Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutExhibit A.1_Annexation CriteriaExhibit A.1 Annexation Criteria Page | 1 City of Aspen Annexation Criteria: Annexation is a quasi-legislative authority of the City and as such the City may consider the interests of its citizens as guiding annexation policy, in addition to the procedural statutory requirements. This section identifies specific public policy concerns likely to arise during consideration of an annexation request. These criteria should be used to determine when annexation is appropriate, which land should be annexed, and how it should be zoned. Additional considerations, beyond those identified herein, may also arise and guide public policy. AACP Compliance Annexation requests should be reviewed for alignment with the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP). Annexation of certain lands could facilitate accomplishment of the plan’s goals, philosophy, policies, or specific action items. Staff response: The application requests to annex the parcel and rezone the property pursuant to the City of Aspen code provisions to allow the existing use as a mini-storage facility to continue. This request will not change the relationship with the AACP. The property is intended to be developed at some point in the future and is anticipated to be used as affordable housing. Any proposal to redevelop the property will be analyzed for compliance and continuity with the goals and objectives of the AACP. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) The City of Aspen approved Aspen’s Urban Growth Boundary via adoption of the 2012 AACP. The UGB identifies the land surrounding Aspen as either appropriate for urban development (within the UGB) or inappropriate for urban development (outside the UGB). Land within the UGB is expected to become part of the City’s urbanized area and should be considered appropriate for annexation. Land outside the UGB should only be annexed as a method of preserving the non-urban character of lands surrounding Aspen. The UGB does not necessarily need to be amended unless the land is intended for an urban level of development. Annexation of land outside the UGB, in fact, may serve a significant public purpose. Staff response: Pursuant to the 2019 Aspen Annexation Plan, land that is located within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) is anticipated to be annexed into the City at some point in the future. This property is located within the UGB and within the Aspen Business Center. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Significant Annexations Changing the regulatory structure and jurisdiction of significant community facilities, large developments, and large tracts of vacant land present considerable potential for community change. These annexation proposals should involve discussion between the Aspen City Council and the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners. A joint work session at which various land use issues are discussed can only benefit the City in it’s analysis of a significant annexation. For example: properties entitled by the County and Exhibit A.1 Annexation Criteria Page | 2 annexed into the City can require complex administration of development rights, especially when amendments are requested. Discussing the primary elements of the land use review can simplify administration and provide benefit to the annexing landowner. Likewise, certain annexation proposals may present concerns to other governmental and quasi-governmental agencies with jurisdiction or other interest in the property. As necessary, formal referral comments or work session-format meetings can be held to identify these concerns. Staff response: The scope of the proposed annexation does not reach the threshold of a Significant Annexation. The subject property is owned by the City of Aspen and the current land use of a storage facility will remain pending annexation and rezoning. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. Fiscal Impact Analysis The City should fully understand the financial implication of assuming additional lands upon each of its functions. The City Finance Department has modeled fiscal impacts of recent significant annexations and this information has been critical in determining the appropriateness of annexation. Certain capital improvements may be necessary as well as additional operation and service costs. These need to be balanced with additional special fund revenues that are gained. Pitkin County voters adopted a 2 percent Countywide sales tax, including a provision distributing 47 percent of the tax proceeds to Pitkin County and 53 percent to the City of Aspen. At some point, the distribution of countywide sales tax may need to be reconsidered as more service responsibilities shift to the City. Staff response: The application requests annexing a single property and continuing the existing use as a storage facility. Because the property is currently owned by the City, it does not generate property tax revenue. Annexing the property into the City will not change that. However, by annexing the property, the City will gain jurisdiction over the zoning and allowed uses of the site, thus allowing orderly planning of future use of the site in conjunction with City parcels. The city will receive ongoing lease revenues from the existing storage use and parking leases. Pending receipt of a redevelopment proposal, the costs of new infrastructure and services compared to existing uses will be quantified and analyzed by the City as part of a subsequent land use review. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Development Rights/Zoning Development rights associated with a property in Pitkin County verses those if the property is annexed into the City of Aspen should be considered. Annexations are typically associated with a proposal to further develop the property. Traditionally, the City weighs an increase in development rights in relation to accomplishment towards community goals available through annexation. Exhibit A.1 Annexation Criteria Page | 3 A complete understanding of a property’s development potential, prior to annexation, should include a zoning build-out analysis considering regulatory limitations, such as growth management and impact fees, and regulatory incentives, such as the use of Transferable Development Rights. The public policy of such regulations and the impact of changing the regulatory structure upon the City should be considered. Zoning of newly annexed land should approximate development rights prior to annexation, unless a site-specific development plan is approved concurrent with annexation. The creation of non-conformities should be avoided, although custom legislation to address special interests can further complicate the City’s regulatory environment. The City should encourage the legalization of “bandit units” through the City’s Accessory Dwelling Unit provisions to ensure compliance with the health and safety standards of Adopted building codes. These units should be expected in older subdivisions surrounding Aspen. Staff Response: The property is proposed for rezoning in a process concurrent with the Annexation. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Pitkin County Transferable Development Rights Certain lands in the County within the City’s annexation area are eligible for increased development rights through the extinguishment of transferable development rights (TDRs). Certain site-specific approvals granted in Pitkin County may involve or require the use of TDRs. And, certain development may have already occurred by use of these TDRs necessitating acknowledgment of the realized increased development right. Until the City adopts a program for accepting Pitkin County Transferable development Rights, each individual annexation request should include an analysis of TDR-contingent land use scenarios and, if necessary, an agreement should be reached describing the future use of Pitkin County TDRs within the newly annexed area. Staff Response: Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable Usefulness and Appropriateness of Each Jurisdiction’s Regulations As Aspen City limits expand beyond the original townsite, the effects of environmental constraints and hazards on development increase. Pitkin County’s 1041 regulations address development on steep slopes, in wildfire hazard areas, in rockfall and avalanche hazard areas, and within wildlife corridors. The City’s Environmentally Sensitive Area review standards address flood hazard areas and development above the 8,040-foot elevation. The County’s regulations primarily attempt to minimize land use intensity and minimize the infrastructure and operational effects of development. The City’s land use code encourages the intense use of land and addresses urban development issues, such as Exhibit A.1 Annexation Criteria Page | 4 architectural character. In transition areas, the City’s Planned Development regulations should be used to establish an appropriate balance. Design standards for public improvements also reflect the rural and urban aspect of each jurisdiction. The appropriateness of each jurisdiction’s development regulations and design standards should be considered in each annexation. The acceptance of substandard public improvements and potential public costs of upgrading those facilities should also be considered. The City may require certain facilities be upgraded prior to annexation. Alternatively, the City may require a cash payment to accommodate expected City capital improvement and operational expenses. Staff Response: Zoning will change as the property moves into the City of Aspen, but staff has determined that the property would not be subject to significantly different regulations following annexation. The property does lie within the West of Maroon Plan – a special planning area that includes the AABC. The City is not party to this plan, although it is identified and discussed in the Aspen Area Community Plan. The location of the property within the UGB and adjacency to City limits make clear the property’s appropriateness and eligibility for annexation. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Infrastructure and Ability to Serve Annexation reviews typically focus a great deal of fiscal analysis on the potential extension of urban services to annexed territories. Cost, capacity, and engineering issues related extension of the City’s municipal water system to developing land on the urban fringe is a significant annexation issue. Currently, several small water districts serve residences located outside the City’s boundaries but within the service area of the water system. These small districts may present a long-term problem for the City as their capital facilities may not be providing acceptable standards of service. Upgrading is expensive and may become the responsibility of the City following annexation. Staff Response: The property will continue to be served by the same utilities. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable Simplicity of City Boundary The City/County boundary has created confusion for citizens and staff responsible for enforcing public policy. A complex boundary can complicate emergency service provision and, in extreme cases, defeat efforts of law enforcement officers. Annexations simplifying the boundary should be encouraged while those further complicating the division should be avoided. Staff Response: The property is immediately adjacent to the current City boundary. The current conditions related to circulation, addressing, emergency services remain the same. Staff finds this criterion to be met.