Memo Roadaway Improvement Policy•
•
C I T Y O F H O P K I N S
M E M O R A N D U M
Dates July 10, 1990
To: Honorable Mayor & City Council
From: Steven C. Mielke, City Manager
Subject: Roadway Improvement Policy - Mayor's Proposed
language
Mayor Berg has requested that I distribute the attached
Roadway Policy recommendation to the Council.
Mayor Berg has attempted to draft policy language on each of
the four issues which remain unresolved in the roadway
improvement policy.
It is the Mayor's hope that, upon receiving comments from
the Corancilmembers and staff on this proposed language, he
will be able to draft a second memorandum summarizing what
will, hopefully, be a consensus on the four issues. This
issue would then be placed on an upcoming Council agenda for
discussion and adoption.
With regard to each of the issues, the following represent
the staff comments and recommendations:
1. Street widths
n Generally the only areas in Hopkins which do not
meet the staff recommendation of a minimum 26'
street is Beilgrove and Knel1wood. While
recognizing the issues within those subdivisions
staff stil/ feels that the policy should state
that street widths be reconstructed at current
width, but not less than 26 feet."
o An exception to the policy could read that street
widths may be reduced below 26 feet if the Council
makes a finding that (1) a 26' width would
adversely affect trees or other significant or
desirable physical features and (2) that a reduced
width would not constitute a distinct hazard to
•
e
2 . Parking
life or property and (3) that no roadways will be
constructed below 20 feet in width.
o Staff is comfortable with the Mayor's language in
item 1.2 regarding the factors to be considered
Staff is in general agreement with the language written
by the Mayor with the exception of item 2.2. Staff
would suggest that the policy he stricken of its
requirement to have recommendations from the Parking
Committee. This committee has not dealt with this type
of issue and may not be qualified.
3. Curb and Gutters
o Staff is in general agreement with the intent of
this section, however, suggests the following
wording:
1. Roadway Drainage
3.1 Concrete curb and gutters shall be
required on all streets. Concrete curb
and gutters shall be installed where
currently in use and in other areas
unless the neighborhood presents a
petition of not less than fifty -five
percent (55 %) of the affected property
owners requesting raised asphalt edge.
3.2 Raised asphalt edge shall be installed
wherever concrete curb and gutter is not
used. Design modification shall be
established as appropriate by the
Council to address drainage and
maintenance concerns. (it is assumed
that cost will be relatively aqua'
between the two types of constx.ucit is
hoped that by calling it a raised
asphalt edge, it will not contain the
negative connotations that concrete curb
and gutter carries.
4. City P'inaraia1 Participation
o The question of financial participation has two
purposes:
First and foremost, is to provide for an
assessment which will at a tent of
reasonableness within a, contested case situation.
Should someone .ioi test their assessment, the City
needs to show that the amount of the assessment
relates to the benefit received by the assessment;
and generally speaking, residents should receive
credit for the existence of a road which exists
and, therefore, it is generally not acceptable to
charge a 100% assessment when and existing road is
in place.
Secondly, financial participation can act as a
incentive to do a road project so that the City
can more easily "sell" an improvement project.
o The Mayor has suggested a percentage of 25% of the
cost of the street reconstruction. Staff would be
satisfied with any percentage between 25 and 40 %,
but would suggest something in the middle such as
33 %. This is consistent with the percentage
allowed in St. Louis Park.
o Also within the area of financial participation,
the staff feels that a set percentage would be
better than a percentage which fluctuates between
projects. The citizenry will appreciate the
consistency of the actions more than a negotiation
with each project on what the participation level
aught to be.
o 4.3 may be unnecessary within the policy although
it is something the staff can attempt to do.
It is hoped that the Courtcilmemhers will review the Mayor's
proposed language and the staff comments and provide written
comments to the Mayor.
I am hoping that this item can be placed on the August 7
agenda for discussion and final adoption. Additionally, the
Hobby Acres assessment will need to be discussed during
August. Therefore, I urge the Councilmembers to get their
comments to the Mayor as soon as possible so that this item
can be discussed on August 7th.
If you have questions regarding the staff position on these
issues, please contact me.