Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes.OSB.20250619.Regular MINUTES City of Aspen, Open Space and Trails Board Meeting Held on June 19, 2025 5:00pm at the Aspen Community Garden City OST Board Members Present: Ted Mahon, Ann Mullins, Dan Perl City Staff Members Present: John Spiess, Michael Tunte, Austin Weiss, Shelley Grail Adoption of the Agenda: (This was not addressed.) Public Comments, for topics not on the agenda: None. Approval of the Minutes: Ted made a motion to approve the minutes; Ann seconded, and the vote was unanimous. Staff Comments: Mike: reported that final landscaping is complete at the Herron Park restrooms. Crews are preparing for the Wagner Park playground replacement; Council approved the July 7th start date and completion is anticipated in September. The Communications Department is helping to plan a celebration for the “tooth” on July 3rd with ice cream, painting, and balloons. Another crew is working concurrently at Cozy Point Ranch to formalize the ranch operations area and rebuild the archery range with a CPW grant. New Business: Aspen Community Garden John presented three questions to guide the discussion: 1, dispersed or focused model 2, management of the community garden, and 3, what type of garden fits the Aspen community? The Aspen Community Garden, which is at capacity, has 78 plots and the wait list is currently 109 names long. The average turnover rate is 5 plots per year; people who joined the wait list in 2020 are presently at the top of the list. John posed the question of whether the City should pursue providing additional garden space. If so, what type of model, management, and type of garden is appropriate? Dennis provided background on how the garden came to be the special place that it is and how its unique management team has evolved. Dennis described former participation rules requiring gardeners to participate in workdays to earn the right to their plots (in addition to paying dues). This system has faded away in recent years, as the role of enforcement was not carried forward. The main garden managers are Anna Scott, Dennis Murray, and Ray. Dennis explained past garden managers who maintained the irrigation system and have since retired or otherwise left their garden roles; such turnover of individuals drives the culture of management. The specific people managing the garden, with their skills, commitment, etc. are the keys to the garden’s success. Dennis stressed the importance of the irrigation system to the basic functionality of the garden, with occasional supplemental hand watering being important as well. Dennis commented that the City’s trimming around the outside perimeter of the garden is helpful. He commented on past issues with gardeners and people on the wait list, and the difficulties of being in the role of managing these people. Dennis described an area within the Marolt Open Space as a potential new garden space; this site is off the trail between the Holden Marolt Mining and Ranching Museum and the Marolt housing development. The City’s irrigation ditch runs adjacent to this site. Dennis proposed that applicants could put up money initially to help with development of the space and establish their commitment to gardening. Dennis commented on some of the challenges of irrigation systems, such as clogging and broken sprinkler heads. John provided a handout to Board members, suggesting a discussion about how to manage a new garden space, if Parks were to pursue one. Ann commented on the special nature of the current garden, and that it is unlikely to be possible to duplicate it. She added that perhaps several additional, smaller community gardens run and managed by the City could meet the community’s needs. This would disperse the gardens and put them closer to neighborhoods. She suggested one at Burlingame, one at the Lumberyard, and one east of Aspen, or perhaps at Centennial. Ted commented that he supports additional garden space, but that perhaps just one new site could be enough to tackle initially. He also mentioned that the City is not obligated to provide garden space for everyone who wants one, rather adding 40 plots somewhere at a new location could be appropriate. Dan commented that the current garden is a very fortunate situation and is also a difficult thing to replicate. Having well-documented demand makes it worthwhile to consider how to meet that demand. Dan suggested that the City could pursue one location for an additional community garden and set criteria for potential gardeners or an organization that demonstrates commitment to run it. He suggested Cozy Point Ranch as a potential location, and that the management could be a group of volunteers or a local non-profit such as the Farm Collaborative. He suggested that consolidated management would be better than having a number of smaller gardens around town; however, if an organization steps up to manage multiple sites, that could be a possibility. Dan commented on access being a significant challenge for Cozy Point Ranch. Ann added that if multiple garden locations were desired, they could be created over time rather than all at once. She suggested that if a location could be identified, the City could issue an RFP for management by a gardening group of a non-profit such as ACES, and that there would need to be City oversight. Ted suggested the option of doing nothing, mentioning that it is not a City responsibility to provide garden space for everyone who wants one. Certain local HOAs have declined to create gardens for residents, but nonetheless people on the wait list could look to other ways to find gardening space that doesn’t require Parks providing it. Austin commented on the garden at Hunter Long House, and that gardens could also be planned into new housing developments. Mike added that the Burlingame neighborhood has a community garden, but unfortunately the management is not functional. He underscored the critical nature of the people in management roles and their approach to running a community garden. Mike cited the Basalt community garden as an example of an irrigation model: each plot has a spigot and plot owners provide their own clocks and heads. Dennis commented that drip irrigation was his vision for the Aspen Community Garden for more efficient use of water. He returned to the potential location on the Marolt Open Space, commenting that he would create individual spigots for efficient drip irrigation in individual plots. John clarified the space that Dennis was referring to, noting that a portion of the Nordic trail would need to be shifted to accommodate it. John mentioned that providing garden space on the other side of Castle Creek could be important. Dan added his support for a location away from the Marolt Open Space where pressures on the property are high, citing the future entrance to Aspen. Ted commented on the community’s general opposition to developing any of the Marolt Open Space property. He asked about water issues at Cozy Point Ranch and whether appropriate water quality and quantity could be available for a community garden. John explained that potable water is a separate issue there and that it would be raw water that would be used for any gardening. He said that water could be available for a garden, but there is not an overabundance of water. John mentioned that access would be a greater challenge to a community garden at Cozy Point Ranch. Austin added that supplemental hand watering is such a frequent need, that a garden as far away as Cozy Point Ranch could be impractical. Dennis asked about the piece of land along hole number 2 at the Aspen Golf Course. Austin commented that this is City land, but it is not under the control of the Parks Department. Dennis asked about the small park space near the Aspen Sanitation Department for a small community garden. He added that partnering on plots is a good way to ensure successful gardening and accommodate more demand. Austin suggested Boomerang Hotel property, which is a prime location. Ann asked if the HOA manages the garden at Burlingame. Mike said that they do, and that they are so busy that they can’t manage the watering times reliably and that it is not an inviting setting. Ted commented that the Hunter Long House garden’s success is due to Jerry who lives there and is an avid and passionate gardener. He added that it takes people like this to make a community garden successful. Dennis commented that he has researched community garden models and rules in other communities as examples, and there are many good formulas. Shelley suggested that wait list names could be emailed each spring to gather the status of their interest, suggesting that some names on the list may no longer be actively interested, and demand might be lower than perceived. Dennis said that Anna has done this in the past. John summarized Board direction: explore one additional potential community garden location, gauge interest in bringing in a third party to help with management via an RFP, and poll people on the wait list for any interest in managing an additional community garden. Ann asked about grants to support an additional garden. Dan asked Dennis if there are any current gardeners who might be interested in managing a satellite garden location. Dennis said that he not aware of anyone who is interested on that level. Mike suggested mandatory workdays as part of the evolution of the garden. Dennis commented that much of the work is outside the gate; this would involve collaborating with Parks. John summarized the Board’s preference to explore an additional location for developing about 30 new plots. Dennis suggested Anderson Park. John mentioned an open space property on Spruce Street near Centennial which is currently a passive space located near a concentration of dense employee housing. Dennis mentioned security as a potential concern for a location near residential density. Dan mentioned the Tot Lot Park property, specifically the large grass space there. Dennis brought up a space off the Chatfield Trail on the west end of the golf course. Austin mentioned that a master plan is in the works for the golf course, including a realignment of the Nordic trail and snow making, in relation to that site. Austin commented that Tot Lot is located near large free market properties where people have space for their own gardens; the grass space, which is a passive open area, has been rented to fitness groups in the past. Ann suggested that the garden management system could inform an additional garden’s location. Anderson Park was mentioned again, specifically adequate exposure to sun and a cold air sink that could exist there. Dan summarized that no great locations were identified, but there is desire to keep exploring. John commented that Anderson Park seems to have potential, and the property’s possible historic landmark designation came up as a question. Ann expressed support for the City’s providing additional gardening at another location. Ted added that plot gardens are his preference. Ted asked whether Council has provided any direction on the community garden; John said that they have not. Austin added that the 109-name wait list likely over states demand somewhat, as some of those people may no longer have interest. Old Business: N/A Board Comments: Ann: none. Ted: none. Dan: none. Next Meeting Date(s): Regular meeting July 17, 2025. Executive Session: N/A Adjourned: Ann made a motion to adjourn; Ted seconded, and the vote was unanimous.