HomeMy WebLinkAboutTransportation Board - Minutes - 06/18/2003REGULAR MEETING MINUTES of the
TRANSPORTATION BOARD
June 18, 2003
5:45 p.m.
City of Fort Collins
215 N. Mason Street
Community Room
FOR
CHAIR:
Bruce Henderson
898-4625
VICE CHAIR:
Heather Trantham
206-4255
STAFF LIAISON:
Don Bachman
224-6049
ADMIN SUPPORT:
Cynthia Cass
224-6058
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
Joe Dumais
Edward Jakubauskas
Tim Johnson
Brad Miller
Christophe Ricord
Brent Thordarson
Heather Trantham
CITY STAFF IN ATTENDANCE:
Don Bachman
Cynthia Cass
John Daggett
Randy Hensley
Mark Jackson
Dean Klingner
John Lang
Cam McNair
Ted Shepard
J.R. Wilson
Pete Wray
ABSENT:
Dan Gould
Neil Grigg
Bruce Henderson
Ray Moe
GUESTS IN ATTENDANCE:
Eric Hamrick
Gary Thomas
Nancy York
APPROVED Transportation Board Regular Meeting Minutes
June 18,2003
Page 2 of 18
1. CALL TO ORDER
Vice Chair Trantham called the meeting to order at 5:53 p.m.
2. AGENDA REVIEW
No changes to the agenda were requested.
3. PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
There was a motion and a second to approve the minutes of May 21, 2003 as presented
The motion carried by a unanimous vote, 7-0.
5. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORT
Kastein was not present, however Council member Hamrick introduced himself and
joined board members at the table.
6. DISCUSSION
a. N. COLLEGE AVE & JEFFERSON/RIVERSIDE PROJECT—Mingner & Lang
Lang introduced himself and stated he will be overseeing this project and then
introduced Dean Klingner, Senior Engineer, who will be co -project manager.
This project started out as a Building Community Choices 1997 project called the N.
College Improvements project with a funded budget of $2.56M. Kathleen Reavis,
from Transportation Planning, brought this project to the board at the end of the
conceptual phase.
Lang reviewed the original goals of the project, items that have been added during the
process and how the budget has changed and why.
Schedule wise, the final design is complete and it is anticipated that advertising for
contractors will begin next week. Construction will begin in mid -August and be
completed by April 2004. During this period, a work stoppage is scheduled from
November 22 through January 5 to lessen the impacts on the Downtown area
festivities and merchants.
APPROVED Transportation Board Regular Meeting Minutes
June 18,2003
Page 3 of 18
Lang discussed the impacts which include the following:
• During construction, N. College will remain open with a minimum of one lane
in each direction.
• Delays are to be expected This project is on a State Highway and Truck Route
so detours are limited. Lincoln/Willow/Linden/Vine will be used as an alternate
route for trucks as well as Riverside to Prospect to I-25 during construction of
the Riverside/Mulberry intersection.
• The City is working with CDOT and WYDOT to use their variable message
boards to encourage through truck traffic to stay on the interstate.
• A temporary traffic signal will be used at Willow and Linden and staff will be
bidding an item for a traffic technician to manually operate various traffic
signals to reduce backups.
Lang stated that project updates will be given along the way and there will be many
open houses, project mailers, and weekly email updates to the coordination lists.
Several meetings have already taken place with the N. College Business Association,
Downtown Business Association, Downtown Development Authority and others.
Dumais encouraged staff to do whatever it takes to discourage truck traffic from
using Lemay/Vine.
b. NE STREET RENAMING — Shepard & Wilson
Ted Shepard, Current Planning Department, and J.R. Wilson, Engineering,
introduced themselves. Shepard stated that as part of an ongoing process to name
County Roads which have been annexed into the City or which are m the Growth
Management Area, and due to the pending development in the area, City staff has
initiated the process to modify the County Road identifications and formalize local
street names where necessary in the northeast area of the City.
Staff recommendations are to name existing county roads as follows:
• CR9 from Mountain Vista to Douglas Road to GIDDINGS ROAD
• CRl 1 from Mountain Vista to Douglas Road to CHERRYHURST ROAD
• Formalize the use of the name DOUGLAS ROAD on CR 54 from I-25 to Shields
Street
• Formalize MOUNTAIN VISTA DRIVE
• Formalize SHIELDS STREET (CR 17) from Vine Drive to Douglas Road
• Formalize TERRY LAKE ROAD from College Avenue to Douglas Road
• Extend RICHARDS LAKE ROAD from CR 52 to I-25
The board thanked Shepard and Wilson for the informative presentation.
1-,
APPROVED Transportation Board Regular Meeting Minutes
June 18,2003
Page 4 of 18
c. HARMONY CORRIDOR PLAN AMENDMENT/LIFESTYLE CENTER —
Jackson & Wray
Jackson introduced Pete Wray, Advanced Planning, and stated that the purpose of
tonight's update is to bring the board up to speed on what's going on with the
Harmony Corridor Plan Amendment process and how it relates to the Lifestyle
Center pieces which members may have been reading about in the newspaper.
Wray gave a brief overview of the proposed amendment to the Harmony Corridor
Plan (HCP). The proposed amendments to the HCP will allow a Lifestyle Shopping
Center on the vacant property behind the LSI Logic facility at the northeast comer of
Harmony Road and Ziegler Road The property is currently designated for Basic
Industrial and Non -Retail Employment uses; and a shopping center is not permitted
under the current designation. Also, the Harmony Corridor Standards and
Guidelines, which implement the Plan, would need to be amended with a new
definition of Lifestyle Shopping Centers. The definition, along with a few additional
standards, would establish uses, size and character.
Wray gave a description of a Lifestyle Center, adding that although they are new to
our region, they are not new to the nation or even to Colorado. They have an outdoor
shopping format, speciaky retail tenants, fine dining/sit-down restaurants,
entertainment venues, high quality architecture/site amenities, office/residential mix
(optional), and anchor tenants — optional (department store or other large retailer).
Wray described the public outreach process that staff has undertaken over the last
few months.
Jackson went over the transportation related issues that included the preliminary
traffic considerations analysis and the fact that the Harmony interchange has been
reconstructed within the last five years or so. This is one of the key things that make
this site very, very attractive to developers who are interested in doing this. The
Prospect/I-25 interchange already has problems as do other interchanges in the
region.
Jackson reported that some of the issues are the addition of traffic, no matter what
generates it, on the Harmony Corridor.
Board Ouestions/Comments:
Johnson: One of the things I see us doing here is just bringing in upscale chains.
What about an emphasis on local tenants?
Wray: This developer is interested in getting local tenants.
Johnson: I strongly encourage you to look for porosity from the west side. Another
important point is what kind of subsidies are we looking at? This is a regional center,
so in terms of Street Oversizing, we need to look at impact over a broad enough
distance.
1-.
APPROVED Transportation Board Regular Meeting Minutes
June 18,2003
Pages of 18
Jackson: That is an important issue that will be addressed at the point when they
actually submit a plan
Johnson: The Foothills Fashion Mall has access from many different directions and
I think that's one of the things that we'd like to look at again in looking at that west
side and not keeping it closed up.
Wray: One of the things that could be worked out with the project submittal is how
much room is left over on that edge for either a buffer or setting the stage for some
sort of future access or private drive or something on that western edge.
Jackson: One of the things at minimum that I'm interested in is a lot of times if it
doesn't seem practical or feasible to do a vehicular connection at the least what we
try to do is ensure that we have a good pedestrian/bicycle connection. That would be
real important to me if I was the person reviewing a development application that
came in here.
The board thanked staff for the update and it was agreed that they would be back at
future meetings with more updates.
d. DOWNTOWN STRATEGIC PLAN UPDATE — Hensley & Daggett
Daggett reported that staff went to City Council at their Study Session on May 27th
and the parking problem in the downtown area was defined for them as a lack of
sufficient parking turnover, the pricing policy is upside down, there are long-term
parkers parking in short-term spaces and there are insufficient technologies and
regulations in place to allow it to be effective with our enforcement activities.
Daggett said that Council reminded staff that there are no resources available to
institute any big fixes at the present time and the direction they pointed us in was that
they'd like to try to explore a progressive way of implementing this change of our
behavior towards the problem and trying to solve the problem with enhanced
enforcement being the first thing out of the box so to speak.
Daggett distributed a schedule of public meetings, pointing out that it does not
include another visit to this board, but staff will be glad to come back if the board
would like. He stated that staff is currently writing up the transportation analysis
which should be completed sometime next week. Hensley stated that in the event the
board wishes to give a recommendation to Council on this project, staff would
definitely need to come back before going to Council with a final plan on August 19,
however, there is a Study Session on July 22. The board agreed they'd like to have
staff come back, so they will be placed on the July 16 Transportation Board agenda.
Daggett briefly went over the Draft Framework Plan: Policy Statements and
Recommendations section of the Fort Collins Downtown Strategic Plan. He said
that he can do a presentation on the analysis that supports the above stated document
in July.
APPROVED Transportation Board Regular Maeting Minutes
June 18,2003
Page 6 of 18
Board Ouestions/Comments:
Johnson referred to Page 16 and said that under the "Strengths" heading, the last
bullet that mentions the parking supply of over 9,000 spaces should be noted. The
question is how to get those spaces distributed to those who need them roughly
where they need them. That's an on -going problem that's been a struggle.
Johnson: One of the suggestions that I would like to make note under "Weaknesses"
that isn't here even though I've mentioned it a couple of times, is that there isn't a
downtown circulator to take advantage of these 9,000 parking spaces. This is one of
the solutions that we need to do — work with the private sector that owns some of
these spaces, and with the DDA and the City to operate a circulator so you can park a
little way out and do 3-4 stops before you go back to your car. That may be one of
the solutions.
Johnson continued by saying that it may be a simple thing, but where people do get
stuck is "way finding". We need gateway markers as you are entering the downtown
from different directions. There is a much simpler way to help people and that is to
have signage as you enter the parking structure telling, for instance, which way
Mason is. Think of the signage when you get off a ski lift. You have these great big
signs that tell you which way to go. We could have fun with the downtown
merchants, using ads, logos, etc. A lot of people don't realize you can go in the
parking structure on Mason and come out at Opera Galleria right on College, so that
has to be clarified.
Johnson: Another option for us to be thinking about longer term is an underpass at
Cherry. Once the new Azdan Youth Center is built up, that is going to be a
destination, so a connection should be in the plan.
Johnson: One other thing I noticed is an unfriendly intersection- Maple and College.
You have to think about it from the point of view of a mother with a child in a
stroller trying to cross there. I once saw a mother trying to do that. She made three
attempts to go out into the intersection and finally gave up. We need to think of what
makes for a pedestrian -friendly intersection and what will it take to achieve that.
Dumais: On that page too (page 16), Jefferson Street is listed there as a barrier to
downtown with an unfriendly pedestrian environment due to the noise, truck traffic,
distance and condition of the pedestrian crossings. How much heavier is traffic on
SH14 versus US287? Daggett: On College versus Jefferson? Dumais: Yes.
Daggett: Jefferson is about 15-16,000 vehicles/day and College is about 25-26,000
right now. Dumais: And no one considers College a barrier?! I've always found that
interesting that even though the traffic is heavier there it isn't considered a barrier. I
think part of it is that there's nothing on the other side right now. If it was
completely developed across there, I don't think it would be perceived as a barrier,
but the fact that there's nothing there — nobody wants to cross it. In other words,
there's nothing to draw significant pedestrian related business on the northeast side
APPROVED Transportation Board Regular Meeting Minutes
June 18,2003
Page 7 of 18
of Jefferson. Traffic on College Avenue does not serve as a significant barrier to
pedestrian movement, nor should a lower level of traffic on Jefferson (Riverside).
Daggett. Johnson mentioned some things that have turned from being weakness into
a recommendation and is in the document, so you will find those 9,000 spaces
addressed in the document. One problem with the circulator suggestion is that all the
streets are going to be quite congested in the future because as you increase the
density of downtown, the residential and the business activity downtown, we have a
lot more traffic on our roads and the buses get caught in that traffic and it may be
cost prohibitive to run a circulator. I would encourage you all to read the
transportation section before we get to next month and have a lively conversation
about that then.
Johnson stated that something he'd like to comment on is on page 43 at the top under
231, is the idea of "park once" that ties into the idea of the circulator.
Daggett invited everyone to come to the Open House on June 26 at the Opera
Galleria taking place all day. 8 am. — 5 p.m.
Johnson stated that with regard to cycling, Magnolia is recommended on page 46 as
the primary east/west and Mason as the primary north/south, and the nice thing about
Magnolia is that it connects all the way to City Park and Riverside. Therefore, I
would think that beyond what we're talking about for the Downtown Strategic Plan
that we add that to the Bike Plan for the bike routes because it has a lot of good
connections. Jackson made note of this suggestion. Johnson also commented that
Mason Street, on page 41, still plays a central role despite the fact that we don't see
long-term finding right now.
Ricord stated that while he has not been on the inside of this process, it appears that it
has been exemplary. Daggett thanked the board for the compliment and their time.
e. TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE - Jackson
Jackson stated that the purpose tonight is to get final comments on the Goals,
Principals and Policies that were included in the packets.
Jackson said that a special meeting with this board is tentatively scheduled in
September as shown on the Schedule Update which was distributed. The new
adoption date with City Council is September 16, so it made sense to suggest a
special meeting on September 8. It was agreed that members would go ahead and
pencil the date in and that Chair Henderson, Bachman and Jackson would discuss this
in more detail.
APPROVED Transportation Board Regular Meeting Minutes
June 18,2003
Page 8 of 18
Jackson distributed a Draft outline to the actual new document in order to
demonstrate what the document is going to look like. It is for informational purposes
only.
Schedule wise, the T IPU will be going to a City Council Study Session to talk about
the Goals, Principles and Policies exercise on July 8. On July 22, staff will be
meeting with the council to specifically talk about the T IP and they will see some of
the analysis and preliminary CIP work and such.
Jackson stated that another bit of news is that the entire CIP list has been put into a
GIS format so it can be graphically portrayed Staff is creating layers for each mode
so you can overlay all the roadway projects, and then overlay all the bicycle,
pedestrian, and transit projects. He described it as a way to get our hands around it
and make sure we were clean cross -categorically so we weren't duplicating efforts
and costs and such.
We also have the ability to communicate graphically with other departments as far as
what their plans are specifically things like Storm Water and what some of their big
projects are, Natural Resources has been interested, Current and Advance Planning
have been very interested It has taken on a life of its own and has been great for
many City departments.
Jackson then went over changes made to the document just recently.
Going through the document page by page, the following comments were made:
Page 1:
Ricord - I want to go on record as stating that the word "regional" is redundant.
Page 2:
Johnson — Policy T-1.8, looking at 'performance data" there, is safety and
compliance data some of the thinking that's going into that? Jackson: yes, I think we
look at a lot of different things. I will note that. Thordarson: Perhaps you could put
it like this: Performance, safety and compliance data Johnson: I don't know where
to put it, but let's raise the idea of continuity. Jackson: I agree it's an idea we don't
want to lose. We'll see where it would fit in the best.
Page 3:
Dumais — Policy T-1.9, Change "encourage" partnerships among.... to `rely on"
partnerships.
Page 4:
Ricord — adding the word `regional" bothers me and I think it would be helpful to
name some of the plans at end of the text.
APPROVED Transportation Board Regular Meeting Minutes
June 18, 2003
Page 9 of 18
Page 5:
Thordarson — Policy T-4, Change the word `viable" to "practical".
Page 6:
Johnson — Policy T-5, Change the word "viable" to "practical".
Page 10:
Policy TC-5.1, Add "Timberline/Powers Trail" to the description so it's not just seen
as a recreational only item.
Dumais: What about putting in the need to have something in here regarding the
ability to adapt to new or novel transportation technologies? Jackson: That's the first
time it's been brought up, I'll make note of it.
7. ACTION
a. I-25 SUB -AREA PLAN — M. Jackson
Jackson apologized for Waido's absence. He stated that he heard the board's concerns
last month as follows: That the verbiage didn't go far enough in specifying that City Plan
is the "mother document." That this plan is a part of City Plan and not necessarily the I-
25 Regional Plan. The second issue that was raised was that we needed stronger
language specifying that any infrastructure improvements that are shown outside the
City's GMA boundary needed to be specifically called out as not the financial
responsibility of the City of Fort Collins. There was a graphical concern that there
needed to be a way to show those proposed infrastructure improvements outside the
GMA in a different manner to help reinforce that. We took those to heart and included in
your packet was a memo that stated your comments were heard and we went back we
word smithed the text to where we thought it was appropriate and the bottom line is, we
hope we have addressed the board's concerns and if we have, I think it was stated pretty
clearly to us that those were the sticking points last month and I feel we have addressed
them. If that's the case, I would like to respectfully request another memo saying that the
board had a change of heart, that staff heard our concerns, addressed them and if you see
so appropriate, now endorse the Plan.
Ricord: The initial memo, which in the minutes stated that was being co -written by Bruce
and staff, did that get sent to Council?
Bachman: No, it didn't get written or sent yet.
Johnson: Yes, well it says here in the minutes that "it was agreed that Chair Henderson
would work with the staff in preparing a memo addressed to Council regarding the
recommendation."
Jackson: I guess that would mean then that if the Board does feel it appropriate now to
endorse the Sub -Area Plan, then a memo to that effect would work since you don't have
to counteract the previous memo.
APPROVED Transportation Board Regular MeeBng Minutes
June 18,2003
Page 10 of 18
Ricord.- I have a procedural issue based on... given that that memo should have gone on
to Council and it didn't. I think the only time it is appropriate to ask for essentially an
appeal where a decision that a board or commission makes is either if that board or
commission, under Robert's Rules, feels it's appropriate to revisit the issue by the
majority of the dissention, raising the issue of can it be voted upon or does City Council ..
but in any other instance that I've known... it's staff's version to essentially hijack a
memo.
Jackson: I know it's late, but I certainly hope you aren't accusing me of hijacking
anything.
Ricord: I don't know that "hijack" is the appropriate term, but in any case, the memo
didn't arrive Council's office.
Jackson: I can't speak to the whole memo, but as I recall the conversation from last
month, Chair Henderson was going to write that memo and forward it through Don. If
that didn't happen, that's a breakdown somewhere in the system. I don't think you can
hang that one on staff.
Bachman: Chair Henderson was going to put together the essence of what the board said,
then, just as you and I did many times (referring to Ricord) is get together and word smith
it. In any case, where we sit here at the moment, this item has not gone to Council.
Many times we try to attach a memo in the packets to the current recommendation that's
going to Council. The schedule, as you know has been moved back and presented an
opportunity to revisit the language and to see if staff incorporated the language which the
board asked for, if they would endorse it. Again, we have an opportunity here since the
item was moved back on Council's schedule.
Ricord: This sends a precedence that makes me uncomfortable in terms of process and
the board's recommendation and whether staff agrees with it or not and what happens to
it if they don't. Had you sent the memo that Bruce agreed to write and then if you
wanted to revisit the issue, you could come back with it as a discussion item and we
could talk about whether or not it is appropriate to revisit the issue at that time...
Jackson: If may insert, just from a practicality standpoint, it will be after the fact if we
come back to you in July. Council is hearing this in early July before you meet again.
Bachman: What he is saying Mark, is that the memo should go regardless of whether you
change the Plan.
Jackson: I have no problem if you want to send a separate memo. All I'm saying is staff
heard your concerns, staff feels that this board's endorsement is important enough that we
wanted to mitigate or address your concerns and then come back to you and see if we
have truly indeed addressed those concerns, would that please merit some sort of
acknowledgement to Council saying that, "Hey, you know what, staff heard our concerns
and they addressed it and this puts things in a different light."
Johnson: The reason this is a touchy point, is that two years ago, we were dealing with
the I-25 Corridor Plan and a similar thing happened. We made a recommendation from
the board and it did not get to the Council. There may have been a breakdown what with
Bruce interacting with staff and so on and Bruce isn't here to address that, but I think it's
a disservice to bring something back like this, one would expect to have major kinds of
changes instead of some kind of semantic kind of approach that Ken went to in this
memo that he sent us. City Plan equals Regional Plan equals I-25 Corridor Plan and
APPROVED Transportation Board Regular Meeting Minutes
June 18,2003
Page 11 of 18
therefore by some kind of logic it's supposed to follow that the changes that are
suggested in the I-25 Corridor Plan are something that we need to and must incorporate
into City Plan when in fact as you look at the hand out that I passed around, it's a
resolution that deals with the I-25 Corridor Plan that was adopted by the Council two
years ago. I would like this to be added to the record that we come forward with tonight.
It says in the statement that Ken has here that (page 2, in the middle of the page):
"Whereas, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest in the citizens of
the City that the Plan, as modified below, be adopted as an element of the City's
Comprehensive Plan." So he staked that in the document he sent to us, but now under
section 2, in the NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED section, 2 B), he omitted, and
this to me is a real serious omission, from someone who is supposed to be submitting
information that is supposed to help us guide us along with this decision, but it reads:
'That the City Council's adoption of the Amended Plan should not be construed as
evidencing support for a future regional transportation authority" — that's one item, "nor
as an implication that roads shown, on the Amended Plan will automatically become, part
of the City's Master Street Plan." That was omitted and it's a very serious omission in
my view.
Jackson: That was omitted in what?
Johnson: In this information that we had first presented to us in the I-25 Sub -Area Plan
and then eWwiaUy where we're supposed to be dealing with substantive changes so that
we amend our recommendation so to not put that in place, I just find that
incomprehensible.
Jackson: I have to confess. I am really lost as to what your sticking point is.
Johnson: The point is, is that the Sub -Area Plan is asking us to make all these adoptions
to the Master Street Plan to streets outside the...
Jackson: Okay, point of order. The Master Street Plan is not being amended with the
adoption of the I-25 Sub -Area Plan.
Johnson: But the map that you have shows us that we're going to be asking for Master
Street Plan amendments based on this.
Jackson: That's the recommendations made by the I-25 Sub -Area Plan. They'll be
revisited as part of the Transportation Master Plan where we can look at it a little more
systemically. In fact, and I want the board to be extremely clear on this, the adoption of
the I-25 Sub -Area Plan does not amend the Master Street Plan (MSP).
Johnson: But it sets the stage for it and you know when they put things in the MSP like
that then people assume that we're going to be doing these things. Right now, we have
the major problem that we've gone through this exercise in November and in April
looking for funding for unfimded transportation capital. We've identified $550M worth
unfunded capital. Presently Council is designating $1M a year. Natural Areas will be
giving us about $400,000 a year from their tax issue that they passed in November and if
we are able to renew Building Community Choices we'll perhaps add another $3M. And
now you're talking about coming to us with elements that are outside the GMA, it just
makes no sense. So my recommendation to the board is to let our recommendation from
last month stand and to forward that to Council.
APPROVED Transportation Boars Regular Meeting Minutes
June 18,2003
Page 12 of 18
Jackson: Last month when we talked, the objection was that we weren't specific in
stating that... I think everyone understood that you could show MSP road classifications
outside the GMA boundary for the sense of regional context. You're allowed to show up
to three miles outside, but the sticking point that this group had was that we weren't very
clear in specifically stating that that's not the financial responsibility of the City of Fort
Collins. We went back in a made that change and now I'm hearing that that's not good
enough.
Johnson: If you come back to us with a plan that deletes any recommendation of these
roads that are outside the GMA to the MSP...
Jackson: But they are just there for contextual purposes. That's what's shown in the
Larimer County Transportation Plan, the Regional Significant Corridors Plan and you
want to just ignore that?
Johnson: When we get plans for the East Mulberry Corridor we have that area outlined
and where the roads left the plan area there were arrows. We didn't talk about those
things that went outside the plan area (Jackson referred to the legend on the map.)
Miller: Not having been here last month doesn't help, but doesn't it help to have the
legend lay things out?
Johnson: Part of the problem that I have Brad, is that in the 3rd or 0 paragraph that he
gives us where City Plan equals Northern Colorado I-25 Community Corridor Plan. I
think that what's happening here is that there's been a strong effort through the whole
course of City Plan to find a way, by any means possible, whether it's amoeba -like
growth or something like that to extend this out to the Weld County lime or at least as far
east as possible and I think that this is another attempt at that. City Council made its will
clear in March when they said that the GMA will essentially be the same, they might do
minor tweaking here or there, meaning a few acres, but not tens of thousands of acres or
anything like that. I think we have to focus on the enormous deficiency that we have in
front of us. We've tried, I've tried I know I've put an enormous effort this last year into
trying to find capital, twisting arms of Council members who were reluctant to be
twisted But for us to be bringing anything forward to the citizens that's outside the
GMA, I think we just have to throw it to the county and say look, it may be of regional
importance, but it is in the county, put it on your master plan, you work with it.
Jackson: I want the group to be very, very clear that the I-25 Sub -Area Plan is in no way,
shape or form endorsing or changing the GMA boundary.
Dumais: So what's the significance of having the changes that are shown on the
map/legend?
Jackson: It was simply to show that we understood what the Transportation board's
concerns were as they were stated last month.
Dumais: I'm sorry, what I mean is for instance, CR5 is in green and is already there.
Jackson: Yes, it's already on the MSP shown for contextual purposes.
Dumais: What roads here are new?
Jackson: There are just a couple. The only new roads per se are these collector network
here and the extension of this existing Carriage Parkway. Those are the only new roads
shown within the GMA boundary. The rest are simply upgrades of facilities types on the
east/west, 36, Harmony, Prospect, and Mulberry. If we're looking at items that are
APPROVED Transportation Board Regular Meeting Minutes
June 18,2003
Page 13 of 18
actually within our GMA boundary, they are very, very slim. There's a piece of
Mulberry and a piece of Prospect and that's it.
Dumais: So the main change was to CR5.
Jackson: As far as big ticket stuff, yes, that's a big change and it's reflected in Larimer
County's Transportation Plan. The NFR MPO is in the process of designating CR5 as a
regionally significant corridor.
Dumais: Are they up to this standard?
Jackson: Yes. All this is, is reflecting existing plans and if they're shown, they're not to
imply that the City has a financial stake in it, but rather to set the context — we don't exist
in a vacuum and it's showing how this works as part of the regional system.
Dumais: So if it's just a contextual issue, but it's making people feel uncomfortable, how
important is it to you that you contextually show county roads on a city map?
Jackson: In the Plan document, I won't fall on my sword on that one, but I do think it's
important for the MSP. I'm kind of the gatekeeper for that and I think it's important to
show how things link up with the regional system and important to show for regional
context purposes what's going on, with say the northern piece of Loveland or the
southern piece of Wellington/Larimer County. Like I said, it's not unusual. People do it
all the time with they master street plans. They show them for contextual purposes and
don't imply responsibility at all from a Street Oversizing standpoint.
Ricord:...(inaudible)... from a Traffic Impact Study... new development and I believe
that the TIS (inaudible)... that developers will count on whatever is shown on that map.
Jackson: I think it takes it into consideration, but it doesn't default to that. It is one of the
factors you look at, you're right, but what you look at is what the development is; the
intensity and the type of development being proposed in this site and what does it
generate and how does that play out.
Bachman: I think the context is a little bit different. Having the street shown on the MSP
means that if there is to be a facility that is where it will be. It doesn't necessarily mean it
will be funded
Jackson: It does preserve the ability of the community if necessary to reserve the ROW
necessary for that if that's the ultimate designation or the ultimate fiiture of that. And
that's an important piece. We're talking concern about finance, you compare the price of
securing ROW initially versus going back and purchasing on existing development or
worse yet, condemnation, you're talking a whole different ball game financially. As an
example, look at T-Rex in Denver.
Ricard: I was hoping Ken would be here tonight as I have an issue with (inaudible) as
well. It has to do with Prospect and I-25 and how that is zoned.
Jackson: There is no change being made to that, it is commercial.
Ricord: That it is commercial is also a concern I'm concerned that there hasn't been
some (inaudible)... industrial because then you have a different set of traffic generation
data which would greatly lessen the impact on the system. I have a newspaper article that
came out about three weeks ago that speaks specifically to (inaudible)... A gentleman by
the name of Pfister is one of the developers and he said he is confident that upgrades to
the interchange could be done in conjunction with the project and he is quoted as saying,
"eve are assuming the City will work with us to identify money for the interchange."
APPROVED Transportation Boare Regular Meeting Minutes
June 18,2003
Page 14 of 18
Jackson: I've spoken with Mr. Pfister on many occasions and made it explicitly clear that
it is the City's policy that we do not participate financially on interchange improvements
and what came out in the paper is in spite of what he heard and he and his team nodded in
agreement that they heard what I said in meetings.
Ricord: But it also points to the concerns that this board has about fiscal responsibilities.
Jackson: People can go to the paper and say whatever they want.
Ricord. But it does indicate the development community does have a certain expectation
that the City is going to help ante up for these improvements. I have a concern that once
these things are in print and become part of the process of the development community,
we'll find ourselves ...
Jackson: I hear what you're saying and that's why I would think then that if you adopt
the text of the I-25 Sub -Area Plan, which specifically states that the City does not
participate financially in interchange improvements that will get you further to your goal.
Ricord.• Well, the zoning issue for me on Prospect is a concern.
Johnson: I think the question before us is that we made a recommendation last month and
I think the recommendation in my view should stand and I would add to it that we would
send just send to the Council the resolution that we have on the I-25 Corridor Plan and
reference them to the paragraph under section 2 paragraph B as how our thinking is
working and that we forward the recommendation that we made last month and that we'd
like in the future, when we make a recommendation, that the recommendations go to
Council. I think that's critical, no it's crucial, that the process works and that if we
wanted to come back to have the review of the recommendation that we made I would do
it in a heartbeat if Council asked us to do it because we advised them — that's our job and
if we had, as in Roberts Rules of Order works, a number of the dissenting group come
back and say they've had a change of heart for reasons "xyz" that's the way the process
always works and if we get away from that process and into some kind of willy-nilly
back lot sand lot approach then our meetings can get carried on forever if we're going
back to old business over and over again. It just won't work that way.
Hamrick: I've always been under the assumption that boards can communicate directly
with us and don't have to go through staff.
Johnson: Yes, it's another option that can be used. In this case we didn't use that, but
I've been part of the process too in times past where the staff has asked to share. You
write the memo and you share it with staff so they know it's going forward. It's fair and
legitimate to do that. Staff also has many times helped us to write the memo, put it
together, email to everyone for comments and things like that so we have used both
processes.
Hamrick: I would encourage you to communicate directly with Council on anything you
wish.
Johnson: I think it's a prerogative we know we have and I guess it's just a question of
when do we feel we have to use it. Sometimes the board wants to communicate
something to the council which is difficult for the staff to for all different kinds of reasons
and then it's appropriate for us, for sure, to do that. There's no reason to get staff in a
position of negativity with Council when it's the Board's comment, the Board's policy
and not the staffs policy to make that kind of comment.
Miller: Do we know what broke down here? Was it that Bruce...
••
APPROVED Transportation Boara Regular Meeting Minutes
June 18, 2003
Page 15 of 18
Bachman: I think we came away from the meeting without a clear understanding of who
was going to do what afterwards and at the same time what we were doing was the
project leader was reconsidering the language of the Plan itself and since there had been a
delay in the project schedule, it presented an opportunity to see if some word smithing on
the Plan would be accepted by the board, rather than sending a letter saying that the board
didn't endorse it because it doesn't say these things, that doesn't give the board the
opportunity for the board to say this is the part that we would endorse.
Miller: So did you and Bruce sit down and ...
Bachman: No.
Johnson: So there was a breakdown and I just acknowledge that.
Thordarson: As far as the MSP illustration, and roadways outside of the GMA boundary
I'm okay with the way it's shown. I also am comfortable with the bold text in the memo
it stands out and addresses the issues we had last month.
Vice Chair Trantham: There is still the issue of procedure and I'm not sure what to do
about that. I don't know if we should hold this until next time.
Johnson: My recommendation is that we send forward our past recommendation and that
we attach the resolution that dealt with the I-25 Corridor Plan to it referencing section 2B
as how our thinking was developed.
Dumais: I think we should acknowledge that staff did attempt to address our concerns,
but that procedurally it wasn't sound.
Johnson: We could mention that it wasn't procedurally acceptable but I also have the
comment that any indication that we're going to forward these things that are outside the
GMA for the MSP are unacceptable. I feel real strongly about that.
Miller: Do you feel this letter from Ken and the editing changes be made does not
strongly enough reflect what you want?
Johnson: No, in fact I have an enormous problem with paragraphs 1-4, where he says that
one plan equals another equals another, etc.
Miller: But when he revised, he says he amended the text to read and then below that it
talks about...
Johnson: I do because be didn't bring into context this over here. This isn't a
requirement to bring these into the MSP. The council acknowledged that in the I-25
Corridor Plan so I object to that as partial information and neglect on the part of Ken on
doing that.
Miller: Maybe I'm just confused because I'm not getting that. It looks like you're
focusing on this paragraph right here, but this is the amended stuff starting below there
and it talks about the I-25 Sub -Area Plan is subordinate to City Plan and talks about the
funding and the transportation infrastructure improvements are not our financial
responsibility ...
Johnson: If you would acknowledge this paragraph in here too, that would not require
that any of these things to the MSP, I mean that's the policy of the council when they
adopted the Corridor Plan.
Miller: I'm not disagreeing with you; I'm just trying to understand what it is about this
that doesn't cut it for you.
APPROVED Transportation Boars Regular Meeting Minutes
June 18,2003
Page 16 of 18
Johnson: Because of the omission and the fact that it's been the course of the
development of City Plan, Brad, there was this enormous effort to stretch the city
boundaries and council didn't want to take that direction, that's a policy direction that
they have given. So I think that they should acknowledge that and acknowledge this
paragraph and that we aren't going to be considering the addition of those things that are
outside of the GMA, then I would fee comfortable with it. But to me, this pushes us in a
direction that's unacceptable.
Dumais: To me, it seems like the biggest item shown on this is CR5 which is shown on
the previous MSP so we're asking to delete something that was previously shown.
Thordarson: I don't think it's really part of the MSP.
Jackson: It's only shown for contextual reasons. I don't think the MSP will change the
way they portray that. It's too important from a regional document, maybe in a plan type
of setting. The MSP is going to go a couple steps further soon anyway. I think I've told
this board that instead of the MSP just being a simple map, we're going to be adding text
that talks about the history, the background, the legal ramifications, the financial
ramifications, etc. All of that's going to be in there.
Johnson: One of the other things we talked about last time was adopting City Plan first
and then let this follow.
Jackson: Ken Waido and Ben Herman have explained in the past that the critical question
that was on the table was the GMA boundary and those land uses — how we envisioned
that with the CAC — that phase 1 of the City Plan effort answered those questions and the
I-25 Sub -Area Plan effort was put on hold until those questions were answered. You
could probably hold it until November or December or whenever Ken brings City Plan
home for adoption, but that would basically mean that this would just sit.
Vice Chair Trantham: I think it's important that Council didn't see the procedure that our
board went through. The middle step is missing. I think it's important that they know
how we arrived at our decision. I recommend that we forward the memo from last month
to Council.
Bachman: Would it be appropriate for the Chair to sign the original memo and then draft
a second memo which says that in addition to the action taken, we have these concerns?
Ricord.• I suggest that on the agenda, we change 7a to a discussion item and say that due
to a procedural problem, we forward the memo from our discussion last month to the
council and inchude the resolution referring to section 2B.
Miller: That sounds reasonable to me, but again, I'm working from a deficit here not
having been here last month, but I sense that there is a lot of agreement here on the board
in principle on all these things that we're talking about and we're down to some of the
fine dash versus solid limes and what's in and out of the GMA and things that to me are
pretty clear when you read the legend and I think the edits are pretty clear, but I would
say that your suggestion is good. I think that whatever was suggested last month should
be forwarded on and augment that with some additional information.
Johnson: Christophe, did you make that as a motion then?
Ricord: Yes.
Johnson: I'll second it.
APPROVED Transportation Board Regular Meeting Minutes
June 18,2003
Page 17 of 18
Ricord: To repeat it, the motion is to change item 7a on tonight's agenda to a discussion
item due to a procedural problem and that we forward the memo from our decision on
May 21, 2003, along with the resolution, specifically referring council to section 2B.
Thordarson: Can you make that into two motions? The first one would be changing it to
a discussion item and the next one would be.. I guess I'm not clear on what's going on.
All: More discussion went on about the motion and whether or not to break it out into two
motions.
Ricord: I retract my original motion.
Johnson: I retract the second on the original motion.
Ricord: I prove to change item 7a on tonight's agenda to a discussion item. Johnson
seconded the motion and it passed unanimously, 7 - 0.
Ricord: I move that the memo from May 21, 2003 be forwarded to Council and attach
the resolution from 2001 referencing section 2B to help highlight the board's concern
and as a guide to the board's thinking on this issue. There was a second and the
motion passed unanimously, 7 - 0.
Thordarson: Don't we want to comment on Ken's memo?
Vice Chair Trantham: That would mean taking action on this item and we just moved to
have it as a discussion item.
8. REPORTS
a. BOARD MEMBER
Johnson: Bike Trail. Along the bike trail right where the BN tracks and the south end of
the old Wards shopping center, there is a cow path that goes across is and a
company is now putting their ads there. Business opportunities and the
development of the Mason Street are still with us and it was pretty interesting.
Left -Over Debris. Nancy York and I wanted Cam to check this out — when
they did the curb and gutter at 130 S. Whitcomb, she noticed that the people
who were doing the work ended up covering the debris and then just putting
grass over, but not cleaning up the debris, concrete and other things like that
out. Nancy can probably point you to the right spot. The work was done in
2000 or 2001.
Bike Mans. Again, I ask everyone to take a handful. People really like them
and it's a good way to get the word out about what we're doing for cycling in
town.
Bike Plan. I mentioned earlier that Magnolia was suggested as an east/west
connector and also Sherwood because it connects Martinez Park with the
Lincoln Center and perhaps south to CSU if we can find a way through the
parking lot at the center.
APPROVED Transportation Bose Regular Meeting Minutes
June 18,2003
Page 18 of 18
Dumais: I'd like to thank Engineering for fixing the problem at Midpoint and
Timberline.
Thordarson: Silver Oaks Trail. There is a trail connection between the Silver Oaks
neighborhood and Cottonwood Park. There's a blind spot where the trail
wraps around a fence and there's a mirror there so people can see who's
coming and it's broken right now. Thought I'd report that so it can get
replaced.
Harmony/Taft Hill. Truck movements around this corner, west bound turning
radius is pretty tight. Trucks are going over the curb a lot. Seems like an
ongoing, unsafe situation.
b. STAFF
McNair: Construction Project Information. McNair gave an update on various
construction projects. All this information can also be found on the web.
9. OTHER BUSINESS
None.
10. ADJOURN
Vice Chair Trantham adjourned the meeting at 9:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
V A tG'
Cynthia Cass
Executive Administrative Assistant
City of Fort Collins — Transportation Services