Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTransportation Board - Minutes - 10/18/2000Draft minutes to be approved by the Board at their November 15, 2000 meeting. REGULAR MEETING MINUTES of the TRANSPORTATION BOARD October 18, 2000 5:45 p.m. City of Fort Collins — City Hall West — CIC Room 300 LaPorte Avenue FOR REFERENCE: CHAIR: Tim Johnson 416.0821 VICE CHAIR: Chris Ricord 472.8769 STAFF LIAISON: Randy Hensley 416.2058 ADMIN SUPPORT: Cynthia Scott 224.6058 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Dan Gould Tim Johnson Brad Miller Ray Moe Brent Thordarson Heather Trantham Mary Warring Steve Yeldell CITY STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Matt Baker Gary Diede Ann -Marie Ferry Joe Frank Randy Hensley Cam McNair Ron Phillips Cynthia Scott Chair Johnson called the meeting to order at 5:50 p.m. ABSENT: Bruce Henderson Tom Kramer Chris Ricord OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE: Ben Herman (Consultant) I ransportation hoard DRAFT Regular Meeting Min s October 18, 2000 1. PUBLIC COMMENT None • Page 2 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There was a motion and a second to approve the September 20, 2000 regular meeting minutes of the Transportation Board as presented. Warring stated that with respect to the CDOT portion of the minutes, in the summary of comments, the gist of the 5`s bullet doesn't accurately reflect the sentiment of the board. She asked that another bullet be added that says: In favor of keeping the old alignment due to maintenance issues. Yeldell also requested that his comment, item #9, last paragraph on page 5, should read as follows: Downtown Denver Commute. A 50% time savings was realized by converting to green controls so the buses don't sit and wait at the 16`° Street Mall corridor. Chair Johnson stated that on page 6, Trantham's comments regarding pedestrian difficulties should read as follows: Pedestrian Difficulties. My husband wanted to walk a half -mile to LSI (Bay Area), but it wasn't doable because the area was not set up for pedestrians. The motion carried unanimously with the above stated amendments. 3. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORT None 4. a) MINOR MASTER STREET PLAN AMENDMENTS - Diede Diede stated that Henderson was the only one who had any questions regarding the amendments. His questions were answered by staff in the last couple of days, but he e-mailed more questions as late as today. Chair Johnson inquired as to the nature of Henderson's questions. Diede stated that one was concerning Morning Star in the north (#4). After explaining the concern, Chair Johnson stated that in his opinion, it is good to have streets like Swallow in terms of using it for alternative transportation modes. Diede said that for future roads, the City does not plan on more streets such as Swallow because of safety problems. People tend to cut through the neighborhood and speed. Henderson's second question was in regard to Ziegler (#7) as an arterial. Diede said that the next step is to take this before City Council for their approval in I ransportation Board DRAFT Regular Meeting Min es October 18, 2000 Page 3 the near future. Chair Johnson asked the board if there were any questions. There were not. Chair Johnson then asked for a motion to recommend approval of the amendments to City Council. There was a motion and a second. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Hensley stated that Jackson would be sending minor Master Street Plan amendment requests to the Board on a routine basis as he did this month. However, in the event there are major changes or anything of controversy, Jackson will attend the Board's meeting and give a full presentation. Several members commented that the maps were excellent, easy to read and that was very much appreciated. b) STREET OVERSIZING FEE UPDATE — M. Baker Baker stated that he is here to give an update on the Street Oversizing Capital Expansion Fee (SOCEF) Program, including some recalculations of the fees based on some new data and new things that have been happening in the City. Baker explained some background information, saying that the last time the SOCEF underwent a significant revision was in 1998. At that time, the fees were increased to recover the cost of the newly adopted Street Standards, which were adopted two years earlier. There has been a significant methodology change to the impact fee program. Previously, it was strictly an arterial street program, but it is now inclusive of all modes of transportation. During that methodology change, trip generation was included as an equitable way to measure the impacts of new development on the street system and to calculate fees on them. Baker then listed all projects that the Street Oversizing Program has constructed since 1998, via PowerPoint. He said that it is easy to see that the SOFP is beginning to implement the City Plan vision. He then went over all the projects still on the drawing board. Trantham asked for clarification on the W. Horsetooth project and Yeldell on the W. Harmony improvements near Shields, which Baker answered. Phillips added that with regard to the Harmony improvements, we might need to have some community Capital money in the next iteration of Building Community Choices to do parts of that project. The reason is that there are parts that are adjacent to Front Range Community College, which the State has told us they will not fund the road improvements (as a developer would be required to do and they do not pay street oversizing fees). Plus, there are some out parcels along there that are in the county that we usually have to have some type of capital program to pay for. It may not be possible that SOCEF program can do all this in the next year or two. We don't want to get your hopes up because there are some real funding issues in that area. is t'age a i ransponation board DRAFT Regular Meeting Min s October 18, 2000 Baker then explained that in tracking the revenues and expenditures, liabilities and construction costs, etc. for the Street Oversizing fund, there weren't any significant changes in 1999. However, based on changes to the Master Street Plan from the Mountain Vista Sub Area Plan and Fossil Creek Reservoir Area, Out Parcel ROW and the inflation of construction costs used to construct City roadways, staff has recalculated the Street Oversizing Capital Expansion Fee. A chart showing a comparison of current fees and proposed fees for various developments was presented and discussed. Warring stated that it is a tremendous disservice to be reducing the fees on projects that are obviously huge traffic generators. Baker stated that the reason for the decrease is due to the updated Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) trip generation rate data (national average). There is a difference between convenience stores in the old version and the new as the stores themselves have evolved into more than they used to be. Diede stated that staff would get more information from ITE on how they got the numbers if the board would like. Baker then added that for a lot of land uses, the fees stay the same or are reduced slightly. There are also some categories that go up slightly. It is important to keep in mind that there is more to it than just all the retail going down. During discussion of this issue, Hensley stated that what is not shown in the presentation is the bottom line effect of everything Baker has done in the recalculation. After all the adjustments are said and done, the overall collections are going to go up. Yes, there are some individual reductions in individual categories, but net collections for the SOFP as a whole will increase, which is the objective of what Baker set out to do. He needs 3.1% more than what he got before because of the inflationary impact and the other reasons already brought up. Hensley suggested that the ITE data should be mentioned in future presentations. McNair offered to go back a year or two and apply the new fee structure to what actually happened and see what the total for the year turns out to be. It seems that for individual pieces the fees appear to be lowered, but in some it may actually produce a net + of income for the program, which is really the intent. Several members felt this would be helpful. After a lengthy discussion, Baker said that this will be going to City Council in December and he would like a recommendation for approval from the Board. There was a motion to accept Baker's recommendations regarding the Street Oversizing Fee changes. There was a second and the motion carried by a majority vote. Thordarson asked for before & after comparisons with existing developments i.e., Harmony Crossings or Wal-Mart. 5. a) I-25 CORRIDOR PLAN UPDATE — J. Frank Transportation Board DRAFT Regular Meeting Mints October 18, 2000 • Page 5 Joe Frank, Advanced Planning, introduced himself as the project manager. He then introduced consultant Ben Herman. He added that Mark Jackson is a member of the technical team and that board member Mary Warring has been on the focus group. Frank explained that the project has been going for about one year and is expected to be completed in April 2001. It involves many jurisdictions in a 30-mile stretch with three objectives: 1. Establish a set of design standards that would be adopted by the participating jurisdictions; 2. A set of policies for natural areas and open lands that would be consistently applied by the communities. 3. To develop a conceptual transportation framework plan for the local transportation network needs for development in the corridor. There is a policy committee that consists of elected officials from each of the eight participating jurisdictions, plus CDOT who is guiding the development of the plan. There is also a technical team, who is guiding the consultants in the preparation of the plan. Mr. Herman took the floor and explained that he would give a PowerPoint presentation on the background, study area, details of the objectives, explain the preferred vision, and talk about where the plan is currently. He also stated that it is time to get feedback and keep the elected officials posted. The study area encompasses a 30-mile corridor along I-25 from CR 58 to 2 miles south of SH 56. The three sub -areas are Fort Collins/Timnath; Windsor/Loveland; and Johnstown/Berthoud. The reason for the plan is that if nothing is done, there will be a pattern of continuous unattractive development, an inadequate transportation system, an impact on future transit opportunities, a loss of our unique regional character and qualities; and a loss of tax base to communities. The primary objectives are: Develop and adopt a vision and plan for the I-25 Corridor with flexible design standards; conceptual transportation network; and open lands/natural resources policies. Highlights of the presentation included • Elements of the preferred vision • Design standards: locational standards; design standards for landscaping, circulation/access in activity centers; and supplementary standards • Natural Areas and Open Lands • Regional Circulation and Access Transportation Analysis Demographic trends Existing transportation system I ransportation Boaro DRAFT Regular Meeting Mints October 18, 2000 0 Page 6 - 2020 RTP improvements - 2020 RTP Transportation system - 2020 MPO Growth and RTP System - Anticipated Growth and 2020 RTP System - No Growth and 2020 RTP System - Enhanced System Improvements - Enhanced Transportation System - Enhanced System Performance - Implications - Physical Conflicts - Cost Implications - Policy Implications Upcoming Events/Next Steps Council/Commission meetings Community forums and focus groups - Complete design standards and conceptual transportation plan - Adoption of design standards and other I-25 Corridor Plan elements by participating communities Board Comments/Ouestions: Warring stated that with regard to the connectivity piece, she finds it hard to believe that residential areas would want to be connected to industrial areas, which are connected to frontage roads, which are parallel to the interstate. She then stated that her "heartburn" is with the Oversight Committee, in that it isn't right to bring two developers on to the Committee without bringing in some citizen participation. The politicians may represent the citizens, but they also represent the developers and business interests. She requested a list of names of whoever is on the committee. Phillips stated that the important thing to be aware of is that there is an incredible synergy to do the right thing between the people from the development community and the elected officials who are involved in this process. They are trying to form a group that can provide leadership to do the right thing, not to some way "submarine" this or take it off track. He said that in his opinion, these people intend to make progress in the public interest. Phillips stressed that this is remarkable and it is going to have more to say about the positive aspects of the future of this region than anything else he sees going on. Herman added that there are nine jurisdictions involved and it would complicate matters to have citizens from each jurisdiction involved. Frank said that this is not a pro -development group. b) TRANSPORTATION FUNDING UPDATE — R. Hensley Hensley stated that two months ago, the transportation funding process was temporarily put on hold. Staff is waiting for the results of the November 7 election. i ransponanon tsoara DRAFT Regular Meeting Min es October 18, 2000 0 rage r Amendment 21 will affect transportation funding in a major way. While the funding process has been on hold, staff has been continuing with the internal City effort to update the capital improvements project (CIP) list, which was last done in 1996. Many things have been completed since then and new needs have been identified. The City has never done a comprehensive look at capital projects that included all of the different departments within the different service areas. Transportation has done their own as have other service areas. Hensley then distributed a list of CIP projects from Transportation Services. He went over the list in detail with the board, explaining that it is a project title list only — it does not include costs or a description. The list does reflect staff's first tier priorities and second tier priorities. The projects are not prioritized within the tiers. They are in alphabetical order. Hensley explained that he does have cost estimates and descriptions for all the projects that were prioritized (enclosures 2 & 3) in his 3-ring binder. He will be glad to make copies of any info anyone would like. Hensley referenced the third sheet that was passed out, "CIP Projects Listing From Other Service Areas." He said that this is an integrated, coordinated, citywide effort. This document shows all of the projects submitted by all of the other service areas. Transportation had approximately 200 projects alone. There are 108 in the combined list for all the other areas. There is an important effort underway to identify linkages between all the projects that everyone else submitted and our transportation projects, plus any linkages that might exist between the projects amongst the other service areas. We're in the process of doing that right now — looking at the other projects and recognizing links with our projects. The end result will be a comprehensive document that provides information for decision making from a citywide perspective. This information will be shared with Council later this fall/first of the year. After that, this will go into some sort of public process. At this time, staff is not asking for a recommendation from the board. Hensley stated that this information has been shared with the Chamber's Transportation Committee — Hensley and Phillips met with them last week. A positive message is being heard -- one of wanting to partner with Transportation. They are in the process of working on a policy position paper where they will be making their recommendations. The Transportation Funding sub -committee agreed that they would wait until November to meet again. A date will be discussed at the November 15 Transportation Board meeting. i ransponarion boars DRAFT Regular Meeting Min es October 18, 2000 0 rage a c) PARKING TASK FORCE REPORT — Warring Warring explained that the charge of the Parking Task Force is to see if the parking maximums that the City has established are realistic. The development community is saying that we don't have enough parking for our office category. She then distributed three handouts. The first handout, by Planning's Troy Jones and Ted Shepard, is a broad listing of lots that they physically surveyed, seeing what each large office park was actually utilizing in terms of their parking spaces. On the second page, they show that overall there are 4.54 parking spaces provided and 1.08 that are being used. This was based on an average. They went back and the developer said that based on their experiences, they did the exercise again using a maximum instead of the previously used minimum. That caused the number to go up slightly. They the group began talking about a perceived parking problem as opposed to a real parking problem. Then they modified it to maximums, which raised the ratio just a little in terms of terms of parking utilized. Based on the assumption that the parking problem was perceived, the committee went to a formula (referenced the next handout), with the idea that they would encourage or would give an incentive to the employer to have more than one entrance. Part of the perceived parking problem is that there is one entrance and people have to go so far. It was also discussed that the real issue is not the square footage, which is how office parking is judged, but how many people are working in the building. They did another recalculation and came up with the graphs on the 3' handout. They got very different numbers of parking utilization. The direction the committee is going is raising the parking maximums and basing them on the amount of people that are in the office as opposed to square footage. Warring stated that she is not in favor of going to a strictly person ratio for the parking standards. She further added that she feels it is more of a perceived problem than an actual problem. She asked the board if they think the formula that Jones came up with based on encouraging potential developers/businesses is too complex. She also asked the board if they think there should be an increase in the maximum or just a standard variant procedure. Thordarson stated that he felt the formula wasn't too bad — that it could be worked through. Trantham agreed that the parking problem is perceived and that there are better alternatives than adding more parking spaces. RAILVOLUTION REPORT — Warring • rage a I ransponallon tsoara DRAFT Regular Meeting Min es October 18, 2000 Warring distributed a report she developed from the recent Railvoltion conference in Denver. She stated that she started working for the regional SMARTTripsTM program, which is a division of the Metropolitan Planning Organization. She was able to attend the conference because one of the MPO employees was not able to attend. There were about 65 workshops that were offered and a couple of tours. In a nutshell, the theme was communities that are moving towards rail and transit as alternate modes, as well as bikes and peds. She found it very interesting. She attended five workshops and summed them up as shown in her report. She recommended reading Modeling from a Citizen's Perspective if nothing else, as it was very informative. 6. a) BOARD MEMBER REPORTS Thordarson: Effective Crosswalk Device. I exchanged some e-mail with the Bike/Ped Coordinator for the State of Maine. I got a picture of the barrel in the crosswalk. It was used extensively in Massachusetts and Maine. It seemed to be pretty effective in getting cars to stop at crosswalks — even when people were standing on the side of the street waiting to use the crosswalk. It really gets the attention of drivers. The law in Maine states that cars have to yield the ROW to a pedestrian that is crossing within a marked crosswalk. Some thoughts that the coordinator shared were: It is better to have a requirement that drivers stop rather than just yield; he didn't think that the law is really enforced very much; the barrels themselves haven't been sanctioned by their DOT (there is some concern that if someone hits the barrel, it becomes a projectile); he thinks that drivers are better at yielding and they are reminded about the law or think they actually have to stop; and he thinks that speed plays a big role in how effective they are. Thordarson offered to forward the e-mail to anyone who is interested. Johnson: 1) Rail Line Ridership in Denver. Ridership has exceeded the 2015 forecast. 2) Transportation Connections. Good transportation connections are critical for the Transit Center on Mason, especially for those from out of town. Will we be able to connect with the commercial bus network? Phillips said that there will be a counter within the transit center and two pull-up spaces for buses. b) STAFF REPORTS Phillips: Weigh in Motion. The July/August statistics for the port of entry show that the trucks using the weigh in motion and bypassing the port are in the 19-20% range. Weigh in motion has been operating for less than a year and they were hoping to get s Transportation Board • * Page 10 DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes October 18, 2000 15% in 3 years. This is extremely positive news. Hensley: Board Work Plan Session. Reminded the board that the work session to develop the Board's 2001 Work Plan is Saturday, October 28 from 8 a.m. to noon. The session will be held at Poudre Fire Authority's Station #12 located at the corner of SH 1 and Country Club Road. Breakfast will be provided. Scott: Next A eg nda (November 15) - Street Design & Construction Standards by Mike Herzig - Transfort Strategic Plan by John Daggett - SH 14 Truck Route Relocation Update by Mark Jackson - Transportation Funding (If there is anything to report) 7. OTHER BUSINESS There being no other business, the meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m. Cynthia L. Scott Executive Administrative Assistant