Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutresolution.council.062-94 iWe...... \\. 'c_ .- '~, .. ,\, "C. e' 1~ '1)1 "< RESOLUTION NO. 0~ (Series of 1994) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ASPEN, COLORADO, FINDING COMPLIANCE WITH SECTIONS 31-12-104 AND 31-12-105, C.R.S., FOLLOWING PUBLIC HEARING RELATIVE TO THE PETITION FOR ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF ASPEN, COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS THE "HIGHWAY 82 - CITY/ZOLINE OPEN SPACE ANNEXATION". WHEREAS, on June 8, 1994, the City Manager of the City of Aspen and the Department of Transportation, State of Colorado, 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 June 13, 1994, City Council did adopt Resolution No. 44, Series of 1994, finding substantial compliance with Section 31-12-107(1), C.R.S.; establishing July 25, 1994, as the date for a public hearing to determine compliance with Sections 31-12-104 and 31- 12-105, C.R.S.; and authorizing publication of said hearing; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held at the date, time and place duly noticed for said public hearing; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to adopt its fndings and determinations following said hearing in the form of a resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1 That having 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 the Colorado Municipal Annexation Act, as amended: 11.._.'. Ib "'" 1. The City Clerk, in accordance with Section 3 of Resolution No. 44, Series of 1994, did give public notice pursuant to Section 31-12-108, C.R.S., of the public hearing held on July 25, 1994, 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. In addition, the City Council did send to the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners, to the County Attorney of Pitkin County, and to the Aspen School District, a copy of the aforesaid resolution and petition. 2. That, in accordance with Section 31-12-108.5, C.R.S., an impact report concerning the proposed annexation was prepared and filed with the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners. 3. That not less than one-sixth of the perimeter of the area proposed to be annexed is contiguous with the City of Aspen. (The total perimeter of the area to be annexed is 13,764.93 feet, the distance of the contiguity between the City of Aspen and the area proposed to be annexed is 3,576.03 feet, and the percent of contiguity is 26%). '- ~~'.. \~.. 4. That a community of interest exists between the area proposed to be annexed and the City of Aspen; that said area is urban or will be urbanized in the near future; and that said area is integrated with or is capable of being integrated with the City of Aspen. The basis of compliance with the foregoing is the finding by City Council that the area to be annexed exceeds the one-sixth contiguity requirement and: a. Less than one-half of the land in the area proposed to be annexed (including streets) is agricultural, and none of the owners of such agricultural land, if any, have expressed an intention, under oath, to devote the land to agricultural use for a period of not less than five years; and, b. It is physically practicable to extend to the area proposed to be annexed those urban services which the City of Aspen provides in common to all of its citizens on the same terms and conditions as such services are made to such citizens. 5. The property proposed to be annexed was not divided into seperate parts or parcels from any other tract or parcel of real estate without the written consent consent of the landowners thereof to establish the boundaries of the property described in the annexation petition. (One hundred percent of the owners of the proposed area.to be annexed have petitioned for the annexation: The City of Aspen and the Department of Transportation, State of Colorado). lIe, qL '" 6. The owners of the property proposed to be annexed have consented in writing to the annexation. Accordingly, the limitation set forth at Section 31-12-105(b) is not applicable~ 2 --- .".-.... II \< ~, 7. 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. 8. Annexation of the property proposed to be annexed would not result in the datachment 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. 9. 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 limitations 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. '- 1* . \1\~. 10. The annexation ofthe property proposed to be annexed would be consistent with the" Annexation Element to the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan". In addition, the portion of Highway 82 proposed to be annexed shall continue to be used as a state highway and the remaining portion of the area proposed to be annexed has been approved to be developed as a golf course, in accordance with the Pitkin County Land Use Code. 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. 11. In establishing the boundaries of the area to be annexed, the entire width of Highway 82 has been included within the area to be annexed. Accordingly, the limitation set forth at Section 31-12-105(f) has been met. 12. The City of Aspen does not intend to deny reasonable access to landowners, owner of an easement, or the owner of a franchise adjoining any street, alley, or highway, upon annexation ofthe proposed portion of Highway 82. Accordingly, the limitation set forth at Section 31-12-105(f) has been met. 13. The requirements of the applicable parts of Sections 31-12-104 and 31-12- 105, C.R.S. have been met. (Ref. 31-12-110(1)(a)(I), C.R.S.). 14. An election is not required under Section 31-12-107(2) in that one hundred percent (100 %) of the owners of the area proposed to be annexed have petitioned for the annexation. (Ref. 31-12-107(1)(g);31 ~12-110(1)(a)(II), C.R.S.). 15. No additional terms and conditions are to be imposed upon the annexation. (Ref. 31-12-110(b),C.R.S.). -' rJ W' \\,. 3 ~a... . '. i~..8.< \\ ''0 I_I 0~ "" II -- INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the ~~ day of ~ _ , 1994, ~ -;;.</ 5; ,{3..........~ -..., ohn S. Bennett, Mayor I, KathrynS. 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, Coloraao, at a meeting held on the day hereinabove stated. ~?ot~~ zol- 2. res: complillllce hearing 4