Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-87FEBRUARY 22, 2011 11 -87 ORDINANCE FIRST READING (CARRIED LOST LAID OVER WITHDRAWN ) PURPOSE: APPROVAL OF A LOADING ZONE ON BAY SHORE DRIVE AND TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS RELATED TO PARKING REGULATIONS ON ALGOMA BOULEVARD, OREGON STREET AND 8TH AVENUE INITIATED BY: TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT A GENERAL ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF OSHKOSH AMENDING 27- 23(A -5) AND 27- 23(A -11) OF THE OSHKOSH MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO LOADING ZONES AND 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 -5) of the Oshkosh Municipal Code pertaining to loading zones is hereby amended as follows: A -5 LOADING ZONES Add Thereto Bay Shore Drive, south side, from 255 feet east of Bay Street to 295 feet east of Bay Street, between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on weekdays. SECTION 2. That Section 27- 23(A -11) of the Oshkosh Municipal Code pertaining to parking regulations on designated streets and alleys is hereby created as follows: A -11 PARKING REGULATIONS ON DESIGNATED STREETS AND ALLEYS ALGOMA BOULEVARD Remove Therefrom 90- minute parking, north side, from 140 feet west of North Main Street to Division Street between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. daily except on Sundays and New Year's Day, Fourth of July, Labor day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. Add Thereto 2 -hour parking, north side, from 140 feet west of North Main Street to Division Street between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. daily except on Sundays and holidays. FEBRUARY 22, 2011 11 -87 ORDINANCE FIRST READING CONT'D OREGON STREET Remove Therefrom No parking, west side, from 10 Ave. to 31 ft. south. Remove Therefrom No parking west side, from 10 Avenue to 49 feet north of 10,911h, 0 h Avenue. Remove Therefrom No parking, east side, from 9th Avenue to 102 feet south. Remove Therefrom No parking, east side, from 9th Avenue to 80 feet north of 9th Avenue. Add Thereto No parking, west side, from 31 feet south of 10 Avenue to 49 feet north of 10 Avenue. Add Thereto No parking, east side, from 102 feet south of 9th Avenue to 80 feet north of 9th Avenue. 8TH AVENUE Add Thereto 2 -hour parking, south side, from Oregon Street to 210 feet west of Oregon Street, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. SECTION 3. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, publication and placement of the appropriate signage. SECTION 4. Publication Notice. Please take notice that the City of Oshkosh enacted ordinance #11 -XXX (A GENERAL ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF OSHKOSH AMENDING SECTIONS 27- 23(A -5) AND 27- 23(A -11) OF THE OSHKOSH MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO LOADING ZONES AND PARKING REGULATIONS ON DESIGNATED STREETS AND ALLEYS on March 8, 2011. The ordinance creates a loading zone on Bay Shore Drive and makes technical corrections to parking regulations on Algoma Boulevard, Oregon Street and 8 th Avenue. 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. n .lHK0 ON TIIE WA. MEMORANDUM TO: Mark A. Rohloff, City Manager FROM: Christopher Strong, Transportation Director DATE: February 16, 2011 RE: Explanation of Traffic Regulations Ordinance Changes SECTION 1 • SECTION 27- 23(A -5) — LOADING ZONES A REQUEST FOR A LOADING ZONE ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF BAY SHORE DRIVE FROM 255 FEET EAST OF BAY STREET TO 295 FEET EAST OF BAY STREET BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 7 AM AND 6 PM, MONDAYS THROUGH FRIDAYS. (CURRENT CONDITION: UNRESTRICTED PARKING.) This is a business request. The business making this request is on Bay Shore Drive, which is a local street with a width of 30 feet at this location. Two reasons were cited by the business for wanting to limit on- street parking during business hours. First, delivery vehicles sometimes have difficulty accessing the entrance to his building. Second, there is no public sidewalk on the southern side of the road, so this is also the primary pedestrian to the building. It appears that the curb near the building's entrance may have been painted in the past for this type of restriction; however, there is no current ordinance language to support a parking restriction. There is no parking on the north side of the street. This proposal would result in the loss of the equivalent of two parking spaces during daytime hours; however, in a couple of field visits, it did not appear that there is significant demand for daytime parking in this area. The proposed loading zone would still allow the parking to be used for evening and weekend parking, which would allow it to be used by residents. Therefore, the impact of this request appears to be minimal. PASSED BY TRAFFIC REVIEW BOARD (4 -0) S ECTION 2• SECTION 27- 23(A -11) — PARKING RE GULATIONS ALGOMA BOULEVARD — Ordinance change to match field conditions. OREGON STREET — Ordinance change to clean up the code. 8 TH AVENUE — Ordinance change to match field conditions. MEMORANDUM 0 OHKOH ON THE WATER TO: Mark A. Rohloff, City Manager FROM: Christopher Strong, Transportation Director DATE: February 16, 2011 RE: Items Defeated by the Traffic Review Board at their February 8, 2011 Meeting A REQUEST FOR A FOUR -WAY STOP AT THE INTERSECTION OF CHURCH AVENUE AND DIVISION STREET. (CURRENT CONDITION: CHURCH AVENUE IS A THROUGH STREET.) This is a citizen request. There are two primary warrants for an all -way stop to be used to control traffic at an intersection. Under the safety warrant, there must be five or more reported crashes in a 12 -month period that are susceptible to correction by an all -way stop installation. These crashes include right - and left - turn collisions as well as right -angle collisions. Under the traffic volume warrant, the following conditions must all be true: • Traffic exceeds 300 vehicles per hour for at least eight (8) hours for the major street approaches. • Traffic exceeds 200 vehicles per hour for at least eight (8) hours on the minor street approaches. • Traffic volumes are relatively equal in distribution. The number of reported crashes at the intersection of Church Avenue and Division Street is shown in Table 1. As can be seen, the crash history at this intersection is not enough to satisfy the all -way stop warrant. Table 1: Number of Crashes at Church Avenue and Division Street, 2002 to 2009 Year # of Crashes 2002 3 2003 3 2004 1 2005 2 2006 0 2007 0 2008 1 2009 4 Traffic volume data were collected in November 2010, after the Main Street construction project was complete; average weekday hourly traffic volumes are provided in Table 2. While there is sufficient traffic on Church Avenue to satisfy the major street warrant, there is not enough traffic on Division Street. Moreover, the traffic volumes at this intersection are not distributed equally, with more than two - thirds of the traffic being on Church Avenue. ITEMS DEFEATED 2 FEBRUARY 2011 Table 2: Hourly Traffic Volumes at Church Avenue and Division Street, November 2010 In addition to the warrants not being met, it should be noted that Church Avenue is a collector street while Division Street is classified as a local street. Stopping traffic on Church Avenue at this intersection would reduce the ability of the street to move traffic as intended. DEFEATED BY TRAFFIC REVIEW BOARD (0 -4) A REQUEST FOR NO PARKING ON THE NORTH SIDE OF CHURCH AVENUE FROM 45 FEET WEST OF MAIN STREET TO 104 FEET WEST OF MAIN STREET. (CURRENT CONDITION: 2 -HOUR PARKING BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 9:00 A.M. AND 6:00 PM. DAILY, EXCEPT ON SUNDAYS AND HOLIDAYS.) This is a citizen request. This section of on- street parking was added in early 2004. The Traffic Review Advisory Board supported this with a 4 -2 vote. Supporting votes indicated that the street had sufficient width (at 42 feet) to accommodate the parking, and that a previous trial with this had shown no safety problems. Opposing votes cited the availability of parking elsewhere, specifically in the Division Street and 400 Block West municipal parking lots. Church Avenue reet Time E astbound Westbound Total �Divis�ion Northbound Total 12:00 AM 16 19 35 8 7 15 1:00 AM 11 16 27 6 5 11 2 :00 AM 8 13 21 2 6 8 3:00 AM 5 10 15 3 2 5 4:00 AM 5 8 12 4 5 8 5:00 AM 19 29 48 11 7 18 6:00 AM 41 57 98 32 20 52 7:00 AM ° 1;�1�� .7 I'll &V11 "_ 72 88 159 8:00 AM 170 128 298 65 70 134 9:00 AM 146 139 285 55 53 107 1000 AM �, �SI� �_ . `, :4 A 78 60 138 11:00 AM 11 2' 9 . ! 114 77 190 12:00 PM Y_ AR � � � '12� ,' ar4 1.xs�=`4 111 85 196 1:00 PM 1 O s 0 h hN_ 3rtl 99 99 197 2 :00 PM �n�2� �� 2�`� � � �,:_ � 102 89 191 3:0 M - 5:00 PM T ... �� .�� 110 12 182 6:00 PM 13 6 ai „,' - 84 54 137 7:00 PM _? , 88 123 210 78 45 123 8:00 PM 72 88 160 1 51 46 97 9:00 PM 51 68 118 40 31 70 10.00 PM 42 43 84 23 22 44 11:00 PM 23 28 51 9 1 15 24 Total 2,540 2,755 5,294 1,381 1,131 2,513 In addition to the warrants not being met, it should be noted that Church Avenue is a collector street while Division Street is classified as a local street. Stopping traffic on Church Avenue at this intersection would reduce the ability of the street to move traffic as intended. DEFEATED BY TRAFFIC REVIEW BOARD (0 -4) A REQUEST FOR NO PARKING ON THE NORTH SIDE OF CHURCH AVENUE FROM 45 FEET WEST OF MAIN STREET TO 104 FEET WEST OF MAIN STREET. (CURRENT CONDITION: 2 -HOUR PARKING BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 9:00 A.M. AND 6:00 PM. DAILY, EXCEPT ON SUNDAYS AND HOLIDAYS.) This is a citizen request. This section of on- street parking was added in early 2004. The Traffic Review Advisory Board supported this with a 4 -2 vote. Supporting votes indicated that the street had sufficient width (at 42 feet) to accommodate the parking, and that a previous trial with this had shown no safety problems. Opposing votes cited the availability of parking elsewhere, specifically in the Division Street and 400 Block West municipal parking lots. ITEMS DEFEATED 3 FEBRUARY 2011 The 2005 City of Oshkosh Comprehensive Plan calls for removal of on- street parking on collector streets, like Church Avenue, if necessary for additional traffic capacity. In addition, some studies have suggested that the removal of on- street parking can contribute to improved safety. The citizen making this request was concerned that continuing to allow on- street parking is a safety problem. There has been nominal traffic growth on Church Avenue in the last few years, but not enough that appear to require the removal of parking to facilitate traffic flow. The Main Street construction project did not result in any narrowing of this section of Church Avenue; therefore, there should be no new safety issues with on- street parking at this location. Moreover, a review of crash data from 2007 -2009 did not show any crashes involving vehicles using this on- street parking. While a case could be made to remove this parking, I don't believe there is compelling evidence that there is a current or potential safety problem significant enough to warrant the removal of the parking. Moreover, preserving this parking helps to offset the effects of some of the parking lost as a result of the re- construction of Main Street. DEFEATED BY TRAFFIC REVIEW BOARD (0 -4) A REQUEST FOR NO PARKING ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF PARKWAY AVENUE BETWEEN MAIN STREET AND DIVISION STREET. (CURRENT CONDITION: 2- HOUR PARKING DAILY FROM 9:00 A.M. TO 6:00 P.M. EXCEPT ON SUNDAYS AND HOLIDAYS.) This is a citizen request. Parkway Avenue is a 30' wide local street with traffic volumes of approximately 800 vehicles per day. The citizen making this request is concerned that the presence of parked vehicles can increase the risk of crashes when vehicles are driving on this street. Parking restrictions on local streets are considered according to the guidelines presented in Table 3. Table 3: Guidelines for Parking Restrictions on Local Streets Street Width Parking Restrictions Less than 17 feet Both Sides (All cases) 17 to 24 feet One Side (All cases) 25 to 33 feet Valid Petition 34 feet and over None ITEMS DEFEATED 4 FEBRUARY 2011 Further, department guidelines state that a valid petition, signed by over 50 percent of the residents on a local street, should be the overriding factor in determining the parking restriction on local streets between 25 feet and 33 feet in width. If a petition isn't presented to the Board, the following factors should be considered in removing parking on local streets between 25 feet and 33 feet: • Traffic exceeds 1,000 vehicles per day. • On- street parking exceeds 50 percent of available spaces. • Significant curves, hills or sight restrictions. As noted earlier, traffic volumes on this section of Parkway Avenue are less than 1,000 vehicles per day. A 2008 parking utilization study showed parking utilization of these spaces at about 46 percent. There are no significant curves or hills or sight restrictions related to these parking spaces. In summary, none of these factors would seem to require the removal of on- street parking. While Parkway Avenue is a relatively narrow street, the presence of on- street parking on this block did not result in any crashes between 2007 and 2009. As was true with the previous item, preserving the parking here helps to offset the effects of the Main Street reconstruction project, especially as parking losses were most notable toward the northern end of the project limits. DEFEATED BY TRAFFIC REVIEW BOARD (0 -4) A REQUEST FOR A TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT THE INTERSECTION OF COUNTY HIGHWAY A AND COUNTY HIGHWAY Y. (CURRENT CONDITION: COUNTY HIGHWAY A IS A THROUGH STREET.) This is a citizen request. The citizen made this request out of concern for the safety of vehicles crossing or entering County Highway A from County Highway Y, specifically during the morning rush hour and the afternoon from 3 -5 PM. The Transportation Department uses traffic signal warrants from the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices to provide an objective, consistent and proven way of assessing whether the benefits of a signal might outweigh the costs. The following is the staff's preliminaryl analysis of these warrants. Warrant 1: Eight -Hour Vehicular Volume. This warrant is based on having a sufficient traffic volume on both streets at a given intersection over a minimum of eight hours of the day. Table 4 summarizes traffic volumes at this intersection as collected in May 2010. I A complete analysis would need to adjust traffic volumes on County Highway Y according to the percentage of traffic which is turning right. ITEMS DEFEATED FEBRUARY 2011 Table 4: Hourly Traffic Volumes at County Highway A and County Highway Y, May 2010 Time County Highway Y Eastbound Westbound Total County Highway A Northbound Southbound Total 12:00 AM 10 3 12 35 27 62 1:00 AM 6 2 8 22 15 37 2:00 AM 6 1 7 20 10 29 3:00 AM 3 3 6 12 16 27 4.00 AM 7 5 12 28 42 70 5.00 AM 48 21 68 110 141 251 6:00 AM 82 49 131 188 262 450 7:00 AM 125 64 188 322 421 743 800 AM 91 39 130 226 259 484 9:00 AM 108 30 138 227 172 399 10:00 AM 106 32 138 258 184 442 11 :00 AM 113 37 150 266 191 456 12:00 PM 117 48 165 281 227 507 1:00 PM 127 49 176 334 258 592 2:00 PM 130 76 206 356 360 716 3:00 PM 123 75 198 431 287 717 4.00 PM 140 66 205 477 330 806 5: 00 PM 97 42 139 372 276 647 6:00 PM 85 30 115 214 192 406 7.00 PM 60 17 77 156 133 289 --- 8 - 00 PM : 53 18 71 141 104 245 900 PM 38 17 55 104 86 190 10.00 PM 25 31 56 79 86 164 11 :00 PM 9 1 6 15 130 34 163 Total 1,703 757 2,460 4,783 1 4,105 8,888 Satisfying this warrant would require2: a) eight hours each day of 420 vehicles per hour on County Highway A and 140 vehicles per hour on one of the County Highway Y approaches; b) eight hours each day of 630 vehicles per hour on County Highway A and 70 vehicles per hour on one of the County Highway Y approaches; or c) 80 percent of the volume necessary to meet condition a) and 80 percent of the volume necessary to meet condition b). Condition a) appears to be met for one of eight hours, while condition b) appears to be met for five hours. Condition c) appears to be met for only seven hours for part a) and seven hours for part b); however, both parts of this condition are satisfied for only six hours. Therefore, this warrant is not satisfied. Warrant 2: 4 -Hour Vehicular Traffic Volume. This warrant is also based on large volumes of intersecting traffic, and looks at hourly traffic during any four hours of a given day. To satisfy 2 The traffic volume requirements are lower for this location than others because the speed limit on County Highway A is 45 mph north of this intersection. ITEMS DEFEATED 6 FEBRUARY 2011 this warrant, there must be four points above the curve shown in Figure 1. Since only one of the points is above the curve, this warrant is not satisfied. CL 400 am Z _ 300 o _ w a 200 CL m 100 p 0 Z o 0 > o a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C) rn ° M � C) d U') Cfl MAJOR STREET - Total of Both Approaches (vph) 2+ Lanes & 2+ Lanes X Data Points Figure 1: Evaluation of Warrant 2, County Highway A and County Highway Y, May 2010 Warrant 3: Peak Hour. This signal warrant is intended for use at a location where traffic conditions are such that for a minimum of 1 hour of an average day, the minor - street traffic suffers undue delay when entering or crossing the major street. According to the MUTCD, "This signal warrant shall be applied only in unusual cases, such as office complexes, manufacturing plants, industrial complexes, or high- occupancy vehicle facilities that attract or discharge large numbers of vehicles over a short time." As such, this warrant is not applicable in this case. Warrant 4: Pedestrian Volumes. This warrant requires minimum pedestrian volumes during a peak hour or over a four -hour period, as well as a lack of gaps in traffic in which pedestrians may safely cross. The requirement is for there to be 190 pedestrians crossing in a single hour or 100 pedestrians in each of four hours during a day. With limited pedestrian amenities at this intersection, it is doubtful that these pedestrian volumes are occurring. Warrant S: School Crossing. This warrant is a variant of the previous warrant and focuses on pedestrian crossings toward a school. As this intersection is not near a school, this warrant is not applicable. Warrant 6: Coordinated Signal System. This warrant can be used to help traffic progression through signals by preserving platooning of vehicles. Given the distance from adjacent traffic signals, this warrant is not applicable. Warrant 7: Crash Experience. Traffic signals can be used to improve intersection safety. The following must be satisfied: ITEMS DEFEATED 7 FEBRUARY 2011 • Five or more reported accidents of types susceptible to correction by a traffic signal within a twelve month period; • the volume of traffic is at least 80 percent of the required level for the minimum vehicular volumes from Warrant 1; and • adequate trial of alternatives with satisfactory observance and enforcement has failed to reduce the crash frequency. Table 5 summarizes the crash history at this intersection from 2002 to date. Table 5: Number of Crashes at County Highway A and County Highway Y, 2002 -2009 Year # of Crashes 2002 0 2003 0 2004 0 2005 1 2006 0 2007 1 2008 0 2009 2 As can be seen, the crash experience warrant is not satisfied. Warrant 8 — Roadway Network. A traffic signal may be installed to encourage concentration and organization of traffic flow on a roadway network, especially in the intersection of two major streets. Due to the traffic volumes required to satisfy this warrant, it is unlikely that this warrant will be applicable to intersections in the City in the foreseeable future. Warrant 9: Intersection near a Grade Crossing. The purpose of this relatively new warrant is to look at special circumstances where the intersection's proximity to a railroad grade crossing is the main reason for considering a signal. While a rail line is near this intersection, this is not the primary motivator for this request. Therefore, this warrant was not examined any further. Based on the preliminary analysis, this intersection does not satisfy any of the signal warrants. DEFEATED BY TRAFFIC REVIEW BOARD (0 -4)