HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.201906041
AGENDA
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
June 4, 2019
4:30 PM, Sister Cities Meeting Room
130 S Galena Street, Aspen
I.SITE VISIT
II.ROLL CALL
III.COMMENTS
IV.MINUTES
IV.A.Minutes from 5/21/2019
minutes.apz.20190521.docx
V.DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
VI.PUBLIC HEARINGS
VI.A.Major Subdivision Approval to Vacate the Western Half of South Aspen Street
Shadow Mountain Village Condominiums Memo_Final_Final Draft.pdf
South Aspen Street Resolution.docx
Exhibit A_ShadowMountainVillageCondominiums_Application.pdf
Exhibit B_Staff Findings_Final Draft.pdf
Exhibit C_ShadowMountainCondominiums_EncroachmentLicense.pdf
VII.OTHER BUSINESS
VIII.BOARD REPORTS
IX.ADJOURN
Typical Proceeding Format for All Public Hearings
1)Conflicts of Interest (handled at beginning of agenda)
2) Provide proof of legal notice (affidavit of notice for PH)
3) Staff presentation
4) Board questions and clarifications of staff
5) Applicant presentation 1
2
6) Board questions and clarifications of applicant
7) Public comments
8)Board questions and clarifications relating to public comments
9) Close public comment portion of bearing
10) Staff rebuttal/clarification of evidence presented by applicant and public comment
11) Applicant rebuttal/clarification
End of fact finding.
Deliberation by the commission commences.
No further interaction between commission and staff, applicant or public
12) Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed among commissioners.
13) Discussion between commissioners*
14) Motion*
*Make sure the discussion and motion includes what criteria are met or not met.
Revised April 2, 2014
2
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
May 21, 2019
Chairperson McKnight called the meeting to order at 4:30 PM.
Commissioners in attendance: Spencer McKnight, Teraissa McGovern, Scott Marcoux, Ryan
Walterscheid, Jimmy Marcus Absent: Brittanie Rockhill, Ruth Carver, Don Love, Rally Dupps
Staff present:
Jeannine Stickle, Records Manager
Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney
Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director
Ben Anderson, Planner
STAFF COMMENTS
None.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
Mr. Marcus asked staff what the next step would be in addressing City Council regarding the rules
around second-tier commercial space since that was something Planning and Zoning had expressed a
desire to do in the past.
Ms. Phelan replied that the commissioners had expressed wanting to wait for the new City Council
members to come on board.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Toni Kronberg addressed the meetings discussion slated for later in the agenda. She expressed a desire
for the Planning and Zoning Commission to take public comment on all agenda items, beyond just public
hearings, stating that Mayor Skadron does this in City Council meetings. She would like for the Planning
and Zoning agendas to clearly articulate the rules for public comment. She also expressed a desire for
Planning and Zoning to have a say in the elimination of the bike lane in front of the new City offices
building. She expressed a desire for better connectivity between the river and the mountain, stating
that the City promised to open the landscaping at the City office building. She expressed concern that
this plan now seems to have been abandoned. She also expressed concern that there is not
communication happening between different City departments, citing specifically Engineering and
Community Development.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Walterscheid voted to approve the minutes from April 23
rd, 2019. Ms. McGovern seconded. All in
favor, motion carried.
DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
None.
PUBLIC HEARING
412 N Eighth Street, RDS Standard Variation – Articulation of Building Mass
3
Mr. Anderson introduced the public hearing. He stated that the property next door has come before
Planning and Zoning for consideration for a similar variation. He showed the location of the property
within the subdivision on a map on the slide. The Commission is being asked to consider only one of the
standards within the larger set of RDS standards as the design complies with all the other RDS standards.
The standard being examined is the Articulation of Building Mass standard.
Mr. Anderson showed a picture of building on the slide. He pointed out the design element in question,
a one-story element that runs along the south side of the building and contains a side-loaded garage and
entry door. He stated that there are three options presented in the land use code for meeting this
standard within the residential design standards. This design is most pursuing option number two, Off-
set with One-Story Ground Level Connector. The standard states that the connecting element shall be
at least ten feet in length and set back at least an additional five feet from the sidewall on both sides of
the building. This usually results in a barbell-shaped feature with a primary mass in the front and then
rising back out with a step back in the rear element. This stepdown is required to be no more than 45
feet from the frontmost wall of that front element from the primary massing. He showed a rendering of
the proposal on the slide and pointed out that the design runs past the connecting one-story
subservient feature and back to the rear element.
Mr. Anderson stated that staff has had a lot of discussion around this articulation of building mass
standard. There was a code amendment to change it back in 2015 or 2016 to emulate traditional forms
throughout Aspen. It has been the standard that staff has received the most questions about regarding
how to best meet the standard, what the intent statement for the standard really means, what’s the
flexibility around getting at the intent statement and meeting the standard. The reason that this case is
before P&Z is that it doesn’t meet the standard. This is a non-flexible standard, meaning that staff can’t
make an administrative determination, it is required to come before P&Z.
Mr. Anderson stated that a variation is different than a variance to dimensional standards. In the case
of a variation, the applicant does not need to have a hardship to grant the variation. The two review
criteria are to provide an alternative design approach that meets the overall intent of the standard or
site-specific constrains. As staff does not believe there are any site constraints in this case, the
commission is being asked to contemplate intent. In the Articulation of Building Mass standard, there
are two phrases that stand out. One is “design should articulate building walls by utilizing multiple
forms to break up large expansive wall planes” and “design should change the plane of a building’s side
wall.”
Mr. Anderson stated that staff are generally reluctant to support variations to this standard. Most of
the time, the applicant is asking for extension of those dimensions. In this case, staff’s perspective is
that this design does get after these two statements from the intent statement, adding articulation to
large wall planes, utilizing multiple forms to break up those planes, and changing the plane of a
building’s side wall. There’s nothing in the general intent statement that this runs aground of. With
that, this proposal meets the standard for the specific RDS Articulation of Building Mass standard and
the general intent statements as well. Also, because the proposal meets the other RDS standards as
shown by the administrative checklist shown in the packet, approval on this project would grant a
variation to the Articulation of Building Mass standard as well as a general approval for RDS standards.
With that, Mr. Anderson turned the meeting over to Commissioner questions.
Mr. Marcus asked if the part that extends beyond the connector is another variation.
4
Mr. Anderson replied no. He the piece that makes the design non-compliant on a rendering on the slide.
Staff’s view is that the one-story element serves to break up what would otherwise be two unified wall
planes. From staff’s view, this is a design improvement towards that intent statement. The only
variation that’s being requested is an articulation of building mass in a way that does not precisely meet
the numbers expressed in the standard.
Mr. McKnight asked if there are any further questions. Seeing none, he turned the meeting over the
applicants’ presentation.
Patrick Rawley from Stan Claussen Associates introduced himself. He also introduced Joseph Spears of
S2 Architects. He showed the location of the property on a slide. He pointed out the vacated Francis
right-of-way and the Sy Johnson Ditch. Among being fully compliant with the other RDS standards, they
are also compliant with building setbacks. There is a five-and-a-half-foot setback on the north side, in
between the duplex on lot 5, and then a seventeen-and-a-half-foot setback on the south side. The
articulation of building mass is the actual variation they are asking for. The intent statement is to reduce
the overall perceived mass and bulk of the buildings, articulate building wallsby utilizing multiple forms
to break up large expansive wall planes, and designs should change the plane of a building’s sidewall.
There is an intent of this RDS and the standard that shows how to get there. What Mr. Spears and his
team has come up with is arguably a better way to go about this articulation of building mass.
Mr. Rawley showed a rendering of the one-story connecting element on a slide and stated that it would
be fully compliant on the north side. It does meet the depth requirement. The alternative element on
the south side, while it does not meet the standard of the dumbbell-shaped structure, it really is causing
the mass and the articulation of the building to be evident and make the structure look smaller than it
would if it were following strict standards. He demonstrated this by showing renderings on the slide.
Mr. Rawley stated that there are two review criteria for the variation. It’s clear that the applicants are
providing an alternative design approach that meets the overall intent of the standard, indicated in the
intent statement for the standard as well as the general intent statements of the RDS. He showed a
comparison between the proposal and a design that was fully compliant with the standard, showing that
the proposal gives a sense of a smaller building overall and reduces the perceived mass and bulk. The
articulation of building mass is also to promote light and air between adjacent properties. Articulate
building walls by utilizing multiple forms. As stated, there are many multiple forms and various points of
interest that will create visual interest. The applicants changed the plane of the building’s side wall,
stepping it in. As pointed out earlier, the intent of the RDS is to connect residences to the street and this
property has a very strong street presence. They are also responding to neighboring properties through
the connector element that is meeting RDS standards on the north side. Somebody standing on lot 5
would be seeing this as any normal standard being met. This proposal reduces the perceived bulk and
mass on all sides by pulling some mass away from the side yard on the south. To encourage the
relationship of adjacent development, the proposal leaves room for future development. The final point
of the RDS is to reflect traditional building scales. In that section of the RDS it says that you should
encourage creative and contemporary architecture, but at a scale that respects historic additions. That
is what Mr. Spears has taken a look at designs around town and has created a better result than what
the strict standards would be doing. Most requests for this variation are attempting to increase the
mass of the building and this proposal does the opposite and reducingthe mass of the building. The
intent statement is advanced by the proposed design as it says in the staff memo. With that, Mr. Rawley
asked for commissioner questions.
5
Mr. Marcus asked why the applicants extended it beyond what the step back would have been and how
long the structure can be.
Mr. Anderson replied that the primary, two-story mass is 33 and four inches. With the addition of the
second story mass, it’s another 10 or 11 feet, still less than 45 feet.
Mr. Marcus stated that, even with the extension, the proposal is still below what would be the limit of
one wall plane.
Mr. Spears stated that, regarding the step back, the applicants didn’t want to have a super wide gable.
They wanted to pull out the garage because they need an entry on one side of the two-car garage which
adds up to a certain width. But they didn’t want that width over a huge gable, so their preference was
to make the garage a little wider but make the gable tighter.
Mr. Anderson stated that he received phone calls from neighbors. One was concerned about he general
impacts that the Ranger Station construction would have on the quality of the street. The other
neighbor saw the design and was trying to understand the relationship between lots 4 and 5. They were
okay with the design.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Kim Cailin introduced herself as a neighbor of the property on West Francis. She asked how this project
relates to the Poppies site.
Mr. Spears stated that there is a transformer and easement between the two lots.
Ms. Cailin asked if this lot is to the north of the transformer.
Mr. Rawley replied that that is correct. He pointed out on the map where Poppies is located in relation
to this property.
Ms. Cailin asked if the property cuts into the ditch.
Mr. Spears replied that they are required to be ten feet off the center of the ditch.
Ms. Cailin asked what is being built in-between right now.
Mr. Spears replied that there is development happening on lot 4 to the north and then an alley. Lot 5 is
the only lot that doesn’t have access to the alley.
Mr. Anderson showed the boundaries of the alley on a map and pointed out lots 4 and 5, the Sy Johnson
Ditch, and Poppies.
Ms. Cailin asked if Eighth Street will just be constant parking.
Mr. Spears stated that there are supposed to be better street trees, a sod strip, curbs, and sidewalk.
Ms. Cailin stated that there was very little onsite parking when Poppies was approved. She stated that
the parking for these properties will not be self-contained.
6
Mr. Spears stated that there is room for parking between the street and the sidewalk and curb.
Ms. Cailin stated that there is no space where they build the alleyway.
Mr. Spears replied that there is supposed to be parking parallel to the curb that is eight feet wide.
Mr. Rawley stated that parking won’t be exacerbated by this development. Poppies is a different
matter.
Mr. McKnight asked if there is further public comment. Seeing none, he turned the meeting over to
commissioner deliberation.
Mr. Marcoux stated that he likes it.
Ms. McGovern stated that this is creative solution to the standard.
Mr. Walterscheid stated that he agrees with Mr. Marcoux and Ms. McGovern.
Mr. Marcus stated that his initial concern was having an expansive wall but understanding that it’s still
below what’s allowed gave him perspective. Having the setbacks and the articulation is the goal.
Mr. McKnight stated that he agrees with the applicant and City staff that this does a better job at the
intent than the barbell diagram.
Mr. Marcus motioned to approve the resolution, number to be assigned. All commissioners voted yes.
All in favor, resolution approved.
OTHER BUSINESS
Running Commission Meetings Article
Mr. McKnight stated that he wanted to discuss with everyone how the meetings are being run since he
started as chair. He asked what the group expects for public comment. Sometimes the back-and-forth
with the public is helpful and sometimes not and goes on too long. At what point do we cut it off?
Mr. Marcus asked if public comment is supposed to be a statement or a Q&A dialogue.
Mr. McKnight stated that he has noticed that applicants often try to make a statement regarding how
they stand on a topic in response to a comment.
Ms. Phelan stated that it should generally be statements, but sometimes questions for the Commission
can be valid. They should be addressing the Commission and they can say: “we’ll have the applicant
respond to that question at the end of public comment.”
Mr. Marcus stated that Mr. McKnight should keep track of the questions to be answered and they can
become part of deliberation but prevent it from becoming a dialogue.
Mr. McKnight stated that he will shut down any follow-up that tries to happen.
7
Mr. Marcoux stated that we need to stay consistent across every meeting.
Ms. Bryan stated that the time limits are generally for consistency. If there aren’t boundaries, the
meetings have the potential to get completely out of control. If there are no rules in place, it looks like
you’re treating people differently.
Mr. McKnight asked what information we can include for the public in the agenda.
Ms. Phelan stated that the agenda already outlines a typical public hearing. She can always explain the
procedure for public comment at the beginning of the meeting when there are members of the public
present.
Mr. Marcus brought up an incident from a prior meeting where a member of the public wanted to
continue to make comments beyond the commend period. He asked the best way to control the
meeting during a situation like that.
Ms. McGovern explained that it was a member of the public who didn’t feel heard. There was no other
way to make that person feel heard. She ended up politely telling thatperson they needed to stop
talking after allowing him to speak at least twice.
Ms. Bryan stated that what he did was an inappropriately timed outburst. The way to address that more
formally would be to adopt formal rules of decorum.
Mr. McKnight asked what the process is for adopting those.
Ms. Bryan stated that those would need to be adopted via resolution.
Ms. McGovern asked if there are examples that they can use.
Ms. Bryan replied that City Council and APCHA have adopted them. They are to put the public on notice
that there are steps the Commission is going to follow if conduct crosses certain lines. You can’t infringe
on free speech rights, but courts around the country have upheld rules of decorum. They could be
posted online and attached to the agenda.
Mr. Marcus stated that it would be good to define what the rules are, adopt them, and attach them to
the agenda for something to point to.
Ms. Bryan stated that it would give protocol for removing someone from the meeting if their conduct
becomes threatening.
Mr. McKnight asked how long City Council’s are.
Ms. Bryan replied that they are a few paragraphs.
Mr. McKnight stated that he’s happy to read them at the beginning of the meeting or at the opening of
public comment if there is a hearing that seems like it will be contentious. He asked what the process is
for passing a resolution.
8
Ms. Bryan stated that she can put together a draft and include it with a memo in the packet. The
commissioners can vote on them and provide feedback. They are pretty standard across a lot of
municipalities.
Mr. Marcus stated that he would like to see Planning and Zoning members keep themselves more
accountable and not veer off into personal rants that may not have anything to do with the application.
He would like to see Mr. McKnight re-direct the commissioners.
Mr. McKnight asked if that should come from him or Ms. Bryan
Ms. Bryan stated that that is within Mr. McKnight’s role. She tries not to be seen as giving legal advice.
She will step in if something is very blatant.
Mr. Anderson stated that he has noticed that there are applicants that have a tendency to interject
during commissioner deliberation, which disrupts that process and takes it in a different direction. He
stated that that is their prerogative, but it is questionable in terms of Roberts Rules and it can often
raise confusion in already difficult discussions that have transpired.
Mr. Marcoux asked how to cut off applicants if commissioners have asked them a question during
deliberation.
Ms. McGovern stated that it should go through the chair.
Mr. McKnight stated that the commissioners can ask him to ask a question. Then he will make it clear
that it is a question and answer.
Ms. Bryan stated that, as it says in the article, deliberation is not a negotiation.
Mr. Walterscheid stated that public comment is the community’s opportunity to have a voice. He is in
favor of giving the applicants an opportunity to continue the hearing if it seems like the commissioners
are not in favor of their proposal.
Ms. McGovern asked how many times the applicant can continue.
Ms. Phelan stated that continuance is completely at the discretion of the chair or the Commission.
Ms. Bryan stated that the commissioners have to vote on a continuance and they can vote “no.”
ADJOURN
Ms. McGovern motioned to adjourn the meeting at 5:28 PM. Mr. Walterscheid seconded. All in favor,
motion carried.
Jeannine Stickle
Records Manager
9
Page 1 of 6
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning & Zoning Commission
FROM: Kevin Rayes, Planner
THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director
RE: Major Subdivision Approval to vacate the western half of South Aspen Street (7,907
sq. ft.)
MEETING DATE: June 4, 2019
APPLICANT:
Shadow Mountain Village Condo Association,
809 South Aspen Street, Aspen, CO 81611
REPRESENTATIVE:
Reilly Thimons & Chris Bendon,
Bendon Adams, 300 SO Spring St. #202
Aspen, CO 81611
LOCATION:
The westerly half (37.65 feet) of South Aspen
Street from the southerly right-of-way line of
Hill Street extending south 210 feet to the
southern boundary of Shadow Mountain
Village Condominiums
CURRENT ZONING:
Lodge (L)
SUMMARY:
The applicant is requesting to vacate the
western half of South Aspen Street (7,907 sq.
ft.) to the benefit of the Shadow Mountain
Village Condominium Apartments (Exhibit A).
This is a two-step review process with an initial
recommendation by the City Planning and
Zoning Commission and a subsequent decision
by City Council.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Community Development, Engineering and
Parks staff recommend denial of the proposed
request.
Figure 1: Vicinity Map
Figure 2: Street View
10
Page 2 of 6
REQUEST OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: The Applicant is requesting the following
recommendation of approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission:
• Subdivision- pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.480.070.B, Major Subdivisions- Vehicular Rights-of-
Way. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall review a Major Subdivision and provide a
recommendation to City Council. City Council is the final review authority.
BACKGROUND:
The Shadow Mountain Village Condominiums are located at the southern terminus of South Aspen Street,
within the Lodge (L) zone district. South Aspen Street serves as the sole access to the property. The lot is
approximately 31,462 square feet and contains twenty-one condominium units. The property is bordered by
the Barbee Family PUD Lot 13 Conservation Parcel to the west. Multiple public hiking trails exist on the PUD,
which has secondary access from the southern terminus of South Aspen Street via the dirt access road. The
South Aspen Townhomes are located to the north, adjacent to the Shadow Mountain Condominiums. The ski
corridor, coming down from Aspen Mountain is located adjacent to the property to the south. The Aspen
Mountain Cutoff Road exists on the corridor and is accessed via the southern terminus of South Aspen Street.
Lift 1A is located to the east of the Shadow Mountain Condos, across from South Aspen Street (Figure 3).
Figure 3: Shadow Mountain Condos & Surrounding Area Existing Conditions
11
Page 3 of 6
Several common area improvements including decks, a swimming pool, walkways, landscape areas and
retaining walls exist on the Shadow Mountain Condominium property. Many of these improvements including
the pool deck, a portion of the parking area, lawn, walkways and electrical utilities associated with the
condominiums encroach into a portion of the
right-of-way and were granted via a revocable
encroachment license at Reception No. 543674
(Exhibit C). Of note, this encroachment license
has a different footprint than the
encroachments on the ground and the area
requested to be vacated.
In addition to these improvements, South
Aspen Street functions as an important corridor
for the following public uses (see Figure 4):
• Access to the Holy Cross Switchgear;
• Location of drainage inlet constructed
by the South Aspen Townhomes as part
of their Development Agreement;
• Location of rip rapped drainage swale
constructed by South Aspen
Townhomes;
• Drainage corridor that allows flow from
a large drainage basin on Aspen
Mountain to be routed to the City
system;
• Snow storage at the terminus of the
street;
• A designated mudflow corridor;
• Bicycle and pedestrian access to Aspen
Mountain; and
• Ski return access from the mountain to
South Aspen Street.
As mentioned above, Lift 1A is currently located across the street from the Shadow Mountain Condos, directly
to the east. This is also the proposed location of the Gorsuch Haus which received approval for a Planned
Development Project Review via Ordinance No. 39, Series of 2016. As part of the proposed development,
approximately 8,206 square feet of public right-of-way, including the eastern half of South Aspen Street, a
portion of Hill Street and all of Summit Street are planned to be vacated to the benefit of Gorsuch Haus (Both
streets have never served the function of developed rights-of-way. The ordinance was ratified by Aspen voters.
The site plan approved by the voters necessitates the vacation of portions of the city’s rights-of-ways in order
to accommodate a lift down to Dean Street, a skier return to Dean, a hotel, and improved terminus o f South
Aspen Street. Privately held property will be dedicated to the city to properly reconfigure the public right-of-
way.
Shadow Mtn. Condos
Encroachment License
Public Infrastructure
Shadow Mtn. Condos
ROW Encroachments
Key
Figure 4: Existing ROW Encroachments
12
Page 4 of 6
Additionally, the access point to the
Aspen Mountain Cutoff Road will be
relocated east of South Aspen Street and
will be accessed via the proposed cul-de-
sac (see Figure 5). The revocable
encroachment license held by Shadow
Mountain includes areas to be improved
upon by the Lift 1 corridor project1, the
license’s boundaries will need to be
modified at a later date.
REVIEWS:
MAJOR SUBDIVISION- VEHICULAR RIGHT-OF-
WAY:
The Shadow Mountain Condominiums
are proposing a vacation of the
remaining western portion of South
Aspen Street to its benefit, as depicted in
Figure 5. The applicant believes that the
request complements the existing right-
of-way vacation approvals of the
Gorsuch Haus development and serves
to permanently memorialize the
encroachments listed above that were
granted via an encroachment license by
the City.
Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.480.070.B, Major Subdivisions, Vehicular Right-of-Way, when making a
recommendation to Council, the Planning and Zoning Commission must determine if the review standards
listed in Exhibit B are met. As the request would impact access to general public utilities and drainage
infrastructure as well as secondary access to the adjacent Barbee Family PUD Lot 13 Conservation Parcel, this
application was referred to the City Engineering and Parks Departments for comments. The standards of
review associated with a request for vacation of a right-of-way include the general review standards and more
specific standards regarding vehicular rights-of-way. By way of example, the general standards address items
such as guaranteeing lots access to a street, the organization/platting of lot lines, and ensuring zone district
conformance. Standards associated with vacating a r-o-w are more specific, requiring demonstration that the
r-o-w proposed for vacation serves no purpose, that the change in the r-o-w maintains or improves
infrastructure and circulation and is in the best interest of the city, among other standards. Both sets of
standards are addressed in Exhibit B.
1 The scope of improvements in the right of way include retaining walls, a stair corridor to the east of the Gorsuch Haus
building and portions of the cul-de-sac.
Figure 5: Potential Future Development of Gorsuch Haus, and Lift 1 Lodge;
Extension and Realignment of Lift 1; & Realignment of Aspen Cutoff Road
Key
Proposed Area to
be Vacated
Encroachment
license area
13
Page 5 of 6
Staff comment: The Community Development, Engineering and Parks Departments find that many of the
general criteria and vehicular rights of-way standards are not met. The right-of-way currently provides multiple
public benefits, and functions as a designated drainage and mudflow corridor that allows flow from a large
drainage basin on Aspen Mountain to be routed to the City System. Additionally, as depicted in Figure 5 above,
a portion of the area being requested for vacation is going to contain part of the upgraded street cul-de-sac
and sidewalk improvements associated with the Lift 1 Corridor redevelopment and may have implications on
the voter-approved site plan. At this point, current and proposed public uses are located within the right-of-
way, vacating the western half of South Aspen Street to the benefit of the Shadow Mountain Townhomes would
lead to a negative community outcome.
Specifically, Parks is concerned that legal access to the Aspen Mountain Cutoff Road would be eliminated, skier
access on and off the mountain in this area would be potentially obstructed and an important secondary point
of access to the trails located on the Barbee Family PUD Lot 13 Conservation Parcel would be impacted.
Engineering is concerned that the public utility infrastructure that is identified in Figure 4 above would become
inaccessible. The Streets Department uses the southern terminus of South Aspen Street for snow storage and
this corridor generally serves as an important access point for these departments to access and maintain
essential public infrastructure. Until the finalization and construction of the Gorsuch Haus and other related
easements are put into place, this corridor will continue to serve as a pedestrian and bikeway, utility corridor,
drainage corridor and recreation connection.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends denial of the request. The portion of South Aspen Street that is not vacated
currently serves the public in a number of ways and is proposed to have additional public
infrastructure within it in the future. Vacating this portion of the right-of-way is not in the best
interest of the city of Aspen as the request:
• Would obstruct access to Aspen Mountain, various public utilities and infrastructure;
• Would inhibit secondary access to the trails located on the adjacent Barbee Family PUD Lot
13 Conservation Parcel;
• Would have implications for the voter approved-site plan and could impact access to street
improvements at the terminus of South Aspen Street, including the cul-de-sac and sidewalks
that are planned for the area. The impact to these improvements would detract from traffic
and pedestrian circulation and would not meet Engineering design standards.
PROPOSED MOTION:
Although staff recommends denial of the proposal, the resolution attached is written in the affirmative,
approving the request. If the Commission agrees with the applicant and wants to recommend to City
Council approval of the vacation request, the following motion can be made:
“I move to recommend approval of the request for a Major Subdivision, vacating the western half of
South Aspen street as described in the Street Vacation Plat in Exhibit A of the Resolution.”
If the Commission agrees with staff’s recommendation, the Commission should make a
recommendation of denial to City Council, with the following amendments to the resolution:
1) The 5th Whereas paragraph should read, “WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission finds that the development proposal does not meet the applicable review criteria and 14
Page 6 of 6
that the approval of the request is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Land Use Code;
and,
2) The 7th Whereas paragraph should read, “WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission approves
Resolution X, Series of 2019, by a X to X (X-X) vote, recommending denial of a Major Subdivision to
vacate the western half of South Aspen Street as identified herein.
3) Section 1 should read: The Planning Commission recommends City Council deny the request for
vacation of the right of way described as the westerly half (37.65 feet) of South Aspen Street from the
southerly right-of-way line of Hill Street extending south 210 feet to the southern boundary of Shadow
Mountain Village Condominiums. As the request does not:
• Maintain or improve the public health, safety or welfare of the community;
• Comply with Engineering design standards and is inconsistent with adopted policies, plans and
approved projects for the area; nor
• Maintain or improve normal traffic circulation, traffic control capabilities, access by emergency
and services vehicles, pedestrian and bike connections, drainage infrastructure, street
infrastructure maintenance needs and normal operating needs of the City, including snow
removal.
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A- Shadow Mountain Village Condominiums Application
Exhibit B- Staff Findings
Exhibit C- Encroachment License
15
Page 1 of 2
RESOLUTION NO. X
(SERIES OF 2019)
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL FOR A MAJOR SUBDIVISION TO VACATE THE
WESTERLY (37.65 FEET) OF SOUTH ASPEN STREET FROM THE SOUTHERLY
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF HILL STREET EXTENDING SOUTH 210 FEET TO THE
SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY OF SHADOW MOUNTAIN VILLAGE CONDOMINIUMS.
WHEREAS,the Community Development Department received an application from the
Shadow Mountain Village Condo Association, 809, South Aspen Street, Aspen, CO 81611; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department Staff reviewed the application for
compliance with the applicable review standards; and,
WHEREAS,upon review of the application and the applicable Land Use Code standards,
the Community Development Director recommended denial of a Major Subdivision to vacate a
vehicular right-of-way; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and
considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as
identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development
Director, and has taken and considered public comment at a duly noticed public hearing on June 4,
2019; and,
WHEREAS,the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development
proposal meets the applicable review criteria and that the approval of the request is consistent with
the goals and objectives of the Land Use Code; and,
WHEREAS,the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution
furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare; and,
WHEREAS,the Planning and Zoning Commission approves Resolution X, Series of
2019, by a X to X (X-X) vote, recommending approval for a Major Subdivision to vacate the
western half of South Aspen Street as identified herein.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission:
Section 1:
The Planning Commission recommends City Council approve the request for vacation of the right
of way described as the westerly half (37.65 feet) pf South Aspen Street from the southerly right-
of-way line of Hill Street extending south 210 feet to the southern boundary of Shadow Mountain
Village Condominiums.
16
Page 2 of 2
Section 2:
All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development
proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before
the Planning and Zoning Commission, are hereby incorporated in such site development approvals
and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized
entity.
Section 3:
This resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any
action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein
provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 4:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held
invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a
separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions
thereof.
APPROVED by the Commission at its meeting on June 4, 2019.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION:
_________________________________________________________
Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Spencer McKnight, Chair
ATTEST:
____________________________
Jeannine Stickle, Records Manager
17
Exhibit A- Shadow Mountain Village Condominiums Application18
Exhibit A- Shadow Mountain Village Condominiums Application19
Exhibit A- Shadow Mountain Village Condominiums Application20
Exhibit A- Shadow Mountain Village Condominiums Application21
Exhibit A- Shadow Mountain Village Condominiums Application22
Exhibit A- Shadow Mountain Village Condominiums Application23
Exhibit A- Shadow Mountain Village Condominiums Application24
Exhibit A- Shadow Mountain Village Condominiums Application25
Exhibit A- Shadow Mountain Village Condominiums Application26
Exhibit A- Shadow Mountain Village Condominiums Application27
Exhibit A- Shadow Mountain Village Condominiums Application28
Exhibit A- Shadow Mountain Village Condominiums Application29
Exhibit A- Shadow Mountain Village Condominiums Application30
Exhibit A- Shadow Mountain Village Condominiums Application31
Exhibit A- Shadow Mountain Village Condominiums Application32
Exhibit A- Shadow Mountain Village Condominiums Application33
Exhibit A- Shadow Mountain Village Condominiums Application34
Exhibit A- Shadow Mountain Village Condominiums Application35
Exhibit A- Shadow Mountain Village Condominiums Application36
Exhibit A- Shadow Mountain Village Condominiums Application37
Exhibit A- Shadow Mountain Village Condominiums Application38
Exhibit A- Shadow Mountain Village Condominiums Application39
Exhibit A- Shadow Mountain Village Condominiums Application40
Exhibit A- Shadow Mountain Village Condominiums Application41
Exhibit A- Shadow Mountain Village Condominiums Application42
LOT 7
S75° 0
9
'
1
1
"
E
3
7
.
6
5
'N14° 50' 49"E 210.00'N75° 0
9
'
1
1
"
W
3
7
.
6
5
'S14° 50' 49"W 210.00'S75° 0
9
'
1
1
"
E
1
8
4
.
8
9
'
N75° 0
9
'
1
1
"
W
1
8
2
.
7
6
'
S75° 0
9
'
1
1
"
E
1
8
2
.
4
4
'
20.0'
HILL ST
R
E
E
T
SUMM
I
T
S
T
R
E
E
T
LOT 1
LIFT ONE LODGE SUBDVISION/PUD
REC. #597438
S. ASPEN STREET
ROW
75.30' WIDE
37.65'37.65'
SHADOW MOUNTAIN VILLAGE
CONDOMINIUMS
PLAT BK. 3 PG. 33
LOT 2
SOUTH ASPEN STREET SUBDIVISION/PUD,
1ST AMENDED
REC. #616166
(A/K/A ONE ASPEN)
CONSERVATION PARCEL
BARBEE FAMILY
SUBDIVISION, FIRST AMENDED
REC. #461107
CITY OF ASPEN
MOUNTAIN QUEEN
CONDOMINIUMS
PLAT BK. 4 PG. 489
CARIBOU
CONDOMINIUMS
PLAT BK. 94 PG. 52
GOVERNMENT LOT 31
SECTION 13, T10S, R85W
ASPEN SKIING COMPANY
LOT 3
LIFT ONE LODGE SUBDVISION/PUD
REC. #597438
S. ASPEN STREETNE14 NE14 SECTION 13
SE14 NE14 SECTION 13LOT 14LOT 13LOT 12LOT 11LOT 10LOT 9LOT 6LOT 5LOT 4LOT 3LOT 2LOT 1LOT 8LOT 1LOT 2LOT 3LOT 4LOT 5LOT 7LOT 6BLOCK 12 EAMES ADD.
BLOCK 10 EAMES ADD.
GOVERNMENT LOT 1
SECTION 13, T10S, R85W
ASPEN SKIING COMPANYS15° 46' 58"W 130.02'S14° 50' 49"W 130.00'S75° 0
9
'
1
1
"
E
1
8
1
.
4
6
'
FOUND #5 REBAR AND 114"
PLASTIC CAP
L.S. #25947
FOUND 4' WITNESS CORNER
#5 REBAR AND 1.25" PLASTIC CAP
L.S. #29030
(BASIS OF BEARING) N 14°50'49" E(TIE) N 13°34'51" W830.78'(TIE) N08°49'08"W797.69'FOUND 3.5" ALUM. CAP
2009 MARCIN GPS CONTROL
GPS-3 @ GARMISCH AND DURANT
FOUND 3.5" ALUM. CAP
2009 MARCIN GPS CONTROL
GPS-3 @ GARMISCH AND DURANT
S14° 50' 49"W 60.00'S15° 46' 58"W 60.01'ORIGINAL CENTERLINE
S. ASPEN STREET
PARCEL A
VACATED TO SHADOW
MOUNTAIN VILLAGE
CONDOMINIUMS
7907 SQ.FT.±
N75° 0
9
'
1
1
"
W
1
5
0
.
0
0
'
FOUND #5 REBAR AND 114"
PLASTIC CAP
L.S. #28643
SHEET 1 OF 1
STREET VACATION PLAT
PORTIONS OF SOUTH ASPEN STREET
CITY OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO
NOTICE: ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY LEGAL
ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY WITHIN THREE YEARS
AFTER YOU FIRST DISCOVER SUCH DEFECT. IN NO EVENT MAY ANY ACTION
BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY BE COMMENCED MORE THAN TEN
YEARS FROM THE DATE OF CERTIFICATION SHOWN HEREON.
SOPRIS ENGINEERING - LLC
CIVIL CONSULTANTS
502 MAIN STREET, SUITE A3
CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623
(970) 704-0311 SOPRISENG@SOPRISENG.COM CL sb 13013.01 04/23/2019 G:\2013\13013\SURVEY\Survey Plots\13013-VACATION.dwg
1 inch = ft.
( IN FEET )
GRAPHIC SCALE
020 20 40
20
8010
NOTES
1) DATE OF FIELD WORK: AUGUST - SEPTEMBER 2005; UPDATED MAY 2006, JUNE
AND JULY 2007, OCTOBER - DECEMBER 2008, SEPTEMBER 2009, AND MARCH
2010; UPDATED AUGUST 2013; UPDATED SEPTEMBER 2015; UPDATED MAY
2018; UPDATED APRIL 2019
2) DATE OF PREPARATION: MARCH - APRIL 2019
3)BASIS OF BEARING: A BEARING OF N 14°50'49" E BETWEEN THE SOUTHEAST
CORNER OF SHADOW MOUNTAIN VILLAGE, A FOUND REBAR AND CAP L.S.
#25947, AND THE 4' WITNESS CORNER TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SOUTH
ASPEN STREET SUBDIVISION, A FOUND REBAR & CAP LS #29030.
4) BASIS OF SURVEY: THE 1896 W. C. WILLITS MAP OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THE
OFFICIAL MAP OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PREPARED BY G.E. BUCHANAN DATED
DECEMBER 15, 1959, CITY OF ASPEN GPS CONTROL MONUMENTATION MAP
PREPARED BY MARCIN ENGINEERING LLC, DATED DECEMBER 2, 2009, THE PLAT
OF LIFT ONE LODGE SUBDIVISION, RECORDED MARCH 5, 2013, THE STREET,
ALLEYWAY AND EASEMENT VACATION PLAT RECORDED MARCH 5, 2013 UNDER
RECEPTION NO. 597435, THE PLAT OF SOUTH ASPEN STREET SUBDIVISION
RECORDED APRIL 27, 2007, THE CONDOMINIUM MAP OF SHADOW MOUNTAIN
VILLAGE RECORDED JULY 12, 1965 IN PLAT BOOK 3 AT PAGE 33, THE AMENDED
PLAT OF BARBEE FAMILY SUBDIVISION/PUD RECORDED NOVEMBER 21, 2001,
THE IMPROVEMENT & TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY SHADOW MOUNTAIN VILLAGE
CONDOMINIUMS PREPARED BY TRUE NORTH COLORADO, A LAND SURVEYING
AND MAPPING COMPANY RECORDED DECEMBER 20, 2018 IN BOOK 124 AT PAGE
59 AS RECEPTION NO. 652799, DOCUMENTS OF RECORD AND THE FOUND LOT
AND BLOCK CORNER SURVEY MONUMENTS, AS SHOWN.
5) THIS SURVEY DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A TITLE SEARCH BY SOPRIS ENGINEERING,
LLC (SE) TO DETERMINE OWNERSHIP OR EASEMENTS OF RECORD. FOR ALL
INFORMATION REGARDING EASEMENTS, RIGHTS OF WAY AND/OR TITLE OF
RECORD, SE RELIED UPON THE ABOVE SAID ITEMS DESCRIBED IN NOTE 4 AND
THE TITLE COMMITMENT PREPARED BY LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY
ORDER NO. 62010055 EFFECTIVE DATED DECEMBER 13, 2018.
6) THE LINEAR UNIT USED IN THE PREPARATION OF THIS PLAT IS THE U.S. SURVEY
FOOT AS DEFINED BY THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY.
7) ALL REFERENCES TO BOOK AND PAGE AND RECEPTION NUMBERS ARE THOSE
RECORDED IN THE PITKIN COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDERS OFFICE.
CITY ENGINEER'S APPROVAL
THIS STREET VACATION PLAT WAS REVIEWED BY THE CITY ENGINEER OF THE CITY OF ASPEN THIS __________ DAY
OF _____________, 2019.
____________________________
CITY ENGINEER
CLERK AND RECORDER'S ACCEPTANCE
THIS STREET VACATION PLAT IS ACCEPTED FOR FILING IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK AND RECORDER OF PITKIN
COUNTY, COLORADO AT _________ O'CLOCK ____.M., THIS _______ DAY OF ________________, 20___, IN PLAT
BOOK ______, AT PAGES ___________, RECEPTION NUMBER ______________.
________________________________________
PITKIN COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER
STREET AND EASEMENT VACATION PLAT CERTIFICATE
I, MARK S. BECKLER, A REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE PREPARED
THIS STREET VACATION PLAT, AS LAID OUT, PLATTED, DEDICATED AND SHOWN HEREON, THAT THE SAME IS BASED
ON FIELD SURVEYS PERFORMED UNDER MY SUPERVISION; THAT THIS MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF A LAND
SURVEY PLAT AS SET FORTH IN CRS SECTION 38-51-106; THE CONTROL PRECISION IS GREATER THAN 1 IN 15,000.
_______________________________
MARK S. BECKLER, PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR
COLORADO LICENSE # 28643
CITY OF ASPEN APPROVAL
THE UNDERSIGNED CERTIFIES THAT THIS STREET VACATION PLAT SATISFIES THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION ____
OF ORDINANCE NO. ___, SERIES OF 2019, AND UPON RECORDING SHALL COMPLETE THE PROCESS OF VACATING THE
STREET WHICH IS DESCRIBED ON THIS PLAT.
CITY OF ASPEN
BY: ______________________________________
TORRE
AS: MAYOR OF THE CITY OF ASPEN
ATTEST: ____________________________________
KATHRYN S. KOCH
AS: CITY CLERK
HATCH LEGEND
ROW TO BE VACATED TO SHADOW MOUNTAIN VILLAGE CONDOMINIUMS
AREA OF REVOCABLE ENCROACHMENT LICENSE AGREEMENT BETWEEN
CITY OF ASPEN AND SHADOW MOUNTAIN VILLAGE CONDOMINIUMS REC.
#543674
SITE
PLAT NOTES
1) THE OWNERSHIP AND TITLE TO THE VACATED STREETS SHALL BE DISTRIBUTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 43-2-302 (d) OF THE COLORADO REVISED STATUTES AND
IS REPRESENTED ON THIS PLAT.
2) THE PURPOSE OF THIS PLAT IS TO DESCRIBE THE PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND
STREET, WHICH WAS VACATED BY THE PROVISIONS OF ORDINANCE ,
SERIES OF ; AND BY THE RECORDING OF THIS PLAT:
a) VACATION OF THE WESTERLY HALF (37.65 FEET) OF SOUTH ASPEN STREET
FROM THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF HILL STREET EXTENDING
SOUTH 210.00 FEET TO THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY OF SHADOW
MOUNTAIN VILLAGE CONDOMINIUMS.
VICINITY MAP
SCALE: 1" = 2000'
Exhibit A- Shadow Mountain Village Condominiums Application
43
XSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAugugueucueueueueucucut
utututueue ueue
ue
ue
ue
ue ut
ugutututututut
ut
ueueue ueueueueueueueueue
ue
ue
ueueueueueueueueueueueueueueueue
ue ueueueueueueueueueueueueutu
t
utututututututututututug
ug
ug
ug
ug
ugugue
w
w
w
w
w
w
ututututut
ututututuc
uc ucucucucucucucucucucucucueutssssssssxxXSDXSDXSDXSDXSDXSDXSDXSDXSDXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXWLXWLXWLXWLXWL XGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXETCXETCXETCXETCXETCXETCXSDXSDXSDXSDXSD20.0'
HILL ST
R
E
E
T
SUMM
I
T
S
T
R
E
E
T
S. ASPEN STREET
ROW
37.65' WIDE
LOT 1
LIFT ONE LODGE SUBDVISION/PUD
REC. #597438
S. ASPEN STREET
ROW
75.30' WIDE
37.65'37.65'
SHADOW MOUNTAIN VILLAGE
CONDOMINIUMS
PLAT BK. 3 PG. 33
LOT 2
SOUTH ASPEN STREET SUBDIVISION/PUD,
1ST AMENDED
REC. #616166
(A/K/A ONE ASPEN)
CONSERVATION PARCEL
BARBEE FAMILY
SUBDIVISION, FIRST AMENDED
REC. #461107
CITY OF ASPEN
GOVERNMENT LOT 31
SECTION 13, T10S, R85W
ASPEN SKIING COMPANY
LOT 3
LIFT ONE LODGE SUBDVISION/PUD
REC. #597438
S. ASPEN STREETLOT 14LOT 13LOT 12LOT 11LOT 10LOT 5LOT 4LOT 3LOT 2LOT 1LOT 1LOT 2LOT 3LOT 4BLOCK 12 EAMES ADD.
BLOCK 10 EAMES ADD.S14° 50' 49"W 130.00'S75° 0
9
'
1
1
"
E
1
8
1
.
4
6
'
FOUND #5 REBAR AND 114"
PLASTIC CAP
L.S. #25947
FOUND 4' WITNESS CORNER
#5 REBAR AND 1.25" PLASTIC CAP
L.S. #29030
(BASIS OF BEARING) N 14°50'49" E(TIE) N 13°34'51" W830.78'(TIE) N08°49'08"W797.69'FOUND 3.5" ALUM. CAP
2009 MARCIN GPS CONTROL
GPS-3 @ GARMISCH AND DURANT
FOUND 3.5" ALUM. CAP
2009 MARCIN GPS CONTROL
GPS-3 @ GARMISCH AND DURANT
S14° 50' 49"W 60.00'ORIGINAL CENTERLINE
S. ASPEN STREET
PARCEL A
VACATED TO SHADOW
MOUNTAIN VILLAGE
CONDOMINIUMS
7907 SQ.FT.±
S75° 0
9
'
1
1
"
E
3
7
.
6
5
'N14° 50' 49"E 210.00'N75° 0
9
'
1
1
"
W
3
7
.
6
5
'S14° 50' 49"W 210.00'S75° 0
9
'
1
1
"
E
1
8
4
.
8
9
'
N75° 0
9
'
1
1
"
W
1
8
2
.
7
6
'
S75° 0
9
'
1
1
"
E
1
8
2
.
4
4
'
7995
80
0
0
8005
8010
8015
8020
8025
8030
8
0
3
5
8
0
4
0
8
0
4
5
8
0
5
0
805580608065
80
7
0
80
7
5
42"X42"
INLET AND
BASIN
4' DIA CONCRETE
STORM MANHOLE
SEWER MANHOLE (TYP)
STORM GRATE
STORM GRATE
STEPS
GRAVEL SURFACE
N75° 0
9
'
1
1
"
W
1
5
0
.
0
0
'
S75° 0
9
'
1
1
"
E
1
5
0
.
0
0
'
S75° 0
9
'
1
1
"
E
1
5
0
.
0
0
'S14° 50' 49"W 210.00'FOUND #5 REBAR AND 114"
PLASTIC CAP
L.S. #28643
FOUND #5 REBAR AND 114"
PLASTIC CAP
L.S. #28643
FOUND #5 REBAR AND 114"
PLASTIC CAP
L.S. #19598
EXISTING BUILDING
FOOTPRINT AT
GROUND LEVEL
POOL
WOOD DECK WALKWAYCRIB
WALLS
ELECTRIC
TRANSFORMER
ELECTRIC
SWITCH GEAR
STORM INLET
ELECTRIC MANHOLE
SHEET 1 OF 1
SHADOW MOUNTAIN VILLAGE CONDOMINIUMS AND
PORTIONS OF SOUTH ASPEN STREET
CITY OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO
NOTICE: ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY LEGAL
ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY WITHIN THREE YEARS
AFTER YOU FIRST DISCOVER SUCH DEFECT. IN NO EVENT MAY ANY ACTION
BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY BE COMMENCED MORE THAN TEN
YEARS FROM THE DATE OF CERTIFICATION SHOWN HEREON.
SOPRIS ENGINEERING - LLC
CIVIL CONSULTANTS
502 MAIN STREET, SUITE A3
CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623
(970) 704-0311 SOPRISENG@SOPRISENG.COM CL sb 13013.01 04/23/2019 G:\2013\13013\SURVEY\Survey Plots\13013-VACATION.dwg
1 inch = ft.
( IN FEET )
GRAPHIC SCALE
020 20 40
20
8010
SITE
HATCH LEGEND
ROW TO BE VACATED TO SHADOW MOUNTAIN VILLAGE CONDOMINIUMS
AREA OF REVOCABLE ENCROACHMENT LICENSE AGREEMENT BETWEEN
CITY OF ASPEN AND SHADOW MOUNTAIN VILLAGE CONDOMINIUMS REC.
#543674
VICINITY MAP
SCALE: 1" = 2000'
EXISTING CONDITIONS MAP WITH TOPOGRAPHY OF:
SURVEY NOTES
1. Date of Field Work: August - September 2005. Updated May 2007, September 2009, March 2010, August
2011, March 2012, August 2014, and January 2015. Updated April and June-August 2018.
2. Date of Preparation: October 2012. Updated May 2013. Updated August 2014. Updated with ALTA
Commitment January 2015. Updated April and May 2018. Updated August 2018. Updated April 2019
3. Basis of Survey: The 1896 W. C. Willits map of Aspen, Colorado, the official map of the City of Aspen prepared
by G.E. Buchanan dated December 15, 1959, City of Aspen GPS control monumentation map prepared by
Marcin Engineering LLC, dated December 2, 2009, the Plat of Lift One Lodge Subdivision, recorded March 5,
2013, the Street, Alleyway and Easement Vacation plat recorded March 5, 2013 under Reception No. 597435,
the Plat of South Aspen Street Subdivision recorded April 27, 2007, the Condominium Map of Shadow
Mountain Village recorded July 12, 1965 in Plat Book 3 at Page 33, the Amended Plat of Barbee Family
Subdivision/PUD recorded November 21, 2001, the Improvement & Topographic Survey Shadow Mountain
Village Condominiums prepared by True North Colorado, a Land Surveying and Mapping Company recorded
December 20, 2018 in Book 124 at Page 59 as Reception No. 652799, documents of record and the found lot
and block corner survey monuments, as shown.
4.Basis of Bearing: a bearing of N 14°50'49" E between the Southeast corner of Shadow Mountain Village, a
found rebar and cap L.S. #25947, and the 4' witness corner to the Southeast corner of South Aspen Street
Subdivision, a found rebar & cap LS #29030.
5. Basis of Elevation: An elevation of 7720.88' (NAVD 1988) on the NGS Station "S-159", per the 2009 City of
Aspen GPS Control Survey.
6. The contour interval is one (1) foot.
7. This survey does not constitute a title search by Sopris Engineering, LLC (SE) to determine ownership or
easements of record. For all information regarding easements, rights of way and/or title of record, SE relied
upon the above said items described in Note 4 and the title commitment prepared by Land Title Guarantee
Company Order No. 62010055 effective dated December 13, 2018.
8. The linear unit used in the preparation of this plat is the U.S. Survey Foot as defined by the United States
Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology.
9. Based solely upon the Flood Insurance Rate Map (Community Panel No. 08097C0203 C, dated June 4, 1987)
prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the subject property is designated as Zone X - area
determined to be outside the 500-year flood plain.
10. The locations of underground utilities have been plotted based on utility maps, construction/design plans,
other information provided by utility companies and actual field locations in some instances. These utilities,
as shown, may not represent actual field conditions. It is the responsibility of the contractor to contact all
utility companies for field location of utilities prior to construction. No underground utility locates were
performed as a part of this survey.
SURVEYOR'S STATEMENT
I, Mark S. Beckler, do hereby state that this map was prepared by Sopris Engineering, LLC for Shadow Mountain
Village Condominium Association, City of Aspen and Land Title Guarantee Company, and that it is true and
correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. The control precision is greater than 1 in 15,000.
__________________________
Mark S. Beckler P.L.S. #28643
EXISTING ELECTRIC MANHOLEE
EXISTING ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER
EXISTING ELECTRIC METER
EXISTING TELEPHONE PEDESTAL
EXISTING CATV PEDESTAL
EXISTING GAS METER
EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT
EXISTING WATER VALVE
EXISTING CURB STOP
EXISTING SIGN
EXISTING LIGHT POLE
EXISTING SEWER MANHOLE
EXISTING SEWER CLEANOUT
EXISTING STORM INLET STRUCTURE
UTILITY LEGEND
(SEE GENERAL UTILITY NOTE)
DECIDUOUS TREE
CONIFEROUS TREE
Exhibit A- Shadow Mountain Village Condominiums Application
44
Exhibit B- Staff Findings
26.480.040. General subdivision review standards.
All subdivisions shall be required to conform to the following general standards and limitations in
addition to the specific standards applicable to each type of subdivision:
A. Guaranteed Access to a Public Way. All subdivided lots must have perpetual unobstructed
legal vehicular access to a public way. A proposed subdivision shall not eliminate or obstruct legal
vehicular access from a public way to an adjacent property. All streets in a Subdivision retained
under private ownership shall be dedicated to public use to ensure adequate public and emergency
access. Security/privacy gates across access points and driveways are prohibited.
Staff comment: Staff finds this criterion not met. The right-of-way currently provides access to several
Aspen Ski Company parcels. This area may be reconfigured as part of the Lift 1 Corridor Project,
however, at this time, it is unknown if or when the Lift 1 Corridor will commence construction. With
the current and proposed public uses within the right-of-way, vacating the western half of South
Aspen Street to the benefit of the Shadow Mountain Townhomes would lead to a negative community
outcome.
B. Alignment with Original Townsite Plat. The proposed lot lines shall approximate, to the
extent practical, the platting of the Original Aspen Townsite, and additions thereto, as applicable
to the subject land. Minor deviations from the original platting lines to accommodate significant
features of the site may be approved.
Staff comment: This criterion is not applicable.
C. Zoning Conformance. All new lots shall conform to the requirements of the zone district in
which the property is situated, including variations and variances approved pursuant to this Title.
A single lot shall not be located in more than one zone district unless unique circumstances dictate.
A rezoning application may be considered concurrently with subdivision review.
Staff comment: This criterion is not applicable.
D. Existing Structures, Uses, and Non-Conformities. A subdivision shall not create or increase
the non-conformity of a use, structure or parcel. A rezoning application or other mechanism to
correct the non-conforming nature of a use, structure, or parcel may be considered concurrently.
In the case where an existing structure or use occupies a site eligible for subdivision, the structure
need not be demolished and the use need not be discontinued prior to application for subdivision.
If approval of a subdivision creates a non-conforming structure or use, including a structure
spanning a parcel boundary, such structure or use may continue until recordation of the subdivision
plat. Alternatively, the City may accept certain assurance that the non-conformities will be
remedied after recordation of the subdivision plat. Such assurances shall be reflected in a
development agreement or other legal mechanism acceptable to the City Attorney and may be
time-bound or secured with a financial surety.
Staff comment: This criterion is not applicable.
45
Exhibit B- Staff Findings
26.480.70 B. Vehicular Rights-of-Way. The dedication, boundary alteration, realignment, or
any partial or whole vacation of a Street, Alley, or other vehicular right-of-way serving more than
one parcel, shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied according to the following
standards:
1. The proposed change maintains or improves the public health, safety, and welfare of the
community and is in the best interests of the City of Aspen.
Staff comment: Staff finds this criterion not met. There appears to be no reasonable justification to
vacate the western half of South Aspen Street to the benefit of the Shadow Mountain
Condominiums. The property was already granted an Encroachment License from the Engineering
Department to legalize common area improvements that currently exist in the right-of-way. As
agreed upon in the license that was issued, “the improvements do not impede the right-of-way of
South Aspen Street or otherwise impair the City’s property.” Requesting a permanent vacation of the
same area that received an encroachment license appears to contradict the original agreement
between the City and the Shadow Mountain Village Condominiums. The Engineering Department is
concerned that vacating the right-of-way would restrict access to utility corridors and the Parks
Department commented that South Aspen Street would no longer serve as an access point to the
Barbee Open Space if the road were to be vacated. These were not concerns of either department
with the issuance of the encroachment license.
2. The proposed change to the public rights-of-way maintains or improves safe physical and
legal access from a public way to all adjacent properties and shall not restrict the ability for a
property to develop by eliminating or hindering access. Redundant access, such as a primary
street access plus alley access, is preferred.
Staff comment: Staff finds this criterion not met. Vacating this portion of the right-of-way cuts off
secondary access to the Barbee Family PUD Lot 13 Conservation Parcel and would restrict skier
access on and off the mountain. The right-of-way currently provides access to several Aspen Ski
Company parcels. This area may be reconfigured as part of the Lift 1 Corridor Project, however, at
this time, it is unknown if or when the Lift 1 Corridor will commence construction.
3. The design of the proposed change complies with Municipal Code Title 29 – Engineering
Design Standards and is consistent with applicable adopted policies, plans, and approved projects
for the area (such as a highway access policy, an approved development project, an infrastructure
plan, a trails plan, an improvement district plan, and the like).
Staff comment: Staff finds this criterion not met. The proposed vacation does not comply with Title
29. Engineering Design Standards leave open corridors for utilities and drainage. The proposed
vacation would cutoff this corridor.
4. The proposed change maintains or improves normal traffic circulation, traffic control
capabilities, access by emergency and service vehicles, pedestrian and bike connections, drainage
infrastructure, street and infrastructure maintenance needs, and normal operating needs of the
City including snow removal.
Staff comment: Staff finds this criterion not met. The area is currently used for snow storage. The
City Streets Department pushes snow up South Aspen Street and into this available area. Vacating
this portion of the ROW would negatively affect snow removal operations. 46
Exhibit B- Staff Findings
5. For all new rights-of-way and physical changes to existing rights-of-way, the applicant shall
design and construct the proposed right-of-way improvements according to the design and
construction standards of the City Engineer. Upon completion, the right-of-way improvements shall
be subject to inspection and acceptance by the City Engineer. The City may require a performance
warranty. The requirements of this criterion shall be reflected in a Development Agreement.
Staff comment: This criterion is not applicable. At this time, no changes to existing right-of-way
improvements are proposed by the applicant. The right-of-way in the vicinity already has existing
infrastructure and spans through the South Aspen Townhomes, and proposed sites of Lift One Lodge
and Gorsuch Haus projects.
6. For partial or full vacation of existing rights-of-way, the applicant shall demonstrate the
right-of-way, or portion thereof, has no current or future use to the community as a vehicular
way, pedestrian or bike way, utility corridor, drainage corridor, or recreational connection due to
dimensions, location, topography, existing or proposed development, or other similar
circumstances. The City shall consider whether the interests of the applicant and the City can be
achieved through a “closure” of the right-of-way.
Staff comment: Staff finds this criterion not met. This right-of-way serves multiple public purposes
and a portion of the area being requested for vacation is going to contain part of the upgraded
street cul-de-sac and sidewalk improvements associated with the Lift 1 Corridor redevelopment and
may have implications on the voter-approved site plan. Additionally, until the construction of the
Gorsuch Haus and other easements are put into place, this corridor will continue to serve as a
pedestrian and bikeway, utility corridor, drainage corridor, and recreational connection. After
construction of the Gorsuch Haus, this right-of-way area will serve as a utility corridor, drainage
corridor, and recreational connection. These uses cannot be served in another manner through the
“closure” of the right-of-way.
7. A Right-of-Way Dedication/Vacation Plat shall be reviewed and recorded in the office of
the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder, pursuant to Chapter 26.490 – Approval Documents. The plat
shall demonstrate how the lands underlying vacated rights-of-way shall accrue to adjacent parcels
in compliance with State Statute.
Staff comment: At this time, this criterion is not applicable.
8. A Development Agreement shall be reviewed and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County
Clerk and Recorder, pursuant to Chapter 26.490 – Approval Documents. This requirement may be
waived if no right-of-way construction is proposed.
Staff comment: At this time, this criterion is not applicable.
47
Exhibit C- Encroachment License
48
Exhibit C- Encroachment License
49
Exhibit C- Encroachment License
50
Exhibit C- Encroachment License
51
Exhibit C- Encroachment License
52