Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTransportation Board - Minutes - 11/19/2008APPROVED MEETING MINUTES of the TRANSPORTATION BOARD November 19, 2008 6:00 p.m. Community Room 215 North Mason Street Fort Collins, CO 80521 FOR REFERENCE: Chair: Gary Thomas 482-7125 Vice Chair: Ed Robert 2244864 Staff Liaison: Mark Jackson 416-2029 Administrative Support: Polly Bennett 224-6058 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Sara Frazier Bill Jenkins John Lund Kip McCauley Ed Robert Garry Steen Gary Thomas James Clausen Shane Miller Scott VanTatenhove CITY STAFF PRESENT: Mark Jackson, Transportation Group Director, 416.2029 Polly Bennett, Executive Administrative Assistant, 221.6601 David Kemp, Transportation Planning, 416.2411 Rick Richter, Engineering, 221.6798 Pete Wray, Advance Planning, 221.6754 Matt Wempe, Transportation Planning, 416.2040 Helen Migchelbrink, Engineering, 221.6340 Denise Weston, 217.8916 ABSENT: OTHERS INATTENDANCE Wade Troxell Vivian Armendariz, 308.6789 Sid Simonson Rick Price, 316.5238 John Ko, 484.6073 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chair Thomas at 6:00 p.m. with a quorum present. 2. AGENDA REVIEW The Agenda was approved unanimously. 3. PUBLIC COMMENT Rick Price addressed the Board about the Bicycle Advisory Committee. Please see www.platinumbikeplan.bloesoot.com. Council couldn't make the BAC happen quickly enough because it required a Code change. The idea for the committee came out of a conversation Mr. Price had with David Roy. It was initially thought of as a sub -committee of the Transportation Board with members from other advisory boards. A collaborative sub -committee was suggested by David Roy. Mr. Price asks the Board to give it their blessing. Approved Regular Meeting Minutes Page 2 November 19, 2008 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (October 2008) Steen moved to approve the October 2008 Transportation Board meeting minutes. Frazier seconded. The motion carried unanimously. 5. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORT Wade Troxell, Council Liaison Councilman Troxell was unable to attend. 6. ACTION ITEMS a. I-25/SH392 1601 Process Update - Richter Migchelbrink: Rick Richter was selected as the new Manager for Capital Projects for Engineering. Richter: I've been working on the 1601 process for -just under a year, although the process has been ongoing for a lot longer. The interchange is failing. Structurally it is not failing. Additional traffic in the area will pose a huge problem. Pete Wray from Advance Planning is also here, and worked on the plan. The City Council and Windsor Town Boards have met twice and want to move this process along. The developer who was initially involved pulled out, but the Council/Board want to move ahead. We will go to Council in January for approval. The 1601 Process allows us to move the interchange from the I-25 Environmental Impact Study. The North I-25 Draft EIS will be complete in 2010. It is a required process anytime an interchange is built or modified. We will arrive at an enhanced design so we know what it will cost, NEPA clearance will be pursued, and a finance plan will be developed. We want to update you on the project and if you are comfortable, we would like you to recommend approval to Council. Jenkins: Depending on which option is chosen for the DEIS, does it affect this? Richter: We are designing it to fit either option. Three phase process: 1) Remove Interchange from the EIS; 2) FHWA Interstate Access Request; 3) Local and CDOT Implementation Outcomes: 1) clearance from the Transportation Commission; 2) NEPA Clearance; 3) IGA between CDOT, Town of Windsor, and City of Fort Collins that will define preliminary and final design steps. Design: "Tight Diamond" design consistent with the North I-25 DEIS. Minimizes environmental impacts while providing safe and efficient traffic operations. The "Tight Diamond" allows a buffer for the natural area. Robert: So there will be four sets of signals? Jackson: That I what is the already, but they will be spread out further apart. Robert: Was a roundabout considered? Jackson: Yes, all alternatives were considered, but dismissed. NEPA Clearance (categorical exclusion) is expected to be completed by December with documentation included in the 1601 package submitted to CDOT Transportation Commission in January. Approved Regular Meeting Minutes November 19, 2008 Page 3 Jackson: Even though Categorical Exclusion is less onerous, it doesn't mean less analysis was done. It received more attention than it normally would. Richter: It results in a much lesser impact to the wetlands. Resource Areas Investigated: Air/Noise Wetlands/Water Quality Wildlife/T&E Species Vegetation/Noxious Weeds Mitigation Proposed: Wetlands Prairie Dogs Hazardous Materials Best Management Practices Thomas: Why was the middle version selected? Richter: We wanted to stay in the footprint of the EIS, which eliminated the west option. CDOT thinks we should use the EIS for the purpose of the 1601 process. Wray: We were looking at 3 alternatives a year ago, and there was a lot of discussion on the pros and cons of each. There were concerns about any plan moving it further west. Lund: Are the prairie dogs on public or private property? Richter: Private property. Lund: If the frontage road was moved to the west, how much would it cost Richter: The location of the interchange will be permanent. The frontage road alignment could change but there isn't a lot of investment in the design of the frontage road. Lund: Since it is zoned commercial, putting it in the center is costing us in terms of development potential. Richter: It would leave a larger parcel if it is move closer to either the interstate or the wetlands. Development will dictate what ultimately happens, but the frontage will need to be within the EIS footprint. Financial Update CDOT: there needs to be a viable financing plan in the submittal. We've come down to three viable plans. Different triggers affect them. Development may dictate which one we end up with. All Stakeholders have a financial responsibility and all property owners recognize the benefit. Robert: Is this estimate for 2012? Richter: The estimate will look at current dollars and be advanced to construction. We're talking percentages and the splits right now. Once we get a final estimate we'll have a price. Schedule and Milestone Decisions: Three year window after completion of 1601 Process. December Work Session: Review 1601 Package; further discussion on financial plan and implementation. January Hearings: Resolution approving the 1601 package for submission to CDOT Transportation Commission. Jackson: The Council's goal is to hit the March 2009 deadline. The urgency is the $1.9 million that CDOT has for this interchange. They are ready to dedicate that money to design once this is approved by the Commission. Approved Regular Meeting Minutes November 19, 2008 Page 4 VanTatenhove. What do we know about the type of development that can go into the northwest quadrant? Wray: Mixed -use commercial designation including office, retail, services and residential. We hope for high -quality architecture, site planning, and design, while minimizing impacts to important natural resources. VanTatenhove: Southwest quadrant is open. Would Loveland be involved? Jackson: No. That is part of the separator. Miller: At what point does the City of Fort Collins have to contribute funds. Jackson: CDOT is looking for conditional approval by the Transportation Commission. Fort Collins isn't on the hook until construction. Robert: Where do the funds come from? General fund? Jackson: That is a discussion that Council will have. It isn't defined yet. McCauley: If the area gets heavily developed, traffic congestion will follow. Jackson: The Tight Diamond is designed for a 25 year threshold. Thomas: In our last review, we asked to see transit commitment in this. Where does that stand? Richter: It is included in the EIS. Park and Rides are identified. The key for us it to accommodate the transit piece that comes in as I-25 is developed. Jackson: Council heard your comments. What we committed to Council was that we would 1) make sure that the design of the interchange and 1601 process would not preclude transit from being incorporated into future development of the area; 2) incorporate a regional transit analysis in conjunction with the transit plan being done. Miller Each capital project we do requires a commitment of resources from the City's budget and the taxpayers who use the facility. The question is, where is the allocation of capital that will pay for the improvements that will transition us to having more usable transit available so air quality and the use of fossil fuels isn't perpetuated. Thomas: The RTA had transit included in everything. It doesn't seem to be in this. Jackson: It requires rethinking and perhaps amendment of codes that govern how we do things. I think they will have more earnest discussion beginning in 2009 as part of the Transit Plan discussions. Thomas: What are you looking for tonight? Richter: To let them know that you were updated on the process and recommend approval. The cost estimate will change but everything else is complete. We need to go through the Work Session and hearing processes. Robert: Do we have the response from a year ago? . Thomas: Basically, we said we support the idea if there is a 10% provision for transit therein. Some members disagreed and we stated that. PanTatenhove: When the design comes in, we should weigh in on transit. McCauley: Could we recommend proceeding in a timely fashion to get the $1.9 million. Clausen: The 10% was an add -on. The supporters of that plan said it needed to be added on to that total budget. If you're in favor of that, it should be addressed now. Thomas: I tend to agree. The construction cost is going to be what it is. Jackson: There is nothing to prevent Windsor and Fort Collins from funding transit through a district or another mechanism. Richter: We are not limited to the three financial plan options. Jackson: We aren't tying down a preferred option with the 1601. We are showing that we have done the exploration. They realize there are a lot of twists and turns involved in the financial plan. Steen: Our intent is to remove a functionally disabled interchange and improve it. What we do with it beyond that seems to be a moot point. Richter: Building the interchange won't increase the trips. Surrounding development will. Jenkins: I was the one who didn't like it last time. The world has changed since then. What if only 10% of the anticipated development happens? Approved Regular Meeting Minutes November 19, 2008 Page 5 Jackson: Fundamentally, you have a broken interchange. Even if the forecast development doesn't happen, you still have a broken interchange. Jenkins: So what do we get out of it? Jackson: It is a major gateway for Fort Collins. If you live south of Harmony Road, you don't use Harmony Road to get to the interstate. Lund: Does Windsor charge the same kind of development impact fees as Fort Collins? Jackson: Windsor.began charging transportation impact fees in 2006(?). The development on the northeast corner was driving the PIF. They committed to keeping the conversation alive after the 1601 and talk about equitable and fair revenue sharing. Thomas: Windsor gets the most benefit from this. Why should we do a 50150 split instead of 90/10 or 80/20? Jackson: The Town Board and City Council began talking about it at their last meeting. Windsor's Board brought it up. Jenkins: If we're voting on finding funding, I don't see a problem. We should continue to pressure Council about transit. Weston: I also brought this to other Boards (Natural Resources Board, Air Quality Board, etc.) who expressed the same concern about providing a recommendation to Council. Councilman Manvel was at the NRAB tonight and said the Council will be reassured that the information was brought to the various boards and commissions and that the Council would just like to be advised of any concerns. Lund: I move that the Transportation recommends moving forward with the 1601 process to meet the March deadline with the caveat that there are significant questions relating to funding, transportation, transit, environmental impacts, and design that we would like to see. McCauley: It seems like the $1.9 million could disappear if we don't move forward. Should we recommend shooting for the March deadline? VanTatenhove: Second. Miller: As a practical matter, are we going to be able to have those issues addressed before we officially give Council our blessing? Jackson: If your question is, are we going to bring it back as part of the 1601 Process, probably not. We will bring it back during the design process. The joint Council/Town Board will see what you saw tonight, in December. Richter: The details will be in the preliminary design process. We will bring those to Boards and Commissions. Miller: At what point will there be new action by the City Council, the Transportation Board, or the Transportation Commission? Jackson: A year ago we thought it was locked down with development of the northeast quadrant. That isn't the case now. It will come back to this Board when they actually start talking about how to finance it. Both communities are interested in doing something sooner than later. I don't think it will come back in 2009. You will have a parallel opportunity as part of the CityPlan and Master Plan updates. Richter: Any financing package has to go through approval of Council. Clausen: The issue with this project is how the City still has to decide the mix of contribution. If Windsor has an equal part in the funding, it limits how we can fund the transit idea. This project is too narrow for addressing a transit philosophy. Based on the fact that there are two communities with different agendas for the interchange, our say is at best 50150. Miller: I don't think we need to tell Windsor what to do. We can recommend a set amount to go to transit. Clausen: I think it is a broader community issue. Lund: Wouldn't it be a policy change to dictate an amount to go to transit (i.e. APP). The motion passed with one dissenting vote (Miller). Miller: I don't understand at what point we will be able to address the caveats in an effective way. Approved Regular Meeting Minutes November 19, 2008 7. DISCUSSION ITEMS Page 6 a. Bicycle Advisory Committee Update - Kemp The first public meeting was held yesterday. See handout for public meeting schedule. The committee would involve a Code change allowing the Transportation Board to develop a subcommittee. Each Board would appoint a member, no decision on the at -large member. The first BAC meeting would be February 5, 2009. Robert: Would the committee be subject to the same legal parameters as we follow? DK: I assume it would function in the same way. Jackson: It would report back to the Transportation Board, and we would send input to Council. DK: Public feedback received yesterday: • There was concern that the committee would be primarily composed of City staff. No. I will be there to facilitate. • Two at -large community members isn't enough to represent the geographic interests of Fort Collins. They want to see 4, or 6. • Nice range of demographics. What about the fitness aspects of bicycling? • Retail aspects (17 bike shops in Fort Collins) • What about LEED certification of building and development? There is a transportation aspect to the LEED qualifications. Robert: It is all-inclusive, but we aren't. We address multi -modal transportation and using bikes for transportation. Things like the velodrome shouldn't come to our Board. It isn't transportation, it is entertainment. Bikes on trails aren't our purview. Trails are taken care of by Parks. I'm just concerned that they might come in with things that are not our purview. Thomas: We can recommend that they take those things to the proper venue. We can exercise our choice not to act on them. Jenkins: I went to the meeting last night. Rick Price had comments. The Collegian came out saying the public is angry about it. I'm not sure the people in the room last night sees it as a great idea unless we get some control over what is going on. Jackson: If the Board feels that the process is going too fast, it is your prerogative to send that message to Council. Remember, Council told DK they want it up and running by January. DK is working hard to make that deadline. If you feel rushed, send that message to Council. Lund: I still think a BAC gives disproportionate weight to one element of transportation. Steen: Our focus is multi -modal transportation. I think we can recommend that items relating to other Boards are made in conjunction with them. Jenkins: What are the odds that we'll get a member from every other Board? DK: Pretty good. The point made last night was that it could be beneficial to have both people who are avid bicyclists and those who aren't. Clausen: Membership of the Committee seems broad because of participation by the other Boards, but narrow because they would be predisposed to an avid support of bicycling. The involvement of other Board members dilutes the "biker on the street" contingent. It seems that the whole Committee should be at -large. DK: The rationale behind having Boards & Commissions members was to create cross- pollination of the existing Boards & Commissions to see where bicycling applies. Steen. The "man on the street" can still attend and comment, right? DK: Yes, there will be time for public input at the beginning of each meeting. Miller: It may be seen as insular because of the size. How did you react to the citizen input that the positions are filled by existing Board & Commission members? DK: It will take some education to get people to understand that Board members are citizens. Thomas: The Committee "sunsets" in five years anyway. The Council or Transportation Board could change it. VanTatenhove: Would you bring things to us for the Committee and also report to us if you disagree? Approved Regular Meeting Minutes November 19, 2008 Page 7 DK: Absolutely. Robert: I assume we won't be required to report our bike related items to the BAC. Thomas. A few years ago Staff took an item to Council that didn't come to the T-Board first and got directed not to do that again. Miller. We probably wouldn't act on items unless we have input from them. Thomas: One thing DK wants input from us on is how to appoint at -large members. Clausen: I like the way we do this Board. Have the Council appoint them since it would be an advisory committee similar to ours, but reporting through ours. Thomas: There is a committee on Transit that recruits its own members. Steen: All of the other Committee members are appointed by Council. McCauley: I sympathize with the input of the public last night. Two at -large members doesn't seem like a lot in comparison to the number of Board members. Perhaps the Transportation Board member could be an at -large member instead since you report back to us. DK How often do you want us to report back? Thomas: We could add it as a line item on the agenda and there might or might not be a report. Clausen: If this Committee votes on its own action item do we also vote on it? How is it sent to Council? Thomas: With the result of our vote. DK. Term limits. 2-year limits for all members. Thomas: Make Council -appointed members 4 years. The Board representatives would rotate off with their Board term. DK: Why wouldn't the T-Board want to appoint their sub -committee members? McCauley: I think it adds a sense of legitimacy and fair standards to have the Council do it. Jackson: Go to Council with a proposed format and get their blessing to recruit. DK: After Monday's public meeting I will put together an updated proposal and send it to Gary to circulate to the Board for comment. December 3 is my AIS deadline. b. Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Update — Wempe/Wray We started the update in March and are presenting to Boards & Commissions. We are anticipating going to Council in March 2009 and will ask for your recommendation to Council in February 2009. Highlights/Key Issues of Existing 1999 Plan Extensive street network with improved traffic and bicycle connections Enhanced travel corridor at Conifer Ability to expand Vine Drive (1999 Plan Recommendation) Basic traffic forecasting with original analysis Large industrial/employment center Central community commercial district. Through this update we are getting close to acquiring land for the future park. Based on input received over the past year, we are going to address the key issues listed above with this update. The Anheuser-Busch merger was announced yesterday resulting in new name, Anheuser- Bush InBev. Assessment of Proposed Plan Altematives: Approved Regular Meeting Minutes November 19, 2008 Page 8 Wempe: Staff has received preliminary modeling results from consultants. An initial review of this data shows traffic volumes are within accepted levels for the streets described in the altematives. Costs Comparison for future Master Street Plan Improvements: Existing Master Street Plan $147.5 million Alternative A: $133.7 million Alternative B: $130.1 million Alternative C: $129.5 million This cost analysis includes the future cost to construct street oversizing, intersections, support facilities, and grade separated crossings. Implementation: Assess impacts of Adequate Public Facilities Standards Identification of costs for major public facilities Financing options for public improvements Master Street Plan amendment City Structure Plan amendment Park and Recreation Policy Master Plan amendment Next Steps: Council Work Session December 9 Input from Boards & Commissions Public Open Houses December 3 and in January We will bring this back to the Transportation Board for a recommendation February 18. Thomas: Is Mountain Vista the major corridor up there? Wray: Yes. East Vine, Timberline, and Mountain Vista are all planned for future major arterial streets. If we shift Vine Drive up north of its current alignment, staff is assessing that Vine Drive will , it will be the Enhanced Travel Corridor vs. Conifer street, connecting to downtown. There are three other enhanced corridors Mason, Timberline, Harmony. Robert: Lemay crosses the realigned Vine. What is there? Wray: Presently vacant land. We have seen potential conceptual plans for this area, but no development proposals have been formally submitted. Robert: Are you considering a roundabout there? Jackson: It is too early to know. Robert: You are looking at two signals within 450 feet if you don't. One at Conifer and one at the realigned Vine. Thomas: The alignment of Vine stays north until Timberline and then came down. Aren't there some platted developments there? Wray: That project expired. The owners met with Matt Baker several times. There is vacant property available now, providing a new opportunity for staff to assess the proposed Vine realignment through this area. Approved Regular Meeting Minutes November 19, 2008 Page 9 Clausen: What is the status on the school zoning? Are they still planning to put a school there? Wray: They are holding the property for long-term planning and are looking at putting 3 schools out there, elementary, junior high, and high school. We are also finalizing the park property acquisition (110 — 120 acres). Part of the park may be south of Mountain Vista, although we are talking with AB about locating it all on that property. Clausen: Do your models take into account the schools? Wray: Yes. Clausen: Is the Vine interchange part of this? Wray: We're modeling it with it and are keeping it on the Master Street Plan. S. BOARD MEMBER REPORTS Clausen: The new pavement at Mountain Vista is like marshmallows! Nice job! Jenkins: None. McCauley: None VanTatenhove: None. Lund: I was at a meeting with Kelly Ohlson and one issue that came up was the Front Range Village Development/parking by Keller Williams that is limited. There is a maximum requirement, but not a minimum. Why? Jackson: It is per City Plan to minimize parking for multi -modal purposes. Miller: None. Frazier: I attended the Safe Routes to School meeting last week. They will certainly add to our Platinum Biking Community goal. November 26 1 — 3, Kefalas meeting on Budget/Transportation. Robert: Looking ahead to next year, we need dedicated funding. I'd like us to learn about fiscal funding plans. Thomas: In the past we had a sub -group look at options. We could do it as a group or have a sub -group look at alternatives and report back. The funding issue really came to the forefront at the Governor's Blue Ribbon panel. The general population has no idea what we are facing. Steen: I attended the Harmony Open House last week. There was a very small turnout. Most of the concerns were about the schedule. Jackson: They hadn't been in front of those residents in about 9 months, so it was an update for them. Thomas: The finance committee of the Transit Plan is still meeting. I attended a meeting of the Rocky Mountain Rail Authority and will have David Averill come report next year. The BNSF line is considered too curvy for high-speed rail. 9. STAFF REPORTS — Mark Jackson: The North I-25 DEIS public open house had 70 people by the time I left to come to this meeting. Good representation. The formal comment period runs to December 30. You can make comments on line. Hard copies are at City Hall and one at the library on Peterson Street. Staff will be at the December 16 Work Session to discuss the funding gap. You are welcome to attend. We will set the context at this first meeting (state & federal funding problem). Second meeting on February 10'". There will be a third conversation with them mid -summer (we will be knee-deep in Budgeting for Outcomes and the Price of Government conversation). December dinner: Thursday, December 18, 6 pm at The Rustic Oven, downtown. Future meetines: January: Timothy Wilder — South College Corridor Plan February: Joe Olson will present Traffic Operations 101 at Traffic Operations. Plowing 101 - hold a meeting at the Deicing/Nerve Center at the Streets Department. Approved Regular Meeting Minutes November 19, 2008 10. OTHER BUSINESS None. 11. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, I w Polly BefAiett Executive Administrative Assistant Planning, Development & Transportation Page 10