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 Committee Meeting Agenda & Minutes - October 24, 2019

Minutes
Thursday, October 24, 2019

10.     Roll Call

20.    Approval or Correction of Minutes

25.     Consent Calendar

30.    Agenda Items
         30.1        S Oakdale Ave at Monroe St – Parking Restrictions
         30.2        Front St from 10th to 11th – Parking Restrictions Review
         30.3        2nd St and Rose Ave – Stop/Yield Request
         30.4        6th St Parking Request

40.    Reports
         40.1        August 2019 Making an Impact

50.    Other Business

60.    Transportation Commission Liaison Update

70.    Next Meeting:

80.    Adjournment
 
TRAFFIC COORDINATING COMMITTEE MINUTES
  
 
Date October 24, 2019                                      
October 24, 2019
12:00 pm                                                                              
Lausmann Annex, Room 151
200 S. Ivy Street, Medford, Oregon
 
 Call to Order:  11:35 am
 
10.     Roll Call
 
Committee Members Present:
 
Peggy Penland, Chairperson
Cheryl Noles
Lewis Osborn
 
Committee Members Absent:
 
Mike Montero
Jeff Morejohn
 
A Quorum was present.
 
Staff Present:
 
Jake Sarver, Traffic Engineering Technician
Tim Zacha, Operations Technician
Doug Norman, Operations Technician
Debra Royal, Engineering Administrative Support
 
Guests/Citizens Present:
 
Carol and Charles Gates of 707 S. Oakdale, Medford
David Smith of 241 Saginaw Drive, Medford
Chavala Bates of 622 W. 2nd Street, Medford
Jeanne Doell of 703 W. 2nd Street, Medford
Sally Melton of 711 W. 2nd Street, Medford
Kevin and Michelle Ekerson of 101-151 N. Ivy Street, Medford
20.     Approval or Correction of Minutes
 
Chair Penland MOVED for approval or correction of the minutes from the August 22 meeting. Members had not had the opportunity to review the minutes, therefore, approval was delayed until the next meeting.
 
25.     Consent Calendar
 
Jake Sarver presented a safety issue regarding the bus stop on Court Street south of Ohio Street. Due to parked cars in front of the bus stop, the buses are unable to pull completely out of the travel lanes. Therefore, PW will be installing parking restrictions from the fire hydrant to 20 feet past the bus stop. Chair Peggy Penland raised concern about the businesses in the area losing parking. Mr. Sarver informed the committee there is ample parking on the back side of the business facility, so removal of three spaces on Court will not impact the businesses. No objections from the Committee.
 
Mr. Saver presented a safety issue regarding Logos Charter School. The School requested that School Zone signs be installed. PW has installed the signs from Sterns northbound just south of Rossanley. Chair Penland asked for details on the decision of where to place the signs, specifically why not all the way to Rossanley. Mr. Saver explained the ODOT regulation for School Zone designations and this project followed those guidelines.
 
30.     Agenda Items
 
30.1   S. Oakdale Avenue at Monroe Street – Parking Restrictions
 
Staff Analysis:
Mr. Saver presented. Charles Gates of 707 S. Oakdale has requested parking restrictions on S. Oakdale Avenue for improved sight visibility at his driveway.
S. Oakdale Avenue at the intersection of Monroe Street is a 30-foot wide minor collector with curb, gutter, sidewalk, on both sides of the Street. There is parking on the east side of the street and street lights on the west side. S Oakdale Avenue was found to carry 4,100 Average Daily Traffic (ADT).

Public Works has conducted an analysis (See Figure 30.1.1) using the Medford Municipal Code 10.735, Clear View of Intersecting Streets (Figure 30.1.3), which states, “In order to provide a clear view of intersecting streets, there shall be a triangular area of clear vision formed where a street intersects with another street, driveway, or alley.” The analysis found that the 5 parking spaces shown below are within the clear vision triangle (See Figure 30.1.2). During the investigation, Public Works noted that there are existing parking restrictions on Monroe Street that are not within a clear vision triangle that may be able to help offset the potential loss of street parking on Oakdale, with street parking nearby.
Public Works polled the neighborhood about placing parking restrictions on S Oakdale Avenue and removing parking restrictions on Monroe Street. The results are as follows: 53 letters sent, 13 responses, 4 for leaving the existing conditions, 9 for making changes. Of those 9, 9 were for installing the parking restrictions along Oakdale and 8 of the 9 were for removing the restrictions along Monroe Street. The City of Medford does not actively monitor parking restrictions outside of the downtown parking district. Restrictions on Oakdale Avenue and Monroe Street would need to be called in by citizens to be upheld.
The Medford School District is against removing parking restrictions on Monroe Street because they are planning changes to the school in the near future that may impact the street parking on Monroe Street.

Possible Recommendations:
  • Do nothing.
  • Restrict Parking along Oakdale Avenue to clear sight triangle.
  • Remove Parking Restrictions on Monroe Street.
 
Committee Discussion:
 
Chair Penland lead a lengthy discussion of the matter with input from Medford residents, Carol and Charles Gates, who are extremely concerned with the lack of visibility upon exiting their driveway. Their concern stems from the tall parked vehicles along the roadway. They have always had challenges during the 45 years they have lived there, but in recent months the sight danger has escalated with more pickup trucks parking along their street. Mr. Gates almost hit a skateboarding boy recently due to visibility challenges. The combination of tall parked vehicles, speeding vehicles, and the comings and goings and parking habits of Central High School students were all noted as contributing factors to the danger. The request the Gates made of their neighbors to park their taller vehicles in driveways instead of on the street was met with little success. 
 
Included in the discussion is the time frame of the expected construction at the school, which Mr. Sarver mentioned will begin in 2020. Included in the discussion was the parking restrictions that will be implement and/or lifted to accommodate the construction and if that will impact the vision issue for the Gates.
 
Chair Penland was concerned that restricting parking will leave the school too short of parking, however, she added that drivers must be able to see. The sight triangle was discussed. Committee member Lewis Osborn offered the possibility of implementing parked vehicle height restrictions. Mr. Sarver offered that it isn’t clear by the code, but that the sight triangle is three feet to 10 feet high. There are restrictions across the street that no vehicles taller than five feet are permitted, but that doesn’t clear the sight triangle per the code.
 
Committee discussion continued asking Mr. and Ms. Gates questions as to what might help. Their request remained - parking restrictions.
 
Committee member Cheryl Noles made a MOTION that parking restrictions be placed along S. Oakdale Avenue to clear a sight triangle and to remove the parking restrictions on Monroe Street to accommodate for the lost parking on S. Oakdale. Mr. Osborn SECONDED the MOTION.
 
The MOTION carried by a unanimous vote – The Committee will ask the City to post No Parking signs on S. Oakdale and remove the parking restrictions on Monroe.
 
30.2   Front Street from 10th to 11th – Parking Restrictions Review
 
Staff Analysis:
 
Mr. Saver presented. Ellen Holub of Buttercloud Bakery and Cafe at 315 S Front Street has requested 2hr parking on both sides of S Front Street between 10th to 11th Street and two 15 min parking spaces.
Front Street from 10th to 11th is a 36-foot wide commercial street with curb and gutter and parking on both sides of the Street. There is sidewalk and street lights on the east side of the street. Front Street in this section was found to carry 635 Average Daily Traffic (ADT). There are existing No Parking restrictions near both intersections of 10th and 11th and 15 minute restrictions at the north end at 301 S Front.
 
Public Works has polled the neighborhood about placing parking restrictions and the results are as follows: 23 letters were sent, six responses were received, three were for leaving the existing conditions, two were for making changes and one that doesn’t want to keep the existing or make the changes we suggested. The City of Medford does not actively monitoring parking restrictions outside of the downtown parking district. Restrictions on Front Street from 10th to 11th would need to be called in by citizens to be upheld.
 
Possible Recommendations:
 
  • Do nothing; keep the current restrictions.
  • Restrict Parking along Front Street from 10th to 11th    
 
            Committee Discussion:
 
No community members were present.
 
The Committee discussed the amount of 15 minute parking in Medford in general. Mr. Sarver offered there are some areas with 15 minute parking, but not much. The surrounding area businesses were discussed to determine the impact altering parking would have on them. The Committee and staff relayed that they have been told that employees of nearby businesses and students are parking all day in this area.
 
Mr. Osborn made a MOTION and it was SECONDED by Ms. Noles to restrict parking along Front Street from 10th to 11th to two hours. Mr. Osborn amended his MOTION to include 15 minute parking restrictions. Mr. Osborn and Ms. Noles were in favor, Chair Penland was opposed.
The MOTION carried – The Committee will ask the City to restrict parking along Front Street from 10th Street to 11th Street with two spots in front of the 315 S. Front Street for 15 minute parking.
 
30.3   2nd Street and Rose Avenue – Stop/Yield Request
 
Staff Analysis:
 
Mr. Sarver presented. Residents of 2nd Street have requested Stop/Yield Signs to be placed at the intersection of 2nd and Rose Street.
 
Rose Street is a 36 foot wide standard residential street with curb and gutter, sidewalks, street lighting, bicycle lanes on both sides, and parking available on the east side. Rose was found to carry 345 vehicles per day (VPD) south of 2nd Street.
 
West 2nd Street is a 30 foot wide minor residential street with curb and gutter, sidewalks, street lighting, and parking available on both sides. West 2nd Street was found to carry 676 VPD.
 
The intersection of Rose Street and 2nd Street is a T-intersection. Rose Street connects to a higher order street, West 4th Street, to the south and serves two other residential streets and three alleys in between. West 2nd Street connects two higher order streets, North Columbus Avenue and North Oakdale Avenue, and also serves several residential streets in between. McLaughlin Middle School is located two blocks to the east. Rose Street is an identified bicycle route.
 
The Traffic Engineering Division has conducted a standard STOP Sign Warrant Investigation at West 2nd Street and Rose Street. (Figure 30.4.1).  Sight distance is not in compliance with Medford Municipal Code 10.735, Clear View of Intersecting Streets. (Figure 30.4.2) There are residential-residential intersections in the neighborhood along both Rose and 2nd that have Yield and Stop controls. Rose south of this intersection has Yield controls on all intersecting residential streets and Stop control on Rose Street at the intersection of 4th Street 2nd Street has one Yield control at the intersection of Oak Street and Stop control on 2nd Street at the intersection of Summit Avenue and Holly Street.
 
Possible Recommendations:
 
  • Do nothing.
  • Correct sight distance obstructions.
  • Install a STOP or YIELD sign on Rose Street.
 
Committee Discussion:
 
The Committee heard testimony from residents:
 
Jeanne Doell of 703 W 2nd presented information regarding the dangerous conditions on the streets in question. All residents present, voiced their concerns about children from McLoughlin Middle School darting in and out of traffic, heavy traffic, tall vehicles parked along the roadways that impede visibility, current Yield sign is inadequate, cars parked on both sides of the street impedes safe passage and encourages drivers to wind around each other, impatient drivers, and speeding vehicles.
 
Ms. Doell suggested speed bumps. Chair Penland explained that the City Council has placed a city-wide moratorium on installing speed bumps.
 
The Committee and staff discussed how the City could correct the sight distance obstructions. Mr. Sarver offered vegetation needs to be trimmed, parking restrictions could be incorporated up to 50 feet from the existing Yield sign.
 
Resident Chavala Bates of 622 W 2nd Street offered the same observations as Ms. Doell, adding that her 10-year-old was almost hit by a car recently on 2nd Street. She believes many school children are in grave danger. She wants to see the traffic slowed down with a Stop sign and a Yield sign on 2nd. She believes it would slow the speed between Summit and past McLoughlin Middle School. Ms. Bates addressed the narrowness of the travel lanes due to parking on both sides of the street and that this creates a one lane roadway. There is nowhere for the cars to go to get out of each other’s way.
 
Resident Sally Milton of 711 W 2nd Street has lived there 16 years and has the same concerns as Ms. Bates and Ms. Doell. It’s speed, but when they do slow down, the kids walking and on skateboards think it is safe to try to cross in front and weave in and out of the cars. It is not safe. She discussed when a gun was fired in the neighborhood, the person was able to speed away unencumbered. She recommends there be three Stop signs because the Yield signs are not obeyed.
 
Chair Penland expressed the issue of speeding traffic has existed in Medford for decades and that where schools and pedestrians are is where it is the most dangerous. She expressed her concern with restricting parking even 50 feet. People will go even faster. They don’t obey Yield signs, so they are not going to obey Stop signs either. Taking parking away doesn’t give drivers a visual to slow down. If you take the parking away then they have a straight shot. Chair Penland’s concern is for the neighborhood as well. She agreed that sight distance is awful and agreed it is very dangerous for children. She suggested that MPD could do something. Ms. Milton had already contacted the new traffic coordinator at MPD, Jeff Kirkpatrick, who has discussed a type of traffic trailer to monitor the speed.
 
Chair Penland offered to put in a request to have MPD go to the site either with a radar band or maybe with a police officer who can watch things and see what’s happening.
 
Mr. Sarver offered that no Stop or Yield signs can be installed on 2nd Street because it is a major street. Chair Penland expanded explaining that only Rose Street could have a Stop Sign and one on 2nd Street would not meet the traffic standards. Major movements are not stopped because the goal is to keep traffic moving. So were a Yield or Stop sign to be installed, it would have to be on Rose.
 
Ms. Doell asked about the possibility of installing Speed Limit signs. Mr. Sarver explained the City’s policy in that it is to have Speed Limit signs on higher order streets and only on the lower order streets if the speed limit changes. Therefore, signs would not be added as all connecting streets are the same speed limit. It is Oregon State Law that at T intersections, the leg, or the side streets coming into the T, it is required to yield to the traffic on the main street even if there is no Yield sign.
 
Committee discussion continued with Mr. Osborn offering that it seems to be an enforcement issue. Chair Penland added her concern is still the sight distance. Mr. Osborn reasoned that if the sight distance were to be opened up, speed would increase. Chair Penland agreed, but asked the Committee if they were advocating for doing nothing and risking kids or to do it and make it safer for children? Drivers should do what the law says. Chair Penland was torn, worrying about the pedestrians not being seen and stated that for the safety of the kids and the pedestrians, we need to remove some parking and have law enforcement out there to monitor regularly.
 
Mr. Osborn made a MOTION to recommend that the sight distance be corrected. Ms. Noles suggested that she did not think that law enforcement would be out there to monitor to the degree that was needed. Her other concern was without obstructions, many more people will be speeding, so she recommended nothing be done as there is no good alternative. Chair Penland SECONDED and called for a vote. The Chair voted in favor of the MOTION. Ms. Noles was opposed.
 
The MOTION carried – The Committee will ask staff to bring the sight distance up to code, to contact law enforcement to monitor the area, and to speak directly to the officer in charge about the speed in the area and report back to the Committee.
 
30.4   6th Street Parking Request
 
Staff Analysis:
 
Mr. Sarver presented. Art Ekerson of 1706 Lake Village submitted a request for review of the parking on 6th Street at the intersection Ivy Street. He is the owner of the apartments on the NW side of the intersection and is looking to increase street parking by one space.
 
Sixth Street is a 40 foot wide commercial street with curb and gutter, sidewalks, street lighting, and parking on both sides. Sixth Street was found to carry 950 vehicles per day (VPD) from Oakdale Avenue to Holly Street.
 
Ivy Street is a 36 foot wide local street with curb and gutter, sidewalks, street lighting, and parking on both sides. Ivy Street is not currently a counted roadway.
 
Public Works has looked into the potential additional parking location and this space is within the clear vision triangle defined by Medford Municipal Code 10.735, Clear View of Intersecting Streets (See Figure 30.4.1). \
Possible Solutions:
 
  • Do nothing.
  • Place additional Parking Space.
 
Committee Discussion:
 
Residents Kevin and Michelle Ekerson of 706 Lake Village stated that they own 26 apartments on S. Ivy with only ten parking spaces. In support of their assertions, they provided testimony that a nearby church has just expanded, The Compass House has just moved into a neighboring building, Rogue Retreat is moving into the neighborhood with 51 beds, and Foundations for Recovery is located in the same area. The parking their tenants use is 65 feet back from the Stop sign, while across the intersection, parking is set back only 10 feet from the corner. It is inconsistent, so they would like one space added on their side of the street, which will not obstruct any view. There is a Stop sign on N. Oakdale and W. 6th, so anybody going east is not going very fast. Chair Penland engaged with Mr. Ekerson regarding the age of the parking spaces. He told her it is all newly designated.
 
Committee members and Mr. Ekerson discussed the background of the parking area. Ms. Noles made a MOTION that the Committee recommend putting in an additional parking space on 6th Street. Mr. Osborn SECONDED the MOTION.
 
The MOTION passed unanimously – The Committee will request an additional parking space be created on 6th Street.
 
40.     Reports
 
40.1   August 2019 Making an Impact Transportation Safety Check List
 
Mr. Server presented a safety document for schools reopening. Chair Penland suggested this document go in the City residents’ utility bills so drivers can see some of the frequently asked questions and important points of driving safely when children are present. The Committee discussed different aspects of road safety as it relates to school buses, etc. It was suggested to have police officers ride along on school buses or follow behind to identify those who disregard school bus flashing lights. Different ways were discussed as to how to identify drivers who are breaking the law. Staff offered some suggestions such as cameras on the outside of the buses.
 
Committee tasked staff with contacting Utilities to inquire about adding a flyer to one of the monthly Utility bills that go to the public.
 
50.     Other Business
 
Nothing.
 
60.     Transportation Commission Liaison Update
 
Chair Penland reported that the Transportation Commission meeting of October 23 was canceled for lack of a quorum. However, unofficial conversation about the Mega Corridor – South Stage/Foothill took place.
 
The project has support from Federal DOT, ODOT, and the City, but the cost is approximately $100,000,000, of which we current have only $30M. The Commission was told that it is their responsibility to find the rest of the funding. How will we do that? Some will come from other communities like Phoenix, ODOT will help, and we’ll apply for grants. Basically, the Commission needs to come up with $50M. The Commission will ask City Council to raise the System Development Charges by $1,000 per home. We are going to ask that 65 cents be added to the monthly City of Medford utility bills, and we are going to ask that voters to pass a gas tax of 4 cents a gallon.
 
Raising the $50M will actually result in raising about $64M because of bond costs. Time is short as there are other entities that need to be brought into the conversation and grant deadlines are approaching. May is a target, but it’s more likely to be in November of 2020.
 
The 1992 Transportation System Plan identified 17 separate projects to complete. All but two have been completed. Twenty-seven years later, it is doubtful these two projects 1) infill sidewalks on Delta Waters and 2) Columbus and Prune improvements are at the top of anyone’s wish list. So, we were given this list of all the projects that could be done. The funding for these two projects has already been collected. Therefore, lawyers will need to be consulted as to whether that funding can be used for something else. If the funding can be reallocated, to which projects?
 
The Committee had no questions.
 
70.     Next Meeting:
 
The Committee decided to combine November and December’s meetings due to the upcoming holidays. The next meeting of the Committee will be December 12, in Room 151 of the Lausmann Annex Building and will run from 11:30 – 1:30.
 
80.     Adjournment: 12:57 pm
 
Respectfully Submitted,
 
Debra Royal
Recording Secretary

 

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

Quicklinks

Share This Page

Back to Top