September 4th, 2025 to order.

Staff, please conduct the roll call.

Mr.

Hurley?

Here.

Mr.

Kriswinski.

Here.

Mr.

Laird.

Here.

Miss Nyer.

Here.

Mr.

Nybel?

Here.

Mr.

Olger?

Here.

Miss Rose.

Not here.

Mr.

Webb.

Here.

So we have a quorum and the meeting is officially called to order.

I would like to thank all the volunteers on the board giving their time to make Naperville a great place to live.

I would also like to thank Councilwoman Longenbach for the service she's provided to the Transportation Advisory Board.

Um, and we look forward to a new council liaison in the future.

So we have uh another full agenda tonight, so let's get to it.

Um the first order of business tonight is the public forum.

During the public forum, members of the public have the opportunity to address the transportation advisory board on issues that are not part of tonight's agenda.

Uh, in accordance with City of Naperville policies, comments should be limited to three minutes.

Staff, do we have anyone signed up to speak as part of the public forum?

We have one speaker, Marilyn Schweitzer.

Longtime resident.

Um, in April, City Council eliminated the 2025 cost share for sidewalk repair.

This is a gift for 2025 select residents with no relief guaranteed in the future.

My understanding was that staff was to bring a plan to potentially revise the existing program to TAB and coordinate it with the 2026 budget.

I've heard nothing since April.

This is not a discussion to pop up during budget discussions, nor once the 2026 program is ready for approval.

A revised policy and ordinance needs to go before this board and on to city council where both can get adequate review.

A sidewalk that is a hazard as defined by the city's criteria is simply a public safety hazard.

We don't cost share curb work or street repair, so why sidewalk repair?

Eliminating cost share may cost residents, may cost more residents to request hazardous sidewalks be repaired.

This would be good.

Hazards need to get fixed, and any backlog would be eliminated over time.

The cost share for new sidewalks could be kept, but the elimination of cost share for sidewalk maintenance may reduce reluctance to close gaps.

The revised program could cap the expense per year by setting a priority based on pedestrian volume and severity of the defect if this is indeed a budget concern.

Sidewalk to pair, it depends much on the age of the sidewalk, the quality of the installation, tree roots and soil.

Who pays for the cost share is simply the current owner?

All of this is a matter of luck.

It is high time to eliminate the cost share for repair and replacement.

So what plans are underway to revise the program?

If none, please, as a board, request SSAF bring the matter to this board for review, as I believe that is what cancel council requested back in April.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Um anything else?

No.

Okay.

So very good.

Uh that item will be closed.

Our next order of business is the reports and recommendations.

First up is agenda item 251196.

Approve the minutes of the April 7th, 2025 Transportation Advisory Board meeting.

I'll entertain a motion to have a discussion and approval of this item.

So moved.

Second.

We add a motion from Mr.

Webb and a second from Mr.

Hurley.

Do we have any revisions, additions, corrections to the minutes?

Hearing none, can we please uh staff?

Can we please call a roll?

All those in favor signify by saying aye and those opposed, nay.

Mr.

Hurley?

Aye.

Mr.

Kwiswinski?

Aye.

Mr.

Laird?

Aye.

Ms.

Nyer?

Aye.

Mr.

Nybel?

Aye.

Mr.

Olger?

Aye.

Mr.

Webb.

Aye.

So the motion passes, and we approve the minutes of the April 7th, 2025.

April in Transportation Advisory Board meeting as submitted.

Next we have 251191, the police report.

Sergeant Muska is here to speak on that.

Sergeant Muska.

All right, good evening.

Um I'd like to start off with the recently finished Labor Day step grants.

The next fiscal year starts October 1st.

And our next program that we participate in during the next fiscal year will start on Thanksgiving, and we'll kick off then.

The Labor Day step grants consisted of 85 total stops, 99 citations, 2DUIs, and two arrests were made out of some of those stops.

Some up all other uh traffic related issues of note.

Uh in about a six-day stretch since the last tab meeting, we traffic unit responded out to uh three very serious uh crashes, all involving motorcycles.

Uh two unfortunately uh resulted in fatalities.

Another one in um serious injuries.

Um still currently under investigation.

Uh does not appear initially that any serious charges will come from them as they just appeared speed related and uh unable to control their vehicles.

With school starting up in the last uh week or so.

Uh PD is going to be having an increased presence in and around the school zones with special detention being made during the drop-off and pickup hours, uh which is when we receive our most complaints.

Uh and then finally, the police department along with Ted and City Legal is in the initial stages of drafting an ordinance for e-bikes.

Do we have any questions or comments for uh Sergeant Muska?

So I don't see anything.

Thank you, Sergeant Muska, for everything you do.

Um so and seeing no comments, I'll close the police report.

Next, we have 251185 discuss and improve a recommendation to approve the 2050 City of Naperville Road Improvement Plan.

I believe we have a short presentation in there.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh at the May and August tab meetings, our consultant presented their findings on existing traffic conditions, public comments, and the proposed roadway capacity improvements needed on the Naperville network to meet the projected 2050 demand.

Tonight, Rory Fancler from Kimley Horn is here to provide uh their final summary presentation on the proposed improvements and implementation considerations.

Following the presentation and discussion, staff request tabs consideration uh to recommend approval of the proposed 2050 road improvement plan to the city council.

Uh now we'll let uh Rory begin her presentation.

Good evening.

Um I'm happy to be back.

Thank you.

Uh we did prepare a brief presentation really focused on some of the feedback that we received at the last meeting.

So happy to walk through that and then address any other questions or comments before we request a recommendation.

So a couple of things we heard at our last um discussion was uh on the screen related to 87th Street, kind of a map error.

So we've corrected that.

Um we'll talk through Ogden and Iroquois in the intersection, particularly in light of a recent um retail coffee shop use and the traffic generated by that, and then um a review of implementation considerations, and then next steps.

Before we jump into that, just a quick overview for those who may be tuning in for the first time.

The road improvement plan is um staff mentioned is a capacity-driven plan uh that identifies improvements for key intersections and roadway segments under city jurisdiction.

Implementation would occur over a 20-year period through the city's capital improvement program as drafted.

The plan includes 15 intersection improvements, two roadway widening projects, uh book road extension, and two potential road diets subject to further review as part of the city's upcoming bicycle and pedestrian plan.

The map on the screen highlights um the improvements uh that we presented at the last meeting.

So, again, to specifically address the feedback received at the last meeting.

We knew we had a map error on 87th Street.

It was a uh kind of a truncated segment based on IDOT data.

We have extended that um through the full segment of 87th Street from Route 59 to Book Road, which is consistent with the um identified recommendation for a potential road diet.

That was really just a mapping issue that has been corrected throughout the road improvement plan documentation, both under existing and future conditions.

No changes to the analysis.

Again, this is just really a mapping correction based on board feedback.

For Ogden and Iroquois, so the again the comment received at the last meeting was related to how do something along the lines of how do the findings of the road improvement plan analysis capture traffic that has been observed with the recent coffee shop at the southeast corner.

So we went back to the data set, the underlying data set for existing conditions is a 2022 count from the city, and then the available data source alternate data source replica is also around the same time fall 2022.

So there is not a readily available recent churning movement count that would capture traffic associated with the coffee shop, which based on our understanding opened in October of last year.

So in order to address the comment, we took a closer look at the capacity analysis for this intersection.

We estimated traffic for the coffee shop using industry standard data and the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual.

Based on that analysis, the results are consistent with the original findings.

The intersection is projected to operate at a level of service D under year 2050.

However, in order to further evaluate this intersection, we did what's called a sensitivity analysis that basically took a look at how much traffic could be added to key movements that are used by customers going to and from that destination on the southeast corner.

How much traffic could be added to those movements before we would see a level of service E, kind of a quote unquote capacity concern.

Based on that analysis, you could add up to 120 peak hour trips to those key movements.

That is generally speaking about three times more than a typical coffee shop user, which may be consistent with what's out there today.

But what that tells us is there is excess capacity at that intersection.

And so based on this analysis, we would not suggest any modifications to the recommendations previously identified for this intersection.

And then I think one of the other comments we received was regarding implementation and how do we move forward with prioritization or consideration of these improvements as a part of the capital improvement program.

And our recommendation is not to prioritize projects because I think it becomes a limiting factor.

There are a lot of considerations that come into play, whether it be funding related and potential grant sources, whether it be coordination with other city projects, the water main, a electric utility project, and making sure that your advancing projects that make sense.

Not necessarily saying this is the project that should be implemented in your 2029, this is the project that should be implemented in your 2039, but rather what is important to consider as the city evaluates these projects through the annual capital improvement program.

And so the list of considerations on the screen is what has been developed for review.

A couple of things I will I will note.

We did include school walk route proximity or along a school walk route and park access.

We did not include a general pedestrian bicycle consideration because as we had previously discussed at one of our meetings, any intersection or roadway improvement that the city advances to design will incorporate pedestrian and bicycle components.

And so every project included in the road improvement plan would include bike and ped.

That's not a differentiating consideration.

Now as the city advances the bicycle and pedestrian plan and potentially identifies different connectivity or different enhancements.

One of these projects may advance, but that would be determined through the capital improvement program.

The other thing I'll note environmental, I think was a question that was raised at our last meeting, and how environmental review is factored into the road improvement plan, and that is not factored into the plan at this point.

That would be part of the future design phase, and kind of similar to the approach to bike and ped, uh every improvement included in the road improvement plan has an environmental benefit.

Inherently, this plan is based on is capacity-driven improvements.

So every improvement that we've identified is improving traffic flow, thereby reducing delay, thereby reducing emissions.

So, in our opinion, it's not a differentiator.

So, when we did look at this, we kind of assigned based on a review city jurisdiction.

So projects that are under full jurisdiction of the city don't require other agency coordination, whether it's DuPage County, we have a the improvement at Aurora and West Street requires relocation of a paced bus shelter.

Um, some require coordination with IDOT, whether it's due to ride-of-way or due to signal coordination.

So there are some additional coordination time needed to work with other agencies related to some projects.

In some cases, the city can advance those projects because they're fully under city jurisdiction.

Right of way, we did look at right-of-way as was discussed at the last meeting.

Um, with the one exception, all projects based on readily available information would be, in our opinion, constructible within existing right-of-way.

The exception is MODAF and Gartner, which I think we talked about the last meeting.

We highlighted in this matrix uh projects that might be good candidates for alternate funding sources, state-federal funding that would be through a competitive um process and subject to the city's further review, but wanted to make sure that that differentiation was noted.

There are projects, the safety column.

I will say every project in this list has some safety benefit.

This, if you go back to the previous list, this is really related to crash history.

So we took a look at crash history as one of our criteria as we were evaluating existing conditions.

So the intersections that have a check mark under the safety column are based on review of crash history.

So in some cases, the improvement we don't believe will materially change crash history, or there may not be significant documented crash history that would inform a check box in this column.

Um again, on the whole, all of these have some safety benefit.

School walk route, any intersection or roadway segment along an existing designated school walk route was noted, and then park access.

We do have a couple of intersections which do provide access to an adjacent park, and then obviously overall intersection delay, and then cost effectiveness.

I think there are a number of projects on the list that are less than 300,000 and may be considered low-hanging fruit, depending on budget considerations, and again, that will be further reviewed through featured capital program.

And then we did the same thing with the um segments.

The first list was related specifically to intersections.

This is related to the segments.

So again, I think the intent is not to create a prioritization such that it's a limiting for the city, but rather to uh take a look at potential considerations as the city evaluates uh different projects through the annual capital improvement program.

And then the final slide is just an update to the timeline.

So after pending a recommendation from this board, the road improvement plan would advance to city council at a future meeting date to be determined in coordination with staff.

Um, and then as I've mentioned many times, it would be implemented over a 20-year period through the annual capital improvement program, um, which involves city council action, and then any project would be subject to a future design phase, which would involve public a public process as well.

So something to be mindful of.

So with that, I'll open it up to any questions or comments.

Okay.

Um let me just uh go through the process here.

Uh, I'm gonna entertain a motion to discuss and approve this item.

Do we have a motion and a second to discuss and approve the 2050 City of Naperville Road Improvement Plan?

So moved.

We have a motion from Ms.

Nair.

Second.

Second from Mr.

Kriswinski.

Um we have anyone from the public signed up to speak on this item.

We have one speaker, uh, Marilyn Schweitzer.

Great.

Welcome, Marilyn.

Hi.

Um, Marilyn Schweitzer.

I was and I remain disappointed that the 2008, that in 2008, the road impact fee was disconcontan revised.

This seems to have led to traffic studies no longer being even considered in many developments.

The situation with Seven Brew is just one example.

It is far from clear overall that tax revenue from such developments make up for the inconvenience and safety of travelers or the ultimate cost of property owners to fix poorly designed developments regarding traffic.

Transport concerns and public safety should stop being such an afterthought of planning.

Cost sharing programs are more warranted for new developments or redevelopments rather than for existing businesses and residents after the fact.

Before you tonight is a 20-year plan to fix some known problems.

Because road impact no longer seems to be taken seriously in new and redevelopments.

Should a road impact fee be reconsidered.

Are there other ways through better planning to prevent poor levels of service that become both safety hazards and um a range enraged drivers from occurring?

Please let me know your thoughts for improvement.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Does the board have any questions or comments on this topic?

So hearing no more discussion, uh staff, can we please call the roll?

All those in favor signify by saying aye, and those opposed, nay.

Mr.

Hurley?

Aye.

Mr.

Kriswinski.

Aye.

Mr.

Laird.

Aye.

Ms.

Snyer.

Aye.

Mr.

Nyball.

Aye.

Mr.

Olger?

Aye.

Mr.

Webb.

Aye.

So the motion passes, and we approve the 2050 City of Naperville Road Improvement Plan.

Next, we have 251171 approve the recommendation establishing the 2026-27 annual new sidewalk program.

We have a recommendation from the staff.

In 2004, we created the comprehensive sidewalk policy that set forward the city's purposes and goals for our sidewalk network, focused on making the sidewalks network pedestrian friendly by making it safe, accessible, continuous, and making sure it was connected to destinations.

Out of this came the new sidewalk program, which focuses on existing gaps in the sidewalk network and filling those in.

Since 2004, we have installed 129 gaps and almost 15 miles once this year's program is complete.

Typically, the sidewalks are five feet wide and four inches thick.

They're located in our right of way, one foot off the property line in general, but we do vary those locations when we have conflicts such as trees or utilities.

Also tends to be trees, so here's an example of a sidewalk where it was shifted to go around the tree.

We do typically also have the contractor root prune the tree so that their equipment isn't catching on any routes as they're excavating for the sidewalk and breaking them off closer to the tree than necessary.

When we're looking at the sidewalks for prioritization, we consider a couple of different factors.

One is sidewalk connectivity.

So when we look at gaps such as the one on the right where it's on a through street where there might be people from outside of the street using the sidewalk that scored a little bit higher than a gap such as the one on the left where it's a cul-de-sac, and it would really only be the people on that cul-de-sac who are using the sidewalk.

We also consider parallel routes.

Most of the sidewalk in the city, at most of the streets, sorry, in the city at this point, have sidewalk on at least one side, but there are a few locations still where there's not sidewalk on either side of the street, and so those would be scored higher than a street where someone could cross the street and use the sidewalk on the other side.

The third factor is the proximity to school.

So we're looking specifically here at a quarter mile radius from the school and making sure that we have sidewalks there first so that any students who are walking to school instead of being able to be bused have a safe way to do so.

We also look at roadway classification.

So roads with higher speeds or higher volumes are scored higher because we for safety reasons, we would prefer to have the sidewalk on those locations versus a street with a lower speed or lower volumes.

Then the last factor is constructability, and for that we're prioritizing streets where the sidewalk could be installed fairly easily versus ones where we're gonna have more extensive construction, such as the lengthy retaining wall, or maybe bridge work that would need to be done to accommodate the sidewalk.

Back in 2019, we created a new selection process that looks at two different types of gaps.

The first one is neighborhood gaps.

For this one, based off of student city council feedback from previous programs, we filter out locations that are not along a school walk route that are outside of city jurisdiction, or that pose series constructability challenges.

After those are filtered out, we look at the remaining locations and we score them over the factors that we went over before.

The highest scoring locations are then sent a survey so the residents get to provide input on the process before we get here.

So with that, we survey every property along the face of that block, whether they have the sidewalk or whether they have a gap in front of their house.

Locations that are opposed by two thirds of the responding property owners are removed from consideration for that cycle.

The remaining locations are ranked based off of the percentage of support and the responses that were received to help us determine when they are scheduled in the program and when a tie occurs, then we count non-responses as support.

So just to confirm, when we're looking at the locations that get chosen, we are only looking at the responses when we determine whether or not we remove them from consideration.

The non-responses being counted as support is only taking taken into account once we are actually determining the scheduling within the program that we've already chosen.

After we've done the survey, we then notify the property owners along the locations that were selected to be in the program, come to tab for review.

If it's approved by tab, it will then go forward to city council for their review and approval.

Once approved by city council, it would go forward to construction in the next couple of years.

During this selection process, we looked at the top 57 scoring blocks and surveyed a total of 316 property owners.

On the screen here are the locations that were removed based off of receiving two-thirds opposition to the sidewalk being installed.

The top three you can see there are asterisk.

Those are ones that changed since the program was posted to the agenda.

And so we'll touch on those a little bit later, but those three are now being proposed to be removed by staff.

So that leaves these locations as being selected for the program.

You can see our support level goes from 100% down to 40%, staying above the two-thirds opposition.

Couple things to note on this slide.

So for those ones, they did not receive any responses.

There were only two properties on the block, and we did not receive any responses.

Since we didn't have opposition to remove it, we left it in the program as a potential contingency location if budget allows in future years.

Going over the locations for this year, so we would have Webster Street between 13th and Bower up in Naperville Heights, as well as Main Street between 12th and 14th, 10th Avenue between Maine and Washington, and then over in Edgewood, that's the block we were just discussing.

That would be Vest between Lockwood and Bower.

On the west side, we would have parkway between Jefferson and Benton, and then Douglas between Webster and Washington.

You can see on the map, Laird's on there as well, and I'll come back to that one in a few minutes.

For in town east, we have Sixth Avenue between Center and Ellsworth.

Slate between 8th and where it dead ends, just south of Ogden Avenue, and then Wright Street between 8th and 5th.

Further south in the in town east, and then the north section of East Highlands, we have Porter between Loomis and Slate.

Slate between Chicago and Highland, Franklin between Columbia and Huffman, and Highland between Wright and Columbia.

South of that, we have Maple between Melody and Willow, Willow between Maple and Golden Larch, and Wright between Villa and Prairie.

And then down in Maplebrook, we would have Kill Deer between Foxcroft and Starling going along the side of that apartment complex down there.

We did have one petition location that was Laird Street that we mentioned earlier.

So this would be Laird Street between Wilson and Douglas.

We did receive a petition from this property or this block, rather.

All three property owners did support the petition.

And there would be extensive landscaping impacts, but the impacted homeowner has already been coordinating with staff on that and indicated that they plan to relocate the bushes that are currently in the way of where the sidewalk would be.

Now we already have the eligible gaps completed in the high speed high volume and moderate speed high volume categories.

And so we took a look at all the remaining gaps that were left.

And at this point, staff is recommending that we delay including any more arterial gaps in the program for the next two years.

A couple of the locations that are left would require it to be as part of a full road improvement project.

They're not going to be able to be built by themselves.

And then the other couple we thought might make more sense to be a bicycle or multi-use path.

And so we would like to wait until after the bicycle and pedestrian plan comes through to see what comes out of that plan and whether it makes more sense to create install a path there instead of a sidewalk.

So based off of all those things, this is what staff is proposing for our programming.

Typically, there's 300,000 budgeted a year.

We haven't gone through the budget this year with City Council approval yet, but assuming that that's what continues moving forward.

We're suggesting a two-year program with a heavier contingency versus a three-year program that would be lighter.

I mentioned earlier the three locations that were shifted off of the program.

So Laird Street on the contingency list.

We received a late response there from someone who was out of town during the survey who opposed it.

And so based off of that, they would be would have gone over the two-thirds opposed to the sidewalk going in.

So we're suggesting that one be removed.

And then for prairie and Victoria, there were houses with multiple frontages where the survey responses were entered incorrectly.

So once those were corrected, those also went over the two-thirds opposition threshold to be removed from the program.

We did go back after that and confirm all the survey requests and made sure that the rest of the program was not impacted by any errors.

Staff is requesting a motion to approve the recommendation establishing the program with the deletion of those three locations, and that motion that would need to be made is at the bottom of the screen there.

Okay, so I'm going to entertain a motion to discuss and approve this item.

Do we have a motion and a second to discuss and approve a recommendation establishing the 2026-2027 annual new sidewalk program?

So move.

Motion from Mr.

Hurley.

Second.

Second from Mr.

Webb.

Next, we're gonna ask for public comments.

Yes.

The first speaker is Pat Malone.

Okay.

I didn't know if you guys could.

We're gonna do it together.

Yeah.

The first speakers are Pat and Donna Malone.

Hello.

Um first.

Thank you for listening to us this evening.

My husband and I have lived in Naperville for 44 years, making Naperville great.

I think I heard that.

30 of them at the corner of Julian and Franklin.

Um the block in question, Franklin, borders the historic district and is a unique mix of homes built as early as the late 1800s through the early and mid-1900s.

I want to begin by noting that we never received the survey referenced in your recent letter dated August 21st.

In fact, we only saw that letter today.

So if the survey results are being used as a deciding factor, they may not reflect the voices of those of us most directly affected.

The last time we came before you, we brought photos to illustrate our concerns, but there wasn't enough time to present them fully this time.

Why my husband does have a few with him tonight, you'll have to rely mostly on this narrative.

Franklin consists of five blocks of homes and dead ends at Huffman and Loomis, near the dead ends right into the old main um building at North Central College.

That's important to note because Franklin is a unique street in that it's really short with those two streets as bookends.

Of those five blocks, only one and a half have sidewalks, and that's because of two teardown homes and three new townhomes, which they just built right behind us.

The rest of the homes, including ours, are older and surrounded by beautiful established landscaping, old trees, rock walls, and carefully tended gardens.

You can't look at our home.

You can't just look at our home.

You need to take all these blocks under consideration, because that's the sight line.

All on that side is Franklin.

On the opposite side of the street, there is already one long uninterrupted sidewalk.

We are simply asking that the open space on our side of Franklin remains as it is.

This open character reflects the history of Naperville and is part of what makes our neighborhood special.

It's worth asking should these newer construction, which doesn't share this history, be the voice that determines changes to a neighborhood defined by its diversity of home styles, its charm, and its sense of history.

We believe preserve preserving that character matters not just for us, but to Naperville as a whole.

So it's uphill, and our driveway is on Franklin, about a third of the way down the hill.

It's about a 30-foot drop from the curb to our driveway.

And when we built the house 30 years ago, the city made us put in a retaining wall for uh water, and I can show you a picture of this eight-foot retaining wall.

The speaker's time is up.

You can do a voice vote to continue this.

Yeah, let me just uh ask to extend the time.

Okay.

Um we'd like to extend the time so we can finish finish his comments.

Do we have a motion?

Uh motion from Mr.

Webb, a second.

Second, second from uh Mr.

Nibble.

So um go ahead.

Uh thank you.

I appreciate that.

It won't be long.

I don't have I have a I have picture, but not that many.

Um but the issue is is that as you well it's kind of hard to see with that bush.

That's a rock retaining wall that's looking west as you go up the 75-foot hill on our side.

And as my wife mentioned on the other side, there's a continuing sidewalk, is one of their priorities is having a continual sidewalk from Huffman all the way to flight, I think.

Um already existing.

So to put one through, you know, and she mentioned this is the this is a view from our of our corner looking east from Julian down to Huffman.

She can see that car on the left.

It's quite a hill.

Since we had that retraining wall for the city made us put that in 30 years ago for water, you'd have to cut through that rock retaining wall to, and at that point would be three or four feet above what?

And the landscaping.

Well, and the landscaping is one thing too that we're proud of.

But that sidewalk would stop and then drop down three or four feet and then continue down our driveway and drop down again.

So I I don't think it's practical from a cost standpoint for the city, particularly since we have that sidewalk on the other side of the street, which is a continual sidewalk, all the way to well, our kids walked it to uh El Ellsworth.

You can walk that from a sidewalk.

So that's what we'd like to put in front of the board for consideration.

Thank you.

Questions?

Do we have any questions?

Not at this time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Do we have any other speakers?

The next speaker is Paul Hinterlong.

Welcome, Paul.

Good evening, members.

Um you can see the problem here.

Um we had a tear down next to me, and they so this is what the city considers their poster child of what not to allow going into the future.

As you can see why, they dead-ended it right into my tree.

Those two trees I bought 30 years ago at the city uh tree sale, along with uh the river birches that I'll show you on the other side of them.

So my main concern is I'm not against sidewalks, but what I'm against is killing my trees because of the root damage that's gonna happen when this gets taken out.

So they'll probably have to go down probably eight inches to put four inches of stone and then the sidewalk, and you're gonna rip out all of my all of my roots.

Besides that, you'll probably have to come back probably three sections on the neighbor's property and then curve around through his landscaping there, which he's not in favor of.

He uh replied to this uh as not in support.

Um let me give me another picture.

This is looking the other end um to the picture.

You really can't see much on this picture.

Sorry.

That's that's that's from the neighbor on the other side of me at the edge of their sidewalk, which was another tear down years ago.

That's a little better.

And you can see on the right side uh of the picture a river birch that was also purchased at the all my all but two of my um ten trees on my property are all bought at the city uh tree sale.

Those are probably 25 years old and they have shallow root system just like the maples do.

So that's my main concern.

I don't want to lose my trees.

I'm not gonna be here much longer at this location.

Uh the city has already taken it off of their list that was in the print underneath their uh map that they just had up.

Um so I appreciate that.

Appreciate that that they see the the weight of this uh issue here and decided to take it off the board.

But I just wanted to show this stuff to you just for an explanation of why they chose to do that and what we're facing.

So I appreciate your time and your volunteerism and uh being on this board.

Have a good night, thank you.

Thank you.

Do we have any more speakers?

Yes.

The next speaker is Andrew Boduz.

Welcome, Andrew.

Mr.

Chairman, members of the committee, uh my name's Andrew Bo Davis.

I live at the corner of Prairie and Wright.

Uh I'm actually at a corner of two of these gap districts that we're talking about.

Um I'm here to talk specifically about the right from Hillside to Prairie today.

Um I just want to say thank you for the opportunity to speak.

More importantly, I want to say thank you for you guys taking time out of your day.

Your you, you know, it's a lot of sacrifice.

And uh you guys sacrificing your time and resources to make my life better and my house better.

Thank you.

Uh also want to talk real quick.

Your staff, the staff over here, amazing.

Um I have sent a bunch of emails, and I get responses at like 6 p.m.

on Friday night, and I don't know how that is or why that is, and I don't know what I did to get so lucky, but thanks.

Big thanks to them.

Um I'm gonna be real simple.

Unlike the previous speakers, I'm asking you to vote yes on the staff's recommendation on this.

Um I my office, my home office sits there and looks at the corner of Wright and Prairie.

And um, you know, when I was a kid, I grew up in the 80s, I paid I played Froger for a high score.

And I have to sit here and watch these kids play Frogger for their lives as they're going to and from school.

And you guys are the experts, not me.

You know that sidewalks are safer.

You know that sidewalks increase property value.

You you know all of this.

These guys know all of this.

Everybody knows all of this more than I do.

So um, in addition to that, my cousin who's you know, my my family's lived here for 48 years, my cousin who's also on a gap street, um, uh around the corner from me.

She's grown up, she's left her mom and dad's house, but um she's in a wheelchair.

We've done so much to make these sidewalks ADA compliant, and you know how she gets around her house, her neighborhood when she gets back home on the street.

Um that's not ideal.

That's not ADA friendly.

That's not friendly to anyone, but I'm so so thankful that you guys and gals and women men and women, right?

I'm sorry.

You I'm so thankful that you men and women are doing the work you're doing.

I'm so thankful that these women and men are doing the work they're doing, and I'm just here today to ask you for a yes vote on this recommendation.

Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you.

Do we have any more speakers?

Yes.

The next speaker is Dane Zeman.

Welcome.

Hello, yes, my name is Dane Zeman.

Thank you uh for doing this.

I'm here to voice my support for the sidewalk gap from uh Wilson Avenue to Douglas Avenue on Laird.

I am the homeowner over on A10 Douglas, and I got the petition to get that one going through.

Like what was uh said in the meeting, I have also agreed to do any the landscaping removing bushes that would currently be blocking where a sidewalk will be going on there.

Uh my main motivation is I see a lot of kids and dog walkers and other other people walking from coming north on Laird, and they have to either cross the street or walk into Laird Street to get to Douglas.

And with just the way that Douglas and Laird intersect, there can be a bit of the sight from someone coming south is not great there, and there isn't stop signs on Laird Street.

So uh I think I view it as kind of a hazard for those people.

So I wanted to get the get the sidewalk put in, make it easy for them to get around my property.

Um, but yeah, I don't have anything else.

Thanks again for everyone here, and I would like you to support the that petition spot.

Thank you.

More speakers.

The next speaker is Jay Valentine.

Welcome.

Hello.

I'm Jay Valentine.

Uh she she put up a great picture that uh is right in front of my house.

Yep, that one right there.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Um, I guess you know, I I wouldn't say I'm I'm uh strongly opposed to the sidewalks, but I just have some concerns um about how it's gonna affect uh my wife and I at our house.

Obviously, we have an older house in the East Highlands that was built before sidewalks, and now it's a matter of just trying to fit in the new with the old.

And what this illustrates here, if you look that that white car that's in my driveway, and that's going from the south to the north.

And if you see to the right there, you see two trees.

There's one on the on the lower right, sort of, and then there's the one to the top.

The one to the top is a elm tree.

Uh it's on the city parkway, I guess.

And the other one, I guess, would be on it as well.

The main thing is we have a small ranch home.

Our our living room is is really our every room.

I mean, that's our family room, and it's on the front of the house.

So our biggest concern is keeping this sidewalk as far away from the house as possible.

Um you have that fire hydrant there that would have to be, you know, no one's gonna move the fire hydrant, but if the sidewalk could be curved and then to catch up with it again on the other side of the lot, um, you know, is as as as sad as it is, I would be willing to um have both of those trees taken down if the sidewalk could be moved forward because my concern is when the time comes, um the sidewalk is going to get pushed very close to my house or closer to my house.

I just want to uh voice my concern that I want to go on record as doing whatever you can do to push it as close to the street as possible, even unfortunately at the loss of those two trees.

And actually, in the on the on the right, the tree in the lower right is the uh water uh shut off the the B box, the little blue uh round thing that is in the ground.

I don't know if that go could go be and I and I I you know it's it's our home, and uh you know it's gonna be real close to our living room, and people are gonna be closer than where you're sitting right now.

I mean, I'm standing here.

I mean, this is basically your notebook.

Okay, the sidewalk is here.

I don't know how how much more I need to do to illustrate our concern with the sidewalk.

So we get back to speaker's time is up.

Thank you.

Um I can extend the time if you would like.

So so thank you.

Let me do a motion if I'm gonna extend the time.

I just got to go through the process.

Um do I have a motion to extend the time?

So moved.

Um a motion from Mr.

Webb, a second from second, Ms.

Nair.

Thank you.

I'll I'll wrap it up.

So that is my concern.

Uh I wanted to go on record with my concern.

Can my concern flow down to the people that are actually going to be doing the job when the engineers lay out this plan and they do the work and they sit down and they do the blueprint at a future time.

You know, I know that you know we're we're talking here today, but what's gonna happen between today and when the truck gets there and they start doing their thing, you know.

So if I could have some kind of um of uh I don't know, information on that process, some kind of assurance that my request will be will be looked at and taken into consideration when you get to that point.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Do we have more speakers?

The next speaker is Marilyn Schweitzer.

Welcome, Marilyn again.

Good evening, Marilyn Schweitzer again.

Um at one time staff provided maps of the gaps, and I wish they would do so in the future because it makes it a whole lot easier to sort of review what's going on here.

The presentation ahead up with the agenda would also have been appreciated.

As a pedestrian and resident living near some of the gaps, and forced to walk in the street or find alternative routes, I find um I support closing the following gaps.

In the 2026th program, Franklin Avenue from Julian to Huffman on the South, definitely.

Definitely.

Right street from Worley Drive to Hillside West, definitely.

Right street from Hillside Road to Prairie West, definitely.

2027 program, Prairie Avenue from Brainerd to Victoria Court, please.

Although I guess from what I just heard a moment ago, that's been removed.

Too bad.

Willow Road from April to Gordon L Gordon, Golden Large Court West, please.

Contingency one Franklin Avenue from Columbia to Julian Street, definitely.

Porter Avenue from Loomuth Street to Flate Street North, please.

Maple Avenue from Melody Lane to Willow Road North, please.

Flate Street from Chicago Avenue to Highland West, definitely.

Please keep in mind as you solicit input and closing sideway gaps.

That except for perhaps cul-de-fax.

Sidewalks are important for public safety far beyond simply the residents that live on the block.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Do we have more speakers?

We do not have any more speakers.

I will say I forgot to say earlier.

Uh before tonight, we had 11 writing comments on this item and five position statements.

These were sent to the board this afternoon and also posted on the city website.

And then lastly, just a reminder, staff is uh for this item.

We are asking uh the board to approve a recommendation establishing the 2026-2027 annual new sidewalk program with the removal of Prairie Avenue from Brainerd Street to Victoria Court South, Victoria Court from Prairie Avenue to the cul-de-sac west, and Laird Street from Benton Avenue to Wilson Avenue West.

Okay, so thank you to all our speakers.

Um we really value the input.

Um does the board have any questions or comments for the staff?

Mr.

Webb.

Couple questions.

Um the comments that were sent out today, did any of the position statements did any of those change the votes?

Or is that how you came up with removing those three?

No, those three were received earlier this week.

Okay, but so the but the comments today were from any of those from new people, or would any of that have impacted the voting results?

No, I don't believe so.

And then my other question um is one of the gentlemen alluded to once the engineering or design is actually done.

Will there be input from residents saying no?

Could you move the sidewalk you know, two feet this way or around this tree?

Like what does that process look like?

We do have um, as I mentioned before, our general location where we put it, and we do try to um minimize impacts to any landscaping or things like that that are in the parkway.

Typically, what we do is we um spray paint out the intended location of the sidewalk so that then homeowners can see where the sidewalk is going to go, and then at that point, sometimes homeowners will reach out to us with concerns that they may have about the layout, and we work with them then to see if um we can accommodate the request or not.

Right.

Thank you.

Any other comments?

Mr.

Hurley, uh just a quick question regarding is there any remedy for homeowners who did not receive or missed the survey that came to them due to any variety of reasons of why is there an opportunity to to revote, or is it just the one opportunity?

So Tab and City Council would be the opportunity that they have then to come in and um make their the way they would have voted, no so at this point, if a speaker were were to register their yes or no through this forum, that would be noted and then could change the considerations of yes or no for whether or not to go forward.

So I think TAB can consider their input here, and if they wanted to make a change to the program, they could okay.

In uh case of the the first voters, I forgive me, I don't remember exactly what segment it is, but do you have the tabulation of support versus non-support to understand whether or not their registering of of non-support would materially impact the percentage of for inclusion or not?

So I believe that was Franklin between Julian Huffman.

Yes.

Okay.

So that for that gap we received one vote that was in support.

We had four non-responses, so one um opposition would bring us to 5050.

Still wouldn't be the two-thirds that would remove it from consideration completely.

Um it just would have affected where it fit in the program.

Okay, do we have more comments?

Questions.

Mr.

Ogle Owner.

I have one question to the first presenter.

Um I saw your driveway sloping down.

Uh the landscaping and everything that you have along the edge of the road, are they within the neighborhood property right away?

I'm sorry?

Is the landscaping that you have?

Are they along the uh Naperville right-of-way?

City right away?

Are they within the city right away?

Yes.

So even though it's by half and half, it's both sides.

Okay.

That that's all.

More comments?

Questions?

Yeah, Mr.

Webb.

I just had a quick question.

Um, you mentioned one of the sidewalks would be a budding unincorporated property, but is that still our road?

I mean, what's just what's that look like?

Yes, that's correct.

It's still our road, however, the property itself is unincorporated, so it is city right of way, um, and it would be our responsibility to install the sidewalk here if uh we wanted one.

Oh, just a quick point on that and a reminder that uh unincorporated property was the one that was mentioned a few times back in November or in the winter when uh Rose would invest uh stop sign control uh came to this board.

If you guys remember the residents that came and spoke, and this was that uh parcel that they had recommended that the sidewalk get installed.

Is that the the one there's like the the school at the end, I believe?

Uh it was a part of the school walk route.

Yes.

Um in a lot of our areas, the school walk route is actually uh because of township properties in the street.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Other comments, questions?

Uh my only comment is on the Franklin Avenue uh from Julian De Huffman.

Just gonna be tricky with the landscape work there to continue to work with the homeowner.

Um I'm not sure what I can do other than uh voice my um support for working closely with the homeowner and uh trying to figure something out there.

So any other discussion?

Uh Ms.

Nair?

On Franklin Avenue, is there continuous sidewalk on the north side of the street?

I don't remember.

Yes, there is.

Okay.

Okay.

Anything else?

So hearing no more discussion, staff, can we please call the roll?

All those in favor signify by saying aye, and those opposed, nay.

Mr.

Hurley?

Aye.

Mr.

Krisvinski?

Aye.

Mr.

Laird?

Aye.

Ms.

Nyer.

Aye.

Mr.

Nybel?

Aye.

Mr.

Olger?

Aye.

Mr.

Webb.

Aye.

So the motion passes and we approve a recommendation establishing the 2026-7 annual new sidewalk program.

Next, we have 250705 approval recommendation to remove cab uh slash taxi stands on Chicago Avenue between Main Street and Washington Street.

Um we have a recommendation from the staff.

Yes, thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh so staff received a request from the police department to investigate cabin taxi stands downtown, which include locations on Chicago Avenue between Main Street and Washington Street.

The cab and taxi stand ordinance was established to reduce the occurrence of double parking on Chicago Avenue.

And presently, taxis don't frequent downtown nor utilize the designated cab stand spaces.

Staff is recommending the removal of all cab and taxi stand spaces and the corresponding towaway zone on the south side of Chicago Avenue.

Uh surveys were sent out to the property and business owners on both sides of Chicago AF based on the responses we received.

100% of the respondents were in support of modifying the parking restrictions.

This modification was discussed at the August downtown Aprilville Alliance meeting, and they expressed their support for the recommendation.

Staff is asking TAB to recommend approval to remove all cab and taxi stands on the south side of Chicago Avenue between Main Street and Washington Street.

Thank you.

Okay, so I'm gonna entertain a motion to discuss and approve this item.

Do we have a motion and a second to discuss and approve a recommendation to remove the cab taxi stands on Chicago Avenue between Main Street and Washington Street?

So Mr.

Elgner, uh motion for Mr.

Ogner, a second?

Second, second from Mr.

Nybell.

Um do we have anyone uh signed up to from the public to speak on this item?

We have no speakers signed up.

Does the board have any questions or comments for the staff?

Mr.

Hurley.

Just one quick question.

At the time when this was implemented or going forward, is there any fees paid by any cab or taxi companies to for the right to have this allocated?

No.

Thank you.

Any other comments or questions?

So hearing no more discussion, staff, can we please call a roll?

All those in favor signify by saying aye and those opposed, nay.

Mr.

Hurley?

Aye.

Mr.

Kriswinski?

Aye.

Mr.

Laird?

Aye.

Ms.

Snyer.

Aye.

Mr.

Nybel?

Aye.

Mr.

Olger.

Aye.

Mr.

Webb.

Aye.

So the motion passes, and we approve a recommendation to remove the cab taxi stands on Chicago Avenue between Main Street and Washington Street.

Next, we have 251173 approve a recommendation to remove cab taxi stands on Jefferson Avenue.

And I believe we have recommendation from the staff.

Yes, thank you, Chairman.

Uh, very similar to the previous agenda item.

Staff received a request from the police department to investigate cab and taxi stands downtown, including the locations on Jefferson Avenue from Main Street to Washington Street.

Staff is recommending the removal of all cab and taxi stand spaces and the corresponding toeway zone on the south side of Jefferson Avenue.

Uh surveys were sent out to the residents and business owners on both sides of Jefferson AV.

100% of respondents were in support of modifying the parking restrictions.

Staff is requesting TAB's approval to remove all cab and taxi stands on the south side of Jefferson Avenue between Washington Street and Main Street.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I will entertain a motion to discuss and approve this item.

Do we have a motion and a second to discuss and approve recommendation to remove cab taxi stands on Jefferson Avenue?

So moved.

A motion from Mr.

Webb.

Second.

Second from Mr.

Ulger.

Um we have anyone in from the public signed up to speak on this item?

Or no speakers signed up.

Does the board have any questions or comments for the staff?

Hearing uh no uh comments, staff.

Can we please call the roll?

All those in favor signify by saying aye, and those opposed, nay.

Mr.

Hurley.

Aye.

Mr.

Krisvinski?

Aye.

Mr.

Laird?

Aye.

Ms.

Ms.

Nyer?

Aye.

Mr.

Nybell.

Aye.

Mr.

Olger.

Aye.

Mr.

Webb.

Aye.

So the motion passes, and we approve recommendation to remove cab taxi stands on Jefferson Avenue.

And next we have 251190.

Approve a recommendation to remove 15-minute parking on Webster Street.

Do we have a presentation from this or a discussion from the staff?

We do.

Um and we should have a couple of slides up just uh for a visual.

Um so 50-minute parking traffic flow on Webster Street between Van Buren and Jefferson Avenue.

On street parking on Webster Street is located south of the Paw Paul lot entrance on the east side, and there are five spaces with a two-hour parking restriction between 6 a.m.

and 6 p.m.

Monday to Saturday.

There is a no parking restriction on the southern end of Webster Street, and there is a no parking uh restriction north of Paw Pa of the Paw Paul lot entrance.

City staff investigated this request and determined that there is adequate road width for two-way traffic and on-street parking on Webster Street.

The no parking restriction located on the southern end of Webster Street was established in 1992, and staff investigated this ordinance and found no justification for establishing a no-parking zone in this location.

Staff recommends moving the no parking restriction on Webster Street to the midblock and relocating the two southernmost two-hour parking spaces to the south end of the block.

This modification would create a 35-foot space for two-way traffic to pass while maintaining on-street parking.

Staff sent out a survey to the properties and business owners on both sides of the street of Webster Street between Van Buren and Jefferson Avenue.

The responses received are shown uh or we sent out 23 response or 23 letters and three uh oppose uh three residents or property owners opposed while zero supported and zero had no opinion.

The results of the survey show 85 percent of the residents and businesses are in support of modifying the parking restriction per prior tab guidance and no responses considered in support of the recommendation.

A minimum 60 percent of support is needed for tab consideration.

This modification was discussed by the downtown Nipperville Alliance, and the DNA supports modifying the parking on Webster Street.

Staff is asking TAB to approve a recommendation to modify parking restrictions on Webster Street between Van Buren Avenue and Jefferson Avenue.

So I'll entertain a motion to discuss and approve this item.

Do we have a motion and a second to discuss and approve a recommendation of modify parking restrictions on Webster Street between Van Buren and Jefferson?

So I'll move a motion from Mr.

Ulger and a second from Mr.

Nybell.

Um do we have anyone from the public signed up to speak on this item?

We have no speakers signed up.

Does the board have any questions or comments for the staff?

Mr.

Webb.

This one somewhat concerns me because as the material says, this is already one of the narrower streets in the downtown area.

And especially since Eagle is now one way, I would assume that the northbound traffic on the stretcher Webster has increased.

And I know it's difficult meeting cars there.

And since this, if anything, wouldn't even narrow or shorten the space that cars have to pass there.

I'm just having a hard time seeing that this would be uh a good move.

A few things there.

So uh if you go back to the previous slide, or sorry.

Uh so the existing conditions today, uh, we we have five parking spaces.

Uh the the street width is 18 feet with the parking spaces, which is adequate uh for city streets here in Naperville.

Uh so there is enough room for two-way traffic currently, and we aren't changing that width, uh, but we are through this recommendation uh providing somewhat of a refuge uh in between the two spaces shown on this map uh for if vehicles are uncomfortable to make that movement with an oncoming traffic, they can I guess I would say uh you know use that refuge.

Uh and then you had mentioned the Eagle Street one way.

Uh this was brought up at a November city council by a councilwoman uh for staff to look into this uh into Webster Street potentially becoming one way and to see what the impacts of uh adjacent street traffic would be if that were the case, and staff will be performing a traffic study here on Webster Street in the coming months after construction.

It was delayed previously because of the bridge.

Uh we felt that there could be traffic bypassing Washington Street using Webster Street during that time or during that construction, and then now that we have the construction on uh Washington and Odd and by the water department, uh we still feel there could be impacts from that here on Webster Street.

So once that's completed, we will be doing a traffic study.

So then the idea is kind of since you have this spot in the middle, there's right now you have kind of a longer way you would have to miss the traffic in this way.

There's people can kind of duck in mid-block.

Exactly.

Okay.

Mr.

Hurley.

Uh forgive me if I missed it, but what was the genesis of this modification proposal?

Uh so we've had a few concerns uh regarding the city block over the past year and a half.

Uh and this was a recommendation based off staff observations to try to um and improve this city block uh for safety uh for safety reasons, uh, while also keeping the amount of parking in the downtown.

And just for clarification's sake, as I recall from reading that for the current sideway gap program, a non-response is only considered if there's a tie, correct?

But in this case that it's a non-response is considered a hard yes, which is why it's the eight non-responses trumps the three um not support because there was zero support, three non-supports, and then I think it was seven or eight non-response.

Is that the case?

You are you are correct.

It was uh I believe 20 uh no responses, but yes.

Okay, yeah.

And you know, and that that is guidance uh that was uh um initiated by a previous tab.

Ms.

Nair.

Yeah, so um just a couple questions.

So we're shifting the spaces closer to the intersection, which I think would make the left left turn from Jefferson going north a little tri trickier.

You don't have the refuge there anymore, so you're shifting that space.

Um, and just also it seems if the city is acknowledging that there is a need for refuge for because cars are bigger, there's a street here, is you know, at its very minimum for passing and parking.

It it just brings into question whether there really should be these five spaces, and then we also have three businesses who did voice their opposition to this.

So the opposition, uh one was moving the spaces and the other two uh uh did not necessarily comment on this situation.

They used it as a way to advocate for a one-way.

Okay.

Thank you.

Other comments.

Uh yeah, Mr.

Kurtzwinski.

Um so does this increase the amount of parking or is it the same?

Parking will be the same.

And you said that there will be a future study of Webster.

Yeah, yes.

So I'm just thinking like could these modifications even be like held until that study?

Because if it's if this passes, they have to then relocate signs.

Not sure if any of these signs are in uh concrete or not, or if it's just grass, but um they would have to put new signs and then remove signs anyway.

Um not sure when the one way if it if it is chosen how how far out that would be, but I'm just thinking maybe hold off on this until that study.

Um because here then we're I understand that it still meets the minimum requirements.

Um but we are adding more parking um, which would make more more of this length of Webster um, you know, a little bit harder to pass.

Because is it 18 foot width?

Like from the curb, the left curb to the side of a car in the parking space, that's the 18 foot width, or the street is 18 feet itself.

The 18 feet is uh the the travel way uh not including the parking boxes.

Okay.

I mean nine nine and nine, uh I think it is still tight, so that's just my concerns.

Do we have more comments?

Questions.

Um my comment or question, I guess, is so uh you're moving the no parking space from the south to the mid block.

And I think in line with what Ms.

Nair was saying, is that safer than is that is that is that some kind of like industry standard or something like that that we're going to that says it's safer to have the the mid block as a no parking versus down by the corner, or is it or why are we doing it?

Yeah, I I don't think I mean there's not an industry standard of where I mean how long a parking uh uh area you can have on a block.

I mean, I think our thought was this is kind of an interim step to you know shorten the length of that conflict space where vehicles have to pass through one another.

We'll give them this little refuge island area to uh to you know more easily maneuver for if you have a larger vehicle, and then uh you know we'll come back later with the study results.

I mean, I think our thought is you know, if this was if this was converted to a one-way, that's gonna be a significant impact.

It's gonna have a big impact on circulation in the downtown.

Much bigger uh impact than than you know, trying this and seeing what uh you know if it will help traffic flow and maneuvers.

Uh to add to that us moving the parking south uh is consistent with city practices.

Um it will be the same distance at uh other locations uh throughout the city is from the center line of the uh so from the center line of Jefferson to the start of the proposed uh two-hour parking is consistent with uh with city practices.

Okay.

Um this is a tough one just because of the it's really tight.

The street is tight, and it's where are you gonna have the backup?

I think right now, I mean, when I'm thinking back, it's all anecdotal right now.

Is like it gets backed up.

People are afraid to pass two cars next to each other, so they just stop.

Um so it it's a tricky one because it's so tight there.

Of course.

Uh when once we're done hearing uh members speak, I would potentially recommend then to table this issue until a uh future study is done in the next year.

I think that's a good idea.

More comments.

Ms.

Nair.

Thanks.

Um yeah, just I know that's not part of the discussion for tonight, but why there were parking spaces north of the parking lot entrance, right?

On Webster?

Is that correct?

That is correct.

And so those were removed within the last year or so?

Yes.

So uh a few of those parking spots were removed about three years ago because of uh existing electric utility boxes that were there.

Uh the electric utility was unable to open uh their doors to those utility boxes when cars were parked.

Uh so we removed those uh that came to TAB, I believe, in 22.

And then in the past year uh when uh surveying that area for a separate project, uh we found that the parking was actually against existing city code 1128-1, uh, which is our 30 feet from a posted stop sign, 10 feet from a driveway, uh so there actually was inadequate parking uh or legal parking uh there based on current city ordinances.

So we removed that parking.

And just to add on to that, third, there is a development on the west side of Webster Street that came in, uh, some townhomes, and with the with that development, there's a water main installed and a fire hydrant that was uh added on the east side that uh further prohibited uh parking in the area that you're talking about.

Okay, all right, thank you.

More comments.

Okay.

Mr.

Webb.

I move to table this motion.

Do we uh uh we have a motion from Mr.

Webb to table this motion.

Do we um have a second?

Second, second from Mr.

Kurzwinski.

Um so we are tabling this for staff to uh study it further.

Say we need a roll call though.

Okay, oh yeah.

Um staff, can you please call the roll?

All those in favor signify by saying aye, and those opposed, nay.

Mr.

Hurley, aye.

Mr.

Kraszwinski?

Aye, Mr.

Laird, aye, Miss Nyer?

Aye, Mr.

Nybel?

Aye.

Mr.

Olger, aye.

Mr.

Webb, aye.

All right, so we uh uh it passes that we're tabling this item for uh further study by the staff.

Next, we have 251178 approval recommendation to establish no parking stopping or standing zone on Brooks Edge Avenue.

Do we have a uh discussion or presentation from the staff?

We do.

Um at the August TAP meeting, staff was directed to return with an ordinance to establish no parking, stopping or standing on Brooks Edge Avenue.

Staff had found that congestion was impacting site distance and prevented mail delivery at the corner lot home of Brooks Edge and Brightweiser Lane.

Uh staff is requesting approval for a no parking stopping or standing 85 feet from the center line of Brightweiser Lane on the north side of Brooks Edge Avenue as shown in the slide.

Okay, so I'm gonna entertain a motion to discuss and approve this item.

Do we have a motion a second to discuss and approve a recommendation to establish no parking, stopping, or standing zone on Brooks Edge Avenue?

So move.

We have a motion from Mr.

Elgar.

Second?

Second.

Second from Ms.

Nair.

Um, do we have anyone from the public signed up to speak on this item?

There are no speakers signed up.

Does the board have questions or comments for the staff?

Hearing nothing, uh staff, can we please call a roll?

All those in favor signify by saying aye and those opposed, nay.

Mr.

Hurley?

Aye.

Mr.

Kraswinski?

Aye.

Mr.

Laird?

Aye.

Ms.

Nyer?

Aye.

Mr.

Nybel?

Aye.

Mr.

Olger?

Aye.

Mr.

Webb.

Aye.

So the motion passes.

We approve a recommendation establish no parking stopping standing zone on Brooks Edge Avenue.

Next up is old business.

Staff, do you have an update for old business?

We do.

So a quick update on the city's bicycle and pedestrian plan.

Uh so on June 18th, 2024, the city council approved the Naperville 2027 investing in our community priorities plan, which outlined the five priority areas for the city to focus on over the next three to five years.

Under the mobility priority, staff was asked to complete complete an update to the bicycle and pedestrian plan by December 31st, 2026.

Staff have hired A Epstein and Sons International or Epstein to assist in completing the bicycle and pedestrian plan update.

During the next few months, Epstein will begin public outreach and existing condition data collection.

And once completed, Epstein will work with city staff to develop a vision for Naperville's future bicycle and pedestrian network and deliver an actionable bicycle and pedestrian plan.

This plan will identify network gaps and locations for future projects, including existing facility enhancements and new corridors.

This plan will provide the city with policy recommendations, a design toolkit, and future project recommendations.

Project recommendations will include preliminary designs, anticipated costs, funding sources, and a prioritization timeline.

This plan update will be reviewed by the Transportation Advisory Board in advance of being presented to the city council for consideration.

Thank you.

Does anyone else have uh anything for old business?

Mr.

Hurley.

With regard to resident Schweitzer, forgive me if that's your name.

Uh asking about the sidewalk cost share program.

And do we can we confirm that we had agreed to come back to speak to um potential alternatives to that?

And if so, when can we be prepared to hear that?

So the sidewalk cost share program that'll be discussed with the upcoming um budget discussions.

Uh I mean, I would say the cost share is really more of a financial uh you know consideration that really would fall more to the city council than the tab, but it is definitely something that's been discussed uh over the last couple of years.

For this year, the council decided to suspend the uh cost share program, and um you know, going forward uh there'll be more discussions on whether it should be eliminated permanently.

So thank you.

Do we have anything else for old business?

Hearing none, we're gonna close old business.

Next up is new business.

Does anyone have anything for new business?

Mr.

Elger.

I just want to ask staff and the police chief about the uh the electric motorcycles that the kids are riding these days.

I almost killed one somebody.

Um, and I'm I'm curious about do we have any enforcements?

Do we have any ordinance?

These devices can go 40 miles an hour, if not more.

And these uh guys are 12, 13 year old kids riding like cra crazy.

Right now, our only avenue of enforcement is through the state Illinois Vehicle Code.

Uh we're working with uh Transportation Engineering Department and City Legal to craft uh Naperville ordinance to address these issues, but you're right.

There are different uh e-bikes out there, some of them do go very fast.

Um so part of the process is defining what types of bikes can be operated, who can operate them, where they can be operated, and what uh the penalties could be if they're in violation.

So it is it is uh something we're currently very focused on and hope to be presenting uh in the next uh few weeks or a couple months.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um do we have anything else for new business?

Mr.

Hurley.

So tonight we confirmed to get rid of the taxi stands, and that makes sense because there just aren't a lot of taxes anymore, but that's been replaced by ride share.

Do we have any understanding within the downtown area of how much ride share contributes to the volume, especially on peak night Friday, Saturday evening, and where, if anywhere, rideshare drivers may be congregating as they wait for people to use their service similar to what the taxis would do before?

And is there any value in in having something similar somewhere that would allow uh a space for rideshare drivers?

Yeah, uh you know, just guesses for uh data on that point.

I you know, I would think Jefferson and Chicago Avenue between Maine and uh Washington are the primary locations for where those rideshare vehicles are potentially queuing up at certain times of the night.

Uh we have in the past uh you know looked at maybe adding areas where uh you know that congregation can occur similar to what you would see at like an airport or something like that, where it's a separate area, uh, but there is no plans for that currently.

Uh, but that is something that staff can uh can start to look into in regards to at least data collection for now and kind of see what the needs are of the downtown.

Uh I don't know if P PD can add more to that based on your uh I think it'd be hard to determine what cars are rideshare uh versus just regular cars, you know, driving or parking, you know, unless they have their big lift sign.

Um then the second issue would be then how do we how do we count those?

I don't I have not heard of nor seen in recent years of there being a high volume traffic that would need them to have the designated parking spaces that are currently there for cabs be put in place for ride share.

Um I can definitely ask the officers and supervisors who work in that area to keep an eye and maybe do some accounting uh to maybe get some some better numbers with eyes on I'd be curious to know what data the larger rideshare companies will provide when requested to understand both volume and time required for when someone requests to by the time they can get picked up, only because we want downtown Naperville to be a an attractive place for people wanting to want to go, and that's a consideration for people as well.

So I don't think it's it's necessarily urgent to do so, but it would at least be interesting to understand if there is a problem to be solved for.

Yeah, to that point we could reach out to the rideshare companies and see if that is something that would be available to us um and let you know.

I you know, I do know we even received any concerns or complaints unless PD has regarding congestion from the rideshares and and ease of operations on those streets at those times does anyone have anything else for new business.

So seeing nothing, um we're gonna close new business and I'm now gonna entertain a motion and a second for adjournment.

Do we have a motion and a second to adjourn the meeting this meeting?

So moved.

Uh motion for Mr.

Webb.

Second, second from Mr.

Alger.

Um staff, can we please call the roll?

All those in favor signify by saying aye and those opposed, nay.

Mr.

Hurley?

Aye.

Mr.

Kriswinski?

Aye.

Mr.

Laird?

Aye.

Ms.

Nyer?

Aye.

Mr.

Nybell.

Aye.

Mr.

Olger?

Aye.

Mr.

Webb.

Aye.

So we have a unanimous agreement on the adjournment, and this concludes the September 4th, 2025 Transportation Advisory Board Meeting.

Another good one.