Committee Minutes
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
City of Grand Forks, North Dakota
December 13, 2006
1. MEMBERS PRESENT
The meeting was called to order by Paula Lee at 12:10 p.m. with the following members present: Al Grasser, Dr. Lyle Hall, Curt Kreun, Dr. Robert Kweit, and Gary Malm. Absent: Mayor (Dr.) Michael Brown, Steve Adams, Doug Christensen, John Drees, Tom Hagness, Bill Hutchison, John Jeno, Frank Matejcek and Marijo Whitcomb. A quorum was not present. The presentation was offered for information and did not require a vote.
Staff present included Brad Gengler, City Planner; Ryan Brooks, Senior Planner; and Carolyn Schalk, Administrative Specialist, Senior (Planning and Zoning Department) and Bev Collings, Building and Zoning Administrator (Inspections Office). Absent: Charles Durrenberger, Senior Planner, Planning and Zoning Department. Also present: Earl Haugen, Executive Director of the Grand Forks-East Grand Forks Metropolitan Planning Organization (GF-EGF MPO), David Hampsten, Senior Planner of the GF-EGF MPO and Jason Carbee, URS Corporation, Consultant for the street and highway plan update.
2. PUBLIC HEARINGS, FINAL APPROVALS, PETITIONS AND MINOR CHANGES:
3.
COMMUNICATIONS AND PRELIMINARY APPROVALS:
3-1. MATTER OF THE GRAND FORKS-EAST GRAND FORKS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (GF-EGF MPO) STREET AND HIGHWAY PLAN UPDATE.
Haugen welcomed everyone to the meeting and stated there are several presentations on the progress of the street and highway side of the long-range transportation plan. He reminded members that a full conditions reports was available on the MPO website. The plan is approximately at the midpoint range now. It needs to be in place by June, 2007 in order to be in compliance with the federal regulations so that the transportation money continues to flow in the metropolitan area. He asked that questions be asked at any time during the power point presentation. Haugen introduced Jason Carbee of URS Corporation.
Mr. Carbee thanked all those that appeared for the meeting. There are two transportation elements – street and highway and alternate transportation nodes. The element they are working on at this time is the street and highway element. They are in the process of completing the initial phase and moving into the second phase that includes future traffic and development. He spoke on the issues for the 2003 plan and identified the areas of congestion. One of the issues in the 2003 plan was where to locate a bridge.
The issues identified through public meetings, distribution of newsletters in the newspaper and discussions with TAC members to update the plan have been divided into three different elements: operations or connectivity (need to re-visit the issue of a north by-pass as well as studying the Columbia Road Corridor which is perceived as a congestion issue). Another important element is safety/geometry concerns (locations identified as a safety concern or area that could be improved such as a pedestrian crossing on University Avenue). The changes between issues now and issues in the previous plan seem to be timing; not where bridges will be located but timing of the bridges. The feedback from the public was “just get them built.”
Haugen said most of the comments received from feedback were very specific geometry or intersection specific issues not typically addressed in a transportation plan. He mentioned the intersection at 24th and Columbia and stated there was a project program to handle those types of issues. Another specific comment was the turning radi on 48th and DeMers ramps to connect with the interstate. Haugen noted there were projects pending to handle the issues by the DOT next year. Most of the issues noted already have projects pending by the city or the DOT to handle them. There were not questions of whether or not additional bridges were needed or where they should be; the questions were when would they be available? “No” to a bridge at 32nd Avenue South was at the end of comment responses regarding bridges.
Grasser said his lack of comment does not signify approval or disapproval. He just has not had the opportunity to review all of the data.
Dr. Hall asked if an overpass is planned for 17th going into the Industrial Park? Mr. Carbee said a 17th Avenue overpass was part of the last recommended plan. They will be reviewing the recommendations of the last plan and it would be assumed the previous recommendations be an unspoken issue that was already identified.
Grasser asked what comments were received on the interchange and bridge on Merrifield Road? Mr. Carbee answered the comments were based on timing. Haugen stated the comments were for additional bridges and when specific locations were noted, it was in regard to Merrifield Road. The plan is to construct the Merrifield bridge first and then construct the one on 32nd Avenue South. Kreun asked if comments had been received on 47th Avenue South since the road has been updated and is a through street with minimal driveways or accesses. Haugen said there was a comment for 47th as a possible bridge location. One of the MPO members also asked that 47th Avenue South be reviewed again. Unless directed to study 47th Avenue South, this study is not aimed to re-visit where; just when.
Kreun mentioned that 48th is one of the top priorities and asked if that would be connected to the 17th Avenue South overpass. Haugen said 48th would be improved before an overpass at 17th took place. Haugen said the projects already planned were not being solicited for input; they were trying to capture projects that have not been planned. Even though some of the projects are not shown on the map, they are still being planned or considered for review.
Malm questioned the north by-pass and said he thought that issue had been removed. Haugen said the current language in the plan is to continue studying the need for the north by-pass. It continues to be commented on by surveys and questionnaires. It is not seen as a recommended project in the current plan. Because of financial constraints and traffic patterns he does not see it as a recommended project. The reason it shows up is because of input from the public.
Mr. Carbee discussed the goals and objectives from the 2003 plan and said they were not very different from the environment that exists today. However, there were new requirements with the passage of the 2005 federal surface transportation authorization bill called SAFETEA-LU. The new requirements addressed security and coordinating with environmental resource agencies. Any goals and objectives added were based on the new requirements.
The consultant moved on to traffic operations, levels of delay and safety. The grades of level are based on letters A through F. Grade A is free travel with no delays while grade F is force-flow and indicates “at capacity” where vehicles cannot get through an intersection. He discussed what traffic operations analysis indicated and how the individual intersections rated. There were 31 key intersections across the metro area that were reviewed for the pm peak hour (the highest one hour of travel in the afternoon or evening peak). Based on the analysis, the appropriate letter grade was assigned to the intersections. The two intersections that crossed the threshold of what is considered acceptable and unacceptable were the intersection at 17th Avenue South and Columbia Road with a grade level of service “E” and Washington Street at DeMers Avenue with a grade level of service “F”. Anything rated “D” or below is considered deficient.
Haugen stated the only critical intersections they were unable to get good counts on were Columbia Road/University Avenue and Columbia Road/2nd Avenue. With the construction of the ramps, the turning movements data was not true.
Mr. Carbee stated that with the completion and improvements of 42nd Street, traffic movements on Columbia Road within the last four years have been reduced somewhat. The intersection of Columbia Road and 32nd Avenue South has been improved since 2002 and is shown as service level “C.” The dual left turns appear to have the capacity for more vehicles before a service level “D” is assessed.
Dr. Hall asked if the delay at 17th Avenue South and Columbia Road was because of the street design or because the turning movement numbers? The consultant said it was because of the volume and the turns. They will diagnosis how the issues can be addressed under the alternatives analysis to improve traffic flow.
Kreun asked if there was any analysis on Columbia Road/2nd Avenue once the ramp is completed? Haugen stated there was a traffic impact analysis done by UND through SEH with the permitting of the parking ramp and how traffic would be impacted. Grasser said they looked at the impacts of the ramp and there were concerns about the ramp on the transportation network. There was a debate on what assumptions the different traffic engineers would dial into the program. The program that showed the acceptable levels of service was optimistic in his opinion and he has concerns on what the ultimate reality will show.
Kreun noted that was a congested intersection prior to construction, based on the pedestrian traffic, existing parking lot and more pedestrian traffic at University/Columbia one block away, as well as the traffic that constantly occurs on Columbia Road. He questioned traffic that would occur from the ramp after a hockey game. Grasser said the city is weak in areas of defining when and what criteria to establish for traffic studies. Usually the city is involved after the project is approximately 90% developed and they need to be more involved earlier in the concept.
Malm questioned the findings for 32nd Avenue South by the interstate. He referred to South 38th Street by Menards that indicated a service rating of “B” and said he did not agree with that rating. He stated it is very difficult to make a left turn and the entire intersection needs to be reviewed. Mr. Carbee stated that service level “B” did not mean the south bound left turn is necessarily a service level “B.” The rating is only an average with all movements through the intersection. Malm said there would be more problems at that particular intersection based on events at the Alerus. The consultant said they would reevaluate the intersection.
Gengler asked if volume was the determination of the service level? Mr. Carbee said levels of service were based on delays estimated by the highway capacity manual and based on the number of lanes, configuration of lanes and on the volumes. It is not rated on lane alignment but based on vehicle delay. Lee mentioned that Grand Forks streets are striped very poorly and the intersection Malm referred to is one where you cannot tell what lane you are in or should be in. Even with a good plan, if the streets and intersections are not marked clearly, it will not work. Grasser noted that 15 years ago, the EPA changed the type of paint that could be used. They use a water-based paint. The city could move to a more urethane type paint but the materials and equipment are very expensive. On recent projects, they have been grinding the pavements and putting in the expensive plastic pavement markings, but that is generally intersection specific. Under general operations, the striping does not last very long due to the required material. Also, once snow covers the roadway, it cannot be seen.
Further discussion continued on the intersection at South 38th Street and 32nd Avenue South.
The consultant discussed the crash analysis by stating they reviewed the intersections with the most crashes and also looked at crash rates or how much traffic was entering the intersection and at what rate crashes were occurring. In reviewing the analysis for the areas that had “higher than expected” rates of crashes, three areas were identified on the Grand Forks, ND side and one on the East Grand Forks, MN side. The three areas identified on the Grand Forks side were South 34th Street/32nd Avenue South (by the Holiday Store); 1 block west of South Washington Street on 11th Avenue South; and Washington/DeMers (51 crashes over a three-year period). The Washington/DeMers intersection is the busiest intersection in town and did not come out as a “higher than expected” rate. The rates were adjusted for the amount of traffic going through the intersection. Mr. Carbee did note that the intersection at 38th/32nd Avenue South did have a higher than average crash rate, but did not meet the “beyond higher than average.”
Mr. Carbee noted for Grasser’s benefit that the data being used was from the NDDOT.
Mr. Carbee said the MPO was reviewing information based on the land use plan and identifying the amounts of housing and employment growth anticipated through the planning horizon of 2035. Based on the land use plan and assuming a 1.2% per year population growth through 2035, they divide that by households and non-households to determine the basis for generating trips on the travel model. Then they determine the employment in the metro area and find a ratio of the number of household to the number of employees.
Grasser stated he was working with a group on water demands in the Red River Valley based on population growth numbers and they were using 0.9%. He feels the 1.2% growth per year is very optimistic and maybe a more conservative growth rate should be used when deciding on funds spent for facilities. He asked if there was a way to run the transportation results based on a lower growth rate. He noted that Fargo has had an aggressive growth rate and they have recognized they will see a tapering off of the population.
Lee said she thought the land use subcommittee decided on 0.8 a few years ago. Haugen noted that 1.2% had been used as the growth rate for a number of years. The 0.8% growth rate was used in the 1996 plan and when the process stated in 2000 and 2001 to update the 2025 plan, the 1.2% growth rate was adopted. There were three growth rates reviewed in 2000 and the 1.2% was adopted. Haugen stated the land use subcommittee made the decision on the growth rate and it was adopted by the planning commission and the city council. When the 2035 land use plan was adopted, the growth rate of 1.2% was adopted again. During the last street and highway plan, the sensitivities of growth rates of less than 1.2% were reviewed. There was a difference of densities. They looked at the current buildout or based on a higher density. The only impact was with the growing areas and not so much with the built growth and was not causing much change with the volumes of traffic patterns. Grasser said he favored the more conservative rate of 0.8 or 0.9% growth rate. Some projects may be further out on the timeline based on the water commitments growth rates used on his committee.
Mr. Carbee continued with explanation of the control totals they used in order to identify the traffic analysis. He showed a map of the draft allocation of housing and employment between 2005 and 2035. Based on the growth rate, the amount of housing added by 2035 is projected to be 7500 dwelling units and 10,500 employees. The map indicated that most housing dwellings would be south of 47th Avenue South towards 62nd Avenue South and in areas east of the interstate. Mr. Carbee then showed a map with the difference between 2005 and 2035 of employment density. The industrial park west of the interstate showed an increase as well as additional commercial development south of 32nd Avenue South to 47th Avenue South. The analysis also showed additional commercial employment in the southwest portion of downtown and industrial growth north of Gateway Drive. All of the various steps and analyses are used to determine where the increased demands for traffic are going to be in order to determine long-term needs in the street and roadway system.
Mr. Carbee reviewed the next steps for the study team to get the transportation plan closer to completion. A draft of the existing conditions report currently exists and after comments, that will be finalized. Based on the development concepts of allocation of housing and employment, developing and forecasting where future traffic issues might be and looking at future and current issues, a list of potential improvements will be prepared for the street and roadway system for the next 30 years.
Lee asked if the plan will be presented to the planning commission again. Haugen stated the next time the planning commission will see the plan is when the projection of future traffic and level of services for 2035 is completed. There will be an assessment of the existing system and immediate projects planned for the next year or two and what improvements will be needed. The report will show how bad an area will be if nothing is done and alternatives that need to be considered. In May, 2007, Haugen said they would asked for preliminary approval of the report with final approval expected in June, 2007. July 1, 2007 is the deadline for federal safety compliance.
4. ADJOURNMENT.
The meeting adjourned at 12:15 p.m.
___________________________
Lyle A. Hall, Secretary
___________________________
Paula H. Lee, President