HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.rz.soldnerrezoning.2004SOLDNER REZONING CASE 0068.2004.ASLU Mik
rA
City of Aspen Community Development Dept.
CASE NUMBER 0068.2004.ASLU
PARCEL ID NUMBER 9999-99-9-99-999
PROJECT ADDRESS 0 ZERO
PLANNER
CASE DESCRIPTION
REPRESENTATIVE
CHRIS LEE
SOLDNER REZONING
CITY OF ASPEN
DATE OF FINAL ACTION 3/2/2005
CLOSED BY Denise Driscoll
MEMORANDUM %%rwwow
TO: Mayor Klande�rud and Aspen City Council
THRU: Chris Bendon; Community Development Director
FROM: Chris Lee, Planner W--
RE: Public Hearing and 2"d Reading of Ordinance No. 8, Series of 2005: Initial Aspen
City Zoning of the Soldner/Burlingame Ranch Parcel 1.
DATE: February 28, 2005
APPLICANT/OWNER: City of Aspen
LOCATION: The Soldner Property situated between Bar/X Ranch to the east and Stage Road to
the south.
LOT SIZE: 26,354 square feet (0,605 acres)
PARCEL ID NUMBER: 273502300005
FORMER COUNTY ZONING: Agricultural/Forestry/Residential 2 — Planned Unit Development
(AFR2-PUD)
PROPOSED ZONING: Conservation (C)
CURRENT LAND USE: Parcel 1 was part of a private residential property owned by the Soldner
family until recently annexed into the City of Aspen.
PROPOSED LAND USE: A portion of parcel 1 is to be used for Harmony Road as an access way
to Burlingame Ranch, with the remainder to be undeveloped.
P & Z ACTION: Unanimous agreement (6-0) to recommend that the City Council approve
initial city zoning as (C) for the Soldner/Burlingame Ranch Parcel 1 on 1/4/05.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval
SUMMARY:
The Soldner Family, in agreement with the City of Aspen, petitioned to annex Parcel 1 into the
City in exchange for a similarly sized parcel, "Parcel 2" (also known as disconnected parcel # 1),
that has been added to the northern side of their property. Parcel 2 has become part of the
Soldner's holdings and was de -annexed from City jurisdiction. The primary reason for this
property exchange and annexation is to provide egress for an access road (Harmony Road) to the
Burlingame Ranch development.
1
REVIEW PROCEDURE:
Initial Zoning/Rezoning. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider the application at
a public hearing and recommend approval, approval with conditions, or denial to City Council.
After first reading of an Ordinance to amend the official zone district map, City Council shall
consider the Ordinance at a public hearing and either approve or deny it.
BACKGROUND:
Parcel 1 of the existing Soldner property was recently annexed into the City of Aspen by
Ordinance No. 33 (Series of 2004) that came before the City Council on October 12, 2004.
PREVIOUS ACTION:
The City Council has not previously considered this initial zoning request.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Staff has examined all options to make a recommendation about appropriate zoning of Parcel 1
of the Soldner/Burlingame Ranch. Based on examinations of the current zoning, land use and
zoning of surrounding areas and intended use of the parcel, Staff believes that Land Use Code
Section 26.710.220, Conservation (C), is the appropriate designation. The Conservation section
of the Aspen City Code has been included as Exhibit E.
Staff believes that the proposed zoning is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. The
future land use map in the AACP envisions this area as a locale for affordable housing
development with conservation lands also designated. By zoning this as Conservation (C) it will
become land that supports this AACP designation and is consistent with the surrounding lands
that are already zoned (C). It is critical that this parcel be zoned the same way to maintain the
desired conservation status of Deer Hill above the road.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff finds that the proposed rezoning application meets or exceeds the requirements set forth in
Land Use Code Section 26.310.040, Amendments to the Land Use Code and Official Zone
District Map, to approve an amendment to the official zone district map. Review criteria and
Staff Findings have been included as Exhibit A. Staff recommends that City Council approve
the proposed rezoning request.
Staff recommends approval of Ordinance No. 8, Series of 2005.
CITY MANAGER'S COM
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to approve Ordinance No. 8, Series of 2005."
2
E
•
Attachments:
Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Findings
Exhibit B — Site Map
Exhibit C — Plat Maps with Acreage and Survey Lines
Exhibit D — Pitkin County AFR-2 Zone Description
Exhibit E — City of Aspen Conservation Zone Description
EXHIBIT A
REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS
AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE SOLDNER PROPERTY
Section 26.92.020, Standards Applicable to Rezoning
In reviewing an amendment to the official zone district map, the City Council shall consider:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this title.
STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES
The proposed zoning is consistent with the Land Use Code and does not represent any
potential conflicts. This zoning provides the most congruent land use regulations with those
previously provided in Pitkin County and provides the most appropriate zoning given the
location, topography, access and expected future uses of the land. In addition, the proposed
rezoning application will not create any zoning non -conformities with respect to the existing
properties. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan.
STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES
Staff believes that the proposed zoning is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan.
The future land use map in the AACP envisions this area as a locale for affordable housing
development with conservation lands also designated. By zoning this as Conservation (C) it
will become land that supports this AACP designation and is consistent with the surrounding
lands that are already zoned (C). Staff finds this criterion to be met.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land
uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics.
STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES
Yes, it is compatible with both the surrounding districts and land uses. Currently it borders on
land that is zoned (C). It is critical that this parcel be zoned the same way to maintain the
desired conservation status of Deer Hill above the road.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety.
STAFF FINDING: j DOES IT COMPLY? I YES
The site has adequate access for the intended level of traffic. Staff does not expect any
degradation of road capacity due to this rezoning. In fact, this parcel was annexed, and is
being rezoned, specifically to provide for road construction.
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public
facilities, and whether the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the
capacity of such facilities, including, but not limited to, transportation facilities, sewage
facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities.
Soldner Rezoning Staff Comments Page 1
•
STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES
There will not be an increase in the demand for public facilities as a result of the proposed
zoning request.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significant adverse
impacts on the natural environment.
STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES
The proposed zoning application would provide a positive environmental impact due to the
Conservation designation. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community
character in the City of Aspen.
STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES
Staff believes that the proposed zoning application is consistent with the community and
neighborhood character of the area, in that the new zoning is similar to zoning in the vicinity
and does not, in and of itself, change the character of the area.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding
neighborhood which support the proposed amendment.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? I YES
The City has a statutory obligation to provide this property with zoning within ninety (90) days
of the final annexation. The property was annexed into the City on October 12, 2004.
Therefore, the annexation itself produced the changed conditions (land transferred from
Coup to City) that warrant the proposed amendment. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is in
harmony with the purpose and intent of this title.
STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES
It is in the public interest to zone this parcel within ninety (90) days as required by statutory
obligations. This zoning does not pose any conflicts to the public interest and actually furthers
it, by contributing to the timely development of the Burlingame Ranch affordable housing
development.
Soldner Rezoning Staff Comments Page 2
�.NDD'30.22 -W Fau�A f3 xEB�x Y �—
8. 5J• Aw cu LS. 27935 {
.'fDUNB .!SrRfBA '
'AND ,CAP,LS,174J6 N8629'36"w FOUND 15 REBAR
AND CAP LS 27936
201.62- —
-
' City of Aspen
Burlingarne Ranch N
(Book 50 Page 88)m°
Annexation
Parcel 1 I
0.605 acres
Disconnected ^
Parcel #1
0.891 acres e
/. jj N �
POINT OF BEGINNING \ ,
N8679'39"w —�.�o eAF C usx BorIX Ranc
r•'_p ;','.` I was zn.v iz9.S&' 201,82' -
Soldner Propertysp en.
ALENA S T81611
1- 00— 805 I.
14
Sold Property NorEs:
Th. purPate ar this plat isto el
th
P'tkln tCounty Clerk f Aspen b and Recorder
V I CITY OF ASPFN APPROVAL
t
Appm,ed the City, Ci
D a Ordinan—ce--Number - 200
4.
DO
Q
Yayor
FOUND !S REBAR. -
ANO CAP, L.S. 279J6
Z- .,� /� RVcvnp•c rcaTiFl Ai=
m I I Stephen L Ehlers. being a R,
- 1 m,q Disconnected do hereby certify that this Plat
.Q /- ur) - Aspen wos made under my suF
•
0
3-40-080 AFR-2 Agricultural/Forestry/Residential
Exhibit D
FORMER PITKIN COUNTY ZONING
A. Intent: The AFR-2, Agricultural/Forestry/Residential district, is intended to provide for a moderate
density, residential/agricultural transition zone for lands along the valley floor located between the
County's development centers and its rural, open land area. The district also contains existing housing
concentrations with densities exceeding those in surrounding areas.
B. Allowed Uses: The following uses are allowed as of right in the Agricultural/Forestry/Residential
(AFR-2) Zone District:
1. Accessory buildings and uses.
2. Animal production and husbandry services, other farm and agricultural uses (not including
commercial feed lots).
3. Bus stop.
4. Crop production.
5. Farm buildings.
6. Home occupations.
7. Parks, playground, playing fields.
8. Manufactured home.
9. Single-family dwelling units.
10. Single-family dwelling unit with a potential of up to, but not exceeding, fifteen thousand (15,000)
square feet of floor area.
11. Solar energy collectors (private use).
12. Trails.
C. Special Review Uses: The following uses are subject to special review:
1. Agriculture stands.
2. Caretaker dwelling units.
3. Cemeteries.
4. Churches.
5. Club houses or recreational buildings used in connection with and accessory to a permitted
outdoor recreational use.
6. Commercial firewood splitting, storage and sales.
7. Commercial kennels and veterinary clinics.
8. Commercial riding stables.
9. Community health facilities.
10. Day care centers.
11. Duplex dwelling units.
12. Employee dwelling units.
13. Golf courses.
14. Mineral exploration/mining, concrete batch plants.
15. Nordic ski areas and support facilities.
16. Nursing, convalescent, rest, and retirement homes.
17. Outdoor recreational uses.
18. Radio transmitting station.
19. Resort cabins.
20. Satellite reception devices.
21. Single-family dwelling unit with more than fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet of floor area
(transferable development rights are required to exceed fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet).
22. Schools/universities.
23. Sewage disposal areas/landfills/water plants.
24. Transferable development rights (TDRs).
25. Uses, activities and facilities permitted by special use permit issued by Federal Agencies.
26. Water crossing and diversion.
D. Prohibited Uses: The following uses are prohibited in the Agricultural/Forestry/Residential (AFR-2)
Zone District:
1. Airport.
2. Alpine ski areas and support.
3. Amusement and entertainment establishments.
4. Commercial automobile parking lots.
5. Commercial camping areas.
6. Dormitory housing.
7. Equipment supplies and contraction or subcontraction.
8. Essential government and public utility uses, facilities and services.
9. Financial institutions.
10. General services.
11, Guest ranches.
12. Hospitals.
13. Junk yards.
14. Logging.
15. Medical/dental clinics.
16. Mobile homes.
17. Motels, hotels, lodges.
18. Multi -family dwelling units.
19. Offices.
20. Personal service outlets: food stores, drug stores, post office substation, self-service laundries, dry
cleaning outlets and liquor stores; the total space shall be limited to eighty (80) square feet of
gross leasable space per dwelling unit in the district.
21. Places for retailing of goods.
22. Professional offices.
23. Research facilities, indoors.
24. Research facilities, other.
25. Restaurants and bars.
26. Timesharing/fractional fees.
27. Uses not listed.
28. Vehicle and aircraft sales and service.
E. Dimensional Requirements: The following dimensional requirements shall apply to all permitted and
special review uses in the Agricultural/Forestry/ Residential (AFR-2) Zone District:
1. Minimum lot area: two (2) acres.
2. Minimum lot area principal use: two (2) acres.
3. Minimum front yard Setback: See Figure 3-1.
4. Minimum side yard setback: See Figure 3-1.
5. Minimum rear yard setback: See Figure 3-1.
6. Minimum lot width: two hundred feet (2001).
7. Maximum height principal structures: twenty-eight feet (28').
•
•
8. Maximum height accessory structures: twenty feet (20').
9. Maximum Floor Area Ratio: Lot Size Allowable Square Feet Square Feet FAR of Floor Area 0--
25,000 .13 .13:1 floor to lot area ratio up to a maximum of 3,250 sq. ft. of floor area. 25,001--
50,000 .09 3,250 sq. ft. of floor area, plus 9 sq. ft. of floor area for each additional 100 sq. ft. in
lot area up to a maximum of 5,500 sq. ft. of floor area. 50,001--100,000 .05 5,500 sq. ft. of floor
area plus 5 sq. ft. of floor area for each additional 100 sq. ft. in lot area up to a maximum of 8,000
sq. ft. of floor area. 100,000 + .01 8,000 sq. ft. of floor area plus 1 sq. ft. of floor area for each
additional 100 sq. ft. in lot area.
(Ord. 23-2002 Att. A, I (part); Ord. 99-36 Att. B (part))
C�
EXHIBIT E
PROPOSED CITY OF ASPEN ZONING
26.710.220 Conservation (C).
A. Purpose. The purpose of the Conservation (C) zone district is to provide areas of low density
development to enhance public recreation, conserve natural resources, encourage the production
of crops and animals, and to contain urban development.
B. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the Conservation (C) zone
district:
1. Detached residential dwelling;
2. Park, playfield, playground and golf course;
3. Riding stable;
4. Cemetery;
5. Crop production, orchards, nurseries, flower production and forest land;
6. Pasture and grazing land;
7. Dairy;
8. Fishery;
9. Animal production;
10. Husbandry services (not including commercial feed lots) and other farm and agricultural
uses;
11. Railroad right-of-way but not a railroad yard;
12. Home occupations;
13. Accessory buildings and uses; and
14. Accessory dwelling units meeting the provisions of Section 26.520.040.
C. Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted as conditional uses in the Conservation
(C) district, subject to the standards and procedures established in Chapter 26.425.
1. Guest ranches;
2. Recreational uses including a riding academy, stable, club, country club and golf course;
3. Ski lift and other ski facilities;
4. Sewage disposal area;
5. Water treatment plant and storage reservoir; and
6. Electric substations and gas regulator stations (not including business or administration
offices).
D. Dimensional requirements. The following dimensional requirements shall apply to all
permitted and conditional uses in the Conservation (C) zone district.
1. Minimum lot size (acres): 10.
2. Minimum lot area per dwelling unit (acres): 10.
3. Minimum lot width (feet): 400.
4. Minimum front yard setback (feet): 100.
5. Minimum side yard setback (feet): 30.
6. Minimum rear yard setback (feet): 30.
•
0
7. Maximum height (feet): 25.
8. Minimum distance between principal and accessory buildings (feet): No requirement.
9. Percent of open space required for building site: No requirement.
10. External floor area ratio: (applies to conforming and nonconforming lots of record): same
as R-15 zone district.
(Ord. No. 32-1999, § 2; Ord. No. 56-2000, §§ 4, 7 (part), 14; Ord. No. 25-2001, §§ 3, 5 (part))
ATTACHMENT 7
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: Aspen, CO
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: , 200_
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss.
County of Pitkin )
I, \_, C4 \AA`P� (� _�N J (name, please print)
being or representing an Appl cant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally
certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060
(E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner:
publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official
paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15)
days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto.
Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from th
Community Development Department, which was made of suitable,
waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide
and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not
less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days
prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the _ day of
200_, to and including the date and time of the public
hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto.
Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Co .amity
Development Department, which contains the information described in"Section
26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) da�,s prior to
the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage
prepaid U.S. mail to any federal agency, state, county, municipal government,
school, service district or other governmental or quasi -governmental agency that
owns property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the
development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be
those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than
sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and
governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto.
(continued on next page)
Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in
any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision
of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such
revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use
regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other
sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and
addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall
be waived. However, the proposed zoning map has been available for public
inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days
prior to the public hearing on such amendments.
I' A2
Si ture
The f ing "Affidavit of Notice" w wledged before me this day
of , 200, by 1'
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
PUBLIC NOTICE URLIN-
RE: INITIAL ZONING 0 THTHAT
GAME RANCH PROP WAS ANNEXED My CO fission expires:
INTO THE CITY OF EN BY ORDINANCE N0. 33
(SERIFS OF 2 ubl[c
NOTICEE IS IS H EBY GIVEN that a p
28,
hearing will be held on Monday, mebbefor the
2005, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.
Aspen City Council, Aspen City Chambers. City Notary Public
Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen. to consider an ap-
tlon submitted by The City of Aspen for the
,�p.AY• PU
plica
zoning of the Soldner/ Burlingame Ranch Proper-tly t
ty that was receefry annexed to tbe zohe ined Con -
pen. The Prop l proposed Nam•'••
servation (C), and the appropriate modification
would be made to the official City Zone District '9�'•.,
Map. The parcel is located adjacent to Lott. Bur-
lingame Ranch Subdivision and is cknown ommonly
ateCommunity on' Devengame Ranch Parcel.
lopment Depart-
ment for a metes and bounds description of this ATTACHMENTS:
property.the
For further Information, yntact Chris Lee at City of Aspen Commu t en, CO 970, DepartCOPY OFThTEPUBLICATION
Citymen1311 S. Galena St Aspen. CO. 97U.429.2759.
chrisl@ci.aspen.co.us
s/H en Kalinderud. Mayor
Aspen City Council
Published in The Aspen Times on February 13. GRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN)
2005. (2387)
SARAH
OAl L: : O
CC0.
3 AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED
BYMAIL
-1
• 9
DATE n�
TIME 00
PLACE
PURPOSE—
IWO
FOR
E Cl
CITY OF ASPEN
130 S GALENA ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
•BAR/X RANCH LLC
C/O HERBERT S KLEIN &
ASSOCIATES PC
201 N MILL ST STE 203
ASPEN, CO 81611
•SOLDNER FAMILY LTD
PARTNERSHIP
PO BOX 2238
FRISCO, CO 80443
PFISTER ARTHUR O CITY OF ASPEN MAROON CREEK LLC
C/O MAROON CREEK CLUB 130 S GALENA ST 10 CLUB CIR
10 CLUB CIRCLE ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611
ASPEN, CO 81611
•
•
-� —ovt.: K"Vtbt4;t_ I/t/oq:z
•
�s�r4j'i.::. _ -� +w•. ' It
�
+�4�.�
Alo
�� . -A*
lb
�•�t��'~R�c vs .... • ail:ter `�� I � r6i
•
40
•
•
-10-h i l / 4/ o 6
r a •_, •,t%� ;. r Awl
.+.. . `�
v
iJ�� 1�.f�
If
11'f'
' � • yam` ,N 'r� r}r • .. �� ,t \ V
Cr' •i' '-1, � T •'f�' 4f •t
i
•
r ati«.
1 64-/05
ORDINANCE NO.
(Series of 2004)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
APPROVING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, TO BE KNOWN AND DESIGNATED AS THE " SOLDNER/BURLINGAME
RANCH" ANNEXATION.
WHEREAS, on July 22, 2004, the City Manager of the City of Aspen did file, on behalf
of the City of Aspen, with the City Clerk of the City of Aspen a Petition for Annexation of
territory to the City of Aspen; and
WHEREAS, the petition, including accompanying copies of an annexation map, has been
reviewed by the City Attorney's Office and the City Engineer and found by them to contain the
information prescribed and set forth in §31-12-107, C.R.S.; and
WHEREAS, the owners of one hundred percent (100%) of the area proposed to be
annexed, exclusive of streets and alleys, have consented in writing to the annexation; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, by resolution (Number 74, Series of 2004) at its regular
meeting on July 26, 2004, did find and determine said Petition for Annexation to be in substantial
compliance with the provisions of §31-12-107, C.R.S.; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, by resolution (Number 88, Series of 2004) at its regular
meeting on September 13, 2004, did find and determine, following a public hearing, said Petition
for Annexation to be in substantial compliance with §§ 31-12-104 and 31-12-105, C.R.S.; and
WHEREAS, the City Council does hereby find and determine that approval of the
annexation of said territory to be in the City's best interest;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
j
j • •
Section 1. That the tract of land described in the Petition for Annexation,
commonly referred to as the " Soldner/Burlingame Ranch", and as shown on the annexation map,
is hereby annexed to the City of Aspen, Colorado.
Section 2. The City Clerk of the City of Aspen is hereby directed as follows:
(a) To file one copy of the annexation map with the original of this annexation
ordinance in the office of the City Clerk of the City of Aspen.
(b) To certify and file two copies of this annexation ordinance and of the annexation
map with the Clerk and Recorder of the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado.
(c) To request the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County to file one certified copy of
this annexation ordinance and of the annexation map with the Division of Local Government of
the Department of Local Affairs, State of Colorado.
Section 3. The City Engineer of the City of Aspen is hereby directed to
amend the Official Map of the City of Aspen to reflect the boundary changes adopted pursuant to
this annexation ordinance.
Section 4. That if any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion
of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent
jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall
not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof.
Section 5. That this ordinance shall not have any effect on existing litigation
and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue
of the ordinances amended as herein provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded
under such prior ordinances.
2
E
•
A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the /,,?, day of 2004,
in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law by the City
Council of the City of Aspen on the 14?-9— day of , 2004.
WOO -
Helen ali nd ud, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathr�S.ch,y Clerk
FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this 42 WE,/ day of
2004.
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. h, Ci /Clerk
H en Kalin Kl e ayor
JP4- saved: 9/21/2004-636-G:\john\word\ords\soldner-burlingame-ann.doc
�C}�adord youodI x/an8
Lo
\ �
4
NOt'02'37"W 417.02'
J
m
j o
.,•�� '
N311$K\yQ �1ip �9!{F,I 11)'IENI •V3N
\ �� .. \
31
.=
�N II
� � I
2U
0
N01'02'37"W
•
•
ATTACHMENT 7
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 1� 1 , Aspen, CO
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: �C1�Vk�(�I , 200a
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss.
County of Pitkin )
I, n (name, please print)
being or representifig an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally
certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060
(E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner:
Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official
paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15)
rdays prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto.
�+ Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the
Community Development Department, which was made of suitable,
waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide
and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not
less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days
prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the k_fuday of
o�,(R,,,,��.�r 2001�, to and including the date and time of the public
hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto.
V Mailingo notice. B the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community
.f Y g Y
Development Department, which contains the information described in Section
26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to
the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage
prepaid U.S. mail to any federal agency, state, county, municipal government,
school, service district or other governmental or quasi -governmental agency that
owns property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the
development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be
those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than
sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and
governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto.
(continued on next page)
JA P
lllmm-dfi.�-]��- - 1�
Elm
Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in
any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision
of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such
revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use
regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other
sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and
addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall
be waived. However, the proposed zoning map has been available for public
inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days
prior to the public hearing on such amendment:
The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this q!!�L day
of QL� . , 200_!f, by 5 I-Q-Q._.
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
My commission
Notary Public
ATTACHMENTS:
COPY OF THE PUBLICATION
`f J
PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN)
LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED
BY MAIL
1*0
.,
_.
CITY OF ASPEN
130 S GALENA ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
•BARIX RANCH LLC
C/O HERBERT S KLEIN &
ASSOCIATES PC
201 N MILL ST STE 203
ASPEN, CO 81611
�SOLDNER FAMILY LTD
PARTNERSHIP
PO BOX 2238
FRISCO, CO 80443
PFISTER ARTHUR O CITY OF ASPEN MAROON CREEK LLC
C/O MAROON CREEK CLUB 130 S GALENA ST 10 CLUB CIR
10 CLUB CIRCLE ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611
ASPEN, CO 81611
•
9
ATTACHMENT 7
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY:
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: T� /d`'� , 200_
STATE OF COLORADO )
) SS.
County of Pitkin )
I,S (name, please print)
being r representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally
certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060
(E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner:
Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official
paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15)
days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto.
Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the ,
Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, so
waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide
and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not
less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days
prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the day of
, 200_, to and including the date and time of the public
hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto.
Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community
Development Department, which contains the information described in Section
26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to
the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage
prepaid U.S. mail to any federal agency,'state, county, municipal government,
school, service district or other governmental or quasi -governmental agency that
owns property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the
development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be
those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no morAan
sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and
governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto.
(continued on next page)
0
•
Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in
any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision
of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such
revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use
regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other
sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and
addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall
be waived. However, the proposed zoning map has been available for public
inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days
prior to the public hearing on such amendments.
The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this L - , day
of244�, by » 07
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAAL SEAL
My commission expires:!�2 :�t,4 0-
Notary Public
z : 5oP5 ar
0
0
Srq T ..0 G
ATTACHMENTS:
PHO TOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN)
LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED
4 BYMAIL
��
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: REZONING OF THE SOLDNER/ BURLINGAME
RANCH PROPERTY THAT WAS ANNEXED INTO
THE CITY OF ASPEN BY ORDINANCE NO.33 (SER-
IES OF 2004) OF THE CITY COUNCIL ON 10/12/04.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public
hearing will be held on Tuesday, January 4, 2005.
at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the As-
pen Planning and Zoning Commission, Sister Cit-
ies Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to
consider an application submitted by The City of
Aspen, requesting that the Soldner/ Burlingame
Ranch Property, that was annexed into the City of
Aspen to facilitate the construction of the access
road to the Burlingame Affordable Housing proj-
ect, be zoned as AH/PUD, and that appropriate
modifications be made to the official City Zone
District Map. The parcel Is located adjacent to
Lot 1. Burlingame Ranch Subdivision and Is com-
monly known as Soldner/ Burlingame Ranch Par-
cel. Contact the Community Development De-
partment for a metes and bounds description of
this land.
For further inforwaiaon, contact Chris Lee
at the City of As,,en Community Development De-
partment, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO,
970.429.2759 (0- by email at
c h rislOc Las pen.co.u8,
s/Jasmine Tygre, Chair
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Published in The Aspen Times on December 18,
2004.(2220)
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Klanderud and Aspen City Council
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
FROM: Chris Lee, Planner 0-
RE: Initial Aspen City Zoning of the oldner/Burlingame Ranch Parcel 1 Annexation,
1" Reading of Ordinance No.4K Series of 2005. 2"d Reading Scheduled for
February 28, 2005.
DATE: January 24, 2005
APPLICANT /OWNERS: CITY OF ASPEN
LOCATION: The Soldner Property situated between Harmony Road to the west, Bar/X
Ranch to the east, and Stage Road to the south.
LOT SIZE: 0.605 acres
PARCEL ID NUMBER: 273502300005
FORMER COUNTY ZONING: Agricultural/Forestry/Residential 2 — Planned Unit
Development (AFR2-PUD)
PROPOSED ZONING: Conservation (C)
CURRENT LAND USE: Parcel 1 was part of a private residential property owned by the
Soldner family until recently annexed into the City of Aspen.
PROPOSED LAND USE: Parcel 1 is to be used as an access way for Harmony Road that
will provide ingress to Burlingame Village.
P & Z ACTION: Unanimous agreement (6-0) to recommend that the City Council
approve initial city zoning as (C) for the Soldner/Burlingame Ranch Parcel 1 on 1 /4/05.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval
SUMMARY:
The Soldner Family, in agreement with the City of Aspen, petitioned to annex Parcel 1 into
the City in exchange for a similarly sized parcel, "Parcel 2" (also known as disconnected
parcel # 1), that has been added to the northern side of their property. Parcel 2 has become
part of the Soldner's holdings and was de -annexed from the City jurisdiction. The primary
reason for this property exchange and annexation is to provide egress for an access road
(Harmony Road) to the Burlingame Village development.
REVIEW PROCEDURE:
Rezoning. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider the application at a public
hearing and recommend approval, approval with conditions, or denial to City Council.
BACKGROUND:
Parcel 1 of the existing Soldner property was recently annexed into the City of Aspen by
Ordinance No. 33 (Series of 2004) that came before the City Council on October 12, 2004.
State statute requires the City to assign the property to the appropriate zone district(s) within
90 days of the final annexation.
PREVIOUS ACTION:
The City Council has not previously considered this rezoning request.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Staff has examined all options to make a recommendation about appropriate zoning of Parcel
1 of the Soldner/Burlingame Ranch. Based on examinations of the current zoning, land use
and zoning of surrounding areas and intended use of the parcel, Staff believes that Land Use
Code Section 26.710.220, Conservation (C), is the appropriate designation. The
Conservation section of the Aspen City Code has been included as Exhibit E.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff finds that the proposed rezoning application meets or exceeds the requirements set forth
in Land Use Code Section 26.310.040, Amendments to the Land Use Code and Official Zone
District Map, to approve an amendment to the official zone district map. Review criteria and
Staff Findings have been included as Exhibit A. Staff recommends that City Council
approve the proposed rezoning request.
Staff recommends approval of Ordinance No. l, Series ot'2005, upon first reading.
CITY MAN
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"1 move to approve Ordinance No. $, Series of 2005, upon first reading."
Attachments:
Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Findings
Exhibit B — Site Map
Exhibit C — Plat Maps with Acreage and Survey Lines
Exhibit D — Pitkin County AFR-2 Zone Description
Exhibit E — City of Aspen Conservation Zone Description
2
•
•
ORDINANCE NO. I
(SERIES OF 2005)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ASSIGNING THE
SOLDNERBURLINGAME RANCH ANNEXATION PARCEL NO. 1 TO THE
CONSERVATION (C) ZONE DISTRICT.
PARCEL ID NUMBER: 273502300005
WHEREAS, a parcel of land situated in the Southwest '/4 of Section 2, Township 10
South, Range 85 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, commonly referred to as
"Soldner/Burlingame Ranch Annexation Parcel No. 1" was annexed into the City of Aspen on
October 12, 2004 through Ordinance No. 33, series of 2004; and,
WHEREAS, the property is approximately 0.605 ± acres, legally described herein; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Aspen must designate a zone district for the
property within 90 days of the annexation; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310 of the Land Use Code (Amendment to the
Official Zone District Map), approval may be granted by the City Council at a duly noticed
public hearing after considering recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the
Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department analyzed the parcel of land and
recommended that it be designated as Conservation (C) Zone District; and,
WHEREAS, during a regular meeting on January 4, 2005, the Planning and Zoning
Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing where, by a six to zero (6-0) vote,
recommended that City Council approve the recommended initial City zoning; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that the development review standards for an
Amendment to the Official City Zoning Map have been met, and that this Resolution furthers and
is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED:
SECTION 1:
That the Aspen City Council approves an amendment to the Official Zoning Map, so that the
land commonly referred to as "Soldner/Burlingame Ranch Annexation Parcel 1", as described
below, be assigned to the Conservation (C) zone district.
SoldnerBurlingame Ranch — Parcel 1 Legal Description:
DESCRIPTION — SOLDNERBURLINGAME RANCH ANNEXATION PARCEL 1
A parcel of land situated in the Southwest'/4 of Section 2, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of
the Sixth Principal Meridian, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, said parcel being more
particularly described as follows:
Beginning at a point on the east line of the Burlingame Ranch as recorded in Plat Book 50 at
Page 88 of the records of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder whence the West 1/4 corner of
said Section 2 bears N64°14'16"W a distance of 878.38 feet with all bearings contained herein
being relative to a bearing of N04°41' l9"E between the W '/4 corner and the Northwest corner of
said Section 2; thence S86°29'36"E along the boundary of said Burlingame Ranch a distance of
119.58 feet; thence S34004'47"W a distance of 4.13 feet to the northeasterly corner of a parcel
of land described on page 16 of Reception #497592; thence along the easterly boundary of said
parcel of land the following two (2) courses, thence S13054'40"W a distance of 403.00 feet;
thence S26°19'05"W a distance of 27.92 feet to a point on said Burlingame Ranch boundary;
thence N01 °02'37"W along the boundary of said Burlingame Ranch a distance of 427.02 feet to
the POINT OF BEGINNING, containing 26,366 square feet or 0.605 acres, more or less.
SECTION 2:
All material representations and commitments made by the developer pursuant to the development
proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before
the Community Development Department, or the Aspen City Council, are hereby incorporated in
such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein,
unless amended by other specific conditions.
SECTION -I-
This Ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any
action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as
herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
SECTION 4:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a
separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions thereof.
SECTION 5:
A public hearing on the Ordinance will be held on the 28fl' day of February, 2005, at 5:00 p.m. in
the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen days prior to which hearing a
public notice of the same will be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of
Aspen
SECTION 6:
This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days following final adoption.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City
Council of the City of Aspen on this day of , 2004.
K
ATTEST:
Kathryn Koch, City Clerk Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor
FINALLY, ADOPTED, PASSED, AND APPROVED this day of , 2005.
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
John Worcestor, City Attorney
n
U
EXHIBIT A
REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS
AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE SOLDNER PROPERTY
Section 26.92.020, Standards Applicable to Rezoning
In reviewing an amendment to the official zone district map, the City Council shall
consider:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this
title.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? I YES
The proposed zoning is consistent with the Land Use Code and does not represent any
potential conflicts. This zoning provides the most congruent land use regulations with
those previously provided in Pitkin County and provides the most appropriate zoning
given the location, topography, access and expected future uses of the land. In addition,
the proposed rezoning application will not create any zoning non -conformities with
respect to the existing properties. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? I YES
Staff believes that the proposed zoning is consistent with the Aspen Area Community
Plan. The future land use map in the AACP envisions this area as a locale for affordable
housing development with Conservation lands also designated. By zoning this as (C) it
will become land that supports this AACP designation and is consistent with the
surrounding lands that are already zoned (C). Staff finds this criterion to be met.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and
land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics.
STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES
Yes, it is compatible with both the surrounding districts and land uses. Currently it
borders on land that is zoned (C). It is critical that this parcel be zoned the same way to
maintain the conservation status of the hill above the road.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES
The site has adequate access for the intended level of traffic. Staff does not expect any
degradation of road capacity due to this rezoning. In fact, this parcel was annexed, and
is being rezoned, specifically to provide for road construction.
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
Soldner Rezoning Staff Comments Page 1
demands on public facilities, and whether the extent to which the proposed
amendment would exceed the capacity of such facilities, including, but not
limited to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks,
drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities.
STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES
There will not be an increase in the demand for public facilities as a result of the
proposed zoning request.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
significant adverse impacts on the natural environment.
STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES
The proposed zoning application would provide a positive environmental impact due to
the Conservation designation. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community
character in the City of Aspen.
STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES
Staff believes that the proposed zoning application is consistent with the community and
neighborhood character of the area, in that the new zoning is similar to zoning in the
vicinity and does not, in and of itself, change the character of the area.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the
surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES
The City has a statutory obligation to provide this property with zoning within ninety
(90) days of the final annexation. The property was annexed into the City on October
12, 2004. Therefore, the annexation itself produced the changed conditions (land
transferred from County to City) that warrant the proposed amendment. Staff finds this
criterion to be met.
I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest,
and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title.
STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES
It is in the public interest to zone this parcel within ninety (90) days as required by
statutory obligations. This zoning does not pose any conflicts to the public interest and
actually furthers it, by contributing to the timely development of Burlingame Village
Soldner Rezoning Staff Comments Page 2
�' .T+'j,F'�"cr,5y►.#r j'w'yy����, r„yy ,s• •y'��1�?< } , �) 'r'SCT1": �+5'�i�l `. '\ 1 >�FiMW
4 ..a J• 1x°1 '. f P .2� . -�� \. \ 4. a %wQ }k1
R
- r ..< . f..s� � a.7 n=� ,,y,_� ufw',` t ,.�.�'nk , .:i�. •. j J..:� �� p' - fr•. ~��
�. F ��-iF�.°i�,e 'scnc`�. Lam_ Jr'�, +�'�`'_,.{,a .,� �`�"i�G 4, yi -- % xt.- -.'a �• t ° � - P k�y� ',,'ATM„ .�.
2�J.. �. F k�+•-iy. ^+Y. ��Ji ^Mi`�y�'•� �° ^ f � 1 ,AuN i�' l � ���4 � �►. f ,�',`s/k i t i Y-+.a,'�•- ,
{+ �y,��'�,zyf'y � � ,,¢-a.^^•.as� ���� eP.' �•��s- B , , , V � i� 1�
N+` `s,. " ; j,''� �:� �" `4 . - �' fit` - � .'�,� ..`+"• 'F
a��"�•�r.fr � "' try +<{ �S�� t3p"'a'" .ly _ .:. c 1 1. � ,'} �� �� � � `
iP
� .r,
qY. �'!� � � rf ��� 'S.s� �ar'.•q;. `' °t+" +��}`3- '�4 y .S"a� � ` +S"+ , A - P �.K� • ,.i
?p' �t ? K j �' t^ � a }� ; i�d � E -'„i''��+�i•�...,e<•�:."r`Si_•'++ �. 1`�T � � � �fi ! a �� ' � .
a��+'a ' t' s�• � e .i •�' it, x�".aae��:'' a'M;, •P� "� '�: .< .a --5��r.5�••,��•
i
tea ,� c��w n ' �"s tS '� r r � �i.•� � � r :� � " w+8. �� �\. �.,
l xra .a.
i1.�
�a.. "r..S �F�� 'S. �,� vy�� _ � I �� 5g�'. � f'` ••'j"'�. �.�
Y �.
e.�F�
-- i.
f/��•s Vie. f 1
•� t,a-+lea .�+.+i .
sm
+qTj f'
�'�a 3.. � �bYi`� �` � i r p.; i J � e � • , � �' __ � �' t• '/ PJ o c+ �p., i
16
\a`- Yjy,L�: r%' T M,yS�-' ;M�iyt•'�'t^ i y�: ili * 1 y�5! Siq, r •lA'� ••. h
N� x, t�-s,�'",aS.Z°,[�. b-. .�,�.:'° � •\`I�. �,i1y"y+�, ° >.'.t ,jt", to '.i�•���>+.'�Caa� ., •L -.
�a >tS'� b { v^y �� iV / �,'• 7 � .`�'��`'tis� \ \ ;� .h'�1y y]�t'Kl .i ` w t ti �., r-•
• 4P �y�
1 ,fir. i.:` - = JJ , q r w�.w = ' I #, i. !'•. y
{ 0•
_ Y f�'$'S' 'F•: � •t :a "„ ?� 1 'I t !1 CFf ,. ,�j'..` � u'°�2\ � r; ti+j p. 't1�P.: • �1iV F .� .,�*y
�'i'^1i.= @. ♦ `� a L + �°.�� { '� r .r �e � - ^+G ! � ',. � r P 7. ,yew..",y,�:.�'�; � a r��- ...
IP5
-f�*°+, •. �r�i-V`�C « � +a� �f I � ;F•, �� r v- •, P , t s �. • MQ (',5�; a `�
4y r*�f�.ry�5�i� "�."�F�a1" �" '�',< ct#".S'_i''�' �1',. . {{ Sr$• �t � ,�:,�� � • � ; �>'.�. Ni, `^` * , ��.:
•�� S � l � F 4 1, ' q,•
'NO�`R
t� !q+• �,5 � f � I -. fG4. '._.. � -j � J �'''i '� "�'"w ..P.. �•�
T.
•�,,.?`rjq �.�s '�'i .d tf� � �� Z_ v .. L � -'+�P '�� ` �,`^._ ^S�a �C fp •'�• ��vl �, a �, 1 r
aqz a. ,S-:. '�.. a n{ '°e. +,� �` �' � •'�f � � �_,_ t ! '`;Pi S . ^ 4ra.� � S ��.�� ^:
�'^ 4�•" r�i� � r f SF � r+ { ,'+s. WS, •�, � L+t••• a "r �(+'� �' �C � .� 's a ! I 'i ::t � ,r�'� i
a�'� : Y�. <r'.t" i e���'�7��•.<tF�� + I\;«,t . ��: �'
+•.
W
5L �� '+'F r'r � t4���� a.T •r �:. o ♦ ��' `• ! '�i . 'a2 � ',"� r"�'��L/ S f �, � 7 1`i , Y'
sa�y.r• 'a�} f' r
�� ��- � .�� ^� I~ •/ _ __ 0 gym' Y - —_ Q _ �`�� - — -
Sa ad Ro
--
� Y RY
do
City of Aspen
Burl in gom e Ron ch
(Book 50 Page 88)
N00'SO"22'"W
8.55"
rye.
FOUND /5 REBAR
AND CAP L5. 279.7E fpLjl
1 �
11 NN
• � Disconnected �.....
Pdreel #1
0.891 acres N
\ R1 N t0
110
POINT OF BEGINNING \
\ N867939"W ANDNCAP5LSH279JE Bar/X Ran c
FOUND .0 REBAR 719. S8"
AND GAP LS 279.7E ZO1.82"
I I r
sp en
aLENA ST
I•
I I � Sol do er Property NOTES:
/ I The purpose of this plot is to di
i I the City of Aspen by the plat re
Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder
/l I CITY OF ASPEY APPROVAL
( I Approved by the City Council, Ci
1 I / Ordinance Number —
ti ! 2004.
\8s�. I 1 e„;a„p evudi„y
1— — — — — — — — — —
-- Alayor ---
s 1 Bui;d;ny .
o V R'S CERTIFI T
N
�W /a 1, Stephen L. Ehlers, being o R
n'I Disconnected do hereby certify that this Plot
hl 4 ` a? Aspen ways mode under my suc
EA .N?Th'IN 7
r i9ook 50 P9.0•;9�)
F..OUND,%5lREBkR;FOUND 15 REBAR AND CAP, C.S.:'2�4J5 \B679'36'W 11a58. — _ — _ — — AND CAP L.S. 27936
r 201.82'
POINT OF BEc�NN1NC
- Ann exc tron l+
f f; Parcel 1 �+
0.605 acres /+
Soldn er Property
•
•
3-40-080 AFR-2 Agricultural/Forestry/Residential
Exhibit D
FORMER PITKIN COUNTY ZONING
A. Intent: The AFR-2, Agricultural/Forestry/Residential district, is intended to provide for a
moderate density, residential/agricultural transition zone for lands along the valley floor located
between the County's development centers and its rural, open land area. The district also contains
existing housing concentrations with densities exceeding those in surrounding areas.
B. Allowed Uses: The following uses are allowed as of right in the
Agricultural/Forestry/Residential (AFR-2) Zone District:
1. Accessory buildings and uses.
2. Animal production and husbandry services, other farm and agricultural uses (not including
commercial feed lots).
3. Bus stop.
4. Crop production.
5. Farm buildings.
6. Home occupations.
7. Parks, playground, playing fields.
8. Manufactured home.
9. Single-family dwelling units.
10. Single-family dwelling unit with a potential of up to, but not exceeding, fifteen thousand
(15,000) square feet of floor area.
I I . Solar energy collectors (private use).
12. Trails.
C. Special Review Uses: The following uses are subject to special review:
1. Agriculture stands.
2. Caretaker dwelling units.
3. Cemeteries.
4. Churches.
5. Club houses or recreational buildings used in connection with and accessory to a permitted
outdoor recreational use.
6. Commercial firewood splitting, storage and sales.
7. Commercial kennels and veterinary clinics.
8. Commercial riding stables.
9. Community health facilities.
10. Day care centers.
II. Duplex dwelling units.
12. Employee dwelling units.
13. Golf courses.
14. Mineral exploration/mining, concrete batch plants.
15. Nordic ski areas and support facilities.
16. Nursing, convalescent, rest, and retirement homes.
17. Outdoor recreational uses.
• 0
18. Radio transmitting station.
19. Resort cabins.
20. Satellite reception devices.
21. Single-family dwelling unit with more than fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet of floor
area (transferable development rights are required to exceed fifteen thousand (15,000)
square feet).
22. Schools/universities.
23. Sewage disposal areas/landfills/water plants.
24. Transferable development rights (TDRs).
25. Uses, activities and facilities permitted by special use permit issued by Federal Agencies.
26. Water crossing and diversion.
D. Prohibited Uses: The following uses are prohibited in the Agricultural/Forestry/Residential
(AFR-2) Zone District:
1. Airport.
2. Alpine ski areas and support.
3. Amusement and entertainment establishments.
4. Commercial automobile parking lots.
5. Commercial camping areas.
6. Dormitory housing.
7. Equipment supplies and contraction or subcontraction.
8. Essential government and public utility uses, facilities and services.
9. Financial institutions.
10. General services.
11. Guest ranches.
12. Hospitals.
13. Junk yards.
14. Logging.
15. Medical/dental clinics.
16. Mobile homes.
17. Motels, hotels, lodges.
18. Multi -family dwelling units.
19. Offices.
20. Personal service outlets: food stores, drug stores, post office substation, self-service
laundries, dry cleaning outlets and liquor stores; the total space shall be limited to eighty
(80) square feet of gross leasable space per dwelling unit in the district.
21. Places for retailing of goods.
22. Professional offices.
23. Research facilities, indoors.
24. Research facilities, other.
25. Restaurants and bars.
26. Timesharing/fractional fees.
27. Uses -not listed.
28. Vehicle and aircraft sales and service.
E. Dimensional Requirements: The following dimensional requirements shall apply to all permitted
and special review uses in the Agricultural/Forestry/ Residential (AFR-2) Zone District:
1. Minimum lot area: two (2) acres.
2. Minimum lot area principal use: two (2) acres.
I Minimum front yard Setback: See Figure 3-1.
4. Minimum side yard setback: See Figure 3-1.
5. Minimum rear yard setback: See Figure 3-1.
6. Minimum lot width: two hundred feet (200').
7. Maximum height principal structures: twenty-eight feet (28').
8. Maximum height accessory structures: twenty feet (20').
9. Maximum Floor Area Ratio: Lot Size Allowable Square Feet Square Feet FAR of Floor
Area 0--25,000 .13 .13:1 floor to lot area ratio up to a maximum of 3,250 sq. ft. of floor
area. 25,001--50,000 .09 3,250 sq. ft. of floor area, plus 9 sq. ft. of floor area for each
additional 100 sq. ft. in lot area up to a maximum of 5,500 sq. ft. of floor area. 50,001--
100,000 .05 5,500 sq. ft. of floor area plus 5 sq. ft. of floor area for each additional 100 sq.
ft. in lot area up to a maximum of 8,000 sq. ft. of floor area. 100,000 + .01 8,000 sq. ft. of
floor area plus 1 sq. ft. of floor area for each additional 100 sq. ft. in lot area.
(Ord. 23-2002 Att. A, I (part); Ord. 99-36 Att. B (part))
•
EXHIBIT E
PROPOSED CITY OF ASPEN ZONING
26.710.220 Conservation (C).
A. Purpose. The purpose of the Conservation (C) zone district is to provide areas of low
density development to enhance public recreation, conserve natural resources, encourage
the production of crops and animals, and to contain urban development.
B. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the Conservation (C)
zone district:
1. Detached residential dwelling;
2. Park, playfield, playground and golf course;
3. Riding stable;
4. Cemetery;
5. Crop production, orchards, nurseries, flower production and forest land;
6. Pasture and grazing land;
7. Dairy;
8. Fishery;
9. Animal production;
10. Husbandry services (not including commercial feed lots) and other farm and
agricultural uses; t
11. Railroad right-of-way but not a railroad yard;
12. Home occupations;
13. Accessory buildings and uses; and
14. Accessory dwelling units meeting the provisions of Section 26.520.040.
C. Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted as conditional uses in the
Conservation (C) district, subject to the standards and procedures established in Chapter
26.425.
1. Guest ranches;
2. Recreational uses including a riding academy, stable, club, country club and golf
course;
3. Ski lift and other ski facilities;
4. Sewage disposal area;
5. Water treatment plant and storage reservoir; and
6. Electric substations and gas regulator stations (not including business or
administration offices).
D. Dimensional requirements. The following dimensional requirements shall apply to all
permitted and conditional uses in the Conservation (C) zone district.
1. Minimum lot size (acres): 10.
2. Minimum lot area per dwelling unit (acres): 10.
•
•
3. Minimum lot width (feet): 400.
4. Minimum front yard setback (feet): 100.
5. Minimum side yard setback (feet): 30.
6. Minimum rear yard setback (feet): 30.
7. Maximum height (feet): 25.
8. Minimum distance between principal and accessory buildings (feet): No
requirement.
9. Percent of open space required for building site: No requirement.
10. External floor area ratio: (applies to conforming and nonconforming lots of
record): same as R-15 zone district.
(Ord. No. 32-1999, § 2; Ord. No. 56-2000, §§ 4, 7 (part), 14; Ord. No. 25-2001, §§ 3, 5
(per))
• •
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU: Chris Bendo�n, Community Development Director J�m
FROM: Chris Lee,(la ner
RE: Initial Aspen City Zoning of the Soldner/Burlingame Ranch Parcel 1 Annexation,
Public Hearing
DATE: January 4, 2005
APPLICANT /OWNERS: CITY OF ASPEN
LOCATION: The Soldner Property situated between Harmony Road to the west, Bar/X
Ranch to the east, and Stage Road to the south.
LOT SIZE: Parcel 1 (recently annexed portion that needs to be zoned) is 0.605 acres
PARCEL ID NUMBER: 273502300005
FORMER COUNTY ZONING: Agricultural/Forestry/Residential 2 — Planned Unit
Development (AFR2-PUD)
PROPOSED ZONING: Conservation (C)
CURRENT LAND USE: Parcel 1 is part of a private residential property owned by the
Soldner family.
PROPOSED LAND USE: The annexed section of the Soldner property is to be used as an
access way for Harmony Road that will provide ingress to Burlingame Village.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval
SUMMARY:
The Soldner Family, in agreement with the City of Aspen, petitioned to annex Parcel 1 into
the City in exchange for a similarly sized parcel, "Parcel 2" (also known as disconnected
parcel # 1), that has been added to the northern side of their property. Parcel 2 has become
part of the Soldner's holdings and was de -annexed from the City jurisdiction. The primary
reason for this property exchange and annexation is to provide egress for an access road
(Harmony Road) to the Burlingame Village development.
REVIEW PROCEDURE:
Rezoning. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider the application at a public
hearing and recommend approval, approval with conditions, or denial to City Council.
BACKGROUND:
Parcel 1 of the existing Soldner property was recently annexed into the City of Aspen by
Ordinance No. 33 (Series of 2004) that came before the City Council on October 12, 2004.
State statute requires the City to assign the property to the appropriate zone district(s) within
90 days of the final annexation.
PREVIOUS ACTION:
The Commission has not previously considered this rezoning request.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Staff has examined all options to make a recommendation about appropriate zoning of Parcel
1 of the Soldner/Burlingame Ranch. Based on examinations of the current zoning, land use
and zoning of surrounding areas and intended use of the parcel, Staff believes that Land Use
Code Section 26.710.220, Conservation (C), is the appropriate designation. The
Conservation section of the Aspen City Code has been included as Exhibit E.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff finds that the proposed rezoning application meets or exceeds the requirements set forth
in Land Use Code Section 26.310.040, Amendments to the Land Use Code and Official Zone
District Map, to approve an amendment to the official zone district map. Review criteria and
Staff Findings have been included as Exhibit A. Staff recommends that the Planning and
Zoning Commission forward a recommendation of approval to City Council on the proposed
rezoning request.
Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission forward a recommendation
of approval to City Council for this property to be included in the Conservation (C) Zone
District, as described in the included resolution.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to approve Resolution No. 03, Series of 2005, recommending that the City
Council approve the proposed rezoning to allow for Parcel 1 of the Soldner/Burlingame
Ranch, to be rezoned to the Affordable Housing/Planned Unit Development (AH/PUD) City
Zone District."
Attachments:
Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Findings
Exhibit B — Site Map
Exhibit C — Plat Maps with Acreage and Survey Lines
Exhibit D — Pitkin County AFR-2 Zone Description
Exhibit E — City of Aspen Conservation Zone Description
2
•
0
RESOLUTION NO. L13
(SERIES OF 2005)
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT CITY COUNCIL ASSIGN THE
SOLDNER/BURLINGAME RANCH ANNEXATION PARCEL NO. 1 TO THE
CONSERVATION (C) ZONE DISTRICT.
PARCEL ID NUMBER: 273502300005
WHEREAS, a parcel of land situated in the Southwest `/4 of Section 2, Township
10 South, Range 85 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, commonly referred to as
"Burlingame Ranch Annexation Parcel No. 1" was annexed into the City of Aspen on
October 12, 2004 through Ordinance No. 33, series of 2004; and,
WHEREAS, the property is approximately 0.605 ± acres, legally described
herein; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Aspen must designate a zone district
for the property within 90 days of the annexation; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310 of the Land Use Code (Amendment to
the Official Zone District Map), approval may be granted by the City Council at a duly
noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Planning and Zoning
Commission, the Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department analyzed the parcel of
land and recommended that it be designated as Conservation (C) Zone District; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission conducted a duly noticed
public hearing on November 30, 2004 and found that the development review standards
for an Amendment to the Official Zoning Map have been met; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution
furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning and Zoning Commission
recommends that the Aspen City Council make an Amendment to the Official Zoning
Map, so that the land commonly referred to as "Soldner/Burlingame Ranch Parcel 1 ", as
described below, be assigned to the Conservation (C) Zone District.
Soldner/Burlingame Ranch — Parcel 1 Legal Description:
DESCRIPTION — BURLINGAME RANCH ANNEXATION PARCEL NO. 1
A parcel of land situated in the Southwest '/4 of Section 2, Township 10 South, Range 85
West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, said parcel
being more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at a point on the east line of the Burlingame Ranch as recorded in Plat Book 50
at Page 88 of the records of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder whence the West '/4
corner of said Section 2 bears N64° 14' 16"W a distance of 878.38 feet with all bearings
contained herein being relative to a bearing of N04°41' 19"E between the W '/4 corner and
the Northwest corner of said Section 2; thence S86°29'36"E along the boundary of said
Burlingame Ranch a distance of 119.58 feet; thence S34°04'47"W a distance of 4.13 feet
to the northeasterly corner of a parcel of land described on page 16 of Reception
#497592; thence along the easterly boundary of said parcel of land the following two (2)
courses, thence S13°54'40"W a distance of 403.00 feet; thence S26°19'05"W a distance
of 27.92 feet to a point on said Burlingame Ranch boundary; thence NO1°02'37"W along
the boundary of said Burlingame Ranch a distance of 427.02 feet to the POINT OF
BEGINNING, containing 26,366 square feet or 0.605 acres, more or less.
APPROVED by the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission at a regular
meeting on January 4, 2005.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION:
City Attorney
ATTEST:
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
Jasmine Tygre, Chair
2
EXHIBIT A
REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS
AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE SOLDNER PROPERTY
Section 26.92.020, Standards Applicable to Rezoning
In reviewing an amendment to the official zone district map, the Planning and Zoning
Commission shall consider:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this
title.
STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES
The proposed zoning is consistent with the Land Use Code and does not represent any
potential conflicts. This zoning provides the most congruent land use regulations with
those previously provided in Pitkin County and provides the most appropriate zoning
given the location, topography, access and expected future uses of the land. In addition,
the proposed rezoning application will not create any zoning non -conformities with
respect to the existing properties. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? I YES
Staff believes that the proposed zoning is consistent with the Aspen Area Community
Plan. The future land use map in the AACP envisions this area as a locale for affordable
housing development with Conservation lands also designated. By zoning this as (C) it
will become land that supports this AACP designation and is consistent with the
surrounding lands that are already zoned (C). Staff finds this criterion to be met.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and
land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics.
STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES
Yes, it is compatible with both the surrounding districts and land uses. Currently it
borders on land that is zoned (C). It is critical that this parcel be zoned the same way to
maintain the conservation status of the hill above the road.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety.
STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES
The site has adequate access for the intended level of traffic. Staff does not expect any
degradation of road capacity due to this rezoning. In fact, this parcel was annexed, and
is being rezoned, specifically to provide for road construction.
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
Soldner Rezoning Staff Comments Page I
L�
demands on public facilities, and whether the extent to which the proposed
amendment would exceed the capacity of such facilities, including, but not
limited to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks,
drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES
There will not be an increase in the demand for public facilities as a result of the
proposed zoning request.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
significant adverse impacts on the natural environment.
STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES
The proposed zoning application would provide a positive environmental impact due to
the Conservation designation. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community
character in the City of Aspen.
STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES
Staff believes that the proposed zoning application is consistent with the community and
neighborhood character of the area, in that the new zoning is similar to zoning in the
vicinity and does not, in and of itself, change the character of the area.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the
surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES
The City has a statutory obligation to provide this property with zoning within ninety
(90) days of the final annexation. The property was annexed into the City on October
12, 2004. Therefore, the annexation itself produced the changed conditions (land
transferred from County to City) that warrant the proposed amendment. Staff finds this
criterion to be met.
I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest,
and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title.
STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES
It is in the public interest to zone this parcel within ninety (90) days as required by
statutory obligations. This zoning does not pose any conflicts to the public interest and
actually furthers it, by contributing to the timely development of Burlingame Village
Soldner Rezoning Staff Comments Page 2
s ��►.b:� �iC
:� • •
mom
AREA N;l THIN 7
i NE GTY.OF.• ASPEN
(Book 50 Pogo.,
City of Aspen
Burlingome Ranch
(Book 50 Page 88)
\
POINT OF BEGINNING
\
FOUND /J REBAR 119.58�
AND CAP Ls. 279J6
I
seen
4LENA ST
0 81611 I
1= 00— 805
NOO'30'22 "W�
8.53' A45 27 y
AND NO C CAP L.S. REBAR
AND 279J6 lilJl
N O
rn N
r',
/Disconnected 4
Parcel #1
o�
0.891 acres N a
�n
N—
O
ul
FOUND /S REBAR
6'29'39"W ANo CAP Ls. 279J6
201.82'
1 I Sol do er Property
I I �
1 l
1 II 11
F \�• I 1 Building Building
Building
/1 Disconnected
Bar/X Ran c
NOTES.,
The purpose of this plat is to di
the City of Aspen by the plat re
Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder
CITY OF ASP APPROVAL
Approved by the City Council, Ci
Ordinance Number — 2004.
--------------------
Mayor
RVEYna'S CFRTIFICAT
1, Stephen L. Ehlers, being a R-
do hereby certify that this Plat
Aspen was made under my suF
belief and knowledge.
•
Exhibit D
FORMER PITKIN COUNTY ZONING
3-40-080 AFR-2 Agricultural/Forestry/Residential
A. Intent: The AFR-2, Agricultural/Forestry/Residential district, is intended to provide for a
moderate density, residential/agricultural transition zone for lands along the valley floor located
between the County's development centers and its rural, open land area. The district also contains
existing housing concentrations with densities exceeding those in surrounding areas.
B. Allowed Uses: The following uses are allowed as of right in the
Agricultural/Forestry/Residential (AFR-2) Zone District:
1. Accessory buildings and uses.
2. Animal production and husbandry services, other farm and agricultural uses (not including
commercial feed lots).
3. Bus stop.
4. Crop production.
5. Farm buildings.
6. Home occupations.
7. Parks, playground, playing fields.
8. Manufactured home.
9. Single-family dwelling units.
10. Single-family dwelling unit with a potential of up to, but not exceeding, fifteen thousand
(15,000) square feet of floor area.
I I . Solar energy collectors (private use).
12. Trails.
C. Special Review Uses: The following uses are subject to special review:
I. Agriculture stands.
2. Caretaker dwelling units.
3. Cemeteries.
4. Churches.
5. Club houses or recreational buildings used in connection with and accessory to a permitted
outdoor recreational use.
6. Commercial firewood splitting, storage and sales.
7. Commercial kennels and veterinary clinics.
8. Commercial riding stables.
9. Community health facilities.
10. Day care centers.
11. Duplex dwelling units.
12. Employee dwelling units.
13. Golf courses.
14. Mineral exploration/mining, concrete batch plants.
15. Nordic ski areas and support facilities.
16. Nursing, convalescent, rest, and retirement homes.
17. Outdoor recreational uses.
0 •
18. Radio transmitting station.
19. Resort cabins.
20. Satellite reception devices.
21. Single-family dwelling unit with more than fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet of floor
area (transferable development rights are required to exceed fifteen thousand (15,000)
square feet).
22. Schools/universities.
23. Sewage disposal areas/landfills/water plants.
24. Transferable development rights (TDRs).
25. Uses, activities and facilities permitted by special use permit issued by Federal Agencies.
26. Water crossing and diversion.
D. Prohibited Uses: The following uses are prohibited in the Agricultural/Forestry/Residential
(AFR-2) Zone District:
1. Airport.
2. Alpine ski areas and support.
3. Amusement and entertainment establishments.
4. Commercial automobile parking lots.
5. Commercial camping areas.
6. Dormitory housing.
7. Equipment supplies and contraction or subcontraction.
8. Essential government and public utility uses, facilities and services.
9. Financial institutions.
10. General services.
11. Guest ranches.
12. Hospitals.
13. Junk yards.
14. Logging.
15. Medical/dental clinics.
16. Mobile homes.
17. Motels, hotels, lodges.
18. Multi -family dwelling units.
19. Offices.
20. Personal service outlets: food stores, drug stores, post office substation, self-service
laundries, dry cleaning outlets and liquor stores; the total space shall be limited to eighty
(80) square feet of gross leasable space per dwelling unit in the district.
21. Places for retailing of goods.
22. Professional offices.
23. Research facilities, indoors.
24. Research facilities, other.
25. Restaurants and bars.
26. Timesharing/fractional fees.
27. Uses not listed.
28. Vehicle and aircraft sales and service.
E. Dimensional Requirements: The following dimensional requirements shall apply to all permitted
and special review uses in the Agricultural/Forestry/ Residential (AFR-2) Zone District:
1. Minimum lot area: two (2) acres.
2. Minimum lot area principal use: two (2) acres.
3. Minimum front yard Setback: See Figure 3-1.
4. Minimum side yard setback: See Figure 3-1.
5. Minimum rear yard setback: See Figure 3-1.
6. Minimum lot width: two hundred feet (200').
7. Maximum height principal structures: twenty-eight feet (28').
8. Maximum height accessory structures: twenty feet (20').
9. Maximum Floor Area Ratio: Lot Size Allowable Square Feet Square Feet FAR of Floor
Area 0--25,000 .13 .13:1 floor to lot area ratio up to a maximum of 3,250 sq. ft. of floor
area. 25,001--50,000 .09 3,250 sq. ft. of floor area, plus 9 sq. ft. of floor area for each
additional 100 sq. ft. in lot area up to a maximum of 5,500 sq. ft. of floor area. 50,001--
100,000 .05 5,500 sq. ft. of floor area plus 5 sq. ft. of floor area for each additional 100 sq.
ft. in lot area up to a maximum of 8,000 sq. ft. of floor area. 100,000 + .01 8,000 sq. ft. of
floor area plus 1 sq. ft. of floor area for each additional 100 sq. ft. in lot area.
(Ord. 23-2002 Att. A, 1 (part); Ord. 99-36 Att. B (part))
•
•
26.710.220 Conservation (C).
EXHIBIT E
PROPOSED CITY OF ASPEN ZONING
A. Purpose. The purpose of the Conservation (C) zone district is to provide areas of low
density development to enhance public recreation, conserve natural resources, encourage
the production of crops and animals, and to contain urban development.
B. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the Conservation (C)
zone district:
1. Detached residential dwelling;
2. Park, playfield, playground and golf course;
3. Riding stable;
4. Cemetery;
5. Crop production, orchards, nurseries, flower production and forest land;
6. Pasture and grazing land;
7. Dairy;
8. Fishery;
9. Animal production;
10. Husbandry services (not including commercial feed lots) and other farm and
agricultural uses;
11. Railroad right-of-way but not a railroad yard;
12. Home occupations;
13. Accessory buildings and uses; and
14. Accessory dwelling units meeting the provisions of Section 26.520.040.
C. Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted as conditional uses in the
Conservation (C) district, subject to the standards and procedures established in Chapter
26.425.
1. Guest ranches;
2. Recreational uses including a riding academy, stable, club, country club and golf
course;
3. Ski lift and other ski facilities;
4. Sewage disposal area;
5. Water treatment plant and storage reservoir; and
6. Electric substations and gas regulator stations (not including business or
administration offices).
D. Dimensional requirements. The following dimensional requirements shall apply to all
permitted and conditional uses in the Conservation (C) zone district.
1. Minimum lot size (acres): 10.
2. Minimum lot area per dwelling unit (acres): 10.
3. Minimum lot width (feet): 400.
4. Minimum front yard setback (feet): 100.
5. Minimum side yard setback (feet): 30.
6. Minimum rear yard setback (feet): 30.
7. Maximum height (feet): 25.
8. Minimum distance between principal and accessory buildings (feet): No
requirement.
9. Percent of open space required for building site: No requirement.
10. External floor area ratio: (applies to conforming and nonconforming lots of
record): same as R-15 zone district.
(Ord. No. 32-1999, § 2; Ord. No. 56-2000, §§ 4, 7 (part), 14; Ord. No. 25-2001, §§ 3, 5
(Part))
Regular Meeting W Aspen Citv Council 0 October 12, 2004
BARILOCHE EXCHANGE STUDENTS.............................................................. 2
CHIP COMINS - ASPEN RENEWABKE ENERGY AWARD....... ............... 2
BOARD COMMENDATION - P&Z Roger Haneman....................................... 2
CITIZENPARTICIPATION...................................................................................... 2
COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS..........................................................7............ 3
CONSENTCALENDAR............................................................................................ 4
• Resolution #96, 2004 - Aspen Highlands Villas Annexation ................................ 5
• Resolution #97, 2004 - 601 West North Release of Minimum Lease Deed
Restriction....................................................................................................................... 5
• Resolution #98, 2004 - Agreement with ACSD New Animal Shelter ................... 5
• December Council Meetings — December 13, 2004............................................... 5
• Minutes — September 27, 2004............................................................................... 5
RESOLUTION #95, 2004 - Golf Pro Shop Lease ................................................ 5
RESOLUTION #99, 2004 - Bar/X Ranch Parcel Annexation .......................... 5
RESOLUTION # 100, 2004 - AMCORD/AVLT Annexation ........................... 5
ORDINANCE #30, SERIES OF 2004 - Residences at Little Nell Final PUD
............................................................................................................................................. 6
ORDINANCE #32, SERIES OF 2004 - Innsbruck Inn PUD ............................ 8
ORDINANCE #33, SERIES OF 2004 - Soldner/Burlingame Annexation... 14
ORDINANCE #34, SERIES OF 2004 - Soldner/Burlingame Disconnect ... 17
RESOLUTION #101, SERIES OF 2004 - Burlingame Parcel D Change
OrderApprovals...........................................................................................................17
RESOLUTION #102, SERIES OF 2004 - Opposition to Visitor Center
Referendum Ballot Question..................................................................................... 19
RESOLUTION #103, SERIES OF 2004 - Sandunes Lot Split Amendmentl9
1
Regular Meeting • Aspen City Council Ictober 12, 2004
Mayor Klanderud called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. with
Councilmembers Torre, Richards, Semrau and Paulson present.
BARILOCHE EXCHANGE STUDENTS
Representatives from Aspen's sister city, Bariloche, Argentina, were present
to thank Council for their support of the sister city exchange program. The
program with Bariloche is only 3 years old and it has grown considerably.
Students from Bariloche are in Aspen staying with host families for 12 days.
Georgina, student coordinator, said it is beyond description what the
students get out of this exchange program.
CHIP COMINS — ASPEN RENEWABKE ENERGY AWARD
Chip Comins, Jackie Francis and Chris Phillips presented with a "Green
Tag" award for their support for Aspen Valley Renewable Energy Day
August 28th.
BOARD COMMENDATION — P&Z Roger Haneman
Council presented Roger Haneman with a commendation for dedicated and
distinguished service to P&Z for 5 years.
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
1. Caroline MacDonald told Council she has not received a reply from
the city to her complaint made at Council two weeks ago. Ms. MacDonald
reminded Council she showed Council the tree removal permit and that it
was to be completed March 31 st . Ms. MacDonald asked why Council turns
to staff to have them respond to citizens. This complaint has to do with the
tree removal fee and that it is not being applied to all citizens fairly.
2. Emzy Veazy noted the Municipal League created the city
manager/city Council form of government and the city manager is in charge.
City Council is also city employees. Veazy said people would like Council
to be more proactive in promoting Aspen, going to the front range and
talking up Aspen.
3. Connie Harvey said she received a letter about the pre -annexation
agreement on Zoline and it does not answer her concerns. She would like a
2
Regular Meeting 0 Aspen City Council 0 October 12, 2004
better answer on the road. Mayor Klanderud suggested she and John
Worcester, city attorney, meet with Ms. Harvey
4. Stephanie Soldner gave Council an article from the Aspen Times
about an Edwards, Colorado, land deal that is preserving open space' Ms.
Soldner told Council she researched recent lotteries and more than half of
the entrants already lived in affordable housing. Ms. Soldner also looked at
lotteries for studio and one -bedroom units and more than half of the
applicants live in Aspen. Ms. Soldner said the affordable housing program
is not drawing people up from down valley. Ms. Soldner said people
moving to Burlingame will come from the core of Aspen and have to get
into cars to come into Aspen.
5. Toni Kronberg stated Council is entitled to higher pay. They work
many hours and go to many meetings. Ms. Kronberg said one goal of the
city should be to preserve views. Tomorrow is a civic master plan meeting
and they will be talking about the library plaza. Ms. Kronberg suggested the
Rio Grande plaza be expanded and put in seating so people can enjoy the
views and that the 3 parking lots are converted to continue the Rio Grande
park. The city could dress up the library plaza with flowers and a small
fountain. Ms. Kronberg said the Burlingame COWOP stated there were 12
steps in the process. Ms. Kronberg said no building permit should be issued
until the last step is completed. Ms. Kronberg asked Council if the City is
going to adhere to the schedule on Burlingame. Ms. Kronberg stated she is
concerned about the construction on Deer Hill road. Mayor Klanderud
announced there is a book of information on every step in the Burlingame
process available for the public.
Stephanie Soldner said she is concerned that the petitions for annexation for
Bar/X ranch and AMCORD/AVLT are not in compliance and requested
Resolutions 99 and 100 be pulled off the consent calendar.
COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS
1. Mayor Klanderud said there was wonderful weather for the
homecoming football game and everyone should be proud of the students at
Aspen High School.
2. Mayor Klanderud said it is clear there are feelings of unrest in the
community about city projects. Mayor Klanderud noted the city has
•
g Regular Meetin• Aspen City Council October 12, 2004
regulations and codes in place. The rules are as good as the people who
follow them and there are people who do not follow the rules. Mayor
Klanderud said the question raised by Caroline MacDonald about a
neighbor's tree may be one of those cases. Mayor Klanderud said when there
are issues or specific complaints that the focus be on those issues. Council is
elected to make decisions for the community; staff is to provide services to
the community. Council has to focus on what is best for the community and
do the best for the most people involved.
3. Councilman Semrau requested a copy of the Burlingame information
be available at the Pitkin County Library. Councilman Semrau said if
anyone wants to understand the development order, contact Joyce Allgaier,
community development department.
4. Councilman Semrau stated the goal in Aspen's community plan is to
house 60% of workers in Aspen. Currently 49% of the workers are housed,
which leaves about 1,000 units to be constructed to meet that goal.
5. Mayor Klanderud requested Resolution #95, Golf pro shop lease, be
pulled from the consent agenda.
6.. Joyce Allgaier, community development department, reminded
everyone the community development department is sponsoring 5 brown
bag lunches. The 4th one is this Thursday at 7:30 a.m. and will include
breakfast: The topic is recent changes to the community development
department's website and how to find forms and schedule inspections.
7. Mayor Klanderud announced there is a RFTA meeting Thursday in
Carbondale. The topic is the first draft of the efficiency report.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilwoman Richards moved to approve the consent calendar as
amended; seconded by Councilman Semrau. The consent calendar is:
rd
Re<(ular Meeting 0 Aspen City Council 0 October 12, 2004
• Resolution #96, 2004 — Aspen Highlands Villas Annexation
• Resolution #97, 2004 — 601 West North Release of Minimum Lease
Deed Restriction
• Resolution #98, 2004 — Agreement with ACSD New Animal Shelter
• December Council Meetings — December 13, 2004
• Minutes — September 27, 2004
All in favor, motion carried.
RESOLUTION #95, 2004 — Golf Pro Shop Lease
Mayor Klanderud asked if the 16% of the gross revenues over $625,000
includes rounds. Steve Aitken, golf department, said this includes range
balls, merchandise and carts. Mayor Klanderud asked about the
repair/return of golf clubs section. Claude Conner, Aspen Sports, said they
have a relationship with most manufacturers of golf equipment and will
return or replace any equipment to a company with whom they have a
relationship. If there is a company with whom they do not have a
relationship, they cannot take care of that equipment. John Worcester, city
attorney, told Council he will find out exactly what is meant by this and
clean up the language. Mayor Klanderud asked if this 5 year contract is
reviewed on a yearly basis. Aitken said yes. Mayor Klanderud asked how
oversight of the golf pass revenue works. Aitken told Council there are
monthly reports from Specialty Sports to the city as well as an annual audit.
Steve Barwick, city manager, said there are numbered blanks for the golf
passes and these have to be accounted for.
Councilman Semrau moved to approve Resolution #95, Series of 2004, with
the amendment by Worcester; seconded by Councilwoman Richards. All in
favor, motion carried.
RESOLUTION #99, 2004 — Bar/X Ranch Parcel Annexation
RESOLUTION #100, 2004 — AMCORD/AVLT Annexation
John Worcester, city attorney, told Council Resolutions #99 and # 100 are the
first step in annexation of two parcels of land; Resolution #99 is the Zoline
Re ular Meetin • Aspen City Council *October 12 2004
family -owned Bar/X ranch and Resolution #100 is the AVLT parcel that the
city acquired from AVLT to be used in this project.
These resolutions initiate the process and if passed establish the date for the
public hearing, which is approved by another resolution. There is thbn an
ordinance with two readings, including another public hearing. The first
public hearing is to comment on the eligibility of the property to be annexed
pursuant to state statute.
Stephanie Soldner noted the petition for annexation is dated September 22,
2004, filed by the trustees of the Zoline Family Trust. Ms. Soldner said Joe
Zoline died September 26th and the estate must now be dealt with and this
annexation may be premature. It will take some time for the family to figure
out the ownership. John Worcester, city attorney, told Council he will check
with the attorney for the Zoline Family Trust to see if there is a problem and
the family can withdraw the request for annexation at any time during this
proceeding.
Ms. Soldner said the petition in Resolution #100 refers to the
Soldner/Burlingame Ranch and requested that be removed. Worcester said
that is an error and the actual name will be on the plat and is Parcel 2 of Park
Trust Exemption. Ms. Soldner said one of the issues for compliance to meet
annexation is less than % of the land in the area proposed to be annexed is
agricultural and none of the owners of such agricultural land have expressed
an intention under oath to devote the land to agricultural use for a period of
not less than 5 years. Ms. Soldner said Deer Hill and the Zoline property are
agricultural, and the Zolines have said they intend to keep the ranch as a
working ranch. Worcester said Council will have to determine this at the
next step.
Councilwoman Richards moved to approve Resolutions #99 and #100,
Annexation of Bar/X and AVLT/AMCORD parcels, amending the petition
for annexation on Resolution #100; seconded by Councilman Semrau. All
in favor, with the exception of Councilman Paulson. Motion carried
ORDINANCE #30, SERIES OF 2004 — Residences at Little Nell Final
PUD
Joyce Allgaier, community development department, passed out revised
drawings, which address the height question. Ms. Allgaier reminded
rol
Re<,:ular Meeting • Aspen City Council October 12, 2004
Council there were 3 outstanding issues at the end of last meeting. The first
was that the applicants were asked to bring in additional information on the
height of the project so Council could see that the height of the structure is
not different from that at conceptual. Ms. Allgaier noted the applicants have
provided east/west and north/south elevations indicating the final elevation.
Bill Poss, architect, said the rendered elevation is the approved conceptual
design with a heavy dark line indicating the profile for final approval. It is
lower by the restaurant and is within a foot of the conceptual approval all
around the building. There is also a line indicating where the building is
stepped back. Kim Weill went over the rendering with the dark lines and the
stepped back building for each elevation.
Ms. Allgaier said a second issue was the operation of the bar/restaurant
facility and how this can be a true public amenity. Ms. Allgaier pointed out
there is a new condition in the ordinance that the project's restaurant/bar
shall be open for the sale of food and beverages to the general public and the
outdoor dining terrace shall be open and available for use in conjunction
weather permitting all days that the skiing area is open for public skiing. In
addition, the bar and the outdoor dining terrace shall be open to the public
during the summer from June 15 to October 15 during all daytime hours that
the gondola is open to the public. The condition states that no memberships
shall be required; occasional private events may be allowed.
The last issue was the Obermeyer affordable housing units. A buy down
agreement between Obermeyer and the applicants has been signed.
Obermeyer will have the ability to place qualified purchasers in the project;
this does not transfer to the Residences.
Sunny Vann, representing the applicant, told Council they reviewed this
ordinance with staff and is acceptable to the applicants as drafted.
Mayor Klanderud opened the public hearing.
Kim, owner of a unit at the Tippler and the North of Nell, supports the
Residences project. Kim told Council said their unit is on the top floor of
the North of Nell and will be impacted by this new project. Kim noted the
mountain is so close to the North of Nell that the view plane is up and not
out. Kim said the changes to Dean street would be an improvement to the
neighborhood. Kim urged Council to grant final approval as this will be an
7
Re ular Meetin 0 Aspen Ci Council October 12, 2004
enhancement to the base of Aspen Mountain. This project deserves
approval.
Mayor Klanderud entered into the record letters from Steve Fallender and
from the Little Nell both addressing the restaurant operation. Joe Rsczak
said this presentation answers his concerns from the last public hearing.
Mayor Klanderud closed the public hearing.
Mayor Klanderud stated she wants the restaurant and outdoor dining to
remain public; this will be an asset at the base of the mountain. Mayor
Klanderud said she hopes this space brings back the vitality to the base of
the mountain. Mayor Klanderud questioned holding the operators to 3 hours
of apres ski as it may be too cold and too dark, and a good operator will keep
it open when the demand is there. Mayor Klanderud said she hopes this
facility is open when the gondola is not running. Vann said this language
sets the basic intent, open to the public, no membership, occasional private
functions, open when the gondola is running, and some hours for apres ski.
Vann noted if it is impossible to meet the 3 hours for apres ski, the operators
will come to Council with facts requesting a change in the operating
agreement. Councilwoman Richards said she feels the language is
reasonable.
Councilman Semrau moved to adopt Ordinance #30, series of 2004, as
amended; seconded by Councilman Torre.
Councilman Paulson said this is a significant improvement from the original
building. Councilman Paulson stated he will have to vote against the project
because it will have a canyon effect at the base of the mountain.
Councilman Paulson said the land use code was adopted so that Aspen did
not turn into a high rise village and he does not want to see 30 years of
planning going by the way side. Mayor Klanderud asked about the
applicant's commitment to Dean Street. Vann said they are improving Dean
street; however, it will remain public.
Roll call vote; Councilmembers Semrau, yes; Torre, yes; Paulson, no,
Richards, yes; Mayor Klanderud, yes. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #32, SERIES OF 2004 — Innsbruck Inn PUD
3
Re( ular Meeting 10 Aspen City Council 0 October 12, 2004
James Lindt, community development department, told Council this request
is to convert an existing lodge at 233 West Main to fractional fee ownership.
Lindt said the applicant proposes to add a wing on the west side of the
structure to match that on the east side. The Innsbruck contains 33
traditional lodge units and the applicant proposes to convert this to lb two -
bedroom and 2 one -bedroom fractional ownership units. The applicants
propose to eliminate the parking accessed from Main street. It is dangerous,
as one has to back onto Main street. The applicants originally proposed
replacement head -in parking on South Second street. HPC felt that was not
appropriate under the historic design guidelines. The proposal is to use
existing on -street parking. The proposal is for 12 estates per units. The two
bedroom units will have a lock off bedroom for each for a total of 22 keys.
Lindt stated staff believes the dimensions are consistent with other lodges in
the LP zone district as well as lodges along Main street. There will be no
increase in height and the building will remain under a 1:1 FAR. Lindt said
the Innsbruck has been run as a lodge and this will continue that use and
allow upgrading of the facilities. Lindt told Council this application
complies with the operational and physical characteristics for time share
development. The units will be rented out on a short term basis when
available. Lindt noted the fiscal impact analysis states there would be a
$31,000 loss of lodging taxes and requires the applicant to mitigate for that
loss.
Lindt told Council regarding the issue of park impact fees, the applicants
have more of a credit from the existing development so there would be no
park impact fees required. Lindt said there were questions about regulating
approval of timeshare and the packet contains a discussion of that issue.
Staff believes this proposal meets the review standards for PUD as well as
timeshare and recommends approval of this ordinance.
Mitch Haas, representing the applicant, went over the existing plan showing
the rooms and access from the front and back. The renovated lodge takes
groupings of 4 rooms and made these into two -room suites. This allows for
bedroom lock offs. This results in 10 two -bedroom suites, 5 on each floor,
and 2 one -bedroom suites, I on each floor. The lobby will be moved to one
wing on the front of the building. Haas said the applicants are amenable to
several parking options; however, they agree it makes sense to get rid of the
parking that backs on to Main street. There is the safety issue, also it will
allow the Main Street streetscape to be reclaimed. Haas said other parking
6
•
Regular Meeting • Aspen City Council October 12, 2004
alternatives were to have head -in parking off Second street in the public
right-of-way. This was not acceptable to HPC. There were other proposals
with smaller curb cuts off Second.
There is a below grade employee unit. Haas noted no employee housing is
required for mitigation but the applicants propose on -site housing for an
employee. Haas said P&Z discussed the concept of lodging converting to
timeshare. Haas noted the conversion for this lodge makes sense and is the
only viable solution. Haas said the lodge has a 43% occupancy over the
past several years and is in danger of going out of business. What makes
sense is the conversion to timeshare in order to realize some capital. Haas
said the proposal is for a different economic niche than other timeshare
projects. The proposed sale price is between $70,000 and $177,000, and
given the location and size, the nightly rentals should also be affordable.
Haas said this is a decrease in number of bedrooms; however, there is a
likelihood of zero bedrooms on the property. With the occupancy rate of 33
bedrooms at a 43% occupancy, this is 5200 visitor nights/year. With 22
bedrooms of timeshare based on an expected occupancy of 80%, this is 6400
visitor nights/year.
Haas noted P&Z discussed whether timeshare was consistent with the intent
of the LP zone. Haas said the city decided timeshare was consistent when
they made it a permitted unit in the LP zone. The lodge will be open to the
public and will be listed with a central reservation system when not used by
owners. This proposed project meets the requirements for all operational
standards. The lock off rooms are traditional lodge rooms, there will be a
swimming pool and a hot tub, small lounge and meeting room and an on -site
manager. Haas said the only issue with which they do not agree is the
mitigation fee.
Haas pointed out the recommended mitigation fee is based on a 37-room
lodge. The existing building has 33 rooms. The applicants feel the
mitigation fee should be based on the existing lodge operation, not an
approved 4 room expansion. Haas said they do not argue with the mitigation
fee but feel that inclusion of approved but unbuilt rooms fails the common
sense — you cannot lose what you never had. Haas noted the terms of the
code require one to compare expected tax revenues from the project to the
last 5 years of tax generation of the existing lodge operation. The existing
lodge operation included only 33 rooms, not 37 rooms. Those 4 rooms
never generated any taxes at all. If the rooms did not generate any taxes, the
10
Retular Nleetina Aspen City Council October 12, 2004
city cannot lose those taxes. The tax generation of the lodge for the past 5
years is the same with or without those 4 rooms. This mitigation is not
based on a per room tax generation. The assessed mitigation requirement
needs to be proportional to the impacts generated. Haas pointed out the
credit regarding the park dedication fees is based on 33 existing roodis, not
37 rooms.
Haas said the projected tax revenues compared with actual tax revenues for
the last 5 years of the existing lodge operation show an overall gain to the
city. Haas said using the actual data for the past 5 years, the mitigation fee
would be $22,309 not $31,500.
Councilwoman Richards said an 1000 square foot fractional fee unit requires
a higher level of staffing than does a 300 square foot lodge room. Haas said
for employee generation, the applicants took factors given to them by the
housing department. The housing office does not have a factor for timeshare
projects. Councilman Semrau asked where the policy on including unbuilt
units in the fiscal analysis came from.
Mayor Klanderud opened the public hearing. There were no comments.
Mayor Klanderud closed the public hearing.
Lindt told Council the policy on unbuilt units was done through a code
interpretation. This code interpretation established that fiscal impact
analysis would be reviewed on a tax by tax basis and it would be reviewed
based on approved lodge units. The code interpretation request came from
finance asking for administrative policies on conversions to timeshare. The
unbuilt approved units came up as part of the St. Regis conversion review.
Lindt said staff thought the fiscal mitigation should look at what was
approved to be built. Paul Menter, finance department, told Council the
finance department wanted a detailed set of guidelines they could follow to
make sure the code is applied consistently to all projects. Menter said the
purpose of this is to mitigate for lost taxes, going forward. The greatest
predictor of future revenue is what has happened in the past and the primary
component of the fiscal analysis is based on the historic activity of a lodge.
Menter noted approvals for lodge units have value and if built do have
potential tax benefit to the city.
John Worcester, city attorney, said Council is trying to determine an impact
to the city based on an application. Worcester noted this application is to
11
•
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council October 12, 2004
change the current approvals, not necessarily what is built. Steve Barwick,
city manager, told Council there are not a lot of approved but not built hotel
rooms in the city. Barwick said staff feels this is a moderate approach. Staff
has accepted the assertions from the timeshare industry about advantages of
time share without having anything proven. Barwick pointed out state law
says fractional ownership has to be treated the same as lodges as far as
ownership. Councilman Semrau asked if this approach is consistent with
prior precedents. Worcester said it is and the issue is whether staff s
interpretation is consistent with Council's intent when they adopted this
ordinance.
Mayor Klanderud asked if approval of this project extinguishes the prior
approvals. Lindt said they would be extinguished upon filing a plat for one
of the two projects. Mayor Klanderud said when Council approved the
Innsbruck expansion; it was met with enthusiasm for a chance to get an
increased number of lodge rooms. Mayor Klanderud said she is concerned
about an application for only 22 units, not the existing 33 or the approved
37. Mayor Klanderud agreed properties need to be upgraded and improved
to continue to attract guests. Mayor Klanderud said she sees the change
from 37 to 22 units as a decrease in the bed base rather than an increase that
is a benefit to the community. Mayor Klanderud said the way the mitigation
fee was calculated is fair and was used on another conversions.
Councilwoman Richards agreed the prior approvals create value to the real
estate. Councilwoman Richards said she, too, was excited that the Innsbruck
was going to redevelop more lodge rooms. Councilwoman Richards said
she is concerned that 4 bedrooms are turning into 2 bedrooms suites.
Councilwoman Richards said she does not feel condominiumization of
lodges is lodge preservation. Councilwoman Richards noted one intent of
the LP zone is to keep diversity of size and type of lodge units in the
community. Councilwoman Richards noted another concern is an entire
class of visitor is being cut out of Aspen by constantly moving all units up to
a higher end. Councilwoman Richards stated she does not support this
condominiumization. Councilwoman Richards stated she supports moving
the parking out of the courtyard and pointed out Main street parking may be
eliminated if the bus lane proposal goes forward.
Councilman Semrau asked if lodges have the ability, by right, to change to
fractional ownership. Lindt said if an application meets the requirements in
the code, they have that right. This project also has a PUD review, which is
12
Re<,;ular Meeting 0 Aspen City Council October 12, 2004
more discretionary. Councilwoman Richards said the standards for
condominiumization were not included in the information. Lindt noted the
standards for condominiumization are minimal. Lindt said part of the
review standards addresses preserving existing lodge inventory, that
conversion to a timeshare should at a minimum replace the existing units on
the property in the planned timeshare lodge. The standard further states if
the applicant is unable to replace the existing units, then the timeshare
development shall replace the number of bedrooms or the applicant shall
demonstrate how the proposal complies with the purposes of the regulations.
Mayor Klanderud said she does not feel that standard has been met,
especially with such a significant reduction in units. Mayor Klanderud
stated she does not object to this becoming a fractional ownership but there
are significant changes from the existing lodge and the approved lodge.
Mayor Klanderud stated she has not heard convincing reasons for this
reduction.
Haas said the city realized tax revenues from the lodge expansion. The
property was sold after those approvals and RETT gains were received
because of that. Haas told Council CIOWA was written before fractional
fee ownerships and was written for condominiums and cooperatives. Haas
said the applicants substantiated every assumption to the finance staff s
satisfaction and only question mitigating for a loss that does not exist. Haas
said the applicants would extinguish prior approvals with the adoption of
this ordinance. Haas stated this lodge is not economically viable and the
addition of 4 rooms do not make it viable. Haas said this would be a loss of
bedrooms that no one is renting. Haas reiterated studies of time share
project across the United States show an average occupancy of 80%. Haas
told Council in the last 3 years, every room has gotten new carpets, new
furniture, the lobby and breakfast area have been renovated.
Haas stated these rooms will not be high end nor is the proposed purchase
price high end. Haas reiterated timeshare is a permitted use in the LP zone.
There are no standards for condominiumization. This is a staff review and
one has only to meet the technical requirements for a plat. Haas said the
advertisement of this project is a means of gauging the market for this
project. Haas said timeshare projects are the wave of lodging in the future.
Timeshare provides more visitor nights. Haas stated with the cost of land in
Aspen, it takes 50 years before an owner would realize any profits.
13
Re ular Meetin • Aspen City Council October 12 2004
Councilman Torre stated he supports staff s position on the mitigation fee
based on 37 units. Councilman Torre said he is opposed to conversion of
lodge units to timeshare, in general; however, the city has not codified a way
to deal with that. Councilwoman Richards noted some of the conversion
projects reviewed by Council had large residential units as their alternative
with no short term accommodations. Councilwoman Richards said Council
has discussed mixed use projects with some fractional and some lodge units
to help projects financially. Mayor Klanderud asked if there is a way to
increase the number of fractional units within this project. Haas said he has
not considered that; however, if the number of units is larger, the fees and
employee generation will be greater.
Mayor Klanderud reiterated she is not comfortable with the reduction of
rooms in this application. Mayor Klanderud suggested this be continued so
that applicants can look at the number of units. Councilman Semrau said the
criteria about replacement and the number of units is the threshold issue.
The reduction from 33 to 22 units is pushing the envelop on the criteria
addressing fractional units. Councilman Semrau agreed he would prefer to
continue this and let the applicant see if they can increase the number of
units. Haas said the applicants have been trying not to demolish the building
and keeping the number of units may require demolition. The applicants
will see what can be done.
Councilwoman Richards moved to continue Ordinance #32,. Series of 2004,
to November 8; seconded by Councilman Semrau. All in favor, motion
carried.
ORDINANCE #33, SERIES OF 2004 - Soldner/Burlingame Annexation
John Worcester, city attorney, told Council the reason for these two
ordinances is the result of a three -party agreement between the city, the
Soldners and Bar/X in order to facilitate the access road to the Burlingame
Village to the westerly portion of the Soldner property. Worcester reminded
Council the Soldners deeded some property to the city and the city granted
some property to the Soldners. The property deeded to the city is to be
annexed into the city and the property that the city deeded to the Soldners is
being disconnected so that all Soldner property lies within the county. This
annexation also corrects an error made in the original Burlingame
annexation. Worcester showed Council where each of the properties is on
the annexation maps.
14
Regular Meeting 40 Aspen City Council October 12, 2004
Worcester said annexation is a legislative act. The standards for
disconnecting lands are set out in state statute and only require Council to
adopt an ordinance. These ordinances do not transfer any land; they are only
changing the boundaries of the city. The property exchanges have already
taken place.
Mayor Klanderud opened the public hearing.
Stephanie Soldner said the land the city gave to the Soldners has high
voltage power lines running through it so that it is unusable. Ms. Soldner
agreed her family did not want the road going down the pasture side, they
accepted this agreement. Ms. Soldner read a letter into the record and asked
for a condition in this ordinance be a requirement that the city not continue
or begin any new earthmoving or construction of the road leading to the
Village until all land use approvals, site plans, and a community impact
study have been approved through the public process. Ms. Soldner noted
Burlingame Village would be located 3 miles from town, located in the
middle of a sage, oak environment. Ms. Soldner pointed out the Zolines
have said for 8 years they want this to remain a working ranch. This
proposed development is in the middle of a wildlife corridor. Ms. Soldner
said this is the end of the building season, and initiative petitions are being
circulated. Ms. Soldner said the city does not know how much this project
will cost. The city has started the process of annexation of the Bar/X ranch.
Toni Kronberg said this property is generally agriculture in nature with
significant growth potential. Ms. Kronberg said there is nothing urban about
this property. Ms. Kronberg noted one of the standards in the annexation
statute is that less 25% of said area residents are employed in the annexing
municipality. Ms. Kronberg said the Zolines are not employed in the city.
Mayor Klanderud pointed out this is not about the Zolines; the city is the
owner of this property and is the petitioner for annexation. Ms. Kronberg
quoted from the ecological study, "Deer Hill is the largest, high quality
mountain sage brush, snowberry habitat in the upper Roaring Fork valley.
This ecological community is considered to be globally significant by the
Colorado National Heritage Program". Ms. Kronberg said the city has to
look at what zoning would be allowed in the county and what would be
allowed in the city.
15
•
Regular Nleetinj Aspen City Council October 12, 2004
Ms. Kronberg said annexation needs to be in compliance with the AACP.
The city code says that land for affordable housing should be within walking
distance of the center of the city or on transit routes.
Mayor Klanderud closed the public hearing. '
Councilman Semrau noted the city does have the appropriate development
and infrastructure permits. Councilman Semrau said when the city proposed
to build the road below the Soldner house, the Soldners requested the road
be moved above their house. The Soldners deeded over their land.
Councilman Semrau asked if the Soldner have changed their mind. Ms.
Soldner said they took the lesser of the two evils. They still want the road to
the west of their house. Ms. Soldner said it is abhorrent that this was
negotiated without their participation.
Councilwoman Richards said development of affordable housing is dividing
the community and there are clearly two factions. Councilwoman Richards
noted there are citizens who relied on the August 2000 vote regarding
Burlingame and who wonder why this project has taken so long.
Councilwoman Richards said some people are upset about the current
petition drive. Councilwoman Richards stated some people feel this
affordable housing project is a salvation to Aspen as Aspen has always been
made up of its people. This property is within the urban growth boundary,
ratified in 1993 and 2000. The vast majority of the Zoline property has
underlying zoning of one house/10 acres and can become a landing site for
TDRs. This property will not sit as open space. Councilwoman Richards
stated in the trade with the Soldners, this was the proposal they wanted and
there was a financial commitment made to the Soldners for payments from
sale and resale of the lots on the Bar/X property. Mayor Klanderud said the
reason to acquire this piece of property from the Soldners was the location of
the road.
Councilman Semrau moved to adopt Ordinance #33, Series of 2004, on
second reading; seconded by Councilwoman Richards.
Mayor Klanderud said she feels Ms. Soldner's request for a condition is
unrelated. Mayor Klanderud stated this property currently belongs to the
city whether it is annexed or not. Building the road is not related to this
annexation.
16
Re(,jular Meeting 10 Aspen City Council 0 October 12, 2004
Roll call vote; Councilmembers Torre, yes; Richards, yes; Paulson, no;
Semrau, yes; Mayor Klanderud, yes. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #34, SERIES OF 2004 — SoldnerBurlingame Disconnect
1
Mayor Klanderud opened the public hearing.
Toni Kronberg requested Council let the public know what the land use
process will be for development on this parcel. Mayor Klanderud said this is
only disconnection from the city property belonging to the Soldners.
Mayor Klanderud closed the public hearing.
Councilman Semrau moved to adopt Ordinance #34, Series of 2004, on
second reading; seconded by Councilwoman Richards. Roll call vote;
Councilmembers Semrau, yes; Paulson, no; Richards, yes; Torre, yes; Mayor
Klanderud, yes. Motion carried.
RESOLUTION #101, SERIES OF 2004 — Burlingame Parcel D Change
Order Approvals
Ed Sadler, asset manager, noted there are 3 sections of change order
requests; those staff suggests be approved, those that should be denied and
those with questions. Sadler noted the change orders staff is recommending
approval, there was a course with the waterline; however, an underground
storage tank was found under that course and ASW had to relocate their
waterline. ASW incurred costs of $15,000 they were not anticipating, which
is less expensive than moving and cleaning up a storage tank. There are also
costs for moving a phone line, which was not located on any maps. Staff
recommends approval of both of these for a total of $17,700.
Sadler said there are a number of items that are not recommended for
approval, that staff feels are within the control of the development team.
There are two costs related to fire sprinklers, change orders 42 and 52, that
staff would like direction from Council. Some of these costs are attributable
to the aggressive schedule of the project. Sadler said things that were
unforeseen or that the city asked to be changed, staff is recommending
approval. Issues that were totally in the developer's control, they should be
responsible for.
17
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council October 12, 2004
Vince Hooper, ASW, said the developers gave Council a schedule that
conformed to the goals of the city. They agreed to and felt comfortable with
the schedule. Hooper said there are issues they feel are outside control of
the developers. Change order #54 was the fire sprinkler delay. The fire
inspector was out of town, could not do the inspections and this delayed the
project. Change order #14 was a change in the fire rating for the sofits. The
drywell and storm drain caused the developers changes in the design and
they feel there is justification to put these changes in place for a better
project. Hooper noted change order 42 is in two parts; staff is
recommending denial of $69,000. Hooper said change order 43 and 44
relate to keeping the project on schedule, working overtime to make the
dates. Change order 49, ASW agrees the city should not be responsible for.
Councilwoman Richards noted the memorandum states there are more
change orders to come and asked what the city should be expecting. Hooper
said ASW is required to bring all change orders to the city and those not
outlined in this memorandum are about $28,000. Councilman Semrau said
the premise is owner responsibilities that the city was not clear on, should be
paid for by the city, like the underground tank. If the city delays the project
and the developer is trying to keep a schedule, the city should pay. If the
developer has agreed to do certain things, like sprinkle the building, the city
should not have to pay for changes to meet that agreement. Those things the
owner did not know or did not disclose should be paid for by the city. Items
the developer agreed to, they pay for.
Hooper said their only understanding of the developer model is what is in
the contract with the city and is very clear about change orders. The contract
does not get down to level of responsibility but states if you have a change
orders, bring them to the city for discussions. The $59,000 in change order
42 were the testing delays, which would allow the developer to state the
sprinkler system was adequate for water flow through the building.
Steve Barwick, city manager, suggested he and John Worcester, city
attorney, meet with the developer and review those change orders in
question based on the philosophy outlined by Councilman Semrau. Council
agreed and asked staff to look at the other change orders referenced in the
memorandum.
Regular Meeting 0 Aspen City Council *October 12, 2004
Councilman Semrau moved to approve $17,700 in change orders, Resolution
# 101, Series of 2004; seconded by Councilwoman Richards. All in favor,
motion carried.
Councilwoman Richards moved to suspend the rules and extend the meeting
to 10:30 p.m.; seconded by Councilman Torre. All in favor, with the
exception of Councilman Semrau. Motion carried
RESOLUTION #102, SERIES OF 2004 — Opposition to Visitor Center
Referendum Ballot Question
Mayor Klanderud moved to adopt Resolution #102, Series of 2004,
consistent with the position Council took in approving the visitors' .center at
Galena and Main; seconded by Councilwoman Richards.
Councilman Paulson asked if any public funds had been expended on this.
John Worcester, city attorney, noted there is an exception in the campaign
laws that allow governmental bodies to adopt resolutions for or against
ballot issues. Councilman Torre said it is strange to adopt a resolution on a
ballot question when Council was not unanimous in approving the project.
Councilman Torre said he would prefer it if Council did not pursue a
resolution with Council's name on it. Mayor Klanderud stated all this
resolution does is reaffirm Council's decision. Nothing in this resolution
was not in the ordinance adopted by Council.. Mayor Klanderud said every
elected official has the right to campaign for or against ballot issues. Mayor
Klanderud encouraged all Council to enter into the debate.
All in favor, with the exception of Councilmembers Paulson and Semrau.
Motion carried.
RESOLUTION #103, SERIES OF 2004 — Sandunes Lot Split Amendment
James Lindt, community development department, told Council this is
located on the southwest corner of Seventh and Main and is a constructed
duplex. The applicant is requesting the north side yard setback for the
duplex be 19'6". Council approved the lot split in 2000 with the R-15 zone
dimensional requirements. The applicant did not provide design notice to
the building department when they submitted their plans. The duplex was
constructed with a 19'6" setback, which is within the R-15 dimensional
requirement. Lindt noted staff believe there is no longer a need for the
19
Re ular Meetin Aspen CityCouncil •October 12 2004
additional setback because the straight shot of highway 82 was voted down.
The 19'6" setback lines the building up better with Seventh than the 25'
would have done.
John Kelly, representing the applicant, told Council this was a mistake
between the applicant and city reviewing bodies based on the fact that the
land use approval adopted the R-15 zone district dimensions and nowhere in
the ordinance did it state that there was an increased setback. Kelly told
Council after the ordinance was finally approved and recorded, a notice was
sent to the property owner stating there should be a 25' setback on the north
side yard. Mayor Klanderud said it is clear this 25' was requested because
of the highway corridor. This 19'6" setback would not be a barrier to the
straight shot.
Councilwoman Richards moved to adopt Resolution #103, Series of 2004;
seconded by Councilman Semrau. All in favor, motion carried.
Councilwoman Richards moved to go into executive session at 10:23 p.m. to
discuss 3 issues, pursuant to C.R.S. 24-6-402(4)(a), property acquisition
particularly Smuggler Mountain, and C.R.S. 24-6-402(4)(b) advice from
counsel on the Kinder/Morgan lawsuit and negotiations in the Fry -Ark water
exchange; seconded by Councilman Torre. All in favor, motion carried.
Councilwoman Richards moved to come out of executive session at 11:00
p.m.; seconded by Councilman Torre. All in favor, motion carried.
Councilman Torre moved to adjourn at 11:00 p.m; seconded by Councilman
Semrau. All in favor, motion carried.
i
20
•
Memorandum
TO: Mayor and Members of Council
FROM: John P. Worcester
DATE: October 12, 2004
•VIIJ
the My of Aspen
city, Attorneys Office
RE: Ordinance No. 34, Series of 2004, to Disconnect Certain Lands from the
Boundary of the City of Aspen - Soldner/Burlingame Ranch.
Attached for your consideration and review is a proposed ordinance that, if approved, would
disconnect certain parcels from the boundary of the City of Aspen.
The parcels proposed for disconnection are described and depicted on the attached plat. The
parcels were created by an error in the original Burlingame Ranch Annexation and two parcels of
land recently conveyed to the Soldners in exchange for other property needed for the
construction of the westerly access road to the Burlingame Affordable Housing Village.
State law authorizes City Council to adopt an ordinance to disconnect lands that are within and
adjacent to the boundary of the City of Aspen upon the filing of an application by the property
owners and a finding of the City Council that the best interests of the City would not be
prejudiced by the approval of the disconnection.
The attached proposed ordinance contains the requisite findings and, if adopted, would
disconnect the parcels from the boundary of the City of Aspen. .
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me.
REQUESTED ACTION: Approval of Ordinance No. 34, Series of 2004, on second reading.
CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS: iz)¢ Ie
cc: City Manager
!PW- saved: 9/21/2004-235-G:\john\word\memos\disconnect.doc
P187
P188 •
•
ORDINANCE NO. 3+
(Series of 2004)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
DISCONNECTING CERTAIN TRACTS OF LAND, COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS THE
BURLINGAME RANCH/SOLDNERS TRACTS, FROM THE BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN.
WHEREAS, an application has been filed pursuant to Section 31-12-501, C.R.S., by the
Paul E. and Virginia I. Soldner Family Limited Partnership, LLLP, seeking to disconnect certain
tracts of land from the City of Aspen; and
WHEREAS, the application for disconnection includes a Plat of Territory to be
Disconnected from the City of Aspen describing the property to be disconnected; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the parcels proposed to be
disconnected are within and adjacent to the boundary of the City of Aspen; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is of the opinion that the best interests of the City of Aspen
shall not be prejudiced by approving the proposed disconnection of said parcels.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1. The tracts of land described in the Application for Disconnection
filed by the Paul E. and Virginia I. Soldner Family Limited Partnership, LLLP is hereby
approved and the lands therein described are hereby disconnected from the boundary of the City
of Aspen.
Section 2. The City Clerk of the City of Aspen is hereby directed as follows:
(a) To certify and file two copies of the Plat of Territory to be Disconnected from the
City of Aspen with the Clerk and Recorder of the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado.
L.
P189
(b) To request the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County to file one certified copy of
this annexation ordinance and of the annexation map with the Division of Local Government of
the Department of Local Affairs, State of Colorado.
Section 3. The City Engineer of the City of Aspen is hereby directed to
amend the Official Map of the City of Aspen to reflect the boundary changes adopted pursuant to
this ordinance.
Section 4. That if any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion
of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent
jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall
not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof.
Section 5. That this ordinance shall not have any effect on existing litigation
and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue
of the ordinances amended as herein provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded
under such prior ordinances.
A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the
in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado.
day of
2004,
2
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law by the City
Council of the City of Aspen on the day of
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
, 2004.
Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor
FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this day of
.2004.
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor
JPW- saved: 7/20/2004-521-G:\john\word\ords\disconnect.doc
3
JUL-21-2004 WED 09:40 AN
FAX NO, 0
P, 03
P191
APPLICATION FOR DISCONNECTION
The Paul E. and Virginia 1. Soldner Family Limited Partnership, LLLP, hereby apply to
the City of Aspen pursuant to Section 31-12-501, C. R.S. to disconnect from the City of
aspen certain tracts of land described in the attached Plat of Territory and in support of
their application state as follows:
1 The parcels of land to be disconnected are currently within the boundaries of the
City of Aspen.
?. The parcels proposed for disconnection are owned in fee by the undersigned.
I r�sed for disconnection are part of a larger parcel of land that is
3. Thtc pu,.r cells p.,,�••r
not within the boundaries of tl-je City of Aspen
f Pitdkth County
.lgned desires to retain its
entire property within the unincorporated
4, The City of Aspen will not be prejudiced by the disconnection of said parcels.
WHL-REFOR, the undersigned respectfullyquests that
the
the Aspen y o Aspencil enact an
ordinance disconnecting said parcels from the
boun
Paul E
.,nrl Virginia I. Soldner Family Limited Partnership, LLLP:
Title:
Dated:
.I PW_ s,vcd: 1/20/2004-1 H2-G:\john\word\memos\AISCONNEC-TION.dov
City of Aspen
Burlingame Ranch
(Book 50 Page 88)
POINT OF BEGINNING
FOUND 05 REBAR 119.58�
AND CAP LS. 27936
I
I
seen I
4LENA ST
0 81611 I
1-- 00— 805 i
4,
N00'30'22"W
8.53 1 FOUND ,I5 REBAR
/' AND CAP L.S. 27936
Disconnected
Porcel #1 3
0.891 acres N
(V �
FOUND R5 REBAR
'629"39"W AND CAP L.S. 279J6
201.82'
Soldner Property
1
l� Building Bui/din
g
Building
Guiding
Disconnected
P n rr. t- l .12
Bar/X Ran c
NOTES:
The purpose of this plat is tre
the City of Aspen by the plot
Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder
l`ITY O� F gSPFN APPROVAL
Approved by the City Council, Ci
Ordinance Number — — —
2004.
------------
Mayor
I
SURVEYOR'c nFRTIFIGATE
1, Stephen L. Ehlers, being a R,
do hereby certify that this Plot
Aspen was made under my suF
belief and knowledge.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
WXemorandum
Mayor and Members of Council
John P. Worcester
October 12, 2004
G
The City of Aspen
City AHorney's Office
Soldner/Burlingame Ranch Annexation - Ordinance No. 33, Series of 2004
- Public Hearing and Second Reading
Attached for your consideration and review is a proposed ordinance which, if adopted, would
annex newly acquired property from the Soldner family to the City of Aspen. This matter is
before you for Second Reading and a Public Hearing.
The Soldner/Burlingame property is adjacent to the City -owned Burlingame Ranch property. It
was conveyed by the Soldner family to the City in exchange for property conveyed by the City to
the Soldners to facilitate the construction of the access road to the Burlingame Affordable
Housing project on the westerly alignment.
The petition for annexation was filed with the City Clerk on July 22, 2004. On July 26, 2004,
City Council adopted a resolution finding substantial compliance with Section 31-12-107(1),
C.R.S. A public hearing was held on September 13, 2004, at which time Council determined that
the proposed annexation was in compliance with §§ 31-12-104 and 31-12-105, C.R.S.
City staff will be present at the public hearing on second reading to answer any questions you
might have on the proposed annexation and potential impacts the annexation will have on City
operations.
The decision to annex property to the City is a legislative act and is entirely within your
discretionary powers. You may annex, or not, for any reason, or no reason at all. Be advised,
however, that the City Council did agree to a Pre -Annexation Agreement with the applicant.
ACTION REQUIRED: Approval of Ordinance No. 33, Series of 2004, on First Reading.
P182CITY MANGER'S COMMAS:
•
0
cc: City Manager
. Community Development Director
JPW- saved: 9/21/2004-284-G:\John\word\memos\soldner-burlingame-ann.doc
•
P183
ORDINANCE NO.
(Series of 2004)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
APPROVING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, TO BE KNOWN AND DESIGNATED AS THE " SOLDNER/BURLINGAME
RANCH" ANNEXATION.
WHEREAS, on July 22, 2004, the City Manager of the City of Aspen did file, on behalf
of the City of Aspen, with the City Clerk of the City of Aspen a Petition for Annexation of
territory to the City of Aspen; and
WHEREAS, the petition, including accompanying copies of an annexation map, has been
reviewed by the City Attorney's Office and the City Engineer and found by them to contain the
information prescribed and set forth in §31-12-107, C.R.S.; and
WHEREAS, the owners of one hundred percent (100%) of the area proposed to be
annexed, exclusive of streets and alleys, have consented in writing to the annexation; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, by resolution (Number 74, Series of 2004) at its regular
meeting on July 26, 2004, did find and determine said Petition for Annexation to be in substantial
compliance with the provisions of §31-12-107, C.R.S.; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, by resolution (Number 88, Series of 2004) at its regular
meeting on September 13, 2004, did find and determine, following a public hearing, said Petition
for Annexation to be in substantial compliance with §§ 31-12-104 and 31-12-105, C.R.S.; and
WHEREAS, the City Council does hereby find and determine that approval of the
annexation of said territory to be in the City's best interest;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
P184
•
•
Section 1. That the tract of land described in the Petition for Annexation,
commonly referred to as the " Soldner/Burlingame Ranch", and as shown on the annexation map,
is hereby annexed to the City of Aspen, Colorado.
Section 2. The City Clerk of the City of Aspen is hereby directed as follows:
(a) To file one copy of the annexation map with the original of this annexation
ordinance in the office of the City Clerk of the City of Aspen.
(b) To certify and file two copies of this annexation ordinance and of the annexation
map with the Clerk and Recorder of the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado.
(c) To request the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County to file one certified copy of
this annexation ordinance and of the annexation map with the Division of Local Government of
the Department of Local Affairs, State of Colorado.
Section 3. The City Engineer of the City of Aspen is hereby directed to
amend the Official Map of the City of Aspen to reflect the boundary changes adopted pursuant to
this annexation ordinance.
Section 4. That if any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion
of this, ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent
jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall
not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof.
Section 5. That this ordinance shall not have any effect on existing litigation
and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue
of the ordinances amended as herein provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded
under such prior ordinances.
2
11
• P185
A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the day of , 2004,
in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law by the City
Council of the City of Aspen on the day of , 2004.
Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this day of
)2004.
Helen Kalin Manclerucl, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
JPW- saved: 9/21/2004-636-G:\john\word\ords\soldner-burlingame-ann.doc
3
,BC'fBt M.ZC.M.tON
s�
m
a
O
,
Cb
v
O•
s
C
o
CL
a (b \
� � I
�I
rn N
� Ino
I�
m
a
m'
d
Bar/X F'Ronch Property
I ��
0
ATTACHMENT 7
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: k2 141A 4,V- NCO
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: L /I (�/b S , 200_
STATE OF COLORADO )
) SS.
County of Pitkin )
I, CA W io Ic L, (�/� �" (name, please print)
being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby. personally
certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060
(E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner:
ek- Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official
paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15)
days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto.
Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the'
Community Development Department, which was made of suitable,
waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide
and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not
less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days
prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the _ day of
, 200_, to and including the date and time of the public
hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto.
Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community
Development Department, which contains the information described in Section
26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to
the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage
prepaid U.S. mail to any federal agency, state, county, municipal governmint,
school, service district or other governmental or quasi -governmental agenthat
owns property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to tlfe
development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be
those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than
sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and
governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto.
(continued on next page)
0
Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in
any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision
of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such
revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use
regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other
sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and
addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall
be waived. However, the proposed zoning map has been available for public
inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days
prior to the public hearing on such amendments.
r
gnature
The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged rbefore?i
mes��'day
of ' L.. , 200_q, by ��i•_���-,�C'
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: INITIAL ZONING OF THE SOLDNER/ BURLIN-
GAME RANCH PROPERTY THAT WAS ANNEXED
INTO THE CITY OP ASPEN BY ORDINANCE NO. 33
(SERIFS OF 2004) OF THE CITY COUNCIL ON
10/12/04.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing
will be held on Monday, January 10, 2005, at a
meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen
City Council, Aspen City Chambers, City Hall, 130
S. Galena St.. Aspen, to consider an application
submitted by The City of Aspen, requesting that
the Soldner/ Burlingame Ranch Property that was
annexed into the City of Aspen to facilitate the
construction of the access road to the Burlin-
game Affordable Housing project, he zoned as
AH/PUD, and that appropriate modifications be
made to the official City Zone District Map. The
parcel Is located adjacent to Lot 1, Burlingame
Ranch Subdivision and Is commonly known as
Soldner/ Burlingame Ranch Parcel. Contact the
Community Development Department for a metes
and bounds description of this property.
For further Informatic',t. contact Chris Lee at the
City of Aspen Community Development Depart-
ment, 130 S. Galena St_ Aspen, CO, 970.429.2759
(or by email at chrislOcLaspen.co.us).
s/Helen Kalln Klanderud, Mayor
Aspen City Council
Published in The Aspen Times on December 25,
2004.(2249)
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
My commission expires:
'DPP ......... �
Notary Public ='
st n v '
OATES ` O
(P = °
OF COS.
ATTACHMENTS:
COPY OF THE PUBLICATION
PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN)
LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED
0 BYMAIL
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning4ommunity
Pand Zoning Commission
ce ai r,Y gTHRU: Jo All Development Director
FROM: Chris Lee, Planner
RE: Rezoning of the Soldner/Burlingame Ranch Annexation, Public Hearing
DATE: November 30, 2004
APPLICANT /OWNERS: CITY OF ASPEN
LOCATION: The Soldner Property situated between Harmony Road to the west, Bar/X
Ranch to the east, and Stage Road to the south.
LOT SIZE: Parcel 1 (the recently annexed portion that needs rezoning) is 0.605 acres
PARCEL ID NUMBER: 273502300005
CURRENT ZONING: Agricultural/Forestry/Residential 2 — Planned Unit Development
(AFR2-PUD)
PROPOSED ZONING: Affordable Housing/Planned Unit Development (AH/PUD)
CURRENT LAND USE: Parcel 1 is part of a private residential property owned by the
Soldner family.
PROPOSED LAND USE: The annexed section of the Soldner property is to be used as the
access way for Harmony Road that will provide ingress to Burlingame Village.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval
SUMMARY:
The Soldner Family, in agreement with the City of Aspen, petitioned to annex Parcel 1 into
the City in exchange for a similarly sized parcel added to the northern side of their property.
That piece will become part of the Soldner's holdings and will be annexed into Pitkin
County. The primary reason for this property exchange and annexation is to provide an
access road (Harmony Road) to the Burlingame Village development.
REVIEW PROCEDURE:
Rezoning. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider the application at a public
hearing and recommend approval, approval with conditions, or denial to City Council.
BACKGROUND:
Parcel 1 of the existing Soldner property was recently annexed into the City of Aspen by
Ordinance No. 33 (Series of 2004) that came before the City Council on October 12, 2004.
State statute requires the City to assign the property to the appropriate zone district(s) within
90 days of the final annexation
PREVIOUS ACTION:
The Commission has not previously considered this rezoning request.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Staff has examined all options to make a recommendation about appropriate zoning of Parcel
1 of the Soldner/Burlingame Ranch. Based on examinations of the current zoning, land use
and zoning of surrounding areas and intended use of the parcel, Staff believes that Land Use
Code Section 26.710.110, Affordable Housing/Planned Unit Development (AH/PUD), is the
appropriate designation. Review criteria and Staff Findings have been included as Exhibit A.
A site map is provided as Exhibit B.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff finds that the proposed rezoning application meets or exceeds the requirements set forth
in Land Use Code Section 26.310.040, Amendments to the Land Use Code and Official Zone
District Map, to approve an amendment to the official zone district map. Staff recommends
that the Planning and Zoning Commission forward a recommendation of approval to City
Council on the proposed rezoning request.
Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission forward a recommendation
of approval to City Council for this property to be included in the Affordable
Housing/Planned Unit Development (AH/PUD) Zone District, as described in the included
resolution.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
" I move to approve Resolution No. �, Series of 2004, recommending that the City
Council approve the proposed rezoning to allow for Parcel 1 of the Soldner/Burlingame
Ranch, to be rezoned to the Affordable Housing/Planned Unit Development (AH/PUD) City
Zone District."
Attachments:
Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Findings
Exhibit B — Map (Annexation Parcel 1)
Exhibit C — Map (Parcel that will be exchanged for Parcel 1)
2
RESOLUTION NO. 31
(SERIES OF 2004)
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT CITY COUNCIL REZONE THE
SOLDNER/BURLINGAME RANCH ANNEXATION PARCEL NO. 1 TO THE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING/PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (AH/PUD) ZONE
DISTRICT.
PARCEL ID NUMBER: 273502300005
WHEREAS, a parcel of land situated in the Southwest '/4 of Section 2, Township
10 South, Range 85 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, commonly referred to as
"Burlingame Ranch Annexation Parcel No. 1" was annexed into the City of Aspen on
October 12, 2004 through Ordinance No. 33, series of 2004; and,
WHEREAS, the property is approximately 0.605 ± acres, legally described
herein; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Aspen must designate a zone district
for the property within 90 days of the annexation; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310 of the Land Use Code (Amendment to
the Official Zone District Map), approval may be granted by the City Council at a duly
noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Planning and Zoning
Commission, the Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department analyzed the parcel of
land and recommended the property be designated Affordable Housing/Planned Unit
Development (AH/PUD) Zone District; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission conducted a duly noticed
public hearing on November 30, 2004 and found that the development review standards
for an Amendment to the Official Zoning Map have been met; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution
furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning and Zoning Commission
recommends that the Aspen City Council make an Amendment to the Official Zoning
Map, so that the land commonly referred to as "Soldner/Burlingame Ranch Parcel I", as
described below, be categorized as an Affordable Housing/Planned Unit Development
(AH/PUD) Zone District.
Soldner/Burlinsame Ranch — Parcel 1 Legal Description:
DESCRIPTION — BURLINGAME RANCH ANNEXATION PARCEL NO. 1
A parcel of land situated in the Southwest'/4 of Section 2, Township 10 South, Range 85
West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, said parcel
being more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at a point on the east line of the Burlingame Ranch as recorded in Plat Book 50
at Page 88 of the records of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder whence the West '/4
corner of said Section 2 bears N64° 14' 16"W a distance of 878.38 feet with all bearings
contained herein being relative to a bearing of N04°41' 19"E between the W '/4 corner and
the Northwest corner of said Section 2; thence S86029'36"E along the boundary of said
Burlingame Ranch a distance of 119.58 feet; thence S34004'47"W a distance of 4.13 feet
to the northeasterly corner of a parcel of land described on page 16 of Reception
#497592; thence along the easterly boundary of said parcel of land the following two (2)
courses, thence S13°54'40"W a distance of 403.00 feet; thence S26°19'05"W a distance
of 27.92 feet to a point on said Burlingame Ranch boundary; thence N01 °02'37"W along
the boundary of said Burlingame Ranch a distance of 427.02 feet to the POINT OF
BEGINNING, containing 26,366 square feet or 0.605 acres, more or less.
APPROVED by the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission at a special
meeting on November 30, 2004.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION:
City Attorney
ATTEST:
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
Jasmine Tygre, Chair
.A
•
0
EXHIBIT A
REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS
AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE SOLDNER PROPERTY
Section 26.92.020, Standards Applicable to Rezoning
In reviewing an amendment to the official zone district map, the Planning and Zoning
Commission shall consider:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this
title.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES
The proposed zoning is consistent with the Land Use Code and does not represent any
potential conflicts. This zoning provides the most congruent land use regulations with
those previously provided in Pitkin County and provides the most appropriate zoning
given the location, topography and access. In addition, the proposed rezoning
application will not create any zoning non -conformities with respect to the existing
properties. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? I YES
Staff believes that the proposed zoning is consistent with the Aspen Area Community
Plan. The future land use map in the AACP envisions this area as a locale for affordable
housing development. By zoning this as AH/PUD it will become land that supports this
AACP designation and is consistent with the proposed Burlingame Village affordable
housing development. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and
land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics.
STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES
Yes, it is compatible with both the surrounding districts and land uses. Currently it
borders on land that is zoned AH/PUD. It is critical that this parcel be zoned the same
way to accommodate the access road to Burlingame Village.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety.
STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES
The site has adequate access for the intended level of traffic. Staff does not expect any
degradation of road capacity due to this rezoning. In fact, this parcel was annexed, and
is being rezoned, specifically to provide for road construction.
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
Soldner Rezoning Staff Comments Page 1
•
Ll
demands on public facilities, and whether the extent to which the proposed
amendment would exceed the capacity of such facilities, including, but not
limited to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks,
drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities.
STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES
There will not be an increase in the demand for public facilities as a result of the
proposed rezoning request.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
significant adverse impacts on the natural environment.
STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES
The proposed rezoning application would not result in significant adverse impacts on the
environment. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community
character in the City of Aspen.
STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES
Staff believes that the proposed rezoning application is consistent with the community
and neighborhood character of the area, in that the new zoning is similar to zoning in the
vicinity and does not, in and of itself, change the character of the area.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the
surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES
The City has a statutory obligation to provide this property with zoning within ninety
(90) days of the final annexation. The property was annexed into the City on October
12, 2004. Therefore, the annexation itself produced the changed conditions (land
transferred from County to City) that warrant the proposed amendment. Staff finds this
criterion to be met.
I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest,
and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title.
STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? YES
It is in the public interest to zone this parcel within ninety (90) days as required by
statutory obligations. This zoning does not pose any conflicts to the public interest and
actually furthers it, by contributing to the timely development of Burlingame Village
Soldner Rezoning Staff Comments Page 2
•
•
ATTACHMENT 7
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: id
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: 3� , 200_
STATE OF COLORADO )
SS.
County of Pitkin )
(name, please print)
being or representing an Applicant to he City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally
certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060
(E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner:
A_ Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official
paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15)
days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto.
Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the
Community Development Department, which was made of suitable,
waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide
and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not
less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days
prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the _ day of
1200 , to and including the date and time of the public
hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto.
Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community
Development Department, which contains the information described in Section
26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to
the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage
prepaid U.S. mail to any federal agency, state, county, municipal government,
school, service district or other governmental or quasi -governmental agency that
owns property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the
development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be
those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than
sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and
governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto.
(continued on next page)
Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in
any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision
of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such
revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use
regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other
sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and
addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall
be waived. However, the proposed zoning map has been available for public
inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days
prior to the public hearing on such amendments.
nature
The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me t 's I s day
of d-Qov , 200 �', by_S
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
My commission expires:
Notary Public
SA RAH
OATES iO
� ...c.o�o
ATTACHMENTS:
COPY OF THE PUBLICATION
PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN)
LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED
BY MAIL
PUBLIC NOTICE
r
RE:REZONING OF THE SOEDNER/BURLINGAME
RANCH PROPERTY THAT WAS ANNEXED INTO
THE CITY OF ASPEIr"NY ORDINANCE NO. 33
(SERIES OF 2004) OF THE CITY COUNCIL ON
10/12/04.
NOTICE IS HERBY GIVING that a public hearing will be held
on Tuesday, November 30, 2004, at a a meeting to begin at 4:30
p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, sister
Cities Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an
application submitted by The City of Aspen, requesting that the
Soldner/Burlingame Ranch Property that was annexed into the City
of Aspen to facilitate the construction of the access road to the
Burlingame Affordable Housing project, be zoned as AH/PUD, and
the appropriate modifications be mad to official City zone District
Map. The parcel is located adjacent to Lot 1. Burlingame Ranch
Subdivision and is commonly known as Soldner/Burlingame
Ranch Parcel.
For further information, contact Chris Lee at the City of Aspen
Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen,
CO (970) 920-5095, (or by email at chrisl@ciaspen.co.us).
s/Helen Kalin Klanderud. May
,Aspen City Council
Published in the Aspen Times on November 12, 2004
City of Aspen Account
THE CITY OF ASPEN
FOUND IRON PIPE AND 1� 1116st�(T/�`J
BRASS CAP FOR THE \4 j
WEST 1/4 CORNER OF SECTION 2, 8�8386�—
TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 85 WEST,
SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN
City of Aspen
130 S. GALENA ST
ASPEN CO 81611
2735-031-00-805
GRAPHIC SCALE
40 o zo
180
( IN FEET )
I inch = 40 ft.
FOUND IRON PIPE AND
BRASS CAP F�THE
WEST 1/4 CO R OF SECTION 2,
TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 85 WEST,
SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN
ti
STATEMENT OF CONTIGUITY
CONTIGUOUS DISTANCE=546.60'
CONTIGUITY FACTOR= .5568 ((WHICH IS GREATER THAN i/6 (.1666)]
LINE TABLE
LINE
BEARING
DISTANCE
L1
N34'04'47"E
4.13
L2
S26'19'OS"yy
27.92
Ab6ce.
According to Colorado Low, you must
commence any legal action based upon any
defect in this survey within three years after
you first discover such defect. In no event
may any legal action based upon any defect
in this survey be commenced more than ten
years from the date of the certification shown
hereon.
I
FOUND #5 REBAR
— — — AND CAP L.S. 27936
201.82'
�x—
/ i
/} I
}
/X
x
Soldner Property
B URLINGA ME RANCH A NNEXA TION MA P
SECTION 21 TO WNSHIP 10 SOUTH,
RANGE 85 WEST, 6rru P.M.
County of Pi thin,
State of Colorado
VICINITY MAP N. T.S.
DESCRIPTION- BURLINGAME RANCH ANNEXATION PARCEL NO. 1
A parcel of land situate in the Southwest !4 of Section 2, Township 10 South,
Range 85 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado,
said parcel being more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at a point on the east line of the Burlingame Ranch as recorded in Plat
Book 50 at Page 88 of the records of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder
whence the West X corner of said Se on 2 bears N64'14'16"W a distance of
878.38 feet with all bearings containe4perein being relative to a beorinef
N04'41'19"E between the W 114 corner and the Northwest corner of said -Section 2;
thence S862936"E along tte boundary of said Burlingame Ranch a distance of
119.58, thence S34'04'47"W a distance of 4.13 feet to the northeasterly corner of a
parcel of land described on page 16 OReception #497592, thence alon he
easterly boundary of said parcel of Ian the following two (2) courses, t nce
S13 54'40"W a distance of 403.00 feet; thence S26'19'05"W a distance of 27.92 feet
to a point on said Burlingame Ranch boundary, thence N010237"W along the
boundary of said Burlingame Ranch a distance of 427.02 feet to the POINT OF
BEGINNING, containing 26,366 square feet or 0.605 acres, more or less.
CITY OF ASPEN APPROVAL
Approved by the City Council, City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado by Ordinance
Number --_—_—_—_, passed this -- day of —_—_—_ —, 2004.
Mayor
City Clerk
SURVEYORS CERTIFICATE
I, Stephen L. Ehlers, being a Registered Land Surveyor in the State of Colorado, do hereby
certify that this BURLINGAME RANCH ANNEXATION MAP was made under my supervision and is
true and correct to the best of my belief and knowledge. 1 further certify that the contiguous
boundary of the Parcel shown hereon is greater than 1/6 (one sixth).
291.77• FOUND #5 REBAR
AND CAP L.S. 27936 I -------- --- -- ---
Stephen L. Ehlers L.S. 20133 Date
— x x x x x
.IC) x
• BAR/X RANCH PROPERTY
CLERK AND RECORDERS CERTIFICATE
— — — — — — — I This Annexation Plat was filed for record in the office of the Clerk and Recorder, Pitkin County,
Colorado at__ ---_o'clock on this _day of — _—_ A.D. 2004, filed in
Plat Book No._-- at Page No.
Maroon Creek Club - - ----
County Clerk and Recorder
He Edt Record NaviWe Form Reports Tab help
Sub Qemks I yaluabon ! PL& Cm ew t
Main Rcj4v Status ! Ai&Arg ! Parcels ! Custom Fields ! Feel Fee Surtmapf ! Actions ! Roofing jjisfory ! Lomita
Permit Type jaslu Land Use 2004 Pefmit fit J0M.2W4ASLU
Address Apl/S ude
City �� State —� Zp
Permit Information
Matter Pemit F J Routh* Queue I""' Applied 110nOM04
Project Status per,*V Approved F—I
Desci0bon SOLDNER REZONING M lm*d F—^.!7
Final F J
SubmiNa<1 JBITY OF ASPEN Clock Rurrgv Days I 0 Enwas 1O/15MM J
F Visible on the web? Parma ID: 31903
_ ....................
Owner
Last Name CITYOFASPEN FNSt Name I—
1130 S GALENA ST
Phone (970) 9Q0-5M
ASPEN CO 81611
i
rJ OwnerlsAp*ant?
Applicant
Las( Name CITY OFASPENP� _ T Frst Name'
..__... ....... ............ ....... __......... _
130 S GALENA ST
Phone (9701920.m Cult tt 12=1
':ASPEN CO 81611
Lender _..__.. __.
_.......__. •i _r._._ - a c:.,,a _...-.
'_.
permit
Record: 2 of 2