Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes.OSB.20250116.Regular MINUTES City of Aspen, Open Space and Trails Board Meeting Held on January 16, 2025 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, Micah Davis Adoption of the Agenda: Dan mentioned that the winter maintenance topic will be moved to the February meeting as Brian Long is out sick. Ann made a motion to approve the agenda; Julie seconded, and the vote was unanimous. Public Comments, for topics not on the agenda: None. Approval of the Minutes: Julie made a motion to approve the minutes; Ted seconded, and the vote was unanimous. Staff Comments: John: mentioned staff are currently planning for summer projects. Mike: Howie asked about the status of Galena Plaza. Mike explained that what currently exists at Galena Plaza is considered phase one as allowed by budget at that time; phase two is in the long-range plan. Phase two will elevate the space to allow for more plantings. Adam commented on issues with parking for Sheriff’s Department vehicles. Mike said the “do not enter” signs that facilitate sheriff vehicle parking are not as welcoming as desired for the mountain-to-river corridor; this topic will be picked up during phase two efforts. Ann commented about the complexity of this area with transportation circulation. Ann asked whether Connor Park will be discussed by the Board again. Mike explained that it should be brought back to the Board; Parks has been working with the team tasked with the redesign of the Armory Building and will be involved with plans for this park. He will check with John about adding this to an upcoming agenda. Ted asked for an update on Cozy Point Ranch. John explained that the Farm Collaborative is well-underway with their building which is almost enclosed; the goal is to obtain a C.O. by mid- summer. The City’s role in this project has been developing the septic system which is now in place. John attends a weekly meeting with Farm Collaborative about their building process; they are generally on track, but a little bit behind schedule. Adam asked if their operations will be running during construction. John said they anticipate running their usual summer camps. Farm production operations have been scaled back during construction. Mike reported on the re-grading work, new wastewater system, new paddocks and horse watering systems, all of which are in place and functional. Next year the temporary fencing will be removed and the pasture will be restored. Patty’s operations are back in place and functional. The third project at Cozy Point involves the large compost pile and archery range area. A CPW grant together with Parks funding will support upcoming archery range improvements scheduled for this summer with completion in August. As a part of this, the manure composting area will be formalized with appropriate set-backs from the creek. Mike said that all site work at Cozy Point Ranch will be complete this year. Adam asked about water treatment work; John reported that this work is ongoing; test wells were done last fall and Well #2 is being rehabilitated. Howie asked how much this work has cost. Mike said it was about $2.2 million. New Business: None. Old Business: Charter Amendments – Regular Municipal Election Tuesday, March 4, 2025 Kate Johnson from the City Attorney’s Office presented background and answered questions related to the two charter amendments. Language was provided for Resolutions # 146 and #147, and for Referendum No. 1 (Restrictions on the sale or change in use of parks and open space) and Referendum No. 2 (Amendment to Home rule Charter – to allow utilization of portions of the Marolt and Thomas properties identified in the entrance to Aspen Record of Decision). Kate reviewed general rules of election activities. Because these ballot initiatives are brought by citizens, the City cannot take a position or engage in political activity for or against them. Staff cannot give opinions on how to vote or spend money related to these initiatives; however, as a Board, the OSTB may make a recommendation supporting or opposing these measures. Board questions and discussion of Referendum No. 1: Kate reviewed Referendum No. 1 which is about increasing the threshold for a change in use of parks and open space from a simple majority to a 60% super majority. She explained state-wide election dates for November and March in even and odd years. Board members may act in a personal capacity as they wish but may not use membership on the Board in conjunction with any election activity. Kate explained the nature of Referendum No. 2 regarding the utilization of portions of the Marolt and Thomas properties for transportation purposes. Referendum No. 1 would not affect a decision on Referendum No. 2, but it would affect any future decisions regarding change in use of open space. Kate added that if the Board makes a recommendation on these initiatives, it may be communicated through regular channels such as any newsletters that the Board regularly publishes, but not through paid advertisements or the like. John recalled steps that were taken by the Board regarding the Half Cent Tax permanence initiatives, including a motion to support the initiative and a second as well as the non-profit Adam formed as a private citizen. If any citizen entity wants to mention the Board’s position on the initiatives, that is permitted. Ann asked why the referendum language includes crossed-out language; Kate said that this shows changes made as ballot language is developed. Kate added that most cities do not require a super majority for changes in use of open space lands. For example, city councils in Boulder and Fort Collins have authority to sell, transfer, and change the use of city-owned property; citizens opposing such decisions may, by petition, put the decision on the ballot. Pitkin County has a provision requiring a simple majority vote for the selling or disposal of parks and open space lands. Howie asked how long Section 13.4 addressing restrictions on the sale and change of use of a property has been part of the City’s charter. Kate said it was adopted in 1982. Adam asked for the definition of “property used for parks and open space purposes.” Kate said this would call for a legal interpretation, based on plain and regular meaning of the words. Howie asked whether Referendum No. 2 which grants the entrance to Aspen easement was considered the vote for the swap for the Mills property in the 1996 election. Kate said that this met the 50% + 1 majority to pass. Adam asked if it is unusual to have something this specific in a home rule charter. Kate said she hasn’t looked at many home rule charters for comparison, but that Aspen’s Referendum No. 2 is quite specific. People are using this to limit or expand governing bodies’ power. Ann asked if anything else in Aspen’s charter requires a super majority. Kate said no, other than in cases of obtaining a variance from a planning board that requires a vote of 4 rather than 3. A citizen (Neil Siegal?) attending the meeting suggested 13.13 as an example of something that requires more than a simple majority: specially designated spaces (Ute Cemetery and JDS) Council has the power by resolution to change use in these spaces but it requires unanimous support by all Council members. Adam commented that he is uncomfortable with the limitations that the timing of regular or special elections could pose regarding the potential for losing opportunities when landowners need to move quickly with decisions. Howie asked what the benefit of the language may be. There was general discussion about greater voter turn-out during state-wide elections compared to municipal elections. Ann asked for an explanation of implications if the super majority issue passes, commenting on the greatest potential length of time an issue would have to wait based on even- vs. odd-year election timing, and that this could create problems. She also commented on the ambiguity of the word “used” regarding open space land, adding that election timing and potential litigation over language could pose problems in some situations. Ann commented that a super majority of 60/40 could be seen as rule by minority in that 41% could decide the vote. Adam asked whether the City’s charter could be amended back to a simple majority in the future if this measure passes now. Kate said that if this gets approved and adopted as part of the City’s charter, it could be changed again in the future. Howie commented that “use” is not equivalent to zoning, and asked how this could play out. Kate said that there is potential for litigation; the court would apply the plain language to the facts as they exist about how a given property is being used. Adam asked if property was formerly used as a park, whether that could have merit as an argument. Kate explained that there are many factors that would come into play, and that it is not possible to speculate productively on this in this discussion. Ted expressed concern about a super majority and the potential for this requirement to preclude a community’s true decision. Dan commented that he feels the existing restrictive process for changing use of open space is sufficient. He expressed support for a motion of opposition or no motion. Howie commented that this measure may have come about because of the Entrance to Aspen, but that it would apply to all open spaces and parks going forward. He expressed that our community’s commitment to open space is a defining feature of Aspen. Howie expressed his support for the super majority measure but noted that the language about timing of voting is unfortunate as a complicating factor. Austin commented that conservation easements can be a tool for added protection, although the Marolt and Thomas properties do not have conservation easements. There was a discussion of whether the Board should take a position on this measure. Ann commented on the ambiguity of the word “used” and the election timing language that could hinder important open space processes. Julie commented that the public is likely focused on the Entrance to Aspen decision and may not realize the far- reaching implications of passing this measure. Adam made a motion that the Open Space and Trails Board does not endorse City of Aspen Referendum #1. Julie seconded the motion. Dan and Ted voted in favor of the motion. Howie voted in opposition to the motion. (As an alternate OSTB member at this meeting with full attendance of the Board, Ann was not in a position to vote.) Kate explained that doing a press release is not available to the Board, however a citizen may use this information in a press release. John added that this motion will be included in the minutes which will be filed with the City Clerk. Board questions and discussion of Referendum No. 2: The discussion then focused on Referendum No. 2, an amendment to Aspen’s Home rule Charter to allow utilization of portions of the Marolt and Thomas properties identified in the Entrance to Aspen Record of Decision. Kate addressed Ann’s serving as a committee member of the petition for Referendum No. 2. Ann is not required to recuse herself during a discussion or vote on this topic because she and her family do not have direct financial interest in the outcome of this ballot measure, but she may abstain from the discussion if she so chooses. Ann expressed that she supports this measure and asked the Board if they are comfortable with her staying; the Board indicated affirmatively and Ann stayed for the discussion. Howie expressed concern with this measure, commenting that this Board’s responsibility is to protect, enhance, acquire and maintain public open space for wildlife, habitat, and recreational purposes. Howie commented that in other instances of land disposal or swapping, a careful analysis is done to evaluate the properties considered for swapping; however, he is not aware of any such analysis having been done to compare the 39-acre Mills property with the proposed corridor through the Marolt/Thomas property, perhaps because this swap was done prior to the Board’s formation. Howie asked whether the exchange is officially complete; Kate confirmed that it was indeed complete. Howie commented on the Board’s role in relation to transportation issues, noting that the Board’s purview is to provide oversight and serve as guardians of land the City acquires and maintains into the future. He said it is not the Board’s job to endorse this issue on the Entrance to Aspen in this configuration, noting what he sees as weakness in this process, and that Aspen as a town should not give over guidance on the entrance to Aspen to the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). Dan asked Howie to clarify whether he wishes to formally oppose this measure; Howie explained that he would formally take a no-comment position. Adam expressed his agreement with Howie’s general sentiments, in that this falls outside of this Board’s mission and is a specific transportation/evacuation conversation rather than being about protecting and enhancing open space. Adam supported a no-comment stance. Julie and Ted expressed their agreement. Dan commented that he feels this is appropriate for the Board to discuss, and that the Board should be prepared to comment in the future if a new use such as transportation is occurring on open space; but in this case, because there is a public process in place that is about to play out, the Board does not need to take a position. Ann added that while this involves open space, it is a much bigger question for the community; all alignment options seem to use a bit of open space, and it will be important for this board to weigh in. Howie asked about the restoration of part of the Highway 82 platform, and Kate explained that the record of decision includes information about the return of that area to open space. Austin added the 1996 vote requires the return of the former alignment to open space; Kate said that this measure would memorialize this requirement as part of the record of decision. Howie also asked if the Board could see any records related to the land swap in terms of who determined the swap and any records of evaluation related to the swapped lands. Kate suggested an open records request, such as past Council meeting minutes when this topic was discussed (perhaps in 1998). Howie suggested given future exchange situations that will likely come up, understanding methodology like this is a burden that falls on the Board so that it can do the best job. Kate commented that staff will provide information on valuation of lands in future exchange situations, and that while looking back at the Mills exchange may be useful, a standard method may not be useful in every instance. Adam commented on the various valuation factors such as property value, wildlife and ecosystem value, recreation value, or a combination of values. Howie added that the valuation comparison is not simply based on market value. Kate said that each time she has seen land exchanges, the relevant factors for consideration have been unique. John said that he would research the Mills property exchange. John confirmed that the Board is not making a motion related to Referendum No. 2. Ted commented that he feels more detailed information is needed as soon as more concrete Entrance options are determined. It would be useful to have information on gains and losses, such as bike-pedway improvements and acres/square footage of open space gained or lost, etc. Smuggler Mountain Management Plan - Adoption John mentioned that the updated Smuggler Mountain Management Plan was discussed at the September joint meeting of City and County Open Space Boards. John presented highlights from the updated management plan. Understanding ownership on Smuggler Mountain Open Space (SOMS) is complex, as there are many mining claims, of which some are co-owned, some are owned wholly be either County or City, and some have conservation easement overlays. Pitkin County drove the plan update process and creation of the current draft document, with the City’s involvement. Accomplishments on SMOS between 2008-2024 include major transformation and restoration of the site which had been highly impacted in many places. John shared key updates: explore feasibility of a portal trail to connect mountain bikers on the Hunter-Smuggler Mountain trail network to Aspen; designate the lower, rocky portion of the Hunter Creek Trail as pedestrian-only; and support recreational use for all ages and abilities by adding a mid-point destination on Smuggler Road. Ann asked for details on the mid-way destination on Smuggle Road. John said that it could be adding benches, a viewing platform, etc. where people can rest and enjoy views. Howie asked where the Flanagan inholding is located on the SMOS map, mentioning that this property has been identified as a “doughnut-hole.” He also asked what “explore” means regarding the mountain bike trail. John explained that it involves studying feasibility; this does not mean that there is a commitment to build the trail. Austin said that public outreach to determine public interest would be part of this process, as well as wildlife studies, etc. Ann shared a recollection that in 2011/2012, City staff purchased mineral rights on Smuggler Mountain at an auction in Glenwood Springs to better secure this type of ownership. Dan asked about the strategy for signage and wayfinding goals or actions on SMOS. Micah explained that SMOS signage typically falls under the City’s management. The management plan calls for updating and installing regulatory signage and replacing interpretive signage. Micah commented that wayfinding and interpretive signage in the Hunter Creek Valley and the greater Smuggler and Red Mountain complex is handled by the City. Dan suggested formalizing this, to state that the City exclusively manages all signage. John added that various management divisions will be formalized to note which entity does which tasks. Austin added that changes to such shared-management duties have been necessary in the past based on operational needs. Dan commented that there should be a goal to make the signage consistent for the public. Austin added that City efforts on interpretive signage, for example, are reviewed by County staff. Howie made a motion that the City of Aspen Open Space and Trails Board recommends adoption of the Smuggler Mountain Management Plan. Adam seconded; and the vote was unanimous. Ted asked how the desire to close the lower Hunter Creek Trail to bikes arose. Austin mentioned that this came from public comment. Board Comments: Julie: commented on the swift response to maintenance on Oklahoma Flats Trail. Ted: none. Howie: none. Adam: asked if the Board is able to change alternate member voting status. Ann said that this is part of the City’s charter. Staff will check into this. He also mentioned the Boulder area’s knee- height mini barriers along roads to designate bike lanes. He asked if bike-pedways might ever be divided and made one-way in winter. Winter conditions of the bike-pedways was discussed. Micah added that plowing timing has been shifted to clear bike-pedways in the mornings following storms; best practices are still being refined. Adam commented that it is as good as it can be with cars permitted to drive there, and that a dedicated bike-only section could be better maintained for biking. Austin said that this would need to involve a planning process with Engineering and City Council. Dan suggested picking up this topic next month. Howie asked how maintenance is going on the new Maroon Creek Trail. John said that the sun exposure makes maintenance fairly easy. Austin said that it was suggested that the High School Trail could now be kept snow-covered to provide seamless a Nordic connection. Next Meeting Date(s): Regular meeting February 20, 2025. Executive Session: N/A Adjourned: Adam made a motion to adjourn; Ted seconded, and the vote was unanimous.