assessment 215200)
Sponsors: Chris Tolbert
Attachments: 1. Assessment Roll, 2. Exhibit - Nick Peterson, 3. Sample Public Hearing NoticeGriggs Scheffer Nick Peterson, 4. Powerpoint-Griggs Scheffer Phase 2 Presentation - Nick Peterson, 5. Early Notification Letter-Griggs-Scheffer 2 - Nick Peterson, 6. RES PH 21-49 - Jason Etten email 3-21-21, 7. Letter_Chuck Killian_W3, 8. Vlodaver Letter_Ward 3, 9. 1369 Alaska Ave-Ann Millikan - RES PH 21-49, 10. 1372 Alaska Ave-Kiyotaka Masubuchi - RES PH 21-49, 11. 1411 Alaska Avenue -Phillip Korkowski - RES PH 21-49, 12. 1 Edgcumbe Place-Amy and Rob Stolpestad - RES PH 21-49, 13. 3 Edgcumbe Place-Erik and Jana Hagen - RES PH 21-49, 14. 4 Edgcumbe Place-Tom and Katie Meier - RES PH 21-49, 15. 5 Edgcumbe Place-Kimberly & Michael Miller - RES PH 21-49, 16. 6 Edgcumbe Place-Kimberly & Michael Miller - RES PH 21-49, 17. 7 Edgecumbe Place-Terry Troy-voice mail - RES PH 21-49, 18. 1507 Edgcumbe Road-Elizabeth B. Myers - RES PH 21-49, 19. 1510 Edgcumbe Road-David and Annette Swanson - RES PH 21-49, 20. 1605 Edgcumbe Road-Laurence A. Savett & Susanne G. Savett - RES PH 21-49, 21. 1615 Edgecumbe Rd-Mary Burke - RES PH 21-49, 22. Edgcumbe Place Residents-John Hoeschler - RES PH 21-49, 23. 1205 Eleanor Ave-Samantha Kealey - RES PH 21-49, 24. 1215 Eleanor Ave - RES PH 21-49, 25. 1292 Highland Pkwy-Judy Youngren - RES PH 21-49, 26. 945 Vista Avenue - RES PH 21-49, 27. Video Submitted to Ward 3-Hyperlink

Title

Final Order approving the reconstruction of streets in the 2021 Saint Paul Streets Program. (Project 19233, Assessment 215200)

 

Body

In the Matter of approving all necessary work for the reconstruction of streets in the 2021 Saint Paul Streets Program.

 

Under Preliminary Order:                     RES 21-351                                          approved 03/10/2021

 

WHEREAS, 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

 

FINALLY 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.

 

 

Date NameDistrictOpinionCommentAction
4/15/2021 12:31 AMChris and Maren Hilton Against We would like to voice our opposition to this project. We believe that the project outlined by the city doesn't make the best use of our natural resources . Why build two sidewalks on either side of the street when there is a central median that would accommodate a single sidewalk? The plan outlined by the Edg***be Preservation Group would preserve trees, the character of the neighborhood, and maintain lower costs for the city, while reducing pavement. We want to believe we live in a city where the opinion of residents is taken into account. We believe that Edg***be Road in its current state with mature trees and ample green space, is a treasure that should be protected. +2 -2 2
4/14/2021 9:58 PMCynthia Rosenblatt Ross   Mr. TOLBERT MISSTATES THE INVOLVEMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS WITH RESIDENTS. We HAVE BEEN TURNED DIWN AT EVERY TURN. ADDITIONALLY, THERE IS A PERFECTLY GOOD BOULEVARD FOR A SUDEWALK AT A KESSER COST AND WHICH HAS BEEN USED AS A WALKWAY FOR YEARS. +2 -2 2
4/14/2021 8:51 PMFerdinand Peters Against I am shocked that the project engineer on this project, who refused to work openly with the Edg***be neighbors even after CM Tolbert directed him to do so. There is still time to do what is right for the neighborhood, for Saint Paul taxpayers (saving money on the project), and to preserve the natural resources of this special neighborhood. Furthermore, the legal issues of encroachments on private property must result in a delay in the current unwise plan. My high regard for the members of this council and their commitment to the neighborhoods of this grand city, I hope, will not be shattered today. +2 -2 2
4/14/2021 8:50 PMFerdinand Peters Against I am shocked that the project engineer on this project, who refused to work openly with the Edg***be neighbors even after CM Tolbert directed him to do so. There is still time to do what is right for the neighborhood, for Saint Paul taxpayers (saving money on the project), and to preserve the natural resources of this special neighborhood. Furthermore, the legal issues of encroachments on private property must result in a delay in the current unwise plan. My high regard for the members of this council and their commitment to the neighborhoods of this grand city, I hope, will not be shattered today. +2 -2 2
4/14/2021 8:50 PMFerdinand Peters Against I am shocked that the project engineer on this project, who refused to work openly with the Edg***be neighbors even after CM Tolbert directed him to do so. There is still time to do what is right for the neighborhood, for Saint Paul taxpayers (saving money on the project), and to preserve the natural resources of this special neighborhood. Furthermore, the legal issues of encroachments on private property must result in a delay in the current unwise plan. My high regard for the members of this council and their commitment to the neighborhoods of this grand city, I hope, will not be shattered today. +2 -2 2
4/14/2021 5:10 PMJoe Sarakaitis Against As an Edg***be resident, I am shocked & dismayed at the City's unwillingness to listen & engage with the stakeholders on Edg***be that will be most affected by the current plans. Over the past 9 months, we have worked with a well-respected landscape architect, to come up with various solutions/proposals, that the residents consider to be superior to the City's "cookie cutter" approach. These proposals showed benefits that included: minimizing tree loss, less new concrete, traffic calming, etc. Furthermore, one proposal, a beautiful sidewalk/promenade down the middle of the boulevard, offered a solution that likely would have cost significantly less than putting in 2 sidewalks (one on each side). Virtually everyone that we discussed these ideas with, neighbors, Transportation Committee, etc., agreed that our proposed solutions were better options. Unfortunately, the City has been an unwilling partner in this process, and it's very frustrating to say the least. +2 -2 2
4/14/2021 3:53 PMJack Hoeschler Against The Griggs Scheffer Part II process has been the exact opposite of effective and good faith communication, cooperation and compromise with affected property owners. These owners (both Edg***be Road and Edg***be Place) have spent thousands of dollars trying unsuccessfully to work professionally with city staff. The Council must go beyond platitudes about open meetings and communications and listening to the constituents and actually instruct the staff to honestly engage with and embrace outside input and alternative ideas--especially when those third party ideas are backed up with professional analysis and content. Fix the system. +2 -2 2
4/14/2021 4:32 AMMark Wingerd Against The Edg***be Preservation Group consists of nearly 100% of the residents that live on Edg***be Road between Scheffer and Hamline Avenues. We are unanimously opposed to the city's plan for our neighborhood. Here is a link to our initial petition: https://www.ipetitions.com/petition/petition-to-oppose-sidewalks-on-edg***be-road We believe that the city's plan will destroy over 50 trees and much of the neighborhood's landscaping. Our group has hired a landscape architect who has developed acceptable alternative plans which include sidewalks. Our plans have been endorsed by the Highland District Council, the forestry and parks departments. Our plans will preserve green space, save trees, and calm traffic. We have asked the city engineers to provide us with their plans and they have refused to provide us with this information. We would like to have some input on the future of our neighborhood. At this point nobody representing the city is willing to listen to the residents!!! +2 -2 2
4/14/2021 1:40 AMElaine Johnson Against We have lived in our home on Edg***be Road for 30 years. It is a beautiful, tree-lined boulevard that has been a jewel for the City of St. Paul for over 100 years. A sidewalk has never been asked for or proposed by residents for a reason; it is not necessary. The removal of mature trees would be a public disservice. Not sharing what the plans are with citizens is poor public policy. Please do not go through with this project. Thank you. +2 -2 2
4/14/2021 12:37 AMChris Pensinger Against The loss of numerous mature trees is unacceptable. There must be a reasonable way to accommodate both sidewalks while preserving the beauty of the parkway. The Edg***be neighborhood has proposed several options and I urge the City Council to consider them in good faith to minimize the loss of trees. +2 -2 2
4/14/2021 12:06 AMPeter Kelly Against • The city’s plan entails removing a multitude of trees, hedges and shrubs, does nothing to slow traffic or improve the environment • We have engaged a highly respected landscape architect who has done several projects similar to this. We have given an alternative proposal to the city which will improve the water shed, calm traffic, preserve trees and maintain the park-like nature of this unique neighborhood. None of these are in the city’s plan. • The Highland District Council enthusiastically endorsed our plan over the city’s, commenting that the one size-fits-all approach of the city was inappropriate here. • We feel that the city’s plan will devalue our homes and the neighborhood in general. • Our recommendations are simple and easy to incorporate We are asking that this Council listen to its constituency. +2 -2 2
4/13/2021 10:22 PMPaul & Jennifer Dzubnar Against I oppose the Griggs-Scheffer sidewalk and street project as currently designed by the City of St. Paul, as it removes many mature trees, decreases overall green space and degrades the overall beauty of our neighborhood. However, I fully support the sidewalk and street project design proposed by the Edg***be Preservation Group (EPG). Its plan is designed by a licensed landscape architect, is fully supported by the Highland District Council, conserves mature trees, provides traffic calming, costs less and preserves the beautiful character of the Edg***be neighborhood. As a resident living here, it is disappointing to see the City's unwillingness to apply the inputs provided by the residents of Edg***be Road, especially since EPG's proposed plan achieves the City's overall objectives of reconstructing the streets and installing sidewalks. +2 -2 2
4/13/2021 6:50 PMLester McDonald & Suzy Peterson Against Have been a resident on Edg***be for over 14 years. Sidewalks would decrease our lot even more. We also have an easement on 1 side which if changed would definitely sue the city over this. The cost is also a frivolous expense that is not needed. There is a beautiful boulevard down our street where residents walk safely and daily. The loss of trees with this proposed project is also very concerning. The historical nature of this area also raises additional concerns. Behind our home is a historical home. I believe such sites must remain unchanged as well. In terms of sidewalks raising our home values. I think we all can laugh at that. Would only cost the average homeowner over $20,000 to be put in. I think we all pay enough taxes without that additional ***essment. We are a united neighborhood. Please leave our home alone. Sidewalks are not needed. Thank You. +1 -1 1
4/13/2021 5:55 PMSteve Mooney Against Secret plans. Secret formula to ***ess property owners differently. Each neighbor has a different cost that's based on what? I've reached out for an explanation on ***essment and was told by 2 people that the head ***essor would respond to me. It's been over a month and no response. Asking Council Chris Tolbert to represent us and he hides behind the city planners which it is not their job. Mature trees runoff. The lack of a good faith effort on the city council to help preserve the trees and aesthetics of the area at a lower cost is disturbing. +1 -1 1
4/13/2021 4:35 PMGail Ward & John Smith Against As 30+ year homeowners on Edg***be Road, we oppose the project as proposed by the city. The Public Works Dept. has apparently taken a "cookie-cutter" approach to the rebuilding of Edg***be Road and the installation of sidewalks. We say "apparently" because Public Works has failed to share their final plans with Edg***be residents. The approach taken will result in the loss of many mature trees and the destruction of the park like setting on Edg***be Road. It will undoubtedly result in a loss in property values. Proposals have been made for more fiscally and environmentally friendly alternatives. These alternatives have been dismissed without discussion. Not only will the residential area of Edg***be Road be compromised, but Highland Park will also suffer. Valuable trees and green space will be eliminated and replaced with concrete. Why is more concrete being added to Highland Park? Please delay this project and study the alternatives before Edg***be Road is permanently scarred. +1 -1 1
4/13/2021 3:48 PMCynthia Rosenblatt Ross Against As a long time resident of Edg***be Road, I must voice my opposition to the proposed (rather, imposed-- as the City has refused to release its plans) "improvements" involved in the Scheffer-Griggs project. Without entertaining the involvement of its residents, ignoring the less costly and more environmental-friendly proposals of a certified landscape architect and the recommendations of the Highland District Council, this undisclosed project is being railroaded ahead. Many questions remain and better alternatives exist for a beautiful and inviting neighborhood without encroaching on the rolling lawns and mature trees that have graced this area for generations. In this time of economic despair and racial unrest, certainly there are more pressing needs for the City's resources than the digging up an old and venerable neighborhood. +1 -1 1
4/13/2021 2:36 PMKirsten Ramsay Against I object to the Griggs-Scheffer project as proposed by the city. There are many alternative options that would preserve green space, protect mature trees and lower the cost of the project. People drive, walk and bike this street because of it's beauty and park-like feel. Some of these trees have been here for hundreds of years. Please do not ruin this street for ALL the residents in St. Paul that enjoy what it is. We are tax-paying citizens who have tried to voice our opinions to no success. Where are the city’s plans? Why aren’t these being shared? Please consider an alternate option. +1 -1 1
4/13/2021 2:24 PMRichard Ramsay Against I am opposed to the Griggs-Scheffer project as currently proposed. It is my opinion that adding sidewalks as proposed will take away from the park-like setting the residents of St. Paul enjoy when driving, walking and biking down Edg***be. Countless mature trees will be lost that the residents of St. Paul enjoy for their beauty and shade. I will lose a 200+ year-old Elm tree in addition to other mature trees. We have hired a landscape architect that has proposed many alternate options that would allow Edg***be to retain its beauty, minimize the concrete, maximize green space and even lower the cost of the project. Public works has ignored our requests and failed to be open in sharing their plans with us or our landscape architect. Councilmember Chris Tolbert has urged them to share their plans and work with us and our architect on alternate and lower-cost plans. Public works have completely ignored these requests. +1 -1 1
4/13/2021 1:34 PMPeter & Karla Myers Against We urge the City Council to delay the Griggs-Scheffer paving project on Edg***be Road until a good-faith effort is made to consider the alternative designs proposed by the Edg***be Preservation ***ociation. We have already proposed these reasonable options but they have been dismissed. They would provide traffic calming, preserve trees, facilitate the installation of sidewalks, and maintain the scenic beauty of the street. +1 -1 1
4/13/2021 12:51 AM  Against We have determined that the Edg***be Place owners are able to provide title insurance for the city for the road as built so that there should be no problem correcting the easement to allow the road to be built as before. +1 -1 1
4/12/2021 10:29 PMJack Hoeschler Against How can the Council approve and authorize a major street reconstruction project without even looking at the plans? How can you expect reasonable public involvement and commentary without being willing to disclose the plans? Why is Griggs Scheffer II being kept secret even as it is being authorized? +3 -3 1