ITP Implementation Task Force Packet 2011 04-04-11 `,�w clr� United City of Yorkville
4 o Y
800 Game Farm Road
EST. ~� _ 1836 Yorkville, Illinois 60560
- Telephone: 630-553-4350
Fax: 630-553-7575
County Seaz
Kendal C—y
<Lr
AGENDA
INTEGRATED TRANSPORTATION PLAN
IMPLEMENTATION TASK FORCE
Monday, April 4, 2011
6:00 PM
City Hall Conference Room
800 Game Farm Road
1. Public Comment
2. Route 71 Project—Trail & Sidewalk Improvements
3. Additional Business
4. Next Meeting Date: TBD
° ''`o Memorandum
EST. ,Z 1836 To: ITP Committee
From: Laura Schraw, City Park Designer
0 L CC: Bart Olson, City Administrator
Krysti Barksdale-Noble, Community Development Director
<LE ��,�'` Joe Wywrot, City Engineer
Date: March 17, 2011
Subject: Route 71 Sidewalk& Trail Improvements
Staff is recommending changing a trail location as shown in the ITP plan along Route 71 and is
presenting the information to the ITP Task Force Committee for discussion.
The ITP plan was approved in September 2009. At that time, no discussion with IDOT had
occurred on their Route 71 project, and although development was slowing down, the plan was
not changed to recognize economic downturn and the possibility of developers not funding a
large majority of our trail system. Based on this, at the time of approval, it was assumed that
Edward Hospital was still moving forward and would provide an excellent opportunity to
construct trail along a majority(although not all) of Route 71 west of Route 126 without
requiring the City to fully fund a trail project.
Since the plan approval, IDOT has approached the City inquiring about our preferred
trail/sidewalk locations along Route 71 as part of their widening project from west of Route 47 to
Orchard Road. A specific area of this trail shown in our ITP document has been re-evaluated by
Staff. The ITP calls for sidewalk on the south side and trail on the north side from Route 47 to
Route 126. Staff is recommending that we change the trail to the south side and place sidewalk
on the north side. Originally, trail recommendation on the north side was based on existing trail
in Raintree Village (east-west trail) providing a service to those residents and the proposed
development by Edwards where the developer could install a majority of this trail and reduce the
City's cost(versus a trail on the south side that would have to be fully funded by the City
because of the existing developments).
Now that IDOT has moved forward with this widening project we have been presented with an
opportunity for funding that the City was not planning on during the ITP development. Joe
Wywrot, Scott Sleezer and I all agree that to reduce the City's cost and to still serve the majority
of residents living south of Route 71 we should move the trail to the south side of the road to
provide a continuous connection of trail adjacent to Route 71 for trail users, serve the residents
located in this area, and reduce the costs to the City. The attached memo from Joe Wywrot
further discusses the costs of trail and sidewalk funding for this project.
Recognizing that the ITP is a document used to guide Yorkville in planning, any changes to the
document that address community-wide transportation issues and public access and mobility
improvement are within the project goals and objectives. Yorkville is meeting project goals by
connecting a regional trail route with an economic and opportunity-based evaluation and
recommended change.
CIP
0 Memorandum
EST , �7835 To: Krysti Noble, Community De eloppyen Director
From: Joe Wywrot, City Engineer
0 p CC: Bart Olson, City Administrators
""C—y Laura Schraw, City Park Designer
<'LE r�
Date: March 16, 2011
Subject: Route 71 Project—Trail & Sidewalk Improvements
Attached find one copy each of two alternate trail/sidewalk plans for IDOT's Route 71 project.
Alternate#1 is the current plan which we have conveyed to [DOT and they are planning to
construct. Alternate#2 differs from Alternate#1 as follows:
• Between Route 47 and Route 126 the trail would be shifted to the south side of Route 71,
and sidewalk would be shifted to the north side of Route 71.
• Sidewalk east of Route 47 would not be constructed as part of the IDOT project. The
sidewalk would be constructed by future developers of the land along Route 71. The
sidewalk would be located either in the Route 71 right-of-way or on easements dedicated
by those future developments.
By shifting the trail to the south side of Route 71, Alternate#2 makes the trail more readily
accessible to the majority of local residents. Alternate#2 would also reduce the city's cost by
placing most of the cost of sidewalk construction on future developers.
Sidewalk constructed across the frontage of the Wildwood Phase 11 development would have to
be paid for 100%by the city if we adopt Altern ate#2. Assuming that sidewalk costs about
$25/LF, the city's 20% share of a sidewalk constructed from Route 47 to the eastern city limits
(total length of 9600 feet) would be about $48,000. The full cost of constructing sidewalk across
the Wildwood Phase II frontage (total length of 800 feet) would be around $20,000, resulting in a
cost savings of about $28,000.
IDOT has requested that the city provide them with a preferred trail/sidewalk alignment within
city limits. They also need a commitment in writing from the city to fund our share of trail and
sidewalk constructed as part of the IDOT project, and to maintain the trail and sidewalk in the
future.
I recommend that we adopt Alternate#2 and request that IDOT make the appropriate changes to
their Route 71 plan. Please place this itean on the Integrated Transportation Plan Committee
agenda of April 4, 2011 for consideration.
i ���+� � 1' ii '� ''�+ r •{ - M1 `I�" ..fly � r` � J''
IIf f- iI
it
III
,y yam.L��i .. rl � ■ �*-- ..' �,� ,� '''r �• f
O F'
�e••MTTT°e k r., y' .- +�` ._,,.,, k, I e�' -1• - ^y.
r +' '" f
i
l'
- Y
� r
TV
mi
NMI
mill
Pr
mom
i • i,� r YiIM�iYLYV .YIYIIi
—_— i . —
�!�^ i r ?�r: .., - ..'� *l�I? _ '.� 4� 44 _ �+r-ti .�.,"�•., `
w
e
' i _., Y �a.i sry 1. ^ ® �� YY-, '' � -- rte..� � :._} M�'`:4 4}r � 1eY S�.� a 4� � •+J �}'ti
Y,
r _
lift i r ',: Y� •°_. � R -:°-�--- ,-i 'r�4 f `�` "� . ,y� �_ s Kw , ��, �I - -
l ..IT F
dd N"t:. a 'y. i r. • i e o - *' ®s # y . + °4 ." . ,`1f1. 9
`• r `
4'1 i • `^y9 K i,l'
.i ! , r{. !g. rs* as d k f M 'y'f _ i/. __ _;:- - ,�. •. l i �yq. x.
- -. vii- �.. .;; ' s ,. x ■ � a ,r-- e. ` ° rt 'i : Y
- , ". i�- �. --�. - 't. t.- - ,,;f, s ="� of • • _ r - -_ :I - , s
,I
III
h, {
1
1
ifi III '�#+ �� 1 }� '+ ,+ r. r 9f � �I r"V �� *��-� -. � *' ar � - � �►. -,gam--t�'� �+,{�� i - _ -
-
-,
r ° # #
_ 4�T
s-
r1
sue_
%— -Ll.
L- 1E. 1
�Ry'py yII "
k,
I
a
Ik.
*_j, ..'via f � � . ;.� �`. � "�� � ��I- � � 4 - F.�, a ,��� •
s
t !
- s �{ • , ;f:. le y.2al
IL
w
,
I� :...• I it
PL
_ 1 _
qr
'tir.�r .e. i e f K■.a .e «+ r I� e.. r c• .- - _40
Ilk
41 A
tl I� — 4 ,� !_ * -_- t... f -_,. r : t rf F 1, i, •.t •�•.' — - a -
� ♦� ri ��Wst a -_ �4 r � #4�+�+ '+�� ;.`,` 5th." c� of i -..
,
{
e I • ii �[� ,r, � � , yr,�!� # riv
- III, - _ a � � ,'F� 5 � . . . • . t 1 -YI •.,�. _ _.
5
jr
"'J��4�
IdV
�1'�` ?_-.. +e .� �hM�1 1 ,'` S`;��'S1 M ,� !F �`. � • "•y ■ _ _ _ I, _ �f AFe { P � # I
' ^-� � _ i _ '}_ fa _ !■ I ,S 4 I< �- 9 + i y. - I �+ � � i 'Y �'`-,' -� `f - - _ v 6
,
I
}
a
_ ,f ''k �tx_ •,ra � n �i t �r �
t ,
• v 'R'4W.
f. 4
�u
"Ind
LAW
vp
4°.
JJ
- � '� ^. — �, � � ,-a � -':• `- _ it -
0
w
: