Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.an.Oden deannexationMEMORANDUM TO: John Worcester, City Attorney t THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director / 1 FROM: Chris Bendon, Senior Planner l� RE: Oden petition for disconnection DATE: October 16, 2001 SUMMARY: The Oden property, subject of this disconnection request, lies along the Roaring Fork River at the northern entrance to the City on Red Mountain Road. The City currently has jurisdiction to regulate development on this property and the ability to achieve its goals with respect to the type, density, and character of development on this parcel. Disconnecting this parcel would eliminate the City's jurisdiction over this property and the City's ability to achieve its development objectives. The criteria for disconnecting land is similar to that of annexation — is the action in the best interests of the City? The City currently has an opportunity to ensure, through its own laws and processes, that the proper type and character of development occurs on --this property. More importantly, the City currently has the ability to make critical decisions concerning this property in the best interests of Aspen's citizens. Allowing this property to disconnect eliminates the City's ability to ensure the property is developed in the best interests of the City. Decisions would be made by the County with, at most, a non -binding referral. The property could be rezoned, subdivided, etc. with very little input from the City. Disconnection would provide the opportunity for the property to be developed in conflict with the best interests of the City. Staff does not believe this disconnection is in the best interests of the City. DETAILED .ANALYSIS: The City's Land Use Code responds to the concerns City citizens have about development within the City. The County's Land Use Code regulates development in a manner historically important.to County residents. The two codes are not identical. Below are a few highlights of the differences with respect to this property. Floor Area: The primary difference between jurisdictions is the amount of Floor Area that can be achieved. The landowner may be seeking this disconnection in order to market the vacant Lot # 1 with a higher floor area ratio. The City of Aspen City flaornev's Office Memorandum ' TO: Mayor and Members of Council s FROM: John P. Worcester DATE: October 22,_ 2001 RE; Dr. Oden de -annexation Francis Krismaiiich who is representing Dr. and • Attached please find a copy of a letter from certain lots that Mrs Oden in a request, to the City to disconnect (or de -annex) from the City they own. owner may petition a municipality to "disconnect" their o Under Colorado law, a property , property from the City. The applicable sfatute reads, as follows: Sec. 31-12 501. When the owner of a tract of land within and adjacent to the boundary of wner a city or town desires to have said tract disconnected from such city or town, such dance a apply to the governing body. of such city or town for the' enactment of an application, it may PP Y disconnecting such tract of land from such city or town. On receipt of a c lication, and, if is the duty of such governing body to give due consideration to such . p l or town _will not, such governing body is of the opinion that the best interests ofrdirty ce effecting such be prejudiced by the disconnection of -such tract, it shall enact. an o disconnection... . for roving a petition to disconnect is that the tract of As you can read, the only real standardPP d' acent to the boundary of -the' city, and that City Council give due land be within and a _�___ consideration, to the issue whether the disconnection of the tract of land is in the best int however,, is .of he the city. Whether to grant the petition is a legislative act of the City Council, Council rec ord should reflect that due consideration was given to the application by the City The Community Develo pment ment staff 'has reviewed' the request and, has prepared a memo addressing the issue as to whether it is in the ' City's best interests to grant this particular re l. to disconnect request ect land from the City. The attached ordinance is drafted to disconnect the pa , cc: Community Development JPW-10/15/2001-G:\john\word\memos\oden-disconnect.doc • 1 Memorandum TO: Mayor and Members of Council FROM: John P. Worcester DATE: November 26, 2001 RE: Ordinance No. 43, Series of 2001- Dr. Oden de -annexation Ak- The flity of ffspen Oft ffmornev's Office Attached please find a copy of a letter from Francis Krismanich who is representing Dr. and Mrs. Oden in a request to the City to disconnect (or de -annex) from the City certain lots that they own. Under Colorado law, a property owner may petition a municipality to "disconnect" their property from the City. The applicable statute reads as follows: Sec. 31-12-501. When the owner of a tract of land within and adjacent to the boundary of a city or town desires to have said tract disconnected from such city or town, such owner may apply to the governing body of such city or town for the enactment of an ordinance disconnecting such tract of land from such city or town. On receipt of such application, it is the duty of such governing body to give due consideration to such application, and, if such governing body is of the opinion that the best interests of the city or town will not be prejudiced by the disconnection of such tract, it shall enact an ordinance effecting such disconnection... . As you can read, the only real standard for approving a petition to disconnect is that the tract of land be within and adjacent to the boundary of the city, and that City Council give due consideration to the issue whether the disconnection of the tract of land is in the best interests of the city. Whether to grant the petition is a legislative act of the City Council, however, the record should reflect that due consideration was given to the application by the City Council. The Community Development staff has reviewed the request and has prepared a memo addressing the issue as to whether it is in the City's best interests to grant this particular request to disconnect land from the City. The attached ordinance is drafted to disconnect the parcel. cc: Community Development JPW-11/20/2001-G:\john\word\memos\oden-disconnect.doc Francis X. Krizmanich Land Use Planning 0079 Light Hill Road Snowmass, CO 81611 (970) 927-4263 August 31, 2001 Aspen City Council 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Oden Property — Petition for Disconnection Dear Council Members: Dr. Robert R. Oden (retired) and Nancy Oden are the owners (in various forms of ownership for estate planning purposes) of three parcels of land that were annexed by the City of Aspen on March 29, 1989. The three properties, known as Lot 1 and Lot 2 of the Oden Lot Split and an adjacent property described by metes and bounds, are depicted on the attached Oden Site Plan. Dr. and Mrs. Oden request that the City Council accept this letter as a Petition to Disconnect the Oden properties from the City of Aspen pursuant to Section 31-12-501 of the Colorado Revised Statutes. This request arises from the changes to the City's Land Use Code as applicable to the Oden properties which were annexed into the City after land use approvals had been granted by the County, for which Dr. and Mrs. Oden made several concessions. The Oden properties comprise Lots 1 and 2 of the Oden Lot Split, which was approved by Pitkin County on May 17, 1988. Lot 1 is not developed. Lot 2 contains the Oden residence. The adjacent metes and bounds property was purchased from Pitkin County in July of 1987. The metes and bounds property is vacant. The City of Aspen began the annexation process for the "Lower Smuggler Area" soon after the Oden Lot Split was approved, which included the Oden properties. However, the Oden properties had a unique PUD zoning separate from other properties included in the annexation. Dr. and Mrs. Oden did not object to the annexation because the City Staff assured them that the City zoning code would not adversely affect the zoning of the property or reduce the allowed floor area. In fact, at that time, the City and County codes allowed a similar floor area. It was also the City's practice when annexing properties to attempt to zone newly annexed properties in a manner that allowed for similar floor areas. Since the annexation, however, the City has made significant changes to the Land Use Code that have severely impacted the properties. Building envelopes were established on the Oden properties without consideration of any City of Aspen slope reduction or stream margin review limitations, which were not in existence at the time Oden Subdivision was approved by the County. During the 1990's, the City then adopted floor area reductions based on slope, which resulted in a floor area reduction of approximately 1000 Memorandum TO: Mayor and Members of Council FROM: IJohn P. Worcester DATE: October 22,_ 2001 RE: Dr. Oden de -annexation %Ji Aw I The City of Aspen City AttorneY's Office Attached please find a copy of a letter from Francis Krismariich who is representing Dr. and Mrs. Oden in a request to the City to disconnect (or de -annex) from the City certain lots that they own. Under Colorado law, a property owner may petition a municipality to "disconnect" their property from the City. The applicable statute reads as follows: Sec. 31-12-501. When the owner of a tract of land within and adjacent to the boundary of a city or town desires to have said tract disconnected from such city or town, such, owner may apply to the governing body of such city or town for the enactment of an ordinance disconnecting such tract of land from such city or town. On receipt of such application, it is the duty of such governing body to give due consideration to such application, and, if such governing body is of the opinion that the best interests of the city or town will not be prejudiced by the disconnection of -such tract, it shall enact an ordinance effecting such disconnection... . As you can read, the only real standard for approving a petition to disconnect is that the tract of land be within and adjacent to the boundary of -the city, and that City Council give due consideration to the issue whether the disconnection of the tract of land is in the best interests of the city. Whether to grant the petition is a legislative act of the City Council, however, the record should reflect that due consideration w x.r given to the application by the City Council. The Community Development staff has reviewed the request and. has prepared a memo addressing the issue as to whether it is in the City's best interests to grant this particular request to disconnect land from the City. The attached ordinance is drafted to disconnect the parcel. cc: Community Development JPW-10/15/2001-G:\john\word\memos\oden-disconnect.doc 1 MEMORANDUM TO: John Worcester, City Attorney } THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director 1` L FROM: Chris Bendon, Senior Planner RE: Oden petition for disconnection DATE: October 16, 2001 SUMMARY: The Oden property, subject of this disconnection request, lies along the Roaring Fork River at the northern entrance to the City on Red Mountain Road. The City currently has jurisdiction to regulate development on this property and the ability to achieve its goals with respect to the type, density, and character of development on this parcel. Disconnecting this parcel would eliminate the City's jurisdiction over this property and the City's ability to achieve its development objectives. The criteria for disconnecting land is similar to that of annexation — is the action in the best interests of the City? The City currently has an opportunity to ensure, through its own laws and processes, that the proper type and character of development occurs on this property. More importantly, the City currently has the ability to make critical decisions concerning this property in the best interests of Aspen's citizens. Allowing this property to disconnect eliminates the City's ability to ensure the property is developed in the best interests of the City. Decisions would be made by the County with, at most, a non -binding referral. The property could be rezoned, subdivided, etc. with very little input from the City. Disconnection would provide the opportunity for the property to be developed in conflict with the best interests of the City. Staff does not believe this disconnection is in the best interests of the City. DETAILED ANALYSIS: The City's Land Use Code responds to the concerns City citizens have about development within the City. The County's Land Use Code regulates development in a manner historically important to County residents. The two codes are not identical. Below are a few highlights of the differences with respect to this property. Floor Area: The primary difference between jurisdictions is the amount of Floor Area that can be achieved. The landowner may be seeking this disconnection in order to market the vacant Lot #1 with a higher floor area ratio. The City has traditionally regulated house size to address community character and aesthetics. When property owners apply for annexation into the City of Aspen, staff typically identifies City FAR standards as a community goal to be achieved through such annexation. Often times, the Council will condition an annexation upon compliance with the lower City FAR in order to ensure the potential development will be compatible with adjacent City neighborhoods. Disconnection will eliminate the City's opportunity to ensure this property is developed compatible with the adjacent City neighborhood. Upon disconnection, the County will be required to assign zoning to the property. There has been no agreement (such as a pre -disconnection agreement) with the County concerning zoning or any other land use action the landowner may be seeking. The adjacent County zoning is R-30, although the land was apparently zoned R-15 prior to annexation into the City. Allowable Floor Area: Lot One Lot Two City R-1 SA County R-1 S County R-1 SA County R-30 45119 45997 5,500 41,060 5,263 1 4,436 5,500 3,604 City - Subgrade space is mostly exempt (depends on the size of light wells, walk -outs, etc.). Up to 375 square feet for garage is exempt. County - Up to 4,000 square feet subgrade is exempt. 750 square feet for a garage is exempt. The above floor areas are estimates based on information provided by the applicant and do not create a legal or vested right. Stream Margin: The landowner may be interested in disconnection to avoid the City's Stream Margin Review. This provision of the City Land Use Code regulates development along the City's river corridors to protect this environmentally sensitive area. Protection of this ecosystem has been a long-standing Aspen goal. The land was annexed into the City of Aspen with an approved building envelope. This building envelope is a vested right, subject to compliance with the City's regulations, including Stream Margin Review. Since the property was annexed into the City of Aspen, the County has changed its regulations regarding development on 30% slopes. (A substantial portion of the building envelope is in excess of 30% slope.) Upon disconnection, the County may choose to void the previous building envelope, although that determination has not been made. When property owners apply for annexation into the City of Aspen, staff typically identifies compliance with Stream Margin standards as a community goal to be achieved through such annexation. Conditions of annexation are sometimes placed on land by City Council to ensure compliance with these standards. Disconnection N would void Aspen's ability to require a sensitive development strategy along the river corridor. Residential Design: The City of Aspen requires all new residential development to comply with a set of design standards. These regulations were enacted to ensure new development is compatible in scale, proportion, and character compared to the City's existing neighborhoods. The County has no regulations addressing residential design. Staff considers this disconnection potentially diminishing the City's neighborhood compatibility goals. Lot Line Adjustment: The landowner may be interested in disconnection to achieve lot line adjustments between two or three of the parcels. The process for this action in the City is administrative as long as no increase in development rights results from the action. This includes no increase in FAR. An adjustment that affects development rights in the City is treated as a regular subdivision and requires public hearings with the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council. The County's process for amending lot lines is identical. An adjustment not increasing development rights, including FAR, can be approved administratively. Other adjustments are considered substantial subdivision amendments and are reviewed by the Board of County Commissioners. There may be some benefit to the City realized by moving the current lot lines. A greater setback from the river, for example, could be provided. Because both the City and County allow for adjustments with similar process, staff does not consider disconnection furthering City goals with respect to amending lot lines. In fact, the County may encourage an adjustment counter to how the City may approach an adjustment, possibly defeating City goals. C ORDINANCE NO. (Series of 2001) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING THE DISCONNECTION FROM THE BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF ASPEN A TRACT OF LAND COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS THE ODEN PARCEL. WHEREAS, on August 31, 2001, Dr. Robert R. Oden and Nancy Oden, the owners of three parcels of land within and adjacent to the boundaries of the City of Aspen, did petition the City of Aspen to disconnect said parcels from the boundary of the City of Aspen; and WHEREAS, Section 31-12-501 of the Colorado Revised Statutes authorizes the City Council to disconnect from the boundaries of the City of Aspen tracts of land that are within and adjacent to the City boundaries, if it is determined to be in the best interests of the City of Aspen to do so; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interests of the City of Aspen to approve Dr. and Mrs. Oden's Petition for Disconnection. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1. That the tract of land described in Exhibit A, appended hereto and by this reference made a part hereof as if fully set forth, is hereby disconnected from the boundaries of the City of Aspen. =a Section 2. That the City Engineer shall make the requisite corrections to the City Section 3. That the City Clerk shall cause to be recorded two copies of this ordinance with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorders Office with instructions that the County Clerk shall file one copy with the Department of Local Affairs as provided in Section 24-32-109, C.R.S. Section 4. That if any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 5. That this ordinance shall not have any effect on existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances amended as herein provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded under such prior ordinances. A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the day of in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado. , 2001, INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk .2001. tleien &aim manaerua, mayor 2 FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this day of Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S . Koch, City Clerk JPW-10/15/2001-G:\john\word\ords\oden-disconnect.doc 2001. LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOTS 1 AND 2, ODEN LOT SPLIT, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO; AND A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN THE NORTHWEST 1/4 AND SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 84 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., PITKIN COUNTY, AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF THE PITKIN COUNTY COMMUNITY CENTER PROPERTY, FORMERLY ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL PROPERTY, WHENCE THE WESTERLY 1/4 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 7 BEARS SOUTH 50.00 FEET AND WEST 930.60 FEET, THENCE EAST 119.00 FEET ALONG THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID COMMUNITY CENTER PROPERTY, THENCE SOUTH 175.45 FEET, THENCE SOUTH 40.46' EAST 118.73 FEET, THENCE SOUTH 66.0 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF THE RED MOUNTAIN ROAD; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE THE FOLLOWING COURSES AND DISTANCES: 36 32' WEST FOR 84.00 FEET; THENCE 63.00 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING OF 300.00 FEET, THENCE NORTH 47 34' WEST 143.68 FEET TO THE POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID COMMUNITY CENTER PROPERTY; THENCE DEPARTING SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE AND ALONG WESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE NORTH 118.10 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 24,904 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS. The applicant requeot) to U�ks (">wooD U rom City �.�oojluse of the belief that the City made oleo imp Iici`br voo,-gem it annexed the property to accept the approved subdiviskw, hic(� pc>>o-u((,� tG�o ouo o lhi(g Envelope antI �'' (� - ued G C'J Floor area. The,--, oa shy slooff o v) i Rcnlicated that i t �njo QO 'Wre— r��m Margin P-vio�ul , The of foo of Vhis review wiH be the re-oWiol°im of the build sic oaveIope because of a fiftee, n-f of fpom the lop of o0 bank and also a "progressive" 4 5 -degree seTi b ck frnwuC tho toqp.A of the The be `Nhco ° he Oden `�rmve, �oc,,r� ohoMGoi he ex onp ro",i further �JoMc-:�mj because it is, pEoirt of cmii�i a ppb-i>> "' ol, subdivi-Mou Hiadf 3uo CitV am cIlsf on it annexed the ciohte Gkblem S-ubocaHvision Building Envelope is approximat dy 7o800 ou tre goo h�-� '000 Sv're jim A�;vq� 'c, Phview requirements, including ( o foot � o�o crvl-� u �� vc; `oo `� �� O «f tdho lbcns lk�o ���y ��oc���ct the SuiGding Envelops to tf(Jkjvll �o a1ffjx,,POx1viiNQtuady 2,000 sauolPo, foo in size thul Mf0 be, sovoPo y VJogtPiCtL o? 000c u-(5?o o f G-o co-, c�oli­Vi �� iot, G o 09 �r e 2otLb) ck. The, u` C�����OOI Dt Jo o�Do(''C oI coloD ��i Ofr��? of Uoo� U << � o G��;=��4f�� U'(:'r CVDe or P1tJL O co' (0 U= `U hi c�:� ())[p) r0vencol o oolj Vo D U "'(1i :Ci v (rogq�<j rc)j tu �f� )orh c} ra d oyo`op `U D ���flDl y and home s0zo® pieuse n c7 C fU UDC?! U�no e�ra of I;-oc. of consists of 9arge multi -family V(S9oIonAk(�l0 �(wo, j� ecc— % The-, toms�%)xon&7(J not create a large structure by VI, oi9 P �h o,U VII cu)) iP�" cm, JP E�. 11,�I C,)IC,u', the tree property size includes Lot 1 and tGbo ���o9 jcIoUI-9," apnd Di unc(.)N) �cwoperty, . The combined 01creage of they two properties is al pproxi� ahi;I `741,1717 square feet. a home size of approxivnately 5,672 square feet as vHginally allowed when the property was annexed would be approxi matt,,) �y 1,300 square feet less than allowed by the existing City zoiadfig if the `�,��tc_D pproperty area is consid 00010 Oden Lot I Lot Areas. 26,227 Square Feet Oden Metes & Bounds parcel (not used f or f loor area): 24,900 Square Feet. i i Area • d' Lot I t • den Metes & Boundsparcel 51,127 Square Current Floor t Allowed : " City of • ' Lot Area that the City of Aspen Allows for Floor Area is based on Slope: Lot I Area: 0-20% Slope - 7,925 Square Feet • t i Area 7,925+1,632.5 •' - ' (access • ,537.1 Floor area for 9,000 Square feet 4,080 Floor area for 537.5 square feet 537.5 / 100 - 5.37 (7) = Floor area home with a garage = 4,117.59 - 125 (garage f loor area that counts toward f loor area) = 3992.59 + 375 (exempt garage f loor area) surface. Sub -grade space is exempt according to the percentage of exposed wall When Oden Lot One was Annexed, prior to Slope and Stream Reductions, the City of Aspen considered the Lot to contain 26,227 - 20 (access i 26,207 SquareFeet ofLot Area. The allowed Floor i { 15,000 Square i ii i Area 4,500 Square Feet 11,207 Square of _{ 00Square Fee • 500 Square Foot Garage was also permitted. Annexation,The Total Home and Garage Square Footage was 5,672.42 Square Feet. Since ' •+, Square Feetor Area:#den Lot 1 Lot Areas. 261,227 Square Feet. Hunter Creek • , Lot Area Minus Creek = 251102 - 20 (access easement) = 25,082 Square Feet Floor area plus garage of750square(exempt • •• area) Sub -grade space is exempt up to 4,000 square feet - no above grade exposureispermitted. *Please note that the original Lot size of 31,230 Square Feet was reduced to 261227 Square Feet due to a donation by the Odens to Pitkin County of a portion of the Lot for the right -of -way for Red Mountain Road.