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)


2010City Council


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


2010City Council


Recommendation


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


2010City Council


Recommendation


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


2010City Council


Recommendation


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


2010City Council


Recommendation


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


2010City Council


Recommendation


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


2010City Council Adoption of

Task Force 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


2010City Council Adoption

of Task Force 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


2010City Council


Recommendation


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


2010City Council


Recommendation


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


2010City Council


Recommendation


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


2010City Council


Recommendation


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


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)


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)


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)


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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

tf workshop for cc 5june12 v2.ppt - university of minnesotausers.soc.umn.edu/~rea/documents/tf...

Documents