Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3. Minutes 03/09/10 ÓßÇÑÎ Ê×ÔÔßÙÛ ÓßÒßÙÛÎ ×®ª¿²¿ Õò É·´µ­ Ó·½¸¿»´ Ûò Ö¿²±²·­ ÌÎËÍÌÛÛÍ Ê×ÔÔßÙÛ ÝÔÛÎÕ Ð¿«´ ɳò ر»º»®¬ Óò Ô·­¿ ß²¹»´´ ß®´»²» ßò Ö«®¿½»µ ßò Ö±¸² Õ±®² и±²»æ èìéñíçîóêððð Ö±¸² Öò Ó¿¬«­¦¿µ Ú¿¨æ èìéñíçîóêðîî ͬ»ª»² Íò б´·¬ ÌÜÜæ èìéñíçîóêðêì Ó·½¸¿»´ ßò Æ¿¼»´©©©ò³±«²¬°®±­°»½¬ò±®¹ Ê·´´¿¹» ±º Ó±«²¬ Ю±­°»½¬ ëð ͱ«¬¸ Û³»®­±² ͬ®»»¬ô Ó±«²¬ Ю±­°»½¬ô ×´´·²±·­ êððëê MINUTES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT TRAFFIC WORKSHOP March 9, 2010 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 6:38 p.m. in the Emergency Operation Centerat the Public Works Department,1700 W. Central Road, by Mayor Pro Tem Arlene Juracek. ROLL CALL Village Board Trustees present at the meeting included: Paul Hoefert, Arlene Juracek, John Korn, John Matuszak, Steve Polit and Mike Zadel. Safety Commission members present at the meeting included: Angel Campos, Bob Fisher, John Keane, Carol Tortorello, Fred Pampel,Fire Chief Mike Figolah, Police Sergeant Mike Eterno andStreets/Buildings Superintendent Paul Bures.Staff members present at the meeting included: Village Manager Mike Janonis, Assistant Village Manager Dave Strahl,Director of Public Works Glen Andler, Deputy Director of Public Works Sean Dorsey, Village Engineer Jeff Wulbecker and TrafficEngineer Matt Lawrie. REVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF DRAFT TRAFFIC CALMING PROGRAM Traffic Engineer Lawrie presented the draft Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program to the group. The three objectives of the evening were for the group to understand the processthat would be followed with traffic calming requests, allow for questions and suggestions, and determine next steps. To begin, Traffic Engineer Lawrie highlighted the progress of the current Neighborhood Traffic Study as well as the previous traffic calming projects constructed in the Village. He then walked the group through the steps of the process in an interactive way:discussing a hypothetical case study. In this case study, a request was made by a group of residents to slow down vehicles and enhance pedestrian safety at a middle school. Traffic Engineer Lawrie touched on the project initiation, project development, public discussion, and construction steps as part of the process. Walking through the process step by step using a hypothetical case study prompted many questions and comments. Issues that were discussed included: 1.One of the criterions for a street to qualify for traffic calming measures has to do with the average speed of vehicles. There was discussion whether the typical 25 mph speed limit or 20 mph school speed limit should be used when considering a project near a school. Traffic Workshop Page 1 of 2 March 9, 2010 2.The draft program states that each property that is included in the petition area and project area counts as one vote. There was discussion whether votes should be based on frontage (length of property along street) rather than giving each property an equal vote. Further, should traffic calming projects adjacent to schools or collector streets be treated differently when it comes to voting? There was discussion whether parents of school children should be involved in school related projects and whether a larger voting area should be considered when a collector street isinvolved in a project. In addition, if an apartment or condominium complex is affected, should all tenants have an opportunity to vote or should it be left to the property management company? More detailed voting guidelines may be necessary. 3.There was general agreement that Village Staff should interject and direct a traffic calming project regardless of resident support should a serious safety issue be identified. There was also agreement that residents should begiven the opportunity to have the Village Board hear the request even if there is not sufficient support. In both cases, there was discussion whether a super majority vote would be needed by the Village Board in order to proceed with construction. 4.There was discussion surrounding the steps to remove traffic calming measures. A Village-initiated process should be considered in the event traffic conditions or adjacent land development changes. Also, if residents petition to remove traffic calming measures, a traffic study should be consideredto justify the removal. 5.Most previously constructed traffic calming projects were done as part of the Village’s annual resurfacing program. There was discussion whether each and every traffic calming project needed to be presented to the Village Board for approval. It was suggested that for those to be doneas part of the resurfacing program, they could be discussed and approved as part of the annual contract. All other projects would require a separate vote in order to expend funds. Safety Commission Chairman Keane said he was comfortable with the discussion and believes the program fits well with issues they currently review. He did want to make sure the Commission clearly understood their role in the process. Mayor Pro Tem Juracek asked that Village Staff review the comments from the meeting and that another Traffic Workshop be scheduled for additional discussion. ADJOURNMENT With no further business to discuss, Mayor Pro Tem Juracek adjourned the meetingat 8:30p.m. Respectfully submitted, Matthew P. Lawrie ProjectEngineer Traffic Workshop Page 2of 2 March 9, 2010