Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout121399S CC MinCITY COUNCIL SPECIAL SESSION MONDAY, DECEMBER 13, 1999 MUNICIPAL BUILDING 3800 UNIVERSITY BLVD. 6:30 P.M. The City Council convened in Special Session in the Municipal Building Conference Room (3800 University Blvd.) on December 13, 1999, with the following members present: Mayor Lewis presiding, Council Members Ballanfant, Bertini, Grubb and May. The Assistant City Secretary, City Attorney, Public Works Director, Parks and Recreation Director, Police Chief, Finance Director, and Development Coordinator were also present. The notice for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Texas Government Code, Chapter 551, on the 10th day of December 1999 at 11:00 a.m. Agenda Review: The City Council reviewed the regular meeting agenda and discussed items under consideration with the Staff. Report from Metropolitan Transit Authority. Matters related to a report from Tom Lambert, Vice President and Chief of Police for the Metropolitan Transit Authority regarding the development of a Memorandum of Understanding to provide certain services. Mr. Lambert reported that in order to plan a traffic safety program, problems must be first identified. METRO will work closely with the West University Police Department to identify any problems. If a problem is identified, specific goals and objectives would be established and a cooperative plan developed. In order to define the program, traffic records should be reviewed to identify times of day, day of week, locations and violations that are causing the most serious traffic incidents that cause congestion. Directed patrols must focus on known causes of incidents and traffic problems that most concern citizen safety and mobility. Emphasis should be on proactive, rather than reactive, policing. Identify and implement non- traditional approaches to meet mobility and traffic safety objectives. The City Council authorized the Staff to proceed with the proposed agreement with METRO and the West University Police Department. City Council Special Sesse December 13, 1999 • Report from Zoning and Planning Commission. Matters related to a report presented by Charles Nelson, Chair of the Zoning and Planning Commission. Mr. Nelson reported that the Commission worked on the following activity for 4t" quarter 1999: • Finalize rules of procedures • Finalize recommendations for Personal Wireless Service Facilities • Finalize recommendations for Prior Non-Conforming Status • Perimeter Study Task Force in Progress • Long Range Planning Task Force in Progress Plans for 1st quarter 2000 are as follows: • Finalize perimeter study • Finalize Long Range Planning Study • Land use review - Public vs. private property • Recent non-conforming - relaxation vs. enforcement • Use of sub-committee and outside support • Omnibus review - housekeeping matters for high-grade current zoning deficiencies • Density review • Drainage A/C. The City Council recessed the Special Session at 7:30 p.m. The Special Session reconvened at 7:45 p.m. Citv Center Improvements. Matters related to a report on City Center Improvements, Edloe Street and Poor Farm Ditch from University to Sunset. City Manager Sherman Yehl submitted the following report: For the last several months, the City has been reviewing some design alternatives to the City Center area, including intersection improvements, a redesigned 3700 block of University Boulevard, and improvements to Edloe Street. On August 9, 1999 the City submitted two nominations to the Statewide Transportation Enhancement Program that would have addressed certain aspects of these improvements. Recently, the City was advised that the two STEP nominations were not going to be recommended by Texas Department of Transportation staff or the STEP Review Committee. A public hearing with the TxDOT Commission will be held and the City will be making an appeal to the Commission to consider the nominations. Regardless of this process, however, the City needs to proceed with improvements at some level. Over this past weekend, staff marked Edloe Street to indicate the new curb lines should the center line of Edloe be moved. One proposal, which includes head-in 2 City Council Special Sessi December 13, 1999 • parking on the west side of Edloe would require the centerline to be moved approximately eight feet to the east. Redesign costs for Edloe Street from University to Rice would require an expenditure of $40,000 In addition, Commissioner Radack has submitted a preliminary proposal for the development of a linear park along the Poor Farm Ditch from Rice to Sunset. This park would include new fencing, sidewalks, and up to three additional foot bridges that would allow for access from Nottingham, Tangley and Georgetown. The county is willing to commit $277,000 to this project, but would require the City to contribute $85,000. These funds would be used to construct a sidewalk system from north of the JMH Supermarket to Sunset. Funding for these expenditures are available from the 2000 budget. Staff needs direction regarding the following: 1) A decision on relocating the center line of Edloe from University to Rice in order to facilitate the street redesign. A decision at this point would allow a construction period during the summer of 2000. 2) A decision regarding funding and the preliminary design concept from Commissioner Radack for the development of a linear park along the Edloe Street corridor. A decision at this time will allow the county to fund 77% of this project and for construction to begin the summer of 2000. A motion was made by Council Member Grubb, seconded by Council Member Bertini, to appropriate $85,000 for the development of a linear park along Edloe Street corridor. A vote was taken on the motion with the following result: Voting Aye: Mayor Lewis, Council Members Ballanfant, Bertini, Grubb and May Voting Nay: None Absent: None A motion was made by Council Member Grubb, seconded by Council Member Bertini, to authorize City Staff and Claunch and Miller to work with H.I.S.D. and the property owners along Edloe Street to examine the concept plan and determine its feasibility for the redesign of Edloe Street. A vote was taken on the motion with the following result: Voting Aye: Mayor Lewis, Council Members Ballanfant, Bertini, Grubb and May Voting Nay: None Absent: None City Council Special Sess* December 13, 1999 Pre-Treatment of Trees. Matters related to a report on the pre-treatment of trees. Craig Koehl representing Forestry Associates was present at the meeting. The following report was presented by Development Coordinator Nes Tesno: When the City originally developed plans for the infrastructure improvement program, tree protection was not a high priority. The initial construction plans were designed before the tree preservation ordinance was in effect. However, a simple plan for tree protection was developed. This plan was a treatment program for the trees, which included fertilization and pruning and was not a preservation plan. During the construction of the first phase (Priority Area #1), many tree problems arose as a direct result of the construction. The construction was brought to an abrupt halt when a resident learned that 18" of roots would be removed from the large oak trees in front of his property. The removal of these roots would have killed these mature trees. At this point, it became very clear that the treatment plan was not sufficient to protect the City's beautiful street trees. After citizen outcry, the City Council decided to include tree protection as part of the infrastructure repair process. Street construction in Priority Area #1 was continued after alternatives were developed to protect the trees. During the completion of the project, the City's Urban Forester monitored construction and directed tree preservation methods. This required the Urban Forester to spend at least 3-4 hours daily monitoring the construction. City Council directed staff to aggressively identify areas of concern and to develop an extensive tree protection plan. The plan would include alternatives to the invasive construction methods currently being used. A request for proposal was solicited and after interviewing several interested parties, staff recommended the selection of Forestry Associates, Inc. This recommendation was made based on the firm's experience and ability to provide detailed preservation plans. The City Council agreed with the staff recommendation and approved a professional service agreement with Forestry Associates, Inc. Priority Area #2 was the initial area that included alternatives to the invasive construction methods. These preservation plans were developed in conjunction with the plans designed by the engineers. The plans address each tree and the possible impact from the specific construction processes that occur around that tree. These plans provide for the following stages of treatment: 4 City Council Special SessS* December 13, 1999 0 Pre-Treatment: Consists of removal, pruning and fertilization. This treatment is a proactive treatment to insure the trees are in the best possible condition before any construction starts. Construction Treatment: Consists of root pruning, tree protection fencing, boring and zero-curb cut. Root pruning is done in advance of construction, followed by the installation of protection fencing. Root pruning is an essential part of controlling the impact construction has on trees. By using a trenching machine to severe the roots, less damage is done to the roots and root loss is controlled. Therefore, the impact is controlled and the tree has a better chance to survive. Tree protection fencing is used to protect root zone areas from encroachment. The high visibility fencing also assures residents their trees are being properly protected. The fencing and root prune locations are marked in the field by the consultant. The contractor accompanies the consultant during the marking of these locations to assist in solving any problems that are identified. This cooperative effort reduces down time and avoids confusion later in the construction process. It is sometimes necessary for the consultant to make decisions about tree preservation in the field (at the time of construction) due to unforeseen circumstances. The boring of waterlines is also designated on the plans. This allows the critical root zones of trees to be left undisturbed. Areas for bore pits are selected that will have the least impact to surrounding trees. Street construction usually impacts the trees and their roots more than other infrastructure work due to the excavation of the tree lawn area. Zero-curb cut is a method the city developed to protect trees in the first Priority Area. Using this method, an 18" wide portion of the area behind the curb is removed to provide extra stabilization for the new street by mixing in lime. The lime stabilization prevents the curb and street from cracking and buckling. Zero-curb cut requires extra steel reinforcement in the street and no excavation behind the curb. During this process, any roots that are exposed are covered with plastic to prevent desiccation. Removal of the curb is done with extreme caution due to the extensive amount of roots in the tree lawn area and roots that grow over the curb. Post-Construction Treatment: Consists of monitoring and any mitigative measures recommended by the Urban Forester. After construction is completed, the trees are monitored by the consultant to determine the success of preservation. At this time, determination for further treatment is made. The initial urban forestry consultation is critical for the above steps. The consultant evaluates each tree in the proposed construction area in comparison to the design engineer's plans. Each tree evaluation dictates the treatments required for that tree. The field inspection by the consultant also identifies any conflicts that can be resolved in the planning stage. Tree preservation plans are consolidated and finalized into a separate set of plans. These plans enable the city to control costs by eliminating confusion during the bid process. All line items, such as tree removals, pruning, fertilization, fencing, zero- curb cut and boring are identified. These items are specifically outlined on the bid, which 5 City Council Special Sess'fed, December 13, 1999 • provides for a complete bid and alleviates confusion. The detailed plans also provide guidance to the contractor during construction, reducing mistakes, which could result in tree damage. The majority of the consultant costs are incurred during the initial preparation of plans and specifications. Staff believes that removal of step #1 from the preservation process would result in needless impact and damage to both private and public trees. Some of these trees would go into decline and eventually die. The consultant is on call for any unforeseen conflicts during the construction process and monitors the job to ensure preservation methods are being properly implemented. Other alternatives have been discussed in the past due to concerns about cost of pre- treatment and protection. These alternatives ranged from removing all tree preservation from the project to a select protection process: No preservation or mitigative treatments: Removing tree preservation from the infrastructure projects would cause undue damage and stress to trees in the priority areas. As the City has made a commitment to tree preservation, there is a potential credibility problem that could develop if the City were to make a major change in these efforts. Select Preservation: This process would identify trees that would not be protected. It has been suggested, for example, that Class 4 trees (Chinese tallow, hackberry, mimosa, chinaberry, golden raintree, and oleander) not be protected. This would mean that no protection or mitigative treatment would be required for class 4 trees. Tallow trees are frequently found in the lawn between the street and sidewalk. The construction method currently used would result in the removal a large portion of the root zone close to the trunk of the tree which would damage the tree and jeopardize its structural integrity. Select Removal: This option was discussed as an alternative to protecting Class 4 trees. This would require removal of any class 4 tree in the tree lawn that would be damaged irreparably. This choice would result in the removal of many trees and would drastically alter the City's existing streetscape. Chinese tallow trees are one of the few trees in this area that provide fall color. They are also a class 4 tree and would be removed under this plan. General Provision Specifications Only: It has been suggested to omit the separate plans for the tree preservation and require only general provisions in the design engineer's plans and specifications. This would reduce clarity in the bidding process and could lead to additional damage to trees. Under the plans outlined above, extensive re-planting efforts would be required in order to maintain the City's long standing commitment to an urban forest. The following table outlines the funds spent on tree preservation in all previous priority areas: 6 City Council Special Seso December 13, 1999 9 2 $18,200 $15,558 $175,819 3 $31,650 $20,650 $150,200 4A $24,300 $ 6,585 $ 61,628 4B & 5A $23,453 $ 4,888 $ 65,517 5B & 6A $41,073. $ 6,064 $ 67,150 6B $28,200 $ 6,390 $109,616 7A $39,950 $19,340 $147,453 TOTAL $206,825 $79,475 $777,395 To date, the City has spent $1,063,696 on consulting, pre-treatment, and protection for trees in Priority Areas 2-7A, representing 4% of the total project costs. While this sum is not unsubstantial, when you consider the entire package and how the benefits of tree preservation impact each resident, this may be a small investment. Trees offer benefits to our community such as aesthetic value, energy savings, air & water quality, wildlife, noise abatement and marketability of developed properties. Other alternatives are available, and at a lower cost. However, without knowing what standards to be used or the size, number and type of replacement trees to be planted, it is difficult to quantify the savings. It is staffs opinion that while the current tree preservation program is expensive, it has been widely accepted by our residents. Resident's can have confidence in knowing that tree loss will be minimal and that the City is maintaining a high standard of urban tree preservation. It is staff s recommendation that the City maintain this commitment and continue with the current tree preservation plan. Any changes to this approach should not be done without public discussion and a full appreciation of the costs, benefits, and risks of the alternatives. After numerous questions and discussion, the City Council agreed to continue addressing this item at a later meeting. Franchise Fee Elimination. This report will be presented at the next council meeting. Posting agendas for sub-committees. This item will be addressed at the next council meeting. Matters related to pending or contemplated litigation or a settlement offer. Class Action Suit, City of Wharton vs. H.L.& P. Closed Executive Session to be held under Section 551.071, Texas Government Code. The Executive Session convened at 9:20 p.m.. 7 City Council Special Se* December 13, 1999 0 The City Council closed the Executive Session at 10:30 p.m. to convene in open session. Boundary issues with the City of Southside Place. Matters related to boundary issues between the City of Southside Place and West University Place. The City Council addressed key points for the proposed boundary and street agreements as presented by City Attorney Jim Dougherty. A motion was made by Council Member Grubb, seconded by Council Member Bertini, to make changes to the list of key points as discussed and forward to the City of Southside Place. A vote was taken on the motion with the following result: Voting Aye: Mayor Lewis, Council Members Ballanfant, Bertini, Grubb and May Voting Nay: None Absent: None Adjournment. With no further business to come before the City Council at this time, a motion was made by Council Member May, seconded by Council Member Bertini, to adjourn. The Special Session adjourned at 11:00 p.m.