Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/12/1999 SC MinutesDirector Glen R. Andler Deputy Director Sean P. Dorsey Village Engineer Jeffrey A. Wulbecker Administrative Assistant Davin L. Wucki Solid Waste Coordinator M. Lisa Angell Water/Sewer Superintendent Roderick T O'Donovan Streets/Buildings Superintendent Paul C. Bures Forestry/Grounds Superintendent Sandra M. Clark Vehicle/Equipment Superintendent James E. Guenther Mount Prospect Public Works Department 1700 W. Central Road, Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056-2229 Ph one 847/870-5640 Fax 847/253-9377 TDD B47/392-1235 MINUTES OF THE MOUNT PROSPECT SAFETY COMMISSION CALL TO ORDER The Regular Meeting of the Mount Prospect Safety Commission was called to order at 7:30 P.M. on Monday, April 12, 1999. ROLL CALL Present upon roll call: Chuck Bencic Joan Bjork Nancy Bobikewicz Andy Mitchell George Steiner Buz Livingston Paul Bures Matt Lawrie Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Police Department Fire Department Public Works Public Works/Engineering Division Absent: Lee Beening Chairman Phyllis Moliere Commissioner Others in Attendance: Jeff Wulbecker — Village Engineer APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Bencic, seconded by Commissioner Bobikewicz, moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Safety Commission held on December 14, 1998. The minutes were approved by a vote of 7-0. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD No citizens came forth at this time to discuss any topics that were not on the current agenda. OLD BUSINESS No old business was discussed. 1 Recycled Paper - Printed with Soy Ink NEW BUSINESS A) New Safety Commission Policy 1) Background Information Per the direction of the Village Board, the Engineering Staff was given the assignment of reviewing the process for studying Safety Commission items. Based on this directive, the Engineering Staff has developed a new policy for handling traffic -related requests. The purpose of the new policy is to provide a procedure for the Engineering Staff to determine the appropriate process of addressing a traffic -related request that may lead to a review by the Safety Commission or denying the request before reaching the Safety Commission. The current policy requires the request to be made in writing. A single person may make the request. The requestor is asked, but not required, to be present at the Safety Commission meeting. Surveys are sent to the neighboring residents asking if they are in favor of the request and also inviting them to the Safety Commission meeting. Often times, the survey may show support for the request but the Safety Commission and Village Board denies the request. At the Safety Commission, the traffic study is presented and discussed, residents are given the opportunity to speak and the Commissioners vote to recommend approval or denial of the request, The Safety Commission's recommendation, regardless of whether to approve or deny, is forwarded to the Village Board. The Village Board then hears the recommendation and puts the request to a vote. If the request is approved, the Engineering Staff will prepare the ordinance and will be read at the next scheduled Village Board meeting. A second reading is required prior to final approval. Requests that would result in a change to Chapter 18 of the Village Code (Traffic) are reviewed by the Safety Commission. The Engineering Staff does not have the authority to deny a request before reaching the Safety Commission which results in unwarranted items to be reviewed by the Safety Commission and Village Board. The Village receives many different types of traffic -related requests and the new policy provides a process for each of the major categories. Each request will involve an initial review by the Engineering Staff to determine whether the request may be warranted and different options to address the request. If, during this initial screening, the Engineering Staff determines the request is not warranted, a letter will be sent to the requestor with the findings. Should the request possibly be warranted, the requestor will be required to solicit signatures of the residents that would be directly affected by the change. In order to assist in this process, the Engineering Staff has developed a survey form for the requestor. With a sufficient number of signatures in the notification area asking for consideration of the request, the Engineering Staff will then perform a traffic study. Letters will be sent to the residents inviting them to the Safety Commission meeting and also requesting any insight they could provide on the issue at hand. By doing this, 2 meeting. A second reading of the ordinance will be done at the next scheduled Village Board meeting for final approval. Should the Safety Commission not recommend the request, the Village Board will be notified by the Engineering Staff of the decision in writing. A vote will not be made on the subject. The item will not be presented to the Village Board unless the requestor requests in writing to the Village Board that the item be discussed and the Village Board agrees to hear the request or a Trustee requests the item be discussed at this level. Who may make a traffic -related request? A request may be made by a Village of Mount Prospect resident, a Village employee or a group such as a business, school, church or park district located in the Village. The request may be addressed to the Village Board, Safety Commission or a Village employee but should be forwarded to the Engineering Staff for processing. Groups such as businesses, schools, churches and park districts often create traffic -related problems during certain periods of the day, week or year. Representatives from the group will be required to meet with the Engineering Staff to identify the problem and determine the appropriate course of action. The Engineering Staff often receives traffic -related requests that do not affect a change to Chapter 18 of the Village Code. These issues include school signs, street signs, pedestrian signs, speed limit signs, crosswalks, etc. These types of requests will still be processed, studied and resolved by the Engineering Staff. All requests that involve the Illinois Department of Transportation, Cook County Highway Department or other agency will be forwarded on unless the request.would affect a change to Chapter 18 of the Village Code. Should the request involve a review by the Village Board, any decision will be forwarded to the appropriate agency with jurisdiction. Any other traffic -related requests not identified in this policy will be reviewed by the Engineering Staff to determine the appropriate course of action. 2) Discussion Project Engineer Matt Lawrie explained to the Commissioners the process of developing the new policy. In order to eliminate unwarranted items to be reviewed by the Safety Commission and Village Board, the policy allows the Engineering Staff to determine the appropriate course of action on traffic -related requests. Therefore, requests will not automatically go before the Safety Commission and Village Board. Project Engineer Lawrie then provided an overview of the Policy for Reviewing Traffic -Related Issues by the Village of Mount Prospect Safety Commission. Both the current policy and proposed new policy were presented. Also, the policies of the surrounding communities including Arlington Heights, Des Plaines, Elk Grove and Prospect Heights were also presented. It was highlighted that although the surrounding communities do not have a Safety Commission and Staff handles all requests, the Safety Commission provides an informal setting for residents to discuss their requests. The Engineering Staff hopes that residents will be involved and educated on the process of reviewing the requests. 3 Commissioner Bobikewicz asked how will the requestor know what signatures are necessary as part of the survey. Project Engineer Lawrie explained that the requestor would be provided a survey form and map showing the addresses within the notification area. Commissioner Bjork asked if the request would be written on the survey form by Village Staff since the requestor could put something different other than what was previously discussed. Project Engineer Lawrie explained that it was decided that the requestor would actually write in the request on the survey form. Village Engineer Wulbecker added that Staff didn't want the requestor to feel pushed into a specific request if it's not the outcome he/she wanted. Ultimately, it is the resident's request and the Staff will provide its recommendation. Commissioner Mitchell asked how residents of the neighborhood would be notified of an upcoming Safety Commission meeting. Project Engineer Lawrie explained that notification signs would be placed in the area that would be affected by the request letting people know of the time and date of the meeting and if they had any questions to contact Engineering. Commissioner Bobikewicz asked if the Safety Commission would be the final authority if a request was denied by the Commission. Project Engineer Lawrie explained that there is an appeal process established in the new policy. The Village Board can hear the item should the requestor ask in writing to the Board that the item be heard. Should the requestor choose to not pursue the issue, the Safety Commission's decision will be the final one. Commissioner Bobikewicz then questioned whether the Safety Commission should exist since the process is long and eliminating this step would reduce the time. It would save time for the Engineering Staff to directly report to the Village Board. Project Engineer Lawrie believes that the Safety Commission meetings provide an informal setting for residents to discuss their concerns. The Commission members are also given the opportunity to educate the residents during the meeting. The meeting allows the residents to have all their questions answered and gives them a better understanding of the decision process. Commissioner Bobikewicz wondered if residents are going to be intimidated by having to go through this process in order for the Village to review a request. Project Engineer Lawrie stated that the Village wants residents to participate in this process and this policy provides that. Also, an initial screening will be done by the Engineering Staff which would involve inspecting the site and reviewing records. If the Engineering Staff supports performing a study, requiring signatures will get the neighborhood involved in the request. Commissioner Bobikewicz wanted to know what guidelines would be followed when a request is sent to the Village. Project Engineer Lawrie explained that an initial screening would be done to determine the different alternatives to the solution. Also, Staff including the Public Works Director, Public Works Deputy Director, Village Engineer and Streets/Buildings Superintendent are also involved in the review process. Village Engineer Wulbecker explained that guidelines established in the Village Code as well as national requirements will be followed in the review process. The new policy and the flow charts also establish guidelines as to how a request will be handled. Commissioner Bencic stated that in addition to reviewing traffic -related requests, the Safety Commission also addresses air and water pollution concerns per the Village Code. He asked if the Commission would now be limited to reviewing traffic -related items only. Project Engineer Lawrie responded by saying Staff wasn't looking to rewrite the Code but establish a policy for traffic -related items since they make up a majority, if not all, the requests. 4 Commissioner Bencic requested that the policy specifically state that a minimum of 50% of signatures are needed in the notification area in order for Staff to perform a study. Commissioner Bencic expressed a concern that should the Safety Commission deny a request and it not go before the Village Board, the Safety Commission now becomes a final decision body rather than a recommending body. He questioned whether there would now be an added liability on the Safety Commission's part and asked that the Village Attorney be contacted on this subject. Commissioner Bobikewicz again questioned the need for a Safety Commission with the possibility of added liability. Project Engineer Lawrie stated that the Safety Commission provides an opportunity to have an informative discussion on the residents' concerns. Mr. Bures stated that with the Safety Commission made up of residents, decisions are not made by government employees or officials only. Commissioner Bencic expressed a concern that should the Engineering Staff deny a request to be studied, the resident could appeal to the Village Board and bypass the Safety Commission. Project Engineer Lawrie explained that there would not be an appeal process if the request were denied by the Engineering Staff. The Village Board will hear an appeal if the request has been denied by the Safety Commission. Village Engineer Wulbecker stated that should a resident appeal to the Village Board after being denied by the Engineering Staff, the Board would instruct the Safety Commission to review the request. Discussion followed on the issue of liability on the Safety Commission's part if the requestor chooses to not appeal a decision to the Village Board. Project Engineer Lawrie said that he would contact the Village Attorney on this matter. If the policy added no additional liability, the new policy would then be presented to the Village Board in May. If there would be additional liability, the new policy would have to be reevaluated and then presented back to the Safety Commission for discussion. Commissioner Bencic, seconded by Mr. Bures, moved to approve adoption of the new Safety Commission Policy subject to the Village Attorney verifying no additional personal liability on the Safety Commission should an item not be heard by the Village Board after denial by the Safety Commission. The motion was approved by a vote of 7-0. Adjournment Project Engineer Lawrie provided an update on the Aspen Drive one-way designation issue. After meeting with members of the Village Board, Parent Teacher Organization, School Board, Robert Frost Elementary School, Police Department, Public Works and neighborhood residents, the Village Board is expected to make a final decision on this issue in the near future. If the school decides to participate in traffic control during the pick-up / drop-off times, the Village Board is expected to restrict the one-way designation only during specific times of the day. Otherwise, the one-way, all-time designation will remain in effect. 5 With no further business to discuss, the Safety Commission voted 7-0 to adjourn at 8:35 p.m. upon the motion of Commissioner Bjork. Commissioner Bobikewicz seconded the motion. x:\files\engineer\safecomm\traffic\recs&min\apri199min.doc Respectfully submitted, Matthew P. Lawri Project Engineer i Director Glen R. Andler Deputy Director Sean P. Dorsey Village Engineer Jeffrey A. Wulbecker Administrative Assistant Dawn L. Wucki Solid Waste Coordinator M. Lisa Angell Water/Sewer Superintendent Roderick T. O'Donovan Streets/Buildings Superintendent Paul C. Bures Forestry/Grounds Superintendent Sandra M. Clark Vehicle/Equipment Superintendent James E. Guenther Mount Prospect Public Works Department 1700 W. Central Road, Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056-2229 Phone 647/670-5640 Fax 647/253-9377 TDO 647/392-1235 POLICY FOR REVIEWING TRAFFIC -RELATED ISSUES BY THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT SAFETY COMMISSION Purpose of the Safety Commission ---------------- Purpose of the New Policy ............................. Current Policy ........... --------------------------- - --------- New Policy --------------------------------- -------------------- Policies of Other Communities ---------------------- Final Comments ---------------------------------------------- Recycled Paper - Printed with Soy Ink nay ------------------------------------1 ------------------------------------1 ----------------------------------1,2 2,3 3,4 4 Director Glen R. Andler Deputy Director Sean P. Dorsey Village Engineer Jeffrey A. Wulbecker Administrative Assistant Dawn L. Wucki Solid Waste Coordinator M. Lisa Angell Water/Sewer Superintendent Roderick T O'Donovan Streets/Buildings Superintendent Paul C. Bures Forestry/Grounds Superintendent Sandra M. Clark Vehicle/Equipment Superintendent James E. Guenther Mount Prospect Public Works Department 1700 W. Central Road, Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056-2226 Phone 847/B70-5640 Fax 847/253-6377 TOO B47/392-1235 POLICY FOR REVIEWING TRAFFFIC-RELATED ISSUES BY THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT SAFETY COMMISSION Purpose of the Safety Commission According to Section 5.1003 of the Village Code, "The purpose of this (Safety) Commission is the reduction of accidents, injuries and deaths on all streets, public rights of way and public properties; and also, health hazards such as air pollution, water pollution and such other activities that may be incident to the health and safety of the residents of Mount Prospect, by the best methods of education, engineering, enforcement, legislation and administration." According to Section 5.1004 of the Village Code, one of the duties of the Safety Commission is to "Cooperate with the Village President and Board of Trustees in carrying out a program of safety in the Village." 10 =I.. maingnom IM To provide a procedure for the Engineering Staff to determine the appropriate process of addressing a traffic -related request that may lead to a review by the Safety Commission or denying the request before reaching the Safety Commission. As a result, the policy will help to improve the "program of safety in the Village" and affirm the purpose of the Safety Commission. Current Policy In order for a traffic -related issue to be studied by the Engineering Staff and reviewed by the Safety Commission, the request must be made in writing to the Village. A single person may make the request. The requestor is asked, but not required, to be present at the Safety Commission meeting. Surveys are sent to the neighboring residents asking if they are in favor of the request and also inviting them to the Safety Commission meeting. Often times, the survey may show support for the request but the Safety Commission and Village Board denies the request. At the Safety Commission, the traffic study is presented and discussed, residents are given the opportunity to speak and the Commissioners vote to recommend approval or denial of the request. The Safety Commission's recommendation, regardless of whether to approve or deny, is forwarded to the Village Board. The Village Board then hears the recommendation and puts the Recycled Paper - Printed with Soy Ink request to a vote. If the request is approved, the Engineering Staff will prepare the ordinance and will be read at the next scheduled Village Board meeting. A second reading is required prior to final approval. Requests that would result in a change to Chapter 18 of the Village Code (Traffic) are reviewed by the Safety Commission. The Engineering Staff does not have the authority to deny a request before reaching the Safety Commission which results in unwarranted items to be reviewed by the Safety Commission and Village Board. Traffic -related issues not required to be in ordinance form are processed, studied and resolved by the Engineering Staff. New Policy The Village receives many different types of traffic -related requests and the new policy provides a process for each of the major categories. Each request will involve an initial review by the Engineering Staff to determine whether the request may be warranted and different options to address the request. If, during this initial screening, the Engineering Staff determines the request is not warranted, a letter will be sent to the requestor with the findings. Should the request possibly be warranted, the requestor will be required to solicit signatures of the residents that would be directly affected by the change. In order to assist in this process, the Engineering Staff has developed a survey form for the requestor. By obtaining a minimum of 50% of the signatures in the notification area asking for consideration of the request, the Engineering Staff will then perform a traffic study. Letters will be sent to the residents inviting them to the Safety Commission meeting and also requesting any insight they could provide on the issue at hand. By doing this, the residents will be involved in the process and their insight part of the study. Signs providing details of the Safety Commission meeting will also be posted in the area of the request in order to make those people outside the notification area aware of the issue. Should the Safety Commission recommend the request, the Village Board will put the request to a vote. Also, a first reading of the ordinance will be presented to the Village Board at the same meeting. A second reading of the ordinance will be done at the next scheduled Village Board meeting for final approval. Should the Safety Commission not recommend the request, the Village Board will be notified by the Engineering Staff of the decision in writing. A vote will not be made on the subject. The item will not be presented to the Village Board unless the requestor requests in writing to the Village Board that the item be discussed and the Village Board agrees to hear the request or a Trustee requests the item be discussed at this level. The attached flow charts describe the process for studying each of the types of traffic -related issues. The major categories are as follows: • Stop Sign Request • Yield Sign Request • Parking Restriction Request • Speed Limit Change Request • Turn Restriction Request • One-way Street Request 2 Who may make a traffic -related request? A request may be made by a Village of Mount Prospect resident, a Village employee or a group such as a business, school, church or park district located in the Village. The request may be addressed to the Village Board, Safety Commission or a Village employee but should be forwarded to the Engineering Staff for processing. Groups such as businesses, schools, churches and park districts often create traffic -related problems during certain periods of the day, week or year. Representatives from the group will be required to meet with the Engineering Staff to identify the problem and determine the appropriate course of action. The Engineering Staff often receives traffic -related requests that do not affect a change to Chapter 18 of the Village Code. These issues include school signs, street signs, pedestrian signs, speed limit signs, crosswalks, etc. These types of requests will still be processed, studied and resolved by the Engineering Staff. All requests that involve the Illinois Department of Transportation, Cook County Highway Department or other agency will be forwarded on unless the request would affect a change to Chapter 18 of the Village Code. Should the request involve a review by the Village Board, any decision will be forwarded to the appropriate agency with jurisdiction. Any other traffic -related requests not identified in this policy will be reviewed by the Engineering Staff to determine the appropriate course of action. icies of Other Communi Village of Arlington Heights — All requests must be made in writing. The Engineering Staff will perform an initial screening of the request. If a study is warranted, one will be done. All findings will then be provided to the requestor. A survey is not sent to nearby residents. If the request is supported by the Engineering Staff, a recommendation will be forwarded to the Village Board for consideration and approval. The Village does not have a Safety Commission. If the request is not supported by the Engineering Staff, no further action will take place. There is no appeal process. The Village attempts to educate the residents on traffic -related issues using officers of the Community Policing Division of the Police Department. City of Des Plaines — All requests must be made in writing unless it comes from a City employee or Alderman. The Engineering Staff performs an initial screening to determine if a request may be warranted. Requests are reviewed by a Traffic Advisory Committee which is made up of City employees including the Police Chief, Public Works Director and the City Attorney. If a study is required, one will be done. Surveys will only be sent to the residents on non -safety items such as parking restrictions. All decisions are made at the Staff level. If an Alderman disagrees with the decision, it can be discussed during a City Council meeting. Also, if a decision requires action by the City Council, the item will be presented for ordinance approval. Elk Grove Village — The Engineering Staff is not involved in any traffic -related issues. All requests are forwarded to the Traffic Division of the Police Department. The request can be made in writing or by phone call. The Traffic Division attempts to discourage unwarranted requests through verbal discussions. An initial screening and any necessary traffic study will be done. A survey is not sent to nearby residents. If the request is not warranted, the requestor will be notified and no further action will take place. There is no appeal process. If the request is supported by the Traffic Division, a report will be made and the Chief of Police will present a recommendation to the Judicial Planning and Zoning (J -PZ) Committee. The Village does not have a Safety Commission. With approval from the JPZ Committee, the request is voted on by the Village Board. City of Prospect Heights — All requests must be made in writing to the Mayor or Village Clerk asking for consideration. The request is presented to the Committee of the Whole (COW). The Village does not have a Safety Commission. The COW will vote either to approve the request without a study, direct the Engineering Staff to perform a study or deny the request. If a studied is required, one will be done and then presented to the COW. A survey is not sent to nearby residents. If the request is warranted, the Engineering Staff will present both the recommendation and ordinance. If the COW votes to approve the request, the ordinance is presented for approval. Final Comments 1. The Engineering Staff believes the requests should be forwarded to our office to perform an initial screening rather than another department such as the Police Department. This allows those with a traffic background to determine the appropriate course of action. 2. Our residents will be affected by a change to the traffic regulation. Therefore, we believe the residents should be involved during the review process. This allows the residents to be included in the study, informed of the request and hopefully educated about the decision- making process. 3. The Safety Commission is an important part of the process. It gives the residents an informal setting to speak about the request and allows them to have their questions answered and concerns heard by a group of people who understand traffic issues. The discussion also provides an opportunity to educate the residents. 4. Based on comments from the other communities, the Engineering Staff believes the newly developed policy improves the process of handling traffic -related requests by allowing Staff to determine the appropriate course of action, involving and educating the residents and reducing the number of unwarranted issues the Village Board and Safety Commission must review. 4 Director Glen R. Andler Deputy Director Sean P. Dorsey Village Engineer Jeffrey A. Wulbecker Administrative Assistant Dawn L. Wucki Solid Waste Coordinator M. Lisa Angell Water/Sewer Superintendent Roderick T O'Donovan Streets/Buildings Superintendent Paul C. Bures Forestry/Grounds Superintendent Sandra M. Clark Vehicle/Equipment Superintendent James E. Guenther Mount Prospect Public Works Department 1 700 W. Central Road, Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056-2229 Phone B47/B70-5640 Fax B47/253-9377 TDD B47/392-1235 1 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. SAFETY COMMISSION SURVEY FORM Thank you for contacting the Village of Mount Prospect. Please indicate your request on the following lines: In order for the Engineering Staff to perform a traffic study and the Safety Commission to review the request, the person/group making the request must obtain a minimum of signatures from the addresses indicated on the attached area map. Note that only one (1) signature will be counted for each address. The survey form is to be returned to the Public Works Department once the minimum number of signatures have been obtained. Name Address Recycled Paper - Printed with Soy Ink MOUNT PROSPECT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SAFETY COMMISSION 1I11ngr nl Alonl �In.yrr 9 � MOUNT PROSPECT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT QMartss is,y SAFETY COMMISSION c`P \ / ■ r— ■ ■1 01 ■ r—b lb, ■ !1 r— 9-1 ■ ■ r� r� T MOUNT PROSPECT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SAFETY COMMISSION rn A rn V I A 11�- r7 C r_ -f- "1 1 P'I T 1 fn A I rn C P"I I ICG' T MOUNT PROSPECT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT omiss :, Q SAFETY COMMISSI❑N coccr% I IWAIT r-IunNIr'--C' o07rlIIC-CT MOUNT PROSPECT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SAFETY COMMISSION _ Uii.nr nl Alnnnl �ImYnl cc A I m C G' T f-1 l f -a T 1 f1 A I [7 C f1 1 1 Ir C' T MOUNT PROSPECT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Q'�"'tssIS, SAFETY COMMISSION f-11 Ai C_\A/ A V [LTrn C' f:- -r- rn C f1 1 1 0- cT