Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.an.Thomas Property.1975 ~ '""'" CITY 130 so street aspen, 81611 M..EMORANDUM DATE: June 7, 1976 TO: Members FRoMj/lJ1,andra of City Council ~1. Stuller RE: Thomas Porperty Option In November of 1972 the City contracted with the Thomas Estate for the purchase of eighty (80) acres; but on survey of the property it was determined that the property des- cribed in the agreement contained 6.8 acres more than "bargained for." Consequently, the Estate gave the City an option to purchase the 6.8 acres at a fixed price ($87,500) which option runs through December of 1977. In December of 1973 the County Attorney asked the Council to assign the option to the County so that it might purchase the 6.8 acres with the Thomas lands to the west if necessary to accommodate the hospital site. The Council by resolution (copy attached) authorized the assignment and a formal "Assignment of Option to Purchase" (copy also attached) was executed by Stacy in January of 1974. Reflecting the elements of the resolution the option provided: That this option shall be exercised exclusively for purposes of the develop- ment of the 6.786 acres as a hospital site and adjacent open space. The County has both exercised the option and purchased the land to the west of the optioned land, but the hospital will not, as a matter of fact, be located on the 6.8 acres. The County is hesitant to pay the full purchase price if the City can argue sometime in the future that the 6.8 acres must be used only for hospital uses or open space. At the price the County is paying it would like to retain the flexibility to use the site for housing or other pUblic purposes as their needs may require. The County has requested that the City at this point (a) waive the earlier restrictions imposed on the assignment, (b) or, if the City wishes to acquire the acreage, purchase it from the County. Note that the land is immediately west of the filter plant site and unlimited use of the property may present difficulties for Marky. f""". ,-, Members of City Council June 7, 1976 Page 2 I have solicited comment from Ted, Mick, Marky and Bill but have received no response to date. I will garner their comments prior to the Council Meeting. If the Council feels the waiver of the restrictions is appropriate, a resolution to that effect is attached. SSjpk .r", ~. ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning Commission FROM: Planning Staff (HC) RE: Thomas Property Zoning DATE: September 30, 1975 Parcels that have been annexed to the City of Aspen must be zoned within 90 days of such annexation. The Thomas property was annexed on July 14, 1975, and the 90 day period expires October 14, 1975. The City Attorney has advised that since it takes approximately two months to process a rezoning of land, that we should act on the rezoning of the Thomas property to C, Conservation. We can then properly prepare a new Open Space Zone for adoption and recommend changing the Thomas property to Open Space. A First Draft of the Open Space Zone is included in your packet for review. .~ ,. \ ~; I '. , CITY, SPEN 130 so aspen, street 81611 MEMORANDUM DATE: September 23, 1975 TO: Hal Clark FRo~ndra M. Stuller RE: Rezoning of Thomas Property Please recall that newly annexed lands must be rezoned within ninety (90) days of completion of the annexation proceedings. I have heard nothing lately about the status of the P & Z consideration of the desir- able zoning for this tract. SS/pk c.:? ~ . // A" 70-. - . ~- ~~"" ~~ ,/Ui-~. ;:zz;; ('??T.<-~ /2?~~-=? /~ Z3J. a-7"p--,n_e-:;'=.~c~ 17 ~ P2--z?<'~ h~,,",,_~ 17 ~~ /5U~.~~..~~e:.. .~?-~" ? , t+~ JsJ:;J1 fl)~1* \' o ~CIV';:' -VPt(c.,fi,. ~r\ " . \ /!A() 111-/ ,.... v'-' (V~'-~' \ I -20 Nt?- \/Je-. Dt~UJ'i:::,'5W ""'''''''. \\..,.J*,~"" , , , .~: w. """. !'<."ll<',,, \ ! . f . "4..-" .~;' ~ 4~ . ~. /~ ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING DEPARTMENT 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Planning Office (HC) RE: Thomas Property DATE: August 14, 1975 This property consisting of 39.203 acres was annexed by the City Council on July 14, 1975. The adjacent City property is zoned Park (P) and Conservation (C). The property was purchased with open space funds by the City and represents an important scenic amendity for the approach to Aspen. The recommendation of the Planning Office is to zone the property Conservation (C). r.. '""'" . ~"l.... .. ,.., ....~'.:.:.,~;" CITY ...F":'\:F... ..' .""c.P E.N . ,,"..'~. \~: ~'" I ~:':~, " ,,' . aspen .cQJ,9.~:lI.db;:~j:ji, box v . ". ',', " ....1. ":,' ".., ~'::' ,,' ~... MEMORANDUM DATE: June 3, 1975 TO: Members of City Council FROM~andra M. Stuller RE: Thomas Property Annexation You will recall that at the last regular meeting we tabled the consideration of the petition for annexation because we were unclear as to the boundaries of the tract to be annexed with the resultant uncertainty as to whether the contiguity requirements of the Annexation Act had been met. It appeared that: 1. There was a question of satisfying the one-sixth contiguity requirements inasmuch as the only adjacent City property is the golf' course and the tracts are intersected by Highway 82. 2. There was a question of our authority to annex the land constituting the highway inasmuch as we cannot assert ownership of the same. The first is easily resolved by the Municipal Annex- ation Act itself which states that contiguity is not affected by the existence of a street, ?ublic or privateiright-of-~ay. Con- sequently, Ive can look to the golf course property to satisfy the contiguity requirements. The second question presents a more difficult problem. In essence, we have no authority to unilaterally annex properties we do not own; on the other hand, it would create many difficulties if we excluded Highway 82, both with reference to determining our boundaries and in determining when the highway lies within or with- out the City limits. I discussed this question with the Deputy Solicitor General representing the Highway Department, and he agrees that this '""'" t"""\ presents a problem. However, he suggests that we (I) proceed with the annexation including the highway, (2) but notify the Department of the intended annexation and, .thus, give them an opportunity to protest. iie feels he would only protest if we were annexing the highway to create previously non-existent contiguity. "~annex- ation may also be of interest to the Department if it would affect a stat~county maintenance agreement. We have notified Prosence and Ed Hanson (Glenwood Springs), and would request that you proceed as planned absent opposition from the State Highway Department. SS/pk 1""'\ ~ 7f/~ CITY aspen ,col J'"SPEN ~2 0, 8HHl hox v HE110RANDUM DATE: May 7,1975 ~' TO: Members of City Council FRO~dra M. Stuller RE: Thomas Property Annexation If you will recall, in the fall of 1975, Council requested that I prepare the petition and Resolution necessary for Council consideration of annexation of the Thomas Estate tract. We first prepared documents which would have required signature by Opal Marolt inasmuch as ownership of the 6.25 acres of Midland Railroad spur remained in the Estate of Michael Christoper Harolt. Later, substituted documents were submitted which excluded the Marolt acreage but annexation was not effected in part., I believe, be- cause the Council did not wish to have to duplicate the procedure in the event of purchase of the spur. The sale has now been completed and I submit a Petition and Resolution necessary to consider annexation. I do this on my own initiative as this has not been requested by any-Councilman-- or-administrator. The material is submitted for discussion only. The tract contains 32..162 acres and has 24.5% contiguity. Inasmuch as the tract is now entirely owned by the City, the only condition for annexation is one-sixth (1/6th) contiguity, i.e., we need not assert that (I) there is a community of interest between the City and the area annexed,. (2) the area proposed to be annexed is urban or will be urbanized in the near future, or (3) t~e area to be annexed is integrated or is capable of being integratep with the City in the near future (although the first and third present no difficulty). In the event of annexation, we may institute procedures to rezone the property at any time after a petition for Annexation has been found to be valid, but the pro- posed zoning ordinance cannot be passed on final reading prior to the date when the annexation ordinance.is effective. In any event, we must rezone the tract within ninety (90) days after the effective date of the annexation ordinance. . , ; ! r .. 1.' I r /// I f I ! .- ,.--... Reference to the new zoning code shows three (3) districts that may be appropriate for the site, namely Conservation (C), ?ark (P) or Public (Pub). If Y9U find any of these districts no't suf::iciently restrictive, ,,'/e may amend the code to provide for an Open Space District category incorporating (and finally making enforceable) very restrictive uses of the property that many of you have shown interest in implementing. SS/pk Attachments ,. / / / ~ ". ~.., __-,--_..-.F...., BESf COpy ;!~M~ ~~iot April 16, 1975 DELIVERED EY HAND Mr. Harold Clark Land Use Administrator Pitkin County Courthouse Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: :'roposed Thomas Property Acquisition Dear Hal: I would like, on behalf of the City of Aspen and for the benefit of the Marolt Estate,tofrrmal1y request consideration by the Board of County Corrmissioners of an application for exemption from your subdivision regulations as provided by Section 1.4 B of the County Subdivision Regulations. You '\.;ill reoall that in 1972, '\<Jhen the City purchased the major tract mmed by .Leonard H. '..homas, npproximately 6.75 (Hidland riqht-')f-\>;ay) acres '\'/as excluded fro:;l the transaction. ;c:'l.~o """~""c''''''~~:-' ,:">..,,~'c,:,,,],"":lo ;\,......'Y'r"r:"'I"~-...n}- .r..........;-l~O,"l i-h":.:- '1"""'~M'on 'i'o~ t''\t'lo.'''.''.- __1~__ :i:......_ ~.'~~..l..... c.~..",..J. ...\.'. ...... .._':;',..~..... _~__._~ __ ""~'~_"'_~"w_ ......~..I....~ ......~t....>...} .......J.. !~.__._ clusion (E":hibit "3" being the description of the parcel to now be convcy'~c1.): "'1.2. '-, (, '-" ,.-.~ t: 1~ . c ~'. ,-:;1 a d(:';:;cri~d::i.(Y;1 c'i' j~2.~-:' ':~'t f.~ ("~.s -, Es t:a'::c~ of. ;;:;:,t,~:. ): T',',-"',, :.::,.~.:::::(_~'t.::::.':i.:>: G_," ;:':'~~ 1 f~',:~:r'ol"c ailC: ;<{)::;hLt;,:';'~b:::1.~ CO!:~~:::J':L~";!'. Said to as Parcel n a~d ttB i)arti,es ;>:.1::::0(;-1 "~I '~".C~' :-~~ {' ~ (';"L..: \ 1.;~". _ i (\ ... ',","" "' '.' .... .~ , ", ''''.'' '-':: 0;-- :; (; r::;:,"~::. - :...-;:;. ~')- TJL":C ~" , . "'-',.J. ~c .. ';"',',.,'~ '~"., .".', ..'. ~ :Lr,- t:c; F :-~, ''''/--' ' '. '.' ...... .~, '" ,- ,"J,r',[1 'Cj,-,'" .,,-,. ~~ '-'(~ .'tJ:", , , ,) ~. ''''_'''V :.'---.." ';:,"r'. ," ..~'" :':"'" ':;;~ ,_ .....J.. I"- f"""\. / 8t:Sf. CVt"Y Hr. ,'arold Clark -;..:.- ''.p:J:"il 1.6, 1975 l'!rs. ;larolt or Sellers acquiro title to any or all of the land described as Parcel Bi Sellers promptly therc- ~fter will obtain a deed of convevance to Parcel n to Buyer and Buyer \'1i11 pay for all of such. land at the sa~c nrice per acre and unon all of the same terms and conditions as <:lIe contai.ncd herein ~lith respect to the property described as P;:u:<;el 'A.'uyer shall nob be required to purchase Parcel B unless Sellers have acquir- ed a.'1 insurabh, t.it:le thereto ....7ithin five (5) years from the dat~ of this Ag~ec~cnt (November 15, 1972)." ~'arcel ~ contains a part of the i<.!idland right-cf-uay and you will recall that Dorothy ::,ooh Shm., and the :.~arolt Estate, 5.n settla~ent. of a pendingquie.t tit.le action... have agreed that the di::.1puted right-:,f-.t,'lay to the east of C<~stle Creek Yrlil1 v~st i.n Dorot.hy Koch Shaw, ,-~nd that the ":ricst of Castle. Cree}; in the ?'~arolt Estate. co~scquentlYl ~~e Th~~as Estate is now Obligated to pro- cure this acreage froT" Opal Harolt. and convey it to tho City of Aspen, ;::no. He are ol:>ligated to accept their tender. The spur is adjacent to lands also o~ncd by the Marolts and the sale, conse- quently, 'I-:ill requi:::e a parceling or their holdings constituti:1g a physical division of land. We have been advised that the annronriate section und~r 'which to request an e:;:el~ption is SectiO!l 1:..1 B (as opposed to 11.2); ....nd we state, in support of our request, that this division is not within the intents andpul:'poses of your regulation for the following r6asonSl l.-rhe para.~ount obj ~ctiveof subdivision reg1l1ations is to insure that the land proposed for dcvclopr~ent is suitable for the same and tllat adequate provision is ~ade iorthc recuisite utilities and access. ;-,f) propCS0 no Gc;velopr:',~on.'t. of 'C128 site.. :'Ct 'tlill ::K~ pur- ~,::hascd 'With ponies c.':l.rrtiarked..for ope..."t spz.c~ n.cS'uisition i:lnd ;/ill b(~, :':':c.:\ird::d.n.3.d '::~~:i 0:::::~n =->.;:)C!.cc at) is th,3 1.:17:.d t:..:.S tr:;~".{";:: :....~;:.rch~~\:;:(<i in 1972.. ::,::r1:<2t~d no -~s:;s ('l,,:; ~,.T:::~\ri!.l l:'!,a",,1'8 2CC:(;::':;~; tC) t.1:':~;;D (~ :'....;; C"':/":',; ~}',,,:; \... :::..... 2. ,\lc t.iC':"1~;~.!. .f~.1.~..,c>?:iO:1 c{= si..1Lc5ivizion re~p.11.r:lt:tc~';:; ilt':", t.O i)::::~C~<.":",:C(,:~: .,,\ ~)(';:::.'"i:~.::'1.~; of lt~~:..':~, fc,t: T)..;:".:::::'. "", ~-,.... ',:. .-....... .. ~,; Y,"-; ~-'~'3 ':;::; ~ ',"" .:l', '.', '... ,,;. ~-. n 1 ~, C( .L ._; ,.." l.i,~; , .":::.~ ~-~ ,.~ . . ..'~ .." --..... -,., ." t:,.t <::~.~,") '::~0 ~ ~ '<J c or " ". "~. . ,......., !",-, Mr. LarOld Clark -3- .~,pril 16, 1975 to mnke of record ownership of a unified tract which many people have, 1:0 data, thought to al- ready be owned by the City of Aspen. , 4. rinal1y, this purchase and sale is rc.guired to be consth"TImated by the Cit.y" govern- r:>ental agency, which can,. r-y reason of this exemption, ';e saved adr.linistrative costs and will, by, the acquisition, insure an open space entrance to the City vlhich, I arn advised, ;:.s an .objective the Eoard of C?unty Co~~issioners share. r;onsequently r in view of the above, ',.e request consideration by the COln."!lissioners of the application at the !:1ceting t.o be held Honday, April 21st. I am submitting, also, 2. proposed resolution for consideration and am open to any comma~t with reference to its fo~~ or content. 7hanking you for your cooperation, I am, 'Tery truly yours, ./ . /.' ?/ .''7 J -/;?;"'/'-7';;;;-) v' ---?;r~~,/,:y;../~ './,~...;;/"/ /"./ ,~/-""' t.:?,.....__ "" _ /' ./ ',....__:,...-~.., c_- ~_"_,-....... Sandra ~101 Stu.ller . Ci tYA'c.torney SS/pk 1 I I~ / .~ 1""" I""'~ CITY {)F j\~SPEN aspen ,colorado, 8t611 hox v MEMORANDUM DATE: April 3, 1975 To~~embers of City CQuncil FROM: Sandra M. Stuller RE: Purchase of 6.25 Acres (approximately) of Thomas Property The representative of the Thomas Estate has indicated that he would like to close sometime after the 15th of April but be- fore the end of the month. In anticipation of requesting your approval of the transaction at the April 14th meeting, I would like to give you some background information, and I do this by mai.ling inasmuch a$ public exposure of all of the activities of the Estate may not be appropriate. You will recall that in 1972 when the City purchased the maj.or tract owned by Leonard M. Thomas, approximately 6.25 (Midland right-of-way) acres was excluded from the transaction. The Purchase and Sale Agreement recited this reason for the ex- clu$ion (Exhibit "B" being the description of the parcel to now . be conveyed): "1.2. Attached hereto as ExhibitB is a description of real property, title to which is disputed"between the Sellers, (Thomas Estate), the Administratrix of the Estate of Michael Marolt and Koch Lumber Company. Said parcel may be referred to as Parcel B and the parties hereto believe it to contain 6.25 acres. Sellers acquired Parcel A (the subject to the 1972 sale) from Michael Marolt, now deceased, and have agreed with Opal Marolt, Administratrix of his estate, jointly to pro- secute a suit to determine title to Parcel B with the understanding that if said suit results in a decree vesting title to all or part of Parcel B in the Admin- istratrix of the Marolt Estate, she will convey the same to the Sellers or their nominee. "l.3. Sellers and Buyer (City of Aspen) agree that ~ . ~ ~' , t'" ~ . Members of City Council -2- April 3, 1975 if Mrs. Marolt or Sellers acquire title to any or all of the land described as Parcel B, Sellers promptly thereafter will obtain a deed of conveyance to Parcel B to Buyer and Buyer will pay for all of such land at the same price per acre and upon all of the same terms and conditions as are contained herein with respect to the property described as ParcelA. Buyer shall not be required to purchase Parcel B unless Sellers have acquired an insurable title thereto with- in five (5) years from the date of this Agreement (November 15, 1972)." Parcel B contains. a part of the Midland Right-of-Way and you will recall that Dorothy Koch Shaw and the. Marolt Estate, in settlement of a pending quiet title action, have agreed that the disputed right-of-way to the east of Castle Creek will vest in Dorothy Koch Shaw, and that the west of Castle Creek in the Marolt Estate. Consequently, the Thomas Estate is now obligated to procure this acreage from Opal Marolt and convey it to the City of Aspen at $14,000.00 per acre (for a total purchase price of about $74,000.00), and we are obligated to accept their tender. In order that the Thomas Estate may take advantage of capital gain provisions of the Federal and State income tax laws, the Thomas Estate proposes to assign its option with the City to the Marolt Estate for the difference between the option' price and the amount payable to the Marolt Estate for the 6.25 acres, and suggests that we simultaneously close by paying the difference (i.e. that amount which the Thomas Estates owes the Marolt Estate for the property) directly to the Marolt Estate. The Engineering Department is now examining the survey description and calculation of acreage. The proposed transaction requires payment in cash at the time of closing so installmeni; purchase is not an alternative. Lois advises that earmarked subdivision fees ($13,OOO.OO) and current sales tax revenues are sufficient for a cash closing. I have been provided a title commitment which.is acceptable except that it exempts "any rail- road rights-of-way insofar as the same 'may affect the subject property." This is not. acceptable and we will have to clarify this matter before closing. I. hope all matters may be resolved so that we can request your approval of the purchase on April. 14th. SSjpk ,-.. I~ .., 1" A' .tU ~/ /...., /'" ?" .,"" /~~~ ~l MEMORANDUM TO: MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: SANDRA M. STULLER DATE: NOVEMBER I, 1974 RE: ANNEXATION OF THE THOMAS PROPERTY Members of the City Council Attached is the requisite Petition, Resolution and Ordinance to initiate annexation of all territory of the Thomas property owned by the City of Aspen and contiguous. to the City (i.e. exclusvie of the spur and small piece between the spur and Marolt lands). The approximate perimeter is 7,500 feet and we have 1,600 contiguous feet, consequently the 1/6 contiguity requirement is met. SMS:ksh . '""'" .~ MEMORANDUM TO: Members of the City Council FROM: Sandy Stuller, City Attorney RE: Annexation of Thomas Property DATE: October 18, 1974. Members of Council: Dave Ellis has suggested that the Council limit its proposed annexation to that parcel (triangular) bounded by Highway 82, Castle Creek Road, and the Michael Marolt Estate lands, The tract contains about thirty-four (34) acres, more or less and has 24.5% contiguity (16.66% is required) of which 6.25 acres (18.3%) are not owned by the City but by the Marolts (part of an old Midland Railroad spur), Dave's reasons for the limited annexation are: "In looking at the configurations of the various parcels it appears obvious to me that the City would be creating extra problems for itself in taking over the Castle Creek Road or its intersection with Maroon Creek Road and Highway 82. Secondly, I don't believe a good argument can be made in favor of considering the total ownership as an integral parcel (which must be made to establish contiguity, my note)." Enclosed is a petition, resolution and ordinance to commence the annexation proceedings, if the council accepts Dave's position and would like to so proceed. The proceedings will have to rely on the cooperation of the Marolt's. More specifically, the Municipal Annexation Act (1) prohibits any annexation which will result in the severing of land held in a single ownership into separate parcels without the written consent of the owner (Marolt Estate) (139-21~4, C.R.S. 1963, as amended), and '""'" .-., (2) permits annexation without notice, hearing or election only when the petition is signed by the owners of 100% of the land sought to be annexed (139-2l-6 C.R.S. 1963, as amended). Consequently, I have written to Lennie Oates, repre- sentative of the estate, to ask for cooperation in this matter. We have an option on this Marolt land and feel if we reaffirm our interest in purchasing it, they will / probably cooperate. Finally, there remains the question of rezoning the tract. Under Section 139-21-14(1) of the Annexation Act, we may institute procedures to rezone the property at any time after a petition for annexation has been found to be valid but the proposed zoning ordinance cannot be passed on final reading prior to the date when the annexation or- dinance is effective. In any event, we must rezone the tract within ninety (90) days after the effective date of the ordinance. By reference to your proposed zoning code you see that there are three zone districts that may be appropriate for the site, namely Conservation (C), Park (P), Public (PUb). However, if any of these districts permit more intense use than is desired by the Council, we can adopt an open space district specifically designed for such public tracts whose prime function is to act as visual relief for the community. Please give us some direction as to your preferences so that we can initiate the rezoning with the Planning and Zoning Commission and have final adoption coincide with the rezoning of the entire City. As a final note, you will notice in the petition, resolution and ordinance that allegations are made that the area is "urban". The Act requires that a petitioner demonstrate that a tract for which a request for annexation is made, be shown to be urban or "will be urbanized in the near future". The Act defines "urban development" to mean "the construction on land of improvements for resident ial, inst.i tut ional, commercial, industrial, transportation, public flood control, and recreational and similar uses, in contrast to use of the land for growing crops, truck gardening, grazing of farm animals, and other agricultural pursuits. The term also applies to vacant ground which has been or is being prepared for urban development by such - 2 - '""'" ,-.\ steps as subdivision into lots or plots and blocks, installation or water and sewer lines, construction access streets, and construction of railroad spur or branch tracts." Given the Council's objective of proposed limited develop- ment for the property, it can be seen that the Thomas Property is not urban, nor will it be urbanized in the near future, in the tradtitional sense. But it is clear that the tract (1) is not intented for agricultural pur- poses (2) has been an adjunct to and integrated into the Aspen urban community (3) and will be developed for trans- portation and recreational purposes. I think the purpose of this statutory limitation is to prevent the premature addition of agricultural lands into urban communities and this objective is certainly not defeated by the pending annexation of the Thomas Property, - ,.-, PETITION FOR ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 31-8-106(3) C.R.S. 1973, THE COLORADO MUNICIPAL ANNEXATION ACT The undersigned does hereby respectfully petition the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, to annex certain territory owned by the City of Aspen, and adjacent to said city, in accordance with the provisions of Title 31, Article 8, C.R.S. 1973, (Colorado Municipal Annexation Act of 1965), and in support thereof alleges: 1. That it is desirable and necessary that such territory be annexed to the municipality; 2. That the requirements of Section 31-8-104(1) (a) and Section 31-8-105 exist or have been met; 3. The signer of the petition is the Mayor of the City of Aspen, Colorado, which is the owner of the entire tract (with the exception of public rights-of- way which may be owned by the County of Pitkin or State of Colorado) for which annexation is petitioned; 4. The land to be annexed is within pitkin County, Colorado, and is more specifically described as: A parcel of land in the SW\, Sec.12, TIOS, R85W of the 6th P.M., Pitkin County, Colorado, comprising parts of Lots 8, 9, 10 and the SW\SW\ more fully described as follows: Beginning at a point on the Line 6-7 of the Original Aspen Townsite, said point being S.07053'16" vi. 989.20 feet from the Original Aspen Townsite Corner No.6, said point also known as North Annex- ation Point No. I; thence along the present city limits N. 75009 'II" W. 6'21.',10 feet to North Annexation Corner No.3; thence 533.18 feet along the city limits and northerly right-of-way line of State Highway 82 around the arc of a curve to the left with a radius of 1005.00 feet and whose chord bears S.89038'55" W. 526.95 feet; then'ce S.74027'vl. 272.30 feet along the city limits and northerly right-of-way line; thence 842.66 feet along city limits and the northerly right-of-way line around the arc of a curve to the right with a radius of 1096.00 feet and whose chord - - bears N.83031' W. 322.05 feet to a point bearing S.140l6'10" E. 247.04 feet from the west one-quarter corner of Sec. 12, TIOS, R8SW of the 6th P.~1. (a 1954 brass cap in place); thence S.28030'06" IN. 100.00 feet to a point of intersection with the southerly right-of-way line of State Hignway 82, also being the easterly right-of-way line of Castle Creek Road, said point bears S.10032'20" E. 332.91 feet from the west one~quarter corner of Sec. 12; thence S.16036' E. 135.87 feet along the easterly right~of-way line of Castle Creek Road; thence S.20054' E. 2006.31 feet along the easterly right-of-way line of Castle Creek Road; thence S.320I0' E. 67.10 feet along the easterly right-of- way line of Castle Creek Road; thence N.18014' E. 1107.77 feet; thence N.25028' E. 715.83 feet; thence N.21047' E, 282.37 feet; .thence N.Io051' E. 90.71 feet to the southerly right-of-way line of State Highway 82; thence 63.25 feet along the southerly right-of-way line of State Highway 82 around the arc of a curve to the right with a radius of 905.00 feet and whose chord bears S.77008i52" E. 63.23 feet; thenceN.14050'49"E. 20.00 feet along the southerly right-of-way line of State Highway 82; thence S.75009'll~' E. 636.86 feet along the southerly right-of-way line of State Highway 82 to a point on the westerly line of the Original Aspen Townsite, said point being S.07053'16" W. 1069.79 feet from the original Aspen'Townsite Corner No.6; thence N..07053'16" E. 80.59 feet along the Line 6'-7 of .the Original Aspen Townsite to the point of beginning, containing 39.203 acres more or less. WHEREFORE, the undersigned authorized by the City Council at its meeting held ~~-L 9 ' 1975, to present this petition, does hereby request the City of Aspen to approve the annexation of the above-described tract pursuant to the authority granted the municipality by Section 31-8-106(3) C.R.S. 1973. r .- 10, 1<J'7~ , ./ ./ Date of Signature: STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss.: COUNTY OF PITKIN ) I, ~,.,,) 4-~, notary public, in and for the State of Colorado, do hereby certify that Stacy Standley III, Mayor of the City of Aspen, did personally appear before me on * ...... 1(;> , 1975, and sign the above Petition for the Annexation of Territory and did further swear and affirm that the -2- .~ ~ averments contained in said Petition are true and correct to his own knowledge. -3- ~'? "" ~..-:',' -, ,--. I ASSIGNMENT OF OPTION TO PURCHASE WHEREAS, the City of Aspen did receive from the Representatives same corner as approved by the General Land Office from the I I I I f h , ~ ~. r;, f r l t of the Estate of LEONARD M. THOMAS (Sellers) an exclusive option to purchase 6..786 acres of land located in Pitkin County, Colorado, more particularly described as: A tract of land being part of NW~ NW~ Sec. 13 T10S R85W 6PM as follows: Beginning at the NW corner of Sec. 13 T10S R85W 6PM being the Cutshaw Survey from the official plat dated November 8, 1888, whence an unapproved 1954 Bureau of Land Management Brass Cap bears N 33058' E 45.95 feet, thence S 89052' E 738.67 feet along the North line of the NW~ Sec. 13; thence S 23041' W 506.46 feet, thence N 89052' W 534.72 feet to the West line of the NW~ Sec. 13; thence N 00003'40" W 464.23 feet along the West line of the NW~ Sec. 13 to the point of beginning containing 6;786 acres, more or less. All as provided in a certain ADDENDUM dated December 19, 1972, and WHEREAS, said ADDENDUM also provided that: 1. The total price for said tract under option shall be Eighty_ seven thousand five hundred ($87,500.00) Dollars; 2. The option shall be exclusive and expire in December of 1977; 3. The City of Aspen shall receive, in addition to said option, a ten foot easement across said 6.786 for purposes of constructing a cross country skiing course (and alternate bicycle and pedestrian' way) in the event such course is constructed on the adjacent property purchased from the Sellers by the City on November 17, 1972; " . .~ , ~ ,-, 4. In the event such course is constructed and prior to the exercise of the option the city shall agree to fully and completely hold the Sellers harmless and will defend them and indemnify them from and against any and all cost or liability (including but not limited to attorney's fees) which may be asserted against the Sellers as a result of the existence of said easement across Seller's land; and 5. The Sellers may sell the parcel of land which adjoins the 6.786 acres and/or may sell their rights in the 6.786 acres subject to the option and easement granted; and WHEREAS, the City Council did, by its Resolution No.2, Series of 1974, express its desire to convey said option to Pitkin'County so as to facilitate the relocation of the Aspen Valley Hospital on or near the 6.786 tract, and WHEREAS, the Resolution conditioned any such assignment on (1) the development of the tract for hospital uses and open space . (2) and the purchase of the optioned land or adjacent property for hospital development within one year of any such assignment. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration One Dollar and other good and valuable consideration receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the City of Aspen does hereby assign all its right, title and interest in that certain exclusive option to purchase, as hereinabove described, to the Board of County Connnissioners of Pitkin County, for and on behalf of Pitkin County, Colorado, subject to the terms therein con- tained, and further subject to the following conditions: 1. That the assignee shall not assign, or otherwise alien this assignment and that on failure of Pitkin County to exercise this option or to comply with the terms of this assignment, all rights hereby conveyed shall innnediately revert to the City of Aspen. (2 ) it""'" .~ 2. That this assignment shall be for a period of one year from the date of its execution, at which time it shall, if not exercised, revert to the City of Aspen; provided, however, that if Pitkin County shall purchase a parcel of adjacent land (presently under option to it by the Representative of the Leonard M. Thomas Estate) for purposes of establishing a hospital, this option shall be extended for a like period of one year, at which time it will terminate by its own terms. 3. That this option shall be exercised exclusively for purposes of the development of the 6.786 acres as a hospital site and adjacent open space. 4. That prior to the exercise of this option by Pitkin County, the City of Aspen retains all right to establish the 10 foot easement for cross country skiing, bicycling and pedestrian uses, provided that it shall, on constructing such way or path, fully and completely indemnify and hold Pitkin County harmless and defend it against any and all cost or liability which might be asserted against Pitkin County by reason of this assignment and the construction of any such way or path. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Mayor of the City of Aspen, Colorado, has executed this Assignment of Option to Purchase, in Aspen, Colorado, c?-/ / ) ) )ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) ) . /'? / .' /...... /~ ...:;.~,~,::=:".. .~ (seal) ey III M~ of Aspen;-co10rado, corporation/) The foregoing Assignment of Option to Purchase was acknowledged before me by Stacy Standley III, Mayor or the City of Aspen, Colorado, on thh co2 / da~;\~7_ . 1914.. . Witness my hand and official seal. ~ ~ d~ /-)~,~ a~-<><,,/ ~ Notary Publ~c My cOlllll1ission expires: j7/7Y / 1""', ~ Aspen, Colorado November 9, 1972 Editor Aspen Today P. O. Box BB Aspen, Colorado Dear fIuy, Re: "No Help Wanted" Editorial I submit the following facts for your consideration. "The THomas property is a key property for the City of Aspen to own. PIl.rchase of this property will allow the City greater flexibility in the development of our Open Space, bikeways, walking and bridle trails, water resources, trans- portation, traffic circulation, and last but not least, gives us the crowning touch on our approach to Aspen. Seldom does one property fulfill such a variety of needs and present such a foundation upon which the future can be built." (quote from my memo to the City Council dated March 6, 1972.) In December, 1971, the Thomas property was offered to the city at a price of $1,750,000 for 113 acres ($15,480 per acre). This property was later listed by a local realtor at the same price and remained advertised and posted for sale through last summer. I am wondering why the property was not sold by one of the local realtors at $11,000 per acre during this period? I am aware of an offer by a group of local real estate developers, who proposed to join with the City to purchase the Thomas property, allowing the City to purchase the minimum acreage needed for future expansion of water facilities, in return for increased density to accommodate a POD development in excess of 300 units. This group planned to offer $11,000 per acre. I can't help but wonder if these are the same realtors who offered you all the free services for the City. Obviously, the City began its negotiations at a lower figure than we settled for. I must remind you that the adjacent golf course property was purchased in 1970, after an appraisal by the Justin-Haynes Co., at a price of $14,903 per acre. Do you recall what happened to the price of land in the adjacent area? Has it gone down? Do you know of any property adjacent to the City that is selling for less than $14,000 per acre? As one member of the "bungling" City Council, I would welcome a voluntary board of realtors to assist in advising the Council concerning real estate matters. But I would appreciate this advice during the period of negotiation and not after the decision for purchase has been made. Negotiations were in progress on the Thomas property for nine months. To my knowledge, Council received no such free offers from local realtors. I"'" t"""\ Editor Aspen Today -2- November 9, 1972 For purposes of setting the record straight, I was the lone member of the City Council who did not feel it was in the best interests of the City to sell the Happy Hearth. l<(y complete file was available to the League and I was delighted that they and the voters concluded my decision was correct. I would be most happy to furnish all information available on the Thomas property to anyone. I am a strong advocate of fiscal responsibility for the City. In July, we received figures from Kirchner & Moore, our bonding consultants, on the proposed purchase of the Thomas property to be funded partially from water revenues (about 1/3) and partially (about 2/3) from Open Space Funds. Our proposal at that time was, and remains, to delete approximately 25 acres westerly of the Castle Creek road and below the water plant access road, in order to make it more feasible for the City to purChase. Due to the change in City Managers currently in progress, Mr. Kirchner did not have all the information he should have had in order to furnish Council with the information requested at Monday's meeting. However, at our Thursday special meeting, Mr. Kirchner advised that the Open Space Fund could pay for the Thomas property and that by refunding the bonds outstanding on the golf course issue at the current rate, the City could realize a saving of $423,194.00. You must be aware that growth costs the City money too. It would be interesting to have an analysis of the costs to the City in services, etc. for the proposed 300-plus units. Since the negotiated purchase price of the Thomas property was below the price paid in 1970 for the golf course property and the Thomas Estate had the property appraised for tllJC purposes (which as everyone knows, are made as low as possible), it appeared to be an unnecessary expenditure to obtain a third appraisal. It appears that certain realtors and/or land developers may be insincere in their desire to assist the City in this matter. Is there perhaps a regret that they were not able to obtain this property at a lower figure in order to reap the profits from speculative development? We have watched as Aspen Square was built in the "Ski Corp's parking lot." North of Nell and the Centre were built limiting access to the ski hill. l<(yriads of condo- were built around the Number One Lift, so that access on foot or by vehicle is virtually impossible. Soon the development of the Railroad Yards will become a test of the strength of our zoning and density regulations. HOW LOoo, ASPEN, CAN WE WAIT?? We cannot sit and contemplate purchase. We must act with responsibility and decisiveness~ and protect the approach to Aspen, so that it does not become the approach to 'Anywhere, U.S.A." Thank you, Ramona Markalunas 1""'. ,-., ~. :?~1 , .!\merica the anonymous. That's the way we're headed. Whatever has helped shape the city . any city -- gives it character and distinction, a place and time in history. These are the things we destroy. In their place we create the faceless anonymities of the national franchises. From coast to coast we duplicate the strip approaches, lined with the same gas stations, hamburger shops, ice cream stores, chicken specialties and other quick-food places. Whatever the product, wherever the city, the ugly building, over- shadowed by a worse sign, is always the same. Product identity, you know. City identity is another crisis. You look about you on approach and wonder vaguely, bewildered, just where you are. the feeling you just went through this very place four hours minutes - ago, and here you are again. the highway You have _c or 40 Joanne Ditmer The Denver Post March 5, 1972 ~ I"""", ~. March 6, 1972 TO: Mayor and City Councilmen FROM: Ramona Markalunas BE: THOMAS PROPERTY The Thomas Estate property is a key property for the City of Aspen to own. Purchase of this property will allow us greater flexibility in the development of our Open Space, bikeways, walking and bridle trails, W~ter Resources, Trans- portation, traffic circulation, and last but not least, gives us the crowning touch on our approach to Aspen. Seldom does one property fulfill such a variety of needs and present such a foundation upon which the future can be built. In December, 19'(1, the Thomas Estate property was offered to the City and the price was later determined to be $1,750,000. The property totals 113 ac~es, or $15,480,per acre, which is about $1,000 per acre higher than the price paid for the Golf Course. Surely we can get some reduction of the price, since the easterly tract is so cut up with rights of way and easements and the westerly tract is too steep in places for building. I am also wondering if the Estate has been approached from the tax angle. Instead of charging so much for the land and paying a great deal to the Federal Government in taxes, would they be amenable to either reducing the price to cut taxes or donating a portion of the land if we paid the asking price on the balance. Since Aspen was so close to Mr. Thomas' heart, it would seem that the City would be a likely prospect for such a break. In investigating the possibilities further, the Maroon Creek water rights entered the pi~ture. The City owns along with the Maroon water rights, the old point of diversion, easement for flume, etc., which begins just above the T Lazy 7 Guest Ranch and gravity flows to the present Thomas (City) Reservoir at the existing Castle Creek Water Plant, which is located in the middle of the Westerly tract of Thomas property. I refer you to Dale Rea's Feasibility Report for detail information. ~ Since the City owns the above mentioned facilities surrounded by the Thomas property which is offered to us for purchase, I began to wonder if it is indeed feasible to buy into the Herrick Ditch (Mr. Rea's Proposal IV),pay for improvement of this ditch and pipe it, build a new water plant on the Post property (which would also have to be purchased) located at the base of Tiehack Ski Area. ( Note: 1972 Capital Improvements Budget allows $150,000 for Land Acquisition) The Herrick Ditch plan would also necessitate building pumping stations, which are troublesome, expensive to operate and require more maintenance than a gravity system. The City has 125 cfs adjudicated from Castle and Maroon Creeks, which at our peak consumption will supply 187,500 people. (Master Plan advises optimum population of 35,700) Bringing the water through a pipeline along our own easement into our existing reservoir would give us immediate flexibility of supply and put ou!' water rights to immediate use. See attached exhibit. ~ ~ In any event, we must have additional land at the Filter Plant site for future expansion and warehouse facilities for the Water Distribution Department. According to Mr. Voss' letter, the Thomas Estate consists of two tracts: Northeast of Castle Creek Road 35 acres Southwest of Castle Creek Road 78 acres 113 acres . . (A discrepancy of 5 acres occurs between the map we have and his letter. Map states. 118 acres.) There are approximately 15 acres southerly of the Filter Plant and 25 acres southwesterly of the Castle Creek Road (northerly of our entrance road to the filter plant) which are not needed for water facility expansion. Although it would be nice if we could get an easement for a Walking-Bike Trail to the High School across this tract. Perhaps the Prince of Peace Chapel would purchase the rest of the point to protect the Chapel from encroachment or since this is so narrow as to preclude building, maybe the estate would donate it at a reduction of our price. If Meadowood (1 think of them first because they are adjacent) would. be interested in these tracts, they could be developed and not hinder the City's acti vi tie s: 40 acres x $15,480 $ 619,000. If we should decide to centralize our Water Treatment ~cilities, the Water Department should assist in the purchase of needed land. The Water Department and the Open Space Fund would purchase the balance of the tracts: 73 acres x $15,480 $1,131,000. If the Water Department can make the payments for would give the Open Space Fund time to accumulate and it could then begin making the payments. the first six years, this the necessary Bond Reserve Fund I strongly advocate fiscal responsibility for the City and I would like further investigation on these figures to be certain that we can accomplish this project. ..". However, we have an intangible asset involved here, i.e. protecting the ~pproach to Aspen so that it does not become the approach to Anywhere, U.S.A. The Council before us, of which many of you were members, ably started the Open Space program. Purchase of this tract will virtually assure the preservation of Aspen's scenic entrance. '."'":?'"' :f~~ 1 f"I ~ WATER AVAILABLE IN MAROON CREEK: Minimum daily Maximum daily C, flow:.occurred: flow occurr~ April June - 14.4 cfs (21 MGD) -243 cfs Mean flow for 1970 water year was 67 cfs daily. Maroon Creek water is supperior to Castle Creek water as to mineral content, turbidity and the limitation of land use, on the water shed. CITY WATER USE: (National Aver~ge Consumption per Capita per day ~ 150 gallons.) Aspen average Consumption per capita per day = 250 gallons (Based on a service population of 10,000 people, winter months) Summer months: Average consumption is 1,000 gallons per capita per day. (Based on a service population of 5,000 to 6,000. Irrigation and the fact we are big water wasters account for such a high figure. Water meters would cut this figure .considerably:) I cfs equals It MGD will serve 1,500 people on peak day (1,000 gals per capita) CITY'S ADJUDICATED RIGHTS: 60 cfs ~cfs 1::l5 cfs Castle Creek Maroon Creek 125 cfs will serve 187,500 people.at our peak consumption/ "" I believe these figures indicate that~he~ has sufficient water adjudicated for any projected poplation in the ~otro1i n area (The Master Plan advised 35,700 people), and that such a large adjudication will enable us to proteot stream flow without elaborate pumping stations, etc. to allow the water to flow in the stream another mile or two. / C- l/'( - ) ~ AJIL- Jt2.~ r 7 0 .,......" .-,. LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR PROPOSED. 'l'IIOHAS ESTl\'I'E ANNEXA'l'ION A traCt. of land being in Lots 8, 9, and 10 and the SI'n. SI'l!.l Section 12 Township 10 S6uth. Range 85 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, bc~.ng describe.d,' a.s fvllol;J:'-~: Beginning at a point of intersection in the South right-of-way line of St.p.t,e :!i.c;h';,;.J.Y 82 also -being the East rL~;ht-of-,,':ay line O'f. C~ct:lc' C' ~n- nO"~ h~'rit1C 0 100 32' 20" l' 332 0] f-,t from (,l.d ....~~,_ Z', ""-< ~.'-...,C~~.~ _: v _ . _ ..! ......; t...,'_ ~ the t'Jest !:i cor.':.(~r or S(~ction '12/ Tovlnship 10 South, Range, 85 West, 6th Principal ~cridian. (a 1954 brass cap in place) ; thence S 160 36' E, 135.87 feet along the Easterly right-of-way line of Castle Creek Road; thence S 200 54' E, 2006.31 feet along the Easterly right-Of-way line of Castle Creek Road; thence S 320 10' E, 67.10 feet along the Easterly right-of-way line of Castle Creek Road; thence N 180 14' E, 373.92 feet; thence N 310 2l' IV, 93.16 feet; thence along a curve to the right~ radius of 408.10 feet, a distance.of 221.14 feet, '(chord bears.'N"150 ..49' 30" W, 218.46 feet); thence along a. curve to the. right, radius of 663.65 feet, a distance of 100.00 feet, (chord bears N 040 Ol' E, 99.91 feet); thence N 080 20' E, 245.00 feet; thence along a curve to the left, radius of 448.22 feet, a distance of 235.07 feet, (chord bears N 060 41' W, 232.39 feet); thence along a curve to the right, radius of 2964.8 feet, a distance of 136.07 feet, (chord bears N 490 II' W, 136.07 feet); thence N 47052' W, 458.00 feet; thence S 88024' E,308.36 feet;, thence S 47052' E, 215.00 feet; thence along a Curve to the left, radius 2764.8 feet, a distance of 454.01 feet, (chord bears S 520 34.' E, 453.50 feet); thence N 25~ 28' E, 568.33 feet; thence N 210 47' E, 282.37 feet; thence N 100 5l' E, 90.71 feet to the South right-of-way line of State Highway 82; thence along a curve to the left, radius .of 905.0 feet, a distance of 416. 88 feet (chord bears S 870 4l' W, 413.21 feet) along the South right-of-way line of State Highway 82; thence S 740 27' W, 272.30 feet along the South right-of-way line of State Highway 82; thenCe along a curve to the right, radius of 1196.0 feet, a distance of 919.54 feet (chord bears N 830 31' W, 897.06 feet) along :the South right~of-way line of State Highway 82 to the point of.beginning. Containing 29.21 acres more or less. '.j. October 31, 1974 Exhibi tlA . 1 ~ t I ~I: . :}'