HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.sm.Meadows Bridges Picnic Point.A73-92 CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
City of Aspen
DATE RECEIVED: / / PARCEL ID AND CASE NO.
DATE COMPLETE: - - A73-92
STAFF MEMBER: LL
PROJECT NAME: Meadows Bridges Stream Margin Reviews
Project Address: Picnic Point, Grindley and Castle Creek Bridges
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 Da . 31. ) 1 PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO
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: 0 Z5g1 3 INITIAL:
City Atty City Engineer Zoning Env. Health
Housing Open Space 3 Other: z
J2iv-4_, b
FILE STATUS AND LOCATION:
4J;;;2;L\ Pitkin County
August 26, 1992
Mr. Patrick Duffield
City of Aspen Parks Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: PICNIC POINT AND GRINDLEY BRIDGES
Dear Patrick;
Please accept this letter as formal permission by Pitkin County,
owner of what is known as Lot 8 of the Pitkin Reserve Subdivision,
to the City of Aspen to proceed on the submission of a land use
application for two footbridges across the Roaring Fork River. The
bridges have come to be known as the Grindley and Picnic Point
bridges, and will connect the Rio Grande Trail to newly acquired
City open space on the south side of the Roaring Fork River.
I have reviewed the specific sites for the bridges in the field
with you and understand that the County' s property will be required
for both placement of and access to the proposed bridges. From
our discussions concerning this matter, I further understand that
the City agrees upon the following regarding the bridges:
1) If placement of the bridges are approved, the City agrees to
obtain a Trail Easement from the County similar to the draft
document enclosed with this letter for both bridges;
2) This letter in no way binds the County to the contribution of
any funding, equipment or staff time for construction, repair
or maintenance of the bridges. However, this letter does not
preclude the City from approaching the County in the future
concerning contribution to these community projects.
I hope this letter is satisfies your requirements regarding the
pending land use submission. Please contact me if you have any
questions.
Administration County Commissioners County Attorney Personnel and Finance Transportation
530 E.Main,3rd Floor Suite B Suite I Suite F Facilities
Aspen,CO 81611 506 E.Main Street 530 E.Main Street 530 E.Main Street 76 Service Center Road
(303)920-5200 Aspen,CO 81611 Aspen,CO 81611 Aspen,CO 81611 Aspen,CO 81611
FAX 920-5198 (303)920-5150 (303)920-5190 (303)920-5220 (303)920-5390
g° printed on recycled paper
Sincerely,
PITRIN COUN PUBLIC •RK5 A 1
N- and, Deputy Director of Public Works
cc: Reid Haughey, County Manager (no enclosures)
Stan Berryman, Director of Public Works (no enclosures)
Leslie Lamont, Planning Office
TRAIL EASEMENT
THIS GRANT OF EASEMENT is made and entered into by the County
of Pitkin, Colorado, a political subdivision, 506 East Main Street,
Aspen, Colorado (Grantor) , and the City of Aspen, a municipal
corporation, 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado (Grantee) .
WHEREAS, Grantor is the owner of a certain parcel of land
located within the City of Aspen, Colorado, described in Book 477,
at Page 644 in the Records of Pitkin County, Colorado, known as Lot
8 of the Pitkin Reserve Subdivision; and,
WHEREAS, Grantee desires to obtain a perpetual easement over,
under and across Grantor ' s parcel for the construction,
installation, maintenance and public use of a foot trail and bridge
over the Roaring Fork River.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual
covenants and obligations contained herein and the payment by
Grantee of Ten Dollars ($10. 00) , the receipt and sufficiency of
which is hereby acknowledged by Grantor, Grantor does hereby grant,
sell, and convey to Grantee a perpetual easement to construct,
install, maintain, repair, remove, replace and open to the public
use a trail easement along and across the Easement Premises
situated on Grantor's parcel as described above, and more
particularly described as follows:
A strip twenty (20) feet in width over, under and across
the Grantor 's parcel centered on and extended ten (10)
feet either side of a trail centerline to be determined
in the field, in such a manner that at all angle points
along the centerline, and at the point of beginning to
the point of terminus, the exterior boundary lines of the
strip shall lengthen or shorten as necessary to form a
continuous strip exactly twenty feet in width. Said trail
and bridge shall follow generally as depicted on the Map
of the Pitkin County Trail Easement attached hereto and
incorporated herein as Exhibit "A" . The Grantee shall
be responsible for surveying the centerline of the
completed trail and bridge and record said survey with
the Clerk and Recorders Office.
Grantee shall have all other rights and benefits necessary or
convenient for the full use of the rights granted herein,
including, but not limited to, full rights of ingress and egress
over and across the property to and from the easement. However,
Grantee acknowledges that any said portion of the Easement Premises
and Easement as granted herein may be once again utilized by the
County for transportation purposes, and any improvements placed
within the easement may be removed or replaced by the County at any
time to facilitate transportation use of the property. Grantee
further acknowledges that the grant of easement as provided shall
not unduly interfere or disturb the rights, use and occupancy
granted to the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District or the City
of Aspen in the Easement Premises.
Grantee' s trail and all associated facilities, including the
bridge, shall be constructed, installed, maintained, and operated
in a safe and workmanlike manner and in such a way as to avoid
damage to Grantor's property or to the surface, trees, shrubs, or
other vegetation caused by the installation, repair, removal or
maintenance of the trail. In the event that damage to Grantor' s
property or to the surface, trees, shrubs, or other vegetation is
caused by the installation, repair, removal or maintenance of the
trail, the attendant facilities shall be restored or replaced by
Grantee to the satisfaction of Grantor. Grantee further agrees to
obtain all applicable permits and approvals for construction of the
trail, including local land use approvals, local development within
a known floodplain permits, applicable state permits (Fugitive Dust
Permit) and applicable federal permits (U. S. Army Corps 404
Permits) prior to initiation of any work within the Easement
Premises.
Grantee, within its legal ability to do so under the
Constitution of the State of Colorado and it home-rule charter and
without any way or manner intending to waive or waiving the
defenses or limitations on damages provided for under and pursuant
to the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act (Sub-section 24-10-101
et seq. , C.R. S. ) , the Colorado Constitution, its home-rule charter
or under the common law or the laws of the United States or the
State of Colorado, shall indemnify and hold harmless the Grantor
against any and all damages which are recovered under the Colorado
Governmental Immunity Act and reduced to final judgement in a court
of competent jurisdiction by reason of negligent act or omission
by Grantee, it agents, officers, or employees, in connection with
this easement.
Grantor warrants and agrees to defend the title to the
Easement Premises as conveyed herein.
Grantee will in no way hinder or prevent the proper and
reasonable use and enjoyment of the property through which this
easement is granted and Grantor shall enjoy full use of the
Easement Premises so long as such use does not interfere with the
installation, maintenance and use of the Grantee ' s trail. Grantor
reserves the ability to relocate the trail easement and trail to
another portion of the property or to adjacent properties if
required by any future use proposed for the property. Grantor_
shall have the sole ability to determine that such a relocation is
necessary and will conduct said relocation at it' s sole expense.
This grant of easement shall run with the land and shall be
binding on and shall inure to the benefit of the parties to this
agreement and their respective successors or assigns.
The perpetual easement shall only expire upon abandonment of
the trail located within the easement by Grantee pursuant to a
formal resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen
abandoning said trail and vacating the easement.
The parties further agree that, if necessary, Grantor will
reconvey by correction deed the rights granted herein when an as-
built centerline description is prepared at the completion of all
of the construction and installation as described herein. Grantee
agrees to pay all costs required for developing said as-built trail
centerline description, if necessary. Grantor shall be responsible
for paying all costs related to reconveyance of the rights granted
herein if the trail and easement are relocated on the Grantor' s
behalf.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor and Grantee have affixed their
duly authorized signatures on the dates as specified below.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO
By:
Title:
Date:
ATTEST:
THE CITY OF ASPEN
By:
Title:
Date:
ATTEST:
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
GRANTING STREAM MARGIN APPROVAL FOR THE INSTALLATION OF THREE
BRIDGES CONNECTING THE CITY OWNED MEADOWS PROPERTY AND RIO GRANDE
TRAIL, ASPEN COLORADO
Resolution No.
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 three pedestrian/bike
bridges, two crossing the Roaring Fork River between the Meadows
property and the Rio Grande Trail and one crossing Castle Creek
connecting recently purchased Meadows property; 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:
6 . Prior to construction of the Castle Creek bridge,,
easements out of the City owned property shall be acquired.
The Castle Creek bridge shall be narrower than 10 feet.
7 . Prior to construction of the Castle Creek bridge, the
Planning and Zoning Commission shall review the trail and
wildlife management plan to the area.
Resolution No. 92-
Page 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission that it does
hereby grant stream margin approval for three bridges on the City
owned Meadows property, two crossing the Roaring Fork River and one
crossing Castle Creek with the following conditions :
1. Conditions for all three bridges 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.
d. 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.
e. Stamped drawings by design engineer must be submitted.
f. Additional information is required for item 5 of the
application regarding the retention 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 . Conditions for all three bridges:
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. 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.
• / %• •• “ 1 •• • ' 411
110
7 Resolution No. 92-
Page 3
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.
3 . Specific conditions for Picnic Point:
a. While the drawings indicate that the new trail grade and
construction access is to be a maximum of 6%, the grade as the
trail is now aligned appears to exceed 12% . The engineer
shall comment that the new trail and construction access can
be constructed to a maximum grade of 6% within the project
boundaries.
b. It needs to be demonstrated that the proposed development
will not increase the base flood elevation. 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 development.
c. The construction site drainage plan and procedure shall
particularly address how it will maintain the existing slope
and vegetation at the south 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.
e. The City shall obtain a Trail Easement from the County for
the bridge crossing the Roaring Fork River.
4 . Specific conditions for Grindley Bridge:
a. The bridge is conceptually approved. Final approval is
reserved upon review of construction drawings. All conditions
as stated above shall apply with the exception of 3 . b and 3 . c;
assuming that the construction drawings also indicate the
bridge to be above the 100 year flood plain.
b. The City shall obtain a Trail Easement from the County
for the bridge crossing the Roaring Fork River.
Resolution No. 92-
Page 4
5. All representations that have been made in the application and
during the presentation shall be adhered to.
6 . a. The Castle Creek bridge shall be narrower than 10 feet.
b. Prior to construction of the Castle Creek bridge, the
Planning and Zoning Commission shall review the trail and
wildlife management plan for the closed area across Castle
Creek.
APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on September
22 , 1992 .
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
By G /.
igoace 6 2 Dice-c /ePc-72 se,J
ATTEST:
(7
Jan C rney, Deput City Clerk
•
•
Aik
IIIP 1
�/
.A DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Y ae U.S.ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT,SACRAMENTO
41 -••'`';u 4 c; m CORPS OF ENGINEERS
o IIHr.:: I" 1325 J STREET
�` SACRAMENTO,CALIFORNIA 95814-2922
,
'o /.∎.% REPLY TO
Brans o‘P ATTENTION OF
April 30, 1993
Regulatory Section (199375072)
Mr. George Robinson
Director of Parks, City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Mr. Robinson:
I am writing to you regarding the proposed Picnic Point and
Grindley Bridge projects. These two bridges are for recreational
trail crossings of the Roaring Fork River within the City of
Aspen.
Based on a review of the plans submitted and a site
inspection by Mr. Michael Claffey of this office, we have
determined that a Department of the Army permit will not be
required for the construction of the Picnic Point and Grindley
Bridges. Further approval from this office is not required
provided the construction of the bridges proceeds as planned,
without a discharge of dredged or fill material below ordinary
high water or in wetlands.
We have assigned file number 199375072 to these projects.
Please refer to this number in any future submittals to this
office concerning these projects. If you have any questions,
please contact Mr. Claffey at (303) 243-1199 .
Sincerel'y,
i
Grady L. McNure
Chief,`,, Western Colorado Regulatory
1 Office
402 Rood Avenue, Room 142
Grand Junction, Colorado 81501-2563
Copy Furnished:
Mr. Alan Czenkusch, Division of Wildlife, 473 Mountain Laurel,
Aspen, Colorado 81611
.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planner
RE: Meadows Bridges Castle Creek and Roaring Fork River
Stream Margin Review
DATE: September 22 , 1992
SUMMARY: The Parks Department has submitted an application for the
construction of three bridges adjacent to the Meadows property.
The first bridge crosses Castle Creek accessing City owned open
space. The second crosses the Roaring Fork River at Picnic Point
but a little- up river from -the spot-where -a- bridge --crossed many-
years ago. The third bridge is up river from Picnic Point on the
Roaring Fork River. This bridge, as proposed by Betty Grindlay,
will be a pedestrian bridge only and access a walking path to
Picnic Point and a short trail up to Paepcke Auditorium and the
tent. Pursuant to Section 7-504, Stream Margin Review is required.
The Planning Department recommends approval with conditions of all
three bridges.
APPLICANT: City of Aspen, as represented by Gary Lacey, Patrick
Duffield and Betty Grindlay. •
LOCATION: City and County owned land on the Meadows property and
the Rio Grande Trail.
ZONING: The 25.7 acre City-owned parcel (Lot 4, Aspen Meadows
Subdivision) is zoned WP (Wildlife Preservation) . The County owned
open space parcel (Lot 11 of the Pitkin Reserve °Subdivision) is
zoned R-30 PUD.
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Stream Margin Approval for three bridges.
REFERRAL COMMENTS: The Engineering Department has reviewed the
application please see the attached referral comments.
STAFF COMMENTS: The Aspen Meadows Master Plan was adopted by City
Council as a component of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan in
September 1990. By establishing specific goals to. guide the
development, the Master Plan included a strong commitment to an
open space environment and alternative access through trail and
'bridge development. Identified in that plan were three locations
for bridges: two crossing the Roaring Fork,-River and one crossing
Castle Creek. The purposes for the bridges are twofold: to access
the open space purchased by the City and to provide participants
a convenient and pleasant pedestrian/bike access to the Meadows
property (Music Tent, Aspen Institute, Physics Institute) and to
the center of town.
c •
Based on the approved Aspen Meadows Master Plan, a Conceptual SPA
(Specially Planned Area) Development Plan was approved by City
Council in December of 1990. This Conceptual Plan included the.
three bridges presented in the Master Plan. The Aspen Meadows
Final SPA Development Plan was .submitted in the spring of 1991.
This plan also included the three bridges. The Final SPA
Development Plan was approved by City Council on June 10, 1991.
The applicant will present the bridge drawings 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 Mazard 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: According to the application, this 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.
The Betty Grindlay pedestrian bridge is located well out of the 100
year floodplain and floodway.
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. The connection of public open space
2
® •
and the provision of public access to the river is consistent with
the 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 required for the
removal of any tree greater than 6" in caliper. The applicant
shall work with the Engineering Department to identify erosion
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---tr--ibutary. - :— .._. _ .. . •
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 install three bridges, one over Castle Creek and two over
the Roaring Fork River with the following conditions:
1. Conditions for all three bridges prior to construction:
a. A construction and site drainage plan and procedure must
3
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.
d. 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.
e. Stamped drawings by design engineer must be submitted.
f. Additional information is required for item 5 of the
application regarding the retention 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 . Conditions for all three bridges:
•
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. 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.
3 . Specific conditions for Picnic Point:
a. While the drawings indicate that the new trail grade and
4
411
construction access is to be a maximum of 6%, the grade as the
trail is now aligned appears to exceed 12%. The engineer
shall comment that the new trail and construction access can
be constructed to a maximum grade of 6% within the project
boundaries.
b. It needs to be demonstrated that the proposed development
will not increase the base flood elevation. 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 development.
c. The construction site drainage plan and procedure shall
particularly address how it will maintain the existing -slope-
and vegetation at the south 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.
e. The City shall obtain a Trail Easement from the County for
the bridge crossing the. Roaring Fork River.
4 . Specific conditions for Grindley Bridge:
a. The bridge is conceptually approved. Final approval is
reserved upon review of construction drawings. All conditions
as stated above shall apply with the exception of 3 .b and 3 .c;
assuming that the construction drawings also indicate the
bridge to be above the 100 year flood plain.
b. The City shall obtain a Trail Easement from the County
for the bridge crossing the Roaring Fork River.
5. All representations that have been made in the application and
during the presentation shall be adhered to.
Attachments:
A. Plans
B. Neighbor ' s Letters
Is
Qf r--61: Cdem-Att-A-A otti
?;(At-t)(A) )ea-f2. a-ctrujav
lX .
5
• C40 1 + 1&
c6AA"At nCOCtA}t U0-1.-A9
(
•
MEMORANDUM
To: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office
From: Rob Thomson, Project Engineer RS!
Date: September 16, 1992
Re: Meadows Bridges Castle Creek and Roaring Fork River Stream Margin Review
Having reviewed the above application, the engineering Department has the following
comments:
1. Conditions for all three bridges 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.
d. The City of Aspen shall obtain, an executed and recorded, trail easement
from Pitkin County for the two bridges known as Picnic Point, and Castle Creek.
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.
g. Additional information is required for item 5 of the application regarding the
• •
•
retention 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. Conditions for all three bridges:
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. 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.
3. Specific conditions for Picnic Point:
a. While the drawings indicate that the new trail grade and construction access
is to be a maximum of 6%, the grade as the trail is now aligned appears to
exceed 12%. The engineer shall comment that the new trail and construction
access can be constructed to a maximum grade of 6% within the project
boundaries.
b. It needs to be demonstrated that the proposed development will not increase
the base flood elevation. 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 development.
c. The construction site drainage plan and procedure shall particularly address
how it will maintain the existing slope and vegetation at the south 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.
•
4. Specific conditions for'Grindley Bridge:
a. The bridge is conceptually approved. Final approval is reserved upon review
of construction drawings. All conditions as stated above shall apply with the
exception of 3.b and 3.c; assuming that the construction drawings also indicate
the bridge to be above the 100 year flood plain.
cc Chuck Roth, City Engineer
CASELOAD92.022
t kg/Jo BRUCE KONHEIM ;C „, �J;�
1130 W i ILLOUGHBY WAY , t
OR BOX 580 $ S 1992
ASPEN, CO. 81611
(303)925-7759
l . August 29, 1992
City of Aspen
Rebecca Baker, Parks Department.
130 South Galena Street
Aspen,CO.81611
Subject: Planning & Zoning Commission,- September 22, 1992
Stream Margin Review - Two Bridges over Roaring Fork
Dear Rebecca,
I reside at 1130 Willoughby Way and received your letter regarding a hearing concerning
two proposed bridges over the Roaring Fork River from the Meadows.
As a homeowner and one who has had a residence in Aspen for better than 15 years, I and
my family are against this project.
With so many die hard environmentalist and lovers of our natural environment who
live hear, I am surprised this proposed project got as far as a hearing. When one speaks
about Aspen, you picture the natural beauty of the landscaping as one of our biggest asset's.
Now, it is proposed to cut that up to provide two bridges which would seriously deter from ,
the beauty we now share along the Roaring Fork path.
I can't believe the Planning and Zoning Department will consider such a rediculous
proposal. There is no question in my mind that this will have a tremendous negative
Environmental Impact on the area.
I will not be in town for the hearing, so please forward this letter to Leslie Lamont and all
members of the Planning and Zoning Commission, to all the City Council Members and to
Amy Margerum the City Manager.
Personally your,
</
Bruce Konheim
....
.:„::7•..i:;w::::::i.7-.,--,,,,,,,.,--,.. , 52. ---zzl:f2,-;;:- :,:: 4';-;.`ZZ''.7;:l:e,?.'n';..,-::,±23-:--,-...
•- ,---.:1,,;/., ,.7-7......:W.-,..;-,,... .,47_,..::041p,,i,i1.-:: '.:k;'%:i'..*;',*.q,.;'-' '?•'':;.:',...ti-rs-,-,....,F.::.•3,..., .''..,..11;f4.1...4,4::,;:,4*.T.,;;;;..... ,-..:..,,..'.4.:,..,...:,7..._:... ..-... .:,.....±_.5..77!2,- — * •',: -. :-•--.• T.:. ' .
••... . •..
. '
tk'!1: 7- .ii:;',i, .•'''': ;'*.'1';'-:,;.Z;'',.:-;:• `',,.:7: - 7... e,, - ., tf, '',2;:Z.:S12..._q;::L7i,::,.tYa..',,,.,,';.r :4"- ;*:::.:,4--i_r..:,A : t, , ,'',.':',..1-: --i:-:..4,: a" ,,,_,• ••--: -.'- -
.,-- -,--,:_ ,,...:r7:,c: .. . -,...e.,:.. ..-1.,i,-..--:-.,-,±..,...,':':'''.7"--,' .•'.'2" ...':' '''.. .. ' rie-to? •ir I ir ••"-
.... .
. . . .
1 , . •
. . . •.
1 0;,.;:.:::::. . --.;•' :-,4-;--,.'-'-',':'.F.{.!,..::'''-'": " r..': ''''"--:''''.'.. ,7.,,:.',.'':2i::: .;.;:.;-.'''.q:WiZtet-*, 'i‘....." ,'7..1; .t1;; .: t".' • .:7- -I'..:-...7:::':"
1 t .
. . I .
744044049
.04,44,44jelfr7ij eo-R 57,1-?-27, ,.....42--, ,
. . .
,...: .:...._._.._. .-1.... .„., :
k::•::.,::,_..:,..„..3;„.„.,,..:....„:„:„..,.„,...._::::..::..„.„‘...,:7"7:;,:‘, •,,*t•,;','''k-'". : ."•••••
.."
1 . 1
V.1412.6
. . .
r .
. .
.. . ... .
------,,,--,•-•.-,•,-
" -
.•. .
' •
. .
• - -.
. . •
. .
. . .
• •, ..• • ../14, -‘04Widtz...). .
• . .
• • ie,e44Z. ) 47 a44c• a'ItAl'ed ".‘44-3' . .
. 1 of6444. .../ ke. -44...42,44■064.45A-Ve)
Iva/ at.44 _
.. .
. . . • ag4ii yerj
aezio.4.40, Azyz.4445 4,10,40di
i •
14- ,
. A4 a -4" iv ritt.a.6 -1 .P - 41`-`-_ _ _ ,,. 6......4
t . .
..61.4-011 . ,-4 0-(2/AA-4AL-el- "''''z,
ezfr....valocalizoo /1-:"°67
•
1 i
; . gan4 elot.&1 ,(
• •
4, iie
J... . : .
1.... i -
. •ml, 604_34 fe_a_44,v /14.0-4- --ext.?-4--A7
. 1 •
•
• — f•§'
•
--- . .
. 4144.11445s ?I' .,0444-4 *cc.. . it...,
t
. .
f . .
. . .
. .
- ,
• •• • •
, .
. . .
. .
. .
I .
- • .
. . .
I _
- •. . . _ .
. ...
. ,
• .
,. • I ----'
,.. . .
--. .
PN 0 ASPEN, BOX 7968
• .
.
COLORADO 81612
;
. .
. . _.
,
•
•.-
. , . .....,,. .
. ...
. .
•
l 1 .
1.
Hi
SEP 1 41992
JACK R. COURSHON
700 CASTLE CREEK DRIVE U
ASPEN, CO 81611 • .
(303) 925-1023
•
Mr. Patrick Duffield September 11, 1992
City of. Aspen Trails Supervisor
130 South Galena Street •
- Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Mr. ' Duffield: •
I received a letter dated August 20th from Rebecca Baker, City of
Aspen Parks Department, notifying me as a homeowner at 700 Castle
Creek Drive, of fhe Parks Department- appearance before: the Planning. - --------., _._
and .Zoning Commission on September 22nd to consider placement of a '
10-foot wide pedestrian/bicycle bridge on Castle Creek at the
Meadows, a 10-foot wide pedestrian/bicycle bridge on the Roaring
Fork River at Picnic Point of the Meadows and a 4-foot wide
pedestrian 'Only bridge at the eastern side of the Meadows on the
Roaring Fork River across from the Betty Grindley property.
Included with the letter was a Meadows 'vicinity map, which outlined.
the location of the three proposed bridges, as well as proposed
trails. The letter refers to the bridges as a priority for "imple-
mentation of the Aspen Pedestrian/Bikeway Plan, including develop-
ment of the Castle Creek Greenway and Roaring Fork Greenway."
I would like my letter to go on record in opposition to the two
proposed 10-foot wide pedestrian/bikeway bridges across Castle
Creek and across the Roaring Fork River of the Meadows properties.
I am not opposed to the installation of the 4-foot wide pedestrian
only bridge across the Grindley property and the Roaring Fork
River.
•
The August 20th letter states that "the aforementioned projects
were an integral part of the Aspen Meadows planning approval
process to provide greater public access to the Meadows property. "
It so happens that I was an active participant in the meetings that
resulted in the final Meadows/Non-profit land transfers. At the
outset of the Meadows land process, the developer wanted to erect
21 townhouses in the area known as Picnic Point on the Meadows
property. A substantial number of citizens and citizens' groups
vehemently objected to this plan -because it was our desire to leave
one of the last, remaining natural properties in the City of Aspen
in its pristine state. We succeeded in prohibiting the developer
from improving that property. In my opinion, any attempts to
impose these 10-foot wide bridges across the Roaring Fork and
Castle Creek waters, along with the future proposed expansion of
trails along the west side of Castle Creek, would impair and
destroy the last remaining pristine wetlands and woodlands in the
City of Aspen and create the very problem we prevented the Meadows
TO: PATRICK DUFFIELD
RE: PEDESTRIAN/BIKEWAY PLAN 9/11/92
developer from doing. I can assure you that property along the
west side of Castle Creek from Power Plant Road all the way down to
the Roaring Fork River is heavily wooded. The principal occupants
of this property, besides the trees, bushes and wildflowers, are an
extensive population of deer, red fox, racoons, as well as a
variety of native fish. What are not there are people.
What we don't need are additional trails in this pristine area
which will bring about the usual people-created trash and disorder
to this natural area.
• A substantial portion of this area is -wetland and all of .ahis is-
wild, with the exception of Picnic Point on the Meadows property.
There is already ample access by both road and trails to the
Meadows property for anyone that cares to visit same. Any expan-
sion of access to that property is unnecessary and in my opinion
will be terribly detrimental to the natural aspect of the area.
Moreover, any attempt to expand pedestrian/bikeway trails, referred
Castle Creek Greenway, would
of the Ca Y,
the development _
to as p
absolutely destroy this primitive lowland along the west side of Castle Creek.
In my opinion, all efforts should be directed to maintaining this
last remaining pristine wildland of Aspen in its natural state,
rather. than exploiting same.
I am hoping to attend the meeting before the Planning and Zoning
Commission on September 22nd, but if not, I wanted this letter
circulated to you and the other recipients noted below to express
my views on the bridge proposals.
I have already discussed this matter with several other of the
property owners along Castle Creek Drive, whose properties include
the lowland wooded area abutting Castle Creek and without exception
their feelings on the subject are the same as mine.
I might add that I am very much in favor of our pedestrian and bike
paths in general, as they now exist, but where they intrude in
existing wooded areas and wetlands or directly aside the course of
our rivers and creeks, I am very much opposed to their extension in
those areas.
Cordially,
1
Ja k R. Courshon
2
411 411
•
TO: PATRICK DUFFIELD
RE: PEDESTRIAN/BIKEWAY PLAN 9/11/92
cc: Amy Margerum, City Manager John Bennett, Mayor
C
City of Aspen City of Aspen
130 S. Galena St.. 130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611 Aspen, CO 81611
"Leslie Lamont Rebecca Baker
Planning Office City of Aspen Parks Dept.
City of Aspen City of Aspen
130 S. Galena St. 130 S. Galena Street
• Aspen, CO 81611 Aspen, CO 81611
Members of the City Council
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
3
® •
1110 Black Birch Dr.
Aspen CO 81611 •
September 8, 1992'
Mr. Patrick Duffield RECEIVED
• City of Aspen Trails ls Su ervisor
130 So. Galena St. • SEP 1 1992
Aspen CO 81611
City Manager/Mayor's Office
Dear Mr. Duffield :
This. is in response to Ms. Rebecca Baker' s. letter
of August 20, inviting comments regarding the three. .
bridges proposed for the Roaring Fork River and Castle
Creek in the riparian area owned by the City of Aspen.
While the opinions expressed are primarily Bill Gruen-
berg' s and mine, they also represent the concerns of
other Black Birch Estates neighbors, many of-:whom will
attend the Stream Margin Review on September_ 22.
Our reaction' to the overall concept is that it
would result in overdevelopment of the only pristine,
almost wild riparian area within the city limits. 10-
feet wide bridges strongly suggest that paved bicycle
paths will inevitably follow--"citified" amenities com-
pletely Out of character with the unique quality of the
area. With the exception of the sage terrace south and
southeast of the confluence and the narrow, grassy bench
on the east side of Castle Creek, most of the 25 acres
is heavily forested, thick with underbrush and deadfalls.
In addition_; the south half of the land on. the west side
of Castle. Creek is composed largely of beaver dams,
marshes, the Tagert Ditch, other spring-fed ditches, and
other wetland features. The very act of .constructing
paved pedestrian/bicycle paths through, these areas
would result in irreparable damage to the environment.
Our opinion is that this riparian area, even with
improved paths, would offer limited biking potential
and would not be a very satisfying experience , particu-
larly for family/kid cyclists. Instead, it lends it-
self perfectly to pedestrian exploration. Contrary to
the plans prepared by Recreation Engineering & Planning,
there are no gravel trails (except for vestiges of the
old steep road running up to the Meadows) . The exist-
ing paths are little more than game trails worn in the
grass--in many places largely overgrown.
Given these conditions, we must label the proposed ,
10-feet wide, 100-feet long bridge at Picnic Point as
unnecessary, expensive overkill. In the first place,
there is no "existing gravel trail" on the south side
of the river to connect to; secondly, the so-called
Grindlay Bridge farther upstream makes a Picnic Point
•
September 8, 102
Page .2 •
bridge redundant and, with its 4-feet width, would cross
the river with minimal impact on the river banks during
construction- and in its -finished state . The Grindlay
Bridge 'accesses the same areas: upstream to the Meadows
along the North Star trail, and downstream to Picnic
Point. Since there is already access to Picnic Point
from the Meadows (utilized regularly by locals and visi-
tors alike) the cumulative impact of three ways to reach
the same area would be destructive in terms of people
traffic, aesthetics and the environment. Our strong
recommendation, therefore , is to limit the number of
bridges to one--the 4-feet wide Betty Grindlay Bridge .
As far as the proposed Castle Creek bridge is con-
cerned, we cannot understand the reasoning behind a 10-
feet wide bridge to nowhere. As pointed out previously,
the conservation land on the west side of Castle Creek
is composed of wetlands, thick forest and underbrush.
r Construction.. alone _would -be, extremely difficult_:and -
perhaps not even permitted because of the sensitive
nature of the river banks .
The proposed location is slightly upstream from
the old foot bridge that was washed out during the 1984
runoff. There are intermittent ditches on the west side
that run during high water; the remains of sandbags used
in 1984 and 1985 to reduce :flooding in Black Birch Estates
are still in evidence .
The west side of Castle Creek is home to beaver,
muskrat, fox, raccoon, deer, ducks and other species of
birds. They are one of the important reasons the ripar-
ian area is unique and they should not be disturbed.
Finally, the north end of the west side is a dead end,
comprised of Black Birch private properties: Lots 9,
Tract B, newly enlarged Lot 10, and 870 feet of private
road leading to Red Butte Drive .
We hope we have given you several reasons to re-
" consider your proposals for this important City property
and thank you for giving us the opportunity to comment.
Sincerel
Feli ogl x no Bill Gruenb-
�
cc: Amy Mar erum City Mgr. Leslie Lamont, Planning ffice
Rebecca Baker,Parks Dept. John Bennett, Mayor
City Council members Hal Clark, Parks Assoc .
Tom Cardamcne , ACES Alan Czenkusch, DOW -
Gary Lacy, Recreation Michael Claffey, Army Corps
Engineering & Planning of Engineers
ti
\AN. \
N.
J a \ ), \
__ . \\ • /: \- . \<
:----4 - - ---
\ \\N.\ 4
J � , \
. -L. i 111Pj°1111.111114ksi \ \ .
\.\•\
R O A R 1 N G
.:...--... lir \
R \
\
--- --illk-ilir 4-
J .
° •aZ`"
' p>�6p _■kii, o
.
.. .
R,o 0 y
1.o 1i- \
rt.
1
o till 1�o
VI
...., lE,P e 1
^nZ ti
0 7.a O\ \ 1
O
cD 3 ID
Q Li.
•
I . 2----c- o -
fv ,‹
o. UxC 4.
EEO
co
r
u o
z
c
tt" o
•� W
O �O w 1`
•
� ti in" rn
ti Q ,,,r` ■ •L = w• .
t ill c
"C' I- m
s• 5 u .. w
4• i t.n i�
J 1
/r / V
l
' allf- 0 1 - sss;s:' t S- I- .
c5.. N y�' y ga C j
id c cn CI
lb ki: A \ . ii 2
TO Q C 'D- c Q
I i $o ' t/- o �tl L a zi)rp�
N
w• y / >- 3 0 S >
d'Qw ✓ v� a —
L w CI.. <1 ) D-
d )2 y �Z g N In
ku U u
ILI li) ...) 7-:--
1
V ` 7,0 a
tk5 . 1--N tt t--- C s.. � , `_ 9' -(Ow 2 d
ti
,5,
. t,i'�
od
V •
• •i �
, .
I DO y2. F LOO o /�
BOUND . y
4/ •
v / •
, / too yr. Flood bou
6o / /
New .70 xi
� 0- _ _ .
Bike/Pedestrian Bridge ' . •
to be supplied by
City ofs F ci�.TroHS `°" Cons;
/*A ,Access
• trail.1v1
•
62.
6� r• � !�;;i1111�',I�1111'.��i�lllll[fil� -
�P,�IIIIII�IID��I��lll •
68 J 180. /
• - \ - - --- • _ .. . z- ii9,
\ :
. ,
I. .
. .. ...,
,. 7 • . .
/ . • P.. / /
ii
loon . / .
7
oundary • i
•yhi9h • \ 68 `m �-�
� G
ne .� `�A
�\ vp_. S
q) N t_s_ C I l7 G►V) r- J cu
cI o • „ -(}!-, _ ��_ • ti
. • KF QEv�jd t Q . t ' c
L V
io
•C C ``���
2 .
O a S .
t+-
ow `t• 6
,--- \ w 4.
Z v)
2
A O
0 r0 .
• o L
O
Ii • Vr :v 0 t4
co -t-: . , - Lo 0
u .....f tc,i wil z a ...1 . .0.
�h u v I
� LL � 1 >
on �� ' j O
—x Q. 'Xa � -to
0) 14 ti) 01 41, ,..______.} 5....
idA -:4,7 .
v
/
a
■
C C uo .
S (V o 4- 0)06
0 C
. cry
c � �
\
•NO8
• 'I)
1 c ..
N
• • -
MEMORANDUM
To: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office
From: Rob Thomson, Project Engineer RS I
Date: September 16, 1992
Re: Meadows Bridges Castle Creek and Roaring Fork River Stream Margin Review
Having reviewed the above application, the engineering Department has,the following
comments:
1. Conditions for all three bridges 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.
d. The City of Aspen shall obtain, an executed and recorded, trail easement
from Pitkin County for the two bridges known as Picnic Point, and Castle Creek.
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.
g. Additional information is required for item 5 of the application regarding the
_ • •
retention 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. Conditions for all three bridges:
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. 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.
3. Specific conditions for Picnic Point:
a. While the drawings indicate that the new trail grade and construction access
is to be a maximum of 6%, the grade as the trail is now aligned appears to
exceed 12%. The engineer shall comment that the new trail and construction
access can be constructed to a maximum grade of 6% within the project
boundaries.
b. It needs to be demonstrated that the proposed development will not increase
the base flood elevation. 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 development.
c. The construction site drainage plan and procedure shall particularly address
how it will maintain the existing slope and vegetation at the south 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.
•
• •
4. Specific conditions for Grindley Bridge:
a. The bridge is conceptually approved. Final approval is reserved upon review
of construction drawings. All conditions as stated above shall apply with the
exception of 3.b and 3.c; assuming that the construction drawings also indicate
the bridge to be above the 100 year flood plain.
cc Chuck Roth, City Engineer
CASELOAD92.022
ID
4340937 1)1 /24/92 16: 13 "400. 00 D,K 667 PG 739
Silvia Davis , F'itkin Cnty Clerk: , Dor $. 00
I. GENERAL REPRESENTATIONS
A. CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULES - GENERAL:
The Consortium and City mutually acknowledge that exact construction schedules for the
entire Project cannot be submitted or agreed to at this time, due primarily to two factors:
(a) construction scheduling depends on the success of fund raising efforts by the non-
profit members of the Consortium, and (b) construction will take longer than a normal
development because summer programming and activities on the Properly will require
curtailment of construction activity during summer months.
The Project involves five separate areas of construction activity with the following
currently estimated sequencing:
1. It is anticipated that the Institute renovation and new construction, including the
<+if�ven lodge buildings, administration building, health club and pool, parking
E.Yucture and attendant site work will be undertaken in at least three distinct
with the major components of each phase beginning in the Fall and ending
t e 'ollow ig Summer.
2 ' It is anticipated'that the MAA tent improvements (seating expansion, back stage
addition and site work), rehearsal/performance facility construction and site work
and the reconfiguration of the parking lots on Gillespie will be undertaken in at
least two phases, one being the tent related improvements and parking lot work
and the other being construction of the rehearsal facility.
3. It is anticipated that the residential component, consisting of site improvements
for the single family lots, tennis townhomes and trustee house remodels and
additions and all related site work will be undertaken in three phases: the site
work for the home sites, the tennis townhomes and the renovation and expansion
of the trustee houses.
4. The construction of the new Meadows Road is currently planned for the Spring
of 1992, and the conversion of the old Meadows Road to a trail with landscape
and the upgrades to the utility and irrigation systems throughout the Property is
planned for the Spring of 1992. The utility and irrigation system work will be
• coordinated with the individual construction phases and with the Public Works
Director.
5. The schedule for completion of the City trail and bridge installation from the old
Meadows Road to picnic point and across to the Rio Grande trail and from behind
the auditorium accessing the Roaring Fork Road side of the campus will be
established by the City but will be coordinated with the affected Consortium
5
•
" ,4(.1977 0]./24/92 16: 1.3 Rec $4C! k0 BF 667 PG 759
Silvia. DaviTi , F='itl::iri Cnty Cl.er , Doc: $. 00
after the date of issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the final
phase of improvements. It is the mutual understanding of the parties that
Certificates of Occupancy may in fact issue for improvements even though
the landscaping improvements related thereto have not yet. been complet-
ed, so long as that portion of the financial guaranty provided for in this
Agreement, which covers the estimated cost of such unfinished landscap-
ing remains available to the City pursuant to the terms of this Agreement.
All tree replacement shall be on a one-to-one caliper inch basis throughout
the Project as a whole with minimum size at 1 1/2" caliper.
4. Trails
The Plat depicts all trails dedicated or conveyed to public use and all easements
linking off-site trails to the Project's trail system, including the trail easement
between the tennis townhouses and restaurant. Written easements shall be
executed and conveyed after trail construction confirming the as-built location of
each easement. A portion of the trail Easement for the trail from Meadows Road
to Lot 4 crosses Lot 5, as depicted on the Plat. Trail construction on this
Easement and any other appurtenant recreational facilities and amenities and
landscaping is the sole responsibility of the City of Aspen. Neither Savanah nor
the Consortium shall have any financial responsibility for any of this work or for
the maintenance of any easements.
5. Financial Assurances
In order to secure the construction of the site and landscape improvements in
Paragraphs 3(a) and (b) above and to guarantee 100% of the estimated cost of
such improvements, Savanah shall guarantee by irrevocable bond, sight draft or
letter of commitment or credit from a financially responsible lender that funds in
the amount of such estimated costs, are held by it for the account of City for the
construction and installation of the above-described improvements. As a
condition for issuance of a building permit for a portion or all of the renovation
and new construction anticipated herein, Savanah and City shall agree on that
portion of the work outlined in Paragraphs 3(a) and 3(b) above reasonably
necessary to complete the work for which a permit is being sought and the
mutually agreed upon financial assurances shall be delivered to the City prior to
issuance of the building permit. All financial assurances given by Savanah to
City, in all events, shall give the City the unconditional right, upon and following
default by Savanah, notice thereof by the City, and a forty day right thereafter to
cure, to withdraw funds as necessary and upon demand to partially or fully
complete and/or pay for any of such improvements or pay any uncontested
outstanding bills for work done thereon by any party, with any excess guaranty
amount to be applied first to additional administrative or legal costs associated
with any such default and the repair of any deterioration in improvements already
25
40977 01/24/92 16: 13 Rec 0Q. 00 BF. 667 F'e 763
Si 1.vi m. Davi_
Pit! in Cntv Cl:er l ,, Doi_ $. 00
tree replacement shall be on a one-to-one caliper inch basis throughout the
Project as a whole with minimum size at 1 1/2" caliper.
4. Trails
The Plat depicts all trails dedicated or conveyed to public use and all easements
linking off-site trails to the Project's trail system. Two trail easements are
associated with Lot 6. The first is a minimum three foot wide unpaved walking
path which parallels the Meadows Road. on the Eastern edge of Lot 6 and the
second is the easement on the Western portion of Lot 6 to accommodate the
construction and maintenance of the trail from Meadows Road to Lot 4 and across
the Roaring Fork River to the Rio Grande Trail, all as depicted on the Plat. Lot
6 shall be burdened with easements for these trails as shown on the Final Plat.
Construction of the walking path shall be completed by Savanah in connection
with the construction of the improvements. on Lot 6. Savanah and. the City.
acknowledge and agree that all responsibility for construction of and payment for
the trail to Lot 4 and any other appurtenant recreational amenities permitted in the
zone district and landscaping is the sole responsibility of the City, and Savanah
shall have no responsibility for the maintenance thereof.
5. Financial Assurances
; In order to secure the construction of the site improvements in Paragraphs 3(a)
and (b) above and to guarantee 100% of the estimated cost of such improvements,
Savanah shall guarantee by irrevocable bond, sight draft or letter of commitment
or credit from a financially responsible lender that funds in the amount of such
estimated costs, are held by it for the account of City for the construction and
installation of the above-described improvements. As a condition for issuance of
a building permit for a portion or all of the construction anticipated herein,
Savanah and City shall agree on that portion of the work outlined in Paragraphs
3(a) and 3(b) above reasonably necessary to complete the work for which a
permit is being sought and the mutually agreed upon financial assurances shall be
delivered to the City prior to issuance of the building permit. All financial
assurances given by Savanah to City, in all events, shall give the City the
unconditional right, upon and following default by Savanah, after notice thereof
by the City, and a forty day right thereafter to .cure, to withdraw funds as
necessary and upon demand to partially or fully complete and/or pay for any of
such improvements or pay any uncontested outstanding bills for work done
thereon by any party, with any excess guaranty amount to be applied first to
additional administrative or legal costs associated with any such default and the
repair of any deterioration in improvements already constructed before the unused
remainder (if any) of such guaranty is released to Savanah. As portions of the
required improvements are completed, the Public Works Director shall inspect
them, and upon approval and written acceptance, he shall authorize the release
29
/....04-6--k
VINSON & ELKINS
L.L.R
THE WILLARD OFFICE BUILDING ATTORNEYS AT LAW FIRST CITY CENTRE
1455 PENNSYLVANIA AVE.,N.W. - . 816 CONGRESS AVENUE
WASHINGTON, D.C.20004-1008 - - AUSTIN,TEXAS 78701-2496
TELEPHONE(202) 639-6500 2500 FIRST CITY TOWER TELEPHONE(5121 495-8400
FAX 1202)639-6604 - 1001 FANNIN FAX(5121 495-8612
HUNGARIAN EXPORT BUILDING HOUSTON, TEXAS 77002-6760 3700 TRAMMELL CROW CENTER
UL.VOROVSKOGO,21 TELEPHONE(713)758-2222 2001 ROSS AVENUE
121069 MOSCOW, RUSSIAN FEDERATION FAX(713)758-2346 DALLAS,TEXAS 75201-2916
TELEPHONE 011(70-95)202-8416 - - TELEPHONE 1214)220-7700
FAX 011(70-95)200-4216 - FAX(214)220-7716 •
WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL
47 CHARLES ST.,BERKELEY SOUARE .(713) 758-2176 .BAGATELA 12
LONDON WIX 7PB,ENGLAND - 00-585 WARSAW,POLAND
TELEPHONE OII 144-71)491-7236 - ,September 24 1992 TELEPHONE OII 148-21 625-33-33
FAX 011 (44-71)499-5320 P FAX 011 148-2) 625-22-45
1 .
Mr. George Robinson OCT - 1 1992
City; of Aspen Parks Department c
130 South Galena Street ��
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear George:
Thank you very much. for listening to me with respect to the
proposed bridge across Roaring Fork River upstream of Picnic Point.
I know that you consider such bridge to be for some purposes to be
at the ideal location but if you can see your way clear to move it
upstream 30 to 60 yards and still satisfy your objectives, you
would make the Mascottes and me very happy. -
Set forth below are the addresses and telephone numbers of the
Mascottes:
John and Sarah Mascotte
1130 Black Birch Drive
Aspen, CO 81611
303-925-6439
180 Maiden Lane
New York, NY 10038
212-440-7365
I look forward to getting to know you better through the
years. Again, I am grateful for your willingness to hear me out.
Sincerely,
.-Darrell C. Morrow
187/2247 . : .
\dcm\robinson.ltr • .
' ''`f 1'7 t1.4•47.1
•
I.
• r•A''! • _
('! ,
,
SEP 22
Li i /
•/4 ('■) ;'16,11,
n_11••: it;
t j 0;k'
t ':; (.;1\:•
• I '4.1 , 1 1 1(1, j() ;1■,;.
. ;.; '
• !-I , ii:Itc;:1,■.c.
•
; . ,•:, 4.` Y,1;: „ FOIL L \ $0/' ,. •
f 4 41; ;p:
;;;,1 •: I, 1
• vc..4 1 (I, .,
if, • -,•.
;s■ ;_1;. 1:3 \1°, „ ;—; •'.;
S "11, 1. , ; ft tei .11
01•.,it \ft, •!C'Ji
i; • iit .131,,, 1.k \t,t1).:) ;i,‘,..
1444.1;..Y :46,1 ((:AO;
iyz•L; t
t'.)3 , ft• •
h.
Illi1)/ (;11S 4,1
( 9'
•• i
1 ,11111t ,; .
1
t..;
Bett y Jaffe Weiss
100 East Bellevue #14E Chicago, IL 60611 P.O. Box 1595 Aspen, CO 81612
(312) 787-1045 1 (303) 925-2906
4
Vki
• 77. 77-77:,,\-1 111
c / 6 ; SEP g 1992
0 / o �� � i-Nj,.t c C?
•
L
Gtr
•
•
ti � � � ` �f 1
}
Y
s . -0 , : a ..e .. . f, RUCE .KONHEIM ` �' ''
f ,----------- 1130-WILLOUGHBY WAY . t t�`. Se) g '
--OR BOX 580 (992
i ir,'
ASPEN, CO. 81611 ,.._g.
(303) 925-2259 L,
: August 29,1992
t City of Aspen
Rebecca Baker, Parks Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen,CO. 81611
Subject: Planning & Zoning Commission - September 22, 1992
Stream Margin Review - Two Bridges over Roaring Fork
Dear Rebecca,
1
, I reside at 1130 Willoughby Way and received your letter regarding a hearing concerning
two proposed bridges over the Roaring Fork River from the Meadows.
As a homeowner and one who has had a residence in Aspen for better than 15 years, I and
my family are against this project.
With so many die hard environmentalist and lovers of our natural environment who
live hear, I am surprised this proposed project got as far as a hearing. When one speaks
about Aspen, you picture the natural beauty of the landscaping as one of our biggest asset's.
Now, it is proposed to cut that up to provide two bridges which would seriously deter from
the beauty we now share along the Roaring Fork path.
I can't believe the Planning and Zoning Department will consider such a rediculous
proposal. There is no question in my mind that this will have a tremendous negative
• Environmental Impact on the area.
I will not be in town for the hearing, so please forward this letter to Leslie Lamont and all
members of the Planning and Zoning Commission, to all the City Council Members and to
Amy Margerum the City Manager.
Personally your,
.47 _
Bruce Konheim
r„
`;- t x- r r" ^v tz. `fir "'.f'� . ,.. �C`' -s'4 ,��'-.,,, , ."� a *..t.... , ,. ,� ,�. _..�^
w `5xi. - -.r -Sb i3.' y"`" . ..---V, L l �.:,.. ..727..4.'2Y � �"sz , ,-fir '' ..•
' :-,-;•.1.7,,, -r..'`.; ^yr vr � .r -� "" n���..ti l.d • t , N i
` r4 ,, . .x`,T: . .
M.,, s 5" +•.. tiz', _;. *. C¢' E. ms' . a ' 4r ..14-.:;:r.- - a F' ' ;-5
=' � _ 7 . ..
r
�afb i'Y fY L.., L
}
I. A"al°4.4 0 1114rPW OR 5Xf?"9. ....
lit 111(611211
d-nU
t ?,(_. ,a)(41,gaol. 6-4444 4(41'4444 641"C
_
,• "5.444Z4 ) cV a44t• a fit°4."(4 ?"°1°.g..,
I 11.1,d1 4444a/10'a/12e
aghta) Ile? 4../(-44-14 '
/1,4441-<-
i agiA0 iii4, Aelz.447,5 doaddLIZ
! ...c4: Allid(44°. 0,1 ritt.I 0•4 4 4°".e i .P/u.„,,,...4.4....,
t
e
.. 1 : : c9a414 444 eA' lAielfe
i-.. mu.) "Sal... ile X610‘14"?"161 47
/ 11‘104.:1114.41"..44174'
... i lea. .140ea. V .4744.64
figt44.4.‘ CC:11L1
x_ ! .•
i
P. O. BOX 7J68
ASPEN, COLORADO 81.612
• _ Li. J. _��
SEP 1 4 1992
JACK R. COURSHON 11
++ i
700 CASTLE CREEK DRIVE
ASPEN, CO 81611 _
(303) 925-1023
Mr. Patrick Duffield- • September 11, 1992
City of Aspen Trails Supervisor
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Mr. Duffield:
I received a letter dated August 20th from Rebecca Baker, City of
Aspen Parks Department, notifying me as a homeowner at 700 Castle
Creek Drive, of the Parks Department appearance before the Planning
and Zoning Commission on September 22nd to consider placement of a
10-foot wide pedestrian/bicycle bridge on Castle Creek at the
Meadows, a 10-foot wide pedestrian/bicycle bridge on the Roaring
Fork River at Picnic Point of the Meadows and a 4-foot wide
pedestrian only bridge at the eastern side of the Meadows on the
Roaring Fork River across from the Betty Grindley property.
Included with the letter was a Meadows vicinity map, which outlined
the location of the three proposed bridges, as well as proposed
trails. The letter refers to the bridges as a priority for "imple-
mentation of the Aspen Pedestrian/Bikeway Plan, including develop-
ment of the Castle Creek Greenway and Roaring Fork Greenway. "
I would like my letter to go on record in opposition to the two
proposed 10-foot wide pedestrian/bikeway bridges across Castle
Creek and across the Roaring Fork River of the Meadows properties.
I am not opposed to the installation of the 4-foot wide pedestrian
only bridge across the Grindley property and the Roaring Fork
River.
The August 20th letter states that "the aforementioned projects
were an integral part of. the Aspen Meadows planning approval
process to provide greater public access to the Meadows property. "
It so happens that I was an active participant in the meetings that
resulted in the final Meadows/Non-profit land transfers. At the
outset of the Meadows land process, the developer wanted to erect
21 townhouses in the area known as Picnic Point on the Meadows
property. A substantial number of citizens and citizens' groups
vehemently objected to this plan because it was our desire to leave
one .of the last remaining natural properties in the City of Aspen
in its pristine state. We succeeded in prohibiting the developer
from improving that property. In my opinion, any attempts to
impose these 10-foot wide bridges across the Roaring Fork and
Castle Creek waters, along with the future proposed expansion of
trails along the west side of Castle Creek, would impair and
destroy the last remaining pristine wetlands and woodlands in the
City of Aspen and create the very problem we prevented the Meadows
t
� JACK R. COURSHON AA
1 700 CASTLE CREEK DRIVE (i i i 1 4 Ni
ASPEN, CO 81611 parks Department
(303). 925-1023 p;:a ks Department
(303) 925-1426
Mr. George Robinson, Director October 6, 1992.
Aspen Parks Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611 -
Re: PROPOSED CASTLE CREEK/PICNIC POINT
BRIDGE AND TRAILS
Dear George:
The purpose of this letter is to confirm several of the discussions
and meetings that we've participated in over the . last few weeks
regarding the above matter.
At the Planning and Zoning hearing on September 22nd it was the
decision of the Commission (by 4-2 vote) to delay stream margin
review and to defer the construction of the Castle Creek bridge at
Picnic Point until the Commission received and reviewed a Wildlife
and Trail study and plan.
Immediately following the meeting I met with you and Patrick
Duffield, where you informed me that you were thus mandated to come
up with this study, including the retaining of wildlife experts.
You suggested that the participation of interested citizens and
citizen groups would be both welcome and desirable, since it
afforded all parties an opportunity to contribute to the study and
review, which you anticipated will be completed around July of
1993 . You also suggested that broad participation in the Park' s
Master Plan process addressing trail issues would be desirable.
In that spirit and with particular regard for the Wildlife and
Trail study called for as a condition precedent to further
consideration of the Castle Creek/Picnic Point bridge, we would
appreciate it if written notice of all such meetings pertaining to
these two studies (Park' s Master Plan process and Castle Creek
Wildlife Trails) be mailed to the following interested citizens and
citizen groups, to wit:
Don and Carol Ann Kopf, President
Castle Creek Drive Homeowners Association
770 Castle Creek Drive
Aspen, CO 81611
Jack R. Courshon, Director
Castle Creek Drive Homeowners Association
700 Castle Creek Drive
Aspen, CO 81611
TO: Mr. George Robinson, Director
Aspen Parks Department
RE: Proposed Castle Creek/Picnic Point Bridge 10/6/92
Jim Roush and
Cynthia Wayburn, Directors
Castle Creek Drive Homeowners Association
740 Castle Creek Drive
Aspen, CO 81611
Bill Gruenberg, President
Black Birch Homeowners Association
President, Trout Unlimited - Aspen Chapter
P.O. Box 704
Aspen, CO 81612
Felix Pogliano, Director
Black Birch Homeowners Association
1110 Black Birch Drive
Aspen, CO 81611
Allen Cznkusch
Colorado Division of Wildlife
c/o Kirshner
300 Puppy Smith Street, 205-278
Aspen, CO 81611
All of us share in the common belief that the heavily wooded area
west of Castle Creek between the Roaring Fork River and Highway 82
is the last remaining sanctuary corridor of fragile wetland and
riparian wildlife habitat in the City of Aspen which should not be
disturbed, impaired or destroyed through human intrusion. We are
mindful of the need and benefit of pedestrian and bikeway trails
around Aspen and of the City's desire to have such access to Picnic
Point, recently purchased by the City of Aspen. However, I would
like to make two points in this regard:
1- The area in question is zoned "wildlife preservation" -- not
residential, not industrial, not commercial. This zoning should be
preserved.
2- Access to Picnic Point is adequate now and will be more than
adequate from all directions in the future when the Roaring Fork
and Grindley bridges are built. The Roaring Fork bridge will
provide bike and pedestrian access to Picnic Point from the north
off Rio Grande trail and the Grindley pedestrian bridge will
provide additional access to Picnic Point from the north. This is
in addition to the existing access from the south via 7th Street,
leading directly to the Meadows property, as well as the walking
and bike trails in existence between the Music Associates and Aspen
2
. o
TO: Mr. George Robinson, Director
Aspen Parks Department
RE: Proposed Castle Creek/Picnic Point Bridge 10/6/92
Institute properties. In point of fact, the new Roaring Fork
bridge access will complete a "loop" of access to Picnic Point to
anyone who wishes to go there from any point on the compass. To
provide still another access point through our valuable fragile
wetland and riparian habitat area of west Castle Creek is, in our
opinion, "overkill" . It will destroy the very benefits we are
trying to preserve in the Picnic Point area.
Looking forward to working with you and Patrick on this very
meaningful process and awaiting your Notices of further meetings.
Cordially,
Jack R. /bourshon
700 Castle Creek Drive
Aspe , CO 81611
cc: Don and Carol Ann Kopf
Jim Roush
Cynthia Wayburn
Bill Gruenberg
Felix Pogliano
Allen Cznkusch
3
III •
TO: PATRICK DUFFIELD
RE: PEDESTRIAN/BIKEWAY PLAN 9/11/92
developer from doing. I can assure you that property along the
west side of Castle Creek from Power Plant Road all the way down to
the Roaring Fork River is heavily wooded. The principal occupants
of this property, besides the trees, bushes and wildflowers, are an
extensive population of deer, red fox, racoons, as well as a
variety of native fish. What are not there are people.
What we don't need are additional trails in this pristine area
which will bring about the usual people-created trash and disorder
to this natural area.
A substantial portion of this area is wetland and all of this is
wild, with the exception of Picnic Point on the Meadows property.
There is already ample access by both road and trails to the
Meadows property for anyone that cares to visit same. Any expan-
sion of access to that property is unnecessary and in my opinion
will be terribly detrimental to the natural aspect of the area.
Moreover, any attempt to expand pedestrian/bikeway trails, referred
to as the development of the Castle Creek Greenway, would
absolutely destroy this primitive lowland along the west side of
Castle Creek.
In my opinion, all efforts should be directed to maintaining this
last remaining pristine wildland of Aspen in its natural state,
rather than exploiting same.
I am hoping to attend the meeting before the Planning and Zoning
Commission on September 22nd, but if not, I wanted this letter
circulated to you and the other recipients noted below to express
my views on the bridge proposals.
I have already discussed this matter with several other of the
property owners along Castle Creek Drive, whose properties include
the lowland wooded area abutting Castle Creek and without exception
their feelings on the subject are the same as mine.
I might add that I am very much in favor of our pedestrian and bike
paths in general, as they now exist, but where they intrude in
existing wooded areas and wetlands or directly aside the course of
our rivers and creeks, I am very much opposed to their extension in
those areas.
Cordially,
4
k R. Courshon
2
1110 Black Birch Dr.
Aspen CO 81611
September 8, 1992
Mr. Patrick Duffield • RECEIVED
City of Aspen Trails Supervisor
130 So. Galena St. SEP 1 4 1992
Aspen CO 81611
City Mapager/Mayor's Office
Dear Mr. Duffield :
This is in response to Ms. Rebecca Baker' s letter
of August 20, inviting comments regarding the three
bridges proposed for the Roaring Fork River and Castle
Creek in the riparian area owned by the City of Aspen.
While the opinions expressed are primarily Bill Gruen-
, berg' s and mine , they also represent the concerns of •
other Black Birch Estates neighbors, many of whom will
attend the Stream Margin Review on September 22.
Our reaction to the overall concept is that it
would result in overdevelopment of the only pristine ,
almost wild riparian area within the city limits. 10-
feet wide bridges strongly suggest that paved bicycle •
paths will inevitably follow--"citified" amenities com-
pletely out of character with the unique quality of the
area. With the exception of the sage terrace south and
southeast of the confluence and the narrow, grassy bench
on the east side of Castle Creek, most of the 25 acres
is heavily forested, thick with underbrush 'and deadfalls.
Tn addition; the south half of the land on the west side
of Castle Creek is composed largely of beaver dams,
• marshes, the Tagert Ditch, other spring-fed ditches, and
other wetland features. The very act of constructing
paved pedestrian/bicycle paths through these areas
would result in irreparable damage to "the environment.
Our opinion is that this riparian area, even with
improved paths, would offer limited biking potential
and would not be a very satisfying experience , particu-
larly for family/kid cyclists. Instead, it lends it-
self perfectly to pedestrian exploration. Contrary to
the plans prepared by Recreation Engineering & Planning,
there are no gravel trails (except for vestiges of the
old steep road running up to the Meadows). The exist-
.. ing paths are little more than game trails worn in the
grass--in many places largely overgrown.
Given these conditions, we must label the proposed •
10-feet wide, 100-feet long bridge at Picnic Point as
unnecessary, expensive overkill. In the first place,
there is no "existing gravel trail" on the south side
of the river to connect to; secondly, the so-called
Grindlay Bridge farther upstream makes a Picnic Point
•
•
September 8, 72
Page 2
bridge redundant and, with its 4-feet width, would cross
the river with minimal impact on the river banks during
construction: and in its finished state . The Grindlay
Bridge accesses the same areas: upstream to the Meadows
along the North Star trail, and downstream to Picnic
Point. Since there is already access to Picnic Point
from the Meadows (utilized regularly by locals and visi-
tors alike) the cumulative impact of three ways to reach
' the same area would be destructive in terms of people
traffic, aesthetics and the environment. Our strong
recommendation, therefore , is to limit the number of
bridges to one--the 4-feet wide Betty Grindlay Bridge .
As far as the proposed Castle Creek bridge is con-
cerned, we cannot understand the reasoning behind a 10-
feet wide bridge to nowhere . As pointed out previously,
the conservation land on the west side of Castle Creek
is composed of wetlands, thick forest and underbrush.
Construction alone would be extremely difficult and
perhaps not even permitted because of the sensitive
nature of the river banks .
The proposed location is slightly upstream from
the old foot bridge that was washed out during the 1984
runoff. There are intermittent ditches on the west side
that run during high water; the remains of sandbags used
in 1984 and 1985 to reduce flooding in Black Birch Estates
are still in evidence .
The west side of Castle Creek is home to beaver,
muskrat, fox, raccoon, deer, ducks and otry r species of
birds. They are one of the important reasons the ripar-
ian area is unique and they should not be disturbed.
Finally, the north end of the west side is a dead end,
comprised of Black Birch private properties: Lots 9,
Tract B, newly enlarged Lot 10, and 870 feet of private
road leading to Red Butte Drive.
We hope we have given you several reasons to re-
consider your proposals for this important City property
and thank you for giving us the opportunity to comment .
Sincerel
N
Felix ogl no Bill . Gruenb-
cc: Amy g Ma.r erum, City Mgr. Leslie Lamozit, Planning dffice
Rebecca Baker,Parks Dept. John Bennett, Mayor
City Council members Hal Clark, Parks Assoc .
Tom Ca.rdamone , ACES • Alan Czenkusch, DOW
Gary Lacy, Recreation Michael C'laffey, Army Corps
Engineering & Planning of Engineers
•
•
Li
Pitkin Green Water Association
• P.O. Box 10179
t E SEP 1 519\,\,
Aspen, Co_ 81612 I w = r`j
S i
September 1, 1992
Rebecca Baker
Parks Department
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Ms. Baker,
I am in receipt of your letter of August 20th and attachment thereto. Please be advised that I am
authorized by the Pitkin Green Board of Trustees and the Homeowners Association to express
our opposition to the two bridges and picnic site that you have proposed.
Our reasons are quite simple. We believe additional traffic to the Roaring Fork trail area would
make a crowded trail area even more crowded. The riparian area would be compromised by the
building of a picnic site and the access of people from across the river via the proposed bridges.
This is a Pristine area that everyone enjoys and wants to preserve. The additional traffic
generated by the two bridges and the picnic site would compromise the quality of the
environment and the area.
Since Pitkin Green abuts this area we would be directly impacted by the additional traffic.
Therefore register our opposition to this proposal.
Sincerely'yours,
Cl/"
Morton Currentz
Trustee
Pitkin.Green Board of Trustees
cc: Amy Margerum, City Manager
Leslie Lamont, Planning Office
G. James Roush $i
tti
. 740, Castle Creek Drive " S � r
Aspen, CO 81611 2 i 1992
Septemr--17;1-992!
Mr. Patrick Duffield
.City of Aspen Trails Supervisor
• 130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO. 81611 •
•
Dear Mr. Duffield, •
I am responding to a letter from Rebecca Baker of the City of Aspen '
Parks Department dated August 20, 1992 concerning three .bridges -
two across the Roaring Fork River and one across Castle Creek. I am
' opposed to both of the 10 foot wide pedestrian/bicycle bridges and
would like this letter to go on record to that effect. Following are
my reasons.
I am opposed to the 10 foot wide bridge across the Roaring Fork
because it basically duplicates the 4 foot wide pedestrian bridge
which gives equivalent access to Picnic Point and the Meadows
Property. It is a waste of taxpayer money to build both and the
4 foot wide bridge will impinge much less on the natural area along
the Roaring Fork River and presumably cost much less.
The proposed bridge across Castle Creek and the development of a
"Castle Creek greenway" .is particularly objectionable and inapprop-
riate. The west side of Castle Creek is a valuable riparian area •
and completely undeveloped = the only wild, place 'of its size that I
know,.of in the Aspen city limits. It is home to deer, fox, hawks
and many species of song birds. To put a trail through this area
• with its accompanying human traffic, trash, dogs and noise would
destroy this area as wild habitat. In addition there exist alterna-
'tive routes past the Meadows Property connecting the Rio Grande trail
system to trails on the other side of Highway 82 (i.e. the Marolt
Park trails. ) In my mind it would be a travesty to put an unneces-
sary trail through this one remaining wild area. Such a development
is additionally onerous since riparian habitat is the most threatened
and at the same time- the most valuable habitat state' and county wide. •
I would much rather see the city parks department working to protect
this one unique wild area rather than planning to invade it.
Sincerely yours,
•
G. James Roush
cc: Jack Courshon
Bill Gruenberg
•
• Don and Carol :Ann Kopf
•
3
SEP 2 11992
\AL-
4674 Meadowood
Dallas, Tx 75220
17 September 1992
Mr. Patrick Duffield
City of Aspen Trails Supervisor
130 So. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Mr. Duffield,
We own a residence at 80 Overlook Drive in Black Birch Estates. It
recently came to our attention that the City of Aspen has proposed
building three bridges in the Roaring Fork River and Castle Creek
riparian area. We will be unable to attend the 22 September meeting
of the Stream; Margin 'Review, but we wish to express strenuous
opposition to these proposed bridges.
As we understand it, the proposed bridges are (1 ) a 10-ft. wide, 100-
ft. long bridge at Picnic Point, (2) a 4-ft. wide "Grindley" bridge
upstream from the Picnic Point Bridge, and (3) a 10-ft. wide "Castle
.. .' Creek" bridge. These bridges would presumably lead into some 25
acres of wild and pristine riparian area. The area we are familiar with
is heavily forested and thick with underbrush. Opening the area up
with the proposed bridges suggests that paved b icycle paths would
almost surely follow. We feel that the layout of The acreage under
consideration would not lend itself to biking trails since it is comprised
mainly of wetlands, thick forests, and underbrush. To create either
biking or walk paths, much of the existing foliage and plants would
have to be removed. As it exists now, the site is home to deer, foxes,
muskrats, raccoons,, ducks, and many species of birds. Any increased
traffic through this area would force these animals out and would also
cause irreparable damage to the fragile environment.
When we purchased our home in February of.1991 one of the
•
• •
attractions of the location was this protected riparian area. Since it is
the only wild riparian site within the city limits of Aspen, the spot is a
wonderful and unique place to explore and enjoy just as it now exists.
We feel that the overall concept of placing bridges into this wild
riparian area, opening it up to increased traffic and development,
would lead to the destruction of this unique habitat. Thus, we
sincerely hope that you will understand our objections and reconsider
your proposals for this property.
Sincerely,
Steve and Alexis Spiritas
cc:
Felix Pogliano, Black Birch Estates
Amy Margerum, City Manager
Rebecca Parker, Parks Dept.
Gary Lacy, Recreation Engineering and Planning
Leslie Lamont, Planning Office
John Bennet, Mayor
Hal Clark, Parks Association
•
0 0
r— '
way
, -.1 ('-'11n tiLIZ- 1,_ ,,i. A__ V.---1--s,_ '
September 23, 1992 ,Pi�Ct)" k Ld
kirt;ucty_ ,
C) r
City of Aspen Parks Department ' ho_A)--c.T25ti-A— v't ()---AA-A/21-
Attn: George Robinson
130 South Galena Street .
Aspen, CO 81611 .
Dear George: - \ :
The undersigned homeowners in the West End want you to know how pleased we are with the
, unanimous approval last night by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission for the new
"Picnic Point"bridge. This bridge will link the Rio Grande Trail to the new City open space
adjacent to the Meadows and the entire West End.
We are all excited about this new trail in that it will create a beautiful non-Vehicular trail loop for all
of us to access town and even down valley. It is a great step forward in a City wide trail system
and should even reduce vehicular traffic in our neighborhood. We encourage the Parks
Department to.move ahead with the bridge and trail as soon as possible.
Very sincerely.
CA.atip?c' 77/&.7-L._�•lIZ/ ' ! J? -2
Nt' ' ' u�
L_.. _--ice i i
- ) t ,-;�,'\ `-1 C ;% ci_�..�= �,- `" C .--,i/.-e_,�.
(L,--1 , ,,,..( / ,
\\\....('
c.,,, LC&Q,, ,' i_ '.--e-Lta___,' ., - c.
7 " "
ii'Ic . ter _ r, ' )
,),
•
•
130::!'"'".4'0 � �°° � treet
Ass ._' goo `co` -. 611
- � T•
September 30, 1992
Mr. Samuel J. Caudill FAIA
PO Box FF
Aspen, Colorado 81612
Dear Samuel:
Thank you for addressing your concerns in regard to possible new
trails in the Aspen/Pitkin County area. The City of Aspen is also
concerned with protecting riparian habitats and will incorporate
your concerns in the planning process.
Your letter dated 9/10/92 has been forwarded to City Council and
staff. We appreciate your concern and input.
Sincerely,
Bill E ting
Asst. City Manager
cc: Mayor and Council
Amy Margerum, City Manager
City Staff
®RRiRtEOQV
RECVCIEDVoER
� � ••
\., _IL, •
.r,,..;:r.:„,,,,:::.,m,r2,,,.,
as.:..,x . '�� Gam,,e)-- ___, ,
,. :,:,„,..,,... ,..,..:.: .,
l CAN I '''°_ ,
,, 4. maw -,-,f, ())\ -
,,,.,,,..,,„... ,,, _ ,,,,. , r\__September 10, 1992 7 ( I
-Q. V 7 .p94/
The Aspen City Council ��
130 South Galena Street `�''
Aspen, Colorado 81611 VP‘ ) •
RE: Trails
My Friends and Honorable City Council Members:
I'M quite concerned about plans for new trails in the Aspen/Pitkin County area ... specifically the ones
designated for 1010 Ute, picnic point on the Meadows property and across Castle Creek.
As a member of the Colorado Wildlife Commission (8 years) and the Colorado Water Quality Control
Commission (4 years), I addressed the issue of riparian habitat, which was a high priority for the State.
Riparian habitats provide living space for many mammals, birds and fish. The bio-diversity encompasses
many species including aquatic and terrestrial species which are a food base for our Colorado fishery
resource.
To,impact these priceless riparian habitats with trails is a step in the wrong direction due to human
disturbance and erosion. Erosion degrades ground cover (vegetation) and when the silt enters the water
course, it destroys the aquatic life food base, which in turn destroys the aquatic life including the fishery.
AD of our riparian habitats should be jealously guarded protected and enhanced if we are ever going to
attain sustainability in the world.
Protection and enhancement of riparian areas must be considered in the same context as hydro-power,
geo-thermal heating,recycling,energy conservation techniques,auto-disencentives,acid precipitation,green
building-systems, wilderness areas, mass-transportation systems and many other conservation program if
we,j as a generation, are going to be able to leave a better,safer and more beautiful environment to future
generations. This, my friends, must be our legacy.
Prase seriously, CO Sider my request in regard to Our trail systems ... p1oiect and enhance our most
't'�� important riparian habitats.
/s( 'm enclosing five (5) programs and registration forms for our 1992 AIA Centennial Conference for your
(j�, formation ... Please attend!
Thanking you for your consideration of my remarks and sending best regards, I remain
Caudill .. ' on Ross & Associates Architects, P.C.
„dir-- .4idrif Samuel .. G&W' FAIA
Chair . n of the Board of Directors
:AUDILL GUSTAFSON ROSS & ASSOCIATES P „-
�� , � P l_:. P.O. BOX FF
ASPEN.
COLORADO 81 612 303-925-3393
mow^,�1 M�a{�sa,' r ,• '
.1eSLki?,... "�SFffi$.:m.,...-s�..t:sei_.,a.,aar..:..,t.-e.cr..e_a ,..,.ea., r..:
{ - cr..rar rsm:;=^aa, x .ar'.aire, 4
1110
aee4
_ . er a-rx2"--q Pa44-‘z 6-efrf,
q2eI /47 vo-, ez-zer--e
674 _Tiee,
9eLe e -ew
ne_zee
. •
:•
, • • _ e2'"
a /e m-exied,
ice itee-Lp
• ozadtp.40.- -/Ae2---Le .
zu,:e:,M_ 74, • a-)72--er
•
ar L1- ( (-4eA
/ezit-o ,
•
•
• Aheek •
•
•
•
•
•
, •
w �
1L
411 410
4 t
September 17, 1992
r.'
Patrick Duffield •
Aspen Parks Department
130 S. Galena Street
The -
Aspen, CO 81611
"$ Parks RE: 1010. Ute Trail
Assoaation
Dear 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
}iresenation ofparks 'discussed, at some length at our February 12, 1992- meeting,
trails and,' tpen space wen Mr. 'George Robinson of your, department. "presented the
in.the Roaring Fork.1-status-of"planning for the trail. It was discussed again at
ti'alle°v. _ - . 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
,>ork 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 end
is subject to spring flooding. In addition, several
encroachments along this proposed alignment would. require
numerous detours projecting the trail even closer to the
P.O. Box 940 r S
Aspen,Coidag0�'I$l2\r.vT`ERs\ ASPEN PARRS
303-920-3806
•
Patrick Duffield
• September 17, 1992
. Page 3
e**- 1
, •
Thank you for considering these comments.
Very truly yours,
The , THE PITKIN COUNTY PARKS ASSOCIATION
Parks ,
Association
By:
Hal Clarks .Executive. Directo-r
Committed to the By: FA C.CtUi a ,sks,
preservanOn of parks, Fredekick F. Peirce, ' PédEi
trails and open space
in the Roaring Fotk
Valley.
FFP/sls
cc: Amy Margerumc City Manager
•
P.O. Box 940
Aspen,ColoLSOitil ASPEN PARKS
303-920-3806
• •
1
.
i
3 1010 UTE TRAIL RECOMMENDATIONS
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
a '` r. RIVER ) AND THE NEW TRAIL BRIDGE ACROSS THE RIVER. FUNDING
• .- y HAS BEEN ALLOCATED BY THE CITY AND CONSTRUCTION' IS
• SCHEDULED FOR SUMMER 1992.
The - NEGO'PIATIONS WITH ADJACENT LANDOWNERS TO MOVE THE SOUTH
Parks TRAIL TO THE EAST SIDE OF THE RIVER TO AVOID. SERIOUS
i. TERRAIN AJD RIPARIAN CONSTRAINTS HAVE FAILED. .
Assoaation " -. .. ..
THE MAJOR 'P`LANNING 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 T
(■zminitted to the
pre.tri tionofparks, • JOHN DOkE==4US EXPRESSED SU'P-PORT FOR LIMITING THE"TRAIL TO 2 '
trails and open.spa ALONG THE RIVER. .
in the Roaring Fork
. Valley. FRITZ INQUIRED AS TO WHETHER A TIME LIMIT EXISTS FOR USE OF
THE FUNDS PLEDGED BY THE 1`010 UTE DEVELOPERS FOR THE TRAIL?.
GEORGE ROBINSON ANSWERED -A QUALIFIED "YES" , BY THIS SUMMER.
HOWIE MALLORY ASKED AS TO THE APPROXIMATE COST OF THE
- BR1DGE° A,ND TRAILS. GEORGE a"EPLIED THAT HE HAD NOT` RECEIVED
ANY BIDS AS .11-0 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
£JD 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
MAROLT 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-q20-3806
• •
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 walking bridge located on the Roaring Fork
River at Pitkin Reserve Subdivision and the Meadows Subdivision. 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, 199 .
Sincerely,
Patrick Du ld
City of Aspen Parks Dept.
cc: George Robinson
Gary Lacy
ATTACHMENT 1
v USE APPLIG TION FUF3�1(
1) Project Name Grindley Bridge
2) Project Location Lot 8 Pitkin Reserve Subdivision to Lot 4 Meadows Subdivision
(indicate street acidness, lot & block number, legal description where
appropri::te)
3) Present Zoning Floodplain 4) Lot Size N/A
5) Applicant's Name, Address & Phone # City. of Aspen-Parks Department .
1
130 S. Galena 'St., Aspen, Colorado 81611 920--5120 . •
6) Representative's Name, Address & Phone # Gary Lary, 485 .Arapahoe, Boulder,
Colorado 80302 440-9268
7) Type of Application (please checdk all that apply) :
Conditional Use Conceptual SPA Conceptual Historic Dev.
Special Review Final SPA Final Historic Dev.
8040 Greenline Cbnceptual PUD Minor Historic Des/.
x Stream Margin Final lul) Historic Demolition
Mountain View Plane Subdivision Historic Designation'
Opndcani nitm►i zat.ion Text/Map Amendment GM QS Allotment •
Lot Split/Lot Line Q?,ZS motion
Adjustment nt •
8) Description of Existing Uses (rnmrber and type of existing rrg stares;
approximate sq. ft.; n.nnber of bedrooms; 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.
ff.f
10) Have you attached the following? •
Response to Attachment 2, Minimum Submission Contents
Response to Attachment 3, Specific Submission Oantents
x Response to Attachment 4, Review Standards for Your Application
. •
. _
Responses to Attachment 4 for Pedestrian Bridge:
Roaring Fork River at Pitkin Reserve Subdivision
and the Meadows Subdivision
Review Standards: Development in Stream Margin
1. The proposed replacement of the pedestrian walking 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.
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. No permits are anticipated to be required for work on this project.
• '
• : Ilk -......
: s
---- ------ie* -----------":7------------- .--.7-----------.__ 4400001.: •
_ _ •
•
•
"---
_
4- ...___ _...
.4.‘e
-.- --..___— _--------- _"c -
. _,
4% I:.._
-----''•-;---"-7---------
,..„ ••• II 1 17.-
-. .--------.— ,
■ 0 •
_ _ _ . ,
—.---__..........._.. ..._.
7
•
:,,
, illI i
__._
......._--7 ___ _ .--- .
, „ •
. •_
_ il
i ____
.__.
` , -• •
_____, • : __.
_
—_ ,! , .) ....N.
,
,
-- .)
=. •__ ,
--- , . .
,
,
t ',/,-• 7 . -- -- . /
- ---
.._..
, __,,
) 1
.,
_ ‘
___ • _
:ir-,.... NO
---- 1 i
•.
I I i ---,----
__"----
. 4
,.
,-- • • i;1 ,
1,•./
0 i
,
■ '
..--—--..-----
.---,---.-_—.—
''‘ ,01.." ,■..'--- -.'"'". . Ao, 4. g. Nil
\‘......4_{.. „-.. ... . ,.
•1•14. ••
Niallp/Atty: Ilin
IIIW —_____----
:••••••'
1 1
11' III!
..) mow
. r •
_.._
it ...• .
24.7\ _....,yiri . ... sminlii
, .. .-- ,. -,,.I__!!I. 1.1.4hilli . ...., _,..11
.....in .
ii
- ...—
/
- —-- .!
• Y ' ! '
,
•
, min im,.. ___ __: _ ____ ____,____—
Op 1
7 , .
,N.., i . 110
„III, Noir. --=------ ---'--. -
1 0
:.
■--- .1
• ______
ii : !.. .
.,,;, :,• . mu
.•
r .
&I s
&!
.=-_-_—
F I
=.-------7 • i/ 1 ; I •, _.,s
•'' *-----
,... _._____ —
'WI 1
-------..- —
---__.---
-- ...
.1—________:._-=
.:< '.,. •\i'N i S. .0.16.
--..—_
- ---.
------
---
---
i .... .
c-,--
---.=
e I
1 11111111 _____ _. -____ ---=------
p _
--
g ., .......1.-Inidis .rip
................„ -
__.
--
1.1 r-- 4” • --,.. .-.,.-- .■
.•_.:_,____--,_._,___
172
1.) ••
"4 ve, 3-7Ls ii) . ...21., 0.„,..4P-- . ---• ,.-,4,-;'-:: , -:. - ' •- , -
--
g x- •erlI .... - .11'"1 . 01, 'ilt• — 1 .0 a
-- -
lifilirt III ihi . '1! I
. '-'' • ' Ill!il' ' .'s. :. Li. :, .,
!i•;•
: •,,' 4''
.,•:!
_---
i g
---
*' . ..rps ,.. 1; .00....i.iii•i!iiiil N: i! p.. • •i!,1:i.!., ‘,,,,.
- Rli I : 1
1 • ,,,, I •'• . ..1, ,•:,,
, •
I!. il!!!' I il :;;,'".
:-_-_-= q-• ' ,; •' '1: 1•1'
ili: .1 Ili. • •, 1 .1 .. • , "
,I.1:: 1 • - • i
• I..,
__.
N. . '
IQ
11 l':!:1 I I; •. : ! I: 1:
• 1 II 1 ' r of! 1 • ..
:.-:._-
/ .
:
, \
. \\
11: Hi.i.' II : • .d '''.." .....v., . •I .:
---
N) • " . .1 . ..,I I. •
.__
L..!1..L 1
b IV- i
,Iii.•; HI': i i ./ \ '
e
Ill•' ': l• s \..•
k'
. _
. t
... : : •••••••••••••, • .
I la!il I ';■ liY
__--.
0,1v
i;ta. I . . •, ...
••
i 8:
Ilk ! it ' IllITIMI I II 7
' TI Her
•
..• ,
I rii '1 : II. 0
.. . •: 4:
•
—, •
i 1 "I
r 1. 1,
, 1 .•
!ill II
. ,,,..
_yogi
11.11 11:111111 1
.i../
;1 •,1 1 1 I ,r
I • 1
1
1 !:.11 !Ii /
1 • :;: ii /
......
,,• 1111
. 4..... . . I 0 ........, .....1 ..
1- . ;ohs._ . ,
„: ,., .6. _ ,.. .. I
' •.'h'.."14........,...::: : .• 1 111110_ I
ii oli., II : ......__...„_
illi ,:.17-1
..,
__..._
•
,. .._ . _... .... . .... .
_...
.• :
. .
. ..
i 0 --
0— o
sa a � 3 kit
N-
ri
. ! 00 0 t„ ta
, 0,4.. ,„
Q
cr i . \ o
k Vi.g' I n v1 z c O m I C 5
""'"t3
d
a. CO d ov
9
L 1t1
1,
I 7 .
1
a
, k.1
v IN
/ 1\ 0,13 8
cct2
/ ' •.T 3 S
d •x24
ILI
d 4 _i
0
I.
• '
•
N
•fl) >,h— 4)••-• til
,L.ii
x P � d
0 "3 4-+ 4:14 5
0
C = 3 L
iff
CA
2
o a
Ei
r-12
/
.;3 t
Ell- sh
s
6-P 7 /
M
. 'n'grnpripi ,rnnp
i 40 4 o o` .
`o � I
C7 i V
co Q Cc/
/ // Q
x O _
O ei
/1/ 7 /
c T. d/ /
N r- n. '
V \ 1 ` �
1 1
1
!1/ —191
• f •
l'®
� .
CITY PEN
,.��� �'' `'
13 „ et
303-'ir,!f `'���•' �� rney
31 416',,,
June 2 , 1992
Ms. Leslie Lamont
Planning Department
Aspen City Hall
Aspen, Colorado
Re: City of Aspen' s Stream Margin Review Application for Meadows
Lot 4
Dear Leslie:
At the request of the Parks Department, this is to notify you and
confirm that the City is the fee simple owner of Lot 4 , Aspen
Meadows Subdivision (see Special Warranty Deed at Book 667 , Page
864) .
I hope this information is sufficient for purposes of processing
the City' s stream margin review application.
Very truly yours,
Edward M. Caswall
City Attorney
EMC/mc
jc62 . 1
cc: -%War s•:Deoartmen
*. recycled paper
Ilt
Pitkin County
August 26, 1992
Mr. Patrick Duffield
City of Aspen Parks Department
•
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: PICNIC POINT AND GRINDLEY BRIDGES
Dear Patrick;
Please accept this letter as formal permission by Pitkin County,
owner of what is known as Lot 8 of the Pitkin Reserve Subdivision,
to the City of Aspen to proceed on the submission of a land use
application for two footbridges across the Roaring Fork River. The
bridges have come to be known as the Grindley and Picnic Point
bridges, and will connect the Rio Grande Trail to newly acquired
City open space on the south side of the Roaring Fork River.
I have reviewed the specific sites for the bridges in the field
with you and understand that the County' s property will be required
for both placement of and access to the proposed bridges. From
our discussions concerning this matter, I further understand that
the City agrees upon the following regarding the bridges:
1) If placement of the bridges are approved, the City agrees to
obtain a Trail Easement from the County similar to the draft
document enclosed with this letter for both bridges;
2) 0 This letter in no way binds the County to the contribution of
any funding, equipment or staff time for construction, repair
or maintenance of the bridges. However, this letter does not
preclude the City from approaching the County in the future
concerning contribution to these community projects.
I hope this letter is satisfies your requirements regarding the
pending land use submission. Please contact me if you have any
questions.
Administration , County Commissioners County Attorney : Personnel and Finance. Transportation-
530 E.Main,3rd Floor Suite B - Suite I Suite F Facilities"
Aspen,CO 81611 , 506 E.Main Street . '530 E.Main Street - 530 E.Main Street - 76 Service Center Road .=
(303)920-5200 Aspen,CO 81611 ;,, .Aspen,CO 81611 - :Aspen,CO 81611. 0 Aspen,CO 81611,
FAX 920-5198 ,(303)920-5150 (303)920-5190 (303)920-5220.iz - (303)920-5390
• printed on recycled paper 0;;=-
11)
TRAIL EASEMENT
THIS GRANT OF EASEMENT is made and entered into by the County
of Pitkin, Colorado, a political subdivision, 506 East Main Street,
Aspen, Colorado (Grantor) , and the City of Aspen, a municipal
corporation, 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado (Grantee) .
WHEREAS, Grantor is the owner of a certain parcel of land
located within the City of Aspen, Colorado, described in Book 477,
at Page 644 in the Records of Pitkin County, Colorado, known as Lot
8 of the Pitkin Reserve Subdivision; and,
WHEREAS, Grantee desires to obtain a. perpetual easement over,
under and across Grantor' s parcel for the construction,
installation, maintenance and public use of a foot trail and bridge
over the Roaring Fork River.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual
covenants and obligations contained herein and the payment by
Grantee of Ten Dollars ($10. 00) , the receipt and sufficiency of
which is hereby acknowledged by Grantor, Grantor does hereby grant,
sell, and convey to Grantee a perpetual easement to construct,
install, maintain, repair, remove, replace and open to the public
use a trail easement along and across the Easement Premises
situated on Grantor's parcel as described above, and more
particularly described as follows:
A strip twenty "(20) feet in width over, under and .across
the Grantor' s parcel centered on and extended ten (10) '
feet either side of a trail centerline to be determined
in the field, in such a manner that at all angle points
along the centerline, and at the point of beginning to
the point of terminus, the exterior boundary lines of the
strip shall lengthen or shorten as necessary to form a
continuous strip exactly twenty feet in width. Said trail
and bridge shall follow generally as depicted on the Map
of the Pitkin County Trail Easement attached hereto and
incorporated herein as Exhibit "A" . The Grantee shall
be responsible for surveying the centerline of the
completed trail and bridge and record said survey with
the Clerk and Recorders Office. - _ -
Grantee shall have all other rights and benefits necessary or
convenient for the full use of the rights granted herein,
including, but not limited to, full rights of ingress and egress
over and across the property to and from the easement. However,
Grantee acknowledges that any said portion of the Easement Premises
and Easement as granted herein may be once again utilized by the
County for transportation purposes, and any improvements placed -
within the easement may be removed or replaced by the County at any
time to facilitate transportation use of the property. Grantee
further acknowledges that the grant of easement as provided shall
not ; unduly interfere or disturb the rights, use and occupancy
granted to the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District or the. City
•
•
ti
of Aspen in the Easement Premises.
Grantee's trail and all associated facilities, including the
bridge, shall be constructed, installed, maintained, and operated
in a safe and workmanlike manner and in such a way as to avoid
damage to Grantor's property or to the surface, trees, shrubs, or
other vegetation caused by the installation, repair, removal or
maintenance of the trail. In the event that damage to Grantor' s
property or to the surface, trees, shrubs, or other vegetation is
caused by the installation, repair, removal or maintenance of the
trail, the attendant facilities shall be restored or replaced by
Grantee to the satisfaction of Grantor. Grantee further agrees to
obtain all applicable permits and approvals for construction of the
trail, including local land use approvals, local development within
a known floodplain permits, applicable state permits (Fugitive Dust
Permit) and applicable federal permits (U. S. Army Corps 404
Permits) prior to initiation of any work within the Easement
Premises.
Grantee, within its legal ability to do so under the
Constitution of the State of Colorado and it home-rule charter and
without any way or manner intending to waive or waiving the
defenses or limitations on damages provided for under and pursuant
to the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act (Sub-section 24-10-101
et seq. , C.R.S. ) , the Colorado Constitution, its home-rule charter
or under the common law or the laws of the United. States or the
State of Colorado, shall indemnify and hold harmless the Grantor
against any and all damages which are recovered under the Colorado
Governmental Immunity Act and reduced to final judgement in a court
of competent jurisdiction by reason of negligent act or omission
by Grantee, it agents, officers, or employees, in connection with
this easement.
Grantor warrants and agrees to defend the title to the
Easement Premises as conveyed herein.
Grantee will in no way hinder or prevent the proper and
reasonable use and enjoyment of the property through which this
easement is granted and Grantor shall enjoy, full use of the
Easement Premises so long as such use does not interfere with the
installation, maintenance and use of the Grantee' s trail. Grantor
reserves the ability to relocate the trail easement and trail to
another portion of the property or to adjacent properties if
required by any future use proposed for the property. Grantor
shall have the sole ability to determine that such a relocation is -
necessary and will conduct said relocation at it ' s sole expense.
This grant of easement shall run with the -land and shall be .
binding on and shall inure to the benefit of the parties to this
agreement and their respective successors or assigns.
The perpetual easement shall only expire upon abandonment of
the trail located within the easement by Grantee pursuant to a
formal resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen
•r` • C } Y
410
•
abandoning said trail and vacating the easement.
The parties further agree that, if necessary, Grantor will
reconvey by correction deed the rights granted herein when an as-
built centerline description is prepared at the completion of all
of the construction and installation as described herein. Grantee
agrees to pay all costs required for developing said as-built trail
centerline description, if necessary. Grantor shall be responsible
for paying all costs related to reconveyance of the rights granted
herein if. the trail and easement are relocatedon the Grantor's
behalf.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor and Grantee have affixed their
duly authorized signatures on the dates as specified below.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
PITKIN' COUNTY, COLORADO
By:
Title:
Date:
ATTEST:
THE CITY OF ASPEN
By:
Title:
Date:
ATTEST:
}
t
Recorded at •click M.
Reception No. ;f ..cor rlrI ra(JE J'.4
i THiS DEED,Made this r day of N"i k,Vr ,19 Yi m Q%
I between PITKIN LTD. -1
•3 u -< -1�
II
W I
la ).-1 -J 1
u a corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of w m ' J il
o v d i the State i f Colorado,of the first part,and COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLOR O m 1
V) a P .L X1 • 1I
•r1 'b O
a 0 'chose legal address is 506 E. Main Street, Aspen, Colorado 11
tr O of the • County of PITKIN
u; iL c I State of Colorado,of the second part,
co k o WiTNESSETH,That the said party of the first part, fm--arrd-irt-eettsid•ere- .
•� ou o. I -tinnbf-14)4.gw4)4= from a donative intent •
4 v -D0-1. , i i
3 I 'trrte said lrsrty-et ate-€i-rsty�crb-�>aicLa}Lt� ;: afthe-seror*drmt7llte-eeeeii3L- v-liereef-is-trier-eb?:I ed
0) G , T 'CtStdERd-8eewledgeti• hath remised, releasedfse ,
conveyed and QUIT CLAIMED, and by these presents doth
,-1 .G o remise, release se17,agvey and QUIT CLAIM unto the said part y of the second part, its heirs and
Z v r i assigns forever,all the right,title, interest,claim and demand which the said party of the first part hath in and to the
4..) ....1. following'described situate, lying and being in the County
w . u of � P ITKIN and State of Colorado,to wit: •
o w iI
a. ai v !� Lot 8 of The Pitkin Reserve according to the
.1-1 u I Second Amended Plat thereof recorded June 2.5, il
aui w 1984 in Plat Book 16 at Page 15, et seq. , I.
..0 xu o City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado
to GM ii
a) x N NOTE: The parties hereto by their signatures below, and as a condition hereto, I
44-1 ao agree for themselves, their successors, grantees and assigns (a) that the pro- H
v a perty hereby conveyed shall forever be and remain in its present natural state H
.Z i and open space to the exclusion of any improvements or structures of whatsoever (!
nature 'or kind, with the exception of non-vehicular paths and trails; (b) that is
uoo.NO the foregoing limitation shall be deemed a covenant that runs with and burdens ;j
w o the property hereby conveyed for the benefit of any and-all adjacent parcels or d
v ,a O ; property now or hereafter owned by party of the first part, its successors, I
orrao il . grantees and assigns, and (c) that the foregoing limitation shall be specifi- ii
4..i 0 1 cally enforceable by the owner(s) of• the property for whose benefit, as above . .
v ,--1 it provided, this covenant is made, their successors, grantees and assigns, as H
4 ..1 W i
v.. • well as°: the City of Aspen, State of Colorado, which is also an intended bene- • H
a) ,� b ficiary hereof.
o ou
.J o a) I
a H
v b . li
P (1r1-1
o u m
u cd G.
al G atsvkrtowrrrasatieet-a.,d ,umber II
.,-1 G •
-0 M o TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same, together with all and singular the appurtenances and privileges thereunto
Z (11 a) belonging;or in anywise thereunto appertaining,and all the estate,right,title;interest and claim whatsoever,of the said •
•0 k party of the first part,either in law or equity,to the only proper use,benefit and behoof of said part y of the second I
a o i ;'
k q .-) part, its heirs and assigns forever.
a) a)
a1 T iN WITNESS WHEREOF,The said party of the first part hath caused its corporate name to be hereunto subscribed ;;
,-i on P by its Vice President,and its corporate seal to be hereunto affixed,attested by its 'ill''
.d ro p, Secretary',the day and year first above written. I'
I,.
•A4tMThis deed and particularly the open :j•a) O P I space covenant set forth above is accepted ,.
., it _ • P,ITKIN LTD. , a Colorado corporation Ii
o s_ ;
N N w 1 COUNTY ;O. ZKIN, ST T OF LO} fS�rY' 'i
X 7 o // / f/r�nv o /
j7 , ur /' '�SY' r'1CC President. 1 I •
w G a)
II
-o-ai 7:1 , } .STATE OF COLORADO A E :
4 ss. J
v PITKIN
e' n I ,,n„,It,., County of Re •ert W. Hugh-s, Secr z tary
.
da of / fi/11 li
ro � •� L.j(Tlie fTor^egVip�(instrument was acknowledged before me this day
O 1 `: OIMi r�
u -b a ; •19Y` • � (ICHARb- A. KNEZEVICH as Vice President.and .
a) a) _
o v -o i-.. `.., �O C L\ 1�OBP�R.T W. HUGHES as Secretary of '
m 6 1 PITKpd 1LieY°a Colorado corporation. 11
- a) 1 e. c a corporation. i
,�f��r�
�� p .i I My notaiSal'co'inmission expires ��
m au) m Witness my hand and official seal. ;j •
-r-i co ro I All /
H cd N — —Notary Public.
i i
/
No.108-B.:QUITCLAIM.DEED.—Corporation Form-Bradford Publishing Co.,Denver,Colorado—11-79 J