CR 90-184 Petition For Alley VacationAugust 28, 1990
Is
•.'times Ge se to
Engineering Supervisor
0 P
K
PETITION FOR ALLEY VACATION
sad Action.
Staff recommends the following motion: Move that Council dgnv a
e�'o tca vacate oortiona of an ad.ley„_in the 200 block between 13th
& a.4th Avenues North noth of the Chicago Northwestern Railway rxght-
Overview.
Previously the Council ordered a public hearing for improvements in
this alley way, including the installation of storm sewer. At the
subsequent hearing residents submitted a petition that indicated a
majority were opposed to any improvements. The petition also included
an item calling for vacation of the alley from the railroad right -of-
way to within 200 feet of the street right -of -way on 3rd Street North.
Council voted against an improvement project and now needs to act on
the request for vacation.
8 Lig .
o Is the petition in order?
o Why does staff recommend denial?
o What are thee alternatives?
ig
o Petition from residents for vacation
Council Report: 90 -184
•
•
A�sl,ysis
o Is the petition in order?
PETITION FOR ALLEY VACATION
CR: 90 -184
Page 2
Staff has researched the signatures of all petitioners and has
verified them as bonafide property owners in the area under
consideration. Eighty percent of the owners have petitioned for alley
vacation. The form is in order and should be considered on the merits
of its request.
o Why does staff recommend dental?
During the public hearing a prime issue under consideration was
installation of a storm sewer, The rear lot areas in this
neighborhood form a depression that has no natural outlet. In heavy
storms or during spring thaw, water will pond up and in eo ae instances
has actually caused flooding. The City's Storm Water Management Plan
has identified this area as being low in priority concerning any storm
sewer project. That does not preclude the City from ordering a
project in the future. indeed, should Maetzold Field be reconstructed
it is quite conceivable that a lateral storm sewer could be
constructed to accommodate the low area.
To vacate the existing 14 foot alley at this point would be unwise.
The City should look to its future needs and hold its options open.
Easements could be obtained as part of vacation proceedings but the
neighborhood has not demonstrated a need for additional area to each
lot. In addition, easements could precipitate erection of fences or
structures along the centerline of the existing alley and these would
need to be demolished or relocated before any future construction
could begin.
What are the alternatives?
1. Council can deny the petition
2. Council can accept the petition and order a public hearing for
vacation.
Item #1
6/26/90
Petition to the Honorable ?Mayor Nelson Berg and the
Council of the city of Hopkins,
We the undersigned residents of blk 92, request denial
of the alley improvement as proposed in city project 90 -14,
Currently all the properties in blk 92, except one, are
served by front or side streets, thus the proposal would
be of no use or value.
Item #2 We, the undersigned residents of blk 92, request denial
of the storm drain as proposed In city project #90 -14.
In the 23 years, *that this writter has resided at this
address, spring melt or rain has not caused any damaging
flood, The exception, of course, is the 1987 super storm.
Item #3 We, the undersigned residents of blk 92, request that the
city council initiate the necessary action to vacate this
alley from the right -of- -way on the south to 200 ft. approx
on the north.
Lot# Ft Est cost Name
83 131 $4716.00 *Pokorny
233 _ 14th Ave N
84 60 $2160.00
60 $2160.00 Hlavka
241 - 14th Ave N
86 42,5 ;1530.00 Lindsey
245 - 14th Ave N
76 43,9 41;138M0 00 Kovai./ 1mn el
246 - 13th Ave N
77 4.5 $1620.00 Henliriksan
42 Ave N
78 75 $2700.00 Norman
238-- 13t•h Ave N
19 75 $2700.00
80 SO $1800,00
81 23 8 $0859.00
Leizinger
237 -14th Ave N
Nash
232- 1.3th Ave N
Gully
228 - 13th Ave N
H1ssam
222 -- 13th Ave N
j -Ln t r y, \ 5 4 7,41,
i da<7614114-4-t•-.'*60114 £4
1,62 2r-14,4
i
23.0
17
13
122,23
22.i
11
'2L9
1
12
13
123.54