Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutresolution.council.059-97 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING THE 1997 CITY OF ASPEN ANNEXATION PLAN Resolution No. 97-~ 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 June 18, 1996; 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 AspenlPitkin County Community Development Department has initiated a process for a joint city/county review of the plan; and WHEREAS, State Statute requires this review and updating of the plan annually; and WHEREAS, The current plan is acceptable for readoption until such time as this joint city/county process results in further revisions; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: That the City Council has reviewed the proposed 1997 Annexation Plan and has formally adopted the Plan. RESOLVED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this L day Of(}~A"1 ~1997, by the City Council for the City of Aspen, Colorado. ~ JOhnS~tt.!!~ I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a true and ate copy of that resolution adopted by City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held II , 1997 ~t.ka~~A. -------, . .. City of Aspen Annexation Plan Revised 3 July 1996 ~, Prepared by : i\.spenlPitkin Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 920-5090 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING THE 1996 CITY OF ASPEN ANNEXATION PLAN Resolution No. 96- '=) c{. 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in association with the 1988 Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the 1988 Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan was superseded by the adoption of the 1993 Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP); and WHEREAS, the AACP differed from prior comprehensive plans in that the document was a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 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; and WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission reviewed and formally recommended 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 Plan. a1.-1 _ RESOLVED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this ~ day o.~e.';"'j, 1996, by the City Council for the City of Aspen, Colorado. ,1 ~ I~___. ;;v-- John Sennett, Mayor I. Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the, ~regoing is a true and accur copy of that res !:1tion adopted by the City Council of the City of A:.pen: Colorado, at a meeting held , 1966. ~t . RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLAL'fNlNG AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMEJ:\'DING ~- TO THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL THE ADOPTION THE 1996 CITY OF ASPEN ANNEXATION PLAN , ----.. Resolution No. 96-1Lz... r WHEREAS, pursuant to' Colorado Revised Statutes (CRS) J 1-12- \.05, all cities within rhe 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 t 8, 1988 in association with the 1988 Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the 1988 Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan was superseded by t1~e adoption of 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:1, revised Annexation Plan; and . WHEREAS, The Aspen/Pitkin County Community Development Department has refined lnd updated the ?reviousiy adopted Annexation Element to be consistent with the .-\.ACP; and WHEREAS, State Statute allows the adoption of separ:lte pians by C:ty Council following review by the Planning Commission. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission: That the CJmmission has reviewed the proposed 1996 Annexation Plan and recommends to the Cicy CounciI~he Plan be adopted. APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on June 18, 1996. Attest: () Q, " 'I \:U) ,l~fk}}U cL ~ 'j !....- ~ - Amy SC,5mid, Deputy City Clerk p.tanning and Z~Onin(7 Commission: ~. I ' '/~ r1-:-//. r / ,uttZ. ,- (,,<../~!.t.."/v"V Sara Garton, Chair I. INTRODUCTION Statutory Requirements. All annexation actions by cities in Colorado are governed 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 general~v 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 Aspen. The City of Aspen last updated the Annexation Plan in 1988. From the fall of 1984 until the fall of 1985, The City Council, in cooperation with the Pitkin County Board of County Conunissioners, 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 annexations already undenaken, and new policies and land use code provisions which have been implemented. However, the remaining annexation areas identified ~ 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 order 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 \ \ \ \ \ \ (? ,/Y"// ./ \ .,'. ..-------/.....,.---~ ....--/ 1 ,- .,.;-' \~_",--",____I \ /~/' ; f '........... I I \ \ / J .-. ~., \ J V / \ J .; I I I :11. . u I / / / c:: c a.... c:: C> ~ C I xi' / r> Je \ Ie: ,<t: . \ I I I , I c..o I J \ \ \ I 0'> \ 0'> i ; ~ ./ I ~ ..... ~ \.--- ~ -==- --- --- ~ - '''-J ) ?\~~) ,.---', ./....--, ~/- '---- -----...'" , /- ,--J / I ) i\ /____-/.1 -- "; , ,;~., ( {.., ---~ ") - - \- -- .,~r ~\ C> ) ,,.c-' i 0 r/ E IE ~ ~ .= H ......., ) / ~,J~ *" ~ I I <..., ,,--' " '1 ( I .'/ , -; I ~J ' -- '6/:' ,.,.,.. ,... pP" ./ / ;:-----/ ./ / ~ ~ ., ,~ ::>-. / 4C c: 0 of , ./ C> CI) x ::::0 c: >- 0 :J- 0 ... l: C>.. c: /"" CI) ... 4C "'C> 0 CD 0 CI) CI) 0 0 E >- a.. a.. 0 0 0 ... ... l: c..;) Cl... Cl... c::> Ii ~ ~ ~ ...... c: Q,) ~ /' en / <5/ L- /0 " JP' ::::0 Ct> " o "'C> "" ... ::::0 ... U> CD ... "" o a.... ::::0 CD o Ct> u - o "'C>_ .;;--: =-= a::: -...... ... ... en ~ &l ......- c....:> I I I I ) I I I I I I I I I f \ \_-'.0 -/ a v -/~ rJ ,<;-~ '; ~' ",. ,,-:":"'. /'" ~ .. '<0' .. ali' ::)L ~ /. ~.",./ J,?,-;--,.). .0 8 ,r' -II i\ . ) ..u~/~...~ .I L."/./ :--.:.-" j - ~" ,," . q ."" -.;> . ; ., · 4 oCl. <i,'~o~~ 4~t'~~'-._--' ~",";'~'/.' "\~. c,_:' ) XJ " .,; c t '\ ~., ~-.~ ~-~.; (3 \,~~:~,4.;.~ \ \i---- ,.,.,-~ ", (0,.", ..i..~-~ ~.~_.:..... -r. .,1''' , q~._C- ...,........;-...... Q"',.l- r,' \,,/l<:.<~~:t_;r;' . ~.:,"Jl. ,\... I / / '/ ) "'~. ". l --:..,. ~ '. ..~~ ....'""- -'-[ '\...... .. ......)............ ' \. "\: :, -J.O" ,- ......_.-:;-'"'~ " ";,> "',:" \ J , ( .'\ ..!\~, I ;, ~-.--- /~ !",-.I\ '~ i-....... '~I-~--j '....V\....J\ . \.' ;I' . \ . ,...-...:: r~.-\ \ j\.' . __ ' '., . , \ /\ I" '\ ,~~/ ........ ----..... \ I l '.I) /.~) / .-) .~/ \" jf' ~"'. (/ \ ~ /.-4" .}-7. . / '.' ~'. ' ", ('-../. ".~ ".' \. -.--' ... (,' V',' f ' ' , .~, \ I .,., r, IJ i ~, ....--... ,I / .......;.:...,~ -'f!J' -. \ \,j . o<<-_.:J r' ('" ( . J"" / .~ .... . ) .--'L- 0..--. .'~ /. I ./ ..---~..-~ / ; ..---'. . / ' " .' '" -- ~. <..,?--- ,t,." ~ . j \--~' .1'1 ) ;/ \_ ~/'/ t,../-"", ......J.;--'- ~" ~ ./'.., c/..\ <-,/., ....-...---~-----~ \, -----........-......... '. ./ ~ # '.. "" '.~. \7 ~-,?\ " " " " I ~ ~ ....... .-:po , '"\ . \ \--'1 \ (.~~,~\ ''-\ \ ~ \ \ \ '-.')-, \ \ ____--.-r't" { ~ /' . , I '1.\ .!J..C:!.. I . 'i;l / o ./ /J- 0 ~ /' / .I ............., \ ~\ \ / \ / " c/ ' ,- / ./ " ......-- o i I / I ( I \-........, ~( \. ~ t' I .J. ,~ ( a fJ\/\ I I ," () ~ ...., / \. \ , \ \ \ \ {'. /.1. ..' ~. ..... 1 ~__ '------- I I / :.~---- ~ '-':~-- -- ,....~ ~ ........ '---.. ./ ./ CD CD c::> c::> <0 C"'-I II .= u l: .\ r' f'. I /. flJV :: N co. 1.... .: '" \ G> '" G ')L G> -ce -ce G> en CD V <t> 0 -"'" c.n Q.) <t> <t> <= c:: -.::> -.::> ""- CD <= <= '" Q,) '" '" '" -"'" <C <= G> 0- en -= -= ~ <= CD <= -= G> -.::> "'" "'" 0 ::0 en G> ..- <= = (3 :::::IE (3 ~ Q.. ::0 (3 = = ::::E C <C <t> (3 (3 <= ::0 .. .. <= -ce :z: :::::IE CD (3 <= <= (3 <= (3 G> -"'" -.::> G> G> -.::> G> 0 0 G> . -.::> -.::> '" Q.. Q.. '" Q.. - Q (3 G> CD G> en en -= en = '" = -J 0::: D- O::: ::::E -ce -ce c.n -ce c.n >< 0 :>.. :>.. G> G> <= -+oJ = ".... <= ~ ,." ~ &0 co r- ea CD 0 ~ -" 0 '---1 . . 0 [J . . . . III >< [ill L-, .- Q.) <..;> C c <C (? o 1; ;. r ~ o SJ f~ ~: '~ co C>- ........... r- = ........... ~ _0 <-00 G:....~ '" C)..c c: .......... co o...z: ~ CL&.JLa.JI L&.I C" =- VI a-- VI ~ c.:> .....~L&.J~a:: cna:::-Qc:. C 8 -~ca...CL...=,----A <> %L&.IL&.JL.l..tocC:Z:: t-a::::~IZ:~L&.I o " ( c _ ("\)'\ LL- /2----- 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. n. 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 of land, is located within 3 miles of the existing City limits. Presently there are only 1,479 acres ofland 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 depicted 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 of urbanization levels and environmental constraints. Based on the 1995 Community Development Department estimates, the proposed annexation areas 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 population was estimated at 25,000.1 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. City of Aspen Annexation Plan. rev. 3 July 1996 Page 3 conceptual approval of the Highlands Base Village. The 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 sirni1artraits. The grouping of these areas are explained below: Group A-UteINortbstar9 Red Bu~ Shadow Mountain Generally, 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 provisions 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 East9 Red Mountain9 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 abiiity of the City to adequately maintain and upgrade it as necessary. Group C-Meadowoo~ Smuggler9 Aspen Highlands Base and New Development9 State Highway 82 Corridor These areas contain large development parcels with significant 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. ~ City of Aspen Annexation Plan. rev. 3 July 1996 Page 4 TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF ANNEXATION AREAS ......... ... ....... '.' AnDeutiOn . ....... SiZe ... Vaeant..H '.. . Vacant:. .... Potential Character': .. CGmmelltS ............ ............ > ::: : Area::.: :< (j&C;;): . :.: UilsUbdiYi$id:: ..: .~~d~: Units : .... (scSi.... . ... ..... (iiC=.).. :.., .d .. ... ...... Group A 1 Ute 469 133 69 7-10 RuraVNot Includes Little Annie Base Nortbstar Subdivided 6 Red Butte 105 217 0 9-11 Rural/Partially Potential for park use Public 10 Sbadow 284 1 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 98-124 Suburban! Numerous bandit units Mountain Subdivided & Unsubdivided 5 Pitkin 219 0 21 89-99 I Suburb ani Numerous bandit units Green Subdivided & Unsubdivided Subtotal 609 .5 44 215-256 Group C 3 Lower 260 42 10 37-150 Urban! Not EPA requirements Smuggler Subdivided 7 Meadowood 366 219 231 93-114 Suburban! Significant potential for Subdivided & growth Unsubdivided 8 Aspen 144 2 15 154 Suburban! Growth potential Highlands Subdivided & determined in 1996 by Unsubdivided general submission to County 12 SH82 1536 424 '2 260-310 Urban and Significant potential for Corridor RuraV growth Subdivided and Unsubdivided 13 Maroon 403 62 218 III Suburban PUD approval in place. Creek RETI revenue Subtotal 2709 749 476 655-839 Group D 9 Aspen 1374 0 130 0 Ski Areal 96% Sales tax revenue Higblands USFS 11 Aspen 1058 0 0 0 Ski Areal 21 % Fragmented ownership Mountain USFS Subtotal 2432 0 130 0 TOTAL 8714 1100.5 723 896-1130 Source: Aspen/Pitkin County Community Development Department, 1996. 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 Highlands and Aspen Mountain Skiing Areas These areas correspond with skiing area pennit boundaries. Annexation would necessitate the drafting of new land use legislation to guide future growth and development of the skiing areas. ---- An analysis of land 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. ill. STATUTORY ANNEXA nON CRITERIA An area is eligible for annexation if the governing body, at a 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 proposed to be annexed and the annexing municipality~ that such area is urban or will be 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. 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 governing 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 not 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 of an 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 of ten 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: 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 infonnation: 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 annex~ 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 educate 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 during any annexation process. The annexation guidelines which follow this section have been developed in response to the issues and concerns addressed in this section, and are intended to guide the City and County during annexation decisions. 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, County 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 neighborhood; · 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 of dwelling units pennitted in zone districts. Floor area ratios represent the relationship between the size of a structure and the size of the lot. Pitkin County utilizes fixed percentages for FAR calculations. For example the F ARs in the R-30, 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 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-confonning 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 r---- A summary 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 almost every case, the ability to capture both sales tax and Real Estate Transfer Tax (RETI) 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 of land 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. Enviroomental Review Standards The Aspen City limits have begun to expand beyond the original townsite located on the primary benches above the valley floor. This has created a situation whereby future expansions 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 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 Green1ine, 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 zonmg. Ski Area Zoning Study Area II 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, City of Aspen Annexation Plan.. rev. 3 July 1996 Page 11 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 of the 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. Furthennore, the City recommends 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 in the metro area. Annexation/Zoning Process State law requires municipalities to zone annexed land within 90 days of annexation. In the past, when complex zooing 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. ''\::. /: ) --'~r-""-~. ./ Y' ..,---, ><:::::.:<- .,.-' I .tI '~__""-' ...... . I I . .. f' /-\ - \" .-., '''''f'''-'' '''"....., J ...J . l '- . .J-....-l .-.' I' " \-- ~ - ',\ '/ " , ) (../......_~ I ~,..Y "', . ' ./.,,-' I '..-, ( 1< / .,...../....._/. " ~./? r/_! { . .. \" _,.t-~' , )..t' \., (\ / / ( e::;-/ \ " \ I \., I ) " ) , I / \ .I -- .. \ \ -'J .-"~' ~ ,...,--::-r / / V ( //----..'-..._---...-~_..\ .-._-"....-""~ / ( r-'~ \ ./J "\, ../---.".-- 'y-' .,/ t..._ >') / ( ) /r- [I \ \ \ \ ) ~~ / /--, ~./ ,r'-'''' /' ,'-/"-~' ~, ./ /' ./ ... (.//.. ".....------- " ../..''''''---''~__''''''''_r___--' /' ,...,- / \ j--,....-- /." "" \ \. ....- ) ..J .........----------p---. ._--=-~ ."- ./ ,- _./ -..., I /J' Y , / I ,- / br.- ./". ) ~'1 I f -----/ l'. /..1 I .' j v' I 0---... \,-""...-- -- ......---" -"._.~ /~ <--........ .----- ........ _.:;--' ,./'" - / ~....=::::'--._/ "?' "... ~:t-:7 I )t) . / ~ ( , ..... / ,.::> // " ">.--/"--"',.", / \ ) i ,.. " / j ,.f"\ /, \ ,../ ( "'-""~ :\ \, / / L " '-:- I /~......_. ............,..........--1 "-" \"r-..........---:"?'" "I ,- \ -/ '1 fII. ./) _----- --;:7 ./ ) / \ ' f I ~ \/(/ ; ~ /~ \... \ \ // ,._~; yJ //<1')/ -..... ,/ \ ,/ \ ../ /' , '// y' // \ \ . \ \ t'. '. ".\'. '....- 17 "'-, . ...."'. ,.~,--')/ \ .. J' , ..J-, ',.... t'-"'.~ -:--, \J \J '. -- .~ .... '-. .. ... - e::> = <0 c.... II . Jr:::. U <= . ~ . ., \ '\" r'''~ /2r. /ll /" / C..J . (,'~ ~'" rJ\^ .... i,.._J ........._._ l .......,~) ) \,...-.;;---- \,/ -"\ -...... i \ \ \, \, - 0>- co - l"'- e::> - - e::> .. , / / / / '~....., "- \ .....' --- \ \ . \ /// \. / ..../ .. ("~ , , \\ I \\ i V :: i"\ '.) A. C~ .: / / ( I \'.,.., ~( " l. _,_-'. I c:;"< V" (, i ) -. ) j '" '~ , r . /"".-''(/ 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 detennine 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 propose specific actions to be pursued to prepare the City for the annexation of land within designated annexation areas. Guidelines A. Master Planning 1. 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 Potential Within Existing Subdivided, Generally Developed Areas 1. Guideline Apply zoning to annexed areas which generally maintains the same development rights within the City as within unincorporated areas. 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 neigbborltood. " 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 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 afthe City of Aspen. City of Aspen Annexation Plan. rev. 3 July 1996 Page 14 c. UosubdividedlVacant Land 1. Guideline Postpone the annexation of unsubdivided vacant land which is roral 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 i 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 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 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 areas. City of Aspen Annexation Plan. rev. 3 July 1996 Page 15 2. Guideline 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 " 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 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. City of Aspen Annexation Plan. rev. 3 July 1996 Page 16 Explanatory Comments 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 to join the public utility system. or at a minimum. insure 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 Javor annexation. Explanatory Comments The City should continue to take a pro-active role in annexation by assisting residents to gather annexation petition signatures. 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 executed 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 annexation 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 a large area. City of Aspen Annexation Plan,. rev. 3 July 1996 Page 17 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. 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 Wltil 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 Wlcertain 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 1. Guideline The City staff shall annually monitor its costs for providing Municipal services to anneXl:!tion 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. City of Aspen Annexation Plan. rev. 3 July 1996 Page 18 Explanatory Connnents 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. 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 review. 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-SKl zone district. Explanatory Connnents 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. City of Aspen Annexation Plan. rev. 3 July 1996 Page 19 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 FacilitieslUtilities 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 00 lands in the State Highway 82 Corridor. 2. Prepare legislation for inclusion in the City of Aspen Land Use Code which includes: . 200 foot setback from State Highway 82. . Scenic Foreground Overlay regulations. . A new Zone District for base area ski development. These code amendments should be adopted as a pre-requisite to annexation of land in the Highway 82 corridor. City of Aspen Annexation Plan, rev. 3 July 1996 Page 20 VB. APPENDIX . The following documents and reports are related to this Annexation Elemeot 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 Report, September 1991 ~..