Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.an.Marolt Opal.r6.1980 ^ .,,-, 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 witn a proposal that incorporates up to 125 dwelling units roughly divi ded"' into 70% deed restri cted 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 r1arolt 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 accommddatmontothe 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. f:" ^ ,,-, 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 visuHly 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 su~~ary 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. memorand~ 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 trelieve 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. / ~ r--, CITY OF ASPEN. MEMO FROM KAREN SMITH To: Herman Edel Date: February 1, 1980 I just spoke to Bob Joyce re9arding 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 phas~ng 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. .-.... .-. , u~~,,~ l/z/71' 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 sHuated in Lots 9, 10, l3, SW~ SW~ Section 12, Township 10 South, Range 85 West, 6th P.M. and Lot 5 and NW~ N~ Section l3, Township lO 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, l30 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. 1""". ~ -," LIST OF ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS - OPAL MAROLT PROPERTY - Argubright, James & Wilma 9803 Windledge Dallas TX 75238 Holy Cross Electric Assoc. 590 North'Mill Street Aspen CO 81611 City oiAspen Aspen CO 81611 Kopi, Donald & Carol Ann Box 956 Aspen CO 81611 Barr, Ronald &Debra Box 4384 Aspen CO 81611 Marolt, Celia 0488 Castle Creek Road Aspen CO 81611 Bealmear, Eleanor Berger Box 632 Aspen CO 81611 Skiff, Katie 920 West Hallam Street Aspen C081611 Daggs, James K. 720 East Hyman Avenue Aspen CO 81611 Vidal, Chuck 300 Easty Hyman Avenue Aspen CO 81611 De Pagter,Jacobiis A. Box 182 Aspen CO 81611 The Villa of Aspen, Inc. 400 East Main Street Aspen CO 81611 Eubank, Dale & Coates, Neligh C. 720 East Hyman Avenue Aspen CO 81611 Vought, P~t~r. Castle Creek Road'" Aspen CO 81611 Fels, Jerry & Esther 3645 Valley Meadow Road Sherman Oaks CA 91403 Wachs, Jr., Edward H. Box 405 Aspen CO 81611 Gerbaz, James E. 301 South 7th Street Aspen CO 81611 Weinberg, Sidney E. 820 Ridge Road Highland Park IL 60035 Head, Fredrick F. Box 4204 Aspen CO 81611 Zasachy, Edward A. & Cynthia 299 South 7th STreet Aspen C08l611 '. A. -.... f "\ , MEMORANDUM TO: Ron Stock, City 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 I, bottom of page, titled Annexation and Zoning. The Marolt Associates (or Marolt) does not own all the property that is being peti.tioned 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 Seqtion 31-12-107(e) of the Colorado revised statutes. Middle of page. The paragraph makes reference to.70% of the ;residen- tial units. I believe the qode says bedrooms,riot"uriits. 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 tn the 125 units. The 30% free market unij:.s 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 fora 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 bId 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 A Re: Marolt Agreernen~ .-" , The dE!scription 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 Smi th . -".:"".~:;, .~" '. ',~,.~..tt;"'<, th' :_"',~l'O'~"""_""~"'~_'_"'-_'" . ._"" -.-., " ~---,." - 1'--.. """" Robert J Joyce James M. Mulligan Allen G. Reeves Don R. Teasley Mulligan, Reeves, Teasley &Joyce, P C. Attorneys and o,unselors at Law Suite 300. Equitable Building 730 Seventeenth Street Denver. Colorado 80202 November 15, 1979 Telephone (303) 572.0600 Cable MULLREEVES Karen Smith Director of Planning City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Karen: 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 Oli the 20th to join with you in your zoning recommendation. Hope all is well with you, see you next week. very truly yours, TEASLEY RJJ/ml . APPENDIXES Appendix I. Case Studies l. North--Star Natult::ri t:"~:"Vt- ", 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 . , 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 af the area' s assets. In 1978, the City and County responded to the publ i c 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 graups 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 ecalogi tal. conti nui ty, sources af food, and havens for respite from the intensity of modern stresses. The scope of thi s Pl an encompasses ,both urban and rural areas of Pi tki n County. Land in the Highway 82 carridor, which is' primarily in private ownership and ,ha,~ g.!'e'!.~est pot.~ntJalo-J:QF:".urb,an.deyl;>l(\pmE>c'3t, is thE> focus of--map2Jng and other aspects of the Pl an where limited resources of time and money coul d not caver 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 af the Caunty. Specific effarts should be directed toward preserving land with open space value in both urban and rura,l partions of Pitkin Caunty. - upc,Il..)pal."..t;: I'la:::"l..er' I"'ldn Page Two .-... -. " . ,1 II. HISTORY ,AND PLANNING FRAMEWORK Early Citizen Efforts. Participants, both resident and vtsitor, in the . . experience of Pitkin County cannot help but be ,aware' of the great beauty, serenity, and fertility of tl1e 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 themid-l960'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. ,T;be 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 educational facHities, ,'.. unifted--throughtreauon'(ff:-a..connedi ng system ot 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 1979. The City adopted a one percent sales tax to be used in part fOr open space atquisitions 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 preserying 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. 1 , Aspen Area General Plan, Final Reoort., Preface, 1966. lIbid.. p. ] . 3- ~bid., p. 2. ,,,,,,,,' i.~:'....\~ "_':" , ,---. - .',." ,...~. , Open Space Master Plaf"l 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 weY!e used as the basis for a conseryation policy to preserve open space, the town's historic character, and air and water quality. The open space, conservationpoJicy 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 simrounding 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 parton tourism and recreation). Planning programs have been initiated by both Aspen and Pitkin Co~nty to accomplish the historic and natural resource conservation goal. In 1975, the Ci ty of Aspen adopted several ordi nances .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 ~f development from urban uses to adjacent agricultural and forestry uses, to minimize disturbance '~_..:to_ter.rainand_surface rtmaff-c-hallges in stce;:~j' :loped <ircc:, ,n;d-tcenhance 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 (l976) 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 . ,.~..-' .,;. ,.. . .".. _," j<' ,-," .........,.... ..L .:; ,.-: -;., ,,' .:;i~,- ,'c'",....: ~. , Open Space Master Pl~ 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, ~ommercial, etc.) Interface with Other Pl ans. Early di rect efforts toward establ i shi ng an open space system were concentrated on a trails plan to meet both recreational and non~recreational needs. Cqmmuter 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 a~ 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 includ~s 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 ,j;haLar~as wh i chare_-p-a1:toL:the GreE>nw~v ,rl"rf> i VI" <; per i":Ir.!"Vp}opm.,nt permits, to insure that essential areas in the Gr/lenway 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 Lan'd 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 geries 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. .. " . I"'" Open Space Master Plan Page Five ,-" landowners have also implemented compatiple 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 wit~ the surrounding countrys i de, and the natural vegetati on remai n!; 1 arge ly unaltered within one hundred feet of the highway. At Aspen's eastern entrance (via Independence Pas~), the scenic highway is protected by a broad floodplain in the foreground (where development is pro- hipited) 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 we.st 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, provtding a distinctive visual boundary between the urbanized area and surrounding natural/agdcultural 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 ur,ban environment is a crucial element in guiding where and when urban growth would best occur to-~ure"pres~vatton and enhancement "f HuLuiui (bOU1(.c,>, iilld tu provide vital recreational opportunities. The importance of using open space to provide an attractive, efficient form for urban development has recently peen 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 publ i c space to meet present and future recreati ona 1 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 ~ ".,,~ . ...... ,We ~.'. ". ,~"". ..' '" . ' .. ,..' " ..-. '. ' - Open Space Maste~ Pl~' Page Six ~ As such, open spaces are a criti ca 1 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 soci.al and phychological teY'[Tls 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 preci se defi n i ti on is poss i b 1 e, however, in terms of functi ons whi ch . open space may serve. Based on public values, Pitkin County's open space progrClln is generally-fhtenaeifloHguide the acquisiTion, preservatton, enhancement 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 util i zed for shapi.ng u.rban, nei ghborhood, and rural areaS such that building and population are concentrated in urban nodes. ,'...~ ....~ ..... ,""'f"','';'''''~ '. "- ..~~;;' .,.....,....,' ......._ ,....."...'..,...,.~'., i.:.. ;' .",: ;^,,~;. ._",..,,: ..;.",,'.~ ."'I'~ "~ '., . .., .f. .:., ...." P. ~;, P .",;~" ,~... '.. .. .. ", :'.~~. ....'.<.',~ ...,":..._,":. Open Space Master Plat' P'age Seven 1""'1 G. Undeveloped corridors along transportation routes. H. Areas accessible to populati.on centers, especially those areas where non-motorized modes of travel (e.g., walkin'g, bicycling, equestrian) or public transit provide access. V. CRITERIA FOR OpEN SPACE SELECTION In order to facilitate decisions on which parcely 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 l. 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 r.eg'i')!! is its bzc::.:ty, whj::h j: ;:::1; only seen but invites particilTa-HOO7- " 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 r~utes 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 activitiesufrom 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 irri9ated meadows are not reco.verable for the enlightenment of future generations after being disturbed. ,;.:,~,:";..,~,,,;,~";!i" ~>"";'~"'''~''' .,:I''';'''~" "';~';' "",....,.;~,~" "";'"''''';'":-':'~'''''''''''i''''' '4'.;,,'~',..,........>.,., ."" .~.:'.~v. ~::~ ~~""'''',,' '..~;.-,~'.. ,. ~.,.~. '~"'_' .._,~..,;,'''' .,.i__~ 0: ...-.....:.,~y"'..'..:. '" ~ CIJ ..... C CIJ U C o .~ ..... '" .... ~ r"\ -, . .c en .~ c .c .... ~ '" ~ '" ~ c CIJ o ..... .... ~ en ..... '" CIJ .:.< ~..... '" .....:::1 '" c: 0 r->, GJ-s.. en...-So.. U'3: r-",~ s:::o.~en'""s...~ 0_0 W ItS ~ ::s U .....+0) s.. 0 "'~::s +J""O U CQJtOO WI O+J+J s..."'C > en _COs... Q)tOen ~s...oen>c.O ltSaJo.::sros:::S- _"0 enLl: 0.::1 U ::SO C I I I I 0.='" o ~ 0.. I- CIJ .... ~ " CIJ .c U V'l ~ '" 0 ::J ..... c:c c CIJ ~ > c c ..... '" ::J 0. 0 '" '" U :::I = '" C C " ~ .... CIJ CIJ 0 .:.< u ..... .... ..... I '" .... . " '" III 0.. .... CIJ CIJ ...... :E ~ U c c:c ~ CIJ CO ~ 0. "- = 0 '" 0> .... V'l ex: ...... '":> .... .... '" .Q 0. "'''' "'= '" CIJCIJ UCIJ u'" ex: . .... z o ...... I- ..... V'l ..... :::> a U ex: .... u ex: 0.. V'l Z .... 0.. o c.: o l.L ex: ..... c.: .... I- ..... c.: U " CIJ ~ ..... . '" CIJ, CIJ '" '" en ..... .... ~ CIJ .... .... U en CIJ .c ~ '" 0 c CIJ U ~ ..... V'l '" C ~~..... '" c ~ .... '" .... c CIJ '" CIJ'd" .... " 0> en" ""'>, ..... 0. 5"- '" "'0. cc ........ .... '" '" cO> U :::10> ....'" ~ C .... "''' = 0...... .... a...... -' -~ ClJClJO"O '" 0 ~ ~ ~ "'C"'O.....CUU UO ~ .~ . 0 c . CIJ" "'''' ItS ro+J+J..... en.....:3: 0 >'" ..... 0 .....CIJ ~= OOroto:s.."Os...c .... c.... '" IIlV'l "'..... ~ s...s..C')C')os:::oo ....'" .~ .>< . 3'" .....CIl ,..-.......... +J ItS +J +0) '" >, :I: Ut!l en ....CIl "'0..... s.. s.. VI...- en.+o) CIl ..... '" . ......... ~IIl ..... l'tS So.. s....... .~ 0 U :::>'" C '":>V'l .c '- U oc::-......:c: :I:U ~ . C CIl en~ ~ V'lex: 0.' .:::> .~..... . 0 . '" .~ ~ .0 V'l u ex: ::;: ~ .... "'''' U'" en.,... cu CIl.....~ C').i-l'tS en cs... a" entCiu""O c.. ""0 s.. s.. o C "'Cm r- QJ l'tS-~ c:: N ___ ---:...-~.JD U r- r- l'tS m ~ en::s cu- ..c en ~ .~_Fs.. "'0 s.. c.. rtJrtJQ.W"'OWU Or- (1)..0 c+o).,... ~~~ ..c'+---'d';co.;:g ::s C1J :::::J a"Q) +J s.. 3: r- +JQJ So..C')Q.(I)QJ.........O .!5!en UItS(I).....cu Q) ...... (/)(/)<(00 c.!' CIl .... .... "'''' ......... C'" CIl>, c.. ~ - Oc ~ex: .~ >CIl CU ....~ :::I . 0 'd" :::>"'''- CIlO> V'lc.:...... . U .... .... " .... '" .~ ... 5 ~ o .... '" CIl ~ :::I o V'l -. -t-- .... - " CIl '" .~ > CIl c.:'" 0. CO'" "-:E 0> ...... . ..... . U .... c.: :::> t!l ..... l.L III C CIl 0 " .... .~ III ..... ~ " '" .... > . CIl ~ '" .~ III CIl .:.< .... "'''' .... >, CIl.Q "''''''' ~O 3" .... .... '" ~'" 0. '" CIl 0 c 'U ~ III ~IIl 0 .~ ::J .... ..... .~ c..... .~ 0.<- ..... QJVltI '" CIl0 '" >..... c: Q)S-WCl. CIl .~ 0. >+0)....., (I) <- '" I .~ I I I U III ..... CIl '" U c.: 0.. ex: . c:c III '" I .... III .~ CIl " .~ ..... <- <- CIl CIl ..... 0. III C 0" .~ '-'" 3 0.0 <- .... '" "'-::1 en .... :> '" '" 3'" OJ QJ.3: . s::: Vl .,... OJ >, Q)O > ..... +J Q.r- > QJ, 0 U. 's..~" ..-' I I- . '" <- s.; C1JrtJltS Zl.L:> '!>' .- ~ .-,. "to',:;:,,,. .b,'.-',.~ "",,- CQ)Q)V') rou..clt:l c+' cns..QJOr- OJ .(lJ s.. _ ..... 0.'5 CIlE CIl I'd E4- 0 :> .c:::l '- V'lV'l l.L . .':., . ex: . . - r" Open Space Master Pla" Page Ei ght" ~, 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.tnreat 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 ()r 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 deci~ions might involve a choice between p"r""'J~(lr"more simply, adecis,ion as tp whether or_notcca...giv.an'Rarc",l~houln ,hI" acquired at a given time rather than wafting 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 ~spen and Snowmass, 1 ands in agri cultura 1 use, and the Hi ghway 82 corri dor downva 11 ey. 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 c:onsiaeration i'nil selection decision. Final selec"t'ion,of" 'course, should be based on careful scrutiny of individual cases, based on the,criteria. Open Space Master Pl~ 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 most plans) 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 ac,quire 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,Pllblic l. 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 dedi~ate ,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 coiiSfsfent\~ith'the{r wHder~ess/natural/recreat'ion'al ~ area policies. Approximately 85 percent of the County is currently .... .-....~..,~. '. :,"'~_'.._:.",-":'.__.';_c' ~,:..:::.-~_..,.::..:.oo;;_,.~~~~~.~,.:.'" ","".>: ,........... . t"""- Open Space Master Pla\ 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 practi ca 1 ity, due to its prohi bitive expense. Less costly methods a,re 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 ";'''' u""k", ,y, lid; U elil ci'''vunt of money (orothef\'li segiven__t,rx,h"m'fh:~) based on the land's potential development value. VIII. FUNDING SOURCE~ , 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 refi nanced revenue bonds, maki ngfunds avail able for 1979/80. The County annually receives an appropriation of payments-in-l ieu-of- r. "";'" -_..".",~..,'"." .'te?<es{PI L.:J.1" on 'fedel"a'l" ~and 'l-n' the- '(:()unty. ' -but,. the.-a.nnua 1 amount;",.". ''''''''l''"'''''''' " 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). ,_.~__",-;.i_......;."""::' __:~.~''::'--.....o.-~';''""-,M Open Space Master Plan Page Eleven ' ~. ,,-, 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.~ 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 are.as 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-fift n 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 progr~. 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 Advi sory Board sponsored a meeti ng of interested ranchers to organize leadershi p for such a group withi n the agri cultura 1 community. The Trust will ~e able to accept donations of agricultural easements to make continued use of ranches and farms feas i b 1 e for 'p'resent or interested residents. IX, IMPLEMENTATION STRATEG~ e,", ';'.'''''''''/Xs 'th'e'bperi "spa:U'prcidiS'srnoves "f'him'p1'1iiining' t6' ;fJnp'em~rita'fi' 6Ii';"lhe'aami nlStraHve"."'" aspects of the Open Space Advisory Board 'should al so move from analysis and ..."...;::...,..... ------...--------- Open Space Master Page Twelye I""" Pla, :,....,~ programming to active coordination and promotion of acquisitions. Part of this evolution will be a transition in the burden of responsibil ity between the publ ic and private sectors. Heretofore the public sector has taken the lead with a planning effort sponsored by,the two poli~ical 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 donati<?ns,. Many such efforts, however, have proceeded beyond to an elaborate b,ureaucrati c compl ex whi ch, whi le 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 activi ty. 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 furiding. 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 <pen space program coordinator to act primarily as negotiator and fund raiser. l. 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 1 as't several years. , 2. Consideration of the structure for organizing prlvate efforts, whether "by' speci'al'district with taxing'J1ower1:o fund operating 'functi ons'; by' il ~..' ,'..',:,-,;;., ;.;':,';.......".,:.',.:~ . 1"""' Open Space Master Plal. ' 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 ne~ds 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. Public 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 fOllowing 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. App,l i cati on to pub l'i c sources of funds may be coordi nated . . > ,.' "..'~ , :.~', .,.;:...:...r:._-":;~.'#'4~~~,.;,..::.~,~'4'tib'li c-.~ageno/."-'staffs"/.-"~,<t...;..rr~"k~;',*:'#.;'!,'''''~''''~'''JIIoi..,,,,..~,.~~,,:,:."",~,~",",_~c.'''''.1>.W:;.~,JY".~~~:;r;~ _.-,-,,~~-,--,._., "._~"".,L _i:=_'!,,- '_'."_.~,,"' .:.... ''"-'-'.." ~".-. :-'"""" '",;:' - .. Open Space Master Plar-'. ~age Fourteen -. , , 5. Maintenance of acquisitions. 6. Sponsorship of a pool Qf specialists, e.g., negotiator, legal. As actual implementation of an open space program begins, ?everal 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 mechanism for tying public and private activities. to each other is a technical objective. a preci se Respons i bi 1 ity < 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"ilarttctt1a:r' pi eee of 'operrspace<lcpends t:;:S(; thcsF~C-;'f:~ chcrdctcl't stics-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 wi 1,1 then produce a mi x of lands meeti ng these functi ons. 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 th,e functions which the particular parcel of land is intended to serve. A.Agricultural' Preservation. Agricultural preservation is of importance to Pitkin County both be~ause of its'own necessary contribution to history "''''''''_'''' ~~.,....ll(hf.ut\We;;Qf\ the, ,~unty "and..,becauseaf, ,Us- .CQIltr.iJ:>u.ti OQ.,to,. tlle,,~OJJnty ~s., scenic, rural atmosphere. In a location where competitio(1 with development """"~,~,,,~,~","lfl!! ~-:-,..<,.-- Open Space Master Pla~, ~age Fifteen ~ ., 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 ~"-"~t-p;p;rcmleters;-~ a.Jld__,w11~.rti~,.~_lhi;';: t~~ _f\i'_~rL- .ttl L~ \';{~~~'i'-ed 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 wi th natural success i on through vegetati onm(!n i pulati on, although some control of noxious plants and some agt:icultural uses (to preserve water rights and the propertY'$ 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 befor~ any high impact uses are allowed since recovery from damage tends to Hbe lengthy if even possible. A useful management technique is to phase management such that" if higher impact'uses are recommended, they are only . ' . ,-" ,......,:,...,. -~ crllowed gradually'as signage and control ,is put in place and as. ,impacts, '. "','-0. ...., can be monitored. 1"""'\ Open Space ,Master Plar. , Page Sixteen .,.-, " C. Active Recreation Areas. Nearly l,OOO 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 Ri 0 Grande property (located on the Roari ng 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 recr,eation. 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 cormec:t 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 mil:nagement 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_l1otLc:ontributed,t,o"delLelop.ment ,ann ma!l~gement Of tr<'H s, though- 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 balanc~ 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 del ineate 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-~akers 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 f.or examining any parcel in terms of such value which can then be compared to its va lue for other. uses or its compati bil ity wi th "comprehensive planning efforts. In other words, the criteria are provided as ,- ',., ""'a 'ba'sKfdi -descri61ngaria'eva'luating 'cipen' space potential". 'Several general " ,'," areas, listed above, have outstanding potential and should be 'given high priority. . -~~ .-... Open Space Master Pl at. 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. ~ ..,.:-.... , " ~, '.,: :-.-.:. "'~'...~:" ....>; .;, .~,.~.::.. ,__:, ,":- 1.- .;- ",*".;;,; " . " "',-', ~. ..'(, , ,'.'O-,~, " .:........ ....';:,.,... ,-.., . ';;h'- ~:'.,;. ~ ......, , .& "'. ~'.:_:< I"""'- ,,-, 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 4rban area. In 1966, the Aspen Area General Plan was'adopted, allowing for construction of up to 1500 houses on the North Star acreage, pl us some (1ccompanyi ng recreational and commercia,l development. Any development of this magnitude was rejected by the landowner, ~lr. 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, ?- general County rezoning took place. That rezoning, to AF-l 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 ~he County's rural atmosphere, among other reasons. This turn of events led to the initiation of a laws,uit 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 part 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 $575,000 from th~ Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund, administered through the Colorado Division of Parks and Recreatiql1:~f()rthefederal Bureau-of Outd::.::.. R'-~.~;;.~;vii.\:i:i"'ij;' Ii..;, li;,d'ned 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~ssistance. 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 o~ 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 have ranged from those noted above to a ski area base to several small ranch parcels. All of these would have added to the Aspen suburban residential area.' to some extent.' Pitkin Countyhas, since 1974, 'encouraged the maintenance of agricul- . ..,. tu.r.al open ,space 'on, the NOrth Star' acreage with,the.objective,.of preserving a rural,.., .h..c' I""', 1""'" 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 wildl ife habitat developments as well. The Nature Conservancy has ta:ken a more conservative stance, with an emphasis on preserving the land as is, with special emphasis on existing or unique flora, fauna and wiTdlife :labitat. It is these subtly differing priorities, plus those of the public at large, which a volunteer citizen management committee addressed in a manageme~t plan proposal presented to the Board of County Commissioners late in 1979. . .-.,-.'" ';.;, -rt "",..... , ...c'... _._~., .-, ~'..#.:.. ::,.-,}. .'\..... C,." ..~" ..' "':, . 0.,.; _.'" . ..' " ,;,. ,,.. ~ " APPENDIX I .-... .-... Case Study 2 Rubey Park The following chronology illustrates .the need to combine comoeting interests. '",";;, -'''' '....... ,~ ....... ,':: .., :.,.....' 11/27/67 6/3/68 2/5/70 3/23/70 6/8/70 9/28/70 10/14/70 10/14/70 9/14/71 3/1/71 9/13/71 9127/71 7/10/72 11/10/75 ' - 12/8/75 ~1-1fS/76 12/1/76 off street parking "morally supported" by CC CC said too early (financially) to talk about Conference Center on site CC approved formation of a private entity to buy 9 lots known as Rubey Park ($285,000 at 8~%). Suggest~d that land be used for parking or open space. Agree to zon i ng Set election for 8/25/70 for City purchase the property for municipal purposes (Res. 18. Series 1970) CC heard proposal for parking CC authorize City to do minimal requirements for parking CC authorize City Attorney to pursue 'closing of the sale CC agreed to combination of oarking (54 spaces)'and park uses Mayor Homeyer presented' plans for planting flowers League of Women Voters read statement requesting the City leave Rubey Park as park, but Councilman said people voted for acquisition as parking. CC approved a parking plan with 50-52 spaces ,plus planting 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. CC agrees to joint;use of Rubey with Aspen and ~ighlands Ski Corps Use by Ski Corp buses results in parking reduction to 25 spaces C't "'--....." d,.. l-- ..." -"~'-''''- -~"'- -"'~""'" r.ly fo b es"~- -.---..-. , .YrtCtfl~'ger\1'tf"C"'t1"n~. p "to;: ...~~.... .......;;..;....... P(.i;i .....1.9'0.+1... ......;.... ...11. '. r . us . CC approves funding construction of a bus shelter. >> ".,' ";'.":,: .".A' ',.. . ....... ....~..:-,... :~. .. .... ...,.... ~ ~', ~ , ..' , .." .. .. -....". ~, .-... " tiPPENDIX I -- Case Study 3 ,~ Hunter Creek Trail 1962 1966 1971 Early November 1972 January February March August 1973 February SUlllller 1974 Early March ,,;..'"-~ April Hunter Creek land ~omesteaded by Lamicq as a sheep ranCh. Purchased by deve 10per David Hi rsch. Purchased by McCulloch for possible development. U.S. Forest Servjce offered to exchange other Forest Service land for Hunter Creek land (1750 acres). 'McCulloch rejected. 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. 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. P.C.P.A. (with County Commissioner support) received assistance 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. The U.S. Forest Service indicated interest tn purchase of McCulloch's undeveloped land along the upper part of Hunter Creek. -,Public s'Ipport for the ronren'l" w~~ "Y''J''dby ?Y'Tic1e~ ?nd 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. McCulloch offered to sell the l750 acres for $3.5 million. U.S. Forest Service was interested but could not afford it. Negotiations were opened for the next t~o years. 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. Wilderness Workshop and Aspen Times urge and receive support in 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. U.S. Senator Peter Dominick encouraged the project of land purchase by making federal level contacts. Money impounded by the Nixon administration was released. A few days before the Forest Service's option expired, they purchased the Hunter Creek land at a reduced cost. BOCC .approves a pre 1 imi nary engi neering desi gn 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 eaSilments. . . '~.'.' , "'. . ",,'-',,-. '. .." " 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 1976 1"977 Apri 1 October 1978 February Apri 1 Summary . "'~.: .~~. ... .-... ,,-,, Trail completed. U.S. Forest Service includes the upper valley as a Planned Unit in its planning process. U. S. Fores:t Servi ce completes a draft Envi ronmenta] Impact Statement, with a wilderness recorrunendation. 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. Upper Hunter Creek (behond the County trail),was designated as Wilderness under the Endangered Wilderness Act of 1978. 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. 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. . -' .'. .'".,' ..... ~ '.' .~ ^ ,"~. ^ ~ " . . e 0 .~ ~ .... '" 0 .... 0 V! r.. Q. V! 0 CO) o. Cl ou V! e ~.u e .~ r..", '" ~ 0 r.. 0) zv! ...... V! .~ -, r.. :;: -oe -0 ::s V! e'" e 0 "'= '" u . r.. .,. .,. CO) N .,. .... ..., r.. r.. o.c CO r.. ~ VI '" '" V! V! '" 0 :::>' e.. e.. .o.~ ::l: e.. ~ .~Ll.. VI ~ 0) g V! . ~ ::s U") ~ 0 N '" e .c -0 ::l: 0) ...... .,. .,. Q. r.. '" ~ a r.. V! e ::s 0 ...... a:l '" ,C:C 0 0 t:<: V! .~ e.. .~ '-' e '" <:t '-' .... V! .,. 0) 0) .c 0 - 0 0) Q. .... 0 V! > .... 0) V! 0) 0 .... .~ :3: .~ r.. c:C ::s -oJ r.. z -0 Z .... '-' e e ...... r.. .0 0 e ~ 0) 0) .... e '" V! ::s ..... 0) e '" > Q. 0 0) ~ 0) VI I- U 0 r.. c:CV! . u ~ c:C '" 0 ...... c:C co '" r.. .~ Cl '-' ',-, r.. e 0) ~ ''-' '" = '" '0 -0 '" 0) .......... . -0 0) 0 -oJ c:C :.;;: '-' :::> 0 :3: c:C Z O'l ::l: ~ V! 0) r.. u '" O'l ~ ~ '" N <:t U") ~ 0 VI c:C . ~ ..., co ~ 0 M 0 t:<: ..... ..... c:C !;( '-' ..... 0 w 0 z 0 '0 ..... Z l- e: ..... ..... '" N ~ VI. ..... '" ~..... ..... VI ..... a> ........ ............. ........ ~ :::> ~ M ........~ N 0- . . <:t . ~ ..... '-' 0 <:t .~ ..... ..... O'l 0 . ~ I- c:C 0 ..... ..... N U") co ..... ~ <:t U") '" '" '" O'l '" ..... ~ ..... ..... O'l O'l 0 U") ........ U")........ '" '" '" '" ........ ........ "', ........ ........ ..... ........ VI Ll.. co ~ O'l ........ 0 ........~ ........ ........ ........ ........ 0 N ........ 0 0 ........ 0 ..... 0 ~ ~ N ~ co~ N ~ ~ '" ~ ~ '" ..... ~ U") ~ :::> 0- ..., N '-' I- O'l c:C c:C co 0 ~ '-' ..... -oJ a:l :::> ~ e.. > -0 0 0) 0 V! a:l '" ..., 0) '-' <!l ~ c:C z a a ~ e.. ..... VI t:<: e >, C a >, >, a >, >, a a a a >, a a a ..... ::s ..... ::s ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... z :::> 0 ,~ 0 .~ ,~ ,~ .~ .~ .~ .~ .~ .~ .~ .~ .~ .~ .~ ..., 0- '-' '-' '-' '-' '-' '-' '-' '-' '-' '-' '-' '-' '-' '-' '-' w w e.. w 0 c:C ~ V! 0) .~ V! ..... ~ '" r.. 0) 0) u ~ ~ Q. r.. 0 0) 0 '" 0) 0 u r.. e.. v!' e.. r.. Q. ::s '" e 0 0) '" e.. ..... 0 0) .c r.. C VI ..... 0 .>.<: 0) 0) VI "- <- 0 r.. ..... u '~ ::s ::s ::;: .. III .~ III > 0 > 0 e.. VI ''-' .~ Q. W I- W -0 .,. C -0 -0 = "" C r.. V! :;: -'" III .0 ::s 4- ..., a III III 0 "- ~ ::s 0 -'" .>.<: ~ e.. e.. -'" e l- . III VI r.. r.. 0 t- o e, -'" .,. r.. 0) -'" e.. ..... .~ III III ,,~ ..... ,t:<: ::s ... ... Q) -<'..' III r.. C r.. 'c ,.,. e.. e.. .,. 0) .....' e.. 0 III . III ~ e.. -0 '0) III ~ III r.. C ... 0) .... ',-, e.. e.. 0 ~ Q. e.. ~ ~ III ::s -0 .c III 0) 0) x U. ::l: 0) .~ V! III e.. e.. 0 "- <J c.. "- E ..... 0 C C ... .>.<: .c c:C C ::l: W III VI I- 0) 0 .~ .~ 0) t- u w 0 r.. >, ........ >, .~ ~ w :z: ..., -'" ~ C Q. .... r.. a 0) C a ~ r.. E ..., :z: ,..... 0) Ol 0 0) 0) VI r.. ..... C - ."- .0 ::s 0) 0., ::: .~ V! III ~ III ..... III OJ .~ III ::s .~ .~ III ::s ~ ..... ;)c e.. ..... 3 <!l e.. :::> ..., :r: w 3 '" W :r: ~ t:<: e.. :::> ~~- . .-... ,-.. . . . " ... cu c ~ c l!l cu ..c cu c u .., '" e. cu cu '" c e. 0 CIl e. s.. e. s.. '" 0 '" 0 0 CIl 0 ~ ", CU ... ... c CU e CIl c 0 > '" ~ '" ..... CU CIl .~ CU .~ c e. ~ ..... .., ~ '" CU '" 0 '" e .~ s.. CIl e u ..... ::> '" ... ::> CU s.. '" s.. s.. > 0 0 CIl ..... + e 0 '" e. '" .- U~ ~ CIl CU + CU '" CU '" CIl'" e .., u u ~ u ~~ ::>.~ '" CU '" ~ '" U '" "'..... e..... s.. ..... e. '" e. e. ::>e ._ e ..... .., '" CIl ..... CIl en CIl .....CU ecu CU ... U .~ ecu cu.., .., ...... c ._ e e. e .- u c e.._ .><.~ .>< '" "" '" "'CU CIl CU c", CU CU s..CIl s..CIl s..~ '" ~ CUe. 0 e. .- e. .>< e. cucu "'cu '" CU :::> Q. e 00 X 0 :;: CIl '" 0 Q. s.. Q.s.. Q. s.. 0 CIl ...J e 0 CU 0 s.. .- c .., .- '" ..... 0 e ..... :;:'" s.. .~ '" '" CO CU CIl +> .., e. .- s.. .~ ex e 0 > CU c c e "'''' .~ s.. .- ~ .- 0 '" '" e. .., en c '" .- '" CUe ..... ..c en .- +> +> ~O e +> ::> ::> "', c '" .- e ... ::> ~ '" e +> ::> CO .., CU CIlCll 0 0 '" e 0 .., e. "'.., :;: s.. c ::> :;: ~ <: CIl u'" '" CU s.. 0 z <: 0 s.. :;: e. 0 :;: s.. 3 0 c co:: CU ...... CIl CU ..c ..... '" CU CU ~ CIl <: s.. 3 ~ en l- e .., cu.>< en '" CU 0 en .- <: ::> .- 3cu en is ..... c .., en x u s.. CIl +>cu ::> CIl s.. '" ::> .0 CU CU cus.. e ..c CU 0 ..c e e ...J co co cou '" I- 3: u '" '" 0 ~ CIl ~ ... U Oln '" \0 \0 In ..... ~ ..... 0\ 0\ In +> In 0\ ..... en 0 0 <:I' <:I' '" s.._ '" \0 '" <:I' en <: . "'''' . . "" 0 ~ en ~ ,0 e.~ \0 '" '" <:I' In 0:: ..... ~ ~ ~ <: z 0 ..... "", ..... '" .....' :::> CT u '" '" \0 <: '" ..... ..... '" <:I' <:I' In In ..... \0 \0 ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ...... ...... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ...... ..... ..... ".. ..... ..... ..... ..... u. ...... 0 '" ...... ...... en ...... en '" en en ...... ...... en en en 0 \0 ~ ~ en co ~ <:I' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ CO ~ ~ ~ "" ~ >- co 0 ~ co e 0 '"' .- z >,+> ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ >, ~ ..... .....'" ..... 0:: ~ ~ ~ ~ ee e ~ e ~ e e ~ ~ e e e ..... ::>0 ::> ::> ::> ::> ::> ::> ::> => .~ .~ .~ .~ 0.., 0 .~ 0 .~ 0 0 .~ .~ 0 0 0 CT U U U U u~ u u u u u u u u u u u u <: ~ cu u s.. '" e Q. .~ ~ '" .., 'e ~ CU 0 u ::> .~ >, s::: Vl >, <tl 01 '~ .~ ..... :;: s::: ..... > s.. , '- s::: e >- .~ .>< <IJ oj< ... s::: 0 0 I- -0 s.. >, e. 0 -I< .~ .~ U 0:: ..c <tl ..... 0 ~ ,. :;: Vl ~' "" ::> Q. s.. s.. ..... +> .>< .~ <IJ Q. '" CU Q. s.., ~ "'5, s.. .>< s.. .., > .>< en '....., 0 s.. e. -G>' CU <tl ::> s.. ~ <tl ::> .~ s.. '" .~. .' ...... 0:: .><, ~. 0 e. ... .- O. <tl .... Q. '0 .., '" ~ Q. s.. '" s.. .., 0 .- 0:: U Q. CU <IJ ~ ..c Q. ~ X '" '.., Q. e s.. e. s::: z <IJ u ::> .- ..... U. Q. <: <tl Q. Vl -0 ... ..... co ~ '" ~ > co co Vl s.. 0 s::: 0 0 <IJ 01 <IJ ~ Z >, >, <tl '"' s.. X <tl ,...J s::: ~ e ~ >, '" c "" "" e s::: E <IJ ~ CIl CU +> <tl ..... <IJ .., <IJ Q. ~ 5 c 0 0 ~ 3 .., s::: ..... e. ..... .- ..... ..c e e. Q. CU ..c .~ <IJ .~ e 0 Vl .~ s..' .- => '" CIl <: z: '" ...., I- 0:: co Z :;: ..... I- <l!, ...J I- ...J 0:: 0:: <: :J~ . u._ . ~~ -..::-...- ,,-, ~ ~ ..... U III ... CII 0 I- ... & CO ~ III ..... III CII~ I-<C ClIo.. .....U Co.. z o ..... ~ U o ...J ~ ~ ....~ z: ~ VLQ ::> ... ~ 0 '..c:"'O ~ U >,~ .... 0 .f.,.) ItS 0::: ~ C s.. ::>::> OJ "'C 0 0 .J.)(/)<J) Uu or- "0 (/) C ..s::::CrtS CO) 3: to QJ .,...- -~"""'" VI 'r- ~ I .J.,) Oof...J"'O (/)..fo.,) I COo... OJ "'Oc:~ OJ ..s::Q,;.C C<JJS- e U. ::: ttl E to OJ V')..s:::: 0 ,.... QJo.. (/) U 01 to (]) .... >, QJrtSc: QJtI)r-..s::::,- uc..... "'O"'03:QJ .....C'tSttS c:c-c 40;.) >:=:: of...J 0 1'0.,.... !: to So.. C o...r-::::''''' > QJ"'O :::l +J..........,... cnco Q)I'O_.-(I)S- rtS:::: > C'lrtS oE c.. ~-J C1JO....CO....... V>(/) S-Vlof...JS->O.cl'C1 Q QJl.4- OJ QJ..j...)~ ro.,... U.-..::t: ZS- 0.-.,... ::s +Jcn U So.. ~O c:ns...COC+.J:::l' 1'0 ...J u.. ::s 0'1 OJ QJ .s... +-J..s:::: O"la... ttl::::l-f-'l"'O 0..0...... en.!:: 0: QJ E OJ Q) (I) Cl..4w>'r- or- (/) L1JV') S-V') EC:::C::::C s... C/):::I: s::: (/) :c:: :::l OJ ..... s:: '... ro I-- :::HX:l U ex: 1-4 ::: CO o ~ III ~ e ~ ~ I- .~ CII ... U CII ..... ..... ... '" ... > e e ~ ..... ..... \0 <C CII ::> CO 0 M U a <C . CII :E: l.lJ ~ CO '" ~ -0 a: ..... .~ III 3 <C ~ III ::> a I- co -0 CII ... +' ~ '" .~ ~ < ("., c:; a a ~ 0. e z .~ I- a 0 ..... .>I. .~ ..... ... .. I- <C ...... .~ Ill'" ~ III ..... U "'0.. CII.>1. ..... '" a e -os->,'+- ..... III .~ s.. 0 rtS+.J ..... => III C1i....Jo.. So... c.o 0- <C CII U .>I. 0. <C CO CO CO co CO a ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... s- e l- LL. ...... ...... Cl'l Cl'l Cl'l ... ... ro 0.. x>- 0 N '" ~ ~ ~ 0.. CII e E ~ a So.. "'0 r-,..... l.lJ ~ .~ CII S-C11 CII ~ r-..s::::ouu e >- OJ,.-VlUs...s.. ::> ...... s...,.,........ ~ to "' a z :::1.1- o..a... u => e 0 .~ U .>I. Z >- ..... ..... 0 .~ ~ 0 0.. ...... "" . ..... 0.. III <!l >, CII Z ~ ~ .c z ~ ~ ~ ..... ..... .~ ... \0 0:: ~ ~ e c ~ e E ..... .....~ ..... ::> ::> 0'> l.lJ Cl'l Cl'l \0 => .~ .~ a a .~ .~ u 0 ~ ~..... c::r u u u u U III <C N ~ ~Cl'l U CII 0.. ~ <C -0 '" ~ ~ ~~ ...~ .~ .~ .>I. Z ........ ... ...~ I- l.lJ a..... s- s-.~ ... 0.. .....Cl'l ...... ~~ ...... ... ~ ..... 0. 0' ~ ~...'" s-~ U I- ,n__-S-"'=Tf"o.,.", OJ!-""- .>I. s- CII CII VI - o:::t'd"QJt'-...O'lO'l U ..... CO s- CII ..., > a <C aJr-'"",,,,",'''''''O'lr-r-_(fj S-Cl'l..... ~ 0. a I- -f-'l'r-0'l0'l C""'--LO CII CII~Cl'l a I- CII . '" ... rtS ..- r-' Q) _ "'0...+.J._,..... ~ I- 0.. III 1;' l.lJ -0 S,.'--u ~~Cl'l ::> ~ -0 e 0.. CII :> ...... r-'"" ..... r- 4- E III OJ a '" '- 0:: C ~~ Ul .or- ... co~a E '-~ ::> .~ u C 0.. -0 l.lJ a OJ........... III co '- '- a :::s:.''''' C U1' .~ .~ CII VI .~ -0 ... C'tSWS-I-I-,..... CIIU a co .~ .~ s- III CII ..... ......~ '- s.... C I- .~ u u '- ..... >- > ..... ::> I- co ::I: OJ VI I- I- .,.... ..::.:: -c rtS c~ 1-1- e I- .~ U a ::> .~ u ~ >, III .>I. OJ co '-,~ u co 0. 0:: -0 CII :r:: ..... ..... - c.c "'OJ ::> '- QJ 0.1- '- co.. C U l.lJ .c ~ co .~ ::I: E c li:::"'Om ... '-0:: o.. ... a ~ o.. ::> l.lJ .>I. Z e. :;: a ::>.~ e o..U .>I. , 0:: III I- 0 VI '- .~ U VI.>I. co..... >,u..... III s- " ..... 0:: 'Ill ..., ,',. '- 0' ~ s.,..s...'''S,.. e s- ...0.0. e n:s OJ"' -,II> ..>.,"' , ..... o.. CII III 0.. ... CII QJ Z '- CII<!l a.~ QJ 3:e:::.....J'o ~::I: QJ a ..... c III <C VI QJ > C-,.- 'of.,.) ... ..... ;. x LL. '- '- -0 VI C> co ...J ...J ;:.- a '- QJ C '- QJ.....~ a a ..... C> ..... U C ~ ..... 0...,............ III ::> ........ a QJ c.~ 0 .>I. ... .c c u 0:: ~ ...JV>o:::c:::e.....::t:u..:::>.-::;:V>o:::: z l.lJ CII >, ~ ..... QJ s- l.lJ l.lJ * QJ ~ -0 s- o. ::> ::I: I- 0.. s- a .~ a III "- I- ~ ;;: U ,::I: ::E: Z <C .. 0 -'