Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOW Agenda Packet 04/26/2005 o R D E R OF BUS I N E S S SPECIAL MEETING Meeting Location: Mount Prospect Village Hall 50 South Emerson Street Meeting Date and Time: Tuesda~ApriI26,2005 6:00 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER - ROLL CALL Mayor Gerald L. Farley Trustee Timothy Corcoran Trustee Michaele Skowron Trustee Paul Hoefert Trustee Irvana Wilks Trustee Richard Lohrstorfer Trustee Michael Zadel II. CLOSED SESSION PERSONNEL 5 ILCS 120/2 (c) (1). "The appointment, employment, compensation, discipline, performance, or dismissal of specific employees of the public body, including hearing testimony on a complaint lodged against an employee to determine its validity." III. ADJOURNMENT NOTE: ANY INDIVIDUAL WHO WOULD LIKE TO A TTEND THIS MEETING BUT BECAUSE OF A DISABILITY NEEDS SOME ACCOMMODA TION TO PARTICIPA TE, SHOULD CONTACT THE VILLAGE MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 50 SOUTH EMERSON, MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS 60056,8471392-6000, EXTENSION 5327, TDD #8471392-6064. SPECIAL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AGENDA Meeting Location: Mount Prospect Village Hall 50 South Emerson Street Meeting Date and Time: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 7:00 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER - ROLL CALL Mayor Gerald L. Farley Trustee Timothy Corcoran Trustee Michaele Skowron Trustee Paul Hoefert Trustee Irvana Wilks Trustee Richard Lohrstorfer Trustee Michael Zadel II. TRAFFIC WORKSHOP WITH SAFETY COMMISSION Back in September 2004, the Engineering Staff presented to the Village Board of Trustees a series of new traffic programs that were in different stages of development. Based on the input we received at that meeting, Staff has continued development of these programs and is now prepared forfurtherdiscussion. The April 26 Committee of the Whole meeting, which has been scheduled to be a joint workshop with the Village Board and Safety Commission, will allow Staff to present new information and provide an opportunity for questions and discussion in an informal setting. We plan on dividing the meeting into two segments: evaluation and implementation. The first part of the meeting will focus on evaluation of the three new traffic programs. After Staff presents a program, there will be a time of discussion. It will be an opportunity to share opinions and ask questions. Yourfeedback will be critical in shaping the programs. Once there is a consensus on a program, Staff will move on to the next program. Attached for your consideration are the three traffic programs that will be presented at the meeting. The Residential Speed Limit Program evaluates speed limits on the Village's local streets in order to achieve a higher level of standardization. It was presented in detail last September and we have already begun to gather the necessary field data. The Residential Intersection Traffic Control Program will involve studying each of our intersections for the proper traffic control signs. And the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program will provide a process of studying and implementing traffic calming measures on Village streets. The meeting will not be televised. NOTE: ANY INDIVIDUAL WHO WOULD LIKE TO A TTEND THIS MEETING BUT BECAUSE OF A DISABILITY NEEDS SOME ACCOMMODA TION TO PARTICIPA TE, SHOULD CONTACT THE VILLAGE MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 50 SOUTH EMERSON, MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS 60056,8471392-6000, EXTENSION 5327, TDD #8471392-6064. Mount Prospect t' ~ Mount Prospect Public Works Department INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR & VILLAGE BOARD OF TRUSTEES VILLAGE SAFETY COMMISSION FROM: PROJECT ENGINEER DATE: APRIL 19,2005 SUBJECT: TRAFFIC WORKSHOP APRIL 26,2005 COMMITTEE-OF - THE-WHOLE MEETING Back in September 2004, the Engineering Staff presented to the Village Board of Trustees a series of new traffic programs that were in different stages of development. Based on the input we received at that meeting, Staff has continued development of these programs and is now prepared for further discussion. The April 26th Committee-of-the-Whole Meeting, which has been scheduled to be a joint workshop with the Village Board and Safety Commission, will allow Staff to present new information and provide an opportunity for questions and discussion in an informal setting. Since this workshop format will be an atypical meeting, the Engineering Staff thought it would be beneficial to communicate what the meeting will look like and some key goals up front that, if met, will help us to continue to move forward with these programs. We plan on dividing the meeting into two segments: evaluation and implementation. The first part of the meeting will focus on evaluation of the three new traffic programs. After Staff presents a program, there will be a time of discussion. It will be an opportunity to share opinions and ask questions. Your feedback will be critical in shaping the programs. Once there is a consensus on a program, Staff will move on to the next program. Attached for your consideration are the three traffic programs that will be presented at the meeting. The Residential Speed Limit Program evaluates speed limits on the Village's local streets in order to achieve a higher level of standardization. It was presented in detail last September and we have already begun to gather the necessary field data. The Residential Intersection Traffic Control Program will involve studying each of our intersections for the proper traffic control signs. And the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program will provide a process of studying and implementing traffic calming measures on Village streets. Once the three programs have been presented arid discussed, Staff will shift to the second segment: implementation. Again, Staff will make a brief presentation. During this time we will present various options and potential costs. Questions surrounding timing, Staff management, consultant costs, construction costs and public involvement will need to be discussed and resolved. Ultimately, consensus from the Village Board and Safety Commission will be important for Staff to move forward with implementing these programs. With an understanding of what the meeting will look like, the Engineering Staff has some key goals that we would like to achieve during the meeting. First, we want each of you to come away with a clear understanding of the three programs. In addition to presenting the programs, we want to make sure there is time for questions, clarifications, comments, etc. Second, we want there to be a clear understanding of next steps for Staff. Going forward unified will make for a smooth transition as the public becomes . Page two... Traffic Workshop Apri119, 2005 involved in implementing the programs. Third, Staff has developed a list of questions that we would like answered during the meeting. These questions will assist Staff in finalizing the programs and provide direction in implementing them. To better prepare you, below is a list of those questions Staff will be asking (in one form or another) during the course of the meeting. Residential Speed Limit Program . 16% of neighborhood streets in Mount Prospect have a 20mph speed limit. Will it be acceptable to raise the speed limit if it meets the criteria based on our program? Residential Intersection Traffic Control Program . The program does not include Yield signs as an option based on the rewording of new national standards. Is this acceptable or should they remain in the "toolbox"? . 110 intersections are controlled by all-way Stop signs. Some of these intersections may not meet today's standards for all-way Stop signs. Will it be acceptable to remove Stop signs if they are not warranted? . The complexity of this program will require the assistance of an outside consultant. Can Staff solicit interest from consultants through a Request for Proposal and present our recommendation to the Village Board for their consideration? Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program . Is the process of study, education & enforcement, restudy, resident support, Safety Commission approval and Village Board approval as detailed in the program acceptable? . The program calls for residents to participate in 25% of the construction costs through a special assessment. Is this acceptable or should funding be handled differently? . Based on our research, the Engineering Staff has not included the use of speed humps as an option in our "toolbox", Is this acceptable or should they ,be considered an option? . Staff views this program differently than the speed limit and traffic control programs in that it is set up to be more resident driven. Because of the controversial nature of traffic calming, residents ought to be highly involved in the process and support the measures before implementing them. The other two programs are more proactive in that they will be Staff driven. They will lay a good foundation for the traffic calming program. All that said, should Staff focus on completing the speed limit and traffic control programs before moving forward with the traffic calming program? . Another option would be to identify a street that would be a good candidate for traffic calming and test common measures such as speed humps and traffic circles. Is creating a test project more favorable while the speed limit and traffic control programs are being completed? Staff will provide possible test locations during the meeting. Implementation . Staff has divided the Village into 18 neighborhood zones as we collect field data. Will implementation of the programs be done neighborhood by neighborhood or Village-wide? . Will each program be implemented separately or concurrently? . What will be the process of resident notification and involvement? . What will be the Safety Commission's role in implementation? . There will be both consultant costs and construction costs associated with these programs. How will this affect the timeframe the Village Board may expect with implementing these programs? We look forward to partnering with the Village Board and Safety Commission at the April 26th traffic workshop. Representatives from the Engineering Staff will be in attendance to facilitate discussion and answer questions. ~. Matthew P. Lawrie Attachments cc: Village Clerk Velma Lowe x: \engineeringltrajfic\summit\4.26.05 _board _ memo.doc Village of Mount Prospect Residential Speed Limit Program Village of Mount Prospect Engineering Division September 23, 2004 Village of Mount Prospect Residential Speed Limit Program W '\YJ 1 INTRODUCTION "Hello, Mount Prospect Public Works. Can I help yOU?" "Yes, my name is Mrs. Smith and I live at 1314 Burning Bush Lane. Cars speed down my street all the time and I just saw another one. The speed limit one street over is 20 miles per hour. I'd like to know how I could get the speed limit lowered on my street to solve this speeding problem. " The start of this phone conversation is routinely repeated between residents and the Public Works Staff. Probably the number one traffic complaint received by the Village is vehicle speeding on residential streets. Sometimes, residents will make the assumption that lowering the speed limit will slow down traffic thereby creating a safer environment. To further their argument, residents will often cite other streets in town similar to theirs that have lower speed limits. On occasion, it is recommended by the Engineering Staff to lower a speed limit after review of the issue. However, in most circumstances it is not. Staffs typical response to these resident inquiries is that motorists tend to drive at a speed that is comfortable to them given the road conditions and that lowering the speed limit will not necessarily change a motorist's behavior nor improve safety. The Engineering Division will gather speed data that is then given to the Police Department for enforcement purposes. The speed data usually reveals that only a small percentage of motorists drive at an unreasonable speed well above the speed limit. The Police Department then provides enforcement through different means: regular officer presence, use of the radar trailer and use of a drone car. The enforcement period usually lasts for a couple of weeks at which time the complainant is notified of the Police Department's efforts. Other responsibilities and the limited Police Staff prevent the department from monitoring the situation for a prolonged length of time. During the enforcement period and soon afterward, motorists tend to monitor their speed more closely. However, after some time of limited or no enforcement, the small percentage of motorists who normally drive excessively in the neighborhood will resurface. This will then lead to more complaints and the cycle will start again. Education programs and engineering solutions (such as traffic calming measures) certainly can influence motorist's behavior on residential streets. However, before giving consideration to these ideas, the Engineering Staffhas given thought to a couple of questions: How do we best establish a realistic speed limit on a Village street? and How do we then best provide standardization throughout the Village? Discussing these questions with our own Staff as well as other communities and agencies has lead us to create a Residential Speed Limit Program. BACKGROUND Section 5/11-601 of the Illinois Vehicle Code states that "Unless some other speed restriction is established under this Chapter, the maximum speed limit in an urban district for all vehicles is 30 miles per hour. . .". The Illinois Vehicle Code further states that local authorities can alter this speed limit for a street in which it has jurisdiction "upon the basis of an engineering or traffic investigation". An engineering investigation has been interpreted to mean a speed study. Speed data is typically gathered for at least a 24-hour period so that an engineer can determine the prevailing speed. Village of Mount Prospect Residential Speed Limit Program 'f9, Standard practice is to set the speed limit close to the 85th percentile speed based on the speed data. The 85th percentile speed is the speed at which 85% of the motorists drive at or below. The argument has been made by traffic engineers that 85% of motorists drive at a safe and reasonable speed for the road conditions. National studies have shown that the lowest accident rate occurs when the speed limit is set near the 85th percentile speed. Posting speed limits much higher or lower than the 85th percentile speed can produce two groups of drivers - those attempting to observe the limit and those who drive at a speed that they feel to be safe and reasonable. These differences in speeds may result in increased accidents due to tailgating, improper passing and reckless driving. Inappropriate speed limits can also foster disregard for other speed limits, traffic signs and contribute to driver frustration. Attached is some further information from the Northwestern University Traffic Institute and Institute of Transportation Engineers on the establishment of speed limits. The attached map shows that many Village streets are currently unposted and, therefore, fall under the statutory maximum speed limit of 30 mph. The map also shows the speed limit for the other streets in the Village. This information comes from Section 18.2001 of the Village Code that details maximum speed limits for all streets within the Village that differ from the statutory limit. The Cook County Highway Department (CCHD) and Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) establish speed limits for those streets in which they have jurisdiction. The Village Code reflects these limits for enforcement purposes. For streets under the Village's jurisdiction, we have the authority to alter the statutory limit. It is believed that a Village-wide review has never taken place but rather only a portion of the streets have been studied over the years on a case-by-case basis. As you can see from the map, this has lead to an inconsistent pattern of speed limit zones when analyzing the entire Village. As a result, the Engineering Staff has found some difficulty in defending our rationale and denying resident requests to lower a speed limit on a particular street when there does not appear to be standardization across the Village. THE PROGRAM Establishing Speed Limits on Residential Streets The speed at which motorists find to be safe and reasonable (85th percentile speed) is primarily dependent on the physical road conditions and topography: width of street, number of travel lanes, hills, curves, roadway surface and traffic controls. Is this information sufficient for a residential area when establishing a speed limit? Are there other factors that should be considered? According to a recent survey (attached) conducted by the Northwest Municipal Conference at the request of the Village, there are many different approaches communities have taken to establish residential speed limits. Some communities only consider a few factors such as the 85th percentile speed and road geometrics, others take into account many factors, and others actually don't perform speed studies. With the different approaches, some communities have a consistent speed limit of 20 mph on their residential streets, others have a consistent speed limit of 25 mph, and others do not have a consistent speed limit on their residential streets. In Mount Prospect, current practice is to determine the 85th percentile speed and use it as the primary factor when establishing the speed limit. The Engineering Staff will also subjectively take into account the adjacent developments to the street and accident history when recommending the appropriate speed limit. In recent years, communities such as the City of Des Plaines and City of Naperville as well as agencies such as the CCHD and IDOT have adopted an alternative approach to establishing speed limits that takes into account additional factors more objectively. Using the 85th percentile speed as a basis, the use of "adjustment factors" is also considered in the speed study. These factors include the number of street access locations (business driveways, residential driveways, intersecting streets), pedestrian usage, on- street parking restrictions and accident history. As you can see from the attached sample speed limit form, these "adjustment factors" ultimately can reduce the recommended speed limit for a street but by no more than 20% of the prevailing speed or 9 mph, whichever is less. Also attached is an excerpt from IDOT's Policy on Establishing and Posting Speed Limits further detailing this alternative approach. Village of Mount Prospect Residential Speed Limit Program w, This method for determining the speed limit of a street appears to have multiple benefits. First, it not only takes into accoUnt determining a reasonable speed for a street based on speed data but also considers factors that would affect motorist and pedestrian safety, particularly in a residential area. Also, it fulfills the requirement of performing an "engineering or traffic investigation" per the Illinois Vehicle Code. In addition, it is our understanding that this method has been upheld by the court system. The courts typically will not uphold a speeding ticket unless it is in excess of 10 mph above the speed limit. For a street with the statutory speed limit, a police officer typically will not write a ticket unless a motorist is traveling over 40 mph. If a lower speed limit based on this method was appropriate it may give confidence to officers to issue tickets to a higher percentage of violators. Finally, other communities have found this method as credible and effective by residents in addressing speeding concerns in residential areas. Providing Standardization Throughout the Village Given the current inconsistencies with residential speed limits in the Village, the Engineering Staff would like to strive toward a higher level of standardization. Gathering speed data and performing a speed study for every Village-owned street, however, would be very time consuming. To address this issue while still fulfilling the need to conduct an "engineering or traffic investigation", mOT issued the following statement in 1990: "Speed studies need not be conducted on every subdivision street each time a (speed) zone is proposed. Speed studies or other types of traffic investigations conducted on a representative sample of subdivision streets would be acceptable. Speed data or other criteria from these representative streets could then be applied to any similar streets. This would satisfy the 'engineering or traffic investigation' requirement without requiring a special study each time." With that said, the Engineering Staff would like to propose a Residential Speed Limit Program similar to what other communities in the area have carried out in recent years. Implementing the following steps would be part of the program: $ Establish "neighborhood zones" for the entire Village in which the streets are similar in function and nature. The attached map shows the Village to be divided into 18 zones. Each zone is bounded by arterial or collector streets and would be evaluated under one study. $ Gather speed data for a representative street within a zone and determine the prevailing speed. Then apply the above-mentioned "adjustment factors" to determine the appropriate speed limit for the street. . Collect adjustment factor information for all streets within a zone and apply it toward the prevailing speed determined from the speed data from the representative street. An appropriate speed limit would then be determined for each individual street within a zone. $ If there is a unique street within a zone that substantially differs from the representative street, a separate speed study would be performed for that street. $ Also, as arterial and collector streets under the Village's jurisdiction can have unique characteristics different from low-volume residential streets, separate speed studies would be performed for each of these streets. $ Update the list of designated collector streets per the Village Code so that separate speed studies can be performed on these streets. Attached is a map distinguishing the collector streets as outlined in the Village Code as well as recommended changes by Staff based on the definition of a collector street. One of the many definitions Staff considered comes from A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets which states "The collector street system provides both land access service and traffic circulation within residential neighborhoods and commercial and industrial areas. It differs from the arterial system in that facilities on the collector system may penetrate residential neighborhoods, distributing trips from the arterials through the area to their ultimate destinations. Conversely, the collector street also collects traffic from local streets in residential neighborhoods and channels it into the arterial system." Village of Mount Prospect Residential Speed Limit Program 4 -$ Once the necessary studies have been completed, bring the issue to the Safety Commission for review and approval. -$ Present the issue to the Village Board of Trustees for final approval. Other Considerations As it's been mentioned, the Village currently has a variety of20 mph, 25 mph and 30 mph speed limits on our residential streets. Over the years, decisions made by many different people for many different reasons have resulted in the speed limits we have today. A review of the entire Village using this approach in order to provide standardization has not been done before in the Village. While in many instances the results may show a street's speed limit ought to remain the same or be lowered, this study may produce cases where it is recommended a street's speed limit increase. This is an issue that the Safety Commission and Village Board of Trustees would have to consider when it comes time for a final decision as this may produce a strong objection from residents. Also, the Engineering Staff has given special consideration for establishing speed limits around areas that have a higher concentration of pedestrians at certain times of the day or year such as schools, parks and churches. We do not believe that significant weight should be given to these areas above the "adjustment factors" since the presence of pedestrians at these locations is not evident at all times. Children are not often seen at a playground during the winter months or at nighttime and parishioners typically attend church one or two times a week. Setting a speed limit abnormally low in these areas may breed a high level of disobedience and frustration by motorists. Other measures such as Children At Play or Pedestrian Crossing signs would be more appropriate to caution motorists of the possibility of pedestrians. Around schools, the illinois Vehicle Code requires motorists to not drive in excess of 20 mph when passing a school during school hours when pedestrians are present. With this program, the Engineering Staff would verify that the streets adjacent to our schools have the appropriate school speed limit signs. CONCLUSION The Engineering Staff sees this approach as an acceptable engineering approach that would provide standardization throughout the Village. It does not offer a one-time blanket decision for all streets that is void of attention to individual characteristics of each street. However, it does not require a complete speed study for each block of every street that would be very labor intensive. This approach is somewhere in between that would still take a significant amount of time to complete but would take into account important factors when determining an appropriate speed limit for a street. Attachments Current Village Speed Limit Map Village Speed Limit Zone Map Village Collector Street Map Northwest Municipal Conference Speed Limit Survey Adjusted Speed Limit Form Excerptfrom IDOT's Policy on Establishing and Posting Speed Limits The Traffic Institute @ Northwestern Univ. - Speed Zoning, Regulation and Control ITE Speed Zoning Guidelines Village Attorney Comments x:\engineering\traffic\safecomm\speed _limi t'program. doc MOUNT PROSPECT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION SPEED LIMIT STUDY (SAM PLEl Route From To Distance Illinois Street 1 st Street 5th Street 0.5 miles If Applicable Zone # 1 Representative Route Chicago Avenue I. Spot Speed Studies (Attached) V. Miscellaneous Factors Top of Test # 85th % 10mph Pace 1 33 30 2 31 30 Pedestrian Volume Accident Ratio: Route Village Avg. Q = 1000 650 Parking Permitted ....x Yes No II. Prevailing Speed VI. Prevailing Speed Adjustment 85th Percentile Avg. 32 mph Driveway Adjustment 10 % Top of Pace Avg. 30 mph Pedestrian Adjustment Q % Prevailing Speed 31 mph Accident Adjustment Q % Parking Adjustment Q % III. Existing Speed Limit Total (max. 20) 20 % Route Being Studied 30 mph Adjacent Stretch/Route: 31 mph * 20 % NorW 30 mph (prevailing speed) (adjustment) Length 1.0 miles S or E 25 mph = 6.2 (max. 9) Length 1J! miles Adjusted Prevailing Speed (mph) 24.8 IV. Driveway Conflicts VII. Revised Speed Limit Residential Drives #*1= 30 Small Bus. Drives #*5= Q Recommended Speed Limit (mph) 25 Large Bus. Drives # * 10 = Q Minor Streets #*5= 15 Recommended by Major Streets # * 10 = .1Q Drive Conflict # (sum) 55 Approved by Drive Conflict # 55 110 Date Distance (miles) = 0.5 VILLAGE OF MOLTNT PROSPECT MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS <<~~-c~c_" 'l-~" VILLAGE SPEED LIMIT MAP t ..,,~ ",."".", 20 mph .,.",. 25 mph -<,<-,< 30 mph (per Village Code) ....... 30 mph (per statutoI)' limit) ,c". j,~ I j 1 I ~ ! _~<_~~~l = 35 mph .""". 40 mph _ 45 mph PBR V1LU.$ CODB 11 16 VIT..LAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT 8 9 14 15 17 4 6 10 t RESIDENTIAL SPEED LIMIT PROGRAM 18 SPEED LIMIT STUDY COl'viPLETE ~ ~ ....... ""'""' fa ~ Vj ~ i::: ~ rJS <D -+- U :~ 0 u ~ Q) Q) 0 c 0) ..... 0 ::l N 0 ..... 0 0 :> -+- VI 0 '- '- .c Q) Q) U Q. Q. V.l .c .!:: .!:: .c ..c ..c .!:: ..c: .!:: Q. Q. Q. Q. Q. Q. Q. n. n. E E E E E E E E E )... 0 0 0 Lf) 0 0 Lf) 0 L{') g ('J ('J ('J ('f) ('f) ('f) "'" '"<;f' ~ I &f:~ I I I :::;", I I V) m ill - [~ ill ......:, ~ ~ ..e - .~, 'FI .~. ~, l ~ - ~ ""'""' fil ~ V) @ ~ LQ ~ 8 ~ ~ ~ ....... -....l @ ~ V) ~ i::: ~ ~ <D -- u ~ 0 u ~ Q) Q) 0 c 0> +- 0 :::l N ~ +- {) (5 >= +- 0 VI '- '- .r:. Q) Q) () Q. Q. V) .r:. ..c .c .s:: ..c .s:: .c ..c .r::. Q. Q. Q. Q. Q. Q. Q. Q. Q. E E E E E E E E E )... 0 0 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ N N N ('? ('? '<t "<t ~ I 1;0;;0; I I I I I V) ill I ill C\4 m .:.: ~ t.!-: ~ ~ ..-. 'Wlil!IiI!5I: r .,. I L~.. ~ ~ ~ ( If ~ ~ ~ I: m < t I.. l' ! :; ~ >: ~: ~ ~ ~: ~ ~ >: ~ I ~: ~ : ~ I ~ ~ I ,.-- ~ ~.: ~ ~ ..... @ ~ V) @ ~ I.(j ~ ~ a:: "'= . ~: :1 :1 I ,.: . ~ f: I ===r I =-==~'~~~r ~ ~ ::J @ ~ fJi ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q) ..- u :g 0 u ~ (\) (\) 0 c OJ ..- 0 ::) N ~ ..- 0 (5 :> -I- VJ 0 '- '- ..c Q) Q) () 0.. .9: V") ..c: ..c: ..c: ..c: ..c: ..c: ..c: ..c: ..c: Q. 0.. Q. Q. 0.. Q. Q. n. Q. E E E E E E E E E )... 0 0 0 If) 0 0 If) 0 If) g ('oj ('oj ('oj (") (") ('I) "<t "<t '" I I: I I I I I I t") C") t=-..;:: ~ ~ ~ -. .... /i ~ =ZZZRZZZll;.5.5.5lZZ;'5.5EUZZ..-=='N~nnT.7nzzu."W2..~~ (:=~. I::::. e ~ff ~f: ~ ~...~..{~ .,'="?;.=.I"......?Naz.............,,"*',;;;:?f7 /\.,. .~:~l~' "'\. >.if.... ...~~.:v w-';.~u~=m.u...::..~.O;:.:->' ~ ~ -....: ...... @ t€ (,) fij ~ lQ ~ 8 ~ ;f' . ~~..(~.l.......=....~... '~% ,/f''' . : , , ....,. .':'9;:'.,. : . : )<.,v '<">, U_=7L""I.m2>""~" : ~ :-4~",,-,:-.......-..~aY'-~-.;;6 :.lie ~ F~ [ ..; i: i! ! ~ . ~ ~ I ~ 1......'uA.........;:.~.~.:.L-:0~......:.:-.L:.~....;Z.:'....y.:..J~~....~"Lu.t.;". = =~~c.~m~cmmn.m.m."W< .m..~."~.=~~;;:L: 1/ ~ - ~ ...., fa ~ V) ~ i::: ~ ~ - ~, ' 6 !.? @ @ <, Q) :;:::- U ~ 0 U C (!) Q) 0 C Ol ..... 0 ::l N ,g of- 0 0 :> ..... VI 0 I.- ..... .s:: Q) Q) U Q. Q. V') .s:: .c .c .c .c .c .c .c .c Q. Q. Q. Q. Q. Q. Q. Q. Q. E E E E E E E E E )... 0 0 0 U") 0 0 iJ") 0 iJ") g N N N C') C") C") ""<t ""<t '" I I I I I I I I ~ V) :::; " l.t) , .~ x: ~ ~ _lIII - ~ g ~ I' ~ ~ ~ Ii! J -: ~ ~ .....a @ ~ C,,) fij ~ I..(j ~ ~ Ot:: II ~ ~ I I ~. .........--'-'-'~~......~ 7~~~~_"~~ ~ V~~~--,---.:i::~~:;' r ~ ~ -...: -....! fa tf (,) ~ i::: ~ ~ (i) -+- U ~ 0 u C:- <Il <Il 0 c: Ol -+- 0 ::> N ~ E (5 :> 0 '" '- (j) .c Q) U 0.. 0.. V) ..c: ..c: ..c: .r:. ..c: .c: ..c: ..c: ..c: 0.. 0.. 0.. 0.. 0.. 0.. 0.. 0.. 0.. ).. E E E E E E E E E g 0 0 0 l.l') 0 0 l.l') 0 l.l') N N N C') C') C') '<t' '<t' " V) I I I I I I I I ~ ~~ - ~ ~ .... - I =..m~=<<..m"~.r..,.,..'~..~m.'..w.W' ----r--' [ .~ ~=,u.?=x.".>>." mF"W"WN>mm"I=wz.wm=.w.~...=.mm'T~m~' . ... Ii '~- .~""._- ~I U I Il '" u ~j.#;",>>",~"~i.'2a."7~~"'''o;,o=-,?=..''iI';''''.'-Z=>~,~",~~~ ;t:1P" !.=.wmm."""':~ r I I : -- I : ~~'H-.~_.",.:i;if.n:'z.ri;u.U;;~;;U...<i....~....;U~-"== .. I \ .~=~.<<.=.'a.~w~x.~aaa..>>==t=='~~Q~ 1~ ~ @ ~. ~ . ~ ,~ .r;u..~ ; r l " ~ ':: ~ .. "-,$.i~ .' l I=~..~.. ~. =v!'n==,==...=m. f:::? ~ ...... ....., ~ ~ V) @ ~ IJJ ~ ~ ac:i I~ :' Village of Mount Prospect Residential Intersection Traffic Control Program DRAFT Village of Mount Prospect Engineering Division April 19, 2005 Village of Mount Prospect Residential Intersection Traffic Control Program 1 INTRODUCTION Each year the Engineering Staff reviews approximately 10 intersections for proper traffic control. These studies are usually triggered by a concerned resident. A typical intersection study takes a considerable amount of time. Traffic volume, traffic speed and crash report data are collected and analyzed, and a detailed site inspection is done as part of a single study. Each study is then presented to the Village Safety Commission and Village Board of Trustees for their review and determination, To provide a higher level of standardization, the Village Board of Trustees has expressed an interest in reviewing the traffic control at each intersection, neighborhood by neighborhood. Unfortunately, with over 900 intersections in Mount Prospect, Staff would not be able to perform a study for each intersection using our standard method in a reasonable amount of time. Detailed below is a program that would allow Staff to review each intersection using today's standards in a more efficient manor. The program provides a modified approach to a typical intersection study. It would shorten the study time for each intersection while still providing the necessary engineering review. The Village Attorney has reviewed the program and cautiously supports Staff with moving forward. Proper review and documentation would be necessary for each intersection. Given the comments received by the Village Attorney and the time it will take to review each intersection in the Village, Staff recommends that a consultant be retained to assist the Village with this program. Even after completion of the program, a review process would need to be established to give Staff, elected officials and residents an opportunity to re-evaluate an individual intersection if necessary. THE PROGRAM There are a total of 913 intersections in the Village, 56 are signalized intersections. Assumption: These intersections will remain signalized and will not require a review. 116 are T-intersections that involve an arterial road and local road. Assumption: The arterial street will remain uncontrolled and the local street will remain stop controlled. No further review required. 43 are 4-leg intersections that involve an arterial road and local road. Assumption: The arterial street will remain uncontrolled and the local street will remain stop controlled. No further review required. This leaves a total of 698 intersections. Uncontrolled Intersection Because of landscaping, homes and parked vehicles, a high percentage of intersections warrant some sort of traffic control. Only 43 (out of275) 4-leg intersections in Mount Prospect are uncontrolled. Of the 43, many probably warrant traffic control based on current standards but have not been studied. With so many intersections having or needing traffic control, the small percentage left uncontrolled can present a risk to motorists. This small percentage may not meet a driver's expectation. They may believe the cross street is controlled and may result in right-angle crashes. Conclusion: To be consistent and meet a driver's expectation, all 4-leg intersections will have traffic control. ,< Village of Mount Prospect Residential Intersection Traffic Control Program 2 T -Intersection At T -intersections, the TIlinois Vehicle Code specifies that the terminating street must yield the right-of- way. Only 323 (out of 582) of Mount Prospect's T-intersections have traffic control. While this statistic may not present a significant safety risk, it does not show a high level of standardization. Conclusion: To define the right-of-way and increase the level of standardization, all T-intersections will have traffic control unless at the intersection of 2 local streets where one is a cul-de-sac or dead end. Yield Controlled Intersection The newly adopted 2003 MUTCD indicates Yield signs are appropriate when the safe approach speed exceeds either the posted limit, statutory limit or 85th percentile speed. Currently, Yield signs are warranted if the safe approach speed is between 15mph and the 85th percentile speed. Based on the new criteria and the sight distance limitations we have in our neighborhoods, Yield signs would not be recommended for a majority of intersections. Further, only 33 (out of275) 4-leg intersections and 44 (out of913) total intersections in Mount Prospect are currently controlled by Yield signs. With the limited use in Mount Prospect and the further limited use based on the new criteria, their continued use would not provide consistency and may lead to confusion and lack of adherence, Of the 15 communities who completed the NWMC survey, 7 do not consider Yield signs for residential intersections. Conclusion: To meet the criteria set forth in the 2003 MUTCD and increase the level of standardization, Yield signs will not be used as traffic control devices at residential intersections. All-Way Stop Controlled Intersection If all intersections (except local - cul-de-sac) will be controlled only by Stop signs based on the above reasoning, the program becomes much easier to manage. The first step would be to identify those intersections that meet the criteria for all-way stop signs. Currently, 78 (out of 275) 4-leg intersections and 32 (out of 582) T -intersections have all-way stop signs. Some of these intersections may not meet the current criteria while some newall-way stop intersections would be created. The 2003 MUTCD has criteria based on traffic volume, traffic speed and crash history (very difficult to meet). All-way stop signs can also be considered at intersections with high pedestrian activity, severe sight distance limitations and/or two collector streets per the 2003 MUTCD. Conclusion: IdentifY those intersections that meet the criteria for all-way stop signs. Minor Street Stop Controlled Intersection All other intersections would have a stop sign(s) placed on one street only. This may be a little tricky since a few things would need to be considered. First, the minor street should be controlled when possible such as at a local-collector intersection. This increases the driver's expectation and obedience to the signs, However, a quasi pattern of stop control would need to be set up for a neighborhood to prevent a de-facto cut through street. I would recommend that a local street and collector street have no more than 1320' (l/4-mile) and 2640' (II2-mile) of uninterrupted flow, respectively. If the two intersecting streets have similar characteristics and volume, the street with the higher pedestrian activity, better sight distance, longest distance of uninterrupted flow or lower vehicle speed because of obstructions should be the one controlled. Finally, I would recommend that as much as possible little change be made. A complete new pattern of traffic control in a neighborhood may lead to confusion. Conclusion: Consideration for I-way (T-intersection) and 2-way (4-leg intersection) stop signs must be given on an individual intersection level and neighborhood wide level. Attachments Intersection Traffic Control Inventory 2003 MUTCD Excerpt on Traffic Control Warrants Village Zone Map x: \engineering\traffic Isafecomm\stop-yie ld\program.doc . " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Iii r-. ~ .... 0\ .... .... It"l .... a; v C") 0 N 0 0 cO 0 > .... C") 0 ~ ?fl. ~ ?fl. ?fl. ~ ~ ?fl. ?fl. 0 0 0 <0 0 "It m "It "It "It 0 .0 N 0 N 0 0 cO 0 ~ ~ "It N 0 ~ M M CO CO II) "It M ~ l"- I'- .- N ~ en 'i (J) I:: t) (J) 'Vi (J) (J) .... I:: I:: I:: I:: I:: 0 0 0 (J) 0 0 :0 :0 B e :0 :0 u u u u u Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) (J) (J) ~ "0 (J) (J) ~ L '- '- Q) '- '- (J) Q) 2l Q) a. Q) 2l ~ ~ ~ I:: .s .s I:: @ I:: .s 0 :0 "0 "0 "0 "0 "0 "0 u ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q) ~ e e e e e e Q) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I I ~ I:: I:: I:: I:: I:: I:: I:: 0 0 0 0 0 0 u u u u u u "0 ~ "0 a. a. a. a. a. Qi 0 .8 0 0 0 e '>. ~ ~ ~ ~ (J) Ul (J) (J) (J) ~ >- >- >- >- >- >- I:: 0 m m m m m m u 3: 3: 3: 3: 3: 3: I:: I I , , , I :J N .... N N M "It ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 m ~ C"'! 0 ~ U"1 r-. '- a\ Q) (Xl .... .... C") M > N N \0 0 ~ ~ ?fl. ?fl. ~ ~ ?fl. '#'#.rfl."#.'#. 0 0 0 It) ~ It) <0 It) 0 ~ T"""COOT'""O -<t .0 N .0 0 l""i-<t tri trio "It "It 0 Q) M It) 0 ~ > ~ 0 * 0\ .... It"l U"1 N N NV....\Ol') It"l .... \0 .... C") CO OV....lt"lP4 N N III C") U"1 en ~ ~ ~ iii 2 .... I:: (J) Ul (J) 0 ~ I:: I:: (J) I:: .... 0 0 I:: 0 ~ 13 :0 0 B u B Q) Q) Q) - ~ ~ ~ Q) ~ t~ (J) (J) Q) 2l '- Q) (J) Ul (J) (J) I:: ~ Q) ~ I:: I:: "0"0 QI I:: I:: I:: ~ I:: (J).Q 0 m m ~a 0 ., I:: .. C,a..J:p e e ',j:; I- ~ ., I- o U U (J) u I- :oQ)Q)1:: Q ~ Q) "0 "0 "0 U~UlO mm t '" ~ ~ ~ "0 ~ Q) Q) '-.- III ";: .C ....l!: Q) 0 e ~ e ~~2l'dS ~~ I:: e ~ '- Ei I I:: ~ Q)._ I:: Q)._ m m ~ ~ ~"O~~~ ::st-; " I:: I:: I:: I:: ~~ ~a I- 0 0 0 0 ._~Q)2lcu U U U U U U Q) Q) "0 "0-=1::11I .... '" ~ "0 a. a. a. Q) e 0.-'" ~ ~ at 0 Qi .8 .8 0 =~'-"Ocu Q) Q) '>. ~ e5~~1: ~~ QlQl '- (J) Ul (J) .s .s Q\~ ~ >- >- >- >- ~u8='- I:: .!!!.2l 0 m m m m 8:2 a.~1i \OM u 3: 3: 3: 3: ....v :""1:: I:: I:: .~ .8 .Ql 0 ....* $... I , I M :J .... .... N :J>-UlUl.... * * ---------------- ------- VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT 3 11 8 9 7 12 14 .17 18 15 16 4 6 10 VILLAGE ZONE MAP t . 1 .2 5 Page 2B-6 2003 Edition Table 28-1. Regulatory Sign Sizes (Sheet 5 of 5) Sign MUTCD Section Conventional Expressway Freeway Minimum Oversized Code Road Keep Off Median Rll-l 28.47 ~~O x 7~? - - - - 24 x 30 Road Closed Rll-2 28.48 l~OO x 7~0 - - - - 48x30 Road Closed - Local R 11-3,3a, 28.48 1~00 x 7~0 - - - - Traffic Onlv 3b,4 60x30 Weight Limit R12-1,2 28.49 ~~O x 7~? 900 x 1200 - - 900 x 12~0 24 x 30 (36 x 48) (36 x 48 Weight Limit R12-3 28.49 600 x 900 - - - - (24 x 36\ Weight Limit R12-4 28.49 ~~o x 6~? - - - - 36 x 24 Weight Limit R12-5 28.49 ~~o x 9~? 9g0 x 1200 1200 x 1500 - - 24 x 36 36 x 48\ (48 x 60) Metric Plaque R12-6 28.49 600 x 225 - - - - (24x9\ Weigh Station R13-1 28.50 1800 x 1200 2400 x 1650 3000 x 1100 - - (72 x 48\ (96 x 66\ 1120 x 84\ Truck Route R14-1 28.51 600 x 450 - - - - (24 x 18) Hazardous Material Rl4-2,3 28.52 600 x 600 750 x 750 900 x 900 - 1050 x 1050 (24 x 24) (30 x 30) (36 x 36) (42 x 42) National Network R14-4,5 28.53 600 x 600 750 x 750 900 x 900 - 1050 x 1050 (24 x 24) 130 x 30) (36 x 36\ (42 x 42\ Railroad Crossbuck R15-1 88.03 1200 x 225 - - - - (48 x 9\ Look R15-8 88.16 900 x 450 - - - - (36 x 18) Notes: 1. Larger signs may be used when appropriate. 2. Dimensions are shown in millimeters followed by inches in parentheses and are shown as width x height. Section 2B.OS STOP Sien Applications Guidance: STOP signs should be used if engineering judgment indicates that one or more of the following conditions exist: A. Intersection of a less important road with a main road where application of the normal right-of-way rule would not be expected to provide reasonable compliance with the law; B. Street entering a through highway or street; C. Un signalized intersection in a signalized area; and/or D. High speeds, restricted view, or crash records indicate a need for control by the STOP sign. Standard: Because the potential for conflicting commands could create driver confusion, STOP signs shall not be installed at intersections where traffic control signals are installed and operating except as noted in Section 4D.Ol. Portable or part-time STOP signs shall not be used except for emergency and temporary traffic control zone purposes. Guidance: STOP signs should not be used for speed control. STOP signs should be installed in a manner that minimizes the numbers of vehicles having to stop. 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 (see Section 2B.08). Sect. 2B.05 2003 Edition Page 2B-7 Once the decision has been made to install two-way stop control, the decision regarding the appropriate street to stop should be based on engineering judgment. In most cases, the street carrying the lowest volume of traffic should be stopped. A STOP sign should not be installed on the major street unless justified by a traffic engineering study. Support: The following are considerations that might influence the decision regarding the appropriate street upon which to install a STOP sign where two streets with relatively equal volumes and/or characteristics intersect: A. Stopping the direction that conflicts the most with established pedestrian crossing activity or school walking routes; B. Stopping the direction that has obscured vision, dips, or bumps that already require drivers to use lower operating speeds; C. Stopping the direction that has the longest distance of uninterrupted flow approaching the intersection; and D. Stopping the direction that has the best sight distance to conflicting traffic, The use of the STOP sign at highway-railroad grade crossings is described in Section 8B.08. The use of the STOP sign at highway-light rail transit grade crossings is described in Section 1OC.04. Section 2B.06 STOP Sign Placement Standard: The STOP sign shall be installed on the right side of the approach to which it applies. When the STOP sign is installed at this required location and the sign visibility is restricted, a Stop Ahead sign (see Section 2C.29) shall be installed in advance of the STOP sign. The STOP sign shall be located as close as practical to the intersection it regulates, while optimizing its visibility to the road user it is intended to regulate. STOP signs and YIELD signs shall not be mounted on the same post. Guidance: Other than a DO NOT ENTER sign, no sign should be mounted back-to-back with a STOP sign in a manner that obscures the shape of the STOP sign. Support: Section 2A.16 contains additional information about separate and combined mounting of other signs with STOP signs. Guidance: Stop lines, when used to supplement a STOP sign, should be located at the point where the road user should stop (see Section 3B.16). If only one STOP sign is installed on an approach, the STOP sign should not be placed on the far side of the intersection. Where two roads intersect at an acute angle, the STOP sign should be positioned at an angle, or shielded, so that the legend is out of view of traffic to which it does not apply. Where there is a marked crosswalk at the intersection, the STOP sign should be installed in advance of the crosswalk line nearest to the approaching traffic. Option: At wide-throat intersections or where two or more approach lanes of traffic exist on the signed approach, observance of the stop control may be improved by the installation of an additional STOP sign on the left side of the road and/or the use of a stop line. At channelized intersections, the additional STOP sign may be effectively placed on a channelizing island. Support: Figure 2A-2 shows examples of some typical placements of STOP signs. Section 2B.07 Multiway Stop Applications Support: Multiway stop control can be useful as a safety measure at intersections if certain traffic conditions exist. Safety concerns associated with multi way stops include pedestrians, bicyclists, and all road users expecting other road users to stop. Multiway stop control is used where the volume of traffic on the intersecting roads is approximately equal. The restrictions on the use of STOP signs described in Section 2B.05 also apply to multiway stop applications. Sect. 2B.05 to 2B.07 Page 2B-8 2003 Edition Guidance: The decision to install multi way stop control should be based on an engineering study. The following criteria should be considered in the engineering study for a multiway STOP sign installation: A. Where traffic control signals are justified, the multiway stop is an interim measure that can be installed quickly to control traffic while arrangements are being made for the installation of the traffic control signal. B. A crash problem, as indicated by 5 or more reported crashes in a 12-month period that are susceptible to correction by a multiway stop installation. Such crashes include right- and left-turn collisions as well as right-angle collisions. C. Minimum volumes: I. The vehicular volume entering the intersection from the major street approaches (total of both approaches) averages at least 300 vehicles per hour for any 8 hours of an average day, and 2. The combined vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle volume entering the intersection from the minor street approaches (total of both approaches) averages at least 200 units per hour for the same 8 hours, with an average delay to minor-street vehicular traffic of at least 30 seconds per vehicle during the highest hour, but 3. If the 85th-percentile approach speed of the major-street traffic exceeds 65 kmlh or exceeds 40 mph, the minimum vehicular volume warrants are 70 percent of the above values. D. Where no single criterion is satisfied, but where Criteria B, C.I, and C.2 are all satisfied to 80 percent of the minimum values. Criterion C.3 is excluded from this condition. Option: Other criteria that may be considered in an engineering study include: A. The need to controlleft-tum conflicts; B. The need to control vehicle/pedestrian conflicts near locations that generate high pedestrian volumes; C. Locations where a road user, after stopping, cannot see conflicting traffic and is not able to reasonably safely negotiate the intersection unless conflicting cross traffic is also required to stop; and D. An intersection of two residential neighborhood collector (through) streets of similar design and operating characteristics where multiway stop control would improve traffic operational characteristics of the intersection. Section 2B.08 YIELD Sign (Rl-2) Standard: The YIELD (Rl-2) sign (see Figure 2B-1) shall be a downward-pointing equilateral triangle with a wide red border and the legend YIELD in red on a white background. Support: The YIELD sign assigns right-of-way to traffic on certain approaches to an intersection. Vehicles controlled by a YIELD sign need to slow down or stop when necessary to avoid interfering with conflicting traffic. Section 2B.09 YIELD Sign Applications Option: YIELD signs may be used instead of STOP signs if engineering judgment indicates that one or more of the following conditions exist: A. When the ability to see all potentially conflicting traffic is sufficient to allow a road user traveling at the posted speed, the 85th-percentile speed, or the statutory speed to pass through the intersection or to stop in a reasonably safe manner. B. If controlling a merge-type movement on the entering roadway where acceleration geometry and/or sight distance is not adequate for merging traffic operation. C. The second crossroad of a divided highway, where the median width at the intersection is 9 m (30 ft) or greater. In this case, a STOP sign may be installed at the entrance to the first roadway of a divided highway, and a YIELD sign may be installed at the entrance to the second roadway. D. An intersection where a special problem exists and where engineering judgment indicates the problem to be susceptible to correction by the use of the YIELD sign. Standard: A YIELD (Rl-2) sign shall be used to assign right-or-way at the entrance to a roundabout intersection. Sect. 2B.07 to 2B.08 2003 Edition Page 2B-9 Figure 28-1. STOp, YIELD, Speed Limit, FINES HIGHER, and Photo Enforcement Signs STOP TO ONCOMING -) 11Im) TRAFFIC R1-1 R1-3 R1-4 R1-2 R1-2a SPEED SPEED LIMIT TRUCKS LIMIT OR @ 1401 @ 50 OR km/h km/h R2-1 R2-2 II! OR FINES TRAFFIC LAWS PHOTO HIGHER PHOTO ENFORCED ENFORCED R2-3 R2-6 R10-18 R10-19 ~ Section 2B.I0 YIELD Sign Placement Standard: The YIELD sign shall be installed on the right side of the approach to which it applies. YIELD signs shall be placed on both the left and right sides of approaches to roundabout intersections with more than one lane on the signed approach where raised splitter islands are available on the left side of the approach. When the YIELD sign is installed at this required location and the sign visibility is restricted, a Yield Ahead sign (see Section 2C.29) shall be installed in advance of the YIELD sign. The YIELD sign shall be located as close as practical to the intersection it regulates, while optimizing its visibility to the road user it is intended to regulate. YIELD signs and STOP signs shall not be mounted on the same post. Guidance: Other than a DO NOT ENTER sign, no sign should be mounted back-to-back with a YIELD sign in a . manner that obscures the shape of the YIELD sign. Support: Section 2A.16 contains additional information about separate and combined mounting of other signs with YIELD signs. Guidance: Yield lines, when used to supplement a YIELD sign, should be located at a point where the road user should yield (see Section 3B.16). Where two roads intersect at an acute angle, the YIELD sign should be positioned at an angle, or shielded, so that the legend is out of view of traffic to which it does not apply. Sect. 2B.1O Page 2B-1O 2003 Edition Except at roundabout intersections, where there is a marked crosswalk at the intersection, the YIELD sign should be installed in advance of the crosswalk line nearest to the approaching traffic. At a roundabout intersection, to prevent circulating vehicles from yielding unnecessarily, the face of the YIELD sign should not be visible from the circulatory roadway. Option: At wide-throat intersections or where two or more approach lanes of traffic exist on the signed approach, observance of the yield control may be improved by the installation of an additional YIELD sign on the left side of the road and/or the use of a yield line. At channelized intersections, the additional YIELD sign may be effectively placed on a channelizing island. Section 2B.ll Yield Here To Pedestrians Signs (Rl-5, Rl-Sa) Standard: If yield lines are used in advance of an unsignalized marked midblock crosswalk, Yield Here To Pedestrians (Rl-5 or RI-5a) signs (see Figure 2B-2) shall be placed 6.1 to 15 m (20 to 50 ft) in advance of the nearest crosswalk line (see Section 3B.16 and Figure 3B-15). Section 2B.12 In-Street Pedestrian Crossing Signs (Rl-6, Rl-6a) Option: The In-Street Pedestrian Crossing (RI-6 or RI-6a) sign (see Figure 2B-2) may be used to remind road users of laws regarding right of way at an unsignalized pedestrian crossing. The legend STATE LAW may be shown at the top of the sign if applicable. The legends STOP FOR or YIELD TO may be used in conjunction with the appropriate symbol. Guidance: If an island (see Chapter 3G) is available, the In-Street Pedestrian Crossing sign, if used, should be placed on the island. Standard: The In-Street Pedestrian Crossing sign shall not be used at signalized locations. The STOP FOR legend shall only be used in States where the State law specifically requires that a driver must stop for a pedestrian in a crosswalk. If used, the In-Street Pedestrian Crossing sign shall have a black legend (except for the red STOP or YIELD sign symbols) and border on either a white and/or fluorescent yellow-green background. If the In-Street Pedestrian Crossing sign is placed in the roadway, the sign support shall comply with the breakaway requirements of the latest edition of AASHTO's "Specification for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires, and Traffic Signals" (see Page i). Support: The Provisions of Section 2A.18 concerning mounting height are not applicable for the In-Street Pedestrian Crossing sign. Option: The In-Street Pedestrian Crossing sign may be used seasonably to prevent damage in winter because of plowing operations, and may be removed at night if the pedestrian activity at night is minimal. Section 2B.13 Speed Limit Sign (R2-l) Standard: After an engineering study has been made in accordance with established traffic engineering practices, the Speed Limit (R2-1) sign (see Figure 2B-l) shall display the limit established by law, ordinance, regulation, or as adopted by the authorized agency. The speed limits shown shall be in multiples of 10 km/h or 5 mph. Guidance: At least once every 5 years, States and local agencies should reevaluate non-statutory speed limits on segments of their roadways that have undergone a significant change in roadway characteristics or surrounding land use since the last review. No more than three speed limits should be displayed on anyone Speed Limit sign or assembly. When a speed limit is to be posted, it should be within 10 kmlh or 5 mph of the 85th-percentile speed of free-flowing traffic. Sect. 2B.10 to 2B.I3 2003 Edition Page 2B-l1 Figure 28-2. Unsigna/ized Pedestrian Crosswalk Signs "V HERE ~ Ie TO " Vi H~ .. TO PEDESTRIANS R1-5 R1-5a STATE LAW Vi TO . ~ WITHIN CROSSWALK R1-6 STATE LAW . FOR . ~ I WITHIN CROSSWALK R1-6a Option: Other factors that may be considered when establishing speed limits are the following: A. Road characteristics, shoulder condition, grade, alignment, and sight distance; B. The pace speed; C. Roadside development and environment; D. Parking practices and pedestrian activity; and E. Reported crash experience for at least a 12-month period. Two types of Speed Limit signs may be used: one to designate passenger car speeds, including any nighttime information or minimum speed limit that might apply; and the other to show any special speed limits for trucks and other vehicles. A changeable message sign that changes the speed limit for traffic and ambient conditions may be installed provided that the appropriate speed limit is shown at the proper times. A changeable message sign that displays to approaching drivers the speed at which they are traveling may be installed in conjunction with a Speed Limit sign. Guidance: If a changeable message sign displaying approach speeds is installed, the legend YOUR SPEED XX km/h (MPH) or such similar legend should be shown. The color of the changeable message legend should be a yellow legend on a black background or the reverse of these colors. Support: Advisory Speed signs are discussed in Sections 2C.36 and 2C.46 and Temporary Traffic Control Zone Speed signs are discussed in Part 6. Section 2B.14 Truck Speed Limit Sign (R2-2) Standard: Where a special speed limit applies to trucks or other vehicles, the legend TRUCKS XX or such similar legend shall be shown on the same panel as the Speed Limit sign or on a separate R2-2 sign (see Figure 2B-l) below the standard legend. Sect. 2B.13 to 2B.14 " DATE: February 3, 2005 TO: Matthew P. Lawrie, Project Engineer FROM: George Wagner RE: Residential Intersection Traffic Control Program Buzz asked me to review the proposed Residential Intersection Traffic Control Program and make comments, which are as follows: . I assume that the 2003 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) refers to the State Manual and Specifications authorized in Section 11-301 ofthe Illinois Vehicle Code (the "I.V.C."), 625 ILCS 5/11-301. . The conclusion, that signalized intersections do not require further review, is valid since those intersections have already been reviewed with a determination to provide the signals. . The program proposes that all4-1eg and T- uncontrolled intersections require traffic control. The I.V.C. requires that all traffic control devices approved by local ordinance must be justified by traffic warrants, as provided in the state manual (MUTCD). 625 ILCS 5/11-304. In order to place stop signs at these intersections, the MUTCD requires an engineering judgment that one of the following criteria apply: A. Intersection of a less important road with a main road where application of the normal right-of-way rule would not be expected to provide reasonable compliance with the law; B. Street entering a through highway or street; C. Unsignalized intersection in a signalized area; and/or D. High speeds, restricted view, or crash records indicate a need for control by the STOP sign. Since such a determination is necessary, a policy would be invalid if it requires intersections to have stop signs without making such a determination. To comply, the "conclusion" for uncontrolled intersection and T -intersection could be redrafted to allow for "consideration of traffic control devices subject to an engineering judgment that such devices were warranted in accordance with the MUTCD." . Yield Controlled Intersections - The program is designed to abandon the use of yield signs. The MUTCD does not require the use of yield signs, so this should be valid. However, from a practical point of view, it may be advisable not to prohibit their use in the event that they may be used in specific cases where they are clearly more appropriate than stop signs. I ". . . All-way stop controlled intersections - A multi-way stop requires an engineering study. Therefore, the conclusion should be modified to identify those intersections that meet the criteria for all-way stop signs "in accordance with the MUTCD." . Minor Street Stop Controlled Intersections - It appears that defining the maximum length of local and collector streets is intended to allow the posting of stop signs to deter cut through traffic on collector streets. The IVC allows local authorities to designate through highways and erect stop or yield signs at entrances. 625 ILCS 5/11-302(a). However, warrants for stop signs would still be required. . Since this program is intended to address traffic control at intersections, it may be appropriate to address crosswalks and pedestrian signs. . Obviously, there is an additional cost associated with posting signs in locations where the Village would not, except for this program, have installed them. In addition, it must be recognized that the Village is immune from liability for an injury caused by its failure to provide traffic signs and signals, 745 ILCS 10/3- 104, but, once it decides to erect a traffic sign or signal, it is subject to liability for breach of its duty to install and maintain them with reasonable care. Corning v. East Oakland Township, 283 Ill. App. 3d 765, 767 (4th Dist. 1996). If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (312 984-6468. c: Village Manager Michael Janonis Village Attorney Buzz Hill Director of Public Works Glen Andler Police Chief Richard Eddington Village Engineer JeffWulbecker X:\Engineering\ TRAFFIC\SAFECOMM\stop j'ield\attorney _ comments.doc 2 '" .". ~ Mount Prospect Mount Prospect Public Works Department INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: FILE FROM: PROJECT ENGINEER DATE: MARCH 3, 2005 SUBJECT: RESIDENTIAL INTERSECTION TRAFFIC CONTROL PROGRAM I had a phone conversation with George Wagner, Village Attorney, at 8:45am today to discuss the above draft program developed by myself. Overall, Mr. Wagner thought Staff could move forward in presenting this program to the Village Board and to begin implementing it with their approval. He had the following comments regarding the program: . The use of traffic signals is to meet the warrants outlined in the MUTCD. . The use of all-way stop signs is to meet the warrants outlined in the MUTCD. A study involving gathering volume and speed data, reviewing crash reports, and analyzing the intersection should all be done similar to what has been done in the past. · The use of I-way or 2-way stop signs is to meet one or more of the conditions outlined in the MUTCD. The conditions do not outline specific volume, speed or crash warrants. Therefore, the review requires an engineering judgment which is not interpreted to mean a full study. Reviewing crash reports and analyzing the intersection (determining safe approach speed) based on the speed limit and predicted volume should be done. · The use of yield signs should not be abandoned. However, he understands the lack of effectiveness they may have with their limited use. He also recognizes the MUTCD's new guidance that yield signs may be used instead of stop signs if the safe approach speed meets or exceeds the speed limit. In most cases, an intersection will not meet this condition. He did not have an objection to having a layout of all stop signs based on our judgment. He cautioned, however, removing yield signs from our toolbox in the unique circumstance it would be more appropriate than a stop sign. · Similar to yield signs, he understands the lack of effectiveness uncontrolled intersections may have with limited use. Modifying an uncontrolled intersection will require an engineering judgment if 1- way or 2-way stop signs are to be added. If the intersection is to have all-way stop signs, a detailed study is to be performed and the MUTeD warrants met. . He cautioned against installing stop signs for the sole purpose of interrupting flow. The stop sign is to be warranted or justified. · Ultimately, he was comfortable with the program as an acceptable way to be able to review the entire Village. He thought that each intersection should be given individual attention and would rely on Staff to make sound engineering decisions. · Existing crosswalks and pedestrian signs should be reviewed as part of the program. I mentioned to him that recent programs have already accomplished this. With the potential of changes to the traffic control, he recommended to do it again. . He indicated that each study and review should be documented and then monitored on a regular basis. If a decision has resulted in an increase in accidents, a further review should be done to determine if any changes need to be made. Matt Lawrie x: \engineering\traffic \summi t\tc _attorney _ conversation.doc .( Village of Mount Prospect Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program DRAFT Village of Mount Prospect Engineering Division April 19, 2005 Village of Mount Prospect Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ........................................................................,...........,............ 1 Goals .........'.....................,......................................................................... 2 Policy Statements Education and Enforcement... . . . . . . . .. . , . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . 3 Traffic Calming Measures ................................................ . . . .. . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . ... 3 Residential Focus ........................,......,................................................. 4 Emergency Response ............................................................................ 5 Maintenance ......,................................................................................ 5 Minimum Criteria and Prioritization Process ... ... ...... ... ......... .... ..... ....... ... ... ... 5 Funding ..................,.......................................................................... 6 Removal... ... ... ...... ... .... .. ... ......... ... ... . .. ... ...... ... .,. ....... .. ... ... .... .. ...... . ... 7 Traffic Calming Process ................................................................................... 8 Appendix A - Process Flowchart Appendix B - Petition Form Appendix C - Priority Worksheet Appendix D - Traffic Calming Toolbox Village of Mount Prospect Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program 1 INTRODUCTION Traffic conditions on residential streets can greatly affect neighborhood livability. Residents have an expectation that their streets will be safe and pleasant. When they perceive this to be the case, the quality of life is enhanced. However, when the negative issues that can be associated with traffic intrude into their neighborhoods, residents' sense of community and personal well-being are diminished. Concerns of excessive speeding, cut-through traffic and pedestrian safety in neighborhoods are often expressed by residents to the Village. A belief in a diminished quality of life and feeling of safety by residents as a result of the unwelcome traffic press the Village to provide solutions. The Village of Mount Prospect's Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program incorporates education, enforcement and engineering solutions to the traffic issues that exist within our neighborhoods. The Institute of Transportation Engineers defines traffic calming as "the combination of mainly physical measures that reduce the negative effects of motor vehicle use, alter driver behavior and improve conditions for non-motorized street users." Using this definition as a framework, the program will provide a process to develop appropriate solutions and will include the cooperative efforts of Village Staff, residents, business owners and road users to achieve our desired goals. Village of Mount Prospect Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program 2 GOALS The goals of the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program are: <$ Enhance neighborhood safety and livability by reducing excessive speeding and traffic volumes on residential streets. <$ Encourage reasonable and responsible driver behavior through education and enforcement. <$ Promote and enhance safety for bicycle and pedestrian travel. $ Foster a collaborative working relationship between Village Staff, residents, business owners and road users in the development of traffic calming measures. $ Make efficient use of Village resources including personnel and funding by following the established process of evaluating and prioritizing traffic calming requests. Village of Mount Prospect Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program 3 POLICY STATEMENTS Education and Enforcement Traffic calming measures physically alter the roadway and are considered permanent changes that will impact the behavior of motorists. These dramatic changes should only be considered after other less costly options have been exhausted. This program employs a two-tiered approach when addressing traffic problems. Tier 1 solutions focus on education, enforcement and some engineering. Tier 2 solutions focus on traffic calming measures. As part of a Tier 1 analysis, the Engineering Staff and the Police Department can communicate their perspective to residents. The advantages and disadvantages of traffic calming measures, the purpose of traffic control devices (stop and yield signs), and the true extent of a problem based on collected data can be shared with residents to make them better informed. This can be accomplished through telephone conversations, neighborhood meetings, open houses, brochures, newsletters and television media. An education focus also solicits residents to get involved in easing traffic concerns. The placement of banners and stickers in neighborhoods by residents as well as radar speed observations in conjunction with the Police Department are examples. Enforcement relies on the Police Department to be a presence in neighborhoods and enforce existing speed limit and traffic control ordinances. In addition to selective enforcement, the Police Department also will utilize the speed radar trailer and drone vehicles to ease traffic concerns, Inexpensive engineering measures such as additional signage, striping and pavement markings will also be considered as part of a Tier 1 analysis before traffic calming measures are considered, . Education and enforcement solutions are to be tried prior to approval of any traffic calming measures. Traffic Calming Measures Horizontal deflection measures include traffic circles and chicanes. Constriction measures include choke points and medians. These measures slow traffic by physically forcing motorists to maneuver around the measures. The use of landscaping within these devices not only enhance the aesthetics of the streetscape but also can break up the motorist's line of sight thereby reducing the comfortable speed of travel. When used in conjunction with one another, these measures are effective for a longer stretch of roadway rather than just in the immediate vicinity of the measure. These measures also tend to have relatively lower impacts on emergency vehicles. However, use of these measures usually requires prohibition of on-street parking adjacent to the measure. . Horizontal deflection measures and constriction measures such as traffic circles, chicanes, choke points and medians are acceptable traffic calming measures. Pedestrian safety measures include curb extensions and pedestrian refuges. These measures are usually installed near high pedestrian areas such as schools and parks. The primary purpose of these measures is to make it safer for pedestrians to cross the street. Pedestrian refuges provide a place of safety for pedestrians along the center of the street allowing them to cross one direction at a time. Curb extensions narrow the street at a key crossing point minimizing the distance and time a pedestrian is in the street. A secondary benefit of these measures is that they can slow traffic as vehicles pass the measure. . Pedestrian safety measures such as curb extensions and pedestrian refuges are acceptable traffic calming measures. Vertical deflection measures include speed humps and raised crosswalks. These measures slow traffic by physically forcing motorists to maneuver over the measures. They are typically 12 to 14 feet long and 3 Village of Mount Prospect Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program 4 inches high. In order to be effective for a long stretch of roadway, they must be installed every 250-300 feet. Otherwise, many motorists will speed between measures in order to "make up for lost time". Speed humps also have a significant negative impact on emergency vehicle response time as well as maintenance activities such as snow plowing and street sweeping. Another concern associated with speed humps is the increased noise in the vicinity of the measure because of braking and accelerating vehicles. Speed humps can also present a liability to the Village should damage to a vehicle result from traveling over one. $ Vertical deflection measures such as speed humps and raised crosswalks are not acceptable traffic calming measures. Volume reducing measures include diverters, street closures and turn restrictions. These measures alter the existing transportation circulation system. As a result, these measures have impacts that would need to be evaluated in greater scope than just along one particular street. While they can be a viable solution to a street problem, it is important not to shift the problem to an adjacent street or neighborhood. $ Volume reducing measures such as diverters, street closures and turn restrictions are acceptable traffic calming measures but are to be evaluated as part of a area-wide study if their use is to be considered. Stop signs are not traffic calming measures. Residents, however, often request stop signs in an effort to calm traffic. Although residents believe that stop signs will reduce vehicle speeds, studies have shown that vehicle speeds after the vehicle has passed through the stop controlled intersection are as high, and sometimes higher, than without a stop sign as motorists try to "make up for lost time" after the stop sign. Inappropriate use of stop signs also creates significant negative impact to emergency vehicles. Emergency vehicles are required to verify that a stop controlled intersection is clear of vehicles prior to entering. Many times this means that the emergency vehicle must nearly come to a stop. The delay to an emergency vehicle at a stop sign is similar to that caused by a vertical deflection measure. Stop signs are traffic control devices that should be used when appropriate to assign right-of-way to conflicting traffic movements, not to calm traffic. Stop signs should be installed only at locations where conditions meet criteria established in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Unwarranted stop signs can have a high violation rate, create disrespect at other stop controlled intersections and create a false sense of security for other road users and pedestrians. $ Unwarranted stop signs are not to be used as part of the program. Residential Focus This program is focused on residential areas since a goal is to enhance neighborhood safety and livability. Only local residential and collector streets will be considered in this program. Arterial streets are specifically excluded from this program because the nature of arterial streets is to move large numbers of vehicles in a relatively free-flowing manner. Non-neighborhood traffic is encouraged to use arterial streets in order to reduce cut-through traffic in the neighborhoods. Diverted traffic must also be considered when evaluating traffic calming measures. In developing a solution for one traffic problem, it is important to not shift the problem to an adjacent street or neighborhood. Neighborhood participation is important in order to develop a consensus of the issues that adversely affect the neighborhood, evaluate the pros and cons of the various traffic calming measures and ensure that the issues are adequately addressed. It is essential to consider a wide range of perspectives and observations Village of Mount Prospect Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program 5 in addition to engineering data. The program is designed so that residents can become actively involved in defining the problem(s) and in the decision-making process in order to have a sense of ownership of the outcome. In addition to neighborhood participation, it is important that the process reflects the opinions of a majority of the residents and not just a few vocal residents. This is implemented through the use of a petition that must be signed by at least 66% of the properties within the limits of study to initiate the traffic calming process. At the end of the process, a final vote requiring a favorable response of a least 66% of the properties within the limits of study is required to implement permanent traffic calming measures. . Traffic calming measures shall only be considered on local residential and collector streets. $ Traffic calming projects are to minimize diverted traffic to other local residential or collector streets. . Residents and business owners will be encouraged to participate in the identification of the issues as well as development of the solution. . Traffic calming projects shall require a positive response from at least 66% of the properties within the identified boundary (fronting the affected street) to initiate the traffic calming process and also to approve the permanent installation of the measures. Emergency Response A critical concern about the use of traffic calming measures is the delay they may create for fire engines, ambulances and law enforcement vehicles. It is important to be aware of the trade-offs when making decisions about the use of traffic calming devices. The more aggressive measures for slowing traffic will slow emergency response as well. Recognizing the importance of emergency response time, all traffic calming measures will be designed to minimize the impact on emergency vehicles. Since many collector streets are considered primary emergency vehicle response routes, particular attention should be paid to the types of measures used on collector streets. Measures that considerably limit or restrict emergency vehicle access on collector streets will not be allowed. . Traffic calming measures shall be designed to minimize the impact on emergency vehicle response times. . Traffic calming measures shall be limited on primary response routes. $ The Fire Department and Police Department shall be involved in the process and be given the opportunity to provide input prior to approval of any traffic calming measures. Maintenance Many traffic calming measures alter the geometry of the roadway. Poorly designed measures could interfere with maintenance activities such as street sweeping, leaf pick-up and snow plowing. This could have a negative effect on the appearance of the neighborhood and the residents' quality of life. -$ Traffic calming measures shall be designed to minimize the impact on maintenance activities such as street sweeping, leaf pick-up and snow plowing. Minimum Criteria and Prioritization Process The Village receives requests on a regular basis for traffic calming measures. The primary complaints involve speeding vehicles or a high volume of vehicles relative to the street type. The extent of a problem on one street will be different than another street. Therefore, it is important to develop thresholds for streets to be eligible for traffic calming measures. Otherwise, traffic calming measures could be installed Village of Mount Prospect Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program 6 on streets where there would be minimal effect on traffic speed and volume. Not only would this set a precedent to agree to traffic calming measures on every neighborhood street, it would have a negative impact on efficiently using Staff resources and Village expenditures. Since traffic calming measures directly impact vehicle speed and volume, minimum speed or volume criteria will need to be met in order for a street to qualify for traffic calming measures. The need to prioritize projects arises when the demand for traffic calming measures exceeds Village resources. This includes Staff time to work on a project as well as construction funding. A common approach to efficiently utilize Village resources is to prioritize projects so that neighborhoods with the greater problems are addressed first. Since most neighborhood traffic problems involve speeding vehicles or a high volume of vehicles relative to the street type, these criteria are weighed heavier in the ranking. Another factor that is considered in defining the extent of the problem is the average annual reported crashes. Also, the impact traffic will have on a neighborhood depends upon the character of the street in the neighborhood and the amount of pedestrian activity within the neighborhood. Neighborhoods that have a higher number of pedestrian generators such as parks and schools will be impacted greater than those neighborhoods without pedestrian generators. Due to the high concentration of school-aged pedestrians and localized traffic congestion associated with elementary, middle and high schools, these pedestrian generators are weighted double that of other non-school pedestrian generators. A final factor used in defining the extent of the problem is the presence (or lack) of sidewalk. In neighborhoods without sidewalk, pedestrians are in greater conflict with vehicles than neighborhoods with sidewalk. $ In order to qualify for traffic calming measures, minimum traffic volume or speed criteria are to be met. '$ Traffic calming studies will be prioritized based on the extent of the problem. Funding The construction costs of traffic calming measures will be shared between the residents and the Village. The cost sharing concept has several advantages. It ensures that residents have a sense of ownership in the project thereby making the measures less likely to be removed in the future. The shared fundirig concept helps to avoid measures being removed by ensuring that they are really necessary. Another advantage of the shared funding approach is that the residents will be fiscally responsible in the development ofthe traffic calming project. Also, the Village can stretch its budget to cover more projects to more neighborhoods. Administration costs including Staff time to collect and analyze data, prioritize requests, conduct neighborhood meetings and design the traffic calming measures will be covered under the normal operating budget and will not be the responsibility of residents to directly fund. If a project goes to construction, the Village will cover the costs of the bidding process, construction inspection and project management. Those properties within the limits of a project will be responsible for 25% of the construction costs. Their share would be collected through a special assessment. Maintenance will need to be done to the traffic calming measures on a regular basis after construction. The Village will be responsible for maintenance such as replacing damaged signs, refreshing striping and pavement markings, pavement repair and landscaping. Maintenance of the traffic calming measures will be done at no direct cost to the residents. . Residents and business owners within the limits of a project shall be responsible for 25% of the construction costs of the traffic calming measures. The Village will be responsible for the remaining 75%. Village of Mount Prospect Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program 7 Removal Although there are many policies and steps incorporated in the program to avoid the scenario whereby a neighborhood requests to have traffic calming measures removed, it is acknowledged that this may occur. In order for consideration to remove traffic calming measures from a neighborhood, a petition signed by at least 66% of the properties within the limits of study must be submitted to the Village. A petition cannot be submitted for at least one year after installation of permanent traffic calming measures in order to avoid a premature reaction to their effectiveness. Should the Village receive a petition, a neighborhood meeting would then be held to discuss the issues and the impacts of traffic calming removal. The costs of removing the traffic calming measures would be paid 100% by the residents. The Village will then send a ballot to those properties identified within the limits of study detailing the removal and the associated costs. A deadline for return will be shown on the ballot. In order to proceed with removal of the traffic calming measures, a positive response from at least 66% of the properties must be received by the deadline. No response or a late response will be counted as opposition to the removal. <$ Traffic calming measures shall remain in-place for a minimum of one year before being considered for removal. <$ Removal of a traffic calming measure shall require a positive response from at least 66% of the properties within the identified boundary (fronting the affected street). <$ Residents and business owners within the limits of a project shall be responsible for 100% of the cost to remove a traffic calming measure. Village of Mount Prospect Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program 8 TRAFFIC CALMING PROCESS The process begins when the Village receives a request from a resident, homeowner's association or business owner to initiate a traffic study in a neighborhood due to concerns about traffic. The process is divided into two tiers, with Tier 1 focusing on education and enforcement and Tier 2 focusing on traffic calming measures. The Engineering Staff will first conduct a Tier 1 analysis. This may include collecting traffic volume and speed data, reviewing crash reports and conducting a site inspection. Tier 1 implementation measures are low cost tools consisting of education, enforcement and some engineering. Tier 1 measures include: .. education resources . selective speed / traffic control enforcement .. use of the radar speed trailer . use of a Police drone vehicle .. improving sight distance at intersections .. appropriate additional signing, striping or pavement markings At the end of the Tier 1 process, the requestor will be made aware of the Village's efforts. The Engineering Staff will again collect traffic volume and speed data comparing the information to the original study. If the requestor is not satisfied with the results, he/she can request to move to a Tier 2 analysis. However, in order to qualify, the existing traffic conditions must meet anyone of the following minimum criteria. Speed .. The average speed is at least 5mph above the speed limit . The 85th percentile speed is at least 8mph above the speed limit Volume .. The average daily traffic is at least 1000 vehicles . The peak hour volume is at least 100 vehicles The request is then prioritized for study among other requests utilizing the following prioritization criteria (35 maximum points). Speed 85th percentile speed (mph) above speed limit Points 8 2 9 4 10 6 11 8 12 or more 10 maximum Volume (average daily traffic) Local street Collector street Points 1000-11 00 1600 and less 1 1101-1200 1601-1700 2 1201-1300 1701-1800 3 1301-1400 1801-1900 4 1401-1500 1901-2000 5 1501-1600 2001-2100 6 Village of Mount Prospect Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program 9 1601-1700 2101-2200 7 1701-1800 2201-2300 8 1801-1900 2301-2400 9 1901 and above 2401 and above 10 maximum C hH"t ras IS ory # crashes (past 3 years) Points 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 or more 5 maximum Pedestrian Generators (school, church, park, business, other public facility) # of affected pedestrian generators Points 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 or more 5 maximum Sidewalk % street not having sidewalk Points 1-10 1 11-25 2 26-50 3 51-75 4 76-100 5 maximum Each year, the top projects on the priority list will be selected for study that year, depending upon the availability of funding. Once a project has been selected for study, the Engineering Staff will determine the limits of study and identify those properties directly impacted. Those properties identified within the limits of study will be invited to attend a Traffic Safety Commission Meeting. The purpose of the meeting will be to listen to the concerns of the residents, share the results of the Tier 1 analysis, discuss the traffic calming program and process, the advantages and disadvantages of traffic calming measures, and the potential fiscal impacts. This will mostly be an educational meeting, both for the Safety Commission to learn the concerns of the residents and for the residents to learn of the traffic calming process and its implications, This meeting is purposely held prior to the circulation of the initial petition so that the residents are more educated about the process that they are being asked to support. At this meeting, it is important that a neighborhood captain or working group is identified in order to coordinate future outreach efforts, Since traffic calming measures would have a direct impact on those who live on the street where the measures would be installed, it is necessary to determine if there is adequate support for the process before continuing. Therefore, a petition requesting initiation of the Tier 2 process must be signed by at least 66% of the properties within the limits of study identified by the Engineering Staff. The neighborhood captain or working group will need to coordinate this effort. If at least 66% of the properties do not sign the petition, the request may not proceed. Each property is represented by one signature. To clarify, the petition will be signed by those who are in favor of moving forward in the Village of Mount Prospect Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program 10 traffic calming process. At this point, it does not mean a property owner supports a traffic calming project and its fiscal obligations. Should the Village receive a petition with an adequate number of signatures, the Engineering Staff will begin to develop alternatives for implementation of traffic calming measures and their fiscal impacts. The Engineering Staff will also solicit input from the Fire Department, Police Department and Public Works as part of project development. Those properties identified within the limits of study will then be invited to attend a second Traffic Safety Commission Meeting. The purpose of the meeting will be for the Engineering Staff to present the alternatives and to identify the neighborhood's preferred alternative. The Safety Commission will vote to support the preferred alternative and perform a trial project. If the Safety Commission opposes the neighborhood's preferred alternative or any project for this location, the neighborhood may either support the Safety Commission's decision or request the issue be presented to the Village Board of Trustees for further consideration. The Village Board of Trustees will then make a final decision on whether or not to proceed with a trial project. Should the Engineering Staffbe authorized to develop a trial project either by the Safety Commission or Village Board of Trustees, one will be implemented as soon as possible and left in place for a specific period of time. During the second Traffic Safety Commission Meeting, the neighborhood should be made aware that trial projects might not be as effective as permanent traffic calming measures. Trial projects are less attractive because they usually consist of pavement markings, cones and/or parking bumpers to mimic the shape of the traffic calming measure. There is no new landscaping associated with trial projects, therefore, there is no benefit of sight line breaks. At the end of the trial period, the Engineering Staff will again collect traffic volume and speed data. A survey will also be sent to those properties within the limits of study soliciting their input on the trial project. They will then be invited to a third Traffic Safety Commission Meeting to discuss the effects of the trial project, implementation of permanent measures, neighborhood approval requirements and funding. Those properties within the study area will be responsible for 25% of the construction costs of the permanent traffic calming measures. They will not be responsible for any costs associated with Engineering Staff time for study, design, meetings and construction management as well as materials for a trial project. The Safety Commission will vote to support implementation of permanent measures contingent upon support of the neighborhood. If the Safety Commission opposes implementation of permanent measures, the neighborhood may either support the Safety Commission's decision or request the process continue. To continue, a letter from the neighborhood captain or working group must be sent to the Village requesting the ballots be sent to the neighborhood for a final vote. At this point, should the Safety Commission and neighborhood agree to not proceed with permanent installation of traffic calming measures, the temporary measures will be removed immediately, Should the Safety Commission support implementation of permanent measures or the Village receive a written request from the neighborhood captain or working group to proceed with the process, the Engineering Staffwill finalize design and determine a cost estimate for the project. The Village will then send a ballot to those properties identified within the limits of study detailing the scope of the project and the associated costs. A deadline for return will be shown on the ballot. In order to proceed, a positive response from at least 66% of the properties must be received by the deadline. No response or a late response will be counted as opposition to the project. At this point, should the neighborhood oppose installation of permanent traffic calming measures, the temporary measures will be removed immediately. Should the Village receive an adequate number of favorable votes, the Engineering Staff will present the project to the Village Board of Trustees for final approval. Should they deny the project, the process will end and the temporary measures removed. With their approval, the Engineering Staff will prepare final plans and specifications. With funding allocated for the project, it will be advertised for construction. Village of Mount Prospect Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program The Engineering Staff will provide bidding services, inspection services and construction management throughout the project. The temporary measures will be removed just prior to construction. After a specific period of time after completion, the Engineering Staff will again collect traffic volume and speed data to determine the effectiveness of the project. The findings will be included in a report that will be distributed the Village Board of Trustees, Safety Commission, appropriate Staff and the public (as requested). Additional traffic studies may be done periodically to determine if they are still achieving the desired goals. --~ '"'''Ie w",.. """""m..J \.:!I NEIGHBORHDDD TRAF'F'IC CALMING PROGRAM PRUCIESB FLDWCHART ::::::::::::;::;:;::11.':::::::::::::",::: ...................... ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~lIii::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: lilllil:I_._:IIIII:ill :11:1111111111111111111111_1111111111111111111111111 yo:s ............ .. ::::::!:!:::!:::..,_:::!:::::.:!:::::. . ....................... . ...... 1IIIIIIIIil'...llllllillll 1111:1111:1:1111111.&"111:.1'1.11:1::::1 NO i:i:i:lilllllllllllll.':'lilllil'I:':::::: NO ..................... ................. .:.:.~~:::::::::::. .:::::::::::::m~~:.. ........... YES NO ........................... ........................... ........................... ........................... .................:;,::>;;:-,..... :::::::::~~m.i.~~t:::::))( III_.~:IIIIIIIIII NO ::r::::::::~~~::.. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .:.... .:i:::I::::lill.l.i:I..illlllill:liilllllll Mount Prospect Director Glen R. Andler Deputy Director Sean P. Dorsey Mount Prospect Public Works Department 1700 W. Central Road, Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056-2229 TRAF'F'IC CALMING PETITION FORM Per the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program, in order for the Village to consider traffic calming measures, the person/group making the request must obtain signatures from at least 66% of those properties directly impacted by the request. The attached map indicates those properties directly impacted by the request. Based on the _ properties, a minimum of _ signatures is required. Note that only one (1) signature will be counted for each property. The person/group making the request must make all effort to notify every property owner. Once everyone directly impacted by the request has been notified and the minimum number of signatures has been obtained, the petition form is to be returned to the Public Works Department. Once the petition has been processed, the Village will then notify everyone of the next steps. A description of the traffic concerns will assist the Village in developing a solution. On the following lines, please provide the following information: . Description ofproblem(s) · Time(s) of day / day(s) of week when the problem occurs · Possible causes of the problem · Any other information the Village should be aware of regarding the problem Phone 847/870-5640 Fax 847/253-9377 www.mountprospect.org ~ ;... ~ ~ =: ~ . .... ...... . .... ...... ~ ~ ... 'd <U <U ~ .~ """ !3 00 ~ ;S .... .~ <8 t ell "0 ~ ~ <U 1il ;:l ell .5 ~ .... <U ;:l 0 S 0 ell ;>" ~ OJ .... .... s::: <8 ell .s 0 ell <> 03 13 ~ <> <> ~ "0 !J:: <U 't;j s !a .= bJ) ell .9 s::: ~ .s ;:l s::: ~ 0 03 .~ <> <U <> S .... <U ij3 bJ) :s! ~.. s::: ~ .s ell s::: 0 <U 03 <> ::0 <> ~ .0; <> ell lEi -^. 0 """ ~ <oS """ <U ! 0 .... .::: 0; ~ OJ > !a 0 <U "0 5 s::: 8 ~ "0 A.. """ "3 ..... 0 01) > 0 ..s::: = s::: ell <U 0 1il 's ;S .~ ~ ...... <U ] U ";J ~ > Q) 0.. U ..s::: ell <U en .9 .5 ;S 0 u ~ l-< !.+:: <U <U A.. ....... ~ """ > ~ """ .!:l '@ ;::l 0; ;::l ell .L> "'d ~ .9 ;::l 0 ;::l ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 .Ej (;..0 ..l:I .a ~ 0 15 ell ~ 00 .~ Q).J:J I ::0 00 ~"Eh 0 OJ 0 s::: a .;) or;. s::: 0 >z ell 0 <U 0 0 0 ;>" "0 > a:l .:t:: a:l --- Villag' ofM"",,! _""" \~? Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program I .1~ Location Priority Worksheet Speed Factor Speed Limit 85th percentile speed above speed limit Points 8 2 9 4 10 6 11 8 12 or more 10 maximum Volume Factor Street Designation Local street Collector street Points 1000-11 00 1600 and less 1 1101-1200 1601-1700 2 1201-1300 1701-1800 3 1301-1400 1801-1900 4 1401-1500 1901-2000 5 1501-1600 2001-2100 6 1601-1700 2101-2200 7 1701-1800 2201-2300 8 1801-1900 2301-2400 9 1901 and above 2401 and above 10 maximum Crash History Factor # crashes (vast 3 vears) Points 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 or more 5 maximum Pedestrian Generator Factor # of affected vedestrian generators Points 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 or more 5 maximum * schools weighted double Sidewalk Factor % street having sidewalk Points 1-10 1 11-25 2 26-50 3 51-75 4 76-100 5 maximum Total Points Points Recorded Speed & Volume Data average speed (mph) I I 85th percentile speed (mph) I I average daily traffic volume I I peak hour traffic volume I I Village of Mount Prospect Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program flJ DI APPENDIX D TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLBOX This toolbox was developed to provide guidance on the use of various traffic calming measures acceptable in the Village of Mount Prospect. It is intended to be used in conjunction with the overall Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program that outlines the goals, policies and process for addressing traffic concerns in the Village. Each page provides the following information for different traffic calming measures: Description An illustration and written description is provided for each measure. Application Each traffic calming measure is designed to address specific traffic issues. The application section outlines the common uses for each measure. Advantages Each measure in the toolbox provides some advantages to traffic calming and to the quality of life in the neighborhood. The advantages section outlines the positive impacts associated with each traffic calming measure. Disadvantages Although each measure included in the toolbox provides some positive aspects to traffic calming, each has negative impacts as well. The disadvantages are outlined so that tools can be evaluated for both their positive and negative effects. Variations There are often several variations of specific traffic calming measures. Several of these are provided where they are appropriate. Special Considerations This section offers a variety of issues that should be considered for each traffic calming measure. Emergency response and operational concerns are flagged in this section. Cost The cost section is intended as a general guide to costs using low, moderate and high designations for the different measures. Village of Mount Prospect Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program D2 Traffic Calming Measures Not Used in the Program Vertical deflection measures such as speed humps and raised crosswalks are not considered acceptable traffic calming measures in the Village. They have a significant negative impact on emergency vehicle response time as well as maintenance activities such as snow plowing and street sweeping. Another concern associated with speed humps is the increased noise in the vicinity of the measure because of braking and accelerating vehicles. Speed humps can also be a liability to the Village should damage to a vehicle result from traveling over one. Many other communities will not consider them, have stopped installing them and have even removed them. Stop signs are not traffic calming measures. Studies have shown that stop signs that do not meet established criteria have a higher violation rate. This can lead to a false sense of security for pedestrians and other road users. Studies also have shown that vehicle speeds after the vehicle has passed through an unwarranted stop controlled intersection are as high, and occasionally higher, that without a stop sign, as motorists try to "make up lost time" at the stop sign. The acceleration and deceleration near stop signs generates noise and adversely affects air quality. Inappropriate use of stop signs also creates significant delay to emergency vehicles since they are required to nearly come to a stop to verify that the intersection is clear of vehicles prior to entering. Children at Play signs are commonly requested in neighborhoods, however, they are not standard traffic control devices and have not been found to be effective in improving the safety of children. Residential areas commonly have children and the presence of signs does not necessarily change driver behavior in the neighborhood. The Village's policy is that such signs will only be installed adjacent to parks where there is an expectation on the driver's part to see a concentration of children playing. Village of Mount Prosped Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program .\!&.....",........ \~ D3 Traffic Calming Measures Used in the Program Education Enforcement Signing & Striping Horizontal Deflection Measures . Traffic Circle . Chicane Constriction Measures . Choke Point . Median / Entry Island Pedestrian Safety Measures . Curb Extension . Pedestrian Refuge Volume Reducing Measures (area-wide study)* . Diverter .. Median Barrier . Street Closure . Turn Restriction * Volume reducing measures such as diverters, median barriers, street closures and turn restrictions alter the existing transportation circulation system. As a result, these measures have impacts that would need to be evaluated in greater scope than just along one particular street. While they can be a viable solution to a street problem, it is important not to shift the problem to an adjacent street or neighborhood. Careful consideration must be taken before using volume reducing measures. Village of Mount Prospect Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program t;JD4 EDUCATION Description Using different media such as written material, television, meetings and one-on-one conversations, information is provided to residents regarding traffic from the Village's perspective. Application . Streets that are believed to experience excessive speeding, excessive volume or stop sign violations as communicated by residents . Part of Tier 1 analysis Advantages . Opportunity to discuss extent of problem, pros and cons of solutions, and appropriate course of action . Staff able to quantify problem as part of a study . Staff and residents partner to determine appropriate solutions . Village resources used to communicate Staffs perspective . Solicit resident involvement to ease traffic concerns Disadvantages . Residents may not agree with Staff s perspective or recommendations Variations Special Considerations . Residents need to understand process before considering traffic calming measures Cost: Low other than a considerable amount of Staff time Village orMonnt Prospect Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program rslm ENFORCEMENT Description Enforcement relies on the Police Department to be a presence in neighborhoods and enforce existing speed limit and traffic control ordinances. Application . Streets that are believed to experience excessive speeding or stop sign violations as communicated by residents . Streets that have a history of excessive speeding or stop sign violations . Part of Tier 1 analysis Advantages . Effective while officer present . Radar speed trailer and drone vehicle can lower vehicle speeds with no officer present . Use of radar speed trailer and drone vehicle offers flexibility to implement in short notice . Extent of problem can be discussed with residents and Engineering Staff after enforcement period Disadvantages . Requires periodic enforcement to have long-term effect . Staffing limitations stretches Police Department personnel and resources Variations Special Considerations . Often helpful in school zones . May be used during learning period when new measures or signs first installed Cost: Low other than a considerable amount of Staff time Village of Mount Prospect Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program f;J D6 SIGNING & STRIPING 2S SPEED LIMIT Description Regulatory signs such as speed limit and stop signs along with striping and pavement markings are used to provide guidance to motorists to enhance the safety of motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians in a neighborhood. Application · Streets that are believed to experience a traffic problem as communicated by residents . Part of Tier 1 analysis Advantages . Provides definition of traffic ordinances . Assists Police Department in enforcement efforts . Inexpensive approach to address a traffic problem Disadvantages · Requires periodic enforcement to have long-term effect . Unrealistic or unwarranted signs tend to be disregarded . Use of a lot of signs can detract the look of a neighborhood Variations Special Considerations . Consistency from street to street increases expectation on motorists' part Cost: Low other than a considerable amount of Staff time to enforce Village of Mount Prospect Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program '5Jm TRAFFIC CmCLE 'ClJ~ "~~J' !to ~~L -.,-:/ --0--- . -." -~... = ----' ...., ~rr '.. -'--.- . .- ~~i~~FiU !~~n ,-, Description A traffic circle is a raised circular median in an intersection with counterclockwise traffic flow. Vehicles must change their travel path to maneuver around the circle. They are typically landscaped and have appropriate signage to safely guide motorists. Application . Streets where speed control is desired · Intersections where there is a high rate of right angle collisions Advantages · Reduces vehicle speeds through intersection . Breaks up sight lines on straight streets . Landscaping improves aesthetics at intersection . Can reduce right angle collisions Disadvantages . May impede emergency response · Narrowed travel lanes may cause bicycle / vehicle conflict . Creates physical obstruction in the travel way . Requires some on-street parking removal near intersection . May impede left turns by large vehicles Variations . Can include curb extensions . Can include diverter islands Special Considerations · Should be used in series or in conjunction with other traffic calming devices · Fire Department and Police Department input necessary with design · Lighting should be provided at intersection · May require educational campaign and learning period Cost: High Village of Mount Prosped Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program Woo cmCANE Q;; i L ~ ~~I_~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ ! --- .- ....::::::: ?70 Q-t{a- ~ UL [j--__ ~ Description Chicanes create a curved street alignment that is designed to fit in existing rights-of-way. The curvilinear alignment requires additional maneuvering and reduces motorists' sight line. They can be landscaped and have appropriate signage or striping to safely guide motorists. Application . Streets where speed control is desired . Straight streets where reduced sight line is desired Advantages . Reduces vehicle speeds along street . Breaks up sight lines on straight streets . Landscaping improves aesthetics along street . Minimal impact on emergency response Disadvantages . Requires some on-street parking removal . Snow removal, leaf pick-up, street sweeping more difficult . Expensive since they are installed in series along street . Existing driveways and parkway trees may cause difficulty to design Variations . Traffic lanes can be narrowed to have greater impact on vehicle speeds Special Considerations . Cannot be used where right-of-way is limited Cost: High Village of Mount Prospect Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program fJD' CHOKE POINT wi] .~ ; . . t. . oooa'ill_ , ~ .a:~~~ST~~~'~'~" -~---~~----~~----- iI:ID --I~"'-=-------~~~'~.('P~ niJ15 Description A choke point is a segment of street narrowing where existing street edges or curbs are extended toward the center of the street. They are typically landscaped and have appropriate signage to safely guide motorists. Application . Streets where speed control is desired . Shorten midblock pedestrian crossings Advantages . Narrowed street section may contribute to lower vehicle speeds . Landscaping improves aesthetics along street . Minimal impact on emergency response Disadvantages . Requires some on-street parking removal . Snow removal, leaf pick-up, street sweeping more difficult . Narrowed travel lanes may cause bicycle / vehicle conflict Variations . Can include crosswalk at high pedestrian crossing areas Special Considerations . Should be used in series or in conjunction with other traffic calming devices Cost: Moderate to high depending on landscaping and storm sewer adjustments Village of Mount Prospect Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program MEDIAN I ENTRY ISLAND d I : i ~.....~~~~~ ~tOIIIP=-1 ~--_.~ ':~ l~ L/ ." -. ~h' Description A median / entry island is a raised island in the center of a two-way street. They identify the entrance to a residential area when placed near an intersection. They are typically landscaped. Application . Streets where speed control is desired . Define entry to a residential area Advantages . Narrowed street section may contribute to lower vehicle speeds . Notifies motorists of change in street character . Landscaping improves aesthetics along street . Minimal impact on emergency response . Breaks up sight lines on straight streets Disadvantages . Requires some on-street parking removal . Need for maintenance . Narrowed travel lanes may cause bicycle / vehicle conflict . Creates physical obstruction in the travel way Variations . Can incorporate neighborhood identification signing and monument Special Considerations . Cannot be used on existing narrow streets . Care must be taken not to create sight obstruction near intersection Cost: Moderate to high depending on landscaping Village of Mount Prospect Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program 'mil CURB EXTENSION !~ I I I I -Q------ <<~----- 1!Jl I ~ I I ~ I Description A curb extension is a segment of street narrowing at an intersection where existing street edges or curbs are extended toward the center of the street. They have appropriate signage to safely guide motorists. Application . Wide streets with a significant amount of traffic . Intersections where a significant amount of pedestrians cross the street Advantages . Reduces pedestrian crossing distance and time . Makes pedestrian crossing points more visible to motorists . Prevents on-street parking near intersection . Minimal impact on emergency response Disadvantages . Snow removal, leaf pick-up, street sweeping more difficult . Narrowed travel lanes may cause bicycle / vehicle conflict Variations . Install on one or both intersecting streets . Extend edge or curb on one or both sides of streets Special Considerations . Should not be used on existing narrow streets Cost: Moderate to high depending on landscaping and storm sewer adjustments Village of Mount Prospect Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program f5112 PEDESTRIAN REFUGE Description A pedestrian refuge is a raised island in the center of a two-way street. The island has a gap in the curb creating two segments allowing passage for pedestrians. They mayor may not be landscaped but have appropriate signage to safely guide motorists. Application . Wide streets with a significant amount of traffic . Midblock locations where a significant amount of pedestrians cross the street Advantages . Allows pedestrians to cross halfthe street at a time . Makes pedestrian crossing points more visible to motorists . Minimal impact on emergency response Disadvantages . Requires some on-street parking removal . Narrowed travel lanes may cause bicycle 1 vehicle conflict . Creates physical obstruction in the travel way Variations . Use brick or textured pavement as landscaping alternative Special Considerations . Cannot be used on existing narrow streets Cost: Moderate to high depending on landscaping Village of Mount Prospect Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program DIVERTER ~~ ~ ~. IX;j --~-- a::!) Cl:iD a'II~~ ~ ~~ : :1-- m Description A diverter is a physical barrier that prevents access to specific legs of an intersection. They mayor may not be landscaped but have appropriate signage to safely guide motorists. Application . Streets where volume control is desired . Prevent cut through traffic by eliminating entry onto a residential street Advantages . Reduces traffic volume on street . Bicycle and pedestrian access still provided Disadvantages . Prohibits or limits access to local homeowner . Prohibits or limits access to emergency vehicle . Traffic may shift to an adjacent street or neighborhood Variations . Full diagonal diverter bisects an intersection · Semi-diverter prohibits access into a residential area but allows vehicles to exit Special Considerations · Care must be taken not to shift problem to an adjacent street or neighborhood · Fire Department and Police Department input necessary with design Cost: Moderate to high depending on landscaping , ' Village of Mount Prospect Neighborhood Tram~ Calming Program ~14 MEDIAN BARRIER ~ -is ~~... B::!ll ~~rllJ ~~ ('J I -~~ .'.~_--I"o Description A median barrier is a raised island along the center of a two-way street extending through an intersection to prevent specific turning movements. They mayor may not be landscaped but have appropriate signage to safely guide motorists. Application . Streets where volume control is desired . Need to limit cut through traffic by controlling left-turn and side street through movements Advantages . Reduces traffic volume on side street . Reduces potential for collisions at intersection by eliminating left-turns . Landscaping improves aesthetics along street . Breaks up sight lines on straight streets Disadvantages . Limits access to local homeowner and emergency vehicle . Increase in U-turns at ends of medians . May require some on-street parking removal . Creates physical obstruction in the travel way . Traffic may shift to an adjacent street or neighborhood Variations . Various widths and lengths Special Considerations . Care must be taken not to shift problem to an adjacent street or neighborhood . Fire Department and Police Department input necessary with design . Important to maintain pedestrian and bicycle access Cost: Moderate to high depending on design and landscaping ~ , . Village of Mount Prospect Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program ~15 STREET CLOSURE Description A street closure is a physical barrier across a street eliminating all vehicle access. Appropriate signage is used to warn motorists of condition. Application . Streets where volume control is desired . Prevent cut through traffic by eliminating access onto a residential street Advantages . Reduces traffic volume on street . Reduces noise associated with vehicles Disadvantages . Prohibits access to local homeowner . Prohibits access to emergency vehicle . Traffic may shift to an adjacent street or neighborhood Variations . Midblock closure creating a dead-end street Special Considerations . Care must be taken not to shift problem to an adjacent street or neighborhood . Fire Department and Police Department input necessary with design . Important to maintain pedestrian and bicycle access Cost: Moderate ~ . Village of Mount Prospect Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program TURN RESTRICTION 7AM-9AM 4PM-6PM MON . FRI Description A turn restriction limits or prohibits specific turning movements by way of signage. Application . Streets where volume control is desired · Prevent cut through traffic by eliminating access onto a residential street Advantages . Reduces traffic volume on street . Inexpensive to install . Can be tailored to be time of day and day of week specific Disadvantages . Limits access to local homeowner . Requires enforcement since no physical barrier . Traffic may shift to an adjacent street or neighborhood Variations . Can use striping, pavement markings and/or a physical barrier to emphasize turn restriction Special Considerations . Care must be taken not to shift problem to an adjacent street or neighborhood Cost: Low VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT FINANCE COMMISSION AGENDA Thursday, April 28, 2005 7:00 p.m. Village Hall Building 50 South Emerson Street Third Floor Executive Conference Room I Call to Order II Approval of Minutes - Meeting of March 30,2005 III Discussion Regarding Revenue Alternatives - General and Combined Sewer IV Long Range Financial Plan II - Update V Other Business VI Chairman's Report VII Finance Director's Report VIII Next Meeting: Thursday, May 26,2005, 7:00 p.m. IX Adjournment NOTE: Any individual who would like to attend this meeting but because of a disability needs some accommodation to participate should contact the Finance Director's Office at 50 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect, (847) 392-6000, ext. 5277, TDD (847) 392-6064. FINANCE COMMISSION DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MEETING MARCH 30, 2005 VILLAGE HALL BUILDING DRAFT I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Those present included Chairman John Kom and Commissioners Vince Grochocinski, Rich Micelli, Tom Pekras, Ann Smilanic and Lee Williams. Also present were Director of Public Works Glen Andler, Deputy Director of Public Works Sean Dorsey, Water Superintendent Matt Overeem, Director of Finance David Erb, Deputy Director of Finance Carol Widmer and Finance Administrative Assistant Lisa Burkemper. Commissioner Charles Bennett was absent. This was the first meeting for the two new members of the Finance Commission Rich Micelli and Lee Williams. Commissioner Rich Micelli and Commissioner Lee Williams replaced Ann Hull and Brian McPartlin who both resigned. II. ApPROY AL OF MINUTES Commissioner Vince Grochocinski motioned to approve the minutes of January 27,2005. Commissioner Ann Smilanic seconded the motion and the minutes were accepted as presented. III. CONTINUED DISCUSSION REGARDING PROPOSED 2005 WORK PLAN Chairman John Korn began by stating the discussion on the 2005 work plan would be deferred until after the discussion about the combine sewer repairs. IV. DISCUSSION ON COMBINE SEWER REPAIRS Deputy Director of Public Works Sean Dorsey began with an overview of the process involved in televising the combine sewers throughout the village, gathering the information needed to evaluate the areas that need to be fixed and determining the order in which they will be fixed. Commissioner Tom Pekras asked what the diameter of a typical sewer is. Mr. Dorsey stated that on average the combined sewers are approximately 15 - 18 inches in diameter. Chairman John Korn asked where the sewers were located. Mr. Dorsey stated that the majority of the sewers run down the middle of the streets. Commissioner Tom Pekras asked what the life expectancy of the cured in place process was. Deputy Director Dorsey stated that it is approximately 50 - 70 years. Deputy Director Dorsey further explained the total repairs and the anticipated costs for each of the repair categories. The following is a summary of the total anticipated costs which total an estimated $14,426,000: Category 5 (most urgent) Category 4 Category 3 Category 2 Category 1 $2,480,000 $2,548,000 $5,240,000 $4,158,000 $0 Commissioner Ann Smilanic asked if the village would go out to bid to contract for the work. Director of Public Works Glen Andler stated that the village would go to bid because there are several companies that perform this type of repair work. Mr. Dorsey added that the repair plan would probably run over a period of 10 years, with the categories 5 and 4 being handled in years 1 - 3 and categories 3 and 2 between years 4 - 10. Commissioner Rick Micelli asked if there were any external funds available for this type of repair work. Mr. Andler stated that there is no federal funding or low interest money available. Director of Finance David Erb raised the question of possibly borrowing money to cover the first two years of the project to get a jump-start on the critical areas. Commissioner Ann Smilanic mentioned the option of doubling the sewer rate. Deputy Director of Finance Carol Widmer stated that doubling the sewer rate would generate roughly $500,000 per year. Chairman John Korn asked what the timing was for the Finance Commission in making recommendations on possible financing plans. Mr. Erb stated that the topic would first be addressed in May at the Long Range Financial Plan discussions. Commissioner Ann Smilanic stated that there should be publicity about this project so that the residents are aware of the condition of the combine sewers, what is needed in the coming years for repairs and how critical the repairs are. Commissioner Tom Pekras agrees that with the village's fiscal position and the urgency for the first three years of the program, issuing debt would be a good idea. Commissioner Lee Williams stated that instead of doubling the sewer rate in year one, maybe the rate could be steadily increased so that it wouldn't be such a drastic increase at one time. CONTINUED DISCUSSION REGARDING PROPOSED 2005 WORK PLAN There was a brief discussion regarding the commission's 2005 work plan. It was decided that the topics originally scheduled for March, which included Revenue Alternatives, Funding for the Sewer Repair Project and the Long-Range Financial Plan II would be moved to April. All other items on the work plan with remain the same. V. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT Chairman John Korn highlighted the topics discussed at the board meetings that have taken place recently. VI. FINANCE DIRECTOR'S REPORT Director of Finance David Erb circulated a copy of the member information list and asked all commissioners to provide updated information. VII. OTHER BUSINESS There was nothing to discuss. VIII. NEXT MEETING: APRIL 28. 2005 Commissioner Tom Pekras motioned to adjourn which Commissioner Rick Micelli seconded. The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. The next meeting will be Thursday, April 28, 2005. Respectfully submitted, Lisa Burkemper Administrative Assistant Finance Department 2 MAYOR Gerald 1. Farley VILLAGE MANAGER Michael E. Janonis TRUSTEES Timothy J. Corcoran Paul Wm. Hoefert Richard M. Lohrstorfer Michaele Skowron Irvana K. Wilks Michael A. Zadel Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department 50 South Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 VILLAGE CLERK Velma W. Lowe Phone: 847/818-5328 Fax: 847/818-5329 TDD: 847/392-6064 AGENDA MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING LOCATION: Mount Prospect Village Hall 50 S. Emerson Street Mount Prospect, IL 60056 MEETING DATE & TIME: Thursday April 28, 2005 7:30 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MARCH 24, 2005 MEETING . PZ-49-04 / 7 N. Main Street / Licari Consolidation . PZ-07 -05 / 2410 E. Rand Road / Taco Bell III. OLD BUSINESS A. PZ-50-04 / River West / Condominium Conversion. NOTE: This case is Village Board Final. IV. NEW BUSINESS A. PZ-10-05 / 100 S. School Street / St. Paul Lutheran Church / Variations & Development Code Exception. NOTE: This case is Village Board Final. B. PZ-11-05 / 1101 S. Linneman Road / Mitroff Group / Rezoning, Conditional Use, and Variation. NOTE: This case is Village Board Final. C. PZ-14-05 / 700 S. Louis Street / McDonell Residence / Conditional Use (porch). NOTE: This case is Planning & Zoning Final. V. QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS · PZ-49-04/ 7 N. Main Street / Licari Consolidation: Village Board approved 4/19/05 · PZ-07-05 / 2410 E. Rand Road / Taco Bell: Village Board approved 4/6/05 VI. ADJOURNMENT Any individual who would like to attend this meeting, but because of a disability needs some accommodation to participate, should contact the Community Development Department at 50 S. Emerson, Mount Prospect, IL 60056, 847-392-6000, Ext. 5328, TDD #847-392-6064. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO~ PZ-49-04 Hearing Date: March 24,2005 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 7 N. Main Street PETITIONER: Teresa Licari 4 Red Ridge Circle Barrington,IL 60010-5326 LEGAL NOTICES MAILED: February 9, 2005 PIN#: 03-34-410-044-0000 REQUEST: Petitioner is seeking approval to consolidate (2) parcels and create a one- lot subdivision/one lot of record MEMBERS PRESENT: Acting Chair Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Marlys Haaland Ronald Roberts Matt Sledz MEMBERS ABSENT: Chair Arlene Juracek Richard Rogers Keith Youngquist STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Clare Sloan, Neighborhood Planner INTERESTED PARTIES: Teresa Licari Bryan Mraz Mark Watychowicz Acting Chair Joseph Donnelly called the meeting to order at 7:33 p.m. Leo Floros moved to approve the minutes of the February 24, 2005 meeting, but corrected to reflect Ronald Roberts voting against the sign Variation, and seconded by Ronald Roberts. The motion was approved 3-0, with 2 abstentions by Marlys Haaland, new member, and Matt Sledz. Under Old Business, Mr. Donnelly asked for a motion to continue PZ-50-04 to the April 28, 2005 meeting. Matt Sledz moved to continue the case; seconded by Ronald Roberts, and it was approved 5-0. Mr. Donnelley introduced Case No. PZ-49-04, a request to consolidate two parcels and create a one-lot subdivision into one lot of record. He said that this case would be Village Board Final. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, summarized the request. She said that discussion on the Petitioner's project was continued from the February Planning & Zoning Commission meeting. As you recall, the Petitioner is proposing to consolidate two parcels, which were acquired through a county tax sale, to create a one-lot subdivision. The parcels would be consolidated through the proposed Licari's Consolidation plat. The Village Attorney determined that the Subject Property was created without the benefit of a subdivision and Village review. In addition, he determined that the Village could not prevent the Petitioner from seeking approval of the proposed Licari's Consolidation. However, future development of the site must comply with all Village Codes. It is important to note that the item being reviewed is the plat that consolidates the parcels and creates a one-lot subdivision. The redevelopment of the site is a separate issue. If the proposed development does not comply with Village regulations or requires Conditional Use approval, the P& Z, and most likely Village Board, would review the request and make a decision in response to the development. Planning & Zoning Commission Joseph Donnelley, Acting Chairperson PZ-49-04 Page 2 Ms. Connolly sumrriarized the standards for approving a subdivision and said they relate to the physi-cal development of a subdivision. The regulations provide requirements for the development of the block, and the development of the lot. Staff reviewed the proposed plat and found that it had been prepared in accordance with the Village Code. In response to the discussion held at the February meeting, the Petitioner submitted a plat of survey.. However, Staff prepared an aerial photograph exhibit titled "Existing Condit~ons" to depict current conditions. In addition, the color-coded page from the Sidwell book identifies the adjacent properties and the Subject Property. This exhibit documents that the existing apartment buildings were built over the property lines. The 'hooks' indicate common ownership, and a dashed line indicates a parcel line. The Village's Zoning Ordinance does not recognize a parcel line the same as a lot line and current code regulations would require the Petitioner to consolidate the parcels before the development could be approved. Also, the Staff exhibit titled "Address Verification" documents that the address assigned to the Subject Property is '7 N. Main Street' although the Petitioner has referred to it as 7 A N. Main Street. Ms. Connolly summarized the request: the Petitioner is seeking approval of the Plat of Consolidation only, however, during the original review of the request, the P&Z Commission raised questions regarding the 30' easement that extends along the rear lot line of the subject property and the adjacent properties and how the easement would affect future development with respect to parking. Per the P&Z Commissioner's request, the Village Attorney prepared a memo clarifying that the parking easement would probably survive upon approval of the Plat. In addition, he found that the title document submitted by the. attorney for the adjacent property demonstrated that there was limited right to park in the easement, but that it would survive the tax division and the plat approval as well. The Village Attorney stated that whether the limitation on the parking rights are so restrictive as to prevent the development would depend on the nature of the development and the extent to which portions of the easement would be used for parking. He noted that is an issue to contend with when, if ever, a development plan was submitted. Therefore, Staff continues to recommend that the Planning & Zoning Commission approve the plat for 7 N. Main Street, Case No. PZ-49-04, because the plat meets Village Code requirements and future development of the site is a separate issue to be reviewed when plans are submitted for review. However, as stated in the Village Attorney's memo, the plat should be approved with the statement that the approval is for consolidation purposes only and does not extend to any development approval of any kind and asks that the applicant acknowledge this for the record. The Village Board's decision is final for this case. Mr. Donnelley asked about current and past zoning for the property. Ms. Connolly said it had been Residential and now was B5; Village records do not indicate that it was ever a Planned Unit Development. It was determined that current code regulations would prohibit this same subdividing/development situation. Teresa Licari, 4 Red Ridge Circle Drive, Barrington, IL, and her attorney, Bryan Mraz, 111 Irving Park Road, Roselle, IL, were sworn in to testify. Mr. Mraz said he has recently become involved in this case, has read the Village Attorney's letter and concurs with his opinion. There is an easement agreement across the rear of all the properties for ingress and egress with a parking reservation that only runs to the subject property. ML Mraz said that is the opinion of the Village Attorney and he concurs with that opinion. What may actually have happened in practice and over time will need to be worked out amongst the other owners. Mr. Mraz agreed that the hearing's purpose was to request a consolidation and the Petitioner should and would acknowledge that plat approval does not extend to development of any kind. ML Donnelley asked if she understood she could not block ingress/egress with parking; Ms. Licari said she did. Mark Watychowicz, 301 S. WaPella, an attorney for 5 N. Main Street, was sworn in. He said he wanted to remind the Commission that the Subdivision request is actually a request to build something at the location in the future. The site was designed for three buildings and another building will cause chaos - to pitch a tent there will cause a major problem. There are 36 existing units and 36 parking spaces and the present ordinance requires 2 ,~ Planning & Zoning Commission Joseph Donnelley, Acting Chairperson PZ-49-04 Page 3 spaces per unit. He said building a building there would cause an eyesore and prevent redevelopment of the undesirable shopping center across the street from it. Anyone coming into town sees this eyesore. All the overflow parking will fall into the downtown area, which is already overcrowded. He also. questioned whether the Petitioner had the proper standing to bring this request 'before the Board. Mr. Watychowicz said he had just received a parking ticket last week and didn't think the Petitioner had the right to come. from out-of-town to cause these problems for him as a resident; taxpayer, father and downtown businessman. ,Mr. Watychowicz said his client's needs are not being served because the property is being used for his tenants as parking spaces. His client purchased his building in 1977 as is, with no additional parking. His client had no notice of any ~ax sales. He said the Petitioner had time to study the property and realize what the problems were before getting involved with it. Mr. Watychowicz said his client would be willing to purchase the property from the Petitioner but not at the inflated price she wanted for it. He said his client had maintained the parking portion of the property for all those years without remuneration. Matt Sledz said he appreciates the comments about future development but hearing the opinion of the Village Attorney, realizes that the Petitioner is entitled by right to consolidate the lots. Mr. Roberts agreed. Mr. Floros said he feels approval of the consolidation would be construed as endorsement of future development of the site; he sees no benefit to the Village. Mr. Roberts said one possible benefit is that the neighbor might purchase the land and that would be beneficial to the Village. He stated that the Petitioner has acknowledged she as no approval from the Village to develop the property, which she must disclose to any buyer by law. Matt Sledz made a motion to recommend approval of the Licari's Consolidation plat for the property at 7 North Main Street, Case No. PZ-49-04, with the statement that approval of the plat does not constitute approval for future development; Ronald Roberts seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Donnelly, Haaland, Roberts, and Sledz NAYS: Floros Motion was approved 4-1. Ronald Roberts made motion to adjourn at 8:40 p.m., seconded by Leo Floros. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-07-05 Hearing Date: March 24, 2005 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 2410 E. Rand Road Arlington Heights, IL PETITIONER: Eugene Guzzardi, agent for The Twins Group 121 Wilke Road, Suite 400 Arlington Heights, IL 60005 PUBLICATION DATE: March 9, 2005 Journal/Topics PIN#: 03-28-201-014-0000 & 03-28-201-020-0000 REQUEST: Map Amendment to rezone from RX to B3, Conditional Use approval for a drive-thru restaurant and Variations from bulk, setback, and stacking regulations. MEMBERS PRESENT: Acting Chair Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Marlys Haaland Ronald Roberts Matt Sledz MEMBERS ABSENT: Chair Arlene Juracek Richard Rogers Keith Youngquist STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Clare Sloan, Neighborhood Planner INTERESTED PARTIES: Eugene Guzzardi Acting Chair Joseph Donnelly called the meeting to order at 7:33 p.rn. Leo Floros moved to approve the minutes of the February 24, 2005 meeting, but corrected to reflect Ronald Roberts voting against the sign Variation; seconded by Ronald Roberts. The motion was approved 3-0, with 2 abstentions by Mar1ys Haaland, new member, and Matt Sledz. Under Old Business, Mr. Donnelly asked for a motion to continue PZ-50-04 to the April 28, 2005 meeting. Matt Sledz moved to continue the case; seconded by Ronald Roberts, and it was approved 5-0. After consideration of another case, Mr. Donnelly introduced Case No. PZ-07-05, a request for a Map Amendment to rezone from RX to B3, Conditional Use approval for a drive-thru restaurant and Variations from bulk, setback, and stacking regulations. He said that this case would be Village Board Final. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, summarized the request. She said that the Subject Property is comprised of two parcels and has an irregular shape. It is located on the north side of Rand Road, between Camp McDonald and Schoenbeck Roads. The site currently contains a Taco Bell restaurant with a drive-thru that was developed under Cook County regulations. Consequently, the existing setbacks and site improvements do not meet current Village regulations. The Subject Property is zoned RX Single Family and is bordered to the north, east, and west and by RX Single Family and a golf course to the south, but that is in Arlington Heights. The Subject Property and surrounding properties were already developed as commercial and retail uses when the Village of Mount Prospect annexed them in 1999. As required by state statute, the properties were given the Village's most stringent zoning designation, RX Single Family, upon annexation. Planning & Zoning Commission Joseph Donnelley, Acting Chairperson PZ-07-05 Page 2 The Petitioner proposes to demolish the existing Taco Bell and drive-thru and bl,lild a new Taco Bell restaurant and drive-thru. The Zoning Ordinance allows legal non-conforming structures to remain in their current state, and to be maintained and repaired as necessary. However, the scope of the proposaf exceeds the limits of the legal non-conforming regulations and the redevelopment of the site is required to meet current zoning regulations. Therefore, . the Petitioner is seeking approval to rezone the property from RX Single Family to B3 Community Shopping, Conditional Use approval for the drive-thru restaurant, and Variations from zoning regulations. The Variations include relief from: the parking lot and dumpster setbacks, and relief from the number of required parking and stacking spaces. . The Petitioner's exhibits include a color rendering of Taco Bell's prototypical building. However, the Petitioner revised the elevations to comply with the Village's Building Code regulations that limit the use of Dryvit to no more than 30% of the building's square footage. The building would have a stone band around the base of the building, and then approximately 12' of buff colored face brick, topped off with a 3' 8" EIFS band. EIFS would be used as a decorative element for the drive-thru area and two entrance points. A 'tower' canopy would extend above the roofline to delineate the main entrance of the building and would be in keeping with the Taco Bell Image. The Petitioner's landscape plan includes a variety of plants, trees, and shrubs throughout the site: However, the plan does not include a sufficient amount of species that have year-round interest. Staff recommends modifying the plan to require at least 50% species that have year-round interest along the Rand Road frontage. In addition, Staff suggests the Petitioner explore whether the detention area could include native grasses, subject to engineering division approval so it does not adversely impact the detention design. The site currently has two driveways, which the Petitioner proposes to modify slightly. In response to comments from the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT), the Petitioner proposes that the northern driveway be the only exit point and have a dedicated right-turn lane and a dedicated left-turn lane from the site. The southern driveway would be an entrance only driveway. The Engineering Division reviewed the proposal and found that narrowing the driveway to 15' and having a 20-25' turning radius would better identify the driveway as an entrance only and minimize confusion and potential vehicle conflicts. The Petitioner's proposal includes 23 parking spaces and 7 stacking spaces for the 47-seat Taco Bell Restaurant. Typically, 4-6 employees work per shift, but 6-8 employees would work during a peak shift. The Zoning Ordinance requires 1 parking space per 3 seats and 1 parking space per employee during a peak shift as well as 8 stacking spaces for the drive-thru. Therefore, the Petitioner requires Variations to allow one less stacking space and one less parking space. The Petitioner states in their application that the proposed traffic pattern is similar to the existing patterns customers currently use and the shape of the Subject Property poses physical limitations. In response to earlier Staff comments, the Petitioner has agreed to modify the freestanding sign to a monument style sign and is not seeking relief from Sign Code regulations. The Petitioner proposes to install wall signs on three elevations of the building, which is permitted by the Sign Code. The 'tower' canopy over the primary entrance on Rand Road complies with the 30' height limitation and the bell meets the criteria for a logo. Therefore, these elements ofthe proposal comply with Village Sign Code regulations. The Petitioner's lighting plan indicates the lighting levels will slightly exceed the Zoning Ordinance regulations that limit light levels to an average of 2A-foot candles. In addition, some areas of lights at the property line exceed the 0.5fc limitation. The Petitioner has not requested a Variation from the Village's lighting regulations and has not provided justification for a Variation. Therefore, the lighting plan must be revised to comply with Village Code requirements. Other departments reviewed the project and comments from the Village's Traffic Engineer were already discussed. However, the Fire Department and Public Works Department had comments, but their comments could be addressed as part of the Building Permit process. Their comments are listed in detail in the Staff Report. Planning & Zoning Commission Joseph Donnelley, Acting Chairperson PZ-07 -05 Page 3 The Subject Property is zoned RX Single Family. In order to construct the proposed restaurant, the site has to be rezoned, obtain Conditional Use approval, and obtain Variations from Zoning Regulations. This requires a public hearing and recommendation by the Planning & Zoning Commission followed by final review and action by the . Village Board. The existing site conditions do not comply with current Village zoning regulations because the parking lot encroaches into the required setb~cks. The existing parking lot is pretty much built up to the lot line. However, the Petitioner would demolish the existing building and construct a new parking lot. The proposed "building would meet all setbacks, but the parking lot and dumpster would encroach into the required 10' perimeter landscape setback. The Petitioner requires relief for a portion of the front setback, the interior side yard setbacks, and the rear setbacks because the parking lot and dumpster enclosure would encroach into the required 10' setback. Ms. Connolly summarized the standards for Map Amendments, as listed in the Zoning Ordinance. She said that the subject property is adjacent to existing commercial and retail businesses. The proposed Taco Bell with a drive-thru is the same as the existing use. However, the new building, parking lot, and additional landscaping would be in keeping with current development trends and would be an appropriate use for the Subject Property. Also, rezoning the property to B3 would be consistent with recently approved developments approved in the Village, specifically the Metro Federal Credit Union. The proposal meets the standards for a Map Amendment because it is compatible with existing properties within the general area of the Subject Property. Ms. Connolly summarized the standards for conditional uses, which are listed in another section of the Zoning Code, and said that the Petitioner proposes to construct a restaurant with a drive-thru, which is the same as the current use. The proposed conditional use, which is the drive-thru component of the restaurant, was designed to go together with the proposed site improvements and to create a safe interior circulation pattern. The proposal meets the standards for a Conditional Use subject to minor modifications to the site plan and landscape plan. Ms. Connolly summarized the standards for a Variation. She said that the Petitioner is proposing to construct a fast food restaurant with a drive-thru. The redevelopment of the site would improve a property originally developed under Cook County regulations and currently exceeds Mount Prospect Code requirements. However, the parking lot and dumpster enclosure would encroach into the 10' landscape setback. The Petitioner has worked with Staff to minimize the scope and location of the encroachments to ensure the Rand Road frontage is vastly improved and to create a safe interior circulation pattern. The Petitioner's request for Variations for 1 stacking space and 1 parking space during peak shift hours is in keeping with the current site conditions. Modifying the driveway to address Engineering's comments regarding the entrance only driveway would ensure a safe traffic flow and minimize the impact of the stacking deficiency. The size and shape of the Subject Property present physical limitations for redeveloping the site. The proposed site plan, subject to modifying the entrance driveway, would improve the character of the area and be in keeping with the Village's Corridor Design Guidelines that call for increased landscaping. Based on this analysis, the proposal complies with the Map Amendment, Conditional Use, and Variation standards listed in the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that Village Board approve the proposed request subject to the following conditions: 1) Development of the site in accordance with: . The site plan prepared by Ronald Source Architects date stamped March 11,2005 revised to reflect a narrowed entrance driveway to 15' and having a 20-25' turning radius; . The landscape plan prepared by Ronald Source Architects date stamped March 11, 2005 revised so the Rand Road frontage has at least 50% year-round interest species; . The lighting plan prepared by John Bujake, Accuserv Lighting & Equipment, but revised to comply with the Village's lighting regulations; Planning & Zoning Commission Joseph Donnelley, Acting Chairperson PZ-07-05 Page 4 . The elevations prepared by Ronald Source Architects date stamped March 11, 2005 that document the building will not exceed the Village's 30% EIFS limitation. 2) The proposed improvements shall be constructed according to all applicable Village Codes (Sign Code, Site Construction Standards, Building and Fire Code regulations); 3) Prior to obtaining the Certificate of Occupancy, the Petitioner shall prepare a plat of resubdivision that consolidates the site to a one-lot subdivision; and 4) The Petitioner shall obtain permits from all appropriate agencies, including, but not limited to, mOT, and MWRD. The Village Board's decision is final for this case. Ronald Roberts asked if graphics of the existing restaurant were available; Ms. Connolly said no. He also asked if the monument style sign were replacing a freestanding sign. Ms. Connolly said it was and he said he thought that was a good improvement. Joe Donnelley asked if Taco Bell was applying for Sign Variations. Ms. Connolly said no, but if they needed relief they would need to go before the P&Z at a later date. Mr. Floros asked if Taco Bell had an Arlington Heights address. Ms. Connolly said yes, although it is in Mount Prospect. When asked about setbacks, Ms. Connolly said most of the existing parking lot was at a zero setback and the front building setback was between 20'-30'. Mr. Sledz asked if there would be less impervious surface on the property than before. Ms. Connolly said yes, the current lot coverage is approximately 86% and the Petitioner proposes to reduce it to 72% although the Zoning Ordinance allows up to 75% lot coverage. Gene Guzzardi, Source Architects, 121 S. Wilke Road in Arlington Heights, was sworn in. He said that Taco Bell is increasing the amount of pervious area. He noted the wheel stops are currently right against the property line. The existing building is beige with clay tile roofs, which are being phased out. Contractually, The Twins Group must replace the building by agreement with Taco Bell. He said the existing traffic pattern area for the property is U-shaped. The entrance is being revised and has been sent to mOT and will be sent back to Mount Prospect for plan review. Parking spaces will be similar to what is thereat present. He informed the Commission that deliveries and trash pick-ups are scheduled at night so they will not conflict with business traffic. The front grassy area is being proposed as part of detention area. They will use a menu board with speaker post for food ordering. Joe Donnelley asked if the menu board with speaker post proposal would be brought to the Commission for further review. Ms. Connolly said Staff would need to review the proposal to determine if it would comply with the Sign Code. Ronald Roberts inquired what type of property was behind the restaurant. Ms. Connolly said it was commercial. Mr. Roberts asked for further description of the monument sign and Mr. Guzzardi said it would have a large stone base similar to the stone used in the building. Joe Donnelley asked if they were asking for Variations for menu boards at this time and Mr. Guzzardi said that the drive-thru was at such a bare minimum that they do not have room for a preview menu board. Mr. Sledz asked has there been a net change in parking. Mr. Guzzardi said he didn't believe there will be. They were trying to maximize the amount of parking they could get at the site to function properly and fit in the guidelines proposed by Staff. Mr. Sledz asked if any thought had been given to underground detention. Mr. Guzzardi said there will most likely need to be underground detention based on the calculations in the process Planning & Zoning Commission Joseph Donnelley, Acting Chairperson PZ-07 -05 Page 5 right now. Mr. Sledz said the photometrics submitted are slightly above Village requirements and asked whether it would be a problem complying with Village requirements. Mr. Guzzardi said no. Mr. Sledz said that delivery and garbage trucks would service the facility at night but many Taco Bell Restaurants are currently 24 hour and do not close. He asked what would happen if this restaurant goes 24 hours? Mr. Sledz asked Ms. Connolly if the Commission snould .entertain restrictions in the vote of Taco .Bell hours. Ms. Connolly said the P&Z could include that with the motion. Mr. Ouzzardi said they would schedule deliveries and garbage service around the restaurant's hours so there wouldn't be a conflict. Chair Joe Donnelley closed the hearing at 8:35. Matt Sledz said this was a nice project, he could recognize the site did have its problems and was pleased to see The Twins Group was working to comply with Village Code. Mr. Flores said the Variations requested were minor and he strongly supported the project. Mr. Roberts agreed and said the monument sign would be more appropriate than the freestanding. Mr. Donnelley said more pervious coverage would be an improvement and asked what material the building trim would be. When told it was EIFS, he asked if they could use a different material. Mr. Guzzardi said he would investigate to see if they could use another material. Mr. Sledz said that the Building Code allows a limited amount of EIFS and that the Village should ban EIFS altogether if they do not want it used, but not base each case on approval of not using it. Other Commissioners asked if it had been decided to ban EIFS entirely. Ms. Connolly said no, that the Building Code limits its use to 30%. Leo Floros moved to recommend approval of a Map Amendment to rezone from RX to B3, Conditional Use approval for a drive-thru restaurant and Variations from bulk, setback, and stacking regulations subject to the Conditions listed in the Staff Report for the property at 2410 E. Rand Road, Case No. PZ-07-05. Ronald Roberts seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Donnelly, Floros, Haaland, Roberts, and Sledz NAYS: None Motion was approved 5-0. Ronald Roberts made a motion to adjourn at 8:40 p.m., seconded by Leo Floros. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner