Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.an.Annexation Plan 1996.1996-AN1Gi - Annexation Plan _ �f 64a4l n.e,4 /4/3 Al MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Steve Barwick, City Manager Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director FROM: Joyce A. Ohlson, Deputy Director of Community Development RE: Readoption of 2000 Annexation Plan (To Become 2001 Plan) DATE: August 27, 2001 Summary: The City of Aspen last readopted the City's Annexation Plan in July of 2000. It was determined in 1997 that the City and County would enter into a joint planning process for a more significant revision of the Annexation Plan following the adoption of the 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP). While discussions have taken place regarding an updated Annexation Plan and a staff -level draft has been prepared, Staff is not ready at this time to recommend a new Plan. The full Annexation Plan Update was included in the Year 2000-2001 Community Development Department Work Program and will be rolled into the 2002 Work Program. It is expected that a fully revised document will be prepared in the first quarter of 2002, then reviewed at the City staff level and by the County. Staff s goal is to have a new Annexation Plan in the adoption process by June of 2002. No changes have been incorporated into the attached 2000 Annexation Plan document. Process: In order to meet the requirements of the Colorado Revised Statutes and keep the City's Annexation Plan valid, a readoption of the present document is necessary at this time. The City Council may adopt the Annexation Plan through the approval of a resolution at a public meeting. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council approve the resolution readopting the current plan and adopting it as the City of Aspen Annexation Plan, 2001, until a revised Annexation Plan can be completed and acted upon next year. Recommended Motion: "I move to approve Resolution No. , Series of 2001, readopting the City of Aspen Annexation Plan, 2001." City Manager Comments: Attachments: A —City Council Resolution No._, Series of 2000 B—City of Aspen Annexation Plan RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL READOPTING THE CITY OF ASPEN ANNEXATION PLAN, 2001 Resolution No._, Series of 2001 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 City Council through Resolution No. 97, Series of 2000, on July 26, 2000; and WHEREAS, the Aspen Area Community Plan (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 initiated a process for a joint City/County review and rewrite of the plan; and WHEREAS, State Statute requires this readoption of the plan annually; and WHEREAS, the current plan is acceptable for readoption until such time as the joint City/County efforts reflecting the adopted 2000 AACP results in a revised Annexation Plan; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: That the City Council has reviewed the proposed 2001 Annexation Plan and has formally adopted the Plan. RESOLVED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 27th day of August, 2001, by the City Council for the City of Aspen, Colorado. Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor I, Kathryn S. Koch, as duly appointed City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held August 27, 2001 Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Approved as to Form: John Worcester, City Attorney G:\planning\aspen\annex\annexplanreso200 I . doc City of Aspen Annexation Plan 2001 Last Revised July 3, 1996 Prepared by: Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department Readopted by the City of Aspen through: Resolution #59, Series of 1997 Resolution #67, Series of 1998 Resolution #62, Series of 1999 Resolution 997, Series of 2000 Resolution # , Series of 2001 I. INTRODUCTION Statutory Requirements. All annexation actions by cities in Colorado are governed by CRS 31-21- 105. These statutory requirements include the need to produce an annexation plan for a three mile boundary around the existing city limits. The specific requirements include the following: "Prior to completion, of any annexations, within the three mile area, the municipality shall have in place a plan for the area, which generally describes the proposed location, character, and extent of streets, subways, bridges, waterways, waterfronts, parkways, playgrounds, squares, parks, aviation fields, other public ways, grounds, open spaces, public utilities, and terminals for water, light, sanitation, transportation, and power to be provided by the municipality and the proposed land uses for the area". Past Amnexation 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 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 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.' 4 An analysis of the existing zoning pattern in the unincorporated portion of Pitkin County indicates that a range of 896 to 1,130 new dwelling units can conceivably be developed in the proposed annexation area. This figure includes the approvals for the Maroon Creek property, as well as the 1 All dwelling unit and population estimates are based on extrapolation from 1990 U.S. Census data. City of Aspen Annexation Plan, rev. 3 July 1996 Page 3 conceptual approval of the Highlands Base Village. The summary by annexation group is shown on Table 1. This table provides an overview of land use characteristics for each annexation area. The land use characteristics provided a basis for aggregating the annexation areas into four distinct groups which share similar traits. The grouping of these areas are explained below: Group A--Ute[Northstar, Red Butte, Shadow Mountain Generally, rural annexation areas which have very limited growth potential due to their geographic location. These areas are particularly affected by environmental planning issues. The City's existing Land Use Code with its provisions for Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA's) now has appropriate provisions to guide the growth and development of these areas. Further consideration may be given to adopting the more - stringent County 1041 regulations. Group B--Roaring Fork 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 adequatdly maintain and upgrade it as necessary. Group C--Meadowood, Smuggler, Aspen Highlands Base and New Development, State Highway 82 Corridor These areas contain large development parcels with significant growth potential. There are numerous land use planning issues which need to be resolved prior to annexation, regarding appropriate development densities. The Maroon Creek Development Corporation area has completed the County land use process and has been awarded land use approvals. The Aspen Highlands project is currently in the County land use process. City of Aspen Annexation Plan, rev. 3 July 1996 Page 4 TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF ANNEXATION AREAS 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 1 609 .5 44 1 215-256 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 1 I 1 Suburban PUD approval in place, Creek I RETT revenue Subtotal +-27-09 1 749 476 655-839 Group D 9 Aspen 1374 0 130 0 Ski Area/ 96% Sales tax revenue Highlands USFS 1 1 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/Pitkin County Community Development Department, 1996. City of Aspen Annexation Plan, rev. 3 July 1996 Page 5 Annexation of these areas would generally include reaffirming the decisions of these processes. An issue unique to the Smuggler area is the impact upon the City, County, and residents of the area relating to its designation as a "Super Fund" hazardous waste site. Group D--Aspen Highlands and Aspen Mountain Skiing Areas These areas correspond with skiing area 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 be accomplished without addressing the question of zoning large vacant tracts of land. III. STATUTORY ANNEXATION CRITERIA An area is eligible for annexation if the governing body, at a hearing as provided in CRS 31-12- 109, finds and determines the following:2 That not less than one -sixth of the perimeter of the area proposed to be annexed is contiguous with the annexing municipality. Contiguity is not affected by the existence of a platted street or alley, a public or private right-of-way or area, public lands, or a lake reservoir, stream, or other natural or man-made waterway between the annexing municipality and the land proposed to be annexed. 2. That a community of interest exists between the area proposed to be annexed and the annexing municipality; that such area is urban or will be urbanizing in the near future; and that said area is integrated with or is capable of being integrated with the annexing municipality. The 2CRS 31-1 ?-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: 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. 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. It is not physically practicable to extend the area proposed to be annexed those urban services which the annexing municipality provides in common to of all its citizens on the same terms and conditions as such services are made available to such citizens. This standard shall not apply to the extent that any portion of an area proposed to be annexed is provided or will within the reasonably near future be provided with any service by or through a quasi -municipal corporation. These annexation criteria have been used as a general guide to identify an annexation area around the periphery of Aspen. IV. 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 I . A map or maps of the municipality and adjacent territory to show the following information: a. The present and proposed boundaries of the municipality and in the vicinity of the proposed annexation; b. The present streets, major trunk water mains, sewer interceptors and outfalls, other utility lines and ditches, and the proposed extension of such streets and utility lines in the vicinity of the proposed annexation; C. The existing and proposed land use pattern in the areas to be annexed. 2. A copy of any draft or final preannexation agreement, if available; 3. A statement setting forth the plans of the municipality for extending to or otherwise providing for, within the area to be annexed, municipal services performed by or on behalf of the municipality at the time of annexation; 4. A statement setting forth the method under which the municipality plans to finance the extension of the municipal services into the area to be annexed; 5. A statement identifying existing districts within the area to be annexed; and 6. A statement on the effect of annexation upon local -public school district systems, including the estimated number of students generated and the capital construction required to educate such students. V. ISSUES AND CONCERNS This section of the annexation plan addresses land use issues and general policy concerns which are likely to arise during any annexation process. The annexation guidelines which follow this section have been developed in response to the issues and concerns addressed in this section, and are intended to guide the City and County during annexation decisions. City of Aspen Annexation Plan, rev. 3 July 1996 Page 8 Increased Development Potential within Existing Subdivisions From a historical perspective, it has been City policy that, when land is annexed, the development rights of the annexed land are not increased in comparison to the development rights in unincorporated Pitkin County prior to the annexation. A fundamental policy question is whether the City will continue to pursue this policy, particularly in light of the potential land use changes that could occur in and around Aspen, and community goals such as affordable housing and the development of alternative transportation modes entering Aspen. The continuation of the past annexation policy would be an indirect acknowledgment that the development rights established by Pitkin County zoning are appropriate. A review of the existing subdivisions in the proposed annexation areas indicated that in virtually all cases, based upon a consideration of standard zoning criteria such as neighborhood compatibility and provision of services, County zoning appears appropriate. A general land use policy addressing the development potential of an area after annexation should take into consideration more factors than just the zoned development potential in unincorporated Pitkin County. Equally important factors affecting density should include: • compliance with the Aspen Area Community Plan; • compatibility with the existing neighborhood; • recent or expected changes in the neighborhood or general area; • capability of the community to provide necessary services; • environmental constraints; and • changing goals of the community. Floor Area Ratios Floor Area Ratios (FAR) are utilized by the City and the County to determine the maximum size of dwelling units 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 expansi6ns 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. Ski Area Base Zoning The Aspen Highlands Base Village has obtained conceptual development approval from Pitkin County. If the Highlands base area is annexed by the City, the Citys 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 l l 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 Platt. rev. 3 July 1996 Pagc I I the provision of sanitary sewer is not an annexation issue. However, the City of Aspen operates a municipal water system, and cost and engineering issues relating to the provision of potable water to developing land on the urban fringe are significant annexation issues. Exhibit C depicts the boundaries of the existing plan for water service areas adopted within the Aspen Water Management Plan. Currently, there are several small water districts which serve residences which are located outside the City's boundaries but within the service area of the water system. These small districts may present a problem for the City following annexation because their capital facilities may not be providing acceptable standards of service. Upgrading would be expensive, and may become the responsibility of the City following annexation. As the periphery of the City is developed, the development community is faced with a choice of joining the Aspen water system or developing their own domestic water infrastructure. The City and County do not currently require that new development join the municipal water system. 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. -knnexation/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. City of Aspen Annexation Plan, rev. 3 July 1996 Page 12 V. ANNEXATION GUIDELINES Introduction The first purpose of this chapter is to establish annexation guidelines to assist the City of Aspen in making land use decisions regarding the annexation of new territory. The guidelines should be used to determine when annexation is appropriate, which land should be annexed and how it should be zoned. The guidelines will also be useful to property owners in annexed areas who are seeking an indication of how their land will be treated in the land use process. The second purpose of this chapter is to propose specific actions to be pursued to prepare the City for the annexation of land within designated annexation areas. Guidelines A. Master Planning 1. Guideline Generally, an adopted Master Plan for an annexed area addressing land use and capital facilities improvements should be a pre -requisite to annexation. Explanatory Comments Most of the areas earmarked for annexation have been master planned or developed under Pitkin County jurisdiction. The previous approvals established guidelines for zoning decisions and capital facilities improvements. Previous approvals, in combination with general wishes of property owners and neighbors, should be a basic consideration in the land use decision making process. B. Development Potential Within Existing Subdivided, Generally Developed Areas 1. Guideline Apply zoning to annexed areas which generally maintains the same development rights within the City as within unincorporated areas. City of Aspen Annexation Plan, rev. 3 July 1996 Page 13 Explanatory Comments The general idea behind this guideline is that annexation and subsequent zoning should not create a change in the character of an annexed area. Instead, the City land use regulations should be oriented to maintaining the "character of the 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 6 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. C. UnsubdividedNacant Land City of Aspen Annexation Plan, rev. 3 July 1996 Page 14 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 contiguityfor 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 City's Planned Unit Development (PUD) regulations, 8040 Greenline, Environmentally Sensitive Area, and Stream Margin Review when appropriate to insure the best possible review of environmentally sensitive areas. 2. Guideline City of Aspen Annexation Plan, rev. 3 July 1996 Page 15 Consider, as necessary, code amendments to expand the scope of the City's environmental reviews to include review mechanisms which address wildlife habitat, the State Highway 82 Scenic Corridor, and other significant environmental issues. F. Bandit Dwelling Units 1. Guideline Use the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) provisions of the City Land Use Code, in conjunction with the Uniform Building Code, to legalize "bandit units" 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. 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 City of Aspen Annexation Plan, rev. 3 July 1996 Page 16 join the public utility system, or at a minimum, insure that if private systems are developed and subsequently taken over by the public, excess costs will not burden future users. H. Annexation Zoning Process 1. Guideline Pursue the annexation of County lands only when a majority of the property owners 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. 2. Guideline City of Aspen Annexation 1 . rev. 3 July 1996 Page 17 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 Guideline 1'he City staffshall annually monitor its costs for providing Municipal services to annexation areas on a comprehensive basis to determine additional costs incurred by the City and report to the City Council. The City and County, shall renegotiate an equitable distribution of sales tax revenues or other methods of revenue sharing, when City costs have increased enough to warrant a redistribution of revenues. Explanatory Comments In 1968 Pitkin County voters 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 City of Aspen Annexation P,. , rev. 3 July 1996 Page 18 annexations, it is likely that service responsibilities will shift from Pitkin County to the City. At some point, sales tax distribution should also be adjusted. In the event the City decides to hold an annexation election for a large area, the sales tax agreement should be renegotiated prior to the election. The City and the County have worked jointly to develop an annexation model which analyzes the impact of a specific annexation on a comprehensive basis. This model should serve as the basis for further review. J. Ski Area Zoning 1. ' Guideline Prior to annexation of Aspen Mountain and/or Aspen Highlands, the City of Aspen should adopt a special zone district for ski areas comparable to the County's AF-SKI zone district. Explanatory Continents The City does not have a zone district which is designed to address land use issues associated with ski areas. It will be necessary to adopt such a district if the ski areas are annexed. Proposed Land Use Actions The following are proposed land use actions to be pursued by the City of Aspen. I . 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. k 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. City of Aspen Annexation Plan, rev. 3 July 1996 Page 19 • A new Zone District for base area ski development. These code amendments should be adopted as a pre -requisite to annexation of land in the Highway 82 corridor. City of Aspen Annexation Plan, rev. 3 July 1996 Page 20 VIL APPENDIX The following documents and reports are related to this Annexation Element and may be obtained from the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Office: Aspen Area Community Plan, January 1993 AACP Appendix, January 1992 AACP Phase One Report, September 1991 1 F 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 ' RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING THE 1996 CITY OF ASPEN ANNEX, IATION PLAN ' Resolution No. 9674 ' 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 AspeniPitkin 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. _ P 1 � RESOLVED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this � day of Lam. 1996, by the City Council for the City of Aspen, Colorado. 1 John SrBennett. Mayor ' 1, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a true and accur ,copy of that res u_ tion adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting ' held 1966. ' Kathryn S. Ko ­Citylerk ' RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMN[ENDING TO THE :ASPEN CITY COUNCIL THE ADOPTION THE 1996 CITY OF ASPEN AuYNExATION PLAN Resolution No. 96-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 t ' 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 1983 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 AAC? differed`rom 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 Aspety` -d-,in County Community Deve!ooment Department has refined and updated the previously adopted Annexation Element to be consistent with the :MCP; and ' WHEREAS, State Statute allows the adoption of separate plans by City Council following reviely by -,he P!anning Commission. ' NOW, THE^..EFORE 3E IT RESOLVED by the Commission: ' i :gat the Commission has -eviewed the proposed 1996 Annexation Plan and recommends to the City Council the ?!an be adopted. ' APPRO'v-ED by the Commission at its regular meeting on June 18, 1996. ' Attest. Planning and Zonin- Commission: Amy ScCzitiid, Deputy City Clerk Sara Garton, Chair 1 1 I. INTRODUCTION Statutory Requirements. All annexation actions by cities in Colorado are governed by CRS 31-21- 105. These statutory requirements include the need to produce an annexation plan for a three mile boundary around the existing city limits. The specific requirements include the following: "Prior to completion of any annexations. within the three mile area, the municipality shall have in place a plan for the area, which generally describes the proposed location, character. and extent of streets. subways. bridges. waterways, waterfronts, parkways, playgrounds, squares, parks. aviation fields. other public ways, grounds. open spaces, public utilities. and terminals for water, light, sanitation, transportation. and power to be provided by the municipality and the proposed land uses _for the area. " ' Past Annexation Plans 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 analvsis of annexation is traditionally coordinated by the City Manager's Office. The plan adopted in 1988 has not been updated, and has been the legislative guide for all annexations since ' that time. The 1988 plan was actually an individual element to the 1988 aspen area Comprehensive Plan. which has subsequently been amended by the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) adopted in ' 1993. This 1996 revision has been prepared in order to meet the statutory requirements of CRS 31-21-105, as well as to update the annexation Plan with respect to annexations already ' undertaken, and new policies and land use code provisions which have been implemented. However, identified in the remaining annexation areas this plan are essentially the same as those identified in the 1988 plan and the conceptual framework for annexation remains unchanged as t 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 1996 A nn��e�xation Plan 1000G City o _A s e e n City of Aspen Proposed A,afiez_at7oir' as ate _ -- Boundary — Proposeh Annexation Areas,` One mi I e rad\i us I r a d i uV \` �`-: � c/'�,� .?'� "� ,� �i•� 1 �• • lam; , . o .J�l � _ 1 T h r e e m i l e ij a d i ups Wl t e r Features Roads '-- �' v�'� . % \ .. ���-� _ �'�� r, \� � � fir•' t S 1 1 ���' �' �� • G �� ¢" S t r c t u r e s � ID ` 1 r oo ol 0 6/ 0 7 6 1 \l Oc 1996 City of Aspen THIS YAP/DRAWING IS A GRAPHICAL REPRESEN/ATION OF THE FEATURES _-!=y DEPICTED AND 15 NOT- A LEGAL �! �, ? / ' REPRES g-NW-16N. THE "OURACY 1 inch = 2600 feet / MAY CHAIGE `DEPENDING ON TR€ i ENLARGEMENT) OR REDUCTION, o� I 06/01/�46 ' Oc 1996 City of Aspen THIS MAP[DRAWING- IS A GRAPHICAL 'REPRESENI�AT10K,0r THE FEATURES DEPICTE AND 1S NOT- A LEGAL R E P R E S N. THE-A-G-ellRACY MAY CH DEPENDING ON T�1E. ENLARGE NT OR REDUCTION. 1 inch = 2600 feet A n n e x a t i o r City of Areas Aspen City of Aspen 1 U t e N o r t h s t a r 'l71 3 Lower S uggler 4 Red Mountai 5 P i t k i n Greeni L_- 6 Red Butte I ' —' 1 Meadowood 8 Aspen Highlands a a s e Area ® 9 Aspen Highlands Ski`lArea 10 Shadow Mountain ® 11 Aspen MountaAnk 12 SH 82 G"_ idor 13 Mdroan Creek Ci ty E3oundary( 1 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. Q. 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.' 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 dwellingunit and population estimates are based on extrapolation from 1990 U.S. Census data. PoP� Po 1 k City of Aspen Annexation Plan. rev. 3 July 1996 Page 3 conceptual approval of the Highlands Base Village. The summary by annexation group is shown on Table 1. This table provides an overview of land use characteristics for each annexation area. The land use characteristics provided a basis for aggregating the annexation areas into four distinct groups which share similar traits. The grouping of these areas are explained below: Group A—UtelNorthstar, Red Butte, Shadow Mountain Generally, rural annexation areas which have very limited growth potential due to their ' geographic location. These areas are particularly affected by environmental planning issues. The City's existing Land Use Code with its provisions for Environmentally ' Sensitive Areas (ESA's) now has appropriate provisions to guide the growth and development of these areas. Further consideration may be given to adopting the more - stringent County 1041 regulations. ' Group B—Roaring Fork East. Red Mountain, Pitkin Green Generally, suburban annexation areas comprised of predominantly developed subdivisions. tSeveral 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 Highway 82 Corridor ' These areas contain large development parcels with significant growth potential. There are numerous land use planning issues which need to be resolved prior to annexation, ' regarding appropriate development densities. The Maroon Creek Development Corporation area has completed the County land use process and has been awarded land ' use approvals. The Aspen Highlands project is currently in the County land use process. City of Aspen Annexation Plan. rev. 3 July 1996 ' Page 4 11 TABLE 1 SUNIlVIARY OF ANNEXATION AREAS Map.1D # . Anneaattioa< Size Vacant: Vacant. Potential Character Comments. Area (ac) Unsubdivided:: Subdivided Units (ac) (M) 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/Partiaily Potential for park use Public 10 Shadow 284 1 4 10-14 Rural / City ESA process Mountain I Numerous appropriate mining claims Subtotal 358 351 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 1 219 0 21 89-99 Suburbanv Numerous bandit units Green Subdivided & Unsubdivided Subtotal ! 609 .5 1 44 215-256 Group C 3 Lower 260 42 10 3 7-150 Urbary Not EPA requirements Smuggler Subdivided Meadowood 366 219 231 93-114 Suourban/ Significant potential for Subdivided & growth Unsubdivided 8 Aspen 144 2 15 154 Suburbanv Growth potential Highlands Subdivided & determined in 1996 by Unsubdivided 7eneml submission to Countv 12 SH 82 1536 424 2 260-310 Urban and Significant potential for Corridor Rural/ _rowth Subdivided and Unsubdivided 13 Maroon 403 62 218 111 Suburban PUD approval in place. Creek I I RETC revenue Subtotal 2709 1 749 476 655-839 Group D 9 Aspen 1374 0 130 0 Ski .area/ 96% Sales tax revenue Highlands USFS I 1 Aspen 1058 0 0 0 Ski .area/ 21% Fragmented ownership Mountain USFS Subtotal 2432 0 130 0 TOTAL 8714 1100.5 723 F 896-1130 ' Source: .4spenlPitkin 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 be accomplished without addressing the question of zoning large vacant tracts of land. III. STATUTORY ANNEXATION CRITERIA 1 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: I ' 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 between the land other natural or man-made waterway annexing municipality and the proposed to be annexed. 1 2. That a community of interest exists between the area proposed to be annexed and the annexing municipality; that such area is urban or will be urbanizing in the near future; and that said area is integrated with or is capable of being integrated with the annexing municipality. The ' 2CRS 31-12-104. City of Aspen Annexation Plan. rev. 3 July 1996 ' Page 6 fact that the area proposed to be annexed has the contiguity with the annexing municipality ' required by the above requirement shall be a basis for a finding of compliance with these requirements unless the governing body, upon the basis of competent evidence presented at the ' hearing, finds that at least two of the following are shown to exist: ' a. Less than fifty percent of the adult residents of the area proposed to be annexed make use of part or all of the following types of facilities of the annexing municipality; ' Recreational, civic, social, religious, industrial, or commercial; and less than twenty-five percent of said area's adult residents are employed in the annexing municipality. If there are no adult residents at the time of the hearing, this standard does not apply. b. One-half or more of the land in the area proposed to be annexed (including streets) ' is agricultural, and the landowners of such agricultural land, under oath, express an intent to devote the land to such agricultural use for a period of not less than five years. ' C. It is not physically racticable to extend the area proposed to be annexed those P ,P P P 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 future be by provided or will within the reasonably near provided with any service or through a quasi -municipal corporation. - These annexation criteria have been used as a general guide to identify an annexation area around ' 'the periphery of Aspen. ' IV. 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 Board County Commissioners land be Such with the of governing the proposed to annexed. 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 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 ou&As, other utility lines and ditches, and the proposed extension of such streets and utility lines in the ' vicinity of the proposed annexation; I 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 be by behalf the providing for, within the area to annexed, municipal services performed or on of 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: 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. I V. ISSUES AND CONCERNS ' This section of the annexation plan addresses land use issues and general policy concerns which are likely to arise during any annexation process. The annexation guidelines which follow this ' section have been developed in response to the issues and concerns addressed in this section, and are intended to guide the City and County during annexation decisions. City of Aspen Annexation Plan, rev. 3 July_ 1996 Page 8 Increased Development Potential within Existing Subdivisions From a historical perspective, it has been City policy that, when land is annexed, the development rights of the annexed land are not increased in comparison to the development rights in unincorporated Pitkin County prior to the annexation. A fundamental policy question is whether the City will continue to pursue this policy, particularly in light of the potential land use changes that could occur in and around Aspen, and community goals such as affordable housing and the development of alternative transportation modes entering Aspen. The continuation of the past annexation policy would be an indirect acknowledgment that the development rights established by Pitkin County zoning are appropriate. A review of the existing subdivisions in the proposed annexation areas indicated that in virtually all cases, based upon a - consideration of standard zoning criteria such as neighborhood compatibility and provision of services, County zoning appears appropriate. A general land use policy addressing the development potential of an area after annexation should take into consideration more factors than just the zoned development potential in unincorporated Pitkin County. Equally important factors affecting density should include: • compliance with the Aspen Area Community Plan; • compatibility with the existing neighborhood; • recent or expected changes in the neighborhood or general area: • capability of the community to provide necessary services; • environmental constraints: and • changing goals of the community. Floor Area Ratios Floor Area Ratios (FAR) are utilized by the City and the County to determine the maximum size of dwelling units 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 1 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 Coninuission 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 finture 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 Pitlan County's 1041 regulations. Sld 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. 1 Ski Area Zoning Study Area 11 includes the Aspen vlountain Ski Area. The annexation of the ski area would require the creation of anew 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, n City of Aspen Annexation Plan, rev. 3 July_ 1996 Page 11 1 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 located City's boundaries but the residences which are outside the within the service area of water system. These small districts may present a problem for the City following annexation because ' their capital facilities may not be providing acceptable standards of service. Upgrading would be expensive, and may become the responsibility of the City following annexation. As the periphery of the City is developed, the development community is faced with a choice of ' joining the Aspen water system or developing their own domestic water infrastructure. The City and County do not currently require that new development join the municipal water system. ' Furthermore, the City 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 liability City. The City County develop create a to the also recommends that the 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 daytime ' period, the Annexation Plan should establish guidelines for the city to follow during the annexation process. 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 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING THE 1996 CITY OF ASPEN ANNEYATION PLAN Resolution No. 96-3 j 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. John4Sennett. ,layor 1, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the ljoreQoing is a true and accur�copy of that reso ution adopted by the City Council of the City of As held pen, Colorado, at a meeting , 1966. Kathryn S. Ko ..Ciry Clerk RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNIlYG Al ZONING COMMISSION RECONIyMXMG TO THE .ASPEN CITY COUNCIL THE ADOPTION THE 1996 CITY OF ASPEN ANNEXATION PLAN Resolution No. 96- r.l,, 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 i WHEREAS, die 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 1983 Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the 1983 Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan was superseded by dhe adoption of the 1993 Aspen Area Community Plan (A.ACP); and WHEREAS, the AAC? differed 'from prior comprehensive plans n that the document was a "characte.=' based plan that did not include the adoption of a revised annexation ?!an; and WHEREAS, The Aspenj itkin County Community Deve!opment Department has ce;tned and updated the �reviousiy adopted .annexation Element to be consistent with the .\.AC?; and WI -AREAS, State Statute allows the adoption of separate plans by City Council following -evieW by the Planning Commission. NOW, THE BEFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission: I. at the Commission has reviewed the proposed 1996 Annexation Plan and recommends to the City Council the ?,an be adopted. APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on June 18, 1996- Attest: Amy Scilniid, Deputy City Cleric J Planning and Zonincy Commission: Sara Garton, Chair L INTRODUCTION Statutory Requirements. All annexation actions by cities in Colorado are governed by CRS 31-21- 105. These statutory requirements include the need to produce an annexation plan for a three mile boundary around the existing city limits. The specific requirements include the following: "Prior to completion of arty annexations. within the three mile area, the municipality shall have in place a plan for the area. which generally describes the proposed location. character. and extent of streets. subways. bridges. waterways. waterfronts, parkways. playgrounds, squares. parks. aviation fields. other public ways. grounds. open spaces, public utilities. and terminals for water, light. sanitation, transportation, and power to be provided by the municipality and the proposed land uses for the area. Past Annexation Plans 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 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 .. ,-► ��,� , c� a, _ 1 9 9 6 A n n-.e,x a _t i o n P I a n j l v. T.,0000i ty o .Aspen c ter-- ✓ N . 1 1 ` Ci ty of Aspen Proposed A-afiezat as 4 a. Boundary P r p s Ne \Annexation Area One mile radius - x: . • ���.� : ' � '�,��� I 1, � .� �.a �., � � \�;,m I r a d i ul � e �� °. ,�. *� 1 !;T h r e e m i l e �a d i As ,'7---,rt � Water Features, -ij; Strjctures woo J 1 I V 001 e 1 99 6 City of Asp e n) THIS MAP[ORAWING� IS A GRAPHICAL REPRESENTTATION-'Or,THE FEATURES ' DEP I CTEO AND 113 NOT ,A LEGAL REPRESI N�dN. THE�A&C'IIRACY 1 inch = 2600 feet al' V�r rut E'�;1�i'iv uv InE — yj _ Pon ENIA4CEM-£NT OR REDUCTION, , 0 J� 06/01/96 Oc 1996 City of Aspen _ RE HIS I�AP[ORAWING IS A GRAPHICAL REPRESNI ATIOy-O�,THE FEATURES DEPICTED AND S NOT- A LEGAL REPRES *11-flN. THE--"OUACY 3 MAY CHA £')DEPENDING ON TR ENL AR I4f'NT. OR REDUCTION, L 1 inch = 2600 feet 'I �o 0 '10 12 - �4 s . .- . Annexation A ea.s i t y� 0TWP . City of Aspen 1 U t e N a r t h s t a r ® 2 IN 3 Laver S uggler ® 4 Red Mountai 0 5 Pitkin Green B 6 Red Butte -f Y 1 Meadowood 8 Aspen Highlands se Area .; 9 Aspen Highlands Ski Area 10 - Shadow Mountain 11 Aspen Mauntaiw k ® a 12 SH 82 idar'i roan Creek City Boundar Annexatiaa A eas ater f atures ds AMS 1 � i� L t Citv of Aspen Annexation Plan. rev. 3 July 1996 Page 2 growth at the urban/nu-al fringe of the City. These general goals hold true for the 1996 Annexation Plan as well. II. AiNNEEYATION AREA . 0 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.' 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 & elling unit and pcpulation estimates are based on extrapolation from 1990 U.S. Census data. Citv of Asoen Annexation Plan, rev. 3 Juiv 1996 Page 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 expiained below: s Group A—UteiNorthstar, Red Butte, Shadow '.Mountain Generally, rural annexation areas which have very limited growth potential due to their geographic location. These areas are particularly affected by environmental planning issues. The City's existing Land Use Code with its provisions for Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA's) now has appropriate provisions to guide the growth and development of these areas. Further consideration may be given to adopting the more - stringent County 1041 regulations. Group B—Roaring Fork 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 abilitv of the City to adequately maintain and upgrade it as necessary. Group C—Meadowood, Smuggler, :aspen Highlands Base and New Development. State Highway 82 Corridor These areas contain large development parcels with significant growth potential. There are numerous land use planning issues which need to be resolved prior to annexation, regarding appropriate development densities. The Maroon Creek Development Corporation area has completed the County land use process and has been awarded land use approvals. The aspen Highlands project is currently in the County land use process. City of Aspen Annexation Plan. rev. 3 July 1996 Page 4 TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF ANNEXATION AREAS Map.1D #> . Annexation: Size. Vacant: Vacant. Potential. Character Commenu Area (ac)< Unsubdivided: Subdivided' Units. I Eac )> (aG) Group A I Ute 469 133 69 7-10 RuraVNot Includes Little Annie Base Northstar Subdivided 6 Red Butte 105 217 0 9-11 RuraiiPartiaily Potential for park use Public 10 Shadow 284 1 4 10-14 Rurat; City ESA process Mountain Numerous appropriate mining claims Subtotal 358 j 351 73 j 26-35 I Group B 2 Roaring 66 0 3 28-33 Suburbary All Numerous bandit units Fork I Subdivided 4 Red 324 .5 20 98-124 Suburbans Numerous bandit units Mountain Subdivided & Unsubdivided 5 Pitkin 219 0 21 89-99 Suburbans Numerous bandit units Green I Subdivided & Unsubdivided Subtotal 1 609 .5 44 215-256 Group C 3 Lower '_60 42 10 3 7-150 Urbary Not EPA requirements Smuggler Subdivided 7 Meadowood 366 219 231 93-114 Suburbary 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 Countv 12 SH 82 1536 424 2 260-310 Urban and Significant potential for Corridor Rural/ erowth Subdivided and Unsubdivided 13 Maroon 403 62 218 111 Suburban PUD approval in piace. Creek I RETT revenue Subtotal 2709 ; 749 476 655-839 Group D 9 Aspen 1374 0 130 0 Ski Areal 96% Sales tax revenue Highlands USFS 11 Aspen 1058 0 0 0 Ski .areas 21°,o Fragmented ownership Mountain USFS Subtotal 1 2432 0 130 0 TOTAL 1 8714 1100.5 723 896-1130 Source: Aspen/Pftldn 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 be accomplished without addressing the question of zoning large vacant tracts of land. III. STATUTORY ANNEXATION CRITERIA An area is eligible for annexation if the governing body, at 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 0 ZCRS 31-1. 1 �- 01. 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: �. Less than fifty percent of the adult residents of the area proposed to be annexed make use of part or all of the following types of facilities of the annexing municipality; Recreational, civic, social, religious, industrial, or commercial; and less than twenty-five percent of said area's adult residents are employed in the annexing municipality. If there are no adult residents at the time of the hearing, this standard does not apply. b. One-half or more of the land in the area proposed to be annexed (including streets) is agricultural, and the landowners of such agricultural land, under oath, express an intern to devote the land to such agricultural use for a period of not less than five years. C. It is not physically practicable to extend the area proposed to be annexed those urban services which the annexing municipality provides in common to of all its citizens on the same terms and conditions as such services are made available to such citizens. This standard shall not apply to the extent that any portion of an area proposed to be annexed is provided or will within the reasonably near future be provided with any service by or through a quasi -municipal corporation. These annexation criteria have been used as a general guide to identify an annexation area around 'the periphery of Aspen. IIV. 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 ' information: a. The present and proposed boundaries of the municipality and in the vicinity of the proposed annexation; ' b The present streets, major trunk water mains, sewer interceptors and outfalls, other utility lines and ditches, and the proposed extension of such streets and utility lines in the ' vicinity of the proposed annexation; C. The existing and proposed land use pattern in the areas to be annexed. 2. A copy of any draft or final preannexation agreement, if available; ;. 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. I V. ISSUES AND CONCERNS This section of the annexation plan addresses land use issues and general policy concems 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 concems addressed in this section, and are intended to guide the City and County during annexation decisions. Citv of Aspen Annexation Plan. rev. 3 July 19% Page 8 Increased Development Potential within Eristing Subdivisions From a historical perspective, it has policy has been C' oli 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 „nits 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 calculaticns. 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 Fags 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 {REM revenues are compelling reasons to pursue aggressive annexation policies. A primary disadvantage associated with annexing substantial amounts of vacant, undeveloped land is that the action is generally followed by increased development expectations on the part of land owners. The community has consistently attempted to maintain a rural entrance to the City, with urbanization limited to and surrounding the central core. The City must weigh the costs of potential intensification 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 flocdplain constraints. In particular, the Colorado House Bill 1041 powers have City of Aspen Annexation Plan. rev. 3 July 1996 Page 10 allowed Pitlan 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, Environmentallv Sensitive Area. and Stream Margin review processes. These provisions of the City Code may not be as restrictive as those found in Pitlan CountWs 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. Sid :area Zoning, Studv 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 anu icipaliry to a ,ad tamtcres. Wthin the Aspen _area, sanitary sewer is provided by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, rather than the City. Therefore, City of Aspen Annexation Plan- rev. 3 July 1996 Page 11 the provision of sanitary sewer is not an annexation issue. However, the City of Aspen operates a municipal water system, and cost and engineering issues relating to the provision of potable water to developing land on the urban fringe are significant annexation issues. Exhibit C depicts the boundaries of the existing plan for water service areas adopted within the Aspen Water Management Plan. Currently, there are several small water districts which serve residences winch are located outside the City's boundaries but within the service area of the water system. These small districts may present a problem for the City following annexation because their capital facilities may not be providing acceptable standards of service. Upgrading would be expensive, and may become the responsibility of the City following annexation. As the periphery of the City is developed, the development ccommuniry 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 daytime period, the Annexation Plan should establish guidelines for the city to follow during the annexation process. ld I i� 06/076 n 1996 City of Aspen ,! THIS YA?[DRAWINFr IS A GRAPHICAL / REPRESEN ATIOK -O THE FEATURES D E P I C T EQ, AND ,i S NQ'T,.A LEGAL j REPRES NII�IlGN. THA C Y VAY Ct-Xk DEPENDING ON TRIa- ENLARGEyfNT) OR REDUCTION. a Water Sery i c e', A r ea s City of Aspen • F \ , _- • .. �-.,,.-.,� ,{ �'� .1•, � ,� - ram_ •,� 'J x V . �h � _i 1—r-�--�—, -- ' , _ � � .� l� �` �} �eL�.., z y.�; _ _ \ .;fie.. 1, �""` ; � �--+------�..�.. -r r-; �• :.+. � Z. '•J \ �\ i .� � ! ' •� - _. fit,) - + � `� 1 inch = 2600 feet y `ice; •� l! �, I � - - City of Aspen Annexation Plan rev. 3 July 1996 Page 12 V. ANNEXATION GUIDELINES Introduction The first purpose of this chapter is to establish annexation guidelines to assist the City of Aspen in making land use decisions regarding the annexation of new territory. The guidelines should be used to determine when annexation is appropriate, which land should be annexed and how it should be zoned. The guidelines will also be useful to property owners in annexed areas who are seeking an indication of how their land will be treated in the land use process. The second purpose of this chapter is to propose specific actions to be pursued to prepare the City for the annexation of land within designated annexation areas. Guidelines A. Master Planning 1. Guideline Generally. an adopted Master Plan ;br an annexed area addressing land use and capital facilities improvements should .he a pre -requisite to annexation. Explanatory Comments ,Ylost of the areas earmarked for annexation have been master planned or developed under Pitlan 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 J ' 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 ofAspen. City of Aspen Annexation Plan. rev. 3 July 19% 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 owner(s) or a development proposal is pending, unless the City decides to annex certain properties due to their value as open space or to achieve contiguity for the annexation of a developing area. rExplanatory 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 greenbeh 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 City's Planned Unit Development (PUD) regulations. 8040 ® Greenline, Environmentally Sensitive Area, and Stream Margin Review when appropriate to insure the best possible review of environmentally sensitive areas. -- ���- ----- -- — _ �. _�. _ - r _ Citv of Aspen Annexation Plan. rev. 3 July 1996 Page 15 2. Guideline Consider. as necessarv. code amendments to expand the scope of the City's environmental reviews to include review mechanisms which address wildlife habitat. the State Highway 82 Scenic Corridor and other significant environmental issues. F. Bandit Dwelling Units 1. Guideline Use the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) provisions of the City Land Use Code. in conjunction with the Uniform Building Code. to legalize '`bandit units " as employee units. Explanatory Comments Pitlan 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 dged 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 Citv standards. . City of Aspen Annexation Plan_ rev. 3 July 1996 Page 16 Explanatory Comments Pitldn 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. EL Annexation Zoning Process 1. Guideline Pursue the annexation of County lands only when a majority of the property owners favor annexation. Explanatory Comments The City should continue to take a pro -active role in annexation by assisting residents to gather annexation petition 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 pan 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 3 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 Ciry and Countv shall renegotiate an equitable distribution ofsales tar 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 Pitlan 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 an a comprehensive basis. This model should serve as the basis for further review. J. Ski :area Zoning 1. Guideline Prior to annexation ofAspen Mountain and or .Aspen Hwhiands. the City of It,Aspen should adopt a special zone district Jor ski areas comparable to the County'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. e City of Aspen Annexanon Plan, rev. 3 July 1996 Page 19 Proposed Land Use Actions The following are proposed land use actions to be pursued by the City of Aspen. 1. Prepare and adopt a Land Use/Community FacilitiesiUtilities 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 Distnct for base area ski development. These code amendments should be adopted as a pre -requisite to annexation of land in the Highway 82 corridor. M City of Aspen Annexation Plan, rev. 3 July 1996 Page ?0 VII. APPENDLY The following documents and reports are related to this Annexation Element and may be obtained from the Aspen/Pitlan Community Development Office: 1. Aspen Area Community Plan, January 1993 2. AACP Appendix, January 1992 3. AACP Phase One Report, September 1991 -------------- 1 �,��,,r 1, r-) 1 �! 1 I 1 �� 0 6 0 7 6 Oc 1996 City of Aspen DRAWING IS A GRAPHICAL REP"'RES'EVATIOR'OF THE FEATURES DEPICTER AND I S N 0 7- A LEGAL R E P R E S q`DEPENDING ,, I D N T H E --VAU TJ'A C Y MAY C H -V--6 k: D E P E N D I N G ON E E N L A R G E I -EN T) OR REDUCTION.7 p 1 inch = 2 6 0 0 feet Water Service Areas City of Aspen 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 City of Aspen Annexation Plan rev. 3 July 1996 Page 12 V. ANNEXATION GUIDELINES Introduction The first purpose of this chapter is to establish annexation guidelines to assist the City of Aspen in making land use decisions regarding the annexation of new territory. The guidelines should be used to determine when annexation is appropriate, which land should be annexed and how it should be zoned. The guidelines will also be useful to property owners in annexed areas who are seeking an indication of how their land will be treated in the land use process. The second purpose of this chapter is to propose specific actions to be pursued to prepare the City for the annexation of land within designated annexation areas. Guidelines A. Master Planning 1. Guideline Generally. an adopted Master Plan for an annexed area addressing land use and capital facilities improvements should be a pre -requisite to annexation. Explanatory Comments Most of the areas earmarked for annexation have been master planned or developed under Pitkin County jurisdiction. The previous approvals established guidelines for zoning decisions and capital facilities improvements. Previous approvals, in combination with general wishes of property owners and neighbors, should be a basic consideration in the land use decision making process. B. Development Potential Within Eristing 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 11 1 Explanatory Comments The general idea behind this guideline is that anmexation 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. Unsubdivided/Vacant Land 1 1 I D. E. 1 1. Guideline Postpone the annexation of unsubdivided vacant land which is rural in character until a development proposal has been prepared for the land by the property owner(s) or a development proposal is pending, unless the City decides to annex certain properties due to their value as open space or to achieve contiguity for the annexation of a developing area. Explanatory Comments It is recognized that the annexation of the area around the airport may be in the best interest of the City. The price for the annexation of the airport should not be the insensitive urbanization of the State Highway 82 Corridor. The City of :aspen supports the concept of a greenbelt surrounding the existing City limits as described in detail in the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Parks / Recreation / Open Space i Trails Element. The potential future development of the State Highway 82 Corridor should be consistent with this concept and the State Highway 82 Corridor Master Plan. 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. Environmental Review 1. Guideline Utilize the City's Planned Unit Development (PUD) regulations. 8040 Greenline, EnWronmentally Sensitive Area, and Stream Margin Review when appropriate to insure the best possible review of environmentally sensitive areas. City of Aspen Annexation Plan. rev. 3 July 1996 Page 15 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 F. 2. Guideline Consider. as necessarv. code amendments to expand the scope of the City's environmental reviews to include review mechanisms which address wildlife habitat. the State Highway 82 Scenic Comdor. and other significant environmental issues. Bandit Dwelling Units 1. Guideline Use the : lccessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) provisions of the Citv 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 L Explanatory Comments Pitlan County cannot preclude a developer from installing a private water or sewer system if the system meets acceptable standards. However, Pitkin County may require potential developers to meet City standards and may serve as a catalyst to join the public utility system, or at a minimum, insure that if private systems are developed and subsequently taken over by the public, excess costs will not burden future users. H. Annexation Zoning Process 1. Guideline Pursue the annexation of'County lands only when a majority of the property owners 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 1 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. :mother 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. 1. 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 Citv 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. I Sid Area Zoning 1. Guideline Prior to annexation ofAspen 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 1996 Page 19 Proposed Land Use :fictions 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/Pitldn 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 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director FROM: Stephanie Millar, Senior Long -Range Planner RE: 1999 Annexation Plan Adoption DATE: July 26, 1999 Summary: The City of Aspen last reauthorized the City's Annexation Plan in August of 1998, which included minor revisions to the previously approved annexation element to the 1988 Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. It was determined in 1997 that the City and County would enter into a joint planning process for a more significant revision which would occur following the adoption of the 1998 Aspen Area Community Plan Update (AACP). It was anticipated at that time the 1998 AACP Update would be completed by the spring of 1999, however, the Update is just now entering the public hearing process and adoption is not expected until later this year. In order to meet state statutes and keep our Annexation Plan valid, a reauthorization of the present document is required at this time. The Annexation Plan Update is on the Community Development Work Program to begin in July. It is expected that a fully revised document will be presented to the City Council in late 1999 or early 2000. Process: The next revision of the plan will be developed following joint City - County discussions on annexation policy. This discussion has been initiated in the AACP Update process. The Board of County Commissioners has also requested an opportunity to review the revised document. This review is anticipated to take place in a joint work session with City Council to be scheduled following completion of the draft Annexation Plan Update. Since the adoption of the AACP, changes in Colorado statues have caused an annexation plan to be considered as a separate policy document, as opposed to an actual element of the Community Plan. As such formal adoption comes through the City Council at a public meeting. It is anticipated that the Planning & Zoning Commission will be asked to consider the revised document following completion of the draft Annexation Plan and make a recommendation to the City Council. By Colorado State law, the plan needs to be readopted annually. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council approve the resolution reauthorizing the current plan and adopting it as the 1999 Annexation Plan until a revised Annexation Plan can be completed and acted upon later this year. Recommended Motion: "I move to adopt Resolution 99-�Z approving the City of Aspen Annexation Plan--1999." City Manager Comments: Exhibits: A. City of Aspen, Aspen Annexation Plan--1996 B. City Council Resolution 99--� Last Reauthorization of Annexation Plan: 98-67 on 9/28 C:mydoes/annexation/annexmemo.doc June 28, 1999 0 0 Exhibit A 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 I. INTRODUCTION Statutory Requirements. All annexation actions by cities in Colorado are governed by CRS 31-21- 105. These statutory requirements include the need to produce an annexation plan for a three mile boundary around the existing city limits. The specific requirements include the following: "Prior to completion, ofany annexations, within the three mile area, the municipality shall have in place a plan for the area, which generally describes the proposed location, character, and extent of streets, subways, bridges, waterways, waterfronts, parkways, playgrounds, squares, parks, aviation fields, other public ways, grounds, open spaces, public utilities, and terminals for water, light, sanitation, transportation, and power to be provided by the municipality and the proposed land uses for the area". Past Annexation Plans 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 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 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. I1. 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.' i An analysis of the existing zoning pattern in the unincorporated portion of Pitkin County indicates that a range of 896 to 1,130 new dwelling units can conceivably be developed in the proposed annexation area. This figure includes the approvals for the Maroon Creek property, as well as the 1 All dwelling unit and population estimates are based on extrapolation from 1990 U.S. Census data. City of Aspen Annexation Plan, rev. 3 July 1996 Page 3 conceptual approval of the Highlands Base Village. The summary by annexation group is shown on Table 1. This table provides an overview of land use characteristics for each annexation area. The land use characteristics provided a basis for aggregating the annexation areas into four distinct groups which share similar traits. The grouping of these areas are explained below: Group A--Ute/Northstar, Red Butte, Shadow Mountain Generally, rural annexation areas which have very limited growth potential due to their geographic location. These areas are particularly affected by environmental planning issues. The City's existing Land Use Code with its provisions for Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA's) now has appropriate provisions to guide the growth and development of these areas. Further consideration may be given to adopting the more - stringent County 1041 regulations. Group B--Roaring Fork 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 Highway 82 Corridor These areas contain large development parcels with significant growth potential. There are numerous land use planning issues which need to be resolved prior to annexation, regarding appropriate development densities. The Maroon Creek Development Corporation area has completed the County land use process and has been awarded land use approvals. The Aspen Highlands project is currently in the County land use process. City of Aspen Annexation Plan, rev. 3 July 1996 Page 4 TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF ANNEXATION AREAS Map ID 9 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 RETT 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 1 0 TOTAL 8714 1100.5 723 1 896-1130 Source: Aspen/Pitkin County Community Development Department, 1996 City of Aspen Annexation Plan, rev. 3 July 1996 Page 5 Annexation of these areas would generally include reaffirming the decisions of these processes. An issue unique to the Smuggler area is the impact upon the City, County, and residents of the area relating to its designation as a "Super Fund" hazardous waste site. Group D--Aspen Highlands and Aspen Mountain Skiing Areas These areas correspond with skiing area 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 be accomplished without addressing the question of zoning large vacant tracts of land. III. STATUTORY ANNEXATION CRITERIA An area is eligible for annexation if the governing body, at 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 ZCRS 31-12-104. City of Aspen Annexation Plan, rev. 3 July 1996 Page 6 fact that the area proposed to be annexed has the contiguity with the annexing municipality required by the above requirement shall be a basis for a finding of compliance with these requirements unless the governing body, upon the basis of competent evidence presented at the hearing, finds that at least two of the following are shown to exist: a. Less than fifty percent of the adult residents of the area proposed to be annexed make use of part or all of the following types of facilities of the annexing municipality; Recreational, civic, social, religious, industrial, or commercial; and less than twenty-five percent of said area's adult residents are employed in the annexing municipality. If there are no adult residents at the time of the hearing, this standard does not apply. b. One-half or more of the land in the area proposed to be annexed (including streets) is agricultural, and the landowners of such agricultural land, under oath, express an intent to devote the land to such agricultural use for a period of not less than five years. C. It is not physically practicable to extend the area proposed to be annexed those urban services which the annexing municipality provides in common to of all its citizens on the same terms and conditions as such services are made available to such citizens. This standard shall not apply to the extent that any portion of an area proposed to be annexed is provided or will within the reasonably near future be provided with any service by or through a quasi -municipal corporation. These annexation criteria have been used as a general guide to identify an annexation area around the periphery of Aspen. IV. 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: 0 0 City of Aspen Annexation Plan, rev. 3 July 1996 Page 7 1. A map or maps of the municipality and adjacent territory to show the following information: a. The present and proposed boundaries of the municipality and in the vicinity of the proposed annexation; b. The present streets, major trunk water mains, sewer interceptors and outfalls, other utility lines and ditches, and the proposed extension of such streets and utility lines in the vicinity of the proposed annexation; C. The existing and proposed land use pattern in the areas to be annexed. 2. A copy of any draft or final preannexation agreement, if available; 3. A statement setting forth the plans of the municipality for extending to or otherwise providing for, within the area to be annexed, municipal services performed by or on behalf of the municipality at the time of annexation; 4. A statement setting forth the method under which the municipality plans to finance the extension of the municipal services into the area to be annexed; 5. A statement identifying existing districts within the area to be annexed; and 6. A statement on the effect of annexation upon local -public school district systems, including the estimated number of students generated and the capital construction required to educate such students. V. ISSUES AND CONCERNS This section of the annexation plan addresses land use issues and general policy concerns which are likely to arise during any annexation process. The annexation guidelines which follow this section have been developed in response to the issues and concerns addressed in this section, and are intended to guide the City and County during annexation decisions. City of Aspen Annexation Plan, rev. 3 July 1996 Page 8 Increased Development Potential within Existing Subdivisions From a historical perspective, it has been City policy that, when land is annexed, the development rights of the annexed land are not increased in comparison to the development rights in unincorporated Pitkin County prior to the annexation. A fundamental policy question is whether the City will continue to pursue this policy, particularly in light of the potential land use changes that could occur in and around Aspen, and community goals such as affordable housing and the development of alternative transportation modes entering Aspen. The continuation of the past annexation policy would be an indirect acknowledgment that the development rights established by Pitkin County zoning are appropriate. A review of the existing subdivisions in the proposed annexation areas indicated that in virtually all cases, based upon a consideration of standard zoning criteria such as neighborhood compatibility and provision of services, County zoning appears appropriate. A general land use policy addressing the development potential of an area after annexation should take into consideration more factors than just the zoned development potential in unincorporated Pitkin County. Equally important factors affecting density should include: • compliance with the Aspen Area Community Plan; • compatibility with the existing neighborhood; • recent or expected changes in the neighborhood or general area; • capability of the community to provide necessary services; • environmental constraints; and • changing goals of the community. Floor Area Ratios Floor Area Ratios (FAR) are utilized by the City and the County to determine the maximum size of dwelling units 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 (REM revenues are compelling reasons to pursue aggressive annexation policies. A primary disadvantage associated with annexing substantial amounts of vacant, undeveloped land is that the action is generally followed by increased development expectations on the part of land owners. The community has consistently attempted to maintain a rural entrance to the City, with urbanization limited to and surrounding the central core. The City must weigh the costs of potential intensification 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 expansi6ns 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. Ski Area Base Zoning The Aspen Highlands Base Village has obtained conceptual development approval from Pitkin County. If the Highlands base area is annexed by the City, the City's existing lodge zones may not be suitable for the Aspen Highlands base area. The potential annexation of Buttermilk presents similar difficulties. The threshold issue with annexing either base village is the extensive area which could potentially accommodate future development, and the intensive nature of existing City zoning. Ski Area Zoning Study Area 11 includes the Aspen Mountain Ski Area. The annexation of the ski area would require the creation of a new zone district for ski area recreation, as well as an SPA overlay. A wide variety of issues related to ski area expansion, which are not addressed by the current municipal code, would have to be resolved prior to annexation. Pitkin County has adopted the AF- SKI zone district to regulate ski area development and expansion. This tool should be considered for adoption by the City if annexation occurs in this area. Additional issues include the relative benefit of annexing federal lands into the City, as well as the additional impact on emergency response. Utility Extensions Typical annexation policies focus a great deal of fiscal analysis on the potential extension of water and sanitary sewer lines by a municipality to annexed territories. Within the Aspen Area, sanitary sewer is provided by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, rather than the City. Therefore, City of Aspen Annexation P13tr rev. 3 July 1996 Page 1 I the provision of sanitary sewer is not an annexation issue. However, the City of Aspen operates a municipal water system, and cost and engineering issues relating to the provision of potable water to developing land on the urban fringe are significant annexation issues. Exhibit C depicts the boundaries of the existing plan for water service areas adopted within the Aspen Water Management Plan. Currently, there are several small water districts which serve residences which are located outside the City's boundaries but within the service area of the water system. These small districts may present a problem for the City following annexation because their capital facilities may not be providing acceptable standards of service. Upgrading would be expensive, and may become the responsibility of the City following annexation. As the periphery of the City is developed, the development community is faced with a choice of joining the Aspen water system or developing their own domestic water infrastructure. The City and County. do not currently require that new development join the municipal water system. 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. hi 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. • • City of Aspen Annexation Plan, rev. 3 July 1996 Page 12 V. ANNEXATION GUIDELINES Introduction The first purpose of this chapter is to establish annexation guidelines to assist the City of Aspen in making land use decisions regarding the annexation of new territory. The guidelines should be used to determine when annexation is appropriate, which land should be annexed and how it should be zoned. The guidelines will also be useful to property owners in annexed areas who are seeking an indication of how their land will be treated in the land use process. The second purpose of this chapter is to propose specific actions to be pursued to prepare the City for the annexation of land within designated annexation areas. Guidelines A. Master Planning 1. Guideline Generally, an adopted Master Plan for an annexed area addressing land use and capital facilities improvements should be a pre -requisite to annexation. Explanatory Comments Most of the areas earmarked for annexation have been master planned or developed under Pitkin County jurisdiction. The previous approvals established guidelines for zoning decisions and capital facilities improvements. Previous approvals, in combination with general wishes of property owners and neighbors, should be a basic consideration in the land use decision making process. B. Development Potential Within Existing Subdivided, Generally Developed Areas 1. Guideline I 4 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 i 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. C. UnsubdividedNacant Land • • City of Aspen Annexation Plan, rev. 3 July 1996 Page 14 1. Guideline Postpone the annexation of unsubdivided vacant land which is rural in character until a development proposal has been prepared for the land by the property owner(s) or a development proposal is pending, unless the City decides to annex certain properties due to their value as open space or to achieve contiguityfor 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, Environmentally Sensitive Area, and Stream Margin Review when appropriate to insure the best possible review of environmentally sensitive areas. 2. Guideline • • City of Aspen Annexation Plan, rev. 3 July 1996 Page 15 Consider, as necessary, code amendments to expand the scope of the City's environmental reviews to include review mechanisms which address wildlife habitat, the State Highway 82 Scenic Corridor, and other significant environmental issues. F. Bandit Dwelling Units 1. Guideline Use the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) provisions of the City Land Use Code, in conjunction with the Uniform Building Code, to legalize "bandit units" 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. 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 0 • City of Aspen Annexation Plan, rev. 3 July 1996 Page 16 join the public utility system, or at a minimum, insure that if private systems are developed and subsequently taken over by the public, excess costs will not burden future users. H. Annexation Zoning Process 1. Guideline Pursue the annexation of County lands only when a majority of the property owners 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. 2. Guideline Cite of Aspen Annexation 0 rev_ 3 July 1996 • Page 17 Stage the annexation and zoning; process so that thefinal 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 Guideline The City staffshall annually monitor its costs for providing Municipal services to annexation areas on a comprehensive basis to determine additional costs incurred by the City and report to the City Council. The City and County shall renegotiate an equitable distribution of sales tax revenues or other methods of revenue sharing, when City costs have increased enough to warrant a redistribution of revenues. Explanatory Comments In 1968 Pitkin County voters 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 City of Aspen Annexation 1 rev. 3 July 1996 • Page 18 annexations, it is likely that service responsibilities will shift from Pitkin County to the City. At some point, sales tax distribution should also be adjusted. In the event the City decides to hold an annexation election for a large area, the sales tax agreement should be renegotiated prior to the election. The City and the County have worked jointly to develop an annexation model which analyzes the impact of a specific annexation on a comprehensive basis. This model should serve as the basis for further review. I Ski Area Zoning 1. ' Guideline Prior to annexation of Aspen Mountain and/or Aspen Highlands, the City of Aspen should adopt a special zone district for ski areas comparable to the County'.s AF-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. 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 Factlities/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. k Prepare legislation for inclusion in the City of Aspen Land Use Code which includes: • 200 foot setback from State Highway 82. 0 Scenic Foreground Overlay regulations. 0 i City of Aspen Annexation Plan, rev. 3 July 1996 Page 19 • A new Zone District for base area ski development. These code amendments should be adopted as a pre -requisite to annexation of land in the Highway 82 corridor. 0 • 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/Pitkin Community Development Office: Aspen Area Community Plan, January 1993 2. AACP Appendix, January 1992 AACP Phase One Report, September 1991 67 • Exhibit D MEMORANDUM TO: Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners Worksession Meeting - July 2, 1996 THRU: Cindy Houben, Community Development Director Stan Clauson, Community Development Director FROM: Tim Malloy, Long Range Planning RE: City of Aspen Annexation Plan 1996 Update STAFF COMMENTS: The purpose of this review is to provide the Board the opportunity to review the 1996 update of the Aspen Annexation Plan. The following is a list of comments, which were developed by Cindy Houben and myself and were provided to Stan Clauson and the City Council for a meeting which was intended to be held on June 24th. This meeting was postponed to allow the Board time to review the Plan and provide the City Council with your comments. We have also attached a copy of the Annexation Plan 1996 Update for your review. 1) It is our understanding that this update is being done in order to meet the requirements of the State Statutes regarding annexation in preparation for the annexation of the Maroon Creek Club golf course subdivision property. While we understand the need for this abbreviated update, it is our opinion that a more comprehensive review of the Annexation Plan should be done in the near future since some of the policies contained within the Plan may need to be more carefully reevaluated in response to the findings and recommendations in the AACP. To this end, we would point out that while State Statute requires annual review of annexation plans, we believe that the plan itself should include a statement requiring that the Plan be updated on an annual basis. We also believe that the review of any future Annexation Plan update should be taken to the joint City/County Growth Management Commission, since this Plan includes matters of importance to both jurisdictions. 2) The Draft Annexation Plan includes a section which outlines the annexation criteria required under the State Statutes (CRS 31-12-109). The primary criteria in the State Statute requires that not less that one -sixth of the perimeter of the area proposed to be annexed its contiguous with the annexing municipality." Clearly, the intent of this language is to ensure that annexations are done in an orderly and logical manner and that "leap frogging" or "flag7 annexations are avoided. However, in the past this language has been interpreted to allow "serial" annexations. This is the practice of annexing land in small pieces in order to establish one -sixth contiguity with some desired larger parcel. An example of this is the recent annexation by Basalt to obtain the property on which the Roaring Fork Club project is intended to be built. In this case, small segments of Highway 82 were annexed in order to establish contiguity with a larger property that was located over one-half mile from the Town limits. Though technically legal, we feel this practice undermines the basic purpose of the one -sixth contiguity test. We recommend that this issue be addressed. One possible solution would be to include a policy statement within the Annexation Plan clarifying that serial annexations, involving roadway segments or other small parcels, do not meet the intent of the one -sixth contiguity requirement. 3) The Annexation Plan includes discussion regarding the adequacy of the City's environmental regulations (8040 Green Line, ESA and Stream Margin Review). We are concerned that these regulations are not adequate to address the full range of environmental hazards that could be encountered on lands within the annexation area. We believe the Annexation Plan should include a recommendation that the City analyze this issue and consider adopting more comprehensive environmental regulations. 4) Page 8 of the Annexation Plan includes a discussion regarding increased development potential within existing subdivisions. This discussion implies that increased density might be allowed on lands within the annexed areas. We would point out that the AACP encourages greater density on lands close to urban centers, particularly the City of Aspen. We recommend that the language in this section include more definitive language regarding the idea of allowing increased density. ) The Plan includes a comparison and discussion of floor area ratios utilized by the City and County. The conclusion of this analysis is that the County"s FAR regulations are generally more restrictive that those used by the City. The Plan further states that in the absence of changes to the City's FAR regulations, the annexation of outlying subdivisions will most likely result in the expansion of some dwelling units. This would appear to be a good opportunity to provide another avenue for utilizing the TDR program. This could be accomplished by maintaining the County's FAR limitation and only allowing the increase to the City's standards through acquisition of a TDR. _ 6) Ski area annexation is discussed in the Annexation Plan (page 10). There are several issues which are not addressed in this discussion. Ski area development occurring on US Forest Service lands will in many cases create off -site impacts. The County has historically argued that they have the authority to regulate development on Federally owned lands where there is a reasonable expectation that such development will create off -site impacts. The Annexation Plan does not make it clear whether the City shares this conviction and whether they will continue to scrutinize ski area development proposals should one or more of the ski areas be annexed. In addition, there is no discussion regarding the issue of intermountain gondola connections and how the City would respond to such a proposal. The County has in the past opposed such a system of gondola connections and may wish to retain the ability to review and or, veto such proposals. 7) Page 17 of the Annexation Plan includes a statement indicating that lands, once annexed, must be zoned within 90 days otherwise they could be considered "unzoned" and might not be subject to 2 any development limitations. While this statement is made in the context of how such a situation can be avoided (take final action on zoning at the same time as annexation) we are still uncomfortable seeing this language in the Plan. We would simply suggest that the City attorney be consulted as to whether this is actually true and if not eliminate this language from the Plan. Our last comment has to do with the Annexation Impact Report prepared for the Maroon Creek Club annexation. In general, this is a very weak document which provides little if any meaningful information. It is impossible to evaluate, with any confidence, the real impacts or issues associated with this annexation by reviewing this report. The map provided in the report does not include all of the information required by the State Statute. The map does not show any utility information, as required, nor is there any indication of the existing and proposed land use pattern. Of greater concern is the fact that the fiscal impact analysis does not provide any background information or methodology to.support the conclusions regarding the City's ability to pay the cost of providing services for this development. We raise this issue because the findings of this analysis (annual revenues generated by the development exceed the cost of services by roughly 350 percent) are contradictory to the widely held notion that residential development does not pay for itself. In fact, when we reviewed the fiscal impact analysis for the Highlands Village project this theory was born out. We would simply recommend that the background and methodology information be included as an appendix to the Annexation Impact report so that the fiscal impact analysis can be evaluated. Attachment: cc: Cindy Houben c:\home\timm\countylr\annex\boardmem.doc 3 • 0 Exhibit E July 3, 1996 Mayor John Bennett and Aspen City Council Members 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Mayor Bennett and Members of Aspen City Council: ASPEN • PITKIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT We are writing to provide you with our comments regarding the City of Aspen Annexation Plan 1996 Update and the Annexation Impact Report for the North and South Maroon Creek Annexations. The Board reviewed these documents at a worksession meeting on July 2. 1996. In addition to the comments prepared by Staff, which the Board supports (see attached Community Development Department memo), we would like to forward the following comments. Page 11 of the .-annexation Plan Update includes a paragraph (paragraph number three) discussing the . issues of providing water for development by expansion of the City's central water distribution system or allowing private water systems. The Board is uncomfortable with the last three sentences in this paragraph (beginning with "Furthermore,'the County ...") and requests that this portion of the paragraph be eliminated from the document. The Board would like to further discuss this issue and other related issues with the City Council at a joint meeting. Policy H (1) in the Annexation Plan addresses the methods by which the City may annex property. This policy states that "The City may annex property by one of two methods. The first method is to annex upon receipt of a certified petition from land owners who own more than JO percent of the land area in a proposed annexation area. The second option is to call an annexation election for designated annexation areas." The Board would point out that the clause in the City's Water Service Agreement, which essentially requires a property owner to waive their right to object to annexation, is inconsistent with this policy. Page 17 of the Annexation Plan includes a policy (Policy I (1)) regarding the City's intent to monitor the cost of providing services and renegotiate the distribution of sales tax and other forms of revenue sharing based on the results of this monitoring. The Board is not comfortable with this statement because it limits the evaluation of costs to the annexation areas. The Board feels this evaluation should be done more comprehensively. We are concerned that we would not get an opportunity to evaluate whether savings could have been achieveld by looking at the cost of services more comprehensively. Pages 3 and 10 in the Plats include discussions regarding the adequacy of the City's environmental regulations. The statement in the paragraph on page 3 discussing the Ute/Northstar, Red Butte, Shadow Mountain areas indicates that the City's Land Use Code with its provision for Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA's) is well suited to guide growth and development in environmentally sensitive areas. However, page 10 of the Plan includes a contradictory statement which reads "The Municipal Code is intended to review urban level developments, and does not contain the rigor of the County's 1041 130 SOUTH GALENA STREET - ASPEN, COLORADO 81611-1975 PHONE 970.920.5090 F.ix 970.920.5439 Pnnted m Recycled Paper regulations for managing development in sensitive areas." The Board agrees with this last statement and would suggest that the guidelines at the end of the Plan should indicate that the City's environmental regulations should be amended more comprehensively relative to environmental issues. Currently, guideline number 2, under the policy regarding environmental review (top of page 15 in the Plan), is written too narrowly. It states that the City should consider Code amendments to address "wildlife habitat and the State Highway 82 Scenic Corridor." The Board feels this policy should be expanded to recommend that the City Code be amended to include environmental regulations which deal with a much broader range of environmental conditions. The Board would also request a revision to the discussion regarding the Highlands Village project at the bottom of page 3 and in Table 1 of the Annexation Plan. The Plan indicates that there is "significant potential for growth" on the Highlands Village site. The Board would simply note that this development potential is known, via the general submission approval, and that no significant additional development potential exists. . ' We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Annexation Plan! Sincerely, � 1 1 ��mes R. True Chairman, Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners attachment cc: Cindy Houben Stan Clauson