The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOW Agenda Packet 03/23/2004 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AGENDA Meeting Location: Mt. Prospect Community Center 1000 West Central Road Meeting Date and Time: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 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. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 24,2004 ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES OF MARCH 9,2004 CITIZENS TO BE HEARD III. IV. 2004 ROAD CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS For the past several years, the Engineering staff in Public Works has prepared a summary of road construction projects that will be taking place in the Village. This listing goes beyond the Village's own local reconstruction and resurfacing program and includes all state and county projects thatwe are aware of. This compilation of projects is discussed publicly prior to the start of the road construction season, and the information will be posted on the Village's web page and included in an upcoming edition of the Village Newsletter. The purpose of the preview is to provide residents and businesses with a complete picture of road construction activities throughout the Village. With this'information in hand, residents and businesses might avoid some road construction surprises. Appropriate staff will be on hand to answer questions and facilitate discussion. FEDERAL WHISTLE BLOWING RULES V. On December 18,2003, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) issued the Interim Final Rule on use of locomotive horns at highway-rail grade crossings. This Interim Final Rule was mandated by law and is the result of approximately 10 years of study. Bottom line, the rule requires that the locomotive horn be sounded at all public highway-rail crossings to improve safety but provides exceptions to that requirement. The final rule is expected to go into effect on December 18, 2004. 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 A T 100 SOUTH EMERSON, MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS 60056, 847/392-6000, EXTENSION 5327, TDD #847/392-6064. The rule has generated much controversy and consternation with most Chicago area municipalities. The prospect of unrelenting whistle blowing or the extraordinary expense of remedial fixes to quiet the whistle blowing leaves many municipalities, including Mount Prospect, in an untenable position. Staff has been analyzing the Interim Final Rule to determine its full impact on Mount Prospect and its five grade crossings. There is indeed potential for substantial expense. The attached report provides some background on the rule itself and staff's preliminary analysis of the status of our grade crossings. This information will be supplemented with a Power Point presentation and discussion. VI. VILLAGE MANAGER'S REPORT VII. ANY OTHER BUSINESS VIII. ADJOURNMENT CLOSED SESSION PERSONNEL 5 ILCS 120/2 (c) (2). "Collective negotiating matters between the public body and its employees or their representatives, or deliberations concerning salary schedules for one or more classes of employees." MINUTES COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FEBRUARY 24, 2004 I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m., in the Mt. Prospect Park District Community Center, 1000 West Central Road, by Village Manager Michael Janonis and accepted nominations from the floor for Mayor Pro Tem. Motion made by Trustee Zadel to nominate Trustee Skowron as Mayor Pro Tem and Seconded by Trustee Hoefert. Motion was approved. Trustee Skowron assumed Mayor Pro Tem duties. Present at the meeting were: Trustees Paul Hoefert, Richard Lohrstorfer, Michaele Skowron, Irvana Wilks and Michael Zadel. Absent from the meeting were Mayor Gerald Farley and Trustee Timothy Corcoran. Staff members present included: Village Manager Michael Janonis, Assistant Village Manager David Strahl, Community Development Director William Cooney, Deputy Community Development Director Michael Jacobs and Finance Director Dave Erb. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of Minutes from January 27, 2004. Motion made by Trustee Lohrstorfer and Seconded by Trustee Zadel. Minutes were approved. III. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD None. IV. DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT AD HOC COMMITTEE - PHASE II RECOMMENDATIONS Community Development Director William Cooney provided a general background on the process that generated the report that will be presented this evening. Georqe K. Busse. Chairman of the Committee, provided the details of the Committee process. He stated the purpose of the study was to revalidate the process that has occurred to date and to review progress of the existing plan for modifications leading to the eventual completion of the downtown redevelopment. He stated the Committee undertook thè study with several assumptions. Among those assumptions were the need to have areas for congregation, pedestrian-friendly areas, mix of residences and retail, attractive character and the continuation of the streetscape program. Community Development Director Cooney provided a review of the past progress and provided some general photos of the downtown prior to redevelopment and currently. He stated the TIF District was created in 1985. Among the projects undertaken were the Hemphill Development, the Clocktower Development. The first Ad Hoc Committee report highlighted a five-block area. That Committee recommended a three-phase program which was implemented in the spring of 1998 leading to the development of the area along Northwest Highway and 83 and Central. He stated the condominium sales have been stronger than anticipated and the Loft development has sold 26 of 34 units. He also provided an overview of the civic block development including the Village Hall construction project and the Library expansion. 1 He also highlighted the improvements the Village has undertaken including the General Store movement and the park development next to it. He also rTlentioned the train station improvements and the streetscape and traffic flow improvements related to the train station. Georqe Busse stated the Committee has broken down the downtown into six sub-areas with unique conditions attributable to each sub-area. Sub Area 1 - Busse Avenue - Small Trianqle Area He stated the size of the area in addition to the space limitations in addition to multiple owners provide significant impediments to development of this area. He also stated that based on the capacity of the TIF, this area is impractical financially to redevelop under the existing TIF. The Committee suggests a pedestrian-friendly area to serve as the gateway into the downtown, and to highlight the historical character by giving clear viewing space to the Busse Avenue businesses from Northwest Highway. It is also recommended that some retail space and parking be incorporated in the area. Sub Area 2 - Existinq Villaqe Hall Block Committee recommends redevelopment of Village Hall property only and not to deal with the buildings along 83. This is contradictory to a previous recommendation by the previous Downtown Ad Hoc Committee. This Committee felt that the redevelopment of the businesses along 83 will come in due course. Sub Area 3 - Remote Bank One Parkinq Lot Block The original plan called for all town homes along the west half of the block and projected approximately 18 units. This Committee has suggested a revision to those recommendations but still include a transition phase of town homes leading into the single-family home areas on Maple. The Committee felt that the town homes would be a welcome addition to the existing housing stock. The Committee is suggesting some open space at the north end of the block with a 50' setback with a park at the south end of the block more centrally located to Village Hall open space. The location at the southern end will allow for overflow of various events in the center part of downtown. He stated the Committee has reviewed the input from citizens concerning the park at the north end of the block and the Committee feels there can . be some accommodation with an additional setback area. Sub-Area 4 - Bank One Block Bank One is currently not in the TIF area, however, other parts of the block are. The Committee recommends the Bank One area be redeveloped as mixed-use, retail and residential, with row homes facing Maple and such development would take place once a decision has been made by the current owners of the Bank One building. These recommendations were not part of the original Ad Hoc Committee review. 2 Sub Area 5 - Central Plaza Block The Committee focused on Central Plaza itself and did confirm that that block is not in the TIF area at this point. This block was also not part of the original Ad Hoc Committee report. However, based on the need to address the status of Central Plaza, the Committee recommends up to a three-story mixed residential and retail development which will likely need Village assistance to get redevelopment underway. The Committee felt the redevelopment of Central Plaza is critical due to its location at the entrance to the downtown. Sub Area 6 - Western Trianqle This area is bounded by Elmhurst Avenue, Central and Northwest Highway. This area was not part of the original Ad Hoc Committee review and the Committee has no recommendations at this time due to viable businesses currently occupying that area and the need to focus development along Route 83. George Busse stated the Committee also included economic issues which need to be considered and the Committee will suggest that the Board focus on completing Areas 2 and 3 within the existing TIF timeframe. However, if Sub Area 1 is included with areas 2 and 3, there will be a need to extend the TIF to generate sufficient funding for Area 1 redevelopment. The Committee also suggests that Area 4 could redevelop on its own without Village assistance. Unfortunately, Sub-Area 5 will likely need Village assistance or a new TIF created for its redevelopment. General comments from Village Board members included the following items: Several Board members thanked the Committee for its efforts and recommendations. There was a question regarding some additional details of the proposed development along Route 83 and the impact of the proposed or suggested surface parking lot to service the small triangle area. There were also clarification comments regarding various Sub-Areas and the option to increase the housing mix. It was mentioned about the concern of extending the TIF and the possible impact on other taxing bodies. Laurel DiPrima, member of School District 57 Board and the Ad Hoc Committee. spoke. She stated it is her understanding TIFs are not being extended without School District support as directed by the General Assembly at this time. General comments from the Village Board members included the following items: It was mentioned that the report will require cost/benefit analysis to determine financial benefit and impact. It was also noted that the Committee recognized a desire to preserve historical buildings and clearly identify the challenges ahead. David Lindqren. 743 Whiteqate. a member of the Economic Development Commission. spoke. He stated on behalf of the EDC, they are supportive of the Ad Hoc Committee recommendations and noted that the previous decisions regarding the development in the TIF District have brought in returns higher than expected and an extension of the TIF might be warranted based on past history. 3 Bill Blaine. 119 North Emerson. representinq SOSMP, spoke. He stated it is the Committee's purpose to retain open space at Central and Emerson as a park. He stated that the group can claim support of 70% of the voters and has significant political influence. He stated the Committee members are concerned about multiple story downtown structures and want the area at Central and Emerson preserved. "Central Park" has heritage trees and if the Park is developed at the southern end of the block, then these trees will be lost. His Committee suggests that the area at the northern end of the block be developed as a park initially and once a park at the southern end of the block is acquired then reconsideration could be made regarding the future of the park at the north end of the block. He is presenting a petition that includes 1,394 signatures which provides overwhelming support to protect the "park." He stated the voters that Committee members have talked to do not want anything but green space and are concerned about building on every available parcel in the downtown. He stated that the Board should be concerned about a refusal to acknowledge the voters which may impact them in the future regarding the "park." He stated the Ad Hoc Committee focused on economic issues and the Villagé Board, along with the Ad Hoc Committee has focused on materialism. He stated the community rejects materialism and the canyon-like views of multi-story búildings. He stated the "park"can remain with benches and paths. He stated the Library visitors will utilize the "park." He stated previous comments have labeled the "park" as too dangerous and the "park" area can be separated from traffic with a fence. Max Ullrich. 319 South Pine, owner of Van Driel's, spoke. He stated the Village Board needs to do something about Central Plaza because it projects a poor image of the community right at the entrance to the downtown. He is supportive of the row home option on the block because he does not feel that the area can be legitimately redeveloped for a viable business purpose. Craiq Kopstain, 623 North Elmhurst. spoke. He is a member of SOSMP. He suggested the Village Board look to do something regarding Sub-Area 5, Central Plaza, because of its rundown nature. He also stated he has concerns about the reuse of the Bank One building and whatever the reuse of that building ends up being, it should complement the character of the existing structure. Ron Ditthardt. 123 North Emerson, spoke. He stated that during his efforts to collect signatures, he did not encounter anyone person against the SOSMP position. He appreciates the opportunity to have input but stated that the reason previous input was not made by citizens because it is difficult to envision the appearance until work actually begins in many cases. He stated that previous Village Board comments about the value of the land need to be addressed because parks increase value of the surrounding land. He stated a previous comment also included the fact that the park location is in the wrong spot. He offered the location of the park adjacent to the Arlington Heights' Library. He also acknowledged the statement regarding the busy streets near the parksite and stated that many parks in Chicago are adjacent to busy streets. He would prefer to have the entire block as open space. Chuck Bennett, Five West Central. spoke. He stated that he likes the new condos and has been witness to the rebirth of the downtown firsthand. He stated the downtown should be family friendly and due to the limited available space, this may be difficult. He also voiced concerns about the difficulty of filling available retail space and questioned what is the right mix. Have any studies been formulated determining this mix? 4 He stated he is supportive of saving open space. He would feel that the development of town homes in the parking lot area could be undertaken with a proviso of park settings at either end of the block. He also felt that the current Village Hall site could be an excellent alternative location for open space so there is no high rise on that site. He is concerned about the financial impact about possibly closing Busse Avenue to vehicles as one suggestion by the Committee. He stated people need convenience to the businesses. Rich Benson, 220 Autumn Lane, President of School District 57 Board. spoke. He stated that the School District Board would be concerned about any possible TIF extension. Rich Scholl, 12 South Maple, spoke. He feels that putting a park at Central and Emerson could be problematic since he has experienced first-hand, the shift of traffic from Emerson to Maple during the construction process. He stated that once Emerson is reopened to traffic, the volume of traffic along Emerson will also be an issue. Ken Fritz. 1200 West Northwest Hiqhwav. spoke. He stated that in previous downtown redevelopment plans, there is a desire for an urban design as defined in the 1976 plan where the focus was always as Emerson and Busse as the central point of the downtown with open space at all four quadrants of the intersection. He stated the current Village Hall site should be redeveloped as a commercial endeavor and outdoor activities should be centered on that intersection and they cannot be centered when the open space is at the north end of the block. Don Harmon, 16 North William. spoke. He stated that he has concerns about the existing Village Hall and the new Village Hall including area for seniors and the building should be only for business uses of the Village. He feels that the library patrons should visit the downtown businesses and if there is too much traffic, this spin-off will not be possible. He also feels that town homes will also complement the existing housing stock in the community. Jackie Hinaber, 211 West Coventry, spoke. She wanted to set the record straight as a member of the library Board. She stated the library Board has at no time been in discussion with any representatives of this group about the use of the three lots for a park to complement the library functions. She stated the library Board did explore usage of those lots for additional parking or an annex building during previous Referendum discussions. However, the conclusion of the studies were such that the regular need to cross Emerson posed a distinct safety issue. General comments from Village Board members included the following items: It was stated that the Village Board will take the report under advisement. It was also stated that the Board is appreciative of the grass roots effort of the group. It was also noted that just because the group designates the area as "Central Park" does not mean it exists as a park. It was also stated that even though the group designates the trees as "heritage" trees, such designation has yet to be defined. It was noted that the Village Board has made a special effort to avoid the canyon effect which may be present in other communities by limiting the height and density of height on specific areas of the downtown. Village Board members acknowledged the fact that open space is desirable in the downtown. And the need to utilize open space with existing or programmed open space is very valuable for flexibility of the community use. It was also mentioned that green space should work in conjunction with green space that is being developed as part of the new Village Hall. 5 V. VI. VII. VIII. IX. DS/rcc REVISED INVESTMENT POLICY Finance Director Dave Erb provided an overview of the existing Policy and stated the last modification was made in April of 2001. He is recommending additional broker dealers and bank institutions for use by the Village. He stated that all institutions are involved in governmental finance operations and all credentials have been verified. Consensus of the Village Board was to accept the recommendations to revise the Investment Policy of the Village and bring back for formal Village Board action in the near future. 2003 YEAR END FINANCIAL REPORT Finance Director David Erb provided information on the preliminary and unaudited figures for 2003. He stated that these figures would be the starting point for the 2005 Budget discussions. He provided a comparison of the budgeted figures with the actual expenditures and revenues. He stated that revenues came in 1.67% over budget while expenditures were 14.52% under budget. He also stated that refuse and MFT funds came in under budget and the previously projected 2003 deficit was projected at $1.5 million that based on the year-end figures, that deficit is more likely to be $300,000. He stated the projected deficit for the 2005 fiscal year is $1.6 million. He stated there is a need to review the revenue stream for the upcoming Budget discussions. He also mentioned the impact of investment income in the pension funds. Village Manager Janonis stated that there is a workshop slated for mid-March to discuss plans for the 2005 Budget. This workshop session will be a Saturday meeting. VILLAGE MANAGER'S REPORT Village Manager Janonis stated that he has no report and also stated that the Closed Session which had previously been scheduled has been cancelled for this evening. ANY OTHER BUSINESS Trustee Wilks stated that the Lions Spaghetti Dinner at Grace Lutheran Church is February 27, from 5:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted. '/ ¡J ~ ~ c:;:--iLf DAVID STRAHL Assistant Village Manager 6 MINUTES COMMITTEE.OF THE WHOLE MARCH 9, 2004 I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m., in the Mt Prospect Park District Community Center, 1000 West Central Road, by Mayor Gerald Farley. Present at the meeting were: Trustees Timothy Corcoran, Paul Hoefert, Michaele Skowron, Irvana Wilks and Michael Zadel. Absent from the meeting was Trustee Richard Lohrstorfer. Staff members present included: Village Manager Michael Janonis, Assistant Village Manager David Strahl and Village Attorney Everette Hill. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of Minutes from February 24, 2004. Staff has requested a deferral of the Minutes. Motion made by Trustee Corcoran and Seconded by Trustee Skowron to defer the Minutes to the next Committee of the Whole meeting. III. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD None. IV. REVISED CURFEW ORDINANCE Villaqe Attorney Everette Hill stated that a recent Seventh Circuit decision based on a Case in Indiana has rendered several curfew laws unconstitutional. He has reviewed the Village Ordinance and it is contrary to the ruling, therefore, there are several changes that are recommended so the Curfew Ordinance can be enforced in the community. He has provided a revised draft of the Ordinance that includes the exceptions that were highlighted in the Case from Indiana. Among those changes are attendance at a political event after hours including additional information as to the sufficient inquiry of a Police Officer to determine whether any exceptions apply. Consensus of the Village Board was to approve the changes as recommended and consider adoption of the Ordinance at an upcoming Village Board meeting. HEARING OFFICER/PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICER EMPLOYEE DISABILITY ACT V. Village Attorney Hill stated the Act was passed in 1997 which provides for lifetime health insurance coverage for public safety employees. A recent Illinois Supreme Court decision defined duty-related pension as the trigger for health insurance coverage. However, there are certain activities which still must be considered for qualification of this benefit. This Ordinance provides for a Hearing Officer to review the circumstances regarding the request for health insurance coverage with any challenges going to administrative review. The standard for administrative review would have to be challenged on an arbitrary and capricious basis. Consensus of the Village Board was to consider this Ordinance at an upcoming Village Board meeting. 1 VI. CREATION OF A CHARITABLE VILLAGE FOUNDATION Village Manager Janonis provided some background information to the Village Board option to determine whether there was sufficient interest in moving forward with the possible creation of such a Foundation. He stated this had been suggested by several Trustees and the Mayor in an effort to gather tax-free donations from citizens. Some community groups have expressed interest in providing funds to the Village for various community events including the Winter Festival Parade and this would act as a vehicle for additional donations from private citizens. It is also proposed that donations could be made on a restricted basis depending on the desire of the person donating. Attorney Hill stated there would be a need for an independent body with the required State and Federal filing to obtain tax-free status with at least two officers of the Advisory Board signing an annual report outlining where these funds went. Dorothy Kucera, Chairperson of the Sister Cities Commission, spoke. She stated she would encourage the Village Board to consider the creation of the charitable foundation for community purposes. General comments from Village Board embers included the following items: A question was posed regarding the fund raising and specific purposes related to such fund- raising. It was also suggested that a review of other existing charitable foundations be undertaken to assist in the creation of the foundation for Mount Prospect. John Korn, 301 North William, spoke. He stated it might be possible to consider donations to existing Human Services' functions and activities as part of the tax-free donation options. He also suggested there be an option of not accepting a donation if the related restrictions that may be contrary to community needs. Consensus of the Village Board was to direct staff to continue research and to draft the necessary By-Laws and documents for further consideration by the Village Board. VII. DISCUSSION OF MAYOR PRO TEM PROTOCOL Village Attorney Hill provided an outline of the suggested revisions from the January 13, 2004 Committee of the Whole. He also pointed out several corrections to the current draft in Sections D and E. He also wanted to highlight the fact the designated Pro Tem would require the same voting criteria for appointment as removal. General comments from Village Board members included the following items: There was clarification made to the effective terms and the initial term of the Pro Tem. There was also a question regarding the mechanism for removal once nominating petitions have been filed. Consensus of the Village Board was to bring back the final Ordinance draft for consideration at an upcoming Village Board meeting. 2 VIII. IX. X. DS/rcc VILLAGE MANAGER'S REPORT Village Manager Janonis wanted to remind everyone of Coffee with Council on March 13 from 9:00 a.m. until 11 :00 a.m. in the second floor Conference Room of the Village Hall. ANY OTHER BUSINESS None. CLOSED SESSION Motion made by Trustee Hoefert and Seconded by Trustee to move into Closed Session at 7:53 p.rn. ADJOURNMENT The Committee returned to open session at 8:50 p.m. and immediately adjourned at 8:51 p.m. since there was no further business. Respectfully submitted, - --~ ~ ~ c:::W DAVID STRAHL Assistant Village Manager 3 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM @) TREE em USA Mount Prospect Public Works Department To: VILLAGE MANAGER MICHAEL E. JANONIS FROM: VILLAGE ENGINEER DATE: MARCH 1 8, 2004 SUBJECT: 2004 CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS MARCH 23 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING The construction season is upon us and for your information I have compiled a map of the public construction projects that have been scheduled for this year. I have attached copies of the map for your use. The map depicts these Village projects: . Street Resurfacing (highlighted in red) . Other Village Projects (highlighted in blue) The map also depicts the following projects by other agencies (highlighted in green): . Levee 37 Project by the Army Corps of Engineers The Illinois Department of Transportation and the Cook County Highway Department have not scheduled any projects in Mount Prospect for this year. I will be at the March 23 meeting to provide a brief summary of each project and to answers any questions. ~~ Cc: Glefl R. Andler, Public Works Director X: \ fi les\engi neer\projectsl\2004constproj ectmm MARCH 16, 2004 1. 2004 STREET RESURFACING PROGRAM (Various locations throughout the Village) Contractor: Arrow Road Construction Work: 33 streets / 8.8 miles of intermittent curb repair and resurfacing at various locations throughout the Village. Start work / March 2004 Completion / Sept. 2004 asphalt Schedule: 2. STREETSCAPE PHASE IV (Village Hall / Library Block) Contractor: Martam Construction Work: Parkway landscaping, brick sidewalk improvements, street pedestrian lights, Keystone Plaza and Founders Plaza. Start work / March 2003 Completion / June 2003 lights, Schedule: 3. 2004 BRIDGE REHABILITATION PROGRAM (See Gwun Avenue Bridge) Contractor: Undetermined / Bid Opening March 23 Work: Structural repairs to the See Gwun Avenue Bridge. Schedule: Start work / April 2004 Completion / June 2004 4. EMERSON STREET WATERMAIN IMPROYEMENTS (Central Road to Northwest Highway) Contractor: Undetermined / Bid Opening March 30 Work: Replacement of existing watermain on Emerson Street. Schedule: Start work / April 2004 Completion / June 2004 5. 2004 SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS (Various locations throughout the Village) Contractor: Undetermined / Bid Opening April 27 Work: Share/Cost Sidewalk Replacement Program, CDBG Improvement Program and CDBG Sidewalk Ramp Program. Start work / June 2004 Completion / Sept. 2004 Sidewalk Schedule: 6. PROSPECT MEADOWS WATERMAIN REPLACEMENT PHASE I Contractor: Undetermined Work: Replacement of existing watermain in first section of Prospect Meadows Subdivision. Start work / Summer 2004 Schedule: Completion / Fall 2004 7. ALGONQUIN/BuSSE/DEMPSTER STREET LIGHTS (East of Busse Road to west of Goebbert Road in Arlington Heights) Contractor: H&H Electric Work: Street light installation Schedule: Start work / May 2003 Completion / May 2004 8. COMBINED SEWER EYALUATION (Entire Combined Sewer System) Contractor: Baxter and Woodman Work: TV evaluation and structure inspection of combined sewer system. Schedule: Start work / March 2003 Completion / July 2004 9. LEVEE 37 / US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (Along River Road from Euclid Ave. to Palatine Rd.) Contractor: Undetermined Work: Construct levee wall to protect Schedule: Start work / On hold pending Army Corps study to determine compensatory storage site. ~ 0 CD ~Mount :> Prospect 2004 Construction Project Map N W+E S 2 ~~.# JÐ "V~ rL _J ~n. ~ ¡¿..~ ~ ~ ~ 'W ~~,- ~C "1'y~ u ~Tß~ y\ Ý 'V~l ~ d. r- ~\~ ~ ~ ~ I-.... v ¡-- @( 4J It b( l' I ~ L:-¿l - ~ . T ,"c 0' I J..a pc:) 1 ~-:- -,~py &.- -- 'L' J ~ ~-;) l ~ =; e:; ~ 7 , ""-. ~ ,,~ ...~ ~ t'- ~- Ì"- .. J. - 1 ',\.\.:.. """'" ~1 ~ ~r iT I I ""'- 'I I I A -- ~'~ r-~" rf o-~ ~ ~ [ ~~ [~~ ~1'- ~ ~r-;: ~~ ~ t1 Hi'":: r'(C}- 1~ ;; ~ lLI> IT :: ~ ~ , ¡:: ~1Jl[~~~ ,~, rr ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ ì ~. " ..~ , ~ Ll " 3 " 1-- IIIII¡::::~ -----------ø ~ ~ 4 .......... r-- ;::..~ ï ""~ JI ~"" - {ur I I . I I I 2004 Construction Project MaD Leeend 1) Street Resurfacing Program 2) Streetscape Phase IV 3) 2004 Bridge Rehabilitation Program (Gwen Avenue Bridge) 4) Emerson Street Water Main Improvements 5) 2004 Sidewalk Improvement Programs (Various Locations) 6) Prospect Meadows Water Main Replacement Phase I. 7) Algonquin/ Busse / Dempster Streetlights 8) Combined Sewer Evaluation 9) Levee 37 .------ -- ----~-"---- ----_.-- Mount Prospect Public Works Department INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM "- TREE CITY USA TO: VILLAGE MANAGER MICHAEL E. JANONIS FROM: PROJECT ENGINEER MARCH 19,2004 SUBJECT: 2004 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM DATE: The Village of Mount Prospect has approximately 132 miles of residential streets and alleys that are maintained by the Public Works Department. This maintenance responsibility ranges from routine maintenance to major resurfacing and reconstruction projects. Routine maintenance includes minor repairs such as crack sealing and patching. Resurfacing includes the removal and replacement of the asphalt and the replacement of badly deteriorated curbs. Reconstruction includes the complete removal and replacement of the entire pavement structure, curbs and driveway aprons. Reconstruction is necessary"when the pavement has experienced an underlying base failure. Under this condition it is no longer possible to replace only the surface. The Village also maintains approximately 28 lane miles (7 miles x 4 lanes) of State Highways. Our responsibilities on these streets include crack sealing, snow removal and pothole patching. All costs incurred for the materials and labor needed to perform these maintenance functions are reimbursed to the Village by the Illinois Department of Transportation. This year marks the eighth year of the 1 O-year accelerated pavement program that was approved in 1996. The first 5 years of the program included the reconstruction of severely deteriorated streets and a normal schedule of resurfacing. The final 5 years of the program consist of completing the current backlog of those streets requiring resurfacing as well as streets that are on-schedule for resurfacing. In 1996 all of the Village streets were tested by Infrastructure Management Services, Inc, (lMS). That testing resulted in assigning a Pavement Condition Number to each block of each street. That number along with field observations by the Engineering Division, and other factors was the basis for the accelerated pavement program. In 2003, all of the Village streets were tested again by IMS in order to provide an update of the current pavement conditions. PAGE 2 2004 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM MARCH 19,2004 Summary of Accelerated Pavement Program: . From 1997 to 2003, we have reconstructed or resurfaced over 43% of the Village streets. . Currently, the average age of the surface of the Village streets is 9.0 years. . Included in the testing of the streets is a pavement condition number (10-99) for each street block. Along with other (factors) the pavement condition number can be summarized as follows: 85-99 Very Good 70-84 Good 50-69 Fair 1 0-49 Poor . Currently, only 6.8 miles have a pavement condition number less than 70. (Was 51.2 miles at the start of program.) Attached is Chart 1, which compares the 1996 pavement condition numbers to the current pavement condition numbers. . At the back of this report are two maps. One shows the overall pavement condition that existed in 1996. The other shows the current (2004) overall pavement condition. In addition to traditional resurfacing and reconstruction, I have also looked into the following new products and techniques that are being used in the paving industry. Saw and Seal Joints Trial This procedure involves the saw cutting of the pavement surface at regular inteNals across the full pavement width to form a thin, straight "joint". This joint is then sealed with a typical pavement crack sealing material. The purpose of this procedure is to create a uniform, controlled line in the pavement. Over time, the combination of shrinkage and expansion wants to distress the pavement surface. Normally these cracks form an irregular shape and are difficult to repair. When a saw and seal joint is present, the resulting crack will occur in a controlled area. This is analogous to the joints that we all see in concrete sidewalks. This technique may prove to reduce the amount of transverse cracking typically experienced in asphalt pavements, which are exposed to varying weather conditions and numerous freeze-thaw cycles. PAGE 3 . 2004 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM MARCH 19, 2004 In 1997, pavement joints were installed in the following streets immediately after they were resurfaced: . Catalpa Lane (Busse Road to Lavergne Dr.) . Magnolia Lane (Busse Road to Lavergne Dr.) . Tamarack Drive (Willow Lane to Pheasant Lane) . Lavergne Drive (Busse Road to Lavergne Dr.) To date the installed joints and the sealer material ~ave held up well with no sign of deterioration. Likewise, there is no evidence of transverse cracking on the pavement surface. These streets have experienced some longitudinal cracking, which is normal after several years of service and exposure to the elements. All of our streets do not experience transverse cracking and therefore saw and seal joints should not be considered as a standard repair procedure. For those streets that have chronic transverse cracking, I recommend that the saw and seal procedure be used when the street is re-paved. Sealcoating Trial In 1998, a section of pavement, that was resurfaced in 1996, was sea I coated to determine if this application can extend the pavement life. Isabella Street between Elm Street and Owen Street was sealcoated and wiu be compared to Isabella between Owen and Rand that was also resurfaced in 1996 but not sealcoated. At this time, the seal coating material has experienced 5 years of weather changes, traffic and maintenance. For the most part, the sealcoating material wore off after the first year of exposure and its effectiveness is now limited. This wear was not unusual considering traffic, street sweeping, snow plowing and leaf pickup. All these events are quite abrasive to the relatively thin sealcoat material. At this time I do not see a difference between the sealcoated and non-sealcoated sections of Isabella Street. It is my opinion that this is not a cost effective method for maintaining local asphalt roads. Microsuñacing Traditional asphalt consists of graded stone of various sizes and an asphaltic binder (the black gooey stuff). Microsurfacing is a relatively new paving technique that uses smaller stone, an asphaltic binder and additives such as polymers and extenders which allow the asphalt to be installed in a thin layer. Special equipment is also needed. Microsurfacing typically involves a 3/4 inch overlay with no removal (grinding) of the existing surface. While this technique has not been tried in the ViUage, I have attended several seminars that discussed this method of repairing pavements. I have also discussed this technique with the Illinois Department of Transportation, since some municipalities have used Motor Fuel Tax money to microsurface local streets. PAGE 4 2004 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM MARCH 19,2004 Based on all this I can report the following: . Microsurfacing is most effective on streets that have experienced a uniform 'wearing-out'. . Microsurfacing is not effective on streets that have numerous cracks. . Realistically this method can only be used once before grinding is necessary, since an additional 3/4" overlay would place the surface too high above the concrete gutter. . While the cost to microsurface is cheaper than grinding and resurfacing (about one-half), the life of the resulting surface is likewise one-half that of traditional grinding and resurfacing. There is no real savings and repairs would have to be performed twice as often. . The Village of Palatine has used microsurfacing on some streets in the past years, but has discontinued this process because of resident complaints. (Microsurfacing, by nature, has a urough" surface that looks somewhat unusual and produces a harsh ride.) Based on this I do not feel that microsurfacing is an appropriate method for the repairing of Village streets. White Topping This is a new technique that involves applying a thin specialized concrete product over deteriorated asphalt. It is primarily used in areas where chronic rutting is a problem. Rutting is the displacement of asphalt, which creates channels in the. wheelpath. It is caused by high, continuous traffic volumes or heavy loads. Our local streets do not experience premature rutting. Also, the life cycle cost for white topping is greater than our current resurfacing methods. In addition, white topping, like concrete, results in a surface that produces a noisy ride that is not suited for our local streets. SuperPave The SuperPave system was developed by the Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP). It was developed to give engineers and contractors a better method for designing asphalt pavements that will perform better under extremes of temperature and heavy traffic loads. It provides for the selection of materials that best suit environmental (weather) and traffic conditions that occur at the location where the pavement will be installed. The SuperPave in-plant and in-field testing procedures more closely mimic these actual conditions and therefore give a better indication of how the materials will actually perform. These new methods are the results of 5 years of intensive research and testing by the SHRP. The Federal Highway Administration has now assumed responsibility for further development and validation of the SuperPave specifications and test procedures and has initiated a national program to encourage the adoption of the SuperPave system at the state level. PAGE 5 2004 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM MARCH 19,2004 The implementation of the SuperPave system has taken some time since contractors were required to purchase new testing equipment. In addition contractor personnel and private testing consultants had to be trained to operate the new equipment and understand the new procedures. lOOT has fully adopted the SuperPave system for state projects and since 2002 has directed local agencies to implement the SuperPave system on all local projects. Since then, I have specified asphalt mixtures that meet current SuperPave specifications with respect to both design and testing. All lOOT qualified contractors now have the equipment and personnel that allows them to fully implement SuperPave mixes for local road pavements. I have not seen an increase in the cost of asphalt because of the SuperPave system. SuperPave is the new industry standard and it will provide better pavements. I will continue to provide updates on our experimental streets. Likewise, I will continue to investigate new and alternative measures for pavement repair and will report on their merits. ~ NÙM~l-- Joel Michalik X:\Engi neeri ng\P A VE ME NT\HOLD\04 \Report -04. DOC 110.0 100.0 -"-~- -, ,,-, ,--,~-"-, ,--_._-------,~. ---~~. , , " " "" ".' . 90.0 80.0 U) 70.0 .! E 60.0 - .c æ 50.0 c () ..J 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 "It Q N Ø) 0) "'" 1 0-49 50-69 70-84 Pavement Condition Number 85-99 Pavement Condition Number 10-49 50-69 70-84 85-99 Poor Fair Good Very Good 1996 1996 2004 miles ì 12.01 9.1% 39.~ 29.6% 56.1" 42.4% _25.0 __~8.~ 132.3 100.00% miles 0.0 0.0% 6.8 5.1 %, 40.7 30.8% 84.8 64.1% 132.3 100.00% 2004 Comparison of Block-by-Block Payment Condition Number: 1996 vs. 2004 CHART 1 J. Michalik 2004 Village of Mount Prospect 7 . N 10';' 2000 Foe' ¡ I I I ! ,;, 1996 PAVEMENT CONDITION NUMBER . 10-49 0 50-69 . 10-84 . 85-99 " ",- , Village of Mount Prospect Public Works Department Engineering Division 2004 State of the Streets Prepared By: J. Michalik 2004.03.19 Village of Mount Prospect . N 10;0 ";0 ,.., '-----'~Ji i ¡ ~ ~ i it: i § ~ ~ ~ HIGH LAH1J " ,;, ,;, Hil, '" ORY" J ;¡ SL TO" '" " I 'J.~;< ." ~ ~ . p""".". 2004 PAVEMENT CONDITION NUMBER .. 10-49 D 50-69 . 10-84 . 85-99 ""'"'" " Village of Mount Prospect Public Works Department Engineering Division 2004 State of the Streets Prepared By: J. Michalik 2004.03.19 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM @ TREE em USA Mount Prospect Public Works Department TO: VILLAGE MANAGER MICHAEL JANONIS FROM: PROJECT ENGINEER DATE: MARCH 18, 2004 SUBJECT: FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATIOIN "TRAIN HORN" RULE Background On November 2, 1994, the United States Congress passed the Federal Railroad Safety Authorization Act of 1994 that requires the use of locomotive horns at highway-rail grade crossings but gives the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) authority to make reasonable exceptions. Over the past nine years, the FRA has studied the issue, held public hearings and taken further legislative action in preparation of the final ruling. On December 18, 2003, the FRA issued the Interim Final Rule as mandated by law on use oflocomotive horns at highway-rail grade crossings. The rule fulfills the requirement that the locomotive horn be sounded at all public highway-rail crossings to improve safety but provides exceptions to that requirement. The final rule is expected to go into effect on December 18, 2004. Enclosed for your reference is a summary of the Interim Final Rule from the FRA. Quiet Zone Calculator As mentioned above, there are exceptions to the whistle sounding requirement. With this rule, communities can consider creating "quiet zones" that would bar the railroad from routinely sounding the train horn as a warning. The Quiet Zone Calculator is a web-based tool created by the FRA to allow local. jurisdictions to research the feasibility of creating a quiet zone that complies with the FRA's Interim Final Rule. The calculator allows users to access the FRA maintained National Grade Crossing Inventory, select a series of crossings and test proposed safety implementation plans that are in compliance with the rule. The calculator will determine the risk level for the proposed quiet zone corridor using factors such as the type of warning devices at a crossing, the number of daily trains, the number of daily highway vehicles and the accident history. The risk level will then be evaluated to determine whether quiet zone criteria have been met. If not, supplemental safety measures can be applied to reduce the risk until the criteria have been met. The Village has two corridors in our community: the Union Pacific line and the Canadian National line (refer to attached map). Since we have an existing ordinance that bans the railroad from sounding their train horn except in emergency situations (Section 23.112), we would attempt to qualify these two corridors as Pre-Rule Quiet Zones rather than trying to establish new quiet zones. A Pre-Rule Quiet Zone is a quiet zone that contains one or more consecutive grade crossings subject to a whistle ban that has been actively enforced or observed as of October 9, 1996 and December 18,2003. The Village's whistle ban ordinance was adopted on June 21, 198'8. A copy of the ordinance is attached for your reference. Within the Quiet Zone Calculator, the FRA has developed the National Significant Risk Threshold (NSRT). The NSRT is a numeric value that represents the average risk index of all public, gated Page 2 of 5 March 18,2004 FRA "Train Horn" Rule crossings in the nation at which train horns are sounded. Using the calculator, one can determine the risk index for a specific corridor and compare it to the NSRT. According to the rule, train horns may continue to be silenced at Pre-Rule Quiet Zones if: );> the average risk for the corridor is less than the NSRT; or );> the average risk is less than twice the NSRT and no relevant collisions have occurred within the past 5 years; or );> the community undertakes actions to compensate for lack of the train horn as a warning device According to Staffs calculations using the Quiet Zone Calculator, the risk index for the Union Pacific corridor is 7 ~ times the NSRT and the risk index for the Canadian National corridor is 3 times the NSRT (refer to attached calculator sheets). Therefore, we would need to consider implementing additional safety measures in an attempt to maintain our quiet zones. Within the Quiet Zone Calculator, the FRA has developed ten supplementary safety measures that can be applied in order to lower the risk index of a corridor. They are: );> Temporary Closure of a Public Highway-Rail Grade Crossing );> Permanent Closure of a Public Highway-Rail Grade Crossing );> Grade Separation of a Public Highway-Rail Grade Crossing );> Four-Quadrant Gates Upgrade ITom Two-Quadrant gates, No Vehicle Presence Detection );> Four-Quadrant Gates New Installation, No Vehicle Presence Detection );> Four-Quadrant Gates with Vehicle Presence Detection );> Four-Quadrant Gates, with Medians of at Least 60 feet, with or without Presence Detection );> Mountable medians with Reflective Traffic Channelization Devices (at least 60 feet) );> Non-Traversable Curb Medians with or without Channelization Devices (at least 60 feet) >- One-Way Streets with Gates As some measures offer a higher degree of safety than others, each measure has a different affect on the risk index for a corridor. The least costly and intrusive measure is the mountable median with reflective traffic channelization devices. It also has the smallest affect on the risk index for a corridor. This measure, also known as Qwick-Curb, is installed at the Wolf Road crossing along the Canadian National line in Prospect Heights. According to our calculations, installing this measure at either the Kensington Road crossing or Euclid Avenue crossing would reduce the risk index for the Canadian National corridor in Mount Prospect enough to qualify it as a quiet zone. Evaluating the Union Pacific corridor in Mount Prospect, it appears the channèlization devices could only be installed at the Central Road crossing. Because a minimum of 60 feet is required to be installed on both sides of the tracks, the proximity of Prospect Avenue to the tracks at the Main Street, Emerson Street and Mount Prospect Road crossings prevents one from using this measure in the calculator. According to our calculations, installing this measure at the Central Road crossing alone would not lower the risk index for the corridor enough to prevent the train horn from sounding. The futerim Final Rule also mentions alternative safety measures that may be applied in order to lower the risk index for a corridor. These measures include a variation of the ten approved safety measures, education programs, enforcement programs (including photo enforcement) or any combination. These alternative safety measures cannot be applied in the calculator but rather a community must meet with FRA representatives to receive approval and credit. It may be possible to lower the risk index for the corridor enough to prevent the train horn from sounding with channelization devices at the Central Road crossing as well as instituting an enforcement program and/or education program along the corridor. The only other feasible measure to create a quiet zone for the Union Pacific line would be the use of four- quadrant gates. It appears from our calculations that installing such a system at either the Main Street crossing or Mount Prospect Road crossing would lower the risk index for the corridor enough to prevent Page30f5 March 18,2004 FRA "Train Horn" Rule the train horn trom sounding. Since the Main Street crossing has the highest individual risk index, installing a four-quadrant gate system here would have the greatest affect on the risk index for the corridor. Process to Maintain Quiet Zone The Village Engineer and I recently attended a meeting hosted by the Northwest Municipal Conference that discussed next steps for communities (refer to attached summary memo). To secure Pre-Rule Quiet Zone status should the Village decide to implement the necessary measures, notice must be filed with the FRA by the final rule publication date and a plan submitted within the following two years. Any required measures must be implemented within four years of final publication unless IDOT or Cook County provides assistance. If this is the case, the work must oedone within seven years of final publication. Public Comment Deadline Final Rule Expected To Go Into Effect Community Notice ofIntent Deadline Plan Submittal Deadline Work Completion Deadline (without State/County assistance) Work Completion Deadline (with State/County assistance) April 19,2004 December 18, 2004 December 18, 2004 December 18,2006 December 18,2008 December 18, 2011 Even after this period, any quiet zone corridor created by implementing supplementary or alternative safety measures will be subject to review by the FRA every five years. The calculator will be used to verify that the corridor still meets the criteria for a quiet zone. In addition, should a collision occur after implementing safety measures, the FRA would review the incident to determine whether the corridor can remain a quiet zone. Automated Wavside Horn Svstem Finally, there is one additional measure that can be considered. The Interim Final Rule authorizes use of the Automated Wayside Horn System at any crossing with flashing lights and gates as a one-to-one substitute for the train horn. Essentially, the wayside horn is mounted at the crossing and reduces the noise area by directing the sound toward the path of traffic. Nine crossings along the Canadian National line in the Villages of Mundelein, Libertyville, and Vernon Hills had wayside horns installed in March 2002. The communities have found them to be an acceptable alternative to train horns. Enclosed for your reference is a brochure on the Automated Wayside Horn System and an evaluation of the Automated Wayside Horn System in Mundelein. Costs When evaluating all the potential safety measures, it is important to know that there are varying costs. Approximate installation costs for each measure at a crossing are shown below: Median Barriers Four-Quadrant Gates Photo Enforcement Automated Wayside Horn System $15,000 $400,000 $75,000 $50,000 Based on Staffs review of the Interim Final Rule and analysis using the Quiet Zone Calculator, the following costs could be expected in order to maintain a quiet zone for each of the corridors: Canandian National $15,000 median barriers at either the Kensington Road or Euclid Avenue crossing Page 4 of 5 March 18, 2004 FRA "Train Horn" Rule Union Pacific $400,000 four-quadrant gates at Main Street crossing or $315,000 median barriers at Central Road crossing, photo enforcement cameras at all four crossings and an education program* If, based on the final rule, maintaining quiet zone status for the Union Pacific line is not feasible then the Village could expect to pay a total of approximately $200,000 to install wayside horns at the four crossings in lieu of the train horn from sounding. *credit for photo enforcement and an education program would be subject to review by FRA representatives. The credit mayor may not be sufficient to warrant quiet zone status. Calculator Shortfalls There has been some discussion among communities with regards to the accuracy of the data used in the Quiet Zone Calculator. Specifically, the highway traffic data appears to be outdated in some instances. While using more accurate traffic data affects the risk index for a corridor, it appears it does so minimally and would not affect the need for supplementary safety measures for our corridors. One factor that does have a significant influence on the risk index is vehicle-train collisions. The higher the number of collisions, the higher the risk index. The calculator looks at a 5-year window for incidents. For the year 2004, the calculator considers collisions from 1998-2002. The calculator, however, does not take into account circumstances of each collision. A community can ask the FRA to review a specific collision if it believed that the collision could not have been prevented even with the sound of a train horn. A review of the accident history in Mount Prospect shows that the one accident at the Kensington Road crossing was the result of a vehicle stopped behind the gate being struck from behind by another vehicle and pushed into the path of the train. Staff plans on asking the FRA to remove this collision from the calculator. If approved, this may influence the need for supplementary safety measures for the Canadian National corridor. The five accidents at the Main Street crossing and one at the Mt. Prospect Road crossing appear to qualify as legitimate collisions per the FRA ruling. In addition to reviewing the circumstances surrounding each of our recent collisions, Staff also noted the dates that each of them occurred. This is because the calculator does not use a locked 5-year period when considering collisions. With each year, a new 5-year window is considered. For instance, in 2005, the calculator will consider collisions from 1999-2003. As a result, each crossing will receive a new risk index each year. This is important because currently the risk index for the Main Street crossing is almost 20 times the national average. Mount Prospect experienced two collisions in 1999 and three in 2000 at this crossing. Significant changes to the traffic signal operation have improved safety and we have not had any collisions since 2000. While the FRA does not recognize these safety improvements in their calculator, the two collisions in 1999 will be dropped from the calculator in 2006 and the remaining three in 2007. With a continued collision-free record, the risk index for the crossing and the entire Union Pacific corridor would lower considerably and possibly negate the need for costly safety measures such as a four-quadrant gate system. Questions and Comments With the FRA accepting public comment on the Interim Final Rule until April 19, 2004, Staff has begun to formulate some questions and comments for their consideration. . The Quiet Zone Calculator needs to reflect accurate and up-to-data data. Data that is disputed must be rectified quickly. The interface between the ICC and FRA must be clearly defined. What is the ICC's role in the process? There needs to be a mechanism to resolve conflicts between the ICC's rules and regulations . Page 5 of 5 March 18,2004 FRA "Train Horn" Rule . and the rule set forth by the FRA. For instance, the FRA allows four-quadrant gates to be an acceptable supplementary safety measure. However, it is our understanding the ICC does not support this measure. The supplementary safety measures defined by the FRA are for the most part impractical, not feasible or costly. There should be credit for other engineering solutions such as the traffic signal operation improvements made at the intersection of Route 83 and Prospect Avenue. The FRA needs to mandate cooperation with the railroad companies, else, their unresponsiveness or opposition would slow the process. It appears the local agencies for the most part will take the lead in creating or maintaining quiet zones. There needs to be specific limitations on municipality liability and maintenance costs associated with these safety measures. Municipalities will be required to forward a plan by the end of 2006 showing how we intend on maintaining our quiet zones. However, the risk index for each crossing changes each year. There needs to be assurance trom the FRA that a municipality can amend a plan, if applicable, given the changing circumstances and a process to do so. The FRA needs to define the impact implementing alternative safety measures (photo enforcement, education programs, modified supplementary safety measures, etc.) will have on the risk index. No assurance is given that implementing such measures will secure a corridor as a quiet zone. Even though Mount Prospect has had a whistle ban ordinance in effect since 1988 and the Canadian National Railroad does not sound their horns at these crossings, the ICC does not recognize the corridor as a quiet zone. The ICC needs to update their records and the FRA needs to provide assurance that this corridor does qualify as a Pre-Rule Quiet Zone. . . . . . Public Comment The information provided in this memo is for Staff and the Village Board of Trustees to have a better understanding of the issue so that we can develop the appropriate course of action for Mount Prospect It is also provided so that we can as a Village provide our comments to the FRA on this important issue. Staff will present this issue at the March 23rd Committee-of-the-Whole Meeting and based on the input from the Village Board of Trustees will finalize our comments to the FRA. In addition, any group or individual is welcome to provide comments to the FRA on this Issue. Comments must be received by April 19, 2004. Written comments may be mailed to: Docket Clerk DOT Central Docket Management Facility 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Plaza-401 Washington, D.C. 20590-0001 Comments may also be faxed to (202) 493-2251. The following docket number must be included in a submission: FRA-1999-6439. In addition, comments may be submitted online to docket number 6439 via the u.s. Department of Transportation's online Docket Management System at http://dms.dotgov. Click "Comments/Submissions" and then on "Unregistered Users" or "Registered Users" and follow the instructions and prompts provided. ~¿I Matthew P. Lawrie cc: Village Clerk Velma Lowe x: \files \engineer\traffic\railroad\fra \interim JU Ie_board - memo.doc THE "TRAIN HORi~" RULE Summary of the Interim Final Rule 1. Overview: . Announcing publication December 18, 2003, of the Interim Final Rule on Use of Locomotive Horns at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings. Purposes: ç. Ensure a high level of public safety; ç. Respond to the many communities that have continued to press for relief from unwanted horn noise; and ç. Take into consideration the interests of localities with existing whistle bans. . Currently use of the horn at highway-rail crossings is governed by state law and railroad operating rules. 'When this rule is effective, it will detennine when the horn is sounded at public crossings (and private crossings within "quiet zones"). . This Interim Final Rule was mandated by lawl, and was issued by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) after review of almost 3,000 public comments on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) (65 FR 2230) and the Draft Environmental Impact Statement published January 13,2000. . The rule requires that the locomotive horn be sounded at public highway-rail crossings, but provides several exceptions to that requirement. . Local public authorities may establish, or request the approval of, quiet zones in which train horns may not be routinely sounded. The details for establishment of quiet zones differ depending on the type of quiet zone to be created (Pre-Rule or New) and the type of safety improvements implemented (if required). . Horns may continue to be silenced at Pre-Rule Quiet Zones, provided certain actions are taken. . By law, the rule may not go into effect until December 18,2004. . Because FRA has made numerous important changes in response to public input, FRA will receive additional comments on this interim final rule. That process should not delay implementation of the rule. 2. Requirement to sound the locomotive horn: 149 D.S.c. 20153. Disclaimer: This is a summary of the interim final nile for initial briefing purposes only. Entities subject to the rule should refer to the nile text as published in the Federal Register on December 18, 2003. 2 . Outside of quiet zones, railroads must sound the horn 15-20 seconds prior to arrival at the crossing, but not more than 1/4 mile in advance ofthe crossing. Note: Most State laws and railroad rules currently require that the horn be sounded for 1/4 mile in advance of the crossing. Under the rule, for trains running at less than 45 mph, this will reduce the time and distance over which the horn is sounded. This will reduce noise impacts on the local community. . The pattern for sounding the horn will remain as it currently exists today (two long, one short, one long repeated or prolonged until the locomotive traverses the crossing). . Locomotive engineers will retain the latitude to vary this pattern where crossings are closely spaced; and they will also be empowered to sound the horn in the case of an emergency, even in a quiet zone. . The rule addresses use of the horn only with respect to highway-rail crossings. Railroads remain free to use the horn for other purposes as prescribed in railroad operating rules on file with FRA, and railroads must use the horn as specified in other FRA regulations (in support of roadway worker safety and in the case of malfunctions of highway-rail warning devices). . The rule prescribes both a minimum and 11UL'Cimlll1l sound level for the train horn. The minimum level is retained at 96db(A), and the new maximum will be 110 db(A). This range \vill pennit railroads to address safety needs in their operating territory (see discussion in the preamble). . The protocol for testing the horn will be altered to place the sound-level meter at a height of 15 feet above top of rail, rather than the current 4 feet above the roadbed. Note: The effect of this change will be to pennit center-mounted horns to be "turned down" in some cases. The previous test method was influenced by the "shadow effect" created by the body of the locomotive to indicate a lower sound level than would otherwise be expected several hundred feet in front ofthe locomotive (where the crossing and approaching motorists are located or found). . The effect of these changes will be to reduce horn noise for 3.4 million of the 9.3 million people currently affected by train horn noise. Disclaimer: This is a summary of the interim [mal nile for initial briejìng purposes only. Entities subject to the rille should refer to the nile text as published in the Federal Register on December 18, 2003. 3 3. Creation of quiet zones: . The nIle provides significant flexibility to create quiet zones, both where there are existing whistle bans and in other communities, as well. . The Interim Final Rule adds a new concept that pennits implementation of quiet zones in low-risk situations without the necessity to add safety improvements. ./ This concept utilizes a risk index approach that estimates expected safety outcomes (that is, the likelihood of a fatal or non-fatal casualty at a crossing). ./ Risk may be averaged over crossings in a proposed quiet zone. ./ Average risk within the proposed quiet zone is then compared with the average risk at gated train horn crossings nationally (the "National Significant Risk Threshold" or "NSRT"). FRA will compute the NSRT annually. The effect of this approach is that horns can remain silenced in over half of Pre-Rule Quiet Zones without significant expense; and many New Quiet Zones can be created without significant expense where flashing lights and gates are already in place at the croSSIngs. If the risk index for a proposed New Quiet Zone exceeds the NSRT, then supplementary or alternative safety measures must be used to reduce that risk (to fully compensate for the absence of the train horn or to reduce risk below the NSRT). . . The interim final mle- ./ Retains engineering solutions known as "supplementary safety measures" for use without FRA approval. ./ Adds explicit flexibility for adaptation of "supplementary safety measures" to receive credit as "alternative safety measures." For instance, shorter channelization arrangements can be used with reasonable effectiveness estimates. Disc/aimer: This is a swnmary oftlzeÚzterimfmal17ilefor initial briefing purposes only. Entities subject to the rule should refer to the nile text as published in the Federal Register on December 18, 2003. 4 ./ Continues education and enforcement options, including photo enforcement, subject to verification of effectiveness.2 . The public authority responsible for safety and maintenance of the roadway that crosses the railroad tracks is the only entity that can designate or apply for quiet zone status. . FRA will provide a web-based tool for communities to use in perfonning "what if' calculations and preparing submissions. The tool may be found at http://www.fra.dotgov. . In order to ensure proper application of the risk index, the National Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory must be updated by States and railroads. In the absence of timely filings by those parties, local authorities may file updated inventory infonnation, and railroads must cooperate in providing railroad-specific data. . FRA regional personnel will be available to participate in diagnostic teams evaluating options for quiet zones. . Once a quiet zone is established (including the continuation of Pre-Rule Quiet Zones pending any required improvements), the railroad is barred from routine sounding of the horn as a warning at the affected crossings. . See below for discussion of Pre-Rule Quiet Zones and New Quiet Zones. 2The nile neither approves nor excludes the possibility of relying upon regional education and enforcement programs with alternative verification strategies. FRA is providing funding in support of an Illinois Commerce Commission-sponsored regional program. The law provides authority for use of new techniques when they have been demonstrated to be effective. Disclaimer: This is a summary of the interimfmal nile for initial briefing purposes only. Entities subject to the rule should refer to the nile text as published in the Federal Register on December 18, 2003. 5 Horns may continue to be silenced at Pre-Rule Quiet Zones if- ø The average risk at the crossings is less than the NSRT; or ø The average risk is less than twice the NSRT and no relevant collisions have occurred within the past 5 years; or ø The community undertakes actions to compensate for lack of the train horn as a warning device (or at least to reduce average risk to below the NSRT). Train horns will not sound in existing whistle ban areas if authorities state their intention to maintain "Pre-Rule Quiet Zones" and do whatever is required (see above) within 5 years of publication (8 years if the State agency provides at least some assistance to communities in that State). A "Pre-Rule Quiet Zone" is a quiet zone that contains one or more consecutive grade crossings subject to a whistle ban that has been actively enforced or observed as of October 9, 1996 and December 18, 2003. To secure Pre-Rule Quiet Zone status, communities must file a notice with FRA within 1 year of publication and a plan within 3 years of publication (if improvements are required). c . New Quiet Zones may be created if- ø All public crossings are equipped with flashing lights and gates; and either- After adjusting for excess risk created by silencing the train horn, the average risk at the crossings is less than the NSRT; or Safety improvements are made thélt Will compensate for loss of the train horn as a warning device (or at least to reduce average risk to below the NSRT). Detailed instructions for establishing or requesting recognition of a quiet zone are provided in the regulation. Disclaimer: This is a summmy of the interim final ntlefor initial briefing purposes only. Entities subject to the rule sholild refer to the ntle text as published in the Federal Register on December 18, 2003. 4. . 6 Length of quiet zones: Generally, a quiet zone must be at least Y2 mile in length and may include one or more crOSSings. Pre- Rule Quiet Zones may be retained at their present length as of the date of publication of the rule, even if less than Y2 mile. A Pre-Rule Quiet Zone that is greater than Y2 mile may be reduced in length to no less than Y2 mile and retain its pre-rule status. However, if its length is increased from pre-rule length, pre-rule stahlS will not be retained. . 5. Supplementary and alternative safety measures: Supplementary safety measures are engineering improvements that clearly compensate for the absence of the train horn. If employed at every crossing in the quiet zone, they automatically qualify the quiet zone (subject to reporting requirements). . ./ ./ ./ Temporary closure used with a nighttime-only zone; Four-quadrant gates; Channelization arrangements (i.e., non-mountable curb or mountable curb with delineators) at least 100 feet in length on each side (60 ft. where there is an intersecting roadway); ./ One-way street with gate across the roadway. Alternative safety measures may be applied such that the combination of measures at one or more crossings reduces the average risk by the required amount across the quiet zone (so-called "corridor approach"). ./ Any supplementary safety measure or reasonable variation of a supplementary safety measure (e.g., barrier gate and median with higher estimate of effectivenes; shorter channelization with reduced estimate of effectiveness); . ./ Education and/or enforcement programs (including photo enforcement) with verification of effectiveness; or ./ Combination of the above. Disclaimer: This is a summary of the interim final nile for initial briefing purposes only. Entities subject to the rule should refer to the nile text as published in the Federal Register on December 18, 2003. 7 6. Recognition of the automated wayside horn: . The mle authorizes use of the automated wayside horn at any crossing with flashing lights and gates (inside or outside a quiet zone) as a one-to-one substihlte for the train horn. . Certain technical requirements apply, consistent with the successful demonstrations of this technology. . The Federal Highway Administration (FH\V A) may treat wayside horns as traffic control devices. Communities interested in employing this option should contact FHW A to detennine the need for an experimental designation. 7. Special circumstances: . A community or railroad that views the provisions of the nile inapplicable to local circumstances may request a waiver from the nile. . A railroad or community seeking a waiver must first consult with the other party and seek agreement on the fonn of relief, but if agreement cannot be achieved the party may still request the relief. . FRA grants waivers if in the public interest and consistent with the safety of highway and railroad users of the crossings. 8. Further proceedings on the rule: . Because FRA has made numerous changes from the proposed nile in order to respond to public comments, FRA is providing an additional, brief opportunity for comment. Comments will be accepted through Febmary 17,2004, (first business day following the Federal holiday on Monday). FRA anticipates that the mle will be effective, with any warranted adjustments, on December 18,2004. Additional infonnation, including the full text of the Interim Final Rule, the Final Environmental Impact Statement, and background documents, are available at http://www.fra.dot.Qov. Disclaimer: This is a summary of the interim final nile for initial briefing purposes only. Entities subject to the rule should refer to the nile text as published in the Federal Register on December J 8, 2003. VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS N .+, 5 KENSINGTON RD NATIONAL B. 23.110 OFFENSES AND MISCELLANEOUS REGULATIONS 23.114 c. Fuel Tanks. It shall be unlawful to install or maintain any fuel oil, gas or liquid gas tanks aboveground. All such tanks must be placed below the ground surface. (1957 Code, 25.309, 25.313, 25.326) Sec. 23.111. Hazardous Objects on Public Ways. A. Scaffolds. Any scaffold or ladder placed in such a position that they overhang or can fall into any public street, alley or other public place in the Village, shall be finnly and properly constructed and safeguarded; and it shall be unlawful to place or leave any tools or articles on any such place in such a manner that the same can fall into any such street, sidewalk., alley or other public way from a greater height than four feet (4'). Articles on Windows. It shall be unlawful to place any movable article on any window ledge, or other place abutting on a public street, alley or other place at a height above four feet (4') from the ground, in sidewalk, street, alley or other public place. (1957 Code, 25.321, 25.322) Sec. 23.112. Whistles. No railroad shall cause or allow the whistle or horn of any locomotive engine to be sounded in the Village, except when absolutely necessary to prevent injury to persons or property. Each superintendent of any railroad shall furnish to any officer of the Village the name of any person in the employment of such railroad who shall have been charged with violation of this Section. (1957 Code, 25.323; Ord. 3953, 6-21-88) ) Sec. 23.113. Mendicants or Vagrants. It shall be unlawful for any mendicant or vagrant to frequent any depot, store, theater, street, alley, sidewalk, park or other public place or any place frequented by the public in the Village. Any person found sleeping in such places, and who has no established domicile or residence, shall be considered to be a vagrant. (1957 Code, 25.325) Sec. 23.114. Mini-Bikes, Go-Carts and Snowmobiles; Limitation on Operation. It is hereby declared to be unlawful and shall constitute a nuisance for any person, whether operating any mini-bike, go-cart or snowmobile upon properties and places allowed under the tenns of this Article or not, to operate such mini-bike, go-cart or snowmobile: A. 1295 Without proper mechanical equipment, including but not limited to: 1. Adequate brakes. 2. A muffler in good working order, which prevents excessive or unusual noises; or Village of Mount Prospect FRA - Quiet Zone Calculator Create New Zone Manage Existing Zones Log Off Step by Step Instructions: Step 1: To specify New Warning Device (For Pre-Rule Quiet Zone Only) and/or SSM, click the MODIFY Button Step 2: Select proposed warning device and SSM. Then click the UPDATE button. Step 3: Repeat Step (2) until the SELECT button is shown at the bottom right side of this page. Note that the SELECT button is shown ONLY when the Quiet Zone Risk Index falls below the NSRT or the Risk Index with Horn. Step 4: To save the scenario and continue, click the SELECT button Page 1 of 1 Print This Page Home I Help I Contact I logoff mlawrie@mountprospect.org cancel] Change Scenario: jTEST2_2675 ~. Continue I Crossing IStreet ¡Traffic lwarning Device ISSMIRisk I 176909P MT PROSPECT RD 17700 Gates 0 93,471.21 MODIFY I 176911R EMERSON ST 1509 Gates 0 28,560.23 MODIFY I 176912X MAIN ST FAP 872 15200 Gates 0 333,633.10 MODIFY I 176913E WEST CENTRAL RD 23800 Gates 0 51,933.92 MODIFY I * Only Public At Grade Crossings are listed. Click here: for Supplementary Safety Measures rSSM] Summary Proposed Quiet Zone: TEST2 Type: Pre-Rule Scenario: TEST2 2675 Estimated Total Cost: $0.00 Nationwide Significant 16988.00 Risk Threshold: Risk Index with Horns: 108183.82 Quiet Zone Risk Index: 126899.62 http://safetydata.fra.dotgov/quiet/scen.aspx?zoneid=2911 1/1 SU,)(\(M. FRA - Quiet Zone Calculator Create New Zone Manage Existing Zones Log Off Step by Step Instructions: Step 1: To specify New Warning Device (For Pre-Rule Quiet Zone Only) and/or SSM, click the MODIFY Button Step 2: Select proposed warning device and SSM. Then click the UPDATE button. Step 3: Repeat Step (2) until the SELECT button is shown at the bottom right side of this page. Note that the SELECT button is shown ONLY when the Quiet Zone Risk Index falls below the NSRT or the Risk Index with Horn. Step 4: To save the scenario and continue, click the SELECT button Page 1 of 1 Print This Page Home I Help. Contact I logoff mlawrie@mountprospect.org cancel Change Scenario: jTEST2~2675 ..:J Continue I Crossing IStreet ¡Traffic Warning Device IssrvllRisk I 176909P MT PROSPECT RD 17700 Gates 0 93,471.21 MODIFY I 176911R EMERSON ST 1509 Gates 0 28,560.23 MODIFY I 176912X MAIN ST FAP 872 15200 Gates 4 60,053.96 MODIFY I 176913E WEST CENTRAL RD 23800 Gates 0 51,933.92 MODIFY * Only Public At Grade Crossings are listed. Click here: for Supplementary Safety Measures rSSMl Summary Proposed Quiet Zone: TEST2 Type: Pre-Rule Scenario: TEST2_2675 Estimated Total Cost: $100,000.00 Nationwide Significant 16988.00 Risk Threshold: Risk Index with Horns: 108183.82 Quiet Zone Risk Index: 58504.83 Select I http://safetydata.fra.dotgov/quiet/scen.aspx?zoneid=2911 3/18/2004 FRA - Quiet Zone Calculator Page 1 of 1 Print This Page Home I Help I Contact I logoff mlawrie@mountprospect.org Cancel I Change scenario:ITEST3_2676 -.:J Continue I Create New Zone Crossing Street Manage Existing Zones 689680D FOUNDRY ROAD Log Off 689681K EUCLID RD FAU1292 21200 Gates Step by Step Instructions: Step 1: To specify New Warning Device (For Pre-Rule Quiet Zone Only) and/or SSM, click the MODIFY Button Step 2: Select proposed warning device and SSM. Then click the UPDATE button. Step 3: Repeat Step (2) until the SELECT button is shown at the bottom right side of this page. Note that the SELECT button is shown ONLY when the Quiet Zone Risk Index falls below the NSRT or the Risk Index with Horn. Step 4: To save the scenario and continue, click the SELECT button * Only Public At Grade Crossings are listed. Click here: for Supplementary Safety Measures [SSM] http://safetydata.fra.dotgov/quietiscen.aspx?zoneid=2913 ISSMIRisk l 0 68,915.19 MODIFY j MODIFY I 0 40,367.13 Summary Proposed Quiet Zone: TEST3 Type: Pre-Rule Scenario: TEST3 2676 Estimated Total Cost: $0.00 Nationwide Significant 16988.00 Risk Threshold: Risk Index with Horns: 46582.4 Quiet Zone Risk Index: 54641.16 3/18/2004 FRA - Quiet Zone Calculator Page 1 of 1 Print This Page Home I Help I Contact I logoff mlawrie@mountprospect.org Cancel I Change Scenario:TEST3_2676 ~ Continue Create New Zone Crossing Street Manage Existing Zones 689680D FOUNDRY ROAD Log Off 689681K EUCLID RD FAU1292 21200 Gates Step by Step Instructions: Step 1: To specify New Warning Device (For Pre-Rule Quiet Zone Only) and/or SSM, click the MODIFY Button Step 2: Select proposed warning device and SSM. Then click the UPDATE button. Step 3: Repeat Step (2) until the SELECT button is shown at the bottom right side of this page. Note that the SELECT button is shown ONLY when the Quiet Zone Risk Index falls below the NSRT or the Risk Index with Horn. Step 4: To save the scenario and continue, click the SELECT button * Only Public At Grade Crossings are listed. Click here: for SuDDlementarv Safety Measures ISSMl http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/quiet/scen.aspx?zoneid=2913 ISSMIRiSk l 0 68,915.19 MODIFY I MODIFY I 9 8,073.43 Summary Proposed Quiet Zone: TEST3 Type: Pre-Rule Scenario: TEST3 2676 Estimated Total Cost: $15,000.00 Nationwide Significant 16988.00 Risk Threshold: Risk Index with Horns: 46582.4 Quiet Zone Risk Index: 38494.31 Select 3/18/2004 Mount Prospect Public Works Department @) TREE ClTYUSA INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: VILLAGE MANAGER MICHAEL JANONIS DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS GLEN ANDLER FROM: PROJECT ENGINEER DATE: FEBRUARY 23,2004 FRA TRAIN HORN RULE 2/20/04 MEETING SUBJECT: The Village Engineer and I attended a meeting last Friday hosted by the N\VMC at The Arboretum Club in Buffalo Grove. Approximately 40 people including municipal managers, public works directors, planners, engineers, police officers and one vocal citizen also attended. FRA representatives provided an overview of the Interim Final Rule and a timeline for implementation. It was not a technical meeting but rather focused on the highlights of the rule. Some of the points that were made included: . The public comment period has been extended to April 19, 2004. The final rule is expected to go into effect December 18, 2004. If a community intends on maintaining an existing quiet zone, a notification letter must be submitted to the FRA by December 18, 2004. Plans must be submitted to the FRA by December 18, 2006. Work to be completed by December 18, 2008 without State participation. Work to be completed by December 18,2011 with State participation. A review would be necessary every five years. . . . . . . . If a community intends on maintaining an existing quiet zone, a meeting should be held with the appropriate parties (roOT, CCHD, UPRR, CNRR). The "public authority", the person or agency that will take the lead in the process, needs to be determined. Permission from IDOT or CCHD is to be given if a local agency will be the "public authority" on a State or County road. The FRA is willing to send a technical team to meet with local agencies to provide assistance throughout the process. . . . As part of our comments to the FRA, it is recommended we mention our concern that railroad companies may not cooperate in the process. Many communities have already found them to be difficult to work with and their unresponsiveness or opposition may slow the process. Also, many people are unsure of the ICC's role. Will ICC approval be necessary with any improvements to maintain a quiet zone? Do they support all the safety measures outlined by the FRA such as four-quadrant gates? We may want to include this issue in our comments as well. . After the meeting, Jeff and I had an opportunity to discuss a few specific questions with the FRA representatives. The FRA does not consider any traffic signal improvements (even with ICC involvement Page 2 of 2 February 23, 2004 FRA Train Hom Rule and support) when it comes to determining our "risk index" for a crossing. Therefore, the Main Street crossing cannot be re-evaluated based on our recent improvements. However, the five-year period that the Quiet Zone Calculator considers is not a lock~d period. I have requested copies of past crash reports at each of our six crossings so that we can review them to determine the date of each incident and project out when we could expect a five-year period of zero accidents (assuming no future accidents). This could have a significant impact on what measures would be necessary to maintain a quiet zone. Final1y, Jeff had a brief conversation with Larry Bury of the ICC after the meeting. According to the Interim Final Rule, a "pre-rule quiet zone" is a quiet zone where a whistle ban has been actively enforced or observed as of October 9, 1996 and December 18,2003. Larry mentioned that he believed the ICC briefly withdrew the whistle ban after the latest accident at the Main Street crossing in July 2000. A few days later we closed the eastbound left turn lane on Prospect Avenue and the whistle ban was reinstated. Larry was concerned that this intelTuption could possibly affect whether Mount Prospect still qualifies as a "pre-rule quiet zone". Assurance from the ICC and FRA is probably necessary before we get too far in the proc~ss. I request that we meet as a Staff to discuss this issue in more detail and determine next steps. I would be happy to set up such a meeting with your conCUlTence. .~ Matthew P. Lawrie cc: Village Engineer JeffWulbecker x:\engineering\traftic\ra i lroad\fra \02.20.04- meeting.doc Automated Wayside Horn System Final Report January 21, 2003 INTRODUCTION For three and a half years, an ad hoc committee comprised of representatives of a variety of state, federal, and local governments plus the private sector met to find a way to install, fund, maintain, and study automated horn systems at nine railroad crossings in, and adjacent to, the Village of Mundelein, Illinois. The Automated Horn Task Force, as the group came to be known, began its work in June 2000. On January 21,2003, the Final Report of the effectiveness of the automated horns was presented to the Task Force. The study that follows is an in-depth analysis of the effectiveness of automated horns as a safety feature and as a method of reducing noise from train horns. On both counts the automated horn proved extremely successful. Without the support and cooperation of all levels of government the installation of the Automated Horns and the study of their effectiveness could not have been completed. To arrive at this point, Federal, State, County, and municipal officials worked together, along with private businesses. They remained focused on a goal, implemented a technological advancement in railroad crossing safety, and arranged for an independent, scientific evaluation of the effectiveness of that new technology. This process, and those involved, brought out the best that our democratic system has to offer; and shown how the entrepreneurial creativity ofthe private sector can be utilized to improve the health and safety of our citizens. I would like to extend my special thanks would like to Lake County Board ChainTIan Susie Schmidt and the Lake County Board, Village of Libertyville Mayor Duane Laska, Village of Vernon Hills Mayor Roger Byrne, all the members of the Automated Horn Task Force. I think we are on the verge of a significant advancement in railroad crossing safety and proud of what we have accomplished. Sincerely, ~d/Ié. arilyn Sindles Mayor Background. In the mid-1990's freight traffic on the Wisconsin Central began to increase significantly. Complaints regarding train horns became more frequent. When the North Central Commuter line began operation in 1996, freight traffic was scheduled around the commuterservice. This resulted in more trains than ever before traveling through Mundelein in the ,,",_,~~,i evenings and early morning hours. Soon noise complaints began to skyrocket. The Village began investigating ways to reduce the disturbance of train horns without reducing the safety of the crossings. r---""'-'""-" . '.,-.," Automated Horn Alternative. Mundelein has six railroad crossings within, and three immediately adjacent to, its boundaries. The four crossings in the center of town come in rapid succession. State law requires trains to sound an audible warning when crossing a roadway. Needless to say, this causes a great deal of noise disturbance for our community. In late 1998 the Village learned of an experimental horn system, known as the Automated Horn System, manufactured by Railroad Controls Ltd. of Ft. Worth, Texas, which was being used on an experimental basis at other locations around the country, the closest being inAmes, Iowa. After conducting a good deal of research on the new system, a visit to Ames, and a demonstration in Mundelein to the elected officials, the Village Administrator convened a multi- jurisdictional task force to discuss the feasibility of installing an automated horn system in Mundelein. Meetings of the Task Force began in June 1999. The Task Force consisted of the Villages of Mundelein, Libertyville and Vernon Hills, the Federal Railroad Administration, Illinoic Commerce Commission, Illinois Department of Transportation, Metra, Wisconsin Central, Lake County Division of Transportation, and Northwestern University. After many meetings, the Task Force succeeded in obtaining State and Federal funding to install nine automated horns on an experimental basis (from Peterson Road to Butterfield Road), and federal funding to conduct a study of the effectiveness of the horns as a safety device and at reducing the noise disturbances to the community. . Automated Horn Locations The Process. The Task Force members were all interested in the promise of his new technology. Earlier studies from Gehring, NE and Richardson, TX indicated the automated horns were effective at reducing the disturbance of train horns in the community. Rules proposed by the Federal Railroad Administration ain accordance with the Swift Rail Act of 1996 were being developed. Indication was that an audible warning would be required at all crossings. ..}'~.'~ . So called "quiet zones" are permitted in the State of Illinois with the concurrence of the Illinois Commerce Commission and the Railroad. The Mundelein crossings were all protected by automatic gates, lights and bells and were eligible under the ICC rules to be excused from whistle blowing. The Village had investigated the quiet zone option, but chose not to pursue it do to concern over liability and uncertainty regarding the proposed FRA rules. It was clear to the Task Force that the Illinois Commerce Commission. was th~ k~y to the project. As the governing body of railroad crossing safety in Illinois the agency was essential, but it was the ICC'saccessto funding through the State's Railroad Crossing Safety Fund that made it the critically important. In time, the ICC agreed to fund seven Qf the crossings from the Crossing Safety Fund. The Illinois Department of Transportation stepped up and was able to secure funding through a federal grant to pay for the automated horn installation at the two crossings on State Highways. The Task Force maintained from the beginning that it was not sufficient to just install the horns. As part of the project a scientific study that would hold up to critical review of the effectiveness of the horns had to be undertaken. The study had to look at two tlúngs-safety and noise reduction. If the study was to effectively study noise reduction the railroad crossings immediately to the north and south of the Village had to be included. Otherwise sound radiating from these crossings would hinder the results. This decision mandated the involvement of the Village of Libertyville to the north and the Village ofVernon hills to the south. { ~J~r~~i~~r~]J.!S.¡ë!" . . ¡t..~""" . Confirmation Signal above Automated Horn The next piece of the puzzle was to establish the scope of the study and solicit proposals. The Northwestern University Center for Public Safety performed the study, and the John A. Volpe National Transportation System Center monitored each phase on behalf of the Federal Railroad Administration. Funding for the study was obtained from a Unified Work Program Grant. In the end, the Northwestern University Center for Public Safety was contracted to perform the study. The Volpe Center remained interested in the project and provided critical review along the way. With the funding hurdles overcome, the project seemed to be on the fast track to installation. However, there were numerous details that stillneeded to be worked out, and a variety of agreements that needed to be put in place before the work could get started. It was during this phase that all the parties really began to work together to make compromises and look for solutions. Agreements Required. The Illinois Commerce Commission agreed to issue an Interim ICC order mandating that the Wisconsin Central Railroad install the automated horns. However, before the order could be issued "stipulated agreements" between the ICC and each of the jurisdictions that controlled the roadways: Mundelein, IDOT, and Lake County DOT, plus the Wisconsin Central had to be reached. The stipulated agreements set forth the parameters of the project and the duties of each party. Two "license agreements" were required-one between Mundelein and the Wisconsin Central to maintain the horn systems, and one between Northwestern University and the Wisconsin Central to install the equipment needed for the study. These documents contained sections on indemnification, railroad protective AGREEMENTS REQUIRED . Stipulated agreements -ICCNillage -ICC/IOOT - ICC/Lake County DOT -ICC/Wisconsin C,entral . ICC Order to Wisconsin Central . License AgreemenUlndemnifications - Wisconsin CentralNiliage - Wisconsin Central/Northwestern . AHS Maintenance Agreement-RCLNillage . Certificate of Insurance to Wisconsin Central . Professional Services Agreement with Northwestern Center for Public Safety . Metropolitan Planning Funds Intergovernmental Agreement-lOOT & Mundelein -Intergovernmental Agreement - Vernon Hills - RTA - Libertyville - Mundelein - Wisconsin Central - RCL ,.'"., ,. insurance, etc. The insurance and liability issues cannot be underestimated. All parties involved displayed flexibility and a willingness to modify traditional positions. The Village of Mundelein then entered into a "maintenance agreement" with Railroad Controls Ltd., the installer. The Wisconsin Central purchased the systems from RCL and entered into a separate "license agreement" with RCL for installation. A "grant agreement" between the Illinois Department of Transportation and Mundelein was executed for grant funding for the study. A "professional services agreement" between the Village and Northwestern for the study was agreed to and an "intergovernmental agreement" between the Villages of Mundelein, Libertyville and Vernon Hills, the Wisconsin Central, RCL and the RfA (the commuter rail provider) to share the local match portion of the study grant was executed. Automated Wayside Horn System Cost Breakdown Butterfield Road Highway 60 AIIanson Road Hawley Street Park Street Maple (Route 176) Dunbar Road Winchester Road Peterson Road Total Total Cost 49,893 53,685 54,216 52,705 53,028 53,888 52,963 49,785 49.904 $470,067 Installation. Installation began in the fall of 2001 and the pre-study data collection was conducted. Initial cost estimates averaged $35,000 per intersection. Due to a number of conflicts with existing utilities the final cost rose to an average of $52,000 per intersection. (Horn cost was $22,500 per intersection. Installation costs varied depending on conditions at each crossing). The horns were activated March 17, 2002. Until April 12, 2002 the automated horns and the train horns sounded. Once the regulatory bodies were satisfied that the system was operating properly and all the train crews had been fully notified the train horns were silenced on April 12, 2002. The post-study data collection began shortly thereafter. Thank you to the following individuals who served on the Automated Horn System Task Force or assisted in its work: Ann Abrams, Federal Railroad Administration Michael Allison, Village of Vernon Hills Kurt Anderson, Railroad Controls, Ltd. Michael Barron, Canadian National Bob Bergeron, Illinois Commerce Commission Robert S. Berry, Illinois Commerçe Commission Kevin Bowens, Village of Libertyville Anya Carroll, John A. Volpe National Transportation System Center Bruce Christensen, Lake County Department of Transportation Daniel W. Denton, Metra Janet Gilbert, Canadian National Mohammed Ghouse, Illinois Department of Transportation Roy Lucke, Northwestern University Center for Public Safety Tom Maske, Federal Railroad Administration Gary Mayerhofer, Village of Libertyville Robert P. Meyer, Federal Railroad Administration Kenneth Miller, Village of Mundelein Dennis Mogan, Metra Tom Myers, Illinois Commerce Commission Michael O'Brien, Village of Mundelein Jack E. Palach, Canadian National Philip M. Perna, Lake County Public Works Arthur Pew, Illinois Commerce Commission Dusty Powell, Lake County Department of Transportation Dick Raub, Northwestern University Center for Public Safety Raymond Rose, Village of Mundelein Gary Schechter, Illinois Commerce Commission Tammy Wagner, Federal Railroad Administration For printed copies of the following study please contact Kurt Anderson, Railroad Controls, 7471 Benbrook Parkway, Benbrook, TX 76126, (817) 820-6309. For a DVD of the study, plus this introduction and other bonus features, contact Mike Flynn, Village of Mundelein, 440 East Hawley Street, Mundelein, IL, 60060, (847) 949-3223. ~dministrator Assistant Village J\dministrator Evaluation of the Automated Wayside Horn System in M undelein, Illinois Final Report Northwestern University Center for Public Safety 405 Church Street ~ Evanston, IL January 2003 Evaluation of the Automated "Tayside Horn System in Mundelein, Illinois Final Report Executive Summary Highway-Rail Crossing Safety and Train Horns At highway-rail grade crossings, the train horn serves to warn motorists of a train's immediate approach. The horn advises motorists, and other crossing users such as bicyclists and pedestrians, that entering on or crossing the tracks would place them in imminent danger. However, because of the loudness and the wide ~ngle of sound radiation, the horn can be an intrusive nuisance, especially in residential areas near the tracks. As a result, an automated wayside horn system (A WHS) has been developed to provide an appropriate warning for those using the crossing, while not annoying those living near the tracks. A study was carried out in Mundelein, Illinois, that compared the train horn with the A WHS. This report compares motorists' driving behavior at highway-rail crossings and the sound levels of the two types of horns. The results from the evaluation show a significant 70% decrease in violations of highway-rail crossing law with the A WHS. Noise levels in areas near the tracks decreased by up to 85%. Reducing the number of collisions between vehicles and trains has remained a priority in highway safety. During the past 1 0 years, collisions nationally have decreased from 4,684 in 1992 to 3,064 in 2001 (Federal Railroad Administration). During this same period, all collisions with trains in Illinois remained fairly constant with an average of 232 per year. Even though there has been a general decrease nationally, these collisions remain the most severe type in terms of producing injuries and fatalities. Crossing gates have the best record at reducing collisions, but a study done in Florida showed that even with crossing gates, a train horn still is needed. The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has proposed rules to require that horns be used at all crossings with few exceptions that are expensive to implement. The problem remains that the train horn, which, in Mundelein, starts sounding approximately 1 7 seconds before the train reaches the crossing, creates very high sound levels in adjoining areas. As a result of the need to alert motorists and at the same time reduce the effect of sound on adjoining areas, Mundelein experimented with the use of the A WHS. The study reports the results of the evaluation of the A WHS. Northwestern University Center þr Public Sajty Wayside Horn Evaluation - Final Rep:Jl1 Conduct of the Study Five tasks were undertaken: site preparation, before and after motorist violation studies, before and after sound studies, quality-of-life studies, and surveys of engineers and residents. At each of the three sites used for studying motorist behavior, utility poles were erected, and cameras and recording equipment installed. The recorders activated when the warning signals activated, thereby recording what motorists did during the period the gates were descending and down before the train anived. Drivers are considered to be taking risks (and violating the law) when they attempt to cross the tracks after the crossing gates start to descend. This action was measured by viewing videotapes made at each crossing during the period the gates were activated. Data were taken during the period train horns were in use, then after a period of adaptation, when the wayside horn was in use. The violations were divided into two classes: Technical violation where the driver crosses the tracks after the gates start to descend but before the gate has been lowered sufficiently to block the vehicle's passage, labeled a "Type I" violation, and . Deliberate violation in which the driver either drives through or around the lowered gate. These are "Type 2" violations. Loudness and sound characteristics were measured on approaches to several crossings with train horns in use and then after the wayside horns were activated. A comprehensive assessment of these measures is contained in a separate report; this final report just summarizes the findings. Measures of quality-of-life derived from two sources: sound studies in residential yards and a survey of the residents. The project team measured sound levels over 24-hour periods at nine locations throughout Mundelein. These measures were made during the period when train horns were used and again after the wayside horns were placed in service. Comparisons included the average sound level in one-second periods, during the time that horns were sounded, and a sound exposure level. The latter takes into account duration and allows direct comparison of sounds between different locations and over differen~ periods. In addition, surveys were sent to a sample of residents in Mundelein. The survey asked residents how they viewed the new horn system compared to the train horns. Several questions also were directed toward the residents' views of changes in crossing safety. Finally, a survey was distributed to engineers from both the freight railroad (Canadian National) and commuter rail (Metra). This survey was modeled after the one used in Ames, Iowa, for a Northwestern University Center fir Public Sajty Wayside Horn Evaluatioll- Final RefXJrt 2 similar evaluation. It asked the engineers how they perceived the crossing safety before and after the wayside horns were activated. Evaluation of Changes in Crossing Violations From the period September 8 through December 20, 2001, 10,392 gate activations were recorded on videotape at three crossings. During the second period of observations, April 12 through July 16, 2002, 9,112 activations were recorded. Each period averaged 36 closings per day or 3.5 per 1,000 crossing vehicles. The largest percentage of closings, 1 7%, occurred from 6: 00 p. m. through 9: 00 p. m. A total of 367 violations were counted during the period when train horns were in use. Only 97 violations were recorded once the wayside horns were in operation. The average violation rate when train horns were in use was 3.53 per 1 00 gate closings. This decreased 68% tol.12 per 100 closings with the A WHS. The decrease is statistically significant Type 1 violations (driving under a descending gate) occurred 358 times in the before period and 93 in the after period. A combined total of 13 drivers in both periods went around a gate. With few exceptions, most of the Type 1 violations occurred within the first two seconds after the gates began their descent Of the Type 1 violations recorded when train horns were in use, more than 90% occurred between 6:01 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. Between 12:01 and 3:00 p.m., 30% of all violations occurred. The largest percentage occurred on Hawley Street Part of the problem stems from multiple gate activations when Metra commuter trains stop at the Mundelein station near Hawley Street. A total of 13 instances were recorded where motorists drove around the gates. Nine occurred during the time the train horn was in use, and four occurred when the A WHS was operating. The decrease is not statistically significant. Approximately one-half of the violations happened when a train arrived during the 60-second recording interval. In one case, a driver cleared the tracks just 6 seconds before a freight train arrived. On the average, 17 seconds separated the vehicle from the train. At 50 mph, a train would just have passed the whistle post; therefore, the motorist driving around the gates generally might not yet have heard a train horn if train horns were being used. As with Type 1 violations, a large percentage of Type 2 violations occurred in conjunction with Metra commuter operations. One problem uncovered with the gate operations was gate closure without a train present Often, this is referred to as a "false activation." These activations comprised approximately 13% of all closings. Metra stops at the Mundelein station and switching operations accounted for a majority of these activations. Northwestern University Center þr Public Sa}ty Wayside Horn Evaluation - Final RejXJrt 3 Finally, an unusual situation was videotaped during the spring of 2002 in which drivers stopped on the tracks in an apparent response to the wayside horn sounding without prior warning. This happened on 12 occasions. When the drivers went forward, they generally cleared the tracks after the gates had closed just behind them. In other words, in most cases, the drivers occupied the tracks for 12 or more seconds. In one case, a driver backed up, just clearing the descending gate. Survey of Residents and Engineers Two sets of surveys were distributed to examine opinions of both the wayside horn and its perceived safety effectiveness. The respective surveys were administered to more than 1,250 Mundelein residents and to railroad engineers for both the Canadian National Railroéld al1d Metra Commuter Rail. Residential survey. The 229 residents who responded to the residential survey, by a substantial maprity, found the wayside horn much less atll1oying than the train horns. The exception was persons who lived close to and in a direct line with the wayside hom More than 15% of respondents found the wayside horn annoying, and a slightly greater percentage responded that "occasionally" the horns interfered with their activities. When compared to the train horn, 88% found the wayside horns either less loud or not even noticeable. A similar percentage also found them less annoying. When asked about safety, approximately 9% suggested that they were less safe. The same percentage believed that motorists would be 1110re.likely to violate crossing laws. On the other hand, the remainder of the respondents believed that the crossings were as safe or safer with the wayside horn than they had been with train horns. Engineer survey. Both Metra and Canadian National engineers also responded to surveys. One Canadian National and one Metra engineer believed that the crossing was less safe. Neither gave a reason for selecting that answer. However, both also did not like the method of notifying the engineer when the horns were not working. The remaining engineers believed the crossings to be as safe as or safer than when they used the train hom Analysis of the Sounds from Train and Wayside Horns The key element of the evaluation addressed the differençes bet\y~.enth~ tr<:i!I1ÞC>ll1 fiJlcithe wayside horn as it might affect safety of the highway-rail crossing. For the village residents, it was of equal importance to compare how the two horns affected their lives, The findings are discussed in greater detail in a separate report produced as part of the pro~ct Northwestern University Center fir Public Sajty Wayside Horn Evaluation -Final Re¡nrt 4 In tenus of outcomes, the sound level of the wayside horn was equal to or exceeded that of the train horn for a driver approaching a highway-rail crossing. The exception was when the train reached the crossing, where the train horn was louder. This finding held for a motorist approaching the crossing, whether at the last point where the motorist could stop safely or at the sign warning the motorist of the approaching crossing. The two horns had similar frequency components and were of equal loudness at different frequencies. Perhaps the greatest difference was that the wayside horn is produced electronically and the train horn by air passing through tuned horns. As a result, the sound of the wayside horn had a certain artificiality. The wayside horn had a significant impact on the quality-of-life in areas near the crossings. At the highest decibel levels, the wayside horn covered 85% less land area than the train-mounted horns. Even at lower levels, more than 65% less area was affected. The residential survey clearly bore out the findings from sound measurements. On the other hand, some persons were affected more than before. Some of this occuITed because the pattern of the sound dispersion changed. Volume levels were elongated along the roadway so that some persons heard a louder horn than before. More importantly, because the horns were of constant volume and lasted longer than the train hom, this increased their apparent loudness. Summary and Other Issues This evaluation of the automated wayside horn system (A WHS) compared the new system to the train horn. It examined three elements for differences: 1. Motorist violations of the law governing gated highway-rail crossings along with perceptions of its safety from drivers and railroad train engineers. 2. The nature of the sound heard by the motorist and the potential effects of any differences on safety at the highway-rail crossing. 3. Quality-of-life for residents as measured both by sound levels, and how the residents perceived the loudness and annoyance of the two warning devices. With the introduction of the A WHS, motorists' violations of the crossing gates decreased 68 %. This difference had less than a 0.0001 likelihood of occurring by chance. The largest change came from Type 1 violations or driving under the closing gates. Because so few motorists drove around the gates during the period the train horns were in use, the decreases occurring during the after period could not be said to be statistically significant In responses to the surveys, both engineers and residents indicated that they believed the wayside horn created a safer crossing environment for motorists. Because there were no other known changes to the operation of the roadways, the wayside horn is the most likely factor in the reduction of violations. Northwestern University Center þr Public Sajty Wayside Horn Evaluation - Final Re p:;rt 5 The sound studies showed that, in tenns of nature and quality of sound, what the motorist heard from the wayside horn was generally no different from what he or she heard from t.he train horn. However, there were two differences in sound delivery. The first was that the train horn provides a sense of movement because it gradually increases in volume. The wayside horn starts and remains at a constant volume. The second difference was that the wayside horn sounds when the crossing warning lights first activate while the train horn is usually not heard until the gates are fully descended. Residential quality-of-life, as measured by the noise levels in the crossing areas, improved significantly with the A WHS. At all levels, from 70 to 90 decibels, the reductions in area covered by a given decibel level, ranged between 65% and 85%. When residents living near the crossings were surveyed about the wayside horns as compared to the train horns, more than 80% of the respondents indicated that their quality-of-life had improved. Finally, in referring to Type 2 violations (driving around the closed gates), none occurred at Allanson Road. At this crossing, there is a 6-inch raised concrete median that extends approximately 40 feet back from the tracks. While this does not quite meet the proposed FRA standards, it appears to have been sufficient in preventing drivers from going around the gates. Except for the two drivers on Maple who drove around the queue waiting for malfunctioning gates, all of the drivers who went around the gates were the first vehicles in line. Restricting the driver's ability to pull out around the gates for between 30 and 40 feet back from the gate, along with the presence of the wayside horn, probably would eliminate almost all Type 2 violations. The conclusion then drawn from this study is that the wayside horn significantly reduces highway-rail crossing violations. It accomplishes this task while improving the quality-of-life for nearby residents. Northwestern University Center þrPublic Sajty Wayside Horn Evaluation - Final Re fXJrl 6 ..., AHSTI\l Automated Horn System '. ... "",,, Improve the Quality of Life In Your Community ..,.r'" Ames, IA The Technology What is AHSnl ? AHSn!, the Automated Horn System, is an innovative railroad signaling device that significantly improves safety for motorists and pedestrians at railroad-highway grade crossings while dramatica11y reducing the amount of noise pol1ution created by train horns along rail corridors in populated areas. Reduces Noise by 98% Sound level Train Horn AHS Horn Percent (dBA) Area(acres) Area(acres) Reduction >70 265 37 86% >80 171 5 97% >90 31 <1 98% AHSnl is a stationary horn system activated by the railroad-highway grade crossing warning system. The Automated Horn System is mounted at the crossing, rather than on the 10comotive, to deliver a longer, louder, more consistent audible warning to motorists and pedestrians while eliminating noise pollution in neighborhoods for more than one-half (II2) mile along the rail corridor. AHSThi is designed to sound like a train horn, The tone modules in the Automàted Horn System horns were digita11y recorded from an actuallocomotive horn. Upon receipt of the signal from the railroad's track circuit warning system A HSn.! mimics the train horn warning by cycling through the standard rai1road whistle pattern until the train reaches the crossing. Once the train has entered the crossing AHSn.! stops sounding its horn. A confirmation signal notifies the locomotive engineer that the Automated Horn System is functioning properly. When the locomotive engineer sees that the confirmation signal is flashing, he wil1 not be required to sound his horn unless he detects an unsafe condition at the grade crossing. Coordination with the railroad operating company is essentiâl since the Automated Horn System is directly connected to the railroad's crossing signal-warning system. Additionally, the railroad operating company must issue instructions to their train crews regarding the sounding or non-sounding of the train's horn. , It ." Automated Horn System : Division of Railroad Controls Limited :! 500 South Freeway i Fort Worth, TX 76104 1 i~ }f! " {I 81 -1~~ ¡ " i", .'1 ., H . \ i 1 ~.' . n 1M Phone: (817) 820-6300 ~ Fax: (817) 820-6340 Website: w\\w.raiJroadcontrols.com 'ahs us Patent 6157322 AHSTI\I Research The Automated Horn System has been studied since 1995. The intial study was conducted by John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center for the United States Department of Transportation. Since then studies have been conducted by the Iowa Department of Transportation, Association of American Railroads, Texas Transportation Institute and the City of Richardson, TX. All the research to date has proven the Automated Horn System to be an effective solution for mitigating train horn without compromising driver safety. AHSTI\I Study Conclusions Ames, IA "Wayside horns are a viable alternative to locomotive horns for audible warning at grade crossings. Wayside horns have the advantage of being closer to the motorist. In addition, they have a more focused radiation pattern and produce less community noise exposure." -Wayside Horn Sound Radiation and Motorist Audibility Evaluation, Prepared for: Association of American Railroads, Prepared by: Mike Fann & Associates, May20()(). . "For nearby residents, the automated horn system greatly reduces the negative impacts resulting from the loud train horns; the automated horns are well accepted by both motorists and 10cOlnotiyeel)gineers; and the automated system appears to provide an equivalent level of safety at the crossings." -Evaluation of an Automated Horn Warning System at Three Highway-Railroad Grade Crossings in Ames, Iowa, by Steve Gent, P.E. (Iowa DOT), Scott Logan, P.E.(City of Ames Iowa), David Evans (Iowa State University), 1998 "The wayside horn provided an equal or significantly louder audible warning at the point at which motorists most need the warning." - Automated Wayside Train Horn Warning System Evaluation, Prepared for: The City of Richardson, Texas, Prepared by: PB Farradyne Inc., May 2001 "The AHS appears to be, after almost 5 years of operation, an effective alternative to the locomotive horn at the Tenth Street crossing in Gering, Nebraska, with a violation rate no greater than that observed during pretest monitoring." -A Safety Evaluation of the RCL Automated Horn System, by Stephen S. Roop, Ph.D. Texas Transportation Institute, May 2000 . . . . . . . "The safety evaluation suggests that the wayside horn will not result in behavior that puts the driver at increased risk compared to the use of the train horn. The frequency of violations was lower for the wayside horn than the train horn, while the time to collision and violation time was. not statistically or practically different for either warning system." - Field evaluation of a Wayside Homat a Highway-Railroad Grade Crossing, by U.S. Department of Transportation Research and Special Programs Administration John A.. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, June 1998 .,..'"""".-=->_.~~-~~"._~~,_...,=~-_..._... -..-.'-- .. '.._.n Improved Audible Warning for High Speed Rail Lines AHS provides improved audible warning for drivers approaching crossings located on high speed rail lines. As previously discussed, Railroad operating rules and individual state laws require the locomotive engineer to sound the horn 1/4 mile in advance of the crossing. this results in reduced audible warning time for trains traveling 50 mph or faster. j Train Speed I. . (mph) 50 60 70 80 90 100 I Warning Time I (seconds) í 18.0 I 15.0 i 12.9 I 11.3 10.0 i 9.0 fAIlS Minimum ! (s econds) ¡ I 20 : I 20 ! I 20 I 20 I ~~ How AHSTJ\I Connects to the Railroad AHSn.! connects with the railroad's crossing warning system in a manner similar to traffic signal preemption connections. Typically AHSTM horns and control cabinets are mounted on their own pole assemblies. The confinnation signal is attached to the top of one of the pole assemblies and must provide a clear line of sight to approaching trains from 1/4 mile away. Power is typically provided by the city. ~ , " Richardson, TX For example, an 80-mph train would provide approximately 11.3 seconds of audible warning, if the driver could hear the horn when it was first sounded 1/4 mile away. I I I I I I ! AHS, when installed at locations equipped with constant warning circuitry, provides a minimum of 20 seconds of warning regardless of the approaching train speed. Since AHS is positioned at the crossing and focused on the roadway approach, the audible warning is louder than the train horn until the train is very near the crossing. ....Power Supply 0 Signal HOUSTI.....\ AHS- "~I' Cum j'i~D>, AMS ;.~;I.:'t .' " 0."" ""' '.""" Tra in Hom Union ".ellie FIR . GU o.c... ...,,¡ U- 040.;Ð DKIIlaIl . 70..,0 DKillall Train Horn Automated Train Horn ............... ¡ ................ ~~,-,-,., //""" ; """""'\ . . . . . . . . . . Ullioa ,..¡fi, RR -lID . G8 Doc.. øod üon 0 40.00 DKll8à . 70..,,0 DKiIIù ...' ......, ---.. I I I 0" ~' 500" Automated Horn System. What the Ames Iowa Residents say: -- " Sound Comparison Train Horn vs. AHSTi\! Locomotive engineers are required by state law and the railroad's code of operating rules and regu1ations to sound the train's horn 1/4 mile in advance of the crossing. They are a1so required to continue to sound the horn until the train arrives at the crossing. If the train horn is to be an effective warning device for the motorist, it must provide a sound level capab1e of initiating a response from the driver when the train is approaching the crossing. Unfortunately the sound level required to achieve that response and the location of the train relative to the crossing creates a significant noise impact on the community. 1000" The two noise footprints to the left depict the area impacted by the sound of the train horn and AHSTM respectively. The comparison of the train horn and AHSnt shows a dramatic difference between the areas that are impacted at specific decibel levels. By examining the 80 decibel contour on the two footprints it can be seen that the area impacted by the AHSnt is a fraction of the size of the 80 decibel contour produced by the train horn. "We can't think of nothing in I 8 years of residence that has so much improved our qua1ity of life." "We had thought about selling our home because the train horns bothered us so much. Then, Glory be to God, you instaJIed the automated horn systems and we have a new life." "The automated horn systems are a very positive improvement for the neighborhood. . ..take the next step and provide automated horns at all the crossings in town." "This is the best thing the city has ever done to increase the quality of life in the residences." !I . Automated Horn System Division of Railroad Controls Limited 500 South Freeway Fort Worth, TX 76104 .~.' 'iii I'" Phone: (817)810-6300 ~ Fax: (817) 810-6340 . Website: W\\W .railroadcontrols.com labs US Patent 6157322 1 0 U.S. Department of Transportation Office of Public Affairs Washington, D.C. www.dot.gov/affairs/briefing.htm News FRA 02-04 Thursday, February 12,2004 Contact: Tel.: Warren Flatau (202) 493-6024 FRA Extends Public Comment Period By 60 Days for Interim Final Rule on the Use of Locomotive Horns The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) today announced that it has extended the pùblic comment period on the agency's Interim Final Rule on the Use of Locomotive Horns at Highway-Rail Crossings by sixty days. Comments on the proceeding may be submitted until April 19, 2004. FRA Administrator Allan Rutter said, "We believe it's important to provide communities more time to share with FRA their views about the new Train Horn Rule, which the Administration believes will improve the quality of life for residents throughout the country." The Interim Final Rule was published in the Federal Register on Dec. 18,2003. Under that notice, the public comment period for the rule was to conclude on Feb. 17. FRA received several requests for an extension of the comment period from members of Congress as well as other interested parties. The extension announced today will allow interested communities, groups and citizens additional time to review the rule and submit written comments to the official docket for the proceeding. Comments may be submitted by mail or the u.S. Department of Transportation online Docket Management System (DMS) website at http://dms.dotgov. The docket number for the proceeding is 6439. A public hearing on the interim final rule was held in Washington, D.C. on Feb. 4. The FRA does not plan to hold another fonnal public hearing on the rule, but encourages interested parties submit comments to the public docket Under the rule, local governments will have the first-ever opportunity to establish quiet zones at designated public highway-rail crossings, of which there are approximately 150,000 nationwide. The rule will take effect on Dec.18, 2004, one year following the date of its publication. Communities and jurisdictions with existing whistle bans will have at least five years and perhaps as many as eight years, to undertake any safety upgrades required under the rule. During this time period, train horns will remain silent in these communities. The Federal Railroad Safety Authorization Act of 1994 requires that locomotive horns be sounded on approach to and while traveling across public highway-rail crossings, except under specified conditions. More infonnation about the Interim Final Rule is available at www.fra.dot.gov. ### How To Submit Comments on the Federal Railroad Administration's Interim Final Rule on the Use of Locomotive Horns at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings An Interim Final Rule on the Use of Locomotive J-IQrns at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings was published in the Federél(Register on December 18, 2003. This document is being provided to aid individuals and groups interested in submitting comments about the Interim Final Rule to the official docket for the proceeding. FRA encourages interested parties to comment on the Interim Final Rule. Comments must be received by April 19. 2004. Comments suÞrnittedcafter that date will be taken into consider9tiQ.11 tothe extent practical. Written comments may be mailed to: Docket Clerk DOT Central Docket Management Facility 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Plaza-401 Washington, DC 20590-0001 Please be certain to include the docket number for the proceeding in your submission: FRA-1999-6439 Comments may also be faxed to (202)-493-2251. Online submission of comments: The U.S. Department of Transportation's online Docket Management System (OMS) may be accessed at http://dms.dotgov 1. 2. Click "Comments/Submissions" Click on "Unregistered Users" or "Registered Users" and follow the instructions and prompts provided. For adJilljonal information on th~ ~ubject: Copies of the Interim Final Rule, background studies and reports, press releases, and other information may obtained from the FRA website at: http://www.fra.dotgov. Click on the "Train Horn Rule" link found in the "Current Events" box. TRAIN HORN RULE TIME LINE - LOOKING FORWARD 2003 Dec. 17 Interim Final Rule put on display at the Federal Register Dec. 18 Interim Final Rule published 2004 Early Feb. Feb. 17 Dec. 18 2008 Dec. 18 2011 Dec. 18 Public hearing A A Public comment period closes- ~"Cb on. fo\'-'" '- t \ Rule goes into effect Compliance date for Pre-Rule Quiet Zones (no State involvement) Compliance date for Pre-Rule Quiet Zones (State involvement) TRAIN HORN RULE TIME LINE - HISTORY July 26, 1991 Administrator Oil Cannichael issues Emergency Order 15; pre-empts local whistle bans on FEC Ry. (Jacksonville to Miami) Nov. 2, 1994 Statutory mandate enacted (Federal Railroad Safety Authorization Act of '94) April 1995 June 1995 National Study of Train Whistle Bans completed Initial public outreach begins Oct 9, 1996 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Act amends mandate Nov. 2, 1996 Final rule was due (missed because of extended outreach & further legislative action, DBIS preparation). Jan. 12,2000 Posted NPRM; released DBIS; briefings and press conference Jan. 13,2000 Published NPRM Public hearings: March 6, 2000 (Washington, D.C.), March 15,2000 (Costa Mesa, CA), March 17,2000 (Pendleton, OR), March 28, 2000 (FtLauderdale, FL), April 3, 2000 (Salem, MA), April 10, 2000 (South Bend, IN), April 25, 2000 (Chicago, IL - Lyons Township H.S.), April 26, 2000 (Chicago, IL - Field Museum) and (Chicago - St. Xavier's University), April 27, 2000 (Chicago, IL - Des Plaines), May 1,2000 (Berea, OR), May 3, 2000(Madison, WI) May 10,2000 Technical conference on train horn acoustics May 26,2000 Comment period closes (totals 133 days) July 18,2000 Deputy Administrator Jack Wells testified before Ground Transportation Subcommittee of House T&I (first congressional hearing ever on this topic) Dec. 21, 2000 Omnibus Consolidated Approps. Act requires delay until after July 1, 2001 Source: Federal Railroad Administration December 17,2003 'lL", ,,'" ~n Horn Rule" Glossary Quiet Zone: A quiet zone is a section of a rail line that contains one or more consecutive public crossings at which locomotive horns are not routinely sounded. Public Highway-Rail (Grade) Crossing: A location where a public highway, road, or street crosses railroad tracks at grade. For this rule, this includes crossings where a public authority maintains the roadway on at least one side of the crossing. Private Highway-Rail (Grade) Crossing: A location where a private roadway crosses railroad tracks at grade. Diagnostic Team: A group of qualified or specially-trained individuals assembled to make objective expert judgements about physical and or operating conditions at highway-rail crossings. In the context of this rule, a diagnostic team assesses grade crossing safety requirements according to safety management principles. E.O. 15 (Emergency Order 15): Emergency Order 15, issued in 1991, requires the Florida East Coast Railroad (FEe) to sound locomotive horns at all public highway-rail grade crossings. The Emergency Order preempted state and local laws that permitted nighttime prohibitions on the use of locomotive horns. Environmental Impact Statement (EIS): Environmental Impact Statements are required of federal agencies for major projects or legislative proposals that may significantly affect the environment. These statements describe the positive and negative effects of the proposed undertaking and cite possible alternative actions. IIllpact Statements are required by the National Environmental Policy Act. The EP A reviews and responds to filed impact statements and makes available a national EIS filing system as well as publishing a weekly notice ofEIS documents available for review. MUTCD: The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices; a guidance document published by the Federal Highway Administration (FHW A) establishing specifications for highway signs, signals, and pavement markings. FAA Reauthorization Act of 1996: This legislation added two paragraphs to 49 U.S.C. 20153 (the section of the United States Code requiring this rulemaking). One paragraph required that FRA take into account the interests of communities that had whistle bans in effect during a specified time period. The second required that any rule issued under section 20153 can not be effective until at least 365 days after its publication in the Federal Register. Supplementary Safety Measure (SSM): SSMs are engineering improvements, which when installed at crossings within a quiet zone, would reduce the risk of a collision at the crossing. SSMs are installed to reduce the risk l~vel eitherto th~.1evel tl1at would have existed if the train horn were sounded (compensating for the lack of the train horn) or to a level below the Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold. 2 Approved SSMs include: . Four quadrant gates. . Medians or channelization devices at gated crossings. . One-way streets equipped with gates that fully block the street. Temporary closure (i.e., nighttime closure). . Four-Quadrant Gate: Train-activated warning gates that, when lowered, fully block highway traffic from entering the crossing. Gates lower across both approach and departure lanes on both sides of the crossing. Alternative Safety Measure (ASM): A safety system or procedure provided by the appropriate traffic control authority which, after individual review and analysis, is determined by the FRA to be an effective substitute for the locomotive horn at specific crossings. ,ASMs include: Modified SSMs (see definition) Programmatic law enforcement Programmatic education Photo enforcement . Modified SSM: An SSM that has in some way been adjusted to accommodate unique circumstances existing at a specific crossing and no longer conforms to the SSM requirements. Modified SSMs are considered ASMs. An example would be traffic channelization devices that due to a nearby intersection are only 45 feet in length instead of the required 60 feet. Non-engineering ASM: A consistent and systematic program of traffic law enforcement, public education programs, or a combination thereof, that produces a measurable reduction of risk at quiet zone grade crossings. Risk Index: The predicted cost to society of casualties that are expected to result from collisions at an individual crossing. Quiet Zone Risk Index: The average risk index for all public crossings in a proposed quiet zone taking into consideration the increased risk caused by the absence of train horns and any decrease in risk attributable to the use of SSMs or ASMs. NSRT: The Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold is the average Risk Index of all public, gated crossings in the nation at which train horns are sounded. Wayside Horn: A stationary horn located at a highway-rail grade crossing that is designed to provide audible warning to oncoming motorists when a train is approaching. The horn is controlled by the same track circuits that operate the automatic warning devices at the crossing. 3 Whistle ban or Pre-Rule Quiet Zone: A whistle ban is a local prohibition ofthe sounding of locomotive horns at specific highway-rail grade crossings. Historically, Whistle bans were established by local ordinance or through agreements with specific railroads in accordance with existing state law. At whistle ban crossings, no specific safety improvements have been made to compensate for the absence of the audible warning. Pre-Rule Quiet Zones established under this rule may only consist of Whistle Ban crossings that were in effect on October 9, 1996 and on December 18, 2003 Relevant collision: A highway-rail crossing collision that FRA believes could be prevented by sounding the train horn. Specifically, the term excludes collisions with motor vehicles resulting from an activation failure of an active grade crossing warning system; collisions in which there is no driver in the motor vehicle; and collisions where the highway vehicle struck the side of the train beyond the fourth locomotive unit orr~il car. MAYOR Gerald L. Farley VILLAGE MANAGER Michael E. Janonis TRUSTEES Timothy J. Corcoran Paul Wm. Hoefert Richard M. Lohrstorfer Michaele Skowron 1rvana K. Wilks Michael A. Zadel Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department 100 South Emerson Street Mount Prospect, illinois 60056 VILLAGE CLERK Velma W. Lowe Phone: Fax: TDD: 847/818-5328 847/818-5329 847/392-6064 AGENDA MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING & ZONING COM.MISSION MEETING LOCATION: MEETING DATE & TIME: Mt. Prospect Park District Community Center Thursday 1000 W. Central Road March 25, 2004 Mount Prospect, IL 60056 7:30 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 26, 2004 MEETING A. PZ-41-03/ Village of Mount Prospect / Text Amendments to the Village's fence regulations. B. PZ-04-04/1590 S. Elmhurst Road / Parkway Bank / Conditional Use & Variation. C. PZ-06-04/1501 W. Dempster Street / Culver's / Special Use (Electronic Message Sign). D. PZ-07-04/710 N. Wille Street / Boehm Residence / Conditional Use & Variation. IV. OLD BUSINESS None V. NEW BUSINESS A. PZ-05-04 / 501-507 Camp McDonald Road / Discovery Homes / Conditional Use. NOTE: This case is Village Board Final. B. PZ-09-04/50 S. Emerson Street / VOMP / Variation (location of sign). NOTE: This case is Planning & Zoning Commission Final. C. PZ-11-04/1802 Buckthorn / Ska1niak Residence / Variation (rear yard). NOTE: This case is Planning & Zoning Commission Final. Map Amendment & VI. QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS . PZ-41-03 / Text Amendments - Village Board waived 2nd reading & approved March 16th . PZ-04-04 / Parkway Bank - Village Board waived 2nd reading & approved March 16th . PZ-07 -04 / 710 N. Wille St.(porch) - Village Board waived 2nd reading & approved March 16th VII. 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 100 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-41-03 Hearing Date: February 12, 2004 PETITIONERS: Village of Mount Prospect PUBLICATION DATE: January 28, 2004 REQUEST: Various Text Amendments to the Village Code MEMBERS PRESENT: Arlene Juracek, Chairperson MeITill Cotten Leo Floros Joseph Donnelly Richard Rogers Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: Matthew Sledz ST AFF MEMBER PRESENT: Michael Jacobs, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES: None Chairperson Arlene Juracekcalledthe meeting to order at 7:33 p.m. Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-41-03, saying this would be one case proposing approximately 16 text amendments to the Village Code and that the Village Board's decision would be final for all of the amendments. She said each amendment would be discussed separately and voted on before discussing the next, leaving those they were stymied on for last. Michael Jacobs noted that the Planning & Zoning Commission had previously reviewed these various amendments during their public workshop meetings on October 9, 2003 and January 8, 2004. Following the January 8, 2004 meeting the P&Z Commission directed Staff to prepare specific language for their review during tonight's public hearing. Mr. Jacobs noted the first issue to consider was amendments to the Ví11age Code regarding permitted fence locations. He noted that the proposed amendments have been designed to allow some greater flexibility for property owners within the Ví11age. Mr. Jacobs stated that the CUITent interpretation of the Ví11age Code requires that fences be located on the property line, and that no more than one fence can be located along a property line. The proposed amendments wíl1 address both interior and comer lots. The proposed amendments regarding interior lots wí11 allow fences to be located anywhere on the property except within the required front yard, and for those who do not wish to place their fence along a property line, sufficient access to the area must be maintained to allow for proper maintenance. Mr. Jacobs noted that the 0 nly change tor egulations regarding comer lots relates tot hose circumstances where a property's exterior side yard abuts the front yard of a neighboring property. The Code cuITently allows fences within the exterior side yard regardless of its location. This existing regulation has allowed fences to be located in an exterior side yard even though it abuts a neighboring property's front yard. Allowing fences in these locations can have a detrimental impact on the adjoining property as well as the overall character of the neighborhood. To address this issue the proposed fence amendments will continue to allow fences within an exterior side yard, except if the exterior side yard abuts the front yard of an adjacent lot. In those instances where the exterior side yard abuts a :front yard then a fence will not be allowed any closer to the exterior side yard lot line than either the building line established by the principal structure or the front yard established for the adjacent lot, whichever is less. Mr. Jacobs then reviewed the proposed amendment that would allow double fences along a common property line or multiple fences on a single property. He indicated that the only remaining concern with the proposed amendments related to the issue of dog runs, and the fact that the proposed regulations would allow someone to create an enclosed Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-41-03 Page 2 area to serve as a dog run. Mr. Jacobs suggested that if the Commission was uncomfortable with the proposed regulations the issue of multiple fences and dog runs could be continued to the next meeting, providing staff some additional time to review the issue. Keith Youngquist had a question regarding dog runs and said he was not opposed to language specifically prohibiting dog runs. Richard Rogers suggested adding a sentence disalloVving dog runs. Ms. Juracek suggested dealing with the fence locations at this meeting and deferring the double fence issue to another meeting. The Commission members agreed. Ms. Juracek noted for the record that no audience member came to address the issue. Joe Donnelly made a motion to approve the permitted fence locations and Richard Rogers seconded thé motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 6-0. Ms. Juracek made a motion to table the double fence location until the next meeting and Leo Floros seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 6-0. Ms. Juracek introduced the proposed amendments regarding outdoor storage on residential properties. Mr. Jacobs noted that outdoor storage is often the main issue when addressing complaints regarding property maintenance. The Village Code currently contains limited language to address outdoor storage on residential properties. In response, specific language has been proposed that wi11limit what types of items can be stored outdoors on residential properties. Mr. Jacobs stated that the proposed language would permit outdoor storage of the following items: lawn and garden equipment and materials, garbage cans,gri11s and portable fireplaces, patio furniture, household tools, children's play equipment and other items similar to these as determined by the Community Development Director. Mr. Jacobs noted that these proposed regulations would not apply to vehicles, recreational vehicles and/or trailers, and recreational equipment. Commission members discussed many items usually found stored outside and some not usually found stored on private property. Mr. Youngquist asked if the amendment couldn't be interpreted to mean junk could be stored on private property in thirty or more garbage cans. Members ventured the opinion that "household tools" could be widely interpreted. Mr.Cotten said a gasoline-powered generator could be considered in that category today. Ms. Juracek said the Commission's previous discussions had generally focused on going with the proposed language, noting that the issue of vehicular and recreational vehicle stqrage would be discussed. as part of another section within the Code. The Commissioners requested that the proposed language be modified to cross-reference the appropriate sections within the Code regarding vehicle storage. Richard Rogers made a motion and Keith Youngquist seconded it. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, DonneHy, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 6-0. Ms. Juracek introduced the home occupation segment of the text amendments. Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-41-03 Page 3 Mr. Jacobs stated that the Village Code currently contains specific regulations regarding home occupations. He noted there have been several recent issues regarding employees showing up to a home occupation to then be dispatched to another site. This practice is not adequately addressed in the current regulations, thus Staff has proposed some additional language be included within the Code's home occupation regulations. Specifically, the proposed language would prohibit employees, other than those persons residing on the premises, from reporting to work at or near the premises, either for work to be completed within the residence or to be dispatched to work at another location. Commission members confirmed that service workers such as baby sitters, home care nurses, etc., were not affected by this ruling. Ms. Juracek observed that all members seemed to be in agreement with this amendment and asked for a motion. Mr. Rogers so moved and Mr. Youngquist seconded. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 6-0. Ms. Juracek then introduced the next section regarding daycare regulations. Mr. Jacobs said that the Village's existing regulations contain some inconsistencies with regard to terms, definitions, and conflict with the home occupation regulations. Mr. Jacobs noted that the proposed amendments to the daycare regulations relate to two different issues. The first part of the proposed amendments relate to the existing definition of Limited Residential Daycare. The second portion of the proposed amendments would eliminate Daycare Centers as a Conditional Use in the residential districts since they conflict with the Village's regulations regarding home daycare and are not in keeping with the character of the Village's residential neighborhoods. Ms. Juracek asked if someone wanted a Daycare Center in a residential area would they have to request a variation. Mr. Jacobs said that the proposed amendments would prohibit daycare centers from residential districts and the only means of relief from that in the future would be a text amendment. Mr. Jacobs reiterated that no more than 8 children would be allowed in a daycare facility in a residential district. Ms. Juracek pointed out this might preclude churches from operating daycare facilities for more than 8 children and be more drastic than actually intended by this amendment. Mr. Jacobs agreed this might need to be revisited. Mr. Floros asked what change would be included in the revised amendment. It was suggested that the definition of Daycare Center be amended to read "a non-residential building...". Ms. Juracek asked for a motion to adopt the proposed definition of Daycare Center with the addition of the word non-residential, to adopt staffs definition of Limited Daycare Facility and to not adopt Staffs disallowance of daycare centers in the Village's residential districts. Joe Donnelly so moved and Keith Younquist seconded. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 6-0. Mr. Jacobs said the next item related to maintenance and replacement of landscaping materials. Mr. Jacobs noted that. the Village's existing property maintenance regulations require the maintenance of landscaping in non-residential districts. The code, however, does not differentiate between maintenance and removal. To help maintain the benefits of the existing landscaping within the Village's non single-family residential properties, Staff has suggested the Code be amended to require the replacement of dead or damaged materials in similar kind and quantity rather than allowing them to be simply removed. Ms. Juracek said landscaping should be similar, not identical. Mr. Rogers said landscaping design changes through the years and flexibility is needed. Mr. Youngquist said residents could not be required to replace a dead tree with the same size tree. Ms. Juracek said all members were in agreement with this amendment and asked for a motion. Richard Rogers moved to approve the amendment and Keith Youngquist seconded. Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-41-03 Page 4 UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 6-0. Mr. Jacobs introduced the next item by saying that there were two issues to consider regarding attached garages. The first relates to an inconsistency within the code that lists "single-family dwellings, including dwellings with an attached 3-car garage" as a pennitted use in some of the residentialqistrict~s\yh~le(mly "single-family dwellings" are listed as a pennitted use in other residential districts. To address this issue Staff recommends the code beamellded to include "Single-Family dwellings, with attached or detached garages" as a pennitted use in all of the single-family residential zoning districts. The second issue relates to limiting the size of garages in single-family residential districts. Based on the Commission's previous discussions the proposed amendments will allow attached garages fronting public rights-of- way, not exceeding an exterior appearance of a three car garage while there would be no limitation on the size of an attached garage that did not front a public right-of-way. Ms. Juracek noted the proposed revision of "single-family dwellings, with attached or detached garages" could be interpreted as requiring all single-family homes to have a garage. Mr. Jacobs said the Code culTently requires homes to provide off-street parking but not necessarily a garage. He said the Code has existing regulations regarding the pennitted size of detached garages. Much discussion ensued as to whether a garage should be required. Richard Rogers made motion to approve staff's definition 0 f single-family dwellings a s written, with a ttached or detached garages as a pennitted use, seconded by MelTill Cotten. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES Donnelly, Floros, and Juracek NA YS: Cotten, Rogers, Youngquist Motion was tied 3-3. Motion was not approved. Joseph Donnelly made a motion to amend the wording to read with or without attached or detached garage as a pennitted use, seconded by Richard Rogers. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: Juracek. Motion was approved 5-1. Joseph Donnelly moved that if there are two public rights-of-way there can only be three garage doors total facing those right-of-ways, Keith Youngquist seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: .Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 6-0. Driveway width was the next subject. Mr. Jacobs said that based on the proposed amendments regarding attached garages, colTesponding amendments would be required for the Village's driveway width regulations. Mr. Jacobs summarized the proposed amendments, indicating that in most cases the regulations would not change except for those garages that would exceed the standard driveway width regulations. In those cases a maximum driveway would be allowed to have a width the same as the wid.th ofth~garage within 15 feet of the garage's front elevation. The garage width would be detennined by measuring the width of the garage doors, the separation between the doors, plus an additional 2 feet on either side. Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-41-03 Page 5 Merrill Cotten asked if turning radius was checked when 15' the width was determined. Mr. Jacobs said that the most common configurations were considered but it was difficult to think of every scenario. Mr. Cotten said large SUV s and Hummers might not be accommodated by this size of driveway. Mr. Jacobs said someone could request a variation in that case. Mr. Younquist said 15 feet would be adequate unless someone owned a school bus. Mr. Rogers agreed. Keith Youngquist made a motion to approve the amendment as written, Richard Rogers seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 6-0. Ms. Juracek introduced the next subject, pavement. separation between various sections of allowed pavement. Mr. Jacobs noted that Staff had initially recommended an amendment to the Village Code that would require a specified separation between paved areas that were intended for different uses, such as a driveway and patio. Mr. Jacobs stated that although Staff supported an amendment the Planning & Zoning Commission determined it was not necessary. Due to these circumstances the Commission did not recommend any amendments to the Code regarding this matter. Ms. Juracek introduced the next section, unenclosed front porches. Mr. Jacobs said that the Vi11age Code currently requires Conditional Use approval for ffont porches that are to be located within a required front yard. To help expedite the review process it has been suggested that the Planning & Zoning Commission be the final review body on these requests, thus eliminating the need for the requests to be forwarded to the Village Board for review and approval. Richard Rogers made motion to accept the proposed amendments and Keith Youngquist seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 6-0. Ms. Juracek introduced the next subject, flags and flagpoles. Mr. Jacobs indicated that the Vi11age Code currently contains limited regulations regarding flags and flagpoles. The proposed regulations would create specific regulations regarding flags and flagpoles for residential and non-residential zoning districts. For residential districts the proposed regulations would permit a maximum of one flagpole per lot, containing no more than two flags. The maximum height for flagpoles in residential districts shall not exceed 20 feet. With regards to non-residential districts the proposed regulations would allow a maximum of three poles, with no more than two flags per pole. The maximum height shall not exceed the district's height limitations for the principal structure. In addition to the specific district restrictions, the proposed regulations include limitations on location. Flagpoles and flag supports shall not be located within a required yard interior side yard, and shall maintain a minimum setback of five feet from any property line. Roof mounted flagpoles or flag supports shall be prohibited. With regards to the total number of flags, no more than two flags shall be displayed on a single-family residential property at one time. Richard Rogers noted the exhibit that indicated a maximllm size of 3 feet by 5 feet for flags on single-family residential properties. Mr. Jacobs noted that the size restriction of 3 feet by 5 feet should also be considered as part of the proposed amendments. Richard Rogers made a motion that flags on residential property shall not exceed 3 'x5', Joe Donnelly seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist and Juracek Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-4l-03 Page 6 NAYS: None Motion was approved 6-0. Merrill Cotten made a motion to accept the amendments proposed on flags and flagpoles by Staff, seconded by, Richard Rogers. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floras, Rogers, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 6-0. Mr. Jacobs introduced the proposed amendments to service walks and sidewalk limitations. After some questions by Merrill Cotten on step and stoop widths, Keith Youngquist moved to accept the proposed amendment and Joe Donnelly seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: A YES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 6-0. Mr. Jacobs reviewed the proposed amendments to administrative subdivisions. Mr. Rogers asked if the Chair of the Planning & Zoning Commission would sign the Plat of Subdivision if it were approved by administration. Mr. Jacobs said the Village Manager or Director of Community Development would sign it. Ms. Juracek said many of these subdivisions are so perfunctory it is time-consuming to have people go through the complete process. Richard Rogers made a motion to approve the proposed amendment and Keith Youngquist seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: A YES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 6-0. Mr. Jacobs introduced the proposed amendment for the conversion of garages to living spaces. Commission members thought residents should not be required to change the outside appearance of the house if they convert the garage to living space because a future resident m~y reconvert the space. The amendment was tabled. Mr. Jacobs reviewed the next segment, commercial trailers in residential districts. Keith Youngquist made a motion to accept Staff s amendment to require commercial trailers to be kept inside garages in residential districts. Richard Rogers seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist al1d Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 6-0. Richard Rogers made amotion that the Village Board consider limiting the amount of time a boat or recreational trailer may be kept on a residential driveway. Merrill Cotten seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: A YES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floras, Rogers, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 6-0. Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-41-03 Page 7 Mr. Jacobs introduced the amendment to the segment on arbors and trellises. Commission members agreed that in certain cases trellises would be allowed in a front yard. Ms. Juracek thought a Community Development discretionary clause would be helpful to this segment. Commission members agreed that wording should be added that in situations where you could have a fence, such as an interior side yard, you could have a trellis or arbor. Richard Rogers made motion to accept the amendment with that change in wording and Merríl1 Cotten seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Y olU1gquist and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 6-0. Mr. Jacobs introduced the last issue, FAR and some related definitions. Commission members discussed sizes and heights of various new construction projects in the Village and as it compares to other Codes in other areas of the country. Keith Youngquist said he thought garages were used mainly for storage and not for cars. Mr. Jacobs said they could vote separately on any portion of the amendment, the basement, the height, etc., or the entire a mendment at 0 nee. Jo e D onnelley mad a motion to a pprove all phases 0 f t he FAR amendment. Richard Rogers seconded the motion UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 6-0. Ms. Juracek summarized by saying the Commission had tabled the fence amendments as they relate to dog runs and recommended to Víl1age Board to address recreational trailers and vehicles. At 9:50 p.m Richard Rogers made motion to adjourn, seconded by Keith Youngquist. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Michael Jacobs, AICP Deputy Director CommlU1ity Development HIPLAt\IP1anning & Zoning COMMIP&Z 20041PZ-41 -03 VOMP Various Text Amendments doc MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-41-03 Hearing Date: February 26, 2004 PETITIONERS: Village of Mount Prospect PUBLICATION DATE: January 28, 2004 REQUEST: Continued Review of Various Text Amendments to the Village Code MEMBERS PRESENT: Arlene Juracek, Chair Joseph Donnelly Richard Rogers Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: Merrill Cotten Leo Floros Matthew Sledz ST AFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner INTERESTED PARTIES: None Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m. Richard Rogers made a motion to approve the minutes of the January 22 and February 12,2004 meetings with one minor correction. Keith Youngquist seconded the motion. The minutes were approved 4-0. At 7:38, under Old Business, Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-41-03, saying this was a continued review of a text amendment to the fence regulations of the Vmage Code and that the Village Board's decision would be final. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, reviewed the Staff Memo on behalf of Michael Jacobs, Deputy Director of Community Development. Ms. Connolly said that the Planning & Zoning Commission held a public hearing on February 12,2004 to review a number of Village initiated text amendments. The P&Z recommended approval of a number of amendments, but directed Staff to review the potential issue of "dog runs" as it relates to the pending amendments regarding the Village's fence regulations. Ms. Connolly said that Staff reviewed a number of alternatives with the Village Attorney. It was detennined that the real issue of dog runs relates to the confinement of an animal to a limited area. Staff detennined that the most appropriate approach would be to regulate the size of an area that could be enclosed by a fence rather than trying to define the tenn "dog run" or "animal exercise area". To address this issue, Staff recommends that fenceable area read: Fenceable Area: Under no circumstances shall a fence enclose an area that is less than 50% of the maximum fenceable area of a residentially zoned property. This limitation shall not apply to fencing around swimming pools. Ms. Connolly said that this change would still provide property owners with increased flexibility in locating a fence on their property, but would address the issues and concerns related to dog runs. Staff recommends that the language be incorporated into the pending text amendments that were recommended by the P&Z Commission during the February 12th meeting. Ms. Juracek said the Village historically has never allowed dog runs, but now that multiple fencing will be allowed Staff feels the need for this wording for clarification purposes. Ms. Juracek asked Planning & Zoning Commissioners whether vegetable or flower gardens needed to be excluded from the proposed fence regulations. The Commissioners discussed the proposed modification, but decided to recommend that the Village Board adopt the text as proposed in the Staff Memo. Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-41-03 Page 2 No audience members came forward to speak on this matter. Ms. Juracek closed the hearing at 7:42. Joe Donnelley made a motion to recommend that the Village Board approve this portion of the amendment. Richard Rogers seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Donnelly, Rogers, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 4-0. Ms. Juracek said this is a positive recommendation to the Village Board and this case will be considered with all the other Text Amendment recommendations discussed at the February Ith meeting. At 9:30 p.m. Joseph Donnelly made motion to adjourn, seconded by Richard Rogers. The motion was approved by a . voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner H:\PLANIPlanning & Zoning COMMIP&Z 2004IMinutesIPZ-41-03 YOMP Yar.TextAmend.mtg.2.doc MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-O4-04 Hearing Date: February 26, 2004 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1590 S. Elmhurst Rd. PETITIONER: Parkway Bank PUBLICATION DATE: February 11,2004 PIN#: 08-14-403-024 REQUEST: Conditional Use to construct a drive-thru bank and a Variation for the number of proposed stacking spaces for the drive-thru lanes MEMBERS PRESENT: Arlene Juracek, Chair Joseph Donnelly Richard Rogers Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: Merrill Cotten Leo Floros Matthew Sledz ST AFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner INTERESTED PARTIES: Patrick Brankin Jack DiClementi James Gibbons Jiun-Guang Lin Kenneth Rathje Ralph Smith Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m. Richard Rogers made a motion to approve the minutes of the January 22 and February 12, 2004 meetings with one minor correction. Keith Youngquist seconded the motion. The minutes were approved 4-0. At 7:43, Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-04-04, a request for Conditional Use approval to construct a drive-thru bank and a Variation for the number of proposed stacking spaces for the drive-thru lanes. She noted that the request would be Village Board final. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, presented the case. The Petitioner proposes to use the existing structure, but modify its interior and exterior to accommodate a bank with two drive-thru lanes. Also, the entire site will be improved as part of the bank project. The Petitioner proposes to improve the building's exterior façade by removing the existing materials and installing anew b rick and stone f açade. T he roofline w ill remain the same, but decorative designs will be incorporated throughout the signable area of the building. Ms. Connolly said that the Subject Property is a separate lot of record from the adjacent retail center. The two sites operate independently of each other and do not have any means for vehicles to travel from one site to the other. The Petitioner proposes to close two existing curb cuts. The Petitioner is aware that an Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) pel111it is required to make these modifications. She said that the Petitioner started the IDOT pel111it process and received IDOT's requirements since the Staff Report was sent out. IDOT requires a Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-04-04 Page 2 right-in, right-out only for the Elmhurst Road driveway. The driveway closings and restricted turning- movements will improve traffic flow to/from the site and within the bank's parking lot. The Petitioner has agreed to modify the site plan to address mOT's requirements. The Petitioner's site plan indicates six stacking spaces will be provided for both drive-thru lanes, which is less than the minimum number required per zoning regulations. Ms. Connolly said that although ten vehicles are shown on the site plan, the vehicles using the actual drive-thru are not included in the stacking count and the last two vehicles are excluded as well. According to the Village's Traffic Engineer, the last two cars are technically in a driveway as opposed to a stacking area. However, the site includes 50% more than the number ofrequired parking spaces. The Petitioner has provided information on the banking operation to explain why two drive-thru lanes will meet the site's proposed operational needs when most other banks have three or more drive-thru lanes. In addition, the Petitioner has provided information that identifies which banking transactions can be handled from the drive-thru lanes and documents stacking information obtained ITom other Parkway Bank sites. Ms. Connolly said that the Petitioner is required to submit a lighting plan for parking lot lighting as part of the Building Permit process. She said that the Petitioner has not requested relief ITom the lighting regulations and will be required to comply with the Village's regulations. The Petitioner's landscape plan details the proposed plant materials and sizes. I n response to Staff s initial comments, the Petitioner revised the plan to include additional year-round plant materials along the perimeter of the Subject Property. The Village's Traffic Engineer reviewed the proposed project and found that a bank with two drive~thrul~nes would not generate more traffic or vehicle trips than the former gas station. The Traffic Engineer agreed with the Petitioner's decision to close two of the four existing driveways because the design would allow for safer access to/from the site and concurs that the right-in/right-out for the Elmhurst Road driveway would be a safer design than the full access proposed by the Petitioner. The existing building meets the current setback regulations and the proposed landscape areas exceed the minimum ten-foot setback required by the Zoning Ordinance. However, the Petitioner proposes a total of six stacking spaces and needs relief from zoning regulations for this number of stacking spaces. In order to approve the proposed amount of stacking spaces, the request has to meet the standards for a variation listed in the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Connolly summarized the standards and said that the Village has approved other d rive-thru projects that included less than t he required number 0 f stacking spaces when the Petitioner demonstrated that the proposed site plan could accommodate the traffic volume. In this case, the Petitioner submitted operational information that demonstrates how a total of six stacking spaces would meet the needs of the proposed bank facility. In addition, the location of the building and access to the Subject Property limit the Petitioner~s ability to physically provide the other four stacking spaces required by the Zoning Ordinance. The site includes eighteen parking spaces, which is nine more than the code requires. The additional parking spaces may be used to offset the stacking deficiencies if necessary. Therefore, the proposed number of stacking spaces would not adversely impact other properties, the neighborhood character, or the public welfare. The size of the Subject Property and the location of the building make it somewhat challenging to develop a drive-thru bank that would meet all zoning regulations. In order to approve the Petitioner's request for the drive-thru lanes, the request has to meet the standards for a Conditional Use listed in the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Connolly summarized the standards. She said that the proposed bank has been designed to meet current building material regulations and the overfliisite dey~lopment will meet all Building, Fire, and Development Code requirements. Access to the site, the drive-thru lanes, and new parking spaces have been designed according to Village regulations. Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-04-04 Page 3 Therefore, the Petitioner's request to construct a drive-thru bank meets the standards for a Conditional Use. The bank will not have a detrimental impact on the adjacent retail center and the manner in which the parking lot will be reconfigured will not impair the use or value of the adjacent properties. The use, a bank, complies with the Comprehensive Plan and will be constructed according to Village Codes. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission recommend approval of the Petitioner's requests for the Conditional Use and Variation to operate a bank with two drive-thru lanes and six stacking spaces subject to the following conditions: 1. Develop the building in accordance with the elevations prepared by Elias G. Pappageorge Architects Staff Date Stamped February 19,2004. 2. Develop the site in accordance with the plans prepared by The Balsamo/Olson Engineering Company, but revised to reflect IDOT'S requirements for access tolfrom the site. 3. Develop the site in accordance with the landscape plan prepared by Jack Gabriel Di Clementi, Inc., revision date February 10, 2004 with minor modifications to accommodate a monument sign at the southeast comer of the Subject Property. 4. Submit a photometric (lighting) plan that indicates the site will comply with Village Code requirements. 5. The development shall meet all Development, Fire, Building, and other Village Codes and regulations, which include but is not limited to installing automatic sprinklers and fire alarm, and signage that meet the Village Sign Code regulations. 6. Approval of appropriate permits by I.D.O.T. and M.W.RD., CCHD. The Village Board's decision is final for this case The Commissioners ascertained that the Harris Bank Case had requested and been granted four drive-thru lanes and twenty stacking spaces. Ms. Juracek swore in all speakers at once and Patrick Brankin, attorney with Schain, Burney, Ross & Citron, 222 N. LaSalle St., Suite #1910, Chicago, was sworn in and spoke. He made one correction, saying IDOT had informed him that the Elmhurst Rd. would be a right-turn-in only. Therefore, the only exit will be onto Dempster. He presented additional photos of the site. Ralph Smith, Project Manager & Consultant for Parkway Bank for 34 yrs. came forward and testified that gas tanks had been completely removed from the property. He described the services that would be provided by the bank. He said most transactions were commercial and conducted inside the bank. He identified photos of their Park Ridge facility that were then presented to the P&Z. He explained that stacking of cars had dropped off significantly in recent years because of direct deposit and online banking. Jiun-Guang Lin, 1627 Allison Court, Arlington Heights, addressed the P&Z. Mr. Brankin showed him a document and asked if it was his curriculum vitae and Mr. Lin agreed it was. Mr. Brankin asked that Mr. Lin's curriculum vitae be made a part of the record for this case. Mr. Lin said he is the Engineer for this plan and went to the easel to explain the engineering plans extensively. Mr. Brankin asked if Mr. Lin had worked with the V illage Engineer on designing those plans and Mr. Lin said he had. Mr. Brankin asked if t he utilities provided were adequate for the site and Mr. Lin said they were. Mr. Brankin asked Mr. Lin if, in his opinion, granting this Variation or Conditional Use would have a detrimental impact on the public health, safety, morals, comfort or general welfare or be injurious to the use, enjoyment, or value of other properties in the vicinity or impede the orderly development of those properties. Mr. Lin said no. Luay Aboona, Traffic Engineer, KOLA, addressed the P&Z next. Mr. Brankin showed him a document and asked if i twas h is curriculum v itae and Mr. A boona t hat agreed it was. M r. B rankin asked that M r. L in's curriculum vitae be made a part of the record for this case. Mr. Aboona pointed out that this project would be an Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-04-04 Page 4 improvement over the former use since there would be less curb cuts and less traffic movement. He described anticipated traffic patterns for the site as compared to the previous use as a gas station, which would generate four to five times as many trip generations. Mr. Brankin. qistriþuteqLa m~mo prepared by Mr. Aboona that summarized his testimony. Mr. Brankin asked Mr. AQQonajf, in his opinion, granting this Variation or Conditional Use would have a detrimental impact on the public health, safety, morals, comfort or general welfare or be injurious to the use, enjoyment, or value of other properties in the vicinity or impede the orderly development of those properties. Mr. Aboona said it wouldnot. Mr. Youngquist asked Mr. Aboona if he had considered a left turn-in frgm pçmpster. He said he had not, and that the modification would be a consideration for the land planner. He said that he thought it would be a good idea to investigate further. Ms. Juracek asked Mr. Y ou!lgquist to elaborate on that id.ea, which he did. Mr. Brankin said he discussed the request during Mr. Youngquist's explanation with Mr. Smith, who agreed to look into the design. It was noted that the Cook County Highway Department would have to approve the design. Jack DiClementi, the Project Landscape Architect, 2509 Lake Avenue, came forward and reviewed the proposed landscape plan. He said the plant choices were fully seasonal and included shade trees, ornamental trees and shrubs, planting areas, perennial ground cover, turf foreground, green parkway and an irrigated site. The plan calls for numerous boxwoods, and 11 red maples and honey locusts to complement the brick palette. Mr. Brankin asked Mr. DiClementi ifhe b<;ld..\Vorl<~çtç19§ely with staff on the landscape plan; he responded yes. Mr. Brankin asked Mr. DiClementi if he thought the landscape plan would enhance the general site area rather than detract from the area; he responded yes. James Gibbons, Gibbons & Gibbons Real Estate & Appraisal Co., 401 LaSalle St., Suite 1502, Chicago, came forward and testified. Mr. Brankin showed him a document and asked if it was his curriculum vita~ af\d Mr. Gibbons agreed it was. Mr. Brankin asked that Mr. Gibbon's curriculum vitae be made a part of the record for this case. Mr. Brankin asked Mr. Gibbons what process did he use for his analysis of the site and its impacts on the surrounding properties. Mr. Gibbons said he reviewed the plans and visited the site and the surrounding areas, did an analysis of the Oakton/Northwest Highway site and the Multiple Listing Sales pattern of sales and explained how they related to the current proposal. He said he took photos of the subject property and the surrounding properties; he distributed copies of the photos to the P&Z. Mr. Brankin said he wanted the photos to be made part of the record. Mr. Gibþons cl~scrjþ,~st!h~,.ê}lbject property as being on the northwe§t comer of Dempster and Elmhurst Road, by the Kohl's, Hobby Lobby, and Enterprise; on the southwest comer, across the street from a Citgo Gas Station/Car Wash/Strip Shopping Center and across from a Jewel/Osco. On the Northeast comer there is a Cleaners and a Jiffy Lube sharing one driveway. He said that this is a commercial area and that the project would not have an ad.vers~ impact on the adjacent properties. The site was a former gas station and was an eyesore; the new proposal can only enhance the area. Mr.Brankin<;l§ked Ivlf.. Giþ1Jons, from an appraisal standpoint, was it his opinion granting this Variation and Conditional Use would have a positive effect on the area. Mr. Gibbons said it would. Mr. Rogers asked if he appraised the finished product; Mr. Gibbons said he had not. Kenneth Rathje, Rathje Planning Services, 412 Chicago Avenue, Downers Grove, came forward. Mr. Brankin showed him a document and asked if it was his GllrriçllJ.\llllyitat':ß!1(LMr.Qibqogs agreed it was. Mr. Brankin asked that Mr. Gibbon's curriculum vitae be made a part of the record for this case.. Mr. Bran).<.in <1;$1<:ed Mr.. Rathje to describe his actions in preparation for this proposal. Mr. Rathje said he took an aerial photo of the property, which he described in detail. Mr. Branki!laslwçl Mr,:Ratl1je if he had, in his further analysis, applied all the conditions for a Conditional Use and Variation. Mr:,Rathje s aid he has gone through the C ode and identified item by item how each item was satisfied... lIe.. then describe(t~ach. i!eI11...required for Variation and how it met Code. Mr. Brankin proceeded to question Mr. Rathje regarding each item required for a Conditional Use, but Ms. Juracek told him that was not necessary, that the P&Z had questions for the architect. Mr. Brankin acquiesced and requested that the longer version of the testimony be made part of the record. Elias Papageorge, Architect, 188 N. Wells St., Chicago, addressed the Commission. He said that anything Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-04-04 Page 5 would be an improvement over the present site and described the proposed building. He said the project would comply with all Village codes and regulations. Richard Rogers asked if all existing masonry would be removed and whether it be all face brick. Mr. Papageorge said yes, that it would essentially be a brand new building. Ms. Juracek complimented Mr. Brankin on conducting a very thorough case for his client. She asked if any audience members had any comments and, being none, closed the hearing at 8:55. The Commission discussed the case in detail. Ms. Juracek said the Commission seemed to be in agreement on the case with the addition of two lanes out and one lane in on Dempster Street and a refuse enclosure built of the same brick as the building, not of concrete block. Joe Donnelly made a motion to recommend that the Village Board approve the Conditional Use to construct a drive-thru bank subject to the conditions listed in the Staff memo and: 1. Construct the refuse enclose with the same brick material proposed for the exterior of the building. 2. Subject to CCHD approval, modify the Dempster Street driveway to create a dedicated left-turn lane exiting the site, a right-turn lane exiting the site, and a full access lane entering into the site. Richard Rogers seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Donnelly, Rogers, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: Motion was approved 4-0. Richard Rogers made a motion to recommend that the Village Board approve the Variation for the number of proposed stacking spaces for the drive-thru lanes. Joe Donnelly seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Donnelly, Rogers, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: Motion was approved 4-0. At 9:30 p.m., Joseph Donnelly made motion to adjourn, seconded by Richard Rogers. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner H:\PLAN\Planning & Zoning COMM\P&Z 2004\Minutes\PZ-04-04 1590 S ElmhUt~t Rd Parkway Bankdoc MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-O6-04 Hearing Date: February 26, 2004 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1501 W. Dempster St. PETITIONER: Culver's PUBLICATION DATE: February 11,2004 PIN#: 08-23-100-013 REQUEST: The Petitioner is seeking Special Use approval to install a freestanding sign with an electronic message board MEMBERS PRESENT: Arlene Juracek, Chair Joseph Donnelly Richard Rogers Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: Merrill Cotten Leo Floros Matthew Sledz STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner INTERESTED PARTIES: Scott Hecal Chuck Martin Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m. Richard Rogers made a motion to approve the minutes of the January 22 and February 12, 2004 meetings with one minor correction. Keith Youngquist seconded the motion. The minutes were approved 4-0. At 8:56, Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-06-04, a request for a Special Use approval to install a :treestanding sign with an electronic message board. She noted that the request would be Planning & Zoning Commission final. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, presented the case. She said that the Subject Property is located at the southeast comer of Busse Road and Dempster Street, and consists of a vacant lot. The Subject Property recently received Preliminary Planned Unit Development approval for a mixed-use development consisting of a drive-thru bank, an office building, and a drive-thru restaurant. The PUD still requires final approval prior to construction, which includes review by the Planning & Zoning Commission and approval by the Village Board. Ms. Connolly said that the Planning & Zoning Commission granted relief :trom the Village's Sign Code regulations in conjunction with the Preliminary PUD approval. During the Preliminary PUDreview process the P&Z reviewed the proposed signage for the Culver's restaurant, which included a freestanding sign on Dempster Street and an oversize menu board for the drive-thru. The P&Z required that the menu board be positioned so it would not be highly visible from the road and landscaped to minimize its impact on the overall development. The Petitioner is now seeking Special Use approval to install a freestanding sign with an electronicl11essage board. Ms. Connolly clarified that the electronic message board is the only aspect of the sign that is under review at this time. The location of the proposed sign would comply with the Village's Sign Code regulations, as it would be located outside of the 10-foot sight triangle and 5-feet :trom the exterior lot line. In addition, the size of the proposed sign complies with the Sign Code's regulations. Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-06-04 Page 2 The overal1 height of the sign measures 10-feet from grade and the base of the sign wi11 be white brick and capped with a standard masonry material. The electronic message board would include two lines of lO-inch copy (text) used to advertise Culver's specials and/or items. The P&Z Commission may approve Special Uses if the request meets the standards listed in the Sign Code. Ms. Connolly summarized the standards. She said that the size and location of the sign complies with Sign Code regulations. The Vil1age's Traffic Engineer reviewed the proposal and found that the electronic message board would not adversely impact traffic. In addition, Staff found that the design of the proposed sign is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood and would not create a negative impact on adjacent properties. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission approve t he proposed Special Use to pennit an electronic message board for the Culver's freestanding sign to be located on the Dempster Street frontage as illustrated on the Petitioner's exhibits, subject to complying to the standards listed in Sec. 7.720 of the Sign Code, which relate to the sign not creating a safety or traffic hazard. The Planning & Zoning Commission's decision is final for this case. Ms. Jmacek asked if only the electronic message center sign needed approval. Ms. Connolly said yes, in the original case the petitioner had indicated a changeable sign was sufficient. Mr. Rogers asked if it was a two-sided or one-sided sign and Ms. Connolly said it was two-sided. Chuck Martin, 599 Hawthorne Road, Glen Ellyn, was sworn in and testified he was studying at Better Bmger University to learn all about running a Culver's Restamant. He said that had not requested an electronic message sign originally because he had been preoccupied with working with the Small Business Association, budgeting, learning about the business, and did not give enough thought to the sign. He said he now realized he would need an eleçtronic. message sign to enhance the project and the area. He said the sign would be available for emergency messages for the Village, too. He would waive banner and flag rights to obtain this sign, also. Mr. Rogers asked if the square footage of the sign requested meets Code. Ms. Connolly said it does. Mr. Rogers asked the petitioner if he was aware that landscaping was required around the base of the sign. Mr. Martin said yes, and that it is part of the plan. Mr. Donnelly asked how ÍÌequently the sign would change. Mr. Martin said it would foHow Village Code. No audience members had questions. Ms. Juracek closed the hearing at 9: 10. Richard Rogers made a motion to approve the Special Use to install a freestanding sign with an electronic message board subject to the conditions listed in the $taffl11emo.. Kyjth Youngquist seconded the motiQn. UPON ROLL CALL: A YES: Donnelly, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: Rogers, Motion was approved 3-1. At 9:30 p.m., Joseph Donnelly made motion to adjourn, seconded by Richard Rogers. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner HIPLANIPlanning & Zoning COMM\P&Z 2004'uVlinutes\PZ-06-04 1501 W Dempster St Culvers Sign doc MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-O7-04 Hearing Date: February 26, 2004 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 710 N. Wille Street PETITIONER: Bob & Leanne Boehm PUBLICATION DATE: February 11,2004 PIN#: 03-34-106-021 REQUEST: Conditional Use to allow the construction of an unenclosed porch in the required front yard; and a Variation for lot coverage MEMBERS PRESENT: Arlene Juracek, Chair Joseph Donnelly Richard Rogers Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: Merrill Cotten Leo Floros Matthew Sledz STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner INTERESTED PARTIES: Bob & Leanne Boehm Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.rn. Richard Rogers made a motion to approve the minutes of the January 22 and February 12, 2004 meetings with one minor correction. Keith Youngquist seconded the motion. The minutes were approved 4-0. At 9: 11, Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-07-04, a request for Conditional Use approval to allow the construction of an unenclosed porch in the required front yard; and a Variation for lot coverage. She noted that the porch request would be Village Board final, but the lot coverage request is P&Z final. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, presented the case. She said that the Subject PropertY is located on Wille Street, between Kensington Road and Highland Street, and contains a single-family residence with rdated improvements. The Subject Property is zoned RA Single Family Residence and is bordered on all sides by the RA District. The Petitioner's proposed improvements include an unenclosed porch that will extend the length of the house and a second story addition. The proposed unenclosed porch would be constructed of wood, but have a concrete floor. The intent of the porch is to improve the appearance of the front elevation by lessening the impact of the second story addition and creating a unified front elevation. The plat of survey documents the Subject Property's existing conditions. Ms. Connolly said that it appears the previous owners made improvements to the property without the benefit of a permit because the current amount of lot coverage is 58%, which exceeds the 50% limitation for the RA zoning district. After meeting with Staff, the Petitioner revised their proposal to reduce the size of the patio; they would replace the existing patio, which currently measures @ 10' x 35' with a 10' x 10' patio. I n addition, the Petitioner proposes to remove the existing service walk along the south side of the home. The proposed reduction in patio size, as well as the removal of the existing service walk, will help to reduce the amount of lot coverage. However, in order to improve the Subject Property as proposed by the Petitioner, the Village Board has to approve the Conditional Use request to allow the unenclosed porch to encroach four-feet into the front yard, but the Planning & Zoning Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-O7 -04 Page 2 Commission has to first approve a variation for lot coverage because the Subject Property will continue to exceed the 50% lot coverage limitation. Ms. Connolly said that the existing home does not comply with the Bulk Regulations for the RA zoning district. After reviewing the Building Permit files, Staff could not document that the Village authorized the addition to the rear of the garage, which encroaches into the required setback and the 9-foot easement. She said that the garage is an existing condition and allowed to remain. Also, the existing patio is reflected on a fence permit application issued in the early 1960s, but there is no record of the Village approving the structure. The Petitioner proposes to reduce lot coverage by removing a service walk along the side of the house and significantly reducing the size of the patio. The proposed improvements would bring the site closer to compliance with the Village's lot coverage regulations, but still exceed the 50% limitation. In order to approve the unenclosed porch, the request has to meet the Conditional Use stand.ards listed, intl1~ Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Connolly summarized the standards and said that the proposed unenclosed, covered porch would not a dversely a ffect the character 0 f t he surrounding neighborhood, utility provision, 0 r public streets and the proposed Conditional Use will be in compliance with the Village's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Connolly said that in order to approve the lot coverage Variation, the P&Z has to find that it meets the standards for a Variation listed in the Zoning Ordinance. She summarized the standards and said that the Petitioner did not create the need for a Variation, but is taking measures to bring the Subject Property closer to compliance with current Village Codes. The proposed new construction will be doneaçcording to all Village regulations, the amount of lot coverage will be reduced, and the proposed improvements are consistent with the existing character of the neighborhood. The proposed unenclosed porch meets the Conditional Use standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance. In addition, the Petitioner's request to allow 54% lot coverage meets the standards for a Variation. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission approve a Variation to pennit 54% lot coverage as shown on the Petitioner's site plan and that the P&Z make a recommendation to thy Vmage Board to approve a Conditional Use for an unenclosed porch to encroach no more than 4-feet into the required front yard for the residence at 710 N. Wille Street, Case No. PZ-07-04. The Village Board's decision is final for the porch, but the P&Z's decision is final for the lot coverage request because it is less than 25% of the code regulation. There was discussion regarding paving and water retention. Ms. Connolly said Engineering had reviewed the case and did not note any drainage problems caused by the current amount of lot coverage. Robert Boehm, 710 N. Wille Street, was sworn in. He summarized his request and added that the retaining wall was in the back of the property when they purchased the property and he does not know why it is there. He said there has not been any pooling of water. He said the sump pump discharges in the front yard and will continue to do so and will not interfere with other properties. Ms. Juracek noted that removal of the concrete al1<l. ~ggition o(tl1e porch would provide 54% lot coverage. Mr. Rogers said the 4% overage would not be objectionable since the cement removal and porch additions would be improve the property greatly. There were no comments from the audience. Ms. Juracek closed the hearing at 9:25. Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-07 -04 Page 3 Richard Rogers made a motion to approve a Variation to permit 54% lot coverage as indicated on the Petitioner's site plan, prepared by Thomas Buckley, Architect dated January 21, 2004. Joseph Donnelly seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Donnelly, Rogers, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: Motion was approved 4-0. Joseph Donnelly made a motion to recommend that the Village Board approve the Conditional Use to allow the construction of an unenclosed porch in the required front yard. Richard Rogers seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Donnelly, Rogers, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: Motion was approved 4-0. At 9:30 p.m., Joseph Donnelly made motion to adjourn, seconded by Richard Rogers. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner H:\PLAN\Planning & Zoning COMM\P&Z 2004\Minutes\PZ-07-04 710 N Wille St Boehm.doc VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT FINANCE COMMISSION AGENDA Thursday, March 25, 2004 7:00 p.m. Village Hall Building 100 South Emerson Street 2nd Floor Conference Room I Call to Order II Approval of Minutes - Meeting of January 22,2004 III Discussion on Revenue Options Discussion on Long Range Financial Plan II IV Chairman's Report v Finance Director's Report VI New Business VII Next Meeting: Thursday, April 22, 2004, 7:00 p.m. VIII 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 100 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect, (847) 392-6000, ext. 5277, TDD (847) 392-6064. FINANCE COMMISSION DRAFT DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MEETING FEBRUARY 26, 2004 VILLAGE HALL BUILDING I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. Those present included Vice Chairman Charles Bennett and Commissioners Vince Grochocinski, Ann Hull and Ann Smilanic. Also present were Finance Director David Erb, Deputy Director of Finance Carol Widmer and Finance Administrative Assistant Ijsa Burkemper. Commissioner Brian McPartlin arrived at 7:35 and Chairman John Korn and Commissioner Tom Pekras were absent. II. ApPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Ann Smilanic motioned to approve the minutes of January 22, 2004. Commissioner Vince Grochocinski seconded the motion and the minutes were accepted as presented. III. OLD BUSINESS - COMPLETION OF PROPOSED 2004 WORK PLAN Vice Chairman Charles Bennett began the meeting with an open discussion on suggested items for the 2004 Proposed Work Plan. Commissioner Ann Smilanic stated she would like to have a disc\}ssi()n oIl what .was presented to the Mayor and Trustees by the AdHoc Committee - Phase II about the possible TIF financing issues as they relate to the potential extension of the TIF. Director of Finance David Erb stated that this would be a good topic for April. After a brief discussion the Commission decided to discuss sales tax and increases in other revenue sources such as ambulance billing at their March meeting. Also decided was a discussion in August on the results of the combine sewer study and the results of the street resurfacing program study. Commissioner Ann Smilanic motioned to cancel the proposed meeting scheduled for December 23, 2004. Commissioner Ann Hull seconded the motion and the motion carried. Commissioner Ann Smilanic then amended the motion to include canceling the proposed meeting scheduled for November 25, 2004 as well. Commissioner Ann Hull seconded the amended motion and the amended motion carried. IV. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT Vice Chairman Charles Bennett highlighted the topics discussed at the board meeting of February 24, 2004. V. FINANCE DIRECTOR'S REPORT There was nothing to report. VI. NEW BUSINESS Fund Balance Discussion Finance Director David Erb provided an overview report for the year ended December 31, 2003. Mr. Erb outlined the actual revenues of$79,912,305, which represents 101.67% of the budget. Mr. Erb also outlined the actual expenditures of $74,641,413, which represents 85.48% of the budget. The net surplus is due primarily to a carryover of capital projects. Commissioner Vince Grochocinski asked if the village has to amend the budget if more was spend than budgeted. Mr. Erb stated that the village does have to amend the budget because the budget reflects our authorized level of spending. Finance Director David Erb also summarized the General Fund. Mr. Erb stated that at mid-year budget review the deficit was projected at $1.4 million, at the time the budget was prepared the deficit was $.8 million and the preliminary deficit at year-end was down to $.3 million. In summary Mr. Erb stated that Fund Balance is a concern going into 2005. The 2004 mid-year budget review will give a better idea of the deficit projections. TIF Discussion Finance Director David Erb began the discussion with a brief history of the TIF. The TIF was started in 1985 and at that time the equalized assessed value (EA V) was $7.5 million. In 2002 the EA V was $22.762 million and the estimated EA V for end of the TIF in 2008 is $41 million. There was a discussion on the cost implications of building row houses in the TIF area on the east side of Emerson at the site of the Bank One Parking lot versus turning the lot into an open space park. Mr. Erb stated that a row house development would have an EA V of $1. 7 million and that $143,000 in taxes would be generated. As the property stands now the EA V of the parcel is approximately $500,000 and the property generates $50,000 in taxes. There was a discussion on the TIF as it exists today versus the TIF as it is set to expire in 2008. Currently there have been discussions on releasing some TIF parcels and extending the remaining TIF for a period of 13 years. Commissioner Ann Hull asked what the timing is for extending or changing the TIF. Mr. Erb stated that the changes must be approved by the state legislature and that certain steps need to be taken in order to achieve that. Vice Chairman Charles Bennett asked why the TIF has to be extended for 13 years. Mr. Erb stated that the 13-year extension is a statutory figure, however it could be endedearlier. Commissioner Brain McPartlin asked what was spent on the 3 parcels (2 houses and a lot) that were purchased at the site of the proposed park or row houses. Vice Chairman Charles Bennett stated that the figure was about $300,000 - $400,000. Vice Chairman Charles Bennett asked if the TIF Bonds are let for a specific parcel or can they be for anywhere in the TIF. Mr. Erb stated that they can be for any parcel within the TIF though typically they are issued for a specific purpose. Vice Chairman Charles Bennett requested that Mr. Erb provide any new paperwork related to the TIF in the packet for the meeting scheduled in March. Mr. Erb stated he would provide the paperwork in time for the March meeting. VII. Next Meeting: March 25, 2004 Commissioner Brian McPartlin motioned to adjourn which Commissioner Vince Grochocinski seconded. The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. The next meeting is scheduled for March 25, 2004. Respectfully submitted, Lisa Burkemper Administrative Assistant Finance Department 2