HomeMy WebLinkAboutIntown bike path - historical concerns - 070914_201407091503202323In-Town Multi-Use Path
Historical Concerns
In-Town Multi-Use Path
Historic Concerns Addressed in VHB memo
Historic District Commission Concerns –April 20, 2014
(with VHB’s June 11, 2014 responses)
Modification of the surface color of the hot-mix asphalt, if a soft surface is not used:
•A hard surface is recommended due to volume / type of users and maintenance concerns.
•Surface should be “firm, stable, and slip resistant”.
•Several options considered to change the color –painting the surface, rolling aggregate
into the asphalt, applying aggregate to the finished pavement using a liquid binder (asphalt
or resin bonded)
•Recommendation: a chip seal (or “sand seal”) is an effective solution. Aggregate size
would be less than ¼” for ADA access. Final aggregate used to be approved by Town.
EXAMPLES:
Historic District Commission Concerns –April 20, 2014
(with VHB’s June 11, 2014 responses)
Hard Surface vs. Soft Surface
Hard Surface -Recommended:
(asphalt or chip seal)
Pros
•Best initial surface (smooth and stable)
•Accessible for all users
•Less on-going maintenance cost
Cons
•Considered less aesthetically appealing
•Impervious
•Requires crack filling and sealing
Soft Surface:
(gravel or fine grade aggregate with stabilizer)
Pros
•Considered more natural looking
•Softer surface for joggers
•Initially less expensive for installation
Cons
•Recommended for low volume rural areas
•High on-going maintenance cost
•Inconsistent surface quality
•Environmental concerns with eroding gravel
•Not appropriate in flood plains
•Difficult to maintain ADA standards
•Limited access during winter conditions
Historic District Commission Concerns –April 20, 2014
(with VHB’s June 11, 2014 responses)
Steel Sheeting –not a “typical material that is visible from a travelled way”.
•Sheeting eliminated any impact to abutting wetlands during and after construction.
•Use of sheeting was reduced by 249 feet (30%) from preliminary design.
•Existing vegetation blocks view of sheeting
EXAMPLES:
Historic District Commission Concerns –April 20, 2014
(with VHB’s June 11, 2014 responses)
Split rail fencing –use of 2 rail, not 3 rail.
•This change has been made.
EXAMPLES:
Three rail:Two rail:
Historic District Commission Concerns –Other Concerns
(with staff recommendations)
Splitter Islands at ends of the path –remove or replace with belgium
•This change has been made.
Not Recommended:Recommended (or similar):
Historic District Commission Concerns –Other Concerns
(with staff recommendations)
Benches should be wood without a back rest
Recommended (or similar):
Nantucket Historical Commission Concerns –April 20, 2014
(with VHB’s June 11, 2014 responses)
Modification of the surface color of the hot-mix asphalt, if a soft surface is not used:
•A hard surface is recommended due to volume / type of users and maintenance concerns.
•Surface should be “firm, stable, and slip resistant”.
•Several options considered to change the color –painting the surface, rolling aggregate
into the asphalt, applying aggregate to the finished pavement using a liquid binder (asphalt
or resin bonded)
•Recommendation: a chip seal (or “sand seal”) is an effective solution. Aggregate size
would be less than ¼” for ADA access. Final aggregate used to be approved by Town.
EXAMPLES:
Nantucket Historical Commission Concerns –May 22, 2014
(with VHB’s June 11, 2014 responses)
1.Destruction or alteration of all or part of the site –“Dramatic increase in fill”
•Path has 14’ wide surface and base versus original railroad berm with 10’ surface, 15’ base
•Elevation is unchanged from original railroad berm
2.Isolation or alteration of site’s surrounding environment –“No commitment to the future phases”
•This section was selected as priority due to significant safety concerns along Union/Francis Streets.
3.Introduction of elements that are out of character with site –“Inappropriate materials”
•Design has been modified to address HDC and NHC comments.
•Community could provide educational elements to inform visitors of the site’s significance.
In-Town Multi-Use Path
Historical Concerns
Requested Action:
1.Acceptance of the design modifications and surface material recommendations explained in the
June 11, 2014 VHB memorandum
2.Recommend that a ¼-inch or less medium-grey granite aggregate be used as a chip / sand
seal surface.
3.Recommend the splitter islands at both ends of the path should be removed.
4.Recommend the path’s concrete thresholds and detectable warning panels next to the splitter
islands should be replaced with a 10-foot wide by 7-foot long granite block apron with the
pavement markings and signage maintained as currently designed.
5.The benches should be wooden and should not have a back rest.
In-Town Multi-Use Path
Historical Concerns