Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTransportation Board - Minutes - 05/21/2003.. REGULAR MEETING MINUTES of the TRANSPORTATION BOARD May 219 2003 5:45 p.m. City of Fort Collins 215 N. Mason Street Community Room FOR REFERENCE: CHAIR: Bruce Henderson VICE CHAIR: Heather Trantham STAFF LIAISON: Don Bachman ADMIN SUPPORT: Cynthia Cass BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Bruce Henderson Edward Jakubauskas Tim Johnson Cbristophe Ricord Brent Thordarson Heather Trantham CITY STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Don Bachman Cynthia Cass John Daggett Mark Jackson Cam McNair Ron Phillips Kathleen Reavis ABSENT: Joe Dumais Dan Gould Neil Grigg Brad Miller Ray Moe 898-4625 206-4255 224-6049 224-6058 GUESTS IN ATTENDANCE: Gary Thomas George Walton John Long Ben Herman Chair Henderson called the meeting to order at 5:58 p.m Transportation Board Regular Medfing Minutes May 21, 2003 Page 2 of 9 2. AGENDA REVIEW Staff requested that the order of items be adjusted slightly. With only six members present, barely malting a quorum, and one member having to leave at 7:30 p.m., it was agreed that the I-25 Sub -Area Plan would be moved up after the Mason Trail so action could be taken by the quorum 3. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There was a motion by Johnson and a second by Thordarson to approve the minutes of April 16, 2003 as presented The motion carried by a unanimous vote, 6-0. 5. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORT None. 6. DISCUSSION a. MASON TRAIL - Reavis Reavis stated that the Building Community Choices ballot language specified that the trail would be south of Prospect. Staff is going with ending the Mason Trail on the north end where it will meet up with the Spring Creek Trail. Staff will continue to look for other funding sources in the future to be able to bring the trail further north and go under Prospect. On the south end, the Mason Trail will connect with the new Fossil Creek trail that Parks and Recreation are building. Timing wise, the trail portion south of Harmony is the portion that's funded by the Colorado Department of Transportation grant through the North Front Range Council. That part of the project needs to be advertised for construction by the end of this September. South of Harmony will be built by the end of this year and the trail north from Harmony to the Spring Creek trail will be built during the first part of 2004. Reavis thanked everyone who came to the Open House at the Lincoln Center the other night and reported that there were over 70 people who attended. There was some general discussion after Reavis' update that included a suggestion by Johnson to have volunteer organizations including those who have to do community service (`weekenders") help with landscaping portions of the project instead of contracting it out in order to save money. Transportation Board Regular Meering Minutes May 21, 2003 Page 3 of 9 It was also agreed that Chair Henderson would draft a letter of support for the Mason Transportation Corridor Bicycle and Pedestrian Trail project to City Council. The letter will convey to them that this shared bicycle & pedestrian trail system will provide a vital north/south multi -modal link within the city, something that does not exist today. Connecting the southern part of the CSU campus with the Harmony corridor will provide valuable incentive for more north/south commuters to use to use other modes. If this project, funded by the 1997 'Building Community Choices" is aggressively pursued, it will demonstrate tangible results to the taxpayers of Fort Collins. b. ALLEGIANT AIR SERVICE — Phillips Phillips gave a brief report on how the Fort Collins -Loveland Municipal Airport has been approached by Allegiant Air to start scheduled service into the Airport. Negotiations have been successful and both Cities have signed a letter of intent to provide certain funds and facilities to accommodate the service by Allegiant Air. This item went to City Council last night and Phillips reported that Council approved the authorization of funds for expenditures for Capital Improvements and operating expenses to improve the Fort Collins -Loveland Airport Terminal building facilities and for fiords to promote scheduled service into the airport by a 5 — 2 vote. a. I-25 SUB -AREA PLAN — M. Jackson Jackson introduced Ben Herman with Clarion Associates. Jackson then distributed a graphic showing the sub -area and how it relates to the current Growth Management Area boundary and City limits, which was a request from the board at the last meeting. Herman stated that he would go over all the things that have changed as a result of council and planning commission direction. Using a large map for reference, Herman briefly went over the changes and the key points, conclusions and policies of the I-25 Subarea Plan (same information as in the packet materials). He then turned the floor over to Jackson. Jackson went over transportation elements of the Plan (located on pages 28-31). He referred to a graphic showing City limit boundaries. As a result of some of the decision and direction staff got from council, they took another look analysis wise at the transportation tax and such and as a result, now there are no proposed improvements on the west side of I-25. There are east/west upgrades to facilitate the increased intensity along the county road 5 corridor, which basically forms most of the significant parallel roadway east of I-25. There are some new collectors that take some of the burden off of the frontage mad system. Carriage Parkway is an existing collector that is being built in the county area. One of the recommendations is to extend that down and have a connection between Mulberry and Prospect. Transportation Board Regular Meeting Minutes May 21.2003 Page 4 of 9 As for east/west improvements, there aren't any basically north of Mulberry. It is recommended that Mulberry east of I-25, from I-25 to LCR5 is upgraded from a 2 lane minor arterial to a 4 lane arterial. Similarly Prospect and Harmony. Kechter is currently shown as a local road east of I-25, it is recommended to be upgraded to a 2 lane arterial status. In concert with the analysis that was done by Larimer County, the intensification is being planned for LCR5. Jackson stated that the above changes would not be taken forward when the Subarea Plan is adopted. Staff will take them forward in batch format when the TMP is taken forward this fall. He reiterated that the recommendations are contained within the text of the I-25 Subarea Plan and again, staff will make a recommendation to adopt as part of the TMP. Board Discussion: Ricord: How flexible is the zoning per se that that area may become industrial? The reason I think that is because the trip generation and the different indices between the designation of commercial versus the designation of industrial and the fiscal liability that the City will have to... The Prospect interchange is not a state facility, it is a city facility and the city will end up having to pay for whatever improvements occur there. The extent that the city will have to pay for those improvements depends largely upon the zoning. MJ: The only area that the City will be on the book for picking up the cost to improve Prospect if it's driven by development, will be an area contiguous to the natural areas on the Prospect corridor. But on the interchange, the City is not on the hook for any interchange improvements and to the degree that impacts to the Prospect corridor east of I-25 or approximate to the interchange that are caused by development, then they are on their own for those improvements. Johnson: When you talked about LCR5 outside the GMA, if you put something like that in the MSP, I think the overall assumption is that at some point we will build it and we will fund it. I think the direction from Council in March was that we would have a GMA that would not incorporate up to LCR5 and so since in reality, our capital situation is such, I propose that we do with LCR5 what we do with interchanges such as Prospect — we recognize that those interchanges are not a City responsibility. I think we should recognize that LCR5 is a County responsibility and not a City responsibility. MJ: As far as LCR5, to be fair, there are 4,000 linear feet of it within our GMA boundary so that would be something the City would be concerned with. The reason that LCR5 is on here, and I feel it is important to keep it on here, is for regional context. The MSP isn't just to imply financial responsibility, but also to show regional context. I hear what you're saying, but with the number of plans and the work that's gone in with Larimer County's Transportation Plan, with the Crossroads Sub -area and the North Front Range plans, I would have a problem with not showing that. Johnson: Larimer County can show it, we don't have to. If we do, it implies that we have a responsibility. People see these plans and think that it is something that we as a city will do. Ricord: As a sub note to that, you mentioned something about no implied fiscal liability. Is that legally defensible? What is Roy's opinion on that? Transportation Board Regular McAng Minutes May 21, 2003 Page 5 of 9 MJ: It is state law that communities can show up to three miles outside their GMA on their MSPs and it doesn't hold you to any financial responsibility. Ricord: That is something that will withstand a litmus test in court? MI. Yes, as I understand it. Thordarson: Is it possible to show those types of roadways in a different color? MJ: Maybe. Perhaps we could do it in a different line style such as going to dashes or something. It's good time to look at some of those things because with the TMP work, we're taking a hard look at what the MSP looks like. Yes, I think that to mitigate some of the concerns, we can look at that. Ricord: I have a couple of questions and comments on the text. On page 20 in the Goals, T1, coming back once again to the LCRS question, can you have something in there that specifically addresses that the county is fiscally liable for those improvements? Something that says it is NOT a City responsibility. MJ: So you're looking for some sort text that reflects that outside the City's GMA boundary, the City is not responsible for reflected transportation facilities. Rico rd: Yes, and I'm particularly concerned about that along LCR5. Rico rd: Next, if you would turn to page 22 where there are Growth Management Goals, I would like GMl deleted. The reason is that if you look at GM2, it says that the I-25 Subarea plan will be consistent with the Northern Colorado Regional I-25 Corridor Plan. In my view, this I-25 Subarea Plan, whenever it comes chronologically, it has to follow City Plan. So if we're going to fashion the I-25 Subarea Plan, we should do so with City Plan as a framework instead of the I-25 Corridor Plan. So if you strike the "Northern Colorado Regional I-25 Corridor Plan" in GM2 and you insert "City Plan" there then you can delete GMl altogether. Ricord: In GM3, line 2, the words "or are planned" should be deleted also. Herman: The words "planned and funded" are meant to go together. Rico rd: Still, there is a vagueness there that I would like to see deleted. Johnson: I would ask that you go back and make it subordinate to City Plan and recognize that those transportation elements that are in the county -- state that they are in the county. Once that's done I might be interested in entertaining this plan, but not until. Ricord: One more point that I would like to share that (castrated me a lot had to do with the Citizen's Task Force (CTF). Can you help me understand about what the role of the Task Force was? Somewhere in the document, it talked about how the CTF didn't have a consensus as such. So generally it sounds like their role was to go to the public meetings and give their input. MI. They also gave their input at regular meetings of the CTF group to the project team. They worked through a lot of the major issues in depth. Rico rd: So they didn't make a formal recommendation to any governing body, but they did have individual opinions? Herman: They met as a group on probably 6 or 8 occasions, but by direction of the City Attorney, advised that they were not to make a group recommendation. Ricord: I see that we didn't have representation from the Transportation Board. Mary Warring was there, but she's been off the board for well over a year now. It would have been good to have somebody there. Transportation Board Regular Meeting Minutes May 21, 2003 Page 6 of 9 Herman: She attended all the meetings that there were. Once it went on to council, I don't think the group met beyond that point. W I believe Mary was at every meeting that the TF had, so there wasn't a time that the Transportation Board wasn't represented. Rico rd: On page 4, I also noted that the last thud or so of the names on the Citizen Task Force are property owners, developers, realtors, etc. My concern here is one of imbalance. You can certainly argue that these folks are stakeholders from a development/profiting perspective. I don't see the names of representatives of other interested parties such as Citizen Planners, Sierra Club, Audubon Society, Nature Conservancy, etc. Johnson: I would like to add just one comment. I think we should recommend that Council not approve this Plan. If you'll note at the bottom of page 30, the last paragraph starts with, "Interchange improvements are the responsibility of the Colorado Department of Transportation". I think we need to rewrite certain parts of the plan, recognizing that those things that are outside of the GMA are the responsibility of the County and make no bones about it to make the statement straightforward and clear so that it is understood by everyone who looks at it. MJ: So you would like a similar statement as the one you referenced on page 30, elsewhere in the plan. Johnson: Yes. Be very clear. Chair Henderson closed the floor to discussion and asked for a motion since this is an action item. Johnson moved that the Board ask Council to not adopt the I-25 Subarea Plan for the reasons brought up tonight There was a second by Ricord. Discussion: Ricord: I offer a friendly addition to your motion. Some of the real basic categories are 1) the I-25 Subarea Plan does not uphold the principles of City Plan over the principles of the I-25 Corridor Plan. Johnson: Yes, I think we could attach these to the motion. Supply the reasons. Ricord: For me there are two. The second one is that it addresses areas outside the Fort Collins GMA. Johnson: I think I made the points clear with regard to financial liability, LCR5 and other parts of the road system being outside and not recognizing them as being a county responsibility as being some of the serious problems we have with this plan. Trantham: I agree with Johnson that City Plan should be the governing document behind the land use along the corridor. Thordarson: It sounds like it basically boils down to two statements we can attach. One is the financial responsibility outside of the GMA and the other is that City Plan should supercede the I-25 Subarea Plan. To me they're both just points of clarification more than a dramatic change. Ricord: It will be a dramatic change to the plan in what it says. Transportation Board Regular Meeting Minutes May 21, 2003 Page 7 of 9 Ricord summarized the motion/discussion thus far: The motion is to not recommend approval of the I-25 Subarea Plan because: a) The City Plan issue and b) The fiscal responsibility outside the GMA Johnson agreed with the modification. Chair Henderson asked for any additional input. There being none, Chair Henderson asked that Cass read the motion in its entirety. Johnson made a motion that the Transportation Board recommend that City Council not adopt the I-25 Subarea Plan. The board would like to seethe Plan recognize these two points. a) I-25 Subarea Plan should be subordinate to City Plan and b) Financial responsibility of the road system outside the GALA should be recognized as County responsibility, not City responsibility The motion carried by a unanimous vote, 6 — 0. It was agreed that Chair Henderson would work with staff in preparing a memo addressed to Council regarding this recommendation. b. CITY BUDGET PREPARATION — Bachman Bachman suggested relegating this assignment to the Board's Finance Sub -committee. Johnson asked that members give their brief comments. After a brief update on the budget process from Bachman, the board agreed that the statement they want to convey is that if any funding becomes available then the first place it should go is to the Pavement Management Program Johnson then suggested a couple of minor changes to the Council Policy agenda that the board crafted at the last meeting. He read them aloud and the board agreed to them Chair Henderson will make those changes to the memo and send it to Council. There was a motion to authorize the board chairman to make changes. There was a second and the motion carried unanimously. The motion carried by a unanimous vote, 6-0. Board Member Thordarson had to leave the meeting at this point, meaning there was no longer a quorum. Discussion Items continued 6.c. DOWNTOWN STRATEGIC PLAN (DSP) — J. Daggett Daggett stated that this item is going to City Council on May 27 to talk about downtown parking at their Study Session. He stated that staff is still waiting for peer city information to arrive. There are five cities in all. Transportation Board Regular Meeting Minutes May 21, 2003 Page 8 of 9 Daggett gave a Power Point presentation that included the following highlights: Purpose • To assist City Council with information about parking and Downtown • Define the parking problem in Downtown • Offer three parking alternatives with analysis Downtown Strategic Plan The primary parking strategy is to protect, manage, leverage and blend the economic and cultural vitality created by Downtown Fort Collins' core retail and entertainment district, and enhance the mixed -use growth of the downtown. Objectives of a Downtown Parldng Management Strategy • Increase vehicle turnover in front of retail businesses • Customer -friendly, particularly for downtown visitors • Convenient and easy -to -use • Relatively inexpensive • Offer long-term parking options for employees • Promotes business attraction and retention • Reinvest revenues in future downtown parking The Parking Problem • Turnover • Pricing policy is upside-down • Long-term parkers in short-term spaces • Insufficient technologies and regulations Parldng Turnover Strategies Incentives to move your vehicle: - Time limits - Pay parting - Combination strategies Enforcement is needed to support the incentives Parldng Survey/Conclusions • The professional/service group is happy with the status quo • The retail/restaurant group wants a change • There is no clear mandate on what the change should be Parldng Program Alternatives 1. The Null Alternative — maintaining the current parking program 2. Time limits with Enhanced Enforcement 3. On -Street Pay Parking —Limited to the High Demand Area Next Steps • Develop Parking Alternatives based on Council's direction • Conclude the public process as part of the Downtown Strategic Plan • Finalize the parking program recommendations in the Downtown Strategic Pan • DBA, DDA, and City boards and commissions through July 2003 • Present final plan to Council on August 19 Transportation Board Regular Meeting Minutes May 21, 2003 Page 9 of 9 8. REPORTS a. BOARD MEMBER REPORTS Johnson: Bike Mans. I requested that staff bring extra bike maps tonight, so please take some and as you pass them out, ask folks for feedback. You'd be surprised what you hear from people. RTA. I would like to see this on a future agenda. I think it's important we get a report from them at some point. Henderson: Potholes. Harmony Road east of College to about Ziegler is in really bad shape in terms of potholes. I realize this is a State highway and falls under their purview, but could someone check to see if there are any plans in the near future to improve this section of roadway?! McNair said he would check and get back to Henderson. Ricord:Sprine Creek Trail Closure. The trail is closed at Centre. I was wondering if someone could tell me how long it will be closed? It's a major spine for east/west bicycle commuting and the closure has a big impact on many. McNair stated he didn't know for certain, but would find out and pass the information along. b. STAFF REPORTS Bachman: Post Election Survey Results. Survey results were distributed to everyone. McNair: Construction Proiect Information. Project information is now on the City's web site. 9. OTHER BUSINESS None. 10. ADJOURN Chair Henderson adjourned the meeting at 8:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, 41y� Cynthia Cass Executive Administrative Assistant City of Fort Collins — Transportation Services