HomeMy WebLinkAboutresolution.council.084-04RESOLUTION NO. ~/-
(SERIES OF 2004)
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 the updated plan on July 16, 2002; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Community Development Department refined and updated
this plan, in consultation with the Pitkin County Community Development Department, to be
con.sistent with the 2000 AACP; and,
WHEREAS, during a regular meeting on September 13, 2004, the City Council
considered the amendments to the City's boundary over the past year, amendments to the
plan, and a recommendation of approval 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 13th day of September,
2004.
Approved as to form:
Attest:
City of Aspen Annexation Plan - Page 2
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
~s 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.
Disclosure
The City of Aspen Annexation Plan has been adopted to meet the compulsory requirements
set forth by the State of Colorado, pursuant to CRS 31-12-105. The plan should not be
considered a replacement or complete reflection of the state statutes. Property owners
seeking annexation should consult the Colorado Revised Statutes. The plan is not binding
upon the City of Aspen.
City of Aspen Annexation Plan - Page 3
CITY OF ASPEN ANNEXATION AREA
Map A depicts Aspen's annexation area, corresponding to the State's three-mile area
requirement, based on the September, 2003, jurisdictional boundary. The jointly-adopted
Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) is also shown.
The City of Aspen is currently approximately 2,330 acres. The area within the UGB is
approximately 4,860 acres, 2,530 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 4
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.
inappropriate for annexation.
Many areas, outside of the'UGB e§~ci~ll~)~ rfi~ay be"~n'tir~ly
Following is an overview of land use characteristics for.each ~ama within a throe-mile radius
of the City, with particular attention paid to the areas within the UGB. The areas described
are shown on Map B. These general characteristics provide a basis for understanding
potential land use issues that may need to be addressed during an annexation.
Ute/Northstar, Shadow Mountain, Red Butte
Generally, rural areas with very'limited growth potential due to their physical
circumstances. These areas are particularly affected by environmental hazards and
each request should include an analysis of the regulatory tools used to address such
hazards. The City's Land Use Code provisions for Environmentally Sensitive Areas
(ESA's) may adequately guide the growth and development of these areas. Further
consideration should be given to the more stringent County 1041 regulations
particularly with regard to development on steep slopes.
Mountain Valley, Red Mountain
Generally, suburban areas comprised of predominantly developed subdivisions.
Several similar subdivisions, such as Eastwood and Knollwood, have already
annexed into the City. The major land use issues affecting this group include floor
area ratios, legitimizing "bandit dwelling units," wildfire mitigation, wildlife corridors,
and the status of the roads and ability of the City to adequately maintain and upgrade
them as necessary.
Remote Subdivisions
Several small residential subdivisions, located along the Maroon Creek, Castle
Creek, and Roaring Fork River drainages, are within the three-mile area. These
subdivisions have little to no additional development potential. These areas do not
appear to provide any advantage to the City and could become infrastructure service
burdens. New land use regulations addressing wildfire, wildlife, avalanche, and
development on steep slopes would be required.
Lower 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 5
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` de~)eloped 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. The Aspen Valley Hospital was recently annexed.
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 ben. efits to, the City of Aspen. This area is presently
underutilized 'and is identified in the AACP'as~ a_~.e~elopment node for concentrated
mixed-use, transit-oriented development. Residential, commercial, and lodging
development would affect 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, Burlin.qame "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 was identified in the AACP as an
affordable housing site, was recently annexed, and a 39-unit affordable housing
project is under construction. 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 corrid°r
These public infrastructure facilities are Curre~tly'bperated 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
City of Aspen Annexation Plan - Page 6
policy discussions of increasing Aspen's tourist capacity.
agreements may be necessary for annexation of these facilities.
Intergovernmental
Brush Creek Villa.qe, Cozy Point Ranch, Starwood, McLain Flats
Suburban §Ubdi~isions c0mp'i;ised 0f sii'igle:famiiy 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 desired 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 ne~ !and use legislation to
regulate ski area operation and may also necessitate backcountry emergency rescue
operation.
Forest
Lands
These areas correspond with Federally-owned land maintained by the United States
Forest Service and privately-owned "in-holdings." These areas are remote, with little
or no existing services and have limited access. These areas are typically zoned
Rural and Remote (RR) by Pitkin County to maintain the 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 7
SEQUENTIAL STEPS TO COMPLETE ANNEXATION
Annexation Process:
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
3ublic hearing date.
Second Reading of Annexation Ordinance
- Property either annexed or denied.
Associated Processes:
Property owner may enter into a pre-
annexation agreement with -the City of
Aspen. (See note #2)
An nexation 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
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 Commiss,on. (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 8
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:
1. The present and proposed boundaries for the municipality and in the vicinity of
the proposed annexation.
2. The present streets, major trunk water mains, sewer interceptors and outfalls,
other utility lines and ditches, and the proposed extension of such streets and
utility lines in the vicinity of the proposed annexation.
3. The existing and proposed land use pattern in the areas to be annexed.
B. A copy of any draft or final pre-annexation agreement, if applicable. '
C. A statement setting forth the plans of the municipality for extending to or otherwise
providing for, within the area to be annexed, municipal services performed by or on
behalf of the municipality at the time of annexation.
D. A statement setting forth the method under which the municipality plans to finance
the extension of the municipal services into the area to be annexed.
E. A statement identifying existing districts within the area to be annexed.
F. A statement on the effect of annexation upon local public school district systems,
including the estimated number of students generated and the capital construction
required to educate such students.
4. Land Use Reviews. A property owner seeking annexation into the City of Aspen may
initiate land use reviews with the City after the petition for annexation has been found valid
(after adoption of resolution #2). Property owners seeking to develop the property, in fact,
may wish to secure entitlements prior to completing annexation. Land use approvals
granted prior to annexation are subject to final adoption of an annexation ordinance. City
City of Aspen Annexation Plan - Page 9
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 RLqhts
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, the interests 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 10
STATU'J'ORY ANNEXATION CRITERIA
In accordance with CRS 31-12-104, an area is eligible for annexation if the governing body,
at a hearing, finds and determines the following.
1. That not less than one-sixth of the perimeter of the area proposed to be annexed is
contiguous with the annexing municipality. Contiguity is not affected by the existence of
a platted street or alley, a public or private right-of-way area, public lands (except
county-owned open space), or lake, reservoir, stream, or other natural or man-made
waterway between the annexing municipality and the land proposed to be annexed.
Subject to the requirements of CRS 31-12-105, contiguity may be established by the
annexation of one or more parcels in a series, which annexations may be completed
simultaneously and considered together.
2. That a community of interest exists between the area proposed to be annexed and the
annexing municipality; that such area is urban or will be urbanizing in the near future;
and that said area is integrated with or is capable of being integrated with the annexing
municipality. The fact that the area proposed to be annexed has the contiguity with the
annexing municipality required by the above requirement shall be a basis for a finding of
compliance with these requirements unless the governing body, upon the basis of
competent evidence presented at the hearing, finds that at least two of the following are
shown to exist:
a. Less than fifty percent of the adult residents of the area propose to be annexed make
use of part or all 'of the following types of facilities of the annexing municipality;
Recreational, civic, social, religious, industrial, or commercial; and less than twenty-
five percent of said area's adult residents are employed in the annexing municipality.
If there are no adult residents at the time of the hearing, this standard does not
apply.
b. One half or more of the land in the area proposed to be annexed (including streets)
is agricultural, and the landowners of such agricultural land, under oath, express an
intent to devote the land to such agricultural use for a period of not less than five
years.
c. It is not physically practicable to extend to the area proposed to be annexed those
urban services which the annexing municipality provides in common to all of its
citizens on the same terms and conditions as such services are made available to
such citizens. This standard shall not apply to the extent that any portion of an area
proposed to be annexed is provided or will within the reasonably near future be
provided with any service by or through a quasi-municipal corporation.
City of Aspen Annexation Plan - Page 11
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 surrou~.d!ng 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 meeti. Bgs 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 12
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 extinguishment of transferable development rights (TDRs).
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 13
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 adminiStering 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 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 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 De partment 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 14
[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 ( ) acres, is more particularly
described on Attachment "A," attached hereto.
The Petitioners allege: 1. That it is desirable and necessary that such area be annexed to the City of Aspen.
2. That the requirements of Sections 31-12-104 and 31-12-108, C.R.S., exist or have
been met.
3. That not less than one-sixth (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, I/we have executed this Petition for Annexation this
,2
__day of
Petitioner's/Owner's Signature
Petitioner's/Owner's Printed Name
Address
City, State, Zip
City of Aspen Annexation Plan - Page 15
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
2 , by
day of
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Commission Expiration
Notary Public
ATTACHMENT "C" - PROOF OF OWNERSHIP
ConstitUting more than 50% of the landowners in the area proposed for annexation, as said
area is described on Attachment "A", and more than 50% of the land in said area, exclusive
of streets and alleys.
ATTACHMENT "D" - FOUR PRINTS OF AN ANNEXATION MAP
Containing the information required by C.R.S. 1973 31-8-107.
City of Aspen Annexation Plan - Page 16
\
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
MEMORANDUM
Mayor Klanderud and Aspen City Council
~li~e A~n0~s~;r~ s,C~Yo An~tt ~n~ Development/,i [~ . _ .Direct°r~~'~
Chris Bendon, Senior Long Range planner (~
City of Aspen Annexation Plan
September 13, 2004
SUMMARY:
The City of Aspen is required by State statute to maintain an annexation plan, adopted
at least once annually. For 2002, the City substantially updated the plan to comply
with the 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan and to reflect the current Urban GroWth
Boundary. Pitkin County staff and Board of County Commissioners were involved as
well as the City's Planning and Zoning Commission.
Only mapping changes to the plan are proposed for this year. The City annexed the
intersection of West Hopkins Avenue and South 7th Street and the Little Ajax
property along West Hopkins. No changes to the three-mile boundary were effected.
The State's requirements for an annexation plan are minimal and are primarily
oriented to Front Range communities who sometimes use annexation to gain political
and tax base advantage. A "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 City's 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 aids 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.
Lastly, the City maintains the plan on-line and does not prim copies of the new plan
each year (unless specifically requested). This is not a highly requested plan - maybe
5 to 10 requests per year - and the digital-only version seems to be sufficient. This
saves the City printing costs and could be a route for future planning documents.
Staff recommends re-adoption of the Annexation Plan.
1
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the. Annexation Plan.
CITY MANAGER'S COMM/~S:
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to approve Resolution No.~__~, Series of 2004, re-adopting the City of Aspen
Annexation Plan."
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit A - Annexation Plan
2
CONTENTS
2
3
4
5
8
11
12
15
17
18
PREPARED BY
AN
City Council Resolution
Purpose
Annexation Area
Annexation Area Characteristics
Sequential Steps to Complete Annexation
Statutory Annexation Criteria
Local Annexation Criteria
Example Annexation Petition
MapA
Map B
City of Aspen Community Development Department
Julie Ann Woods, Planning Director
Chris Bendon, Senior Long Range Planner
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
970.920.5090
NEXATION PLAN
CITY OF ASPEN
SEPTEMBER, 2004
THE CITY OF ASPEN
City of Aspen Annexation Plan - Page I
Page 1 of 1
X-Sender: ellens~sam
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 13:32:35 -0600
To: chris bendon <chrisb~ci.aspen.co.us>
From: Ellen Sassano <ellens~ci.aspen.co.us>
Subject: Fwd: City/County policy document/2004 Annexation Plan
Cc: cindyh~co.pitkin.co.us, hilarys@co.pitkin.co.us
Chris,
As you state in your September 13, 2004 memo to the Mayor and City Cotmcil, no substantive changes are being made to the
2002 City of Aspen Annexation Plan update in which the Board of County Commissioners and County Staff were involved.
The County has no issue with the Plan itself, but still hopes to pursue the City/County policy document that City/County
Staff was directed by City Council and the BOCC to draft in June, 2003. At that time, the Boards met jointly and agreed that
it was prudent to develop a "policy" document to address specific topics such as treatment of the Urban Growth Boundary
area relative to zoning, intentions regarding development of affordable housing within respective jurisdictions, and
development of an effective written vs "working" policy regarding County review of development proposals that require City
water service. This document was anticipated to provide palatable direction in these areas of mutual concern to the City and
County.
As the e-mail message below indicates, the City Manager has recently indicated a willingness to offer City Stafftime to
review, but not draft such a document. The County will consider drafting of this document as we develop our future work
program, and keep you apprised.
X-Sender: joycea@sam
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 11:00:25 -0600
To: cindyh~ci.aspen.co.us, ellens~ci.aspen.co.us
From: Joyce Allgaier <joycea~ci.aspen.co.us>
Subject: City/County policy document
Cc: juliew~ci.aspen.co.us
Cindy and Ellen,
Yesterday at our weekly agency head meeting, Steve Barwick directed Community Development staff to not work on a
draft City/County policy document. He feels that the county should take the lead on this and propose a draft for the city
stafl?s review and evaluation. He offered staff time to meet and discuss what the county's goals are, provide you with
information about our processes and about current policies on the books, etc.
Let me know if you would like to meet to discuss possible components of this document.
Joyce
Joyce A. Allgaier, AICP
Deputy Director
City of Aspen Community Development Dept.
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
970.920.5062
_www.aspenpitkin.com
file ://C :\D OCUME- 1 \CHRI SB- 1 .ASP\LO CAL S- 1 \Temp\eud24.htm 8/31/2004