Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPWC Minutes 2010-04-19 TOWN OF ITHACA Public Works Committee April 19, 2010 Present: Rich DePaolo, Chair; Bill Goodman; Susan Riha; Jim Weber; and Jonathan Kanter Guests: Bruce Britten, Doug Britten, and Michael Bend (President, Forest Home Association) The meeting began at 10:35 a.m. The minutes from the March 22, 2010, meeting were approve. Forest Home Traffic Calming At the Town Board meeting on April 12, 2010, it was decided that there were several issues that were not clear on the Forest Home Traffic Calming plan (plan). There have been several meeting regarding this plan. Because this project has grant funds from the State and Federal governments, the State must approve the plans. The State has approved the plan as it is now. Items to be discussed: Width of the Pleasant Grove Road feature, drainage system, and pedestrian system. Width of Pleasant Grove Road Feature: The plan seems to be unclear as to the width of the road at the entrance feature (speed hump). The plan notes indicate the road would be 21’ from curb to curb. Bruce and Doug Britten said that it should be 25’, so that a 4’ bike lane would be available. Bruce indicated that if the plan is used, the center line would not be in the center. Bruce handed out what they believe should be the design. There was a question if the lamp post would be in the bike lane if the road was 25’. This should not be a problem. Jim Weber stated that Tompkins County Highway has not seen this plan. The original plan was changed because Tompkins County wanted the entrance feature moved up the hill. The Committee was informed that this feature is in the plans for building at a future date. Doug Britten said that the part of the road in question is really 28’ and the plans should Public Works Committee Minutes, April 19, 2010 Page 2 read 25’ instead of 21’. There should be a 4’ shoulder and it should not stop at the hill. Jim Weber explained that the plans were modified so they don’t show the area getting as narrow. Bruce pointed out the notes above the map indicate it is a 21’ road. Jim said the plans were modified, but the notes did not get changed. Susan Reha wanted clarification. Jim explained that the map shows the road to be 25’ but the notes have not been changed to reflect that. Michael Bend asked where the synthetic pavement starts on the plans. Jim explained to the Committee that if the Town decided to change the feature, the design would have to go back to New York State for approval. Rich asked what the problem is if the plan has to be sent to the State for re-approval. This could take several months and possibly move the construction of the project into 2011. Bruce felt that the State would only take about a week. Jim said that if we change the plans, this could trigger more questions. Jonathan agreed, stating the State is happy with the design we have. Jim also informed the Committee that there is a process that the State follows for approving projects. This process would have to start at the beginning. Doug said that the eastern curb is fine, although it needs to be shown on the map. Bruce said this will be different from the other features. Susan asked if the typical section shows on the plan. Jim said yes. Susan said the plan says it would be a 20’ road. Bruce indicated that the white strip is 22’ but the pavement goes past 22’. Jim reiterated that any changes in the plan will have to be approved by the State. Bruce asked why the State would not approve their proposed plan. Jim indicated that the plan must meet the industry standards. Susan asked what would be built in 2010. Jim said the curb line on the eastern side and nothing on the western side. Jim indicated that he would have to go in the field to make any determinations. Jim indicated that we would have to take the proposed design to Tompkins County for their approval. Mike said that the bike path would be safer with 9’ travel lanes. Bruce felt that the current plan would crowd the bikers towards the travel lane. Susan felt that if we used the proposed plan, it would not work. The Brittens felt it would. The Brittens felt that the plan calls for moving the center line over 9’ and that would not work. Rich felt that we could have the County restripe the road and move it over some. Jim reminded the Public Works Committee Minutes, April 19, 2010 Page 3 Committee that would impact the project. Bill Goodman said that the 21’ road in the notes is a typo. Jim pointed out that throughout the plans it says to “match the existing”. Jim explained that there will be a pre-bid meeting, in which time questions and concerns could be addressed. Bill was concerned that we make it clear that the contractor has to come to us for inspection of their layout before work is started. He wanted to know if there is a bike lane. Yes. Jim explained that we can’t do what is in the proposed plan (JIM, I CAN’T READ MY WRITING HERE, CAN YOU HELP ME—you said something about stamped and 1.6 up against curb.) Bruce felt that we could implement it at a later date, but it must go to the State. Susan said the speed hump peaks at the middle. According to the plan, it is in the center of the road lane. Doug said the crown of the road should be in the center. This peaks at the center of the 25’ road. He said that the Town could build it this way, but will have to rebuild later. He felt that the proposed plan could be taken to the State at a later date. Bill asked what was agreed to at the February meeting. Rich said the eastern shoulder would be retained and the entrance feature would be 25’ from curb to curb. What was in the Britten’s proposed plan was not disucssed. Susan asked if we could do the plan as it is and still have room for bicyclists. Jim said that we would maintain the same width. He said that we will be putting in synthetic pavement in the future. Doug said that the pavement is 28’ now. If we eliminate the western line, the center will stay where it is. If you go with the proposed plan, the center line will be closer to the crown. Susan agreed with Jim regarding having the center on the center line and taking away the western shoulder. Bruce said that we need to have the road 25’, because at 28’ it will not slow traffic down. He wants to see this nailed down and the plans need to show the right information. He feels that this should go back to the State with their proposed plan. Jim said that if we build it to the Britten’s proposed plan it will have to go back to the Public Works Committee Minutes, April 19, 2010 Page 4 State. The plan approved by the State does show the road narrowing. If 28’ plans are not accurate, the State will want to get more information. He also said that the time frame could be very long. Susan agreed that the plan shows it narrowing. The plan said there would be 22’ driving lanes and 3’ gravel shoulders, and the curbing is running down the shoulder. Bill wanted to know how the Community felt about the proposed change. Michael said that it is new to them, and they are happy with the current plan. They are OK with the bike paths in the current plan. There are only two people from the Community that are unhappy. Doug pointed out that the people biking are not just biking in Forest Home. Jonathan said that smaller bike lanes will help slow the traffic. Rich suggested using road reflectors to delineate the road from the shoulder. Doug said that they were tried on Caldwell Road and did not work well. Rich said that Al Carvillwas concerned that if this project has to go back to the State and is delayed would we still get our funding. Susan agreed it is a concern. Jonathan said that we could take the money from the General Fund then put it back when the money comes from the State. Jonathan said that delays can happen due to bonding. Town need State approval to bond projects. The Committee discussed possible local bonding. Susan said that the Town is only responsible for $70,000. Jim said that the Town has to pay for the project up front, and then we are reimbursed. Bruce indicated that drainage needs to be discussed. Drainage: Rich said that he has talked to Jim, and Jim explained that the intention of a scupper is to be placed at the lowest point. Jim said that was correct. Rich wanted to know how the contractor will know where to put them. Jim explained that they will lay them out first, and then have the Town inspect it before anything is constructed. Bruce was concerned with the design of the scuppers. They are 6” tall then taper down to 2” then none. He felt that they should stay at 6” all the way across. Doug agreed with Bruce. He also felt that there should be an opening in the curb on two sides. He said that we could make the curb concrete with pipes under so it drains in the bottom. Jim explained that the maintenance costs would be more. He also felt that this design could become a liability as it could cause ponding. Rich asked which would be safer. Jim felt the 6” down is the standard. Jim said there are some grading issues on the backside of the curb. It is more vertical so maintenance will be high. Public Works Committee Minutes, April 19, 2010 Page 5 Pedestrian System: Rich was concerned that the pathways would not get reconstructed to the existing widths. The specs call for asphalt or stone dust. He wondered if anyone was aware of how they were originally constructed. Bruce said the Town built them. Bruce is concerned that the community requested 4’ and the plans say 2’ wide paths. He felt this was the opportunity to make them 4’. Michael pointed out that the plans say match the existing or they can be corrected in the field. Rich said that the notes he read from the February meeting said we agreed to reconstruct them to the existing or better. Jim pointed out that the project costs have been accepted, and if we make them wider, the cost will increase and would have to have Town Board approval. Susan asked if increasing the pathways to 4’ is a new issue. Bruce said the Traffic Calming Plan calls for 4’. Doug said that areas in questions are on Judd Falls Road. One is labeled 2’ and the other is 3 ½’, he did not think it would add to the expense. He pointed out that on sheet 3 it does not said “match to existing”. The other area is on Warren Road. Doug said that in the 300 block of Forest Home Drive there is a wider shoulder and residents park there. Rich said there are some discrepancies. Do we need to make changes to plan or go with field contacts? Jim said the gravel shoulder or walkway will have to be raised at the elevated tables. There are some gravel paths and some grassy. Are some of these paths a walkway or shoulder? There is different material used for shoulders. Bruce did not understand why we would change the paths from 4’ to 2’ when they are 4’ now. Doug said that we need to make sure the plans are clear. Bill inquired as to concerns that the paths will not be put back to existing. Rich asked if the contractor would build them as on the plans. Jim said what is on the plans calls for a 3” raise at the tables. He said if you raise it to 4” it will be level—flat. Doug says he has looked at the area and it will work. Bruce said the plans call to maintain 2’. Rich said the tables are 22’ long. Bruce said many people walk on walkways that are only 2’. Rich asked the Committee if they want to move ahead with this project. Susan felt that we should move ahead with the plans as approved by the State taking note of the concerns. Rich asked if we have to make field adjustments, will the plan have to go to the State for approval. Jim said if the plans are redrawn, we would have to go to the State for their approval. Public Works Committee Minutes, April 19, 2010 Page 6 Bill said that he was not as concerned with the walkways as they can be adjusted in the field. He didn’t feel the drainage issues could be adjusted in the field as easily. He is concerned with the bike lane. Rich said we can reserve the right to change at a later date. Bill wondered if the Community is expecting this project to be done this year or next. Rich was not sure he wanted to wait until next year. Bruce brought up the “kink” in the 300 block of Forest Home Drive. Rich said that at the meeting in February, residents agreed to the design there and it should stay that way. Bruce said the road could be moved 3’ north and it would take the “kink” out. Bruce feels that the contractor will think the road needs to be moved over. Jim said that would limit drainage on that side and he was concerned with the offset. Bruce said the lamp posts would not have to be moved. Doug said the walkway is on the creek side. If moved, could we still maintain the walkway? Doug said that the Town did not do the surveying up there, they did. He reiterated that he did not want the “kink”. Rich did not want to open up issues that where already agreed to. Unfortunately, we all are going to have things we don’t like. Susan said that she is comfortable to move on. Community is OK with it. She felt that if Jim was comfortable with the design plans, we should move on. She said that she would like to see the road at 25’ not 28’ and she was not sure about the scuppers. Rich was concerned with the contour of the cubing. It seems to be open at the low spot. Jim said the industry standard for tapered curbing is 1’’ per foot. If constructed as Britten’s proposal, there would be problems with snow plows hittng the curbing. Rich asked about the 25’ or 28’. Jim said the center line could be shifted and he will talk to the County. Possibly some stripping could be done. Bill asked if the County was at the last meeting. No. Jim said that he will meet with the County. Rich asked the Committee if they want to take this back to the State. Bill said he did not want to go back to the State. Rich asked if we strip it differently, would we have to go back to the State. Jim said yes. Bill said that with 25’, there would be 9’ travel lanes and the center line 21’ and if we want a bike lane it will have to go back to the state. He feels that it is wide enough for bikers. Bill asked Michael what the Community wants. He was not sure. He felt that we should move ahead. Doug said that is a sidewalk, but nothing on the hill. Bruce said that 30’ up the hill it is 28’ wide. Putting to 25’ will narrow it too much for bikers. Public Works Committee Minutes, April 19, 2010 Page 7 Rich asked the Committee to vote on moving ahead or sending plan back to the State. Vote was 2 to 1 to move ahead. Rich said that he didn’t think it would take very long if we take it back to the State. Rich asked who owns the property there. Cornell does. Doug asked that if we don’t take this back to the State, where was the crown going to be. Jim said that we may be able to move the crown, but the crown presently match on Pleasant Grove Road. Rich said that we need to make a list of concerns and when should we have the list ready. Jim felt that it should be done before the pre-bid meeting. Jim said that a time line could be: Documents in place in June and start construction in July. th The Committee decided to meet May 10 at 2:00 p.m. to work on the list of concerns. The meeting was adjourned at 1:07 p.m.