HomeMy WebLinkAboutresolution.council.034-96
.
e
.
Exhibit B
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING
THE 1996 CITY OF ASPEN ANNEXATION PLAN
Resolution No. 96-~
WHEREAS, pursuant to Colorado Revised Statutes (CRS) 31-12-105, all cities within the State of
Colorado must a have a "Plan" in place to guide future annexations; and
WHEREAS, the last update of the City of Aspen Annexation Plan was approved by Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission on October 18, 1988 in association with the 1988 Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the 1988 Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan was superseded by the adoption qf the
1993 Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP); and
WHEREAS, the AACP differed from prior comprehensive plans in that the document was a
"character" based plan that did not include the adoption of a revised Annexation Plan; and
WHEREAS, The Aspen/Pitkin County Community Development Department has refmed and
updated the previously adopted Annexation Element to be consistent with the AACP; and
WHEREAS, State Statute allows the adoption of separate plans by City Council following review
by the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission reviewed and formally recommend~d the
Annexation Plan for adoption at their meeting of June 18, 1996.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO:
That the City Council has reviewed the proposed 1996 Annexation Plan and has formally adopted the Illan.
RESOL~D, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this ~y Of~'-", 1996, by the City Cduncil
for the CIty of Aspen, Colorado. ~ .
~ <2 ~
(7~..L~
John Sennett, Mayor
accur
held
I, Kathryn S. Koch; duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certifY that the foregoing is a true and
copy of that res ution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a m~eting
1966.
!f.Jf::p':Cli ~
Exhibit A
qY~1
.
. City of Aspen .
Annexation Plan
Revised 3 July 1996
~.
,.,
Prepared by :
AspenlPitkin Community Development Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(970) 920-5090
.
e
e
.
I.
INTRODUCTION
Statutory Requirements. All annexation actions by cities in Colorado are goyemed by CRS 31-21-
105. These statutory requirements include the need to produce an annexation plan for a three mile
boundary around the existing city limits. The specific requirements include the following:
" Prior to completion, of any annexations, within the three mile area, the municipality shall have
in place a plan for the area, which generally describes the proposed location, character, and
extent of streets, subways, bridges, waterways, waterfronts, parkways, playgrounds, squares,
parks, aviation fields, other public ways, grounds, open spaces, public utilities, and terminals for
water, light, sanitation, transportation, and power to be provided by the municipality and the
proposed land uses for the area".
Past Annexation Plans bv the City of Asoen. The City of Aspen last updated the Annexation Plan
in 1988, From the fall ofl984 until the fall ofl985, The City Council, in cooperation with the
Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners, met intermittently to discuss annexation policy,
and the analysis of annexation is traditionally coordinated by the City Manager's Office. The plan
adopted in 1988 has not been updated, and has been the legislative guide for all annexations since
that time.
The 1988 plan was actually an individual element to the 1988 Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan,
which has subsequently been amended by the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) adopted in
1993. This 1996 revision has been prepared in order to meet the statutory requirements of CRS
31-21-105, as well as to update the Annexation Plan with respect to annexationsalready
undertaken, and new policies and land use code provisions which have been implemented.
However, the remaining annexation areas identified in this plan are essentially the same as those
identified in the 1988 plan and the conceptual framework for annexation remains unchanged as
well.
The 1988 Annexation Plan stated that the City of Aspen is taking a proactive role in the annexation
process in orde} to enfranchise County residents who live outside of the City of Aspen
jurisdictional boundaries within the political process. Presently, there are many residents who live
within the urban service area who do not participate in City elections. The intent of the annexation
process is to incorporate the urbanized portion of Pitkin County into the City of Aspen. Secondly,
a pro-active, aggressive annexation policy will allow the City to exert direct control upon the
e
e
e
City of Aspen Annexation Plan, rev. 3 July 1996
Page 2 .
growth at the urban/rural fringe of the City. These general goals hold true for the 1996
Annexation Plan as well.
II. ANNEXATION AREA
The annexation area shown on Exhibit A generally corresponds with the Boundaries of the Aspen
Area Community Plan, with a few exceptions. The shaded portions of Exhibit A, Owl Creek,
Maroon Creek, and the east side of the Roaring Fork East and the west side of State Highway 82
Corridor, are within the boundaries of the Aspen Area Community Plan but outside of the
proposed annexation area. These areas have been excluded from consideration because they are
considered rural in character, with little likelihood for the provision of urban or municipal services,
Almost the entire annexation area, which contains approximately 8,714 acres ofland, is located
within 3 miles of the existing City limits. Presently there are only 1,479 acres of land within the
current jurisdictional boundaries of Aspen. If the entire annexation area is annexed to the City, the
geographic size of Aspen would increase by approximately seven times. This figure is somewhat
misleading because the Aspen Mountain and Aspen Highlands areas contain approximately 2,432
acres. If the ski areas are deleted; 'the annexation area only contains approximately 6,282 acres.
To simplifY the analysis, the proposed annexation area has been broken down into 12 smaller
annexation areas which are d~icted in Exhibit B. The boundaries for each area were developed
based on the following factors: existing development patterns, physical features, and established
neighborhood areas. The existing character of the annexation areas vary significantly in terms
urbanization levels and environmental constraints.
Based on the 1995 Community Development D~artment estimates, the proposed annexation arel\s
currently contain approximately 1,947 dwelling units, and an estimated year-round population of
2,869. By comparison, the 1994-1995 resident population for the City of Aspen was
approximately 5,851 and the peak populatio~ was estimated at 25,000-'
An analysis of the existing zoning pattern in the unincorporated portion of Pitkin County indicates
that a range of 896 to 1,130 new dwelling units can conceivably be developed in the proposed
annexation area. This figure includes the approvals for the Maroon Creek property, as well as the
1 All dwelling unit and population estimates are based on extrapolation from 1990 U.S. Census data.
e
e
.
City of Aspen Annexation Plan, rev. 3 July 1996
Page 3
conceptual approval of the Highlands Base Village. TIle summary by annexation group is shown
on Table 1.
This table provides an overview of land use characteristics for each annexation area. The land use
characteristics provided a basis for aggregating the annexation areas into four distinct groups
which share similar traits. The grouping of these areas are explained below:
Group A--UteINorthstar, Red Butte, Shadow Mountain
Gene~lly, rural annexation areas which have very limited growth potential due to their
geographic location. These areas are particularly affected by environmental planning
issues. The City's existing Land Use Code with its provisi9ns for Environmentally
Sensitive Areas (ESA's) now has appropriate provisions to guide the growth and
development of these areas. Further consideration may be given to adopting the more-
stringent County 1041 regulations.
Group B--Roaring Fork East, Red Mountain, Pitkin Green
Generally, suburban annexation areas comprised of predominantly developed subdivisions.
Several of these subdivisions have been already annexed into the City, such as Eastwood
and Knollwood. Remaining areas include Aspen Grove and Mountain Valley. The major
land use issues affecting this group include floor area ratio and legitimizing "bandit
dwelling units." Another issue relative to Red Mountain is the status of Red Mountain
Road and the ability of the City to adequat61y maintain and upgrade it as necessary.
Group C--Meadowood, Smuggler, Aspen Highlands Base and New Development, State
Highway 82 Corridor
These areas contain large development parcels with siguificant growth potential. There are
numerous land use planning issues which need to be resolved prior to annexation,
regarding appropriate development densities. The Maroon Creek Development
Corporation area has completed the County land use process and has been awarded land
use approvals. The Aspen Highlands project is currently in the County land use process.
I
City of Aspen Annexation Plan,
Page 4
rev. 3 July t996
e
tABLEt
SUMMARY OF ANNEXATION AREAS
Group A
I Ute 469 133 69 7,10 RurallNot. Includes'Little Annie Base
Northstar Subdivided
6 Red Butte 105 217 0 9-11 RurallPartially Potential for park use
Public
to Shadow 284 4 10,14 Rural! City ESA process
Mountain Numerous appropriate
mining claims
Subtotal 858 351 73 26,35
Group B
2 Roaring 66 0 3 28,33 Suburban! All Numerous bandit units
Fork Subdivided
4 Red 324 .5 20 98,t24 Suburban! Numerous bandit units
Mountain Subdivided &
Unsubdivided
5 Pitkin 219 0 21 89,99 Suburban! Numerous bandit units
Green Subdivided &
Unsubdivided
Subtotal 609 .5 44 215,256
Group C
3 Lower 260 42 10 37,150 Urban! Not EP A requirements
e Smuggler Subdivided
7 Meadowood 366 219 231 93-114 Suburban! SignifICant potential for
Subdivided & growth
Unsuhdivided
8 Aspen 144 2 15 154 Suburban! Growt4 potential
Highlands Suhdivided & . detennined in 1996 by
Unsubdivided general submission to
County
12 SH82 1536 424 2 260,310 Urban and Significant potential for
Corridor RuraU growth
Subdivided and
Unsubdivided
13 Maroon 403 62 218 111 Suburban PUD approval in place,
Creek RETI revenue
Suhtotal 2709- 749 476 655,839
Group D
9 Aspen 1374 0 130 0 Ski Areal 96% Sales tax revenue
Highlands USFS
II Aspen. 1058 0 0 0 Ski Areal 21 % Fragmented ownership
Mountairi USFS
Subtotal 2432 0 130 0
TOTAL 8714 1100.5 723 896-1130
SOllrce: Aspen/Pitkin County Community Development Department, /996.
.
e
e
e
City of Aspen Annexation Plan, rev. 3 July 1996
Page 5
Annexation of these areas would generally include reaffirming the decisions of these
processes. An issue unique to the Smuggler area is the impact upon the City, County, and
residents of the area relating to its designation as a "Super Fund" hazardous waste site.
Group D--Aspen Highiands and Aspen Mountain Skiiug Areas
These areas correspond with skiing area permit boundaries. Annexation would necessitate
the drafting of new land use legislation to guide future growth and development of the
skiing areas.
An analysis ofland use issues indicate that the annexation of areas in Groups A and B will result
in less complicated land use issues for the City than the annexation of areas in Groups C and D. It
is also possible that the Meadowood annexation can be broken into smaller parts, according to
existing subdivisions. For example, the Meadowood, Aspen Highlands, and Aspen Tennis Club
subdivisions are similar in nature to each other and the annexation of these three subdivisions could
be accomplished without addressing the question of zoning large vacant tracts of land.
III. STATUTORY ANNEXATION CRITERIA
An area is eligible for annexation if the governing body, at it hearing as provided in CRS 31-12-
109, finds and determines the following:2
1. That not less than one-sixth of the perimeter of the area proposed to be annexed is
contiguous with the annexing municipality. Contiguity is not affected by the existence of a platted
street or alley, a public or private right-of-way or area, public lands, or a lake reservoir, stream, or
other natural or man-made waterway between the annexing municipality and the land proposed to
be annexed.
2. That a community of interest exists between the area lJroposed to be annexed and the
annexing municipality; that such area is urban or will ~e urbanizing in the near future; and that
said area is integrated with or is capable of being integrated with the annexing municipality. The
2CRS 31-12-104.
e
e
e
City of Aspen Annexation Plan, rev. 3 July 1996
Page 6
fact that the area proposed to be annexed has the contiguity with the annexing municipality
required by the above requirement shall be a basis for a finding of compliance with these
requirements unless the goveming body, upon the basis of competent evidence presented at the
hearing, finds that at least two of the following are shown to exist:
a. Less than fifty percent of the adult residents of the area proposed to be annexed
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
percent 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 does not apply.
b. 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 intent
to devote the land to such agricultural use for a period of not less than five years.
c. It is nm physically practicable to extend the area proposed to be annexed those
urban services which the annexing municipality provides in common to of all 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 ofan area proposed to be annexed,is
provided or will within the reasonably near future be provided with any service by or
through a quasi-municipal corporation.
These annexation criteria have been used as a general guide to identifY an annexation area around
the periphery of Aspen_
IV. ANNEXA nON REPORT REQUIREMENTS
State statutes also require that a municipality must prepare an impact report concerning the
proposed annexation at least twenty-five days before the date of the hearing, and shall file one copy
with the Board of County Commissioners governing the land proposed to be annexed. Such report
shall not be required for annexations ofte!t acres or less in total area or when the municipality and
the Board of County Commissioners agree that the report may be waived. Such report shall
include, as a minimum:
e
e
e
City of Aspen Annexation Plan, rev. 3 July 1996
Page 7
1 . A map or maps of the municipality and adjacent territory to show the following
information:
a. The present and proposed boundaries of the municipality and in the vicinity of the
proposed annexation;
b. The present streets, major trunk water mains, sewer interceptors and outfalls,
other utility lines and ditches, and the proposed extension of such streets and utility lines in the
vicinity of the proposed annexation;
c. The existing and proposed land use pattern in the areas to be annexed.
2. A copy of any draft or final preannexation agreement, if available;
3. A statement setting forth the plans of the municipality for extending to or otherwise
providing for, within the area to be annexed, municipal services performed by or on behalf of the
municipality at the time of annexation;
4. A statement setting forth the method under which the municipality plans to finance the
extension of the municipal services into the area to be annexed;
5. A statement identifYing existing districts within the area to be annexed; and
6. A statement on the effect of annexation upon local-public school district systems, including
the estimated number of students generated and the capital construction required to edu,cate such
students .
V. ISSUES AND CONCERNS
This section of the annexation plan addresses land use issues and general policy concerns which
are likely to arise durirlg any annexation process. The annexation guidelines which follow this
section have ber-n d~veloped in response to the issues and concerns addressed in this section, and
are intended to guide the City and COlinty during annexation decisions.
e
e
e
City of Aspen Annexation Plan, rev. 3 July 1996
Page 8
Increased Development Potential within Existing Subdivisions
From a historical perspective, it has been City policy that, when land is annexed, the development
rights of the annexed land are not increased in comparison to the development rights in
unincorporated Pitkin County prior to the annexation. A fundamental policy question is whether
the City will continue to pursue this policy, particularly in light of the potential land use changes
that could occur in and around Aspen, and community goals such as affordable housing and the
development of alternative transportation modes entering Aspen.
The continuation of the past annexation policy would be an indirect acknowledgment that the
development rights established by Pitkin County zoning are appropriate. A review of the existing
subdivisions in the proposed annexation areas indicated that in virtually all cases, based upon a
consideration of standard zoning criteria such as neighborhood compatibility and provision of
services, ComIty zoning appears appropriate.
A general land use policy addressing the development potential of an area after annexation should
take into consideration more factors than just the zoned development potential in unincorporated
Pitkin County. Equally important factors affecting density should include:
. compliance with the Aspen Area Community Plan;
. compatibility with the existing neighborbood;
. recent or expected changes in the neighborhood or general area;
. capability of the community to provide necessary services;
. environmental constraints; and
. changing goals of the community.
Floor Area Ratios
Floor Area Ratios (FAR) are utilized by the City and the County to determine the maximum size pf
dwelling units permitted in zone districts. Floor area ratios represent the relationship between the
size ,ot' a structure and the size of the lot.
I
Pitkin County utilizes fixed percentages for F ARcalculations. For example the F ARs in the R-3P,
R-15 and R-16 are .13, .16 and .30 respectively. By comparison; the City of Aspen utilizes a
sliding scale FAR system. With the exception of relatively large two-acre lots, the County F ARs
e
a
,,.
e
City of Aspen Annexation Plan, rev. 3 July 1996
Page 9
are more restrictive than the methodology applied by the City of Aspen. Therefore, in the absence
of changes to the City F ARs, the annexation of outlying subdivisions will most likely result in the
expansion of some dwelling units and the removal of non -conforming status for some existing
structures. The expansion of dwelling units mayor may not be compatible with surrounding areas
and is an issue that -should be analyzed during the annexation process.
Development Potential of Unsubdivided Land
A sununary of major unsubdivided land within the annexation area is shown previously on Table 1.
In the past, both the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission and the Aspen City Council have
expressed frustration due to their perceived lack of control over the development of large parcels on
the urban fringe of the existing City limits. One method of addressing this concern is have large,
unincorporated parcels which are located in feasible annexation locations be annexed by the City,
The capability to assert direct control over such important lands around Aspen has significant
impact on the ability of the City to control is own destiny from a land use perspective. In ahnost
every case, the ability to capture both sales tax and Real Estate Transfer Tax (REm revenues are
compelling reasons to pursue aggressive annexation policies.
A primary disadvantage associated with annexing substantial amounts of vacant, undeveloped land
is that the action is generally followed by increased development expectations on the part of land
owners. The community has consistently attempted to maintain a rural entranCe to the City, with
urbanization limited to and surrounding the central core. The City must weigh the costs of
potential intensification ofland uses with the desire to increase revenues and exert greater land use
control. These are particularly important in reference to the State Highway 82 Corridor. One
option open to the City would be to incorporate an open space component into the annexation
process, partially financed by increased RETI revenues associated with individual annexations.
Environmental Review Standards
The Aspen City limits have begun to expand beyond the original townsite located on the p:ninary
benches above the valley. floor. This has created a situation whereby future expansiclJns will
introduce significant environmental constraints in the annexation process. The Pitkin County Land
Use Code is specifically designed to address such environmental issues such as slope, erosion,
wildlife and floodplain constraints. In particular, the Colorado House Bill 1041 powers have
~
,.,
.
e
City of Aspen Annexation Plan, rev. 3 July 1996
Page 10
allowed Pitkin County to apply detailed criteria to review potential development in environmentally
sensitive areas.
In contrast, the Municipal Code is intended to review urban-level developments, and does not
, contain the rigor of the County's 1041 regulations for managing development in sensitive areas.
The City has made steps to address these issues, specifically improving the 8040 Greenline,
Environmentally Sensitive Area, and Stream Margin review processes. These provisions of the
City Code may not be as restrictive as those found in Pitkin County's 1041 regulations.
Ski Area Base Zoning
The Aspen Highlands Base Village has obtained conceptual development approval from Pitkin
County. If the Highlands base area is annexed by the City, the City's existing lodge zones may not
be suitable for the Aspen Highlands base area. The potential annexation of Buttermilk presents
similar difficulties. The threshold issue with annexing either base village is the extensive area
which could potentially accommodate future development, and the intensive nature of existing City
zoning.
Ski Area Zoning
Study Area 11 includes the Aspen Mountain Ski Area. The annexation of the ski area would
require the creation of a new zone district for ski area recreation, as well as an SPA overlay. A
wide variety of issues related to ski area expansion, which are not addressed by the current
municipal' code, would have to be resolved prior to annexation. Pitkin County has adopted the AF-
SKI zone district to regulate ski area development and expansion. This tool should be considered
for adoption by the City if annexation occurs in this area, Additional issues include the relative
benefit of annexing federal lands into the City, as well as the additional impact on emergency
response.
Utility Extensions
Typical annexation policies focus a great deal of fiscal analysis on the potential extension of water
and sanitary sewer lines by a municipality to annexed territories. Within the Aspen Area, sanitary
sewer is provided by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, rather than the City. Therefore,
e
e
e
City or Aspen Annexation Plan, rev.:1 July 1996
Pagc II
the provision of sanitary sewer is not an annexation issue. However, the City of Aspen operates a
municipal water system; and cost and engineering issues relating to the provision of potable water
to developing land on the urban fringe are significant annexation issues.
Exhibit C depicts the boundaries ofthe existing plan for water service areas adopted within the
Aspen Water Management Plan. Currently, there are several small water districts which serve
residences which are located outside the City's boundaries but within the service area of the water
system. These small districts may present a problem for the City following annexation because
their capital facilities may not be providing acceptable standards of service. Upgrading would be
expensive, and may become the responsibility of the City following annexation.
As the periphery of the City is developed, the development community is faced with a choice of
joining the Aspen water system or developing their own domestic water infrastructure. The City
and County. do not currently require that new development join the municipal water system.
Furthermore, the City recoriunends that the County require new developments which choose to
provide private water systems to design those systems to meet standards which are comparable to
City standards. When and if the City annexes these areas, the water systems would otherwise
create a liability to the City. The City also recommends that the County develop standards which
act as an incentive to have developments initially hook onto the City's system, in order to avoid the
proliferation of small, uneconomical, often undependable private water systems ill the metro area.
Annexation/Zoning Process
State law requires municipalities to zone ann,exed land within 90 days of annexation. In the past,
when complex zoning issues arise, the City of Aspen has experienced problems meeting this state
requirement. Failure to zone land within 90 days may potentially permit unwanted land uses on
annexed land. In order to assist the City in zoning newly annexed areas within the 90 day time
period, the Annexation Plan should establish guidelines for the city to follow during the annexation
process,
e
e
e
City of Aspen Annexation Plan, rev. 3 July, 1996
Page 12
v.
ANNEXATION GUIDELINES
Introduction
The first purpose of this chapter is to establish annexation guidelines to assist the City of Aspen in
making land use decisions regarding the annexation of new territory. The guidelines should be
used to determine when annexation is appropriate, which land should be annexed and how it should
be zoned. The guidelines will also be useful to property owners in annexed areas who are seeking
an indication of how their land will be treated in the land use process. The second purpose of this
chapter is to pmpose specific actions to be pursued to prepare the City for the annexation of land
within designated annexation areas.
Guidelines
, A. Master Planuing
L
Guideline
Generally, an adopted Master Plan for an annexed area addressing land use and
capital facilities improvements should be a pre-requisite to annexation.
Explanatory Comments
Most of the areas earmarked for annexation have been master planned or
developed under Pitkin County jurisdiction. The previous approvals established
guidelines for zoning decisions and capital facilities improvements. Previous
approvals, in combination with general ,wishes of property owners and neighbors,
should be a basic consideration in the land use decision making process.
B. Development Poteutial Within Existing Subdivided, Generally Developed Areas
L
Guideline
Apply zoning to annexed areas which generally maintains the same development
rights within the City as within unincorporated areas.
e
e
.~
'W'
City of Aspen Annexation Plan, rev. 3 July 1996
Page 13
Explanatory Comments
The general idea behind this guideline is that annexation 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."
2. Guideline
Strive to avoid zoning designations which make conforming 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
specific 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 hanclfi,ll 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 Asper.
c.
UnsubdividedNacant Land
e
e
e
City of Aspen Annexation Plan, rev. 3 July 1996
Page 14
D.
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 or to achieve contiguity for
the annexation of a developing area.
Explanatory Comments
It is recognized that the annexation of the area around the 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.
Floor Area Ratios
1 . Guideline
The City should generally try to maintain Floor Area Ratios comparable to the
County's for annexed properties, unless it is demonstrated during the zoning
process that the Floor Area Ratios are unreasonably high or low.
E. Environmental Review
,I
1.
Guideline
Utilize the City's Planned Unit Development (PUD) regulations, 8040
Greenline, Environmentally Sensitive Area, and Stream Margin Review when
appropriate to insure the best possible review of environmentally sensitive area~.
2.
Guideline
e
~"
''II'
e
City of Aspen Annexation Plan, rev. 3 July 1996
Page 15
Consider, as necessary, code amendments to expand the scope of the City's
environmental reviews to include review mechanisms which address wildlife
habitat, the State Highway 82 Scenic Corridor, and other significant
environmental issues.
F. Bandit Dwelling Units
1. Guideline
Use the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) provisions of the City Land Use Code,
in conjunction with the Uniform Building Code. to legalize "bandit units" qs
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 and safety
standards of the Uniform Building Code and to 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 apply existing regulations with respect to Accessory Dwelling Units to
address the problem.
G.
Utilities
1. Guideline
Pursue an agreement with Pitkin County which insures that Pitkin County
requires small, private, utility systems to meet all City standards.
Exp lanatory Comnients
J
Pitkin County cannot preclude a developer from installing a private water or sewer
system if the system meets acceptable standards. However, Pitkin County may
require potential developers to meet City standards and may serve as a catalyst tc;>
e
e
e
City of Aspen Annexation Plan, rev. 3 Jnly 1996
Page 16
join the public utility system, or at a minimum, insure that i[ 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
The City should continue to take a pro-active role in annexation by assisting
residents to gather annexation petition signature~. The City may annex property
by several methods. One method is to annex upon receipt of a certified petition
from landowners who own more than 50 percent of the land area in a proposed
annexation area. Another is to call an annexation election for designated
annexation areas. If a majority of the residents favor annexation, the City may
annex. Finally, the City may include an agreement to annex as part of a Water
Service Agreement execnted with a developer.
For existing developed areas, 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 have submitted an anrtexation petition,
annexation has been pursued. The City Council may utilize either annexation
method. The first method is considered to be preferable because it is more
responsible to local citizens and a more personal approach to annexation.
The City should research the pros and cons of holding an annexation election for
large area.
2. Guideline
e
e
.
Cily or Aspen Annexation Plan, rev. 3 July 1996
Page 17
S'tage 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 r!(owners are satisfied with zoning solutions.
Exp lanatory 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
initiation of the zoning process and residents are uncertain as to how zoning issues
will be resolved. Another positive effect of the process 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 could be considered
"unzoned" and might not be subject to any development limitations.
I.
City/County Sales Tax Revenue Sharing,
I. Guideline
The City staff shall annually monitor its costs for providing Municipal services
to annexation areas on a comprehensive basis to determine additional costs
incurred by the City and report to the City Council. The City and County shall
renegotiate an equitable distribution of sales tax revenues or other methods of
revenue sharing, when City costs have increased enough to warrant a
redistribution of revenues.
Explanatory Comments
In 1968 Pitkin County voters ariopted 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
e
e
e
Cily of Aspen Annexation Plan, rev_ 3 July 1996
Page 18
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. The City and the County
have worked jointly to develop an annexation model which analyzes the impact of
a specific annexation on a comprehensive basis. This model should serve as the
basis for further r",view.
J.
Ski Area Zoning
I , . 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-SKl 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.
Proposed Land Use Actions
The following are proposed land use actions to be pursued by the City of Aspen.
1_ Prepare and adopt a Land Use/Community Facilities/Utilities Plan, which
addresses all land in the Aspen area including the annexation areas. The Plan should
specifically address the entrances to Aspen with an emphasis on lands in the State
Highway 82 Corridor.
2. i Prepare legislation for inclusion in the City of Aspen Land Use Code which
'includes: i
. 200 foot setback from State Highway 82.
. Scenic Foreground Overlay regulations_
e
.
e
City of Aspen Annexation Plan, rev. 3 July 1996
Page 19
. A new Zone District for base area ski development.
These code amendments should be adopted as a pre-requisite to annexation ofland in the Highway
82 corridor.
e
e
e
City of Aspen Annexation Plan, rev. 3 July 1996
Page 20
VIL APPENDIX
The following documents and reports are related to this Annexation Element and may be obtained
from the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Office:
1. Aspen Area Community Plan, January 1993
2. AACP Appendix, January 1992
3. AACP Phase One R~ort, September 1991
e
e
e
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSiON RECOI\'IMEl'.'DING
TO THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL THE ADOPTiON THE 1996 CITY OF ASPEN ANNEXATION
PLAN
Resolution No. 96-.ill.e...
I
WHEREAS, pursuant to,Colorado Revised Statutes (CRS) 31-12-105, ~Il cities within the State of
Colorado must a have a "Plan" in place to guide future annexations; and f
WHEREAS, the last update' of .the City of Aspen Annexation Plan was approved by Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission pnOctober 18, 1988, in association with the 1988 Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan; and .'
WHEREAS, the 1988 Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan was superseded by the adoption of the
\ 993 Aspen Area <:ommunity Plan (AACP); and
WHEREAS, the AACP differed from prior comprehensive plans in that the document was a
"character" based plan that did not include the adoption of 3, revised Annexation Plan; and
WHEREAS, The AspenlPitkin County Community Development Department has refined and
updated the previously adopted Annexation Element to be consistent with the AACP; and
WHEREAS, State Statute allows the adoption of separate plans by City Council following review
by the Planning Commission.
NOW, THEREFORE BElT RESOLVED by the Commission:
That the Commission has reviewed the ,proposed 1996 Annexation Plan and recommends to the City
Council,!he Plan be adopted.
APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on June 18, 1996.
Attest:
(l J '
I) ';]lL-~ / (1jll}u (;1-
Amy SC~rid, Deputy City Clerk
~;d~a~;~
Sara Garton', Chair
e
e
e
Exhibit 0
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners
Worksession Meeting - July 2, 1996
THRU:
Cindy Houben, Community Development Director
Stan Clauson, Community Development Director
FROM:
Tim Malloy, Long Range Planning
RE:
City of Aspen Annexation Plan 1996 Update
STAFF COMMENTS: The purpose of this review is to provide the Board the opportuIrity to
review the 1996 update of the Aspen Annexation Plan. The following is a list of comments, which
were developed by Cindy Rouben and myself and were provided to Stan 'Clauson and the City
Council for a meeting which was intended to be held on June 24th. This meeting was postpqned to
allow the Board time to review the Plan and provide the City Council with your comments. We
have also attached a copy of the Annexation Plan 1996 Update for your review.
1) It is our understanding that this update is being done in order to meet the requirementS' of the
State Statutes regarding annexation in preparation for the annexation of the Maroon Creek Club
golf course subdivision property. While we understand the need for this abbreviated, update, it is
our opinion that a more comprehensive review of the Annexation Plan should be done in tile near
future since some of the policies contained within the Plan may need to be more carefully
reevaluated in response to the findings and recommendations in the AACP. To this end, we' would
point out that while State Statute requires annual review of annexation plans, we believe that the
plan itself should include a statement requiring that the Plan be updated on an annual basis.
We also believe that the review of any future Annexation Plan update should be taken to the joint
City/County Growth Management Commission, since this Plan includes matters of imporqmce to
both jurisdictions.
2) The Draft Annexation Plan includes a section which outlines the annexation criteria required
under the State Statutes (CRS 31-12-109). The primary criteria in the State Statute requires that
"not less that one-sixth of the perimeter of the area proposed to be annexed is contiguous with the
~
annexing municipality." Clearly, the intent of this language is to ensure tljat annexations are done
in an orderly and logical manner and that "leap frogging" or "flag1' annexations are avoided.
However, in the past this language has been interpreted to allow "serial" annexations. This is the
practice of annexing land in small pieces in order to establish one-sixth contiguity wit,h some
desired larger parceL An example of this is the recent annexation by Basalt to obtain the property
on which the Roaring Fork Club project is intended to be built. In this case, small segments of
e
e
e
Highway 82 were armexed in order to establish contiguity with a larger property that was loCated
over one-half mile from the Town limits. Though technically legal, we feel this practice
undermines the basic purpose of the one-sixth contiguity test. ' We recommend that this issue be
addressed. One possible solution would be to include a policy statement within the Annexation
Plan clarifying that serial armexations, involving roadway segments or other small parcels, do not
meet the intent of the one-sixth contiguity requirement.
3) The Annexation Plan includes discussion regarding the adequacy of the City's environmental
regulatioi:Ls (8040 Green Line, ESA and Stream Margin Review). We are concerned that 'these
regulations are not adequate to address the full range of environmental hazards that could be
encountered on lands within the armexation area We believe the Annexation Plan should include a
recommendation that the City analyze this issue and consider adopting more comprehensive
environmental regwations.
4) Page 8 of the Annexation Plan includes a discussion regarding increased development po~ential
within existing subdivisions. This discussion implies that increased density might be allowed on
lands within the armexed areas. We would point out that the AACP encourages greater density on
lands close to urban centers, particularly the City of Aspen. We recommend that the language in
this section include more definitive language regarding the idea of allowing increased density.
5) The Plan includes a comparison and discussion of floor area ratios utilized by the City and
County. The conclusion of this analysis is that the County's FAR regulations are generally' more
restrictive that those used by the City. The Plan further states that in the absence of changes to the
City's FAR regulations, the armexation of outlying subdivisions will most likely result in the
expansion of some dwelling units. This would appear to be a good opportunity to provide another
avenue for utilizing the TDR program. This could be accomplished by maintaining the County's
FAR limitation and only allowing the increase to the City's standards through acquisition of a
TDR.
6) Ski area armexation is discussed in the Annexation Plan (page 10). There are several 'issues
which are not addressed in this discussion. Ski area development occurring on US Forest Service
lands will in many cases create off-site impacts. The County has historically argued that they have
the authority to regulate deyelopment on Federally owned lands where there is a reaspnable
expectation that such development will create off-site impacts. The Annexation Plan dOes not
make it clear whether the City shares this conviction and whether they will continue to sCrutinize
ski area development proposals should one or more of the ski areas be armexed. In addition, there
is no discussion regarding the issue of intermountain gondola connections and how the City ,would
respond to such a proposal. The County has in the past opposed such a system of gpndola
connections and may wish to retain the ability to review and or~ veto such proposals.
1) Page 17 of the Annexation Pian includes a statemerit indicating that lands, once armexed, must
be zoned within 90 days otherwise they could be considered "unzoned" and might not be subject to
2
e
.
e
any development limitations. While this statement is made in the context of how such a situation
can be avoided (take final action on zoning at the same time as annexation) we are ,still
uncomfortable seeing this language in the Plan. We would simply suggest that the City attorney be
consulted as to whether this is actually true and if not eliminate this language from the Plan.
Our last comment has to do with the Annexation Impact Report prepared for the Maroon Creek
Club annexation. In general, this is a very weak document which provides little if any meaningful
information. It is impossible to evaluate, with any coiIfidence, the real impacts or issues associated
with this annexation by reviewing this report. The map provided in the report does not include all
of the information required by the State Statute. The map does not show any utility informatiol::I, as
required, nor is there any indication of the existing and proposed land use pattern. Of greater
concern is the fact that the fiscal impact analysis does not provide any background. information or
methodology to. support the conclusions regarding the City's ability to, pay the cost of pro~ding
services for this development We raise this issue because the findings of this analysis (annual
revenues generated by the development exceed the cost of services by roughly 350 percent) are
contradictory to the widely held notion that residential development does not pay for itself. InJact,
when we reviewed the fiscal impact amilysisfor the Highlands Village project this theory was born
out We would simply recommend that the background and methodology information be included
as an appendix to the Annexation Impact report so that the fiscal impact analysis can be evaluated.
Attachment:
cc: Cindy Houben
c:lhomeltimmlcountylrlannexlboardmem.doc
3
e
.
e
ExhibitE
.
ASPEN . PITKIN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Jl!ly 3, 1996
Mayor John Bennett and Aspen City Council Members
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Mayor Bennett and,Members of Aspen City Council:
We are writing to provide you with our comments regardmg the City of Aspen Annexation Plan 1996
Update and the Annexation Impact Report for the North and South Maroon Creek Annexations. The
Board reviewed these documents at a worksession meeting on July 2, 1996. In addition to the comments
prepared by Staff, which the Board supports (see attached Community Development Departmenrmemo),
we would like to forward the following comments.
Page II of the Annexation Plan Update includes a paragraph (paragraph number three) discussing the
issues of providing water for development by expansion of the City's central water distribution system or
allowing private water systems, The Board is uncomfortable with the last three sentences in this
paragraph (beginning with "Furthermore,'tlte County ...") and requests that this portion of the paragraph
be eliminated from the document. The Board would like to further discuss this issue and other related
issues with the City Council at ajoint meeting.
Policy H (I) in the Annexation Plan addresses the methods by which the City may annex property. 'This
polic;y states that "The City may anilex property by one of two methods. The first method is to annex
upon receipt'of a certified petition from land owners who own more than 50 percent of the land are", in a
proposed annexation area. The second option is to c",ll an annexation election for designated annexation
areas." The Board would'point out that the clause in the City's Water Service Agreement, which
essentially requires a property owner to-waive their right to object to annexation; is inconsistent with this
~~ "
Page 17 of the Annexation Plan includes a policy (Policy [(I)) regarding the City's intent to monitor the
cost of providing services and renegotiate the distribution of sales tax and other forms of revenue sharing
based on the results of this monitoring. The Board is not comfortable with this statement because it
limits the evaluation of costs to the annexation areas. The 'Board feels this evaluation should be done
more comprehensively. We are concerned that we would not get an opportUnity to evaluate whether
savings could have been achie:odd by looking at the cost of services more comprehensively.
Pages 3 and lOin the Pia/I include discussions regarding the adequacy of the City's environmental ,
regulations. The statement in the paragraph on page 3 discussing the Ute/Northstar, Red Butte, Sltadow
Mountain areas indicates that the City's Land Use Code with its provision for Environmentally Sensitive
Areas (ESA' s) is well suited to guide growth and development in environmentally sensitive areas. .
However, page 10 of the Plan includes a contradictory statement which reads "The Municipal COd.e is
intended to review urban level developments, and does not contain the rigor of the County's 1041
130 SoUTH GALENA STREET. ASI'EN, COLORADO 81611-1975 . PHONE 970.920.5090 . F....., 970.920.5439
. Printed on R"'fded raper
.
.
e
regulations for managing development in sensitive areas." The Board agrees with this last statement and
would suggest that'the guidelines at the end of the. Plan should indicate that the City's environmental
regulations should be amended more comprehensiv.elyrelative to environmental issues. Currently,
guideline number 2, under the policy regarding environmental review (top of page 15 in the Plan), is
written too narrowly. It states that the City should consider Code amendments to address "wildlife
habitat and the State Highway 82 Scenic Corridor." The Board feels this. policy should be expanded to
recommend that the City Code be amended to include environmental regulations which deal with a much
broader range of environmental conditions. --,-' .',
The Board would also request a reyision to the discussion regarding the Highlands Village project at the
bottom of page 3 and in Table I of the Annexation Plan. The Plan indicates that there is "significant
potential for growth" on the Highlands Village site. The Board would simply note that this development
potential is known, via ,the general submission approval, and that no significant additional development
potential exists. . .
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Annexation Plan!
Sincerely,
;J~~~~
/~e~ R. True
/ Chairman, Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners
attachment
cc: Cindy Houben
Stan Clauson