Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes.OSB.20250515.Regular MINUTES City of Aspen, Open Space and Trails Board Meeting Held on May 15, 2025 5:00pm at Pearl Pass Room, Aspen City Hall City OST Board Members Present: Julie Hardman, Ted Mahon, Howie Mallory, Adam McCurdy City Staff Members Present: Matt Kuhn, Austin Weiss, Brian Long Adoption of the Agenda: Ted made a motion to adopt the agenda and Adam seconded. Public Comments, for topics not on the agenda: Mike Maple suggested improving public noticing of OSTB meetings; for example, they could be posted alongside those of other boards and commissions on the City’s website, adding that it can be difficult to access the OSTB agenda. Matt mentioned that OSTB meetings are noticed on the Parks and Open Space website; he will circle back with Mike on this topic. Approval of the Minutes: Howie mentioned wording on page 5: “…looks at impacts of physical, cultural, and human environments affected by the proposed project…” “of” should be changed to “on.” Ted made a motion to approve the minutes Adam seconded, and the vote was unanimous. Staff Comments: Brian: Rangers are using a new speed gun to check trail speeds. Brian commented that Aspen Police Department has become more involved with enforcement and education regarding e- bike and other powered device usage on trails and on bikeways in town, including specific e- motorcycles that are not legal on trails (or on roads). Trial speed tickets may be given. The police chief is supportive of enforcement on trails in coordination with Open Space rangers. Howie asked if Parks may unilaterally put up signage on trails; Matt said that Parks is able to do that. He added that speed limits are not well posted, noting that these should be added every quarter mile on trails. Brian mentioned that the upper Post Office Trail is expected to open in late May; the lower section will see construction work next. Ted mentioned that rental shops should be informed about compliance regarding e-motorcycles; Brian mentioned that rental shops are in this communication loop. Matt: Noted that Parks offices are located in the Armory building, basement and second floor, for the next 9-12 months. Parks campus is closed to the public during construction. New Business: Trail accessibility and device allowance Brian introduced the topic of how Aspen presents as a city to persons with disabilities, specifically regarding which trails are accessible and what types of devices may or may not be allowed on certain types of trails. With this topic, Brian would be asking the Board to: •Review and discuss our accessibility policies, device allowances, and user issues •Philosophical discussion how to be a forward-thinking and accessible community •Talk about recommendations on public facing accessibility information offerings •Recommend future projects or measures that increase accessibility This is a discussion and work session today; Brian will return to the Board at a future time with a formal policy document. Pitkin County is also working on this topic; they released a new accessibility document in 2024. Brian emphasized that certain OPDMDs (other power-driven mobility devices) are not suitable on certain trails due to size, scale, and/or gas-powered engines. In 2011, Parks created a policy and map pertaining to OPDMD use on the City’s trail system (as did the County at that time); in short, OPDMDs of a certain size and scale are allowed on the paved trail system, and not on the single-track trail system. Brian and trails staff attended a fall 2024 training with the County and other local agencies given by wheelchair advocates, Dove Tail Consulting. The training familiarized Brian with devices known as adaptive mountain bikes and inspired him about enhancing accessible possibilities on Aspen trails. A disabled trail user needs information about trail width, pinch points, rocks, and inclines, and is often accompanied by mountain bikers who assist. Howie asked if a disabled person may use an e-bike or adaptive mountain bike on a trail where regular mountain bikes and regular e-bikes are not allowed; Brian said that they generally may. Brian explained that the City may consider which devices it recognizes as “wheelchairs,” recommending that all wheelchair types be recognized. The training also provided understanding of relevant, current laws. The law defines a wheelchair as a “manually-operated or power-driven device designed primarily for use by an individual with a mobility disability for the main purpose of indoor or of both indoor and outdoor locomotion.” Brian clarified the differences between wheelchairs and OPDMDs, noting that OPDMDs are devices that are not specifically designed for use by people with disabilities. The law defines Other Power-Driven Mobility Devices (OPDMDs) as “any mobility device powered by batteries, fuel, or other engines… that is used by individuals with mobility disabilities for the purpose of locomotion, including golf carts, electronic personal assistance mobility devices… such as the Segway or any mobility device designed to operate in areas without defined pedestrian routes, but that is not a wheelchair.” When an OPDMD is being used by a person with a mobility disability, different rules apply (ADA) than when it is being used by a person without a disability. Parks is working to provide information to users of OPDMDs. Brian shared the 2011 trail map, noting that OPDMDs are allowed on the trails marked in yellow, mainly the paved trail system. It is time to revisit this accessibility policy. OPDMDs are not allowed on red trails (single-track). On yellow trails, OPDMDs are limited to 36 inches in width, 20 mph, and 65 lbs. The current policy update process includes updating this map. Howie asked if an adaptive e-mountain bike can be used on trails where regular mountain bikes are prohibited. Brian confirmed this, adding that the number of these users is relatively small, but the department is committed to providing experiences for these users. Brian shared the 2022 municipal code regarding e-bikes. He mentioned that any changes to this code will go through the code language change process which includes City Council. Ted asked if either the County or US Forest Service have changed their code recently; Brian said no, and that regarding single-track and soft-surface trails, there is a desire among these entities to have policy continuity. It has been difficult for the community to understand that e-bikes are prohibited on soft-surface trails. Current OPDMD policy is aligned with these current laws. The County is reviewing language to ensure that wheelchair allowance language is clear, but they are not considering changing policy on e-bikes or OPDMDs on single track. When used by a person with a disability, an OPDMD becomes a wheelchair. Adam commented on an example of a person at the training who is mobility-impaired but able to walk; he rides a normal e-bike, but this bike is not allowed on trails. Howie asked about blindness or deafness with regard to disability. Julie explained that all disabilities apply to ADA. Brian said that one may ask for credible assurance that a device is helping a person with a disability. Potential public facing web information being considered for the website includes a trail category map with more detail on the nature of the trails, an updated trail category and devices-allowed list, highlighted areas that are popular with people using wheelchairs, and a table ranking trails per accessibility qualities. The City of Boulder provides great examples of this information. Brian shared trail categories he has developed for an updated map, delineating various trail types such as those with and without ADA grades, etc. Along with the map, laws and detailed information on what is/not allowed would be provided. Brian highlighted certain Aspen trails as examples of various ranking levels. Julie asked if Snowmass Village is aligned with policy; Brian said that they are. Ted said that there is conversation about developing certain trails in the bike park for e-bikes. He asked how a Bowhead device that is 29” wide can go on a single-track trail. Brian said that these devices go outside the edges of the trail sometimes. Matt added that if this Board directs staff to develop accessible trails, they would look to trails like Ajax and Maroon Creek Gorge for potential to build an accessible trail platform. Staff reached out to Challenge Aspen when Butterline Trail was built with the desire to make it a resource for their program; the trail has grown in since then, but the ADA trail platform exists. Matt mentioned that since ADA use is light, maintenance such as vegetation management is a consideration. Brian added that ADA users want to have challenges and keep trail character; certain trails could be augmented to provide various levels of challenge. Howie asked for more information on expected maintenance. Brian explained that the City could identify a flagship adaptive mountain biking trail, focusing maintenance on a limited amount of trail. Basic vegetation maintenance is needed on the entire City trail system every year. Howie asked for an example of a flagship trail. Brian mentioned Maroon Creek Gorge and Burlingorge Trails could be potential flagship adaptive trails, however Parks would be trying to create a spectrum of trails for a spectrum of experiences people would want to have. Howie asked about trail etiquette regarding right-of-way. Brian mentioned trainers say there is less conflict around right-of-way than there is with wrong perception about whether an adaptive trail user is allowed to be there. Nonetheless, the party traveling uphill has the right- of-way. Adam added that adaptive devices cannot usually get off the trail, so it is necessary to yield to them. Brian shared information and tables from the City of Boulder’s website, providing information on accessibility rating, ease of use, amount of shade, scenic value, highlights, mileage, and overall ranking. Brian would like to provide this information on Aspen trails. Julie commented that we will see these new types of devices used in Aspen. Adam added that Aspen is not currently known as a destination for ADA trails. Brian said that the paved downtown trails is an excellent system for ADA users. Howie commented on the seamless merging of City and County trails, and whether trail ratings would be coordinated on these trails. Brian said that this is a goal. The County (and the City, to a lesser extent) has trail easements that prohibit any kind of motor at all, presenting tricky management of wheelchairs and OPDMDs. The goal is to provide trail information to the public, such as the color-coded map. Adam asked if Boulder allows OPDMD ADA use on mountain bike trails that don’t allow e- bikes. Brian said that he would need to find this information. Austin asked if a given jurisdiction has the ability to define what devices are considered OPDMDs, or if that definition is set. Brian said that OPDMDs are broadly defined by the federal government, but municipalities have the power to limit them by power, speed, motor type, and weight. Howie asked about OPDMD allowances at Sky Mountain Park; Brian said that they are not allowed on the trails there. Adam added that devices specifically made for people with disabilities are allowed, such as an adaptive mountain bike. Brian mentioned that there are disabilities that fall into a gray area, such as the person mentioned earlier in the meeting who can’t power a regular mountain bike. Matt said that staff seeks a recommendation from the Board to proceed or not with the 5-tier classification system, formalizing Aspen’s accessible trails, and coordinating with the County. Howie said that the discussion was very informative and there is a lot to think about. Adam asked if this work will be done internally or if an outside consultant would be involved. Brian said that a policy update would be handled internally, but he would welcome consultant advice on potential ADA trails and how to augment them. Ted expressed support for this work and emphasized the importance of coordinating with the County. Julie expressed her agreement and that this is an important step for local trails. Adam mentioned that he would support code language change to allow certain OPDMDs on soft-surface trails that allow bicycles. Matt clarified that this would mean allowing Class 1 e-bikes for adaptive use. Adam said that coordinating with the County on this would be important, even if it is just the Ajax and Maroon Creek Trails. Brian said that the County is leaning in that direction. Mike Maple commented that he would support considering OPDMD use by ADA users on single-track trails, while recognizing that this is very complex to manage, especially relating to use by seniors with various non-ADA physical challenges. He commented on e-bike use among aging friends who enjoy extending their riding with these bikes, and that apparently the Moab area allows e-bikes on all trails. He added that there were no conflicts or comments by other trail users. Adam mentioned that it is interesting to notice whether one’s biking experience is different where e-bikes are allowed on trails or not. Brian mentioned the 2017 valley-wide polling effort for input on e-bikes which informed much of local policy. Brian said that it is time to do this effort again, as outlooks and experiences have likely changed since then. Howie mentioned that he would let the County know that the City is interested in providing information to users and that consistency across jurisdictional boundaries is fundamental to the success of this effort. Austin added that the transition needs to be seamless for trail users, such as where the Rio Grande changes from pavement to soft surface. Adam suggested considering providing education to the general public about allowed devices for ADA use. Mike made his public comment: he expressed his thoughts on enforcement and his support for the police department’s involvement. However, he said that this is not enough. He said that announcing is not working, and that most of our trails were designed for a different set of bicycle vehicles. Handlebars are wider and e-bikes are now here. He commented that Class 2 and 3 e-bikes should not be allowed on City trails. He mentioned that the City trails are congested and potential for accidents is high, adding that the City should prohibit Class 2 and 3 e-bikes as the County does. Mike suggested that bikes should only be allowed to travel uphill on the Cemetery Lane Trail, for example, because downhill speeds of bikes are too high there. Mike commented on his experience riding a Class 2 e-bike, which was heavy and fast. Julie summarized Mike’s comment as referencing speeding on trails and prohibiting Class 2 and 3 e- bikes. Mike commented that commuter use is traffic management rather that open space and trails use. Ted commented that the City is adapting to a changing world, with new devices showing up every year. Adam mentioned that past minutes document the Board’s extensive discussions and work on this topic. Howie said that this is the first year the Maroon Creek Trail has been open, and that it will be important for Parks to be pre-emptive on this popular trail with striping, signage, etc. to help users ride responsibly. Howie said that we are on a learning curve with bicycle etiquette, and that it will be important to make a major effort on the most popular, congested trails. Mike emphasized that more must be done with enforcement and education but also trail re-design for safe use by bicycles traveling at greater speeds. Howie added that the pleasure of being a pedestrian on a trail used by cyclists is decreased by fast riders who do not signal or announce, while the pleasure of riders has increased. Julie asked if radar speed signs could be used on the new Maroon Creek Trail. Ted asked for a ballpark cost for making a couple of main commuter trails wider. Matt said that outcomes, goals, and priorities are being drafted to include comments from this Board; this includes a holistic study of where uses can be separated on certain trails. In general widening Cemetery Lane Trail would be complicated with space available. Concrete is 2-3 times more expensive than asphalt, and commuter trails are concrete. Austin said that the redevelopment of the Rio Grande Trail between Stein Park and Aspen received a lot of push back when it was done 15 years ago, but it is now important to have this width. Julie said that road bikers occasionally speed as e-bikes do on the trails. Old Business: None. Board Comments: Julie: mentioned she will not attend the June meeting and that the new playground by the Basalt pool is a fun idea/example. Matt mentioned that the “tooth” playground will be demolished on July 7th; landscaping and irrigation work is going on currently. Ted: asked for an update on Cozy Point Ranch. Matt said that the final pile of material has been reformed to create a materials/compost storage area. It screens and separated this area from the archery range. Except for a water improvement project next year, the work at Cozy Point is complete. Archery range work will be done by August. Howie: as a gold-level Bike Friendly City, Aspen met requirements, but there are current needs such as wayfinding and other infrastructure gaps, such as Rio Grande Place (add sharrows) and a bike lane that ends at Concept 600 Building on Original St (continue the bike lane), and needed signage on Bleeker for the music tent. Brian commented that the Bleeker block and Rio Grande Place items are on his upcoming list to discuss with Streets. Street stenciling is under Streets’ purview. Howie suggested a Board recommendation about this, but Brian said he would ask for it if needed. Brian mentioned that trail striping will be done later this month, and that Maroon Creek Trail will have a center stripe as well as a green stripe that guides visitors from 7th Street to Highlands. Adam: mentioned he might miss the June meeting. Next Meeting Date(s): Regular meeting June 19, 2025. Executive Session: N/A Adjourned: Howie made a motion to adjourn; Adam seconded, and the vote was unanimous.