Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes.OSB.20230928 MINUTES City of Aspen, Open Space and Trails Board Meeting Held on September 28, 2023 5:00pm at Pearl Pass Room, Aspen City Hall City OST Board Members Present: Julie Hardman, Ted Mahon, Adam McCurdy, Dan Perl City Staff Members Present: John Spiess, Matt Kuhn, Michael Tunte, Mary Oliver, Austin Weiss, Brian Long, Micah Davis Adoption of the Agenda: Julie 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; Julie seconded, and the vote was unanimous. Staff Comments: Mike: Introduced Mary Oliver, Parks’ new landscape architect. Mary described her professional background, having worked for Design Workshop prior to coming to Parks. Mike reported on the successful recent opening of Dolensik Gardens. John: At Cozy Point Ranch: Farm Collaborative (FC) broke ground on the learning center on Monday, beginning with the septic system. Stutsman Gerbaz Inc.is mobilized and will begin work tomorrow to prepare for 2024 Phase Two work (paddock grading, etc.). Current work includes earth moving, temporary fencing and an onsite wastewater treatment system. Adam asked if completion of Phase Two will conclude wastewater work; John explained that future wastewater work relates to full build-out of ranch housing, the Cozy Point Camp system, and one house that is currently on FC’s wastewater system. Dan asked for clarification of FC’s breaking ground after their project halted earlier this year. John explained that Eden engaged a new architect and contractor, worked through budget, and FC’s board voted to move forward with this new, scaled-back building. Dan commented that such changes would have been important for the Board to see prior to breaking ground; John explained that this version was presented to the Board in February and that additional changes are minor. Dan expressed concern about needing better communication between parties. John updated the Board on Maroon Creek Trail: maximum guaranteed price ($5.8 million) will be presented to Council on October 10th. Through collaboration with contractors, project budget was reduced, saving $500,000. The Music Tent Trail re-opened today. Brian: Speed limit signage is being installed: 10 mph zones first; additional signage for 15 and 20 mph sections in fall and spring. Julie asked if painting is also being done; Brian explained that only signs are going up at this time. New Business: Public Art Plan: Sarah Roy, Ex. Dir. Red Brick Center for the Arts, and Kendall Peterson of ThereSquared Consulting presented on development of Aspen’s first public art plan. Sarah defined public art (art in public spaces, accessible to all, free), provided local and non-local examples, and discussed the purpose of public art. The Aspen community has expressed that more public art is desired, hence consultants Kendall and Jill Stillwell were hired to help develop a plan and associated public engagement. Goals include gathering public input toward a plan that reflects local purpose, community, forging new connections, and celebrating Aspen’s vibrant arts and culture. Kendall presented on public engagement findings. Since May, they have hosted discussions, presentations, events, and other engagement with hundreds of Aspenites. This phase is now ending and the team is consolidating themes and working with the visioning committee to form the plan. The concept of a plan has received broad-based support. Key input includes the fact that Aspen is a unique place, the plan will need flexibility, there is a preference for temporary works of art, and any permanent must be carefully considered. The visioning committee will work in unison with Council’s goal of fostering community with this program through the planning, creating, and selecting of artwork. The consultants will provide a framework for this plan to evolve and grow toward creating a mission and goals. The plan will provide processes for selecting artists, commissioning, installation, and recommendations for funding, deaccession, moving artwork, maintenance policies, and how to keep the public art collection a great asset. It will also provide procedures for reviewing acceptance of art donations, policies related to owning art, art in offices, and in City buildings. In developing the public art program, the visioning committee will ensure flexibility so projects can be proposed internally and by the visioning committee, partners, non-profits, and other stakeholders. The public art program will be governed by a commission or a board. They will also create a firm mission and vision so that only projects aligned with these will be considered. This gives the governing body a way to say yes or no to proposals. Kendall provided examples of project types and related policies to be developed. A robust selection process will be created; this will include a project brief document that outlines the why, who, what, how-funded, etc. of the project. Potential scenarios that involve parks will include involvement of Parks staff. The governing board will vet proposals, make changes to the project brief, and move it through approval and contracting processes, followed by selection of contractor and approval of contract. The board will work with City partners throughout planning and execution phases. The main goal at this meeting is to answer Board questions and hear comments. Julie asked if the Open Space Board will be part of any decision stages; Sarah explained that this is being outlined now to figure out where it hits the staff level; staff will determine whether a given project warrants bringing it to this Board. Kendall added that the Board may be involved initially and/or with location decisions, all on a case-by-case basis. Dan asked what a process might look like for engaging an artist for a mural on a private, non-City building. Sarah explained that it could be a partnership situation (utilizing the public art plan process); if it is not a partnership situation, it would be handled through Community Development which will be guided by the public art plan process. Matt added another example: Parks has been approached about art in underpasses; in this case, the Board and Parks would be the proponents and we would work through this same process. Kendall added that the public art program can have some sway in the various scenarios that may arise. Dan commented that the Board would want to see things based on level of permanence. Dan expressed general support and asked about the vision for volume of art projects. Sarah mentioned volume could be three projects per year; Kendall suggested one to two. Sarah emphasized the importance of the innovative nature of the plan. Julie asked whether the public will be involved; Sarah said that this would be important. Julie asked how existing public art would be incorporated with the new art. Sarah mentioned that an inventory has been done, and once the plan is established, existing art will be evaluated for issues such as maintenance, relocation, etc. Old Business: Skills Trails: Mike Pritchard, Ex. Dir. Roaring Fork Mtn. Bike Assn., presented, providing letters of support from community members for the proposed skills trails. He provided an updated design, discussing other uses of the Marolt Open Space and rationale for a skills trail in Aspen. He described the identified location and suitability as well as the history of community sentiment toward the proposal. The site is connected to existing paths, has close proximity to the schools, and relative size is 3.7 acres, 1 acre of which would be impacted. The goal would be to leave most existing native vegetation including oak shrubland and cottonwood stands, softening views of the skills trails. He suggested that wildlife is fairly tolerant given existing uses. The area will be used for the snow/mud-free part of the year. He described skills trails benefits to children, including fitness and confidence. Mike showed a map of trail design, describing downhill and climbing routes and features, such as two built flyover structures that are optional, rollers, tabletops, jumps, and berms. He described drainage, maintenance, and visual impacts. Progressive Trail Design is the proposed contractor. Mike mentioned use of materials such as timber and steel that would minimize visual impacts. The plan includes a strider track, a picnic table, and a playground element in a shaded area. A parking area is also sketched into the plan in the area where informal parking and staging materials have typically been located. This skills trail plan is designed to help kids gain cycling skills for riding modern trails. He emphasized that the trails are the main vision and the additional features would be enhancements. Mike mentioned online surveys and site visits toward understanding the site and concept. Going forward, he envisions a design-build process with Progressive Trail Designs as the ideal candidate. Mike also touched on fund raising, with a current estimated cost of $250,000; he said that matching or more than matching funds would be needed. Matt explained that Board feedback is sought for how to proceed into presenting this proposal to the public. The proposal is a RFMBA proposal; certain elements such as the play element have not been reviewed by staff. Adam invited the public to share their comments: Tyler Lindsey commented that as a parent he supports this as an incubation zone for young cycling enthusiasts. Paul Viola spoke about initiating the BMX track at Crown Mountain and that a skills trail like this would be positive for the Aspen community. Patty Watson commented that her son is a high school mountain bike racer and that she would like to see this project built given the area’s mountain biking community and school teams. Another resident spoke about the need for skills trails for younger kids and the site being close to the schools and a place where visual impacts of trails would be low. A local bike shop employee spoke in support of trails that help get kids outside. A local parent spoke about his children’s interest in biking and the extensive local bike trails, but that an area for kids is lacking. Another local parent spoke about the lack of trails for young riders needing beginner terrain. Ed Garland, a local bike shop owner and parent, expressed support for the project and the strider element. Mike Maple spoke as a life-long cyclist, expressing support for this project which would be beneficial to skills development for all ages. Brian Long and Emily Ford (City Communications Manager) shared the process of presenting this proposal to the Aspen community. Brian mentioned that bringing all voices into this process is a goal over the next two months, followed by providing results to the Board in November to review them and give staff direction on how to proceed. Emily described the communications plan; main objectives are education and seeking community input. Brian mentioned the press release that would begin this process and asked for Board comments. Emily added that the press release will go to newspapers and others, and a stakeholder letter will be sent out. Aspen Community Voice will host a comment forum and survey. Signage with QR codes will prompt the public about the surveys and a social media campaign will be conducted. Public and Board site visits will be offered as well as scheduled public events. Information sessions will be conducted toward the education component, with renderings, maps, and staff on hand to answer questions. Pending Board approval, initial communication will begin early next week with press release, the Aspen Community Voice page, and stakeholder letter. Promotion of the first outreach and site visit event would begin the following week; this event would take place October 16-20. The first information session could be before the next Open Space Board meeting on October 19th. Promotion of the survey would continue through November 13-17; outreach efforts will then conclude and data will be compiled for the November Board meeting. Measurables that will be provided in November include survey data, traffic data from monitoring the Aspen Community Voice website, and social media tracking to compile likes/shares/comments. Adam emphasized that this Board discussion focuses on how this communication plan informs the public. Adam asked whether this proposal would become a Parks proposal; Matt said that it would most likely become a Parks project, but there are alternatives and other factors that will come into the discussion. Adam asked if the map shown at this meeting is the one that will be presented to the public; Matt said that it would be unless there are changes. Dan asked about fencing for protection from the road; Mike explained that where vegetation opens up along the shoulder of Castle Creek Road, a split rail fence would be installed to prevent unsafe access to the trails. Dan also asked how flyovers would be designed with inherent barriers for children too young to use them; Mike said that they would be engineered with guard rails to prevent falls, width for clearance, and a design that allows safe beginner use. The alternate flyover jump would be signed as a black diamond element and would also have guardrails and a ramp. Dan clarified features of the beginner trail. He suggested that presenting phases of the design could be helpful for the public, such as sketches showing inclusion or elimination of various optional elements. Mike commented that this could be important, and mentioned phasing certain elements and design to address social trail development. Mike also mentioned that limited parking could control volume of users. Dan commented on the contrast between the oak shrubland and open areas, and the importance of helping the public envision the setting. Mike said that their maps depict this. Julie expressed her support. She commented that Marolt Place is wider than depicted in renderings and that she expects traffic to increase if the skills trails are developed. Julie mentioned that parking could need to be managed along the skills trail side of this road. She asked for rationale for the climbing trail’s location; Mike explained that it is designed for appropriate challenge and vegetation screening. Julie commented that site visits will be important toward public understanding of the space. Brian mentioned that the upper portion of the site has been treated by mastication and the lower part is due for fuels mitigation soon. Julie said that she would like to see the strider track prioritized and if an element must be eliminated, she would eliminate the play structure as it may not be appropriate for the natural setting. Austin asked if there is enough room to have a single track along Marolt Place to keep riders off the asphalt. Mike said that this could work; parking must be designed to accommodate it. Ted asked if the plan had grown from one up trail and one down trail to multiple trails. Mike said that there had always been multiple trails in the plan; Progressive Trails Design made the current plan more site specific. Ted expressed support for the expanded version, but he expects public concern about built structures and other large features. Ted expressed that this plan may seem too built-out for the open space property. Julie asked whether the staging area has been considered for other uses in the past. John explained that this materials and snow storage site is valuable, but a summer parking strategy could be designed for that portion of the site. Matt commented that this is the only such materials storage site in the City’s portfolio. Dan asked whether one of the trails could be adapted hand cycles. Mike explained that some of the trails can be designed for adaptive use with minor changes. Adam commented that it will be important to put this site in context within the overall open space portfolio and that restrooms may be needed. Matt mentioned port-a-potties would be an initial solution. Adam asked for overall trail length; Mike explained that trails are a quarter mile in length, totaling about one mile. Brian commented on the site’s bikeability and proximity to schools and design for preserving sagebrush and thinning wildfire fuels. Adam asked if staff is comfortable with this design going to the public as it currently is. Brian commented that staff doesn’t love every element, but he defers to the Board on options such as parking and the playground. He said that the playground would probably be the one element that they would eliminate if necessary. Austin suggested presenting different levels of development such as basic, medium, and fancy, noting that showing the playground and parking could push public sentiment. Matt mentioned that specific elements could be parsed out in individual survey questions to solicit input through a buffet approach to quantify support for specific elements. Austin also mentioned it is important to identify where parking currently exists. Matt said that formalized parking can be easily quantified; he emphasized the importance of this site for City snow storage. Adam asked if the area could be used for parking in summer and snow storage in winter; Matt explained that the design would need to change to accommodate that scenario and that it could result in more snow storage in the open space. Julie asked if the Board should review the survey before it goes to the public; Matt clarified that now the time to tell staff what the Board would like included in the survey. Matt brought up the idea of fat biking on the trails. A discussion followed on the topic of seasonal use for both parking and snow storage. John suggested identifying parking in a general way, without showing related improvements. He also mentioned that the playground could distract from the main goal of creating skills trails. Matt commented that the playground could be identified as a “play feature” for better representation of the idea. Dan suggested that the main image could be focused on showing trails, and additional/optional elements could be addressed in survey questions. Matt suggested a less formal drawing of proposed parking, to show what exists and include the strider track with a single play feature (log stack). Mike will ask the team to make these changes for the survey next week. Matt confirmed upcoming dates: October 19, 8am – 1pm location TBD November 2, 12pm-3pm, Joint meeting with County Open Space and Trails, at County Building November 16, regular City OSTB meeting The December OSTB meeting would be December 21st. The Board decided to move this meeting to December 19th. Board Comments: Ted: Commented that revegetation work has begun around the Roundabout. Matt explained that John has been working hard on this; CDOT’s subcontractor for this job became non- performing and the City has taken over the remaining revegetation work. Ted asked if signs are permitted on the Roundabout for charity events. Matt explained that signs are usually removed. Dan: Suggested providing a draft retreat agenda to the Board. Matt said that a draft agenda is available and asked Board members to reply directly to John with comments (do not reply all). Dan suggested a site visit to the skill trails area on the retreat day; Adam suggested attending the public tours. Matt said that staff can take two Board members at a time or do a public notice for a special meeting. Dan expressed concern about the Farm Collaborative’s governor visit and ground-breaking without communicating to Parks, asking to discuss this soon. Next Meeting Date(s): Board Retreat Thursday October 19th. Regular meeting Tuesday December 19, 2023. Executive Session: N/A Adjourned: Ted made a motion to adjourn; Julie seconded and the vote was unanimous.