Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout022708 Transportation Coordinating Committee Minutes.docMINUTES BOZEMAN AREA TRANSPORTATION COORDINATING COMMITTEE WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2008 ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Vice - Chair Ross Gammon called the meeting to order at 10:03 a.m. on Wednesday, February 27, 2008, in the Commission Room, Municipal Building, 411 East Main Street, and directed the TCC and audience members to introduce themselves. Members Present: Ross Gammon, Maintenance Chief, Bozeman Division, MDT Patti Davis proxy for Kerry White, Gallatin County Planning Board Rob Bukvich, Bozeman Division, MDT Jeff Patten, Federal Highway Administration Al VanderWey, Urban Planning, MDT Jeff Kraus, Deputy Mayor, City of Bozeman Ralph Zimmer, Pedestrian and Traffic Safety Committee Bob Lashaway, Director, Facilities Services, MSU Christopher Scott, Planning Department, Gallatin County Debbie Arkell, Director of Public Service, City of Bozeman Joe Olsen, Engineering Services Superintendent, Butte District MDT Jeff Ebert, District Administrator Butte District MDT JP Pomnichowski, Planning Board, City of Bozeman Doug McSpadden, Safe Trails Coalition, Gallatin County Bill Murdock, Gallatin County Commissioner Lee Provance, Road Superintendent, Gallatin County Staff Present: Shoni Dykstra, Recording Secretary John Van Delinder, Street Superintendent, City of Bozeman George Durkin, Gallatin County Road Office Bob Murray, City Engineer Guests Present: Jeff Key, Robert Peccia and Associates Carol Strizich, MDT Helena Tamzin Brown, Four Corners Planning Committee Joe Gilpin ITEM 2. PUBLIC COMMENT {Limited to any public matter within the jurisdiction of the Bozeman Area Transportation Coordinating Committee not on this agenda. Three-minute time limit per speaker} Vice-Chair Gammon called for public comment. Tamzin Brown of the Four Corners Planning Committee and Chair of the Monforton Safe Routes to Schools (SRTS) stated she had a specific question regarding Monforton School Road. She noted the Current Transportation Plan has the road listed as a minor arterial. She noted the road is only two miles and dead-ends at Baxter Lane. She sought clarification on the reasoning behind the classification of the road as a minor arterial and wondered if the designation could be changed to a collector street. She noted non motorized trails along the road are an important part of the SRTS Program and the classification of the road affects the trails. Jeff Key of Robert Peccia and Associates noted he had listened to the Four Corners Group and is gathering ideas to better represent the area within the update. He noted the land use forecasting has bearing on the classification of streets. He noted the methodology relies on the travel demand model and the land use forecasting. He noted the forecasting from the Four Corners area had been unclear. He noted the area would be discussed when recommendations for the current plan were being made. Bob Lashaway noted the classification was based not only on the current use, but the best estimation of what the transportation system will be required to handle. He noted it is often at odds with what is currently going on. Mr. Key responded there is an obligation to find an alternative, but the envisioned land use is a key component in assurance of the roadway being able to handle future capacities. Ms. Brown noted there was a Four Corners Planning Committee Meeting that night from 4:30 to 7:00 at Monforton School. Seeing no further public comment, Vice-Chair Gammon closed public comment. ITEM 3. MINUTES OF JANUARY 23, 2008 Since there were no corrections to the minutes of the regular meeting of January 23, 2008, Vice-Chair Gammon announced the minutes are approved as distributed. ITEM 4. NEW BUSINESS Typical Section Discussion (Jeff Key) Mr. Key presented an update on the progress of the Transportation Plan Update. He noted Robert Peccia and Associates (RPA) had received the Year 2030 “Existing + Committed (E+C)” Network Model Output. He noted RPA would review the output in consultation with Cambridge Systematics (CS) to identify future problem areas. He noted the model would help identify major corridors as well as congestion issues and possible solutions. He noted a list of recommended major improvement project priorities had been developed. He stated ALTA has been working on the non-motorized portion of the plan. He noted RPA was striving to incorporate the non-motorized details along with the motorized to make the Plan more cohesive. He noted the continued outreach to the Commissions and members of the public. He stated the Committee would probably be looking at a Draft of the Transportation Update in late May. Mr. Key noted the typical sections included in the current Transportation Plan had received different criticisms. He noted criticism had been received relating to the typical sections not complying with the minimum MDT Geometric Design Standard and the Federal Classification Standard requirements. Jeff Ebert noted an email with three criteria of the typical sections in conflict with the Standards. Mr. Key noted National Highway System (NHS) Routes were exempt and wondered if those comments might have pertained to NHS Routes. Bob Murray noted the alternative sections on arterials and collectors are often not used as they often default to the same typical section. He noted some of the typical sections did not work well when actually used such as 11th Avenue and Alder Creek Drive. Mr. Lashaway noted the typical sections appeared to demonstrate a series of options existing for a specific right of way. He noted compromises being made in design to allow for streets moving to a higher classification in a specific right of way. Jeff Krauss noted it would be hard to squeeze a typical arterial standard into the right of way for established streets. He noted the Commission often felt constrained by the options included in the typical sections and fewer options was not appealing. Mr. Lashaway sought clarification on the need to include typical sections within the Update. Mr. Krauss noted City regulatory documents referred to the typical sections within the Transportation Plan. He also stated bus stops were not included in any of the typical sections. Mr. Key noted the typical sections should adhere to the MDT Geometric Design Standard, and that bus stops would be included within the Transit section of the Update. He noted that if only one typical section for each classification is being used, the other sections for the classification did not need to be included. Rob Bukvich noted in the development of the current typical sections the discussion had centered on new development and new streets rather than addressing infill projects. He noted the desire of the Committee was to establish the right of way requirements to assure the acquisition met the future need. He also noted the typical sections were only recommendations not a regulatory document. Mr. Murray noted developers often asked him which section to use. Mr. Key noted many of the rural typical sections did not lend themselves to actual application within the County. Mr. Krauss noted he agreed with Mr. Bukvich with the right of way acquisition being an important part of the typical sections. He noted the possibility of addressing infill with some typical sections such as Urban Infill or Downtown Design or language included within the narrative along with a default typical section to address new construction. Mr. Bukvich noted the typical sections could lead to more problems if the recommendations began to get technical. Mr. Krauss stated if only one typical section was being used for new construction it could be a standard for the City of Bozeman. Bill Murdock noted the typical section was a key reference for determining the width of right of way required. Mr. Murray noted right of way acquisition for the City was easy as there are minimum standards in place. He stated three of the graphics in the current typical sections for arterials were not in compliance with the UDO as one did not include a bike lane and two of them depicted on-street parking. He would like the typical sections to reflect the minimum standards of the UDO. Doug McSpadden noted the minimum criteria for each of the governing bodies was a key factor in the typical sections along with the ability to build in context to the minimum criteria. Mr. Key sought clarification on the interest the community has had regarding the typical sections. Mr. Murray noted he heard criticism regarding the local street standards being too wide as well as being too narrow. Mr. Bukvich noted developers were more vocal about the arterial and collector street standards. Mr. Key sought clarification on Figure 9-4 Recommended Local Street Standards. Mr. Murray noted the only typical section utilized was the 31’ back of curb to back of curb unless the street bordered a park when the 35’ back of curb to back of curb was required by the City. Mr. Lashaway noted the general public like quaint streets when they are being planned as a calming device, but when they get into their vehicles, they want to get to where they are going in a hurry. Mr. Krauss sought clarification on the width of local streets in the old neighborhood. Mr. Murray noted they ranged from 31 to 33 feet in the downtown area. He noted when vehicles are parked on the street there is only room for one vehicle to pass. Mr. Key sought clarification on how streets with different width right of ways were constructed. Mr. Murray noted the road tapered at the point where the right of way width narrowed. Ralph Zimmer noted the Pedestrian and Safety Traffic Committee had opposed the reduction in width on the local street standards as the reduction was an unwise compromise in safety. He noted the narrower streets allowed for less time to react to and see pedestrians moving into the street from between parked cars. Mr. Krauss noted the narrower lanes were effective in traffic calming. Mr. Key sought input on Figure 9-7 Recommended Principal Arterial Street Standards. Mr. Murray noted the top graphic complied with the UDO. He also noted the Emergency Parking/Bike Lane requirements were 10’ rather than 8’ to allow for expansion. Joe Gilpin noted the graphics should depict a wider sidewalk. Mr. Murray noted an ordinance change which required 6’ sidewalks in order to aid in snow removal. Chris Scott noted the 110’ right of way was included in the section because that is the County requirement for a principal arterial. Mr. Murray noted Figure 9-6 Recommended Minor Arterial Street Standards depicted on-street parking in two of the graphics which is not allowable per the UDO. Mr. Krauss noted the Commission had recently required front doors on houses fronting arterials. He noted the condition did not make sense if people are not allowed to park in front of their home. Mr. Zimmer noted residents still could access the sidewalk and front doors would still be justifiable. Mr. Murray noted most arterials are being constructed by the developer working on the adjacent property which means that most arterials are being constructed half at a time to provide for two way traffic until the adjacent property is ready to be developed. Mr. Key noted the discussion has lent itself to presenting a different type of typical section in the Update. He went on to collect input regarding Figure 9-5 Recommended Collector Street Standards which all depicted 90’ right of ways. Mr. Murray noted the two-lane 48’ back of Curb to Back of Curb was used. He noted other plans have been utilized but few of them have been fully constructed at this point. Mr. Bukvich noted it would be important to make sure minimum features were depicted. Mr. Krauss noted that context sensitive road design is going to impact how the public views the typical section. He also noted typical sections could be included for areas where improvements or additional capacity is needed to demonstrate what would be ideal. Mr. Bukvich noted the problem may not be with the typical sections themselves, but with the guidance given on when to use each one of the sections. Mr. Murray noted having fewer typical sections maybe helpful as there was so little guidance on when to utilize the typical sections. Mr. Scott noted the right of way for collector streets was in compliance with the County requirements. He noted the County was not able to mitigate the acquisition of right of way across from new developments. Mr. Scott noted the rural exhibits did not accurately reflect the county requirements. He noted many of the long term issues regarding long term maintenance such as lighting and raised medians. Lee Provance noted the City does not face the same problem with only acquiring right of way on one side of the street due to the phasing of development. He noted as long as the County was able to acquire the necessary right of way he would like to stick with the basic construction on County roads. Mr. Key noted the typical sections should depict what is actually required and actually going to be built, but also include what will be required down the road when the entire right of way has been acquired. He noted it would be important to reinforce the reasoning behind the typical section. Mr. Bukvich noted including bus stop requirements and the plan view of the street as required would be nice. Mr. Key noted there were certain concepts the Transit Committee would like to see included, but he noted it would be included in a separate section and would not necessarily need to impact the typical sections. Mr. Zimmer noted Figure 9-8 did not address the needs of pedestrians at all. He noted if there were references to bicycle lanes he would like to see provisions for pedestrians included. Mr. Scott noted the County did have a Trails plan with many trails running parallel to the right of ways. He noted there is very little foot traffic in many areas of the County. Mr. Bukvich noted the lanes would need to be striped. Mr. Provance noted funding would need to be available. Mr. Zimmer noted that trails have a lot of merit, but are not a feasible mitigation for foot traffic when it has been wet or during the winter. Mr. McSpadden noted that if the roads were not striped he would still like to see some striping for crossings especially when dealing with schools. Mr. Key noted he had a good idea of the Committee’s perspective and the areas which are not working. He noted he would seek further clarification from the public, engineers, and architects and would clarify any differences between MDT, Federal Standards, and the typical sections. He sought further input from the Committee. Mr. Zimmer sought clarification on which architects and engineers Mr. Key would be presenting these documents too. Mr. Key noted the presentation would be to a representative from each of the architectural and engineering firms in Bozeman. He noted he is not looking to them for approval, but rather is hoping to hear what is working for them and areas that could be improved on. Mr. Zimmer noted architects and engineers are not always affiliated with a firm and gathering input from those individuals would also be helpful. Mr. Key responded he would like to present to those affiliated with a firm and then to a wider variety of people from the general public. Mr. Key noted he is finding a desire to have narrower lane width. He noted it manifests itself in planning documents such as the North Seventh Connectivity Plan. He sought clarification on the City’s mitigation of planning documents which are in conflict with the Transportation Plan. Debbie Arkell noted the North Seventh Connectivity Plan was adopted by the City Commission with their knowledge of the conflict. Mr. Key noted the Commission would request North Seventh be taken off the Federal Functional Classification System in order to implement the North Seventh Connectivity Plan. Jeff Patten noted at this point the improvements of the North Seventh Interchange were being developed to the standard required by the Federal Functional Classification System. Mr. Bukvich added the vision plan for North Seventh was being accommodated in the development process. He also noted the urban design standards were formulated by a large variety of groups including the League of Cities and Towns, MACO, and the Federal Highway Administration and if Bozeman would like to see negotiations they would go through the League of Cities and Towns. He also noted striping needs to be done more frequently on narrower roads. ITEM 5. 2008 MEETING DATES AND ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Committee at this time the meeting was adjourned at 11:43 a.m. _____________________________________________ Andrew C. Epple, Chairperson Bozeman Area Transportation Coordinating Committee