Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/08/2003 SC minutes Director Gren R. Andier Deputy Director Sean R Oorsey Village Engineer Jeffrey A. Wulbecker Solid Waste Coordinator VI. Lisa Ange Phone 847/870~5640 Roderick T O'Oonovan Mount Prospect Public Works Department 1700 w. (Central Reed, Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056-2229 Fax 847/253-9377 Streets/Buildings Suoermtendent Paul C Bures Forestry/Grounds Superintendent SandraM. Clark Vehicle/Equipment Superintendent James E Guenther TDD 847/392-1235 MINUTES OF THE MOUNT PROSPECT SAFETY COMMISSION DRAFT CALL TO ORDER The Regular Meeting of the Mount Prospect Safety Commission was called to order at 7:05 p.m. on Monday, December 8, 2003. ROLL CALL Present upon roll call: Absent: Others in Attendance: Chuck Bencic John Keane Susan Arndt Joan Bjork Kevin Grouwinkel John Dahlberg Buz Livingston Paul Bures Matt Lawrie Carol Tortorello See attached list. Chairman Vice Chai~Tnan Commissioner Commissmner Commissioner Police Department Fire Department Public Works Public Works/Engineering Division Commissioner APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Keane. seconded by Commissioner Bjork. moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Safety Commission held on November I0. 2003. The minutes were approved by a vote of 8-0. Commissioner TortoreIlo arrived at 7:10 p.m CITIZENS TO BE HEARD No ciUzens came forth to discuss any topics that were not on the current agenda. Recycled Paper - Jrinted with Soy OLD BUSINESS A) REQUEST FOR TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNS AT THE INTERSECTION OF ALBERT STREET & LINCOLN STREET I) Background Information Residents petitioned the Village to consider installing Stop or Yield signs at the intersection of Albert Street and Lincoln Street. Ms. Susan Eyles, 320 S. Albert Street, lives near this uncontrolled intersection and believes it is unsafe. She called the Village after a recent accident at the intersection and is concerned for the safety of motorists and pedestrians in the area. This item was originally discussed at the November 10, 2003 Safety Commission Meeting. At the meeting, the Commission voted to hold off on making a decision until Staff had an opportunity to work with the homeo~vner at 1000 E. Lincoln Street about trimming a private property evergreen tree. This tree had branches that overhung the sidewalk and were lower than 8' above the ground. The amount of trimming that could be accomplished would affect the sight distance for motorists and influence whether Staff would recommend Stop or Yield signs. 2) Staff Study A letter was sent to the homeo~vner at t000 E. Lincoln Street on November 11, 2003 requiring trimming of any branches that overhung the public right-of-way to a point 8' above the ground. The homeowner contracted a private company to trim the tree such that the lowest branches are now 8' above the ground. The sight distance for motorists approaching the intersection has increased and improved safety because of the trimming. As discussed at the November Safety Commission Meeting, 4-way Stop signs are not warranted for the intersection. 2-way Stop signs are normally warranted at intersections where the criteria for a 4-way Stop sign installation is not met but where a full stop is necessary at all times on one street in order to clarify the right-of-way. When considering 2-way Stop or Yield signs, typical engineering practice is to determine the safe approach speed for the direction to be controlled. If a motorist must slow down to lower than 15mph when approaching an intersection because of a sight obstruction, Stop signs should be used rather than Yield signs. Else, Yield signs should be used. For this case, a majority of the evergreen tree falls within the area that is to be free of any sight obstructions for a westbound motorist traveling at 15mph. Before the trimming, the tree was considered a sight obstruction because of its low hanging branches. The recent trimming of the tree, however, has increased the sight distance so that the safe approach speed is greater than 15mph and a full stop is not necessary at all times. Motorists can react and stop to give the right- of-way if necessary using less restrictive measures such as Yield signs. Therefore, 2-~vay Stop signs are not warranted. At intersections where a full stop is not necessary at all times, consideration should be given to using less restrictive measures such as Yield signs. Yield signs assign right-of-way to traffic when the normal right-of-way rule appears to not be effective. 3 accidents in the past 3 years reveal this may be the case. Also, the speed data shows that because of the proximity of the homes and landscaping to the intersection, motorists may not have enough time to see other 3) 4) vehicles on the cross street, react and stop before reaching the intersection given the current uncontrolled situation. Motorists controlled by Yield signs would need to slow doxvn before reaching the intersection resulting in a shorter distance to come to a full stop if necessary. Finally, when installed, Yield signs should be placed on the minor street. Since the traffic volume is similar on both streets, Staff reviewed the traffic control signs on adjacent intersections and the recorded speeds on both streets to determine the appropriate street to be given the right-of-way. Recommendations Based on the traffic study performed by Staff, the Village Traffic Engineer recommends: approval of Yield signs on Lincoln Street at Albert Street. Discussion Chairman Bencic opened up the discussion to the audience. Mr. Hans Lim, 324 S. Albert Street, expressed a desire to see Stop signs installed at the intersection. Chairman Bencic asked if there were any questions from the Commission. There were none. Chairman Bencic asked Traffic Engineer Lawrie to provide an overview of Staff's report to the Commission. Traffic Engineer Lawrie shared Staff's efforts in working with the homeowner at 1000 E. Lincoln Street to have a private property evergreen tree trimmed to improve the sight lines at the intersection. He also stated Staff's recommendation to install Yield signs. Chairman Bencic asked how high the homeowner trimmed the evergreen tree. Traffic Engineer Lawrie said 8'. Commissioner Bjork, seconded by Commissioner Keane, moved to approve the recommendations of the Village Traffic Engineer and approve Yield signs on Lincoln Street at Albert Street. The motion was approved by a vote of 9-0. NEW BUSINESS A) WE-GO TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS 1) Background Information The Village has included We-Go Trail between Lincoln Street and Shabonee Trail as part of the 2004 Resurfacing Program. The street is showing signs of deterioration and is in need of repair. It currently has a 17' wide asphalt pavement with curb on the east side and a 4' wide stone shoulder on the west side. Parking is allowed on both sides of the street. There are 16 homes on the east side of the street and 5 homes on the west side. The Mount Prospect Golf Course also borders the west side of the street. 2) This issue was presented to the Safety Commission in order to discuss traffic-related issues brought to the Village's attention by concerned residents as a result of plans to resurface We-Go Trail between Lincoln Street and Shabonee Trail in 2004. Staff Study Standard Village policy is to install curb on both sides of the street when one side already has curb. Adding curb reduces long-term costs associated with maintaining a stone shoulder, provides a buffer between vehicles and people, and improves roadway drainage. In the past, numerous streets including portions of Council Trail, Forest Avenue, Helena Avenue, Laxvrence Lane, Lincoln Street, Marcella Road, Meier Road, Moehling Drive and Prospect Avenue were similar to We-Go Trail and curb was installed on the missing side of the street when it came time to resurface. Also, a portion of Lonnquist Boulevard will get curb on both sides in 2004 where it currently exists on one side. In addition to adding curb to the west side of the street, the Village also has considered widening the street. The 17' wide pavement along We-Go Trail is one of the narrowest, if not the narrowest, public streets in the Village. The stone shoulder actually serves as part of the roadway since it is difficult to maintain two-way traffic in its current state. The only recorded accident along this stretch of We-Go Trail over the past five years involved a northbound vehicle and southbound vehicle clipping each other as they passed. Village Code dictates new public streets to have 28' wide pavement with curb and gutter on both sides (31' back-of-curb to back- of-curb) with sidewalk. Knowing that the residents would prefer to maintain the "rural feel" of the neighborhood, Staff was willing to modify our standard. In November, the Village sent a survey to the residents and golf course requesting their opinion on four proposed options for the cross-section and parking restrictions of the road. None of the options included new sidewalk on the west side of the street. Two options involved 24' wide pavement (27' back-of-curb to back-of-curb). This would be similar to the other streets in the neighborhood. Of these options, one allowed parking on both sides and one allowed parking on the east side only. The other two options involved 19' wide pavement (22' back-of-curb to back- of-curb). This would be similar to the existing road width including the stone shoulder. Of these options, one allowed parking on the east side only and one prohibited parking on both sides. Of the 22 surveys, 14 (64%) were returned to the Village. A majority of them favored Option C. This option would provide a 19' wide pavement (22'back~of-curb to back-of-curb) and allow parking on the east side of the street only. Of the 12 properties who voted for Option C, 6 indicated their first preference is to replace the road in its present condition (17' wide pavement with 4' stone shoulder on the west side) even though it wasn't presented as an option. After the Village sent out the surveys to the residents, the Village received a letter from a resident who organized a neighborhood meeting. The letter includes numerous questions and suggestions related not only to the proposed road work but traffic safety issues. According to the residents, the two primary concerns are the amount of through traffic to the golf course and speeding. In summary, Staff does not support a one-way street, speed humps, additional Stop signs or a 15mph speed limit as suggested by the residents. A two-day traffic study performed along We-Go Trail in 2000 showed the daily volume to be under 500 vehicles. By making the street one-way, surrounding streets such as See-Gwun Avenue, which already experiences four times the amount of vehicles compared to We-Go Trail, would experience additional traffic. The traffic study also showed average speeds from 22-25mph on We-Go Trail. As is typical on most 3) residential streets, a small percentage of drivers did exceed the speed limit. Speed limit signs are not posted along this portion of We-Go Trail, therefore, it is 30mph per the Village Code. Most of the streets in the neighborhood have either no speed limit signs or a posted 25mph speed limit. In our recent letter to the residents, Staff did offer to gather speed and volume data next summer and provide the results to the Police Department for speed limit enforcement. Also, Staff has given consideration to posting a lower speed limit of 25mph along We-Go Trail based on the 2000 traffic study and to be consistent with surrounding streets. Recommendations Staff's preference is a 24' wide pavement cross-section with curb and gutter on both sides of the street and parking restricted to the east side only. This cross-section is narrower than what Village Code dictates but is consistent with the streets in the neighborhood. Also, this cross- section allows two-way traffic to be maintained even with parking on one side of the street. However, Staff would not object to building a 19' wide pavement cross-section with curb and gutter on both sides of the street as voted by a majority of residents. Parking would have to be prohibited on at least one side of the street if not both. Since on-street parking is sometimes observed, allowing parking on the east side only would be acceptable. The 19' wide pavement cross-section with curb and gutter on both sides of the street would be substantially different from the Village's standard for streets with curb and gutter. However, a few unique factors have caused Staff to consider this option. First, the pavement width would almost be identical to the current width thus retaining the narrow look of the street. From an aesthetic standpoint, many residents would prefer to maintain a rural look. Second, a narrower 19' wide pavement would save in construction costs when compared to the 24' wide pavement. Also, mature trees near the intersection of Shabonee Trail may be saved and continue to provide a buffer from the golf course with a 19' wide pavement. Also, a narrow street with parking only on one side should not be an inconvenience to the residents. A standard pavement ~vidth is built to typically allow parking on both sides of the street. With only a few homes on the west side of the street, on-street parking for the residents is not in high demand. Finally, there is little opportunity for further development along this portion of We-Go Trail. Village Code would require a new development to improve a street to meet typical standards. Staff does not support leaving the street with its current cross-section. The combination of the narrow street and lack of curb does not discourage motorists from driving on the stone shoulder and grass. Not only does this result in an increase in maintenance costs but also does not provide a buffer between vehicles and people who may be on the parkway. Whether it is approved to build a 24' wide pavement or 19' wide pavement, parking should be limited to at least one side of the street only. As it is now, vehicles parked on the west side do so on the grass. By adding curb, parking would be confined to the roadway. With a 24' wide pavement, two-way traffic could be maintained with parking restricted to one side of the street. With parking restricted to one side given a 19' wide pavement, vehicles approaching from opposite directions could not simultaneously pass each other and a parked car. However, having on-street parking for the residents is important and may also influence vehicle speed. Since a majority of the homes are on the east side of the street, Staff decided it would be appropriate to allow parking on this side. A majority of the residents voted to allow parking on the east side only. 4) The residents have expressed a concern with cut through traffic and speeding. In their letter, they provided suggestions to address these concerns. The request to make the street one-way may reduce golf traffic on We-Go Trail but will add traffic to surrounding streets such as See- Gwun Avenue. The residents along See-Gwun Avenue already take issue with the amount of traffic on the street. Adding any more traffic ~vill certainly exacerbate this situation. Staff, therefore, does not support this request. The other requests (Stop signs, speed humps, lower speed limit to 15mph) are measures the residents believe will reduce vehicle speed. However, according to the speed data collected in 2000, average speeds are already below the speed limit and there have been no accidents associated with speeding. Also, Staff does not believe these are effective measures to address a perceived speeding problem. To address the concerns of the residents, a narrow street such as a 19' wide pavement may keep average speeds and volume similar to what they are today and not further exacerbate the perceived problem. Also, based on the speed data collected in 2000 and to be consistent with surrounding streets, Staff believes a 25mph speed limit along We-Go Trail would be more appropriate than the current unposted 30mph speed limit. Finally, Staff would be willing to gather speed data next summer and provide this information to the Police Department for enforcement purposes. Staff believes the combination of these measures would be more effective in addressing the concerns of the residents. Based on Engineering Staff analysis and the input from residents, the Village Traffic Engineer: prefers a 24' pavement cross-section with curb and gutter on both sides of the street along We-Go Trail between Lincoln Street and Shabonee Trail but will not object to a 19' pavement cross-section with curb and gutter on both sides of the street along We-Go Trail between Lincoln Street and Shabonee Trail and further recommends to: · prohibit parking along the west side of We-Go Trail between Lincoln Street and Shabonee Trail · lower the speed limit from 30mph to 25mph along We-Go Trail between Lincoln Street and Shabonee Trail · perform a speed study along We-Go Trail in 2004 after completion of road work and golf course work Discussion Chairman Bencic opened up the discussion to the audience. Mr. Ron Nobles, 420 S. We-Go Trail, serves as the spokesperson for the street. The rural look is very important to the residents and he would not like to see the street widened. He believes the current width of the street does not pose a problem for traffic. Also, he is concerned that any widening will only exacerbate the current speeding issue seen by the residents. If a curb is to be installed on the west side of the street, he would prefer that no portion of the grass be taken to do so. Mr. John Hupp, 500 S. We-Go Trail, would prefer the street to remain with its current width. He sees the widening as an intrusion onto the la~vns of those who live on the west side of the street. If one of the options as presented is to be chosen, he would prefer Option C. 6 Mr. Jim McGehee, 507 S. We-Go Trail, expressed a concern ~vith tree removal that would be necessary near Shabonee Trail and additional water that would be added to the sewer system. He also questioned the advantages of adding curb versus leaving the stone shoulder. Traffic Engineer Lawrie responded that in addition to savings in maintenance costs, the curb would provide a buffer between vehicles and people on the parkway and improve drainage in the roadway. Also, the Village over the years has had a policy of installing curb on both sides when it comes time to resurface a street that only has curb on one side. Mr. John Heidcamp, 400 S. We-Go Trail, expressed a concern with the expense of installing curb. He would like to see the stone shoulder remain. Mr. Bures responded that Public Works crews visit We-Go Trail and other non-curbed streets on average a couple of times a year. The cost not only includes the stone but the labor, equipment and time preparing for the work as well. With curbed streets, crews do not have to dedicate time to maintenance and are able to perform other tasks in the Village. Mr. Nobles asked for reasoning as to why the street should be widened. Village Engineer Wulbecker, who was in attendance, said that the Engineering Staff had a different perspective. The Village Code dictates a public street, when developed, is to be 31' back-of-curb to back-of- curb. Staff had to determine what would cause them to recommend a narrower street. The four options presented to the residents were acceptable options to Staff. Ms. Joy McGehee, 507 S. We-Go Trail, said that consideration should be given to the design of the intersection of Shabonee Trail and We-Go Trail to control speeding. She also expressed a concern with the impact of the additional water to the sewer system and the character of the neighborhood with widening the street. Mr. Don Olsen, 403 S. We-Go Trail, questioned the need to install curb and widen the street. Village Engineer Wulbecker spoke about similar streets in the neighborhood and the precedent of ~nstalling curb on streets. He also mentioned as We-Go Trail was scheduled for resurfacing in 2004 it ~vas reasonable for Staff to look at improving the street. Ms. Donna Heidcamp, 400 S. We-Go Trail, believes it would be unsafe to widen the street because vehicles already speed when turning from Lincoln Street. She is concerned for the safety of the people along the street. Also, she does not want to lose the historic feel of the neighborhood. Ms. Kathy Wagner, 501 S. We-Go Trail, would like to see Stop signs installed at Go-Wando Trail to control speeding along the street. She is unsure how the new clubhouse will impact traffic along We-Go Trail. With no more comments from the audience, Chairman Bencic brought the issue back to the Commission. Commissioner Bjork supported installing curb believing children would be cautious near the street. She also said that residents learn to cope with traffic wherever they live in the Village. She sees the importance of improving Village streets and suggested the trees near Shabonee Trail could possibly be transplanted. A couple of residents commented on wanting to save the trees along the street and keep the uniqueness of the street intact. Commissioner Tortorello pointed out that the residents should have been aware of the right-of- way when they purchased their houses. She believes that the street should be brought up to current standards and match other streets in the neighborhood because it is safer for vehicles traveling along the street rather than a narrow street. Mr. Bures said that he believes adding curb xvill make the street safer. Also, curb typically will last for 50 years or more, therefore, reducing costs associated with maintaining a stone shoulder. He believes that constructing a wider street ~vill provide more room between vehicles and pedestrians that may be in the street. A wider street also would allow emergency vehicles easier access to a house if necessary. Finally, he mentioned that the stone pillars near Shabonee Trail are an obstruction and should be removed. Adding a curb will help to keep vehicles on the roadway similar to what the stone pillars do now. A couple of residents commented that the neighborhood has not changed which should not prompt a change to the street. Commissioner Grouwinkel supports installing curb but sees the narrow street as outlined in Option C as a compromise given the historic look of the neighborhood. Commissioner Keane expressed a concern with hindering emergency vehicle access with a narrow street. One resident indicated there has never been a problem in the past with emergency access. Chairman Bencic asked Traffic Engineer Lawrie to provide a review of report to the Commission and audience. Traffic Engineer Laxvrie went over the report explaining Staff's support of installing curb on both sides of the street and having no objection to not installing sidewalk on the west side of the street. With respect to the road width and parking restrictions, he mentioned factors such as the width of surrounding streets, need for on-street parking, usage of the street and potential for new development that ultimately resulted in four options. Each of these options is acceptable to Staff and surveys were sent to the residents to solicit their opinions. Traffic Engineer Lawrie told the Commission the results of the survey. He also briefly described each of the options to the audience and Commission. Traffic Engineer Lawrie touched on the issue of speeding as raised by some of the residents. He explained the appropriate use of Stop signs and why Staff doesn't support speed bumps. He recommended lowering the speed limit to 25mph and was willing to gather additional speed data next year to assist the Police Department in enforcement. Traffic Engineer Lawrie also touched on the issue of drainage and explained the Sewer system in the neighborhood. Staff does not believe any widening of the street will have a significant impact to the system. Na-Wa-Ta Avenue has a similar system to We-Go Trail and has development on both sides of the street and a wider street. Also, he mentioned the golf course redevelopment xvill contain their storm water on-site and will not be connected to the sewer system that services We-Go Trail. Commissioner Keane asked how many trees would need to be removed given the different options. Traffic Engineer Lawrie said a Village Forestry representative inspected the street and believed 5-6 trees would need to be removed with Options A and B. All of these trees are near Shabonee Trail. With Options C and D, 34 trees would need to be removed. Traffic Engineer 8 Lawrie said the Village could look at xvays to recreate a buffer between the street and golf course with trees that had to be removed. Commissioner Arndt questioned how the current width of the street compares to each of the options. Traffic Engineer Lawrie explained there is currently a 17' wide asphalt pavement with 4' stone shoulder. Options A and B call for a 24' pavement and Options C and D call for a 19' pavement. Chairman Bencic brought the issue back to the Commission. He summarized five issues that the Commission needed to decide: the width of the asphalt pavement, whether or not install curb and gutter on the west side of the street, whether or not to install sidewalk on the west side of the street, parking restrictions, and the speed limit. Commissioner Keane made a motion to: · provide a 24' wide asphalt pavement along We-Go Trail between Lincoln Street and Shabonee Trail · install curb and gutter on the west side of the street · not install sidewalk on the west side of the street · allow parking on both sides of the street · lower the speed limit from 30mph to 25mph Commissioner Keane was asked to clarify the motion regarding the parking restrictions. He believed that there hasn't been a problem with on-street parking and didn't see the need for restrictions. In addition, adding signs would detract from the took of the street. Chairman Bencic reiterated the motion. Commissioner Bjork seconded the motion. There was no further discussion. The motion was approved by a vote of 6-3. Chairman Bencic stated that he opposed the motion because he favored parking restrictions on the west side of the street. He did support the 24' wide pavement. Chairman Bencic told the audience that the Safety Commission was a recommending body and this issue would go before the Village Board for a final decision. Traffic Engineer Lawrie said this issue could be heard at the Village Board on Tuesday, December 16th but he wanted to be sensitive to the residents' schedules should there be conflicts being close to the holidays. The consensus from the audience was to defer the issue until the first meeting in January. Commissioner Grouwinkel said that he opposed the motion because he believed the 19' wide pavement with curb on both sides of the street was the safest solution. Commissioner Arndt said that she shared the same feelings as Commissioner Grouwinkel and believed emergency vehicles would not be hindered with a narrow street. Traffic Engineer Lawrie said Staff would be willing to provide notice to the residents in a few weeks reminding them of the Village Board meeting. B) 1) 2) REQUEST FOR TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNS AT THE INTERSECTION OF HI-LUSI AVENUE AND MIl, BURN AVENUE Background Information Residents petitioned the Village to consider installing Stop or Yield signs at the intersection of Hi-Lusi Avenue and Milbum Avenue. Mr. Jason Fried, 220 S. Hi-Lusi Avenue, lives near this uncontrolled intersection and is concerned for the safety of motorists and pedestrians in the area. The surrounding intersections have either Stop or Yield signs and many motorists disregard the normal right-of-way rule. Staff Study The Engineering Staff performed a traffic study. The findings are as follows: a) Accidents A search of the accident reports indicated: Year 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 (Nov) Number of Accidents 0 0 0 0 1 0 b) c) Speed Study Representative speed surveys were performed at all four legs of the intersection between November 11th and 18th. The average and 85th percentile speeds are as follows: Northbound Hi-Lusi Avenue Southbound Hi-Lusi Avenue Eastbound Milburn Avenue Westbound Milbum Avenue Average 85th % 22 mph 28 mph 23 mph 28 mph 23 mph 28 mph 21 mph 25 mph The speed limit on Hi-Lusi Avenue is 20mph. The speed limit on Milburn Avenue is 25mph. As is evident on most residential streets, the data shows some motorists did drive above the speed limit. Under 4% of vehicles were traveling over 30mph and under I% were traveling over 40mph. Traffic Volume Traffic volume data was gathered in November. Based on the results, there are approximately 660 vehicles per day that enter the intersection. 310 vehicles travel on Hi- Lusi Avenue and 350 vehicles on Milburn Avenue. The peak hour of the day (typically 8am-9am) experiences approximately 70 vehicles that enter the intersection. 10 3) d) Survey Results A total of 19 surveys were sent out in November 2003 to collect the residents' comments on this request. 8 surveys (42%) were returned to the Village. Many of the responses indicated motorists often speed through the intersection and support either Stop or Yield signs. One response opposed Stop signs. e) Existing Traffic Control Signs Traffic control signs adjacent to the intersection are as follows: Hi-Lusi Ave. & Evergreen Ave. (north) - 2-way Stop signs on Hi-Lusi Ave. Hi-Lusi Ave. & Lincoln St. (south) - 2-way Stop signs on Hi-Lusi Ave. Milbum Ave. & I-Oka Ave. (east) - 4-way Stop signs Milbum Ave. & Wa-Pella Ave. (west) - 4-way Stop signs. f) Sight Obstructions Based on an inspection of the area, there is not any landscaping at any of the comers causing a severe sight obstruction. Since this is an uncontrolled intersection, there is to be sufficient stopping sight distance for all four legs of the intersection. Stopping sight distance is the distance a vehicle travels from the point when a motorist sees an approaching vehicle on the cross street, reacts and comes to a full stop. A motorist should have enough clear vision to be able to stop, if necessary, before reaching the intersection. Landscaping near the homes and even the homes themselves at the intersection do not provide sufficient stopping sight distance for motorists. Therefore, Stop or Yield signs would assist in clarifying the right-of-way and possibly reduce the potential for an accident. Recommendations 4-Way Stop Signs 4-way Stop signs are normally warranted at intersections where there is a condition of severely restricted view, accidents or a significant amount of vehicles and pedestrians. Based on an inspection, there are no sight obstructions immediately at the intersection that would cause a full stop to be necessary for all four directions. In addition, there has been 1 accident over the past 5 years. In order to meet the criterion for a multiway stop sign installation, there is to be 5 accidents in a 12-month period. Finally, the peak hour of the day experiences approximately 70 vehicles entering the intersection. In order to meet the criterion, the volume entering the intersection from the major street approaches (total of both approaches) is to average 300 vehicles per hour for any 8 hours of the day and 200 vehicles per hour for the same 8 hours from the minor street approaches. Based on the data, 4-way Stop signs are not ~varranted at this intersection. 2-Way Stop Signs 2-way Stop s~gns are normally warranted at intersections where the criteria for a 4-way Stop sign installation is not met but where a full stop is necessary at all times on one street in order to clarify the right-of-way. As stated above, there is not any landscaping near the comers of the 11 4) intersection. When considering 2-way Stop or Yield signs, typical engineering practice is to determine the safe approach speed for the direction to be controlled. If a motorist must slow down to lower than 15mph when approaching an intersection because of a sight obstruction, Stop signs should be used rather than Yield signs. Else, Yield signs should be used. For this case, the safe approach speed exceeds 15mph for the direction to be controlled since there is not any landscaping causing a severe sight obstruction. Therefore, 2-way Stop signs are not recommended at this intersection. Yield Signs At intersections where a full stop is not necessary at all times, consideration should be given to using less restrictive measures such as Yield signs. Yield signs assign right-of-way to traffic when the normal right-of-way rule appears to not be effective. 1 accident in the past 5 years does not indicate a significant problem. The speed data, however, shows that because of the proximity of the homes and landscaping to the intersection, motorists may not have enough time to see other vehicles on the cross street, react and stop before reaching the intersection. Motorists controlled by Yield signs would need to slow down before reaching the intersection resulting in a shorter distance to come to a full stop if necessary. Finally, when installed, Yield signs should be placed on the minor street. Since the traffic volume is similar on both streets, Staff reviewed the traffic control signs on adjacent intersections and the recorded speeds on both streets to determine the appropriate street to be given the right-of-way. Based on Staff's analysis, Yield signs on Hi-Lusi Avenue are recommended at this intersection. The Village Traffic Engineer recommends: approval of Yield signs on Hi-Lnsi Avenue at Milburn Avenue. Discussion Chairman Bencic opened up the discussion to the audience. Mr. Jason Fried, 220 S. Hi-Lusi Avenue, mentioned there are many children in the area and he is concerned for their safety. He would like to see either Stop or Yield signs at the intersection. Chairman Bencic asked the Commission if there were any questions from the Commission. There were none. Chairman Bencic asked that Traffic Engineer Lawrie provide a brief overview of Staff's report to the Commission. Traffic Engineer La~vrie explained the results of the study and Staff's recommendation to install Yield signs on Hi-Lusi Avenue. Mr. Bures, seconded by Commissioner Keane, moved to approve the recommendations of the Village Traffic Engineer and approve Yield signs on Hi-Lusi Avenue at Milburn Avenue. The motion was approved by a vote of 9-0. 12 OMMISSION ISSUES Deputy Police Chief Dahlberg made the Commission aware of the Police Department's efforts in working with the school administration at St. Raymonds to improve parking and traffic around the school. He also made the Commission aware of the Police Department's efforts in addressing the speeding concern at Albert Street and Lincoln Street raised by some residents at the last Safety Commission meeting. In addition to using the radar trailer, 22 hours were dedicated by officers over the last month to speed limit enforcement near the intersection. Traffic Engineer La~vrie thanked the Commission members for their commitment to making it a successful year and on behalf of the Village Board of Trustees he presented a gift to each of the members. No other Safety Commission items were brought forth at this time. ADJOURNMENT With no further business to discuss, the Safety Commission voted 9-0 to adjourn at 9:00 p.m. upon the motion of Commissioner Tortorello. Deputy Police Chief Dahlberg seconded the motion. Respectfully submitted, Matthew P. Lawrie, P.E. Traffic Engineer x:\files\engineer~sal?ecomm\t ra ffi c~rec s&min\dec03 rain.doc 13