HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.rz.Berger 835 W Main St.A69-91BERGER REZONING
2735-123-00-019 A69-91
ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 920.5090
LAND USE APPLICATION FEES
City
00113
-63250-134
GMP/CONCEPTUAL
-63270-136
GMP/FINAL
-63280-137
SUB/CONCEPTUAL
-63300-139
SUB/FINAL
-63310-140
ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS
-63320-141
ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS/
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
REFERRAL FEES:
00125
-63340-205
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
00123
-63340-190
HOUSING
00115
-63340-163
ENGINEERING
SUBTOTAL
County
00113
-63160-126
GMP/GENERAL
-63170-127
GMP/DETAILED
-63180-128
GMP/FINAL
-63190-129
SUB/GENERAL
-63200-130
SUB/DETAILED
-63210-131
SUB/FINAL
-63220-132
ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS
-63230-133
ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
-63450-146
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
REFERRAL FEES:
00125-63340-205
00123-63340-190
00113-63360-143
PLANNING OFFICE SALES
00113-63080-122
-63090-123
-63140-124
-69000-145
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
HOUSING
ENGINEERING
CITY/COUNTY CODE
COMP. PLAN
COPYFEES
OTHER
\ 'p) , &�/--
Name;
Address:_ �Z
Check #�>>
Copies received:
SUBTOTAL
TOTAL
Phone.
Project: c �;
Date: /> -s - 9 Z
#of Hours:
CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
City of Aspen
DATE RECEIVED: 12-5-91 PARCEL ID AND CASE NO.
DATE COMPLETE: 2735-123-00-019 A69-91
STAFF MEMBER: K
PROJECT NAME: Berger Rezoning
Project Address: 835 West Main Street
Legal Address:_ 512, T10S, R85W
APPLICANT: Bruce Berger 925-1647
Applicant Address: P.O. Box 482, Aspen, CO 81612
REPRESENTATIVE: Scott Harper
Representative Address/Phone: 201 North Mill Street, Suite 203
Aspen, Co 81611 925-8700
---------------------------------
---------------------------------------
PAID:(YES) NO AMOUNT: $1690 NO. OF COPIES RECEIVED 2/0
TYPE OF APPLICATION: 1 STEP:
2
STEP: X
P&Z Meeting Date IT1
PUBLIC
HEARING:
YE NO
VESTED
RIGHTS:
YES NO
?
CC Meeting Date
PUBLIC
HEARING:
YES NO
VESTED
RIGHTS:
YES NO
Planning Director Approval:
Paid:
Insubstantial Amendment
or Exemption:
Date:
-------------------------------------------------------
REFERRALS:
City Attorney
Mtn Bell
School District
City Engineer
Parks Dept.
Rocky Mtn NatGas
Housing Dir.
Holy Cross
State HwyDept(GW)
Aspen Water
Fire Marshall
State HwyDept(GJ)
City Electric
Building Inspector
Envir.Hlth.
Roaring Fork
Other
Aspen Con.S.D.
Energy Center
DATE REFERRED: /`3' INITIALS• ��-
FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: INITIAL:
City Atty City Engineer Zoning Env. Health
Housing Other:
FILE STATUS AND LOCATION:
March 15, 1995
Mr. Chuck Roth
Engineering Department
The City of Aspen
120 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Mr. Roth:
Thank you for your letter dated February 28, 1995. I believe I understand your request and as
I do, I am in agreement.
I acknowledge that I am required under the approvals for the residence and ADU located at 312
Gillespie to provide all parking for those residences on my property and not in the public right-
of-way.
I also understand and agree that I am required to maintain the three parking spaces as required
from time to time to provide parking for cars using that property.
I hope, this is what you needed. Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Bruce Berger
BB/pwl
Legal Description: Lot 0 Westerly, Easterly Track'
1
MAR 1 11995
�FR
960 CHMKEE. DENVER C0 80204 -- 1- _1-1
crit ;,!'-ERK
l3r,
ASS 81
PETITION FOR ANNEXATION
COMES NOW LANDOWNER B. N. BERGER this U s day of October,
1991, and Petitions the City of Aspen, Colorado for an Annexation
of that certain parcel of land as more fully described on
Exhibit "A" (attached hereto) and on the B.N. Berger Annexation
Map, filed herewith, states as follows:
1. It is desirable and necessary that the B. N. Berger parcel
be annexed to the City of Aspen.
2. The requirements of Sections 31-12-104 and 31-12-105
Colorado Revised Statutes exist or have been met.
3. The signer of this petition is the landowner of one
hundred percent of the territory included in the area proposed to
be annexed, exclusive of streets and alleys.
4. Petitioner requests that the City of Aspen approve the
proposed annexation by ordinance as permitted by Section 31-12-107
(1)(g) Colorado Revised Statutes when one hundred percent of the
owners of the area have petitioned for such annexation.
5. The full legal description of the proposed area of
annexation is set forth on Exhibit "A", attached hereto.
6. The mailing address of the owner of the proposed area of
annexation is:
B.N. Berger
P.O. Box 482
Aspen, Colorado 81612
7. Accompanying this petition are four copies of the
annexation map containing the following information:
.�
a. A written legal description of the boundaries of the
proposed area of annexation.
b. A map showing the boundary of the proposed area of
annexation.
c. Within the annexation map, a showing of the location
each ownership tract in unplatted land.
d. A drawing of the contiguous boundary of the City of
Aspen to the proposed area of annexation.
I
Petitioner: BM. Berger (Date)
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of October,
1991 by B.N. Berger.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
My commission expires:
Notary Public
berger\05
bnberger/002
J
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
A parcel of land in Section 12, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of
the Sixth Principal Meridian, Pitkin County, Colorado, more
particularly described as follows:
Beginning at corner no. 7 of Aspen Townsite, being the same as
corner no. 1 of the B. N. Berger Annexation;
Thence N07°38'E 24.45 feet to corner no. 2;
Thence N74°30'W 245.85 feet to corner no. 3;
Thence S37°501E 314.72 feet to corner no. 4;
Thence S83°311E to corner no. 5, the intersection with a line drawn
parallel with and distant 15.00 feet north easterly at right angles
from a line bearing S74°301E from said corner no. 4;
Thence S74°301E to corner no. 6, the intersection with a line
bearing N15°30'E from a point which is S74°30'E 250.00 feet from
said corner no. 4;
Thence N15°301E to corner no. 7, the intersection with the
northerly line of Block 13 of the City of Aspen;
Thence westerly along said northerly line to corner no. 8, the
intersection with a line bearing S55°161E from corner no. 7 of
Aspen Townsite;
Thence N550161W to the point of beginning;
Excepting therefrom any portion of Block 13 of the City of Aspen.
bnberger\001
EXHIBIT "A"
•
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Reid Haughey, County Manager
FROM: Diane Moore, City Planning Director
RE: Berger Annexation
DATE: January 30, 1992
I wanted to provide _you with an update regarding the proposed
Berger annexation into the City of Aspen. Mr. Berger filed an
annexation petition with the City Clerk on October 22, 1991,
seeking to have his property annexed into the City of Aspen. The
property is located at the west terminus of Main Street. It abuts
Castle Creek where the state highway department plans to construct
the bridge for Highway 82 into the City of Aspen.
The City Attorney's office and the City Engineer have determined
that the petition complies with the technical requirements for a
petition pursuant to state annexation laws. In accordance with
state law, the City Council (at their January 13, 1992 Council
meeting) set the date for the public hearing, which will determine
if the annexation complies with Section 31-12-105, C.R.S. (see
attached), and this date is February 24, 1992.
Section 31-12-105, C.R.S. sets forth certain limitations upon
annexations. It would appear that none of the limitations in the
statute apply to this annexation (limitations on dividing land held
in identical ownership, commencement of annexation proceedings for
annexation to other municipalities, detachment of area from school
district, prohibition against extending city limits beyond three
miles in a single year, and requirement that entire widths of
streets be made a part of the annexed area). Nonetheless, a
hearing must be held by Council to make those specific findings.
Before this parcel can be annexed into the City, the following
steps must take place:
a) A hearing before Council to determine compliance with Section
31-12-105, C.R.S., as described above. The hearing date is
February 24, 1992.
b) An annexation agreement needs to be negotiated with the
petitioner relative to City services to be supplied to the
annexed property.
Once the above steps are completed, an ordinance would be presented
to Council to formally annex the area into the City and this would
require both first and second reading of the ordinance. The second
reading of the ordinance is when the public hearing is scheduled
before the Council. These dates have not been scheduled but it is
likely that first reading of the annexation ordinance would be
sometime in March with the second reading (public hearing) in April
of 1992.
It is my understanding that the City Council could deny the
annexation request if they choose not to extend the City
boundaries. Planning staff has requested further clarification
from the City Attorney's office.
The County has expressed concerns regarding the annexation of the
parcel into the City and the appropriate time to raise those
concerns would be during the adoption of the ordinance formally
annexing the area into the city.
It should be noted that state annexation laws requires that the
underlying zoning shall be established within 90 days of the
annexation. A public hearing has been set before the Planning and
Zoning Commission on Tuesday, March 17, 1992.
The applicant has also requested Landmark Designation for the
parcel and this process will begin once Mr. Berger's property has
been formally annexed by City Council (see attached letter to Scott
Harper). If Mr. Berger's property is annexed by City Council,
staff will proceed to set the public hearings with Historic
Preservation Committee, P&Z, and City Council as code provides.
If you have any questions, please give me a call.
CC: Amy Margerum, City Manager
Kim Johnson, Planning
Suzanne Konchan, Planning
•
3 1- 12-105 Government - Municipal
the annexed territory. since the statute con-
tains no such restriction. Board of Count
Comm'rs v. Cite & Count\ of Denver. 37
Colo. App. 395. 548 P.2d 922 (1976).
Legal description held to be in substantial
compliance with the requirements of this
section. Slack \. Ot% of Colorado Springs. 655
P.2d 376 (Colo. 1982).
Effect of ditch. The statutory requirement of
configuit\ is satisfied where part of the area to
be annexed is bounded by a ditch. the east side
of which is contiguous to the cite. Rice \. Cit\
of Englewood. 147 Colo. 33. 362 P.2d 557
(1961).
Contiguity basis for finding of community of
interest. With respect to the matters of com-
munity of interest. that the territory is urban
or will be urbanized in the near future, and
that the territon is integrated or capable of
being integrated into the cite. subsection (1)(a)
of this section provides that the fact that the
territon has the contiguit\ with the annexing
municipalif\ required b\ this article shall be a
basis for a finding of compliance. and where
there wa!, a requisite continuit\. the court
erred in its criticism of the findings of the cite
council. Breternitz \. Clt) of Arvada. 174
Colo. S6. 482 P.2d 955 (1971 ).
ContiguitN. requirement not met A here fed-
eral land intenened between town and the pro-
posed annexation and consent was nut
obtained from federal agency to divide that
tract from the rest of the federal lances.
Caroselli v. Town of Fail. 706 P.2d I (Cole.
App. 1985).
31-12-105. Limitations. (1) Notwithstanding any provisions of this part
1 to the contrary, the following limitations shall apple to all annexations:
(a) In establishing the boundaries of any territory to be annexed. no land
held in identical ownership. whether consisting of one tract or parcel of real
estate or two or more contiguous tracts or parcels of real estate. shall be
divided into separate parts or parcels without the written consent of the land-
owners thereof unless such tracts or parcels are separated by a dedicated
street. road. or other public way.
(b) In establishing the boundarics of any area proposed to be annexed.
no land held in identical ownership. whether consisting of one tract or parcel
of real estate or two or more contiguous tracts or parcels of real estate. com-
prising twenty acres or more (which. together with the buildings and
improvements situated thereon has a valuation for assessment in excess of
two hundred thousand dollars for ad valorem tag. purposes for the year next
preceding the annexation) shall be included und:r this part 1 'without the
written consent of the landowners unless such tract of land is situated entirely
within the outer boundaries of the annexing municipality as they exist at
the time of annexation. In the application of this paragraph (b). contiguit\
shall not be affected b\ a dedicated street. road. or other public wa\ .
(c) No annexation resolution pursuant to section 31-12-106 and no
annexation petition or petition for an annexation election pursuant to section
31-12-10 % shall be valid when annexation proceedings have been commenced
for the annexation of part or all of such territor\ to another municipality.
except in accordance with the provisions of section 31-12-11 +. For the pur-
pose of this section. proceedings are commenced when the petition is filed
with the clerk of the annexing municipality or when the resolution of intent
is adopted by the governing bode of the annexing municipality if action on
the acceptance of such petition or on the resolution of intent b\ the setting
of the hearing in accordance with section 31-12-108 is taken 'within ninety
days after the said filings if an annexation procedure initiated by petition
for annexation is then completed 'within the one hundred fifty days next
following the effective date of the resolution accepting the petition and
setting the hearing date and if an annexation procedure initiated by resolu-
tion of intent or by petition for an annexation election is prosecuted without
unreasonable de'
ing date.
(d) As to am
any school disiri
no annexation r(
tion or petition
is valid unless a,
school district t(
tion.
Source: R & R
1. General Cot
11. Land Not to
11. Land Comp
V. Annexation
Land.
I. GENERAL t
C.J.S. See 62 C.-
bons. § 46.
Annotator's noie.
lar to former § 31-
repeal and reenactm
antecedent thereto.
those provisions )ta
annotations to this st
A statute is presu
and to be declared u
shown clearl\ to be
Arvada. 174 Colo. 5(
Courts will noire,.,
limitations relating
shapes or patterns o
of Count\ Comm'rs
ver. 37 Colo. App. 3'
Streets. etc- anne
riton. There is no
municipality ma\
highways or by \\ficr
include territory oft.
tion but separated t
pality b\ a public
County Comm'rs .
37 Colo. App_ 395.
A public wa% or a
be utilized as a non(
annexed territon.
no such restriction.
�. Cite & Count\
395. 548 P.-Id 92_
Legal description
compliance with f
section. Slack y. Cit
P.2d 376 (Colo. 19F
II. LAND N(
Written consent r
divided parcel. This
131 Annexation - Consolidation - Disconnection 31-12-105
unreasonable delay after the effective date of the resolution setting the hear-
ing date.
(d) As to any annexation which will result in the detachment of area from
anv school district and the attachment of the same to another school district.
no annexation resolution pursuant to section 31-12-106 or annexation peti-
tion or petition for an annexation election pursuant to section 31-12-107
is valid unless accompanied by a resolution of the board of directors of the
school district to which such area will be attached approving such annexa-
tion.
Source: R & RE. L. 75, p. 1078. § 1.
I. General Consideration.
11. Land Not to be Divided.
Ill. Land Comprising 20 Acres or More.
IV. Annexation of School District's
Land.
I. GENERAL CONSIDERATION.
C.J.S. See 62 U.S.. Municipal Corpora-
tions, § 46.
Annotator's note. Since E 31-12-105 is simi-
lar to former § 31-8-105 prior to the 1975
repeal and reenactment of this title. and laws
antecedent thereto, relevant cases construing
those provisions have been included in the
annotations to this section.
A statute is presumed to be constitutional.
and to be declared unconstitutional it must be
shown clearly to be so. Breternitz v. City of
Arvada. 174 Colo. 56.482 P.2d 955 l 1971 i.
Courts will not read into annexation statutes
limitations relating to unusual or irregular
shapes or patterns of territory annexed. Board
of County Comm'rs y. Cite k County of Den-
ver, 37 Colo. App. 395.548 P.2d 922 (1976).
Streets, etc., annexed in order to include ter-
ritory. There is no legislative intent that a
municipality ma\ annex streets. roads. or
highways onl\ when it is necessary to do so to
include territory otherwise eligible for annexa-
tion but separated from the annexing munici-
pality by a public right-of-way. Board of
County Commis c. City & County of Denver.
37 Colo. App. 395.548 P.2d 922 (1976).
A public wa` or a portion of a public way can
be utilized as a noncontiguous boundary of the
annexed territory. since the statute contains
no such restriction. Board of County Comm'rs
.. Cm & Count\ of Denver. 37 Colo. App.
395, 548 P.2d 922 (1976).
Legal description held to be in substantial
compliance with the requirements of this
section. Slack v. City of Colorado Springs. 055
P.2d 376 (Colo. 1982).
II. LAND NOT TO BE DIVIDED.
Written consent prerequisite to annexation of
divided parcel. This section makes it very clear
that no territory owned by the same owner
shall be divided into separate pans or parcels
without the written consent of the owner
thereof. City & County of Denver \. Board of
Count\ Comm'rs. 151 Colo. 230, 376 P.2d
981 (1962). ,
Division of tract from rest of federal land
requires consent of the United States as owner.
Caroselli v. Town of Vail, 706 P.2d I (Colo.
App. 1985).
Annexation did not effect a separation.
Where the owners of a tract own all of a half -
section. a railroad track passed diagonally
through the northeast corner of this half -
section. it was apparent that the triangular
piece of land lying north and east of the tract;
was physically separated from the larger
parcel, and this piece was not included in the
area proposed of be annexed, assuming that
this was a right -of -wad grant to a railroad by
the congress and therefore it was not a mere
casement but a limited fee with right of exclu-
sive use and possession. as a result. the tri-
angular tract was effectively separated by the
congressional grant and the annexation did
not "separate" the half -section within the
meaning of subsection (I )(a) of this section.
Breternitz v. Cite of Arvada. 174 Colo. 56.482
P.2d 955 (1971).
III. LAND COMPRISING 20 ACRES
OR MORE.
The policy of this enactment is to encourage
natural and well -ordered development of munic-
ipalities, not to discourage it by providing for
last minute maneuvers designed only to defeat
annexation. Pomponio \. Cite of Westmin-
ster. 178 Colo. 80.496 P.2d 999 (1972).
Written consent required. Land held in iden-
tical ownership in excess of 20 acres which,
together with improvements thereon, has an
assessed value in excess of $200.000 for the
year next preceding the annexation shall not
be included in a unilateral annexation without
the written consent of the owner or owners.
6 ! 27 Annexation - Consolidation - Disconnection 31-12-105
d i 31-12-104. Eligibility for annexation. (1) (a) That not less than one -sixth
of the perimeter of the area proposed to be annexed is contiguous with the
annexing municipality. Contiguity shall not be affected by the existence of
a platted .treet or alley, a public or private right-of-way, a public or private
transportation right-of-way or area, public lands. whether owned by the state.
the United States, or an agency thereof. except county -owned open space.
or a lake, reservoir. stream, or other natural or artificial waterway between
the annexing municipality and the land proposed to be annexed. Subject
to the requirements imposed by section 31-12-105 (1) (e), contiguity may
t be established by the annexation of one or more parcels in a series, which
? annexations may be completed simultaneously and considered together for
the purposes of the public hearing required by sections 31-12-108 and
i 31-12-109 and the annexation impact report required by section 31-12-108.5.
I (2) (a) The contiguity required by paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this
section may not be established by use of anv boundary of an area which
was previously annexed to the annexing municipality if the area, at the time
of its annexation, was not contiguous at an), point with the boundary of
the annexing municipality, and was not otherwise in compliance with para-
graph (a) of subsection (1) of this section, and was located more than three
miles from the nearest boundary of the annexing municipality, nor may such
contiguity be established by use of any boundary of territory which is subse-
quently annexed directly to, or which is indirectly connected through subse-
quent annexations to. such an area.
(b) Because the creation or expansion of disconnected municipal
satellites, which are sought to be prohibited by this subsection (2), violates
both the purposes of this article as expressed in section 31-12-102 and the
limitations of this article, anv annexation which uses any boundary in viola-
tion of this subsection (2) may be declared by a court of competent jurisdic-
tion to be void ab initio in addition to other remedies which may be
provided. The provisions of section 31-12-116 (2) and (4) and section
31-12-117 shall not apply to such an annexation. Judicial review of such
an annexation may be sought by any municipality, having a plan in place
pursuant to section 31-12-105 (1) (e) directly affected by such annexation.
in addition to those described in section 31-12-116 (1). Such review may
! be, but need not be, instituted prior to the effective date of the annexing
I ordinance and may. include injunctive relief. Such review shall be brought
' no later than sixty days after the effective date of the annexing ordinance
or shall forever be barred.
(c) Contiguity is hereby declared to be a fundamental element in any
annexation, and this subsection (2) shall not in any way be construed as
haying the effect of legitimizing in any way any noncontiguous annexation.
Source: (1)(a) amended, L. 87, p. 1218, § 1, effective May 28; (2) added,
L. 91. P. 763, § 1, effective May 15.
31-12-105. Limitations. (1) (e) Except as otherwise provided in this
paragraph (e), no annexation may take place which would have the effect
of extending a municipal boundary more than three miles in any direction
from any point of such municipal boundary in any one year. Within said
three-mile area, the contiguity required by section 31-12-104 (1) (a) may be
`{
31-12-106 Government - Municipal 28
►)
achieved by annexing a platted street or alley, a public or private Iright-of-
way,j. a or
public private transportation right-of-way or area. or a lake,ser-
voir, stream, or other natural or artificial waterway. Prior to completion of
any annexation within the three-mile area, the municipality shall have in
place a plan for that area, which generally describes the proposed location,
character, and extent of streets, subways. bridges, waterways, waterfronts,
parkways, playgrounds, squares, parks, aviation fields, other public ways,
grounds, open spaces, public utilities, and terminals for water, light, sanita-
tion, transportation, and power to be provided by the municipality and the
.:
proposed land uses for the area. Such plan shall be updated at least once
i
'
annually. Such three-mile limit may be exceeded if such limit would have
the effect of dividing a parcel of properly held in identical ownership if at
least fifty percent of the propenv is within the three-mile limit. In such event,
the entire properly held in identical ownership may be annexed in any one
year without reeard to such mileage limitation. Such three-mile limit may
also be for
exceeded the annexation of an enterprise zone.
(f) In establishing the boundaries of any area proposed to be annexed.
if a portion of a platted street or alley is annexed, the entire width of said
street or alley shall be included within the area annexed.
(g) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (f) of this subsection (1).
a municipality shall not deny reasonable access to landowners, owner of an
easement, or the owner of a franchise adjoining a platted street or alley which
has been annexed by the municipality but is not bounded on both sides by
the municipality.
Source: Added. L. 87, p. 1218, § 2, effective Max 28.
1. GENERAL CONSIDERATION. Pans 1 and I1". see 17 Cola. Law. 603, (1988).
For article. "ADR Techniques in Municipal
Law reviews. For article. "Annexation: .annexations". sec 18 Colo. Law. 901 (1989).
Toda\'s Gamble for Tomorrow's Gain —
31-12-106. Annexation of enclares, partly surrounded land, and munici-
paliv owned land.
Law reviews. Colo. Law. 603 (1988). For article. ".ADR
For article. "Annexation: Toda%'s Gamble Techniques in Municipal Annexations", see
for Tomorrow's Gain — Pans I and I I", see I ., 18 Colo. Law. 901 (1989).
31-12-107. Petitions for annexation and for annexation elections.
(1) (e) No signature on the petition is valid if it is dated more than one
hundred eighty days prior to the date of filing the petition for annexation
with the clerk. All petitions which substantially comply with the requirements
set forth in paragraphs (b) to (d) of this subsection (1) shall be deemed suffi-
cient. No person signing a petition for annexation shall be permitted to with-
draw his signature from the petition after the petition has been filed with
the clerk, except as such right of withdrawal is otherwise set forth in the
petition.
(g) If the petition is found to be in substantial compliance with this sub-
section (1). the procedure outlined in sections 31-12-108 to 31-12-110 shall
then be followed. If it is not in substantial compliance, no further action
29 Annexati(
shall be taken; except that
by z resolution and excel
of one hundred percent c
streets and alleys, the go'
to the municipality withou
additional terms and cond
such area shall include a
of the area have petitioned
Source: Amended, L. 87,
I. GENERAL CONSIDER
Law reviews,
For anicle. .Annexation: Tod;
for Tomorrow's Gain — Pans 1 at
31-12-108. Setting heal
notice as follows: A copy c
of the signatures) together
given time and place set
hold a hearing upon said
the petition for the purpc
proposed to be annexed
31-12-104 and 31-12-105
notice shall be published
newspaper of general circi
first publication of such n(
of the hearing. The proof c
lion, or the summary there
pleted, and the certificate
in which said notice is pui
then be held as provided
together with a copy of ti
sent by registered mail bN
and to the county attorne
and to any special district
to be annexed at least twer
ing. The notice required t,
by this subsection (2) sha
those rights provided for in
Source: Amended, L. 87,
Law reviews. For article, "A
Today's Gamble for Tommorrov
Pans I and II", see 17 Colo. Law. i
(1988).
31-12-108.5. Annexatio
pality shall prepare an im
•
Aspen/P
130
Asl
(303)
January 23, 1992
•
�r
IJi
g Office
reet
611
920-5197
Mr. Scott Harper
Law Offices of Herbert S. Klein
201 N. Mill St.
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Schedule of Public Hearings'for Underlying and 11H11 Historic
Overlay Zoning, 835 W. Main, Berger
Dear Scott:
We have received your applications for both underlying zoning and
Landmark Designation (11H11 Historic Overlay zoning) on the above
mentioned property. State law requires the underlying zoning to
be established within 90 days of the annexation and we will begin
that process first. A public hearing has been set before the
Planning and Zoning Commission on Tuesday, March 17, 1992, at 4:30
p.m.; Kim Johnson is the assigned staff planner. All zoning will
be subject to annexation by City Council.
The process for Landmark Designation (11H11 Historic Overlay Zoning)
will begin once Mr. Berger's property has been formally annexed by
City Council. City Council must first accept (or deny) the
annexation petition, which is scheduled to occur February 24. If
City Council accepts the petition, it is likely that first reading
of the annexation ordinance will be heard sometime in March, with
final reading and public hearing to follow as early as April. If
Mr. Berger's property is annexed by City Council, we will proceed
to set the public hearings with the Historic Preservation
Committee, P&Z, and City Council as code provides. Planning office
staff will notify you of those dates.
Please feel free to contact us should you have any questions.
Sincerely,
� )T�
ane Moore
City Planning Director
cc: John Worcester, Assistant City Attorney
Amy Margerum, City Manager
recycled paper
r
MESSAGE DISPLAY
TO Kim Johnson
From: Rebecca Baker
Postmark: Apr 09,92 2:45 PM
Subject: Reply to a reply: Berger Annexation
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply text:
From Rebecca Baker:
Thanks Kim. Let me know if anything else needs to be done.
Preceding message:
From Kim Johnson:
John, George is out of town for a week (?). So this cannot be
resolved soon. I mentioned this situation to him yesterday before he
left. He (like myself) was unaware of the process of filing an
annexation agreement and timing of easement recordation pursuant to
same. I pointed out that the Marolt property is across the river and
that the Ped. Plan indicates trails on the Marolt side of the river.
It appeared that he wasn't terribly heartbroken about not getting the
Berger easement. I touched on the trail thing in my memo (want one?)
From John Worcester:
Kim mentioned to me the other day that Parks wants Berger to give the
City a trail easement as a condition of annexation into the City. Do
you know if you really want an easement, and if so where it would go?
Technically, we can enter into an annexation agreement with Berger
which would request the easement. That should have been done at the
beginning of the process and the annexation would be conditioned on
the execution of the easement. I need to know if you know for sure if
you want the easement and the exact location so we can have Berger
sign an easement now. Thanks. :-)
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: BERGER MAP AMENDMENT FOR REZONING TO R-15
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
Tuesday, February 22, 1993 before the Aspen City Council, City
Hall, City Council Chambers, 130 South Galena Street, Aspen to
consider an application submitted by Bruce N. Berger, P. O. Box
482, Aspen, CO, requesting approval of a Map Amendment application
rezoning a property under consideration for annexation into the
City of Aspen to Moderate -Density Residential Zone District (R-
15). The R-15 Zone District permits detached residential
dwellings, duplexes, farm buildings and uses, home occupations and
accessory buildings and uses. The property is located at 835 West
Main Street, between 7th Street and Castle Creek, more specifically
described as a metes and bounds parcel in Section 12, Township 10
South, Range 85 West of the 6th P.M., Pitkin County, CO. For
further information, contact Kim Johnson, Aspen/Pitkin Planning
Office, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (303) 920-5106.
s/John Bennett, Mayor
Aspen City Council
Published in The Aspen Times on February 5, 1993
City of Aspen Account.
� w-n-
,,�
s 1140)
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager
THRU: Diane Moore, City Planning Direct r
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner
DATE: December 14, 1992
RE: Berger Annexation - Continued First Reading of Ordinance
23, Series 1992
SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends approval and first reading
of Ordinance 23, 1992 for the Berger Annexation. The annexation
request is accompanied by a request for rezoning to R-15 which is
being handled by separate memo and ordinance.
BACKGROUND: First reading of this ordinance was opened by City
Council on April 13, 1992 and continued until July 13, 1992 to
allow staff to explore potential conflicts between the Colorado
Department of Transportation's Highway 82 future realignment and
proposed designation of the property as an Historic Landmark.
Please refer to Staff Comments section of this memo for further
discussion of this matter.
On July 13, 1992 staff brought forward that no written statement
could be obtained from CDOT regarding the local landmark
designation's effect on the Highway 82 re -alignment. At that
meeting, Council became concerned that the proposed annexation
might detrimentally affect the outcome of the Transportation Plan
being discussed by representatives of Aspen, Pitkin County and the
Town of Snowmass Village. Council decided to continue first
reading until December 14, 1992 in order to hear the outcome of the
,joint discussions. Please refer to minutes of July 13, 1992,
Exhibit "A"
The applicant is Bruce N. Berger. The 1.16 acre parcel is located
at 835 West Main Street. Please see parcel and vicinity in Exhibit
"B". The metes and bounds description is contained within the
annexation ordinance prepared by the City Attorney's Office.
Current zoning in the County is R-15. Requested zoning is R-15
upon annexation into the City. The current use of the property is
one single family residence of approximately 1,000 square feet.
No change to this use is proposed relative to the rezoning request.
Upon annexation the applicant intends to continue processing a
request for landmark designation for the residence.
1
STAFF COMMENTS: The Planning Office received comments from Parks,
Police, Water, Finance, Engineering, the City Attorney, and Pitkin
County Manager Reid Haughey. Their complete comments are attached
as Exhibit "C". No objections to the proposed annexation have been
raised by the City departments. Very limited impacts to the City
are anticipated. As the subject property is currently served by
City services, an annexation agreement is not required for the
annexation proposal.
Mr. Berger wishes to annex his parcel and apply for the City's
Historical Landmark Designation. The application has been
submitted to the Planning Office and will be considered by the
Historic Preservation Committee, Planning and Zoning Commission and
City Council only after completion of the annexation process.
Regardless of whether or not his residence is approved as an
historic landmark, the Planning Office believes that the parcel
should be annexed into the City. The foremost reason is that the
Berger parcel is surrounded by the city on three sides. Any future
development on the parcel could affect the neighboring city
properties. It seems logical that City zoning regulations should
prevail in order to promote maximum compatibility with the existing
neighborhood. This point was emphasized by the Planning Commission
during its rezoning review of this parcel.
The correspondence received from CDOT and the Colorado Historical
Society dwells on the fact that the Berger cabin is not eligible
for State or National designation. Please refer to Exhibit "D".
The State Attorney General's Office would not comment on whether
or not a local historic designation would hamper the realignment
of Highway 82. The CDOT has indicated verbally that local land use
regulations such as an historic designation will not impact the
highway project. Although the State has not responded directly to
the City's question, staff believes that a local historic
designation would not impact the future highway realignment.
Council's majority opinion on July 13, 1992 was that the Aspen to
Snowmass Transportation Plan discussions between the upper valley
governments would lead Council toward a decision on the Berger
annexation request. However, the Aspen to Snowmass Transportation
Plan panel did not address the highway's entry to Aspen, thus
nothing new can be reported to Council specific to this
annexation's impact on the Aspen to Snowmass Transportation Plan.
Because of the lack of new information, staff continues to
recommend approval of the Berger annexation.
In response to a staff inquiry regarding the City's obligation to
annex territory, Assistant City Attorney John Worcester writes
(Exhibit "C") that the City Council "can accept or reject the
Petition for Annexation for any reason they feel is in the best
interests of the City of Aspen". This is backed by the Supreme
Court of Colorado's statement that "A municipality is under no
legal obligation in the first instance to annex contiguous
territory, and may reject a petition for annexation for no reason
at all."
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Ordinance 23, 1992
for the Berger Annexation.
ALTERNATIVES: Council could elect to continue first reading again.
Council may also reject the annexation for any reason.
PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve first reading of Ordinance 23,
Series 1992 approving the Berger Annexation."
CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS:
Attachments:
Ordinance 23, 1992
Exhibits:
"A" - Minutes of 7/13/92 City Council Meeting
"B" - Map of Proposed Annexation
"C" - Complete Referral Comments
"D" - Letters from CDOT (5/29/92) and Colorado Historical Society
6/18/92
3
Co Council nmbit_,�
Approved , 19
By Ordinance
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 13, 1992
ORDINANCE #23, SERIES OF 1992 - Berger Annexation
Councilman Peters moved to read Ordinance #23, Series of 1992;
seconded by Councilwoman Richards. All in favor, with the
exception of Councilwoman Pendleton. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #23
(Series of 1992)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN
COLORADO APPROVING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO TO BE KNOWN AND DESIGNATED AS
THE BERGER ANNEXATION was read by the city clerk
Kim Johnson, planning office, reminded Council they first discussed
this April 13. Council was concerned the city had not heard
anything definitive from the Department of Transportation regarding
whether annexation and the anticipated historic designation request
would hinder the highway realignment. Ms. Johnson told Council
there have been various conversations with the state, including
the state historical department and DOT. The Attorney General's
office would not commit in writing as requested. The DOT has
indicated verbally that any local land use regulations will not
affect the highway project. Staff recommends approval of annex-
ation.
Jed Caswall, city attorney, told Council his research indicates
that a local designation will not trigger all the federal regula-
tions regarding historic landmark in construction of a highway
wholly or partially funded by federal funds. Caswall said neither
the attorney general's office or CDOT would put this in writing.
Scott Harper, representing the applicant, told Council he received
the same information. The CDOT has no opposition to local
designation.
Mayor Bennett said the Council is working very hard on a transpor-
tation solution that will work for the entire community and to
forge a partnership between all entities in the valley. Mayor
Bennett said he is loathe to put at risk the relationships
developing with the partners.
Bruce Berger said he would like to be annexed so that he can vote
in city elections. Berger pointed out he is surrounded by city
land. Harper said he feels the annexation is in the best interests
of the community. The annexation supports two goals of the
community; to continue annexation of the metropolitan areas and to
develop consistent and fair government. It seems fair this parcel
should be part of the city.
I
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 13 1992
Councilman Reno said this seems to be a timing issue. There would
be a perception this would be a wrench thrown into the transporta-
tion picture. Councilman Reno asked why this annexation request is
coming forth right now. Berger told Council he only recently
learned that houses under 50 years old could apply for historic
designation. When he learned this, he started the annexation
process. At that time, he also found about out survey work that
had to be done. It has taken 3 years to get that survey work done.
Berger said the highway was first proposed in 1969 and this request
would have looked as if this was a motive to stop the highway
anytime in the past 23 years. Berger said he wants to bring it to
everyone's attention that there is a historic structure in this
transportation corridor.
Councilman Peters said the goal of consistent and fair government
is the hardest to live up to. This is a good example. Councilman
Peters said the likelihood Berger's house will be declared a
federal historic landmark is remote. Councilman Peters said this
request is a chance to allow Berger to apply to the HPC and to get
some protection from development around him. Councilman Peters
said he feels this is a legitimate request that has to be honored
no matter how people perceive it.
l Mayor Bennett said Council has the authority to annex or not annex.
Mayor Bennett asked if Council has the same ability to grant or not
to grant historic designation. Jed Caswall, city attorney, said if
he can fit his property within the established guidelines for
designation, Council has limited or no discretion. HPC will
conduct hearings to determine whether the property meets the
guidelines for being on the inventory.
Councilwoman Pendleton said Council has been working with the
county and with Snowmass on the transportation plan. This
outweighs voting in favor of annexation or doing anything that is
perceived to holding up the highway. Councilwoman Pendleton said
when transportation issues get decided, that would be the time to
be annexed. Councilman Reno agreed about the perception of this
and the proposed transportation plan. Councilman Reno requested
time for the transportation plan to solidify.
Councilwoman Richards said the Council seems to be so afraid of
public perception that they will throw someone's rights away.
Councilwoman Richards said Council is hiding the human and
character costs of the highway from the general public by denying
an individual his rights to go through the legal process.
Councilwoman Richards said she feels Council is acting arbitrarily
and capriciously in order to serve a PR purpose. Councilwoman
Richards said she would like to follow staff s recommendations that
the annexation stands on its own merits.
19
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 13, 1992
Councilman Peters said he feels one thing that will affect the
DOT's planning for the four -line will be the clean air standards.
One thing that will not affect it very much is the designation of
this house. Councilman Peters said Berger is a citizen of Aspen
who has contributed a lot to town and he should have a chance to go
to the HPC. Harper said if the highway is not going to come to
town for the next 5 years, he would urge Council to approve the
annexation for that.5 years as there is a community of interest.
Councilwoman Richards moved to suspend the rules and extend the
meeting to 9:30 p.m.; seconded by Councilman Peters. All in favor,
motion carried.
Mayor Bennett noted the applicant has stated the point of all this
is to obstruct the highway. Mayor Bennett said he publicly opposed
the straight shot and voted against it; however, he is committed to
the public process, to votes of the people and to the partnership
with other entities. Mayor Bennett said there are merits to both
sides of this case. The city is in the middle of a transportation
plan which should end in the next 60 to 90 days. Mayor Bennett
said Aspen has been waiting at least 20 years to find the solution
to the transportation problems. Mayor Bennett said he is not
willing to throw a wrench into this at the last minute. Mayor
Bennett said he could support continuing this application until the
transportation plan is complete.
Councilwoman Richards said she does not see anything to be afraid
of in terms of public perception. Les Holst, HPC member, said he
would like to have this house on the inventory. Harper suggested
Council allow the annexation to go through and have Berger commit
not to apply for historic designation for the next 6 months. Sara
Garton, P & Z member, said P & Z considers issues from the best
planning for the community, and the best planning for the community
is annexation of a parcel surrounded on 3 sides by the city. There
is a clear directive from the community to annex sites like this.
Ms. Garton pointed out this is the city's front yard and the city
should be able to have a say about the entrance to town.
Councilwoman Pendleton moved to continue the Berger annexation to
the first Council meeting in January; seconded by Councilman Reno.
Mayor Bennett agreed with continuing the issue but requested it be
sooner than 1993. Councilwoman Pendleton amended her motion to the
first meeting in December; seconded by Councilman Reno. All in
favor, with the exception of Councilmembers Richards and Peters.
Councilman Peters moved to adjourn t 9:34 p.m.; s c ded by
Councilwoman Richards. All in favor o n carrie
Kathryn Koc City Clerk
20
t
1
I i
+tea.-..• X----
•_
1 , vN
1 I v
1 -
i 90
1 — o
--� fV
.
"0 �.
ity Council Exhibit
Approved , 1 _
° By Ordinance
.o
3 -
g` ; L-7, QZ-IL
L_
O
O
C.4
i !w
0SZ
00Z
09[
__0n 4.
11
09
C
J
w
_I
Cty Council Exhibit
Approved , 19 _
By Ordinance
CITY OF ASPEN
City Attorney's Office
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 920-5055
MEMORANDUM
TO: Kim Johnson
FROM: John P. Worcester; ,
DATE: April 2, 1992
RE: Berger Annexation
Attached please find two ordinances for the Berger Annexation currently scheduled to be
considered by Council on April 13, 1992. The first ordinance is the annexing ordinance; the
second would zone the parcel R-15 upon the effective date of the annexation.
I will be present when Council considers the ordinances to answer any legal questions they may
have relating to the annexation or zoning ordinances.
You have asked that I provide a legal opinion on whether City Council has any affirmative legal
obligation to annex territory that is eligible for annexation pursuant to the Municipal Annexation
Act. As you know, Council's actions to date with regard to the Berger Annexation have been
to determine that the Petition for Annexation is in compliance with the statutory requirements,
that the property is statutorily eligible for annexation, and that no statutory limitations exist to
prevent Council from annexing the territory into the City. The decision to adopt or not to adopt
the proposed annexation ordinance now before Council is strictly a legislative act by Council.
As such, they can accept or reject the Petition for Annexation for any reason they feel is in the
best interests of the City of Aspen. The Supreme Court of Colorado has specifically stated in
this regard that:
A municipality is under no legal obligation in the first instance to annex contiauous
territory, and may reject a petition for annexation for no reason at all.
City of Colorado Springs v Kitty Hawk Development Comp., 392 P.2d 467, 472 (1964).
If you have any questions please don't hesitate to call or drop by.
berceran.mem
MEMORANDUM
To: Kim Johnson, City Planner
From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer
Re: Berger Annexation - 835 W. Main St.
Date: April 6, 1992
The question of whether Landmark Designation could prevent
demolition or relocation, and thereby preclude the realigned and
expanded highway from taking the property at 835 W. Main, is not
yet resolved. In a previous phone conversation with Sally Pearce,
Staff Historian for the CDoT, I understood her to tell me that the
CDoT is not exempt from local land use regulations. However, in
a follow up call to Sally with Jed Caswall and Diane Moore, she
stated she did not know for sure. Clearly, she was not aware of
another case like this one in the state. I recommend we get a
reading from the CDoT in writing regarding the applicability of
local land use regulations and building permit requirements
regarding highway development activities.
A complete Landmark Designation application has been submitted for
processing for the Berger property, which will be begin following
formal annexation by the City. Only one of six Designation
Standards must be met in order for a resource to receive Landmark
Designation. In my initial review of the application and the
Standards, it appears that the property does meet Standard F,
regarding contribution to community character.
It is important to understand that even if the Berger parcel were
to receive Landmark Designation, demolition is not automatically
precluded. An application for demolition may be submitted for
review by the HPC. Should the applicable standards be met, the
property may receive demolition approval. It is, however, unlikely
that the demolition standards could be met regarding this property,
in my opinion. The Standards are strict and were designed to
prevent rampant demolition of community resources. The penalties
for demolition without appropriate approval consist of a minor fine
and a five year building permit moratorium on the parcel.
• 4
Pitkin County
January 20,/1992
C
Amy Mar�e/rrum
City —Manager
130 S Galena
Aspen CO 81611
Dear Amy:
The Board of County Commissioners have expressed a significant
concern about the proposed annexation of the Berger Property. As
you are well aware, the possibility of historic designation at this
late date has potential ramifications for the improvement of
Highway 82.
The Board is very interested in commenting on this annexation.
Could you please provide us your understanding of the appropriate
mechanism for the Board to express its concerns. We are very
interested in becoming involved in this process.
Attached for your review is a copy of an article that appeared in
American Airlines Magazine, inwhich Mr. Berger describes his plan
for using historic designation as a way of obstructing the modified
entrance to town, a decision the public has twice voted for. We
don't wish to see that occur.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Reid Haug y�
County Manager
tlg:county:rh01.01
Administration
530 E. Main, 3rd Floor
Aspen, CO 81611
(303)920-5200
FAX 920-5198
03 printed on recycled paper
County Commissioners
Suite B
506 E. Main Street
Aspen, CO 81611
(303) 920-5150
County Attorney
Suite 1
530 E. Main Street
Aspen, CO 81611
(303) 920-5190
Personnel and Finance
Suite F
530 E. Main Street
Aspen, CO 81611
(303) 920-5220
Transportation
Facilities
76 Service Center Road
Aspen, CO 81611
(303)920-5390
MESSAGE DISPLAY
TO Kim Johnson CC Judy McKenzie
From: Larry Ballenger
Postmark: Mar 18,92 12:53 PM
Subject: Berger Annexation
Message:
This parcel is now served by City water. There is water available for
any further development if so required. As usual, any future use of
water will be in accordance with City Codes and Policy. Thanks>
MEMORANDUM
To: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
From: Chuck Roth, City Engineer l ,`
Date: March 31, 1992
Re: Berger Annexation
1. Since the approximate area of the city is 1,411 acres, the annexation in question
represents a 0.08% size increase. This could be correlated into a potential increase of
0.08% for all City services and budget needs.
2. The City may want to ask for a fight -of -way dedication in conjunction with the
annexation. This would be in view of possible future Highway 82 right-of-way needs.
3. There have been conversations about the annexation request being a tool to obtain
historic designation for the sole structure in the annexation area in order to block Highway
82 realignment efforts.
cc: Bob Gish, Public Works Director
M9L111
MESSAGE DISPLAY
TO KIM JOHNSON
From: George Robinson
Postmark: Mar 17,92 5:44 AM
Status: Certified
Subject: BERGER ANNEXATION
Message:
THE PARKS DEPT. WOULD LIKE TO SEE A TRAIL EASEMENT, OF 15' FROM
RIVERS EDGE (CASTLE CREEK) FOR FUTURE USE OF A TRAIL ALIGNMENT OR
FOR THE USE OF A FISHERMANS EASEMENT ALONG THE RIVER,IF POSSIBLE.
&IM:
RE:
DATE:
MEMORANDUM
City Engineer
Water Department
City Electric Department
Parks -Department
--Police Department `
Stree� nar�+e�
-"finance Department
Fire Marshal
City Attorney
Pitkin County Manager
.- _" Kim ^Johnson, Planning
Berger Annexation - Request
March 9, 1992
MPR 1 6 k992
for Comments
Attached is a sketch of a 1.16 acre parcel located at 835 W. Main
for which annexation into the City is being sought by the owner
Bruce Berger. The annexation ordinance is scheduled for first
reading at City Council on April 13, 1992. Please consider Mr.
Berger's request and forward any comments to me no later than March
31, 1992. Please address how this annexation could impact City
services, budget, etc. Also state any conditions of approval which
would be applicable to this annexation request. Thank you for your
time. If you have any questions, please call me at x5100.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
City Engineer
Water Department
City Electric partment
Parks Depar ent
Police De rtment
Streets epartment
Fina a Department
Fir Marshal
C' y Attorney
itkin County Manager
�U F
Kim Johnson, Planning\
RE:
Berger AnnexAtd9n Request for Comments
DATE:
March"9, 1992
Attached is a sketch of a 1.16 acre parcel located at 835 W. Main
for which annexation into the City is being sought by the owner
Bruce Berger. The annexation ordinance is scheduled for first
reading at City Council on April 13, 1992. Please consider Mr.
BergerrIs request and forward any comments to me no later than March
31, 1992. Please address how this annexation could impact City
services, budget, etc. Also state any conditions of approval which
would be applicable to this annexation request. Thank you for your
time. If you have any questions, please call me at x5100.
Jun 25,92 12:46 COLORADO &TORICAL SOC
i / 1 •.
city Council Bzhibit_�
Approved , 19 _
By Ordinance
The Colorado History Museum 1:300 13roadway Denver, Colorado 80203-2137
June 38, 1992
Kenneth M. Gambrill
!tanager
Office of Environmental Review and Analysis
Colorado Department of Transportation
4201 East Arkansas Avenue
Denver, CO 80222
Re: Berger Cabin, 835 West Main Street, Aspen
Thank you for your correspondence dated May 29, 1992, requesting our
comments on the eligibility of the above property for inclusion in the
National Register of Historic Places. We understand that this property may
be within the area of potential effects of Project FC 082-1(14), East of
Basalt to Aspen.
It is our opinion that this property does not meet the National Register
criterion exception B for buildings less than 50 years old. The National
Register guidelines in Bulletin 22, "Guidelines for Evaluating and
Nominating Properties That Have Achieved Significance Within the Last Fifty
Years", states that it is only on rare occasions that properties
associated with individuals still living have been listed in the National
Register. For your information, we have enclosed that section of the
guidelines and also the section from Bulletin 15, "How to Apply the
National Register Criteria for Evaluation," that pertains to properties
less than 50 years old.
While the architect for the Berger Cabin, Fritz Benedict, has designed a
,number of prominent Aspen residences, we feel that this cabin is not the
best example of his work. Therefore we find that the Berger Cabin is not
eligible for inclusion in either the National Register or the State
Register of Historic Properties.
If we may be of further assistance, please contact Barbara Norgren, our
National Register Coordinator, at 866-3392.
sincerely,
James E. Hartmann
State Historic Preservation Officer
0
MEMORANDUM
To: Diane Moore
cc: Kim Johnson
Amy Margerum
Jed Caswall
From: Roxanne Eflin
Re: CDOT letter re: Berger annexation (see attached)
Date: June 5, 1992
Please refer to the attached letter I received from Sally Pearce,
staff historian for the CDOT, regarding the Berger annexation.
This letter does not deal with the specific question we asked of
the AG's office weeks ago. I phoned her immediately upon receipt
to find out where the letter is from the AG's office; she is making
follow up calls and should have an answer for us within the next
few days.
I asked Sally why the AG's office requested an official DOE
(Determination of Eligibility) on the Berger parcel from the SHPO
(State Historic Preservation Officer) before they would issue a
letter containing the specific information we requested: IS the
CDOT bound by local zoning regulations, i.e. Landmark Designation?
It appears they want all their "t's" crossed before issuing their
position in writing! I also asked her to pass along our desire to
have a non -ambiguous statement from the AG's office on this one.
Sally had already made an in-house determination four years ago
regarding the eligibility of the Berger parcel for the State or
National Register, and determined it was not eligible. I also
doubt the parcel would pass the standards of the State Review Board
for listing on either Regiater,•due particularly to ago (less than
50 years). Resources less than 50 years old must contain
significant merit in order to be listed.
I'll let you know more as soon as I know more.
STATE OF COLORADO
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONPL
OT
4201 East Arkansas Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80222
(303) 757-9011
JUN 3
May 29, 1992
Mr. James Hartmann
State Historic Preservation Officer
Colorado History Museum
1300 Broadway
Denver, CO 80203
Dear Mr. Hartmannn :
Attached for your review is a Historic Building Inventory Record for the Berger
Cabin, located at 835 West Main Street, in Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado. The Land
Use Application submitted by the owner to the City of Aspen requesting annexation and
historic designation is also attached for your information along with a copy of the
USGS Quad map showing the property's location. A survey of the area, conducted in
July 1988 by the Colorado Department of Transportation and updated in September of
the same year, identified eight sites either listed on or determined eligible for
inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. The Berger Cabin was not
identified during either of these surveys because it fails to meet the age criteria
of 50 years.
In an effort to clarify information in our files concerning CDOT Project FC
082-1(14), East of Basalt to Asper., we are requesting an official determination of
eligibility of this property for inclusion in both the National Register of Historic
Places and the State Register of Historic Places.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. If you need further information,
please contact CDOT historian Sally Pearce at 757-9786.
Very truly yours,
4t�gz ul. 6V,�,
Kenneth M. Gambrill
Manager
Office of Environmental Review and Analysis
Attachment
EFI,n
EXHIBIT A
PARKING PLAN
L CO
I
S
I
�
1
\
i
QEODQb(4 N140-950'40°E ,' 221.0'
\ ;l
EXHIBIT B
DESIGNATED TRAFFIC
ROUTE
pp9mZm0mmmmmmm>
=9yy%"r�mw ��°Tna>ir<ipm>: t"ZmZCm Z
7e00���=2FZ�Zm1~ m r�ti2-mm0=Z m>Om
Z9 •i n>mO�Oy<>2n� 2mwm<>mmxOam-42m2-41--
72p ymN<Igy O>9. m��>Zr 290>f�pZ 9m2 �: �-1y29 J
�r�Z: �.imy~iym• - gimps. rrmm: am�prm: 0:
Zm. y. rV
00' T: : ~: v: mp•-yip...0?;K y. x. Z: a:
`m: zli o�Dmo:: n: is °::: m m m
O: pOpm�O: p'_>_: Onm: O:
e pin 0i: m02b
wu.Lbabbbb' bdbLbm�b: mu�i.lu�bmliri�N�ofi.ir�v
n0<C; D����OOZ2ZZ2;;;;;;;;�3;;;;;rrrrrr�c«xxxxx2
Ig77:.yyO2(1n-:. .Iyt�nZ9v::ti 9m:<OOpr1>F�:y;rn;paaDF.y�.m^<�Cm�.Cm ynx::- I-<ZpvOOO:t9SO392�i:Ofr �mO2O2 :�0_0m9:Z_v yto rrm-Cvz
:>>�:tn:mzmmma.:mimZyM7C
y-m;rZ;y.OanDO>22xx:DD>DO p 7000ZZZm2s-A6-zKz
%D<Daya '>9a
>am. pp: 90: -4: m000. m9. M. . 2r. pm: . 0. .
1
m: m: v:: "
iN>00: pm. rAO: Q: : m: I:
o lnb bainblm�mluu�ldmawumubbin:1boob lbbblbc)pb`obd m0
4
11
1au2ro617
a�f:-: FM*OADD>l
xxzx00� a yr: yyyyOmyp-y4ypyyDvy;yi4rl mfA2yyfnyaZZaa9a D999�4a
�ym;DD0D-�Si «m<ommm
'yCZEx':: rO~r-9zpm><�mozmm
2fmZ0-ty.1mmy>-�OmCHNaZ,! CCr-Amy-
O: mpy<y- ZZZ. a9241. Z:
m : <D i^.: Zz : moc) is pp
(n - r
mmm rm mr Tr v m. D 0 k
u Imo' b0xxx0000rxmm +im+�xm 0m L��
q��T ♦ lyml vU b(.�i q bb.y
VI
J I
m�
•
•
ORDINANCE NO. 0� 3
(Series of 1992)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
APPROVING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, TO BE KNOWN AND DESIGNATED AS THE BERGER ANNEXATION.
WHEREAS, on October 22, 1991, B. N. Berger did file with the City Clerk of the City
of Aspen a Petition for Annexation of territory to the City of Aspen, whereby real property as
described hereinbelow was being petitioned for annexation to the City of Aspen; and
WHEREAS, the petition, including accompanying copies of an annexation map, has been
reviewed by the City Attorney's Office and the City Engineer and found by them to contain the
information prescribed and set forth in paragraphs (c) and (d) of subsection (1) of §31-12-107,
C.R.S.; and
WHEREAS, the petition was signed by the owners of one hundred percent (100 %) of the
area proposed to be annexed, exclusive of streets and alleys; and
WHEREAS, more than two-thirds (2/3) of the perimeter of the area proposed to be
annexed is contiguous to the City of Aspen; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, by resolution (Number 3, Series of 1992) at its regular
meeting on January 13, 1992, did find and determine said Petition for Annexation to be in
substantial compliance with the provisions of subsection (1) of §31-12-107, C.R.S.; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, by resolution (Number 11, Series of 1992) at its regular
meeting on February 24, 1992, did find and determine, following a public hearing, said Petition
for Annexation to be in substantial compliance with §31-12-105, C.R.S.; and
WHEREAS, the City Council does hereby find and determine that approval of the
annexation of said territory to be in the City's best interest;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1. That the tract of land described in the Petition for Annexation of territory
in to the City of Aspen, Colorado, commonly referred to as the Berger Annexation, which is
hereby incorporated by this reference, and as shown on the annexation map thereof and
described as follows, is hereby annexed to the City of Aspen, Colorado:
a parcel of land in Section 12, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of Sixth Principal Meridian, Pitkin
County, Colorado, more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at corner no. 7 of Aspen Townsite, being the same as corner no. 1 of the B. N. Berger
Annexation;
Thence N07°38'E 24.45 feet to corner no.2;
Thence N74030'W 245.85 feet to comer no.3;
Thence S37050'E 314.72 feet to comer no.4;
Thence S83°31'E to comer no.5, the intersection with a line drawn parallel with and distant 15.00 feet
north easterly at right angles from a line bearing S74030'E from said comer no. 4;
Thence S74°30'E to comer no. 6, the intersection with a line bearing N15030'E from a point which is
S7490'E 250.00 feet from said comer no.4;
Thence N15030'E to corner no. 7, the intersection with the northerly line of Block 13 of the City of Aspen;
Thence westerly along said northerly line to corner no. 8, the intersection with a line bearing S55°16'E
from comer no. 7 of Aspen Townsite;
Thence N55016'W to the point of beginning;
Excepting therefrom any portion of Block 13 of the City of Aspen.
Section 2. The aforesaid annexation shall become effective in the manner prescribed
in and immediately upon compliance with the requirements of §31-12-113, C.R.S.
Section 3. The City Clerk of the City of Aspen is hereby directed as follows:
(a) To file one copy of the annexation map with the original of this annexation
ordinance in the office of the City Clerk of the City of Aspen.
(b) To certify and file two copies of this annexation ordinance and of the annexation
map with the Clerk and Recorder of the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado.
(c) To request the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County to file one certified copy of
this annexation ordinance and of the annexation map with the Division of Local Government of
the Department of Local Affairs, State of Colorado.
2
•
Section 4. The City Engineer of the City of Aspen is hereby directed to amend the
Official Map of the City of Aspen to reflect the boundary changes adopted pursuant to this
annexation ordinance.
Section 5. That if any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this
ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction,
such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect
the validity of the remaining portions thereof.
Section 6. That this ordinance shall not have any effect on existing litigation and shall
not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the
ordinances amended as herein provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded under
such prior ordinances.
A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the day of
1992, in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado.
q
•
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law by the City
Council of the City of Aspen on the day of , 1992.
John S. Bennett, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this day of
. 1992.
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
bergeran.ord
John S. Bennett, Mayor
4
V
TO:
THRU:
THRU:
FROM:
DATE:
•
MEMORANDUM
Mayor and City Council
Amy Margerum, City Manager
Diane Moore, City Planning Directod
Kim Johnson, Planner
March 22, 1993
RE: Berger Rezoning from County R-15 Zoning (Residential) to
City R-15 (Moderate Density Residential) - Continued
Second Reading of Ordinance 24, Series 1992.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Second reading of this item was continued from the
February 22, 1993 meeting to allow it to track with the annexation
request which was continued to March 22, 1993.
First reading of this ordinance passed by a 3-1 vote on December
14, 1992. It tracks with the annexation review being heard
separately.
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of the
rezoning from County R-15 to City R-15. This rezoning will become
valid only upon annexation of this parcel which will become
effective on July 1, 1993 per Ordinance 23, Series 1992.
This parcel has also requested Historic Landmark Designation. This
process will not commence until annexation has been formally
approved by City Council.
BACKGROUND: The applicant is Bruce N. Berger, represented by Scott
Harper. The 1.16 acre parcel is located at 835 West Main Street.
Please see parcel and vicinity in Exhibit "A".
Rezoning is a two-step review. City Council makes the final
determination of a rezoning request.
STAFF COMMENTS: State Statutes require that land annexed into a
city must have city zoning applied within 90 days of annexation.
The annexation of Mr. Berger's property is being considered under
a separate memo and ordinance concurrent with this zoning request.
The following are standards from Section 7-1102 which must be
addressed when considering a Map Amendment (rezoning):
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any
applicable portions of this chapter.
Response: There are no conflicts with the Land Use Code which will
arise as a result of this rezoning.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements
of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
Response: The 1973 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map shows this area
to be single family residential. The proposed zoning would be in
conformance with the 1973 Plan and the current residential use.
C. Whether the proposed zoning amendment is compatible with
surrounding Zone Districts and land uses, considering existing
land use and neighborhood characteristics.
Response: The subject parcel is surrounded on three sides by land
within the City limits. The single family neighborhood to the east
is zoned R-15. To the west and downslope is Castle Creek with the
City -owned Marolt open space property zoned R-15A PUP / SPA. The
Aspen Villas, zoned RMF (Residential/Multi-Family), lie to the
north of the subject property across West Main St. To the south,
single family residential development in the County is zoned
R-15. County R-15 zoning would allow this parcel to develop
maximum of three 15,000 s.f. lots, with less floor area per lot
than City zoning would allow.
The proposed R-15 zone is compatible with these residential zones
and uses.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation
and road safety.
Response: The change will not affect the level of activity at this
site.
E. Whether the proposal will result in increased demand on public
facilities.
Response: No changes in public facilities needs will result from
this rezoning. The current residential use is proposed to
continue.
F. Whether the proposed amendment will result in impacts on the
natural environment.
Response: No adverse impacts are anticipated as a result of the
rezoning.
G. Whether the proposal is consistent and compatible with the
community character in the City of Aspen.
Response: The Berger residence has been in this location since
1947. The proposed zone change will not diminish the character of
the community.
2
ADVISORY COMMITTEE VOTE: The Planning and Zoning Commission
approved the rezoning request by a vote of 6-0 at their regular
meeting on March 17, 1992. The Commission based its decision on
the fact that the property is nearly surrounded by similar City
zoning and any future development should be guided by City zoning
regulations rather than County regulations. They recognize that
the proposed rezoning is contingent upon Council's annexation of
the parcel into the City limits of Aspen.
At the March 17 public hearing, several neighbors of the subject
property came and voiced their concern about the possibility that
the rezoning action could deter the Dept. of Transportation's
efforts to bring the highway in as a "straight shot". Staff and
the Commission made it clear that the rezoning itself had no
bearing on that issue.
ALTERNATIVES: In order for the parcel to comply with the single
family residential zoning indicated on the 1973 Land Use Map, the
parcel would have to be zoned either R-6 (Medium Density) or R-30
(Low Density).
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve and have second reading of
Ordinance 24, Series 1992 for rezoning of the Berger parcel to R-
15 Moderate Density Residential, effective upon annexation of the
site into the City."
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
Ordinance 24, Series 1992
Exhibit "A" - Parcel Map
3
•
ORDINANCE NO. 24
(Series of 1992)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
ZONING THE BERGER ANNEXATION PARCEL TO R-15 (MODERATE DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL).
WHEREAS, the City Council has, by ordinance (Ordinance No. 23, Series of 1992),
recently annexed to the City of Aspen territory designated as the Berger Annexation, as more
fully described hereinbelow; and
WHEREAS, §31-12-115(2), C.R.S., requires any area annexed to be brought under the
City's zoning ordinance within ninety days after the effective date of the annexing ordinance;
and
WHEREAS, subsequent to their public hearing held March 17, 1992, the Aspen Planning
and Zoning Commission has recommended that the Berger Annexation be zoned R-13 upon
being annexed into the City of Aspen; and
WHEREAS, the City Council agrees that the R-15 zone is the most appropriate for the
annexed territory designated as the Berger Annexation;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITE'
OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1. That from and after the effective date of the annexing ordinance (Ordinance
No. 23, Series of 1992) the following described property shall be zoned R-15, and subject to
those zoning regulations applicable to said zone district and described in Chapter 24 of the
•
•
Aspen Municipal Code, as now exists or may hereinafter be amended:
a parcel of land in Section 12, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of Sixth Principal Meridian, Pitkin
County, Colorado, more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at comer no. 7 of Aspen Townsite, being the same as corner no. 1 of the B. N. Berger
Annexation;
Thence N07°38'E 24.45 feet to comer no.2;
Thence N74'30'W 245.85 feet to comer no.3;
Thence S37°50'E 314.72 feet to comer no.4;
Thence S83°31'E to comer no.5, the intersection with a line drawn parallel with and distant 15.00 feet
north easterly at right angles from a line bearing S74030'E from said corner no. 4;
Thence S74"30'E to comer no. 6, the intersection with a line bearing N15°30'E from a point which is
S74°30'E 250.00 feet from said comer no.4;
Thence N 1510'E to corner no. 7, the intersection with the northerly line of Block 13 of the City of Aspen;
Thence westerly along said northerly line to corner no. 8, the intersection with a line bearing S55c16'E
from corner np. 7 of Aspen Townsite;
Thence N55°16'W to the point of beginning;
Excepting therefrom any portion of Block 13 of the City of Aspen.
Section 2. The Official Zone District Map for the City of Aspen shall be and is
hereby amended to reflect that zoning as set forth in Section 1 above and such amendment shall
be promptly entered on the Official Map in accordance with Section 24-5-103 (B) of the
Municipal Code.
Section 3. The City Clerk is directed upon adoption of this ordinance to record a copy
in the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office.
Section 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this
ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction,
such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect
the validity of the remaining portions thereof.
Section 5. That this ordinance shall not have any effect on existing litigation and shall
not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the
ordinances amended as herein provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded under
such prior ordinances.
2
A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the day of
1992, in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law by the City
Council of the City of Aspen on the day of , 1992.
John S. Bennett, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this
, 1993.
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
3
day of
John S. Bennett, Mayor
I
1
t
1
1
• .� v �.'mom
J
t
yr
CY L3% L
1 1-
t —1 8 Tr%
t tY� 9%
O
Q
x
w
_
>Q
r•� .
InODNId
i
t
r
I
M
*y Council Exhibit
roved , 1 —
By ordinance
I
3= t
6p t
.fin O i t QZ-tL '
z�
I �W
OSZ
OOZ
091
_ 00
OS
I
t=
t�
O
N
It
z
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager
THRU: Diane Moore, City Planning Direct rr
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner
DATE: March 22, 1993
RE: Berger Annexation - Second Reading of Ordinance 23,
Series 1992 (continued from February 22,1993)
SUMMARY: This item was continued from February 22, 1993 because
the City Council was in a stalemate 2-2 vote on this annexation
request. The Applicant's representative asked that this item be
reconsidered when there was full attendance by all five voting
members of the City Council. Since the February 22 meeting, the
City Attorney's Office has added two "whereas" clauses which
clarify Mr. Berger's representation that the annexation is not
intended to "impede, prevent, or otherwise interfere in the
proposed alignment of Highway 82" and that the Council accepts and
relies on this representation.
The Planning Commission and the Planning Office recommend approval
and second reading of Ordinance 23, 1992 for the Berger Annexation.
The annexation request is accompanied by a request for rezoning to
R-15 (Moderate -Density Residential) which is being handled by
separate memo and ordinance.
Since first reading on December 14, 1992, the approval ordinance
has been revised to become effective on July 1, 1993 provided that
a fisherman's easement is executed by that date. This timeframe
will allow Mr. Berger to execute the fisherman's easement upon his
return to the United States. The rezoning to R-15 will become
effective concurrent with the annexation.
BACKGROUND: First reading of this ordinance was opened by City
Council on April 13, 1992 and continued until July 13, 1992 to
allow staff to explore potential conflicts between the Colorado
Department of Transportation's Highway 82 future realignment and
proposed designation of the property as an Historic Landmark.
Please refer to Staff Comments section of this memo for further
discussion of this matter.
On July 13, 1992 staff brought forward that no written statement
could be obtained from CDOT regarding the local landmark
1
designation's effect on the Highway 82 re -alignment. At that
meeting, Council became concerned that the proposed annexation
might detrimentally affect the outcome of the Transportation Plan
being discussed by representatives of Aspen, Pitkin County and the
Town of Snowmass Village. Council decided to continue first
reading until December 14, 1992 in order to hear the outcome of the
joint discussions. First reading passed by a 3-1 vote on December
14, 1992. Please refer to minutes of July 13, 1992, Exhibit "A".
The applicant is Bruce N. Berger. The 1.16 acre parcel is located
at 835 West Main Street. Please see parcel and vicinity in Exhibit
"B". The metes and bounds description is contained within the
annexation ordinance prepared by the City Attorney's Office.
Current zoning in the County is R-15. Requested zoning is R-15
upon annexation into the City. The current use of the property is
one single family residence of approximately 1,000 square feet.
No change to this use is proposed relative to the rezoning request.
Upon annexation the applicant intends to continue processing a
request for landmark designation for the residence.
STAFF COMMENTS: The Planning Office received comments from Parks,
Police, Water, Finance, Engineering, the City Attorney, and Pitkin
County Manager Reid Haughey. Their complete comments are attached
as Exhibit "C". No objections to the proposed annexation have been
raised by the City departments. Very limited impacts to the City
are anticipated. As the subject property is currently served by
City services, an annexation agreement is not required for the
annexation proposal.
Mr. Berger wishes to annex his parcel and apply for the City's
Historical Landmark Designation. The application has been
submitted to the Planning Office and will be considered by the
Historic Preservation Committee, Planning and Zoning Commission and
City Council only after completion of the annexation process.
Regardless of whether or not his residence is approved as an
historic landmark, the Planning Office believes that the parcel
should be annexed into the City. The foremost reason is that the
Berger parcel is surrounded by the city on three sides. Any future
development on the parcel could affect the neighboring city
properties. It seems logical that City zoning regulations should
prevail in order to promote maximum compatibility with the existing
neighborhood. This point was emphasized by the Planning Commission
during its rezoning review of this parcel.
The correspondence received from CDOT and the Colorado Historical
Society dwells on the fact that the Berger cabin is not eligible
for State or National designation. Please refer to Exhibit "D".
The State Attorney General's Office would not comment on whether
or not a local historic designation would hamper the realignment
of Highway 82. The CDOT has indicated verbally that local land use
regulations such as an historic designation will not impact the
highway project. Although the State has not responded directly to
the City's question, staff believes that a local historic
designation would not impact the future highway realignment.
council's majority opinion on July 13, 1992 was that the Aspen to
Snowmass Transportation Plan discussions between the upper valley
governments would lead Council toward a decision on the Berger
annexation request. However, the Aspen to Snowmass Transportation
Plan panel did not address the highway's entry to Aspen, thus
nothing new can be reported to Council specific to this
annexation's impact on the Aspen to Snowmass Transportation Plan.
Because of the lack of new information, staff continues to
recommend approval of the Berger annexation.
In response to a staff inquiry regarding the City's obligation to
annex territory, Assistant City Attorney John Worcester writes
(Exhibit "C") that the City Council "can accept or reject the
Petition for Annexation for any reason they feel is in the best
interests of the City of Aspen". This is backed by the Supreme
Court of Colorado's statement that "A municipality is under no
legal obligation in the first instance to annex contiguous
territory, and may reject a petition for annexation for no reason
at all."
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of amended Ordinance 23,
Series 1992 for the Berger Annexation.
ALTERNATIVES: Council could elect to reject the annexation for any
reason.
PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve second reading of Ordinance
23, Series 1992 as amended approving the Berger Annexation."
CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS:
Attachments:
Ordinance 23, 1992
Exhibits:
"A" - Minutes of 7/13/92 City Council
"B" - Map of Proposed Annexation
"C" - Complete Referral Comments
"D" - Letters from CDOT (5/29/92) and
6/18/92
3
Meeting
Colorado Historical Society
• rr
r�
Qty Council E�chibit�
Approved
By Ordinance
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 13, 1992
ORDINANCE #23, SERIES OF 1992 - Berger Annexation
Councilman Peters moved to read Ordinance #23, Series of 1992;
seconded by Councilwoman Richards. All in favor, with the
exception of Councilwoman Pendleton. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #23
(Series of 1992)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN
COLORADO APPROVING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO TO BE KNOWN AND DESIGNATED AS
THE BERGER ANNEXATION was read by the city clerk
Kim Johnson, planning office, reminded Council they first discussed
this April 13. Council was concerned the city had not heard
anything definitive from the Department of Transportation regarding
whether annexation and the anticipated historic designation request
would hinder the highway realignment. Ms. Johnson told Council
there have been various conversations with the state, including
the state historical department and DOT. The Attorney General's
office would not commit in writing as requested. The DOT has
indicated verbally that any local land use regulations will not
affect the highway project. Staff recommends approval of annex-
ation.
Jed Caswall, city attorney, told Council his research indicates
that a local designation will not trigger all the federal regula-
tions regarding historic landmark in construction of a highway
wholly or partially funded by federal funds. Caswall said neither
the attorney general's office or CDOT would put this in writing.
Scott Harper, representing the applicant, told Council he received
the same information. The CDOT has no opposition to local
designation.
Mayor Bennett said the Council is working very hard on a transpor-
tation solution that will work for the entire community and to
forge a partnership between all entities in the valley. Mayor
Bennett said he is loathe to put at risk the relationships
developing with the partners. .
Bruce Berger said he would like to be annexed so that he can vote
in city elections. Berger pointed out he is surrounded by city
land. Harper said he feels the annexation is in the best interests
of the community. The annexation supports two goals of the
community; to continue annexation of the metropolitan areas and to
develop consistent and fair government. It seems fair this parcel
should be part of the city.
m
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 13, 1992
Councilman Reno said this seems to be a timing issue. There would
be a perception this would be a wrench thrown into the transporta-
tion picture. Councilman Reno asked why this annexation request is
coming forth right now. Berger told Council he only recently
learned that houses under 50 years old could apply for historic
designation. When he learned this, he started the annexation
process. At that time, he also found about out survey work that
had to be done. It has taken 3 years to get that survey work done.
Berger said the highway was first proposed in 1969 and this request
would have looked as if this was a motive to stop the highway
anytime in the past 23 years. Berger said he wants to bring it to
everyone's attention that there is a historic structure in this
transportation corridor.
Councilman Peters said the goal of consistent and fair government
is the hardest to live up to. This is a good example. Councilman
Peters said the likelihood Berger's house will be declared a
federal historic landmark is remote. Councilman Peters said this
request is a chance to allow Berger to apply to the HPC and to get
some protection from development around him. Councilman Peters
said he feels this is a legitimate request that has to be honored
no matter how people perceive it.
l Mayor Bennett said Council has the authority to annex or not annex.
Mayor Bennett asked if Council has the same ability to grant or not
to grant historic designation. Jed Caswall, city attorney, said if
he can fit his property within the established guidelines for
designation, Council has limited or no discretion. HPC will
conduct hearings to determine whether the property meets the
guidelines for being on the inventory.
Councilwoman Pendleton said Council has been working with the
county and with Snowmass on the transportation plan. This
outweighs voting in favor of annexation or doing anything that is
perceived to holding up the highway. Councilwoman Pendleton said
when transportation issues get decided, that would be the time to
be annexed. Councilman Reno agreed about the perception of this
and the proposed transportation plan. Councilman Reno requested
time for the transportation plan to solidify.
Councilwoman Richards said the Council seems to be so afraid of
public perception that they will throw someone's rights away.
Councilwoman Richards said Council is hiding the human and
character costs of the highway from the general public by denying
an individual his rights to go through the legal process.
Councilwoman Richards said she feels Council is acting arbitrarily
and capriciously in order to serve a PR purpose. Councilwoman
Richards said she would like to follow staffs recommendations that
the annexation stands on its own merits.
19
I)
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 13, 1992
Councilman Peters said he feels one thing that will affect the
DOT's planning for the four -line will be the clean air standards.
One thing that will not affect it very much is the designation of
this house. Councilman Peters said Berger is a citizen of Aspen
who has contributed a lot to town and he should have a chance to go
to the HPC. Harper said if the highway is not going to come to
town for the next 5 years, he would urge Council to approve the
annexation for that-5 years as there is a community of interest.
Councilwoman Richards moved to suspend the rules and extend the
meeting to 9:30 p.m.; seconded by Councilman Peters. All in favor,
motion carried.
Mayor Bennett noted the applicant has stated the point of all this
is to obstruct the highway. Mayor Bennett said he publicly opposed
the straight shot and voted against it; however, he is committed to
the public process, to votes of the people and to the partnership
with other entities. Mayor Bennett said there are merits to both
sides of this case. The city is in the middle of a transportation
plan which should end in the next 60 to 90 days. Mayor Bennett
said Aspen has been waiting at least 20 years to find the solution
to the transportation problems. Mayor Bennett said he is not
1t44s€�ttS� willing to throw a wrench into this at the last minute. Mayor
Bennett said he could support continuing this application until the
transportation plan is complete.
Councilwoman Richards said she does not see anything to be afraid
of in terms of public perception. Les Holst, HPC member, said he
would like to have this house on the inventory. Harper suggested
Council allow the annexation to go through and have Berger commit
not to apply for historic designation for the next 6 months. Sara
Garton, P & Z member, said P & Z considers issues from the best
planning for the community, and the best planning for the community
is annexation of a parcel surrounded on 3 sides by the city. There
is a clear directive from the community to annex sites like this.
Ms. Garton pointed out this is the city's front yard and the city
should be able to have a say about the entrance to town.
Councilwoman Pendleton moved to continue the Berger annexation to
the first Council meeting in January; seconded by Councilman Reno.
Mayor Bennett agreed with continuing the issue but requested it be
sooner than 1993. Councilwoman Pendleton amended her motion to the
first meeting in December; seconded by Councilman Reno. All in
favor, with the exception of Councilmembers Richards and Peters.
Councilman Peters moved to adjourn t 9:34 p.m.; s c ded by
Councilwoman Richards. All in favor o *-n carrie
Kathryn Koc City Clerk
20
•
•
i
11-
z
o
-,
Q
8
QLIJ
�z
Z
_
>Q
inOD
�r
ity Council Exhibit
It I
Approved , 19 _
By Ordinance
I
CCN
o g gz IL '
^,1
�zz�
b
W
U_
W
0Sz
00Z
09[
no
09
N
11
z
z
i
'Rity Council Exhibit hp
Approved , 19 _
By Ordinance
CITY OF ASPEN
City Attorney's Office
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 920-5055
MEMORANDUM
TO: Kim Johnson
a,
FROM: John P. Worcester; ,%
DATE: April 2, 1992
RE: Berger Annexation
Attached please find two ordinances for the Berger Annexation currently scheduled to be
considered by Council on April 13, 1992. The first ordinance is the annexing ordinance; the
second would zone the parcel R-15 upon the effective date of the annexation.
I will be present when Council considers the ordinances to answer any legal questions they may
have relating to the annexation or zoning ordinances.
You have asked that I provide a legal opinion on whether City Council has any affirmative legal
obligation to annex territory that is eligible for annexation pursuant to the Municipal Annexation
Act. As you know, Council's actions to date with regard to the Berger Annexation have been
to determine that the Petition for Annexation is in compliance with the statutory requirements,
that the property is statutorily eligible for annexation, and that no statutory limitations exist to
prevent Council from annexing the territory into the City. The decision to adopt or not to adopt
the proposed annexation ordinance now before Council is strictly a legislative act by Council.
As such, they can accept or reject the Petition for Annexation for any reason they feel is in the
best interests of the City of Aspen. The Supreme Court of Colorado has specifically stated in
this regard that:
A municipality is under no legal obligation in the first instance to annex contiguous
territory, and may reject a petition for annexation for no reason at all.
City of Colorado Springs v Kitty Hawk Development Comp., 392 P.2d 467, 472 (1964).
If you have any questions please don't hesitate to call or drop by.
berceran.mem
MEMORANDUM
To: Kim Johnson, City Planner
From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer
Re: Berger Annexation - 835 W. Main St.
Date: April 6, 1992
The question of whether Landmark Designation could prevent
demolition or relocation, and thereby preclude the realigned and
expanded highway from taking the property at 835 W. Main, is not
yet resolved. In a previous phone conversation with Sally Pearce,
Staff Historian for the CDoT, I understood her to tell me that the
CDoT is not exempt from local land use' regulations. However, in
a follow up call to Sally with Jed Caswall and Diane Moore, she
stated she did not know for sure. Clearly, she was not aware of
another case like this one in the state. I recommend we get a
reading from the CDoT in writing regarding the applicability of
local land use regulations and building permit requirements
regarding highway development activities.
A complete Landmark Designation application has been submitted for
processing for the Berger property, which will be begin following
formal annexation by the City. Only one of six Designation
Standards must be met in order for a resource to receive Landmark
Designation. In my initial review of the application and the
Standards; it appears that the property does meet Standard F,
regarding contribution to community character.
It is important to understand that even if the Berger parcel were
to receive Landmark Designation, demolition is not automatically
precluded. An application for demolition may be submitted for
review by the HPC. Should the applicable standards be met, the
property may receive demolition approval. It is, however, unlikely
that the demolition standards could be met regarding this property,
in my opinion. The Standards are strict and were designed to
prevent rampant demolition of community resources. The penalties
for demolition without appropriate approval consist of a minor fine
and a five year building permit moratorium on the parcel.
Pitkin County
January 20, j 1992 ', {
Amy Margerum
City Manager
130 S Galena
Aspen CO 81611
Dear Amy:
The Board of County Commissioners have expressed a significant
concern about the proposed annexation of the Berger Property. As
you are well aware, the possibility of historic designation at this
late date has potential ramifications for the improvement of
Highway 82.
The Board is very interested in commenting on this annexation.
Could you please provide us your understanding of the appropriate
mechanism for the Board to express its concerns. We are very
interested in becoming involved in this process.
Attached for your review is a copy of an article that appeared in
American Airlines Magazine, inwhich Mr. Berger describes his plan
for using historic designation as a way of obstructing the modified
entrance to town, a decision the public has twice voted for. We
don't wish to see that occur.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
iK
Reid Haug�y9
County Manager
tlg:county:rh01.01
Administration
530 E. Main, 3rd Floor
Aspen, CO 81611
(303) 920-5200
FAX 920-5198
printed on recycled paper
County Commissioners
Suite B
506 E. Main Street
Aspen, CO 81611
(303) 920-5150
County Attorney
Suite 1
530 E. Main Street
Aspen, CO 81611
(303) 920-5190
Personnel and Finance
Suite F
530 E. Main Street
Aspen, CO 81611
(303) 920-5220
Transportation
Facilities
76 Service Center Road
Aspen, CO 81611
(303)920-5390
MESSAGE DISPLAY
TO Kim Johnson CC Judy McKenzie
From: Larry Ballenger
Postmark: Mar 18,92 12:53 PM
Subject: Berger Annexation
Message:
This parcel is now served by City water. There is water available for
any further development if so required. As usual, any future use of
water will be in accordance with City Codes and Policy. Thanks>
MEMORANDUM
To: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
From: Chuck Roth, City Engineer C
Date: March 31, 1992
Re: Berger Annexation
1. Since the approximate area of the city is 1,411 acres, the annexation in question
represents a 0.08% size increase. This could be correlated into a potential increase of
0.08% for all City services and budget needs.
2. The City may want to ask for a right-of-way dedication in conjunction with the
annexation. This would be in view of possible future Highway 82 right-of-way needs.
3. There have been conversations about the annexation request being a tool to obtain
historic designation for the sole structure in the annexation area in order to block Highway
82 realignment efforts.
cc: Bob Gish, Public Works Director
M91111
MESSAGE DISPLAY
TO KIM JOHNSON
From: George Robinson
Postmark: Mar 17,92 5:44 AM
Status: Certified
Subject: BERGER ANNEXATION
Message:
THE PARKS DEPT. WOULD LIKE TO SEE A TRAIL EASEMENT, OF 15' FROM
RIVERS EDGE (CASTLE CREEK) FOR FUTURE USE OF A TRAIL ALIGNMENT OR
FOR THE USE OF A FISHERMANS EASEMENT ALONG THE RIVER,IF POSSIBLE.
-------========X
4` M:
RE:
MEMORANDUM
City Engineer F3
Water Department Im��
City Electric Department
PajXXs_Department
,.--"Police Department }
._.Streets
finance Department
Fire Marshal
City Attorney
Pitkin County Manager
�,R_--- --,---Kim Johnson, Planning
Berger Annexation - Request for Comments
DATE: March 9, 1992
Attached is a sketch of a 1.16 acre parcel located at 835 W. Main
for which annexation into the City is being sought by the owner
Bruce Berger. The annexation ordinance is scheduled for first
reading at City Council on April 13, 1992. Please consider Mr.
Berger's request and forward any comments to me no later than March
31, 1992. Please address how this annexation could impact City
services, budget, etc. Also state any conditions of approval which
would be applicable to this annexation request. Thank you for your
time. If you have any questions, please call me at x5100.
l
�- Ar-,
N�
MEMORANDUM
TO:
City Engineer
Water Department
artment
City Electri0ent
Parks Depar
Police Depdrtment
Streets/oDepartment
Fina a Department
Fir Marshal
C' y Attorney
itkin County Manager
FR
Kim Johnson, Plarm--ng
N Y�
rAnnex��onn
RE:
Berger --Request for Comments
DATE:
March'9, 1992
Attached is a sketch of a 1.16 acre parcel located at 835 W. Main
for which annexation into the City is being sought by the owner
Bruce Berger. The annexation ordinance is scheduled for first
reading at City Council on April 13, 1992. Please consider Mr.
Berger's request and forward any comments to me no later than March
31, 1992. Please address how this annexation could impact City
services, budget, etc. Also state any conditions of approval which
would be applicable to this annexation request. Thank you for your
time. If you have any questions, please call me at x5100.
5 / b r i , �'���
Jun 25,92 12:46 COLORADO .STORICAL SOC
• 11 r'
City Council .hihit0
Approved 19 _
By Ordinance
The Colorado History Museum 1300 Broadway Denver. Colorado 50203-2137
Juno 38, 1992
Kenneth M. Gambrill
Manager
Office of Environmental Review and Analysis
Colorado Department of Transportation
4201 East Arkansas Avenue
Denver, CO 80222
Re: Berger Cabin, 835 West Main Street, Aspen
Thank you for your correspondence dated May 29, 1992, requesting our
comments on the eligibility of the above property for inclusion in the
National Register of Historic Places. We understand that this property may
be within the area of potential effects of Project FC 082-1(14), East of
Basalt to Aspen.
It is our opinion that this property does not meet the National Register
criterion exception B for buildings less than 50 years old. The National
Register guidelines in Bulletin 22, "Guidelines for Evaluating and
Nominating Properties That Have Achieved Significance Within the Last Fifty
Years", states that it is only on rare occasions that properties
associated with individuals still living have been listed in the National
Register. For your information, we have enclosed that section of the
guidelines and also the section from Bulletin 15, "How to Apply the
National Register Criteria for Evaluation," that pertains to properties
less than 50 years old.
While the architect for the Berger Cabin, Fritz Benedict, has designed a
number of prominent Aspen residences, we feel that this cabin is not the
best example of his work. Therefore we find that the Berger Cabin is not
eligible for inclusion in either the National Register or the State
Register of Historic Properties.
if we may be of further assistance, please contact Barbara Norgren, our
National Register Coordinator, at 866-3392.
sincerely,
James E. Hartmann
State Historic Preservation Officer
•
MEMORANDUM
To: Diane Moore
cc: Kim Johnson
Amy Margerum
Jed Caswall
From: Roxanne Eflin 4,
Re: CDOT letter re: Berger annexation (see attached)
Date: June 5, 1992
Please refer to the attached letter I received from Sally Pearce,
staff historian for the CDOT, regarding the Berger annexation.
This letter does not deal with the specific question we asked of
the AG's office weeks ago. I phoned her immediately upon receipt
to find out where the letter is from the AG's office; she is making
follow up calls and should have an answer for us within the next
few days.
I asked Sally why the AG's office requested an official DOE
(Determination of Eligibility) on the Berger parcel from the SHPO
(State Historic Preservation Officer) before they would issue a
letter containing the specific information we requested: IS the
CDOT bound by local zoning regulations, i.e. Landmark Designation?
It appears they want all their "t's" crossed before issuing their
position in writing! I also asked her to pass along our desire to
have a non -ambiguous statement from the AG's office on this one.
Sally had already made an in-house determination four years ago
regarding the eligibility of the Berger parcel for the State or
National Register, and determined it was not eligible. I also
doubt the parcel would pass the standards of the State Review Board
for listing on either Register,. due particularly to ago (less than
50 years). Resources less than 50 years old must contain
significant merit in order to be listed.
I'll let you know more as soon as I know more.
STATE OF COLORADO
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
OT
4201 East Arkansas Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80222
(303) 757-9011
,UN 3
May 29, 1992
Mr. James Hartmann
State Historic Preservation Officer
Colorado History Museum
1300 Broadway
Denver, CO 80203
Dear Mr. Hartmann:
Attached for your review is a Historic Building Inventory Record for the Berger
Cabin, located at 835 West Main Street, in Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado. The Land
Use Application submitted by the owner to the City of Aspen requesting annexation and
historic designation is also attached for your information along with a copy of the
USGS Quad map showing the property's location. A survey of the area, conducted in
July 1988 by the Colorado Department of Transportation and updated in September of
the same year, identified eight sites either listed on or determined eligible for
inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. The Berger Cabin was not
identified during either of these surveys because it fails to meet the age criteria
of 50 years.
In an effort to clarify information in our files concerning CDOT Project FC
082-1(14), East of Basalt to Asper., we are requesting an official determination of
eligibility of this property for inclusion in both the National Register of Historic
Places and the State Register of Historic Places.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. If you need further information,
please contact CDOT historian Sally Pearce at 757-9786
.
Very truly yours,
I,
Kenneth M. Gambrill
/ Manager
Office of Environmental Review and Analysis
Attachment
EFI,n
•
•
DIS IBUTED TO:
o ua
Response By:
By Date: H(A &k/(v
For, Jv hr1 E
Mr. John Bennett, Mayor
City of Aspen
City Hall Galena St
Aspen, CO 81611
RFrr_-_IVED
MAR 5 I[ 3
a, ins• .;tI�A�2}/�(S Office
314 W Bleeker St B2
kspen C081611-3115
March 3, 1993
Dear Mr. Bennett:
Last year I attended a meeting of the Zoning
Board in relation to an application to change the zoning of
a property situated at the western end of Main St.
At that time I expressesd my opinion that
this proposed change was nothing more than an individual or
individuals to thwart the "straight in" approach of Route 82
to the western end of Main St.
ON February 22, 1993 there was a public
hearing on this same matter. I was unable to attend due to
the hospitalization of my wife. At which time I would have
expressed the same opinion.
Having owned a property in the area for
almost seventeen years and now having made my permanent
residence here in Aspen I am now expressing my opinion to
you, as Mayor.
The "straight in" approach for Route 82 was
approved by the majority of the voters, the log cabin on the
proposed property does not seem to me to be of any
historical significance. If it were to have any historical
importance, then it certainly should have been
registered at an earlier time and by those people or groups
who investigate these matters when properties were being
listed for their historical value.
Sincerely,
CV
A. rederick Uhler
w
A. Frederick Uhler
814 W. Bleeker St. B2
Aspen, Co. 81611-3115
RE: Berger Annexation
Dear Mr. Uhler,
March 22, 1993
On behalf of the Planning Office, I would like to respond to
the March 3, 1993 letter which you sent to Mayor Bennett. We
appreciate your interest and concern that Mr. Bruce N. Berger's
annexation request might impact the "straight shot" entry of
Highway 82 into Aspen. During the fifteen months since the
application was submitted, staff has thoroughly explored the
potential consequences of Landmark Designation of Mr. Berger's
cabin. According to indications from the Colorado Department of
Transportation, a local historic designation will not impact the
alignment of the highway.
The approval ordinance for the annexation includes statements
which restate Mr. Berger's desire "to obtain the right of franchise
and not to impede, prevent or otherwise interfere in the proposed
alignment of state highway 82 into the City of Aspen" and that the
City "accepts and relies upon the representations of B.N. Berger
that the annexation of his property to the City of Aspen is not
being sought to influence the proposed alignment of state highway
82".
I hope this information clarifies the situation that City
Council has been dealing with. If you have any questions, please
contact me at 920-5100.
Sincerely,
Kim Johnson
Planner
T6:
THRUM
/PHRU
FROM:
DATE:
MEMORANDUM 34Z
Mayr and City Council
Amy Margerum, City Manager
6iane Mdore, City Planning Directo
Kim Johnson, Planner
February 22, 1993
RE: Berger Annexation - Second Reading of
Series 1992
i
3
Ordinance 23,
SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends approval and second
reading of Ordinance 23, 1992 for the Berger Annexation. The
annexation request is accompanied by a request for rezoning to R-
15 (Moderate -Density Residential) which is being handled by
separate memo and ordinance.
Since first readin December 14 199�2u approval dinance
has to becom effective on 1993 provided at
a isherman's easemen 's execute ye. This timeframe
will allow Mr. Berger to execute the fisherman's easement upon his
return to the United States. The will become
effective concurrent with the annexation-_
BACKGROUND: First reading of this ordinance was opened by City
Council on April 13, 1992 and continued until July 13, 1992 to
allow staff to explore potential conflicts between the Colorado
Department of Transportation's Highway 82 future realignment and
proposed designation of the property as an Historic Landmark.
Please refer to Staff Comments section of this memo for further
discussion of this matter.
On July 13, 1992 staff brought forward that no written statement
could be obtained from CDOT regarding the local landmark
designation's effect on the Highway 82 re -alignment. At that
meeting, Council became concerned that the proposed annexation
might detrimentally affect the outcome of the Transportation Plan
being discussed by representatives of Aspen, Pitkin County and the
Town of Snowmass Village. Council decided to continue first
reading until December 14, 1992 in order to hear the outcome of the
joint discussions. First reading passed by a 3-1 vote on December
14, 1992. Please refer to minutes of July 13, 1992, Exhibit "A".
The applicant is Bruce N. Berger. The 1.16 acre parcel is located
at 835 West Main Street. Please see parcel and vicinity in Exhibit
1
"B". The metes and bounds description is contained within the
annexation ordinance prepared by the City Attorney's Office.
Current zoning in the County is R-15. Requested zoning is R-15
upon annexation into the City. The current use of the property is
one single family residence of approximately 1,000 square feet.
No change to this use is proposed relative to the rezoning request.
Upon annexation the applicant intends to continue processing a
request for landmark designation for the residence.
STAFF COMMENTS: The Planning Office received comments from Parks,
Police, Water, Finance, Engineering, the City Attorney, and Pitkin
County Manager Reid Haughey. Their complete comments are attached
as Exhibit "C". No objections to the proposed annexation have been
raised by the City departments. Very limited impacts to the City
are anticipated. As the subject property is currently served by
City services, an annexation agreement is not required for the
annexation proposal.
Mr. Berger wishes to annex his parcel and apply for the City's
Historical Landmark Designation. The application has been
submitted to the Planning Office and will be considered by the
Historic Preservation Committee, Planning and Zoning Commission and
City Council only after completion of the annexation process.
Regardless of whether or not his residence is approved as an
historic landmark, the Planning Office believes that the parcel
should be annexed into the City. The foremost reason is that the
Berger parcel is surrounded by the city on three sides. Any future
development on the parcel could affect the neighboring city
properties. It seems logical that City zoning regulations should
prevail in order to promote maximum compatibility with the existing
neighborhood. This point was emphasized by the Planning Commission
during its rezoning review of this parcel.
The correspondence received from CDOT and the Colorado Historical
Society dwells on the fact that the Berger cabin is not eligible
for State or National designation. Please refer to Exhibit "D".
The State Attorney General's Office would not comment on whether
or not a local historic designation would hamper the realignment
of Highway 82. The CDOT has indicated verbally that local land use
regulations such as an historic designation will not impact the
highway project. Although the State has not responded directly to
the City's question, staff believes that a local historic
designation would not impact the future highway realignment.
Council's majority opinion on July 13, 1992 was that the Aspen to
Snowmass Transportation Plan discussions between the upper valley
governments would lead Council toward a decision on the Berger
annexation request. However, the Aspen to Snowmass Transportation
Plan panel did not address the highway's entry to Aspen, thus
nothing new can be reported to Council specific to this
annexation's impact on the Aspen to Snowmass Transportation Plan.
Because of the lack of new information, staff continues to
o►l
recommend approval of the Berger annexation.
In response to a staff inquiry regarding the City's obligation to
annex territory, Assistant City Attorney John Worcester writes
(Exhibit "C") that the City Council "can accept or reject the
Petition for Annexation for any reason they feel is in the best
interests of the City of Aspen". This is backed by the Supreme
Court of Colorado's statement that "A municipality is under no
legal obligation in the first instance to annex contiguous
territory, and may reject a petition for annexation for no reason
at all."
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of amended Ordinance 23,
Series 1992 for the Berger Annexation.
ALTERNATIVES: Council could elect to reject the annexation for any
reason.
PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve second reading of Ordinance
23, Series 1992 as amended approving the Berger Annexation."
CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS:
Attachments:
Ordinance 23, 1992
Exhibits:
"A" - Minutes of 7/13/92 City Council Meeting
"B" - Map of Proposed Annexation
"C" - Complete Referral Comments
"D" - Letters from CDOT (5/29/92) and Colorado Historical Society
6/18/92
3
• R
ORDINANCE NO. 23
(Series of 1992)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
APPROVING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, TO BE KNOWN AND DESIGNATED AS THE BERGER ANNEXATION.
WHEREAS, on October 22, 1991, B. N. Berger did file with the City Clerk of the City
of Aspen a Petition for Annexation of territory to the City of Aspen, whereby real property as
described hereinbelow was being petitioned for annexation to the City of Aspen; and
WHEREAS, the petition, including accompanying copies of an annexation map, has been
reviewed by the City Attorney's Office and the City Engineer and found by them to contain the
information prescribed and set forth in paragraphs (c) and (d) of subsection (1) of §31-12-107,
C.R.S.; and
WHEREAS, the petition was signed by the owners of one hundred percent (100%) of the
area proposed to be annexed, exclusive of streets and alleys; and
WHEREAS, more than two-thirds (2/3) of the perimeter of the area proposed to be
annexed is contiguous to the City of Aspen; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, by resolution (Number 3, Series of 1992) at its regular
meeting on January 13, 1992, did find and determine said Petition for Annexation to be in
substantial compliance with the provisions of subsection (1) of §31-12-107, C.R.S.; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, by resolution (Number 11, Series of 1992) at its regular
meeting on February 24, 1992, did find and determine, following a public hearing, said Petition
for Annexation to be in substantial compliance with §31-12-105, C.R.S.; and
WHEREAS, the City Council does hereby find and determine that approval of the
annexation of said territory to be in the City's best interest;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1. That the tract of land described in the Petition for Annexation of territory
in to the City of Aspen, Colorado, commonly referred to as the Berger Annexation, which is
hereby incorporated by this reference, and as shown on the annexation map thereof and
described as follows, is hereby annexed to the City of Aspen, Colorado:
a parcel of land in Section 12, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of Sixth Principal Meridian, Pitkin
County, Colorado, more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at comer no. 7 of Aspen Townsite, being the same as comer no. 1 of the B. N. Berger
Annexation;
Thence N07038'E 24.45 feet to comer no.2;
Thence N74°30'W 245.85 feet to comer no.3;
Thence S37°50'E 314.72 feet to comer no.4;
Thence S83°31'E to comer no.5, the intersection with a line drawn parallel with and distant 15.00 feet
north easterly at right angles from a line bearing S74'30'E from said comer no. 4;
Thence S74030'E to comer no. 6, the intersection with a line bearing N15030'E from a point which is
S74030'E 250.00 feet from said comer no.4;
Thence N15030'E to comer no. 7, the intersection with the northerly line of Block 13 of the City of Aspen;
Thence westerly along said northerly line to comer no. 8, the intersection with a line bearing S55016'E
from comer no. 7 of Aspen Townsite;
Thence N55°16'W to the point of beginning;
Excepting therefrom any portion of Block 13 of the City of Aspen.
Section 2. The aforesaid annexation shall become effective on July 1, 1993, provided
that prior to that date the owner of the property to be annexed has executed a fisherman's
easement approved as to form by the City Attorney; and, provided further that the requirements
of §31-12-113, C.R.S., are complied with prior to July 1, 1993.
Section 3. The City Clerk of the City of Aspen is hereby directed as follows:
(a) To file one copy of the annexation map with the original of this annexation
ordinance in the office of the City Clerk of the City of Aspen.
(b) To certify and file two copies of this annexation ordinance and of the annexation
map with the Clerk and Recorder of the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado.
2
(c) To request the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County to file one certified copy of this
annexation ordinance and of the annexation map with the Division of Local Government of the
Department of Local Affairs, State of Colorado.
Section 4. The City Engineer of the City of Aspen is hereby directed to amend the
Official Map of the City of Aspen to reflect the boundary changes adopted pursuant to this
annexation ordinance.
Section 5. That if any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this
ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction,
such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect
the validity of the remaining portions thereof.
Section 6. That this ordinance shall not have any effect on existing litigation and shall
not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the
ordinances amended as herein provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded under
such prior ordinances.
A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the day of
1992, in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado.
3
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law by the City
Council of the City of Aspen on the day of
John S. Bennett, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this day of
1992.
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
bMem.ord
John S. Bennett, Mayor
, 1992.
4
J
fity Council Exhibit
Approved 1 By Ordinance
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 13, 1992
ORDINANCE #23, SERIES OF 1992 - Berger Annexation
Councilman Peters moved to read Ordinance #23, Series of 1992;
seconded by Councilwoman Richards. All in favor, with the
exception of Councilwoman Pendleton. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #23
(Series of 1992)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN
COLORADO APPROVING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO TO BE KNOWN AND DESIGNATED AS
THE BERGER ANNEXATION was read by the city clerk
Kim Johnson, planning office, reminded Council they first discussed
this April 13. Council was concerned the city had not heard
anything definitive from the Department of Transportation regarding
whether annexation and the anticipated historic designation request
would hinder the highway realignment. Ms. Johnson told Council
there have been various conversations with the state, including
the state historical department and DOT. The Attorney General's
office would not commit in writing as requested. The DOT has
indicated verbally that any local land use regulations will not
affect the highway project. Staff recommends approval of annex-
ation.
Jed Caswall, city attorney, told Council his research indicates
that a local designation will not trigger all the federal regula-
tions regarding historic landmark in construction of a highway
wholly or partially funded by federal funds. Caswall said neither
the attorney general's office or CDOT would put this in writing.
Scott Harper, representing the applicant, told Council he received
the same information. The CDOT has no opposition to local
designation.
Mayor Bennett said the Council is working very hard on a transpor-
tation solution that will work for the entire community and to
forge a partnership between all entities in the valley. Mayor
Bennett said he is loathe to put at risk the relationships
developing with the partners.
Bruce Berger said he would like to be annexed so that he can vote
in city elections. Berger pointed out he is surrounded by city
land. Harper said he feels the annexation is in the best interests
of the community. The annexation supports two goals of the
community; to continue annexation of the metropolitan areas and to
develop consistent and fair government. It seems fair this parcel
should be part of the city.
1us3
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 13, 1992
Councilman Reno said this seems to be a timing issue. There would
be a perception this would be a wrench thrown into the transporta-
tion picture. Councilman Reno asked why this annexation request is
coming forth right now. Berger told Council he only recently
learned that houses under 50 years old could apply for historic
designation. When he learned this, he started the annexation
process. At that time, he also found about out survey work that
had to be done. It has taken 3 years to get that survey work done.
Berger said the highway was first proposed in 1969 and this request
would have looked as if this was a motive to stop the highway
anytime in the past 23 years. Berger said he wants to bring it to
everyone's attention that there is a historic structure in this
transportation corridor.
Councilman Peters said the goal of consistent and fair government
is the hardest to live up to. This is a good example. Councilman
Peters said the likelihood Berger's house will be declared a
federal historic landmark is remote. Councilman Peters said this
request is a chance to allow Berger to apply to the HPC and to get
some protection from development around him. Councilman Peters
said he feels this is a legitimate request that has to be honored
no matter how people perceive it.
ik ki?isi
Mayor Bennett said Council has the authority to annex or not annex.
Mayor Bennett asked if Council has the same ability to grant or not
to grant historic designation. Jed Caswall, city attorney, said if
he can fit his property within the established guidelines for
designation, Council has limited or no discretion. HPC will
conduct hearings to determine whether the property meets the
guidelines for being on the inventory.
Councilwoman Pendleton said Council has been working with the
county and with Snowmass on the transportation plan. This
outweighs voting in favor of annexation or doing anything that is
perceived to holding up the highway. Councilwoman Pendleton said
when transportation issues get decided, that would be the time to
be annexed. Councilman Reno agreed about the perception of this
and the proposed transportation plan. Councilman Reno requested
time for the transportation plan to solidify.
Councilwoman Richards said the Council seems to be so afraid of
public perception that they will throw someone's rights away.
Councilwoman Richards said Council is hiding the human and
character costs of the highway from the general public by denying
an individual his rights to go through the legal process.
Councilwoman Richards said she feels Council is acting arbitrarily
and capriciously in order to serve a PR purpose. Councilwoman
Richards said she would like to follow staffs recommendations that
the annexation stands on its own merits.
19
i
1 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 13, 1992
Councilman Peters said he feels one thing that will affect the
DOT's planning for the four -line will be the clean air standards.
One thing that will not affect it very much is the designation of
this house. Councilman Peters said Berger is a citizen of Aspen
who has contributed a lot to town and he should have a chance to go
to the HPC. Harper said if the highway is not going to come to
town for the next 5 years, he would urge Council to approve the
annexation for that.5 years as there is a community of interest.
Councilwoman Richards moved to suspend the rules and extend the
meeting to 9:30 p.m.; seconded by Councilman Peters. All in favor,
motion carried.
Mayor Bennett noted the applicant has stated the point of all this
is to obstruct the highway. Mayor Bennett said he publicly opposed
the straight shot and voted against it; however, he is committed to
the public process, to votes of the people and to the partnership
with other entities. Mayor Bennett said there are merits to both
sides of this case. The city is in the middle of a transportation
plan which should end in the next 60 to 90 days. Mayor Bennett
said Aspen has been waiting at least 20 years to find the solution
to the transportation problems. Mayor Bennett said he is not
,�tt44xut willing to throw a wrench into this at the last minute. Mayor
Bennett said he could support continuing this application until the
transportation plan is complete.
Councilwoman Richards said she does not see anything to be afraid
of in terms of public perception. Les Holst, HPC member, said he
would like to have this house on the inventory. Harper suggested
Council allow the annexation to go through and have Berger commit
not to apply for historic designation for the next 6 months. Sara
Garton, P & Z member, said P & Z considers issues from the best
planning for the community, and the best planning for the community
is annexation of a parcel surrounded on 3 sides by the city. There
is a clear directive from the community to annex sites like this.
Ms. Garton pointed out this is the city's front yard and the city
should be able to have a say about the entrance to town.
Councilwoman Pendleton moved to continue the Berger annexation to
the first Council meeting in January; seconded by Councilman Reno.
Mayor Bennett agreed with continuing the issue but requested it be
sooner than 1993. Councilwoman Pendleton amended her motion to the
first meeting in December; seconded by Councilman Reno. All in
favor, with the exception of Councilmembers Richards and Peters.
Councilman Peters moved to adjourn t 9:34 p.m.; s c ded by
Councilwoman Richards. All in favor o ' n carrie
Kathryn Y.
Koc City Clerk
20
41ty Council Exhibit"
Approved , 1�
By ordinance
t
wft quo me own
v
1
1
i
t'
1
1 1
N
g;c1
IVI
7 o
t- Q
��
1nODiid
Osz
ON
OSt
MR
OS
I
z
4
R
Ln
W
o
ro
Ii
Z
Y
`
-x
L
1
d�
W
City Council Exhibit_ /f
Approved , 19 _
By Ordinance
CITY OF ASPEN
City Attorney's Office
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 920-5055
MEMORANDUM
TO: Kim Johnson
FROM: John P. Worcester,
DATE: April 2, 1992
RE: Berger Annexation
Attached please find two ordinances for the Berger Annexation currently scheduled to be
considered by Council on April 13, 1992. The first ordinance is the annexing ordinance; the
second would zone the parcel R-15 upon the effective date of the annexation.
I will be present when Council considers the ordinances to answer any legal questions they may
have relating to the annexation or zoning ordinances.
You have asked that I provide a legal opinion on whether City Council has any affirmative legal
obligation to annex territory that is eligible for annexation pursuant to the Municipal Annexation
Act. As you know, Council's actions to date with regard to the Berger Annexation have been
to determine that the Petition for Annexation is in compliance with the statutory requirements,
that the property is statutorily eligible for annexation, and that no statutory limitations exist to
prevent Council from annexing the territory into the City. The decision to adopt or not to adopt
the proposed annexation ordinance now before Council is strictly a legislative act by Council.
As such, they can accept or reject the Petition for Annexation for any reason they feel is in the
best interests of the City of Aspen. The Supreme Court of Colorado has specifically stated in
this regard that:
A municipality is under no legal obligation in the first instance to annex contiguous
territory, and may reject a petition for annexation for no reason at all.
City of Colorado Springs v Kitty Hawk Development Comp., 392 P.2d 467, 472 (1964).
If you have any questions please don't hesitate to call or drop by.
beigeran.mem
MEMORANDUM
To: Kim Johnson, City Planner
From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer
Re: Berger Annexation - 835 W. Main St.
Date: April 6, 1992
The question of whether Landmark Designation could prevent
demolition or relocation, and thereby preclude the realigned and
expanded highway from taking the property at 835 W. Main, is not
yet resolved. In a previous phone conversation with Sally Pearce,
Staff Historian for the CDoT, I understood her to tell me that the
CDoT is not exempt from local land use regulations. However, in
a follow up call to Sally with Jed Caswall and Diane Moore, she
stated she did not know for sure. Clearly, she was not aware of
another case like this one in the state. I recommend we get a
reading from the CDoT in writing regarding the applicability of
local land use regulations and building permit requirements
regarding highway development activities.
A complete Landmark Designation application has been submitted for
processing for the Berger property, which will be begin following
formal annexation by the City. Only one of six Designation
Standards must be met in order for a resource to receive Landmark
Designation. In my initial review of the application and the
Standards; it appears that the property does meet Standard F,
regarding contribution to community character.
It is important to understand that even if the Berger parcel were
to receive Landmark Designation, demolition is not automatically
precluded. An application for demolition may be submitted for
review by the HPC. Should the applicable standards be met, the
property may receive demolition approval. It is, however, unlikely
that the demolition standards could be met regarding this property,
in my opinion. The Standards are strict and were designed to
prevent rampant demolition of community resources. The penalties
for demolition without appropriate approval consist of a minor fine
and a five year building permit moratorium on the parcel.
Pitkin County
January 20,/ 1992
Amy Marge�rum
city —manager
130 S Galena
Aspen CO 81611
Dear Amy:
The Board of County Commissioners have expressed a significant
concern about the proposed annexation of the Berger Property. As
you are well aware, the possibility of historic designation at this
late date has potential ramifications for the improvement of
Highway 82.
The Board is very interested in commenting on this annexation.
Could you please provide us your understanding of the appropriate
mechanism for the Board to express its concerns. We are very
interested in becoming involved in this process.
Attached for your review is a copy of an article that appeared in
American Airlines Magazine, inwhich Mr. Berger describes his plan
for using historic designation as a way of obstructing the modified
entrance to town, a decision the public has twice voted for. We
don't wish to see that occur.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Reid HC, . 111�L)Al-
wlj�
County Manager
tlg:county:rh01.01
Administration
530 E. Main, 3rd Floor
Aspen, CO 81611
(303) 920-5200
FAX 920-5198
r94� nr;nred on recycled paper
County Commissioners
Suite B
506 E. Main Street
Aspen, CO 81611
(303)920-5150
County Attorney
Suite 1
530 E. Main Street
Aspen, CO 81611
(303)920-5190
Personnel and Finance
Suite F
530 E. Main Street
Aspen, CO 81611
(303) 920-5220
Transportation
Facilities
76 Service Center Road
Aspen, CO 81611
(303)920-5390
MESSAGE DISPLAY
TO Kim Johnson CC Judy McKenzie
From: Larry Ballenger
Postmark: Mar 18,92 12:53 PM
Subject: Berger Annexation
---------- -------------------------------------------------------------------
Message:
This parcel is now served by City water. There is water available for
any further development if so required. As usual, any future use of
water will be in accordance with City Codes and Policy. Thanks>
•
MEMORANDUM
To: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
From: Chuck Roth, City Engineer C
Date: March 31, 1992
Re: Berger Annexation
1. Since the approximate area of the city is 1,411 acres, the annexation in question
represents a 0.08% size increase. This could be correlated into a potential increase of
0.08% for all City services and budget needs.
2. The City may want to ask for a right-of-way dedication in conjunction with the
annexation. This would be in view of possible future Highway 82 right-of-way needs.
3. There have been conversations about the annexation request being a tool to obtain
historic designation for the sole structure in the annexation area in order to block Highway
82 realignment efforts.
cc: Bob Gish, Public Works Director
M92111
MESSAGE DISPLAY
TO KIM JOHNSON
From: George Robinson
Postmark: Mar 17,92 5:44 AM
Status: Certified
Subject: BERGER ANNEXATION
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message:
THE PARKS DEPT. WOULD LIKE TO SEE A TRAIL EASEMENT, OF 15' FROM
RIVERS EDGE (CASTLE CREEK) FOR FUTURE USE OF A TRAIL ALIGNMENT OR
FOR THE USE OF A FISHERMANS EASEMENT ALONG THE RIVER,IF POSSIBLE.
•
0
M:
RE:
MEMORANDUM,
City Engineer t row
Department 1'r►`
City Electric Department
Parks --Department w
��olice Department
finance Department
Fire Marshal
City Attorney
Pitkin County Manager
�R,��`Itim Johnson, Planning
Berger Annexation - Request for Comments
DATE: March 9, 1992
Attached is a sketch of a 1.16 acre parcel located at 835 W. Main
for which annexation into the City is being sought by the owner
Bruce Berger. The annexation ordinance is scheduled for first
reading at City Council on April 13, 1992. Please consider Mr.
Berger Is request and forward any comments to me no later than March
31, 1992. Please address how this annexation could impact City
services, budget, etc. Also state any conditions of approval which
would be applicable to this annexation request. Thank you for your
time. If you have any questions, please call me at x5100.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
City Engineer
Water Department
City Electric partment
Parks Depar ent
Police De rtment
Streets epartment
Fina a Department
Fir Marshal
C' y Attorney
itkin County Manager
FR
Kim Johnson, Plain -xn
RE:
Berger Annex�i_on kequest for Comments
DATE:
March'9, 1992
Attached is a sketch of a 1.16 acre parcel located at 835 W. Main
for which annexation into the City is being sought by the owner
Bruce Berger. The annexation ordinance is scheduled for first
reading at City Council on April 13, 1992. Please consider Mr.
Berger's request and forward any comments to me no later than March
31, 1992. Please address how this annexation could impact City
services, budget, etc. Also state any conditions of approval which
would be applicable to this annexation request. Thank you for your
time. If you have any questions, please call me at x5100.
�kze.W
Ito, �?
Jun 25,92.12:46 COLORADJaSTORICAL SOC
0 1 J rr
City Council Exhibit_p-L
Approved , 19 _
By Ordinance
The Colorado History Museum 1300 Broadway Denver. Colorado 80203-2137
Juno 38, 1992
Kenneth H. Gambrill
Manager
Office of Environmental Review and Analysis
Colorado Department of Transportation
4201 East Arkansas Avenue
Denver, CO 80222
Re: Berger Cabin, 835 West Hain Street, Aspen
Thank you for your correspondence dated May 29, 1992, requesting our
comments on the eligibility of the above property for inclusion in the
National Register of Historic Places. We understand that this property may
be within the area of potential effects of Project FC 082-1(14), East of
Basalt to Aspen.
It is our opinion that this property does not meet the National Register
criterion exception B for buildings less than 50 years old. The National
Register guidelines in Bullotin 22. "Guidelines for Evaluating and
Nominating Properties That Have Achieved Significance Within the Last Fifty
Years", states that it is only on rare occasions that properties
associated with individuals still living have bccn listed in the National
Register. For your information, we have enclosed that section of the
guidelines and also the section, from Bulletin 15, "How to Apply the
National Register Criteria for Evaluation," that pertains to properties
less than 50 years old.
' While the architect for the Berger Cabin, Fritz Benedict, has designed a
number of prominent Aspen residences, we feel that this cabin is not the
best example of his work. Therefore we find that the Berger Cabin is not
eligible for inclusion in either the National Register or the State
Register of Historic Properties.
If we may be of further assistance, please contact Barbara Norgren, our
National Register Coordinator, at 866-3392.
Sincerely,
James E. Hartmann
State Historic Preservation Officer
MEMORANDUM
To: Diane Moore
cc: Kim Johnson
Amy Margerum
Jed Caswall
From: Roxanne Eflin
Re: CDOT letter re: Berger annexation (see attached)
Date: June 5, 1992
Please refer to the attached letter I received from Sally Pearce,
staff historian for the CDOT, regarding the Berger annexation.
This letter does not deal with the specific question we asked of
the AG's office weeks ago. I phoned her immediately upon receipt
to f ind out where the letter is from the AG' s of f ice; she is making
follow up calls and should have an answer for us within the next
few days.
I asked Sally why the AG's office requested an official DOE
(Determination of Eligibility) on the Berger parcel from the SHPO
(State Historic Preservation Officer) before they would issue a
letter containing the specific information we requested: IS the
CDOT bound by local zoning regulations, i.e. Landmark Designation?
It appears they want all their "t's" crossed before issuing their
position in writing! I also asked her to pass along our desire to
have a non -ambiguous statement from the AG's office on this one.
Sally had already made an in-house determination four years ago
regarding the eligibility of the Berger parcel for the State or
National Register, and determined it was not eligible. I also
doubt the parcel would pass the standards of the State Review Board
for listing on either Register,- due particularly to ago (less than
50 years). Resources less than 50 years old must contain
significant merit in order to be listed.
I'll let you know more as soon as I know more.
•
•
STATE OF COLORADO
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONA.
OT
4201 East Arkansas Avenue
Denver. Colorado 80222
(303)757-9011
May 29, 1992
Mr. James Hartmann
State Historic Preservation Officer
Colorado History Museum
1300 Broadway
Denver, CO 80203
Dear Mr. Hartmann:
Attached for your review is a Historic Building Inventory Record for the Berger
Cabin, located at 835 West Main Street, in Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado. The Land
Use Application submitted by the owner to the City of Aspen requesting annexation and
historic designation is also attached for your information along with a copy of the
USGS Quad map showing the property's location. A survey of the area, conducted in
July 1988 by the Colorado Department of Transportation and updated in September of
the same year, identified eight sites either listed on or determined eligible for
inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. The Berger Cabin was not
identified during either of these surveys because it fails to meet the age criteria
of 50 years.
In an effort to clarify information in our files concerning CDOT Project FC
082-1(14), East of Basalt to Aspen, we are requesting an official determination of
eligibility of this property for inclusion in both the National Register of Historic
Places and the State Register of Historic Places.
Tbank you for your prompt attention to this matter. If you need further information,
please contact CDOT historian Sally Pearce at 757-9786.
Very truly yours,
Kenneth M. Gambrill
Manager
Office of Environmental Review and Analysis
Attachment
EFt,rn
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager
THRU: Diane Moore, City Planning Direct
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner
DATE: February 22, 1993
RE: Berger Rezoning from County R-15 Zoning (Residential) to
City R-15 (Moderate Density Residential) - Second Reading
of Ordinance 24, Series 1992.
SUMMARY: First reading of this ordinance passed by a 3-1 vote on
December 14, 1992. It tracks with the annexation review being
heard separately.
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of the
rezoning from County R-15 to City R-15. This rezoning will become
valid only upon annexation of this parcel which will become
effective on July 1, 1993 per Ordinance 23, Series 1992.
This parcel has also requested Historic Landmark Designation. This
process will not commence until annexation has been formally
approved by City Council.
BACKGROUND: The applicant is Bruce N. Berger, represented by Scott
Harper. The 1.16 acre parcel is located at 835 West Main Street.
Please see parcel and vicinity in Exhibit "A".
Rezoning is a two-step review. City Council makes the final
determination of a rezoning request.
STAFF COMMENTS: State Statutes require that land annexed into a
city must have city zoning applied within 90 days of annexation.
The annexation of Mr. Berger's property is being considered under
a separate memo and ordinance concurrent with this zoning request.
The following are standards from Section 7-1102 which must be
addressed when considering a Map Amendment (rezoning):
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any
applicable portions of this chapter.
Response: There are no conflicts with the Land Use Code which will
arise as a result of this rezoning.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements
of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
,
Response: The 1973 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map shows this area
to be single family residential. The proposed zoning would be in
conformance with the 1973 Plan and the current residential use.
C. Whether the proposed zoning amendment is compatible with
surrounding Zone Districts and land uses, considering existing
land use and neighborhood characteristics.
Response: The subject parcel is surrounded on three sides by land
within the City limits. The single family neighborhood to the east
is zoned R-15. To the west and downslope is Castle Creek with the
City -owned Marolt open space property zoned R-15A PUD / SPA. The
Aspen Villas, zoned RMF (Residential/Multi-Family), lie to the
north of the subject property across West Main St. To the south,
single family residential development in the County is zoned
R-15. County R-15 zoning would allow this parcel to develop
maximum of three 15,000 s.f. lots, with less floor area per lot
than City zoning would allow.
The proposed R-15 zone is compatible with these residential zones
and uses.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation
and road safety.
Response: The change will not affect the level of activity at this
site.
E. Whether the proposal will result in increased demand on public
facilities.
Response: No changes in public facilities needs will result from
this rezoning. The current residential use is proposed to
continue.
F. Whether the proposed amendment will result in impacts on the
natural environment.
Response: No adverse impacts are anticipated as a result of the
rezoning.
G. Whether the proposal is consistent and compatible with the
community character in the City of Aspen.
Response: The Berger residence has been in this location since
1947. The proposed zone change will not diminish the character of
the community.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE VOTE: The Planning and Zoning Commission
approved the rezoning request by a vote of 6-0 at their regular
meeting on March 17, 1992. The Commission based its decision on
the fact that the property is nearly surrounded by similar City
zoning and any future development should be guided by City zoning
regulations rather than County regulations. They recognize that
the proposed rezoning is contingent upon Council's annexation of
the parcel into the City limits of Aspen.
At the March 17 public hearing, several neighbors of the subject
property came and voiced their concern about the possibility that
the rezoning action could deter the Dept. of Transportation's
efforts to bring the highway in as a "straight shot". Staff and
the Commission made it clear that the rezoning itself had no
bearing on that issue.
ALTERNATIVES: In order for the parcel to comply with the single
family residential zoning indicated on the 1973 Land Use Map, the
parcel would have to be zoned either R-6 (Medium Density) or R-30
(Low Density).
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve and have second reading of
Ordinance 24, Series 1992 for rezoning of the Berger parcel to R-
15 Moderate Density Residential, effective upon annexation of the
site into the City."
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
Ordinance 24, Series 1992
Exhibit "A" - Parcel Map
3
ORDINANCE NO. 24
(Series of 1992)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
ZONING THE BERGER ANNEXATION PARCEL TO R-15 (MODERATE DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL).
WHEREAS, the City Council has, by ordinance (Ordinance No. 23, Series of 1992),
recently annexed to the City of Aspen territory designated as the Berger Annexation, as more
fully described hereinbelow; and
WHEREAS, §31-12-115(2), C.R.S., requires any area annexed to be brought under the
City's zoning ordinance within ninety days after the effective date of the annexing ordinance;
and
WHEREAS, subsequent to their public hearing held March 17, 1992, the Aspen Planning
and Zoning Commission has recommended that the Berger Annexation be zoned R-15 upon
being annexed into the City of Aspen; and
WHEREAS, the City Council agrees that the R-15 zone is the most appropriate for the
annexed territory designated as the Berger Annexation;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1. That from and after the effective date of the annexing ordinance (Ordinance
No. 23, Series of 1992) the following described property shall be zoned R-15, and subject to
those zoning regulations applicable to said zone district and described in Chapter 24 of the
Aspen Municipal Code, as now exists or may hereinafter be amended:
a parcel of land in Section 12, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of Sixth Principal Meridian, Pitkin
County, Colorado, more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at comer no. 7 of Aspen Townsite, being the same as corner no. 1 of the B. N. Berger
Annexation;
Thence N07°38'E 24.45 feet to comer no.2;
Thence N74°30'W 245.85 feet to corner no.3;
Thence S37°50'E 314.72 feet to corner no.4;
Thence S83°31'E to corner no.5, the intersection with a line drawn parallel with and distant 15.00 feet
north easterly at right angles from a line bearing S74°30'E from said corner no. 4;
Thence S74°30'E to corner no. 6, the intersection with a line bearing N15'30'E from a point which is
S74030'E 250.00 feet from said corner no.4;
Thence N15°30'E to corner no. 7, the intersection with the northerly line of Block 13 of the City of Aspen;
Thence westerly along said northerly line to comer no. 8, the intersection with a line bearing S55°16'E
from corner no. 7 of Aspen Townsite;
Thence N55°16'W to the point of beginning;
Excepting therefrom any portion of Block 13 of the City of Aspen.
Section 2. The Official Zone District Map for the City of Aspen shall be and is
hereby amended to reflect that zoning as set forth in Section 1 above and such amendment shall
be promptly entered on the Official Map in accordance with Section 24-5-103 (B) of the
Municipal Code.
Section 3. The City Clerk is directed upon adoption of this ordinance to record a copy
in the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office.
Section 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this
ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction,
such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect
the validity of the remaining portions thereof.
Section 5. That this ordinance shall not have any effect on existing litigation and shall
not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the
ordinances amended as herein provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded under
such prior ordinances.
•
C]
A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the day of
1992, in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law by the City
Council of the City of Aspen on the day of
John S. Bennett, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this day of
, 1993.
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
John S. Bennett, Mayor
, 1992.
3
&Jty Council Exhibit
Approved
By Ordinance
d
1
3= I
1 �
f �z t
tl
0 3 /
F�- X v !��!� OSz
LLJ
� ooz
lnoD (—lld CIO< ost
I
as
- -ODL-
0
N
0 G
Z
/� / 09
Z �, Y/) //d
�1/J '�
pQP Z 0
b
E�
LO
0
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager
THRU: Diane Moore, City Planning Direc
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner
DATE: July 13, 1992
1�
RE: Berger Annexation - Continued First Reading of Ordinance
23, Series 1992
SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends approval and first reading
of Ordinance 23, 1992 for the Berger Annexation. The annexation
request is accompanied by a request for rezoning to R-15 which is
being handled by separate memo and ordinance.
On April 13, 1992, first reading of this ordinance was opened by
City Council. Due to Council's concern about whether this
annexation and subsequent processing of an application for
Designated Historic Landmark would interfere with the Colorado
Department of Transportation's Highway 82 future realignment, first
reading was continued to July 13, 1992 allow staff to obtain a
written opinion from the CDOT. Please refer to Staff Comments
section of this memo for further discussion of this matter.
COUNCIL GOALS: This request supports Goal 13 "to continue the
annexation of the metropolitan area...".
APPLICANT: Bruce N. Berger, represented by Scott Harper
LOCATION: The 1.16 acre parcel is located at 835 West Main
Street. Please see parcel and vicinity in Exhibit "A". The metes
and bounds description is contained within the annexation ordinance
prepared by the City Attorney's Office.
ZONING / USE: Current zoning in the County is R-15. Requested
zoning is R-15 upon annexation into the City. This is being
presented to Council under separate memo and ordinance. The
current use of the property is one single family residence of
approximately 1,000 square feet. No change to this use is proposed
relative to the rezoning request.
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Mr. Berger is requesting annexation into the
City of Aspen. He has proposed R-15 zoning for the parcel. Upon
annexation the Planning Office will begin processing a request for
1
landmark designation for the existing structure on the site.
REFERRAL COMMENTS: The Planning Office received comments from
Parks, Police, Water, Finance, Engineering, the City Attorney, and
Pitkin County Manager Reid Haughey. Their complete comments are
attached as Exhibit "B". No objections to the proposed annexation
have been raised by the City departments.
Very limited impacts to the City are anticipated. As the subject
property is currently served by City services, an annexation
agreement is not required for the annexation proposal.
Legal: Assistant City Attorney John Worcester writes in his memo
that the City Council "can accept or reject the Petition for
Annexation for any reason they feel is in the best interests of the
City of Aspen", backed by the Supreme Court of Colorado's statement
that "A municipality is under no legal obligation in the first
instance to annex contiguous territory, and may reject a petition
for annexation for no reason at all."
Engineering: Chuck Roth reflects that this annexation represents
an increase in the City's size by 0.08% and that the City's
services and budget needs would theoretically increase by that
amount.
Finance: Dallas Everhart reports that the City's property tax
receipts would increase according to the appraised value of the
parcel and applicable mil rates. The County Appraiser's records
indicate that the appraised value of the Berger parcel is $425, 000.
Calculating assessed values and the City's mil rate, an increase
to the City's tax receipts of approximately $330.00 is expected.
Parks Department: George Robinson requests a 15' trail and/or
fisherman's easement along Castle Creek. However, the City owns
the Marolt parcel across the river which guarantees public access
on the west side of Castle Creek. The City's Pedestrian and
Bikeway Plan indicates trails on the Marolt side of Castle Creek.
Historic Preservation: The City Council has the final authority
on Landmark Designation approval. This issue will come before
Council as a separate case later. Ms. Eflin submitted the most
recent letters and from CDOT (5/29/92) and Colorado Historical
Society (6/18/92) regarding the Berger cabin's lack of eligibility
for State and National Register designation.
STAFF COMMENTS: It is widely discussed that Mr. Berger wishes to
annex his parcel in order to apply for the City's Historical
Landmark Designation. The application has been submitted to the
Planning Office and will be considered by the Historic Preservation
Committee, Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council only
after completion of the annexation process. Regardless of whether
or not his residence is approved as an historic landmark, the
2
Planning Office believes that the parcel should be annexed into
the City. The foremost reason is that the Berger parcel is
surrounded by the city on three sides. Any future development on
the parcel could affect the neighboring city properties. It seems
logical that City zoning regulations should prevail in order to
promote maximum compatibility with the existing neighborhood. This
point was emphasized by the Planning Commission during its rezoning
review of this parcel.
The correspondence received from CDOT and the Colorado Historical
Society (see Exhibit "C") dwells on the fact that the Berger cabin
is not eligible for State or National designation. The State
Attorney General's Office would not comment on whether or not a
local historic designation would hamper the realignment of Highway
82. The CDOT has indicated verbally that local land use
regulations such as an historic designation will not impact the
highway project. Although the State has not responded directly to
the City's question, staff believes that a local historic
designation would not impact the future highway realignment.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Ordinance 23, 1992
for the Berger Annexation.
ALTERNATIVES: Council could elect to reject the annexation for any
reason.
PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve first reading of Ordinance 23,
Series 1992 approving the Berger Annexation."
CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS:
Attachments:
Ordinance 23, 1992
Exhibits:
"A" - Map of Proposed Annexation
"B" - Complete Referral Comments
"C" - Letters from CDOT (5/29/92) and Colorado Historical Society
6/18/92
ORDINANCE NO. c� 3
(Series of 1992)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
APPROVING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, TO BE KNOWN AND DESIGNATED AS THE BERGER ANNEXATION.
WHEREAS, on October 22, 1991, B. N. Berger did file with the City Clerk of the City
of Aspen a Petition for Annexation of territory to the City of Aspen, whereby real property as
described hereinbelow was being petitioned for annexation to the City of Aspen; and
WHEREAS, the petition, including accompanying copies of an annexation map, has been
reviewed by the City Attorney's Office and the City Engineer and found by them to contain the
information prescribed and set forth in paragraphs (c) and (d) of subsection (1) of §31-12-107,
C.R.S.; and
WHEREAS, the petition was signed by the owners of one hundred percent (100%) of the
area proposed to be annexed, exclusive of streets and alleys; and
WHEREAS, more than two-thirds (2/3) of the perimeter of the area proposed to be
annexed is contiguous to the City of Aspen; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, by resolution (Number 3, Series of 1992) at its regular
meeting on January 13, 1992, did find and determine said Petition for Annexation to be in
substantial compliance with the provisions of subsection (1) of §31-12-107, C.R.S.; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, by resolution (Number 11, Series of 1992) at its regular
meeting on February 24, 1992, did find and determine, following a public hearing, said Petition
for Annexation to be in substantial compliance with §31-12-105, C.R.S.; and
WHEREAS, the City Council does hereby find and determine that approval of the
annexation of said territory to be in the City's best interest; -
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1. That the tract of land described in the Petition for Annexation of territory
in to the City of Aspen, Colorado, commonly referred to as the Berger Annexation, which is
hereby incorporated by this reference, and as shown on the annexation map thereof and
described as follows, is hereby annexed to the City of Aspen, Colorado:
a parcel of land in Section 12, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of Sixth Principal Meridian, Pitkin
County, Colorado, more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at corner no. 7 of Aspen Townsite, being the same as corner no. 1 of the B. N. Berger
Annexation;
Thence N07°38'E 24.45 feet to corner no.2;
Thence N74°30'W 245.85 feet to corner no.3;
Thence S37050'E 314.72 feet to comer no.4;
Thence S83°31'E to corner no.5, the intersection with a line drawn parallel with and distant 15.00 feet
north easterly at right angles from a line bearing S74030'E from said comer no. 4;
Thence S74°30'E to comer no. 6, the intersection with a line bearing N15°30'E from a point which is
S74°30'E 250.00 feet from said comer no.4;
Thence N15°30'E to comer no. 7, the intersection with the northerly line of Block 13 of the City of Aspen;
Thence westerly along said northerly line to corner no. 8, the intersection with a line bearing S55°16'E
from corner no. 7 of Aspen Townsite;
Thence N55016'W to the point of beginning;
Excepting therefrom any portion of Block 13 of the City of Aspen.
Section 2. The aforesaid annexation shall become effective in the manner prescribed
in and immediately upon compliance with the requirements of §31-12-113, C.R.S.
Section 3. The City Clerk of the City of Aspen is hereby directed as follows:
(a) . To file one copy of the annexation map with the original of this annexation
ordinance in the office of the City Clerk of the City of Aspen.
(b) To certify and file two copies of this annexation ordinance and of the annexation
map with the Clerk and Recorder of the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado.
(c) To request the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County to file one certified copy of
this annexation ordinance and of the annexation map with the Division of Local Government of
the Department of Local Affairs, State of Colorado.
2
LI
•
Section 4. The City Engineer of the City of Aspen is hereby directed to amend the
Official Map of the City of Aspen to reflect the boundary changes adopted pursuant to this
annexation ordinance.
Section 5. That if any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this
ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction,
such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect
the validity of the remaining portions thereof.
Section 6. That this ordinance shall not have any effect on existing litigation and shall
not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the
ordinances amended as herein provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded under
such prior ordinances.
A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the day of
1992, in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado.
3
•
•
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law by the City
Council of the City of Aspen on the day of , 1992.
John S. Bennett, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this day of
. 1992.
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
bergeran.ord
John S. Bennett, Mayor
4
Requl_arMeeting_ _ Aspen Citv Council April 13. 1992
Peters moved to approve the renewals for Asia; Cantina; Red Onion;
loth Hole; Wheeler; seconded by Reno. All in favor, motion
carried.
ORDINANCE #12, SERIES OF 1992 - Aspen Winter Garden Ice Rink PUD
Amy Margerum, city manager, reminded Council this ordinance is
tabled but staff has scheduled an update on the ice rink alterna-
tives.
Person, Design Workshop, told Council David Koch is pursuing two
alternatives; one on the north end of Wagner park, and one along
the east side of Wagner Park on the mall. There are some issues on
the second alternative, like relocating utilities, retaining walls,
etc. Person said Schmeuser, Gordon Meyer is doing a more detailed
survey of the two sites. Design Workshop is in the process of
compiling more detailed numbers of each alternatives to get numbers
for operating, construction costs, and for the one in Wagner park
set up and take down costs. Person told Council they have met with
staff, the rugby team, HPC and have compiled issues and concerns
that need to be answered. One issue is the feasibiliyt of an ice
rink in Aspen without a shade cover. Councilwoman Pendleton said
Council discussing the ice rink may be futile until all these
questions are answered.
ORDINANCE #23, SERIES OF 1992 - Berger Annexation
Councilman Reno said Berger has been receiving city services for a
long time and why is this being processed now when the applicant
has had the opportunity since 1967 to annex into the city. Berger
told Council he has been pursuing this for several years, and he
should have done this sooner so he could vote in the city.
Councilman Reno said with the proposed highway, if this area is
annexed into the city, there is no guarantee the house will still
be standing. Councilman Reno asked the rationale for annexation
the future request for historic designation if the highway is
coming through this property. Berger said the highway may not be
a sure thing at this point. Councilman Reno said there is a road
planned through this parcel.
Ms. Johnson told Council to bring the parcel into the city would
provide consistency and compatibility. Councilman Reno said how
can Council disregard the fact that the highway has been planned
for this area for years. Amy Margerum, city manager, reminded
Council landmark designation is done by ordinance of Council. The
issue of the highway will be addressed during designation not
annexation. By that time the staff will have the answer about how
historic designation will fit in with the proposed highway.
Councilman Reno asked if Council can approve annexation with the
knowledge that the highway will go right through this parcel.
4
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council April 13, 1992
Harper said annexation or not would have no effect on the issue of
the highway. Councilwoman Pendleton said annexation has a lot of
effect on the highway. Councilwoman Pendleton said Council has
just spent 8 hours at a transportation symposium. Councilwoman
Pendleton said one of her goals is to work on a valley -wide
transportation plan. Councilwoman Pendleton said this parcel can
be annexed anytime. Councilwoman Pendleton said annexation of this
property is perceived to be tied into the highway.
Councilman Peters said he does not want to deny Berger the
opportunity to discuss with the HPC the historic value of this
structure. Councilman Peters said one of Council's goals is to
apply consistent and fair government to everyone. Councilman
Peters said the annexation stands on its own. Councilman Peters
pointed out the EIS is potentially going to be segregated which
means the highway department can deal with the 4f issue without
throwing the EIS out the window. Councilman Peters said HPC can
look at historic value of the building after annexation and if they
decide it's significant, the highway department can deal with that.
Councilman Peters said the city has taken the position with the
highway department that they care very much about their property,
they want it dealt with sensitively, and they want compensation for
it. Councilman Peters said Berger should have the same opportuni-
ty.
Councilman Reno said his biggest problem is timing, and the
perception is that this annexation is coming forward in order to go
through HPC so there will be another stumbling block in the
location of the highway. Councilman Reno asked if there are any
buildings on the inventory 47 years old. Roxanne Eflin, planning
department, said there are 3 landmark buildings and a building
built in 1952 that is on the inventory but not designated.
Councilwoman Pendleton said the city attorney's memo notes the
Council can accept or reject any petition of annexation for any
reason that is or is not in the best interest of the city.
Councilwoman Pendleton said she also has a problem with the timing.
Berger can be annexed at any time. In the best interests of the
city and to further the goal of working on transportation,
Councilwoman Pendleton said she will not vote for this.
Berger told Council he only learned two years ago he house would be
eligible for designation. Berger said the highway was first
proposed in 1966 and there has been no time since then that this
annexation would not have looked like interference with the
highway. Ms. Margerum pointed out Council has the discretion to
decide on a historic landmark and there are standards in the code
for this. Ms. Margerum recommended the city receive a written
response from the CDOT prior to second reading about historic
buildings.
5
MEMORANDUM
TO: - Mayor and City Council
THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager
THRU: Diane Moore, City Planning Direc o
/'
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner
DATE: July 13, 1992
RE: Berger Rezoning from County R-15 Zoning (Residential) to
City R-15 (Moderate Density Residential) - Continued
First Reading of Ordinance 24, Series 1992.
SUMMARY: This item was tabled on June 8, 1992 to track with the
annexation review being heard separately.
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of the
rezoning from County R-15 to City R-15. This rezoning will become
valid only upon annexation of this parcel into the City.
This parcel has also requested Historic Landmark Designation. This
process will not commence until annexation has been formally
approved by City Council.
APPLICANT: Bruce N. Berger, represented by Scott Harper
LOCATION: The 1.16 acre parcel is located at 835 West Main
Street. Please see parcel and vicinity in Exhibit "A".
COUNCIL GOALS: This request supports Goal #14 to develop
consistent and fair government.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: The public hearing for confirmation of
State statutory requirements was held on February 24, 1992.
PROCESS: Rezoning is a two-step review. City Council makes the
final determination of a rezoning request.
STAFF COMMENTS: State Statutes require that land annexed into a
city must have city zoning applied within 90 days of annexation.
The annexation of Mr. Berger's property is being considered under
a separate memo and ordinance concurrent with this zoning request.
The following are standards from Section 7-1102 which must be
addressed when considering a Map Amendment (rezoning):
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any
applicable portions of this chapter.
Response: There are no conflicts with the Land Use Code which will
arise as a result of this rezoning.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements
of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
Response: The 1973 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map shows this area
to be single family residential. The proposed zoning would be in
conformance with the 1973 Plan and the current residential use.
C. Whether the proposed zoning amendment is compatible with
surrounding Zone Districts and land uses, considering existing
land use and neighborhood characteristics.
Response: The subject parcel is surrounded on three sides by land
within the City limits. The single family neighborhood to the east
is zoned R-15. To the west and downslope is Castle Creek with the
City -owned Marolt open space property zoned R-15A PUD / SPA. The
Aspen Villas, zoned RMF (Residential/Multi-Family), lie to the
north of the subject property across West Main St. To the south,
single family residential development in the County is zoned
R-15. County R-15 zoning would allow this parcel to develop
maximum of three 15,000 s.f. lots, with less floor area per lot
than City zoning would allow.
The proposed R-15 zone is compatible with these residential zones
and uses.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation
and road safety.
Response: The change will not affect the level of activity at this
site.
E. Whether the proposal will result in increased demand on public
facilities.
Response: No changes in public facilities needs will result from
this rezoning. The current residential use is proposed to
continue.
F. Whether the proposed amendment will result in impacts on the
natural environment.
Response: No adverse impacts are anticipated as a result of the
rezoning.
G. Whether the proposal is consistent and compatible with the
community character in the City of Aspen.
Response: The Berger residence has been in this location since
1947. The proposed zone change will not diminish the character of
2
the community.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE VOTE: The Planning and Zoning Commission
approved the rezoning request by a vote of 6-0 at their regular
meeting on March 17, 1992. The Commission based its decision on
the fact that the property is nearly surrounded by similar City
zoning and any future development should be guided by City zoning
regulations rather than County regulations. They recognize that
the proposed rezoning is contingent upon Council's annexation of
the parcel into the City limits of Aspen.
At the March 17 public hearing, several neighbors of the subject
property came and voiced their concern about the possibility that
the rezoning action could deter the Dept. of Transportation's
efforts to bring the highway in as a "straight shot". Staff and
the Commission made it clear that the rezoning itself had no
bearing on that issue.
ALTERNATIVES: In order for the parcel to comply with the single
family residential zoning indicated on the 1973 Land Use Map, the
parcel would have to be zoned either R-6 (Medium Density) or R-30
(Low Density).
RECOMMENDED MOTION: I move to approve and have first reading of
Ordinance 24, Series 1992 for rezoning of the Berger parcel to R-
15 Moderate Density Residential, contingent upon Council's approval
for annexation of the site into the City.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
Ordinance 24, Series 1992
Exhibit "A" - Parcel Map
3
ORDINANCE NO.
(Series of 1992)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
ZONING THE BERGER ANNEXATION PARCEL TO R-15 (MODERATE DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL).
WHEREAS, the City Council has, by ordinance (Ordinance No. _, Series of 1992),
recently annexed to the City of Aspen territory designated as the Berger Annexation, as more
fully described hereinbelow; and
WHEREAS, §31-12-115(2), C.R.S., requires any area annexed to be brought under the
City's zoning ordinance within ninety days after the effective date of the annexing ordinance;
and
WHEREAS, subsequent to their public hearing held March 17, 1992, the Aspen Planning
and Zoning Commission has recommended that the Berger Annexation be zoned R-15 upon
being annexed into the City of Aspen; and
WHEREAS, the City Council agrees that the R-15 zone is the most appropriate for the
annexed territory designated as the Berger Annexation;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1. That from and after the effective date of the annexing ordinance (Ordinance
No. _, Series of 1992) the following described property shall be zoned R-15, and subject to
those zoning regulations applicable to said zone district and described in Chapter 24 of the
•
•
Aspen Municipal Code, as now exists or may hereinafter be amended:
a parcel of land in Section 12, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of Sixth Principal Meridian, Pitkin
County, Colorado, more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at comer no. 7 of Aspen Townsite, being the same as corner no. 1 of the B. N. Berger
Annexation;
Thence N07038'E 24.45 feet to comer no.2;
Thence N74°30'W 245.85 feet to comer no.3;
Thence S37050'E 314.72 feet to corner no.4;
Thence. S83°31'E to comer no.5, the intersection with a line drawn parallel with and distant 15.00 feet
north easterly at right angles from a line bearing S7410'E from said corner no. 4;
Thence S74030'E to comer no. 6, the intersection with a line bearing N15°30'E from a point which is
S74°30'E 250.00 feet from said comer no.4;
Thence N15°30'E to comer no. 7, the intersection with the northerly line of Block 13 of the City of Aspen;
Thence westerly along said northerly line to corner no. 8, the intersection with a line bearing S55°16'E
from corner no. 7 of Aspen Townsite;
Thence N55°16'W to the point of beginning;
Excepting therefrom any portion of Block 13 of the City of Aspen.
Section 2. The Official Zone District Map for the City of Aspen shall be and is
hereby amended to reflect that zoning as set forth in Section 1 above and such amendment shall
be promptly entered on the Official Map in accordance with Section 24-5-103 (13) of the
Municipal Code.
Section 3. The City Clerk is directed upon adoption of this ordinance to record a copy
in the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office.
Section 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this
ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction,
such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect
the validity of the remaining portions thereof.
Section 5. That this ordinance shall not have any effect on existing litigation and shall
not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the
ordinances amended as herein provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded tinder
such prior ordinances.
2
•
•
A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the day of
1992, in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law by the City
Council of the City of Aspen on the day of
John S. Bennett, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this day of
, 1992.
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
bergerzo.ord
John S. Bennett, Mayor
1992.
3
---=-----i y Council Exhibit_
' roved , 19
By Ordinance
i
i
iL
f gz iL
? � I
1 r
v / tI 1 3
�..J
ILI
ro
i Y t o
O .gyp
f N
ca
O
X 0sz
QUJ
00Z
in
°D M Q os� Nl�lld � W ;
E l 622,2� LU Q i
- �- - - --- 00 i
N
Z C
� m L
< o � � d
z 0g p�
�Nl�ll LU Z
MEMORANDUM
I,
TO: Mayor and City Council
THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager
THRU: Diane Moore, City Planning Dire for
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner
DATE: December 14, 1992
RE: Berger Rezoning from County R-15 Zoning (Residential) to
City R-15 (Moderate Density Residential) - Continued
First Reading of Ordinance 24, Series 1992.
SUMMARY: This item was continued from July 13, 1992 to track with
the annexation review being heard separately.
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of the
rezoning from County R-15 to City R-15. This rezoning will become
valid only upon annexation of this parcel into the City.
This parcel has also requested Historic Landmark Designation. This
process will not commence until annexation has been formally
approved by City Council.
BACKGROUND: The applicant is Bruce N. Berger, represented by Scott
Harper. The 1.16 acre parcel is located at 835 West Main Street.
Please see parcel and vicinity in Exhibit "A".
Rezoning is a two-step review. City Council makes the final
determination of a rezoning request.
STAFF COMMENTS: State Statutes require that land annexed into a
city must have city zoning applied within 90 days of annexation.
The annexation of Mr. Berger's property is being considered under
a separate memo and ordinance concurrent with this zoning request.
The following are standards from Section 7-1102 which must be
addressed when considering a Map Amendment (rezoning):
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any
applicable portions of this chapter.
Response: There are no conflicts with the Land Use Code which will
arise as a result of this rezoning.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements
of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
Response: The 1973 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map shows this area
0
to be single family residential. The proposed zoning would be in
conformance with the 1973 Plan and the current residential use.
C. Whether the proposed zoning amendment is compatible with
surrounding Zone Districts and land uses, considering existing
land use and neighborhood characteristics.
Response: The subject parcel is surrounded on three sides by land
within the City limits. The single family neighborhood to the east
is zoned R-15. To the west and downslope is Castle Creek with the
City -owned Marolt open space property zoned R-15A PUD / SPA. The
Aspen Villas, zoned RMF (Residential/Multi-Family), lie to the
north of the subject property across West Main St. To the south,
single family residential development in the County is zoned
R-15. County R-15 zoning would allow this parcel to develop
maximum of three 15,000 s.f. lots, with less floor area per lot
than City zoning would allow.
The proposed R-15 zone is compatible with these residential zones
and uses.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation
and road safety.
Response: The change will not affect the level of activity at this
site.
E. Whether the proposal will result in increased demand on public
facilities.
Response: No changes in public facilities needs will result from
this rezoning. The current residential use is proposed to
continue.
F. Whether the proposed amendment will result in impacts on the
natural environment.
Response: No adverse impacts are anticipated as a result of the
rezoning.
G. Whether the proposal is consistent and compatible with the
community character in the City of Aspen.
Response: The Berger residence has been in this location since
1947. The proposed zone change will not diminish the character of
the community.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE VOTE: The Planning and Zoning Commission
approved the rezoning request by a vote of 6-0 at their regular
meeting on March 17, 1992. The Commission based its decision on
the fact that the property is nearly surrounded by similar City
zoning and any future development should be guided by City zoning
2
•
0
regulations rather than County regulations. They recognize that
the proposed rezoning is contingent upon Council's annexation of
the parcel into the City limits of Aspen.
At the March 17 public hearing, several neighbors of the subject
property came and voiced their concern about the possibility that
the rezoning action could deter the Dept. of Transportation's
efforts to bring the highway in as a "straight shot". Staff and
the Commission made it clear that the rezoning itself had no
bearing on that issue.
ALTERNATIVES: In order for the parcel to comply with the single
family residential zoning indicated on the 1973 Land Use Map, the
parcel would have to be zoned either R-6 (Medium Density) or R-30
(Low Density).
RECOMMENDED MOTION: I move to approve and have first reading of
Ordinance 24, Series 1992 for rezoning of the Berger parcel to R-
15 Moderate Density Residential, contingent upon Council's approval
for annexation of the site into the City.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
Ordinance 24, Series 1992
Exhibit "A" - Parcel Map
9
v
i
N
%L. t +
177
Z
O
Q
8
QUJ
Z
z
tnoD
lid
_j
Id
y Council Exhibit_)
roved , 19 _
By Ordinance
o
t
Zz
Z
i-6\
1�
�w
i�o
OSZ
00Z
osE
nn 0
i0
09
I
z
•
•
ORDINANCE NO. C,- 1
(Series of 1992)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
ZONING THE BERGER ANNEXATION PARCEL TO R-15 (MODERATE DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL).
WHEREAS, the City Council has, by ordinance (Ordinance No. _, Series of 1992),
recently annexed to the City of Aspen territory designated as the Berger Annexation, as more
fully described hereinbelow; and
WHEREAS, §31-12-115(2), C.R.S., requires any area annexed to be brought under the
City's zoning ordinance within ninety days after the effective date of the annexing ordinance;
I
WHEREAS, subsequent to their public hearing held March 17, 1992, the Aspen Planning
and Zoning Commission has recommended that the Berger Annexation be zoned R-15 upon
being annexed into the City of Aspen; and
WHEREAS, the City Council agrees that the R-15 zone is the most appropriate for the
annexed territory designated as the Berger Annexation;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1. That from and after the effective date of the annexing ordinance (Ordinance
No. _, Series of 1992) the following described property shall be zoned R-15, and subject to
those zoning regulations applicable to said zone district and described in Chapter 24 of the
•
•
Aspen Municipal Code, as now exists or may hereinafter be amended:
a parcel of land in Section 12, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of Sixth Principal Meridian, Pitkin
County, Colorado, more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at comer no. 7 of Aspen Townsite, being the same as comer no. 1 of the B. N. Berger
Annexation;
Thence N07°38'E 24.45 feet to comer no.2;
Thence N74°30'W 245.85 feet to comer no.3;
Thence S37°50'E 314.72 feet to corner no.4;
Thence S83'31'E to comer no.5, the intersection with a line drawn parallel with and distant 15.00 feet
north easterly at right angles from a line bearing S74°30'E from said comer no. 4;
Thence S7490'E to comer no. 6, the intersection with a line bearing N15°30'E from a point which is
S7490'E 250.00 feet from said comer no.4;
Thence N15°30'E to comer no. 7, the intersection with the northerly line of Block 13 of the City of Aspen;
Thence westerly along said northerly line to corner no. 8, the intersection with a line bearing S55°16'E
from comer no. 7 of Aspen Townsite;
Thence N55°16'W to the point of beginning;
Excepting therefrom any portion of Block 13 of the City of Aspen.
Section 2. The Official Zone District Map for the City of Aspen shall be and is
hereby amended to reflect that zoning as set forth in Section 1 above and such amendment shall
be promptly entered on the Official Map in accordance with Section 24-5-103 (B) of the
Municipal Code.
Section 3. The City Clerk is directed upon adoption of this ordinance to record a copy
in the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office.
Section 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this
ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction,
such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect
the validity of the remaining portions thereof.
Section 5. That this ordinance shall not have any effect on existing litigation and shall
not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the
ordinances amended as herein provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded under
such prior ordinances.
A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the day of ,
1992, in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law by the City
Council of the City of Aspen on the day of , 1992.
John S. Bennett, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this day of
1992.
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
bergerzo.ord
John S. Bennett, Mayor
3
04-10-92 02:44PM FROM HERBERT LEIN PC TO 9205197 P002
r•
DISTRICT COURT, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO rrr f �di '•;:^r-;
Civil Action No. 90 CV 56
DECREE QUIETING TITLE `'I'
BRUCE NICOLAS BERGER,
Plaintiff,
VS.
LLOYD E. RUSSELL; ELIZABETI{ W. RUSSELL; SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA FIRST
NATIONAL }SANK; an<1 ALL UNKNOWN PI:.ItSONS WHO MAY CLAIM ANY INTEREST
IN THE SUBJECT MINTER OF THIS ACTION,
Defendants.
THIS MINTER heard this day,
THE COURT FINDS:
That each Defendant herein has been properly served as
required by law and rule of Court; that Stephen Tt. Connor, E--q_,
Attorney at Law, has been heretofore appointed and appeared for
any and all Defendants who are in, or who may be in, or who may
have been ordered to report for induction into, the military
service as defined by the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act
of 1940, as amended; that this is an action in rem affecting
specific real property; that the Court has jurisdiction of all
parties to this action and of the subject matter thereof; that
the allegations of the Complaint are true; that every claim made
by said Defendants is unlawful and without right; that no Defen-
dant herein has any title or interest in or to the property
described herni.n or any part thereof; therefore:
IT IS ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT Hruce Nicolas Berger,
Plaintiff, aL the time of the Commencement of this proceeding,
was, and he now is, the owner in fee simple of the following real
property in Pitkin County, Colorado:
A parcel of land in Section 12, Township 10 South,
Range 85 Wact of the Sixth Principal Mex:ididri described
by metes and bounds as follows:
bey-Luning,, at corner No. 7 of Aspen Townsite, thence
North 7038' East 24.45 feet, thence North 74030' West
24S.85 feet, thence South 37050' East 314.72 feet,
thence South 83931' East 146.57 feet, thence North
71"30' East 105.0 feet, thence North 55°16' West 249.0
feet to the point of beginning.
04-10-92 02:44PM FROM HERBERT LEIN PC TO 9205197 • P003
or
.Y r n �
That fee simple title in and to said real property be and the
same hereby is quieted in the Plaintiff, and that each of the
Defendants has;no right, title, or interest in or to the finid
real property or any part thereof, and that they are forever
enjoined from asserting any claim, right, title or interest in or
to the said real property or any part thercof.
Signed 2X J os, , 1990
APPROVED AS TO FORM
FEE RECEIVED
C,A11L1../ K- 01.:�A11''t.
Stephen R. Connor, Esq.
Registration No. 7773
P. O_ Sox 6240
Snwomass Village, CO 81615
(303) 923-5361
Military Attorney
G,ERTIFICATE Or- MAILING
1 Certify that a copy of
i.vas mailed to A1) Lit,
F OTC 7,on i
OB/SP2 _2_
•
MESSAGE DISPLAY
TO Kim Johnson
CC Amy Margerum
CC Roxanne Eflin
From: Roxanne Eflin
Postmark: Apr 14,92 8:53 AM
Status: Previously read
Subject: Berger annexation issue
CC Diane Moore
CC John Worcester
CC Jed Caswall
Message:
Council last night kept incorrectly referring to the State Historic
Preservation Officer to get a letter out of. The SHPO has NOTHING to
do with this now (or probably ever) - what we need to get is a legal
interpretation from the Legal Dept, (NOT Sally Pearce) with the CDOT,
in writing, to include in the next go round - my suggestion. Sally
was merely the first phone call I made to the CDOT on the question of
whether they need to abide by local land use regulations. John seems
to think they do. Sally didn't know. Lynn Obernyer is the CDOT's
Highway Council in the Attorney General's office for CDOT-620-4700.
MESSAGE DISPLAY
TO Kim Johnson
From: Roxanne Eflin
Postmark: Jun 25,92 12:16 PM
Subject: Forwarded: Reply to a reply: Forwarded: Berger Annexation and rezon
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments:
From Roxanne Eflin:
I may have just found what we need, and should get it this p.m.
I'll make sure you get a copy for your memo and council packet.
Previous comments:
From Jed Caswall:
Thanks Roxanne --that's all we are going to get.
Message:
From Roxanne Eflin:
The state historic preservation office has made their official
determination in writing, and has sent it to CDOT. I just tracked
down the person who wrote it, and asked her to FAX us a copy ASAP
(today) which she is doing. It says what we know it says: NO WAY for
the State or National Register. Jed - I was (perhaps naively) under
the assumption that we were still going get SOME letter from the AG's
office, but that it wouldn't contain what we had originally hoped it
would contain! Whatever - at least we'll have SOMETHING for Council.
From Jed Caswall:
Per my ceo message of 6/5, the AG will not providing us anything.
Instead, and as indicated in the letter Roxanne got on 6/3 from K.
Gambrill to J.Hartmann, all we are to get is a determination from the
State Historian re the eligibility of Berger property for state/fed
desigantion. I believe CDOT takes the position, as does AG, that if
Berger does not qualify for state/fed historic designation, they do
not have to worry about it re the hwy alignment. Anyway, the record
is clear that we have tried to involve state and they are not interest
From Roxanne Eflin:
MESSAGE DISPLAY
TO John Worcester CC Kim Johnson
From: Chuck Roth
Postmark: Apr 09,92 3:54 PM
Subject: Reply to a reply: Berger Annexation
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply text:
From Chuck Roth:
The legal description of the annexation boundary would not reflect
any subdivisions or other property ownerships within that boundary.
All that is required for annexation mapping is the perimeter of the
area to be annexed. No internal property lines or rights -of -way
lines are required. Perhaps this is not an issue. It is more of a
planning matter than an engineering one. The legality of lots is not
mine. If the planning office would like input, this might be the
time.
Preceding message:
From John Worcester:
The legal description on the petition and ordinances has been a metes
and bounds description so I don't think it got subdivided in the
county.
From Chuck Roth:
I believe that this CEO followed up on an earlier one that I sent.
It turns out that the assessor's map indicates that the annexation
area includes two parcels. I don't know if they are legally
subdivided parcels or if the city planning office would want to
clarify the situation as an annexation issue. It is just information
that may or may not be of interest.
From John Worcester:
I'm not sure I understand. Was the Berger parcel divided up for the
purpose of seeking annexation? (As Williams Ranch was).
From Chuck Roth:
Further investigation has revealed what may or may not be an
interesting item. The assessor's office indicates a portion of the
� ozl
�� • �:..v x .36A
(W.1 vl ..
..
,i,v r v .,
CII 94P .
029 rPTT.
4'ry
(E%EMPTI
TAx OISTRICT I Sw —X\ i
7`111,11.1
_Qx c4S7L cRf
TAx asTaICT I CFxT- . eRlqG
E
Ae
I
015 _
ASPEN, /
YIC w_
E7M°71 ` I "Vft.5 at
07
r4j
^V /
' azR) ter , I` r 1 IZ
•,� �\ fA 'tgMT
IFS .
/ y'7 [
/ - 4
dal ;
oo/
ALMEAR SU
c , 39 nC 5 li
)S 7C
O •
HAC 1 k)7i
A 0�1
b
ADAMS SUB
/— -- —� 34AC 2
C033
e
eo
0
W
K t SOAC
t) o
YA
I I I ® 4 y 011
O
0 AC
69 AC
10 AC //\\
BEET
l: ti
tiI ti
w l rn
b �^ a
LION s
, w ,W,
5
68 AC
a
m
(Qy4
i
f
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner
DATE: April 13, 1992
RE: Berger Annexation - First Reading of Ordinance 012-1,
Series 1992
---------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends approval and first reading
of Ordinance for the Berger Annexation. The annexation request
is accompanied by a request for rezoning to R-15 which is being
handled by separate memo and ordinance.
COUNCIL GOALS: This request supports Goal 13 "to continue the
annexation of the metropolitan area...".
APPLICANT: Bruce N. Berger, represented by Scott Harper
LOCATION: The 1.16 acre parcel is located at 835 West Main
Street. Please see parcel and vicinity in Exhibit "A". The metes
and bounds description is contained within the annexation ordinance
prepared by the City Attorney's Office.
ZONING / USE: Current zoning in the County is R-15. Requested
zoning is R-15 upon annexation into the City. This is being
presented to Council under separate memo and ordinance. The
current use of the property is one single family residence of
approximately 1,000 square feet. No change to this use is proposed
relative to the rezoning request.
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Mr. Berger is requesting annexation into the
City of Aspen. He has proposed R-15 zoning for the parcel. Upon
annexation the Planning Office will begin processing a request for
landmark designation for the existing structure on the site.
REFERRAL COMMENTS: The Planning Office received comments from
Parks, Police, Water, Finance, Engineering, the City Attorney, and
Pitkin County Manager Reid Haughey. Their complete comments are
attached as Exhibit "B". No objections to the proposed annexation
have been raised by the City departments. However, Mr. Haughey
stated that the Board of County Commissioners is concerned that
Mr. Berger intends to use histofic designation to block the highway
realignment which was approved twice by the voters. The BOCC does
not want that to happen.
b
Nr��p Very limited impacts to the City are anticipated. As the subject
property is currently served by City services, an annexation
agreement is not required for the annexation proposal.
Legal: Assistant City Attorney John Worcester writes in his memo
that the City Council "can accept or reject the Petition for
Annexation for any reason they feel is in the best interests of the
City of Aspen", backed by the Supreme Court of Colorado's statement
that "A municipality is under no legal obligation in the first
instance to annex contiguous territory, and may reject a petition
for annexation for no reason at all."
Engineering: Chuck Roth reflects that this annexation represents
an increase in the City's size by 0.08% and that the City's
services and budget needs would theoretically increase by that
amount.
Finance:. Dallas Everhart reports that the City's property tax
receipts would increase according to the appraised value of the
parcel and applicable mil rates. The County Appraiser's records
indicate that the appraised value of the Berger parcel is $425,000.
Calculating assessed values and the City's mil rate, an increase
to the City's tax receipts of approximately $330.00 is expected.
Parks Department: George Robinson requests a 15' trail and/or
fisherman's easement along Castle Creek. However, the City owns
the Marolt parcel across the river which guarantees public access
on the west side of Castle Creek. The City's Pedestrian and
Bikeway Plan indicates trails on the Marolt side of Castle Creek.
According to Assistant City Attorney John Worcester, if a
trail/fisherman's easement is deemed necessary on the Berger parcel
by the City Council, the easement must be recorded prior to
enactment of the Annexation at second reading.
Historic Preservation: Roxanne Eflin states that the question
whether or not a City of Aspen Historic Landmark Designation would
prevent Hwy.82 entrance to Main Street at this location has not yet
been resolved. In any event, City Council has the final authority
on Landmark Designation approval. This issue will be decided
later. Ms. Eflin recommends that the City receive a written
response from CDOT on how they work with local land use regulations
and building permit requirements prior to second reading of the
annexation ordinance or prior to reviewing the Landmark Designation
request.
STAFF COMMENTS: It is widely discussed that Mr. Berger wishes to
annex his parcel in order to apply for the City's Historical
Landmark Designation. The application has been submitted to the
Planning Office and will be considered by the Historic Preservation
Committee, Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council only
after completion of the annexation process. Regardless of whether
or not his residence is approved as an historic landmark, the
Planning Office believes that the parcel should be annexed into
the City. The foremost reason is that the Berger parcel is
surrounded by the city on three sides. Any future development on
C7
•
the parcel could affect the neighboring city properties. It seems
logical that City zoning regulations should prevail in order to
promote maximum compatibility with the existing neighborhood. This
point was emphasized by the Planning Commission during its rezoning
review of this parcel.
As per Roxanne Eflin's referral comments, CDOT Staff Historian
Sally Pearce has indicated to her that CDOT is not exempt from
local land use regulation. However, in conversations with the City
Attorney and Planning Director, Ms. Pearce was not sure about this
subject.
From a purely Planning perspective, Planning staff believes that
the historic designation / Hwy.82 alignment should not be a
consideration of annexation.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Ordinance for
the Berger Annexation.
ALTERNATIVES: Council could elect to reject the annexation for any
reason.
PROPOSED MOTION: I move to have first reading of Ordinance
Series 1992 approving the Berger Annexation.
CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS:
Sew"" "r'� -47---4
C�W �
Attachments:
Ordinance
Exhibits:
"A" - Map of Proposed Annexation
"B" - Complete Referral Comments
m
_ , ,,�.� � von
6�r
ale, dA4
CDOT
/��
ORDINANCE NO. _
(Series of 1992)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
APPROVING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, TO BE KNOWN AND DESIGNATED AS THE BERGER ANNEXATION.
WHEREAS, on October 22, 1991, B. N. Berger did file with the City Clerk of the City
of Aspen a Petition for Annexation of territory to the City of Aspen, whereby real property as
described hereinbelow was being petitioned for annexation to the City of Aspen; and
WHEREAS, the petition, including accompanying copies of an annexation map, has been
reviewed by the City Attorney's Office and the City Engineer and found by them to contain the
information prescribed and set forth in paragraphs (c) and (d) of subsection (1) of §31-12-107,
C.R.S.; and
WHEREAS, the petition was signed by the owners of one hundred percent (100%) of the
area proposed to be annexed, exclusive of streets and alleys; and
WHEREAS, more than two-thirds (2/3) of the perimeter of the area proposed to be
annexed is contiguous to the City of Aspen; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, by resolution (Number 3, Series of 1992) at its regular
meeting on January 13, 1992, did find and determine said Petition for Annexation to be in
substantial compliance with the provisions of subsection (1) of §31-12-107, C.R.S.; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, by resolution (Number 24, Series of 1992) at its regular
meeting on February 24, 1992, did find and determine, following a public hearing, said Petition
for Annexation to be in substantial compliance with §31-12-105, C.R.S.; and
WHEREAS, the City Council does hereby find and determine that approval of the
annexation of said territory to be in the City's best interest;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1. That the tract of land described in the Petition for Annexation of territory
in to the City of Aspen, Colorado, commonly referred to as the Berger Annexation, which is
hereby incorporated by this reference, and as shown on the annexation map thereof and
described as follows, is hereby annexed to the City of Aspen, Colorado:
a parcel of land in Section 12, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of Sixth Principal Meridian, Pitkin
County, Colorado, more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at corner no. 7 of Aspen Townsite, being the same as comer no. 1 of the B. N. Berger
Annexation;
Thence N07038'E 24.45 feet to corner no.2;
Thence N74°30'W 245.85 feet to corner no.3;
Thence S37050'E 314.72 feet to comer no.4;
Thence S83°31'E to corner no.5, the intersection with a line drawn parallel with and distant 15.00 feet
north easterly at right angles from a line bearing S74'30'E from said comer no. 4;
Thence S74030'E to comer no. 6, the intersection with a line bearing N15030'E from a point which is
S74°30'E 250.00 feet from said comer no.4;
Thence N15°30'E to corner no. 7, the intersection with the northerly line of Block 13 of the City of Aspen;
Thence westerly along said northerly line to comer no. 8, the intersection with a line bearing S55016'E
from corner no. 7 of Aspen Townsite;
Thence N55°16'W to the point of beginning;
Excepting therefrom any portion of Block 13 of the City of Aspen.
Section 2. The aforesaid annexation shall become effective in the manner prescribed
in and immediately upon compliance with the requirements of §31-12-113, C.R.S.
Section 3. The City Clerk of the City of Aspen is hereby directed as follows:
(a) To file one copy of the annexation map with the original of this annexation
ordinance in the office of the City Clerk of the City of Aspen.
(b) To certify and file two copies of this annexation ordinance and of the annexation
map with the Clerk and Recorder of the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado.
(c) To request the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County to file one certified copy of
this annexation ordinance and of the annexation map with the Division of Local Government of
the Department of Local Affairs, State of Colorado.
2
•
•
Section 4. The City Engineer of the City of Aspen is hereby directed to amend the
Official Map of the City of Aspen to reflect the boundary changes adopted pursuant to this
annexation ordinance.
Section 5. That if any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this
ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction,
such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect
the validity of the remaining portions thereof.
Section 6. That this ordinance shall not have any effect.on existing litigation and shall
not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the
ordinances amended as herein provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded under
such prior ordinances.
A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the day of ,
1992, in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado.
3
•
•
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law by the City
Council of the City of Aspen on the day of
John S. Bennett, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this day of
1992.
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
bergeran.ord
John S. Bennett, Mayor
1992.
4
•
CITY OF ASPEN
City Attorney's Office
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 920-5055
0HKK619V1Z al-0
TO: Kim Johnson
FROM: John P. Worcester,- �
DATE: April 2, 1992
RE: Berger Annexation
aty Council Exhibit 8
Approved , 19 _
By ordinance
Attached please find two ordinances for the Berger Annexation currently scheduled to be
considered by Council on April 13, 1992. The first ordinance is the annexing ordinance; the
second would zone the parcel R-15 upon the effective date of the annexation.
I will be present when Council considers the ordinances to answer any legal questions they may
have relating to the annexation or zoning ordinances.
You have asked that I provide a legal opinion on whether City Council has any affirmative legal
obligation to annex territory that is eligible for annexation pursuant to the Municipal Annexation
Act. As you know, Council's actions to date with regard to the Berger Annexation have been
to determine that the Petition for Annexation is in compliance with the statutory requirements,
that the property is statutorily eligible for annexation, and that no statutory limitations exist to
prevent Council from annexing the territory into the City. The decision to adopt or not to adopt
the proposed annexation ordinance now before Council is strictly a legislative act by Council.
As such, they can accept or reject the Petition for Annexation for any reason they feel is in the
best interests of the City of Aspen. The Supreme Court of Colorado has specifically stated in
this regard that:
A municipality is under no legal obligation in the first instance to annex contiguous
territory, and may reject a petition for annexation for no reason at all.
City of Colorado Springs v Kitty Hawk Development Comp., 392 P.2d 467, 472 (1964).
If you have any questions please don't hesitate to call or drop by.
begceran.mem
MEMORANDUM
To: Kim Johnson, City Planner
From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic PreFervation Officer
Re: Berger Annexation - 835 W. Main St.
Date: April 6, 1992
The question of whether Landmark Designation could prevent
demolition or relocation, and thereby preclude the realigned and
expanded highway from taking the property at 835 W. Main, is not
yet resolved. In a previous phone conversation with Sally Pearce,
Staff Historian for the CDoT, I understood her to tell me that the
CDoT is not exempt from local land use' regulations. However, in
a follow up call to Sally with Jed Caswall and Diane Moore, she
stated she did not know for sure. Clearly, she was not aware of
another case like this one in the state. I recommend we get a
reading from the CDoT in writing regarding the applicability of
local land use regulations and building permit requirements
regarding highway development activities.
A complete Landmark Designation application has been submitted for
processing for the Berger property, which will be begin following
formal annexation by the City. Only one of six Designation
Standards must be met in order for a resource to receive Landmark
Designation. In my initial review of the application and the
Standards; it appears that the property does meet Standard F,
regarding contribution to community character.
It is important to understand that even if the Berger parcel were
to receive Landmark Designation, demolition is not automatically
precluded. An application for demolition may be submitted for
review by the HPC. Should the applicable standards be met, the
property may receive demolition approval. It is, however, unlikely
that the demolition standards could be met regarding this property,
in my opinion. The Standards are strict and were designed to
prevent rampant demolition of community resources. The penalties
for demolition without appropriate approval consist of a minor fine
and a five year building permit moratorium on the parcel.
Pitkin County
January 20,/ 1992 £�
Amy Margerum
City Manager
130 S Galena
Aspen CO 81611
Dear Amy:
The Board of County Commissioners have expressed a significant
concern about the proposed annexation of the Berger Property. As
you are well aware, the possibility of historic designation at this
late date has potential ramifications for the improvement of
Highway 82.
-- The Board is very interested in commenting on this annexation.
Could you please provide us your understanding of the appropriate
mechanism for the Board to express its concerns. We are very
interested in becoming involved in this process.
Attached for your review is a copy of an article that appeared in
American Airlines Magazine, inwhich Mr. Berger describes his plan
for using historic designation as a way of obstructing the modified
entrance to town, a decision the public has twice voted for. We
don't wish to see that occur.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
CL-
Reid Haug
County Manager
tlg:county:rh01.01
Administration
530 E. Main, 3rd Floor
Aspen, CO 81611
(303)920-5200
FAX 920-5198
printed on recycled paper
County Commissioners
Suite B
506 E. Main Street
Aspen, CO 81611
(303) 920-5150
County Attorney
Suite 1
530 E. Main Street
Aspen, CO 81611
(303) 920-5190
Personnel and Finance
Suite F
530 E. Main Street
Aspen, CO 81611
(303) 920-5220
Transportation
Facilities
76 Service Center Road
Aspen, CO 81611
(303) 920-5390
MESSAGE DISPLAY
TO Kim Johnson CC Judy McKenzie
From: Larry Ballenger
Postmark: Mar 18,92 12:53 PM
Subject: Berger Annexation
----------=-------------------------------------------------------------------
Message:
This parcel is now served by City water. There is water available for
any further development if so required. As usual, any future use of
water will be in accordance with City Codes and Policy. Thanks>
•
•
MEMORANDUM
To: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
From: Chuck Roth, City Engineer C
Date: March 31, 1992
Re: Berger Annexation
1. Since the approximate area of the city is 1,411 acres, the annexation in question
represents a 0.08% size increase. This could be correlated into a potential increase of
0.08% for all City services and budget needs.
2. The City may want to ask for a right-of-way dedication in conjunction with the
annexation. This would be in view of possible future Highway 82 right-of-way needs.
3. There have been conversations about the annexation request being a tool to obtain
historic designation for the sole structure in the annexation area in order to block Highway
82 realignment efforts.
cc: Bob Gish, Public Works Director
M92111
MESSAGE DISPLAY
TO KIM JOHNSON
From: George Robinson
Postmark: Mar 17,92 5:44 AM
Status: Certified
Subject: BERGER ANNEXATION
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message:
THE PARKS DEPT. WOULD LIKE TO SEE A TRAIL EASEMENT, OF 15' FROM
RIVERS EDGE (CASTLE CREEK) FOR FUTURE USE OF A TRAIL ALIGNMENT OR
FOR THE USE OF A FISHERMANS EASEMENT ALONG THE RIVER,IF POSSIBLE.
MEMORANDUM
City Engineer ���D 61992
Water Department l'w`
City Electric Department
ParjXs-,Department -
r"'--Police Department -
_..St�-eet5" parttn
finance Department
Fire Marshal
City Attorney
Pitkin County Manager
`, Kim Johnson, Planning
`RE: Berger Annexation - Request for Comments
DATE: March 9, 1992
Attached is a sketch of a 1.16 acre parcel located at 835 W. Main
for which annexation into the City is being sought by the owner
Bruce Berger. The annexation ordinance is scheduled for first
reading at City Council on April 13, 1992. Please consider Mr.
BergerIsrequest and forward any comments to me no later than March
31, 1992. Please address how this annexation could impact City
services, budget, etc. Also state any conditions of approval which
would be applicable to this annexation request. Thank you for your
time. If you have any questions, please call me at x5100.
r
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Engineer
Water Department
City Electric partment
Parks DeVepratrtment
ent
Police Dment
Streets
Fina a Department
Fir Marshal
C' y Attorney
itkin County Manager
F Kim Johnson, Pla
Berger Ann RE: equest for Comments
DATE: March'9, 1992
Attached is a sketch of a 1.16 acre parcel located at 835 W. Main
for which annexation into the City is being sought by the owner
Bruce Berger. The annexation ordinance is scheduled for first
reading at City Council on April 13, 1992. Please consider Mr.
Berger's request and forward any comments to me no later than March
31, 1992. Please address how this annexation could impact City
services, budget, etc. Also state any conditions of approval which
would be applicable to this annexation request. Thank you for your
time. If you have any questions, please call me at x5100.
lrri" 2k L �„ •/
//� 1�, /{ T ( ► , /?
.ln S/SPS ate. 7
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner
DATE: April 13, 1992
RE: Berger Rezoning from County R-15 Zoning (Residential) to
City R-15 (Moderate Density Residential) - First Reading
of Ordinance Series 1992.
SUMMARY: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval
of the rezoning from County R-15 to City R-15. This rezoning will
become valid only upon annexation of this parcel into the City.
This parcel has also requested Historic Landmark Designation. This
process will not commence until annexation has been formally
approved by City Council.
APPLICANT: Bruce N. Berger, represented by Scott Harper
LOCATION: The 1.16 acre parcel is located at 835 West Main
Street. Please see parcel and vicinity in Exhibit "A".
COUNCIL GOALS: This request supports Goal #14 to develop
consistent and fair government.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: The public hearing for confirmation of
State statutory requirements was held on February 24, 1992.
PROCESS: Rezoning is a two-step review. City Council makes the
final determination of a rezoning request.
STAFF COMMENTS: State Statutes require that land annexed into a
city must have city zoning applied within 90 days of annexation.
The annexation of Mr. Berger's property is being considered under
a separate memo and ordinance concurrent with this zoning request.
The following are standards from Section 7-1102 which must be
addressed when considering a Map Amendment (rezoning):
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any
applicable portions of this chapter.
Response: There are no conflicts with the Land Use Code which will
arise as a result of this rezoning.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements
of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
Response: The 1973 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map shows this area
to be single family residential. The proposed zoning would be in
conformance with the 1973 Plan and the current residential use.
C. Whether the proposed zoning amendment is compatible with
surrounding Zone Districts and land uses, considering existing
land use and neighborhood characteristics.
Response: The subject parcel is surrounded on three sides by land
within the City limits. The single family neighborhood to the east
is zoned R-15. To the west and downslope is Castle Creek with the
City -owned Marolt open space property zoned R-15A PUD / SPA. The
Aspen Villas, zoned RMF (Residential/Multi-Family), lie to the
north of the subject property across West Main St. To the south,
single family residential development in the County is zoned
R-15. The proposed R-15 zone is compatible with these residential
zones and uses.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation
and road safety.
Response: The change will not affect the level of activity at this
site.
E. Whether the proposal will result in increased demand on public
facilities.
Response: No changes in public facilities needs will result from
this rezoning. The current residential use is proposed to
continue.
F. Whether the proposed amendment will result in impacts on the
natural environment.
Response: No adverse impacts are anticipated as a result of the
rezoning.
G. Whether the proposal is consistent and compatible with the
community character in the City of Aspen.
Response: The Berger residence has been in this location since
1947. The proposed zone change will not diminish the character of
the community.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE VOTE: The Planning and Zoning Commission
approved the rezoning request by a vote of 6-0 at their regular
meeting on March 17, 1992. The Commission based its decision on
the fact that the property is nearly surrounded by similar City
zoning and any future development should be guided by City zoning
2
regulations rather than County regulations. They recognize that
the proposed rezoning is contingent upon Council's annexation of
the parcel into the City limits of Aspen.
At the March 17 public hearing, several neighbors of the subject
property came and voiced their concern about the possibility that
the rezoning action could deter the Dept. of Transportation's
efforts to bring the highway in as a "straight shot". Staff and
the Commission made it clear that the rezoning be itself had no
bearing on that issue. Discussion of the highway issue would be
made during the actual annexation ordinance hearings.
ALTERNATIVES: In order for the parcel to comply with the single
family residential zoning indicated on the 1973 Land Use Map, the
parcel would have to be zoned either R-6 (Medium Density) or R-30
(Low Density).
RECOMMENDED MOTION: I move to approve and have first reading of
Ordinance , Series 1992 for rezoning of the Berger parcel to
R-15 Moderate Density Residential, contingent upon Council's
approval for annexation of the site into the City.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
Ordinance , Series 1992
Exhibit "A" - Parcel Map
berger.zone.ccmemo
3
ORDINANCE NO. _
(Series of 1992)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
ZONING THE BERGER ANNEXATION PARCEL TO R-15.
WHEREAS, the City Council has, by ordinance (Ordinance No. _, Series of 1992),
recently annexed to the City of Aspen territory designated as the Berger Annexation, as more
fully described hereinbelow; and
WHEREAS, §31-12-115(2), C.R.S., requires any area annexed to be brought under the
City's zoning ordinance within ninety days after the effective date of the annexing ordinance;
and
WHEREAS, subsequent to their public hearing held March 17, 1992, the Aspen Planning
and Zoning Commission has recommended that the Berger Annexation be zoned R-15 upon
being annexed into the City of Aspen; and
WHEREAS, the City Council agrees that the R-15 zone is the most appropriate for the
annexed territory designated as the Berger Annexation;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1. That from and after the effective date of the annexing ordinance (Ordinance
No. _, Series of 1992) the following described property shall be zoned R-15, and subject to
those zoning regulations applicable to said zone district and described in Chapter 24 of the
Aspen Municipal Code, as now exists or may hereinafter be amended:
a parcel of land in Section 12, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of Sixth Principal Meridian, Pitkin
County, Colorado, more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at corner no. 7 of Aspen Townsite, being the same as corner no. 1 of the B. N. Berger
Annexation;
Thence N07°38'E 24.45 feet to corner no.2;
Thence N74°30'W 245.85 feet to corner no.3;
Thence S37°50'E 314.72 feet to corner no.4;
Thence S83°31'E to comer no.5, the intersection with a line drawn parallel with and distant 15.00 feet
north easterly at right angles from a line bearing S74°30'E from said corner no. 4;
Thence S74°30'E to corner no. 6, the intersection with a line bearing N15030'E from a point which is
S74030'E 250.00 feet from said corner no.4;
Thence N15'30'E to corner no. 7, the intersection with the northerly line of Block 13 of the City of Aspen;
Thence westerly along said northerly line to comer no. 8, the intersection with a line bearing S55016'E
from corner no. 7 of Aspen Townsite;
Thence N55°16'W to the point of beginning;
Excepting therefrom any portion of Block 13 of the City of Aspen.
Section 2. The Official Zone District Map for the City of Aspen shall be and is
hereby amended to reflect that zoning as set forth in Section 1 above and such amendment shall
be promptly entered on the Official Map in accordance with Section 24-5-103 (B) of the
Municipal Code.
Section 3. The City Clerk is directed upon adoption of this ordinance to record a copy
in the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office.
Section 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this
ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction,
such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect
the validity of the remaining portions thereof.
Section 5. That this ordinance shall not have any effect on existing litigation and shall
not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the
ordinances amended as herein provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded tinder
such prior ordinances.
A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the day of
1992, in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law by the City
Council of the City of Aspen on the day of , 1992.
John S. Bennett, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this day of
. 1992.
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
bergerzo.ord
John S. Bennett, Mayor
3
aty Cmwil Bzhibit
, 19 _
0
By Ordinance
o
3
3 = �
i
o IL
I•Me slam me
I �v N
1 v
iRo
CN
I —
u� Z
O
QLLJ
z
7 �
4(
lnoD FN1-d co
4
!R
O m
m
z
do
'1/J
-- O
osz
ooz
091
09
0
ILa
v
w
J
z�
N�
0
0
O
Lo
w
F—
a,
If
O
Q <i
e
Z Li
W
~
w
1
w
m��
u
.A •
C]
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and zoning Commission
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner
RE: Berger Rezoning from County R-15 to City R-15 (Moderate
Density Residential)
DATE: March 17, 1992
SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends approval of the rezoning
from County R-15 to City R-15. This rezoning will become valid
only upon annexation of this parcel into the City. The public
hearing for confirmation of State statutory requirements was held
on February 24, 1992. First reading of an ordinance for annexation
and rezoning is scheduled to take place at City Council on April
13, 1992.
This parcel has also requested Historic Landmark Designation. This
process will not commence until annexation has been formally
approved by City Council.
APPLICANT: Bruce N. Berger, represented by Scott Harper
LOCATION: The 1.16 acre parcel is located at 835 West Main
Street. Please see parcel and vicinity in Exhibit "A".
ZONING / USE: Current zoning in the County is R-15. Requested
zoning is R-15 upon annexation into the City. The current use of
the property is one single family residence of approximately 1,000
square feet. No change to this use is proposed relative to the
rezoning request.
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Mr. Berger is requesting annexation into the
City of Aspen. Upon annexation, the State statutes require that
a City zoning designation be placed on the property within 90 days
of annexation approval.
PROCESS: Rezoning is a two-step review. The Commission will
forward recommendations to City Council for their final
determination. Council's consideration of the rezoning will take
place concurrently with their review of the annexation.
STAFF COMMENTS: The following are standards from Section 7-1102
which must be addressed when considering a Map Amendment
(rezoning):
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any
applicable portions of this chapter.
1
j • •
Response: There are no conflicts with the Land Use Code which will
arise as a result of this rezoning.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements
of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
Response: The 1973 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map shows this area
to be single family residential. The proposed zoning would be in
conformance with the 1973 Plan and the current residential use.
C. Whether the proposed zoning amendment is compatible with
surrounding Zone Districts and land uses, considering existing
land use and neighborhood characteristics.
Response: The subject parcel is surrounded on three sides by land
within the City limits. The single family neighborhood to the east
is zoned R-15. To the west and downslope is Castle Creek with the
City -owned Marolt open space property zoned R-15A PUD / SPA. The
Aspen Villas, zoned RMF (Residential/Multi-Family), lie to the
north of the subject property across West Main St. To the south,
single family residential development in the County is zoned
R-15. The proposed R-15 zone is compatible with these residential
zones and uses.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation
and road safety.
Response: The change will not affect the level of activity at this
site.
E. Whether the proposal will result in increased demand on public
facilities.
Response: No changes in public facilities needs will result from
this rezoning. The current residential use is proposed to
continue.
F. Whether the proposed amendment will result in impacts on the
natural environment.
Response: No adverse impacts are anticipated as a result of the
rezoning.
G. Whether the proposal is consistent and compatible with the
community character in the City of Aspen.
Response: The Berger residence has been in this location since
1947. The proposed zone change will not diminish the character of
the community.
2
E
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Planning Staff recommends approval of the
rezoning of the Berger parcel to R-15 Moderate Density Residential.
The rezoning is contingent upon Council's annexation of the parcel
into the City limits of Aspen.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: I move to recommend approval of rezoning the
Berger parcel to R-15 Moderate Density Residential contingent upon
Council's approval for annexation of the site into the City.
Attachment: "A" - Map of parcel and vicinity
jtkvj/berger.zone.memo
3
e)4
F:
N
ING & ZONING COMMISSION
XHIBIT , APPROVED
19 BY RESOLUTION
osz
ooz
091
09
UJ
L- X
W�
J �
z IL
W_
o
Lo
Lu
1--
o
If
z<�
j
z
ZWA
Q
T F- W
1U
d
z
w
V
LLJ
n6a
J.---
10
A' MCr MI37r 1 .
A�NDUSEAPMCATTCN FCW
1) .Project Name $ m RPrapr Annexation/Rezoning/Historic Designation
2) Project Incation See attached Exhibit "A" for full legal description;
also known and numbered as 835 W. Main
( indicate street address, lot & block nm ter, . legal. dui ptinn where
appropriate)
3) Present Zoning County R-15 4) lot Size 1.16 acres
5) Applicant's Name, Address & Phone # Bruce N . Berger
P.O. Box 482 Aspen Colorado 81612 PH: 925-1647
6) Representative's Name, Address & Phone # Scott Harper, Herbert S. Klein Professional
Corporation, 201 N. Mill Street, Suite 203, Aspen, Colorado 81611 PH: 925-8700
7) Type of Application (please crack all that apply):
Conditional Use Conoeptual SPA
Conceptual Historic Dev.
special Review Final SPA
Final Iiistoric Dev.
8040 Greenl-ine Conceptual PUD
Minor historic Dev.
Stream Margin Final PUD
Historic Demolition
Mountain View Plane Subdivision
A historic Designation
Condminiuni nation Text/Map Amendment
C;I4,1S Allotment
Int Split,/Lot Line.
Adjustment
8) Description of Existing r g Uses (miter and type of existing- ng - St=tUres;
apprcodmate sq. ft. ; ember of bedrooms; any previous approvals granted to the
Property) -
One 3-room cabin built in 1947; 1000 sq.
ft.; 1 bdrm; no previous
approvals granted to the property
9) Description of Development Application
In conjunction with Petition for Annexation/Rezoning/Application
for Historic Designation
10) have you attached the followirW-
yes Response to Attachment. 2, Minimum Submission Contents
yes Response to Attachment 3, Specific Submission ssion Contents
yes Response to Attachment 4, Review Standards for Your Application
B.N. Berger Historic Designation
RESPONSE TO ATTACHMENT 2
OF
LAND USE APPLICATION
1. Letter of authorization attached hereto as Exhibit "B".
2. The street address of the property is 835 West Main Street,
Aspen. Colorado. The full legal description is attached hereto
as Exhibit "A".
3. A current Owners Certificate from Pitkin County Title Company
is attached hereto as Exhibit "C".
4. An 8 1/2" x 11" vicinity map locating the subject parcel within
the City of Aspen is attached hereto as Exhibit "D".
5. This application is for an Historic Designation in conjunction
with owner's Petition for Annexation to the City of Aspen and
Application for Rezoning filed concurrently herewith. No other
development is planned or anticipated at this time.
RESPONSE TO ATTACHMENT 3
OF
LAND USE APPLICATION
1. A boundary description/full legal description is attached
hereto as Exhibit "A".
2. Applicant does intend to request a grant from the City Council
and believes that the structure meets the eligibility criteria for
a landmark designation grant. A letter making the request for the
grant is attached hereto as Exhibit "E".
RESPONSE TO ATTACHMENT 4
OF
LAND USE APPLICATION
Applicant's structure and site meet the standards set forth
for designation as H, Historic Overlay District and/or Historic
Landmark as follows:
B. Architectural Importance. The house is one of the first
buildings built in Aspen by longtime resident and architect Fritz
Benedict. Mr. Benedict had, just prior to building this home,
completed five years of study with world renowned architect Frank
Lloyd Wright. Wrightian features include mitred windows, fireplace
partially contilevered, lapstreak ceiling, and the long, low lines
characteristic of Wright's buildings. It was designe dto blend
with the setting rather than dominate it. Primary building
materials are logs from the Lenado mill and sandstone from the
Frying Pan valley. The year of construction was 1947, signed on
the chimney.
C. Architectural Importance. The house represents a style of
Aspen architecture that is largely unrecognized, the Wrightian
style. Fritz Benedict is one of three Aspen architects who studies
with Frank Lloyd Wright, the other two being Charles Paterson and
Robin Molny. Paterson's Boomerang Lodge and Molny's Hearthstone
House, along with Benedict's Bank of Aspen, are other Aspen
Wrightian buildings. The house has a sibling in the Feinsinger
house, three miles up Castle Creek, also desinged by Fritz Benedict
in the late forties and constructed of Lenado logs and sandstone
from the Frying Pan.
D. Architectural Importance. The house is one of Fritz
Benedict's first buildings in Aspen. He, more than any other
architect, has left his stamp on post-Paepcke Aspen. The building
represents the beginnings of the new Aspen that came into being
after World War II. It shows a stronger Wrightian influence than
much of Benedict's later work.
E. Neighborhood Character. The house was the first of four
similar homes, with distinctive low roof lines, built between
Seventh and Eighth on Main Street in the late forties and early
fifties. This is the only block of Main Street that could be
described as intimate in nature. The four houses still stand
today in their small grouping. They are modest in the style of
houses built toward the beginning of the post-Paepcke period, and
are in strong contrast to the scale of houses built today.
F. Community Character. The home is the westernmost building
on Main Street, near the entrance to town. The house is small in
scale, particularly in relation to the tall and old stand of
cottonwoods and other native vegetation that surrounds it. Because
of this it retains the semi -rural sense that was representative of
Aspen in the late forties and early fifties. This modesty of scale
and relation to surroundings is itself historically significant.
bnberger\004.1
-2-
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
A parcel of land in Section 12, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of
the Sixth Principal Meridian, Pitkin County, Colorado, more
particularly described as follows:
Beginning at corner no. 7 of Aspen Townsite, being the same as
corner no. 1 of the B. N. Berger Annexation;
Thence N07°381E 24.45 feet to corner no. 2;
Thence N74°301W 245.85 feet to corner no. 3;
Thence S37°501E 314.72 feet to corner no. 4;
Thence S83°311E to corner no. 5, the intersection with a line drawn
parallel with and distant 15.00 feet north easterly at right angles
from a line bearing S74°301E from said corner no. 4;
Thence S74°301E to corner no. 6, the intersection with a line
bearing N15°30'E from a point which is S74°301E 250.00 feet from
said corner no. 4;
Thence N15°301E to corner no. 7, the intersection with the
northerly line of Block 13 of the City of Aspen;
Thence westerly along said northerly line to corner no. 8, the
intersection with a line bearing S55°16'E from corner no. 7 of
Aspen Townsite;
Thence N55°161W to the point of beginning;
Excepting therefrom any portion of Block 13 of the City of Aspen.
bnberger\001
EXHIBIT "A"
s
November 14, 1991
City of Aspen
Attn: Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: B.N. Berger Land Use Application/Re-zoning
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
Pursuant to the requirements of Attachment 2, Item No. 1 of
the City of Aspen Land Use Application, I am supplying the
following information:
a. Applicant's name, address and telephone number are:
Bruce N. Berger
P.O. Box 482
Aspen, Colorado 81612
Phone: (303) 925-1647
b. The name, address and telephone number of the
representative authorized to act on my behalf is:
Herbert S. Klein, P.C.
by: Scott Harper
Attorney at Law
201 North Mill St., Suite #203
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Phone: (303) 925-8700
Very truly yours,
7
Bruce N. Berger
Applicant
bnberger\003
Exhibit "B"
•
PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc.
Title Insurance Company
Vincent J. Higens 601 E. Hopkins, Aspen, Colorado 81611 Christina M. Davis
President (303) 925-1766 • (303) 925-6527 FAX Vice President
CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP
Pitkin County Title, Inc., a duly licensed Title Insurance Agent in the
State of Colorado hereby certifies that BRUCE NICOLAS BERGER is the
owner in fee simple of the following described property:
A parcel of land in Section 12, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the
Sixth Principal Meridian, Pitkin County, Colorado, more particularly
described as follows:
Beginning at Corner No. 7 of Aspen Townsite, being the same as Corner
No. 1 of the B.N. Berger Annexation;
Thence N 07'38' E 24.45 feet to Corner No. 2;
Thence N 74'30' W 245.85 feet to Corner No. 3;
Thence S 37'50' E 314.72 feet to Corner No. 4;
Thence S 83'31' E to Corner No. 5, the intersection with a line drawn
parallel with and distant 15.00 feet north easterly at right angles
from a line bearing S 74'30' E from said Corner No. 4;
Thence S 74'30' E to Corner No. 6, the intersection with a line bearing
N 15'30' E from a point which is S 74'30' E 250.00 feet from said
Corner No. 4;
Thence N 15'30' E to Corner No. 7, the intersection with the northerly
line of Block 13 of the City of Aspen;
Thence westerly along said northerly line to Corner No. 8, the
intersection with a line bearing S 55*16' E from Corner No. 7 of Aspen
Townsite;
Thence N 55'16' W to the point of beginning.
Excepting therefrom any portion of Block 13 of the City of Aspen.
County of Pitkin, State of Colorado.
Subject to easements, rights -of -way and encumbrances of record.
This certificate is not to be construed to be a guarantee of title and
is furnished for informational purposes only.
PITK N COUN T TLE, INC.
BY: )/J Aii,
authoriz si nature
DATED: DECE 1991
EXHIBIT "C"
dow
r"t1j"Q`��
',:,{r �.,n�`� _1 •i',i,�roi�,. � 7C';JIiA �;i?�i��, 1 .'4�,,, '. ..i!`e�'c ���' 1. tl�r�/V,f►gi`."iJV�
�325l1�t�l
'e'I�'�{�i.' Y .8.` as Rn,•.;�,i4� ''i' �, „_{,�? }. .t� , ,i� � t �vll + ' iy`If q� fS,Tllfs i�R[D. llsda� Ih{a ;'r �� tLr of tt)Li11a11 RTAM[ 1
y4
h"F0!T'
LIMD E. RUSSELL and ELIZASETH Tl. RUSSELL .' FM Mfihl1111r11iI fir;
SEP 18 tom!
N
t ni iler� (4mnir of Pitkin and State of tools
i_ Ito, �,; .it•; r*fl% of the fool pert, and
BRUCE NICOLAS BERGER
of the
County of Pitkin and State of Colorado, of the wrond
+ port.
'I WITSESSF,TiT, That the Pull parties of the first part, for ■nd In ttrWacration of the out" of
�1 THIRTY-NINE THOUSAND FIYB MDRED and no/100-------------- RWk"
to the said parties of the first part• in hand paid by, the said part log of the srcoad port, the l
r rereipt wherrof in hereby ronfrterd atkl aeknowle,lsr,l• ha •e granted, barrained. sold and connrrrrd.
snot hr these prr+ents do grant, barirain. %ell• eonrer and confirm onto the said part y of •
the sreond part, his heirs and awirm former, allthe following dewribed lot or garret • it
r of land, sitnate. Wng and being in the Coanty of Pitkin and state of
Cokrtado, to wit:
See Exhibit A attached hereto and by this reference made a part
hereof. ,
7 ' I
r.
N
u
Togrthrr with all nnol sinrular the here,litaments and appurtetnaners therrunto beMnring, ne in snrwiw
appertaining. Anil the emersion and rrvervi-moo, rrmaindrr and remainolem rents, iotaws and profits there-
of; snot all the Mate, right, title, interest, claim and demand whoitow e.. of the said part of the
first ;rare, either in law or egnitr, of, in and to the shore bargained prrmism, with the hrnriitarrravtts
anti appnrtenanera; TO HAVE AND TO 1101,h the said premlorushore borrained snot drer ibetd, aith the
aP11.11 1`11 ncM rntn BRUCE NICOLAS i3ERGER
t the said party of the amoral part,
.) Iheirs snot assfgtr loner.
And the said IAAYrD E. RUSSELL and ELIZABETH W. RUSSELL
,.) I Part lea of the lint Part, for them .el ♦e■ their heirs, a tMan and
rlminht-stall do eetrnant, grant• bargain and agree to and with the sat,l part y of the
s+� oewi part. his Iteire and awaiM the above bargained , seises in the gaiet and peoreabl+ pescr�irat
of New part y of the s "hill pan, h I helm and swipss, against off and every, iwvwm e\r piv- oil
lawfnlly rlaiminc nor to claim Ibe wbofe or any, part thereof, by, throash or nnoler 11w told part lea of
the font part to R•.%RRAST MND Fn1tF.CF.R UF.FF.S11.
1% WITSIrMS WIIBRF.OF. The amid part lee of the first part Ma ere say their
hand a send met the day seal year first @beer writter __j �'
Rigtwl, Heated .nod 11*Iirrrrd i■ the Peerrwr of -"LioY;`RlfssZ �'1td%11,�
_ ........__.__........_.._......._:._...___..._..._.._ JILIZABETAI W. RossaLz.
RTATR OF C01.t)RAW).
sk
+ . Coorl Pitkin ll ''
t�+ The recessing in•trna" VMS so a we"grol Mhre tow Wit /�
to 68 .b• LLO?D 1. RUSSEL16 and BLIZABI[TH W. RU>slsa of '
jr �! M1 ewatwtlsd.a s*►bv+ s>^/�7/ a 1g t s ird
"M
1Aw
ML
of
Of
r
a..
1.
I+�
MI
M
•A
r
•L
i
r J
r' •~ lli �Yi �yf�v' t �Tl{t
i �' ,'. �'r ' yf� r,' �N',r�l 1J,:��, ti j1I 'HI "i,'�• /t'1�Frrii !y rtlrl�.jt:`1M1si�Itp�3E4i4t1l�— •
1 Kirvip�)R 1�7a!'�,� 4;14 � lyI.�'y' 111 ''t'4Aty }•[y lit . , ,,,1 t It �nr}iU' �!`�'Ir it !8 tip11/+',1 �r,� �r.t3�,( �t��' �Y, '1st�?��r.F
f,l�
'
�
jl �I 1 f , S' i ..•. , , y i�t.� 'il 'I I1?11 }�� 1�. y��'i;:rF111.�'.'+��}1MIri�.�I.ILi r'�}�:{ f l? tl .iµ1 IC., ' 1� � '�,-�•{:I•�1
• I r k t I .}rtfjtti� a
A tract of land situate in Section 12, Township 10 South, 1•a.
Range 85 nest of the 6th P. M. described as follows: beginning
at corner 7 of Aspen Townsite, thence North 7'38' East 24.4�
feet, thence North 74'30' West 245.85 Feet, thence South 37 50 rr.
East 314.72 feet to the true point of beginning of the property
herein described, thence South 83031' East 146.57 feet, thence,
North 71'30' East 105.0 feet, thence North 55*16' West to
intersect with the northerly line of Block 13 of the City of t
Aspen, thence Easterly along said northerly line to intersect
with a line bearing North 15*30' East from a point which is W.•;,,
South 74*30' East 250.00 feet from the true paint of beginning,;; y
thence South 15'30' West to the last named point, thence North
74*30' West 250.00 feet to the true point of beginning exce •tint+, ,
Westerly of a
therefrom that portion thereof lying South
�.:
drawn parallel with and distant 15.00 feet North Easterly •
right angles from the South Westerly line of the above des411bed
12, Township 10 South, Range 85.
property in Section
'� r• 1 1 t?
r M.1f f
1 .
Ji
.M {�
I
41
gA
IX 12115 Rec $10-00 9K 621 Pa 625
Stivi& D&vtU'ik,Pitk1m
4A.
Cnty.Clork. Doc s.00
DISTRICT COURT, PITXZN COUNTY, COLORADO
i',A tit
Civil Action No. 90 CV 56
...
17 EW-
DECREE QUIETING TITLE
P , Aim,
BRUCE NICOLAS 11HIMER, wti
A
Plaintiff,
LLOYD E. RUSSELLI ELIZABMI W. RUSSELL, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA FIRST
NATIONAL BANK; and ALL UNKNOWN PERSONS WHO MAY CLAIM ANY INTEREST
IN THE SUB-7ve"r wjkn",vn OF
THIS ACTION,
Defendants.
THIS MATTER heard
this dayto'
THE COURT FINDS: :
That each Defendant herein has
been properly served as
# A required by law and rule of Court; that Stephen R. Connor, Esq.
,I Z
Attorney at Law, has been heretofore appointed and appeared for
any and all Defendants who are in, or who way be in, or who may
have been ordered to report for induction into, the military
service as defined by the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act
�X , e-irl of 1940, as amended; that this is an action in rem affecting
specific real property; that the Court has JurTsidrc—tion of all
parties to this action and of the subject matter thereof; that
the allegations of the Complaint are true; that every claim made
by said Defendants in unlawful and without right; that no Defen-
dant herein has any title
or interest in or to the property
described herein or any part thereof; therefore:
fb
IT IS ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT Bruce Nicolas Berger,
Plaintiff, at the time of the comencement of
this proceeding,
was, and he now is, the owner in fee simple Of the following real
property in Pitkin County, Colorado:
A parcel of land in Section 12, Township 10 South,
Range CS Weat of the Sixth Principal Meridian described
Iry mates and bounds an followst
Beginning
at corner No. 7 of Aspen Tovnsita, thence
North 70381 East 24.45 foot, thence North 740301 West
245.85 feet, th6nce
South 37*501 East 314.72 feet,
thence South 8!311 East 146.57 feet, thence North
71*30' East 105.(Ffeet, thence North 55026' West 249.0
feet to the point of beginning.
Y
V-
J n<,pnn``'YYy'4"T^,9,`n`1ny�,n,ln7,gmTwwT,q�� � ulo,oneviviui
C1 fl-,Wy��WY1LL LLImIGILL °uUSiiU�z- LL Q yh�rr
¢° ' 'og :r ui •¢3 Lu LLI
.o g og :0 ;FoaW mQ .:ZZ :zF Fi i : lot
¢ww m ;o m W
....; :Z NZ 'ZZZ Ny1m I CC aWarafaa¢¢U¢¢%ZaZOgqnw<wMOO
�«33W3w33" (ii Nri:l
Wcam°nto
I 0�0HWW
-
tie°w°Z>oo<lOLJiiugm z-io.r�o ,
w�q,gnpww,n7apgT14^1OYn,P'P,n,n e,no n,.,4 �,51'1 'SI'41°T'SI'S'"�pp '"4'4^
U 3I rvIl!(7Zl! ut�Yd<S-?add UlhnJm c1�LL YU1iU" 6 l7<Ilb
` J :W :W :1 .W .` .
•W 'GOOW •Z<
:ww W : .,Zj :a .a¢ 6Z¢O>.11--:<G F11FW111------
: U> V11....OUli%i3<<OI~/I<JO W¢Ue¢m :�
fN`W¢<VI1-N <4 dmtl�-ylo�I°j YOOZyt ji WHIZZ J<U JIIIQ :>am>2z I
jx ppiZLLrzmYZ1Z7z U
<6
,= 12-JW��Q0�2(¢JW>«QQaWO3¢ppJon:OOOpOaann� ;LLQ W7OW
:H occ
n,n yr�,o n.nn� oqqn TTr,o '^,oY^ 'S'P 4'P rlyunwn,n ntlnn�
,piJ 'IIwW� 't)UULLdri ;�Tyi-d� .o�ISYd I,til l'l W.f �,l-°
Z h x z aui ::::om : ;2Oai i
Ill LLJ W LLI �zoz :�°° ; Ocr
::¢ :z a
CL m OWoOy
j:m>tlW:J~s OR�O
z W .gOmmp<mamwz
ru . cc
WSO>U<�rzu<-imaoN QZ ~ ZWNpJW.GZ6Wtz!lHmmYJ J6QImm66 SH599-.og
lj
0.
i I i
L0.1
II LL.
` � W
i
r. � u• ��ni���..NNNNN
.iN
.....a
N m �'
0
December 5, 1991
City Council
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: B.N. Berger Land Use Application/Landmark Designation
Grant Request.
Dear Members of City Council:
This letter is submitted pursuant to the requirements of item
No. 2 of attachment 3 to my Application for Historic Designation.
I believe that after a full review of the application you will
find that my home meets the eligibility criteria for a landmark
designation grant. I would particularly like to draw your
attention to the response to attachment 4 of the application which
sets forth in some detail the history and characteristics
surrounding my home which make it an ideal candidate for historic
designation and for the grant.
Accordingly, I request that you approve the landmark
designation grant in the amount of $2000.00 for this site.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
bnberger\grnt.ltr.
Very truly yours,
v
Bruce N. Ber er
Applicant
Exhibit "E"
0
KrFA HMaIIT 1
USE APPZIC' MW FORK
1; Pr'toject Name I B . N . Berger Annexation/Rezoning•
2) Project Location See attached Exhibit "A" for full legal description;
also known and numbered as 835 W. Main
(indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where
appropriate)
3) Present Zoning 11 �L 5 4) Lot Size 1.16 acres
5) Applicant's Name, Address & Phone f Bruce N. Berger
201 N. Mill Street, Suite 203, Aspen, Colorado31611 PII: 925-8700
7) Type of Application (please check all that apply):
Oanditional Use
Serial Review
8040 Greenline
Stream Margin
•..:.M
Final SPA
Final PUD
Mountain View Plane Subdivision
Oaylmdrii►m,i nation _/,, Zhxt,/Map Amwdment
Lot Split/lot LineAdjustment
ent
Cock historic Dev-
Final historic Dev.
Minor historic Dev.
historic Demolition
Historic Designation
GN426 Allotment
GMQS Em3uption
8) Description of Existing Uses (amber and type of exiling structures;
approximate sq. ft.; number of bedrooms; any previous approvals granted to the
ply) -
One 3-room cabin built 1947; 1000 sq.ft.; 1 bdrm; no Nrevious
approvals granted to the property
9) Description of Development Application
In conjunction with Petition for Annexation to the City of Aspen/
10) have you attached the following?
_yam Response to Attadmnent 2, Minimmm Submission Cantertts
yes Iesponse to Attactmieii 3, Specific Submission Contents
yes ReJpaise to Attache ent 4, Review Sta►tlards for Your Application
B.N. Beraer Annexation/Rezoni
RESPONSE TO ATTACHMENT 2
OF
LAND USE APPLICATION
1. Letter of authorization attached hereto as Exhibit "B".
2. The street address of the property is 835 West Main Street,
Aspen. Colorado. The full legal description is attached hereto
as Exhibit "A".
3. A current Owners Certificate from Pitkin County Title Company
is attached hereto as Exhibit "C".
4. An 8 1/2" x 11" vicinity map locating the subject parcel within
the City of Aspen is attached hereto as Exhibit "D".
5. This application is for a re -zoning from county R-15 to City
of Aspen R-15 in conjunction with owner's Petition for
Annexation. No other development is planned or anticipated
at this time.
RESPONSE TO ATTACHMENT 3
OF
LAND USE APPLICATION
A. The application does not request any amendment to the text of
the relevant chapter of the Land Use Regulations.
B. The application requests an amendment to the Official Zone
District Map.
1. The present Zone District classification is County R-15.
The existing land use of the real property is residential.
2. The area of the property proposed to be amended is 1.16
acres.
3. Four (4) copies of an accurate survey map have previously
been submitted to the city in conjunction with this
application.
RESPONSE TO ATTACHMENT 4
OF
LAND USE APPLICATION
A. The proposed re -zoning is not in conflict with any applicable
portions of the relevant chapter of the Land Use Regulations.
•
0
B. The Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan 1973 Land Use Map indicates
the area of proposed amendment to be primarily single family
residential. The area to be re -zoned is consistent with this
and all other elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
C. The proposed re -zoning is compatible with surrounding Zone
Districts and land uses and consistent with neighborhood
characteristics.
D. The proposed re -zoning will have no effect on traffic
generation and road safety.
E. The real property is currently serviced by city water supply.
The proposed re -zoning will result in no additional demands on
public facilities.
F. No changes in usage are requested or being made, and
therefore, the proposed re -zoning will result in no adverse
impacts on the natural environment.
G. The proposed re -zoning is consistent and compatible with the
community character in the City of Aspen.
H. The changed conditions affecting the subject parcel which
support the proposed re -zoning are Applicants Petition for
Annexation filed with the City of Aspen on October 25, 1991.
I. The proposed re -zoning will not be in conflict with the public
interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of
the relevant chapter of the Land Use Code.
bnberger\004
-2-
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
A parcel of land in Section 12, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of
the Sixth Principal Meridian, Pitkin County, Colorado, more
particularly described as follows:
Beginning at corner no. 7 of Aspen Townsite, being the same as
corner no. 1 of the B. N. Berger Annexation;
Thence N07°38'E 24.45 feet to corner no. 2;
Thence N74°30'W 245.85 feet to corner no. 3;
Thence S37°50'E 314.72 feet to corner no. 4;
Thence S83°31'E to corner no. 5, the intersection with a line drawn
parallel with and distant 15.00 feet north easterly at right angles
from a line bearing S74°30'E from said corner no. 4;
Thence S74°30'E to corner no. 6, the intersection with a line
bearing N15°30'E from a point which is S74°30'E 250.00 feet from
said corner no. 4;
Thence N15°30'E to corner no. 7, the intersection with the
northerly line of Block 13 of the City of Aspen;
Thence westerly along said northerly line to corner no. 8, the
intersection with a line bearing S55°161E from corner no. 7 of
Aspen Townsite;
Thence N55°16'W to the point of beginning;
Excepting therefrom any portion of Block 13 of the City of Aspen.
bnberger\001
EXHIBIT "A"
•
•
November 14, 1991
City of Aspen
Attn: Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: B.N. Berger Land Use Application/Re-zoning
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
Pursuant to the requirements of Attachment 2, Item No. 1 of
the City of Aspen Land Use Application, I am supplying the
following information:
a. Applicant's name, address and telephone number are:
Bruce N. Berger
P.O. Box 482
Aspen, Colorado 81612
Phone: (303) 925-1647
b. The name, address and telephone number of the
representative authorized to act on my behalf is:
Herbert S. Klein, P.C.
by: Scott Harper
Attorney at Law
201 North Mill St., Suite #203
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Phone: (303) 925-8700
Very truly yours,
7
Bruce N. Berger
Applicant
bnberger\003
Exhibit "B"
OPITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc. •
Title Insurance Company
Vincent J. Higens 601 E. Hopkins, Aspen. Colorado 81611 Christina M. Davis
President (303) 925-1766 • (303) 925-6527 FAX Vice President
CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP
Pitkin County Title, Inc., a duly licensed Title Insurance Agent in the
State of Colorado hereby certifies that BRUCE NICOLAS BERGER is the
owner in fee simple of the following described property:
A parcel of land in Section 12, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the
Sixth Principal Meridian, Pitkin County, Colorado, more particularly
described as follows:
Beginning at Corner No. 7 of Aspen Townsite, being the same as Corner
No. 1 of the B.N. Berger Annexation;
Thence N 07*38' E 24.45 feet to Corner No. 2;
Thence N 74`30' W 245.85 feet to Corner No. 3;
Thence S 37*50' E 314.72 feet to Corner No. 4;
Thence S 83"31' E to Corner No. 5, the intersection with a line drawn
parallel with and distant 15.00 feet north easterly at right angles
from a line bearing S 74*30' E from said Corner No. 4;
Thence S 74`30' E to Corner No. 6, the intersection with a line bearing
N 15*30' E from a point which is S 74*30' E 250.00 feet from said
Corner No. 4;
Thence N 15"30' E to Corner No. 7, the intersection with the northerly
line of Block 13 of the City of Aspen;
Thence westerly along said northerly line to Corner No. 8, the
intersection with a line bearing S 55*16' E from Corner No. 7 of Aspen
Townsite;
Thence N 55*16' W to the point of beginning.
Excepting therefrom any portion of Block 13 of the City of Aspen.
County of Pitkin, State of Colorado.
Subject to easements, rights -of -way and encumbrances of record.
This certificate is not to be construed to be a guarantee of title and
is furnished for informational purposes only.
PITK N COUN TITLE, INC.
BY:
authoriz si nature
DATED: DECE , 1991
EXHIBIT "C"
str�•'�,�� t
Rtt�ptirtt i"r� i .:. sllacL .,a
t -•r�
y
-'�132358
THIS DKED. blade fhb / �/� day of ti t
r !.� •
19 68 . lMtaren
LLOYD E. RUSSELL and ELIZABETH W. RUSSELL .
of the (aantr of Pitkin and Rtate er Onlo
Mhk of the fie+t part, soil
BRUCE NICOLAS BERGER
of the
2 3b r 4Z4
R11Ct1RDIDn STAMP
SEP its t�
r 3e 9S-
County of Pitkin and State of Colorado, of the second
part :
WITNERRET11. That thr said parties of the first part, for sill in eon.iderstion of the *urn of
THIRTY-NINE THOUSAND FIYB HUNDRED and no/100---------------
to the said parties of the first Pam in 6aoi1 paid be the said part ies of the second part, the
receipt whereof is hereby eonfewwl and aeknowler)gedl, !ta ye granted, bargained, sold and ronreyed,
soil by thew prr.ents do grant, bargain, sell, eonre� and confirm onto the said part Y of
thr.rro,d part, his heirs moil a+,igm forever, all the following described lot or oareel
of land, situate. Ding and being in the County of Pitkin awl State of
C'olrado, to wit:
See inhibit A attached hereto and by this reference made a part
hereof.
Togr0 r with all and singular the berrrtitaments and appurtenances therrunto below ing, or in anvsisr
appertaining. and the —re, on and revers:-.ns, remainder and rnnaioiletm, trots, iwjea and profits therr-
of: and all the estate, right, title, intrust, claim moil demand whatow,rr, of the said part of the
first -art, either in law or equity, of, in and to the shore bargained prrtnisrit. with the he"Aitameets
and appnrtmaners; TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said premieft abort bargained and described. %ith the
apperrensnees. onto BRUCK NICOI.AS BERGER
the Mid party of the orm I part,
Irinw and .a.ignm forever.
And the said LLOYD E. RUSSELL and ELIZABETH W. RUSSELL
Port lea of the first part, for them sal ♦es . their dim exerstan and
administ-atom do earrnant. grant. bargain and agar to and with the acid part % of the
secatwi part. his ►sirs and a+igns, the sbcxe bargained prrmisrs in the gaiet and pcarftbl= pawsr.inn
of amid pony wt the sreoml part, his heir and assigns, against an and errry peruse er pi r.
Iswfnlly claiming or to claim the whole or any part thetrd, by, tirnogh or under the mall part lea at
Me first putt to WARRANT AND F(1RF.rER DEFEND.
IN WIT.XF-" WHERFAF. The said part lea of the rind port is •e ern their
hand a am Mal the day and year find above writte&D7V
Signed. Seslyd sd Il►tireris the Pruner ofRUSS6
EL ABET W. RUSSELL )
RTATR tlF COIA)RAI►f►,
t'°iettly er Pitkin ! F
The feergwbwg l"etrnowAl was ..+Moles" Weer dew tMs /O � dy of R�
is 68 . y• LLOYD t. RUSSELL and ELIZABETH >te RUSSELL
fly e.ds.deat.o KMr.+ / it how
i; 1,
.•r
sex I
ho
,t !
of I
py.�fiJi yLL ky tf f �b /��i.
!`
� • i ""y � � �� � Ti � ..�:� �'T' r"�' i •� r ! r rS.'E � � t T i%"i {} �j�
EXItIRIT 4
A tract of land situate in Section 12, Township 10 South,
Range 85 nest of the 6th P. M. described as follows: beginning
Itt corner 7 of Aspen Townsite, thence North 7*38' East 24.4� �.'.
3T
feet, thence North 74*30' nest 245.85 Feet, thence South
East 314.72 feet to the true point of beginning of the property
herein described, thence South 83*31' East 146.57 feet, thence
North 71*30' East 105.0 feet, thence North 55'16' (lest to
intersect with the northerly line of Block 13 of the City of
intersect
1
Aspen, thence Easterly along said northerly line to
with a line bearing North 15*30' East from a point which is
„4
South 74e30' East 250.00 feet from the true point of beginning,.
i
thence South 15*30' Kest to the last named point, thence Worth
74e3O' Hest 250.00 feet to the true point of beginning eace 'tiny--"
<<
therefrom that portion thereof lying South Westerly of a It •s
'
`A
drawn parallel with and distant 15.00 feet Worth Easterly t:
South Westerly line of the above 4es4 *abed "— -' !
right angles from the
property in section 12, Township 10 South, Range 85.
12115 Roc 010-00 BK 621 Pe 6213
"'"d D&YIS. Ptkin Cntv Clerk, Doc *.00
DISTRICT COURT, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO III
Civil Action No. 90 CV 56
A 'I T_5 DECREE QUIETING TITLE T.1
BRUCE HICOIA.-i BERGER
Plaintiff,
44M
LLOYD E. RUSSELL; ELIZABETTI W. RUSSELL; SOUTHERN CAJIrORNIA FIRST
NATIONAL BANK; and ALL UNKNOwm PERSONS WHO MAY CLAIM ANY INTEREST
IN THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS ACTION,
Defendants.
Fr
THIS MATTER heard this day,
THE COURT FINDS:
That each Defendant heroin has been properly served as
required by law and rule of Court;
that Stephen R. Connor, Esq.,
Attorney at Law, has been heretofore appointed and appeared for
any and all Defendants who are in, or who may be in, or who may
have been ordered to report for induction into, the military
service as defined by the Soldiers* and Sailors' Civil Relief Act
of 1940, as amended; that this is an action in rem affecting
specific real property; that the Court has jurisdiction of all
parties to this action and of the subject matter thereof; that
the allegations of the Complaint are true; that every claim made
by said Defendants is unlawful and without right; that no Defen-
dant herein has any title or interest in or to the property
described herein or any part thereof; therefore:
IT IS ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT Bruce Nicolas Berger,
Plaintiff, at the time of the commencement of this proceeding,
was, and he now is, the owner in fee simple Of the following real
property in Pitkin County, Colorado:
A parcel of land in Section 12, Township 10 South,
Range CS West of the Sixth Principal Meridian described
kry metes AM bounds as follows:
Beginning at corner No. 7 of Aspen Townsit-3, thence
North 71381 East 24.45 feet, thence North
245.85 feet, thence South37*501 740301 west
East 314.72 feet,
thence South 8311311 East 146-57 feet, thence North
71030' East 105.t feet, thence North 55*161 West 249.0
feet to the point of beginning.
AW - "A. 1l, �' I
F.
look 1
t.
4
•
3
na.
Qo
m
m
wv..e.Vill��?'4'^Y�u.n mm Y'47T^^Y'4'4'P VO' mmmm mmmm
C7 ei-wU-'-WYLL LL7mmILL(7000ISIU'gI-Z � Q 7�rhtiui vin
W ,^ LLIiLLLLWW . ;
W,¢tY :a .rmac ;uZ ' ' W W
.o :o<oo ::a :OON : 'wy¢pm :: m W
•wwLLLL .zFN2aw'?zz"-y— 1- i.<O31 :¢ �
OZ �OOOOU'U'¢fON?Ya N 7JNN 11yyFN2wU'
lx -z V. Y U122OUO_7Y <mm OOU ~>6-' -�JJ_ :.Z
y)m'Oa00Zy<QQW~w 'wNwfZwIQ-wHfoH/ N/F-NHHN
rOCIIIIFfIof,owww«EoOQ>r)JOO¢¢QfwZWwWZ
W»aJ«O N'w NaW
QNNwwwwN-
NNNJ;;'�33 •; �NO.�Yfmnm
^T'P'41q lgn..TIo,illTO1m Vr. TV91?119m mmlgT mn i Till :omV n.
(�mII[,iZ(�(7-C1000(lYOn<U'??O n'viNuiJUI�imLL YuiU-- O ;O(7<I�
J
LL4 :OW :W :6 :O :Yr :¢O : :6
..W> .W .? : .Q .¢Qg. 'zay:O> :NJJO :Y .OI~/lO :AJLL :f0 :W f
•f.-()> <F>JZH2�U�ZZ J��33ZrUJJ�N=ON;<O>¢U6N :NONE
NWYHF<2=N WYQZW 2ZN000u YOOSN<JJ>wJ�l-fI-U.QY YQ�'� :dQWm
i422i<ZOY¢¢J;ZaU'?QQ~YN Oj2 Z<U,Q¢S W¢¢ 'da O
J OOJJY<2zff- J««`<Uu�IS--O�1-2W_000Q>«I�i O¢ :JY Jw
IZIIII-.-.YJJJJJJi3i�i�i��ii ii2� ZZZ22OOCMmad-aQOa
nmmmnm�..�.Tny.mTTmm :gmmap e.yylq e.lq aq v.lgmonmonmw.�
IQ?UrjII WwUYGU UU'�d ri .T� O?'U' WZYLL Ifri2{�w TU-O
W :O .0 .o : :Y .an .n :LL :.o :O¢
I
:¢ .F : V`.O :a. : .O : :H
�/% yIaww z a w.<' :rFmrF Z¢N2¢O Fj<U¢Z ;OZSS<OTSW 'Q<OONNU<Nw sJNQOI2
Q vJ wzzu
IJ5zzH- OYYIDmmoFYJJFW 'Wyl"'OF <NOZ 3UZNO WW` IOON
2Ur<-odYZZ<WJZZ<N<`N`ZZ~ <WpOpHQYJ QQa~<JH�C jJ~<<aQq
««<OmfL mOGmmaODU UU UU JUC� 0000� LLc<U'CI U'U'ISIII
IDO a
IIIR
l
It—'
E-4
O H
CIMI"
0
••' J �'
ti bJ W j�
o 7 0
S £5 �4
r
o �
c+ cc 00
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: BERGER MAP AMENDMENT FOR REZONING TO R-15
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
Tuesday, March 17, 1992 before the Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission, City Hall, 2nd Floor Meeting Room, 130 South Galena
Street, Aspen to consider an application submitted by Bruce N.
Berger, P. O. Box 482, Aspen, CO, requesting approval of a Map
Amendment application rezoning a property under consideration for
annexation into the City of Aspen to Moderate -Density Residential
Zone District (R-15). The R-15 Zone District permits detached
residential dwellings, duplexes, farm buildings and uses, home
occupations and accessory buildings and uses. The property is
located at 835 West Main Street, between 7th Street and Castle
Creek, more specifically described as a metes and bounds parcel in
Section 12, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6th P.M.,
Pitkin County, CO. For further information, contact Kim Johnson,
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (303)
920-5090.
s/Jasmine Tygre, Chairman
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Published in The Aspen Times on February 26, 1992
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
City of Aspen Account.
0 0
•
•
AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF
ss.
COUNTY OF T►�-��J )
1. Attached is a Public Notice regarding a Public Hearing
scheduled for Tuesday, March 17, 1992 for Bruce N. Berger's
application for a rezoning of his property located at 835 West Main
Street in Aspen, Colorado.
2. Also attached is a current list of adjacent property
owners within 300 feet of the aforementioned property duly
certified by Pitkin County Title Company pursuant to the attached
"Adjacent Owner's Statement."
3. I hereby certify that I have mailed, first class mail,
postage prepaid, a copy of the attached notice to each of the
adjacent property owners on the attached list as of this date.
Dated this 28th day of February, 1992.
W
Nina W. True
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 28th day of February,
1992, by Nina True as Secretary of Herbert S. Klein.
Witness my hand and official seal.
My commission expires: - 3.20 - Ij -' 2
Notary Public
bnl:erger ; 014
•
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: BERGER MAP AMENDMENT FOR REZONING TO R-15
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
Tuesday, March 17, 1992 before the Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission, City Hall, 2nd Floor Meeting Room, 130 South Galena
Street, Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Bruce N.
Berger, P.O. Box 482, Aspen, Colorado, requesting approval of a Map
Amendment application rezoning a property under consideration for
annexation into the City of Aspen to Moderate -Density Residential
Zone District (R-15). The R-15 Zone District permits detached
residential dwellings, duplexes, farm buildings and uses, home
occupations and accessory buildings and uses. The property is
located at 835 West Main Street, between 7th Street and Castle
Creek, more specifically described as a metes and bounds parcel in
Section 12, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6th P.M.,
Pitkin County, Colorado. For further information, contact Kim
Johnson, Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, 130 South Galena Street,
Aspen, Colorado (303) 920-5090.
s/Jasmine Tygre, Chairman
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Published in The Aspen Times on February 26, 1992.
PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC.
Title Insurance Company
Vincent_ J . Higens, 601 E . Hopkins
President Aspen, Colorado 81611
( 303 ) 925--1766
FAX (303 ) 925-6527
ADJACENT OWNER'S STATEMENT
Christina M. Davis,
Vice President
Pitkin County Title, Inc., a duly licensed Title Insurance Agent in the
State of Colorado hereby certifies the following list is a current list
of adjacent property owner's within three hundred feet of the Berger
Annexation, as obtained from the most current Pitkin County Assessors
Tax Rolls.
NAMES AND ADRESSES BRIEF LEGAL DESCRIPTION
---------------------__-__-------__-------------------------------------
PLEASE REFER TO LIST ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF.
10-t �t- L,-J) X V-,o o)
AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE
A. FREDERICK llHl FR AND • UNIT R, &EN VILLAS
FRANCFS M. UHLER
P.O. BOX 49
WASHINGTON NJ 07882
A. SCOTT DAVIDSON UNIT 36 VILLA OF ASPEN
P.O. BOX 5141
ASPEN CO 8161.2
ADAMS SUBDIVISION HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION COMMON AREA
(NO ADDRESS AVAILABLE)
ALBERT L. BROWN, JR.
UNIT
32
VILLA OF ASPEN
MARIAN H. BROWN
4105 ROSE HILL AVENUE
CINCINNATI
OH
4522.9
ALEJANDRO AND REBECA TOPELSON
UNIT
B3,
ASPEN VILLAS
SUITE 400
5300 DTC PARKWAY
ENGLEWOOD
CO
801,11.
ALEJANDRR L. GROSS
UNIT
E3,
ASPEN VILLAS
P.O. BOX 9500
ASPEN
CO
816.12
AMENEH FATAHI
UNIT
C2,
ASPEN VILLAS
P.O. BOX 8080
ASPEN
CO
81612
ARCHER W. BISHOP, JR. AND
SANDRA K.
BISHOP
LOT
3, ADAMS
SUB
AS LIFE TENANTS UNDER JT.
PUR. AGT.
P.O. BOX 11146
KNOXVILLE
TN
37939
ARVIN WAYNE EIDSON AND
UNIT
9,
VILLA OF ASPEN
JOY EIDSON
P.O. BOX 271.
SULPHUR
OK
73086
ASPEN SQUARE CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION
UNIT
3,
VILLA OF ASPEN
617 FAST COOPER AVFNUF
ASPEN
CO
81611
ASPEN VILLAS CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION
COMMON AREA
C/O PAUI_ MURRY
814 W. BLEEKER
ASPEN
CO
81611
BARBARA L. CARSON
UNIT
35 VILLA
OF ASPEN
SUITE 35
100 NORTH 8TH STREET
ASPEN
CO
81611
BETTY M. DI BARTOLOMEO
UNIT
11 V11 A
OF ASPEN
3795 INDIAN TRAIL
ORCHARD LAKE VLG.
MI
48033
C. WELTON ANDERSON
UN.II
21_ VILLA
OF ASPEN
P.O. BOX 9946
ASPEN
CC)
81612
CHARLES R. MORRIS, JR.
UNIT
B5, ASPEN
P.O. BOX 12362
ASPEN
CO
8161.2
CITY OF ASPEN
METES
& BOUNDS
130 S. GALENA
ASPEN
CO
8161.1
DAVID MENSCHER AND
UNIT
19 VILLA
OF ASPEN
LELYA MENSCHER
40 OCEAN VISTA
NEWPORT BEACH
CA
92660
DONA STUART
UNIT
Cl, ASPEN
VILLAS
P.O. BOX 11733
ASPEN
CO
81612
DOUGLAS E. KELLY AND
UNIT
7, VILLA
OF ASPEN
THERESA D. KELLY
BOX 8429
ASPEN
CO
81612
EDWARD M. STEINBERG
UNIT
Al., ASPEN
VILLAS
1068 HOLLY STREET
DENVER
CO
80220
ELEANOR BERGER BEALMEAR LOTS 1-5, BEALMEAR SUB
P.O. BOX 632
ASPEN
CO
81612
ELLEN KUPER
UNIT
5,
VILLA
OF ASPEN
133 NORTH EIGHTH STREET
ASPEN
CO
816.1..1
ENRIQUE SARRO, JR. AND
UNIT
23
VILLA
OF ASPEN
MARCELA C. de SARRO
LAVA 227-5, PEDREGAL
MEXICO 20, D. F.
01.900
ENRIQUE SARRO, JR. AND
UNIT
22
VILLA
OF ASPEN
MARCELA C. de SARRO
LAVA 227--5, PEDREGAL
MEXICO 20, D. F.
01.900
GARY R. LICHTENWALTER
UNIT
B1,
ASPEN
VILLAS
417 TAYLOR
JOLIET
It
60435
GRANT H. LANDIS, 50% INT.
ANH
UNIT
15
VILLA
OF ASPEN
JAMES H. LANDIS, 50% INT.
P.O. BOX 5208
SNOWMASS VILLAGE
("0
81615
H. J. WACHTEL AND
UNIT
8,
VILLA
OF ASPEN
SANDRA V. WACHTEL
#B, 100 NORTH 8TH STREET
ASPEN
CO
81611
HAROLD A. HAODON AND
UNIT
10
VILLA
OF ASPEN
- -BEVER1 Y—J.--HAT1D(K
- -
-
409 21ST STREET
DENVER
CO
80205
HERBERT S. AND MARSHA KLEIN
LOTS
A,
B & C,
BLK 12
SUITE 201
201 NORTH MILT_ STREET
ASPEN
CO
81611
HUGH MACAUL.AY AND
UNIT
E4,
ASPEN
VILLAS
CAROLINE MC GREGOR MACAULAY
SUITE E--4, 814 WEST BLEEKER
ASPEN
CO
81611
JACOBUS ADRIAAN DE PAGTER AND
METES
& BOUNDS
,JOHANNA SUZANNA MARGARETHA DE
PAGTER
P.O. BOX 182
ASPEN CO
61612
JACQUELINE L. LARNER
UNIT
A4, ASPEN
VILLAS
1952 LEYDEN STREET
DENVER CO
80220
JAY AND DOROTHY R. MARTIN
UNIT
34 VILLA
OF ASPEN
C/O CAPITAL CIGAR & TOBACCO CO.
SUITE 700, 6411 IVY LANE
GREENBELT MD
20770
JERRY AND ESTHER L. FELS
LOT 1.
AOAMS SOB
AS TRUSTEES OF FELS FAMILY TRUST
3645 VALLEY MEADOW RAOD
SHERMAN OAKS CA
91403
JERRY S. HOGGATT
UNTT
U2, ASPEN
VII.IAS
65 DREAM COURT
METAIRIE LA
70001
JOHN C. DIETRICH AND
UNIT
33 VILLA
OF ASPEN
ANN S. DIETRICH
744 EAST LAKE STREET'
WAYZAIA MN
55391
JOHN L. LEPPLA AND
UNIT
20 VILLA
OF ASPEN
JOEN F. LEPPLA
4040 DAHL ROAD
MOUND MN
55364
JOHN I.. WILKINSON AND
UNIT
17 VILLA
OF ASPEN
MELISSA WILKINSON
P.O. BOX 11931
ASPEN CO
81612
JOHN MORRISON
UNIT
31 VILLA
OF ASPEN
SUITE 201
720 GOODLETTE ROAD N.
NAPLES FI_
33940
JOSE GRINBERG AND SARA T. dp
GRINBERG
UNIT
ES, ASPEN VILLAS
SIERRA MAZAPIL #135
COL. LOMAS DE CHAPULTEPEC
1100 MEXTCO, U.F.,
MEXICO
0
0
JOSEPH AND PATRICIA MITTON, 1/2 INT.
UNIT
El,
ASPEN
VILLAS
AND DAVIT) FRANKLE, 112 INT.
2121 WAGNER
GLENVIEW IL
92121
KENNETH T. AND KAREN KURT7_
UNIT
A5,
ASPEN
VILLAS
C/O BRAKUR CUSTOM CABINETRY, TNC.
18656 S. RT. 59
SHOREWOOD IL
60435
KLAUS F. OBERMEYER, .82236 INT.
UNIT
D3,
ASPEN
VILLAS
AND HENRY OBERMEYER, .17764 INT.
P.O. BOX 130
ASPEN CO
81612
LAURA R. SAHUF1.S
UNIT
1,
VILLA
OF ASPEN
P-0. BOX 4814
ASPEN CO
81612
LYNN LICHTENWALTER
UNIT
01,
ASPFN
VILLAS
SUITE D-1
814 WEST BL.EEKER
ASPEN CO
8161.1
MICHAEL E. HEISLEY
UNIT
A6,
ASPEN
VILLAS
C/O HEICO, INC. - LWGIES
145 NORTH SWIFT ROAD
ADDISON IL
60101
NICHOLAS PULLOS AND
UNIT
E2,
ASPEN
VILLAS
CAROLYN MAIER PULLOS
2810 112 SHERIDAN PLACE
EVANSTON TL_
60201
PAUL D. HINRICHS AND
UNIT
2,
VILLA
OF ASPEN
NANCY R. HINRICHS
825 GAYLORD STREET
DENVER CO
80206
PAUL J. AND BONITA J. HURRY
UNIT
C5,
ASPEN
VILLAS
SUITE C-5
614 WEST BLEEKER
ASPEN co
81611
RICHARD A. COHEN AND
UNIT
C3,
ASPL_N
VILLAS
ELIZABETH A. COHEN
P.O. BOX 1806
ASPEN CO
81612
RICHARD A. SHERRIFF
•
UNIT
25
41.A
Of
ASPEN
P.O. BOX 1.1108
ASPEN
CO
61612
RICHARD E. LONG AND
LOTS
Q,
R & S,
BLK 12
LOIS N. LONG
P.O. BOX 3849
ASPEN
CO
81612
RICHARD T. DOYLE AND
UNIT
4,
VILLA
OF
ASPEN
GRACE 0. DOYLE
3711 EASTLEDGE DRIVE.
AUSTIN
TX
76731
RIK RICCIARDI
UNIT
6,
VILLA
OF
ASPEN
P.O. BOX 3167
ASPEN
CO
81612
RIK RICCIARDI
UNIT
26
VILLA
OF
ASPEN
P.O. BOX 3167
ASPEN
CO
61612
RIK RICCIARDI
UNIT
14
VILLA
OF
ASPEN
P.O. BOX 3167
ASPEN
CO
8161.2
ROBERT E. AND BETTY L.
SHALLCROSS
UNIT
A2,
ASPEN
VILLAS
SUITE B
225 WESTWIND DRIVE
AVON LAKE
OH
44012
ROGER E. LONG AND
UNIT
18
VILLA
OF
ASPEN
MONA HAYLES LONG
P.O. BOX 3849
ASPEN
CO
6161.2
ROGER ERFTMIER AND
UNIT
24
VILLA
OF
ASPEN
GERALDINE ERFTMIER
4717 F. STREET
OMAHA
NE
681.17
ROLAND L. CODY, JR. , LOUISE CODY
UNI1
';'8
VILLA
OF
ASPEN
AND JAMES M. CODY
4058 W. COLEMAN BLVD.
MT. PLEASANT
Sc
29464
SAMUEL L. AND SUSANA STERN de
EICHNER
UNIT
E6, ASPEN
VILLAS
C/O SUZANNE S. VERNON
P.O. BOX 9704
ASPEN CO
8161.2
SAMUEL L. AND SUSANA STERN de
FICHNER
UNIT
F6, ASPEN VILLAS
FUENTES DE PIRAMIDES 243
TECAMACHALAS MEXICO D.F.
MEXICO
53950
SANDRA SUE WALTNER AND
UNIT
C4, ASPEN VILLAS
JEAN PARKES MAYTAG
P.O. BOX 8789
ASPEN CO
8161.2
SAVANAH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
LOTS
K, L, H,
N,
0 & P
C/O HADID ASPEN HOLDINGS
BLOCK
12
SUITE 200, 600 E. COOPER
ASPEN CO
8161..1
SAVANAH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
LOTS
D, E, F,
G,
H I
C/O HADIO ASPEN HOLDTNGS
BLOCK
12
SUITE 200, 600 E. COOPER
ASPEN CO
8161.1
SHERYLNNF MORE GUEST
UNIT
30 VILLA
OF
ASPEN
P.O. BOX 4545
ASPEN CO
61612
STANLEY SPERLING AND
UNIT
27 VILLA
OF
ASPEN
LEONA SPERLING
315 NORTH ELM DRIVE.
BEVERLY HILLS CA
90210
STEVEN R. WICKES
UNIT
13 VILLA
OF
ASPEN
P.O. BOX 10148
ASPEN CO
8161.2
SUSAN SHIRLEY HOJEL.
UNIT
16 VILLA
OF
ASPEN
UNIT 16, VILLA OF ASPEN
100 NORTH 8TH STREET
ASPEN CO
8161..1
TIMOTHY J. PETTIT
UNIT
29 VILLA
OF
ASPEN
P.O. BOX 1968
ASPEN CO
81612
TONG KHON LUU AND
UNIT
B4, ASPEN
VILLAS
TUYET LE TRAN
P.O. BOX 2785
ASPEN
CO
81.6.1.2
VICTOR ENGLAND, 3R. AND
UNIT
A3, ASPEN
VILLAS
CATHERINE B. ENGLAND
P.O. BOX 245
QUARRYVILLE
PA
17566
VILLA OF ASPEN CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION
COMMON
AREA
326 TEAL COURT
ASPEN
CO
81611
WESTERN INVESTMENT UNI_.LMIIED
LOT
2., ADAMS SUB
A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP
17700 WEST CAPITOL DRIVE
BROOKFIELD
WI
53005
WILLIAM A. VIDRIH AND
UNIT
12 VILLA
OF ASPEN
SUSIE M. VIDRIH
P.O. BOX 4516
ASPEN
CO
8161.2
WILLIAM H. AND KAREN W.
SCHAEFER
UNIT
R6, ASPEN
VILLAS
APARTMENT 193
3120 ORANGE LEAF
MEMPHIS
TN
38115
B. N. BERGER
ANNEXATION
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
A FAKCEL OF LAND IN 5ECTION 12,
TOW N5H 1 F 10 50UTH, KAN&E 85 WEST
OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MErJDIAN
PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, MORE
FARTICULAKD' DE5CRIC5ED AS FOLLDW5
DE&INNING AT CORNER NO. OF ASPEN
TOWN5ITE, BEING THE SAMZ A5 CoKNfK
NO. I OF THE b.N. DEKGEK ANNEXATION
THENCE NO77° �' E 24 45 FEET TO
C&N�K NO. 2,
THENC1~ N74°30'W 245.55 FEET To
COKNEIz No.5;
THENCE 5377°50' E 314 72 FEET To
COfZN e.F: No. 4
THENCE 58�°31' E TO CoKNEK NO..5
E IN
WITH A LINE
DI'AWN PARALLEL WITH AND
D15TANT 15•00 FEET NOKTH
EASTEKLY AT KIGHT ANGLES
FKOM A LINE [5EARING 574030'E
FROM 5AID COKNEK NO. -4
THENCE 574°3o'ff TO CorNER No. Co,
T+-IE INTERnECTION WITH A
LINE 5EAKING N 15°3O' E FROM
A POINT- WHICH IS 574
2°3o'E
j0.00 FEET FROM 5AID
CORNER NO. /-I ,,
THENCE N 15°30'E TO CORI`lEF No. 7,
THE INTE95ECTION WITH THE
NORTHERLY LINE. OF BLOCK 13
OF THE CITY OF ASPf=N
THENCE WESTERLY ALONG 5A1%
NORTHERLY LINE TO C.OKNEfK
N0.8, THE INTERSECTION WITH
A LINE f5EAIZING 55.5*1& E
FROM CORNER NO.7 OF A6FFN
T0WN51TE;
THENCE N 55°I(VW TO THE FLINT OF
BEGINNING
EXCEPTING THE.F-EPROM ANY POKTION OF
BLOCK 13 OF THE CITY OF A5PE N .
CITY OF ASPEN APPROVAL
THIS b. N. DERGEF, ANNEXATION WAS
APPFOVED 6Y THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF A5f E-N, PITKIN COUNT,
COLDRADO BY ORQINANCE. NO.___________,
SEFZIES OF 1991, PASSED THE -------- DAY
OF ------------ f 19g I
------------
MAYoF:
ATTE5T_l-------------------------------------
CITY CLERK
ACCEPTANCE
FOR RECORDING
THIS PLAT OF THE 13. N. 81=RGEf�
ANNEXATION WA5 ACCEPTED FOP: FILING IN
THE OFFICE OF THE CLEKK 4 KECOKDEK OF
f'ITKIN COUNT(, CoLcrADo ON THE_____-___
DAY of ___-- _-- 11391 IN PLAT 1300K
--------- AT PHr;F------- UNDER
"CEFTION NO.
- --------------------------
CLEKK AND KECOKOEFK
N 49g,250 �'
m
JN
N
1p
0
El
r---i --- T ----' --- i----� ---i-------� ---?
1
I
I
I IFill,
Ell
I
---- - - - L---'- -� - --------� ---
VILLA L CK — ��1-- —
ANNEXATION % ' -- ---�-----,-------;----,----;-------- ;----,- T
o u I 1 I ( 1 I I 1 , I
N �� 30 00 w) 2 ; , ; ; ! I I
Fri,
No7°3�'OO"E) (24.45)
CORH�>° (21
245 �I ADPENR N 7 0 (N070 32' 24"E) 24.4(v
® �0 ® Oo &n
P
SCALE 1 ON 50 GAT
LEGEND & NOTES
U BEARINGS AND/09 0I5TANCE5 5HOWN IN
PAKENTHE5E5 ARE FROM DEEDS, QUIET TITLE
DECKE.E OR 5UKVEYS OF IZECIJRD- THOSE NOT
SHOWN IN PAfzENTHE.5E5 REPRESENT
CALCULATED VALUES.
2 AL-L PHY5ICAL FEATU9155 SHOWN HE" -ON AKE
TAKEN FROM CIW OF ASPEN TOFOGKAPHIC MAPS,
MAY NOT P,E UP TO -DATE AHp ARE SHOWN For,
ORIENTATION PUKFME5 ONLY,
PREPARF-D by_,,ME,S N EA5TED, EOX 2357, ASPEN, Co tICol2
1 '
/ � I
I ,
l '
I
I ; '
70WN5ITE 1 (tv "
B.N. BERGER \\e5° w)j �s
ANNEXATION
�31
HOUSE
\ g5 00�F 5 �S 7 3o`
15 FEET
(S 74030' E� — ----
��
74'30' w)
75.0911 1 11 W� 30.10
I
r -g~ " BLOCK 113
N I
/ �SpFN
-m
N
N
0
HALLAM STREET
SLEEKER STREET
-t-
MAIN STREET
N 4g8'p00
-------
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
---- - 77 �177 777
�Qmay Fl
0 - —
P/rK/N,�F�tiSpF
N A9���50
m
-N
A-
�i