Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.sm.Ute Place BridgeA72-92 CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen DATE RECEIVED: / / PARCEL ID AND CASE NO. DATE COMPLETE: - - - A72 -92 STAFF MEMBER: LL PROJECT NAME: Ute Place Bridge Stream Margin Review Project Address: Ute Place Legal Address: APPLICANT: City of Aspen Parks Dept. Applicant Address: REPRESENTATIVE: Patrick Duffield, Parks or Gary Lacy Representative Address /Phone: 485 Arapahoe Boulder, CO 80302 440 -9268 FEES: PLANNING $ # APPS RECEIVED 2 ENGINEER $ # PLATS RECEIVED 2 HOUSING $ ENV. HEALTH $ TOTAL $ TYPE OF APPLICATION: STAFF APPROVAL: 1 STEP: x 2 STEP: P &Z Meeting Date p -t PUBLIC HEARING: YES 1 03 VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO CC Meeting Date PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO DRC Meeting Date REFERRALS: City Attorney Parks Dept. School District City Engineer Bldg Inspector Rocky Mtn NatGas Housing Dir. Fire Marshal CDOT Aspen Water Holy Cross Clean Air Board City Electric Mtn. Bell Open Space Board Envir.Hlth. ACSD Other Zoning Energy Center Other DATE REFERRED: INITIALS: DUE: FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: ) INITIAL:S City Atty City Engineer Zoning Env. Health Housing Open Space Other: EW\ FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: ( RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION GRANTING STREAM MARGIN APPROVAL FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A BRIDGE CROSSING THE ROARING FORK RIVER NEAR THE UTE CHILDREN PARK, ASPEN COLORADO // Resolution No. 93- G_ WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission held a meeting September 22, 1992; and WHEREAS, the Commission reviewed an application for a stream margin review for the construction of a pedestrian /bike bridge crossing the Roaring Fork River between the Gordon /Callahan subdivision and the Ute Place subdivision; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 24 -7 -504 development within 100 feet from the high water line of the Roaring Fork River and its tributary streams, or within the one hundred year floodplain is required to undergo Stream Margin Review; and WHEREAS, the Planning staff reviewed the application and recommended approval with conditions; and WHEREAS, the Commission reviewed the application, heard plenty of public comment and amended the conditions of approval to include: 4. Prior to construction of the bridge, stream margin for the trail along the river shall be reviewed and approved. 5. Prior to construction of the bridge the two remaining easement to Highway 82 must be acquired. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission that it does hereby grant stream margin approval for a bridge crossing the Roaring Fork River near the Ute Children Park with the following Resolution No. 92- Page 2 conditions: 1. Conditions prior to construction: a. A construction and site drainage plan and procedure must be submitted and approved to the engineering department. The construction procedures employed must be such that no runoff from rain or snowmelt be permitted to drain to the river from contact with the disturbed earth. The construction procedure used will in no way impact the river. b. Tree removal permits are required from the Parks Department before any trees greater than 6" in caliper may be removed. c. Necessary permits, or written acknowledgement that a permit is not required, shall be obtained from the Army Corps of Engineers and /or the Department of Wildlife and provided to the engineering department. e. The engineering department recommends that either a subsurface soils exploration report or visual inspection of excavation be performed by a registered soils engineer to determine sufficient bearing capacity for the designed concrete structures. f. Stamped drawings by design engineer must be submitted. 2. General Conditions: a. As the drawings indicate, construction staking must be in place before commencement of construction confirming that the bridges are located on the properties indicated in the application. The survey as submitted in the application should be expanded to include the eastern abutment currently not shown. Upon completion of the bridges an as -built mylar must be submitted to the engineering department prepared by a registered land surveyor, that includes new easements, and bridge locations in relation to property boundaries. b. Inspections and testing shall be performed at the direction of the engineer. It is recommended that inspections be performed prior to the placement of concrete, for the placement of concrete and for any compaction of backfill. It also recommended that testing be performed for concrete strength and density of compaction. Resolution No. 92- Page 3 c. The applicant is required to plant any regraded or disturbed area with species keeping with the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan as well as existing plants in the area. d. The construction site drainage plan and procedure shall particularly address how it will maintain the existing slope and vegetation at the eastern abutment as indicated on the profile view looking downstream. It appears that it will be difficult to prevent the erosion or sloughing of this bank during the course of construction. 3. All representations that have been made in the application and during the presentation shall be adhered to. 4. Prior to construction of the bridge, stream margin for the trail along the river shall be reviewed and approved. 5. Prior to construction of the bridge the two remaining easement to Highway 82 must be acquired. APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on September 22, 1992. ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION By ATTEST: Jan Carney, Deputy City Clerk MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planner RE: Ute Place Bridge Stream Margin Review DATE: September 22, 1992 SUMMARY: The Parks Department has submitted an application for the construction of a bridge crossing the Roaring Fork River. Placement of the bridge utilizes a bridge easement that the City obtained during the Gordon Lot Split in 1983 and the City owned property adjacent to Ute Place (1010 Ute). This bridge is an important link of City -wide trail along the Roaring Fork River from North Star Preserve to Slaughterhouse Bridge. Pursuant to Section 7 -504, Stream Margin Review is required. The Planning Department recommends approval with conditions of the bridge. APPLICANT: City of Aspen, as represented by Gary Lacey and Patrick Duffield. LOCATION: Gordon /Callahan Subdivision and the City park adjacent to Ute Place. ZONING: R -30 and Public APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Stream Margin Approval for one bridge. REFERRAL COMMENTS: The Engineering Department has reviewed the application, please see attached referral comments. STAFF COMMENTS: The 1985 Parks /Recreation /Open Space /Trails Element of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan identifies this bridge crossing to connect proposed trails down the Roaring Fork River and a trail through the Ute Cemetery. The 1991 Pedestrain and Bikeway Plan identifies this crossing as a connection to primary and secondary commuter routes. This delineation was also incorporated into the draft Aspen Area Community Plan. In 1991, as part of the Gordon /Callahan Subdivision process, the applicant agreed to provide $25,000 for a bridge. Although the City has not obtained the few remaining easements necessary to connect the bridge to a trail downriver to Cooper Avenue, the City would like to complete the stream margin for the bridge. In addition, the City has not solidified the plans for trail construction on the Ute Place side of the river. The City is still working with the neighbors to reach consensus regarding a trail or trails in this area. Therefore, this stream margin review is only applicable for the bridge, another stream margin review or exemption will be required for the trails. The applicant will present the bridge plans at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. A. Stream Margin: Pursuant to Section 7 -504 C., development is required to undergo Stream Margin Review if it is within 100 feet from the high water line of the Roaring Fork River and its tributary streams, or within the one hundred year floodplain. The applicable review standards are as follows: 1. It can be demonstrated that any proposed development which is in the Special Flood Hazard Area will not increase the base flood elevation on the parcel proposed for development. This shall be demonstrated by an engineering study prepared by a professional engineer registered to practice in the State -of- Colorado which shows that the base flood elevation will not be raised, including, but not limited to, proposing mitigation techniques on or off -site which compensate for any base flood elevation increase caused by the development. RESPONSE: The project will not affect the existing 100 year floodplain or floodway. The low chord of the new bridge will be more than 2' above the 100 year flood elevation, reducing the chance of debris blockage. The bridge itself is designed as a "breakaway" bridge which is tethered on one end in the event of a major flood, it will breakaway and not become debris downstream. 2. Any trail on the parcel designated on the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Parks /Recreation /Open Space /Trails Plan map is dedicated for public use. RESPONSE: All proposed trails and existing trails are dedicated for public use which is consistent with the Plan. 3. The recommendations of the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan are implemented in the proposed plan for development, to the greatest extent practicable. RESPONSE: This project will follow the recommendations of the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan. 4. No vegetation is removed or slope grade changes made that produce erosion and sedimentation of the stream bank. RESPONSE: According to the application, no vegetation removal or slope grade changes are being made that will produce erosion or sedimentation problems. All new cut and fill areas will be revegetated. A tree removal permit shall be reviewed for the removal of any tree greater than G" in caliper. The applicant shall work with the Engineering Department to identify erosion 2 mitigation measures during construction. 5. To the greatest extent practicable, the proposed development reduces pollution and interference with the natural changes of the river, stream or other tributary. RESPONSE: The proposed trails and bridges allow for natural changes in the river to the greatest extent possible. Some areas along the trail will be able to trap urban runoff pollution prior to it flowing into the river. 6. Written notice is given to the Colorado Water Conservation Board prior to any alteration or relocation of a water course, and a copy of said notice is submitted to the Federal Emergency Management Agency. RESPONSE: There will be -no - alteration or relocation of -a water course. 7. A guarantee is provided in the event a water course is altered or relocated, that applies to the developer and his heirs, successors and assigns that ensures that the flood carrying capacity on the parcel is not diminished. RESPONSE: Not applicable. 8. Copies are provided of all necessary federal and state permits relating to work within the one hundred (100) year floodplain. RESPONSE: A general permit authorization has been requested from the Army Corps of Engineers. No work will proceed until the Corps has signed off on the project. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the stream margin review to a bridge over the Roaring Fork River with the following conditions: it(O OYc 1. Conditions prior to construction: a. A construction and site drainage plan and procedure must be submitted and approved to the engineering department. The construction procedures employed must be such that no runoff from rain or snowmelt be permitted to drain to the river from contact with the disturbed earth. The construction procedure used will in no way impact the river. b. Tree removal permits are required from the Parks Department before any trees greater than 6" in caliper may be removed. c. Necessary permits, or written acknowledgement that a permit is not required, shall be obtained from the Army Corps 3 of Engineers and /or the Department of Wildlife and provided to the engineering department. e. The engineering department recommends that either a subsurface soils exploration report or visual inspection of excavation be performed by a registered soils engineer to determine sufficient bearing capacity for the designed concrete structures. f. Stamped drawings by design engineer must be submitted. 2. General Conditons: a. As the drawings indicate, construction staking must be in place before commencement of construction confirming that the bridges are located on the properties indicated in the application. The survey as submitted in the application should be expanded to include the eastern abutment currently not shown. Upon completion of the bridges an as -built mylar must be submitted to the engineering department prepared by a registered land surveyor, that includes new easements, and bridge locations in relation to property boundaries. b. Inspections and testing shall be performed at the direction of the engineer. It is recommended that inspections be performed prior to the placement of concrete, for the placement of concrete and for any compaction of backfill. It also recommended that testing be performed for concrete strength and density of compaction. c. The applicant is required to plant any regraded or disturbed area with species keeping with the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan as well as existing plants in the area. d. The construction site drainage plan and procedure shall particularly address how it will maintain the existing slope and vegetation at the eastern abutment as indicated on the profile view looking downstream. It appears that it will be difficult to prevent the erosion or sloughing of this bank during the course of construction. 3. All representations that have been made in the application and during the presentation shall be adhered to. Attachments: ,�� A. Plans ^ cW� tert 1k b Qc er fiDe4U1/4)-+ r MI:he& ) 4 'Sr r P,eroe 1 - 70 5 Pam' E� �nqAt �' � n.�riv� CASE/ .u� >( z MEMORANDUM To: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office From: Rob Thomson, Project Engineer , RSX Date: September 16, 1992 Re: Ute Place Stream Margin Review Having reviewed the above application, the engineering Department has the following comments: 1. Conditions prior to construction: a. A construction and site drainage plan and procedure must be submitted and approved to the engineering department. The construction procedures employed must be such that no runoff from rain or snowmelt be permitted to drain to the river from contact with the disturbed earth. The construction procedure used will in no way impact the river. b. Tree removal. permits are required from the Parks Department before any trees greater than 6" in caliper may be removed. c. Necessary permits, or written acknowledgement that a permit is not required, shall be obtained from the Army Corps of Engineers and /or the Department of Wildlife and provided to the engineering department. e. The engineering department recommends that either a subsurface soils exploration report or visual inspection of excavation be performed by a registered soils engineer to determine sufficient bearing capacity for the designed concrete structures. f. Stamped drawings by design engineer must be submitted. N Additional information is required for item 5 of the application regarding the re ntion of storm runoff. In addition storm runoff from the trail should be addressed on how it is maintained and prevented from entering the river. 2. General Conditons: a. As the drawings indicate, construction staking must be in place before commencement of construction confirming that the bridges are located on the properties indicated in the application. The survey as submitted in the application should be expanded to include the eastern abutment currently not shown. Upon completion of the bridges an as -built mylar must be submitted to the engineering department prepared by a registered land surveyor, that includes new easements, and bridge locations in relation to property boundaries. b. Inspections and testing shall be performed at the direction of the engineer. It is recommended that inspections be performed prior to the placement of concrete, for the placement of concrete and for any compaction of backfill. It also recommended that testing be performed for concrete strength and density of compaction. c. The applicant is required to plant any regraded or disturbed area with species keeping with the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan as well as existing plants in the area. d. The construction site drainage plan and procedure shall particularly address how it will maintain the existing slope and vegetation at the eastern abutment as indicated on the profile view looking downstream. It appears that it will be difficult to prevent the erosion or sloughing of this bank during the course of construction. cc Chuck Roth, City Engineer CASELOAD9L073 • Mean water level ° D >_ei • • O i s\ loo yr sx , floodplain Gv boundary s8 e tiro �� . . \ " Jib , . i a CD L u n 4't a+.,o. �C New at, `�. 10' x 85' tlj B icyde� � : P ' C- Bridge co PT o & " G 0 \. , i ` � loo °; ;,• rn fl oqd- ; - ,Go P lain y (..,�,, �, b undar ' \ ' ` nS % i.� 101 O .e S 1 !�\ : �\ � f�i SUBDIVISI • ' , z 4 i i \k 58 cr o \ © / / / rn a 'n QV IN, it • t3 • ! r \� \� p ! o c� // ilir yN r t 41 trio I S. Me CO - , ply It n <n N 0 - I `- 4 Cr% ' k � ° ° � dp- 4 o Z n F. c Ae mF N. rn'tlE,_ tea 1 il ti, rai (0 ) ) \\ :\ , .. K. y, ,.., _, \-1/7„: (t \N. rn ° Bring- rn s o k fi g ' - �----... ouz) L n \ to 0 c Z CL N C n d n r SEP21 _ I I September 17, 1992 c Patrick Duffield Aspen Parks Department 130 S. Galena Street The Aspen, CO 81611 Parks RE: 1010 Ute Trail Association D ear Pat: Amy Margerum asked whether the Pitkin County Parks Association had any comment on the city's proposed bridge and six foot paved trail to be located along the Roaring Fork Committed to the River behind the Ute Place condominiums. This matter was presenationolparks, discussed at some length at our February 12, 1992 meeting, trails and open space when Mr. George Robinson of your department presented the in the Roaring Fork status of planning for the trail. It was discussed again at Valle,. our March 12, 1992 meeting when Ms. Leslie Lamont of the planning office discussed the status of negotiations regarding the construction of the trail. At both of these meetings, the Board was unanimous in its determination that the new trail bridge should be installed across the Roaring Fork river to connect through Ute Place, to the main, multi- use trail which should be along Ute Avenue. The south trail along the river should remain an unimproved dirt trail roughly 2 feet wide. As you know, the Parks Association is an avid supporter and guardian of parks, trails and open space in Pitkin County. However, to be consistent with this mission, we cannot blindly support trails in situations where to do so would adversely impact open space. The construction and use of the proposed six foot wide, paved multi -use trail along the river will have significant impacts on a riparian zone located on the fringe of downtown Aspen. As you know, this river corridor represents a very important wildlife habitat for numerous species and therefore should be protected as much as possible. Additionally, this riparian system would be significantly impacted by the development of this proposed trail. The area is heavily vegetated with steep slopes and is subject to spring flooding. In addition, several encroachments along this proposed alignment would- require numerous detours projecting the trail even closer to the PO. Box 940 Aspen, COIUt utring \ ASPEN PARRS 303- 920 -3806 river. For these reasons, the Parks Association supports a de minimis unimproved two foot wide dirt trail along the river. • ti: As an additional consideration, it is our belief that a six foot wide trail is inadequate for multiple use purposes. Generally, a viable multi -use trail must be 10 to 14 feet in width. The proposed six foot wide trial is an attempt to reconcile the desire for a wide, multiple use trail with the recognized need to lessen the impact of such a trail along The the river. The net result would be an overly impactive trail Parks that would be inadequate for its intended uses, hence increasing conflicts between cyclists, joggers, walkers, Association hikers and riders. Consequently, we believe that the best solution is to install the wide multiple use trail along Ute Avenue and leave the river trail in a primitive, unimproved state. Committed to the The proposed construction of a six foot wide multi -use presenalinnotparks, trail along the river also raises questions regarding whether trails and open space any regulatory agencies need to be considered. For example, in the Roaring Fork would it require approval under the Environmental Protection Valley. Act or would it require Section 404 permit approval from the Army Corp. of Engineers. With respect to the proposed construction of a new trail bridge at Picnic Point on the Roaring Fork River near its intersection with Castle Creek, we support this as a good addition to the trail system in and around Aspen. It will offer a connection of the Institute property with the Rio Grande Trail which should provide an amenity for all locals and visitors alike. However, the construction of an additional bridge across the Roaring Fork River just up river from the Picnic Point bridge would be, in our view, a duplicative and unnecessary endeavor. The additional impacts that the construction of the second bridge would have would not be warranted by the minimal additional use it would generate. P.O. Box 940 Aspen, COlomIIo l2 \i.slmsns\ ASPEN PABKB 303 - 920 -3806 Patrick Duffield September 17, 1992 Page 3 Thank you for considering these comments. Very truly yours, The Parks THE PITRIN COUNTY PARKS ASSOCIATION Association ALP L r1�� /l By: �_ Hal L Clark, Executive Director FA C(� t f�- Committed to the By: /'eJ lam — preservation ofparks, Frederick F. Peirce, Presid trails and open space in the Roaring Fork Valley. FFP /sls cc: Amy Margerum, City Manager P.O. Box 9402 U ZIP» "rsaz ASPEN PASKS Aspen, Colora o i5�6 L 303-920-3806 -3- VARIOUS (R)UPS ARE VYING FOR SPACE ON THE RIO GRANDE PROPERTY TO INCLUDE: THEATER IN THE PARK, RECYCLING, SNCM1ELT:M , RUGBY AND SOCCER USE. KAYAK COURSE, PARKS AND TRAILS, TRAIN : -, ETC. A MAJOR AGREEMENT OF THE GROUP IS FOR LANDSCAPING THE RIVER AREA AND GENERAL CLEAN -UP OF THE SITE. THE LOW FLOW KAYAK COURSE IS SIMILAR TO THE ONE INSTALLED IN BOULDER, CO. THE GOAL OF THE GROUP IS GET A VISION OF THE PROPERTY. THE PLAN IS TO BE DONE IN MAY OR JUNE OF THIS YEAR. HOWIE MALLORY ASKED ABOUT USE OF COUNTY OPEN SPACE FUNDS FOR THE RIVER TRAILS. LESLIE RESPONDED THAT RICK NE:ILEY. CHAIRMAN OF THE COUNTY BOARD, DID ATTEND THE LAST CM SITE MEETING AND THAT MONIES MAY BE USED FROM THIS FUND. LESLIE RESPONDED TO A QUESTION ABOUT THE SNOWMELT THAT THE COUNCIL WANTED TO STOP ALL SNOWMELTING ON THE RIO GRANDE PROPERTY. 1C:10 UTE TRAILS - LESLIE LAMONT THE CITY IS CONTINUING TO NEGOTIATE WITH LANDOWNERS REGARDING THE RIVER TRAIL. THE CITY HAS $32,000 FROM 1010 UTE OWNERS FOR TRAIL CONSTRUCTION AND $25,000 FROM JOHN ELMORE FOR BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION. THE 1010 UTE OWNERS HAVE GIVEN A 2 YEAR EXTENSION TO THE CITY FOR TRAIL CONSTRUCTION. THE CITY HAS CONTRACTED WITH GARY .LACEY TO PREPARE A TRAIL PLAN UP FROM HWY 82 THROUGH 1010 ALONG THE RIVER. FRITZ MENTIONED THAT THE REDWOOD APTS. WILL FIGHT THE TRAIT AND NO EASEMENT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED ON THE KASTELIC PROPERTY. AL BLOMOUIST SPOKE IN FAVOR OF BUILDING THE BRIDGE NOW AND DECIDING ON TRAIL CONNECTIONS LATEF: DUE TO CONSTRUCTION PROBLEMS WHICH MAY OCCUR LATER FOR THE BRIDGE. THE PARKS BOARD WAS IN GENERAL AGREEMENT WITH THE IDEA OF PROCEEDING w[714 BR1 D!IE: CONSTRUCTION. NuRTNS'FAR PRESERVE BRIDGE AND TRAIL PLANNING POSTPONED TO NEXF MEETING. s^ - A 1010 UTE TRAIL RECOMMENDATIONS 41 HAL SUMMARIZED THE STATUS OF THE 1010 UTE TRAIL NEGOTIATIONS. THE CITY IS HIRING A CONSULTANT TO PROCEED ; WITH PLANNING THE NORTH AND SOUTH TRAIL (ALONG ROARING FORK r RIVER) AND THE NEW TRAIL BRIDGE ACROSS THE RIVER. FUNDING .y,,, HAS BEEN ALLOCATED BY THE CITY AND CONSTRUCTIQN IS SCHEDULED FOR SUMMER, 1992. The NEGOTIATIONS WITH ADJACENT LANDOWNERS TO MOVE THE SOUTH Parks TRAIL TO THE EAST SIDE OF THE RIVER TO AVOID SERIOUS TF,RRAIN AND RIPARIAN CONSTRAINTS HAVE FAILED. Association THE MAJOR PLANNING DEBATE FOR THE TRAIL IS THE WIDTH OF THE / SOUTH TRAIL. SHOULD IT REMAIN A NARROW 2' WIDTH FISHERMAN TRAIL OR SHOULD IT BE DEVELOPED AS A STANDARD 10' WIDE PAVED TRAIL? ( to the pn'svnationo( parks, JOHN DOREMUS EXPRESSED SUPPORT FOR LIMITING THE TRAIL TO 2' trailsandopenspace ALONG THE RIVER. in the Roaring Fork t'allev. FRITZ INQUIRED AS TO WHETHER A TIME LIMIT EXISTS FOR USE OF THE FUNDS PLEDGED BY THE 1010 UTE DEVELOPERS FOR THE TRAIL? GEORGE ROBINSON ANSWERED A QUALIFIED "YES ", BY THIS SUMMER. HOWIE MALLORY ASKED AS TO THE APPROXIMATE COST OF THE BRIDGE AND TRAILS. GEORGE REPLIED THAT HE HAD NOT RECEIVED ANY BIDS AS TO THIS DATE. CHARLES FAGAN MOVED AND JOHN DOREMUS SECONDED THAT THE NEW RIVER BRIDGE BE INSTALLED THIS SUMMER; THAT THE NORTH TRAIL TO UTE AVE. BE BUILT AS A 10' WIDE PAVED TRAIL; AND THAT THE SOUTH TRAIL ALONG THE RIVER REMAIN AS A 2' WIDE FISHING TRAIL. THE CITY SHOULD CONTINUE TO INVESTIGATE THIS TRAIL IMPROVEMENT. THE BOARD VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO APPROVE THE MOTION. ENTRY TO ASPEN DESIGN THROUGH MAROLT PROPERTY 4 BUD EYLAR, PITKIN COUNTY ENGINEER, EXPLINED THE STATUS OF THE HIGHWAY ENTRY DESIGN. THE CITY OF ASPEN HAS PASSED A RESOLUTION REQUIRING A MINIMUM TAKING OF LAND THROUGH THE MAROI.T PROPERTY FOR HIGHWAY 82. THE CURRENT DESIGN IS FOR AN EIGHT FOOT PAVED MEDIAN STRIP BETWEEN THE TWO LANES OF THE FOUR LANE HIGHWAY. P.O. Box 940 Aspen, Colorado 81612 303-920-3806 Colonial SEP 2 1 1992 Savings IL1I1_ A Colonial Financial Company J. S. DUBOSE Private Line Chairman 817/390-2222 September 16, 1992 Ms. Leslie Lamont Planning Office City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 UTE PLACE - BICYCLE PATH In response to our phone conversation, this letter is my written request that the bicycle path being considered between Ute Place and the Callahan Subdivision be no more than 4 - 6 feet wide. Thank you for your consideration. • JAMES S. DUBOSE (Aspen Address) 100 Ute Place Aspen, CO 81611 mj 2624 West Freeway P.O. Box 2988 Fort Worth, Texas 76113 817/390 -2000 Metro 429 -9333 Fort Worth Dallas Arlington Lewisville Garland Hurst Denton i LACE I I O M E 01 N f . R S A S S O C I A T I O N , I N C M E M O R A N D U M T0: George Robins & Leslie Lamont FROM: James M. DeFrancia RE: River Trial DATE: August 11, 1992 "e) We appreciate your taking the time to meet with representatives of our Association yesterday to discuss the proposed River Trail. The following is intended to summarize the position of the Association and the impacted river lot owners. • The Association continues to be opposed to a paved trail of any width and continues to be a strong advocate of an unpaved footpath as being most appropriate for the terrain in question. ▪ If a paved path is nevertheless to be constructed at municipal insistence, then the Association favors one of minimal width; not to exceed 6' of paved section with perhaps 18" gravel shoulders. The Association calls to attention the need for a more detailed landscape plan to address the issues of tree removal, landscaping of disturbed areas and landscaping buffers between the trail and the bordering lots. • The Association also brings to the attention of the City the prospective need for protective railings at the perimeter of river lots so as to guard against accidental falls between the lots and the grade- separated trail (which is intended to be 6' -8' below the lot grades pursuant to the most recent plan). • The City should also be mindful of costs associated with infringement on existing facilities within river lots. For example, the proposaled grade- separation wall could de- stabilize existing spa pools, sprinkler systems, patios and the like. ▪ The entire trail system in the opinion of the Association should also be reviewed and considered in the most comprehensive fashion, that is, we strongly advocate the need for a definite alignment along the west side of the river and securing necessary easements in that area before any construction proceeds. 19 PIT MAO • ASPEN. COIOI ADO 81611 • (;0A) 9254RS We would appreciate a further meeting with the City to review the questions and concerns noted above. Please be assured of the continuing availability of the Association and its representatives. Again, thank you for taking the time to meet with us yesterday and we look forward to reviewing the matter further in the near term. • cc: Nick McGrath, Esq. S. Edlis R. Hojel K. Sandberg • LESLIE K. HOLST 1118 WATERS AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 August 29, 1992 MR. STEFAN EDLIS % FRIENDS OF THE RIVERBANK 96 UTE PLACE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 Dear Mr. Edlis , To Thank you for for_wardinCa copy of your recent letter to - - Mr. Gary Lacy. I feel that, hopefully, a good project will evolve with everybody's future cooperation. I do, however, have serious problems with your sending off a letter that I have not read with my name involved as supporting your position. While I basically agree that minimal impact is important, I do not in its entirety support the tone of your letter. I also believe that in areas where I am impacted by a long range city and county master plan, as I am in this area with the 1010 Lite entrance almost in my front yard, I have seriously attempted not to respond with the "not in my back yard" syndrome. I feel very lucky to live in Aspen, and there are many tines when I prefer to put the community needs above my own. It has taken me many years to learn this and I do not feel that anyone has the right to take these stands away from me. I appreciate your efforts in this area and hope that-a suitable resolution will arrived at by everybody. St 4 M ret Leslie K. How cc: Mayor and City Council Amy Margerum George Robinson Leslie Lamont Hal Clark Bill Gruenberg FRIENDS OF THE RIVERBANK A NEIGHBORHOOD GROUP OF CONCERNED CITIZENS 96 Ute Place Aspen, Colorado 81611 August 14, 1992 Mr. Gary Lacy Recreation Engineering & Planning 45 Arapahoe Boulder, Colorado 80302 RE: Proposed Bike Path - 1010 Ute Avenue Dear Gary: We were disappointed that your plane was delayed, necessitating your missing the well attended meeting at noon yesterday to view the proposed trail at 1010 Ute Avenue. Information generated at the meeting casts a new perspective on the proposed construction and schedule for the Roaring Fork River Trail in that location. In particular, please note the following. 1. As we have repeatedly noted, and consistent with the analysis of our engineers, Schmeuser, Gordon & Meyer, the width of the finished trail is not the determining factor in evaluating the impact of the trail on the natural and riparian environment in this location. Rather, since the proposed trail will require heavy equipment for construction, necessitating a 10' platform for trucks and machinery to perform the work, the impact of the trail will be this platform construction, creating a mass of damage to the riparian environment. The amount of earth moving required for the bench cuts will require 75 truck loads of earth removal. 2. We understand that you are developing a more detailed landscaping plan. This plan should indicate with design strategies, the boundaries between private and park land. 3. Regarding the bridge, the river lot owners most impacted by this construction wish to form a design committee to assure that the bridge conforms to the natural river bank and enhances the environment in that location. This should cause no delay to the project, since logic dictates that the contract for construction of the bridge should not be let until the missing easements are obtained leading to Highway 82, or else we have a dead end bridge. • Mr. Gary Lacy August 14, 1992 Page 2 4. We believe that for ease of• supervision a local oversite engineer should be retained for this project. 5. Both the Pitkin County Parks Association and Trout Unlimited favor a trail which will have limited impact on the riparian environment in this location. Consistent with their positions, we believe that a 2 to 4 foot path without shoulders is appropriate in this location and can be constructed without heavy equipment and without the need for blasting. We are hopeful that the Aspen City Council will give serious consideration to this alternative. We do not believe that environmental considerations should be subordinate to the desire for recreational uses, especially in the presence of local alternatives for satisfying this need. I have attached a list of our supporters, many of whom attended the recent meeting. 6. In order to further this project, we would propose to furnish you with a geotech report, since no meaningful bid can be expected without this information and since otherwise there can be no assurance that the structures will remain in place. 7. We understand that the City has applied for a 404 permit from the Corps of Army Engineers and that this project may fall under a nation -wide permit. This issue needs to be resolved. Similarly, an application for stream margin review needs to be submitted to the City of Aspen so as not to create the impression that the City's rules do not apply to this construction within the riparian area of the Roaring Fork River. We look forward to continuing negotiations regarding this issue, and please do no not hesitate o call if you have comments or questions regarding this letter. fru art Stef -n Edlis SE /dd cc: Mayor and City Council of Aspen Amy Margerum George Robinson Leslie Lamont Hal Clark Bill Gruenberg ATTENDEES AT AUGUST 26, 1992, MEETING REt 1010 UTE TRAIL, WHO SUPPORT THE POSITION OF FRIENDS OF THE RIVERBANK: Shane McClain Rick and Julie McClain Pete McClain Elizabeth Jones Georgeann Waggaman Hayes Les Holst Charlie and Fonda Patterson Jimmy Dubose Stefan Edlis Gael Neeson Jim Trotter Peter and Nancy Meinig Richard and Phyllis Hojel The following supporters were unable to attend: Suzanne Resnick Phillip and Auslaug Wright Pete and Judy Hoyt Bill and Betsy Engleman Bob Lewis Bob Lowe Bill Bindly Harry Welsch Brian Wilson Jim DiFrancia 1 c = \wp51 \mw \rl..rb.nk.Lt FRIENDS OF THE RIVERBANK A NEIGHBORHOOD GROUP OF CONCERNED CITIZENS 96 Ute Place Aspen, Colorado 81611 August 27, 1992 Mr. Gary Lacy Recreation Engineering & Planning 45 Arapahoe Boulder, Colorado 80302 BE: Proposed Bike Path - 1010 Ute Avenue Dear Gary: We were disappointed that your plane was delayed, necessitating your missing the well attended meeting at noon yesterday to view the proposed trail at 1010 Ute Avenue. Information generated at the meeting casts a new perspective on the proposed construction and schedule for the Roaring Fork River Trail in that location. In particular, please note the following. 1. As we have repeatedly noted, and consistent with the analysis of our engineers, Schmeuser, Gordon & Meyer, the width of the finished trail is not the determining factor in evaluating the impact of the trail on the natural and riparian environment in this location. Rather, since the proposed trail will require heavy equipment for construction, necessitating a 10' platform for trucks and machinery to perform the work, the impact of the trail will be this platform construction, creating a mass of damage to the riparian environment. The amount of earth moving required for the bench cuts will require 75 truck loads of earth removal. 2. We understand that you are developing a more detailed landscaping plan. This plan should indicate with design strategies, the boundaries between private and park land. 3. Regarding the bridge, the river lot owners most impacted by this construction wish to forma design committee to assure that the bridge conforms to the natural river bank and enhances the environment in that location. This should cause no delay to the project, since logic dictates that the contract for construction of the bridge should not be let until the missing easements are obtained leading to Highway 82, or else we have a dead end bridge. • Mr. Gary jacy August kr, 1992 Page 2 4.• We believe that for ease of supervision a local oversite engineer should be retained for this project. 5. Both the Pitkin County Parks Association and Trout Unlimited favor a trail which will have limited impact on the riparian environment in this location. Consistent with their positions, we believe that a 2 to 4 foot path without shoulders is appropriate in this location and can be constructed without heavy equipment and without the need for blasting. We are hopeful that the Aspen City Council will give serious consideration to this alternative. We do not believe that environmental considerations should be subordinate to the desire for recreational uses, especially in the presence of local alternatives for satisfying this need. I have attached a list of our supporters, many of whom attended the recent meeting. • 6. In order to further this project, we would propose to furnish you with a geotech report, since no meaningful bid can be expected without this information and since otherwise there can be no assurance that the structures will remain in place. 7. We understand that the City has applied for a 404 permit from the Corps of Army Engineers and that this project may fall under a nation -wide permit. This issue needs to be resolved. Similarly, an application for stream margin review needs to be submitted to the City of Aspen so as not to create the impression that the City's rules do not apply to this construction within the riparian area of the Roaring Fork River. We look forward to continuing negotiations regarding this issue, and please do no not hesitate o call if you have comments or questions regarding this letter ru urs, AS art Stef -n Edlis SE /dd cc: Mayor and City Council of Aspen Amy Margerum George Robinson Leslie Lamont Hal Clark Bill Gruenberg • • ATTENDEES AT AUGUST 26, 1992, MEETING RE: 1010 UTE TRAIL, WHO SUPPORT THE POSITION OF FRIENDS OF THE RIVERBANK: Shane McClain Rick and Julie McClain Pete McClain Elizabeth Jones Georgeann Waggaman Hayes Les Holst Charlie and Fonda Patterson Jimmy Dubose Stefan Edlis Gael Neeson Jim Trotter Peter and Nancy Meinig Richard and Phyllis Hojel The following supporters were unable to attend: Suzanne Resnick Phillip and Auslaug Wright Pete and Judy Hoyt Bill and Betsy Engleman Bob Lewis Bob Lowe Bill Bindly Harry Welsch Brian Wilson Jim DiFrancia 1 es \vpSi \doc. \rivsrbaak. lat rRIENDS OF THE RIVERBANK • A Neighborhood Group of Concerned Citizens • 96 Ute Place Aspen, Colorado 81611 - August 14, 1992 BMW DELIVERED Ma. Amy Margerum City Manager City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 - • RE: Proposed Bike Path at 1010 Me Avenue - Dear Amy: I am writing on behalf of a number of concerned citizens to request that bid packages not be released for the above referenced project as planned on Monday, August 17, 1992, if the City is serious about letting a contract based upon such bid, and that we be given a further opportunity to discuss our concerns with staff, and City Council, if appropriate, before further steps are taken towards construction of the trail. We wish to assure that the design will satisfy community needs as well as our own. Referring to our correspondence of February 10, 1992, the Parks director and staff presented us for the first time with a final trail plan on August 11, 1992, along the west bank of the Roaring Fork River. As you can see from the attached correspondence, and as we discussed recently, there are serious questions from a number of perspectives regarding the option apparently chosen by City staff. These include the following: 1. Environmental. A machine built path which includes three to five foot boulders will destroy the river bank. Also, obtaining a 404 permit may be necessary and does not appear to have occurred. We share the concerns of the Parks Association as reflected in the attached letter. Also, we question whether the Parks Association has had an adequate opportunity to critique the current plan. 2. Technical. No evidence has been presented by a competent engineering firm that the portion leading to Ute Children's Park •y . .r 4 - I I Ms. Amy Margerum August 14, 1992 Page 2 • can in fact be cut into the sixty degree slope without serious repercussions. Also, a six degree grade is too steep for safe descent. Please review the attached letter from Ron Thompson regarding other technical issues. 3. Public Policy. The plan is designed as a bike path only, per master plan dated September, 1990. Therefore, the plan does • . not satisfy the established guidelines of the 1990 Aspen Pedestrian Bikeway System Plan. 4. Financial. To spend approximately $500,000.00 on about nine hundred feet of bike path when there are nearby parallel bike trails does not seem to be the highest and best use of available resources. Our group supports the position of the Parks Association per the attached letter, or some alternative which will meet the above concerns. Please be aware that it is not our intention to prevent the construction of the trail or full use of this significant public resource. Our concern is that a suitable trail design be implemented taking into account all relevant factors. We strongly urge you to postpone further action until these concerns are addressed. Please advise me of your intentions regarding the bid package and further negotiations. Thank you for your considerati••. Ve iyours, 1 (i By: /114 J. s efa T. dli STE /smg Enclosures cc: Members of City Council . Leslie Lamont 4 CAMIAarnmteVuso_UCIfft • • 1 • February 26, 1992 Mr. Stefan Edlis . C/0 Appollo 5333 N. Elston Ave. Chicago, I11. 60630 Dear Mr. Edlis, Thank you for your letter expressing concerns about The the trail along the .Roaring Fork River. The Parks Association voted at their regular meeting on February 19, Parks 1992 to recommend that the trail section along the river Assoa adon behind Ute Place development remain as a narrow fisherman only walking trail. • We understand that the City is proceeding with planning for the full trail width (10') design for this trail section. We expect to critique this design with them Committedtothe after design completion. preservation of parks, trails and open space The new trail and bridge sections near the Aspen Art wtheRoaringFork Museum are not completed. Work was stopped due to extreme Yaliey weather conditions last fall. Revegetation will be completed this spring. The "white" concrete will evolve to a grayer color as it hardens. Concrete was used in order to resist the tree root and weed intrusion problems experienced with asphalt, and due to moisture problems adjacent to the river. The moisture naturally present near the river will foster quick revegetation of the damaged • areas. The 10' minimum width of the paved trails is designed to accomodate the multi -use aspects of the trail which include bikers, hikers, cross country skiers, roller bladers, etc. The Parks Association is also concerned about the damage caused by building trails adjacent to the river in difficult terrain. We will examine the plans for the proposed Ute Place river section of the Roaring Fork River Trail very carefully. • Thank you for your comments. Sincerely, Hal Clark • Executive Director •P.O.Box940 The Parks Association Aspen, Colorado 81612 303. 920.3806 _ - • • � P.O. Box 2155 / stuMUCSER ITV AWL /r ate I . sumo Aspen, Colorado 81612 IS r want • .. w., ' r strawy 23, 19 ° saw, y III Cam) 626 6727 • • wrz -/ CONSULTING EXa1NEEaa a SURVEYORS/ Erholas hfcGrada. Bsb Wormy at Taw x00 Ea tsopl:ins, Suite 203 Aspen, CO 81611 $E: .17b Place /Mon Trail ( ' Dea lt& l have reviewed with Greg Madan, his sketch plan for the two -soot wide fisherman trail. I have discussed with Hal Cask, The Pads Association. his thoughts on this tail and I have met with Stefan Edile. An adequate two -foot wide dirt fisherman tall mitts. To expand on that trail, it appears the issues wail be: 1. Some IIte place yards appear to intrude into the trail easement. Wits these yards be tom up, or will the treII be moved toward the rine/ (iRo Plato Drive 96, 90, 86 and S2). . 2. Any coastracdon b front of Ute Place Drive 96, 90, 86 and 82 Ripens WIII involve intrusion rood the foodplaln. This wm require a floodplafa wady and 404 permit. 3. How will the city get permission from Itself to build * 150 feet of trail access across a 60% side slope below Ute Cemetery) The existing fisherman trans an 18% grade. Lowering this grade will mean a new cart To build a tea foot wide trail, k would appear approximately 5150,000 of retaining wail would be necessary. 4. To build a madtine -built trail through thia section, it appears it will be almost impossible as there Is only mac point of access at Ute Chidren's Pads. This meant a hoe will have to do the Initial cut and 511, set retaining sanctum, etc. Dump rucks and supply tracks will have to back the entire length of the construction to pickup and deriver supplies. This form of construction will be very expensive. I would estimate the city will spend in excess of $400,000 to build the section of ten-foot wide tail from Ute Children's Park, past Ute Place to an acceptable environmental standard. The environmental impact of this construction may very well be unacceptable to a large segment of tha community. Yon asked for two costs regarding engineering services. To evaluate wmeone else's design and offer alternative design solutions cc specific items should range between 51000 and 52000. For us to provide an anirotoun m acceptable design for a tan-foot wide trail In lack of Lite Place only, would range from $8,000 to $12,000. This would include necessary survey work, a floodplain windy, 404 permit, desiga drawings, necessary meetings and constructiondocuments. Please let me kno If you require any addldonsi information or have any questions. Sincerely, SOBMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. Rua Thompson Engineer RT`1d998 1512 Grand Avenue, Suite 212 • Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 • (303) 945-1004 ...___..._.___ ... The Home Utfice ILI NU.606 449 -(918 Jan 25.12 22 :51 e.04 - (O ki Gary Lacy • Recreation Engineering & Planning 485 Arapahoe • Baultler. CC) 60302 • (303) 440-9268 August 21, 1992 Mr. Nick McGrath Suite 203 600 East Hopkins Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Mr. McGrath: This letter is intended to be a follow -up of the August 10, 1992 meeting between the City of Aspen and the Ute Place Homeowners regarding the Roaring Fork .River Trail. We also discussed the project by phone on August 11, 1992. The City also received a letter from the Ute Place Homeowners dated August 11, 1992. The following are trail planning and design items that there seems to be general agreement on: 1. The "North Boundary itoute" trail will be a 2 foot wide compacted gravel trail following the existing 12 foot trail easement. There may be some field relocation of the trail outside the easement in some areas in order to avoid trees, tranaibrmers, fences, etc. • 2. The Roaring Fork River Trail all - weather tread width will be reduced to a minimum width of 6 feet in tight areas along the river.. This will allow for the trail to be constructed with less disturbance to the encroachment fill on city property. A minimum grass shoulder width of 12 inches is required on the uphill side and a 24 to 36 inch gravel shoulder is required for the river side. Only appropriate trail construction equipment will be allowed within the tight construction area. No fill will be allowed into the river or riverside environment. 3. A more detailed landscape plan will be developed to address the re- • landscaping of disturbed area, treatment of the "terraces" in the retaining wall, treatment of the "buffer" areas with possible railings and access steps from the acbacent properties to the trail. 4. This trail will continue through the Ute Children's Park and connect with the existing 8' paved Aspen Club Trail. This segment will be of similar characteristics to the trail along Ute Place. The steep side slope will bo retained with natural boulders and revegetated with native vegetation. The grade of the new trail will be maximum of 696 for handicap accessibility. The alignment will generally follow the top of bank similar to the existing foot trail. Every effort will be made to preserve existing trees and vegetation and to blend the trail into the natural landscape. At this time, the City is planning on using the on -site boulders that are excavated for use in the retaining wall. This wail will always be a minimum of 6 feet from the property line leaving room for existing spas and patios. The contractor will be responsible for any damage to facilities outside the construction area that he causes. Individual attention will be given to access for each lot. The City is planning on bidding this project for Pall 1992 construction. Due to timing constraints, a unit price bid has been advertised based on an 8' wide trail. The actual trail is being redesigned per the revisions mentioned in this letter. I am aware that the City's intention is to protect the rights and concerns of the adjacent landowners, while providing for the goals of the overall City and protection of the river environment. Thank you for taking the time to meet with me and the City representatives on this project.. The City Council is planning on a site visit on Wednesday August 26 at noon. We will continue to coordinate with you during the final design and construction phase. Sincerely, Gary M. Lacy, P.E. cc: George Robinson Patrick Duffield Leslie Lamont Amy Margerum Geogan Wageman Parks Association Roxanne Eflin (NAC Committee) Tom $math • Or � S f 0 July 28, 1992 Ms. Leslie Lamont City of Aspen Planning Department 130 S. Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Leslie: Enclosed please find a completed Stream Margin Development Application for the pedestrian bridge located on the Roaring Fork River at Ute Place. This project is being proposed by the City of Aspen Parks Department through Gary Lacy - the authorized representative for the department. His address is 485 Arapahoe, Boulder, Colorado 80302; phone number (303) 440 -9268. The project is located entirely on City of Aspen property, right -of -way, or easements obtained by the City. Please see the enclosed drawings describing the project and a local vicinity map locating the project within the City of Aspen. The information on these drawings should satisfy all of the requirements listed in attachments 2 & 3. This project is designated on the Aspen Area Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails Plan and is part of the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan. Please contact me or Gary Lacy with any questions or if you require further information. If the project is approved, we would like to begin construction in August, 1992. Sincerely, " / , t i ,,e4 / , Patrick Duffield City of Aspen Parks Dept. cc: George Robinson Gary Lacy 1iTT C1R4•xr 1 _Arm USE APPLICATIONFORK i) Project Name Roarilig Fork River Bikp /Pedegtrian Rriaga at lire Mole 2) Project Location 4010 Ute Place, Aspen, Colorado (indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropri,: Le) 3) Present Zoning Flondolain 4) Lot Size N/A 5) Applicant's Name, Address & Phone # City of Aspen Parks Department, . 130 S. Galena; Aspen,Colorado 81611 920 - 5120 • 6) Representative's Name, Address & alone # Gary Lacy, 485 Arapahoe, Boulder, Colorado 80302 440 - 9268 7) Type cf Application (pleat check all that apply) — Conditional Use _ Conceptual SPA _ Conceptual Historic Dev. _ Special Review _ Final SPA _ Final Historic Dev. — 8040 Greenline _ Conceptual. IUD __ Minor Historic Dev. x Stream Margin __ Final PJD __ Historic Demolition Mountain view Plane _ Subdivision __ Historic Designation Condcminiumizatxon Peict/Map Amendment _ CMS Allotment — Lot Split/Lot Line __ CMG Exemption Adjustment • 8) Description of Existing Uses (number and type of existing stares; approximate sq. ft.; number of bake aas; any previous approvals granted to the ProPerty)- There are no existing structures • 9) Description of Development Application See attached drawings and Response to Attachment 4. cif 10) Have you attached the following? Re to Attachment 2, Minimum Submission Contents Re to Attachment 3, Specific Submission Contents x Response to Attachment 4, Review Standards for Your Application • Responses to Attachment 4 for Pedestrian Bridge: Roaring Fork River at Ute Place Review Standards: Development in Stream Margin 1. The proposed replacement of the pedestrian bridge will not affect the existing 100 year floodplain or floodway. The low chord of the new bridge will be more than 2' above the 100 year flood elevation, reducing the chance of debris blockage. The bridge itself is designed as a "breakaway" bridge which is tethered on one end. In the event of a major flood, it will breakaway and not become debris downstream. 2. All of the trails proposed are on the Aspen Area Parks/Recreation / Open Space/Trails Plan and are dedicated for public use. 3. Recommendations of the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan are included in the project. 4. No vegetation removal or slope grade changes are being made that will produce erosion or sedimentation. All new cut and fill areas will be revegetated. 5. The proposed trails and bridges allow for natural changes in the river to the greatest extent possible. Some areas along the trail will be able to trap urban runoff pollution prior to it flowing into the river. 6. There will be no alteration or relocation of a water course. 7. No water course is being altered or relocated. 8. A general permit authorization has been requested from the Corps of Engineers (see enclosed letter to Corps of Engineers). .f -_� ----- � ~~�--^ ---'~- ,' ~^.~~~~-. _'-��---_-° ~ • -.~�^ � � I • im . .,, a _.„.a , „L„___,_ _ __ _ _ 1; ,, , , , _t____- ___ ,...., , , , - Ara 411,114 t ■ -' ,1 , Ili, ow ____ a I Irani I - - - - -- - --- , - . _ _ - r---- - - - - -- - - = ---- ‘- - - - - --=---- 1 :111I II. ____ i• I t, ,Ig tails. .....„-- _ , k , -, -- __=__ 7 ? , IT... • fag Hit. 'nil" NH ler O 9, II DI c 1 si- o • II 1 if Illf II W . 11 ififj If , " -'. _ / et t N. • \ IP ,t--- INYillild , • Gary Lacy • Recreation Engineering & Planning 485 Arapahoe • Boulder, CO 80302 • (303) 440 -9268 July 28, 1992 Mr. Nick Mezei US Army Corps of Engineers Western Colorado Regulatory Office 402 Rood Ave., Rm #142 Grand Junction, CO 81501-2563 Dear Mr. Mezei: Enclosed please find design drawings and vicinity map for the proposed Pedestrian Bridge on the Roaring Fork River at Ute Place, Aspen, Colorado. This bridge is part of the Roaring Fork River Trail System. The City of Aspen is requesting the Corps of Engineers authorization to proceed with this project under a general permit for bridge crossings, if required. The total amount of formed concrete to be placed below the high water line, but separate from the river channel, is 4 c.y. No wetlands will be affected by construction and placement of the bridge. Please contact me with any questions or if you would like to tour the site. Construction will begin as soon as possible pending approval. Thank you for your consideration. A, a Gary M. Lacy, P.E. cc: George Robinson Leslie Lamont Patrick Duffield Rob Thompson RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 LEAVES CITY OF ASPEN, PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the City of Aspen has been conveyed a tract of real property, by way of gift, for use as public park, which land is adjacent to Ute Children's Park; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has been presented with a map of an addition to Ute Children's Park for amendment to the Aspen Area General Plan for the City of Aspen. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Aspen Area General Plan of the City of Aspen be amended to in- clude said tract of land as an addition to Ute Children's Park. DATED this /7 day of L i,( // �� �, , 1970. im Chairman Secr-tary DESCRIPTION - Ute Children's Park addn. Beginning at Corner No. 9, Riverside Placer ''No. 3905 AM. thence S. 89 03' W. 202.50 ft.; thence S. 1 35' W. 65.82 ft.; thence S. 62 14' E. 125.00 ft.; thence N. 36 20' E. 158.12 ft. to point of beginning, containing 16,424 square feet, Pitkin County, Colorado. tho City o As is ths owner o, ce;: Cain real o oiler y located in Pitki:1 County, Colorado, and described as follows: All of Block 48, lying South and West of the Center Line of the Roaring Fork River, as shown on the Plat of Entry by the Mayor of Aspen of East Aspen Addition. which property was permanently dedicated and set aside for use by the public for park and recreation purposes, and was given the name of BAVARIA PARK, by the Aspen City Council on the 22nd day of July, 1966; AND, WHEREAS, the City Council now wishes to change the name of said park to UTE PARK: NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the above described property shall be here- after known as UTE PARK, and shall be here- after denominated as such on all official maps and plats of the City of Aspen. DATED THIS 17th DAY OF April 1967. iI ;ayor I, Lorraine Graves, duly elected City Clerk Of the City of Aspen, Colorado, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of the Resolution adopted by the Aspen City Council at a regular meeting held April 17 , 1967. City Clerk Recorded at... 1 - L ' 00 o'clock A M• Febru , 1970 139424 Peggy PAGE 96/ Reception No gB9 E, Mik lich 6 o0K ` n/ 4� Recor � THIS DEED, Made this 17th day ofDecember , 19 69 -- ' between FREDRIC A. BENEDICT and FABIENNE BENEDICT ST:7E LPN:. ,tnTARY FEE 1g; of the FEB 24 -nu '—O— County of Pitkin and State of Colorado, of the first part, and S- _•- _•- ._....._.....,,,_,,,„,� CITY OF ASPEN, a municipal corporation, of the County of Pit kin and State of Colorado, of the second part: WITNESSETH, That the said partlethf the first part, for and-M -rmisideretionbf+he-sanr -0f by way of gift 136IrTnarRs to the -said Pat+ - - - -ef -the- first - pert -in aendpaid -by said- part. - - - ofxhe- second part, the receipt whereof is hereby- eonfessed- and-eeknewledged, have granted, bargained, sold and conveyed, and by these presents do grant, bargain, sell, convey and confirm, unto the said part y of the second part, its heirs and assigns for- ever, all the following described lot or parcel of land, situate, lying and being in the County of Pitkin and State of Colorado, to wit:• Beginning at Corner No. 9, Riverside PlacerVo 3905 AM, thence S.89 03' W. 202.50 ft"; thence S.1 35' W. 65.82 ft.; thence S.62 14' E. 125.00 ft.; thence N.36 20' E. 158.12 ft. to point of beginning, containing 16,424 square feet. For the purposes of dedication and use exclusively as a public park and garden area for the enjoyment and benefit of the citizens of the City of Aspen. TOGETHER with all and singular the hereditaments and appurtenances thereto belonging, or in anywise appertaining, and the reversion and reversions, remainder and remainders, rents, issues and profits thereof, and all the estate, right, title, interest, claim and demand whatsoever of the said part of the first part, either in law or equity, of, in and to the above bargained premises, with the hereditaments and appurtenances. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said premises above bargained and described with the appurtenances, unto the said party of the second part, its heirs and assigns forever. And the said parties of the first part, for themselVes,t sir heirs, executors, and administrators, do covenant, grant, bargain, and agree to and with the said party of the second part, its heirs and assigns, that at the time of the ensealing and delivery of these presents, it 1S well seized of the premises above conveyed, as of good, sure, perfect, absolute and indefeasible estate of inheritance, in law, in fee simple, and ha ve good right, full power and lawful authority to grant, bargain, sell and convey the same in manner and form as aforesaid, and that the same are free and clear from all former and other grants, bargains, sales, liens, taxes, assessments and encumbrances of whatever kind or nature soever. I and the above bargained premises in the quiet and peaceable possession of the said party of the second part, Its heirs and assigns against all and every person or persons lawfully claiming or to claim the whole or any part thereof, the said part i-es of the first part shall and will WARRANT AND FOREVER DEFEND. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said parties of the first part haute hereunto set th?ir handS II and seals the day and year first above written. FREDRIC A. BENEDICT (SEAL) r g e a-Vl C,ulca (SEAL) FABIENNE BENEDICT TATE OF COLORADO, 1 I daoliwonf 1,' N 783. k L D 4 ol l y of Pitkin 1 �/� , •' a ioregoTn tf Aatfi'SW acknowledged before me this / 7 -- day of � sa.Ce- /, 14 lei` �u 1 �� ; ; •� A + +Benedict and Fabienne Benedict : ' fir commis Sion lii 3 ' •i7- 7 , 19 . Witness my hand and official seal, y ' / Notary Public. L Op s.1 No. 932. WARRANTY DEED. —For Photographic Record. — Bradford Publishing Co., 1824-16 Stout Street, Denver, Colorado —5.69 J lr Recorded . 1( '5 ... ».._...o'clock. A .M.,, . Nov . ...1 • V Reception 14+0361 THIS 2eggy._MLkJ 1Ch __ _. .._.Recorder. THIS DEED, Made this 3 day of4Lr4a-119 /, between FREDRIC A. BENEDICT and FRED C. LARKIN BOOK2jt7 PAGE of the County of Pi tk in and state of Colorado, of the first part, and • THE CITY OF ASPEN of the County of Pi t k i n • , and state of • Colorado, of the second part, WITNESSETH, That the said part 1 e S of the first part, for and in consideration of the sum of Te n Dollars ($10.00) Qom= to the said parti e s of the first part in hand paid by the said part y of the second part, the receipt whereof is hereby confessed and acknowledged, ha ve remised, released, sold, conveyed and QUIT CLAIMED, and by these presents do remise, release, sell, convey and QUIT CLAIM unto the said part y of the second part, its helm successors and assigns, forever, all the right, title, interest, claim and demand which the said part le s of the first part ha ve in and to the following: described lot or parcel of land situate, lying and being in the County of Pi tk 1 n and State of Colorado, to wit: A tract of land being a part of Lot 7 in Section 18, T. 10.$., R. 84 W. of the 6th P.M. according to the official plat of the Survey of the said lands returned to the General Land Office by the Surveyor General which is more fully described as follows: From Corner No. 9 of Tract "B" of the East Aspen Townsite Addition (A ELM brass -cap in place); thence N. 00 ° 21' E. 16.56 ft. along line 9 -8 of said Addition to the point of beginning; thence S. 89 ° 07' W. 181.11 ft. along the South side of said Lot 7 to the center of Section 18; thence N. 00 ° 55' W. 441.48 ft., more or less, along the West side of said Lot 7 to the North line of Lot 6 of the Hoag Subdivision a shown on the plat thereof recorded in plat Book at page4VJE �f the Pitkin County records; thence S. 50 ° 39' E. 2 5.54 feet, more or less, along the North line of said Lot 6 to the EaSt side of Lot 7 being line 8 -9 of said Addition; thence S. 00 ° 21' W. 282.94 ft. along said line 8 -9 to the point of beginning. Containing 1.537 acres, more or less. Reserving, however, to parties of the first part the right of prior approval concerning any fence or fences which party of the second part may wish to erect upon said property in future, which approval shall not be arbitrarily withheld. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same, together with all and singular the appurtenances and privileges thereunto belonging or in anywise thereunto appertaining, and all the estate; right, title, interest and claim whatsoever, of the said part ies of the first part, either ngteig to the only proper use, benefit and behoof of the said part y of the second part, 1 t S/ li lt an assigns forever. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The said parti of the first part hav hereunto set their hand s ' and sealS the day and year first above written. L [SEAL] Signed, Sealed and Delivered in the Presence of Fredric A. Benedict _d ....� »..y_y ...» [SEAL] e;..... ti. - [SEAL] Fred C. Larkin [SEAL] STATE OF COLORADO, } sa. County of Pitkin 111 Td • The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this - day of�� j . , 19.22 . .:bye Fredric A. Benedict and Fred C. Larkin. • "' • My Commission expires Feb. 28, 1 ■ My cont$iahion expires , 19 . Witness my hand and official seal. •�,+ ? S ' ' � • ....� ... Notary Stabile. *It by natural person 0r persons here i n name or names N by pe .sang 1n represen or offlcfat capacity orc 8 attorney -in -fact, then Insert name of pers as e xecut o r att -ln - l e st o other capacity or de sc ription; If by o[ lcer of cor- p o a io the nent e 8t n It -oil such officer r Revised officers, tate the p 8r / ent or other officers of such corporation, naming lt— Btatut No. 933. QUn CLAIM DEED. — Bradford Publishing Co., 1824 Stout Street,'Denver, Colorado. —2-70 M a y Reception No— 145_4.4_$_.._..___... _._ PeSSY_L. . MiklLch,-. ...Recorder. CORRECTION DEED THIS DEED, Made this •-2.7 - day of April , 19 71, between FREDERIC A. BENEDICT and FABIENNE BENEDICT, of the County of Pitkin and state of Colorado, of the first part, and THE CITY OF ASPEN, a Municipal Corporation, of the County of Pitkin and state of Colorado, of the second part, - WITNESSETH, That the said part ie S of the first part, for and in consideration of the sum of ($10 ° 00) and otter valuable considerations DOLLARS, to the said partleS of the first part in hand paid by the said part of the second part, the receipt whereof is hereby confessed and acknowledged, ha ve remised, released, sold, conveyed and QUIT CLAIMED, and by these presents do remise, release, sell, convey and QUIT CLAIM unto the said part y of the second part, 1 t S heirs, successors and assigns, forever, all the right, title, interest, claim and demand which the said part ie S of the first part ha ve in and to the following described lot or parcel of land situate, lying and being in the County of Pitkin and State of Colorado, to wit:. A parcel of land lying in the SW's of Section 18, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6th P.M., County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at Corner No. 9, Riverside Placer No. 3905 AM, also being Corner No.10 of Tract B(41) Aspen Townsite Addition; thence S38 ° 10'W. 158.12 feet; thence N60 ° 24'W. 125.00 feet; thence NO3 ° 21'E.65.80 feet to Corner 9 Tract B(41) (a 1954 • Brass Cap found in place); thence S89 ° 07'E.202.59 feet to the point of beginning, containing 0.38 acres more or less This deed corrects an error in description of that certain • deed recorded in Book 246 at Page 961 of the records of the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County, Colorado, all other conditions set forth in the original deed shall remain in full force and effect. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same, together with all and singular the appurtenances and privileges thereunto belonging or in anywise thereunto appertaining, and all the estate, right, title, interest and claim whatsoever, of the said part of the first part, either in law or equity, to the only proper use benefit and behoof of the said part y of the second part, it heirs and assigns forever. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The said part ies of the first part ha ye hereunto set their hand S and seal S the day and year first above written. P Signed, Sealed and Delivered in the Presence M C A ° BNESCT A � [SEAL] Ya A e //�� e ,vvy, tr.>Ycee, �gg tCl [SEAL] TAB'rENNE BENEDT _.._......_..__. _. _[SEAL] STATE OF COLORADO, l - County of Pitkin }ea. 11 • • The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this s 7 day of. April 19 71,bye FREDERIC A. BENEDICT and FABIENNE BENEDICT. ¥y" c4 expires . , 1972.-Witness my hand and official seal. • erfr_.. - ' Notary Public. • t If • b l person or persons here Insert name name u by persoac n ting reareeentative or offtoW m a or u poration then natura Insert name of such e officer er officers, u tke or t s: y ee dentt or other officers o ff corporation, naming L -St to utorp doknowiedgetent, Sec. 116 -6 -1 Colorado Revised Statute:: 1963. . No. 933. QUIT CLAIM DEED.— Dradfenl Publishing Co., 1824 Stout Street, Denver, Colorado. - - - 711 Recorded at.. . 35 _ _.. cloc M., Januar . Lr _ 800K 60 PACE 6JG o' Reception No_ 149484__ �Pgy_EMiklich Recorder. THIS DEED, Made this 22nd day of December . SC:,iE HU:6 .l:(i6 "af ilt between FREDRIC A. BENEDICT JAN . 197Z of the County of Pitkin and state of Colorado, ofthetirstpart,and THE CITY OF ASPEN, a municipal corporation of the County of Pitkin and state of Colorado, of the second part, WITNESSETH, That the said party of the first part, Sea•andinoexeideretioaef- the- sum-e4 as a charitable gift and donation, niRS., be •She-seid Pry - - --of 4he4lrst pert dc.- hand - paid -b'- the - said - part-- - --ef- ebe • second- part, -the reeeipt- whereef- ie herebyeen feesekend- eeimewledged : haS remised, released, sold, conveyed and QUIT CLAIMED, and by these presents do es remise, release, sell, convey and QUIT CLAIM unto the said party - of the second part, it S heirs, successors and assigns, forever, all the right,' title, interest, claim and demand which the said party of the first part ha S in and to the following described lot or parcel of land situate, lying and being in the County of Pitkin and State of Colorado, to wit: A parcel of land being part of Lots 6 and 7, Section 18, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6th Principal Meridian. Said par - cel is more fully described as follows: beginning at a point whence corner 9 of Tract 41, East Aspen Addition bears S0 ° 21'W, 299.50 feet; thence N0 ° 21'E, 150.00 feet; thence West 183.86 feet; thence S50 236.57 feet to the point of beginning. •Said parcel contains 0.3166 acres more or less. Provided, however, that party of the second part shall not use the subjec p� roperty for any purpose other than as a public park, and shall not have the right to construct any buildings thereon. A violation of either of these restrictions shall cause all title conveyed hereunder to revert automatically to party of the first part. These restrictions shall remain effective for a period of. twenty (20) years following the last to. die of Fredric A. Benedict, Fabienne Benedict and their now living children. • • TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the name, together with all and singular the appurtenances and privileges thereunto belonging or in anywise thereunto appertaining, and all the estate, right, title, interest and claim whatsoever, of the said part y of the first part, eitherr to the only proper use, benefit and behoof of the said part y of the second part, 1ts /41.eirs and assigns forever. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The said party of the first part ha s hereunto set his hand and seal the day and year first above written. - /, //j'7 //� L' L- (7 v 4r- t,,---• (..s..Y..[SEAL] • Signed, Sealed and Delivered in the Presence of Fredric A. Benedict [SEAL] [SEAL] [SEAL] STATE OF COLORADO, l } es. County of Pitkin 111 The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this D2,2 -' day of deteff oce 19.9/ , .Fredric A. Benedict ••. My coniftli i tkion expires , 19 . Witness my hand and official seal. J • t�� ( )TA / 1'p •• " My Commission expires Feb. 20, 1974 fr Notary Public. • •If by natural person or persons here Insert name or names; If by person acting In representative o official eaaaaltr or u attorney-In-fact, then Insert name of person as executor attorney-In -fact or other capacity or deserlption; 11 by of of Acknowledgment, ration then Insert nis of 1 Colrado officer e off Statute. a president or other officers of such corporation, naming it— statutory No. 933. QUIT CLAIM DEED.— Bradford Publishing Co., 1824 Stout Street Denver, Colorado. - 9.70 ' .... �� _ 800K PACE��? /2) Recorded at._.. _ 1 ...o clock.. �A._ .M :.., .._ a St _ . s 2 1 _...__..»..__._. Peggy 1 Wiklich � , i1 �r- Reception No.._..._._ _ �.�___.--•- ._..___..._._Recorder. ___- THIS DEED, Made this a 231 day of December , i9 71, between FREDRIC A. BENEDICT of the County of pitkin and state of Colorado, of the first part, and THE CITY OF ASPEN, a municipal corporation . of the County of pitkin and state of Colorado, of the second part, WITNESSETH, That the said party of the first part, a s a • charitable gift and donation, - DA•RS, haS remised, released, sold, conveyed and QUIT CLAIMED, and by these presents does remise, release, sell, eonvey and QUIT CLAIM unto the said part y of the second part, 1 t S hairs, successors and assigns, forever, all the right, title, interest, claim and demand which the said part y of the first part ha 5 in and to the following described lot or parcel of land situate, lying and being in the County of pitkin and State of Colorado, to wit: • A parcel of land being part of Lots 6 and.7, Section 18, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6th Principal Meridian. 'Said par- cel is more fully described as follows: beginning at a point whence corner 9 of Tract 41, East Aspen Addition bears SO ° 21'W, 299.50 feet; thence NO ° 21'E, 150.00 feet; thence West 183.86 feet; thence S50 ° 39'E, 236.57 feet to the point of beginning. Said parcel contains 0.3166 acres more or less. Provided, however, that party of the second part shall not use. the subject property for any purpose other than as a public park, and shall not have the right to construct any buildings thereon. A violation of either of these restrictions shall cause all title conveyed hereunder to revert automatically to party of the first part. These restrictions shall remain effective for a period of , twenty (20) years following the last to die of Fredric A. Benedict, Fabienne Benedict and their now.living children. • TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same, together with all and singular the appurtenances and privileges thereunto belonging or in anywise thereunto appertaining, and all the estate, right, title, interest and claim whatsoever, of the said part y of the first part, etther las &�e y, to the only proper use, benefit and behoof of the said part y of the second part, 1 t S / ars an assigns forever. . IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The said party of tho first part haS hereunto set his hand and seal the day and year first above written. /y - - -I. -G/y '''.--- !dr 1 h . SEmo Signed, Sealed and Delivered in the Presence of Fredric A. Benedict [SEAL] [SEAL] _.. .. _ [SEAL] • STATE OF COLORADO, Ins. es. . County of pitkin 111 The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this .=.2 D day of December 19 71 Eby' Fredric A. Benedict. . t ` Ze My".cemmisp oa,expirea . 7 19,2. Witness my hand and official seal. G \ \V t), (! ?! S..' 1 T e, ' '•'' -1- ^ >, . it*: k' `! , , L , u ,� • •If by natural person or persons here Insert name or names; if by person acting In representative or ottlolal capacity or as attorney -In -fact, then insert name of person ea executor attorney -in -fact or other capacity or description; if by of iwr of for -. or then h,sert name of such officer at officers, as the president or other officers of such corporation, naming it— Statutory Aoknowiedg rent, Sea. 118 -6 -1 Colorado Revised Statutes 1988. .._ .... ,....... .,..... ..�.. ..�.._� d.u,.u__ n_ .,,. a...,.e c._w n...... r t...a.__n_ao A Jan 6, 1 1. l .... 9i Recorded at �` o'cloclL ..._...M., ..._ ___.._._.. BOOK�[2�i PACE ' 0 I J. Reception No_ _. L THIS DEED, Made this /7 day of December , 1Q1 , between FRED C. LARKIN of the County of Pitkin and state of Colorado, of the first part, and FREDRIC A. BENEDICT of the County of Pitkin and state of Colorado, of the second part, • WITNESSETH, That the said part y of the first part, for and in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollar, and other good and valuable considerations XibSKKEW to the said party of the first part in hand paid by the said part y of the second part, the receipt whereof is hereby confessed and acknowledged, has remised, released, sold, conveyed and QUIT CLAIMED, and by these presents does remise, release, sell, convey and QUIT CLAIM unto the said part y of the second part, his heirs, successors and assigns, forever, all the right, title, interest, claim and demand which the said part y of the first part ha S in and to the following described lot or parcel of land situate, lying and being in the County of Pitkin and State of Colorado, to wit: • A parcel of land being part of Lots 6 and 7, Section - 18, Town- ship 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6th Principal Meridian. Said parcel is more fully described as follows: beginning at a point whence corner 9 of Tract 41, East Aspen Addition bears S0 ° 21'W, 299.50 feet; thence N0 ° 21'E, 150.00 feet; thence West 183.86 feet thence S50 ° 39'E, 236.57 feet to the point of beginning. Said parcel contains 0.3166 acres more or less. Provided, however, that this Deed is conditioned upon party of the second part's conveying the subject property to the City of Aspen within ten (10) years from the date hereof, failing. which all title conveyed hereunder shall automatically revert to party of the first part. • TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same, together with all and singular the appurtenances and privileges thereunto belonging or in anywise thereunto appertaining, and all the estate, right, title, interest and claim whatsoever, of the said part y of the first part, either in law or equity, to the only proper use, benefit and bohoof of the said part y of the second part, his heirs and assigns forever. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The said part y of the first part ha s hereunto set his hand and seal the day and year first above written. [SEAL] Signed, Sealed and Delivered in the Presence of Fred C. Larkin [SEAL] [SEAL] [SEAL] STATE OF COLORADO, es. County of Pitkin The foregoing instrument was aclmowledged before me this / 2 - day of December 19 71 .by' 'red C. Larkin My., emlrtnNies$ory fires °- y / 9 , 197�Witness my hand and official seal. • • Notary Pvbllo. .? 4 C dt. ;a :' *If by natural person or persons here insert name or names; 1f by Dereon sating In roDrnentative or ofticiei oanacityf or a attorney -In -fact, then insert name of person a executor attorney-ln -feat or other oapaalty or d if by otftllo of aor poranon then Inert name of such officer or officers. as the preeldent or other officers of such oorporatlon, auam6 1L Statutory Acknow Sea 1184 -1 Colorado Revised Statutes 19e8. No. 933. QUIT CLAIM DEM.—Bradford Pabllehing Co., 1824 Stout Street, Dearer. Colorado. - 9 - 40 Recorded at ' eciocidk Jan 6, _ 19 J n r [ „� Receptloa No___. 149394 Pe E. Man _RecorderB U PACE 1 THIS DEED, Made this 20th day of December ,19.71, • between FREDRIC A. BENEDICT of the County of Pitkin and state of Colorado, of the first part, and FRED C. LARKIN of the County of Pitkin and state of Colorado, of the second part, WITNESSETH, That the said party of the first part, for and in consideration of the sum of Te n Dollars and other good and valuable considerations BIZKEOg to the said party of the first part in hand paid by the said party of the second part, the receipt whereof is hereby confessed and acknowledged, bsS remised, released, sold; conveyed and QUIT CLAIMED, and by these presents does remise, release, sell, convey and QUIT CLAIM unto the said part y of the second part,' his heirs, successors and assigns, forever, all the right, title, interest, claim and demand which the said party of the first part ha s in and to the following described lot or parcel of land situate, lying and being in the County of pi tk i n and State of Colorado, to wit: A parcel of land being part of Lot 7, Section 18, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6th Principal Meridian. Said parcel is more fully described as follows: beginning at a point on the East line of said Lot 7 whence corner 9 of Tract 41 East Aspen Addition bears SO ° 21'W, 644.52 feet; thence N89 ° 39'W, 120.00 feet; thence N0 ° 21'E, 121.00 feet; thence S89 ° 39'E, 120.00 feet; thence S0 ° 21'W, 121.00 feet to the point of beginning. Said parcel contains. 0.3333 acres more or less. Provided, however, that this Deed' is conditioned upon party of the second part's filing and obtaining the approval of a subdivision plat of the subject property with the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission prior to the construction of any improvements thereon, failing which all title conveyed hereunder shall automati- cally revert to party of the first part. This restriction shall remain in effect for a period of twenty (20) years from the date of this Deed. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same, together with all and singular the appurtenances and privileges thereunto belonging or in anywise thereunto appertaining, and all the estate, right, title, interest and claim whatsoever, of the said part y of the first part, either in law or equity, to the only proper use, benefit and behoof of the said part y of the second part, his heirs and assigns forever. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The said party of the first part has hereunto set his hand and seal the day and year first above written. . � .!L . ...f ... .._C_ f�., .. SEAL] Signed, Sealed and Delivered in the Presence of Fredric A. Benedict .... . ............. ._.._..._ [SEAL] [SEAL] [SEAL] STATE OF COLORADO, I es. County of pitkin The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 20th day of December , 19 71 ,by` Fredric A. Benedict My;c n,mies oa, � , 19 7, Witness my hand and official seal. I + {it'd .; .. G ; .. ....... ...r Nolan Praha • • ',Il, i�n, „1 "`,` .'.r •,,; • *If by natural person or parsons here Insert name or names; if b it or acting In representative or offIe eapadtro o! or oor- as attor then Insert name of person as attote or other espaolty or de If by of lore poratton then Insert name of such offloer or officers, as the resldmt or other officers of such oorpors4on, namlcg it.— Statut dokno Sea 118 -6 -1 Colorado Revised Statutes 1988. Recorded at...: 3V o'clock. A r,/ 5 197, t1 Peggy /I� 148360 Pe Miklich Recorder. Reception No $ 0 . r� ((,1 • BOOKaJt7 PACE 3 KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS,. That I, JAMES C. BLANNING, R. , of the County of Pitkin , and State of Colorado, for the consideration of • Ten ($10.00) Dollars, and other valuable consideration in hand paid, hereby sell and convey to THE CITY OF ASPEN, a Colorado Municipal Corporation, of the County of Pitkin , and the State of Colorado, the following real property, situate in the County of Pitkin and State of Colorado, to -wit: Ute Cemetery, also described as Lot 6, Hoag Subdivision, according to the plat of record in Plat Book 14 , at Page of the records for Pitkin County, Colorado. • • with all its appurtenances. Signed and delivered this 21st day of October . 19 71. In the presence of 4 I $ / ' . ( ,_(SEAL] ®J AMES C. BLANNING, JR 4.... [SEAL] [SEA7a] STATE OF COLORADO, • ss. County of Pitkin 111 The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before methis 21 s t day of Oc tober • 19 71„4 JAMES C. BLANNING, JR. ` 1,40 pgmuiisfilpp expires 9 / 20 , 19 73 . Witne s my hand a of.ficial seal. 7 • • Notary Puhllc. • If by na U ai person or persons here insert name or names; if by person acting in representative or official capacity or as attorney -fn -fact, e iert name of yyerson as etor attorney -fn -[act or o ther capacity or dlptlon; If by'ofticer of cor- poration then inser t na of ouch officer or otfloers, xecu ae the DTesl ent or other officers of au nh corpo nam ing it. PREVIOUS TRAIL REVIEWS AND PLANS THAT INDICATE A TRAIL ON THE RIVER 1. July 1985 - Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Parks /Recreation/ Open Space /Trails Element - a trail is identified along the river connecting the "gordon bridge" to the Ute Cemetery. 2. 1986 Growth Management Application for 1010 Ute Avenue - two trail options were suggested in the application: Option A (which the applicant highly recommended) was a 10 foot trail along the river; Option B was a 12 foot trail easement between the new subdivision and the Gant condominiums connecting Ute Avenue to the river and the "gordon bridge" and the trail along the river. Staff's score for the trail proposal was a 2 finding that Option B was "unacceptable ". Meetings, Site Visits and Correspondence: 1. Extensive work was done to draft and approve the Encroachment License Agreement in the latter part of 1989 and the first part of 1990. To do that work many meetings were held and site visits done with Skip Behrhorst, property owners, Rick Neiley (home owners lawyer), Council members, Planning Staff and Parks Association members. 2. A site visit was conducted, in the fall of 1990, with Fritz Benedict, Gary Lacey, Parks personnel, Planning staff, Molly Campbell (representing 1010 ute homeowners), Parks Association (Al Bloomquist). We also discusses plans for a bridge and trail with the homeowner of Lot 10. 3. Staff had several phone conversations with Rick Neiley, Kay Sandberg etc. about purchasing Gordon Callahan land for a trail easement. 4. September 23, 1991, staff received a letter from Nick McGrath outlining his client's concerns regarding a 10 foot wide bike path along the river. 5. November 6, 1991, NAC meeting to prioritize trails for 1992, attended by NAC members (but Molly Campbell was not in attendance) and Parks Dept. staff. 6. Parks Department, based upon NAC meeting, asked Nick McGrath about the progress toward buying a trail easement across the river from John Elmore. Nick reported that the homeowners were still negotiating with John Elmore. Parks requested Nick to solidify their position by March of 1992 to purchase plans so we can begin construction by May 1, 1992. 7. January 3, 1992 letter to Nick from Planning Staff regarding a March 1 timeframe for designing the trail. 8. January 13, 1992, a meeting between George Robinson, Gary Lacey, Pat Duffield, Molly Campbell, Stephen Eclis. The intent of the meeting was to discuss trail proposals with concerned citizens. George informed the homeowners that we would have designs and plans drawn up to illustrate our trail proposal. George also told them that he would consult with them before final design and construction of the project. Questions for the Attorneys: 1. Notes on the plat: #2 discusses the dedication of the 12 foot easement behind the subdivision and conditions in which development of the trail will occur does this help us develop the river trail in a easier fashion? 2. Encroachment agreement: McGrath is declaring that the $32k was given for a "foot path" can we use that money for a 10 ft. bike path. What in your opinion was that money allocated for? 3. Encroachment agreement: #3 on page 2 of the encroachment license - do we have to provide both a walking trail and a bike path? And can we choose where each will be developed? 4. Can we just spend the money by June 11, 1992 or does the trail have to be completed?