HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.an.Annexation Plan 2002.A056-03
RETAIN FOR PERMANENT.-
~
~
i/
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor Klanderud and City Council
THRU:
John Worcester, City Attorney
Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director
FROM:
Chris Bendon, Long Range Planner
RE:
City of Aspen Annexation Plan
DATE:
August 26, 2002
~~_. ~vJ~\
The City of Aspen is required by State statute to maintain an annexation plan, adopted
at least once annually. The City's Annexation Plan has been re-adopted each year,
but has not been substantially amended since 1996. Action Item #4 (out of 99) of the
2000 Aspen Area Community Plan calls for an update of the Annexation Plan to
reflect the adopted Urban Growth Boundary.
The State's requirements for such a plan are minimal and are primarily geared to
Front Range communities who sometimes use annexation to gain political and tax
base advantage. The "three-mile boundary" must be identified (municipalities may
not expand in any direction more than three miles per year). The plan must generally
describe the proposed municipal infrastructure and planned land uses for any land to
be annexed within the three-mile area. Staff believes the proposed plan meets the
State's requirements.
In addition to meeting the minimum requirements, the proposed plan includes a
description of each character area in the three-mile boundary, the statutory annexation
criteria, "local annexation criteria," the sequential steps to complete an annexation,
and an example annexation petition. This additional information will aid property
owners contemplating annexation.
The local criteria describe potential land use and planning issues for each character
area within three miles of the City boundary. Staff met with the Pitkin County
Community Development staff, the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners
(BOCC), and the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission. to accurately identify
these issues. The City Council and the BOCC also discussed these items during a
work session July 16, 2002.
Staff recommends adoption of the proposed Annexation Plan.
1
"
ANNEXATION PLAN
CITY OF ASPEN
August, 2002
~
CONTENTS
1 City Council Resolution
2 Purpose
3 Annexation Area
4 Annexation Area Characteristics
7 Sequential Steps to Complete Annexation
10 Statutory Annexation Criteria
11 Local Annexation Criteria
14 Example Annexation Petition
r~7 Map A
[1 ~ Map B
~
RESOLUTION NO.
(SERIES OF 2002)
A RESOLUTION OF TIlE ASPEN CITY COt.fNCIL ADOPTING
THE CITY OF ASPEN ANNEXATION PLAN.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Colorado Revised Statutes (CRS) 31-12-105, the City of
Aspen must annually adopt a "plan" guiding future annexations; and,
WHEREAS, the 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) called for an update of
the City's annexation plan to reflect the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) as jointly adopted
by the City of Aspen and Pitkin County; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission discussed a draft of this
updated plan during a work session on May 28,2002; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council and the Pitkin County Board of County
Commissioners discussed a draft of this updated plan on July 16, 2002; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Community Development Department has refined and
updated this plan, in consultation with the Pitkin County Community Development
Department, to be consistent with the 2000 AACP; and,
WHEREAS, during a regular meeting on August 26, 2002, the City Council
considered an overview presentation of the plan and a recommendation to adopt the plan
from the Community Development Director; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the annexation plan meets or exceeds all
applicable standards and that adoption of the plan is consistent with the goals and elements of
the Aspen Area Community Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVEDIlY TilE CITY COt.fNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: That the City Council has formally adopted the City of
Aspen Annexation Plan.
2002.
RESOLVED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED FINALLY this 26th day of August,
Approved as to form:
Approved as to content:
City Attorney
Helen K. Klanderud, Mayor
Attest:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
City of Aspen Annexation Plan - Page 1
~
r1
PURPOSE
The City of Aspen Annexation Plan reflects land use policy of the Aspen Area Community
Plan (AACP) with regard to adding urbanized land, and land appropriate for urbanization,
surrounding Aspen to the City's jurisdiction. The Plan provides landowners whose property
is adjacent to the City of Aspen with the relevant requirements and processes for requesting
inclusion into the City of Aspen. The City of Aspen shall use its legislative authority of
annexation and this annexation plan to:
· Ensure the natural and well-ordered development of the City.
· Distribute fairly and equitably the costs of city services among those persons who
benefit therefrom.
· Extend the city's government, services, and facilities to eligible citizens forming part
of a whole community.
· Simplify jurisdictional boundaries and reduce administrative confusion.
· Increase the City's ability to provide its citizens with the services they require.
Colorado Revised Statute
All annexation actions by cities in Colorado are governed by CRS 31-12-102. These
statutory requirements include the City's need to maintain an annexation plan for a three-
mile boundary around the existing City limits. The specific requirements include the
following:
"Prior to completion of any annexation, 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, watefWays, 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. Such plan shall be updated at least once annually. "
Urban Growth Boundary
The City of Aspen and Pitkin County jointly approved Aspen's Urban Growth Boundary
(UGB) via adoption of the 2000 AACP. (The 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan may be
obtained from the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Office, City Hall, Aspen.) The UGB
identifies the land surrounding Aspen as either appropriate for urban development (within
the UGB) or inappropriate for urban development (outside the UGB). Land within the UGB
is expected to become part of the City's urbanized area, at some point, while land outside
the UGB should only be annexed as a method of preserving the non-urban character of
lands surrounding Aspen. The UGB should be amended upon determination that the
subject land should be re-categorized, independent of an annexation decision.
Disclosure
The City of Aspen Annexation Plan has been adopted to meet the compulsory requirements
set forth by the State of Colorado, pursuant to CRS 31-12-105. The plan should not be
considered a replacement or complete reflection of the state statutes. Property owners
seeking annexation should consult the Colorado Revised Statutes. The plan is not binding
upon the City of Aspen.
City of Aspen Annexation Plan - Page 2
~
CITY OF ASPEN ANNEXA liON AREA
Map A depicts Aspen's annexation area, corresponding to the State's three-mile area
requirement, based on the August, 2002, jurisdictional boundary. The jointly-adopted Urban
Growth Boundary (UGB) is also shown.
The City of Aspen is currently approximately 2,300 acres. The area within the UGB is
approximately 4,860 acres, 2,560 acres larger than the current City jurisdiction. This land
within the UGB has been determined appropriate for urbanization and is likely to become
part of the City of Aspen.
The three-mile area is approximately 48,000 acres, 46,000 acres larger than the current City
jurisdiction. Much of this three-mile area is outside Aspen's UGB and considered
inappropriate for urbanization. Annexation of areas outside the UGB should only be
considered as a means of preserving the non-urban character of the land.
To understand the City's potential service needs, annexation areas within the UGB have
been analyzed as smaller land areas. The boundaries for each area were developed based
on the following factors: physical features, existing development patterns, existing property
lines, and established neighborhood areas.
City of Aspen Annexation Plan - Page 3
^
ANNEXA liON AREA CHARACTERISTICS
The City is required to identify the area within three miles of its boundary. (See Map A.) The
proximity of these areas, however, does not necessarily mean these areas are desirable for
annexation. The three-mile area is a State requirement and should not be considered an
intention of the City of Aspen: Many areas, outside of the UGB especially, may be entirely
inappropriate for annexation.
Following is an overview of land use characteristics for each area within a three-mile radius
of the City, with particular attention paid to the areas within the UGB. The areas described
are shown on Map B. These general characteristics provide a basis for understanding
potential land use issues that may need to be addressed during an annexation.
Ute/Northstar, Shadow Mountain, Red Butte
Generally, rural areas with very limited growth potential due to their physical
circumstances. These areas are particularly affected by environmental hazards and
each request should include an analysis of the regulatory tools used to address such
hazards. The City's Land Use Code provisions for Environmentally Sensitive Areas
(ESA's) may adequately guide the growth and development of these areas. Further
consideration should be given to the more stringent County 1041 regulations
particularly with regard to development on steep slopes.
Mountain Valley, Red Mountain
Generally, suburban areas comprised of predominantly developed subdivisions.
Several similar subdivisions, such as Eastwood and Knollwood, have already
annexed into the City. The major land use issues affecting this group include floor
area ratios, legitimizing "bandit dwelling units," wildfire mitigation, wildlife corridors,
and the status of the roads and ability of the City to adequately maintain and upgrade
them as necessary.
Remote Subdivisions
Several small residential subdivisions, located along the . Maroon Creek, Castle
Creek, and Roaring Fork River drainages, are within the three-mile area. These
subdivisions have little to no additional development potential. These areas do not
appear to provide any advantage to the City and could become infrastructure service
burdens. New land use regulations addressing wildfire, wildlife, avalanche, and
development on steep slopes would be required.
Lower SmuQQler
This area contains large development parcels with significant growth potential,
existing subdivisions with little remaining growth potential, the historically important
Smuggler Mine, and steeply sloped areas with limited growth potential. Continued
public access to the Upper Smuggler area and recreational opportunities would need
to be ensured. Land Use Code provisions for mining activity would be necessary.
Regulatory tools to address development on steep slopes would be necessary.
Upper SmuQQler
This area contains large publicly and privately-owned parcels with significant
infrastructure limitations and steeply sloped areas with very limited growth potential.
This area was an active mining area. Currently, this area is a very popular recreation
City of Aspen Annexation Plan - Page 4
r-..
~
area and is a primary public access to public lands. Much of this area has been
identified as "land with conservation value" in the AACP. Continued public access to
public lands and recreational opportunities would need to be ensured. Regulatory
tools to address development on steep slopes would be necessary.
Meadowood. Tennis Club, West Buttermilk Subdivision. and State HiQhway 82 Corridor
Generally, suburban areas comprised of predominantly developed subdivisions.
The major land use issues affecting this group include floor area ratios, legitimizing
"bandit dwelling units," trail connections, and the status of the roads and ability of the
City to adequately maintain and upgrade them as necessary. A few large parcels
with significant development potential exist between Meadowood and State Highway
82.
Bar X Ranch, AVL T. and Lower Maroon Creek
Generally agricultural in character with significant growth potential. Development
issues include preserving the riparian habitat along Maroon Creek, trail connections,
fishing access, and traffic generation impacts to the Highway 82 corridor. The Bar X
Ranch area is currently subject of a pre-annexation agreement for the purposes of
developing a mix of free-market and affordable dwelling units.
Buttermilk Base Area
The base of Buttermilk Ski Area represents significant development opportunity with
potential impacts on, and benefits to, the City of Aspen. This area is presently
underutilized and is identified in the AACP as a development node for concentrated
mixed-use, transit-oriented development. Residentia', commercial, and lodging
development would effect the City's infrastructure and the area's commercial and
lodging profile. This area represents a significant opportunity for transportation
improvements. Additionally, the redevelopment of this area may provide the City
opportunity to reach community goals. This area should be annexed into the City
of Aspen prior to development review. If redevelopment of this area is entitled in
the County and then the land is annexed, significant coordination on the
administration of development approvals will be necessary.
Aspen Airport Business Center, North Forty, BurlinQame "Parcel D"
Suburban areas with moderate growth potential. The North Forty subdivision is
reaching its residential build-out and has some potential for additional commercial
development. "Parcel D" of Burlingame Ranch has been identified in the AACP as
an affordable housing site. The AABC has moderate growth potential in both
residential and commercial sectors, most of which would involve redevelopment.
Significant expansion of commercial uses in the AABC would affect the profile of
commercial activity in the Aspen area and may affect transportation patterns. A new
zone district would likely be required to accommodate the AABC.
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, County Maintenance Facility. RFTA bus barn. Sardy
Field (Aspen/Pitkin County Airport), North HiQhway 82 Corridor
These public infrastructure facilities are currently operated by either the county or
special districts. Expansion of these facilities could be expected to coincide with
growth of the area's population and service needs, although physical constraints may
limit expansion capabilities. Expansion of the airport is also controlled by public
policy discussions of increasing Aspen's tourist capacity. Intergovernmental
agreements may be necessary for annexation of these facilities.
City of Aspen Annexation Plan - Page 5
f~
Brush Creek Villaqe, Cozy Point Ranch, Starwood, McLain Flats
Suburban subdivisions comprised of single-family residences. Cozy Point Ranch is
an agricultural and equestrian operation owned and managed by the City of Aspen.
These areas, while within the three-mile area, are removed from Aspen and not likely
to become incorporated into the City. The major land use issues affecting this group
include floor area ratios, legitimizing "bandit dwelling units,"wildfire mitigation, wildlife
corridors, and the status of the roads and ability of the City to adequately maintain
and upgrade them as necessary.
Woody Creek
The three-mile area includes a portion of the Woody Creek drainage. This rural area
is predominantly agricultural and estate ranches. Although geographically proximate
to the City's boundary, this area lies in a separate drainage basin and is logistically
remote from Aspen. This area is not expected to become part of the City of Aspen.
Snowmass Villaqe
The three-mile area includes part of Snowmass Village, an incorporated town. Only
unincorporated lands are eligible for annexation. This area is not expected to
become part of the City of Aspen.
Owl Creek Ranch, Droste Ranch
This rural area functions as a buffer between the urbanized areas of Aspen and
Snowmass Village. Predominantly single-family homes on large lots, this area could
sustain significant additional development with the extension of urban infrastructure
and bring about significant change in the character of the area. The major land use
issues affecting this group include the proper character of the area, additional
development potential, wildfire mitigation, wildlife corridors, recreational trails, and
the status of the area's infrastructure.
Ski Areas - Aspen Mountain, Aspen Hiqhlands, Buttermilk
These areas correspond with ski area permit boundaries. This land is typically
Forest Service land, although substantial portions of Aspen Mountain Ski Area are
owned by the Aspen Ski Company. The City's Land Use Code is better suited to
regulate base facilities. Annexation would necessitate new land use legislation to
regulate ski area operation and may also necessitate backcountry emergency rescue
operation.
Forest Lands
These areas correspond with Federally-owned land maintained by the United States
Forest Service and privately-owned "in-holdings." These areas are remote, with little
or no existing services and have limited access. These areas are typically zoned
Rural and Remote (RR) by Pitkin County to maintain a backcountry character.
These areas do not appear to provide any advantage to the City and could be a
burden. Annexation of these areas would necessitate new land use legislation to
regulate backcountry development, agreements with the Forest Service for
permitting and administration of forest-related activities, and may also necessitate
backcountry emergency rescue operation.
City of Aspen Annexation Plan - Page 6
"'"
~
SEQUENTIAL STEPS TO COMPLETE ANNEXATION
,
Annexation Process: Associated Processes:
Pre-Application Conference. (See Note #1)
Annexation Petition Filed - landowner
submits necessary application materials to
the City Clerk. (See example petition,
attached.)
Property owner may enter into a pre-
annexation agreement with the City of
Aspen. (See note #2)
Resolution #1 - City Council Initiates
annexation process by adoption of a
resolution. Resolution establishes a public
hearing be scheduled more than 30 days and
less than 60 days.
City Engineer verifies contiguity requirement
for eligibility.
Public Hearing and Resolution #2 - City
Council identifies properties eligible for
annexation according to State Statute.
Annexation Impact Report - For
annexations of more than 10 acres. (See note
#3)
land use reviews - The landowner may
initiate any City land use review process
necessary to develop the property. (See note
#4)
Acknowledgement of Development Rights
- The City reserves the right to accept land
use approvals granted in the county and
establish an agreement for the administration
of said rights. (See note #5)
Initial Zoning - The Community Development
Department begins an initial zoning process
and establishes public hearing schedule with
the Planning and Zoning Commission. (See
note #6)
First Reading of Annexation Ordinance -
City Council establishes second reading and
public hearing date.
The City may postpone second reading to
permit a property owner to confirm associated
land use reviews.
Second Reading of Annexation Ordinance
- Property either annexed or denied.
Initial Zoning Ordinance - Newly annexed
land must be assigned zoning within 90 days
of annexation. (See note #6)
City of Aspen Annexation Plan - Page 7
~
Process Notes:
1. Pre-Application. Potential applicants are encouraged to meet with the City Attorney to
discuss the annexation process and with the Community Development Director to discuss
the potential benefits of annexation. An annexation petition must be found in compliance
with the statutory annexation criteria and is subject to compliance with local annexation
criteria I to the extent those criteria are considered applicable to the specific petition.
2. Pre-Annexation Agreement. A property owner seeking annexation may negotiate a pre-
annexation agreement with the City of Aspen. Such negotiations may include, but are not
limited to, the type, amount, character, and timing of development and may specify certain
improvements required of a property owner and financial arrangements securing such
improvements. At such time of actual annexation, a final annexation agreement may be
confirmed.
3. Annexation Impact Report. CRS 31-12-108.5 requires the annexing municipality prepare
an annexation impact report at least 25 days prior to the public hearing (Resolution #2). The
report must be filed with the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). A
report is not required for annexations of 10 acres or less or when the City and the BOCC
agree the report requirement may be waived. An annexation Impact Report shall include, as
a minimum:
A. A map or maps of the municipality and adjacent territory showing the following
information:
1. The present and proposed boundaries for the municipality and in the vicinity of
the proposed annexation.
2. 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.
3. The existing and proposed land use pattern in the areas to be annexed.
B. A copy of any draft or final pre-annexation agreement, if applicable.
C. 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.
D. 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.
E. A statement identifying existing districts within the area to be annexed.
F. 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.
4. Land Use Reviews. A property owner seeking annexation into the City of Aspen may
initiate land use reviews with the City after the petition for annexation has been found valid
(after adoption of resolution #2). Property owners seeking to develop the property, in fact,
may wish to secure entitlements prior to completing annexation. Land use approvals
granted prior to annexation are subject to final adoption of an annexation ordinance. City
City of Aspen Annexation Plan - Page 8
~
,...'"
Council may postpone the final adoption hearing of the annexation ordinance to allow a
property owner to complete a land use review process.
5. Acknowledqement of Development Riqhts
Property subject of an annexation request may have certain development rights granted by
Pitkin County. The City of Aspen may choose to recognize these exact development rights
or reach another solution in consultation with the landowner. In instances where land use
approvals were granted in the County prior to annexing into the City, the City has
significantly benefited with the adoption of a Development. Guidebook in combination with
the annexation of the land. This guidebook can be used to define the approvals and
describe how the City will administer the development of the land, including the applicable
design standards for capital improvements. This guidebook can serve an interest of the
landowner, developers interested in realizing the development approvals, of prospective
property owners within the annexed area, and helps clarify the City's understanding of the
development rights.
6. Initial Zoninq. The City is required to assign zoning to newly annexed property within 90
days of annexation. Failure to zone land within 90 days may permit unwanted land uses on
newly annexed lands. The City typically begins an initial zoning process prior to final
annexation. This aids a landowner in determining the benefit of completing an annexation.
This initial zoning process follows the process for amending the Official Zone District Map
(rezoning), as outlined in the City of Aspen Land Use Code, and requires a review and
recommendation from the City Community Development Director and a public hearing and
recommendation from the City's Planning and Zoning Commission. Adoption of an
ordinance by City Council is the final step in the initial zoning process. Ideally, second
reading of an annexation ordinance and second reading of a zoning ordinance occur
simultaneously. Property owners are encouraged to participate as an applicant, although not
required, in this initial zoning process.
City of Aspen Annexation Plan - Page 9
1"""'\
1
STATUTORY ANNEXATION CRITERIA
In accordance with CRS 31-12-104, an area is eligible for annexation if the governing body,
at a hearing, finds and determines the following.
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 area, public lands (except
county-owned open space), or lake, reservoir, stream, or other natural or man-made
waterway between the annexing municipality and the land proposed to be annexed.
Subject to the requirements of CRS 31-12-105, contiguity may be established by the
annexation of one or more parcels in a series, which annexations may be completed
simultaneously and considered together.
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 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 propose 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 to the area proposed to be annexed those
urban services which the annexing muniCipality provides in common to all of 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.
City of Aspen Annexation Plan - Page 10
.~
LOCAL ANNEXATION CRITERIA
Annexation is a quasi-legislative authority of the City and as such the City may consider the
interests of its citizens as guiding annexation policy, in addition to the procedural statutory
requirements. This section identifies specific public policy concerns likely to arise during
consideration of an annexation request. These criteria should be used to determine when
annexation is appropriate, which land should be annexed, and how it should be zoned.
Additional considerations, beyond those identified herein, may also arise and guide public
policy.
AACP Compliance
Annexation requests should be reviewed for compliance with the Aspen Area Community
Plan. Annexation of certain lands could facilitate accomplishment of the plan's goals,
objectives, or specific action items. Newly annexed properties should be assigned zoning
supporting public policy directives of the AACP.
Urban Growth Boundary (UGB)
The City of Aspen and Pitkin County jointly approved Aspen's Urban. Growth Boundary via
adoption of the 2000 AACP. The UGB identifies the land surrounding Aspen as either
appropriate for urban development (within the UGB) or inappropriate for urban development
(outside the UGB). Land within the UGB is expected to become part of the City's urbanized
area and should be considered appropriate for annexation.
Land outside the UGB should only be annexed as a method of preserving the non-urban
character of lands surrounding Aspen. The UGB does not necessarily need to be amended
unless the land is intended for an urban level of development. Annexation of land outside
the UGB, in fact, may serve a significant public purpose.
Significant Annexations
Changing the regulatory structure and jurisdiction of significant community facilities, large
developments, and large tracts of vacant land present considerable potential for community
change. These annexation proposals should involve discussion between the Aspen City
Council and the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners. A joint work session at
which various land use issues are discussed can only benefit the City in it analysis of a
significant annexation. For example: properties entitled by the County and annexed into the
City can require complex administration of development rights, especially when
amendments are requested. Discussing the primary elements of the land use review can
simplify administration and provide benefit to the annexing landowner.
Likewise, certain annexation proposals may present concerns to other governmental and
quasi-governmental agencies with jurisdiction or other interest in the property. As
necessary, formal referral comments or work session-format meetings can be held to
identify these concerns.
Fiscal Impact Analysis
The City should fully understand the financial implication of assuming additional lands on
each of its functions. The City Finance Department has modeled fiscal impacts of recent
significant annexations and this information has been critical in determining the
appropriateness of annexation. Certain capital improvements may be necessary as well as
City of Aspen Annexation Plan - Page 11
r":
additional operation and service costs. These need to be balanced with additional special
fund revenues that are gained.
Pitkin County voters adopted a 2 percent Countywide sales tax, including a prOVISion
distributing 47 percent of the tax proceeds to Pitkin County and 53 percent to the City of
Aspen. At some point, the distribution of countywide sales tax may need to be reconsidered
as more service responsibilities shift to the City.
Development Rights/Zoning
Development rights associated with a property in Pitkin County verses those if the property
is annexed into the City of Aspen should be considered. Annexations are typically
associated with a proposal to further develop the property. Traditionally, the City weighs an
increase in development rights in relation to accomplishment towards community goals
available through annexation.
A complete understanding of a property's development potential, prior to annexation, should
include a zoning build-out analysis considering regulatory limitations, such as growth
management and impact fees, and regulatory incentives, such as the use of Transferable
Development Rights. The public policy of such regulations and the impact of changing the
regulatory structure upon the City should be considered.
Zoning of newly annexed land should approximate development rights prior to annexation,
unless a site-specific development plan is approved concurrent with annexation. The
creation of non-conformities should be avoided, although custom legislation to address
special interests can further complicate the City's regulatory environment.
The City should encourage the legalization of "bandit units" through the City's Accessory
Dwelling Unit provisions to ensure compliance with the health and~afety standards of the
Uniform Building Code. These units should be expected in older subdivisions surrounding
Aspen.
Pitkin County Transferable Development Rights
Certain lands in the County within the City's annexation area are eligible for increased
development rights through the extinguishments of a transferable development right (TDR).
Certain site specific approvals granted in Pitkin County may involve or require the use of
TDRs. And, certain development may have already occurred by use of these TDRs
necessitating acknowledgement of the realized increased development right.
Until the City adopts a program for accepting Pitkin County Transferable development
Rights, each individual annexation request should include an analysis of TDR contingent
land use scenarios and, if necessary, an agreement should be reached describing the future
use of Pitkin County TDRs within the newly annexed area.
Usefulness and appropriateness of each jurisdiction's regulations
As Aspen City limits expand beyond the original townsite, the effects of environmental
constraints and hazards on development increase. Pitkin County's 1041 regulations address
development on steep slopes, in wildfire hazard areas, in rockfall and avalanche hazard
areas, and within wildlife corridors. The City's Environmentally Sensitive Area review
standards address flood hazard areas and development above the 8,040-foot elevation.
City of Aspen Annexation Plan - Page 12
~
The County's regulations primarily attempt to minimize land use intensity and minimize the
infrastructure and operational effects of development. The City's land use code encourages
the intense use of land and addresses urban development issues, such as architectural
character. In transition areas, the City's PUD regulations should be used to establish an
appropriate balance.
Design standards for public improvements also reflect the rural and urban aspect of each
jurisdiction. The appropriateness of each jurisdiction's development regulations and design
standards should be considered in each annexation. The acceptance of substandard public
improvements and potential public costs of upgrading those facilities should also be
considered. The City may require certain facilities be upgraded prior to annexation.
Alternatively, the City may require a cash payment to accommodate expected City capital
improvement and operational expenses.
The City currently has no experience with remote backcountry and Forest Service lands.
These lands could require significant changes to the City's emergency services. The public
costs of annexing remote lands should be considered in relation to the public goals of such
an action.
Aspen recently adopted the Ski Area Base (SKI) Zone District to administer proper
development at the base of ski areas. The zoning provides for a mixture of skiing,
recreational, commercial, and tourist-oriented uses and requires adoption of a Planned Unit
Development. This zoning was applied to Aspen Highlands Base Village and may be
appropriate for the Buttermilk Ski Area base, upon annexation.
Infrastructure and Ability to Serve
Annexation reviews typically focus a great deal of fiscal analysis on the potential extension
of urban services to annexed territories. Cost, capacity, and engineering issues related
extension of the City's municipal water system to developing land on the urban fringe is a
significant annexation issue.
Currently, there are several small water districts serving residences 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 as their capital facilities may not be
providing acceptable standards of service. Upgrading is expensive, and may become the
responsibility of the City following annexation.
The County does not currently require new periphery development to join the City's
municipal water system. However, these county development proposals must be reviewed
by the City Council and found in compliance with the AACP in order to obtain City water
service. In these cases, the City often requires compliance with City development
regulations. Property owners developing a property eligible for annexation should consult
the City's Community Development Department and consider annexation.
Simplicity of City Boundary
The City/County boundary has created confusion for citizens and staff responsible for
enforcing policy. A complex boundary can complicate emergency service provision and, in
extreme cases, defeat efforts of City police officers. Annexations simplifying the boundary
should be encouraged while those further complicating the division should be avoided.
City of Aspen Annexation Plan - Page 13
~
;!
[Example]
PETITION FOR ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY
TO THE CITY OF ASPEN
THE UNDERSIGNED (hereinafter referred to as the "Petitioners") hereby petition the
Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado for the ann~xation of an area, to be referred to as the
Annexation to the City of Aspen. Said area,
consisting of approximately ( ) acres, is more particularly
described on Attachment "A," attached hereto.
The Petitioners allege:
1. That it is desirable and necessary that such area be annexed to the City of Aspen.
2. That the requirements of Sections 31-12-104 and 31-12-108, C.R.S., exist or have
been met.
3. That not less than one-sixth (116) of the perimeter of the area proposed to be annexed
is contiguous with the boundaries of the City of Aspen.
4. That a community of interest exists between the area proposed to be annexed and the
City of Aspen.
5. That the area to be annexed is urban or will be urbanized in the near future.
6. That the area proposed to be annexed is integrated with or capable of being integrated
with the City of Aspen.
7. That the Petitioners herein comprise more that fifty percent (50%) of the landowners
in the area and own more than fifty percent (50%) of the area to be annexed,
excluding public streets, alleys and lands owned by the City of Aspen.
WHEREFORE, said Petitioners request that the Council of the City of Aspen approve the
annexation of the area described on Attachment "A," legal description of the land.
The Petitioners reserve the right to withdraw this petition and their signatures therefrom at
any time prior to the commencement of the roll call of the City Council for the vote upon the
second reading of the annexation ordinance.
Individual Petitioners signing this Petition represent that they own the portiones) of the area
described on Attachment "A."
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I/we have executed this Petition for Annexation this day
of ,2_.
Petitioner' s/Owner' s Signature
Petitioner's/Owner's Printed Name
Address
City, State, Zip
City of Aspen Annexation Petition
~..,'
ry
Please attach the following:
ATTACHMENT "A" - LEGAL DESClUPTIONOF THEANNEX:Af.tON
ATTACHMENT "B" - AFFIDAVIT OF CIRCULATOR
STATE OF COLORADO
COUNTY OF PITKIN
The undersigned, being first duly sworn upon his oath states:
That he was the circulator of the attached Petition for Annexation and that each signature
therein is the signature of the person whose name it purports to be.
Circulator's Signature
Subscribed and sworn to before me this
2 ,by
day of
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Commission Expiration
Notary Public
ATTACHMENT "C" - PROOF OF OWNERSHIP
Constituting more than 50% of the landowners in the area proposed for annexation, as said
area is described on Attachment "A", and more than 50% of the land in said area, exclusive
of streets and alleys.
ATTACHMENT "D" - FOUR PRINTS OF AN ANNEXATION MAP
Containing the information required by C.R.S. 197331-8-107.
City of Aspen Annexation Petition
~
~
" .,
~
,
<(
a.
co
~
co
c Q)
Q) Q) '-
a. == <(
~ ~.~
"+-Q)1O
O'-X
~..c Q)
~I-c
() c
<(
~
co
"0
C
::J
o
en co
"OJ:: c
5~ <D
CL 0 a.
~ en
06 (I) en <C :2
~c<Do~cb
<D co (.) >- co ~
>.o~......o
o:::S~(3O::~
IDOI<D
~
CO
"0
C
::J
o
CO
..92
I
I
o
[]= ~ C!L
. '<:{J/
~v
(J
~..~
~
" ~ t'>l '\
^~~~
-~ ~
~~
,",," '"?
-
"..
fc7
~B
~'r- / ~A J
I'~' ~1\'~~~J ~ ';v- Idt
\,?~0;;t~"tf ~~ lPY3 ~
Ur-- /"'1 "" ~p a
G ~IT. ~~c! \(~~e' . ~ _ ~N
~;("::. . - G"~./ ,.. 0 ....... ~ ~
V ~'hr:;::::::J ...JII ~ I.V b....
~v ~H.... ~ ~ y ~ I~ K- ~
I ~I'" ~~ ;:. 0 ~L ~ "- ft2l:I: ~ ro
~~ ~#~'O ~ Iff K-..- E ~
,.-, . ~,~.J..rJ r~ ~ :;;;:
~ r M ~ R=7 · 1;->~ .J; OJ'" -'
~-:..I t.. u. At D ~ I -:- v.',,, I .
'~~i >~~I~r~lV)~ -~
Rt b.~~ ~~----~~~! ~'-
T\ ~ X c;l~ / 'I,( IL-
~~ ~ ~
. -U .~ iiih.' .~
. '. ~~Q
, ~ ~ ""- . 1:
/1\ . :y~~- ----., ". 0
2\c. r-r JD ~~ 0
~~-~ J~o
...'
Ii:
I
y
C
<D
c..
~
'--
\
(.L
V'
M
! "-(- /'
rr .....v
en
<D
~
...... <D
C 0>
<D m
E a..
t
m
c..
<D
o
C......N
<Dca
c..<Da
CJ)EN
<{c..-
,+-o(j)
o <D :J
>->0>
~<D:J
oo<{
.?:-
'c
:J
E
E
o
o
~
~
z
7J1
N
~
T"""
....
.'
~
~
..
~
1/1'
~
y.. ~\\J ~Ji:. I
~o~
~o~~\{\~
~o
rf:Jou
~~ ~ ~
~~~~~
~ C ~~ ~ ~ I'~(:;;}- 1 --G~ /~ fLL)
I- co.s.... ~ ~/
· a.Co::( C ~
w ~~~. ~' $l~
~ 'frlt( 1c o~o r LSt"'lb'" c
~ r J2. .J ~\~
~ ~~ ~ .r-",.,.t\e
I:::::::'"~ .....,~ ~
K-~~ ~>' T"~
l\. ~ Ul
~ VIA, -o~ ~
~ "'v ~~ _...."""'--
~f\...,. ~ ~ 1:._ - ...,
I '-~ :f~ '\
[~ -V-
~
J,,~
''-'&';0
lIoo .
V&Jzt
. \
\
-..I\.
'r
~
~
-
~
m
0-
m
:E
co
c e
CDCD<(
0..:=
~ ~.2
'--CD1;
o s... ><
~.c CD
~....c
o c
<(
~z
......
C
Q)
E
t::
co
0.
Q)
o
c......C\l
Q)CO
0.Q)0
(/)EC\l
<(0.-
_o(j)
o Q) :::::l
>->0')
:!:::Q):::::l
uo<(
>-
......
'2:
:::::l
E
E
o
u
Q)
0)
ro
a..
~
[J
""" ~
~
.
.,
a
(/)
"0
C
ro
...J
......
(/)
Q)
....
o
u.
...~...............
.....~ .
II
U
)'r-
(/)
"0
C
CO
...J
(j)\
CD \
.... \
o .
U. \
""'"
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor Klanderud and Aspen City Council
Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners
THRU:
Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director
Chris Bendon, Long Range Planner ~
City of Aspen Annexation Plan - Work Session - 4-5 p.m.
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
July 16, 2002
The City of Aspen is required by State statute to maintain an annexation plan, adopted
at least once annually. The City's Annexation Plan has been re-adopted each year,
but has not been substantially amended since 1988. Action Item #4 (of 99) of the
2000 Aspen Area Community Plan calls for an update of the Annexation Plan to
reflect the adopted Urban Growth Boundary.
The State's requirements for such a plan are minimal and are primarily geared to
Front Range communities who sometimes use annexation to gain political and tax
base advantage. The "three-mile boundary" must be identified (municipalities may
not expand in any direction more than three miles per year). The plan must generally
describe the proposed municipal infrastructure and planned land uses for any land to
be annexed within the three-mile area.
The annexation plan cannot legally bind the City, regardless of the intention and
commitment to the issue. Annexation isa legislative action and the annexation plan
is used to inform public, property owners, staff, and the City Council on the potential
issues for any particular annexation.
The annexation plan should not be considered a City "work program" for
annexations. The City is required to describe the three-mile area and analysis has
been provided of these lands. In other words, the fact that "forest lands" are identified
in the plan is dependent upon them being within three miles of the City boundary and
should not be interpreted as a desire of the City to acquire forest lands.
The City has traditionally included policy analysis in the plan to guide annexation
reviews. Below is a summary of the "issues" identified in the 1988 plan and the
issues staff suggests be addressed in the 2002 plan. The City P &Z reviewed and
confirmed these to be the primary policy areas concerning annexation.
Attached is a draft of an updated annexation plan. Clearly, additional work needs to
be done on this plan. Staff is in the process of obtaining additional information from
various departments. Staff would like to focus on the "local annexation policy"
1
^
section, starting on page 10. This section era,oorates on thy idegtifieg issu~salld will
be used to guide annexation policy.
This joint work session will allow the twobQar"d$to di~Cll.$~tl1~,proper annexation
issues and give staff direction on the policies that should be in.the annexation plan.
Staff is seeking adoption in late August, to meet the State's requirements.
Annexation Plan Land Use Topics
1988
2002
Increased Development Potential. ., Development Rights/Zoning: .
FAR. . Current land use.
Un-subdivided land. . Current rights (including TDRs).
Master Planning. . Approvals/Potential.
Bandit Units. . Administration of Approvals and
Agreements (including TDR).
. Application of proper City zoning.
Environmental Review Standards. Appropriateness of each jillisdictions land
Ski Area Base Zoning. use regulations and tools.
Ski Area Zoning. Need revise City Land Use Code.
... .. ....,..
Utilities. Infrastructure/Ability to serve (related to
Aspen Water Management Plan. fiscal analysis).
Sales Tax Sharing. Fiscal Impact Analysis: ....
Zoning & Process (landowner petition, (cover in the process section of revised
90 days for zoning). plan)
.' Other:
. AACP Compliance.
. Land within adopted UGB.
. Significant (define) annexatiQ.Q.s
require CC/BOCC wQrk ses~iQ.Q.,
. Regional links.
. Simplicity of City Boundary.
. Annexation Agreement.
.. ....
2
r"..
PURPOSE
The City of Aspen Annexation Plan reflects land use policy of the Aspen Area Community
Plan (AACP) with regard to adding urbanized land, and land appropriate for urbanization,
surrounding Aspen to the City's jurisdiction. The Plan provides landowners whose property
is adjacent to the City of Aspen with the relevant requirements and processes for requesting
inclusion into the City of Aspen. The City of Aspen shall use its legislative authority of
annexation and this annexation plan to:
. Ensure the natural and well-ordered development of the City.
. Distribute fairly and equitably the costs of city services among those persons who
benefit therefrom.
. Extend the city's government, services, and facilities to eligible citizens which form a
part of a whole community.
. Simplify jurisdictional boungCiri~s?Dcj req.llc~a.dr:nirl.i~!r~tiy.E:l.2<?rlfu~i()n.
. Increase the City's ability to provide its citizens with the services they require.
Colorado Revised Statute
All annexation actions by cities in Colorado are governed by CRS 31-12-102. These
statutory requirements include the City's need to maintain an annexation plan for a three-
mile boundary around the existing City limits. The specific requirements include the
following:
"Prior to completion of any annexation, 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 $treets, subways, bridges, watefWays, 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. Such plan shall be updated at least once annually."
Urban Growth Boundarv
The City of Aspen and Pitkin County jointly approved Aspen's Urban Growth Boundary
(UGB) via adoption of the 2000 AACP. The UBG identifies; th.e1aDdsllrr()lmding Aspen as
either appropriate for urban development (within the UGB) or inappropriate for urban
development (outside the UGB). Land within the U(.3~il:)~)(pected to become part of the
City's urbanized area, at some point, while land outside the UGB should only be annexed as
a method of preserving the non-urban charact~r gf ICings surrounding Aspen. The UGB
should be amended upon determination that the subject land should be re-categorized,
independent of an annexation decision.
Disclosure
The City of Aspen Annexation Plan has been adopted to meet the compulsory requirements
set forth by the State of Colorado, pursuant to CRS 31-12-105. The plali should not be
considered a replacement or complete reflection of the state statlltes. Property owners
seeking annexation should consult the ColorCidg.R.e. v.i.sed Statut.es..T..h..e plan is not binding
.. . ."..".,.......... ...,.....,'....-..."..,............... .,,', .
upon the City of Aspen.
City of Aspen Annexation Plan - 7 .16.02.DRAFT - Page 1
r"'\
""
CITY OF ASPEN ANNEXATION AREA
Map A depicts Aspen's annexa.tionar~a, corresponding to the State's three-mile area
requirement, based on the August, 2002, jurisdictional boundary. The jointly-adopted UGB
is also shown.
The City of Aspen is currently approximately ** acres. The area within the UGB is
approximately ** acres, ** acres larger than the current City jurisdiction. This land within the
UGB has been detE3rllliQE39 appropriate for urbanization and is likely to become part of the
City of Aspen.
The three-mile area is approximately ** acres, ** acres larger than the current City
jurisdiction. Much of this three-mile area is outside. Aspen's UGB and considered
inappropriate for urbanization. Annexation of. areas outside the UGB should only be
considered as a means of preserving the non-urban character of tbeland.
To understand the City's potential service needs, annexation areas within the. UGB have
been analyzed as smaller land arei:ls, described in Table 1. The boundaries for each area
were developed based on the following factors: physical features, existing development
patterns, existing property lines, and established neighborhood areas.
Annexation areas within the LJQBc;lJrrE3ntly contain approximately ** dwelling units and **
square feet of commercial development. This areas currently supports approximately **
year-round residents. By comparison, the City of Aspen's year-round population (nighttime
population) is approximately 5,914 residents. The daily-average population is approximately
21,000 residents.
An analysis of the existing zoning pattern in the .LJnincorporated portion of Pitkin County
indicates ** new dwelling units and ** to ** additional square feet of new commercial space
could conceivably be developed in the proposed annexation area. A summary by
annexation group is shown on Table I.
Annexation Area Characteristics
The City is required to describe the area.withintbIE3~lllil~~()fi!~~QlJ~geIY for the purposes
of this plan. The proximity of these areas and description herein, however, does not
necessarily mean these areas are desiraplE3aQQ~xi:lti911~>Manyareas, outside of the UGB
especially, maybe entirely inappropriate for annexClticm. [q\lOWing is an overview of land
use characteristics for each i:lrea within a J~re.~.~l"l'li.lE3 .ra9I.lJ~ <8tJ.~~.9ity, with particular
attention paid to the areas within .thE3LJ.GI?~. The a.r~i:l~.ge~9riRE3(j~rt:)~Q8\rtfD8DM~p B.
These general characteristics provide a basis for understand.in9 potentia] land use issues
that may need to be addressed during an annexation.
Ute/Northstar, Shadow Mountain
Generally,rurarannexationareas which hi:lye very limited growth potential due to
their physical circumstances. ThesE3 arE3C1s are particularly affected by environmental
hazards and each request should include an analysis of the regulatory tools used to
address such hazards. The City's Land Use Code provisions for Environmentally
Sensitive Areas (ESA's) may adequately guide the growth and development of these
City of Aspen Annexation Plan - 7.16.02 DRAFT -Page 2
I""\,
areas. Further consideration should be given to the more stringent County 1041
regulations particularly with regard to development on steep slopes.
RoarinQ Fork ~ast Re~M~~~tai~,~it~i~~re~~
Generally, suburbanannexatiori"a'fea~'9():rnprised of predominantly developed
subdivisions. Several similar sybdivisions, such as Eastwood and Knollwood, have
already annexed into the City. The major land use issues iaffecting this group include
floor area ratios, legitimizing "bandit dWE3l1ing units," wildfire mitigation, and the status
of the roads and. ability of the City to adequately maintain and upgrade them as
necessary .
Lower SmuQQler
This area contains large development parcels with significant growth potential,
existing subdivisions with little rE3mail'ling growth potential, the historically important
Smuggler Mine, and steeply sloped areas with limited growth potential. Continued.
public access to the Upper Smuggler area and recreational opportunities would need
to be ensured. Provisions formining activity may be necessary. Regulatory tools to
address development on steep slopes would be necessary.
Upper SmuQQler
This area contains large privately-owned parcels with significant infrastructure
limitations and steE3ply sloped areas with very limited growth potential. This area was
an active mining area. Currently, this area is a very popular recreation area and is a
primary public access public lands. Much of this area has tleen icjemifiE3dc:ls"land
with conservation value" in the AACP. Continued public access to public lands and
recreational opportunities would need to be ensured. Regulatory tools to address
development on steep slopes would be necessary.
Meadowood, Tennis Club, and State HiQhwav 82 Corridor
Generally, suburban' annexation area~ comprised of predominantly developed
subdivisions. These c:lrE3c:ls arE3c:urrf:lntly encircled by City jurisdiction. The major
land use issues. affE3cting this group include floor area rati()s, legitimizing "bandit
dwelling units," trail connections, and the status of the roads and ability of the City to
adequately maintain and upgrade them as. necE3sSi:3ry. A few large parcels with
significant development potential exist between Meadowood and State Highway 82.
Bar X Ranch and Lower Maroon Creek
Generanyagi"icul{uraflnct1aracfe(Wifh significant growth potential. Development
issues include preserving the riparian habitat along Maroon Creek, trail connections,
fishing access, and traffic generation impacts to the Highway 82 corridor. The Bar X
Ranch area is currently subject of an annexation agreement for the purposes of
developing mix of free-market and affordable dwelling units.
Buttermilk Base Area
The base of Buttermilk Ski Arei:3. represents significant development opportunity with
potential impacts on, and benefits to, the City of Aspen. This area is presently
underutilized and is identified intheAACP as. a de"elopment node for concentrated
mixed-use transit-oriented dE3vel()pment. Residential, commercial, and lodging
development would effect toe City's infrastructure an(j the area's commercial and
lodging profile. This area represents a significant opportunity for transportation
improvements. Additionally, the redevelopment of this area may provide the City
City of Aspen Annexation Plan - 7.16.02 DRAFT -Page 3
f"".
n
opportunity to reach community goals. This area should bE:l. annex.ed il1ta.. the City of
Aspen prior to development review, If redevE:llopment of this area is entitled in the
County and then the lC;!nd is ann~xed, significant analysis on the administration of
development approvals will be necessary.
Aspen Airport Business Center, North Forty
These areas are gerrefally sl.JbUfban . with moderate growth potential. The North
Forty subdivision is reaching its residential build-out a.l1d has some potential for
additional commercial development. The AABC has moderate growth potential in
both residential and commercial . sectors, most of which would involve
redevelopment. Significant expansion of coml11~rcialus.e~. jDtb~ME3g. "".o~1.9...C)ff~ct
the profile of commerc;ial activity in the Aspen area and may affect transportation
patterns. A new zone district would likely be required to accommodate the AABC.
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District,County Maintenance FaciIity, RFTA bus barn, Sardy
Field (Aspen/Pitkin County Airport) .. ... ., .. .' .<.. .., ,
These public infrastructure facilities are cllrrentlyoperated by either the county or
special districts. Expansion of these facilities could be. . expected to coincide with
growth of the area's population and service needs, although physical constraints may
limit expansion capabilities. Expansion potential for the airport is somewhat limited
by physical constraints, although largely controlled by public policy discussions of
increasing tourist capacity of the Aspen area. Intergovernmental agreements may
be necessary for annexation of these facilities.
Ski Areas - Aspen Mountain,. Aspe~ l-ii8hla~ds,~~tt~rrnilk,
These areas correspond with sKrarea'peFmit b6uhd~ries. This lC;!nd is typically
Forest Service land, although substantial portions of Aspen Mountain Ski Area are
owned by the Aspen Ski Company. These area~ are typically remote, with little or no
existing services and have limited access. In light of these factors, the City would
need to contemplate the actual public; benefits ()finC;ll.Jqing these lands into the City.
Annexation would necessitat€!.n~wl8:l}qwl.J.~E:llegislation to regulate ski area operation
and may also necessitate back-country emergency rescue operation.
Forest Lands
These areas correspond with Federally-owned land maintained by the United States
Forest Servic~ al1d privately-owned "in-holdings." These areas are typically remote,
with little or no existing services and havelil11it~.q. ~C;C;€!~,~. .,IhesE:lcar€!ca~C)r€! generally
zoned Rural and Remote (RR) by Pitkin County to maintain a backcountry character.
These areas do .110t. appear to provide any advantage to the City and could be a
burden. Annexation of these area~ w()LJldD€!c;€!~~i!C)t€!D~"" lanq~s,~ ..I€!gislation to
regulate backcountry development, agreements. with the. Forest Service for
permitting and administration ()ff()r~~t:-rE:llcat~qcac;tiyiti€!~1 and may also necessitate
back-country emergency rescue operation. .. .' .... .,.,
City of Aspen Annexation Plan - 7.16.02 DRAFT - Page 4
^
, -;
en
as
e
c(
c
o
;;
as
><
(I)
c
c
c(
....
o
~
as
E
E
::::s
fJ)
I
(I)
:g
as
....
_ro
CI:l e
:';:;0
e:.;:;
Q)'-
....."0
0"0
~ 0..<(
s:::
:J
Q) C> 1<
C) e
"C :.;:;
l/)
0 'x
..J w
- - CI:l
Q)
moO CI:l e
:';:;0
.....CI:l e:.;:;
.- "0 Q)'-
C I- ....."0
:J~ 0"0
_CI:l 0..<(
CO~
+:i"Q)
s:::~
Q) I-
CI:l
:2E C>
e
11)' :.;:;
Q) :E l/)
'x
O::~ w
... I..
-ro
CI:l e
:';:;0
e:.;:;
- Q)'-
co ....."0
.- 0"0
(J- 0..<(
..."Q)
Q)JE
E Q) C>
Eea e
:.;:;
o :::l l/)
og 'x
W
Q)-
N .
._ 0
CI)~
~ .5
Q)
e ..... ~ Q) 0
l/) {.) I-
.(tj CI:l l- I- () e
s::: ..... w Q) Q) I- Q) CI:l e
e 0> 0> 0 e l/) I-
0 l- e CI:l e CI:l
CI:l :::l ~ .(tj e 0') 0') "0 .c 0 Q) co l/)
+:i ..... 0 I- :::l :::l "0 .0 .;:: {.) e co ..... "0
0 ..... Q) 0 >- e "0
CO l/) ~ e :::l l- e l/) e
.c Q) lL. :::l ~ E E 0 () 0 CI:l CI:l ~ t .(tj :::l Q) l/) CI:l
>< t ~ ~ 0') 0 <9 Cf) Cf) s: () a::: ~ 'e 0 ~ CO u:: CI:l .....J
Q) :::l lL. ~
CO 0 CO e ~ l- I- 0 l/) N l- I- () 0 ~ .....
s::: Z "0 .;:: e Q) Q) "0 '2 >< Q) Q) .c 0 >- <( l/)
e 00 Cf) "E ~
C Q) "0 CI:l CI:l "0 :.s2 c.. s: CI:l e l- s: ~ CO t ()
..... Q) .c 0 Q) ..... c.. 0 Q) Q) I CI:l 0 :::l ~ 0 () ..... lL. CI:l :.s2 0
<C<C :::> a::: Cf) a::: a::: a:: :::> .....J ~ I- en CO .....J CO Z <( a:: a::: Cf) Cf) lL.
V)
<l)
~
p...
I
I-
u..
<(
0:::
o
N
o
(0
......
l"-
I
c:
co
0::
c:
o
:;::;
co
><
<1>
c:
c:
<t::
c:
<1>
0-
Il)
<t::
'to-
o
~
G
^
ANNEXATION PROCESS
Pre-Application. Potential applicants are ~ncouraged to meet with.. the Gity Attorney to
discuss the annexation process and/or with tD~ G91T.'fl11,.mity Development Director to discuss
the potential benefits of annexation. An annexation petition. mljst be found in compliance
with the statutory annexation criteria andis, slJbject to compliance with local annexation
criteria, to the extent those criteria are con~i<:l~recjapplicable to the specific petition.
Submission of an Annexation Petition....'''. 31-12-101.
STATUTORY ANNE){A.TION CR''!i;RIA
In accordance with GRS 31-12-104, anarea is eligible for annexation if the governing body,
at a hearing finds and determines the following.
1. That not less than one-sixth Qf, 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 area, public lands (except
county-owned open space), or lake, reservoir, stream, or other natural or man-made
waterway between the annexing municipality and the land proposed to be annexed.
Subject to the requirements of CRS 31-12-105, contiguity may be established by the
annexation of one ormor~ parcels in a series, which annexations may be completed
simultaneously and considered together.
2. That a community of interest exists between the,ar~~ 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 fact that the area proposed to be annexed h~s th,~ 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 heCiril19, finds that at lea~t two of the folloWing are
shown to exist:
a. Less than fifty percent of the adult residents ofth~ area propose 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 ar~Cl proposed to be annexed (including streets)
is agricultural, and the landowners of such agricultural land, under oath I express an
intent to devote the land to ~uch 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 th,e al1l1~)(:ing municipality provides in common to of all its
citizens on the same terms and, conditions as such~eryicesare, m,ade available to
such citizens. Thi.s standard s,hCiIl.l1ot 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.
City of Aspen Annexation Plan - 7.16.02 DRAFT-Page 6
C
o
~
ClS
><
CD
C
C
ClS
.!
CD
c..
E
o
CJ
o
-
tn
C.
.! ..
tn t/)
iU~
~CJ
C 0
CD ...
::so.
g"r::
en 0
l+::l
N=
CD CD
:is r::
ClS r::
1-<(
..
t/)
CD
t/)
t/)
CD
CJ
o
...
0.
"C
.e
(\:l
'0
o
t/)
t/)
<(
Q)
..c.
--
..c.
--
';:
-
C
CD
E
CD
e
C)
CO
C
o
~
><
CD
C
C
ClS
I
e
c.
C1:l
o
-- -
C......
.;: ~
22
I:: 0
Q) I::
>-Q)
C1:l Q)
EC/)
-
I.-
Q)
I:: I::
~ Q)
00.
00
~<(
Q)-
0.0
0Z-
I.- .-
0-0
~
C1:l
00
00
~
Q)
I::
00
--
'E
.0
::s
00
I.-
Q)
C
~~
o I.-
-C~
I::()
C1:l-..
.....J~
10
"CQ)
CD..c.
=........
Ll.o
c-;;;
.2m
~ "C:
1)2
Q.C1:l
C E
o I::
~.Q
ClS--
>< C1:l
CD.5:2
c-
co.
<(g-
~.
0000 00.
13:Q<O ~2
g~ffi i-~.a
o..C1:l:5 ~~~
I:: 00 00 '8> = Q)
.Q ~ ~ = '0 co
--00- Q)I::--
~=-c 1.-::sC/)
Q).ol:: 4200
I::.E C1:l --0--
coo". 1::>-0)
C1:lQ)'" Q)--I::
>- E 0'- .-
ool::C1:l Q) "E
2 .Q -c .!:: I 0
---0 .... 0
~.a(") .....N 0
.- 0 g~ C1:l
COOl:: I.-CI::
-Q)C1:l >-00
'0 0::: :5 :!:.. :;::;
I:: ::s ::s C1:l
.... Q) 0)- X
.....1::1.- :;::;OQ)
000 I::tnl::
():;::;E OCDI::
Z-~-c 00::: C1:l
.- 00 Q) 13 "C 0
oQ)"S l;:C-
I I.- -c 'C ClS Q)
C1:l Q) Q) C).o
'l'"' _ ..c. > C'-
~ 0 ~ (j) .t:.2>
cl:: Q)ClSQ)
00Q) clI)oo
~ a .0 '8>:::t: .~
::S00) I::CJt:::
o -C.s . W :: Q)
tn C1:l ro ~>-.c ~
CD >- Q) C1:l:!: ::s I.-
O:::.o..c.-cOQ.o.
Q) Q) ..c. I::
~ ..c. .!a C1:l
-- :0 00 ..c.
-c-13 C1:l_I:::!:
ffi ~ 2: (j) ...,. '8> ~
- Q)Q)~Q)Q)
>-2 oo-c2~::s
:!:0Q)1::01::-C
OI::I.-C1:lI::Q)Q)
>-~~Z-Q)E-5
I::C/)Ol:: Q)t::: 00
C1:l_Q) g~[O)Lt)
Q) :>...c. 0 . Q).s ~
cot:::I-Q)$O=Q)
.- Q) I ..c. \U --
:!: a. ..c. 0) -- Q) 0
I:: 0 .A --.- 1::Q)..c. I::
.- v, I:: ....
>- I.- :1: .- -c E.5:2 Q)
C1:l a. C) -C.- 0.:0 Q)
E Q) .- Q) C1:l 0 ::s C/)
..c. 0::: -- 00 - 0.-
1.--- I::_Q) .
I.- Q)o.1:~o>OOI::
o I:: 0 CD 0) I:: Q) Q) .Q
LL.. ~ as E 00 .Q 0 ~ ~
I 0 > C. m co >- = .-
-cQ)o>....:!:.oE
_ 1::-C_o(j)I::C1:lE
... C1:l 0 ... 1.-._ ::s ~
o - -o.I::E"'o
c. Q) -- > 0.'- Q) 0
CD ..c.~~C1:lEE-c....
"'" I- C1:l -c 0 I:: '""
.... 00 .... ~ C1:l 0 C1:l .5
_ IOOO::SQ) 001::
CJ- Q)- ..c.Q)ooo
ClS~~~i-g::~Q)N
c.Q) 11)1:: EC1:l0 g-c
E--.-oo -- 1....1::
- 0> 00 CD--o.-- C)0.C1:l
I::CDQ)C) I::
C Q) ... 0 "C ~ Q) .5 g> g>
o Q) CD 0 II) 0 E C'_'-
~~tno..3:C1:lQ)~g2
>< .::S>OO~_NC1:l
CD 00 "C ;;> C -- 0) ClS - 0-
C Q) c.~ .lIl:: 1: C1:l ~ .~
C t5 ClS > CJ 0) I:: .- :!: Q)
<( C1:l ..J ~ <('C C1:l .5 .5 :5
o
......
I::
C1:l
..c.
--
~
o
E
-
o
00
I::
o
~
X
Q)
I::
I::
C1:l
o
--
I.-
Q)
I::
~
o
~
Q)
a.
e
a.
C1:l
:!:
E
....
Q)
a.
o
--
0)
I::
:0'
C1:l 00
~ ~
-c'S;:
I:: ~
o Q)
o 00
~ ::s
Q)-C
I:: I::
o C1:l
0.-
__ -c
00 Q)
0--
0.C1:l
>-'0
C1:l 0
E ~
>-C1:l
:!:E
OI.-
l;:
Q) I::
..c.o
1-0
'0
I::
::s
o
()
~2
OC1:l
-c
10)
11).5
CJ I.-
C C1:l
ClS Q)
c..c.
._ 0
'E:Q
o~
c-c
o I::
..C1:l
ClSO)
~.s
C-C
C C1:l
<(~
....-C
o g
C)O
C Q)
._ 00
"Coo
ClS Q)
CD..c.
0::: .!a
_.0
tn C1:l
.: (j)
Ll.Q)
..
-
o
00
>-
C1:l
-c
o
0>
I::
:.c
--
';:
0)
I::
I::
o
N
-c
Q)
I::
0)
'w
00
C1:l
Q)
.0
r-..
<I)
OIl
e<l
p...
I
l-
LL..
co:(
0::
o
N
o
co
...-
--
00
::s
E
-c
I::
~
-c
Q)
x
~ C
I:: 0
C1:l:;::;
C1:l
>-x
-Q)
~ I::
zffi
I'-
I
c
ell
a:
c::
o
+J
ell
X
Q)
c::
c::
<(
c::
Q)
0-
W
<(
....
o
~
<3
>-
t:::
Q)
a.
e
0-
J
CD
CJ
C
ClS
C
"C
...
o
C
o
~
ClS
><
CD
C
C
<(~
.... . c
o Q)
-c
C)I.-
.5 0
"C-c
ClS Q)
II) x
o:::~
"Cffi
C I.-
o Q)
CJ..c.
CD:!:
enQ)
f"..
Process Notes:
1. Pre-Annexation Agreement. ..~... prop~rtY. owner seeking annexation may negotiate a pre-
annexation agreementwitn the City of Aspen. Such negotiations may include, but are not
limited to, the type, amount, character, and timing of development and may specifY' certain
improvements required of a property owner and fil1al1cial aW:l.ngements securing such
improvements. At such time of actual annexation, a final annexation agreement may be
confirmed.
2. Annexation Impact Report. CRS 31-12-108.5 requires the annexing municipality prepare
an annexation impact report at least 25 days prior to the public hearing (Resolution #2). The
report must be filed with the Pitkil1 COl.lnty Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). A
report is not required for annexations of 10. acres or .Iess or\tVhen.. the City and the BOCC
agree the report requirement may be waived. An annexation Impact Report shall include, as
a minimum:
A. A map or maps of the municipality and adjacent territory showing the following
information:
1. The present and proposed boundaries for the municipality and in the vicinity of
the proposed annexation.
2. The present stre~ts, 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 vi~inity of the proposed annexation.
3. The existing and proposed land use pattern in the are~s ~o t>~ al1n~xed.
B. A copy of any draft or final pre-annexation agreement, if applicable.
C. A statement setting forth the plans of the municipality for extending to or otherwise
providing for, within the area to b~ annexed, municipal services performed by or on
behalf of the municipality at the time of annexation.
D. A statement setting forth the method und~L\tVhichtheml.lnigipality plans to finance
the extension of the municipal services into the areatp b~annexed.
E. A statement identifying existing districts within the area to be annexed.
F. A statement ontheeffectof annElxatiCln upon local public school district systems,
including the estimated number of stud~nts. generated and the capital construction
required to educate suchstudents.
3. Land Use Reviews.. ... .~.. property. owner seeking annexation into the City of Aspen may
initiate land use revi~\tV~ .\tVith.. !bel Gity after the petition for annexation has be~n found \I?lid.
(after adoption of resolution #2). Property owners seeking to develop the property, in fact,
may wish to secure entitlern~nt~ prior to completing annexation. Lal1d. use approvals
granted prior to annexation ~r~ ~l.lbject to final adoption of an annexatiol1 ordinance. City
Council may postpone the final adoption hearing of the annexation ordinance to allow a
property owner to complete a land use review process.
4. Acknowledqement of DeveloPment'3ig~t~
Property subject of an annexation request may have certain development rights granted by
Pitkin County. The City of Aspen may choose to recognize these exact development rights
or reach another solution in consultation with the landowner. In instances where .I?nd use
approvals were granted in the County prior to annexing into the City, the City has
City of Aspen Annexation Plan - 7. 16.02 DRAFT - Page 8
^
significantly benefited with the (ldoption of a Development . (3uideb().ok il1.coll1binati9n with
the annexation of the land. This guidebook can be used to define the approvals and
describe how the City will administer thed~y~l()pment of the land, including the applicable
design standards for capital improvements. This guidebook can serve an interest of the
landowner, developers interested in re(llizing the development approvals, of prospective
property owners within the annexed. area, and helps clarify the City's understanding of the
development rights.
5. Initial Zoning. The City is required to assign zoning to newly annexed property within 90
days of annexation. Failureto.zoneland withIn..90 days may permit unwanted land uses on
newly annexed lands. The (;ity typically begins an initial zoning process prior to final I
annexation. This aids a landowner indeterl11in.ing the benefit of completing an annexation.
This initial zoning process follows the process for amending the Official Zone Distri9t. M(lp
(rezoning), as outlined in the City of Aspen Land Use Code, and requires a review and
recommendation from the City Community Development Director and a public hearing and
recommendation from the City's Planning and Zoning Commission. Adoption of an
ordinance by City Council is th(3 final step in the .initial zoning process. Ideally, second
reading of an annexation ordil1ance anciseS;()l1d Jf3(l~il1g of a zoning ordinance occur on the
same day. Property owners are encQ\...Iraged to participate as an applicant, although not
required, in this initial zoning process.
City of Aspen Annexation Plc:ln - 7.16.02 DRAFT -Page 9
"'"
LOCAL ANNEXATION CRITERIA
Annexation is a quasi-legislative authority of the City and as such the City may consider the
interests of its citizens as guiding annexation policy, in addition to the procedural statutory
requirements. This section identifies specific public policy concerns likely to arise during
consideration of an annexation request. These criteria should . beusE:lqJog~tE:lrl}]il1~\I\'h~11
annexation is appropriate, which land should bE:l. ~1l1lE:l)(~d, and. how it. should be zoned.
Additional consiger~tions, beyond those identified herein, may also arise and become
guiding public policy.
AACP Compliance
Annexation requests should be reviewedf()r 9Clmpliance with the Aspen Area Community
Plan. Annexation of certain lands, could f~cilit~te accomplishment of the plan's goals,
objectives, or specific action items. Newly annexed properties. should b~ aSs;igned zoning
supporting public policy directives of the AACP.
Urban Growth Boundary (UGB)
The City of Aspen and Pitkin County jointly approved Aspen's Urban Growth Boundary via
adoption of the 2000 AACP. The UG~ idel1tifi~s the land surroUl1ding Aspen as either
appropriate for urban development (within the UGB) or inappropriate for urban development
(outside the UGB). Land within the UGBist9xpected to become part of the City's urbanized
area and should be considered appropriate for annexation,
Land outside the UGB shouldonly be annexed as a method of preserving the non-urban
character of lands surrounding Aspen. The UGB does not necessarily need to be amended
unless the land is intendegfo.. r an urban level of...d.e..v.. e....I...o....p...m..ent. Annexation of land outside
the UGB, in fact, may serve asignificanFpubHc'pnr'pose. ..
Significant Annexations
Changing the regulatory structure and jurisdiction of significant community facilities, large
developments, and large tracts of vacant lalld present con~idE:lral:>le potential for community
change. These annexation proposals should involve dis,cussion between the Aspen City
Council and the Pitkin County Board of COLJnty Commissioners. A joint work session at
which various land use issues are discLJs~E:lgQaI10nIy benefit the. City. in it analysis of a
significant annexation. For example: properties entitled by the County and annexed into the
City can require complex administration ()f. deYE:llopment rights, especially when
amendments are requested. Discussing the primary elements of the land use review can
simplify administration and provide benefit to the annexing landowner.
Likewise, certain annexation proposals may present concerns to .other governmental and
quasi-governmental agencies with jurisdiction or other interest in the property. As
necessary, formal referral commellts orw()rksE:ls~i()n~f9rl11~t 111~~tings can be held to
identify these concerns. . . " .....
Fiscal Impact Analysis
The City should fully understand the financial implication of assLJming additional lands on
each of its functions. The City Finance Department has modeled fisca.1 impacts of recent
significant annexations and this information has been. criti.c:al in. determining the
appropriateness of annexation. Cert~in capital improvements may be necessary as well as
additional operation and service costs. These need to be balanced with additional special
fund revenues that are gained.
City of Aspen Annexation Plan - 7.16.02 DRAFT - Page 10
,....",
Pitkin County voters adopted a 2 percent Countywide sales tax, including a provIsion
distributing 47 percent of the tax proceeds to Pitkin C()unty and 53 percent to the City of
Aspen. At some point, the distribution of cOlJntywide sales tax may need to be reconsidered
as more service responsibilities shift to the City.
Development Rights/Zoning
Development rights associated with a property in Pitkin County verses those if the property
is annexed into the City of Aspen should be considered. Annexations are typically
associated with a proposal to further deyelop the property. Traditionally, the City weighs an
increase in development rights in relation to accQrnplishment towards community goals
available through annexation.
A complete understanding of a property's development potential, prior to annexation, should
include a zoning build-out analysis which considers regulatory limitations, such as growth
management and impact fees, and regulatory incentives, such as the use of Transferable
Development Rights. The public policy of such regulations and the impact of changing the
regulatory structure upon the City and the County should be considered.
Zoning of newly annexed land should approximate development rights prior to annexation,
unless a site specific development plan is approved concurrent with annexation. The
creation of non-conformities shoulgp~,~yqi2~2,~ltho~gh custom legislation to address
special interests can further complicate the City's regulatory environment.
The City should encourage the legalization of "bandit units" through the City's Accessory .
Dwelling Unit provisions to ensure compliance with the health and safety standards of the
Uniform Building Code. These units should be expected in older subdivisions surrounding
Aspen.
Pitkin County Transferable Devel9pment Rights
Certain lands in the County within the City's annexation area are eligible for increased
development rights through the extinguishments of a tral1sferabl,e, cievelopment right (TDR).
Certain site specific approvals granted in Pitkin County may involve or require the use of
TDRs. And, certain development may have already occurred by use of these TDRs
necessitating acknowledgement of the re~li4eci,il1grElC3sEld dElyelopment right.
Until the City adopts a program for accepting Pitkin County Transferable development
Rights, each individualannexatigl1 rElquest should include an analysis of TDR contingent
land use scenarios and, if necessary, an agreement should be reached describing the future
use of Pitkin County TDRs within the newly annexed area.
Usefulness and appropriateness of each jurisdiction's regulations
As Aspen City limits expand beyond the original townsite, the effects of environmental
constraints and hazards on development increase. Pitkin County's 1041 regulations address
development on steep slopes, in wildfire hazard, areas, in rockfall and avalanche hazard
areas, and within wildlife corridors. The, City's Environmentally Sensitive Area review
standards address flood hazard arElas and, deYElJgpment above the 8040-foot elevation.
The County's regulations primarily attempt to minimize land use intel1sity and minimize the
infrastructure ;and operational effects of deyelopment. The City's land use code, encourages
the intense use of land and addresses urban development issues, such as architectural
City of Aspen Annexation Plan - 7.16.02 DRAFT -Page 11
~
character. In transitic)n areas, the City's PUD regulations could be used. to establish an
appropriate balance. .
Design standards for public improvements also reflect the rural and l.Irbafl aspect of each
jurisdiction. The appropriatenes$ of each jurisdiction's development regulations and design
standards shol.lld b~.. c;()n~icjerecjil1 e?C.b?I1I1~)(~tion. Th~acceptance of substandard public
improvements and potential public costs of upgrading those facilities should also be
considered. The City may require certain facilities be upgraded prior to annexation.
Alternatively, the City may require a cash payment to accommodate expected City capital
improvement and operational expenses.
The City currently has no experience admini$tering jurisdiction over rem()te backcoul1try and
Forest Service lands. The public costs of annexing remote lands should be considered in
relation to the public goals of such an aGtion.
Aspen recently adopted the Ski Area. B.~$e (SKI) Zone District to administer proper
development at the base of ski areas. Thez()ning provides for a mixture of skiing,
recreational, commercial, and tourist-oriented uses and requires adoption of a Planned Unit
Development. This zoning was applied to Aspen Highlands Base Village and may be
appropriate for the Buttermilk SkiArEla 9?$e, upon annexation.
Infrastructure and Ability to Serve
Annexation reviews typically focus a great deal of fiscal analysis on the potential extension
of urban services to annexed territorie.s. C()st,. capacity, and.. engil1eering . issues related
extension of the City's municipal water system to developing land on the urban fringe is a
significant annexation issue.
Currently, there are several small.,^,ater .di.stricts serving residences located outside the
City's boundaries but within the servicearEl?<:)ftheyva~~r system. These small districts may
present a problem for the City following annexation as their capital facilities may not be
providing acceptable standards of servic;e,. Upgrading is expensive, and may become the
responsibility of the City following annexation.
The County does not currently require new periphery development to join the City's
municipal water system. However, these county development proposals are required to be
reviewed by the City Council and found incompliance with the AACP inord~r to obtain Qity
water service. In orderto obtain City water service, the City often requires compliance with
City development regulations. Property owners devel9ping a property eligible for
annexation should consult the City's Community Development Department and consider
annexation.
Simplicity of City Boundary
The City/County boundary has created confu~ion for citizel1s. ancj st?ff responsible for
enforcing policy. A complex boundary can complicate emergency service provision and, in
extreme cases, defeat efforts of City police officers. Annexations which simplify the
boundary should be enGouraged while those further complicating the division should be
avoided.
",--,_~j-.',,'~?:fj:~,:,:';,'CY-"'"
City of Aspen Annexation Plan - 7.16.02 DRAFT - Page 12
"""'-
'1'" ',':.:,
Attachments:
MapA
MapB
Reference:
The 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan may be obtained from the Aspen/Pitkin Community
Development Office, City Hall, Aspen
City of Aspen Annexation Plan - 7.16.02 DRAFT - Page 13
~. =~'"'
. .'. '. . ,,,"l'~;,..~1~
'.~ ' ,
"'"
~
{}
~
;,,~~
,-
I
j
~-';
~
~jl
~I
UI
$
z
<(
.J
C.
>-
t:
z
:J
I
I
o
(J
<(
W
0::
<{
Z
W
a..
[/)
<{
II
..
i
&
E
o
o
II
.
::)
"
c
S
E'
.,,{'off'
, .!~\
I
<v~
. C> v
C>
~~ '~
.,
GI
I.
::I
..
::I
\I,
.
C
~
Ii
Q.
II
I
,
~
Q
I./.J
~
..
,
.
~ . .~/--~
, ..~(\,~.~------ -- .
", ,. -'-~-"'"
'--.../ '-'-,
~,--",-"
~- ' \
"
I, .
1\
1\
-"
.\
._~,~
"-i'\'f~:l:'~\' '........'....,'-
.,
f !
h :Z.'1 :1
U fj !~
OJ: ~ Ii
H ! - ~i
~~ € ~ h
q s ~ ~ Ii ~
~" '" 0 :!l~-
!!!; j i ~ ~;
I-;r ~ 1 ~ j~ BW,2
@-;\\,I'
...,
\
)
!
~
8
.
~
~ ~ ..
~~ ,'l [8 !
~~ :U)~ i
" ~;:!l ~1'OiI a-
I: ~~ ~ ~~~~i~.~
Q) ~h'~!in!;r
f ~I"\;; -' Bt~IQ. !~I:l; ~i~'
_ ~ ;,;:~! ~~&ti (:~'" ~~~li;
.4'
/-'
~ //
~ /'~"------~-<:-//
...J. : .-------..
~ ............-. -
i,';, /f\L.~ "'-~~............. ~
<;.:.
c~~~
.<.~..j'~'.. ........
' ,'~ :-" ~ ' .:'
~I ':y
~~I ":
i5
.~,IJ
l
~ ~
/~ ."t-'
.& o~~
~
Z
<l:
.J
a.
>-
!:
z
::J
:I
:I
o
(J
<l:
w
0::
<(
Z
W
a.
rn
<(
lit
C
'i
..
i
c:
o
(,)
'i
o
;;
,..
f
"
c:
III
lit
.
";:
III
"
c:
::a
o
lD
4
A.
III
=:
".l'
~ )~~
~ 111 Z...- ,
Iii "0
Q) c: c
... ]! :J
(!) 0 <Il
~ a. m c
. "8 ~ :::J "0 -g ~
~ 0 g ~ 'I
u:: - 0
. 0 la (!) <Il 'e a:: a:: ~ I
C') ::E ::J ... ... I
III <Il fa 0 <Il I
<Il :>. ~ ~ 'ar ..c
~ a. 0 .0 (5
0 :5 ~ u ::E I
C 0
en .... \\
GI I .....\ ~
1:1I
.! '-
r
""
~
1 \\1
f ~!
i'
Ii
i
f
:1
II
I,
I ~
31-12-102
Government - Municipal
Law reviews. For article, "Annexation in Col-
orado", see 37 Dicta 259 (1960). For article,
"Annexation: Today's Gamble for Tomorrow's
Gain-Parts I and II", see 17 Colo. Law. 603 and
809 (1988). For article, "Annexation: Municipal
Discretion in Approving or Denying the Peti-
tion", see 22 Colo. Law. 1929 (1993).
Annotator's note. Since ~ 31-12-101 is similar
to former ~ 31-8-101 prior to the 1975 repeal and
reenactment of this title, and laws antecedent
thereto, relevant cases construing those provi-
sions have been included in the annotations to
this section.
Part 1 of this article is constitutional. Board of
County Comm'rs v. City & County of Denver,
194 Colo. 252, 571 P.2d 1094 (1977).
This article deals with the subject of annexa-
tion of territory. City of Englewood v. Daily, 158
Colo. 356,407 P.2d 325 (1965).
Annexation is a special statutory proceeding
and ~ 1 of art. XX, Colo. Const., requires com.
pliance with such procedures by the city and
county of Denver. People ex reL City & County
of Denver v. County Court, 137 Colo. 436, 326
P.2d 372 (1958).
Detaches territory from county. The provi-
sions of this article make it clear that any annex-
ation under any of the general laws of this state
operates per .se as a detachment of the annexed
territory from the county in which it lies. People
ex reI. Simon v. Anderson, 112 Colo. 558, 151
P.2d 972 (1944).
And becomes part of city. If land has been
lawfully annexed it would ipso facto become a
part of the city annexing for all authorized pur-
poses. People ex reL City & County of Denver v.
County Court, 137 Colo. 436, 326 P.2d ~72
(1958).
rj1~i;'~i;~;:iii~~~'d:d:~i;~:~.h). ........111egene;alasseI11blYl1ereby..decIares..thatthe
~olicies and procedures in this part 1 are necessary and desirable for the orderly growth of
urban communities in the state of Colorado, and to these ends this part 1 shall be liberally
construed. The general assembly further declares that it is the purpose of this part 1:
(a) To encourage natural and well-ordered development of municipalities of the state;
(b) To distribute fairly and equitably the costs of municipal services among those per-
sons who benefit therefrom;
(c) To extend municipal government, services, and facilities to eligible areas which
form a part of the whole community;
(d) To simplify governmental structure in urban areas;
(e) To provide an orderly system for extending municipal regulations to newly annexed
areas;
(f) To reduce friction among contiguous or neighboring municipalities; and
(g) To increase the ability of municipalities in urban areas to provide their citizens with
the services they require.
!:i
Present annexation law applicable. After
Denver was organized under the twentieth arti-
cle of the constitution and became a charter city,
its authority to annex territory had to be deter-
mined under the present applicable law rather
than that under which it was originally orga-
nized. People ex reI. Simon v. Anderson, 112
Colo. 558, 151 P.2d 972 (1944).
Election code applicable. It is the legislative
intent that the term "special municipal elec-
. tions"as contained in the municipal election
code, extends to annexation elections. City of
Aspen v. Howell, 170. Colo. 82, 459 P..2d 764
(1969).
Part 1 is silent on power of municipality to
repeal annexation ordinance. McKee v. City of
Louisville, 200 Cola". 525, 616 P.2d 969 (1980).
Pre annexation agreements. not prohibited.
There is no language in this article which pro-
hibits a preannexation agreement which
requests a certain zoning classification. Geralnes
B. V. v. City of Greenwood Village, 583 E Supp.
830 (D. Colo. 1984).
Annexation authority under this article does
not extend to Denver. Board of County Com-
m'rs v. Denver, 714 P.2d 1352 (Colo. App. 1986).
Act contemplates annexation agreements as a
routine step in the annexation process.
Alth(lUgh annexation agreement is not required
for a valid annexation, where parties had con-
templated execution of an annexation agree-
ment throughout the p.rocess, adoption of
annexation resolution without having an agree-
ment in place was an abuse of discretion. Midci-
ties Co. v. Town of Superior, 916 P.2d 595 (Colo.
App. 1995), aff'd, 933 P.2d 596 (Colo. 1997).
Source: L. 75: Entire title R&RE, p.l076, ~ 1, effective July 1.
'I'I!
I:
;
~ I
Annotator's note. Since ~ 31-12-102 is similar
to former ~ 31-8-102 prior to the 1975 repeal and
reenactment of this title, and laws antecedent
thereto, relevant cases construing those provi-
sions have been included in the annotations to
this section.
Policy. Policy of the enactment. is to encour-
age natural and well-ordered development of .
municipalities, not to discourage it by providing
for last minute maneuvers designed only to
defeat annexation. Pomponio v. City of West-
minster, 178 Colo. 80, 496 P.2d 999 (1972).
670
671
Organization of encla~
into separate political uui
objectives of section. This
results in a duplication of
frustrates area-wide coord
ty of regulations, complica
ture, often circumvents Ie
troIs, frequently leads to ar
31. U-103. DefiuitiOl
(1) "Adult" means a
(2) "Agriculturallar
grazing of farm animals.
development. .
(3) "Development st
ord~nances, housing cod
ordmance, code, orregu
land or the preparation (
(4) "Enclave" mean
outer boundaries of the 1
(5) "Identical owner
degree of interest in eact
((j) ~'Landowner" me
land. If the mineral estatl
. vided interest in the surf,
mineral estate.
(7) "NonresidenUan<
to be annexed who is no.
attested to by sworn affid
(8) "Period of notice j
olution establishing the he
(9) "Qualified elector'
,title, who is a resident Ian
. (10) "Quasi-municipa
powers for the accomplish
,domestic water districts, m
tricts, fire protectii)n distri
(11) "Resident" mean~
posed to be annexed.
, (12) "Taxpayer" mea!
... taxes on real property Ioc,
od of time.
. (1~) . "U~6an developm
dentIal, mstItutional, comrr
.ational and similar uses in
'gra.zing of farm animal~, a
.~ground which has been or i
,vision into lots or plots an
, access streets, and construe
.:{: Source: L. 75: Entire title
i; j'\.nnotator's note. Since ~ 31
tpformer ~ 31-8-103 prior to th
eenactment of this title, and
~eteto, relevant cases constn
Ions have been included in th
his section.
. Status prerequisites for part
ents of ownership in fee and
;taxes are both prerequisites fO!
31-12-104
Government - Municipal
affixed his name to the petition, and since the
owners of more than 50 percent of the area pro-
posed to be annexed had not joined in seeking
the annexation, the ordinance of the city council,
purporting to annex the acres included in the
petition is void. Elkins v. & County of Den-
ver, 157 Colo.
The streets and public ways in an area were
not to be included in calculating the area to be
annexed. City & County of Denver v. Holmes,
156 Colo. 586, 400 P.2d 901 (1965).
Applied in Board of County Comm'rs v. City
& County of Denver, 193 Colo. 325, 566 P.2d 335
(1977).
~
31-12-104. . Eligibility for.annexation~(l) An area is eligible for annexation if the gov-
erning body, at a hearing as provided in section 31-12-109, finds and determines:
(a) That not less than one-sixth of the perimeter of the area proposed to be annexed is
contiguous with the annexing municipality. Contiguity shall not be affected by the existence
of a platted street or alley, a public or private right-of-way, a public or private transporta-
tion right-of-way or area, public lands, whether owned by the state, the United States, or an
agency thereof, except county-owned open space, or a lake, reservoir, stream, or other nat-
ural or artificial waterway between the annexing municipality and the land proposed to be
annexed. Subject to the requirements imposed by section 31-12-105 (1) (e), contiguity may
be established by the annexation of one or more parcels in a series, which annexations may
be completed simultaneously and considered together for the purposes of the public hear-
ing required by sections 31-12-108 and 31-12-109 and the annexation impact report
required by section 31-12-108.5.
(b) That a community of interest exists between the area proposed to be annexed and
the annexing municipality; that said area is urban or will be urbanized in the near future;
and that said area is integrated with or is capable of being integrated with the annexing
municipality. The fact that the area proposed to be annexed has the contiguity with the
annexing municipality required by paragraph (a) of this subsection (1) 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 provided for in section 31-12-109, finds that at
least two of the following are shown to exist:
(I) 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 shall not apply.
(II) One-half or more of the land in the area proposed to be armexed (including streets)
is agricultural, and the landowners of such agricultural land, under oath, express an inten-
tion to devote the land to such agricultural use for aperiod of not less than five years.
(III) It is not physically practieable to extend to the area proposed to be annexed those
urban services which the annexing municipality provides in common to all of 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. .
(2) (a) The contiguity required by paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section may
not be established by use of any boundary of an area which was previously annexed to the
annexing municipality if the area, at the time of its annexation, was not contiguous at any
point with the boundary of the. annexing municipality, was not otherwise in compliance
with paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section, and was located more than three miles
from thenearest boundary of the annexing rtlUnicipality, nor may such contiguity be estab-
lished by use of any boundary of territory which is subsequently annexed directly to, or
which is indirectly connected through subsequent annexations to, such an area.
(b) Because the creation or expansion of disconnected municipal satellites, which are
sought to be prohibited by this subsection (2), violates both the purposes of this article as
expressed in section 31-12-102 and the limitations of this article, any annexation which uses
any boundary in violation of this subsection (2) may be declared by a court of competent
jurisdiction to be void ab initio in addition to other remedies which may be provided. The
provisions of section 31~12-116 (2) and (4) and section 31-12-117 shall not apply to such an
annexation.. Judicial review of such an annexation may be sought by any municipality hav-
ing a plan in place pursuant to section 31-12-105 (1) (e) directly affected by such annexa-
tion, in addition to those described in section 31-12-116 (1). Such review may be, but need
672
ic ways in an area were
Ilculating the area to be
y of Denver v. Holmes,
lOI (1965).
=ounty Comm'rs v. City
3 Colo. 325, 566 P.2d 335
mnexation if the gov-
letermines:
)sed to be annexed is
:cted by the existence
Ir private transporta-
: United States, or an
stream, or other nat-
land proposed to be
) (e), contiguity may
ich annexations may
:s of the public hear-
ltion impact report
j to be annexed and
:I in the :t1ear future;
:I with tfie annexing
contiguity witb the
shall be a basis for a
jy, upon the basis of
.12-109, finds that at
)sed to be annexed
exing municipality:
ss than twenty-five
unicipality. If there
apply.
i (including streets)
1, express an inten-
han five years.
J be annexed those
all of its citizens on
such citizens. This
)sed to be annexed
I any service by or
)f this section may
sly annexed to the
contiguous at any
rise in compliance
'e than three miles
)ntiguity be estab-
ICed directly to, or
rr area.
tellites, which are
:s of this article as
,xation which uses
)tirt of competent
be provided. The
t apply to such an
municipality hav-
I by such annexa-
may be, but need
673
1"""\
Annexation - Consolidation - Disconnection
31-12-104
not be, instituted prior to the effective date of the annexing ordinance and may include
injunctive relief. Such review shall be brought no later than sixty days after the effective
date of the annexing ordinance or shall forever be barred.
(c) Contiguity is hereby declared to be a fundamental element in any annexation, and
this subsection (2) shall not in any way be construed as having the effect of legitimizing in
'any way any noncontiguous annexation.
Source: L. 75: Entire title R&RE, p. 1078, ~ 1, effective July 1. L. 87: (l)(a) amended, p.
May 2K L. 91: (2) added, p. 763, ~ 1, effective May 15.
Cross references: For annexation of unincorporated areas, see ~ 30 of article II of the Colorado
Constitution.
Am. Jur.2d. See 56 Am. Jur.2d, Municipal
Corporations, Etc.,~ ~ 55,56.
C.J.S; See 62 c.J.S., Municipal Corporations,
~ ~ 48-51.
Annotator's note. Since ~ 31-12-104 is similar
to former ~ 31-8-104 prior to the 1975 repeal and
reenactment of this title, and laws antecedent
thereto, relevant cases construing those provi-
sions have been included in the annotations to
this section.
The annexation statutes are more than mere
formalities. Johnston v. City Council, 189 Colo.
345, 540 P.2d 1081 (1975).
Contiguity required. Territory is eligible for
annexation if a percentage of its boundaries are
contiguous with those of a city. City of Littleton
v. Wagenblast, 139 Colo. 346, 338 P.2d 1025
(1959).
Specific findings required for proposed area
for annexation. In a unilateral annexation pur-
suant to section 31-12-106 (2), the legislative
body with annexing authority must make specif-
ic findings at a hearing that the proposed .area to
be annexed has had the requisite boundary con-
tiguity for the requisite period of time before
such an area is eligible for annexation by the
governing body. Cesario v. City of Colorado
Springs, 200 Colo. 459, 616 P.2d 113 (1980).
A resolution of the absolute factual existence
of the. one-sixth contiguity requirement is
mandatory. Johnston v. City Council, 177 Colo.
223,493 P.2d 651 (1972).
The size and. shape of a parcel to be annexed
is. immaterial and is conclusively a legislative
problem. Board of County Comm'rs v. City &
County of Denver, 37 Colo. App. 395, 548 P.2d
922 (1976).
But courts will not read into the annexation
statutes limitations relating to unusual or irregu-
lar shapes or patterns of territory annexed.
Board of County Comm'rs v. City & County of
Denver, 37 Colo. App. 395, 548 P.2d922 (1976).
Where the property annexed includes public
streets, the court may include the perimeter of
the streets in calculating whether one-sixth of
the perimeter of the annexed property is con-
tiguous to the annexing municipality. The one-
sixth requirement is in no way altered by ~ 31-
12-105 (1)(e). Board of County Comm'rs v. City
of Lakewood, 813 P.2d 793 (Colo. App. 1991).
It is not permissible to include and use a coun.
ty street as the "pole" in order to meet the sub-
section (1) contiguity requirement, but to ignore
the county ownership of the street for purposes
of meeting the ~ 31-8-106(3) sole ownership
requirement in a city annexation ordinance.
Board of County Comm'rs v. City & County of
Denver, 190 Colo. 8, 543 P.2d 521 (1975).
But a public way or a portion of a public way
can be utilized as a noncontiguous boundary of
the annexed territory, since the statute contains
no such restriction. Board of County Comm'rs v.
City & County of Denver, 37 Colo. App. 395,
548 P.2d 922 (1976).
Legal description held to be in substantial
complhlnce with the requirements of this sec-
tion. Slack v. City of Colorado Springs, 655 P.2d
376 (Colo. 1982).
Effect of ditch. The statutory requirement of
contiguity is satisfied where part of the area to
be annexed is bounded by a ditch, the east side
of which is contiguous to the city. Rice v. City of
Englewood, 147 Colo. 33, 362 P.2d 557 (1961).
Contiguity basis for finding of community of
interest. With respect to the matters of commu-
nity of interest, that the territory is urban or will
be urbanized in the near future, and that the ter-
ritory is integrated or capable of being integrat-
ed into the city, subsection (I)(a) of this section
provides that the fact that the territory has the
contiguity with the annexing municipality
required by this articleshall be a basis for a find-
ing of compliance, and where there was a requi-
site continuity, the court erred in its criticism of
the findings of the city council. Breternitz v. City
of Arvada, 174 Colo. 56,482 P.2d 955 (1971).
. Contiguity requirement not met where feder-
alland intervened between town and the pro-
posed annexation and consent was not obtained
from federal agency to divide that tract from the
rest of the federal lands. Caroselli v. Town of
Vail, 706 P.2d 1 (Colo. App. 1985).
Subsection (1)(a) is not ambiguous; therefore
the court will not consider the legislative history
of the section to aid in construction. Board of
County Comm'rs v. City of Lakewood, 813 P.2d
793 (Colo. App. 1991).
Municipality lacked standing to contest
annexation because it did not bave a plan in
place for the area annexed; Town of Berthoud v.
Town of Johnstown, 983 P.2d 174 (Colo. 1999).
31-12-105
GoverIlment - Municipal
674
31.12.105. Limi(a(ioIls.(l) Notwithstanding any provisions of this part 1 to the Con-
trary, the following limitations shall apply to all annexations:
(a) In establishing the boundaries of any territory to be annexed, no land held in iden-
tical ownership, whether consisting of one tract or parcel of real.estate or two or more con-
tiguous tracts or parcels of real estate, shall be divided into separate parts or parcels with-
out the written consent of the landowners thereof unless such tracts or parcels are
separated by a dedicated street, road, or other public way.
(b) In establishing the boundaries of any area proposed to be annexed, no land held in
identical ownership, whether consisting of one tract or parcel of real estate or two or more
contiguous tracts or parcels of real estate, comprising twenty acres or more (which, togeth-
er with the buildings and improvements situated thereon has a valuation for assessment in
excess of two hundred thousand dollars for ad valorem tax purposes for the year next pre-
ceding the annexation) shall be included under this part 1 without the written-consent of the
landowners unless such tract of land is situated entirely within the outer boundaries of fhe
annexing municipality as they exist at the time of annexation. In the application of this para-
graph (b), contiguity shall not be affected by a dedicated street, road, or other public way.
(c) No annexation pursuant to section 31-12-106 and no annexation petition or petition
for an annexation election pursuant to section 31-12-107 shall be valid when annexation
proceedings have been commenced for the anne;<ation of part or all of such territory to
another municipality, except in accordance with the provisions of section 31-12-114. For the
purpose of this section, proceedings are commenced when the petition is filed with the clerk
of the annexing municipality or when the resolution of intent is adopted by the governing
body of the annexing municipality if action on the acceptance of such petition or on the
resolution of intent by the setting of the hearing in accordance with section 31-12-108 is
taken within ninety days after the said filings if an annexation procedure initiated by peti-
tion for annexation is then completed within the on~undred fifty days next following the
effective date of the resolution accepting the petition and setting the hearing date and if an
apnexation procedure initiated by resolution of intent or by petition for an annexation elec-
tion is prosecuted without unreasonable delay after the effective date of the "resolution set-
ting the hearing date. ,
(d) As to any annexation 'l'(hich will result in the deta~hment of area from any school
district and the attachment of the same to another school district, no annexation pursuant
to section 31-12-106 or annexation petition or petition for an annexation election pursuant
to section 31-12-107 is valid unless accompanied bya resolution of the board of directors of
the school district to which such area will be attached approving such annexation.
(e) Exceptas otherwise provided in this paragraph (e), no annexation may take place
which would have the effect of extending a municipal boundary more than three miles in
<:,-ny direction from any point of such municipal boundary in anyone year. Within said
-three-mile area, the contiguity required by section31-12-104 (1) (a) maybe achieved by
annexing a platted street or alley, a public or private .right-of-way, a public or private trans-
portation right-of-way or area, or a lake, reservoir, stream, or other natural or artificial
waterway. Prior to completion of any annexation within the tl1feecmile area, the municipal-
ity shall have in place a plan for that area, which generally describes the proposed location,
character, and extent of streets, subways, bridges, waterways, waterfronts, parkways, play-
grounds, squares, parks, aviation fields, other public ways, grounds, open spaces, public
utilities, and terminals for water, light, saIlitation, trampottation, and power tOQe provided
by the municipality and the proposed land uses for the area. Such plan shall be updated at
least once annually. Slwh three-mile limit may be exceeded if such limit would have the
effect of dividing a parcel of property held in identical ownership if at least fifty percent of
the property is within the three-mile limit. In such event, the entire property held in identi-
cal ownership may be annexed in anyone year without regard to such mileage limitation.
Such three-mile limit may also be exceeded for the annexation of an enterprise zone.
(f) In establishing the boundaries of any area proposed to be annexed, if a portion of a
platted street or alley is annexed, the entire width of said street or alley shall be included
within the area annexed.
(g) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (f) of this subsection (1), a municipal-
ity shall not deny reasonable access to landowners, owner of an easement, orthe owner of
a franchise adjoining aplatted street or alley which has been annexed by the municipality
but is not bounded on both sides bY the municipality.
'isions of this part 1 to the con-
s:
annexed, no land held in iden-
real estate or twoor more con~
separate parts or parcels with-
~ss such tracts or parcels are
to be annexed, no land held in
el of real estate or two or more
y acres or more (which, togeth-
IS a valuation for assessment in
purposes for the year next pre-
thout the written consent of the
lin the outer boundaries of the
. In the application of this para-
eet, road, or other public wav.
annexation petition or petition
hall be valid when annexation
part or ,ry!l of such territory to
ns of sectIOn 31-12-114. For the
e petition is filed with the clerk
nt is adopted by the governing
nee of such petition or on the
ance with section 31-12-108 is
)n procedure initiated by peti-
~d fifty days next following the
tting the hearing date and if an
letition for an annexation elec-
:tive date of the resolution set-
lment of area from any school
strict, no annexation pursuant
1 annexation election pursuant
on of the board of directors of
"ing such annexation.
no annexation may take place
dary more than three miles in
in anyone year. Within said
14 (1) (a) may be achieved by
.way, a public or private trans-
, or other natural or artificial
hre~-mile area, the municipal-
scnbes the proposed location,
, waterfronts, parkways, play-
.grounds, open spaces, public
lon, and power to be provided
Such plan shall be updated at
if such limit would have the
'ship if at least fifty percent of
entire property held in identi-
rd to such mileage limitation.
m of an enterprise zone.
) be annexed, if a portion of a
'eet or alley shall be included
.s subsection (1), a municipal-
an easement, orthe owner of
annexed by the municipality
~
674
675
Annexation - Consolidation - Disconnection
31-12-105
(h) The execution by any municipality of a power of attorney for real estate located
within an unincorporated area shall not be construed to comply with the election provisions
of this article for purposes of annexing s,-!-ch unincorporated area. Such annexation shall be
valid only upon compliance with the procedures set forth in this article.
Source: L. 75: Entire title. R&RE, p. 1078, ~ 1, effective July 1. L. 87: (1)( e) to (l)(g)
added, p. 1218, ~ 2, effective May 28. L. 96: (l)(h) added, p. 1770, .~ 69, effective July 1.
L. 97: (l)(c) and (1)(d)amended, p. 994, ~ 1, effective May 27. .
1. General Consideration. alley and an existing boundary of the annexing
II. Land Not to be Divided. municipality may be used to achieve the conti-
III. Land Comprising 20 Acres or More. guityrequirerrients of S 31-12-104 (1)(a): Board
IV: Annexation of School District's Land. of County Comm'rs v. City of Lakewood,813
P.2d 793 (Colo. App. 1991).
I. GENERAL CONSIDERATION.
C.J.S. See 62 c.J.S., Municipal Corporations,
ss48-51.
Law reviews. For article, "Annexation:
Today's Gamble for Tomorrow's Gain-Parts I
and II", see 17 Colo. Law. 603(1988). For arti-
cle, "ADR Techniques in Municipal Annexa-
tions", see 18 Colo. Law. 901 (1989).
Annotator's note. Since * 31-12-105 is similar
to former S 31-8-105 prior to the 1975 repeal and
reenactment of this title, and laws antecedent
thereto, relevant cases construing those provi-
sions have been included in the annotations to
this section. .
A statute is presumed to be constitutional,
and to be declared unconstitutional it must be
shown clearly to be so. Breternitz v. City of
Arvada, 174 Colo. 56,482 P.2d955 (1971).
Courts. will I)ot read into almexation statutes
limitations relating to un~sual or irregular
shapes or patterns of territory annexed. Board
of County Comrri'rs v. City & County of Denver,
37 Colo. App. 395, 548 P.2d 922 (1976).
Streets, etc., annexed in order to include terri-
tory. There is no legislative intent that a munici-
pality may annex streets, roads, or highways
only when it is nece~sary to do so to include ter-
ritory otherwise eligible for annexation but sep-
arated from the annexing municipality by a pub-
lic right-of-way. Board of County Comm'rs v.
City & County of Denver, 37 Colo. App. 395,
548 P.2d 922 (1976). .. ..
A public wily or a portion of a public way can
be utilized as a noncontiguous boundary of the
annexed territory, since .the statute contains no
such r.estriction. Board of County Comm'rs. v.
City & County of Denver, 37 Colo. App. 395,
.548 P.2d 922 (1976).
Legal description held to be in substantial
compliance with the requirements of this sec-
tion. Slack v. City of Colorado Springs, 655 P.2d
376 (Colo. 1982).
Subsection (l)(e) is not ambiguous; therefore
the court will not consider the legislative history
in construing the statute. Board of County Com-
m'rs v. City of Lakewood, 813 P.2d 793 (Colo.
App.1991).
Subsection (l)(e) in no way alters the contigu-
ity requirements of * 31-U-104 (l)(a); it merely
provides that contact between a street or an
II. LAND NOT TO BE DIVIDED.
Written consent prerequisite to :mnexation of
divided parcel. This section makes it very clear
that no territory owned by the same owner shall
be divided into separate parts or parcels without
the written consent of the owner thereo['City &
County of Denver v. Board of County Comm'rs,
151 Colo. 230, 376 P.2d 981 (1962).
Division of tract from rest of federal land
requires consent of the United States. as owner.
Caroselli v. Town of Vail, 706 P.2d 1 (Colo. App.
1985). .
Annexation did not effect a separation.
Where the owners of a tract own all of a half-
section, a railroad track passed diagonally
through the northeast corner of this half-section,
it waS apparent that the triangular piece of land
lying north and east of the track was physically
separated from the larger parcel, and this'piece
was not included in the area proposed ot be
annexed, assuming that this. was a right-oi-way
grant to a railroad by.the congress and therefore
it was not a.mere easement but a limited fee
with right of exclusive use and possession, as a
result; the triangular tract was' effectively sepa-
rated by the congressional grant and the annex-
ation did not "separate" the half-section within
the meaning of subsection (1)(a) of this section.
Breternitz v. City of Arvada;'174 Colo. 56, 482
P.2d 955 (1971).
III. LAND COMPRISING 20 ACRES OR
MORE.
The policy of this enactment is to encourage
natural and well-ordered development of munic-
ipalities, not to discourage it by providing for
last minute maneuvers designed only to defeat
annexation. Pomponio v. City of Westminster,
178 Colo. 80,496 P.2d 999 (1972).
Written consent required. Land held in identi-
cal ownership in excess of 20 acres which,
together with improvements thereon, has an
assessed value in excess of $200,000 for the year
next preceding the annexation shall not be
included in a unilateral annexation without the
written consent of the. owner or owners. Pom-
ponio v. City of Westminster, 178 Colo. 80, 496
P.2d 999 (1972).
.ve provided an exception to that
rd of County Comm'rs v. City &
Denver, 190 Colo. 8, 543 P.2d 521
lation of sole ownership involving
lly contiguous point. Even though
; not affe<;:ted by the existence of a
etermination of sole ownership for
mnexation under ~ 31-12-106 (3) is
a street owned by an entity other
nexing authority where that street
the only contiguous land. Board of
nm'rs v. City & County of Denver
543 P.2d 521 (1975). '
nents for determining boundary
:ontined to area's perimeter. The
Its for d~termining boundary conti-
subsectIon (2) of this section must
solely to the perimeter of the area
be anne:x:~d. Cesario v. City of Col-
IgS, 200 "Colo. 459, 616 P.2d 113
Iy owns 50-foot strip in land to be
.nce the city council must decide
lexation will be approved under ~
)(g) where owners of 100 percent of
Je annexed had signed the petition,
would be served by requiring the
,r of a 50-foot contiguous strip in the
nnexed, to sign a petition addressed
ewise,.to require that since the city
ed the petition, it must first annex
strip pursuant to subsection (3) of
would be to' establish a procedure
,t comport with the legislative man-
: purpose of the act is to provide for
y growth of urban communities".
lUnty Comm'rs v. City & County of
:::010. App. 171,556 P.2d 486 (1976)
>10. 252, 571 P.2d 1094 (1977). '
wned street may be used as "pole".
nissible to include and use a county
"pole" in order to meet the section
1) contiguity requirement, but to
;ounty ownership of the street for
, meeting the subsection (3) sole
requirement in a city annexation
loard of County Comm'rs v. City &
)enver, 190 Colo. 8, 543 P.2d 521
lintitTs fail to go forward to demon-
lficiency in boundaries to defeat the
:quirement,findings of ultimate fact
!a.lly in the language of the statute
IClent when based on evidence not
controverted by other evidence in
~dams v. City of Colorado Springs,
1,496 P.2d 1005 (1972).
1 McArthur v. Zabka, 177 Colo. 337,
(1972); Slack v. City of Colorado
P.2d 376 (Colo. 1982). .
on elections. (1) Petition for
~
679
.t11 --\'Z- lOr
~ttt~ srw A~V\t!~.:~
Ovv"~A (]V A0'^ .eJedl .~
Annexation - C'onsolidatiQn - Disconnection
31-12-107
(a) The landowners of more than fifty percent of the area, excluding public streets and
alleys, meeting the requirements of sections 31-12-104.and 31-12-105 may petition the'gov-
erning body of any municipality for the annexation of such territory.
(b) The petition shall be filed with the clerk.
(c) The petition shall contain the following:
(I) An allegation that it is desirable and necessary that such area be annexed to the
municipality;
(II) An allegation that the requirements of sections 31-12-104 and 31-12-105 exist or
have been met;
(III) An allegation that the .signers of the petition comprise the landowners of more
than fifty percent of the territory included in the area proposed to be annexed, exclus~:ve of
streets and alleys;
(IV) A request thatthe annexing municipality approve the annexation of the area pro-
posed to be annexed;
(V) The signatures of such landowners;
(VI) The mailing address of each such signer;
(VII) The legal description of the land owned by such signer;
(VIII) The date of signing of each signature; and
(IX) The affidavit of each circulator of such petition, whether consisting of one or
more sheets, that each signature therein is the signature of the person whose name it pur-
ports to be. .
(d) Accompanying the petition shall be four copies of an annexation map containing
the following information: .
(1) A written legal description of the boundaries of the area proposed to be annexed;
(II) A map showing the boundary of the area proposed to be annexed;
(III) Within the annexation boundary map, a showing oUhe location of each ownership
tract in unplatted land and, if part or all of the area is platted, the boundaries and the plat
numbers of plots or of IC?ts and blocks;
(IV) Next to the boundary of the area proposed to be annexed, a drawing of the con- .
tiguous boundary of the annexing municipality and the contiguous boundary of any other
municipality abutting the area proposed to be annexed.
(e) No signature on the petition is valid if it is dated more than one hundred eighty days
prior to the date of filing the petition for annexation with the clerk. All petitions which sub-
stantially comply with the requirements set forth in paragraphs (b) to (d) of this subsection
(1) shall be deemed sufficient. No person signing a petition. for annexation shall be permit-
ted to withdraw his signature from the petition after the petition has been filed with the
clerk, except as such right of withdrawal is otherwise set forth in the petition. .
(f) The clerk shall' refer the petition to the governing body asa communication. The
governing body, without undue delay, shall then take appropriate steps to determine ifthe
petition so filed is substantially in compliance with. this subsection (1). .
(g) If the petition is found to be in substantial compliance with this subsection (1), the
procedure outlined in sections 31-12-108 to 31-12-110 shall then be followed. If it is not in
substantial compliance, no further action shall be taken; except that the governing body
shall make such determination by a resolution and except that when. the petition is signed
by the owners of one hundred percent of the area proposed to b.e annexed, exclusive of
streets and alleys, the governing body may by ordinance annex such area to the municipal-
ity without election, as provided in section 31-12-111, unless additional terms and condi-
tions are to be imposed. The ordinance annexing such area shall include a statement that
the owners of one hundred percent of the area have petitioned for such annexation. .
(2) Petition for annexation election:
(a) The qualified electors may petition the governing body of any municipality to com-
mence proceedings for the holding of an annexation election in the area proposed to be
annexed. This petition shall meet the standards described in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this
subsection (2) and either:
(1) Shall be signed by at least seventy-five qualified .electors or ten percent of said elec-
tors, whichever is less,if such area islocated in a county of more than twenty.five thousand
inhabitants; or
31-12-107
Government - Municipal
680
68
(II) Shall be signed by at least forty qualified electors or ten percent of said electors,
whichever is less, if such area is located in a county of twenty-five thousand inhabitants or
less.
(b) The petition shall be filed with the clerk.
(c) The petition for annexation election shall comply with the provisions of paragraph
(c) of subsection (1) of this section; except that:
(I) Rather than an allegation of any certain percentage of land owned, it shall contain
an allegation that the signers of the petition are qualified electors resident in and landOwn_
ers of the area proposed to be annexed; and
(II) The petition shall request the annexing municipality to commence proceedings for
the holding of an annexation election.
(d) The requirements and procedures provided for in paragraphs (e) and (f) of subsec-
tion (1) of this section shall be met and followed in a proceeding under this subsection (2).
(e) If the petition is found to be in substantial compliance with this subsection (2), the
procedure outlined in sections 31-12-108 to 31-12-110 shall then be followed. If the petition
for an annexation election is not found to be in substantial compliance, no further action
shall be taken; except that the governing body shall make such determination by resolution.
If the petition for an annexation election is found to be in substantial compliance with this
section, the governing body may pass a resolution of intent to annex the land proposed for
annexation, subject to the proceQure outlined in sections 31-12-108 to 31-12-110 and subject
thereafter to an annexation election to be held in accordance with section 31-12-112.
(3) Procedures alternative. The procedures set forth in subsections (1) and (2) of this
section are alternative to each other and to any procedure set forth in section 31-12-106;
except that a petition for annexation election filed pursuant to subsection (2) of this section
shall take precedence over an annexation petition involving the same territory and filed
pursuant to subsection (1) of this section if such petition for annexation election is filed at
least ten days prior to the hearing date set for the annexation petition filed pursuant to sub-
section (1) of this section. .
(4) Additional terms and conditions on the annexation. Additional terms and condi-
tions may be imposed by the governing body in accordance with section 31-12-112.
(5) If a petition is filed pursuant to subsection (1) or (2) of this section and the territo-
ry sought to be annexed meets the specifications of section 31-12-106 (1), the governing
body of the municipality with which the petition is filed shall thereupon initiate annexation
proceedings pursuant to the appropriate provisions of section 31-12-106 (1). In the event
that any governing body fails to initiate such annexation proceedings within a period of one
year from the time that such petition is filed, annexation may be effected by an action in the
nature of mandamus to the district court of the county where the land to be annexed is
located, and the petitioner's court costs and attorney's fees incident to such action shall be
borne by the municipality.
(6) No proceedings for annexation to a municipality may be initiated in any area which
is the same or substantially the same area in which an election for annexation to the same
municipality has been held within the preceding twelve months.
(7) For the purpose of determining the compliance with the petition requirements in
this section, a signature by any landowner shall be sufficient so long as any other ownerin
fee of an undivided int~rest in the same area of land does not object in writing to the gov-
erning body of the annexing municipality within fourteen days after the filing of the peti-
tion for annexation or annexation election. The entire area of the land signed for shall be
computed as petitioning for annexation if such signing landowner has become liable for
taxes in the last preceding calendar year or is exempt by law from payment of taxes. One
who is purchasing land under a written contract duly recorded shall be deemed the owner
of the land which is subject to the contract if he has paid the taxes thereon for the next pre-
ceding tax year. The signers for an area owned by a Corporation, whether profit or non-
profit, shall be ,the same persons as those authorized to convey land for such corporation.
(8) No power of attorney providing the consent of a landowner to be annexed by a
municipality pursuant to this section shall be valid for a term of more than five years, and
no such power of attorney executed before May 27,1997, shall be valid for a term of more
than five years after May 27, 1997.
14:
L.
I
A
Cor;
C
~ 60
L:
of C
134
Garn
see 1
Tech
Colo.
Ar
to for
reena
there
sions
this SC
Thl
nate I
City (
(1971)
Pro
procec
residin
area tc
151 Co
Diff,
Except
tions 0
this see
Aspen
(1969).
The:
against
petition
356,407
This:
signatur,
whose n
wood v.
(1965).
The SI
not to bl
annexed.
156 Colo
AppJie
& Count
(1975); s.
P.2d 376 (
II. F
LegisJa
general as
between J:
percent ot
annexatiOI
684
685
31-12-108.5
Government - Municipal
Source: L. 75: Entire title R&RE, p. 1083, ~ 1, effective July 1. L. 87: (2) amended, p.
1220, ~ 4, effective May 28.
Law reviews. For article, "Annexation:
Today's Gamble for Tommorrow's Gain-Parts I
and II", see 17 Colo. Law. 603 and 809 (1988).
.Annotator's note. Since ~ 31~12-108 is similar
to former S 31-8-108 prior to the 1975 repeal and
reenactment of this title, and laws antecedent
. thereto, relevant cases construing those provi-
sions have been included in the annotations to
this section. .
Proceedings duly commenced before a city
council may be completed regardless of changes
in personnel, because a city council is a continu-
ing body. Breternitz v. City of Arvada, 174 Colo.
56, 482 P.2d 955 (1"971).
: . 3:i~12:i08:5'..' Annexation hnpacf report- requireIJ:l~!11~~"(l) The municipality shall
prepare an'impact report concerning the proposed annexation at least twenty-five days
before the date of the hearing established pursuant to section 31-12-108 and shall file one
copy with the board of county commissioners governing the area proposed to be annexed
within five days thereafter. 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 govern-
ing the area proposed to be annexed agree tha.t the report may be waived. Such report shall
include, as a minimum:
(a) A map or maps of the municipality and adjacent territory to show the following
information:
(I) The present and proposed boundaries of the municipality in the vicinity of the pro-
posed annexation;
(II) The present streets, major trunk water mains, sewer interceptors and outfaIls,
other utility lines and ditches, and the proposed extension of such streets and utility lines in
the vicinity of the proposed annexation; and
(III) The existing and proposed land use pattern in the areas to be annexed;
(b) A copy of any draft or finalpreannexation agreement, if available;
( c) 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;
(d) . 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;
(e) A statement identifying existing districts within the area to be annexed; and
(f) A statement on the effect of annexation upon local-public school district systems,
including the estimated number of sttldeIlts generated and the capital construction required
to educate such students. .
ceedin
has be.
SOUl
1221, ~
Legal description held to be in substantial
compliance with the requirements of this sec-
tion. Slack v. City of Colorado Springs, 655 P.2d
376 (Colo. 1982).
Immaterial variation in two legal descriptions
of annexed area does not invalidate annexation.
TCD North, Inc. v. City Council of Greenwood,
713 P.2d 1320 (Colo. App. 1985).
Applied in City of Aspen v. Howell, 170 Colo.
82,459 P.2d 764 (1969); Board of County Com-
m'rs v. City & County of Denver, 37 Colo. App.
395,548 P.2d 922 (1976).
Ann.
to form
reenac:
theretc
sions h
this see
Aci
maps, J
within
an ann
Westm
Sub!
graphi,
made I
and di,
31-]
the an
based
(a)
31-12-
(b)
(2)
dition
(3)
able I
ceedil
templated execution of an annexation agree-
ment throughout the process, adoption of
annexation resolution without having an agree-
ment in place was an abuse of discretion. Midci-
ties Co. v. Town of Superior, 916 P.2d 595 (Colci.
App. 1995), aff'd, 933 P.2d 596 (Colo. 1997).
Sou
Am
to forr
reena,
theret
sions]
this se
Spe
. for an
suant
with a
ings a
annex
guityJ
an an:
ing b(
200 C
Fin
they ~
trovel
befor
Westr
Cal
canal
to us.
denCE
Source: L. 87: Entire section added, p. 1220, ~ 5, effective May 28.
Law reviews. For article, "Annexation:
Today's Gamble for Tommorrow's Gain-Parts I
and II", see 17 Colo. Law. 603 and 809 (1988).
Act contemplates annexation agreements as a
routine step in the annexation process.
Although annexation agreement is not required
for a valid annexation, where parties had con-
31-12-109. Hearing. (1) Any person may appear at such hearing and present evi-
dence upon any matter to be determined by the governing body.
(2) All proceedings at the hearing and any continuances thereof shall be recorded, but
the recorder'~,J1otes need not be transcribed unless proceedings for judicial review are ini-
tiated as prov"fded in section 31-12-116.
(3) The board of trustees of a town may dispense with the reporting of the hearing as
provided in this section and substitute in lieu thereof minutes summarizing the presentation
of each speaker and describing the proceedings of the hearing. In the event that any pro-
31.
ed pI
and:
secti,
31-12~115
Government - Municipal
690
691
qualified electors and landowners for areas having less than two-thirds boundary contigui-
ty with the annexing municipality.
(8) If more than two municipalities claim a disputed area and a majority of the votes
are cast in favor of orle municipality, that municipality may proceed to hold a hearing as
provided in this part 1 and to comply with the other provisions of this part 1 with respect to
the area claimed by the several municipalities; but the subject election shall be deemed to
comply with the provisions of sections 31-12-107 and 31-12-112 relative to an election of
qualified electors or qualified electors and landowners for areas having less than two-thirds
boundary contiguity with the annexing municipality. If no municipality receives a majority,
a runoff election between the two municipalities receiving the largest pluralities shall be
held no sooner than four weeks and no longer than seven weeks after the date of the initial
election to determine to which municipality the landowners desire to annex. Notice of such
second election shall be given in the manner directed by the court. This election shall have
the same effect as if it were the original election between the two municipalities involved. ·
(9) Notwithstanding any provision in this part 1 to the contrary, if the total area pro-
posed for annexation or the disputed part thereof has more than two-thirds boundary con-
tiguity with one of the municipalities, that municipality shall have the right to annex the dis-
puted area unless three-fourths of the total votes cast at th~ election favor annex;:ttion to
another municipality.
(10) Unless the area claimed by more than one municipality constitutes more than one-
third of the area proposed for annexati~:m, inclusive of streets, to the first annexing munici-
pality, nothing in this part 1 shall prevent a municipality from proceeding with the annexa-
tion of that part of the area described in its resolution which is not claimed by another
municipality without waiting for the holding of the election described in this section. In the
hearing required by section 31-12-109 and the findings required by section 31-12-110, the
issue shall be the compliance of the undisputed portion of the area proposed for annexation
with the requirements and limitations of sections 31-12-104 and ~1-12-105. If the annexa-
tion was initiated by petition under section 31-12-107 and if the requirements of said sec-
tions 31-12-104 and 31-12-105 are met, the annexing municipality shall submit the issue of
annexation with the changed boundaries to an election of qualified electors or of qualified
electors and landowners to be held in accordance with section 31-12-112.
(11) The costs of the election shall be paid by the municipalities which are disputing the.
annexation by the first annexing municipality. If more than one municipality is disputing
such annexation, the costs shall be apportioned among such disputing municipalities on a
just and equitable basis by the court supervising the election.
Source: L. 75: Entire title R&RE, p. 1086, ~ 1, effective July 1.
effectiv
institutl
(3)
section
occupal
(4)
sificatic
annexa
(5)
regulati
tion fO!
accord"
subdivi
passed
Sourl
ed,p.9
C.J.S.
S 226(H
ning, S 1
Anno
to forme
reenact]
thereto,
sion ha,
this sect
Whell
power t4
City of (
324 (197
In orl
allowed
annexec
those lz
orderly
of ColOl
(1971).
. But t
impose
Law reviews. For article, "ADR Techniques
in Municipal Annexations", see 18 Colo. Law.
901 (1989).
Annotator's note. Since S 31-12-114 is similar
to former S 31-8-114 prior to the 1975 repeal and
reenactment of this title, a relevant case constru-
ing that provision has been included in the anno-
tations to this section.
Annexation is strictly statutory. City of West-
minster v. City of Northglenn, 178 Colo. 334,498
P.2d 343 (1972).
Applied in Board of County Comm'rs v. City
& County of Denver, 40 Colo. App. 281, 573
P.2d 568 (1977).
31-12
posed t
proposl
annexe,
municil
ing bod
cedure.
of the c
ins titu 11
ity.
(b)
be brot
certion
appoin1
. shall nc
nor froJ
(2) (
body s1:
action i
(II)
be subj
31-12-115. Zoning ofIand while annexation is under way - zoning of newly annexed
land. subdivision of ~llnd while anne~ation is underway. (1) An annexing municipality
may institute the procedl;lre outlined in state statutes or municipal charter to make land
subject to zoning at any time after a petition for annexation or a petition for an annexation
election has been found to be valid in accorclllnc;ew.ithtl1e provisions of section 31-12-107.
The proposed zoning ordinance shall not be passed on final reading prior to the date when.
the annexation ordinance is passed on final reading. If the zoning process is commenced
prior to the effective date of the annexation ordinance, the legal protest area for zoning
shall be determined solely on geographic location, irrespective of whether the land in such
legal protest area is within or without or partly within and partly without the annexing
municipality. ..
(2) If the municipality has a zoning ordinance, any area annexed on or after January 1,
1966, shall be brought under such zoning ordinance and map within ninety days after the
690
691
Annexation - Consolidation - Disconnection
31-12-116
effective date of the annexation ordinance, irrespective of any legal review which may be
instituted pursuant to section 31-12-116.
(3) During such ninety-day period or such portion thereof required to comply with sub-
section (2) of this section, the annexing municipality may refuse to issue any building or
occupancy permit for any portion or all of the newly annexed area.
(4) Any provision in a zoning ordinance automatically applying a I,lniform zoning clas-
sification to all land which may be annexed in the future is void and of no effect as to any
annexation completed on or after January 1, 1966.
(5) Any annexing municipality may institute the procedure outlined in its subdivision
regulations to subdivide land in the area proposed to be annexed at any time after a peti-
tion for annexation or a petition for an annexation election has been found to be valid in
accordance with the provisions of section 31-12-107. The ordinance accepting the proposed
subdivision shall not be passed on final reading prior to the. date when the annexation is
passed on final reading.
:hirds boundary contigui-
d a majority of the votes
:eed to hold a hearing as
this part 1 with respect to
,ction shall be deemed to
relative to an election of
lving less than two-thirds
)ality receives a majority,
lrgest pluralities shall be
fter the date of the initial
. to annex. Notice of such
:. This election shall have
municipalities involved. ·
:try, if the total area pro-
wo-thirds boundary con-
:he right to annex the dis-
tion favor annexation to
Source: L. 75: Entire title R&RE, p. 1088, ~ 1, effective July 1. L. 97: (1) and (5) amend-
ed, p. 996, ~ 5, effective May 27. .
31~U-1l6. Review. (1) (a) If any landowner or any qualified elector in the area pro-
posed to be annexed, the board of county commissioners of any county governing the area
proposed to be annexed, or any municipality within one mile of the area proposed to be
annexed believes itself to be aggrieved by the acts of the governing body of the anne.xing
municipality in annexing said area to said municipality, such acts or findings of the govern-
ing body may be reviewed by certiorari in accor.dance with the Colorado rules of civil pro-
cedure. Such review proceedings shall be instituted in any district court having jurisdiction
of the county in which the annexed area is located. In no event shall such a proceeding be
instituted prior to the effective date of the annexing ordinance by the annexing municipal-
ity.
(b) If the annexed area is located within two or more counties, review proceedings may
be brought in any district court having jurisdiction of anyone of such counties. In all such
certiorari proceedings under this part 1, the district court shall be presided over by a judge
appointed by the chief justice of the supreme court of the state of Colorado, which judge
shall not be from the judicial district in which the area proposed to be annexed is located
nor from a judicial district contiguous thereto.
(2) (a) (I) All such actions to review the findings and the decision of the governing
body shall be brought within sixty days after the effective date of the ordinance, and, if such
action is not brought within such time, such action shall forever be barred.
(II) All such actions to review the findings and the decision of the govetning body shall
be subject to the following requirement, which is a condition precedent to the right to
c.J.S. See 62 C.J.S., Municipal Corporations,
* 226(16); IOIA c.J.S., Zoning and Land Plan-
ning, ~ 107.
Annotator's note. Since ~ 31-12-115 is similar
to former S 31-8-115 prior to the 1975 repeal and
reenactment of this title, and laws antecedent
thereto, relevant cases construing a prior provi-
sion have been included in the annotations to
this section.
When a city annexes lan'd from a county, the
power to zone that land shifts to the city. Bird v.
City of Colorado Springs, 176 Colo. 32,489 P.2d
324 (1971).
In order to accommodate lands. The city is
allowed to impose zoning restrictions on
annexed lands, after annexation, in order that
those lands may be accommodated into the
orderly growth patterns of the city. Bird v. City
of Colorado Springs, 176 Colo. 32, 489 P.2d 324
(1971).
But this statute does not allow the city to
impose arbitrary or automatic uniform zoning
lllstitutes more than one-
he first spnexing munici-
:eeding with the annexa-
not claimed by another
Jed in this section. In the
JY section 31-12-110, the
proposed for annexation
31-12-105. If the annexa-
.equirements of said sec-
shall submit the issue of
d electors or of qualified
12-112.
s which are disputing the
municipality is disputing
Jting municipalities on a
ctIy statutory. City of West-
rthglenn, 178 Colo. 334,498
of County Comm'rs v. City
:r, 40 Colo. App. 281,573
oning of newly annexed
n annexing municipality
,alcharter to make land
~tition for an annexation
ons of section 31-12-107.
g prior to the date when
g process is commenced
protest area for zoning
whether the land in such
ly without the annexing
~d on or after January 1,
lin ninety days after the
upon lands which it annexes in the future. Bird v.
City of Colorado Springs, 176 Colo. 32, 489 P.2d
324 (1971).
Simultaneol.ls passage of zoning and annexa-
tion ordinances. Since the statute states only
that the zoning ordinance shall not be passed
prior to the annexation ordinance, the statute
does not preclude the two ordinances from
being passed at the same time. Cline v. City of
Boulder, 168 Colo. 112,450 P.2d 335 (1969).
A county building permit obtained prior to
the involuntary annexation ordinance does not
preclude the rezoning made by the city, because
the majority rule in the United States is that the
owner must take some steps in reliance on the
permit before his rights vest thereunder and a
municipality may revoke permit where zoning in
enacted or changed to prohibit the use and
where the permittee has not materially changed
his position in reliance on the permit. Cline v. .
City of Boulder, 168 Colo. 112, 450 P.2d 335
(1969).
r*\
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU:
Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director
FROM:
Chris Bendon, Long Range Planner
RE:
City of Aspen Annexation Plan - Work Session
DATE:
May 28, 2002
SUMMARY:
The City of Aspen is required by State statute to maintain an annexation plan, adopted
at least once annually. The City's Annexation Plan has been re-adopted each year,
but has not been substantially amended since 1988. Action Item #4 (of 99) of the
2000 Aspen Area Community Plan calls for an update of the Annexation Plan to
reflect the adopted Urban Growth Boundary.
The State's requirements for such a plan are minimal and are primarily geared to
Front Range communities who sometimes use annexation to gain political and tax
base advantage. The "three-mile boundary" must be identified (municipalities may
not expand in any direction more than three miles per year). The plan must generally
describe the proposed municipal infrastructure and planned land uses for any land to
be annexed within the three-mile area. And, properties of twenty acres or more
require the municipality to file an annexation report with the County.
In addition to the meeting the minimum requirements, the City of Aspen has included
the statutory annexation criteria and requirements for annexation impact reports in
previous Annexation Plans. This information is included for the benefit of having all
the necessary requirements in one location, rather than referencing the statutes.
The City of Aspen has also included annexation "issues" and "guidelines." These two
sections respond to land use concerns of both the City and the County and are used to
aid City Council in their review of annexation requests. It is these sections that
require the most attention. The following table shows the items addressed in 1988
and staff suggested items to be addressed in the 2002 plan.
The work session with the P&Z will aid staff in identifying the proper land use issues
that should be addressed in the 2002 Annexation Plan. A work session with the
County BOCC was held on May 2pt. Staff is currently seeking a joint CC/BOCC
work session in July.
1
~
Annexation Plan Land Us(! Topics
1988
Increased Development Potential.
FAR.
Un-subdivided land.
Master Planning.
Bandit Units.
Environmental Review Standards.
Ski Area Base Zoning.
Ski Area Zoning.
Utilities.
Aspen Water Management Plan.
Sales Tax Sharing.
Zoning & Process (landowner petiti
90 days for zoning).
2
2002
Development Rights/Zoning:
· Current land use.
· Current rights (including TDRs).
· Approvals/Potential.
· Administration of Approvals and
Agreements (including TDR).
· Application of proper City zoning.
Appropriateness of each jurisdictions land
use regulations and tools.
Need to revise City Land Use Code.
Infrastructure/Ability to serve (related to
fiscal analysis).
iscal Impact Analysis.
cover in the process section of revised
Ian)
Other:
· AACP Compliance.
· Land within adopted UGB.
· Significant (define) annexations
require CC/BOCC work session.
· Regional links.
· Simplicity of City Boundary.
· Annexation Agreement.
^
~
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners
FROM:
Cindy Houben, Community Development Director
RE:
Work session; Status of annexation plans and IGA's
DATE:
March 13, 2001
-------------------------------------------
_______________._--------------------:0-.'"'"'"""-----
. . . . .. .....
PURPOSE:
It is the understanding of the staff that the BOCC is requesting a status report regarding
annexation agreements and IGA's with other jurisdictions. This work session packet
focuses on the City of Aspen annexation plan and IGA's in preparation for the joint City
Council and BOCC work session on March 20. Another memorandum will follow
providing this information for other jurisdictions within Pitkin County.
GENERAL OVERVIEW:
Annexation plans are a requirement by the State of Colorado. Municipalities must adopt
these plans annually. As part of the annexation process for parcels of over 10 acres, an
impact analysis must be done by the City and be reviewed by the County for comment.
In 1994, staff attempted to develop a template for the review of annexations. A copy of
this report developed in association with the County, the City and NWCOG can be found
in the Community Development office if you are interested.
We have attached a bullet sheet of COmmon annexation i~sut:s .CisCittCichrp,ellt p.
CITY OF ASPEN ANNEXATION PLAN:
Aspen has had an annexation plan since 1988. Most recently the plan was updated in
1996 and it was readopted in 1997,1998,1999 and in July 0(2000. The changes made in
1996 reflected the adoption of the AACP in 1993. The City Community Development
staff is currently in the process of revising their 2000 annexation plan. It is anticipated
that the revisions will reflect the 2000 AACP andthe UGB. We hope to be able to review
the draft in the early summer and the City would adopt the plan in July of 200 1.
Please review the attached 1996 annexation plan (attachment A) You may specifically
want to read the introduction for some background information, page 11 that addresses
the water management plan, page 16 which does not specifically address the BOCC's
concern regarding caucus representation but does address annexation only when a
majority of the property owners are in favor of annexation.
~
~
.~
,
* 1 IGA regarding the establishment of CORE in 1995;
* 1 IGA regarding the Maroon Creek Wetland mitigation 1998
IDEAS FOR NEEDED IGA'S BASED ON RECENT ACTIVITIES:
1.The County may wish to enter into an IGA regarding Maroon Creek Road.
2. The City and the County need to develop an IGA regarding the UGB/policy for
development review within the UGB
SUMMARY:
In summary, staff hopes that this provides the BOCC with information that you need to
go into the joint work session with the City on March 20,2001. If you need additional
materials please contact Ellen Sassano in the Community Development Department.
it'
"'"
TO:
Board of County Commissioners
Aspen City Council
THRU:
Cindy Houben, Community Development Director
FROM:
Ellen Sassano, Senior Long Range Planner
RE:
Potential Annexation Discussion Items for the May 1,2001 Joint
BOCC/City Council W orksession Regarding the Pending Annexation Plan
Update
Background/Purpose: A joint worksession between the Board of County
Commissioners and the Aspen City Council is scheduled for May 1, 2001 to discuss the
pending City of Aspen Annexation Plan update. During a worksession on March 13,
2001, the Board of County Commissioners met with Planning Staff to identify items that
they would like to address regarding annexation. Having identified several items of
interest, the Board directed Staff to take these items informally to City Council via City
Planning Staff. In order to make the upcoming joint worksession most efficient, they've
requested that Council review the list and determine which issues may merit further
discussion, and which items are mutually agreed upon and require no further discussion.
The following items of interest were identified by the Board:
o The County would like to work concurrently on the Urban Growth Boundary
Intergovernmental Agreement and the Annexation Plan Update, rather than wait
until the annexation update is complete to work on the I GA.
o To address development within the Urban Growth Boundary, consider either:
> Joint review of major (define major) projects by city and county P&Zs and
BOCC/Council respectively; where City's recommendations would/could be
incorporated as part of development approvals; or
> Establish ajoint City/County planning commission to review development
applications within the UGB area (similar to the joint growth management
commission). It would be prudent to review the success of the growth
management commission before moving in this direction; or
> Develop joint standards for development within the UGB in lieu of
establishing joint review boards; Standards to be considered might include:
./ Roads/Parking
./ 1041 Environmental Hazard/Resource
./ Scenic
./ Affordable housing mitigation
,,#.
r,
../ Open space requirements
../ Zoning density, height, area, bulk requirements
../ Concurrency
../ Zoning to accommodate existing open space
../ Trails; and/or
~ Where property owners are requesting City water service on land that is
contiguous to City boundaries, require owners to approach the City for
annexation before they can come to the County for development review. If
both parties agree on annexation, development review and annexation will
occur concurrently in the City. This approach will eliminate the Highlands
and Moore property scenarios, where development was approved under
County standards and built in the City, where different zoning standards made
the permitting process arduous.
o Agree not to annex any property outside ofthe UGB without the County's
consent; Allow the County to review any pre-annexation agreement for properties
outside of the UGB.
o Require purchase of TDRs for upzoning of any parcel within the UGB (except
where upzoning accommodates affordable housing?)
o Consider whether it makes sense for the City to annex forest lands incorporated
within ski areas.
o Come to some agreement regarding city/county distribution of shared tax
revenues as the City acquires more land;
o Discuss City policy of requiring annexation as part of water service agreement;
o Until such time as an IGA is established for review of development within the
UGB, improve current development application referral practices between the
City and County (reference Iselin Park and Harvey property);
o Consider whether zoning in the Rural Area of the County (outside of the UGB)
should be modified to encourage certain densities and lor uses to be located
within the UGB.
o For discussion purposes, prepare a list of the City's major annexation policies.
Summary: Based on City Council's response to these items, an outline to facilitate
discussion of the pending annexation plan update will be prepared by Staff for the May
1 st worksession.
2
I"".
Memorandum
Aspen - 50 Years After Goethe
Mind - Body - Spirit
TO:
Interested Persons
FROM:
John P. Worcester
DATE:
April20, 1999
RE:
Annexation Process
. . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . .. . . .... ...-,'."."...'....>..'.<...:.'..".'...-. '.. ..-..'.'. ...-.'.
Several persons have asked that I provide an outline of the typical annexation process. The
following assumes that it is an annexation initiated by 100% of the owners of the property proposed
to be annexed. (There is a separate process for annexations that require an election.)
1. Petition for Annexation is filed with the City Clerk. Four copies with attached annexation
map.
2. Resolution finding compliance with certain provisions of the 1'funicipal Annexation Act.
This first resolution initiates the annexation process, determines compliance with certain portions of.
the Act (contiguity, etc.), and establishes a date for a public hearing. The public hearing must not be
less than 30 days nor more than 60 days from the date of the resolution. If the property proposed to
be annexed is more than 10 acres, the City is required to prepare and submit to the County an
impact report within 25 days of the public hearing (second resolution). The requirements of the
impact report are set forth at Section 31-12-108.5.
3. Resolution following a public hearing. The City Council holds a public hearing to
determine compliance with certain provisions of the Municipal Annexation Act. (No other petitions
have been filed, access will not be blocked by annexation, school district lines not affected,
property is proper for annexation, etc.) Following public hearing, City Council adopts resolution
with findings of fact.
4. First reading of annexation ordinance. Typically this is held at Council's meeting next
following the public hearing resolution. However, there is nothing to prevent first reading of the
ordinance to immediately follow the public hearing and adoption of the resolution.
5. Second reading of the aimexation ordinance following a public hearing. Determination to
annex is en~irely within the discretion of the City Council.
1