Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTransportation Board - Minutes - 03/17/2021 TRANSPORTATION BOARD TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR March 17, 2021, 6:00 p.m. Virtual Meeting Via Zoom 3/17/2021 – MINUTES Page 1  FOR REFERENCE: Chair: Indy Hart Vice Chair: Council Liaison: Nathalie Rachline Kristin Stephens Staff Liaison: Aaron Iverson 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Hart called the meeting to order at 6:04 PM. 2. ROLL CALL BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Indy Hart, Chair Nathalie Rachline, Vice Chair Jerry Gavaldon York Cari Brown Rob Owens Diego Lopez Kevin Borchert (arrived late) BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Matt Liberati CITY STAFF PRESENT: Cameron Gloss PUBLIC PRESENT: None 3. AGENDA REVIEW Iverson stated there were no changes to the published agenda. 4. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION None. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – FEBRUARY 2021 Gavaldon made a motion, seconded by York, to approve the February 2021 minutes as corrected. The motion was adopted unanimously. TRANSPORTATION BOARD TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR 3/17/2021 – MINUTES Page 2  6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. 7. NEW BUSINESS a. Chair and Vice Chair Elections – Action Item – All Chair Hart made a motion, seconded by Brown, to nominate Rachline as Chair. Rachline stated she would be interested in the position. York made a motion, seconded by Gavaldon, to close the nominations for Chair. Rachline commented on the importance of getting transportation to the top of the priority list given the upcoming changes to the Council make-up. Rachline made a motion, seconded by Chair Hart, to nominate Brown for Vice Chair. Brown stated she would be interested in the position. Gavaldon nominated York for Vice Chair. York stated he would prefer Brown take the position if she is interested. Gavaldon made a motion, seconded by Owens, to close the nominations for Vice Chair. Members agreed Chair Hart should finish out this meeting as Chair. Chair Hart congratulated Rachline and Brown on their nominations. b. Transportation Board Recommendations to City Council on a Proposed Residential Metro District Evaluation System – Action Item – Cameron Gloss Cameron Gloss, Planning Manager, stated staff has been going through a process for about two years to develop a new evaluation system for residential metro districts. He noted the City lifted a prohibition on residential metro districts in 2018. He outlined the characteristics of metro districts noting they are quasi-governmental entities permitted by state law and their primary role is to build and provide operations and maintenance for infrastructure. Gloss stated the City opted to allow residential metro districts contingent upon the district providing extraordinary public benefits that align with adopted City policy. Gloss stated a district service plan is the official document that creates a district, and that approval is solely at the discretion of City Council. He outlined the benefits of creating a metro district stating they can finance development of infrastructure at tax exempt interest rates through bonds and the cost can be spread over time. The beneficiaries are the residents of the district itself. Gloss provided more detail on the City’s adopted metro district policy which allows for TRANSPORTATION BOARD TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR 3/17/2021 – MINUTES Page 3  a cap on the amount of indebtedness and a minimum debt authorization of $7 million. Additionally, he noted the City’s policy prohibits the use of eminent domain and Fort Collins is the only community in Colorado that has the public benefit criterion for approval. Gloss outlined the adopted plans that are being used to measure extraordinary benefit, including those related water efficiency and energy policy. He stated there are three components to the evaluation system: housing, neighborhood livability, and energy and water conservation, and he noted categories are weighted with greater emphasis on areas that will reduce the cost burden to residents as property owners will pay additional property tax that is dedicated to retiring the bonds. Gloss provided additional detail on the evaluation system components, specifically housing affordability. Chair Hart requested the definition of AMI. Gloss replied it is area median income. Chair Hart stated Gavaldon has expressed concern in the group chat about metro districts surprising homeowners with the high taxes and has suggested 15% affordability could be required to make the benefit extraordinary. Gloss replied consumer protection has been the basis of some staff recommendations and he will provide additional detail at the end of the presentation. Gloss discussed the need for middle-sized housing in the community and further detailed water conservation and energy efficiency components. Regarding neighborhood livability, Gloss stated there are four major categories: transportation and transit, neighborhood amenities, the natural environment, and health, culture, and education. He stated the transportation and transit category includes allotting points for the key provisions of an off-site bicycle or pedestrian recreational trail that connects to the public system, improvements to the street to increase the quality of the bicycle and pedestrian network, having level 3 charging stations for electric vehicles, and having access to on-site services, among others. Brown asked what would prevent a developer from putting in an off-site bicycle trail connection or community market and not maintaining it or letting it fail. Gloss replied there are enforcement mechanisms for all improvements and metro district include operations and maintenance funding. Regarding a failed essential neighborhood service, Gloss replied he would believe the metro district would need to meet its minimum points total in another way. He noted the points would need to be met in perpetuity. Gloss noted Fort Collins’ development standards are high and metro districts require those standards to be even higher. York stated it seems five points is relatively easy to acquire and asked about the justification for that number. Gloss replied there is a desire to not stack the metro TRANSPORTATION BOARD TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR 3/17/2021 – MINUTES Page 4  districts with so many amenities that lead to exceptionally expensive housing without the benefits to the consumer in terms of efficiency, which is why the housing and efficiency components are more heavily weighted. York asked if metro districts need five points in each of the component areas or five points total. Gloss replied metro districts need five points within neighborhood livability, ten points for water efficiency, a to be determined amount for energy conservation, and five points for housing. He commented on the goal of finding a balance that benefits the consumer and provides a fair and equitable system for developers. (**Secretary’s Note: Kevin Borchert joined the meeting at this point.) Gloss commented on the emphasis on improving the transparency for purchasers citing recent issues with metro districts in the Denver area. He noted a disclosure in the title work would be required for all properties within a metro district and that disclosure would spell out basic parameters including the amount of indebtedness that can be incurred, what the average property tax would be based on the assessed value, and a comparison of a property within the district versus one not in a district. Chair Hart requested additional information regarding transparency for consumers noting Gavaldon has expressed concern realtors have not done a good job in sharing details to buyers regarding metro district tax increases. Gloss replied a comparison of property taxes showing their increase over time for a metro district will be helpful for consumers. He noted it would be difficult to ensure realtors provide accurate information. Gavaldon expressed concern the metro district taxes will price out buyers and he commented on ensuring realtors are transparent with buyers. Rachline stated she would like to have the Transportation Plan referenced specifically as are other plans. She also expressed concern the impact of transportation and transit on any development is underrepresented with this system. Brown commented on an acquaintance in another city who had to move due to unexpected increasing metro district costs. Chair Hart expressed disappointment about the concept in general stating it appears metro districts hide financial information that will negatively affect the consumer in the future with unexpected costs. He stated he would like to see a better balance between benefits to developers and consumers. He stated it should be difficult for developers to get large incentives and it should not be difficult for the consumer to understand how expensive it will be for them to live in a place that has extra amenities. York asked if metro districts can use extra points in one category to offset lacking points in another category. Gloss replied the system is designed such that the TRANSPORTATION BOARD TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR 3/17/2021 – MINUTES Page 5  minimum number of points within each category is required and no bonus points can be shared between categories. York encouraged making that information clearer at the beginning of the presentation. He asked about the disclosure and title work noting it may be too late for the consumer to find this information in title work at closing. Gloss replied that was discussed as being an issue. Gavaldon commented on the typical real estate transaction process noting there is no provision for metro districts to get information out to potential buyers. He stated he has been encouraging realtors to include a separate contract deadline for metro district documents that would occur similarly to HOA documents early enough in the process to allow a buyer to terminate the contract. Chair Hart asked if there is any incentive for developers to go above the minimum number of points. Gloss replied in the negative but noted any metro district approval remains at the discretion of Council. Chair Hart suggested using statements such as ‘protect the consumer’ indicates the activity or idea is something from which the consumer needs to be protected; therefore, it may not necessarily be safe for consumers. Rachline asked about the process moving forward given the presentation before Council was postponed, and whether Boards and Commissions input will be taken into account. Gloss replied this project will be going before Council on April 20th and the Planning and Zoning Board will entertain a revised proposal on April 1st with the main change being in the energy conservation metrics. The Energy Board will be considering those revisions on April 8th. Gloss stated staff has been providing minutes of all Boards and Commissions meetings to Council and some Boards have elected to write a summary letter. Rachline asked if any changes to the presentation based on the Board’s concerns related to the lack of emphasis on transit and transportation will be made. Gloss replied specific comments related to changes would be helpful. Rachline asked if the Board wanted to make a formal motion to provide a recommendation regarding the lack of focus on transit and transportation in the policy. Chair Hart suggested various transportation and transit related items that could be included in the evaluation system including clearly defining bike and walk friendly street design and having metro districts expand on that and having a recreational trail within the limits of the metro district. Gloss stated the City’s level of service standards already require on-site trails and other types of pedestrian systems and the hope is for metro district projects to go above and beyond the standards. TRANSPORTATION BOARD TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR 3/17/2021 – MINUTES Page 6  Gavaldon asked if trails in a metro district would be open to the public. Gloss replied trails are typically located in dedicated public access easements. York suggested the recreational trail could be identified as a human-powered transportation trail rather than solely a recreational trail, or that additional human- powered transportation trails could be added as an extraordinary benefit. He stated he would be opposed to private bus systems and suggested a metro district could buy into the Transfort system and include that as an extraordinary benefit. Gloss noted any development regardless of metro district status would be required to provide transit stops and connectivity to that stop through the development. York asked if it would be possible for a development to have a dedicated bus service provided through Transfort. Gloss replied that would need to be a question for Transfort but noted large-scale infrastructure improvements cannot fit within this type of a system. Rachline expressed concern those issues would never be addressed and stated there must be a way to define objectives related to livability and extraordinary benefits. She stated the policy must include accessibility to transit and she commented on the need to include additional focus on transit in the policy. Gloss noted the Transportation Master Plan outlines transit routes, and the City has the ability to require developers to provide public improvements such as transit stops and connections thereto if the development is on an existing or proposed transit route. Iverson stated he could work with Gloss on language around human-powered off- street transportation trails. He noted transit is primarily funded by the general fund from the City side and CSU pays the City to run their transit system. He concurred with Gloss’ description of developments being required to provide transit stops. Chair Hart suggested the language related to the expansion of adjacent natural habitats could also be applied to transit and transportation. Owens noted walkable streets are only helpful in reducing vehicle miles travelled if there are amenities within walking distance and he asked how zoning plays a role if a development is solely residential. Gloss replied City Plan aims to have services near where people live and work; however, it is easier to provide the opportunity to provide neighborhood center amenities than to mandate what shall be provided. He also commented on the trend toward extremely large supermarkets. Chair Hart commented on the importance of understanding metro districts can provide an opportunity embrace challenge. Owens asked how density is considered. Gloss replied Fort Collins was one of the first cities in the United States to establish minimum density requirements in developing areas; however, no one wants that density near them, which is a TRANSPORTATION BOARD TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR 3/17/2021 – MINUTES Page 7  challenge. He noted there would be a great deal of efficiency in constructing buildings taller than five stories in the downtown area; however, it is not cost effective for developers to do so. Chair Hart commented on the need for consumers to embrace the challenge that comes with density in order to have affordability. Gloss requested the Board be as specific as possible with comments it would like forwarded to Council. Chair Hart stated this is a great opportunity for the Board to summarize transportation-related suggestions to be encapsulated in the metro district policy and therefore drive forward standards. York stated this is a good opportunity for Council to weigh in on Transfort developing a plan on how it can incorporate money coming from a metro district to help with routes and service expansion. Chair Hart commented on incorporating existing trails through metro district areas. Iverson replied the Code already requires a developer to build their part of a trail, or at least set aside land, if the regional trail system plan shows a trail going through or adjacent to any development site. He discussed the example of Montava’s trail amenities. Chair Hart commented on providing facilities or areas for people who are using alternate modes of transportation to be able to do something. Gloss suggested the possibility of including a catch-all category of ‘general transportation innovation’ that would allow for points to be allotted for attributes that are not specifically listed. Lopez discussed ‘future-proofing’ for charging stations. Gavaldon asked if private streets would be allowed in metro districts. Gloss replied if they were part of a district, they would need to be maintained by the metro district. He noted level of service standards are required to be met for all modes of transportation. Gavaldon noted private streets may not be conducive to bike and walk-friendly design and if metro districts will lose a point if they use private streets. Gloss replied the intention is that the street design will surpass the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards cross sections and that all modes of transportation on all streets meet the level of service standards. Lopez requested assurance equity is being addressed, both for low-income and mobility-challenged individuals. Gloss replied ADA standards must be met. Lopez suggested anything dealing with resiliency could be a good inclusion and asked how road maintenance is addressed. Gloss replied metro districts ensure road maintenance for their duration. He also noted all electric service is undergrounded TRANSPORTATION BOARD TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR 3/17/2021 – MINUTES Page 8  and bicycle parking is already required. He commented on the requirements for energy and water conservation which aim to reduce costs for the consumer while also challenging the thinking about water use moving into the future. He stated metro districts likely address resiliency better than standard developments. Chair Hart commented on the possibility of providing off-street access to schools. York suggested that could be included for all types of public amenities. Chair Hart stated he would like the public amenities to be more specific to include things like libraries and shared community spaces. Gloss noted those items may need to be addressed on a case-by-case basis and suggested they be included in that ‘transportation innovation’ category. York summarized the Board’s suggestions and comments. Owens reiterated transportation relates to energy savings and noted a metro district can meet the criteria without any transportation items being addressed. Chair Hart commented on energy savings being examined from the global impact level rather than just the consumer’s pocketbook level. York stated he is comfortable with staff taking the Board’s comments to Council without the formation of an official memo. Gavaldon and Rachline agreed. Gloss reiterated the Board provided a greater degree of specificity during the discussion which will aid in staff moving this forward to Council. 8. BOARD MEMBER REPORTS Gavaldon reported on a conversation with Councilmember Gutowsky during which she mentioned wanting to listen to and assist the Board assuming she is successful in her election bid. He also commended the snow removal from the recent storm but noted some sidewalks have yet to be cleared. Chair Hart commended the City’s effort with snow removal and the reliability of City utilities. York also commended the City’s snow plowing and removal efforts. He reported on the recent Planning and Zoning Board work session during which metro districts and the lighting code were discussed. Additionally, the Board discussed the Saving Places conference call about saving historic places around the state. He stated the Board will be discussing the wireless telecommunications master plan at its next work session and asked if anyone would be able to attend that meeting. Gavaldon volunteered to attend. Borchert stated he is taking the healthy homes training through the City and commented on a pedestrian signal button being blocked by snow. Iverson replied the snow crews are working through getting sidewalks and ramps after streets. Brown commended snow plowing efforts. TRANSPORTATION BOARD TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR 3/17/2021 – MINUTES Page 9  Rachline commented on snow plowing stating there are some remaining hazardous issues, particularly for pedestrians. She also stated nothing has changed with the situation regarding cars backing up at Raising Cane’s. Iverson replied their redevelopment plans are currently in the process. York questioned why signage could not be used to direct traffic to the back rather than having an entire redevelopment plan. Gavaldon noted that issue came up at a listening session with one of the mayoral candidates. York thanked Chair Hart for his service as Chair. Lopez reported on the Colorado Energy Office promoting a new electrification plan and surveying medium- and heavy-duty fleets for electrification. Chair Hart commented on his term as Chair and stated he is looking forward to being a board member. 9. OTHER BUSINESS a. Bicycle Advisory Committee Report Gavaldon stated there was no report given last month’s joint meeting. b. City Council 6-Month Calendar Review Iverson stated metro districts are on the April 20th agenda and the new Council will be sworn in on April 27th. c. Staff Liaison Report Regarding the April agenda, Iverson stated the Engineering Department has requested to come before the Board regarding potential changes to the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards. He also stated there may be a discussion about initial budget offers. Iverson discussed his conversation with Parks Planning about the Poudre Trail and stated the plan is for the trail to cross the new bridge at the whitewater park, go north of the river, then under Linden. He also noted he included crash data about the Magnolia/Canyon/Sherwood intersection in the chat and no crashes have occurred since 2014. York asked if Courtney has started as the new Active Modes Manager. Iverson replied in the affirmative and stated work will begin soon on the Active Modes Plan. York asked if there are any updates on Bike to Work Day and Bike Month. Iverson replied the current plan is for Bike to Work Day to return this year. He also stated Open Streets will occur in the fall. TRANSPORTATION BOARD TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR 3/17/2021 – MINUTES Page 10  Gavaldon commended Chair Hart on his service as Chair and congratulated Rachline and Brown on their new roles. 10. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:49 p.m. by unanimous consent.