Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutresolution.council.031-88 RESOLUTION NO.~ (Series of 1988) RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ASPEN, COLORADO TO THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FORMALLY ENDORSING THE ASPEN AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: ANNEXATION ELEMENT WHEREAS, the City Council of Aspen (hereinafter "council") recognizes that the Aspen Planning and zoning commission (hereinafter "Commission") is authorized to periodically review, revise amend and extend in greater detail elements of The Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the Commission is presently in the process of updating the 1966 Aspen Area General Plan; and WHEREAS, the Commission has held public meetings to develop the Element; and WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has held work sessions to discuss the element on June 23 and July 18, 1988. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: section 1 That the City Council formally endorses the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Annexation Element to be used as a guide for planning purposes and capital improvements budgeting. Section 2 That Council recommends the following changes to the Element: o Pages 111.7 to 111.9 as noted in Attachment 1; o Pages IV.2 and IV.3 as noted in Attachment 2; o Pages IV.5 and IV.6 as noted in Attachment 3; 1 o Pages IV.4 and IV.5 as noted in Attachment 4. Dated: 7?~MA.J /5- , 1988. '%L/~ william L. stirling, Mayor I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting city Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the city of Aspen, Colorado, as a meeting held _~ ~ , 1988. reso.cc.annex ~) xi~ / Kathryn Koch, City Clerk 2 ATTACHMENT 1 located with the Ute-Northstar, Smuggler, Red Mountain, Meadowood and SH 82 Corridor areas, as shown on Figure 111.1. In the past, Aspen's Planning Commission and City Council have expressed frustration due to their lack of jurisdictional control over the development of a large project on the fringe of the city limits such as the Centennial employee housing development. One method of addressing this problem is to have large, vacant, unincor- porated parcels which are located in potential annexation areas be annexed and developed under the jurisdiction of the City of Aspen. The capability to exert direct control over such lands has some obvious advantages to the city. The benefits and disadvantages of such a strategy are most obviously understood in the context of the possible annexation of the Airport Business Center, as illustrated below. ~ The City could benefit from the sales tax revenues generated by the Airport Business Center if it could be annexed. However, in order to annex the Airport Business Center, it would be necessary to annex approximately 600 acres of vacant, unsubdivided pasture land in the S. H. 82 Corridor Planning area to meet the State of Colorado's contiguity requirements. ~ 'Phere-~-t:-\Vo A disadvantage::!' associated with annexing a sub- stantial amount of vacant, unsubdivided land is that generally annexation is followed by increased development expectations on the part of the annexed land owner and subsequent urbanization of 111.7 the property. The community has consistently attempted, in the past, to maintain a rural entrance image to the City of Aspen. The City of Aspen must weigh the costs associated with urbanizing the state Highway 82 Corridor as a result of annexation against the sales tax benefits which would result from annexation of the Airport Business Center. Potential solutions to this problem are ~ for the City to adopt some of the County's land use tools which are designed to address theh state Highway Corridor such as scenic Foreground review and the 200 foot highway setback. Another option for the city would be to annex land in the Corridor and acquire the land for open space as was done with the Zoline parcel. &eeend,-P~~kin-~~-~~r~fi~ry-ptl~stl~~~-~he im~~emeft~a~ieft-e~-a-Praft~~er-e~-Beve~e~meft~-R~h~~-fPBRr-~rogram, de~~fieft-~o-~-vi~tta~~y-gi~ni~iean~-~~~~-~riettr~ttra~ ~ and-w~~~~~~e-~-and-epefl-~-~ttr~e~~~--~he-~-paree~g if .< adj-aeel't-e-- 'Eo--Meedowood-,--fterH~ - o~- -t-he- -5t-eqe--Read-and --t-he--bftse--ef P iehaek,- a ~e - eeng~~e-re~- -t-&- -be- -pot.-en-t:-.i:-a-3..- -s-i-t.-eg- -f-c-r- ~ -u.reee:i:v ift9' area~u.~--R~~~~-~~-a~e-~~-~~aftfteft-~eeft~~eflg-k~-whieh deve~~--r~h~~--wotlld--be---t~~-~~-~re--reme~ ~a~ieft~-geWft-Va~~ey~-- ~ S-~a~~-~-ha~-~-efta-t:--~f>R-~-det'endent::--upon--~he ~raft~~er-~--~eflg~~~eg--~rem-~-jti~igdiet::ion-~~-~--fte~hberi~ j-ttri~ie~ieft-ft-re-~~~-~k--~e-adminigEe~-~~~-~tteee~~~tt~~ ~here~re,-k~-~~~-o~--~he-~--~~-adjaeen~--eo Meadeweod-~fid-~~-bage-~--~iehaek-~~rea~-~mpe~~mefl~g-k~-a III. 8 s-aeees-s-:fl:tr-1f19R-pr09'~am.. :~ ]I ~ r:f_~~_~it~-~--ASpen--S-l:tpp~~~s--~it~~-~~~-p~oposea--1f19R p~~am,_~hefi_i~-S-hel:trd-re:fraifi-:fr~m-afifie~i~-~fte-S-l:tbtee~-pareerS l:tfi~ir_~:fee~_~~-~_~~---A--fO~mal--ifiee~ve~fimefi~al ~reemefi~_~~_be_~-be~Weefi-k~-ei~Y-~--A~pefi-~-Pi~~in eel:tfi~Y_:fer_revieW~:f-prep~S-ed-aever~pmefi~-ifi-1f19R-reeeivi~-areas-.. ~his-_~reemefi~-e~l:trd-be-modered-a:f~er-~he-ifi~e~~ve~fimefi~ar-Btt~fie M~ttfi~aifi_~~_a~~eemene-~~-5flOwmfiss--~ir~-~-Pi~~in eel:tfi~Y_fO~_khe-~i:ew-~:f-p~OPOSed-sk:i-~~-opment--a-nd-~:fi- s-iee-~mpe.ct-s-:--~b3--wo\i~d _-gt~-hen--~he - e~c-:i. S~-ifl~-~:i:s-:i:-on- -in ~he _ e otln e y _ €otle, - whe~"'e-in- -td. ~ - -rleve-3..-opment- -w-it-h-:kn- -t-wo- -m-.i:-l:e3- -e-:f -~he ei~y_i~_reEerred-~~-~he-ei~Y-E~r-e~mmefi~,-btte-~he~e-i~-fi~-bindi~ ~reemefi~_~o~_-t~-e~l:tfi~y-~o-~~~~-~he-eommen~s-~~-ei~he~ ~he_Aspen_p.&~-~~it~~.i:-1-~--xn-~he--td.k~~-ve-;--t~--G-:H=y-~f A~pefi_~_Pi~~in-~~~~-~~y--t~-imPlemene-~-ifi~e~tl:t~iS-- die~i:-enar_g?BR_~o~~fim,--td.k~k-h:ere--mey-~-.l-ega-l--and--p~ri~ieal imped-imen~s--k-c--~his--~--- rf-_k~-ei~y-cl--As-pen--does--nee ~l:tpp~~~_efte_€Otifl~y...1S-~.li1DR-~,--it--eou-l:d-~~l:y--anfie}( ~he-prepes-ed-reeeivi~-area~.. The above example illustrates a fundamental problem with annexation of large undeveloped areas of the city, these being the increased development expectations of the landowner, and the potential incompatibility between ongoing County programs and the city's plans for the areas. The effects of these problems should III. 9 ATTACHMENT 2 unincorporated areas. Explanatory Comments The general idea behind this guideline is that annexa- tion 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.1I 2. Guideline strive to avoid zoning designations which make conform- ing 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 specif ic 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 effects of the new legislation on the remainder of the City of Aspen. C. UnsubdividedjVacant Land 1. 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. IV.2 Explanatory Comments ~ Aeeerdi~-k~-&~a~e-~~~~-~ne-~--~he-~~-ini~i~ reqtliremen~~--~~-~-~-~~->>~hft~--~ne--~e~~i~~y prepe~ed-~-be-anne~ed-i~-tl~han~~~i~~-be-tl~hani~-in ~he-nea~-~tl~tlre~~--rn~rde~-~-he-e~n~i~een~~i~h-&~a~ S~a~tlee/-k~-e~~y-~~-~efle~ft~~y-~~-~-vaean~ ~retlnd-tln~i~-devel:-opmen~-i~-pendi~";" It is recognized that the annexation of the area around 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 1. Guideline t The City should generally try to maintain Floor Area Ratios comparable to the County's for annexed proper- ties, unless it is demonstrated during the zoning process that the Floor Area Ratios are unreasonably high or low. E. Environmental Review 1. Guideline utilize the City's Planned Unit Development (PUD) regulations, 8040 Greenline and stream Margin to insure the best possible review of environmentally sensitive areas. 2. Guideline Consider code amendments to expand the scope of the City's environmental reviews to include review mechan- isms which address wildlife habitat and the state Highway 82 Scenic Corridor. F. Bandit Dwelling units 1. Guideline IV.3 .~ ATTACHMENT 3 petition, annexation will be pursued. The City Council may wish to consider an alternative annexation method called "petition for annexation election." 2. Guideline 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. The city should research the pros and cons of holding an annexation election for a large area. Explanatory 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 city1s 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 initia- tion of the zoning process and residents are uncertain as to how zoning issues will be resolved. Another positive effect of the process we employ is that it insures that the zoning is accomplished within 90 days of annexation, as required by state law. If this 90 day requirement were not met by the City, the property would be considered "unzoned" and subject to no development limitations whatsoever. I. city/County Sales Tax Revenue Sharing 1. Guideline The city staff shall annually monitor its costs for providing Municipal services to annexation areas to determine additional costs incurred by the city and report to the city Council. hEeer-a-de~e~m~fle~~~n-~ ~ s-tteh-ees~~, The City and County shall renegotiate an equitable distribution of sales tax revenues, when city costs have increased enough to warrant a redistribution of revenues. Explanatory Comments IV.5 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 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. J. Ski Area Zoning 1. 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-Ski 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. ~ The following are proposed land use actions to be pursued by the City of Aspen. 1. Prepare and adopt a Land Use Element of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan which addresses all land use in the Aspen Area including the annexation areas. The Land Use Element 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 County Code which includes: o 200 foot setback from state Highway 82. o Scenic Foreground Overlay regulation As a pre-requisite to annexation of land in the corridor these code amendments should be adopted. GH.ANNEXGUIDE.II IV.6 ATTACHMENT 4 Consider the development of new land use legislation to legalize "bandit units" as 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, Safety and Welfare standards and 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 consider legislation to address the problem. .. G. utilities 1. Guideline Pursue an agreement with Pitkin County which that Pitkin County requires small, private, systems to meet all City standards. insures utility Explanatory Comments ~ Pitkin County cannot preclude a developer from develop- ing a private water or sewer system if the system meets acceptable standards. However, Pitkin County may require potential developers to meet City standards, thereby increasing the cost of developing private systems and serving as a catalyst to join the public utility system or, at a minimum, insuring that if private systems are developed and subsequently taken over by the public, excess costs will not burden future users. H. Annexation Zoning Process 1. Guideline Pursue the annexation of County lands only when a majority of the property owners favor annexation. Explanatory Comments Although it has been established in the past by City Council that the City should "take a pro-active role in annexation," the City has not forced annexation upon unwilling County residents. 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 submit an annexation IVA petition, annexation will be pursued. The City Council may wish to consider an alternative annexation method called "petition for annexation election." 2. Guideline 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. ..... The City should research the pros and cons of holding an annexation election for a large area. Explanatory 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 initia- tion of the zoning process and residents are uncertain as to how zoning issues will be resolved. Another positive effect of the process we employ is that it insures that the zoning is accomplished within 90 days of annexation, as required by state law. If this 90 day requirement were not met by the City, the property would be considered "unzoned" and subject to no development limitations whatsoever. I. City/County Sales Tax Revenue Sharing 1. Guideline The City staff shall annually monitor its costs for providing Municipal services to annexation areas to determine additional costs incurred by the City and report to the City Council. AE~e~-e-de~e~m~fla~~en_~ ...... ~l:teh-ee>s~-s, The City and County shall renegotiate an equitable distribution of sales tax revenues, when City costs have increased enough to warrant a redistribution of revenues. Explanatory Comments IV.5