Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes.OSB.20250918.Regular MINUTES City of Aspen, Open Space and Trails Board Meeting Held on September 18, 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 Adoption of the Agenda: Farm Collaborative was moved to precede Capital Projects. Adam made a motion to adopt the agenda; Julie seconded, and the vote was unanimous. Public Comments, for topics not on the agenda: None. Approval of the Minutes: Adam made a motion to approve the minutes; Julie seconded, and the vote was unanimous. New Business: Farm Collaborative: Eden Vardy, Farm Collaborative (FC) Executive Director, joined by board members Judy Lovins, Dennis Young Jeff Davlyn, thanked the OSTB for its support of the construction of the septic system last year that connects to the FC’s new building; certificate of occupancy for the new building is anticipated in November. The septic system cost came in below budget, while other elements on site came in over budget, including fire suppression, due in part to code changes and other requirements. The FC is currently asking for the unused funds (up to $235,000) allocated for the septic system to be reallocated to help cover overages for other site considerations that are currently under construction, such as the fire suppression and water treatment systems. Staff spent time recently with FC staff to look at the site’s organization, context, and appearance with the new learning center building in place. Overall goals are for the site to be clean, tidy, organized, and inviting toward effective public engagement and food production through reducing clutter and increasing screening in certain areas. Eden identified key landmarks on a map, identifying newly added structures, the large dirt pile, and equipment storage. Approaching completion of construction, the FC is looking to replace certain infrastructure, screen the operations area, move pre-existing infrastructure out of the riparian area, and consolidate the operations area. The FC is looking to bring the site into compliance with the master plan as they wrap up construction. Eden noted that the FC’s land use approval includes a production greenhouse that, along with other elements, would help screen operations from the highway view. Eden identified the current location of the tiny homes and the plan to relocate them closer to where the other housing is located. Ann asked for more details on the riparian area; Eden explained that the goal is to move most infrastructure out of this area and that these elements pre-date the FC’s operation. Ann asked for clarification of the contractor; Eden mentioned that certain work is under various sub- contractors. Ann asked about the recent realignment of Highway 82 and how that has affected the FC; Eden responded that this has been a positive change. Howie asked about the totality of the multi-year FC project, requesting the overall financial cost of the project and the proportions that are equity from the FC and the City. Eden explained that the building and associated costs were $7 million, of which $725,000 (if this reallocation is approved) comes from the City, $1 million was federal funds, and the rest was private and foundation contributions. Howie asked how many employees FC has; Eden said that FC typically has 17 FTEs, four of which are currently open positions. Howie asked how many employees live in the tiny homes; Eden explained that current dorm-style housing is for summer apprentices who are not technically employees, and that the new tiny homes will include housing for one full-time employee. Howie asked for the cost of a tiny home; Eden said that the used ones currently on hold in Rifle are $80,000 each, while new tiny homes are typically $250,000. Howie asked if FC has discussed year-round housing with the County; Eden said that the ordinance was changed earlier in 2025 to allow a self-contained housing unit to be kept on site through the growing season and to be winterized, or an option for a second unit for year-round habitation. Howie expressed that this is a positive change. Dan asked about City funding that had been used as a match; Eden said that it was probably the federal dollars. Adam added that construction had to start by a certain time in order for the federal funding to come through. A FC board member added that there was a change to the fifth condition, which was a slight language change to provide more flexibility in the final placement of the tiny homes to a “staff-approved location” because the current language specifies a certain location (behind the greenhouse). FC would like the flexible language to apply as well to potential new temporary housing. Eden added that FC hopes the housing can be placed in the limited common element, as other housing is, in order to make it more applicable and optimal. Howie asked about any landscaping provisions, such as trees, associated with the tiny homes. Eden shared view planes that demonstrate existing landscaping at desired housing locations; if housing was required to be placed as current language describes, then landscaping would need to be planted. Howie asked for staff input. Matt spoke about the staff time spent with Eden and staff recently and how the site is coming along to realize and reflect the vision portrayed several years ago when the project began. There was also discussion of the additional funds that exist resulting from the cost savings associated with the septic infrastructure. Staff continues to feel it is important to support the FC, and the best way to do that is through the elements of infrastructure that are in the ground and part of the site. Eden has provided rough estimations for improvements to the fire suppression, as well as improvements to water, landscaping and irrigation; these total $186,000 and staff feels that these are appropriate to support. Staff will go back to City Council to ask for changes to the resolution to make the excess funds available for these uses. Staff suggested a few conditions to FC staff that would be tied to this funding, pertaining to the tidiness and organization of the site and including moving the rolling greenhouse into the food production zones to reduce density in the core area. Current temporary staff housing should be placed behind the permanent greenhouse, and if new housing structures are purchased, locating these in the common area could be a viable option. The FC will bear the costs of the units and locating them, while the City will incur some related expenses. Language will be edited to reflect staff approval for locations. Staff feels that these are minor yet important and timely conditions. Staff sees two options for the remaining funds: one being returning the remaining $52,000 into the fund balance, the second (preferred) is to release the $52,000 to site improvements, including out buildings or pole barns to spur the clean-up and moving of operations out of the riparian area. This work will likely cost more than $52,000, but these funds would cover initial costs. Matt added that the leaning center is beautiful and the space is coming along, and that City support is appropriate for some of the areas that may be lower priorities for the FC, to ensure that the site is well-organized. Adam asked where additional funds beyond $52,000 would come from. Matt explained that this has not been determined and that any new structures would be modest. Dan asked for clarification of the remaining funds. John explained that a total of $235,000 remains; of this, the FC has identified 186,000 worth of expenses, and $52,000 is the difference. Matt added that it is important to ensure that the City’s expenditures are going to actual infrastructure costs; the $186,000 figure is based on recent conversations concerning FC’s estimations and their ability to document those expenses. Eden clarified that the $186,000 reflects an overage, above the funds already spent on fire suppression, water, etc. Dan initiated board discussion of authorization of the $186,000 for FC overages, and what to do with the remaining $52,000 if it is authorized. Matt added a third item of discussion for the Board regarding placement of the FC’s new structures within the common space. Dan asked for clarification of the water supply and whether the work that is happening is just for the learning center or the whole site. Eden explained that the portion of the $186,000 that is represented for water, is primarily for treatment, with a small amount for water supply (to get water from the well to the FC site). The only significant benefit to the whole site is the fire suppression system (hydrant and tanks), which was a land use requirement. Ted asked if it is within the Board’s boundaries to recommend a change such as the use of funds for septic versus other uses. John explained that these parameters were established by staff and the FC together as part of the agreement, and it had stemmed from this Board’s discussion. Howie asked what would happen to this money if it is not spent. Matt said in that case, the City would not offset these overages and Eden would look to his board and donors. Howie asked if this makes for a better overall City-owned property, and if FC were to leave, would these expenditures make sense for the site and its future occupants. John mentioned that none of these expenses are extra “fluff.” Adam expressed that he feels these expenditures are important investments that make sense, and he expressed his support for extending the $186,000 to cover overages and the $52,000 for the additional work. Ann asked if the original allocation was made in 2024; Matt clarified that it was allocated in 2024 and carried over in 2025. Ann expressed her overall support. Ted echoed his support and expressed that the funding should be strictly accounted for. Julie added her support. Howie asked if FC will be able to produce more food than prior to this project. Eden said that staffing and housing are at the core of the FC’s ability to produce food, and that there is a lot of potential for more production. Dan recalled the difficult initial decision on funding this project and expressed that the project’s coming in under budget should benefit taxpayers or the Parks Department first. Ted added that the remaining items feel like a punch list, and that so much has been learned since the beginning of the project. Dan mentioned that the City has not looked to invest in built infrastructure on City properties. Ann suggested comparing the impact of the money going into these final efforts for the FC project versus going back into the budget, commenting that these items that will get the FC project over the finish line benefit both the FC and any future tenant. She said that this will result in known benefits compared to going back into the budget for general use. Howie expressed his support for keeping the money on site and not returning it to the general fund. Adam asked for clarification in the instance that a lessee leaves, whether the infrastructure they build would then become property of the City. Matt said that the land use application states that the building is tied to the land, which is owned by the City. Austin added that the tiny homes would not be considered tied to the land. A FC Board member said that they went through this project with the understanding that all of the dollars raised were going into City infrastructure. Another board member commented on the long-term view of the FC has. Dan mentioned that there seems to be a fairly strong board consensus and suggested a motion. Adam made a motion to advance staff’s recommendations for the remaining funds to City Council with the OSTB’s endorsement. Ted seconded and the vote was unanimous. Matt said that next steps would be taking this to City Council. Howie asked if approval of funds would be made at the staff level. Matt said that because the funds have already been allocated, this will be a fairly minor change; everything is in place for the use of these funds up to the amount authorized. Howie asked how long the FC’s lease is; John said it ends in 2028, but they can exercise a 5-year extension with a 4-year eleven-month extension beyond that. Old Business: None. Staff Comments: Capital Project Updates: John mentioned that the City has a new forester, Heather Gale, who came from Englewood where her role included managing other teams in addition to forestry. Matt explained that the floor is open for Q & A during this presentation, and that it has been a busy year. This presentation will close out our summer season and serve as inspiration for future plans. Bathrooms at Herron Park: Landscaping was installed this spring for total completion of this project. Mike highlighted the dry river handles runoff coming off the roof. Cozy Point Ranch grading and drainage: This project is 100% complete; finishing touches in the staging area will be done in the next 2 weeks. Archery Range: This project is completed; partnering with CPW was a great collaboration for the City, making the funds go a long way. Howie asked if it is open the public; Mike said that it is open to the public and that positive feedback has been received. Austin added that it is probably the nicest archery range on the western slope. Mike said that use has increased so much that targets may need to be replaced soon. Armory Building and Connor Park: This redevelopment project is proceeding on track for construction documentation with Shaw Construction as the contractor. The project is modifying a historic resource, hence the high price tag. This work goes hand in hand with redeveloping Connor Park, for which fund are allocated. Mike shared renderings of Connor Park, including a deck around a large tree and a gathering area. Stabilized crusher fines is the surface material currently proposed. Adam asked why this choice versus grass or turf. Mike said that grass is everybody’s preference, however with the significant use changes anticipated, there is no natural turf that could handle that level of use. Matt used the parks at the Louvre as an example of use of a similar material (decomposed granite) where use is heavy; Connor Park is comparatively tiny, and heavy use concentrated there makes grass impractical. Howie asked if there is a better way to interface the east façade of the building with the park; Mike explained the new vestibule on the east façade which provides a direct connection to the park and also serves as an ADA entry. Dan asked about relocating the WeCycle station. Mike said that this topic was brought to Council, and that Council determined WeCycle will be located in the alley. Life One Corridor: The developer is still working through the permit application process, and they received phase zero approval, which includes the first phase of utilities, stabilization of historic buildings, and restoration of the historic lift (to be done offsite; historic base station and four towers). This triggers tree removal which is a significant impact even though they will only remove trees necessary to build the development. The Board should be aware that the project is starting and that community feedback is expected. This is part of Ordinance # 39. Matt said that removal of 12-15 trees, totaling $92,000, has been paid for. The remainder of tree removal fees will be paid when the developer receives their full permit. Howie asked if the tree removal fees will support replacement of the lost trees; Matt said that tree mitigation fees go into the Parks fund, and in this case will cover Parks expenses for this project. Dan asked if the Skier Chalet has been moved; Mike showed where its final location will be. Dan asked what is happening to the volleyball courts; Matt said that this area will house the ski lift terminal, patio and park space. Mike added that there is value in reminding people that this was a voter approved project. Theatre Aspen: Theatre Aspen is starting to move on this concept; they have retained a project planner and are assembling a project team. Dan asked if they are initiating a land use process. Mike said that the path is cleared for them to proceed with a land use application. Council has expressed some desire for taking this to the community for a vote. Pedestrian Mall Safety Initiative: This began in 2019, when the City conducted an outreach effort. Underlying this project is failing utilities beneath the mall, along with substandard bricks and ADA issues. This culminated in a schematic design in 2022 that informed certain decision making but has not been fully embraced. Since then, the need for safety has become apparent; the Aspen Police Department worked with Homeland Security and identified the Ped Malls as a security concern. The response to this was installation of surface-mounted meridian barriers that can stop a crash-rated vehicle. These are installed during busy events such as Food and Wine and Fourth of July. Community feedback is not positive; covers were made to lessen visual impact. Parks entered a contract in July with Design Workshop and Sherwin Engineers to focus on the Wheeler Opera House node. Three alternatives were developed: 1- status quo, which will need to be expanded, 2- permanent fixed traffic-rated and moveable traffic-rated bollards, and 3- a re-design of the intersection with a grade-separated curb line with security bollards, which would be a significant expense. Dan asked about considerations for the bricks. Mike explained that the historic brick is largely failing; it is maintained yearly. The schematic calls for historic brick in a couple of key places; the majority of the ped mall surface would be replaced to meet ADA standards. Dan asked if the components of this project would happen independently or if they would need to be coordinated. Mike said that this is TBD. Matt said that Parks seeks direction from City Council, and that if they would like to pursue a large-scale project, it will be the subject of much discussion. Howie asked about the bollards by the North of Nell, and whether these are being considered for this project. Mike said that these are retractable bollards and would be used for emergency and maintenance access points. Wagner Playground: Mike mentioned that work on this project began after July 4th, and two weeks ago the playground was installed. The poured-in place surfacing is the last step before opening to the public which is anticipated on October 3rd. The ribbon-cutting will be held on October 27th. Ute Cemetery Management Plan: the draft management plan, including Board comments, is now posted on Aspen Community Voice through the first week of October. Comments will be incorporated, and the draft will then be brought back to this Board. Water at Cozy Point Ranch: Current work is to solve the sulphur in the water at Well #2, which is the well that serves the FC, the camp cabin, and could also serve other future uses. Various consultants have been involved, and Nick Oliver has conducted robust water testing. A treatment system design has been developed that will address the majority of the problems. This system will require additional space, possibly as an addition to the camp cabin. This water will supply the camp cabin and the FC building, where it will go through a second treatment system. Adam asked why the system in the FC building couldn’t be used for the rest of the site. Matt explained that this approach will be a robust and science-based solution; the elements that are being filtered are not simple to treat and require special treatment systems. Howie asked if the sulphur problem is unique to Cozy Point; Matt said that it is unique to the specific well on Cozy Point Ranch but is not uncommon for other water sourced in the Mancos Shale formation. Dan asked if this is an expensive project; Matt said that a $1 million place holder was included in the budget; the treatment component is in the $20,000 range plus additional component costs. As this project progresses, there are more decisions to be made. Interpretive sign project: Thirty-six signs, including three new panels at Burlingame, are being replaced with the same consultant that worked on the John Denver Sanctuary. Production is underway and installation will take place in November. Howie asked for the cost of a panel. John said that the design, fabrication and installation for these 36 panels was $153,000. Matt added that QR codes will provide a Spanish version of the signs. Adam asked how successful the QR codes have been at Rio Grande Park. Mike said that staff will need to look for these results. Property Surveys: This is an annual effort and four properties were surveyed this year, including the Pride of Aspen. In this process, the City obtains a formal survey and title information, and all corners marked. Staff then marks corners with the department’s special markers. John said that this work is important to understanding property boundaries, for example. John said that Sopris Engineering handles the research and field work for this surveying work and added that this important work helps in cases of encroachment. Trail resurfacing: Chatfield Trail was completed in early summer, and East of Aspen Trail is anticipated next. Resurfacing work is coordinated across departments. Julie asked if East of Aspen is a County trail; Austin explained that the City manages this trail from Stillwater to the west. Castle Creek Underpass: Work will begin to address a bent I-beam in two weeks. There will be trail impacts, but not traffic impacts. ABC to Brush Creek Trail: This County-led project is also known as Twin Bridges. This project will go before the BOCC in November. There is strong support from Pitkin County OFC. This project is very expensive and explores two bridges crossing the Roaring Fork River connecting to the Rio Grande Trail. This will be brought to this Board for a motion in October. John asked the Board if they would like and update and an opportunity to provide another round of support. Ann commented that she feels it is a needed project and supports another site visit. Julie asked if it would impact the road; John said no. John explained another version of this project that would involve attaching the trail to Highway 82 along the shale bluffs, which would be very expensive and would impact traffic. Dan suggested a quick update in October so the Board may craft its support or lack thereof for the BOCC. Howie expressed support for that plan. He added that the proposed project does not need to be two bridges or none at all; the AABC bridge could be done first and the Brush Creek bridge could be built in a later phase. Howie mentioned that the project cost is estimated at $26 million, and Aspen Parks would be a partner. John added that a portion of funding would come from grants. Ann asked if there are any cross sections to show the actual improvement. John said that those drawings are available. Board Comments: Julie: none. Ted: none. Dan: requested a second look at parks use policy, with more context now to consider impacts to parks. Howie: asked about a house being built near Oklahoma Flats Trail on a steep site. Juile mentioned that this was a scrape and re-build project. Ann: asked for updates on Lumberyard and other projects involving traffic impacts. Adam: mentioned that the sinks at Herron Park are hard for small kids to use; perhaps a step could be added. Next Meeting Date(s): Regular meeting October 16, 2025. Executive Session: N/A Adjourned: Howie made a motion to adjourn; (not captured in the recording) seconded, and the vote was unanimous.