Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTransportation Board - Minutes - 11/14/2001REGULAR MEETING MINUTES of the TRANSPORTATION BOARD November 14, 2001 5:45 p.m. City of Fort Collins - Community Room 215 N. Mason Street FOR REFERENCE: CHAIR: Christophe Ricord 472.8769 VICE CHAIR: Dan Gould 482.1074 STAFF LIAISON: Don Bachman 224.6049 ADMIN SUPPORT: Cynthia Scott 224.6058 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Dan Gould Bruce Henderson Tim Johnson Tom Kramer Brad Miller Ray Moe Christophe Ricord Brent Thordarson Heather Trantham Steve Yeldell CITY STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Don Bachman Gary Diede Randy Hensley Mark Jackson Ron Phillips Kathleen Reavis Tom Reiff Peter Wray GUESTS IN ATTENDANCE: R. A. Plummer - Consultant 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Ricord called the meeting to order at 5:52 p.m. 4"oj.1DQ►I� FI Transportation Board DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes November 14, 2001 2. PUBLIC COMMENT None. Page 2 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There was a motion and a second to approve the October 17, 2001 Transportation Board minutes as presented The motion carried by a unanimous vote. 4. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORT None. 5. DISCUSSION ITEMS a) MASON STREET CORRIDOR UPDATE — Hensley Mr. Hensley stated that two significant events happened since the last board meeting. Tom Harvey, a gentleman contracted by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), came to Fort Collins for a site visit. Mr. Harvey is a land use expert out here to look at the city, visit the corridor, and ask questions about the land use policies of the city. Staff spent all day with Mr. Harvey, which was a positive experience. W. Harvey followed up with a phone call a few days later and generally gave staff the impression that he liked what he saw and was going to give a favorable recommendation to FTA. Staff has not received official word from FTA about how they are going to rule on the New Starts application, but everything heard points toward a green light to proceed with the preliminary engineering. The second significant event is that staff had some representatives of the RR come to the city yesterday. Staff spoke with them about the steps needed to reach an agreement on our use of their ROW along the corridor. Staff was interested in process. Who to talk to, what kind of information to provide, etc. It was a very positive discussion. The general sense was that they do want to cooperate with the city and want to help make this happen. b) E. MULBERRY SUBAREA PLAN — Wray/Reiff Mr. Wray stated that he would update the board on the primary tasks staff has been working on since the project initiation. The project started last January and since then the consultant team and the Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) developed issues and visions for the future. Mr. Wray went over the two different maps labeled Framework Plan A and Framework Plan B with the board. He explained the differences between them, with the key difference being an identified neighborhood commercial center adjacent to the SH 14/Greenfield intersection. In Plan B, this same neighborhood commercial center is located off of Timberline and some new collector street. He stated that staff would like comments and feedback on the tradeoffs of the two locations for that. Transportation Board DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes November 14, 2001 Page 3 Mr. Reiff took the floor and went over some of the specific transportation related issues associated with these options. The two visions are differently aligned and staff would like the Board's feedback on this issue this evening. Other issues are designing a Subarea plan that deals with multi -modals so all modes of transportation will be addressed. He stated that it is important to make sure that the vision statements relating to transportation are consistent with those in City Plan. Mr. Reiff then referred to the two maps, asking the board to explore identifying where transit stops are going to be before development so staff can actually incorporate these transit stops into future development and really encourage transit use rather than relying on the road system as heavily. Both visions are high intensity land uses. A lot of the identified stops tie into bikeways and/or major travel corridors for bikes and pedestrians. The focus is on a walkable area. Mr. Reiff then asked for questions or comments. Board Questions/Comments: ♦ Gould: I couldn't really get a vision of how Mulberry itself would be handled in terms of the main thoroughfare and the access roads. Ultimately, what will the design be for the cross sections in terms of transit stops and bike lanes? Re For Mulberry, the cross section of that was addressed in the Mulberry Access Management Plan that does identify six -lanes of travel and because there will be no bikelanes on the expressway, they will be located on the frontage road in both directions. Gould: What about transit stops? Reiff: I have a call in to CDOT to check on that. ♦ Johnson: When looking at where to put a commercial site such as the ones shown here on Timberline and Mulberry, since they generate a lot of trips, do you consider the impact we might have on our city capital for transportation? Is that part of the discussion that goes on and if not, maybe it should be. ♦ Gould: Along those same lines, what about the influence of the location on a neighborhood commercial center in terms of actual practical possibilities of a store locating there.... Wray: Every commercial center would include some type of grocery store and other immediate neighborhood needs. Gould: So do you see one of those sites that would be more attractive for supermarkets or developers and should that be part of it? Wray: We talked about that with our technical team and we're not sure yet whether we want to set up a joint meeting with various grocery store representatives at this point. We don't really have the answer right now as we're still looking at information to help make those decisions. It's really not up to us to influence the market at this point. Gould: Just from the City Plan point of view, a neighborhood commercial center that is without a supermarket seems like not much of a center. Wray said that one of the things staff is working towards is developing a composite, single framework plan. Staff is not asking to choose between "A" and `B," rather they are showing different concepts. Mr. Wray predicted that the end result would be successful pieces of both plans and perhaps some new ideas. Reiff agreed and added that the purpose of outreach efforts is to gather input on what makes sense on each plan, what people don't like, etc. Wray added that he would come back to the board in January and will have information about the airport and development paying for itself. Transportation Board DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes November 14, 2001 6. ACTION ITEMS Page 4 a) S. COLLEGE ACCESS PLAN — Reavis Ms. Reavis distributed additional handouts to the members: Executive Summary of the project report and a list of upcoming public meetings. It was explained that this plan is not a new one, rather it is an update to the existing plan that was done in 1989. As part of the update process, the southern boundary was extended down to CR 32, also known as Carpenter Road. This way it covers the entire Growth Management Area. As part of the update process, it was important to look at the changes that have happened along the corridor since 1989. Some changes have been very substantial such as traffic volume and land use changes along the corridor. It was important to update the plan so it works for all the agencies involved and for the property and business owners. The founding principles of the project have been safety and an equitable access and a priority from the very beginning. As with all the City's access plans, they are intended to come about over time. The intent is to have a framework so that as the corridor changes, grows and development occurs we can be working toward a system that fits together, is functional and accomplishes things such as safety improvements. This plan update is a joint effort by the City of Fort Collins, Larimer County and the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). Additionally, the consulting services of Felsburg, Holt and Ullevig have been used to assist with this project. The public outreach portion has really been the heart of the project. We have worked particularly close with the business and property owners south of Harmony Road. Several open houses have been held as well as numerous individual meetings with business and property owners along the corridor. We sat down with them and asked what aspects of these plans do you like, not like, and what can we do to try to work together to find some common ground. That has been a very beneficial part of the process. The one-on-one time has been great because some people can't attend open houses or they don't feel comfortable speaking up. It took a long time to conduct all those meetings, but it was a critical part of the public process. The number one question staff is asked about the project is, "When will the changes take place and who will pay for it?" Ms. Reavis said that there are several ways the changes will come about over time. They can come about through the project side in terms of redevelopment of the property or property owners trying to fix up the front of their property for better access. There is also the public side. When we go in to ... improvements or corridor enhancements, large-scale capital projects along the corridor that's another way that these improvements come about. Typically, over a long corridor such as this one, it is a combination of public and private sources over a long period of time. When we look at the whole area, we are looking at a 20-year plan in terms of traffic, land use and change. Transportation Board DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes November 14, 2001 Page 5 Some of the issues plaguing South College south of Harmony Road involve the frontage road. These roads are wonderful until you get to the intersection with a side street. Another issue is obviously the lack of pedestrian and bicycle facilities. There is transit service along South College and is now serving Loveland, but some of the transit stops are very difficult to get to. The open, undefined access is an issue as is site distance problems - - the difficulty making left -turns out is a problem compounded by site distance issue. In looking at the accident history for the corridor, all these access conditions show up in approximately 90% of the accidents that occur there. Ms. Reavis explained that the short-term plan was a direct result of the input received from the public. It covers the portion of the corridor from Bueno Drive on the north to Trilby Road on the south. This is really the most difficult part of the corridor in terms of challenges. We heard loud and clear from people that it's one thing to look at a 20-year horizon with traffic projections, but what's going to happen now, in the short term. A critical part of the short-term plan is that it uses the existing frontage road system. It doesn't close them off. The long-range plan for the area, much like the short-term plan, has the most significant changes occurring south of Harmony. Ms. Reavis went over the plan showing where two new signals are planned (Triangle Drive and Fairway Lane) and where one signal is proposed to be removed. This is the signal that is currently about 650' north of Trilby. An important issue discovered through the traffic analysis is that there are three intersections that we cannot get to meet a Level of Service (LOS) D. The only way to get them above where they are now is to add substantial improvements to the intersection such as triple left -turn lanes or additional through lanes. Things like that are outside the scope of our Master Street Plan and outside the scope of "normal" intersection improvements. When this is taken forward through the City Council, the Master Street Plan will need to be amended as part of this. Also, the City, County, and CDOT will require the adoption of a new, updated Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) and an amendment process will be established as part of the IGA. This process can be used over time to update/revise the corridor plans as necessary and will require agreement among all signatory agencies. Ms. Reavis stated that the Board's recommendation is requested in order for this project to move forward. There will be a final public meeting at the end of the month or the first week of December. Board Comments/Questions: Trantham: What happens to Skyway as part of the long-term plan? Reavis: With the long-term plan, we're getting away from frontage road system and trying to replace that with more of a ... road or alternative access along the corridor. There will still be connectivity along the front in terms of interconnected parking lots and service drives, but the main public connectivity would be along the backside to the collector street. This is similar to other areas north of Harmony. Mitchell Drive is a good example of that. Transportation Board DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes November 14, 2001 Page 6 Ms. Reavis pointed out that an important fact to keep in mind about South College is that because it will ultimately be widened to six lanes someday, a portion of the area that is currently frontage roads may need to be used. Kramer: A lot of the frontage roads there seem to be in a state of disrepair. Is that the State's responsibility or is it private property? Reavis: It's a mix. They are not CDOT frontage roads along South College like they are along Mulberry. But, in some cases, they are local public ROW so that it could be either a City road or a County road. There is one portion where it is private. There is still public access, but it is not public ROW. There was a motion and a second to recommend approval of the plan as presented Discussion: Johnson commended staff on their excellent public outreach efforts. Chair Ricord stated that staff has risen admirably to the challenge of trying to integrate as many of the current City values into pre-existing conditions as possible. The motion carried unanimously. b) NORTHERN COLORADO TRUCK MOBILITY STUDY — Jackson Mr. Jackson stated that this item is before the board as an action item this evening because staff is nearing the last few weeks of this effort. It goes before a City Council Study Session on December 11 and for a final hearing on December 18. Therefore, it was important that the board have a chance to make a statement or recommendation before then. At the last board meeting Mr. Jackson laid out the recommendations and the final findings. Some of the issues that were encountered were very strong feedback from both Larimer County Commissioners and the Colorado Department of Transportation Management that drove a lot of the recommendations especially as far as the selection of remaining routes if you will. Processwise, staff is doing the last round of public outreach, there were open houses during this past week, presentations are being done for boards, commissions, the Chambers of Commerce, etc. Staff is also finishing up final documentation and all the appendix work. Since a lot of detail was presented at the last meeting, Chair Ricord requested that Mr. Jackson only review the non -route -based strategies. Jackson said that the throughout the effort, the non -route based strategies (NRBS) have been overshadowed a lot of times when talking about different routes, which is understandable given the emotional content of showing lines on a map next to someone's property. In a lot of ways, the NRBS are the things that we can really hang our hats on in this effort. We re-established a lot of really critical contacts, not only with the trucking industry, which is important, but also with the regulatory enforcement agencies and ports of entry folks to name a couple. A lot of good things could come out of re-establishing those communications and although it doesn't solve the entire problem, it does help with some. Mr. Jackson then went over the NRBS. Transportation Board DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes November 14, 2001 Page 7 After the points of the NRBS were presented and members' questions were addressed throughout the presentation, Chair Ricord stated that the issue of trucks has to be addressed, particularly on Vine Drive. He noted that he has not seen any improvement there whatsoever in reduction of through truck traffic. In order to get trucks to use I-25, one of the strategies that has to be embraced pretty aggressively is keeping trucks off of non -truck route arterials and other streets in the city. Jackson said that in the final documentation a discussion is included about this issue of control of truck traffic on local arterials. A lot of different issues were rolled in in terms of what is all involved, i.e., what is legally allowed, practical implications of limiting truck traffic on local roadways, and the risks that are assumed about violating the Interstate Commerce Act. Also included in the final portion of the document is an inventory of what the existing conditions are. There was a motion to send the message to Council that this board supports the non - route based strategies with the added stipulation that they be adequately funded for success over a 3-5 year time period There was a second Discussion: Thordarson stated that measuring the impact of the enforcement strategies and dedicating some funds to that would be beneficial. An addition to the motion was added that states, "Along with funding to implement and conduct a follow up measurement of the effectiveness." The motion and its addition passed unanimously. Mr. Jackson thanked the board and in particular, those who participated on the project committees. 7. REPORTS a) BOARD MEMBER REPORTS Gould: Prospect Pedestrian Crossing. CSU Has a South Campus Master Plan underway which will involve the use of facilities south of Prospect Road. This would involve foot traffic from portions of the campus north of Prospect. My concern is that Prospect is a pedestrian hostile environment. Thordarson: Accident - Turning Hazard. I witnessed an accident involving a truck taming from westbound Harmony to northbound Taft Hill that took out a signal head. Does this happen often? Bus Stop Lighting. Saw someone using a flashing bicycle light at a bus stop on LaPorte west of Shields to flag a bus after dark. Apparently, the stop was not otherwise visible. Can this situation be improved? Ricord: Bikeway on Riverside. Construction activity has tom up a "rag -tag" ped/bike path adjacent to Riverside on the south side between Lemay and Myrtle, which people were still using. This is a safety issue that needs to be fixed as soon as possible. Transportation Board DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes November 14, 2001 Page 8 b) STAFF REPORTS Bachman: 2002 Transportation Board Work Plan. Bachman pointed out a typo and said it has already been corrected. Johnson, Trantham, and Henderson suggested some minor changes. There was a motion and a second to adopt the 2002 Transportation Board Work Plan with the minor amendments discussed The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Applicants. Kastein reviewed the applications that were submitted for Transportation Board membership as well as the backup choices from last year. After Kastein makes a recommendation, it will be on the next agenda. Next A eg nda • Mason Street Corridor Update • Long-term Transportation Funding Presentation by Diane Jones • Rural Transportation Authority (RTA) by Cliff Davidson • CSU Strategic Plan (possibly) 8. OTHER BUSINESS None Chair Ricord adjourned the meeting at 8:32 p.m. Respectfully submitted, 4 A. 0� Cynthia Scott Executive Administrative Assistant ij - hc' ��, Zc7D I rnteP .