Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTransportation Board - Minutes - 04/21/2021 TRANSPORTATION BOARD TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR April 21, 2021, 6:00 p.m. Virtual Meeting Via Zoom 4/21/2021 – MINUTES Page 1  FOR REFERENCE: Chair: Nathalie Rachline Vice Chair: Council Liaison: Cari Brown Susan Gutowsky Staff Liaison: Aaron Iverson 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Rachline called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM. 2. ROLL CALL BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Nathalie Rachline, Chair Cari Brown, Vice Chair Jerry Gavaldon Indy Hart York Rob Owens Diego Lopez Kevin Borchert BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None CITY STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buckman PUBLIC PRESENT: Kevin Krause 3. AGENDA REVIEW Iverson stated there were no changes to the published agenda. 4. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION None. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – MARCH 2021 Hart made a motion, seconded by Gavaldon, to approve the March 2021 minutes as amended. The motion was adopted unanimously. TRANSPORTATION BOARD TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR 4/21/2021 – MINUTES Page 2  6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. 7. NEW BUSINESS a. Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS) Update – Brad Buckman, Clint Jones (Larimer County Engineering), Justin Stone (City of Loveland), Shawn Keller (Keller Engineering) Brad Buckman, Interim City Engineer, stated the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS) are updated every five to eight years. He introduced the presenting team. Shawn Keller, Keller Engineering, stated LCUASS is a comprehensive set of urban design standards for engineering and construction in the public right-of-way and is used on private development projects as well as public engineering capital projects. He noted the standards are developed jointly between Larimer County and the Cities of Loveland and Fort Collins. Keller explained LCUASS is revised to stay current with policies and code changes, technology updates, and industry standards, for general housekeeping, and to respond to community input. He stated the last major revision was in 2007 and noted updates include major revision updates, or policy, and minor updates, which are technical revisions. He outlined ten of the proposed major revisions and provided details on the new buffered bike lane standards. Keller outlined the proposed adoption schedule for the updates with a goal for an effective date of August 1, 2021. Borchert asked how these standards compare to other counties. Keller replied he does a great deal of work in other Colorado jurisdictions and he has seen a number of them pull from LCUASS standards as they have been in effect for over 20 years and function very well. York asked if staff is looking for the Board to provide comments on whether the technical review can be done without public hearings. Keller replied that detail is specific to Larimer County only; Fort Collins and Loveland already make minor corrections administratively. He stated staff is seeking feedback and questions from the Board and this is more informative in nature. He stated the major revisions will go before Council for formal adoption. He stated many of the more minor changes are technical in nature. York stated the presentation was too general and he would prefer the Board receive additional details. Buckman stated there weren’t many policy revisions; however, some of the significant changes for Fort Collins include the raised bike lane as a new standard along with buffered and protected bike lane standards. He stated the other TRANSPORTATION BOARD TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR 4/21/2021 – MINUTES Page 3  significant policy revision is adding right-of-way to local and collector streets by adding parkway width and a 5-foot minimum sidewalk width. He noted the vast majority of the changes are technical in nature and not of major significance. Gavaldon expressed concern about the lack of information presented and noted many of the Boardmembers would like to see additional detail. He requested examples and data related to the protected bike lane buffers and asked what best practices are being used. He also requested additional information on the raised bike lanes and stated the Bicycle Advisory Committee should weigh in. Chair Rachline noted the BAC will see the presentation next week. Gavaldon requested the BAC not get the presentation without it having additional detail. Brown asked how the 7-16-7 cross-section proposed for residential streets differs from what exists currently. Keller replied the sidewalks and parkway are both wider; however, the flow-line to flow-line width is the same as the current standard. Hart requested more detail on the opinion of cost section and whether chapter 21 being reserved has always been the case. Keller replied chapter 21 has always been a placeholder and discussed the public improvement opinion of cost reference form which includes unit and item costs and is essentially a cost estimate. He stated the change made involved items being added to the list. Hart asked about an item that seems to allow a workaround if an intersection does not or could not meet standards. Keller replied the link volume requirements for level of service are being removed in Loveland only as it is an outdated way of addressing level of service and CDOT does not require link volume calculations in traffic studies. Additionally, alternative mitigation strategies is also a Loveland item that allows some flexibility for other types of improvements that may be desired while still not meeting level of service. Chair Rachline suggested a document such as this should take into account what is needed to make the standards more amenable to transit. Keller replied it is difficult to write standards that cover everything and many cities do corridor studies to provide more detail in terms of transit, bike, and multi-modal needs and appropriate design. He stated the best way for a standard to try to capture multi-modal is to allow flexibility for staff. Chair Rachline stated having a schedule that allows standards to be revised or revisited should mean multi-modal and transit standards are included. Iverson replied there are existing standards that get at multi-modal alternatives that are not reflected in these revisions and there are level of service standards for bikes, pedestrians, and transit that all must be met. He stated the multi-modal level of service standards will likely be updated as part of the bike and pedestrian plan update. York noted the entire system of transportation needs to be examined, not just a TRANSPORTATION BOARD TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR 4/21/2021 – MINUTES Page 4  specific corridor. Keller replied these updates are updating what has already been in place. He noted that within chapter 4, traffic impact studies, there are already criteria based upon the project and location that require taking into account connectivity for transit, bikes, and pedestrians. Iverson noted there are a lot of details related to the size of a development and how it impacts the larger system. He noted Traffic Operations oversees traffic impact studies and that staff could provide a more detailed presentation. Hart stated his feedback would be to encourage anyone receiving this presentation to read the document ahead of time. He commended the summary and stated the changes make sense. Chair Rachline agreed the Board may want to see a more detailed presentation on traffic impact studies and suggested a follow-up session on this may be helpful. She stated a motion related to whether a letter should be drafted to Council could also be considered. Gavaldon made a motion, seconded by York, that an additional more in-depth presentation be scheduled prior to sending a recommendation to Council. Hart noted Council’s first reading is June 1st and stated he personally has no desire to hold back the proposed timeline. York argued the Board becomes irrelevant if it is not a barrier at some point. Brown clarified this presentation was to be informational only and stated the Board always has the option to send a letter, though a recommendation has not been requested. Gavaldon stated the role of the Board is to provide recommendations to Council and this is a critical item on which the Board should collectively, professionally share its opinion. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Gavaldon, Lopez and York. Nays: Brown, Borchert, Hart, Owens and Rachline. THE MOTION FAILED. Brown clarified she is not opposed to discussing the issue further next month; however, she opposed the motion as she is uncomfortable insisting the group come back before the Board as she does not believe that is within the purview of the Board. Chair Rachline stated it is not a question of a new presentation, but rather a question of members investing themselves into gathering further details so the Board is able to provide a recommendation. Hart agreed. Brown asked York and Gavaldon if that meets their needs. York replied he wants to ensure the Board has the resources available to answer questions as there is only one more meeting prior to the item going before Council. TRANSPORTATION BOARD TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR 4/21/2021 – MINUTES Page 5  Chair Rachline suggested questions could be submitted to Iverson and staff ahead of time. York stated the Board has been requesting a presentation on street-like private drives and how those are reflected in the LCUASS standards and how they tie into the transportation system. He stated he was hoping this presentation would have incorporated that information, though he now understands why it did not. b. Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO) Preliminary Overview – Aaron Iverson Chair Rachline stated this is likely the first in a series of presentations on the budget and will provide an overview of the budgeting process, particularly given the changes related to COVID. Iverson stated Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO) is priority-based budgeting and each budget offer every cycle must address the priorities of the City through the seven outcome areas. He provided the timeline for the typical budget process noting both 2020 and 2021 are single-year budgets rather than the typical two-year budget. He outlined the process for writing and reviewing budget offers and public engagement. York stated it would seem offer creation would happen in conjunction with discussions with Boards and Commissions for outcome areas as opposed to waiting until public engagement. Iverson agreed offer brainstorming could occur earlier and he would provide that feedback to budget staff. He also noted offers can be adjusted during the process. Brown asked when offers are posted on the website. Iverson replied they are due this coming Monday, but he was unsure exactly when they would be posted. He stated he will provide that date to members. Iverson discussed the budget funding sources. York suggested additional detail be provided on the ‘taxes’ source category. Hart asked about Utilities funding. Iverson replied Utilities is self-funded and has its own separate budget. Iverson discussed the various restrictions on funding sources and outlined the process of building the budget that aligns with the Strategic Plan and City Plan. He outlined the seven budget outcome areas and provided details on what an offer contains. He noted offers can be ongoing, which are basically core departmental budget offers, enhancement, which are offers that go above and beyond core offers, redeploy or reduction, which are new offer types developed last year, or capital projects. Brown asked how the reduction offers that are returning from last year will be classified. Iverson replied they will be titled differently and will be enhancement offers. TRANSPORTATION BOARD TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR 4/21/2021 – MINUTES Page 6  Brown asked about the difference between enhancement and capital projects. Iverson replied the capital projects offer type is new and provides a more specific categorization. Iverson noted he deals primarily with ongoing, and enhancement offers. Gavaldon asked if the Vine and Lemay project would be considered a capital project. Iverson replied in the affirmative. York asked if street repair is considered asset management. Iverson replied he was unsure but would clarify and inform members. Iverson showed an example of an offer and discussed the tasks of the BFO teams, one of which is formed for each outcome area. Brown commented on Sunday Transfort service getting funded despite not originally being recommended for funding. Iverson discussed the transportation and mobility section of the budget. York commented on the need for a greater tie-in between the Transportation and Parking Boards noting parking services is listed as part of the transportation budget section. He stated, as the budget is a document illustrating priorities, it should also be used for communication to provide consistency in advocating for those priorities. Iverson agreed there should be a better connection between the two. Borchert stated it would be interesting to look at how much of the budget comes from fees, federal funds, state funds, and specific taxes. York noted the Board had advocated for the travel survey which was not funded during the last budget cycle. He asked if that will be included as an offer for this cycle. Iverson replied in the affirmative. Brown commented on an offer that may be used to purchase easements and therefore apply for grants to bring all bus stops up to ADA standards. She stated she would likely be advocating for such an offer as part of her employment. Owens asked if there are data performance measures for desired outcomes. Iverson replied each offer must link to a set of metrics, either existing or new if applicable. Hart commended Iverson on the meme included in his presentation. Brown asked if staff can advocate for an offer or if they are to stay neutral in the process. Iverson replied he approaches each offer as a mini-grant and tend to advocate for offers as the budget teams ask questions. TRANSPORTATION BOARD TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR 4/21/2021 – MINUTES Page 7  8. BOARD MEMBER REPORTS Lopez reported on new funding opportunity announcements from the Department of Energy. Borchert reported he applied for and was accepted into the North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization community advisory committee. Owens reported on attending a Vision Zero conference. Brown reported on a bill in the state legislature that would allow people with disabilities to voluntarily virtually tag their license plates to provide police officers with applicable information prior to them approaching a vehicle. Gavaldon reported on the recent Planning and Zoning Board work session and commented on input he gave to Cameron Gloss on metro districts. He noted the Board discussed the wireless telecommunication master plan and public engagement updates. Gavaldon stated he would like to have additional discussion about cars stacking up to enter Starbucks and Raising Cane’s on College Avenue. Chair Rachline reminded the Board about the letter of concern former Chair Hart completed a few months ago and stated she would be open to writing another. Brown asked if it would be possible to have the staff working with Raising Cane’s give a presentation and questioned the depth of the City’s authority over the issue. Chair Rachline also noted College Avenue is under the authority of CDOT. Iverson stated he has spoken with Nicole Hahn who is now officially the Assistant Traffic Engineer and is working on the issue, and she would be happy to provide an update to the Board. Chair Hart noted the letter was written December 16, 2020. York noted the City controls the maintenance of College Avenue despite it being a CDOT roadway. Iverson noted CDOT does approve access cuts. Gavaldon asked if there would be any type of enforcement that could be considered. Chair Rachline agreed the Board should receive a presentation and noted any members could bring concerns forward to Council. York suggested the County could also be involved from a public safety perspective. York reported he wrote a letter, as a private citizen and not as a representative of the Board, to state representatives requesting the state require documentation to be available for metro districts similar to that provided for homeowner’s associations. Gavaldon commented on the need for real estate contracts to include a separate line item for metro district documentation. York also noted he posted some information about the Hughes Stadium ballot item on TRANSPORTATION BOARD TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR 4/21/2021 – MINUTES Page 8  Facebook, also as a private citizen. York stated he would rather have full discussions of items rather than being concerned about meetings ending at a specific time. Hart agreed about meeting time and mentioned the City Works 101 program as being a good opportunity to learn about the budget among other things. Brown noted Larimer County has a similar program and both the Police Department and Larimer County Sheriff’s Office have citizen programs. Chair Rachline agreed discussions should occur while also being efficient; therefore, limiting the number of topics at each meeting will be helpful. She also encouraged members to be prepared with questions ahead of time. Chair Rachline requested staff examine the timing of super issue meetings. She reported she was approached by the Chair of the Air Quality Advisory Board regarding whether the two Boards would be interested in having common discussions around Our Climate Future and gas emissions. She stated she encouraged him to also contact the Energy Board. Boardmembers expressed interest in possibly having joint discussions. York stated he thought there was a tentative schedule for the super issue meetings. Chair Rachline asked if Cameron Gloss has left his position with the City. Iverson replied he has retired from his position with the City and will be working with a consulting company part-time. 9. OTHER BUSINESS a. Bicycle Advisory Committee Report Gavaldon reported on the recent BAC meeting during which the Committee met the new Active Modes Manager, discussed the North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization Active Modes Plan, and received an update on the E-scooter/E-bike share program. He noted next Monday is a super issue meeting and noted it coincides with the BAC meeting time. He asked if anyone would be able to fill in for BAC. Owens replied in the affirmative. b. City Council 6-Month Calendar Review Iverson noted the new Council will be sworn in April 27th and stated there will be a discussion in May around City and County economic recovery efforts and a staff report on Linden Street on June 1st. Gavaldon suggested Board members may want to attend a ribbon-cutting for the Vine and Lemay project when it is complete. TRANSPORTATION BOARD TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR 4/21/2021 – MINUTES Page 9  c. Staff Liaison Report Iverson stated the City Clerk’s Office will be recruiting for the vacant position in May and June. 10. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:29 p.m. by unanimous consent.