“…The way the petition process was handled was referred to the Public Works Committee”

The situation on Laurel Hills Road, outlined below and here, mirrors the situation on Lorimer Road as it relates to the door-to-door petition process itself – even though the Laurel Hills project is for traffic calming and the Lorimer Road project is for street and sidewalk improvements.

.  .  .  .  .  .

OCTOBER 24, 2014Public Works Committee Meeting (edited, complete minutes HERE; emphasis added)-

Item #13-16 – Traffic Calming – Laurel Hills Road. Mr. Weeks indicated during the October 7, 2014 City Council meeting this item was referred to the Public Works Committee for further discussion.

Senior Traffic Engineer Jed Niffenegger summarized the following report included in the agenda packet:

Background:

At the October 7, 2014 City Council evening session, Council instructed staff to temporarily halt work on the traffic calming process for Laurel Hills Road. This reprieve would allow Council to hear more details about concerns from a citizen regarding the petition process. The concerns and the way the petition process was handled was referred to the Public Works Committee.

Project History:

Laurel Hills Road is loop road classified as a Neighborhood Street that begins and ends at Edwards Mill Road. A request for a traffic calming evaluation for Laurel Hills Road was received on December 6, 2012. Following the Council adopted Neighborhood Traffic Management Program; staff had to divide Laurel Hills Road into two sections since its length is well over a mile. Woodbine Road was selected as the dividing street allowing the two sections of Laurel Hills Road qualify for treatment. The evaluations for both sections were completed in February 2013. The westernmost section of Laurel Hills Road ended atop the Traffic Calming project list, while the eastern section of the street was ranked fourth. Residents on both sections of the street asked for petitions to circulate during the introductory meet held for the highest ranked streets. Each section returned their petitions within the time period with sufficient signatures to move the process forward. Continue reading

Justis Peters – Woodlinks Drive

“Justis Peters, 1315 Lorimer Road, spoke in support of the improvements. He questioned however if it could be amended to add sidewalks down the side of his property on Woodlinks. He stated he owns the majority of the frontage on Woodlinks and if the sidewalk could be extended to make it a complete sidewalk the people along Fairway Ridge would benefit.” —from City Council Meeting Minutes, 9/1/2015 [Note: Donna Burford, the Lorimer Road petitioner, lives on Fairway Ridge Drive; neither Peters nor Burford will be assessed for either project]

. . . . . .

From: Smith, Gail
To: Johnson, Chris ;  Upchurch, Jimmy ;  Eldredge, Leslie
CC: Powell, Donetta
Sent time: 02 Sep, 2015 2:55:15 PM

 

From: Upchurch, Jimmy
Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2015 9:37 AM
To: Smith, Gail; Eldredge, Leslie
Cc: Johnson, Chris; Powell, Donetta
Subject: Lorimer Road Petition Motion To Approve

Gail,

Please clarify Ms. Crowder’s motion in regards to Mr. Justis Peters request last night for us to extend the proposed sidewalk installation on Lorimer around his side yard on Woodlinks to connect to the existing sidewalk that stops at his property line.

This addition, as requested by Mr. Peters, to the proposed improvements included in the petition would only affect Mr. Peters property and being sidewalk installation along his property only, it would be completely at City expense as sidewalk installation is not assessable with this proposed project.

Thanks.

Jimmy Upchurch
Assessment Supervisor
City of Raleigh Public Works Department
Design/Construction Division

 

t_file_at3.jpg
Mr. Peter’s request to add sidewalk along his side yard

. . . . . .

From: Smith, Gail
Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2015 10:38 AM
To: Upchurch, Jimmy; Eldredge, Leslie
Cc: Johnson, Chris; Powell, Donetta
Subject: RE: Lorimer Road Petition Motion To Approve

Her motion was to approve the improvements with the change that sidewalk will be reduced to 5 ft. – Sidewalk from Kaplan to Garland.  In staff this am there was discussion about adding the Peters property.  Tom said that could not occur without going through the entire process again but suggested to Rich that if Mr. Peters was willing to pay for the project that maybe we could enter into a contract to add the improvements to his property to the contract.

.  .  .  .  .  . Continue reading

“Survey Limits Summary”

Lorimer Road “Kickoff Meeting” Survey Limits Summary
PW#: 2014_0012 (project limits from: Garland Drive…to: Kaplan Drive)

 Garland Drive Intersection:

  • Garland Dr: go 150’ (east and west) past Lorimer Rd
  • Lorimer Rd: go 150’ (north) past Garland Dr

 From: Garland Drive…To: Onslow Road:

  • Go 50’ beyond R/W

 Onslow Road Intersection:

  • Onslow Rd (east leg): go 150’ past Lorimer Rd
  • Onslow Rd (west leg): go to rear property line of parcel 1300

 Bushy Creek:

  • Obtain locations and elevations of headwalls, wingwalls, floor, and ceiling of 15’x6’ box culvert
  • Obtain elevations or height above ground of power and CATV cables measured at culvert center

From: Bushy Creek…To Kaplan Drive:

  • Go to front of houses
    • o Except parcel 1300…go to rear property line
    • o Except parcel 4900 (church)…go to 50’ beyond R/W
  • Merwin Rd: go 150’ from Lorimer Rd and 50’ beyond R/W
  • Athlone Pl: go 150’ from Lorimer Rd and 50’ beyond R/W
  • Woodlinks Dr: go to Fairway Ridge Dr and 50’ beyond R/W
  • Locate 15” storm drain pipes in front yards of parcels 1401, 1321, 1319, 1315 as shown in IMAPS
    • o Top of pipes (horizontal and vertical) elevation is adequate (i.e. don’t need inverts) but make sure they are labeled as “top of pipe” elevations
  • Locate 18” storm drain pipe ends crossing under Lorimer Rd (between parcels 1400 and 1401) with inverts
  • Locate 4” diameter rubber (bronze nut in center) well cap in Lorimer Rd pavement that is 2’ inside pavement (north side) and approximately 40’ west of Merwin Rd

 Kaplan Drive Intersection: (do not need topo here…just new infrastructure)

  • Kaplan Dr: go 50’ (east and west) past Lorimer Rd
  • Lorimer Rd: go 50’ (south) past Kaplan Dr

 General Notes:

  • Do not locate distressed pavement areas as mentioned in meeting
  • Locate all driveway culverts with pipe size, inverts, and material
  • Locate water meters (horizontal and vertical) and sewer cleanouts (horizontal only)

.  .  .  .  .  .

See also Map Summary for Drafting Staff

Lorimer Road, from Kaplan Drive to Garland Drive (Google Street View)

“THE ROAD IS FALLING APART UNDER US!!!!!!!”Donna Burford, Petitioner (9/3/2015)

.  .  .  .  .  .

Lorimer Road, heading north. Slides generated by the City of Raleigh from Google Street Views (side street names added) –

1 Screen shot 2016-05-26 at 6.26.25 PM.jpg

2 Screen shot 2016-05-26 at 6.40.27 PM.jpg

3 Screen shot 2016-05-26 at 6.26.36 PM.jpg

4 Screen shot 2016-05-26 at 6.26.48 PM.jpg

5 Screen shot 2016-05-26 at 6.26.53 PM.jpg

6 Screen shot 2016-05-26 at 6.26.58 PM.jpg

7 Screen shot 2016-05-26 at 6.27.08 PM.jpg

8 Screen shot 2016-05-26 at 6.27.21 PM.jpg

9 Screen shot 2016-05-26 at 6.27.27 PM.jpg

10 Screen shot 2016-05-26 at 6.27.35 PM.jpg

11 Screen shot 2016-05-26 at 6.27.43 PM.jpg

12 Screen shot 2016-05-26 at 6.27.48 PM.jpg

13 Screen shot 2016-05-26 at 6.27.56 PMb.jpg

.  .  .

— “…I deserve a road to get to my property that is not falling apart…” —Donna Burford, Fairway Ridge Drive resident (Facebook post)

— “I have heard people say ‘the person that started the petition does not even live on the street’ not sure why that matters. Anyone can start a petition for anything it is the majority of signatures as to whether or not it passes. Donna put hours and hours of blood sweat and tears into this for me and my family on my request… Not to mention she is forced to travel Lorimer road to get to her house.” —Donna’s sister, Sharon Mixon, Lorimer Road (Facebook post)

—“I’m very familiar with the street… There are lots of issues about the street…it has very deep swales and there’s no room to walk along either of them, because they’re so deep.”Kay Crowder, District D Representative (9/1/2015)

.  .  .  .  .  .

Public Works Committee Meeting (11/10/2015)

Excerpts from the Public Works Committee Meeting Minutes, November 10, 2015 (emphasis added) –

PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE

The Public Works Committee of the City of Raleigh met in regular session on Tuesday, November 10, 2015, at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber, Room 201 of the Raleigh Municipal Building, Avery C. Upchurch Government Complex, 222 West Hargett Street, Raleigh, North Carolina with the following present:

Committee
Councilor Eugene Weeks, Chairman
Councilor John Odom
Councilor Wayne Maiorano

Staff
Assistant City Manager Tansy Hayward
Acting Public Works Director Richard Kelly
Deputy City Attorney Ira Botvinick
Engineering Plans Review Manager Kenneth Ritchie
Senior Transportation Engineer Jed Niffenegger

These are summary minutes unless otherwise indicated.

.  .  .  .  .  .

 

Item #13-17 – Neighborhood Traffic Management Program – Policy Issues. This item was previously discussed at the Public Works Committee’s October 27, 2015 meeting and held over for further discussion.

Chairman Weeks indicated the Committee received correspondence from 2 Laurel Hills residents and stated and clarified that intent of today’s meeting was to consider changes to the Neighborhood Traffic Management Program to be implemented citywide.

Senior Transportation Engineer Jed Niffenegger summarized the following staff report included in the agenda Committee’s agenda packet:

Background:

For the past several months, we have been internally reviewing the Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP). This review consisted of three main components. First, there was an internal review based on lessons learned and problems encountered. Second, a peer review was conducted of the largest US Cities and ones specifically in North Carolina. Lastly, an online survey was done to get feedback from Raleigh residents who are the true “customers” of the program. Continue reading

Public Works Committee Meeting (11/12/2014)

Excerpts from the Public Works Committee Meeting Minutes, November 12, 2014 (emphasis added) –

 

PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE

The Public Works Committee of the City of Raleigh met in regular session on Wednesday, November 12, 2014, at 4:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber, Room 201 of the Raleigh Municipal Building, Avery C. Upchurch Government Complex, 222 West Hargett Street, Raleigh, North Carolina with the following present:

Committee
Councilor Eugene Weeks, Chairman
Councilor John Odom
Councilor Wayne Maiorano

Staff
Public Works Director Carl Dawson
City Attorney Thomas McCormick
Assistant Public Utilities Director Kenneth Waldroup
Senior Traffic Engineer Jed Niffenegger

These are summary minutes unless otherwise indicated.

.  .  .  .  .  .

Policy issues were addressed, including “a lengthy discussion…[of] the petition process” –

 

Item #13-17 – Neighborhood Traffic Management Program – Policy Issues. Chairman Weeks indicated during the November 5, 2014 City Council meeting this item was referred to the Public Works Committee for further discussion.

Senior Traffic Engineer Jed Niffenegger gave a brief review of the City’s Traffic Calming program noting the program is citizen-driven, and went on to note speed bumps were the most effective traffic calming device. He stated there is no assessment involved with the program as all improvements take place within the right-of-way. He gave an overview of the pro0posed changes to the program including adding procedures to stop projects and/or remove existing traffic calming devices. He stated staff recommends retaining the 75 percent threshold for removal as well as approving new projects.

Mr. Odom questioned whether any other residents filed petitions for removal or stopping projects with Mr. Niffenegger responding Staff addresses petitions to remove some speed bumps, but not all within a project. He went on to compare the Traffic Calming petition process with the City’s parking petition process. Lengthy discussion took place regarding the petition process as well as how petitions are worded with Public Works Director Carl Dawson pointing out there are citizens who have stated the petition they signed was not why they signed the petition in the first place. Continue reading