Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTransportation Board - Minutes - 02/05/1997r1 U F-I L Draft Minutes to be approved by the Transportation Board at the February 19, 1997 Meeting TRANSPORTATION BOARD REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 5,1997 FOR REFERENCE: Chair Vice Chair Council Liaison Staff Liaison Secretary BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Paul Valentine 493-0100 Paul Perlmutter 229-2549 Will Smith 223-0425 Tom Frazier 224-6893 Micki White 224-6173 Alan Beatty, Mark Egeland, Stephen Hanna, Tim Johnson, Ray Moe, Paul Perlmutter, and Paul Valentine BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Sara Frazier, Donn Hopkins, and Kathleen Kilkelly STAFF/COUNCIL/GUESTS PRESENT: Ron Phillips, Tom Frazier, Susanne Edminster, John Daggett, Will Smith, Ward Stanford and Micki White AGENDA: A. CALL TO ORDER APPROVAL OF MINUTES B. INTRODUCTIONS C. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS D. PUBLIC COMMENT E. ACTION ITEMS 1. Street Oversizing - Ward Stanford F. DISCUSSION ITEMS 1. Building Community Choices - Susanne Edminster 2. City Plan - Tom Frazier. John Daseett 3. Board Member Reports 4. Staff Reports 5. Summary/Next Agenda 6. Other Business The meeting of the Transportation Board began at approximately 5:50 p.m. in the Ben Delatour room • at the Fort Collins Public Library and was called to order by Board Chairman, Paul Valentine. Tim Johnson made a motion to approve the minutes of the last meeting, Alan Beatty seconded the Transportation Board Meeting Minutes February 5, 1997 Page 2 motion. Motion passed unanimously. Stephen Hanna made the comment that the Timberline Extension project had made the Fort Collins newspaper. There were no other comments and no Council Liaison reports. Mr. Smith, Council Liaison, was not present at this time but did come to the meeting later in the evening. E. ACTION 1. Street Oversizing - Ward Stanford The meeting then moved into the one Action Item of the evening, Street Oversizing. Ward Stanford, with the City of Fort Collins Engineering Department, was the representative before the Board to give the presentation. He apologized for the fact that Matt Baker was unable to make the presentation but Mr. Baker had a previous commitment. Mr. Stanford began his presentation by saying that it would be conceptual in nature. His group was anxious to get out the overview. Some of the final details are still being worked out. Once those details have been worked out they plan to come back to the Board and present a detailed account of the entire spectrum of change. Mr. Stanford stated that the city had been in the oversizing business for about 18 years and have put in about 23 miles of arterial and collector streets. He feels that the program has done a pretty good job. They do recognized, however, that with all the new changes, e.g., the City Plan, the new Street Standards, the Engineering Department needs to enlarge their program. The idea now is to require new development to pay for their growth -related impact on transportation facilities; the key word being "transportation facilities". In the past, street oversizing focused primarily on improving streets for vehicular traffic but it is now important to implement the Bike Plan, the Ped Plan, and transit aspects. Mr. Stanford then stated that the current system is an impact fee based system. It collects fees to fund network street improvements. It does not take into account Level of Service changes or improvements for all travel modes. It does not take into account aspects related to Transit or the new Street Standards. With all the changes and the shift to multimodal, he feels the program needs to be updated to help fund some of these changes to make that shift happen. Mr. Stanford went on to say that the new program is not going to be a "scrap the old" and start a new one. It is going to be a modification of what we do now. Scrapping the old one, per say, would be • Transportation Board Meeting Minutes February 5, 1997 Page 3 a funding mistake. The desire is to modify what is in place now, improve it, and bring it up to the level it needs to be to work in the current City Plan. It will address the multimodal aspects, the Bike Plan aspects, the Ped Plan and others. Mr. Stanford told the Board that as an impact fee, there are requirements we have to meet to be legally correct in order to validate the fee and its components. Due to that, certain tests must be met. One of the aspects of the impact fee is that it cannot fund correction of existing deficiencies nor fund operating costs of implemented items of the Transit/Transportation plan. What will have to be put in place a comprehensive transportation plan and joint transportation funding program. A comprehensive transportation plan is done now but is not totally funded. A budget is planned each year to reimburse developers for their expenses and to cover the main costs. Uses and needs for the budget are projected based on anticipated growth. Stephen Hanna asked if this process (impact fee) is a state law? Ward responded that yes, it was, however he wasn't sure what level of law it is. He also stated that the same was true with the joint transportation funding plan, a program which is somewhat more capital projects. He said both have to be in place to make the system work. A plan has to be in place to support new projects since these funds can't be used to correct past mistakes. • Ward was asked about tax credits for improvements. Ward responded that there are two types of credits. A revenue credit is determined to avoid potential double payment situations and the second type is a site specific credit for system improvements that have been included in development fee calculations. He also stated that a time limit and refund provision needs to be added into the ordinances. These limits and provisions are there but not in written form. In order to support the new program, this needs to happen. Ward concluded his presentation by summing up staffs recommendations. He said they are currently working off of a need -based impact fee a and would like to continue that with a modified program. They would like to change the name of the program to Transportation Impact Fee from Street Oversizing Fee. This change would deliver more focus on transportation as a broader base, rather than the implication that is just for streets and motorized vehicles. Some of the current aspects of the plan they would like to keep are: Concept of the developers paying for the impact of development Basing cost on completing the arterial street network City -at -large funding portions Some of the current aspects needing modification: • Trip generation factors (have been modified somewhat) Transportation Board Meeting Minutes February 5, 1997 Page 4 Included in the Board packets was a draft copy of the Street Oversizing Impact Fee Study. Within this study is a Transportation Impact Fee Schedule. Mr. Hanna asked Mr. Stanford where they had acquired the averages in this study. Mr. Stanford replied they came out of the ITE manual and was based on vehicle trips per unit. Steve Hanna expressed concern that if the fee is based on trips in and out, did Mr. Stanford feel that service station owners might complain or did he feel they would be accepting the cost per pump for impact fees. Mr. Stanford said he didn't feel that at this point, there had been a lot of input yet since it is fairly new and this is just the beginning stage, starting with this presentation. He felt they would have input when this is taken before the public. Paul Perlmutter asked if all single family homes would be assessed the same amount and Mr. Stanford told him single family homes would go to a unit basis. He said they are still doing some adjustments on other types of residential aspects, for instance per room or per occupancy. Mr. Perlmutter then asked if the same fee for a home on a 1/3 acre parcel versus a home on 1/10 acre parcelwould be fair. Mr. Stanford then said that the home itself generates the same amount of trips. He said that whether it was a small parcel of land or a large, it would still generate the same amount of trips. Mr. Perlmutter said he understood that but wondered if a home on a larger parcel of land, in a sense, has a larger responsibility because of the amount of street frontage abutting that home. Mark Egeland then interjected that on the opposite end of the discussion, he could come up with an argument that the lower density area could have the smaller impact for that local area because there were fewer residents making trips. Mr. Perlmutter said the same size of street would still have to be built. John Daggett felt it might be helpful to discuss the kinds of streets being talked about. He felt they were talking mostly about collectors and arterials. This was agreed. Mr. Stanford said that from the aspect of a high density area, more equal per acre status was put on the collector group. Ron Phillips then told the group that he didn't feel that it matters whether the street in question was local, residential, collector, or arterial around the area. He stated that you have to provide the same standard of arterial as you would if it were a highway scenario. Paul Valentine then asked if some discussion could be directed towards the handout. He wondered if the fees shown were annual fees. He also pointed out the large increase above fees collected just for streets to include other modes of travel. He also asked if the current impact fees cover the 73 million dollars quoted. Mr. Stanford felt he could not answer this question due to lack of involvement in the budget process. Mark Egeland asked, also, about the $73 million and how it was factored in the impact fee. Paul • Transportation Board Meeting Minutes February 5, 1997 Page 5 Valentine asked for an explanation about the travel behavior fee. Mr. Stanford said it was based on the change in people's driving habits. He said people are driving more and finding different uses for their driving time. Mr. Valentine asked where this money would be coming from. , Mr. Stanford said this is what the city at large would basically have to bring in. Paul Valentine also mentioned his concern that, according to the handout, nearly all the proposed impact fees were increasing by 120%-130%. He was concerned about the public's reaction, including the developers. He felt that if you want to stop growth in this city, this is a good way to do it. One of the Board members asked if any adjustments were ever added to the Street Oversizing fees. Ms. Edminster responded that yes, some were added. Ray Moe also added that it had been a small adjustment. Paul Valentine asked if some of the fees listed would actually be less than is being paid now while others go up, based on trip generation. Ward commented that according to his knowledge, all have gone up. Mr. Phillips commented that if not yet, they all will go up if this is adopted. Susanne Edminster stated that staff has looked at everything that could possibly be impacted by new • growth; library fee, park fee, etc. She said it was important to remember that these figures are rough because it is difficult to define rough proportionality in terms of the alternative modes. Steve Hanna stated that he felt if the "pie" weren't big enough, people would go elsewhere such as the area between Fort Collins and Loveland, Windsor, and if we aren't in line with alternatives, those same relocated people will still come here and use our streets. They will just build elsewhere. Ward stated that some of the factors used do take those actions into account. Will Smith then asked how this differs form the Transportation Maintenance Fee in terms of how we apply trip generation factors. Paul Valentine stated that he felt there was no question that we need the Transit system funded, along with Ped Plan, and others but he didn't feel that this presentation, in this manner, is going to sell to the public. There will have to be a comparison with what other cities are doing and clear reasons shown for the need to raise the fees. He said this document presents increases of 14% but fees are going up 120% and the public is not going to go for it. Tim Johnson asked what areas the impact fees will be addressing. Ward said the fees are to be used throughout the city. Paul Perlmutter asked what percentage of the costs does new growth pay for? Paul Valentine said his understanding was 75% increase was due to growth, 25% was due to travel behavior change. • Paul Perlmutter didn't feel the presentation of those percentages were totally clear. Transportation Board Meeting Minutes February 5, 1997 Page 6 Paul Valentine discussed the fact that present trips per day should be reflected in this presentation in some way in order to show what the growth is. Mark Egeland questioned how some of the figures were arrived at. Ron Phillips called to the Board's attention the fact that this is "work in progress". He said this was kind of an update to let the Board know what they have to date and will come back to this Board at a later date with more complete information before it goes before Council in March. The kind of input that was given this evening is what they were looking for. He said he feels it is important that the document be something that can be understood by the taxpayer. F. DISCUSSIONS ITEMS 1. Building Community Choices - Susanne Edminster Ms. Edminster began by saying this was now a ballot issue and she asked that Paul Valentine, Board Chair, assist her in this presentation since staff was now restricted in what information they can give. Mr. Valentine then distributed a handout listing the three packages and the projects listed within each project of 1/4 cent renewal proposals. Ms. Edminster said she would be happy to answer questions the Board might have. She also said other Board members who had been at the meeting could also respond informatively. Paul Valentine commented that there were four board members at the meeting for Community Choices along with someone from the Horticulture Board and Library Board. Paul Valentine mentioned that due to the wording of the package names, Natural Areas and Parks, Street Maintenance & Transportation Improvements, and Building Community Choices Projects, all under the ballot name of Building Community Choices, there might be some confusion. He suggested they all be considered "Building Community Choices." Ms. Edminster informed the group that the ballot language itself will be referring to all three as Building Community Choices so that when the ballot language is presented, the emphasis will be on what the projects are and a yay or nay vote. Ray Moe asked what type of information will be available and Paul Valentine referred him to the handouts. Several board members offered to distribute these handouts to businesses. Steve Hanna will make them available at Symbios, Paul Perlmutter and Mark Egeland will take care of Hewlett- Packard, Will Smith offered to post them on the Kodak bulletin board. Alan Beatty said he was involved in both Lion's and Rotary and would distribute them there. Paul Valentine offered the names of a variety of organizations in town that he had either contacted or will be contacting. Susanne Edminster told members that the City Clerk is collecting comments. The next citizen coalition meeting will be Monday, February 10 from 5:30 p.m. to 7 p.m. Ms. Edminster also added that ballots would be mailed and delivered on March 24. She noted that 40% of the people would • • • Transportation Board Meeting Minutes February 5, 1997 Page 7 vote in the first week of the ballot arriving at their doorstep. 2. City Plan - Tom Frazier, John Daggett Tom Frazier began his presentation by saying the City Plan was not presently on the ballot, however, there is a final draft of the action plan. A copy of that final draft would be sent to the members in the next packet along with the Policies and Principles and the Structure Plan. He told the board that these documents had just come out the day before this meeting. He said a copy of the action plan would be forthcoming to give them a feel for what will be happening. Mr. Frazier told the members that on February 10, staff would be presenting, for Planning and Zoning Board approval, the Principles and Policies and the Action Plan fees. February 17, there will be a joint work session between Council and Planning and Zoning Board for adoption of the actual code pieces to the City Plan. From this, Planning and Zoning and staff will take comments and those will go to Council for vote on March 4 for adoption of the City Plan process to this particular point. He noted that the month of February is an activity filled time frame with the adoption of many different pieces. One of the most significant things that is happening with City Plan is the design of the structure plan • of how our land use is going to be and the appropriate zoning that is going to take place to coordinate with that structure plan. The zoning map is changed on a regular basis through public and different inputs from different corporations and organizations within the community so the zoning map will be part of what goes to council. Mr. Frazier said one of the pieces he hoped to have completed prior to the City Plan is the Transportation Master Plan. The Transportation Master Plan is a large integration of the Pedestrian Plan, Bike Plan, Master Street Plan, and Transit Development Program Plan along with the appropriate documents that support these. Mr. Frazier said this will be brought back to this Board for review in the next couple of months before taking to Council for approval. Mr. Frazier then informed the Board that he would be bringing just a piece of this plan to them tonight, Adequate Public Facilities (APF). He said he wants this to be in place so that when a development comes along, that we have the transportation network in place in order to serve that development. The real key to that phrase is "adequate". The definition of adequate seem to be the issue. The City has defined it in two ways; one is through the Level of Service (LOS) criteria and the Design Standards and Codes. This is a partnership between the city and the developer. Under LOS criteria for Transit are physical design standards. John Daggett, Transportation Planner isfor the City, then began with his presentation. He distributed a handout for the members and said his format would be a "question and answer" type scenario. He then used an overhead projector to Transportation Board Meeting Minutes February 5, 1997 Page g show transparencies of his transit physical designs. Included in his presentation were examples of new stops. He noted that we want to serve the community, as a whole, in the best way possible. He answered Alan Beatty's question of whether we would be putting funds into current routes by saying no. He also stated that 1/6th of the bus stops are commercial, 70% of all the stops currently meet ADA standards while 30% fall out of that category. He informed the board and staff of the legal requirements needed for each stop including what the public needs as well as what the bus needs for adequate movement and safety and street, curb, and sidewalk requirements. Mark Egeland asked if all stops would have a shelter and Mr. Daggett said no. Mr. Daggett informed the Board that Transfort spends $25,000 per year upgrading current stops within the city to meet the ADA requirements. When these design standards are adopted, new stops will be built in the required manner. When asked, Mr. Daggett told the Board that there were 600 stops in the city now. He also said there are commercial stops and local stops. Commercial stops tend to have shelters. Local stops tend to not have shelters unless it is a high boarding area. He said all stops will have basic information, access, and a waiting area. An additional feature that could be included in shelters would be a telephone. In response to a question from Mr. Beatty, John told him that phones are required in commercial stops. Mr. Daggett then explained that a local bus stop typically costs between $600 - $1500. A commercial stop typically costs about $7500 - $8500. Ray Moe was concerned that for future developments, according to the 2015 plan, it would become a financial burden. Mr. Daggett pointed out that it would be viewed a little differently than that. It would be more of a formula basis where it could be said, there will be a stop every 1320' and those stops that are in the new plan and not on current routes, would be measured or quantified in that way. Mr. Moe felt this was an adequate explanation. Mr. Daggett concluded his presentation by saying these standards are new. This is the first time this city has done something in this manner. As the city and transit system grow, these standards will have to be refined and they will get more complex as time goes on. Tim Johnson asked Mr. Daggett what was going on in terms of our school system. He replied that the school decides what we do in that capacity. Steve Hanna asked about hub locations within the city. John replied that two of these locations currently have planning activities associated with them. He said a new project will be started with the third center in a matter of weeks. Mr. Beatty thought some types of commercial activities at transit stops, such as food and drink availability, would be something to think about. Mr. Daggett informed him that some vendors have permits and can come to the stop in their area of town if it is their desire to do so. He also told him • Transportation Board Meeting Minutes February 5, 1997 Page 9 that Safeway is a terminus in Loveland and does that very thing, such as offering free hot coffee. Food items are available, also. Ray Moe asked about how a residential versus a commercial stop is selected. He asked if basic assumptions are made, but in the future, when there is more of a grid and more transfers, would this then be a commercial location. Mr. Daggett said commercial districts can be seen in the structure plan of the city. John reminded the board that his presentation is still in the draft stage, however, only a short amount of time remains to get comments in. He said he would welcome phone calls and gave the board his phone number. He then said this document goes to the Growth Management Committee 2-10-97, study session 2-11-97, then will be adopted as a part of City Plan Process. Paul Perlmutter asked about goals for ridership in 2015 and Mr. Daggett responded with 10,373,000. He said the enhanced travel corridor concept in the City Plan has been applied to this. Alan Beatty brought up the fact that there is still a problem getting the Streets Department to paint the No Parking area of curbs red and problems with the Police Department enforcing violators. • Ray Moe asked Mr. Daggett, bearing in mind that these are new changes, how locked in are all these documents going to be and would there be flexibility for additional needed changes without having to go before Council every time. Mr. Frazier responded to this question by saying one of the beauties of John's document, is that it will be referenced by the Code but it won't be incorporated as a codified item. Changes can be made without going back to the Council. Mr. Frazier said this also applies to the Level of Service document and the Transportation Impact Study document. 3. Board Member Reports Mark Egeland was at the C4 committee meeting and he heard of changes to the Downtown Pedestrian Zone and an enforcement program in that area. Ms. Edminster informed him that at the next Board meeting, there would be more information available regarding this subject. Mr. Egeland also brought up the "drag out" problem at Hewlett-Packard. He feels that the people responsible for the drag out should also be responsible for cleaning it up. Paul Perlmutter agreed, saying it was dangerous and should be cleaned up on a daily basis. Mr. Egeland asked what the complaint process involved and Mr. Stanford replied that it is handled on a "per incident" basis. If the complaint is made, an officer will be sent out and a ticket will be issued, as it does violate Code. . Mr. Egeland asked, also, what was going on with snow removal as far as priority routes. Tom Frazier responded that Will Smith had also posed this question and a report will be sent out in a Transportation Board Meeting Minutes February 5, 1997 Page 10 future packet. Ms. Edminster said, too, that the new Bicycle and Pedestrian Education Coordinator, Kelley Roberts, will be working with the Streets Department to prioritize bikeways. She said there would be a good follow-up report on this. There was some discussion about the snow area around the bus benches and John Daggett brought up the 5" rule with the contractor who supplies the benches. If there is more than 5" of snow, the contractor must clean up the area within 24 hours. Mark Egeland also mentioned that he viewed the one person pothole patch machine in action and thought it was "slick". Ms. Edminster informed the members that anyone was welcome to ride on the equipment for a demonstration. Mr. Egeland also attended the recent Overland Trail Focus Group meeting. He notified the Board of the next meeting coming up 2-10-97 at Olander Elementary and an additional meeting at the Senior Center 2-18.97. Paul Perlmutter said he spoke with Bill Neal, who was appointed by Governor Romer to be on his Blue Ribbon Panel on Transportation to investigate financial issues about transportation funding. The outcome was there will be a shortfall of $13 billion in the next 20 years in funding for projects for transportation. He also said a new group had been formed called Colorado Transportation Network which is to acquaint people with issues and try and get on the 11-97 ballot an addendum or initiative to address this shortfall. Alan Beatty responded by saying that his concern is that after the State of the Union, State of the State addresses, on a bill status report, out of 30 bills assigned to Transportation Committee only 7 really pertain to improved transportation or any revenues. On the Senate side, there are 6 out of 14 bills for Transportation that will really improve their needs. Paul Valentine asked Tim Johnson to draft a letter to address the local transportation needs. Tim said he would do that. 4. Staff Reports Tom Frazier told the board that Kathleen Kilkelly will be going to Bali for two years to join her husband but her departure date was not confirmed yet. Mr. Frazier also told the Board that Andrew Trenka had offered a letter of resignation. He will be taking a position for six months in another location so would be unable to continue. Mr. Frazier also mentioned that Sara Frazier was unable to attend the meeting tonight because of a death in her extended family. • Transportation Board Meeting Minutes February 5, 1997 Page I 5. Summary/Next Agenda It was decided that because of the many issues needing attention, the next meeting would be held 2- 19-97. This meeting will be held at City Hall West, the CIC room. Some of the issues possible for that agenda, per Mr. Frazier, was the Dismount Zone, Street Oversizing updates, Parking Plan, Regional Transportation Plan update, Transportation Transfer Center update, funding for the Transit Development Plan and the Transportation Maintenance Fee. Paul Perlmutter noted that at some future meeting, he would like to see a brief presentation on MPO. He said he would like to be more informed of its relationship with CDOT, local entities, etc. Ms. Edminster thought this was a good idea and could be arranged. Paul Valentine would like to see, as an agenda item in the future, Transit Capital Improvement funding. Ray Moe told the Board that he would be unable to attend the next meeting. 6. Other Business • There being no further business to discuss, the Transportation Board adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Micki E. White, Transportation Board Secretary 0