Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes.OSB.20230817 MINUTES City of Aspen, Open Space and Trails Board Meeting Held on August 17, 2023 5:00pm at Pearl Pass Room, Aspen City Hall City OST Board Members Present: Ted Mahon, Adam McCurdy, Dan Perl, Julie (arrived late) City Staff Members Present: John Spiess, Matt Kuhn, Austin Weiss, Brian Long Adoption of the Agenda: Dan made a motion to approve the agenda; Ted seconded and the vote was unanimous. Public Comments, for topics not on the agenda: Fran Soroka representing Cozy Point LLC thanked staff for the improved parking lot and for the stone entry and walkway, all of which are functioning very well and appreciated. Approval of the Minutes: Ted made a motion to approve the minutes; Dan seconded and the vote was unanimous. Staff Comments: Austin: None. John: Gathered the Board’s preference on timing for the November 2nd joint City-County Open Space Board Meeting: noon. Matt: September 14th 4-6pm is the Dolensik Grand Opening. AVLT is under contract for the COBS Marble Basecamp property. A $1 million GOCO grant was secured and AVLT is also grateful for the City’s contribution; ongoing fundraising will support long-term maintenance. John will have a guaranteed maximum price next Monday for the Maroon Creek Trail project; if within budget, this will go to Council soon. Mike will send to bid and secure a contractor in the next several weeks for 2024 Iselin tennis/pickleball facility construction. Stutzman Gerbaz will install a new septic system at Cozy Point Ranch this fall; paddock grading will take place next spring. Adam asked which facilities the septic system will serve; it will serve Cozy Point LLC. A citizen has offered $250,000 to fund replacement of the Wagner Park playground; this helps move this project forward; a capital project will be created in Parks’ budget to match the private funds toward an expected total cost of $500,000. Julie asked if Wagner Park’s footprint would change and whether the donor has a timeframe for completion; Matt explained that there would be no footprint change and there is no specified timing. Dovetailing this project with planned utilities work next fall would be ideal. Dan expressed sentimental support for the tooth; a discussion followed about the playground’s aging features and thoughtful design for new elements. Brian: Marolt Bike Skills Area Update: with Mike Pritchard (Roaring Fork Mountain Bike Association, RFMBA), Brian updated the Board on this concept exploration process: RFMBA has been outlining the public engagement period and has been working with Progressive Trail Design (PTD) to create materials to present to the Board and the public. After public engagement, they will report and seek further direction. Emily Ford (Communication Specialist, City Manager’s Office) will help with public outreach. Mike explained that they surveyed the site (between Castle Creek Road and Marolt Place) and secured private funding for PTD’s work. This would be a “skills development area” and most vegetation would be retained. It would be a design-build process; if PTD is selected and their bid is appropriate, they would build the project. Detailed designs will be developed next; the vision is for one climbing trail and two or three descending trails totaling 0.75 to 1 mi. of trail. RFMBA will return on September 21st with detailed designs toward Board feedback and documents to share with the public. Public process may include a survey and public open house on site. RFMBA envisions a combination of City and private funds to execute this project next summer. Dan asked for a budget. Mike said it may be +/-$250,000; he will have a more accurate cost next month. Dan asked for more information on private funding; Mike explained that several local families whose children would benefit from this amenity contributed the funding. Dan asked how much additional funding RFMBA would contribute; Mike said it would likely be matching funds at 50%. Ted commented on the public’s prior negative response to this concept and the formation of the group “Keep Marolt Open Space Open;” he emphasized the importance of clear communication to avoid misconceptions. Adam suggested reaching out to the group before public outreach begins. Julie commented that the exact location is important to clarify. Mike commented that the term “bike park” may have caused concern. Emily added that the public engagement process is in preliminary stages. They will engage with stakeholders including those in proximity to the site and the group. John added that the September 21st meeting could be held on site to facilitate a discussion. Brian mentioned that Board feedback at that meeting will be important to address anything before materials go to the public. Matt commented that individual site visits are possible prior to the on-site Board meeting. New Business: None. Old Business: Theatre Aspen Project: Present for this topic: Graham Mason, Charles Cunniffe, Jed Bernstein, Carrie DeGraw, Ashley Sadville, Britt Marden, Alan Richmond. Mike explained the group’s goal of gathering Board feedback on the project’s suitability and compatibility with Rio Grande Park and John Denver Sanctuary, given the general context of the park and the direction of the vision. Approvals and process will be discussed at a future time. Mike provided background on the process of this proposed project to date. More recently, a geotechnical report has been obtained and prior Board feedback has been incorporated. Theatre Aspen has hired an attorney to assist during the approval process. Jed outlined the presentation: rationale for the project, design, projected usage plan, geotechnical study, and lease issues. On rationale, Jed explained that the proposed facility would allow year-round use, expand educational offerings, upgrade technology to meet audience needs and industry standards, and provide two performance spaces that are right- sized to compliment other local theater facilities. Charles explained the evolution of the project’s conceptual design, with comparisons to illustrate changes per prior Board feedback. The current design includes a portion of hardscape on the green roof, a trellis-covered plaza area, and a sculptural design to blend the “fly” which is the tallest portion of the facility with a height of 28’ (maximum allowed). Materials would tie together with those used in the park’s restrooms and other structures. Charles showed drawings and explained the various areas of the proposed theater, including architectural features designed to reduce visual impact and blend with surroundings. He provided comparisons of the existing and proposed facilities. Jed presented projected usage: he compared current usage (140-150 days/year) with projected usage (207 days), leaving about 150 days that could be used by other groups. The intent is to make it as usable as possible for the community. Regarding the geotechnical study, Charles described the building as a rock in a river; the water around the building will not interact with the building. The proposed building will be more energy-efficient than the current tent structure. Disturbance to Rio Grande Trail will be minimal. Mill Street will be the primary access route as it is designed to handle a fire truck. Charles provided examples of other Aspen construction and timeframes for completion to help illustrate the time estimate for this project. Jed addressed key lease issues, including lease term. The term must be longer in order for the investment to make sense; it also cannot be too long or it may be viewed as a sale of public land. Third party use must be managed according to what the community wants. Another consideration is whether the City may decide against having a theater in this park at some point, and who would bear the cost of removing the building. Theater Aspen’s and the City’s attorneys are looking closely at whether a public vote is necessary; Theater Aspen believes there is a path forward that does not require a vote; this needs to be fully researched. There are many public benefits of this project, including consolidating rehearsals, etc. at one location. Proposed uses are consistent with how the space has been used for more than 20 years. The basis is converting a temporary facility with a permanent one. Council expressed that construction impacts are a major challenge. Ted asked for the budget; Jed said it would be $40-50 million, including an endowment, privately funded. The City would be involved with aspects such as sewer, electrical utilities, etc. Ted asked if the team has considered other locations; Charles said that other sites didn’t get Board support and that this location is sacrosanct. Jed mentioned that the location is beneficial because attendees can walk from town and the parking garage. Charles mentioned that the John Denver Sanctuary was sited in part because it was desired to be near the theater. Dan commented that the Board’s challenge is weighing the disruption of the park against the vision for this proposed theater facility as well as the burden of managing the complex building and any potential end to the City-theater partnership. 2:10:54 Dan commented that this could be a good use of the park, but he expressed concern about the disruption of the park and the burden of managing the complex building, mentioning that costs, complexity, and impacts seem to outweigh benefits. He asked the team to demonstrate demand for off season use and partners. Jed mentioned that Dance Aspen and the local schools have already indicated interest in off-season use and commented that the investment would be not make sense without community use in the plan. Julie expressed that the updated concept design seems to fit the park space better than the earlier version and that she appreciates the community use. She mentioned her concerns about the impacts of construction and of year-round use (staffing, parking, truck access). Jed mentioned that cleaning and maintenance services would be done by the current vendors and that no great changes are expected. Adam expressed that he feels the impacts of two years and one summer of construction are less concerning to him. His concerns are primarily on the legal side, related to a sense of privatizing a public park. He asked if the facility would host private events or if everything would be open to the public. Jed said that Theater Aspen currently hosts 8 private events per year and mentioned that the organization is open to arrangements to be worked out with the City. Adam asked about pumping water during construction. Charles said that if any pumping is done, it would be managed to not affect the river and wetlands. Ted asked about the park’s convenants and rules, mentioning that he thought the theater facility must be a design that would come down seasonally. Matt commented that Parks is researching the land use application. Ted asked if changing the land use application is complicated and would require a vote. Matt explained that this is TBD; the mechanism of authorization is being researched. Ted commented that he worries about citizens citing language that states this type of building is not allowed in the park. He asked about lifespan of the building. Charles said it would be 100 years; Jed added that an update would be needed at about 50 years due to changes in technology. Ted asked if the cost of the building would drive up ticket prices, mentioning his concerns about accessibility. Jed said that as a non-profit organization, they make the theater as accessible as possible. He explained that the balance of ticket sales versus production costs would keep their funding at 50:50, ticket sales to donations. Ted emphasized the importance of keeping the theater accessible from a public standpoint. He asked if year-round use would be an issue with neighbors in the Oklahoma Flats area. Charles said the new design would benefit them visually (no white tent) and that activities would be internalized within the sound-proof building. Ted asked how this project fits within the current narrative in town, at a time with many other complicated large projects on the horizon (s- curves, Lift 1A, etc.). He commented that there are many parallels between this project and others; public communication would be critical. Jed mentioned that Theater Aspen has banked public support and that some of the triggers are absent from this project; the aim is to make this facility more beneficial to the community. Charles mentioned that it would be important to demonstrate the contrast between this project and the other projects that have been of concern to the community recently. Adam asked if there is a target date; Jed said it could be summer 2027. Julie asked if the tent or any of the existing structure could be useable elsewhere; Charles said that everything recyclable would be reused. Jed added that whatever can be used in the new structure would be kept and used. Board Comments: Dan: Mentioned that meetings have been canceled recently and he is unclear as to why; he suggested that rescheduling could be important due to the topics that need to be discussed. Ted: Asked for updates on trail interactions related to ebikes. Brian said that the office is receiving a lot of feedback about trail speeds and volume. Speed limits will be implemented this season. He mentioned that police are working hard on cyclist outreach and education. Ted mentioned that there will be an ebike permit system at the Maroon Creek Road USFS entrance building. Brian mentioned the required video/educational component that ebike rental shops must use. Adam: Asked for an update on the Herron Park bathroom. Matt explained that it is under contract and will be delivered in November/December. A contract for the utilities component is on the work plan. Mike added that Herron Park would be bid at the same time as the Iselin project. Adam suggested the idea of making the one-way Airline trails ebike accessible to provide them with single track. Julie: Mentioned that it is very busy on the trail in front of the Rio Grande Trail at the Aspen Chamber. Julie mentioned the high volume of kids programs in the park space by the Chamber building. She also mentioned that the camp children are chalking the picnic tables. She mentioned a personal trainer and client using a picnic table at Newberry Park, preventing the table from being used as intended. Matt said that he took a recent tour to observe usage; day camps is one item that they will be revisiting in terms of who is in which spaces and when. Staff will reach out to day camps to discuss managing use of parks. Julie also mentioned Snowmass Village’s plan to lighten their leash laws; she suggested that Aspen could make similar changes, including e-collars being considered a leash. Matt suggested that this could be a topic for the retreat. Julie asked if non-traveling dogs may be off leash in parks; Brian explained that Aspen’s leash law is wall to wall, and that watchful off-leash play is ok in certain parks. Brian suggested that clarifying for consistency would be a good step. Next Meeting Date(s): A discussion of quorum for the next meeting took place. There is not a quorum for the 21st. John will check with other board members about holding the September meeting on the 28th. Regular meeting September 28, 2023, confirmed. Executive Session: N/A Adjourned: Dan made a motion to adjourn; Ted seconded, and the vote was unanimous.