Open Space Advisory Board Agenda and Packet 2021 05 12

Home Browse Search

L City f Louisville COLORADO • SINCE 1878 The board asked about the parcels around Mayhoffer and whether there were easements on them. Ember said there were conservation and restriction easement, but the protection varies. Nathan said the land has been for sale and the Mayhoffer ownership partners had a chance to move on these parcels and did not, so the County will probably not consider them further. Nathan also said that the smaller parcel in Parcel 2 came up, but the council wasn't interested in that parcel alone without the other adjacent parcels. Charles made the point that Parcel 2 is only interesting if all three sections can be acquired. Nathan asked if this list was only for fee simple acquisition or could be for trail easements. Ember said that all options and strategies would be available and typically these details are worked out during acquisition discussions with the partners. Peter thinks an easement would be best for this land. Peter and David agreed with the idea that the request should drop Parcel 1, given Nathan's summary of the recent lack of action on the property. Laura commented that she would be reticent to remove Parcel 2 or the eastern part of Parcel 3. She thinks Parcel 2 is valuable because it is an important corridor, even if the land can't be immediately acquired. The eastern part of Parcel 3 might be worth keeping on the list because if the land remains undeveloped, it might still be a good target in the future. Peter agreed. Charles asked if property XX, on the western edge of Davidson Mesa, might make a good acquisition recommendation to County. Ember said it abuts the City of Boulder land, not County land. Laura and Ember recalled that it had been on a previous year's request, but the County had been cool on it. Peter made a motion to: 1) Drop former parcel 1 2) Former parcel 2 becomes parcel 1 3) Western section of former parcel 3 becomes parcel 2 4) East section of former parcel 3 becomes parcel 3 Charles seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. The board then discussed the trail requests. Charles said he is a huge fan of Trail 1. He said he felt like Trail 2 is happening and wasn't sure it needs to stay on the list. Peter and Laura thought it should stay on the list until it is complete. Charles thought Trail 3 didn't make a lot of sense, especially with the Redtail Ridge development in the works. He said, if Redtail Ridge goes in, it will connect to the Rock Creek Regional Trail and then the goal would be to get to Monarch. David added that he wants to see Louisville get the ball rolling on Trail 1. Nathan suggested Trail 3 could be a presented with a more north -south alignment to Redtail Ridge. Laura agreed with the idea of rotating Trail 3 to be more north -south, since the logic of the connection would be the same, but the alignment through Redtail Ridge to the Rock Creek Trail would be more logical. She added she'd like to keep Trail 2 on the list until it's finished, and was concerned that Trail 1 is very important, but possibly very technical and challenging. Helen suggested re -ordering the list, by moving Trail 1 to number 3. Peter asked if these numbers are supposed to reflect priority ordering. Charles said he would like to keep the ordering the way it is but is also not sure it matters. He also asked about how to align Trail 3. Ember thought the board could capture the vision of a connecting trail by having a northern and southern endpoints accompanied by text referencing connectivity to the proposed Redtail Ridge Development. Laura suggested the text include that the trail would connect to both the Rock Creek Regional Trail and the HW 36 Bikeway.