Loading...
06-11-2018 TAB Minutes FINAL CITY OF BOULDER BOULDER, COLORADO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS MEETING MINUTES Name of Board/Commission: Transportation Advisory Board Date of Meeting:June 11,2018 Contact Information Preparing Summary: Meredith Schleske 303.441.3204 Board Members Present:Jennifer Nicoll;Johnny Drozdek;Tila Duhaime; Mark McIntyre Board Members Absent: Bill Ri ler Staff Present: Mike Gardner-Sweeney,Director of Public Works for Transportation Bill Cowern,Principal Traffic Engineer Melissa Yates,Parking Manager Susan Connelly,Deputy Director of Community Vitality(Acting Director) Noreen Walsh,Senior Transportation Planner Ryan Noles,Transportation Planner Gerrit Slatter,Principal Capital Projects Transportation Engineer Michelle Melonakis,Transportation Engineer Brian Wiltshire,Transportation Project Manager Meredith Schleske, Board Secretary Type of Meeting: Advisory/Regular Agenda Item 1: Call to Order 16:03 p.m.1 Agenda Item 2: Approval of minutes from May 2018—tabled to allow time for review. 16:05 p.m.1 Agenda Item 3: Public Participation 16:10 p.m.1 • Karen Crofton,3301 Arapahoe Avenue—invitation from the Environmental Advisory Board(EAB)to attend a meeting in September regarding cco systems. Hoping for more collaboration across boards,common goals. Looking for as many TAB members as possible. EAB is open to feedback. • Jim Adams, 1581 Timber Lane—there is poison hemlock at 500-600 block of Linden Avenue. Plants are hanging over sidewalks,very dangerous,often mistaken for parsley. A Iandscaper was trimming but stopped after Adams talked to the owner. Can the city remove safely? Request for staff to investigate. • Stephen Haydel, 1935 Grove Street—there are a lot of close cycling calls at intersections with right turns on a red light.,blinking left turns. Encourages using the guideline of 20 miles per hour(mph) in residential areas,not the 85%rule. The Goss Grave neighborhood still has no designated bike lane. Agenda Item 4: Public hearing and TAB consideration of a recommendation regarding Neighborhood Permit Parking(NPP)proposed new zone and expansion of existing zones 16:15 p.m.1 Melissa Yates and Susan Connelly made the report to the board. Executive Summary: The purpose of this agenda item is to seek a recommendation from the Transportation Advisory Board(TAB) regarding the expansion of Mapleton Hill(2200 block of 5"Street)and East Aurora(900 block of 37'h Street)NPP Zones and the creation of a new NPP zone in the 4100 to 4300 blocks of Monroe Drive called the Park East Square zone. The recommended zone additions and the new zone qualify under the existing program guidelines, including petition and parking occupancy requirements,and have neighborhood support.Two additional NPP zone expansions were requested that staff is recommending not move forward due to a lack of consensus in the neighborhoods supporting the expansions. The areas considered for expansion and the corresponding staff recommendations are: Mapleton Hill NPP West and east sides of the 2200 block of 5th Street—Staff recommendation to authorize expansion North and south sides of the 1100 block of Portland Place—Staff recommendation to not hove fonvard East Aurora NPP West and east sides of the 900 block of 37th Street—Sta recontmendation to authorize ew anion DRAFT TAB Minutes I I June,2018 Page I of 8 West Pearl NPP West and east sides of 1900 block of 3rd Street. Staff"recommendation to not movefonvard New Zone-Park East Square Blocks 4100 through 4300 of Monroe Drive Staff"recommendation 10 authorize new zone creation TAB Clarifying Questions • Question regarding level of support for the 5"Street expansion. • Inquiry about whether we exacerbate the balloon if current capacity is 5%now. • Opinion expressed that it is hard to believe that staff thinks there is going to be some increase when there has not been over three years. • Question raised whether curb cuts for driveways were considered when determining available parking spaces. • Comment that there is no parking allowed on one side of Monroe Drive,suggestion to consider, • Question about where blocks break up at Park East Square,how to balance residents' needs versus those of the public. • Questions about what criteria are used to determine parking time limit and how long ago applications were submitted;understanding was that criteria are set forth in regulation. Public participation: • Marianne Reddan,335 Canyon Boulevard,Unit B—question about resident qualifications for parking permit, concern about it causing more parking issues on 41h Street and restricting parking for tenants who live in alleyway without driveways. In general,privatizing public streets. Adding more will cause more problems. Request to make data public. Requested TAB Action-Suggested Motion Language: Staff requests the TAB's consideration of this matter and action in the form of the following motion: Motion to recommend to the City Manager the expansions of Mapleton Hill(2200 Block of 5th Street)and East Aurora NPP zones and the creation of the new NPP zone Park East Square in the 4100 through 4300 blocks of Monroe Drive. TAB Discussion: • West Pearl agree not to move forward. Move to support staff recommendation to not move forward at this time. Motion: McIntyre Second: Duhaime 4:0:0 Motion Passes. • Aurora o Questions about data,source of parking overflow,and why Madison Avenue was not included. o Concern expressed that actions taken would be difficult to undo,that it tends to yield underutilized streets,opinion that it is a flawed program and is moving in the wrong direction,it does not meet regulations,and residents generally have off-street parking. 0 Questions about approach to mitigate outcry if pricing changes are proposed for future,defining the interest of residents,whether applicants are aware of potential program changes. o Comment that even if not optimal,policies are in place under which the Aurora application was submitted. Move to support staff recommendation to move forward. Motion: Nicoll Second: Drozdek 3:1:0 Motion Passes. Duhaime opposed,prefers to wait until program is redefined. • Portland Place Move to support staff recommendation to not move forward at this time Motion: McIntyre Second: Drozdek 4:0:0 Motion Passes. • Mapleton Hill—West and east sides of the 2200 block of 5th Street. c. Opinions expressed that it does not meet criteria,makes no sense. DRAFT TAB Minutes II lune,2018 Page 2 of 8 Move not to support staff recommendation;do not proceed. Motion: Duhaime Second: McIntyre 4:0:0 Motion Passes. • Park East Square o Inquiry about why parking is prohibited on one side,whether public right-of-way has been fully utilized. a Observation that it seems ideal for paid parking implementation or other options. Questions regarding what the public participants that overwhelmingly support creation of an NPP zone want and whether NPP is the right action for the right time. C Suggestion to work with University personnel to control student parking related to East Campus. Move not to support staff recommendation to approve a new NPP zone; however,encourage staff to explore increased parking capacity through paid parking solutions and working with the University of Colorado Boulder. c Concern expressed about residents who petitioned. c Comment that it does not meet program goals. Motion: Nicoll Second: Duhaime 4:0:0 Motion Passes. Agenda Item 5 Staff briefing and TAB feedback regarding Neighborhood Permit Parking(NPP)proposed program changes 17:24 p.m.1 Melissa Yates and Susan Connelly made the report to the board. Executive Summary:The purpose of this agenda item is to provide a progress report on the Neighborhood Parking Permit(NPP)Program Update process since the Dec. 14,2017 IP Memorandum,including community engagement activities,future work plan items related to the NPP Program Update and a preview of two proposed ordinance amendments that have resulted from staff work to streamline and enhance the NPP Program. Staff will be returning to the TAB at their July,2018 meeting to obtain a recommendation for these proposed ordinance changes prior to their review by City Council in August. TAB Feedback • Request for more information on the community engagement process. • Inquiries about questionnaire targets/defined audiences,permit restrictions for apartment dwellers,timeframe from application to response. • Opinion that TAB is a necessary step,obligation to safeguard community interest. • Kudos for adhering to spirit and criteria of program,continue to use TAB in pushing for policy changes. Staff is encouraged to review the entire program/not phases, refine criteria. • Comment that parking is public,a valuable resource,build flexibility into it. • Observation that there needs to be a way to proactively address spillover to adjacent streets. • Opinion that the program should pay for itself,support for a pilot program on Monroe, market-driven pricing encouraged. • Request for information on programs that reinvest directly into the program in other communities. • Support for staff flexibility to implement tools to manage. • Suggested graduated fines for abuse of NPP resident permits. Parking permits reflect the value of public asset. • Recommendation to develop a way to undo NPP zones. • Support to implement Phase I as quickly as possible. Recommendation to define Phase 2 before accepting more applications including review of criteria,especially for expansion. Opinion that requirements for expansion should be the same as for a new zone. • Suggestion to consider permit access for residents of adjacent streets. Agenda Item 6: Public hearing and TAB consideration of a recommendation regarding Neighborhood Speed Management Program(NSMP)simple project traffic calming projects to move forward with engineering design and construction 17:57 p.m.] R an Noles made the report to the board. DRAFT TAB Minutes I 1 June,2018 Page 3 of 8 Executive Summary: Following development and City Council acceptance of the new Neighborhood Speed Management Program(NSMP),staff conducted an expedited application process for simple projects to start construction development in 2018. Staff presented the preliminary results of the scoring and ranking of the simple projects from the expedited application process to TAB on March 12,2018. Following the March TAB meeting,staff notified all NSMP applicants of the preliminary list of 12 projects and invited them to participate in this public hearing at the April 9,2018 TAB meeting. Eleven residents provided feedback at the April TAB meeting,with more attending to listen to the discussion around finalizing the list. Following that discussion,TAB recommended the prioritized list of simple projects advance and be developed for installation in 2018. Staff shared project design proposals with the community at two neighborhood forums at the end of May.The recommended simple project designs include the installation of speed humps at all 12 simple project locations based on their effectiveness and cost,which is under the$10,000 threshold for simple projects outlined in the NSMP guidelines.Staff also presented the process for complex projects and explained to residents that other traffic calming options are available as part of the complex project track,which has a longer timeline for implementation. Neighborhoods that are interested in becoming complex projects were advised to submit a request to staff from the person that applied for the project. Over 30 people attended one of the two neighborhood forums. Community members also provided feedback by phone and email. In general,residents expressed support for the recommended speed humps at the project locations. Feedback on Augusta Drive and Crescent Drive included both supporters of the proposed traffic calming design and community members who did not support the installation of speed humps but wanted to explore other options that could reduce speeds. Staff discussed additional options with these residents,including changing the number and locations of speed humps,or different traffic calming devices available through the complex project track. Based on feedback from residents and internal analysis,staff recommends that all 12 locations proceed as originally scoped and presented at the NSMP neighborhood forums. *Noles noted that the recommendation for speed humps on Augusta Drive has been removed from staff recommendation due to subsequent community feedback and petition in opposition. Staff recommendation is updated to suggest submittal of a new petition from the Augusta Drive neighborhood. TAB Clarifying Questions: • Request for complex project examples. • Question regarding suggestions of centerline stripe,crosswalks,stop signs,subsequent speed hump. • Inquiry about proposed speed hump profile. • Question about consideration required for emergency vehicle,bus and bicycle access,speed recommendation. • Question concerning"4 E's", including enforcement and education. Public Comment—due to volume,speakers were allotted two minutes each. • Gerald Gayer, 7418 Augusta Drive—speed hump will be intrusive with noise,compromises view,increased pain for drivers with chronic back pain,no obvious speed reduction. • Joe Hughes,941 Crescent Drive—needs more study based on data received. Needed more time between receiving notice Thursday and Tuesday meeting date after Memorial Day. Overall,don't see the need for speed hump(s)on our street. Thanks to Noles for very quick response. • Stu Stuller,635 South 431 Street—support for staff recommendation for a speed hump,encourage strategic placement to avoid resulting in more Fairview traffic. Would like to add two data points:There are a number of young families with about 20 children,recent roadwork resulted in an enormous difference in the volume and speed of through traffic. • Rick,603 Kalmia Avenue—email didn't reach all neighbors. Speed hump is designed to be at his front door; staff should be required to speak with residents who would be negatively impacted. If no one really wants it, reconsider. Future flood mitigation construction would be a good time to include NSMP treatments. • Allison Sherry,5212 Pinehurst Drive(previously 7366 Windsor Drive)—wishes to speak about morning traffic passing through neighborhood when kids are walking to bus stops,in favor of treatments on Augusta, drivers don't stop. Hopes for solution sooner than later. • Andrew Morton,555 South 43'Street—supports proposed changes, has two children,street is a long straightway with cars speeding. About two dozen children on the block,has never been bothered by speed humps when cycling. DRAFT TAB Minutes I l June,2018 Page 4 of 8 • Lance Boyd,2080 Grape Avenue—thanks staff,meaningful process. Supports speed hump. One is designed to be in front of his house—OK with it. Grape is the only east/west street in the area with no calming device. • Dawn Cerrone, 545 South 43'Street—please approve the calming project for South 431d Street! We have 19 children 10 years old and under on our block. Traffic includes high school students as well as parents dropping off students. Encourages expansion to adjacent parallel streets. Cars go up to 50 mph. • Kaaren Nygren,725 351h Street would like to ensure that speed humps are bike friendly and easy for non- motorized vehicles to cross. Concerned about increased noise from brakes and accelerating vehicles right outside front door. Consider bike lanes instead. • Carl Buice,7208 Augusta Drive- against current speed hump proposal for Augusta Drive. Supports postponement,greater community involvement,other options. On HOA board,ensures that information is passed on. • Carl Zucchini,7452 Augusta Drive against the speed humps and feels misled in signing the original petition to look at speed. Supports what Carl Zucchini said. • Jessica Fischer,7398 Augusta Drive- not in favor of speed hump,would like to discuss other options. Thanks for considering. From own research,believes that as designed,it would not make an impact at her location. Radar seems like a good solution. • Chris Fischer,7398 Augusta Drive—opposes speed humps on Augusta Drive. The proposal seemed fast- tracked,neighbors also oppose. Bring photo radar in,enforce laws we already have. There are no speed limit signs on street. Other areas would benefit more. • Burt Darmour,5373 Desert Mountain Court Augusta is a crescent with two ends,speed isn't excessive, opposed. • Marianna Ali, 1086 Ithaca Drive stop sign makes more sense,spending money is not much use,doesn't see accidents, maybe a speed hump up on the hill coming down or on Table Mesa Drive. • Matt Stone,731 Crescent Drive supports city intervention with speed bumps on Crescent Drive. Thank you for diligent process,strongly in favor of speed mitigation,speed humps along way seem reasonable, move down closer to Baseline,has seen three accidents in two years—two RTD busses and one vehicle in snow.Neighborhood is between two schools,lots of children on bikes,street is turning into a throughway. • Doug Ehlers,810 Crescent Drive—lived on Crescent Drive 40 years,speed and traffic volume have become problems,wants to see some mitigation. Supports speed hump,OK in front of his house. Perhaps treat as a temporary solution pending a more complex treatment. • Patrick Armitage,3825 Armer Avenue in favor of humps,more traffic with Table Mesa shopping center, elementary school complicates, 16 young children on the block,21 signatures on petition equaling 75%of street. Not opposed as a cyclist. • Bill Mark,4738 Tanglewood Trail in support of son and daughter-in-law on Augusta Drive agrees that taking no action is bad. Speed humps work. Lookout Road creates pressure on Doral,Augusta,Country Club Drive. Volume has increased. Concerned about safety for children as well as a lot of pedestrians and cyclists. Prioritize on Augusta,make humps temporary pending a longer-range solution. • Lalenia Aweida,7278 Augusta Drive somebody will be killed,traffic is not from the neighborhood,very high speed,encourages TAB to implement speed hump. It will never be bad enough to be a complex project. There are little children,incumbent upon us to do something. Circulated original petition,met all metrics, requests reconsideration. If people don't want it in their yard,put it in hers. Signed in,didn't speak: • Dan Egeland,5385 Deer Creek Court no speed humps needed on Doral and Augusta. Has been there five years and hasn't seen a single speeder. • Hetty Hennessey,5385 Deer Creek Court there is absolutely no need for speed hump or traffic circles. Has been there since 1993. No accidents or anybody hurt. TAB Discussion: • Question raised about what the process would be if a proposed treatment were taken out of consideration; comment that clarity of options to the neighborhood is required. • Questions,discussion about other options for Augusta and community engagement. • Comment to audience about funding for transportation projects. • Inquiry regarding remaining budget available,budget allocations year to year,possible temporary solutions on Augusta Drive. • Question about impact of flood zones on simple projects. • Interest expressed in possibility of moving location of proposed speed hump. • Comment about future process—different petition requirements for simple and complex project applications. Board Action Requested: Staff is requesting a recommendation from TAB to move forward with the 12 simple DRAFT TAB Minutes I l June,2018 Page 5 of 8 project installations based on community input from the neighborhood forums and public hearing. Motion: Moved to recommend City Council adopt staff recommendation,updated to exclude Augusta Drive, in regards to NSMP simple projects. Motion: McIntyre Second: Drozdek Motion passes 4:0:0 Agenda Item 7: Public hearing and TAB consideration of a recommendation on the Foothills Underpass Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process(LEAP) 19:57 p.m.] Noreen Walsh and Brian Wiltshire made the report to the board. Executive Summary:The purpose of the Foothills Parkway Bicycle and Pedestrian Underpass project is to replace the existing overpass bridge which is nearing the end of its 50-year design life with an underpass crossing designed for pedestrians and bicyclists of all ages and abilities with less steep grades and a longer design life with less frequent required capital maintenance than the current bridge. The project is located at Foothills Parkway1SH157,south of Colorado Avenue. The project was recommended by the Transportation Advisory Board(TAB)and City Council for federal grant submittal through the Denver Regional Council of Governments(DRCOG)and was awarded 2016-2021 Transportation Improvements Program(TIP)funds in 2016. The City of Boulder began the project design process in 2017 and five alignment alternatives were reviewed through the city's Community and Environmental Assessment Process(CEAP). The purpose of the CEAP is to assess potential impacts of conceptual alternatives to inform the selection and refinement of a preferred alternative. The CEAP process includes a review by the staff interdepartmental CEAP review team. This is followed by a review and recommendation on the CEAP and project design alternative by the relevant advisory board which in this case is TAB. The purpose of this agenda item is to present the CEAP document for the Foothills Parkway Bicycle and Pedestrian Underpass Project for the TAB's review and recommendation. Following TAB's recommendation,the CEAP will be forwarded to the City Council for potential call-up action by July 17,2018. If the project is not called up the project will move forward to final design. Construction is expected to begin in 2019 and take one year to complete. TAB Clarifying Questions: • Inquiry about bike access to Colorado Avenue. • Question why Alternative 5 wasn't selected. • Question regarding bike path access on the east side of Foothills continuing south. • Inquiry regarding what happens when such a project exceeds or comes in under budget. Public Comment:there was none. TAB Discussion: there was no further discussion beyond that listed above in TAB clarifying questions. Action Requested of Board: Provide a recommendation to City Council on the Foothills Parkway Bicycle and Pedestrian Underpass Project Community and Environmental Assessment Process. Staff recommends option 1 B- Box Underpass at Existing Alignment. Motion: Moved to recommend to City Council option IB-Box Underpass at Existing Alignment on the Foothills Parkway Bicycle and Pedestrian Underpass Project and accept the Community and Environmental Assessment Process(CEAP). Motion: Drozdek Second: Duhaime Motion passes 4:0:0 Agenda Item 8: Public hearing and TAB consideration of a recommendation regarding the 2019-2024 Capital Improvement Program(CIP)(Part III of III) (10:15 p.m.] Gerrit Slatter made the report to the board. Executive Summary: Each year,the city goes through an annual budget process in which departments create a six- year Capital Improvement Program(this year for the time period of 2019 through 2024).The Transportation Advisory Board(TAB)role in this process is defined in the Boulder Revised Code(BRC)TITLE 2 GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION,Chapter 3 Boards and Commissions, Section 14-Transportation Advisory Board;". . .to review all city transportation environmental assessments and capital improvements."It is within this context that the board is DRAFT TAB Minutes I I June,2018 Page 6 of 8 asked to hold a public hearing and provide a recommendation on the Capital Improvement Program(CIP)to Planning Board and City Council. The funding situation for the Transportation Division is of vital importance to the planning and programming of the CIP process for 2019 and beyond.There are a number of factors that are reducing the ability of the Transportation Division to fund and deliver programs and projects consistent with the goals and objectives of the Transportation Master Plan(TMP).These include flattening sales/use tax revenue,the primary funding source for city transportation funding,reduced opportunities for federal/state grant funds and reduced purchasing power. Public Comment: there was none. Action Requested of Board: Staff recommends approval of the proposed 2019-2024 Transportation Fund and Transportation Development Fund, TAB Feedback: • Questions regarding TIP local match and potential grants requiring match. Confirming that 2020 and 2021 allocations are appropriate for discussion. • Question about 2019 allocations and availability for different types of projects. • Opinions expressed about investment prioritization of safety as tier l or 2;bridge deficiencies and potholes can be quantified but not NSMP criteria;almost all transportation funding is based on data and is reactive; only NSMP is proactive. • Questions regarding different funding allocation evaluation,process,mechanism. • Question about greenways and value. Motion: Moved to support staff recommendation to approve the proposed 2019-2024 CIP to Planning Board. Motion: Nicoll Second: Duhalme Motion passes 4:0:0 Agenda Item 9: Matters 11:10 p.m.1 A. Matters from the Staff/Non-Agenda- none due to late meeting. B. Matters from the Board 111:10 p.m.] TAB reviewed the 2018 TAB retreat notes and finalized their follow up items and priorities for 2018-2019.TAB reviewed the draft letter to City Council and decided to not request a change to the charter related to Title 9.Nicoll will discuss redrafting the letter with Rigler. • Updates re:collaboration with other city boards. • Nicoll—spoke with David Ensign,Planning Board(PB)member,who proposed attending select TAB meetings as a liaison between TAB and PB. • Question regarding what"advising"means in terms of advisory board,role. • Comment that TAB is restricted from opining regarding specific land use applications. • Interest expressed in collaborating,potential joint meetings;no interest in charter change. • Vision Zero Community Working Group(Duhaime)—Joe Paulson,Transportation Engineer (Lighting and Signals),discussed lighting improvements,school district/county sheriff driving class is tied to eligibility for campus parking permits. • TAB feedback to TAB Greenways Advisory Committee(GAC)representative regarding: • Greenways Capital Improvement Program Budget • Wetland variance for Arapahoe Underpass art project • Reminder:TAB 2018 CIP Bike Tour—June 201h 1:00 4:00 p.m. • Agenda Item 10: Future Schedule Discussion 111:26 p.m.1 • Drozdek,Duhaime will be excused from the July 2018 TAB meeting. • McIntyre will be excused from the October 2018 TAB meeting. Agenda Item 11: Adjournment 111:32 p.m.[ There being no further business to come before the board at this time,by motion regularly adopted,the meetin DRAFT TAB Minutes I 1 June,2018 Page 7 of 8 was adjourned at 11:32 p.m. Motion: moved to adjourn: Duhaime Second: McIntyre Motion passes 4:0:0 Date,Time,and Location of Next Meeting: The next meeting will be a regular meeting on Monday,9 July,2018 in the Council Chambers,2nd floor of the Municipal Building,at 6 .m.;unless otherwise decided by staff and the Board. PROVED BY: ATTES Bo rd Chair Board Secretary Date Date An audio recording of the full meeting for which these minutes are a summary is available on the Transportation Advisory Board web page. DRAFT TAB Minutes I l June,2018 Page 8 of 8