Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes.OSB.20230615 MINUTES City of Aspen, Open Space and Trails Board Meeting Held on June 15, 2023 5:00pm at Pearl Pass Room, Aspen City Hall City OST Board Members Present: Ted Mahon, Adam McCurdy, Dan Perl City Staff Members Present: John Spiess, Matt Kuhn, Austin Weiss, Brain Long, Micah Davis Adoption of the Agenda: The agenda was amended: the trail speed-calming plan for 2023 was added to the agenda. Ted made a motion to approve the agenda; Dan seconded and the vote was unanimous. Public Comments, for topics not on the agenda: None. Approval of the Minutes: Dan made a motion to approve the minutes; Adam seconded and the vote was unanimous. Staff Comments: Austin: None. John: Provided an update on the Roundabout: irrigation is currently being installed; trees and shrubs will be planted next. The Grizzly Diversion Tunnel will stop diverting out of the Roaring Fork River and streamflow will increase; staff will watch this. School construction season has begun; the bike route will have detours through campus. Later in the meeting, John mentioned Parks was awarded a CPW grant for $118,000 for archery range improvements at Cozy Point Ranch; this will be a 2024 project. Matt: Provided an update on the AVLT purchase of Marble Basecamp from Colorado Outward Bound School. AVLT was chosen as the preferred buyer; purchase price is $1.85 million. Over $1 million in deferred maintenance and future stewardship is anticipated. Closing date is September 1st. Contributions: City of Aspen $200,000, GOCO $1million, Pitkin County Open Space & Trails $500,000, Aspen School District (ASD) $250, Gunnison County $100,000, private donors $125,000. Adam asked whether the City will have a further role; Matt anticipated that there will be no further major role by the City. Dan asked if AVLT will be responsible for programming; Mat said that is what they are working on; ASD and possibly others will also be involved. Ted asked if the City’s $200,000 was the recommended amount; Matt said that the Board recommended $250,000 and Council settled on $200,000. Micah: Reported that he and Brian met with a contractor to look at the trail that goes from the Aspen Institute Campus to Grindlay Bridge; an estimate is anticipated soon. Brian: Provided an update on skills trail concept at Marolt Open Space. Mike Pritchard is near securing funds to work with Progressive Trail Design toward preparing design presentation material to present to this Board. New Business: Brush Creek/AABC Trail Outreach Project Update: Matt provided an update based on a presentation to the BOCC on June 6th. In 2021 and 2022, SGM was hired and funded in partnership with Pitkin County, City Aspen, and EOTC to do a technical feasibility analysis of a trail connection between the AABC and Brush Creek Intercept Lot. Various options were studied. The preferred alternative involves two bridges, one near the Sardy residence and the other near Brush Creek Park and Ride. A 2022 Engineering feasibility report was an addendum to the feasibility report. The concept was determined to be technically feasible; however, following this study, EOTC sent questions back to staff, such as alternatives, users, vehicle use reduction, etc. Pitkin County and the City hired consultants to collect feedback over the next 5-6 months from various stakeholders with the goal of collecting as much public feedback as possible and resolving the project concept’s critical questions. Matt mentioned that there might be some vehicle reduction and some potential changes in use of Brush Creek; transportation analysis is underway. The main thrust is the public process; this will include focus groups, a project interest group, Saturday market outreach, and intercept surveys at Rio Grande Trail and Brush Creek Park and Ride. This effort will also reach out to Brush Creek Metro District, Brush Creek Caucus, and Woody Creek Caucus. Information will be synthesized into a report. GIS analysis shows that trail connections related to this project could create many transportation and recreation opportunities. The goal is to determine whether there is public interest or public non-support for the project. An online survey (at pitkinostprojects) has been open for over a week; you may find more information there and take the survey. On June 21st there will be a public neighborhood meeting at CMC campus. BOCC will not be the sole entity that will approve this project, but they have a large stake in it. City of Aspen Parks will continue to partner with this project. BOCC voiced concern over the cost, visual impacts, and whether these impacts are appropriate in their locations. Feedback will be sought on: Option 1: both bridges, 2: AABC bridge, 3: Brush Creek bridge, 4: no bridges/Rio Grande connection. All options are currently on the table; we will see where things end up after the public outreach effort this fall. This will likely be a topic for the October joint meeting with Pitkin County Open Space. Matt showed graphics and highlighted connections and ADA grade factors for the four options. Dan asked if Pitkin County may make any changes to the outreach plan. Matt explained that the joint County-City meeting was informational only; no direction was sought. Adam asked what Council’s reception was; Matt clarified that Council has not been presented with this information. Adam asked if there is a plan to get Council’s input on this project concept; Matt explained that this may happen in the fall. Pitkin County is the project contractor at this point; the City is a partner, but the County is leading the project. Dan asked what the County Open Space Board’s general response was; Matt commented that he could not speak to any consensus from that board. Ted asked what steps would take place after community input is sought and whether there is a group that is pushing for this. Matt commented that City and County Open Space programs are the advocates for this project, and that the community feedback will be the primary way to determine whether there is support. He mentioned that County surveys have shown significant support; however, a broader look at the Roaring Fork Valley is needed. Adam commented that the concept versus the cost is important to communicate in surveys. Matt mentioned that this project brings up the question of prioritization. Dan mentioned his new appreciation for recreational benefits, particularly regarding access to the Rio Grande Trail for Burlingame and AABC residents. Fencing and open space: John gave an informational presentation on fencing on open space properties; staff may seek board direction on this topic at a later time. Reasons for fencing on properties: safety, operational concerns, historical components, cultural components, preservation, wildlife safety, and establishing a boundary. Recent concerns include encroachments and different uses that are occurring, leading to the concept of establishing a boundary around open spaces. John showed photos of various fencing applications and explained their various rationales. A possible topic for future board discussion is direction for fencing where adjacent development creates potential for social trails and other impacts into open space considering the values we want to protect. Matt added that there is a diverse range of fencing rationales; he described additional variables that pertain to fence use on open space. Staff may come to the board with a broad fencing plan in the future. Austin mentioned as an example, the undeveloped portion of Cozy Point Ranch where Parks removed fencing with help from YCC personnel. Dan asked for clarification of a map image; John explained parcel boundary indications. Dan asked about a small parcel near the Lumberyard; Austin clarified the history of that parcel. Ted asked if social trails have developed at Deer Hill; Austin explained that Parks retains the right to develop a trail to the top of Deer Hill within the AVLT conservation easement and explained staff’s decision to hold off on developing this. Dan commented that future housing at Lumberyard could bring about some social trail pressure. Adam commented on dogs as a potential reason for fencing at the Lumberyard border of Deer Hill. Brian commented on the impacts of dogs in the general area. Ted added that residents in Annie Mitchell do not seem to venture up the hill. Adam asked if there is an official policy addressing access at Deer Hill; Brian mentioned that access is allowed. Speed-calming/Trail Etiquette Education: Brian presented on the topic of safe speeds on trails and the City’s educational role, including speed limit signs (installed this season), a radar trailer (collect speed data and display speeds), trail designs (that slow bike speeds), and the role of rangers/enforcement. Brian showed a map of the City’s paved trails indicating three speed limits. Dan suggested two speed limits rather than three to simplify the scheme unless the County’s speed limits include a lot of 20 mph zones. Brian mentioned the yellow diamond signs that prompt cyclists to slow their speeds in curvy areas. Austin asked if the County designated a 20 mph limit on the Rio Grande Trail section upstream of Stein Park (which is historically managed by the City). They discussed checking on this per ordering signs. Ted commented that enforcement could be challenging and that responsible riding is the overall goal. He suggested limiting signage and suggested painting speed limits/trail indications on the trail surface in some cases. Dan emphasized his suggestion for two speed limits instead of three. Adam expressed that he didn’t have a strong opinion either way. Adam suggested it could be easy to change speed limits going forward if needed. Various trail junctions and sections were discussed in relation to safe speeds. Austin asked for examples of what other communities are doing regarding bike speed limits. Brian said it ranges from nothing to signage and limits like ours. Dan asked about speeds in bike-pedways; Brian said street limits apply. Brian mentioned the Street-Smart campaign initiated by Engineering and Streets which includes bike etiquette points. Brian discussed newspaper and radio ads addressing bike etiquette and safe speeds and played a video that rental shops are required to show e-bike renters. John asked if Board members could comment on any trail sections that are particularly hectic. Adam commented that the bike trail coming from school campus is chaotic after school. Dan mentioned the curvy, dark section of the AABC Trail after the roundabout. Old Business: None. Board Comments: Dan: Asked if a retreat date has been selected. John said there would be an update at the next meeting. Ted: Commented on whether any further discussions regarding the community garden are needed. John mentioned that a potential expansion is an upcoming topic. Matt added that recent complaints stem largely from a citizen who suggested subdividing all plots; Parks is comfortable with the existing protocol and will not be enacting this suggestion. Next Meeting Date(s): Regular meeting July 20, 2022. Executive Session: N/A Adjourned: Dan made a motion to adjourn; Ted seconded and the vote was unanimous.