HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.an.Thomas Property.19751975 -Thomas Property
CITi
130 so
aspen,
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 7, 1976
TO: Members of City Council
FROM andra M. Stuller
RE: Thomas Porperty Option
.PEN
street
81611
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 anc? purchased the
land to the west of the optioned land, but the hospital will
not, as a matter of fact, he 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.
Members of City Council
June 7, 1976
Page 2
I have solicited comment from Ted, :'dick, 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..
SS/pk
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.
CI
130so
aspen,
SPEN
ena street
81611
MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 23, 1975
TO: Hal Clark
FROMP�_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
j,
L
76�U '4Q�
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 slaace 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).
CITY OF ASPEN
aspen,colorado, 8ts" box v
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 3, 1975
TO: Members of City Council
FROM:_)/�-,Z'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 private right-of-way. Con-
sequently, we 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
presents a problem. However, he suggests that we (1) proceed with
the annexation including the highway, (2) but notify the Department
of the intended annexation and, thus, give them an opportunity to
protest. :_e feels he would only protest if we were annexing the
highway to create previously non-existent contiguity. An annex-
ation may also be of interest to the Department if it would affect
a stagcounty 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
CTTY AS PEN
aspeo,c�r:. , 81611 box v
ME140RANDUM
DATE: May 7, 1975
TO: Members of City Council
FROPW4dra 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 Marolt. Later,
substituted documents were submitted which excluded the Marolt
acreage but annexation was not effected in part, I believe, :-de-
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 24.3% 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., ,,!e need not assert that (1) 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)
the area to be annexed is integrated or is capable of being
integrated 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.
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 yqu find any of these districts
net c.4-�iciently restrictive, -..-e may amend the cone 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
E�-)ril 16, 1975
D''LZVFR ID iY iiARID
Mr. Darold Clark
Land Use Administrator
Pitkin County Courthouse
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: 7 roposed Thomas Property Acquisition
Dear Hal:
i would like, ^n behalf of the City of Aspen and for the
benefit of the Marolt Fstate,to frmally -request consideration by
the Boarci of County Co:�missioners of an an for exe iption
from your subdivision regulations as provided by Section 1.4 D
of the County Subdivision Regulations.
You will recall that in 1972, when the City purchased the
major tract owned 'Irr Leonard 1.1. `--homas, approximately 5. ry5
(Midland acres was fro:: the transaction.
c nl ''(,roc_T:'.--nt rccii. _ 'I this, rea ion for tlic . ex-
clus on {'',:phi}?it "I:i" being the descrixit.ion of the parcel to now
t .' .. ...♦ i,J.'. 1..�. .. •... �. � F � ..�. �,��1'a. ai ldt.Ja .. 1.�.4 .�i1 +� .,w�'.},. i. vG: .'t +. . L. ��I.lL
r s
to Yi e.) ��C ~•Ci,• ? bt i�.a t•i-el -)iFl
Btu kCvr Y
2ir. :7arold Clark " nril. IG, 1-975
tars. . arolt or Sellers acquire title to any or all of
ti).e land dcscribed as Parcel B, Sallers promptly there:-
.Ifter will olbtain a docd of conveyance to Parcel B to
Buyer and Buyer will pay for all of such land at the
amp price por acre and }upon all of the same torts and
conditions as are contained herein with respect to the
propert1 described as Parcel L. u��er shall nbb be
� r^.li.rcd to n+_,rcbase parcel r unless Scllr�rs have acquirw-
ad an in j,=a'..Aa titic hereto 'Ki.thin five (5) years from
the date of this Aga. cn.._nt (Nov rbr 15, 1972) .
T'Arce l B contains ns a part of the Midland right-� -f -gray and
you will r^_call that Dorothy ,oc}: Shaw and the, 1 arolt Estat^, n
settlnnc_,nt of a landing quirt tit?-- `"Action, have agreed that the
'j -,-E to thle east of Cart -le Cree3t will vest in
rrQrC}t.hf Zoch. )`'.av,, '. d that ti.:l.. we,St C).. tc_:.s...lE: ......C'_k in the, k-"ar0 t
Mc tom. con UNZY, ,,he Thoi.,a- s Fst to is now o. li ated to pro-
cure this aercage frorm Opal p'iarolt. and convey it to the City Of
Aspen, •-.r=ci 11=j are obli.erateca to accost their tender. The spur is
adjacant to Jan -Is also`o,incd by the Marolts and the sale, conse-
r,iealti��, t ii l re^Tui -O a parc::li n" of ti.ni r holdings constituting
a physical division of land.
We have hpen a.avisexd that th4' ap^Ircpriate section under
which to request an Qx mption is Section 1. 1(as o epos d to
.n,a we state, in support of our request, that this
division i3 not wit'-Iin tha intents and, purposes of your regulation
for the following r6asons:
i. Ac naramount objective of subdivision
remila.tions is vo insure taut the land proposed for
c?cvo? ofir. ent in stii.;:alAo for the same any th — adequate
prevision is mae-1:2 for t'in recuisite utili -ics and access
110 i.�:'Jv.+ri�?I.`.:`':: I�'y Gf: 'G r:?;? i1�..E'_.. W r-U,s-
s c;� ac�u sition
,��:;3rif':i With i-'.^;?i.�' i,�;s.:�ei:i..� F'Cl �.r C7�?.'i .a.7�:
• y� ".Y 'f y:;may ..... 3 i� 1"� '•�� � �.'.•'�.� �'1. y .> A.:. :: ]
F, .... .. 1. -_. �.._... �.....�.. �i. i._-, Ic is • S:F .•.w .:
x
Mr. arold Clark -3- :Pril 16,
to r,,Iahe of record ownership of a unified tract
which many people have, -!-o (late, t1lought to al-
ready be owned by the city of Aspen.
.1 -
4. Finally, 'his purchase and sale is
required to b-- cons=miate.d by the City, ! govern-
::,ental agency, whicla can, !-y reason of this
ex(Ioption, '.e saved adninistrat-ivn costs and will,
"y the aCC_I.,4 - it -
.-, -.,ion, insure an open space entrance
to the City which, I am aovisedfl .!s an objective
the Board of County Cormissioners share.
''Onsequently, in view of the above, �-t-a request consideration
by the Concnissioners op f the aplicatio-ri at the r13'eting to he held
Monday, Anril 21s,.-. I am subFi_:'LttJr.g, also, _ Proposed resolution
for consideration and an, o-pon to any corm"nent with reference to
its form or content.
Thanking you for your cooperation, I am,
t'exy truly yours,
City Attorney
SC, /p Y,
CITY ASPEN
aspen ,c :._ _a C.1'3a box v
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 3, 1975
nrI
TO• i.�'Members of City Council
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
mailing inasmuch as 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
major 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-
clusion (Exhibit "B" being the description of the parcel to now
be conveyed):
1.2. Attached hereto as Exhibit B 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, -,he will convey the
same to the .Sellers or their nominee.
"l.3. Seller-, and Buyer (City of Aspen) aaree that
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 Parcel A. >uyer
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 installment
purchase is not an alternative. Lois advises that earmarked
subdivision fees ($13,000.00) 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.
S / p ;,
MEMORANDUM
TO: MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: SANDRA M. STULLER
DATE: NOVEMBER 1, 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 (139-21-6 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
residential, institutional, 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
. Aw
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 31-3-106(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 31-3-104(1)(a)
and Section 31-8-1.05 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 SW4, Sec.12, T10S, R85W of
the 6th P.M., Pitkin County, Colorado, comprising
parts of Lots 8, 9, 10 and the SWaSW4 more fully
described as follows:
Beginning at a point on the Line 6-7 of the
Original Aspen Townsite, said point being S.07153'16"
11. 989.20 feet from the Original Aspen Townsite
Corner No. 6, said point also known as North Annex-
ation Point No. 1; thence along the present city
limits N.75109'11" W. 627.10 feet to North Annexation
Corner No. 3; thence 533.18 feet along the city limits
and northerly right-of-;-aay 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.o9°38'35" W.
526.95 feet; thence 5.74027`:1. 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' 71. 322,05 feet to a point bearing
5.14016'10" 17. 247.04 feet from the west one -quarter
corner of Sec, 12, T10S, P,85W of the 6th P.M. (a
1954 brass cap in place); thence S.28030'06" W.
100.00 feet to a point of intersection with the
southerly right-of-way line of State Highway 82,
also being the easterly right-of-way line of
Castle Creek Road, said point bears 5.10"32120"
E. 332.91 feet from the west one -quarter corner of
Sec. 12; thence S.16°36' E. 135.87 feet along the
easterly right-of-way line of Castle Creek Road;
-thence 5.20°54' E. 2006.31 feet along the easterly
right-of-way line of Castle Creek Road; thence
5.32010' E. 67.10 feet along the easterly right -of -
`way line of Castle Creek Road; thence N.18°14' E.
1107.77 feet; thence N.25128' E. 715.83 feet;
thence N.21147' E. 282.37 feet; thence N.10°51' E.
90.71 feet to the southerly right -of -gay 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.77008152" E. 63.23 feet; thence N.14150'49"E.
20.00 feet along the southerly right-of-way line
of State Highway 82; thence S.75109111" 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.07"53'16" E. 30.59 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 , 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.
Date of Signature:
Stacy St ndl%y
City of Aspen,
P. �x V
Asper% lColorado
III, Mayor�_
Colorado �-
81611
STATE OF COLORADO )
)ss.:
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
I, 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
/ p 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.
Notaify Public
My commission expires:
-3-
ASSIGNMENT or OPTION TO PURCHASE
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen did receive from the Representatives
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 NW4 NW4 Sec. 13 T10S R85W 6PM
as follows:
Beginning at the NW corner of Sec. 13 T10S R85W 6PM being the
same corner as approved by the General Land Office from the
Cutshaw Survey from the official plat dated November 8, 1888,
whence an unapproved 1954 Bureau of Land Management Brass Cap
bears N 33°58' E 45.95 feet,
thence S 89°52' E 738.67 feet along the North line of the NW4
Sec. 13;
thence S 23°41' W 506.46 feet,
thence N 89°52' W 534.72 feet to the West line of the NW4 Sec. 13;
thence N 00°03'40" W 464.23 feet along the West line of the NW4
Sec. 13 to the point of beginning containing 60-786 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 19741, 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 Commissioners 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 immediately revert to the
City of Aspen.
(2)
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,
on
TATE OF COLORADO
) s s �_ - ;e_ t _._. (seal)
COUNTY OF PITKIN ) t/ Sta y Stun ey III P.,-CLOI/orado
May r, City of Aspe,
A nicipal Corporationil-�
The foregoing Assignment of Option to Purchase was acknowledged
before me by Stacy Standley III, Mayor o� the City of Aspen, Colorado,
on this �-,?Z day of � rc2 , 1974. Witness my hand and
official seal, v --
N
" �t�) otary Zc
My commission expires: , �7'
Aspen, Colorado
November 9, 1972
Editor
Aspen Today
P. 0. Box BB
Aspen, Colorado
Dear Quy,
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. Purchase
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 PUD 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.
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. My 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 tax 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. Myriads 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 LONG, 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
r
America 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 the highway
approach and wonder vaguely, bewildered, just where you are. You have
the feeling you just went through this very place four hours -- or 40
minutes - ago, and here you are again.
Joanne Ditmer
The Denver Post
March 5, 1972 G
March 6, 1972
TO: Mayor and City Councilmen
FROM: Ramona Markalunas
RE: 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, 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.
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 acEes,
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 pidture. 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 our 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 (I think of them first because they are adjacent) would
be interested in these tracts, they could be developed and not hinder the City's
activities:
40 acres x $15,480 $ 619,000.
If we should decide to centralize our Water Treatment
4acilities, 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 the first six years, this
would give the Open Space Fund time to accumulate the necessary Bond Reserve Fund
and it could then begin making the payments.
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 approach
to Aspen so that it does not become the approach to Any -where, 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.
Thank u,
WATER AVAILABLE IN MAROON CREEK:
Minimum daily flow occurred. April - 14.4 cfs (21 MGD)
Maximum daily flow occurrech June -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 Average 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:)
1 cfs equals 12 MGD will serve 1,500 people on peak day (1,000 gals per capita)
CITY'S ADJUDICATED RIGHTS: Castle Creek 60 cfs
Maroon Creek 65 cfs
185 cfs
125 cfs will serve 187,500 people.at our peak consumption/
CA
I believe these figures indicate that the Cit has sufficient water adjudicated
for any projected poplation in the 3`�t`�`an area (The Master Plan advised 35,700
people), and that such a large adjudication will enable us to protect stream flow
without elaborate pumping stations, etc. to allow the water to flow in the stream
another mile or two.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR PROPOSED.
THOMAS ESTATE ANNEXATION
A tract of land being in Lots 8, 9, and 1.0 and the SL-Ij, SN74 Section
12 'o`.ln.�f'.'�) CUi�1, i::.,;i'• 05 67C'E7 O tI1C 6t.h P21 1 • nc ipa _r•leridian,
being dosc,iib-:i!. as f'.113_C)WS:
Beginning at a ^oi.nt Of intersection in the South right-of-way
r.
J.ine o� ti,e 71ast. i-cJi-.. line
of Castle Cry _ :o h _ arir,c S 1-0° 32' ?�" E, 332. 97: f _ ,t frorl
the c� or. 12, To%. nsizip 10 South, Rang 85
best, 6ti, P,.--L::cipal _::,ridian, (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 20° 54' E, 2006.31 feet
along the Easterly right-of-way line of Castle Creek Road;
thence S 321 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 31° 21' W, 93.16 feet; thence along a curve to the
right, radius of 408.10 feet,'a distance of 221.14 feet,
(chord bears. N•15° 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 04° 01' 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 06° 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 491 11' W,
136.07 feet); thence N 470 52' W, 458.00 feet; thence
S 88° 24' E, 308.36 feet; thence S 47° 52' E, 215.00 feet;
thence along a curve to the left, radius 2764.8 feet, a distance
of 454.01 feet, (chord bears S 52° 34' E, 453.50 feet); thence
N 256 28' E, 568.33 feet; thence N 210 47' E, 282.37 feet;
thence N 100 51' 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 41' W, 413.21 feet) along the South right-of-way
line of State Highway 82; thence S 74° 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.
October 31, 1974
Exhibit iA
C
c
c
L
I GOL F
COURSE
7:T2
Mr VIEW DR
SNOW BUNNY
LANE
GOLF COURSE
SCALE: I° = 100'
1/4 CORNER
(1954 BLM BRASS CAP IN PLACE)
S 460 081 15 f S7go26
5
1394.648/.00,
V, 0
M O N
M `0 C N
coo
N 76\
GOLF COURSE
6
S530 Oy i� _
RED BUTTE
CEMETERY
CITY
LAVE
OF ASPEN
ANNEXATION I
PARCEL A = LOTS 4 AND 5 , PITKIN MESA SUBDIVISION, BLOCK I , = 0.739 ACRES MORE OR LESS
PARCEL B = LOT 7, WEST ASPEN SUBDIVISION, FILING 1, = 0.348 ACRES MORE OR LESS
PARCEL C = A TRACT OF LAND IN THE NORTHWEST 1/4, SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH,
RANGE 85 WEST OF THE 6th PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN MORE FULLY DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS
BEGINNING AT A POINT WHENCE THE 1/4 CORNER BETWEEN SECTION II AND SECTION
12, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 85 WEST OF THE 6th PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN BEARS
S46008' 15"W 1,394.64 FEET; THENCE S 13034'E 200 FEET; THENCE N 76°26'E 122.30
FEET', THENCE N25014'W 204.22 FEET, THENCE S76026'W 81.00 FEET TO THE POINT
OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 0.47 ACRE MORE OR LESS
APPROVALS
APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, CITY OFASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO BY
ORDINANCE NUMBER PASSED THIS DAY OF , 1975
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
r--
.m..,��'�.-
`MAYOR:r
APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO
THIS DAY OF , 19 75
CITY ENGINEER
CLERK AND RECORDERS CERTIFICATE
THIS PLAT WAS FILED FOR RECORD IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK AND
RECORDER, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO AT ON THIS DAY OF ,
A.D. 1975, FILE NO. MAP NO. RECEPTION NO.
COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER
BY: DEPUTY
I, LOUIS H. BUETTNER, REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR IN THE STATE OF COLORADO, DO
HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAT WAS PREPARED UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION
AND IS CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF.
•bQ� <
LOUIS H. BUETTNER, SURVEYOR NO. 13166
.c: s
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO
ENGINEERING DEPT. �le
6
540 - 35
A,-
--.. r-. .11 ...-1
v
z
0
a u_
N
N 0
(to � �s
m Z
N d� \��o
J�
o a) w O,
o Z C9
_S 14° 16�_I 0"E \
��_-_ ---- - 247.04T
C/
OR/
F o yl,�s TF ��
OPEN SPACE
ANNEXATION NO. 2
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
A PARCEL OF LAND IN THE SWI/4, SEC. 12, TIOS, R85W OF THE 6th P.M., PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, COMPRISING PARTS OF
xm A,�Qr�o. l� LOTS 8,9,10 AND THE SW 1/4 SWI/4 MORE FULLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
ZZ c, BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE LINE 6-7 OF THE ORIGINAL ASPEN TOWNSITE, SAID POINT BEING S07053'16'W 989.20 FEET FROM
THE ORIGINAL ASPEN TOWNSITE ,CORNER NO. 6, SAID POINT ALSO KNOWN AS NORTH ANNEXATION POINT N0.1 , THENCE ALONG THE
�w `�� PRESENT CITY LIMITS N75 09 II W 627.10 FEET TO NORTH ANNEXATION CORNER NO.3, THENCE 533.18 FEET ALONG THE CITY LIMITS AND
J zo / 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, THENCE S74027'00"W 272.30 FEET ALONG THE CITY LIMITS AND NORTHERLY RIGHT-
so , 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 N83°31'00"W 822.05 FEET TO A POINT BEARING S14°16'10"E
,7ti
20•o�o°h
orn tih ��o�°o 000 �s 247.04 FEET FROM THE WEST ONE -QUARTER CORNER OF SECTION 12, TIOS, R85W OF THE 6th P.M. (A 1954 BRASS CAP IN PLACE);
o,a b* c, ^ '�"
�°' THENCE S28°3006 W 100.00 FEET TO A POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF STATE HIGHWAY ,
N/�'" 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
oo� O°
90/�oF \!4°S��� ON
CORNER OF SEC. 12' THENCE S16°36'00"E 135.87 FEET ALONG THE EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF CASTLE CREEK ROAD;
0• m ,
494 THENCE S20°54'00'E 2006.31 FEET ALONG THE EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF CASTLE CREEK ROAD; THENCE S32°10'00'E 67.10
+°' ti �- '.A FEET ALONG THE EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF CASTLE CREEK ROAD; THENCE N 18°14 00 E 1107.77 FEET; THENCE N 25 2800E
M`b_(v R7 � v , 715.83 FEET; THENCE N21047'00"E 282.37 FEET, THENCE N10051'00"E 90.71FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF STATE
m � co o +v` 2�2 oo" \ N HENCE 63.25 FEET ALONG THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF STATE HIGHWAY 82 AROUND THE ARC OF A CURVE
a o 3�F HIGHWAY 82, T
m " TO THE RIGHT WITH A RADIUS OF 905.00 FEET ,AND WHOSE CHORD BEARS S77008'521 63.23 FEET; THENCE N14050'49°E 20.00
FEET ALONG THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF STATE HIGHWAY 82, THENCE S 75009'11"E 636.86 FEET ALONG THE SOUTHERLY
1
1 � RIGHT-OF-WAY OF STATE HIGHWAY $2 TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF THE ORIGINAL ASPEN TOWNSITE, SAID POINT BEING
S07053'16"W 1069.79 FEET FROM THE ORIGINAL ASPEN TOWNSITE CORNER NO. 6; THENCE N07053'16"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.
COAST 8& GEODETIC AZIMUTH MONUMENT
S 21° 24' 00"E 391.99'(TO B L M BRASS CAP) 1/4 CORNER
39.203 ACRES ±
s 20- 54' 00" E
2006. 31'
APPROVALS
APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO BY ORDINANCE
NUMBER "'0 PASSED THIS DAY OF `I`, 1975
ATTEST: /
CITY' CLERK MAYOR
Y
APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO THIS DAY
OF .j" 1975
CITY ENGINEER
CLERK AND RECORDERS CERTIFICATE
THIS PLAT WAS FILED FOR RECORD IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK AND
RECORDER, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO AT ON THIS / 7 DAY
OF .-7 : / , , A.D. 1975, FILE NO. MAP NO.
RECEPTION NO.
4,
's� , COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER
O) O -��
BY. DEPUTY ,.
rG
1, LOUTS H. BUETTNER, REGISTERED LA SURVEYO
'1N THE ATE OF COLORADO, DO HER �Y CERTIF THAT
T APLAT WAS PREPARED UNDER DIRECT S ERVISION
S ANDCORRECT TO THE BEST OF KNOWLEDGE AND
,_ _
4
C q C d
LOOS H. BUETTNER ,»�, is co
EY OF ASPEN,COLORAOO
NGINEERING DEPT. �' rO,•"'
-
S 32° 10'00° E S� Ng0°04 98
67.1 Na3°%
ROAD N 21° 23'00" W
�f
1386.36
N
540 - 34
N
z
0
U. U =
U to,
(nu-cn
(n O W /
Q 03 s
M W a 10 2&e
CV cr _ °° %k
rVF
J O to W
CL Uz U' 4y
v3 z
c---- 247.04 i0
/ 5l0032'20„e O,
332 gj� - -
�..
\ 302°
49,
40,
16°36'0
135.87
Co
Sp
J
w ies3 P
�P
cr-NOo
0 < f- z zo , �.
N e0 s </
P N E
=:4
w O�os3' 4S"0F 6
PAC
Z<a. nv A N N XATI N N
o
b
o 01
W to �� ��
z z
a
rcr
� Lu
3I
010
3
O M
N
N j� N
N r
N °V N
r
COAST a GEODETIC AZIMUTH MONUMENT
S 21° 24' 00"E 391.99'(TO B L M BRASS CAP) 1/4 CORNER
39.203 ACRES ±
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
A PARCEL OF LAND IN THE SWI/4, SEC. 12, TIOS, R85W OF THE 6th P.M., PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, COMPRISING PARTS OF
LOTS 8, 9, 10 AND THE SW 1/4 SW 1/4 MORE FULLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE LINE 6-7 OF THE ORIGINAL ASPEN TOWNSITE, SAID POINT BEING S07-53'16"W 989.20 FEET FROM
THE ORIGINAL ASPEN TOWNSITE CORNER NO. 6, SAID POINT ALSO KNOWN AS NORTH ANNEXATION POINT NO.1; THENCE ALONG THE
PRESENT CITY LIMITS N75009'11"W 627.10 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; THENCE S74027'00"W 272.30 FEET ALONG THE CITY LIMITS AND NORTHERLY RIGHT-
OF-WAY LINE; THENCE 642.66 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 N83031'00"W 822.05 FEET TO A POINT BEARING SI4016'10"E
247.04 FEET FROM THE WEST ONE -QUARTER CORNER OF SECTION 12, TIOS, R85W OF THE 6th P.M. (A 1954 BRASS CAP IN PLACE),
THENCE S28030'06"W 100.00 FEET TO A POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF STATE HIGHWAY 82,
ALSO BEING THE EASTERLY RIGHT -OF-WAY LINE OF CASTLE CREEK ROAD, SAID POINT BEARS S 10°32120"E 332.91 FEET FROM THE WEST
ONE -QUARTER CORNER OF SEC. 12' THENCE S16036'00"E 135.87 FEET ALONG THE EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF CASTLE CREEK ROAD,
THENCE S20054'00"E 2006.31 FEET ALONG THE EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF CASTLE CREEK ROAD; THENCE S32010'00"E 67.10
FEET ALONG THE EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF CASTLE CREEK ROAD; THENCE N 18°14'00"E 1107.77 FEET, THENCE N 25°28'00"E
715.83 FEET; THENCE N21°47'00"E 282.37 FEET; THENCE NIO051'00"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 S77e08' 5211E 63.23 FEET; THENCE N14050'49"E 20.00
FEET ALONG THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF STATE HIGHWAY 82, THENCE S 75°09'11"E 636.86 FEET ALONG THE SOUTHERLY
RIGHT-OF-WAY OF STATE HIGHWAY 82 TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF THE ORIGINAL ASPEN TOWNSITE, SAID POINT BEING
S07053'16"W 1069.79 FEET FROM THE ORIGINAL ASPEN TOWNSITE CORNER NO. 6; THENCE N07053'16"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.
APPROVALS
O
APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO BY ORDINANCE
F NUMBER PASSED THIS DAY OF 1975
ATTEST: i f%
CITY CLERK J MAYOR u1 -
., Y ;
APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO THIS DAY
O F ,Tiny 1975
CITY ENGINEER
S 200 54' 00" E
2006.31'
CASTLE CREEK ROAD N 210 23'00"w
N 21°52'00'"W _
760.10
CLERK AND RECORDERS CERTIFICATE
THIS PLAT WAS FILED FOR RECORD IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK AND
RECORDER, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO AT ON THIS /7 ",DAY
OF , A.D. 1975, FILE NO. MAP NO.
RECEPTION NO.
ti
i/'9000UNTY CLERK AND RECORDER
`0�51�b'o
BY: DEPUTY �-
1 , LOUIS H. BUETTNER, REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR
IN THE STATE OF COLORADO, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT
THIS PLAT WAS PREPARED UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION
AND IS CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND
BELIEF. t��N
c . ID
LOUIS H. BUETTNER ~ x �� u
CITY OF ASPEN,COLORADO
ENGINEERING DEPT. ; ` 0
7. t'
S 320 10'00" E
a /
N40°Op 98
6T.1 °\�0o N
- -- _ ----�'
�40 - 34