Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/24/2009 COW minutes iI>:;:;;;""""~~ /(<.M--=""~ 1)/1. ~, '"<:;.:,,1, - ~lJ.lI" "f,-mnttfu"l'.d .L,7 40~// " ,"- :;/ COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FEBRUARY 24, 2009 I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m. in the Village Board Room of Village Hall, 50 South Emerson Street, by Mayor Irvana Wilks. Present at the meeting were: Trustees Paul Hoefert, Arlene Juracek, John Korn, John Matuszak, Steven Polit and Michael Zadel. Staff present included Assistant Village Manager David Strahl, Public Works Director Glen Andler, Village Engineer Jeff Wulbecker, Project Engineer Matt Lawrie, Police Chief John Dahlberg and Sergeant Michael Eterno. II. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JANUARY 27.2009 Motion made by Trustee Hoefert seconded by Trustee Zadel. Minutes were approved. III. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD None IV. ROADWAY JURISDICTIONAL TRANSFERS Village Engineer Jeff Wulbecker provided an overview to the Village Board as to what jurisdictional transfer entails. He also highlighted the current Village Board guidelines .and criteria that have been stipulated in a previous discussion. He stated that jurisdictional transfer is only available for unnumbered State and County Roads and stated there is some flexibility regarding the terms that would be considered prior to acceptance by the municipalities. He stated the two areas the Village currently has responsibility for is Central Road (between Wolf and Rand Road) and Wolf Road (between Central and Euclid Road). Typically, roads that have been designated as unnumbered State and County roads are not a priority for funding unless excess funding becomes available which almost never happens. The positive aspects of an improve roadway surface include full improvements for the roadway, upgraded surface and subsurface and regulatory authority over the streets regarding curb cuts and traffic control. The negative aspects of accepting jurisdictional transfer include the long term maintenance of the road including any improvements, the annual maintenance responsibilities and the ownership of the land of the roadway remains with the State or County. Current Village Board guidelines state that the Board would not consider a jurisdictional transfer if the roadway serves a regional transportation purpose, if the roadway has multiple traffic signals, and it has regional significance. Committee of the Whole Page 1 of 6 2/24/09 He stated that Kensington Road could be considered as an opportunity for jurisdictional transfer consideration since it only is present in two communities and the traffic volume is under 10,000 cars per day. Arlington Heights has already accepted improvement for their portion of the road and there is a need for more improvements on this road. He also stated staff has had some preliminary discussions regarding Kensington Road from the west city limits to Rand and the possibility of lOOT funding. The Village has also undertaken some discussion regarding Wolf Road (north from Euclid to the Village limits) that portion has been pursued by Prospect Heights and they have expressed a desire to take over that portion of the road. Mount Prospect Road (between Rand and Northwest Highway) has been designated for resurfacing in 2009. The Village has requested curb and gutter installation and is currently awaiting a response from the county regarding the possible improvements for this roadway. Staff would suggest the guidelines as previously stated by the Village Board remain as previously articulated but consider: . raising the daily traffic volumes to between 10,000 and 15,000 vehicles per day . avoid consideration of streets with bridges and burdensome maintenance featu res . only accept or consider for acceptance streets which have full roadway improvements General comments from the Village Board members included the following items. There was general support for the suggested revision in the guidelines. There was also a question regarding traffic signal responsibility on routes which may have multiple jurisdictions along different segments of the intersection. There was also a discussion regarding the typical annual maintenance cost and the type of surface that may generate additional maintenance cost as an example of using concrete vs. asphalt. A discussion evolved regarding the current reimbursement formula provided by the State to cover maintenance cost and the desire to undertake a cost benefit study when such streets are to be considered. It was also mentioned that there is a need to project future traffic volume on the improved street and the possible impact upon future maintenance. It was also recommended that the construction be such that the street includes a combination of the best engineering practices with concrete base and asphalt overlay. Assistant Manager David Strahl stated that staff would bring back a list of streets for future consideration based on the criteria, so that the Village Board could review the streets which meet the criteria for future consideration and capital funding if necessary for future maintenance responsibility. Committee of the Whole Page 2 of 6 2/24/09 V. NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CALMING PROGRAM. STATUS OF SEE-GWUN AVENUE SPEED HUMP PROJECT & ROLL CURBED STREETS WITH ADJOINING SIDEWALK Traffic Engineer Matt Lawrie provided an overview of the traffic calming program including its approach and processes. He stated the proposed program is intended to address traffic issues and identify problematic areas. The program approach would be to establish guidelines and eligibility including input from a neighborhood review so that if an issue is examined on one specific street the possible solution does not shift the burden to adjacent streets. He also recommends the identification of potential project areas in an effort to set up both residential and staff initiated processes. He stated staff has extensive study data to use to establish guidelines in project areas within the various neighborhoods. The Village staff will have completed all post study data by the end of 2010 which includes pedestrian counts as observed. He provided a general overview of the resident initiated process and steps regarding the program approach for the traffic calming study. He provided a summary of the steps including an overview of the street or streets which will would fall within the review area once initiated by the residential request. He also highlighted the minor engineering solution and the police traffic unit involvement were applicable or if eligible. If the street is eligible there would be a measure of resident interest with a possible solution as plans are developed by the engineering division. Such plans would include departmental interest, safety commission meetings and recommendations and eventually leading to final approval before the Village Board prior to construction and then post study analysis. The staff initiated process could be initiated due to the immediate attention needs of a particular street including a possible safety hazard and the limited understanding of residents who are impacted by the concern articulated by staff. The analysis would include an engineering study and eventually brought before the safety commission then to the Village Board for instruction and post study. General comments from the Village Board members included the following items: There was concern expressed that there will be a need to establish a set of streets which will not be eligible and what measures would be used and measurements used to address streets which would not meet specific criteria. It was also mentioned that there will be a need to establish a methodology to foster citizen input through a staff initiated review and study. However it was understood that citizen communication regarding potential modifications to impacted streets is meaningful it was clear that the amount of information and the purpose of the citizen engagement would be part of the formulation process prior to final staff recommendation. Committee of the Whole Page 3 of 6 2/24/09 Consensus of the Village Board was to utilize the proposed process that include citizen involvement on the staff initiated side of the equation so that residents can have input prior to staff recommendation. It was also recommended that the proposed tool box available for traffic calming be considered as proposed; however, vertical measures should be considered as a tool of last resort. There was also a need to consider appearance options for any traffic calming solution proposals. It was also recommended that low priority solutions be considered as main diverters and street closers. Traffic Engineer Matt Lawrie stated that funding for the traffic post studies is in place through 2010 and once those items are completed then it would be opportune for this traffic calming program to start based on the stipulated process. He anticipates that the full program would be completed and brought before the Safety Commission and the Village Board prior to the end of 2009 for final acceptance. SEE- GWUN ROAD UPDATE Matt Lawrie provided a status of the test area along See Gwun. He stated the Village Board had previously agreed to remove the traffic humps after the development of an alternate plan. At this time he would recommend the alternate plan be developed using the traffic calming program as previously outlined and to develop a program based on that process. He also would utilize the data that is already available from a study of this street both pre-installation and post- installation and its impact on adjacent streets. However, he would anticipate a recommendation with possible construction occurring in 2010 and would recommend utilizing this street as a test case for the traffic calming process. Consensus of the Village Board was to consider utilizing See Gwun for the traffic calming program as recommended by staff. BARRIER CURB EXTENTIONS Matt Lawrie stated that in some areas of the community there is a roll top curb right next to a sidewalk, where by some pedestrians may feel exposed to traffic due to placement of the sidewalk next to the street and could not create a meaningful barrier in which drivers would not drive around. However, none of these situations have been observed or reported to the staff. He stated there are a couple of curb options with the overriding goal to maintain as much parkway as possible. One option would be a four inch curb on a specific area in the 700 block of See Gwun, which would require limited modification of the parkway street and driveways. A six inch curb would require extensive drainage modifications and require sidewalk and driveway modifications in order to move the sidewalk away from the curb. This would also have a significant impact on existing landscaping and trees. He would also suggest that if the Village Board was interested in replacing the rolled top curb that it be included when streets are resurfaced. Committee of the Whole Page 4 of 6 2/24/09 Consensus of the Village Board was to utilize barrier curb whenever possible and to include citizen input for discussion purposes. The curb change and modifications to landscaped sidewalks and driveways be part of the discussion prior to traffic calming installation modifications. It was also noted that there are some unique situations which exist along the 700 block of See Gwun which may require a six inch curb including a storage area for snow removal without blocking the sidewalk. VI. MANAGER'S REPORT None VII. ANY OTHER BUSINESS Trustee Paul Hoefert stated that he appreciated the proposed traffic calming program as a decision making process and felt that establishing criteria for such decision making was very valuable. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m. ~sLtI DAVID STRAHL Assistant Village Manager Committee of the Whole Page 5 of 6 2/24/09