HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Packet 08-15-1995 SpecialPLYMOUTH CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY, August 15, 1995
5:30 P.M.
Public Safety Training Room
Joint Meeting with Hennepin County Commissioners
I. Funding of County Roads
II. County Road 9 beautification projects
M. . Other Issues
DATE: August 10, 1995
TO: Dwight D. Johnson, City Manager
FROM: Fred G. Moore, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: FUNDING OF COUNTY ROAD 9
The County has underway jointly with the City the improvement of County Road 9
between I-494 and Polaris Lane. The City has requested that this project be undertaken
for many years. The County recently has scheduled the project for construction and the
construction plans have been approved by the City. It is hoped that construction will
get underway early in 1996.
At issue with the City for the project is the City funding for our portion of the
construction. Although this is a County road, the County has a policy which requires
cities to pay portions of the construction and right-of-way acquisition cost. Attached is
a complete copy of that policy. Under the standard County policy the City will be
responsible for approximately $500,000 of the project cost.
In November 1993, the County amended their policy and included a penalty against
cities for using Tax Increment Financing (T.I.F.) as their portion of County projects.
Refer to Item XIV on page 8 of the policy. If the City uses T.I.F. to pay our portion
of the project, it is estimated that our costs will go to $1,200,000.
The City's planning for this project for many years has been T.I.F. The County is
penalizing Plymouth by their policy.
FNDCCR9.DM
SUBJECT: FUNDING OF COUNTY ROAD 9
Page Two
Throughout the years in order that road improvement could be in place to handle the
growth and development within the City, the City has constructed many projects which
were the responsibility of the County. We did not let the development take place and
then transfer the burden on the State or County to solve the traffic problems. These
projects include:
C County Road 15 (Carlson Parkway) I-494 Interchange
County Road 6/I-494 Interchange
C County Road 61 from south city limits to County Road 10
New County Road 9 from Highway 55 to Vicksburg Lane
County Road 24/Highway 55 intersection modifications.
All of these projects have been constructed by the City with no County funds. A
majority of the funding by the City has been with T.I.F.
It seems that the County policy allows the City to construct projects which they have
not scheduled by using T.I.F. funds, but want a larger share of our money when we are
doing a project in conjunction with them.
At a minimum, it is my opinion that the County's policy should be modified that it
does not apply to any T.I.F. districts established before November 1993 when the
policy was modified.
attachment
FNDGCR9.DOC
HENNEPIN COUNTY
BUREAU OF PUBLIC SERVICE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
POLICIES FOR COST PARTICIPATION
BETWEEN HENNEPIN COUNTY AND OTHER AGENCIES
FOR COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY PROJECTS
NOVEMBER 9. 1993
1 NOV _1$1993
INTRODUCTION
The attached policies for cost participation will be used by
Hennepin County to determine appropriate funding levels for
cooperative highway projects with the Minnesota Department of
Transportation, municipalities and other agencies.
The prior cost policies were established by Hennepin County in
1978 and are being changed primarily as a result of the fact that
County Property Tax funds are becoming increasingly limited and,
in many cases, are not available to be used on a project.
Therefore, County participation must be limited as much as
possible to those items that are eligible for State Aid funding.
A change has been made in the area of traffic signal
participation. As traffic volumes increase, the County is being
faced with an expanding number of intersections where traffic
signals are warranted in accordance with the Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices. Installing and maintaining all traffic
signals which meet warrants places a strain on both the Capital
Budget and the Operating Budget. The County must, therefore, be
more selective in terms of which traffic signals are installed and
the extent of County participation.
A change has also been made to address the use of Tax Increment
Financing on County projects by municipalities. One reason that
County Property Tax funds are limited is that the tax base is not
expanding due to use of Tax Increment Financing. Since the use of
the Tax Increment Financing does have a negative impact on County
Property Tax funds, the established policy is intended to
discourage the use of Tax Increment Financing for the municipal
share of a project and, where used, to require a higher municipal
cost share.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PURPOSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 1
SCOPE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 1
GENERAL POLICIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 1
DEFINITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 2
ROADWAYS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 3
RIGHT OF WAY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 3
GRADING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 3
SURFACING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 3
STORM SEWER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 4
CONCRETE SIDEWALK CONCURRENT WITH COUNTY
CONSTRUCTION PROJECT . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 4
CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER (NEW OR RECONSTRUCTED)
CONCURRENT WITH COUNTY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT Page 4
CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER AND SIDEWALK FOR MEDIANS
NEW OR RECONSTRUCTED) CONCURRENT WITH
COUNTY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT . . . . . . . . Page 4
CONCRETE DRIVEWAY ENTRANCES (NEW OR RECONSTRUCTED)
CONCURRENT WITH COUNTY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT Page 4
MUNICIPAL UTILITY RELOCATION OR RECONSTRUCTION . . Page 4
PRIVATE UTILITY RELOCATION OR RECONSTRUCTION . . . Page 5
TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 5
PERMANENT TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEM INSTALLATIONS . . . Page 5
RECONSTRUCTION OF EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEMS . Page 6
TEMPORARY TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLATIONS . . . . . . Page 6
FURNISHING OF ELECTRICAL POWER . . . . . . . . . . Page 6
MAINTENANCE FOR TRAFFIC SIGNALS. . . . . . . . . . Page 7
EMERGENCY PREEMPTION EQUIPMENT . . . . . . . . . . Page 7
COUNTY FURNISHED EQUIPMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 7
INTEGRAL STREET LIGHTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 7
BRIDGES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 7
STREET LIGHTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 7
BIKEWAYS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 7
LANDSCAPING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 7
ENGINEERING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 8
LUMP SUM, PRO -RATA ITEMS . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 8
INVOICE AMOUNT COMPUTATION . . . . . . . . . . . Page 8
UTILIZATION OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING . . . . . Page 8
HENNEPIN COUNTY
BUREAU OF PUBLIC SERVICE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
POLICIES FOR COST PARTICIPATION
BETWEEN HENNEPIN COUNTY AND OTHER AGENCIES
FOR COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY PROJECTS
I. PURPOSE
To establish policies for determining appropriate division of cost
participation to be used by Hennepin County in funding cooperative roadway,
traffic signal and bridge construction projects with the Minnesota Department of
Transportation, municipalities and other agencies.
II. SCOPE
The establishment of cost policy is consistent with Minnesota Statutes,
Sections 162.17, 373.01, 471.59 and Amendments.
III. GENERAL POLICIES
A. The basic premise is that the County pays for costs peculiar to County
needs and municipalities pay for costs peculiar to municipal or local
needs.
B. The County may limit its participation to items eligible for reimbursement
with County State Aid Highway (CSAH) funds, notwithstanding the specific
policies contained in this document. However, the County will not request
CSAH funds for project costs assigned to the municipality as a result of
the approved cooperative construction agreement, in order not to preclude
the municipality from using its Municipal State Aid funds for those project
costs.
C. A greater degree of County participation is afforded municipalities having
a population of less than 5,000 because of the function of the County
roadways in these areas. It is generally true that these roadways are of
greater benefit to County -wide users and of less benefit to local users
than is the case for roadways in more urbanized areas. In addition, this
would be a form of compensation for the absence of direct State Aid
allocations to these municipalities; notwithstanding the present County
program of Aid to Municipalities under 5,000 population.
D. It is recognized that there may be occasional differences between these
policies and written participation policies of the Minnesota Department of
Transportation. In those cases, participation will be negotiated by the
County Engineer.
Page 1
III. GENERAL POLICIES - continued
E. When federal aid highway funds are utilized on a County highway project,
these cost participation policies will be applied to the non-federal share
of any specific item of work. In the event federal or state grant funds
are made available to a project on a lump sum basis, the County will
determine the items for which those funds will be utilized.
IV. DEFINITIONS
Accident Severity ractor: One element of the County's Traffic Signal
Ranking System. This factor is used to measure the relative severity of
accidents by differentiating between property damage and personal injury
accidents in terms of cost.
Bikeway: A bicycle route, bicycle path, or bicycle lane.
1. Bicycle Route. A roadway or shoulder signed to encourage bicycle
use.
2. Bicycle Path. A bicycle facility designed for exclusive or preferential
use by persons using bicycles and constructed or developed separately from
the roadway or shoulder.
3. Bicycle Lane. A portion of a roadway or shoulder designed for exclusive or
preferential use by persons using bicycles. Bicycle lanes are to be
distinguished from the portion of the roadway or shoulder used for motor
vehicle traffic by physical barrier, striping, marking, or other similar
device.
Contributing Flow: A storm sewer procedure that considers that each agency
participates in proportion to its share of the design =scharge for each section
of sewer between inflow points. This method is used by the Minnesota Office of
State Aid on all projects except where federal participation is anticipated.
County: Hennepin County.
County Engineer: The County Engineer of Hennepin County or his designated
representative.
Municipality: Any municipality or township within Hennepin County.
Over 5,000: A municipality of 5,000 population or more.
Peak Discharge: A storm sewer method that considers that each agency's share is
the ratio of its peak discharge through each section of sewer between inflow
points to the summation of peak discharge for all agencies participating in the
section of sewer between '--"'^.w points:
Permanent Traffic Signal__ A traffic control signal system normally consisting
of metal signal poles with ma: arms and underground electrical systems with
conduit, cable and handhole installations.
Page 2
IV. DEFINITIONS - continued
Priority Factor: A number which reflects the sum of the traffic volume factor,
the accident susceptibility factor, and the accident severity factor in the
County's Traffic Signal Ranking System.
Storm Sewer: A drainage system usually consisting of one or more pipes
connecting two or more drop inlets. The purpose is to convey surface runoff
water from the inlets to an acceptable outlet.
Street Lighting: All components normally installed by a municipality for the
purpose of street illumination.
Standard Specifications: Minnesota Department of Transportation Standard
Specifications for Highway Construction, latest edition and/or supplement
thereto.
State Aid Manual: Manual published by the Minnesota Department of
Transportation outlining State Aid policies and procedures.
State Highway: A highway under jurisdiction of the State of Minnesota.
Temporary Traffic Signal: A traffic control signal system normally consisting
of wood poles with signal indications suspended on span wires and overhead
electrical systems.
Trunk Line: Main conveyor of storm sewer system.
Under 5,000: A municipality or township under 5,000 population.
Utilities: Water, heating, electric, storm sewer, gas, sanitary, telephone,
cable TV, telegraph, street lighting, fiber optics, etc.
V. ROADWAYS
The County's participation in roadway projects will be as follows:
A. RIGHT OF WAY
Under 5,000 100%
Over 5,000 50%
The County will not participate in right of way for parking lanes requested
by a municipality.
The County's percentage of participation in retaining walls constructed in
lieu of right of way will be the same as for right of way.
Right of way required for wetland mitigation and for surface water
retention basins will be at the same participation ratio as the remainder
of the project even if the locations of these facilities are not contiguous
to the project.
B. GRADING
Under/Over 5,000 100%
C. SURFACING
Under/Over 5,000 100%
The County will not participate in surfacing of parking lanes requested by
a municipality.
Page 3
V. ROADWAYS - continued
D. STORM SEWER
The County's participation is based on the State Aid formula as defined in
State Aid Manual No. 5-892.600-605 which uses the ratio of contributing
flows except on federally funded projects where the peak discharge formula
is used to arrive at the percentage of allowable State Aid funds. The
construction of retention basins for surface water and storm sewer runoff
will be considered part of the trunk storm sewer system and will be at the
same participation ratio as the trunk storm sewer lines.
1. Trunk lines
Under 5,000 100% of County's Contributing Flow
Over 5,000 50% of County's Contributing Flow
2. Catch basins and leads within the County highways and at the curb
returns of side roadway entrances that drain onto the County highways.
Under 5,000 100%
Over 5,000 50%
E. CONCRETE SIDEWALK CONCURRENT WITH COUNTY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT
1. Initial installation performed v,thout a permit or not in compliance
with a County permit.
Under/Over 5,000 0%
2. Relocation, reconstruction, improvement, or replacement of
unserviceable existing facilities (County Engineer shall determine if
existing facility is serviceable or unserviceable).
Under/Over 5,000 0%
3. Relocation necessitated because of addition of parking lane requested
by the municipality.
Under/Over 5,000 0%
4. In-kind relocation required solely because of County construction
procedures.
Under/Over 5,000 100%
Page 4
New - Under/Over 5,000 0%
Replacement - Under/Over 5,000 State Aid Eligibility or
100% Whichever is Less
F. CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER (NEW OR RECONSTRUCTED) CONCURRENT WITH
COUNTY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT
Under 5,000 75%
Over 5,000 50%
G. CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER AND SIDEWALK FOR MEDIANS (NEW OR
RECONSTRUCTED) CONCURRENT WITH COUNTY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT 100%
H. CONCRETE DRIVEWAY ENTRANCES (NEW OR RECONSTRUCTED) CONCURRENT
WITH COUNTY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT
Under 5,000 75%
Over 5,000 50%
I. MUNICIPAL UTILITY RELOCATION OR RECONSTRUCTION
1. Initial installation performed v,thout a permit or not in compliance
with a County permit.
Under/Over 5,000 0%
2. Relocation, reconstruction, improvement, or replacement of
unserviceable existing facilities (County Engineer shall determine if
existing facility is serviceable or unserviceable).
Under/Over 5,000 0%
3. Relocation necessitated because of addition of parking lane requested
by the municipality.
Under/Over 5,000 0%
4. In-kind relocation required solely because of County construction
procedures.
Under/Over 5,000 100%
Page 4
V. ROADWAYS
I. MUNICIPAL UTILITY RELOCATION OR RECONSTRUCTION - continued
5. Adjustment of existing utility structures to accommodate elevation
changes at the street surface. This includes items such as adjusting
manhole castings and valve boxes. Lateral extension of utility
appurtenances such as hydrants, water service valves, etc. required
by the road construction are not included in this category unless they
are required solely due to the addition of a parking lane requested by
a municipality.
Under/Over 5,000 0%
J. PRIVATE UTILITY RELOCATION OR RECONSTRUCTION
1. Initial installation was within County right of way.
Under/Over 5,000 0%
VI. TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEMS
Rationale: As traffic volumes increase, the County is being faced with an
expanding number of intersections where traffic signals are warranted in
accordance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Installation of
marginally warranted traffic signals reduces the efficiency of moving traffic on
the County highway system and consumes construction and maintenance funds more
appropriately used on higher priority needs. The County must, therefore, be
more selective in terms of which traffic signals are installed and the extent of
County participation. The County has developed a Traffic Signal Ranking System
which reflects traffic volumes and accident susceptibility and severity. This
system will be utilized to determine priorities for new traffic signals (both
temporary and permanent). As a general policy, the County will not normally
install, or allow to be installed, traffic signals at intersections with a
priority factor of less than 30. In addition, some elements of County
participation may vary depending upon the factors in the Traffic Signal Ranking
System.
Municipalities under 5,000 normally will not be required to participate in costs
for traffic signal systems.
The County's participation in traffic signal projects with the Minnesota
Department of Transportation, municipalities over 5,000 and other agencies will
be as follows:
A. Permanent Traffic Signal.System Installations:
The County will not normally install, or allow to be installed, traffic
signals at intersections with a priority factor of less than 30.
At locations where traffic signals are warranted and have a priority factor
of 30 or more in the County's Traffic Signal Ranking System, the
construction costs shall be pro -rated as follows. The construction costs
include all of the control equipment and standards, signal heads and
related items, but does not include the costs of interconnect cable,
Page 5
VI. TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEMS - continued
A. Permanent Traffic Signal System Installations - continued
conduit, and handholes necessary to coordinate traffic signals between
intersections. These interconnect costs will be 100% County cost.
1. No Trunk Highways involved if:
Two legs of the intersection or less
are County roadways.
Three legs or more of the
intersection are County roadways
2. Trunk Highways involved if:
One leg is a County roadway
Two legs are County roadways
State Aid Eligibility or
25% Whichever is Less
State Aid Eligibility or
50% Whichever is Less
State Aid Eligibility or
12 1/2% Whichever is Less
State Aid Eligibility or
25% Whichever is Less
B. Reconstruction of Existing Traffic Signal Systems
Where existing traffic signals are upgraded by installation of a new
system, the County's share shall be twice that shown in Paragraph A of
Section No. VI.
C. Temporary Traffic Signal Installations
The County prefers that permanent traffic signals be installed initially
wherever feasible. In the event that permanent traffic signals are not
feasible, the following cost participation policies apply for temporary
traffic signal installations:
The municipality will pay the full cost of a temporary traffic signal and
will not receive any credit for those costs when a permanent traffic signal
is installed if, at the time the temporary traffic signal is installed, the
accident severity factor is less than 10 or if the priority factor is less
than 40. For those temporary traffic signal projects with an accident
severity factor of 10 - 19 or a priority factor of 40 - 49, the
municipality will receive credit for 50% of the cost of the temporary
traffic signal when the permanent traffic signal is installed. For those
temporary traffic signal projects with an accident severity factor of 20 or
more or a priority factor of 50 or more, the municipality will receive
credit for 75% of the cost of the temporary traffic signal when the
permanent traffic signal is installed.
The costs for temporary traffic signals installed only for traffic control
during construction of a County project shall be paid 100% by the County.
D. Electrical power shall be furnished by the municipality. Source of power,
including transformer, shall be provided by the municipality.
Page 6
VI. TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEMS - continued
E. Maintenance for all traffic signals on County roadways shall be
furnished by the County when the County is the road authority.
F. The entire cost of necessary equipment, installation and maintenance of any
traffic signal emergency preemption equipment will be borne by the
municipality.
G. Costs for County furnished equipment such as, but not limited to,
controller cabinets, mast arms, poles, etc. will be apportioned the same as
the traffic signal installation/reconstruction costs.
H. When street lighting is integral to the traffic signal pole, the cost will
be included with installation.
VII. BRIDGES
The County's participation in bridge projects will be as follows:
Under/Over 5,000 Negotiation by County Engineer
VIII. STREET LIGHTING
The County will not participate in the installation of new street
lighting. Participation in the relocation or reconstruction of existing street
lighting will be on the same basis as for municipal utility relocation or
reconstruction (see Paragraph I of Section No. V).
IX. BIKEWAYS
Hennepin County encourages the increased use of bicycles as a means of
transportation. To that purpose, it will incorporate bicycle lanes or routes
within the roadway design at 100% County cost whenever feasible. Bicycle paths
separate from the roadway itself would normally not be constructed unless it
were part of an overall community plan for a bicycle trail system. This policy
provides that the cost of bicycle paths would be a shared responsibility between
the County and the municipality.
X. LANDSCAPING
The County will participate in landscaping for replacement only to the extent of
State Aid participation and limited to one percent (1%) of the total cost of the
construction project. Participation is limited to a two to one replacement on
trees. The County will not participate in the landscaping of median areas or in
irrigation system costs.
Page 7
XI. ENGINEERING
The County's participation in engine- ing includes design costs which are cost
incurred prior to the award of the contract and contract administration costs
which are costs incurred subsequent to the award of contract.
A. Design and/or Contract Administration performed by the County and
based on the municipality's share of contract construction.
Under/Over 5,Cn0 *Negotiation by County Engineer
B. Design and/or tract Administration performed by the municipality
and based )n t aunty's share of contract construction.
Under/Over 5,OC *Negotiation by County Engineer
Based un current Hennepin County costs.
XII. LUMP SUM, PRO -RATA ITEMS
Proposal f-rms carry lump sum bidding requirements for the items of
Mobiliz__ (2021), Maintenance and Restoration of Haul Roads (2051) and
Traffic Control (0563). Field Office and Field Laboratory (2031) are not,
strictly speaking, lump sum pay items. However, their general
characteristics are such as to require that they be handled the same as
Mobilization. A municipality shall be charged a pro -rata share of the above
items. Proration shall be based on a percentage factor applied to the cost
amounts chargeable to the County and the municipality for other construction
items. Mobilization, Maintenance and Restoration of Haul Roads, Field Office
and Field Laooratory, and Traffic Control are construction items and shall be
subject to the negotiated percentage charge for engineering.
XIII. INVOICE AMOUNT COMPUTATION
After bids have been re,7eived and a contract awarded, and also upon
completion of c :ion, the unit prices shall be substituted for the
estimated unit o).. quantities and the percentage ratio established
originally shall -a recomputed.
XIV. UTILIZATION OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
Rationale: This policy has been included to address the use of Tax Increment
Financing on County projects by municipalities. Tax Increment Financing
limits expansion of the tax base for new development and, thereby, limits the
availability of additional County Property Tax funding which might be used on
the County highway system.
The County's participation in a project where Tax Increment Financing is
utilized by a municipality will be as follows:
Page 8
XIV. UTILIZATION OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING - continued
At the time a municipality is requested to approve the preliminary plans for
a project, the municipality must identify, by resolution, whether it intends
to use Tax Increment Financing for any portion of the project cost. If the
municipality elects to use Tax Increment Financing from any Economic
Development District for any portion of the project cost, municipal
participation will be 50% of the total engineering and construction cost and
100% of the right of way cost for any portion of the project within that
municipality.
Page 9
DATE: August 10, 1995
TO: Dwight D. Johnson, City Manager
FROM: Fred G. Moore, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: COUNTY ROAD 9 BEAUTIFICATION PROJECT
The City has inquired to the County concerning a beautification project on County
Road 9 from I-494 to Highway 169. Attached is a copy of the letter from Paul Buck,
City Forester, dated December 10, 1994 to the County. Also attached is a letter in
response from the County forwarding to the City their guidelines for landscaping within
County right-of-way.
I have discussed these guidelines with Jim Grube, Transportation Division Engineer for
the County. In order for landscaping to be approved by the County, a plan must be
submitted by the City. The County will meet with the City to discuss the plan in
preliminary details. As indicated in their Landscape Guidelines, the final plan must be
prepared by a licensed engineer and signed by the City Engineer. Also the policy
clearly states that the City is assuming all responsibility for maintenance and any
liability associated with the landscaping within the right-of-way. Since the speed limit
on County Road 9 is 45 m.p.h., the guidelines would indicate that trees must be ten
feet from the curb. In discussing this with Mr. Grube, the minimum distance which
would be approved would be six feet. This would allow tree plantings within most of
the median area. The medians on County Road 9 are similar to those on County Road
10 where landscaping was completed by Maple Grove adjacent to I-494.
If the City is interested in pursuing the landscaping of County Road 9, a general plan
should be prepared and reviewed by County staff. The final plan would then need to
be prepared as stated in the guidelines.
attachments
CRMEAUMOC
December 10, 1994
Hennepin County -Permits Office
Attn. Jim Delaney
320 S. Washington Ave.
Hopkins, MN 55343
Dear Jim Delaney:
I'm writing to you to discuss the feasibility and appropriateness of planting projects on
County property, medians and ROW'S, within the City of Plymouth. After last years
successful partnership with MnDOT, one of the Council members asked me to look
into County possibilities and I felt it would be important to run preliminary ideas past
your division before preceding with full blown plans.
The first concept is to plant trees in the island medians along Co. Rd. 9, between 169
and 494. This stretch of road was identified as rather barren and blah by aesthetic
standards. This site presents a few problems, foremost of which is the harsh micro -
climate in which to grow plants. Heavy salt and droughty conditions limit what could
be planted.
The first solution would be to plant hybrid Elms down the center to create a formal
boulevard appearance. The City's experience with these Elms in harsh environmental
conditions has been very successful. To lessen the chances of mower blight and to add
a second layer of plants, I would envision planting 2-4 Buffalo berry at the base of each
tree. The entire 5' circle could be mulched with wood chips from the City.
The second solution would be to recreate a prairie savanna. A ground cover of drought
tolerant prairie grass and wildflowers with a row of Burr oak planted down the middle
of the median would create an informal boulevard appearance. This area could then be
managed with a burn or mow once a year.
Either solution would have a visual link to the French Regional Park and their input
and resources would make them valuable partners in the solution. Neither of these
solutions addresses the need for clear zones, sight lines, site preparation, funding, and
long term maintenance , but these details could be designed into the project.
The second concept is to plant trees and shrubs on the SE corner of the newly
revamped Co. Rd. 10/Northwest Blvd./Co. Rd. 47 intersection as a signature
entryway. Since the road was moved to the north and west, there is a rather large strip
of barren land in the newly created right of way. I would envision a natural planting of
native trees and shrubs that would create a noise and sight barrier for the abutting
neighborhood, as well as provide wildlife habitat, as it grew to maturity. A small,
more formal, planting could be erected around a Tree City USA sign somewhere
nearer the intersection for visibility.
This concept could fit nicely as a partnership between the City, the County, and
Prudential, who have expressed interest in participating in a community based
environmental cause. Again the need for clear zones, sight lines, site preparation,
funding, and long term maintenance are not addressed, but these details could be
designed into the project upon further review.
I would enjoy discussing these preliminary ideas with you and/or any other interested
parties at Hennepin County soon so that we can gather the interested parties, draw up
plans, and set a Spring '95 planting date. Thank you for your timely consideration of
this matter.
Sincerely,
Paul Buck
Forester
Hennep• in CountyAnEqW11OpportunityEmployer
320 Washington Avenue South Recycled Paper
Hopkins, Minnesota 55343-8468
612) 930-2670 FAX: (612) 930-2513 TDD: (612) 930-2696
HENNEPIN COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
TRANSPORTATION DIVISION
RECOMMENDED URBAN LANDSCAPE/
STREETSCAPE GUIDELINES
ansportati nDivision Engneer
Revision No. 0 Date 04/03/95
April 3, 1995
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Paae
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
RECOMMENDED GUIDELINE CRITERIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Boulevard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Crosswalks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Curb ................................ 2
Irrigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Landscaping/Streetscaping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Medians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Operational Clear Zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Right of Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Sidewalks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Signals, Signing and Other Traffic Control Devices . . . . . 4
Snow Storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Street Lighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Trees ............................... 5
Utilities . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
PERMITS ................................. 5
FIGURE ................................ 6
April 3, 1995
HENNEPIN COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
TRANSPORTATION DIVISION
RECOMMENDED URBAN
LANDSCAPE/STREETSCAPE GUIDELINES
APRIL, 1995
INTRODUCTION
Hennepin County Department of Public Works' Transportation Division (Division) has as a delegated function and responsibility to maintain a system of
roadways that provide transportation for residents of the County in a safe, efficient manner. Year around safety requires adequate sight distances and aminimumoperationalclearzonethatcanalsoaccommodatesnowstorage. TheDivisionhaspreparedthisRecommendedUrbanLandscape/Streetscape GuidelinesGuidelines) to more consistently and thoroughly respond to questions abouturbanlandscape/streetscape design practices.
All landscape/streetscape plans must be prepared and signed in accordance withtheBoardofArchitecture, Engineering, Land Surveying, Landscape ArchitectureandInteriorDesign. The City Engineer shall also approve and sign the titleorcoversheetforthoselandscape/streetscape plans. The City Engineer mustalsoevaluatesightdistancesalongtheprojectandassuretheDivision, in areport, that sight distances are adequate.
The placement of obstacles or fixed objects,such as structures, trees, etc.,
within Hennepin County's right of way shall be cause for the Municipality toassumelegalliabilityandadditionalmaintenanceresponsibilitythroughaCooperativeAgreement.
RECOMMENDED GUIDELINE CRITERIA
The following is an alphabetical listing of the Division's recommendedguidelinesforlandscape/streetscape design. The criteria listed is not allinclusiveornecessarilycomplete. Requests for more clarification should beaddressedtotheDivisionEngineerorhis/her designee. Figure 1 at the end
of this document contains a summarization of the recommended operational clearzoneguidelines.
Boulevard
The Division prefers a low maintenance boulevard. Snow and ice control
methods may prevent the survival of some desired vegetation. The
Municipality has the responsibility for mowing and the maintenance offacilitiesbehindthecurb.
April 3, 1995
Crosswalks
Crosswalks shall conform to the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices (MMUTCD).
The County's standard crosswalk is a block type pattern, painted white, on
top of bituminous or concrete pavement. Municipalities have the responsi-
bility to maintain pavement crosswalk markings after the initial painting.
Non-standard crosswalk surfaces (such as decorative brick, colored
aggregate, etc.) shall require prior approval by the Division.
Municipalities shall have the responsibility to install and maintain any
crosswalk surface, as well as the abutting material, if the crosswalk
surface is not consistent with the road surface. The municipality shall
also indemnify the County for the use of a non-standard crosswalk surface.
Curb
Curb design must conform to Hennepin County's Standard Design and the State
Aid manual. Curb and pedestrian ramps must comply with the Americans With
Disabilities Act (ADA).
Irrigation
Water from irrigation systems shall not flow or spray onto the traveled
roadway or onto any County owned structures such as traffic signal
components and signage. Concrete gutters shall collect excess water from
irrigation systems and not allow water to flow across roadways (gutter in).
Effects of subgrade saturation shall be addressed when irrigation systems
are proposed. Provisions, such as perforated pipe, shall be included for
the pickup and disposal of irrigation water.
The Division will not allow an open cut for installation or maintenance of
irrigation piping within three years of construction, so consideration
shculd tic giver, tc instwll ing irri^yat'on piping n-;tb;n 3 slcc,:fc-, r -^adw .)'•.,,,
crossings. Maintenance and repair of the irrigation system' is the
responsibility of the owner.
Landscaping/Streetscaping
Roadway geometrics and driver sight distances shall be considered when
installing landscape items. A report indicating adequate sight distances
have been maintained is required for all access points along the project.
The report should consider all elements obstructing a driver's vision such
as trees, shrubs, plantings/planters, structures, etc.
Any loose landscaping material, such as bark, must have an adequate means
of containment that will prevent the material from spilling onto the
roadway or sidewalk. The Municipality shall be responsible for maintaining
such material, if installed, and for removing the material from the roadway
or sidewalk if the material spills onto those surfaces. Loose landscape
rock is not permitted within Hennepin County's right of way because of
problems caused during mowing, etc.
April 3, 1995
The Municipality or owner has the responsibility to trim all plantings andtomaintainvisibility.
Hennepin County's responsibility for landscape/streetscape restoration, after any County activity, shall be limited to top soil, sod or seed. Restoration of specialty landscape/streetscape items, sidewalks andplantingsshallbetheresponsibilityofothers.
The Division prefers traffic control signage to be located behind thesidewalk. Landscape/streetscape should not obstruct the view of signage.
Landscape/streetscape should make allowances for placement or futureexpansionofutilitieswithintherightofway.
Traffic control during maintenance of landscaping shall comply with MMUTCDfortrafficcontrol.
Medians
The Division can supply typical design standards for raised and depressedmedians. Median drainage is a concern of the Division and should bediscussedwiththeDivision's Design Section. The Division's guidelinedoesnotallowplantingtreeswithinthemedianunlessthereistheminimumoperationalclearzoneforthepostedspeedlimit (see Operational ClearZone).
Plantings, including raised planting beds, in medians shall not be higherthan3feetfromthebottomofthecurbgutterline, however, sight linesmuststillbechecked. Plantings should be kept as far back from the faceofcurbaspossibletominimizedisturbanceduetosnowplowing (see alsoIrrigation). If the Municipality proceeds with placing plantings withinHennepinCountyrightofway, then the Municipality has the responsibilitytotrimplantingstomaintainsightlines.
Operational Clear Zone
To facilitate the safe operation and maintenance of a roadway facility, anoperationalclearzoneisrequired. Encroachment into the operationalclearzonecausessafetyandmaintenanceconcerns.
The Division standard provides an operational clear zone of 6 feet from thefaceofcurbwherepostedspeedsare35milesperhour (MPH) or less. Forspeedsgreaterthan35MPHto45MPH, the Division standard provides a 10footoperationalclearzone. The required operational clear zone forspeedsover45MPHshallbeanalyzedonanindividualbasisbytheDivisionseeFigure1).
0 Right of Wav
Streetscape/landscape items within the County's right of way are reservedforthepublicandownedbytheMunicipality. Hennepin County does notallowprivateenhancementswithintheCounty's right of way.
April 3, 1995
Sidewalks
The Division recommends a sidewalk with a minimum 5 foot width and prefers
the sidewalk be placed 6 feet from the face of curb to accommodate snow
storage.
Signals. Signing and Other Traffic Control Devices
All traffic control devices must comply with MMUTCO.
For urban cross sections, the Division recommends traffic signs be placed
at least 6 leet from the face of curb to the edge of sign. Sign placement
is preferred behind the sidewalk. The location of utilities should be
considered with regard to future sign placement. In areas where there is
no sidewalk, clearance to the signage should be at least 6 feet from the
curb or edge of shoulder to allow for snow storage and/or future
sidewalk(see Snow Storage).
Landscape/streetscape should not obstruct the view of signage.
Traffic signals shall have the Division's standard type and color. Any
other color scheme requires prior review and approval by the Division and
require the Municipality to maintain the paint system at no cost to the
Division. Lead based paint shall not be used. Paint must comply with
current Mn/DOT specifications.
Snow Storage
The Division requires minimum operational clear zones for snow storage
along the side of the road based on the posted speed limit. The
requirement of an operational clear zone for snow storage allows the
Division to efficiently clear roads of snow and help maintain the road's
traffic carrying capacity. Inadequate snow stora;e will redur e lane
widths, adversely affect traffic handling capacity of the road and prevent
trucks from using the partially blocked traffic lane. Roads that are not
cleared of snow along the curb to the storm drain can also cause drainage
problems when the snow melts.
The Division may require that the Municipality obtain an easement if there
is inadequate snow storage available within the right of way as a result of
landscape/streetscape structure placement. In areas where
landscape/streetscape structures cause inadequate room to store snow off
the road, the Municipality will be required to either move or haul away the
snow (see Introduction for legal liability and maintenance requirements).
0 Street Lighting
Street lighting must be functional and meet appropriate standards for
illumination. Special consideration should be given to eliminating glare
and shadows. Questions on lighting should be referred to the Division's
Design Section.
April 3, 1995
Tees
Trees, in general, can obstruct the view of signs and signals. Prior to
the placement of any tree, sight lines should be evaluated that includes
consideration for fully mature trees and their canopies.
The Division standard does not sanction the planting of trees on County
right of way within the operational clear zone (see Operational Clear
Zone).
Planting coniferous trees is discouraged within Hennepin County's right of
way.
Tree grates in sidewalks or paved crews, unless Properly instaiied and
maintained, can be a hazard to pedestrians, people with disabilities, and
snow removal operations, etc. The Municipality assumes all liability for
the placement of any tree grates or other obstacles within the County's
right of way.
Irrigation, if deemed necessary, should be limited to a trickle type system
see Irrigation).
The Division does not contribute to the replacement of any
streetscape/landscape alteration as a result of any highway maintenance,
modification or utility work.
0 Utilities
Underground utilities that do not extend above the surface may be placed
within the County's operational clear zone. Above ground utilities,
however, should be placed outside the County's operational clear zone.
PERMITS
The Division's Permit Office shall be informed of all construction or
maintenance work within the County's road right of way. Traffic Control and
time of work must be approved by the Division prior to beginning any work. Example: Parking in a traffic lane during rush hour is not allowed.)
FIGURE
HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
TRANSPORTATION DIVISION
RECOMMENDED LANDSCAPE / STREETSCAPE GUIDELINES
URBAN
TYPICAL ROADWAY CROSS SECTION
TRAFFIC LANE
PLACEMENT OF TREES,
MINIMUM _ UTILITIES, FIXED OBJECTS. ETC.
2' GUTTER
OPERATIONAL
CLEAR ZONE 51,
AND SNOW
STORAGE
RECOMMENDED PLACEMENT OF SIGNS
BOULEVARD
FACE OF CURB
POSTED .SPEED LIMIT MTNTMUM OPFRATTOW.. Cl -EAR ZONE
35 M.P.H. OR LESS 6 FOOT (FROM THE FACE OF CURB)
GREATER THAN 35 M.P.H. TO 45 M.P.H. 10 FOOT (FROM THE FACE OF CURB)
GREATER THAN 45 M.P.H. ANALYZED ON AN INDIVIDUAL
BASIS BY THE DIVISION.
APRIL 1995
ice._
DATE: August 10, 1995
TO: Dwight D. Johnson, City Manager
FROM: Fred G. Moore, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL
COUNTY ROAD 61 (NORTHWEST BOULEVARD)
BASS LAKE PLAYFIELD
Since November 1994, the City has been working with the County to receive approval
of a pedestrian signal on County Road 61 (Northwest Boulevard) at the Bass Lake
Playfield. Attached are copies of correspondence between the City and County on the
requested traffic signal.
Since the City Council letter to Commissioner Penny Steele on June 12, 1995, I have
had telephone discussions with Jim Grube, County Transportation Division Engineer.
Although I have not received written correspondence as of this time, Jim has informed
me that a traffic signal for a cross walk at the Bass Lake Playfield will be approved by
the County. The cost to construct the traffic signal will be the responsibility of the
City. The County is also willing to work with the City on sale of on -hand equipment
in order that it may be possible to have the signal constructed yet this year. The trail
segment along Northwest Boulevard in this area is part of the proposed trail
construction for which the City will receive bids on September 12. A formal
agreement will need to be entered into between the City and the County on the
construction and operation of the traffic signal. The City would also be responsible for
the design of the signal.
attachments
PF.MONL.DW
CITY OF
PLYMOUTH -
June 12, 1995
Commissioner Penny Steele
Hennepin County Board of Commissioners
Hennepin County Government Center
300 S. 6th Street
Minneapolis, MN
Dear Commissioner Steele:
We are writing to encourage your support of a pedestrian activated red -green traffic
signal on Northwest Boulevard (County Road 61) near Bass Lake Playfield in
Plymouth. A substantial safety problem exists at this location where children from
many neighborhoods are crossing four lanes to access Bass Lake Playfield.
Late in 1994, the Plymouth City Council considered the results of a traffic study on
Northwest Boulevard adjacent to the Bass Lake Playfield and voted to recommend
Alternative 5 in that study which calls for a pedestrian activated red -green traffic signal
at this location. Since then, the voters of Plymouth have also voted for an Open Space
and Trails referendum which will lead to the immediate construction of a trail along
this section of Northwest Boulevard. The City of Plymouth is ready to proceed with
construction of both the signal and the trail this summer to alleviate the pedestrian
safety concern in the area.
Our Public Works Director has communicated this recommendation to the Hennepin
County Department of Transportation, and received a letter in return taking the position
that a full pedestrian signal should not be constructed. Instead, a flashing yellow signal
was recommended.
The City Council has carefully considered and deliberated about all the options in the
traffic study, including the flashing yellow signal option. We remain convinced that
the full red -green pedestrian activated signal is the, best option is this particular
situation. We believe that any form of flashing yellow signal will not adequately slow
the cars and will give the children a false sense of security in attempting to cross this
four lane road. Doing nothing is not an acceptable option. The full signal is the only
reasonable option that will provide additional safety for pedestrians in the area.
We Listen • We Solve • We Care
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD • PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447 • TELEPHONE (612) 550-5000
We ask that Hennepin County reconsider its position and approve a fully functioning
red -green pedestrian activated signal. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerel
2JoyTierney John Edson Nick Granath Carole Helliwell
Mayor -Council member Cruncil member Council member
Tim Wold Chuck fya/ng" d David Anderson
Council member Council member Council member
cc: Jim Grube
Hennepin County Director of Public Works
HennepinCountyAnEqualOpportunityEmployer
January 4
Mr. Fred G. Moore, P.E.
Director of Public Works
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, MN 55447
RE: Northwest Boulevard - Pedestrian Access to Bass Lake Playfield
Dear Mr. Moore:
11
RE;
JAN - 9 1995
Thank you for your November 28, 1994 letter about the status of the
jurisdictional transfer of Northwest Boulevard. In the letter you requested
the County's position on and concurrence with the installation of a pedestrian
crossing signal by the Bass Lake Playfield. This letter is to report to you
on our position on pedestrian access, after review within the County.
We agree with the importance of safe pedestrian access to the playfield. As
noted in the supporting information which we received, the warrants for a
pedestrian actuated traffic signal are not met and likely would never be met.
Therefore we cannot justify a signal light. In fact an unsafe condition could
be created where an unwarranted signal is installed. An unjustified signal
invites people to disregard stop indicators and thwarts voluntary compliance
essential to the normal functioning of a roadway. Further the number of rear
end accidents can increase at a signal - especially at an unwarranted one.
We considered the option of a median as referenced in the correspondence. We
believe a median would not be desirable because of: the uncertainty about
someone stepping off the median, the added right of way needed, the
construction cost, the non -conformity with the remainder of Northwest
Boulevard between CSAH 9 and 10, and because of the added maintenance cost.
We believe there is another alternative for the situation. We would like the
City to consider a marked crossing near the driveway to the playfield which
would include pavement markings and yellow flashing lights.
Pedestrian safety is usually enhanced by concentrating road crossings to fewer
locations. Thus, the City's plan for a trail on the west side of Northwest
Boulevard between 54th and 56th Avenues when coupled with a singular crossing
should provide for safe crossing. If a crossing is placed at the playfield
there should be no marked crossing at 54th or 55th Avenues in order to
concentrate crossings at the playfield and to avoid the disruption and
Department of Public Works
320 Washington Avenue South Recycled Paper
Hopkins, Minnesota 55343-8468
612) 930-2670 FAX: (612) 930-2513 TDD: (612) 930-2696
I
Mr. Fred G. Moore
January 4, 1995
Page 2
inherent dangers of multiple crossings. Further, by having a marked crossing
with warning flashers the City has the opportunity to enforce the law
providing protection to pedestrians in marked crosswalks.
We believe the yellow flashers should be time -of -day actuated according to a
schedule we are willing to have the City of Plymouth establish. We understand
there is some interest in having any flasher be pedestrian actuated. We would
like to concur with pedestrian actuation, but have two particular strong
concerns both related to difficulties young people may encounter. Upon
pressing the button of a pedestrian actuated flasher a person could mistakenly
step off the curb assuming that traffic would immediately stop, when in fact
vehicles may not stop. Similarly, a person unfamiliar with how long it takes
for a car to stop would be at risk by stepping off the curb immediately upon
pushing the button. In short we are concerned about the false sense of
security associated with a pedestrian actuated flasher. Instead we believe
the kind of time -of -day flasher installed on County 6 just west of State 55 is
most appropriate.
The City should anticipate that the cost of improvements and subsequent
maintenance would be borne by the City. The County would, at the option of
the City, be willing to initially construct the flasher, with the cost to be
reimbursed to the County. Thereafter the operation and maintenance of the
warning flashers would be the responsibility of the City. In accord with
County practice we are willing to place the initial pavement markings at the
playfield, with the City to thereafter be responsible for maintenance. In
this case the County would be willing to do the concurrent and associated
removal of the marked crossing at 55th Avenue.
While we would have preferred to have concurred with the specifics of your
request, we believe the most appropriate means of providing for pedestrian
crossing is a marked crossing with warning flashers, a means which also
provides an opportunity for local enforcement. We would like your concurrence
in our position. If you would like to discuss further please call me at 930-
2680.
Sincerely,
Thomas ?hnson, P.E.
Transportation Planning Engineer
TDJ/WKP:gk
cc: Vern Genzlinger
Jim Grube
Ted Hoffman
94-/a6 3
November 28, 1994 CITY OF
PLYMOUTH+
Mr. Tom Johnson, P.E.
Transportation and Planning Engineer.
HENN COUNTY DEPT. OF TRANSP.
320 Washington Ave. South
Hopkins, MN 55343-8468
SUBJECT: FUTURE COUNTY ROAD 61 FROM
COUNTY ROAD 9 TO COUNTY ROAD 10
Dear Tom:
In accordance with the agreement that the City and the County entered into in 1989,
Northwest Boulevard will become a County road after it has continuity between County
Road 9. and County Road 10. In accordance with your September 15 letter, we have met
with Jerry Smrcka and Wayne Matsumoto to review the status of the construction.
Although there are a few minor construction items to be completed, the road is open for
traffic. We have also worked with Dave Swenson in right-of-way and have his
preliminary approval of the necessary deeds to convey the right-of-way acquired by the
City to the County.
After our meeting with Wayne Matsumoto and Jerry Smrcka, we have been informed that
the County will assume responsibility for snow and ice control on the roadway this winter
season. We will continue to complete the remaining technical items in the -agreement and
minor construction in order that the formal transfer can take place in the near future.
Alongthe east side of the roadway between 54th and 55th Avenues the City of Plymouth
has a community playfield/neighborhood park. In September the Plymouth City Council
received a petition from residents living on the west side of Northwest Boulevard between
54th and 56th Avenue concerning pedestrian crossing safety of Northwest Boulevard. The
City. Council directed that our traffic consultant prepare- a pedestrian safety study for
access to the Bass Lake Playfreld..
We Listen . We Solve . We Care
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD • PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447 • TELEPHONE (612) 550-5000
Mr. Tom Johnson, P.E.
Page Two
This study was completed by Strgar-Roscoe-Fausch, Inc. and presented to the Plymouth
City Council on November 7, 1994. I am attaching a copy of the complete staff report
which includes the Pedestrian Access Study and the previous petition material. After
considering pedestrian safety to the ' playfield, the City Council adopted a motion
recommending that we proceed with the following:
1. A trail along the west side of Northwest Boulevard between 54th
Avenue and 56th Avenue.
2. Installation of a pedestrian crossing traffic signal as described in
Access Alternative No. 5 of the Traffic Study Report.
The pedestrian crossing traffic signal would be installed at a mid block crosswalk location
at the driveway access to the playfield. This would be a fully actuated pedestrian signal
with push buttons for pedestrian crossings along with a marked crosswalk ands advanced
warning signs.
Although the City Council has adopted a motion recommending the installation of the
traffic signal, it could not be installed until the spring/summer of 1995. By this time IiswouldanticipatethattheformaljurisdictionoftheroadwaywouldbeHennepinCounty's.
I am requesting Hennepin County's position on the installation of this pedestrian crossing
signal. The City Council has determined that the signal is necessary to provide adequate
pedestrian safety from the residents to access the park facilities. I am requesting the
County's concurrence in this installation.
If you have questions, please contact me.
Sincerely,
Fred G. Moore, P.E.
Director of Public Works
Enclosure
cc: Mayor and City Council
Dwight D. Johnson, City Manager
T)W6.
P%t .,a
t;av%&.t
L t: ttee
t -v : + %%
C:tY
row Co-t t 'o s; 3CJ w+ etl:nj
Cp,w,n,: SS;ohl s.
Z. A' e.. d. I tem% 8-A. :thew,.
C;+ Fores+« pMLWI 13.K o^ Toav
10% TIPasi ady j/la•+Sh w•s Sept a.
C .t•y th F..A16
Hennepi*n CountyAnEqualOpportunityEmployer
Mr. Fred Moore
Director of Public Works
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Blvd.
Plymouth, Minnesota 55447
RE: Request for Traffic Signal Installation Along CSAH 61
August 14, 1995
Dear Mr. M ore: ice,
This letter is intended to serve as a follow-up to our recent telephone
conversation wherein I indicated that County staff is willing to support a
proposal for the installation of a pedestrian -actuated traffic signal along
CSAH 61 at the Bass Lake Playfields to the County Board. Although County
staff is supportive of the City's proposal, certain conditions must be met
to ensure that the best interests of the public are met. The conditions
are as follows:
1. The pedestrian -actuated traffic signal must be placed at a mid -block
location, not at an intersection or driveway.
2. Pedestrian crossings of CSAH 61 at 54th and 55th Avenues North must
be consolidated with the new crossing to increase its use.
3. The pedestrian -actuated traffic control system should be designed
and constructed by the City, at its cost.
4. The pedestrian -actuated traffic control system design and
installation must be approved by the County (a permit will be
required).
5. The City must be responsible for the continued maintenance of the
pedestrian -actuated traffic signal and indemnify the County from any
claims tendered as a result of the system's operation.
6. If the City ceases or reduces its use of the Bass Lake Playfield to
a point where the pedestrian -actuated traffic control system does
not serve the community in a manner envisioned at this time, the
system must be removed at the City's cost.
Department of Public Works
320 Washington Avenue South Recycled Paper
Hopkins, Minnesota 55343-8468
612)930-2500 FAX:(612)930-2513
Fred Moore
August 14, 1995
Page 2
If the City finds these conditions acceptable, staff will draft a coopera-
tive agreement which provides for the installation and present it to the
County Board for approval. As you are aware, the County possesses many of
the materials necessary to construct the installation. The City is invited
to use the materials if the County Board authorizes the installation'
appropriate material charges will be established).
I look forward to hearing from you in regard to the County staff offer of
support and stipulations contained in this letter.
Sincerely,
James N. Grube, P.E.
Transportation Division Manager
JNG:mvr
cc: T. Johnson
J. Smrcka
R.
MEMO
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH,; MN 55447
DATE: August 3, 1995
TO: Dan Faulkner, City Engineer
FROM: Paul Buck, Forester
SUBJECT: Tree health in Sugar Hills development
GENERAL OVERVIEW
The natural system that existed while the trees were growing is no longer present. All
trees in this area will be affected by the surrounding development that has taken place.
The trees directly impacted by construction damage will be the most recognizably
stressed, but even trees not directly disturbed due to construction activities will have to
adjust to a new micro environment. Large and small changes in conditions such as
water regimes, wind speeds, radiant heat and exposure, and introduction of invasive
non -woodland species will impose stresses not previously experienced in this
predominately Maple/Basswood stand. A period of three to seven years will be needed
to adequately evaluate which trees have adapted and survived the changes. During this
transition period, stress may also lead to secondary pathogens gaining an entrance into
the stand and further reducing the vitality of trees, possibly leading to death. Any
actions or measures taken by residents which can reduce the stress (mulching,
fertilizing, understory reforestation, watering if needed, etc.) can greatly increase the
chances of survival.
MARTIN CASE
The trees of most concern lay between the storm treatment pond and the natural
wetland. This line of trees consists mainly of Ash, Elm, Boxelder, with a few Maple
and Basswood. The majority of these trees have existed and thrived in their location
due to their ability to survive a wet and changing environment. This was and continues
to be an edge environment between the wetland and the upland, which is evident based
on species composition. Currently, 1 Elm appears to have been infected with Dutch
Elm disease (unrelated to environmental conditions) and one Maple appears to be
suffering from excess moisture. This Maple is located about 15 ft. from the pond
overflow outlet and probably cannot adjust to the fluctuations in the water regime
heavier amounts and at irregular intervals). Moving the outlet would only stress other
trees not currently affected. To avoid further stress on these trees between the pond
and the wetland would mean diverting the water past them rather than allowing
drainage through them, possibly through a pipe or other means. I'm not sure of the
practical or technological implications of such a solution.
Within the next few years, I would expect to see other trees that are not suited to a wet
environment die or suffer due to the changes in water amounts and flow along this edge
environment. I would also expect to see trees native to a river bottom environment
survive and adjust to the new water regime imposed by development. Once the water
system has settled and development activities have slowed down, I would also expect
volunteer trees suitable to a wet micro environment to seed into this area and thrive.
Volunteer species would include be Ash, Willow, Boxelder, Cottonwood, Elm, and
Silver Maple.
cc: Shane Missaghi, Water Resources Engineer