Loading...
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 :