The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2016-11-12-CSDRC-minTown of Lexington Center Streetscape Design Review Ad Hoc Committee Saturday, 12 November 2016 Lexington Community Center, Room 217 11:00 A.M. to 2:00 P.M. Minutes Members Present: Chair Howard Levin (member of Center Committee, non - voting Ad Hoc Committee member) (arrived at noon), Victoria Buckley (Commission on Disability), Anne L. Eccles (Historic Districts Commission), Peggy Enders (Bicycle Advisory Committee), Jonathan A. Himmel (Tourism Committee), Pamela F. Shadley (Lexington Center Committee), Wendall Kalsow (Historical Commission), Tim Lee (Design Advisory Committee) Members Absent: Nancy Corcoran - Ronchetti (Planning Board), John Frey (Tree Committee) Other Commission on Disability Members: Susan Cusack, Shaun Grady, Michael Martignetti, Julie Miller, and Leonard Morse - Fortier. Liaisons: Fred Johnson (Chamber of Commerce), David Kanter (Capital Expenditures Committee) (alternate) Public: Nancy Adler, Diane Beck, George Burnell, Mark Connor, Judie Friedson, Meg Himmel, Gerry Paul Guest Speaker: Jonathan Pearlman Jonathan Pearlman, PhD is HERL's Associate Director of Engineering and assistant professor in the Department of Rehabilitation Science & Technology at the University of Pittsburgh. Documents Presented: Exposure Limits Expressed in Hours {another look at Jon Pearlman's Table II) (see attached) Mr. Himmel called the meeting to order at 11:10 A.M. Streetscape Minutes 11 -12 -2016 (finall).docx Page 1 The meeting started with Mr. Himmel indicating that the session was meant to be an open discussion with Professor Pearlman. To put things into perspective, Mr. Himmel presented a summary of the information found in the Fay, Spofford, & Thorndike (FST) 2014 report followed by a discussion of the BETA Group Inc. design, regulatory requirements, and differing opinions. There are approximately 2.25 million square feet of sidewalk in Lexington. 84.5% of which are bituminous, 12.3% are concrete, 2.3% are brick, with gravel and "other" making up the remainder. FST indicated in a 2014 report prepared for the Town of Lexington that it would take an expenditure of $750k per annum to maintain Lexington's sidewalks in their current state of repair. That amounts to attending to roughly 4% of the Town's sidewalks town-wide every year. Lexington's sidewalks are an asset, but also a liability. BETA Group Inc. (BETA) has provided a 25% design that focuses on a number of elements including the Center Streetscape sidewalks. Those sidewalks are the most important sidewalks in the Town of Lexington. Like all of the sidewalks in town, the Center sidewalks need to be compliant with all of the regulations that apply to them, but on top of being compliant, the Center sidewalks need to have the character befitting the Historic Center of this great town. BETA's 25% design for the Center Streetscape replaces all of the existing center sidewalks irrespective of their current condition. Pretty much everyone can agree that the Boston City Pavers in front of CVS Pharmacy installed prior to the advent of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and extensive amounts of the Center's concrete sidewalks need to be replaced. There are differing opinions, however, on what must be done with the balance of the Center sidewalks. There are differing opinions on how much of the Center's sidewalks comply with ADA and Architectural Access Board (AAB) Requirements. FST's 2014 report indicated only correctable problems with the Center sidewalks. The Town Engineer has written that several sections of the Center are compliant. And yet there are others who are of the opinion that none of the current brick sidewalks are acceptable. The current ADA and AAB requirements are measurable criteria so whether Streetscape Minutes 11-12-2016 (finall).docx Page 2 something is compliant should be a matter of measurement and whether it is "acceptable" is a matter of opinion. There was considerable discussion and general agreement about the above. Professor Pearlman was then asked to help the Ad Hoc Committee better understand the ramification of Table II as presented at his May 2016 Lexington (see attachment). He was also asked to address the difference between "vibration" and "roughness" because they both seemed to be addressing the same characteristics. The U.S. Access Board, the entity that is responsible for the ADA requirements, recognizes that vibration is an issue for people in wheel chairs. Vibration studies were conducted through a very meticulous, scientific process conducted by the University of Pittsburgh with a grant from the U.S. Access Board and the Veterans Administration. These vibration studies involved data collected from wheel-chair users (i.e., human subjects). The vibration findings have been published and indicate that an electric wheel-chair user traveling at an average speed of 1 meter per second can spend: • As much as 11.6 hours traversing properly maintained, intact, concrete surface, and can spend • Greater than 12 hours on properly installed and maintained brick surface.' More recently, the U.S. Access Board has sought a means of measurement that is scientifically based, but does not require human subjects. That scientific-based method is capable of measuring the same surfaces the vibration studies did, but is based on laser technology. This laser technology is measuring "roughness" as meaningful deviations from the general surface level—which does not include the minor deviations associated with the texture of the surface. It is likely that within the next three years "roughness" standards will find their way into the ADA regulations. Lexington does not have to wait for that enactment. It can and should make its sidewalk decision inclusive of "roughness" considerations. Dr. Pearlman then explained the importance of the American Society for Testing & Streetscape Minutes 11-12-2016 (finall).docx Page 3 Materials (ASTM) standard' The U.S. Access Board offered a grant to develop the means by which to measure sidewalk "roughness." The University of Pittsburgh won and finished that grant. The ASTM E3028 is complete and accepted. There was then considerable discussion regarding the above and the merit of retaining the services of a consultant such as PathMet. Certain, reasonable, people in Town feel like they were betrayed by the sidewalk design and installation process on the south side of Massachusetts Avenue in 2007. They are also of the opinion that the brick sidewalks have not been maintained to a high-enough standard. Thus, it appears that concrete is the only viable solution for them. Certain other reasonable people are of the opinion that brick is viable, but also are of the opinion that the design, mockup, construction, and long-term maintenance need more scrutiny in the center of Town than elsewhere. Thus, there is a suggestion that the good services of the Department of Public Works (DPW) be augmented with a Project Manager reporting directly to the DPW contracting officer. And that the sole purpose of that Project Manager is to assist the DPW in making sure that the required, approved, scope is delivered in a cost-and-time-efficient manner. One member of the Ad Hoc Committee said that they would vote in the affirmative if the measurements included roughness measurements at other locations where brick and concrete has been laid properly and in place for some time. Both groups of reasonable people put stock in having the Center sidewalks assessed for regulatory compliance as well as for "roughness" consistent with the ASTM standard. They also are of the strong opinion that it should be done now irrespective of whether the Town pays for it. They feel this committee's final, revised Tier 1 report supported with PathMeT data will have better information and be less conditional and less ambiguous. A University of Pittsburgh spinoff company named PathMeT has that very 1ASTM lInternationall s a glloballOy recogniized Deader lin the develloprnent and delliivery of voll untary consensus standards,. "Today, over 12,000 ASTM standards are used around the worIld to iirnprove product qualliity, enhance heallth and safety, strengthen market access and trade, and buDd consumer conliidencei. Streetscape Minutes 11-12-2016 (finall).docx Page 4 capability and is available to do the work within the next three weeks. Motion: Mr. Himmel made the following Motion, which was seconded. "This committee recommends that: (1) The existing conditions of each block of Lexington Center's sidewalk be scientifically tested for compliance with current regulatory requirements including ADA and to determine the "roughness" per ASTM E3028, and (2) That additional, compatible, data be collected on other, existing, sidewalk segments to better inform this committee, and thus the Board of Selectmen, about sidewalk life-cycle performance, and (3) To that end, this committee recommends that the Board of Selectmen take action to either directly or indirectly engage the services of PathMeT so the work can be done in early December 2016. After further discussion, but before the vote was taken, Mr. Kalsow said he was in favor of the motion, but then had to leave before the formal vote. The vote was 5-1. Ms. Buckley, Ms. Eccles, Ms. Enders, Mr. Himmel, and Mr. Lee in favor; Ms. Shadley against expressing a reservation to including assessing the existing conditions in the Center. At 2:00 p.m., a Motion was made and seconded to adjourn. Vote: 6-0 Streetscape Minutes 11-12-2016 (finall).docx Page 5 The chart at the top of this page and the chart on the next page were handed out at the meeting. The "specification" chart at the bottom of this page was added for clarity. Tate 1i 0',r The above chart Elec p tui21i. in 111F 115'001 Table 2: Speaa:ficatirrats of Sttrfares Tested Surface Nam9 Manua( wheelchair E(ectrie- powered wheelchair E(eetrie- powered wheelchair Surface Ma al, chamfer '6' th, herrtngbone pattern an ?s4anmita,laee(chair Exposure titbit (l) at ll. 905 E(eetri - powered wheelchair Exposure 'limit 2s5 at 1. m's Exposure '(iiavik 0T5 at 2 In's P' owed Concrete. Concrete, 0 mm chamfer, 988 °, unit paver 53.75 24..31 4.72. 3 Concrete, 2 . mm chamfer, 997 ". unit paver 5.53 16.40 314 5 Brick, 4 mm chamfer, 45 ' IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 613 " 2.32 i9mllllan8 Paver Brick.. 0 mm chamfer, 46„ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII° 198 98 2.53 996 Concrete, 6mmt chamfer, 45', unit paver 2.46 2.57 Concrete li. Poured concrete fw77- 986.9 1.26 9 Concrete, 4 chamfer, 96'. u al 6.52 1716 4.44 7 Concrete. 6mm chamfer. 90'. unit paver 4.32 4.81 3.49 4 Concrete, 9mm chamfer, 90', unit paver 2.34 2.43 2.31. The above chart Elec p tui21i. in 111F 115'001 Table 2: Speaa:ficatirrats of Sttrfares Tested Surface Nam9 Edge detain Col 6 Cmt Dimension (mini, Installed Patteatiti Length width HoigIht 1 P' owed Concrete. — ICI 9 IS5510965 2 HO Olorid Paver' Square (no Revell Concrete 198 338 613 90 ' 3 i9mllllan8 Paver 2 mnm 12'4,1 l concrete 198 98 80 996 4 Holland Paver 8 rmm belle( Concrete 198. 98 60 9rt+ 5 Whotacre-6reer 4 min bevel) Cloy 201. 102. 57 45 ". b Pathway' Peve( Square (no bevel) C'Oapr 284. 102. 5'i 49" 7 @-0rmuan8 Paruar 4 mare howl Concrete 6.558. 98 5rf e. Hand Paw 8 Ulla) bevell concrete 198 98 80 45' ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Ho00ant9 Paver 4 mm7 neve( I::omcrete 198 ............................... 90 ' Streetscape Minutes 11 -12 -2016 (finall).docx Page 6 00 r 1.0 Tray caVun 24,31 xosure Limits Expressed in Hours for Manual and Electric Wheelchairs . meter /rr t;)ridl on various sidewalk surfaces 1)J 1111111111 0.. ryerratrz, ( Calico( r, ; Bruck, 4. mm Effif,1 , O rnvrr Cf.) 1r.r: =t :., rran cO-rr 'fu rrlrrl 1 Yr• chamfer, 435° rOr o rfnu 45" Oor in -„fich fdeo, con c.r •hrh mfi c `7S }r uir t a' tr 90 1I 11 i ,1011 ^'d!�' 111111 taar,er r cheer 3 h holm h •• if kavich err rrrt,r:, 8ilin1, fyrrnilr>r, refit: p, hyver This chart is based on the University of Pittsburgh's Table II data. The columns in the foreground are Manual Wheelchair figures and the columns in the background are the Electric Wheelchair figures. The columns are sorted by the Electrical Wheelchair figures in decending order in other words the better performing surfaces start at the left and are expressed in the number of hours to exposure to limit. Streetscape Minutes 11 -12 -2016 (finall).docx Page 7