The Crestwood Board of Aldermen met on April 14, 2026, at 7:00 PM in the Aldermanic Chambers. The meeting focused on a presentation and discussion of traffic calming options for Liggett Avenue, public comments on sidewalks and traffic safety, approval of a consent agenda, and a presentation on updating the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) policy. The board also received reports from aldermen and the mayor.
All items were approved unanimously via roll call vote.
All right, it looks like it's seven o'clock. I'll call the April 14th, 2026 portal reading to order. If you'd please join me in the Pledge of Ilities. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. And to the Republic for which it stands. We have uh one item, and that is ligand traffic coming engineering. Um, Mr. Faust, you want to introduce this, or should we just uh jump right into it? We're just gonna jump right into Mr. Two. All right, well, I'll invite uh representatives from a CMT, I guess uh John Keevan. Um up, uh, introduce yourself and tell us all about it. We were hired by the city to look into Leggett Avenue Traffic Commons and provide some recommendations. Um report that you guys all have in the packet. Um, we realized that there's ongoing concerns of vehicle speeds on Lincoln Avenue, so our study was to go from the uh the two speed homes that are out there right now, which is south of the Penny Boulevard and South of all that drive in that area, which kind of our study limits. Um we did a field visit with our team, and uh it was during the peak hours on the 21st of January. Um during the visit, we did notice speeding um between Leewood Drive and Wood uh Woodvine Drive, which is kind of a geometric grades going down. Um that was a noticeable uh speed uh over 20 miles per hour there. And then we kind of looked at the toolbox of the uh traffic calm recommendations, and we kind of came up with three main uh common recommendations in the report. Um, as you'll see, some are raised bump outs, which are concrete median bump outs. Um the other ones are just painters bump outs or just you know, striped bump outs on the edges, and then lastly, um kind of in the area uh with the the vertical grade speed feedback signs um that show you know 20 miles per hour and they show your speed as you're going down. Uh other alternatives that we looked at, um many round-outs were looked at, uh those in the previous um report, uh additional speed humps and uh speed cushions were also looked at. Um raised intersections, raised crosswalks, um, those are added costs, those were also looked at too. And chicanes, which are traffic calming devices that kind of change the horizontal uh geometrics, which all those are costs to the project. So our conclusion um looking at all that, uh there's a couple options you can go with. Um, the comprehensive plan would be like installation of all the full-depth uh module bump outs that are shown in the exhibits. Um, those would provide you know the most physical appearance of you know coming up to an intersection along with the painted curve extensions, and then also adding the uh speed back uh feedback signs. So that's the most immediate and it's most costly though, also to the city. But that's kind of like a Cadillac version of the traffic calming. And then another option is you know, doing a phase implementation, basically starting out with just the painted curve extensions and the feedback signs initially, and just seeing how that operates, and then maybe eventually you know adding the full depth you know, barriers or medium bump outs, and then kind of a bare bones in here, but like just an option C, which be doing limited curb um extensions, you know, throughout we could work with you to kind of figure out where to put those, but you know, there's just a toolbox of things to start with, um, you know, that would hopefully we'll provide some you know traffic calming, reduced speeds along the corridor. That's kind of it in a nutshell. I know there's exhibits in there, and there's other things that we're happy to work with Jeff and his team and you, Mr. Mayer, and everything. So kind of concludes what I have on that. All right, well, yeah, I'm sure we'll have some questions. Um so hang there and we'll see if we can get through them. Uh looks like Albert, maybe hit your light first. Okay, appreciate it. Um appreciate this. Uh this report you guys provided, very thorough, comprehensive. Um I guess when when you guys looked at the prior plan with the mini rounds, I know it's kind of discounted in the report that uh you guys said, well, hey, we due to insufficient community support, we'd really look at those as a as a treatment. I know um uh I think the direction the board had given, and obviously we're we give direction to the former city administrator who gave the direction to you was to uh evaluate what a potential alternative would look like, and we have that. Um but in looking at the mini rounds, I guess from a speed management perspective of those compared to what's in this report in our packet today. What kind of differences are we talking? Is it is it quantifiable? In other words, hey, you're gonna see a reduction of seven miles per hour if you use many rounds, you're going to see four and a half miles per hour if you implement you know plan A. Um that please. Yeah, um, and we were kind of directed not to work deep into the mini rounds as we know you guys previously you know studied those. But I mean, that is a probably your biggest reduction speeds because you're really coming to a physical barrier in the intersection where you've got to actually think instead of just going straight through, you know, you gotta go to the right. So that would be um, I don't know the uh speed reduction.