Open Space Advisory Board Agenda and Packet 2017 01 11

Home Browse Search

Open Space Advisory Board Minutes December 14th 2016 Page 5 of 7 Michele shared the current draft for the new interpretive sign for Lake Park. It is a small (18 x 24”) sign, not a big welcome-to-the-property sign. The main theme is history vs. current state. She described and explained the graphics. Laura pointed out that the kingfisher in the photo had a very atypical-looking tail, which may limit its use as an identification aid. Helen asked whether the “Farm to Park” phrase should say “Farm to Open Space.” Helen wanted the Open Space logo included. Ember reported that staff had the same concerns and Joe had approved both of Helen’s recommended changes already. Becky Harney (105 Rose St.), a member of the public and the Harney family, commented that she liked the sign and thanked Michelle and Catherine for their work. Her family wants the sign to specifically refer to the pond as “Harney Pond.” Laura asked for higher contrast on the family photo, since it was already sort of “faded- looking” even before it was put under the sun. Spencer asked whether the family photo was really necessary. Ms. Harney was ambivalent about its inclusion. Graeme liked the photo, as it felt personal. XI. Discussion Item: Planning Department’s Wayfinding Project- Presented by: Lauren Trice Lauren presented the history of the Planning Department’s Wayfinding Project. There has already been collaboration and coordination between the Planning and the Open Space wayfinding initiatives. She wanted to hear OSAB’s concerns about the proposed Phase 1 locations for signs. Spencer asked if any are on Open Space. Lauren answered that they were not, but that there exists the potential to point to Open Space Properties. Laura reemphasized the board’s previously expressed preference not to point cars to Open Spaces properties that do not have parking lots. Joe suggested that a Colorado convention is for welcome signs to list a city’s elevation rather than its historical establishment dates. Helen commented that she didn’t care for etching when there isn’t also contrasting paint, as it is hard to read. The board asked about the “light fixture” boxes on the top of the proposed signs. Lauren answered that they can be made to contain lights. Missy asked whether those lights could be solar. Linda pointed out that if they do light up they should point down, not horizontally, to be dark-sky friendly. Laura agreed with Linda. Several board members thought they looked overly- expensive. Lauren said that the type-A signs were $20,000 each and the type-J signs were $3,000 each. Ember reported that Open Space and Planning coordinated sign materials. Helen asked for coordinated fonts and colors too. Laura and Missy agreed. Missy asked for consistent logic between the neighborhood badges and the trail medallion signs. XII. Discussion Item: OSAB recommendations regarding staff comments on the Clementine Subdivision Preliminary PUD—Presented by Allan Gill Allan shared that the developer is deciding whether or not to pursue permission to build a retention pond on a slice of City Land adjacent to Hwy. 42 and Lock St. This issue came back before OSAB because City staff has since determined that because the sliver of land in question is designated as “Park,” it may be the case that this property cannot be used privately without a public vote, according to one “read” of the City Charter. Rob Zuccaro from Planning came to explain this to OSAB. He said it was hard to predict what the ultimate legal read of the charter would be on this issue and whether the discussion will ultimately be moot. Eric Hartronft suggested that his read of the charter’s language means that the land’s use is only subject to the citizen vote if the land is to be leased for exclusive use, which was never the intension, since the land will 7