HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.an.Aspen Club.1978A14 • • %Ono.
ASPEN CLUB
CALLAHAN SUBDIVISION t
TI
A
corded 9:46 .A"lay 9 1979 Reception IF
40 Loretta Banner RecordeJJr
�t
A N
21,12-89
ma
ANNEXATION AGREEMENT
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 subdivisi
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.
i
9
THIS ANNEXATION AGREEMENT is dated this_/Jday of
..r
ANDREW V. HE HT, Attorney -
in -Fact for the Petitioner,
ROBERT S. GOLDSAMT
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
. to execute the same on behalf of the City of Aspen.
KATHRYN . K CH
it
- 2 -
M E M O R A N D U M
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-1. 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 rezoning.
The Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of tlier re-
zoning.
rh
1. n�46 Ato a � . c��-- .
wiEllo— Pop /ewp RIM
•
TO: Dave Ellis
M E M O R A N D U M
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, I'll
reschedule this item.
Thanks
JR/ss
0
•
M E M O R A N D U M
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.
•
0
GARFIELD & HECHT
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
VICTORIAN SQUARE BUILDING
601 EAST HYMAN AVENUE
SECOND FLOOR
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
RONALD GARFIELD TELEPHONE
ANDREW V. HECHT (303) 095-1936
ASHLEY ANDERSON
CHRISTOPHER 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 Hearing 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
Ashley Anderson
AA/KJK
Enclosures
1*
0
RESOLUTION NO. Y
(Series of 1978)
WHEREAS, there has been filed on behalf of Robert S.
Goldsamt 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, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 84 WEST
OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, PITKIN 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 38011125"
E 158.05 FEET:
THENCE S 68000'00" E 120.00 FEET;
THENCE S 49000'00" E 350.00 FEET;
THENCE S 41000'00" W 361.82 FEET;
THENCE N 49000'00" W 330.37 FEET;
THENCE N 00049121" E 390.96 FEET;
THENCE S 60024126" E 121.55 FEET;
BEGINNING, CONTAINING 3.784 ACRES MORE OR LESS.
WHEREAS, said Petition and Request has been signed by
Robert S. Goldsamt, dated March, 1978 have been considered
i
by the Aspen City Council and said Petition for Annexation
I
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 0
WHEREAS, it is required by said Act that the Council's
f
determination of compliance of an annexation petition be by
f
resolution and therefore of record,
NOW, THEREFORE, be it Resolved by the City Council of
the City of Aspen,.Colorado: M
1. That the Petition for Annexation dated March, 1978
and signed by Robert S. Goldsamt be, and hereby is, determi ed
to be in compli nce with the requirements of Section 31-8-1)7
r I
(1) C.R.S. 1973, the Colorado :Municipal Annexation Act; and I
2. That it further be determined, and the City Council I
so finds, that not less than one -sixth of the perimiter of the
area proposed to be annexed is contiguous with the City of
Aspen, and that a community of interest exists between the
territory proposed to be annexed ana the City of Aspen; that
i � r
that the territory to be annexed is urban, and that the
territory to be annexed is integrated with the City of
!Aspen; and
3. That the City Attorney present for r. consideration
at the next"'egular meeting an ordinance apr—opriate to
effectuate annexation; and r
4. That the City Planning and Zoning Commission
commence proceedings to zone this tr t RR/P its earliest
convenience.
DATED:
STACY TANDLEY III, MAYOR
I, KATHRYN HAUTER, duly appointed and acting City Clerk,
certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of a
A
resolution adopted by the City Council at its meeting held
1978.
a I
KATHRYN HAFER, CITY CLERK
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 520-3(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
•
•
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 no 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 §§20-2, 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 -
•
0
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 -
•
•
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 -
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 -
•
•
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
4001e• r
AtJ
t
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL
FROM: DAVE ELLIS
CITY ENGINEER��
DATE: October 19, 1978
RE: Aspen Club Annexation
In April of this year when the engineering department made its
initial review of this annexation proposal, our recommendation
was that the parcel proceed through subdivision review concurrently
and that a dedicated right-of-way be provided for the extension
of Ute Avenue. At that time there was a specific development pro-
posal accompanying the annexation which has since been dropped.
As a result, the engineering department is modifying its recom-
mendation slightly. At this time we recommend that the annexation
be approved subject to the applicant entering into an annexation
agreement with the City which would include the following condi-
tions:
1) The annexed parcel would be subject to subdivision and PUD
review prior to any development on the parcel.
2) The applicant would agree to dedicate a right-of-way for the
extension of Ute Avenue sufficient to meet City design stan-
dards at the time of subdivision review and development.
3) Upon approval of the annexation, the applicant would grant
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 engineering department's feeling that such an agreement
would be in the best interest of both the City and the applicant
since more detailed topographic information and engineering studies
will be required before an exact right-of-way alinement and width
can be established. This would only delay the annexation which is
not opposed. By postponing the dedication of the right-of-way until
subdivision review, we would also have knowledge of the specific
development proposal on the parcel.
In response to questions concerning the need for a dedicated right-
of-way in the future, the engineering department feels there is more
than ample justification. At present, Highway.82 is the only means
of access for the entire area south of the Roaring Fork and east
of Ute Park. For a good many years it has been anticipated that Ute
Avenue would be extended and would become a corridor for looping
both circulation and utilities in the future. This has been the
reason for requiring additional right-of-way along the present Ute
Page Two
Aspen Club Annexation
October 19, 1978
Avenue alinement. In the past five years we have experienced an
ever increasing traffic problem along the existing segment of
Ute Avenue as one development after another has been completed,
ranging from the Centennial Condominiums and the Gant to the Hoag
Subdivision and the Benedict Office Building complex. With the
uncertainty of exactly where the Little Annie ski area development
will occur, it only seems 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 the right-
of-way that a dedicated right-of-way 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 interferes 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 unplatted parcel should 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
RONALD GARFIELD
ANDREW V. HECHT
ASHLEY ANDERSON
CHRISTOPHER N. SOMMER
Members of the
City of Aspen
Aspen, Colorado
HAND DELIVERED
GARFIELD & HECHT
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
VICTORIAN SQUARE BUILDING
601 E. HYMAN AVENUE, SUITE$ 801 & POE
ASPEN. COLORADO 81611
TELEPHONE
Ap r i l 5, 1978 43031 985-1936
City Council
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 900 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
•
•
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:
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
By
Ashley Aniaerson, Attorney for the
Applicant, ROBERT S. GOLDSAMT
AA/KJK
•
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.
CITY OF ASPEN
130 south galena street
aspen, colorado 81611
MEMORANDUM
TO: Dave Ellis; Bill Kane, Dorothy Nuttall
FROM: Kathryn Hauter
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 man.
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.
, XtI. /Y - X///� - �
obert S. Goldsamt, Petitioner
EXHIBIT A
A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN THE NW 1/4 SE 1/4
OF SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 84 WEST
OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, PITKIN COUNTY,
COLORADO. SAID PARCEL IS MORE FULLY DESCRIBED
AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A POINT
RIVERSIDE PLACER, MS
E 158.05 FEET:
THENCE S 68000'00" E
THENCE S 49000'00" E
THENCE S 41000'00" W
THENCE N 49000'00" W
THENCE N 00049'21" E
THENCE S 60024'26" E
BEGINNING,
WHENCE CORNER NO. 9 OF THE
3905 AM. BEARS N 38-11125"
120.00 FEET;
350.00 FEET;
361.82 FEET;
330.37 FEET;
390.96 FEET;
121.55 FEET TO THE POINT OF
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.
Robert S. Goldsamt
Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of
March, 1978 by Robert S. Goldsamt.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
C�
My commission expires:
(SEAL]
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.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert S. Goldsamt
I ?/
%ORNEIZ t-t0. of
(ZIVVK5i0E ftACEBK (M.h 3905 AM.� 05,00
507.87
'560, 4 4 -
5 69' 05' 24 " E 54 5. 4 4
L-
GOo �� Q
O, (`41 I �N�N SIIRnIVISlnN
� N
N�
� N
0
2ro.00
N 84—ram , i
ASPEN CLUB ANNEXATION MAP
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN THE NW 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF
SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 84 WEST OF THE 6TH
PM., PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, BEING MORE FULLY DESCRIBED
AS FOLLOWS
BEGINNING AT A POINT WHENCE CORNER NO. 9 OF THE
RIVERSIDE PLACER, M.S. 3905 AM, BEARS N 38011t 25" E
158.05 FEET ; THENCE S 68° 00' 00" E 120.00 FEET; THENCE
S49000'00"E 350.00 FEET; THENCE S410OOPOO"W 361.82
FEET; THENCE N 49° OO'OO"W 330.37 FEET; THENCE
N 000 49' 21" E 390.96 FEET; THENCE S 600 24' 26" E 121.55
FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 3.784 ACRES,
MORE OR LESS.
0 25 60 IAO DSO wo 25G