Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.an.Annexation Plan 1996.1996-AN1 ,-.., ~ Exhibit A . City of Aspen . Annexation Plan Revised 3 July 1996 Prepared by : AspenlPitkin Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 920-5090 I . /""""0 .~, I. INTRODUCTION Statutory Reauirements, AIl 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 exteni of streets, subways, bridges, waterways, waterfronts, parkways, playgrounds, squares, parks, aviation fields, other public ways, grounds, open spaces, public utilities, and terminalsfor water, light, sanitation, transportation, and power to be provided by the municipality and the proposed land uses for the area", Past Annexation Plans bv the Citv of Asoen. 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 ofCRS 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 ordef to enfranchise County residents who live outside 6fthe 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 ofland, is located within 3 miles of the existing City limits, Presently there are only 1,479 acres ofland within the current jurisdictional boundaries of Aspen, If the entire annexation area is annexed to the City, the geographic size of Aspen would increase by approximately seven times. This figure is somewhat misleading because the Aspen Mountain and Aspen Highlands areas contain approximately 2,432 acres, If the ski areas are deleted, the annexation area only contains approximately 6,282 acres, To simplify the analysis, the proposed annexation area has been broken down into 12 smaller annexation areas which are depicted in Exhibit B. The boundaries for each area were developed based on the following factors: existing development patterns, physical features, and established neighborhood areas, The existing character of the annexation areas vary significantly in terms of urbanization levels and environmental constraints. Based on the 1995 Community Development Department estimates, the proposed annexation areas currently contain approximately 1,947 dwelling units, and an estimated year-round population of 2,869, By comparison, the 1994,1995 resident population for the City of Aspen was approximately 5,851 and the peak populatioo was estimated at 25,0001 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 I 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-UteINorthstar, Red Butte, Shadow Mountain Gener,ally, 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 siguificant 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 COlporationarea 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 I .\1111111) i' II '\III1C:\:ltitlll , i ,\r.a Group A 1 6 Ute Northstar Red Butte 10 Shadow Mountain Subtotal Group B 2 4 5 Roaring Fork Red Mountain Pitkin Green Subtotal Group C 3 7 Lower Smuggler Meadowood 8 Aspen Highlands 12 SH 82 Corridor Maroon Creek Subtotal Group D 9 13 11 Aspen Highlands Aspen, Mountain Subtotal TOTAL I Si]'(~ I I <ar.) ! , 469 105 284 858 324 219 609 260 366 144 1536 403 2709. 1374 1058 2432 8714 TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF ANNEXATION AREAS Vacant I:U!iuhdh"ided (a<,) \ ~U':lIIt Sllbdh.idl~d ea".) 133 69 217 351 73 66 o ,5 20 o 21 I .5 44 42 219 231 2 424 . 62 218 749 - 476 o 130 o o 1100.5 130 723 Sourc.: Aspen/Pitkin County Community Development Department, 1996, Poi~:iiii;~ I' "nih o 4 10-14 26,35 3 chllnit:ie..----,--. ..- C()I1II11I~nt'ii , I 7-10 Rural/Not. Subdivided Rural/Partially Public Rural / Numerous mining claims 9,11 28,33 Suburban! All Subdivided 98-124 Suburban! Subdivided & Unsubdivided 89,99 Suburban! Subdivided & Unsubdivided 215-256 10 37,150 93-114 15 2 260,310 655,839 o o 896,1130 154 Urban! Not Subdivided Suburban! Subdivided & Unsubdivided Suburban! Subdivided & Unsubdivided III Urban and Rural! Subdivided and Unsubdivided Suburban o Ski Area! 96% USFS Ski Area! 21% USFS o Includes Little Annie Base Potential for park use . City ESA process appropriate Numerous bandit units Numerous bandit units Numerous bandit units EP A requirements Significant potential for growth Growth potential detennined in 1996 by general submission to County Significant potential for growth PUD approval in place, RETI revenue Sales tax revenue Fragmented ownership r-.. ~ 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 ofnew land use legislation to guide future growth and development of the skiing areas. An analysis ofIand 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, m, 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 2CRS 31-12,/04, ,-., ,/"""'1''\ 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 municipaIity; 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 nqt 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 municipaIity 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: r"'.. .1"") 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 CoWrty during annexation decisions, .r-, ,~ 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 detennine 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 F ARs in the R-30, R,IS and R-16 are .13, .16 and ,30 respectively. By comparison, the City of Aspen utilizes a sliding scale FAR system. With the exception of relatively large two-acre lots, the County F ARs i""""- tt. City of Aspen Annexation Plan, rev, 3 July 1996 Page 9 are more restrictive than the methodology applied by the City of Aspen, Therefore, in the absence of changes to the City F ARs, the annexation of outlying subdivisions will most likely result in the expansion of some dwelling units and the removal of non -conforming status for some existing structures. The expansion of dwelling units mayor may not be compatible with surrounding areas and is an issue that 'Should be analyzed during the annexation process, Development Potential of Unsubdivided Land A summary of major unsubdivided land within the annexation area is shown previously on Table I, 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 developmeo.t 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 particularIyimportant in reference to the State Highway 82 Corridor, One option open to the City would be to incorporate an open space component into the annexation process, partially financed by increased RETI revenues associated with individual annexations. Environmental Review Standards The Aspen City limits have begun to expand beyond the original townsite located on the pnkary 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 developmeats, 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 II includes the Aspen Mountain Ski Area, The annexation of the ski area would require the creation of a new zone district for ski area recreation, as well as an SPA overlay, A wide variety of issues related to ski area expansion, which are not addressed by the current municipal code, would have to be resolved prior to annexation, Pitkin County has adopted the AF, SKI zone district to regulate ski area development and expansion, This tool should be considered for adoption by the City if annexation occurs in this area, Additional issues include the relative benefit of annexing federal lands into the City, as well as the additional impact on emergency response, Utility Extensions Typical annexation policies focus a great deal of fiscal analysis on the potential extension of water and sanitary sewer lines by a municipality to annexed territories, Within the Aspen Area, sanitary sewer is provided by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, rather than the City, Therefore, ,-,. City of Aspen Annexation Piau, rev. 3 July 1996 Page II 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 tile City following annexation, As the periphery of the City is developed, the development community is faced with a choice of joining the Aspen water system or developing their own domestic water infrastructure, The City and County do not currently require that new development join the municipal water system, Furthennore, the City recommends that the County require new developments which choose to provide private water systems to design those systems to meet standards which are comparable to City standards. When and if the City annexes these areas, the water systems would otherwise create a liability to the City, The City also recommends that the County develop standards which act as an incentive to have developments initially hook onto the City's system, in order to avoid the proliferation of small, uneconomical, often undependable private water systems in the metro area, Annexation/Zoning Process State law requires municipalities to zone annexed land within 90 days of annexation, In the past, when complex zoning issues arise, the City of Aspen has experienced problems meeting this state requirement. Failure to zone land within 90 days may potentially pennit 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 pmpose of this chapter is to propose specific actions to be pursued to prepare the City for the annexation of land within desiguated 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 eannarked 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 Snbdivided, Generally Developed Areas 1. Guideline Apply zoning to annexed areas which'generally maintains the same development rights within the City as within unincorporated areas, ,1"""\ ~! City of Aspen Annexation Plan, rev, 3 July 1996 Page I3 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 noncoriforming, 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 efficts of the new legislation on the remainder of the City of Aspen. c.' UnsubdividedNacant Land r-, '1' 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 ts 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 arOlUld the airport may be in the best interest of the City, The price for the annexation of the aitport 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 IUnits as described in detail in the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Parks I Recreation I Open Space I Trails Element, The potential future development of the State Highway 82 Corridor should be consistent with this concept and the State Highway 82 Corridor Master Plan, D, Floor Area Ratios 1, Guideline The City should generally try to maintain Floor Area Ratios comparable to the County's for annexed properties, unless tt is demonstrated during the zoning process that the Floor Area Ratios are unreasonably high or low, E, Environmental Review I 1. Guideline Utilize the City's Planned Untt 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 ,-., I~ 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, io legalize "bandit units" qs 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 I, Guideline Pursue an agreement with Pitkin County which insures that Pitkin County requires small, private, utility systems to meet all City standards. Explanatory Comnients 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 acatalyst to ~ 1"""\ . 1 City of Aspen Annexation Plan, rev, 3 July 1996 Page 16 join the public utility system, or at a minimum, insure that ifprivate systems are developed and subsequently taken over by the public, excess costs will not burden future users, H. Annexation Zoning Process I. Guideline Pursue the annexation of County lands only when a majority of the property . owners favor an!1exation. Explanatory Comments The City should continue to take a pro-active role in annexation by assisting residents to gather annexation petition signaturell, 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 anrtexation 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 I. ", rev. 3 July 1996 Page 17 r-.. Stage the annexation and zoning process so that the final annexation ordinance is considered simultaneously with final zoning actions in order' to insure that the majority of owners are satisfied with zoning solutions, Explanatory Comments In order to maintain a spirit of cooperation between the City and property owners within annexed territory, the sequencing of the annexation and zoning process is essential. Since zoning and its land use implications are the biggest unknown element of the annexation process, it is the City's policy to postpone the final reading of annexation ordinances until property owners are well aware of the implications of City zoning regulations upon their property. The City of Aspen annexation and zoning approach is an improvement upon the procedure used by most Colorado municipalities in which the annexation is completed prior to the initiation of the zoning process and residents are uncertain as to how zoning issues will be resolved. Another positive effect of the process is that it insures that the zoning is accomplished within 90 days of annexation, as required by state law. If this 90 day requirement were not met by the City, the property could be considered "unzoned" and might not be subject to any development limitations, I. City/County Sales Tax Revenue Sharing 1 . Guideline The City staff shall annually monitor its costs for providing Municipal services to annexation areas on a comprehensive basis to determine additional costs incurred by the City and report to the City Council. The City and County shall renegotiate an equitable distribution of sales tax revenues or other methods of revenue sharing. when City costs have increased enough to warrant a redistribution of revenues, 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 r'\ City of Aspen Annexation p,_ rev, 3 July 1996 Page 18 .r-, 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 Speci~c annexation on a comprehensive basis, This model should serve as the basis for further review. J, Ski Area Zoning I. ' Guideline Prior to annexation of Aspen Mountain and/or Aspen Highlands, the City of Aspen should adopt a special zone district for ski areas comparable to the County's AF-SKl zone district, Explanatory 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 FacilitieslUtilities Plan, which addresses all land in the Aspen area including the annexation areas, The Plan should specifically address the entrances to Aspen with an emphasis on lands in the State Highway 82 Corridor. 2 f 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, ,-., i-", City of Aspen Annexation Plan, rev, 3 July 1996 Page 20 VIL APPENDIX The following docwnents and reports are related to this Annexation Element and may be obtained from the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Office: 1, Aspen Area Community Plan, January 1993 2, AACP Appendix, January 1992 3, AACP Phase One Report, September 1991 ,-., .r\' Exhibit 0 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 is contiguous with the , annexing municipality." Clearly, the intent of this language is to ensure t4at annexations are done in an orderly and logical manner and that "leap frogging" or "flagi' annexations are avoided. However, in the past this language has been interpreted to allow "serial" annexations. 1bis 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,haIf 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 enviromnental 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 enviromnental .e'guJations. 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, 5) 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 IDR 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 IDR. 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 statemellt 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 comdence, 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 infonnation 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,s'upportthe 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 infonnation be included as an appendix to the Annexation Impact report so that the fiscal impact analysis can be evaluated. Attaclunent: cc: Cindy Houben c:\homeltimmlcountylrlannexlboardmem.doc I 3 ,~ !~ ExhibitE . ASPEN' PITKIN COMMUNm DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Jl!ly 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: We are writing to provide you with our comments regardmg the City of Aspen Annexatiol;l 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 II 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 "Furthenuore, 'the County n.") and requests that this portion of the paragraph be eiiminated from the document. The Board would like to further discuss this issue and other related issues with the City Council at ajoint meeting. Policy H (I) 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 50 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 c.lause 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 (I)) regarding the City's intent to monitor the cost of providing services and renegotiate the distribution of sales tax and other fonus 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 achie-:eld by looking at the cost of services more comprehensively, Pages 3 and 10 in the Plail include discussions regarding the adequacy of the City's environmental ' regulations. The statement in the paragraph on page 3 discussing the UtelNortbsrar, 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 . FAX 970.920.5439 l'rinted nn Recycled Paper t"""'\ r-., 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 I 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! S(ncerely, ./L~.~~e-~' ~- . / Chairman, Pitkin County Board of County CommissionersT attachment cc: Cindy Houben Stan Clauson