Remember, input on what's important to you regarding the Red Rock Canyon
Open Space Master Plan is due by tomorrow (2/19/4). Please take a few
minutes to let the City know what you want! I've included the comments that
I sent in order to give you some ideas. Remaining planning meetings list is
also below.

*****************
> Red Rock Canyon. Public meetings have been announced for the master
> planning process that will lead to the opening of Red Rock Canyon.
> All meetings will be held at Intergenerational Center at 25 North
> 20th St. from 5-7:00 p.m.
>
> Meeting One: February 11, 2004
> Meeting Two: March 3, 2004
> Meeting Three: March 10, 2004
> Meeting Four: April 14, 2004
> Meeting Five: May 5, 2004
>

********************
Subject: Red Rock Canyon Master Plan - Response Form (Meeting #1)


> What's important to you when it comes to developing the Red Rock Canyon
Open
> Space Master Plan?
>
> - I think of Ute Valley as a good starting point for what type of park I
> would like Red Rock Canyon to be.
>
> - No/minimal development (parking on outskirts of property & maybe some
> picnic tables and/or benches @ appropriate locations).
>
> - No motorized access for public.
>
> - Allow rock climbing.
>
> - All trails should be multiuse (hikers/runners/cyclists/equestrian - I
> could see however, where difficult trails might be too tight (too twisty
or
> not tall enough for example) or have steep rock faces which might cause
> problems for equestrians, but not for other users).
>
> - Minimize user conflict by:
> * Having enough trails of every level (easy/intermediate/advanced).
> * Having enough loops with minimal mixing (within individual loops)
of
> different levels of trail (for example, don't have a loop composed of
> beginner/advanced trails - advanced cyclists will try to increase the
> technical challenge of the beginner trails by increasing speed and,
> therefore, user conflict).
> * Trails should be twisty enough (at all levels) to keep cyclist
speeds
> down - for example, long straight downhills encourage speed and user
> conflict.
> * Advanced/intermediate loops should avoid the use of the existing
dirt
> roads (see above 2 points).
> * Separate area/trails for black diamond/freeride cyclists (steep
rock
> faces, drops of 3-10', stunts, high exposure trails, etc.) The Snider
> quarry terracing comes to mind as a place that could be utilized with
> minimal effort (manmade drops up to 10' already exist) and there would be
> minimal impact on resources/environment (it's all rock and it's already
> scarred by man - it's a quarry). I don't care if the quarry is used or
not
> (I understand that there may be great opposition to using it in that
fashion
> due to historical value), but if this growing segment of users is not
> adequately addressed in the Master Plan, I worry that trails/areas will be
> illegally built. If liability is a concern, waivers (similar to the rock
> climbing waivers used for Garden of the Gods) could be used and this type
of
> riding allowed only in designated area(s).
> * Having adequate trails (all of the above points) designated at the
> time of opening to the public. (This will also minimize rogue, ill
> conceived, erosion prone trail building.)
>
> - Adequate trail markers which also give trail level (Palmer Parks
markers
> come to mind).
>
> - Classify dirt roads as easy trails - that way you only need to
find/build
> East-to-West easy trails for the easy level loops.
>
> - Take advantage of old revegetated road beds to address need for new
> trails. There are a ton of them (some over a hundred years old) on the
> property and their 5-10' wide tread which is revegetated gives a ton of
> opportunities for twisty, technical 1-2' wide trails for minimal effort.
>
> - Take advantage of social/game trails to address need for new trails.
> They can remain narrow (1-2') to help reduce speeds and user conflict and
> can be used with minimal effort.
>
> - All new trails should be of minimal width (1-2'). Easy trail loops can
> take advantage of the existing dirt roads, which have width to spare.
>
> - Have advanced trails run on the hogback sandstone where possible
(doesn't
> have to be on the top of the hogbacks, but could be - just looking for
some
> rock surface trails if possible) - adds more diverse trail challenges and
> can minimize erosion.
>
> - Redundant/parallel trails can be a good thing if they cater to different
> user groups/levels (can reduce conflict) or if they can be used to create
a
> loop. In other words, we don't necessarily need to eliminate redundant
> trails.
>
> ***********************
>
> Jim Yount
> (719) 540-1505
> jyount@...
>
>
>