Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTransportation Board - Minutes - 05/15/1996City Council Liaison: Staff Liaison: Chairman: TRANSPORTATION BOARD MEETING MINUTES May 15, 1996 Will Smith Tom Frazier Colin Gerety The meeting of the Transportation Board began at 7:08 p.m. in the CIC Meeting Room, 300 West Laporte, Fort Collins, Colorado, following a Board member trip to examine the proposed Timberline extension alignment. Board members present included Vice Chair Paul Valentine, Tim Johnson, Paul Perlmutter, Sara Frazier, Ray Moe, Mark Egeland, and Dolores Highfield. Staff members present included Tom Frazier, Ron Phillips, and Kathleen Reavis. Moved by Mr. Perlmutter, seconded by Mr. Johnson: To approve the May 1st meeting minutes as written. Motion passed unanimously. No public comment was heard. The Board discussed various possibilities for action that could be taken with regard to the Timberline extension alignment proposal. It was decided that each member present would express a brief summary of their thoughts on the project. Staff would then draft a letter compiling those thoughts, and the draft letter could be commented upon by the Board at the June 5th meeting. A revision of the letter would then be delivered to Council in a supplemental packet for their consideration when making a determination on the Timberline project on June 11th. The attending Board members thoughts were expressed as follows: Mr. Perlmutter stated that he favors Option C. He believes it is the correct long-term solution and is necessary in terms of growth and traffic flow. He does not believe that Option A is politically viable and feels Option B is short-sighted. He added that Timberline will be another north/south arterial that will relieve some of the pressures on the existing north/south arterials, and if this project is not undertaken now, it will simply be more expensive in five or ten years. He also stated that little development exists for Option B or C. However, as the city grows eastward, additional development could occur along Mulberry, and now would be the time to act on development decisions. Mr. Valentine stated that he supports Option C also for the same reasons. Transportation Board Minutes May 15, 1996 Page 2 Ms. Highfield stated that she had previously strongly supported Option A and still is unsure exactly which option she supports. She noted that she utilizes 1-25 to commute daily and eliminate time spent traveling through town, and feels that route works well. She feels Option B would be a poor choice for safety reasons at the Mulberry intersection. She added that Option C would probably be the best choice but reiterated that she has not completely made up her mind on the issue. Mr. Egeland stated that he supports Option C. He noted that with Option B, the problem is simply being moved up a mile, and it would be a waste of money. He also believes Option A is not politically viable. He added that he supports Option C but would really like to see in writing that there will be a connection with the trail system. He also would like to see pedestrian improvements put in at this time because if they are not built now, he feels they never will be built. He also believes potential problems exist even with Option C due to the amount of traffic that will be turning onto Mulberry for downtown access. Ms. Frazier stated that she supports Option C. She feels that Option B has safety problems. She noted that she is somewhat uncomfortable with statements such as, "We can do this." She would like to have those statements be, "We will do this." She also would like to have a park -and -ride located somewhere in the area. She added that this project can and should be done properly to show the citizens of Fort Collins the proper way of developing a transportation corridor. Mr. Johnson stated he favors the option of giving the proposal back to the citizens to focus on and vote on again. He noted that a petition is being drawn up and will be sent out for citizen signatures to put the issue on the ballot in November. He said the 1989 process was deeply flawed due to the fact that when it was voted on, the issue was from Prospect to Summitview, but the funding that was associated with it was for Prospect to Mulberry, which was a significant difference. He believes it is worth reminding the citizens that such a flawed process will not take place in the future. He stated that with regard to transportation and development in the northeast, growth will happen. However, a policy in the city has been adopted that growth should be paying its own way. He believes the issue should be looked at again separately by the citizens as opposed to Council making the decision. Mr. Johnson also stated that an additional north/south arterial would increase ease in moving people to the south. He noted that the east/west transportation is very bad, and increased ease in traveling to the south will make it harder for the Transportation Board Minutes May 15, 1996 Page 3 businesses in the northeast to develop and function. Therefore, he feels it is much more important to make a connection with 1-25. Mr. Egeland questioned the possibility of annexing the project into the city limits so the City Design Standards would be applicable to the Timberline project. Mr. Phillips noted that Staff has met with some of the proponents and opponents of the project. The proponents were asked if there would be any possibility of them examining the issue of annexation for the business area along Mulberry and out to Timberline and perhaps beyond. He felt that Staff gained acceptance to the Northeast Business Association taking a look at that possibility. The association will be surveying their members and discussing the option at meetings. Mr. Phillips also stated that the intention is to secure repayment agreements that go in place to require developers to repay the City for their share of the cost of the improved Timberline roadway. Mr. Phillips also noted a few options that are being considered as part of the Capital Improvements Program in regards to examining alignments in various areas. He stated that if the Timberline project is built, it will tie into Summitview. The route of Summitview and Vine over to College could be a possible truck route that would bypass Riverside and Jefferson and still come out on North College and continue out on 287. Mr. Egeland questioned the possibility of such a route obliviating the need for the Lemay rebuild. Mr. Phillips stated that the route may mitigate the need for such an extensive rebuild. He added that no opportunity to turn onto Vine would be developed, therefore, perhaps making the route less expensive than the Lemay rebuild proposal. Mr. Phillips noted the route is simply an idea at this point and has no data to support it yet. Staff stated that they would draw up a letter outlining the majority view of the Timberline project. Mr. Johnson stated that he would develop a letter outlining the minority view of the project. Attempts would be made to contact members not present to obtain their opinions. Ms. Reavis addressed the Board concerning the Pedestrian Plan. She noted that the next focus group meeting would be held on May 16th at the Senior Center. She also noted the open house which would be held on May 29th. Mr. Moe suggested that the plan be brought back for at least one more presentation to the Board. He noted that many different components are tied into the plan such Transportation Board Minutes May 15, 1996 Page 4 as the developments of the street standards on what the cross -sections would be and development of level of service standards. Mr. Moe discussed the pedestrian goals which were outlined in the Board's packet. He noted research had been undertaken concerning what other cities are implementing, and goals for multi -modal transportation were extracted out of one draft of the City Plan. A meeting was then held with the Pedestrian Advisory Committee and suggestions on consolidation were made to develop the draft contained in the Board's packet. The material will be presented again to the Pedestrian Advisory Committee on the 16th of May, and comments were solicited from the Board concerning the information received on the pedestrian goals. In response to questioning, Mr. Moe stated that the key to the first goal is that the pedestrian should be at a level equal to other modes of transportation. Ms. Reavis added that the intent of the goal was to prevent planning of the pedestrian piece after a project is laid out. Mr. Perlmutter stated that he was uncomfortable with the word "equal" in the goal. He suggest perhaps the word should be changed to "balanced." He noted that he agrees with the philosophy but feels that equality will not be had in terms of priority in some funding. Mr. Moe suggested that the word change be raised at the Pedestrian Advisory Committee meeting. He added that the last bulleted item dealt with funding issues rather than the philosophical idea outlined in the first goal. Mr. Egeland suggested somehow implementing an aspect of accessibility in perhaps changing neighborhoods so they are built in such a way that one does not have to go out of their way to access an arterial. He also expressed concern that the key in making this plan happen lies not only in passing the plan but also in changing funding. Mr. Valentine noted by way of example the elimination of pedestrian access when snow is piled up in front of the bus stops. He added that that is part of the level of service and how that service should be provided for access. Mr. Moe noted that those issues are addressed in the goals that discuss promoting the mix of uses to maximize the potential for pedestrianization. Mr. Phillips suggest consideration for the third from the last goal to say something such as, "Develop pedestrian standards that promote porosity activity and safe pedestrian linkages." Mr. Moe discussed the sidewalk standards and gave the Board handouts showing various diagrams of possible streettsidewalk layouts. He noted that a more formal presentation of what the streets will look like will be given perhaps at the next Board Transportation Board Minutes May 15, 1996 Page 5 meeting. He stated the diagrams and information received by the Board was the result of a great deal of compromise arising from discussion between the different areas of engineering and the development community in the city. Mr. Moe pointed out that the arterial intersections in the past have been developed to be more auto friendly, and the radius of the turns has increased over time. The new proposal will narrow the radius somewhat, and that will become a plus from the pedestrian standpoint. Mr. Egeland questioned whether landscaping had been considered for the separated grass areas. Mr. Moe replied that the City Forester is working on details of what trees are acceptable, the distance between them, and the appearance of the landscaping. He noted that it is a compromise of all the issues in terms of safety and appearance. Ms. Reavis added that lighting has also been considered in the same regard in an effort to ensure sufficient lighting for both vehicles and pedestrians. Mr. Moe discussed the last issue in the plan concerning pedestrian levels of service. He stated that under the Congestion Management Plan, a recommendation was made that levels of service be developed for all modes of transportation. He stated that some key issues exist: connectivity, how to reach your connection; and continuity, developing a continuous stream of opportunities to reach different destinations. Mr. Moe stated that concerning the issue of connectivity, a set of standards were developed to outline the level of service. He pointed out that a connection could be made to another location, such as a bus stop, by developing a "pedestrian way," independent of the roadway, perhaps through the back of a cul-de-sac, et cetera. He noted that if a connection was made, a developer could meet the level of service standards set forth. Mr. Moe pointed out that the issue of street crossing is also important to consider. He noted four types of issues exist that are being studied: Signalized and unsignalized intersections; issues surrounding crossing a major street and a minor street; mid -block crossing; and security. Ms. Reavis noted that a work session will be held with City Council on the 28th of May to discuss the plan, and the hope is to bring the overall plan back for approval Transportation Board Minutes May 15, 1996 Page 6 in July. In the interest of time, a decision was made to make further comments regarding the Pedestrian Plan to Ms. Reavis or Mr. Moe outside of the meeting. Mr. Frazier gave the Board draft copies of the parking study which included the downtown summary, the existing financial overview, and the neighborhood study. He noted that no recommendations had been made on the downtown summary or the financial overview, but the recommendation for the neighborhood draft is for some type of residential permit system. Mr. Frazier added that Council will hear the parking issue on the 28th of May. He also pointed out that the parking issue will be dealt with by Board member subcommittee, and therefore, is not scheduled to come back to the Board on a formal basis unless such is recommended by the subcommittee. Mr. Frazier stated that the Street Design Standards are still in draft form at this point. The standards contain every cross-section, and the Board will receive a copy of that in their next packet. Mr. Frazier noted that a Board meeting has been set up for July 3rd. He questioned whether the Board wanted to meet on that night. Mr. Johnson suggested holding the Board meetings for July on the 10th and the 24th instead. Mr. Phillips stated he did not foresee any problem with that suggestion. Mr. Frazier stated that a couple of reports and letters have been generated concerning Dial -a -Ride. He added that an evaluation has been undertaken on the Dial -a -Ride issue, and the major part of the recommendation from the Senior Advisory Board was, again, to set up a board to deal with just Transit and Transit issues. Mr. Frazier noted that the letters and updates on that issue will be contained in the Board's next packet. Mr. Valentine pointed out that on July 10th the Board will have to allow time in their agenda to hold an election for chair. Mr. Frazier stated that in the interest of time at the next meeting, Staff will distribute the Timberline letter early so Board members can read it and make comments before the meeting if they would like. Mr. Johnson moved adjournment. Ms. Highfield seconded the motion. With no objections, the meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m.