Milwaukee Avenue Corridor Committee

Milwaukee Avenue Streetscape Committee MEETING SUMMARY April 22, 2011 The following persons were present: Chair Louella Preston, Trustee Chris Hanusiak, Chuck Ostman, and Steve Vinezeano. Meeting began at 7:10 a.m. This meeting is in response to a site walk on April 21st with Louella Preston, Chris Hanusiak, Chuck Ostman, and Steven Vinezeano. Also attending were Akram Chaudhry and Christopher Hartke of HRGreen. The group reviewed the proposed plans for streetscape improvements at the Oakton/Milwaukee intersection and at Jerry’s crosswalk. The Milwaukee Avenue Streetscape Committee developed the proposed Milwaukee Avenue Streetscape Plan between January 2007 and March 2008 with two public presentations. The improvements proposed in the plan were approved by the Village Board of Trustees on March 25, 2008. I. Approve Meeting Summary: a. No meeting summaries were considered at this meeting. The draft summaries for the following meetings remain unapproved by request of the Chair: February 8, 2010; March 9, 2011; and March 23, 2011. II. Old Business: a. Adjustments to Plan. The persons present at this meeting met to discuss adjustments to the Milwaukee Avenue Streetscape Plan from the Oakton and Milwaukee intersection to Neva. The key issue being discussed was the proposed relocation of sidewalks at the Oakton and Milwaukee intersection. Louella and Chris began the discussion with comments about families or young mothers walking along the sidewalk toward the intersection with large trucks going by at high speeds at seemingly arms length. They both agreed that this was an unsafe condition that needed to be addressed. Chuck Ostman stated that unlike the Touhy intersection where there was no choice, there is an opportunity to provide a buffer between traffic and pedestrians by moving the sidewalks to the state right of way line away from the street. He further mentioned that pedestrians in this area are currently accustomed to having that buffer between them and the street. Chris stated that the plan should not only be beautiful, but safe as well. Vinezeano clarified that the 2’-0” of brick banding would be maintained at the curb with grass and then a 5’-0” sidewalk on all corners to maintain consistency. The group agreed. Louella requested to have banding go to Oriole, but the group did not agreed since the sidewalk was not going to be adjacent to the street anymore. There was clarification given to where the banding begins and ends – the first curb cut on each leg after the intersection. The curb cut to the parking lot at Riggio’s was discussed briefly. No changes were recommended. The trees at the northwest corner are recommended for removal and replacement with new trees. Vinezeano requested clarification regarding sidewalk width. He asked if the sidewalks should be the minimum 5’-0” being recommended by this group or wider to provide for future growth. Ostman stated that any new private developments in the future would be responsible for removing the sidewalks for wider sidewalks if necessary. Bus stop relocation was discussed. Vinezeano stated that the Milwaukee Avenue Corridor Plan funded through the RTA showed bus stops being relocated on far sides. Louella asked about the Arterial Rapid Transit study and Vinezeano stated that Pace is working to start the nine month implementation study by early summer. The ART plan would then be implemented shortly thereafter. There was discussion about construction timing. Oakton redevelopment would occur construction season of 2012 and IDOT would put in signals in 2013. Ostman stated that the State would repair any damage that occurs to the new brick and sidewalk when they replace signals in 2012. Chris asked about fencing and whether or not it will be used at this point because of his concern for long term maintenance. Louella stated how the paint on the fence by the water fountain seemed to be deteriorating prematurely. Vinezeano mentioned that the water at the fountain is treated with a corrosive agent and may be negatively reacting with the paint. Ostman stated that the fencing in Elk Grove is also peeling. There were questions about warranty. Chris stated that he agrees that the fencing looks nice, but he is worried about maintenance over time. Vinezeano shared his thoughts on the purpose of fencing along large expansive parking lots. Both the Milwaukee Avenue Corridor Plan and the Milwaukee Avenue Streetscape Plan called for fencing or some time of buffer to create a pedestrian space in the intersection. There was an agreement that the past committee understood that the fencing would have longevity. The group agreed that the issue should be reviewed regarding what was provided and what could be provided of higher quality. Louella requested specifics regarding long term fence maintenance. Chris stated that nothing lasts forever and that there is a maintenance component to everything being done. Ostman requested that the fencing be removed for now. Vinezeano did not agree with removing the fence at the 11th hour, but if it must be removed by this group that maybe it could be retained at the intersection. There was discussion about trees being placed in the right of ways at 45’-0” intervals. There was discussion about the Pace stop at Jerry’s and the relocated stop just south of the intersection. Louella asked if the bus stops and shelters can be moved sooner than later, but it was agreed there would be a cost associated with these relocations and should wait until the ART study is complete. There was discussion about the proper trees being placed every 45’-0” or 50’-0” in the right of way. There is a concern that these trees are planted properly with some sort of “gator” bag watering system to help ensure the trees survive. Louella stated the trees should be salt tolerant. Louella mentioned that she would not like to see a fence placed at the Walgreens corner that would remove their landscaping. Chuck mentioned that the sidewalk would already be removing some of the landscaping to be placed at the property line. Louella requested a summary of the decisions up to this point and Vinezeano provided it. The key changes to the plan for the Oakton/Milwaukee intersection: 1. Sidewalks are moved from the curb to the internal right of way. 2. Sidewalks will be 5’-0”. 3. The 2’-0” brick banding will remain at the curb. 4. The brick banding will remain consistent with the other intersection work by terminating at the first curb cut from the intersection. 5. All curbs at the Oakton/Milwaukee intersection will be replaced. 6. Trees will be removed at the northwest corner and replaced with new trees at 45’-0” intervals. Details for proper planting and caring for the trees will be provided. HRGreen to recommend tree options to be used along all of Milwaukee Avenue. 7. All bus stops will be relocated to the far side approach. 8. Each of the four nodes at the Jerry’s crosswalk will be improved. 9. HRGreen to relocate controlling and access boxes to an easement and out of the pedestrian space. Special Note: There is not a consensus regarding decorative fencing originally approved by the Milwaukee Avenue Streetscape Committee. Although the fencing serves a purpose by beautifying and softening the sea of parking lots currently on Milwaukee Avenue, there is a concern regarding long term maintenance. HRGreen will be providing more information regarding the fencing chosen and long term maintenance. There was also discussion regarding the use of a  higher quality fence if possible. The group will need to meet separately on this issue to determine if decorative fencing will be removed or adjusted from what is in the plan. The Jerry’s crosswalk was discussed. There is a need for four matching nodes, similar to Milwaukee and Oakton. No banding would be seen at this crosswalk, but there will be brick paver nodes. The easements required were discussed, as was the removal of controlling/access boxes to get them out of the node. Louella asked about the “Camiros” plan or the Milwaukee Avenue Corridor Plan and whether or not it discussed redevelopment of the Park District park near Jerry’s. It was stated that the plan did not discuss that area. There was further discussion about sidewalk replacement south of Jerry’s. It was pointed out that the existing sidewalk will be replaced at a width of 5’-0” and be properly relocated off of private property in some places. There was a concern voiced that we do not tear up good sidewalk. The committee discussed how the proposed sidewalk replacement is only in areas that do not have parking issues. Chris mentioned a strong interest in tackling the issue of recapturing the right of way where businesses are parking and not kicking it further down the road. However, it was pointed out that those issues could not be addressed sooner than later because of the limited time available for this work. There was discussion of establishing a long-term goal for the relinquishment of the right of way back for green space and sidewalk. Louella and Chris agreed that this should be addressed within a 15-year time frame or when property changes hands, which is similar to the recent sign code. Ostman agreed. Vinezeano outlined what was done from Albion to Neva, what was planned to be done at the intersections of Harlem/Howard/Oakton and now what is being proposed between the intersections since there are additional funds. There was agreement to clean up all that can be cleaned up, but those areas where parking is negatively impacted. Some areas were added to the proposed plan. There was some extended discussion about curb cuts noted on the map to be shared with HRGreen. There was a question on whether or not the Village has the authority to close curb cuts. Chuck mentioned he would approach the business owners regarding these curb cut issues. Amici’s restaurant and their lamps at the Howard/Milwaukee corner were discussed. Chuck feels that they will move some of their lamps when we place our two pedestrian lights. There was discussion about the limited opportunities for trees or landscaping. This area is similar to the Touhy intersection with limited space and sidewalks that must be at the street line. The area by the White Castle was discussed briefly and how it is in  Chicago. The letter from the Alderman who approved of the streetscape work in front of White Castle was discussed. Chuck Ostman discussed potential redevelopments being proposed south of Harlem/Milwaukee. There was also discussion regarding a need for parking and whether or not properties should be purchased by the Village now while property values are lower. Chuck brought up the issue of banners and way signs. He recommended having another meeting at a later date to discuss what is possible and what can be paid for through the ITEP grant. Banners were discussed for every fourth light pole from Albion to Greenwood this year. Additional banners may be purchased at a later date through the grant. III. New Business: a. None IV. Adjournment at 9:30 a.m.