COVID-19: City Facilities Reopen for Limited In-person Services


Agenda & Minutes

When available, the full agenda packet may be viewed as a PDF file by clicking the "Attachments" button and selecting the file you want to view.

Agendas are posted until the meeting date takes place.  Minutes are posted once they have been approved.

Traffic Coordinating Committee (View All)

Traffic Coordinating Committing Meeting Agenda & Minutes - June 22, 2016

Wednesday, June 22, 2016

Lausmann Annex, 200 S. Ivy, Medford, OR – Room 151
10.      Roll Call
20.      Approval of Minutes - April 27, 2016
25.      Consent Calendar
25.1       Springbrook Speed Zone - Delta Waters to Owen Drive
30.      Agenda Items
30.1       Layla Drive Parking Restrictions
30.2       Holly Street - Speed Zone Request
30.3       Samike Drive and South Stage Road - Stop/Yield Request
30.4       Cottage and 9th Streets - Parking Restriction
40.      Reports
40.1       Oregon Impact Newsletter – June 2016
40.2       Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Update
40.3       “Drive Sober or Get Pulled Over”-NHTSA Fact Sheet
50.     Non-agenda Items
60.     Adjournment


10.       Roll Call
The following members were present:  Peggy Penland, Chairperson; Jeff Morejohn, Medford School District; Matthew Conde, AAA; and Lewis Osborn, At-Large member
Staff representatives present:  Christina Charvat, Traffic Engineering Technician; Karl MacNair, Transportation Manager; Don Lane, MPD, Sheila Giorgetti, Administrative Support Technician; Kevin Stine, Council Liaison
Citizens in attendance:  Kim Stowe, Kevin Stowe, Dennis Sullivan
The meeting was called to order at 11:58am by Peggy Penland.  A quorum was present.
20.       Approval of Minutes
Matthew Conde MOVED to accept the minutes of April 27, 2016.  Lewis Osborn SECONDED.  Motion was approved.
25.       Consent Calendar
25.1 – Springbrook Speed Zone – increase speed zone to 30 mph on Delta Waters to Owen Drive
30.       Monthly Agenda
30.1     Layla Drive Parking Restrictions
James O. Catt, 1953 Layla Drive, Medford, OR 97501 has submitted an electronic Citizen Request Form requesting parking restrictions on Layla Drive between Arlington Drive and Lozier Lane.
Christina Charvat gave the staff report.  On January 14, 2016, a Citizen Traffic Request Form was received requesting no parking on the east side of Layla Drive.  The reason cited was concern for emergency response vehicle accessibility.  On February 17, 2016, a petition signed by 18 residents was received to create a Fire Lane No Parking Zone on Layla Drive from Lozier Lane to Arlington Drive and on Cox Lane.  A map showing the proposed no parking zone was distributed to all 26 property owners on the affected section of Layla Drive, Applegate Lane, and Cox Lane, along with a letter requesting their input at the next TCC meeting on March 23, 2016.
The general conclusion of the residents who responded was that there is a problem at the south end where Layla Drive curves and also on Cox Lane.  However, there is less of an issue, if any, at the north end where the street is straighter.  Of the 26 owners who received notice of the proposed parking restriction, 13 had signed the petition for the no parking zone and six owners opposed some or all of the restrictions.
The TCC recommended that the proposed parking restrictions on Layla Drive be revised to make reasonable accommodations for residents that provided feedback and include Cox Lane.  Public Works made a final decision on the no parking zone that is less restrictive than originally proposed.  On April 8, 2016, letters informing residents of the final decision were sent.
On April 18, 2016, Kim, Kevin, and Janice Stowe of 1910 Layla Drive submitted an appeal of the no parking zone decision citing a lack of adequate restriction.  They request more parking restrictions, similar to the original proposal along one side of the street for the full length of Layla between Lozier Lane and Arlington Drive.
On May 19, City Council heard from citizens both for and against parking restrictions. Medford Fire provided a parking restriction map based on emergency service needs. Council voted to remand the matter of designating a Fire Lane/No Parking Zone on Layla Drive to the Public Works Director with the aid of the TCC.
Letters were sent to 26 residents/owners, notifying them of the upcoming TCC meeting on June 22.  Three written responses were received, all opposing any parking restrictions.
Kim Stowe, resident of Layla Drive, spoke about his concern that emergency services vehicles cannot pass through.  Christina briefed the committee on what took place at the City Council meeting on May 19th.  Many people from the neighborhood attended and presented their point of view.  A map prepared by the Medford Fire Department was also presented to Council; this map details restricted parking zones that will meet their standards for passage. 
Matthew Conde moved to adopt the Fire Dept recommendation as an appropriate balance between safety and parking.  Jeff Morejohn seconded.  Motion was approved.
Dennis Sullivan, the developer of this subdivision, addressed the committee, stating that he thinks it would be unfair to existing long-term homeowners to take parking away from them.  He says the streets meet City standards and emergency vehicles should be able to get through; however, he agrees that if an RV is parked on the street and another car parks directly across, it is problematic.  Matthew reiterated that this street is not practical in an emergency and parking restrictions are needed to facilitate the passage of emergency services
30.2     Holly Street – Speed Zone Request
Anna Sutherlin, 1180 South Holly Street, Medford, OR 97501 has submitted an electronic Citizen Request Form requesting assistance in mitigating speeders and improving various conditions on Holly Street.
Christina Charvat gave the staff report.  Holly Street is a 36 foot wide minor collector street with curb and gutter, sidewalks, street lighting and parking available on one side.  Volume count from 2014 recorded 1700 vehicles per day.
Currently, 35 mph speed limit signs are installed between Stewart and Garfield, with a statutory 20 mph speed zone existing on the segment of roadway adjacent to school property.  
Staff recommends a speed zone investigation to establish an appropriate speed limit.  A flashing beacon is not an applicable use in this case. 
Jeff Morejohn moved to request a speed zone investigation to establish an appropriate speed limit.  Matthew Conde seconded.  Peggy Penland opposed.  Motion was approved.
30.3     Samike Drive and South Stage Road – STOP/YIELD request
Tom Feld, 10 E. South Stage Road, Sp #317, Medford, OR 97501 has submitted an electronic Citizen Traffic Request Form requesting STOP or YIELD signs at the intersection of South Stage Road and Samike Drive.
Christina Charvat gave the staff report.  South Stage Road is a 52 foot wide minor arterial street with curb and gutter, sidewalks, bike lanes, and street lighting.  Samike Drive is a 36 foot wide standard residential street with curb and gutter, sidewalks, and street lighting.  Parking is available on both sides, except in the vicinity of South Stage Road where one side has been restricted.
The intersection of Samike and South Stage is an atypical four way intersection; both Samike and South Stage end at their intersection.  San George Estates begins at this intersection and has a driveway, Devonshire Lane, which is built more like an intersection leg than a private access driveway. The Bear Creek Greenway trail also connects at the intersection creating a fourth leg.
The Traffic Engineering Division conducted a standard STOP Sign Warrant Investigation.
MUTCD considerations:
Section 2B.06 STOP Sign Applications
01 At intersections where a full stop is not necessary at all times, consideration should first be given to using less restrictive measures such as YIELD signs (see Sections 2B.08 and 2B.09).
02 The use of STOP signs on the minor-street approaches should be considered if engineering judgment indicates that a stop is always required because of one or more of the following conditions:
The vehicular traffic volumes on the through street or highway exceed 6,000 vehicles per day;
A restricted view exists that requires road users to stop in order to adequately observe conflicting traffic on the through street or highway; and/or
Crash records indicate that three or more crashes that are susceptible to correction by the installation of a STOP sign have been reported within a 12-month period, or that five or more such crashes have been reported within a 2-year period. Such crashes include right-angle collisions involving road users on the minor-street approach failing to yield the right-of-way to traffic on the through street or highway.
Section 5B.02 STOP and YIELD Signs
01 STOP (R1-1) and YIELD (R1-2) signs (see Figure 5B-1) should be considered for use on low-volume roads where engineering judgment or study, consistent with the provisions of Sections 2B.04 to 2B.10, indicates that either of the following conditions applies:
An intersection of a less-important road with a main road where application of the normal right-of-way rule might not be readily apparent.
An intersection that has restricted sight distance for the prevailing vehicle speeds.
Based on MUTCD 2B.04, 2B.06 and 5B.02, staff recommends installation of YIELD signs on Samike Drive at South Stage and at the exit of San George Estates.
This intersection gives no indication that South Stage Road ends and no clear right-of-way.  The committee discussed the pros and cons of STOP/YIELD signs.  Traffic flow makes this a unique location.  At a minimum a YIELD sign would establish right-of-way.
Karl MacNair suggested a painted roundabout with delineators in the middle of the intersection, which would force traffic to slow as it yields to traffic within the roundabout.  He will conduct a preliminary design to see if this is a feasible option at this location. 
Lewis Osborn moved that staff investigate the feasibility of a temporary roundabout and report back to the committee at the next meeting.  Jeff Morejohn seconded.  Motion was approved.
30.4     Cottage and E. 9th Streets – Parking Restriction
Guy Boyd, 829 E. 9th Street, Medford, OR 97504 has phoned in a request for parking restrictions along Cottage Street at the intersection of E. 9th Street based on limited sight distance.
Christina Charvat gave the staff report.  Cottage Street is a 24 foot wide major collector street with curb and gutter, sidewalks, street lighting, parking on one side, and an offset centerline.  The posted speed is statutory 25 mph.  Volume count from 2014 recorded 2600 vehicles per day on Cottage Street.  No correctible crashes have occurred at this intersection (January 1, 2011-present).
Based on Medford Municipal Code 10.735, Clear View of Intersecting Streets, a clear triangle of 155 foot length exists at the intersection of E. 9th and Cottage.  Though code does not include vehicles as an obstruction to be removed, the principle remains that drivers need adequate sight distance to be able to proceed safely and/or avoid conflicts.
An additional challenge is the close proximity of the of E. 9th Street intersection to the E. 10th Street intersection with Cottage.  There is only approximately 90 feet between them.
Based on Medford Municipal Code 10.735 clear triangle, staff recommends posting NO PARKING signs from the corner of E. 9th Street to approximately 75 feet north.
Jeff Morejohn moved to accept the staff recommendation to install NO PARKING signs.  Lewis Osborn second.  Motion was approved.
40.       Reports
40.1 – Oregon Impact Newsletter – June 2016
40.2 – Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Update
40.3 – “Drive Sober or Get Pulled Over” – NHTSA Fact Sheet
50.       Non-Agenda Items

60.      Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 12:53 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sheila Giorgetti
Administrative Support Technician

© 2021 City Of Medford  •  Site Handcrafted in Ashland, Oregon by Project A


Share This Page

Back to Top