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' ___"