Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout121708 Transportation Coordinating Committee Minutes.docMINUTES BOZEMAN AREA TRANSPORTATION COORDINATING COMMITTEE WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 2008 ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Andy Epple called the meeting to order at 10:05 a.m. on Wednesday, December 17, 2008 in the City Commission Room, City Hall, 121 North Rouse Avenue, Bozeman, MT and directed the TCC members to introduce themselves. Members present: Christopher Scott, Planning Department, Gallatin County Joe Olsen, Engineering Services Superintendent, Butte District MDT Andy Epple, Planning Director, City of Bozeman, Chair Ray Stocks, Maintenance Chief, MDT Kerry White, Gallatin County Planning Board Bob Lashaway, Montana State University Ralph Zimmer, Pedestrian and Traffic Safety Committee Carol Strizich, Statewide and Urban Planning, MDT – proxy for Dick Turner Jeff Patten, Federal Highway Administration Bob Murray, Project Engineer, City of Bozeman - proxy for Debbie Arkell Al Vander Wey, Urban Planning, MDT Lee Provance, Gallatin County Road & Bridge Department Rob Bukvich, Engineer, Bozeman Division MDT John Van Delinder, City of Bozeman Street Superintendent Doug McSpadden, Safe Trails Coalition Guests: Consultants Present: R. Dale Beland Jeff Key, PE; Robert Peccia and Associates Tamzin Brown Scott Randall, EIT; Robert Peccia and Associates Ted Lange Joe Gilpin; Alta Planning and Design George Durkin Mariann Amsden 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.} Chairperson Epple opened public comment. Dale Beland, Public Comment Mr. Beland a planning consultant with an office at 2023 Stadium Drive spoke of his concerns regarding the consistency of the draft plan with adopted County plans and policies relevant to the Gooch Hill West neighborhood area. That is an area of roughly 1000 acres which was subject to a citizen driven development plan adopted by the County Commission. All of the Work that's been done there is consistent with the adopted County Growth Policy. He had some concerns regarding specific exhibits but with assurances from Jeff Key regarding his concerns and a copy of his comments in a letter to Scott Randall included in the record he feels satisfied that his concerns have been met. Marianne Amsden, Public Comment Ms. Amsden read a letter from Sandy Dodge, the Chair of the Recreation and Parks Board regarding what the equestrian status is in the PROST plan. (Please reference the attached letter.) She also wanted to share a petition from Gallep. Public Comment Closed. Seeing no additional public comment, Mr. Epple closed public comment. ITEM 3. NEW BUSINESS Review and Action on the Public Draft of the Transportation Plan and Public Comments. Andy Epple, City of Bozeman Planning Director, Chair Mr. Epple explained that the objective of the meeting today is to review the public comment that’s been received regarding the Draft of the Transportation Plan. The comments have been provided in a 66 page matrix and summarized by Jeff Key and Scott Randall with a consultant’s response for each comment. Many of these comments have been responded to already but in some cases there may be some items that TCC decides to change. Jeff Key, Transportation Engineer Consultant Mr. Key has addressed all public comments received. The public comment closed on December 5, 2008. Of the 65 people that commented, 14 commented specifically on equestrian usage, 18 commented on mid-block crossings. The other half were across the board. The difficult part is that many comments were not related to a specific concern in the Transportation Plan. Mr. Key will point out those items within the document that he feels may need to be revised. Mr. Key began the review discussion with the comments related to equestrian usage. The Gallatin County Planning Board has handed out a letter dated December 15th, 2008 with recommendations of what they would like to see regarding equestrian usage in the Plan. (Please see the attached letter.) Mr. Key gave brief history of reviewing equestrian usage by the TCC as it relates to the Transportation Plan. Joe Gilpen and Mr. Key met with Marianne Amsden who was representing Gallep and agreed to put together a graphic that would show what an equestrian system might be and where these facilities are. They did not endorse this graphic but put the graphic together just to facilitate a discussion with TCC members. The County Planning Board letter summarizes the changes that the equestrian group is seeking. Mr. Epple Mr. Epple reviewed the paragraph that is already in the Transportation Plan regarding equestrian usage. He asked the TCC members whether they wanted to change past direction in regards to equestrian usage or whether they would like to incorporate additional language that the Gallep folks and the County Planning Board have suggested. Kerry White Mr. White stated that the County planning board went over all the equestrian comments and they felt the changes were fairly minor and reasonable to put in the plan. Rob Bukvich Mr. Bukvich would like to propose that instead of talking about equestrians, pedestrians and bicycles we should talk about non-motorized users and motorized users. He feels the equestrian plan should be located in the PROST plan. Lee Provance Mr. Provance agrees with Mr. Bukvich. He feels you can’t break out each use and have a different trail for each type of use. Unless you license them and extract money from users it is not viable to build or maintain equestrian facilities. He does not see equestrian use as a viable source of transportation. He feels it’s more of a recreation issue. Bob Murray Mr. Murray also feels equestrian usage belongs in the PROST plan. Ralph Zimmer Mr. Zimmer wondered what the ramifications of Mr. Bukvich’s plan would be. Rob Bukvich Mr. Bukvich explained his intention to simplify this whole discussion by just referring to motorized vs. non-motorized transportation throughout the plan rather than singling out user groups. Ralph Zimmer Mr. Zimmer explained that the Pedestrian and Safety Committee do not feel that horses should be on the same facilities that pedestrians use particularly in the city core. That committee’s concerns would not be alleviated with Mr. Bukvich’s proposal. Jeff Key Mr. Key pointed out that the Transportation Plan has been put together with a focus on Transportation assessment which includes vehicles, bicycles, transit and pedestrians. Kerry White Mr. White pointed out that they use the Transportation Plan on the County Planning Board to plan infrastructure for the future. The Transportation plan could be an important document for the County to use to legitimize equestrian use for newly created transportation or recreational routes. Rob Bukvich Mr. Bukvich asked if the PROST plan would work for that purpose. Kerry White Mr. White stated that the PROST plan is more of a city document. He also pointed out that the wording he is recommending states ‘consider equestrian needs where appropriate.’ It does not say that equestrian facilities must be put in. Individual cases would be considered by their perspective commission. Christopher Scott Mr. Scott pointed out that the County through a sub-committee of the Planning Board is updating the Gallatin County Interconnect which relates to parks and trails. It may be an appropriate document to address equestrian usage. Kerry White Mr. White explained that the equestrian paragraph that Mr. Key updated within the Transportation Plan references the Gallatin County Interconnect (GCI) as well as the PROST plan. A completion date is not yet set for the GCI. They’ve completed the trail inventory and are currently proposing trail interconnects between the schools and all the parks. Jeff Key Mr. Key wanted to point out that the graphic attached to the memo handed out today was different than that within the public comment matrix handed out today. Lee Provance Mr. Provance wanted to make it clear that there is no effort to disallow equestrians in right of ways. Equestrian usage is accommodated in thought. He feels that legal problems could come up if we extort right of ways out of developers for limited usage. Mr. Epple Mr. Epple used an example from King County where there is an extensive network of trails they are attempting to preserve. They have language in place, ‘where developers dedicate equestrian trail easements in accordance with an inter-connective plan they should be eligible for park land dedication credits.’ These are different than transportation plan credits. Chris Scott Mr. Scott stated that a subdivision can currently get park land credits for trails that are at least 25’ wide. Public Comment Opened Mr. Epple opened public comment. Tamzin Brown, Public Comment Ms. Brown of Monforton School Road pointed out that equestrian usage has traditionally been used for transportation. She used the example of her neighbor who must drive her cows from her house on Baxter to another house on Monforton. She is now on a paved, 45 MPH road with no shoulder. She feels equestrian trails are not limited use. She said they need 4 feet of flat, dirt shoulder. Mariann Amsden, Public Comment Ms. Amsden pointed out that some of the transportation plans in other areas accommodate equestrian uses. She said that roadways have been used for all kinds of activities. The roads are serving more uses than strictly transportation. They are not looking for special facilities, just a place in the right of way. She felt that equestrian usage should be mentioned further in the document within objectives and goals. She thinks many more people would ride their horses if a safe passage existed. They don’t have a safe place to ride. There are places where a transportation and recreation plan must cross. The only way to get from one place to another is through the roads that already exist. Ted Lange, Gallatin Valley Land Trust GVLT does not have a position on equestrian issues but they have been spending a lot of time working on maps with them because they have relevance to trails. It all comes down to right of way. It is hard to separate transportation from recreation because they want to connect to quite a few places such as the MSU horse barns and the Fairgrounds. He feels the question is whether you want horses on the road or whether you want to have a right of way for horses to get to those destinations. This issue is about additional right of ways. What GVLT has been hearing from people in the city is that bikes and pedestrians should be separate from horses. The other issue is crossings. Additional signage and other specific accommodations may be needed for horses. Public Comment Closed Seeing no further new public comment, Mr. Epple closed public comment on this subject. Lee Provance Mr. Provance does agree that we need to recognize the interface between transportation and recreation. He feels that’s incorporated when the recreational plan is accomplished not within the transportation plan. Kerry White Mr. White made a motion to accept the proposed changes to the TCC transportation plan as submitted by the Gallatin County Planning Board. Doug McSpadden Mr. McSpadden is wondering if equestrian usage is not addressed here does that shut them out at the commission level. Andy Epple Mr. Epple said that all decisions are ultimately made by the commissioners including action on this document itself. There will be public hearings on this document, possibly a joint meeting. If this body does not recommend something it does not preclude the commissioners from inserting something anyway. We are in an advisory position. Kerry White Mr. White would like to add to his motion ‘with the exception of the adoption and insertion of the map.’ Doug McSpadden Mr. McSpadden seconded Mr. White’s motion. Joe Olsen Mr. Olsen asked whether section 5-5 is still in place that deals with equestrian usage. Jeff Key Mr. Key responded that section 5-5 is still in the document. Rob Bukvich Mr. Bukvich asked for clarification regarding the memorandum that is included in the motion on the table. The memorandum states that there are no public trail systems within the city of Bozeman that allows for equine travel. He asked if this were really true. Andy Epple Mr. Epple stated that there is no trail systems designated for equine travel. The city engineer has communicated to Gallep that there is no prohibition anywhere in the Municipal Code against equine travel on city streets. Rob Bukvich Mr. Bukvich asked whether there is a prohibition for horseback riders from using the trails. Andy Epple Mr. Epple is not sure whether there is or not. Mr. Epple took a look at the letter from Sandy Dodge the chairman of the PROST plan committee for the city. The letter from Mr. Dodge makes a recommendation stating, “as for the existing trails in Bozeman the Recreation & Parks Advisory Board and the Bozeman Parks Department have determined that existing city trail locations are not appropriate for equestrian use due to safety and user conflict issues.” Mr. Epple does not know if that constitutes a formal ban but that is their position on it. Kerry White Mr. White pointed out that the text in the motion states ‘where appropriate’ in three different locations. It is up to the commission to make the decisions in consultation with the road and planning department regarding what is appropriate. This text really has no authority; it just recognizes equestrian use as legitimate use that should be considered when roadways and right of ways are created. Lee Provance Mr. Provance said that if Gallep or any other organization comes up with a plan to construct trails within the right away, if appropriate and there is room, they’ll allow them if someone wants to build them outside of his limited funding. Carol Strizich Ms. Strizich asked if there are design standards for equestrian use on roads and right of ways. Joe Gilpen Mr Gilpen said the forest service has produced an equestrian trail design guideline manual that spells out recommendations for equestrian trails, with 18” tread being the minimum. It is not a road guideline. Kerry White Mr. White also stated that the guideline has clearing width and heights. On the tread design, equestrians prefer the softer surface, not paved asphalt or concrete. Andy Epple Mr. Epple asked whether TCC members had any interest in pursuing the recommendation made earlier in the meeting by Rob Bukvich to change language throughout the Transportation Plan to say non-motorized instead of bicycle/pedestrian/equestrian. Seeing no comment regarding this item, Mr. Epple set that recommendation aside. Vote on the motion to accept the proposed text changes to the TCC transportation plan as submitted by the Gallatin County Planning Board with the exception of the adoption and insertion of the map. Andy Epple Mr. Epple made a friendly amendment to the motion on the floor to eliminate the sentence within the text that refers to the City not having any trails for equestrian use. (3rd bullet in the document.) Kerry White Mr. White and Mr. McSpadden accepted the friendly amendment to their motion. Andy Epple Mr. Epple called for a voice vote. Two votes were for the motion, one member abstained from the vote and the remainder voted No. Motion failed. Bob Lashaway Mr. Lashaway asked whether Mr. Key should capture the comments that were made relative to the apparent adequacy of coverage of recreational usage including equestrian use to go forward. Andy Epple Mr. Epple feels the Transportation Plan should be amended to say ‘at this time it is expected that equestrian user interests will be incorporated in an updated or amended PROST plan and will be addressed through the Gallatin County Interconnect Plan currently underway. Bob McSpadden Mr. McSpadden made a motion with a second from Lee Provance to add to the last sentence in the Transportation Plan regarding equestrian use. The addition will say ‘at this time it is expected that equestrian user interests will be incorporated in an updated or amended PROST plan, as well as the Gallatin County Interconnect Plan currently underway. Vote on the motion. Mr. Epple called for a voice vote. The motion passed unanimously. Jeff Key Mr. Key continued down the matrix provided and brought up comment #4 from Chris Scott regarding when urban local roadway standards should be provided for sub-divisions located outside of the city but within the county. Mr. Key has decided after talking to the county not to pursue further language within this document. Chris Scott Mr. Scott was looking for justification to show when those types of facilities are needed in those urban densities. The County may look at that on their own and deal with it locally through other regulations but not in this plan. Jeff Key Mr. Key mentioned that items had been added to some of the tables within the document and with one exception they are necessary. Item #6 however regarding Wallace Boulevard should be removed because the Transportation plan should only be dealing with arterial roads and above. As a matter of policy we don’t want to put forward recommendations on local roadways for stenciling or signage. Andy Epple Mr. Epple asked for discussion on Mr. Key’s recommended action. Seeing no comment, Mr. Epple stated that TCC was in support of Mr. Key’s recommendation. Jeff Key Mr. Key stated that comments 6-10 are all related to equestrian issues. Comment #11 is in strong opposition to a proposed Highland Blvd Oak Street connection. This is a future long-term corridor and just makes options available for cross regional flow and it would be many years to realize this project. Mr. Key does not recommend any changes to the document in response. Andy Epple Mr. Epple asked for comment. Seeing none Mr. Key moved to the next item. Jeff Key Mr. Key said comment #14 is the first comment about mid-block crossings. 18 individuals commented about lack of mid-block crossings on arterials. One commenter said it is important to design standards for creating safe mid-block crossings. Response was that the discussions regarding mid-block crossings has been limited to local streets due to concern about encouraging pedestrians to cross mid-block on high traffic roadways. Mr. Key has had a lot of discussion with staff and Mr. Olsen regarding mid-block crossings. As a general rule the TCC have not applied mid-block standards on arterials and collectors. Andy Epple Mr. Epple and TCC members agreed with Mr. Key’s summation of the TCC’s past response to mid-block crossings. Rob Bukvich Mr. Bukvich asked for confirmation regarding the current wording in the Plan regarding mid-block crossings. He thought the plan says that mid-block crossings are discouraged or not recommended on arterials. If that’s the case, it doesn’t mean they are prohibited, it just means they aren’t recommended. Lee Provance Mr. Provance feels mid-block crossings are not only a safety issue but would cause more of a congestive atmosphere and a maintenance issue on arterials. Jeff Key Mr. Key read the section of the Transportation Draft plan that deals with mid-block crossings on page 9-28. Bob Murray Mr. Murray said that the administrative draft previously had language that dealt with mid-block crossings at arterials but after discussion with city staff and TCC members at the Chamber meeting it was decided to remove those sections and not have recommendations for collectors and arterials. From a city public works standpoint we don’t want to have standards for mid-block crossings on collectors and arterials but there are always special cases where things can be done differently. They are not however prohibited. Bob Murray Mr. Murray pointed out that there is some specific language regarding mid-block crossings still in the tables that Mr. Murray would like to have removed. Bob Lashaway Mr. Lashaway brought up the drawing regarding mid-block crossings and requested that the heading signify that the recommendation is for local streets. Public Comment Mr. Epple opened public comment on the subject of mid-block crossings. Ted Lange, Public Comment Mr. Lange from Gallatin Valley Land Trust agrees with the comment that this plan should not recommend standard mid-block crossings. It absolutely has to be a case by case basis. He is however concerned that the current language is too strong against mid-block crossings. He feels it ignores the fact that people will still cross at some of these locations and there are a lot of variables to be considered. He’d like to turn the discussion around and see the language that was in the previous plan. He mentioned studies regarding mid-block crossings in Toronto. Mr. Lange handed out maps to show where he felt several should be including on Oak Street where pedestrians must go a long way to cross the street. He would recommend a traffic island on Durston Road it may also accomplish traffic calming. Andy Epple Mr. Epple asked for a discussion to finalize the issues of mid-block crossings. Ralph Zimmer Mr. Zimmer made a motion with a second from Rob Bukvich to insert language into the document to say ‘mid-block crossings of collector and arterial streets are strongly discouraged but may be considered in unique situations where adequate warning and protection are provided’. Andy Epple Mr. Epple asked for a voice vote on the Motion. The motion passed unanimously. Jeff Key On page 10 of 66 at the bottom of the matrix was a comment about an I-90 and railroad bike/pedestrian overpass. There were quite a few comments about making this a priority for the non-motorized network. The I-90 and railroad bike/pedestrian overpass is part of the recommendations being made as part of the Transportation Plan update. The recommendation was left out of table 5-4 because it is part of a rail to trails recommendation and doesn’t actually apply to the road network. It is part of the Story Hill’s Rail Trail. The recommended action is to revise the table description to make clear what the overpass is and what the likely cost of that will be. One criticism has been that there really isn’t an accurate cost in this document. Joe Gilpen Mr. Gilpen explained that this facility follows an abandoned rail way alignment. One possible idea is to use the Montana Department of Transportation adopt-a-bridge program to get a one lane river or rail bridge that could be aesthetically matching. You would be dealing with relocation costs, modification and bridge deck railing improvements. A new bridge would be very cost prohibitive. This project would extend the main street to mountains trail. This project was built into the PROST plan. Jeff Key Mr. Key stated this is a very long term project. Mr. Key recommends that we expand the text, clarifying costs and what we are envisioning for it. Rob Bukvich Mr. Bukvich pointed out that he feels it is a good project but the land is in private ownership creating right of way issues. Also the bridge is not there anymore because it hindered oversize traffic on the interstate so would need to be raised. It is a big project. Jeff Key Mr. Key stated that this is the type of language that should be added to the table. Bob Murray Mr. Murray added that he had serious issues with the cost estimate. He said requirements would make it a multi-million dollar project and we need accurate costs for it. Jeff Key Mr. Key reiterated that the consultants recommended action is to beef up the text in the table and include further cost estimates. Andy Epple Mr. Epple asked if the group was in agreement with the recommendation made by Mr. Key. Ted Lange, Public Comment Mr. Lange stated that this is something they’ve been pushing for. They agree with the recommendation and would like this as clear as possible. Andy Epple Mr. Epple stated that Mr. Key has a green light to go forward with this recommendation. Jeff Key Mr. Key said that the comments on page 18 of 66 pointed out a technical error within the document with regards to the legend of Figure 1-1 that will be changed. Mr. Key would like clarification from the group however whether on figure 1-1 the study area boundary, we need the functional classification system within that graphic. We could remove all those colored lines that are adding confusion. Andy Epple Mr. Epple likes the idea of having the existing major street network. It’s not purporting the future street network. Discussion ensued regarding graphics and figures and how they should be portrayed. Bob Murray Mr. Murray feels that the graphic is fine the way it is. Kerry White Mr. White said that a road extension under discussion actually goes through private property and the figure is not clear as to whether it is a committed plan, etc. Jeff Key Mr. Key said that he could clarify things through the note process, recognizing that some of the MSN projects are not committed roadways at this time and right of way issues may exist and will have to be addressed during the development process. Andy Epple Mr. Epple asked if there was consensus to have Mr. Key add clarification language. Ensuing comments from Mr. White and Mr. Provance confirmed that this language would be beneficial. Jeff Key Mr. Key continued on through the comments. Some were from city staff that wanted a few things clarified or revised. Mr. Key has addressed these and recommends simple revisions and changes as suggested by city staff. (Please see the matrix pages 19-22 for comments and the consultants suggested action for details.) Andy Epple Mr. Epple, seeing no arguments against these revisions told Mr. Key they were good to go. Jeff Key Mr. Key said that comment 28 has to do with the East Belgrade Interchange and transportation in that area. This is a very specific substantial project that has advanced to the EA process. No changes to the plan are recommended. Rob Bukvich Mr. Bukvich asked that those comments be forwarded to him. Jeff Key Mr. Key said that on Page 25 were comments from Bob Murray. Bob Murray Mr. Murray stated that he was happy with the consultants suggested action and responses to his comments. Jeff Key Mr. Key went on to comment #32. He asked the group about item #2 on page 31 and whether they suggest adding an MSN project to the plan for reconstruct of these roads to urban standards out into the future planning horizon. Lee Provance Mr. Provance said the County has talked about doing that in the past year between the city and county. There is no in depth design standard though. There is a 60’ drop-off on one side and a huge hill on the other. It will probably be done in the next couple years. Discussion ensued regarding how to respond to item #2 on page 31 of the matrix. Rob Bukvich Mr. Bukvich suggested not adding these items as an MSN project. Andy Epple Mr. Epple clarified that this would be the subject of maintenance as appropriate but not the subject of a major improvement at this time. Jeff Key Mr. Key moved forward to page 37, comment #40 from the Bozeman Area Bicycle Advisory Board. The third bullet on page 37 deals with the width of bike lanes and Mr. Key asked for clarification from TCC on this item. Andy Epple Mr. Epple asked if the TCC would like to recommend changing the bike lane width to 6’ or stick with the standard 5’. The group decided to stick with the 5’ standard for bike lane width. Jeff Key Mr. Key spoke regarding the fourth bullet. See the matrix for the consultant’s action. The fifth bullet on page 37 was discussed next with Mr. Key requesting input. Andy Epple Mr. Epple addressed this bullet saying that the transportation plan is not where we address this. It should be addressed in our subdivision regulations and development codes. There are unfortunate cases such as at North 19th where multi-use pathways were constructed and they end in a rocky weed patch. He does feel they need to do some work on this, but this is out of the scope of this document. Bob Murray Mr. Murray agreed that this was out of the scope of this document. Rob Bukvich Mr. Bukvich stated that a valuable part of this plan is identifying gaps so that local agencies can deal with them. Jeff Key Mr. Key moved ahead to page 38 of 66 which were comments from city staff Andy Kerr. Please see the matrix for consultants suggested action in response to these comments. Doug McSpadden Mr. McSpadden asked about the traffic calming comment and asked that we be careful about what traffic calming issues are. Jeff Key Mr. Key clarified that the comment regarding traffic calming was specific to the City’s petition process for a City program in place. Mr. Key then went on to page 55. Andy Epple Mr. Epple asked if anyone had any issues or comments with any items on pages 39-55. Kerry White Mr. White asked about page 39, comment 43. Jeff Key Mr. Key said that there was really no controversy within the comment; it is a priority issue that we have no control over. Andy Epple Mr. Epple said there was nothing really to change other than prioritization through a CIP program or through a subdivision process. Deb Stober also appealed directly to the commission about this and it’s getting attention outside of the transportation plan. Jeff Key Mr. Key said that pages 55-57 are comprehensive and thought out comments regarding the North Seventh Conductivity Plan and that the comments state that the Transportation Plan is not within compliance of many of the concepts of the North Seventh Plan. Mr. Key said they have not ignored the plan. He understands the North Seventh Conductivity Plan is visionary, but on the transportation end of it, it cannot be replicated mainly because of road way standards. The road way standards shown in that document are not in compliance with federal highway standards for that kind of facility. That is probably the most controversial comment. He is not sure how to deal with that. Discussion ensued regarding this item. Jeff Key Mr. Key spoke about consultants suggested action for additional responses to these comments. Rob Bukvich Mr. Bukvich said that he’s talked to the North Seventh Urban Renewal Board and they have voluntarily given up on the round-abouts in intersections. Andy Epple Mr. Epple said that one option or reference to it is that if the city chose to take the North Seventh corridor off the urban route system there would be more flexibility to do more alternative road way designs than are currently afforded. He’s not suggesting that is a good idea but it might put things in context. It’s not so much that our plan isn’t in compliance with the North Seventh Conductivity Plan it’s that the North Seventh Conductivity Plan doesn’t comply with Federal highway and urban route design standards. There was no interest in pursuing this option. Jeff Key Mr. Key brought up the third bullet from the bottom of page 57 for discussion by members. Discussion ensued regarding the mentioned table and graphic related to this comment. Through discussion TCC members felt that no changes were needed. Ted Lange, Public Comment Mr. Lange said that the shared used path on the North Seventh Plan was the result of GVLT comments as well. The concept is getting over to Spring Hill for a fishing access and connecting to commercial nodes. For consistency purposes, Mr. Lange felt it might be worth keeping in the plan. Jeff Key Mr. Key spoke regarding the comments on page 58 from Ted Lange. Many of the items have already been addressed. Ted Lange, Public comment Mr. Lange brought up his comment regarding boulevard trees. Andy Epple Mr. Epple said that boulevard trees are a requirement in our development standards for the UDO. We have a hard time getting people to maintain and irrigate them. That requirement is covered through the UDO. The County does not really have boulevards. Jeff Key Mr. Key said that there are more comments in the last few pages but he didn’t feel there were any necessary changes in regards to those comments. Mr. Key has done every plan in Montana except for Billings in the last fifteen years and these comments were very good comments. He did not see nasty vindictive comments like he has in other areas. He feels generally the community is pleased. Andy Epple Mr. Epple would agree. He then asked for any other general comments. Chris Scott Mr. Scott said that on page 238 there are references to the Gallatin Valley Growth Policy and it should say Gallatin County Growth Policy. Ralph Zimmer Mr. Zimmer referred to the conversation earlier in the meeting regarding sidewalks and missing sidewalk sections, etc. and his on-going testimony about concerns regarding sidewalks that the Pedestrian and Safety committee has. This issue will be brought before the city commission at their January 20th meeting. Mr. Zimmer would like to make a motion to encourage the city to adopt a comprehensive policy on sidewalk installation, maintenance and replacement. Discussion regarding Mr. Zimmer’s motion. TCC came to the conclusion that this motion does not really belong in the Transportation Plan but may be entertained as a general motion of support outside of the Transportation Plan. Ralph Zimmer Mr. Zimmer did not object to his motion being removed for consideration outside of the Transportation Plan. Andy Epple Mr. Epple said that the TCC’s charge now is to endorse a transportation plan for the greater Bozeman area with the modifications that we have made today as noted by Jeff Key and staff and their consultant recommendations. Rob Bukvich Mr. Bukvich moved and Bob Murray seconded that TCC adopts this document with the appropriate amendments as discussed today and forward it to the appropriate organizations with recommendations for approval. Kerry White Mr. White stated that he would have liked to see the group put in the equestrian material but he will support this document. He thinks it’s a great plan and Mr. Key has done an excellent job on it. Andy Epple Mr. Epple said the equine users have other avenues to pursue and he will personally support their concerns being addressed further. Andy Epple Mr. Epple, seeing no further discussion on the motion called for a voice vote on the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Ralph Zimmer Mr. Zimmer asked whether the 66 page matrix would be going to the commissions. Andy Epple Mr. Epple stated that yes, the matrix would be forwarded to the commissions with the last column on the matrix being filled out by the consultant to reflect actions made today by TCC. This includes the public comment as well. Bob Murray Mr. Murray brought up that public comment is taken all the way up to the hearing date. Jeff Key Mr. Key will also place public comment after December 5th in the matrix but will not continue to respond to those new comments unless a commissioner requests a response. Additional materials will also be added such as the round-about graphics and other such material that will be ran through people like Rick Hixson and Bob Murray before being added. Andy Epple Mr. Epple said he expects the public hearing for these bodies to be towards the end of January or beginning of February, 2009. The commissioners might possibly have a joint hearing for this document. Kerry White Mr. White asked if these materials would be prepared by the next TCC meeting date of January 28th. Andy Epple Mr. Epple responded that yes, we will have the materials prepared and ready for that meeting. After that we should be able to get back to our quarterly meetings. Ralph Zimmer Mr. Zimmer requested a copy of all the revised materials before the commissions have public hearings regarding the Transportation Draft Plan. Andy Epple Mr. Epple asked for final comments regarding the Transportation Plan. ITEM 3. NEW BUSINESS Ralph Zimmer A motion was made by Mr. Zimmer with a second from Bob Murray to encourage the city to adopt a comprehensive policy on sidewalk installation, maintenance and replacement. Andy Epple Mr. Epple reminded everyone that the Pedestrian and Traffic Safety Committee will be appearing before the City Commission on January 20th, 2009 and will have this if the motion passed. Rob Bukvich Mr. Bukvich asked Mr. Zimmer if he wanted a more detailed sentence on how they want to do that. Ralph Zimmer Mr. Zimmer responded no, any details they’ll add at the commission meeting. Kerry White Mr. White brought up concern for recommending a policy that is unknown. Andy Epple Mr. Epple responded that the motion is to encourage the city to adopt a comprehensive policy. The TCC is not suggesting what that policy would be. Andy Epple Seeing no further discussion on the motion, Mr. Epple called for a voice vote. The motion passed unanimously. Andy Epple Mr. Epple called for further discussion. He also thanked everyone for their time and effort in putting together the Transportation Plan. ITEM. 4 MEETING DATES AND ADJOURNMENT The next Transportation Coordination Committee will take place on January 28, 2009 from 10:00 to 12:00. The meeting was adjourned at 1:09 p.m. NOTE: THESE MINUTES ARE NOT WORD FOR WORD AND NOT EVERY COMMENT WAS INCLUDED. ______________________________________________ Andrew C. Epple, Chairperson Bozeman Area Transportation Coordinating Committee Prepared by: ______________________________ Aimee Kissel, Deputy City Clerk Approved on: January 28, 2009.