Milwaukee Avenue Corridor Committee

MILWAUKEE AVENUE CORRIDOR COMMITTEE JULY 9, 2018 MEETING SUMMARY CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Co-Chair McCreery at 10:09 a.m. ATTENDANCE The following Committee members were in attendance:  Danette Matyas, Village Trustee  Denise McCreery, Village Trustee  Ross Klicker, Economic Development Coordinator  Bob Pilat, Admin. Asst. to Director of Public Services  Tom Powers, Village Engineer  Bruce Sylvester, Senior Planner Others in attendance were:  Fred Braun, Director of Public Works  Tim O’Brien, Civil Engineer II  Anthony Bryant, ESI Consultants, Ltd.  Catt Eicher, Design Perspectives  Shannon Nestorowicz, ESI Consultants, Ltd.  Jon Rubue, Design Perspectives APPROVAL OF MEETING SUMMARY A motion was made by Ross Klicker, seconded by Bruce Sylvester, to approve the March 8, 2018 meeting summary notes. The motion carried unanimously. STREETSCAPE PROJECT UPDATE - ITEP V Bob Pilat provided some background on the ITEP programs. The Village’s first ITEP award in 2006 completed Phase I engineering on Milwaukee from Albion to Monroe, and a project construction area from Albion to Neva based upon the available funding. Completion of the Phase I also helped define future project applications, and lead to additional ITEP awards. ESI Consultants was hired to complete the Phase I engineering and is here today to discuss their report before submitting it to IDOT for approval. Page 1 of 6 Anthony Bryant from ESI Consultants introduced himself and the other team members at the meeting to make the presentation concerning the ITEP V Phase I. Mr. Bryant gave a brief overview of the engineering work completed to date. He stated of the 100 sidewalk ramps in the area, 48 are not in compliance and would need to be brought into compliance to use federal funding for projects in the area. Trustee McCreery asked why they would not be in compliance as many have been updated in recent years by IDOT when they resurfaced the street. Mr. Bryant stated the new standards are detailed and construction crews making repairs may have not followed the exact requirements when they replaced the sidewalk squares by intersections. Mr. Bryant said they identified two separate zones in the project area: a commercial zone and a residential zone. In the residential zone they noted some elements that could be constructed include decorative crosswalks and installation of bioswales. In the commercial zone, Shannon Nestorowicz stated one of the items they identified was redundant entrances at businesses, with some having four entrances/exits in a short distance. They would look to consolidate these entrances/exits. Ms. Nestorowicz also mentioned they took into account PACE’s plans in the area and have integrated these items into the plan, specifically the PULSE location at Main & Milwaukee and at Dempster & Milwaukee. Jon Rubue from Design Perspectives then presented various landscape and hardscape design options they developed for the project area. Items included in the various options are as follows: Residential Concept A  Sidewalks on both sides of the street  Curvilinear carriage walk with varying widths.  Street trees  Lawn  No curbed planters Residential Concept B  Sidewalks on both sides of the street  Continuous 24” carriage walk where existing walk is present  Street trees  Irrigated shrub and perennials  Lawn Tom Powers mentioned under Concept A the landscape maintenance cost shown on the slide would not be present since it is grass only and residents maintain grass. It was Page 2 of 6 discussed the Village only maintains areas with specialized landscaping that is installed as part of a streetscape project. Bruce Sylvester asked whether or not the Village considers carriage walks good or bad. Tom Powers responded that we do not maintain carriage walks. Fred Braun mentioned we do replace them if we damage them during a utility repair. There was general discussion concerning carriage walks and whether or not the Village should have them installed as part of the project. No final recommendation was reached at the time. A slide was shown of parkway gravel patches along Milwaukee Avenue residents use to park or perform a three-point turn. Turf reinforcement mats were shown as a more attractive option. There was general discussion concerning past practice and legality of parking in the parkway area. No final recommendation was reached at the time. Improvements for the cemetery zone were discussed and could include: Cemetery Zone Concept A  Canopy trees and lawn along the right of way  Enhance cemetery entrance Cemetery Zone Concept B  Canopy trees, landscape beds and lawn along the right of way  Enhance cemetery entrance Fred Braun discussed a past issue of trees planted by the Village along Cumberland Avenue that did not allow the cemetery to use their equipment to mow the grass. He reiterated the importance of making certain any improvements did not impact the cemetery’s ability to perform their maintenance. The commercial zone, which is the area from Dempster Street to Greenwood Avenue was discussed next. Possible improvements were discussed and could include: Commercial Concept A  Seven foot sidewalks on both sides including a 24” carriage walk and a 60” sidewalk  Landscaping including trees, shrubs and perennials and lawn  Meandering sidewalk along Golf Mill Mall Commercial Concept B  Provides curvilinear carriage walk  Raised landscape planters  Streetscape elements in “pockets” along route  Planter curb and tree buffer Page 3 of 6   Landscaping includes street trees, shrubs, perennials and lawns With the additional items the cost for maintenance in Concept B is greater. The discussion then was focused on major intersections within the project area to receive additional improvements. The specific locations are:  Dempster and Milwaukee  Historical Museum  Church (Golf Mill Park) and Milwaukee  Greenwood and Milwaukee For Dempster and Milwaukee, Concept A was an option to provide minimal hardscape improvements and a landscape buffer. Concept B created a plaza area between the PULSE stations, flexible/shaded hardscape for gathering areas, shade trees and ornamental landscaping. Trustee McCreery asked if all of these improvements are within the right of way. Mr. Bryant explained we may need to acquire easements for this intersection. At the Historical Museum, site redesign of the front area was suggested. There was general discussion how ownership issues need to be addressed prior to any project moving forward. Concept A was a classic garden design, Concept B was a plaza design with open areas, and Concept C was a contemporary modern plaza design. Trustee McCreery asked about the costs of the projects. At this time the consultant stated they do not have detailed costs, but do have a magnitude of cost. Design Perspectives will work with ESI to develop more refined cost estimates. Possible improvements to the intersection of Church and Milwaukee were discussed. Specifically, the need to complete the sidewalk connection between Golf Mill Park and the Milwaukee intersection was discussed, along with possible seating areas at the intersection. As the sidewalk may be out of an ITEP project area, other funding sources may be needed. Lastly, different concepts for the North Gateway (Milwaukee and Greenwood) area were discussed. Concept A was a new entrance monument with minimal additional hardscape and low plantings. Concept B was a new monument with hardscape and landscape improvements including small seating areas but not a large gathering space. Concept C was a new monument with a large flexible plaza space and landscape improvements. Right of way acquisition would be needed with concepts B and C. There was general discussion the Committee did not feel this was an area appropriate for a plaza type development as there is limited pedestrian traffic. Page 4 of 6 The Committee discussed the next step to move the project forward. Mr. Bryant said they would like to obtain the Committee’s approval of the various concepts, such as zone areas, and narrowing down of the improvements the Committee supports, such as plaza options. ESI will prepare a checklist of items for the Committee to discuss and vote on at the next Milwaukee Corridor Committee meeting. Following the narrowing down of the preferred project options, an open house would be held to discuss with impacted residents and businesses. ESI and Design Perspective representatives left the meeting at this time. BRICK PAVER MATERIALS Bob Pilat introduced the next topic of the brick paver crosswalks. As you are aware, the brick paver crosswalks along Milwaukee Avenue are in need of repair. Plans were submitted to IDOT for repair and in one of their responses they said: IDOT Reference Number 016-79207 involves brick paver crosswalk removal and replacement at the intersections of IL 21 at Howard Street and Milwaukee Avenue at Waukegan Road. These brick paver crosswalks were installed approximately eight (8) years ago through a Bureau of Local Roads and Streets project. After review by the Department’s Bureau of Traffic and Bureau of Programming, a letter dated April 24, 2018 was sent to the Village’s consulting engineering firm, Baxter & Woodman, indicating brick paver crosswalks are not allowed through permit projects; however, stamped concrete crosswalks are a feasible alternative. The Department has dealt with brick paver crosswalks in other communities within District One and has always cited concerns about future maintenance with the use of pavers. Brick paver crosswalks were allowed under permit in a different municipality a number of years ago as a trial and, because of constant (at least once a year) maintenance, the remaining mainline crosswalks that were installed thereafter as a part of an IDOT Contract were constructed with stamped concrete. Additionally, at that same location some of the brick pavers within the crosswalks became dislodged from ground presenting a potential safety hazard to the motoring public as well as to pedestrians. It was discussed the Village can either try to have IDOT change their mind and allow us to maintain brick paver crosswalks, or use alternative materials for repairs. Tim O’Brien discussed his report explaining various alternatives to brick paver construction including:  Concrete Pavers  Stamped Concrete  Stamped Asphalt  Thermoplastic Inlay/Overlay  Polymer Resin Overlay Page 5 of 6 The prepared report (a copy which is attached) detailed the pros and cons of each type of construction. After discussion it was decided to have vendors make a presentation for Thermoplastic Inlay/Overlay and Stamped Asphalt at the next Committee meeting. OLD BUSINESS Trustee McCreery discussed ITEP VI, which is the improvement on east side of Milwaukee from Howard to Jonquil. Specifically, she was concerned with the cost of installed permeable brick pavers in the center parking area for this improvement if it will be removed in the not too distant future due to redevelopment of the project area. It was mentioned the brick pavers in this area was not designed to create a plaza area, but to enhance the area and help reduce the storm water impact. No action was taken on the issue at this time. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 12:10 p.m. The next meeting was set for Monday, August 6th at 10:00 a.m. Page 6 of 6