Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.OSTB.20221117 MINUTES City of Aspen, Open Space and Trails Board Meeting Held on November 17, 2022 5:00pm at Pearl Pass Room, Aspen City Hall City OST Board Members Present: Julie Hardman, Ted Mahon, Howie Mallory, Adam McCurdy, Ann Mullins, Dan Perl City Staff Members Present: Steve Barr, Matt Kuhn, Brian Long, Michael Tunte, Austin Weiss, Micah Davis, Nick Oliver Adoption of the Agenda: Ann made a motion to approve the agenda; Julie seconded and the vote was unanimous. Public Comments, for topics not on the agenda: None. Approval of the Minutes: Ted made a motion to approve the minutes; Dan seconded and the vote was unanimous. Staff Comments: Austin: Thanked the committee and acknowledged the successful passing of the Half-Cent Tax. John: Progress has been made with management of the Aspen Community Garden (Anna Scott and Dennis Murray are primary volunteer managers): by-laws are being created, plot allocation is being formalized, and potential new garden sites are sought. Matt: Mentioned the Lumberyard APCHA housing development adjacent to the Deer Hill Open Space, and that Parks has considered wildlife and conservation issues related to this project. He offered to answer questions. Howie mentioned that the report includes conflicting input on wildlife and habitat impacts from ERO Resources (fragmented habitat is not worth saving) and Colorado Wildlife Science (last large, intact sagebrush area critical for deer), and that the most recent wildlife inventory/impact study was conducted 21 years ago. He commented that the open space is effectively encircled by development and suggested conducting a wildlife study to obtain current benchmark information to aid the Board in carrying out their obligation to protect wildlife. Ann suggested conducting the study before completion of Burlingame III. Adam posed the question of whether this open space parcel is one that should not permit human access due to the importance of its wildlife habitat. Matt said that trails in this open space were discussed by this Board 4 years ago; it may be time to revisit the trails question and a management plan. Howie added that the City’s and County’s purchase of the north parcel of the Soldner Property adjacent to Harmony Park indicates a commitment to that landscape for wildlife, and that a management plan should address how public access to Deer Hill is managed. Matt commented that this topic would be good for an in-depth discussion. He added that a management plan would strive to take the best care of the property given the qualities we have jurisdictional control over within the open space. The pressure is expected to be tremendous for recreation upon build-out; a review by this Board of its decisions to date will be useful, especially if an additional wildlife/ecology study is contemplated. Matt invited Sara Ott to comment. Sara added that regarding the pace of momentum for the Lumberyard project, there are many steps before construction would begin; for example, a renewal of the real estate transfer tax for housing is required prior to issuing the debt to build. So far funding has only been found for site prep and underground utilities. She said there is time to ensure a thoughtful plan, acknowledging the importance of this Board’s help in the process. Sara added that it is important to consider use of other areas where active recreation is preferred in guiding people who will live in that community. Howie asked when a wildlife study could be conducted. Austin said that staff will come back to the Board with timing and strategy information. New Business: New Castle Creek Bridge (formerly known as Entrance to Aspen): Tricia Aragon, City Engineer and Project Co-lead introduced the Project Team: Sara Ott, City Manager, manages relations with elected officials as it relates to the project Diane Foster, Asst. City Manager, Project Co-lead Jami McMannes, Communications Manager Jack Danneberg, Engineering Dept., Project Manager Mike Horvath, Engineering Dept., Sr. Project Manager Rachel Brennman, Darnauer Communications, consultant for project communications During the next month the City will reintroduce this project to the community. Prior to that effort, Engineering is coming to this Board as stewards of the Marolt Open Space because the Board’s help will be needed if the community decides to go forward with this project. Trish showed a 2-min. video about the project, emphasizing that graphics shown are conceptual only. •After the video, the recording of the OSTB meeting did not capture sound for the next 35 minutes (from about 22 min – 58 min.). This portion of the minutes (below) is based on Trish’s slides: Trish shared history of the Castle Creek Bridge, including historic images and a project timeline spanning from 1995 to 2007 with information on public decisions related to the bridge, Highway 82, and the entrance to Aspen. The project’s 10 objectives are: 1- Community-based planning 2- Transportation capacity 3- Safety 4- Environmentally sound alternative 5- Community acceptability 6- Financial limitations 7- Clean Air Act requirements 8- Emergency access 9- Livable communities 10- Phasing In coordination with the community, CDOT created 43 combinations of: Alignment (modified direct), Lanes (2 highway lanes plus 2 dedicated vehicle and/or transit lanes), Mode (land bridge, at-grade), and Profile HOV (self-propelled buses, electric trolley buses, and light rail transit). Alternatives were screened by CDOT in four stages: reality check screening, fatal flaw screening, comparative screening, and final evaluation. Why the Preferred Alternative? CDOT and FHWA determined that the Preferred Alternative met project needs, intent, and the ten objectives. This alternative increases future transit options, provides better emergency access and evacuation routes, and reduces accident rates on the S-curves. Details were provided on emergency access and evacuation factors. Trish reviewed what has already been completed: Maroon Creek Roundabout, pedestrian overpasses over Maroon and Castle Creek Roads, realignment of Owl Creek Road, new signals installed on Hwy 82 at Buttermilk, and exclusive bus lanes. A Transit Management Program was also mentioned. Items not yet completed as part of the Record of Decision process include: parking structures, an open space connection to Aspen Golf Club, the land bridge, Castle Creek Bridge, and right-of-way improvements on Main Street. Trish continued with explanations of various features of the Preferred Alternative, including extending Main Street over a new Castle Creek bridge and under a land bridge that will meet with the existing Hwy. 82 east of the roundabout, an improved and continuous winter/summer trail, new open space in the portion of the former highway that will be restored, and use of the existing Castle Creek Bridge to maintain connection with Cemetery Lane and McClain Flats. The new highway will have two general purpose lanes and two exclusive bus lanes (that can accommodate light rail or trams in the future); this allows both mass transit and cars to flow more smoothly with continuous bus lanes from the roundabout into downtown. 5.4 acres of open space will be used by the new highway and 2.5 acres will be returned to open space on the land bridge/wildlife corridor. Trish discussed the relevance of the project’s timing. Open Space opportunities related to the Preferred Alternative include: improved Nordic experience with additional trails, seamless AABC Trail connection, year-round bike access, dedicated trail to the Maroon Bells, improved connection to the Hopkins Ped-Bikeway, improved access to the Holden-Marolt Museum, expansion of the Community Garden, noise mitigation, and wildlife benefits. Information about the Mills Property was included: 39.6 acres, Jaffee Park, river front, and trails. Trish provided cost figures: with bus lanes, capital cost is $102 million; operation and maintenance is $3.2 million annually. With light rail, capital cost is $428- 527 million; operation and maintenance is $6 million annually. Considering the two choices, the path forward involves 8-12 years of bridge planning and implementation. Choice One, keeping the existing Castle Creek Bridge location as the primary entrance/exit to Aspen, involves these factors: frequent repairs and vehicle weight limits, CDOT/FHWA will take over which may change the project objectives, Power Plant Road would be widened and relocated as a detour while a new bridge is built over 18-24 months, the rebuilt bridge would remain two lanes, commuters would face long delays as traffic would be one lane. Choice Two, building the Preferred Alternative, involves these factors: CDOT and FHWA are looking to Aspen’s City Council for support of this alternative; the Record of Decision will undergo a standard reevaluation process; CDOT, FHWA, and the City will engage the community around design details (ex. pedestrian infrastructure and access), aesthetics and open space planning (ex. land bridge design); Aspen voters will need to approve use of the Marolt-Thomas Open Space for exclusive bus lanes, and the existing Castle Creek Bridge will be used while a new bridge is constructed. Audio began recording again at 57:43. Trish emphasized that this Board is needed as stewards of the open space. During this awareness phase, we will need a lot of help toward figuring out what the open space will look like if the community decides to go forward with this project. Trish asked the Board for comments and questions. Dan mentioned that the historical conversation about the entrance to Aspen has focused on streamlining the driving experience into town. Dan remarked that the bus lanes constitute the expanded capacity of the highway, and that this needs to be clear in community messaging so people understand that this project does not expand vehicle access. Ann asked for clarification of future transit options. Trish explained that options include trackless trams; with the buses outside of the general-purpose lanes, transit times and ridership will improve. Ann referred to the 2017 RFTA/Parsons Upper Valley Mobility Study in which estimated cost in the hundreds of millions for light rail and just 2 minutes of time savings for commuters, commenting that this study would likely be brought up by citizens. She also said messaging needs to emphasize that Option 1 is going backwards. Ann asked for clarification of the Mills Property exchange; it was purchased by CDOT and given to the City to mitigate for future loss of open space looking forward to Entrance to Aspen solutions that would involve the Marolt Open Space. Trish explained that when the 1996 vote occurred, it allowed for the two general purpose lanes and light rail if funding would become available. The Mills Property was purchased by CDOT to offset lost portions of the Marolt Open Space. Trish explained that the Thomas plat shows an easement and the Marolt plat shows a right-of-way. Howie mentioned that when this Board was formed, the policy allowed for land swaps but no net loss of open space; he cited the loss of 2.9 acres based on drawings presented this evening. Adam clarified that this loss is offset by the Mills Property. Howie commented that the project visuals should lengthen the land bridge. Trish explained that the length presented was that of the Preferred Alternative; if the community wants to do something above and beyond the Preferred Alternative, they will need to come up with the additional funding. Howie expressed desire to discuss a longer land bridge to decrease visual impacts of the extensive hard surface coming into town. Julie asked if additional renderings are available. Trish mentioned additional images on the City’s website. Adam asked whether any research addresses wildlife functionality of a land bridge that also has a multi-use trail on it. Trish mentioned that this will be studied if the community chooses the Preferred Alternative. Adam asked when this could go to a vote. Trish said it is City Council’s decision whether this goes to a vote. Adam asked whether the Aspen area is still considered nonattainment with regard to Clean Air Act standards. Trish mentioned that air quality has improved and that one more year of maintenance is required. Ted commented that the open space angle seems to be the least of the concerns for the public. Ted said his long list of questions pertain more to other factors outside of open space considerations. He said he feels people can get behind the open space use for this project. Diane mentioned that voter questions are helpful for the team to have; please send them to castlecreekbridge@gmail.com. This input will also help in developing FAQs. Dan asked if the community would be obligated to convert the two bus lanes into light rail, expressing that he would not want that to be the case. Sara explained that this would be phased and that light rail is not likely realistic in the next 15 years on a financial level, rather the lanes would provide for future options. Sara mentioned that the values question of light rail is the community’s responsibility to choose. Ann clarified that the proposed land bridge does not disturb the mining museum or the Community Garden and commented on the difficulties of laying light rail along certain sections of Hwy. 82. There was a discussion about confusion between written and visual information in the presentation with regard to number of lanes and road configuration. Adam commented that the Board will need to be prepared to respond to people who may use open space as an opposition basis. Special Use Permits Matt presented an update on park uses, following up on a July Board discussion on the topic. He began with a check-in on direction, mentioning that the plan was to discuss this at a Council work session in two weeks, however staff feels they need more time to work on special events permit policy updates. Tonight’s discussion will focus on thresholds around occupancy, hours and frequency. Staff will return to this in January for further discussion with the Board. Matt reviewed Council’s support for Parks’ proposed guiding philosophy and the idea of limiting commercial uses of parks; Council felt that the concept of a Parks Framework was too complicated. Staff then revised and landed on the concept that “a use is a use.” This led Parks to focus on other variables that could serve to limit or regulate park uses. For example, large weddings are typically booked 6-12 months out; by restricting bookings to within 60-90 days, this will limit larger uses that require longer planning windows. San Francisco’s park use approach serves as a good example. Matt shared the Proposed Guiding Philosophy: The City of Aspen Parks are natural environments that are first and foremost available for the sustainable enjoyment of the community. Council suggested adding the sustainable lens. This philosophy is about limiting impacts and making sure special uses do not occur in unsustainable ways for both maintenance and community impacts. The current special event permits policy needs updating. The overall goal is to be set up well for future success and reduce the number of one-off requests. One of the biggest proposed changes is a change in the definition of park use as stated in code: Any organized gathering of more than 25 people and less than 125 people that utilizes a park space for athletics, fitness, educational offerings, picnics, parties, small gatherings or other activities. The number of people involved is a key proposed limit. Matt explained the Threshold proposal: Defining Park Use as less than 125 people (100?, 150?), 4 hours or less, reserved 90 days or less in advance, simple infrastructure (mats, pop-up tents). In defining a Special Event, a key factor is whether the community can access the event. Staff would like to update the Municipal Code in a long-lasting way. Park Policy (provides detail, may change regularly/yearly, values based) and Special Event Policy (community events, specific to complexity) may be updated annually. Numbers of people and hours may be specified in these policies so they can be changed when needed. Matt explained the draft Cumulative Park Use system for managing frequency and size of park uses and special events. Permits will not be available for every park; each park has determined acceptable uses and cumulative weekly and monthly maximums (hours). This will ensure parks are available to the public and that programming and reservations within Parks are not the predominant uses. Matt explained that Special event Policy will compliment Parks Policy. Special Events involve many departments and lots of logistics. Staff proposes to keep the use type known as Community Gatherings which are informal, non-commercial, and under 25 participants. No permit is required for these gatherings. Commercial uses will be allowed as long as they meet park use definition and policy. There will be a commercial fee ($25 ) in addition to park hourly rental. Julie asked for a definition of commercial activity; Matt explained that it is any use of a park that results in or is intended to make a profit. Matt asked the Board to consider whether the proposed policies are heading in the right direction. Ted asked for clarification of the rules before the 90-day advance limit for organizing a big wedding, for example. Matt explained that it’s the combination of the proposed thresholds that will provide the limits. The goal is to make complicated, large events harder to do. Adam asked whether this will increase the number of permits sought. Steve said it will allow Parks to better manage them and that the schedule of events can be communicated to rangers, parks staff, etc. Adam expressed that the proposed thresholds make sense. He asked what “accessible” means in terms of special events being accessible to the community. Matt explained that Special Events team is just getting up to speed on such details. Julie expressed support for the proposed policies. She suggested keeping “parks use” at a 100-person limit. Julie asked what the park use permit process looks like. Matt said this will be built and administered by the permit coordinator. Julie referred to the Cumulative Park Use chart to clarify maximum use. Matt explained that this chart will be within Parks policy and may need to be revised occasionally. Matt added that Parks is going to try to adjust Municipal Code to address alcohol. Howie asked for clarification of acceptable uses at Wagner Park, mentioning dog play and other activities that take place there. Matt answered that the chart addresses permitted uses. Howie asked how parking impacts will be managed for groups of 100-125 people. Steve said that this could be addressed in the permit process. Howie asked whether compliance would be managed more by honor system or patrolling. Steve explained that patrolling is limited, but the proposed policies allow the department to provide ranger staff with permit information that will help them when they encounter groups/users. Matt explained that Council generally approves of how Parks has been operating and that they are not looking for significant changes, rather the proposed policies will funnel uses through a tighter process. Howie asked about paraglider landing zones. Matt explained that paraglider landing zones and certain other activities including rafting permits and day camps will be discussed in January as staff are still considering how best to handle these. Howie asked how many permits the department is currently handling. Without numbers from Special Events, Matt wasn’t able to provide that overall number. Ann expressed that she likes the simplicity of the proposed policies and asked whether the maximum number of people allowed under park use will vary per park. Matt explained that there will be some learning associated with the policies. Ann expressed that she supports the duration and advance timing limits. She asked about the criterium of how many departments are involved. Matt explained that complexities involving multiple departments pushes an event into a Special Event, per current municipal code which will remain largely unchanged. Ann commented on the importance of community access. She asked about alcohol policy. Matt explained that current special events code states that alcohol is prohibited in parks, but if secondary insurance is in place then alcohol may be permitted. Staff is looking at simplifying this within park use with an add-on fee for alcohol. Ann asked for clarification on frequency. Matt said that that this will be handled with discretion toward balanced use. Ann asked whether professional dog walkers is considered a use. Steve said that this is an outlier that still needs to be discussed. Matt asked the Board specifically if they want to address dog-walkers with regard to parks use at the January meeting. Julie commented that this is a trails issue. Matt clarified that park use policy covers parks, trails, and open space. A discussion followed as Board members and staff reviewed past conversations on this topic. The Board decided to address dog-walkers in January. Dan commented that he supports the policies as long as they can be revised as needed. He asked whether the policy addresses public access to parks when a use permit is issued. Matt explained that the parks remain open to the public; use permits do not mean exclusive use. This is an important change from municipal code. Dan commented that he would like to discuss individual limits so that use at a particular park is not dominated by any one user. Howie asked for clarification of code regarding alcohol; Matt said that this code will remain, but that staff is looking for ways to allow it through special use in the right way. Old Business: None. Board Comments: Dan: none. Julie: none. Ted: none. Howie: none. Ann: none. Adam: thanked everyone for their help with the Half Cent Tax effort. Next Meeting Date(s): Regular meeting December 15, 2022. Executive Session: N/A Adjourned: Dan made a motion to adjourn; (there was no second) and the vote was unanimous.