Pedestrian & Bicycle Path Advisory Committee

Pedestrian and Bicyle Path Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes 11 July 2022 Committee Members Present: Giuseppe Caltabiano, John Repke, Doug Reed, John Phelps, Antonia Malchik, Mary Behrendt, Luke Moses City Staff Present: Craig Workman Public Present: Mike Fitzgerland, Bruce Boody, Jedd Sankar-Gorton, Patty Zanto, John Ellis, Casey Malmquist, (Dick Allison?) A. The meeting was called to order at 8:31 a.m. B. Doug asked for XX to be added to the minutes. Giuseppe moved to approve the minutes. Doug Reed seconded. All approved. C. Public Comment: a. Casey Malmquist asked to be added to the CC for the agenda and minutes for the committee. Giuseppe noted that there is a space on the city website for people to add their email and phone numbers to be notified of committee meetings, etc. D. New Business: Doug Reed asked if our push-button crosswalk system can be the kind that come on automatically instead of needing to be actively pushed by pedestrians trying to cross. Craig said that there are other systems, such as thermal detection systems or bollard sensor systems. He said that those two systems are very expensive and require a lot of maintenance. The city has always opted for the push-button activation for that reason, and also because they’re common in a lot of places. Doug is wondering if we could have lights that just turn on for pedestrians. In answer to a question, Craig said that the lights in question at 2nd and 93/Baker are state-controled traffic lights. John Repke added that he’s seen golf carts several times driving on the bike path to the golf course. And also some heavy-duty e-bikes on the sidewalks. Antonia asked if there is some way to enforce the no-vehicle regulation for those paths and sidewalks. E. Old Business: a. Riverbend Condo Easement update: Craig said that the city received a letter from the Riverbend Condo Homeowners Association attorney indicating that 100% of the membership does suppose the trail alignment that was sent to us in late April a few days before the May meeting. John Phelps said that once he received this notificaiton, he started putting together a comparison of the two plans being discussed. He has come up with a draft list of pros and cons of the two alternatives proposed, but it is currently only in draft form. In the process going forward, there will still be modifications and opportunities for comment on the design. John Repke commented that there had been evidence of a trail previously, and that the easement agreement says that there will be agreement on where the trail will be located. John Phelps says that while he has found some aerial photos, they’re not as distinctive as they could be and he is trying to find someone who originally lived there and might have photos of the original boardwalk trail. John Repke says that aerial photos should be enough evidence to stake a claim that that’s where the trail has already been built. John Phelps says that is likely, and that John Wilson who originally helped build the condos also helped build the trail. John Repke asked if Angie, city attorney, could somehow memorialize that trail location and claim. He would like to see Angie engaged more with this portion of the process. We should establish that that path existed and defines where the path needs to be in accordance with the agreement. John Phelps said that the fact that it existed is very helpful, Brucy Boody’s design does diverge from that original boardwalk somewhat. The fact that it was there is helpful, but we can’t use that exact same path in part because it then couldn’t connect anywhere, such as to Casey Malmquist’s property. He said that Gary Tallman had gone to the Park Board and asked if he could build the path so he didn’t have to pay cash in lieu of parkland, and was given permission to do so. Casey Malmquist said that what should drive the design of the trail is good standards according to what we currently expect, including ADA compliance. The solution should be what best meets the standards. John Phelps said that Bruce’s plan does meet most of those standards and expectations. Casey said that at some point the parties will get together, in part because the public is so supportive of building this section, and we need to work together to get the process moving. John Phelps said that we should have a full and fair discussion of the design options (Bruce Boody’s design and the trail path that the Riverbend HOA has presented) and pick one, and show the public and condo owners what city council supports and what the best options are. That would be the basis for an application to FWP. John Repke asked if we should set some target dates to go to the Park Board and city council with our recommendation. Antonia Malchik asked if there was a way we could work collaboratively with FWP on the design before going to the whole process of presenting it to the board and council. John Phelps said that that is part of the plan, to decide on a design and then work with FWP before filing the application, which is how Great Falls approached their riverside path design. Casey Malmquist said that given the standards, there is limited placement options for the trail. We can start with certain known constraints, and then take those to FWP. Craig Workman says that we do want to work with FWP through the design process before we submit the 124 permit application. John Repke asked if what we submit to the Park Board will include the collaboration with FWP. John Phelps said that we should go to the Park Board first because we want to ensure that we have the Park Board and city council behind the design before we work on the application. John Repke says that in that case, what we need when going to the Park Board is Angie’s confirmation of the original boardwalk placement to be part of that. Casey suggested scheduling a work session with Park Board members, condo owners, FWP, and city council to work on that design. John Phelps said that he’s reluctant to do that until we know what we want. He feels strongly that we need to decide what we want and have our governing boards behind that design before we move forward to FWP. John Repke said that given the length of the process, it does seem best to come to Park Board and then city council with a design already decided on. Casey asked if the design isn’t already decided on and approved. Craig said that city council has only approved moving forward with the trail, not on a specific design. Casey asked which of the two designs meets all of the standards. John Repke said that we need to look carefully at all of the options, get on the Park Board agenda as soon as we can, and then present our decision to the Park Board. John Phelps said that last time we presented to FWP, we didn’t have the support of city council and that undermined our position with FWP. Casey said that the best place to start is a trail that meets all of the standards. If it gets picked apart, it’s part of the process. Mary asked if there’s a reason we’re not able to vote between the two designs today. John Phelps said that while we know there are differences between the two designs, we need to look carefully at both of the designs and their pros and cons. He said that need to compare the two in a thoughtful and logical way; he had intended to send us a list of advantages and disadvantages before this meeting but hadn’t had time. He said that we could vote right now but it’s worth waiting more time to ensure that we give proper consideration to all the options. John Repke suggested that we do schedule a work session for our committee evaluating the designs and taking a vote. Then the committee would then make a recommendation to the Park Board, including an opinion from Angie regarding the original placement of the boardwalk, and once city council then approves, we can go to FWP to work on the design before applying for the permit. John Phelps will email all committee members after this meeting and try to arrange a time for a work session where we have a quorum within two weeks. Giuseppe asked if the plans could be scanned in and emailed to everyone. He suggested that we start earlier if we’re having a special work session, at 7:30 a.m. Mary suggested 8:00 a.m. Casey said that he would like to attend that meeting, but if he can’t wants to give a comment: The bike/ped trail is a part of the public transportation system, and it’s impossible to imagine going through this process consulting on design, etc., with a homeowner when building a highway. John Repke asked if the email for a work session can include an expected date for presentation to the Park Board and then to city council. b. Malmquist Easement: Casey said that the 310 permit has currently been tabled by the Conservation District pending a lot of what we’re talking about with the Riverbend Condos path. He has applied for a permit on a single piece of property but it does connect with a larger section of trail, so he has asked to have it tabled for the time being. Bruce Boody wants to make sure we are getting Conservation District input throughout this process and these meetings. John Phelps said, yes, when we have the work session with FWP, we would like to involve the Conservation District. c. Viaduct Improvements: Craig said they’re still working with the consultant on all the things that are shown in the downtown master plan. Did present at a work session about getting the bike/ped trail on the viaduct expanded, but they wanted to take that up at a later work session, possibly in August. d. Safe Routes to School: Antonia said that she and other parents have been working on a survey to send out to parents for if they let their kids walk/bike to school, and if not, what are the barriers preventing them from letting them do so. e. Paths requiring FWP approval: Craig said that council did have a joint meeting with the Conservation District since our last bike/ped meeting. Since then, the city has sent river trail draft guidelines to the CD, and have been working on updating a map presented at that meeting showing missing sections of trail. Working on showing completed sections that received 124 permits, and have also talked about having CD staff at their site review meetings, early in the process of these projects. He said the city wants to get FWP and the CD involved earlier in the process. f. Baker Avenue Underpass Art Project: Stumptown Art Studio has completed the “mountain” side of the underpass and are working on the “river” side. Discussion of date for a work session to discuss the Riverbend Condo path design settled on July 25th given members’ availability. Meeting adjourned at 9:36 a.m.