Father's Day 2014 marked the opening of the Mt. Lebanon Swim Center.
The Almanac reported
By a narrow margin, Mt. Lebanon beat the deadline to open on time. The facility passed the Allegheny County Health inspection June 13 and secured all its necessary operating permits. However, plans for a grand-opening celebration, complete with a ribbon-cutting ceremony with dignitaries, music, food and other festivities, have been placed on hold at least until the installation of the climbing wall.
“It was down to the wire but we did it,” said Donnellan. He added the climbing wall is going to be very nice once it’s completed by the end of the week. “Obviously, we are disappointed it’s not 100 percent completed, but if that’s the worst thing to go wrong on opening day, then we are okay with that.
Yes, Mt. Lebanon beat the deadline. But at what expense? I understand with every construction job, there comes a punch list. Shortly after the pool closed, workers got started on the pool punch list.
The following screen shots from Steve Feller's weekly reports, track the progress.
 |
| AR 090514 |
 |
| AR 091214 |
 |
| AR 091914 |
 |
| AR 100314 |
I wonder how much of this will be charged as change orders, or will the contractors foot the bill?
Update October 10, 2014 5:51 PM This week's weekly report from Steve Feller:
 |
| AR 101014 |
"Failed paint job??"
ReplyDeleteI wonder how much of the paint job is considered failed?
Nick M.
From $3.3M to $4.4M and counting....
ReplyDeleteWith all this required post opening required work so far indicated with more to come, how did this pool pass a final Muni inspection and qualify for a required occupancy permit ?
ReplyDeleteOr was that all overlooked in the rush to open on time ? How about it Mr. Feller, Commission ?
Thats a complete makeover!
ReplyDeleteIf the pool filter doesn't work, and the pool was open for swimming all summer - who or what suffered? Was it the water that drained or the water people swam in or both?
ReplyDeleteWhat about the final pro-opening punch list? What are the warranties and guarantees to protect the munipality?(Residents included)
ReplyDeleteAnother quality project brought to you by our hard-working and diligent public employees that see to it that your tax dollars are spent wisely.
ReplyDeleteThe DEP did not feel that the filtration system chosen for the turf project was adequate. This was revealed through the NPDES permitting process.
ReplyDeleteSince Gateway/Feller did not feel that a NPDES application and PCSM plan was not necessary, the DEP did not have the opportunity to weigh in on the pool filtration system.
Try and get some work done on your own home, Folks. Mt. Lebanon will have you jumping through hoops. When the Municipality is doing the work, not so much.
Elaine
Speaking of permits and codes, I've heard it mentioned that the parking spaces at WC/M/D might not conform to code.
ReplyDelete8:53 AM. You are absolutely correct.
ReplyDeleteOff street parking spaces at the new paved Wildcat parking lot, the lot itself AND the parking lane now on the field or southern side of Cedar Blvd. do not conform to the Mt. Lebanon Zoning Ordinance, Chapter XX of the Mt. Lebanon Code (on the website) ! Also, there is no enforcement of the Parks & Recreation Chapter provisions on no parking on the grass in public parks and that all internal roadways must be paved !
You should not be at all surprised, as this is just typical of the field sports influence in this sorry town. It seems to corrupt almost every aspect of our governance.
Let's see if any of you bloggers can identify any of the specific parking nonconformity (violations) based on Zoning.
Mt. Lebanon started draining the pool immediately after closing the day after Labor Day. Owners of private pools are required to discontinue chlorine additions and wait two weeks before discharging the pool water to minimize the chlorine content in the discharged water.
ReplyDeleteWhy is the muni pool not subject to the same regulation ? Does the muni pool have a built-in chlorine removal system, or does the muni just exempt itself ?
Where did the water go when they drained it? Might be a major environmental violation.
ReplyDeleteThe Mt. Lebanon rule is: DO AS WE SAY NOT AS WE DO!
ReplyDeleteThe same mentally exist in the school district. Parents through student parking fees must pay to park at the high school.
Administrators and staff of course park for free.
How much is parking where you work? If you're employed downtown how much have your parking or PAT Transit fares increased lately?
10:42 would the access ramp and parking area at Mellon Field be a violation?
ReplyDeleteElaine, regarding your 8:45 post, what wasn't adequate about the proposed filtration system?
ReplyDeleteIf a different system will need to be used and the original system was part of the original bid, doesn't that mean that new bids will need to be taken and the whole process will need to be started from scratch with the upgraded filtration system?
Nick M.
11:38 AM Am not familiar with the Mellon situation exactly as you describe it; however, the Bird Park parking lot on Beadling, across from Markham, violates many sections of the Zoning Ordinance, and is used primarily by Markham teachers and staff during school days and school functions.
ReplyDeleteThe Mellon spot is the access to the Mellon Field off Cornell Place.
ReplyDeleteFour or five teachers or staff park there and I've been told it contributes to the flooding below on Castle Shannon Blvd.
What is the measurement of the parking on Cedar by Wildcat currently compared to what it should be?
ReplyDeleteI drove by there today and the spots looked smaller than the bike lanes that were installed in the city by the David L Lawrence Convention Center.
Speaking of code, the latest traffic board meeting mentioned the primary reason the muni can't put in crosswalks at Cedar/Greenhurst (near that crown jewel) is because the slope of one hill is too high to be ADA compliant. The new engineer did mention that there is "paperwork" and "forms" that can be filled out to overrule that regulation.
So I am wondering if the parking spaces meet ADA recs?
Sorry to be off topic... maybe good discussion for a different blog post.
Start your clocks, race fans.... how long will it take for painted crosswalks at Cedar/Greenhurst?
Wait. Now I know why that's a silly idea. Pedestrians need a bridge because the crosswalks won't be accessible during the floods!
11:38 if you're referring to the vehicle access to Mellon Field it is paved. At one time it was cinders and ruts.
ReplyDelete4:28 PM. The on-street parallel parking lane on the fields side of Cedar by Wildcat and Middle is only 7 feet wide...Zoning and SALDO ordinances require the width to be a minimum of 8 foot wide ! As such the current lane not only violates municipal ordinances but is a safety hazard as well on Cedar, classified as a Collector street having much higher traffic volume than a Residential street.
ReplyDeleteThe second violation has to do with the fact that on-street parallel parking space stalls are required to have painted, designated dimensional lengths ranging from 21 to 23 feet....there are no painted designated stall lengths on Cedar. Again, both a violation and a safety risk.
For reference see Zoning Ordinance, Diagram 57 on ordinance page XX-356 for Parallel Curb Parking. The SALDO Diagram 15 is identical.
Reading the pool updates from Mr. Feller leaves me with the impression the Recreation Director got a cheaply constructed pool for a $1,000,000 cost overrun.
ReplyDelete4:28 you wrote "new engineer." is Gateway out?
ReplyDeleteNope, 8:36 AM. They are in, more than ever. We replace our traffic engineering firm, Trans Associates, with Gateway. Actually, that was the best move our commissioners have made in a long time.
ReplyDeleteElaine
A Lebo Citizens reader sent me the following link and I forwarded it to the commissioners.
ReplyDeleteCommissioners,
A Lebo Citizens reader sent me this link. What Governments Need to Know About the New Municipal Advisor Rule
While it may or may not apply with our financial advisors, it certainly applies to our municipal engineer and our deer management advisors.
"entrusting a [financial] professional to give advice to a municipality when that professional could potentially benefit a great deal if the municipality enters into the deal creates an inherent conflict interest."
Elaine Gillen
A Lebo Citizens reader had sent me this comment and asked me to post it for her.
ReplyDeleteAnything on the weekly updates about the fields project Elaine?
The answer to the previous question raised by a reader is:
ReplyDeleteNope. Not a word.
Elaine
9:06 AM Elaine,
ReplyDeleteIs not the turf project a classic example ? Gateway has been promoting this project for years in various color power point presentations to the muni, CIP material and in numerous cost estimates for which they have been paid with our taxes. They are into the current fiasco full bore doing design, engineering, bid prep & management, permitting and project management on a fee for services basis PLUS they have made a corporate donation of at least $4,000 towards the project to enable it to go forward.
And what we have been told is the turf project is not just the turfing of two fields - there will also be follow on field lighting, completion of a 93 space paved and lighted parking lot at Wildcat, and stadium seating, all of which will involve Gateway.
Call in the Ethics Commission & PA Atty. General !
11:14 AM Electrical conduit is being installed in preparation for eventual Wildcat lighting, the turf contract includes installation of foundations and standards for the lighting, and the Zoning Ordinance requires separate lighting for outdoor parking lots. Stadium seating was included in Gateway and CIP proposals.
ReplyDeleteHow do you explain how the Gateway cost estimated and Commission approved pool project for $3.3 million turned out to be $4.4 million ?
In the private sector we call it project creep, in the military it's mission creep....in government, it's smoke & mirrors and standard operating procedure !
Fortunately 11:58 in the private sector when a business experiences too much creep it cuts back or goes out of business.
ReplyDeleteSchool districts and municipalities know no such limitations because they always have the power to tax.
That is until becomes obscenely expensive and people realize there are better, cheaper communities to live in.
Then the blight begins and it all starts to crumble.
11:14. It's not ethical. Maybe an ethics complaint doesn't help, but that doesn't make it ethical by any means.
ReplyDeleteSplitting hairs 1:14.
ReplyDeleteIf no one is going to stop it and the voters/taxpayers are going to keep voting in the incumbents that perpetuate the behavior-- call it what you want-- it will continue.
11:58 AM - and in the military the end result is almost always FUBAR, which describes government as well since they are one in the same.
ReplyDelete2:57 and 11:58 they know exactly what they are doing and how to word things.
ReplyDeleteRather than lay the whole WC/M field plan on the table, they'll piece it and mislead just as the school board did on the HS renovation.
The commissioners are going just for turf, they say. No lights minor improvements and it'll all be done for just $1.2 million.
Remember how the municipal's share was just suppose to be $750,000 and the rest picked up by private contributions?
Where are we now? $850,000 and counting.
Just why are we pursuing this sports plex at WC/M, when you have the Cool Springs private venture building indoor field sports space.
ReplyDeleteAllegheny County is planning the following:
"The county plans to build the Sports & Athletic Complex at Montour Junction on 78 acres in Coraopolis, Moon and Robinson. The complex will include 12 to 15 fields, some with grass and some with synthetic turf, said Dennis Davin, executive director of Allegheny County Economic Development.
The planned project's uniqueness in this area has the potential to be a major draw for sports tournaments and teams from Ohio, Philadelphia and other areas within a five-hour drive, he said."
http://triblive.com/mobile/4481269-96/sports-complex-lacrosse
They are currently making improvements to the fields at the South Park Fair Grounds.
http://triblive.com/mobile/6899810-96/park-south-oval
8:02 PM: Check your facts - the Zoning Ordinance and SALDO apply to off-street parking and don't include any requirements for on-street parking which is what your talking about here. It may be your opinion that these spaces are unsafe, but they do not violate municipal ordinances as you claim.
ReplyDeleteIn fact in this case, the spaces were simply moved from one side of Cedar to the other so it's hard to say that it became any less safe. The spaces were moved to the side of the street where most of the people parking are going and had the support of the residents on the opposite side of Cedar since it is now safer for them as they leave their driveways.
6:36 PM You obviously have not been drinking the school district's and muni's Kool Aid (i.e. propaganda tonic) long enough.
ReplyDeleteBoth have been telling us for years that if we do not have enough athletic fields in the bubble itself, people will not move here, housing values will collapse, taxes will skyrocket and we'll become another, heavan forbid, Dormont or Wilkinsburg !
There are available athletic fields in public parks and communities all around us, but the elite athletic supporters thumb their noses and demand that local taxpayers fund their follies.
Tell 'em to take that Kool Aid and shove it !
8:56 AM You must be a muni employee or an apologist for one, and you've got it all wrong.
ReplyDeleteI referenced the specific Zoning and SALDO design requirements in my previous comment for on-street parallel parking, and you paid no absolutely no attention to them which to me indicates you are from or represent the muni. I say that because the muni has actually failed to comply with both Zoning and SALDO provisions for both off-street (Section 817 in Zoning) and on-street parking design requirements for Wildcat & Cedar Blvd. You obviously think the ordinances don't apply to the muni, only the private sector and sometimes but not always school districts.
Let me repeat the ordinance design references for on-street parking :
Zoning - Part 17, Diagram 57, page XX-356
SALDO - Appendix II, Diagram 15, pdf page 130
Please realize that neither the public nor their contractors can create, remove or modify on-street parking spaces - the streets belong to and are the sole responsibility of government.
Here are the off-street parking lot design requirements for the Wildcat lot the muni is building and which does not conform :
Zoning - Part 17, Diagram 10, page XX-309
SALDO - Appendix II, Diagram 8, pdf page 123
Please take note that the off-street parking lots and spaces for Dixon/Middle fields and the entire Rec Center do fully comply with the Zoning & SALDO design requirements. Why not for the Wildcat lot and on-street for Cedar ? Special interests ?
Apparently current muni leadership is of the opinion that their ordinances do not apply to them. And, your argument that the parking lane was merely moved from one side of the street to the other makes everything OK - well, the lane on the Northern side of Cedar did not comply either, so you must believe that two wrongs will make a right, correct ?
Translation: if u r hit by a car or your car is damaged near wildcat, u can argue that mtlebo set up the lot and the conditions of the lot intentionally and created hazardous conditions in the process. Yes, hazardous. Hazards occur when u jam pack parking lots with vehicles, many of which are oversized, full of kids, and likewise, on the side of Cedar Blvd which was identified by the county as a street in need of traffic mitigation.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Lebo!! Glad you are looking out for us while u r creating and sustaining #jobsfortheboys.
10:37 AM, is that another Gateway move?
ReplyDeleteElaine
From the Traffic Board minutes on Cedar Parking at Wildcat:
ReplyDelete"a. Request to Move Parking to South Side of Cedar Blvd. between Morgan Drive and Wildcat Field
Commissioner Linfante stated that residents on Cedar Blvd., across from the ball fields requested the parking be moved to the south side of Cedar Blvd. Commissioner Fraasch stated she also spoke with residents and most have driveways and were not concerned with parking being moved. Commissioner Fraasch stated that she received an additional request to use the first spot for drop off and pick up and possibly have a designated handicap spot. Lt Fisher stated that a designated drop off would cause traffic to back up. Board members agreed that the parking lot would be safer for drop offs and pick-ups and handicap parking. All board members were in favor of moving the parking. A motion was made to recommend approval of moving parking to the south side of Cedar Blvd between Morgan Drive and Wildcat Field".
http://mtlebanon.org/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/2159
10:37 AM: Contrary to your assertion, I did pay attention to the specific Zoning and SALDO design requirements you listed which is why I felt compelled to point out that they don’t apply to the on-street parking situation on Cedar that you had referred to. Fundamentally, the zoning ordinance and SALDO are not intended to regulate things that are already completely under the control of the municipality like the modification of on-street parking. Since you’ve repeated the ordinance references I’ll be more specific about why they don’t apply:
ReplyDeleteZoning - Part 17, Diagram 57, page XX-356
Diagram 57 is referred to in one place in the text of the zoning document, section 817.8.5.6.4 which reads “Parallel Parking. In accordance with Diagram 57 in Part 17, the stall length shall be twenty-three (23) feet in length and eight (8) feet in width.” This reference is within section 817 of the zoning ordinance which refers only to off-street parking. There is no reference to Diagram 57 for on-street parking anywhere in the Zoning Ordinance. In fact, the only reference to on-street parking in the ENTIRE zoning ordinance is to using them as part of the total required parking county – but again there is no discussion of dimensions (section 817.13.3.2 if you’re curious). This is typical of pretty much any zoning ordinance, where the intent is to regulate the use of property and not the roadways.
SALDO - Appendix II, Diagram 15, pdf page 130
Within the SALDO, Diagram 8 is referred to only in one place within the text – again referring to the stall length and width for parallel parking and again in the section on “parking areas” (812.4.6.4). However, this section of the document (Part 8 Design Standards) and really the entire SALDO applies to the development or subdivision of existing parcels of land (e.g., putting a new roadway in as part of a new housing development on a large parcel). This is made clear in section 801 “Applicability” which states “All subdivisions and land developments shall conform to the standards set forth in Part 8. The standards specified in Part 8 are minimum design requirements.”
Continued…
Response to 10:37AM continued:
ReplyDeleteThe definitions of these terms are found in section 104.2 where “subdivision” is defined as “The division or redivision of a lot, tract or parcel of land by any means into two (2) or more lots, tracts, parcels or other divisions of land including changes in existing lot lines for the purpose, whether immediate or future, of lease, partition by the court for distribution to heirs or devisees, transfer of ownership or building or lot development; provided, however, that the subdivision by lease of land for agricultural purposes into parcels of more than ten (10) acres, not involving any new street or easement of access or any residential dwelling, shall be exempted.”
In the same section, “land development” is defined as “Any of the following activities: 1. The improvement of one (1) lot or two (2) or more contiguous lots, tracts or parcels of land for any purpose involving: A. A group of two (2) or more residential or non-residential buildings, whether proposed initially or cumulatively; a single non-residential building on a lot or lots regardless of the number of occupants or tenure; B. The division or allocation of land or space, whether initially or cumulatively, between or among two (2) or more existing or prospective occupants by means of, or for the purpose of streets, common areas, leaseholds, condominiums, building groups or other features; 2. A subdivision of land.”
Moving the parking spaces from one side of Cedar to the other doesn’t fall within “subdivision” or “land development” as defined in the SALDO, so the SALDO does not apply in this situation. As you point out, the only entity that can make changes to on-street parking is the government (whether municipal, County or State depending on the ownership of the roadway).
Why must anyone that disagrees with anyone here have to work for the municipality or be an “apologist” for the municipality? What if I, like you am just a concerned citizen and want to make sure the facts put out for discussion are accurate. Otherwise this site just becomes an echo chamber for like-minded people that won’t accomplish anything.
3:00 PM.
ReplyDeleteWhere, anywhere, are 7 foot parking stalls permitted for parallel parking of motor vehicles?
Show me the Penn Dot document.
Show me the municipal documentation from anywhere.
The standards that I am encountered are 9 X 19 or 9 X 22. By my math (not TERC), your parking spots are WAAY too small.
http://www.dvrpc.org/reports/08081B.pdf
3:30 PM:
ReplyDeleteMy point was that the Zoning Ordinance and the SALDO which you refer to do not have anything to do with the on-street parking dimensional requirements in Mt. Lebanon. For that matter, neither does a collection of standards from the Delaware Valley which you've now linked to.
As for PennDOT - maybe you should check how wide the parking lane they put in along the southern side of Gilkeson Road is (oh, and there aren't stripes between stalls there either).
4:23 PM, I think 3:30 PM is not the same person who brought up SALDO and the Zoning Ordinance. I do have to agree with you about the part about Delaware Valley. That has nothing to do with Mt. Lebanon.
ReplyDeleteElaine
3;00 PM you show your true colors as a government bureaucrat with your ridiculous defensive long winded argument that does no more than illustrate that the system is broken. And and your ilk seem compelled not to acknowledge and try to fix it.
ReplyDeleteYour statement, "Fundamentally, the zoning ordinance and SALDO are not intended to regulate things that are already completely under the control of the municipality.." speaks volumes about how high & mighty you regard yourself and your government. You forget it is the government of we the people, not just you in the government to do as you please. Do you really believe that you (Mt. Lebanon) are immune or exempt from having to abide by laws, regulations and policies you impose on the citizens and taxpayers ?
The fact that on-street parking is not included and covered in separate Zoning and Saldo sections, but that design diagrams are included, clearly shows that the ordinances are incomplete and flawed. Fix them.
The fact that Zoning section 817.8.5.2 requires off-street parking lot stalls to be at least 9 feet wide, while the on-street Zoning and SALDO requirements are only 8 feet wide, and the Cedar on-street lane width is actually only 7 feet doesn't raise a red flag in your bureaucratic minds does it? There is no real vehicular traffic or speeding in an off street parking lot is there ? But Cedar, for instance, is a high volume collector street with a significant amount of speeding. An only 7 foot, even 8 foot, stall width subjects parked cars to a higher risk of sideswiping and possible injury to vehicle occupants entering or leaving parked vehicles. Most vehicle widths exceed 6 feet, and vehicles typically park 6 inches or more from curbs, placing many vehicles into the travel lanes. I have been sideswiped, parked in such circumstances on a residential street.
No, you are apparently incapable of taking a valid criticism and concern by a resident taxpayer and offering to look into it. Like a typical bureaucrat, you develop an immediate "circle the wagons" or "fortress mentality" defensive posture and shoot the messenger with gobbledygook.
Mt. Lebanon government needs a thorough house cleaning of some personnel with attitudes!
PennDot permits municipalities to implement regulations that are more stringent than theirs provided they result in safer conditions.
ReplyDeletePennDot states that parallel parking spaces average 8 X 22-24 feet at a minimum. Smaller spaces of 7 feet may be acceptable for commercial, low traffic volume streets and residential streets. Cedar is currently classified as a collector street.
Shouldn't the traffic board know all of this, or perhaps, the paid traffic engineer?
6:46 PM they try to make up and get by with their own rules and take no suggestions or direction from outsiders. That applies across the board; but, ask them how they're comin' along with the permitting for the turf project, and have they received a recent wake-up call on the pool project?
ReplyDeleteThe staff is running the show. If the Rec director wants a climbing wall, we get a climbing wall. If Gateway and Public Works want to kill the McNeilly swap, and nix moving the leaf operation, their estimate of $250,000 morphs to $2.4 million. If they want turf at Middle and Wildcat, they're going to lie and say that flooding is never an issue. If staff wants deer culling, they'll find the "experts" to make that happen. We have different commissioners, but we still have Feller and Tom Kelley who were all for deer culling the last two times. If the PIO is out of line, the manager looks the other way. If the planner wants to mess with the parking spaces, he can. If Zamagias defaults, the staff does nothing. If the Mt. Lebanon gets downgraded, so what? If staff is against the TOD, it becomes an impossibility.
ReplyDeleteGee, have I pissed off every municipal department? There are some things that you can't blame on the voters.
Elaine
The TOD is a joke and should be killed!
ReplyDeleteIf there were a demand for apartments/condos at the T Station private money would be chomping at the bit to get in on it.
The Zamagias development should have been a wake up call that there is no demand for Mt. Lebanon living at this point.
Furthermore, Dormont has their TOD almost completed. One would think if a TOD spurs development there would increased interest in the Zamagias corner less than 200 yards away.
ReplyDeleteThink about goverment getting involved in development and real estate. We had the Galleria a number of years ago clamoring for a "TIF" for their blighted corner.
They didn't get it and it's still here.
What will kill the Galleria though, will be rapidly rising school district and municipal taxes, fees and a population with fewer discretionary dollars in their pockets.
Getting back to the biggest punch list EVERRRR, how many of those were putting swimmers at risk? How many peeling paint chips were ingested? How about that rusting climbing wall installed by our recreation director, David Donnellan? How many diaper malfunctions weren't reported with that failing filtration system? Why weren't the proper permits filed with the ACCD and DEP? How much stormwater is being dumped on to the fields below and contributing to the Cedar flooding? Now, we find out that parking lanes are too narrow.
ReplyDeleteAnd Linfante thinks deer is the safety issue around here. Seriously.
Elaine
We're not to poke the sleeping bear Elaine.
ReplyDeleteSo we are to live our lives afraid of the sleeping bear?
ReplyDeleteIs this what you want Mt. Lebanon?
I'd say it's probably time to get rid of the bear.
I've got some tar & feathers, who has a length of rail ?
ReplyDelete