SWLRT Section 106 Consultation - Meeting Notes

Transcription

1 Meeting Title: SWLRT Sectin 106 Cnsultatin - Meeting Ntes Date: 2/06/2015 Time: 9:30 am Duratin: 2.0 hrs Lcatin: Meeting called by: Suthwest LRT Prject Office, Cnference Rm A 6465 Wayzata Bulevard, Suite 500 St Luis Park, MN Greg Mathis, MnDOT Cultural Resurces Unit (CRU) Attendees: SHPO: Sarah Beimers Eden Prairie: Regina Rjas Hpkins: Nancy Andersn Minneaplis: Brian Schaffer St. Luis Park: Meg McMnigal MPRB: Jennifer Ringld, Michael Schreder, Renay Lene KIAA: Kathy Lw, Tamara Ludt CIDNA: Craig Westgate HC: Dave Jaeger, Kim Zlimen SPO: Nani Jacbsn, Jim Alexander, Carline Miller, Dan Pfeiffer, Sphia Ginis, Mark Bishp, Len Skiles, Ryan Krnzer FTA (phne): Amy Zaref, Maya Sarna Purpse f Meeting: Meeting with cnsulting parties t cntinue Sectin 106 cnsultatin prcess --- Agenda & Discussin 1. Welcme & Intrductins 2. Prject Update Nani Jacbsn frm SPO prvided a prject update n the scpe f the prject and an updated timeline. In 2016, the Final EIS and Full Funding Grant Agreement will be cmpleted, with cnstructin beginning in The Suthwest LRT is anticipated t begin passenger peratins in Sectin 106 Update Greg Mathis frm MnDOT CRU explained the steps f the Sectin 106 prcess and 1

2 4. Kenilwrth Lagn referenced the handut prvided t meeting attendees that explains the prcess in mre detail. He intrduced the new cnsulting parties Hennepin Cunty (as f December 2014) and Cedar Isles Dean Neighbrhd Assciatin (CIDNA) (as f February 2015). Greg acknwledged the receipt f cmments frm cnsulting parties n the Nvember 2014 package and meeting. MnDOT CRU will cnsider all cmments received, but in rder t get thrugh all f the material needed t cnsult upn, this meeting will fcus n the Kenilwrth Lagn and the next meeting will fcus n cmments received n crridrwide effects. Mre frequent meetings will be held in Q1 t get thrugh this. The draft Sectin 106 agreement will be included in the Final EIS and the executed agreement will be part f the ROD. Actin: Respnd t crridr-wide cmments in a separate cnsultatin meeting Greg first shwed a map f the Kenilwrth Lagn area and the histric prperties ptentially affected by a new crssing ver the lagn. This includes bth Grand Runds features and the Lake f the Isles Residential Histric District. Crssing Optins Greg intrduced three crssing ptins (see Table 1 and KW Crssing ptins plans frm 2/3/15 cnsultatin package): Metrplitan Cuncil adpted scpe: at-grade LRT crssing (Optin 1) Shallw cut-and-cver LRT tunnel under the channel (Optin 2) MPRB (Minneaplis Park and Recreatin Bard) prpsal: jacked bx LRT tunnel under the channel (Optin 3) Mark Bishp frm SPO presented the engineering plans fr Optins 1 and 2, describing the cnstructin sequencing fr bridge remval, replacement, and tunnel cnstructin fr Optin 2. Michael Schreder frm MPRB explained the jacked bx tunnel fr Optin 3. He described the cnstructin techniques f using launching pit and receiving pit t install the jacked bx. Winches wuld pull the bx thrugh the grund and a cutting edge n the frnt wuld help guide it int place. On the interir, sil wuld be excavated as it gets installed. Sil wuld remain intact arund the bx during cnstructin and the channel wuld nt be clsed during the jacked bx cnstructin. Nani asked if remval/replacement f the existing bridges is needed under Optin 3. Michael respnded that the freight bridge and trail bridge wuld be remved and recnstructed t align with the prject s current alignment. The recnstructed bridges culd als be mved ver the tunnel. Sarah Beimers frm the Minnesta State Histric Preservatin Office (SHPO) asked if the SPO had cnsidered effects n deeply buried depsits during archaelgical survey wrk in the area (e.g. fr deep bre tunnel). Greg respnded that it wasn t specifically addressed at the time f survey since a tunnel was nt part f cnceptual engineering during the DEIS, but MnDOT CRU culd lk at mdels t see if there was ptential fr deeply 2

3 buried depsits. Michael als respnded that MPRB didn t think there were any cncerns with deeply buried depsits frm discussins with their cultural resurces staff, but haven t surveyed it. Bridge Design Cncepts (see Table 3 and bridge design cncepts plans frm 2/3/15 cnsultatin package) Greg intrduced revised bridge design cncepts that are based n input received at the Nvember 24, 2014 meeting. All three riginal cncepts (Arched Pier, Thin Deck and Steel Pier) are included in Table 3 as presented in Nvember 2014 (4 span, 3 pier cncepts), new 5 span, 4 pier cncepts, and ne 7 span, 6 pier Steel Pier cncept. Ryan Krnzer frm SPO nted that all f the cncepts have pier verlaps. He presented the three revised 5 span cncepts: Arched Pier, Steel Pier, and Thin Deck. Michael asked why the structure depth ( ttal bridge thickness withut railing ) grew between the riginal Steel Pier and the revised Steel Pier cncepts when the span lengths shrtened? It went frm 3 2 t 3 10 in Table 3, Bridge Design Cncepts. Mark verified that that 3 2 was an errr in Table 3 and will be crrected fr a future versin - it shuld be Michael asked abut bridge requirements fr a trail bridge vs. an LRT bridge. Was there any cnsideratin f lad bearing requirements fr different bridges, r cnsideratin given t creating separate bridges in rder t let light in between structures? Mark respnded that the cmbined LRT/trail bridge was designed with regard t the alignment ff f the channel, ROW clearance, and safety cnsideratins. The trail bridge is apprximately 20 wide at a minimum, and the cmbined LRT/trail bridge is apprximately 53.5 wide. Separatin f the cmbined bridge culd be dne, but further study f the impacts t ROW wuld be needed, and hw it wuld affect the alignment appraching the channel. The ROW clearance is minimal. Michael respnded that separated bridges wuld let mre light in under the bridge and that there culd be a different structure type fr LRT. Fr example, because f less lad bearing requirements, the trail bridge culd eliminate pier penetratins and have different cnfiguratins f piers in the water. Mark respnded that this culd ptentially change the cntinuity f the structures and that SPO wuld need t lk at hw t design a structure with fewer spans. Sarah asked abut the metric n Table 3 fr the deck+parapet+beams and if it included railing heights. SPO respnded that it des nt. Michael asked whether a gap wuld be pssible between the LRT and trail bridge in the cmbined scenari? 3

4 Mark respnded that it is pssible, but the way it is currently designed allws emergency vehicles t access bth LRT and the trail frm the space between the bridges. Ryan intrduced the ne 7 span ptin fr the Steel Pier nly, which was the result f cmments received during the Nvember 2014 cnsultatin. Michael asked what the advantage f the 7 span bridge cnfiguratin is? Greg respnded that it was develped in respnse t cmments received t cnsider a replacement structure that was similar in design t the existing trestles, with same number f spans, but in a new, cmpatible material. Nani respnded that it is nt necessarily recmmended. Jennifer Ringld frm MPRB cmmented that this is fllw thrugh frm Nvember cmments. Michael asked if SPO had cnsidered a hybrid bridge with a thinner deck ver the water fr mre clearance and thicker spans n the ends? Mark respnded that SPO did nt cnsider a hybrid bridge. Michael asked if there was pssibility t use a different deck? Mark respnded that all are slab cnstructin, which is abut as thin as pssible. Sarah cmmented that there is a large variatin between bridge cncepts in terms f abutments, wing walls, heights, grade changes, retaining walls, etc. She requested that SPO prvide a summary f these aspects t better understand the differences between the cncepts. Greg respnded that they will cnnect after the meeting t make sure SPO can address all f the specifics Sarah is cncerned abut and can prvide these materials fr an upcming cnsultatin meeting. Actin: Prvide a summary f different technical aspects f bridge cncepts t better understand differences between cncepts. Ryan presented a railing study that was cmpleted in respnse t Nvember 2014 cnsultatin cmments. The railing study was cmpleted fr bth the Steel Pier and Thin Deck cncepts. (see railing study sketches frm 2/3/15 cnsultatin package). Discussin f Effects Measures t minimize r mitigate adverse effects (see Table 2 frm 2/3/15 cnsultatin package) Greg presented Table 2: Kenilwrth Lagn/Channel Crssing Optins Effects Assessment. The first part f the table addresses temprary effects during cnstructin. Sarah asked abut effects due t traffic n residential streets and adjacent neighbrhds. She als cmmented that this culd fit int the rw f crdinating cnstructin hurs in accrdance with lcal permits. Mark respnded that cnstructin will be in a cnstrained area, but need t still determine access pints, which will be cnfirmed as prject planning advances. Michael cmmented n the Table 2 discussin f effects bundles all f the ptins as having the same temprary effects. He cmmented that the clsing f the 4

5 channel during cnstructin f the new crssing wuld be different fr each ptin. Fr example, the jacked bx wuld be intermittent clsures, but the cut-andcver ptin wuld be a lnger term clsure f the channel. Sarah asked if staging areas wuld be included in the temprary effects assessment (e.g. effects frm vibratin, cnstructin equipment/cranes). Mark respnded that cnstructin will be within the crridr. Nani explained that the Draft EIS had sme temprary acquisitins fr cnstructin staging areas, but the current plans have staging areas mstly within the ROW. These will be addressed in a cnstructin mnitring plan, which will be a part f the Sectin 106 Agreement. Greg explained that traffic and cnstructin impacts can be discussed at a future meeting since they are a crridr-wide discussin. Sarah cmmented that the cnstructin in the lagn area is unique and shuld be discussed n its wn. Nani cmmented that Cedar Lake Parkway will be the main access pint fr cnstructin and will be btaining cnstructin permits t d wrk in the area. Mark cmmented that the cnstructin requirements are different fr each ptin and bridge design cncept. Actin: Address cnstructin staging plan in Kenilwrth Channel/Lagn area. Kathy Lw frm Kenwd Isles Area Assciatin (KIAA) asked if the nise and vibratin study cvered bth cnstructin and built scenaris. Nani respnded that it is nly cvers the built scenari nw, but a shrt term cnstructin nise analysis will be in the Final EIS. Jennifer cmmented that the minimizatin measures in Table 2 shuld be differentiated by the different crssing ptins. Craig Westgate frm Cedar Isles Dean Neighbrhd Assciatin (CIDNA) asked that SPO add seasnal cnstructin impacts as well t the temprary effects prtin f Table 2. Greg presented the permanent effects sectin f Table 2. Jennifer asked a clarifying questin abut the way the sentence was wrded fr the cut-and-cver and jacked bx ptins as extending 42.5 int the middle sectin f the lagn. Greg respnded that the 42.5 includes bth clear space and space cvered by bridges. Jennifer cmmented that this is misleading, since the entire 42.5 will nt be cvered by bridges, therefre recmmends rewrding sentence t state the western bundary where the freight bridge ends is Or have tw rws: ne that states freight rail nly western bundary, and ne that states ttal amunt f width. Greg referenced the width f the Lake Street bridge as a pint f cmparisn fr crssing width. Michael disagreed that the Lake Street bridge is a fair cmparisn due t its difference in depth, cnfiguratin, and cntext. Craig asked if the design (at-grade LRT ptin) culd create pen air between the 5

6 5. Next Steps bridges since there are a lt f shadws in the current cncepts. Mark respnded that the width is currently set fr minimum distance between bridges. SPO culd ptentially create pen space, but wuld need t lk int restrictins. Nani nted that the revised bridge design cncepts shwn tday were created based n feedback frm the Nvember 2014 cnsultatin and the revised cncepts create mre pen space between the banks and water level (due t lnger structure lengths). Greg ended the verview discussin lking fr cncurrence frm cnsulting parties that all crssing ptins have an adverse effect n the lagn. Nbdy spke, but ndded in agreement. Sarah stated that in the Sectin 106 prcess we must remember that an adverse effect t a cntributing feature (KW lagn) is als an adverse effect n the entire district itself (Grand Runds Histric District). In the Table 2 effects assessment, it needs t be stated that the channel is a piece f the larger effect t the district, s it shuld als mentin the Grand Runds. Kathy asked Sarah hw the Sectin 106 prcess weighs a nise impact versus an impact t the WPA retaining walls? Sarah respnded that the entire prject needs t be cnsidered. If the prject is in a tunnel ptin (Optin 2), then there is risk t lsing the WPA retaining walls, and there will be visual impact frm rebuilding bridges, but nise will be minimized. If the prject is at grade, then the impact t the WPA retaining walls can be minimized, but the visual and nise effects may still impact the resurce. In any f the ptins, there will be an adverse effect scenari. Sarah asked abut the lng term tunnel maintenance/recnstructin plan. Mark respnded that it is built fr 75-year lifespan. Brian Schaffer frm the City f Minneaplis asked where the jacked bx prtals wuld be lcated. Michael respnded that it wuld be east f alignment and then cnnect with the SPO prpsed tunnel suth f the Kenilwrth crssing. In terms f depth, it is abut 3 feet deeper than the shallw cut-and-cver ptin. The jacked bx tunnel wuld be abut 10 feet belw the flr f the channel while a shallw cut-and-cver wuld be 7 feet belw the waterway. The jacked bx tunnel is currently fllwing the same alignment as the SPO prpsed ptins. Public invlvement Nani presented public invlvement pprtunities fr the Sectin 106 prcess that will be integrated int ther public invlvement activities in Upcming meeting schedule Nani prpsed establishing a bi-weekly meeting schedule fr Q1, beginning with tw dates: February 24 and March 17. Maya Sarna frm FTA nted that she may nt be able t attend n March 17, s the secnd meeting date may get 6

7 rescheduled. February 24 Crridr-wide discussin f effects Sectin 106 Agreement verview March 17 t be rescheduled Discuss cmments received n Kenilwrth Lagn ACTION ITEMS: PERSON RESPONSIBLE: DEADLINE: 1 Prvide crridr-wide discussin in future meeting CRU/SPO Q1/Q Prvide infrmatin n technical aspects f bridge design 3 Prvide cnstructin staging plan fr Kenilwrth Channel/Lagn area SPO Q1/Q SPO As part f 106 agreement develpment 7