The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutlanduse case.an.Callahan Sub.1981-SU-11Q . S _ • Benedict Annexation - Amendment to PUD scar-" Krd yly NI r, ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-2020 LAND USE APPLICATION FEES City 00113 - 63721 47331 52100 GMP/CONCEPTUAL 63722 47332 52100 GMP/PRELIMINARY 63723 47333 52100 GMP/FINAL 63724 47341 52100 SUB/CONCEPTUAL 63725 47342 52100 SUB/PRELIMINARY 63726 47343 52100 SUB/FINAL 63727 47350 52100 EXCEPT/EXEMPTION 63728 47350 52100 REZONING 63729 47360 52100 SPECIAL REVIEW SUB -TOTAL County 00113 - 63711 - 47331 52200 GMP/GENERAL 63712 47332 52200 GMP/PRELIMINARY 63713 47333 52200 GMP/FINAL 63714 47341 - 52200 SUB/GENERAL 63715 47342 52200 SUB/DETAILED 63716 47343 52200 SUB/FINAL 63717 47350 52200 SPECIAL REVIEW 63718 47350 52200 REZONING 63719 47360 52200 SPECIAL APPROVAL PLANNING OFFICE SALES 00113 - 63061 09100 52200 63063 09100 52200 63062 09100 52300 63066 09100 52300 63069 09100 SUB -TOTAL COUNTY CODE ALMANAC GMP COPY FEES OTHER SUB -TOTAL TOTAL Name: -` AT %4A t_ 1 — Phone: Address: Project: Check No. �' ' Date: Additional Billing: No. of Hours: T MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Alice Davis, Planning Office RE: Benedict Annexation DATE: September 13, 1982 APPROVED AS TO FORM: LC /6 Background: Fritz and Fabienne Benedict have petitioned fo nd met t requirements for the annexation of a 0.55 acre arcel of and located along the Roaring Fork River adjacent to the Callahan Subdivision. This memorandum is to discuss the land use and planning concerns relating to this annexation petition as well as concerns related to the necessary Callahan Subdivision/PUD plat amendments. Applicant's Request: The applicant is requesting the annexation of a 0.55 acre parcel from Pitkin County into the City of Aspen and the addition of the annexed parcel to Lot 11, Callahan Subdivision. The application is requesting that the City zone the parcel R- 15 PUD under the City Zoning Code and that approval be given to the necessary amendments to the Callahan Subdivision/PUD plat. Planning Office Review: The City Council has reviewed the petition for the Benedict annexation and found the petition acceptable as to form. Council then sent the application to Planning and Zoning for a recommendation on the proper zoning for the annexed parcel. Planning and Zoning has reviewed the rezoning as well as a simultaneous application requesting approval for the necessary amendment to the Callahan PUD. Even though the City Council is the only body which reviews and approves annexations, the Planning Office would like to go on record as questioning the appropriateness of the proposed annexation. The City's annexation policy is to review each annexation request on a case -by -case basis and determine the public benefit gained through the proposed annexation. The parcel to be annexed here does not create any known negative impacts as it will not generate further traffic generation or affect road safety; it does not generate any parking problems nor place any burden on the City's utilities. There is a minimal amount of positive public benefits resulting from the proposed annexation due to an increased tax base and due to water rights which are to be deeded over. The proposed open space covenant provides protection from development along the Roaring Fork River, however, this protection already exists in the County's subdivision regulations. The Planning Office would simply like to raise the concern that with only minor public benefit being accrued from the proposed annexation, the annexation may not be appropriate. This point may be even more valid in light of the private benefits which will result from an increase in the allowed floor area for Lot 11 and the increase in the value of this lot. The Planning Office is not opposing the annexation, only conveying the concern for the record, of allowing annexations which primarily result in private benefit. The Planning Office recommends that the subject parcel be rezoned to R-15A/PUD. The applicant is requesting an R-15/PUD zoning. The R-15A zone was established in order to prevent property owners from circumventing the 50% requirement for employee housing in the R-15 zone in the County. Duplex owners in the County's R-15 zone are required to deed restrict one Memo: Benedict Annexation Page Two September 13, 1982 of the two units to employee housing while this requirement does not exist in the City's R-15 zone district. The City's R- 15A zone was created with the same requirements as the County's R-15 zone with the addition of the employee housing requirements. There is also a question as to whether the annexed parcel which is to be deed restricted to open space should be included in floor area calculations. Since allowed FAR is based on lot size, the Planning Office recommends that the allowed floor area for any future development on Lot 11 be based on the size of both the original Lot 11 and the annexed parcel. According to Ordinance 11, Series of 1982, the floor area allowed on a 47,960 square foot lot (Lot 11: 24,000 square feet; annexed parcel: 23,960 square feet) would be 6,480 square feet for a single family structure and 6,857 square feet for a duplex. The FAR for only Lot 11 (24,000 square feet) would be 5,040 square feet for a single family structure and 5,460 for a duplex. The proposed amendment to the Callahan Subdivision/PUD involves a line adjustment to include the annexed parcel in the PUD. A new lot is not created since the annexed parcel is joined with Lot 11. The Planning Office recommends the approval of the requested amendment to the plat. Referral Comments: Engineering Department After reviewing both the Benedict Annexation Map and the Callahan Subdivision/PUD plat, the Engineering Department had the following comments: 1. The Annexation Map should be retitled the "Benedict Annexation Map". 2. The Callahan Subdivision/PUD plat should be amended as follows: a) A vicinity map clearly indicating how the annexation relates to the existing subdivision and surrounding properties should be included. b) The property description should delineate the area proposed for annexation from the existing Lot 11. Planning Office and Planning and Zoning Recom- mendation: 1. The Planning and Zoning Commission and the Planning Office recommend that the newly created Lot 11, Callahan Subdivision (including the parcel annexed into the City) be rezoned R-15A/PUD. 2. If annexation occurs, it is recommended that approval be given to the proposed amendments to the Callahan Subdivision/ PUD plat subject to the following conditions: a) That the applicant be allowed to calculate the allowed floor area based on the entire lot, including the annexed parcel which is to be deed restricted to open space; b) That the 0.55 acre annexed parcel be deed restricted to open space; c) That the amended Callahan Subdivision/PUD plat meet the two requirements of the Engineering Department listed in this memorandum. Memo: Benedict Annexation Page Three September 13, 1982 Council Motion: At the first reading of these two ordinances, you took final action on the applicant's PUD amendment request. Therefore, to complete all action associated with this annexation, the appropriate motion need only be as follows: "Move to adopt Ordinances LZQ and' �%on second reading." I •r^^ CJ Z1 f� I PAGE Cs OT 15A / LOT 12A 'q ti LOT IO04 0 -`-„ CRt sTA�� 1 - ,LET 13 � l RIVEIZsiDE I PL.�EZ (/vt�,�C5AM� \' � loCol 3 LOT ] 1 0.55 J VE ?�ENE:DiC1" ��9Pi 10 1p y LO-T (gene-lict A rrnex4rcri WC y CE�TIFIC A\7 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Alice Davis, Planning Office RE: Benedict Annexation DATE: August 16, 1982 APPROVED AS TO FORM: zZlw I/LW- Background: Fritz and Fabienne Benedict have petitioned f r and met requirements for the annexation of a 0.55 acre parcel o and located along the Roaring Fork River adjacent to the Callahan Subdivision. This memorandum is to discuss the land use and planning concerns relating to this annexation petition as well as concerns related to the necessary Callahan Subdivision/PUD plat amendments. Applicant's Request: The applicant is requesting the annexation of a 0.55 acre parcel from Pitkin County into the City of Aspen and the addition of the annexed parcel to Lot 11, Callahan Subdivision. The application is requesting that the City zone the parcel R- 15 PUD under the City Zoning Code and that approval be given to the necessary amendments to the Callahan Subdivision/PUD plat. Planning Office Review: The City Council has reviewed the petition for the Benedict annexation and found the petition acceptable as to form. Council then sent the application to Planning and Zoning for a recommendation on the proper zoning for the annexed parcel. Planning and Zoning has reviewed the rezoning as well as a simultaneous application requesting approval for the necessary amendment to the Callahan PUD. Even though the City Council is the only body which reviews and approves annexations, the Planning Office would like to go on record as questioning the appropriateness of the proposed annexation. The City's annexation policy is to review each annexation request on a case -by -case basis and determine the public benefit gained through the proposed annexation. The parcel to be annexed here does not create any known negative impacts as it will not generate further traffic generation or affect road safety; it does not generate any parking problems nor place any burden on the City's utilities. There is a minimal amount of positive public benefits resulting from the proposed annexation due to an increased tax base and due to water rights which are to be deeded over. The proposed open space covenant provides protection from development along the Roaring Fork River, however, this protection already exists in the County's subdivision regulations. The Planning Office would simply like to raise the conern that with only minor public benefit being accrued from the proposed annexation, the annexation may not be appropriate. This point may be even more valid in light of the private benefits which will result from an increase in the allowed floor area for Lot 11 and the increase in the value of this lot. The Planning Office is not opposing the annexation, only conveying the concern for the record, of allowing annexations which primarily result in private benefit. Memo: Benedict Annexation Page Two August 16, 1982 The Planning Office recommends that the subject parcel be rezoned to R-15A/PUD. The applicant is requesting an R-15/PUD zoning. The R-15A zone was established in order to prevent property owners from circumventing the 50% requirement for employee housing in the R-15 zone in the County. Duplex owners in the County's R-15 zone are required to deed restrict one of the two units to employee housing while this requirement does not exist in the City's R-15 zone district. The City's R-15A zone was created with the same requirements as the County's R-15 zone with the addition of the employee housing requirements. There is also a question as to whether the annexed parcel which is to be deed restricted to open space should be included in floor area calculations. Since allowed FAR is based on lot size, the Planning Office recommends that the allowed floor area for any future development on Lot 11 be based on the size of both the original Lot 11 and the annexed parcel. According to Ordinance 11, Series of 1982, the floor area allowed on a 47,960 square foot lot (lot 11: 24,000 square feet; annexed parcel: 23,960 square feet) would be 6,480 square feet for a single family structure and 6,857 square feet for a duplex. The FAR for only Lot 11 (24,000 square feet) would be 5,040 square feet for a single family structure and 5,460 for a duplex. The proposed amendment to the Callahan Subdivision/PUD involves a line adjustment to include the annexed parcel in the PUD. A new lot is not created since the annexed parcel is joined with Lot 11. The Planning Office recommends the approval of the requested amendment to the plat. Referral Comments: Engineering Department After reviewing both the Benedict Annexation Map and the Callahan Subdivision/PUD plat, the Engineering Department had the following comments: 1. The Annexation Map should be retitled the "Benedict Annexation Map". 2. The Callahan Subdivision/PUD plat should be amended as follows: a) A vicinity map clearly indicating how the annexation relates to the existing subdivision and surrounding properties should be included. b) The property description should delineate the area proposed for annexation from the existing Lot 11. Planning Office and Planning and Zoning Recom- mendation: 1. The Planning and Zoning Commission and the Planning Office recommend that the newly created Lot 11, Callahan Subdivision (including the parcel annexed into the City) be rezoned R-15A/PUD. 2. If annexation occurs, it is recommended that approval be given to the proposed amendments to the Callahan Subdivision/ PUD plat subject to the following conditions: a) That the applicant be allowed to calculate the allowed floor area based on the entire lot, including the annexed parcel which is to be deed restricted to open space; Memo: Benedict Annexation Page Three August 16, 1982 b) That the 0.55 acre annexed parcel be deed restricted to open space; c) That the amended Callahan Subdivision/PUD plat meet the two requirements of the Engineering Department listed in this memorandum. Council Motion: "I move to read Ordinance ." "I move to approve Ordinance on first reading." "I move to approve the proposed amendment to the Callahan Subdivision/PUD in order to incorporate the newly annexed Benedict parcel into Lot 11. Approval is subject to the following conditions: a) That the applicant be allowed to calculate the allowed floor area based on the entire lot, including the annexed parcel which is to be deed restricted to open spaces; b) That the 0.55 acre annexed parcel be deed restricted to open space; c) That the amended Callahan Subdivision/PUD plat meet the two requirements of the Engineering Department listed in this memorandum." c C 2r 15A / .�� Gy w LOT 12 A '4 LOT 10 i // / F Ao� T i Loir I I LOT 13 cov'NEt2 K�VEKStUE P11-�E2 Qv(.�.�LSAr�� 24"\ LOT 11 1TO-11 r L \ r /J d� '71G A 6pan ° d I ct A mer od-tCY\ MEMORANDUM TO: Alice Davies, Planning Office FROM: Jay Hammond, Engineering Department DATE: August 13, 1982 RF: Benedict Annexation, Amended P.U.D. -------------------------------------------------------------- Having reviewed the above application for annexation and amendment to the PUD plan for the Callahan Subdivision, and have made a site inspection, the Engineering Department has the following comments: One plat should be sufficient for both annexation and amendment of the P.U.D. plan. Prior to recordation, the following should be included: 1. Title should be "Second Amended Plat of the Callahan Subdivision Benedict Annexation." 2. Include a vicinity map clearly indicating how the annexation relates to the existing subdivision and surrounding properties. 3. The plat should show the existing City boundary as well as indicate how the boundary will change to incorporate the annexed area. 4. The property description should delineate the area proposed for annexation from the existing Lot 11. JWH/co Memo: Benedict Annexation Page Two July 30, 1982 Planning Office Recommendation: one of the two units to employee housing while this requirement does not exist in the City's R-15 zone district. The City's R-15A zone was created with the same requirements as the City's R-15 zone with the addition of the employee housing requirement. There is also a question as to whether the annexed parcel which is to be deed restricted to an open space should be included in floor area calculations. Since allowed FAR is based on lot size, the Planning Office recommends that the allowed floor area for any future development on Lot 11 be based on the size of both the original Lot 11 and the annexed parcel. According to Ordinance 11, Series of 1982, the floor area allowed on a 47,960 square foot lot (Lot 11: 24,000 square feet; annexed parcel: 23,960 square feet) would be 6,480 square feet for a single family structure and 6,857 square feet for a duplex. The FAR for only Lot 11 (24,000 square feet) would be 5,040 square feet for a single family structure and 5,460 for a duplex. The proposed amendment to the Callahan Subdivision/P.U.D. involves a line adjustment to include the annexed parcel in the P.U.D. A new lot is not created since the annexed parcel is joined with Lot 11. The Planning Office recommends the approval of the requested amendment to the plat. The amended P.U.D. plat has not yet been reviewed by Engineering, therefore the comments of the Engineering Department may result in conditions related to the plat amendment approval. In summary, the Planning Office recommends the following: 1. The rezoning of the Benedict parcel to be annexed to R-15A-P.U.D.; 2. That the applicant be allowed to calculate the allowed floor area on the new Lot 11 based on the entire lot, including the annexed parcel which is to be deed restricted to open space; 3. That the 0.55 acre annexed parcel be deed restricted to open space; 4. That the amended Callahan Subdivision/P.U.D. plat meet with the Engineering Department's approval. MEMORANDUM TO: Jay Hammond, Engineering Department FROM: Martha Eichelberger, Planning Office RE: Reviewal of Second Amended Plat - Callahan Subdivision DATE: July 30, 1982 Planner Alice Davis has attached the second amended plat for Callahan Subdivision and asks that you review same, and return any comments you may have to the Planning Office by Wednesday, August 4th, as the applicants are hopeful to make the August 9th City Council agenda.. Thank you. MEMORANDUM TO: Alice Davis, Planning Office FROM: Jay Hammond, Engineering Department DATE: July 21, 1982 RE: Benedict Annexation Amendment/PUD ------------------------------------------------------------- Having reviewed the above request for zoning of a 24,000 square foot parcel proposed for annexation adjacent to theG�llahan Subdivision, the Engineering Department has the following comments: 1. The Callahan Plat should be amended to indicate the addition to Lot 11. We have not, as yet, seen such a plat. 2. Rezoning to a PUD could serve to mitigate impacts of any proposed development. It is not clear whether the applicant still intends to restrict the annexed parcel as open space. JH/co 0 JUL 2 4 1982 - i PUBLIC HEARING RE: Consideration of Annexation of Benedict Property into the City of Aspen NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on Tuesday, August 3, 1982, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, to consider annexation of the Benedict property from the County into the City, which would require rezoning of a .55 acre parcel from its County -zoned R-15 designation to a City -zoned R-15 P.U.D. designa- tion. the property in question is located adjacent to the Roaring Fork River and would be annexed into the Callahan PAJ.D. Subdivision. For further information, contact the Planning Office, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, 925-2020, ext. 227. s/Perry Harvey Chairman, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on July 15, 1982. City of Aspen Account. r MEMORANDUM TO: City Attorney Engineering Department FROM: Martha Eichelberger , Planning Office RE:- Benedict Annexation Amendment/PUD DATE: July 12.., 1982 Planner Alice Davis has attached an application by the Benedict Land V Cattle Company for annexation of a 0.55 acre parcel, currently zoned in the County as R-15, to be annexed and rezoned into the City as R-15�P.U.D. This item is scheduled for the August 3, '1982 City Planning and Zoning Meeting. If you can return your conmients to our office by Monday, July 19, it will be much appreciated. Thanks. DENVER, COLORADO OFFICE S55 SEVENTEENTH STREET SUITE 2900 DENVER, COLORADO 80202 TELEPHONE (303) S75-8000 TELECOPIER (303) 575-8261 BILLINGS, MONTANA OFFICE SUITE 1400 175 NORTH 27TH STREET BILLINGS, MONTANA 59101 TELEPHONE (406) 252-2166 TELECOPIER (406) 252-1669 JAMES T. MORAN (303) 925-3476 HOLLAND & HART ATTORNEYS AT LAW 600 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE (303) 925-3476 July 12, 1982 Planning and Zoning Commission WASHINGTON, D. C. OFFICE 1875 EYE STREET, N. W. SUITE 1200 WASHINGTON, D. C.20006 TELEPHONE (202) 466-7340 TELECOPIER (202) 466-7354 LARAMIE, WYOMING OFFICE HOLLAND & HART & KITE 618 GRAND AVENUE LARAMIE, WYOMING 82070 TELEPHONE(307) 742-8203 TELECOPIER (307) 792-7618 City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colordo 81611 Re: Application for Zoning Recommendation Benedict Annexation. Ladies and Gentlemen: Mr. and Mrs. Fredric Benedict have petitioned the City to annex a tract of land containing approximately 0.55 acres. The petition was approved as to form by the City Council on June 14, 1982. Pursuant to CRS 1973, S 31-12-115 the area to be annexed must be brought under the City's zoning ordinance and map. The purpose of this request is to initiate the zoning process by obtaining a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission to the City Council with respect to what zone district should govern the tract upon its annexation. The parcel to be annexed has about 24,000 square feet of land. It lies between Lot 11, Callahan Subdivision and the Roaring Fork River. The relevant portion of the annexation map is attached hereto as Exhibit A to show the location and configuration of the land in question. The applicants propose that the land be zoned R-15 PUD, the same as Lot 11, Callahan to which it is to be added. The present County zoning of the land is R-15. As mentioned, the new parcel is to be an addition to Lot 11. This is to be accomplished by amending the Callahan Subdivision PUD plat and development plan pursuant to the provisions of § 24-8.26 of the City Code. The applicants also request the Planning and Zoning Commission (P & Z) to recommend such an amendment to the Callahan PUD. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Alice Davis, Planning Office RE: Benedict Annexation DATE: July 30, 1982 Background: Fritz and Fabienne Benedict have petitioned for and met the requirements for the annexation of a 0.55 acre parcel of land located along the Roaring Fork River adjacent to the Callahan Subdivision. This memorandum is to discuss the land use and planning concerns relating to this annexation petition. Applicant's Request: The applicant is requesting the annexation of a 0.55 acre parcel from Pitkin County into the City of Aspen and the addition of the annexed parcel to Lot 11, Callahan Subdivision. The application is requesting that the City zone the parcel R-15 P.U.D. under the City Zoning Code and that approval be given to the necessary amendments to the Callahan Subdivision/P.U.D. plat. Planning Office Review: The City Council has reviewed the petition for the Benedict annexation and found the petition acceptable as to form. Council has now directed the application to Planning and Zoning for a recommendation on the proper zoning for the annexed parcel. The applicant is applying for approval for the necessary amendment to the Callahan P.U.D. simultaneously with the rezoning. Even though the City Council is the only body which reviews and approves annexations, the Planning Office would like to go on record as questioning the appropriateness of the proposed annexation. The City's annexation policy is to review each annexation request on a case -by -case basis and determine the public benefit gained through the proposed annexation. The parcel to be annexed here does not create any known negative impacts as it will not generate further traffic generation or affect road safety; it does not generate any parking problems nor place any burden on the City's utilities. There is a minimal amount of positive public benefits resulting from the proposed annexation due to an increased tax base and due to water rights which are to be deeded over. The proposed open space covenant provides protection from development along the Roaring Fork River, however this protection already exists in the County's subdivision regulations. The Planning Office would simply like to raise the concern that with only minor public benefit being accrued from the proposed annexation, the annexation may not be appropriate. This point may be even more valid in light of the private benefits which will result from an increase in the allowed floor area for Lot 11 and the increase in the value of this lot. The Planning Office, at this time, is not opposing the annexation, only conveying the concern for the record, of allowing annexations which primarily result in private benefit. The Planning Office recommends that the subject parcel be rezoned to R-15A - P.U.D. The applicant is requesting an R-15 - P.U.D. zoning. The R-15A zone was established in order to prevent property owners from circumventing the 50% requirement for employee housing in the R-15 zone in the County. Duplex owners in the County's R-15 zone are required to deed restrict HOLLAND & HART Planning and Zoning Commission July 12, 1982 Page 2 The City of Aspen joins in this application insofar as it requests P & Z to make a zoning recommendation. The City does not, at this time, suggest or request a specific zone district for this land. Nor does the City, at this time, join in the applicants' request for PUD amendment. Yours very truly, Holland & Hart By Attor" eys for Applicants, Mr. and Mrs.;,,,,/Fredric Benedict JTM/jlf enclosure MRMnR ANTITTM To: City Attorneys Office Planning Office From: Jim Moran Attorney for the Benedicts Subject: Replat of Lot 11, Callahan Subdivision, Zoning and PUD Amendment Date: June 29, 1982 This Memorandum is written in response to a Planning Office Memorandum, dated June 8, 1982, addressed to Gary Esary, Assistant City Attorney. In its memo, the Planning Office identified three problems that will have to be dealt with in zoning the 0.55 acre parcel which is the subject of the Benedict Annexation Petition approved as to form by the City Council on June 14, 1982. The three considerations mentioned by the Planning Office are: (1) Zoning, (2) Floor Area Ratio, and (3) PUD Amendment. The Benedicts suggest that R-15 PUD is the appropriate zoning; that the floor area ratio should be determined according to the lot size formula recently enacted in Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1982; and that the Callahan Subdivision PUD should be amended by replatting Lot 11 to include the annexed parcel. The appropriate zoning seems self-evident. The territory being annexed is presently zoned R-15 under the County zoning resolution. All of Callahan Subdivision was, upon its annexation, zoned R-15 PUD. The Planned Unit Develop- ment Plan for Callahan included the Aspen Club athletic complex, the Aspen Club Townhouses, the Benedict Office Building and twelve (12) platted single family lots, each of which exceeds the minimum lot size required in an R-15 zone district. Since the newly annexed territory is to be added to Lot 11, the most simple and sensible zone designation to apply is R-15 PUD, the same as original Lot 11. As a practical matter, the PUD designation with respect to the individual single-family lots in Callahan is now meaningless. The official Development Plan for Callahan has already been approved and is in existence. It consists of the mix described above, one component of which is a group of 12 ordinary R-15 platted single-family lots. There is no need to complicate things by applying PUD considerations to each lot or group of lots in separate ownership. The PUD considerations were involved in planning the entire subdivision. Part of the overall plan consists of a group of single- family lots which, having been platted and approved, are now just ordinary R-15 lots. With respect to floor area ratio, it is clear to us that Ordinance No. 11 is premised on the overriding concept that allowable building floor area for single-family dwellings is a function of lot size, not of location or zone district. Clauses 2 and 3 of the eighth "Whereas" clause in the ordinance read as follows: "2. The 'sliding scale' method deals more equitably with the great range of lot sizes found within each zone district than does a separate floor area ratio for each district. "3. The 'sliding scale' approach appropriately assumes that allowable building floor area for single-family and duplex units is a function of lot sizes. Therefore, the requirement is uniform across the City, works irrespective of zone districts, and does not penalize an applicant because of where he owns property." The fact that a portion of replatted Lot 11 may not be built upon does not reduce the size of the lot. Nor does it form the basis for modifying the operation of Ordinance 11 less than two months after its enactment. The entire lot should be considered in determining floor area ratio. This results in a modest increase of approximately 1,400 square feet of building floor space from the addition of almost 24,000 square feet in lot area. We also think it is clear that each previously subdivided lot in the Callahan Subdivision is entitled to its own f.a.r. calculation under Ordinance 11. In other words we see no basis for or benefit from making an average unit f.a.r. calculation as though this were a proposed PUD. We empha- size once again that Callahan is previously approved PUD which includes 12 subdivided, platted and approved R-15 lots. Going through the PUD f.a.r. calculation is simply a needless mathematical exercise. In this process the total lane, area is calculated and then divided by the total number of existing and proposed units yielding an average land area per unit which in turn is then used to determine average allowable floor area per unit. Suppose this determination is made; what then? Is each lot in Callahan assigned the average allowable f.a.r. regardless of size? Certainly that would be contrary to the spirit and intent of Ordinance 11 which is predicated on the idea that allowable building f.a.r. varies according to lot size. Or is the total allowable f.a.r. then allocated back to each lot in proportion to its size? If this is done the f.a.r. for each lot will be the same, within a few square feet, as if calculated separately for each lot. If there is a difference as a result of using the PUD average f.a.r. method, who will keep track of it? Does this serve the "ease of administration" precept set forth in Ordinance 11 as follows: "5. The method is easy to explain and administer and can be readily applied at an applicant's request." We suggest that letting each Callahan lot pull its own f.a.r. pursuant to the sliding scale set forth in Ordinance 11 is the appropriate way to deal with the f.a.r. consideration. Amending the Callahan PUD to add the annexed tract to Lot 11 is the appropriate procedure for accomplishing the foregoing. This procedure, codified in Section 24-8.26, has been utilized previously to amend the original Callahan final plat and development plan. The amended plat need only show the changes to the original plat but should contain book and page references to i the original and first amended plats. This means that the annexation map with appropriate changes and legends can be recorded as the latest amendment to the original Callahan plat. I would like to meet with both the City Attorney and to confirm that we are ready to proceed under C.R.S. 1973, complete the annexation, zoning and subdivision processes soon as possible. JTM: go the Planning Office §31-12-115 to concurrently and as MEMORANDUM TO: Gary Esary, Assistant City Attorney FROM: Alice Davis, Planning Office . RE: Benedict Annexation DATE: June 8, 1982 From a land use standpoint, the Planning Office has no immediate problems with the proposed Benedict annexation. The annexation of the small 0.55 acre parcel does not at this time present any significant impacts to the City. The Planning Office has however identified the following three problems which will need to be dealt with during the process for zoning the parcel if it is annexed into the City. 1. Zoning -- The parcel is currently surrounded by the R-15 PUD zone district. The petitioners have requested that, upon annexation, the subject parcel also be zoned R-15 subject to its dedication as open space. The appropriate- ness of the proposed R-15 zone district and possibly a mandatory PUD desig- nation will need to be addressed. 2. Floor Area Ratio -- A determination will need to be made as to whether or not the annexed lot, adjacent to Lot 11, Callahan Subdivision, will be included in the lot size of Lot 11 which is used for calculating allowable floor area for the residential structure allowed on that parcel. The annexed parcel is to be deed restricted to open space and therefore cannot be developed but may possibly be used in calculating lot size. The allowable floor area for the structure on Lot 11 will vary according to whether Lot 11 is still a part of the Callahan Subdivision PUD and whether the annexed parcel is to be included in the lot size for floor area calcualations. An FAR for a lot in an existing PUD is based on the size of the entire land ownership and existing unit sizes versus the lot size and allowable floor area calculation, on an individual lot not in a PUD. 3. PUD Considerations -- An amendment to the Callahan PUD will be necessary if Lot 11 is removed from the Callahan PUD or if the annexed parcel is added to the PUD. There are four alternatives for dealing with PUD amendment considerations, listed below, which the applicant and the City Council will need to evaluate: a) Amend the original Callahan PUD to include the annexed parcel and base FAR calculations on the entire PUD, b) Amend the original Callahan PUD in order to exclude Lot 11, creating a new parcel which can be joined to the annexed parcel. This alternative will also require full subdivision or subdivision exception procedures to divide the land. Allowable floor area will be based on the size of the newly -created subdivision, c) Amend the original PUD by eliminating Lot 11 and creating a new PUD con- sisting of both Lot 11 and the annexed parcel. Allowable floor area will be calculated using PUD calculation procedures on the new PUD. d) Status quo -- Lot 11 idl] in the Callahan PUD while the annexed parcel will not be adders irrto this PUD. As a result, the allowable floor area must be calculated using PUD calculation procedures on the original Callahan PUD and the two tparae_i.s wi11 need to be conveyed through one deed. MEMORANDUM DATE: June 8, 1982 TO: Members of City Council FROM: Gary Esary4 �7 RE: Benedict Annexation Petition (Lot 11, Callahan Subdivision) Approved for submission to Council. _ ' Wayne /V. Chapman, Nity Manager The Benedict Annexation Petition was filed on April 7, 1982. It has been reviewed with comments from Enginering and briefly reviewed by Planning. This office has reviewed the Benedict Peti- tion in light of the requirements of the Colorado Municipal Annex- ation Act (C.R.S. 31-12-101 et seq.) and find the following: I. ELIGIBILITY C.R.S. 31-12-107(1)(a) provides that the landowners of more than fifty percent of the area, excluding public streets and alleys, meeting the requirements of Sections 31-12-104 and 31-12-105 may petition the governing body of any municipality for the annexation of such territory. a. Section 31-12-104 imposes the following eligibility requirements for annexation: 1. No less than one -sixth of the perimeter of the area proposed to be annexed is contiguous with the annexing municipality. (It appears that the one - sixth of the perimeter requirement is satisfied.) 2. That a community of interest exists between the area proposed to be annexed and the annexing muni- cipality; that the proposed area is urban or will be urbanized in the near future; and that the area is integrated with or is capable of being inte- grated with the annexing municipality. The fact that the area proposed to be annexed has contiguity with the City provides a basis for a finding of compliance with these requirements unless the City Council, upon the basis of competent evidence pre- sented at the hearing provided for in Section 31- 12-109, finds that at least two of the following are shown to exist: (1) less than fifty percent of the adult residents of the area proposed to be annexed make use of part or all of the following types of the facilities of to City of Aspen: recreational, civic, social, religious, industrial or com- mercial; and less than twenty-five percent of said area's residents are employed in the annexing municipality. If there are no adult residents at the time of the hearing, this standard shall not apply; (2) one-half or more of the land proposed to be annexed (including streets) is agricultural, and the landowners of such agricultural land, under oath, express an intention to devote the land to such agricultural use for a period of not less than five years; and (3) it is not physically practicable to extend to the area proposed to be annexed those urban services which the annexing municipality pro- vides in common to all of its c6itizens on the same terms and conditions as such services are made available to such citizens. (The fact that the Benedict property has one - sixth contiguity with the City of Aspen may 2 establish a basis for a finding of compliance with the requirements of Section 3-12-104 as set forth above. As will be discussed below, Council may not need to set a hearing to ascertain whether the above requirements are satisfied. b. Section 31-12-105 sets forth the following limitations: 1. In establishing the boundaries of any territory to be annexed, no land held in identical ownership shall be divided into separate parts or parcels without the written consent of the landowners thereof unless such tracts or parcels are separated by dedicated street, road or other public way. (Since the petition is signed by one hundred per- cent of the landowners, it appears that this limi- tation is inapplicable.) 2. In establishing the boundaries of the area proposed to be annexed, no land held in identical ownership comprising twenty acres or more shall be included without the written consent of the landowners unless such tract of land is situated entirely within the outer boundaries of the annexing munici- pality as they exist at the time of annexation. (Since it is alleged one hundred percent of the landowners have submitted the petition, it appears that this limitation is inapplicable). 3. No annexation resolution and no annexation petition shall be valid when annexation proceedings have been commenced for the annexation of part or all of the territory to another municipality. (I assume that annexation proceedings have not 'been commenced for all or part of the territory to another munici- pality.) 4. As to any annexation which will result in the detachment of any area from any school district and 3 the attachment of same to another school district, no annexation petition 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 annexation. (I assume that the pro- posed annexation will not result in the detachment of the area from any existing school district.) II. FILING WITH THE CITY CLERK Section 31-12-107(1)(b) requires that the petition shall be filed with the Municipal Clerk. (This requirement has been met.) III. CONTENTS OF THE PETITION Section 31-12-107(1)(c) provides that the petition must con- tain the following: (a) An allegation that it is desirable and necessary that such area be annexed to the municipality. (This requirement has been met.) (b) An allegation that the requirements of Sections 31-12- 104 and 31-12-105, as discussed above, exist or have been met. (This requirement has been met.) (c) An allegation that the signers of the petition comprise the landowners of more than fifty percent of the terri- tory included in the area proposed to be annexed, exclu- sive of streets and alleys. (This requirement has been met.) (d) A request that the annexing municipality approve the annexation of the area to be annexed. (This requirement has been met.) (e) The signaturesofsuch landowners. (Thisrequirement has been met.) (f) The mailing address of each such signer. (This require- ment has been met.) (g) The legal description of the land owned by such signer. (This requirements has been met.) 4 (h) The date of signing of each signature and that the date shall not be more than 180 days prior to the filing of the Petition. (This requirement has been met.) (i) The affidavit of each circulator of such petition, whether consisting of one or more sheets, that each signature therein is the signature of the person whose name it purports to be. (This requirement has been met.) IV. ANNEXATION MAP REQUIREMENTS Section 31-12-107(d) provides that accompanying the petition shall be four copies of an annexation map containing the following information: (a) A written legal description of the boundaries of the area proposed to be annexed. (b) A map showing the boundary of the area proposed to be annexed. (c) Within the annexation boundary map, a showing of the location of each ownership tract and unplatted land and, if part or all the area is platted, the boundaries and the plat numbers of plats or of lots and blocks. (d) Next to the boundary of the area to be proposed to be annexed, a drawing of the contiguous boundary of the annexing municipality and the contiguous boundary of any municipality abutting the area proposed to be annexed. V. VALIDITY OF SIGNATURES. Section 31-12-107(1)(e) provides that 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,- (Th-i requirement has been met.) VI. PROCEDURE FOR.APPRDVING THE PETITION (1) Section 31-12-107(1)(f) provides that the Municipal Clerk shall refer the petition to the City Council as a communication. The City Council, without delay, shall theTE .take appropriate steps to determine if the petition so filed'is substantially in compliance with Section 5 31-12-107(1), i.e. the requirements discussed in para- graphs I through V, above. (2) If the petition is, found to be in substantial compliance with Section 31-12-107(1), the procedures outlined in Section 31-12-108 to 31-12-110 shall then be followed. • (These sections pertain to the holding of a public hear- ing and are discussed below..) If it is not in substan- tial compliance, no further action shall be taken; except that the governing body shall make such determin- ation by a resolution and except when the petition is signed by the owners of one hundred percent of the area proposed to be annexed, exclusive of streets and alleys, the governing body may by ordinance annex such area to the municipality without notice or hearing, as provided in Sections 31-12-108 and 31-12-109, and without elec- tion, as provided in Section 31-12-112, unless addi- tional terms and conditions are to be imposed. The ordinance annexing such area shall include a statement that the owner of one hundred percent of the area have petitioned for such annexation. I interpret the language of Section 31-12-107(1)(g) to mean that if the City Council by resolution finds that the petition is in "substantial compliance" with Section 31-12-107(1) then it may by ordinance annex such area to the City without notice -or hearing and without an elec- tion, unless additional terms and conditions are to be imposed. I perceive the waiving of the notice and hear- ing requirements to be a matter within the discretion of Council and I will outline the hearing provisions for your information: (a) Section 31-12-10.8 provides that as part of the resolution.fa.nding substantial compliance with an annexation petition, the governing body of the annexing municipality shall establish a date, time, and place that the governing body will hold a hear- 0 ing to determine if the proposed annexation com- plies with Sections 31-12-104 and 31-12-105 or such parts thereof as may be required to establish eligibility for annexation. (These requirements are discussed in paragraph I, above.) The hearing shall be held not less than thirty days nor more than sixty days after the effective date of the resolution setting the hearing. This hearing need not be held if the municipality has determined exclusively that the requirements of Sections 31- 12-104 and 31-12-105 have not been met. The notice of the hearing shall be published once a week for four successive weeks. The first publication of the notice shall be at least thirty days prior to the date of the hearing. (b) Section 31-12-109 sets forth the procedure for con- ducting the hearing and provides that any person living within the area proposed to be annexed, any landowner of lands.therein, any resident of the municipality to which the area is proposed to be annexed, Board of County Commissioners of any county from which the area would be detached by said annexation may appear at such hearing and pre- sent evidence on any matter to be determined by the governing body. (c) Section 31-12-110'sets forth the findings of fact and the conclusions of the governing body which must be made: (1) Whether or not the requirements of the appli- cable.p:a-rts of Sections 31-12-104 and 31-12- 105 hav€ .been met. The governing body shall also determine whether or not additional terms and conditions are to be imposed. Section 31- 12-110 also provides that a finding that the area.proposed for annexation does not comply ,7 with the applicable provisions of Sections 31- 12-104 and 31-12-105 shall terminate the annexation proceedings. Pursuant to Section 31-12-112, if the governing body determines that additional terms and conditions should be imposed upon the area proposed to be annexed, an annexation election shall be called to determine whether a majority of the qualified electors approve of the annexation, with such terms and conditions, if any, as may attach thereto. VII. INITIATION OF ZONING AND SUBDIVISION PROCEEDINGS. Section 31-12-115 provides, generally, that the annexing municipality may institute the procedure outlined in state statutes or municipal charter to make the land subject to zoning at any time after a resolution of intent has been passed in accordance with Section 31-12-107 and, also, allows the annexing municipality to institute the procedure outlined in the subdivision regulations to subdivide land in the area proposed to be annexed at any time after such resolution. This section further provides that if either the zoning process or the subdivision process is commenced prior to the date of the annexation ordinance, the proposed zoning and subdivision ordinances shall not be passed on final reading prior to the date when the annexation ordin- ance is passed on final reading. VIII. ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS - LOU BUETTNER'S MEMO OF JANUARY 5, 1982. The property sought to be annexed is burdened by a Declaration of Protective Covenants, recorded in Book 413 Page 828 of the records of Pitkin County, Colorado. This Declaration is attached as Exhibit "A" to the Petition for Annexation. Petitioners have requested in their Petition (Paragraph 2, Page 2) that this open space restriction be incorporated into the annexation approval. Since the sub- 8 IX. ject property is already burdened by the Declaration, it is my opinion that incorporation of the restriction is not an additional term or condition such as to give rise to the necessity of an election. A closer question is presented if the Council elects to adopt the Engineering Office suggestion (attached memo of June 2, 1982, from Jay Hammond) that the annexed area be excluded from calculations of development rights on Lot 11. The Planning Office is now reviewing the anticipated rezon- ing request and the nature of the parcel to be formed by the combination of Lot 11 and the annexed property (new PUD, amendment to old PUD, etc.). This process is taking place simultaneously with the annexation process. The rezoning and planning process may moot this exclusion issue. A preliminary opinion by Council on this issue would be helpful to•this office and to Planning. RESOLUTION OF INTENT. In light of the above -stated requirements and assuming that no additional terms and conditions will be imposed, we have prepared for your consideration a resolution which accom- plishes the following: (a) Determines that the annexation petition comprising one hundred percent of the landowners of the area proposed to be annexed is "substantially in compli- ance" with the requirements of Section 31-12- 107(1). (b) Determines that the applicable parts of Sections 31-12-104 and 31-12-105 have been met and that an election jr not required under Section 31-12- 107(2), in view of the fact that the petition is signed by the owners of one hundred percent of the area to be annexed, exclusive of streets and alleys. (c) A determination of .,intent pursuant to C.R.S. 31- 12-107(g) to annex the subject parcel by ordinance } without notice or hearing as provided in Sections 31-12-108 and 31-12-109, and without election as provided in Section 31-12-112 (i.e. that additional terms and conditions should not be imposed upon the area proposed to be annexed). (d) Pursuant to the provisions of C.R.S. 31-12-115, allows the institution of the appropriate procedure for zoning the area proposed to be annexed. X. DEPARTMENT REFERRALS. The Engineering Department and Planning Office memos are attached hereto. XI. SUMMARIZATION. The following is a summarization of the decisions to be made by Council. (1) Is the annexation "substantially in compliance" with Section 31-12-107(1)? It is my opinion that the annexation petition is substantially in compliance with Section 31-12- 107. (2) Determine whether or not the requirements of Sec- tions 31-12-104 and 31-12-105 have been met: (a) Is at least one -sixth of the perimeter of the area proposed to be annexed contiguous with the annexing municipality? (This requirement has been met.) (b) That a community of interest exists between the area proposed to be annexed and the annex- ing municipality; that the proposed area is urban or will be urbanized in the future; and that the area is integrated or is capable of being integrated with the annexing municipal- ity. The fact that the area to be annexed has contiguity with the City provides a basis for 10 .R.v±.r�-+�„ag,•,��,.,�:>�..,.....----_-.,,.,.x�e,e�,.,.�.•.:..+w--.......w._,H--r,.•_•..�._...,....:,:.,..,.�„_,....._�.:,..x-.•.M..,,�......,r,•,..��.e�+.�.,..---�-�.. ., ..� _,.. a finding of compliance with these require- ments. (3) Determine whether or not the limitations prescribed by Section 31-12-105 would preclude an annexation (It appears that the limitations of Section 31-12- 105 do not pertain to this annexation petition.) (4) If Council is undecided as to whether or not the requirements of Sections 31-12-104 and 31-12-105 have been met and/or whether additional terms and conditions should be imposed upon the annexation conduct a hearing in accordance with the require- ments of Section 31-12-108 through 31-12-110. (5) If additional terms and conditions are to be imposed, require an annexation election pursuant to Section 31-12-112. (6) If Council determines that the requirements of Sec- tions 31-12-104 and 31-12-105 and additional terms and conditions are not to be imposed necessitating an annexation election, pass a resolution of intent to annex, followed by an ordinance annexing the subject parcel and zoning the subject parcel. GSE:mc MEMORANDUM TO: Alice Davis, Planning Office Gary Esary, Assistant City Attorney FROM: Jay Hammond, Assistant City Engineer A - DATE: June 2, 1982 RE: Benedict Annexation -------------------------------------------------------------- Having reviewed the above application for annexation, and having made a site inspection, the Engineering Department has the following comments: 1. The addition of the area proposed for annexation to the existing Lot 11 of the Callahan mitigates the need for separate access to the annexed parcel. 2. The annexation plat submitted with the application appears to be in substantial compliance with the Colorado Revised Statutes covering such applications. The only further requirement might be a letter from Mr. Benedict consenting to the effective subdivision of his ownership south of the Callahan. 3. We have no further problems with this application if the applicant, as he states, is willing to restrict the annexed parcel as open space. The city may also wish to exclude the annexed area from computation of development rights on the lot to which it is added. JH/co c MEMORANDUM TO: Gary Esary, Assistant City Attorney City Engineering Department FROM: Alice Davis, Planning Office RE: Benedict Annexation DATE: May 11, 1982 Attached is a petition for annexation and a plat submitted by Jim Moran for Fritz and Fabienne Benedict. The applicants are requesting the annexation of a .55 acre parcel located between Lot 11, Callahan Subdivision and the Roaring Fork River. The Engineering Office should review this application and return comments to both the Planning Office and the Attorney's Office by Tuesday, May 18, 1982. The Attorney's Office should then proceed with drawing up a resolution for annexation and setting up an appropriate date for City Council review. Please inform us of the date chosen a week prior to our Tuesday deadline to Wayne for agenda items. Thanks. cc: Wayne Chapman ECF/ R4Y 41 o 1g MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Office Files FROM: Alan Richman RE: Annexation Review Procedure DATE: February 24, 1982 Introduction Since the entire procedure for review of annexation petitions is not established in the Municipal. Code but instead is set by state enabling legislation, this process has not been well understood in the past. Therefore, the purpose of this memo is to explain to all involved how annexation petitions should be handled in the future. Review Procedure Typically, several copies of an annexation petition will be filed with the City Clerk so that they may be acted upon by the City. The City Clerk has agreed that from here on in, these copies will be sent to the Planning Office for our re- ferral. Copies of the annexation petition and annexation map should be referred to the City Attorney and City Engineer. Comments should be received from these departments within a normal re- ferral time period ( 2-3 weeks) so that we can put together a memo for Council identifying any outstanding legal, engineering and planning issues. Typically, these issues will result in a determination as to whether or not to annex the parcel in question and what conditions -to attach to the annexation. If the applicant accepts the conditions of annexation, the City Attorney will draft a resolution of annexation by which Concil sets out the conditions under which annexation will occur. If the applicant rejects the conditions, an election for annexation must be held and our role in the review procedure would be temporarily suspended. Presuming the applicant accepts the conditions and Council approves the resolution, the next step in the procedure is to set a P&Z public hearing to zone the property. 'We do not charge a fee for this process since the state regulations mandate that we zone the property within 99 days of its annexation. Following P&Z action on a zoning hearing, the final step in the process is for City Council to adopt an ordinance zoning the property and formalizing its annexation. As always, this is a two reading procedure which we work on in cooperation with the City Attorney. Once the zoning ordinance is approved, we should make sure that the ordinance and plat are recorded by the City Clerk within 30 days or our zoning action is null and void. Planning Office Considerations The basic role of the Planning Office in annexation is that of a clearinghouse. Since there is not an adopted annexation policy but instead a belief that review should be on a case - by -case basis, we have no.established criteria to follow in our analysis. Nevertheless, it seems clear that our comments should include an evaluation of the impact on urban form in terms of sprawl or leapfrogging. We would be expected to make a zoning recommendation on the basis of the surrounding pattern and our adopted plans. We should be prepared to comment on any density increase which occurs as a result of annexation. We should also consider whether there will be any fiscal, environ- mental or other impacts associated with annexation. Finally, we should be prepared to write the cover memos to P&Z and Council by which we Shepard the annexation through the review process. PETITION FOR ANNEXATION Petitioners, FREDERIC A. BENEDICT and FABIENNE BENEDICT, the owners of the land described in the annexation map, four copies of which are submitted herewith, respectfully petition the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado to annex said land. In support of this petition it is shown to the Council that: 1. The land to be annexed consists of 0.55 acres, more or less, and is described as follows: A parcel of land situated in the East' of Section 18, T. 10 S., R. 84 W. of the 6th P.M., Pitkin .County, Colorado and being more fully described as follows: Beginning at corner of No.l Riverside Placer (M.S. 3905 A.M.) said corner being on the westerly boundary line of Lot 12 of the Callahan Subdivision; Thence S. 00'14'00" W. 230.00 feet along said westerly boundary line to the southwesterly corner of said Lot 12; Thence N.89°46'00" W. 70.00 feet along the westerly extension of the southerly boundary line of said Lot 12 to the centerline of the Roaring Fork River; Thence along said centerline N. 32027117" W. 74.05 feet to the point of intersection with the southerly extension of the westerly boundary line of Lot 11 said Callahan Subdivision; Thence S. 89008124" E. 110.00 feet along said line 9-1 to the point of beginning, containing 0.55 acres more or less. 2. It is desirable and necessary that the above described land be annexed to the City of Aspen. Said land lies between Lot 1.1, Callahan Subdivision and the Roaring Fork River. The petitioners have recorded in Book 413 at page 828 a restrictive covenant which prohibits any above ground building, structures or improvements of any kind from being constructed or maintained on said land. Said covenant, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A, was placed on the land for the benefit of Lot 11, Callahan Subdivision to preserve the existing natural beauty, vegetation and open space. Petitioners request the City of Aspen to incorporate the open space restriction into any ordinance which annexes said land. Promptly following a determination by the city council that this petition for annexation is valid in accordance with the provisions of C.R.S. 1973, §31-12-107, petitioners will submit an application to the Planning and Zoning Commission requesting that said land be platted as an addition to said Lot 11; that the replat of Lot 11 be exempted or excepted from the subdivision ordinance and that it be adopted as an amendment to the original PUD Final Plat and Development Plan filed in Plat Book 5 at page 7. Petitioners allege that the creation of additional open space is entirely compatible with the residential nature of this portion of the Callahan Subdivision. 3. The requirements of C.R.S. 1973, �§31.-12-104 and 31-12-105 exist or have been met. 4. The signers of this petition are the owners of 1000 of the territory included in the area proposed to be annexed. They own such land as tenants in common, that is each owns an undivided 50% interest in the entire tract described above. 5. The mailing address of the petitioners is: Fredric A. Benedict Fabienne Benedict 1280 Ute Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81612 6. Petitioners request that, upon annexation, the land described above be zoned Residential, R-15 as is Lot 11, Callahan Subdivision, subject however, to its dedication as open space as requested in Paragraph 2 hereof. 7. The affidavit of the circulation of this petition appears herein immediately following the signatures of the petitioners. WHEREFORE, petitioners request that the City of Aspen approve the annexation of the land described above in paragraph 1 hereof - 2 - and further described and .shown on the Annexation Map submitted herewith. Date signed: „? Date signed: �3/�,2 STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) Frederic A. Benedict, Petitioner Gt� GGL-t4.P 4 IAA R X Fabienne Benedict, Petitioner James T. Moran, being duly sworn, says: 1. I am over 21 years of age; 2. I am the sole circulator of the foregoing petition; 3. Each signature on the foregoing petitio is the signature of the person whose name it its to ames T. Moran 600 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 subscribed and sworn to before me this day of March, 1982. , Witness my hand and seal. My commission expires kaLb -A M4 \-4 Notary Public Address: (pC)D 04- , U919 ado F5 (CO f Recorded at 10:40A-M September 10, 1981 I.oretta Banner Recordefs' DECLARATION OF PROTECTIVE COVENANTS THIS DECLARATION OF PROTECTIVE COVENANTS is made this 4th cay of September, 1931 by FREDRIC A. BENEDIC`I' and FABIENNE BEVEDICT, Declarants, WITN SSETH : vgHEREAS, Declarants own Lot 11 Callahan Subdivision, City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado and also own the land southerly thereof between said Lot 11 and the Roaring Fork River, and WHEREAS, Declarants wish to enhance the desirability and environs of both the said Lot 11 and the Roaring Fork River by imposing restrictions against the construction of above ground improvements on the land hereinafter specifically described and thereby preserve existing features of natural beauty, vegetation and open space. NOW THEREFORE, Declarants, for themselves, their heirs, personal representatives and assigns hereby declare that: 1. No above ground buildings, structures or permanent improvements of any kind shall ever be constructed or maintained on the following described real property, to -wit: A tract of land situated in the East 1/2 of Section 18, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6th P.M., Pitkin County, Colorado and being more fully described as follows: Beginning at corner No. 1 Riverside Placer M.S. 3905 Am said corner being on the westerly boundary line of Lot 12 of the Callahan Subdivision; Thence S 00014100" W 230.00 feet along said westerly boundary line to the southwesterly corner of said Lot 12; Thence N 89°46'00" W 70.00 feet along the westerly extension of the southerly boundary line of said Lot 12 to the centerline of the Roaring Fork River; Thence alone said centerline N 327'27'27" 4v 74.0.5 feet to the point of intersection with the southerly extension of ti-ie_ w,--sterly boundary line of Lot 11 said Callahan Subdivision; .s\HT Thence along said southerly extension N 00 14'00" E 168.88 feet to the southwesterly. corber of said Lot 11 being on line 9-1 of said Riverside Placer; Thence S 89008'24" E 110.00 feet along said line 9-1 to the point of beginning containing 24,118 square feet, more or less, (the restricted Property). 2. This declaration is made for the benefit of Lots 11 :�9, Callahan Subdivision, City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado and the owner or owners thereof, who shall have, by this declaration, permission for pedestrian and equestrian access over and across the restricted Property, provided, however, that no motorized vehicles shall be permitted in the restricted Property except maintenance vehicles when in use for maintenance work. 3. The restrictions in this Declaration shall continue until September 1, 2001, and from year to year thereafter until amended or terminated by written instrument executed by the owner or owners of said Lotg 11 �t�=-2, Callahan Subdivision and the owner of the restricted Property. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Declarants have executed this Declaration as of the day and year first above written. t Fredric A. Benedict Fabienne Benedict STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The foregoing was acknowledged before me this -5.Zday of September, 1981 by FREDRIC A. BENEDICT and FABIENNE BENEDICT. Witness my hand and official seal. icy commission expires on: Notary Public - 2 -- y i a s s's. CALLAHAN 3ElJEpFGfi LAND tj,t CA17LE PO. r'IO)< ASPEN . C060R<LDC� "IT ANNEXATION MAP �. TW&? PA2GEL 6 D� LAtQD a7UATED IN �G-W0 4 10 / TIO S, r2 N W / PITK.IN COUNTY, GOL.pRAM TO 1� ANNEXED Tb 71-� GTY OF A5PEN , t°feF_pAp,eD P5Y Al -CO ► UNNA&r=MENT, ING. P.O. 150A 1750 A'5PE-4, COLOK.ADO e4411 305 - 525 - 26,88 CUTE ' JULY 7, 1975 AHHEXATION BOUHPAK-f M5cFjpTI0N6 PAR CF-L. NO, 1 ' A TKACT OF LAND 5jTU4TW IN 7NE NW 1/4 5E ✓4 OF 5t8cToN fl�>, TIC>5, fZ &A VY Co Rl FM , PITKfN COUNT{, COLpQglxj °,4jD Tl?sGT t,5 MCI? FULLY mto?jeED A5 FOLLAW'S ft6INNIN6 AT COKNE - N0. 9 of THE. RJVERe'4DE RAGER.(M,-t>. 3906'),, 'HE'S 5 89" 08' Z4" E 545- 44 FEET- ALON& LINE '�-I OF 'a41D KIVEX'510E PLACER (F-X15TiNG cM-f-a;ut,4TY uNE ) THENCE 5 Og'29' 21" VV 417. ZZ FEET j THENCE. N 84'00'GYJ"W 200.00 FTET,; THENCE N 49°00'00" W 1550.00 f=ff-T; 1HENC.E N <o8'00'G7D" W 120, to F:FET, T14EhICE N 156' II' 25" E 1°58.03 FET=�T M 7HE, PtINT OF BEGINNING GONTAININCv 4.115 ACRES v%of E Ott L,E55, PARLEL NO, 2 A TRACT OF LAND 51TLA`i v Inl THE '5E 1/4 WE V4 AND IN THE NE1/4 '5E y4 OF 'SEC•TK�N IS Tj<7S. 'Z 84 MV Co ZH FM. PmUN COUNTY,COLORAD4 'aAID Tf7ACT 1'5 MOFL1s FULL-' DE6CRI!'SED A,5 FOLLOWS = EE&INNI"6, AT CORNEte. NO, I OF TPE RJVERSIDE R,4GEi�iM.S. 3�0�] TN,=� N GC' 14' CO" F- -47 AL.OPQ& LINE 1 -7- OF «JP RNE 'DIDE. F'l_ACER (E,<61(NO UTY-CUtJNT/ UNE) "p A POINT ON THE 4UUT4WE6TF4UY FLEE OF THE C.OI.. KAD O STATE NO. g2 M&HT -OF - WA.Y ,- TT-+ENCE 309.Cli FEET ALONG THE ARC. OF A CURVE TD THE LEFT HAVING A 9AU1l!',, OF W�,00 FEET AND WHO's CHOKO PSPAR5 5444'557"E 05.71 Peel agiD AIrC t3ErNW7 7HE SCa TWW1"'�TEK.LY E° F- OF NP 216HT- OF- VV<YY; 7NCJVC.✓ '� 59'<^'' " E 104.10 FEET ALONG 7HE 50UTNWE'5TE.2LL.Y EVOC OF 'aND IZr-4HT-Op _ WAY, 1ltet-+CE N 89'4Co' GYM" W 256. C>3 F°EET, MtW--f- tCC' A' 00" W 231. 75 FEET, ?HENCE 5 07' 5COA " e Z37. 70 FEFT; 'MENC.E 6 00' 14' 00" W AO.00 FEET/ THENCE N ®g' 4&' 00* W 7-70, 00 FL.ET", flff,"Lt� N 0^'14'00'E 230,00 FEET lO THE POINT OF 15E&NNINC� L0N TAINI NG 2 2 2 3 ACJM'S MO12.E OR- LE',6 , i KtrE 18 it#4 !-l11 ;W SECOND AMENDED PLAT OF THE CALLAHAN SUBDIVISION SET REBAR 8 CAP. L.S. 9164 ROAD CRYSTAL SET REBAR 8 CAP. L.S.9184 1 I I I I I N I F l o I � 1 ,0 1 F I z LOOT13 M � LOOSIlb N N 1 W I I I w I > I � I ° I I I 1 Nto I I I M FOUND: REBAR 8 CAP. L.S.12707 "BASIS OF BEARINC I o OPEN SPACE OD FOR LOT II I _ \ y SET: WITNESS CORNER REBAR 8 CAP. LS.9184 c� \ 2 70.00 N89046'00°W S 0 zz NORTH 0 20 40 80 120 160 200 SCALE: I" = 40' BASIS OF BEARING FOUND MONUMENTS AS SHOWN. REBAR 8 CAP. L.S.9184 N u) a FOUND BRASS CAP CORNER N° I I RIVERSIDE PLACER M.S. 3905 AM. 3 "a 0 O O rn 0 0 0 rn N LOOM 12 AFOUND REBAR 8 CAP. L.S.12707 WITNESS CORNER REBAR 8 CAP. L.S. 9184 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN THE EAST HALF OF SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE.84- WEST OF THE GTH. PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORA,00, BEING MORE FULLY (DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS; BEGINNING AT CORNER N' I OF THE RIVERSIDE PLACER, M.S. 3905 AM., A BRA55 CAP IN PLACE, THENCE SOO°Ii+'W 230.00FEET, THENCE N 89°4G'W 70.00 FEET, TO THE CENTERLINE OF THE ROARING FORK RIVER, THENCE N 32°27''7"W 74-•05 FEET ALONG SAID CENTERLINE TO THE POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH THE SOUTHERLY EXTENSION OF THE WESTERLY LINE OF LOT 11, CALLAHAN SUBDIVISION, THENCE N CI 38211 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY EXTENSION AND WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT I I TO THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF CRYSTAL LAKE {ROAD, THENCE 89.75 FEET ALONG SAM RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE AND THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 375 00 FEET, THE CHORD OF WHICH BEARS N 6V51'23"E. 89.54. FEET, THENCE 21.21 FEET ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE AND THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 375.00 FEET, THE CHORD OF WHICH BEARS N 79°3713"E 21-21 FEET, THENCE S OO* 4' W 22T24-- FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING CONTAINING 1.1048 ACRES MORE OR LESS. SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE I, JAMES F. RE5ER, LICENSED SURVEYOR, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS SECOND AMENDED PLAT OF THE CALLAHAN SUBDIVISION WAS PREPARED UNDER MY SUPERVISION AND THAT THE OUTSIDE BOUNDARIES, LOTS, ROADS AND OTHER FEATURES ARE ACCURATELY AND CORRECTLY SHOWN HEREON, THAT THE SAME AIZE BASED ON FIELD SURVEYS, AND THAT THE PLATTED LOTS AND ROADS C01�AFOr'.M TO THOSE STAKEYJ ON THE GROUND. IN WITNESS THEREOF I HAVE SET MY HAND AND SEAL THIS ---------------- DAY OF ---------------- 1982. ---------------------- JAMES F. RESER L.S 9181+ NOTE THIS SECOND AMENDED PLAT OF THE CALLAHAN SUBDIVISION IS FILED TO REFLECT THE ADDITION OF OPEN SPACE TO LOT I I AS SHOWN AND NOTED HEREON. IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS THE ORIGINAL PLAT AS AMENDED REMAINS IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT. OWNER'S CONSENT 41 UNDERSIGNED, BEING THE OWNERS OF LOT II AND THE AREA TO BE ADDED HEREBY CONSENT TO THIS AMENDED PLAT" OF THE CALLAHAN SUBDIVISION. FREDERIC A. BENEDICT --------------------- FABIENNE. BENEDICT NOTARY PUBLIC'S CERTIFICATE STATE OF COLOR4D01 S.S. COUNTY OF PITi;IN J THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME THIS__________ DAY OF---_ ,1982 61r FREDERIC A. BENEDICT AND FABIENNE BENEDICT. WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL_ MY COMMISSIGN EXPIRES _____--___--__, NOTARY PUBLIC ADDRESS OF NOTARY-_ ------------------------------- PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVAL THISSECOND AMENDED PLAT OF THE CALLAHAN SUBDIVISION WAS APPROVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION THISDAYOF1982 ------------------- CHAIRMAN ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL AND ACCEPTANCE THIS SECOND AMENDED PLAT OF THE CALLAHAN SUBDIVISION WAS APPROVED AND ACCEPTED BY THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL THIS ------------- DAY OF---__________1982. MAYOR ATTEST -__--- CITY CLERK CLERK AND RECORDER'S CERTIFICATE THISSECOND AMENDED PLAT OF THE CALLAHAN SUBDIVISION WAS ACCEPTED FOR FILING INTHE OFFICE OF THE CLERK AND RECORDER OF THE COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO AT, ..---- 'CLOCK____.M., THIS ------------ DAY OF ------------- 1382, AND WAS DULY FILED IN PLAT BOOK- ______AT RECEPTION No . PITKIN COUNTY CLERK & RECORDER. THE ORIGINAL SUBDIVISION 15 FILED IN BOOK 5 AT PAGE 7 . THE FIRST AMENDMENT IS FILED IN BOOK G AT PAGES IG-19. THE LOT II OPEN SPACE COVENANT 15 RECORDED IN BOOK41S PAGE 825. c,niy w i.oioraao iaw you m s[ commence any legal action basetl upon any defect in this survey within six years after you first discover such defect. In no event may any action based upon any defect in this survey be commenced more than ten years from the date of the certification shown hereon. Alpine Surveys Post Office Box 1730 Aspen, Colorado 81611 303 92F '1688 Surveyed JULY 23, 1982. Revisions Drafted JULY 2G, 19B2. Title SECOND AMENDED PLAT OF THE CALLAHAN SUBDIVISION Job No 82-88-2 Client BENEDICT • PETITION FOR ANNEXATION Petitioners, FREDERIC A. BENEDICT and FABIENNE BENEDICT, the owners of the land described in the annexation map, four copies of which are submitted herewith, respectfully petition the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado to annex said land. In support of this petition it is shown to the Council that: 1. The land to be annexed consists of 0.55 acres, more or less, and is described as follows: A parcel of land situated in the East 2 of Section 18, T. 10 S., R. 84 W. of the 6th P.M., Pitkin County, Colorado and being more fully described as follows: Beginning at corner of No.l Riverside Placer (M.S. 3905 A.M.) said corner being on the westerly boundary line of Lot 12 of the Callahan Subdivision; Thence S. 00014100" W. 230.00 feet along said westerly boundary line to the southwesterly corner of said Lot 12; Thence N.89046100" W. 70.00 feet along the westerly extension of the southerly boundary line of said Lot 12 to the centerline of the Roaring Fork River; Thence along said centerline N. 32°27'17" W. 74.05 feet to the point of intersection with the southerly extension of the westerly boundary line of Lot 11 said Callahan Subdivision; Thence S. 89008124" E. 110.00 feet along said line 9-1 to the point of beginning, containing 0.55 acres more or less. 2. It is desirable and necessary that the above described land be annexed to the City of Aspen. Said land lies between Lot 11, Callahan Subdivision and the Roaring Fork River. The petitioners have recorded in Book 413 at page 828 a restrictive covenant which prohibits any above ground building, structures or improvements of any kind from being constructed or maintained on said land. Said covenant, a copy of which is attached hereto as a Exhibit A, was placed on the land for the benefit of Lot 11, Callahan Subdivision to preserve the existing natural beauty, vegetation and open space. Petitioners request the City of Aspen to incorporate the open space restriction into any ordinance which annexes said land. Promptly following a determination by the city council that this petition for annexation is valid in accordance with the provisions of C.R.S. 1973, §31-12-107, petitioners will submit an application to the Planning and Zoning Commission requesting that said land be platted as an addition to said Lot 11; that the replat of Lot 11 be exempted or excepted from the subdivision ordinance and that it be adopted as an amendment to the original PUD Final Plat and Development Plan filed in Plat Book 5 at page 7. Petitioners allege that the creation of additional open space is entirely compatible with the residential nature of this portion of the Callahan Subdivision. 3. The requirements of C.R.S. 1973, §§31-12-104 and 31-12-105 exist or have been met. 4. The signers of this petition are the owners of 100% of the territory included in the area proposed to be annexed. They own such land as tenants in common, that is each owns an undivided 50% interest in the entire tract described above. 5. The mailing address of the petitioners is: Fredric A. Benedict Fabienne Benedict 1280 Ute Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81612 6. Petitioners request that, upon annexation, the land described above be zoned Residential, R-15 as is Lot 11, Callahan Subdivision, subject however, to its dedication as open space as requested in Paragraph 2 hereof. 7. The affidavit of the circulation of this petition appears herein immediately following the signatures of the petitioners. WHEREFORE, petitioners request that the City of Aspen approve the annexation of the land described above in paragraph 1 hereof - 2 - and further described and shown on the Annexation Map submitted herewith. Date signed: Date signed: � ?//rZ STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) Frederic A. Benedict, Petitioner Fabienne Benedict, Petitioner James T. Moran, being duly sworn, says: 1. I am over 21 years of age; 2. I am the sole circulator of the foregoing petition; 3. Each signature on the foregoing petition is the signature of the person whose name it its t b . ames T. Moran 600 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 oubscribed and sworn to before me this 61 day of March, 1982. Witness my hand and seal. My commission expires ( (--a_ pia �t o .-t ( _,4 Notary Public Address: L� DD 4:�7. a&� -3- IV, Cam, a, fib. (?/ 6; //' Recorded at 10:40AM September 10, 1981. Loretta Banner Recorde 09�. DECLARATION OF PROTECTIVE COVENANTS THIS DECLARATION OF PROTECTIVE COVENANTS is made this 4th c=y of September, 1981 by FREDRIC A. BENEDICT and FABIENNE BENEDICT, Declarants, WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Declarants own Lot 11 Callahan Subdivision, City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado and also own the land southerly thereof between said Lot 11 and the Roaring Fork River, and WHEREAS, Declarants wish to enhance the desirability and environs of both the said Lot 11 and the Roaring Fork River by imposing restrictions against the construction of above ground improvements on the land hereinafter specifically described and thereby preserve existing features of natural beauty. vegetation and open space. NOW THEREFORE, Declarants, for themselves, their heirs, personal representatives and assigns hereby declare that: 1. No above ground buildings, structures or permanent improvements of any kind shall ever be constructed or maintained on the following described real property, to -wit: A tract of land situated in the East 1/2 of Section 18, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6th P.M., Pitkin County, Colorado and being more fully described as follows: Beginning at corner No. 1 Riverside Placer M.S. 3905 Am said corner being on the westerly boundary line of Lot 12 of the Callahan Subdivision; Thence S 00°14'00" W 230.00 feet along said westerly boundary line to the southwesterly corner of said Lot 12; Thence N 89`46'00" W 70.00 feet along the westerly extension of the southerly boundary line of said Lot 12 to the centerline of the Roaring Fork River; Thence along said centerline N 3212*1127" W 74.05 feet to the point of intersection with the southerly extension of tiie westerly boundary line of Lot 11 said Callahan Subdivision; �, ExHIeir,� 6 s. 4 Thence along said southerly extension N 0V14100" E 168.88 feet to the southwesterly corber of said Lot 11 being on line 9--1 of said Riverside Placer; Thence S 89008124" E 110.00 feet along said line 9-1 to the point of beginning containing f 24,118 square feet, more or less, (the restricted Property). 2. This declaration is made for the benefit of Lots'11€1 �, Callahan Subdivision, City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado and the owner or owners thereof, who shall have, by this declaration, permission for pedestrian and equestrian access over and across the restricted Property, provided, however, that no motorized vehicles shall be permitted in the restricted Property except maintenance vehicles when in use for maintenance work. 3. The restrictions in this Declaration shall continue until September 1, 2001, and from year to year thereafter until amended or terminated by written instrument executed by the owner or owners of said hots' 11Callahan Subdivision and the owner of the restricted Property. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Declarants have executed this Declaration as of the day and year first above written. c— Fredric A. Benedict Fabienne Benedict STATE OF. COLORADO ) ) ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The foregoing was acknowledged before me this --5Z4day of September, 1981 by FREDRIC A. BENEDICT and FABIENNE BENEDICT. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires on: Notary Yablic - 2 -- HOLLAND & HART ATTORNEYS AT LAW TELEPHONE 292-9200 500 EQUITABLE BUILDING AREA CODE 303 730 SEVENTEENTH STREET DENVER, COLORADO 80202 PLEASE REPLY TO: MOUNTAIN PLAZA BUILDING P.O. BOX 1128, ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE 925-3476 AREA CODE 303 December 18, 1975 Ms. Phyllis Kenny Administrative Assistant City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Phyllis: CABLE ADDRESS HOLHART, DENVER This is in response to your letter of December 16, 1975 requesting confirmation that Fredric A. Benedict was acting for Benedict Land & Cattle Company, as well as for himself, in petitioning for the annexation of the Callahan Subdivision lands. As counsel to the Company I can assure you that Fritz, as President of Benedict Land & Cattle Company, was duly authorized to act and was acting on behalf of the Company in petitioning for annexation of the Company lands described in the petition and in the annexation map. Yours very tr , es T. Moran JTM : mm cc: Mrs. Pat Maddalone Recorded 9:3November 20, 1975 Reception 179521 We Hane Recorder 16 BOOK305 FACE 686 RECORD OF Pi;OCEEDINGS 100 Leaves f MtM •f C. F. M111 IKFL B. B. a L. CO. ORDINANCE NO. (r4 (Series of 1975) AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING TWO PARCELS OF LAND LYING EAST OF'THE CITY OF ASPEN, THE FIRST CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 4.1, AND THE SECOND CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 2.2 ACRES, AND ANNEXING THE SAME PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE 1965 COLORADO MUNICIPAL ANNEXATION ACT WHEREAS, the City Council has been presented with a Petition for Annexation for two parcels of land adjacent to the City of Aspen, and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that said territory is eligible for annexation in that: a. Not less than one -sixth (1/6th) of the perimeters of the areas proposed to be annexed are contiguous with the City of Aspen, and b. That a community of interest exists between the territories proposed to be annexed and the City; that the territories to be annexed are urban or will be urbanized in the near future; and that the territories proposed to be annexed are integrated or capable of being integrated with the City, and WHEREAS, Section 31-8-107(1)(g) C.R.'S.. 1973 provides that when a petition for annexation is signed by the owners of one hundred (100%) percent of the property proposed to be annexed, the City Council may proceed by ordinance to annex such territory by ordinance without notice and hearing required by Sections 31-8-108 and 31-03-112, C.R.S. 1973, and WHEREAS, the Petition for Annexation presented has been signed by owners of one hundred (1000) percent of the property proposed to be annexed, and the Council wishes to proceed with the annexation as anticipated by Section 31-8-107 described above. BOOK305 PAGE 687 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves f 4Rw r r.. r. Hw cm, ❑. P A I. cn. IJOW, TIiEREFORE, DE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1 That the following described tracts be and hereby are annexed to the City of Aspen, Colorado, to wit: c ,. a- ; __ Parcel No. 1 A tract of land situated in the NW4SE4 of Sec. 18, T10s, R 84W of the 6th P.ii.', Pitkin County, Colorado, said tract is more fully des- cribed as follows: Beginning at Corner No. 9 of the Riverside Placer (M.S. 3905); thence S.89108124" E. 545.44 feet along line 9-1 of said Riverside Placer; thence S.09029'21" W. 43.7.22 feet; thence N.34° 00100" W. 200.00 feet; thence N.,19000'00" W. 350.00 feet; thence N.68000'00" W. 120.00 feet; thence N.38°11125" E. 158.05 feet to the point of beginning, containing 4.113 acres, more or less. Parcel No. 2 A tract of land situated in the SE4NE4 and in the NE4SE4 of Sec. 18, T10S, R84W of the 6th P.II., Pitkin County, Colorado, said tract is more fully described as follows: Beginning at Corner No. 1 of the Riverside Placer (M S. 3905); thence N.00014100" -c,. 500.z_-7 feet along line.1-2 of said Riverside Placer to a point on the southwesterly edge of. the Colorado State Highway No. 82 right-of-way; thence 309.08 feet along the arc'of a curve to the left having a radius of 603.00 feet and whose chord bears S.44045'57" '. 305.71 feet, said arc being the southwesterly edge of said right-of-way; thence S.59027'00" E. 104.10 feet along the southwesterly edge of said right-of-way; thence N.89046100" W. 256.03 feet; thence S.00114'00" ''1. 231.75 feet; thence S.67131104" E. 237.70 feet; thence S.00°14' 00" 'V�1. 140.00 feet; thence N.89146'00" ;11. 270.00 feet; thence N.00014100" E. 230.00 feet to the point of beginning, containing 2.223 acres, more or less. If any provision of this ordinance or the application there- of to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provisions or application. -2- • 800K 305 FACE 688 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Fo If C. F. NnrU(rl 8. B. • L. CO. and to this end the provisions or applications of this ordinance are delcared to be severable. Section 3 A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the day of , 1975, at 5:00 P.M. 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, at its regular meeting held / 1975. Sq%CY STAI;}LEY III, MAY ATTEST: KATHRYN RAUTER CITY CLERK FINALLY ADOPTED AND APPROVED O3 , 1975. STAVY S A DLEY III, MAYOR ATTEST: KATHRYN•H UTER CITY CLERK. -3- BOOK305 r,,� "689 STATE OF COLORADO ) CERTIFICATE ss COUNTY OF PITKIN ) I, Kathryn S. Hauter, City Clerk of Aspen, Colorado, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing ordinance was introduced, read in full, and passed on reading at a regular meeting of the City.Council. of the City of Aspen onSCZL,!��_ / ' 197and publish- ed in the Aspen Times a weekly newspaper of general circul- ation, published in the City of Aspen, Colorado, in its issue of &4t:j�P� 197 and was finally adopted and approved at a regular meeting of the City Council on 197 and ordered published as Ordinance No. Series of 197of said City, as provided by law. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of said City of Aspen, Colorado, this day of_, 197 K thryn S Hauter, City Clerk Sur N o. 4 PETITION FOR ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO We, the undersigned, being landowners within the exterior boundaries of the territory hereinafter described, do hereby respectfully petition the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, to annex said territory to the City in accordance with the provisions of Title 31 Article VIII, Colorado Revised Statutes, 1973, and allege as follows: 1. That it is desirable and necessary that such territory be annexed to the Municipality. 2. That the requirements of Sections 31-8-104, CRS, and 31-8-105, CRS 1973, exist or have been met. 3. That the signers of the Petition comprise the landowners of more than 50% of the territory included in the area proposed to be annexed, exclusive of streets and alleys. 4. That the legal description of the area to be annexed is as follows: See Exhibit A attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein. S. Each of the undersigned is the owner of an undivided interest in the whole of the above -described land. 6. Each of the undersigned requests that the City of Aspen, Colorado approve the annexation of the area proposed to be annexed as described herein and in the annexation map which accompanies this petition. OWNERS: Z /L C �Z��.�� Date Signed: "__ V � "� Fredric A. Benedict Post Office Box 40 Aspen, Colorado 81611 113'a4e(AA r e+,.r ��Y Date Signed: Fabienne Benedict Post Office Box 40 Aspen, Colorado 81611 PY14TRTT 11A11 Annexation Boundary Descriptions: Parcel No. 1 A tract of land situated in the NW 1/4 SE 1/4 of Section 18, T10S, R 84 W 6th PM, Pitkin County, Colorado, said tract is more fully described as follows: Beginning at corner No. 9 of the Riverside Placer (M.S. 3905); Thence S 8900812411E 545.44 feet along line 9-1 of said Riverside Placer; Thence S 0902912111W 417.22 feet; Thence N 8400010011W 200.00 feet; Thence N 49000100"W 350.00 feet; Thence N 680001001% 120.00 feet; Thence N 3801112511E 158.05 feet to the point of beginning containing 4.113 acres more or less. Parcel No. 2 A tract of land situated in the SE 1/4 NE 1/4 and in the NE 1/4 SE 1/4 of Section 18, T10S, R 84 W 6th PM, Pitkin County, Colorado, said tract is more fully described as follows: Beginning at corner No. 1 of the Riverside Placer (M.S. 3905); Thence N 00014'0011E 500.47 along line 1-2 of said Riverside Placer to a point on the southwesterly edge of the Colorado State Highway No. 82 right-of-way; Thence 309.08 feet along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 603.00 feet and whose chord bears S 4404515711E 305.71 feet, said arc being the southwesterly edge of said right-of-way; Thence S 5902710011E 104.10 feet along the southwesterly edge of said right-of-way; Thence N 89046100t1 W 256.03 feet; Thence S 0001410011W 231.75 feet; Thence S 6703110411E 237.70 feet; Thence S 0001410011W 140.00 feet; Thence N 8904610011W 270.00 feet; Thence N 0001410011E 230.00 feet to the point of beginning containing 2.223 acres more or less. • AFFIDAVIT OF CIRCULATOR STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The undersigned, being duly sworn, deposes and says that: 1. I am over 21 years of age; 2. I am the circulator of the foregoing petition; 3. Each signature thereon is the signature of the person whose name it purports to be. Fredric A. Benedict Subscribed and sworn to before me this day o , 1974. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: - 7 G Notary Publ c . • 5ET NO. PETITION FOR ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO We, the undersigned, being landowners within the exterior boundaries of the territory hereinafter described, do hereby respectfully petition the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, to annex said territory to the City in accordance with the provisions of Title 31 Article VIII, Colorado Revised Statutes, 1973, and allege as follows: 1. That it is desirable and necessary that such territory be annexed to the Municipality. 2. That the requirements of Sections 31-8-104, CRS, and 31-8-10S, CRS 1973, exist or have been met. 3. That the signers of the Petition comprise the landowners of more than 50% of the territory included in the area proposed to be annexed, exclusive of streets and alleys. 4. That the legal description of the area to be annexed is as follows: See Exhibit A attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein. 5. Each of the undersigned is the owner of an undivided interest in the whole of the above -described land. 6. Each of the undersigned requests that the City of Aspen, Colorado approve the annexation of the area proposed to be annexed as described herein and in the annexation map which accompanies this petition. OWNERS: 1',� z u Date Signed: i z Fredric A. Benedict Post Office Box 40 Aspen, Colorado 81611 J �� e ^E Date Signed: l` 1 7 Fabienne Benedict Post Office Box 40 Aspen, Colorado 81611 FYHTRTT "A11 Annexation Boundary Descriptions: Parcel No. 1 A tract of land situated in the NIV 1/4 SE 1/4 of Section 18, T10S, R 84 W 6th PM, Pitkin County, Colorado, said tract is more fully described as follows: Beginning at corner No. 9 of the Riverside Placer (M.S. 3905); Thence S 8900812411E 545.44 feet along line 9-1 of said Riverside Placer; Thence S 09029121"W 417.22 feet; Thence N 8400010011W 200.00 feet; Thence N 4900010011W 350.00 feet; Thence N 68000100t1W 120.00 feet; Thence N 3801112511E 158.05 feet to the point of beginning containing 4.113 acres more or less. Parcel No. 2 A tract of land situated in the SE 1/4 NE 1/4 and in the NE 1/4 SE 1/4 of Section 18, T10S, R 84 IV 6th PM, Pitkin County, Colorado, said tract is more fully described as follows: Beginning at corner No. 1 of the Riverside Placer (M.S. 3905); Thence N 00014100"E 500.47 along line 1-2 of said Riverside Placer to a point on the southwesterly edge of the Colorado State Highway No. 82 right-of-way; Thence 309.08 feet along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 603.00 feet and whose chord bears S 44045157"E 305.71 feet, said arc being the southwesterly edge of said right-of-way; Thence S 5902710011E 104.10 feet along the southwesterly edge of said right-of-way; Thence N 89046100" W 256.03 feet; Thence S 0001410011W 231.75 feet; Thence S 6703110411E 237.70 feet; Thence S 0001410011W 140.00 feet; Thence N 8904610011W 270.00 feet; Thence N 0001410011E 230.00 feet to the point of beginning containing 2.223 acres more or less. • AFFIDAVIT OF CIRCULATOR STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. COUITY OF PITKIN ) The undersigned, being duly sworn, deposes and says that: 1. I am over 21 years of age; 2. I am the circulator of the foregoing petition; 3. Each signature thereon is the signature of the person whose name it purports to be. . J Fredric A. Benedict J Subscribed and sworn to before me this % & day of�_ , i974.- Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: _s - Notary Public