HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.an.Annexation Plan 2002.A056-03City o n Annexation Plan - 2002
'lase A056-03
0 � 0
CASE NAME: CITY OF ASPEN ANNEXATION PLAN - 2002 PLNR: CHRIS BENDON
JAWL
PROJ ADDR:j CASE TYP: ANNEXATION PLAN STEPS:
IWAPP; CITY OF ASPEN ADR 7 S GALENA ST
ADR:l
FEES DUE; FEES R
INWRIEF:
FE REV BODY PH ��-- NOT
M-M FOR PERMANENTN REM
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
MEMORANDUM
Mayor Klanderud and City Council
John Worcester, City Attorney
Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director
Chris Bendon, Long Range Planner
City of Aspen Annexation Plan
August 26, 2002
CK vJe'L,
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.
aww Cmr
fAwh GerK" ,
1I P.oste
Tavn of
`Swwmass 0.icretx
Village
Forest Lends
Ir"-\
..J
Forest Lends
1
r!
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
Map A
�� y�
Map B
RESOLUTION NO. _
(SERIES OF 2002)
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL 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 RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: That the City Council has formally adopted the City of
Aspen Annexation Plan.
RESOLVED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED FINALLY this 26th day of August,
2002.
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
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, waterways, waterfronts,
parkways, playgrounds, squares, parks, aviation fields, other public ways, grounds,
open spaces, public utilities, and terminals for water, light, sanitation, transportation,
and power to be provided by the municipality and the proposed land uses for the
area. 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.
Oisclmmre
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
0 •
CITY OF ASPEN ANNEXATION 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
ANNEXATION 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 Vallev. 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 Smuggler
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 Smuggler
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
•
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 Highway 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, AVLT, 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. Residential, 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 Burlingame "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 Highway 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
Brush Creek Village, 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 Village
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 Highlands, 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.
FrinnO I anric
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
•
0
SEQUENTIAL STEPS TO COMPLETE ANNEXATION
nn
Pre -Application Conference. (See Note #1)
Annexation Petition Filed — Landowner
submits necessary application materials to
the City Clerk. (See example petition,
attached.)
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.
First Reading of Annexation Ordinance —
City Council establishes second reading and
public hearing date.
Second Reading of Annexation Ordinance
— Propertv either annexed or denied.
rocesses:
Property owner may enter into a pre -
annexation agreement with the City of
Aspen. (See note #2)
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)
The City may postpone second reading to
permit a property owner to confirm associated
land use reviews.
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, 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:
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. Acknowledgement of Development Rights
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 Zoning. 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
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.
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
0 0
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
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 safety 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 annexation of an area, to be referred to as the
Annexation to the City of Aspen. Said area,
consisting of approximately
described on Attachment "A," attached hereto.
L__) acres, is more particularly
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 (1/6) 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 portion(s) of the area
described on Attachment "A."
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Uwe 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
•
•
Please attach the following:
ATTACHMENT "A" — LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE ANNEXATION
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 day of
2 , by
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. 1973 31-8-107.
City of Aspen Annexation Petition
0
Map A
City of Aspen
Three -Mile
Annexation Area
= Rivers & Ponds
Urban Growth Boundary
Parcels
City of Aspen
Roads
Three -Mile Boundary
N
W E
S
0 1 2 3 Miles
NMINI
City of Aspen
Community Development DepartmentYO
August, 2002 Page 1
Brush Creek
Village
iv
Flats
!i
�, •� Brush Creek
sp
ti
SIL Droste Sardy
Field
Town of
_Snowmass Owl Creek Buttermilk
s w� Village Subdivision
Bui
�- E
Buttermilk
Ski Area
Re
l Subd'
Forest Lands �-
Highlands
Ski Area
re
1
Starwood
Forest Lands
Bar X R �r
'Ranch butt
Red Mountain
Upper
Lower Smuggler
MeaAwpod Smuggler
1
y
Forest Lands
t ,
K
•
Map B
City of Aspen
Three -Mile
Annexation Area
N
City of Aspen
Community Development Department
August, 2002
Page 1�
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Klanderud and Aspen City Council
Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners
THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director
FROM: Chris Bendon, Long Range Planner am
RE: City of Aspen Annexation Plan — Work Session — 4-5 p.m.
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 is a 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 elaborates on the identified issues and will
be used to guide annexation policy.
This joint work session will allow the two boards to discuss the 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 T
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 jurisdictions land
Ski Area Base Zoning.
use regulations and tools.
Ski Area Zoning.
Need to 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 i17 the process section of revised
90 days for zoning).
plan)
Other:
■ AACP Compliance.
■ Land within adopted UGB.
■ Significant (define) annexations
require CCBOCC work session.
■ Regional links.
■ Simplicity of City Boundary.
■ Annexation Agreement.
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 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, waterways, waterfronts,
parkways, playgrounds, squares, parks, aviation fields, other public ways, grounds,
open spaces, public utilities, and terminals for water, light sanitation, transportation,
and power to be provided by the municipality and the proposed land uses for the
area. 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 UBG 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 — 7.16.02 DRAFT — Page 1
0
0
CITY OF ASPEN ANNEXATION 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 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 determined 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 the land.
To understand the City's potential service needs, annexation areas within the UGB have
been analyzed as smaller land areas, 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 UGB currently 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 unincorporated 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.
** Currently being analyzed
Annexation Area Characteristics
The City is required to describe the area within three miles of its boundary for the purposes
of this plan. The proximity of these areas and description herein, however, does not
necessarily mean these areas are desirable annexations. 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
Generally, rural annexation areas which have 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
City of Aspen Annexation Plan - 7.16.02 DRAFT — Page 2
areas. Further consideration should be given to the more stringent County 1041
regulations particularly with regard to development on steep slopes.
Roaring Fork East, Red Mountain, Pitkin Green
Generally, suburban annexation 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, and the status
of the roads and ability of the City to adequately maintain and upgrade them as
necessary.
Lower Smuggler
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. Provisions for mining activity may be necessary. Regulatory tools to
address development on steep slopes would be necessary.
Upper Smuggler
This area contains large 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 area and is a
primary public access 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, and State Highway 82 Corridor
Generally, suburban annexation areas comprised of predominantly developed
subdivisions. These areas are currently encircled by City jurisdiction. 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 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 an annexation agreement for the purposes of
developing 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. Residential, 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
City of Aspen Annexation Plan — 7.16.02 DRAFT — Page 3
• 0
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 analysis on the administration of
development approvals will be necessary.
Aspen Airport Business Center, North Forty
These areas are generally suburban with moderate growth potential. The North
Forty subdivision is reaching its residential build -out and 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 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)
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 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, Aspen Highlands, 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. These areas 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 of including these lands into the City.
Annexation would necessitate new land use legislation 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 Service and privately -owned "in -holdings." These areas are typically remote,
with little or no existing services and have limited access. These areas are generally
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
back -country emergency rescue operation.
City of Aspen Annexation Plan - 7.16.02 DRAFT - Page 4
0 0
R
F-
c� c
c: O
c ;_.
- 0
O '0
y
a Q
Q)
c
'O
SQ
J
w
++ O
-O
C :t.
ma°Q
06
,4W
= Y
c.
m
m
E
d
.X
`F
w
— To
ca c
+� O
0 v
.t'
�
a Q
L
(D
0,2
E ()
o)
E
O c
X
C) )
Lii
N_
C
nU
a�
H
_
m
L-
a)
(D
L
U
a,
c
ca
O
O
MM7�
O
N
m
mY
O
L
LL
E
E
O
O
6
Cm_0OM
m
2
m
C
m
rn
o
U)
(n
3
U
U
W
LL
m
LL
mJ
C
Z
m
-p
'�
C
a)
a)
-0
'C
a0
X
a)
a)
U
L
O
Q
�'
L
to
d
-0
m
m�Y
m-3
m
c
3�mq�(nU_H�Q
U)
�'
�'
�
J
CO
m
J
m
Q
Z
Q
a
cn
(0
LL
kn
Q)
on
a
0 •
ANNEXATION PROCESS
Pre -Application. Potential applicants are encouraged to meet with the City Attorney to
discuss the annexation process and/or 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, to the extent those criteria are considered applicable to the specific petition.
Submission of an Annexation Petition. What is needed? 31-12-101.
STATUTORY ANNEXATION CRITERIA
In accordance with CRS 31-12-104, an area is eligible for annexation if the governing body,
at a hearing "First or second 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:
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 the area proposed to be annexed those
urban services which the annexing municipality provides in common to of all its
citizens on the same terms and conditions as such services are made available to
such citizens. This standard shall not apply to the extent that any portion of an area
proposed to be annexed is provided or will within the reasonably near future be
provided with any service by or through a quasi -municipal corporation.
City of Aspen Annexation Plan - 7.16.02 DRAFT — Page 6
0 •
c
O
K
m
c
c
ca
i�
G
O
0
0
N
G
0
N
c
(D
a
a)
C4
N
d
H
a)
�'
o
(D
U)
a) -r-
- N
c
M
0
L
o
�\
� r�
3
m
Z
.0
cu
c
N
o
a)
cn O (?
O
EUcTcu°caciL
a) c
a
0)
a)
>% N
2— w ()
E U
O
c
s
O)
o
coUca)tf
cu (
U
m
L
o-
R
cn
a) �,
a) 0—
s U
Q 0) Lo
a) •—
cu
rn
O
0
mom~
a)
c
x
C
K
0
°'
C
a) U
E
a
N
d
c
ccuu
E=�
CM -o
2cn
� ()
O oC
o
-0
a)
C-
a)
Q
O
C O
3FDEcn.20Nc
p) C
a) a) O
V)
�a)
v)
m
ca
I
N
= F cccc
� - E
-a >
a)
0
ccaa
�>
�a0rE
O
CUC
O
Q C
E a)
cn
d
:?a?
o
d
_r
m
cu
In mL)
Ea
C
(n
EU)
U)�0
c
a)
a>
c)
A a)
m
V N
N U-W
O C
caw-
0 0 0
o�
�
O
o
E�
ea
ma
a)
3 c
d c LI—
a) N
Ua
a
°3
ca
a
L
a)
0
O>
.0 co
E �4O
m �-
1 O
Q ccu
O
0
a c°
"O
a)
d
3
C a)
� m�
C rn rn
cu w
axi
ocn
c0i
0)�iEo
E�
co
'v
Q
M
3C-30
Noc
E
m
O
a)o
00-00
c��iu
a:
L-
Tx
U)
U)
0
c U
c>
rn C-
a)
a) O
a) 0
Q
aU
QcaJ�Q'ccu=.S�
Hcoi
zm
cn _ (D
a)O
U
fa
cn
cn
a)-0
U 7 C
w r.
C
7
a)
O a m
o_ CO
w
C(U
-0 cA
O
U
p
!i
c
00 N vi
a)
�—
U a?
0
I
Cl)
jr, .0
�_
ca
=3 U)
0
cmcu
cUo
y•`
R
cn
m a) T
a)
• �
C
%•
'a
c
cn c cu
a) O
aEi
L
U :o
I
c �
0
00
0 7 O
7
O
N U
V
-0 N
+o m
cinc
c-*k
U
O 0
c
ccoV
a) f°
>.
O o
c
r
mJ
U
V W-
c
+=.—
rn
6
O C
co
x
a)
��
0
0
.r
x
O a)
a m
K
c
NU.
U E
o
U
0 c
ca
Qm
0-0
S
_
OaCL)ao
r.`
m0 a
`mo
Oc
aONT
t
L.
y a)
a
a)
a)
o
cu O
=
C
E
0
cn
L 2)
C N
'aU)
O a)
O
cc
coo
(1)m
c=
m Oc
maxi
cu
x
r O
fu K
° _
7 00" 0)
C
a)
mn
c
= ca
d
y U
0-0•C
L vi
W_
0
O
+)
L
O o
C
C d
(a >,
+�+
p0
m
+�
C.)
Q
Q ca
-0 L "O
U
a a
ii (1)
v) a)
H
U-
N
O
ti
C
fa
a.
c
0
m
x
a)
c
c
Q
C
a)
C.
cn
Q
O
i
Process Notes:
1. 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.
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 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.
3. 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
Council may postpone the final adoption hearing of the annexation ordinance to allow a
property owner to complete a land use review process.
4. Acknowledgement of Development Rights
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
City of Aspen Annexation Plan - 7.16.02 DRAFT — Page 8
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.
5. Initial Zoning. 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 on the
same day. Property owners are encouraged to participate as an applicant, although not
required, in this initial zoning process.
City of Aspen Annexation Plan - 7.16.02 DRAFT — Page 9
0 •
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 become
guiding 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
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 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 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 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 safety 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 8040-foot elevation.
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
City of Aspen Annexation Plan - 7.16.02 DRAFT — Page 1 I
0 •
character. In transition areas, the City's PUD regulations could 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 administering jurisdiction over remote backcountry and
Forest Service lands. 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 are required to be
reviewed by the City Council and found in compliance with the AACP in order to obtain City
water service. In order to obtain City water service, 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 which simplify the
boundary should be encouraged while those further complicating the division should be
avoided.
City of Aspen Annexation Plan - 7.16.02 DRAFT — Page 12
0
Attachments:
Map A
Map B
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
ASPEN AREA COMMUNITY PLAN
Map 8: Future Land Use Composhe lia g, Asrtv
i0
-Of
V
A?
'A
lily
fA
X466'Nil
4ep f
4
1w,
m
74A
F11 0 Fo I' j 117
19" 4
4-.-
ze
P, A, oorr
F 94-7
0 7,y
-W bo
A
//� a ,+ r. :- A
legend
.8•'•
A
AffoMml Ho�il
Or 0
#419 At j ;a
offA
#
I
4,l
1 R
-/, A .
`m WA
31-12-102 Government - Municipal 670
671
f
Law reviews. For article, "Annexation in Col-
orado", see 37 Dicta 259 (1960). For article,
Present annexation law applicable. After
Denver was organized under the twentieth arti-
Organization of enclav,
"Annexation: Today's Gamble for Tomorrow's
cle of the constitution and became a charter city,
into separate political unit
objectives of section. This
Gain —Parts I and II", see 17 Colo. Law. 603 and
809 (1988). For article, "Annexation: Municipal
its authority to annex territory had to be deter-
mined under the present applicable law rather
i
results in a duplication of I
Discretion in Approving or Denying the Peti-
tion", 22 Colo. Law.
than that under which it was originally orga-
frustrates area -wide coordi
ty regulations, events
see 1929 (1993).
Annotator's note. Since § 31-12-101 is similar
nized. People ex rel. Simon v. Anderson, 112
Colo. 558,151 P.2d 972 (1944).
lat
e,
ture, often circumvents lel
to former § 31-8-101 prior to the 1975 repeal and
Election code applicable. It is the legislative
trols, frequently leads to an
reenactment of this title, and laws antecedent
intent that the term "special municipal elec-
31-12-103. Definition
thereto, relevant cases construing those provi-
tions" as contained in the municipal election
.. (1) Adult" means
sions have been included in the annotations to
this
code, extends to annexation elections. City of
a.
(2) "Agricultural ]an,
section.
Part 1 of this article is constitutional. Board of
Aspen v. Howell, 170 Colo. 82, 459 P.2d 764
(1969).
grazing of farm animals,
County Comm'rs v. City & County of Denver,
Part 1 is silent on power of municipality to
development.
194 Colo. 252,571 P.2d 1094 (1977).
repeal annexation ordinance. McKee v. City of
(3) "Development st,
This article deals with the subject of annexa-
Louisville, 200 Colo. 525, 616 P.2d 969 (1980).
ordinances, housing code
tion of territory. City of Englewood v. Daily, 158
Preannexation agreements not prohibited.
Ordinance, code, or regul
Colo. 356, 407 P.2d 325 (1965).
There is no language in this article which pro-
land or the preparation o
Annexation is a special statutory proceeding
hibits a preannexation agreement which
(4) "Enclave" meant
and § 1 of art. XX, Colo. Const., requires com-
requests a certain zoning classification. Geralnes
outer boundaries of the
pliance with such procedures by the city and
B.V. v. City of Greenwood Village, 583 F. Supp.
a
(5) "Identical
county of Denver. People ex rel. City & County
of Denver v. County Court, 137 Colo. 436, 326
830 (D. Colo. 1984).
Annexation authority under this article does
owners
degree of interest in each
P.2d 372 (1958).
not extend to Denver. Board of County Com-
(6) "Landowner" met
Detaches territory from county. The provi-
m'rs v. Denver, 714 P.2d 1352 (Colo. App. 1986).
land. If the mineral estate
sions of this article make it clear that any annex-
Act contemplates annexation agreements as a
vided interest in the surfa
ation under any of the general laws of this state
routine step in the annexation process.
mineral estate.
operates per se as a detachment of the annexed
Although annexation agreement is not required
(7) "Nonresident land
territory from the county in which it lies. People
for a valid annexation, where parties had con-
to be annexed who is not
ex rel. Simon v. Anderson, 112 Colo. 558, 151
P.2d 972 (1944).
templated execution of an annexation agree-
ment throughout the adoption of
attested to by sworn affidt
And becomes part of city. If land has been
lawfully it ipso. facto become
process,
annexation resolution without having an agree-
(8) "Period of notice f
Olution establishing the he
annexed would a
ment in place was an abuse of discretion. Midci-
part of the city annexing for all authorized pur-
ties Co. v. Town of Superior, 916 P.2d 595 (Colo.
(9) "Qualified elector'
poses. People ex rel. City & County of Denver v.
App. 1995), aff'd, 933 P.2d 596 (Colo. 1997).
title, who is a resident lant
County Court, 137 Colo. 436, 326 P.2d 372
(10) "Quasi-municipa
�1958).
powers for the accomplish:
domestic water districts, m
31-1.2-102. Legislative declaration. (1)
The general assembly hereby declares that the
tricts, fire protectOn distri.
policies and procedures in this part 1 are necessary
and desirable for the orderly growth of
(11) "Resident" means
urban communities in the state of Colorado,
and to these ends this part 1 shall be liberally
posed to be annexed.
construed. The general assembly further declares that it is the purpose of this part 1:
(12) "Taxpayer" mear
(a) To encourage natural and well -ordered development of municipalities of the state;
taxes on real property loca
(b) To distribute fairly and equitably the costs of municipal services among those per-
od. of time.
sons who benefit therefrom;
(13) "Urban developm
(c) To extend municipal government, services, and facilities to eligible areas which
dential, institutional, comm
form a part of the whole community;
ational and similar uses, in
(d) To simplify governmental structure in urban areas;
grazing of farm animals, ai
(e) To provide an orderly system for extending municipal regulations to newly annexed
ground which has been or i.
areas;
(f) To reduce friction among contiguous
or neighboring municipalities; and
vision into lots Or plots am
access streets, and construe
(g) To increase the ability of municipalities
in urban areas to provide their citizens with
the services they require.
Source: L. 75: Entire title
Source: L. 75: Entire title R&RE, p. 1076, § 1, effective July 1.
Annotator's note. Since § 31
J6 former § 31-8-103 prior to th
Annotator's note. Since § 31-12-102 is similar
Policy. Policyof the enactment is to encour-
yIhenactmele of this title, and
thereto, relevant cases
to former § 31-8-102 prior to the 1975 repeal and
p p
age natural and well -ordered development of
g p
d in t
'sions have been included in
reenactment of this title, and laws antecedent
municipalities, not to discourage it by providing
h
th
f*his section.
thereto, relevant cases construing those provi-
have been included
for last minute maneuvers designed only to
�� Status prerequisites for
sions in the annotations to
this section.
defeat annexation. Pom onio v. Cityof West-
minster, 178 Colo. 80, 496 P.2d 999 1972
( )
part:
ownership in fee and
.
axes re
;taxes are both prerequisites foe
31-12-104 Government - Municipal 672
affixed his name to the petition, and since the The streets and public ways in an area were
owners of more than 50 percent of the area pro- not to be included in calculating the area to be
posed to be annexed had not joined in seeking annexed. City & County of Denver v. Holmes,
the annexation, the ordinance of the city council, 156 Colo. 586, 400 P.2d 901 (1965).
purporting to annex the acres included in the Applied in Board of County Comm'rs v. City
petition is void. Elkins v. City & County of Den- & County of Denver, 193 Colo. 325,566 P.2d 335
ver, 157 Colo. 252, 402 P.2d 617 (1965). (1977).
31-12-104. Eligibility for annexation. (1) 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 is integrated
said area 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
a
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
per 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 annexed (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 a period of not less than five years.
iJ
(III) 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
l
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 the nearest boundary of the annexing municipality, 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.
^i
(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
t'
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
is ways in an area were
1Iculating the area to be
y of Denver v. Holmes,
101 (1965).
:�ounty Comm'rs v. City
3 Colo. 325, 566 P.2d 335
annexation if the gov-
fetermines:
)sed to be annexed is
:cted by the existence
it 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-
ation impact report
J to be annexed and
I in the gear future;
3 with the annexing
contiguity with the
shall be a basis for a
ly, upon the basis of
•12-109, finds that at
used to be annexed
exing municipality:
ss than twenty-five
unicipality. If there
apply.
i (including streets)
i, express an inten-
han five years.
o be annexed those
all of its citizens on
such citizens. This
)sed to be annexed
t any service by or
)f this section may
sly annexed to the
contiguous at any
,ise in compliance
*e than three miles
)ntiguity be estab-
Ked directly to, or
n area.
tellites, which are
s of this article as
:xation which uses
)urt of competent
be provided. The
t apply to such an
municipality hav-
1 by such annexa-
may be, but need
673 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 nonc6ntiguous annexation.
Source: L. 75: Entire title R&RE, p. 1078, § 1, effective July 1. L. 87: (1)(a) amended, p.
1218, § 1, effective May 28. 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.2d 922 (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
compliance 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 (1)(a) of this section
provides that the fact that the territory has the
contiguity with the annexing municipality
required by this article shall 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-
al land 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 have a plan in
place for the area annexed. Town of Berthoud v.
Town of Johnstown, 983 P.2d 174 (Colo. 1999).
31-12-105 Government - Municipal
674
< i j 31-12-105. Limitations. (1) Notwithstanding any provisions of this part 1 to the con-
:' :I 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
y, 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
j 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 the
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 annexation 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 one -hundred fifty days next following the
effective date of the resolution accepting the petition and setting the hearing date and if an
annexation 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 which will result in the detachment 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 by a resolution of the board of directors of w
r the school district to which such area will be attached approving such annexation.
(e) Except as 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
any direction from any point of such municipal boundary in any one year. Within said
-three-mile area, the contiguity required by section 31-12-104 (1) (a) may be achieved by
annexing a platted street or alley, a public or private right-of-way, a public or private trans-
portation
ortation right-of-wayans-
P or area, or a lake, reservoir, stream, or other natural or artificial
4 waterway. Prior to completion of any annexation within the three-mile 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, 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. Such 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 any one year without regard to such mileage limitation.
Such three-mile limit may also be exceeded for the annexation of an enterprise zone.
N' (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.
r' (g) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph
municipal-
ity shall not deny reasonable access to landowners, owner f of an easement, this subsection (or the ownr of
a franchise adjoining a platted street or alley which has been annexed bythe municipality
i but is not bounded on both sides by the municipality.
j
674
isions of this part 1 to the con-
s:
annexed, no land held in iden-
real estate or two or 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-
ts a valuation for assessment in
purposes for the year next pre-
thout the written consent of the
tin the outer boundaries of the
. In the application of this para-
eet, road, or other public way.
annexation petition or petition
hall be valid when annexation
part or all 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
nce 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
)etition for an annexation elec-
tive date of the resolution set-
iment of area from any school
strict, no annexation pursuant
i 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 any one year. Within said
4 (1) (a) may be achieved by
-way, a public or private trans-
, or other natural or artificial
hree-mile area, the municipal -
scribes the proposed location,
, waterfronts, parkways, play-
grounds, open spaces, public
ion, 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, or the owner of
annexed by the municipality
•
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 such 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 (1)(g)
added, p. 1218, § 2, effective May 28. L. %: (1)(h) added, p. 1770, § 69, effective July 1.
L. 97: (1)(c) and (1)(d) amended, p. 994, § 1, effective May 27.
I. General Consideration.
II. Land Not to be Divided.
III. Land Comprising 20 Acres or More.
IV. Annexation of School District's Land.
L GENERAL CONSIDERATION.
C.I.S. See 62 C.J.S., Municipal Corporations,
§§48-51.
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 § 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.2d 955 (1971).
Courts will not read into annexation statutes
limitations relating to unusual or irregular
shapes or patterns of territory annexed. Board
of County Comm'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 necessary 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 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
compliance with the requirements of this sec-
tion. Slack v. City of Colorado Springs, 655 P.2d
376 (Colo. 1982).
Subsection (1)(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 (1)(e) in no way alters the contigu-
ity requirements of § 3142-104 (1)(a); it merely
provides that contact between a street or an
alley and an existing boundary of. the annexing
municipality may be used to achieve the conti-
guity requirements of § 31-12-104 (1)(a). Board
of County Comm'rs v. City of Lakewood, 813
P.2d 793 (Colo. App. 1991).
II. LAND NOT TO BE DIVIDED.
Written consent prerequisite to annexation 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 thereof. 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 of be
annexed, assuming that this was a right-of-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).
678
.ve provided an exception to that
rd of County Comm'rs v. City &
Denver, 190 Colo. 8, 543 P.2d 521
cation of sole ownership involving
tly contiguous point. Even though
i not affegted by the existence of a
-termination of sole ownership for
annexation 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
-onfined to area's perimeter. The
its for determining boundary conti-
subsection (2) of this section must
solely to the perimeter of the area
be annexed. Cesario v. City of Col-
igs, 200 'Colo. 459, 616 P.2d 113
ty owns 50-foot strip in land to be
.nce the city council must decide
iexation will be approved under §
)(g) where owners of 100 percent of
:)e 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
it comport with the legislative man-
: purpose of the act is to provide for
y growth of urban communities".
)unty Comm'rs v. City & County of
Alo. App. 171, 556 P.2d 486 (1976),
)lo. 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 &
Denver, 190 Colo. 8, 543 P.2d 521
tintiffs fail to go forward to demon-
:ficiency in boundaries to defeat the
!quirement, findings of ultimate fact
ially in the language of the statute
icient when based on evidence not
controverted by other evidence in
Adams v. City of Colorado Springs,
1, 496 P.2d 1005 (1972).
i McArthur v. Zabka,177 Colo. 337,
(1972); Slack v. City of Colorado
P.2d 376 (Colo. 1982).
on elections. (1) Petition for
•
A-,.AVk
679 Annexation \- Consolidation - Disconnection
31-12-107
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;
(I11) 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, exclusive of
streets and alleys;
(IV) A request that the 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;
(I1) A map showing the boundary of the area proposed to be annexed;
(III) Within the annexation boundary map, a showing of the 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 lots 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 as.a communication. The
governing body, without undue delay, shall then take appropriate steps to determine if the
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 be 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 is located in a county of more than twenty-five thousand
inhabitants; or
31-12-107 Government - Municipal
�I 68o
whichever is be less, ifs such ned area is located iat least forty n aalified county of twenty-fivey ten percent of said electors,
less. thousand inhabitants or
(b) The petition shall be filed with the clerk.
(c) The petition for annexation election shall comply with the provisions of ara r
(c) of subsection (1) of this section; except that: P g aph
(1) Rather than an allegation of any certain percentage of land owned, it shall con
an allegation that the signers of the petition are qualified electors resident in and landown-
ers
of the area proposed to be annexed; andtam
(II) The petition shall request the annexing municipality to commence proceedings
the holding of an annexation election.
for
(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).
l (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
:t section, the governing body may pass a resolution of intent to annex the and proposed four
annexation, subject to the procedure 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
section are alternative to each other and to an () this
except that a petition for annexation election filed pursuant to subsection (2) of this section
y procedure set forth in section 31-12-106;
shall take precedence over an annexation petition involving the same territory fiand filed
C pursuant to subsection (1) of this section if such petition for annexation election is filed
t least ten days prior to the hearing date set for the annexation petition filed pursuant to sub-
section section (1) of this section. b
(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.
y (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
I 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 ction 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 owner in J
fee of an undivided interest 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 eti-
tion for annexation or annexation election. The entire area of the land signed for shall
computed as petitioning for annexation if such signing landowner has become liable be
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 t
of the land which is subject to the contract if he has paid the taxes thereon for the next re-
ceding tax year. The signers for an area owned by a corporation, whether he owner
i profit, shall be the same persons as those authorized to convey land for such corporation.
profit or non -
Profit, .. (8) No power of attorney providing the consent of a landowner to be annexed by a
y 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.
31-12-108.5 Government - Municipal 684
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 § 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 (f971).
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 P2d 764 (1969); Board of County Com-
m'rs v. City & County of Denver, 37 Colo. App.
395, 548 P.2d 922 (1976).
31-12-108.5. Annexation impact report - requirements. (1) 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 that 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 outfalls,
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 final preannexation 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 students generated and the capital construction required
to educate such students.
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-
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 (Colo.
App. 1995), aff'd, 933 P.2d 596 (Colo. 1997).
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's need not be transcribed unless proceedings for judicial review are ini-
tiated as provided 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 -
01
31-12-115 Government - Municipal 690
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 otie 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 the election favor annexation to
another municipality.
(10) Unless the area claimed by more than one municipality constitutes more than one-
third of the area proposed for annexation, 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 31-12-105. 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.
Law reviews. For article, "ADR Techniques
in Municipal Annexations", see 18 Colo. Law.
901 (1989).
Annotator's note. Since § 31-12-114 is similar
to former § 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).
31-12-115. Zoning of land while annexation is under way - zoning of newly annexed
land - subdivision of land while annexation is under way. (1) An annexing municipality
may institute the procedure 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 accordance with the 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
:birds 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
iving less than two-thirds
)ality receives a majority,
trgest pluralities shall be
fter the date of the initial
to annex. Notice of such
:. This election shall have
municipalities involved.
3ry, if the total area pro-
wo-thirds boundary con -
:he right to annex the dic-
tion favor annexation to
)nstitutes more than one -
he first annexing munici-
�eeding with the annexa-
not claimed by another
red in this section. In the
:)y 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
sting municipalities on a
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 uniform 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.
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.
(` C.J.S. See 62 C.J.S., Municipal Corporations,
§ 226(16): 101A C.J.S., Zoning and Land Plan-
ning, § 107.
Annotator's note. Since § 31-12-115 is similar
to former § 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 land 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
upon lands which it annexes in the future. Bird v.
City of Colorado Springs, 176 Colo. 32, 489 P.2d
324 (1971).
Simultaneous 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).
ctly statutory. City of West-
31-12-116. Review. (1) (a) If any landowner or any qualified elector in the area pro-
rthglenn,178 Colo. 334,498
posed to be annexed, the board of county commissioners of any county governing the area
of County Comm'rs v. City
proposed to be annexed, or any municipality within one mile of the area proposed to be
:r, 40 Colo. App. 281, 573
annexed believes itself to be aggrieved by the acts of the governing body of the annexing
municipality in annexing said area to said municipality, such acts or findings of the govern
J
ing body may be reviewed by certiorari in accordance 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
oning of newly annexed
instituted prior to the effective date of the annexing ordinance by the annexing municipal-
n annexing municipality
ity.
-al charter to make land
(b) If the annexed area is located within two or more counties, review proceedings may
:tition for an annexation 1be
brought in any district court having jurisdiction of any one of such counties. In all such
Dns of section 31-12-107.
certiorari proceedings under this part 1, the district court shall be presided over by a judge
g prior to the date when
appointed by the chief justice of the supreme court of the state of Colorado, which judge
g process is commenced
shall not be from the judicial district in which the area proposed to be annexed is located
protest area for zoning
nor from a judicial district contiguous thereto.
whether the land in such
(2) (a) (I) All such actions to review the findings and the decision of the governing
ly without the annexing
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.
:d on or after January 1,
(II) All such actions to review the findings and the decision of the governing body shall
iin ninety days after the
be subject to the following requirement, which is a condition precedent to the right to
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 21'. Staff is currently seeking a joint CC/BOCC
work session in July.
•
Annexation Plan Land Use T
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 jurisdictions land
Ski Area Base Zoning.
use regulations and tools.
Ski Area Zoning.
Need to 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) annexations
require CCBOCC 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
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 issues as attachment D.
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 of 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 and the UGB. We hope to be able to review
the draft in the early summer and the City would adopt the plan in July of 2001.
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.
•
•
CITY OF ASPEN WATER POLICY AND WATER SERVICE AGREEMENT:
In 1993 and updated in 1996, the City of Aspen developed a water policy (attachment B).
In part, this policy was enacted so that land use applications could be reviewed by the
City to determine if the proposals matched the long term build out and locational land use
pattern goals of the AACP. The "Statement Of Policy" on page 2 of the document
outlines the land use objectives of the policy. Item Xi on page 6 recites the policy that a
property must agree to annex if it is contiguous and/or if the City determines that
annexation is desirable.
Attachment C is a copy of the City's Water Service Agreement. This agreement, item 26
on page 10, requires that an applicant for water service must agree to potential future
annexation by the City.
CURRENT IGA's BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN AND PITKIN COUNTY:
Staff researched the City and County Clerk files in order to determine the order of
magnitude and type of IGA's in existence between the County and the City of Aspen.
This list is based on what was readily available. It is not an exhaustive, historical list but
provides a list of the most current agreements.
*5 IGA's regarding transportation issues between 1991 and 2000;
*2 IGA's regarding the establishment and operation of the Housing Authority
between 1989 and 1999;
* 1 IGA regarding noxious weed management in 2000;
* 1 IGA regarding reudi in 1994;
* 1 IGA regarding the creation of the Community Development Department in
1994;
*I IGA regarding sharing personnel services in 1993;
*2 IGA's regarding the Environmental health department in 1999;
*3 IGA's regarding trails between 1992 and 1998;
* 1 IGA regarding Mollie Gibson Park in 1999;
*2 IGA's regarding waste management in 1992 and 1999;
* 1 IGA regarding the Rio Grand Land exchange in 1992;
* 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.
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 Worksession Regarding the Pending Annexation Plan
Update
Backgroun&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:
❑ 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 IGA.
❑ 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 a joint 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
✓ 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.
❑ Agree not to annex any property outside of the UGB without the County's
consent; Allow the County to review any pre -annexation agreement for properties
outside of the UGB.
❑ Require purchase of TDRs for upzoning of any parcel within the UGB (except
where upzoning accommodates affordable housing?)
❑ Consider whether it makes sense for the City to annex forest lands incorporated
within ski areas.
❑ Come to some agreement regarding city/county distribution of shared tax
revenues as the City acquires more land;
❑ Discuss City policy of requiring annexation as part of water service agreement;
❑ 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);
❑ Consider whether zoning in the Rural Area of the County (outside of the UGB)
should be modified to encourage certain densities and /or uses to be located
within the UGB.
❑ 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
0
0
Memorandum
TO: Interested Persons
FROM: John P. Worcester
DATE: April 20,1999
RE: Annexation Process
Aspen - 50 Years After Goethe
Mind - Body - Spirit
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
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 Municipal 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 ndxt
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 annexation ordinance following a public hearing. Determination to
annex is entirely within the discretion of the City Council.
r
Map A
City of Aspen
Three -Mile
Annexation Area
= Rivers & Ponds
0 Urban Growth Boundary
0 Parcels
City of Aspen
Roads
Three -Mile Boundary
N
W E
S
0 1 2 3 Miles
City of Aspen
Community Development Department
August, 2002 Page 15
/ Brush Creek
Village
McLain
Flats
Brush Creek
Starwood
L Sard
Droste y
Field
_,4
Town of
Snowmass Owl Creek
Buttermilk
Village s Itlision
_ _.. Butt
Buttermilk
Ski Area
Awwvio -
Re
Subd
Forest Lands
,\ 1
i
Highlands
Ski Area
Forest Lands
Forest Lands
I
Ute/Northstar
Aspen Mountain
Ski Area Re
Sub, divi
i
Inds
LI
Map B
City of Aspen
Three -Mile
Annexation Area
N
City of Aspen
Community Development Department
August, 2002
Page 16
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
City of Aspen
Annexation Plan
Revised 3 July 1996
Prepared by :
Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(970) 920-5090
RETAIN FOR PERMANENT RECORD
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
' RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING
THE 1996 CITY OF ASPEN ANNEXATION PLAN
Resolution No. 96-_a4
WHEREAS, pursuant to Colorado Revised Statutes (CRS) 31-12-105, all cities within the State of
' Colorado must a have a "Plan" in place to guide future annexations; and
WHEREAS, the last update of the City of Aspen Annexation Plan was approved by Aspen
' Planning and Zoning Commission on October 18, 1988 in association with the 1988 Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan; and
' WHEREAS, the 1988 Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan was superseded by the adoption of the
1993 Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP); and
' WHEREAS, the AACP differed from prior comprehensive plans in that the document was a
"character" based plan that did not include the adoption of a revised Annexation Plan; and
' WHEREAS, The Aspen/Pitkin County Community Development Department has refined and
updated the previously adopted Annexation Element to be consistent with the AACP; and
' WHEREAS, State Statute allows the adoption of separate plans by City Council following review
by the Planning Commission; and
' WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission reviewed and formally recommended the
Annexation Plan for adoption at their meeting of June 18, 1996.
' NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO:
' That the City Council has reviewed the proposed 1996 Annexation Plan and has formally adopted the Plan.
RESOLVED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this day of ��-- , 1996, by the City Council
for the City of Aspen, Colorado.
1
John S 13ennett, Mayor
I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a true and
accur copy of that res ution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting
held 1966.
Kathryn S. Ko , City Clerk
1
it
1
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLA.INNIlYG AND ZONING COMMISSION RECONIMENDrNG
TO THE :ASPEN CITY COUNCIL THE ADOPTION THE 1996 CITY OF ASPEN ANNEXATION
PLAN
Resolution No. 90-t
WHEREAS, pursuant to Colorado Revised Statutes (CRS) 31-12-105, all cities within the State of
Colorado must a have a "Plan" in place to guide future annexations; and f
WHEREAS, the last update of the City of Aspen Annexation Plan was approved by Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission on October 18, 1988 in association with the 1988 Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the 1983 Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan was superseded by the adoption of the
1993 Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP); and
WHEREAS, the AACP differed from prior comprehensive plans in that the document was a
"character" based plan that did not include the adoption of a revised Annexation Plan; and
'YYHEREAS, The Aspen/Pitkin County Community Development Department has refined and
updated the previously adopted Annexation Element to be consistent with the AACP; and
WHEREAS, State Statute allows the adoption of separate plans by City Council following review
by the Planning Commission.
' NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission:
That the Commission has reviewed the proposed 1996 Annexation Plan and recommends to the City
Council the Plan be adopted.
' APPRONTED by the Commission at iGs regular meeting on June 18, 1996. -
Attest: Planninh and Zoning Commission:
Amy_ Schimid, Deputy City Clerk Sara Garton, Chair
J
I. INTRODUCTION
Statutory Requirements. All annexation actions by cities in Colorado are govemed by CRS 31-21-
105. These statutory requirements include the need to produce an annexation plan for a three mile
boundary around the existing city limits. The specific requirements include the following:
'Prior to completion of any annexations. within the three mile area, the municipality shall have
in place a plan for the area. which generally describes the proposed location, character, and
extent ofstreets, subways, bridges, waterways, waterfronts, parkways, playgrounds, squares.
parks, aviation fields. other public ways, grounds. open spaces, public utilities. and terminals for
water, light, sanitation, transportation, and power to be provided by the municipality and the
proposed land uses for the area. "
Past Annexation Plans by the City of Aspen. The City of Aspen last updated the Annexation Plan
' in 1988. From the fall of 1984 until the fall of 1985, The City Council, in cooperation with the
Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners, met intermittently to discuss annexation policy,
' and the analysis of annexation is traditionally coordinated by the City Manager's Office. The plan
adopted in 1988 has not been updated, and has been the legislative guide for all annexations since
I
that time
The 1988 plan was actually an individual element to the 1988 Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan,
which has subsequently been amended by the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) adopted in
1993. This 1996 revision has been prepared in order to meet the statutory requirements of CRS
31-21-105, as well as to update the Annexation Plan with respect to annexations already
undertaken, and new policies and land use code provisions which have been implemented.
However, the remaining annexation areas identified in this plan are essentially the same as those
identified in the 1988 plan and the conceptual framework for annexation remains unchanged as
well.
The 1988 Annexation Plan stated that the City of Aspen is taking a proactive role in the annexation
process in order to enfranchise County residents who live outside of the City of Aspen
jurisdictional boundaries within the political process. Presently, there are many residents who live
within the urban service area who do not participate in City elections. The intent of the annexation
process is to incorporate the urbanized portion of Pitkin County into the City of Aspen. Secondly,
a pro -active, aggressive annexation policy will allow the City to exert direct control upon the
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Annexation Areas
City of Aspen
•� � _' City of Aspen
1 Ute N o r t h s t a r
n
J
Lower S uggler
4 Red Mountai
� J �
5 Pitkin Green
6 Red Butte
8 Aspen Highlands �Qse Are
9 As p en Hi h I a n d s Ski Area
C d
10 Shadow M o u n t a i n
' j1 •'�'�" � 11 Aspen Mountain k �9a
T•
13 M roon Creek
City Boundar
i
Annexation A eas
a t e r F- a t u r e s
�\ f—A`
' Oc 1996 City of Aspe n Q
THIS MAP/DRAWING IS A GRAPHICAL
REPRESENTATION- Or',THE FEATURES
DEPICT�WA ND1S NOfi A LEGAL
REPRESIdN. THE AE�TRRACY 1 i n c h = 2600 f ee t
ENLARGjNT)DOREREDUCTOION. �'�/ �1 r
City of Aspen Annexation Plan, rev. 3 July 1996
Page 2
growth at the urban/rural fringe of the City. These general goals hold true for the 1996
Annexation Plan as well.
' II. ANNEXATION AREA
The annexation area shown on Exhibit A generally corresponds with the Boundaries of the Aspen
Area Community Plan, with a few exceptions. The shaded portions of Exhibit A, Owl Creek,
Maroon Creek, and the east side of the Roaring Fork East and the west side of State Highway 82
Corridor, are within the boundaries of the Aspen Area Community Plan but outside of the
proposed annexation area. These areas have been excluded from consideration because they are
considered rural in character, with little likelihood for the provision of urban or municipal services.
Almost the entire annexation area, which contains approximately 8,714 acres of land, is located
within 3 miles of the existing City limits. Presently there are only 1,479 acres of land within the
current jurisdictional boundaries of Aspen. If the entire annexation area is annexed to the City, the
geographic size of Aspen would increase by approximately seven times. This figure is somewhat
misleading because the Aspen Mountain and Aspen Highlands areas contain approximately 2,432
acres. If the ski areas are deleted, the annexation area only contains approximately 6,282 acres.
To simplify the analysis, the proposed annexation area has been broken down into 12 smaller
annexation areas which are depicted in Exhibit B. The boundaries for each area were developed
based on the following factors: existing development patterns, physical features, and established
neighborhood areas. The existing character of the annexation areas vary significantly in terms of
urbanization levels and environmental constraints.
Based on the 1995 Community Development Department estimates, the proposed annexation areas
currently contain approximately 1,947 dwelling units, and an estimated year-round population of
2,869. By comparison, the 1994-1995 resident population for the City of Aspen was
approximately 5,851 and the peak population was estimated at 25,000.1
An analysis of the existing zoning pattern in the unincorporated portion of Pitkin County indicates
that a range of 896 to 1,130 new dwelling units can conceivably be developed in the proposed
annexation area. This figure includes the approvals for the Maroon Creek property, as well as the
' All dwelling unit and population estimates are based on extrapolation from 1990 U.S. Census data.
' City of Aspen Annexation Plan. rev. 3 July 1996
1 Page j
conceptual approval of the Highlands Base Village. The summary by annexation group is shown
' on Table 1.
'
This table provides an overview of land use characteristics for each annexation area. The land use
characteristics provided a basis for aggregating the annexation areas into four distinct groups
which share similar traits. The grouping of these areas are explained below:
Group A—Ute[Northstar, Red Butte, Shadow Mountain
1
Generally, rural annexation areas which have very limited growth potential due to their
'
geographic location. These areas are particularly affected by environmental planning
issues. The City's existing Land Use Code with its provisions for Environmentally
'
Sensitive Areas (ESA's) now has appropriate provisions to guide the growth and
development of these areas. Further consideration may be given to adopting the more -
stringent County 1041 regulations.
Group B—Roaring Fork East, Red Mountain, Pitkin Green
Generally, suburban annexation areas comprised of predominantly developed subdivisions.
'
Several of these subdivisions have been already annexed into the City, such as Eastwood
and Knollwood. Remaining areas include Aspen Grove and Mountain Valley. The major
' land use issues affecting this group include floor area ratio and legitimizing "bandit
dwelling units." Another issue relative to Red Mountain is the status of Red Mountain
' Road and the ability of the City to adequately maintain and upgrade it as necessary.
Group C--Meadowood, Smuggler, Aspen Highlands Base and New Development, State
tHighway 82 Corridor
' These areas contain large development parcels with significant growth potential. There are
numerous land use planning issues which need to be resolved prior to annexation,
' regarding appropriate development densities. The Maroon Creek Development
Corporation area has completed the County land use process and has been awarded land
' use approvals. The Aspen Highlands project is currently in the County land use process.
1
1
City of Aspen Annexation Plan. rev. 3 July 1996
' Page 4
1
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF ANNEXATION AREAS
Map ID #
Annexation
Size
Vacant
Vacant
. Potential
Character
Comments
Area
(ac.)
Unsubdivided
Subdivided
Units
(ac.)
(ac.)
Group A
1
Ute
469
133
69
7-10
Rural/Not
Includes Little Annie Base
Northstar
Subdivided
6
Red Butte
105
217
0
9-11
Rural/Partially
Potential for park use
Public
10
Shadow
284
1
4
10-14
Rural /
City ESA process
Mountain
Numerous
appropriate
mining claims
Subtotal
858
351
73
26-35
Group B
2
Roaring
66
0
3
28-33
Suburban/ All
Numerous bandit units
Fork
Subdivided
4
Red
324
.5
20
98-124
Suburban/
Numerous bandit units
Mountain
Subdivided &
Unsubdivided
5
Pitkin
219
0
21
89-99
Suburban/
Numerous bandit units
Green
Subdivided &
Unsubdivided
Subtotal
609
.5
44
215-256
Group C
3
Lower
260
42
10
37-150
Urban/ Not
EPA requirements
Smuggler
Subdivided
7
Meadowood
366
219
231
93-114
Suburban/
Significant potential for
Subdivided &
growth
Unsubdivided
8
Aspen
144
2
_15
154
Suburban/
Growth potential
Highlands
Subdivided &
determined in 1996 by
Unsubdivided
general submission to
County
12
SH 82
1536
424
2
260-310
Urban and
Significant potential for
Corridor
Rural/
growth
Subdivided and
Unsubdivided
13
Maroon
403
62
218
111
Suburban
PUD approval in place,
Creek
I
I
I I
I
I RETI' revenue
Subtotal
2709
749
476
655-839
Group D
9
Aspen
1374
0
130
0
Ski Area/ 96%
Sales tax revenue
Highlands
USFS
11
Aspen
1058
0
0
0
Ski Area/ 2 1 %
Fragmented ownership
Mountain
USFS
Subtotal
2432
0
130
0
TOTAL
8714
1100.5
723
896-1130
' Source: Aspen/Pitldn County Community Development Department, 1996.
City of Aspen Annexation Plan. rev. 3 July 1996
Page 5
Annexation of these areas would generally include reaffirming the decisions of these
processes. An issue unique to the Smuggler area is the impact upon the City, County, and
residents of the area relating to its designation as a "Super Fund" hazardous waste site.
Group D—Aspen Highlands and Aspen Mountain Skiing Areas
These areas correspond with skiing area permit boundaries. Annexation would necessitate
the drafting of new land use legislation to guide future growth and development of the
skiing areas.
' An analysis of land use issues indicate that the annexation of areas in Groups A and B will result
in less complicated land use issues for the City than the annexation of areas in Groups C and D. It
' is also possible that the Meadowood annexation can be broken into smaller parts, according to
existing subdivisions. For example, the Meadowood, Aspen Highlands, and Aspen Tennis Club
subdivisions are similar in nature to each other and the annexation of these three subdivisions could
tbe accomplished without addressing the question of zoning large vacant tracts of land.
1
1
1
1
1
1
III. STATUTORY ANNEXATION CRITERIA
An area is eligible for annexation if the governing body, at a hearing as provided in CRS 31-12-
109, finds and determines the following:2
1. That not less than one -sixth of the perimeter of the area proposed to be annexed is
contiguous with the annexing municipality. Contiguity is not affected by the existence of a platted
street or alley, a public or private right-of-way or area, public lands, or a lake reservoir, stream, or
other natural or man-made waterway between the annexing municipality and the land proposed to
be annexed.
2. That a community of interest exists between the area proposed to be annexed and the
annexing municipality; that such area is urban or will be urbanizing in the near future; and that
said area is integrated with or is capable of being integrated with the annexing municipality. The
1CRS.31-12-104.
City of Aspen Annexation Plan, rev. 3 July 1996
Page 6
fact that the area proposed to be annexed has the contiguity with the annexing municipality
' required by the above requirement shall be a basis for a finding of compliance with these
requirements unless the governing body, upon the basis of competent evidence presented at the
' hearing, finds that at least two of the following are shown to exist:
'
a. Less than fifty percent of the adult residents of the area proposed to be annexed
make use of part or all of the following types of facilities of the annexing municipality;
Recreational, civic, social, religious, industrial, or commercial; and less than twenty-five
'
percent of said area's adult residents are employed in the annexing municipality. If there are
no adult residents at the time of the hearing, this standard does not apply.
1
b. One-half or more of the land in the area proposed to be annexed (including streets)
'
is agricultural, and the landowners of such agricultural land, under oath, express an intent
to devote the land to such agricultural use for a period of not less than five years.
C. It is not physically practicable to extend the area proposed to be annexed those
'
urban services which the annexing municipality provides in common to of all its citizens on
the same terms and conditions as such services are made available to such citizens. This
standard shall not apply to the extent that any portion of an area proposed to be annexed is
'
provided or will within the reasonably near future be provided with any service by or
through a quasi -municipal corporation.
'
-annexation
These annexation criteria have been used as a general guide an area around
g '� to identify
'
the periphery of Aspen.
W. ANNEXATION REPORT REQUIREMENTS
' State statutes also require that a municipality must prepare an impact report concerning the
proposed annexation at least twenty-five days before the date of the hearing, and shall file one copy
' with the Board of County Commissioners governing the land proposed to be annexed. Such report
shall not be required for annexations of ten acres or less in total area or when the municipality and
' the Board of County Commissioners agree that the report may be waived. Such report shall
include, as a minimum:
■
City of Aspen Annexation Plan. rev. 3 July 1996
Page 7
' 1. A map or maps of the municipality and adjacent territory to show the following
P
' information:
a. The present and proposed boundaries of the municipality and in the vicinity of the
' proposed annexation;
b. The present streets, major trunk water mains, sewer interceptors and outfalls,
other utility lines and ditches, and the proposed extension of such streets and utility lines in the
tvicinity of the proposed annexation;
'
C. The existing and proposed land use pattern in the areas to be annexed.
'
2. A copy of any draft or final preannexation agreement, if available;
3. A statement setting forth the plans of the municipality for extending to or otherwise
'
providing for, within the area to be annexed, municipal services performed by or on behalf of the
municipality at the time of annexation;
4. A statement setting forth the method under which the municipality plans to finance the
extension of the municipal services into the area to be annexed;
'
5. A statement identifying existing districts within the area to be annexed; and
6. A statement on the effect of annexation upon local -public school district systems, including
'
the estimated number of students generated and the capital construction required to educate such
students.
1
V. ISSUES AND CONCERNS
This section of the annexation plan addresses land use issues and general policy concerns which
are likely to arise during any annexation process. The annexation guidelines which follow this
section have been developed in response to the issues and concerns addressed in this section, and
' are intended to guide the City and County during annexation decisions.
F
M
City of Aspen Annexation Plan, rev. 3 July_ 1996
Page 8
Increased Development Potential within Existing Subdivisions
From a historical perspective, it has been City policy that, when land is annexed, the development
rights of the annexed land are not increased in comparison to the development rights in
unincorporated Pitkin County prior to the annexation. A fundamental policy question is whether
the City will continue to pursue this policy, particularly in light of the potential land use changes
that could occur in and around Aspen, and community goals such as affordable housing and the
development of alternative transportation modes entering Aspen.
The continuation of the past annexation policy would be an indirect acknowledgment that the
development rights established by Pitkin County zoning are appropriate. A review of the existing
subdivisions in the proposed annexation areas indicated that in virtually all cases, based upon a
consideration of standard zoning criteria such as neighborhood compatibility and provision of
services, County zoning appears appropriate.
A general land use policy addressing the development potential of an area after annexation should
take into consideration more factors than just the zoned development potential in unincorporated
Pitkin County. Equally important factors affecting density should include:
• compliance with the Aspen Area Community Plan,
• compatibility with the existing neighborhood; -
• recent or expected changes in the neighborhood or general area;
• = capability of the community to provide necessary services;
• environmental constraints; and
• changing goals of the community.
Floor Area Ratios
Floor Area Ratios (FAR) are utilized by the City and the County to determine the maximum size of
dwelling units permitted in zone districts. Floor area ratios represent the relationship between the
size of a structure and the size of the lot.
Pitkin County utilizes fixed percentages for FAR calculations. For example the FARs in the R-30,
R-15 and R-16 are .13, .16 and .30 respectively. By comparison, the City of Aspen utilizes a
sliding scale FAR system. With the exception of relatively large two -acre lots, the County FARs
City of Aspen Annexation Plan. rev. 3 July 1996
Page 9
are more restrictive than the methodology applied by the City of Aspen. Therefore, in the absence
of changes to the City FARs, the annexation of outlying subdivisions will most likely result in the
expansion of some dwelling units and the removal of non -conforming status for some existing
structures. The expansion of dwelling units may or may not be compatible with surrounding areas
and is an issue that should be analyzed during the annexation process.
Development Potential of Unsubdivided Land
A summary of major unsubdivided land within the annexation area is shown previously on Table 1.
In the past, both the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission and the Aspen City Council have
expressed frustration due to their perceived lack of control over the development of large parcels on
the urban fringe of the existing City limits. One method of addressing this concern is have large,
unincorporated parcels which are located in feasible annexation locations be annexed by the City.
The capability to assert direct control over such important lands around Aspen has significant
impact on the ability of the City to control is own destiny from a land use perspective. In almost
every case, the ability to capture both sales tax and Real Estate Transfer Tax (RETT) revenues are
compelling reasons to pursue aggressive annexation policies.
A primary disadvantage associated with annexing substantial amounts of vacant, undeveloped land
is that the action is generally followed by increased development expectations on the part of land
owners. The community has consistently attempted to maintain a rural entrance to the City, with
urbanization limited to and surrounding the central core. The City must weigh the costs of
potential intensification of land uses with the desire to increase revenues and exert greater land use
control. These are particularly important in reference to the State Highway 82 Corridor. One
option open to the City would be to incorporate an open space component into the annexation
process, partially financed by increased RETT revenues associated with individual annexations.
Environmental Review Standards
The Aspen City limits have begun to expand beyond the original townsite located on the primary
benches above the valley floor. This has created a situation whereby future expansions will
introduce significant environmental constraints in the annexation process. The Pitkin County Land
Use Code is specifically designed to address such environmental issues such as slope, erosion,
wildlife and floodplain constraints. In particular, the Colorado House Bill 1041 powers have
City of Aspen Annexation Plan, rev. 3 July 1996
Page 10
allowed Pitkin County to apply detailed criteria to review potential development in environmentally
sensitive areas.
In contrast, the Municipal Code is intended to review urban -level developments, and does not
contain the rigor of the County's 1041 regulations for managing development in sensitive areas.
The City has made steps to address these issues, specifically improving the 8040 Greenline,
Environmentally Sensitive Area, and Stream Margin review processes. These provisions of the
City Code may not be as restrictive as those found in Pitkin County's 1041 regulations.
Sid Area Base Zoning
' The Aspen Highlands Base Village has obtained conceptual development approval from Pitkin
County. If the Highlands base area is annexed by the City, the City's existing lodge zones may not
' be suitable for the Aspen Highlands base area. The potential annexation of Buttermilk presents
similar difficulties. The threshold issue with annexing either base village is the extensive area
which could potentially accommodate future development, and the intensive nature of existing City
' zoning.
Ski Area Zoning
Study Area 11 includes the Aspen Mountain Ski Area. The annexation of the ski area would
require the creation of a new zone district for ski area recreation, as well as an SPA overlay. A
wide variety of issues related to ski area expansion, which are not addressed by the current
municipal code, would have to be resolved prior to annexation. Pitkin County has adopted the AF-
SKI zone district to regulate ski area development and expansion. This tool should be considered
for adoption by the City if annexation occurs in this area. Additional issues include the relative
benefit of annexing federal lands into the City, as well as the additional impact on emergency
response.
Utility Extensions
Typical annexation policies focus a great deal of fiscal analysis on the potential extension of water
and sanitary sewer lines by a municipality to annexed territories. Within the Aspen Area, sanitary
sewer is provided by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, rather than the City. Therefore,
' City of Aspen Annexation Plan, rev. 3 July 1996
tPage 11
the provision of sanitary sewer is not an annexation issue. However, the City of Aspen operates a
' municipal water system, and cost and engineering issues relating to the provision of potable water
to developing land on the urban fringe are significant annexation issues.
' Exhibit C depicts the boundaries of the existing plan for water service areas adopted within the
Aspen Water Management Plan. Currently, there are several small water districts which serve
' residences which are located outside the City's boundaries but within the service area of the water
system. These small districts may present a problem for the City following annexation because
' their capital facilities may not be providing acceptable standards of service. Upgrading would be
expensive, and may become the responsibility of the City following annexation.
1
1
1
1
1
As the periphery of the City is developed, the development community is faced with a choice of
joining the Aspen water system or developing their own domestic water infrastructure. The City
and County do not currently require that new development join the municipal water system.
Furthermore, the City recommends that the County require new developments which choose to
provide private water systems to design those systems to meet standards which are comparable to
City standards. When and if the City annexes these areas, the water systems would otherwise
create a liability to the City. The City also recommends that the County develop standards which
act as an incentive to have developments initially hook onto the City's system, in order to avoid the
proliferation of small, uneconomical, often undependable private water systems in the metro area.
Annexation/Zoning Process
State law requires municipalities to zone annexed land within 90 days of annexation. In the past,
when complex zoning issues arise, the City of Aspen has experienced problems meeting this state
requirement. Failure to zone land within 90 days may potentially permit unwanted land uses on
annexed land. In order to assist the City in zoning newly annexed areas within the 90 day time
period, the Annexation Plan should establish guidelines for the city to follow during the annexation
process.
11
r�
ly
06/07/�96
1
Oc 1996 City of Aspen
THIS MAP[DRAWING IS A GRAPHICAL
REPRESENTTATI0R-0f THE FEATURES
D E P I C T E 4 AND 1S NOT -•A LEGAL
REPRES1 N E-0N. THE'-A-C- RACY
MAY CHAW DEPENDING ON THE,
ENLARGE NTf 0R REDUCTION,
!l i
1 inch = 2600 feet
f`
Water
2
r_
Service
Aspen
Areas
City of Aspen Annexation Plan. rev. 3 July 1996
Page 12
I
1
1
1
1
1
V. ANNEXATION GUIDELINES
Introduction
The first purpose of this chapter is to establish annexation guidelines to assist the City of Aspen in
making land use decisions regarding the annexation of new territory. The guidelines should be
used to determine when annexation is appropriate, which land should be annexed and how it should
be zoned. The guidelines will also be useful to property owners in annexed areas who are seeking
an indication of how their land will be treated in the land use process. The second purpose of this
chapter is to propose specific actions to be pursued to prepare the City for the annexation of land
within designated annexation areas.
Guidelines
A. Master Planning
I. Guideline
Generally, an adopted Master Plan for an annexed area addressing land use and
capital facilities improvements should be a pre -requisite to annexation.
Explanatory Comments
Most of the areas earmarked for annexation have been master planned or
developed under Pitkin County jurisdiction. The previous approvals established
guidelines for zoning decisions and capital facilities improvements. Previous
approvals, in combination with general wishes of property owners and neighbors,
should be a basic consideration in the land use decision making process.
B. Development Potential Within Existing Subdivided, Generally Developed Areas
1. Guideline
Apply zoning to annexed areas which generally maintains the same development
rights within the City as within unincorporated areas.
City of Aspen Annexation Plan_ rev. 3 July 1996
Page 13
Explanatory Comments
The general idea behind this guideline is that annexation and subsequent zoning
should not create a change in the character of an annexed area. Instead, the City
land use regulations should be oriented to maintaining the "character of the
neighborhood."
2. Guideline
Strive to avoid zoning designations which make conforming land uses and
structures nonconforming.
3. Guideline
Consider. when appropriate, creating new land use zone districts or formulating
code amendments, which may also be applied on a City-wide basis, to address
specific problems but avoid creating custom land use legislation to address
isolated, special interest problems.
Explanatory Comments
Inevitably, during the annexation process, it will become evident that new
legislation may be needed to address specific problems. The legislation should be
pursued if it addresses a problem for the majority of property owners in an area
and is consistent with other City plans and regulations. The City should avoid
creating land use legislation for unique problems associated with a handful of
properties which has adverse effects on the entire City.
4. Guideline
When creating new land use legislation for annexation areas, the City should
consider the effects of the new legislation on the remainder of the City of Aspen.
City of Aspen Annexation Plan. rev. 3 July 1996
Page 14
C. UnsubdividedNacant Land
1. Guideline
Postpone the annexation of unsubdivided vacant land which is rural in character
until a development proposal has been prepared for the land by the property
owners) or a development proposal is pending, unless the City decides to annex
certain properties due to their value as open space or to achieve contiguity for
the annexation of a developing area.
Explanatory Comments
It is recognized that the annexation of the area around the airport may be in the
best interest of the City. The price for the annexation of the airport should not be
the insensitive urbanization of the State Highway 82 Corridor. The City of Aspen
supports the concept of a greenbelt surrounding the existing City limits as
described in detail in the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Parks / Recreation /
Open Space / Trails Element. The potential future development of the State
Highway 82 Corridor should be consistent with this concept and the State
Highway 82 Corridor Master Plan.
D. Floor Area Ratios
1. Guideline
The City should generally try to maintain Floor Area Ratios comparable to the
County's for annexed properties. unless it is demonstrated during the zoning
process that the Floor Area Ratios are unreasonably high or low.
E. Environmental Review
1. Guideline
Utilize the Citv's Planned Unit Development (PUD) regulations, 8040
Greenline. Environmentallv .Sensitive Area. and Stream Margin Review when
appropriate to insure the best possible review of environmentally sensitive areas.
Citv of Aspen Annexation Plan, rev. 3 July 1996
Page 15
F.
2. Guideline
Consider. as necessary. code amendments to expand the scope of the City's
environmental reviews to include review mechanisms which address wildlife
habitat. the State Highwav 82 Scenic Corridor. and other significant
environmental issues.
Bandit Dwelling Units
I. Guideline
Use the Accessory Dwelling Unit (All U) provisions of the City Land Use Code.
in conjunction with the Uniform Building Code. to legalize "bandit units - as
employee units.
Explanatory Comments
Pitkin County has developed legislation to legalize "bandit units" in return for a
property owner's agreement to upgrade the units to meet health and safety
standards of the Uniform Building Code and to deed restrict the units to employee
housing occupancy. Since many bandit units will be encountered when the
Mountain Valley, Meadowood and Highlands Subdivisions=are annexed, the City
should apply existing regulations with respect to Accessory Dwelling Units to
address the problem.
G. Utilities
1. Guideline
Pursue an agreement with Pitkin County which insures that Pitkin County
requires small. private. utility systems to meet all City standards.
City of Aspen Annexation Plan, rev. 3 July 1996
Page 16
Explanatory Comments
Pitkin County cannot preclude a developer from installing a private water or sewer
system if the system meets acceptable standards. However, Pitkin County may
require potential developers to meet City standards and may serve as a catalyst to
join the public utility system, or at a minimum, insure that if private systems are
developed and subsequently taken over by the public, excess costs will not burden
future users.
H. Annexation Zoning Process
1. Guideline
Pursue the annexation of County lands only when a majority oj'the property
owners favor annexation.
Explanatory Comments
The City should continue to take a pro -active role in annexation by assisting
residents to gather annexation petition signatures. The City may annex property
by several methods. One method is to annex upon receipt of a certified petition
from landowners who own more than 50 percent of the land area in a proposed
annexation area. Another is to call an annexation election for designated
annexation areas. If a majority of the residents favor annexation, the City may
annex. Finally, the City may include an agreement to annex as part of a Water
Service Agreement executed with a developer.
For existing developed areas, the City has pursued annexation by assisting
residents to gather annexation petition signatures. When property owners of more
than 50 percent of the annexation area have submitted an annexation petition,
annexation has been pursued. The City Council may utilize either annexation
method. The first method is considered to be preferable because it is more
responsible to local citizens and a more personal approach to annexation.
The City should research the pros and cons of holding an annexation election for a
large area.
City of Aspen Annexation Plan. rev. 3 July 1996
Page 17
2. Guideline
Stage the annexation and zoning process so that the final annexation ordinance
is considered simultaneously with final zoning actions in order to insure that the
majority of owners are satisfied with zoning solutions.
Explanatory Comments
In order to maintain a spirit of cooperation between the City and property owners
within annexed territory, the sequencing of the annexation and zoning process is
essential. Since zoning and its land use implications are the biggest unknown
element of the annexation process, it is the City's policy to postpone the final
reading of annexation ordinances until property owners are well aware of the
implications of City zoning regulations upon their property. The City of Aspen
annexation and zoning approach is an improvement upon the procedure used by
most Colorado municipalities in which the annexation is completed prior to the
initiation of the zoning process and residents are uncertain as to how zoning issues
will be resolved. Another positive effect of the process is that it insures that the
zoning is accomplished within 90 days of annexation, as required by state law. If
this 90 day requirement were not met by the City, the property could be considered
"unzoned" and might not be subject to any development limitations.
I. City/County Sales Tax Revenue Sharing
1. Guideline
The City staff shall annually monitor its costs for providing Municipal services
to annexation areas on a comprehensive basis to determine additional costs
incurred by the City and report to the City Council. The City and County shall
renegotiate an equitable distribution of sales tax revenues or other methods of
revenue sharing, when City costs have increased enough to warrant a
redistribution of revenues.
City of Aspen Annexation Plan rev. 3 July 1996
Page 18
Explanatory Comments
In 1968 Pitkin County voters adopted a resolution imposing a 2 percent County-
wide sales tax, including a provision distributing 47 percent of the tax proceeds to
Pitkin County and 53 percent to the City of Aspen. Following several
annexations, it is likely that service responsibilities will shift from Pitkin County
to the City. At some point, sales tax distribution should also be adjusted. In the
event the City decides to hold an annexation election for a large area, the sales tax
agreement should be renegotiated prior to the election. The City and the County
have worked jointly to develop an annexation model which analyzes the impact of
a specific annexation on a comprehensive basis. This model should serve as the
basis for further review.
II Ski Area Zoning
I1. Guideline
Prior to annexation of Aspen Mountain and/or Aspen Highlands. the City of
Aspen .should adopt a special zone district for ski areas comparable to the
' Countv's AF-SKI zone district.
' Explanatory Comments -
' The City does not have a zone district which is designed to address land use issues
associated with ski areas. It will be necessary to adopt such a district if the ski
areas are annexed.
�I
City of Aspen Annexation Plan, rev. 3 July 19%
Page 19
Proposed Land Use Actions
The following are proposed land use actions to be pursued by the City of Aspen.
1. Prepare and adopt a Land Use/Community Facilities/Utilities Plan, which
addresses all land in the Aspen area including the annexation areas. The Plan should
specifically address the entrances to Aspen with an emphasis on lands in the State
Highway 82 Corridor.
2. Prepare legislation for inclusion in the City of Aspen Land Use Code which
includes:
• 200 foot setback from State Highway 82.
• Scenic Foreground Overlay regulations.
A new Zone District for base area ski development.
These code amendments should be adopted as a pre -requisite to annexation of land in the Highway
82 corridor.
City of Aspen Annexation Plan, rev. 3 July 1996
Page 20
VII. APPENDIX
The following documents and reports are related to this Annexation Element and may be obtained
from the Aspen/Pitkm Community Development Office:
1. Aspen Area Community Plan, January 1993
2. AACP Appendix, January 1992
3. AACP Phase One Report, September 1991
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1