CR 96-69 Alley Reconstruction 18-100•
April 12, 1996
Proposed Action.
Staff recommends the following motion: Move that Council deny a
resident petition in opposition to concrete alley reconstruction in
the #10 -#100 Block between 6th/7th Ayes. South and continue a public
hearina on proposed alley reconstruction to the June 4 Council
meeting.
This hearing is a continuation of action undertaken by Council at its
April 2 meeting. Further action continues an assessable project in the
f10 -#100 Block south of Mainstreet between 6th and 7th Avenues South.
Overview.
A public hearing was convened concerning reconstruction of the
above - referenced "T" alley at the April 2 Council meeting. Feasibility
study findings were discussed, the City's alley upgrade program was
discussed, and residents shared their sentiments concerning a project.
Opposition to improvements was voiced and a petition with signatures of
• thirteen property owners was submitted. Petitioners have stated that the
proposed concrete construction involves costs in excess of benefit
derived and that assessment rates on business and rental property at
full footages are unfair compared to the 75 foot cap placed on
residential properties. An alternate proposal was submitted by staff in
behalf of a resident who had suggested vacating the east leg of the "T"
alley, thus reducing the scope, construction costs and assessments for
all property owners. Staff agreed to study this alternative further and
Council agreed to continue the hearing.
Primary Issues to Consider.
• Action on resident petition
• Action on alternate improvement
• Staff recommendation
Supporting Information.
• April 5 staff letter to residents
• Petition
• Resolution 96 -29
es Gessele
Engineering Superintendent
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
ALLEY RECONSTRUCTION
#f10 -#f100 BLOCK 6th /7th AYES. SOUTH
PROJECT 96 -05
Council Report 96 -69
• Primary issues to Consider
• Action on resident petition
Staff still strongly stands by the case made for concrete alley
reconstruction in its February 1992 memo to Council and Council's action
to support such an alley upgrading program. Council will find attached
an April 5 letter sent to affected property owners in which the public
works director summarizes in precise manner the strong argument for
concrete construction. Staff will review this letter with Council and
recommends denial of the petition.
• Action on alternate improvement
An alternate approach to reconstruction of the subject alley is to limit
the project scope by vacating the east leg of the "T" alley, thus
reducing project costs and potential assessments. Staff has reviewed
this option internally and finds no opposition to it. A staff condition
would be retention of a utility easement over the vacated portion to
address NSP, US West, and Paragon Cable issues. The adjoining owners
have agreed to vacation in principle. One owner, Mr. Hammerlund, has
voiced concern about an easement to maintain access to the rear of his
building and restoration of the abandoned roadway such that drainage
. from downspouts will not be directed to his building.
Staff is suggesting these issues should be discussed and resolved in a
public hearing and additional procedures required in the vacation of
public right -of -way.
• Staff recommendation
CR: 96 -69
Page 2
Staff recommends that Council reject the resident petition. Staff also
recommends that Council continue the public hearing and authorize staff
to begin alley vacation proceedings.
Proposed schedule:
May 15 Vacation hearing notice in Sailor and notices sent
to property owners within 350 foot radius of site.
May 28 Hearing before Planning and Zoning Commission
June 4 First reading of ordinance for vacation at City Council
Council orders plans and specifications
June 18 Council approves plans and orders bids
July 11 Bid opening
i July 16 Bid award
Aug. 5 Begin construction
April 5, 1996
C I T Y O F
Dear Hopkins Resident/Property Owner:
H O P K I N S
This letter is to notify you of a continuation of the public hearing regarding
the reconstruction of the alley in the #10 - #100 block between Sixth and
Seventh Avenues South. At the April 2 City Council Meeting, Council
voted to continue this public hearing at the April 16 7:30 p.m. City Council
Meeting. The continuation was needed to allow city staff time to further
investigate the possibility of vacating the south segment of this alley to 6
Avenue South. Vacating this segment would decrease the project cost and
lower the estimated assessment from $26.44 /front foot to $24.65 /front foot.
At the April T meeting, a petition against the alley reconstruction project
was presented to City Council. The petition states that the proposed
reconstruction project is not worthy of the cost involved. I believe several
residents felt that a new asphalt alley pavement would be less expensive and
provide a sufficient improvement. There are several reasons why city staff
has recommended this alley, and future alleys, be reconstructed with
concrete. They are:
• Concrete construction allows very controlled grade (slope) to ensure
drainage away from the pavement section and into the storm sewer
system. Asphalt construction doesn't allow this type of grade control.
The better the drainage the longer the pavement will hold up under vehicle
loads.
• The level of maintenance required to ensure long life (40+ years) of a
concrete alley is significantly less than an alley constructed of asphalt
pavement. As mentioned above, improved drainage is a major reason for
this benefit. Another reason is that concrete is a rigid pavement that is
better able to withstand heavy vehicle wheel loads and turning
1010 First Street South Hopkins, Minnesota 55343
Phone: 612- 935 -8474 Fax: 612- 935 -1834
An Equal Opportunity Employer
movements. This is especially beneficial in the spring, when the
underlying soils are thawing and wet, and in the heat of summer when
truck turning movements can damage an asphalt surface. Asphalt is a
flexible pavement and much more dependent on the strength and stability
of underlying soils.
• For the above reasons, an asphalt alley will need more frequent
maintenance and, ultimately, need to be completely reconstructed more
frequently than a concrete alley.
• A concrete alley is much more light reflective - it increases the
effectiveness of lighting, i.e., the alley won't be as dark at night.
Bottom line: City staff believes that a concrete alley has a lower life -cycle
cost (more cost effective) and provides a much higher quality, longer lasting
public improvement that will better serve the needs of Hopkin's residents. It
is for this reason that City Council agreed to begin a concrete alley
reconstruction program in 1992.
At the April 16 meeting, Council will consider all the issues regarding this
project, including the petition against it, and make a decision.
Again, the public hearing for this project is set to continue at the April 16
City Council meeting. You're invited to attend.
If you have any questions or comments please feel free to call me at 939 -1338
or Mr. Jim Gessele, i gineering Supervisor, at 935 -8474.
1I
rr,
Steven tadl . r
Director of Public Works
To: City of Hopkins
Hopkins City Council
Hennepin County, Minnesota
BE IT KNOWN that the undersigned, who represent the
businesses and property residents /owners of the lots
surrounding the alley located at #10 Block south of
Mainstreet between 6th and 7th Avenues South (City Project
96 -05), are opposed to the "improvement" proposed by the
City Council of the City of Hopkins, Hennepin County,
Minnesota.
We, the undersigned, feel that the cost of the
"improvement" far outweighs any benefit we would receive.
full assessment for all footage for their lots, while
homeowners must pay €e ms 75 feet.
We ask that the City Council for the City of Hopkins
review their proposal and weigh the benefits vs. the costs.
We believe they will see, as we do, that this project is not
worthy of the cost involved.
me
3-Z&- a to
' iv cf /' i✓ of
PETITION
Address:
Business properties pay
26 ()Tr 2- at
2 f -96 3/ 7 r e.,/10.
Vi to
-3 / 7 a
<,f/-7S •��v_.1)
Y?7 - rzsio
fa
PETITION against City Project 96 -05
Page Two
N 42 e & Date:
Address:
3/224 ¶3 7 e St
- 4„,. L.
r,, z7/91 7 f7 c
- ld 76 3e') 4 " — rive, Sc:
S/ L fh f •
yo A \S
•
•
CITY OF HOPKINS
Hennepin County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION 96 -29
RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENT AFTER PUBLIC HEARING
ALLEY RECONSTRUCTION
PROJECT 96 -05
WHEREAS, a resolution of the City Council adopted the 6th day of
March, 1996, fixed a date for a Council hearing on the
proposed improvement of an alley in the #10 -#100 Block
between 6th /7th Avenues South, and
WHEREAS, the City Council deems it appropriate and expedient to
reconstruct the alley with concrete pavement, and
WHEREAS, ten days mailed notice and two weeks published notice of
the hearing was given, and the hearing was held thereon the
2nd day of April, 1996 at which all persons desiring to be
heard were given an opportunity to be heard thereon,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Hopkins,
Minnesota:
1. Such improvement is hereby ordered as proposed in the
Council resolution adopted the 6th day of March, 1996.
2. The City's engineer is hereby designated to prepare plans
and specifications for the making of such improvement.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Hopkins this 2nd
day of April, 1996.
Attest:
James A.Genellie, City Clerk
Charles D.Redepenning, Mayor