Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.an.Castle Circle ~ .,-" 130 asp SPEN CITY reet 611 D m@mUWl~.n UI31984 :u MEMORANDUM DATE: August 10, 1984 TO: Colette Penne FROM: City Attorne~\ ., RE: J.T.E.M. Venture Lot Split and Exemption from Mandatory PUD (Case No. 022A-84) In reviewing your referral memo of June 26, 1984, in the above matter, the record indicates that the mandatory PUD was placed on the subject parcel at the time of the adoption of Ordinance No. 11 (Series of 1980). As agreed to by the property owner at that time, it appears that the intent behind the PUD designation was to limit development to the density allowed by R-15-A zoning and to prevent any automatic lot split. Therefore, assuming that the plannning concerns addressed in 1980 are the same, it is my opinion that the subject parcel is not qualified for an automatic lot split and that the applicant must meet the burden of proof required by the PUD regulatio~s before the lot split can be granted. DISCUSSION My review in this matter has entailed an analysis of the follow- ing: 1. Record of proceedings concerning Ordinance No. 11 (Series of 1980) (including a memo from Joe Wells of April 22, 1980; memo of Karen Smith to the Aspen City Council dated March 3, 1980; undated request for zoning signed by the apparent property owner, Celia L. Marolt). These proceedings clearly reflect a concern that the density on the parcel be limited to a single family residence or a duplex, one-half of which was for employee housing purposes, and that the parcel not qualify for an automatic lot split. 2. Section 24-8.13 of the Municipal Code which provides that whenever a PUD is added to the classification of any dis- trict, "all development shall proceed according to this Article VIII as a planned unit development unless the planning and zoning ,-\ ~. , Memorandum to Colette Penne August 10, 1984 Page Two commission shall determine that the proposed development meets the objective of planned unit development and therefore compliance wi th this article is not necessary". Since the subj ect parcel is governed by mandatory PUD, the PUD provisions override the ordin- ary subdivision provisions regarding lot split exemption. Section 24-8.13 also provides that "in no event, however, ... shall com- pliance with this article be required for the construction of a single-family residence on a single lot". It is my understanding at this time that there is only one single-family residence on the parcel and that the applicant is proposing the "creation" of another lot for the purpose of additional construction. Further, Section 24-B.13(a) provides that in areas designated mandatory PUD the "allowable number of dwelling units shall be reviewed and may be reduced (but not increased) from that number allowed in the applicable zoning district" on considering the criteria set forth therein. It appears to me from reading the record that in agree- ing to annex the subject parcel into the City and designating the parcel mandatory PUD the planning determination was made in 1980 that the parcel would not tolerate more than a duplex structure, one-half of which was an employee unit as permitted by the R-15-A zone. 3. Section 24-B.4 of the Municipal Code which provides that "the maximum density in any zoning district shall not be allowed as a matter of course, and the actual density for any planned unit development shall be as determined in the PUD plan finally approved in accordance with the purposes and requirements of this article". Again, from reading the record, it appears that the predetermined maximum density for the subject parcel was that allowed by the R-15-A zone district as one parcel and the manda- tory PUD designation was placed upon the parcel out of a planning concern that without it the parcel would qualify for an automatic lot split. 4. The permitted and conditional use table set forth in Section 24-3.2 with regard to R-15-A which provides that permitted uses are the same as R-6 "except that two-family dwellings shall be allowed only if 50% of the units (one unit) are restricted to low, moderate or middle income price range pursuant to adopted price guidelines". 5. Section 24-8.5 of the Municipal Code pertaining to general requirements, which among other things provides for: ,-,. ~ Memorandum to Colette Penne August 10, 1984 Page Three * Subsection "(c)" - the development must be designed to provide variety and diversity so that maximum long-range benefit may be gained and the unique features of the development site preserved and enhanced; and be in harmony with its surrounding neighborhood (emphasis added). * Subsection "(f)" - which provides that when the PUD regulations and subdivision regulations each address an area of review or impose requirements, such regulations are interpretted to be cumulative, if possible, and, if inconsistent, the regula- tion imposing the more stringent requirement shall be construed to supercede any other. * Subsection "(i)" - which provides that the burden shall "rest upon an applicant to show the reasonableness of his applica- tion and plan, its conformity to the design requirements of this article, the lack of adverse effect of the proposed development, and the compliance with the intents and purposes of planned unit development" . CONCLUSION Given the history of the annexation and the above-referenced Muni- cipal Code provisions, it appears that the intent of the planning with regard to this parcel was to limit it to no more than a duplex, 50% of which was deed restricted as employee housing. If these initial planning considerations have changed, the burden is on the applicant to show the reasonableness of his application and plan to subdivide the property into two parcels, with a prospect of development on the newly created lot. The consequence of such a lot split under R-15-A zoning would be potential build-out of a duplex on each lot provided that one-half of each duplex was deed restricted as employee housing. PJT/mc ,~- r ,,-, MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council FROM:: Joe Wells, Planning Office RE: Castle Circle Annexation (Celia Marolt) DATE: April 22, 1980 You will recall at the first reading of the annexation rezoning request on the Cel i.a Marolt property that our Offi ce expressed concern that if R-15A zoning is applied to the parcel, the 36,000 square foot parcel would be eligible for further subdivision,to cregte a second single family home- site. Creation of the second lot would eliminate the possibility of duplex construction on the existing lot whereby the second unit would be permitted as an employee unit. (The two lots would be of insufficient size to permit construction of duplexes of one free market unit and one restricted unit on each lot, so logically two free market single family units would be the end result of such an action.) The annexation in our mind would not bene- fit the City unless the result is one employee unit. You will recall that the attorney for the applicant argued that the same zoning should be applied to his client's land as is being contemplated for the Opal Marolt property adjacent, requesting in effect equal treatment for both parties. We agree with that argument; the zoning description presently considered for the Opal Marolt property, however, is R-15A PUD,\, not simply R-15A. The R-15A PUD zoning has been recommended for the Opal t~arolt property because of the extent of steep slopes on a portion of the site. For the same reason it is appropriate to apply the PUD designation to the Celia Marolt property. The Celia Marolt site is generally fairly level only for that portion of the parcel on which the existing structure and driveway are located. The balance of the site drops off sharply. Based on calculations at 1" = 100' scale, approximately 16,400 square feet of the 36,000 square feet site is between 0% arid 20% grade, 5,800 square feet is between 20% and 30%, and 2,800 square feet is between 30% and 40%. The balance of the site (approximately 11,000 square feet) is in excess of 40% grade. The PUD procedures which would be followed on both the Marolt parcels under the PUD designation would reduce the density potential on the sites. The effect of this reduction has already been taken into account in the Opal Marolt proposal. Because of the steepness of the Celia Marolt parcel, the amount of land eligible for density calculation purposes would be reduced from 36,000 square feet to 20,000 square feet. Only 15,000 square feet would be required to permit the construction of a duplex; 30,000 square feet would be required for the creation of the two singl:e-family lots. In both cases, con- siderable upzoning from present County zoning (two acre.'. minimumlot:size) is contemplated and we would recommend that you adopt R-15A PUD zoning for the parcel. ""'" ^ MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Karen Smith, Planning Office RE: Castle Circle Annexation - Zoning (Celia Marolt) DATE: March 3, 1980 Application has been received for annexation and zoning of a parcel of land of 36,000 square feet, owned by Celia Marolt adjacent to the Opal Marolt property just off Castle Creek Road. The request was for an R-15A zone designation. The property is a triangle of land in the southern end of the Opal Marolt property and immediately across from the City's Water Plant site. The property is currently zoned AF-2 (two acre minimum lot size) as was the Opal Marolt property. Immediately southeast of the property, the zoning changes to the AF-l (ten acre minimum lot size). The request for this zoning designation had been delayed pending the\outcome of the annexation and rezoning request on Opal Marolt. As you know, the zoning recommended for that site was R-15A/P.U.D./S.P.A. As Council has adopted that zoning, the R-15A designation for Celia Marolt now appears to be very consistent with it. In addition, that designation is consistent with the 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan, which shows this property within a band of single family residential, buffered by open space. R-15A zoning on the Celia Marolt site at 36,000 square feet would permit: 2 single family units by lot split (exempt from GMP), or 1 duplex (2 units with a unit deed-restricted to employee price guidelines) On February 26th, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission approved a recommen- dation of R-15A zoning for the site, as it was consistent with surrounding zoning and considering the benefits to be derived of a duplex with one unit deed-restrictlld. (There is currently a single family house on that site.) However, the Planning & Zoning Commission considered that the annexation and rezoning would not be consistent if the results were to be a lot spl it with two single family houses resulting where currently there is only one. Therefore, the Planning & Zoning Commission also conditioned their motion on a recommendation that the annexation be conditioned on a prohibition against a lot split. In previous similar annexations, the City Council has expressed concern over the difference between the floor area ratio requirement in the County and the lack thereof in the City. The Planning Staff believes if a lot split is prohibited and the. only result is a duplex with one unit deed- restricted, then the floor area ratios considerations are a moot point. The Planning Office concurs with the P & Z's recommendation. J': ~j . .. ' " () 1""'\ ~ Recorded 3:09 PM May 2;j 19110 Reception!eZ..1Z25c Loretta Banner Recorder ..389 tt\\t301 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves 'I ,cwifll M e. ,..IiO(el';~L 8.'. a L. co. I .., "~ .\ ORDINANCE NO. /1 (Series' of 1980) AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING A TRACT OF LAND KNOWN AS THE CELIA MAROLT PROPERTY LOCATED IN PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, WHICH ANNEXATION IS ACCOMPLISHED PURSUM~T TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE COLORADO MUNICIPAL ANNEXATION ACT OF 1965 WHEREAS, there has been submitted a Petition for Annexation of a tract of land known as the Celia Marolt Property located in Pitkin County, Colorado, to .the City of Aspen, which petition has been found to be in compliance with Section 31-8-107(1)(c), C.R.S. 1973, a part of the Colorado Annexation Act, and .WHEREAS, the City Council has further considered the proposed annexation as described in the Petition fer Annexation (herein- after "Petition") and accompanying plat, and has determined that: 1. The signatures on the petition represent the owners of one hundred (100) percent of the land proposed for annexation. 2. Not less than one-sixth (1/6) of the perimeter of the area to be annexed is contIguous to the City of Aspen. 3. There exists a community of interest between the tract to be annexed and the City of Aspen; the tract to be annexed is urban or will be urbanized in the near fu- ture; and the tract to be annexed is integrated or capa- ble of being integrated with the City of Aspen. 4. The annexation will not affect the constitution of any existent school district. 5. The petition satisfies the statutory requirements of the Municipal Annexation Act, both as to substance and form; and WHEREAS, the Colorado Annexation Act provides that where a Petition is signed by an owner of one hundred (100) percent of the i I .... .'. -- "*',. e.'. 1I0~ ([L II. 8~o. ....,_...,-,......... ~,:.;"~i;~K~W);#:<E-, >,;;;;~'.';,\"',,' () -~ '"J f""'., i~ _389 . r~f,:. 30'2 ( -~'~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS '. 100 Leaves property prOPOS0":: !..o be ~. tneCity 'Counci.L may, by ordi-' nance, annex without notice or hearing (other than that incident to ordinance adoption) and without election, and the City Council now wishes to so proceed; WHEREAS, the City Council has further considered the zoning as requested in the document attached to the Petition for Annexa- tion and the Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended the amendment of Section 24-2.2. of the Municipal Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORApO: 'Section 1 That the following described tract, !>ituate in Pitkin County, Co~orado, be and hereby is annexed to the City of Aspen, Colorado, pursuant to the prOVisions of the Colorado Municipal Annexation Act: A tract of land located in Section 12 and Section 13 of Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, Pitkin County, Colorado, described as follows: Beginning at a point, A No. 5 re-bar on the easterly side of the County Road right-of-way, whence the common corner of Sections 11, 12, 13, and 14 bear!> South 87006~ West 1016.20 feet; thence North 81056' East 257.42 feet; thence South 06042' East 308.07 feet; thence West 11.84 feet to the Easterly side of the County road right-of~way, thence along the fenceline North 3P21' West 73.89 feet, thence along the fenceline North 44055' West 133.57 feet, thence along the fenceline North 52030' West 184.31 feet to the point of beginning, containing 36,001 square feet more or less. Section 2 A tract of land located in Section 12 and Section 13 of Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, Pitkin County, Colorado, described .as follows: Beginning at a point, A No. 5 re-bar on the easterly side of the County Road right-of-way, whence the common corner of 2 > ' "~"-?~:-~ i::~'~::,~.:W~:i~Vt0~,~!~~~~.~f~t:?~~~~",::5~~~:;~{h( :. :-. ",:~,"i"..",;':,'>, '..T'~',';,.~'l,,:~:~':;~~+&~;;-<,::,;~~~; ::::'~;'__,':; J-~9.~.>,.", -- ,,- , I ! " () r-.. .~ ......::; _389 ,f.\ct 303 . . . '~,' RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves '0111110 c.,. ttOUICEL 8. 8..~. co. j Sections 11, 12, 13, and 14 bears South 87"06' West 1016.20 feet; thence North 81056' East 257.42 feet; thence South 060~2' East 308.07 feet; thence West 11.84 feet to the Easterly side of the County road right-of-way, thence along the fenceline North 31021' West 73.89 feet, thence along the , fenceline North 44055' West 133,57 feet, thence along the fenceline North 52030' West 184,31 feet to the point of beginning, containing 36,001 square feet more or less. Section 3 If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or por- tion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconsti- tutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such,holding shall not' affect the validity of the remaining por- tions thereof. ,~ 1 , 1 '1 , .1 Section 4 A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the /~ day of ~ "i j , 1980, at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado',15 days prior to which hearing notice of the same shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED published as provided by law by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the I~~ay of ~ ~ " 1980. / h Michael'B Mayor Pro Tem ATTEST: rArl-:h..._) ~~ k~~s7K~h City Clerk 3 /~'Sy~,~~::~';;",:;~?~::;:~~"':~~~,i?,;t:?r:?:r'?-:(!:~~'!11:f""l,J':"~'::~~~?r,(f,,,r''': -, ,'.":...,',,... . ',,;.,,~ :c,"+;<~';.'c~;:,~-'y'~~,~.;~;;?--":;"-,.",,,,-c~ :.".:':....:"::,:.-,." ;..:-.:,:,-_..:..:".~',i-;,,;;"-,""~~'.'''''.';',:,'7~~'::':-''_1!;'Y:i~,,:,'.':',j;';:, '--ir.;;i;;~\ " ;';" -~ .; > 't,,,,,,.:} '-.../ 1""'\ ,-., _389 PflcE304 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS .. '~'Ilr.: ,or;, r, H1F~~l B.~.!II l. l(l, n~j n~_ j ~< and approved on the on- FINAL~ passed , 1980. .~~ Herffian Edel Mayor ATTEST: .~.JfJAL Kathryn S'rCh' - City Clerk 4 100 Leaves day of I"'" ,-, MEMORANDUM TO: Karen Smith, Planning Office ~ Daniel A. McArthur, City Engineer ~. Castle Circle Annexation FROM: RE: DATE: March 25, 1980 :,~) < '..... ,.,. After having reviewed the above Castle Circle Annexation map as submitted the Engineering Department recommends approval subject to the owner/applicanu agreeing to the fOllowing: 1) Install an area vicinity map in the upper left hand corner of the annexation plat. 2) The owner/applicant agreeing to provide a right-of-way ease- ment for Castle Creek Road realignment in the northwest sec- tion of the annexation property. '.) <:" ^ .,.-., MEMORANDU~l .;C,"'," if'. TO: . , . As pen -~:tng=a:iia=.zi:iiifiig-C6mmlssi()n e FROM: Karen Smith, Planning Office RE: Castle Circle Annexation - Zoning DATE: November 1, 1979 An application has been received for annexation of a parcel of land slightly less than one acre in size owned by Celia Marolt and adjacent tothe Ooal t1arolt property just off Castle Creek Road, Application is made for the R-15-A zone designation. The property is adjacent to~the recently annexed Water Plant site_proposed fer SPA zoning designation, with a small strip of county-owned land zoned R-15, The prooerty itself is currently zoned AF-2 (2 acre minimum lot size) as is the Opal Marolt pronerty immediately to the north and other properties to the southwest of Castle Creek Road, Immediately south- east of the prooerty, the zoning changes toAF-l (lO.acre minimum lot size), The 1973 Asoen Land Use plan shows this property within a band of "single family resi- dential designation" including both Marolt properties and buffered by open space desig- nation along Castle Creek and at the Thomas prooerty, The single family category is intended to promote permanent residential use at primarily e~isting densities. It is distinguished from residential multi~family, but presumably does not exclude duplex residential development, It should also be noted that the Opal Marolt property has also applied for annexation and requested 'R-6 zoning, Examples of densities that would be allowed on this parcel under different zoning configurations are as follows: (assuming 36,001 square feet of land) R-15-A .'.S-' R-30 -2 single families by lot split (exempt from GMP) -1 duplex (2 units, with a unit deed restricted to employee price guidelines) -1 single family -1 duplex (2 units) It is difficult to evaluate the proper zoning for this site given the fluctuating situation, Based on consistency with the current zoning (on the parcel and surround- ing), the city zoning should be RR (2 acre minimum), This maintains the lot's current substandard size status, but does not prohibit improvement or expansion of the structure. If consistency with proposed zoning is the better measure - and we agree it is - it is nearly impossible to make a recommendation since no specific zone districts other than SPA are likely to accomodate the employee housing proposals to the north at Opal Marolt and to the south at the Water Plant site. Proposed densities in both cases go beyond the single family or duplex development likely to occur here, An ideal density would be a duplex on the site if one unit were deed restricted to employee pricerestric- tions.undercR-15~A. However, it is Questionable whether there is much real gain if 2 duplexes are allowed under R-15-A, . Even though there would be 2 employee units, there would also be 2 free market - one more than existing. Two duplexes also appear inappropriate given the topographic nature and dimensions of the site. Clearly, the prospect of a free market duplex under R~30 is not desirable-eHhllr, Given the foregoing, the Planning Office would recommend R-15-A under the condition that: 1. Development is limited to one duplex. 2. The surrounding zoning is compatible, In order to determine the latter it might be advisabl,e to table the request to the No~ember 20th meeting when both Marolt oarcels could be viewed simultaneously. ^ ~' fl, il'/' . \VV" MEMORANDUM , !~ /:, ..( ,I) TO: Aspen Planning and Zonin!!lCommission FROM: Karen Smith, Planning Office RE: Celia Marolt - Recommendation for Rezoning DATE: February 14, 1980 You may recall that the Celia Marolt request for rezoning was tabled pending the outcome of the annexation and zoning proposal for Opal Marolt. The Planning Office had recommended R-15-A zoning for the property pending the result on Opal Marolt, Since the Opan Marolt parcel has recently been annexed and zoned by the City Council R-15-AjPUDjSPA, we now feel it is appropriate for you to recommend R-15-A zoning on the Celia Marolt parcel. For your information we have included the previous Pl~nning Office memorandum. ,L,..' r ,....." /:; " r> \ \r JY~ ~\') I \ . ,L./' '.:"Y7, "~ ..,- >.: \:, .. MEMORANDA To: BOCC, George Ochs (Q)_ Brian Stafford ~,. From: Date: November 2, 1979 Re: Rezoning and Annexation Requests by Opal and Celia Marolt At George Ochs' request, I have examined a request for a rezon- ing of the Castle Circle Property from AF2 to R-15-A which will be presented to the City Planning and Zoning Commission on Novem- ber 6, 1979. My understanding is that the property owner is also simultaneously annexing her property into the City of Aspen to take advantage of a higher density zonjng classification. The owner, Celia Marolt, owns the property located just above the turnoff to the Aspen Valley Hospital on the left hand side of the road as you are driving up Castle Creek Road. I do not believe that this annexation or zoning request will sig- nificantly change the character of the valley since, under the !few zone c.lassification, the owner could at best. only construct one more unit on the property. The City P&Z will be processing a much more controversial zoning and annexation request for Opal Marolt's large tract. of land ad- jacent to the Celia Marolt property and the City Thomas Property (open space designation), The application for Opal's property will be considered on November. 20, 1979, and it envisions a change from an AF-2 zone classification to R-6. The project would pro~ bably include ,setting up open space in front of Opal's existing house (adjacent to the City open space), moving the Elks Club out there somewhere, and building 120 dwelling units (a mixture of both employee and free market units). A PUD overlay would probably also be necessary. Karen said that it would be advisable for the BOCC to meet with her to go over the project and make comments. Since the County is an adjacent land owner, their input will play an important role in the review process. we should set up a time to go over it with Karen in the near future and if a comment needs to be made to P&Z on Celia Marolt's application, we should get it in by Tuesday, November 6, 1979. cc: Sandra Stuller ~ Karen Smith______ -~ f.,,") I~' .- - --~:.ctl\... l)\ ~,,'C) PUBLIC NOTICE Re: Zoning of Castle Circle Property NOTICE IS HEREBY GI~EN that a public hearing will be held before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on Tuesday, November 6, 1979, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 P,M. in the City Council Chamber.s, 2nd Floor, City Hall, 130 South Galena Street, to consider zoning of. the Castle Circle Property (a tract of land located in Sections 12 and 13 of Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6th P.M., Pitkin County, Colorado also kr:\Own as 0488 Castle Creek Road). The proposed zoning is R-15-A, Further information may be obtained from the Planning Office 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, 925-2020, ext, 225. l~ G~;~7 Is/ Olaf Hedstrom OTafHedstrom, Chairman AspeD Planning and Zoning Com~ission Published in the Aspen Times on October 18, 1979. To be billed under City of ~~pen fund. i 'Y" ~ '() r!)! 0 r~ 00 \.7, ,~, ?lO\ '7\; O'~.P' .~? ~v~ . 7 J( :; V. >> CI\ *oJ':)f~ .ft... } aT \ 'Or( r ?,1F' C~ itf2 ,'; ~ ( ~t .; -.- "-""'--.~., '-_.-~--. "'-"'~-'~' .', . .~ ...-- .oJ'. . ""'" .'-" REQUEST~OR ZONING WHEREAS, Celia L. Marolt and William L. Marolt in the petition to which this request is attached, have requested the City Council of the City of Aspen to annex the land described in the petition for Annexation to the City of Aspen; and WHEREAS, the land which is contiguous to that property described in the Petition is zoned AF-2. NOW, THEREFORE, Celia L. Marolt and William L. Marolt request . that the City Council of the City of Aspen direct the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen, at the earliest possible convenience of the Planning and Zoning Commission, to commence proceedings to rezone the subject property R-30. Celia L.Marolt William u. Marolt 1""\ I'"'. L.AW OFFICES OATES, AUSTIN, MCGRATH & JORDAN 600 eAST HOPKINS AVENUE LEONARD M. OATES RONAI-D O. AUSTJN ..J. NICHOl.AS MeGRATH, .JR. WJI..LJAM R. ..JORDAN m ROBERT W. HUGHES RICHARD A. KNEZEVICH JAMES R. TRUE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 September 20, 1979 AREA CODe: 303 TELEPHONE 925-2600 Ronald W. Stock, Esq. City Attorney 130 S. Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: Annexation of Celia L. Marolt Property on Castle Creek Dear Ron: You will please find enclosed the necessary documents to commence the annexation process for Mrs. Marolt's property. You will please note that I modified the papers slightly, in that the documents as originally prepared by you reflected Mrs. Marolt's late husband to be a co-owner with her. This is not the case. Additionally, Mrs, Marolt feels quite strongly with respect to the zoning classification. As a conse- quence, the annexed Request for Zoning is conditioned upon the granting of R-15-A zoning for the property. I have met with Lou Buettner of the City Engineering Department, who has completed the annexation map and the list of adjoining ownerships, so that the necessary notices may be sent out to adjacent property owners advising of the zoning request. If there is further information which you need, please feel free to contact me. Mrs. Marolt has indicated to me that she would be most anxious, if possible, to have the annexation completed by year I send. Very truly yours, OATES, AUSTIN, McGRATH & JORDAN By ~' Leonard M. Oates LMO:rld Enc. cc: Mrs. Celia L. Marolt .' - 1""\ ~ rJ ~ s.~ /0/11'/77 Ms. Marolt Below is a list of neighbors I believe to be within 300 feet of your property. These names are required for the Zoning phase of your Annexation. The names were obtained from the Pitkin County Assessor's office September 10, 1979. City of Aspen 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, Co, 81611 Pitkin County 506 E, Main St. Aspen, Co. 81611 Aspen Valley Hospital 0200 Castle Creek Rd. Aspen, Co. 81611 Sri H or 506 E. Main St. Aspen, Co. 81611 Wachs, Edward H. Jr. Box 405 Aspen, Co. 81611 Marolt, Opal, Matilda Keithe E" Eckenrade, Peggy Louise Tesitor Judy Marie Box 423 Aspen, Co. 81611 Louis H. Buettner P.o. Box 725 Basalt, Co. 81621 Phone 927-3611 1""'\ .-, REQUEST FOR ZONING WHEREAS, Celia L. Marolt, in the Petition to which this request is attached, has requested the City Council of the City of Aspen to annex the land described in the Petition for Annexa- tion to the City of Aspen; and, WHEREAS, the land which is contiguous to that property described in the Petition is zoned AF-2. NOW, THEREFORE, Celia L. Marolt requests that the City Council of the City of Aspen direct the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen, at the earliest possible con- venience of the Planning and Zoning Commission, to commence pro- ceedings to rezone the subject property R-15-A, the granting of such zoning classification being a condition of annexation. (1.J.,;,. ~ Jna/L'~~ Celia L. Marolt -' '" .""'" ~ PETITION FOR ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF ASPEN The undersigned Petitioner, being the land owner within the exterior boundary of the territory hereinafter described, respectfully requests the City Council of the City of Aspen to approve the annexation of the proposed area to be annexed in accordance with the provisions of C.R.S. 1973, 31-8-101, et seq., and in support thereof alleges as follows: 1. It is necessary and desirable that the territory described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto be annexed to the City of Aspen. 2. The requirements of C,R.S. 1973, 31-8-104 and 31-8-105 exist or have been met. 3. The Petitioner is the owner of the territory sought to be annexed and therefore is the owner of more than 50% of the territory sought to be annexed. LAND DESCRIPTION: The legal description of the land owned by Petitioner for which annexation is sought is attached hereto as Exhibit "A." ATTACHMENTS: Accompanying and incorporated in this Petition by reference are the following: a. Circulator's Affidavit; b. Four prints of an Annexation Map containing the information required by C.R.S. 1973, 31-8-107; and, c. Request for zoning. ~ ~ >noAH e ia L. rolt .. ^ ,-, EXHIBIT A A tract of land located in Section 12 and Section 13 of Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, pitkin County, Colorado, described as follows: Beginning at a point, a *5 re-bar on the Easterly side of the county road right-of-way, whence the common corner of Sections II, 12, 13 and 14 bears South 87006' West 1016.20 feet; thence North 81056' East 257.42 feet, thence South 06042' East 308.07 feet, thence West 11.84 feet, to the Easterly side of the country road right-of-way, thence along the fenceline North 31021' West 73.89 feet, thence along the fenceline North 44055' West 133.57 feet, thence along the fenceline North 52030' West 184.31 feet to the point of beginning containing 36001 sq. ft. more or less. ""'" ^ AFFIDAVIT OF CIRCULATOR STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of pitkin ) The undersigned, being duly sworn, deposes and states as follows: 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. ,~~.at Subscribed and sworn to before me this on 1l!)-MdALJI ''JiM. ()~ dcJ-~4~1 if f 1979, by WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL. My commission expires: 7-/~-,g ,A Q e f:b.-J Notary P~c -.A' ___"