Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes.OSB.20241121.Regular MINUTES City of Aspen, Open Space and Trails Board Meeting Held on November 21, 2024 5:00pm at Pearl Pass Room, Aspen City Hall City OST Board Members Present: Julie Hardman, Ann Mullins, Ted Mahon, Dan Perl City Staff Members Present: John Spiess, Matt Kuhn, Michael Tunte, Shelly Braudis, Laura Xaiz, Mary Oliver Adoption of the Agenda: Ted made a motion to approve the agenda; Julie seconded, and the vote was unanimous. Public Comments, for topics not on the agenda: Mike Pritchard from RFMBA commented on Pitkin County Open Space Board’s recent adoption of the updated management plan for Smuggler Mountain Open Space (SMOS) and thanked the City for its work in that process. RFMBA looks forward to continuing to partner with the County and City on maintenance of SMOS trails. Approval of the Minutes: Ann made a motion to approve the minutes; Julie seconded, and the vote was unanimous. Staff Comments: Matt: Skills Trail: Matt mentioned that Council approved the budget Tuesday during the second reading. In that process, Council elected to withdraw funding for the proposed skills trail, citing lack of support for a skills trail at the Marolt Open Space location. Council is supportive of the concept of a skills trail, and asked staff to engage with Aspen Skiing Company (ASC) to restart previous conversations about opportunities at Buttermilk. Matt and Austin met with ASC’s John Rigney and Mack to share RFMBA’s work for the Marolt location and discuss potential for a skills trail at Buttermilk. ASC is updating the master plan for Buttermilk, so it is a good time to consider this potential concept. There was no commitment from ASC; Parks offered support should ASC decide to move forward with a skills trail. Matt added that this highlights the fact that Council may on occasion not support recommendations from this Board. Dan asked if the topic of charging for use of the skills trail was part of the ASC conversation. Matt explained that the discussion is in very early stages and that Parks’ support is tied to the idea of a free public amenity. Julie asked whether previous research of location options was reviewed, mentioning that appropriate slopes were a concern with the Buttermilk site. Matt explained that Parks’ outlook after having been approached by RFMBA about the idea of a skills trail and working together over the last 3-4 years, was based on an amenity under Parks’ control and ownership; this stemmed from the skills trail having been included in the Marolt Open Space Management Plan as an item to explore. He said that during a past effort for planning in the upper valley Buttermilk was considered, but it has not been specifically considered recently. Dan asked if there is a precedent for a public/private trail concept. Matt replied that it would depend on how it may manifest, and could involve an easement, lease, an agreement for operations; it is too early to know. Dan asked if the land at Buttermilk is ASC-owned; Matt confirmed that it is. New Business: Charter Amendment, Q&A Ballot Measure, Jim True Matt introduced Jim True and Kate Johnson of the City Attorney’s Office who were present per the Board’s request to provide a Q&A for the Board regarding two potential upcoming ballot items: one being the charter amendment to change the percentage of votes required to change use of open space and the second concerning recognizing the existing CDOT right-of-way within the Marolt Open Space. Jim explained that the second item is also a proposed charter amendment and that it seeks to add a provision under the charter to recognize that the existing conveyance that is consistent with the record of decision is approved, and that any other amendments to the record of decision would be part of that approval. This initiative would add a specific section to the charter, 13.5. The first initiative concerning the 60% vote for a super majority would be amended in section 13.4. Both items are charter amendments. Dan asked for the language and John provided it on the screen. Jim said that both initiatives will require approx. 300 signatures by December 3rd or 4th. Ann asked if Council would have the option excluding these items from the ballot even if enough signatures are obtained; Jim clarified that the items would have to be put on the ballot; Council would also need to approve the ballot submission. Jim then focused on the language of 13.5, which approves the transportation uses of the Marolt Open Space for the record of decision and any amendments to that record of decision that occur in the future. Matt mentioned that a question at the last OSTB meeting was whether a simple majority could pass the initiative requiring a 60% majority for changes to open space uses; Jim said that this is the case. Matt cited the Pride of Aspen exchange as a recent example of this code section’s pertinence to different scenarios, not just the Marolt Open Space/Entrance to Aspen scenario. Jim added that in these instances, it is usually a compelling situation that is very beneficial to the City and the public and receives strong voter support. Dan asked for examples of other decisions requiring a non-simple majority. Jim did not have specific examples locally, but mentioned that it is not unusual in other communities to require super majorities for certain decisions. Ann clarified that the second ballot initiative is not a vote for the preferred alternative per se, but rather keeps that option open; Jim agreed that this is correct. Ann asked if both initiatives pass and Council decides on an alignment that involves the Marolt Open Space, would that another vote and would it take 60% to pass. Jim said based on the way it is written, as long as a future approval of a record of decision is for crossing only the Marolt Open Space, another vote would not be required; however, it is drifts off of the Marolt Open Space, it could require a vote, and that if the super majority initiative is approved, it would take 60% to pass. Jim also pointed out, in reference to the last two all caps sentences of the ballot language, that this requires that an election must be an even year November election or a general City election in March. Jim mentioned that this is important because otherwise the vote could be done in a special election or an odd year November election. Dan asked if the right of way has in fact already been conveyed to CDOT. Jim said that is has been, but with limited uses: 2 lanes of auto traffic and a light rail corridor, per the 1996 vote. The record of decision goes beyond this to state that until light rail can be financially viable, that corridor could be used for bus lanes. Jim expressed that his opinion is that a change to bus lanes would require another vote, and that CDOT does not necessarily agree. The second ballot imitative would confirm that vote toward the record of decision; this acknowledges Jim’s opinion on the need for a vote. Dan asked for clarification of which takes precedence: the 1996 ballot language or the record of decision language that mentions bus lanes until light rail is viable. Jim explained that the vote was clearly for two lanes of traffic and light rail and no other uses as stated in the ballot, and that despite the 1998 record of decision mentioning bus lanes, another vote would still be required to make bus lanes. Kate mentioned that the vote history and Jim’s memo are available on the City’s website. Matt asked if this Board could make a statement of opinion on these initiatives. Jim said that the Board can take formal action to endorse or oppose a local ballot issue by passing a resolution, but it can’t spend money on promoting or advertising. As individuals, Board members can participate in the election in any way they would like, however they should refrain from identifying themselves as Board members in doing so. Ted posed the question of whether these initiatives passing could affect other projects apart from the Marolt Open Space and entrance issue, such as other trails, restrooms, etc. Matt said that the Theater Aspen project could be affected by this. Jim agreed that if the open space use charter amendment passes, the Theatre Aspen project may be evaluated differently. Jim added that, other than Lift One, previous votes involving open space are generally strong. Matt asked if the Board wants to take a position, would it be wise to wait until either of the citizen petitions are certified by Council; Jim said yes. Dan asked for the language of the counter measure, John will get it. Dan asked if the counter measure passes, it enables Council to move forward with the preferred alternative without further votes; Jim said yes. Dan commented that these charter amendment initiatives could potentially be certified in December, and the Board could discuss an endorsement in January or February; Matt said he would add a placeholder for January’s meeting. 2025 Capital Projects, Matt Kuhn Matt provided an overview of what has been approved heading into the 2025 budget season. The ranger team received a grant from CPW (approx. $118,000) to update the archery range at Cozy Point Ranch. In conjunction with this, the large compost storage pile adjacent to the range will be used to create a new landform to shield the range from noise. Koch Park volleyball courts will be renovated. Ann asked for clarification of the problems at Koch Park. Matt said that the non-beach sand generates dust and is a health concern; the sand will be replaced with volleyball sand and the general park design will not change. The playground at Wagner Park will be replaced to provide a variety of play opportunities guided by stakeholder engagement. Interpretive signs around Aspen will be replaced with updated content and materials. Paths at Glory Hole Park will be renovated, and design efforts continue for Conner Park. Ann asked if Council has settled on plans for the armory, and whether design work makes sense before this is determined. Mike explained that if the armory building is renovated, Parks is ready to work in concert with those plans; otherwise they will not be making changes to Conner Park for the time being. Burlingame Ranch Wildlife Study, Shelley Braudis, Lara Xais, and Jonathan Lowsky Shelley introduced wildlife biologist Jonathan Lowsky of Colorado Wildlife Science, LLC and presented the wildlife report he produced for Burlingame Ranch Open Space (OS), which will become part of a management plan for this property. Shelley explained the two questions for the Board for this discussion: whether they agree with the report’s management recommendations and whether they agree with staff’s recommended management actions that will feed into the future management plan. Shelley reviewed history of the property and surrounding neighborhoods. Based on existing and planned development, this open space, which is heavily used by deer and elk, will be surrounded by 740-773 residential units. Shelley shared images to show corridors wildlife use to move through Burlingame Ranch OS to the Roaring Fork River and National Forest. Sagebrush and Gambel oak-mixed montane shrubland are very important habitats for deer, elk, bears, and many more wildlife species; these two habitat types make this open space especially important. Survey work was conducted via transects between September and May. 985 detections of 11 mammal species were recorded; 46% of these detections were mule deer, 37% were elk. This property is used by both deer and elk year-round, and notably by elk that remain late into the season which reflects the habitat quality. During surveys, 36 species of birds were detected, including species that are more and less tolerant of human activity. Wildlife cameras captured images of wildlife during every hour of the day; 492 unique occurrences of wildlife were recorded with infrared camera data posted September through May. Jonathan pointed out that wildlife activity peaked twice daily, at dawn and dusk, and despite human activity at Burlingame and the AABC, wildlife was active all day long, all year long. Humans and dogs use the open space as well. Additional development in this area could have significant impacts on wildlife. Shelley shared Jonathan’s wildlife management recommendations and staff’s wildlife action recommendations. Julie asked where wildlife cameras were located; Jonathan showed maps of transect points for foot surveys and locations of the six wildlife cameras. Ted asked about quantity of existing social trails; Shelley said that a number are present although none are very well-worn. Jonathan said that he saw the same people walking dogs in all seasons on these social trails; he also documented wildlife on these trails. The formal trails surrounding this area provide alternatives. Management recommendation highlights include: keep habitat in its current form as much as possible, reduce non-native cheatgrass, continue to survey birds for population trends and use patterns, avoid making additional trails including social trails (except for any future need to complete a perimeter trail), restrict people and dogs to existing formal trails year-round, prohibit dogs in the open space parcel, require dogs to be on leash on formal trails, and increase public awareness of these recommendations through education. Julie asked if some of the recommendations are currently in place. Mike mentioned that dogs are not allowed at Burlingame neighborhood. Shelley explained that most management action recommendations are very similar to the report’s recommendations, including a general survey interval, avoidance of creating additional trails (but allowing for completion of the connector trail if determined that it would not adversely affect wildlife), and to restrict people and dogs to existing formal trails throughout the year. Certain management actions would require additional funding. The City and AVLT hold conservation easements. A grant proposal is underway for funding to control cheat grass. Additional staff time would be required to monitor dog and human infractions and development of new social trails and restoration of those trails. Jonathan added background information on non-native cheat grass, which is the greatest ecological threat to the West. This cold season grass is not valuable to wildlife and forms spreading monocultures. There are treatment programs for this grass, and native understory vegetation that is valuable to wildlife can be restored. Dan asked for clarification of existing formal trails around Deer Hill; Shelley pointed out these trails. Dan asked for clarification of avoiding additional trails; Matt explained that formal trails will not be expanded and social trails will be closed and restored. Shelley added that education would be a key part of this effort. Jonathan added that winter is a critical season for wildlife and that this is an especially important time for people to not enter the open space. Connections to the Roaring Fork River and Soldner property areas are part of what makes this area so important for wildlife. Dan commented that concerns seem to focus on future pressure, as in the Lumberyard development. Shelley mentioned that the management plan phase presents an opportunity to bring management actions to the parcel that haven’t existed in the past. Matt added that this wildlife survey project came in part from request by this Board; Howie had asked for a baseline to help understand the pressures on the parcel and to consider management actions that limit impacts of human activity on and around the property. These interim management actions recognize that there will be future changes and provide a basis for comprehensive management actions going forward. Matt highlighted the importance and uniqueness of this property in the City’s open space portfolio; it is one of the most strongly intact native areas with rich wildlife. This management plan will be developed next following that of Ute Cemetery. Dan expressed that he feels the status quo is working with regard to dogs, and that these management actions will have impacts on residents with dogs. He expressed that he feels off- leash dogs on the trails would not cause significant issues. Matt stated that the City code that this Board approved and adopted stipulates that all dogs must be leashed on all trails, both soft- and hard-surface; these dog leash recommendations do not represent changes. Ted expressed that it is fortunate that this landscape is healthy and that these recommendations are a good starting point; it is a good opportunity to formalize these recommendations with the number of existing and upcoming residential units. Dan commented on whether human use should be prohibited or discouraged. Shelley added that an option could be prohibiting human use in winter. Matt said that he would look to Jonathan to provide recommendations, noting that it would be straightforward to educate about a winter closure to human use. Matt mentioned that public lands are important resources for humans to experience nature; occasional meandering here is likely fine, but controlling social trails is important. This Board decided not to pursue a proposed trail over the top of this open space in 2017, and that decision has been respected since then. Matt said he feels prohibiting human use in winter and allowing “light moseying” in summer would be a good approach. Dan commented that access from Lumberyard is less inviting than from Burlingame given natural barriers. He expressed that he is not supportive of prohibiting human access. Julie asked if deer and elk are present all year. Jonathan said that deer and elk are present all year, and that winter is the most sensitive time of year for these animals and their survival in severe winters. Disturbances in winter threated their survival. Matt asked where these elk typically go for calving; Jonathan said the elk using Deer Hill are most likely coming from Smuggler, Hunter Creek, and Red Mountain. Lara added that a study of deer survival in Wyoming during the big snow year of 2022 recorded losses of as high as 70% of collared adult deer and 100% of collared fawns, underscoring the importance of managing for wildlife with severe winters in mind. Dan suggested that management could be contingent on development of the Lumberyard; status quo may continue and guard rails could be put in place for any future changes. Ted expressed appreciation for the value of the wildlife report and his support for winter closures, examples of which have been successful and important in other places in the valley. It is important not to assume that everyone will behave well, and to put limits in place. Matt said that the Board may make a recommendation of support at this meeting or at a future meeting. He expressed that staff’s position aligns with Howie’s in that things are working relatively well and that the wildlife report highlights the strong presence of wildlife. Matt emphasized that significant growth and associated pressure are on the horizon. Future considerations could be simple things like installing a split rail fence. Lumberyard density is greater and more units are rentals. Shelley added that there is no immediate trail access like Burlingorge for Lumberyard residents. Dan asked if staff recommend closing the Connector Trail in winter; Matt said no trails would be closed, rather people would be limited to staying on formal trails. Ann commented that this area is an island and that continued surveys would be important, and that erring on the most conservative measures to protect the hill is important. She said she would not want to see impacts occur; everything should be done now to protect Deer Hill. It is easier to ease up in the future than to increase protections later for this unique property. Dan asked to return to the questions for the Board on this topic, suggesting a straw poll. John mentioned that recommended management actions are the focus. Matt said that a recommendation is not necessary at this point. Mike Pritchard of RFMBA commented that many people have wished for trails on Deer Hill and it is helpful to remember the Board’s prior decision against developing a trail across the top. He suggested a soft-surface trail parallel to hard-surface trails to provide a different trail experience for foot traffic with interpretive signage. He suggested this idea as offering pressure relief. Julie asked for more information on the potential connection behind the Pass Go development. Shelley explained that it would connect the hard-surface with the soft-surface existing trails, keeping it low on the slope to minimize impacts to habitat and wildlife. Matt commented that there are pros and cons to a perimeter trail, and there will be discussion around this. Terrain makes a perimeter trail somewhat complex. Dan expressed his non-support for the recommended management actions; he feels staff should not be monitoring dogs on the trails or that human use of the space should be prohibited. Ted commented that he sees the management recommendations as putting existing conditions into formal form; he expressed his support for the recommended actions. Julie commented that she supports the recommended management actions and protecting the area. Ann expressed support for the recommendations and would like to see more protections on the site such as limiting trails to the perimeter trail and perhaps a fence. She commented that these are good management actions but that they don’t protect the space enough; she would like to see protections go further. Matt said that this input gives staff sufficient direction; staff will continue to work with Jonathan and will implement these recommendations in the next year. Staff will come back with reports in the next year or two. Old Business: Strategic Plan Update, Mary Oliver Mary shared highlights and findings from the community outreach surveys conducted during summer and fall 2024 for the Strategic Plan, which outlines goals for the Parks and Open Space Department for the next 5-20 years. Outreach activities included gathering input from three focus groups: recreation and athletics, open space and environment, and trails. The survey was promoted at various events over the summer including the farmer’s market, pop-ups in parks, the online survey and more. The survey had 35 questions and was organized by six themes. Survey findings are the focus of today’s discussion. Mary provided high-level takeaways from the survey in which 155 people participated. All respondents were trail or nature enthusiasts. Top activities included: trail users, time in nature, time by water, dog walking, and more. 93% of respondents were daily and weekly users of trails; 81% were Aspen residents. The greatest response was from adults ages 25-64, the majority of whom were women. 28% of respondents’ households have dogs. Mary shared results to survey components designed to gather insights into how people felt about current conditions of Aspen’s parks: overall results indicate people are highly satisfied; 89% felt very welcome in the parks. When asked what improvements are needed in parks, the most frequent answer was “none of the above;” 44% felt no improvements were needed and 74% indicated park conditions are great. Matt added that the City’s annual citizen survey, which is done in a statistically valid manner, yielded data that supports these results to an even greater extent. The City of Aspen ranks highest of all the communities this survey company works with in terms of public satisfaction with parks and trail resources. While the Strategic Plan’s survey is not statistically valid, it provides confirmation of the fact that the community is very happy with its park and trail amenities. A discussion followed concerning the number of survey respondents which was 155 people, but nonetheless it was a strong response for a local survey on a non-controversial topic. Mary shared highlights from the six survey themes. Regarding recreation, the survey gathered comments on which recreational opportunities should be updated, enhanced, or added to Aspen’s parks and trails. Trails were the most popular topic in responses; people expressed interest in unpaved trails, access to water (trails near rivers, places to wade, more paddle boarding/swimming opportunities), dog parks, paved trails, and playgrounds. Respondents indicated a medium level of priority regarding community-oriented and community-gathering amenities, and lower priority topics included single-use amenities such as soccer and baseball fields (although most survey respondents indicated that didn’t use these facilities; input from athletics groups has helped fill in this topic). Regarding trails, the survey asked how Aspen’s trails could be enhanced or added to in the 5-20 years. Top responses included connecting missing links for regional trails, solutions for e-bikes, solutions to support fast and slow trail users, and expanding unpaved hiking trails. Lower priorities included additional maintenance, volunteer programs, and adding ADA accessible features to trail systems. There was a lot of feedback on e-bikes in the comments section, expressing everything from banning them to allowing them on soft-surface trails. The survey asked how people would like trail speeds to be managed; 47% wanted stricter trail speed management while others supported continuation of the current softer approach with expanded signage, education, etc. – this group combined with those favoring a stricter approach represented a total of 53% of responses. Regarding community, the survey asked how parks could best support building community. The top response was expanding the community gardens (39%), followed by increasing shade in downtown by planting more trees, and supporting activity and gathering amenities. Lower priorities included art installations, volunteer programs, and educational programming. Regarding open space, there was an emphasis on conservation and wildlife protection with the top priority being wildlife and habitat protection, followed by preserving open space for future generations, and preserving corridors. When asked whether Aspen should prioritize natural resource protection or outdoor recreation on open space, 61% favored equal prioritization of both and 31% favored natural resource protection. Regarding sustainability, there was support for saving water (replacing turf with native planting, reducing irrigation) and planting additional trees for shade; lower priorities included educational programming, display gardens, and research partnerships. Regarding ways to share history and culture in park spaces, top priorities included conserve historical and cultural landscapes, interpretive exhibits, and revitalize and highlight historic elements. Lower priorities were supporting art installations, classes and tours, and inventories of historic features. Board members discussed survey comments and the value of this feedback, noting the amount of e-bike comments. Ted commented that the pie charts were clear and overall responses seemed positive. Ann mentioned that responses seemed balanced, which is a great starting point. Ann asked about next steps. Mary said that current work focuses on inventory analysis, and final steps on community outreach, and using that information to form goals and actions. Once the strategic plan document is assembled, it will be shared with the Board. In the spring, the Board will be asked for a motion of support and it will be presented to Council for formal adoption. Ann commented that accessibility should receive more attention in the strategic plan even though the topic didn’t receive a lot of attention in survey results. Dan commented that this is a government responsibility to provide. Mary mentioned that Challenge Aspen provided valuable input and advocacy. Matt added that there are many opportunities throughout parks and trails to include and develop accessibility where feasible. John commented on the need for accessibility on the archery range trail. Mike commented on community partners that have provided input on accessibility at the Wagner Park playground as another example. Board Comments: Julie: Oklahoma Flats trail needs attention to address excessive ice. Ted: brought up indicating attendance at Board meetings; Board members should “reply all” upon receiving packets. Ann: None. Dan: suggested winter trail maintenance philosophy as a future meeting topic (goals as a system, feedback on trail use and needs of constituents). John added that a trail counter in place on the Maroon Creek Trail between October 6- November 6 recorded 7,000 users. This confirms the need for and value of this new trail. There was a discussion about whether to hold an OSTB meeting in December and it was decided to cancel this meeting. Ann asked for ballot issues to be on the January agenda; John will send language to Board members. Julie asked about post-event conditions and related extended closures of parks. Matt will follow up with her on this topic. Next Meeting Date(s): (December meeting was canceled.) Regular meeting January 16, 2025. Executive Session: N/A Adjourned: Ted made a motion to adjourn; Julie seconded, and the vote was unanimous.