HomeMy WebLinkAboutlanduse case.an.Callahan Sub.1981-SU-1
..-~,
A
,
.~
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
Aspen City Council
Alice Davis, Planning Office
Benedict Annexation
September 13, 1982
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Background:
Fritz and Fabienne Benedict have petitioned fo
requirements for the annexation of a 0.55 acre arcel of and
located along the Roari ng Fork Ri ver adjacent to the Ca 11 ahan
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 wi 11 not generate further traffi c 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 theR-15 zone in the County. Duplex owners
in the County's R-15 zone are required to deed restrict one
.-.----. ---
I""""",
.,-.,..,
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.
Referra 1
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 Moti on:
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 Ord i nances L/!S and 1..lJ..!.- on second
reading." ~
~
~
~
f
.
~
-
1""'. , ii, '
, '.
o l'
-r:J~\
c::l
.
\'0\
~ -< r--1 ' )..
~ 0 / I ~
i- ~~ ,'" / l..y .
'vv j,./(J / I / <s .
--- ~ ':!to- / ~ ,-
v-F;--. ....--1 I "'5'
J5f" I~A Q) <:), /.. LOT IZA ,~ ~ ,.
I( , LOT 10 I /I/I~'::::-- At o.
L / . ".~~""'~
. 'L . ---p ...~.....
.;' :~ -:---::-:---:--::, -----cP:"\( e p..o!!.~ '~
. ..---..;..~__ CR.'16~S__4- 1
, . . r- II
I .
I
I
I
t, \
~Neft. NO. I ,. __,
1(M:f(~lOe f'L.AGe.~ t'M;>.::ecS.c..V
. _ . . f71.cel24~
l/o.CO'
-'
i
i
.
I
:I~e,
I~,ACE.
(LOT I~
i
-,J
........
~)
~
88
Ci~
\f'\;-
"l8
J)
I
-'-~
q!!. aeNtiL'lCi'
.
"
}'''II
. Propo~ 6ene.did A r\f\ex..cd-fCt\
...;
'.
_ '~~E?J.
::')URVeYOi<:o CE~TJFICA TE.
-------------...----- - ~~--7~
. ,
,";~...,;;;,~"
..
'. .
...
I
,
j-
u
jj
e~
"
J
!
I
'j' i
, I
FF: !'
F?a I
,..~,
I
!
I
.
1"".
t1
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
RE:
Aspen City Council
Alice Davis, Planning Office
Benedict Annexation
DATE:
August 16, 1982
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Background:
Fritz and Fabienne Benedict have petitioned f
requirements for the annexation of a 0.55 acr
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
Review:
Offi ce
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.
/""".
t1
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 ori gi na 1 Lot 11 and the annexed parce 1. Accordi ng
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 prato
Referra 1
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
Zon i ng Re,com-
mendati on: 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;
r-'.
..-,
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 Ordi nance
"
"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 Benedi ct 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."
I""
^
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Alice Davies, Planning Office
Jay Hammond, Engineering Department~
FRm1:
DATE:
August 13, 1982
RE:
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
amendment of the P.U.D. plan.
should be included:
fOr hoth, ~nne~atiQn and
Prior to recordation, the following
1. Title should be "Second Amended Plat of the Callahan
Subdivision Benedict Annexation."
00 2. Include a vicinity map clearly indicating how the
Q annexation relates to the existing subdivision and surrounding
properties.
.
h(I(\ v' 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
~
"......,
,-.,..,
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
Review:
Office
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 wi 11 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 appli.cant 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 requi red to deed restri ct
f""""o.
~
Memo: Benedict Annexati.on
Page Two
July 30, 1982
Planning Office
Recommendation:
In
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 requi rements 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.
1.
summary, the Planning Office recommends the following:
The rezoning of the Benedict parcel to be annexed to
R-15A-P. U.D. ;
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;
2.
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.
r-..
I"",
. 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 connnents you may have to the
Planning Office by Wednesday, August 4th, as the applfcantsare hopeful to make
the August 9th City Council agenda.
Thank you.
-,
i
,-.,..,
r')
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Alice Davis, Planning Office
Jay Hammond, Engineering Department ~
FROM:
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 the~llahan
Subdivision, the Engineering Department has the following
comments:
I. The Callahan Plat should be amended to indicate the
addition to Lot II. 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
'10 ]ffi
~~__JUl 201982 )W
/ PI TV.N fV'
..' '.M.~"~'".'_,,., ...~.'_.^__,.:,'., -,-C , .,,;,,';;';';_.,,:~',.":_. __ _'C. 'i.~",~",.~, ....:._.,:-..:..i;.' ,'.'_,-""; ..:~.'- ., \. ',~
.,...:'.......
,~':.-.;,.s--."."",. ~.~:'.."""""~..:'-'.: ." ..." ._.,~..'~__...,...','
/iD
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 annexati.on 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. 'ihe property in question is located adjacent to the Roaring Fork
River and would be annexed into the Callahan P.,U.D. Subdivision. For further
. information, contact the Planning Office, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, 925-2020T
ext. 227.
s/Perry Harvey
Chairman, Aspen Planning and
Zoning Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on July 15, 1982.
City of Aspen Account.
,
,
1"".
.,......."
,.-,
.')
MEMORANDUM
TO:
,
City Attorney
Engineering Department
Martha Eichelberger, Planning Office
Benedict Annexation Amendment/PUD
FROM:
RE:"
DATE:
July 12. 1982
Planner Alice Davis has attached an application by the Benedict Land &.
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-l~P.U.D.
This item is scheduled for the August 3, '1982 City Planning and Zoning
Meeting. If you can return your COnIDlents to our office by Monday, July 19,
it will be much appl"eciated.
Thanks.
1"""1
1"""1
HOLLAND & HART
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
DENVER, COLORA.DO OFFiCE
555 SEVENTEENTH STREET
SUITE: 2900
DeNVER, COLORADO 80202
TE:LEF'HONE (303) 575-8000
TELE:COPIER (303) 575-8261
600 EAST MAIN STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO 61611
TE:l.EF'HONe: (30.3) 925-3476
WASHINGTON, O. C. OFFICE
1875 EYE STREET, N. W.
SUITE 1200
WASHINGTON, Q. c. aooos
Tf:LEPHONE (202) 466-7340
TELECOPIER (202) 466-7354
BIt.LINGS, MONTANA OFFICE
SUITE 1400
175 NORTH 27TH STREET
BilLINGS, M,ONTANA 59101
TELEPHONE (406) 252-2166
TELECOPJER (406) 252-ISe9
LARAMIE, WYOMING OFFICE
HOLLAND & HART 5< KITE
AWV<:l""NG "AIlTNEASH'"
July 12, 1982
618 GRAND AVENUE
LARAMIE, WYOMING 82070
TELEPHONE (307)742-8203
TELECOPIER (307) 792-7618
.JAMES T. MORAN
(303) 925-3476
Planning and Zoning Commission
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, 5 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 5 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.
~
,-.,..,
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
T
eys for Applicants,
redric Benedict
JTM/jlf
enclosure
....;.--'~..~... '--'
i"""".
'1
"""'l:i!?J
MEMORANDUM
To: City Attorney's 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 ftffiction of lot size, not of location or zone
district. Clauses 2 and 3 of the eighth "Whereas" clause in the ordinance
read as follows:
~"~'./' ....
~
ti
"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 rat'io 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 land 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
a,llowable 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 ~pplicant' 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
,-!,-- ..
,-.,.
the original and first amended plats.
appropriate changes and legends can be
original Callahan plat.
''l
This means that the annexation map with
recorded as the latest amendment to the
I would like to meet with both the City Attorney and the Planning Office
to confirm that we are ready to proceed under C.R.S. 1973, ~31-12-115 to
complete the annexation, zoning and subdivision processes concurrently and as
soon as possible.
JTM:go
:-,
.~
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gary Esary, Assistant City Attorney
FROM: ' Alice Davis, Planning Office /.9
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
a,cre 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 calcul~t.ing lot size. The>allOliOble floor area for
the structure on Lot 11 will vary according to whether Lot 11 is still a
part of the Callahan Subdivisi,on PUD and whether the anneXed parcel is to be
included in the lot size tor 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 amel)dment to the' CallahanPUD will be necessary if
Lot 11 is removed from the Ca 11 ahan PUDor 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 ori g ina lCa 11 ahan PUD to include the annexed parcel and base
FAR calculations on the entire pun.
b),Amendthe 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 elimin'ating 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 UWi':171,j,,,,,,,,,,.<:n'in the Callahan PUD while the annexed
parcel will not be:ilrltlEd"inttltliis, PUD. As a result, the allowable floor
area must be calculated.llSing,JliIDcalculation procedures on the original
Ca 11 ahan PUD and tln!'~.4t<tr...e;ls:!tllj 11 need to be conveyed through one
deed.
,....,
~
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 8, 1982
T9: Members of City Council
.
FROM: Gary ESary~
RE: Benedict Annexation Petition (Lot 11, Callahan Subdivis~on)
Approved for submission to Council:
~
/
Chapman. ity Manager
The Benedict Annexation Petition was filed on April 7, 1982. It
has been reviewed with comments from Engin~ing 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. 3l-l2-107(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 an~exation of such territory.
a. Section 31-12-104 imposes the following eligibility
requirements for annexati<1n:
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-
'i;'
~~,"""~""".',~~~"~~~'i,,'r.~~.~~,./')t,:,,l,
.. '-'~':';-;'''"~'V''''' ,;,~~,." - '~r \ "'-"
J".;'
"" '0',. "",,;,",..._,
,""',',.,...,.,.,..~...~~,~'"""'I
^
~
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 prbvided 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 te 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 municipalit~ pro-
vides in common to all of its Qitizens 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
.
~,".,---"--,-----,---:;--~-:-_,--'--"""-_._--""-,-",,,,,,,,--~,-
,~,~"....,-:,"'::':~'_~-=:O-=
~~""'-';";="1r'~:~",.&,;j,;,':'::';;:;;..:.;.i&:~;",""-"""\iC.\li'\';:~',;c' '.;..'"" .,-~
,~~.........,~"*,,, '"'i""'''' ".'::'1"~;" \';""-'
.'~
", ~);;,~,,,~
1"",
,,,,",,
,
I
j
i
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 s'et 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 pa.rts 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 conunenced for the annexation of part or all of
the territory to another mun~cipality. (I assume
that annexation proceedings have not ~een'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 di,strict and
3
1"",
t""'\
the attachment of same to another school district.
no annexation petition is valid unless accompanied
by a reso1ut~on 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 3l-l2-107(1)(b) requires that the petition shall be
filed with the Municipal Clerk. (This requirement has been
met. )
III. CONTENTS OF THE PETITION
Section 3l-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.'5
(e) The ~ign~ures;i~4~ch landowners. (This, requirement
has been .JIlet.)
(f) The mailing address ,of each such signer. (This require-
ment has been me t... J
(g) The legal description of the land owned by such signer.
(ThisTe~~eats~ been met.)
4
".-..-..--.."""'""-"^ ..
,'. ,~,<t"" ,',~..,'''"
V,'
,
",'
.-..
,-.,..,
(h) The date of signing of each signature and that the date
shall not be more than 160 days prior to the filing of
the Petition. (This requirement has been met.)
(i) The affidav,it 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-l2-107(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 are'a 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 ~undary of the
annexing municipality and the contiguous boundary of any
municipality abutting the area proposed to be annexed.
V. VALIDITY OF SIGNATURES.
Section 3l-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 dal:ie,,,,,f filing the petition for annexation
",'~',,:,,' ,",
wi th the Cl,.....k. {'l'tli,~.:xequirement has been met. i
"~\,, '"
VI. PROCEDURE FOR:'~1dJV..1'NG THE PETITION
(1) Section 3~"1"2-r07{l) (f) provides that the Municipal
Clerk shall refer the petition to the City Council as a
communication. The City Council, without delay, shall
tben;.;:tak:;eappropriate steps to determine if the petition
so filed' is substantially in compliance with Section
5
_..............,.,---.-~,
1"",
,~
31-12-107(1), Le. 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-l07(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 31-12-1U8 provides that as part of the
resolution~ding substantial compliance with an
annexation petition. the governing body of the
annexing mun~ci1?ality shall establish a date, time,
and place that the governing body will hold a hear-
6
\.,
"
'~',^"~':_,,," .-' ":"~"'" ';'~ I,
~I
~
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 det.ermined
.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 ~s of Sections 31-12-104 and 31-12-
105 h~iDeen 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
.- ."'
""...,~..A .,_ ~~~
,~,'!',,-~~~,,';,..^ ' .,...,~
~.-,> """ ".-~, ..,
,"
."'"
,~
with, the applicable provisions of Sections 31-
12-104 and 3l~12-l05 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. gen~rally, 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 a~any time after such
resolution. This section further provides th}l~. if either
the zoning process or the subdiyision 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 i~ burdened by a
Declaration of Protective Covenants, recorded in Book 413
Page 8'28 of the records .of pitkin County, Cdlorado. 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
,1"""\
i""'"
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.
IX. ' 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 pet,i tion 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 .is/:DOt reqJJ.ired under Section 31-12-
107(2), ini~EW ofi~e fact that the petition is
signed by the~n~ of one hundred percent of the
area to be annexed. exclusive of streets and
alleys.
(c) A determination afc-intent pursuant to C.R.S. 31-
12-107(g) to annex the subject parcel by ordinance
'9
.-,,,<g """,,,.,,, ,.-,,~'~ ,~il;ll."""~'(O!I'."""~".'__"
~,'",''''' ",~ ,',.. ",..,,\~,'I['Ir~. ,-.. """:"'I"~,~~" '..:' -,
" ',",
" ..~,,~': __n """
.,'
,<,:,-,1
1"",
.---
without notice or hearing as provided in Sections
31-12-106 and 31~12-109. and without election as
provided in Sectio,n 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
atta~hedhereto.
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-
Hons 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 tha,t the area to be annexed has
contiguity with the City provides a basis for
10
.. ".."""',~ '".."":J''''",-", "..'-'_':/ .. ,,~,,4 ,.~,~, ",~
''''''-'_?:'':"'''''''':':,':''v'~'''',rl,\;~'''.-:....:..,,,;,~~,:,,,~,"""'~'''''i,''~:r,,",. "".. ~...' '-'-,~':'-:""'~',,,~'"'I::'f:j'.- ;'~,""'-<C.'''.'::'-^~:~''',/r?'~'-:::~::;,''1'::,';". ,'.-',-- ," .'i:-;,,"....,': ..~ ~,; ,..,~
~
~"""
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
GSE:mc
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.
i
11
';,;. >"" ,0,,"-' ",~.'~~c,_-I~"'-'J_ ,~;r~"":,0".""....,,,-"J"" .. .~, '_""~',A -.. "","":'"''-~ """.. ~,,,-,))j-,, ,~, ,~ ,^ ,.,,'} .r~.." ',~ .'..'!",,",.:'...-.',!i'.-'~, "':
'" ~....,."~,, '<"," ,.~, '..,,'-:/l'~~l~M,
'#0;
I
I
1
~~""'!"'~
t"'.
,~
MEMORANDUM
TO: Alice Davis, Planning Office
Gary Esary, Assistant City Attorney
FROM:
Jay Hammond, Assistant city Engineer ~
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
G
"
o
",;,;,,-,,
"
':",,i.'
~
~
~ ''!:
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gary Esary, Assistant City Attorney
CityEl1gineering 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
boththEi 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 revi ew. Please
inform us of the date chosen a week prior to our Tuesday deadline to Wayne
for agenda items.
Thanks.
cc: Wayne Chapman
~
\
I""
~.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Office Files
FROM: Alan Richman
RE: Annexation Review Procedure
DATE: February 24,1982
Introduction
stnce 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 identify.ing 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 reso~ution 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 90 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 wi thin 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 clearinghous~. 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 tl1c!!e wi 11 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
l;ly which we shepard the annexation through the review process.
. ",,"'- .',:,",,"7>~,",,:'''':~~~O,',,;~:''"':;','','~'''!'''':'~:'':;-::''''"?F''::'..,,,:_,:,~,,",-::,,,;\-:~,~~,~,,,,::,:,,,,,,~,~:,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,:,,.~,,~.-"",,,":~,,,,,,,,--:,,,,,,,,,",,,~,:,:.~,,::,,',"'" '~."'"''''''''''':'_~''"'''''.,~!",''''''' ':,''''''''''~''~V','''''-'''':'~'''''''''''_''',~~:.,,,, '''''''''''\>'~'''''''''''''''','''''''''''~:"^,,,,,,,,,,,,,..,.,,.,,,,_,,,~.-,___,__-,.-.,,:._, _ _'" ,'_(-
"
...
.
1"""'\
1"""'\,
I
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.1 Riverside Placer
(M.S. 3905 A.M.l said corner being on the westerly
boundary line of Lot 12 of the Callahan Subdivision;
Thence S. 00014'00" W. 230.00 feet along said
westerly boundary line to the southwesterly corner
of said Lot 12;
Thence N.89046'OO" W. 10.00 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. 32027'17" 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. 89008'24" 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
"
~
~
,-.,..,
E?hibit 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, ~3l-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 rep1at 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 -
..
I
.'
I""
.-,
and further described and, shown on the Annexation Map submitted
herewith.
Date signed:
~/JI/f2
$.h/lr..z
,
7-aJ.r~ ~.t JI'
Fabienne Benedict, petitioner
-:;~~Y-
Frederic A. Benedict, petitioner
Date signed:
STATE OF COLORADO
ss.
COUNTY OF PITKIN
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
signature of the person whose name it
ames T. Moran
600 East Main Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Gubser ibed and sworn to before me this 3..l ~ day of March,
1982.
witness my hand and seal.
My commission expires tGrl::,~~ ^ 6-\1 \ q&..
~YrI!O:t ~ 1-l'H,U,
Notary Public
Address:
Looo E, m~ \Sf-
~ 00[0,
I (5(Cor!
-3-
.
,,/
Recorded at
10:40A~ September
r\(
10, 1981 Loretta Banner Recordef,,-h~'::tU';)
~C
". ',\
,.":,.41J,,,::8ZS
,
,~,
.
DECL~R~TION OF PROTECTIVE COVENANTS
THIS DECL~R~TION OF PROTECTIVE COVENANTS is made this 4th
cey of September, 1981 by FREDRIC A. BENEDICT and FABIENNE
aSNEDICT, 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,
,
end
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
th~re~y 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 00D14'OO. W 230,00 feet along said
westerly boundary line to the southwesterly
corner of said Lot 12; ,
Thence N 89046'00. 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 32.27'27" W
74.05 feet to the point of intersection with
the southerly extension of the westerly
boundary line of Lot 11 said Callahan
Subdivision;
'::XHIBIT Li
.' '..
,
/
J
f
f
,
1""\ C.
0(
SG0t. 4tJ FACE 829
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 89"08'24" E 110.00 feet along said
line 9-1 to the point of beginning containing
24,118 square feet, more or less, (the
restricted ?roperty).
,
/t' .~.:.\ .::'"
i\~
--- ,
2.
This declaration is made for the benefit of
~' '\ -, .
. ,'-
\"/'f,
Lot]" 11 ~
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
"'., ,./:i f}'f:"
or owners of said Lot~ ll'~~~ ~~, 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.
'~~/0 q q~9--"'-P~r--~
Fredric A. Benedict
--1 p: f, 'e~ ~,u.Pd- :t:l
Fabienne Benedict
STATE OF, COLORADO
)
) ss.
)
COUNTY OF PITKIN
, ,:" The foregoing was ackno\vledged before me this .-,..c4day of
September, 1981 by FREDRIC A. BENEDICT and FABIENNE BENEDICT.
Witness my hand and official seal.
:My commission expires on: -..=r-oZ-Z- d";,d
"/ ,
"
'--~ Q
<::... ---_~:...~add~=~:.,
Notar y P{lbl ic
. <':)
''; .,'
-.~...~.
.,,"...... ",
. ~'\\ ' ' .
-2 --