HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-12-20 Bicycle & Pedestrian_PACKETCITY OF ASHLAND BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN COMMISSION
Agenda
Thursday, December 20th, 2007 @ 5:15 P.M.
Siskiyou Room @ 51 Winburn Way
Community Development & Engineering Services Building
CALL TO ORDER
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: November 15th, 2007
III. PUBLIC FORUM - Business from the audience not included on the agenda.
(Limited to 5 minutes per speaker and 15 minutes total.)
IV. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
Subcommittee & Liaison Reports
V. PUBLIC HEARING
Planning Action #2007-01941 — Bellview School/1070 Tolman Cr. Rd.
Site Review & Request for Variance to reduce the number of required bicycle parking
spaces at Bellview School
VI. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION
Central Ashland Bikepath Speed Limits
On -Going Discussion of Commission Goals
Election of Officers - Secretary
Follow -Ur) Items from Last Month
North Main Street Fog -Line
Oak Street Fog -Line Request
Transportation Commission
Glenview Street Shared Facility
New Business
Agenda Items for Next Month
VII. ADJOURNMENT
Upcoming Meetings
Next Regular Meeting - Thursday, January 17th , 2007 at 5:15 P.M.
i,'k
.� �,� , ,
��'
'm „�.�ff
snn�
p
i I� ' ;. 'q I� 3
��' � ,: �• '9 r U �
ppn
. ,L �. � i = d ! Y �,� i I 5 � ' �
`� �. r t Gw
,� t
I
City of Ashland Bicycle & Pedestrian Commission
Membership Roster (Updated November 15t", 2007)
1.
4.30.2008
Steve Ryan
657 C Street
951-1409
resolutionvideoavahoo.com
2.
4.30.2008
David Young
747 Oak Street
488-4188
Chair
dvoung @ ieffnet.org
3.
430.2009
Julia Sommer
1158 Village Sq. Dr.
552-1942
Vice Chair
juliasommer@vahoo.com
4.
4.30.2009
Vacant
Secretary
5.
4.30.2010
Michael Church
2669 Takelma Way
488-2245
mickchurch@qmail.com
6.
4.30.2010
Matthew Seiler
264 Walker Avenue
973-8953 or 482-2111 x345
Mseiler74@hotmail.com
7.
4.30.2010
Jim Olney
361 Wiley Street
482-1057
olnevit@mind.net
8.
4.30.2010
Tom Burnham
1344 Apple Way
482-4467
tb1937@charter.net
9.
City Council
David Chapman
390 Orchard St
488-0152
Liaison
davidchapman@ashlandhome.net
RVTD Liaison
Steve Maluk
3200 Crater Lake Ave
608-2411
TDM Planner
Medford, OR 97504
s.maluk@rvtd.org
Planning Staff Liaison
Derek Severson
51 Winburn Wy.
552.2040
Associate Planner
seversod@ashland.or.us
Police Dept. Liaison
Steve MacLennan
1155 E. Main St.
552-2809 (voicemail)
Police Officer
macienns@ashland.or.us
Traffic Safety Liaison
Colin Swales
461 Allison St
488-0939
colinswales@.Qmail.com
Youth Liaison (SOU) Vacant
Youth Liaison (AHS) Vacant
(The nine voting members are shown in bold. Four constitutes a quorum per AMC 2.22.030)
Bicycle & Pedestrian Commission
November 15th, 2007 Regular Minutes
Roll Call: Chair David Young, Vice Chair Julia Sommer, Matthew Seiler, Tom Burnham, Steve Ryan
Mick Church, and Jim Olney (late)
Council Liaison: David Chapman
Staff: Derek Severson, Associate Planner
Steve McLennan, Police Officer
Rachel Teige, Recreation Superintendent
RVTD liaisons: Steve Maluk, TDM Planner (absent)
High school liaison: Vacant SOU liaison: Vacant
Call to Order
Chair Young called the meeting to order at 5:15 p.m.
Approval of Minutes - October 18th. 2007
It was noted that the word "reigns" should be changed to "reins" in the last sentence on page 3. It was also
suggested that the minutes clarify Eric Dittmer's identity in the North Main discussion on Page 3.
Church/Chapman m/s to approve the October minutes as amended. Voice vote: All AYES. Motion passed.
Public Forum
Huelz Gutcheon spoke regarding bicycling on sidewalks in the downtown, and suggested that for purposes of clarity
and a more positive message the wording of the signs near Brothers restaurant and the Jackson County Library be
changes from "No Bicycles on Sidewalk" to "No Bicycling on Sidewalk." He noted that he would be taking this
suggestion to the Traffic Safety Commission on December Wh
Subcommittee & Liaison Reports
Chapman explained that the subcommittee (Chapman, Church and Bill Heimann) for adult bicycle safety education
had met since last time, and they have arranged to hold an adult safety class on March 8`h through Parks &
Recreation. It was noted that the cost would be either $25 or $40 for the full -day class, and that the fees would go to
pay for the cost of conducting the class, with any remaining funds going back to bicycle education. It was also
noted that Judge Turner was interested in looking at the content of the class and would likely be interested in using it
as a diversion option on some tickets. Chapman indicated that an adult bicycle safety class for law enforcement
officers was also being considered, and that a League of American Bicyclists adult/instructors class may be held in
the area early in the coming year.
Ryan provided an update on the October Traffic Safety Commission meeting.
Young provided an update on the Interchange Area Management Plan (IAMP) meetings.
Bike Swap Coordination/Logistics
Recreation Superintendent Rachel Teige explained that the Parks Department was seeking to hire an event
coordinator for the Bike Swap for an amount not to exceed $900, and that the hope was that this amount could be
paid out of Bike Swap funds. It was clarified that this would position would include handling the receipts for the
event, and that Parks would handle the recruitment and selection of the person to be hired. Teige noted that Parks
was still supportive of the event and the same resources would be available for promotion of the event; she
explained that the intention was to free up Parks staff time as had been done with other events. She emphasized that
the time involved with this event was considerable.
Burnham/Chapman m/s to recommend that up to $900 in Bike Swap bicycle safety education funds be
expended to employ an event coordinator for the Bike Swap, as requested by the Parks Department.
Discussion: Members questioned whether a vote on this issue needed to wait until after a decision on the
request for support from the Bicycle Transportation Alliance, and it was also noted that it might be possible
2007-1115 Bike & Ped minutes Page 1 of 4
to find a volunteer to fill the position rather than hiring someone. It was noted that there has historically
been some difficulty with volunteers handling money. Severson suggested that the Swap might be something
that could be taken over by, or further assistance obtained from the B.T.A. He suggested that they might
have the staffing and promotional resources to carry off a larger event. It was generally agreed that this
might be possible in the future, but that for next year's Swap to be conducted a coordinator would need to be
hired within the next month. Voice vote: All AYES. Motion passed.
Oak Street Fog -Line Request
John Fisher-Smith/945 Oak Street noted that he had measured the street width from Hersey to Nevada and that it
was 40 feet from curb to curb, with the neck -downs reducing this width to just over 24 feet. He indicated that based
on the city's Street Standards handbook he felt a fog -line could be installed between parked cars and the travel lane
in order to delineate a small area for cyclists. Severson noted that city data for this street section indicated that the
width was only 32-38 feet; he explained that a fog -line was something typically placed at the edge of pavement, and
placement of a line between the parked cars and the travel lane would create a de facto bike lane. He questioned
whether there was adequate width available to create a functional bike lane. Chapman noted that if there was indeed
40 feet of right of way available, it would be a similar width to Walker where three-foot bike lanes were able to be
installed.
Burnham expressed concern that installing a fog -line represented a band -aid approach, and indicated that he would
rather see the city do whatever needed to be done to install bike lanes. He suggested that if removing parking on one
side of the street was necessary to create bike lanes that should be considered. Seiler questioned whether the area
resulting from the proposed fog -line would be sufficient for cyclists traveling at any sort of speed.
It was also noted that the curve in front of the salmon -colored house at 767 Oak Street combines with on -street
parking to create a hazard by limiting visibility, and it was suggested that the on -street parking in this vicinity be
removed. Severson indicated that he would convey this request to Traffic Safety for consideration.
Severson suggested that he could ask Engineering to verify the roadway width and ask Traffic Safety to further
consider the idea of a bike lane if adequate width was in fact available.
BTA Funding Request
Severson provided background on the request and the Commission's partnership with the B.T.A., noting that the
request as submitted was for more than the Commission could fund with the resources directly and indirectly
available. He suggested that Commissioners might want to exclude classes proposed for Talent Elementary School
from the request as the school is outside Ashland and full support for these classes is being sought from the City of
Talent. He stated that in Staffs view, the maximum amount of the request which should be considered would be
$10,400 split between the Commission's program funds, the Traffic Safety Commission and the Bike Swap funds
and he noted that he had provided a recommended motion to indicate the split between these funding sources to
make clear that support would be tied to the number of classes actually conducted and that made clear that the
Commission was only recommending and requesting support from Traffic Safety and the Parks Foundation.
Burnham questioned why support was not being sought from the Schools directly given the amount of funds
available to them through the recent levy. Young noted that the levy was to carry on existing programs for a larger
number of students, and suggested that there was not a surplus available. Severson noted that the classes are
something that the Commission and BTA are seeking to put in place in the Schools, and asking for payment would
provide an excuse for the schools to say no. Sommer suggested that support from the schools might be a possibility,
but she indicated that it seemed unlikely that school support could be gained to fund programs during the current
fiscal year.
Church suggested that the motion recommended by staff was acceptable as submitted, and he recognized that
offering classes in Ashland schools was perhaps the most important accomplishment of the Commission. Ryan
expressed concern with expending such a large proportion of the Commission budget midway through the year.
Sommer suggested that if $2500 in Commission program funds were used and the overall amount of support
reduced to $10,000 it would leave an additional $400 for unforeseen expenses during the remainder of the year.
Severson noted that most Commissions do not have funds available beyond their $750 in commission funds, and
that the annual $3,300 has historically been available to this Commission to support bicycle safety education
2007-1115 Bike & Ped minutes Page 2 of 4
programs. He emphasized that the motion recommended did not involve the $750 in commission funds, which
would continue to be available to fund conference attendance, memberships, and subscriptions. He added that he
felt the Bike Swap represented a unique opportunity to realize, at least to a degree, the long held vision of making
the bicycle safety education program self-sustaining.
Sommer/Olney m/s to provide Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission program funds in an amount not to exceed
$2,500, to request that the Traffic Safety Commission partially match this support in amount not to exceed
$1,500, and to recommend that the Parks Foundation provide an amount not to exceed $6,000 from Bike
Swap funds, to support the Bicycle Transportation Alliance in conducting bicycle and pedestrian safety
education classes in Ashland Schools during the 2007-2008 fiscal year, with the total combined
reimbursement from these three sources not to exceed $10,000 and to be determined at a rate of $400 per
bicycle safety education class taught in Ashland schools during the current fiscal year and $100 per
pedestrian safety education class taught in Ashland schools during the current fiscal year. Payment would be
made first from the Bike Swap funds, then from the Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission program funds, and
lastly from Traffic Safety Commission funds, as needed based on the total number of classes offered in
Ashland schools during the 2007-2008 fiscal year, with the BTA to provide a detailed breakdown of the
number, type, date and location of all classes actually taught during the current fiscal year no later than June
23, 2008. Discussion: Members suggested that the BTA look into possible financial support for their
programs directly from the schools. It was also strongly recommended that the BTA consider seeking
financial support for their programs through the City budget process as the magnitude of the request now
significantly exceeds the funds directly available to the Commission. It was also suggested that the possibility
of a larger role for the BTA in promoting and conducting the annual Bike Swap be considered. Severson
indicated that he would convey these suggestions to the BTA. Voice vote: All AYES.
North Main Street Fog -Line (Follow -Uri from Last Month)
Severson noted that the Commission's support for the requested fog -line on the southbound lanes of North Main
Street had been conveyed to the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), and that after measuring lanes they
had indicated that it was not feasible. He stated that Staff are in on -going discussions with ODOT and suggested
that these discussions be allowed to run their course. He suggested that this item be postponed until next month's
agenda.
Transportation Commission (Follow -Uri from Last Month)
Chapman explained the background of his motion to create a Transportation Commission, noting that it rose out of a
Council discussion of recommendations by the Public Works Director. He pointed out the need to better address
transit, and noted that in recent discussion of the powers and duties of the Planning Commission there had been
some indication that they did not want to be responsible for transportation planning. Members emphasized the need
for an integration of land use and transportation planning. Severson suggested that members should be considering
issues such as the membership of the Commission, and how to preserve the current role of advocating for bicyclists
and pedestrians. He questioned whether members thought it advisable to ask the Mayor to hold off on reappointing
a replacement for Aitken until the make-up of this Commission was determined; he explained that right now there
were nine members on both the Bicycle and Pedestrian and Traffic Safety Commissions and appointing someone
now only to remove them if and when the commissions combine could be problematic. Members agreed that
reappointment should wait until the make-up of the Transportation Commission was determined. After discussion,
the general consensus was that members would like to see Staff s recommendations on the creation of a Commission
and react to those recommendations rather than trying to detail their own preferences in advance.
Glennview Street (Follow -Up from Last Month)
Members questioned the intent behind this item. Severson noted that it had been proposed by Colin Swales; he
further explained that Swales had provided information on the creation of a mixed facility standard prepared by
another community and was suggesting it for Glenview Street. He noted that the concept would be for a low -speed
street facility where pedestrians, bicyclists and motor vehicles were combined within a shared travel area. Severson
noted that Glenview in many ways functioned as a mixed facility now, but that the materials presented would
suggest other improvement such as pedestrian refuge areas on both sides of the street and limited signage. He
indicated that he was unsure of Swales' intent, and questioned whether it was specific to Glenview Street or if it was
more broadly looking to add a mixed facility standard to Ashland's Street Standards. He indicated that he could
2007-1115 Bike & Ped minutes Page 3 of 4
follow-up with Swales as to his intent. Ryan noted that Swales had presented this information to the Traffic Safety
Commission as well.
New Business
Ryan noted that he had concerns with dealing with water leaks which create icy sidewalks. It was noted that City
policy is that property owners are responsible for ice removal on sidewalks adjacent to their property, and that any
areas of concern could be reported to Public Works.
Agenda Items for Next Month
Severson noted that there may be a land -use action with a bicycle -related component on next month's agenda, and
questioned whether members would be in attendance. After brief discussion, it appeared that a quorum would be
available and that only Olney and Seiler planned to be absent.
It was noted that Car Free Day/Car Free Living were to be a discussion item in January.
Other items identified for the December agenda were to follow up on the North Main fog -line, Oak Street bike lanes,
and Glenview Street mixed facility requests and to review recommendations for the creation of a Transportation
Commission. Burnham asked that there be a discussion of speed limits on the Central Ashland Bikepath.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m.
Upcoming Meetings:
Regular Meeting — December 20 , 2007 at 5:15 p.m.
2007-1115 Bike & Ped minutes Page 4 of 4
BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN COMMISSION
FY 2007-2008 BUDGET UPDATE
December 2007
PROGRAM FUNDS $3,300.00
COMMISSION FUND: $750.00
$750 in Commission Funds available in addition to the $3,300 in Program Funds.
These are set aside for subscriptions, conference attendance, etc.
CAROLE WHEELDON CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND: $2 100
BIKE SWAP FUNDS $8,201.92 (as of 11/05/07)
Funds generated from the Bike Swap are under the control and management of
the Ashland Parks Foundation, a private non-profit affiliated with the Parks
Department. The Foundation has indicated a willingness to allow the
Commission to make recommendations for the expenditure of these funds. Staff
would strongly recommend that any motions for the use of these funds be
framed as recommendations to the Ashland Parks Foundation in order to
avoid any confusion about the status of these funds or the Bicycle &
Pedestrian Commission's role in managing them under Oregon state
budget law.
REMINDER: The Bicycle & Pedestrian Commission does not have the budgetary
authority to appropriate funds, and cannot enter into contracts for services.
Requests to fund outside organizations should be directed to make application
for funding to the City Council through the annual budget process.
0 0
0
0
_0
_0
C
�
w I
of
=2
Ix
V
�
> >
;
�
>
c
Cl)
c
a)- rn
U
w
c
c "'a
CU
n CO
acn
o
rn
WU
(02 O
UO
a) O
4) c
N o
.0 Q
L~Y
aIx 0)
LLI
c
L` 3
0
3
0
° •m
G
c
o n o
°�
o
C o
cu 0o
W
c
-� C -0
L a)
U O
`3
0
c°>
Ln
cum
a
o
MU
a°)U
L
m
°ate
>
>
>
a
cl0
cl
�>
H z
IL
ao
w
}
}
}
}
}
C
z
Y z
}
}
In —
G
a?
Z>
N N
N
N
o
°
m
�
c
O
c
L
(n
N
ca
cu >
f%)
N
O
cu
(0 a)
c
Ui
u'
ca
(�
c
@
C
0
O�
ca
m
7
cn
Cl)
Q
J
fB
An
�
L
Q
Q
!<j
�
Lc) NLNLl
LLJ
z
z
z
V
z
co
z
co
O
�
Ix
�,
=
>
;
2
LL >
;
>
;
N
a) Y
p
O
E
O
O
U 3
0
3
°
U
E
O�
Ly
a)�
U
�U
N
a)
U
c
CoU
c
0 c
_�
°�
rn
dr
a
d>
air
0
H
W
a�
��
�� `
Y .0
Y
m
•L
L
CL
>,
c
•`
c
a),
`
m
w �
�
Co
.X 4-
Y Q
O
(9 `~
-0
f6
0
O`
Cl)
O
`
_0
-0
U U
N
(0
�O
C
C
O C
U
a cn
E 0 0
O_
C
Q
a)
X
O
L`
c
Q
N
O
a)
L
O
C
O
c
.0
0N
W
�
O
C O f6
O
a)
(Q
i
,�
C
a) N06
U
_
O
zCU
_
Q
(�
C
cu a)
a)
v�
O
O
L
.S
Y
f6
a)
CL
O U
'0
(B
U
O N
O_
`
C
fB
(6
Q
E
U 7
�.
U
j
L Q
a) U
o
>
X
E
a)
>
:E
`
m
` C
> C
C O
>
4)
>
L
>
a)
m
f0
LL
0
LU
ci >
IL
LLJ
0
z
W
>
Y
Z
m
W
ai
Z;
N
N
N
N
�-
N
N
N
M
N
N
z
Q
J
C
Z
a)
C
C
U
C
c0
Li
co
C
T
U)
z
t`a
c
E
7
>
>
C
O
O
��1
7
O
>,
Co/)
N
>
Z
C
C
z
•`
.L
>
c
-0
=
�^
c
v
c
J
>
a
C
C
(Q
J
00
c
�
a)
Y
Q
cu
m
cu
a)
C
7
,>+
!_A
FO
O
E
Y
cu O
U)
>,
cc
c`a
C
c
C
cu a)a
c
c
C
@
a)
00
Y
W
CO
N
C
a
NEMELARM,
NI U,) ICI r— L Co IC'lI04ICIIImIcoI'DN°IcoI'o
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
z
T
Z
T
Z
T
Z
a
cij
w
�
U)
c
O o
mod
D)
C C
O C
'
C= Cl)N
N
aL+
Q
O a)-0
N
CL
U
U
co
O
—U
f6
a)O
U
O w O O
C U U
O
a�
L
Q%
C
C
(0 an
O d
-0 O
-O
a) O r o O
C
>
-c
a a
ao
�Zlo
N`
Y
-"
�
y
O O C
L p0
O
OL
(6
Q
`O
O
t O
p .O
O
.0
(6 3:
> O U
N`
>p
C
U
0
"'
7 N
Co
U—
O,
-O y f0
O
a)
j
�-
06
>
� V,-0
U
C O
a'U
3 � O p,
06
N
Y
O p
fA O C "O
N U
f0
7
O
N O)
C,
�,
>
N O
>
'C Y O
�
Q
>
o
Q
a;�
}
}
}
}
}
N
N
N
T
T
N
N
N N
C
=3
>,
a)
>O
UJ
y
N
�
m
N
;C
2
fn
W
J
O
Z
(0
Q- f0
U
LL
coc`a
m
C
c
C
cv
N
C
C
U
7
fn
C
7
O
w
U
C
O
O
N
O
Y
O
Cod�C
Mn
>
>
W
Q
g
Z LO
�
i%i
T
T
N
N
N
N
N
(V Cl)
Ll
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Memo
Date: December 20, 2007
From: Derek Severson, Associate Planner & Staff Liaison
To: Bicycle & Pedestrian Commission
Re: Bellview School Bicycle Parking Variance Request
Planning Action #2007-01941 is a request for Site Review approval to
construct an approximately 52,163 square foot elementary school on the
Bellview School site located at 1070 Tolman Creek Road. The application
proposes partial demolition of the existing buildings and construction of a
new 42,678 square foot elementary school facility. The 9,485 square foot
original Bellview School building (circa 1903) is to be retained and
renovated as part of the proposal. The application also includes requests
for a Variance to the required number of bicycle parking spaces to allow 33
bicycle parking spaces where 68 spaces are required; and Tree Removal
Permits to remove three Oak trees and one Sequoia greater than 18-inches
in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.). The application includes the removal of
six smaller trees; because these six trees are less than 18-inches (d.b.h.)
and located on public school property they do not require Tree Removal
Permits.
Because the application involves a request for a Variance to the required number of
bicycle parking, spaces and Section 2.22.040 of the Municipal Code empowers this
Commission "To advise the Planning Commission in the administration of the Site
Review process with respect to bicycle and pedestrian facilities and parking" this action
is being presented for a formal recommendation to the Planning Commission with
regard to the requested Variance to allow 33 bicycle parking spaces where 68 spaces
are normally required.
The requirements for bicycle parking for a school are found in AMC 18.92.040.E and
are as follows:
"Elementary, Junior High, Middle and High Schools shall provide one sheltered
bicycle parking space for every five students."
Bicycle & Pedestrian Commission
51 Winbum Way Phone: 541.552.2040
Ashland OR 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050
www.ashland.or.us, TTY: 800.735.2900 ��
The applicable approval criteria for a Variance are found in AMC 18.100.020 and are as
follows:
A. That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do
not typically apply elsewhere.
B. That the proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the
development of the adjacent uses; and will further the purpose and intent of this
ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. (Ord.2425 S1, 1987).
C. That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely
self-imposed.
A copy of the applicants' findings and a site plan of the proposal are also provided for
your information, as are two staff photos of the existing bicycle parking facilities at
Bellview School.
The written findinns narrative which specifically addresses the requested
Variance to the number of required bicycle parking spaces is found on panes 11.
12 and 15 of the applicants' submittal.
Bicycle & Pedestrian Commission
51 Winbum Way Phone: 541.552.2040 FAR
Ashland OR 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050
w .ashland.or.us TTY: 800.735.2900 �r
Findings of Fact
and Conclusions of Law
SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL
for the
REBUILD OF
BELLVIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
1070 Tolman Creek Road, Ashland, Oregon
(Approximately 52,100 square foot elementary school, including new construction,
sitework, renovation of one existing building, and partial demolition of existing buildings)
Tax Lot 4700, Assessors Map Page 39-1E-14CA
NOVEMBER 9, 2007
Submitted to
CITY OF ASHLAND
PLANNING COMMISSION AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Submitted for
ASHLAND SCHOOL DISTRICT #5
Prepared by
DLR GROUP and ORW ARCHITECTURE
r
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL
REBUILD OF BELLVIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Tab 1. Project Directory ........................................................................................................... .......................................................................1
1.1
Owner
.................................................................................................................1
1.2
Applicant............................................................................................................1
1.3
Consultants
.........................................................................................................1
1.4
Property Description..........................................................................................1
1.5
Current Zoning...................................................................................................1
1.6
Current Use
........................................................................................................1
1.7
Proposed Uses....................................................................................................1
1.8
Request ... ........................... ................ ...................._.............................1
Tab2. Project Narrative.........................................................................................................2
2.1 Site Description..................................................................................................2
2.2 Proposed Development......................................................................................2
2.3 Site Coverage.....................................................................................................2
2.4 Available Public Facilities, Services, and Utilities............................................2
2.5 Review Criteria..................................................................................................3
Tab 3. Ordinance
Requirements............................................................................................4
3.1
R-1 Single -Family Residential District Regulations(18.20).............................4
3.2
Tree Preservation and Protection (18.61)..........................................................5
3.3
Physical & Environmental Constraints (18.62).................................................7
3.4
General Regulations (18.68)..............................................................................8
3.5
Solar Access(18.70)..........................................................................................8
3.6
Site Design and Use Standards (18.72).............................................................9
3.7
Off -Street Parking
(18.92)...............................................................................10
3.8
Variances(18.100)...........................................................................................14
Tab 4. Site Design and Use Standards................................................................................16
4.1 Ordinance Landscaping Requirements(II-A)..................................................16
4.2 Basic Site Review Standards(II-C-1)..............................................................16
4.3 Parking Lot Landscaping and Screening Standards (II-D)..............................18
4.4 Street Tree Standards (II-E).............................................................................19
Tab5. Summary Conclusions...............................................................................................21
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL
REBUILD OF BELLVIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd)
Tab6. Exhibit — Arborist's Report ......................................................................................20
Tab 7. Exhibits - Site Review Plan Submittal Drawings....................................................22
Architectural:
Drawing Al. I - First Floor Plan — Area A
Drawing A 1.2 - First Floor Plan — Area B
Drawing Al. 3 - First Floor Plan — Area C
Drawing A1.4 - Loft Floor Plan — Area A
Drawing A 1.5 - Loft Floor Plan — Area B
Drawing A1.6 - Second Floor Plan — Area C
Drawing A5.1 — Building Elevations
Drawing A5.2 — Building Elevations
Drawing A5.3 — Building Elevations
Civil Engineering:
Drawing C0.0 —
Civil Cover Sheet
Drawing C 1.1 —
Existing Conditions Survey & Demolition Plan
Drawing C2.1 —
Overall Site Layout
Drawing C2.2 -
Overall Site Layout
Drawing C3.1 —
Grading & Drainage Plan
Drawing C3.2 — Grading & Drainage Plan
Drawing C3.3 —
Grading & Drainage Plan
Drawing C3.4 —
Grading & Drainage Plan
Drawing C3.5 —
Grading & Drainage Plan
Drawing C3.6 —
Grading & Drainage Plan
Drawing C3.7 —
Grading & Drainage Plan
Landscape Architectural:
Drawing L 1.1 — Preliminary Landscape Plan
Drawing L 1.2 — Preliminary Landscape Plan
Drawing L2.1 — Tree Preservation & Removal Plan Drawing
Drawing L2.2 — Tree Preservation & Removal Plan
Findings of Fact and Conclusion: aw
REBUILD OF BELLVIEW ELEMtNTARY SCHOOL
November 9, 2007
Page I of 22
1. PROJECT DIRECTORY
1.1 Owner
1.2 Applicant
1.3 Consultants
Ashland School District #5
885 Siskiyou Boulevard
Ashland, OR 97520
OgdenRoemerWilkerson Architecture
2950 East Barnett Road
Medford, OR 97504
DLR Group
421 SW Sixth Avenue
Suite 1212
Portland, OR
OgdenRoemerWilkerson Architecture
2950 East Barnett Road
Medford, OR 97504
Polaris Land Surveying
P.O. Box 459
Ashland, OR 97520
ZCS, Civil & Structural Engineering
900 Klamath Ave
Klamath Falls, OR 97601
Covey Pardee Landscape Architecture
295 E Main St #8
Ashland, OR 97520
1.4 Property Description Tax Lot 4700, Assessors Map Page 39-1E-14CA
1.5 Current Zoning R-1-5, Single Family Residential
1.6 Current Use Elementary School (permitted use)
1.7 Proposed Use Elementary School (no change or increase in use)
1.8 Request Site Plan Review for new commercial development
Request for Variance from required bicycle parking
Findings of Fact and Conclusion: aw Page 2 of 22
REBUILD OF BELLVIEW ELEMhNTARY SCHOOL
November 9, 2007
2. PROJECT NARRATIVE
2.1 Site Description
The subject property is situated at the northeast corner of Siskiyou Boulevard and Tolman Creek
Road in Ashland, on the site of the current Bellview Elementary School. The site is bounded by
single-family residential development on the north, Tolman Creek Road on the west, Siskiyou
Boulevard on the south, and light industrial development on the east,. The site slopes gently to
the north. Currently, the site is used as an elementary school, including a well -used recreational
fields and playground. Although it is hidden from view, the most notable feature of the site is
Tolman Creek, which runs in a culvert beneath the recreational fields. The fields are located on
fill material (spoils) from the site of the former Croman Lumber mill adjacent to the school.
2.2 Proposed Development
This project is part of a, $46.8 million bond package approved by Ashland voters in November
2006. The bond package included a variety of projects, including this one with a budget of
$2,732,010.
The Project proposes a new 52,163 square foot school facility, built on the site of the current
school. A.lthough most of the existing buildings will be removed to accommodate the new
facility, the original school building (circa 19 3) will be retained for educational purposes. The
42,678 square foot new facility will connect to the 9485 square foot existing building in a way
that both complements and respects the historical significance of the original school.
The existing parking lot, which accommodates staff and visitor parking, bus traffic, and parent
loading & unloading, will be replaced with a new, more efficient, and safer design. The new
layout provides separate areas that address the distinct needs of the different types of vehicular
traffic.
An existing bus lane on Siskiyou Boulevard, which is not used due to safety concerns, will be
replaced with a self-contained bus loop off of Siskiyou Boulevard that removes bus traffic from
other vehicular traffic. Bus routes will be modified slightly to reduce the number of buses that
are required to make a left -turn movement off of Siskiyou Boulevard.
2.3 Site Coverage
Current survey data indicates that the site comprises 9.68 acres, or approximately 421,661 square
feet The gross building area footprint is 52,163. Thus, the building occupies 12.4% of the site.
The balance of the site area is devoted to sidewalks, lawns, staff and visitor parking,
playgrounds, and recreational fields. The existing playgrounds and recreational fields remain,
with only minor modifications as required to accommodate the new building footprint.
Findings of Fact and Conclusion: aw Page 3 of 22
REBUILD OF BELLVIEW ELEMnNTARY SCHOOL
November 9, 2007
2.4 Available Public Facilities, Services, and Utilities
The project site is well served by a full range of public utilities and transportation services,
including municipal water, sanitary sewer service, electrical service, natural gas, underground
storm drainage. All utilities are available with adequate capacity, either in Tolman Creek Road or
in Siskiyou Boulevard.
Since the project site is located at the northeast corner of Tolman Creek Road and Siskiyou
Boulevard, it is well served by public streets. The site is also served by a public transportation
bus stop located nearby. Students arrive at the site by car (dropped off), on foot or bicycle, or by
school bus. Five buses serve the school in the morning and again in the afternoon. This school
serves the largest geographical area of any elementary school in the district, and draws from
areas as far as the Greensprings and the Colestine Valley. This school also serves as the location
for special needs students throughout the district.
2.5 Review Criteria
This project must comply with the City of Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO). This project
also must comply with the applicable sections of the `City of Ashland Site Design and Use
Standards' for projects subject to Basic Site Review.
Findings of Fact and Conclusion; aw Page 4 of 22
REBUILD OF BELLVIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
November 9, 2007
3. ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS
3.1 R-1 Single -Family Residential District Regulations (18.20)
18.20.020Permitted Uses.
The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright:
E Public schools, parks, and recreational facilities.
Finding: Public schools are an outright permitted use in this zone.
18.20.040 General Regulations
A. Minimum lot area: Basic minimum lot area in the R-1 zone shall be five thousand (5,000)
square feet, except six thousand (6, 000) square feet for corner lots. R-1 areas may be
designed for seventy-five hundred (7, 500), or ten thousand (10, 000) square foot minimum lot
sizes where slopes or other conditions make larger sizes necessary. Permitted lot sizes shall
be indicated by a number following the R-1 notation which represents allowable minimum
square footage in thousands of square feet, as follows:
R-1-5 5, 000 square feet
R-1-7.5 7,500 square feet
R-1-10 10, 000 square feet
D. Standard Yard Requirements: Front yards shall be a minimum of, 15 feet excluding garages.
Unenclosed porches shall be permitted with a minimum setback of eight feet or the width of
any existing public utility easement, whichever is greater, from the front property line. All
garages accessed from the front shall have a minimum setback of 20' from the front property
line; side yards, six feet; the side yard of a corner lot abutting a public street shall have a ten
foot setback; rear yard, ten feet plus ten feet for each story in excess of one story. In
addition, the setbacks must comply with Chapter 18.70 which provides for Solar Access.
(Ord. 2097 S5, 1980; Ord. 2121 Se, 1981, Ord. 2752, 1995)
E. Maximum Building Height: No structure shall be over thirty-five (35) feet or two and one-
half (2 112) stories in height, whichever is less. Structures within the Historic District shall
not exceed a height of 30 feet.
F. Maximum Coverage: Maximum lot coverage shall be fifty (5001o) percent in an R-1-5
District, forty-five (4511o) percent in an R-1-7.5 District, and forty (40010) percent in an R-1-
10 District.
Finding: The lot area is approximately 421,661 square feet. As shown on the site plan, the
front, side, and rear yard setbacks are well in excess of 20'.
Finding: The building height is approximately 28'8", measured from the top of the gym
(the highest part of the building) to the finish grade.
Conclusion: The applicant concludes that the project meets the above requirements regarding
permitted uses, lot size, yard requirements, maximum height, and maximum
coverage.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions w Page 5 of 22
REBUILD OF BELLVIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
November 9, 2007
3.2 Tree Preservation and Protection (18.61)
SECTION 18.61.020 Definitions.
J. Si nificant Tree means a "tree" having a trunk 18 caliper inches or larger in diameter at
breast height (DBH).
SECTION 18.61.042 Approval and Permit Required
A person who desires to remove a tree, not otherwise exempted in 18.61.035, shall first apply for
and receive one of the following tree removal permits before tree removal occurs:
D. TREE REMOVAL -STAFF PERMIT.
1. Tree Removal -Staff Permits are required for the following activities:
d. Removal of significant trees on lands zoned SO, on lands under the control of the
Ashland School District, or on lands under the control of the City of Ashland.
Finding: The project site is under the control of the Ashland School District.
Finding: The project site contains three oak trees and five Sequoias with trunks greater
than 18" DBH and which are scheduled for removal, in addition to six smaller
trees. These trees fall within the footprint of the proposed new gymnasium and
the proposed parking area, as shown on the attached Tree Protection & Removal
Plan prepared by Covey Pardee Landscape Architects.
Conclusion: The applicant concludes that a Tree Removal - STAFF Permit is required for is
required for removal of significant trees in this project.
SECTION 18.61.080 Criteria for Issuance of Tree Removal - Sta Permit
An applicant for a Tree Removal -Staff Permit shall demonstrate that the following criteria are
satisfied. The Staff Advisor may require an arborist's report to substantiate the criteria for a
permit.
B. Tree that is Not a Hazard: The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a tree that is not
a hazard if the applicant demonstrates all of the following:
1. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent
with other applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards. (e.g.
other applicable Site Design and Use Standards). The Staff Advisor may require the
building footprint of the development to be staked to allow for accurate verification of
the permit application; and
2. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil
stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks;
and
3. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities,
sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property.
The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree
removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the
property to be used as permitted in the zone. Nothing in this section shall require that
Findings of Fact and Conclusions aw
REBUILD OF BELLVIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
November 9, 2007
Page 6 of 22
the residential density be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In
making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement
of structures or alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees,
so long as the alternatives continue to comply with other provisions of the Ashland
Land Use Ordinance.
4. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted
approval pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a
condition of approval of the permit.
Finding: The proposed removal of trees is consistent with other applicable Ashland Land
Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including specifically the location of
off-street parking lots.
Finding: The proposed removal of trees will not have a significant negative impact on
erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or
existing windbreaks.
Finding: The proposed removal will not have a significant negative impact on tree
densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject
property.
Finding: Mitigation has been provided for each tree scheduled for removal, through
replanting on site, as shown on the attached Preliminary Landscape Plan.
SECTION 18.61.084 Mitigation Required
An applicant may be required to provide mitigation for any tree approved for removal. The
mitigation requirement shall be satisfied by one or more of the following:
A. Replanting on site.
B. Replanting offsite.
Finding: Mitigation has been provided for each tree scheduled for removal, through
replanting on site, as shown on the attached Preliminary Landscape Plan.
SECTION 18.61.200 Tree Protection.
Tree Protection as required by this section is applicable to any planning action or building
permit.
A. Tree Protection Plan Required.
B. Tree Protection Measures Required.
Finding: Appropriate tree protection measures have been incorporated into the project, as
shown on the attached Tree Protection and Removal Plan.
Conclusion: The applicant concludes that meets the project meets all of the applicable
requirements for issuance of a Tree Removal - STAFF Permit.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions M Page 7 of 22
REBUILD OF BELLVIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
November 9, 2007
3.3 Physical & Environmental Constraints (18.62)
SECTION 18.62.040 Approval and Permit Required
A Physical Constraints Review Permit is required for the following activities:
A. Development, as defined in 18.62.030.D, in areas identified as Flood plain Corridor
Land, Riparian Preserve, Hillside Land, or Severe Constraint land.
B. Tree removal, as defined in 18.62.030.RT., in areas identified as Flood plain Corridor
Land and
SECTION 18.62.050 Land Classifications.
The following factors shall be used to determine the classifications of various lands and their
constraints to building and development on them:
A. Flood plain Corridor Lands - Lands with potential stream flow and flood hazard. The
following lands are classified as Flood plain Corridor lands:
1. All land contained within the 100 year Flood plain as defined by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, in maps adopted by Chapter 15.10 of the Ashland
Municipal Code.
2. All land within the area defined as Flood plain Corridor land in maps adopted by the
Council as provided for in section 18.62.060.
B. Riparian Preservation - The following Flood plain Corridor Lands are also designated
for Riparian Preservation for the purposes of this section and as listed on the Physical
and Environmental Constraints Overlay Maps: Tolman, Hamilton, Clay, Bear, Kitchen,
Ashland, Neil and Wrights Creeks.
Finding: Currently, Tolman Creek runs in a culvert beneath the recreational fields on this
site.
Finding: Data available from the City of Ashland indicates that a portion of the project site
contains a floodplain, in the vicinity of the recreational fields and behind the
existing building.
Finding: The topographical survey prepared for this project by Terra Survey and dated July
2, 2007 contains the following note with regard to the exact location of the
floodplain:
FLOOD PLAIN SHOWN IS SCALED FROM FEAM COMMUNITY PANEL
NUMBER 410090 0003 B, EFFECTIVE DATE: DUNE 1, 1981, AND COMMUNITY
PANEL NUMBER 415589 0537B, EFFECTIVE DATEAPRIL 1, 1982.
Finding: Using the above -referenced data from FEMA, the survey shows — although a
floodplain runs through the site -- there is NO development within the floodplain
proposed as part of this project. The new construction is located well beyond the
floodplain.
Conclusion: The applicant concludes that a Physical & Environmental Constraints Permit is
NOT required for this project.
Findings of Fact and Conclusion; aw Page 8 of 22
REBUILD OF BELLVIEW ELErvinNTARY SCHOOL
November 9, 2007
3.4 General Regulations (18.68)
SECTION 18.68.020 Vision Clearance Area
Vision clearance areas shall be provided with the following distances establishing the size of the
vision clearance area:
A. In any R district, the minimum distance shall be twenty-five (25) feet or, at intersections
including an alley, ten (10) feet.
C. The vision clearance area shall contain no plantings, fences, walls, structures, or
temporary or permanent obstructions exceeding two and one-half (2 %2) feet in height,
measured from the top of the curb, except that street trees exceeding this height may be
located in this area, provided all branches and foliage are removed to a height of eight
(8) feet above the grade.
Finding: The vision clearance area at the corner of Siskiyou Boulevard and Tolman Creek
Road exceeds twenty-five feet, and includes only existing street trees.
Finding: No new planting or other obstructions are proposed for the vision clearance area.
Conclusion: The applicant concludes that meets the project complies with this standard.
SECTION 18.68.050 Special Setback Requirements.
Also, front yards for properties abutting all arterial streets shall be no less than twenty (20) feet,
with the exception of the C-1-D district.
Finding: Siskiyou Boulevard is an arterial street.
Finding: The setback for both the original school building and all new construction exceeds
twenty feet.
Conclusion: The applicant concludes that meets the project complies with this standard.
3.5 Solar Access (18.70)
18.70.010 Purpose and Intent
The purpose of the Solar Access Chapter is to provide protection of a reasonable amount of
sunlight from shade from structures and vegetation whenever feasible to all parcels in the City to
preserve the economic value of solar radiation falling on structures, investments in solar energy
systems, and the options for future uses of solar energy.
Finding: The new school buildings are located on the east side of the existing historic
building which is to remain, and well away from the property lines.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions iw Page 9 of 22
REBUILD OF BELLVIEW ELEMrNTARY SCHOOL
November 9, 2007
Finding: The new school buildings are located almost 100 feet from the north property line.
Conclusion: The applicant concludes that solar access to adjacent properties will not be
impeded, due to the size and location of the new buildings on the site.
3.6 Site Design and Use Standards (18.72)
18.72.030 Application
Site design and use standards shall apply to all,zones of the city and shall apply to all
development indicated in this Chapter, except for those developments which are regulated by the
Subdivisions (18.80), the Partitioning (18.76), Manufactured Housing (18.84) and Performance
Standards (18.88).
Finding: This project is located in a R 1-5 (Single -Family Residential) zone.
Conclusion: The applicant concludes that the Site Use and Design Standards apply to this
project.
18.72.070 Criteria for Approval
The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny an application:
A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed
development.
B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met.
C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council
for implementation of this Chapter.
Finding: The proposed development meets or will met all applicable City ordinances,
applicable requirements of the Site Review Chapter, and applicable portions of
the Site Design and Use Standards, as outlined in items A through C above.
D. That adequate capacity of Cityfacilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through
the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and
will be provided to and through the subject property. All improvements in the street right-
of-way shall comply with the Street Standards in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards
Options.
Finding: Adequate capacity of City facilities and utilities are provided to the project site, as
shown on the attached Striping & Utility Plan prepared by ZCS Engineering.
Conclusion: The applicant concludes that this application meets all the criteria required for this
standard.
SECTION 18.72.110 Landscaping Standards
A. Area Required. The following areas shall be required to be landscaped in the following
Findings of Fact and Conclusions iw
REBUILD OF BELLVIEW ELEMtNTARY SCHOOL
November 9, 2007
Page 10 of 22
zones:
R-1 - 45% of total developed lot area
B. Location. Landscaping shall be located so that it is visible from public right-of-way or
provide buffering from adjacent uses. Landscaping shall be distributed in those areas
where it provides for visual and acoustical buffering, open space uses, shading and wind
buffering, and aesthetic qualities.
C. Irrigation. All landscaping plans shall either be irrigated or shall be certified that they
can be maintained and survive without artificial irrigation. If the plantings fail to survive,
the property owner shall replace them.
Finding: As shown on the attached Preliminary Landscape Plan, the landscaping has been
located according to criterion B above.
Finding: As shown on the attached Preliminary Landscape Plan, an irrigation system will
be installed.
Conclusion: The applicant concludes that this project complies with the criteria for
landscaping outlined above.
3.7 Off -Street Parking (18.92)
1 & 92. 020 Automobile Parking Spaces Required
Uses and standards are as follows:
D. Institutional and Public Uses. For institutional and public uses the following automobile
parking spaces are required.
7. Schools, elementary and junior high. One and one-half space per classroom, or the
requirements for public assembly areas as set forth herein, whichever is greater.
Finding: The existing building contains 16 classrooms, which would require 24 parking
spaces.
Finding: The size of the new gymnasium is 4320 square feet. Using an occupant load of
216 (based on 20 square feet per person for assembly -type uses), 54 parking
spaces are required.
Finding: For this project, the number of required parking spaces is based on the occupant
load of the new gymnasium, since this number is greater than the parking space
requirement based on the number of classrooms.
Finding: The visitor parking lot in front of the school provides 23 parking spaces, and the
staff parking lot to the north of the school provides 31 spaces, for a total of 54
spaces.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions w
REBUILD OF BELLVIEW ELEMbNTARY SCHOOL
November 9, 2007
Page l l of 22
18.92.030 Disabled Person Parking Places.
The total number of disabled person parking spaces shall comply with the following:
Total in Parking Lot Required Minimum Number of Accessible Spaces
I to 25 1
26 to 50 2
51 to 75 3
Finding: Based on a total of 54 parking spaces provided, three accessible spaces are
required.
Finding: The visitor parking lot in front of the new school (behind the Grange) provides
three handicapped accessible spaces, including one van space.
Conclusion: The applicant concludes that the required number of accessible parking spaces
have been provided on the site.
18.92.040 Bicycle Parking
A. All uses, with the exception of detached single-family residences and uses in the C-1-D zone,
shall provide a minimum of two sheltered bike parking spaces.
C. In addition, all uses which require off street parking, except as specifically noted, shall
provide one bicycle parking space for every 5 required auto parking spaces. Fractional
spaces shall be rounded up to the next whole space. Fifty percent of the bicycle parking
spaces required shall be sheltered from the weather. All spaces shall be located in proximity
to the uses they are intended to serve. (Ord. 2697 S1, 1993)
Finding: Based on a total of 54 parking spaces required by the occupant load of the
gymnasium, 11 bicycle parking spaces are required, including 6 covered spaces.
E. Elementary, Junior High, Middle and High Schools shall provide one sheltered bicycle
parking space for every five students.
Finding: Based on a maximum population of 340 students, 68 sheltered bicycle parking
spaces are required.
Finding: The current student population is 297 students.
Finding: The current school population includes 65 students who ride the bus to school on
a regular basis, due to the large geographical area that this school serves. For
many of these students, biking to school is not a safe or viable option. This figure
is expected to'rise based on projections for future school enrollment, this school's
coverage area, and housing patterns for families with school -age children.
Finding: The current school population includes 45 kindergarten students, and 44 first
grade students. By all accounts, these students are too young to ride a bicycle to
school, given the safety concerns caused by the volume and speed of traffic on
Findings of Fact and Conclusions aw
REBUILD OF BELLVIEW ELEMtNTARY SCHOOL
November 9, 2007
Page 12 of 22
surrounding streets, which is exacerbated by the lack of bike lanes on some of
these streets.
Finding: Discounting the bus riders, kindergartners, and first graders for whom bike travel
is impractical or unsafe, the current school population includes 143 students for
whom bike travel is a safe and viable means of transportation to school
(297-65-45-44 = 143). This figure represents 48% of the school's current
population.
Finding: Based on a maximum student population of 340, 48% of the total yields 163
students for whom bike travel is a safe and viable means of transportation to
school.
Finding: Based on the information outline above, the attached Site Plan provides for 33
sheltered bicycle parking spaces, using a 1:5 ratio for 163 students.
Conclusion: The applicant concludes that the required amount of bicycle parking has not been
provided as required by the standards contained in this section, and accordingly,
these findings include a Request for a Variance from this standard.
18.92.050 Compact Car Parking
Up to 50% of the total automobile parking spaces in a parking lot may be designated for
compact cars. Minimum dimensions for compact spaces shall be 8 x 16 feet. Such spaces shall be
signed or the space painted with the words "Compact Car Only. "
Finding: As indicated on the site plan, parking for compact cars has been provided the in
size and quantities outlined above. The compact spaces make up half of the
spaces provided in the staff parking lot.
Conclusion: The applicant concludes that the design of the project meets the requirements of
this section.
18.92.070 Automobile Parking Design Requirements
A. Size and Access. All required parking areas shall be designed in accordance with the
parking layout chart at the end of this Chapter. Parking spaces shall be a minimum of 9 x
18 feet, except that 50% of the spaces may be compact spaces in accord with 18.92.050
and shall have a 22 foot back-up space except where parking is angled.
B. Driveways and Turn-Arounds. Driveways and turn-arounds providing access to parking
areas shall conform to the following provisions:
1. A driveway for a single dwelling shall have a minimum width of nine feet, and a
shared driveway serving two units shall have a width of 12 feet.
2. Parking areas of more than seven parking spaces per lot shall be provided with
adequate aisles or turn -around areas so that all vehicles may enter the street in a
forward manner.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions 1W
REBUILD OF BELLVIEW ELEMrNTARY SCHOOL
November 9, 2007
fJ
E.
Page 13 of 22
3. Parking areas of more than seven parking spaces shall be served by a driveway20
feet in width and constructed to facilitate the flow of traffic on or off the site, with
due regard to pedestrian and vehicle safety, and shall be clearly and permanently
marked and defined. Parking areas of seven spaces or less shall be served by a
driveway 12 feet in width.
Vision Clearance. No signs, structures or vegetation in excess of two and one-halffeet in
height shall be placed in the vision clearance area. The vision clearance area is the
triangle formed by a line connecting points 25 feet from the intersection of property lines.
In the case of an intersection involving an alley and a street, the triangle is formed by a
line connecting points ten (10) feet along the alley and 25 feet along the street. When the
angle of intersection between the street and the alley is less than 30 degrees, the distance
shall be 25 feet. No signs, structures or vegetation or portion thereof shall be erected
within ten (10) feet of driveways unless the same is less than two and one-halffeet in
height. The vision clearance standards established by this section are not subject to the
Variance section of this title.
Development and Maintenance. The development and maintenance as provided below,
shall apply in all cases, except single-family dwellings.
1. Paving. All required parking areas, aisles, turn-arounds and driveways shall be
paved with concrete, asphaltic or comparable surfacing, constructed to standards
on file in the office of the City Engineer.
2. Drainage. All required parking areas, aisles and turn-arounds shall have
provisions made for the on -site collection of drainage waters to eliminate sheet
flow of such waters onto sidewalks, public rights -of -way, and abutting private
property.
3. Driveway approaches. Approaches shall be paved with concrete surfacing
constructed to standards on file in the office of the City Engineer.
4. Marking. Parking lots of more than seven spaces shall have all spaces
permanently and clearly marked.
5. Wheel stops. Wheel stops shall be a minimum offour inches in height and width
and six feet in length. They shall be firmly attached to the ground and so
constructed as to withstand normal wear. Wheel stops shall be provided where
appropriate for all spaces abutting property lines, buildings, landscaping, and no
vehicle shall overhang a public right-of-way.
6. Walls and Hedges.
a. Where parking abuts upon a street, a decorative masonry wall or
evergreen hedge screen of 30-42 inches in height and a minimum of 12" in
width shall be established parallel to and not nearer than two feet from
the right-of-way line. Screen planting shall be of such size and number to
provide the required screening within 12 months after installation. The
area between the wall or hedge and street line shall be landscaped. All
vegetation shall be adequately maintained by a permanent irrigation
system, and said wall or hedge shall be maintained in good condition. The
required wall or screening shall be designed to allow for free access to the
site and sidewalk by pedestrians.
b. In all zones, except single-family zones, where parking facilities or
driveways are located adjacent to residential or agricultural zones, school
Findings of Fact and Conclusion: aw
REBUILD OF BELLVIEW ELEMhNTARY SCHOOL
November 9, 2007
Page 14 of 22
yards, or like institutions, a sight -obscuring fence, wall, or evergreen
hedge not less than five feet, nor more than six feet high shall be provided
on the property line as measured from the high grade side. Said wall,
fence or hedge shall be reduced to 30 inches within required setback area,
or within 10 feet of street property lines, and shall be maintained in good
condition. Screen plantings shall be of such size and number to provide
the required screening within 12 months after installation. Adequate
provisions shall be made to protect walls, fences or plant materials from
being damaged by vehicles using said parking areas.
7. Landscaping. In all zones, all parking facilities shall include landscaping to cover
not less than 7% of the area devoted to outdoor parking facilities, including the
landscaping required in subdivision 6(a) above. Said landscaping shall be
uniformly distributed throughout the parking area, be provided with irrigation
facilities and protective curbs or raised wood headers. It may consist of trees,
plus shrubs, ground cover or related material. A minimum of one tree per seven
parking spaces is required.
8. Lighting of parking areas within 100 feet of property in residential zones shall be
directed into or on the site and away from property lines such that the light
element shall not be directly visible from abutting residential property.
Finding: As indicated on the attached Site Plan, the size, layout, and location of the parking
spaces, drive aisles, and turn-arounds conforms to the requirements of criteria A
and B above.
Finding: As indicated on the attached Site Plan and Planting Plan, vision clearance areas
will be maintained per criterion D above. Signs, structures, and vegetation within
10 feet of driveways and vehicular entrances will be less than 2 '/2 feet in height.
Conclusion: The applicant concludes that the design of the project meets the requirements of
this section.
3.8 Variances (18.100)
SECTION 18.100.010 Variances -Purpose.
Where practical difficulties, unnecessary hardships, and results inconsistent with the general
purpose of this Title may result from the strict application of certain provisions thereof,
variance may be granted as provided in this Chapter. This Chapter may not be used to allow a
use that is not in conformity with the uses specified by this Title for the district in which the land
is located. In granting a variance, the City may impose conditions similar to those provided for
conditional uses to protect the best interests of the surrounding property and property owners,
the neighborhood, or the City as a whole.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions AW
REBUILD OF BELLVIEW ELEMhNTARY SCHOOL
November 9, 2007
Page 15 of 22
SECTION 18.100.020 Application
The owner or his agent may make application with the Staff Advisor. Such application shall be
accompanied by a legal description of the property and plans and elevations necessary to show
the proposed development. Also to be included with such application shall be a statement and
evidence showing that all of the following circumstances exist:
A. That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not
typically apply elsewhere.
R That the proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development
of the adjacent uses; and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the
Comprehensive Plan of the City. (Ord 2425 S1, 1987).
C. That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed.
(Ord. 2775, 1996)
Finding: As noted above, the required amount of bicycle parking has not been provided in
accordance with the requirements of Section 18.92.040. The standards require 68
covered bike parking spaces. The attached Site Plan provides for 33 sheltered
bicycle parking spaces, using a 1:5 ratio for 163 students for whom biking to
school is a safe and viable transportation alternative.
Finding: The standard for bicycle parking spaces does not distinguish between younger
elementary schoolstudents and students in higher grades, for whom biking to
school is a much more viable alternative.
Finding: Strict interpretation and enforcement of the bicycle parking standard would result
in practical difficulties, unnecessary hardships, and results inconsistent with the
general purpose of this Title.
Finding: The large geographical area served by this school, and the traffic conditions on
surrounding streets, present unique and unusual circumstances that do not apply to
other sites (i.e. other elementary schools in Ashland).
Finding: These circumstances have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed.
Finding: Granting this Request for a Variance will have no negative impacts on the
development of adjacent uses, and will further the purpose and intent of this
ordinance and the city's Comprehensive Plan.
Conclusion: The applicant concludes that the Request for a Variance from the required amount
of bicycle parking meets all of the criteria outlined above, and should be granted..
Findings of Fact and Conclusions 3W Page 16 of 22
REBUILD OF BELLVIEW ELEMtNTARY SCHOOL
November 9, 2007
SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS
4.1 Ordinance Landscaping Requirements (11-A)
Ordinance Landscaping Requirements
The following percentages of landscaping are required for all properties falling under the Site
Design and Use Standards.
Zone % Landscaping
R-1-3.5 45%
R-2 35%
R-3 25%
C-1 15%
C-1-D 10%
E-1 15%
M-1 10%
These percentages are the minimum required. At times, more landscaping is required to meet
the needs of other sections of the Site Review Ordinance, such as screening of parking areas,
landscaping of setback areas and providing usable outdoor space. In general, all areas which
are not used for building or parking areas are required to be landscaped. You should also be
aware that, as a condition of approval of your project, you will be required to submit a site and
species specific landscape plan to the Planning Division for Staff Advisor approval.
Finding: The project site is located within an R 1-5 zone.
Conclusion: The applicant concludes that this requirement is inapplicable. However,
landscaped areas will be provided as required by Section 18.72 (above).
4.2 Basic Site Review Standards (H-C-1)
Approval Standard: Development in all commercial and employment zones shall conform to the
following development standards:
Finding: The project site is located within an R 1-5 zone, not in a commercial or
employment zone.
Finding: The Pre -Application Conference Comment Sheet for this project dated July 18,
2007 contained a note stating specifically that the Basic Site Review Standards
must be addressed in these findings.
Conclusion: Based on direction from staff, the applicant concludes that the Basic Site Review
Standards must be addressed as part of this project, even though the project's
location in a residential zone would otherwise exempt it from this requirement.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions lw
REBUILD OF BELLVIEW ELEMhNTARY SCHOOL
November 9, 2007
II-C-la) Orientation and Scale
Page 17 of 22
I) Buildings shall have their primary orientation toward the street rather than
the parking area. Building entrances shall be oriented toward the street and
shall be accessed from a public sidewalk. Public sidewalks shall be provided
adjacent to a public street along the street frontage.
Finding: The project site is surrounded by streets on two sides. The original school
building, which is to remain, is oriented toward Tolman Creek Road.
Finding: The new school buildings also have a primary orientation toward Tolman Creek
Road. This orientation is appropriate, as it respects and complements the
significance of the original building's historic character and presence on the
street.
2) Buildings that are within 30 feet of the street shall have an entrance for
pedestrians directly from the street to the building interior. This entrance
shall be designed to be attractive and functional, and shall be open to the
public during all business hours.
3) These requirements may be waived if the building is not accessed by
pedestrians, such as warehouses and industrial buildings without attached
offices, and automotive service uses such as service stations and tire stores.
Finding: Both the existing school and the new facility have an entrance for pedestrians
directly from Tolman Creek Road. For security reasons, the entrance to the
existing building will be secured at all times.
Conclusion: The applicant concludes that the requirements of this standard have been satisfied.
II-C-1 b) Streetscape
One street tree chosen from the street tree list shall be placed for each 30 feet of
frontage for that portion of the development fronting the street.
II-C-1 c) Landscaping
1) Landscaping shall be designed so that 50% coverage occurs after one year and 90%
coverage occurs after S years.
2) Landscaping design shall utilize a variety of low water use and deciduous and evergreen
trees and shrubs and flowering plant species.
3). Buildings adjacent to streets shall be buffered by landscaped areas at least 10 feet in
width, except in the Ashland Historic District. Outdoor storage areas shall be screened
from view from adjacent public rights -of -way, except in M-1 zones. Loading facilities
shall be screened and buffered when adjacent to residentially zoned land.
4) Irrigation systems shall be installed to assure landscaping success.
Efforts shall be made to save as many existing healthy trees and shrubs on the site as
possible.
Findings of Fact and Conclusion; aw
REBUILD OF BELLVIEW ELEMr-NTARY SCHOOL
November 9, 2007
Page 18 of 22
II-C-1 d) Parking
1) Parking areas shall be located behind buildings or on one or both sides.
2) Parking areas shall be shaded by deciduous trees, buffered from adjacent non-residential
uses and screened from non-residential uses.
II-C-1 e Designated Creek Protection
1) Designated creek protection areas shall be considered positive design elements and
incorporated in the overall design of a given project.
2) Native riparian plan materials shall be planted in and adjacent to the creek to enhance
the creek habitat.
II-C-10 Noise and Glare
Special attention to glare (AMC 18.72.110) and noise (AMC 9.08.170(c) & AMC
9.08.175) shall be considered in the project design to insure compliance with these
standards.
II-C-1 g) Expansions ofExisting Sites and Buildings
For sites which do not conform to these requirements, an equal percentage of the site
must be made to comply with these standards as the percentage of building expansion,
e.g., if a building area is expanded by 25016, then 25% of the site must be brought up to
the standards required by this document.
4.3 Parking Lot Landscaping and Screening Standards (H-D)
Approval Standard: All parking lots, which for purposes of this section include areas of vehicle
maneuvering, parking, and loading shall be landscaped and screened as follows:
II-D-1) Screenine at Required Yards
1) Parking abutting a required landscaped front or exterior yard shall incorporate a sight
obscuring hedge screen into the required landscaped yard.
1) The screen shall grow to be at least 36 inches higher than the finished grade of the
parking area, except for required vision clearance areas.
2) The screen height may be achieved by a combination of earth mounding and plant
materials.
3) Elevated parking lots shall screen both the parking and the retaining wall.
II-D-2) Screening Abutting Property Lines
1) Parking abutting a property line shall be screened by a 5 feet landscaped strip. Where a
buffer between zones is required, the screening shall be incorporated into the required
buffer strip, and will not be an additional requirement.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions iw
REBUILD OF BELLVIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
November 9, 2007
Page 19 of 22
II-D-3) Landscape Standards:
1) Parking lot landscaping shall consist of a minimum of 7% of the total parking area plus a
ratio of 1 tree for each seven parking spaces to create a canopy effect.
2) The tree species shall be an appropriate large canopied shade tree and shall be selected
from the street tree list to avoid root damage to pavement and utilities, and damage from
droppings to parked cars and pedestrians.
3) The tree shall be planted in a landscaped area such that the tree bole is at least 2 feet
from any curb or paved area.
4) The landscaped area shall be planted with shrubs and/or living ground cover to assure
50% coverage within 1 year and 90% within 5 years. Landscaped areas shall be evenly
distributed throughout the parking area and parking perimeter at the required ratio.
5) That portion of a required landscaped yard, buffer strip or screening strip abutting
parking stalls may be counted toward required parking lot landscaping but only for those
stalls abutting landscaping as long as the tree species, living plant material coverage and
placement distribution criteria are also met. Front or exterior yard landscaping may not
be substituted for the interior parking stalls.
H-D-6) Other Screening
1) Other screening and buffering shall be provided as follows:
Light and Glare Screen: Artificial lighting shall be so arranged and constructed as to not
produce direct glare on adjacent residential properties or streets.
Finding: All lighting will be engineered with the appropriate screening and orientation as
to prevent direct glare on adjacent residential properties and streets.
4.4 Street Tree Standards (H-E)
APPROVAL STANDARD: All development fronting on public or private streets shall be required
to plant street trees in accordance with the following standards and chosen from the
recommended list of street trees found in this section.
H-E-1) Location for Street Trees
1) Street trees shall be located behind the sidewalk except in cases where there is a
designated planting strip in the right of -way, or the sidewalk is greater shall include
irrigation, root barriers, and generally conform to the standard established by the
Department of Community Development.
Finding: The street trees are located behind the existing sidewalk.
H-E-2) Spacing Placement and Pruning of Street Trees
Findings of Fact and Conclusions aw
REBUILD OF BELLVIEW ELEMtNTARY SCHOOL
November 9, 2007
Page 20 of 22
All tree spacing may be made subject to special site conditions which may, for reasons such as
safety, affect the decision. Any such proposed special condition shall be subject to the Staff
Advisor's review and approval. The placement, spacing, and pruning of street trees shall be as
follows:
a) Street trees shall be placed the rate of one tree for every 30 feet of street frontage. Trees
shall be evenly spaced, with variations to the spacing permitted for specific site
limitations, such as driveway approaches.
Finding: The existing street trees exceed this requirement (spacing is less than 30 feet).
b) Trees shall not be planted closer than 25 feet from the curb line of intersections of streets
or alleys, and not closer than 10 feet from private driveways (measured at the back edge
of the sidewalk), fire hydrants, or utility poles.
Finding: The existing street trees are closer than 25 feet to the curb in some cases. New
street trees are located in accordance with the above standard.
c) Street trees shall not be planted closer than 20 feet to light standards. Except for public
safety, no new light standard location shall be positioned closer than 10 feet to any
existing street tree, and preferably such locations will be at least 20 feet distant.
Finding: All new street trees shall be located at least 20 from existing light standards.
d) Trees shall not be planted closer than 2%Z feet from the face of the curb except at
intersections where it shall be 5 feet from the curb, in a curb return area.
Finding: All new street trees shall be located at least 5 feet from the face of the curb.
e) Where there are overhead power lines, tree species are to be chosen that will not
interfere with those lines.
Finding: All tree species will be selected to avoid interference with existing overhead
utility lines.
Trees shall not be planted within 2 feet of any permanent hard surface paving or
walkway. Sidewalk cuts in concrete for trees shall be at least 10 square feet, however,
larger cuts are encouraged because they allow additional air and water into the root
system and add to the health of the tree. Space between the tree and such hard surface
may be covered by permeable non permanent hard surfaces such as grates, bricks on
sand, or paver blocks.
Finding: All new street trees are located more than 2 feet from the sidewalk.
g) Trees, as they grow, shall be pruned to provide at least 8 feet of clearance above
sidewalks and 12 feet above street roadway surfaces.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions iW Page 21 of 22
REBUILD OF BELLVIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
November 9, 2007
Finding: Trees will be pruned to maintain required minimum clearances above sidewalks
and roadways.
h) Existing trees may be used as street trees if there will be no damage from the
development which will kill or weaken the tree. Sidewalks of variable width and elevation
may be utilized to save existing street trees, subject to approval by the StaffAdvisor.
Finding: The existing street trees which are to remain will be protected during construction
to ensure their continued viability.
II-E-3) Replacement of Street Trees
Existing street trees removed by development projects shall be replaced by the developer with
those from the approved street tree list. The replacement trees shall be ofsize and species
similar to the trees that are approved by the StaffAdvisor.
Finding: No existing street trees are scheduled for removal.
II-E-4) Recommended Street Trees
Street trees shall conform to the street tree list approved by the Ashland Tree Commission.
Finding: The trees shown on this project were selected from the approved street tree list.
Conclusion: The applicant concludes that the street trees shown on this project conform to all
applicable street tree development standards.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions aW Page 22 of 22
REBUILD OF BELLVIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
November 9, 2007
5. SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS
Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the applicant concludes that this
application for Site Plan Review Approval has satisfied all of the relevant substantive standards
and criteria contained in the Ashland Land Use Ordinance and the Ashland Site Design and Use
Standards.
The applicant ultimately concludes that, based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions
of law, the application for Site Plan Review Approval complies with all requirements of the City
of Ashland and of the State of Oregon.
w�.. woiaia„wAp.„ .. �. ""mar,gpxpyMy.,ga„.�rµ�MWXwX'Yr+�v+wp. 4nnw�ry,xA'
wm 1 I I
pq
s; � ggt:..
a
I
Bill I I
---------
6`� JI
J
C2.1
^* aa�a —
16
,LR Gill" - LAYOUT OVERALL mSITE LA �.— PRELIMINARY
r
ASHLAND SCHOOL DISTRICT 100%DESIGN PRINT
BELLVIEW ELEMENTARY DEVELOPMENTX��
Fa
goo
Theodore R. Kulongoski, Govemor
November 23, 2007
To All Interested Parties:
Department of Transportation
Local Government Section
355 Capitol St. NE, Room 326
Salem, OR 97301-3871
File Code:
The Oregon Department of Transportation is pleased to announce a request for project
proposals in the Transportation Enhancement program. About $13 million is available
statewide for projects that can be ready for contract in 2011 and 2012. Projects selected will
become part of Oregon's 2010-2013 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP).
The "TE" program provides federal funds for projects
that strengthen the cultural, aesthetic, and environmen-
tal value of our transportation system. This can include
sidewalk, bike path and streetscape projects, restoration
of transportation -related historic buildings, wildlife
and water quality mitigation projects, or landscaping,
viewpoints, and interpretive sites that help travelers
appreciate the scenery and history along Oregon roads
and highways. A list of the twelve eligible activities is
on the back of this page.
Projects are selected through a statewide competitive
process based on written application and field review.
Applications are accepted from local, state of federal
agencies, Indian tribes, and tax -funded districts.
A private organization can apply in partnership with a
public agency. Recipients must supply matching funds
to cover at least 10.27% of the project cost. Results
will be announced after approval by the Oregon
Transportation Commission in December 2008.
The TE application process has two steps:
1) Notice of Intent due February 1, 2008
2) Complete Application due May 2, 2008.
Instructions and application forms will be posted on the ODOT Local Government Section web
site on December 3, 2007: http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/LGS/enhancement.shtml
Materials are also available by email from: Patricia.r.fisher@odot.state.or.us
For further information on the Transportatioh EEnhancement program and the project selection
cycle announced above, please feel free to calme at (503) 986-3528.
Sincerely,
Wwk_
Patricia W. Fisher
Photo: Springwater Trail Bridge
Ai(r/ m hlin n1., l AT ilrr ., 1, !'.,,,tin,
Transportation Enhancement Program Manager
TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT ACTIVITIES
1. Provision of facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists
2. Provision of safety and educational activities for pedestrians and bicyclists
3. Acquisition of scenic easements and scenic or historic sites
(including historic battlefields)
4. Scenic or historic highway programs
(including the provision of tourist and welcome center facilities)
5. Landscaping and other scenic beautification
6. Historic preservation
7. Rehabilitation and operationof historic transportation buildings, structures,
or facilities (including historic railroad facilities and canals)
8. Preservation of abandoned railway corridors (including the conversion
and use of the corridors for pedestrian or bicycle trails
9. Inventory, control and removal of outdoor advertising
10. Archaeological planning and research
11. Environmentalmitigation (i) to address water pollution due to highway runoff;
or (ii) reduce vehicle -caused wildlife mortality while maintaining habitat
connectivity
12. Establishment of transportation museums
NOTE: Projects to build pedestrian or bicycle facilities within a public road right-of-way may
also be eligible for grants from the QDOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Program. That is a separate
state -funded program with its own application process. The grant cycle will begin in spring 2008.
Guidance is posted at http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/BIKE-PED/grants.shtml or available
from the program manager, Sheila Lyons, at (503) 986-3555.
TE Notice 1107. doc
I. CALL TO ORDER
ASHLAND TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION
AGENDA
7:00 PM, THURSDAY, DECEMBER 6, 2007
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1175 EAST MAIN STREET
7:00 PM Derek Severson
APPROVAL OF MINUTES October 25, 2007 Planning Department
II. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION
A. PUBLIC FORUM
B. REVIEW OF TRAFFIC REQUESTS/PROJECTS PENDING/ACTION REQUIRED
1. Update on Faith Avenue Traffic Issues
2. TSC Sponsored Traffic Safety Workshop
3. Request for Parking Limits on Frances Lane
4. Report from Bike/Ped Safety Subcommittee
5. Future Street Improvement Projects
6. Request from Bike & Ped Commission for Bike Education Support in the Amount of
$1,500
7. Transportation System Plan Update
8. Bike and Pedestrian Issues
a. Agenda for November 15th meeting
b. Minutes from October 18th meeting
9. Agenda Items for Next Month
C. Follow —Up on Previous Traffic Actions
D. Traffic Safety Education
E. Development Review
1. Planning Action Status Report
2. Planning Commission Agenda
3. Hearings Board Agenda
G. Capital Projects Update — See Memo
H. Other
- Miscellaneous Communications
- Utility Billing Inserts Regarding Pedestrian Safety
III. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
- TNTT Network Talk
- Traffic Safety Connection
IV. ADJOURN NEXT MEETING: JANARY 24, 2008
Please call Nancy @ 488-5347 if you will be unable to attend
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, ff you need special assistance to participate
in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's gffice at (541) 488-6002 (TTYphone number
1-800-735-2900). Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable
arrangements to ensure accessibilitti• to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1).
G:\pub-wrks\eng\dept-admin\TRAF\AGENDAS\2007\December 6 07.doc
Memo
Date: November 28, 2007
From: James H. Olson
To: Traffic Safety Commission
CITY OF
-A5 H LAN D
Re: UPCOMING TRAFFIC SAFETY WORKSHOP SPONSORED BY TSC
Dr. Mojie Takellou, renowned expert on traffic safety and an associate professor of civil
engineering at the University of Portland, has offered to present a free one -day workshop on
"Highway, Local Road and Street Safety for Non -Engineers" in Ashland in January of 2008.
His workshop is specifically formatted for non -engineers and especially for City Councilors,
Traffic Safety Commissioners, public agency personnel and interested citizens.
The workshop deals with causes and costs of traffic accidents and the importance of
Engineering, Enforcement and Education. The workshop will also review the proper use of
traffic calming and best safety practices for the area. Dr. Takellou has developed an impressive
array of photos taken over the past three years from some 26 local agencies showing great
examples of how a particular safety problem was handled and in some cases, how not to address
a problem.
This commission has sponsored several of Dr. Takellou's workshops in the past and they have
always proven to be fast -paced, interesting and informative.
Dr. Takellou is available in'Ashland on January 10`h or 241h. The class generally begins at 9:00
AM and extends to 3:30 or 4:00 PM. If this commission wishes to sponsor this workshop some
items need to be decided:
Date: January 241h is also the date of the January Traffic Safety Commission meeting and
may provide an opportunity for Mr. Takellou to attend our meeting and share insights on
items discussed.
Location: In the past we have held workshops in the Council Chamber and in the
Siskiyou Room. Other possibilities include the Community Center at Lithia Park or the
Grove.
Lunch: It is not necessary to provide lunch for the workshop, but we have done so in the
past. Other times we have provided snacks and drinks at the breaks. The lunch cost could
be supported from the TSC budget if the Commission elects to do so.
For more information on Highway Safety Workshops go to: orgs.up.edu/highwaysafety.
ENGINEERING I I I Tel:541/488-5347
As l Main Street Fax: 8001 35-2906 VIA
Ashland OR 97520 TTY 800r735-2900
www ashland or us I W&
G'pub-wrksleng\dept-admin'TRAF\Takellou Presentation Memo 1107 doc
Highway Safety Workshops
Navigation
Home » Traffic Safety Workshops
Events
' Traffic safety
Highway, Local Road & Street
4t Noye'
Mon Tue; Wed
Workshops
°
Safety for Non -Engineers
!
Highway Safety
° Local Road Safety
Submitted b mhouston on Sat, 03/24/2007 - 9:42 m.
Y P
5 6 7
...... ..._ .,.
° Non -Engineers
p1..,...._..13
WorkshopDescriptionLaw
-? 3a
Enforcement
191
About
This workshop is designed for persons throughout
261 27 2e
° University of Portland
Oregon with responsibilities related to traffic and
° Contact
highway safety. The workshop focuses mainly on the
° Links to Important
Resources
types, causes and costs of traffic crashes, the
importance of the Engineering, Enforcement, and
Education. The workshop also review proper use of
traffic control devices, traffic calming and best safety
practices in your region. Overall, the workshop will
answer many of the questions that decision makers,
traffic safety committee members, and public
agencies personal may have regarding the roadway
rwr
safety.
Who Should Attend and Why
The workshop will be of value to elected officials, city
councilors, traffic safety committee members, county
commissioners, county road supervisors, street
superintendents and concerned citizens. The
workshop introduces latest developments in the field
and is an opportunity for all concerned to exchange
up-to-date information. Common road and street
hazards are reviewed along with practical ways to
improve road and street safety.
General Topics
° Introduction to highway, local road and street
safety for non -engineers
° Proper use of traffic control devices, traffic
calming and best roadway safety practices
° Pedestrian safety and speed management
doer zu
Thu t Fri
Login
Highway Safety Workshops
Navigation
Home » Traffic Safety Workshops
Traffic Safety
Improving Safety Features of
Workshops
°
Highways, Local Roads & Streets
Highway Safety
° Local Road Safety
Submitted by mhouston on Sat, 03/24/2007 - 9:37pm.
° Non -Engineers
°
Workshop Objectives
Law Enforcement
° About
This workshop will provide assistance and road
° University of Portland
safety information for the best safety & maintenance
• Contact
practices in Oregon to people who work with local
• Links to Important
roads and highways. Common road hazards in
Resources
Oregon are reviewed along with practical ways to
improve road safety.
Who Should Attend
This workshop is designed for persons throughout
Oregon with responsibilities related to installation and
maintenance of highways, local roads and streets,
safety features and devices. This workshop will be of
value to maintenance personnel, technicians, county
commissioners, county road supervisors, elected
officials, traffic safety committee members amd
Oregon Department of Transportation
employees. The workshop offers new ideas,
introduces latest developments and is an opportunity
for local road officials to exchange up-to-date
information.
General Topics
• Introduction to highway safety
• Traffic control devices, traffic signs and
pavement markings
• Clear zone, sight distance and vegetation
control
• Road surfaces
• Roadside barriers
• Low cost highway safety improvements
• Best safety and maintenance practices in
Oregon
What Will I Learn?
• to recognize potential problems and be able to
suggest appropriate remedies
• to identify factors that will affect the
Login
Events
u November 2007
Mon Tue 4WedLThu; Fn2m Sa3 .-Sun
89 10 11
12 13 14p. G .11. .., __.._...
15 16 17 18
20 21 22 23 24 25
26
27 28 29 30
performance of safety features on local roads
and streets
how to select the most promising safety
improvements
proper procedures for installation and
maintenance of highway safety features and
devices
Continuing Education Units (CEUs)
This workshop satisfies the Oregon Board of
Examiners continuning professional development
requirements for registered civil engineers. The
workshop also provides professional development
hours (PDH).
What Will I Receive?
A certificate of attendance for completing the
workshop
Highway Safety Workshops
Navigation
Traffic Safety
Workshops
• Highway Safety
• Local Road Safety
• Non -Engineers
• Law Enforcement
• About
• University of Portland
• Contact
• Links to Important
Resources
Home
Traffic Safety Workshops In your area free of charge
Submitted by mhoustun on Mon. 04/0212D07 - 6:50pm.
Login
Improving Safety Features of Highways, Local Roads and Streets Nov 16 Albany
Dec 7 McMinnville
Dec 17 Klamath Falls
Improving Safety Features of Local Roads and Streets
Highway Local Road and Street Safety for Non -Engineers
Challenges, Strategies and Obligations of Law Enforcement Agencies
for the 21st Century
Sign up for a free workshop today
For further information about sponsoring an on -site training workshop for various
groups within your region and
organization, please contact program director
Mojle Takallou, Ph.D., P.E. at
Phone:(503)943-7437
E-mail; takallou@up.edu
Events
e November 2001
farm 'Tam �^tima2 Thud Fid Sol Sun,
10 11
TO: TRAFFIC/SAFETY COMMISSION Wed/11/21/2007
FROM: WARSHAWSKY, LEMHOUSE, HEESACKER
RE: ASHLAND PEDBIKE SAFETY
At our last meeting (Thurs/10/25/2007) the three of us volunteered to meet a week later
(Thurs/11/l/2007) to discuss potential options aimed to cut down on what appears to be a
problem in Ashland: PED/Bike safety, particularly along Siskiyou Blvd., in the vicinity
of the high school and SOU. With a little over two weeks before our Thurs/12/6/2007
meeting to contemplate the results of our session regarding this issue, we respectfully
submit the following:
Our intent was not to ordinate these suggestions, but merely introduce them as points of
possible discussion regarding the problem(s) mentioned above. Based on our discussion,
it appears that the most beneficial fix to this perceived problem can be summed up in one
word: EDUCATION. As Mr. Olson pointed out in our last meeting, the physical
improvements made over the years regarding this problem have not produced any
significant results in terms of decreasing the numbers of people/cars colliding on the
Blvd. It therefore seems reasonable to conclude that more physical improvements may
not solve anything either. However, in light of our goal to establish as many solutions as
possible, further physical improvements should not be discarded, and possibilities to that
end are detailed later in this text.
In terms of education, all parties involved need to somehow be reached in this endeavor.
Drivers need to be educated to watch out for those utilizing the roadways in
unconventional manners: i.e. on foot, on bikes, on skateboards, and other methods of
conveyance. Concurrently, those people using the roads without automobiles need to be
educated to watch out for careening machinery that outweighs them by a ton or three.
We therefore agreed that we favor the "share the road" concept mentioned by
Commissioners Swales at the 10/25/2007 meeting. As suggested, typing "share the road"
in Wikipedia's search bar brings up any number of articles/entries on this subject and the
concept is fascinating. However, the concept being currently somewhat limited to the
knowledge base of overseas countries, it could be quite an effort to introduce/establish a
similar concept here in our town. This educational opportunity should not be overlooked
and a method of program implementation/distribution might be something to pursue.
Other educational opportunities exist in many forms and the methods below might be
great ways to educate our residents and visitors that our local roadways are not restricted
to automobiles:
• Flyers could be passed out at all school orientations. Flyers to the younger grades
could include more pictures/cartoons and could focus on the need (and law) that
helmets are mandatory. An orienting slideshow along the theme of "This is your
Brain vs. This is your Brain on a Bumper" could come in handy (a scare tactic for
the "invincible").
• Flyers could be printed up for distribution at Mountain Meadows, with utility
bills, in "newcomer packages" similar to the Welcome Wagon concept. ( =3
• Similar flyers could be posted at the Chamber of Commerce, conspicuous places
on every campus in town, grocery stores, City Library (school libraries), other
campuses throughout the valley, participating business doors/windows, the
hospital, medical and dental offices, and the Shakespeare facilities.
• Local businesses could volunteer to paste posters advising of "Crossing Carefully
at Crosswalks". These could be placed at various other locations in town (see
above).
• Driver education programs should include a few "share the road" lessons. Bikers
AND PEDS — always use hand signals.
• Other items to include on flyers: "Wear White When Crossing"; "Look and Listen
Both Ways"; "Greet Each Driver with a Wave"; "Wait for traffic to clear — THEN
CROSS"; "Don't Fight with Cars"; and/or other similar wordings.
The bottom line in terms of education would be to get the word out, any which way
possible, to avoid more collisions. EDUCATION.
Other possible solutions:r
• More enforcement; maybe incorporate college police to cite students who cross
against signals. Citations can be accompanied by a diversion program where
students forego a monetary settlement by teaching/attending a "share the road"
program sponsored by the school.
• Advertise for parents to do abetter job modeling proper headgear, regardless of
type of conveyance.
• Volunteer college students pulling crosswalk duty (diversion for offenders?),
similar to grade school crossing guards. Discussion w/Frank Diantrimont for best
approaches to this concept.
• Team up with Bike/Ped Commission to sponsor some sort of SAFETY WEEK
surrounding this issue. Talk about the accident issue/educate concerned parents.
Research we might want to conduct:
• What do other pedestrian -friendly cities do in this regard?
0 Look at other small towns with college campuses: how do they handle this issue?
• Statistically speaking, maybe there's just too darn many crosswalks making too
much opportunity for collision? More crossings = more collisions. Decrease?
• See if we can get numbers regarding time -of -day that most accidents happen.
Maybe there's a pattern here with solutions tailored to time -of -day? (i.e.: wear
lots of white at night; wear a light/reflector).
Possible physical improvements that have yet to be implemented:
• As stated above, decrease the number of crossings to decrease the number of
collisions.
+» Have a set of lights on a pole that would perform a "countdown" (like drag racing
start lights) signaling to PEDS/motorists alike that a crossing will soon occur and
therefore traffic should stop.
• Placement of flashing signals and/or reflectors at, and along entire length of,
crosswalks.
• Signs on each end of the crosswalk warning of accidents, or warnings to "Look
Before Leaping" or "Always Acquire Eye Contact" or some such similar
message. Due to costs inherent with this, maybe paint similar warning at PEDS'
feet at each end of the crosswalk, to be lit up at night?
We do not think that all possible solutions suggested herein need to be/should be
implemented, especially due to associated costs. Not all of us agreed with each solution.
However, it might be important to detail in this memo all our brain -stormed solutions just
to get a ball rolling on this critical issue facing our town. Since our Thurs/11/1 meeting,
there has been at least one other incident on Siskiyou involving a woman and a car
(TIDINGS suggested the biking woman make a bad choice — EDUCATION). There was
also an opinion letter submitted suggesting more painted warnings at PEDS' feet at either
end of crosswalks to "STOP, LOOK, WAVE" or some such similar wording.
The fact is that there remains a problem with collisions between people and cars in our
town and the above wide -range of possible solutions is designed to create discussion and
maybe force a few suggestions to the top for implementation.
CITY OF
Memo -ASHLAND
Date: October 11, 2007
From: James H. Olson
To: Traffic Safety Commission
Re: PEDESTRIAN SAFETY ON SISKIYOU BOULEVARD
On October 2, 2007 a pedestrian was struck on Siskiyou Boulevard by a young driver under the
influence of intoxicants. This was the second pedestrian related crash within a week. The
previous incident, on September 261h involved a pedestrian in a crosswalk. Apparently a vehicle
in the outside lane had stopped for the pedestrian in the crosswalk. The vehicle in the inside lane
failed to notice the stopped vehicle in the other lane and the pedestrian in the crosswalk. The
driver was clearly at fault in this instance, but that is not always the case. Regardless of who is at
fault or who has the right of way, the pedestrian or bicyclist is always the one who suffers the
most.
Recent pedestrian injuries prompted a more in-depth look at pedestrian safety on Siskiyou
Boulevard. It was surprising to learn that since 1998, the following pedestrian or bicycle related
crashed have been reported:
1. Pedestrian Related Crashes
64
a. Injuries
51
b. Fatalities
3
2. Bicycle Related Crashes
III
a. Injuries
80
b. Fatalities
0
3. Skateboard Related Crashes
4
a. Injuries
2
b. Fatalities
1
This is a surprising set of statistics and it poses some obvious questions:
• What is wrong with this situation?
• Is there something that can be done to improve this area?
• Are there defects in the crosswalk system?
Siskiyou Boulevard has had a long history of pedestrian / automobile conflicts due mostly to the
presence of Southern Oregon University. The SOU campus is split by the main highway. For that
reason, special attention was paid to pedestrian safety features on Siskiyou Boulevard. When the
boulevard was rebuilt three years ago, the following amenities were included at unsignalized
intersections:
ENGINEERING DIVISION Tel:541/488-5347
20 E Main Street Fax: 541!488-6006
Ashland OR 97520 T TY 800,17 5-2900
www ashiand or us
'u
1. Continental —style crosswalk marking were used to provide more visibility and more
reflectivity.
2. Advance stop clearance lines were installed to require that vehicles stop further from the
crosswalk providing better visibility around stopped vehicles.
3. Advance warning signs and "Stop Here for Pedestrians" signs were installed.
4. Pedestrian refuges were provided in the medians to allow pedestrians to cross north and
south bound lanes separately.
5. Handicap access ramps were provided at all crosswalk locations.
WHAT MORE CAN BE DONE TO IMPROVE THE SAFETY OF SISKIYOU BOULEVARD
It appears that we have expended a great deal of time and money in engineering solutions to this
problem so perhaps we should concentrate more heavily on education and enforcement.
Following is a list of items that we might consider:
• Recommend to Council and the APD that additional pedestrian "stings" be funded and
implemented as soon as possible.
• Use of utility billing inserts to encourage drivers and pedestrians alike to use caution and
watch out for each other. (See enclosed suggestion.)
• Increased enforcement of crosswalk violations.
• Use of the media to extend a message of increased safety on Siskiyou Boulevard.
• Other options?
This commission may wish to designate some time to brainstorming this issue to help identify
some area of needed improvement in pedestrian safety.
ENGINEERING I I I Tel:541/488-5347
20 E Main Street Fax: 541/488-6006
Ashland OR 97520 TTY, 8001'735-2900
www ashland onus
G 1pub-wrkslengldept-adminlTRAFISiskiyou By Pedestrian Safety Memo 10 07 doc
CITY OF
Memo ASHLAND
Date: November 28, 2007
From: James H. Olson
To: Traffic Safety Commission
Re: TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN (TSP) UPDATE
The City has contracted with HDR Engineering, Inc. of Portland to provide an updated TSP.
The City's current TSP was developed in 1998 by W&H Pacific Engineering and being 10 years
old is now in need of updating. The existing TSP is presented in 12 chapters and it is expected
that the new document will be similar in content and format. The chapters include:
1. Introduction
2. TSP — Technical Review/ Public Involvement Process
3. Background Policies and Transportation Planning Rule Requirements
4. Existing Conditions and Constraints
5. Recommended Design Standards
6. Identification of System Problems
7. Pedestrian and Bicycle Amenities
8. Recommended Access Management
9. Needed Transportation Improvements
10. Financial Plan
11. Alternatives Evaluation and Project Prioritization
12. Financially Constrained Plan
As work on the TSP progresses, HDR will submit the draft chapters to the City for review and
comments. Chapter 4, Existing Conditions and Constraints and Appendix B would be of
particular interest to the commission. If you would like to review theses pages (or the entire TSP)
you can review it at our office at 51 Winburn Way, access it on the City's website under "Quick
Links" / "Document Center" at
http://www.ashl and. or. us/Files/Transportation%20System%20Plan°/0201998.pdf or request a
copy by calling Nancy Slocum at 552-2420.
If you have any comments regarding the current submittals, please share them at the December
6th meeting. If you have questions regarding the TSP update and process, please contact Karl
Johnson at 552-2415.
ENGINEERING DIVISION Tel: 541/488-5347
20 E. Main Street Fax: 541/488-6006
Ashland OR 97520 TTY: 8001735-2900
www ashlandor.us
1FAW11
G:Ipub-wrkslengldept-adminlTRAFITSP Update Memo 1107 doc
4r,
0
��
NOVEMBER,:26Qi,�;�
Did You Know?
Your winter water use is the basis for determining an-
nual average sewer bills for the following year. Meter
readings taken during January, February and March are
used for this determination. Depending on your loca-
tion and billing cycle, your water use beginning as early
as December 2007 and ending March 31, 2008 will de-
termine your sewer bills for next year. Water bills be-
ginning in April 2008 will reflect that usage.
THE CITIZEN'S SOURCE OF INFORMATION ABOUT THE CITY OF ASHLAND
Pedestrian Safety
Ashland prides itself on being
a pedestrian friendly city with
i substantial yearly budget
allocated toward improving and
building additional sidewalks,
bikeways, crosswalks and other pedestrian and
bicycle facilities. Yet each year pedestrians are hurt
or even killed on Ashland's streets; since 1998 there
have been 175 accidents involving bicyclists or
pedestrians on Siskiyou Boulevard alone; of this
total, 131 involved injuries including three fatalities.
Bicycle and pedestrian safety is a shared responsi-
bility. As a driver it is important to understand that
,pedestrians are required to obey traffic signals and to
(See Pedestrian Safety, Page 3)
Cool Weather
Heating Safety
Days are shorter, evenings are cooler
and Oregon households are begin-
ning to turn up the heat. Ashland
Fire & Rescue reminds Ashland
residents that chimney fires and
combustibles left too close to a heat
source are the state's two leading
fire causes in heating related fires.
These types of fires are easily
prevented by keeping chimneys
cleaned and remembering to keep
combustibles such as furniture,
blankets and clothing far away from
heaters, woodstoves and similar heat
sources.
During the last five years, fires
involving heating sources, including
woodstoves, portable, baseboard
and wall heaters were responsible
for 2,891 fires causing 11 fatalities
and 59 injuries to Oregonians.
Property losses from these fires are
estimated at $27,377,507. Almost
half of these fires began in chim-
neys.
Although fires during the day
(See Cool Weather Heating
Safety, Page 4)
55
commitment to warm, personalized
care. To keep pace with medical
advancements and provide patients
with the very best diagnostic and
treatment services, we must con-
tinue to replace equipment, train
staff and develop programs. A gift
to Lights for Life represents your
personal commitment to the
advancement of quality healthcare
that is both hometown and high-
tech.
The Lights for Life tradition
combines all the special elements of
the season; a time for family,
friends, good will and giving. Your
gift in honor or memory of some-
one special becomes a gift for all
and is a true reflection of the real
spirit of the holidays.
Pedestrian Safety
Continued from Page 1
walk safely. However, pedestrians
are unprotected and vulnerable.
Drivers can prevent terrible injury
by being prepared to stop if a child
runs into the street or an older
adult takes longer to clear an
intersection. Be prepared to stop
and yield no matter who has the
right of way.
Safety Tips
0 Oregon law requires drivers to
yield to pedestrians in a marked or
unmarked crosswalk.
❑ A stopped car may be a clue that
a pedestrian is crossing. Don't
Pass. It is unsafe and illegal to
pass any vehicle stopped at a
crosswalk for a pedestrian.
❑ When stopped at an intersec-
tion, do not block the crosswalk.
Always leave room for pedestrians
to cross.
❑ Pedestrians move at different
speeds. Be patient with children
and older adults who may take
extra time to cross the street.
Around taverns and bars be alert
for pedestrians who may have
slowed reaction times or impaired
judgment.
Regardless of our preferred
mode of travel, we all share
Ashland's streets. Let's be safe,
courteous and most importantly,
let's watch out for each.
News Notes
Flu Shots
The Ashland Senior Center, in
partnership with the Jackson
County Health Department, is
offering a flu shot clinic for seniors
on Thursday, November 15, from
gam — 12pm. The Senior Center
is located at 1699 Homes Avenue.
Chairs will be offered to those who
have difficulty standing, and
carside vaccinations will be avail-
able if needed Medicare, Oregon
Health Plan, and Regence Blue
Cross/Blue Shield will be billed,
otherwise the vaccination will cost
$30.00. Please have your insur-
ance card available. For more
information, call the Ashland
Senior Center at 488-5342.
(Continued on Back Page)
F
o F ( •,
"�t
id
h d P
14
;r
A;
w
w*
Oregon Department of Transportation
Region 3 Traffic
Theodore R. Kulongoski, Governor 3500 NW Stewart Parkway
Roseburg, OR 97470
Phone 541-957-3500
Fax 541-957-3547
MEMORANDUM
TO: Shawn Stephens, ODOT District 8 Manager
November 19th, 2007
FROM: Dan Dorrell, P.E.
ODOT District 8 Traffic Engineer
SUBJECT: Request to Install Marked Crosswalk
Rogue Valley Hwy. 63, OR 99
North Main Street/Church Street Intersection
City of Ashland
We have completed a traffic engineering study in regards to a request received from the owner of Liquid
Assets in Ashland to install a marked crosswalk at the subject location.
The crosswalk investigation included the segment of North Main Street from MP 19.03 Heiman Street, to
MP 19.05 Church Street. This section of roadway from curb to curb is one-way with two 14 ft. travel lanes.
The posted speed is 20 mph, and the ADT is approximately 11,800. There is a luminaire installed at the
intersection of North Main and Church on the NE quadrant.
We collected 16 hour pedestrian and bicyclist crossing patterns from 6 A.M. to 10 P.M. These were
conducted on Wednesday, Oct. 17th, 2007 during cool and dry weather conditions.
The video camera at Church St. revealed a total of 122 pedestrians and 2 bicycles crossing North Main
Street. There was a total of 108 pedestrians and 2 bicycles crossing on the south side, and 14
pedestrians on the north side. The Institute of Transportation Engineers required threshold of average
hourly pedestrian volume was not met. A crosswalk is not warranted at this time.
Visibility on North Main from Church St. is good for both motorists and pedestrians and safe stopping
distance is adequate. There is a marked crosswalk approximately 105 feet north of Church St. at the
Heiman Street signalized intersection, and at Granite Street which is located approximately 158 ft. to the
south, where pedestrians have the right of way to cross.
The reported crash data was reviewed from 04/31/04 to 04/31/07. This revealed one single vehicle crash
caused from driving too fast while making an improper turn striking a fence. The crash occurred on
06/17/04 at 10 am during a clear dry morning. The 81 yr. old female driving sustained moderate "B" type
injuries and her 84 year old passenger was killed in the crash.
An engineering study, and State Traffic Engineer approval is required before establishing marked
crosswalks at locations other than signalized approaches, at intersections, and stop signs. The criteria to
install marked crosswalks are established in the December 2006 ODOT Traffic Manual, Section 6.6.
7.
6.6.1.2 Criteria for Marking Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Approaches of Intersections
Generally marked crosswalks are discouraged at uncontrolled approaches due to a concern that they
may not improve safety and may, if inappropriate, put a pedestrian more at risk. The criteria are primarily
restrictions on marking crosswalks in locations that would be potentially hazardous. In situations where
the pedestrian volumes justify marking crosswalks (well above minimum threshold levels) additional
safety measures (i.e., pedestrian refuges) should be considered above and beyond marking. Installation
of a marked crosswalk will not, in and of itself, increase the level of safety for pedestrians. Marked
crosswalks should only be considered at uncontrolled approaches when an engineering study
demonstrates their need and the location meets the following criteria:
Reauired
• There is good visibility of the crosswalk from all directions, or it can be obtained. Stopping
sight distance is a minimum.
• There is no reasonable alternative crossing location.
• There is established pedestrian usage. Considerations include: volume of pedestrians,
opportunity for safe crossing (i.e., sufficient gaps in traffic), percentage of elderly or
young children, and the nature of the attraction. ITE suggest a pedestrian volume
threshold of 25 pedestrian crossings over a four hour peak is required. Lower pedestrian
volumes would be acceptable for areas where there is greater proportion of less
experienced and less agile pedestrians (e.g., near schools and/or elderly housing areas)
• Posted speeds should be 35 mph or less.
• Traffic Volumes should be less than 10,000 ADT or if above 10,000 ADT raised median
islands.
• On multi -lane highways, pedestrian crossing enhancements (curb extensions and/or
pedestrian refuges) should be considered.
As a reminder to you, according to Oregon Revised Statute 801.220, a crosswalk exists at any public
road intersection, whether marked or unmarked. Past studies have suggested that marking crosswalks at
uncontrolled locations is less safe than leaving the crossing unmarked. Often times a marked crosswalk
creates a sense of false security to the pedestrian. More recent studies suggest that increased traffic
volumes and multilane roadways are associated with higher pedestrian -vehicle crash rates at these
marked crosswalks. Most studies find that marking crosswalks alone does not improve pedestrian safety.
Unjustified or poorly located crosswalks may not increase safety. Marking crosswalks unnecessarily or in
locations where there are few pedestrians may also lead motorists to disrespect the markings. Most
experts agree that on a busy highway with truck traffic, RV's, tourist and local traffic, marking a crosswalk
alone is rarely an effective safety measure. Installing crosswalks can also lead to liability of the approving
authority.
Placing a crosswalk at this location raises other safety concerns. There is a possibility that traffic queues
will extend back into the signal at Helman Street, causing congestion at this intersection. Another concern
is the short storage distance on the couplet turnaround, which already backs into northbound Lithia Way
during peak hours. The addition of a crosswalk at this location would most likely stack traffic farther back
onto Lithia Way, leaving only one lane open at certain times for northbound traffic.
This office does not recommend a marked crosswalk at Church Street at this time. We will conduct
another count during the peak season in the summer when there are more pedestrians in the vicinity, and
reconsider it at that time. For maximum pedestrian safety we recommend using the signalized crosswalk
at Helman Street. A community awareness campaign may be of value to direct pedestrians to the signal
to cross the highway. Assistance for this may be possible through the ODOT Transportation Safety
Section.
If you have questions concerning this information or have additional comments please contact Dan
Dorrell 774-6354 or Bob Sechler at 957-3541.