Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/22/2017 TSC Minutes Tl CRI11t'T1'rc :_t Director Deputy Director Sean P. Dorsey Jason H. Leib Mount Prospect Public Works Department 1700 W. Central Road, Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056-2229 MINUTES OF THE MOUNT PROSPECT TRANSPORTATION SAFETY COMMISSION CALL TO ORDER The special meeting of the Mount Prospect Transportation Safety Commission was called to order at 7:01 p.m. on Monday, May 22, 2017. ROLL CALL Present upon roll call: Justin Kuehlthau Chairperson Jill Morgan Vice Chairperson Robert Fisher Commissioner John Keane Commissioner Carol Tortorello Commissioner Joe Garris Police Department Representative Scott Moe Public Works Department Representative Matt Lawrie Traffic Engineer—Staff Liaison Absent: Christopher Prosperi Commissioner Dane Phenegar Fire Department Representative Others in Attendance: Nellie Beckner Assistant to the Village Manager Consuelo Arguilles Deputy Director of Community Development APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Keane, seconded by Commissioner Tortorello, moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Transportation Safety Commission held on April 10, 2017. The minutes were approved by a vote of 7-0. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD There was no one in attendance that spoke on an issue not on the agenda. TSC Meeting Page 1 of 7 May 22,2017 NEW BUSINESS A. INTERSECTION SIGHT OBSTRUCTION TEXT AMENDMENTS Background Residents have recently provided feedback to staff and the Village Board related to traffic obstructions at intersections due to landscaping or other improvements. Municipalities typically limit these types of obstructions through sight triangle or vision clearance regulations, which are designed to keep an area clear for the safety of pedestrians, bicyclists and drivers. Examination of our Village code demonstrates some deficiencies or contradictions within our current regulation of sight triangles. For the purposes of this discussion, the Committee is being asked for their feedback on the Code's current regulations regarding sight triangles and vision clearance as they apply to private property(Chapter 14), and review potential text amendments to improve the clarity and effectiveness of our regulations. Request Consider the addition of Section 14.320"Vision Clearance" to Chapter 14 of the Village Code and other amendments as required. Requested by Village Manager's Office. Public Notice Text Amendments within Chapter 14 (Zoning) require notification and a public hearing. The notice of proposed text amendments was published in the Journal Topics on February 8, 2017 and the public hearing was held on February 23, 2017 with the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended not approving staff's proposed amendment to the definition of Sight Triangle. As initially proposed, the sight-triangle definition would be modified to better define the area and remove any reference to what structures or landscaping can be located within the sight-triangle. The negative recommendation was forwarded to the Village Board and heard on April 18, 2017. The Village Board agreed with the Planning and Zoning Commission that landscaping in certain areas on private property should be regulated to protect traveler safety. At the April 18, 2017 meeting, the Village Board also recommended the Transportation Safety Commission review staff's adjustments to the proposed code related to sight triangles/vision clearance, taking into consideration feedback from both the Planning and Zoning Commission and Board. Current Regulations There are three regulatory sections which currently address the issue of sight triangles and vision clearance in the Village Code; see table below. Chapter 9 Chapter 14 Chapter 7 Summary of Sight Triangle regulations Sight triangle by definition Vision Clearance portion of Regulation apply to planting of is an area established at the Village code restricts evergreens,shrubs or the intersection of two(2) freestanding, permanent placement of any objects streets or a street and a signs from being located in on public property along a driveway in which nothing the"Vision Clearance" street, installed or is erected, planted, placed area: "No building, constructed prior to or allowed to grow so as to structure,sign, planting or December 1, 1992,and limit or obstruct the sight other obstruction which is which remain.The area of distance of motorists.Sight over three feet(T) in a sight triangle is triangles are used in Chp height,shall be located TSC Meeting Page 2 of 7 May 22,2017 calculated via equation, 14 to regulate fence within a defined triangular which includes factors such locations: "No fence area." as vehicle speed to greater than three feet(3') determine a "stopping in height shall be placed sight distance". It is this within a sight triangle so as distance that should be to obstruct or limit the line kept clear of obstruction, of sight for a motorist, specifically the area from cyclist,or pedestrian." three feet(3')to six feet Although the definition (6')above the top of the suggests that landscaping curb,or edge of the may be regulated,there is pavement on a street with no corresponding code no curbs. [Attachment for section to enforce this. details]. Regulation Public right of way(streets, Private property along the The area established at the Area parkway, public sidewalks) intersection of two streets, intersection of two(2) along the intersection of or a street and a driveway. streets,or street and two streets,or a street and Sight Triangle shall have driveway, public walk, bike a driveway.Specifically legs of ten feet(10')along path or public walking prohibits enforcement on the rights of way when two path.Such triangle shall private property. (2)streets intersect or have legs of ten feet(10') when a right of way and a along the property lines driveway intersect. when two(2)streets intersect or within ten feet (10')of the driveway, public walk, bike path or public walking path. Enforced By Public Works Department Community Development Community Development Department Department These regulations are enforced in a few ways: For Chapter 9, violations of the sight triangle are addressed on a complaint basis, with Public Works having control of the right-of-ways and the authority to clear the area as needed to ensure safety. The regulations in Chapter 14 (fences) and Chapter 7 (signs) are enforced during permit review. Fences or signs which violate the sight triangle requirements would require plan revisions, allowing for their construction only after the proposal meets code. For new fences or signs constructed without a permit, an inspection would be conducted by Community Development and violations would be addressed through the code enforcement process. However, the Village Code does not regulate single-family residential private property landscaping as it relates to tree/shrub placement. Permits are not required for the installation or removal of landscaping; often a resident would plant landscaping in areas where a fence is prohibited (front or exterior side yards). Although the definition of sight triangle in Chapter 14 suggests landscaping is regulated, there is no supporting code section to enforce the definition. Analysis Community Development staff worked to address the lack of regulation for single-family residential private property landscaping within sight triangles by creating a "Vision Clearance" section of code added to Article III, General Provisions of the Zoning Code. SECTION 14.320: VISION CLEARANCE Vision Clearance. No building, structure, sign, planting or other obstruction which is over three feet (3') in height shall be located within a triangular area established at the intersection of 2 streets, or street and driveway/drive aisle, public walk, bike path or public walking path. Such triangle shall have legs of ten feet(10') along rights of ways when two streets intersect or within TSC Meeting Page 3 of 7 May 22,2017 10' of the driveway/drive aisle, public walk, bike path or public walking path. In unique situations, the director shall determine the distance that is reasonably safe. [Proposed September, 20161 The aforementioned regulation cites the same area that is applied to both fences and freestanding signs, but also includes restrictions for "plantings or other obstructions". Input from both the Village Board and Planning and Zoning Commission (at a Joint meeting) felt that the proposed language would be overly restrictive and create numerous non-conforming situations. This is due, in part, to the inclusion of driveways; landscaped hedges along the edge of a driveway is a common occurrence. Without the support of the Vision Clearance amendment, Chapter 14 still contained a conflict related to the definition of sight triangle itself and its reference to landscaping. To address this issue, the following amendment was proposed by Community Development: SECTION 14.2401:SIGHT TRIANGLE A triangular area established at the intersection of two (2) streets or a street and a driveway in w.hi6h Pgot ipg i&..ep6 te4„ FiGpqte6� Floe(ops aiio e6( to yFew&e...a," to kP44t op. ob6to:u6 the....&igh: m ° .. ~ ,.. ~° . Such a triangle shall have legs of ten feet (10') along the rights of way when two (2) streets intersect or when a right of way and a driveway intersect. [Proposed February, 20171 This language would simply "clean up" the current code, which has no regulations addressing the location of single family private property landscaping. The proposed amendment was not supported by the Planning and Zoning Commission (received a unanimous vote to deny) and the Village Board continued to the matter to allow for additional changes to the text. The Commission and Board agreed that some form of regulation on landscaping should be included in the code. Recommendations Village staff is tasked with creating regulation which balances the safety of Village residents with the private property rights of owners. It's clear that both the Planning and Zoning Commission and Village Board feel the code should address landscaping in areas which creates a safety concern. The following code amendments are drafted as an attempt to address the most conspicuous safety concerns while limiting the number of non-conforming situations. In addition, the regulations proposed must be enforceable by inspectors should a complaint be raised. 1. Vision Clearance.The following text is proposed to be added to Article III (General Provisions) of Chapter 14 (Zoning Code). SECTION 14.320: VISION CLEARANCE Vision Clearance. No building, structure, landscape planting or other obstruction shall be permitted between a height of three feet (3') and six feet(6'), as measured from grade, within a triangular area established at the intersection of the front and exterior side lot lines, or the exterior side and rear lot lines of a corner lot. Such triangle shall have legs of ten feet(10') along said front, exterior side, or rear lot lines, measured along the lot lines at the point of intersection. In unique situations, the director shall determine the distance that is reasonably safe. [Proposed May, 2017] The proposed language would impact only corner lots, at the intersection of exterior side lot lines. This wording is chosen to limit the amount of non-conformities that resulted from the TSC Meeting Page 4 of 7 May 22,2017 inclusion of driveways, as well as address obstructions which occur at the intersection of two streets (therefore, the intersection of two public sidewalks). By identifying the "lot line" as the point of reference ensures that the vison clearance applies to private property, and is applicable to corner lots regardless of the location of the public sidewalk(or lack thereof). 2. Sight Triangle defined in Chapter 14. The following text is recommended to be included in conjunction with the Vision Clearance language noted in item #1. This would be an amendment to Section 14.2401 of the Zoning Code [Definitions]. SIGHT TRIANGLE:A triangular area established at the intersection of two (2) streets or a street and a driveway h9 whi6�h p9ethipgg i& eF~0 4e6� lGpt�edIG6e4 ep:allewed.. e yFew&e as t:e kP44t e,r m ° .. , ~° . Such a triangle shall have legs of ten feet(10') along the rights of way when two (2)streets intersect or when a right of way and a driveway intersect. There are two reasons for the proposed redline. Definitions, as a rule, should not contain regulations; the inclusion of"in which nothing is erected..." moves beyond defining the area and into the restrictions of this area. Second, leaving the definition "as-is" would create a conflict with the proposed Vision Clearance language,which excludes the areas adjacent to driveways. 3. Sight Triangle defined in Chapter 9. The current definition of sight triangle in Chapter 9 simply states "Refer to section 14.2401 of this code." This is a clear contradiction which should be addressed. For the purposes of Chapter 9, sight triangle areas are calculated using a specific formula, this is completely different than a simple 10' x 10' length along right of way lines that's used in Chapter 14. A suggested revision would be to simply state the definition of a Sight Triangle that's explained in Section 9.308. This would eliminate the contradictory reference that is created by referencing to Chapter 14's definition. SIGHT TRIANGLE: The triangular area with legs as calculated per the equation, SSD = 1.47*V*t + (V2)/[30(f.g)], as referenced in A Policy On Geometric Design Of Highways And Streets, AASHTO. Refer to Section 9.308 for calculation details." The Transportation Safety Commission is requested to provide feedback to staff on the proposed amendments (items 1, 2, and 3 above). The input provided by the Commission will be shared with the Village Board on June 6, 2017. Discussion Ms. Beckner, Assistant to the Village Manager, introduced herself to the Commission and presented background information on the issue and Staff's recommendations. Her presentation included reasoning for the text amendments, items that would be regulated, and how it would affect property owners. Commissioner Kuehlthau opened the discussion to the members. Superintendent Moe asked if trees would be regulated with the ordinance. Both low hanging branches and wide trees could be considered a sight obstruction. Traffic Engineer Lawrie noted branches would have to be trimmed to at least 6' above the ground. There was some discussion on possibly exempting tree trunks or reviewing them on a case-by-case basis. Commissioner Fisher inquired as to when the ordinance, if passed, would begin to be enforced. He suggested there be an education period so residents could become familiar with the new TSC Meeting Page 5 of 7 May 22,2017 ordinance. He also suggested property owners be given sufficient time to remove sight obstructions should the time of year(winter) prevent resolution. Superintendent Moe asked if exemptions could be made to fences since intersections are typically regulated with STOP signs. Ms. Beckner responded that keeping a clear triangle near intersections help to make pedestrians and bicyclists more visible. She also clarified that existing fences within the triangle area will be able to remain and maintained. It is when replacement exceeds 50%would the ordinance be applied. Commissioner Keane questioned how the 10' by 10' triangle area fits with the stopping sight distance formula used in Chapter 9. Traffic Engineer Lawrie explained the different factors used to determine the sight triangle based on the stopping sight distance formula. It is used to address obstructions between motorists and oncoming vehicles. It is typically a large triangle and only the public right-of-way is enforced so as to not greatly infringe on private property. The proposed text amendments help to address obstructions between motorists and pedestrians while improving the visibility between motorists and vehicles. Commissioner Morgan asked if any of the proposed text amendments will remove regulations adjacent to driveways. She expressed safety concerns if fences could be built right up to driveways. Ms. Beckner clarified that there are current regulations for fences adjacent to driveways and they would not change. However, the regulations do not apply to landscaping as Village staff believes it would have a significant impact on many property owners. Superintendent Moe asked if subdivision entrance markers would be affected by the new ordinance. Ms. Beckner responded that Community Development would review them on an individual basis to determine if they can stay as-is, can be modified, or should be removed. Ms. Beckner spoke to the Commission on how the proposed text amendments will correct the conflicts between Chapters 9 and 14 of the Village Code. This will give greater clarity to Village staff to enforce the sight obstruction ordinances. Traffic Engineer Lawrie asked how the 10' by 10' triangle area was determined. Ms. Beckner said the dimensions are consistent with the fence and sign regulations in the Village Code. She also said the dimensions are similar to other nearby communities. Commissioner Fisher wondered if the changes would generate conflict between Village staff and residents causing the Village to develop a reputation of having too many regulations. Ms. Beckner responded that it will be important to educate residents that this is being done for safety reasons. Officer Garris suggested there is potentially a greater conflict between vehicles and pedestrians at driveways versus at intersections. In many cases, motorists are backing up at a driveway and with landscaping it could make it difficult to see pedestrians. Ms. Beckner thanked him for his comments and said she would bring all of the comments from the Commission back to the Village Board. The Commission suggested tracking the impact and feedback over a period of time should the new ordinance be approved in order to gauge the success and to determine if any changes are necessary. Commissioner Keane suggested a formal vote be taken and Chairman Kuehlthau concurred. Commissioner Keane then made a recommendation to concur with the Village Code text TSC Meeting Page 6 of 7 May 22,2017 amendments as presented by Ms. Beckner. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Kuehlthau. The motion was approved by a vote of 7-0. COMMISSION ISSUES No issues were raised by Commission members. ADJOURNMENT With no further business to discuss, the Transportation Safety Commission voted 7-0 to adjourn at 7:50 p.m. upon the motion of Commissioner Fisher. Commissioner Morgan seconded the motion. Respectfully submitted, Matthew P. Lawrie, P.E. Traffic Engineer h:\enginee ring\traffic\safety_commission\recs&min s\TSC-may17m in.docx TSC Meeting Page 7 of 7 May 22,2017