Loading...
Memo Dick & Shirley Field - :; i::.,\:.,~ . ~~. . - To: The Honorable Mayor & Council Members From: Steven C. Mielke, City Manager Date: Thursday, September 16, 1993, Subject: Appearance - Dick & Shirley Fjeld At the last regular Council meeting, the City Council was informed by Dick and Shirley Fjeld that they would like to be on the next agenda to discuss issues relative to Fifth Avenue North. Although I am unsure of the specific question or issues to be raised by the Fjelds, I anticipate that they are relative to weight limits, speed and enforcement on Fifth Avenue North. (. As a matter of providing background on those issues, I requested memorandums from Chief Earl Johnson and Public Works Director Lee Gustafson so as to provide the Council with some background on these issues. I have also asked Chief Johnson to be in attendance at the Council meeting should there be questions about police enforcement and issues related to speed and truck traffic on 5th Avenue North. If, prior to the meeting, you are aware of any other issues we should have background information prepared for, please let me know. . "-.. . L~'-'r.....a ~ - . To: Steve Mielke, City Manager From: Chief Earl Johnson Date: Tuesday, September 14,1993 Subject: Traffic Enforcement/Patrol 5th Ave. No. During this past June, the police department received a complaint from Mr. Richard Fjelds of #130 5th Ave. No. in Hopkins. Mr. Fjelds indicated that he felt that there were many vehicles traveling in excess of the posted limit on 5th Ave. No.. He further indicated that the police were not enforcing the weight restrictions for truck traffic, and his final complaint was that he rarely if ever saw a patrol unit traveling on 5th Ave. No. . In checking with the officers it was quickly determined that the officers have been operating radar on 5th Ave. No. on a frequent basis. The'same day that I received the . complaint from Mr. Fjelds I spoke with Officer Ken Hesse and he had operated radar on 5th Ave. No. twice in the days just preceding the complaint. Officer Hesse reported the same finding that I had received from other officers in that the occurrence of speeding on 5th Ave. No. was extremely low as compared to other locations within the City of Hopkins. . . ! I assigned our personnel to set up radar and to survey the traffic several times in the . . next several days. The result of their survey indicated that the average speed was well within the posted limit. - We continued to run radar periodically throughout the summer and the results were always the same, that speeding was not a problem on 5th Ave. No.. = ! We were able to borrow a special radar device that notifies citizens of their speed and that unit was placed on 5th Ave. No. in the area of Mr. Fjelds' residence twice during 1 this past week. I also assigned another radar survey that was conducted on September 13th, which determined that the average speed was approximately thirty miles per hour. ! This survey was conducted at two different times during the day. . -' ' I . i ! i ! . ! :1 i 'I ! ,""'".".....~"''''~ "'....,.....,...."~""'''''~,,,....,,.,...,,''''''''.W...oriOM.''''''','',.,~., ..",,__ _0'" ~.' "~".~ " , .). .~ '~. Memorandum, September 14, 1993 Page Two I had recontacted Mr. Fjelds and encouraged him to join the officers in the radar vehicles so that he could monitor and observe the speed of the passing motorists. He indicated to me that he was not interested in doing that. Following Mr. Fjelds initial complaint, in addition to the speeding issue, I checked to determine how often our police units were patrolling on 5th Ave. No.. It was determined that patrol units would travel that route a minimum of ten times per day. In addition to the increased radar, I requested that supervisors have the officers patrol more frequently on 5th Ave. No. when the case load permitted. The third issued raised by Mr. Fjelds is that the police were not enforcing the truck load limit signs on 5th No.. In checking, the traffic sergeant reported that the signs were confusing to truckers and would be difficult to enforce. I checked with Public Works to determine if the load limits were reasonable and if in fact the street was constructed to handle heavier weights. Public Works reported that 5th Ave. No. could handle considerably more weight than the posted limit. During a discussion regarding the weight limits, a decision was made at the manager's staff meeting to remove the signs on a temporary basis until a determination had been 1. made as to what changes or modifications in the ordinance would be necessary. I checked with the Hennepin County Sheriffs Department and learned that they had attempted to enforce and issue citations for the weight violations approximately four or five years ago. The Teamsters supported the truckers and provided legal counsel. The judge dismissed all charges on all cOLJnts, ruling that the restrictions were unreasonable and that also ordinance 1320.01. Truck Routes. was confusing and not clear. RECOMMENDATION: I believe as I had indicated at our last staff meeting that-discussed the issue of weight restrictions on 5th Ave. No. that Public Works needs to determine what the load restrictions should in fact be. An important consideration is that under the current ordinance, even pickup trucks that are loaded within their capacity would not be able to travel on 5th Ave. No., nor would any of the lighter trucks that service businesses in the downtown area. Mr. Fjelds would most certainly not be able to drive his camper on 5th Ave. No.. If a determination is made that weight restrictions are imposed, the police will need to determine how in fact they can enforce those restrictions. One of our concerQs, is that . the Police Department does not own scales, nor have the proper equipment to weigh these vehicles. One of the options would be to have vehicles follow the squads to the i.. '~.. _ ",-" , Memorandum, September 14, 1993 e: Page Three County Shops where they could be weighted on the county scales. The problem with this is that those scales are open only for a short time, and in many cases there is not someone available to operate the scales. Another alternative is to utilize either Hennepin County or the State Patrol that could be called in with their portable scales to weigh a vehicle, but it would be expected that the delay would be at least an hour and in many cases longer than that. It would be my recommendation to utilize the county scales to weight vehicles whenever possible and use the County and the State as a back up alternative. The City of Hopkins has approximately 55 miles of roadway for the officers to patrol. I There are a number of locations in Hopkins where speed is a determining factor in I many of the accidents. Our surveys indicate that those areas must be priorities for the . use of radar. In checking the traffic accidents that have occurred on 5th Ave. No. . during this past year, our records indicate one accident that occurred on 5th Ave. No. that was caused by an illegally parked vehicle blocking the view of someone exiting a private driveway. The goal of radar enforcement is to obtain voluntary compliance which appears to be very good on 5th Ave. No.. The other factor is to reduce the severity and the frequency of accidents in areas where speed is a factor. Again this does not appear to be justified. My recommendation is that the police continue to . periodically check 5th Ave. No. for violations, but that further saturation or concentrated efforts be suspended. If you require further information, please contact me. ELJ/pac -, . w, ~'~'''-'''''Q''''''''''-''''''''''''nm""".,,,,,,,,~,,,w~.)I\1i',*#,,''m~,,,\w;;,rnMi""';"i~;ii!i'''10i''''';~~ . ~" ... . . }~ CITY OF HOPKINS MEMORANDUM DATE: September 16, 1993 TO: steve Mielke, city Manager FROM: Lee Gustafson, Public Works Director ~ SUBJECT: Weight Restrictions Issues on 5th Avenue North This memo is being written to address some issues that will probably be discussed at the September 21, City Council meeting with regard to weight restrictions on 5th Avenue North, between Mainstreet and Minnetonka Mills Road. The contents of this memo will include how Public Works views the present situation, and also some items Council should consider if they want to make some changes to the weight restrictions. The last few items that I will mention will be with regard to the attachments and why they were included. The intent behind posting weight restriction signs is usually to .-- prohibit trucks from operating on a road to insure the road will not (. be severely damaged or destroyed due to the weight of the vehicles. . If this statement, which was partially taken from State statutes, was used by Hopkins as the basis for establishing weight restrictions, this s,ection of 5th Avenue North would not currently have weight restrictions posted. I say this because this section of 5th Avenue will probably never have a high volume of large trucks on it due to the proximity of T.H. 169. Secondly, the road is presently in fairly good shape and has required minimal maintenance in the past. I can therefore conclude that this road should not be seriously damaged if trucks were freely allowed to use it. The current weight restrictions on this street also contradict how the city's Comp Plan has intended it to be used. The Comp Plan has identified this street as a collector. This means it is intended to collect traffic from nearby areas and provide the traffic with a sensible route to a larger road such as an arterial. The city is therefore heading in an opposite direction than the intent of the Comp Plan by discouraging the use of this street through weight restrictions. It is fairly obvious to me why the Comp Plan has this street identified as a collector, and why the city has it further identified as a State Aid Street. The street is simply a natural route between the major roads of County Road 3, T.H. 7, and Minnetonka Boulevard. .--, Even if this street was not classified as a collector or a, .state Aid street, traffic would continue to use it as a collector due to its natural use. It therefore should not be restricted from its obvious and intended use especially when the pavement can handle it. - -,._,-~~-- (."-r; > September 16, 1993 Page 2 If the city Council does not view the sl tuation as I do, and feels , weight restrictions on this road are necessary, I would recommend that ~ the weight restrictions be modified to be more realistic. The current restrictions are not even close to being within reason. They currently prohibit anything larger than a 3/4 ton truck from using the street. This includes almost all step vans and recreational vehicles. Modifying the restrictions would also bring the restrictions closer to being in compliance with state statutes thereby allowing the Police department to possibly enforce the restrictions. There are however, a few other items that should probably be looked into if weight restrictions are deemed appropriate for this road. The first would be to modify the Comp Plan to remove the collector street designation on this road. The second would be to possibly remove the State Aid designation on this road and designate another road. However, it will be very difficult to find an obvious collector route to replace 5th Avenue, that is not already designated a state Aid street. I have attached a few pieces of information that you may find useful in your' review of this situation. The first is a copy of the state statutes regulating weight restrictions. The second is a copy of a section from the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices specifying how weight restrictions signs should be posted. The final item is a summary of the traffic counts that have been taken on this road form 1955 to 1989. I included this to show how the traffic has ~i;;'~_ substantially decreased since the early 1980's. . -, ' . .- J . ~ ~u _,.._.,,~ ....<.:J '". ,_..~.._ .'. __, .'"'~~_ 169.87 TRAFFIC REGULA nONS 406 407 . 169.87 SEASONAL LOAD RESTRICTIONS; DESIGNATION OF TRUCK ROUTES. 5.0C ~ Subdivision 1. Optional power. Local authorities, with respect to highways under their jurisdiction, may prohibit the operation of vehicles upon any such highway or 7,OC impose restrictions as to the weight of vehicles to be operated upon any such highway, whenever any such highway, by reason of deterioration, rain, snow, or other climatic conditions, will be seriously damaged or destroyed unless the use of vehicles thereon per is prohibited or the permissible weights thereof reduced. The local authority enacting any such prohibition or restriction shall erect or cause pen; to be erected and maintained signs plainly indicating the prohibition or restriction at I over each end of that portion of any highway affected thereby, and the prohibition or restric- tow; tion shall not be effective unless and until such signs arc erected and maintained. a di Municipalities, with respect to highways under their jurisdiction, may also, by 169 ordinance, prohibit the operation of trucks or other commercial vehicles, or may ma;, impose limitations as to the weight thereof, on designated highways, which prohibitions ceec and limitations shall be designated by appropriate signs placed on such highways. The commissioner shall likewise have authority, as hereinabove granted to local atee authorities, to determine and to impose prohibitions or restrictions as to the weight of 169 vehicles operated upon any highway under the jurisdiction of the commissioner, and true such restrictions shall be effective when signs giving notice thereof are erected upon the 169 highway or portion of any highway affected by such action. pou When a local authority petitions the commissioner to establish a truck route for whi travel into, through, or out of the territory under its jurisdiction, the commissioner shall pen investigate the matter. If the commissioner determines from investigation that the operation of trucks into, through, or out of the territory involves unusual hazards ove because of any or all of the following factors; load carried, type of truck used, or topo- to\.\ graphic or weather conditions, the commissioner may, by order, designate certain high- ad ways under the commissioner'sjurisdiction as truck routes into, through, or out of such tiOl territory. When these highways have been marked as truck routes pursuant to the order, ma . rat, \,:- trucks traveling into, through, or out of the territory shall comply with the order. Subd. 2. Seasonal load restrictions. Except for portland cement concrete roads, from March 20 to May 15 of each year, the weight on any single axle shall not exceed ant - five tons on a county or town road that has not been restricted as provided in subdivi- cO! sion 1. The gross weight on consecutive axles shall not exceed the gross weight allowed wit in section 169.825 multiplied by a factor of five divided by nine. This reduction shall the not apply to the gross vehicle weight. 16' Subd. 3. School buses. Weight restrictions imposed pursuant to subdivisions 1 and cit: 2 do not apply to a school bus transporting students when the gross weight on a single axle of the school bus does not exceed 14,000 pounds; provided that, road authorities of may restrict any highway under their jurisdiction to a lesser school bus axle weight by written order to school boards 24 hours in advance of required compliance with such m reduced axle weight. un. History: (2720-279) 1937 c 464 s 129; 1947 c 505 s 1: 1949 c 695 s 1; 1951 c 445 s ity, 1; 1967 c 12 s 1; 1967 c 467 s 1; 1973 c 85 s 1; 1981 c 321 s 9: 1982 c 617 s 15: 1986 c 444 shz ex( 169.871 CIVIL PENALTY. Subdivision 1. Civil liability. The owner or lessee of a vehicle that is operated with act a gross weight in excess of a weight limit imposed under sections 169.825 and 169.832 fur to 169.851 and 169.87 or a shipper who ships or tenders goods for shipment in a single truck or combination vehicle that exceeds a weight limit imposed under sections m: 169.825 and 169.832 to 169.851 and 169.87 is liable for a civil penalty as follows: fur (a) If the total gross excess weight is not more than 1,000 pounds, one cent per pound for each pound in excess of the legal limit; ac' (b) If the total gross excess weight is more than LOOO pounds but not more than tac . 3,000 pounds. $10 plus five cents per pound for each pound in excess of 1,000 pounds; 4.'.;. ... _ ":;,:'T ~ . 28-40.1 Sidewalk Closed Signs (R11-X1, R11-X2) These signs should be used where pedestrian flow is restricted or rerouted due to road work. The SIDEWALK CLOSED sign (R11-X1) should be installed at the beginning of the closed sidewalk section and elsewhere along the closed section as needed. The SIDEWALKCLOSED ! USE OTHER SIDE OF STREET sign (R11-X2) should be erected at the beginning of the restricted sidewalk. section when' a parallel sidewalk exists on the far side of the roadway. These signs are typically mounted on some sort of barricade device to act as a reminding message encouraging compliance. SIDEWALK " SIDEWALK CLOSE1 USE OTHER SIDE CLOSED OF STREET +== -"- -..--.. .--.. -..-----...-..- .- R11-X1 R1H<2 30" x 18" 48" x 24" *' 2B-41 Weight Limit Signs (R12-1 to 5) . Due to seasonal weakening of the road surface, obsolescence of bridges or pavements, or other impairment of roadways, it is often necessary to limit the load permitted on a roadway. The Weight Limit sign (R12-l) carrying the legend WEIGHT LIMIT (10) TONS, may be used to indicaterestrictibnspertaining to total vehicle weight including load. Where the restriction applies to axle weight rather than gross load, the legend may be AXLE WEIGHT LIMIT (5) TONS (RI2-2). In residential districts, where it is intended to restrict trucks of certain sizes by reference to empty weight, the legend may read NO TRUCKS OVER 7000 LBS EMPTY WT (RI2-3). In areas where multiple regulations of the type, described above are applicable, a sign combining the necessary messages on a single panel may be used, such as WEIGHT LIMIT (2) TONS PER AXLE (10) TONS '! GROSS (RI2-4). i Posting of specific load limits may be accomplished by use of the Weight Limit symbol sign (RI2-5). This sign contains the legend I WEIGHT LIMIT on the top two 'lines and shows. three different truck symbols with the allowable weight limit shown to the right of each symbol as ( ) T. A bottom line of legend stating GROSS WT is permissible if needed for enforcement purposes. Only the truck symbols and their respective weight limits for which restrictions apply need be shO\yn,_. ' MN 28-34 2/91 . J ,., ! t 1 . i ,...._~,.~__. .m__'"H.."...nm_'~"_Mm_. ,__._.......M ,.-",,-- ,"~.." "'.,--' .- ~:: :- .'f .~j.. . . , A Weight Limit sign shall be located immediately in advance of the section of highway or the structure to which it applies. To reduce costly ! delay and backtracking, a weight limit sign (R12-1) with an advisory 1I~97 (I) message may be placed at approach road intersections or other points R8V.4 where the affected vehicle can detour or turn around. The standard, and minimum, size shall be 24 x 30 inches but a larger size is desirable on major roads and streets. . WEIGHT AXLE LIM IT WEIGHT 10 LIMIT TONS 5 TONS .' R12-1 R12-2 24" x 30" 24" x 30" (>e . NO r. WEIGHT TRUCKS WEIGHT LIMIT LIMIT OVER .... aT 7000 LBS 2 TONS PER AXLE #.... 12 T EMPTY WT 10 TONS GROSS ~ ....'J.' J 6 T ! . R12-3 R12-4 R12-S 24" x 36" 36" x 24" 30" X 36" 2B-41.1 Weight, Width and Height Restriction Signs Minnesota has adopted the following signs as standard for use on all roads in the State of Minnesota: -' .. MN 28-34.1 2/91 ,-=--= -~-~~ .~~ "'.' ('" -' ".,,' r.t: ;> < ..ll ..ll ..ll ..ll ..ll ..ll ..ll ..ll ..ll ..ll ..ll ..ll ..ll ~ to to to to to to to to to to to to to >< ~ 00 00 00 00 00 -...J -...J -...J -...J -...J -...J 0') c.n /'Cl ~ to -...J c.n W ..ll to -...J 0') ~ N 0 0') c.n .., ~ -. << . ~ ""'l ~ == ~ -. ~ (:I - 'll:: ;> -.! ~ ..... ..... ..ll - d VJ ~~ -...J ~ 0 ~ ~ (J1 00 VJ 3:~ N en 00 ~ ~ VJ -< ~ (J1 ..... ....(Jl:l 0 0 0 (J1 e~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 VJ - 0 0 0 . ;:: ~ S Iii ~ ~ ::r 0 s ~ r:n := > - en ~ . 3: ~ - ""'l 0') 00 0') ..... ..... ..... c.o ..... ..... Iii ~ W VJ N P 0 00 00 en VJ ';::::lCll ""'l ~ ~ ::::l 0') N -...J ~ ~ 0') ..ll en to W Q.~ ~ -...J 00 (0 (0 (:I 0 0 c.n -...J N 0 ~ to . 0 0 0 0 0 (J1 (J1 (0 to en -...J ..ll 0 S' N )o::j 0 0 0 0 0 - ~ 0 <J') ~ .... CIl s: ... z ~ . ? ~ (IJ ~ <J') .... CIl ... c.n en en ..... ..ll ..... (0 -...J Z N ~ 0 -...J -...J ~ ~ VJ ? CIl ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (J1 0 0 ~ 00 ~ ~ ~ N VJ ..... _ /'Cl -...J N 00 o (Jl:l 0 (J1 0 0 0 0 N (0 (0 -...J 00 00 en 3:~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 (J1 0 0 en N en 0 ~. en - (il /'Cl .... := e. ~ .... ..... ..... ..... .., ::> -...J (0 -...J (0 /'Cl N (J1 c.n !" ~ N ~CIl ~ ~ ~ ~ ..... N ~ ~ ~ N -lo en ~ ~ ~ c.n -...J -...J VJ en -...J _ /'Cl ... 0 00 ..... o (Jl:l 1 ~ 0 0 (J1 0 (J1 0 c.n (0 (0 ~ en VJ ~~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N -...J VJ ? '--' ~ ~ . t i . L '<_'_.v"~'''_'m__'__'''D~'' -- .__",~"_nM.~m._'__~__,u_~~'''' "'O_"_,U_M , ----- -- --~-~~--- ~.. I .I ,'f~ ... ,). MINN'IT~~KA FIGURE 4 ] '" } ~ 1 ] :-:: f ~~ /r ] ~j;}... , 4/' l _ , ,4t:?,' "~ J ;.' : Q . '--.:;..., , . I, . I g I '~ .~' Ia: .------" I <:( ] i:i,~,ilcil' 'll. , ,-....u..... 4;1 . 'B!;1. ~-- "jr--'==''''>2j I CI) 01 _ a: :: i,~: j ~Il :::> - ,i.. .0 I " -=~~=-~~~ "'=1 '-J 1 . ~ i ; ! ~' , :,1 I,.; ~. i I 1:' ; > . ., . """"'~.. . .JY'Y . .' _,L..__. _,_.___.~--. ' -~r- /", 1 L.Y,:~O-: "/,, a....., INTERMEDIATE ARTERIAL ,-------- --Hi"1 . .\./V ""7~ ] -, MINOR ARTERIAL 1 ~ I w ~ -5l;'~'" ..~ :, 'L..'JLu.'n J~' _ _ COLLECTOR '....""'"..JI ';1 ri) I q) J II - <( ,I "/:~i:~:: 1\~7THST~ls ~ ~rr~~ ~ L * PLANNED LRT STATION ~' .t..-./ =-'ll!!.ii'--,,~ 'F=l,;' ''-L;'' , 1:-1 LOCA TIONS z. .._ I, ;1:1' ~1':Cj II, " E. /r =-"" ""'-'... ~ . . . . . PLANNED LRT ROUTE UJ ~_.;t -== , / ~ . ~ -'---'-':,;' 0 0 0 0 POSSIBLE FUTURE / ~ I ,.... - I ....,,',\ LRT ROUTE ..~.oo '-,_, 8 <( ) " z y/""", ~'<':.., ~- 0 I ~, ~ "- IU ill ,;. - .....-' , liI .. · Ilal.l'....., ~_ ,; MINNETONKA \' 8 N L ~ ~ City Of = 1 l' , .~,,~ ,.~ : HOPKINS . comprehensive _. -)1 an -.c- MAJOR ROADWAYS Snit'" AND LRT PLAN 35 . " I{"',~ ..., ..'" , ,. August 27,1993 ATTENTION HOPKINS CITY COUNCIL: , . We the homeowners of 5th Avenue North, who live between 1st Street North and Minnetonka Mills Road,~several y.ears ago petitioned to remove the semi-trucks from driving on 5th Avenue North. The council approved a weight limit on 5th Ave. North. the signs were put in place. On August Z~,1993 the weight limit signs were removed without notifying anyone in the neighborhood. We are again petitioning the city council to keep the trucks off of 5th Ave. North and to put s~gns up that have~ proper:.wor:ding so that the police can enforce them. The police chief in a letter on 7 23, '1993 said the old weight limit signs' were not adequate for enforcement. (, I :S5~'( .5 "'i-" 3<-, ~ .... l ~ ~- - - ') -~v ~'--S-:L6. Odfr JJ, I"~ - ~ -sd (I' UR ! / / - ,S_U{ ~',u 7~' / I . i If I - -->7// / :?l-~ /V /,L;>"c:' /~-"~-:::'/.J /1'1/1;"577;.) i , 0!1-1/AiA-L ~)-1:;U~ ~). <;rA A UP I..J, '1fu.P.c~ / 11 ')<;'sC;3 __ \, -.:.......... .... ~ I tI .... I ;.. I ~ '--~ d3-' C\~. "-\~ ~ " , ! C ' ''-.: -- ~"-"-- - , ' .....;. ~Jf: ~ " \ '- - hL\}...J ;) '/., V ~IJlk tf. /f/ H \ c.~~'b ) 4.... .1 ',/'~ ','.. J . :i .- J 'h tv '.7 J,o,? N;(; . ! ~3Y ~ iul /J- ','?t;fJJ -ts::r~,~ ! t '. I I ~:J-'/J.- -:?-~;..;/v /1/ ' ;q~~i~ c?dJ. i . S--r^-~,'-(\ f/ . -~;- . ~'L ~ ~" ~. ., /~o ~'fh~.. (U . \ . i 1~.4-.tJ I ~ ! \.U.-. _~,/;f ,.~ - I 1/ </ ! ,-- ::' r,-'" . ;-~ August 27,1993 (. ATTENTION HOPKINS CITY COUNCIL: We the homeowners of 5th Avenue North, who live between 1st Street North and Minnetonka Mills Road,.several y.ears ago petitioned to remove the semi-trucks from driving on 5th Avenue North. The council approved a weight limit on 5th Ave. North. the signs were put in place. On August 26,1993 the weight limit signs were removed without notifying anyone in the neighborhood. We are again petitioning the city council to keep the trucks off of 5th Ave. North and to put s~gns up that have~ proper:.wOil::ding so that the police can enforce them. The police chief in a letter on 7 23, 1993 said the old weight limit signs were not adequate for enforcement. 1/.J(2~ /'-1 ~/b I . r I. ,,-'7 ~ ..)L/l? ' ;4n :i >1 /..) lJ;a&c/l ) ../ J5fJ 4-<, tJ. I I \ )~4 ~ "~~ \' ; -. t. 1 'i r.; - 5' "C/4 jtjy.st{ u.r-f CJt- C, C~u. c( - \ 2~ 5~C~ " t, I ''-G",- ~ )0 , /' -~..?~ . :// r ,- C/r- a;-< '/t. ~ 17 'A~ .'. ~ S; c:.'0v-c, /t~ 'v'''--- , (. ~ ' J < .. 71:- J4 rC ;J t.-10 .q C't: .N ~ fllj (i./~tV lJ. rk7)/c 4;....:::; -- ( , .... ~ ! .... ;:. ..''/ L'. .. l \ (' \ -.. / d-6'~ "S .fJ\ .Ave N -e "-' . ---7- U 0 J. ,,,7 JJ / t.-- ' '\ :' ~v....-\J -7'.....t-.~A". c> ~~k.. /.:.;L ~--:; ."5 A !/ e. /"V C).. . '.i/ \, 4 ./ ~~.. *J{~V'--:1J'-- . ~ I~ 7 - 5 r~ p: t..{ N /f'~J'1c 1'1 S ( '- -"') I :~,.),Ii ': i .1..' -j' 7/( A V f l/ . 4 1- ......, .~l- ("/', ;' M.-I.: .~ , 'J , r C LJ ,I /1 '7 . IJ ) ! c:~ ; - . J).' J I >.f -t./....-;:..........-<-. I>> ~ . r..:.~ .-. A'~' , . August 27,1993 .' ATTENTION HOPKINS CITY COUNCIL: We the homeowners of 5th Avenue North, who live between 1st Street North and Minnetonka Mills Road,~segeral y.ears ago petitioned to remove the semi-trucks from driving on 5th Avenue North. The council approved a weight limit on 5th Ave. North. the signs were put in place. On August 26,1993 the weight limit signs were removed without notifying anyone in the neighborhood. We are again petitioning the city council to keep the trucks off of 5th Av.e. North and to put s~gns up that h~ve_p~6per~wo~ding so that the, police can enforce them. The police chief in a letter on 7 23, 1993 said the old weight limit signs were not adequate for enforcement. I Address '~N' / D 51-I-, I I / .1J /02- nt: ") . '11rlf/U1/1 ) - '-. . . HR;;' ,"'~: ,",'''~tt'~'~<' ;.......,l~l","m.rr.~~~' ,,"'';'''"-!!''K''m"~~'''mlil_~~__