HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 08/09/2011 - JEFFERSON STREET PROJECT UPDATEDATE: August 9, 2011
STAFF: Kathleen Bracke
Aaron Iverson
Pre-taped staff presentation: available
at fcgov.com/clerk/agendas.php
WORK SESSION ITEM
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Jefferson Street Project Update.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Jefferson Street/SH14 Alternatives Analysis Study is a joint effort of the City of Fort Collins,
the Downtown Development Authority (DDA), and the Colorado Department of Transportation
(CDOT). The project team is supported by Atkins consultants. This Alternatives Analysis Study
includes the development and evaluation of a thorough set of design options for the Jefferson
Street/SH14 corridor, including the intersection of Jefferson/SH14 and Mountain/Lincoln Avenue,
and the intersection of Jefferson and Linden streets.
The purpose of the Jefferson Street project is to improve the air quality, livability, and urban
character of the Jefferson Street Corridor while enhancing the experience for pedestrians, bikes, and
transit and maintaining mobility of autos and trucks. The corridor begins at College Avenue and
extends along Jefferson Street and includes the Mountain Avenue/Riverside Avenue/Lincoln Street,
and Linden Street intersections.
This project process includes the development and evaluation of many options such as traditional
roadway and intersection designs, roundabouts, and other innovative, context-sensitive design
solutions based upon local, state, and national best-practices. Implementation of the Jefferson
Street improvements can move forward beginning in 2011, based upon approval of the Corridor plan
by City Council, Downtown Development Authority, and CDOT. The schedule for construction of
the Jefferson Street Corridor improvements will be based upon the approved preferred alternative
and implementation/phasing plan as well as the available budget. The goal is to complete the initial
improvements within the 2011-13 time frame.
The purpose of this City Council work session is to present a project status update, share the draft
alternatives and findings from the alternatives analysis process, and share feedback received to date
from project partners and the community.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Staff is requesting input from City Council regarding the Jefferson Street project, in particular to
provide input on the corridor and intersection alternatives as well as next steps for the project
process.
August 9, 2011 Page 2
1. Which of the Jefferson Street corridor and intersection alternatives does City Council prefer?
2. Is there additional information that City Council would like to see regarding the Jefferson
Street project?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis project began in May 2010. This current project builds
upon prior studies along the Jefferson Street/SH14 corridor and provides more in-depth, detailed
technical analysis and design to address City, DDA, and CDOT requirements. This project has
several purposes, including finding the most suitable solution to improve the air quality, livability,
and urban character of the Jefferson Street corridor, enhancing the experience for pedestrians, bikes,
and transit, and maintaining mobility of autos and trucks along this busy arterial/highway road. The
project seeks to balance interests among different agencies and organizations, including the City,
CDOT, DDA, Colorado Motor Carriers Association, Larimer County, adjacent railroads, local
business/property owners, and the general public. Please see Attachment 1 for a map of the project
area.
The Jefferson Street project budget is comprised of a combination of City ($250,000), DDA
($500,000), and federal Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality (CMAQ) funding ($1 million). The
Alternatives Analysis study used approximately $400,000 of the project budget. The majority of
the project budget ($1.35 million) will be used to fund implementation of the improvements as
determined by the study recommendation(s).
Through Project Management Team and Executive Oversight Committee meetings, the participating
agencies have agreed to the following purpose statement that highlights the key goals for the project:
The purpose of the Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis project is to
improve the air quality, livability, and urban character of the Jefferson Street
Corridor while enhancing the experience for pedestrians, bikes, and transit
and maintaining mobility of autos and trucks. The Corridor begins at
College Avenue and extends along Jefferson Street and includes the
Mountain Avenue/Riverside Avenue/Lincoln Street, and Linden Street
intersections.
Corridor Alternatives
The Project Team has developed a set of conceptual alternatives for the Jefferson Street corridor
project to address the project purpose, goals, and objectives. The cost estimates for all of the
alternatives are similar at approximately $2.4 million, which can be phased depending on available
funds.
• The corridor alternatives include several “3 lane” options for Jefferson Street between North
College Avenue and Mountain Avenue. The “3 lane” Options A and B includes raised,
landscaped medians. Option A includes a raised landscaped median along the full length of
the corridor, with openings at the Jefferson/Linden intersection. Option B shows partial
medians along the corridor with more openings at streets such as at Pine and Chestnut
August 9, 2011 Page 3
streets, as well as at major driveways. The “3 lane” Option C includes designated on-street
bicycle lanes instead of the medians (both the medians and bikelanes do not fit within the
available corridor width). All of the “3 lane” options include two travel lanes in the
northwest bound direction and one travel lane in the southeast bound direction. The
determination for which direction has the two lanes versus the one lane was made based on
traffic analysis as well as the need to maximize on-street parking opportunities along the
“Old Town” side of Jefferson Street. The “3 lane” options include streetscape, urban design,
and gateway improvements along the corridor and at the intersections. In addition, the 3
lane options allow for more functional on-street parking because there is enough width to
provide a safety buffer area between the parked cars and the vehicle travel lanes. The 3 lane
options also allow for opportunities to improve the transit stops along Jefferson.
• The project team has developed a “4 lane” option which shows two lanes in each direction
on Jefferson Street between North College and Mountain Avenue. Due to the width required
for standard travel lanes, there is limited space remaining for other project elements such as
on-street parking, buffer areas, medians, transit stops, and/or streetscape improvements.
• The team has also provided a combination “3 and 4 lane” option that includes 3 lanes
between North College Avenue and Linden Street and then shows the 4 lane option between
Linden and Mountain.
Table 1: Summary Overview of Corridor Alternatives
Alternative Lanes Medians Bike
Lanes Parking
Streetscape
Areas
3 Lane Alternative -
Option A Full Median 3
Yes
Full Corridor No
36-38
Spaces
Median,
Sidewalk
3 Lane Alternative -
Option B Partial Median 3
Yes
Partial Corridor No
36-38
Spaces
Median,
Sidewalk
3 Lane Alternative -
Option C Bike Lanes 3 No Yes 33 Spaces Sidewalk
4 Lane Alternative 4 No No 38 Spaces Sidewalk
Combination
3 and 4 Lane Alternative 3/4
Yes
Partial Corridor Yes 38 Spaces
Median,
Sidewalk
Intersection Alternatives
The project team has also developed two alternatives for both the Jefferson/Linden intersection and
the Jefferson/Mountain intersection.
• Jefferson/Linden intersection options include keeping the existing designated left turn lanes
for vehicles to turn left off of Jefferson Street to Linden Street as well as an option that
would remove the left turn lanes to create more opportunities for on-street parking and
provide raised medians to serve as pedestrian refuge islands at the intersection.
• Jefferson/Mountain/Lincoln/Riverside intersection options include improvements to the
existing signalized intersection as well as a new roundabout intersection alternative.
August 9, 2011 Page 4
Table 2: Jefferson / Lincoln Intersection Alternatives Overview
Alternative Cost
Operating /
Maintenance
Cost
Level
of
Service
Air Quality
Savings
(Carbon Monoxide)
Right-of-
Way
Signalized $1.4
million
$3,600 per year
for signals B
No Change from
Existing 2,000 sq. ft.
Roundabout $2.6
million
Depends on cost
of RR gate arm B
495 KG/yr - Short
Term
809 KG/yr - Long
Term
6,000 sq. ft.
Please see Attachment 2 for details of the various corridor and intersection alternatives.
Project Team Recommendations To-Date
The project team is now in the evaluation phase of the project which includes analyzing and
screening the various alternatives for the Jefferson Street corridor as well as the Jefferson/Linden
and the Jefferson/Mountain intersections.
Based on the technical analysis as well as community outreach efforts to-date, the project team is
leaning toward the “3 lane” corridor option with the raised landscaped median due to the multiple
benefits in achieving the project’s many diverse goals. Even though it does not include designated
bicycle lanes, cyclists can still ride the corridor by taking the lane or travel through the area on one
of the less busy streets such as Walnut or Willow streets.
Regarding the Jefferson/Linden intersection alternatives, the team’s preference is to keep the
designated left turn lanes open for drivers to turn off of Jefferson on to Linden Street. These turning
movements are important to support the local businesses along Linden Street and assist with
downtown circulation patterns.
The project team is still in progress with the analysis of the Jefferson/Mountain intersection
alternatives. Both options offer advantages and disadvantages to achieving the project goals. This
intersection provides an opportunity for multimodal transportation improvements as well as urban
design and gateway features to welcome people traveling by all of modes of transportation into the
Downtown and River District areas. Community feedback on these two alternatives is very
important, particularly given the general interests and concerns about roundabouts as well as the
specific challenges for this location given the proximity to the Union Pacific (UP) rail tracks.
The results of the technical intersection analysis to-date are provided in Attachment 3. The team
is also very interested in community feedback on this element of the project.
Community Outreach and Next Steps
The project team is in the process of presenting the initial findings and draft recommendations to
the community, boards and commissions, and City Council to gather feedback from the project
stakeholders through August. Please see Attachment 4 for a summary of the comments received
from the City’s Transportation Board, Bicycle Advisory Committee, Planning and Zoning Board,
August 9, 2011 Page 5
and the Downtown Development Authority. Attachment 5 provides a summary of the public
comments received from the project open house in June as well as individual meetings with
business/property owners and residents.
City staff has been working extensively with representatives of CDOT and the Union Pacific
Railroad throughout the Jefferson Street project as well. Attachments 6 and 7 provide letters from
CDOT and the UP railroad regarding the Jefferson Street project. Based on discussions among the
project team, CDOT will be seeking an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with the City regarding
any changes to Jefferson Street/SH14. The details of the IGA will be developed through interagency
collaboration and presented to Council and CDOT for review and approval as part of the Jefferson
Street approval process.
Based on the technical analysis and stakeholder input, the project team will develop and present a
recommended preferred alternative for the Jefferson Street corridor for approval by the City Council,
Downtown Development Authority, and CDOT by November.
The Jefferson Street study will also include the development of a proposed implementation phasing
plan. The implementation plan will propose timelines for construction of improvements funded by
the existing project budget as well as identification of potential financing strategies for any
additional funds needed to complete the preferred alternative for the corridor. The phasing and
implementation plan, along with the proposed funding strategies, will be developed by the project
team and presented to the community and agency partners as part of the project outreach efforts in
September–October 2011.
Project Schedule and Milestones
May-Fall 2010 (Completed)
• Organized project start-up, team formation, project initiation tasks
• Conducted Multi-agency Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT)
analysis
• Developed Purpose Statement, Goals, Objectives, Strategies, and initial Evaluation Criteria
• Developed Existing Conditions Report
Fall-Winter 2010-11 (Completed)
• Reviewed and refined evaluation criteria
• Gained consensus among agency partners on future traffic projections methodology
• Conducted No-Action Alternative operational analysis
• Began development of conceptual alternatives
• Conducted Alternative development and analysis workshops
• Commenced Alternative screening process
Spring–Fall 2011 (In progress)
• Develop alternatives, complete evaluation and draft recommendations (March–August)
• Develop draft implementation plan and finance strategy (September-October)
• Conduct Public Open House events (June and September)
August 9, 2011 Page 6
• Present Project Updates to the Downtown Development Authority (June and September)
• Present Project Updates to Bicycle Advisory Committee and Transportation Board
(June/July and September)
• Present Project Update to Planning and Zoning Board work sessions (July and September)
• Provide additional updates to City Council based upon input received from the August 9
Work Session as well as continued outreach to the community, boards, property/business
owners, residents, and project stakeholders.
• Once the project team has completed the draft Jefferson Street Study report and incorporated
feedback received from project partners and community stakeholders, including City
Council and boards and commissions, staff will schedule this item for a regular City Council
meeting in November to request approval of the Jefferson Street Study report, including the
recommended preferred alternative, implementation/phasing plan, and finance strategy.
• Public outreach will continue via website, e-newsletters, small group meetings, public open
house events, and presentations to City Council, Transportation Board, Planning and Zoning
Board, and Downtown Development Authority.
• Continued meeting of the Project Management Team, Technical Advisory Committee, and
Executive Oversight Committee.
Implementation of the Jefferson Street improvements can move forward beginning in 2011 based
upon approval of the Corridor plan. The schedule for construction of the Jefferson Street Corridor
improvements will be based upon the approved preferred alternative and implementation/phasing
plan as well as the available budget. The goal is to complete the initial improvements within the
2011-13 timeframe. Staff will continue to provide updates to City Council at key milestones
throughout the project.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Map of Jefferson Street project area
2; Corridor Alternatives
3. Intersection Analysis Summary
4. Summary of Board Comments
- Transportation Board/Bicycle Advisory Committee
- Planning and Zoning Board
- Downtown Development Authority Board of Directors
5. Summary of Public Comments
6. Colorado Department of Transportation Letter
7. Union Pacific Railroad Letter
8. Powerpoint presentation
Transportation Planning & Special Projects
281 North College Avenue
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580
970.224.6058
970.221.6239 - fax
fcgov.com/transportation
1
Planning, Development & Transportation
Attachment 1: Map of Jefferson Street Project
Attachment 2: Corridor Alternatives
Corridor Alternatives Summary
Existing
3 Lane Alternative: Option A - Full Median
Option B - Partial Median
- 4 Lane Alternative
3 Lane Alternative: Option C - Bike Lanes - Combination 3 and 4 Lane Alternative
1
Attachment 2: Corridor Alternatives
2
Attachment 2: Corridor Alternatives
3
Attachment 2: Corridor Alternatives
4
Attachment 2: Corridor Alternatives
5
Attachment 2: Corridor Alternatives
6
Attachment 2: Corridor Alternatives
7
Attachment 3: Intersection Analysis Summary
1
Signalized Intersection Roundabout Intersection
• Construction Cost Estimate = $1.4 million
• Operating Cost Estimate = $3,600 per year for signal*
• May require Public Utilities Commission application if signals are
moved
• Overall LOS B (16.4 seconds of delay)
• Air Quality Savings = n/a (same as existing conditions)
• May require approximately 2,000 square feet (0.046 acres) of
Right‐of‐Way
• Compatible with proposed corridor alternative
• Construction Cost Estimate = $2.6 million
• Operating Cost Estimate = depends on additional RR equipment*
• Will require Public Utilities Commission application
• Overall LOS B (13 seconds of delay)
• Air Quality Savings = 495 KG/yr short term reduction and 809
KG/yr long term reduction
• May require approximately 6,000 square feet (0.138 acres) of
Right‐of‐Way
• Compatible with proposed corridor alternative, allows for easy
turnarounds with raised medians
Bicycle and Pedestrian Operations Bicycle and Pedestrian Operations
Truck Operations Truck Operations
Layout Layout
*Maintenance cost is expected to be similar for both alternatives
Transportation Planning & Special Projects
281 North College Avenue
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580
970.224.6058
970.221.6239 - fax
fcgov.com/transportation
Planning, Development & Transportation
Attachment 4a: Summary of Board Comments
Transportation Board/Bicycle Advisory Committee
June 15th Transportation Board ‐ Work Session (Draft Notes)
C. Jefferson Street Project Update – Kathleen Bracke
Project Boundary: Jefferson Street between College and Mountain.
Project Partners: City of Fort Collins (City), Downtown Development Authority (DDA), Colorado
Department of Transportation (CDOT).
Schedule: Spring 2010 – Summer 2011
Funding: $1.75 million (Federal [CMAQ], Local, DDA)
History of Project: Downtown River District Plan 2008 – Linden Street is underway now.
Alternatives Analysis Process:
Design options & evaluation
Street & intersection alternatives
Urban design
Context sensitive solutions
Deliverables:
Preferred alternative
Implementation phasing plan & finance strategies
Project Purpose: The purpose of the Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis project is to improve the air
quality, livability, and urban character of the Jefferson Street Corridor while enhancing the experience
for pedestrians, bikes, and transit and maintaining mobility for autos and trucks.
Traffic congestion is not a primary issue for the project.
Conditions: 12,300 – 13,200 vehicles per day. 2035 forecast: 17,200 – 18,600 vpd. Intersection Level of
Service “B” or better (existing & 2035); On-street parking spaces: 53 existing (sub-standard, very
narrow due to width of travel lanes); future varies by alternative from 36 – 48, but they will be more
usable. There is a speeding problem on Jefferson. Lowering the speed limit is not easy to do without
changing the character of the street.
Alternatives range from 2-lane to 4-lane options. Fatal flaws include need for on-street parking; do not
drop level of service (LOS) more than one level; no major property impacts. Current alternatives include
3-lane options with/without medians & bike lanes; 4-lane option; combination 3/4 lane option. Existing
conditions are not good for people crossing and transitioning into and out of downtown.
3-Lane with Full Median – one lane southbound, two northbound. A buffer is built in to allow for easier
parallel parking; raised landscaped median creates a pedestrian refuge and visual interest along the
corridor as well as access management for increased safety and mobility through the corridor. On-street
parking is particularly important on the downtown side of Jefferson. The River District side of Jefferson
has off-street parking available. Intersection improvements include enhanced crosswalks.
1
2
3-Lane with Partial Median – allows access to more driveway entrances than with the full median;
features are similar to Full Median option.
3-Lane with Bike Lanes – there is not enough width for both bike lanes and medians. Alternative routes
in the area are being considered (Willow, Walnut, alleys, etc.). Some cyclists feel comfortable riding
Jefferson and take the travel lane. Others do not.
Skutchan: What is the trade-off between bike lanes versus raised medians and the impact on pedestrian
traffic?
Bracke: The raised medians do more to calm traffic and do more to help the pedestrian environment and
improve the visual character along Jefferson. Cyclists do need to cross Jefferson, especially at Linden.
Miller: Is there data that supports the increased safety of bike lanes/raised medians? Does it encourage
J-walking?
Bracke: It comes down to the time a pedestrian is exposed to traffic. A raised island provides a safer
refuge. There is data supporting the improved safety of only having to cross one direction of traffic at a
time.
Miller: Can the light be timed so a left-turning vehicle doesn’t have to stop?
Bracke: That is the progression that Traffic Operations considers on all signalized intersections along
arterial corridors.
Duvall: The demographic of the population (shelters in the area) needs to be considered.
4-Lane – 12-foot travel lanes. There could be inset parking and crosswalks at intersections, but it
doesn’t accomplish traffic calming. Basically, same as existing condition.
Combination 3 / 4 Lane – The alternative is a combination or hybrid alternative with 3 lanes from
College to Linden and 4 lanes from Linden to Mountain.
Proposed Roundabout at Jefferson & Mountain – Recommended from 2008 River District Report.
Being studied in-depth. Roundabouts achieve air quality and safety objectives and handle traffic
capacity well. It also provides a “gateway” entrance to downtown and the River District. Peterson Street
is being considered to become a cul de sac – more public outreach needed on that idea.
Off-Street Parking Options: Potential increase of off street parking spaces at the City-owned lot near
Rodizio Grill and the privately permitted Railroad lot on Linden Street.
Urban Design and Gateway Concepts: Signage, street wayfinding.
Next steps:
Continue individual property/business owner meetings.
Transportation Board & Bicycle Advisory Committee – June
Planning & Zoning Board Work Session – July
City Council Work Session – August
Project Team Meetings
The goal is to build consensus among agencies for Preferred Alternative
Develop Implementation Phasing Plan and Finance Strategies
Frazier: I like the roundabouts around the city, but am concerned about pedestrian safety in them.
Bracke: The raised landscaped medians break up the crossing length making it easier to cross.
Frazier: Trucks going south on College to turn onto Riverside back up past the railroad tracks at times.
Bracke: Overall, the intersection works at a Level of Service “B.” College Avenue has more congestion
than Jefferson/Riverside. Intersection alternatives for that intersection were considered when the North
College Avenue improvements from Riverside to the river were done.
Skutchan: With Mountain being bicycle friendly into this area, did the Bicycle Advisory Committee
express concern about bikes safely using roundabouts?
3
Miller: They said very little about bike safety in roundabouts.
Skutchan: Educating the public is a challenge.
Robert: Why do we have two different names for the same street?
Bracke: There are historical attachments to the names. Riverside was so named because it is located
along the side of the Poudre River. Lincoln was named because of the connection with the old Lincoln
Highway.
You can sign up for a project newsletter at: http://www.fcgov.com/riverdistrict/
July 20th Transportation Board ‐ Regular Meeting (Draft Notes)
B. Jefferson Street Project Update – Kathleen Bracke, Transportation Planning Manager; Aaron
Iverson, Senior Transportation Planner
We have a Council Work Session on August 9 and would like to share the Board’s feedback either as a
memo or as draft minutes.
This is a joint effort between the City, the Downtown Development Authority, and CDOT.
The project is on Jefferson Street from College Avenue to Mountain/Jefferson/Riverside. There have been
many alternatives examined. Outcomes will include a preferred alternative and implementation phasing
plan.
“The purpose of the Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis project is to improve the air quality, livability,
and urban character of the Jefferson Street Corridor while enhancing the experience for pedestrians, bikes,
and transit and maintaining mobility for autos and trucks.”
Currently 12,000 – 13,000 vehicles per day. 2035 forecast 17,200 – 18,600 per day.
Intersection Level of Service “B” or better along Jefferson Street (existing and 2035)
Existing parking spaces: 53 (substandard & very narrow). Future: varies by alternative from 36 – 48.
Existing conditions: four travel lanes, too narrow, not up to current standards. Public feedback says it is a
barrier between Old Town and the River District.
Alternatives:
3-lane with full median
Reallocating one lane for other uses.
Maximizing the on-street parking on the Old Town side of Jefferson Street is a primary goal. The River
District side has parking alternatives available. A buffer area between parking and travel lanes is common
on all alternatives.
Option A: includes raised landscaped medians for a more attractive streetscape, visually enhancing the
corridor and providing access management from a traffic flow perspective, and provide a pedestrian refuge.
Option B: includes partial medians providing some of the benefits as Option A.
Option C: includes on-street bike lanes instead of medians (no room for both).
4-lane alternative
Widens travel lanes to 11 feet. Does not include raised landscaped medians or bike lanes. No on-street
parking on the River District side.
3 and 4-lane alternative: features of both other alternatives.
4
Jefferson/Mountain Lincoln/Riverside intersection alternatives: signalized and roundabout alternatives are
being considered. The roundabout is the recommended alternative from the prior study. It is being
reevaluated.
The Jefferson/Linden intersection is also being evaluated. There are designated turn lanes off of Jefferson.
We considered removing those. It creates a shorter pedestrian crossing distance and increases available on-
street parking. The downside is limiting accessibility along both sides of Linden.
The project team recommendation leans toward the 3-lane alternative with a raised median. The team is
leaning toward keeping the turn lanes on the Jefferson/Linden intersection because of circulation patterns.
Jefferson/Mountain intersection roundabout provides a lower traffic delay compared to a signalized
intersection. Signalized intersection cost $1.4M; Roundabout $2.6M. Roundabout takes up more room. How
the intersection serves the area is a major consideration, as this is a gateway to Old Town. The team has not
reached a recommendation yet.
Off-Street Parking Options in the lot at Rodizio Grill: The project team is looking at options to add a 3rd row
of parking. Option 1 increases by 25 spaces. Option 2 increases by 16 spaces. The Union Pacific Railroad
owns a lot at Jefferson/Linden where the park is. They built a surface lot that has 10 permitted spaces. They
are investigating ways to partner with the railroad to use that lot.
Next steps:
Meeting with property/business owners/stakeholders
Boards & Commissions
City Council in August
Jordan: How will this impact existing bus routes?
Bracke: Our goal is to improve transit stops and make Jefferson more transit and pedestrian friendly. Long
term plans for downtown include a shuttle.
Thomas: I agree with the project team that the first alternative is best. It is going to be more difficult to go
south. Will trucks opt to go south on Willow?
Bracke: It is our goal to design Jefferson to accommodate all vehicle needs. Traffic congestion is not an
issue as indicated by a current and projected Level of Service “B.” Residual capacity is being examined in
the intersection study. 17,000 cars per day is not high volume. The intersections can accommodate traffic for
40 – 50 more years. We do not want to divert the truck traffic. The roundabout alternative is capable of
radius to accommodate the trucks. The Colorado Motor Carriers Association likes the one southbound lane
alternative because it prevents trucks from being passed.
Frazier: How does the BAC feel about this plan?
Bracke: The BAC gave mixed feedback. Some members felt that the bike lanes made it more bike friendly.
Others think it is too difficult to ride. Wayfinding and education can publicize alternative routes. Bike issues
on this project are more geared to crossing Jefferson to River District destinations rather than bikes traveling
on Jefferson.
Public comment:
Ray Bergner, Bergner Trucking, citizen. I met with Kathleen and Aaron yesterday. If we don’t learn from
the past, we will make mistakes in the future. I’m addressing the roundabout. Service and safety are
paramount. Roundabouts have their place. The one at Vine Drive and Taft Hill Road works well. Colorado
Motor Carriers doesn’t represent all of our interests. We are concerned that you consider the information
from 10 years ago when the roundabout on east Mulberry Street was considered. Safety in multi-lane
roundabouts needs to be considered. We are fine with the design of the road, but have concerns about off-
tracking in the roundabout. Multi-lane creates safety issues for trucks with a 300” wheel base. The high
center of gravity on these trucks is also an issue.
5
Bracke: Deflection of cars entering the roundabout is being examined. Most trucks will continue on
Riverside.
Robert: Have you looked at putting a bike lane on Willow?
Bracke: There are on-street bike lanes shown on Willow. No bike lanes are considered in the railroad right-
of-way.
Frazier: Have you done additional analysis for access to Peterson Street?
Bracke: That is part of the roundabout design study. More work is being done. If a roundabout is built there
will be a cul-de-sac at Peterson & Mountain Avenue.
Thomas made a motion that the Board recommend Option 1 but withhold a recommendation on the
roundabout pending additional information. Skutchan seconded.
Discussion:
Miller: Are sharrows considered on Jefferson under Option A?
Bracke: That hasn’t been discussed but we can ask.
Miller: Is it a safety issue for truckers to follow bikes in travel lanes?
Bergner: It isn’t a big issue from my experience.
Miller: Are maintenance costs available?
Bracke: O&M costs will be included in the final recommendation.
Miller: We are enhancing the parking experience, enhancing the pedestrian experience, but we don’t have
infrastructure for bikes. Motor carriers will be there. Enhancing parking while eliminating bike
infrastructure seems odd.
Bracke: The features we are including with landscaping and other features calm traffic and lower speeds,
making it safer for bikes.
Simonson: Does the Riverwalk design incorporate parallel bike paths? Big trucks sharing roads with bikes
doesn’t seem safe.
Bracke: The design for Willow Street includes on-street bike lanes. We are supporting and encouraging
alternative routes for cyclists.
Simonson: I like the idea of redesigning the City parking lot to gain additional parking.
After discussion, the Board voted for the motion with one descending vote (Miller) because of the lack of
bike lane infrastructure.
6
July 20th Transportation Board ‐ Letter to City Council Regarding Jefferson Street
7
June 13th Bicycle Advisory Committee ‐ (see attached meeting notes)
- Had a question about the traffic volumes and if they were broken down by axel type and
vehicle weight
- Without parking would there be room for a bicycle track
- If there were bicycle lanes the transition onto College is important
- Stated that marked bicycle lanes reduce accidents
- Noted that trucks traveling south can be dangerous to bicyclist
- Number of bicyclist crossing Jefferson is growing at Linden and at Lincoln
- Jefferson doesn’t necessarily feel safe to ride on but it is more direct than other routes
- The environment of Jefferson doesn’t feel safe to some, in particular some of the activity at
the Jefferson Street Park
- Important to make sure it’s clear that bikes belong with or without bike lanes
- Discussed the need for improved pedestrian amenities
- Pedestrian refuge zones are a high priority
- Questioned if we are trying to accommodate too much on Jefferson
- Wanted to know if anyone on the project team had first hand experience with a roundabout
located near a rail line
8
DRAFT MEETING MINUTES of the
BICYCLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
June 13, 2010
6:00 PM
Community Room
215 N. Mason
Fort Collins, CO 80521
FOR REFERENCE:
Chair: Rick Price 970‐310‐5238
Vice Chair: Josh Kerson 970‐217‐9480
Staff Liaison: Kathleen Bracke 970‐224‐6140
Staff Support: Dave “DK” Kemp 970‐416‐2411
BOARD/CITY ORGA NIZATION M EMBER
Air Quality Board
S PRESENT
Bicycle Pedestrian alit
: Michael Lynn
Education Co
Bike Fort Collins: Sylvia Cra
ion: Kim Sharpe
Downtown Development A
nmer
uthority: Ka
Fort Collins Bicycle CoOp: Tim And
thy Cardona
Fort Collins Bicycle Ret on
erson
ce: Josh Kers
atural Resources Adv
ailers Allian
isory Board: Glen Colton
ransportation Board: Shane Miller
N
T
AT LARG E MEMBER S P RESENT
At Large: Dan Gould
ABSENT
At Large: TBD
At Large: TBD
Colorado State University: Ben Miller
Economic Advisory Commission: Rick Price
Board: Kath
Parks and Recreation B e Henderson
Land Conservation & St ewardship ryn Grimes
: Bruc
Poudre School District: West
oard
Senior Advisory Board: T
Chris
BD
UniverCity Connections: TBD
City of Fort Collins:
tion Planner
ment
Aaron Iverson, Senior Transporta
Craig Foreman, Director of Park Planning and Develop
Planning
David Kemp, Bicycle Coordinator
n
9
Call to order
Meeting called to order at 6:07 PM.
II. Jefferson Street Project Update
ed PowerPoint
See attach
Michael –
our audience is families and people who will come downtown to shop and eat, right? So it
e to separate this track with a curb or something more obvious.
Y
makes sens
Kathleen –
e are trying to make it useable for everyone, but we recognize that there are alternate routes
ple who won’t use this route.
W
for peo
an –
e it would be hard to mesh the northbound flow onto N College.
D
It seems lik
athleen –
good point.
K
That is a
hane –
is the alternative without bike lanes.
S
My concern
Kathleen –
The purpose is to calm the traffic that is out there, so ideally we can slow traffic to 25/30mph so
ore users will take the lane. We will also work to improve way finding so people can choose
te.
m
their rou
Shane –
A ll I have ever read is that shared lane markings on roads reduce crashes. Has anyone read any
different?
Kathleen –
It is important to think about the Jefferson corridor. Compared to N College where we can widen
he roadway and include all of the pieces we want, on Jefferson we need to work within the space
e.
t
we hav
Josh –
I work at N. College and Jefferson and I walk that area often. The biggest issue is that truck
rivers are turning left onto Jefferson from College and speeding up so they can get through the
n at Linden without hitting the red light.
d
intersectio
Sylvia –
10
You asked if we would ride there, I don’t know if I would. You asked if I would feel safe, no. I
on’t like the idea that it would encourage cyclists to ride there and increase the amount of
k interface. I also don’t feel safe with the transient community down there.
d
cyclist/truc
athleen –
are legitimate issues and we are addressing these concerns.
K
Those
Kim –
think the more “bikes belong” signs we have, the better. It sends a good message – like Josh
that it is downtown.
I
said –
an –
ned about the intersections and having refuges for pedestrians.
D
I am concer
Kathleen –
We tried to include as many facilities as possible, but we were limited by curbs, traffic volume,
left turn lanes, etc. We did all we could to reduce pedestrian exposure. We will imitate the
edestrian crossings that we have currently along the in other areas downtown to raise
ess for drivers of pedestrian crossings.
p
awaren
Glen –
’m not sure it is necessary to keep on street parking for the local businesses because I don’t even
f the shops on Jefferson.
I
know any o
Kathleen –
There is revitalization of this area and a lot of new businesses and residential development is
oming in.
you think of the roundabout at Jefferson and Mountain?
c
What do
hane –
an example of a roundabout adjacent to a railroad in Fort Collins?
S
Do we have
athleen –
, but they are used all around the world and there are a lot of examples of how it works.
K
Not in FC
Shane –
s there a human being who has seen one? It would be worth the plane ticket to research the
ctual implementations.
I
a
Transportation Planning & Special Projects
281 North College Avenue
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580
970.224.6058
970.221.6239 - fax
fcgov.com/transportation
Planning, Development & Transportation
Attachment 4b: Summary of Board Comments
Planning & Zoning Board
July 15th Planning and Zoning (Work Session)
- There was a concern/question as to whether or not the buffer lane would become a "drive"
lane
- Concern over how pedestrian crossing would be handled
- How to control lane encroachment in the bike lane alternative?
- Questioned if it was good idea to mix the truck traffic with bicycles?
- Questioned if Jefferson was required to have bike lanes?
- Questioned traffic volumes might go down once traffic calming features are added?
- Observed that alternatives were trading off various elements due to space constraints
- Questions about Peterson Street, asked if it would be closed, noted that there may be
businesses concerns
- Asked about CDOTs position on the project
- The board generally agreed that they like the 3 lane option with the full center median
o Supports effort to make area more attractive
o Supports making a stronger connection to the River District
o Supports improving the pedestrian environment
o Support maintaining on‐street parking
o Supports the roundabout, as a defining entry feature to indicate the entrance into
Downtown Fort Collins
1
Transportation Planning & Special Projects
281 North College Avenue
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580
970.224.6058
970.221.6239 - fax
fcgov.com/transportation
Planning, Development & Transportation
Attachment 4c: Summary of Board Comments
Downtown Development Authority Board of Directors
June 9th Downtown Development Authority
- Asked if the cost includes implementation
- Asked about the condition of the sidewalks, and wanted to know if the project would include
sidewalk improvements
- Discussed the need for left turns at Pine and Chestnut, determined that there would not be a
large number of turns expected at these locations
- Concerned over the comfort level for riding bikes on Jefferson
- A gateway featured was highly encouraged
From the Minutes of June 9, 2011 Board of Directors Regular Session Meeting:
"Moved by Bill Sears, seconded by Jenny Bramhall: To support the stated downtown interests in the
Jefferson Street corridor discussions and to further support the recommendation to adopt a three‐
lane alternative for the project. The motion passed unanimously."
DRAFT Minutes:
DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Regular Directors' Meeting
PPaattttyy SS
ppeenncceerr,,
CChhaaiirrppeerr
ssoonn 9977
00--440077--9999
0000
KKeellllyy OO
hhllssoonn,, CC
oouunncciill LL
iiaaiissoonn
997700--449933
-77222255
SStteevvee JJ
oohhnnssoonn,,
CCoouunnttyy LL
iiaaiissoonn
997700--449988
-77001100
JJooaannnnaa
SSttoonnee,, SS
ttaaffff LLiiaa
iissoonn 99
7700--448844--22
002200
MINUTES of June 9, 2011
The Board of Directors of the Downtown Development Authority met in Regular Session at 7:30 a.m. on June 9, 2011 at
Home State Bank, 303 East Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80524.
PRESENT
Jenny Bramhall; George Brelig; McCabe Callahan; Ben Manvel (Council Alternate); Wynne Odell; Kelly Ohlson; Bill
Sears; Patty Spencer; Ellen Zibell
ABSENT
Steve Johnson; Jerry Kennell; Cheryl Zimlich
STAFF
1
2
Matt Robenalt, Executive Director; Kathy Cardona, Financial Coordinator; Derf Green, Programs Administrator; Joanna
Stone, Administrative Manager; Jim Martell, Legal Counsel
GUESTS INCLUDED
Darin Atteberry, City Manager; Peggy Lyle, DBA; Rich Shannon, Pinnacle Consulting; Aaron Iverson, Joe Frank,
Kathleen Bracke, Randy Hensley, Clark Mapes, Timothy Wilder, City of Fort Collins; Jim Reidhead; Justin Larson, VFLA;
Michel McMahon, 137 Mathews; Emily Elmore, The Group; Emily Thorn, Food Co-op; Rayno Seaser, The Egg & I
CALL TO ORDER
Patty Spencer called the meeting to order at 7:35 a.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
William Sears moved to approve the minutes of May 12, 2011; seconded by Ellen Zibell, the minutes were approved
unanimously.
BIG IDEAS
No ideas were presented.
RECOGNITIONS
Jim Reidhead: Patty Spencer read a letter recognizing and thanking Jim Reidhead for his work with UniverCity
Connections.
Kelly Ohlson: Kelly Ohlson was congratulated for receiving the Lifetime Achievement Award from the Colorado
Association for Recycling.
UPDATES
Award: The DDA has received an award that was presented to CDM Electric for excellence in electrical construction for
the 2010 alley project from the IECRM.
Downtown Paving Project: The downtown College Avenue paving project was completed two weeks early. It was a great
project and featured great communication with business owners.
City Sales Tax Report: The sales tax report was distributed. Josh Birks was unable to attend the meeting but provided
answers to questions that board members had posed in May. The lodging category had shown and increase because of
revenues from Ace Gillett’s at the Armstrong Hotel. The electronics category decreased because of a retailer closing.
Museum Project: Patty Spencer emphasized that the Museum project if still at the top of the list of DDA priorities and the
DDA is fully committed to the project. The directors addressed the Board on two occasions and the DDA has committed a
total of $3 million for the construction of the new museum. This is an important project for both downtown and Northern
Colorado. She welcomed board questions about the recent newspaper article regarding museum funding. Matt Robenalt
added that the information missing is that staff notified the Museum in July of last year, in advance of construction, that the
DDA would fund in 2012. Kelly Ohlson believed that there has not been enough Council or public input on the project.
Ms. Spencer noted that there would not be a DDA loan to cover the shortfall. Mr. Robenalt responded that more
specifically, the DDA has received prudent financial planning advice that it should not incur any new debt before 2012.
Bill Sears expressed appreciation for Kelly Ohlson’s remarks.
CONSENT AGENDA
DDA office lease: The DDA office lease expires at the end of July and staff is seeking renewal for a three-year term. The
DDA shares space with the DBA and they are charged for their share of the expense. The monthly lease amount will
remain the same through July 31, 2012 at which time it may be adjusted up or down based on the CPI. In response to
questions from Kelly Ohlson, Matt Robenalt noted that as owners of Old Town Square, it is helpful to have office space on
the plaza. Also, the DBA manages Old Town Square and the synergy between the organizations is beneficial. City Parks
conducts daily maintenance and cares for the flowers and performs snow removal. The DDA pays for these services.
Moved by Kelly Ohlson, seconded by Bill Sears: To approve the Consent Agenda as presented. The motion passed
unanimously.
3
BOARD OFFICER ELECTIONS
Matt Robenalt thanked Patty Spencer for serving for two years as Chair of the Board. He praised her strong advocacy for
the organization and her style of accessibility and availability which has helped position the organization going forward.
Moved by Bill Sears, seconded by McCabe Callahan: To nominate Wynne Odell as Chair of the Board. The motion
passed unanimously.
Wynne Odell chaired the meeting from this point.
Moved by Kelly Ohlson, seconded by Bill Sears: To nominate Jerry Kennell as Vice-Chair of the Board. The motion
passed unanimously.
Moved by Kelly Ohlson, seconded by Ellen Zibell: To nominate Bill Sears as Secretary of the Board. The motion
passed unanimously.
There was a discussion of the role of the Treasurer. Typically, this position has been filled by the DDA Executive Director.
The budget committee of the Board serves as checks and balances. Wynne Odell speculated that the Director may fill this
role because of the complex financial structure of the organization. Patty Spencer added that the organization also has very
tight controls in place, with the Executive Director allowed to approve expenditures up to $5,000, the Executive Committee
up to $50,000 and any higher expense coming before the full Board of Directors. Bill Sears suggested that board members
should understand why it is structured this way before they think about changing it. Matt Robenalt added that it was
basically a formality to satisfy the bylaws rather than a formal role. For example, the Treasurer does
not sign contracts. Wynne Odell deferred the decision until the next meeting in order to get information from DDA legal
counsel.
137 MATHEWS PROJECT
Owners Rayno and Patty Seaser have proposed the historic rehabilitation of 137 Mathews Street and are requesting a tax
increment investment. They propose to convert the vacant property into two side-by-side townhouses. Matt Robenalt
commented that the improvements will significantly enhance an historic property. It will also transform an eyesore and
expand the offering of downtown housing options. The
DDA has adopted a policy that housing in general is a lesser priority than commercial office or retail projects at this time.
Rayno Seaser spoke to the Board about the project. Built in 1879, the house is believed to be one of the oldest, if not the
oldest brick house in Fort Collins. He hopes to restore the historic look, removing paint, adding new windows and adding a
traditional porch to the front. It will be converted into a duplex and a garage will be added in the back.
Moved by Kelly Ohlson, seconded by Patty Spencer: To accept the staff recommendation to commit funding of up to
$13,500 as a tax increment investment and authorize the Board Chair to enter into an agreement to acquire an
easement on the east-facing Mathews Street façade, contingent upon the owner submission of all DDA requirements
for project reimbursement including actual cost accounting documentation and certificate of liability insurance.
The release of funds is conditioned upon cost accounting and contractor documentation of deconstruction as a
method for minimizing construction and demolition waste from entering the landfill. The motion passed
unanimously.
415 SOUTH MASON PROJECT
(Legal counsel Jim Martell declared that his firm has a conflict with this project.)
Property owner Andre Mouton presented a tax increment proposal for the old laundromat located at 415 South Mason
Street. He proposes creating a vibrant restaurant with outdoor patios at the location. The building is located on the Mason
Corridor BRT line and is less than one block away from the Mulberry station stop. The project will replace the storefront
windows, install new decorative fascia along the roofline and on the cantilevered roof, and clean the unique masonry
column at the south end of the building. There will also be significant expense for the right-of-way improvements. Mr.
Mouton hopes to widen the sidewalk and create a pedestrian-friendly environment with enhanced landscaping and bike
racks. A discussion of possible green elements followed. Mr. Mouton said they were using energy efficient glass, reroof,
4
insulate and install modern heating and cooling. George Brelig commented that the greatest green element was maintaining
the building. Board members expressed appreciation of the project as a catalyst along Mason.
Moved by Patty Spencer; seconded by Kelly Ohlson: To support the staff recommendation to commit funding up to
$65,000 as a tax increment investment for both façade and public improvements in the right-of-way and to authorize
the Board Chair to enter into an agreement to acquire an easement on the east-facing South Mason Street façade
and contingent upon the owner’s submission of all DDA requirements for project reimbursement including actual
cost accounting documentation and certificate of liability insurance. The release of funds is conditioned upon cost
accounting and contractor documentation of deconstruction as a method for minimizing construction and
demolition waste from entering the landfill. The motion passed unanimously.
221-227 JEFFERSON STREET PROJECT
Owner Doug Holt has proposed the historic rehabilitation of 221-227 Jefferson Street and is requesting a façade grant
investment. The rehabilitation will focus on returning the building to its original historic appearance based on photo
documentation. This will include brick tuckpointing, painting, woodwork restoration, and replacement of missing
storefront glass on the north-facing façade. The south-facing façade fronts Old Firehouse Alley and work will return the
original first floor door opening, repair stucco,
and create a new deck on the second floor. The property is also home to the infamous drunk tank, which is not part of the
funding request, but will be improved with new doors, glass block window, restoration of the jail bars, and a fresh coat of
paint.
Architect Justin Larson presented the project to the Board. He noted that the building will lease commercial space on the
first floor to Phil & Ted’s. The owners will live in the upper level.
Kelly Ohlson expressed appreciation for the level of staff work, encouraging and supporting projects while looking out for
the public interest. Matt Robenalt responded that the recommendations of staff and the Executive Committee are coming
out of the recent financial discussions.
Moved by Patty Spencer; seconded by Ellen Zibell: To support the staff recommendation to commit funding up to
$20,850 as a façade grant investment and to authorize the Board Chair to enter into an agreement to acquire an
easement on the north-facing Jefferson Street façade and the south-facing Old Firehouse Alley Façade contingent
upon the owner’s submission of all DDA requirements for project reimbursement including actual cost accounting
documentation and certificate of liability insurance. The release of funds is conditioned upon cost accounting and
contractor documentation of deconstruction as a method for minimizing construction and demolition waste from
entering the landfill. The motion passed unanimously.
JEFFERSON STREET/ HWY 14 ANALYSIS
Matt Robenalt introduced the background to the Jefferson Street/Highway 14 analysis project. He has served on the
executive oversight committee for the project. This has been an eighteen month process for achieving consensus on urban
design and highway design on the Jefferson Street corridor. A watershed moment was reached last week when all parties
reached consensus on the basic components of the project. The process has been to find the most suitable alternative to
improve the air quality, livability, and urban character of the Jefferson Street corridor while enhancing the experience for
pedestrians, bikes, transit and maintaining the mobility of autos and trucks. The project seeks to balance interests of
different agencies and organizations including the City, CDOT, DDA, local business/property owners and the general
public. The DDA committed $500,000 in 2008 to fund future capital improvements related to the alternatives analysis.
DDA staff has advanced downtown interests throughout the analysis. The preferred alternative should feature on-street
parking; accommodate the continued use of the Jefferson Street corridor for trucks; provide access to individual businesses
to the greatest extent possible while striving to maintain the goals of the project; and, recognize that bike lanes, while
providing an important element of a multi-modal transportation system, are a lesser priority in this area than the elements of
pedestrian mobility, truck/traffic mobility, and on-street parking.
Kathleen Bracke of City Transportation Planning provided the status report, answered questions and received feedback on
the project from board members. Ms. Bracke reported that the process involved a huge team effort and there was a wide
divergence of views at the start. The current list of options includes 3-lane alternatives, a four-lane alternative and a
combination 3/4 lane alternative. Both on-street and off-street parking was also evaluated. Ms. Bracke reviewed drawings
of each of the options and discussed features of each. Board members George Brelig and Bill Sears met recently with the
5
City and consultant staff to review the alternatives and expressed a preference for the three-lane scenarios as the
alternatives that best reflect the interests of the DDA and downtown. In response to wide-ranging questions, Ms. Bracke
noted that the plan assumes the current level of truck traffic, which is about 7.4% of total. The project does include
sidewalk improvements. Some of the advantages of the three lane options are to encourage slower traffic. A full median
serves many purposes including raised landscaping; pedestrian refuges; and increased safety. Off-street parking options are
also being explored. These general concepts have achieved consensus from the partners.
The roundabout at Jefferson and Mountain is considered important to the project. It helps capacity, improves air quality
and provides the opportunity to create a gateway into downtown. City staff is working
closely with CDOT, PUC and the railroad on this aspect of the project and additional analysis will occur through the
summer.
Next steps will include working towards selecting the preferred alternative for the corridor this summer. This will be
followed by the development of an implementation plan and finance strategy. As the project develops there will be
individual outreach to property owners as well as public open houses.
Moved by Bill Sears, seconded by Jenny Bramhall: To support the stated downtown interests in the Jefferson Street
corridor discussions and to further support the recommendation to adopt a three-lane alternative for the project.
The motion passed unanimously.
PARKING PLAN UPDATE
Randy Hensley, Parking Services and Timothy Wilder, Advance Planning presented an update on the recently initiated
effort to update the City’s Parking Plan. The focus will be on downtown with the purpose of updating policies, strategies
and programs. They are in the process of collecting data and seeking public input and will develop a draft parking plan by
January 2012. They are developing a business and customer questionnaire and information is available on the City website.
Mr. Hensley invited Board members to attend the Council work session in September. They hope to finalize the project by
April 2012. Currently they are studying parking supply and demand.
Board members asked many questions and brought up topics for consideration. These included the effect of the Mason
Corridor BRT on parking; Saturday enforcement; the possibility of partnering with private entities to create more parking;
paid on-street parking. Matt Robenalt summarized the discussion by encouraging members of the Board to support Mr.
Hensley and Mr. Wilder to explore and use a systems approach to downtown parking. He felt this would produce great
outcomes for the district. A subcommittee of the Board was formed to work on parking. Ellen Zibell and McCabe
Callahan offered to serve on the committee.
GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT CAPITAL PROJECTS LIST
Clark Mapes, Advance Planning presented information on the project underway to develop a capital improvement plan for
the GID. City staff oversees the GID and have developed and overseen the projects. It is now time to update the plan. In
an early brainstorming exercise with City staff in April, DDA staff suggested several DDA-related items for inclusion in
the plan: Old Town Ice Rink expenses; holiday light display; maintenance in the enhanced alleys; and, renovation of Old
Town Square. Open houses will be held at the end of June to gather further input from the public.
OTHER BUSINESS
July Meeting: There will be no regular meeting in July.
Downtown Publicity: Patty Spencer noted that the negative tone of recent articles about crime in Old Town has been
elevated. She would like to develop communication to address the issue.
ADJOURN
There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 11:45 a.m.
______________________________________
Bill Sears, Secretary
6
Transportation Planning & Special Projects
281 North College Avenue
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580
970.224.6058
970.221.6239 - fax
fcgov.com/transportation
Planning, Development & Transportation
Attachment 5: Summary of Public Comment
June 2nd: Public Open House
The open house was held on Thursday June 2 from 4 to 7 pm at the City Streets facility. There were
approximately 14 people in attendance representing business and property owners as well as residents
from the project area.
Results of the comment sheets are summarized below;
- The primary interest of attendees was business / property owner followed by area resident.
- The most selected priority for Jefferson Street was "pedestrian mobility" followed by
"improving safety and security" and installing "streetscape/landscaping amenities". Installing
"gateway features" was the next most selected priority.
- The majority of respondents preferred the 3-lane alternative.
- The majority of respondents which liked the 3-lane alternative preferred the "full-median"
option.
- For the intersection of Jefferson Street and Linden all the respondents supported keeping left
turns from Jefferson to Linden.
- For the intersection of Jefferson Street with Mountain/Lincoln the respondents were split
between a roundabout or a signalized intersection
Comments provided on comment sheets at the public open house included:
- "The full median option appeal to me most, because I feel that it would provide the most
attractive alternative"
- "As a business located at the intersection of Linden and Jefferson [Café Ardour] I feel strongly
that left turns should be maintained. I also like the idea of the roundabout to be used as a
gateway to Old Town / River District. I also like that it would help to improve air quality."
- "Very dangerous road, need to slow traffic to safeguard kids going to O'Dell's, and New
Belgium".
- "I think that roundabouts are confusing"
- "If we want to encourage people to head to the river we need to make if friendly and safe to
cross Jefferson!"
- "Suggest you start from the perspective that through-traffic on Jefferson should be re-routed to
Willow and merged with Mulberry at Timberline. This through route should be designed by
using pedestrian and traffic over/under passes."
- "Integrate Jefferson into the Linden area for local low-speed travel with lots of parking /
walking / biking opportunities."
- "Rather than accommodating anticipated increased flow on Jefferson, design an outcome
focused on enhanced quality of life."
2
- "Want 2-Lane alternative that slows traffic increases parking and is more pedestrian friendly."
- "Do not limit access to Linden from either direction of Jefferson."
- "Jefferson from College to Lincoln has been a barrier for decades to the northeast towards the
river, my priorites are:
o Reduce speeds on Jefferson in both directions
o Increase parking!!!
o Increase ease of pedestrian/bicyclist to go both directions on Linden across Jefferson
o Do not think of Jefferson or Riversides as bicycle/transit corridor!!
o No roundabouts - horrible when semi's, pedestrians and or bikes are present
o Promote access towards River District
As someone who lives/works here 24/7 you're looking for the wrong solutions
(suggest looking closer at Carl's (Carl Glaser) ideas!!!"
- "No bike lane"
- "No roundabout"
- "I like full median if the buffer zone was a bike lane, and the street parking is elevated. I think
it will slow the speeds, and create a better atmosphere along Jefferson."
- "I like the gateway notion of the roundabout. I think it's mostly a cost factor for me if there are
alternate funds outside of limited DDA funds, then I'm up for it!"
- "Add more on-street spaces on Old Town side of Jefferson, north of Linden."
- "The traffic on Jefferson is significantly reduced from what is use to be. The truck count after
5:00 PM and weekends is negligible. Use the third lane for alternative parking during these
times."
Jefferson Street – Individual Outreach Meetings May-June 2011
May 25th
Encompass Technologies
- Concerned about dirt, dust and mud from trucks driving too close to the front of their building
- Does not use on-street parking due to the proximity of passing trucks
- Has parking lot for employees, also contract with businesses across the street for employee
parking as well
- Would like to see better pedestrian environment
- Interested in making improvements to the façade of their building
- Would like to make improvements to the back of the building, perhaps building a concrete
walkway along the back of the buildings between the track and the buildings
- Supportive of the three lane option, questioned why the 2 lanes were on their side of Jefferson
- Supportive of a median and landscape/streetscape improvements
3
May 27th
Nice Car - Subaru Repair Shop
- Concerned over which side of Jefferson has 2 lanes versus 1 lane in the 3 lane options
- Questioned the need for on-street parking on Jefferson, would like to see it eliminated all
together
- Opposed to the roundabout
o Concerned it would kill his business
o Concerned with train activity
o Concerned with cost of right-of-way
o Questioned the need as the intersection seems to flow fine currently
- Very concerned with too many unknowns surrounding the project which has the property
owners very worried
- Agrees that the aesthetics of Jefferson need to be fixed
May 27th
Pine Street Lofts Residents
- Concerns with truck traffic
- Safety concerns over the Jefferson Street Park
o Would like to see it turned into a plaza
- Is favorable to the roundabout, thinks it works well and would look nice
- Concerned about an empty lot across from the Pine Street Lofts, needs to be cleaned up
- Supports a full median
- Suggests bike lanes may not be appropriate on Jefferson
- Would like to see the on-street parking in front of the Pine Street Lofts retained which is use by
residents guests at times
June 17th
Vogel Paint
- They need both existing driveways to get delivery trucks in and out
- They were ok with the roundabout
- Concerned over the safety of bicyclists on Jefferson
- They like the 3 lane option with the full median
- Very supportive of improving the corridor
- They do not use or support the use of the on-street parking in front of their business, dangerous
with the proximity to trucks
June 16th
Local Trucking Interest: Burgener Trucking, Hersh Trucking, O’Leary’s Trucking
- Supportive of the full median to restrict left turns
- Very supportive of the 3 lane concept
- Cautious of the height of the median, needs to be a normal curb height in case they do run into
it
- Limited access is important, which minimizes conflicts with the trucks moving through the
corridor
- They didn’t like the idea of mixing bicycles with trucks on Jefferson
- They suggested a 2 lane configuration would be better, as it would eliminate passing, which is a
primary safety concern, and their contention is that this section of Jefferson essentially
functions as a 2 lane roadway currently, especially when larger loads are using the corridor
4
- Not supportive of the roundabout at this location
- They have a particular issue with multi-lane roundabouts, because cars try and pass the trucks
within the roundabout (signed or not) which is a significant safety issue with the truck taking
both lanes to maneuver through the roundabout. One lane roundabouts are safer in this respect
- They questioned if there was enough space to build the roundabout
- What size truck was used for the design?
- They are concerned as they have no other options within the City as this is the designated truck
route.
- If a roundabout is considered it needs to be specifically designed for through trucks, and make
consideration for the longer lengths now being used (average of 75’ to 80’, with oversize of
125’ long)
- They have concern of rollovers in roundabouts
- The mountable truck apron can be damaging to tires (which are expensive) if not designed
correctly, also if they are too high they can cause loads to shift leading to potential rollovers
- They want to continue to be involved in the process for this project
June 16th
Rodizio Grill
- Major issue with the trucks on Jefferson including:
o Speed of trucks
o Vibration from the trucks
o Dirt and dust caused by the trucks and debris falling from trucks
o Clipping of cars parked in front of the restaurant causes lost side mirrors
o Dangerous situation with people walking across Jefferson at or near Pine Street
- Would like to see trucks eliminated or reduced on Jefferson
- Supportive of the 3 lane option with full medians
- Supportive of improved pedestrian safety particularly at the Pine Street intersection
- Does not consider the corridor to be bike friendly, would rather see pedestrian improvements
- Not supportive of the roundabout, unless the intent is to discourage through trucks
- Wants to slow down traffic, improve the pedestrian environment, improving the safety of
pedestrians crossing Jefferson and the idea of landscaping in the median
- Likes the idea of the inset parking in front of the restaurant
- Concerned about Jefferson Park, and the perception of safety and security, and how the current
situation discourage the connection (walking) to Linden and the River District
- They desire to be highly involved in the project moving forward
Attachment 6: Colorado Department of Transportation Letter
1
2
1
Attachment 7: Union Pacific Railroad Letter
2
1
1
Jefferson Street Project Update
City Council Work Session
August 9th 2011
2
Jefferson Street Project Update
1. Which of the Jefferson Street corridor and intersection
alternatives does City Council prefer?
2. Is there additional information that City Council would
like to see regarding the Jefferson Street project?
ATTACHMENT 8
2
3
Jefferson Street Project Update
• Project Partners:
– City of Fort Collins (City)
– Downtown Development Authority (DDA)
– Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT)
• Schedule: Spring 2010 – Summer 2011
• Funding: $1.75 M (Federal, Local, & DDA)
• History of Project:
– Downtown River District Plan (2008)
4
Jefferson Street Project Area
3
5
Jefferson Street Project Update
• Alternatives Analysis Process
– Design Options & Evaluation
– Street & Intersection Alternatives
–Urban Design
– Context Sensitive Solutions
• Deliverables:
– Preferred Alternative
– Implementation Phasing Plan & Finance
Strategies
6
Jefferson Street Project Purpose
• “The purpose of the Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis
project is to improve the air quality, livability, and urban
character of the Jefferson Street Corridor while enhancing the
experience for pedestrians, bikes, and transit and maintaining
mobility for autos and trucks”
• Traffic congestion is not primary issue for project – purpose is
broader:
• urban corridor, all modes, air quality, safety, improved on-
street & off-street parking, and linkages between
Downtown/Old Town and the River District
4
7
Jefferson Street Project Update
• Traffic Conditions:
Existing: 12,300 – 13,200 vehicles per day
2035 forecast: 17,200 – 18,600 vpd
• Intersection Level of Service “B” or better along
Jefferson Street (existing & 2035)
• On-Street Parking spaces:
Existing: 53 (sub-std, very narrow spaces)
Future: Varies by alternative from 36 – 48
8
Jefferson Street Project Update
• Alternatives ranged from 2 lane to 4 lane options
• Fatal flaws include:
– Must have on-street parking
– Not drop LOS more than one level
– Major property impacts
• Current list of alternatives include:
– 3 lane options, with/without medians & bikelanes
– 4 lane option
– Combination 3 lane/4 lane option
5
9
Jefferson Street –– Existing Conditions
10
Jefferson Street –– 3 lane with full median
Cross Section
Concept Sketch
ParkingBuffer SB Travel Median NB Travel NB Travel
6
11
Jefferson Street –– 3 lane with partial median
Cross Section
Concept Sketch
12
Jefferson Street –– 3 lane with bike lanes
Cross Section
Concept Sketch
7
13
Jefferson Street –– 4 lane
Cross Section
Concept Sketch
14
Jefferson Street –– Combo ¾¾ lanes
3 Lane - Cross Section
3 Lane - Concept Sketch
4 Lane - Cross Section
4 Lane - Concept Sketch
8
15
Jefferson & Mountain Signalized Alternative
16
Jefferson & Mountain Roundabout Alternative
9
17
Jefferson & Mountain Intersection Evaluation
Construction Cost Estimate
• Signalized = $1.4 million
• Roundabout = $2.6 million
Operating Cost Estimate
• Signalized = $3,600 per year
• Roundabout = Depends on cost of RR arm
Overall Level of Service (LOS)
• Signalized = B (16.4 seconds of delay)
• Roundabout = B (13 seconds of delay)
Air Quality Savings
• Signalized = n/a (same as existing conditions)
• Roundabout = 495 KG/yr short term reduction and 809
KG/yr long term reduction
Right-of-Way
• Signalized = Approximately 2,000 square feet (0.046
acres) of Right-of-Way
• Roundabout = Approximately 6,000 square feet (0.138
acres) of Right-of-Way
Signalized
Roundabout
18
Jefferson Corridor
Off-Off -Street Parking Options
10
19
Urban Design & Gateway Concepts
20
Jefferson Street Project Update
Next Steps
– Continue individual property/business owner mtgs
– Transportation Board & Bicycle Advisory Committee
(June)
– Planning & Zoning Board Worksession (July)
– City Council Worksession (August)
– Project Team Meetings
• Goal is to build consensus for Preferred Alternative
• Develop Implementation Phasing Plan & Finance
Strategies
11
21
Jefferson Street Project Update
1. Which of the Jefferson Street corridor and intersection
alternatives does City Council prefer?
2. Is there additional information that City Council would
like to see regarding the Jefferson Street project?
22
Jefferson Street Project Update
• Contact Information:
Kathleen Bracke, Transportation Planning&Special
Projects Director
• kbracke@fcgov.com or ph: 224-6140
Aaron Iverson, Senior Transportation Planner
• aiverson@fcgov.com or ph: 416-2643
• Project website:
http://www.fcgov.com/riverdistrict/jefferson.php
Kathleen Bracke, Director of Transportatio
nator
ager
Molly North, Assistant Bicycle Coordi
Randy Hensley, Parking Services Man
Timothy Wilder, Senior City Planner