Trustee Asselta's report at the July 16 Board of Trustees meeting was from the Franklin Avenue Beautification Subcommittee which was created by the Village Board to review the proposed beautification plans by Landscape Architect and Project Consultant William B. Kuhl. The subcommittee consisted of Village Administrator Robert Schoelle, Director of Public Works Robert Mangan, Assistant Superintendent of Public Works Ernest Stagg, Project Engineer Christopher Markin, and Trustee Judith A. Asselta. The recommendation from the subcommittee was to approve the inclusion of layby parking in the plan, a suggestion which was voted on by the Board and approved.

The subcommittee met on June 25 with Kuhl and his associate Dean Gomolks as well as Lew Damrauer from Lizardos Engineering to review every detail of the streetscape plans. The subcommittee met again on June 29 with the mayor and reviewed the reports from Kuhl which followed the first meeting. At the meeting of June 29 the number of layby parking spaces was verified as being 37 (initially it was to be 38, but one was removed because of a utility structure) and the difference in cost for the streetscape with layby and without was provided. The layby is in fact more expensive than the plan without layby parking, having been listed by Kuhl in his report as costing approximately $6,000-$7,000 for the spaces because of curb removal and reinstallation of new curbing.

The conclusions offered in the report were:

"1. That layby parking be included in the overall beautification project for Franklin Avenue. The 36 [although it states 37 in the attached report from Kuhl] spaces in the plan have negligible impact both in terms of cost and traffic. They represent a reasonable compromise between the business interest and the residents. In addition, from the point of view of design, it allows for diversity on approximately one mile of Franklin Avenue.

2. That the area within 100' radius of the location of the clock [the east side of the Stewart and Franklin intersection] should be redesigned and a detailed sketch be provided.

3. The extent and detail of the paver limits is still unclear. The progress drawings did not clearly illustrate the details of the pavers at the crosswalks and intersections, and the colors of the pavers and concrete were not detailed. Samples of the pavers arrived at the end of the meeting, but it was determined that a color plan and detail of the paver/concrete scheme should be submitted.* It was decided that Mr. Schoelle, Mr. Mangan and his staff, and eventually the Architectural Design Review Board review this, and if any aspect of the design materials are not to their satisfaction, that it should be brought to the attention of the Village Board. *(note: a detailed plan was submitted subsequent to this meeting)

4. The Committee requested a letter from the Traffic Consultant be provided addressing the effect of layby parking on adjacent residential streets.

5. A question was raised on the possibility of enacting a new building code requiring stores to provide entrances and exits on Franklin Avenue."

The report by the traffic consultant, Wiley Engineering P.C., Consulting Engineers, was also read as a response to point four and in support of layby parking. The Wiley report stated:

"As requested, we have reviewed Progress Prints for the Franklin Avenue Beautification With Layby Parking project issued on June 22, 1998 by the Office of William B. Kuhl. Please be advised that this is a preliminary review because the plan views are not dimensioned and our evaluation is largely based on scaled dimension.

With respect to the parking layout, the scaled representations of the parallel parking stalls are in accordance with curb parking standards set forth by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), and the New York State Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices.

...Overall, we find the geometric layout of the layby parking lanes to be acceptable.

It is our understanding that the purpose of the project is to enhance the commercial viability of storefronts along Franklin Avenue via improved visibility, appearance, sidewalk activity, and access. In this respect, the provision of layby parking is known to be consistent with downtown planning efforts designed to accomplish these goals.

On the other hand, in terms of the impacts that can be expected from on-street parking installations, we offer the following quote from AASHTO -- 'It can generally be stated that on-street parking decreases through capacity, impedes traffic flow, and increases accident potential.' For these reasons, we strongly concur with your intention to prohibit layby parking during rush hour periods.

As for non-rush hour periods, traffic flow on Franklin Avenue will probably operate at slightly reduced, but acceptable levels. We, therefore, do not forsee a discernable shift of Franklin Avenue north-south traffic volumes to Washington Avenue, nor the Cherry Valley/ Rockaway Avenue corridor in response to this slight reduction in through capacity.

We look forward to completeing our review when the dimensioned plans become available."

Trustee Torino was not present at the meeting, but Asselta read a statement on his behalf, which stated that he does not necessarily view the layby plans as the solution to the problems on Franklin Avenue, but in light of the Wiley report, he would not oppose the inclusion of layby parking in the streetscape plan.

Trustee Asselta then moved that as the Board had approved the bond for the streetscape work at the last meeting, that they "now proceed with the next phase" and approve the recommendation of the subcommittee. The recommendations of the subcommittee were approved and Village Administrator Schoelle stated that the plans could be ready for bid by the next meeting on August 13. According to Kuhl's report, if the bidding is planned for August, and the process takes a month, the awarding of a contract could occur as early as September and the actual work could begin in October. Kuhl estimates the time for the completion of the work around four to six months later, taking weather and holidays into account. Most of the work, according to Kuhl, can be done in the winter, leaving only small work, if necessary, to be finished in the spring, but all work is predicted to be completed in the Spring of 1999.