HomeMy WebLinkAboutTransportation and Planning Meeting November 2011 Page 1 of 7
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
PLANNING COMMISSION
November 07, 2011
Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street
Minutes
Transportation Commission Attendees: Tom Burnham, Shawn Kampmann, Steve Ryan (Chair), Colin
Swales, Brent Thompson, Corinne Vieville, and David Young
Planning Commission Attendees: Mick Church, Michael Dawkins, Eric Heesacker, Pam Marsh,
Deborah Miller, Melanie Mindlin
Absent: Julia Sommer
Council Liaison: David Chapman
Staff Present: Mike Faught, Bill Molnar, Mary McClary, Jodi Vizzini
Ex Officio Members: Brandon Goldman
I. CALL TO ORDER:
Meeting was called to order at 5:05 pm. by Chairperson Pam Marsh.
II. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS AND ADOPTION OF PREVIOUS MEETING MINUTES
Chairperson Marsh introduced the newest member to the Planning Commission, Mick Church, and also
acknowledged Eric Heesacker who had moved to the Planning Commission from the Transportation
Commission.
The prior meeting minutes for either Commission were not addressed.
Chairperson Marsh summarized the last joint meeting and reminded everyone they are accomplishing a full
transportation plan through a series of details, but focusing on the larger goal.
She emphasized the advantages of combining the two Commissions creating a larger pool of interactive
minds to look at all the transportation plans across the city. She announced Public Comment would take
place approximately at 6pm.
III. FOLLOW-UP DISCUSSIONS ON THE DRAFT PREFERRED AND FINANCIALLY
CONSTRAINED PLAN –Mike Faught
A. TSP Goal Review
Mike Faught reviewed the goals with the Commission members.
Goals:
1. To create a green template for other communities in the state and the nation to follow.
2. To make safety a priority for all modes of transportation.
3. To maintain the City of Ashland’s small town character, support economic prosperity,
and accommodate future growth.
4. To create a system wide balance in preserving, facilitating and assisting pedestrians,
bicycle, rail, air, transit and vehicle traffic.
He explained also a major reason we received the grant was because it was based on a multi-
Mobil vision.
Page 2 of 7
Their next step will be to review the policies in the break-out groups.
BREAK –OUT GROUPS
Group A Group B Group C Group D
Debbie Miller Tom Burnham Michael Dawkins Shawn Kampmann
Eric Heesacker Steve Ryan David Young Mick Church
Colin Swales Pam Marsh Melanie Mindlin Corinne Vieville
B. Policy, Programs and Studies Discussion (Technical Memorandum #9)
The issues discussed were L1 - L19, L21 – L25, S1 – S9, O1 – O5.
Below is a summary of how the combined groups felt about these issues
(ID #) Policy or Study Name Description Comments Vote
(L1) St. Functional
Classifications
Update to City of Ashland’s street
functional classifications including an new
functional classification called Shared
Streets.
Define shared streets
4 Agree
(L2) Multimodal/Safety Based
(Alternative) Development Review
Process
Multimodal and safety based approach
for reviewing and approving development
applications.
Look at cost of process and
implementing and developing
4 Agree
(L3) Incorporate Wider
Sidewalks
One of seven policies to enhance the
downtown. As feasible, incorporate
wider sidewalks into downtown projects
to provide more space for pedestrians.
4 Agree
(L4) Street Patios
One of seven policies to enhance the
downtown. Allow for downtown
restaurant owners to apply for
temporary seasonal street patios.
Great idea if it doesn’t engender
hostile or strong opposition
(yellow vote comment) Note
Group C needs to confirm
based on strong opposition.
Remove 4 but have discussion.
-Do if traffic study (Group D)
3 Against
1 Non-Consensus
(L5) Incorporate Preferred
Pedestrian Treatments
One of seven policies to enhance the
downtown. Incorporate preferred
pedestrian treatments into downtown
projects, as feasible.
Smooth out tree wells &
manholes, etc.
4 Agree
(L6) Encourage Alley
Enhancements
One of seven policies to enhance the
downtown. Encourages property
owners along alleys to enhance the
environment through improved
landscaping, businesses oriented
towards the alley and other similar
characteristics.
As long as delivery is not
compromised.
4 Agree
(L7) Incorporate Bicycle
Parking
One of seven policies to enhance the
downtown. As feasible, incorporate
bicycle parking into downtown
projects.
Until parking study is done, 2
options allow Standing Stone
option and no sacrifice of
parking.
3 Against
1 Non-Consensus
(L8) Develop Incentives for
Truck Loading/Unloading
One of seven policies to enhance the
downtown. Work with Chamber of
Commerce and downtown business
owners to reduce delivery and pick-
up of goods in peak hours.
4 Agree
Page 3 of 7
(L9) Update Downtown
Parking Management
One of seven policies to enhance the
downtown. Work with Chamber of
Commerce and downtown business
to update parking management
strategies.
Incorporate TDM strategies into
any parking studies.
4 Agree
(L10) Green Street
Treatments Incorporate green street treatments
into transportation, sewer, water, and
storm water projects.
4 Agree
(S1) Funding Sources
Feasibility Study
Study to identify future feasible
funding sources to support
improvements to the transportation
system.
Make it high priority strategies
should encourage, behaviors
desired
4 Agree
(S2) Downtown Parking
Management Plan Study
Study to evaluate the effectiveness of
updated downtown parking
management strategies and initiatives
as well as consider their
transferability to other parts of
Ashland such as the Railroad District
and Croman Mill Site.
See 2002 parking turnover study
& 2000 TTCP & 2001
Downtown Plan II (draft).
3 Against
1 Non-Consensus
(L11) Integrate Bicycle
Parking
Work with the Planning Commission
and Chamber of Commerce to
establish on-street and off-street
bicycle parking requirements for
inclusion in the development review
process. Establish a tier system for
the requirements that recognizes
some parts of the City of Ashland are
likely to attract more bicycle trips
than others parts.
To change the text of Chamber
of Commerce
4 Agree
(L12) Establish Incentives
for Bicycle Friendly
Businesses
Work with the Planning Commission
and Chamber of Commerce to
establish incentives for bicycle
friendly businesses. The incentives
will encourage businesses to facilitate
and promote bicycling for employees
and customers.
Is there a cost the (to the City?)
4 Agree
(L13) Incorporate Preferred
Pedestrian Treatments
As feasible, integrate preferred
pedestrian treatments into city-wide
projects that arise through CIP
investments or development.
Preferred pedestrian treatments
include pedestrian countdown
signals, landscape buffers, pedestrian
refuge islands, benches, curb
extensions, enhanced crosswalks,
signalized crossings, and ADA
compliant curb ramps.
4 Agree
(O1) Travel Smart Education
Program
Invest in individualized, targeted
marketing materials to be distributed
to interested individuals for the
purpose of informing and
encouraging travel as a pedestrian or
by bicycle. The approximate cost of
the program (including maps,
materials, incentives, outreach staff
and mail costs) is $30 per household.
Need a TDM coordinator partner
of non-profit
-Target schools as the safe bike
program is already in place,
other opportunities, YMCA,
Science Works, SOU, youth
programs, PTA
1 Agree
2 Against
1 Unknown
(O2) Directed Patrols
With the assistance of the
Transportation Commission, provide
collected complaints to local law
enforcement to help identify targeted
Too high – information already
available $ should be used to
solve problems already
1 Against
1 Non-consensus
2 Unknown
Page 4 of 7
enforcement of speed zones,
adherence to traffic control devices,
and adherence to traffic laws. This
includes proper adherence by
motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians.
identified
-We have reservations, big costs,
take the money out of PD
(O3) Electric Assist Bicycle
Program
Establish a rebate program that
provides a subsidy towards
purchasing electric-assist bicycles.
Too high
- Check into clip-on batteries
that attaches to owner’s bicycle,
saves a whole lot, non-bicyclists
will balk at the cost
-Needs work – big price
-Where’s the money coming from?
1 Against
1 Non-consensus
2 Unknown
(O4) Retrofit Bicycle Parking
Program
Establish a retrofit bicycle parking
program allowing interested property
owners to apply for bicycle racks or
bicycle corrals to be installed in front
of their establishment. The City will
coordinate with local business
owners as to where bicycle racks are
installed to be sensitive to the
potential impacts on pedestrian space
and vehicle parking.
Change the text
-Depends on completion of
parking plan or study
-Do as a part of traffic analysis
of downtown
3 Agree
1 Non-consensus
(L14) Encourage High
Density Housing
Establish policies and/or incentives to
encourage high density housing along
transit corridors and within urban
renewal districts as a means to
increase transit ridership and
establish transit attractive
destinations.
Not commercial
- Concerned that character of
town will be changed when
apartments and multi-family
units are built along corridors.
4 Agree
(L15) Upgrade Sidewalk
Facilities
As project opportunities arise through
Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
investments or development, upgrade
sidewalk facilities to ADA
compliance on streets where transit
service is provided and/or planned.
4 Agree
(L16) Provide Street
Lighting
As project opportunities arise through
CIP investments or development,
install and/or improve street lighting
at transit stops and along streets
leading to transit stops.
Use “dark skies” standards
-Good start but lighting needs to
be city-wide
-Incentive for homeowners to
install pedestrian lighting
4 Agree
(L17) Provide Bicycle
Storage
As project opportunities arise through
CIP investments or development,
incorporate bicycle storage at major
transit stops, including the downtown
core, Southern Oregon University
(SOU), and the Ashland Street (OR
66)/Tolman Creek Road intersection.
Not just a major transit stop but
perhaps a large parking lot
4 Agree
(L18) Increase and Improve
Pedestrian Crossing
Opportunities
As project opportunities arise through
CIP investments or development,
improve pedestrian crossing
opportunities across major roadways
to facilitate access to transit stops.
Using audible signal alerts as
well.
4 Agree
(L19) Monitor and Improve
Transit Stop Amenities
As opportunities arise, upgrade
transit stop amenities based on
ridership thresholds.
How is City involved?
4 Agree
(O5) Transit Service Program
The Transit Service Program
provides funds and guidance on how
to allocate funds to improve transit
service (and increase transit
ridership) in Ashland independent of
$7 million for a recommendation
seems extreme
3 Agree
1 Against
Page 5 of 7
and in collaboration with RVTD.
(L21) Access Management
As the City of Ashland continues to
grow, its street system will become
more heavily traveled. Consequently,
it will become increasingly important
to manage access on the Boulevard
and Avenue street system as new
development occurs, in order to
preserve those streets’ function for
carrying through traffic. This policy
presents criteria and considerations
on which access decisions will be based.
Should be under purview of
Transportation Commission
4 Agree
(L22) Alternative Mobility
Standards on State Highways
The City will pursue alternative
mobility standards for intersections
along North Main Street (OR 99)
from Helman Street to the northern
Urban Growth Boundary and the
Ashland Street (OR 66)/Tolman
Creek Road intersection.
We did not know what this
meant.
-Should be under purview of
Transportation Commission
-Pursue/study/evaluate/consider
Should be under purview of
Transportation Commission
4 Agree
(L23) Transportation System
Management
As feasible, the City of Ashland will
integrate the Transportation System
Management strategies below (see
page 60 of Technical Memorandum
9) into transportation corridor studies
and projects in cooperation with
ODOT (ODOT manages many of
traffic signals on the primary
corridors in Ashland, which are
Highway 66 and Highway 99).
Should be under purview of
Transportation Commission
Should be under purview of
Transportation Commission
4 Agree
(L24) Traffic Calming
As feasible and appropriate as
determined by an engineering study,
traffic calming elements will be
integrated into transportation
improvement projects particularly
those taking place on designated Safe
Routes to School routes, within a
quarter-mile walking distance from a
school, and within a quarter-mile
walking distance of a transit stop.
Should be under purview of
Transportation Commission
Should be under purview of
Transportation Commission
4 Agree
(L25) Truck Freight
Movement Plan
The City of Ashland has identified
Hersey Street as an alternative truck
freight route allowing truck
movements to avoid passing through
downtown Ashland (unless the truck
is destined to downtown Ashland).
L25 – What happened when
trucks reached Mtn Avenue? Not
a good street for them.
-Should be under purview of
Transportation Commission
-Need a truck route, but is
Hersey the right route?
Should be under purview of
Transportation Commission
3 Agree
1 Non-Consensus
(S3) North Main Street (OR
99) from Helman Street to
Sheridan Street
Conduct access management spacing
study and provide near- and long-
term recommendations for
improvement.
S3 – Wait until after road diet
pilot review is done and after
Wimer/N. Mtn. realignment.
4 Agree
(S4) Siskiyou Boulevard (OR
99) from East Main Street to
Walker Avenue
Conduct access management spacing
study and provide near- and long-
term recommendations for
improvement.
S4 – Only in-house, not
consultants.
3 Agree
1 Non-consensus
(removal)
(S5) Siskiyou Boulevard
from Walker Avenue to
Tolman Creek Road
Conduct access management spacing
study and provide near- and long-
term recommendations for
improvement.
S5 – Only in-house, not
consultants.
3 Agree
1 Non-consensus
(removal)
Page 6 of 7
(S6) Ashland Street (OR 66)
from Siskiyou Boulevard to
Tolman Creek Road
Conduct access management spacing
study and provide near- and long-
term recommendations for
improvement.
S6 – This was just done a few
years ago.
- High priority, scheduled
development at SOU & Shop N
Kart
4 Agree
(S7) East Main Street from
Siskiyou Boulevard to
Wightman Street
Conduct access management spacing
study and provide near- and long-
term recommendations for
improvement.
S7 – Only in-house, not
consultants.
3 Agree
1 Non-Consensus
(removal)
(S8) Downtown Couplet
Transition Study
Evaluate the feasibility and costs
associated with removing the
downtown couplet system and
returning two-way traffic to Main
Street and Lithia Way. As part of the
study, the feasibility of roundabouts
at the Helman Street/Main
Street/Lithia Way and the Siskiyou
Boulevard/East Main Street/Lithia
Way intersections would be explored.
S8 – I think both streets would
be so busy. Would much rather
have Option C for E. Main, two
traffic lanes, bicycle wide lane,
truck offload. Good idea but too
much money.
-Discuss at Commission
(TC/PC) level
1 Against
3 Non-Consensus
(S9) Ashland Street (OR
66)/Tolman Creek Road
Safety Study
Conduct a transportation safety
assessment in five years to identify
crash trends and/or patterns (if they
exist) as well as mitigations to reduce
crashes.
S9 – Do we need a study? Put $
into redoing intersection.
3 Agree
1 Non-consensus
C. Functional Classification Map Review (Figure 1)
Set aside
D. Questions/Comments:
Proposed Roadway Projects (Figure 11B)
Proposed Railroad Crossing Projects (Figure 11Aa)
Proposed Intersection Projects (Figure 11C)
Set aside
E. Discuss Next Steps and Key Near Term Dates
Set Aside
REMAINING ROADWAY PROJECTS FOR THE COMMISSIONS TO REVIEW AT THE NEXT
MEETING:
R17, R19, R20, R21, R22, R23, R24, R25, R26, R30, AND R31
IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Sherry Smilo/215 Tolman Creek Rd spoke to the Commissioners regarding section R22 in the maps
and charts not to be considered for any action. The area considered for a road is Clay Street to
Tolman, next to Snowberry and through the YMCA and right in back of their homes.
She remarked the whole YMCA field would be eliminated. The Ashley Garden Apartments would lose
13 parking spaces. The road would literally be in their back yard creating vibration, noise, dust, litter,
lack of privacy, light pollution, and reduction of the property value.
Chris Hearn/515 East Main Street presented a 6 page document to the Commissioners stating the
reason why the client he represents, IPCO (Brombacher), is against the Washington Street extension
to Tolman Crk. Rd.
The proposed Washington Street Extension to Tolman Creek Road is clearly depicted in the report
(project #R25) as bisecting IPCO’s Property. This road does not benefit IPCO at all. They had already
paid over $50,000 to develop LID improvements and establishing utilities for future development as
Page 7 of 7
directed by the City. IPCO is concerned about the effect of “condemnation blight” on the value and
marketability of its property.
At this time, IPCO would like to have its strenuous objection to the proposed Washington Street
Extension to Tolman Creek Road (Project #R25) to be entered in the record.
The Commission asked if they purchased this property with an existing right of way access road, and
they did not. The road is just an internal access road for them to access their property.
Mark Kerr/215 Tolman Creek Rd. #37 spoke to the commissions about his objection to the existing
plan for R22 to establish a road that would impact their homes and surrounding areas. A lack of
privacy, since the road is overlooking their backyards, cost of acquisition and losing the apartment
complex parking spaces would happen if the road were established as planned. He believes it could
be re-routed in a different way that could be a solution.
Commissioner Ryan asked staff would the procedure would be to remove this road, and staff remarked
it would be a recommendation after reviewing the maps that would follow after public input.
Colleen Graham/215 Tolman Creek Rd. #36 spoke to the Commission regarding their goals and how
this would not fit because it is intrusive to the park, disrespectful to spoil the yards, views, and privacy.
The second goal, of safety first would not happen because of the exposure of all of the homes to
pollution and traffic, kids, and intrusion. The third goal of accommodating the future growth, there
would not be any place to add anymore buildings along a new road. She believes we should enhance
what has already been established and asks the Commission to reconsider this road.
Wanda Coffman/215 Tolman Creek Rd. spoke to the Commissioners about not wanting the proposed
road for R22 for reasons that have already been mentioned by the public representatives.
Dan Lindner/300 Clay Street spoke to the Commission about the proposed road, R22. He is against it
and feels it is redundant. Abbott street is only a few hundred feet away and runs the same course. He
felt the excessive money that would be spent, when there are alternatives was a waste. Also, there is
a fire hazard, because there is no water available, and adding another line of traffic would increase the
danger.
Maddalena DiRienzo/931 Beswick Way spoke t the Commissioners about making the goals of
economic viability a top priority. The majority of out of town visitors arrive by automobile and local
businesses depend on tourism for viability. They depend on trucks for obtaining necessary supplies to
run their businesses. She feels multi-Mobil is important, but making the town secure economically
should be a top priority. Ashland would not be able to sustain
without the local businesses, and attractions that depend on sustaining automobile viability.
Mike Faught pointed out that a web site ashlandtsp.com has been created so everyone can obtain
information about the processes and updates for this project.
V. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
Chairperson Marsh established through conscious there would be another joint meeting between the
Transportation and Planning Commissions on November 29th from 5pm to 7:30pm.
VI. ADJOURN: 7:05PM
Respectfully submitted by:
Mary McClary,
Administrative Assistant to
the Electric Department