CR 88-15 Mainstreet Renovation Project
. ...
-
v
(., ~
. ~
1. .,
o "
P j( ,
January 14, 1988 Council Report: 8 'j - 1 5
MAINSTREET RENOVATION PROJECT PETITION
Proposed Aotion.
Staff recommends adoption of the following moticn: H 0 .Le tbA!:~ th$
petition submitted b:l Hopkins Mainstreet Promotion af!.CL.J!.ity Center
Development Corporation be held without action to allow th!,
ltetit1gners to obtain additional si$tnatures of t.hoBe people who voulq
De assessed for the project be adopted.
Adoption of this motion would delay a decision to initiate the study
until the Council is given move assurance that the projeot is desired
by those people who would be assessed for the project. Although" the
study does not guarantee that the project would be completed 01'"
assessed, the Council would at least be assured that there ia interest
on behalf of those people who ,,"ould ultimately have to pay an_
assessment.
O.-ter-view.
.. Discussions have beeD held within both HMP and CeDe tor the last
several years regarding the desirability and the impaot ot the
We.l.comall on Mainstreet businesses. Some individuals feel that the
Welcomall is the hindranoe to good vehiole traffic dowu the Ha1nmtreet ~
area and affeots the ability to park olose to a business front and
tberefore would like to see the renovation of Ma1natreet back to a
typical malnatreet design.
HMP and CCDC have discussed this and deciaed to petition the City to
study the cost of re-doing Mainstreet into a nturn of the century"
design with new lighting fixtures, sidewalks, etc.
It. is anticipated that this study could be conducted by City staff
with the assistance ot our consulting engineer at a cost of $2,000-
$4,000 in consulting engineering costs. Should the project proceed,
this cost could be assessed as part of the project. I
Prillary Issues to Consider.
- Is there suffioient interest to condu~t the study as
requested?
- Is the petition representative of those persons who would I
ultimately pay tbp. assessment on an improvement? I
- How much and where would the funds come from to pay for
this study?
- What are the current conditions and plans for the existing
Mainstreet ar-ea7 ~~~
I
I
Supporting Information. ...
- Analysis Steven C. Mielke
- Alternatives Community Development
- Petition Director
.. . . ~ . ~ ,". . ,-.
, . .; .,.. .
..A
Council Report.: 88-15
Fage 2
tpalya1a.
The petition which has been rec~lved requeata the City to underwrite a
feasibility study to determine the costs of:
- return of the mall to pre-mall condition in terms of
parallel parking
_ retcrn of the mall to pre-mGll condition with angle
parking, either ot which may mean narrower sidewalks and
one-way traffic
_ complete remodeling of Malnstreet with oentral theme of
"turn of the century" improvements
The petition was signed by 16 persoDs who stated that they were
building owners and 28 who stated that they w~re business owners.
There is about 3,240 front feet on Mainstreet between 6th Avenue and
12th Avenue. Building owners signing the petition represent about 290
teet or about 9%.
There is about 1 ,740 front feet on Maiostreet east ot 6th Avenue.
Building ovners signing the petition represent about 375 front teet or
about 22'.
V.at ot 12tb Avenue tbere is about 5,130 tront feet on Mainatreet.
Building owners signing the petition represent about 195 front teet or
about 4'.
Several business owners, not property owners, on Malnstreet a180
signed repr6senting about 300 front feet. These represent about 3' of
the total front teet on Mainstreet. Several signers were building or
business owners on the side avenues or on First Street North. If the
costs of the project were to be assessed. the validity of these "
signers as assessment payers would have to be documented.
A typical ii1lprovement project requires a minimum of 35S of the
benefitted properties to be assessed in order to qualify as a 1I29
Improvement Project. If there are less than 35S, the City may proceed
but would require a ~/5 vote of the Council in order to assess the
project.
.
-- 11
- - -_.._----~--
. j,
. Counoil Report: 88-15
Page 3
The current Mainatreet mall was constructed in the early 70's and lIa!!
8sseflsed to the benefitted propertiss 1n the downtown area. Th0
assessments 0[\ this project have just recently been completed.
Hopkins Mainstreet Promotions and City Centel." Development Corporation
nave discussed, tor qu1t& a while, the viability of the mall as a help
or hindrance in the retail environment along Ma1nstreet. Parking
along Mainstreet has, for a long time, been an issue of contention.
This petition is requesting that th6 City Council expend funds to
study the cost of re-deslgnlng the mall into a "turn of thl3 century"
type design~ This would require that the sldewalk8t ourb and guttt1r
and street surface be torn up and re-done with either one or two way
traffic and parallel parking or angle parking instituted back onto
Mainstreet.
This oould prove to be not only expensive, but very oontroversial.
Since only 9S of those people along the existing mall have signe'" the
petition and would have to pay assessments on that projeot-, it seems
to staff that we should spend more time finding out how favorable the
bus1n~8s oommunity would be to this projeot prior to the City ...
expending t'unds on the project.
. We have anticipated a fee from our consultant to be .2,OOO-.~,OOO
depending on the scope of this study and the services that they would
perform. We anticipate that the staff could establish the 8cen&i'ioa
trom whioh the cODsultant would work and then request the cODsultant
to draw up cost estiroates to complete the scenario.
Funds oould be drawn trom the 208 Redevf!lopment Fund for the study and
later reimbursed if the projeot proceeds, or the City Council could
request that the pEI'titioners fund the projeot should the project not
proceed to an assessment stage. If the project were to prooeed, the
funds expended at this time could become part of the overa.ll
assessment.
The City has plaoed Mainsteet into its' capital improvement plan.
Mainstreet has been designated for redevelopment with planning
starting in 1988 and 1989 and construction in '89 & '90. Thess plana
vary depeoding on where along Mainstreet and ho." large a project would
be constructed. Current roadway is in need of upgrading by either an
overlay at a minimum or reconstruction at a maximum.
Al~ernativeB.
1 . Prove the petition and order a study to be conducted as
per the request of the petition.
I
I
I
I
. ...
'. Councll Report: 88-15
page 4
Under this option the staff would conduct a study to
analyze the cost of a roadway improvement project on
Malnatreet.
2. Take no Botioe on the petition and wait with the ana~ysis
until suoh time as further signatures are obtained by the
petitioners showing greater interest in the study.
This option would give the Council more information as to
the popularity of the study and the potential willingness
to re-do the mall under different scenarios.
3. Reject the petition.
This alternative would oause the City to n~t study the
requested project and consider reconstruction or repair
of the existing roadway at a future date.
Reoollsendation.
It ls the staffs reoommendation that furtber input from tbe properties
i. to be assessed is needed in Qrder to better evaluate the desire of the
Malnatreet buslnesa people on the re-working of the mall. Should tbe
,. projeot prooeed, it 1s recommended that funds trom 208 be utilized tor
thia study and that 208 be reimbursed should the projeot prooeed. It
is anticipated that the project would take several months to complete.
.
~ _. ---..,,-
. ..
.C~'.l.' ~ CEJ:\r"'".r~ D:S::VELOl?~ENT CORPORA.TION
._'-~OPKINS ~
MXNNESOT.A..
Oecember 23, 1987
.
City Courlcil
City of Hopkins
1010 First Street South
Hopkins, 11N 55343
Re; Mainstreet Renovation Project Petition
Dear Mayor l~i 1 bert and Council persons:
The undersigned are writing on behalf of City Center Development Corporation
and Hopkins Mainstreet Community Promotions. Enclosed please find a petition
signed by building owners and business owners requesting a feasibility study
to determine costs of renovation of Maln~treet. The objectives of this
request are to determine the opportunities for increased parking. and the
impr)vement of the landscaping and public fixtures on Mainstreet. Although
reference is made to a central theme of I'Turn of the Century", that issue
- need; further consideration and discussion. The desire is to upgrade the
Mainstreet to be com pa t i b 1 e with bo th existing businesses and new
development.
Once the feasibility and costs estimates are available. more productive
discussion can occur at all levels reqarding what changes should be made. We
look fo rwa !'d to the opportunity to participate with the City in those
discuss~ons.
consideration of th)$ request. Please advise us when the
0 the council agenda.
//d~
CITY CENTE2 DEV~LOPMtNT CORP.
7~~ ~v 7
Nel son W. Berg
Acting President
V"OLU"NTA.RY F>:R.OG:R r=r:s.s TO\NARDS COJM:M..C...TNT:r....Y DEVELOP:M:ENT
- ---_._._----~~
--- -~---_._-_.-
----------- -~-------
. '"
~-l
.~ ~. :"1/19/87
". '"
;& PETITION: MAINSTREET RENOV^TION PHOJr:CT
- PU ll.f>OS I:: I To upgrade Mal.nfitn"ct of 1l('l'kll1n rnr ilnl'ruv,'cl p.'I'ld!i'J.
",ore pl~lIs1n9 !lcNthet i\:n. "tit! <',,'-'Dur,"I" "" l""1 n.'e\.
business Activity.
~"-' '
~. .
k:'.:. We the undersigned hereby requ":!st tit., City oC !lopk.ina t\O undcnolI'itc a
, feasibility study to deterrnino co~t of "tnted objoctlves lIsted ~clow.
I. Return mall to pre-mall cOndlllC"H\ in l(,>t"ms of paral!:;,l
t parking,
~~.
< 2. Return mall to pril-mall condItion with angle parking either
~~; which molY mean nl.rro....er lIIido....lIlkn i1nd ono ..,11'i tt"<1ffic.
3. Complete re~delin9 of Mninat~oot with central them~ of
~urn of centur1 improvement~.
;
BLOC BUS.
SIGNATURE "ODneSl> OWNER OWNER ',_,
. .
j/' ~-
,
i.--- - .t:---
1_ ----
/ d kLt.-n,:..t/1,.r:d l.."-- t..--
- J
I 7, j' n vP ~.. .-...-
~ ~y tL " ., ".' t'I t __
I 'II 'I ~~::. "-..
~ ~
~
,
-... ., t., k,c
. .) I I
13 ..'j.i I.)'~'.';;';""TI!(~-C-' ,
14 I '). I - 0'1. ~ A\E;- J /
. ,1t1., . I
,"/ .!. ,"L'" /V". I "
Ii J . , ./. , . ~ .
'''''. .~ t.~,4./ 1"/1...../ J,fj-F--f ~"_
" #& /J rA
17 -z"Z': .-Ur ,f)- S ~
18 ~{U.-.L- ~..:...}._. j 0~' '\.... eN' ( ":', t. i c.' h. ~L'':' "-' i/
\alIl.. !; Co' " -1).-1..... ,I I . ,l 1 . _ lil ,T ....
l' 1." C - I,.. v -( ,,'... " ....) ,c~ { ,-I -".". . l \,../
;, - . L _ v! I v
. (,. '---0' - / .. I v I
j .. (. ~ ,.) i' a~'~S<"oI .'\ i
\ ell- BIl- I'-I~,~~ 1 x 1 /\(
~ " " ,-f-." T I '{ \
. ,U'!. ,-, / (~-J r.
I " ~
f---j <\
I~ -/~~ 1-1 L-
',-~
. .. . .
~
.
k 1l/H/87
~:i."
'e PETITION: MAINSTREET RENOVATION PROJECT
PURPOSEl To upgrade Main.treet of Hopkins for improved parking,
more pleAsing aesthetics, and encourage Mainstreet
busine.. activity.
w~ the unde~.i9ned hereby request the City of Hopkins to underwrite a
te<<aibility study to determine cost of stated objectives listed below.
1. Return ~ll to pre-mall condition in terms of parallel
parking.
2. Ret~rn ~ll to pre-mall cor.dition with angle parking either
which may mean narrower ~idewalks and one way traffic.
J. Complete remodeling of Mainstreet with central theme of
~urn of centur~ improvements. ..
BLOG BUS.
OWNER OWNER '-,
~
-
v'"
-
..
!to
10
11
12
13
I 14 1
r
15
--
16
17 I
I 18
19 I I 1
I I --t-
20 I-I
- i
21 I
- --- r~~
22 I-~
--
i --- I 1
J
25 I ~ I ~~-
1-
26 I
,