HomeMy WebLinkAboutresolution.council.011-92
~v.
r
'\
RESOLUTION NO. tl
(Series of 1992)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ASPEN, COLORADO, FINDING
COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 31-12-105, C.R.S., FOLLOWING PUBLIC HEARING
RELATIVE TO THE PETITION FOR ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE BERGER PARCEL.
WHEREAS, on October 22,1991, B. N. Berger did file with the City Clerk of the City
of Aspen a Petition for Annexation of territory to the City of Aspen; and
WHEREAS, on January 13, 1992, City Council did adopt Resolution No.3, Series of
1992, finding substantial compliance with Section 31-12-107(1), C.R.S.; establishing February
24, 1992, as the date for a public hearing to determine compliance with Section 31-12-105,
C.R.S.; and, authorizing publication of notice of said hearing; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held at the date, time and place duly noticed for said
((I public hearing; and
".tt'
,S}
;;
"
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to adopt its findings and determinations following
said public hearing in the form of a resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
That having duly heard and considered the testimony, comments, exhibits and arguments
of all persons appearing at the public hearing, the City Council of the City of Aspen makes the
following findings and determinations in accordance with Section 31-12-106(2), C.R.S.:
I. The City Clerk, in accordance with Section 3 of Resolution No.3, Series
of 1992, did give public notice pursuant to Section 31-12-108, C.R.S., of the public
hearing held on February 24, 1992, by causing to be published once a week for four
consecutive weeks in The Aspen Times, a newspaper of general circulation in Pitkin
County, the first publication being at least thirty (30) days prior to the date of the public
hearing.
'<<."
!
'Z',
,~',I,'"',,
v
&
"e
,c'
<U
f,'.
2. The property proposed to be annexed consists of unincorporated area
which has had more than two-thirds boundary contiguity with the City of Aspen for a
period of not less than three years.
3. The property proposed to be annexed was not divided into separate parts
or parcels from any other tract or parcel of real estate to establish the boundaries of the
property described in the petition for annexation,
4. The property proposed to be annexed consists of less than twenty acres.
Accordingly, the limitation set forth at Section 31-12-105(b) is not applicable.
5. There is no other annexation proceeding, other than the one under
consideration herein, which has been commenced either in the City of Aspen or any other
municipality which affects the property proposed to be annexed. Accordingly, the
limitation set forth at Section 31-12-105(c) is not applicable.
6. Annexation of the property proposed to be annexed would not result in the
detachment of any area from any school district and the attachment of the same to
another school district. Accordingly, the limitation set forth at Section 31-12-105(d) is
not applicable.
7. Annexation of the property proposed to be annexed would not have the
effect of extending the boundary of the City of Aspen more than three miles in any
direction. Accordingly, the limitation set forth at Section 31-12-105(e) relating to the
extension of municipal boundaries by more than three miles in anyone year is not
applicable.
8. The annexation of the property proposed to be annexed would be consistent
with the "Annexation Element to the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan". Accordingly,
the requirement set forth at Section 31-12-105(e) relating to the requirement that a "plan"
be adopted for the property proposed to be annexed has been met.
9. No portion of a platted street or alley is proposed to be annexed.
Accordingly, the limitations set forth at Section 31-12-105(t) and 31-12-105(g) are not
applicable.
Aspen on the
INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
"':i"TI.y of ~"-'7'" ,1992. ,n
-_i;dJtk
Frank Peters, Mayor Pro Tern
2
e"
,,'
Ii'
"1'-
!K
".
"It
,if
r~,_
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, at a meeting held on the day hereinabove stated.
~~~1erk
berg~hrg.res
3
,,',.',".',,",",'
It'
W
I'
",,',,','"
h'
k
,
"""".,1,._'"
{'1'
'\,
~
CITY OF ASPEN
City Attorney's Office
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 920-5055
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor and Members of Council
'J'
John P. worcester...;,,;t/
'" I
FROM:
THRU:
Jed Cas wall tt ,~",) 1<"\ \r.'\''::::.....
'J
February 19, 1992
DATE:
RE:
Berger Annexation - Febmary 24th Public Hearing
This matter is on Council's agenda for a public hearing to determine compliance with certain
provisions of the Municipal Annexation Act of 1965 as part of the statutorily required process
for annexing unincorporated property into the City. If Council determines at the public hearing
that compliance with these provisions exist, then an ordinance to annex will be prepared for
Council's consideration at a later date. As with all ordinances, a public hearing will be scheduled
as part of second reading of the annexation ordinance. The appropriate time for interested
citizens to offer comments on issues, other than compliance with the Municipal Annexation Act,
regarding the annexation of the parcel to the City would be during the second reading of the
annexation ordinance. The public hearing scheduled for the 24th can, therefore, be limited to
the sole issue of compliance with the relevant provisions of the Municipal Annexation Act.
At Council's regular meeting on January 13, 1992, Resolution No.3, Series of 1992, was
adopted. That resolution found substantial compliance with Section 31-12-107(1), C.R.S.(the
technical requirements for a petition for annexation); established February 24th as the date for
a public hearing to determine compliance with Section 31-12-105, C.R.S., (described below);
authorized the institution of zoning procedures for land in the area proposed to be annexed; and,
authorized the City Attorney to negotiate a municipal services agreement with the petitioner.
Because the property proposed to be annexed has had more than two-thirds (2/3) boundary
contiguity with the City of Aspen for a period of not less than three years, a relatively simplified
procedure is provided in the Municipal Annexation Act of 1965:
"... The eligibility requirements of section 31-12-104 shall not apply to
annexations [with 2/3 contiguity]. The governing body of any municipality
may annex such area by the following procedure: Adopt a resolution
1
,0."
!,!!,r.
I'}.
I;:
I,,'
I,l
.It,','""
d"
';;
-- ..-
setting forth the intent of the governing body to annex the area described
in said resolution if, after notice and hearing as provided in sections 31-
12-108 and 31-12-109, the governing body finds and determines that the
proposed annexation complies with the provisions of section 31-12-105.
Such findings and determinations shall be in writing and shall be included
in the minutes of the governing body's meeting. The governing body, by
ordinance, may approve such annexation." Section 31-12-106(2).
(Emphasis added).
Section 31-12-105, C.R.S., imposes a set of limitations on every annexation. It is these
limitations that Council must consider at the public hearing scheduled for the 24th. I have
attached a copy of the full text of Section 31-12-105 to this memo for your reference. I have also
attached a copy of a proposed resolution which you may adopt as Council's written findings and
determinations following the public hearing. The proposed resolution summarizes the limitations
of section 31-12-105 in the form of factual statements that will need to be established by the
petitioner at the public hearing.
Petitioner's counsel has been provided a copy of this memo and has been invited to attend the
public hearing to present whatever testimony or other evidence necessary to establish compliance
with Section 31-12-105, C.R.S,
It should be noted that the petitioner has requested Landmark Designation for the parcel. This
process will begin once Mr. Berger's property has been formally annexed into the City. After
the property is annexed staff will proceed to set the public hearings with the Historic
Preservation Committee, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and with City Council.
xc: Scott Harper, Esq.
Amy Margerum, City Manager
Diane Moore, Planning Director
berg-hrg.mem
2