Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-31JANUARY 26, 2010 10 -31 ORDINANCE FIRST READING (CARRIED, LOST LAID OVER WITHDRAWN ) PURPOSE: APPROVAL OF PARKING REGULATIONS CHANGES ON RANDALL PLACE, VILAS AVENUE, 9TH AVENUE, AND TWO ALLEYS INITIATED BY: TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT A GENERAL ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF OSHKOSH AMENDING SECTION 27- 23(A -11) OF THE OSHKOSH MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO PARKING REGULATIONS ON DESIGNATED STREETS AND ALLEYS. The Common Council of the City of Oshkosh do ordain as follows: SECTION 1. That Section 27- 23(A -11) of the Oshkosh Municipal Code pertaining to parking regulations on designated streets and alleys is hereby amended as follows A-11 PARKING REGULATIONS ON DESIGNATED STREETS AND ALLEYS RANDALL PLACE Add Thereto No parking, both sides, north and south of Vilas Avenue. VILAS AVENUE Add Thereto No parking, both sides, from Main Street to Division Street. MISCELLANEOUS Remove Therefrom No parking in the alley running east and west from Bay Street to Broad Street, between Otter Avenue and Waugoo Avenue. Add Thereto No parking, both sides, the east /west alley between Mill Street to Broad Street, north of Otter Avenue and south of Waugoo Avenue. Add Thereto No parking, both sides, the north /south alley between the Jefferson (400 Block East) municipal parking lot and Washington Avenue. JANUARY 26, 2010 10 -31 ORDINANCE FIRST READING CONT'D 9TH AVENUE Remove Therefrom No parking, north side, from South Main Street to 65 feet west of South Main Street. Add Thereto No parking, north side, from South Main Street to 165 feet west of South Main Street. Add Thereto No parking, both sides, from 230 feet west of South Main Street to 262 feet west of South Main Street. Add Thereto No parking, both sides, from Nebraska Street to 30 feet east of Nebraska Street. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, publication and placement of the appropriate signage. SECTION 3. Publication Notice. Please take notice that the City of Oshkosh enacted ordinance #10 -XXX (A GENERAL ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF OSHKOSH AMENDING SECTION 27- 23(A -11) OF THE OSHKOSH MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO PARKING REGULATIONS ON DESIGNATED STREETS AND ALLEYS) on February 9, 2010. The ordinance pertains to parking regulations changes on Randall Place, Vilas Avenue, 9 Avenue, and two alleys. The full text of the ordinance may be obtained at the Office of the City Clerk, 215 Church Avenue and through the City's website at www.ci.oshkosh.wi.us Clerk's phone 920/236-5011. 0 O.fHKO.fH ON THE WATER MEMORANDUM TO: Mark A. Rohloff, City Manager FROM: Christopher Strong, Transportation Director DATE: January 20, 2010 RE: Explanation of Traffic Regulations Ordinance Changes SECTION 1 • SECTION 27 -23(A) PARKING REGULATIONS A REQUEST FOR NO PARKING ON RANDALL PLACE (NORTH AND SOUTH OF VILAS AVENUE). (CURRENT CONDITION: UNRESTRICTED PARKING.) This is a Public Works Department and citizen request. Randall Place is a 12' wide road that functions as a pair of cul -de -sacs off of Vilas Avenue. In addition to concerns over emergency response and snow plowing cited under the previous item, a resident on this street has reported being blocked in his driveway repeatedly by people parking on this street. This street was considered for a parking prohibition in July 1993, concurrently with Vilas Avenue; the discussions for the two streets were similar. In the case of Randall Place, the Board recommended against the request by a 5 -0 vote. Similar arguments apply here as they do with Vilas Avenue, with the additional support of the resident on this street who is adversely affected when people park on- street. PASSED BY TRAFFIC REVIEW BOARD (5 -0). A REQUEST FOR NO PARKING ON VILAS AVENUE FROM MAIN STREET TO DIVISION STREET. (CURRENT CONDITION: UNRESTRICTED PARKING.) This is a Department of Public Works request. Vilas Avenue is a short local street with a width of 13 -14 feet. According to the City's Traffic Management guidelines, parking is to be prohibited on both sides of a local street when the street width is less than 17 feet. The Department of Public Works would like to ensure that there is no parking on this street in order to facilitate snow removal operations. The Fire Department has also expressed concern that vehicles parked on this street might delay emergency response. The Traffic Review Advisory Board considered and rejected (4 -1 vote) an identical request in July 1993. The 1993 request was initiated by the Police Department, due to concerns over emergency response. Transportation Department staff supported this request. The meeting minutes indicated that local residents felt there was no need for this, which apparently swayed the Board's vote. I prefer not to have the Board revisit specific decisions in a short timeframe unless circumstances have changed significantly. In this case, sixteen (16) years have lapsed since the Board's previous evaluation of this proposal, and the need today is no less now than it was then. The larger size of snow removal equipment and emergency response vehicles provide further support for this request. PASSED BY TRAFFIC REVIEW BOARD (5 -0). Page 2 of 3 Explanation of Traffic Ordinance Changes A REQUEST FOR NO PARKING IN THE ALLEY RUNNING EAST AND WEST FROM BAY STREET TO MILL STREET, BETWEEN OTTER AVENUE AND WAUGOO AVENUE. (CURRENT CONDITION: UNRESTRICTED PARKING.) This is a Police Department request As noted earlier, parking is normally not permitted on local streets when the street width is 17 feet or less. This alley's width is approximately 15 feet wide, which is relatively typical of other alleys in the City. Since traffic volumes and driving speeds on alleys are generally lower than on local streets, we normally do not consider requests to restrict parking on alleys except on a complaint basis. In the case of this alley, there have been citizen complaints that vehicles parking in this alley are a nuisance. There appear to be a number of off - street parking spaces, including garages, which should be available for vehicle parking. On- street parking could restrict the ability of many vehicles to access parking areas, as well as restrict the overall use of this alley. In February 1985, the Board recommended that parking be prohibited in this same alley from Bay Street to Broad Street. The need for and toleration of on- street parking in alleys is likely to be strongly dependent on the sentiments of affected residents. Apart from significant neighborhood input otherwise, I believe that preserving the alley for moving traffic warrants approval of this request. PASSED BY TRAFFIC REVIEW BOARD (5 -0). A REQUEST FOR NO PARKING ON THE NORTH -SOUTH ALLEY FROM THE JEFFERSON PARKING LOT TO WASHINGTON AVENUE, EAST OF MAIN STREET. (CURRENT CONDITION: UNRESTRICTED PARKING.) This is a BID request. Prior to the reconstruction of the Jefferson (400 Block East) parking lot, there was a north -south alley that ran one -way southbound from Merritt Avenue to Washington Avenue. In July 2009, the Common Council converted part of this alley to a pedestrian mall. Since that time, there have been complaints of parking occurring in the remaining portion of the alley. The remaining portion of the alley is designated for one -way vehicular traffic flow, and is approximately 15 feet wide. Our traffic management guidelines recommend that parking not be allowed on local streets when the width is 17 feet or less. I believe that people are parking in this alley under the incorrect assumption that it is no longer used by vehicle traffic. While traffic volumes are likely less than they were previously, traffic may continue to use this road to leave the municipal parking lot. In addition, this alley provides critical access from an emergency response perspective. Due to the narrow width of the street, parking of vehicles in the alley can effectively close off the street to emergency response as well as other users of this roadway. PASSED BY TRAFFIC REVIEW BOARD (5 -0). A REQUEST FOR NO PARKING ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 9 T " AVENUE FROM 65 FEET WEST OF MAIN STREET TO 165 FEET WEST OF MAIN STREET. (CURRENT CONDITION: UNRESTRICTED PARKING.) A REQUEST FOR NO PARKING ON BOTH SIDES OF 9 T " AVENUE FROM 230 FEET WEST OF MAIN STREET TO 262 FEET WEST OF MAIN STREET. (CURRENT CONDITION: UNRESTRICTED PARKING.) A REQUEST FOR NO PARKING ON BOTH SIDES OF 9 T " AVENUE FROM 30 FEET EAST OF NEBRASKA STREET TO NEBRASKA STREET. (CURRENT CONDITION: UNRESTRICTED PARKING.) Page 3 of 3 These are Transportation Department requests. Explanation of Traffic Ordinance Changes In conjunction with a new residential development on the north side of 91h Avenue, bumpouts have been installed on 9 Avenue. These features serve to limit on- street parking to the areas defined between bumpouts. These requests align the ordinances with the bumpouts which have already been installed. The street width at the bumpouts is approximately 28 feet. Were 9 Avenue a local street, the City's traffic management guidelines would consider on- street parking restrictions based on a valid petition. However, as a minor arterial, 9 Avenue is held to a different standard. According to the 2005 Comprehensive Plan, minor arterials are intended to move larger volumes of traffic than local streets. Permitting parking at these bumpouts would be contrary to the spirit of the City's Comprehensive Plan. PASSED BY TRAFFIC REVIEW BOARD (5 -0). MEMORANDUM 0 Of HKO H ON THE WATER TO: Mark A. Rohloff, City Manager FROM: Christopher Strong, Transportation Director DATE: January 20, 2010 RE: Items Defeated by the Traffic Review Board at their January 12, 2010 Meeting This is a citizen request. The northern leg of Sullivan Street was recently completed at this intersection, which has meant an increase in traffic. Several citizens have complained about near - misses at this intersection, and have requested that traffic control be instituted at this intersection. A yield sign is the most conservative (least restrictive) form of intersection traffic control. According to the City's Traffic Management guidelines, an intersection meeting one or more of these warrants is a candidate for the implementation of yield sign traffic control. 1. Three or more right angle accidents in a 24 -month period. 2. 1,500 or more vehicles per day. 3. Inadequate sight distance. With respect to item 1, there have been no accidents at this intersection through August 2009, which is not surprising since the street's opening is relatively new. Traffic counts were conducted in October 2009: these counts showed volumes as follows: Location Daily Traffic Volume Westbound Southland Avenue, east of intersection ................................................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............... . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ 200 . ................................ . . . . . .. . . . .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . ........................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................. . . . . ....................... . . . . . ........................... . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....................... . . . . . . . . . . Northbound Sullivan Street, south of intersection .......................... ............................ ..................... ................................................................................................... 75 ........................ _._._ .............. ................. _........................ ..._........................... ........... ............_............. .... ................... _........... Southbound Sullivan Street, north of intersection 40 Total entering traffic 315 The total entering volume of traffic is much less than the normal threshold where a yield sign would be warranted. Apart from some hedges at the northeast corner of this intersection, sight distance is adequate. In summary, the intersection does not satisfy any of the warrants for installation of a yield sign. There has been some concern with the private driveway that enters the intersection from the west. Citizens have reported that vehicles leave this property without stopping for cross - traffic, as they should when leaving a driveway (Wisc. Stats. 346.18(4)). 1 am not certain how often this occurs; however, installing intersection control on the public right -of -way would not address this problem. DEFEATED BY TRAFFIC REVIEW BOARD (0 -5)