Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-10-09 TAC MINUTES• • • City of Englewood, Colorado ENGLEWOOD TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE Minutes of October 9, 2003 The regular monthly meeting of the Englewood Transportation Advisory Committee was called to order by Chairperson Anderson at 7:03 p.m. in the Public Works Conference Room at Civic Center. Members Present: David Anderson Joe Christie Gary Dounay Betty Goosman Cinda Losee Ken Ross, Director of Public Work.s, ex officio Members Absent: None A quorum was present. Also Present : Ladd Vostry, Traffic Engineer Approval of Minutes Wendy Weiman, Transportation Analyst Linda Wilks, Recording Secretary John Collins, Police Lieutenant Chairperson Anderson asked if there were any additions or corrections to the minutes of September 11, 2003. A motion was made and seconded to approve the minutes as presented. Following brief discussion regarding Director Ross' comment at the September meeting pertaining to traffic enforcement, as well as Traffic Engineer Vostry's discussion regarding the number of vehicles required for installing double yellow lines to promote safety, the motion passed. Further discussion ensued pertaining to ETAC's charter regarding duties such as enforcement. Mr. Ross commented that transportation issues are of primary concern to ETAC. Public Comment There were no visitors in attendance. Old Business The order of discussion for the two agenda items listed under Old Business was reversed. • Director Ross distributed copies of, and reviewed items contained in, his draft memo to City Council regarding suggested changes to the Municipal Code pertaining to motorized skateboards. Mr. Ross stated that his draft memo centered around comments he previously received from ETAC as well as his perspective as Director of Public Works. Mr. Ross highlighted a number of items contained in the draft, including requirements for following the rules of the road, parent/guardian responsibilities, removing use from public sidewalks, obeying posted speed limits, limited hours of use, age limit of 14 years, noise limitations, parental written consent statement, driving such vehicles as close to the right-hand curb as is practicable, requirement to wear a helmet under the age of 18 yr., requirement to wear footwear, parents/guardians liable for fines imposed upon children's behavior, and fines that may be imposed. To Committee Member Christie's inquiry, Mr. Ross stated that educating the public on these Municipal Code changes will come through articles in the Englewood Herald, presenting information at PTO meetings at the schools, Neighborhood Watch, School Safety Committee, education through Safety Services, etc. Committee Member Goosman inquired about liability insurance in the event of injury caused by a driver of this type vehicle. Brief discussion ensued. Committee Member Dounay suggested adding to the statement under 3.d.ix.4. that the City would be held harmless of any liability. Mr. Ross stated he will speak to the City Attorney regarding this request. To Committee Member Losee's inquiry, Mr. Ross stated that the definition of unlicensed motor vehicles also includes other vehicles such as ATV's. Mr. Ross explained that 3.c.vii. was included in the draft so that drivers will be aware that driving on crosswalks is outlawed, similar to sidewalks, however you can cross them when driving these vehicles. Mr. Ross stated he will elaborate further on this item in the draft memo. To Mr. Dounay's inquiry, Mr. Ross opined that this ordinance revision is enforceable and, additionally, offers police officers the ability to address any behavior they believe to be unsafe. Lt. Collins stated this ordinance revision is clear as to what is and is not safe conduct. Mr. Ross stressed that the City Attorney will review the draft memo prior to presenting the ordinance revisions to City Council. Discussion ensued regarding the age limit of 14 yr. (3.d.vii.) for operating vehicles of this type. Committee Member Christie commented that there are probably some 8 yr. olds mature enough to handle these vehicles. Mr. Dounay observed that in some states, 14 is a common age for kids on farms, for example, to drive trucks, etc., giving some recognition that at that age people may have enough maturity to operate some motorized vehicles on the street. Mr. Christie inquired about 17 yr. olds having their parents notarize the statement listed in 3.d.ix.4. Following brief discussion, it was agreed that Mr. Ross will include the wording "or the driver is 16 yr. of age and has a valid driver's license" to the statement. Mr. Christie also questioned including paragraph 3.f.ii., requiring that operators under the age of 18 yr. must wear a helmet when, in fact, the state law does not require wearing helmets on motor cycles, and also paragraph 3.f.iii., which requires all operators to wear footwear covering the feet and toes. Mr. Ross explained that he included the helmet requirement for the protection of operators under the age of 18 yr., and that if minors are going to be on the roadways operating these types of vehicles, the law should be in place to make them as safe as possible. Mr. Dounay questioned whether or not having the helmet law in place would stand up in court when, in fact, there is no law regarding wearing helmets while riding bicycles. Mr. Christie stated that he would like to go on record that he disagrees with this entire draft ordinance change, and that he believes this is imposing laws where they are not necessary. Noise problems created by these vehicles were briefly discussed. Mr. Ross reiterated he created these proposed ordinance changes from information he received during previous ETAC meeting discussions, and noted that the helmet and footwear rules, as well as the parental written consent are no longer effective after the age of 18 yr. Mr . Ross continued that these "unroadworthy" vehicles will be sharing the road with regular motor vehicles and he believes the City has the ability to legislate what is and is not appropriate to help protect the operators 2 • • • from harm. In review, Mr. Ross stated that the proposed ordinance changes will remove these vehicles from the • sidewalks, provide safety requirements, operating restrictions, and a means of ensuring parental responsibility for their children. • • Traffic Engineer Vostry commented that Englewood Schools are not allowing these vehicles on school property. Mr. Vestry concurred that you must obey the rules of the road, whether as a pedestrian or when operating these and all vehicles in the public way, not only for your safety but also for that of others in the roadway. Mr . Vestry noted that the Model Traffic Code states that parents must be responsible for their children's behavior operating a bicycle. To Mr. Christie 's comment that people seem to be most concerned with the noise created by these scooters, Mr. Ross stated that the Mayor has real concern for the safety of the operators, particularly after dark, because of the possibility of a vehicle runn ing a stop sign, etc. City Council believed that the motorized skateboards should be moved back onto the sidewalk, however, Mr. Ross opined that, philosophically, the sidewalks are intended for pedestrians and small children on their tricycles, etc., not for motorized vehicles capable of reaching 20 mph. Mr. Dounay inquired about requiring reflectors on motorized skateboards. Mr. Ross advised that for safety reasons, these vehicles should not be permitted on the roadway after dark. Mr. Christie reiterated his concern that the proposed ordinance changes have been created under the pretext of imposing these specific safety rules, when, in reality, are addressing opposition to the noise created by the scooters. Additionally, Mr. Christie commented that these ordinance changes are not equally distributed across the board, for instance, a child can ride his bike in the street with no helmet, but the ordinance is requiring that helmets be worn with motorized skateboards. Mr. Christie added that these changes are imposing on our freedom. Chairperson Anderson opined that there is a definite difference between self-powered bicycles and motorized vehicles , apples and oranges, and the two should not be compared. Committee Member Losee offered that when the motorized skateboards are on the sidewalk, that's one thing, but when you move them to the street, they have to know the street rules. Ms. Losee opined that the City needs to establish some criteria to make the public aware of safety issues created for the operators as well as all others on the roadway, and so that police officers can enforce unsafe activity. Mr. Ross stated that the kids , as well as the parents, need to be educated that these devices are not toys , that the operators will be in the roadway with regular motor vehicles, and of the importance of using common sense and responsibility when operating them. Chairperson Anderson made a motion, seconded by Committee Member Goosman, to approve the proposed ordinance changes outlined in Mr. Ross' memo, with the changes requested by ETAC. Mr. Ross summarized the changes requested by ETAC: 1) 16 yr. olds with a valid driver's license will be exempt from the parental written consent, 2) will have the City Attorney review a hold harmless statement to be included in the parental written consent, and 3) clarification regarding operating a motorized skateboard within a crosswalk. The motion was approved with one opposing vote from Committee Member Christie. Mr. Christie 3 indicated he will prepare and email a minority report summarizing his reasons for opposing the proposed ordinance changes. Mr. Ross stated he will revise his memo to Council to reflect this evening's discussion, and will attach Mr. Christie's minority report. Mr. Ross stated that ETAC will be notified when this issue is • scheduled for further discussion with City Council. • Traffic Engineer Vestry advised that, during last week's School Safety Committee meeting, he presented ETAC's recommendation, which was discussed at a previous meeting, to change the speed limits around schools to 25 mph, year round, rather than the existing 20 mph during school hours. Mr. Vestry stated that members of the School Safety Committee discussed the safety aspects of this proposed change, and agreed the change from 30 mph to 25 mph is not significant enough to alert motorists they are approaching a school zone. This discussion resulted in the School Safety Committee requesting that the current 20 mph school zone speed limits be retained, during school hours, with flashing lights. Mr. Vestry advised, that, additionally, the Committee did not feel comfortable changing the time restrictions to a year-round status while retaining 20 mph. The Committee felt that keeping the "during school hours" designation helps to emphasize the school zone. Mr. Vestry stated that the Committee also discussed adding a school zone around Englewood High School, but determined doing so would not bring any additional safety to that area. • Lt. Collins reviewed an email from Sgt. Knoth outlining enforcement strategies that were used in the Girard Ave. and Lafayette St. neighborhood, for which traffic concerns were discussed during ETAC meetings in July, August, and September. Copies of Sgt. Knoth's email were distributed to ETAC Members. Lt. Collins stated that current traffic enforcement activity in that area seems to indicate that poor traffic behavior, i.e., speeding, running stop signs, etc., has lessened, he believes due to police efforts in August and September • and, perhaps, also because of City staff meetings with Kimberly Woods and Julia Temple Nursing Home. Lt. Collins stated that police will again step up their patrolling efforts should traffic revert back to unacceptable behaviors, adding that they will continue to keep an eye on the area. At Chairperson Anderson's inquiry, Lt. Collins, referring to information contained in Sgt. Knoth's email, explained that "minutes spent" was gathered from police officers' log sheets in the event citizens question the time that officers spent on monitoring neighborhood traffic problems. Committee Member Goosman noted she has noticed an improvement in parking concerns, as well. Director Ross stated he will send a letter to those neighborhood citizens who attended the July ETAC meeting regarding this subject and outline the information from Sgt. Knoth's email. New Business • Director Ross reported that he has received a petition from residents in the Tufts Ave. and Knox Court neighborhood requesting an all-way stop at that intersection. Mr. Ross explained that this request is a result of the diversion of traffic onto Tufts Ave. caused by mid-block stop signs and speed bumps being installed on Dill Rd. and Mountain Rd. by the City of Sheridan , which borders that section of Englewood on the north . Mr. Ross stated that a recent speed study shows that there is not a problem of speeding on Tufts Ave., however, a volume problem does exist because of the traffic control devices installed by the City of Sheridan. The Tufts/Knox Ct. neighborhood has, therefore, requested an all-way stop to redivert some of this traffic. Mr. Ross stressed that stop signs should only be used to demonstrate who has the right-of-way, 4 • • • • not to slow traffic nor to divert traffic, because if warrants for stops signs are not met, drivers will eventually start disregarding that traffic control device. Additionally, Mr. Ross stated that once a stop sign is placed, it can never be removed. Rather than installing an all-way stop at Tufts Ave. and Knox Court, Mr. Ross suggested an alternative that would include installing a temporary diversion island at Lowell Blvd. and Tufts Ave. with signage designating "right out" or "right in", which would prevent left turns westbound from Tufts Ave. to southbound Lowell, and would also prevent left turns from southbound Lowell Blvd. onto Tufts Ave. Mr. Ross noted that this will not, however, prevent the traffic passing through from the apartments on the west side of Lowell Blvd. Committee Member Losee asked if Denver has installed traffic control devices similar to those installed by Sheridan. Mr. Ross explained that Denver does not have the type of streets that connect directly to the through streets, Lowell Blvd. and Federal Blvd. Mr. Vostry stated that Denver has created some T intersections with 3-way stops in the Denver area south of this section of Englewood. Committee Member Dounay inquired, as an alternative to installing stop signs, if it would help the traffic problem to install a barricade across Tufts Ave. to create two cul de sacs so that Tufts is no longer a through street. Mr. Vestry opined this method would not only reduce traffic but, unfortunately, would penalize the neighborhood residents as well, i.e., some residents would be forced to travel east while others would be forced to travel west. Traffic circles were suggested by Mr. Christie. Mr. Ross stated that traffic circles would slow the traffic down, but typically, they do not actually "reroute" traffic. Mr. Dounay stated that it appears their stop sign idea isn't really a solution to the problem, and inquired if there was a way to have folks from this neighborhood meet with ETAC to discuss what we can do to help them solve their traffic concerns. Discussion ensued regarding speed humps; the perception of speeding; the special circumstances of this neighborhood which is sandwiched by Sheridan and Denver; traffic volume; etc. Chairperson Anderson opined that ETAC should stand behind staff on this issue. Committee concurred. Mr. Ross indicated he will follow up with a recommendation to City Council that a temporary diversion island be installed at Tufts Ave. and Lowell Blvd. rather than the all-way stop at Tufts Ave. and Knox Court. Mr. Ross stated the diversion island will cost approximately $1,200. • Director Ross presented Committee Member Losee with her Certificate of Appointment and a City of Englewood lapel pin for recently having been appointed by City Council to serve as a regular member of ETAC. Director's Choice • Director Ross reviewed discussion from the September ETAC meeting wherein a citizen, Mr. Steve Stryyssar, brought forward his concerns with how parking citations are issued for vehicles parked too close to an intersection. Mr. Ross reminded ETAC that the discussion also included concerns for the safety of children crossing Eastman Ave. going to and from school and their view of traffic being blocked by cars parked too close to corners. Mr. Ross advised that he met with Safety Services and Municipal Court to discuss the volume of parking citations issued for parking too close to intersections. Statistics showE:?d that, in fact, few citations have been issued under these circumstances. Mr. Ross advised that Safety Services explained they don't use measuring devices as a means to cite individuals parking too close to the 5 intersection, but do, in fact, conduct only drive-by visual checks; and only in obvious situations do they issue citations. From this meeting, it was agreed that the volume of parking citations does not warrant curb painting. Muni Court staff also pointed out that if someone, in another part of town where curb painting has not been applied, is issued a parking citation for parking too close to the intersection, that person may come to court and say that since the curb was not painted, they thought parking was legal. The recommendation from the meeting with Safety Services and Municipal Court staff was that the parking officers, at their discretion, can contact Public Works in the event they feel there is a problem area that may benefit from curb painting, and that Public Works will paint that curb on a trial basis. Additionally, the Courts are implementing a new software program that will enable them to monitor and track citations issued and can provide actual numbers of certain violations. Discussion ensued regarding the circumstances for Mr. Stryyssar's visit at the September ETAC meeting. • With regard to parking concerns expressed by Ms. Mimi Davis at the September ETAC meeting, Director Ross advised that he met with the manager of the Englewood Beauty College. The manager advised that the 27 parking spaces at the College are designated for customer parking, not for the 115 students of the College. Mr. Ross noted that, at the beginning of each school year, Safety Services conducts a class with the students advising them where they can and cannot park, asking for consideration of the neighborhoods. Mr. Ross stated that a large number of the students at the College are high school students and are provided bus transportation by their high school, however, they don't take advantage of that service, but prefer to drive their own vehicles. As a side note to this ongoing problem, Mr. Ross referenced a memo from Traffic Engineer Vostry, dated March 13, 2000, which addresses the same concerns expressed by Ms. Davis. Mr. Ross, for ETAC's information, reviewed a provision in the Municipal Code wherein it states that the licensing officer has the authority to revoke or suspend licenses of businesses that may be causing nuisances hazardous to the health, safety and general welfare of the public. Staff advised Ms. Davis of the option to petition for permit parking in her neighborhood on Bannock St. Mr. Vostry advised that Ms. Davis, did, in fact, obtain a petition form from him earlier this week. Mr. Ross noted that, depending on the wording of the petition, permit parking could also protect this neighborhood from Gothic Theater parking problems. Lt. Collins reported that Ms. Davis agreed to schedule a meeting with the owners of the Table Steaks and the Gothic, and Lt. Collins, additionally, will be meeting with the Gothic Theater owner to address, not only policing concerns along Broadway but also some of the neighborhood concerns expressed by Ms. Davis, i.e., parking, patrons' drinking, trash, etc. Lt. Collins stated that officers will attempt to monitor these problems more closely, along with other issues they must deal with during evening hours. Mr. Ross commented that parking issues for businesses falls within the realm of the Planning Commission during the review of site development plans . • Director Ross presented information regarding parking for the Table Steaks facility. Mr. Ross stated the development plans for this facility were approved by the Planning Commission. Mr. Ross noted that Ms. Davis spoke with the Table Steaks manager, who indicated to her that they need 287 parking spaces. Table Steaks, however, pursued an agreement with Wells Fargo Bank for reciprocal parking of 36 spaces, which, in addition to the 62 on-site parking spaces, is 4 spaces more than what is required by Code. When Mr. 6 • • • • Dounay asked what could be done if the 94 parking spaces is inadequate, Mr. Ross responded that perhaps Community Development would have grounds for revoking their conditional use permit since their testimony indicated that this number of spaces would be adequate. Chairperson Anderson inquired about receiving an executive summary of the Community Development public hearing packet contained in the ETAC packet. Mr. Ross apologized, stating he should have prepared a summary for ETAC's review. Brief discussion ensued regarding shared use of underutilized parking space and the required agreement to be recorded with the City. Committee Member Dounay exited the meeting at 9:00 p.m. Committee Member Goosman inquired about the location of the north off-site parking lot referred to in Community Development's public hearing packet. Mr. Ross explained it is the northern end of "what looks like" Table Steaks' parking lot. • Director Ross referred to copies of the Englewood Comprehensive Plan, Section 7, Business and Employment, included in ETAC's packets. He stated that, at the September ETAC meeting, Committee Member Dou nay observed that the business community was not included in Section 8 of the· Plan, which addresses transportation. Mr. Ross stated that, since Mr. Dounay is not present, discussion can be resumed at the November meeting, if needed. Chairperson's Choice Chairperson Anderson had no issues to address. • Committee Members' Choice • Committee Member Goosman expressed her appreciation to Lt. Collins and Officer Peterson for their increased activity on Lafayette St. to address parking and traffic concerns. Adjournment There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:02 p.m. Linda Wilks, Recording Secretary 7