Annexation Plan 2019

The City of Aspen Annexation Plan

MAP W O OD Y C R R EE oa K r RD i A n g Fo r reek k ody C R Wo iv e r City of Aspen Three Mile Annexationa Area

HWY 82

Legend Water Roads k 3 Mile Boundary ee r Cr Hunte City of Aspen Urban Growth Boundary BLM USFS

E MAIN ST

k e e r C ek re tle C as n C o ro 4 a M 1 inch = 5,761 feet When printed at 11"x17" 0 2,880.5 5,761 D

K E

D E

R R Feet K C E E E R L T C S N A C Date: 10/28/2015 O O R A M City of Aspen

Planning

Geographic Information Systems This map/drawing/image is a graphical representation of the features depicted and is not a legal representation. The accuracy may change depending on the enlargement or reduction.

Purpose ...... 3

Annexation Area ...... 4

Annexation Area Characteristics...... 4

Sequential Steps to Complete Annexation ...... 8

Annexation Impact Report Requirements...... 9

Statutory Annexation Criteria...... 10

Local Annexation Criteria ...... 11

Example Annexation Criteria ...... 14

Map A ...... 16

Map B ...... 17

The City of Aspen — 3-Mile Annexation Plan — February, 2019 — 2 Purpose

The City of Aspen Annexation Plan reflects land use policy of the City of Aspen (COA) with regard to adding urbanized land, and land appropriate for urbanization, surrounding Aspen to the City’s jurisdiction. The Plan provides landowners whose property is adjacent to the COA with the relevant requirements and processes for requesting inclusion into the COA. The COA shall use its legislative authority of annexation and this annexation plan to: • Ensure the natural and well-ordered development of the City. • Distribute fairly and equitably the costs of city services among those persons who benefit therefrom. • Extend the city’s government, services, and facilities to eligible citizens forming part of a whole community. • Simplify jurisdictional boundaries and reduce administrative confusion. • Increase the City’s ability to provide its citizens with the services they require.

Colorado Revised Statute All annexation actions by cities in Colorado are governed by CRS 31-12-102, et. seq. These statutory requirements include the City’s need to maintain an annexation plan for a three-mile boundary around the existing City limits. The specific requirements include the following:

“Prior to completion of any annexation, within the three mile area, the municipality shall have in place a plan for the area, which generally describes the proposed location character, and extent of streets, subways, bridges, waterways, waterfronts, parkways, playgrounds, squares, parks, aviation fields, other public ways, grounds, open spaces, public utilities, and terminals for water, light, sanitation, transportation, and power to be provided by the municipality and the proposed land uses for the area. Such plan shall be updated at least once annually.”

Plan Approved This plan has been approved by the City of Aspen Community Development Director of the City of Aspen pursuant to Colorado Revised Statutes (CRS) 31-12-105(e)(l).

Urban Growth Boundary The City of Aspen approved Aspen’s Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) via adoption of the 2012 Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP). The UGB identifies the land surrounding Aspen as either appropriate for urban development (within the UGB) or inappropriate for urban development (outside the UGB). Land within the UGB is expected to become part of the City’s urbanized area, at some point, while land outside the UGB should only be annexed as a method of preserving the non-urban character of lands surrounding Aspen. The UGB should be amended upon determination that the subject land should be re-categorized, independent of an annexation decision.

Disclosure The City of Aspen Annexation Plan has been adopted to meet the compulsory requirements set forth by the State of Colorado, pursuant to CRS 31-12- 105. The plan should not be considered a replacement or complete reflection of the state statutes. Property owners seeking annexation should consult the Colorado Revised Statutes. The plan is not binding upon the City of Aspen.

The City of Aspen — 3-Mile Annexation Plan — February, 2019 — 3 City of Aspen Annexation Area Map A (page 16) depicts Aspen’s annexation area, corresponding to the State’s three-mile area requirement, based on the current jurisdictional boundary. The jointly-adopted Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) is also shown. Woody Creek The City of Aspen is currently approximately 2,420 acres. The area within the UGB is approximately 4,860 acres, roughly twice the size of the current

W City jurisdiction. OThisO land within the UGB has been determined appropriateMAP for urbanization and is likely to become part of the City of Aspen. DY Brush Crk Village, C RE E Cozy Pt, Starwood, K R McLain FlatsThe three-mile area is approximatelyD 48,000 acres, 46,000 acres larger thanB the current City jurisdiction. Much of this three-mile area is outside Aspen’s

UGB and considered inappropriate for urbanization.Creek Annexation of areas outside the UGB should only be considered as a means of preserving the non- ACSD, County Woody Maint, RFTA, Sary urban character of the land. Field, N HWY82 City of Aspen Three Mile To understand the City’s potential service needs, annexation areas Annexationawithin the Area UGB have been analyzed as smaller land areas. The boundaries for ABC and each area were developed based on the following factors: physical features, existing development patterns, existing property lines, and established North Forty neighborhood areas. Owl Creek Ranch, Woody Droste Ranch Ute/Northstar,Creek Meadowood, Moore, ShadowAnnexation Mountain, Area Characteristics Legend W Buttermilk, Red Butte Mountain Eagle Pines, HWY82 Valley, Red W re ek Water The City is required to identifyOO theC area within three miles of its boundary (See MapMAP A - page 16) The proximity of these areas, however, does not r Mountain DY nte ButtermilkBrush Crk Village, HCu Roads RE E Base AreaCozynecessarily Pt, Starwood, mean these areas arK e desirable for annexation. The three-mile area is a State requirement and should not be considered an intention of Lower R 3 Mile Boundary theMcLain City Flats of Aspen. Manyand areas, Upper outsideD of the UGB especially, may be entirely inappropriateB for annexation. Smuggler City of Aspen S MUGGLER Urban Growth Boundary M Creek T ody ACSD, County N Wo MA Following is an overviewIN S of land use characteristicsR for each area within a three-mile radius of the City, with particular attention paid to the areas within Maint, RFTA, Sary Ute/Northstar, T D Field, N HWY82 Shadow Mountain, City of Aspen Town of the UGB. k The areas described are shown on Map B (page 17). These general characteristics provide a basis for understanding potential land use Rede Butte Snowmass e Three Mile r Village Woodyissues thatC may need to be addressed during an annexation. Annexationa Area e l Forest t Creek s Lands ABC and a C North Ski Areas - Aspen, Ute/Northstar, Shadow Mountain, Red Butte Bar X Ranch, Forty Highlands,W Remote OO Ute/Northstar, 4MAP Owl CreekAVLT, Lower Buttermilk DY Generally, rural areas with very limited growth potential due to their physical circumstances. These areas Creek Brush CrkSubdivisions Village, A CR Shadow Mountain, 1 inch = 5,761 feet S E w Ranch,Maroon Creek E illo Cozy Pt, Starwood, P K Red Butte E R are particularly affectedWhen by printed environmental at 11"x17" hazards and each request should include an analysis of the W Droste Ranch D N D McLain FlatsR Ute/Northstar, K 0 2,880.5 5,761B H

D E M Meadowood, Moore, W E regulatory tools used to address such hazards. The City’s Land Use Code provisions for Environmentally R Shadow Mountain,T Legend

R Y K N Mountain Ski Areas - Aspen, C E W Buttermilk, Red Butte Feet E R 8 E D 2 k r ek R Valley, Red Sensitivee C e Areas (ESA’s) may adequately guide the growth and development of these areas. Further Highlands,Eagle Pines, HWY82L re Water C WCoody ACSD, County T r S R N Buttermilk Mountain oa te

O A Buttermilk r un Date: 11/4/2015 Maint, RFTA, Sary i

n H Roads

O C consideration should be given to the more stringent County 1041 regulations particularly with regard to R g A Field, N HWY82 Base Area M Lower City of Aspen F 3 Mile Boundary development on steepCity of Aspenslopes. The lands at the toe of the steep terrain have development potential. ando Upper Three Mile r k City of Aspen SmugglerR i Annexationa Area v Planning e SMUGGLE k r R Urban Growth Boundary e ABC and M re T C N Geographic Information Systems North MAI n N ST R This map/drawing/image is a graphical o Ute/Northstar, D ro Forty representation of the features a Shadow Mountain, depicted and is not a legal representation. M Owl Creek k Town of The accuracy may change Rede Butte SnowmassRanch, e depending on the enlargement or reduction. r VillageDroste Ranch C e Sources: Esri, USGS, NOAA l Mountain Valley,Forest Red MountainCopyright 2015 City of Aspen GIS Ute/Northstar, t Meadowood, Moore, s Lands Shadow Mountain, a Generally, suburban areasLegend comprised of predominantly developed subdivisions. Several similar subdivisions, W Buttermilk, Red Butte C Mountain Valley,Ski Red Areas - Aspen, k Eagle Pines, HWY82 Cre e such as Eastwood and Knollwood,Water have already annexed into the City. The major land use issues affecting Bar X Ranch, MountainHighlands, ter Buttermilk Remote Hun Ute/Northstar, Roads 4 AVLT, Lower Buttermilk Creek Base Area Subdivisions A Shadow Mountain,this group include floor area ratios, legitimizing1 inch = 5,761 feet “bandit dwelling units,” wildfire mitigation, wildlife corridors, w Maroon Creek S Lower 3 Mile Boundary illo P Red Butte E and Upper When printed at 11"x17" W D N and the status of the roads and ability of the City to adequately maintain and upgrade them as necessary. R Smuggler City of Aspen K 0 2,880.5 5,761 H

D E M

W R E S G T MUG LER Urban Growth Boundary Y R K N M

E Ski Areas - Aspen, C 8 T Feet E RD 2 N R E M Highlands, L AI C N S R T T D Ute/Northstar,S R N Buttermilk oa The City of Aspen — 3-Mile Annexation Plan — February, 2019 — 4

O A r Date: 11/4/2015

O ShadowC Mountain, n Town of R k g A e M Red Butte Snowmass e F r o City of Aspen Village C r e l k RForest t i s v Planning a Landse ek C r re C Ski Areas - Aspen, Geographic Information Systems n Highlands, This map/drawing/image is a graphical o Bar X Ranch, o Remote Ute/Northstar, 4representation of the features r a AVLT, Lower Buttermilk ek Subdivisions A Shadow Mountain, 1 inchdepicted = 5,761 and isfeet not a legal representation. Cre M w Maroon Creek S The accuracy may change illo P Red Butte E When printed at 11"x17" W D depending on the enlargement or reduction. N R

Y R K N

E Ski Areas - Aspen, C 8 Feet E R 2 R E D Highlands, L C T S R N Buttermilk oa

O A r Date: 11/4/2015

O C n R g A M F o City of Aspen r k R i v Planning e ek r re C Geographic Information Systems n This map/drawing/image is a graphical o ro representation of the features a depicted and is not a legal representation. M The accuracy may change depending on the enlargement or reduction.

W OO MAP DY Brush Crk Village, C RE E Cozy Pt, Starwood, K R McLain Flats D B

Creek ACSD, County Woody Maint, RFTA, Sary Field, N HWY82 City of Aspen Three Mile Annexationa Area ABC and North Forty Owl Creek Ranch, Droste Ranch Ute/Northstar, Meadowood, Moore, Shadow Mountain, Legend W Buttermilk, Red Butte Mountain Valley, Red k Eagle Pines, HWY82 Cre e Water Mountain ter Buttermilk Hun Roads Base Area Lower 3 Mile Boundary and Upper Smuggler City of Aspen S MUGGLER Urban Growth Boundary M

T N MA IN S R Ute/Northstar, T D Shadow Mountain, Town of k Rede Butte Snowmass e r Village C Woody e l Forest t s Creek a Lands C Ski Areas - Aspen, Bar X Ranch, Highlands, W Remote RemoteUte/Northstar, Subdivisions 4 AVLT, Lower OO Buttermilk MAP Creek DY Subdivisions A Shadow Mountain, 1 inch = 5,761 feet Brush Crk Village,w Maroon Creek C S illo R P SeveralRed small Butte residential subdivisions, located along the Maroon Creek, Castle Creek, and Roaring Fork River E E When printed at 11"x17" W E D Cozy Pt, Starwood, K N R R K 0 2,880.5 5,761 D drainages, areH within the three-mile area. These subdivisions have little to no additional development potential. D E M McLain Flats W R E T B

R Y K N

E Ski Areas - Aspen, C These areas do8 not appear to provide any advantageFeet to the City and could become infrastructure service burdens. E R 2 R E D Highlands, L C T S R

N Buttermilk Creek oa A New land use regulationsr addressing wildfire, wildlife, avalanche, and development on steep slopes would be

O y Date: 11/4/2015

d i o n

ACSD, County O C Wo R g A Maint, RFTA, Sary M required. F o City of Aspen Field, N HWY82 r City of Aspen k R i v Three MilePlanning e ek r Annexationa Area re C Geographic Information Systems n This map/drawing/image is a graphical ABC and o ro representation of the features North a depicted and is not a legal representation. M The accuracy may change Forty depending on the enlargement or reduction. Owl Creek Lower Smuggler Sources: Esri, USGS, NOAA Copyright 2015 City of Aspen GIS Ranch, This area contains large development parcels with growth potential, existing subdivisions with little remaining Droste Ranch Ute/Northstar, growth potential, the historically important Smuggler Mine, and steeply sloped areas with limited growth potential. Meadowood, Moore, Shadow Mountain, Legend W Buttermilk, Red Butte Mountain Continued public access to the Upper Smuggler area and recreational opportunities would need to be ensured. Valley, Red Woodyk Eagle Pines, HWY82 Cre e Water Mountain terCreek Land Use Code provisions for mining activity would be necessary. Regulatory tools to address development on Buttermilk Hun Roads Base Area steep slopes would be necessary. Lower 3 Mile Boundary W and Upper OO MAP DY City of Aspen SmugglerBrush Crk Village, C RE S Upper Smuggler E Cozy Pt, Starwood,MUGGLER K Urban Growth Boundary M R D McLain Flats T This areaN contains large publicly and privately-owned parcels with significantB infrastructure limitations and steeply MA IN S R Ute/Northstar, T slopedD areas with very limited growth potential. This area was an active mining area. Currently, this area is a very Shadow Mountain, Creek Town of k ACSD, County Woody Rede Butte popular recreation area and is a primary public access to public lands. Much of this area has been identified as Snowmass e r Maint, RFTA, Sary Village C e Field, N HWY82 land with conservation value. Continued public access to public lands and recreational opportunities would need to l Forest City of Aspen t s a be ensured.Lands Regulatory tools to address development on steep slopes wouldThree be Mile necessary. C Annexationa Area Ski Areas - Aspen, Bar X Ranch, Highlands, ABC and Remote Ute/Northstar, 4 AVLT, Lower Buttermilk North Creek Subdivisions A Shadow Mountain, 1 inch = 5,761 feet w Maroon Creek S Forty illo P Red Butte E When printed at 11"x17" W D Owl Creek N R

K Ranch, 0 2,880.5 5,761 H

D E M

W R E Droste RanchT Y R K N Meadowood, Moore, West Buttermilk, Eagle Pines, and State Highway 82 Corridor E Ski Areas - Aspen, C Ute/Northstar, 8 Feet E R 2 R E D Meadowood, Moore, Highlands, L Shadow Mountain, Legend C Generally, suburban areas comprised of predominantly developed subdivisions. The major land use issues T Mountain S W Buttermilk, R N Buttermilk oa Red Butte

O A r Date: 11/4/2015k i

n Valley, Red e Water

O C Eagle Pines, HWY82 Cre g affecting this group include floor area ratios, legitimizing “bandit dwelling units,” trail connections, highway access, R er A Mountain nt M Buttermilk Hu Roads F and the status of the roadsCity and of Aspen ability of the City to adequately maintain and upgrade them as necessary. A few Base Areao r Lower 3 Mile Boundary k R i large parcels with significantand Upper development potential exist between Meadowood and State Highway 82. The Aspen v Planning e Smuggler City of Aspen ek r e Valley Hospital property was annexed. S r MUGGLER Urban Growth Boundary C Geographic Information SystemsM n This map/drawing/image is a graphicalT o N o MAI r N ST representation of the features R a Ute/Northstar, depicted and is not a legal representation.D M Shadow Mountain, The accuracy may change Town of k depending on the enlargement or reduction. Rede Butte Snowmass e Sources:r Esri, USGS, NOAA Village C Copyright 2015 City of Aspen GIS e l Forest t s a Lands C Ski Areas - Aspen, Bar X Ranch, Highlands, Remote Ute/Northstar, 4 AVLT, Lower Buttermilk Creek Subdivisions A Shadow Mountain, 1 inch = 5,761 feet w Maroon Creek S The City of Aspen — 3-Mile Annexation Plan — February, 2019 — 5 illo P Red Butte E When printed at 11"x17" W D N R

K 0 2,880.5 5,761 H

D E M

W R E T

Y R K N

E Ski Areas - Aspen, C 8 Feet E R 2 R E D Highlands, L C T S R N Buttermilk oa

O A r Date: 11/4/2015

W OO MAP DY Brush Crk Village, C RE E Cozy Pt, Starwood, K R McLain Flats D B

T N MA IN S R Woody Ute/Northstar, T D Creek Shadow Mountain, Town of k Rede Butte Snowmass e r Village C e l W Forest t O s O MAP a DY Lands Brush Crk Village, C C RE E Cozy Pt, Starwood, Ski AreasK - Aspen, R BarMcLain X Ranch, Flats Bar X Ranch,Highlands, AVLT,D and Lower Maroon Creek Remote Ute/Northstar, B4 AVLT, Lower Buttermilk Creek SubdivisionsGenerally, agriculturalA in Shadowcharacter Mountain, with significant growth potential. 1Development inch = 5,761 feet issues include preserving w Maroon Creek S illo P Red Butte E When printed at 11"x17" W D the riparian habitat along Maroon Creek,Creek trail connections, fishing access, and traffic generation impacts to the N y ACSD, County R Wood K 0 2,880.5 5,761 H

D E M Maint, RFTA, Sary W E Highway 82 corridor. The Bar X Ranch and AVLT land was annexed for the purposes of developing a mix of free- R T

Y R K N

Field, N HWY82E Ski Areas - Aspen, C 8 City of AspenFeet E market and affordableRD dwelling units.2 The Soldner Family parcel remains in County jurisdiction. R E Highlands, L C T Three Mile S R N Buttermilk oa

O A r Date: 11/4/2015

O C n Annexationa Area R g A M ABC and F o City of Aspen North r k R i Forty v Planning e Owl Creek ek r re Ranch, C Buttermilk Base Area Geographic Information Systems n This map/drawing/image is a graphical Droste Ranch o ro representation of the features a Ute/Northstar, The base of Buttermilk Ski Area represents significant developmentdepicted opportunity and is not a legal representation. with potential impacts on, and Meadowood,M Moore, Shadow Mountain, benefits to, the City of Aspen. This area is presently underutilizedLegend and Theis accuracya development may change node for concentrated W Buttermilk, Red Butte Mountain depending on the enlargement or reduction. Woody Valley, Red re ek Water Eagle Pines, HWY82 mixed-use, transit-orientedC development. Residential,Sources: Esri, USGS,commercial, NOAA andCopyright lodging 2015 City of Aspen development GIS would affect the Creek Mountain ter Buttermilk Hun Roads Base Area City’s infrastructure and the area’s commercial and lodging profile. This area represents a significant opportunity Lower W 3 Mile Boundary for transportationOO and improvements. Upper Additionally, the redevelopmentMAP of this area may provide the City opportunity DY Brush Crk Village, C City of Aspen RE Smuggler to reach communityE goals. This area should be annexed into the City of Aspen prior to development review. If Cozy Pt, Starwood, K S R MUGGLE Urban Growth Boundary D R McLain Flats M redevelopment of this area is entitled inT the County and then the landB is annexed, significant coordination on the N MA IN S R Ute/Northstar,administrationT of development approvalsD will be necessary. Creek ACSD, County Shadow Mountain, Woody Town of k Maint, RFTA, Sary Rede Butte Snowmass e Field, N HWY82 r Village C City of Aspen e l Forest t Three Mile s Aspen Business Center and North FortyLands a Annexationa Area C Suburban areas with moderate growth potential. The North Forty subdivision is reaching its residential build- ABC and Ski Areas - Aspen, Bar X Ranch, Highlands, North Remote out and has some Ute/Northstar,potential for additional commercial development.4 The ABC has moderate growth potential AVLT, Lower Forty Buttermilk Creek Subdivisions A Shadow Mountain, 1 inch = 5,761 feet w Maroon Creek in bothS residential and commercial sectors, most of which would involve redevelopment. Significant expansion illo Owl Creek P Red Butte E When printed at 11"x17" W D Ranch, N R of commercial uses in the ABC would affect the profile of commercial activity in the Aspen area and may affect

K 0 2,880.5 5,761 Droste Ranch H D E M

W R Woody E Ute/Northstar, transportationT patterns. The capacity and alignment of intersections with SH82 may need analysis. A new zone

Y R K N

Meadowood, Moore, Creek C E Ski Areas - Aspen, Shadow Mountain, Legend Feet E R 8 E districtMountainD would likely be required2 to accommodate the ABC. R W Buttermilk, Highlands, L Red Butte C T Valley, Red ek Water S re R N EagleButtermilk Pines, HWY82 C oa

O A W r r Date: 11/4/2015 e i MountainO t n

O C O n MAP Buttermilk u g R DY H Roads A Brush Crk Village, CR M Base Area E E F Cozy Pt, Starwood, K Lower 3 Mile Boundary R o City of Aspen D and Upper r McLain Flats k B R City of Aspen Smuggler i v Planning Se M GGL r U ER Urban Growth Boundary k reek M e dy C re ACSD, County Woo T N C AspenMA Consolidated Sanitation District, County MaintenanceGeographic Facility, Information RFTA Bus Systems Barn, Sardy Field (Aspen/Pitkin Maint, RFTA, Sary IN S R n Ute/Northstar, T D This map/drawing/image is a graphical o Field, N HWY82 ro County Airport), North Highway 82 Corridor City of Aspenrepresentation of the features a Shadow Mountain, Town of k Threedepicted Mile and is not a legal representation. M Rede Butte Snowmass e These public infrastructure facilities are currently operated by eitherThe accuracy the countymay change or special districts. Expansion of r Annexationa Area depending on the enlargement or reduction. Village C e l Forest ABC and t these facilities could be expected to coincide with growth of the area’s population and service needs, although s Sources: Esri, USGS, NOAA Copyright 2015 City of Aspen GIS North a Lands Forty C physical constraints may limit expansion capabilities. Expansion of the airport is also affected by public policy Owl Creek Ski Areas - Aspen, Bar X Ranch, discussionsHighlands, of increasing Aspen’s tourist capacity. Intergovernmental agreements may be necessary for Ranch, Remote Ute/Northstar, 4 Droste Ranch AVLT, Lower Buttermilk Creek Subdivisions annexationA of theseShadow facilities. Mountain, 1 inch = 5,761 feet w Maroon Creek Ute/Northstar, S illo Meadowood, Moore, P Red Butte Shadow Mountain, E Legend When printed at 11"x17" W D MountainN W Buttermilk, RedR Butte K k 0 2,880.5 5,761 Valley, Red re e H Water D Eagle Pines, HWY82 E M C W R E r MountainT te Y R N n K Buttermilk Hu Roads E Ski Areas - Aspen, C 8 Feet E Base Area R 2 R E D Highlands, L Lower C 3 Mile Boundary T S R N Buttermilk and Upper oa The City of Aspen — 3-Mile Annexation Plan — February, 2019 — 6

O A r Date: 11/4/2015 i n City of Aspen

O C Smuggler R g A S M MUGGLE Urban Growth Boundary F R M City of Aspen o T N MA r IN k R R ST D Ute/Northstar, i v Planning Shadow Mountain, e Town of ek k r e Rede Butte Snowmass r e C r Geographic Information Systems Village C This map/drawing/image is a graphical n e o l Forest o t r s representation of the features a a Lands depicted and is not a legal representation. M C The accuracy may change Ski Areas - Aspen, depending on the enlargement or reduction. Bar X Ranch, Highlands, Remote Ute/Northstar, Sources: Esri, USGS, NOAA 4 AVLT, Lower Buttermilk Copyright 2015 City of Aspen GIS Creek Subdivisions A Shadow Mountain, 1 inch = 5,761 feet w Maroon Creek S illo P Red Butte E When printed at 11"x17" W D N R

K 0 2,880.5 5,761 H

D E M

W R E T

R Y K N

E Ski Areas - Aspen, C 8 Feet E R 2 R E D Highlands, L C T S R N Buttermilk oa

O A r Date: 11/4/2015

W OO MAP DY Brush Crk Village, C RE E Cozy Pt, Starwood, K R McLain Flats D B

T N MA IN S R Ute/Northstar, T D Shadow Mountain, Town of k Rede Butte Snowmass e r Village C e l Forest t s a Lands C Ski Areas - Aspen, Bar X Ranch, Highlands, Remote Ute/Northstar, 4 AVLT, Lower Buttermilk Creek Subdivisions A Shadow Mountain, 1 inch = 5,761 feet w Maroon Creek S illo P Brush CreekRed Butte Village, Cozy Point Ranch, Starwood, McLain Flats E When printed at 11"x17" W D N R

K 0 2,880.5 5,761 Suburban subdivisionsH comprised of single-family residences. Cozy Point Ranch is an agricultural and equestrian D E M

W R E T

R Y K N

Ski Areas - Aspen, C E operation owned and managed by the City of Aspen.Feet These areas, while within the three-mile area, are removed 8 E R 2 R E D Highlands, L C T S R

N Buttermilk oa from Aspen andr not likely to become incorporated into the City. The major land use issues affecting this group

O A Date: 11/4/2015

O C n R g A M include floor area ratios, legitimizing “bandit dwelling units,” wildfire mitigation, wildlife corridors, and the status of Woody F o City of Aspen Creek r the roads and abilityk R of the City to adequately maintain and upgrade them as necessary. i v Planning W e k OO r MAP e DY re Brush Crk Village, C RE E Geographic Information Systems C Cozy Pt, Starwood, K R n D This map/drawing/image is a graphical o McLain Flats B ro representation of the features a depicted and is not a legal representation. M Creek The accuracy may change ACSD, County Woody Maint, RFTA, Sary depending on the enlargement or reduction. Field, N HWY82 Sources: Esri, USGS, NOAA CityCopyright of Aspen 2015 City of Aspen GIS Three Mile Owl Creek Ranch, Droste Ranch Annexationa Area ABC and North This rural area functions as a buffer between the urbanized areas of Aspen and Snowmass Village. Predominantly Forty Owl Creek single-family homes on large lots, this area could sustain significant additional development with the extension Ranch, Droste Ranch Ute/Northstar, of urban infrastructure and bring about significant change in the character of the area. The major land use issues Meadowood, Moore, Shadow Mountain, Legend W Buttermilk, Red Butte Mountain affectingValley, Red this groupk include the desired character of the area, additional development potential, wildfire mitigation, Eagle Pines, HWY82 Cre e Water Mountain ter Buttermilk Hun Roads Base Area wildlife corridors, open space preservation, recreational trails, and the status of the area’s infrastructure. Lower 3 Mile Boundary and Upper Smuggler City of Aspen S MUGGLER Urban Growth Boundary M

T N MA IN S R Ute/Northstar, T D Shadow Mountain, Town of k Rede Butte Snowmass e r Village C e l Forest t s a Lands C Woody Creek Ski Areas - Aspen, Bar X Ranch, Highlands, Remote Ute/Northstar, 4 AVLT, Lower Buttermilk The three-mileCreek area includesSubdivisions a portion Aof the WoodyShadow Mountain, Creek drainage. This rural1 inch area = 5,761 feetis predominantly agricultural and estate ranches. Although w Maroon Creek S illo P Red Butte E When printed at 11"x17" W D N R

geographically proximate to theK City’s boundary, this area lies in a separate drainage0 2,880.5 5,761basin and is logistically remote from Aspen. This area is not H

D E M

W R E T

R Y K N E Ski Areas - Aspen, C Feet E R 8 expected to become part of theE City of Aspen.D 2 R Highlands, L C T S R N Buttermilk oa

O A r Date: 11/4/2015

O C n R g A M F o City of Aspen r Snowmass Village k R i v Planning e ek r The three-milere area includes part of Snowmass Village, an incorporated town. Only unincorporated lands are eligible for annexation. This area is not C Geographic Information Systems n This map/drawing/image is a graphical o ro representation of the features expected a to become part of the City of Aspen. depicted and is not a legal representation. M The accuracy may change depending on the enlargement or reduction.

Sources: Esri, USGS, NOAA Copyright 2015 City of Aspen GIS Ski Areas - Aspen Mountain, Aspen Highlands, Buttermilk These areas correspond with ski area permit boundaries. This land is typically Forest Service land, although substantial portions of Aspen Mountain Ski Area are owned by the Aspen Ski Company. The City’s Land Use Code is better suited to regulate base facilities. Annexation would necessitate new land use legislation to regulate ski area operation and may also necessitate backcountry emergency rescue operation

Forest Lands These areas correspond with Federally-owned land maintained by the United States Forest Service and privately-owned “in-holdings.” These areas are remote, with little or no existing services and have limited access. These areas are typically zoned Rural and Remote (RR) by Pitkin County to maintain the backcountry character. These areas do not appear to provide any advantage to the City and could be a burden. Annexation of these areas would necessitate new land use legislation to regulate backcountry development, agreements with the Forest Service for permitting and administration of forest-related activities, and may also necessitate backcountry emergency rescue operation.

The City of Aspen — 3-Mile Annexation Plan — February, 2019 — 7 Sequential Steps to Complete Annexation Annexation Process: Associated Process: Pre-Application - Potential applicants are encouraged to meet with the City Attorney to discuss the annexation process and with the Community Development Director to discuss the potential benefits of annexation. An Pre-Application Conference annexation petition must be found in compliance with the statutory annexation criteria and is subject to compliance with local annexation criteria, to the extent those criteria are considered applicable to the specific Step One petition.

Resolution #1 - City Council Pre-Annexation Agreement - A property owner seeking annexation may negotiate a pre-annexation agreement initiates annexation process by Property owner may enter into a with the City of Aspen. Such negotiations may include, but are not limited to, the type, amount, character, adoption of a resolution. Resolution pre-annexation agreement with and timing of development and may specify certain improvements required of a property owner and financial establishes a public hearing be the COA arrangements securing such improvements. At such time of actual annexation, a final annexation agreement

Step Two scheduled more than 30 days and may be confirmed. less than 60 days

Annexation Impact Report - CRS 31-12-108.5 requires the annexing municipality prepare an annexation City Engineer verifies contiguity impact report at least 25 days prior to the public hearing (Resolution #2). The report must be filed with the requirement for eligibility. Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). A report is not required for annexations of 10 acres or

Step Three less or when the City and the BOCC agree the report requirement may be waived.

Land Use Reviews - A property owner seeking annexation into the City of Aspen may initiate land use reviews Public Hearing and Resolution #2 The landowner may initiate any with the City after the petition for annexation has been found valid (after adoption of resolution #2). Property - City Council identifies properties City land use review process owners seeking to develop the property, in fact, may wish to secure entitlements prior to completing annexation. eligible for annexation according to necessary to develop the Land use approvals granted prior to annexation are subject to final adoption of an annexation ordinance. City State Statue. property. Step Four Council may postpone the final adoption hearing of the annexation ordinance to allow a property owner to complete a land use review process.

Acknowledgment of Development Rights - Property subject of an annexation request may have certain development rights granted by Pitkin County. The City of Aspen may choose to recognize these exact The City reserves the right development rights or reach another solution in consultation with the landowner. In instances where land use to accept land use approvals approvals were granted in the County prior to annexing into the City, the City has significantly benefited with granted in the county and the adoption of a Development Guidebook in combination with the annexation of the land. This guidebook establish an agreement for the can be used to define the approvals and describe how the City will administer the development of the land, Step Five administration of said rights. including the applicable design standards for capital improvements. This guidebook can serve an interest of the landowner, developers interested in realizing the development approvals, the interests of prospective property owners within the annexed area, and helps clarify the City’s understanding of the development rights.

First Reading of Annexation The Community Development Ordinance - City Council Department begins an initial Initial Zoning - The City is required to assign zoning to newly annexed property within 90 days of annexation. establishes second reading and zoning process and establishes Failure to zone land within 90 days may permit unwanted land uses on newly annexed lands. The City typically public hearing date. public hearing schedule with begins an initial zoning process prior to final annexation. This aids a landowner in determining the benefit of the Planning and Zoning completing an annexation. This initial zoning process follows the process for amending the Official Zone District Commission. Map (rezoning), as outlined in the City of Aspen Land Use Code, and requires a review and recommendation

Step Six Second Reading of Annexation The City may postpone second from the City Community Development Director and a public hearing and recommendation from the City’s Ordinance - Property either reading to permit a property Planning and Zoning Commission. Adoption of an ordinance by City Council is the final step in the initial zoning annexed or denied. owner to confirm associated land process. Ideally, second reading of an annexation ordinance and second reading of a zoning ordinance occur use reviews. simultaneously. Property owners are encouraged to participate as an applicant, although not required, in this initial zoning process. Newly annexed land must be assigned zoning within 90 days of annexation. The City of Aspen — 3-Mile Annexation Plan — February, 2019 — 8 Annexation Impact Report Requirements

All Annexation Reports shall include, as a minimum: A. A map or maps of the municipality and adjacent territory showing the following information: 1. The present and proposed boundaries for the municipality and in the vicinity of the proposed annexation. 2. The present streets, major trunk water mains, sewer interceptors and outfalls, other utility lines and ditches, and the proposed extension of such streets and utility lines in the vicinity of the proposed annexation. 3. The existing and proposed land use pattern in the areas to be annexed. B. A copy of any draft or final pre-annexation agreement, if applicable. C. A statement setting forth the plans of the municipality for extending to or otherwise providing for, within the area to be annexed, municipal services performed by or on behalf of the municipality at the time of annexation. D. A statement setting forth the method under which the municipality plans to finance the extension of the municipal services into the area to be annexed. E. A statement identifying existing districts within the area to be annexed. F. A statement on the effect of annexation upon local public school district systems, including the estimated number of students generated and the capital construction required to educate such students.

The City of Aspen — 3-Mile Annexation Plan — February, 2019 — 9 Statutory Annexation Criteria:

In accordance with CRS 31-12-104, an area is eligible for annexation if the governing body, at a hearing, finds and determines the following.

1. That not less than one-sixth of the perimeter of the area proposed to be annexed is contiguous with the annexing municipality. Contiguity is not affected by the existence of a platted street or alley, a public or private right-of-way area, public lands (except county- owned open space), or lake, reservoir, stream, or other natural or man-made waterway between the annexing municipality and the land proposed to be annexed. Subject to the requirements of CRS 31-12-105, contiguity may be established by the annexation of one or more parcels in a series, which annexations may be completed simultaneously and considered together.

2. That a community of interest exists between the area proposed to be annexed and the annexing municipality; that such area is urban or will be urbanizing in the near future; and that said area is integrated with or is capable of being integrated with the annexing municipality. The fact that the area proposed to be annexed has the contiguity with the annexing municipality required by the above requirement shall be a basis for a finding of compliance with these requirements unless the governing body, upon the basis of competent evidence presented at the hearing, finds that at least two of the following are shown to exist: a. Less than fifty percent of the adult esidentsr of the area propose to be annexed make use of part or all of the following types of facilities of the annexing municipality; Recreational, civic, social, religious, industrial, or commercial; and less than twenty-five percent of said area’s adult residents are employed in the annexing municipality. If there are no adult residents at the time of the hearing, this standard does not apply.

b. One half or more of the land in the area proposed to be annexed (including streets) is agricultural, and the landowners of such agricultural land, under oath, express an intent to devote the land to such agricultural use for a period of not less than five years.

c. It is not physically practicable to extend to the area proposed to be annexed those urban services which the annexing municipality provides in common to all of its citizens on the same terms and conditions as such services are made available to such citizens. This standard shall not apply to the extent that any portion of an area proposed to be annexed is provided or will within the reasonably near future be provided with any service by or through a quasi-municipal corporation.

The City of Aspen — 3-Mile Annexation Plan — February, 2019 — 10 Local Annexation Criteria:

Annexation is a quasi-legislative authority of the City and as such the City may consider the interests of its citizens as guiding annexation policy, in addition to the procedural statutory requirements. This section identifies specific public policy concerns likely to arise during consideration of an annexation request. These criteria should be used to determine when annexation is appropriate, which land should be annexed, and how it should be zoned. Additional considerations, beyond those identified herein, may also arise and guide public policy.

AACP Compliance Annexation requests should be reviewed for alignment with the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP). Annexation of certain lands could facilitate accomplishment of the plan’s goals, philosophy, policies, or specific action items.

Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) The City of Aspen approved Aspen’s Urban Growth Boundary via adoption of the 2012 AACP. The UGB identifies the land surrounding Aspen as either appropriate for urban development (within the UGB) or inappropriate for urban development (outside the UGB). Land within the UGB is expected to become part of the City’s urbanized area and should be considered appropriate for annexation.

Land outside the UGB should only be annexed as a method of preserving the non-urban character of lands surrounding Aspen. The UGB does not necessarily need to be amended unless the land is intended for an urban level of development. Annexation of land outside the UGB, in fact, may serve a significant public purpose.

Significant Annexations Changing the regulatory structure and jurisdiction of significant community facilities, large developments, and large tracts of vacant land present considerable potential for community change. These annexation proposals should involve discussion between the Aspen City Council and the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners. A joint work session at which various land use issues are discussed can only benefit the City in it analysis of a significant annexation. For example: properties entitled by the County and annexed into the City can require complex administration of development rights, especially when amendments are requested. Discussing the primary elements of the land use review can simplify administration and provide benefit to the annexing landowner.

Likewise, certain annexation proposals may present concerns to other governmental and quasi-governmental agencies with jurisdiction or other interest in the property. As necessary, formal referral comments or work session-format meetings can be held to identify these concerns.

Fiscal Impact Analysis The City should fully understand the financial implication of assuming additional lands upon each of its functions. The City Finance Department has modeled fiscal impacts of recent significant annexations and this information has been critical in determining the appropriateness of annexation. Certain capital improvements may be necessary as well as additional operation and service costs. These need to be balanced with additional special fund revenues that are gained.

Pitkin County voters adopted a 2 percent Countywide sales tax, including a provision distributing 47 percent of the tax proceeds to Pitkin County and 53 percent to the City of Aspen. At some point, the distribution of countywide sales tax may need to be reconsidered as more service responsibilities shift to the City.

The City of Aspen — 3-Mile Annexation Plan — February, 2019 — 11 Development Rights/Zoning Development rights associated with a property in Pitkin County verses those if the property is annexed into the City of Aspen should be considered. Annexations are typically associated with a proposal to further develop the property. Traditionally, the City weighs an increase in development rights in relation to accomplishment towards community goals available through annexation.

A complete understanding of a property’s development potential, prior to annexation, should include a zoning build-out analysis considering regulatory limitations, such as growth management and impact fees, and regulatory incentives, such as the use of Transferable Development Rights. The public policy of such regulations and the impact of changing the regulatory structure upon the City should be considered.

Zoning of newly annexed land should approximate development rights prior to annexation, unless a site-specific development plan is approved concurrent with annexation. The creation of non-conformities should be avoided, although custom legislation to address special interests can further complicate the City’s regulatory environment.

The City should encourage the legalization of “bandit units” through the City’s Accessory Dwelling Unit provisions to ensure compliance with the health and safety standards of Adopted building codes. These units should be expected in older subdivisions surrounding Aspen.

Pitkin County Transferable Development Rights Certain lands in the County within the City’s annexation area are eligible for increased development rights through the extinguishment of transferable development rights (TDRs). Certain site specific approvals granted in Pitkin County may involve or require the use of TDRs. And, certain development may have already occurred by use of these TDRs necessitating acknowledgment of the realized increased development right.

Until the City adopts a program for accepting Pitkin County Transferable development Rights, each individual annexation request should include an analysis of TDR-contingent land use scenarios and, if necessary, an agreement should be reached describing the future use of Pitkin County TDRs within the newly annexed area.

Usefulness and Appropriateness of Each Jurisdiction’s Regulations As Aspen City limits expand beyond the original townsite, the effects of environmental constraints and hazards on development increase. Pitkin County’s 1041 regulations address development on steep slopes, in wildfire hazard areas, in rockfall and avalanche hazard areas, and within wildlife corridors. The City’s Environmentally Sensitive Area review standards address flood hazard areas and development above the 8,040-foot elevation.

The County’s regulations primarily attempt to minimize land use intensity and minimize the infrastructure and operational effects of development. The City’s land use code encourages the intense use of land and addresses urban development issues, such as architectural character. In transition areas, the City’s Planned Unit Development regulations should be used to establish an appropriate balance.

Design standards for public improvements also reflect the rural and urban aspect of each jurisdiction. The appropriateness of each jurisdiction’s development regulations and design standards should be considered in each annexation. The acceptance of substandard public improvements and potential public costs of upgrading those facilities should also be considered. The City may require certain facilities be upgraded prior to annexation. Alternatively, the City may require a cash payment to accommodate expected City capital improvement and operational expenses.

The City currently has no experience administering remote backcountry and Forest Service lands. These lands could require significant changes to the City’s emergency services. The public costs of annexing remote lands should be considered in relation to the public goals of such an action.

The City of Aspen — 3-Mile Annexation Plan — February, 2019 — 12 Aspen’s Ski Area Base (SKI) Zone District addresses development at the base of ski areas. The zoning provides for a mixture of skiing, recreational, commercial, and tourist-oriented uses and requires adoption of a Planned Unit Development. This zoning was applied to Aspen Highlands Base Village and may be appropriate for the Buttermilk Ski Area base, upon annexation.

Infrastructure and Ability to Serve Annexation reviews typically focus a great deal of fiscal analysis on the potential extension of urban services to annexed territories. Cost, capacity, and engineering issues related extension of the City’s municipal water system to developing land on the urban fringe is a significant annexation issue.

Currently, several small water districts serve residences located outside the City’s boundaries but within the service area of the water system. These small districts may present a problem for the City as their capital facilities may not be providing acceptable standards of service. Upgrading is expensive, and may become the responsibility of the City following annexation.

The County does not currently require new periphery development to join the City’s municipal water system. However, these county development proposals must be reviewed by the City Council and found in compliance with the AACP in order to obtain City water service. In these cases, the City often requires compliance with City development regulations. Property owners developing a property eligible for annexation should consult the City’s Community Development Department and consider annexation.

Simplicity of City Boundary The City/County boundary has created confusion for citizens and staff responsible for enforcing public policy. A complex boundary can complicate emergency service provision and, in extreme cases, defeat efforts of law enforcement officers. Annexations simplifying the boundary should be encouraged while those further complicating the division should be avoided.

The City of Aspen — 3-Mile Annexation Plan — February, 2019 — 13 [Example] PETITION FOR ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF ASPEN

THE UNDERSIGNED (hereinafter referred to as the “Petitioners”) hereby petitions the Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado for the annexation of an area, to be referred to as the ______Annexation to the City of Aspen. Said area, consisting of approximately ______(_____) acres, is more particularly described on Attachment “A,” attached hereto.

The Petitioners allege: 1. That it is desirable and necessary that such area be annexed to the City of Aspen. 2. That the requirements of Sections 31-12-104 and 31-12-108, C.R.S., exist or have been met. 3. That not less than one-sixth (1/6) of the perimeter of the area proposed to be annexed is contiguous with the boundaries of the City of Aspen. 4. That a community of interest exists between the area proposed to be annexed and the City of Aspen. 5. That the area to be annexed is urban or will be urbanized in the near future. 6. That the area proposed to be annexed is integrated with or capable of being integrated with the City of Aspen. 7. That the Petitioners herein comprise more that fifty percent (50%) of the landowners in the area and own more than fifty percent (50%) of the area to be annexed, excluding public streets, alleys and lands owned by the City of Aspen.

WHEREFORE, said Petitioners request that the Council of the City of Aspen approve the annexation of the area described on Attachment “A,” legal description of the land.

The Petitioners reserve the right to withdraw this petition and their signatures there from at any time prior to the commencement of the roll call of the City Council for the vote upon the second reading of the annexation ordinance.

Individual Petitioners signing this Petition represent that they own the portion(s) of the area described on Attachment “A.”

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I/we have executed this Petition for Annexation this ______day of ______, 20_____.

______Petitioner’s/Owner’s Signature ______Petitioner’s/Owner’s Printed Name ______Address ______City, State, Zip

City of Aspen 3-Mile & Annexation Plan

. Please attach the following:

ATTACHMENT “A” – LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE ANNEXATION

ATTACHMENT “B” – AFFIDAVIT OF CIRCULATOR STATE OF COLORADO

COUNTY OF PITKIN

The undersigned, being first duly sworn upon his oath states: That he was the circulator of the attached Petition for Annexation and that each signature therein is the signature of the person whose name it purports to be.

______Circulator's Signature

Subscribed and sworn to before me this ______day of ______, 20_____, by ______.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

______Commission Expiration Notary Public

ATTACHMENT “C” – PROOF OF OWNERSHIP Constituting more than 50% of the landowners in the area proposed for annexation, as said area is described on Attachment “A”, and more than 50% of the land in said area, exclusive of streets and alleys.

ATTACHMENT “D” – FOUR PRINTS OF AN ANNEXATION MAP Containing the information required by C.R.S. 1973 31-8-107.

City of Aspen 3-Mile & Annexation Plan

. MAP W O OD Y C R R EE oa K r RD i A n g Fo r reek k ody C R Wo iv e r City of Aspen Three Mile Annexationa Area

HWY 82

Legend Water Roads k 3 Mile Boundary ee r Cr Hunte City of Aspen Urban Growth Boundary BLM USFS

E MAIN ST

k e e r C ek re tle C as n C o ro 4 a M 1 inch = 5,761 feet When printed at 11"x17" 0 2,880.5 5,761 D

K E

D E

R R Feet K C E E E R L T C S N A C Date: 2/12/2019 O O R A M City of Aspen

Planning

The City of Aspen — 3-Mile Annexation Plan — February, 2019 — 16 Woody Creek

W OO MAP DY Brush Crk Village, C RE E Cozy Pt, Starwood, K R McLain Flats D B

K 0 2,880.5 5,761 H

D E M

W R E T

Y R K N

E Ski Areas - Aspen, C 8 Feet E R 2 R E D Highlands, L C T S R N Buttermilk oa

O A r Date: 2/12/19

The City of Aspen — 3-Mile Annexation Plan — February, 2019 — 17