Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.an.Aspen Club.1978 >> ecorded 9:46 M~y} 1979 Receptton # 'l. .. .-... Loretta Banner Recorder -11- A,J :~r ..-," 214289 ANNEXATION AGREEMENT _300 ~~~230 WHEREAS, Robert Goldsamt filed a Petition for Annexation of the property described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein, and, WHEREAS, on March 24, 1978 the City Council of the City of Aspen approved that petition by Resolution dated April 11. 1978 and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Aspen desires by Ordinance to officially annex the property described in Exhibit "A" provided that the Petitioner meets certain conditions, and, WHEREAS, the Petitioner does agree to meet the conditions set forth below, IT IS HEREBY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: 1. Before any development occurs on the property described in Exhibit "A", the owner of that property must proceed through subdivision and/or PUD review. 2. As a condition of any subdivision and/or PUD approval for any development on the subject property, the owner of that property shall agree to dedicate a right of way to the extent he is legally able to do so for the extension of Ute Avenue sufficient to meet the City design standards at the time of the subdivision and/or PUD review; provided that, the exact location and size of that right of way shall be negotiated with the City Engineer at the time of the subdivision and/or PUD application. 3. The Petitioner, upon approval of the annexation, shall grant revised easements for utilities, service and emergency exists to the existing Aspen Club Recreation facility in such form as is acceptable by the City Engineer. - . -l; ,-, ,~ THIS ANNEXATION AGREEMENT is dated thiS~ day of ~...J ,1978. /"---/4/;~~ (~~fr AV' / ANDREW V. HECHT." Attorney- in-Fact for the Petitioner, ROBERT S. GOLDSAMT Ei-, I, KATHRYN S. KOCH, do certify that the foregoing ANNEXATION AGREEMENT was considered and approved by the Aspen City Council at its regular meeting held October 23, 1978 at which time the Mayor, STACY STANDLEY, III, was authorized ,. ,i' ,to execute the same on behalf of the City of Aspen. ,,".~ " ,. .,. '. '-., -.'.'.,:., \ \i!' jf II III ' ,,'. ,;,:~~" \\\\ ,!,,!!, 4 '{f", . ,\' 'J \:If A"".. ..." 4 <0- ~u~"'''' .~. \.,_.. .,'r~..,., ~ '"/ .~{ ~.....' ""~'"~~ ~ /~ .. \ '1 z; ;~.; l\"! ~ Ei - .~. '''''&,J:.iJ; .... -;;;..':, . """ . " ::: :: "" :~i: ";:... .... " -;... ..~;;: ::. /<)'.. ..~ ,.:::; '.: -,;,..'". ';r~.rt"",';;j ..,'0.... i. -'/ ~ <'I. p. it \\\\ /'I}; . ,\\\; " J, ill,!!,,,i.\\. ..,.,.".;..;:,."" ~~..I~ KATHRYN ~. KOCH ,."...,.., .. -2- r'\. .~. M E M 0 RAN DUM TO: City Council FROM: Planning Office, Jim Reents RE: Aspen Club Rezoning DATE: October 4, 1978 The following is a petition for zoning of a parcel of land within the Callahan Subdivision which was annexed into the City of Aspen by resolution of the City Council dated April 11, 1978. Included within this resolution, (see attached Resolution #8) part 4 charges the Planning and Zoning Commission to commence proceedings to zone this tract RR!PUD. The Planning Office feels that the recommended zoning is compatible with the surrounding zoning and development. Within the City, however, it is an in- crease in density from the zone within the County. The existing zoning within the county is AF-l. This is a 10 acre minimum lot size and permits a single family dwelling with the possibility of a duplex by special review. Membership clubs are not permitted within this zone. The Rural Residential District within the city allows a single family dwelling on a minimum lot size of 2 acres. Recreational clubs are permitted only with special use approval. The area of the Aspen Club previously annex- ed by the city is currently zoned Rural Residential. This particular parcel would be surrounded on 3 sides by the county and some what isolated by the Ute Avenue R.O.W. The Engineering Department has no problem with zoning but would like to work out a public road right-of-way and have an indication of the proposed use before the City Council annexes the property by ordinance. If a public right-of-way is granted on Ute Avenue, this parcel becomes isolated and separately developable. A condition of approval should be that no separate development should be allowed on the site without the process of subdivision. With the. above stated conditions, the Planning Office recommends approval of the rezoni ng. * The Aspen PI anni ng and Zoni ng Commi ss i on recommended approval of tM-e.r: re- zoning. rh I 1. ru.~-kJ ~ /Io\W ?-~. a~ . a. t\O ~(?f~ w4-(-A~ rI)P/~f)WJ. ntl/lW ~~~ ~~ 1Hi4~ ~ ~.1tW,fWW ~~ ~~_~,e9I~~ 4, ~.(o lti,Vttw ~ ~ ~~ 1"""\ r->, MEMORANDUM TO: Dave Ellis FROM: Jim Reents DATE: October 13, 1978 RE: Aspen Club Annexation and Rezoning Concil on the 9th tabled the Aspen Club Annexation due to the unanswered question of why the City needs a dedicated ROW on Ute Avenue. If you can give me a memo on your reasoning, Illl reschedule this item. Thanks JR/ss r ~ M E M 0 RAN DUM TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Planning Office, Jim Reents RE: Aspen Club Rezoning DATE: September 1, 1978 The following is a petition for zoning of a parcel of land within the Callahan Subdivision which was annexed into the City of Aspen by resolution of the City Council dated April 11, 1978, Included within this resolution, (see attached Resolution #8) part 4 charges the Planning and Zoning Commission to commence proceedings to zone this tract RR/PUD. The Planning Office feels that the recommended zoning is compatible with the surrounding zoning and development. The Engineering Department has no problem with the zoning but would like to work out a public road easement and have an indication of the proposed use before the City Council annexes the property by ordinance. The Planning Office recommendation is for approval of the rezoning application as submitted for RR/PUD. I"""'. ;-. GARFIELD & HECHT ATTORNEYS AT LAW VICTORIAN SQUARE BUILDING 601 EAST HYMAN AVENUE SECOND FLOOR ASPEN, COLORADO 81811 ~ONALD GARJrIELD ANDREW V. HECHT TELEPHONE (80S) 925-1986 ASHLEY ANDERSON CHRISTOPHEIl. N. SOMMER Karen Smith, Planning Office c/o The City of Aspen 130 South Galena St. Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Karen: I am writing this letter to detail the status of the proposed Aspen Club Annexation. On April 11, 1978, I appeared before City Council and presented a Petition for Annexation of the territory as well as a request for zoning (I have attached copies of these documents as well as the supporting Affidavits of the Circulator to this letter). After considering the documents, the Council moved to approve a Resolution stating that the Petition was in substantial compliance with the appropriate statutes and referred the matter to the Planning and Zoning commission for the purpose of commencing proceedings to zone the tract of land. (I have also attached a copy of that Resolution) . Pursuant to that Resolution, the matter was set for Public HeC'.ring on the Zoning Question before P & Z on May 2, 1978. Prior to this meeting, we discovered that to use the property proposed to be annexed for our expansion was not feasible. and therefore, we did not go ahead with the Public Hearing. Although at this time, we have no specific plans for the property, we would now like to proceed with the Annexation and to that end would like to set the matter for Public Hearing at the Planning and Zoning Commission's ~. September 5, 1978 Meeting. On the telephone, you indicated that you desired to talk to the City Attorney to determine whether or not there was a subdivision question involved. I have talked to Ron briefly and his first impression was that there was no ~ ~ Karen Smith, Planning Office August ,1978 Page Two subdivision involved. Of course, you may want to discuss this with him yourself. I have also attached to this letter, a Memo which we have prepared with respect to the issue of whether or not Annexation constitutes a Subdivision. As I mentioned, we would like to set the matter for Public Hearing on September 5, 1978, and of course that will require that Notice be published in Thursday's paper. I will be contacting you on Monday, August 14, 1978, in order to determine whether or not the Notice can be published. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely yours, GARFIELD & HECHT ~ tf- _~ Ashley Anderson AA/KJK Enclosures _,tit " ~~ ~.. Ii " " Ii [I I' II I' I' ,I " 'i I ~\ ,.-... RESOLUTION NO, ~ (Series of 1978) .' WHEREAS. there has been filed on behalf of Robert S. Go1dsamt a Petition for Annexation and a Request for Zoning of the following described tract: A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN THE NW 1/4 SE 1/4 OF SECTION 18, TO\~SHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 84 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, PIT~IN COUNTY, COLORADO. SAID PARCEL IS MORE FULLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT WHENCE CORNER NO. 9 OF THE RIVERSIDE PLACER, MS 3905 AM. BEARS N 38011'25" E 158.05 FEET: THENCE S 68000'00" E 120.00 THENCE S 49000'00" E 350.00 THENCE S 4POO' 00" W 361. 82 THENCE N 49000'00" W 330.37 THENCE N 00049'21" E 390.96 THENCE S 60024' 26" E 121. 55 BEGINNING, CONTAINING 3.784 FEET; FEET; FEET; FEET; FEET; FEET; ACRES MORE OR LESS. WHEREAS, said Petition and Request has been signed by Robert S. Goldsamt, dated March~, 1978 have been considered by the Aspen City Council and said petition for Annexation was found to be in substantial compliance with the requirements of Section 31-8-107(1) C.R,S. 1973, the Colorado Municipal Annexation Act, and . I WHEREAS, it is required by said Act that the Council's I t ~ oeteminat'on of 'omp1i~'e of ~ annexation petit'on he hY, I I resolution and therefore of record, NOW, THEREFORE, be it Resolved by the City Council of the City of Aspen, ,Colorado: .. 1. That the Petition for Annexation dated March d..-,,<;1978 -.t and signed by Robert S, Goldsamt be, and hereby is, determi 'oed to be in compli~nce with the requirements of Section 31-8-1)7 . :/ (1) C.R.S. 1973, the Colorado Municipal Annexation Act; and 2. That it further be determined, a~d the City Council so finds, that not less than one-sixth of .the perimi ter' of the area proposed to be annexed is contiguous with the City of Aspen, and that a community of interest exists between the I I I [I ,I u ., territory proposed to De annexed and the City of Aspen; that " , I , , I i I j I i I I I! l i I I i , I I \ \ .; -, II II I I I that 1*"\ f' ! ,~ the territory to be annexed is urban, and that the territory to be,annex!,d is integrated ~itP the City of Aspen; and ,'" . at the next '".'egular meet~ng an ordinance 3. That the Cit~ Attorney present I fOb consideration .. app','opriate to V effectuate annexation; and "" 4. That the City Planning and Zoning Commission commence proceedings to its 'earliest convenience. DATED: ~kJ, /~,/q7r1 ~) I, KATHRYN HAUTER, duly appointed and acting City Clerk, certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of a '\:') resolution adopted by the City Council ~t its meeting held ~h .-!..J ID I " II iJ , 1978. '., ( '"'I ~uT CITY CLERK I I I , " ~: / r'" ,-, ..., STATEMENT OF POSITION REGARDING SUBDIVISION OF PROPOSED ASPEN CLUB ANNEXATION The subdivision procedures set forth in the Aspen Muni- cipal Code (the "Code"), Chapter 20, need only be followed if land subject to the jurisdiction of the City is to be "subdivided". The Aspen Code defines a "subdivision or subdivided land" as follows: A tract of land which is divided into two (2) or more lots, tracts, parcels, sites, separate in- terests (including lease hold interests), in- terests in common, or other division for the pur- pose, whether immediate or future, of transfer of ownership, or for building or other development, or for street use by reference to such subdivision or recorded plat thereof; Code ~20-3(s) (1). This definition,as with all zoning and land use regulation, must be strictly construed and cannot be expanded by implication. Jones v. Board of Adjustment, 204 P.2d 560, 119 Colo.420 (1949); Rathkopf, The Law of Zoning & Planning, ~9.01 et seq. (4th Ed. 1975). Unless a proposed development falls squarely within the express language of Chapter 20 of the Code, the subdivision process need not be pursued. Considered in this light, the subdivision requirements have no applicability to the present case. Here, the City of Aspen will annex a parcel of land to be purchased and used by the Aspen Club. That parcel, once annexed and thereby, subjected to the I"" ~ jurisdiction of the City of Aspen, will not be divided, or devel- oped in such a way as to bring the subdivision process into play. A single undivided parcel will be brought into the City, and will remain in that condition. Since the land to be included in and regulated by the City of Aspen will not itself be subdivided, there is hO basis for requiring the developers of that land to pursue the subdivision process. The mere fact that new territory is being annexed into the City of Aspen does not require subdivision. Subdivision involves the regulation of property actually within Aspen. See Code SS20-2, 20-5. Annexation is the process by which new lands are added to Aspen. These processes are entirely separate and distinct from each other. The question of subdivision regulation by Aspen only comes into play once land has been annexed. There is no indication, either in the municipal code or in governing Colorado statutes that single undivided parcels of land, annexed to a City, must undergo the subdivision process. Rather the as- sumption must be that land annexed must be evaluated for sub- division purposes on the same basis as any other tract of land in Aspen. As the land to be annexed in the present case is a single undivided parcel and will remain that way, the conclusion must again be reached that subdivision is not necessary. The fact that the annexation process will itself "divide" a parcel of land is of no significance. The Aspen subdivision - 2 - I""""- , ,~ regulations only applies to land within the City of Aspen and have no extraterritorial affect. For example, in Municipal Code ~20-2, it is stated as follows: The purpose of this regulation is to assist the orderly, efficient and integrated development of , the City of Aspen; (emphasis added) Similarly, a basic operative provision concerning subdivision states as follows: General prohibition. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation, to violate any of the provisions of this chapter or to transfer, sell, lease, or agree to sell or lease, in a lot, tract, parcel, site, separate interest (including lease hold interest), interest in common, condominium interest, or other division within a subdivision as defined in Section 20-3(s), in ,the City of Aspen until such subdivision has been approved in writing by the city council and a plat thereof recorded in the office of the pitkin County Recorder. (emphasis added) State statutes describing the relationship between the annexation and subdivision procedures underscore this conclusion. In C.R.S. 1973 31-12-115 it is stated: Any annexing municipality may institute the procedure outlined in its subdivision regulations to subdivide land in an area proposed to be annexed at any time after a resolution of intent has been passed . . . (emphasis added) This authority demonstrates conclusively that the Aspen subdivision regulations apply only to land actually within the City's jurisdiction. This is true whether the land has been in Aspen ab initio or brought - 3 - r"', ,.-., into Aspen by annexation. In each case, the question is not "how did the land become part of Aspen?", but, "what is going to be done to the land now that it is part of the City?". The con- ditions or status of land outside Aspen has no bearing on the answer to this question. since the land actually in Aspen is not to be subdivided, subdivision procedures need not be required with respect to that parcel. Moreover, the division of land by governmental process, such as annexation, is not a genuine "subdivision". The obvious purpose of the subdivision regulations is to control the develop- ment of land by' private landowners. Accordingly, "the division of land by order of any court of this state or by operation of law" has been exempted from the subdivision requirements. Code ~20-3 (s) (3). Annexation would appear to be division "by operation of law", and thus exempted from the subdivision process. Thus, the City is without jurisdiction to consider the proposed transactions in light of the land outside the City, and even were this not the case, the fact that division of land is being carried out by public government process, rather than by private landowners, takes the present transaction out of the scope of the Aspen subdivision regulations. Since the division of land involved in the present case will be effected by the City of Aspen through the annexation process, the subdivision requirements cannot be said to apply. Finally, it should be noted that the conclusion reached above in no respect undercuts the policy objectives underlying - 4 - , I""" ~ Aspen's land-use regulations. While the land in question will not be included in any subdivision plat, there is no requirement in the Code that all parcels of land within the City of Aspen be included and platted as part of a subdivision. Nor can the procedure being followed in the present case be viewed as a means of avoiding code requirements or as a subterfuge. The annexation process requires approval by the City. Thus from the beginning, the City is in a controlling position with respect to the parcel to the annexed. Next, as set forth in C.R.S. 1973 31-12-115 and the City zoning ordinances, the land can be zoned to control any use thereon. Additionally, the parcel can be subjected to mandatory planned unit development process. And finally, if the parcel is in any way divided or developed in such a way in the future that the subdivision definition comes into play, the subdivision process can then be followed. Thus at every step in the proposed procedure the City has full control over the development of the land and the uses to be made thereof. CONCLUSION The City only has power to regulate the land actually annexed into the City and brought within the City's jurisdiction. That land is a single, unified parcel and is not to be divided or developed in any way that would bring that parcel within the sub- division regulations. The City has full control over the develop- ment of this parcel through the annexation process, through the - 5 - , t"" .'-' zoning process, and through the future applicability of the planned unit development and subdivision processes. In such circumstances, no purpose will be served by subjecting the development of this land to the subdivision process. GARFIELD & HECHT - 6 - ,"'c.,';" .~ ('. ,-., tJ --::--1- ..; .,i f\r..J , . . M EM 0 RAN DU M TO: FROM: DATE: RE: MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL DAVE ELLIS ~ CITY ENGINEER'Vv- October 19, 1978 Aspen Club Annexation . In April of t.his year when the engineering department made its initial revi.ew of tl;11s annexationllropo.$al, our recommendation was that the parcel proceed through subdivision review concurrently and that a dedicated right-of..,way be provided for the exten$ion of Ute Avenue. At that time there was a specific development pro- posal accompanying the anneXation whichha$7iince been dropped; As a . result., the engineering department is modifying its recom- mendation. slightly. At this time we . recommend that the annexation be approved$ubject to the applicant entering i.nto an annexation agreement with the City which would include the followingcondi- tions: The annexed parcet would be SUbject to subdivision and POO review prior to any development on the parcel. The applicant would agree to dedicate a right-of-way .for the ext.ension of Ute Avenue sufficient to meet City design $tan- dards at the t.ime of subdivision review and development. Upona~proval of the annexation ,theapplicant . wouldgr,ant revised easements for utilities and service and emergency access to the existing Aspen Club recreational facility to replace those which are deficient at present. It is the engineeriilgdepartment 's .feeling that $uch an . agreement would be in the l:>estinterestof both. the City and the applicant since more detailed. topographic information and.engineering stlldies will l:>e required l:>efore an exact right...of-wayalinementand width can be established. 'l'hi$ wOllld only delay the annexation which is not opposed. By postponing the dedication of the. right-oi-way until subdivision review, we. would;l.lso have knowledge of the specific development propo$al on theparce1. 1) 2) 3) f f In response to que$tionsconcerning the need for a dedicated right- of,..way in the future, the engineering;department feel$there>i$ more than I:iJnple justification. At present, .HighwaY,82 i$the only means of acce$sfor .the entireare;l.south<oftheRQaring Fork. and ea$t of Ute Park. Fora good manyyear.$it.h1\.sbei:lll. anticip1\.tedth1\.tUte Avenue would be extended and would becomi:l a.corridor for looping both circulation and utilities in the future. This has been the . reason for requiring additional right-:of>-waYll,lqngthi:lpresent Utie ..j ~ ('> ^ - , Page Two Aspen Glub Annexation October 19,1978 . " . Avenuealinement. In the past five years we have experienced.an ever increasing traffic problem along thee:1l;isting segment of Ute Avenue as one development after ano.ther has. been completed, ranging from the Cen.tennial Condominiums. and the Gant to the HOll.g Subdivision ll.nd the Benedict Office Building complex. With the uncertainty of exactly where the Little Annie ski area development. will occur, it only s.eems prudent for future needs .that the exten- sion of Ute Avenue be included in our planning. As for the need of a dedicated right-of,;.way versus an easement, the easement status does not provide the control for utilization of theright:- of-way that a dedica.ted ;ight-of_wll.Y does. With an easement the grantor always retains some right to utilize the property so long as it does not interfere with the grantee's rights; hence, there is always a question as to what interfe.res with the City's plans, which may or may not be fully developed. In concluding,there'are a few specific corrections which should be made to the annexation map as submitted. First, the road right.- of-way description and references should be deleted . Second. .the ownership of. the unplll.tted pll.rce.lshould be shown on the map as' required by state statute. And finally, the bearings on the City limits should be revised to coincide with the written description On the map. jk cc: Ron Stock Jim Reents Ashley Anderson . ' I t i ! [ f t r i i I t i I . t , , , .j ;1 i ! i ! .! ,;',j . d ., j.,,' '1' ! t. J; i~ ''! j: H -' 1: /,. -, !""""\. ,'-'. 4. IU (." ) ATTORNEYS AT LAW GARFIELD & .HECHT VICTORIAN SQUARE I1UILDJNG 601 E. HYMAN A VENUE, SUITES 201 &-. 202 ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 RONALD GARFIELD ANDREW v. HECHT April 5, 1978 TELEPHONE (3031 925-1936 ASHLEY ANDERSON CHRISTOPHER N. SOMMER Members of the City Council City of Aspen Aspen, Colorado HAND DELIVERED Dear Council Members: This is a Petition by ROBERT S. GOLDSAMT for the annexation into the City of Aspen of approximately 3.7 acres of land located directly south of the Callahan Subdivision. I am writing this Memorandum to briefly explain the purpose for annexing this property. As you are probably aware, the Aspen Club has received an overwhelming response from the local population. At the present time, at least 90% of the Club members are locals and there are approximately 200 locals on the waiting list. The local members and those on the waiting list come from all walks of life, including a large number of local employees of such organizations as the City, the County, Aspen Valley Hospital, and several other local businesses. The reason for this local response is clear, it is the low rate structure of the Club. It was always envisioned that the Club would have local members, but it was originally envisioned that they would be greatly outnumbered by non-resident members who would be paying high fees. with the present rate structure as stated above, the opposite has occurred and the locals presently greatly outnumber the non-residents. In order to accommodate the local pressure for memberships and in order to assist in keeping the rate structure at an affordable limit for all locals, Mr. Goldsamt is proposing the following limited alterations to the Club's facilities: First, the Benedict residence, presently approved for a Club dining facility will revert back to a single family resident. This facility is presently approved for an expansion of approximately 4,400 square feet, which when added to the present 5,000 square feet would have made a dining facility / I~ ,-. Members of City Council City of Aspen Aspen, Colorado April 5, 1978 Page Two of approximately 9,400 square feet. If this reverts back to single family status, this expansion will be abandoned. Secondly, on the property to be annexed, we will construct eight outdoor tennis courts. Thirdly, the recreation building will be expanded by a total of approximately 13,400 square feet. The exterior change in the building as a result of this expansion is demonstrated on the plat showing the change in the footprint. The interior changes are demonstrated by a comparison of the sketch plans of the proposed expansion with the sketch plans of the building as it presently exists, both of which are contained in the packet. There are several basic purposes for the expansion of the recreation building: (i) The addition to the building on the west will allow us to construct eight racketball courts and a small laundry which is needed to perform Club' related laundry functions. (ii)The enclosure of the deck on the east will allow us to move the snack bar, and as indicated on the plans, the women's locker room. The present snack bar area will revert to a viewing lounge and the present women's locker room will be changed to nursery and other uses. The main purpose of this move is to expand the women's locker room facility, which is presently overloaded. (iii)The men's locker room on the lower floor will also, as the plans indicate, be greatly expanded. This is again very important as the present facilities are overloaded. (iv) Finally, a small addition will be placed above the enclosed deck and this will be used for office space for the Club's administration. As mentioned, the Annexation Petition before you is part of the planned alteration detailed above. Therefore, with respect to your actions on that Petition on April 10, 1978, the Applicant requests that the Council do the following: .' 1"""\ .~ Members of the City Council City of Aspen Aspen, Colorado April 5, 1978 Page Three 1) The initiation of Ordinance Procedures to accomplish annexation. 2) Request that the Planning and Zoning Commission initiate Ordinance Procedures to zone the annexed property. At the same time that these above procedures are being initiated, it is the intention of the Applicant to apply to the P & Z for an Amendment to the PUD to accomplish the above changes. Thank you very much for your consideration of this matter. Very truly yours, GARFIELD & HECHT BYAshle~~r the Applicant, ROBERT S. GOLDSAMT AA/KJK '. \0". ~ ^ ATTACHMENTS 1. Petition for Annexation and accompanying documents. 2. Annexation map. 3. Sketch plans of proposed expansion. 4. Sketch plans of building as it presently exists. 5. Plat showing proposed change in footprint. .~ '.~ 130 so aspen, SPEN s t re e t 81611 MEMORANDUM TO: Dave Ellis; Bill Kane, Dorothy Nuttall Kathryn Hauter FROM: DATE: April 3, 1978 RE: Petition for Annexation/Aspen Club Ashley Anderson, attorney for the applicant, has requested this matter be given consideration at the April 10 Council meeting. Anderson said he will have additional information for the Council packet on what the Aspen Club plans to do and drawings for Council. Attached are Petitions for Annexation and a map. ksh ^ ~ , PETITION FOR ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF ASPEN The undersigned Petitioner, being the sole 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 sole owner of the territory sought to be annexed and therefore is the owner of more than 50% of the territory sought to be annexed. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The legal description of the land owned by Petitioner for which annexation is sought is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". ATTACHMENTS: Accompanying this Petition 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. ~~~~', Petitioner r-" ~. EXHrB:IT A A RARCEL or LAND srTUATED :IN THE NW 1/4 SE 1/4 or sECTroN 18, TOWNSH:IR 10 SOUTH, RANGE 84 WEST or THE srXTH ~R:INC:I~AL MERrD:IAN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. SAID ~ARCELrs MORE FULLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS; BEGINNING AT A POINT WHENCE CORNER NO. 9 OF THE Rl'VERSIDE RLACER, MS 3905 AM. BEARS N 38011'25" E 158.05 FEET; THENCE S 68000'00" E 120.00 FEET; THENCE S 49000'00" E 350.00 FEET; THENCE S 4POO'00" W 361.82 FEET; THENCE N 49000'00" W 330.37 FEET; THENCE N 00049'21" E 390.96 FEET; THENCE S 60024'26" E 121.55 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 3.784 ACRES 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. / //~/c-' I"'!,J j(I~/ Goldsamt Subscribed and sworn to before ;, me this Aaay of March, 1978 by Robert S. Goldsamt. , ...".~ -, , -- WITNESS my hand and official seal. My commission expires' (tLc.V 7 /171 ../ , / ,./ ~;.- --- ''') "1f~tLd:.t::'-.lffkL / I j / / . ,. '-..,/ / 1'_:1R~~Lj>, -[" , / ~. .^'. REQUEST FOR ZONING WHEREAS, Robert S. Goldsamt 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 Exhibit A attached to that Petition; and WHEREAS, the land which is contiguous to that property described in Exhibit A is zoned RR. NOW, THEREFORE, Robert S. Goldsamt 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 convenience of the Planning and Zoning Commission, to commence proceedings to rezone the sUbject property RR. ""2?7~;;ed' Robert S. Goldsamt .-. '~~C{,: ::.,,:,q<~;:;;'~:,';'..2,!';-:;;z%ii<.,;~ ,:},,~:f';~ . :';,~~.