Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes.OSB.20241017.Regular MINUTES City of Aspen, Open Space and Trails Board Meeting Held on October 17, 2024 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: John Spiess, Matt Kuhn, Michael Tunte, Austin Weiss, Brian Long, Micah Davis, Shelley Braudis Adoption of the Agenda: Ted made a motion to adopt the agenda, Adam seconded. Public Comments, for topics not on the agenda: Mike Pritchard of Roaring Fork Mountain Bike Association (RFMBA) commented on the proposed Skills Trail at the Marolt Open Space, acknowledging Council’s recent non-consensus on moving the project forward. He reviewed past steps and funding sources as well as Council’s suggestions for alternative locations for a skills trail. Mike reviewed the inclusion of this potential project in the management plan for the Marolt Open Space and the Board’s recommendation for the project to Council. He also reviewed survey results with 84% of respondents expressing that the skills trail would benefit their families. Mike thanked the Board for their support for this project and expressed frustration with Council’s response. Mike also expressed gratitude to the City and County for the management actions listed in the updated management plan draft for Smuggler Mountain Open Space, indicating RFMBA’s support for these actions. Approval of the Minutes: Howie pointed out that Amy’s offering to serve on the selection committee was not captured in the minutes of the September joint City-County Open Space meeting. Howie also asked for clarification of the “Hunter Creek Trail” as mentioned in the minutes; John clarified that this is the trail that runs parallel to Hunter Creek. Adam made a motion to approve the minutes; Julie seconded, and the vote was unanimous. Staff Comments: John: John covered four topics: 1. He read a letter from Friends of Marolt and Roaring Fork Audubon Society that was delivered to Council and requested to be conveyed to this Board. The letter expressed concern about a lack of adequate community outreach to help the community understand the impacts of the proposed Skills Trails on the Marolt Open Space, asking that the proposed project be paused while community outreach is expanded and other sites considered. The letter expressed strong reservations about locating skills trails on the Marolt Open Space and suggested better location options at the Burlingame neighborhood or near Aspen schools. The letter cited the intent for the Marolt and Thomas Open Spaces to protect the meadow and Aspen’s ranching history. Current passive uses were listed (walking, biking, gardening, landing paragliders, xc-skiing) as compatible with this original intent. Adam asked how these activities are considered passive and biking on skills trails are not considered passive. John said that there is not a clear definition. Matt added that current uses are both active and passive and that passive vs. active is subject to interpretation. Adam asked if Jonathan Lowsky did bird surveys as part of his wildlife study. Matt said no bird surveys were conducted but observed bird species were referenced; the study was conducted in winter and not during bird nesting season. 2. John mentioned that Ann asked staff to speak about the open space ballot measure that a citizen group is working to put on the ballot in March 2025. Ann added that the ballot language was approved and 307 signatures are needed to put it on the ballot. Matt explained that this initiative would change the City’s charter, requiring 60% of the votes rather than 50% to pass. Signatures are due to the Clerk in early December, and Council can then make this a ballot question via resolution. Ann asked if the Board may take a stance on this. Matt said that the Board may take a stance (although staff may not). Howie asked whether the Pride of Aspen swap would it have passed if this Charter change had been in place at that time. Matt said that it would have passed as about 70% of voters supported it. Ann commented that the Lift 1A issue, however, would not have passed. Adam asked what type of majority is required to change the charter; Ann mentioned that it is probably 50%. Matt said staff would look into this. Ted commented that this initiative is meant to make it more difficult to approve the straight shot entrance to Aspen (through the Marolt Open Space) in a future vote. Matt commented that this is probably correct based on the individuals doing the petition. Dan asked if the entrance to Aspen exchange with CDOT has already been accomplished. Adam commented that light rail was approved and with that possibility, a road could be built; however, if the light rail concept was not pursued, another vote would be needed to approve a road only. Howie commented that the Board does not need to reach a conclusion on this topic today. Matt suggested that if the Board would like to make a statement on this topic, it can be included in November’s meeting agenda; staff will also invite City Attorney Jim True to answer questions. 3. Pitkin County is still looking for one member of this group to be part of the community advisory group selection committee for the Roaring Fork Outdoor Coalition (RFOC), a 2-4 hour commitment. Ann asked what the group will be advising on. John clarified that RFOC is a large watershed-based group working to inform actions and opinions on managing active outdoor recreational uses and conservation across the entire valley. Part of this effort is to involve an advisory group of stakeholder citizens. The Upper Coalition group works with the state on a broader level to support these efforts holistically. Ted volunteered to serve on the selection committee. 4. The grand opening of the Maroon Creek Trail will be held at the ARC at 4pm on October 29th. Dan asked when the Iselin courts will open. John mentioned the soft opening will be October 18th. A grand opening event will be held in the spring. New Business: Keno Gulch Access Easement opportunity – Pitkin County Paul Holsinger (Agriculture and Conservation Easement Manager for Pitkin County Open Space & Trails) presented an opportunity for potential trail access on Shadow Mountain related to private property in Keno Gulch where the owners want to build a rural and remote cabin and need access across Pitkin County land to do so. The owners, Matt Holstein and Ryan Olson, approached Pitkin County Open Space & Trails last year to propose an easement trade in which they would gain a County easement needed to access their property, and the public would gain an easement across the owners’ land for a trail link. The access easement the owners seek is about three quarters of a mile in length on an existing old mining road. Paul noted existing adjacent recreation easements held by Pitkin County, toward a future trail between the Music/Country Day School campus and the Summer Road on Aspen Mountain. The property owners’ proposal presents an opportunity to complete the remaining access needed to create this trail. Pitkin County Open Space and Trails has presented this to the BOCC, members of which expressed concerns about allowing development in this rural and remote area. It was noted that pursuing this easement trade and securing public access to link a trail could be prudent to do now with the current owners, as a future different owner may not be willing/interested in allowing public trail access. The BOCC directed staff to come up with the best package for the public. This package is the trail easement (which Paul showed on a map), a conservation easement over the majority of the Holstein/Olson property except for a 5-acre allowance for the cabin site, a scenic covenant on the cabin site (it will not be visible from Castle Creek Bridge and will blend visually with surroundings), and a road agreement so that the road coming off the Summer Road will remain in its current maintenance state with summer-only vehicle access. This package was negotiated with the owners and brought to the BOCC and the Pitkin County Open Space and Trails Board, both of which were unanimously supportive. At the first reading in September, there were two unexpected dissenting votes; concerns were based on the potential for this to encourage development. It is hoped to gain support from this Board for the BOCC second reading. Paul pointed out the two remaining connections still needed to fully complete another related trail connection on a route referred to as the “Ore Cart Trail,” which would traverse Shadow Mountain from the Little Cloud Trail to the Music/Country Day School campus. This trail system could be an asset for the community. Howie asked for clarification of the old mining road and proposed trail alignment; Paul provided clarification of trail alignment options, and the importance of this potential easement that would bring the trail around Shadow Mountain. Dan asked for clarification of the ski area boundary in relation to the trail alignment; Paul pointed this out on the map, explaining that the platform is in place. Adam asked about the potential for other adjacent landowners to block a future trail; Paul explained that if a majority private ownership were to occur on either of the two properties in which Pitkin County has partial ownership, the private owner may not support a trail easement and prevent the possibility of a public trail. Adam asked what would be needed from the USFS for the trail to happen. Paul said very little would need to be built; the trail would largely follow the existing road. Shelley mentioned that the USFS might require an agreement releasing them from any maintenance obligation. Adam asked if the Music and Country Day Schools have weighed in on the trail concept. Paul explained that this will be discussed; the trail would go through campus and across the bridge. It could be possible to work with the schools to bring the trail farther up the hill to avoid having the trail portal go right through campus. Ted asked if the conservation easement would be on 50 acres and the cabin allowance would be on a 5-acre portion of the property; Paul confirmed this. Austin commented that mining roads are not always sustainable trail platforms; he asked if this existing road could be made appropriate and sustainable for mountain biking. Paul said the road hasn’t washed out anywhere; it seems well-constructed and although they haven’t analyzed the grades, Pit Co doesn’t have concerns. He added that it would likely be too steep for biking. Matt asked if this will be mainly a hiking trail. Paul said this question is open for now, awaiting public input, wildlife studies, etc. The plan is to acquire this easement now and then take time to fully develop the trail concept. A discussion followed in which various roads and mine claims were identified and clarified on the map. Development potential was noted not to exist on the relevant part of the map. Property owners, Matt and Ryan showed photos of the existing trail, spoke about the importance of this opportunity to put the trail into proper hands, and expressed their enthusiasm about making this trail available to the public. They also suggested interpretive signs about the area’s mining history. Julie asked if the trail crosses any avalanche paths. Matt explained that while it is steep, there is no evidence of slide paths, although the trail would be “use at own risk.” Ann asked for clarification of the cabin building site, which Matt pointed out. Matt further explained the public benefits that would come out of this easement trade, including serving as an alternative to the busy Ute Trail for an uphill trail workout. Adam asked what the conservation easement allows; Paul clarified that it would protect the 50 acres so that no activity diminishes the conservation value of the parcel. Ann asked if it is an actual conservation easement or a conservation area; Paul explained that it will be a professional conservation document. Austin asked if hunting will be allowed; Paul said that hunting is allowed on the USFS land and the public would be limited to staying on the trail through the private property. Forest management will be allowed on the 50 acres within the conservation easement in the event of beetle infestations or the like. Howie asked if a wildlife study has been conducted. Paul explained that a baseline report is currently being prepared for the parcel and that biodiversity mapping analysis has been done to ensure that the trail does not go through a wildlife sensitive area. If it is discovered later that there is sensitive wildlife after the trail is opened, the trail will be closed for the appropriate seasonal periods of time. Howie asked about visibility of the cabin from Castle Creek; Matt explained that the cabin will be oriented to look up Castle Creek Road, but it will not break the ridgeline and will not be visible from the road (per a signed affidavit). Howie asked about lights; this will be managed in the County code review process. This cabin will be off-grid with solar power, and will comply with County codes. Ann asked if the existing road would need to be improved; Matt explained that the road is in good shape for construction trucks that would come up the Summer Road. Paul added that part of the agreement stipulates the road must stay in its current two-track state. Dan asked about the plans for the cabin. Matt explained that rural and remote allows for 1,000 sq. ft. It will be a family cabin. Ann expressed her support for the easement trade, commenting that if this trail ever sees the amount of use that the Ute Trail has, maintenance will be important. Ann asked if there is any money involved; Matt explained that no money is involved as it is purely an easement for an easement. Howie expressed support for the trail link. He also commented on the importance of communicating with the school. Ted expressed that this project fits into open space goals and that the trail connectivity and conservation value make sense. Julie expressed support for the project. Dan asked if this trail alignment is indeed the preferred one, mentioning that this could be the time to get it right. Matt commented that this trail exists and would require no building; another alignment could be possible, but it would be dictated by terrain and could create impacts on the side of the hill. Howie asked if the building site platform will be blocked off; Matt pointed out where a fence would be allowed with a gate for privacy to control access and help direct the public in the correct alignment. Ann made a motion in support of the Keno Gulch conservation easement in exchange for an access easement. Howie seconded and the vote was unanimous. Paul added that this topic will go to the BOCC next week and any Board members are welcome to attend. Old Business: Wildlife Corridor Feasibility Study Shelley introduced Cecily DeAngelo, Director of Roaring Fork Safe Passages (RFSP), and mentioned that City Council approved $50,000 last year to contribute to RFSP’s ongoing study for safe wildlife passages throughout the valley. Cecily provided an informational update and next steps. RFSP was started two years ago under the wing of the Watershed Biodiversity Initiative. The $50,000 was actually approved prior to the founding of RFSP, reflecting the community’s concern about wildlife collision mitigation and the need to think holistically about wildlife corridors in the valley. Currently, development has limited wildlife corridors to very few locations that can be permanently conserved. Julia Kench, one of the top ecologists in the state has been working with the study for the past two years. During the first year, stakeholders were coalesced, including both City and County Open Space programs, CPW, CDOT, neighborhoods, angling groups, hunting groups, etc. H-82 and H-133 were included in the prioritization study to identify mitigation locations toward reducing human/vehicle conflict with wildlife. The goal was to identify locations that are eligible for wildlife underpasses and over passes, and three such sites were identified on H-82. The criteria for these sites include conserved land on both sides of the highway, a high incidence of wildlife collisions, and suitable topography. Where these criteria are not met, such as in Snowmass Canyon, the group is looking at other ways to reduce collisions. About nine months ago the second phase was begun: mitigation recommendations and planning. The first location of focus for assessment is the longest segment with potential for a series of wildlife crossings: the 5-mile section from Woody Creek to Pitkin County Airport. In January the same assessment process will begin with the remaining five locations, three of which are not eligible for wildlife crossings. The 5-mile section is one of the highest elk-hit sites in the state, underscoring the related human safety issues as well as wildlife losses. Non-fencing solutions are the first priority, but additional fencing may be necessary in some areas where animals that wander onto the road may not have anywhere to go. Ecologist Julia Kench has been on foot examining the 5-mile section and stakeholders have been engaged. Stage Two has just commenced, and fundraising is underway. This stage involves a high-resolution drone imaging that will help determine feasibility of under or over passes in five locations that have been identified for potential wildlife crossings. Julia and the drone photographer will then work to render possible under or over passes, as an initial feasibility step. Important factors include grading, culverts, length of space, etc. Outreach materials such as story maps and renderings will be presented in upcoming stages. Other solutions include improving wildlife fencing and sight lines for drivers. Wildlife cams will be installed for monitoring wildlife activities. Elk will not use long, dark tunnels; the science has advanced so that we know what works and what doesn’t. Solutions are generally aimed at helping wildlife rather than changing human behavior. Adam asked if sightline improvement is done through vegetation management. Cecily explained that could be the case, or other measures such as changing berms. Cecily mentioned AI tools for avoiding wildlife collisions, but these tools have limited in use as they cannot stop multiple lanes of traffic. Physical corridors must be created to provide safe crossings across barriers like H-82. Ann asked about wildlife conflicts such as predators lurking at crossings. Cecily mentioned that this generally does not occur. Dan asked about the potential for a dual benefit in connecting Cozy Point to the Intercept Lot for people. Cecily said that human use would negate use for wildlife; science shows that animals will not use crossings where people also use them. However, coordinating construction for various efforts can be beneficial. Funding has come from the City, County, and Snowmass Village for parts one and two; part three will be funded by private donations. Howie mentioned the potential non-motorized bridges being considered for crossing the Roaring Fork River and whether these might offer any wildlife benefits. Cecily said that assessment for any potential conflict can be done, and that people are traveling above the river corridor which could benefit wildlife. Naming rights for wildlife crossings could be an interesting concept, and CDOT will weigh in on this. Board Comments: Adam: a Burlingame resident commented that removal of the portapotty at Burlingame playground seemed premature. Adam mentioned that he will not be able to attend the November OSTB meeting. Julie: congratulated staff on Maroon Creek Trail and asked when Herron Park bathrooms will open. Matt said they will open in a couple of weeks. Julie mentioned being disappointed in Council’s response to the bike skills trails project. Matt commented that Council did not ask staff to take the project out of the budget, however they did indicate that there was not support for the project occurring on the Marolt/Thomas Open Space land. This was a work session and not a vote; there was some consensus for bringing it back in an upcoming session with public comment. Council has received a tremendous amount of public comments and the second reading of the budget ordinance will be another opportunity for the public to express comments. Austin added that the idea is supported but the location is not, and that is making it hard for Council to navigate this situation. This is further complicated by newer Council members who have less experience, although the City Manager is trying to assist. Ted: Maroon Creek Trail looks great and was well worth the effort. Howie: asked about the Deer Hill wildlife study with ground-breaking coming soon for the lumberyard housing development. John said there is draft and staff needs to spend more time with it before being ready to share it. He also asked if Parks oversees sharrows on streets. Brian said that Parks works with Engineering on sharrows. Ann: asked if there has there been more discussion of a bike park at Buttermilk. Ted said that he has spoken with ASC’s Bike Park Director about this. They are protective of their base area and if ASC were to develop a bike par there, they would have ownership, passes would be involved, only their instructors would teach/coach, and there would be rules, hours, etc. Dan: asked for staff to let Board members know if there are any upcoming opportunities to advocate for the skills trails. He suggested e-bikes as an agenda topic for an upcoming meeting. Next Meeting Date(s): Regular meeting November 21, 2024. Dan added that Board members should respond by the Tuesday prior to OSTB meetings to confirm their attendance. Adjourned: Howie made a motion to adjourn; Ann seconded, and the vote was unanimous.