HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.an.Marolt Opal.r6.1980iviarolt, upal v1 ALP '
" Annexation and Zoning "�
A
aka
0
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Karen Smith, Planning Director
RE: Rezoning and Annexation - Opal Marolt Property
DATE: January 21, 1980
On January 28, the City Council will hold the second reading and public
hearing of ordinances related to the rezoning and annexation of the
Opal Marolt property. As you know, this property has been submitted to
you with a proposal that incorporates up to 125 dwelling units roughly
divided into 70% deed restricted employee housing and 30% free market
units. The proponents are seeking a zoning district which will accomodate
the proposal. Since the site is currently zoned AF-2 (2 acre minimum lot
size) in the County, the decision for the City Council is to determine
whether the zoning is appropriate based on such factors as surrounding
land use and density patterns, the Aspen Area Master Plan, and changed
conditions since the time of original zoning.
While the applicant has requested R-6 zoning as that which they feel
comfortably accommodates the proposed density, the Planning Office has
recommended to you an R-15A zone district density. The Planning Office
has recommended the R-15A zone density with SPA and PUD designation also
attached. While we recognize that there are disadvantages to development
on this property, our recommendation is made with the objective in mind
that sites must be found to accommodate employee housing and it is our
intent to recommend to you those sites which best can achieve a balancing
of community goals through clustering and innovative design. We recom-
mend the Marolt site, with conditions, because we believe that develop-
ment can be designed to fit the site's unique features, protect environ-
mentally sensitive areas, and create open space buffers which both continue
the open space corridors gained by public acquisitions and minimize the
impact of the development on surrounding areas. Other reasons supporting
the recommendation include:
1. The R-15A density is consistent with surrounding land use and
zoning patterns to the east across Castle Creek and to the
north across Highway 82. The Aspen Land Use Plan of 1973
recommends single-family medium density for this site, which,
if clustered, is what this application proposes. The PUD is
recommended in the absence of any housing overlay or similar
zoning technique to encourage the clustering of density, its
accommodation to the site's unique features, and its compat-
ible siting with surrounding neighborhoods. The SPA desig-
nation is necessary to accommodate any mixed uses which may
be proposed in the subsequent development plan in multi-
family structures.
2. The proposal represents a dispersal of employee housing develop-
ments to the west side of the City of Aspen, avoiding the fur-
ther concentration in areas to the north and east of the City.
It is a medium-sized project and results in a heterogeneous mix
of income levels.
3. R-15A zoning requires that at least 50% of the units are deed -
restricted to employee price guidelines. In fact, the application
proposes to restrict 70% or more of the units.
4. The site is proximate to town and well -served by bus transpor-
tation. Other utilities, water and sanitation, are available
to the site.
•
u
5. There is an opportunity to preserve open space corridors
along Castle Creek, as well as the visual connection from
the Thomas property to Shadow Mountain through innovative
design and clustering. Through the Planned Unit Development
procedure, environmentally sensitive areas can be avoided.
The Planning & Zoning Commission recommended S.P.A. zoning for the site
consistent with the zoning recommended for the water plant employee
housing site. The recommendation was based on the lack of a housing
overlay and the opportunity that that zoning designation would give
for fitting the appropriate density to the site through the review of
a development plan. The Planning Office recommended against that because of
the lack of adequate criteria in the S.P.A. zone district, a district which
was originally intended for a few very limited sites within the City of
Aspen.
Opposition has spoken to you on first reading. Points cited in opposition
have included:
-that Castle Creek serves now to contain the urban form and this
development will contribute to urban sprawl,
-there are environmental constraints according to the CSU maps;
namely, steep slopes, riparian areas and visually vulnerable lands,
-the site is designated in part as agriculturally productive lands,
-free market units are involved,
-neighborhoods have objected that the density is not consistent,
-and given the uncertainty of development feasibility, critics question
whether it is appropriate to grant a density increase without assur-
ing that the development would follow.
The Engineering Department has also pointed out that there is a need to
preserve alignments for the extension of Main Street and four-laning and/
or bus way of Highway 82. There may be increased public cost if bus trans-
portation needs to be fortified.
This is meant to be a summary only of extensive memoranda given to the City
Council in early December. These memoranda included a December 3rd summary
of development potential on the site, and analysis of pros and cons of
alternative employee housing sites, as well as the November 13th memorandum
to the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission summarizing the conditions on
which a decision to change zoning must be based. The memoranda appeared in your
packet twice and will be available in the Planning Office for your review.
Included in this packet will be a draft annexation agreement, which incor-
porates many of the conditions of approval that the Planning Office recom-
mended.
Again, the recommendation is for R-15A/P.U.D./S.P.A zoning, which, after
a density analysis, appears to accommodate somewhere between 70 and 150
units, depending on such things as density reduction for steep slopes and
the subtraction of a lot for Opal Marolt's house. We believe that the
appropriate density within this range will be found through the review of
a development plan. If that plan is devised in accordance with the con-
ditions recommended in the annexation agreement and cognizant of the sensi-
tive areas pointed out through this rezoning process, we believe a develop-
ment can be sited in this location which will balance community goals
and objectives and maximize its compatibility with surrounding areas. The
increase in density, furthermore, is warranted in view of the need for
employee housing documented in the recent work of the Housing Task Force.
CITY OF ASPEN ,&
qW
MEMO FROM KAREN SMITH
To: Herman Edel
Date: February 1, 1980
I just spoke to Bob Joyce regarding the Marolt
proposal and reviewed with him some advantages
of a proposal which looked at a maximum of 100
units. You are correct in that he is at this
moment speaking with potential developers. How-
ever, he felt that he was not promising developers
that there would be a maximum of 125 units on
the property and rather that he was telling them
a fairly straight story about the prospects for
development. He did appreciate some political
insight as to facilitating the project by offer-
ing a lower number.
He felt that he needed to review some options
in terms of financing and development phasing
prior to committing to any number. I think
he is well cognizant that the closer he can get
to 100 units, the better it will be. He would
prefer to hire the developer, which he thinks
will happen in the next couple of weeks, and
then contact me to set up a study session with
Council. I am confident that he not only wishes
to find the best plan in Council's eyes, but also
is committed to working with the neighborhood
across Castle Creek, which is likely to bring
the most opposition. I will let you know as
soon as we are ready to set up a study session.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Re: Zoning of Opal Marolt Property
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission on Tuesday, November 20, 1979, at a meeting to
begin at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, 2nd Floor, City Hall, 130 South
Galena Street, to consider zoning of property owned by Opal Marolt situated
in Lots 9, 10, 13, SWq SW4 Section 12, Township 10 South, Range 85 West, 6th
P.M. and Lot 5 and NW14 NW, Section 13, Township 10 South, Range 85 West, 6th
P.M., Pitkin County, Colorado (located south of the intersection of Highway 82
and Cemetery Lane). The proposed zoning is R-6 P.U.D. Further information may
be obtained from the Planning Office, 130 South Galena, Aspen, 925-2020, ext. 225.
/s/ Olaf Hedstrom
Olaf Hedstrom, Chairman
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on November 1, 1979.
To be billed under City of Aspen fund.
LIST OF ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS
- OPAL MAROLT PROPERTY -
Argubright, James & Wilma
9803 Windledge
Dallas TX 75238
City ofAspen
Aspen CO 81611
Barr, Ronald &Debra
Box 4 384
Aspen CO 81611
Bealmear, Eleanor Berger
Box 632
Aspen CO 81611
Daggs, James K.
720 East Hyman Avenue
Aspen CO 81611
De Pagter,Jacobiis A.
Box 182
Aspen CO 81611
Eubank, Dale & Coates, Neligh C.
720 East Hyman Avenue
Aspen CO 81611
Fels, Jerry & Esther
3645 Valley Meadow Road
Sherman Oaks CA 91403
Gerbaz, James E.
301 South 7th Street
Aspen CO 81611
Head, Fredrick F.
Box 4204
Aspen CO 81611
Holy Cross Electric Assoc.
590 North Mill Street
Aspen CO 81611
Kopf, Donald & Carol Ann
Box 956
Aspen CO 81611
Marolt, Celia
0488 Castle Creek Road
Aspen CO 81611
Skiff, Katie
920 West Hallam Street
Aspen CO81611
Vidal, Chuck
300 Easty Hyman Avenue
Aspen CO 81611
The Villa of Aspen, Inc.
400 East Main Street
Aspen CO 81611
Vought, Peter
Castle Creek Road
Aspen CO 81611
Wachs, Jr., Edward H.
Box 405
Aspen CO 81611
Weinberg, Sidney E.
820 Ridge Road
Highland Park IL 60035
Zasachy, Edward A. & Cynthia
299 South 7th STreet
Aspen CO81611
a
MEMORANDUM
TO: Ron Stock, Citv Attorney
FROM: Louis Buettner, Engineering Department
DATE: April 10, 1980
RE: Marolt Agreement
The following concerns of the Engineering Department apply to the
Marolt agreement. This agreement was received from Bob Joyce of
April 8, 1980 writing.
Page 1, bottom of page, titled Annexation and Zoning.
The Marolt Associates (or Marolt) does not own all the property that
is being petitioned to the City for annexation and zoning.
Page 2, top of page. The petition for annexation cannot be with-
drawn after it is filed with the City Clerk. This is set forth
in Section 31-12-107(e) of the Colorado revised statutes.
Middle of page. The paragraph makes reference to 700 of the residen-
tial units. I believe the code says bedrooms, not units.
Page 3, top of page. Again the reference is made to units, not
bedrooms.
There is also a reference made to "The parties agree that a maximum
of 125 units will be developed on the site." There is no reference
made to the size of the units or the number of bedrooms that will
be permitted in the 125 units. The 30% free market units could have
an unknown number of bedrooms.
Bottom of the page. It is hard for me to see how municipal bonds
could be used on this project without the City incurring some liabi-
lity.
EXHIBIT "A"
Parcel 1
This description is for a parcel of land located on the easterly
side of Castle Creek and does not join the main tract of Marolt
land or the City.
Parcel 2
This description is very old and is not the description used on the
annexation plat.
There is reference to an easement on the property described in para-
graph 4. I did not find a paragraph 4 in this agreement.
Page 2
Re: Marolt AgreemenO
The description starting on the bottom of page 3 is for a parcel
of land owned by the City of Aspen. The City acquired this property
in 1975.
Mr. Joyce apparently is using the property description from some
very old document. The description that should be in the agreement
is the one shown on the annexation plat. Mr. Joyce can obtain this
description from the Marolt surveyors (Survey Engineers)
cc Karen Smith
Mulligan, Reeves, Teasley & Joyce, P. C.
Attorneys and Counselors at Law
Suite 300, Equitable Building
Robert J. Joyce
James M. Mulligan
Allen G. Reeves
Don R. Teasley
Karen Smith
Director of Planning
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Karen:
730 Seventeenth Street
Denver, Colorado 80202
November 15, 1979
Telephone
(303) 572 - 0600
Cable
MULLREEVES
We have noted with interest and pleasure the steps you have
taken in conjunction with the City Attorney and Housing Director to
encourage the construction of additional employee housing in Aspen.
We were also pleased to hear that you will provide positive im-
put upon the plan we presented to develop the Marolt family property
under the new initiatives that have been presented to the Planning
and Zoning Board and the City Council.
In that light, I have been told that you favor an R-15 zoning
designation for the Marolt site rather than the R-6 designation which
we proposed in our various applications. Our intention with respect
to the R-6 request was to provide for at least the number of housing
units indicated in our preliminary site plans. If, as it now appears,
your recommendation of an R-15 zone is adequate to allow such construc-
tion we certainly have no objection to amending our zoning request so
as to conform with your suggestion that R-15 is the appropriate zone.
We are in the process of confirming that our original request was
inadvertently for a density higher than necessary. I expect that I
will be in a position by the P & Z meeting on the 20th to join with
you in your zoning recommendation.
Hope all is well with you, see you next week.
Very truly yours,
MULLIGA, REEVES, TEASLEY
& JOYCK, P1C.
Robe)t J . 'Joyce
RJJ/ml
0 0
OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN
DRAFT
1/80
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.
Introduction
II.
The History and Planning Framework
III.
The Purpose of this Plan
IV.
Functions of Open Space
V.
Criteria for Open Space
VI.
Using the Criteria to Select Open Space
VII.
Acquisition and Preservation Techniques
VIII.
Funding Sources
IX.
Implementation Strategy
X.
Management Alternatives
XI.
Summary and Conclusions
Appendix I. Case Studies
1 North Star Naturc fICJCI YC
2. Rubey Park
3. Hunter Creek Trail
Appendix II. Chronology of Open Space Acquisitions
(City, County and Pitkin County Park Association)
Appendix III. Maps of Open Space Criteria and Property Ownership
(Aspen Area and Woody Creek Base Maps)
I. INTRODUCTION
Pitkin County, whose major urban nodes are Aspen and Snowmass Village, has long
considered its primary asset to be the natural beauty and fertility of its land
and waters. Several citizen organizations formed to actively pursue preservation
of the area's assets. In 1978, the City and County responded to the public
desire for open space planning by adopting a City/County Agreement establishing
the Open Space Acquisition Program (January 23, 1978). This Agreement established
an Open Space Advisory Board, comprised of representatives of diverse groups having
a common interest in preservation of their community's natural and rural atmosphere.
This Board was given a mandate to write and to present for adoption an Open
Space Master Plan. The Plan which follows is a result of extensive discussions
related to the questions of what purposes open space can serve, how to select
and acquire lands which can most effectively serve those purposes, and how to
then manage acquired lands. The Plan is based on an awareness that land is a
scarce resource and, while open space and agriculture represent only one possible
use of it, more intense use generally makes restoration of the less -intense
uses impossible. Therefore, it is of utmost importance to consider open space
as an alternative when deciding the future of land, recognizing the value of
open space/agricultural uses as preserves for ecological continuity, sources
of food, and havens for respite from the intensity of modern stresses.
The scope of this Plan encompasses both urban and rural areas of Pitkin County.
Land in the Highway 82 corridor, which is primarily in private ownership and
has greatest potential --for- urban de_vP1onmant is tha fnriic of mannino and other
aspects of the Plan where limited resources of time and money could not cover
the entire County. Agricultural lands, both along the Highway corridor and
in more remote areas of the County, are recognized as playing a vital role in
the character of the County. Specific efforts should be directed toward
preserving land with open space value in both urban and rural portions of
Pitkin County.
1Y-1'F "L. ., 41.E 1 lull
Page Two • •
II. HISTORY AND PLANNING FRAMEWORK
Early Citizen Efforts. Participants, both resident and vi.sitor, in the
experience of Pitkin County cannot help but be aware of the great beauty,
serenity, and fertility of the natural environment. As early as 1966, a
commitment was made to preservation of the setting through the adoption of
the Aspen Area General Plan which was developed by a consulting firm with
considerable input from the voluntary Citizens' Committee for Planning.
The Plan "...represents a framework to accomodate future urban growth ... to
direct the expansion in such a manner as to retain the fine balance between
man and his environment, essence of Aspen's character."l The Plan was
recognized as a necessity to coordinate public and private sectors of an
expanding urban area "due to the impact of continuing growth in the recrea-
tion industry"2 as evidenced by rampant growth which began in the mid-1960's.
Citizens felt a need for a strategy, of control before natural and rural
scenes were obscured by structures, and natural processes were irretrievably
lost.
The 1966 General Plan reflected this attitude toward preservation of natural
and historical characteristics. The planning area was envisioned "...as a
unique human settlement, culturally and recreationally oriented, with an urban
pattern characterized by a dispersed system of commercial accommodations
centers, each immediately surrounded by relatively densely settled residential
neighborhoods... An overlying pattern of cultural and educatinnal facilities,
unified through creation of -a connecting system or open spaces, parkways and
trails, insures the livability of the community... Enhanced by a setting of
scenic, mountainous terrain, the community will offer an outstanding contrast
to other contemporary American urban settings."3
The community's program for acquisition of open space was initiated by strong
and foresighted citizen efforts. By 1970,-citizens' groups had formed to under-
take several actions which helped to preserve the natural environment and open
space. Aspen's parks (Wagner and Paepcke) were acquired and developed between
1954 and 1970. The City adopted a one percent sales tax to be used in part
for open space Aquisitions in 1970. The Pitkin County Park Association
(PCPA) was formed in 1966 with the specific intention of coordinating and
promoting "the activities of all citizens of Pitkin County, Colorado, interested
in preserving and enhancing the natural beauty aroung them, to further the
growth and development of outdoor recreation and scenic beauty, and to make
the general public aware of the value of such natural resources and of the
need for upgrading and improving existing areas." The Aspen Valley Improvement
Association also began in 1966, in part for similar purposes.
IAspen Area General Plan, Final Report, Preface, 1966.
2Ibid., p. 1.
3Ibid., p. 2.
Open
Space Master
Pla+
•
Page
Three
Local Government Follow -Up Actions. As a result of this strong show of public
interest, one of the first tasks undertaken by the City/County Planning Office,
newly -begun in 1970, was a survey.identifying the most important natural features
contributing to the character and quality of Aspen's physical environment.
Results of this survey were used as the basis for a conservation policy to
preserve open space, the Town's historic character, and air and water quality.
The open space, conservation policy was based on the underlying design philosophy
that the open space system should be fully developed to benefit the public. In
other words, the pattern of land uses should be determined primarily by views
of the natural features of surrounding mountains, streams, and vegetation in order
to emphasize the outstanding natural beauty and unique character of the area.
It was recognized that a conscious effort was needed in order to maintain that
character and the resulting high quality of life for both residents and visitors
(especially since the local economy depends in large part on tourism and
recreation). Planning programs have been initiated by both Aspen and Pitkin
County to accomplish the historic and natural resource conservation goal.
In 1975, the City of Aspen adopted several ordinances as amendments to the
Aspen Municipal Code which were designed to protect the natural environment and
to provide for open space concerns. An 8040 greenline ordinance provided for
review of all development above or. within fifty yards below the greenline
(elevation 8,040 feet) in order to monitor the transition of development from
urban uses to adjacent agricultural and forestry uses, to minimize disturbance
to terrain and surface runoff -change- ;~ t _p'✓. c'd w• anhanc2
use and views of the mountain setting. In order to further protect views of
the mountains, certain parks and public places were designated as areas with
critical viewplanes in which no buildings could be erected or changed so as to
invade a view mountains from the designated public places. Similarly, stream
margin review is intended to encourage appropriate use of land in proximity to
designated natural water courses to promote safety from flooding, to prevent
impediment of natural water flow, to protect natural river banks from erosion
during construction, and to insure protection of natural water courses as
important natural features.
The County's primary effort was the adoption in 1976 of land use regulations
which flag environmentally sensitive or hazardous areas in order to protect
scenic landscapes and ecological continuity. The appropriateness of any
development is thereby established through examination of slopes, avalanche
or wildfire zones, floodplains, geologic hazard potential, and wildlife
habitat or migration areas.
The Aspen/Pitkin County Growth Management Policy Plan (1976) was adopted as
a joint City/County effort to control rampant growth, recognized as a community
problem as annual growth in new housing'starts approached eleven percent from
Open
Space Master
PI
Page
Four
1967 to 1972.4 Strong statements of policy, plus tools for attaining those
policies, were established which took into account cumulative impacts of all
land uses (such as residential, commercial, etc.)
Interface with Other Plans. Early direct efforts toward establishing an
open space system were concentrated on a trails plan to meet both recreational
and non -recreational needs. Commuter links to connect residential areas,
public facilities, and the public transportation system were developed.
Recreational trails connecting the City with surrounding countryside and
wilderness areas without automobile use were also stressed. In 1974, a plan
was adopted in the form of a map showing existing and proposed paved and natural
trails. A complete County -wide Trails Master Plan was adopted by City and
County officials in November 1979 as an amendment to the 1966 Aspen Area
General Plan.
The Roaring Fork Greenway Plan incorporates and is central to this strategy
of connecting the urban area to areas of recreational/historic interest or
special scenic beauty. The Greenway Plan was adopted by Aspen to serve as
a guide for maintaining or enhancing natural and semi -natural landscapes in
the face of urbanization. The document was completed in 1973 under the direc-
tion of a volunteer citizens' group and a team of specialists in ecology,
design, and law. The plan includes a complete inventory of natural resources
in the Upper Roaring Fork Valley, then suggests criteria for selecting areas
needing protection in order to preserve unique ecosystems. The City requires
that areas which are part of —the Grepnwav raraiva znPriai rlavAlnnmAnt permits,
to insure that essential areas in the Greenway are protected. As a result,
many links in the system have been preserved to give residents and visitors
a fairly open corridor along the Roaring Fork River.
A 1975 update to the Aspen Area General Plan recognized a need to preserve
the natural beauty of the landscape along_the Highway 82 corridor. The update
identified the highway's scenic foreground, background, and mountain view
corridors at both the west and east entrances to Aspen. To the west of Aspen,
three and one-half miles of undeveloped land owned publicly (including
airport frontage) provides a foreground. In addition, low -density zoning
along the corridor minimizes development. The scenic backgroung is provided
by three local ski areas, City -purchased Red Butte Mountain, and Bureau of
Land Management (BLM) lands which are managed as natural areas and wildlife
habitats.
In addition to purchasing land, the City and County provide examples of how
landscaping the public highway frontage can screen development from the
highway to give the effect of an attractive foreground. The airport frontage,
for instance, is a series of earth berms on which have been planted a collection
of wild flowers and sage to blend with -the area's natural vegetation. Private
4The Aspen/Pitkin County Growth Management Policy Plan, 1976, page 3.
Open
Space
Master Plan
Page
Five
landowners have also implemented compatible programs. For example, the Aspen
Skiing Corporation revegetated scars it left while building roads visible from
the highway. The Airport Business Center, which is adjacent to the highway,
is being constructed in colors and materials which blend well with the
surrounding countryside, and the natural vegetation remains largely unaltered
within one hundred feet of the highway.
At Aspen's eastern entrance (via Independence Pass), the scenic highway is
protected by a broad floodplain in the foreground (where development is pro-
hibited) and the County's low -density zoning of the mountain slopes beyond.
Part of the visual resource of the Aspen area is the boundary between town
and countryside. Land at the east and west entrances to Aspen (including
a protion of North Star Ranch) is part of the open space system owned by the
City and County. Therefore, a large percentage of the natural landscape and
vegetation is being retained, providing a distinctive visual boundary between
the urbanized area and surrounding natural/agricultural area.
III. THE PURPOSE OF THIS PLAN
While the Aspen Area General Plan and amendments address most land use alter-
natives, open space is included only in a cursory manner. However, the preser-
vation and management of sufficient open space within an urban environment
is a crucial element in guiding where and when urban growth would best occur
to ensure preservation and enhancemeii� iiu%lus u i 1 clvul uilu -6v e, ovide
vital recreational opportunities. The importance of using open space to
provide an attractive, efficient form for urban development has recently
been recognized, especially in rapidly -developing communities. Adequate,
properly -located open space can prevent a monotonous pattern of continuous
urban sprawl.
While City and County regulation prohibit development in certain environmentally
sensitive areas (e.g., floodplains, wildlife habitat, viewplanes, and talus
slopes), they do not consider conservation of coherent ecosystems of of agri-
cultural resources on a large scale. Open space planning provides a unique
opportunity to protect for the present and to reserve for the future the
County's natural resources.
Also, the need to preserve public space to meet present and future recreational
demand is increasingly recognized. The decrease in strenuous physical labor,
coupled with an increase in flexibility of employment, have resulted in such
lifestyle changes as increased leisure time, rising incomes, and increased
mobility. Though communities tend to be reluctant to make great investments
in acquisition and development of recreational facilities, the social benefits
are many. They increase the attractiveness of locations as places to live
Open Space Master P1 ,
Page Six
As such, open spaces are a critical component in the relationship between man
and his environment; they are a part of the fabric of urbanized living which
should be available to all poeple. In a situation where development is the rule,
a conscious effort must be made if open spaces are to remain open. It is
necessary to think toward the future when Aspen and Snowmass will be more
fully developed. The value of open space, in social and phyc'hological terms
as well as environmental, will increase with its scarcity. Agricultural land
and healthy, diverse ecological systems are not easily retrieved once converted
through development.
The Open Space Master Plan is just such a conscious effort to provide the
interludes in urban systems and continuity in natural systems. The Plan does
not indicate an unalterable fate for any particular parcel of land, but rather
provides a framework for thoughtful, systematic decisions to actively pursue
preservation of open space'.
IV. FUNCTIONS OF OPEN SPACE
A definition of "open space" is essential, but very difficult. In broad terms,
open space might include those lands which are intentionally kept free from
future development in the public interest.
A more precise definition is possible, however, in terms of functions which
open space may serve. Based on public values,9Pitkin County's open space
Nruyraiii i5 generally intended to guide the acquisition, preservation, ennancenienz
and/or creation of natural, rural, and park areas of diverse usage. Specifically,
the program is intended to acquire, preserve, enhance, and/or create the following:
A. Natural areas and rural character of landscape.
B. Areas which have: (a) visual variety in near and far views, (b) native
or unique flora, (c) critical wildlife and aquatic habitat/calving/migration
areas, (d) unique geologic formations, or (e) frontage on rivers, including
riparian characteristics.
C. Agricultural lands, including encouragement of agricultural uses of such
lands.
D. Areas of historic and cultural interest.
E. Areas for passive or active recreational use, with more intense activity
encouraged in close proximity to population centers.-
F. Lands which may be utilized for shaping urban, neighborhood, and rural
areas such that building and population are concentrated in urban nodes.
0
Open Space Master Plal •
Page Seven
G. Undeveloped corridors along transportation routes.
H. Areas accessible to population centers, especially those areas where
non -motorized modes of travel (e.g., walking, bicycling, equestrian) or
public transit provide access.
V. CRITERIA FOR OPEN SPACE SELECTION
In order to facilitate decisions on which parcels- of land would best be acquired
or preserved, the functions have been translated into criteria. The criteria
fall into five categories --visual, recreational, natural, cultural and
accessibility --which can be used to describe all land in the County or, more
specifically, any parcel of land being considered for open space use. By
describing a parcel or area in terms of the five criteria, anyone acquiring open
space can better compare and select valuable parcels or areas.
Specific considerations for each criteria are listed in Figure 1. General
descriptions of the categories are useful, however, to explain the relevance
of each in terms of selecting specific parcels of land for open space. In
all categories, both unique and sensitive characteristics are considered to be
of relatively higher value.
A. Visual. Aesthetics are an important factor in selection of open space.
One of the primary factors attracting people to live in or to visit this
"4�!, act only seen but invites participation
Variety from many viewpoints is a key measure --variety in near and far
views, open and closed spaces, and shapes. Also to be considered is
provision of corridors along transportation routes which carry participants
into an urban area, rather than through a continuing urban strip. Natural
buffer areas to separate and screen conflicting land uses (in terms of
noise, odor, smoke, or visual distractions) is desireable.
B. Recreational. The importance of recreation, which draws both residents
and visitors, has been discussed. Abundant and unique opportunities for
active and passive activities --from trails to nature study areas --exist
and shall be considered in selection of open space.
C. Natural. Both uniqueness and sensitivity are vital factors relative to
the public value of natural resources. Most critical resources and hazardous
areas (e.g., floodplains, critical wildlife habitat, and geologic areas)
are specifically protected by County regulations. Other sensitive and
unique ecosystems (e.g., alpine systems), however, are open to threats of
destruction. Areas with rich soils and irrigated nreadrnqs are not
recoverable for the enlightenment of future generations after being
disturbed.
Z
O
r-r
I-
tN
Cr
V
d
LtJ
U
d
CL
(N
Z
w
c-
C)
O
w
d
w
1-
F-1
U
w
I--1
LL.
N
•L
a)
4
C
t
�
Q1
U
•r C
a
O
L
�
r
N L
a
i•1
C a)
s
t0
O +•1
U
r•
r
fN
>>
=3
i-1 N r
(O a) ,L
N
O
O
L
O
4-J
N
m
C
O
a) i N •r L
>>
>
4-1
U 3 CO 4-1
+-)
C
C O C K •r i C
C
►-i
.
O r O a) (a +-) >
(N
4-)
U r +) i O
C1
O
N
•r
4--3 O 4-3-0 U
(a
U
O
r
C (3) (O O a) I
E
N
•r
N
O +-) +-) S- "O > Ln
C
C
CL
v- M L a) (a VI
L
•r
(3)
Q)
b
(O
4-) i O N> C1 O
o
Y
U
4-•)
N
E
(6 a) C3_ O rO C i
4-
N
r N .Q C1 O U
•r .
'O
rO
Q)
a)
O O C 1 1 I 1
N
CL
Q)
U
a)
C1 E rO
U
N
O i
U
C
co
1--
0
O
n
E
Q
N
CT
•r
a
>>
Ili
IN
i
a)
L
(O
O
C
a)
(.1 i.
4-)
fN
rO
C
;..t 'O •r N
C
i
r N
•tT
•r C Ili
N
a)
-00)
-0
(13 >> +-)
C]
E
ro
ro O .
C C
r- r •r
(n
RS
C CY)
U
= CY)
LLJ (O
C r N
'O
E
O' r
r
O• -4
J
N
N N 0-0 (O
O
i-
L
S-
-0 -0 •r a) U U
O
L
•r
O
C
a) -0
ro (O
rO rO 4--) 4-J •r (A •r
3
o
> (A
O
a--) a)
L E
0 0 rO rO i 'O i
s
4-
C •r
N
(n c/•)
rO a--
i i U) Ql O C O
O
w (n
•r
Y
3 ro
{.1 aJ
r- •r •r 4--) (O -I--)
d•)
N
>>
S
U C7
Q1
=3 N
r (O L L •r r
Q
U
S rd
C
7 N
L i
Si
C
a)
IT L
Nd
CL
•
r(-+
O
N
i-
O
r
(O N
U rt3
N •r a)
O)•r rO
r-
4-
N C i
IO N
•r
O N N U
+� •r
r-
Ll -0 L L
C N
O
O C Z3 R3
N
a >)
(-
r (1) (a Y C N
_ N U r- r (o ro
N O 0) •-c
E
o c
N
Y 4-•) L •O L
L d
C1
(O (o cL a) -o a) U
L
•r
Q)
r CO
O - N -M C 4-) •r
o
> a)
fN
co E
4- \ S- ro c CT
4-
C U
r
L
C O r O
w i
>
C V
O a) a) +-) L 3 r
N
O
(3)
+) O
L 0)C1N a)—O
(3)
O
=
N
(O N
U (E N •r (3) (1)
U
O N
CZ
Z
Ln Ln d 0 CD C7
L
a)
CT
co
rO
O
Q�
N
C a)
O �
r r Ln
a--) L
(0 r
> a)
L N
N a Y 4-
r6 N r >>
a) r0 N b
L O 3 -0 r-
r
(O C1
rO
Q) O
C
U L N L N
Q
•r O - 4--)
•r
C 4-) •r t.Z i
+)
a) v b (o (L) O
rO
> •r C a) L (1) 0-
()
.-c- >+-)•nN
L
N 1 1 •r 1 I 1
U
N 4--)
a)
ro U
CC)
N
(O
1
N
r
a)
L
L
a)
(1)
+•>
Q. N
C
O �
3
Cl O
N N
L
(3) 3 C to ro U
..0 (O
1
r (a) >, (1) O c
4-j
r
> •r 4--, C1 r N L (a)
O r-
rt3
> a) O U (1) (1) L
•:3
i 1 1 Ci E a)
E a)
N .
rO o E 4-
O i
Z L.L- l/') L/)
Li
d
Open Space Master Pla, •
Page Eight'
D. Cultural. Pitkin County boasts a history of mining and agriculture which
is evidenced in old roads, railroads, and buildings, as well as fenced
and irrigated lands. The threat of elimination of these cultural resources
may be eased through preservation as aspects of open space. Like the
richest soils, historic sites cannot be recovered after development
destroys them.
E. Accessibility. Not to be forgotten is the intent to make enjoyment of the
above -mentioned attributes available to a broad, unlimited public. In
keeping with City/County policies to cluster development, to provide
alternatives to automobile access, and to provide for scenic and recreational
enjoyment of visitors and residents, open space would best be located near
population centers where trails or bus routes allow convenient access for
users. Such connections of population centers and open space with trails
or bus routes encourage variety in users in terms of income, auto ownership,
etc. In addition, connection of population nodes with other public trails
(e.g., U.S. Forest Service Wilderness trails) is desireable.
VI. USING THE CRITERIA TO SELECT OPEN SPACE
While the criteria above can be utilized to describe any particular parcel or
area of land quite thoroughly, that description needs to be organized in such a
manner as to facilitate decisions. Those decisions might involve a choice between
narralc nr, more simply, a decision as to whether or not a.given �arrol chn-1 d ha
acquired at a given time rather than waiting for a more "valuable" parcel (in
terms of the criteria).
When deciding whether to acquire a parcel of land for open space, decision makers
can first use Figure 1 as a checklist of attributes. Maps (see Appendix III)
which identify the presence or absence of natural, cultural and accessibility
factors are kept in the City/County Planning Office to use as tools in such
identification. The maps were designed in such a way that they can overlay each
other and readily show open space value in terms of clusters of the various
attributes. While the visual and recreational criteria could not be easily
mapped, they must also be identified on a case -by -case basis and added to the
overlay information. Thus, an information base will be established to facilitate
discussion in common terms.
By combining information in this way, clusters of attributes can be identified
in several geographic regions. The most dominant include: east and west
entrances to Aspen along Highway 82, along streambeds (which tend to act as
entrances to the wilderness), the most urbanized areas of 'Aspen and Snowmass,
lands in agricultural use, and the Highway U-2 corridor downvalley. The Open
Space Advisory Board recommends that land in these areas, which have demonstrated
their value as open space, should then receive high priority in initial
consideration in a selection decision. Final selection, of course, should be
based on careful scrutiny of individual cases, based on the -criteria.
Open Space Master P1 ! •
Page Nine
In addition to the five criteria already discussed, a set of "sub -criteria" needs
to be considered as well. These are mentioned only briefly because they would
tend to bring parcels to the attention of local citizens and government, but
usually would not be the basis of final selections. This set includes such
items as: offers of sale or donation by owners, imminent threat of development,
and low cost. Due to the nature of this master plan (which provides general
recommendations to be considered by various open space implementing agencies
rather than providing site specific proposals as do mostplans) and the historic
nature of most open space acquisitions (which centers on emergency, spur-of-the-
moment decisions), most acquisitions are not expected to be initiated actively.
Rather, when an offer is made to donate land or a subdivision application is
submitted, as two examples, a decision to acquire or accept will still be based on
the criteria and resulting priorities.
VII. ACQUISITION AND PRESERVATION TECHNIQUES
Many techniques are available, tested, and in practice for acquisition or other
means of preservation of lands considered valuable to an open space pool. Through
some combination of these techniques, land may be acquired in a variety of locations
to serve a variety of open space functions. Certain techniques may be used by
the public sector while others may be used by either public or private groups,
with advantages accruing for each. The major techniques are mentioned below:
A_ Piihlir
1. Subdivision Requirements. Open space is required by the City through
requirements to dedicate either land or money to an open space pool, as
well as to dedicate trail easements which are depicted on the adopted
Aspen Area Trail Map. The County, similarly, requires open space and
trail dedications which are negotiated in subdivision processes.
Also, Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) requirementsfor certain zones
require accommodation of buildings in clusters such that most land is
free of development and available for private use by occupants of
the subdivision, but often also for the visual enjoyment of a larger
public.
2. Preferential Tax Treatment. The State of Colorado has passed legislation
to allow assessment of farms at their farm value, rather than at a
future speculative use value. The tax benefit may induce farmers to
continue agricultural use, but the pressure of development may prove
to be too enticing in the long run.
3. Indirect Methods. The City/County can indirectly gain properties
which serve open space purposes. The primary example is through
encouragement of the United States Forest Service to acquire lands and
to manage them consistent with their wilderness/natural/recreational
area policies. Approximately 85 percent of the County is currently
Open
Space
Master Plal
.
Page
Ten
publicly owned (primarily by the Forest Service but also by the Bureau
of Land Management and by Pitkin County).
B. Public or Private
1. Fee Simple Purchase. The technique of outright purchase is simple
and direct, providing long=term security. Its use is limited, in
practicality, due to its prohibitive expense. Less costly methods
are available.
2. Bargain, or Gift, Sale. While resulting in less direct profit for a
seller than outright sale, a bargain sale may result in considerable
tax benefits. Briefly, the seller establishes a sale price which is
less than appraised value, gaining a tax deduction on the difference
which in effect is a charitable donation to the buyer. This technique
is increasingly used in sales of open space and recreational areas
to the City and County.
3. Easements. Purchase of scenic, recreational, or agricultural easements
amounts to purchase of development rights (the difference between
appraised value at "highest and best use" and value as open or agricultural
land). In Pitkin County, where pressure from buyers who want to
develop land is great, this technique helps ranchers to be able to afford
to continue their ranching operation. The owners of agricultural lands
Laic, 1,, , Na ; ,; a,, a,,,vu„ L, of money (or otherwise given tax _ henefM )
based on the land's potential development value.
VIII. FUNDING SOURCES
Funding sources can also be classified as public or private. A variety of
sources were examined and critiqued by a consultant for Pitkin County Park
Association in 1978. According to that report and subsequent discussion by the
Open Space Advisory Board, several sources are feasible in terms of usefulness
in a County -wide open space program. It is clear that a combination of funding
mechanisms are necessary to establish an on -going pool of funds, and that the
combination must be comprised of both public and private efforts.
A summary of several possible funding sources follows:
A. Public
1. Present Available City and County Funds. The City has dedicated a
portion of its sixth penny sales tax to open space. In addition, it:
has refinanced revenue bonds, making funds available for 1979/80.
The County annually receives an appropriation of payments -in -lieu -of -
taxes (PILT) on federal land in the County, .but •the annual amount ,
received is not totally predictable. Both funds have been committed
to open space purchases at this time (the City for two years, County
for four).
Open Space Master Plan
Page Eleven
0
2. Real Estate Transfer Tax. This sales tax on the sale of real estate is
authorized by the City Home Rule Charter. (The County does not have
this authority.) The source has good potential --a real estate transfer
tax is used as the basis for Vail's open space program. However,
the timing for this alternative is not favorable since such a tax
passed on May 1979 for Wheeler Operat House improvements. It may be
possible to use this source in the future.
3. Special Taxing District. A more likely alternative for the near future
is formation of a Metropolitan Recreation District. This seems
especially true in light of Aspen's annexation activity in urbanizing
areas near Aspen which would directly benefit from the tax. People
living in these increasingly -urban areas would enjoy the benefits of
the open space and recreational areas which they helped to acquire.
These residents would have to approve fourmation of such a district
through a referendum, basing their decisions on a long-range plan for
open space acquisition and management.
4. State and Federal Funds. Numerous state and federal agencies provide
outright grants and matching funds. They are appropriated on the basis
of applications for specific acquisitions. As such, they would not
contribute to a long-term fund, but are useful as supplements. For
instance, approximately one -fifth of the County's North Star Nature
Preserve was acquired using matching Land and Water Conservation funds.
B. Private
1. Private Contributions. Private contributions may be an important part
of an on -going open space funding prograrrr. There are numerous private
trusts, foundations, and individuals both locally and nationally who
could be approached for support and contributions. These contributors
not only enjoy the acquired open space but also tax benefits. The
adoption of this Master Plan will help to convince people that they
are contributing to a worthwhile, coherent program.
2. Land Trust. Another element which may contribute to open space
acquisition is a private Agricultural Land Trust which is being
established simultaneously with the writing of this Master Plan.
The Open Space Advisory Board sponsored a meeting of interested
ranchers to organize leadership for such a group within the agricultural
community. The Trust will be able to accept donations of agricultural
easements to make continued use of ranches and farms feasible for
present or interested residents.
IX. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY
' As 'the open space process moves frcm plsnning to' implementation the administrative
aspects of the Open Space Advisory Board should also move from analysis and
Open
Space Master
P1J
•
Page
Twelve
programming to active coordination and promotion of acquisitions. Part of this
evolution will be a transition in the burden of responsibility between the public
and private sectors.
Heretofore the public sector has taken the lead with a planning effort sponsored
by the two political bodies of Aspen and Pitkin County, coordinated by their
staffs, and carried out by private citizens. The implementation phase calls for
a change: sponsorship by private citizens of the acquisition effort, assisted by
public bodies.
There are practical as well as political reasons why the shift should take place.
The political element is a commonly -held attitude of "less government is better."
All successful public programs in the Aspen area have resulted from the strong
initiative of private individuals. Acquisition of parks and implementation of
trails were efforts spawned by private ideals and donations. Many such efforts,
however, have proceeded beyond to an elaborate bureaucratic complex which, while
effective and necessary to accomplish program objectives, tends to obscure the
original spark of individual creativity and popular appeal. For this effort to
be successful, the initiative must come from the community's private citizens
generating enthusiasm and activity.
In a practical sense, the public sector is beset by competing demands for limited
resources. Some of these demands, including housing, have recently captivated
public interest. Public funds are not equal to the task of meeting each demand.
The medium proposed is a blending of the talents, expertise, and resources of
both the public and private sector in a manner that enhances respective strengths
of each. Government will do best to lend coordination to the effort; the private
sector will do best to stimulate interest and funding.
A. Private Efforts
Private sector efforts should organize around the following
functions. Preferably, these efforts would be handled by an on -going,
staff -assisted Open Space Advisory Board with the support of a professional
open space program coordinator to act primarily as negotiator and fund
raiser.
1. Publicity of the Open Space Master Plan process and recommendations, in
particular the importance of open space to the community over the long
term. Distribution of published brochures, interviews with participants
and media coverage is important in communicating what progress has
been made over the last several years.
2. Consideration of the structure for organizing private efforts, whether
by special district with taxing power to fund operating functions by a
Open
Space Master
Pla�
i
Page
Thirteen
less structured non-profit organization, or by continuation through the
public sponsorship of the Open Space Advisory Board.
3. Formation of spin-off organizations such as a Roaring Fork Valley
Agricultural Land Trust to perform specific tasks for implementation.
4. Raising contributions. to a'fund and to make acquisitions of land for
open space purchases. It is anticipated that in many cases, potential
donors will be more receptive to contacts from a private group and may
respond, in particular, favorably to appeals on specific sites for
which their contributions are identifiable. The assistance of a
professional negotiator skilled in real estate and tax matters and
conversant with the special needs and problems of potential donors is
considered an especially effective mechanism. Such a negotiator
could conclude sales with financial benefits to both seller and purchaser
using a number of creative mechanisms, such as bargain sales.
5. Maintenance of acquisitions.
B. P'ubl i c Efforts
The role of the public sector will be to coordinate public and private
efforts, lend technical and some financial assistance, and assure the
continuity of master plan objectives in the followinq ways:
1. Identification of priorities of,acquisitions, and evaluation and
monitoring of the publicly -adopted Open Space Master Plan objectives
during program implementation will be the government's main role.
It will also be imperative for the government to implement the Plan
through its own land use procedures. Modification of the Master Plan
should be sponsored by the local government when and if deemed
necessary by public feedback. All of this may occur on a continued
basis through the Open Space Advisory Board, or in the event the Board
is substituted by any private organization, the political bodies of
each jurisdiction will assume this function.
2. Coordination of programs relating to open space at not only the local
level, but also State and Federal.
3. Provision of in -kind services with local staff to include, but not be
limited to, engineering, maintenance, labor, legal, and planning
services.
4. Funding its own acquisitions or contributing funds to the private
efforts. Application to public sources of funds may be coordinated
:x,'by public agency-, staffs-.
Open Space Master Pla� •
Page Fourteen
5. Maintenance of acquisitions.
6. Sponsorship of a pool of specialists, e.g., negotiator, legal.
As actual implementation of an open space program begins, several issues will
need to be resolved, such as:
1. Continuation of OSAB and its role with respect to.the public and private
efforts, preferably in conjunction with a professional coordinator.
2. Actual structure of private organization, including a precise
mechanism for tying public and private activities. Responsibility
to each other is a technical objective.
3. How a pool of specialists will be organized and funded.
4. Will management groups be authorized by public or private entities or
both?
X. MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES
According to the Joint Open Space Agreement, a management plan for each parcel
of publicly purchased land acquired as open space is to be proposed by an ad hoc
committee established specifically to deal with that parcel. The management of
any particular p-i-eee � open space dcrc:,�s .1 . t' -- -- i r i _ :�• u� �: ,-i sti cs of
that parcel. The guiding principles upon which a plan for property would be
based are expected to be primarily those characteristics for which it was
selected for acquisition. However, this leaves considerable latitude for a
management committee's proposal. The mix between active or passive recreation,
and natural or agricultural preservation, will lie within constraints and bounds
set by public consensus.
The Master Plan envisions a system with a balance of functions, as defined
in Section IV, for open space. The range of management alternatives includes
consideration for natural or agricultural preservation, and for human access
or usage, as well as for meeting the other stated functions. The final program
will then produce a mix of lands meeting these functions.
A number of management alternatives are listed and described below to illustrate
the range of possibilities, though it is not intended to be comprehensive.
Each is centered on the functions which the particular parcel of land is
intended to serve.
A. Agricultural Preservation. Agricultural preservation is of importance to
Pitkin County both because of its"own necessary contribution to history
of the County, and, because of its contri.buti on- to the .County : s.
scenic, rural atmosphere. In a location where competition with development
Open Space Master Pla�
Page Fifteen
40
pressure is great, agricultural operations need financial support to
continue. As mentioned, a Trust to accept donations and to purchase
easements (or development rights) can allow a rancher or farmer the needed
economic stability to maintain an operation. In addition, the on -going
maintenance tasks (planting and gathering crops, keep.ing irrigation
ditches open, etc.) are performed by the experienced and interested owners
of the agricultural rights to the land.
Another approach is to purchase agricultural land with open space funds and
then lease it back to the current or other interested caretaker. This
method is not widely tested but has the disadvantage of leaving management to
people who do not have as full an interest as would owners.
In no such case would public access to the property be allowed to interfere
withthe agricultural operation, though the general public would certainly
benefit from the enjoyment of the rural scenery which is so much a part of
Pitkin County. The general public would also benefit from such uses of
open or rural areas to define edges of urban areas, so that sprawling
urbanization does not detract from the general atmosphere.
B. Preservation of Natural Areas. Another approach to management is to
preserve existing fragile or unique ecosystems while limiting human usage.
This general approach is used in the management plan for North Star Nature
Preserve, purchased by Pitkin County in 1978. Public hearings established
several parameters fl-k and or
preserved, the natural/agricultural-visual characteristics were to be
preserved, and at least limited public access to the (public) property
was to be allowed. A volunteer citizen management committee proposed a
management plan within these parameters. The plan's basis is to allow
minimal interference with natural succession through vegetation manipulation,
although some control of noxious plants and some agricultural uses (to
preserve water rights and the property's visual character) may be necessary.
Such preservation provides a natural laboratory for study of grass,
cottonwood and other ecosystems not found frequently in the County. To
allow such study, limited tours might be allowed on the property. Other-
wise, low impact recreational uses are centered on the least sensitive
portions of the property. Joggers, cyclists, fishermen, and other users
are guided by a carefully laid out trail system so that people can use the
land without destroying its natural value.
Such preservation or enhancement techniques generally need to be applied
before any high impact uses are allowed since recovery from damage tends to
be lengthy if even possible. A useful management technique is to phase
management such that, if higher impact uses are recommended, they are only
...--.1-- allowed gradually as signage and control is put in place and as.. impacts .•:. �,..,
can be monitored.
Open Space Master Play •
Page Sixteen
C. Active Recreation Areas. Nearly 1,000 of Aspen's 6,000 permanent residents
play softball each summer. Numerous playfields for this and other sports
are required to meet the needs of such an active community. The City
purchased the Rio Grande property (located on the Roaring Fork River
adjacent to downtown Aspen) and used it in part to provide playing fields.
Many are in use, but more are needed for use by organized teams and for
casual sportsmen or frisbee throwers. A great deal of development and
maintenance skill and money are needed to provide for such active
recreation.
D. Neighborhood Parks. Somewhat lower -key parks are also needed by the parent
with children, the casual stroller, or the person looking for a quiet picnic
lunch. Less management is needed for mowing grass, collecting litter,
watering, maintaining sanitary and play facilities, and the like. Maintenance,
nonetheless, is necessary to provide a park which will continue to invite
use and to serve its function:
E. Trail Alignments. Certain open space acts as a linear corridor to connect
population centers, parks, or just to provide a recreational experience in
itself. The City/County trail system includes both paved and natural
trails to serve these Open Space functions. Degree of management varies
greatly with such factors as type of surfacing and amount of use. Public
agencies, including Pitkin County and the United States Forest Service,
have both contributed to develjopm-n+ Anri maninmmon+ of +r ilc +hough
little money has been spent on acquisition.
This brief list suggests that a wide variety of management methods are
available for management committees to use within site -specific, established
parameters. Careful consideration can lead to a balance of uses and ecosystems
throughout the planning region. This Open Space Master Plan envisions that
such a balance will be maintained by -the monitoring of acquisitions and
their management, with recommendations to direct mixed uses.
XI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Master plans for specific land uses generally delineate criteria for location,
then specify what areas possess those criteria and map zones where such land
uses are to be allowed. This Open Space Master Plan first describes functions
which open space in Pitkin County should serve, based on extensive discussions
of the Open Space Advisory Board. Then it outlines and maps criteria to assist
decision -makers in determining the open space value of areas or parcels of land.
While no specific zones are delineated exclusively for open space, this plan
provides the tools for examining any parcel in terms of such value which can
then be compared to its value for other uses or its compatibility with
comprehensive planning efforts. In other words, the criteria are provided as
a basis for describing and evaluating open space potential. Several general
areas, listed above, have outstanding potential and should be,given high priority.
Open
Space Master
Pla0
Page
Seventeen
In addition, techniques and a strategy for implementation of a master plan are
outlined. Implementation centers on public and private cooperation, with complimentary
tasks managed (preferably) through a professional open space coordinator. A
strong effort to acquire and preserve open space in the immediate future is a
vital part of the strategy to maintain the unique natural and rural character
of Pitkin County for future generation.
APPENDIX I -- Case Study 1
North Star Nature Preserve
On the east side of Aspen, as the traveller descends upon Aspen from Independence
Pass, lies a unique agricultural property. A mix of riparian, meadow, and aspen
grove ecosystems presents a visually pleasing entry into the urban area.
In 1966, the Aspen Area General Plan was -adopted, allowing for construction of up
to 1500 houses on the North Star acreage, plus some accompanying recreational and
commercial development. Any development of this magnitude was rejected by the
landowner, Mr. James Smith, who, in 1973, submitted an application for a 350
residence Planned Unit Development in partnership with the Moana Corporation of
San Francisco. This application was denied by the Commissioners in its initial form
and had not been resubmitted when, in 1974, a general County rezoning took glace.
That rezoning, to AF-1 classification, reduced the development potential of the property
to 36 units. The intent and effect of AF (or Agricultural -Forestry) zones was to
reduce building potential to maintain the County's rural atmosphere, among other reasons.
This turn of events led to the initiation of a lawsuit against the County by the
interested developers and also to some informal discussions between Mr. Smith and mem-
bers of the Pitkin County Parks Association concerning the Possibility of converting
Dart of the Ranch property to Open Space. Negotiations with the PCPA and the
City/County Planning Department then took the lead in the acquisition process with
the application for a 50/50 matching grant of g575,000 from the Federal Land and
Water Conservation Fund, administered through the Colorado Division of Parks and
Recreation for the Federal Bure-airof Out.:..,, ; ..u, 111.1rned that
this money would not be available in 1977, the Nature Conservancy entered the picture.
The Nature Conservancy is a private corporation which specializes in interim purchase
and holding of open space and crucial wildlife habitat while government bodies gain
funding for permanent acquisition. The Nature Conservancy was familiar with the
North Star property and was anxious to offer assistance. TNC's local representative
re -negotiated the purchase price to include a gift valued at about $250,000 from
three generations of the Smith family. In November 1977, the Nature Conservancy
took title to 175 acres of prime meadow and woodland. One year later, in December
of 1978, Pitkin County took title from the Nature Conservancy. In the meantime,
a firm promise of Land and Water Conservation funds was made, but the amount had
shrunk to $75,000 leaving the County with the major funding burden, to be borne
primarily by Payment -in -Lieu -of -Taxes (PILT) monies from the Federal Government.
While this brief outline of the acquisition- process only touches on a complex series
of negotiations, it does serve to illustrate the many pressures and priorities that
have been brought to bear on the property. Development possibilities for the North
Star property ha,,e ranged from those noted above to a ski area hale to several small
ranch parcels. All of these would have added to the Aspen suburban residential area
to some extent. Pitkin County has, since 1974, encouraged the maintenance of agricul-
tural open space on the North Star acreage with the objective. of preserving a rural,
undeveloped eastern gateway to Aspen. The Pitkin County Parks Association and the
Colorado Division of Parks and Recreation have emphasized the potential of the land
for offering unique recreational opportunities. The PCPA has suggested innovative
wildlife habitat developments as well. The Nature Conservancy has taken a more
conservative stance, with an emphasis on preserving the land as is, with special
emphasis on existing or unique flora, fauna and wildlife 'iabitat. It is these
subtly differing priorities, plus those of the public at large, which a volunteer
citizen management committee addressed in a management plan proposal presented to
the Board of County Commissioners late in 1979.
0
APPENDIX I -- Case Study 2
Rubey Park
The following chronology illustrates the need to combine competing interests.
11/27/67
- off street parking "morally supported" by CC
6/3/68
- CC said too early (financially) to talk about Conference Center on site
2/5/70
- CC approved formation of a private entity to buy 9 lots known as
Rubey Park ($285,000 at 8%). Suggested that land be used for parking
or open space.
3/23/70
- Agree to zoning
6/8/70
- Set election for 8/25/70 for City purchase the property for municipal
purposes (Res. 18, Series 1970)
9/28/70
- CC heard proposal for parking
10/14/70
- CC authorize City to do minimal requirements for parking
10/14/70
- CC authorize City Attorney to pursue closing of the sale
9/14/71
- CC agreed to combination of parking (54 spaces) and park uses
3/1/71
- Mayor Homeyer presented plans for planting flowers
9/13/71
- League of Women Voters read statement requesting the City leave
Rubey Park as park, but Councilman said people voted for acquisition
as parking.
9/27/71
- CC approved a parking plan with 50-52 spaces plus planting
7/10/72
- Proposal to plant larger trees to separate park and parking. Aspen
Valley Nurses and Lion's Club permitted to have flea market in parking
lot.
11/10/75
- CC agrees to joint use of Rubey with Aspen and Highlands Ski Corps
12/8/75
- Use by Ski Corp buses results in parking reduction to 25 spaces
11/8/76
- City Manager ou-t4Aned plz- 1_ _'...7 ..---- -•,ly for buses
12/1/76
- CC approves funding construction of a bus shelter
•
APPENDIX I -- Case Study 3
1 0
Hunter Creek Trail
Hunter Creek land homesteaded by Lamicq as a sheep ranch.
1962
Purchased by developer David Hirsch.
1966
Purchased by McCulloch for possible development.
1971
U.S. Forest Service offered to exchange other Forest Service land
for Hunter Creek land (1750 acres). McCulloch rejected.
Early
Local author of Aspen Trail Guide attempted to organize the
Hunter Creek Park Foundation to make the Hunter Creek area into
a small wilderness park before being lost to development. The
intent was to provide a continuous walking path (with no auto
access necessary) from Aspen to the upper valley of Hunter Creek
(later acquired by the U.S. Forest Service). While the organization
did not materialize, public attention was focused on the
alignment's benefits.
November
Pitkin County Board of Commissioners approved a plan for a hiking
trail along Hunter Creek which was supported by Pitkin County
Park Association (P.C.P.A.). However, the Bureau of Land Manage-
ment (BLM) indicated that acquisition may take one year to arrange
suitable land trades between BLM and land owners along the
alignment. The PCPA proposed alignment lay on the west side
of Hunter Creek.
1972
P.C.P.A. (with County Commissioner support) received assistance
January
from an area congressman to urge BLM to give the project high
priority. Also, affected landowners were contacted. Most
indicated willingness, and even enthusiasm, to cooperate.
February
The U.S. Forest Service indicated interest i•n purchase of
McCulloch's undeveloped land along the upper part of Hunter Creek.
Public support for the rnnrant w;irz iirnati nxi arti r iac and editorials
in the Aspen Times, stressing the land's recreational use potential
for hikers, touring skiers•, and equestrians. Aspen's Planning
and Zoning Commission and City Council also endorsed the purchase
by addressing a resolution to the Forest Service, and the P.C.P.A.
strongly urged negotiation.
March
McCulloch offered to sell the 1750 acres for $3.5 million. U.S.
Forest Service was interested but could not afford it. Negotiations
were opened for the next two years.
August
The Board of County Commissioners granted permits to rebuild two
bridges on the trail (by volunteer labor) for hiking and cross-
country skiing on the County's Hunter Creek Road.
1973
Wilderness Workshop and Aspen Times urge and receive support in
February
requesting U.S.F.S. to designate Upper Hunter Creek as wilderness.
Board of County Commissioners send resolution to USFS to this
effect. Forest Service recommends roadless (not wilderness)
designation.
Summer
U.S. Senator Peter Dominick encouraged the project of land
purchase by making federal level contacts.
1974
Money impounded by the Nixon administration was released. A
Early
few days before the Forest Service's option expired, they
purchased the Hunter Creek land at a reduced cost.
March
BOCC approves a preliminary engineering design for Hunter Creek
Trail in lower portion of Hunter Creek Valley. Alignment reflects.
topography and ability to get easements. P.C.P.A. and County
Manager negotiate easements.
April
U.S. Forest Service undertakes a planning exercise for the Hunter
Creek property. Access to the valley was a key in the decision
to close it to vehicles except for special events and in big game
season.
September Trail completed.
1976 U.S. Forest Service includes the upper valley as a Planned Unit
in its planning process.
1977 U.S. Forest Service completes a draft Environmental Impact Statement,
April with a wilderness recommendation.
October
A parking lot is made available for trail access at the Old
Hospital (adjacent to Silverking). Cross-country ski access (not
provided for on the lower part of the trail) is discussed.
1978
Upper Hunter Creek (behond the County trail) was designated as
February
Wilderness under the Endangered Wilderness Act of 1978.
April
Pitkin County engineer analyzes the cost of condemning the
switchback on Red Mountain for a nine car parking lot. The cost
is too high. Running a County van to that point for access is
proposed again.
Summary
As a result of broad public support and intensive work by P.C.P.A.,
a linear open space corridor leading from Aspen to Forest Service
wilderness was acquired at no public expense. It provides an
opportunity for many users (hikers, touring skiers, equestrians,
and even casual strollers) to leave the urbanized area by foot
for a short stroll or in order to get to a wilderness area.
c
0
•r
r
b
O
O
N
S-
CL
N
O
Q7
O U
N
C
+•-) U
C
r
S_ ro
ro
E
O N
4..1
N
r
-
S_
s
N
C ro
C
O
b E
b
U
^
S_
Y
Y
C O
N
Y
4-
W
S-
S_
O L
co
S-
V)
ro
m
N N
r6
O
S
0-
Cl-
L •r
_
a
LO
r LL-
(/)
O
C
N
r
O
O
N
r6
C
L
S
N
S-
a
L
d
C
O
N
r
C�
r
v
C
rO
U
4-
N
to
O
r
O
N
O
a
O
a-+
O
ul
>
i•�
L
N
O
�••)
3
•r
z
U
Q
C C
J
4-)
S-
S-
Z
L
C)
C
r
aJ a
ti-
C
r0
N
�
—
O
C
M>
Q
O
N
C3
Q1
V)U
S_
Q ¢
U
r
Q
i
O
Co
ro
S_
r
CJ)
U
C)
n
rO
C
i-) 4-
r
n
ro
E
ro
S O
3
Q
Z
Ql
S
(N
a)
S-
u
�
rn
Lf)
r
O
V)
Q
W
O
r
O
M
O
C)
h
F-
Q
L.7
0
LLJ
O
O
r--r
Z
1---
f,C
l0
N
r-
(�
h
lQ
r- h
h
S
�—
M
\ ^
N
CY
r
C
^
h
h
m
O
r'
�••-•
Q
O
h
h
N
LO
CO h
r
d
LO
t0
1p
1p
M
►-+
m
m
O
LO
\
Ln \
l0
t0
1p
l0
\
\
l0
\
\
h
\
to
L L.
OD
--
a
\
O
\ r
\
\
\
\
O
N
\
O
O
\
O
r--r
O
LC)
r
O'
W
N
U
F-
m
Q
Q
00
O
r--
U
J
CO
d
�
1
�
�
i
O
N
m
ro
w
O
U
C'�
Q
a
a
v
o_
4-)
V)
C
a
C
a
a
s
a
a
s
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
_�
O
O
r
W
Or
U
U
U
U
V
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
V
U
0_
U
O
Q
N
41
N
aJ
U
r
CL
S_
O
4J
O
ro
O
O
U
&-
0_
S_
CL
ro
C
O
O
d
4-J
O
N
4-
S_
o
s_
+)
v
:3
rO
r-
ro
>
o
O
d
N
n
r
CL
U
i>
F-
U
D
Y
C
0
E
0
C
L
N73
�
LLI
a
ro
ro
-
O
L
O
.NG
C-
4-J
d
Y
C
F- D
ro
V)
S..
S-
O
O
C
Y
Y
S-
O
Y
Cl-
41
>>
rp
ro
_ CD
S-
- �r I
w
O
S`
S-
O
to
S-
C
S..
C
Y
4--)
c-
a
: L
O
a
o_
ru
is
C-
-0
Gi
to
r-
M
L
C
S-
a
+�
d
CL
—
ro
:3
-
L
ro
N
4)
47
N
ro
Cl-
Q-
O
•V
L
L=
cl
c
C
s_
Y
t
¢
c
=
U
ro
N
F-
a)
o
r
r
Cl)
a
U
o
S_
>1
\
a
•S-
>,
L
7
W
Y
r-
C
S.-
ca.
>>
O
C
a)
E
LLJ
O
L n
O
O
0)
N
S-
4•-)
+-)
QJ
C3
�-L
N
rO
rO
+)
ro
Q1
rO
rO
M
Q
v
E
c
v
-0
rp
CL
a)
a
rO
c
0-
O
N
a
Si O_
S.-
4-
4-
C
a)
C
N
C
O
>
rO
r -
r0
a)
N
r
•�
C CD-
r
Cl)
r0 O
L
rp
C
r
i
N
C
U
+-)
O
N
+•••)
+
E
O
N
a
b•r
U r-•
r--•
N
a1
+
O
b
a)
tC3
N r0
C
U
U
e--•
U
r •r
=5 •r
ro
m
to
U
(0
M +••)
C +'
S..
+••)
rO
LL
:3 C
C
4-) -0
ro N
+••)
N
N
+••) (JI
F= Q)
Q)
+..)
U
•r
C a)
W •0
-
^ 4-J
C
•r C
d.
C
•r U
C
C1•r
Y •r
Y M
LLJ
r0
a)
V)
0)
c ra
a)
a)
i. (n
L N
i., r-
N
r'
a) 0-
O
t1
r Q
Y
0-
a) a
ro (1)
M (1)
O
0.
C
O O
2
O
N
ro
O
0. L
0. L
0. S-
o
N
J
C
O
W
O
i.,
r
C
r
r0
+)
O
C
c"I
i
r
rC
O
N
+.•)
-a
M-
a =
C
O
>
O
C
C
C
CO LO
•r
S-
o
(0
r6
CL
p
01
C
r0
•r
V)
a) C
+)
-0
Cn
•r
-P
+)
r— O
C
+)
:3
:3
M.
C
N
C
+••)
r
(n
E
+-)
:3
co
Cn
C
O
d
r6
LO
C
O
i
>-)
¢
0
Uro
co
a)
S...O-cc
rLS
Z
O
i
a
O
C)
C
C 0.
4!
Q)
L
ro
a)
a)
r-
N
aC
L
3
r"
QI Y
O f
r6
O
O
�
•r
2
U
L
N
(U
O
N
i
ra
:
CD
a)
a)
a) S.-E
C
J
m
m
m y
V)
F-
3
C-)
cn
V)
O
N
a
L
4•-
U
O Lf7
to
lD
tD
L
n
01
0)
Ln
LO
01
n
01
CD
�
M
N
l0
N
01
CcO
ca M
W
O
r
01
r
O
dr
lD
M
N
d'
•
LP
Q
r
Z
O
F-=
N
O•
U
N
N
lD
CC
N
n
n
M
cY
LO
LO
n
ko
l0
n
n
r�
n
n
\
\
^
r�
n
\
n
n
r%:_
n
n
r-
f\
U-
\
O
N
\
\
01
\
0)
N
m
01
\
\
a)
(n
01
O
tO
r
r
al
00
r
r
r
r
r
r
CO
r
r
r
W
F-
Q
O
O
m
C
O
�
•r
0.
O
r
r
r
p
O
O
r
p
p
O
O
O
O'
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Q
r
a)
U
L
E
0.
r
�
C
ro
O
O
r
U
O
rN
+•>
>
L
3
C
a
*
p
C
O
O
F—
L
>)
U
0.
(13
+)
O
LLL)
d
L
L
da-)
.�.�
_
a!
► -r
a.
C)
N
L
a)
0.
L
r-
w�
L
Y
L
>
Y
0)
a
QJ
r0
Q)
7
L
r
ro
0.
L
r6
-0
L
_0
O
r
~
L-)
Cl.
a)
X
r0
a.
c
L
iZ
L'
Z
Q)
U
O
LL-
C)
0.
Q
ro
d
N
4-
+ >
O
.0
cn
>
N
S.-
U
O
O
O
O
J
C
r—
c
C
C
W
0.
W
C
F
C
C
E
O
O
a)
>)
3
r
N
C
0.
7
a)
I--•r
(p
O
C
+-)
O
c-
V)
+•.i
•L
+.�
1]
tZ
Q
Z
V)
7
F—
tY
m
Z
F—
Gr
J
F—
M
N
wi
•
i th'
Y
S..
b
a
�
+-)
a1
L
ro
i
a) a)
r
a)
i-) U
4 )
U r6
C
O
O
i N
i
U
4-)
N C
aJ
N
a) a
N
4••r
S_ a
ail
S-
O
Q
-a
d
a) N
r-
a) rb
ro
'G
N
a)
V)
N
a)
+� U
V)•r
0 N
rO U
O
]
Z O
Z r0
Z
O
F-
Q
U
O
J
N
S_
U
ro
Ln
n
r�
CD
O
M
W
r
Cb
Ln
r
�
r\
r
Z
_O
F-
N
O'
U
Q
00
00
Cb
00
00
LL
\
\
Ql
Ql
Ql
O
N
Ln
r
r
r
W
Q
}
0
O
CIO
C.7
z
a
a
a
�--•�
4--J
i-J
O
O
4-)
r
O
O
r
Cr
U
U
U
U
U
U
>,
,-)
a...i
U
Y
i
i
a
n
>
rO
O_
O
i
a
O
i
W
i
Cl-
N
Q.+
O
`>
i
C
N.
.i
•v,
v
+-)
>
+•r
O
i
C
F-
r
U
O
7
O
cl:
_0
a)
S
+•)
U
W
L
•-
ro
Cl.
7
W
•]C
._
O
Cn
S-
►-+
N
(d
S_
a)
O
+•+
C
X
lL
i
i
_0
V)
Q
O
Y
Z
w
a
r
4-)
Q)
W
a)
_a
i
Q
a
Q
i
O
C)
V)U
_
7
Q
Y z
S- W
� d
fl- O
S- ILn
O Q
^
^
4-) U
N
N M
+�
a)
N
10
.�
r
Si
U- oo
aJ d
C a
•N
rC +�
Z C
.n
O
�
L. O
L n
Q) U
a1
>
•r O
+-) r6
tY 4-J
C S_
= :3
Q)
O O
+-) N (1)
U U
r N
L C r0
C (3)
CO a1
r v
3 r r-
N r -Y
4-)
LA +j I
C O 'r a)
d C
aJ i
E U
rp E m
(3) L/i U O
r a) 0-
(A
m
ro Q) 'r a
a) ro O
O N r = r-
U C 'r
3 )
•r r0 ro
C C 'i7
> 2:: i--)
O rd •r C rt3
S- C
•r r ` 'r >
Cn C O
O rO .-
ro L
> U) ro O C a
•• +� J a)
0-- C O 'r I
LJ') N i N +�
S- :> O L r0 I
O
a) 4- a a) +-)
C'3 CO •r U r �G
Z
i 0--- C
4-) V-) U i
Q
O U) i m
C +) O
J
LL- O c3n a)
Q) i a-� L Cl-
rO O+-)-0
CO.- Q) C
d'
a) E Q) O
rN Q. +-
W
V) i N E 0
Q i N S C N
O
^
C
a)
4-)
+�
>
C
C
Q
a)
O
U
O
O
L
vi
3
N
O
S_
a)
rO
c
i
O
Y
r
i
Q
N ro
v
N
Q:
C-O
Y
4-)
C
-p
S_ a
4-
r
S_ O
ro 41
'
�
OJtZ
i
C:3
r
L
41
O
(n O
N rZ
L•r
i_
O
LI- •r
C i
+-�
ro
ro C X �
N
v C
E
O'r
O
i-0r ,-
i
-0 .r
a) S-
v a)
+-
'O r-
L O
U U
O-
N U
i i
.- E
ro rO
i
2:L1Q
Cl. CL
rl
N
Q)
r
lfl
Ol Ql l,0
C) --
r6 ^
+� • rt) • rO r-
O r— i S- •r
+•r al F- ^ ^ F- aJ
^ Ln i ^
r� a) F- r� ^
v�CZI- a)r-0)m U r-00
a)r-r�r-4�rnr ^ ro imr-
4-r •r- O1 Ol C r- — `i Ln O O r Ql
i •� U r- r- rn O
F- r r 4- N ..•.
O Orr Ln ro O :
r LS O (D S.-F- F- r a) U O II
+-� • r i i C F- r U U i
O N F- F- -0 rO C L S.. F-
rn Y Q) rO i U rO
f1 C (U C Q) O F- i- C C-
-0 C, ro i rl rO O
0 7 •r C 2 U Y I= N i
U V) Y ro 4-) >> U +.) N S-
S- i r S_ rO O O C ro a)
i a) CD O •r (U 3 tY D O E S
L", O > O. r 4-) rO +-1
-J = r O L O C i 0 4-� r.- O O
.-� O• r 0 O b 4- O O C• r-
-iV) < -rS Li- F- V)
1\
• G3 52.
510� 51'W. HI -
90.7I' wAY No 8
N-7So08 Z
�v.
• R. =905. 00 360• 26'
CH. = N17' 08 38'W. !t/
j. G3.51'
N 0
N 2
T
v
o a
rV O
UJ er
W1%4COR. 5l=C.1Z
"r1o5 R85W
Ig54 BRASS CAP
UNAPPROVED
S
S�.
99
•
3S A - AG.
r
0/
9S \o 0
•
�/V" 3
s 8-I' Ofv W. lotro.20 Hilo cJCo E
• CI I�1Sq BRA55 GAP 4IN
0
0
D
N
m
0
N q (y 00 W.
9.1 1'
533'OOE. G$o E
rdl.G5' -'✓ •
C[E[F9000°0GA4, °0®1�1
S GERARD H. PE.SMAN, CERTIFY THAT TI-4IS PLAT IS
PLOTTED FROM FIELD NOTES OF A SURVEY MADE
UNDER MY 5UPER\1IS10N IN MARCH M-79.
COLO.REG. QROF•.ENGR. E LAND SURVEYOR Z3'7G
O
e
N�
2�
. 1
2 9
�ti�e9
COR . NORTH YEnAS MILL SITE
�sw �
SO•
\ 41,
9
COR.f3 14 HOLDEN TRACT
Z
Do
N
..� COR xi 13 HOLDEN TRAC-T
oo E.
go.00 (t%
r
NA3-00 E. N oo I
gp o0 150.00 577_ c=:
z
O.OQ.
Z
40. 11
($
�1 0
0 \(r
0
0
�AN
S8,
0
W E5T -14 .04'
/ZEDS.
�Ae 00
COR. SNORT LIME
*} 5 RE -BAR WICA'P Z31G
FOR
III �11. 1 Z 1% (0)1.' 1'
ey
P.O. :• 2SOCo k5PEN COLO.
JOB x% ZZ ala► -A
so
OPp.L MAILDLT f6PER'Ty aw proPcced zoH i14
4-1
\\ ''I
s°° OPAL MAROLT ANNEXATION
TO THE CITY OF ASPEN,COLORADO
Z
N�
0_
VILLAS OF
Co3.51' N9 f\SPEN
D
O -COP N04 NORTH MILLSITE M.S. 3288
�- BK 18Z •�
PG 108
C.OR 14 HOLDEN TRACT
N.3-7-50"W
35.23 ACRES
W%q CORNER SECTION 12
SCALE I "= 100"
O 100 300
50 200
LEGEND & NOTES
• DENOTES RE -BAR AND CAP =OUND OR
FROM PREVIOUS SURVEYS
�����■ EX15TING CITY BOUNDARY
\90_ COR.13 HOLDEN TRACT
/ L.oT
\a0'
2� ADAMS
Do SUED,
DO- LOT 2
99
� N45 21W \ �♦
�s-N 81�I�1'12"E 40.1-I' v
�� OO
0
vO q0
°v O
� O
VICINITY MAP
SCALE I O oU
TRACED FROM 5G5
���� ASPEN COLO.
W Z
0 D
W
� 0 6
M �
00 ' r
�o q0.
N cRk
CASTLE
CREEK
Q
Z/
� • \20 .
ti
l�� o
�\ ti
N.a2'30'V'J, 32G.Oq'
28X14x10 RoC.K
W ITNES5 CORNER
FOR THE 5 I/4 CORNER
SECTION t2
° -14.04'
J
4)
LINE 1-4
l9
� v SNORT LIME
^v �
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
A TRACT OF LAND SITUATCD IN LOTS 01,10 13AND SW% 5W 1/4 SECTION 12.E TIO51 R85W OF THE GT- PM AND
L075 NW �4 OF THE NW/4 SECTION 13, TIOS, R8S\N OF THE CoTH PM, DESCRIBED A5 FOLLOWS',
BEGINNING AT A PO11'-1T, IN THE CENTER LINE OF CASTLE CREEK THE (5W. COR LOT F, ADAMS 5UBDNISION
BEING N.45' 21'W. (b62.8-1 FEET FROM THE 28" )X 14"X10" ROC+K WITNESS WITNESS OCORNER MONUMENT SET FOR THE
ITNSS PINT FOR THE SOUTH I114 CORNER OF SECTION 12
THENCE N,1�1�40'E. 14q.q`1 FEET 70 CORNER 13 HOLDEN TRACT,
TI-IENCE N 14' 35' W 1-72. 00 FEE-T TO CORNER 14 HOLDEN TRACT
THENCE N 3-1'50'W 314.-2 FEET TO CORNER I HOt_DE.N TRACT, BEING IDENTICAL- WITH CORNER q NORTH
TEX/-�5 MILL 51TE
THENCE N.54' 45' V\/. SA 00 FEET MORE OR L.E55 TO THE CENTER LINE. OF CASTLE. CREEK;
THENCE N qq 00 FEET ALONG THE CENTER LINE OF GA5TLE CREEK THENCE N 2.8' IO' E, Rgy.Op FEET ALONG rHE CENTER LINES OF CASTLE C-REEK ; THENCE N ZO"O5' E. 115.40 FEET ALONG THE CENTER LINE OF CASTLE CREEK TO THE SOUTH f 21GHT
OF WAY LINE OFCOLORADO HIGHWAY NO. 82 Lf,rEt.�DED EHSTERLY
THENCE N 15'08'W 3000-2CG' FEET ALONG "HE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF COLORADO HIGHWAY NO, 62;
THENCE G3.5Z FEET ALONG THE ARC OF CURVE TO THE LEFT ( RADIUS OF=105.00 FEET CHORD F3EAR5
N.7_1' 08' 38"W. 53 51 FEET
THENCE S, 10' S1' W. HO -11 FEET
THENCE S.21'4_7' W 282.31 FEET'
' HENCE S.ZS'28 W. 115 83 FEET -0 A POINT BEING 1-1G4,Co8 FEET 5,41652' 15"E. ;.R0fA THE, I9-- i 15PA5-j CAP
MARKING THE WEST 114 c:_ORNER SECTi<>N 12;
`H' =rJCE Slg� c rJ 1101 11 FEET TO THE NORTH RIGHT OF `</./AY LINE OF GASTL..E CREEK ROAD;
THENCE 5.40'OOE IIy qB FEET ALONG THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LIPJE OF CA'5TL.,E, CREFY, ROAD;
THENCE S.53'34'E 124.G1 FEET ALONG THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAy LINE OPCA3TL..,E CREEK FissA(�� TH ENCE N 81'5G' E P-54.45 FEET;
THENCE Soo 42' E. 308 07 FEET;
THENCE Ng0'00`W, q I I P7EET ;
THENCE S.33"OOE. Col GS FEET;
THENCE N.G8"35'E Z80.ISFEET TO LINE I-2 SHORT LIME M 5 4G10;
THENCE N IG-06W. 44.GR. FEET ALONG _INE 1-2 TO CORNER NO. I SHORT LIME M.5.4r ic);
THENCE N t4'OdE. P-3G.35FEET ALONG LINE -4 SHORT LIME r✓1.5.,4
THENCE N.GO'00'W, 14. C4 FEET;
THENCE NJG'12'E I11.32FEET
THENCE N.42'30W. 32q.C-)q FEET;
THENCE 1y.02'43 W 221.35 FEET;
THENCE N.IG'44'E 139.-18 FEET;
THENCE 5-10'12.'E. 12.O.oOFEET ;
THENCE N.3ro145'E. ?-GB. G3 FEET TO THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF PROPERTY DEGGRIBEO IN BK IGro PG 31G PITK IN GO RECOR
THENCE NG0%r.W I�1O.00FEET MORE OR LE�sj rOTHECENT�R L1t lE OF CASTLE CREEK THENCE N IZ332�1W 154.12 FEET ALONG THE CENTER LINE. OF CASTLE CREEI<;
THENCE N.U3'o0'E . 80.00 FEET ALONG THE CENTER LINE OF CASTLE CREEK;
THENCE N 85'30E, 83.00 FEET ALONG THE CENTER LINE OF CASTLE CREEK;
THENCE N. 85'OOE. ISO.00FEET ALONG THE�_ENTER LINE OF CASTLE CREEK'
THENCE 5. G8'06E. 800o FEET ,--\LONG THE CENTER LINE OP C.ASTI.E CREEK
THENCE 5.11'00'E 110.00 FEET ALONG THE CENTER LINE OF CASTLE CREEK }
-HENCE N.8I_Iq'1ZE 10.1-1 FEET ALONG THE CENTER LINE UFCASTLE CREEK-TOTIHE. POINT OF BEGINNING
CONTAINING 35.23 ACRES MORE 01= LESS.
APPROVED t3Y THE CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF A5pFN, PITKIN COUNTY COLORADO BY ORDINANCE NUMBER
P/)5SED THIS DAY OF IgBC) AD
ATTEST
C17Y CLERK
MAYOR
CLERK AND RECORDERS CERTIFICATE
THIS PLAT \NA5 FILED FOR RECORD IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK AND REORDER, PITKIN COUNTY
COLORADO, AT- _M 01-I TH15_ DAY OF , Ig80 A-D. FLAT 130OK_ AT PAGE
RECEPTION NO.
COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER
COP. I SHORT LIME
/ MS 4G10
SEC. / SEC
13
12 06 0 -
9�,
PRESENTLY IN
THE PROCESS OF q)
° BEING ANNEXED TO THE \
CITY OF JISPGN) N�10'00'W Z/
L/ •
S 40'00' E. 5550 34 � • \
114.g8'
CASTLE CREEK, G 1. G5
0
N I G COW
44. G2'
o �
R/
BY
DIE PUTY
PREPARED BY: SURVEY ENGR'5 INC.
BOX-2.soG ASpEN,COLc�
31 ZG1 80
j_t3 - Z2gG -A CONT