HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.an.Zoline Property.1971-AN1AN
t
Zoline Annexation, Lots 16,17&21
marts of Lots 7,8,9,14,15,22,23
l0,
South Range 85 W. 6th p.m.
Zoline Annexation, Lots 16,17,&21l
Parts of Lots 7,8,9,14,15,22,23
10,
Sputh Range 85 W. 6th p.m.
PETITION FOR ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY
TO THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO
We, the undersigned, being landowners within the exterior
boundaries of the territory hereinafter described, do hereby respectfully
petition the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, to annex said
territory to the City in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 139,
Colorado Revised Statutes, 1963, as amended, and allege as follows:
1. That it is desirable and necessary the such territory
be annexed to the Municipality.
2. That the requirements of Sections 139-21-3, CRS.163,
as amended, and 139-21-4, CRS. 163, as amended, exist or are met.
3. That the signers of the Petition comprise the landowners
of more than SOJ of the territory included in the area proposed to be
annexed, exclusive of streets and alleys.
4. That the legal description of the area to be annexed
is as follows:
See Attached
It is a condition of this petition for annexation that concurrently
with the effectiveness of said annexation the following shall have taken place:
1. All of the property which is the subject of this petition
for annexation shall have been zoned R- 30 under Title XI,
Chapter 1 of the ordinances of the City of Aspen; and
2. A Final Development Plan for a Planned Unit Development
for all of said property shall have been approved by
the Planning Commission and City Council of the City of
Aspen pursuant to Title XI, Chapter 1, Section 11 of the
ordinances of the City of Aspen.
Petitioner further agrees that:
Pursuant to an instrument which shall be in form and
substance approved by petitioner and the City of Aspen
on or before the effectiveness of said annexation petitioner
shall grant to the City of Aspen: (1) an irrevocable option
to lease that portion of said property which will not be
developed under the Final Development Plan but which
shall be permanently dedicated as open space under said Plan,
herein referred to as the "Open Space". Said option
shall provide, among other things, that the City of
Aspen shall have the right to lease said Open Space
for a term of 20 years or for such shorter period as
shall remain from the date the option is exercised to
the 20th anniversary of the date of the option, for a
rental of $1 per year, for use as a golf course; and
(2) an irrevocable option to purchase said Open Space
for use as a golf course. Said option shall be exercisable
at any time for a period of 20 years from its date. The
option price shall be such as shall be agreed upon by petitioner
and the City of Aspen and shall be expressed in said instrument.
Said instrument shall contain such other terms, provisions
and conditions as petitioner and the City of Aspen shall
agree upon.
Dated this 25th day of October, 1971 as of the 17th day of August, 1971.
rJ
ZOLINFLFOUIHATION
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
A parcel of land in Sections 2 and 11 Township 10 South, Range 85
West of the 6th principal meridan, Pitkin County, Colo. comprising
parts of the E2 SW4, being Lots 16,17 and 21 also parts of Lots
7,8,9,14,15,22 and 23 all in said Section 2, and part of Lot 4 of
said Section 11. The above parcel being more fully described as
follows:
Beginning at a point on the westerly line of the Original Aspen Town_
site said point being S07° 53'16" W 989.2 feet from the Aspen Townsite
Corner No. 6. Said point also known as North Annex--�.tion Point No. 1;
Thence along the present City Limits N75° 09'11" W 627.1 feet and along
the northerly R.O.W. line of Colorado Highway 82 to North Annexation
corner No. 3; Thence 510.46 feet along said northerly R.O.W. line
around the arc of a curve to the left with a radius of 1005.0 feet and
whose chord bears S88° 55' 03" W 504.99 feet; Thence S 74' 22' W 272.30
feet along said northerly R.O.W. line; Thencell04.60 feet along said
northerly R.O.W. line around the arc of a curve to the right with a
radius of 1096.0 feet and whose chord bears N76° 45'38" W 1058.44 feet;
Thence N 48' 12'42" W 132.06 feet along said northerly R.O.W. line to
a Colorado State Highway Monument found in place, said Monument bears
S 89051'20" W 202.44 feet from the 4 corner of Sections 11 and 12,
T 10S, R85W; Thence N47° 51' W 1702.30 feet along said northerly
R.O.W.-line; Thence 661.39 feet along said northerly R.O.W. line
around the are of a curve to the left with a radius of 2915.00 feet
and whose chord bears N 54' 21' W 659.97 feet; Thence N60° 51' W
924.25 feet along said northerly R.O.W. line to intersect with a fence
running northerly; Thence N 24' 13' E 50.43 feet along said fence;
Thence N 05' 42'07" E 164.07 feet along said fence; Thence N 00' 09'
E 84:56 feet along said fence; Thence N 00° 26' W 377.68 feet along said
fence; Thence N 00' 02' E 364.36 feet along said fence to a fence
corner; Thence N88° 50' E 92.34 feet along a fence; Thence N89° 49' E
132.93 feet along said fence to a point; Thence N 26' 14' E 117.76
feet; Thence N 10' 33' E 77.29 feet; Thence N 13' 15' E 112.67 feet;
Thence N 05' 2A 267.36 feet; Thence East 330.00 feet more or less
to a point being 25.00 feet west of the west bank of Maroon Creek;
Thence northwesterly along a line which is 25.00 feet west of the
west bank of Maroon Creek to the intersection of said line with the
south line of Lot 4 in said Section 2; Thence S87° 25' 51" W 740.00
feet along the south line of Lots 4 and 5 in said Section 2 to a point,
said point being the northeast corner of Lot 6 of said Section 2;
Thence S 01°06'24" E 2434.55 feet to a fence corner; Thence S 00' 23'
W 3_575.96 feet along said fence to a point on the northerly R.O.W. line
of Colorado State Highway No. 82; Thence S 35' 24' 22" W 100.00 feet
to a point on the southerly R.O.W. line of said State Highway No. 82;
Thence 631.11 feet along said southerly R.O.W. line around the arc
of a curve to the left with a radius of 5780.00 feet and whose chord bears
S 570 43' 19" E 630.80 feet; Thence S 60' 51' E 1831.70 feet along
said southerly R.O.W. line to the beginning of a curve"to the right;
Thence 638.70 feet along said curve with a radius of 2815.00 feet and
whose chord bears S 54' 21' E 638.15 feet; thence S 47' 51' E 1702.30
feet along said southerly R.O.W. line; thence S 48' 12' 42" E 132.06
feet along said southerly R.O.W. line to the beginning of a curve to
the left; thence 1205.38 feet along said southerly R.O.W. line around
said curve to the left with a radius of 1196.0 feet and whose chord
bears S 76' 45'38" E 1155.10 feet; thence N 74' 22' E 272.30 feet
along said southerly R.O.W. line; thence 459.67 feet along said
southerly R.O.W. line around the arc of a curve to the right with a
radius of 905.00 feet and whose chord bears N 88' 55' 03" E 454.74
feet; thence S 75' 09' 11" E 639.31 feet more or less along said
southerly R.O.W. to a point on the westerly line of the Original Town -
site, said westerly line being between corners No. 6 and No. 7 of said
Townsite; thence N 070 53' 16" E 100.74 feet along said westerly line
to the point of beginning.
Contains 197.14 acres more or less
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF UND OWNED:
Otage[Colorsdo,te-wits S1SW14, being Lots 16, 17 and 21, and also Lots 7, 8, 9, 14,
1S, 22 and 23, all in Caetion 2, and the NE;hVi, being Lot 4 of Section 11, all
in township 10 South, Ranee BS West of the 6th Principal Reridian, to -ether with
all ditch and water richts used in connection with the above described premises
and particularly but without limitation upon the foregoing, all rirht, title and
interest of the grantors, the same being approximately an undivided one-fourth
interest in And to the Willow Creek Ditch numbered 93 and the priorities adjudi-
cated thereto, the same Wine priorities numbered 129, 174 end 209, in the decrees
of the District Court of Garfield County, Colorado, in and for Water District
Nurber 34; Provided always that there is hereby excepted from this conveyance the
follovinr described tracts of property:
Tract No. 1, That part of Section 2, Township 10 So., Range BSW, of the 6th P.I.
described as follows: Beginning at a point on the South line of Lot 23 which is
also the North line of Lot 2b of said Section 2, said point being 4SO feet Fast of
the North West corner of said Lot 2u and 140 feet West of the West bank of Maroon
Creek; thence North 140 List 195 feet; thence !forth 70 East 184 feet; thence
Yorth 90 West lq4 feet; .thence East 1S feet to a point of true beginning of a
strip of •round 30 feet wide hereinafter more specifically described; thence East
19S feet to a point being 2S feet West of the West bank of Maroon Creek; thence
Northwesterly alonr a line which is 25 feet West of the West bank of Maroon Creck
to the intersection of said line with the South line of Let 4 in said Section 2;
thence LJst alon? the South lire of Lots 4, 3 and 2 in Section 2 to the North
West Corner of Lot 10 in said Section 2; thence Sauth along the West line of
Lots 10 and 13 in said Section 2 to the intersection of said West line with the
North line of Lot Z4 in said Section 2; thence West along the North line of said
Lot 24 to the North West corner of said Lot 24; thence South on the West line of
said Lot 24 to the South Fast corner of Lot Z3 of said Section 2; thence Vest
Along said South line of Lot 23 to point of beginnin4, containing 76 acres wore
or less.
Also the following described strip of ground being 30 feet wide and ivin4
11 feet on either aide of a line described as follows: 8ep�inning at said true
Vint of beginnine hereinabove mentioned, thence North So 181 Last 233.7 feet;
therct Norti: uo 24, West 250.4 feet; thence North 70290 best 1S1.tJeet; thence
North 10141 Vast 233.4 feet; thence North 79055' West 30,9 feet; thence South
2a11 o$t f,"t 3,1 feet; thence South 790 OSt West 109.0 feet more or less to the
astatine tasuity road containing 0.72 acres more or less it brine that
said strip s::all constitute a roadway for inaross and merest to saiQ•Jornty non.;.
^WqJL A tract of land in Lot 23 of Section 2, To. 10 S., R. 85 West of the 6th P.M.
d^scribed as beginning at a point on the South line of said Lot 23 whence the
South Quarter Corner of said Section 2 (according to the brass cap set by G. L.O.
in 1954) Sears S. 22*00120" W. 324.016 feet; thence N, 26*14' E. 124.97 feet;
thence N. 10.33' E. 77.29 feet; thence N. 13.15' E. 112.G7 feet; thence N.5.21'
iE. 267. 36 feet; thence due East 413.46 feet to the center of Maroon Creek;
thence S. 20*46' W. 52.94 feet along the center of Maroon Creek; thence S. 13*48'
W. 299.05 feel along the center of Maroon Creek; thence S. 11*58' W. 229.01
feet along the center of Maroon Creek to a point on Said South line of Lot 23;
thence due West 396.00 feet to the point of beginning, containing 4.918 arres,
Tract i'o, J. ♦ tract of lead eitusted in Lot 4, ?action 11, TV.10, a., R. 8S W.
of—t s�zth Principal Koridian end scare fully dascril-4 as follosnt beginning
at the Southwest comas of esid Lot 4 the Nort_'-aat comer of said
section 11 boars N. SO 61 V., 1534.84 feat; t`: -o N. V ^11 V., 922.67 fast
to the Scath line of State Kiir.Z-=y Iwo=mar 021 tw-czs S. 560 It E., 221.87 feat
along the South line c^ State llir =—y V=bar $2; thenee S. 590 Sat Z., 346.4 feet
aloes the mouth line c 'Zito •IS chv4y No. 62; thence So. WO 31 S, 846.3 feet
along the South line c eta Ifi{,'� �y 1.•=1_�r St; th3=4 S. 190 91 W. 202,8' foot
to the South lira of c.^.1 L`3 ♦i tl:=* H. CIO 359 V, 1103.43 feat alc,-4 the
South line of said Lot 4 to the point of betinaing, ea*ntafa;r4 1S.S acres core or
less.
r.
K
OPY
ate of Signature
Q—``'�
It is a condition of this petition for annexation
that concurrently with the effectiveness of said annexation
the following shall have taken place:
1. All of the property which is the subject of this
petition for annexation shall have been zoned R-30
under Title XI, Chapter 1 of the ordinances of the
City of Aspen; and
2. A Final Development Plan for a Planned Unit Develop-
ment for that portion of said property which lies
South of the existing County Road which bisects
said property (herein referred to as the "South
Premises') shall have been approved by the Planning
Commission and City Council of the City of Aspen
pursuant to Title XI; Chapter 1, Section 11 of the
ordinances of the City of Aspen, which Section 11
is presently in the course of being enacted.
Petitioner further agrees that:
A. That portion of said property which lies North
of said existing County Road (herein referred to
as the "North Premises') will not be developed
with permanent structures unless and until a
Final Development Plan for a Planned Unit Develop-
ment upon said North Premises under said Title XI,
Chapter 1, Section 11 of the ordinances of the City
of Aspen shall have been approved by the Planning
Commission and City Council of the City of Aspen,
which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld;
provided that, without such Planned Unit Development
a single family dwelling may be built upon said
North Premises for Earl Cowling, to whom petitioner
has heretofore conveyed a building site within said
North Premises and for petitioner and each of his
three children, aggregating five single family
dwelling houses in all.
B. Pursuant to an instrument which shall be in form
and substance approved by petitioner and the City
of Aspen on or before the effectiveness of said
annexation petitioner shall grant to the City of
Aspen an irrevocable option to lease that portion of
the South Premises which will not be developed under
the Final Development Plan but which shall be
permanently dedicated as oFen space under said Plan,
herein referred to as the 'Open Space". Said option
shall provide, among other things, that the City of
Aspen shall have the right to lease said Open Space
for a term of 20 years or for such shorter period as
shall remain from the date the option is exercised to
the 20th anniversary of the date of the option, for a
rental of $1 per year, for use as a golf course. Said
option agreement and the lease contemplated by it
shall contain such other terms, provisions and
conditions as petitioner and the City of Aspen shall
agree upon.
3
C. Pursuant to another instrument which shall
be in form and substance approved by petitioner
and the City of Aspen on or before the effective-
ness of said annexation petitioner shall grant to
the City of Aspen an irrevocable option to purchase
said Open Space for use as a golf course. Said
option shall be exercisable at any time for a
period of 20 years from its date. The option price
shall be such as shall be agreed upon by petitioner
and the City of Aspen and shall be expressed in said
option agreement. Said option agreement shall con-
tain such other terms, provisions and conditions as
petitioner and the City of Aspen shall agree upon.
Dated this 17th day of August, 1971.
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Herb Bartel, Regional Planner
SUBJECT: Zoline Property - Background Information.
DATE: March 30, 1971
Application was made to the Pitkin County Board of Commiss-
ioners in August, 1970 to rezone subject property from AF-1
to AR-2. The property consists of 80 acres south of the old
County Road eastward from Highway 82 to Maroon Creek. The
request for rezoning was based on 1) economic infeasibility
of agricultural activities at this location, and 2) the fact
that the property is surrounded by AR-2 type uses. The re-
quest was made subject to approval of a PUT) plan for the site.
(See file for Zoline letter 8/12/70.)
In November, 1970 Mr. Zoline submitted to the Planning Office
a topo map showing the location of proposed buildings on the
site.
In December Mr. Zoline changed his request for rezoning from
intended AR-2 to PR (Planned/Residential). PR designates
D.U./Net Acres of 2.90 + 33% bonus.
On January 18, 1971 a joint public hearing was held before
the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Board of County
Commissioners to consider a change of zoning from AF-1 to
PR re. the subject property. At that meeting the Planning
Office presented continents on the proposal., among other con-
siderations cited were 1) the 1966 General Plan recommendations
(R-30/PU which designates D.U./Net Acre of 1.45); 2) the City
of Aspen's interest in open space considerations in the area;
3) public costs resulting from development at that location.
(See file for complete report.)
A.major,concern of the Planning and Zoning Commission at its
February 3, 1971 meeting was the intended use of the adjoin-
ing land in Mr. Zoline's ownership.
U
- 2 -
At that February 3-rd meeting the Planning and Zoning
Commission recommended that the application for rezon-
ing be denied for the following reasons:
1. The proposed density is not in keeping with
the Aspen Area Master Plan.
2. Existing higher densities are non- conforming
uses under the present zoning resolution.
3. Proposed development would increase highway
traffic volume unnecessarily.
(See file for resolution 2/3/71.)
Before action was taken by the Board of County Commissioners
Mr. Zoline requested the Commissioners table his application
for rezoning.
Subsequently, annexation of the property to the City of
Aspen has been discussed.
On 3/19/71 Mr. Zoline wrote to the Chairman of the Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission outlining his plans for
developing the area. These plans include the owners inten-
tion to maintain 65 acres as open space and his suggestion
that this portion could be leased by the City to enlarge
the golf course with an\ option to purchase. (See file for
Mr. Zoline's letter 3/19/71.)
'q
�a
(C)iF A'SIP"EN
CF_j'"_""j'L7
aspen,co -_-I- &coo, 8js;j' hwx v
April 6, 1971
Mr. Joseph T. Zoline
624 North Canon Drive
Beverly Hills, California 90210
Dear Joe;
The City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission met with the
County Planning and Zoning Commission last week in a study
session. One of the items on the agenda was your application
to them for re -zoning of a portion of your property on the
west edge of Aspen. They explained to us the various con-
siderations which lead them to deny your request.
Relative to the possibility that you might wish to annex, the
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission expressed interest in
having some indication from you of what you plan for the north
half of your ranch. We also felt that any special consider-
ations given to you to cluster develop in exchange for open space
should result in a-ded�cation of that space to open or public
use rather than an offer of its sale.
The Commission feels that since your land lies within the natural
service area of the City, it is entirely appropriate to view
an application for its annexation favorably. We could, if you
desire, consider your petition for annexation at our April 13th
meeting. I have enclosed a petition for your convenience to
which you can attach preliminary requests for special consid-
eration by us. However, any request for zoning which is at
variance with the 1966 Aspen Area General Plan would require
public hearing on the part of the Commission and the Council
prior to its adoption.
- Page 2 -
If you petition for annexation, our recommendations will go up
to Council and they could have first and second reading on
April 24th and May 10th and your annexation could be final by
May 18th. If you wish to apply for re -zoning, we would publish
the required announcements as soon as possible to coincide with
our nearest regular meeting and thus avoid delay.
I will be out of town next Tuesday, so would suggest you
contact the City Clerk, Box V, Aspen, Colorado, 81611 if you
wish to appear on the agenda. We will hold a spot open for you.
Sincerely,
Mr. Robin Molny
Chairman
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
RM:leg
cc: Mayor Eve Homeyer
City Manager Leon Wurl
Regional Planner Herb Bartel
Vice Chairman James Adams
ly ♦ i C-11 i 1")-tail � 041. 10
.0
- -4
"Ty U" 1Q1
A,"r. Herb ilartel
. 1 .1
Cits'-County Planner
.7
en City A8pp 14 "all
A I sron, Colorn'0 S1611
Dear !"erb.
Albie Kern, Esq.
In acc3rdancc with our mectin .. 131i'J"t uieclk' I Uwe prepared- and encl-xse
C3
here,. v 10-i a outline ar a projp'*;P-d a4'recmeat between the
City and -ae coverin annexation, t!:iC' propo-nd le'ase Of tile
Thl-s 1,3 of course
C'3
opco si'lace for a urse an'-"' 1-clated,
ju2t cn :x-thee and '11Jit3onal tho--u-1.,'htz.; :,tay 1-o Ind, del pr1ov to execi;tion.
I pre�,:u-)w- t1hat thit',), can be d.mc by) "Vay if --a wltl'. the City
Pia we an'd that this hcea c)r vid by Alble
-1I I I
11ern, for vvhl-)�-71 n cop)i ')T h-mor na;l Vic are cnd;.);vd.
71)) !�ave yx., the trouble of t') all v,'I'I;-) were
pre,ient nt our � la-st -w-cek' I will stall cople,,. --)� dli7 lcttcr and
the t,) vic-i-i and to
Ttzerc iins been so i-wch d'eby, let's really try tj S-ncNe this
Lot, to dj c-,-)n>Ar,J.-zivo for the City and so we can n-i-ilke
'7
plams for the beat we of the prc)l.�erty. I will try to C-o7.-x t-') Asr.cn in
earl), Juno f,)r a signin6-7- If by rhea is po�;slblc.
r";) 11
'1;;1t,h kindezt rebaris,
'Ancerely your6;'
jo.s,cph T. Zolinc
MEN101 IDUM OUTLINE OF PROPOSr iGREEMENT
BETWEEN JOSEPH T. ZOLINE (JTZ) AND CM OF ASPEN (CITE')
1. JTZ will petition for annexation to the City of the entire Far Slash X Ranch
consisting of approximately 187 acres. That portion of the ranch which
lies South of the existing County Road comprises approximately 80 acres and
is hereinafter referred to as the South Portion". That portion of the ranch
which lies North of the existing County Road comprises approximately 107
acres and Is hereinafter referred to as the "North Portion".
2. Concurrently with the annexation and as a condition: to its effectiveness, the
South Portion shall be zoned under such a classification or classifications that
310 dwelling units may be constructed thereon. These dwelling units shall be
in a mixture of multiple family and single family dwelling units so as to constitute
a "NefUhborhood" as that word is presently used by the City Planning and Zoning
Commission and at the same time so as to occupy as small a part of the entire
area of the South Portion as practicable. A preliminary layout indicating the
location and types of ftelling units shall be attached to the a.greernent as an
exhibit. The remandng area. of the South Portion shall be permanently dedicated
as -Open Green Space which shall mean that no dwellings or other buildings small
be constructed thereon.
3. The agreement shall contain a statement of JTZ's intention with respect to the
North Portion, that is to say, that he has no present intention of claveloping the
same. Accordingly, the agreement shall also provide that concurrently with
the annexation the North Portion shall be zoned "P" or Park. The a. reenient
shall also reflect, however, that this zoning cla.�sificatloa for the ;North Portion
is considered to be a holding classification and that when, as and if JTZ, or his
heirs, successors or assi"ns shall deternnine to d veloP the north Fortson he
or they shall apply to the City for a change in the zoning classification and shall
be entitled to have the north Portion then classified in accordance Nvini circumstances
then prevailing, without regard to the previous "P" zoning classification of the
property.
4. Concurrently with said. annexation JTZ shall also enter into a lease with the City
covering t In Olsen Green Space. The lease shall contain the followinu provisions:
a. Rental - $1.00 per year
b. Term - 20 years
c. Purpose - To construct a golf course containing nine additional holes
to link up with the presently existing nine hole municipal golf course,
and for no other purpose whatsoever. .
Recognizing that the City may not wish to proceed with construction
of the golf course immediately, the agreement shall provide that the
City shall have three years from the date of the lease within which to
commence construction and rive years from such date to complete the
same. If not commenced and completed within such times, then JTZ
shall have the right to cancel the lease. Such cancellation, however,
shall not affect the property's character as Open Green Space.
d. An appropriate portion of the ditch or irrigation water rights applicable
to the entire ranch shall be allocated for use by the City for the purpose
of watering the leased property. The City shall water and maintain the
leased property in a sightly and safe condition pending the construction
and completion of the golf course.
ID
e. The City shall assume and agree to pay all tares applicable to the leased
property.
f. The City shall indemnify and hold JTZ harmless from any liability for
personal injury or property damage arising out of the City's use of the
leased property and the City shall at its expense take out and maintain
a policy or policies of insurance with an insurance company or insurance
companies, authorized to do business in Colorado and approved by JTZ,
insuring both the City and JTZ against any such liability. Said policy or
policies shall provide for minimum coverage of not less than $100, 000
for injury to any one person and $300, 000 in any one accident or occurrence.
g. The City shall not have the right to build any permanent structure, such
as a club house or similar building, on the leased property without JTZ's
prior written consent. Any and all improvements which may be placed
upon the Leased property by the City shall at ti:e termination of ;he lease
belong to JTZ. Before proceeding with any improvements the City shall
make Appropriate arrangements satisfactory to JTZ to avoid the imposition
of any mechanic's or materiahnen's liens upon the leased property.
h. In operating the golf course on the leased premises the City shall observe
reasonable opening and closing hours (to be agreed upon) and shall other-
wise protect the residents of the South Portion from encroachments upon
their property or other interference with their enjoyment of their chlelling
places and adjacent ground. No driving range or similar practice range
shall be perriitted on the leased premises.
i. Without JTZ's prior written consent the City shall not permit the leased
property to be used for c raping, public meetings involving more than
fifteen porsons, concerts, games, or any other activities contemplating
the gatering of more than fifteen persons.
The City shall grant JTZ four annual passes to the golf course for use by
himself, his farnily and guests which passes shall include green's fees
and the use of golf carts if available.
j. Prior to commencement of construction of the golf course JTZ shall
have the right to make reasonable chanties in the location and type
of proposed diielling units and in the boundaries of the leased
property provided that such changes (a) will not increase the total
number of dwelling units above 310 and (b) will not unduly interfere
with Elie usability of the leased property for a golf course as intended.
After commencement of the golf course such changes may be made
only with the prior written consent of the City.
k. JTZ's home located on the north Portion receives its domestic grater
from a spring or springs located on the South Portion. The City shall
not interfere with said spring or springs or the pipes, storage tanks
and pump system used in connection therewith and JTZ shall have the
right to enter upon Vile lensed property for the purpose of repair,
maintenance, cleaning and replacement of said spring or springs
and equipment used in connection therewith.
Comments on Zoline Annexation.
In considering this annexation., the Council should examine carefully
all the advantages and disadvantages.
Some of the advantages mentioned:
The open space provided will complement the existing golf course
open. space. True, but the clut.er development is a great advantage
developer, too. It cuts road, water line and. sever costs a
great dleal. Any good developer will use this method.
The City will gain control.if the land is annexed before it is.
developed. What little control the City may gain will be -nullified by
approving the development plan simultaneously with annexation.. Also
a much higher density will. be permitted than is now possible under the
existing County zoning.
The City will benefit by serving the area with electricity. This is
only true when it is accomplished. Land annexed four years ago is still
not being served by the City, so there is no profit on electricity vet.
Some of the disadvantages:
The City is spending over 3 million dollars to preserve open space
and prevent high density urban development on the golf course. To
encourage urban development beyond this green belt is questionable.
Maroon Creek appears to be a good geographical_ boundary for. the City.
One more suggested advantage:
This will be a step towards annexing as far as the Airport Business
Center, to get the sales tax revenue From the businesses there. There
are no studies to show the cost to the City in annexing so far, nor the
amount of revenue to be derived. This is not a valid argumhet for
annexation.
Further disadvantages;
Immediately upon annexation, the ,;•,iater tap fees and the water user
fees will be cut in half for the annexed land. This is a considerable
loss to the City. We have just had to raise water rates, in part due
to the decline in revenue from land annexed'in the last few years.
The City recently annexed one or two lots, the argument in favor being
that the owner wanted to take advantage of the cut in rates before
bui_l.ding. The Cit;- can suffer serious loss of revenue from this policy.
The revenue from the annexed territory will be a small- part of the
cost of providing City services. Figures provided by City Hall show
the average cost per acre to provide basic cervices to be 11,879.
This amounts to ?150,320 for 80 acres, the proposed annexation. The
average revenue from the main source of revenue from residential land,
from the 1972 budget, is ")54 per acre, or $4,320 per. year -for 80 acres.
This is a tremendous loss to the City.
In my opinion, we. should look at this armexatiOn and ask, " Can
we afford it", just as we scrutinized each item in the 1972 budget.
The -Council Is fi-r.st responsibility is to the tax payers and residents
of the present City limits. Vle should not accept such a burden no'.!,
when we cut most of our n.ecd.ed capital improvements .f_or. 1972.
2.
If outside land owners .,rant to enjoy the benefits of coming in
to the City, they should be willing to pay their own way, otherwise
the burden falls on the present residents and tax payers.
One important unanswered question is this;
--
At what point in annexation will further capital outlay be
required, another snow plow or street sweeper, another truck or
police car, as well as manpower to operate them? ";Th.o will pay
for this need, all of us? I think it should be those who require
the additional expense.
The City should be extremelIT careful before it gives a -•fay so
much in return for so little.
This is the first time, in annexing land., that a zoning change
is requested. ,,1ith only one or two very minor -exceptions. the
zoning has always been the same as that eyisting in the County.
This would open the door for a way of playing the City against the
County to see where the best deal coula be obtained. The County
has so far refused to grant a zoning change. Should the City let
the bars down?
Francis `Ihitaker
Aspen, Colorado
October 19, 1971
The Honorable Eve Homeyer
Mayor
City of Aspen
Aspen, Colorado
Dear Mayor Homeyer:
As I have stated many times, I have no plans what-
ever for the development of that part of my ranch which
lies north of the existing county road. When I first
presented the proposal for annexation to the City it was
my intention to limit it to that portion of the ranch
which lies south of the county road (referred to in the
petition for annexation as the "South Premises"). During
the informal discussions with the Planning & Zoning
Commission, it was suggested that I include the north
portion of the ranch in the petition and I did so solely
for that reason.
At the Council hearing last night a question was
raised as to the legality of including the north portion
in the annexation. I was unaware of any such question,
and I have not had the benefit of a legal opinion. Never-
theless, in order to remove any possible question of the
legality of the annexation and in accordance with my ori-
ginal intention, I hereby amend the petition for annexation
by eliminating therefrom all of the property lying north
of the existing county road, thereby limiting the annexation
to the South Premises.
Very truly yours,
Josep T. Zo ne
walls Sz; sterling architects aspen, Colorado
membersaia./p.o.box 2H/zip cocle Slgll/prione 303-J254321B
PROPOSED DEUELOPfiENT
T. ZOLINE
The proposed property, which is to be included within the
Planned Unit Development, consists of 76.53 acres and is
bounded on the south by Colorado State Highway 82, on the
east by Open Space land owned by the City of Aspen and
Maroon Creek, and on the north by a county road. This
property, together with the property immediately north and
across -the county road (consisting of approximately 104.11
acres), is owned by Mr. Joseph T. Zoline. The 76.53 acres and
the 104.11 acres are presently zoned AF-1. We are proposing
that the 76.53 acres, under Planned Unit Development, be
changed in zoning classification to R-PC-30. Under this
classification the maximum density allowed would be 1.45
dwelling units per net acres, with the provision as set
forth in the zoning ordinance of a two family dwelling to
be construed as a single family dwelling unit, thus allowing
2.90 single family dwellings per acre.
The first phase of the proposed development is expected to
start construction in the spring of 1972 with the completion
of the remaining phases five years hence. It is anticipated
PACE 2
that the first phase of construction will be approximately
24 single family dwellings located in (Unit # Q .
The development consists of two (2) separate parcels, or
clusters, of 90 lots each, thus giving a total of 180 lots.
1. Each lot shall be 50 feet square and will contain
one single family dwelling.
2. Each single family dwelling shall contain approximately
1600 square feet of building area, plus a private
court of approximately 900 square feet.
3. All roads shall have a 60 foot right-of-way with
a roadway width of 42 feet and will meet city
specifications.
4. Each unit provides 1.5 parking spaces.
Unit #1, south-east corner of property, contains 15.25 total
acres. This can be broken down into the following:
1. 90 lots occupy .......................... 5.45 acres
2. ,Roads occupy ............................ 1.33 acres
3. Commons area and parking (open area
within the cluster) occupies............ 8.47 acres
TOTAL 15.16 acres
Unit A north-west corner of property, contains 14.23 total
acres. This can als❑ be broken down into the following:
1. 90 lots occupy .......................... 5.50 acres
2. Roads occupy ............................ 2.28 acres
3. Commons area and parking (open area
within the cluster) occupies............ 6.50 acres
TOTAL 16.26 acres
With the above mentioned figures in mind, we now find the
PAGE 3
following totals regarding covered area in relationship to open
area:
1. Total Project area ..................... 79.52 acres
2. Total area occupied by lots, roads,
and commons area ....................... 29.48 acres
3. Leaving a total open space area of..... 47.05 acres
With the application ❑f the R-PC-30 classification as is
indicated in our present zoning ordinance, it would allow 1.45
single family dwelling units per net acre. In the definition
of this type of district, for density calculations, a single
family dwelling or a 2 family dwelling could be construed
as a single family dwelling unit, therefore allowing a
maximum of 2.9 single family dwellings per net acre. The
density as shown in the development for 180-single family
dwellings is 2.36 per net acre which is below the above
stated maximum.
The developer, Mr. Joseph T. Zoline, intends to tap on the
existing 8' city of Aspen water main which is located on the
south side of Colorado State Highway 82. The water system
within the development will be designed to handle the
requirements of the development and will also meet the
City of Aspen specifications for such a system. The
developer also intends to tap on the existing 10" Metro
Sanitation trunk line that crosses the 76.53 acre development
site. This sanitation system will als❑ be designed to
handle the total development as well as meeting Aspen
Metro Sanitation District's specifications. It is
PAGE 4
anticipated at this time that a tap will be made for Unit #1
and Unit #2. The initial water tap will be designed to service
the complete development, but only that portion of the system
necessary to service Phase One, Unit 1/1 will be installed in
the spring of 1972. The initial sewer tap for Phase One, Unit
#1, together with the necessary lines to service all of Unit
#1, will be installed in the spring of 1972.
It is the intention of the developer to work with the Colorado
State Highway Department t❑ perfect the acceleration and dec-
celeration lane on Highway 82 which is shown on the overall
plan. The developer intends to install all the necessary
roads within the development to meet city subdivision regu-
lations and specifications. In the initial stage ❑f road
development only that portion of the road to service Phase
One, Unit #1 will constructed in the spring of 1972.
Box 1574, Aspen, Colorado 810,11
JOSEPH T. ZOLINE �.XRXR5r .i?"k:':�
d�
August 16, 1971.
Mr. Leon Wur1
City Manager
City of Aspen
P. 0. Box V
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Mr. Wur1:
I purchased the Bar Slash X Ranch in 1955 from Mr. and
Mrs. Tony G. Skiff. They had originally purchased the place
in 1936.
Mr. Skiff was reared in the Aspen area (I believe where
Henry Stein's ranch is now located) and Mrs. Skiff is also
a native of the area.
The Skiffs farmed the place continuously from the time
they purchased it until they moved away in the Spring of 1956.
From the time of their purchase until they moved away,
- the Skiffs treated the old barbed wire fence along: the bluff
overlooking Maroon Creek, which extends from the bridge to a
corner about 960 feet north, as their boundary line and used
the property accordingly.
For example, they grazed their cattle in the area bounded
by the fence and there are still old cattle trails located
immediately west of the fence. They also utilized a trail
under the Maroon Creek bridge to move their cattle to the
south side of Highway 32 in order to place them on Buttermilk
Mountain where they had grazing rights on the National Forest.
This trail under the bridge is also still visible.
About 1950 the Skiffs leased the southeast corner of
their property, inside the aforesaid fence line and just
north of Highway 32, for a propane gas plant, and this use con-
tinued for 5 years. When the lease expired, in 1956 or 1957,
I did not renew it and the plant was moved. But the concrete
bases and driveway for the plant still remain. I suppose
r
Sox 1574, '-pen, Colorado 3_1 61.l.
JOSEPH T. ZOLINE
Mr. Leon hurl
City Manager
August 16, 1971
Page 2
there could be no clearer assertion and exercise of owner-
ship rights over a piece of property than renting it to
another.
The Skiffs informed me that their predecessor in title,
Mr. Dwyer, also treated the fence line as the boundary line
and told them that it was in fact the boundary.
Since my purchase I have also treated the fence as the
boundary line, excluded others from entering inside it,
grazed our cattle up to it, and maintained the fence.
Incidentally, the fence is very old, and except where at
certain spots new wire and poles have been interjected, the
fence appears to be more than 75 years old.
With the uncertainty in that part of. the County over the.
location of old lot lines, I'm not sure where tine dividing
lot line would be if it could ever actually be established.
In any event, as I understand the law, the action of the
owners on both sides in maintaining possession and use of
the property for so many years is controlling.
Accordingly,I sugggest that the best and most expeditious
way to resolve this is by an agreement between the City of
Aspen and myself to.legally establish the fence line as the
boundary between our respective properties. This would be
implemented by an exchange of deeds between us, I ui.tclais--
ing to the City any property east of the fence line and the
City ;utclaiming to me any property west of the `ence line.
To this end I have had the Fence l:.ne surveyed and enclos
a proposed agreement and forms of deeds to carry out this
proposal. I would greatly appreciate it if this could be
expedited to avoid any dewy in our current planninS o' the
area.
Very truly yours,
Jose h T. Z nine
JTZ:ee
Enclosures
cc: Albert Kern, City Attorney
This Agreement made this day of August, 1971
by and between the City of Aspen, Colorado (herein called
the "City" and Joseph T. Zoline (herein called "Zoline")
Witnesseth :
Whereas the City recently acquired and presently
owns Lot 27 in Section 2 and Lot 3 in Section 11, T10S2
Range 85 W 6th P.M., and Zoline has for many years owned
and presently owns Lot 21 in Section 2 and Lot 4 in Section
112 TIO'S, Range 85 W 6th P.M. (except that portion of said
Lot 4 lying South of the North Right of Way line of Colo-
rado State Highway No. 82), all of said property being in
Pitkin County, Colorado; and
Whereas the aforesaid parcels of land owned by
the City and Zoline are contiguous and are separated by
a barbed wire fence which has been in place for many years
and has for many years been regarded by the respective
owners of said parcels as delineating the boundary between
the parcel presently owned by the City and the parcel
presently owned by Zoline; and
Whereas, the actual lot lines separating said parcels
would be difficult, 'if not impossible, to establish,.'and in
order to resolve this matter without controversy and at
mininum expense the parties have agreed to establish said
fence line as the legal boundary between their respective
parcels.
Now therefore in consideration of their mutual
promises and other valuable considerations, the parties
agree as follows:
1. The fence line marked in red on the map hereto
attached as Exhibit A shall henceforth be the legal boundary
between said Lot 27 in Section 2 and Lot 3 in Section 11,
owned by the City and Lot 21 in Section 2 and Lot 4 in
Section 11, owned by Zoline.-
Said line is legally described as follows:
Beginning at a point from which the South Quarter
Corner of Section 2 (as evidenced by a G.L.O. brass cap
set in 1954) bears S 18`39'E 314.23 feet; thence S 00'23'30" E
721.27 feet, thence S00037'30" E 339.18 feet to the North R.O.W.
line of Colorado State Highway No. 82.
'?-.To implement this agreement the City shall promptly
execute and deliver to Zoline a quitclaim deed conveying all
of said Lot 27 in Section 2 and Lot 3 in Section 11 lying
West of said boundary line and 'Zoline shall concurrently
execute and deliver to the City a quitclaim deed conveying
all of Lot 21 in Section 2 and all of Lot 4 in Section 11
lying North of the North R.O.W. line of Colorado State
Highway No. 82 lying East of said boundary line. Said
deeds shall be in the form attached hereto as Exhibits B
and C.
In witness whereof the City of Aspen has caused this
agreement to be executed by its officers thereunto duly
authorized and Zoline has hei-unto placed his hand and seal
the day and year first above written.
The City of. Aspen.,Colorado
by
attest:
Joseph-1.^ .o ine
P & Z
September 23, 19/1
Adams moved to recommend approval of the Zoline annexation
petition subject to the following recommendations and addi-
tions:
1) The City shall have adopted pending PUD regulation as an
amendment to Title XI, and also that the proposed A/F District
by adopted by the Council;
2) The south parcel be zoned R-30 PUD with density not to
exceed 180 ".nits;
3) The north parcel be zoned A/F, and in this context the Planning
Commission draws the Council's attention to the following excerpt
from the Aspen Area General Plan which bears directly upon the
application:
"In the matter of timing, land presently controlled for low
intensity of use by zoning may be retained in that character,
even though a higher intensity use is recommended in the plan.
It is the duty of the planning commission to determine at
what point in time a particular section of land should be
rezoned for intensive urban use; using the guideline contained
in other portions of this report to aid in the decision making
process."
4) The City shall not, as part of the annexation petition, be
required to purchase the open space as indicated on the develop-
ment plan;
a) open space is a requirement of development, it is not
incumbent upon the City to purchase same;
b) the categories of use for the open space area should
be agreed upon prior to the annexation;
5) An easement 15' wide for a bicycle path in the 200' set back
shall be dedicated to the City by the applicant upon request of
the City Council.
Brested seconded the motion.
Collins moved to amend the motion to include the recommendation
that the applicant make a dona.ti cai of the open space land at:
the City's option prior to annex-.tion.
Seconded by Adams.'. Both motion and amendment passed by unanimous
Lnuary 18, 1971
Page Twenty-f-,,r Public Hearing
industrial district, this being a planning commission,
we'd like to involve it as a planning effort of both.
Patsy:
There's just one thing, on our next agenda we
have about seven subjects.
Clark:
But this is not on it, is it?
Patsy:
No, this is not on it, so that would be the
eight.
Bartel:
What we will do on opening the meeting is make a
determination as to whether or not this matter will
be considered or not. If it is considered, then it
will automatically be the last item on the agenda.
Van Orden:
If it were not considered, when would it be
brought on for consideration?
Bartel:
It would be put on the next regular agenda.
Van Orden:
Which is when?
Bartel:
The first Wednesday of February, February 3rd.
Van Orden:
If it could possibly be done, we would appreciate
any consideration you could give toward a consideration
on Wednesday. Thank you, gentlemen, for your attention.
Clark:
You know that the County Commissioners are meeting
four times a month now, don't you?
Van Orden:
When would be your next meeting?
Clark:
First of February.
Van Orden:
So if it could be considered on the 20th, then it
could get to you. Thank you, gentlemen.
ZOLINE REZONING HEARING
Peter Guy:
Zoning resolution that would change the zoning
classification of that certain area located as follows:
(Again I won't bother with the legal description.)
This application would change the zoning classification
from AF-1, Agriculture and Forestry, to PR -Planned
Residential, as indicated on a survey map on file in
the office of the Pitkin County Building Department.
.The hearing is scheduled as a joint public hearing
before the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission
and the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County,
Colorado. At such public hearing all persons and
interests may be heard expressing their objections or
opinions. Published in the Aspen Times, December 10,
1970. Herb, do you have some comments on this applica-
tion?
Public Hearing
Page Twenty-five January 18 1971
Herb Bartel:
Yes, before, I give them, however, a point of
clarification. On Planned Residential or Planned '
Industrial, or Planned Business application, there are
several stages in Planned Unit Development approval
process. The first is consideration of the zoning
itself, should zoning be recommended favorably by
this commission to the County Commissioners. The next
step is approval of specific plans, and there is a
designated public hearing process for plan approval:
no building permits will be issued until the final '
plans are acted upon by the Planning and Zoning
Commission and approved by the County Commissioners.
I make that point only to clarify, so that the audience
understands that we are considering planned zoning, .
we are not considering final planned unit development
plans at this meeting. The property in question now,
the application submitted by Mr. Zoline, the property
owner, the property contains approximately 80 acres,
and is located on the north side of Highway 82, just
west of Maroon Creek for orientation. This line is
Highway 82, Maroon forming the east boundary of the
property, the property in question is that portion
between Old Stage Road and Highway 82, Maroon Creek
and the Park Meadows condominium on the west. The 40
�
present zoning on the property is AF-1, Agricultural -
Forestry, which does allow a duplex on a two acre
site. The propose request is p anned residential
eUevelopment, the proposed use is multi -family resident-
ial. I won't go into specific details of the 1966
plan I will indicate, however, for the benefit of
those in the audience, that my comments will be part
of the file, and the file, of course, is available
for public inspection. Anyone wishing to check the
quotes taken from the plan is welcome to do so at
your convenience. There are some specific points,
however, that I want to mention. Both public water
and sewer are available to the property. There are
several plans under way that should be mentioned
first. A specific open -space plan was not included
in the adopted Aspen area plan, because of its -general
nature. Preliminary work is now under way for
developing a specialized open -space plan and the
o spen as a hi - riorygstud� area' An n approach
Aspen Cit Council has desi nated the wester
application
has been an open -space grant to purchase
approximately 56 acres indicated as parcels A and B
on the attached map., Acquisition of Parcel B, in
particular, would initiate the preservation of Maroon
Creek as an important natural feature. The parcels that
are referred to are those that are part of the golf ,
course acquisition forming the east boundary of Mr.
Zoline's property and a portion of''the Red Butte
area, not contiguous`I'to his ownership. .
h
Is that all?
Bartel:
Red Butte is, that's correct. "B" includes the
bank on both•sides of Maroon. The meadow and the
`~ Maroon Creek flood plain area.
Is that a meadow down there?
Bartel:
Yes, to continue then, with the plans that are
underway, a transportation study is also being con-
sidered, which would have as it's initial objective,
the identification the most feasible solution to the
transportation problem from the economic, physical
and social standpoint. A current zoning inventory
will provide the basis to determine the number of
lodge units that could be developed under present
zoning and subdivision regulations. This information
ublic IIearing
Page Twenty-eignt January 18, 1971
it was old. If the si;: unit building is required it
would take 52 building:; two story buildings, approxi-
mately 36 feet by 100 feet to provide the eventually
the full permitted number of residential units. And
I as well as I could, but as I say, I would hope that
in the eventual consideration of the reclassification,
that provision could be made for larger buildings. On
the other map, I showed what the larger buildings
would look like. As you can see here, the dark brown
areas represent buildings. These are three story,.
twenty unit buildings, each 40 feet by 200 feet,
and of these, it would require only 15 in all. You'll
notice that I attempted to structure them to the
extent possible on the west side and somewhat to the
north of the 80 acre tract. I had two reasons for
doing so: 1) was a selfish reason; our house as
I mentioned before is right here, and we'd like to
look out on this open green :pace, and of course, if
this type of development were done, we would have
virtually the same kind of view that we presently have,
with no buildings being constructed on the east bank
of the property. The other reason was in difference
to the approach to Aspen, because as one would come
down highway 82 approaching Aspen, one's general view
is over in this direction, to the north and to the
east, and of course, it would preserve the open green
area leading into town. I would like to point out
that if something like this were to be adopted, and
I would hope that something like this could be
adopted, that the total area to be occupied by these
buildings, would be approximately fifteen times 8,000
square feet, or 120,000 square feet total, which is
slightly less than three acres out of the 80 acres
that comprise the tract. I don't know if I've covered
everything, I'll be glad to answer any questions.
Cronin:
Mr. Zoline,,what is plan for meadow?
Zoline:
Well, I didn't include them, Mr. Cronin, because
I have no plans at all for their development at present.
We live back there, and we would hope to keep it as
is for a long time to come. If it were required that
it be included, I would presume that the same general
kind of zoning should apply to that as applies to this,
although I would not at this time, and I would be very
reluctant to suggest any kind of a development there,
because we don't have any plans for development.
I'm hoping Mr. Vagneur will want to pasture it for
a while.
Vagneur:
Yes, I'd love to if I can just keep getting it
irrigated. One thing I wanted to ask you though, was
I noticed that in the report here it talks about fertile
land the texture of the soil out there as far as we're
concerned is like a size very difficult to irrigate.
Zoline:
It takes a lot of work. We're trying to devise,
Dlyde, some kind of sprinkler system frankly, that
could keep it wet and green. If we don't, we know
that it will dry up and blow away.
Vagneur:
So much of this land, when everybody talks about
green space, somebody better take care of it or it
will do just that.
Zoline:
Well, as long as you brought it up, I wasn't
going to because I thought it might embarrass you a
little.
Public IIearing
Page Twenty-seven January 18, 1971
some other open green use. That would, of course,
be presented to you subsequently in my application
for the planned unit (1evelopment. There is one
other possibility than; I spoke to Mr. Wurl about
today, this is the fist business day that I've been
in Aspen since the cil;y concluded the contract for the
purchase of the existing golf course, and I suggested
to Leon Wurl the possibility of my leasing to the
town of Aspen enough of the ground for an additional
nine holes, and leasing it to the City on a very
nominal basis, so that there could be an 18 hole golf
course there, provided that access is obtained
from one side of Maroon Creek arroyo to the other.
We haven't had an opportunity to really discuss it in
detail, but he indicated that there might be an
interest of that kind, so we'll pursue that possibility
also. So in essence, there are really three general
possibilities: 1) of the golf course on the property
itself, which now seems less likely, 2) an open
green meadow, and 3) an additional nine holes to be
added to the present golf course. The property comprises
total of 80 acres, and it represents the south half
of our ranch, which is referred to as the Bar Slash
X Ranch. All of this property lies south of the
County road which bisects the property and on those
80 acres, under the planned residential classification,
assuming without the approval of a planned unit
development, and I don't know if this is technically
possible, maybe not. I gathered from what Herb
said, that this is not techinically possible, that
one step involves the approval of the planned unit
development, so I assume that the two, at some point,
_ will go together, and as a matter of fact,•Yny initial
letter of application states that the approval could
be conditioned upon that in any event, if that is
legally the way it should be done. In any event,
under that classification there would be permitted
three dwelling units per acre plus 33% in addition,
or on this property of 80 acres, 312 dwelling units.
There is some question under the planned unit develop-
ment whether any single building could contain
more than six dwelling units. I think that if that
were to be the case, it would be very unfortunate,
because it would tend to defeat this attempted
concentration of the residential dwelling units into
"a smaller and more compact area. There is also this,
that in a larger building, let's say one that would
contain for example twenty units, one could have three
floors, while if the buildings are limited to six
units, it would seem that one couldn't aesthetically
go to more than two floors because otherwise one would
have a typical six -flat apartment such as one sees
in the cities, and of course, that -would be entirely
inappropriate there. On the map, as I say, this
map was prepared on the basis of an 18 hole golf °
course. First of all, the golf course was laid out by
a professional golf course architect. The rest of it
is mainly my work, and you architects in the audience
and others will have to forgive the crudeness of it,
and also I would like to point out that it is not
--� intended to be a final planned unit development appli-
cation. There still has to be a lot of work done. Well,
first let me identify. This is highway 82, highway 82
continues to the west and north in this direction and
then, at about this point would be the intersection of
82 and the Owl Creek Road. And continuing back to
the east is the highway that bisects our property;
our house is about here, this is the road that goes
down to the meadow and the river. This indicates
a road at the west side of the property, and right
here is the Park Meadows condominium. The Pomegranate
Inn and this complex is just below here and to the"
south. Incidentally that's property, which at one
tirge, before we owned it, was part of this ranch before
Public IIcarinf;
Page '1.'wcnty no January 18, 1971
Vagneur:
It won't embarras:3 me a bit.
Zoline:
Toward the end of the summer when Earl Cowling
was going to build a house right up here, that little
peice of property, and Earl hopes to build it this
coming summer, and he indicated that he just won't
irrigate it any more, because he's getting on in
years. And one time toward the end of the summer
when Clyde was over there, I said to him, Clyde,
will you irrigate this and we'll just deduct whatever
the cost of the irrigating is from the rent, or even
more so, if you'll just take it on, and he told me in
no uncertain terms, which I won't repeat here, that
he wouldn't do it. So; it becomes a necessity really
if we are going to keep this green, we can keep it
open as a dust bowl, but if we are going to keep it
green, it becomes a necessity to come to some plan
here which will economically enable us to keep it
irrigated and keep it green. I think that this kind
of a plan might do it."
Jim Moore:
How much you spent keeping that green for fifteen
years?
Zoline:
Well, I hate to review those figures, Jim.
Moore:
I hate to think of the difference between price
you bought at that time and what it'll be today. So
I don't think there's any hard feelings.
Zoline:
No question about that.
Cronin:
Well, now you were planning to put in an 18 hole
golf course in this piece of ground. Since the town
now has bought the golf course across, you are not
going to do that any more, but you are planning to
lease it to the city. Are you going to put in the
golf course yourself, then, or are you going to lease
the ground to the city, or what are your plans?
Zoline:
I have no idea at all.
Cronin:
Because this, I feel, that leasing this to the
city and the city puts it in for you, that would be a
fantastic on top of the whole thing again.
Zoline:
The city just paid $3,800,000.00 for the opportunity
to have a very similar, what I would regard as a less
desirable nine holes over there. Of course, they had
other reasons for doing it. I would think that the kind
of terms that I'm thinking about, which would involve
some modest rental, and I don't know that the city is
interested. The city may proceed with it's own
development on the other side, so I have no idea what
terms, if any, might be worked out with the city.
.If the city isn't interested, and does proceed with
another nine holes, I would be inclined not to go
ahead with an 18 hole golf course here. I would be
inclined to figure something else out, a meadow, or
riding path isn't very good just off that pasture.
Undoubtedly, there are other things that could be done.
Cronin:
Whr,n did this development jump from a three hole
Public Hearinf;
Page Thirt, Tanuary 18, 1971
course to an 18 hole course?
Zoline:
Par 3 actually there are some fours difference
there, John. The golf course architect that laid
it out told me that people get very tired of playing
around on a par 3 course and want some fours, so he
included a number of four par holes on that 18. It
could be shrunk back to nine, and that's a possibility
even if the city has no interest, we might decide
to go ahead with nine.
Cronin:
What happens down below your property, down
towards the river?
Zoline:
You mean at present?
Cronin:
Or the future.
Zoline:
Well, the only thing that's indicated here is
a hole which the golf course architect, without
ever having been out here, put down in this meadow.
I'd like to think that it's kind of impractical
because that bluff is, I would guess, how high is
that bluff?
Guy:
150 feet about. You wouldn't look for your golf
ball if you lost it, I'll tell you that.
Zoline:
But there would be no structures down there in
any event and I don't think that eventually there
would be a golf hole down there. If you walked back
up you'd be too tired to play the other 17.
Bartel:
I'd just like to make one point on your comment'
on the 20 unit as opposed to the 6 unit as in the or-
dinance. There was a great deal of thought given
to this at the time that this was done, and it was
the feeling of the Planning Commission at that time
that a six unit building lends itself to a residential
area much better than. . . a six is kind of an arbitrary
figure, but this is the one we arrived at as opposed
to a 20 unit, a 15 unit or even a ten. We were very
much aware of the construction costs involved in
building a 20 unit as opposed to a six unit your cost
per unit goes up with the lesser amount of units
built within a structure, but I just wanted you to
be aware that this didn't just happen in the zoning
resolution. It was through a great deal of thought
on the part of the commission.
Zoline:
Well, I can understand that and I can see certain
areas where six would be really an optimum and maximum
size. I think out here where your other uses in this
direction, here is the Pomegrandnt with it's present
complex and all of this looks this way, in fact, this
is lower back here by 15 or 20 feet at the County
road than it is here at highway 82, so you're, looking
up this way toward the,present Pomegranante complex.
Over here, of course, you look at the Park Meadows. Back
here is the radio tower, over here, which is also
visible to us, is the golf course building, now called
the Happy Hearth. If these buildings, if the County
can get the Planning and Zoning Commission and the
County Commissioners to decide that larger buildings
should be permitted here, should keep in mind that
no other views but our own which would be interferred
Public Hearing
Page Thirty-one January 18, 1971
with, while this desirable end of a lot more being
possible to leave open and green could be achieved.
I think as far as I'm concerned, although I wouldn't
like to do it, I would be prepared to try and
develop a plan with the six unit buildings, but I
think it would be less desirable for the community,
for the entire Aspen.
Guy:
A couple things I'd like to point out. First
of all, planned residential zone density would allow
you 240 units as a maximum, with the stipulation of
the possibility of a 33% increase over the zoned,
but that 33% increase, or the additional 79 units
isn't a guarantee at all. The maximum zoned allows
240 with the possibility of an additional 79 units.
Then as clarification, --'if be zoning were granted in
either one of the cases that were given tonight,
they are both required to follow a planned unit
development procedure, which involves again a hear-
ing process, so all of the plans could be reviewed,
again even if the zoning was granted. Paul Soldner
again has a comment on Mr. Zoline's request, and
I'd like the second half of this letter to be a part
of the record. Very briefly, he feels that planned
residential is more desirable than the present A and
F zone, but hte letter will be a part of the record.
Are there any further questions or comments?
Reynolds:
I have a question. The road which is the ex-
tension of Owl Creek Road that provides access to the
residences in this bottom area, is that road on your
property?
Zoline:
The road that I show in.blue on the west end
of the property here?
Reynolds:
No, on the east end.
Zoline:
No.
Reynolds:
I'm talking about the extension of Owl Creek
that serves the residents in the Maroon Creek river
bottom area.
Zoline:
No, I think that was technically deeded to the
Harvey's and Candill's. Interestly', what it does,
the Owl Creek road was the main road into Aspen years
ago, and switched to the north on public property and
there was the bridge across Maroon Creek to Red
Butte, but presently the Owl Creek road stops, the
Owl Creek road stops right about here. The road down
to Caudill's and Harvey's is right here, and then,
the bluff begins about here. If you want to go off
in this direction there is the remnants of that old
road.
Dr. Harvey:
I wanted to ask Mr. Zoline how many units he
hopes to put in?
Zoline:
Well, we would request the Planning and Zoning
Commission and the County Commissioners as part of
the planned unit development to allow the full 240
plus the additional one third as is permitted under
a planned unit development. However, I think it is
Public Hearing
Page Thirty-two January 18, 1971
also important to point out that I would hope to
develop this myself, and the time table would be
something on the order of possibly 20 or 30 units
per year, so that the full development of this would
take, I would guess, about 10 or 12 years, at the
very least. In other words, this would not all be
put in in one year or two years or three years.
Harvey:
This planned residential zone only allows,
is there a minimum mentioned, or is the 240 units
allowed automatically?
Zoline:
That's correct. That's three units per acre
for 80 acres.
Well, I'd like to go on record for opposing this
for not preserving open space, he is asking almost
to put a roof over it. The population that would be
allowable, the number of dwelling units on that land
if it were kept as A and F would be 40. He wants
to put 312, and well, I'm just opposed to that. And
also, I wondered about Maroon Creek Valley and if the
County is thinking of preserving that, it's all sur-
rounded by this high density type land use, I don't know
if, could it be kept as a different type of zoning?
Zoline:
I would like to point out that planned residential
in the zoning ordinance itself, is referred'to as low
density residential district.
Harvey:
Well, I would not be opposed to planned residential
if they maintained the same absolute density of the
total population there, I think it would be admirable,
but it it's used as a means of increasing the population
on that land, I'm very much against it.
Bartel:
The basic consideration for Planning and Zoning
Commission will be as part of this process to determine
whether an original error was made in designating°this
area A and F and if not, whether sufficient changes
have occurred in the character of this area to justify
this request. So there will be two basic considerations,
not the margin of profit that the applicant may realize.
That would be incidental and not the primary consideration.
T.J.Sardy:
He can build more than 40 houses, on 80 acres in
A and F, he can subdivide that area and put 80 houses.
Harvey:
Not without a zone change, can he?
He can subdivide it that equal one house AF zon-
ing R-15, he'd get a duplex.
Bartel:
The AF zoning does allow a two family dwelling,
so as I interpret the regulation, for every two acre
site, which is the minimum lot area, in AF-1, he could
have two dwellings.
Soldner:
When I spoke of quadrupling it, I was taking that
into consideration,,two dwellings would be on 80
acres, there would be 80 dwellings, duplexes. Well,
he shows 312, which is very nearly four times as much.
0
Public Hearing
Page Thirty-four January 18, 19-71
Roy:
It's not open for discussion?
Bartel:
No, the six unit requirement is standard in
planned residential zoned districts. Any variation
from that would require public hearing before the
Board of Adjustment and approval by the Board of
Adjustments.
Guy:
``- Any other questions?
Flip a coin, I guess. If there are specaal
considerations if the area merits any special con-
sideration for one rea on or another there is the
possibility of grantin an additonal third of the
density, there is that possibility, but I'll say
again, there is no guarantee.
Bartel:
I might add that the 33 % bonus was put into
encourage planned development in those districts that
allow planned unit development. Not all zoned
districts, however, allow planned unit development.
The AF zoning does not permit it at the present time.
Moore:
Herb, would you say that also would be used as
an incentive for cluster type housing, cluster type
building?
Bartel:
Certainly, that is part of the Planning and
Zoning concept, to encourage cluster type development.
The zoned districts as I recall that allow planned
residential are R-30 and AR-2. There may be others,
and if there are, please correct me. It was generally
put in as a standard,to encourage planned residential
in those districts.
Would it be possible for Mr. Zoline to request
a variance under A and F zoning, which would give him
the right to put in more than he's presently allowed
under AF-1? I wouldn't object to that at all.
Guy.
That;s one of the problems that we're into,
because AF-1 does not allow the PUD concept. The
existing AF-1 zone, that was part of the old ordinance,
does not allow the PUD. PUD is the only way that he
could cluster them without a variance, that isn't
to say what the Board of Adjustment's feeling would be
on this, but it would be, right Hal?
Clark:
Right.
Bartel:
It wouldn't•be the intent of the regulation to
encourage a variance where there would be zoned
districts that could accomodate the use. For example,
R-30 does allow planned residential, R-30 has a minimum
lot area of 30,000 square feet upon subdivided land
and 43,560 square feet in an acre so you can see that
that's less than two units per acre in R-30.
Dunaway:
I didn't catch that.
Guy:
I can read it, sure. It's addressed Pitkin County
Public Bearing
Page Thirty-five January 18, 1971
Planning and Zoning. ?dear Sirs: I am scheduled to
teach classes at CMC the night of the public hearing
for rezoning land parcels on the evening of January
18. Therefore, I would like to submit this letter
to express my feelings in regard to the specific
requests. Name: Paul Soldner, self-employed,
neighbor to the area under consideration. Address:
two miles west of Aspen, P.O. Box 90, Aspen, Colo.
Zoline request: I believe that the planned residential
request to permit cluster development is more de-
sirable than the present A and F zone, which tends
to fill the area unimaginatively and without con-
sideration of open space. If the planned residential
proposal can be guaranteed to be binding on all
future land owners from sale by Mr. Zoline, and if the
County Planning and Zc-,ing Commission feels that this
zoning change is the in>st aesirable use for the property
for the community, then I would urge that it be
approved. That's what he has to say about the re-
quest under consideration, the other part was Van
Orden's request.
Clark:
He was in the office this afternoon. In his,
was keeping the meadow planted, this is what he's very
much in favor of.
Mrs. Candell:
If you start to think about it, you're going to
have a lot more buildings, and with your 40 duplexes,
you'll have six units on less than two acres, you're
_ going to have them crowded awfully close together,
to have any open space left. They'll be scattered
around and six units on less than two acres. The
PUD almost seems to be defeating it's purpose.
Guy:
Well, this is one reason that I brought up the
point that he doesn't automatically get the 33%
increase on the density, and that makes some diff-
erence in the type of buildings on there.
One thing I would like to say is that we're
going to be short of space to put people in Aspen in
the next five years. There's a possibility that,
it's not going to stand up in court, but all trends
are to smaller building sites, for and mainly, the
same type of planning which Joe has very well pre-
sented, I can't say that I'm too out there, might be
scattered around and I', sure that"that, as he says,
is not important, but certainly 300 families, probably
half of them would be part-time residents, and probably.
there for only a month out of the year, is not going
to populate that land too much I think to people
and I think a plan of this type is very acceptable
and should be certainly considered by the Planning
and Zoning Board and the County Commissioners.
Zoline:
Could I consider similar prompt consideration
of this, or as prompt as the Planning and Zoning
Commission can give it and the County Commissioners,
because if there is favorable consideration, then I
want to proceed immediately with the preparation of
an application for the planned unit development which
is, it's obvious, I've not done so up to now, at
Herb's suggestion that I do not do so. I'd like to
thank Jim Moore for his comments. I think one of the
main considerations here is not how much money -I
might make or I might loose, some people seem to be
a little bit concerned about the possibility that I
Public Bearing
Page Thirty-six January 18, 1971
might make some money in the sale of this property.
Nobody came around with any contributions for the last
fifteen years in which I held it and was loosing
substantial amounts of money, but that's neither
here nor there. I think the main consideration is
what is what is the best use of this property for this
community, and that effects the density as well.
We all know the scarcity of land close in to Aspen.
.We know the demand forliving space and I personally
feel that this kind of a plan, both imaginatively
and with a great saving of open space will provide
a reasonable number of dwelling units for both
permanent and non -permanent residents.
Guy:
If there are not -.ny further questions or
comments. . .
Clark:
Have we resolved the problem about what can
be used.? Can we use that 200 feet set back for
figuring out the density on this land?
Zoline:
Gosh, I don't know, it was my understanding
that that could be, as a matter of fact, I can build
on it, as was pointed out here by someone, I don't
have to stay back 200 feet if I put either single
family dwellings or duplexes. So that is pretty
clear that you don't loose that land in your
computations.
Bartel:
In answer to Halls question as to whether the
200 Beet would be included in the density, the
regulation allows including set back area as part
of the lot requirement. For example, if you have
15 yard side set back requirement, that's included
in the total lot area, and I feel that that's accepted
precedent for the State Highways also to include
this in the total area of the lot.
Guy:
Anything further? If not, I thank you all for
coming and close the second portion of this public
hearing.
?ublic Hearing
Page Twenty-s. nuary 18, 1971
also could be used to determine the embalance of
lodging to ski hill capacity. I won't read the specific
comments in detail, other lands were rocky out cropp-
ings and do not have the same value from a natural
resourch point of view. The zoning history at the
present time, the present A and F zoning was applied
in 1955, the time of the original zoning of the area,
also indicated that an application by a Mr. Roy Vroom
in the vicinity was recommended for denial by the
Planning and Zoning Commission, however, no final
action has been taken on that request by the County
Commissioners.
Guy:
Would you like to say a few things at this time?
Mr. Zoline:
Well, Peter, the only addition I would like to
make to the comments that Mr. Bartel made from his
report to the Planning and Zoning Commission is the
fact that in the master plan, adopted several years
ago, this area is referred to in a general way, I
believe, as potential urban residential. That's
contained in Herb's report, and that, of course, was
known to us when we hit on this possibility of re-
questing this kind of zoning. The history of the
property, of course, is that I acquired it some 15
years ago, in 1955, and ranched it ever since, until
approximately three years ago, two years ago, really,
when we were forced to give up our cow -calf herd,
which was a relatively small herd because the in-
dividual who has taken care of the ranch for me for
all of these years and in fact continued to irrigate
it even this past summer, simply couldn't have it any
more. Two summers ago, Mr. Vagneur pasteured a portion
of it and cut the hay on the balance. It became
apparent to me several years ago that we would have
to do something to preserve the property, and I gave
it a great deal of thought, with the idea of somehow
preserving as much of the property as possible, in
open green space, and yet, realizing something approx-
imating the economic value of the property. And
this past summer, with the uncertainity that then
prevailed in the golf course and what appeared to be
the likelihood that it might be lost to the community,
I hit upon this suggestion and this plan that,
and after some discussions with Herb Bartel, that if
we could devise a plan, where we could get some
clustered residential density, that I would propose
to leave the great bulk of the property open, and
devoted to a Par 3 golf course, and that was the basis
on which I filed the application. Now, in the past
couple of weeks, the town of Aspen has negotiated and
concluded the purchase of the existing golf course.
I also understand that there is a possibility that
the town of Aspen may enlarge the golf course to
include 18 holes from it's present size, and in that
case, it would seem rather futile and useless to
have two relatively similar 18 hole golf courses
side by side. I don't think that from what I Name
observed as I've gone by there, I'm not a golfer my-
self, but I don't think that the demand would be there
for two such golf courses. However, the essence of
my application is not the particular use of the golf
course, although the maps that I ahve brought with me
do indicate a golf course, and also the location of
a number of structures. My principle aim and desire,
and the intent of the application is to provide for
a planned residential development, which will con-
centrate the multiple family dwelling units in a very
samll part of the property, and leave the balance of
it open, whether it is a golf course, or a meadow, or
ublic Hearing
Page Thirty-three January 18, 1971
Guy:
Further questions or comments? Sam.
Sam:
Herb, what was that maximum building units on
A and F on 80 acres?
Bartel:
80 units, 80 houses.
Sam Candell:
80 units.
Bartel:
And they may be 40 duplexes.
Candell:
That's one duplex for every two acres.
Bartel:
That's correct.
Rob Roy:
The thing I was wondering about on this, was with
the acquisition of the golf course by the city, that
possibly could be used for single family residences
off the market, and all Mr. Zoline is proposing here
really is . . .
Zoline:
My purpose in suggesting this type of a plan,
Rob is to provide additional open green space. It
would be very simple, I think, to request another zon-
ing classification that would permit single family
dwellings. I don't think that two acres out on that
flat open meadow is practical at all, and anyone who
has shoveled some of that snow in the wintertime will
tell you that that's true, but I didn't particularly
-;ant to see that 80 acres dotted with single family
dwellings the way the property on the perimeter of
the golf course apparently is.
Roy:
A mixture might be better than all multiple
family dwellings.
Zoline:
I guess we'd have to get into that when we try
to develop a planned unit development. It might be.
Calrk:
One comment I'd like to add to that, if you went
to the duplex type outline, he could approach within
75 feet of highway 82, he wouldn't have to maintain
the 200 feet set back. So, it's conducive, it would
seem to me, from the County planning standpoint,
to try making them request this type and get the
200 feet set back, rather than have houses within
75 feet of the road.
Roy:
One other question. I'd like to know how firm in
the planned residential district, is this six dwell-
ing units per building. Is it fixed or is it open
for consideration?
Guy:
It's fixed as far as I'm concerned, I don't
know about the rest of the Board.
Bartel:
That's the way the resolution reads now.
R E S O L U T I O N
WHEREAS petition was filecby Joseph T. Zoline for rezoning from
AF-1 to PR ofa certain tract of land situated North of Highway 82 on the
west side of 14 roon Creek in Sections 2 and 11 in Township 10 South, Range
86 West of the 6th P.M. as shown on a survey map attached to this resolution
and incorporated herein;
AND WHEREAS, all statements in favor of such rezoning as well as those
in opposition thereto, have been taken into account and the members of
the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission have met and duly considered
the said request for rezoning,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning
Commissionthat they do hereby find:
1. The proposed density is not in keeping with the Aspen Area
Master Plan
2. Existing higher densities are non -conforming uses under
the present zoning resolution.
3. Proposed development would increase highway traffic volume
unnecessarily.
BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the application for rezoning from
AF-1 to Pr as requested be denied and that it is the recommendation of this
Board to the Pitkin County Commissioners that the request be denied.
I, Patsy Newbury, secretary for the Pitkin County Planning and
Zoning Commission do hereby certify that the above is an excerpt of the
minutes of the Pitkin Connty Planning and Zoning Commission regular meeting
of February 3, 1971.
Patsy Newbury
Recording Secretary
Pitkin County Planning acid Zoning
Commission
JOSEPH T. ZOLINE
Hon. J. S. Baxter, Tom
Sardy and Clyde Vagneur,
County Commissioners of
Pitkin County, Colorado,
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Gentlemen:
8600 MELROSE AVENUE,LO: ,GELES,CALIFORNIA 90069
August 12, 1970
Application is hereby made for reclassification
under the Pitkin County Zoning Resolution of that
portion of the Bar Slash X Ranch (legal description
belcw) lying south of the old county road, con-
taining 80 acres r„cre or less, from AF1 to AR2.
In support of said application the following is
submitted:
1. The property in question comprises a single
block of land lying between Highway 82 and the old
county road.
2. For many years agricultural and forestry
activities have been economically unfeasible at
this location.
3. The property is virtually surrounded by uses
of the type permitted in AR2 districts, thus:
a. Immediately across Highway 82 is the
Pomegranate Inn and condominium apartments. (Lo-
cated on property which at one time was part of our
ranch - conveyed by a predecessor in title).
b. Directly to the west across Highway 82
is the Holiday Inn and to the west of it, Buttermilk
Mountain Ski Area.
C. Immediately adjoining the property to
the west is Park Meadows condominium apartments.
d. Directly behind the Park Meadows and
also bounding this property on the west is the KSNO
radio transmitting tower and electrical shack.
e. Bounding the Park Meadows property on
the west is the Aspen Tennis Club.
JOSEPH T. ZOLINE
8600 MELROSE AV E,LO. JGELES,CALIFORNIA 90069
November 18, 1970
Mr. Herbert Bertel
City -County Planner
Aspen City Hall
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Herb:
It was good to talk with you the other day and learn that the Planned
Residential classification would permit the type of project in contem-
plation. Based on my rough calculation it would appear that not to
exceed 10 out of the 80 acres would be improved with buildings leaving
70 acres open and green.
I am enclosing a copy of the topographical map showing the general
location of the proposed buildings. At present it seems to me that
the first building should be constructed on the little knoll which I
have marked in red "first", although this is subject to change on
advice of the land planner and architect yet to be retained.
Would it be possible for you to present this as a recommended solution
to the County Planning and Zoning Commission at their meeting on
the first Wednesday of December, that is December 2? If so, I will
plan to come in for the meeting, and if you think desirable a couple
of days in advance so we could talk over any unresolved points. Please
let me know, and if you don't mind phone me collect at (213) 657-6200.
With kindest regards,
Sincerely yours,
,Joseph T. Zoline
�JTZ: cks
JOSEPH T. ZOLINE
8600 MELROSE A )E,LO JGELES,CALIFORNIA 90069
f. In the other direction also on the same
side of the highway across the Maroon Creek bridge
is the Aspen golf club building, now called, I be-
lieve, the Happy Hearth.
If the reclassification is made it is the undersigned's
intention, and may be treated as a condition precedent
to any request for a building permit on this property,
to submit and obtain approval of a Planned Unit De-
velopment which will accomplish the purpose of Section
VII of the recent amendment to the Pitkin County
Zoning Resolution.
Respectfully submitted,
A
Joseph T. Zoline
The legal description of theBarSlash X Ranch is:
Lots 16, 17 and 21, and also Lots 7,8,9,14,16,22 and
23 all in Section 2 and Lot 4 of Section 11, in
Township 10 South, Range 86 West of the 6th P. M.,
less certain conveyances made by my predecessor in
title. This application covers that portion lying
south of the old county road. A survey is being
completed and will be furnished to you shortly.
JOSEPH T. ZOLINE
8600MELROSE AVENUE,LO, .NGELES,CALIFORNIA 90069
December 11, 1970
Planning and Zoning Commission
Pitkin County Colorado
C/O Mr. Hal Clark
Building Inspector
P. O. Box 694
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Gentlemen:
Will you kindly change my request for zoning reclassification
of the approximately 80 acres of the Bar Slash X Ranch, all
lying south of. the existing county road from AF-1 to Planned
Residential (PR).
I understand that a public hearing will be held on January 18, 1971
and I will plan to attend.
Very truly yours,
seph T. Zo ' ze
:cks
78 rkw, 7977
PU/wi Cour,6c %.larvunn„12oni� &azd
A-Jpen, Colo.
pin Ste:
.I can jcAeJu-Ced 4o :leach a c--um ,&z C'4C a;� ;&e ;irne o� Ae pt&Zic
hearrinn Pz tepnin�f ;`%zee .lcirul p w-eLj on ;tAe evejuruL o� za. 78hh.. lneze-
Pte, 9 twu lrl LIAe -o julxru.:t ALi .Cetten. -io exptem my �eeC&Ww in te-�a�
z`o Ae .ipec i.,Lc zerea;64.
//lame: %au.l Sot-Aez, .je.Cr enp.(v�ted, necrhboa v �Ae aaea u zrlefz
corvid-ew, i.on. lddize44, 1 rrzi.Le4 tUea-t o� open. ry box
90, f1-jroen, pZ).
Zoi Lc aerrue l,4 9 b e..Zeve W-L , . cuu,,,d ; Zee i der l aequea t. (,o pelmi,4-
cZ&d. ez deve.lopnerL) Ld moae dej.i�zal))-e Am the pzecerr t Af done uA L&-L
iew/A ;67 AU the aaea ranZw ,&wd v l and w.i Vzou-;� corwidefz c-Uon o� open
-4pacea.
,9: :tlze %fanned Yle4idetv6w l pA",,ja. can be gLw1wn.&ed .to be
b.irur inn on a U ��e .4- d oug7.e w (� wrn ja.le by d)t. 7_oLC ne) and i./ the
Cowz tr , % S Z Comu a.ioa �ee 4 AZd pair2 clzcjw e .z d Sze rnoj;i-1 de iltaUe cry e
o� the pvwpev )a ;&e c mixm,iht, Mien ,q wu, d wzo e At i.� be apawved,
Van_ Onden art CInized L,zanuez ,zer te&; J warz t -v o o on zecoAd ad opp j rz2
.6" o u -)-e on Ae o wundA is an irbn`,o ` w)- brine aLzeac c ex-4;6j .in ;i.e
azea, (I')cI'-yzxde',j deve�o rxne!zt) and x'Aazep/te a&A.,7-lwna)- Jndct4;67� Zon u
.dlzou.l.d be avoied beca4ue o� .z;i�d e&zene dete&io1;tina. egect on ;6 e c.oamt,n.Zb,
FwLthez, .&tch a clwnge i4 rw.t needed by the Cowztrj .in. AiA dec-ti.on not .i j
.i i de ilzab.Le a4 .the nw in. appaoac i. zv Aspen.
9;6 41wuld be po.&Ued ou.t z` tat the .land in nzze4cA in dirzec vi au
o� �ourud;6j erLte<r irzn, 114pen by ,Land and a.zt aj weGl a j Vzo de .jh, on ad jaceru
ezn.i.lh MOU'Ltrz" ,q beteve i,t .cam .zrrmovtucrn.t iv provide a Zwri4i;6ion pne
bP.�&weem ; Ae Mc1%ide bzci�;6v: z comp.Lx and a.i,iwlz;6' Sri Ae %owz, .x' cvzead
o� l'.xLtteiz ni,lfw %he pte derL 47 7 done do ea Aid.
,7 a l jo ob.Iect �o van O.zden. anti Llru-�ed Lumbeiz p 4o64iV A� 4vu�
with ;he &erzt o� baealujw Ae CowL; rV Zontnn. Pa ;6heiA otin po�" They
weze wmze o,l -ize ,,on &w, Lni.:tr_r ti &4 on ;ize ,(and a.� the ;6irne of p t.-%cA e, and
accepted then wi th the p w.1wL4e. 9 ree. ;&e. ouneu o� the .Crawl can mane
.du,t,. z,Lerzt money on ;heir iave4bzm,� wi;& Sze pte4erLt 4F 7 peAwZ;(.
%he tine &4 care
1� f'ot rr,,Ae Cowab,j v p. ace aeatlie, c va.luea on i;6j. ,laud
u,je " 'qL of l�iez Vzat Ae bw Li onnl moaetaV vaZte-4 o� - pa. .
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a PUBLIC HEARING is scheduled in the District
Courtroom, Courthouse, Aspen, Colorado, on January 18, 1971, at 7:30 P.M. to
consider the following amendment to the Pitkin County Zoning Resolution that
would change the zoning classification of that certain area located as follows:
Lots,16, 17 and 21, and also lots 7,8,9,14,16,22 and 23 all in Section
2 and Lot 4 of Section 11, in Township 10 South, Range 86 West of the
6th P.M., less certain conveyances made by my predecessor in title. This
application covers that portion lying south of the old county road.
This application would change the zoning classification from AF-1 (Agriculture
and Forestry) to PR(Planned Residential) as indicated on a survey map on file
in the office of the Pitkin County Building Department.
'xe Tleariug is sc-,:dull ,d as a joist Publiclle,aring before the Pa.tkin County.
Pla caning and Zoning Cormzission and the: ,ar0 of County Commissioners of Pitkin
County Colorado.
At such Public Hearings all persons in interest may appear and be heard expressing
their objections or opin6ons.
Peggy E. Miklich
Pitkin County Clerk & Recorder
Published in the Aspen Times December 10, 1970.
;= -M� .ys,=Ire.
e���sul.wsd�+crRoro....GkH.saovy+�+Ey+�f1
OMCE OF JOSEPH T. ZOLINE ,„ `�•� ` `�
GMATRMA'I.k'O F?NSM'90AR0 / ✓� ,
AMGrPi��t08'NA /5
!`
C� .r•.,,, tom. �; ,
s •
�f,�,,,,.,.,.�..,,,•,..►,,,p..., cam... ,', �
Z.
OGi�Q.+MORrir.i•ufcAGi4�a +tYi�M104�4!!'�
orstcc oF.JOSEP14':•T. ZOL174E
GKO-,#R Ft AN OF: T- G'.aOA44W
AJiD. B.fiG54D6Mi
Iy�dmtz es,,.Inc.
Z
wmsvoF:.J:GSEPki:T ZOL*N£
c7+rt,wfts�eo oe:-rra�x�aoxw�
roewir
w1
w
e
y
; arar sEp'K" 7zOTfffE
r
TO: Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Herb Bartel, Regional Planner
SUBJECT: Rezoning Application: Zoline Property
DATE: January 18, 1971
LOCATION OF PROPERTY: Between Colorado Highway 82 and Owl Creek and
Maroon Creek and Park Meadows Condominium.
APPROXIMATE ACREAGE: 80
PRESENT USE: Irrigated grazing land.
PRESENT ZONING: AF-1, Agriculture„_ and Forestry District.
PROPOSED ZONING: PR, Planned Residential District.
PROPOSED USE: Multi family residential.
PLANS FOR = AREA: The 1966 Aspen Area General Plan recommends that the
area be zoned Residential/Urban (Residential/Planned Unit) and envisions
the character of the area:
. . . as being one of diversified residential areas developed
through the planned unit approach with common greens, trails
and open space. In keeping with the plan concept, density of
development decreases as distance from the Townsite increases
with 15,000 square foot lots closer to Aspen and 30,000 in the
western sector and on steep topographic areas.
See pages 7 and 14 and attached "Design Potential Under Planned Unit
Concept."
PLANS UNDERWAY: A specific open space plan was not included in the
adopted Aspen area plan because of its general nature. Preliminary
work is now underway for developing a specialized open space plan,
and the Aspen City Council has designated the western approach to
Aspen as a high priority study area. An application has also been
submitted for an open space grant to purchase approximately 56 acres
indicated as parcels A & B on the attached map. Acquisition of parcel
B in particular will initiate the preservation of Maroon Creek as an
important natural feature.
A transportation study is also being considered which would have as
its initial objective the identification of the most feasible solution
to transportation problems from an economic, physical and social
stand point. A current zoning inventory will provide the base to
determine the number of lodging units that could be developed under
- 2 -
present zoning and subdivision regul.i_ions. This information could also
be used to determine the potential imbalance of lodging to ski hill
capacity.
WATER AND SEWER: Public water and sewer service is available.
CO:LIENTS: Changes which have occurred in the immediate area are the
construction of Park Meadows Condominiums, the Pomegranate Inn and
the radio transmitting tower. These changes, with the exception of
the radio tower for which no location guidelines are given, are not
in compliance with plans for the area.
Development in the area should recognize the different productive capa-
cities of the 'Land involved, using the less productive knob areas as
building sites, preserving the fertile irrigated lands and other out-
standing natural features such as s:.res:,i bottomlands.
It must be understood that any change in zoning on just part of the
ownership will set a precedent for any remaining land similarly situ-
ated.
Additional access to the highway and additional traffic generated by the
proposed development would complicate even more the existing problem of
highway capacity overload during peak periods.
Other impacts produced by the proposed development which will result in
public costs and that must be carefully considered are: the need to
resurface Owl Creek road, need for additional parking in the Aspen central
area, and student population.
ZONING HISTORY: The present zoning on the Zoline property, AF-1, Agri-
culture and Forestry District, was applied in 1955 at the time of ori-
ginal zoning in the area.
Application by Roy Vroom for AR-2 rezoning in the vicinity was recom-
mended for denial by the Planning Commission. No final action has been
taken on the request.
Tn application of these design principles, it is re-
comncnded that plans be developed over as large
an area as possible showing residential areas, the
circulation pattern and open -space for preliminary
approval. Final approval could then be given for
incremental portions of the total plan providing
each is organized in a balanced manner with a
roughly proportionate mix of low density housing
and open space for any multi family or higher density
single family lots included.
1966 Aspen Area General Plan
See pp. 17-18.
DESIGN POTENTIAL UNDER PLANNED UNIT CONCEPT
SINGLE
FAMILY
SINGLEFAMILY SINGLE o1lYl SINGLE FAMILY SIN FAMILY I SINFAMILY i DWELLING
TYPE
35,000 30,0005,0 2O20.00LOT AREA
05 2% .,%
LOT SLOPE
MULTIPLE USE, CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT, AVERAGING LOT AREA - R 30
..., ......
I I
I ii 1 1 I I
I I 1
OPEN '1.5 MULTI F. 1 OPEN SPACE ' 1 SINGLE FIAMIIV C1iSiFR AT 10,000 AVERAGE LOT AREA DWELLING TYPF
3000 50,000 CREDIT FROM CLUSTER I 20,000 I 15,000 I 15,000 1 20,000 20,000 LOT AREA
VARIES I •2,000 CREDIT FROM MULTI F. 20% IS% S% 20% I 20% l0 SLOPE
t \ {\ I -\\ ♦ , ;\. 1�; `�\`♦}\t•'1'. ..\ 1�, •t \ it 11 `\ ♦. \..:\��: \, � / _.�= r
1 \ ♦ � \ 1 rl } � t� rr�� \• 1 1
"COV.Py,
-XI
VAI
ktA I
odco U t �_i:
Ar
,
yl'•,1V;i: ��'1I��.T/._� 1� �/ )�.�
1`
t, ,+ i i � i � \'` 1 ', / � / � \l I � ..� � ' '�. � ;' ' 1 , i '�- � .: ! � i 'I , .', � r♦ r � l l) ' ,' r
1
it
It-
X.