CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
ACTION REQUESTED:
title
Approve the staff recommendation (Option 1) to not financially participate in funding a replacement fence along the north side of 95th Street from west of the Springbrook Tributary No. 2 Creek to Gateshead Drive
body
DEPARTMENT: Transportation, Engineering and Development
SUBMITTED BY: William J. Novack, Director of TED/City Engineer
BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW:
N/A
BACKGROUND:
95th Street is a major arterial roadway in the City of Naperville. It was initially widened from a two lane road to four lanes with a center landscaped median in 1995. During that initial widening the City did install the existing fence on the north side of the roadway from west of the creek to Gateshead Drive as part of the roadway contract. We are not aware of any other locations along 95th Street where the City installed fencing as part of the project.
Since the City of Naperville adopted a Master Thoroughfare Plan in 1972 the long term vision was to have 95th Street sweep southeast toward Boughton Road from the Plainfield Naperville Road intersection. Since this portion of the roadway included a major bridge over the river its implementation was delayed for many years. In 1999 the City of Naperville, the Village of Bolingbrook and Will County entered into an agreement to fund and construct 95th Street from Plainfield Naperville Road to Boughton Road. It was agreed that the roadway would be a Will County highway and that the funding would be split with each municipality paying 25% and the county paying 50%. Federal funding was pursued due to the high cost of the project.
The federal funding required a Phase I study of the improvements, which includes impacts of the project. In accordance with the Federal Highway Administration a noise study was conducted from Plainfield Naperville Road to Boughton Road and it showed that noise wall warrants were met. Even if noise wall warrants are met, the noise wall does not have to be constructed. In this case, Will County deferred to Naperville and Bolingbrook. Naperville agreed to the installation of noise wall in our section of the roadway while Bolingbrook declined, so no noise walls were installed south of the river.
DISCUSSION:
While the federal limits of the project are Plainfield Naperville Road and Boughton Road, the project extends beyond those limits to transition from the improvements back to the existing conditions. In this case, improvements extended both north and south on Plainfield Naperville Road and west on 95th Street.
The improvements to the west are adjacent to three homes on the north side of 95th Street and two homes on the south side of the street. The additional width of the roadway next to these homes varies from about five feet to zero feet. Attached is an aerial view of the area with the widened roadway shown on it. There are no additional lanes at this location, the road is simply a little closer to the property lines.
Some residents on the north side of 95th Street have been requesting additional buffering as part of this project. A noise wall similar to what was installed east of Plainfield Naperville Road was initially requested but not supported due to cost. Landscaping was also requested by the residents. The residents met with the Naperville Park District and requested additional landscaping be installed at the adjacent park. City staff worked with the two eastern-most property owners and had approximately $7,000 of landscaping installed to provide them with additional buffering. After completion of the landscape work, the residents are now requesting a new wooden fence.
Resident Doreen Swindall presented the City Council with a proposal for a ten-foot-high wooden fence for the six residents on the north side of 95th Street. The cost of the proposal she obtained was $52,260. There are three basic options the City Council can consider:
Option 1: No City Participation
The City installed an eight-foot-high fence when the road was widened from two to four lanes. The benefitting residents have always had to maintain/replace the fences the City put in. Replacing the existing fence with a taller fence will not necessarily provide screening to the second floor of those homes.
Option 2: Three Way Cost Split Between the City, Will County and the Residents
Will County has been a good partner on this project, and has even been involved in the meetings with the residents requesting the noise wall and fence at this location. This option would be an even split between the three parties. Following the last City Council meeting staff reached out to Will County. The County responded that their participation would have to be approved by the Public Works Committee. Even though it has not gone to their committee, staff still wanted to include this option so all options would be available.
Option 3: Full City Participation
This is the option that was presented by Mrs. Swindall at the last City Council meeting. Staff does not favor or recommend this option. It will replace a 22-year-old fence with a new fence at no cost to these residents while the others in the City must pay for their replacement fences. With similar issues (i.e. stormwater improvements benefitting limited property owners), some financial participation on behalf of the resident has been an indicator of the importance or impact of the issue. Also, in this particular instance, the project is essentially a fence replacement with a new fence only being one foot higher.
If the City Council supports an option including City financial participation, the following should be considered:
1. Limits of the replacement fence- Should the fence replaced for all six residents on the north side or just the three that have the road work adjacent to them?
2. Height- Staff would recommend that the fence be nine foot in height instead of ten feet since nine foot is the maximum height for a fence on a residential property that abuts a major arterial roadway.
3. Precedent and historical requests - The City should expect to receive numerous similar requests for noise walls and fencing from residents adjacent to arterial roads. Over the years City staff has received requests for noise walls and fences from residents adjacent to the following arterial roadways:
Ø 95th Street by Heatherstone and Tall Grass
Ø 248th Avenue by Tall Grass
Ø 75th Street by Bay Colony and the Meadows
Ø 103rd Street by Tall Grass
Ø Washington Street by River’s Edge (who proposed to pay for 50% of the costs)
Ø Washington Street south of Bailey Road
In the few weeks since the last City Council meeting, staff has already had requests from residents for noise wall installation.
For these reasons staff recommends Option 1: no city participation. This is consistent with our past practice and provides for equity on a citywide basis. The other two options would require the expenditure of unfunded City dollars, would erode the logic behind our previous practices and would open us to numerous similar requests throughout the City.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Depending upon which option is selected the fiscal impact to the City ranges from zero to $52,260.