Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Study Session 2016-07-12 Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado July 12, 2016 Minutes of a Study Session meeting of the TOWN BOARD of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at Town Hall in the Board Room in said Town of Estes Park on the 12th day of July, 2016. Board: Mayor Jirsa, Mayor Pro Tem Koenig, Trustees Holcomb, Martchink, Nelson, Norris and Walker Attending: All Also Attending: Town Administrator Lancaster, Assistant Town Administrator Machalek, Town Attorney White, Director Muhonen and Town Clerk Williamson Absent: None Mayor Jirsa called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. FISH HATCHERY PROPERTY DISCUSSION. Town Administrator Lancaster stated the Town owns 70 acres at the Fish Hatchery property, including the Hydroplant Museum, Vickie O’Connor picnic area, employee housing, Town storage, and undeveloped land. The Board provided staff direction in April 2015 to consider the potential use of the entire property and not limit the options to the current developed areas. Since that time the Town has received a number of unsolicited ideas for development of the property. The staff requests Board approval to move forward with issuing a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the development of workforce housing on the Town owned Fish Hatchery property. The process could include parameters to insure proposals meet the goals and objectives of the Town Board and make a meaningful impact in the supply of workforce housing in the Estes Valley. Trustee discussion has been summarized: Trustee Walker stated the project should allow employers such as the Town, School District and Hospital to offer housing as a benefit to its employees. The Town should not manage the housing development. He would recommend guidelines that would include 53 standalone units, 300 townhomes, 100 2-bedroom condominium units, 150 studio apartments, communal space with child care and designed in a manner to allow the shuttle system to service the development in three stops. The guidelines would provide developers an idea of what the Town would be looking for in a proposal. Staff stated the RFP should be general enough to allow for creativity. Trustees Nelson and Norris suggested the RFP should contain some direction but leave it open in an effort not to constrain creativity. Mayor Pro Tem Koenig stated deed restrictions in other communities have not proven to be effective and should be reviewed before implementation. She also stated concern with locating workforce housing on the property due to its distance from downtown and the possible need for shuttle services year-round to provide transportation to town. Trustee Norris suggested the RFP responses could include the Development Code changes needed for the proposed development. Mayor Jirsa commented the RFP should contain enough detail for the respondents to provide a meaningful response. UPDATE ON ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NEPA PROCESS - LOOP. Director Muhonen stated the Downtown Loop project would address the traffic congestion in downtown Estes Park through the use of federal funds earmarked to help improve access to the country’s National Parks. The Federal Lands Access Program Town Board Study Session – July 12, 2016 – Page 2 (FLAP) grant required an Environmental Assessment (EA) be completed for the project. The EA found no significant impact with the implementation of Alternative 1 (one-way couplet) as defined by the federal regulations. The final action of the EA process requires the partner agencies to demonstrate written concurrence with the EA findings in order to allow the one-way couplet to move forward and provide the clearances to widen the river channel downstream and improve the Riverside and Rockwell Street bridges in the future. The approval of the EA does not necessary require construction of the project. James Herlyck/Central Federal Lands Highway Division (CFLHD) and Cory Lang/Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) presented the EA for the Downtown Estes Loop project required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The proposed project history was reviewed, including the award of $13 million in Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) funds in September 2013 and $4.2 million in CDOT RAMP funds to the Town for the devolution of West Elkhorn Avenue to Wonderview Avenue in October 2013. The funding for Phase I would construct/implement the Loop, one-way couplet, from Riverside to Moraine, improve intersections, and reconstruct the Ivy Street bridge. Future phases would include reconstruction of the Rockwell and Riverside bridges, relocate public restrooms and improve channel/floodplain along the roadway. These future phases are not yet funded. The EA process developed a range of alternatives through a public process, developed screening criteria, conducted a primary screening and conducted a comprehensive secondary screening. The final screening resulted in either no action or the implementation of Alternative 1, the one-way couplet. Alternative 1 provides improved intersection ratings from the current F rating during a peak Saturday in the summer to a B and C rating in 2018 and D and E rating in 2040; improved multi-modal traffic with improved sidewalks and bike lanes; floodplain improvements, opportunities for gateway signage into downtown and Rocky Mountain National Park; and landscape enhancements. The EA determined the environmental resource impacts of Alternative 1 would include the displacement of 13 parking spaces, 7 full property acquisitions, and 5 partial acquisitions. The EA reviewed the impact on economics, noise, impact to Town owned parks, visual, and the floodplain. The EA would be open for public comment from July 5 – Aug 5 with staff to hold meetings with the community during this period to gather further comment and provide further information on the project. CFLHD will review comments received and develop responses in coordination with the project team and issue a final decision of no significant impact on the project. Trustee Walker stated there was no independent utility, the project would be premature if the floodplain issues upstream are not addressed first to protect the project assets; the Park is already full and there is no need to improve access to the Park; the EA states the project would improve commercial development along Riverside and Moraine which is not the intent of the project; stated the data used in the EA is not current data, i.e. implementation of the Barnes Dance and improved signage directing additional traffic to the Fall River entrance; and the EA does not adequately address the impact the project would have on the 7 displaced businesses. Mayor Jirsa concurred with Trustee Walker’s comments and stated the project would only improve traffic flow from Riverside to Crags intersection, improving a small portion of the roadway; visitor complaints are related to the lack of parking and not traffic; questioned if the EA completed air quality testing; commented the air quality would not improve in the valley because the stack of cars would move from downtown to the entrance of the Park; and there are several studies that refute the statement that one- way streets decrease pedestrian conflicts with traffic. He stated the project comes down to priorities and he commented the Town priorities should be addressing flood mitigation and parking before the Town addresses traffic. Mayor Pro Tem Koenig questioned why the parking structure downtown was turned down as a viable alternative. The structure would have allowed visitors to park at the garage and utilize buses to access the park, thereby reducing congestion and air Town Board Study Session – July 12, 2016 – Page 3 pollution. She questioned if there was a master plan for road improvements to access the Park. Mr. Lang stated the project goal was to improve access to the National Park and the parking structure did not meet the goal. He stated a master plan does not exist. Trustee Nelson commented the Town needs to address the issue within its jurisdiction and manage the congestion within the Town boundaries. The Town should focus on what the project can do for its citizens. He questioned the traffic flow impacts the project would have on West Elkhorn. Mr. Lang stated the traffic flows would remain at the same levels. The project would have no impact. Trustee Norris stated concern with the project cost estimates because of the rising cost of construction at nearly 10% a year over the last few years. He requested the project team address the cost of inflation and how the project may change in light of the increased costs; would all components of Phase I be compatible with future phases for bridge replacement, parking structure, etc.; public safety response time would improve with the improvements; the EA outlines a reduction in the number of conflicts; the modeling has outlined a three to four time increase in congestion downtown with the No Action alternative; he questioned the confidence level of the predictions; and he stated concern with economic impact during and after the construction of the project and the possibility of reversing the traffic flow if it is determined to have a detrimental impact to the economy. He stated the Town should discuss issues raised on Park access with the new Park Superintendent. Mr. Lang stated CDOT uses historic growth rates and travel design models that would indicate a 90% confidence rating. The roadways could technically be reversed. Trustee Martchink commented the No Action alternative would increase the number of congestion days from 11% today to 40% in 24 years; the widening of the sidewalks downtown would improve economics and the bike lanes would improve safety with the implementation of the one-way couplet (Alternate 1); and the current F rating at Elkhorn/Riverside and Elkhorn/Moraine intersections would remain an F rating with the No Action alternative. He questioned if the Town should accept failure. Trustee Holcomb commented the Board needs to improve the Town to the best of its ability as the Town does not have control over what the Park and CDOT are doing. The Town cannot solve all the issues but it can improve the items within its controls. Attorney White stated the Loop project would not be subject to a citizen initiated ordinance as outlined by previous Supreme Court findings. The Loop project would be an administrative action and only legislative issues are subject to the initiative process. Attorney White and Administrator Lancaster stated the Town does have the right to not move forward with the project because the Town owns Riverside Drive. The funds received from CDOT for the devolution of West Elkhorn must be used for transportation related projects. TRUSTEE & ADMINISTRATOR COMMENTS & QUESTIONS. Trustee Walker requested an action item on the next Board agenda to discuss the code enforcement of occupancy of 9 or more guests in vacation homes. The Board consensus was to add the item to the July 26th meeting as an action item. Mayor Pro Tem Koenig requested the bills be placed in a separate document from the Town Board packet. FUTURE STUDY SESSION AGENDA ITEMS. Staff would add to the list of future agenda items the process used for setting Town Board agendas. The August 9th study session would include a discussion item on the funding mechanism for Estes Valley Investment in early Childhood Success (EVICS). Town Board Study Session – July 12, 2016 – Page 4 Trustee Holcomb requested staff provide information on RTD as an option to improve transit in the valley. Administrator Lancaster would provide an executive summary for the Board’s review. Trustee Norris requested a discussion on the Hwy 34 closure and how it may impact employers in the valley. Administrator Lancaster stated a meeting would be held on July 14th with key members of the community to discuss the impact further and have a presentation from VanGo on how they may help to address the issue of commuting from the valley during the construction. There being no further business, Mayor Jirsa adjourned the meeting at 6:10 p.m. Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk