Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes.OSB.20230119 MINUTES City of Aspen, Open Space and Trails Board Meeting Held on January 19, 2023 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, Michael Tunte, Nick Oliver Adoption of the Agenda: Dan made a motion to approve the agenda; Ann seconded and the vote was unanimous. Public Comments, for topics not on the agenda: None. Approval of the Minutes: Adam commented that he thinks the electric utility mentioned in the Nordic snowmaking discussion should be noted as Holy Cross and not City of Aspen Electric Utility. John will check this. Ann made a motion to approve the minutes; Dan seconded and the vote was unanimous. Staff Comments: John: Reporting on Nordic trail use counts: there was a problem with downloading current count data. John offered to provide a summary of Nordic counts from previous years in lieu of this year’s data, in response to the Board’s request for such data related to the snowmaking topic. The Board was agreeable to this. New Business: Farm Collaborative (FC) Annual Report Recap: Eden of the Farm Collaborative (FC) provided a summary of the organization’s annual report, noting that it was a strong year. The organization’s mission is to connect children and the community to nature through farming and food. Eden presented slides of highlights and a recap of the organization’s growth and progress: there are 15 Board members, 17 staff (including seasonal labor), 157 Two Forks Club members (this program made four loans for of $76,000 for 2023; a second round of loans will be made in spring), and 14 partner organizations. Eden showed slides depicting the growth of the organization and its programs. Eden provided a recap of Agricultural Activities: The Farm Park is open to visitors for free 365 days/year to learn, visit, share, and explore; annual visitation is estimated at 7,500. FC harvested a total of 11,000 lbs of produce; 1,865 lbs went to regional food pantries and 3,000 lbs went to Seniors Matter Shares. Membership in the Two Forks club increased to 157 members allowing them to make more loans. Two tiny homes were purchased and deployed to house farm workers during the growing season. FC partnered with University of Colorado Capstone students who, through their research, created a white paper, “Building a Farmer Support Ecosystem,“ a deployment plan, and a prototype website. The goal of this program is to support farmers of diverse backgrounds. FC raised over 350 chickens and 60 lambs, as well as goats, bunnies, and alpacas. 18,000 eggs were produced. Eden recapped Education and Recreation: The Earth Keepers program sold out within 48 hours and was at full capacity for the second year in a row. FC conducted 100 days of child-attended programming and 93 days of multiple programs running simultaneously at the Farm Park. 15% of participants were on scholarships; this year’s goal is 20%. Earth Keepers Jr. had 46 participants. Participants in the Eco-Apprenticeship Program for ages 12-16 doubled: 26 participants learned the basics of growing their own food, raising animals, harvesting wild food, preserving food, making handcrafted products, cooking, and learning earth stewardship. The Personal Farm Experience program had 20 participants. 37 school groups from 11 schools and pre-schools between Aspen and Glenwood Springs visited the FarmPark, totaling 734 kids ages 1 through 18. FC hosted 4 interns and 3 farmer incubees. Adult programs for farmers, agronomists, and nature enthusiasts hosted 54 participants in a new 10-week series. Farm-to- Fridge, the annual free community meal, served 1,500 people. FC published 9 issues of Edible Aspen. Dan asked about the other programs involved with Edible Aspen; Eden explained that they include Two Forks Club, Earth Keepers, and FC. Eden next addressed capital improvements, listing six 2022 and to-date line items totaling $1,149,713 at the five year point. The Etkin Family Learning Greenhouse was built in 2021 and was used for summer programming and as a greenhouse. FC received final approvals by Pitkin County commissioners for the new facility. An approved building permit is expected around March 2023 and they plan to break ground shortly after. FC received $966,000 through the Congressional Omnibus budget package for the all-electric community kitchen portion of the new FC learning campus building. This, combined with raised funding, provides $4.5 million for the building. Utilities are not budgeted; this is a challenge FC would like to discuss today. Ann asked for clarification of the Congressional Omnibus. Eden explained that this is the federal budget package for the year; Senator Hickenlooper supported the FC toward this funding. Needed utility funding includes costs for septic, fire suppression, and water purification. Julie asked about the buildings that are in need of repair; Eden explained that those buildings are outside of the FC’s lease area. John added that these are original structures awaiting repair. Eden introduced three Board members who were present: Jeff Davlyn Board President, Betsy, and Dennis Young. Dan asked for more information on the FC’s revenue stream. Eden explained that 25-23% is earned income, 70% is contributed income (10% grants, 90% from individuals). Jeff shared that he has been involved with the FC for 10 years and expressed gratitude for Parks’ support. Betsy, shared about her role and FC’s leadership opportunities, partnerships, and grants. Dennis shared about his entrepreneurial consultant role. Eden explained the FC’s two asks of the Open Space program. The first is for help with site infrastructure components which will benefit all future operations at Cozy Point Ranch. He mentioned that the FC has a limited time to use their Omnibus funding because it is part of the 2023 budget. The second ask is regarding the lease and the organization’s sustainability. FC Infrastructure Needs and Utility Improvements Adam asked Eden to focus first on infrastructure needs. Eden explained the need for a fire suppression system likely involving a large tank located somewhere high on the property. Water purification to treat the site’s high sulfur water is another need. Both would benefit all operations on the ranch. The greatest infrastructure need is a septic system. Because of the nature of the lease boundaries, the only potential location for septic is across Brush Creek if FC finances the system; this scenario would be very expensive. If it is possible to consider potential septic sites site-wide, then there are other options. This situation is a limiting factor for FC’s ability to submit for a building permit. Julie asked for clarification of the location and distance rationale for the septic system. Eden explained the combination of limiting factors in terms of available space and proximity to the building. Adam asked John to update the Board on items that would benefit the whole site. John explained that fire suppression is a site-wide need at Cozy Point Ranch. There is a currently a fire suppression exemption based on the ages of the structures, but if any buildings beyond the FC’s proposed building are changed, those buildings would need to be brought up to current code with a fire suppression system. Staff investigation into this is underway; options include the tank scenario which would satisfy FC’s needs. Another potential option involves connecting to the Brush Creek Metro District’s fire hydrant system; this has not been discussed with the district. Regarding water delivery, Parks is working with an organization on well water treatment which has proven to be very difficult. One potential solution is to re-drill Well #2 in hopes of reaching better water quality. The two existing wells are about 500 yards apart; Well # 1 delivers good quality water (supplies ranch manager’s cabin, residents, barn, and hose bibs for horses); Well # 2 delivers sulfur-influenced water. Limitations on water volume from these wells relates to water rights. This summer Nick will lead an investigation into re-drilling Well # 2. On the septic topic, John explained offsets needed between locations of various infrastructure. Discharge to Brush Creek is not possible due to low and inconsistent stream flows. Adam commented that the fire suppression item presents an opportunity to address this from a site-wide standpoint. Adam asked whether new housing would be served by Well #1; John said it would be. Adam asked about septic as it relates to FC as well as the barn and residences. John explained that the current re-grading project includes consolidating the existing septic system that services the barn and residences. This system cannot accommodate the FC’s proposed needs; further, if Parks expands housing, more septic capacity will be needed. Mike added that the existing systems are grandfathered in and are sited within setbacks; any changes to these systems will involve abandoning them and rebuilding to move them out of setbacks and meet current code. Very few areas can accommodate a leachfield. Ann asked about whether staff are considering trying to transfer water rights from Well #2 to Well #1. John said that has been considered. In addition, staff have identified a company that can re-drill Well #2; if non-sulfur water is found, then rights from Well #2 could be transferred to the new well. Ann asked for clarification of what staff need from the Board with regard to theses topics. Eden replied that he has figures for what would be needed specifically for the FC building, but his ask is site-wide in light of future general needs regarding septic, water, and fire suppression. Eden expressed that if Parks can pursue these infrastructure solutions now rather than later, that will enable FC to start spending its grant funding and proceeding with construction of its learning center within fiscal year 2023.. Dan asked if there are concerns about the site. John said that the complexities and costs Eden described are accurate. Eden added that there is a lot of maintenance associated with the required pre-treatment facilities and that this could involve liability. Patty mentioned the inconvenience of the leachfield located behind the barn because no other activities can take place there. Eden mentioned alternative options that could be considered; he would like such solutions to be investigated. Ted asked for Eden’s timeline requirements for the Omnibus funding. Eden explained that this funding is for budget year 2023 and that a full check will be issued. FC must begin to spend the funds during 2023; if they are not exhausted in 2023 there is a potential process for using the remainder in subsequent years, but it is not guaranteed. Adam expressed that more information on costs for these items and potential effects on other Parks priorities is needed before the Board is able to make a recommendation. John suggested, for example, that the Board’s recommendation could be to direct staff to prioritize infrastructure-related improvements that would benefit the FC and Cozy Point Ranch. Adam expressed needing more information before being ready to make that type of recommendation. Howie asked if this would require supplemental funds. John said it wouldn’t necessarily; this is a planning exercise rather than an implementation exercise for this year. Howie asked for clarification as to whether the kitchen funding must be fully spent this year; Eden explained that it would be best to do so, but that there is potential to carry the funds over beyond the fiscal year. Howie suggested that a strong backup plan would be important. Adam clarified that the permit is needed before installation can begin. Eden mentioned that the time crunch is on the planning side of things; there are creative ways to spend the money during the relevant time window, but approvals are needed first. Howie asked if the Board would need to be comfortable with a request to Pitkin County. Adam clarified that the request would be within the bounds of the lease and that the Board is already comfortable with that. John explained that as part of the FC’s building permit, Eden identified the leachfield location and its costs, identified Well #2 as the water source and researched purification, and obtained a drawing and costs for a fire suppression system. John suggested that FC give this information to the Board as the proposed system, including the contribution amount FC is asking for from the City. He cited the electrical transformer that the Board voted to help fund as a past example. Adam asked what amount the City would be spending in the future on such infrastructure, and if it could be spent this year instead in coordination with FC. Julie asked Eden why the FC is not presenting the alternative solutions he mentioned; Eden explained that those alternatives are only suitable on a larger, site-wide scale at Cozy Point. John said that staff have not had time to investigate alternatives. John and Mike explained that Parks is moving forward with actions to address the actively failing septic systems on site under present conditions. It is not possible to pause now in order to explore alternatives, but this does not preclude any future alternative approaches. Dan commented that he sees an opportunity to consider a public-private partnership in terms of funding this. Eden said that he will come back to the Board with specific numbers, and mentioned that it is in the ballpark of $1.5 million. Adam also reiterated his request for what the City would be spending in the near future on these infrastructure items. FC Lease renegotiation Howie asked if this topic warrants a Board site visit. Julie asked Eden to point out the lease area on the map; Eden identified the lease area as well as the locations of the leachfield, the new building, etc. Adam said a spring site visit would be helpful for the lease topic. Eden said that FC has invested $2.5 million to date, and they are ready to invest $3.5 million plus the $966,000 for the kitchen, for a total of $5.5 million by the end of 2023 if all goes well. FC is currently on a 10- year lease and they are 5 years in. FC would like to ask Parks for a reset and extension. John clarified that the negotiation would happen between City Council and the FC; in its advisory role, this Board may provide a recommendation. Eden expressed that FC would like the Board’s support as they go to Council. Ann asked for clarification of the renewal options; Eden said the total renewal time would be 19 years and 11 months if granted both renewal options. John added that the first renewal would be automatic and the second renewal would need to be mutual. John added that Patty is also under a 10-year lease with different terms. Commercial Dog Walking: John presented in response to a question raised by Ann during a special event permitting discussion last November. This topic also came up during trail code revision discussions. Staff is seeking Board direction on the inclusion of commercial dog walking within special use permits. John explained reasons why this topic is being discussed: special use permits and parks use policy are going before council, negative interactions occur with other trail users, and there is increased concern about wildlife impacts. Staff researched dog-walking services in Aspen, finding 5 websites and 12 advertised dog-walking service providers. John shared current policy, an ordinance dated 1976, stating the requirement for dog owners to dispose of dog waste, prevent wildlife harassment by their dogs, and the leash law. John shared etiquette guidelines developed by Brian as a hand-out for dog owners in Aspen, including keeping dogs on leash as owners travel about town and locations for watchful dog play, as well as places where dogs are prohibited. Pitkin County’s current policy states that a person may walk no more than three dogs at a time. John described possible paths forward: 1- limit number of dogs per person (as the County does), 2- special use permit for commercial dog walking, 3- status quo (leash and waste laws enforced). Adam asked where complaints are coming from. John mentioned one interaction on Ajax Trail with 8 off-leash dogs and police involvement; other instances have involved dogs in open spaces where they are not permitted; and other situations where dogs have impacted other trail users. He added that those encompass the general nature of the complaints, but that the volume of complaints is fairly low. Howie asked about dogs on Maroon Creek Road and the Pass; this is under Forest Service jurisdiction. Howie asked if staff have had conversations with dog-walking business owners to learn more about how they operate; John said no. Howie suggested it would be good to be consistent with the County regarding number of dogs per person. He asked for clarification of the special use permit; John said that this would apply only to commercial dog-walkers and not the general public. Julie suggested to focus on what is enforceable and definable, noting that the leash law is difficult to enforce. She commented that dog numbers should be limited, adding that she sees commercial dog-walkers more outside of the City rather than within the City, such as at Difficult Campground area. John commented that Marolt sees a lot of this type of use. Julie asked if there could be consensus among agencies on this topic. Ann commented that these are businesses using public spaces and they should be licensed, but regardless, many dogs per person is problematic. She suggested that the limit should be three dogs per person. Ted commented that he supports limits to the number of dogs, adding that irresponsible dog owners will continue be an issue. He expressed support for consistency among agencies. Ted asked if there would be a fee associated with a special use permit; John said it would be a small processing fee. Ted expressed that communicating with dog-walking businesses would be important to let them know that regulations are being discussed. Dan commented that many dog rules exist and he supports status quo. He does not support a special use permit nor consistency with the County. A discussion followed about permitting complexities. Dan suggested that dog-walking business owners should be informed that these discussions are taking place in light of potential impacts on their businesses. Adam added that special permits would allow better tracking and management of incidents; he mentioned that since permits are required of yoga classes, camps, etc. it makes sense to require this of commercial dog-walkers. John added that these permits are related to numbers of participants. Julie asked for Brian’s opinion; John said he probably supports option 3 and maybe option 1 as well given the low number of complaints. Howie expressed his support for option 3. Julie posed that if issues were daily or weekly, more regulation would be appropriate. Julie commented on the leash law that stipulates a 10-foot leash compared to most other regulations that stipulate 6-foot leashes. Ann expressed her support for option 3. Howie commented that this topic can be revisited if problems increase. Howie noted a typographical error within dog ordinance language, a discrepancy in one of the fine amounts: Sec. 6.01.110 Harassing Wildlife Prohibited, 4th bullet: “…five hundred fifty dollars ($500.00) for a second offense…” (Ord 14,2018). Howie made a motion that the Board recommends supporting the status quo based on empirical evidence. Dan seconded and the vote was unanimous. Old Business: None. Board Comments: Julie: Asked if staff have heard back from Theatre Aspen about their proposed project. Mike said that following their last meeting with OSTB, he has reached out several times. Theatre Aspen has arranged for a drilling rig to do soil borings to provide geotechnical information. He anticipates a geotechnical report from this effort; otherwise communication with Theatre Aspen has been fairly quiet. Ted: Mentioned the importance of addressing mounting community concern about potential Entrance to Aspen impacts, citing letters to the editor expressing concerns about inaccurate concepts. Once concerns stemming from inaccurate information build up, the situation can escalate. He suggested providing drawings and other information to correct misinformation. Mike commented that this is a good point. He explained that staff have been looking at impacts through the lens of parks, open space, and trails. Discussions on this topic so far have been transportation-focused; he emphasized that without wrapping in other concerns including those related to open space, it can become difficult. Staff is working on this. Ted added that this topic has a long-range timeframe during which community impressions and sentiment can develop. Howie: Howie added that Ted’s comment is important. He commented that the Entrance project, led by Engineering, could benefit from input through an open space/ landscape architecture lens. The Cut/Cover option can address open space as a design challenge and opportunity, and even show how it could benefit open space and trails. He recommended collaboration with Engineering. Ted added that it could be better to consult with Engineering before they simply hand Parks a plan for the highway. Mike agreed and mentioned that the process to this point has been high level road/bridge design; an RFP for design services will be issued and will include addressing Parks’ interests. Once a design firm is secured, Parks will be actively involved. Howie recalled discussions and decisions from the 1970s on the entrance to Aspen; he mentioned that the plan could be creative, perhaps involving a curve in the highway as a way of meeting certain needs. Dan: Mentioned that he would like to include connections to the Intercept Lot when discussing upgrades at Cozy Point Ranch; he feels the scale of investment warrants improving access. He asked staff for a calendar invite for meetings. Adam: Echoed Dan’s comment on Intercept Lot connections to Cozy Point Ranch. He also mentioned Mill Street Plaza’s plow service that leaves snow spoils on the adjacent trail; this leads to major ice issues on the trail and was a problem last year as well. Adam asked whether the Board can make motions to support or oppose Entrance to Aspen approaches, and make public statements. Ann: Agreed with the importance of working on Intercept lot connections to Cozy Point Ranch; she suggested discussing this with EOTC because they would be involved with funding on the Intercept Lot side of this concept. She asked about the large pile of soil at Cozy Point Ranch. Mike explained that this is stockpiled material that will be used this summer during phase two of the re-grading project. It is valuable valley topsoil and is maintained per erosion control and water quality; there are monthly inspections. Ann also commented that she expects the Entrance to Aspen topic to be on the ballot in November and that it is important for the community to hear from Parks to address community concerns and misunderstandings in advance. She also expressed interest in the story of ACES’ chain link fence. Next Meeting Date(s): Regular meeting February 16, 2023. Executive Session: N/A Adjourned: Howie made a motion to adjourn; Julie seconded and the vote was unanimous.