HomeMy WebLinkAboutresolution.council.087-01
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL READOPTING
THE CITY OF ASPEN ANNEXATION PLAN, 2001
Resolution NO.~ Series of 2001
WHEREAS, pursuant to Colorado Revised Statutes (CRS) 31-12-105, all cities within
the State of Colorado must a have a "Plan" in place to guide future annexations; and
WHEREAS, the last update of the City of Aspen Annexation Plan was approved by
Aspen City Council through Resolution No. 97, Series of2000, on July 26, 2000; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen Area Community Plan (MCP) differed from prior
comprehensive plans in that the document was a "character" based plan that did not include the
adoption of a revised Annexation Plan; and
WHEREAS, The Aspen/Pitkin County Community Development Department has
initiated a process for a joint City/County review and rewrite of the plan; and
WHEREAS, State Statute requires this readoption ofthe plan annually; and
WHEREAS, the current plan is acceptable for readoption until such time as the joint
City/County efforts reflecting the adopted 2000 MCP results in arevised Annexation Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO:
That the City Council has reviewed the proposed 2001 Annexation Plan and has formally
adopted the Plan.
RESOLVED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 27th day of August, 2001, by the City
Council
for the City of Aspen, Colorado.
I, Kathryn S. Koch, as duly appointed City Clerk do certify t at the foregoing is a true
and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by City Council of the City of Aspen, Color do, at
a meeting held August 27, 2001
Approved as to Form:
G:\planning\aspenlannex\annexplanreso200 I.doc
City of Aspen
Annexation Plan
2001
Last Revised July 3, 1996
Prepared by:
Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department
Readopted by the City of Aspen through:
Resolution #59, Series of 1997
Resolution #67, Series of 1998
Resolution #62, Series of 1999
Resolution #97, Series of 2000
Resolution #_, Series of2001
I. INTRODUCTION
Statutory Requirements. All annexation actions by cities in Colorado are governed by CRS 31-21-
105. These statutory requirements include the need to produce an annexation plan for a three mile
boundary around the existing city limits. The specific requirements include the following:'
" Prior to completion, of any annexations, within the three mile area, the municipality shall have
in place a plan for the area, which generally describes the proposed location, character, and
extent of streets, subways, bridges, waterways, waterfronts, parkways, playgrounds, squares,
parks, aviation fields, other public ways, grounds, open spaces, public utilities, and terminals for
water, light, sanitation, transportation, and power to be provided by the municipality and.the
proposed land uses for the area".
Past Annexation Plans bv the Citv of Asoen. The City of Aspen last updated the Annexation Plan
in 1988. From the full of 1984 until the full of 1985, The City Council, in cooperation with the
Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners, met intermittently to discuss annexation policy,
and the analysis of annexation is traditionally coordinated by the City Manager's Office. The plan
adopted in 1988 has not been updated, and has been the legislative guide for all annexations since
that time.
The 1988 plan was actually an individual element to the 1988 Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan,
which has subsequently been amended by' the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) adopted in
1993. This 1996 revision has been prepared in order to meet the statutory requirements of CRS
31-21-105, as well as to update the Annexation Plan with respect to annexations already
undertaken, and new policies and land use code provisions which have been implemented.
However, the remaining annexation areas identified in this plan are essentially the same as those
identified in the 1988 plan and the conceptual framework for annexation remains unchanged as
well.
The 1988 Annexation Plan stated that the City of Aspen is taking a proactive role in the annexation
process in ordef to enfranchise County residents who live outside 6fthe City of Aspen
jurisdictional boundaries within the political process. Presently, there are many residents who live
within the urban service area who do not participate in City elections. The intent of the annexation
process is to incorporate the urbanized portion of Pitkin County into the City of Aspen. Secondly,
a pro-active, aggressive annexation policy will allow the City to exert direct control upon the
City of Aspen Annexation Plan, rev. 3 July 1996
Page 2
growth at the urban/rural fringe of the City. These general goals hold true for the 1996
Annexation Plan as well.
II. ANNEXA nON AREA
The annexation area shown on Exhibit A generally corresponds with the Boundaries of the Aspen
Area Community Plan, with a few exceptions. The shaded portions of Exhibit A, Owl Creek,
Maroon Creek, and the east side of the Roaring Fork East and the west side of State Highway 82
Corridor, are within the boundaries of the Aspen Area Community Plan but outside of the
proposed annexation area. These areas have been excluded from consideration because they are
considered rural in character, with little likelihood for the provision of urban or municipal services.
Almost the entire annexation area, which contains approximately 8,714 acres ofland, is located
within 3 miles of the existing City limits. Presently there are only 1,479 acresofland within the
current jurisdictional.boundaries of Aspen. If the entire annexation area is annexed to the City, the
geographic size of Aspen would increase by approximately seven times. This figure is somewhat
misleading because the Aspen Mountain and Aspen Highlands areas contain approximately 2,432
acres. If the ski areas are deleted, the annexation area only contains approximately 6,282 acres.
To simplify the analysis, the proposed annexation area has been broken down into 12 smaller
annexation areas which are depicted in Exhibit B. The boundaries for each area were developed
based on the following fuctors: existing development patterns, physical features, and established
neighborhood areas. The existing character of the annexation areas vary significantly in terms of
urbanization levels and environmental constraints.
Based on the 1995 Community Development Department estimates, the proposed annexation areas
currently contain approximately 1,947 dwelling units, and an estimated year-round population of
2,869. By comparison, the 1994-1995 resident population for the City of Aspen was
approximately 5,851 and the peak population was estimated at 25,000.1
I
An analysis of the existing zoning pattern in the unincorporated portion of Pitkin COlmty indicates
that a range of 896 to 1,130 new dwelling units can conceivably be developed in the proposed
annexation area. This figure includes the approvals for the Maroon Creek property, as well as the
I All dwelling unit and population estimates are based on extrapolation from 1990 U.S. Census data.
City of Aspen Annexation Plan, rev. 3 July 1996
Page 3
conceptual approval of the Highlands Base Village. The sununary by annexation group is shown
on Table I.
This table provides an overview of land use characteristics for each annexation area. The land use
characteristics provided a basis for aggregating the annexation areas into four distinct groups
which share similar traits. The grouping of these areas are explained below:
Group A--UteINorthstar, Red Butte, Shadow Mountain
Gener.ally, rural annexation areas which have very limited growth potential due to their
geographic location. These areas are particularly affected by environmental planning
issues. The City's existing Land Use Code with its provisions for Environmentally
Sensitive Areas (ESA's) now has appropriate provisions to guide the growth and
development of these areas. Further consideration may be given to adopting the more-
stringent County 1041 regulations.
Group B--Roaring Fork East, Red Mountain, Pitkin Green
Generally, suburban annexation areas comprised of predominantly developed subdivisions.
Several of these subdivisions have been already annexed into the City, such as Eastwood
and Knollwood. Remaining areas include Aspen Grove and MOWltain Valley. The major
land use issues affecting this group include floor area ratio and legitimizing "bandit
dwelling units." Another issue relative to Red Mountain is the status of Red Mountain
Road and the ability of the City to adequately maintain and upgrade it as necessary.
Group C--Meadowood, Smuggler, Aspen Highlands Base and New Development, State
Highway 82 Corridor
These areas contain large development parcels with significant growth potential. There are
numerous land use planning issues which need to be resolved prior to annexation,
regarding appropriate development densities. The Maroon Creek Development
Corporation area has completed the County land use process and has been awarded land
use approvals. The Aspen Highlands project is currently in the County land use process.
City of Aspen Annexation Plan, rev. 3 July 1996
Page 4
TABLEt
SUMMARY OF ANNEXATION AREAS
Group A
1 Ute 469 133 69 7.10 Rural/Not Includes Little Annie Base
Northstar Subdivided
6 Red Butte 105 217 0 9-11 RuraVPartially Potential for park use
Public
10 Shadow 284 4 10.14 Rural/ City ESA process
Mountain Numerous appropriate
mining claims
Subtotal 858 351 73 26-35
Group B
2 Roaring 66 0 3 28-33 Suburban! All Numerous bandit units
Fork Subdivided
4 Red 324 .5 20 98.124 Suburban! Numerous bandit units
Mountain Subdivided &
Unsubdivided
5 Pitkin 219 0 21 89.99 Suburban! Numerous bandit units
Green Subdivided &
Unsubdivided
Subtotal 609 .5 44 215-256
Group C
3 Lower 260 42 10 37-150 Urban! Not EP A requirements
Smuggler Subdivided
7 Meadowood 366 219 231 93-114 Suburban! Significant potential for
Subdivided & growth
Unsubdivided
8 Aspen 144 2 15 154 Suburban! Growth potential
Highlands Subdivided & determined in 1996 by
Unsubdivided general submission to
County
12 SH82 1536 424 2 260.310 Urban and Significant potential for
Corridor Rural/ growth
Subdivided and
Unsubdivided
13 Maroon 403 62 218 111 Suburban PUD approval in place,
Creek RETT revenue
Subtotal 2709 . 749 476 655.839
Group D
9 Aspen 1374 0 130 0 Ski Area! 96% Sales tax revenue
Highlands USFS
11 Aspen 1058 0 0 0 Ski Area! 21 % Fragmented ownership
Mountain USFS
Subtotal 2432 0 130 0
TOTAL 8714 1100.5 723 896-1130
Source: Aspen/Pitkin County Community Development Department, 1996.
City of Aspen Annexation Plan, rev. 3 July 1996
Page 5
Annexation of these areas would generally include reaffirming the decisions of these
processes. An issue unique to the Smuggler area is the impact upon the City, County, and
residents of the area relating to its designation as a "Super Fund" hazardous waste site.
Group D--Aspen HigWands and Aspen Mountain Skiing Areas
These areas correspond with skiing area permit boundaries. Annexation would necessitate
the drafting of new land use legislation to guide future growth and development of the
skiing areas.
An analysis of land use issues indicate that the annexation of areas in Groups A and B will result
in less complicated land use issues for the City than the annexation of areas in Groups C and D. It
is also possible that the Meadowood annexation can be broken into smaller parts, according to
existing subdivisions. For example, the Meadowood, Aspen Highlands, and Aspen Tennis Club
subdivisions are similar in nature to each other and the annexation of these three subdivisions could
be accomplished without addressing the question of zoning large vacant tracts of land.
III. STATUTORY ANNEXATION CRITERIA
An area is eligible for annexation if the governing body, at a hearing as provided in CRS 31-12-
109, finds and determines the following:2
I. That not less than one-sixth of the perimeter of the area proposed to be annexed is
contiguous with the annexing municipality. Contiguity is not affected by the existence of a platted
street or alley, a public or private right-of-way or area, public lands, or a lake reservoir, stream, or
other natural or man-made waterway between the annexing municipality and the land proposed to
be annexed.
2. That a community of interest exists between the area proposed to be annexed and the
annexing municipality; that such area is urban or will be urbanizing in the near future; and that
said area is integrated with or is capable of being integrated with the annexing municipality. The
2CRS 31-12-104.
City of Aspen Annexation Plan, rev. 3 July 1996
Page 6
fuct that the area proposed to be annexed has the contiguity with the annexing municipality
required by the above requirement shan be a basis for a finding of compliance with these
requirements unless the governing body, upon the basis of competent evidence presented at the
hearing, finds that at least two of the following are shown to exist:
a. Less than fifty percent of the adult residents of the area proposed to be annexed
make use of part or all of the following types of fucilities of the annexing municipality;
Recreational, civic, social, religious, industrial, or commercial; and less than twenty-five
percent of said area's adult residents are employed in the annexing municipality. If there are
no adult residents at the time of the hearing, this standard does not apply.
b. One-half or more of the land in the area proposed to be annexed (including streets)
is agricultural, and the landowners of such agricultural land, under oath, express an intent
to devote the land to such agricultural use for a period of not less than five years.
c. It is nqt physically practicable to extend the area proposed to be annexed those
urban services which the annexing municipality provides in common to of all its citizens on
the same terms and conditions as such services are made available to such citizens. This
standard shall not apply to theexteut that any portion of an area proposed to be annexed. is
provided or will within the reasonably near future be provided with any service by or
through a quasi-municipal corporation.
These annexation criteria have been used as a general guide to identify an annexation area around
the periphery of Aspen.
IV. ANNEXATION REPORT REQUIREMENTS
State statutes also require that a municipality must prepare an impact report concerning the
proposed annexation at least twenty-five days before the date of the hearing, and shall file one copy
with the Board of County Commissioners governing the land proposed to be annexed. Such report
shall not be required for annexations often acres or less in total area or when the municipality and
the Board of County Commissioners agree that the report may be waived. Such report shall
include, as a minimum:
City of Aspen Annexation Plan, rev. 3 July 1996
Page 7
I. A map or maps of the municipality and adjacent territory to show the following
information:
a. The present and proposed boundaries of the municipality and in the vicinity of the
proposed annexation;
b. The present streets, major trunk water mains, sewer interceptors and outfulls,
other utility lines and ditches, and the proposed extension of such streets and utility lines in the
vicinity of the proposed annexation;
c. The existing and proposed land use pattern in the areas to be annexed.
2. A copy of any draft or final preannexation agreement, if available;
3. A statement setting forth the plans of the municipality for extending to or otherwise
providing for, within the area to be annexed, municipal services performed by or on behalf of the
municipality at the time of annexation;
4. A statement setting forth the method under which the municipality plans to finance the
extension of the municipal services into the area to be annexed;
5. A statement identifying existing districts within the area to be annexed; and
6. A statement on the effect of annexation upon local-public school district systems, including
the estimated number of students generated and the capital construction required to educate such
students.
V. ISSUES AND CONCERNS
1bis section of the annexation plan addresses land use issues and general policy concerns which
are likely to arise during any annexation process. The annexation guidelines which follow this
section have been developed in response to the issues and concerns addressed in this section, and
are intended to guide the City and County during annexation decisions.
City of Aspen Annexation Plan, rev. 3 July 1996
Page 8
Increased Development Potential within Existing Subdivisions
From a historical perspective, it has been City policy that, when land is annexed, the development
rights of the annexed land are not increased in comparison to the development rights in
unincorporated Pitkin County prior to the annexation. A fundamental policy question is whether
the City will continue to pursue this policy, particularly in light of the potential land use changes
that could occur in and around Aspen, and community goals such as affordable housing and the
development of alternative transportation modes entering Aspen.
The coutinuatioo of the past annexation policy would be an indirect acknowledgment that the
development rights established by Pitkin County zoning are appropriate. A review of the existing
subdivisions in the proposed annexation areas indicated that in virtually all cases, based upon a
consideration of standard zoning criteria such as neighborhood compatibility and provision of
services, County zoning appears appropriate.
A general land use policy addressing the development potential of an area after annexation should
take into consideration more fuctors than just the zoned developmeut potential in wtincorporated
Pitkin County. Equally important factors affecting density should include:
. compliance with the Aspen Area Community Plan;
. compatibility with the existing neighborhood;
. recent or expected changes in the neighborhood or general area;
. capability of the community to provide necessary services;
. environmental constraints; and
. changing goals of the community.
Floor Area Ratios
Floor Area Ratios (FAR) are utilized by the City and the County to determine the maximum size of
dwelling units permitted in zone districts. Floor area ratios represent the relationship between the
size of a structure and the size of the lot.
Pitkin County utilizes fixed percentages for FAR calculations. For example the F ARs in the R-30,
R-15 and R-16 are .13, .16 and .30 respectively. By comparison, the City of Aspen utilizes a
sliding scale FAR system. With the exception of relatively large two-acre lots, the County F ARs
City of Aspen Annexation Plan, rev. 3 July 1996
Page 9
are more restrictive than the methodology applied by the City of Aspen. Therefore, in the absence
of changes to the City F ARs, the annexation of outlying subdivisions will most likely result in the
. expansion of some dwelling units and the removal of non -conforming status for some existing
structures. The expansion of dwelling units mayor may not be compatible with surrounding areas
and is an issue that -should be analyzed during the annexation process.
Development Potential of Un subdivided Land
A summary of major unsubdivided land within the annexation area is shown previously on Table I.
In the past, both the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission and the Aspen City Council have
expressed frustration due to their perceived lack of control over the development of large parcels on
the urban fringe of the existing City limits. One method of addressing this concern is have large,
unincorporated parcels which are located in feasible annexation locations be annexed by the City.
The capability to assert direct control over such important lands around Aspen has significant
impact on the ability of the City to control is own destiny from a land use perspective. In ahnost
every case, the ability to capture both sales tax and Real Estate Transfer Tax (RE1T) revenues are
compelling reasons to pursue aggressive annexation policies.
A primary disadvantage .associated with annexing substantial amounts of vacaut, undeveloped land
is that the action is generally followed by increased development expectations on the part of land
owners. The community has consistently attempted to maintain a rural. entranCe to the City, with
urbanization limited to and surrounding the central core. The City must weigh the costs of
potential intensification of land uses with the desire to increase revenues and exert greater land use
control. These are particularly important in reference to the State Highway 82 Corridor. One
option open to the City would be to incorporate an open space component into the annexation
process, partially financed by increased REIT revenues associated with individual annexations.
Environmental Review Standards
The Aspen City limits have begun to expand beyond the original townsite located on the pnbary
benches above the valley floor. This has created a situation whereby future expansi0ns will
introduce significant environmental constraints in the annexation process. The Pitkin County Land
Use Code is specifically designed to address such environmental issues such as slope, erosion,
wildlife and floodplain constraints. In particular, the Colorado House Bill 1041 powers have
City of Aspen Annexation Plan, rev. 3 July 1996
Page 10
allowed Pitkin County to apply detailed criteria to review potential development in environmentally
sensitive areas.
In contrast, the Municipal Code is intended to review urb.an -level developmell.ts, and does not
. contain the rigor of the County's 1041 regulations for managing development in sensitive areas.
The City has made steps to address these issues, specifically improving the 8040 Greenline,
Environmentally Sensitive Area, and Stream Margin review processes. These provisions of the
City Code may not be as restrictive as those found in Pitkin County's 1041 regulations.
Ski Area Base Zoning
The Aspen Highlands Base Village has obtained conceptual development approval from Pitkin
County. If the Highlands base area is annexed by the City, the City's existing lodge zones may not
be suitable for the Aspen Highlands base area. The potential annexation of Buttermilk presents
similar difficulties. The threshold issue with annexing either base village is the extensive area
which could potentially accommodate future development, and the intensive nature of existing City
zonmg.
Ski Area Zoning
Study Area II includes the Aspen Mountain Ski Area. The annexation of the ski area would
require the creation of a new zone district for ski area recreation, as well as an SPA overlay. A
wide variety of issues related to ski area expansion, which are not addressed by the current
municipal code, would have to be resolved prior to annexation. Pitkin County has adopted the AF-
SKI zone district to regulate ski area development and expansion. This tool should be considered
for adoption by the City if annexation occurs in this area. Additional issues include the relative
benefit of annexing federal lands into the City, as well as the additional impact on emergency
response.
Utility Extensions
T ypica! annexation policies focus a great deal of fiscal analysis on the potential extension of water
and sanitary sewer lines by a municipality to annexed territories. Within the Aspen Area, sanitary
sewer is provided by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, rather than the City. Therefore,
Cily of Aspen Annexation Piau, rev. 3 July 1996
Pagc II .
the provision of sanitary sewer is not an annexation issue. However, the City of Aspen operates a
municipal water system; and cost and engineering issues relating to the provision of potable water
to developing land on the urban fringe are significant annexation issues.
Exhibit C depicts the boundaries ofthe existing plan for water service areas adopted within the
Aspen Water Management Plan. Currently, there are several small water districts which serve
residences which are located outside the City's boundaries but within the service area of the water
system. These small districts may present a problem for the City following annexation because
their capital facilities may not be providing acceptable standards of service. Upgrading would be
expensive, and may become the responsibility of the City following annexation.
As the periphery of the City is developed, the development community is fuced with a choice of
joining the Aspen water system or developing their own domestic water infrastructure. The City
and County do not currently require that new development join the municipal water system.
Furthennore, the City recommends that the County require new developments which choose to
provide private water systems to design those systems to meet standards which are comparable to
City standards. When and if the City annexes these areas, the water systems would otherwise
create a liability to the City. The City also recommends that the County develop standards which
act as an incentive to have developments initially hook onto the City's system, in order to avoid the
proliferation of small, uneconomical, often undependable private water systems in the metro area.
Annexation/Zoning Process
State law requires municipalities to zone annexed land within 90 days of annexation. In the past,
when complex zoning issues arise, the City of Aspen has experienced problems meeting this state
requirement. Failure to zone land within 90 days may potentially pennit unwanted land uses on
annexed land. In order to assist the City in zoning newly annexed areas within the 90 day time
period, the Annexation Plan should establish guidelines for the city to follow during the annexation
process.
City of Aspen Annexation PIan, rev. 3 July 1996
Page 12
V. ANNEXATION GUIDELINES
Introduction
The first purpose of this chapter is to establish annexation guidelines to assist the City of Aspen in
making land use decisions regarding the annexation of new territory. The guidelines should be
used to determine when annexation is appropriate, which land should be annexed and how it should
be zoned. The guidelines will also be useful to property owners in annexed areas who are seeking
an indication of how their land will be treated in the land use process. The second purpose of this
chapter is to prGpose specific actions to be pursued to prepare the City for the annexation of land
within designated annexation areas.
Guidelines
. A. Master Planning
I. Guideline
Generally, an adopted Master Plan for an annexed area addressing land use and
capital facilities improvements should be a pre-requisite to annexation.
Explanatory Comments
Most of the areas earmarked for annexation have been master planned or
developed under Pitkin County jurisdiction. The previous approvals established
guidelines for zoning decisions and capital facilities improvements. Previous
approvals, in combination with general wishes of property owners and neighbors,
should be a basic consideration in the land use decision making process.
B. Development Potential Within Existing Subdivided, Generally Developed Areas
I.
Guideline
J
I
Apply zoning to annexed areas which generally maintains the same development
rights within the City as within unincorporated areas.
City of Aspen Annexation Plan, rev. 3 July 1996
Page 13
Explanatory Comments
The general idea behind this guideline is that annexation and subsequent zoning
should not create a change in the character of an annexed area. Instead, the City
land use regulations should be oriented to maintaining the "character of the
neighborhood. "
2. Guideline
Strive to avoid zoning designations which make conforming land uses and
structures nonconforming.
3. Guideline
Consider, when appropriate, creating new land use zone districts or formulating
code amendments, which may also be applied on a City-wide basis, to address
specific problems but avoid creating custom land use legislation to address
isolated, special interest problems.
Explanatory Comments
Inevitably, during the annexation process, it will become evident that new
legislation may be needed to address specific problems. The legislation should be
pursued if it addresses a problem for the majority of property owners in an area
and is consistent with other City plans and regulations. The City should avoid
creating land use legislation for unique problems associated with a handful of
properties which has adverse effects on the entire City.
4. Guideline
When creating new land use legislation for annexation areas, the City should
consider the efficts of the new legislation on the remainder of the City of Aspen.
C. UnsubdividedlVacant Land
City of Aspen Annexation Plan, rev. 3 July 1996
Page 14
I. Guideline
Postpone the annexation of unsubdivided vacant land which is rural in character
until a development proposal has been prepared for the land by the property
owner(s) or a development proposal is pending, unless the City decides to annex
certain properties due to their value as open space or to achieve contiguity for
the annexation of a developing area.
Explanatory Comments
It is recognized that the annexation of the area around the airport may be in the
best interest of the City. The price for the annexation of the airport should not be
the insensitive urbanization of the State Highway 82 Corridor. The City of Aspen
supports the concept of a greenbelt surrounding the existing City limits as
described in detail in the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Parks / Recreation /
Open Space / Trails Element. The potential future development of the State
Highway 82 Corridor should be consistent with this concept and the State
Highway 82 Corridor Master Plan.
D. Floor Area Ratios
I. Guideline
The City should generally try to maintain Floor Area Ratios comparable to the
County's for annexed properties, unless it is demonstrated during the zoning
process that the Floor Area Ratios are unreasonably high or low.
E; Environmental Review
I. Guideline'
Utilize the City's Planned Unit Development (PUD) regulations, 8040
Greenline, Environmentally Sensitive Area, and Stream Margin Review when
appropriate to insure the best possible review of environmentally sensitive areas.
2. Guideline
City of Aspen Annexation Plan, rev. 3 July 1996
Page 15
Consider, as necessary, code amendments to expand the scope of the City's
environmental reviews to include review mechanisms which address wildlife
habitat, the State Highway 82 Scenic Corridor, and other significant
environmental issues.
F. Bandit Dwelling Units
I. Guideline
Use the Accessory Dwelling Unit 0DQI provisions of the City Land Use Code,
in conjunction with the Uniform Building Code, to legalize "bandit units" qs
employee units.
Explanatory Comments
Pitkin County has developed legislation to legalize "bandit units" in return for a
property owner's agreement to upgrade the units to meet health and safety
standards of the Uniform Building Code and to deed restrict the units to employee
housing occupancy. Since many bandit units will be encountered when the
Mountain Valley, Meadowood and Highlands Subdivisions are annexed, the City
should apply existing regulations with respect to Accessory Dwelling Units to
address the problem.
G. Utilities
I. Guideline
Pursue an agreement with Pitkin County which insures that Pitkin County
requires small, private, utility systems to meet all City standards.
Explanatory COnmlents
Pitkin County cannot preclude a developer from installing a private water or sewer
system if the system meets acceptable standards. However, Pitkin County may
require potential developers to meet City standards and may serve as a catalyst to
City of Aspen Annexation Plan, rev. 3 July 1996
Page 16
join the public utility system, or at a minimum, insure that ifprivate systems are
developed and subsequently taken over by the public, excess costs will not burden
future users.
H. Annexation Zoning Process
I. Guideline
Pursue the annexation of County lands only when a majority of the property
. owners favor annexation.
Explanatory Comments
The City should continue to take a pro-active role in annexation by assisting
residents to gather annexation petition signature~. The City may annex property
by several methods. One method is to annex upon receipt of a certified petition
from landowners who own more than 50 percent of the land area in a proposed
annexation area. Another is to call an annexation election for designated
annexation areas. If a majority of the residents favor annexation, the City may
annex. Finally, the City may include an agreement to annex as part of a Water
Service Agreement executed with a developer.
For existing developed areas, the City has pursued annexation by assisting
residents to gather annexation petition signatures. When property owners of more
than 50 percent of the annexation area have submitted an annexation petition,
annexation has been pursued. The City Council may utilize either annexation
method. The first method is considered to be preferable because it is more
responsible to local citizens and a more personal approach to annexation.
The City should research the pros and cons of holding an annexation election for a
large area.
2. Guideline
City or Aspen Annexation I. .', rev. 3 July 1996
Page 17
Stage the annexation and zoning process so that the final annexation ordinance
is considered simultaneously with .final zoning actions in order-to insure that the
majority of owners are satisfied with zoning solutions.
Exp lanatory Comments
In order to maintain a spirit of cooperation between the City and property owners
within annexed territory, the sequencing of the annexation and zoning process is
essential. Since zoning and its land use implications are the biggest unknown
element of the annexation process, it is the City's policy to postpone the final
, reading of annexation ordinances until property owners are well aware of the
implications of City zoning regulations upon their property. The City of Aspen
annexation and zoning approach is an improvement upon the procedure used by
most Colorado municipalities in which the annexation is completed prior to the
initiation of the zoning process and residents are uncertain as to how zoning issues
will be resolved. Another positive effect of the process is that it insures that the
zoning is accomplished with,in 90 days of annexation, as required by state law. If
this 90 day requirement were not met by the City, the property could be considered
"unzoned" and might not be subject to any development limitations.
I. City/County Sales Tax Revenue Sharing.
I . Guideline
The City staffshall annually monitor its costs for providing Municipal services
to annexation areas on a comprehensive basis to determine additional costs
incurred by the City and report to the City Council. The City and County shall
renegotiate an equitable distribution of sales tax revenues or other methods of
revenue sharing, when City costs have increased enough to warrant a
redistribution of revenues.
Explanatory Comments
In 1968 Pitkin County voters adopted a resolution imposing a 2 percent County-
wide sales tax, including a provision distributing 47 percent of the tax proceeds to
Pitkin County and 53 percent to the City of Aspen. Following several
City of Aspen Annexation P..., rev. 3 July 1996
Page IS'
annexations, it is likely that service responsibilities will shift from Pitkin County
to the City. At some point, sales tax distribution should also be adjusted. In the
event the City decides to hold an annexation election for a large area, the sales tax
agreement should be renegotiated prior to the election. 'The City and the County
have worked jointly to develop an annexation model which analyzes the impact of
a specific annexation on a comprehensive basis. This model should serve as the
basis for further re,view.
J. Ski Area Zoning
I . ' Guideline
Prior to annexation of Aspen Mountain and/or Aspen Highlands, the City of
Aspen should adopt a special zone district for ski areas comparable to the
County's AF-SKl zone district.
Explanatory Comments
The City does not have a zone district which is designed to address land use issues
associated with ski areas. It will be necessary to adopt such a district if the ski
areas are annexed.
Proposed Land Use Actions
The following are proposed land use actions to be pursued by the City of Aspen.
I. Prepare and adopt a Land Use/Community FacilitieslUtilities Plan, which
addresses all land in the Aspen area including the annexation areas. The Plan should
specifically address the entrances to Aspen with an emphasis on lands in the State
Highway 82 Corridor.
2, , Prepare legislation for inclusion in the City of Aspen Land Use Code which
'includes:
. 200 foot setback from State Highway 82.
. Scenic Foreground Overlay regulations.
City of Aspen Annexation Plan, rev. 3 July 1996
Page 19
. A new Zone District for base area ski development.
These code amendments should be adopted as a pre-requisite to annexation of land in the Highway
82 corridor.
City of Aspen Annexation Plan, rev. 3 July 1996
Page 20
VII. APPENDIX
The following documents and reports are related to this Annexation Element and may be obtained
from the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Office:
1. Aspen Area Community Plan, January 1993
2. AACP ,Appendix, January 1992
3. AACP Phase One Report, September 1991