Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTransportation Board - Minutes - 09/19/2001REGULAR MEETING MINUTES of the TRANSPORTATION BOARD September 19, 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 Tim Johnson Tom Kramer Ray Moe Christophe Ricord Brent Thordarson Heather Trantham Mary Warring Steve Yeldell CITY STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Don Bachman John Daggett Gary Diede Joe Frank Tom Frazier Randy Hensley Mark Jackson Ron Phillips Tom Reiff Cynthia Scott Ken Waido GUESTS IN ATTENDANCE: Nancy York Don Hopkins ABSENT: Bruce Henderson Brad Miller Transportation Board DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes September 19, 2001 Page 2 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Ricord called the meeting to order at 6 p.m. 2. PUBLIC COMMENT Nancy York: Stated she is a member of the Air Quality Board, but is not speaking on their behalf. Ms. York described the reasons why the Transportation Board should not approve the Fort Collins I-25 Sub -Area Plan. She stressed the importance of seeking out the consequences of the plan as it relates to air quality. Donn Hopkins: Stated that CSU students pay big bucks to use the bus system and that kids not in college should have to pay to use the system as well. Stated that it needs to be more equitable. All people who use the system should pay something for that use. Mr. Hopkins said that he would appreciate it if the Transportation Board members would consider those thoughts during deliberation/discussion on the Transfort youth fares later on the agenda. Warring stated she agreed with Hopkins but not so much due to equitable fare issues, but rather as a real value to the transit service. The younger riders should have an appropriate fee in order for them to appreciate the value. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There was a motion and a second to approve the July 18, 2001 Transportation Board minutes as presented. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. There was a motion and a second to approve the August 15, 2001 Transportation Board minutes as presented Discussion: Johnson requested the following changes: 1. Page 3, under Johnson's comments, 2nd line, "naturally you" should be "natural areas". 2. Page 5, under Moe's comments, P line needs to say, "Fee which is a small impact fee that we collect from Fort Collins and...". 3. Page 5, under Gould's comments, P line needs to say, "there is no chance for capacity to be increased because of the physical...". Thordarson brought up a 4d' revision: 4. Page 8, towards the end of page, a general description of the discussion is provided. Thordarson had raised the question as to if revenues came in from the SO fees for Timberline and if those could be applied to a specific capital project that wasn't part of the measure as a possible strategy for using the funds. Staff was going to consider that as another possible option. 4. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORT None. Transportation Board DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes September 19, 2001 5. DISCUSSION ITEMS Page 3 a. I-25 CORRIDOR PLAN UPDATE — Frank Mr. Frank stated that his presentation should not take any longer than 5 minutes. The Regional I-25 Corridor Plan was scheduled for the August 14 City Council meeting and it was pulled off the agenda at the request of Council. They wanted more time to consider the input that they received at the town meeting a few weeks ago. More specifically, Council asked staff to look at the plan and see if there were parts of it that seem to be most objectionable, see if there were parts that could be cut from the plan without significantly affecting its overall vision and integrity. Two primary areas that they asked staff to focus on were 1) Sections dealing with funding transportation improvements; 2) Cutting certain phrases in the plan that seemed to overly promote or encourage urban development in the corridor. Staff has taken a first shot at making those deletions. A memo regarding such was included in the board's packets. Council also asked staff to go back to this board as well as the Natural Resources Board, Air Quality Board and Planning & Zoning Board. They would like these boards to look at the deletions and see if there are any suggestions for additional deletions. The various boards' feedback will be presented to City Council at a Study Session on October 23. Staff would then prepare a resolution that would include the proposed deletions. They will consider the deletions and resolution at their regular meeting on November 6. Board Comments/Questions: Gould. There is nothing in this plan that gives a view of how the goal of community separators fit. Frank: It does mention it, we recognized it sort of as a separate document. Gould: I felt there were a couple of contradictory trends identified. One was the intensity of development between US 34 or CR 32 was pretty much laid out and I assume there is no community separator — or what is envisioned along that stretch. Frank provided some history on this and stated that there is nothing in the Plan and it was never intended not to preclude that happening. He said that he feels it supports that effort. It wasn't mentioned because it didn't need to be. There is a separate study and it was referenced. Johnson: I know that a lot of jurisdictions have passed parts of the plan and they're doing it in a way where they are sort of picking and choosing if you will. The design standard is one of the things that this board liked most and nobody has passed those yet — that's what I mean by picking and choosing. What is your sense about when and where and how that process of passing these design standards will work out? Frank: There has only been one community at this point that has adopted the design standards and that's Windsor. Phillips: Just so there is no misunderstanding of what the process is or has been, everybody who has adopted the plan has adopted the entire vision plan — all the elements. Windsor has then proceeded to an implementation stage of adopting design standards. It's not that anybody has only adopted the design part of the plan. Transportation Board DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes September 19, 2001 Page 4 Those who have adopted the plan have adopted the entire thing and now some are beginning to move to the next phase of perhaps changing their master street plans or their transportation master plans. They are looking at whether they do/don't adopt design standards, do/don't adopt an open space natural area plan and those kind of things. I just wanted to clarify this. I've heard this from two or three different places now and it sounds like people are under the impression that Windsor has only adopted the design part of the plan, which is not the case. Frank: Fort Collins is following a similar process as the other jurisdictions. First, the vision has to be adopted, then get to the implementation. Johnson: I have a problem with funding in the plan. (He referenced page 44, item #2, Rural Transportation Authority.) It speaks of building a parallel road system, but transit and rail are not integrated into this system except to be mentioned where the corridors might be. The funding seems to be directed more towards putting these roads in place. Until the plan states that rail and transit are integral parts of our funding approach, then that should be taken out as well. Johnson informed the Board that he and Gould attended a meeting with John Fischbach and Greg Byrne. At that meeting, John and Greg were asked what the primary reasons were that they are such strong proponents of the plan. Fischbach cited his primary reason as being the development along Dacono. This is the kind of development that is there to basically serve the trucking industry. He thought that it just looked bad. Greg Byrne agreed with that, but said that in addition, there is development that is already planned on the ground — we have to have infrastructure to deal with it. Johnson said that the key thing about I-25 is its function. It was designated as a "sacrifice zone" two generations ago and it shouldn't be that where double bottoms and triple bottoms move freight back and forth and if we had warehouses and truck stops and mega -gas stations - - I would rather keep that activity in that corridor rather than disperse it away from it. As a community we are trying to do that anyway by keeping the large trucks on the interstate system. Johnson: The key thing is that we have a vision here. To me, this is one of "strip city." "Strip city" that runs from Berthoud to Budweiser and as it builds out, it will compete intensely with capital resources that we need in Fort Collins that we already know of and have identified. I don't know how to get away from that. Frank stated that in terms of "strip city," the concern from the beginning was that we could get "strip city" and we can look from Dacono south all the way to Denver to see what can happen. It is isolated commercial development with traffic problems, visual clutter, and disregard for views or natural areas. All jurisdictions said that they did not want that. Staff was told by the development industry that the corridor is poised for that. The property values are there. It could develop like that if we don't do something different. Transportation Board DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes September 19, 2001 Page 5 Staff tried to develop a plan that is not "strip city." It's about creating activity centers. Taking the commercial development that would have occurred, putting them in a cluster, in activity centers and designing them well for pedestrians and bikes and a good appearance, preserving open lands in between, pushing residential development back off the road. That is not "strip city." Frank further stated that this plan was not developed around City Plan's policies. City Plan is our plan and there are eight jurisdictions. It is not their plan. There are certain elements of this ... Johnson asked if the idea was that we would implement elements of City Plan there that would serve and enhance the vitality of the center? Frank: Yes, staff did keep that in mind when working on our portion of the corridor. Our City Plan is very comprehensive and we've done a lot more than any other jurisdiction about trying to preserve our downtown and our older core areas. Johnson: Even with the things that are stricken on the project, these things now find their way into Master Street Plans which can be funded, which can be another source, which leads me back to the RTA. Fort Collins would have to make up deficiencies in other communities. This is not the direction I want to go. There are two things before us tonight. One is to look at the deletions before us from staff, but I would like to see the Council reject this plan. I would like that to be our advice to the Council. I would like Council to ask staff to come back to tell the rest of the community that we still believe in planning, it's difficult, but we believe in design standards and ROW as being finely divided as we need it, to come forward that kind of a generic regional planning effort. Chair Ricord asked for a motion from the board. Phillips asked to speak to the board. Chair Ricord stated that the discussion was closed to staff because the board needs to deliberate freely and comfortably. He stated that if there are specific questions, staff will be invited into the discussion, but otherwise, because of the high controversial nature of this, the board needs to deliberate privately. Phillips said that is extremely unfortunate and asked for an explanation. Chair Ricord said that it is a point of order and that it is not staffs charge to lobby the board. Phillips stated that it is staffs charge to provide staff support to the board, provide professional advice and correct information. Chair Ricord asked if there is any information that Phillips would like to share that has not been discussed yet. Phillips responded that there is. Chair Ricord then opened the floor to Phillips giving permission for him to speak, but reiterated that the floor would be closed to staff immediately after Phillips' contribution to the discussion. Phillips: There has been some discussion with the Rural Transportation Authority (RTA) proposal and how that might be used. I would like to clarify what the intent is and how it would be used and try to offset the fear that somehow adopting a vision plan such as this will in someway take out of the City's control its ability to participate or influence future decision making processes that might have to do with an RTA. Transportation Board DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes September 19, 2001 Page 6 The study that the board has seen, which the MPO did on a RTA proposal, emphasizes looking at the types of things that were proposed to be funded, i.e. the Passenger Rail proposal from Ft. Collins to Denver and the Regional Bus System, both of which are integral parts of this Plan and a certain amount of highway types of improvements as well. The RTP of the MPO includes all of those elements. The proposals at this point, which are preliminary and conceptual in looking at an RTA, include all of those with the most emphasis on a percentage basis of amount of money needed for transportation elements on rail and regional bus service. The information that I would like to share with you is this: to present a worst case scenario of what might happen as opposed to what is proposed to happen presents a difficulty that needs to be offset with this type of information. The MPO is made up of 10 or 11 local jurisdictions. The MPO Articles of Association have a weighted voting system based on population. The City of Fort Collins has, by itself, in the neighborhood of 40% of the vote. With one other large entity joining Fort Collins, we have over 50%. Something like that could be set up for the governing board of an RTA. If, as they work towards developing a proposal for an RTA, there are going to be specific funding elements of what that money would go for if it's approved would have to be a part of the development process. If the City of Fort Collins doesn't like the way that's going, if it's just money for interchanges and highways, the City of Fort Collins can say no, we're not going to be a part of this. Also an IGA has to be developed before it can go to the voters. There are all kinds of fail safe measures that will be a part of the process that, in my professional opinion, should not affect the discussion or adoption of a vision plan. This vision plan brings some of the eight jurisdictions that have been participating in this process out of the dark ages from both a land use and a transportation planning process. Thirty years ago, Fort Collins was not where we are now. We have made progression over the years to the point where we are now. Yes, there are still improvements to be made in the processes in the City of Fort Collins, but what this has done is allowed some of the entities that are more sophisticated in the area of land use and transportation planning to assist some of those jurisdictions that have very little levels of sophistication to take a giant leap forward for the first time! I just don't want the board to make decisions based on misinformation. I appreciate very much your allowing me to make that statement. Gould said that there has been very little information on what the emerging framework is for an RTA and it seems like it would be responsive to capacity crisis situations. It seems advantageous to pre -identify those to position Fort Collins. It should not penalize the whole system because of poor land use policy. Phillips: That's exactly what the MPO has done in its evolving process of project categorization and prioritization of projects. Regionally we've been trying to influence and help bring some of the other entities more into line with what's acceptable for having growth pay its own way which they haven't done in the past. Transportation Board DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes September 19, 2001 Page 7 We need to influence, by taking step by step measures, to see that those things happen. This is, in my opinion, another one of those incremental steps to help bring people up to speed with what they need to be considering, looking at and requiring of development in their communities. I believe that they have made remarkable progress in this process. That doesn't mean that anybody is suggesting it is perfect, but when the City of Fort Collins adopted the Street Oversizing Fee 21 years ago, it wasn't perfect. It has made incremental progress over that time to where it now and that's what we need to understand. It is unrealistic to expect some of these communities to take a giant leap to where the City of Fort Collins is in its policies in one fell swoop. That is why I have been so adamant about speaking in favor of this step because I think it's been a remarkable change for the Johnstowns and Berthouds and Windsors of the region to get to where they are with this. And to say that they are not just like us is self defeating for what we are trying to accomplish. I'm sure that we have different philosophies on how those things can be accomplished. Johnson: Has the MPO ever used the weighted vote? Phillips: It has never seemed to be necessary to use it to achieve what needed to be achieved. It has always been able to be worked out as a consensus of the entire group. Johnson: There is a concern that though there is the ability to use a weighted vote, it never has been used and would the MPO continue to function in order to use it. That is the political problem about using it, the other entities may not want to participate. Phillips: The real factor has been that the decision making process has been a positive, consensus building process where that kind of adversarial relationship has not been necessary to achieve what needed to be achieved. Chair Ricord stated again that the board is being asked to give Council input and advice. He asked if the board would like to make a formal recommendation or provide a list of issues or whatever else they think is appropriate. Gould said that he would like to raise those issues and identify specific areas that need strengthening. Johnson stated that the board has been asked to do two things. One is to look at the deletions to the Plan and see if we agree with them and if there are other things that need to be stricken as well. The second part is whether or not we should send a recommendation to council on our advice on the Plan as a whole. There was a motion that the Transportation Board recommend that City Council do not support the Plan and to itemize specific areas to work on in intergovernmental cooperation such as rights -of -way, design standards, natural areas, and open space community separators. There was a second Discussion: After a lengthy discussion, it was agreed that the Transportation Board supports the notion of regional planning and could endorse a plan that corrects the following concerns in the current version of the Corridor Plan: ♦ Lack offinancial commitment for planning and development of transit and/or rail ♦ Lack of a true nexus between necessary improvements and who pays ♦ Open space not given adequate supportfor acquisition Transportation Board DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes September 19, 2001 Page 8 ♦ This plan leads to a "strip city" along 1-25 that competes with existing core city needs for resources ♦ Firing gridlock on State and Federal highways is not a local responsibility ♦ The cost of the parallel road system would exceed $300 M, which is above and beyond the build -out of the current Master Street Plan ♦ Emphasis on RTA funding, now at a %-cent sales tax is now indicated in the plan as funding for the parallel road system ♦ Fort Collins should not be put in the position of bailing out, through RTA tax revenues, other communities' poor planning, specifically commercial development impacts on interchanges in other jurisdictions, such as Windsor and Loveland ♦ The junction of I-25 is to service commercial truck traffic and tourism at high speeds. Fort Collins should not spend capital to transform the interstate into "main street. " Chair Ricord called the question. Roll call: Ricord — Yes Gould — Yes Moe - Abstained Thordarson - No Kramer - No Johnson- Yes Warring - Yes Trantham - Yes Yeldell - Not present for vote. Had to leave meeting early due to family emergency. The motion carried by a majority vote, 5 — 2 with I abstention. Chair Ricord will assist staff in drafting a letter to the Mayor and City Council members with the Board's recommendation. 6. ACTION ITEMS a. FORT COLLINS I-25 SUB -AREA PLAN — Waido and Jackson Waido stated that on October 16, staff is scheduled to take this item to City Council to ask for direction. Specifically, staff wants to know if they should proceed with a plan that includes an expansion of the City of Fort Collins' Growth Management Area easterly of I-25 to County Road 5. The second and newer option retains the existing Growth Management Area. Mr. Waido asked that the board provide whatever advice or recommendation they feel appropriate to the Council. Mr. Waido then proceeded to give a detailed presentation on the two options. Transportation Board DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes September 19, 2001 Page 9 During the discussion, the Board identified some specific concerns with the draft plan, which led them to their recommendation. • The current draft shows a lack of future development contiguous to existing development. • By placing development east of I-25, I-25 would become a community separator within the City, which is undesirable. • Prefer lower trip generation along existing local roadways, such as Prospect. • There is no current policy for interchange improvement funding equivalent to Street Oversizing. • City Policy should not encourage zoning, which generates commercial retail trips on local arterials such as Prospect. Massive trip generation must be put along State highway facilities, such as Mulberry, for realistic cost sharing. There was a motion to recommend that the existing Growth Management Area be retained There was a second. Chair Ricord called the question. Roll call: Ricord — Yes Gould — Yes Moe - Abstained Thordarson - Yes Kramer - No Johnson- Yes Warring - Yes Trantham - Yes Yeldell - Not present for vote. Had to leave meeting early due to family emergency. The motion carried by a majority vote, 6-1 with I abstention. In addition, the Board recommends that the City explore the possibilities of altering the Plan to place the intensity of development now shown in the draft at Prospect Road, to be moved to Mulberry west of I-25. It was agreed that Chair Ricord would assist staff in drafting a letter to that effect for submittal to the Mayor and City Councilmembers. b. ELECTRIC BIKE ORDINANCE (EBO) — Frazier for Dowlen Frazier, subbing for Dowlen, stated that the EBO came about because in taking a look at the Model Uniform Traffic Code, it was discovered that there were no allowances for electric bikes. This discovery caused some difficulties as Transportation Services sponsors a bike program that happens to include yellow electric bikes for loan. What it meant by not being in the Code, was that it would then be considered a motor vehicle. It would have to travel in the traffic lanes, a person had to have a driver's license to operate it, and it had to be equipped like a car with turn signals and brakes. Transportation Board DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes September 19, 2001 Page 10 In order to resolve this issue, a committee was formed consisting of members from Local Transportation Demand Management, Natural Resources, City Attorney Office and the Police Department. Some of their findings and determinations were that electric bikes cannot compete with cars in traffic lanes nor can they adhere to the rules. They found that a high percentage of electric bikes can't exceed 16 mph, are not safe on sidewalks and that in order to correct the problem, they would have to be added to the MUTC. The ordinance in the board's packets basically states that a definition of an electric assisted bike is included in the ordinance, it excludes the electric bike from the sidewalk, and it allows the electric bike in parts of natural areas. That is, only in authorized areas such as driveways or parking lots — not trails. The limit for maximum speed is 20 mph and the operator has to be at least 14 years old. Also, electric assisted bikes are subject to the same rules as bicycles when on the roadways and bike paths. The ordinance only applies to local streets at this time. After the second reading of the ordinance, it will be sent to the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). Upon receipt, CDOT has 60 days to rule whether to approve or disapprove of our changes. If they don't do anything in 60 days, it is an automatic approval and particular items in the ordinance will take effect on streets within Fort Collins that are a part of the State highway system. A motion was made to support the ordinance regarding electric bikes. There was a second and the motion carried by a unanimous vote, 6 — 0. (Moe, Trantham and Yeldell not present for vote -had to leave before conclusion of meeting.) b. TRANSFORT YOUTH FARES - Daggett Daggett gave a PowerPoint presentation on the evaluation process used to determine what kind of impacts instituting a fare policy would have. Daggett explained the background of youth fares beginning in 1993. The board discussed the merits of the current youth fare policy. The sentiment of the majority was that the likely loss in ridership, should youth fares be instituted, was not worth the few thousand dollars in annual revenues which would be realized. Warring stated that she agreed with what Mr. Hopkins said during Public Comment, that young people need to pay something to realize and appreciate the value of the service. Aside from Warring's comment, the key thoughts were: • Youth fares would discourage ridership, resulting in higher Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as parents or friends would have to provide transportation by auto. • The higher ridership with free access to Transfort teaches greater numbers of younger people to learn how to use transit, a lesson valuable as they make transportation choices in the future. There was a motion to recommend that City Council retain the current youth fare policy. There was a second and the motion carried by a majority vote, 5 —1. (Moe, Trantham and Yeldell not present for vote -had to leave before conclusion of meeting.) Transportation Board DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes September 19, 2001 7. REPORTS Page 11 a. BOARD MEMBER REPORTS Gould: Procedural Discussion. I would like to comment on the procedural discussion this evening. I would hope that as a board we could err on the side of allowing free interchange of information and ideas. Especially during board discussion, topics arise that are outside the scope of the formal presentation and staff needs to be free to participate. There seems to be a gray zone between lobbying and evangelism. Err should be on the side of having interchange and making decisions freely. I hope that tonight's episode does not become a pattern. Ricord: Procedural Discussion. I also have a comment about that. I agree that it is difficult as someone running a meeting to make a decision about the intent of everyone's interaction during deliberations. However, there is a history here and I have heard from a few board members about discomfort with the proceedings — feeling singled out, lobbied, and subjected to certain outbursts. I think it has to be looked at in the context of specifically what is lobbying versus what is informational. I would hope that as far as the informational pieces go that generally speaking, information would be presented before board deliberations. I understand that is not always possible, but when things do need to be brought up or highlighted, that that would ordinarily happen before board member deliberations. I think it is always appropriate for us to ask questions and to question the process if necessary. It is never my intention in running these meetings or in limiting the discussion to the board to exclude any kind of exchange of information or ideas. I think that is something that needs to be honored and upheld. I also think that in the extreme, and we have had more than one incidence of the extreme, board members have felt that the interaction of staff was inappropriate. When that's the case, and when deliberation is not free or comfortable, then I think it's my job as the Chair to address those issues. I see it as a very delicate balance. I plead with all staff to please respect the exchange and know that it is perfectly legitimate as information, but if I sense that there is lobbying or if I sense that board members are being singled out, I will put a stop to that. The point is well taken, but there needs to be a counter to that. That there is a limit of appropriateness and I am going to implement that. Correspondence Reearding MSTC. I really don't know what this says, but I thought I would share it with the board. It's a letter from Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell about funding for the Mason Street Corridor. Transportation Board DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes September 19, 2001 Page 12 Johnson: Meeting Report. Earlier in the month, I met with Matt Baker, Cam McNair and Gary Diede and we discussed some of the things that we brought up at the last meeting, especially dealing with the natural areas and the Street Oversizing policy. For the next meeting, I will write a brief summary of that or perhaps Gary could do that. I now have a much better understanding. b. STAFF REPORTS Bachman: Special Session. You are aware that the Governor has called a special session of the legislature to discuss growth issues. Among the points that are being discussed are four transportation -funding matters. I'm not prepared with a report tonight as I don't yet have a full understanding of what is being proposed, but it does involve some transfers of general fund monies to be used for transportation purposes. It is not clear whether it's on -system, off -system, etc. As things develop, I would suggest getting info to you. It isn't likely however that you would have a chance to weigh in due to time constraints. November Board Meeting. The November meeting falls on the day before Thanksgiving this year so we need to consider rescheduling it. November 14 was chosen by the remaining members and the others will be asked if they are available that date as well. Annual Board Retreat. (Brought up by Chair Ricord) The board's work plan is due in November so a board retreat needs to be scheduled. Last year it took half a day and it is anticipated that it would take a similar amount of time this year. Staff will review their calendars and send out possible dates/times to the board via email and see which is best. Phillips: Procedural Discussion. In light of the comments made earlier about interaction with staff and in the interest of healthy relationships, I would offer to sit down with you and members of the board who feel concerned or grieved by interactions with me. I would like to listen to your concerns. I think it would be good to talk about where information stops and lobbying starts. Any board members are welcome to meet with me. Johnson stated that the finance committee needs to get together to discuss a couple of items. It was agreed that they would meet on October 3 at 6 p.m. at 215 N. Mason. 8. OTHER BUSINESS None Transportation Board DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes September 19, 2001 9. ADJOURN Chair Ricord adjourned the meeting at 10:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, 4%�� sag — Cynthia Scott Executive Administrative Assistant G? / 17Zoo I, Page 13