City Council Planning Sessions

1. City Council Planning Agenda Documents: 2017-05-08 CITY COUNCIL PLANNING AGENDA.PDF 2. City Council Planning Residential Street Speed Limits Ps04 Documents: 2017-05-08 CITY COUNCIL PLANNING RESIDENTIAL STREET SPEED LIMITS PS04.PDF 3. City Council Planning Minutes Documents: 2017-05-08 CITY COUNCIL PLANNING MINUTES.PDF 4. City Council Planning Marked Crosswalk Policy Ps05 Documents: 2017-05-08 CITY COUNCIL PLANNING MARKED CROSSWALK POLICY PS05.PDF 5. City Council Planning Draft 2017-04-24 Minutes Ps02 Documents: 2017-05-08 CITY COUNCIL PLANNING DRAFT 2017-04-24 MINUTES PS02.PDF  WHEATON CITY COUNCIL PLANNING SESSION WHEATON CITY HALL – COUNCIL CHAMBERS 303 W. WESLEY STREET, WHEATON, ILLINOIS MONDAY, MAY 8, 2017 - 7:00 P.M. AGENDA I. Call to Order II. Approval of Minutes – April 24, 2017 III. Public Comment IV. Residential Street Speed Limits V. Marked Crosswalk Policy VI. City Council/Staff Comments VII. Adjournment Inspection of New Ambulances – City Hall Parking Lot During the Public Comment portion of the agenda, the presiding officer shall recognize any person requesting to be heard on any of the planning session agenda items only. Persons speaking during Public Comment shall not speak longer than three (3) minutes and shall be permitted to speak only once. Visitors must remain quiet and not engage in behavior that interferes with the Planning Session. The presiding officer may, or upon a majority vote of the council, request any visitor who violates any provision of this paragraph to leave the council chambers, and such visitor shall thereupon leave. Any person providing public comment shall address the presiding officer only and shall not proceed with remarks until recognized. When recognized, the person shall state his or her name and address. Cross floor discussions are prohibited. If a member of the City Council has questions of any person who has provided public comment, that person may address the specific question. Memorandum Paul G. Redman, P.E. Director of Engineering i To: The Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: May3,2017 Subject: Residential Street Speed Limits Background In response to feedback from concerned residents regarding residential street speeds, staff has been reviewing the topic of lowering the speed limit on residential streets and determining a recommended course of action for the City Council to consider; if lowering the speed limit is desired. At a planning session in January, a representative from KLOA, Inc. provided an informational presentation to the City Council covering traffic engineering principles on establishing speed limits on residential streets. The City Council requested that City staff provide further details regarding necessary steps and costs associated with studying current speeds and/or lowing the speed limits on residential streets. Speed Limit Study Illinois state statutes allow a municipal agency to alter the statutory speed limit on streets under its jurisdiction based upon an engineering study. The engineering study is not mandatory but highly recommended. KLOA has provided a proposal (Exhibit 1) to perform a city-wide speed limit study that will determine, through engineering practices adopted by the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT), to determine the appropriateness of lowering the speed limit to 25 mph on certain city streets. The proposed work will include speed surveys in seven (7) separate zones throughout the city, evaluation of roadway conditions that may support lowering speed limits, recommended speed limits, and a summary report documenting the findings of the study. City staff supports the use of an engineering study to verify and document the lowering of a speed limit on any city street, as opposed to approving a blanket city-wide speed limit on all city streets. A city-wide speed limit study would determine uniform speed limit analysis using sound traffic engineering principles. The City has varying designs, layouts, and traffic volumes on the city street system. These varied factors play an integral part in the engineering analysis for determining the most appropriate speed limit. As an example, collector streets, which in most cases have high traffic volumes, are longer in length, and have fewer stops or interruptions in their flow of traffic, are very different in speed characteristics than local or cul-de-sac streets, which have low traffic volumes and shorter lengths. A significant portion of the collection effort will be focused on the collector streets. Each of these two example street types need to be studied individually. The Next Step City staff is recommending City Council support proceeding with the speed limit study to be performed by KLOA, as outlined in their proposal. If the City Council concurs, staff will have the necessary contract with KLOA prepared for approval at the next available City Council meeting agenda. Following completion of the study, at a future planning session, staff will discuss the results of the study and provide the implementation plan regarding education, enforcement and their associated costs. Exhibit 1 — KLOA Proposal  ‘fliL Ill.. I ‘ S — May 3,2017 Mr. Paul Redman, PE Director of Engineering City of Wheaton 303 XV. Wesley Street, P.O. Box 727 Wheaton, Illinois 60 187-0727 Re: City-Wide Speed Limit Study Dear Mr. Redman: Kenig. Lindgren, O’Hara, Aboona, Inc. (KLOA. Inc.) is pleased to submit this proposal to prepare a city wide speed limit study for the City of Wheaton. Except for the roads in the Central Business District (CBD), the school zones (20 mph speed limits), and sections of Gary Avenue and Shaffner Road (35 mph speed limits), all of the roads under the City’s jurisdiction have a posted speed limit of 30 mph. The purpose of the study is to examine the roads under the City’s jurisdiction with posted speed limits of 30 and 35 mph to determine the most appropriate speed limits. Scope of Services We have developed the following scope of services based on our experience with similar studies, the criteria provided in the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) Policy far Establishing and Posting Speed Limits on the State Highway System, and discussions with you. Per our discussions, the following outlines the parameters of the study: • The methodology for detennining the appropriate speed limits will be based on the criteria provided in the IDOT Policy/br Establishing and Posting Speed Limits on the State f—Jighu’ai’ System and adjusted based on any specific City criteria and/or guidelines. • The City will be divided into seven zones with a complete study perfonned for each zone. Each zone will be separated into neighborhoods. • Traffic counts/speed surveys will be performed using pneumatic tube counters along a representative sample of the collector roads within each zone and the local roads in the neighborhoods in each zone. For budgeting purposes, we have assumed counts/surveys will be performed along four to five local roads in each zone and one count/survey along the majority of the collector roads. • The speed limit for each selected/representative road will be determined based on its calculated prevailing speed and possibly altered based on its physical and operating conditions (i.e. crash data, on-street parking, shoulders or curb and gutter, number/type of access drives, and pedestrian facilities). • A separate altered speed limit will be recommended for each collector road. However, a blanket speed limit will be recommended for the local roads in each neighborhood and/or zone based on the evaluation of the selectedrepresentative local roads. Mr. Paul Redman, PE May 3,2017 Page 2 In order to complete the speed limit study for each zone, KLOA, Inc. proposes to perform the following tasks: 1. Data Collection. KLOA, Inc. will work with the City and IDOT to collect and review existing traffic infonnation and data, including previous traffic counts, speed studies, crash data, GIS roadway maps or aerials, and other relevant information. 2. FieldReconnaissance. KLOA, Inc. will inventory the physical and operating characteristics of the City’s roads including, speed limits, pedestrian facilities, bike lanes, number/type of access, traffic control, etc. In addition, KLOA, Inc. will observe traffic operations within each zone. 3. Speed Surveys. Daily traffic counts and speed surveys will be performed using pneumatic tube counters for two consecutive weekdays (48 hours) at 75 locations generally divided equally between the zones. The location of the counts/surveys will be determined at an initial kick-off’ meeting with City staff. After the kick-off meeting and/or a review of the count/survey data, additional counts/surveys may need to be conducted, with the project budget amended accordingly. 4. Existing Prevailing SpeecLc. Per IDOT criteria, an average prevailing speed will be determined for each selected/representative road by averaging its 85111 percentile speed and its upper limit of the 10 mph pace. 5. Evaluation of’ Roadii’at Conditions. The specific physical and operating conditions of each selected/representative road will be evaluated to determine if the prevailing speed can be altered based on the following conditions per the IDOT criteria: • High crash locations (frequency and severity of crashes) • Access control (number and type of access) • Pedestrian activity (type of pedestrian facilities) • On-street parking 6. Reconinwnded Speed Limits. A recommended speed limit will be developed for each collector road in each zone arid a blanket speed limit will be recommended for the local roads in each neighborhood and/or zone based on the evaluation of the selected/representative local roads. 7. Meinoranduni Report. A memorandum report summarizing the methodology, findings, and recommendations with respect to the speed limit study will be prepared upon completion of our work. A separate report will be prepared for each of the seven zones. 8. Meetings and Hearings. The KLOA, Inc. Project Manager will attend up to one kick-off meeting and one progress/coordination meeting with Village staff and one findings presentation at a Village Board meeting. As authorized, additional meetings can be attended, as needed, with the project budget amended accordingly. Mr. Paul Redman, PE May 3,2017 Page 3 Time of Performance We estimate that the speed limit studies for all seven zones, if performed concurrently, will be completed within 14 to 16 weeks of receipt of a signed copy of this letter of agreement. Given the fact that school will be closed for the summer in the next month, the traffic counts and speed surveys should not be perfonned until September. Meetings and hearings will be attended as arranged during advance requests by you. For formal meetings and for hearings at which presentations may be required, it is desired that 7 to 10 days’ advance notice be given to KLOA, Inc. Cost of Services The cost of services rendered by KLOA, Inc. will be based on our hourly rates currently in effect, plus reimbursement at cost for direct expenses such as traffic counts/speed surveys, travel, reproduction, etc. Based on our experience in similar studies, the cost for our professional staff time and services and direct expenses for the tasks outlined in Items I through 8 of the scope of services (assuming a total of 75 count/survey locations) will be $43,000. It should be noted that the cost estimate is based on all of the traffic counts/speed surveys being performed concurrently. As indicated previously, after the initial kick-off meeting and/or review of the count/survey data, additional counts/surveys may need to be performed. The additional counts/surveys will oniy be performed per the City’s authorization. For budgeting purposes, the cost to perform the necessary data collection, field work, and evaluation will be approximately $550 for each additional count/survey location. All costs for professional staff time and direct expenses in connection with any additional meetings and/or hearings in addition to those described in Item 8 of the scope of services will be itemized separately on our invoices and are in addition to the costs estimated above. Method of Payment Invoices for services rendered will be submitted every two weeks and will reflect the charges incurred on the project during the previous period. Invoices will show staff time and expenses separately. Invoices are due and payable within 30 days of the invoice date. To the maximum extent permitted by law, the City of Wheaton agrees to limit Kenig, Lindgren, O’l-Iara, Aboona, Inc.’s liability for the City of Wheaton’s damages up to the sum of the total fee on this project. This limitation should apply regardless of the cause of action or legal theory pled or asserted. Mr. Paul Redman. PE May 3,2017 Page 4 We are pleased to have this opportunity to continue to offer our professional services to the City of Wheaton. We will initiate our services on this project upon receipt of a signed copy of this letter of agreement for our files. Sincerely, y1DREN O’HARA, ABOONA, INC. KENI 91 ACCEPTED AND APPROVED THIS DAYOF Mia(!.erthrnann, PE, PTOE As its Principal and Contracting Officer (Signature) (Typed/Printed Name) Authorized to Execute Agreements for:  MEMORANDUM TO: Record FROM: Susan Bishel, Public Relations Coordinator SUBJECT: May 8, 2017 City Council Planning Session Minutes DATE: May 9, 2017 CC: Mayor and City Council, City Manager, City Clerk, Department Heads The Planning Session took place in the Council Chambers, Wheaton City Hall, 303 W. Wesley St., Wheaton, Illinois. Those attending the Planning Session included: Councilman Barbier, Councilwoman Fitch, Councilman Prendiville, Councilman Rutledge, Councilman Scalzo and Mayor Pro Tem Suess. Mayor Gresk was absent. Also in attendance were City Manager Dzugan, Assistant City Manager Duguay, Director of Engineering Redman, Fire Chief Schultz, Police Chief Volpe, Special Projects Assistant Kowalke and Public Relations Coordinator Bishel. The session began at 7:00 p.m. and concluded at 8:27 p.m. The following items were discussed: I. Call to Order The Wheaton City Council Planning Session was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Pro Tem Suess. II. Approval of Minutes – April 24, 2017 The Council approved the April 24, 2017 Planning Session Minutes. III. Public Comment Kara Kortum, 1307 E. Taft, presented the City Council with a petition with 683 signatures supporting lowering the speed limit on residential streets in Wheaton. She stated she is glad to see that the City is considering a change to lower speed limits. Cecilia Vangetson, 606 W. Franklin St., expressed concern over multiple car accidents she has witnessed near Gary Avenue and Ellis, and stated she was hit by a car while in a crosswalk. She encouraged the City Council to lower speed limits on residential streets for the safety of families and pedestrians. Michael Link, 1116 N. Wheaton Ave., encouraged the City Council to lower residential street speed limits to 25 mph. He expressed concern with the speed of drivers in the area of Harrison from West Street to Main Street. Anne Waters, 490 W. Seminary, stated the City did two speed studies along Gary Avenue between Wesley and Harrison. She shared the results of the speed studies, in which numerous drivers were exceeding the speed limit of 30 mph. She expressed concern that lowering the speed limit to 25 mph would not make much of a difference in this area, and she requested the City put in a stop sign in the school zone on Gary to slow down traffic. Paul Fahee, 121 Brighton Drive, stated he supports lowering the speed limit on residential streets, but he does not believe it will have any effect unless it is enforced by the Police Department. Michael Billing, 303 N. Gary, stated he has witnessed multiple accidents near his house. He stated he thinks just lowering the speed limit in this location would not be effective. He encouraged the Council to look at options in addition to lowering the speed limits to address traffic safety concerns. Jill Palmore, 520 N. West St., expressed support for lowering speed limits in residential areas. She stated there have been numerous accidents in her neighborhood in which cars have left the roadway, and she is concerned about the speed vehicles are traveling through neighborhoods. Adrienne Carlovitz, 1928 Stoddard, expressed concern about the area near Stoddard and Daly, especially since there are no sidewalks in this area. She stated there is a lot of cut-through traffic and drivers often exceed the speed limit. Amy Tax, 304 N. Gary Ave., stated a car hit her house on April 29. She expressed concern that cars are exceeding the posted speed limits. She also encouraged the City Council to consider putting stop signs along Gary Avenue and Ellis Avenue in this area to slow down traffic. IV. Residential Street Speed Limits City Manager Dzugan stated as a continuation of a previous City Council discussion about residential street speed limits, Director of Engineering Redman prepared a memo with a proposal for a consultant to perform a speed study. Director of Engineering Redman stated the proposal would provide the City with data citywide at 75 locations with traffic counts and speed data. It would also involve analyzing conditions that could affect speed and safety in the 75 locations to determine the most appropriate speed for the conditions. He stated the consultant would do field work, data collection including accident data, and document physical characteristics. The consultant would provide the City with a report of their findings. 5/8/17 Planning Session 2 City Manager Dzugan stated if the Council would like to go forward with a study, the City would use the results to make a decision, and also implement education and enforcement efforts as well. In response to Council questions on if the Council can reduce residential speed limits to 25 mph without a study, Director of Engineering Redman stated although a study is not required, the City would still have work to do to determine which are residential streets and which are collector streets. He stated numerous studies have shown that signage alone doesn’t significantly affect speed limits, so enforcement would also be a key component. City Manager Dzugan stated the City would need to look at what resources the Wheaton Police Department has available for increased enforcement efforts. In response to a Council question, Director of Engineering Redman stated average traffic volume per day differentiates residential streets versus collector streets. In response to Council questions about enforcement, Police Chief Volpe stated the Police Department currently targets specific areas of concern. With a lower speed limit, the Police Department would need to do a lot of education before implementing additional enforcement. In response to a Council question, Police Chief Volpe stated there are many factors involved when it comes to vehicle accidents. He stated officers are aware of traffic concerns in the areas of Gary, Harrison and Ellis, and they do spend additional resources in this area. Some Council members expressed support for a consultant performing a traffic study. Others asked that City staff consider traffic calming measures such as speed bumps or round-abouts to reduce vehicle speeds. Other Council members expressed interest in adding more sidewalks near elementary schools. Council members also expressed interest in getting more feedback from residents about their traffic concerns. In response to questions about the proposed study, Director of Engineering Redman stated the focus of the proposed study would be speed, and it would give the City additional data on areas of concern. Based on Council feedback, Director of Engineering Redman stated City staff could have the consultant shift the focus of the study to analyze traffic issues, especially on collector streets and areas of concern. City Manager Dzugan stated this is a data-gathering step in the process, and the City is not yet at the point to make a decision on residential speed limits. He stated there will be more 5/8/17 Planning Session 3 opportunities for resident feedback. The Council directed City staff to redefine the scope of a traffic study. V. Marked Crosswalk Policy City Manager Dzugan stated City staff developed a draft policy on marked crosswalks for the Council’s consideration. This is so when the City receives resident requests to add a marked crosswalk, the City would have standards in place to guide the process and determine if a crosswalk is warranted. Special Projects Assistant Kowalke outlined the definition of a crosswalk and the different types. Defined crosswalks can be controlled or uncontrolled, based on whether there is a traffic stopping device at the location. He outlined conditions that can make a crossing more dangerous, such as placing a crosswalk in a location with higher traffic counts or posted speed limits of 40 mph or greater. In the proposed policy, staff suggests controlled locations should continue to be decided by the Engineering Department’s judgement, but uncontrolled locations should have an engineering study performed to determine whether a crossing is appropriate. The policy would also require there to be at least 20 people per hour crossing at the spot during peak traffic times, with children and elderly pedestrians carrying an additional weight of 30%. Special Projects Assistant Kowalke stated the policy would require a crossing to be at least 350 feet from another marked crossing. Special Projects Assistant Kowalke reviewed hypothetical situations for how the City would proceed with two different types of requests based on the policy. In response to Council questions, Director of Engineering Redman stated pedestrian counts should be taken when there is most traffic because the gaps between cars is the smallest at this time. In response to Council questions about why some crosswalks were eliminated, Director of Engineering stated these were areas along former school walking routes that have since changed. Some Council members expressed concern with the practice of letting crosswalks that have been eliminated fade over time. The Council directed the City staff to prepare a resolution adopting the policy with minor changes related to eliminating crosswalks. 5/8/17 Planning Session 4 VI. City Council/Staff Comments City Manager Dzugan stated the Wheaton Fire Department brought over two of the City’s new ambulances for the Council’s inspection. The size of the ambulances is smaller than previous models, which yields savings in operating expenses, but with the same high level of service. VII. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:27 p.m. 5/8/17 Planning Session 5  Brandon W. Kowalke Special Projects Assistant To: The Honorable Mayor and City Council cc: Mike Dzugan, City Manager John Duguay, Assistant City Manager Date: MayO4,2017 Re: Marked Crosswalk Policy Background The relationship between marked crosswalks and pedestrian safety is often misunderstood. There is a general assumption that marking a crosswalk makes it safer. However, research has shown that marked crosswalks alone do not usually make a crosswalk safer. Furthermore, marked crosswalks can reduce pedestrian safety at uncontrolled locations (those without traffic signals, stop or yield signs) under certain conditions. At uncontrolled locations, pedestrians must determine when it is safe to cross, as there are fewer breaks in traffic compared to a controlled location. The presence of a marked crosswalk at an uncontrolled location may cause pedestrians to feel safer and attempt a crossing under less optimal conditions. In response to Council and resident interest, Staff has formulated a marked crosswalk policy (Exhibit A) based on current research, policies in other communities and state guidelines. Objective To finalize a marked crosswalk policy setting forth a defined process, set of standards, and engineering analysis parameters to be employed when establishing marked crosswalks, and presented in a document that effectively communicates said process, standards, analysis, and supporting research to the public. Marked Crosswalk Policy Recommendation This policy would require unmarked crosswalks to meet two base requirements to be considered for markings; an initial survey must conclude a minimum of 20 pedestrians traverse the crosswalk per peak traffic hour and that it is at least 350 feet away from the nearest marked crosswalk. Umnarked crosswalks that service a nearby special land use such as an established school walking route, trail, school, library, or public park may have these requirements waived. Crosswalks that meet the base requirements will be evaluated by Staff through engineering judgment or engineering study. Due to safety concerns, uncontrolled locations require an engineering study to analyze roadway conditions. Through this evaluation, Staff will evaluate whether a marked crosswalk will be effective given environniental factors such as the traffic volume, speed, number of lanes, and road geometry. Staff will develop a plan to mark crosswalks that meet the specified requirements. An example scenario using the policy’s “Evaluation Flowchart” can be found in Exhibit B. The attached policy includes references to relevant sections of the Illinois Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Illinois Vehicle Code, and Federal Highway Administration’s study on the safety effects of marked crosswalks. These references fully describe the role of marked crosswalks in the transportation network and how to implement them effectively.  Exhibit A City of Wheaton Marked Crosswalk Policy / /  Table of Contents 1. Introduction . I 1.lPurpose 1 1.2 The Role of Engineering Judgment 1 2. Crosswalk Basics and Definitions 2 2.1 Function of Crosswalks 2 2.2 Unmarked and Marked Crosswalks 2 2.3 Key Definitions 3 3. Regulatory, Guidance and Research Documents 5 3.1 Wheaton City Code 5 3.2 Engineering Guidance Illinois Manual on Unifonn Traffic Control Devices (IL MUTCD) 2014 5 .. 3.3 Research FHWA Study HRT-04-l00, Safety Effects of Marked Versus Unmarked Crosswalks at — Uncontrolled Locations 6 4. Evaluating Unmarked Crosswalks 7 4.1 Overview 7 4.2 Controlled Locations 7 4.3 Uncontrolled Locations 7 4.4 Uncontrolled Location Evaluation Flowchart 10 5. Existing Marked Crosswalks 11 5.1 When Should the City Evaluate Existing 9 Crosswalks 11 5.2 Approach to Evaluation and Enhancement of Existing Crosswalks 11 5.3 Crosswalk Removal 11 References 12 Appendix A: FHWA Study HRT-04-100 Table 11 13 1  1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose The City of Wheaton’s crosswalk policy is meant to guide Staff and residents in the responsible and effective application of marked crosswalks. This document describes the minimum requirements for a crosswalk to be considered for marking at controlled and uncontrolled locations. Additionally, relevant research conducted by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the guidelines set forth by the Illinois Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (IL MUTCD) are summarized here. 1.2 The Role of Engineering Judgment The guidelines set for in this document strive to maintain a reasonable balance between prescriptive requirements, engineering study, and flexibility based on engineering judgment. In some instances, prescriptive requirements alone cannot determine whether a marked crosswalk should be applied. When prescriptive requirements are insufficient, the Director of Engineering or their designee will exercise engineering judgment or conduct an engineering study to determine whether a marked crosswalk can and should be applied. 1  2. CRosswALK BASICS AND DEFINITIONS 2.1 Function of Crosswalks Crosswalks serve as paths across the roadway for pedestrians to cross. In Illinois, crosswalks exist by default at those intersections in which a sidewalk intersects the roadway on one or both sides. Crosswalks can be marked with lines or other markings on the surface of the roadway, becoming marked crosswalks. Marked crosswalks are used to clearly identify the crossing path to pedestrians, to alert road users (in conjunction with signs and other measures) of a designated crossing point, and in the case of a mid-block crossing, to legally establish a crosswalk.’ Any pedestrian in the process of crossing at a marked or unmarked crosswalk has the right-of-way. Pedestrian and vehicular legal responsibilities are the same at both unmarked and marked crosswalks. Pedestrian responsibilities and right-of-way when in a crosswalk further apply to 2 bicyclists utilizing crosswalks . 2.2 Unmarked and Marked Crosswalks Unmarked crosswalks are those in which no crosswalk markings are present; they are the space across the roadway connecting the lateral lines of the sidewalk(s) on either side of the road. Marked crosswalks exist when markings have been applied to previously umnarked crosswalks to define the path across the roadway for pedestrians, guide them to preferred routes, and, in conjunction with signs and other measures, help in alerting motorists of the crosswalk. At uncontrolled locations or intersections, marked crosswalks may lead to an increased feeling of safety, reduced pedestrian awareness of traffic when deciding to cross and increase the likelihood of pedestrianlvehicle conflicts. ‘625 ILCS Section 5/1-113 Crosswalk. (a) That part of a roadway at an intersection included within the — cormections of the lateral lines of the sidewalks on opposite sides of the highway measured from the curbs or, in the absence of curbs, from the edges of the traversable roadway, and in the absence of a sidewalk on one side of the highway, that part of the highway included within the extension of the lateral line of the existing sidewalk to the side of the highway without the sidewalk, with such extension forming a right angle to the centerline of the highway; (b) Any portion of a roadway at an intersection or elsewhere distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by lines or other markings on the surface placed in accordance with the provisions in the Manual adopted by the Department of Transportation as authorized in Section 11-301. 2 625 ILCS Section 5/11-1002.5 Pedestrian’s right-of-way at crosswalks; school zones. (a) When traffic control — signals are not in place or not in operation the driver of a vehicle shall stop and yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within a crosswalk when the pedestrian is upon the half of the roadway upon which the vehicle is traveling, or when the pedestrian is approaching so closely from the opposite half of the roadway as to be in danger. (b) No pedestrian shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a moving vehicle which is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard. (c) Paragraph (a) shall not apply under the condition stated in Section 11-1003 (b). (d) Whenever any vehicle is stopped at a marked crosswalk or at any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection to permit a pedestrian to cross the roadway, the driver of any other vehicle approaching from the rear shall not overtake and pass such stopped vehicle. (e) Whenever stop signs or flashing red signals are in place at an intersection or at a plainly marked crosswalk between intersections, drivers shall yield right-of-way to pedestrians as set forth in Section 11-904 of this Chapter. ‘ 625 ILCS Section 5/11-15 12 Bicycles on Sidewalks. (c) A person propelling a bicycle upon and along a — sidewalk, or across a roadway upon and along a crosswalk, shall have all the rights and duties applicable to a pedestrian under the same circumstances. 2 2.3 Key Definitions The meaning of these words and phrases when used in this document are as follows: Average Daily Traffic (ADT): The average 24-hour volume, being the total volume during a stated period divided by the number of days in that period. Normally, this would be periodic daily traffic volumes over several days, not adjusted for days of the week or seasons of the year. [minimum three days of data] (IL MUTCD, Section 1 A. 13) Controlled Intersection/Location: An intersection or location controlled by either traffic signals or stop signs. (FHWA HRT-04-iOO) Critical Gap: The time in seconds below which a pedestrian will not attempt to begin crossing the street. (NCHRP 562, Appendix A, Table A-i) Crosswalk Lines: White pavement marking lines that identify a crosswalk. (IL MUTCD, Section lA.13) Engineering Judgment: The evaluation of available pertinent information, and the application of appropriate principles, provisions, and practices as contained in this Manual [IL MUTCD] and other sources, for the purpose of deciding upon the applicability, design, operation, or installation of a traffic control device. Engineering judgment shall be exercised by an engineer, or by an individual working under the supervision of an engineer, through the application of procedures and criteria established by the engineer. Documentation of engineering judgment is not required. (IL MUTCD, Section 1A.13) Engineering Study: The comprehensive analysis and evaluation of available pertinent infonnation, and the application of appropriate principles, provisions, and practices as contained in this Manual [IL MUTCD] and other sources, for the purpose of deciding upon the applicability, design, operation, or installation of a traffic control device. An engineering study shall be performed by an engineer, or by an individual working under the supervision of an engineer, through the application of procedures and criteria established by the engineer. An engineering study shall be documented. (IL MUTCD, Section 1A.13) Marked Crosswalk: A crosswalk identified for pedestrian crossing by lines and other markings on the roadway surface Median: The area between two roadways of a divided highway measured from edge of traveled way to edge of traveled way. The median excludes turn lanes. The median width might be different between intersections, interchanges, and at opposite approaches of the same intersection. (IL MUTCD, Section 1A.13) Motorist Compliance: Percent of motorists yielding or stopping for pedestrians. (NCHRP 562, Chapter 6, Table 15, p 33) Multi-Lane: More than one lane moving in the same direction. A multi-lane street, highway, or roadway has a basic cross-section comprised of two or more through lanes in one or both directions. A multi-lane approach has two or more lanes moving toward the intersection, including turning lanes. (IL MUTCD, Section 1A.13) Multiple Threat Crashes: A multiple-threat crash involves a driver stopping in one lane of a multilane road to permit pedestrians to cross, and an oncoming vehicle (in the same direction) strikes the pedestrian who is crossing in front of the stopped vehicle. This crash type involves both the pedestrian and driver failing to see each other in time to avoid the collision. (FHWA, p. 39) 3 Pedestrian: A person on foot, in a wheelchair, on skates, or on a skateboard [or a person propelling a bicycle upon and along a sidewalk or crosswalk]. (IL MUTCD, Section 1A.13) Stop Line: A solid white pavement marking line extending across approach lanes to indicate the point at which a stop is intended or required to be made. (IL MUTCD, Section 1A.13) Traffic Control Device: A sign, signal, marking, or other device used to regulate, warn, or guide traffic, placed on, over, or adjacent to a street, highway, private road open to public travel, pedestrian facility, or shared-use path by authority of a public agency or official having jurisdiction, or, in the case of a private road open to public travel, by authority of the private owner or private official having jurisdiction. (IL MUTCD, Section 1A.13) Traffic Control Signal: Any highway traffic signal by which traffic is alternately directed to stop and permitted to proceed. (IL MUTCD, Section 1A.13) Uncontrolled Intersection/Location: An intersection or location not controlled by a traffic signal or stop sign. Unmarked Crosswalk: A crosswalk with no visible markings inferred to be present at an intersection when a sidewalk intersects the roadway on one or both sides. Yield Line: A row of solid white isosceles triangles pointing toward approaching vehicles extending across approach lanes to indicate the point at which the yield is intended or required to be made. (IL MUTCD, Section 1A.13) 85th Percentile Speed: The speed at or below which 85 percent of the motor vehicles travel. (IL MUTCD, Section 1A.13) 4  3. REGULAToRY, GuIDANcE AND RESEARCH DOCUMENTS 3.1 Wheaton City Code Section 70-65 of the Wheaton City Code directly pertains to crosswalks, identifying staff within the Engineering Department as responsible for the designation and maintenance of crosswalk markings to enhance or address pedestrian safety. 4 3.2 Engineering Guidance Illinois Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (IL MUTCD) 2014 In 2011, Illinois adopted the Federal Highway Administration’s 2009 MUTCD, with amendments outlined in the Illinois Supplement to the National Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, as the official manual for the State of Illinois. The Illinois Vehicle Code mandates that traffic control devices, including marked crosswalks, conform with the specifications outlined in the state manual . The IL MUTCD suggests that engineering judgment is sufficient to determine whether a marked crosswalk can be applied at any location controlled by traffic control signals or by stop or yield 6 The document goes on to suggest that crosswalks should be marked if they are part of signs. school routes where there is substantial conflict between motorists, bicyclists, and student movements. Additionally, the IL MUTCD states that marked crosswalks should not be applied at an uncontrolled location without first conducting an engineering study to determine if appropriate roadway conditions are present. 7 Wheaton City Code Section 70-65 Designation of marked crosswalks; establishment of safely zones. — The city traffic engineer is hereby authorized to: (1) Designate and maintain, by appropriate devices, marks or lines upon the surface of the roadway, crosswalks at intersections where, in his opinion, there is particular danger to pedestrians crossing the roadway, and at such other places as he may deem necessary. (2) Establish safety zones of such kind and character and at such places as he may deem necessary for the protection of pedestrians. 625 ILCS 5/1-154 Official traffic-control devices. All signs, signals, markings, and devices which conform — with the State Manual and not inconsistent with this Act placed or erected by authority of a public body or official having jurisdiction, for the purpose of regulating, warning, or guiding traffic. 6 IL MUTCD Section 3B.18 Crosswalk Markings 07 At locations controlled by traffic control signals or on — approaches controlled by STOP or YIELD signs, crosswalk lines should be installed where engineering judgment indicates they are needed to direct pedestrians to the proper crossing path(s). IL MUTCD Section 7C.02 Crosswalk Markings 01 Crosswalks should be marked at all intersection on — established routes to a school where there is substantial conflict between motorists, bicyclists, and student movements; where students are encouraged to cross between intersections; where students would not otherwise recognize the proper place to cross; or where motorists or bicyclists might not expect students to cross. 02 Crosswalk lines should not be used indiscriminately. An engineering study considering the factors described in Section 3B.18 should be performed before a marked crosswalk is installed at a location away from a traffic control signal or an approach controlled by a STOP or YIELD sign. 5 3.3 Research FHWA Study HRT-04-100, Safety Effects of Marked Versus — Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations The Federal Highway Administration’s study, HRT-04-100, is recognized as one of the most relevant resources for determining appropriate conditions for establishing marked crosswalks at uncontrolled locations. The study analyzed five years of pedestrian crashes at 1,000 marked crosswalks and 1,000 comparable unmarked crosswalks in 30 different U.S cities. Collision rates were compared based on the roadway characteristics of the locations such as quantity of traffic lanes, traffic speed, and traffic volumes. This study collected information on each of the 2,000 locations regarding: an average of 5 years of pedestrian crash history, daily pedestrian volume estimates, ADT volume, number of lanes present, speed limit, area type, type of median, type and condition of crosswalk marking patterns, location type, and other site characteristics. The following are key findings from the study. • 2-lane roads showed no significant difference in pedestrian crashes between marked and unmarked crosswalk locations. • Multi-lane roads with ADT 12,000 or less showed no differences in pedestrian crash rates between marked and unmarked crosswalk sites. • Multi-lane roads with ADT above 12,000 and no raised median showed marked crosswalks had higher pedestrian crash rates than unmarked crosswalks. • Multi-lane roads with ADT above 15,000 and with raised medians showed marked crosswalks had significantly higher pedestrian crash rates than unmarked crosswalks. • The presence of a raised median or raised crossing island was associated with a significantly lower pedestrian crash rate at multi-lane sites with either marked or unmarked crosswalks. • Multi-lane roads with un-raised, painted medians and center two-way left-turn lanes did not offer significant safety benefits to pedestrians, compared to multi-lane roads with no median at all. • The following variables had no significant effects on pedestrian crash rates. o Area type: residential or central business district. o Mid-block versus intersection location. o Speed limit: 93% of the study sites had speed limits between 25 & 35 mph. The analysis did show that speed limits of 3 5mph and higher were associated with a higher percentage of fatal, serious, or incapacitating injuries compared to sites with lower speed limits. o One-way vs. two-way road location. o Crosswalk condition and crosswalk pattern. • Multiple threat crashes (where one vehicle stops for the pedestrian but a driver in the adjacent lane does not stop for the pedestrian) constituted 17.6 percent of pedestrian crashes in marked crosswalks. None occurred in unmarked crosswalks. The primary objective of this study was to determine if marked crosswalks at uncontrolled locations are safer than unmarked crosswalks under various roadway and traffic conditions. The study concluded that marked crosswalks alone are not enough to increase pedestrian safety at uncontrolled locations and in some instances, correlated with an increase in pedestrian crashes. Appendix A contains a table from HRT-04- 100 with suggestions for marked crosswalk application at uncontrolled locations based on factors such as the number of lanes, presence of a median, vehicle ADT, and speed limit. 6  4. EvALuATING UNMARKED CROSSWALKS 4.1 Overview This section details the criteria for identifying and evaluating potential marked crosswalk locations. Factors that influence ideal crossing locations for pedestrians include functions of the roadway network, such as transit stops, and nearby land uses such as the presence of a school, trail, or park. The peak volume of pedestrians and a crosswalk’s proximity to existing marked crosswalks should also be considered. When candidate locations are identified, engineering judgment or study will be used to determine if the application of a marked crosswalk is appropriate. Given that pedestrians are the least protected group of road users, at the highest risk of injury, marked crosswalks should only be applied when conducive to pedestrian safety. 4.2 Controlled Locations An unmarked crosswalk at a controlled location will be evaluated by the Director of Engineering or their designee. Staff will evaluate the site and deterniine if a marked crosswalk is needed using engineering judgment. 8 Staff will then develop and implement a plan to apply a marked crosswalk and, if necessary, supplemental traffic controls. Controlled locations do not require an engineering study as the presence of traffic signals, and stop or yield signs provide natural breaks in the flow of traffic for pedestrians to cross, lessening the risk of pedestrianlvehicle conflicts. 4.3 Uncontrolled Locations Due to the lack of traffic signals or stop signs at uncontrolled locations, unmarked crosswalks at an uncontrolled location must be thoroughly inspected prior to the application of a marked crosswalk. Unless servicing a special land use, these locations should meet base levels of pedestrian demand and be a sufficient distance from the nearest marked crosswalk. 4.3.1 Base Requirements for Evaluation An unmarked, uncontrolled crosswalk that directly services or is adjacent to a special land use including but not limited to designated school routes, schools, trails, libraries, or public parks may have the base requirements waived. The two base requirements for evaluation are as follows: 1. Pedestrian Demand: Pedestrian volume at the crosswalk shall exceed 20 pedestrians per peak hour or 15 or more elderly pedestrians and children per peak hour. (Equivalent units 8 IL MUTCD Section 3B.18.07 Crosswalk Markings, At locations controlled by traffic control signals or on — approaches controlled by STOP or YIELD signs, crosswalk lines should be installed where engineering judgment indicates they are needed to direct pedestrians to the proper crossing path(s). 7  can be used to represent elderly pedestrians and children as follows: 1 elderly pedestrian and/or child = 1.33 pedestrians). 9 2. Distance to Nearest Marked Crosswalk: The crosswalk shall be 350 feet or more from I the nearest marked If the analysis of a candidate location determines these requirements are not met, Staff may waive these requirements to address special circumstances such as pedestrian volume higher than the minimum requirement, a lack of nearby marked crosswalks, adjacent land use, or the need to channelize pedestrians toward preferred path(s). If the base requirements are met or waived, the crosswalk will be evaluated by the Director of Engineering or their designee to determine if the application of a marked crosswalk is appropriate given the location’s conditions. 4.3.2 Evaluation of Uncontrolled Locations An engineering study must be conducted prior to the installation of a marked crosswalk at an uncontrolled location. An uncontrolled location is any intersection or mid-block crossing not controlled by traffic signals or stop and yield signs. An engineering study will analyze traffic variables and road characteristics such as those described in Section 433)2 The Director of Engineering or their designee will use the findings of the study to determine if a marked crosswalk alone is an appropriate traffic control for the location or if supplemental traffic control devices or measures would be required. If a marked crosswalk can be installed without any supplemental device or measures, Staff will develop and implement a plan to apply a marked crosswalk at the location. FHWA HRT-04-100 (p.55) While overuse of marked crossings at uncontrolled locations should be avoided, — higher priority should be placed on providing crosswalk markings where pedestrian volume exceeds about 20 per peak hour (15 or more elderly pedestrians and / or children per peak hour). ‘° FHWA HRT-04-100 (p.60) Marked crosswalks should not be installed in close proximity to signalized — intersections (which may or may not have marked crosswalks); instead, pedestrians should be encouraged to cross at the signal in most situations. The minimum distance from a signal for installing a marked crosswalk should be determined by local traffic engineers based on pedestrian crossing demand, type of roadway, traffic volume, and other factors. The objective of adding a marked crosswalk is to channel pedestrians to safer crossing points, It should be understood, however, that pedestrian crossing behavior may be difficult to control merely by adding marked crosswalks. The new marked crosswalk should not unduly restrict platooned traffic. “FHWA HRT-04-100 (p.60)— The spacing of marked crosswalks should be considered so that they are not placed too close together. Overuse of marked crosswalks may breed driver disrespect for them, and a more conservative use of crosswalks generally is preferred. 12 IL MUTCD Section 3B.18.08 Crosswalk Markings, Crosswalk lines should not be used indiscriminately. An — engineering study should be performed before a marked crosswalk is installed at a location away from a traffic control signal or an approach controlled by a STOP or YIELD sign. The engineering study should consider the number of lanes, the presence of a median, the distance from adjacent signalized intersections, the pedestrian volumes and delays, the average daily traffic (ADT), the posted or statutory speed limit or 85th-percentile speed, the geometry of the location, the possible consolidation of multiple crossing points, the availability of street lighting, and other appropriate factors. 8 If the installation of a marked crosswalk requires supplemental traffic control devices or measures, the Director of Engineering or their designee will reject or approve the project based on the net increase to pedestrian safety and the practicality of improvements given site conditions. Uncontrolled locations that service a special land use can be prioritized for project approval. 4.3.3 Engineering Study An engineering study requires site review or data collection by Staff or a contracted engineering firm that collects and evaluates information on factors such 13 • Pedestrian volume and delays. • Distance from signalized intersections and other marked crosswalks. • Sight distances & obstructions. • Physical characteristics/road geometry. a. Lane configuration. b. The presence of a median, street lights, sidewalks, curb ramps, driveways, elevation changes, drain inlets, and any other pertinent details. c. Current pedestrian-related improvements (signs, markings, or traffic devices). • Traffic conditions. a. Posted Speed Limit. b. 85th percentile speed study. c. Average daily traffic study (minimum three days of data) 13 FHWA HRT-04-100 (p.54)— Marked crosswalks must be installed carefully and selectively. Before installing new marked crosswalks, an engineering study is needed to determine whether the location is suitable for a marked crosswalk. For an engineering study, a site review may be sufficient at some locations, while a more indepth study of pedestrian volume, vehicle speed, sight distance. vehicle mix, and other factors may be needed at other sites. 9 4.4 Uncontrolled Location Evaluation Flowchart Phase 1: Base Requirements # of pedestrians crossing Will the pedestrian demand Is a special land use waiver per peak hour: 20 requirement be waived? granted? (Sec 4.3.1) No pedestrians (Sec 4.3.1) No (Sec. 4.3.1) No Yes[....._.__ y____J Yes - , Will the distance Is the location > 3)0 from requirement be waived? —s the nearest crossing? No (Sec. 4.3.1) No Yes Base requirements met, Location does not qualify continue to evaluation. for further evaluation. Phase 2: Site Evaluation Conduct an engineering study to fully evaluate site conditions. (Sec 4.3.3) Is the location suitable for a marked crosswalk without Yes additional traffic control devices or measures? No Are the requisite traffic control devices or measures feasible Yes based on site conditions, project scope etc.? No Is the location prioritized Develop, and implement a because it services a special ..--....__ __.._ ..._..Y_ plan to apply a marked land use? (Sec. 4.3.1) crosswalk. No Do not apply a marked crosswalk. 10  5. ExIsTING MARKED CROSSWALKS This section addresses the evaluation of existing marked crosswalks. Specifically providing guidance as to when the city should evaluate existing marked crosswalks, how to evaluate existing marked crosswalks, and determine if an existing marked crosswalk should be removed. This document does not suggest that all existing marked crosswalks need to be or should be evaluated to verify compliance with new guidelines. This is best described by Caltrans’ HDM chapter 80 ‘Application of Design Standards’, Topic 82: Application of Standards. .Because design standards have evolved over many years, many existing highways do not conform fully to current standards. It is not intended that current manual standards be applied retroactively to all existing State highways; such is neither warranted nor economically feasible. However, when warranted, upgrading of existing roadway features ...should be considered, either as independent projects or as part of larger 14 projects. 5.1 When Should the City Evaluate Existing Crosswalks? These guidelines recognize that some existing marked crosswalks and associated traffic control devices may not comply with this document. The City will not evaluate all existing uncontrolled marked crosswalk to check compliance. However, as a proactive safety measure, it is recommended to consider evaluating and enhancing (if feasible) existing marked crosswalks in conjunction with other projects or response to safety issues: • As part of a project involving a change in land use (e.g., school closure, school walking routes, development project, etc.). • As part of a project involving a change in roadway characteristics (e.g., roadway widening, lane reduction, etc.). • As part of a roadway resurfacing project. • Based on pedestrian safety related concerns identified during any traffic investigation. 5.2 Approach to Evaluation and Enhancement of Existing Crosswalks The Director of Engineering or their designee will evaluate existing marked crosswalks as needed using the guidance presented in Section 4. If it is deterrriined the marked crosswalk is not sufficient alone, supplemental improvements will be considered. If the supplemental improvements are infeasible, crosswalk removal may be proposed. 5.3 Crosswalk Removal Although it may be necessary to remove a marked crosswalk, it is important to note that a crosswalk will still exist. The removal of the marked crosswalk does not prevent pedestrians from crossing the street at the location unless pedestrian crossing is specifically prohibited. ‘ Highway Design Manual California Department of Transportation. Available online at - http: “www.dot.ca.gov/hq/oppdihdni/hdmtoc.h 11  REFERENCES 1. Illinois Vehicle Code: 625 ILCS 5/, Illinois Compiled Statutes, Springfield Ii, August 2016. Available online at http://www.i1a.gov/legis1ation11LCS/ilcs3.asp?ActID=l 81 5&ChapterlD=49#top 2. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways 2009 Edition, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, 2009. Available online at http ://mutcd. fhwa.dot. gov/ 3. Wheaton City Code, City of Wheaton, II, March 2016. Available online at: https ://www.municode.com/library/il/wheaton!codes/code of ordinances 4. Zegeer, C., Stewart, J., and Huang, H., Safety Effects ofMarked veiiis Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations: Final Report and Recommended Guidelines, Report No. FHWA—HRT—04—100, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, September 2005. 5. Highway Design Manual. California Department of Transportation. Available online at http ://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/oppd/hdrn/hdrntoc.htrn. APPENDIX A: FHWA STUDY HRT-04-100 TABLE 11 54 13  Exhibit B Marked Crosswalk Policy Examples Seminary Ave. & Cross St. 1. A resident submits a request to the City for a marked crosswalk on Seminary StoUect initial Ave at N Cross St going north to south. Given that this path is across an - site data - uncontrolled leg of the intersection, the location is considered uncontrolled, and staff will evaluate it using the flowchart found in section 4.4. - 2. Given that this crossing services and is adjacent to the Wheaton Public Library, staff conclude the location qualifies for a special use a pecal land ue waiver waiver. This waiver means the location does not need to meet the granted? (Sec 4.3.1) base requirements for a pedestrian volume count or minimum distance from the nearest marked/treated crosswalk. 3. An uncontrolled location requires an engineering study prior to Conduct an enineenu tudv implementing a marked crosswalk. For this location, Staff find a to fuUv evaluate site site review of the following factors will be sufficient: conditions. (Sec .3.3) • Distance from signalized intersections and other crosswalks • Sight distances/obstructions for pedestrianlmotorists • Average daily traffic 4. Upon completion of the engineering study, Staff conclude the I th location suitable for a location is suitable for a marked crosswalk with traffic control marked aowa1k without devices. Pedestrian crossing warning signs are recommended to additional irafic conirol devices cr improve motorist awareness of potential pedestrian crossing conflict. Crosswalk placement is recommended for the east side of the intersection to minimize the effect of vehicle parking on sight distances and to center the crosswalk as much as possible between Main St. and Scott St. ?e the reçtstte triffi: :otf ol 5. Staff finds the project to be feasible based on site conditions and bised O1 site O1tttOS. will develop and implement a plan to apply the marked crosswalk vote:rs:oDeet:. at N Cross St and Seminary Aye, north to south, on the east side of the intersection. Develop, aridiniplementa planto appivamarked croiwalk. Harrison St. & Wheaton Ave. 1. The intersection of Harrison St & Wheaton Ave previously has a marked crosswalk going north to south on the west side of the intersection. This leg of the intersection is uncontrolled and was previously part of a designated untal school walking route. In 2014, the marked crosswalk on the east side of the — Harrison & West intersection replaced the Harrison & Wheaton crosswalk in the designated school walking route. Questions have arisen regarding whether the crosswalk at Wheaton Ave should still be marked given it no longer serves a special land use per section 4.3.1. Staff will evaluate the crosswalk using the flowchart found in section 4.4. 2. Staff verify the location no longer qualifies for a special land use is a special Land ue waiver waiver. granted? (Sec 4.3.1) 3. Staff count pedestrians between 7:50 AM and 8:50 AM on March 30, 2017 and 7:20AM and 7:50AM on May 1, 2017. Pedestrian perpeakhDur:20 volume per peak hour was 5 and 4.66 respectively. These volumes pedestrtans (Sec .4 i.1) are below 20 per hour and not meet the base requirements for marking the crosswalk. 4. Staff do not find sufficient justification to waive the pedestrian Will the pedestrian demand demand requirement, requirement be waived? (Sec. 4.3.1) 5. Staff determine that the location does not qualify for further investigation into applying a marked crosswalk. Given that this location currently has a marked crosswalk, Staff recommend the Ii ( Location does not qualify for I turthi.r e ciluation. . removal of existing markings or not replacing the markings after they have faded or been removed due to routine roadwork. ‘3/30’17 Pedestrian Volume Count: 5 Pedestrians use the crossing. 5 adults. 4 going Southbound and 1 Northbound 5/01/17 Pedestrian Volume Count: 2 Pedestrians use the crossing. 1 child and 1 adult Southbound.  MEMORANDUM TO: Record FROM: Susan Bishel, Public Relations Coordinator SUBJECT: April 24, 2017 City Council Planning Session Minutes DATE: April 25, 2017 CC: Mayor and City Council, City Manager, City Clerk, Department Heads The Planning Session took place in the Council Chambers, Wheaton City Hall, 303 W. Wesley St., Wheaton, Illinois. Those attending the Planning Session included: Mayor Gresk, Councilwoman Fitch, Councilman Prendiville, Councilman Rutledge, Councilman Saline, Councilman Scalzo and Councilman Suess. Also in attendance were City Manager Dzugan, Assistant City Maager Duguay, Director of Planning & Economic Development Kozik, Director of Finance Lehnhardt, Director of Engineering Redman, Senior Project Engineer Lagvankar and Public Relations Coordinator Bishel. The session began at 7:00 p.m. and concluded at 7. p.m. The following items were discussed: I. Call to Order The Wheaton City Council Planning Session was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Gresk. II. Approval of Minutes — April 10 The Council approved the April 10, 2017 Planning Session Minutes. III. Public Comment There were no publiccomments. . —. IV. Downtown Streetscape Status Update Assistant City Manager Duguay stated we have reached the first established checkpoint in Phase 1 of the Downtown Streetscape project, and representatives from Design Workshop, Primera Engineering and CCS International will review the schematic designs for Front Street from West to Cross streets. The City held a public meeting in early April to review the schematic design and solicit feedback from the downtown business community. Assistant City Manager Duguay stated attendees expressed questions or concerns regarding the proposed design’s narrowing of the segment of Front street between Hale and Main streets, availability of parking, and continuity of business during construction. Jon Brooke of Design Workshop reviewed the project goals, which include providing greater amenity value for the downtown streetscape. He stated the project would improve the downtown by making sidewalks and crossings ADA-compliant; provide wider sidewalks to give businesses areas for outdoor seating and other features; reduce the length of crosswalks for pedestrians; provide an improved tree canopy; improve downtown infrastructure and lighting; and provide updated wayfinding. He stated the project plan as presented had a net increase of parking spaces, as some parking would be reconfigured. In the segment of Front Street from West to Wheaton, Mr. Brooke showed the schematic design, which would maintain two lanes of traffic, change angled parking to parallel parking spaces, and increase the sidewalk width and tree canopy. In response to Council questions, Mr. Brooke stated one of the driveways to a former gas station property would be closed, but even if the property were redeveloped, there is another access point to the parking lot. Mr. Brooke stated based on business owners’ feedback, the plan was revised to maintain driveway access for Carlson’s Glass and Holstein’s Garage. A In response to Council questions, Mr. Brooke stated parallel parking spaces would be 2 feet longer than the City of Chicago’s average parking space measurements, which would allow drivers to park more easily. Mr. Brooke outlined where the ADA-compliant parking spaces would be located. Mr. Brooke reviewed the schematic design for Front Street between Wheaton Avenue and Hale, which increases the sidewalk width and changes parking from angled to parallel parking spaces to accommodate wider sidewalks. For the block of Front Street from Hale to Main streets, Mr. Brooke reviewed the existing conditions, including angled parking that is not striped and a significant grade change that creates accessibility issues Due to the grade, the project has been revised to regrade the area and make it ADA-comliant. The original plan was also revised to provide a wider driving lane, and there will be a retaining wall or guard rail between the sidewalk and street on the south side of this block because the street would be higher than the sidewalk. In response to Council questions about how trains would affect altered traffic lane configurations, Chad Dillavou of Primera Engineering said the team had studied traffic patterns based on information provided by the City’s Engineering Department, but not specifically traffic patterns during/after a train. He stated the team will look into this. 4/24/17 Planning Session 2 Mr. Brooke stated there are two proposed schematic designs for the area of Martin Plaza, as the fountains are at the end of their useful life and need replacing. Either the plaza could remain in the same location and be renovated, or the roadway could be configured to move the plaza to the north side of Front Street, closer to local businesses and farther from the train tracks. The design of the plaza was not part of the original project but could be made into a gathering area with decorative lighting and flush curbs. For the Front Street segment between Main and Cross, Mr. Brooke stated the schematic design proposes replacing angled parking on the south side of the street with parallel parking, which would allow for wider sidewalks. The number of ADA parking spaces would comply with federal requirements. Mr. Brooke reviewed the soil strategy and use of permeable payers around trees, which would allow for a greater tree canopy and better growing conditions than what exists currently. Marc Rogers with CCS International provided an overview of the projected costs for Phase 1 of the project. Some portions of the project are estimated to be higher than originally planned due to the need to regrade part of Front Street and additional work to make intersections and some parking spaces ADA-compliant. In response to Council questions, Mr. Rogers stated relocating the plaza would cost approximately $170,000 more than renovating it in its current location. In response to a Council question about the use of materials around trees, Sara Egan stated while there would be permeable payers around the trees, the design would maintain a 6-foot accessible walking path adjacent to the payers to ensure accessibility for wheelchairs. In response to questions about the amount of trees the plan proposes planting, Mr. Brooke stated the ’pro 3osed number of trees is necessary to increase the tree canopy. However, the number of trees is not significantly contributing to costs because the structure for the soil will run the entire length of the’block, and reducing the amount of trees would not provide significant savings. Assistant City Manager Duguay stated in the next couple months City staff will be working with the project team on value engineering to determine the most cost-effective improvements. City Manager Dzugan stated at the next checkpoint, which will be in June, staff will also have additional information about funding options for this project. V. City Council/Staff Comments There were no City Council/staff comments. 4/24/17 Planning Session 3 VII. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 7:58 p.m. 4/24/17 Planning Session 4