Project Meeting Minutes – 4^th Steering Committee Meeting

Date:               Thursday – November 8, 2007

Time:                7:30AM to 9:30AM

Location:         Crossroads Building – Conference Room 100

In attendance: Keith Walzak, Jack Rogers, Beth Drum, Christina Rinderle, Chris Loftus, Bill Carver, Nicole Killian, Peter Schertz, Jeremy Klop, Bob Kunkel

John Viner - observer

I.                  Review Open House Input                                          

Open House Gathering was November 7^th: 5:00PM to 8:00PM at the Henry Strater Theatre.  The majority of the attendees voted for options A & B, although they also voted strongly for design considerations that included the plaza pedestrian spaces, more bicycle parking, and sidewalk café seating.  The challenge is accommodating these design elements, along with existing parking meters, benches, magazine racks, etc into the current 11-foot sidewalk width.  The outcome may end up being a mix of option B with some bulb-outs where appropriate to accommodate the desired design elements.

There was also strong community input for a parking management plan.  There are no opportunities to increase the parking on Main Avenue.  None of the sidewalk alternatives impact the number of parking spaces, with the exception of mid-block bulb-outs.  Bulb-outs on the corners only impact the current red zone and do not take away parking spaces; they add to pedestrian zones.  All of the community input regarding their desire for more downtown parking will be provided to City Council. 

All of the input from the public open house was helpful and will be used by the steering committee to help in the decision making process. 

Bill Carver: Perhaps the language for alternates C, D, & E should be changed to “repair or replace sidewalks” because we don’t want to overburden these options unnecessarily.  First of all, we are not advocating wholesale replacement of sidewalks that are in good condition.  Bulb-outs would only affect the corners and sidewalks may not even need to be replaced in the remaining portion of the block.  Secondly, there is a lack of information to the public regarding the business impacts during this project.  Businesses would likely only be closed for one day, if at all, while fresh concrete is poured at their entryway if needed. 

Peter Schertz: Yes, I second this.  There is a disconnect between the long-term vision and the short-term impacts, and there is misinformation.  A four year project does not mean it is four years of disruption and construction.  It is a block by block approach and only upgrading/ repairing / replacing where needed.  We also need to look at the costs of each scenario so that business owners can make an informed decision. 

Keith Walzak: Agreed, but there are also construction sequences that cause many variables in determining costs. 

John Viner: There are also the impacts to downtown business owners vs the general public’s impression of downtown’s character.  Should we do a mail in survey to collect more information?

Keith: Agreed it is another tool to collect information, but not everyone responds to this, and we already have a good deal of information from the public meeting and the block by block “walk and talk” we did last week.  We will continue with our flyers to the businesses downtown and the one next month will address construction impacts. 

What is the effect on this project with the new City Manager position open?

Jack Rogers: We should move forward with public sentiment; The new City Manager will likely not be involved in this decision.

Keith: A combination of Option B & C seems to meet the public sentiments.  Option A is a continuation of a piecemeal approach with varying quality of repair and doesn’t meet the input of design considerations. 

Option E can work, but we don’t have public support and leadership, nor do we have a much needed parking management plan. 

Option D with its curb-less extensions doesn’t gain much, especially considering the costs involved. 

Bill Carver: I think it’s a good idea to put ½ or full bulb-outs at non-signalized intersections.  That way you have one end of each block where the signalized intersections occur with no bulb-out, which allows for large semi trucks to do their loading and unloading.  The cost to these bulb-outs would be that it eliminates an unofficial right turn, but the benefit is that it meets the demands of the public to provide more bike parking, pedestrian seating, etc. 

Keith: Delivery vehicles can drive over the exterior portion of the bulb-out since it can be flush with the street – bollards can be placed accordingly to protect pedestrians and accommodate deliveries.   We should design the bulb-outs so they are not overdone.  Non-signalized intersections would be great.  We should consider these opportunities at 5^th, 7^th, 10^th, 12^th, and 13^th Streets. 

II.              Traffic Analysis Update – Continued                        

Jeremy Klop of Fehr and Peers presented his traffic study Powerpoint outlining his research, intersection analysis, case studies, and traffic modeling. 

Curb extensions or bulb-outs make vehicles more likely to yield to pedestrians because the pedestrian is further into the driver’s sight line. 

Mid-block bulb-outs are not as necessary because we have short blocks and good crossings at the intersections. 

An all-pedestrian crossing with a diagonal crossing is a safety benefit, but has some inconveniences with vehicle and pedestrian delay.  Vehicle delay goes from the current 13 seconds to 27 seconds.  Since a 20 second delay is the cutoff for service level B, this creates a traffic service level C on Main Avenue.  The pedestrian delay goes from the current 45.5 seconds to 49.8 seconds, since the pedestrian now has to wait for the entire traffic intersection rotation.  Another inconvenience is that this eliminates a right turn at a red light.  We could consider this at Main & College and Main & 9^th intersections, where traffic volumes are highest, since these are the primary entrances / exits to downtown.  Infrastructure required: a diagonal-facing crossing display, software to program the lights accordingly, and striping or some kind of pavement indicator for the diagonal option. 

Average vehicle speed on Main Ave is 18 mph.  Speeds ranged from 12– 30 mph.

We can look at changing the speed limit to 20 mph and coordinate traffic signals to keep traffic moving at that consistent speed.  They need to be set properly to avoid traffic speeding up to catch the next light. 

When considering the 4 to 3 lane reduction, the analysis shows a 25% decrease in vehicles that would continue to use Main Avenue.  

III.          Alternatives Analysis   

Keith Walzak presented the updated cost sheet, showing the lump sum amounts for block by block alternatives.  Russell Engineering has the more detailed back up spreadsheet to support this overall cost sheet. 

The number for option A now reads “N/A”; it was confusing to put a number with this because conditions vary so much.  Currently property owners are responsible for repairs from the building face to the curb for their entire property frontage. The City is responsible for curb and gutter repair.  Tree repair and sub-sidewalk basement repair responsibility is not as clear.  Farmington handles costs for basement repair in this manner: If the property owner abandons the sub-sidewalk basement, the City pays for it; If the property owner keeps the sub-sidewalk basement, the property owner pays for it. 

We need to do a more thorough block by block inventory of what sidewalks are fine as is, and what needs to be replaced.  The cost numbers could go down significantly based on the block by block sidewalk conditions.  We should look at what the bulb-out would cost just by itself if the sidewalks are in good condition.   

IV.            Discussion                                                                                  

The steering committee needs to come up with an initial recommendation with a conceptual plan drawing that can be presented to at a City Council Study Session, HPB, and DRB.  Each committee member will have about 2 weeks to come up with input for this recommendation. 

Bill Carver gave his recommendation:  Full or ½ bulb-outs at non-signalized intersections so that we have one end of each block where the signalized intersections occur with no bulb-out, which allows for large semi trucks to do their loading and unloading.  Change the paving material and possibly raise the surface in the center in the intersections to create a visual change for vehicles, alerting them to slow down.  The change in material should be a smooth concrete surface with a color change.  (A non-smooth surface created noise as traffic passes over and stamped concrete often chips and creates a maintenance issue for snowplows, etc).  Change the speed limit to 20 mph, and possibly trench existing sidewalks to upgrade power and provide irrigation to the street trees. 

Keith: 1” to 20’ scale drawings will be created for the design development phase.  We will further discuss costs as we look at each block in the January/ February time frame.  In the meantime, each Steering Committee member will be filling out the alternatives matrix and will provide a narrative of their results and reasoning behind it.  These should be emailed to Keith before the next meeting, Nov 28^th, so that he can compile and summarize the results at our meeting. 

Bob Kunkel: We should inform people that we are looking at the public input and working to create a blend of the options that meets the sentiment of the public.  We’re now creating a hybrid plan; not just black and white “A – E” options. 

Bill Carver: At the community meeting, we should emphasize that concrete that is in good condition will not be replaced. 

Bob Kunkel: We should look at this as a “menu approach” as we blend the options and allow for people to view each option individually with each associated cost, i.e., 1 bulb-out costs $x; 1 tree replacement costs $x; if there is a sub-sidewalk basement, the cost is $x; etc.  We need to narrow in on a block by block approach on what is the reality there.  How many construction boardwalks would we really see?  We need to break this down so people can visualize what needs to occur on each block.  Perhaps this means hiring a code officer to walk each block and spray paint the hazards and give letters to  the property owners citing the violations. 

V.                Community Meeting                                                     

November 9^th, 2007: 10:00AM – Noon: Art Center

All our boards will be there for those that did not get to vote at the Open House.  Keith will present a powerpoint and a steering committee member will speak. 

VI.            Next Steps

Steering Committee needs to reach a preliminary recommendation, then the consultant team can move to create the necessary concept drawings and schedule the required HPB/DRB and City Council Study Session meetings.  The steering committee should consider public input and the alternatives matrix to reach a recommendation.  These recommendations will be emailed to the design team and presented at the next meeting to arrive at an informed consensus.

Next Meeting:

Wednesday, November 28

Durango Office Suites, Room 100

8am – 10am