DOCSLIB.ORG

City Council Agenda

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
City Council Agenda CHERRY HILLS VILLAGE COLORADO 2450 E. Quincy Avenue City Hall Cherry Hills Village, CO 80113 Telephone 303-789-2541 www.cherryhillsvillage.com FAX 303-761-9386 Parks, Trails and Recreation Commission Agenda Thursday, November 12, 2020 at 5:30 p.m. This meeting is being held electronically with no in-person attendance at City Hall. To provide oral comments during Audience Participation: Please email Parks & Recreation Coordinator Emily Black by 5:00 p.m. on Nov. 12th at [email protected] with your full name and home address. You will receive an email with the electronic meeting information. To watch the meeting (no participation): 1) City website – City Council Videos, Agendas, Packets, Minutes 2) City YouTube channel – City of Cherry Hills Village YouTube 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call of Members 3. Audience Participation Period (limit 5 minutes per speaker) 4. Consent Agenda th a. Approval of Minutes – September 10 , 2020 th b. Approval of Minutes – October 8 , 2020 5. Unfinished Business a. PTRC Projects and Priorities List 6. New Business a. E-Bikes and Motorized Vehicles on Trails 7. Reports a. Chair b. Commissioners c. Staff i. December meeting ii. High Line Canal signs iii. Alan Hutto Memorial Commons policy 8. Adjournment Notice: Agenda is subject to change. If you will need special assistance in order to attend any of the City’s public meetings, please notify the City of Cherry Hills Village at 303-789-2541, 72 hours in advance. Minutes of the Parks, Trails & Recreation Commission of the City of Cherry Hills Village, Colorado Held on Thursday, September 10, 2020 at 5:30 p.m. at the City Center PARKS, TRAILS AND RECREATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING Chair Stephanie Dahl called the meeting to order at 5:33 p.m. ROLL CALL Chair Stephanie Dahl, Vice-Chair Fred Wolfe, Commissioners Rob Eber, Aron Grodinsky, and Chelsea Scott. Also present were Emily Black, Parks and Recreation Coordinator, Jay Goldie, Deputy City Manager and Director of Public Works, Jeff Roberts, Parks Operation Supervisor, and Pamela Broyles, Administrative Assistant Commissioner Tory Leviton attended virtually. Assistant City Attorney Randall Sampson attended virtually. Absent: Commissioner Kate Murphy. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The PTRC conducted the Pledge of Allegiance. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION PERIOD Klasina Vanderwerf 5250 E. Chenango Avenue Ms. Vanderwerf stated that she is in favor of vacating the bridle path and right-of-way adjacent to 4501 South Vine Way and in favor of the dedication of the public trail easement on 4501 and 4505 South Vine Way. She shared that she served on the Parks and Trails Commission several years ago and also served as a City Council member. While on the Parks and Trails Commission, she walked the trail being considered for vacation and determined that it would take tremendous infrastructure and would be a difficult trail to do anything with. She said she walked the trail again in February 2020 and it was even more clear that due to erosion there is nothing left to make a trail connection. She expressed her belief that it would be a tremendous benefit for the City to get an off-street trail in exchange for vacating the current bridle path. She said the off- street trail provides a nicer experience with wonderful trees and getting off the street feels like you are more in nature. She said she hopes the Commission will approve the dedication. Parks & Trails Commission 09/10/2020 - 1 - Janney Carpenter 9 Random Road Ms. Carpenter stated that she is speaking to the Commission on behalf of the Cherry Hills Land Preserve. She said she and several people from the Land Preserve walked the trail and they are in favor of the proposed vacation and dedication as the existing trail has limited potential for connectivity. She said they believe the proposal to demolish the home and provide more open space in that neighborhood is a great opportunity for the community. The Land Preserve believes the path along the side of S. Vine Way creates an activity versus people just walking on the street, and it will be safer for little children who want to explore a more natural space that also creates a habitat for trees and wildlife. The Land Preserve also feels that it is a good deal financially for the City. Chris Bittman 4601 S. Vine Way Participated Virtually Mr. Bittman said he is speaking on behalf of the Cherrymoor HOA. He said he is directly impacted by the considered action as it relates to the petition. He referenced the letter from the HOA that states the board fully supports the first portion of the application to vacate the existing bridle path easement on the back of the property and supports the purchase of the property by the Armstrongs. He said the board does not support the creation of a new easement along South Vine Way as it would not be in keeping with the amended declarations and covenants and restrictions of Cherrymoor South. He referenced Section 4 of the HOA regulations and said the board is in agreement that the creation of a bridle path easement along the front of the property would remove any future residential status if that property were to ever be sold, therefore affecting the use and the value of that property. He said he has written his own letter in support of the vacation of the existing bridle trail and his opposition to the easement along Vine Way. He respectfully requested that the Commission acknowledge the concerns of the people most impacted and deny the proposed dedication. Kevin and Jennifer Allen 4502 S. Vine Way Participated Virtually Mr. Allen said that they fully support the vacation of the existing easement, but they do object to the creation of the new easement along the front of the property that creates an undue permanent burden on the property so it cannot be used the way it was intended under the covenants. The Allens respectfully requested that the Commission deny the easement along Vine Way. David Aspinwall 4401 S. Vine Way Participated Virtually Parks & Trails Commission 09/10/2020 - 2 - Mr. Aspinwall said that he is a direct neighbor to the property involved and he and his wife support everything except the placement of the trail along S. Vine Way. He expressed that the logical solution is to vacate Race Street and the existing bridle trail as the trail is not used and is not well maintained. He said there is probably a potential liability to the Village and by vacating the trail the Village is losing nothing. He expressed several concerns with the proposed bridle path on the east side of the property stating that it makes the Brega property unsalable if it ever has to be sold. He believes it also changes the character of the Cherrymoor neighborhood as there is no other trail that runs along a street in Cherrymoor. Mr. Aspinwall expressed concern that it also affects his property value because the trail would dead-end at the front side of his property on S. Vine Way. He pointed out that if the Armstrongs or whoever owns the property stops maintaining the trail, the City would have additional costs to take over maintenance. He said he understands that the City does not want to set a precedent by vacating a trail, but the difference is that this trail is never used. Be Aspinwall 4401 S. Vine Way Participated Virtually Ms. Aspinwall concurred with her husband’s previous comments. Mary Kay Waddington 1809 E. Tufts Avenue Participated Virtually Ms. Waddington said she disagrees with the comments that no one uses the proposed trail to be vacated. She said even though the trail dead ends, it is a lovely trail and she uses it a lot. She asked if it would be possible to create a short trail that goes up to Vine Way on the north side of 4501 S. Vine Way instead of vacating the trail. Chair Dahl thanked everyone for their public comment. CONSENT AGENDA Commissioner Aron Grodinsky moved, seconded by Vice-Chair Fred Wolfe to approve the following items on the Consent Agenda: 1. Approval of Minutes – August 13, 2020 The motion passed with 5 ayes and 1 abstention. NEW BUSINESS a. Vacation of the Bridle Path Easement and Right-of-Way Adjacent to 4501 S. Vine Way and Dedication of Non-Motorized Public Trail Easements on 4501 and 4595 S. Vine Way Parks & Trails Commission 09/10/2020 - 3 - Coordinator Black explained that the question before PTRC is whether PTRC will make a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission to vacate a bridle path easement and right-of-way adjacent to 4501 S. Vine Way and dedicate a non-motorized public trail easement on 4501 and 4595 S. Vine Way. The Commission received the City’s municipal code that outlines the specific process for the vacation of right-of-way easements in their packets. Ms. Black noted that City Council considered this preliminary petition back in November 2019 and determined that it possessed sufficient merit to move forward. She said the City had now received a complete submittal from Charles Brega and Stanford and Vine, LLC and notice of this meeting was sent to every homeowner within 500 feet of the property. Coordinator Black reviewed the existing conditions for the Cherry’s Garden subdivision. She explained that the application for vacation requests vacation of both the Race Street right-of-way and the bridle path component of the bridle path, utility, and drainage easement on the west side of 4501 S. Vine Way. She said if the vacation of the right-of- way and bridle path easement is approved, the right-of-way will become part of the 4501 South Vine property and will be used for private purposes.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Delivering Justice: Food Delivery Cyclists in New York City
    City University of New York (CUNY) CUNY Academic Works All Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects 9-2018 Delivering Justice: Food Delivery Cyclists in New York City Do J. Lee The Graduate Center, City University of New York How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! More information about this work at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/gc_etds/2794 Discover additional works at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu This work is made publicly available by the City University of New York (CUNY). Contact: [email protected] DELIVERING JUSTICE: FOOD DELIVERY CYCLISTS IN NEW YORK CITY by DO JUN LEE A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty in Psychology in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, The City University of New York 2018 ii © 2016 DO JUN LEE All Rights Reserved iii DELIVERING JUSTICE: FOOD DELIVERY CYCLISTS IN NEW YORK CITY by DO JUN LEE This manuscript has been read and accepted for the Graduate Faculty in Psychology to satisfy the dissertation requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Susan Saegert Date Chair of Examining Committee Richard Bodnar Date Executive Officer Michelle Fine Tarry Hum Adonia Lugo Melody Hoffmann Supervisory Committee THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK iv ABSTRACT Delivering Justice: Food Delivery Cyclists in New York City by Do Jun Lee Advisor: Dr. Susan Saegert In New York City (NYC), food delivery cyclists ride the streets all day and night long to provide convenient, affordable, hot food to New Yorkers. These working cyclists are often Latino or Asian male immigrants who are situated within intersectional and interlocking systems of global migration and capital flows, intense time pressures by restaurants and customers, precarious tip-based livelihoods, an e-bike ban and broken windows policing, and unsafe streets designed for drivers.
    [Show full text]
  • Electric Bicycles Are Coming on Strong and Wisconsin Law Needs to Catch up with Celebrate Them
    MARATHON COUNTY FORESTRY/RECREATION COMMITTEE AGENDA Date and Time of Meeting: Tuesday, June 4, 2019 at 12:30pm Meeting Location: Conference Room #3, 212 River Drive, Wausau WI 54403 MEMBERS: Arnold Schlei (Chairman), Rick Seefeldt (Vice-Chairman), Jim Bove Marathon County Mission Statement: Marathon County Government serves people by leading, coordinating, and providing county, regional, and statewide initiatives. It directly or in cooperation with other public and private partners provides services and creates opportunities that make Marathon County and the surrounding area a preferred place to live, work, visit, and do business. Parks, Recreation and Forestry Department Mission Statement: Adaptively manage our park and forest lands for natural resource sustainability while providing healthy recreational opportunities and unique experiences making Marathon County the preferred place to live, work, and play. Agenda Items: 1. Call to Order 2. Public Comment Period – Not to Exceed 15 Minutes 3. Approval of the Minutes of the May 7, 2019 Committee Meeting 4. Educational Presentations/Outcome Monitoring Reports A. Article – Report Says Wisconsin Forestry on the Upswing B. Article – Wisconsin Tourism Industry Generates 21.6 Billion C. Article – May 2019 Paper and Forestry Products Month D. Articles – Electronic Assist Bikes 5. Operational Functions Required by Statute, Ordinance or Resolution: A. Discussion and Possible Action by Committee 1. Timber Sale Extension Requests a. Tigerton Lumber – Contract #642-15 b. Central Wisconsin Lumber – Contract #644-15 2. Discussion and Possible Action on Ordering a Second Appraisal for Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Funding on Property in the Town of Hewitt B. Discussion and Possible Action by Committee to Forward to the Environmental Resource Committee for its Consideration - None 6.
    [Show full text]
  • The Basics of Micromobility and Related Motorized Devices for Personal Transport
    INFO BRIEF The basics of micromobility and related motorized devices for personal transport www.pedbikeinfo.org 1 Introduction With a surge of new personal transportation weight categories. Cities or other jurisdictions devices coming to market, some integrated into can define the weight and width limitations for shared ride systems (such as bikeshare programs), different types of roadway facilities. there is a need to establish a common vocabulary for these options, and provide basic information This info brief specifically focuses on micromobility about how these devices are classified and devices used for personal transportation on regulated. This info brief provides an overview of paved roads, sidewalks, and paths, and does not powered forms of micromobility and compares cover devices used for vocational purposes and features of micromobility with a spectrum of other commercial goods/services delivery or for off- traditional and emerging forms of transportation. road or air-based travel. While pedestrians and It references and builds upon micromobility bicyclists—including those using nonmotorized definitions created by the Society of Automotive bikeshare bikes—might share similar Engineers (SAE), a standards-developing characteristics (such as small size and low travel organization and professional association. speed speed) as well as use the same facilities where micromobility devices are operated, they Powered micromobility devices, sometimes called are already well-defined by most regulatory, personal e-mobility devices, share
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Reduction Measures Report
    Lake County Single Occupancy Vehicle Reduction Study SOV Reduction Measures Technical Memorandum November 2020 Prepared for: Lake County Division of Transportation Prepared by: AECOM 303 East Wacker Drive, Suite 1400 Chicago, IL 60601 aecom.com In association with: Metro Strategies, Inc. Joseph P. Schwieterman Analytics, Inc. AECOM | Lake County Single Occupancy Vehicle Reduction Study ii Table of contents 1 SOV Reduction Study Background ...............................................................1 1.1 SOV Reduction Measures Overview ........................................................................................ 2 2 Categories of Measures ..................................................................................3 3 SOV Reduction Measure Sources .................................................................4 3.1 Peer Agency Interviews ............................................................................................................ 4 3.2 Literature/Web Search .............................................................................................................. 6 3.3 Local SOV Reduction Examples............................................................................................... 8 3.4 Emerging Mobilities .................................................................................................................. 8 3.4.1 Automated Vehicles ........................................................................................................ 9 3.4.2 Connected Vehicles .......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Literature Review of Bicycle and E-Bike Research, Policies & Management
    Literature Review Recreation Conflicts Focused on Emerging E-bike Technology December 19, 2019 Tina Nielsen Sadie Mae Palmatier Abraham Proffitt Acknowledgments E-bikes are still a nascent technology, and the research surrounding their use and acceptance within the recreation space is minimal. However, with the careful and constructive guidance of our consultants, the report outline morphed into chapters and, eventually, into a comprehensive document. We are deeply indebted to Mary Ann Bonnell, Morgan Lommele, and Stacey Schulte for guiding our thinking and research process and for supplementing our findings with resources and other support. We would like to express our deep appreciation to Lisa Goncalo, Tessa Greegor, Jennifer Alsmstead, and Rick Bachand for their careful and thoughtful reviews. Your gracious offer of time and knowledge was invaluable to our work. We also wish to acknowledge the help of Kacey French, John Stokes, Alex Dean, June Stoltman, and Steve Gibson for their consideration and continued interest in the process. Thanks are also due to colleagues at the Boulder County Parks & Open Space and Boulder County Transportation Departments, who offered their expertise at crucial moments in this process. We would like to offer our special thanks to Bevin Carithers, Pascale Fried, Al Hardy, Eric Lane, Tonya Luebbert, Michelle Marotti, Jeffrey Moline, Alex Phillips, and Marni Ratzel. None of this work would have been possible without the generous financial support from the City of Boulder, City of Fort Collins, and Larimer
    [Show full text]
  • People for Bikes
    Sarah Fitzgerald Recreation Program Manager Spokane County Parks, Recreation & Golf 404 N Havana Street Spokane, WA 99202 Dear Recreation Program Manager Sarah Fitzgerald, In response to your department’s recent solicitation of public input on electric bicycle management on natural surface trails, I am writing to encourage the definition of the three classes of electric bicycles within Section 6.14.030 of Spokane County Parks’ regulations, and allow Class 1 electric bicycle access on non-motorized and natural surface trails wherever bikes are allowed.1 We would like to offer our resources to you as you consider such changes to your current policy. PeopleForBikes is the national bicycling advocacy group that works for better policies and infrastructure for bike riding. We strive to make bike riding a safer and more inclusive activity for everyone, including our 40,000 individual supporters in Washington. We engage with land managers across the country to help develop electric bicycle policies that reflect the needs of their local communities. The results from your recent electric bicycle survey demonstrate local support for Class 1 electric bicycle access on natural surface trails.2 The adoption of this policy would be a fair and sensible decision, as Class 1 electric bicycles are similar to traditional bicycles and simply give riders – regardless of age, or physical, or cognitive ability – an extra boost when riding. The three-class system of electric bicycles has already been defined in 28 states’ motor vehicle codes (including Washington3) and six states’ park codes (Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Utah, Virginia and Wyoming) due to the clarity it provides when regulating the use of electric bicycles.
    [Show full text]
  • TO: Chairman Hornstein and the Transportation Finance & Policy
    TO: Chairman Hornstein and the Transportation Finance & Policy Committee FROM: Morgan Lommele, Director of State and Local Policy, PeopleForBikes DATE: February 9, 2021 SUBJECT: HF32 (Elkins) - Electric-assisted bicycle classification and regulation modified Dear Chairman Hornstein and the Transportation Finance & Policy Committee, On behalf of PeopleForBikes, I encourage passage of HF 32. PeopleForBikes is the national advocacy group and trade association that works for better policies and infrastructure for bike riding. Our coalition includes companies that manufacture or sell bicycles and related products, including electric bicycles; as well as 40,000 individual supporters in Minnesota. Electric bicycles are an emerging technology, and need clear rules to regulate their use and create stability in the marketplace. In states where modern day electric bicycles lack a specific vehicle classification, such as Minnesota, it is unclear how they are regulated, which creates significant confusion for consumers and retailers, and hinders the electric bicycle market. Electric bicycles are enjoyed by people from all walks of life. They make riding a bicycle for fun, commuting or transportation easier and faster and provide an affordable and competitive transportation option. Electric bicycles are also a dependable option for people limited by fitness, age, or disability; as well as for those who traditionally drive to work in the 5-20 mile range. Until recently, manufacturers were faced with inconsistent, outdated and unclear rules that governed where electric bicycle purchasers could use their product. In response to this, U.S. electric bicycle manufacturers came together to develop the three-class system six years ago, reflected in HF 32, to update regulations around critical issues like speed, wattage, and operation.
    [Show full text]
  • TO: Chair Craven and House Committee on Judiciary FROM: Alex
    TO: Chair Craven and House Committee on Judiciary FROM: Alex Logemann, Policy Counsel, PeopleForBikes Coalition DATE: March 24, 2021 SUBJECT: House Bill 5872 (Electric Bicycles) Dear Chair Craven and the Member of the House Committee on Judiciary: On behalf of the PeopleForBikes Coalition, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony in support of House Bill 5872, legislation that would define and regulate electric bicycles. The PeopleForBikes Coalition is the national advocacy group and trade association that works for better policies and infrastructure for bike riding. Our coalition includes nearly 300 companies and brands that manufacture, distribute, or sell bicycles and related products, including electric bicycles. Electric bicycles are a still emerging technology that need clear rules to regulate their use and create stability in the marketplace. As electric bicycle adoption continues to grow and these products mature, manufacturers, retailers, and bike riders need clear rules that define these products and state what rules apply to them when they are being used. Our goal at PeopleForBikes has been to harmonize terminology and regulation at all levels of government so electric bicycles have consistent rules throughout the United States. Before discussing the changes that this legislation would make to the law, I’d like to provide some general information about electric bicycles and who rides them. An electric bicycle is designed similarly to a traditional bicycle but has three additional components – a small motor that provides assistance to the bike rider, a battery to provide power to the motor, and electronics that enable the rider to control the system. Recent advances in electronic and battery technology have made electric bicycles more affordable and more enjoyable to ride.
    [Show full text]
  • Electric Bikes and Scooters Snapshot of State Laws
    Electric Bikes and Scooters Snapshot of State Laws State legislators, including those in Montana, are examining state laws, analyzing the use of electronic bikes (e-bikes), and determining how best, if at all, to regulate their use on public streets and paths. According to the National Conference of State Legislature (NCSL), 33 states and the District of Columbia define e-bikes in law.1 Montana is included in that list. Montana law (61-8-102, MCA) defines e-bikes, or “electrically assisted bicycles” as a bicycle 61-8-602, MCA with two operational pedals with a motor attached propels the bicycle and a rider who weighs Traffic laws applicable to persons operating 170 pounds no faster than 20 miles an hour. Essentially, for the purposes of regulation and bicycles or mopeds. A person operating a bicycle or enforcement, an e-bike is treated as a bicycle. The state does not require license or moped is granted all of the rights and is subject to registration. And e-bikes may be ridden on roadways and bicycle paths. all of the duties applicable to the driver of any other vehicle by chapter 7, chapter 9, and this chapter Federal law provides guidance in terms of the manufacturing and sale of e-bikes in the nation. except for special regulations in this part or the Amendments to the Consumer Product Safety Commission passed by Congress in 2002 provide provisions of chapter 7, chapter 9, and this chapter a definition of e-bikes as “A two- or three-wheeled vehicle with fully operable pedals and an that by their nature cannot apply.
    [Show full text]
  • Regulations of E-Bikes in North America
    NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNITIES REPORT Regulations of E-Bikes in North America NITC-RR-564 August 2014 A University Transportation Center sponsored by the U.S. Department of Transportation REGULATIONS OF E-BIKES IN NORTH AMERICA A POLICY REVIEW Report NITC-RR-564 by John MacArthur Portland State University Nicholas Kobel Portland State University for National Institute for Transportation and Communities (NITC) P.O. Box 751 Portland, OR 97207 August 2014 Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. NITC-RR-564 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date August 2014 REGULATIONS OF E-BIKES IN NORTH AMERICA: A POLICY REVIEW 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. John MacArthur, Portland State University Nicholas Kobel, Portland State University 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Portland State University 11. Contract or Grant No. 1825 SW Broadway Portland, OR 97201 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered National Institute for 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Transportation and Communities (NITC) P.O. Box 751 Portland, OR 97207 15. Supplementary Notes 16. Abstract Throughout the world, the electric bicycle (e-bike) industry is growing very quickly. The North American market has been somewhat slow to adopt this technology, which is still considered to be in the “early adopter” phase (Rose & Dill, 2011; Rose, 2011), but in recent years, this has begun to change. But as e-bike numbers increase, so too will potential conflicts (actual or perceived) with other vehicles and non-motorized devices, bicycles and pedestrians, causing policy questions to arise.
    [Show full text]
  • House of Representatives Staff Analysis Bill #: Cs/Cs
    HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES STAFF ANALYSIS BILL #: CS/CS/HB 971 Electric Bicycles SPONSOR(S): State Affairs Committee, Transportation & Infrastructure Subcommittee, Grant, M. TIED BILLS: IDEN./SIM. BILLS: CS/SB 1148 REFERENCE ACTION ANALYST STAFF DIRECTOR or BUDGET/POLICY CHIEF 1) Transportation & Infrastructure Subcommittee 12 Y, 0 N, As CS Roth Vickers 2) Transportation & Tourism Appropriations 12 Y, 0 N Hicks Davis Subcommittee 3) State Affairs Committee 21 Y, 0 N, As CS Roth Williamson SUMMARY ANALYSIS In Florida, a bicycle means every vehicle propelled solely by human power, and every motorized bicycle propelled by a combination of human power and an electric helper motor capable of propelling the vehicle at a speed of not more than 20 miles per hour on level ground upon which any person may ride, having two tandem wheels, and including any device generally recognized as a bicycle though equipped with two front or two rear wheels. The term does not include such a vehicle with a seat height of no more than 25 inches from the ground when the seat is adjusted to its highest position or a scooter or similar device. Thus, the term includes both traditional bicycles and motorized or electric bicycles (e-bikes). The bill removes e-bikes from the definition of the term “bicycle” and creates a new definition for e-bikes using a three-tiered classification system. Class 1 e-bikes are bicycles equipped with a motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling, and that ceases to provide assistance when the e-bike reaches 20 mph. Class 2 e-bikes are bicycles equipped with a throttle-assisted motor that may be used exclusively to propel the bicycle and that ceases to provide assistance when the e-bike reaches 20 mph.
    [Show full text]
  • Staff Report and Ordinance
    Regional Transportation Planning Staff Report Date: February 23, 2017 To: Summit County Council From: Bob Radke, SBSRD Trails & Open Space Manager Caroline Rodriguez, Regional Transportation Planning Director Re: County Ordinance Regulating Electric Assisted Bicycles (EAB) Background A new style of bicycle is starting to populate the trails in and around Summit County. They are called “Electric Assisted Bicycles” (EAB) and they have the ability to be propelled by an electric motor at speeds around 20 mph. They also have pedals and can be powered solely by human power. Or, a combination of the two can be used. All of the trails managed by Basin Recreation are deemed non-motorized. The State of Utah classifies EABs as non-motorized even though some of them can be propelled solely by an electric motor. The Utah State Code does allow local jurisdictions to regulate the use of electric bicycles. During 2014, Park City Municipal Corporation (PCMC) enlisted the help of Fehr & Pehrs to conduct a study of the regulation of EAB in similar communities. PCMC staff informed Snyderville Basin Recreation (SBSRD) staff of their intention to look into this matter and move to make a recommendation to the city council to regulate the use of EAB on city operated trails. Together, staff from each entity collaborated to establish suggested parameters for such regulations. SBSRD staff gathered local, public input during the board meeting on July 16, 2014 and through a survey circulated through social media channels where there were 286 respondents. Board members evaluated the surveys and the study provided by PCMC. The results of the survey indicates a trend in our community’s opinion towards the use of EAB on the public trails: approximately 60% feel it is appropriate to use EAB on paved transportation trails while over 90% feel they should be prohibited from use on single-track trails.
    [Show full text]