Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes.OSB.20231116 MINUTES City of Aspen, Open Space and Trails Board Meeting Held on November 16, 2023 5:00pm at Pearl Pass Room, Aspen City Hall City OST Board Members Present: Julie Hardman, Ted Mahon, Adam McCurdy, Ann Mullins, Dan Perl City Staff Members Present: John Spiess, Matt Kuhn, Michael Tunte, Austin Weiss, Brian Long, Simon Longacre, Micah Davis Adoption of the Agenda: Julie made a motion to approve the agenda; Ted seconded, and the vote was unanimous. Public Comments, for topics not on the agenda: None. Approval of the Minutes: Ann made a motion to approve the minutes; Ted seconded, and the vote was unanimous. Staff Comments: John: reported that the contract with Gould for construction of Maroon Creek Trail has been approved. Construction will begin in spring 2024. Old Business: Marolt-Thomas Skills Trail Brian mentioned that Roaring Fork Mountain Bike Association (RFMBA) presented to the Open Space & Trails (OST) Board 2 months ago on this topic. Tonight, he will briefly revisit that information, followed by results of the public engagement period, public comment, and Board discussion. Mike Pritchard of RFMBA presented slides to show the updated, proposed skills trail. He described the rationale for this site at the Marolt Open Space, mentioning that other sites such as Moore Open Space were considered and ruled out for various reasons. Mike described current uses at Marolt Open Space and other bike parks in the Valley. He discussed the attributes of the proposed site, including topography and proximity to surrounding trails, housing, and the school campus. The site is about 4 acres in size; about 1 acre would be developed into bike trails. Mike mentioned that the skills trail concept is included in the 2023 Marolt Open Space Management Plan as a potential project. He acknowledged that most bike parks are developed on brown lands; however, this site is vegetated with oak mountain shrubland, and as such care would be taken to preserve the native vegetation as possible. Mike said wildlife appear to be tolerant of human activities and uses on the open space. Installing skills trails may help address illegal camping in this area. He noted values of skills trails for community well-being and commented on safe beginner biking trail options. Mike showed renderings of the proposed trails and features. He described existing parking and noted that most users could bike to the location. Alignments have been flagged and trail designs aim to avoid major annual maintenance. Construction would be done by mini excavators; stone and other materials would be imported. Mike described proposed features: ride-over, alternate fly-over, drops, and strider track. Mike mentioned next steps: developing a set of drawings toward design-build construction. More details are needed for pricing and securing funding which could come from the City and community. Brian and Emily presented results of the public engagement process over the past two months. Brian showed management actions from the Marolt Open Space Management Plan, including the site identified for a potential bike park. Aspen Community Voice was used to gather public input as well as a site visit attended by 20-25 people. Emily detailed the communication plan used for this process: a press release, an Aspen Community Voice page, social media campaign, radio ads, newsletters, print and digital ads, stakeholder outreach, and utility bill inserts. 507 people visited the Community Voice page; 211 took the survey. She provided an overview of survey questions and results. The greatest use indicated was biking, followed by walking, scenery, and dog-walking. Emily read some of the comments in support of the proposed skills trail. In response to whether the community would benefit from the skills trail: 180 said yes. Brian mentioned the ratio was approximately 85% “for” to 15% “against.” Adam asked if input was broken down by user groups; Emily clarified that the previous questions were broken down by user groups, but the benefit questions were not. Emily shared opposing comments, including impacts to the peaceful setting; impacts to wildlife habitat for deer, foxes, small birds, etc.; concerns that this open space is already too crowded and has too much pressure from existing activities; concern for increased use conflicts; and that other locations would be more suitable. Brian shared more comments about the concept and location as well as these additional concerns: long-term maintenance, access by the trail system, parking, including adaptive design, user conflict potential, and impact to wildlife. Julie noted a suggestion for providing restrooms and water on the site. Brian mentioned that RFMBA has contracted with Progressive Trail Design to create materials and cost estimates. The itemized rough estimate is about $600,000. Mike and Brian decreased it to about $580,000; there is potential to further reduce the cost. Brian shared staff recommendations as possible actions for the Board this evening: proceed with design and cost refinement, return to this concept during a capital work plan review to assess big-picture budget and project load over the next several years, ask for more information, or postpone or cancel this project. Brian mentioned that if the Board asks for design and cost refinement, funding partnership details would need to be discussed with RFMBA as well as long-term maintenance planning, partnership with the mountain biking community and the City, and an outline of the land-use process. Dan offered time for public comments. One person asked if there could be any commercial aspects to this project, mentioning usage and permit processes for professional instruction and safety/risk management concerns. Matt mentioned that this has not yet been vetted; local organizations might be interested in using a skills trail area. The current park rental policy plan could include a component addressing this amenity. Adam asked if this policy applies to open space parcels; Matt explained that open spaces have certain permitted uses. A representative of community member Helen Palmer read a letter by Helen who couldn’t be present: this location was not intended to be cut up and is not suitable for an athletic venue, citing the intent of the Marolt-Thomas Open Space to protect wildlife habitat, breathing space, and natural beauty. She suggested a skills trail at the school campus. Open Spaces are valued by the community and we have the responsibility to keep them intact for the future. She said that open space does not exist as opportunities for various groups to carry out their developments. The community expects Parks and the City to protect and keep these spaces as the voters intended. A community member asked for data on impacts of bike parks in terms of changes in participation in the sport or decreases in accidents due to better skills development. Mike said that he has no data, but rather simply community intuition. A member of the public asked what volume this park could handle and how this impacts the actual park while in use, Mike explained that it is intended to be a local park rather than a regional draw; users are likely to spend 20 minutes to an hour at the park. Instructional groups may stay longer, perhaps two hours, and these groups might include one instructor with up to eight kids. Adam moved the meeting to Board discussion. Adam asked if there could be hurdles in the land-use process. Brian commented that nothing prohibitive has been discovered yet and a deep check on land use language will be undertaken. Adam asked if there are any formal wildlife studies for this area. Brian said wildlife studies were conducted for the open space on the whole, but he did not know if this site was a specific focus of those studies. He has noted deer sign and birds. John (community member) commented on seeing a mountain lion in the area for a few days. Julie commented that a gap in understanding of the concept seems to be apparent in the non- supportive public comments. She expressed her support of the project and said that the space is not currently used for anything. Julie said that trails will be marked relative to skills required and use is at one’s own risk. Julie said she doesn’t expect the site to be overrun by users. She asked for an overall percentage of public support. Emily and Brian explained that questions were not formulated toward that outcome, rather whether the project would benefit families and the community. Adam commented on social trails and bike access during the management plan process; he asked which trails currently allow bikes. John said that this is difficult to manage, and that conflicts do occur. Signs and elements are used to manage bike use; there are real dangers related to the paraglider landing zone and errant bikes. Adam asked if bike use could be scaled back in other areas of the open space to balance the development of this bike amenity. Ted expressed his agreement with Adam’s comment, adding that the landing zone is an area of safety concern. John (community member) commented that there are certain times of day when most paragliding activity occurs. Mike said that the landing zone could be a “no bike” zone, but this is also a challenge due to the various social routes through the open space. He said that access to/from the skills trail could be controlled in a way that would avoid the paraglider landing zone. Ted asked about anticipated maintenance. Charlie said they anticipate little to none; issues can be avoided by use of rock armoring and back ditches, but problems may still arise. Ted asked if RFMBA has worked in a matching funds capacity with other partners on previous projects. Charlie mentioned RFMBA has not done this with the City of Aspen, but has with other entities including BLM. Charlie added that one or two days of professional maintenance could be needed during the first couple of years; after that it should be minimal. Ted expressed that he felt lukewarm about this project when it was first presented, but public comments expressing support and the need for amenities for this age group make him feel he could lean toward supporting it. Ann mentioned that she appreciated the survey results and acknowledged the challenge of chipping away at open space. Charlie commented that the skills trail would involve 4 acres out of a total of 74. Ann asked how this size compares to other bike parks Charlie cited in the valley. Charlie said that the Basalt facility is smaller; he mentioned the North Face bike park in Carbondale and Crown Mtn bike park, noting that they have different scenarios. Ann asked if people are expected come from down valley to use this facility; Charlie said he expects some curiosity but not repeat visits. Ann asked how kids would access this park from school; Charlie said the skills trails would be a very short distance from existing trails, noting various access points and crossings on Castle Creek Road. Ann asked for clarification of the $580,000 that would come from Parks and other funds that would come from the bike community; Matt explained that funding is TBD pending Board direction and budget refinement. Ann asked whether City Council would review this; Matt said they would review it as a budget item; this will also as part of a focused review of the Parks work plan prior to spring budget season. Ann asked about wildlife impacts and whether Parks will look into this in more depth. Matt said that staff would if the Board requests it. Micah mentioned that the area could be closed seasonally in winter to provide winter range. Ann asked staff to obtain wildlife impacts information. Ann asked for clarification of Sections 4 and 5 in the Marolt Management Plan that seem contradictory. Matt clarified that the plan has two elements that advise this process. Julie commented that some public comments conveyed confusion over why this project is being discussed again when it was thought that the management plan process had been the end point in the discussion. She said she thought this project was earmarked to happen. John explained the structure of the management plan, including the Opportunities and Management Actions sections. He explained the history of the discussion around this proposed project and how it pertains to the two parcels of the Marolt Open Space (Marolt and Thomas). He explained that the Thomas parcel has the potential for the development of this type of use. John further explained that the management actions section simply identifies potential projects to explore further for possible development. Ann commented on restrooms and a water source, noting that these could be additional amenities to plan for a future time. Matt explained that seasonal porta potties for incidental sites like this are far more feasible from a budget perspective than permanent facilities, and this will likely be the scenario if the skills trails are built. Dan asked for clarification of the “zoned for conservation” language indicated in the management plan and whether the proposed skills trail counteracts this. Matt explained that if continuing the process of considering this project, next steps would include looking closely at underlying zoning and applicable land use; he added that there is no conservation easement. Dan expressed that the conservation zoning makes it less straightforward in approving this project, and that Parks would need to make a strong case for what exactly this means. He asked what would be done about illegal camping on this parcel; Brian said that no one is currently living there and that rangers monitor this regularly. Matt shared input from Ruth Harrison who was unable to attend this meeting: she expressed vehement opposition to this project. She feels this area does not need to be impacted by recreation. The peaceful activities that she enjoys on the open space, such as dog walking, would be impacted by the skills trail. Adam asked if this project would go out to bid or if Progressive Design would be contracted directly. Matt said that this is TBD; Progressive Design can be directly contracted by the City, but staff need to consider whether to put this out to bid for further design and/or construction. Charlie added that the Nordic Council discussed this project and expressed interest in possibly utilizing it for Nordic activities in winter. Fat biking is not envisioned for the skills trail. Matt read the language that defines conservation zoning and permitted activities within such spaces, including parks, playing fields, and golf courses. Dan asked for any additional comments from the Board. Adam expressed support for proceeding with the skills trail, emphasizing the importance of accessibility. Julie expressed support for proceeding. Ted expressed his support for moving forward with the project. Ann expressed that she generally opposes anything that chips away at open space, but that she ultimately supports moving forward with this project. Dan emphasized the importance of adaptive accessibility, safe access, and managing for paraglider landing zone protection. Micah asked about use of ebikes; Charlie said that this is not likely to be an issue. Brian added that ebikes are prohibited on soft surface singletrack trails. Charlie added that some adaptive bikes have e-assist. Old Business: Leashes: John recalled the discussion at the Board retreat on the topic of leashes, describing this initial discussion toward possible amendments to the existing leash law. He explained that the goal now is to get a recommendation on whether to proceed with the development of language to amend the City’s existing leash law code. After follow-up discussions with Simon Longacre, Senior Ranger, staff would like to present a slightly different idea that is in line with current management. John presented current code on running at large and the wall-to-wall leash law for the City of Aspen. Staff have considered clear ways to think about the leash situation and came up with three concepts. The primary concept allows watchful off-leash play in all parks within the City that are not actively being used for athletic play or posted on site or on the City website requiring leashes. This allows some flexibility for parks that carry concerns. Leashes would continue to be required in all playgrounds, on trails, the ped mall, streets and sidewalks, actively used athletic fields, and the John Denver Sanctuary. Dogs are prohibited wherever posted on site or on the City of Aspen Parks website: examples include North Star, Maroon Creek Wetlands, Golf Course during active play, Iselin playing field, Ute Cemetery, Deer Hill Open Space, and Sky Mountain Park. This is an expansion of what was discussed earlier, which identified the Marolt Open Space, Wagner Park, and Rio Grande Park as watchful off- leash play areas. Simon had added that watchful off-leash play is happening successfully in additional areas around town, and that limiting it to these three areas could be a more significant change to what the public is currently experiencing. If the Board supports this direction, staff will return with some proposed amendment language. Adam asked for clarification of parks being considered; John provided a map to point these parks out. Adam asked about the Yellow Brick Park; Simon commented that this park may be a space where ranger discretion would apply; however, dogs would need to be leashed within the playground area. Austin added that proximity to the day care facilities calls for a leash requirement; Brian added his agreement. Adam expressed support for this and added that considering locals and people from other communities/cultures where they may feel less comfortable or more cautious around dogs is important. Julie asked Simon for his thoughts on the current ordinance and his thoughts on the Board’s retreat discussion on this topic. Simon expressed that he does not sense a problem in general and that locals appreciate the freedoms dogs/owners have in this community, although there are people who do not wish to interact with dogs. He added that the general culture favors this type of management. He feels it is important to formalize the code language to give rangers a better basis for handling issues. Julie described that she feels spaces like John Denver Sanctuary, Rio Grande Trail, and the vicinity of the Aspen Chamber are close together and it is difficult for the public to know where dogs can be off leash. Simon commented that rangers tend to educate people in these areas and ask them to use a leash while on the trail rather than issuing tickets since it is a confusing area. Austin expressed that off leash dogs interacting with bicyclists on the Rio Grande Trail is a concern and part of the rationale for leash requirements on trails. Matt explained that staff seek feedback on the concept and general direction; staff will bring draft language to the Board and then take it to Council for two readings. Julie asked about e- collars and whether this could constitute a leash. Simon commented that e-collars are training tools; a physical leash is still necessary. Ted commented that he likes the simplicity of the policy direction and asked Simon if he feels it generally works. Simon said he supports it, adding that it could be good to require having a leash on one’s person as a dog owner/walker; currently rangers check for leashes and dog waste bags on Smuggler. Brian commented that new code language will allow rangers to apply discretion that matches the status quo. This will also allow this information to be posted clearly rather than having a blanket leash law that makes it hard to know truly what is allowed or not allowed. Ann expressed support for this approach and asked if additional parks will be added to the current list of watchful off-leash parks. Matt clarified that the proposed language would state that all City parks are watchful off-leash areas unless actively used for athletics/events or posted on site. Ann expressed support for the proposed code toward posting clear information on what is allowed. Dan asked why John Denver Sanctuary (JDS) is not on the list of watchful off-leash parks. Matt shared the Denver Post’s recent rating of JDS as the most peaceful place in Colorado; it is a high volume tourist destination and a contemplative space. There are other places nearby where dogs may access the river for play. The song garden and ampitheater will not be a dog play space. Austin added the muskrats, dippers, and other birds use the wetland habitats; protecting wildlife in this habitat is another consideration. Dan commented that JDS feels like a part of Rio Grande Park and suggested signing it to note the boundary. Dan expressed that he likes the flexibility of the proposed leash plan. Charlie Pritchard made a public comment, mentioning that he would like the JDS to be an off- leash area and asking if the Board has discussed voice command which Snowmass Village has incorporated into their dog/leash management. Simon commented that voice command is difficult to follow through on from an enforcement standpoint. He added that he doesn’t require his rangers to assess effectiveness of voice control on a case-by-case basis. Matt explained that this code is to set up rangers for success; in Aspen, specific factors include the dense environment and interactions between dogs. Brian commented that sight and voice control are appropriate for travel modes away from dense community environments, and watchful off-leash play is a location-based management strategy. Adam commented that requiring owners to carry a leash makes sense. He asked if code language should perhaps include giving rangers the power to require leash use if dogs are observed in an unsafe situation. Simon commented that a code tool is not necessary; in these cases, the ranger’s role is to mediate stress. Brian added that the current blanket leash law is such a tool. Julie commented that public communication should have positive messaging. Board Comments: Adam: asked about bike-pedway use in winter for cyclists. Brian mentioned that it is basically impossible given plowing, but that this on the agenda for the next PABST meeting. Parks has asked Streets to prioritize this. Matt added that Streets’ obligations are large (bus routes, main arterial streets, etc.) and the winter cycling community is comparatively small. Brian added that bike infrastructure must be created in order to see the use. Austin emphasized Streets’ challenges in that they are understaffed and put in a lot of overtime. Julie: asked about the Rio Grande Trail’s possible re-routing down by the old pump house. Mike said that Parks is taking on the role of landscape architect for the remodeling of this building. The curve of the trail bisects the two lawns; it is in concept stages to reroute the trail and create a larger lawn space. It is not known when it will happen, but it will not be during 2024. Ted: none. Dan: asked for an update on the Iselin pickleball courts. Matt explained that Parks is in contract negotiations and it is likely to be constructed next year with some value engineering (ie. porta potties instead of bathrooms). This will need Council approval; Parks may present this in December. Next Meeting Date(s): Regular meeting Tuesday, December 19, 2023. Executive Session: N/A Adjourned: Adam made a motion to adjourn; Ann seconded, and the vote was unanimous.