Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.OSTB.20220224 MINUTES Joint City of Aspen – Pitkin County Open Space and Trails Board Meeting Held on February 24, 2022 4:00pm at the Pitkin County Building Meeting Room City of Aspen OST Board Members Present: Julie Hardman, Ted Mahon, Howie Mallory, Adam McCurdy, Dan Perl City Staff Members Present: John Spiess, Matt Kuhn, Michael Tunte, Austin Weiss, Brian Long, Micah Davis Pitkin County OST Board Members Present: Amy Barrow, Wayne Ives, Michael Kinsley, Howie Mallory, Graeme Means County Staff Members Present: Liza Mitchell, Ted O’Brien, Gary Tennenbaum, Jessie Young Adoption of the Agenda: Howie Mallory made a motion to approve the agenda; Graeme Means seconded and the vote was unanimous. Public Comments, for topics not on the agenda: None. Staff Comments: None New Business: AABC to Brush Creek Intercept Lot Trail Gary Tennebaum, Austin Weiss and Matt Kuhn introduced the feasibility study to connect the AABC to the Brush Creek Intercept lot. Michael posed questions: is the most appropriate commuter link via the AABC or is it via the Rio Grande Trail all the way to town; and is this a viable commuter link that will be used as such by the community? He expressed concern about viability as a commuter link. Gary explained that the commuter link question will be answered by the public process, as well as whether to build just one bridge and send trail users into Aspen via the Cemetery Lane Trail. He mentioned a previous survey in which public response was split evenly on whether to pave the Rio Grande Trail. Adam asked whether the survey would gather input from constituents represented by the EOTC, emphasizing that gathering input from down valley residents would be important as commuter users of this trail. Gary affirmed this and explained that the trail feasibility study is the first step before going to the public with trail options. Howie referred to a study conducted eight years ago that asked similar questions, adding that the Rio Grande Trail’s cross-country ski platform supports not paving as unpaved surfaces hold snow better. He added that eBikes are now a strong mobility option. Dan asked for clarification of City and County responsibilities regarding the AABC to Brush Creek Intercept Lot Trail. Gary explained the current 3-way equal partnership among the City, County, and EOTC. SGM Feasibility Report presentation: AABC to Brush Creek Intercept Lot Trail Ashley Cline, SGM project manager, presented two trail options. Option One: “Twin Bridges Alignment” This alignment involves two bridges crossing the Roaring Fork River gorge: one at the Intercept Lot and one north of the Sardy Property. Additional benefits of Option One include Snowmass Village access to the Rio Grande Trail and W/J Ranch access to the Intercept Lot. This alignment would be plowed in winter for year-round commuting. It is 2.55 miles in total trail length, of which 1.54 miles is new trail construction, and utilizes a portion of the existing Rio Grande Trail. Bike travel time is 13 minutes. Mark Frymoyer, SGM engineer, provided technical details regarding the bridges: the first bridge (span of 592 ft.) connects the Intercept Lot to Aspen Sanitation property. The second bridge (span of 650 ft) connects the Rio Grande Trail to flat bench land on Pitkin County property north of the Sardy property. Refer to Section 4 of Feasibility Report. Asteel deck arch bridge is the best structural choice for both bridges, providing aesthetics, underhung structure, efficiency, less steel, and less environmental impact and footprint. This is the same structure as the similarly situated Tiehack Bridge (span of 605 ft). DHM renderings were shown. Option Two: “Highway 82 East Alignment” This option has safety considerations due to proximity to Highway 82 and environmental hazards such as rock fall and steep, unstable slopes. This alignment parallels the highway at grade and would have a protective snow/throw fence on the Shale Bluffs section. Michael Kingsley asked about elevating the trail 10 ft above highway grade; Mark explained this would add structural components, cost, and aesthetic impacts. Overall, there are significant safety concerns and challenges: drainage pathways, loose material, and narrow alignment. This alignment involves 2.28 miles of new trail construction; bike travel time is 11 minutes. Mark provided technical details on this alignment. Important considerations include the large sections of elevated structure (2,400 linear ft) and retaining wall to manage the steep slopes, geological hazards, ADA compliance design, and safety concerns along much of the corridor. Longevity of this trail alignment would also be tied to CDOT’s management of the adjacent highway infrastructure and its lifespan. Marijean Frymoyer shared cost information. Tables and bar charts illustrated comparative difficulty of construction of specific lengths of trail. Refer to Section 3 of the Feasibility Report. Tabulations detailing cost for least to most difficult trail segments for each option were presented, factoring in inflation for the 2025 project timing, 30% contingency, and 12-15% design and construction engineering. Total cost estimates: Option One: $20,045,000 – $21,788,000 Option Two: $26,410,000 – $28,706,000 Ashley presented an options evaluation matrix illustrating comparisons of difficulty for constructing specific trail segments and associated costs. SGM and the project team recommends Option One as the preferred alignment based on its ease of meeting ADA requirements, cost efficiency, lower maintenance, best user experience, lower construction risks, and least environmental impact. A discussion followed in which Gary commented that alignment choice will be made by the EOTC and the public. He added that other alignments, including going down to the river, were explored earlier and ruled out due to high environmental impacts and costs. Graeme M. commented that Option One provides important connectivity and that the trail would need to provide enough relief of transportation issues to warrant the cost. Michael commented that ride time all the way into Aspen is important to the commuter viability question. Howie recalled a previous alignment study for comparison, in which cost made it a non-starter; Gary added that this alignment would have cost about $14 million. Howie mentioned that in light of the need for an alternative transportation platform, he would like real data as evidence to show how many people would commute via bike rather than car year-round in order to justify the cost. Secondly, he suggested obtaining recreational desirability of this trail which could be part of a seamless experience from Brush Creek to Highlands and the Maroon Bells, and how trail width may need to be adjusted. Amy agreed on the importance of connectivity and that Option One is the clear choice. She asked for clarification on how the Rio Grande Trail segment would accommodate both groomed and plowed surfaces. Gary explained that these surfaces currently exist in that trail segment. Amy commented that another benefit of Option One is having two choices for continuing on to Aspen (Cemetery Lane or the AABC Trail). Graeme suggested that offering just Option One to the public for a clear conversation. Dan commented that he was surprised that Option One is the cheaper of the two and that the public needs to see both options for comparison and to demonstrate diligent research. Amy agreed that being able to weigh options helps validate the preferred option. Adam commented on the difficulty for people to bike commute in winter and that this trail could involve a lot of investment for little benefit if not used for year-round commuting. Howie emphasized the need to gather survey input from the public to answer these questions. Dan commented that commuter use during spring through fall could provide enough benefit and that Option One would be very beneficial to Burlingame and AABC residents for recreation; he expressed support for moving forward with public outreach. Michael stated that the consensus seems to be to proceed with the public process, including further exploration of commuter link viability. Graeme commented on the importance of project partners. Gary mentioned that Snowmass Village has been involved, received the report, and expressed support. He added that commuting viability concerns will be included in the memo to EOTC. Howie asked how the public process is being funded; Gary explained that the budget is in place to move the public process forward. Maroon Creek Multi-Use Trail Project manager John Spiess presented this proposed trail connection between the Kiss and Ride at the Aspen Roundabout and Highlands Trail. For ease of discussion and planning, the trail is described in four segments; Segment 1 (Roundabout to Alberta Moore Drive) is the focus of this meeting. John explained the impetus for this trail illustrated by Strava data; powered devices such as eBikes have increased use of this route and concerns have developed related to the current bike route through the public school campus. The school district may close this route as early as this summer. Hence the City is pursuing a safe, year-round alternate route. Project consultant/contractor Otak is working with partners Connect One Design and Project Resource Studio. Phase 1 began in November 2021, Phase 2 will begin in August 2022, Phase 3 construction will begin in summer 2023. This schedule is fast-paced due to the urgency of need for this trail solution. Parks seeks support toward working with Pitkin County staff on alignments that may cross into the Moore Open Space and would like a discussion of values related to the evaluation of trail alignments. John referenced the Moore Open Space Management Plan which mentions considering a potential paved trail on this alignment. The proposed trail would be paved, plowed in winter, 10 ft minimum width, ADA accessible, and separated from Maroon Creek Roadway. John described Segment 1, including the trail as it passes below the existing ski/ped bridge near the Roundabout, various grade separations, retaining walls and railing sections, and portions of the trail that will be on open space land. Trail placement at the curve by Alberta Moore Drive will be optimized for additional safety. Michael asked whether anyone has concerns about trail incursions into the open space; Board members expressed support for the proposed alignment. Dan suggested considering taking the trail deeper into the open space to maximize it for a diversity of users. He also expressed allowing all types of bikes and users, including eBikes. Graeme supported a wider trial platform. Howie mentioned that road bikers will likely still ride on the road; he suggested a wider road shoulder to facilitate this separation of use. Gary commented that this is one of the last remaining open spaces in Aspen and is used in all seasons by wildlife; staff will study this and come back with information. Amy expressed not being in favor of expanding the trail into the open space. Executive Session: (not recorded) Michael invited a motion to enter executive session to discuss Aspen Area Ranch Roaring Fork Mining District, Owl Creek Ranch, Maroon Creek Ranch. Graeme made a motion to enter executive session; Howie seconded, and the vote was unanimous. Adam made a motion to enter executive session; Dan seconded, and the vote was unanimous. Adjourned: Adam McCurdy made a motion to adjourn; Dan Perl seconded and the vote was unanimous.