HomeMy WebLinkAbout0064.2009.ASLU
0064.2009.ASLU/BMC Annexation Request - Final Draft - includes all exhibits.pdf untitled
Page 1 of 27 FINAL DRAFT Annexation Request: 38005 State Highway 82, Aspen Airport Business Center, Block 1, Lots 1 and 2 (Former BMC West Property)
Prepared by: Steve Barwick, City Manager City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 (970)920‐5000 www.aspenpitkin.com September 10, 2009 City of Aspen
September 10, 2009 Annexation Request Page 2 of 27 FINAL DRAFT Table of Contents I. Introduction A. Annexation Request
Page 3 II. Petition A. Completed Petition Page 4 B. Property Legal Description / Proof of Ownership ‐ Attachment “A” Page 5 C. Proposed Annexation Map – Attachm
ent “B” Page 8 III. Annexation Statement A. State of Colorado annexation criteria Page 9 B. Local annexation criteria Page 13 IV. Initial Zoning
A. Completed Application Page 18 B. Pre‐Application Conference Summary Page 20 C. Vicinity Map Page 22 D. Description of Compliance
Page 23 E. Proposed Zoning Map Page 25 F. Improvement Survey Page 26 F. Electronic Files Page 27 City of Aspen
September 10, 2009 Annexation Request Page 3 of 27 FINAL DRAFT I. Introduction A. Annexation Request This application contains a request for two actio
ns: 1. Annexation of the subject property, located at 38005 State Highway 82, into the City of Aspen and, 2. Establishment of the newly annexed parcel’s initial zoning as SCI – Service, Commer
cial, Industrial The property is currently zoned B2 – General Business in Pitkin County. The property is 201,683 square feet in size and was created before June 12, 1978, predating Pitkin County
’s subdivision regulations. For this application, the City of Aspen is the applicant. In creating this application, City of Aspen staff has met with the City attorney as well as city planning to
facilitate the annexation process. The benefits of the requested application to the applicant/City include: 1. In the short term, the City will benefit from the increased revenues associated wi
th sales tax and building materials tax generated from the existing lumber yard operation on the property. 2. In the long term, the City will have approximately 4.6 acres of property available fo
r affordable housing development. While the initial zoning request for the subject property is SCI – Service, Commercial, Industrial (which will facilitate the continued operation of the current lu
mber yard operation on the site), the future development intent of the site is for affordable housing. A future land use application (separate from this annexation request) will be processed by the
City of Aspen to request that the property be rezoned as AH‐PUD. The AH‐PUD designation will be requested based on affordable housing development plans that will be developed in the future
for that specific purpose. This annexation request is the first step in a number of land use applications that will facilitate future affordable housing development at the subject property.
City of Aspen September 10, 2009 Annexation Request Page 4 of 27 FINAL DRAFT II. Petition A. Completed Petition PETITION FOR ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY
TO THE CITY OF ASPEN THE UNDERSIGNED (hereinafter referred to as the “Petitioner”) hereby petition the Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado for the annexation of an area, to be referred to as t
he BMC Annexation to the City of Aspen. Said area, consisting of approximately 201,683 square feet (4.630 acres), is more particularly described on Attachment “A”, attached hereto.
The Petitioner alleges: 1. That it is desirable and necessary that such area be annexed to the City of Aspen. 2. That the requirements of Sections 31‐12‐104 and 31‐12‐108, C.R.S., exist or hav
e been met. 3. That not less than one‐sixth (1/6) of the perimeter of the area proposed to be annexed is contiguous with the boundaries of the City of Aspen. 4. That a community of interest exists
between the area proposed to be annexed and the City of Aspen. 5. That the area to be annexed is urban or will be urbanized in the near future. 6. That the area proposed to be annexed is integrat
ed with or capable of being integrated with the City of Aspen. 7. That the Petitioner herein comprises 100% of the landowners in the area, and the Petitioner represents that it owns all of the are
a described in Attachment “A”. WHEREFORE, said Petitioner requests that the Council of the City of Aspen approve the annexation of the area described on Attachment “A”, legal description of the l
and. The Petitioner reserves the right to withdraw this petition and their signatures there from at any time prior to the commencement of the roll call of the City Council for the vote upon the s
econd reading of the annexation ordinance. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have executed this Petition for Annexation this day of , 2009. Petitioner’s/Owner’s Signature
Petitioner’s/Owner’s Printed Name Address City, State, Zip City of Aspen September 10, 2009 Annexation Request Page 5 of 27
FINAL DRAFT B. Property Legal Description / Proof of Ownership – Attachment “A” LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 1, ASPEN AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTER, FILING NO.1,
according to the Plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 7 at Page 79. LESS that strip of land conveyed in Quit Claim Deed recorded September 25, 1984 in Book 474 at Page 1. City of Aspen
September 10, 2009 Annexation Request Page 6 of 27 FINAL DRAFT City of Aspen September 10, 2009 Annexation Request Page 7 of 27
FINAL DRAFT City of Aspen September 10, 2009 Annexation Request Page 8 of 27 FINAL DRAFT C. Proposed Annexation Map – Attachment “B”
Containing the information required by C.R.S. 1973 31‐8‐107 City of Aspen September 10, 2009 Annexation Request Page 9 of 27 FINAL DRAFT
III. Annexation Statement A. State of Colorado annexation criteria 31‐12‐104 C.R.S. Eligibility for Annexation (1) An area is eligible for annexation if the governing body, at a hearing
as provided in section 31‐12‐109, finds and determines: (a) That not less than one‐sixth of the perimeter of the area proposed to be annexed is contiguous with the annexing municipality. Cont
iguity shall not be affected by the existence of a platted street or alley, a public or private right‐of‐way, a public or private transportation right‐of‐way or area, public lands,
whether owned by the state, the United States, or an agency thereof, except county‐owned open space, or a lake, reservoir, stream, or other natural or artificial waterway between the annexing munic
ipality and the land proposed to be annexed. Subject to the requirements imposed by section 31‐12‐105 (1) (e), contiguity may be established by the annexation of one or more parcels in a series, wh
ich annexations may be completed simultaneously and considered together for the purposes of the public hearing required by sections 31‐12‐108 and 31‐12‐109 and the annexation impact report required
by section 3112‐108.5. (b) That a community of interest exists between the area proposed to be annexed and the annexing municipality; that said area is urban or will be urbanized in the near fu
ture; and that said area is integrated with or is capable of being integrated with the annexing municipality. The fact that the area proposed to be annexed has the contiguity with the annexing muni
cipality required by paragraph (a) of this subsection (1) shall be a basis for a finding of compliance with these requirements unless the governing body, upon the basis of competent evidence presen
ted at the hearing provided for in section 31‐12‐109, finds that at least two of the following are shown to exist: (I) Less than fifty percent of the adult residents of the area proposed to be a
nnexed make use of part or all of the following types of facilities of the annexing municipality: Recreational, civic, social, religious, industrial, or commercial; and less than twenty‐five percen
t 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 shall not apply. (II) 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 intention to devote the land to such agricultur
al use for a period of not less than five years. (III) It is not physically practicable to extend to the area proposed to be annexed those urban services which the annexing municipality provide
s in common to all of its citizens on the same terms and conditions as such services are made available to such citizens. This standard shall not apply to the extent that any portion of an area pro
posed to be annexed is provided or will within the reasonably near future be provided with any service by or through a quasi‐municipal corporation. Response: The total perimeter of the subject
property is 2,049.29 linear feet. The contiguous portion of the boundary is 813.98 linear feet. The total contiguous boundary is 39.7% of the total perimeter of the subject property. This is appro
ximately 2.38 times greater than the minimum requirement of onesixth (1/6) thus the property proposed for annexation meets the contiguity requirement. In addition, none of the conditions described i
n the above exception items (1)(b)(I), (1)(b)(II) or (1)(b)(III) apply to the subject property. City of Aspen September 10, 2009 Annexation Request Page 10 of 27
FINAL DRAFT (2) (a) The contiguity required by paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section may not be established by use of any boundary of an area which was previously anne
xed to the annexing municipality if the area, at the time of its annexation, was not contiguous at any point with the boundary of the annexing municipality, was not otherwise in compliance with par
agraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section, and was located more than three miles from the nearest boundary of the annexing municipality, nor may such contiguity be established by use of any boun
dary of territory which is subsequently annexed directly to, or which is indirectly connected through subsequent annexations to, such an area. (b) Because the creation or expansion of disconnecte
d municipal satellites, which are sought to be prohibited by this subsection (2), violates both the purposes of this article as expressed in section 31‐12102 and the limitations of this article, any
annexation which uses any boundary in violation of this subsection (2) may be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be void ab initio in addition to other remedies which may be provided
. The provisions of section 31‐12‐116 (2) and (4) and section 3112‐117 shall not apply to such an annexation. Judicial review of such an annexation may be sought by any municipality having a plan in
place pursuant to section 31‐12‐105 (1) (e) directly affected by such annexation, in addition to those described in section 31‐12‐116 (1). Such review may be, but need not be, instituted prior to
the effective date of the annexing ordinance and may include injunctive relief. Such review shall be brought no later than sixty days after the effective date of the annexing ordinance
or shall forever be barred. (c) Contiguity is hereby declared to be a fundamental element in any annexation, and this subsection (2) shall not in any way be construed as having the effect of l
egitimizing in any way any noncontiguous annexation. Response: The proposed annexation does not create a disconnected municipal satellite, and although the boundary used to establish contiguity
is a boundary shared with a property that was previously annexed, the previously annexed property met the 1/6 contiguity requirement at the time of its annexation. 31‐12‐105 C.R.S. Limitations
(1) Notwithstanding any provisions of this part 1 to the contrary, the following limitations shall apply to all annexations: (a) In establishing the boundaries of any territory to be annex
ed, no land held in identical ownership, whether consisting of one tract or parcel of real estate or two or more contiguous tracts or parcels of real estate, shall be divided into separate parts or
parcels without the written consent of the landowners thereof unless such tracts or parcels are separated by a dedicated street, road, or other public way. (b) In establishing the boundaries
of any area proposed to be annexed, no land held in identical ownership, whether consisting of one tract or parcel of real estate or two or more contiguous tracts or parcels of real estate, compris
ing twenty acres or more (which, together with the buildings and improvements situated thereon has a valuation for assessment in excess of two hundred thousand dollars for ad valorem tax purposes f
or the year next preceding the annexation) shall be included under this part 1 without the written consent of the landowners unless such tract of land is situated entirely within the outer boundari
es of the annexing municipality as they exist at the time of annexation. In the application of this paragraph (b), contiguity shall not be affected by a dedicated street, road, or other
public way. City of Aspen September 10, 2009 Annexation Request Page 11 of 27 FINAL DRAFT (c) No annexation pursuant to section 31‐12‐106 and no annexation pe
tition or petition for an annexation election pursuant to section 31‐12‐107 shall be valid when annexation proceedings have been commenced for the annexation of part or all of such territory to ano
ther municipality, except in accordance with the provisions of section 31‐12‐114. For the purpose of this section, proceedings are commenced when the petition is filed with the clerk of the annexin
g municipality or when the resolution of intent is adopted by the governing body of the annexing municipality if action on the acceptance of such petition or on the resolution of intent by the sett
ing of the hearing in accordance with section 3112‐108 is taken within ninety days after the said filings if an annexation procedure initiated by petition for annexation is then completed within the
one hundred fifty days next following the effective date of the resolution accepting the petition and setting the hearing date and if an annexation procedure initiated by resolution of intent or b
y petition for an annexation election is prosecuted without unreasonable delay after the effective date of the resolution setting the hearing date. (d) As to any annexation which will result in
the detachment of area from any school district and the attachment of the same to another school district, no annexation pursuant to section 31‐12‐106 or annexation petition or petition for an ann
exation election pursuant to section 31‐12‐107 is valid unless accompanied by a resolution of the board of directors of the school district to which such area will be attached approving such annexa
tion. (e) (I) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph (e), no annexation may take place that would have the effect of extending a municipal boundary more than three miles in any directio
n from any point of such municipal boundary in any one year. Within said three‐mile area, the contiguity required by section 31‐12‐104 (1) (a) may be achieved by annexing a platted street or alley,
a public or private right‐of‐way, a public or private transportation right‐of‐way or area, or a lake, reservoir, stream, or other natural or artificial waterway. Prior to completion of any annexat
ion within the three‐mile area, the municipality shall have in place a plan for that area that generally describes the proposed location, character, and extent of streets, subways, bridges, waterwa
ys, waterfronts, parkways, playgrounds, squares, parks, aviation fields, other public ways, grounds, open spaces, public utilities, and terminals for water, light, sanitation, transportation, and p
ower to be provided by the municipality and the proposed land uses for the area. Such plan shall be updated at least once annually. Such three‐mile limit may be exceeded if such limit would have th
e effect of dividing a parcel of property held in identical ownership if at least fifty percent of the property is within the three‐mile limit. In such event, the entire property held in
identical ownership may be annexed in any one year without regard to such mileage limitation. Such three‐mile limit may also be exceeded for the annexation of an enterprise zone.
(II) Prior to completion of an annexation in which the contiguity required by section 31‐12‐104 (1) (a) is achieved pursuant to subparagraph (I) of this paragraph (e), the municipality shall an
nex any of the following parcels that abut a platted street or alley, a public or private right‐of‐way, a public or private transportation right‐of‐way or area, or a lake, reservoir, stream, or oth
er natural or artificial waterway, where the parcel satisfies all of the eligibility requirements pursuant to section 31‐12‐104 and for which an annexation petition has been received by the municip
ality no later than forty‐five days prior to the date of the hearing set pursuant to section 31‐12‐108 (1): (A) Any parcel of property that has an individual schedule number for county tax fili
ng purposes upon the petition of the owner of such parcel; (B) Any subdivision that consists of only one subdivision filing upon the petition of the requisite number of property owners within
the subdivision as determined pursuant to section 31‐12‐107; and City of Aspen September 10, 2009 Annexation Request Page 12 of 27 FINAL DRAFT
(C) Any subdivision filing within a subdivision that consists of more than one subdivision filing upon the petition of the requisite number of property owners within the subdivision filing as det
ermined pursuant to section 31‐12‐107. (e.1) The parcels described in subparagraph (II) of paragraph (e) of this subsection (1) shall be annexed under the same or substantially similar terms a
nd conditions and considered at the same hearing and in the same impact report as the initial annexation in which the contiguity required by section 31‐12‐104 (1) (a) is achieved by annexing a plat
ted street or alley, a public or private right‐of‐way, a public or private transportation right‐of‐way or area, or a lake, reservoir, stream, or other natural or artificial waterway. Impacts of the
annexation upon the parcels described in subparagraph (II) of paragraph (e) of this subsection (1) that abut such platted street or alley, public or private right‐of‐way, public or private
transportation right‐of‐way or area, or lake, reservoir, stream, or other natural or artificial waterway shall be considered in the impact report required by section 31‐12‐108.5. As part of the sam
e hearing, the municipality shall consider and decide upon any petition for annexation of any parcel of property having an individual schedule number for county tax filing purposes, which petition
was received not later than forty‐five days prior to the hearing date, where the parcel abuts any parcel described in subparagraph (II) of paragraph (e) of this subsection (1) and where the parcel
otherwise satisfies all of the eligibility requirements of section 31‐12‐104. (e.3) In connection with any annexation in which the contiguity required by section 31‐12‐104 (1) (a) is
achieved by annexing a platted street or alley, a public or private right‐of‐way, a public or private transportation right‐of‐way or area, or a lake, reservoir, stream, or other natural or artifici
al waterway, upon the latter of ninety days prior to the date of the hearing set pursuant to section 31‐12‐108 or upon the filing of the annexation petition, the municipality shall provide, by regu
lar mail to the owner of any abutting parcel as reflected in the records of the county assessor, written notice of the annexation and of the landowner's right to petition for annexation pursuant to
section 31‐12‐107. Inadvertent failure to provide such notice shall neither create a cause of action in favor of any landowner nor invalidate any annexation proceeding. (f) In establishing th
e boundaries of any area proposed to be annexed, if a portion of a platted street or alley is annexed, the entire width of said street or alley shall be included within the area annexed.
(g) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (f) of this subsection (1), a municipality shall not deny reasonable access to landowners, owner of an easement, or the owner of a franchise adjo
ining a platted street or alley which has been annexed by the municipality but is not bounded on both sides by the municipality. (h) The execution by any municipality of a power of attorney fo
r real estate located within an unincorporated area shall not be construed to comply with the election provisions of this article for purposes of annexing such unincorporated area. Such annexation
shall be valid only upon compliance with the procedures set forth in this article. Response: None of the limitations described above are applicable to this annexation request.
City of Aspen September 10, 2009 Annexation Request Page 13 of 27 FINAL DRAFT B. Local annexation criteria AACP Compliance Annexation requests should be
reviewed for compliance with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Annexation of certain lands could facilitate accomplishment of the plan’s goals, objectives, or specific action items. Newly annexed prop
erties should be assigned zoning supporting public policy directives of the AACP. Response: While the initial zoning request for the subject property is SCI – Service, Commercial,
Industrial (which will facilitate the continued operation of the current lumber yard operation on the site), the future development intent of the site is for affordable housing. A future land use a
pplication (separate from this annexation request) will be processed by the City of Aspen to request that the property be rezoned as AH‐PUD. The AH‐PUD designation will be requested based on afford
able housing development plans that will be developed in the future for that specific purpose. This effort is underway in an effort to fulfill the housing goals established in the AACP.
Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) The City of Aspen and Pitkin County jointly approved Aspen’s Urban Growth Boundary via adoption of the 2000 AACP. The UGB identifies the land surrounding Aspen as e
ither 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 sh
ould 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 necessar
ily 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. Response: The subject p
roperty is located within the UGB and falls into the category of “Aspen Business Center and North Forty” as described in the City of Aspen Annexation Plan of September 2005. Significant Annexati
ons 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 analysis of a significant annexation. For example: properties entitled by the County and annexed into the City can require complex administration of develo
pment 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 quasigovernmental 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. Response: Based on the description above, the subject property is not considered a significant annexation.
City of Aspen September 10, 2009 Annexation Request Page 14 of 27 FINAL DRAFT Fiscal Impact Analysis The City should fully understand the financial implicat
ion 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 deter
mining 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 rev
enues 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. Response: In the short term, the City will bene
fit from the increased revenues associated with sales tax and building materials tax generated from the existing lumber yard operation on the property. At the time when the City develops plans for
affordable housing at the site, part of the integrated design process will be to create a comprehensive budget for site redevelopment. At that time, costs to upgrade utilities to the site will be q
uantified. 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. Annexat
ions 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. 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 regul
atory structure upon the City should be considered. Zoning of newly annexed land should approximate development rights prior to annexation, unless a sitespecific development plan is approved conc
urrent 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 the Uniform Buildin
g Code. These units should be expected in older subdivisions surrounding Aspen. Response: The City funded the 2007 purchase of the subject property from the 150 Housing Fund. In a
future land use application (not part of this application), the City will request approval for an affordable housing development at the subject property as well as rezoning to City of Aspen AH‐PUD.
It is also the intention of the City to combine the subject property in the future with a portion of the adjacent Burlingame Lot 1A property (a subdivision which will also be requested at a future
date) to create a larger parcel for affordable housing development at the subject property. None of those future requests are part of this current application. However, as part of the current appl
ication it is nonetheless required to compare the development constraints for the current zoning versus the proposed new zoning for the subject property. City of Aspen
September 10, 2009 Annexation Request Page 15 of 27 FINAL DRAFT The subject property is currently zoned Pitkin County B2, which “is intended to provide for the
establishment of commercial and low‐intensity, non‐polluting industrial uses that do not require or generate high customer traffic volumes and to permit customary accessory uses, including a small
portion of the land area in high density, long‐term residential dwelling units.” The maximum allowable floor area for the subject property under its current zoning, Pitkin County B2, is 72,605.9 sq
ft. The current lumber yard operation is in compliance with an existing 24,316.8 sq ft of FAR. "The purpose of the Service/Commercial/Industrial (SCI) zone district is to preserve and enhance
locally‐serving, primarily non‐retail small business areas to ensure a more balanced permanent community; to protect the few remaining such small business parks historically used primarily for ligh
t industrial uses, manufacturing, repair, storage and servicing of consumer goods, with limited retail, showroom, or customer reception areas. The SCI zone district contains uses that may not be
appropriate in other zone districts or do not require or generate high customer traffic volumes, and permits customary accessory uses. … SCI uses which may use up to 100% of the floor area for reta
il sales, showroom, or customer reception include the manufacturing, repair, customizing, servicing, detailing, sales, and rental of consumer goods such as building materials, components, hardware,
fixtures, interior finishes and equipment.” Under the proposed City of Aspen SCI zoning, the maximum allowable floor area for the subject property would be 302,524.5 sq ft. However, expansion o
f the existing lumber yard operation is not part of the current request. A comparison of the property under City and County zoning is as follows: Dimension Proposed: City of Aspen – SCI
Existing: Pitkin county – B2 Actual Lot Size 201,683 sq ft 201,683 sq ft Minimum Lot Size 3,000 sq ft 6,000 sq ft Minimum Front Setback No requirement 30 ft Minimum Side Setback
No requirement 10 ft Minimum Rear Setback No requirement 10 ft Maximum Height 35 feet 28 ft Floor Area Ratio 1.5:1 (commercial use) 0.36:1 Allowable Floor Area 302,524.5 sq ft
72,605.9 sq ft Pitkin County Transferable Development Rights Certain lands in the County within the City’s annexation area are eligible for increased development rights through the extinguish
ment 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 b
y use of these TDRs necessitating acknowledgement 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 withi
n the newly annexed area. Response: The proposed annexation does not contemplate the use of Pitkin county TDRs. City of Aspen September 10, 2009 Annexation Request
Page 16 of 27 FINAL DRAFT Usefulness and appropriateness of each jurisdiction’s regulations As Aspen City limits expand beyond the original townsite, the effects of environme
ntal 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 wit
hin 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 a
ttempt 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 develop
ment issues, such as architectural character. In transition areas, the City’s PUD regulations should be used to establish an appropriate balance. Design standards for public improvements also ref
lect 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. Alte
rnatively, the City may require a cash payment to accommodate expected City capital improvement and operational expenses. The City currently has no experience administering remote backcountry and
Forest Service lands. These lands could require significant changes to the City’s emergency services. The public costs of annexing remote lands should be considered in relation to the public goals
of such an action. Aspen recently adopted the Ski Area Base (SKI) Zone District to administer development at the base of ski areas. The zoning provides for a mixture of skiing, recreational, com
mercial, and tourist‐oriented uses and requires adoption of a Planned Unit Development. This zoning was applied to Aspen Highlands Base Village and may be appropriate for the Buttermilk Ski Area ba
se, upon annexation. Response: Given the location and the current use of the subject property as a lumber yard operation, there are no short term concerns regarding Pitkin County’s 1041 regulatio
ns nor are there any issues of architectural character. For future development of the site as affordable housing, architectural character will be one of a number of primary design criteria for the
affordable housing planning and design effort along with the existing covenants that exist on the subject property ‐ which will require a significant amount of additional research, planning and des
ign consideration as part of the future affordable housing land use application for the subject property. City of Aspen September 10, 2009 Annexation Request Page 17 of 27
FINAL DRAFT Infrastructure and Ability to Serve Annexation reviews typically focus a great deal of fiscal analysis on the potential extension of urban services to annexed ter
ritories. 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, there are several small water districts serving residences located outside the City’s boundaries but within the service area of the water system. These small districts may present a prob
lem 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.
The County does not currently require new periphery development to join the City’s municipal water system. However, these county development proposals must be reviewed by the City Council and fou
nd in compliance with the AACP in order to obtain City water service. In these cases, the City often requires compliance with City development regulations. Property owners developing a property eli
gible for annexation should consult the City’s Community Development Department and consider annexation. Response: The property proposed for annexation is currently served by City municipal water
and district sanitary sewer service. For the continued short‐term operation of the lumber yard at the subject property, there are no service upgrades contemplated. At the time when the City develo
ps plans for affordable housing at the site, part of the integrated design process will be to create a comprehensive budget for site redevelopment. At that time, costs to upgrade utilities to the s
ite will be quantified. Simplicity of City Boundary The City/County boundary has created confusion for citizens and staff responsible for enforcing public policy. A complex boundary can compl
icate emergency service provision and, in extreme cases, defeat efforts of City police officers. Annexations simplifying the boundary should be encouraged while those further complicating the divis
ion should be avoided. Response: To some extent, the proposed annexation does further complicate the City/County boundary by isolating parcel #2273503100045 (located adjacent to the southwest cor
ner of the subject property). This should not be a significant issue since there is Pitkin County land on the other side of Hwy 82. City of Aspen September 10, 2009
Annexation Request Page 18 of 27 FINAL DRAFT IV. Initial Zoning A. Completed Application PROJECT: Name: Aspen Airport Business Center, Block 1, Lots 1 and
2 (Former BMC West Property) Location: 38005 State Highway 82, Aspen, CO 81611 (Indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate) Parcel ID #: 273503101801
and 273503101802 APPLICANT: Name: City of Aspen Address: 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, CO 81611 Phone #: 970-920-5000 REPRESENTATIVE: Name: Steve Barwick, City Manager Address:
130 South Galena Street, Aspen, CO 81611 Phone #: 970-920-5205 TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply) GMQS Exemption Conceptual PUD Temporary Use GMQS Allotment
Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) Text/Map Amendment Special Review Subdivision Conceptual SPA ESA – 8040 Greenline, Stream Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, Mountain View Plane
Subdivision Exemption (includes condominiumization) Final SPA (& SPA Amendment) Commercial Design Review Lot Split Small Lodge Conversion/ Expansion
Residential Design Variance Lot Line Adjustment Conditional Use Other: EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) The property
is currently zoned B2 – General Business in Pitkin County. The property is 201,683 square feet in size. The subject property is currently used as existing Harbert Lumber operation.
PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) Annexation of the subject property into the City of Aspen and establish the newly annexed parcel’s initial
zoning as SCI – Service, Commercial, Industrial in the City of Aspen and continue the operation of the existing lumber yard. Have you attached the following? FEES DUE: $_________
Pre-Application Conference Summary Attachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement N/A Response to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requirements Form Response to Attachment #4, Submittal Requirements-
Including Written Responses to Review Standards N/A 3-D Model for large project All plans that are larger than 8.5” X 11” must be folded. A disk with an electric copy of all written
text (Microsoft Word Format) must be submitted as part of the application. Large scale projects should include an electronic 3-D model. Your preapplication conference summary will indicate
if you must submit a 3-D model. City of Aspen September 10, 2009 Annexation Request Page 19 of 27 FINAL DRAFT CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT Agreement for Payment of City of Aspen Development Application Fees CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1.
APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for Annexation of the subject property, located at 38005 State Highway 82, into the City of Aspen. (hereinafter, THE PROJECT). 2.
APPLICANT understands and agrees that the City of Aspen has an adopted fee structure for Land Use applications and the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination
of application completeness. 3. APPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full
extent of the costs involved in processing the application. APPLICANT and CITY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties that APPLICANT make payment of an initial deposit
and to thereafter permit additional costs to be billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis. APPLICANT agrees additional costs may accrue following their hearings and/or approvals. APPLICANT
agrees he will be benefited by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments upon notification by the CITY when they are necessary as costs are incurred. CITY agrees
it will be benefited through the greater certainty of recovering its full costs to process APPLICANT’S application. 4. CITY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for
CITY staff to complete processing or present sufficient information to the Historic Preservation Commission, Planning and Zoning Commission and/or City Council to enable the Historic
Preservation Commission, Planning and Zoning Commission and/or City Council to make legally required findings for project consideration, unless current billings are paid in full prior
to decision. 5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the CITY’s waiver of its right to collect full fees prior to a determination of application completeness, APPLICANT
shall pay an initial deposit in the amount of $ which is for hours of Community Development staff time, and if actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT
shall pay additional monthly billings to CITY to reimburse the CITY for the processing of the application mentioned above, including post approval review at a rate of $245.00 per planner
hour over the initial deposit. Such periodic payments shall be made within 30 days of the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay such accrued costs shall be grounds
for suspension of processing, and in no case will building permits be issued until all costs associated with case processing have been paid. CITY OF ASPEN APPLICANT By:
By: Chris Bendon Community Development Director Date: Billing Address and Telephone Number: City of Aspen, 130 South Galena Street, Aspen,
CO 81611 (970)920-5000 Account # 150.23.23140.82770 City of Aspen September 10, 2009 Annexation Request Page 20 of 27 FINAL DRAFT
B. Pre‐Application Conference Summary City of Aspen September 10, 2009 Annexation Request Page 21 of 27 FINAL DRAFT City of Aspen
September 10, 2009 Annexation Request Page 22 of 27 FINAL DRAFT C. Vicinity Map The subject property is located at 38005 State Highway 82, Aspen Airport Busine
ss Center, Block 1, Lots 1 and 2; across State Highway 82 from the south end of the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport. VICINITY MAP City of Aspen September 10, 2009
Annexation Request Page 23 of 27 FINAL DRAFT D. Description of Compliance Aspen Municipal Code Sec. 26.310.040, Land Use Regulations, General Procedures and Regulations,
Amendments to the Land Use Code and Official Zone District Map, Standards of review: In reviewing an amendment to the text of this Title or an amendment to the Official Zone District Map,
the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this Title. Response: The applicant pro
poses an initial zoning of SCI for the continued operation of the lumber yard. Because the current request will facilitate only the annexation of the property and the continued operation of the lum
ber yard, this request does not represent a new land use policy or a change in land use policy. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Community
Plan. Response: While the initial zoning request for the subject property is SCI – Service, Commercial, Industrial (which will facilitate the continued operation of the current lumber yard opera
tion on the site), the future development intent of the site is for affordable housing. A future land use application (separate from this annexation request) will be processed by the City of Aspen
to request that the property be rezoned as AH‐PUD. The AH‐PUD designation will be requested based on affordable housing development plans that will be developed in the future for that specific purp
ose. This effort is underway in an effort to fulfill the housing goals established in the AACP. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses,
considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. Response: This request will facilitate the continued operation of the current lumber yard operation on the site. As such, this req
uest does not create any adverse effects on the subject property’s neighborhood or surrounding environment. When the City develops plans for affordable housing development at the subject property,
a separate land use application will be submitted to request that the subject property be rezoned as AH‐PUD. At that time, compliance with the AH‐PUD zone district will be established.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. Response: This request will facilitate the continued operation of the current lumber yard operation on
the site. As such, this request does not propose additional traffic generation that might contribute to road safety issues. When the City develops plans for affordable housing development at the su
bject property, a separate land use application will be submitted which will address traffic generation and road safety for that (future) application. E. Whether and the extent to which the prop
osed amendment would result in demands on public facilities and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities including, but not limited
to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools and emergency medical facilities. Response: The property proposed for annexation is currently served by C
ity municipal water and district sanitary sewer service. For the continued short‐term operation of the lumber yard at the City of Aspen September 10, 2009 Annexation Request
Page 24 of 27 FINAL DRAFT subject property, there will be no additional demands on public facilities, nor would the current application cause the capacity of transportation fac
ilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools or emergency medical facilities be in any way exceeded beyond current uses. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amen
dment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. Response: This request will facilitate the continued operation of the current lumber yard operation on
the site. As such, this request would not result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community ch
aracter in the City. Response: The current lumber yard operation on the site is immediately adjacent to the City of Aspen as previously described in this document. As such, the Petitioner attest
s that the existing lumber yard operation is already integrated with and thus consistent with the community character in the City. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subj
ect parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. Response: Not Applicable I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest and wh
ether it is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this Title. Response: Based on the above responses, the Petitioner attests that the proposed amendment would not be in conflict with the pub
lic interest and that the proposed amendment is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the City of Aspen Land Use Regulations. This request meets all of the “Standards of review” criteria establ
ished in the above noted Section 26.310.040 of the City of Aspen Land Use Regulations and as such the Petitioner requests annexation and initial zoning as requested. Please see the proposed zoning
map included in the next section of this application. City of Aspen September 10, 2009 Annexation Request Page 25 of 27 FINAL DRAFT D. Proposed Zoning Map
Proposed zoning map attached RR- City of Aspen C- City of Aspen C- City of Aspen R/MF- City of Aspen AR-10- Pitkin County Existing: Pitkin County, B2 - General Business Proposed:
City of Aspen, SCI - Service, Commercial, Industrial PUB- Pitkin County WO O DWARD LN PASSGO LN E AIRPORT RD HWY 82 0 80 40 Feet This map/drawing/image is a graphical representation
of the features depicted and is not a legal representation. The accuracy may change depending on the enlargement or reduction. Copyright 2009 Aspen/Pitkin GIS PROPOSED ZONING MAP BMC
WEST City of Aspen September 10, 2009 Annexation Request Page 26 of 27 FINAL DRAFT E. Improvement Survey (one full‐size copy) Improvement survey attached
City of Aspen September 10, 2009 Annexation Request Page 27 of 27 FINAL DRAFT F. Electronic Files (Compact Disk) List of files to be included on CD
‐ Annexation Request Document including land use application and forms ‐ Annexation Plat ‐ Proposed Zoning Map ‐ Improvement Survey