Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutres077-05P59 ~emo~2ndurn TO: FROM: Mayor and Members of Council John P. Worcester DATE: RE: September 26, 2005 Wagar/Detweiler Subdivision Annexation - Resolution Finding Compliance with Municipal Annexation Act Following a Public Hearing This matter is before you for a public hearing to determine compliance with certain provisions of the Municipal Annexation Act of 1965 as part of the statutory required process for annexing unincorporated property into the City. Attached for your consideration and review is a draft resolution to be adopted following the public hearing. If Council determines at the public hearing that compliance with these provisions exist, then an ordinance to annex will be prepared for Council's consideration at a later date. As .with all ordinances, a public hearing will be scheduled as part of second reading of the annexation ordinance. The appropriate time for interested citizens to offer comments on issues, other than compliance with the Municipal Annexation Act, regarding the annexation of the parcel to the City would be during the second i'ffading of the annexation ordinance. The public hearing scheduled for the 14th can, therefore, be limited to the sole issue of compliance with the relevant provisions of the Municipal Annexation Act. At Cox. mcil's regular meeting on August 22, 2005, Resolution No. 63, Series of 2005, was adopted. That resolution found substantial compliance with Section 31-12-107(1), C.R.S. (the technical requirements for a petition for annexation); established May 24, 1999 as the date for a public hearing to determine compliance with Sections 31-12-104 and 31-12-105, C.R.S., (described below); and authorized the institution of zoning procedures for land in the area proposed to be annexed. Because 100% of the property owners have consented to the proposed annexations, annexation elections are not required. However, at the public hearing, Council must make a determination that the proposed annexation is in compliance with Sections 31-12-104 and 31-12-105 of the state annexation statutes. Appended hereto for your information is a copy of these state statutes. Section 31-12-104, C.R.S., sets forth specific eligibility requirements which Council must find and determine at the scheduled hearing. These ehgibility requirements are incorporated within the P60 proposed resolution. The facts that support the determination of compliance will be presented by staffat the heating. In addition, Section 31-12-105, C.R.S. imposes a set of limitations on every annexation. It is these limitations that Council must also consider at the public hearing scheduled for the 26th. I have also attached a copy of a proposed resolution which you may adopt as Council's written findings and determinations following the public hearing. The proposed resolution summarizes the lim/tations of Section 31-12-105 in the form of factual statements that will need to be established at the public hearing. Staff fi:om the Commtmity Development Department have prepared a memo explaining the land use implications if the property is annexed into the City boundaries. City Manager Community Development Director City Engineer · City Clerk 2 P61 MEMORANDUM TO: JOHN WORCESTER~ CITY ATTORNEY FROM: 'JOYCE ALLGAIER~ DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RE: WAGAR/DETWE1LER ANNEXATION AND RELATED LAND USE MATTERS DATE: SEPTEMBER 20, 2005 A land use application has been filed concurrently with the annexation petition regarding this property in order to allow for a PUD Amendment, Subdivision and Rezoning of land (npon annexation). What follows is a summary of the proposal that the applicants would put in place if granted annexation and the land use approvals. I have ontlined, previous approvals from 2004, including, lots sizes, house sizes and FAR and what is currently proposed for these same parameters. ]~ROJECT SUMMARY: · On April t2, 2003, a fire occurred in the duplex at 517 Park Circle. Instead of re- building the non-conforming duplex (non-conforming due to its floor area) in its original configuration, the applicants used the two development rights on the property from the dnplex and subdivided the property into two lots in order to build two single-family residences. In 2004, the P&Z recommended in favor of and the Council g~nted a PUD approval that would allow each residence to be 3,400 square feet in size which is about a .3:1 floor area ratio. The two lots that the applicant created were 11,237 square feet and 11,428 squm'e feet, which is less than the required 15,000 minimum lot area per dwelling unit for the R-15, PUD zoning. The owners are now annexing a piece of land from Pitkin County to add to Lot 2, then a resubdivision will occur which would give some land to Lot 1. This will bring the lot sizes upto 14,458 square feet for Lot 1 and 14,652 square feet. for Lot 2. These sizes fall short of the required lot size for R-15, b, ut are getting closer. The owners would like to set the allowable floor area based on the underlying R-15 zone district allowing Lot 1 to have 4,462 square feet. (.3:1 FAR) and Lot 2 to have 4,275 square feet ( 29 1 FAR) With the exception of the front yards, setbacks waivers that were allowed in the first 'PUD are no longer being requested because with the greater land mass the residences can cotfform. P62 RESOLUTION NO. '~ ~ (Series of 2005) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ASPEN, COLORADO, FINDING COMPLIANCE WITH SECTIONS 31-12-104 and 31-12-105, C.R.S., FOLLOWING PUBLIC HEARING RELATIVE TO THE PETITION FOR ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF ASPEN, COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE WAGAR/DETWEILER SUBDIVISION. WHEREAS, on July 20, 2005, the owners of the property proposed to be annexed did file with the City Clerk of the City of Aspen a Petition for Annexation of territory to the City of Aspen; and WHEREAS, on August 22, 2005, the City Council did adopt Resolution No. 63, Series of 2005, £mding substantial compliance with Section 31-12-107(1), C.R.S.; establishing September 26, 2005, as the date for a public hearing to determine compliance with Sections 31- 12-104 and 31-12-105, C.R.S.; and authorizing publication of said hearing; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on September 26, 2005; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to adopt its findings and determinations following said hearing in the form of a resolution. " NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1 That having heard and considered the testimony, comments, exhibits and arguments of all persons appearing at the public hearing, the City Council of the City of Aspen makes the following findings and determinations in accordance with the Colorado Municipal Annexation Act, as amended: 1. The City Clerk, in accordance with Resolution No. 63, Series of 2005, did give public notice pursuant to Section 31-12-108, C.R.S., of the public hearing, by P63 causing to be published once a week for four consecutive weeks in The Aspen Times, a newspaper of general circulation in Pitkin County, the first publication being at least thkty (30) days prior to the date of the public hearing: In addition, the City Council did send to the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners, to the County Attorney of Pitkin County, and to the Aspen School District, a copy of the aforesaid resolution and petition. 2. That the property proposed to be annexed consists of unincorporated area which has more than one sixth boundary contiguity with the City of Aspen. 3. That a community of interest exists between the area proposed to be annexed and the City of Aspen; that said area is urban or will be urbanized in the near future; and that said area is integrated with or is capable of being integrated with the City of Aspen. The basis of compliance with the foregoing is the finding by City Council that the area to be annexed exceeds the one-sixth contiguity requirement and: a. Less than one-half of the land in the area proposed to be annexed (including streets) is agricultural, and none of the owners of such agricultural land, if any, have expressed an intention, under oath, to devote the land to agricultural use for a period of not less than five years; and, b. It is physically practicable to extend to the area proposed to be annexed those urban services which the City of Aspen provides in common to all of its citizens on the same terms and condkions as such services are made to such citizens. 4. The property .proposed to be annexed was not divided into separate parts or parcels from any other tract or parcel of real estate without the written consent of the' landowners thereof to establish the boundaries of the property described in the annexation petition. (One hundred percent of the owners of the proposed area to be annexed have consented to the annexation.) 5. The owners of the property proposed to be annexed have consented in writing to the annexation. Accordingly, the limitation set forth at Section 31-12-105(b) is not applicable. 6. There is no other annexation proceeding, other than the one under consideration herein, which has been commenced either in the City of Aspen or any other municipality which affects the property proposed to be annexed. Accordingly, the limitation set forth at Section 31-12-105(c) is not applicable. 7. Annexation of the property proposed to be annexed would not result in the detachment of any area from any school district and the attachment of the same to another P64 school district. Accordingly, the limitation set forth at Section 31-12-105(d) is not applicable. 8. Annexation of the property proposed to be annexed would not have the effect of extending the boundary of the City of Aspen more than three miles in any direction. Accordingly, the limitations set forth at Section 31-12-105(e) relating to the extension of municipal boundaries by more than three miles in any one year is not applicable. 9. The annexation of the property proposed to be annexed would be consistent with the "Annexation Element to the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan". Accordingly, the requirement set forth at Section 31-12-105(e) relating to the requirement that a ~'plan" be adopted for the property proposed to be annexed has been met. 10. In ~stablishing the boundaries of the area to be annexed, 'no portion of a platted street or alley is proposed to be annexed or the entire width of the alley or street is proposed to be annexed. Accordingly, the limitation set forth at Section 31-12-105(0 has been met. 11. The .City of Aspen does not intend to deny reasonable access to landowners, owner of an easement, or the owner of a franchise adjoining any street, alley, or highway, upon annexation. Accordingly, the limitation set forth at Section 31- 12-105(f) has been met. INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Aspen on day of ,2005. Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoLng is a tree and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held on the day hereinabove stated. P65 Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk JPW- saved: 9/19/2005-978-G:\joh~l\wor~\resos\wagar-ann2.doc P66