TF Workshop for CC 5june12 v2.ppt - University of Minnesotausers.soc.umn.edu/~rea/documents/TF...
Transcript of TF Workshop for CC 5june12 v2.ppt - University of Minnesotausers.soc.umn.edu/~rea/documents/TF...
5/31/2012
1
Bushaway Task Force Progress Report Workshop
for the Wayzata City CouncilJune 5, 2012
(revised 5/31/22)
Bushaway Trees just south of I‐394 Frontage Road
1
Agenda
1. A recap of the City Council actions and resolutions ( Jack Amdal)
2. Overview of County progress ( Mike Kelly)
3. Where are we today ‐ items that still are being discussed ( Ron)
4. Schedule/Timeline/Next Steps ( Jack Amdal)
5. Homeowner Packet explanation ( Peter Pflaum)
6. Conclusion ( Jack Amdal)
2
5/31/2012
2
1. Road Footprint
2008City Council Resolution
2010City Council
Adoption of Task Force
Recommendation
2012Task Force Updated Recommendation
Maintain current 2‐lane curving footprint
38’ footprint: a 3’ & a 7’ shoulder; 6’clear zone total
Pinchpoint should extend entire length of Bushaway,
Including new water mains
Pinchpoint exception at 665 and 639 Bushaway
Or at least from 167–224 and from 555‐663 Bushaway
View of Bushaway Neighborhood in Fall from Causeway
3
2. Boulevards (areas outside curbing)
2008City Council Resolution
2010City Council
Adoption of Task Force
Recommendation
2012Task Force Updated
Recommendation
Eliminate boulevard
Save all gates and fences; avoid grading; avoid retaining walls
Reduce clear zones; minimize retaining walls;
Trees should be preserved except for rare exceptions
As suggested by SRF, allow grading of boulevards
4
5/31/2012
3
3. Trail
2008City Council Resolution
2010City Council
Adoption of Task Force
Recommendation
2012Task Force Updated
Recommendation
Narrow trail by historic homes
Trail only 6’ wide; embed trail within shoulders of pinchpoint areas
Trail only 6’ not 8’;
Use pervious surfacing; boardwalks preferred
Trail design must minimize tree loss, e.g., side‐boring for utility installation
5
4. Intersection
2008City Council Resolution
2010City Council
Adoption of Task Force
Recommendation
2012Task Force Updated
Recommendation
Greater alignment of McGinty and Eastman OK
Railroad bridge should be lowered and all intersection impacts minimized
As BNSF has agreed to lowering tracks, County should be commended.
Eliminate right‐turn lane from Bushaway onto Eastman Lane
6
5/31/2012
4
5. Intersection Features
2008City Council Resolution
2010City Council
Adoption of Task Force
Recommendation
2012Task Force Updated
Recommendation
Avoid roundabout Reduce number and length of lanes
Establish a Task Force to work with County
Use historic stonework
Refinement of signal light timing can reduce congestion
7
6. Preservation of Historic Artifacts
2008City Council Resolution
2010City Council
Adoption of Task Force
Recommendation
2012Task Force Updated
Recommendation
Protect all homes, historic gates and fences
Preserve all fences & gates in present form
Clarificationneeded on relocation of fences
Preserve 2 homes on McGinty
Task Force needed
8
5/31/2012
5
7. Railroad Bridge Design
2008City Council Resolution
2010City Council
Adoption of Task Force
Recommendation
2012Task Force Updated
Recommendation
Use historic materials on bridge design
Bridge design should be limited to 3 lanes
After lowering of tracks and bridge, attention to using historic materials still critical
City‐County Task Force should address such items
9
8. Retaining Walls
2008City Council Resolution
2010City Council Adoption of
Task Force Recommendation
2012Task Force Updated Recommendation
Minimize size and number of retaining walls
Avoid retaining walls Walls may save more trees, but use retainingwalls only when necessary to save trees or reduce ecological impact
Pay attention to character of existing stonework
Work with watershed and use VRSS, if possible
Tree preservation plan details are needed for preliminary approval
10
5/31/2012
6
9. Tree Removal Moratorium
2008City Council Resolution
2010City Council Adoption
of Task Force Recommendation
2012Task Force Updated Recommendation
County should not remove any trees until design has been finalized, unless the tree is diseased, dead, or poses a safety hazard
Tree inventory needed 2008 moratoriumneeds to be re‐affirmed and enforcedThis issue is serious because County cut down over 15 trees without City approval
11
10. Traffic Analysis
2008City Council Resolution
2010City Council
Adoption of Task Force
Recommendation
2012Task Force Updated
Recommendation
Independent traffic analysis needed
County should supply all assumptions used in traffic modeling
Based upon SRF independent consultant work, reduction of intersection right turn lanes is recommended
12
5/31/2012
7
11. Staking Required
2008City Council Resolution
2010City Council
Adoption of Task Force
Recommendation
2012Task Force Updated
Recommendation
County requested to stake of edge of corridor
Staking of hard‐surface proposed roadway requested
Staking of outer construction zones edge necessary
Homeowners need have a 60‐day period to review effects of plan on their property
13
12. Minimize Loss of Property
2008City Council Resolution
2010City Council
Adoption of Task Force
Recommendation
2012Task Force Updated
Recommendation
Minimize easements
Limit damage to construction zones
Staking at curb and trail edge needed
Hire an independent arborist
14
5/31/2012
8
13. Innovative Design
2008City Council Resolution
2010City Council
Adoption of Task Force
Recommendation
2012Task Force Updated
Recommendation
Use innovative ideas and techniques
Try to partner with MCWD
Context Sensitive Design should be taken seriously
Agency needed to oversee construction
Also, Low Impact Design and Complete Streets
15
Overview of County progress ( Mike Kelly)
16
5/31/2012
9
County Progress since 2010
1. Agreement with BNSF to lower RR tracks approx. six feet (6’)
2. Purchase of 1515 McGinty Road
3. McGinty/Eastman Lane intersection to remain in current location (slight realignment)
4. Addition of “Pinch Point” areas
5. Trail moved to West side of road, north of Bushaway Raod
6. Inclusion of several SRF recommendations, to reduce grading impactsa. Reduction of tapers at intersectionsb. Adjustment of road elevationc. Sloping of boulevardsd. Elimination of median at LaSalle Street
Where are we today( Ron Anderson
View of Bushaway Neighborhood in Fall from Causeway
18
5/31/2012
10
Design Issues Under Discussion
1. Preservation of significantly more trees
2. A six‐foot (6’) trail width rather than an eight‐foot (8’) trail within pinchpoint segments.
3. Extension of pinchpoint segments to include the segment between south ends of 500 and 663 Bushaway and the segment between the south ends of 324 and 167 Bushaway
4. Changing the curb and gutter style on non‐trail side of the road, throughout, to a surmountable curb style. Preference is for a combination of v‐shaped and 4” or 5” vertical semi‐surmountable curbing that will not cause harm to turtles
attempting to cross the road, while also considering safety.
19
Example of Trouble Spots Being Re‐designed
20
This signature tree (42” cotton‐wood) at SE corner of Yacht Club parking lot will be lost unless trail can be wound around it into the parking area. This will require easement agreements with the Yacht Club.
5/31/2012
11
Other Issues Under Discussion
1. Undergrounding of all utilities ‐‐many homeowners are not willing to accept design compromises unless power lines are buried (not including burying utilities from road to house)
2. Part‐time City Arborist and other city assistance in maintaining health of trees in road corridors, including the monitoring of tree preservation during construction and landscaping.
3. Establishment of an escrow account by the County from which homeowners that lose trees within 10 years due to root damage can draw compensation for the value of the trees lost. The amount of the fund as well as individual tree compensations would be determined with the aid of independent tree valuation experts.
21
Examples of Need for Burying Utilities
22
Trees adjacent to 633 (Miller) & 623 (Pflaum) ‐‐
Pruning of trees by power lines and other utilities greatly shortens life of trees, makes them unsightly and greatly lowers the scenic value of trees
5/31/2012
12
New Field‐based Negotiations Now in Place
• For 5 years, discussions around a table and group presentations have not proven to resolve the issues.
• We now have launched a new field‐team approach to examine and analyze each tree from the point of view of value and construction design impact assessment.– A field team took over 20 hours walking the construction
zones of Bushaway, McGinty, Eastman Lane, and the railroad corridor.
– Field team members included Greg Brown and Kathy Rand of URS, Manuel Jordan, independent arborist, and Ron Anderson, TF member and homeowner.
• In the course of tree risk‐analysis, the team has found several opportunities for saving trees by modifying design details
• Several tasks remain:
23
1. Reconciling identifications and GPS locations of each tree, which is nearly complete
2. Reviewing design and construction alternatives to save all trees in good condition (largely complete)
3. Classifying and color coding tree maps as follows:a) Removals
b) Construction threatened trees ‐ trees that can be saved if special construction used to avoid root or canopy damage
c) Uncertain trees ‐ differences of opinion about whether tree can survive construction
4. Identifying trouble spots justifying refinement
Field‐based Negotiations Design Process Nearing Completion
24
5/31/2012
13
1. A variety of location‐specific design adjustments have been made to minimize tree lose due to both design and construction. These include more pinchpoint areas, changing center‐line, roadbed height, trail relocation, side‐boring for utilities, etc.)
2. Significantly fewer trees to be removed
3. More use of walls to save trees, but fewer feet of retaining walls overall compared to layout5a.
Near Agreement on Road Design andConstruction Techniques
25
Schedule/Timeline/Next Steps(Jack Amdal)
View of Bushaway Neighborhood in Fall from Causeway
26
5/31/2012
14
4/26/12 County‐Proposed Schedule –
Event/Milestone Date
Public informational meeting 1 (Bushaway neighborhood ?) 7/10/12
Public informational meeting 2 (Broader public meeting ?) 7/17
Field survey and staking 7/18‐25
Individual property owner meetings 7/18‐8/24
Layout modifications 8/6‐31
Present Preliminary Design to City Council for Approval 9/1
Detailed design & construction drawings & landscape plan 10/1‐3/1/13
City Council review & approval of final design & landscape plan 3/1/13
Meetings of County ROW agent with homeowners 3/1‐9/13
Final easement agreements Fall, 2013
Homeowners Informational meeting on construction Fall, 2013
Construction completed Fall, 2016
Landscaping completed Fall, 201727
Proposed Sequence of Steps before City Council Approval of Preliminary Design
Events/Milestones
Task Force approves layout revisions and homeowners packet
Public meeting(s) on overall plan
County stakes construction zones showing savable trees
Prep & mailing homeowner packets, allowing 60‐day review period to begin
Meetings with individual homeowners ‐
Start 60‐day review period
Compilation of feedback by Task Force and County
Layout modifications
County Presentation to City Council
Council approves Preliminary Design
28
5/31/2012
15
Homeowner Packets ( Peter Pflaum)
View of Bushaway Neighborhood in Fall from Causeway
29
View of Historic (1918) Monument, Fence & Gateway at 623 Bushaway Rd
5/31/2012
16
From 2010 Bushaway Task Force Report (Adopted by Council)Action Item “3” on what should be given each property owner:
– “The Wayzata City Council will not assess the Hennepin County’s proposed reconstruction plan for at least 60 days after each property owner on Bushaway Road (& the Task Force) has the following details from the County:
I. most current horizontal alignment and layout design for Bushaway Rd, with stakes at the north and south ends on each property to mark the outer boundary of the clear zone, which is the line beyond which no snow storage nor construction would occur,
II. the most current centerline profile illustrating the proposed vertical alignment for the roadway’s horizontal design for Bushaway Road, and
III. the most current design cross‐sections which illustrate how the horizontal and vertical alignments transition to the existing conditions on either side of the proposed roadway.
IV. This information should specify to property owners and the Task Force all design details of all proposed walls, driveway elevations, tree impacts, and any construction easements.”
Items in the Homeowner’s Packet
1. Letter from Mayor of Wayzata
2. Letter from County
3. Outline of project schedule & overall process
4. Property information sheet
5. Roadway footprint drawing
6. Roadway cross sections drawing
7. Drawing of roadway showing threatened trees
8. Glossary of Terms
9. Comment Form to be returned to City for Task Force
5/31/2012
17
Sample Roadway footprint drawing
Sample Cross Section Drawings
5/31/2012
18
Sample Drawing of Tree Removals Plus Trees to be Saved
Sample Drawing of Tree Risks Only
5/31/2012
19
Conclusions(Jack Amdal)
View of Bushaway Neighborhood in Fall from Causeway
37
Task Force Effort
• Volunteer members of the Bushaway Task Force have given 1,000s of free hours of their time to this project.
• A great many additional hours will be required going forward in trying to improve design details but also landscaping plans, including stone and metal work for walls and railings.
• Local Scenic Byway designation for Bushaway Rd achieved with help of City and City Council.
38
5/31/2012
20
County Effort
• The County Transportation Design Department has also worked hard to work out resolutions of the issues.
• Foremost in their accomplishments is the agreement with BNSF to lower the tracks.
• In other ways, they are trying to help arrive at designs that are acceptable.
39
MCWD Contribution
• Study by Barr Engineering
• Joint working group with Wayzata for Bushaway
• Willingness to employ an arborist who would regularly monitor construction and landscaping to deter needless damage to trees, which indirectly contributes to stormwater management
40
5/31/2012
21
City Council Contributions The Bushaway Task Force and the neighborhood are greatly appreciative of the steadfast support provided by the Wayzata City Council over the past 5 years of deliberations on the re‐design of Bushaway Road. There are 3 additional items for which the Council's help would be very much appreciated:
1. Ensuring the Undergrounding of utilities by working with us to secure funding for burying all the utilities along Bushaway Rd
2. Obtaining Part‐time City Arborist services for the City and ensuring that an arborist monitors construction and landscaping and works with residents to maintain a healthy tree cover.
3. Supporting a County escrow account from which homeowners that lose trees within 10 years due to root damage can draw compensation.
41
Task Force Strategies
• Continue complete and accurate assessment of potential damage to historic, scenic and natural (especially tree canopy) resources from proposed design elements
• Continue negotiation for an appropriate balance between traditional engineering values and innovative standards such as CID and Complete Streets
• Vigilant review of every tree in good condition to explore all possible ways of saving it.
• Taking a strategic view, aiming for a scenic, historic, and healthy tree canopy for generations to come
42
5/31/2012
22
43
End of Presentation ‐Comments & Questions?
Appendix ACross Section Analysis
44
5/31/2012
23
Principal Differences between County & Task Force Basic Footprint Proposals
April, 2012 County Design(layout 5a)
May, 2012Task Force
Recommendations
TF‐Proposed Reduction in Feet
5’ shoulders 4’ shoulders 2
6’ boulevard 4’ boulevard 2
8’ trail 6’ trail 2
6
45
County’s “Typical” Footprint Proposal – Layout 5a, May 2012
County Layout 5A Cross section
46
5/31/2012
24
Task Force’s Suggested “Typical” Footprint Proposal, April 2012
47
Principal Differences between County & Task Force Pinchpoint Proposals
April, 2012County Design(layout 5a)
May, 2012Task Force
Recommendations
Pinchpoints on 18‐25% of Bushaway Rd
Pinchpoint should extendmuch further, if not most of Bushaway
Pinchpoint design saves 3’ on each side (total of 6’)
Proposed pinchpoint would save a total of 15’ byembedding trail within one shoulder
48
5/31/2012
25
County’s Pinchpoint Footprint Design, Layout5a, May 2012
Pinchpoint key concept: 4’ concrete curb replaces 5’ asphalt shoulder, saving a total of 6’ (3’ each side)
49
Appendix BRecommendations
and Examples
50
5/31/2012
26
Recommended Conditions of City Council Approval of Preliminary Design
1. Approval by the Bushaway Task Force of the County’s design layout and its tree protection plan.
2. Commitment of City to work with the County, State and other agencies to find funds for undergrounding of all utilities.
3. Commitment of the City to contract with an arborist to help Wayzata residents to maintain the integrity and health of all trees, including all trees within highway ROWs as well as on private and City property.
4. Establishment of an escrow account by the County from which homeowners that lose trees within 10 years due to root damage can draw compensation for the value of the trees lost. The amount of the fund as well as individual tree compensations would be determined with the aid of independent tree valuation experts.
5. The City should strengthen the language of the 2008 resolution regarding the moratorium on tree removal along Bushaway to include prior notification to the City and the imposition of penalties for violation of this moratorium. This is necessary because this Winter the County removed 20 trees, supposedly to accommodate large truck traffic without approval of the City
51
Unresolved Issues that can be Addressed between Preliminary & Final Approval
1. The County, working with a City of Wayzata committee, should create a City‐County Landscaping Committee to design a preliminary landscape plan for all of the graded areas. The plan would include the type of vegetation and the size and species of trees in specific locations. The plan should also plan for how trees lost to root damage are replaced in the future.
2. Final plans for location and timing of replacement for all private fences impacted by the project.
3. Determination of an acceptable wall/guardrail design along the causeway.
4. Use of natural stone in conjunction with simulated stone in the design of any necessary retaining walls. The exact nature of these walls should be determined by the City‐County Landscaping Committee.
52
5/31/2012
27
Example 1 of Trouble Spots Being Re‐designed
53
Pinched area between 218 Bushaway (east) and 167 & 217 (west) – Design now calls for removing trees only on the East. Moving center line, adding more pinchpoint curbing, and a 6‐foot trail could reduce most of tree loss
Example 2 of Trouble Spots Being Re‐designed
54
Fence will be saved but large trees behind it at 231 (Proctor) Bushaway may be lost due to both root damage and upper limbs hanging into construction area. Pinchpointing needs to be applied more aggressively
5/31/2012
28
Example 3 of Trouble Spots Being Re‐designed
55
Pinched area at 263 (Smarts) and 271 (Courtney’s) Bushaway (east) set to lose 10+ trees (see photo) – Raising height (profile) of road and other pinchpoint design features could save most of them
Example 4 of Trouble Spots Being Re‐designed
56
This signature tree (42” cotton‐wood) at SE corner of Yacht Club parking lot will be lost unless trail can be wound around it into the parking area. This will require easement agreements with the Yacht Club.
5/31/2012
29
Example 4 of Trouble Spots Being Re‐designed
57
Pinched area between Locust Hills and 1515 McGinty’s blue spruce requires moving center‐line north and removing 5 blue spruce, losing several Locust Hills tree or reducing boulevard area, treating this as a pinchpoint
Examples of Need for Arbor Analysis
58
This beautiful large oak at northern border of Locust Hills is dying of fungi and trunk is rotted out. Should be taken down and area used for other purposes. Tree preservation plans must take current condition (quality ratings) into account. See next slide:
5/31/2012
30
59
Tree database
Trees with “condition” rating below 25% may not be worth saving.
60
Intersection with preliminary “At‐Risk” TreesNumbers Marked by Heritage Shade Tree
5/31/2012
31
Examples of Need for Arbor Analysis
61
Some of these trees behind fence at 620 (Morris) Bushaway can be saved if horizontal boring is used to install utilities under trail. 6’ trail width would help as well.
Examples of Need for Arbor Analysis
62
Some of these trees at 218 (Salveson) Bushaway are damaged and not worth trying to save. Retaining walls for slopes like these may help save trees.
5/31/2012
32
Examples of Need for Burying Utilities
63
Trees adjacent to 633 (Miller) & 623 (Pflaum) ‐‐
Pruning of trees by power lines and other utilities greatly shortens life of trees, makes them unsightly and greatly lowers the scenic value of trees
Appendix CDrawings showing need for
Homeowners Information Packet
64
5/31/2012
33
View of Historic (1918) Monument, Fence & Gateway at 623 Bushaway Rd
CSAH 101 623 & 630 Layout
623 Bushaway Rd
630 Bushaway Rd
5/31/2012
34
Impact on 623 Property:• Loss of 13 Trees
Results of Westwood Study:
5/31/2012
35
Impact on 623 Property ‐ Summary:
• Taking down 60’ of historic stone wall
• County’s condemnation of 15’ of property for grading
• Loss of 13 trees and damage to others
• Loss of buffer resulting in increase traffic noise and view of road
from home
Impact on 630 Property ‐ Summary:
• Combination of tree removal in right‐of‐way and trail 32’ from
home results in no privacy and practically unusable front yard
• Driveway becoming significantly steeper, creating a dangerous
condition for anyone trying to leave this driveway, especially in
the winter
Results of Westwood Study:
City Council Consideration:
• Property owners adjacent to Bushaway Road should not have to hire a surveying and
engineering firm to uncover damages to their property
• County should supply all property owners with information needed to analyze the
damage and put information in a format property owners can understand
• Once property owner has this information, property owner needs 60‐90 days to analyze
material and to contact Task Force and City Council regarding any damage to their
property