Jackson County is in the High Risk category for COVID-19 as of February 26. Visit the Governor's website for information on what is allowed during this time. Get general updates, vaccine information, and resources related to the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic here.
 

Agendas and Minutes

Transportation Commission (View All)

Joint TC/PC Meeting

Agenda
Thursday, March 15, 2012

 
  
JOINT ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION AND
ASHLAND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES

Thursday, March 15, 2012

 
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Pam Marsh called the meeting to order at 6:07 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street.
 
Transportation Commissioners Present: Tom Burnham, Mike Gardiner, Pam Hammond, Steve Ryan, Corinne Vièville and David Young
Planning Commissioners Present:  Michael Dawkins, Eric Heesacker, Richard Kaplan, Pam Marsh and Melanie Mindlin
Staff Present:  Mike Faught, John Peterson, Steve MacLennan and Jodi Vizzini
Ex Officio:  Maria Harris
Council Liaison:  Dennis Slattery
Consultant:  Susie Wright, Kittelson & Associates (via conference call)
Absent:  Shawn Kampmann, Brent Thompson, Debbie Miller and Councilor David Chapman
 
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS AND ADOPTION OF PREVIOUS MEETING MINUTES
Chair Marsh welcomed newly affirmed Transportation Commissioner Pam Hammond.
Commissioners Gardiner/Dawkins m/s to approve February 9 and February 23, 2012 minutes. Voice vote:  all AYES.  Motion passed: 11 – 0.
 
ADJUSTMENTS TO THE AGENDA
None
 
PUBLIC FORUM
Jenna Stanke/670 C Street/Stated as the Bicycle-Pedestrian Program Manager for Jackson County, one of her main duties is helping to maintain and manage the Bear Creek Greenway and look at expansion opportunities. She expressed her appreciation for the work done to support Ashland’s drive to become more multi-modal, and is impressed with how the Transportation System Plan (TSP) is coming together. Her request was based on the Greenway and connectivity issues in the City. She pointed out the need for the addition of Nevada St. from Kestrel Pkwy to Oak St. as a pedestrian project and planned pedestrian network, and explained the benefits to such additions. She requested this project be moved from medium priority to a high priority status.
 
DISCUSSION ITEMS
Chair Marsh reviewed the agenda for the meeting and outlined the direction for the next six months. She recommended the idea of dividing into subcommittees of specialty areas to accomplish the issues remaining for discussion.
 
Remaining Action Items:
Commissioners reviewed a list of remaining TSP items left for discussion and deliberation. The list included:
 
Shared Roads
Functional Classification Maps
Railroad Crossing Projects
Intersection Projects
Transit (potential subcommittee work)
Bikeway Network (potential subcommittee work)
Roadway Projects R22, R23, R25
Review Clay Street Alternate Road/Bike @ Hwy 66
SOU Pedestrian Crossing
Discuss Fees in Lieu of Sidewalks for Frontage
Multi-Modal SDC Methodology                                                                                                                                                   
 
Final TSP Timeline:
Commissioners reviewed a proposed timeline for the final TSP.  The timeline included:
 
Early DECEMBER –  City Council both SDC & TSP
NOV/DEC –  Planning Commission Meeting (two meetings)
Mid OCTOBER –  Town Hall Meeting
Mid SEPTEMBER –  45 Day Legal Notice Planning Commission
Late AUGUST – Coordinate Forum with Chamber of Commerce
Late JULY – TC/PC Meeting – Kittelson to present TSP Draft
Mid JULY – Submit Final TSP to Kittelson & Associates
Late JUNE – Staff needs Final Commissioner’s TSP
MAY/JUNE - Two Joint TC/PC Meetings
 
Michael Dawkins suggested a work session for the Planning Commission to look over the street standards and recommended Mr. Faught‘s presence for the discussion.
 
Subcommittee Assignments (Transit & Bikeway Network)
Commissioners discussed the purpose of subcommittees. Mr. Faught defined the process as small groups pulling together data, coming up with a consensus, and bringing it back to the group for approval.  The Commissioners agreed to form subcommittees and individually added their names to a list indicating their interest group.
 
ACTION ITEMS
Review/Approve Sidewalk Recommendations:
Commissioners reviewed the results from the prior meeting group work on staff recommended additional sidewalks.  Mr. Faught proposed two sample motions based on the Commissioner’s group activity and combined results of the prior meeting. 
 
Commissioners Burnham/Mindlin m/s to approve Motion 1:  Recommend approval of additional staff recommended sidewalks listed as street #s  2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20 and 21 based on prior group activity.  Voice Vote:  Burnham, Gardiner, Hammond, Heesacker, Kaplan, Marsh, Mindlin, Ryan, Vièville, Young, YES; Dawkins, NO.  Motion passed 10 – 1.
 
Commissioners Burnham/Young m/s to approve staff recommendations on street #s 1 (Garfield) and 18 (Harrison) and Group D’s recommendations on street #s 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 19 based on prior group activity.  Voice Vote:  Burnham, Gardiner, Hammond, Heesacker, Kaplan, Marsh, Mindlin, Ryan, Vièville, Young, YES; Dawkins, NO.  Motion passed 10 – 1.
 
Commissioner Dawkins stated his strong opposition to a sidewalk on Roca Street. Commissioners weighed in their reasoning for adding a sidewalk in this location. John Peterson stated his reasons for this recommendation were based on the hill, corners, parked cars, and the safety concern of children walking on the street in route to school.
 
Sidewalk Projects:
Commissioners Burnham/Mindlin m/s to approve Motion 2:  Recommend approval of  staff’s recommendations on Sidewalk Projects  P1, P2, P3, P5, P6, P7, P9, P10, P11, P12, P13, P14, P15, P16, P18, P19, P20, P21, P23, P24, P25, P26, P27, P28, P29, P30, P31, P32, P33, P34, P35, P36, P37, P38, P39, P40, P41, P43, P45, P46, P47, P48, P49, P50, P52, P53, P55,  P56, based on prior group  activity.
 
Commissioner Young asked Mr. Faught to clarify whether the staff recommended sidewalks would include construction on only one side or both sides.  Mr. Faught replied the direction Kittelson will get from the Commission and staff will be to include only one side in the preferred (financially constrained) plan, even on those sidewalks where both sides are recommended.  He added that some streets, collectors, arterials and safe routes to schools, need sidewalks on both sides.
 
Voice Vote:  Burnham, Gardiner, Hammond, Heesacker, Kaplan, Marsh, Mindlin, Ryan, Vièville, Young, YES; Dawkins, NO.  Motion passed 10 – 1.
 
Remaining Sidewalk Projects:
The Commissioners discussed the remaining sidewalk projects that did not include a consensus after previous small group activity. Mr. Peterson systematically reviewed the list and explained why staff made the recommendations.  He agreed with the commissioner’s recommendations with exception to P17 (Beaver Slide), and clarified the direction (north/south vs. east/west) on P58 (Helman St).  Commissioners discussed widening P22 (S. Mountain Ave from Iowa to Village Green), and changing the priority of P54 (Iowa St. from Terrace to Auburn) due to the steep grade.
 
Commissioners Mindlin/Young m/s to approve commissioner’s recommendations on sidewalk projects P4, P8, P42, P44, P57 and P58; remove Group A’s recommendation of steps instead of sidewalk on P17 and approve staff recommendation; remove Group B’s recommendation to widen street on P22 and change to high priority; and approve staff recommendation of low priority on P54. Voice Vote: all AYES.  Motion passed.
 
Commissioner’s Additional Recommendations:
Commissioners and staff reviewed the additional sidewalk recommendations based on prior group activity. Mr. Peterson systematically reviewed the list and shared staff’s approval or disapproval of said recommendations. The main discussion involved the recommendation of non-urbanized sidewalks on the south side of Siskiyou Blvd. Mr. Faught stated this recommendation would be a planning action and the commissioner’s could request this area to be excluded in normal city street standards and leave it as asphalt; not overlay it with concrete.
 
At the conclusion of the discussion Chair Marsh summarized the group conclusions on the commissioner’s additional recommendations as:
Parkside Drive – approve
S. Pioneer – remove from list
Hersey/Oak – approve
Railroad crossings – approve
C Street between Fourth and Fifth – approve (Dawkins voted no)
Jaquelyn – move to shared roads discussion
Belleview – approve
Second St. – remove from list
Siskiyou Blvd (south side) – designate as bikeway and/or in context as street standards
 
Commissioners Melanie/Burnham m/s to approve the Commissioner’s Additional Recommendations list with the noted revisions.  Voice Vote:  all AYES. Motion passed.
 
Street Functional Classification
The Commissioners reviewed the Kittelson document titled “Street Functional Classification Review” and asked clarifying questions. Mr. Faught explained how street functional classifications drive the street standards. He added the street classifications are based on volume.  Consultant, Susie Wright and Planning Manager, Maria Harris defined street classifications based on how streets work and how people move around.  Specific streets of concern were Wimer St., Guthrie St./Gresham St., Nevada St., Westwood St., Normal Ave., Hillview Dr., Holly St., and Indiana St.
 
Commissioners Burnham/Heesacker m/s to approve recommendations summarized in the Street Functional Classification Review document with the understanding that Guthrie Street is Guthrie St/Gresham.  Voice Vote: all AYES.  Motion passed 11 – 0.
 
Intersection Projects:
Chair Marsh suggested as each Intersection Project is discussed, Commissioners will pause and give thumbs up or thumbs down with the understanding that thumbs up means approved, and thumbs down means not approved.
R1 – Council already approved this project.  All thumbs up.
R2 – All thumbs up with the exception of Commissioner Vièville
 
R3/R4 – Young expressed he has a problem with queuing back to Plaza with a signal.  Commissioner Hammond suggested that a downtown plan needs to be in place before decisions can be made.  She added the area as a whole needs to be looked at, not just one section.
 
Mr. Faught suggested moving the three lane/two lane concepts as well as downtown signals into a downtown plan, like previously done with street patios and the parking study.  He added making it one comprehensive downtown plan and listing priorities.
 
The Commissioners discussed the intersection projects on the list that would be affected by a downtown plan, tabling those intersections and continuing with the discussion on the remaining projects. The intersection projects tabled were:  R3/4, R5, R10, R11 and R16, however Mr. Faught pointed out that R15 and R16 were previously approved by the Commissioners.
 
Chair Marsh continued with the list, beginning at R6.  This prompted a discussion that included R7.  Ms. Wright was asked to clarify the adequacy of the location for a mini-roundabout.  Conversations included the size of the footprint, signalizing this intersection and/or making it a four-way stop. After much discussion the conclusions were:
 
R6 – All thumbs up
R7 – Remove
R8 – All thumbs up
 
Commissioners discussed project R9 and asked Ms. Wright clarifying questions. Chair Marsh recommended the TSP update should include a study of this intersection instead of installation of a roundabout. Project R9 was tabled for further discussion.
 
The Commissioners continued voting on Roadway Projects:
R12 – All thumbs up
R13 – All thumbs up
R14 – All thumbs up
R14 – All thumbs up
R15 – Approved by consensus at a previous meeting
R16 – Approved by consensus at a previous meeting
 
Railroad Crossing:
Did not discuss
 
SMALL GROUP WORK
Shared Roads:
Did not discuss
    
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 9:07 p.m.
 
Respectfully submitted,
Jodi Vizzini, Office Assistant II
 

Online City Services

Customer Central Online Payment Center
Connect to
Ashland Fiber Network
Request Conservation
Evaluation
Proposals, Bids
& Notifications
Request Building
Inspection
Building Permit
Applications
Apply for Other
Permits & Licenses
Register for
Recreation Programs

©2021 City of Ashland, OR | Site Handcrafted in Ashland, Oregon by Project A

Quicklinks

Connect

Share

twitter facebook Email Share
back to top