Naperville Transportation Advisory Board met Saturday, July 9.
Here are the minutes as provided by Naperville:
NAPERVILLE TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD DRAFT MINUTES OF JULY 9, 2016
Call to Order 8:00 a.m.
A. Roll Call Present: Amberg, Benson, Fischer, Floegel, Gustin, Haddad, Montgomery, Preissig Absent: DiGiovine-Gehrs, McIntosh, Smith Staff Present: Andy Hynes, Deputy City Engineer Jennifer Louden, Deputy Director of TED Derek Zook, Police Sergeant
B. Minutes Approval of the June 4, 2016 Transportation Advisory Board Meeting Minutes Transportation Advisory Board Questions/Discussion: None Approve the minutes from the June 4, 2016 Transportation Advisory Board meeting. Motion by: Montgomery Second by: Benson Approved (8 to 0)
C. Public Forum None
D. Old Business None
E. Public Hearings None
F. Reports and Recommendations
F1. Police Department Report Sergeant Zook reported that the Police Department is partnering with the Park District to issue bike safety “citations”, which is a coupon for free ice cream at the Riverwalk Café for practicing bike safety. The Police Department has been working with TED and residents in Cress Creek regarding speeding, tailgating and distracted driving complaints. Targeted enforcement efforts have continued in the north downtown residential area since the June meeting. Since the last meeting the police have issued 9 failure to stop or yield citations at Franklin and Webster. Three accidents have occurred – one at Porter and Main, one at Benton and Webster and one at Franklin and Webster. Transportation Advisory Board Questions/Discussion: Amberg • Commended the Police Department for their efforts at Rifest.
F2. Recommendation to Establish a Valet Parking Transfer Zone for Empire Restaurant on Chicago Avenue Louden provided a summary of the recommendation to establish a valet parking transfer zone on Chicago Avenue. Silver Crown Valet submitted a valet parking permit application on behalf of Empire Restaurant, located at 48 W. Chicago Avenue. Empire intends to offer valet service seven days per week beginning at 5 p.m. Transportation and Police staff reviewed the current parking regulations and operations along the block and recommend that the proposed valet transfer zone be located at on the south side of Chicago within the two parallel parking spaces just east of Main Street. These spaces are currently designated as a multiuse loading zone and will continue to serve as such during non-valet hours. Staff reviewed this with the Downtown Naperville Alliance and they support the recommendation. Notification of the proposed zone was sent to all property owners. Staff received a concern from one owner who prefers that the Sullivan’s zone be shared or if it is to be located on the south side that it be placed in the middle of the block. Staff did consider both of these options. We discussed the possibility of using Sullivan’s with the operator and he indicated that Empire wishes to have one on the south side. We also looked at locating the transfer zone further east, however we decided on the west end to minimize conflicts with the cab stand operations that occur at night.
Public Comment: None
Transportation Advisory Board Questions/Discussion:
Benson • Noted that the area is very congested and valet activity can add to the congestion. Asked how this was considered in reviewing this location. Louden responded that this was considered in the review by both Police and Transportation staff and the location at the end of the block was chosen to minimize conflict between the cabstand and valet operations to alleviate congestion. • Asked if it is optimal to have two valet transfer zones at the intersection of Main and Washington. Louden responded that the intersection is an all-way stop therefore drivers are aware of what is occurring and the valet operators are cognizant of the need to operate quickly. Having the zone on the south side for Empire visitors may also reduce the amount of vehicles circulating through Chicago. • Asked how vehicles coming from Water Street were considered. Louden responded that the reopening of Water Street was considered. There will be a redistribution of vehicles from Water Street due to the new signal at Webster and Aurora. Vehicles will access Washington from Aurora and not just via Main to Chicago to Washington. Gustin • Proposal accommodates traffic by directing cars to the valet area. Asked what stops the floodgate of every business asking for valet. Louden responded that valet operations are regulated by the code and that only one valet transfer zone per block face can be designated. Should another business want a transfer zone, the operations would have to be coordinated and an existing zone may have to be adjusted. The transfer zones are allowed by permit and are subject to change. • Noted that the permit application states that the lots that will be used are 400 S. Eagle Street (the Municipal Center) and private lots. Asked for clarification on where vehicles will be stored. Louden responded that the code was written to allow visitors to drop their vehicles in front of the businesses and have them taken to less full parking areas. Many cars are currently stored at the Municipal Center deck, which has capacity and is allowed by code. Operators also use private lots. Jim Shanchuk, Silver Crown Valet, noted that he operates the Sullivan’s valet and they use both public garages and private properties, such as Dean’s Clothing Store and the funeral home at 516 S. Washington. Parking is also allowed at the Central Parking Facility, however logistically it is better to use the Municipal Center when serving Main and Chicago. • Asked if the Water Street deck will be used when it is open. Jim Shanchuk noted that there is no agreement to use that deck at this time but if it becomes available will analyze if it makes sense. Generally it is better to have a centralized storage location. • Asked if the Naper Settlement lot is available to be used for valet as a source of revenue. Louden responded that a fee may not be charged because it is City property and it cannot be used for storage as it is not currently designated in the code. • Asked how the usage for valet vehicle storage in the City garages is controlled. Louden responded that by permit and through the code all three garages may be used. The Municipal Center deck is the preferred location because it is less utilized on nights and weekends. There are no usage restrictions; however, if there was a situation where the City expected high usage we could reach out to the operators and ask that they focus on their private contracts for storage. • Noted that the insurance certificate does not list the City as an additional insured. Jim Shanchuk noted that 400 S. Eagle Street will be insured as a lot and the City will be insured. Louden noted that the full certificate is not required until the transfer zone is approved by TAB and City Council. Floegel • Stated that it is a great service for the City. Asked if the zone will be properly staff to avoid back-ups in the intersection. Jim Shanchuk stated that there will be sufficient staff for the operation. Valet was run for a special event at Empire on July 7. The Municipal Center deck was used and operations worked well. Amberg • Asked Jim Shanchuk if he operates the Sullivan’s valet. Jim Shanchuck responded yes. Asked if a patron of Empire or Sullivan’s could use the zone on either side to avoid having to make u-turns. Jim Shanchuk responded yes. Floegel • Asked how patrons will be notified that they can park on either side for both restaurants. Jim Shanchuk noted that they will communicate with the patrons Benson • Asked if a person who is not going to either restaurant can utilize the valet service. Jim Shanchuk noted that their contract is with the restaurant and that those customers are the priority. If they are at capacity, such as during Last Fling, they will not park other users; however, they try to accommodate them as much as possible. They also allow short-term parkers to use the space when possible. Gustin • Asked if the permit needs to specify that it serves both operators and expressed concern about insurance coverage if not correctly identified. Louden responded that this would be discussed with the City Clerk who issues the permit. Benson • Stated that it is not appropriate to allow someone making a short trip to use the valet spaces. This has the potential to back-up other valet services. Jim Shanchuk clarified that they do not allow it when they are busy and that they try to be nice to all patrons. They have not towed anyone from the valet zone. Approve the recommendation to establish a valet parking transfer zone on the south side of Chicago Avenue between Main Street and Washington Street. Motion by: Fischer Second by: Haddad Approved (8 to 0)
F3. Tupelo Avenue Parking Restriction Hynes provided a summary of the recommendation to restrict parking along Tupelo Avenue adjacent to Gartner Park. There is a long standing resident concern regarding park activities drop-off and parking along the roadway. Tupelo Avenue does not have a cul-de-sac therefore drivers use the residents’ driveways to turn around, creating a nuisance for some residents. Gartner Park has a parking lot that is located at the west end of the park and not conveniently located to the eastern fields. The Park District regularly notifies the patrons to not use Tupelo, however this is only effective for short periods of time. As a result, permanent parking restrictions were proposed. Staff issued a survey to the four impacted residences. At the time the TAB recommendation was prepared, staff had received only two survey responses: one in favor of restricting parking on both sides and one in favor of restricting parking on only one side. In accordance with standard practices, staff made the recommendation in accordance with the responses received. Since that time staff has received another response that objects to implementing parking restrictions. Because the restrictions no longer have majority support, staff is withdrawing its positive recommendation to implement restrictions. No action is requested.
Public Comment: Pat Murphy, 504 Tupelo Avenue, Naperville • Mr. Murphy has had a residence/driveway on the south side of Tupelo for over 24 years and is strongly opposed to any proposal that will make it illegal for his family to park in front of their residence at any time. His family consists of himself, his wife and two adult children, all of whom own vehicles and they have to coordinate bringing vehicles in and out based on work schedules. A restriction would place a hardship on him, his family, and any guests that visit his home. He believes that the description of the park activities and associated parking on Tupelo is exaggerated and that only minor issues occur when park district programs are in session, which is about 8% of the time. • Mr. Murphy provided the following statements in response to the prepared report. He does not think that it is inappropriate for park users to park at this location; it is a public street. The lot in the park is far from the east side and can be difficult for older residents and parents with children to walk from. There are not parking restrictions on both sides of Gartner where there is more traffic, therefore there should not be any on Tupelo. Park users have never parked in front of his driveway and mailboxes are not a concern because they are located on the side of the house. Drivers do not park too close to the intersection. Some, not all, of the park users turn around in the driveways, which can be quite rude. While the Park District may have made efforts in the past, the conditions have not changed in 24 years. When you live next to a park, people are going to use the park. He has not witnessed any unsafe maneuvering; drivers are only going 1-2 mph. • He summarized by requesting that restrictions not be implemented in front of his house and noted that it would limit his ability to sell his house at some point in the future.
Robert Jones, 508 Tupelo Avenue, Naperville • Mr. Jones made the request to address the park parking. It is a problem and in the past there have been agreements with the Park District. The parking is full every day of the week. Most people attempt to turn around in his driveway and are very rude. The Police have told him they cannot do anything because there are no signs restricting parking. He would appreciate consideration of the restrictions.
Transportation Advisory Board Questions/Discussion: Gustin • Thanked both residents for attending and speaking. Neighborhood input is very important to provide context on the situation. Noted that staff made the correct decision in withdrawing the recommendation. Asked if there is a problem with parking on Buckeye. Mr. Jones has spoken with the people that live on that street and most people who park there are using the playground. • Asked how the residents’ needs, such as Mr. Murphy’s, would be accommodated if parking was restricted. Mr. Jones noted that parking cannot be used now because people are always parked there. • Asked Mr. Jones how he would feel if the Park District built a parking lot at the end of the street. Mr. Jones responded that it is a City street, not a Park District street. Amberg • Asked Sergeant Zook if Mr. Jones has any options with respect to his driveway. Zook responded that drivers cannot block a driveway or park within 10 feet of a driveway; no signage is required to regulate this. Pulling into a driveway and backing out is allowed. If the motorist drives on the grass or damages property they could be cited for damage to property. • Asked that staff communicate with the Park District about the resident concerns. Louden responded that staff would. Benson • Lives at the end of a dead-end street. Asked Sergeant Zook if cars can be parked across the end of the street, in the roadway, and if cars may park facing the wrong direction on a street. Zook responded that cars could be cited for obstructing the roadway in the first example and that there is an ordinance that prohibits parking against traffic; the right wheels have to be parked against the curb. Floegel • Noted that there are dozens of these situations throughout the City and while he is sympathetic to the residents, we do not want to open this issue in all these areas. • Zook noted that he receives calls on a weekly basis from residents who live near the train station who cannot park on their street due to time restrictions and would like the regulations changed. When the City restricts parking in front of people’s own homes, complaints are made. Amberg • Noted that the Naperville Park District is second to only Chicago in the state in terms of offerings. These issues result from having a great park district.
F4. All-Way Stop at Douglas Avenue and Webster Street Louden provided a summary of the recommendation to install an all-way stop at the intersection of Douglas Avenue and Webster Street. An all-way stop analysis was conducted at this location in spring 2014 but did not meet warrant criteria. Staff has been reviewing this area since the past winter when School District 203 made the decision to move Naper Elementary fifth graders to Washington Junior High beginning with the 2016/2017 school year. Based on observations made prior to the end of last school year and the planned operations for the upcoming year, staff recommends that the intersection be converted to an all-way stop and that the school walk route for Washington Junior High be modified to designate the intersection as a primary crossing.
Public Comment: David Wentz, 720 Clove Tree Court, Naperville • Mr. Wentz stated he is in favor of the proposal and that he made the initial request in 2014. He commends staff for taking action prior to the start of the next school year but noted that further inquiry into the neighborhood is needed. • Mr. Wentz also urged TAB to expand the criteria for all-way stops to include traffic citations.
Transportation Advisory Board Questions/Discussion:
Fischer • Noted that the process allows for human judgement and that he is not opposed to an all-way stop at this location. Asked why a new warrant analysis wasn’t completed to reevaluate the intersection. Louden responded that new data would need to have been collected during the school year for input into the analysis. Staff uses two primary methods for establishing an all-way stop – the warrant analysis and the school walk route. The focus on this location was as a school crossing in order to make the recommendation prior to the start of the next school year. Gustin • Commended staff for moving quickly. The warrant process can be cumbersome. Preissig • Stated that the recommendation should go forward based on engineering judgement despite not meeting the prior warrant analysis. Noted that the all-way stop analysis process is cumbersome because once it is done it cannot be undone; therefore a thorough study is necessary when considering an all-way stop. There are a lot of state and federal laws that motorists are intended to follow and we rely on voluntary compliance because police officers cannot be present at all times. For that reason citations cannot be used as a measure of effectiveness at an intersection. Benson • Noted that the proposal will address the concern but inquired as to longer term what the next steps for studying the neighborhood are. Recommend approval to establish an all-way stop at the intersection of Douglas Avenue and Webster Street. Motion by: Preissig Second by: Gustin Approved (8 to 0)
F5. Establish Traffic-Control Signal Intersections and Rescind Existing Stop Controls Hynes provided an overview of the recommendation, which is an update to the traffic signal section of the code to reflect any traffic signals that have been installed in recent years. The City Council has previously approved the installation of signals at these locations through the Capital Improvement Program, which was based upon meeting the signal warrant criteria in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. The traffic signal schedule must be updated to include these and the stop control schedule must be updated to rescind some locations. Staff is requesting approval of these code revisions to accurately reflect the existing traffic controls. A revised ordinance has been provided to include the signals currently being constructed at Aurora Avenue and Webster Street and Diehl Road and Country Club Boulevard. Staff will not forward the recommendation to City Council until those signals are in operation.
Public Comment: None
Transportation Advisory Board Questions/Discussion: Amberg • City Council has approved these signals. The ordinance needs to be updated. Gustin • Asked for clarification on the use of the word rescind. This sounds like we are changing a prior action an undoing something that was already approved. Hynes confirmed that this is the case because at some locations, before a signal was installed, stop controls were in place. The stop controls need to be removed from the code in addition to adding the location to the signal section of the code. Recommend approval to establish traffic-control signal intersections, rescind one traffic-control signal intersection and rescind existing stop controls at those signalized intersections. Motion by: Montgomery Second by: Benson Approved (8 to 0)
G. Correspondence None
H. New Business Amberg • Presented a certificate of appreciation to Wayne Floegel for his service on the Transportation Advisory Board since 2011. Wayne and his family are moving out of state.
I. Adjournment 9:14 a.m. Motion by: Benson Second by: Fischer Approved (8 to 0)
Alerts Sign-up