Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.OSTB.20220721 MINUTES City of Aspen, Open Space and Trails Board Meeting Held on July 21, 2022 5:00pm at Pearl Pass Room, Aspen City Hall City OST Board Members Present: Julie Hardman, Howie Mallory, Ann Mullins, Dan Perl City Staff Members Present: Steve Barr, Matt Kuhn, Brian Long, Nick Oliver Adoption of the Agenda: Ann made a motion to approve the agenda; Julie seconded and the vote was unanimous. Public Comments, for topics not on the agenda: See below under Marolt Three Year Project Prioritization. Approval of the Minutes: Ann made a motion to approve the minutes; Julie seconded and the vote was unanimous. Staff Comments: Matt: Introduced Nick Oliver, the new Cozy Point Ranch Manager, and Steve Barr, Parks Operations Manager. City Council will visit Cozy Point Ranch next Monday to discuss the capital plan on site and will also visit the site of the Maroon Creek Multi-Use Trail; Board members are invited. Staff will present on two topics at a City Council work session on August 1st: Half Cent Reauthorization and Parks Special Use Policy. A large special event at Rio Grande Park may also be presented to Council at that time. The City, County and USFS have partnered to conduct a Recreation Management Capacity Survey to begin July 21st. Utah State University is participating and will perform surveys at trailheads including Smuggler. Due to a major washout, the Grindley Trail will be closed for the rest of summer. Brian: Trail work on Maroon Creek Bridge will take place the week of August 22nd; this will affect Maroon Creek Trail. Ann asked how this will be communicated to the public; Brian is working with Mitzi Rapkin on this. New Business: •Theatre Aspen Sketch Plan Review: Theatre Aspen is planning to submit a proposal to P&Z for a permanent structure to replace the current tent in the John Denver Sanctuary at Rio Grande Park. The sketch plan review will provide feedback from Council prior to application. The review will take place in a joint work session with City Council, P&Z, and the Open Space Board on August 8th at 4pm. Julie asked whether staff will provide details; Matt said that details will be available when the memo is published. Ann asked if Parks has a policy about permanent structures. Matt explained that the land use process will advise on this. •Marolt Three Year Project Prioritization: Staff seeks Board direction on project prioritization at the Marolt Open Space. Matt summarized progress on current projects over the past 6 months and then presented three outlying projects to discuss for prioritization: Community Garden: Needs include revisiting garden management with its 100 existing plots, low turnover rate, and wait list of 100+. Matt pointed out garden management challenges and potential ways to address them. Ann asked whether large plots could be split and whether there is another location to create another community garden. Matt explained that the Marolt is an ideal location, having ditch water and community-specified garden use. Splitting plots could be considered as plots turn over. Ann suggested paid staff to manage the garden. Matt said that additional Parks support for the community garden group is planned. Bike Skills Park: Matt described the concept (two descent trails and a climbing trail), location (shrubland hillside between Marolt Housing and Castle Creek Road), wildlife habitat value, and other relevant factors (fuel reduction/fire risk, transient camping, parking/access, community dialogue, etc.). This concept would involve a public process. Staff seeks Board direction for an outcome-based approach. Parking Area: This impacted, one-acre area has been used for parking, staging, and snow storage. Possibilities for this space include: dedicated parking lot (with the garden and bike skills park in mind), formalized snow storage, or restoration (eliminating parking). Matt explained the budget that is earmarked for such improvements over the next three years. Dan invited members of the public to comment: Mike Pritchard of Roaring Fork Mountain Bike Association (RFMBA) commented on the bike skills park concept, mentioning potential value as an amenity for community youth. He commented on parking, preserving vegetation, seasonal use, funding, and efficient use of the site. RFMBA would like to see the City approve and fund this amenity and added that other funding sources could assist. He explained that the site’s 6% grade is appropriate for this use. Tess Weaver, parent of 8-year-old cyclist, shared that her family bikes to school and would like this amenity to support biking among youth. Michael Shae, father of cycling enthusiast children, shared his kids’ love of biking and riding to school. He expressed support for the bike skills park concept toward developing bike skills, independence, and connecting with the outdoors. He shared that clear explanation of location and scope is important for public understanding and encouraged Board support. Dan shared additional public input from someone who was not present: this person expressed concern for wildlife including deer with fawns that use the area where the bike skills park is proposed and concerns about food waste in the community garden. Ann asked whether the proposed bike park site is effectively accessible by bike. Mike P. explained that it is accessible via a number of bike trails. Ann asked whether the park would be geared toward certain ages. Mike P. explained that it would serve beginner to intermediate riders, primarily a young age set. Ann asked about loss of vegetation cover; Mike P. explained that trails would be 3-5 feet wide with an 8- to 10-foot impact corridor. Ann asked how maintenance would be managed and whether Parks staff can take it on. Matt explained that maintenance would likely fall on Parks staff with the possibility of others being involved; this is important as maintenance is a factor toward safe riding conditions from a liability standpoint as well. Scale of maintenance will depend on scope. Mike P. mentioned annual contracted maintenance could cost $3,000 - $5,000 with $10,000 of refresh work less often. The Board discussed prioritization. Howie suggested a site visit and support for the bike skills park as a close second priority after the community garden. Julie commented on the value of a bike park and the importance of starting with public education on location and scope as this is presented to the community. She expressed her support of the bike skills park as a first priority due to implementation time and the current lack of this type of amenity, and that parking should be third priority. Ann expressed that because the parking area currently functions in a basic way it could be last priority. The community garden could be first priority because of its significance and the long waiting list, and the bike park could be a close second priority based on community concern. Dan expressed support for the bike skills park as a first priority considering the trail hub function of the Marolt Open Space, and parking as a second priority to support the bike skills park and garden. He suggested the term “bike skills trail.” Ann added that if the Board supports the bike skills trail as first priority, she could also support that if there is not too much community opposition; the gardeners on the wait list may need to be appeased if a new amenity is pursued before the garden. Howie asked why prioritization is necessary. Matt explained that land use and public processes involved with these projects are expected to require significant staff time and must be planned with those demands in mind. Matt summarized Board input: a site visit is desired and a bike skills park planning process will be the first priority, followed by a community garden process. Dan suggested that some progress could be made with community garden management in the meantime. Julie asked whether the waitlist is current; Matt explained that any changes in management must be done carefully and that the conversation includes discussion of a potential additional community garden. Timeline and scoping will be addressed in upcoming meetings. Old Business: Parks Special Use Policy Drafting: Staff seeks a general Board discussion in preparation for upcoming discussions with Council about special events. Matt described current special events policy in the municipal code that defines large events requiring permits. New trends in use of parks, such as businesses and individuals conducting training, yoga, catered picnics, weddings, etc., have risen steeply in volume recently. Such events have been managed through special use permits. The foremost purpose of the parks is public use, and the rise in number and complexity of these events is causing greater impacts on public use. Staff seeks Board input on considerations for bringing related policy changes to Council. A discussion followed in which various factors were addressed: thresholds for size of gatherings requiring permits, impacts on residents adjacent to park spaces, small business operators, possible different treatment for semi-private events (ex. AVSC picnic), John Denver Sanctuary as a contemplative space, and prohibition of special events/uses on open space properties. Ongoing discussion items will include draft language this fall, including fee policy revisions. Municipal code changes require two readings. Matt asked the Board for any additional considerations. Julie shared related special use/events approaches in Snowmass Village; she suggested limiting special uses by professional outfits to help parks continue to serve the public. Steve shared that professional party planners fill the calendar early and that this may be squeezing out private users; there may be a need to preserve availability for private and general public use. Dan suggested that the Board could bring potential solutions to the next meeting. Matt explained that the upcoming Council discussion on this will be over-arching. Ann mentioned that the negligible income from fees needs to be explained to inform Council that it is not critical to Parks’ budget. Ann asked about distinctions between events that are open to the public (ex. Ducky Derby) versus ticketed private events (ex. Food & Wine); she also emphasized the need to consider the basic purpose of our park spaces. Various uses and associated impacts were discussed and compared. Howie mentioned that individual parks are limited in size and appropriate uses; he encouraged limiting the number of activities in parks to preserve these spaces as public resources that were created by and for the community. Dan suggested that permits could be considered at one time annually in order to allocate equitably. Half Cent Reauthorization: Matt provided a general update and shared results of June polling: 86% of those polled support a permanent reauthorization. This robust response supports Parks’ moving forward with permanent reauthorization. At the August 1st Council work session, Parks will ask Council for permission to bring formal ballot language. Bonding will be addressed at a later time. Howie added that Adam McCurdy chairs the committee for community awareness of the reauthorization. Adam is creating an informational website and a 501c3 to accept donations. Howie emphasized that Board members will be ambassadors of this effort. Maroon Creek Multi-Use Trail: Staff seeks Board comments on the schematic design alignment toward taking this to the County with this Board’s support. Phase Two (construction and permitting documents) will begin in August, with construction planned for 2023. Matt described trail design aspects including solutions to various alignment challenges. Staff is happy with the design; cost is about $4 million. Dan asked for Matt’s slides; he will provide them to the Board. This update will be presented to Pitkin County Open Space on August 4th. Board Comments: None. Next Meeting Date(s): Regular meeting August 18, 2022. Executive Session: N/A Adjourned: Ann made a motion to adjourn; Dan seconded and the vote was unanimous.