Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-CC-1990-05-144 3 : � 1 COMMON COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK Special Meeting 11:00 a.m. May 14, 1990 PRESENT: Mayor Nichols Alderpersons (10) - Booth, Daley, Cummings, Hoffman, Peterson, (48�; Johnson, Golder, Romanowski, Blanchard, Schroeder OTHERS PRESENT - City Clerk - Paolangeli City Controller - Cafferillo Superintendent of Public Works - Thadani City Engineer - Gray Assistant Civil Engineer - West City Attorney - Guttman Deputy Director, Planning and Development - Mazzarella Tompkins County Board of Representatives - Culligan Board of Public Works Commissioner - Berg PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: �.w Mayor Nichols led all present in the Pledge of Allegiance to the American flag. Mayor Nichols announced that this meeting was being called by six members of Common Council: Daley, Blanchard, Cummings, Booth, Peterson, Romanowski. Alderperson Hoffman asked if there was any objection to public comment at this meeting. No Council member objected. Mayor Nichols made the following statement to Council: "The problems that we face now in completing the Hudson Street Reconstruction Project are not the actual design but the lack of trust between the residents of Hudson Street and City officials. Additional difficulties have been created by the attempt of Common Council to become involved in every design detail. I anticipate that the present design of the "Therm curve" and the Coddington Road intersection will be preserved. The key item that remains is the needed commitment by the City that everything possible will be done to meet the legitimate requests for action that will decrease the speed of traffic on Hudson Street. The appropriate body to specify the placement of Stop signs, directional signs, and other traffic control signage is the Board of Public Works. As a member and the Chair of that Board, I give the residents my word that I will do everything within my power to incorporate the kind of signage suggested in the May 12, 1990 statement of the South Hill Civic Association. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS: Hudson Street Reconstruction Project Alderperson Daley asked Mayor Nichols to Hudson Street Reconstruction project as it give an is now. update on the Mayor Nichols explained that the status as it is now is that we have a design that the engineers and the contractor are following. That design, however, is inconsistent with Council's resolution. He stated that if there is no action taken today by the Council, he does not see how we can proceed with anything above Pearsall Place. Alderperson Hoffman asked if there was any objection to public comment at this meeting. No Council member objected. Mayor Nichols made the following statement to Council: "The problems that we face now in completing the Hudson Street Reconstruction Project are not the actual design but the lack of trust between the residents of Hudson Street and City officials. Additional difficulties have been created by the attempt of Common Council to become involved in every design detail. I anticipate that the present design of the "Therm curve" and the Coddington Road intersection will be preserved. The key item that remains is the needed commitment by the City that everything possible will be done to meet the legitimate requests for action that will decrease the speed of traffic on Hudson Street. The appropriate body to specify the placement of Stop signs, directional signs, and other traffic control signage is the Board of Public Works. As a member and the Chair of that Board, I give the residents my word that I will do everything within my power to incorporate the kind of signage suggested in the May 12, 1990 statement of the South Hill Civic Association. 434 Hudson Street must be a safe street for traffic, a safe street for pedestrians, a safe street for property owners and an attractive street for the neighborhood. As Mayor I will direct City staff to cooperate to meets those goals." Alderperson Cummings stated that the Council is working with the existing resolution of the April 2, 1990 Common Council meeting which is as follows: WHEREAS, the residents of the Hudson Street neighborhood have petitioned for certain changes to the Hudson Street Reconstruction Project as currently designed by John S. MacNeil Engineers, and WHEREAS, the South Hill Civic Association has worked to effect a compromise solution which would protect the fiscal interests of the entire City while ameliorating some of the negative impacts of the Reconstruction, which impacts remain particularly severe in the 100 and 200 blocks of Hudson Street, and WHEREAS, it is the policy of the City of Ithaca to preserve and enhance the quality of life in our residential neighborhoods, while maintaining our infrastructure consistent with reasonable safety standards; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That in the future planning and design of major projects, such as the Elm Street Reconstruction, the early participation of the public will be sought in deciding the options to be considered as well as in the on -going process of choosing among specific design alternatives, and be it further RESOLVED, That appropriate steps be taken to designate Hudson Street as a bicycle route, and be it further RESOLVED, That the following changes to the Hudson Street Reconstruction Project be made: 1. WIDTH. The width for paving shall be narrowed from 30 to 27 feet for the project from Hillview Place to the Coddington Road. From Columbia to Hillview the street shall be tapered as a transition from 30 to 27 feet. The width from Columbia Street to Aurora Street will be 30 feet. 2. Hudson Street shall be designated as a local collector street, in accordance with its residential character. 3. TREES AND LANDSCAPING. a). Tree removal shall be kept to 5 -8, as indicated on the 3/23/90 DPW proposal. b). Earth disruption around remaining tree roots shall be done carefully, by hand if necessary. Appropriate protective fertilizing and pruning shall be done. Supervision will be provided by the City Forester and Shade Tree Commission. c). A minimum of 38 additional trees shall be planted, including an allee from the Therm drive to the City line. d). Substantial additional landscaping shall be implemented under the auspices of the Parks Commission, Shade Tree Commission, and the City Forester, working with individual residents and home - owners to determine the specific details. This will be done to reduce noise and dirt and to help retain the residential character of the street. J J J 9 May 14, 1990 4. CURB LAWN. No pavers of brick, or any other material, shall be used between the curb and sidewalk. Curb lawns shall be grass. 5. CURVES. The radius of the Therm curve shall be limited to the minimum legal standard for a local collector street. The current designs for the curves at Giles and the school are acceptable to the majority of residents. (4a� 6. STOP SIGNS. Stop signs shall be installed immediately in three locations: on Hudson at Aurora; a 4 -way on Hudson at Columbia; and at the top of Hudson where it will be deemed most effective, either at the Coddington Road, or Therm Road /Hudson Place intersections, or below the Therm curve. 7. Additional informational signage shall be incorporated into d). Legal posting of 15 mph school zone. 8. Crosswalks at school and stop signs shall be marked with a permanent application technique, such as that utilized by Cornell. 9. There shall be a minimal taking of private property. 10. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION. a) The City invites the South Hill Civic Association to form a working subcommittee to meet on a regularly scheduled basis with representatives from the Design Engineering Firm, the BPW, DPW, and the 2nd Ward Alderperson to provide oversight, working within the parameters of the existing design engineering and drawings, as modified by this resolution, for the duration of the Hudson Street Reconstruction Project. b) The City will work with the SHCA to examine zoning, parking and enforcement laws and practices, making adjustment to accommodate neighborhood concerns. Alderpersons Cummings and Daley offered the following three Amending Resolutions: Amending Resolutions RESOLVED, That the April 2, 1990 Common Council resolution be amended to read as follows: " That Item 1. WIDTH - shall read as follows: "The width for paving shall be narrowed from 30 to 27 feet for the project from Hillview Place to the Coddington except for the Therm curve as currently designed." RESOLVED, That the April 2, 1990 Common Council resolution be amended to read as follows: "reconstruction component of the work be ended short of the Coddington Road intersection." RESOLVED! That the April 2, 1990 Common Council resolution be amended to read as follows: "Mayor be instructed to get the necessary statements from the appropriate departments to satisfy the requirements of the design engineer to allow the radius of the wide -outs to be 15 feet at Pearsall Place and Grandview." this project including: a). Clear signage indicating the continuation of Coddington 4.� Road into the City. b). "Stop Ahead" signs in advance of all new Stop signs. i` c). Retention of existing truck limitation sign at Aurora Street and implementation of a similar sign at Coddington Road. d). Legal posting of 15 mph school zone. 8. Crosswalks at school and stop signs shall be marked with a permanent application technique, such as that utilized by Cornell. 9. There shall be a minimal taking of private property. 10. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION. a) The City invites the South Hill Civic Association to form a working subcommittee to meet on a regularly scheduled basis with representatives from the Design Engineering Firm, the BPW, DPW, and the 2nd Ward Alderperson to provide oversight, working within the parameters of the existing design engineering and drawings, as modified by this resolution, for the duration of the Hudson Street Reconstruction Project. b) The City will work with the SHCA to examine zoning, parking and enforcement laws and practices, making adjustment to accommodate neighborhood concerns. Alderpersons Cummings and Daley offered the following three Amending Resolutions: Amending Resolutions RESOLVED, That the April 2, 1990 Common Council resolution be amended to read as follows: " That Item 1. WIDTH - shall read as follows: "The width for paving shall be narrowed from 30 to 27 feet for the project from Hillview Place to the Coddington except for the Therm curve as currently designed." RESOLVED, That the April 2, 1990 Common Council resolution be amended to read as follows: "reconstruction component of the work be ended short of the Coddington Road intersection." RESOLVED! That the April 2, 1990 Common Council resolution be amended to read as follows: "Mayor be instructed to get the necessary statements from the appropriate departments to satisfy the requirements of the design engineer to allow the radius of the wide -outs to be 15 feet at Pearsall Place and Grandview." 43(; 4 May 14, 1990 Alderperson Hoffman asked if it was appropriate to offer a Substitute Resolution at this time. Mayor Nichols stated that this would be an appropriate time. Substitute Resolution By Alderperson Hoffman: Seconded by Alderperson Schroeder WHEREAS, delays and unforeseen engineering, design and construction problems have raised the possibility that the Hudson Street project cannot be completed on time and /or within the budget allocated by Common Council, and WHEREAS, a very high level of public concern indicates that serious issues of pedestrian and vehicular safety, and speed, control and routing of traffic, especially as they pertain to the southern portion of the Hudson Street project, have yet to be resolved to the satisfaction of the residents of the area, engineering staff, and City policy makers; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the 1990 Hudson Street project shall be terminated at Pearsall Place, and be it further RESOLVED, That appropriate signage warning of the Therm curve and the Giles Street curve shall be installed, and be it further RESOLVED, That the speed limit for the Therm curve and Giles Street curve shall be posted at 25 mph; and be it further RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works and the Department of Public Works are directed to continue to explore issues of pedestrian and vehicular safety and speed, control and routing of traffic as they pertain to the upper portion of Hudson Street, and to present alternative design proposals to Common Council by October 1990. Alderperson Schroeder remarked that he would like to have public comment before the Council gets into the discussion of which resolution to vote on. Alderperson Schroeder's suggestion was agreeable to the Council. Public Comments Denise Rusoff, 209 Hudson Street, read the following statement to Council: "Hudson Street residents have made it very clear that we do not want the street as designed. One hundred twenty people signed a petition and a hundred or more came to each of two Common Council meetings. We have said all along, no straightening, no widening and yet here we are again, with a proposal to widen Therm curve from its existing 26 feet roadbed to a 30 foot roadbed. We hear, what's all the fuss about 2 or 3 feet? The fuss with 2 or 3 feet is simply this: according to Roger Yonkin, a 30 year resident engineer with the Department of Transportation of Tompkins County, Hudson Street as designed is 'impossible to make safe' because of the geography of our hill, the sub - standard Giles Street curve, and the residential character of our neighborhood. We hear, 'the City faces increased liability' by leaving the curve as is and yet as Darrell Harp, Chief Attorney for the Department of Transportation in Albany says the City can solve its liability problem by using such methods as 'reduction of speed and more warning signs.' You all know the process has been flawed. The design, too, is flawed. It is my personal opinion that we have reached this impasse because the engineers continue to use specifications for a minor arterial road when re- designing Therm curve instead of using specs for a local. collector street, a designation Common Council gave Hudson Street over five weeks ago. J P_up 4 3 i+ 5 The solution is straight forward. now Dan Hoffman's resolution and the Liaison Committee's proposal to Pearsall Place. May 14, 1990 Support Mayor Nichols, and, South Hill Civic Association stop the reconstruction at To keep Therm curve safe, sign its speed down and enforce it. Remember that you, every one of you, voted for this compromise resolution. Now live up to your promises to Hudson Street residents and someday, on that final day, when the paves are done and the curves are in, come and knock on my door and I will take all of you for a walk down Hudson Street." Alan Boardman, 15 Hudson Place, referred to the previous resolution that was passed regarding the 27 feet. He said that there are two things concerning the resolution; the spirit of the resolution and the letter of the resolution. The spirit of the resolution was safety, the letter of the resolution was 27 feet. He stated that when you attempt to apply 27 feet to the Therm �1 curve, you find that it does not allow sufficient space for vehicles to pass each other and that violates the spirit of the resolution, which is safety. When the letter of the resolution is in conflict with the spirit of the resolution, common sense dictates that you alter the letter of the resolution, which would -� involve making the curve 30 feet wide. Mr. Boardman referred to a diagram that he had placed on the Council member's desks showing two cars passing each other on the Therm curve. He stated that if the City does not intend to reconstruct the curve he does not intend to let the matter rest as is. Mr. Arnold Rusoff, 209 Hudson Street, stated to Council that none of the residents are claiming that the curve should never be fixed. He said that what they are asking is, that the curve be fixed properly and the street be designed properly. Mr. Rusoff stated that even though he is not a highway expert or an engineer, he can read out of books of design as well as anyone and found the following statement: "Wherever possible, all local and collector streets should enter the collector and arterial streets at right angles to reduce the traffic hazard." He said that the residents are being told that their local collector street as designated by law, is the one that is the curve and Coddington Road is entering at right angles. That does not seem to him to be meeting this set of specifications. Mr. Rusoff stated that there is some question that the design as given to the residents now may not be safe and that should be enough to reconsider it before the Council just races ahead and gives the neighborhood something that might cause more problems. James Houghton, 111 Hudson Street, stated that he is going to address Council with the assumption that Alderperson Hoffman's resolution will not be accepted and that the resolutions that Alderperson Daley is putting forth are being looked at. He said that he would particularly like to address the curve and the intersection at the top. Mr. Houghton said that when the 30 feet is being discussed, there we are really two issues. At the bottom the biggest factor with the 30 feet was the lack of space. The major impact of the 30 feet at the bottom was to essentially remove the grassy area to bring the road right up against the sidewalk. At the top there have been two problems. One is the fact that the residents were under the impression when they agreed to the compromise that 27 feet could be maintained and that does not seem to be the case within the parameters of putting a curve in there. Mr. Houghton said that as far as the curve goes however, the residents have been told by the City Engineer that the radius of the curve is a function of what is necessary for the 30 mph City speed limit and that the width of the curve is a function of the radius. The R May 14, 1990 problem that we are facing at the top of the hill is that the notion of having Coddington Road feed into Hudson Street directly via a curve is, he believes, fundamentally an unsafe situation. Mr. Houghton further stated that it seems reasonable to say that if you have to come to a signaled intersection and make a ninety degree curve when you are going from Route 79 to Route 96B, that it is not a given that you should be able to go from Coddington Road directly onto Hudson without ever encountering an intersection via a continuous curve. The problem that the residents have stated with the curve at the top is that the curve, as it now exists, is an unsafe curve, both because of its configuration and because a curve there is fundamentally a bad idea. What we need at this point is an intersection. He stated that the intersection that has been proposed for the project for Coddington Road and Hudson Street favors Hudson Street. As it stands now, Coddington Road becomes Hudson Street and the 100 block of Coddington Road will be realigned to a ninety degree angle. Mr. Houghton asked Council if they go with the re- design of the curve, that they do leave the intersection as it stands now and proceed with a commitment to look at putting in an intersection that forces people coming down Coddington Road to stop and turn onto Hudson Street rather than just continue around the curve. He said that he thinks that is the most effective traffic control that we can achieve up there. John Schwartz, 510 Hudson Street, spoke to Council regarding past accidents in the Hudson Street area. He stated that he supports Alderperson Hoffman's resolution with the inclusion that the engineers be instructed to go back and come forward with a date to return with a proposed re- design. He stated that without that he is very concerned that the problem will simply stop at Pearsall forever and that is not a solution either. Ari VanTienhoven, 9 Hudson Place, spoke in favor of Alderperson Daley's proposed resolution. He addressed the issue of the danger of the curve. He said that if the curve is left that way by stopping at Hudson Place, nothing will ever be done. He urged the Council to vote for Alderperson Daley's proposed resolution. Donald Culligan, Tompkins County Board of Representatives, stated that he will support Alderperson Daley's resolution because he believes the curve is very dangerous and he believes that the place for a Stop sign is at the Therm drive, not at the top of the street. He said that he fears that if the City stops at Pearsall Place it will be many, many years before anything is done at that curve. Guy Gerard, College Avenue, spoke to the Council on the history of the Hudson Street project. He stated that the residents of Hudson Street trusted this Council to support them in the compromise that was made. It is up to Council to protect the residents faith in the Council by protecting the spirit of the agreement. Mr. Gerard also asked about the speed limit and asked that someone follow -up on this question. Marie Porceddu, 641 Hudson Street, spoke to the Council on the dangers of the curve and the number of accidents that have occurred at that location. She stated that she does not think the answer is to remove the curve and widen and straighten the street. She feels that will only prevent people from having to slow down. Mrs. Porceddu said that when the City considers its liability, which she understands is one of the major issues, she would like Council to consider that the Hudson Street /Therm curve is not now signed up to State standards and if it is changed to lr� IIt!) 7 May 14, 1990 make it a more unsafe situation, maybe it would be protecting the City from liability legally but she does not think that it would be protecting the City from liability in terms of the people that would be injured or killed from the speeding. Mrs. Porceddu stated that the residents are concerned about the safety on the curve, below the curve, and at the bottom and that is why they became involved. She said that if the Council decides to go with Alderperson Hoffman's resolution, it should be definite that there should be a re- design of the Hudson Street curve along Therm at some later date. If instead Council goes with Alderperson Daley's resolution, she thinks it is really important to think seriously about the Coddington Road inter- section. Alderperson Blanchard asked the City Attorney for his views about the 25 mph versus 30 mph. City Attorney Guttman stated that the City may not establish a speed limit applicable throughout the whole City or an area less than 30 mph. They may set a speed limit on a specific road of no less than 25 mph and they do have the authority to sign Hudson a Street to be 25 mph. City Attorney Guttman stated that on a curve or anywhere else, if engineering agrees it is a dangerous situation, a sign can be put in place for less than 25 mph but that is an advisory sign only, it is not a speed limit. City Attorney Guttman stated in terms of the 27 foot - 30 foot radius, the radius is not a function of the speed limit, it is a function of the curve. He said that if there is a lower speed limit, there can be a tighter curve but then there would be a need for a wider roadway. (400'.1 City Attorney Guttman further stated that on the question of liability, he spoke to Mr. Harp about this after Mr. & Mrs. Rusoff had given him the facts that they had received over the weekend. He said that it depends on what question is asked or how the question is phrased. What Mr. Harp told him was that in his original discussions, he was either not told or did not realize that there had been a history of accidents at this curve and that this had been determined by whatever means to be an existing dangerous curve. Atty. Guttman stated that essentially Mr. Harp said if you are aware there is a dangerous situation, then the City has certain obligations. Essentially Mr. Harp's advice to Attorney Guttman was the same as Attorney Guttman had given to Council in executive session. Alderperson Cummings stated that it is clear to her that the City needs to make top priority a transportation /strategic plan, and an assessment of the City's streets, the street patterns and the traffic burden they now bear and are likely to bear in the future. We are operating on this project without expressly stated policy guidelines. The engineering staff has certain policy guidelines which they can work with, but those are general. We need some very specific policies for our City. Alderperson Cummings stated that she believes the Council to be (660" in agreement that the goal on Hudson Street is to move traffic more slowly, more safely and to find some way to prevent an increase of traffic on the street. She said that she is convinced that the 30 foot pavement width on the Therm curve is an appropriate way to do that. In terms of safety, she believes the grade and embankment changes are necessary; the radius changes are necessary. Alderperson Cummings said that she believes what we will be getting there will be a road that visually looks much narrower; we currently have a wide open space with no curbs, and shoulders sprawling out to a width of 38 to 42 feet. We will be getting 30 feet contained within curbs with sidewalks (one side), and with trees. The visual clue that you are entering the City will be there very strongly with this g May 14, 1990 design before us. She urged Council members to go forward with the 30 foot curve because it is the right design, because we have the money in place to do it now and the crews are in place to do it now. She does not believe the City will get a substantially better curve design by delay. She, in fact, believes that through delay, we are very likely to get nothing. Alderperson Hoffman remarked that Council heard quite a bit a month ago about the impact of delays on the costs of this project; whether it could be finished on time, etc. and he wondered what the prognosis is right now for being able to continue or to finish the project as the engineers have now designed it. He asked if there is no longer any doubt that it can be finished and are there any economic projections on trying to finish the entire project as now designed. He also asked, if there are additional changes, such as the Coddington Road intersection this year, what are the financial impacts of trying to incorporate that into the project. City Attorney Guttman responded that what is guaranteed is that we are going to end up, whatever we do, with negotiations and an arbitration with the contractor over the amount of cost -over. City Attorney Guttman emphasized that the Council cannot discuss numbers publicly as that gives the contractor ammunition to use during those negotiations. City Attorney Guttman stated that according to the City Engineer we have already received $41,000 as the contractor's claim for the first two weeks of delay. A lot of the numbers we will not know until the end of the project. It ties into what the weather is going to be this summer, when he excavates is he going to hit rock or loose soil. Those things are found out as you do a project; that is why there are contingencies in a project. City Attorney Guttman further stated that in terms of continuing the whole project up through Coddington Road, it is his understanding that if everything goes exactly perfectly, there is a chance that you will be able to get the final level of pavement down this Fall. There is a very good likelihood, depending on the weather etc. that you will not be capable of getting the final level pavement down this Fall. He said that one of the cost estimates that the City_ Engineer has prepared internally discusses that. He thinks the City Engineer is confident that you will be able to get the secondary layer down this Fall and has factored in some numbers for remobilization by the contractor in the Spring to put the final pavement on top. Alderperson Hoffman stated that based on what City Attorney Guttman has said, he is not reassured about our financial prospects and he thinks it may be just as prudent or perhaps more so to limit the project and be sure that it can be finished this year rather than take a chance with continuing it and possibly incorporating other changes into it which will only increase the expense. Alderperson Hoffman asked City Attorney Guttman, in reference to his remarks on the liability issue, what action the city must take once the City acknowledges a dangerous situation. City Attorney Guttman responded that it is under general negligence law, and the City's obligation is to act as a reasonably prudent individual. City Attorney Guttman stated, once again, that if the Council wishes to discuss this issue, he would advise that it be done in executive session. J lr� 441 9 May 14, 1990 Alderperson Romanowski stated that the Council has a responsibility to both neighborhoods and the City at large. He thinks our greatest responsibility is to the health and welfare of everybody in the City, whether they are passing through or they live here. He said that next is the economic health and that is secondary to the actual health and welfare. Alderperson Romanowski said that he has a personal interest in this curve because relatives of his were seriously injured in an accident at this curve and he does not want to walk away from this project and have it on his conscience that he did not do everything in his power to address every safety issue that he possibly can in the City, no matter what Ward it is or what section, or no matter how much political heat he might have to take. He stated that a modern up -to -date safe road does not cause speeding. Irresponsible, immature drivers cause speeding. He thinks vigorous law enforcement and correct placement of signage and a judicial willingness to impose stiff fines is most important. He stated that he also thinks the educational (E1 institutions, which give the fodder for this immature and �- irresponsible driving need to do a better educational job with - people they have going to these institutions. •j Alderperson Romanowski further stated that he calls on the Mayor, and the Police Department to address this problem of speeding because it is not only Hudson Street, it is all over the City. Alderperson Romanowski said that he thinks the City has taken every possible step that we can take to address the concerns of this neighborhood on Hudson Street. He said that he has confidence in our Engineering Department that we will get through this problem, we will get a safe road, and we will have this project done. Alderperson Booth asked in respect to the resolution that Alderperson Hoffman has introduced which calls for stopping the project at Pearsall Place in 1990, if that is done does that change the nature of the contract in such a way that the City might be open to the argument that we have to re -bid the project under the State's bidding laws. City Attorney Guttman stated that he has looked at it very quickly. He has not gotten a firm answer on it but it is his understanding that an argument can be made that a contractor could sue the City. However, he thinks we would at least have a defensible position, that this was a project that had been started. We are modifying the project within the scope of what we can afford to do at this time and it is a continuing project. He stated that the possibility of being sued by another contractor obviously does exist. Alderperson Booth stated that his other question has to do with the 25 mph versus 30 mph speed limit. He stated that up until this morning, Council had been informed, over a period of years, that the minimum speed limit that could be set in the City was 30 mph and the Police Chief is still of that opinion. He said that State Law does appear, although the wording is not abundantly clear, to allow designated highways to be set at 25 mph. Alderperson Booth asked if the Council had known that from the beginning, would the design of Hudson Street, and particularly the Therm curve, have changed? City Engineer Gray responded that if the spirit of the resolution was the absolute tightest curve and the least taking of property by going to a 25 mph speed limit, you could go to a tighter radius; he believes it was 250 instead of 275. He said that as you go to a tighter radius the width of the pavement gets wider and so there is a balancing act and he is not sure that it would have substantially changed the discussion or the course of these 449 10 May 14, 1990 events either way, but the radius of the curvature would still be substantially larger than it is now. If we had chosen the absolute minimum based on 25 mph, the pavement would have been wider than the 30 feet. Alderperson Booth asked City Engineer Gray if the design would have changed north of the Therm curve from what we now have. City Engineer Gray stated that he is not aware that it would have changed anywhere based on the difference. The one other really tight radius curve is at the very bottom and that one is physically held by all of the constraints that are there so that one, as it is, won't be a 25 mph curve anyway. He said that he would have to go back and look at all the others but he is not aware that anything else would have changed. Alderperson Booth stated that he would like the record to reflect that he is not suggesting, for a moment, that we would have adopted a 25 mph speed limit on Hudson Street. He thinks the way the State law is set, we have that authority but the reality would probably be we would receive an overwhelming number of requests to set streets at 25 rather than 30 mph and that is exactly what the State law intends that the City not do. It would allow us to move individual streets down to 25 mph but he thinks we would have to have very significant circumstances that would justify doing that in particular cases. He can imagine every residential street in the City, including the one on which he lives, which would like to see that done. He stated that by raising the question it doesn't suggest a conclusion that we would have done that but he did want the City Engineer's answer to be clear in front of Council. City Attorney Guttman stated that the State law is very clear that the City does not have the authority to set a general speed limit at 25 mph; it can only be on specific designated roads. Alderperson Peterson stated that it was her understanding that in the April 2, 1990 resolution that Common Council passed, the Therm curve section was left rather up in the air and when she voted on it she wasn't aware that it was going to just be 27 feet. She stated that she has gone back and listened to the tape to verify her understanding of what she voted for in the resolution. She read the following statement by the Mayor to Council from the discussion of that meeting: "Now I hope that people realize that that (referring to the Therm curve in the resolution) does not necessarily mean that it will be different than it is already designed. We are going to look at it with the committee and so on. It may already be that, I don't know for sure, there may be some change but I don't know how major it will be. I hope that is clear, that people are not assuming that it will be changed markedly. I don't know the answer but don't assume it." Alderperson Peterson said that when she voted for the resolution on April 2, it was with an awareness that very possibly the Therm curve would be coming back on the table or not being able to fit the configuration of 27 feet. Since then she has had several meetings with the engineers and she thinks she understands what the configuration is, what the constraints are for designing that curve and she will go along with that section. She stated that it is difficult to talk about it just one piece at a time because she does agree with Mrs. Porceddu about adequate signage up at the top to help mitigate all the other problems. She said that she is very concerned about that curve and she wants to make sure that there is totally adequate, maybe more than adequate signage, to slow down the traffic up there in addition to merely stating that the curve can go at the 30 feet. D I rn 443 11 May 14, 1990 Alderperson Schroeder stated that on the issue of safety, it is clear that we have to consider Hudson Street as a whole and consider the safety not only of drivers but also of pedestrians, of the older people that live at Oak Hill Manor, of the school children near the South Hill School. He thinks the current engineer's design has raised serious safety questions. He said that there is, first of all, the new 90 degree alignment of the Coddington Road intersection. He thinks that the way the current alignment works where the Coddington Road traffic would move directly into Hudson Street raises a safety question. He thinks that the new, smooth, widened Therm curve could encourage drivers to increase their speed and to lull them into a false sense of security not realizing that they are coming into a place where older citizens live, that they are coming right up against a school, they are eventually going to get to the Giles Street curve which is a sharp curve, and he sees that as a serious safety issue. ('kj Alderperson Schroeder further stated that we are raising the possibility that while the Therm curve in the current design might be safer for automobiles, we might be moving accidents further down the street where the school is, near Oak Hill Manor and perhaps the Giles Street curve. He stated that he believes �.x..i that as a temporary measure and with additional signalization, such as a Stop sign right above the Therm curve at Hudson Place, with a 25 mph speed limit, with warning signage, the current situation might actually be safer than the design that is currently before Council. He thinks that eventually the City needs to re- design the Therm curve. Alderperson Schroeder would like it to be looked at again, with the new information we have, the possibility of having a 25 mph speed limit, looking at the regulations, looking at local collector streets versus arterial streets, seeing how that could modify the Therm curve and possibly the Coddington Road intersection. Alderperson Schroeder stated that if the Council adopts Alderperson Hoffman's resolution out of sincere concern about the safety issues of the current engineer's design, and if the Council did the temporary mitigation measures, such as reduction of speed, more warning signs and so forth, he thinks the liability question is addressed. Furthermore, by adopting Alderperson Hoffman's resolution, he thinks we ensure that the project will be done this year. He stated that for all the above reasons, he would urge Council to support Alderperson Hoffman's resolution. Alderperson Golder explained that when he voted for the compromise resolution on April 2, he was concerned about the Therm curve because that seemed to be the vaguest part of the resolution. He believed at the time, that the spirit of that resolution was no straightening, no widening, maintain the neighborhood, and make cars go slower with less cars and thereby make it a safer street. He said that that is what he voted for. Alderperson Golder stated that he has been out of town and therefore has not been able to go to all the information sessions but he has been getting a lot of information from different people and he thinks he can make an informed decision. He thinks that what Council has to keep in mind is that the residents are asking and have been asking for fewer cars and lower speeds of cars. He stated that as much as he would like to get this over with, he thinks that we need to look at the Therm curve and the upper part of Hudson Street more and Alderperson Hoffman's resolution allows for that. 444 12 May 14, 1990 Alderperson Golder suggested that the Council, if possible, get another opinion by another engineer or engineering firm that is not involved emotionally with the problem and the lack of trust. He also thinks some of the legal issues are still unclear and need to be researched and for that reason he will support Alderperson Hoffman's resolution. Mayor Nichols advised the Council that the motion before them is whether or not to substitute Alderperson Hoffman's resolution. Alderperson Hoffman's Substitute Resolution Ayes (3) - Hoffman, Golder, Schroeder Nays (7) - Booth, Peterson, Cummings, Daley, Romanowski, Johnson, Blanchard Motion Fails Mayor Nichols stated that the motion on the floor is the motion as submitted which is to "change the resolution of April 2nd to read: "The width of paving shall be narrowed from 30 to 27 feet for the project from Hillview Place to the Coddington Road, except for the Therm curve as presently designed." Alderperson Booth stated that before a vote is taken, he would like to know if Council is absolutely clear as to what "presently designed" means? Mayor Nichols stated that his interpretation is that it means everything that you could possibly include as being part of the Therm curve, including the taper at the top and the taper at the bottom, would be according to the plans of April 23, 1990, sheet #7. The Council accepted Mayor Nichols wording for the amending resolution. Amending Resolution #1 By Alderperson Daley: Seconded by Alderperson Cummings RESOLVED, That the April 2, 1990 Resolution shall be amended to read as follows: "The width for paving shall be narrowed from 30 to 27 feet for the project from Hillview Place to Coddington Road except for the Therm curve, including the taper at the top and the taper at the bottom, according to the plans of April 23, 1990, page 7." Ayes (7) - Booth, Blanchard, Daley, Cummings, Romanowski, Johnson, Peterson Nays (3) - Schroeder, Hoffman, Golder Carried Amending Resolution #2 By Alderperson Daley: Seconded by Alderperson Schroeder RESOLVED, That the April 2, 1990 Resolution shall be amended to read as follows: "Reconstruction component of the work shall be stopped at the point at which it enters Pennsylvania Avenue." Alderperson Blanchard asked Alderperson Daley if it is his intention that the date for re- design is later on but still as a part of this project, or are we talking about another project for that re- design? Alderperson Daley responded that as with the case of the Pearsall stoppage, we have been told that any re- design at this point would effectively stop the project at that point for this year. He said that he would prefer that the process that is involved in designing that intersection be much more along the lines that Alderperson Blanchard proposed for Elm Street. He would like the residents of Hudson and Coddington Road to be involved in it and that we use the new process rather than the old process. D 441) 13 May 14, 1990 City Engineer Grey stated that if the Council wants to pass a resolution he would suggest that it be short of the Pennsylvania Avenue intersection. That intersection actually is being adjusted to try and make it square. There are some elevation changes as well as alignment changes and it will take some time to actually pick a point where we can get from the existing pavement into the new pavement over a short distance. Mayor Nichols asked City Engineer Gray to advise Council on the feasibility of this amending resolution. City Engineer Gray stated that with this particular item it is just a question of deleting the last 500 feet of the project, including the intersection work. He said that he cannot tell Council what the monetary aspects will be. In terms of its being feasible, it is possible. Mayor Nichols asked about the issue of storm sewers, water mains, 0A electric poles, etc. City Engineer Gray stated that had we moved that entire curb then we would have been into all those problems, but basically, the alignment above there, the actual road and that pavement, is within just one or two feet, so he does not expect to run into problems. Alderperson Schroeder asked Alderperson Daley to include in his amendment some direction to the Board of Public Works and the Department of Public Works regarding a date by which the re- design of the Coddington Road intersection is to come forward. Alderperson Daley said that he thinks any re- design, because it will be going into another budget year, is going to be a (awool decision that we will probably have to make on capital projects. He stated that he does not want to limit the process that Alderperson Blanchard has articulated for Elm Street by setting a date that may not coordinate with the way it will all work out. He said that he would much rather see one that allows all the residents on both Coddington and Hudson to participate. Alderperson Schroeder asked if it could be stated in the resolution when that process would begin. He would like something that indicates that we are serious about doing something about this intersection and that we are going to proceed. Mayor Nichols suggested that if Alderperson Schroeder wished to prepare an amendment and move it that would be the proper way to proceed. Mayor Nichols proposed that Council take a few minutes to look at the map and be sure they all know where it is they are proposing to stop the project and what it will look like. Recess Common Council recessed at 12:25 p.m. and reconvened in regular (MOS-1 session at 12:45 p.m. Alderperson Hoffman asked for clarification of the amendment of where the project stops. Alderperson Daley responded that it stops at a point before Pennsylvania Avenue, as close to Pennsylvania Avenue as can be done within the engineering design. Alderperson Hoffman stated that if we are anticipating any revision of the Coddington Road intersection, don't we want to pull that stopping point further back? 11 14 May 14, 1990 Alderperson Daley said that gives 500 feet to do it any way the Coddington and Hudson agree on. engineers and the residents of have the design if the decision is made to He stated we already with the current one. He thinks some combination that the continue either allowed it to tee the other way or more approximate existing could all be done within that length of road. Alderperson Hoffman asked City Engineer Gray if he agrees that to do a tee of 500 feet back from Coddington would be enough Hudson into Coddington. City Engineer Gray stated that he is not convinced that it can be it would take him two days at done because of the grade. He said the question. the drafting board to answer City Attorney Guttman asked City Engineer Gray, assuming that he date eventually wants to re- design the intersection at a later so that it comes as close as possible to a tee between Hudson and to the Coddington Road, does he want the stopping point closer Therm curve or closer to Pennsylvania Avenue? City Engineer Gray stated that he would guess closer to the Therm curve but he has problems with the alignment as it is because is there is already a kind of a jog and if the resolution passed him a lot of latitude, he is not sure how he is and it leaves to close the gap. He said that his intentions at the going moment would be to try and get through the Therm curve if that's passed and to make a transition back into the existing pavement before Pennsylvania Avenue so that he is not rebuilding that one twice and wouldn't rebuild the other ones twice. Mr. Gray horizonal and vertical alignments further stated that there are he is not sure exactly how it would look. and that extra curve so Alderperson Hoffman asked Alderperson Daley if he would consider wording that said the project would stop between Hudson Place and Pennsylvania Avenue at a point determined by the City Engineer. Alderperson Daley agreed and offered the following wording for his amending resolution #2: New Wording for Amending Resolution #2 the be stopped at a point determined by "RESOLVED, that project at a point between the end of the curve and the the engineers Pennsylvania Avenue intersection." There was no objection to the change in wording. Therefore, it was accepted. Mayor Nichols stated that he does not think this is a sensible thing to do at this time. He said that he really believes that the design as it is, with proper signage, can accomplish what we want to do. He said that he sees no reason, for example, why there should not be a Stop sign at that intersection, why there should not be a big overhead highway sign that says "For Route 96B, Turn Left ", "No Trucks ", etc. Mayor Nichols stated that he does not foresee a design that we are going to come up with that would be any better. He said that he does not think we are going to gain much by this process, by adopting this amendment. A vote on Amending Resolution #2 resulted as follows: Ayes (5) - Peterson, Hoffman, Schroeder, Golder, Cummings Nays (5) - Johnson, Blanchard, Romanowski, Daley, Booth Mayor Nichols voted Nay, breaking the tie. Motion Fails Mayor Nichols suggested that Council direct the Board of Public Works to come up with a set of proposals for traffic control, signage, including Stop signs, speed limits, etc. to be brought back to Council. 447 15 May 14, 1990 Mayor Nichols further stated that he can assure the Council as Chair of that Board, that he will be trying to incorporate every suggestion that has already been made by the South Hill Civic Association, as well as some others that he has heard about since. Amending Resolution By Alderperson Blanchard: Seconded by Alderperson Peterson RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works is directed to develop a comprehensive traffic control plan for the Hudson Street area that will include signage, and the investigation into speed limits, traffic control mechanisms and enforcement, and be it further RESOLVED, That the plan shall be done in cooperation with the Ithaca Police Department to ensure that enforcement is one arm of that plan, and be it further RESOLVED, That the comprehensive traffic control plan be brought t} back to Council as soon as possible. Discussion followed on the floor on the amending resolution. A vote on the amending resolution resulted as follows: carried Unanimously Discussion followed on Amending Resolution #3. Alderperson Daley stated that given the statements that we have had in private with the design engineers, it might be most appropriate that Council direct the Mayor to get the necessary statements to satisfy those requirements of the design engineer to allow the radius of the wide -outs to be 15 feet. Mayor Nichols stated that what the Council is asking for is a statement, essentially, as he understands it, from the Fire Department that the 15 foot radius is acceptable to them. He said that he will get whatever statement he can. Alderperson Blanchard asked, if those statements are not forthcoming, then do we go ahead with the wide -outs as designed or will there need to be another meeting? Mayor Nichols said that he will know by the June Council meeting whether he has been successful or not with getting those statements. He stated there is a question still remaining and we have to see what we can do about it. We have a statement, made on Council floor, but not in writing, saying effectively that they would not put their stamp on a plan that had anything less that the 25 foot radius. Mayor Nichols stated that he was told in an informal discussion that if there were appropriate statements from the Fire Department and the Department of Public Works that they could live with, or words to that effect, then they could ahead. There was no commitment in writing and he thinks that is what we need to get. (600e, Alderperson Hoffman urged Mayor Nichols and anyone else who is involved to look at the driveways from the new Fire Stations into Route 96 and look at the radius of the curve and the width of the street there. He said they look to him to be narrower than Hudson Street. Alderperson Hoffman asked the City Attorney about the City's obligation to correct or to make changes when we are doing a reconstruction. How far does it extend from the street? Are we obligated to change the entrance of other streets into the project or only on the Hudson Street project? 4a1 16 May 14, 1990 City Attorney Guttman stated that the obligation that we are talking about here comes from a prior knowledge that this was a dangerous condition entering the Therm curve. He said that if you don't have knowledge of something being in a dangerous condition, you are under no obligation to change it. Alderperson Hoffman asked City Attorney Guttman if he had any knowledge that these intersections proposed for wide - mouthing are dangerous? City Attorney Guttman responded that he has no knowledge of that at this point. He said that his understanding has to do more with the serviceability of the road and the usefulness of the road rather than the safety situation. He said that is what he has been told. Mayor Nichols commented that personally he does not see that they have to be widened. He said that it is not that he is not going to do what he can to do that, it is just that he does not want to make a promise that he can't keep. Alderperson Hoffman asked Mayor Nichols, if he doesn't get the statements that he wants, will the wide - mouths go forward? Mayor Nichols asked the Council if they want to be more specific and say that the wide -outs should not go forward at this time. Mayor Nichols then asked City Engineer Gray if from a practical point of view, as far as feasibility is concerned, could we re- design it with a smaller radius? City Engineer Gray responded that it can be done. He said there was a discussion held with the Design Engineer and discussions with the Fire Department. If the Council wants a limitation in this resolution, perhaps as Alderperson Hoffman suggested, the curves should be whatever you can negotiate with the Fire Department and the Design Engineer and that it not be any larger than the new Fire Station. Alderperson Booth suggested the Council direct the Mayor to use all possible means to achieve the narrowest street entrances possible and that the project go forward. Alderperson Daley accepted the. change in wording and no Council member objected. The wording for #3 Amending Resolution, will be as follows: Amending Resolution #3 By Alderperson Daley: Seconded by Alderperson Cummings RESOLVED, That the April 2, 1990 Resolution be amended as follows: "The Mayor be instructed to get the necessary statements from the appropriate departments to satisfy the requirements of the Design Engineer to achieve the narrowest street entrances as possible." A vote on the amending resolution resulted as follows: Carried Unanimously Discussion followed on Amending Resolution #4 Amending Resolution By Alderperson Daley: Seconded by Alderperson Blanchard RESOLVED, That the April 2, 1990 Common Council resolution be amended to read as follows under the last Resolved Clause, #4 CURB LAWN: "No pavers of brick, or any other material, shall be used between the curb and sidewalk. Curb lawns shall be vegetation." Carried Unanimously 17 May 14, 1990 Alderperson Daley asked that there be a resolution put forth to ask that the Council request of the Budget and Administration Committee that the process to hire the new Traffic Enforcement Officer be finalized as quickly as possible. Alderperson Booth stated that the City Controller and Police Chief have discussed this matter. He said that he has suggested to both of them that we make this decision in September. Alderperson Booth explained that adding that person near the end of the year is doable in the context of the current budget. What worries him is that the Police Chief is going to come to us with a series of priorities and he does not think this is going to be at the top of those list of priorities. He said that the committee is going to have some real major Police Department personnel issues to wrestle with and he would like to know what those other priorities are before we make this commitment. Alderperson Cummings referred to the April 2, 1990 Common Council resolution Item 10 Community Participation. She stated there will continue to be on -going Tuesday morning meetings and she asked if (� there were any suggestions as to how they can get information in a clearer fashion. She said that one of the concerns that was raised by a resident was that we do not know what mode of f' communication was ever used to communicate the prior resolution to the Design Engineers. She asked if we simply gave them our Council resolution and said, "you interpret it" or did we write additional specs, or verbally transmit additional information. Alderperson Cummings stated that we have had some very active participation recently from our engineering staff and she would like to make sure that our discussions are fully conveyed to the design engineer so that the design engineers understand what we are asking to have done and that they understand that it is coming from broad and diverse resident input, from Council, and with information incorporated from our engineering staff. Mayor Nichols responded that written records should be kept of those meetings. He thinks we have to spell out the process much more specifically. Alderperson Johnson stated that in regard to the issue of public trust and the sense of frustration, he thinks it clearly points out the need for the resolution that Council passed to ensure as much public participation as we can by getting residents involved in early planning processes. He hopes that the Planning and Development Committee will make this a priority and bring it to Council as soon as possible. Alderperson Hoffman stated that at the beginning of this meeting we were presented with two resolutions for resolving this problem. He went on to say that the vote on his resolution was taken under the assumption that the other resolution would include a reconsideration of the Coddington Road intersection. He said that he thinks that is a crucial component in this whole decision; the decision to realign the intersection as now approved in the amendment. He said that is going to have a great affect on what happens on Hudson Street. It is going to funnel even more traffic onto that street and he thinks the residents have a right to question the good faith of this body given what happened on that decision. Alderperson Hoffman asked those who opposed his resolution based on the assumption that the Coddington Road intersection was up for discussion to reconsider that. He thinks a major switch was made. He does not understand exactly why there were not the votes to support that but he would ask the Council to reconsider the resolution in light of that decision. Alderperson Daley responded that he thinks that if the amendment that Alderperson Hoffman made to the Coddington Road intersection were to go back to Pennsylvania Avenue, he could support that. (1 M May 14, 1990 He said that his problem with that amendment as it ended up was that we really still were eliminating over 20% of the entire project and to do that at this point was not in the best interest of everyone. Mayor Nichols asked the Council if there were a motion to reconsider. Discussion followed on the floor. City Attorney Guttman advised the Council that right now there is an amendment to stop the project close to the Therm curve and he thinks it would be within the Council's province to have a new resolution now to say that the project will be stopped at a different point. Amending Resolution By Alderperson Schroeder: Seconded by Alderperson Hoffman RESOLVED, That the April 2, 1990 Common Council resolution be amended to read as follows: That the reconstruction component of the work be ended at the Pennsylvania Avenue intersection. Alderperson Cummings stated that she voted for the amendment the last time; she will vote for it again this time but she does not want misunderstanding. She said she is voting for it because she likes angle intersections and she is not crazy about going to right angle intersections - it is not a great design reason and she does not believe that the Coddington Road, within the City, is an appropriate funnel to take the traffic over to Aurora Street. By her voting for this amendment, she wants the Council to understand that she is not going to be voting to make that road a major funnel and continuation of traffic because she cannot send more traffic down Aurora Street. Mayor Nichols pointed out that it is not clear to him exactly what the engineering effect of this motion will be. Alderperson Romanowski stated that if this is a new motion he objects to it. We have voted the direction we are going and now we are putting in a new direction altogether. He said the engineers have left the meeting and we are doing something completely opposite of the original motion. Alderperson Schroeder argued that this was the original proposal that City Engineer Gray responded to at the meeting, that he thought it was feasible to stop at Pennsylvania Avenue. He said the Council later moved it closer to the Therm curve. City Attorney Guttman stated that his understanding was that the City Engineer said it could be stopped at several points between the end of the Therm curve and Pennsylvania Avenue. It gives him more flexibility closer to the Therm curve. A vote on Alderperson Schroeder's amendment resulted as follows: Ayes (6) - Daley, Cummings, Peterson, Hoffman, Schroeder, Golder Nays (4) - Booth, Johnson, Blanchard, Romanowski Carried ADJOURNMENT: On a motion the meeting adjourned at-1:25 p.m. (LMMsta F. Paolang li City Clerk l` Benja A�i—n Nichols Mayor (See attached page for summary of Amending Resolutions) W May 14, 1990 The following amending resolutions were passed at the Special Common Council meeting on May 14, 1990: Amending Resolution 11 By Alderperson Daley: Seconded by Alderperson Cummings RESOLVED, That the April 2, 1990 Resolution shall be amended to read as follows: "The width for paving shall be narrowed from 30 to 27 feet for the project from Hillview Place to Coddington Road except for the Therm curve, including the taper at the top and the taper at the bottom, according to the plans of April 23, 1990, page 7." 11151 Amending Resolution H-7- �� By Alderperson Blanchard: Seconded by Alderperson Peterson C0 RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works is directed to develop a comprehensive traffic control plan for the Hudson Street area that will include signage, and the investigation into speed limits, traffic control mechanisms and enforcement, and be it further RESOLVED, That the plan shall be done in cooperation with the Ithaca Police Departy ;, ?iit to ensure that enfort-i-ment is one arm of that plan, and be it further RESOLVED, That the comprehensive traffic control plan be brought back to Council as soon as possible. Loe Amending Resolution #3 By Alderperson Daley: Seconded by Alderperson Cummings RESOLVED, That the April 2, 1990 Resolution be amended as follows: "The Mayor be instructed to get the necessary statements from the appropriate departments to satisfy the requirements of the Design Engineer to achieve the narrowest street entrances as possible." Amending Resolution d Y By Alderperson Daley: Seconded by Alderperson Blanchard RESOLVED, That the April 2, 1990 Common Council resolution be amended to read as follows under the last Resolved Clause, #4 CURB LAWN: "No pavers of brick, or any other material, shall be used between the curb and sidewalk. Curb lawns shall be vegetation." Amending Resolution By Alderperson Schroeder: Seconded by Alderperson Hoffman RESOLVED, That Amending Resolution #2 shall read as follows: "That the April 2, 1990 Common Council resolution be amended to read as follows: That the reconstruction component of the work be ended at the Pennsylvania Avenue intersection."