Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Town Board Study Session 2008-03-07 Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, March 7, 2008 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the TOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the 7th day of March, 2008. Board: Mayor Baudek, Trustees Blackhurst, Eisenlauer, Homeier, Levine, Newsom and Pinkham Attending: Mayor Baudek, Trustees Blackhurst, Eisenlauer, Levine, Newsom and Pinkham Also Attending: Town Administrator Halburnt, Deputy Town Administrator Richardson, Directors Joseph and Zurn, Planner Chilcott and Town Clerk Williamson Absent: Trustees Homeier Mayor Baudek called the meeting to order at 10:26 a.m. ELKHORN LODGE REDEVELOPMENT Prior to the meeting, an off-site road connection options site tour took place to review James Drive, Far View Drive, Elkhorn/34 intersection and Donut Haus/Riverside. Town Administrator Halburnt stated the discussion would focus on the annexation development agreement and focus on the location of a potential bypass road, how to pay for the roadway and the phasing of the roadway. Traffic Generation from Development and Bypass Road Dir. Zurn stated the traffic study by Felsburg Holt and Ullevig was completed in 2003 and addressed transportation alternative. Development of the bypass road would have to address issues raised in the study in order to obtain federal or state financial assistance. Dir. Zurn commented the Town rates as a high priority in the Upper Front Range Regional Transportation Plan 2035; however, if the suggested improvements do not meet the plan it would be difficult to acquiring funding. In addition, federal and state funding requires the Town to meet strict environmental and road standards if funding is provided. Felsburg, Holt and Ullerig (FHU) – Estes Valley Transportation Alternative Study Dave Hattan/ FHU Project Manager commented the study involved the Rocky Mountain National Park, Larimer County, Town of Estes Park and Colorado Department of Transportation to jointly identify the need for a comprehensive transportation plan for the Estes Valley. This study was included in the Upper Front Range Regional Transportation Plan as a “high” priority project. Most of the study was paid through a grant received from the Federal Highway Administration. The main objectives of the study included providing a wider range of transportation choices, maintaining the environment and reducing congestion and improving the visitor experience. An economist worked closely with staff to look at the alternatives. The study forecasted a 2% growth per year with a 50% increase in 20 years. Larry Haas/CDOT Transportation Engineer stated the agency has conducted signal timer studies to improve the traffic flow through the downtown corridors. Staff is reconverting the studies to improve mobility on the highways through the signalized corridors of Estes Park. If the new bypass is required to be a signalized intersection, it would be included in the current signal scheme. The bypass would allow relief downtown and provide an alternative that may be used by the locals. The bypass will also provide the Town time to develop options to address the traffic downtown. Dave Town Board Study Session – March 7, 2008 – Page 2 /FHU agrees with comments made regarding the opportunity the development provides for the bypass road to alleviate local traffic downtown with 3,000 to 4,000 trips per day. Comments were heard from the Board: the park visitation is self controlling and limited; the bypass may have a significant impact on the traffic flow downtown on a short-term; the bypass may facilitate west bound traffic but not alter the choices travelers make coming into town; a western bypass has been discussed for the past 15 years; this development has offered the opportunity to build the bypass; what are the environmental and energy impacts of downtown congestion. CDOT – Required Road Improvements to CDOT Right-of-Way Gloria Hice-Idler/CDOT Access Coordinator reviews developments to mitigate their impact on to state roadways including access points, signalization, road alignment and traffic flow. With the proposed development CDOT would be reviewing the need for signalization at Elm Rd and turn lanes. Discussions need to occur with the developer to determine access points and it is CDOT standards to align intersections. CDOT would encourage the developer to align access with Far View Dr. Comments include the mixed use of traffic using the Elm Rd intersection (commercial, heavy industry and residential) and the timelines in developing a study to determine the need for signalization. Ekkhorn Lodge Property Traffic Impact Study Frank Theis/ commented that discussions with staff have included the western bypass through the development during the design phase. Delich Associates was hired by the developer to complete a traffic impact study. He stated a good comparison of a local roadway in function would be Mall Road versus the Moccasin bypass. Matt Delich/Delich Associates focused on the connection to Elkhorn Ave. and to Moraine Ave. through the development. The development would connect to Moraine Ave. through Elm Rd. The Elkhorn Ave. connection could occur adjacent to Far View Dr., approximately adjacent to James St. with an at grade “T” intersection or at the current intersection. The developments preferred access would be at James and include the closure of Old Ranger Rd. due to its location to the new intersection. This bypass would connect the two valleys and would not significantly reduce the downtown traffic. Either connection to Elkhorn via Far View or James would work for the development. The immediate need is to connect the two valleys through the development. The connection of the development to Wonderview Ave. would be a concern of the Town in the future and not the developer. Comments/questions were heard from the Board: questioned the effect of the access road on the development; concerns raised on the effect of the surrounding neighborhoods if either James or Far View were used to connect to Wonderview Ave.; could the development use the current access; concern with commercial traffic across the bypass through the residential development and the grade of the roadway; would limits need to be placed on the type of commercial traffic or load allowed; would a two lane road lead to accidents due to slow moving traffic; a complete connection through the property would be essential for emergency services; what would be the impact of the bypass through the residential development. Mr. Theis stated Phase I of the project would use the current access with the addition of a 90 degree intersection aligned with Filbey Ct. and would be the main connection for many years. The additional access options would not come into play until later in the project. Dir. Zurn stated load limits may need to be placed on the roadway and discussion has occurred on the possible need for climbing lanes. Mr. Delich commented the Town Board Study Session – March 7, 2008 – Page 3 commercial traffic would occur so infrequently that climbing lanes would not be necessary and from alignment it may not be feasible. Mr. Delich stated the site generated traffic would distribute in several directions including Moraine Ave., Hwy 34 bypass or downtown. Approximately 2,000 to 4,500 per day would travel downtown. He would estimate 25% of the site generated traffic would go west on Moraine, 10% east on Moraine, 10% west on Elkhorn and 50% east on Elkhorn toward the downtown. Mayor Baudek called a break for lunch at 12:10 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 12:55 p.m. By-pass Road Alternatives Lonnie Sheldon/Van Horn Engineering stated Mary’s Lake Rd would be a better comparison with respect to drainage, grade and length south of Riverside Dr. However, the traffic volumes would be less on the bypass road. West Side of Development Dir. Zurn stated without the western bypass the current roadway system will be further stressed. Other alternatives to address increased traffic volumes include creating a couplet downtown with one way traffic west on Moraine Ave. and one way traffic east from the area near the current Donut Haus on Riverside at a cost of $5 to $6 million. Additionally, without the western bypass the one-way Riverside may need to be increased to three lanes. The Board discussed whether or not the completion of the western bypass would delay the redesign of the improvements downtown. The Board is concerned the downtown would become a lower priority for the state. Trustee Blackhurst commented the bypass would give the Public Works Department time to complete a master plan for long range infrastructure and the opportunity to acquire the funds to build the necessary improvements. Far View Drive Dir. Zurn stated Far View Dr. is the preferred alternative to connect the bypass to Wonderview Ave. in the future. He commented the connection does not have to occur immediately; however, as the western bypass becomes a popular alternative a connection would be necessary. Attorney White stated the Annexation/Development Agreement could reserve the right- of-way for both the eastern (Far View Dr.) and western (James St.) access points for future development as needed. Mr. Theis stated the developer does not agree the access needs to line up with Far View Dr. The development is providing both the eastern or western access points platted as ROW. The developer requests that once the Town makes a decision on the preferred access point it would vacate the developable property. The developer would build a simple roadway with a minor contribution by the Town. Mayor Baudek stated none of the alternatives are perfect and perhaps cost may be a factor in the decision as to which connection may be preferred. Dir. Zurn stated the benefit to the community would occur only if the bypass functions well by making the connection to Wonderview Ave. Therefore, the Board needs to make a decision on whether or not to make the connection and where to locate it. Dir. Zurn stated the Far View Dr. connection is estimated at $1 million to complete and would be the cheapest alternative. Without the bypass the improvements downtown Town Board Study Session – March 7, 2008 – Page 4 become more involved and significantly more expensive. The western access at James would work; however, it would create a disjointed intersection. Trustee Blackhurst commented from an engineering perceptive the connection through Far View Dr. is preferred; however, the connection would destroy the residential characteristics of two neighborhoods. He stated the best access would be the western access. Dir. Zurn advised the Board that sending traffic to the intersection of Elkhorn and Wonderview would add approximately two miles to each traveled trip. It would not be the preferred access by the motorist, cause motorist confusion, increase traveled miles, increase pollution and require a costly redesign of the intersection. The Board discussed the Far View Dr. connection and repeated the best connection to Wonderview would be the one that creates the least residential impact. Bypass Road Payment Options Town Administrator Halburnt informed the Board that the developers are offering to build the bypass road connecting Elkhorn Ave. to Elm Rd. to the minimum road standards and provide limited curb and gutter to address drainage issues. The developers would hold the Town responsible for the placement of the bridge to connect the development to Elkhorn Ave. and any signal CDOT would require. Development Phasing Town Administrator Halburnt stated staff suggests approving up to 50% of the residential development prior to the commercial development. This would ensure a retail base would be established if the developer could not complete the entire development. There being no further business, Mayor Baudek adjourned the meeting at 2:32 p.m. Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk