The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.1450 Cyrstal Lake Rd.A27-97DATE RECEIVED: DATE COMPLETE: PARCEL ID # PROJECT NAME: Project Address: APPLICANT: Address/Phone: OWNER: Address/Phone: REPRESENTATIVE Address /Phone: CAS -PAD SUMMARY SHEET - CITY O SPEN 4/8/97 2737 - 181 -32 -021 CASE # A27 -97 STAFF: ` ra; h Y►'� as Aspen Club Insubstantail Amendment to Approved Parking Plan 1450 Crystal Lake Rd Michael Fox '1450 Crystal Lake Rd, Aspen 81611925-8900 Cottele & Graybeal 510 E. Hyman, Sutie 21 Aspen, 925 -2867 RESPONSIBLE PARTY: Applicant Other Name /Address: FEES DUE lleetng;Date .. `; FEES RECEIVED PLANNING $450 PLANNING $450. # APPS RECEIVED 1 ENGINEER $0 ENGINEER $ # PLATS RECEIVED 1 HOUSING $0 HOUSING $ GIS DISK RECEIVED: ENV HEALTH $0 ENV HEALTH $ CLERK $ CLERK $ TYPE OF APPLICATION TOTAL $450. TOTAL RCVD $450. Staff Approval Review Body. lleetng;Date .. `; Public Hearing �r " • ❑ City Attorney ❑ City Engineer (DRC) ❑ Zoning ❑ Housing ❑ Environmental Health ❑ Parks DATE REFERRED: ❑ Aspen Fire Marshal ❑ City Water ❑ City Electric ❑ Clean Air Board ❑ Open Space Board ❑ Other: INITIALS: APPROVAL: Ordinance/Resolution # taff Approval CLOSED/FILED ' DATE: �` INITIALS: _l ROUTE TO:,., �.rl� ❑ CDOT ❑ ACSD ❑ Holy Cross Electric ❑ Rocky Mtn Natural Gas ❑ Aspen School District ❑ Other: DATE DUE: Date: Date: .2 - -7 — Book , Page U Aspen,Pitkin Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 920-5090 City Land Use Application Fees: 001 ]3-63850-04] Deposit -63855-042 Flat Fee -63860-043 HPC -63885-268 Public Right-of-Way -63875-046 Zoning & Sign Permit -MR011 Use Tax 10000-67100-383 Park Dedication 15000-63050-480 AH Commercial 15000-63065-482 AH Residential County Land Use Application Fees: 00113-63800-033 Deposit -63805-034 Flat Fee -43820-037 Zonine -63825038 Board of Adjustment Referral Fees: 00113-63810-035 County Engineer 0011543340-163 City Engineer 62023-63340-190 Housing 00125-63340-205 Environmental Health 00113-63815-036 County Clerk 001]3-63812-212 Wildlife Officer Sales: 00113-63830-039 Countv Code -69000-i 45 Copy Fees Other Total 40 -6- d 0 C ''~ f -' Name: 492.-â„¢ LO:utÂ·- ...2 L Date: 9 / y' Check: â‚¬ C C j $ 1 Address: Project: 1 -15 0 0 1..UG-1 84,-e-k /44.. '~ Case No: A .27-7 7 4 L:z<f Li,- L e 1 6li Phone: No. of Copies / - - 41. 1- 11 TRAFTIC E.MPACT ANALYSIS i. El .. :H J t1411*. 834.1 'L,A.,1.0 .Â£3 1 21/16-Â£'36111 ~t..F , '11 IN 9 ASPEN. COLORADO 4. *M#u.......~Im/....# 1 Leigh, Scott & Cleary, Inc. 21 Â·Â· - Â· I 1 -3.-F 21?WT=f.*EETUPZ3=13'im. LEIGH. SCOTT & CLEARY. INC. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING & TRAFFIC ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS 1889 York Street Denver, CO 80206 (303) 333- 1105 FAX (303) 333-1107 February 6, 1996 Mr. Dick Butera c/o Alan Richman Planning Services P.O. Box 3613 Aspen, CO 81612 Re: Aspen Club Parking CLSC #960030} Dear Mr. Butera: In response to your request, we have completed a traffic impact analysis related to tile proposed ~ redesign of parking facilities for the Aspen Club health club and spa in Aspen. Colorado. Figure 1. enclosed, illustrates the location of the Aspen Club site. As indicated. the site is located at Crystal Lake Road betweeri Ute Avenue and Highway 82. Background The Aspen Club. which was approved for development by the City in conjunction with the 1975 Callahan PUD application. consists of 12 single-family-homes and 24 condominium homes on the north side of the Roaring Fork River. and health club/spa facilities on the south side of the river. The development's original plans also envisioned construction of a high quality restaurant along the north side of the river. IIi addition, a large parking lot was constructed in the center of the north side residential area to serve non-resident guests of both the health club (a foot bridge was provided across the river) and the proposed restaurant. It is important to note that ? the plans for the restaurant have been dropped and a single-family home is constructed on the restaurant site. All vehicular access to and from the Aspen Club was planned via Highway 82 at Crystal Lake Road. Health club access via Ute Avenue was not provided since Ute at that time was only a narrow oiled gravel roadway. Over the years, the character of Ute Avenue has changed significantly. Most of the vacant lots along Ute were developed during the 1980's and 1990's and few undeveloped lots remain. The 1994 Ute Avenue Improvement District project upgraded the roadway cross-section to include asphalt paving, two eleven-foot driving lanes, an eight-foot parking lane, and an eight-foot separated bike path. As a result, the safety of the roadway was enhanced and its estimated comfortable capacity (Level of Service "C") was increased from about 500 to~.710{rkehicles per day. -- 8 2 11. - Mr. Dick Butera Page 2 February 6. 1996 Vehicular access to and from the Aspen Club's health club/spa facilities via Ute Avenue has also been developed in order to minimize traffic impacts on the 36 homes within the northern residential area. Over the last several years, health club attendance and related traffte activity has continued to decline. For example, annual visits declined from 100,696 in 1988 to 60,453 in 1995, a 40 percent reduction in seven years. At the same time. pedestrian/bicycle access routes have been developed and a peak-hour van service has been added in order to further reduce Aspen Club automobile traffic. As a result of the changes discussed above, there now exists an under-utilized parking lot located within the Aspen Club residential area north of the river. It is therefore proposed that the north parking lot be replaced by upgraded parking facilities adjacent to the health club/spa on the south side of the river. Existing Traffic Activity The proposed improvements to the health club/spa parking facilities, including the proposed closure of the north lot and expansion of the south parking facilities, will primarily affect traffic flows on nearby sections of Highway 82 and Ute Avenue, and at the key Original Street inter- sections with Cooper and Durant Avenues. No additional traffic generation is projected. As part of this analysis, 7:00 to 9:00 AM and 4:00 to 6:00 PM peak period turning movement traffic counts were conducted at the Original/Cooper and Original/Durant intersections on Tuesday, January 23, 1996. IIi addition, similar peak period counts of entering and exiting health club/spa parking lot traffic were conducted on January 24. Figure 1. enclosed, illustrates the peak one hour traffic activity data for all four count locauons. As noted, peak-hours were found to occur between 8:00 and 9:00 AM and between 4:30 and 5:30 PM. In addition, the data reflect the fact that current health club/spa traffic activity is about equally split between the north lot and the southerly facilities. All count data information is enclosed including shuttle bus activity to and from the north lot. Figure 1 also illustrates estimated average weekday count totals in the vicinity of the count locations. These data have been extrapolated from the peak- hour counts and can be compared to capacity estimates of 6,000 on Highway 82 and 3,000 on Original south of Highway 82. The following tabulation reflects 1995 monthly attendance data for the health club/spa: - Mr. Dick Butera Page 3 February 6. 1996 Table 1 1995 MONTHLY ATTENDANCE Aspen Club International Month Attendance January 5,841 February 5,280 March 6,537 April 4.696 May 4,483 June 4,187 July 4,862 August 5,005 September 3.603 October 4,024 November 4,822 December 5,118 Total 60,453 Average 5,038 Of significance is the fact that monthly health/spa activity during January is the second highest total for the year and represents 16 percent more traffic than the monthly average. By comparison, Highway 82 traffic is higher during the summer when health club traffic is low. For instance, 1993 peak season counts on Highway 82 east of Original indicated 24-hour totals of 5,200 vehicle-trips (vs. 3,500 on Figure 1). Furthermore, it is concluded that the health club/ spa today contributes about 18 percent of the total Original/Ute daily traffic south of Durant (220 out of 1,250), and the 220 trips represent about seven percent of the roadway's existing capacity. Projected Traffic Impacts In order to assess the impacts of closing the north parking lot, a reassignment of the north lot traffic has been estimated for the key Original street intersections at Cooper and Durant. These estimates were made based on the assumption that north lot traffic is distributed as follows: â€¢ Highway 82 east of Aspen Club = 5% â€¢ Main west of Original = 55% â€¢ Cooper west of Original = 35% â€¢ Durant west of Original = 10% Total 100% These estimates are based on measured traffic patterns at the two Original Street intersections and estimates from Aspen Club representatives. Application of these distribution estimates to Mr. Dick Butera Page 4 February 6. 1996 the existing peak-hour counts shown on Figure 1 results in the redistributed peak-hour traffic shown on Figure 2. Finally. comparative peak-hour capacity analyses have been computed which evaluate before and after Levels of Service at the two key intersections. The methodology used is that presented in the current edition of the Highway Capacity Manual {Special Report 209), published by the Transportation Research Board of the National Academy of Sciences. The concept of Level of Service (LOS) is used as a basis for computing combinations of roadway operating conditions which accommodate various levels of traffic activity. By definition, six different Levels of Service are used (A, B, C, D, E, and Fl with "A" being a free-flow condition and "E" representing the capacity of a given intersection or roadway. More detailed definitions of the six Levels of Service are enclosed on Appendix Page A-9 to this report. The following tabulation summarizes the results of these LOS analyses which are also included with the appendices to this report. As indicated, the projected redistribution of traffic is not expected to adversely impact either inter- section. Table 2 PEAK-HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE COMPARISONS Aspen Club Parking Redesign Original/Cooper Original/Durant Average Level Average Level Peak- Intersection De:ay of Delay of Assumed Traffic .ld.Q.u-1- Approach (Seconds) Service Seconds) Service Existing AM Eastbound 1.5 A 0.6 A Westbound 4.7 A 0.1 A Northbound 1.7 A 4.5 A Southbound 2.5 A 3.9 A Total 3.17 A 2.0 A PM Eastbound 3.2 A 0.7 A Westbound 6.4 B 0.1 A Northbound 3.5 A 5.4 B Southbound 4.1 A 4.5 A Tot a I 4.44 A 2.4 A Redistributed AM Eastbound 1.6 A 0.6 A Westbound 4.5 A 0.1 A Northbound 1.8 A 4.5 A Southbound 2.5 A 4.0 A Total 3.05 A 2.1 A PM Eastbound 3.3 A 0.6 A Westbound 5.7 B 0.1 A Northbound 3.4 A 5.6 B Southbound 4.0 A 4.8 A Total 4.17 A 2.7 A Mr. Dick Butera Page 5 February 6, 1996 Summary and Conclusions Based on the information and analyses presented herein, we have reached the following conclusions with respect to the traffic impacts of the Aspen Club North parking lot: 1. Traffic conditions have changed significantly since the Aspen Club was approved for development during the mid-1970's. â€¢ A restaurant. which was planned to be served by the north parking lot, will not be developed. As a result, an under-utilized commercial parking lot exists within the residential portion of the Aspen Club development. â€¢ Trame activity associated with the health club/spa has declined significantly during the past several years. Since 1988, annual visitation totals and related traffic have declined 40 percent. In addition, enhanced pedestrian and bicycle facilities together with shuttle bus service have further reduced health club/spa generated traffic. â€¢ Initially, access to and from the health club/spa via Ute Avenue was nol permitted due to inadequate roadway characteristics. Ute Avenue. however. was paved and widened in 1994 with significant improvements to both safety and roadway capacity. As a result, recent health club/spa access via Ute Avenue has not resulted in adverse traffic impacts. 2. A comprehensive count of peak-season, peak-period trafftc associated with the health club/spa at the nearby key intersections of Cooper/Highway 82 and Original, and at Durant and Original have been conducted. This data has been redistributed to account for the proposed closure of the north parking lot. Computerized peak-hour capacity analyses of this data reflected the fact that all approaches to the study inter- sections will continue to operate at Level of Service "A' or "B" with no significant change resulting from the redirected existing traffic. 3. Implementation of the proposed access and parking changes is projected to increase weekday traffic on Ute Avenue by about 230 vehicle-trips including about 25 entering and 14 exiting vehicles during the evening peak-hour. This total represents less than eight percent of the roadway's estimated 3,000 vehicle-per-day comfortable capacity. Furthermore, the projected total amount of health club/spa traffic is projected to be 450 average weekday vehicle-trips, which is about 15 percent of Ute Avenue's comfortable capacity. 4. During the summer months when Highway 82 traffic in the vicinity of Original Avenue is higher, the benefits of this proposed access change will be even greater than that indicated herein. This fact is primarily due to reduced peak-season southbound to eastbound left-turn traffic at the Original/Highway 82 intersection. * Mr. Dick Butera Page 6 February 6. 1996 We trust that this report will assist with further discussions and planning for the Aspen Club proposal. Please call if we can of additional assistance. Respectfully submitted, LEIGH, SCOIT & CLEARY, INC. 01'' j 4 By: j.4, Â· 6 i i -3 /tr-- --in Philip N. Scott III, P.E. PNS/wd Enclosures: Figures 1 and 2 Traffic Counts (Pages A- 1 through A-8) Level of Service Definitions (Page A-91 Capacity Analyses (Pages A- 10 through A-33) C:\PROJECTS\960030\ASPENCLB.REV CH#*AIN 65 . 82) iLL U 12 41, 65 *- 12 ~9~111 //ft HOPKINS 2â„¢)~ 0 -Â§2.hi AVE- -TE //~ 18 67 Approx. Scale HYMAN 1' = 400' (3,900) LEGEND: y2Sc COOPER . AVE. (3,500) (220) = ESTIMATED AVERAGE WEEKDAY TRAFFIC (2,150) 4 8:00-9:00 AM TRAFFIC 2 1 4:30-5:30 PM TRAFFIC e (1,800) DURANT 0 (1,600) : COUNTER MEASURES. INC. SOURCE: 1/23-24/96 COUNTS BY AVE (2,400) r HfGHWAY 82 (1,250) 34 43 25 12 & 41,44<7 \ 1 76 , 17 22 / < 20 \ /ENTER C EXIT \ 52 (8)lli , / 31 +7 51 \ 0 e 12- 4\ 9-71--1--1- e Swi//i Mill e il LL-l_</ NORTH l LOT , < ASPEN ~ c EXIT j L / CLUB // ~ l 11 h ~ /HEALTH / 1 " j'liV _ _ -_LU--l_J_l--4 , CLUB/SPA~ , / /=&\ - 1 2 - 20 j Se< (220) 1\ FIGURE 1 SITE LOCATION AND EXISTING PEAK-HOUR TRAFFIC .- *-*.1 ~=LEIGH, SCOTT & CLEARY, INC. 69 . 82) -11 i 22 41. 81 2- -5-1 1 ly 79 fit HOPKINS Atâ‚¬. 476 Q 0 N Approx. Scale 4. 1 = 400' (3,900) 39'ce COOPER LEGEND: AVE. (3'280) (450) = AVERAGE WEEKDAY TRAFFIC (2,150) 4 ~ (2,0 10) : 11 - 8:00-9.00 AM TRAFFIC 43 ~ 4:30-5:30 PM TRAFFIC DURANT AVE. (1,600) d HIGHWAY (2,400) 7 82 (1,480) / 1 41 -12. -e 23 41 12 -22. 15, -fla7 20 2441 22 4 1 68 0 Â¥ZÂ· 5~RT-H - i e l LOT , ASPEN // A < UN _i=-4 I r EXIT Ilijjj,1 17 iCLUB 35 /HEALTH / 7-32 A,C.. , CLUB/SPA,~ FIGURE 2 (450) /=&\ ~ 1/ f i- 28 1 \ U _ j REDISTRIBUTED EXISTING - PEAK-HOUR TRAFFIC ASSUMING CLOSURE OF ASPEN CLUB NORTH PARKING LOT ~=LEIGH, SCOTT & CLEARY, INC. COUNTER MEASURES, INC. ,ite Code : PAGE: 1 1-S Stre-et: ORIGINAL\SH-82 FILE: SH82C00P -W Street: COOPER\SH-82 : Movements by: Primary DATE: 1/23/96 liRe From North From East From South From West Vehicle legin RT THRU LT RT THRU LT RT THRU LT RT THRU LT Total 7:00 AM 269 660 130 1 1 4 39 7:15 3 8 10 1080120 0 3 0 45 7:30 6 10 15 17 14 1 160 3 4 1 78 7:45 4 16 12 17 12 2 180 3 7 7 89 IR TOTAL 15 40 46 50 40 3 4 19 0 7 15 12 251 8:00 AM 6 13 13 25 19 4 2 11 1 072 103 8:15 1 16 14 42 14 5 571 355 118 8:30 4 16 21 18 12 5 0 15 0 267 106 8:45 6 20 17 26 15 4 5 15 0 888 132 iR TOTAL 17 65 65 111 60 18 12 48 2 13 26 22 459 Break 4:00 PM 6 17 30 29 12 8 5 20 8 11 15 7 168 4:15 9 17 24 28 19 4 6 23 1 4 24 8 167 4:30 12 12 25 26 13 4 6 16 1 3 14 14 146 4:45 6 11 28 27 24 7 4 19 2 4 22 22 176 AR TOTAL 33 57 107 110 68 23 21 78 12 22 75 51 657 5:00 PM 10 20 28 25 12 7 8 27 4 2 25 15 183 5:15 13 10 14 31 18 6 6 24 3 7 27 18 177 5:30 10 10 23 16 11 5 4 20 3 3 20 10 135 5:45 6 14 23 16 10 3 2 11 7 2 22 13 129 iR TOTAL 39 54 88 88 51 21 20 82 17 14 94 56 624 IAY TOTAL 104 216 306 359 219 65 57 227 31 56 210 141 1991 A-1 COUNTER MEASURES, INC. ite Code : PAGE: 1 Â·S Street: ORIGINAL\SH-82 FILE: SH82C00P -W Street: COOPER\SH-82 : Movements by: Primary DATE: 1/23/96 PEAK PERIOD ANALYSIS FOR THE PERIOD: 7:00 AM - 9:00 AM DIRECTION START PEAK HR ........ VOLUMES ........ .... PERCENTS ... FROM PEAK HOUR FACTOR Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left North 8:00 AM 0.85 17 65 65 147 12 44 44 East 8:00 AM 0.77 111 60 18 189 59 32 10 South 8:00 AM 0.77 12 48 2 62 19 77 3 West 8:00 AM 0.64 13 26 22 61 21 43 36 Entire Intersection North 8:00 AM 0.85 17 65 65 147 12 44 44 East 0.77 111 60 18 189 59 32 10 South 0.77 12 48 2 62 19 77 3 West 0.64 13 26 22 61 21 43 36 ORIGINAL\SH-82 N W-Fâ‚¬ S 181 17 65 65 L 147 2 ~ 111 . 79 , COOPER\SH-82 189 60 22 1 L 18 26 61 COOPER\SH-82 103 13 -1 62 - 1 1 -- 2 48 12 96 --i --Ill---i- -: ORIGINAL\SH-82 A-2 COUNTER MEASURES, INC. le Code : PAGE: 1 -5 Street: ORIGINAL\SH-82 FILE: SH82C00P Â·W Street: COOPER\SH-82 : Movements by: Primary DATE: 1/23/96 PEAK PERIOD ANALYSIS FOR THE PERIOD: 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM DIRECTION START PEAK HR ........ VOLUMES ........ .... PERCENTS ... FROM PEAK HOUR FACTOR Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left North 4:15 PM 0.87 37 60 105 202 18 30 52 East 4:00 PM 0.87 110 68 23 201 55 34 11 South 4:45 PM 0.79 22 90 12 124 18 73 10 West 4:45 PM 0.84 16 94 65 175 9 54 37 Entire Intersection North 4:30 PM 0.81 41 53 95 189 22 28 50 East 0.86 109 67 24 200 54 34 12 South 0.77 24 86 10 120 20 72 8 West 0.83 16 88 69 173 9 51 40 ORIGINAL\SH-82 :313 N râ€žâ€žâ€ž7 W-tE S 264 41 1 53 95 1 L 189 ~ ~ 109 118 1 COOPER\SH-82 200 67 69 1 L 24 88 173 COOPER\SH-82 207 F-- 120 -- 1 1- 10 86 ~ 24 93 -13 ORIGINAL\SH-82 A-3 COUNTER MEASURES, INC. ite Code : PAGE: 1 -S Street: ORIGINAL FILE: ORIGDURA W Street: DURANT : Movements by: Primary DATE: 1/23/96 ile .... From North .... .... From East .... .... From South .... .... From West .... Vehicle UTURN 1gin UTURN RT THRU LT UTURN RT THRU LT UTURN RT THRU LT UTURN RT THRU LT Total Total 7:00 AM 0142 0110 0010 0112140 7:15 0323 0020 0010 0252200 7:30 0662 0361 0022 1242361 7:45 0 10 4 7 0490 0132 0392540 R TOTAL 020161408181 017418198 124 1 8:00 AM 077301132 005006118630 3:15 0 10 10404120 014513105681 8:30 0103306132 0051 0784620 8:45 0 16 14206140 017806137940 R TOTAL 0433412017 52 4 0 2 21 14 1 22 42 24 287 1 8reak 4:00 PM 0 17 13 60417402167291717 129 2 4:15 012760512101116172014 102 1 4:30 094606170 0188 3 15 23 9 106 3 4:45 01156071500010803218940 R TOTAL 0492924022 61 50445296348148 431 6 5:00 PM 01388 05182 0 1 18 8 0 11 19 16 127 0 5:15 09860210200196171312941 3:30 07650715000115 1 11 17 9 93 1 3:45 0775041100110402186750 t TOTAL 0362924018 54 4 0 2 58 23 2 31 67 43 389 2 IY TOTAL 0 148 108 74 0 65 185 14 0 9 131 70 10 95 209 123 1231 10 A-4 COUNTER MEASURES, INC. PAGE: 1 ite Code : -S Street: ORIGINAL FILE: ORIGDURA -W Street: DURANT : Movements by: Primary DATE: 1/23/96 PEAK PERIOD ANALYSIS FOR THE PERIOD: 8:00 AM - 9:00 AM DIRECTION START PEAK HR ........... VOLUMES ........... ...... PERCENTS ....... FROM PEAK HOUR FACTOR UTURN Right Thru Left Total UTURN Right Thru Left North 8:00 AM 0.70 0 43 34 12 89 - 48 38 13 East 8:00 AM 0.87 0 17 52 4 73 - 23 71 5 South 8:00 AM 0.58 0 2 21 14 37 - 5 57 38 West 8:00 AM 0.85 122422488-254827 Entire Intersection North 8:00 AM 0.70 0 43 34 12 89 - 48 38 13 East 0.87 0 17 52 4 73 - 23 71 5 South 0.58 0 2 21 14 37 - 5 57 38 West 0.85 122422488-254827 ........ ORIGINAL 323 N .......3/7 W-p-E .. S ---- 62 CUTURN] 0 43 34 12 0 [UTURN] F 17 109 f DURANT 73 52 -"".'. 241 L 4 42 88 DURANT 56 22 -J F--- 37 - 1 -- [UTURN] 1 14 21 2 0 [UTURN] 60 ORIGINAL A-5 COUNTER MEASURES, INC. te Code_: PAGE: 1 5 Street: ORIGINAL FILE: ORIGDURA 4 Street: DURANT : Movements by: Primary DATE: 1/23/96 PEAK PERIOD ANALYSIS FOR THE PERIOD: 4:30 PM - 5:30 PM DIRECTION START PEAK HR ........... VOLUMES ........... ...... PERCENTS ....... FROM PEAK HOUR FACTOR UTURN Right Thru Left Total UTURN Right Thru Left North 4:30 PM 0.80 042252693-452728 East 4:30 PM 0.84 0 20 60 4 84 - 24 71 5 South 4:30 PM 0.81 0 2 55 30 87 - 2 63 34 West 4:30 PM 0.84 4 36 76 45 157 - 23 48 29 Entire Intersection North 4:30 PM 0.80 042252693-452728 East 0.84 0 20 60 4 84 - 24 71 5 South 0.81 0 2 55 30 87 - 2 63 34 West 0.84 4 36 76 45 157 - 23 48 29 ORIGINAL k : N W-Ef S 120 [UTURN] 0 42 25 26 0 [UTURN] F 20 93 -~ 132 J ~ ~ ~ DURANT 84 60 451 L 4 ......... ........ 76 157 DURANT --- 104 36 -J F-- 87 -- 1 [UTURN] 4." " ~ 30 55 ~ 2 0 [UTURN] 65 V 6. W" ORIGINAL - A-6 Asesk Club 1-14 - 00 Noâ‚¬71-2 PAA.kfa~ 1-0-2 6 Cojkw.,AL (7;eck Â«oq er di 47 - - A-r/\ lk) O0 -i- - -7:16 1 15--7.30 34.-7: 4 f 45-9 <6 -- 15- 9 - %:3-0 30 - %-Mi- 3 1 'FY*dkab = LE> P 13 ST Af<1- 4 10 110 OU-T~ 41.1 4- 5- 9- 9,38 ir 6-D- 14 71â‚¬ 3 2- 45-5 9 0.-)C L j S-444 ITu&) C jA CL 1 5-74 q= T =8-~ - 411 5- 9 C I , j . 16- 513 0 9 <U , (-0 9 3 U 5-0 -946* J-1 t . 3 C * ) 45'- 0 . 0 4 Â¥ 1 5 4 - 2 .. 7, sk-Â¢4 0= 49 -- A-7 - e e -5-- -NP-0 0- Atps,u Club 1-29-9 G Â¥6014) 4%11*1 Lot 99â‚¬-F * 7 741 j U o u-r -1 :15* 1 1-7'Â· 30 ~ 1 4 0 1-4 3 2:15- 6- 1 C, A 5-- -61 * 2 3 -9119 1 3 9 3 - ' Al'A *k = 2- G Â«~4 2-1- 4--33 KIA )10 bul- %430 -2- 4 D- 41:44' 9 1 p 5 4 4 6% 15- \ 1 5- 1 - 6'Ba 9 9 2-571,5- 3< 9 5- i 51-1 t* 30) A-8 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS Level of Service A: Describes a condition where no vehicle waits longer than a few seconds for a gap in traffic. Typically, the intersection approaches appear quite open, turning movements are easily made, and nearly all drivers find freedom of operation. At a signalized location, the driver's primary concern is the chance that tile light will be red when they approach. Level of Service B: Represents stable conditions where occasionally there is a delay before a gap appears in the traffic on the through roadway. Many drivers begin to feel somewhat restricted within groups of vehicles. Level of Service C: Stable condiUons continue. Occasionally drivers may have to wait for more than a minute or so for gaps to appear on the through roadway or through an entire red signal indication, and backups may develop behind turning vehicles. Most drivers feel somewhat restricted, but not objectionably so. Level of Service D: Encompasses a zone of increasing restriction approaching instability. Delays to approaching vehicles may be substantial during short peaks within the peak period, but enough signal cycles or gaps in traffic coupled with lower demand occur to permit periodic clearance of developing queues, thus preventing excessive back-ups. This level is typically used for design purposes in urban areas such as Denver. Level of Service E: Capacity - represents the most vehicles that an intersection can accommodate. At capacity, there may be long queues ofvehicles waiting upstream in the intersection and delays may be substantial. Level of Service F: Representsjammed conditions. Back-ups from locations downstream or on the cross street may restrict or prevent movement of vehicles out of one or more approaches: hence, volumes carried are not predictable. Source: "Highway Capacity Manual," Highway Research Board Special Report 209, Third Edition, 1994. A-9 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1 **************************************************************** File Name ................ AC1AM95.HCO Streets: (N-S) ORIGINAL (SH 82) (E-W) COOPER Analyst ................... MRM Date of Analysis .......... 1/30/96 Other Information ......... BEFORE NORTH LOT CLOSURE, AM PEAK All-way Stop-controlled Intersection Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound LTRLTRLTRLTR ---- ---- ---- ----- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- --0-- --0- ---- No. Lanes 0> 1< 0 0> 1< 0 0> 1< 0 0> 1< 0 Volumes 22 26 13 18 60 111 2 48 12 65 65 17 PHF .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 Grade 0 0 0 0 MC's (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU/RV's (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CV'S (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PCE's 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 - ---- A-10 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Volume Summary and Capacity Analysis WorkSheet -------------l--------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB LT Flow Rate 23 19 2 68 RT Flow Rate 14 117 13 18 Approach Flow Rate 64 199 66 154 Proportion LT 0.36 0.10 0.03 0.44 Proportion RT 0.22 0.59 0.20 0.12 Opposing Approach Flow Rate 199 64 154 66 Conflicting Approaches Flow Rate 220 220 263 263 Proportion, Subject Approach Flow Rate 0.13 0.41 0.14 0.32 Proportion, Opposing Approach Flow Rate 0.41 0.13 0.32 0.14 Lanes on Subject Approach 1 1 1 1 Lanes on Opposing Approach 1 1 1 1 LT, Opposing Approach 19 23 68 2 RT, Opposing Approach 117 14 18 13 LT, Conflicting Approaches 70 70 42 42 RT, Conflicting Approaches 31 31 131 131 Proportion LT, Opposing Approach 0.10 0.36 0.44 0.03 Proportion RT, Opposing Approach 0.59 0.22 0.12 0.20 Proportion LT, Conflicting Approaches 0.32 0.32 0.16 0.16 Proportion RT, Conflicting Approaches 0.14 0.14 0.50 0.50 Approach Capacity 557 488 452 646 A-11 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3 **************************************************************** Intersection Performance Summary Approach Approach N/c Average Movement Flow Rate Capacity Ratio Total Delay ---------- --------- ------- ----------- I --------- EB 64 557 0.11 1.5 WB 199 488 0.41 4.7 NB 66 452 0.15 1.7 SB 154 646 0.24 2.5 Intersection Delay = 3.17 Level of Service (Intersection) = A A-12 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1 **************************************************************** File Name ................ AC1PM95.HCO Streets: (N-S) ORIGINAL (SH 82) (E-W) COOPER Analyst ................... MRM Date of Analysis .......... 1/30/96 Other Information ......... BEFORE NORTH LOT CLOSURE, PM PEAK All-way Stop-controlled Intersection Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound LTRLTRLTRLTR ---- No. Lanes 0> 1< 0 0> 1< 0 0> 1< 0 0> 1< 0 Volumes 69 88 16 24 67 109 10 86 24 95 53 41 PHF .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 Grade 0 0 0 0 MC's (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU/RV's (%)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CV'S (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PCE's 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 --- -- ------------------------0-------------- il ----------Il--------------- A-13 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2 Volume Summary and Capacity Analysis WorkSheet ---I------I------------------I--I-----I---il-----------------------1-------- EB WB NB SB ---------------il-- I-------I------- -----I----------I---Il------------------ LT Flow Rate 73 25 11 100 RT Flow Rate 17 115 25 43 Approach Flow Rate 183 211 127 199 Proportion LT 0.40 0.12 0.09 0.50 Proportion RT 0.09 0.55 0.20 0.22 Opposing Approach Flow Rate 211 183 199 127 Conflicting Approaches Flow Rate 326 326 394 394 Proportion, Subject Approach Flow Rate 0.25 0.29 0.18 0.28 Proportion, Opposing Approach Flow Rate 0.29 0.25 0.28 0.18 Lanes on Subject Approach 1 1 1 1 Lanes on Opposing Approach 1 1 1 1 LT, Opposing Approach 25 73 100 11 RT, Opposing Approach 115 17 43 25 LT, Conflicting Approaches 111 111 98 98 RT, Conflicting Approaches 68 68 132 132 Proportion LT, Opposing Approach 0.12 0.40 0.50 0.09 Proportion RT, Opposing Approach 0.55 0.09 0.22 0.20 Proportion LT, Conflicting Approaches 0.34 0.34 0.25 0.25 Proportion RT, Conflicting Approaches 0.21 0.21 0.34 0.34 Approach Capacity 593 430 388 539 0---------------------------------------------------------------------- A-14 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3 **************************************************************** Intersection Performance Summary Approach Approach 1/C Average Movement Flow Rate Capacity Ratio Total Delay ----------- EB 183 593 0.31 3.2 WB 211 430 0.49 6.4 NB 127 388 0.33 3.5 SB 199 539 0.37 4.1 Intersection Delay = 4.44 Level of Service (Intersection) = A A- 15 3'40144 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1 File Name ................ AC1PM98.HCO Streets: (N-S) ORIGINAL (SH 82) (E-W) COOPER Analyst ................... MRM Date of Analysis .......... 1/30/96 Other Information......... AFTER NORTH LOT CLOSURE, AM PEAK All-way Stop-controlled Intersection Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound LTRLTRLTRLTR No. Lanes 0> 1< 0 0> 1< 0 0> 1< 0 0> 1< 0 Volumes 22 23 16 17 58 107 4 52 11 61 69 17 PHF .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 Grade 0 0 0 0 MC's (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU/RV's (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CV'S (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PCE's 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 A-16 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2 **************************************************************** -- ------------il-------------- -------------------------- ------------- Volume Summary and Capacity Analysis WorkSheet EB WB NB SB LT Flow Rate 23 18 4 64 RT Flow Rate 17 113 12 18 Approach Flow Rate 64 192 71 155 Proportion LT 0.36 0.09 0.06 0.41 Proportion RT 0.27 0.59 0.17 0.12 Opposing Approach Flow Rate 192 64 155 71 Conflicting Approaches Flow Rate 226 226 256 256 Proportion, Subject Approach Flow Rate 0.13 0.40 0.15 0.32 Proportion, Opposing Approach Flow Rate 0.40 0.13 0.32 0.15 Lanes on Subject Approach 1 1 1 1 Lanes on Opposing Approach 1 1 1 1 LT, Opposing Approach 18 23 64 4 RT, Opposing Approach 113 17 18 12 LT, Conflicting Approaches 68 68 41 41 RT, Conflicting Approaches 30 30 130 130 Proportion LT, Opposing Approach 0.09 0.36 0.41 0.06 Proportion RT, Opposing Approach 0.59 0.27 0.12 0.17 Proportion LT, Conflicting Approaches 0.30 0.30 0.16 0.16 Proportion RT, Conflicting Approaches 0.13 0.13 0.51 0.51 Approach Capacity 551 486 476 646 A-17 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3 **************************************************************** Intersection Performance Summary Approach Approach N/C Average Movement Flow Rate Capacity Ratio Total Delay ---------- ---------- --------- ------- ----------- I EB 64 551 0.12 1.6 WB 192 486 0.39 4.5 NB 71 476 0.15 1.8 SB 155 646 0.24 2.5 Intersection Delay = 3.05 Level of Service (Intersection) = A A-18 NiA<<44 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1 **************************************************************** File Name ................ AC1PM98.HCO Streets: (N-S) ORIGINAL (SH 82) (E-W) COOPER Analyst ................... MRM Date of Analysis .......... 1/30/96 Other Information......... AFTER NORTH LOT CLOSURE, PM PEAK All-way Stop-controlled Intersection Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound LTRLTRLTRLTR ---- No. Lanes 0> 1< 0 0> 1< 0 0> 1< 0 0> 1< 0 Volumes 69 79 25 24 62 102 15 93 23 82 66 41 PHF .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 Grade 0 0 0 0 MC's (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU/RV' s (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CV' S (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PCE's 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 ---------Ii--I------- -----------------------------------Il------------1---I- 1 A- 19 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2 **************************************************************** ---- ------------------------0--0---------------------- -------------- Volume Summary and Capacity Analysis WorkSheet ----------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB ----------------------------------------------------------------------- LT Flow Rate 73 25 16 86 RT Flow Rate 26 107 24 43 Approach Flow Rate 182 197 138 198 Proportion LT 0.40 0.13 0.12 0.43 Proportion RT 0.14 0.54 0.17 0.22 Opposing Approach Flow Rate 197 182 198 138 Conflicting Approaches Flow Rate 336 336 379 379 Proportion, Subject Approach Flow Rate 0.25 0.28 0.19 0.28 Proportion, Opposing Approach Flow Rate 0.28 0.25 0.28 0.19 Lanes on Subject Approach 1 1 1 1 Lanes on Opposing Approach 1 1 1 1 LT, Opposing Approach 25 73 86 16 RT, Opposing Approach 107 26 43 24 LT, Conflicting Approaches 102 102 98 98 RT, Conflicting Approaches 67 67 133 133 Proportion LT, Opposing Approach 0.13 0.40 0.43 0.12 Proportion RT, Opposing Approach 0.54 0.14 0.22 0.17 Proportion LT, Conflicting Approaches 0.30 0.30 0.26 0.26 Proportion RT, Conflicting Approaches 0.20 0.20 0.35 0.35 Approach Capacity 587 431 428 540 -il- -- -------I--- *Il----- -- - - -- -------- -- -------I---------I-----I--------------- A-20 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3 **************************************************************** Intersection Performance Summary Approach Approach V/C Average Movement Flow Rate Capacity Ratio Total Delay EB 182 587 0.31 3.3 WB 197 431 0.46 5.7 NB 138 428 0.32 3.4 SB 198 540 0.37 4.0 Intersection Delay = 4.17 Level of Service (Intersection) = A A-21 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1 **************************************************************** File Name ................ AC2AM95.HCO Streets: (N-S) ORIGINAL (SH 82) (E-W) DURANT Major Street Direction .... EW Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min) Analyst ................... MRM Date of Analysis .......... 1/30/96 Other Information ......... BEFORE NORTH LOT CLOSURE, AM PEAK Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound LTRLTRLTRLTR ---- No. Lanes 0> 1< 0 0> 1< 0 0> 1< 0 0> 1< 0 Stop/Yield N N Volumes 24 42 22 4 52 17 14 21 2 12 34 43 PHF .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 Grade 0 0 0 0 MC's (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU/RV 's (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CV'S (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PCE's 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) --- -- ---------- -- -------------------------------0------------------ Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 1 A-22 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2 **************************************************************** WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection -------------------------------------------------------- Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB ------------------ -- ----------Il------------------ -- ----- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 53 60 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1302 1291 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1302 1291 Prob. of Queue-free State: 1.00 0.96 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EB ---------------0----------------------------------0----- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 64 69 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1598 1589 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1598 1589 Prob. of Queue-free State: 1.00 0.98 TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700 RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700 Major LT Shared Lane Prob. of Queue-free State: 1.00 0.98 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 3: TH from Minor Street NB SB ----------------l------------------------------- ------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 150 152 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 910 908 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.98 0.98 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 891 889 Prob. of Queue-free State: 0.97 0.96 -------------------------------------------0------------ Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 180 153 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 833 863 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0.93 0.95 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.95 0.96 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.91 0.96 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 761 830 A-23 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3 **************************************************************** Intersection Performance Summary FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay L By App NB L 17 761 > > NB T 24 891 > 846 > 4.5 A 4.5 NB R 2 1302 > SB L 14 830 > > SB T 40 889 > 1034 3.9 >A 3.9 SB R 50 1291 > > EB L 28 1589 2.3 A 0.6 WB L 4 1598 2.3 A 0.1 Intersection Delay = 2.0 A-24 ~IAAA A AAA Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1 **************************************************************** File Name ................ AC2PM95.HCO Streets: (N-S) ORIGINAL (SH 82) (E-W) DURANT Major Street Direction.... EW Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min) Analyst.. ................. MIDI Date of Analysis .......... 1/30/96 Other Information......... BEFORE NORTH LOT CLOSURE, PM PEAK Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound LTRLTRLTRLTR ---- Il--- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---1- ---- ---- No. Lanes 0> 1< 0 0> 1< 0 0> 1< 0 0> 1< 0 Stop/Yield N N Volumes 45 76 36 4 60 20 30 55 2 26 25 42 PHF .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 Grade 0 0 0 0 MC's (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU/RV's (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CV'S (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PCE's 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) -------------------------------------I--------1---0----------------- Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 4-25 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2 **************************************************************** WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection -------------------------------------------------------- Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 94 70 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1241 1276 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1241 1276 Prob. of Queue-free State: 1.00 0.96 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EB ------------0--- il ------------------------------- -- ------ Conflicting Flows: (vph) 112 80 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1516 1570 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1516 1570 Prob. of Queue-free State: 1.00 0.97 TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700 RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700 Major LT Shared Lane Prob. of Queue-free State: 1.00 0.96 ------ Il ----il---Il---1--I------- ----- -Il--------------------- Step 3: TH from Minor Street NB SB --------------------0----------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 223 231 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 833 825 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.96 0.96 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 801 793 Prob. of Queue-free State: 0.92 0.96 -------------il-- - - lo -i- - -- --------1- -- - - -------- -- --- -- Il- - - Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB ----0--------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 246 242 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 763 767 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0.93 0.88 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.94 0.91 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.91 0.91 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 693 698 0-------0-0--------------------------------------------- A-26 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3 Intersection Performance Summary FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay By App NB L 35 693 > > NB T 64 801 > 765 > 5.4 B 5.4 NB R 2 1241 > SB L 30 698 > SB T 29 793 > 913 4.5 A 4.5 SB R 48 1276 > EB L 52 1570 2.4 A 0.7 WB L 4 1516 2.4 A 0.1 Intersection Delay = 2.4 A-27 ~IAAA AAA A AAA Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1 **************************************************************** File Name ................ AC2AM98.HCO Streets: (N-S) ORIGINAL (SH 82) (E-W) DURANT Major Street Direction .... EW Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min) Analyst ................... MRM Date of Analysis .......... 1/30/96 Other Information......... AFTER NORTH LOT CLOSURE, AM PEAK Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound LTRLTRLTRLTR ---- ---- -I--- ---- ---- ---- 9--- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---I- No. Lanes 0> 1< 0 0> 1< 0 0> 1< 0 0> 1< 0 Stop/Yield N N Volumes 23 42 23 4 52 17 15 27 2 12 41 42 PHF .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 Grade 0 0 0 0 MC's (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU/RV's (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CV' S (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PCE's 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 i--1-------I---------- -------- -- ------0----------------- -------------------- Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) -------------- - Il--1--------- Il --------------------------I------------ Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 A-28 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2 WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection ---------------------------------------0---------------- Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB ---------------- il ------------Il----------Il------- Il ------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 54 60 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1300 1291 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1300 1291 Prob. of Queue-free State: 1.00 0.96 ------1--0---------------------- ----- -----il---------Il---- Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EB ----il------------ il --------------------------------I----- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 65 69 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1596 1589 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1596 1589 Prob. of Queue-free State: 1.00 0.98 TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700 RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700 Major LT Shared Lane Prob. of Queue-free State: 1.00 0.98 --------------- - 0- --Il---0--------------- il--4-I-- -- -------- Step 3: TH from Minor Street NB SB --------0----------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 150 152 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 910 908 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.98 0.98 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 892 890 Prob. of Queue-free State: 0.97 0.95 ---------------------------------------0---------------- Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 182 .156 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 831 860 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0.93 0.95 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.95 0.96 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.91 0.96 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 756 823 ---0-----0----0-------------------------0--------------- A-29 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3 **************************************************************** Intersection Performance Summary FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay LOS By App --------- --- NB L 18 756 > > > NB T 31 892 > 849 > 4.5 >A 4.5 NB R 2 1300 > > > SB L 14 823 > > > SB T 47 890 > 1019 > 4.0 >A 4.0 SB R 48 1291 > > > EB L 26 1589 2.3 A 0.6 WB L 4 1596 2.3 A 0.1 Intersection Delay = 2.1 A-3 . Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1 File Name ................ AC2PM98.HCO Streets: (N-S) ORIGINAL (SH 82) (E-W) DURANT Major Street Direction.... EW Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min) Analyst ................... MRM Date of Analysis .......... 1/30/96 Other Information......... AFTER NORTH LOT CLOSURE, PM PEAK Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound LTRLTRLTRLTR ---- No. Lanes 0> 1< 0 0> 1< 0 0> 1< 0 0> 1< 0 Stop/Yield N N Volumes 43 76 38 4 60 20 31 68 2 26 48 41 PHF .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 Grade 0 0 0 0 MC's (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU/RV's (%)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' CV'S (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PCE's 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 Adjustment Factors ; Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 , Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 - 3.30 ~ Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 A-31 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2 **************************************************************** WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection --------------------0--------------------------0-------- Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 95 70 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1239 1276 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1239 1276 Prob. of Queue-free State: 1.00 0.96 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EB ----------I-------I-li-----------------------ill--- --------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 114 80 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1513 1570 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1513 1570 Prob. of Queue-free State: 1.00 0.97 TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700 RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700 Major LT Shared Lane Prob. of Queue-free State: 1.00 0.97 Step 3: TH from Minor Street NB SB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 222 231 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 834 825 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.96 0.96 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 803 794 Prob. of Queue-free State: 0.90 0.93 ----------li--0---------0----------------0-----------0---- Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 256 247 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 753 762 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0.89 0.87 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.92 0.90 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.89 0.90 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 667 684 A-32 1 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3 **************************************************************** Intersection Performance Summary FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay By App NB L 36 667 > > NB T 79 803 > 760 > 5.6 B 5.6 NB R 2 1239 > SB L 30 684 > SB T 56 794 > 879 4.8 A 4.8 SB R 47 1276 > EB L 50 1570 2.4 0.6 WB L 4 1513 2.4 0.1 Intersection Delay = 2.7 A-33 ~IAAA RAA 4 4 A AAA CA ~ AD SUMMARY SHEET - CITY (~'SPEN DATE RECEIVED: 4/8/97 CASE # A27-97 DATE COMPLETE: STAFF: â‚¬tÂ·90 i A â„¢170 ,Â·" ry,A f PARCEL ID # 2737-181-32-021 PROJECT NAME: Aspen Club Insubstantail Amendment to Approved Parking Plan Project Address: 1450 Crystal Lake Rd APPLICANT: Michael Fox Address/Phone: 1450 Crystal Lake Rd, Aspen 81611 925-8900 OWNER: Address/Phone: REPRESENTATIVE: Cottele & Graybeal Address/Phone: 510 E. Hyman, Sutie 21 Aspen, 925-2867 RESPONSIBLE PARTY: Applicant Other Name/Address: FEES DUE FEES RECEIVED PLANNING $450 PLANNING $450. # APPS RECEIVED f ENGINEER $0 ENGINEER $ # PLATS RECEIVED 1 HOUSING $0 HOUSING $ GIS DISK RECEIVED: ENV HEALTH $0 ENV HEALTH $ CLERK $ CLERK $ TYPE OF APPLICATION TOTAL $450. TOTAL RCVD $450. Staff Approval 9%%36 Review Body Meeting Date Public Hearing ? P&2 | C]Yes E]No Ce 1 E]Yes UNo 1 CC (2nd reading) 1 E]Yes HINo REFERRALS: E City Attorney E Aspen Fire Marshal E CDOT U City Engineer (DRC) El City Water E ACSD El Zoning El City Electric E Holy Cross Electric E Housing E Clean Air Board U Rocky Mtn Natural Gas U Environmental Health E Open Space Board E Aspen School District E Parks 0 Other: E Other: DATE REFERRED: INITIALS: DATE DUE: APPROVAL: Ordinanc-e/Resolution # Â· Date: <---Staff APprovai~~ Date: 5-7-37 ~Plat-Recofdedi- Book , Page CLOSED/FILED DATE: 6 ~ apt~ 91 INITIALS: ROUTE TO: 3-Â«d.ne, a Gl'(Â·rl" .. Colonial .-Â· - -i~ -1 4 9 11 . ,Â·L '44 . Savings f MAR ll~NUA j J. S. DUBOSE * Private Une Chairrnan 4 2.-> i UL./FOAA Y. F \49 JE Nj35>' March 6, 1996 Aspen/Pitkin Planning & Zoning 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 ASPEN CLUB ACCESS CHANGE I wish to go on record as opposed to the proposed changes to the Aspen Club. Specifically, I oppose the closure of the current access via Highway 82, and the use of the new access via Ute Avenue. The increased traffic along Ute Avenue would be inconvenient to people who use the Club, and would ruin the quiet residential atmosphere ofUte Avenue. One of the main reasons we decided to build at Ute Place was the fact that it was in a nice, quiet area and not on one of the main streets of town and we will be very unhappy if this situation changes. Thank you for your consideration. r <7---7 JkKIES S. DUBOSE Aspen Address: #1 Ute Place, Aspen, CO 81611 me 2624 West Freeway P.O. Box 2988 Fort Worth, Texas 76113 817/390-2000 Metro 817/429-9333 Fort Worth Arlington Lewisville Garland Hurst .. Henrik & Christina Vanderlip i -L- - /4 35 Ute Place Aspen, CO 81611 f MAR 0 8 19961 ~ f March 4, 1996 Aspen/Pitkin Planning & Zoning 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Commissioners: In regard to the proposed changes to the Aspen Club, my wife and I strongly believe Ute Avenue would not be able to support the increase in flow of traffic. I urge you, before making your decision to imagine yourself as a homeowner in this area, if these proposed changes are enacted they would absolutely ruin this quiet residential area. You must understand how your decision will effect the lives of every homeowner currently living in this beautiful area. ~" My wife and I would like to go on record as opposing the closure of the current access via Highway 82 and the new access via Ute Avenue. Sincerely, HNV/lp0304 .. O Phyllis S. Hojel 72 Ute Place Â»Â»9% U , a- Â¢ P Aspen, Colorado 81611 ,--r *- - -V. X- =-e <C February 29, 1996. Aspen, Pitkin County Planning & Zoning Dept. 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado. 81611. RE: MARCH 19, 1996 MEETING ASPEN CLUB PUD AMENDMENT Dear Commissioners, I recently learned that the City of Aspen is considering allowing the Aspen Club to eliminate their current parking lot and to provide parking access via Ute Avenue. I am horrified! Not too long ago a few Ute Place families donated to the City of Aspen property across the river from our houses, (which are along the river), to build a bike path and park area. The purpose was for the preservation of green areas and family areas for Aspen proper. How can you allow the Aspen Club to add more residences to their property by eliminating their parking lot? Was our donation in vain? Did we make a dreadful mistake? One only has to spend one day in the Summer in Aspen to observe the "life" on Ute Avenue. There are two parks ... the Children's Park and the one across the street from the Ute Place entrance to see the number of children playing in them. One only has to observe the number of cars and bicycles parked across from Ute Trail to see the daily use by visitors and locals who use Ute Trail. One only has to observe a game of mini-soccer along the street by a group of boys, and a children's lemonade stand on the corner. There is a daily stream of bikers, skate-boarders, roller- skaters and strollers along the street. In the Winter we find cross-country folks going down the bike path, neighbors walking to the Aspen Club, children walking into town, the horses and buggy route, neighbors walking to the gondola. Ute Avenue is the epitome of a dead-end residential street. Isn't this what Aspen is all about? Does every space of concrete or green HAVE to be invaded and converted into residences? Granted I, too, live in a home in a space, (Ute Place), that more .. Phyllis S. Hojel 72 Ute Place Aspen, Colorado 81611 page 2 than likely many locals were not happy about when the construction took place. Now, as someone who spends a great deal of time in Aspen and loves our little town, and desperately wants to preserve what Aspen was, I can't bear the thought of Ute Avenue being converted into a thoroughfare... that is what Highway 82 is for. Should not the Aspen Club maintain their parking lot on the present location? Should not the access to this parking affect as few people as possible? To allow the access to be on Ute Avenue would be a crime to a neighborhood, a family-oriented street. Highway 82 is what it is .... a highway. Cars come and go at all times of day and even into the night; this movement should take place on the highway. My heart tells me that surely the county commissioners are going to put the well-being of a quiet neighborhood street, with all its families and children, before the financial greediness of the Aspen Club, whose sole purpose -is to build MORE houses, (which we do not need), and invade Ute Avenue with an unattractive parking lot. PLEASE PLEASE GIVE<Â·Tits ISSUE YOUR MOST SERIOUS CONSIDERATION. \ 1 1 \c Most ~incer<QyA 9 9 C:.7 9-12 PÂ«luÂ« P.S. Let's be honest, mistakes have been made in the past, but they do not have to continue to be made such as even in my own little haven of Ute Place. Quite frankly when Ute Place came to the commissioners table ever so many years ago ... you should have allowed eight (8) homes NOT 16!! Don't we always learn from hindsight???!!! HARRY AND SUSAN WELSCH 10 Ute Place Aspen, CO 81611 . 5/ \ (970) 920-2003, Fax: (970) 920-2066 ~ ' d 2 108 0 1 3% February 29, 1996 7 I j -.- 4Â»Ekn i , Commissioners Aspen/Pitkin Planning and Zoning ..& Â·Â·ElÂ· r-.1'0.+'-) 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Commissioners: We have just learned that the Aspen Club plans to use Ute Avenue as its main entrance to a newly remodeled club. We are quite concerned since we live year round at 1010 Ute Place. The traffic on this small residential road is quite heavy. In our opinion, any increased traffic on Ute Avenue would be a safety hazard. As you are aware, there are two City parks along this road with children playing in the summer. The popular Ute Trail also begins on Ute Avenue with heavy pedestrian traffic walking along the road from town or crossing the road from the trailhead parking area. During the winter when there is snow piled up on both sides of Ute Avenue, the road often becomes only large enough for a single lane. People coming and going from the rear entrance of the Aspen Club drive very fast, and at the corner of Ute Avenue and Original ice is nearly always present. We ourselves have more than once not been able to brake at this corner due to the icy conditions. The present front entrance to the Aspen Club also serves as an access with parking for people wishing to walk or ride bikes along the Roaring Fork River Trail. There are very few such access points in the city for which people can enjoy the trail and also be able to park their cars. We wish to go on record as being opposed to the proposed changes to the Aspen Club's main entrance and wish the main entrance to remain from Highway 82. Thank you for your consideration as to this matter. Sincerely, 1 4 \,O ju~~.*j -4 4% Â£>41â‚¬5- CO JUJ 4 Harry and Susan Welsch AGENDA .. June 10, 1996 5:00 COUNCIL MEETING 1. Call to order 11. Roll call 111.. Scheduled Public Appearances a) - Cynthia Heelan - CMC Update IV. Citizens Comments & Petitions (Time for any citizen to address Council on issues NOT on the agenda. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes) V. Special Orders of the day a) Mayor's comments b) Councilmembers' comments c) City Manager's comments VI. Consent Calendar (These matters may be adopted together by a single motion) a) Minutes - May 28, 1996 b) Resolution #34,1996 - Contract Lower Rio Grande c) Resolution #33,1996 - Acceptance Zoline Easements d) Request for Funds - Aspen Mountain Bicycle Festival VII. Public Hearings a) Ordinance #19,1996 - Mall Performers (To be continued) Vlll. Action Items a) Resolution #26, 1996 - Hines Water Agreement Continue to June 24 b) Ordinance #20 - Aspen Club PUD amendment IX. Information Items X. Executive Session - Potential Property Acquisition XI. Adjournment Next Regular Meeting June 24,1996 COUNCIL MEETS AT NOON FOR AN INFORMAL PUBLIC DISCUSSION, BASEMENT MEETING ROOM ' Villb MEMO]UNDUM TO: Aspen City Council /172- THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager I Stan Clauson, Community Development Directd,~Â«- FROM: Dave Michaelson, Deputy Director DATE: June 10, 1996 RE: Aspen Club PUD - PUD Amendment - First Reading of Ordinance No. 20, Series of 1996. SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting approval to modify the access and parking areas that serve the Aspen Club (Club). Access to the Club is presently provided from State Highway 82 via Crystal Lake Road, as specified in the Callahan Subdivision and PUD agreement. In addition, the PUD agreement restricted the use of the Ute Avenue parking lot to service, deliveries or emergencies. Over time the Ute Avenue lot has been used for additional membership parking in violation of the PUD Agreement. The applicant initially proposed to access the Club exclusively from Ute Avenue, to expand the Ute Avenue lot to 138 parking spaces, and to convert Lot 14A, which is currently used for Club parking, to a single family lot. The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the application at a public hearing on March 19, ]996, and recommended denial by a vote of 4-1, based on the adjacent land uses along Ute Avenue, the level of pedestrian/bicycle traffic in the area, and the physical constraints of the Ute Avenue roadway. The applicant has since revised the application, and is currently proposing to retain the existing parking lot on Lot 14A but reduced in size to accommodate a total of 20 vehicles, and to reduce the proposed number of parking spaces on the Ute Avenue side of the property from the original proposal o f 138 spaces to 80 spaces. This represents a 42 percent reduction from the original proposal: but also would increase available parking in the Ute Avenue lot by 70 percent when compared to the existing spaces. The applicant is also committing to operate a shuttle service between the Aspen Club and the Aspen Club Lodge during peak traffic hours in-season to reduce traffic on Ute Avenue. The original application is attached as Exhibit A, referral memos are attached as Exhibit B, and letters from adjacent land owners in response to the public notice are attached as Exhibit C. The revised illustrative site plan of the proposed modificatiens to the Ute Avenue parking lot is attached as Exhibit D. An amendment to the application is attached as Exhibit E, and minutes from the March 19,1996 minutes are attached as Eihibit F. Staff notes for Council that a determination has been made that the applicant does not require either conditional or special review because the underlying parking and access requirements were established through the PUD process. A conditional use review is not necessary for the 1 .. Ute Avenue parking lot due the recognition within the PUD agreement that limited parking was approved by the City. The applicant has agreed to return to the Planning and Zoning Commission prior to second reading to allow the Commission an opportunity to comment on the proposed amendment. Staff recommends approval with conditions, with a recommended modification of the proposed parking configuration. The concept advocated by staff would attempt to hold traffic levels on Ute Avenue to current levels. APPLICANT: Dick Butera (Aspen Club International), represented by Alan Richman ZONING: Lots 14A and 15, Callahan Subdivision. The Aspen Club facilities are located on Lot 15, and Lot 14A is the current location of the parking lot approved in 1976. Lots 15 and 16 are zoned Rural Residential (RR), while the remaining lots in the PUD are zoned Moderate-Density Residential (R-15), with all lots in the development having a PUD overlay. The proposed PUD amendment would route additional traffic from State Highway 82/Cooper Street, and then continue to the rear of the club on Original Streed Ute Avenue. Zoning through this section includes single and multi-family residential (R-15 and RMF) along SH 82, transitioning to tourist-oriented land uses (NC PUD and L/TR) along the west side of Original, and returning to residential use (R-15 PUD) near the terminus of Ute Avenue. BACKGROUND: The requirement for limited access to the Aspen Club property was defined in the Subdivision and Planned Unit Development Agreement for the Callahan Subdivision. The specific condition addressing access reads as follows: "The subdivider agrees, for himself and his successors and assigns, that he will not authorize any vehicular traffic to enter the area of the condominium units or recreational facilities of the Callahan Subdivision from Ute Avenue unless such vehicles are for the purpose of construction, providing services to or dealing with emergencies of the Callahan Subdivision. Furthermore, neither the subdivider nor his successor or assigns shall provide for any parking spaces along the border of Ute Avenue within any portion of the Callahan Subdivision Since that time, the area behind the Aspen Club off of Ute Avenue has been used by employees and members of the Club for parking, in violation of the requirement of the PUD. Currently, approximately 47 spaces are being used for these purposes. Consistent with the enforcement policy of the City, staff has not taken action to remove the Ute Avenue parking pending a final decision on the application by City Council. SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD: The Aspen Club property includes the recreational facilities on Lot 15, and also created Lots 1 thru 12, each of which was approved for a single family home, except for Lot 10, which was approved for a duplex. Lots 13 and 13A were condominium lots, which were built-out as the existing 20-unit Aspen Condominiums. Lot 14, which contained the BelledicÂ¥ residence, was originally approved to be converted into a clubhouse and residence. Lot 14A was approved for parking facilities for the recreational uses on Lots 14 and 15. Lot 116, the existing Benedict Office building, was designated for office use. ~ Subdivision and PUD Agreement, Callahan Subdivision, dated May 13, 1976 (Book 312, Pages 115-116). 2 .. The existing access pattern requires that all east and westbound club patrons use State Highway 82 to Crystal Lake Road. The PUD approval included the development of a north lot, and visitors approach the Club via a walkway of approximately 1000 feet in length crossing the Roaring Fork River. The proposed access amendment would route additional traffic south on Original Street, continuing south on Ute Avenue to an existing entrance near tlie rear of the Aspen Club facility. Land uses along the proposed access route include commercial and multi- family residential along Cooper, continuing along Original between Cooper and Durant, and transitioning to single- and multi-family lots towards the terminus of Ute Avenue. TRAFFIC IMPACTS: Excerpts from the traffic analysis provided with the original application are included within Exhibit A. Based on Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) methodology, the study concluded that the traffic volumes projected for Ute Avenue, assuming approval, would be at an acceptable Level of Service (LOS) based on the assumed carrying capacity of the roadway, estimated at 3,000 vehicles per day. This estimate assumes the following cross-section: two 2 eleveii-foot driving lanes, an eight-foot parking lane, and an eight-foot separated bike path. Field work conducted by Planning, Engineering and Streets Departments at different times from mid-February to mid-March found that the actual cross-section of Ute Avenue tapers from 19' at the Ute Avenue/Aspen Alps Road to nearly 14' at the curve adjacent to Ute Park. The majority of the rest of Ute Avenue is restricted to 15' of passable road due to snow. This is primarily due to the directional orientation of Ute Avenue. Portions of the roadway are shadowed by Aspen Mountain as early as 1:30 pm5 and completely shaded by 3:30 pm. For comparison, the existing access to the club via State Highway 82 remains in open sunlight until sunset at approximately 6:00 pm. Staff suggested that the 3,000 figure was flawed by assuming a cross section that is not possible 5 months out the year, and did not consider the horizontal and vertical alignment of Ute Avenue or the presence of significant pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Photographs taken during this period of time are attached as Exhibit H. The proposed peak period trip distribution, based on the original application, would have increased traffic by 18% on Ute Avenue south of Durant, and 104% (doubling traffic) at the far end of Ute Avenue adjacent to the proposed access and existing dwelling units. Based on the revised proposal to maintain 20 parking spaces in the existing north lot and to provide weekday peak-hour, peak-season shuttle service to the Club, weekday traffic on Ute Avenue south of Durant would increase by 4.8%, and at the far end of Ute Avenue by 26.3%.3 Tile intersection analysis of the original proposal also indicated that no adverse impacts are projected for Cooper/Original or Original/Durant, and the impacts would be less under the proposed amendment. Staff notes that traditional traffic studies do not account for the level of pedestrian and bike traffic in the immediate area, nor the sight distance issues addressed by the Engineering Department. Table 1 summarizes the conclusion of the traffic analysis for an average weekday for the initial application and the amended proposal, assuming a 30 percent reduction as represented by Leigh, Scott & Cleary. 1 - February 6th, 1996 cover letter from Leigh, Scott & Cleary, Inc. to Dick Butera (included in Exhibit A) ' May 15,1996 cover letter from Leigh, Scott & Cleary, Inc. to Dick Butera (included in Exhibit G) 3 .. Table 1 Aspen Club PUD Access Amendment Existing and Proposed Average Weekday Traffic Roadway Link Existing Â· j Original Proposal Current Proposal Weekday (March Aspen Proposed Â°/0 Aspen Proposed Â°/0 1996) Club Weekday Change Club Weekday Change Cooper at Original 3,280 220 3,500 +6.7 55 3,335 +1.6 Original 1,800 210 2,010 +11.6 53 1,853 +2.9 Lower Ute 1,250 230 1,480 +18.4 56 1,306 +4.5 Upper Ute 220 230 450 +104.5 58 278 +26.3 REFERRAL COMMENTS: Referral comments from Streets, Parks and Engineering are attached as Exhibit B, and are summarized below: Streets: The Streets Department was opposed to the originai submittal due to the horizontal and vertical alignment that constrain site distance, and the reduced lane width caused by snow storage during the winter. Engineering: The Engineering Department was also opposed to the original submittal; due to sight constraints, potential conflicts with adjacent land uses, the residential character of the southern sections of Ute Avenue, and the potential conflicts with existing public uses of the three parks and trail crossings. A detailed analysis of the traffic study assumptions and findings are included in Engineering's comments. Revised comments have not been submitted. Parks: The Parks Department questions the adequacy of the traffic study in addressing winter driving conditions, including the narrow lane width and sight constraints due to snow storage. Environmental Health : Environmental Health did not identify any significant air quality issues or conflicts with the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Aspen Area. STAFF COMMENTS: Section 24-7-907 B. provides that any amendment to an approved PUD which is not insubstantial "shall be reviewed and approved pursuant to the terms and procedures of the final development plan, provided that the proposed change is consistent with or an enhancement of the approved final development plan." The following section evaluates the proposal according to these standards. l 1 The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Response: The applicant's response notes that the retention of the Aspen Club is a consistent witli the intent of "revitalizing the community" and the desire to "encourage land uses, businesses and events that serve the local community and tourist base." Staff does not agree 4 .. that this policy can be used to .justify the requested amendment. The proposal should be reviewed independently of the financial situation of the Aspen Club, and instead assessed by its relative impact on the community and consistency with applicable regulations. The Aspen Area Community Plan placed particular emphasis on the implementation of the Pedestrian Walkway and Bikeway Plan. The Proposed Pedestrian System map identified Ute Avenue, Original and the portion of State Highway 82 west of Crystal Lake Road as a "Primary (Commuter)" route. Staff did not consider the original proposal to redirect additional vehicular , traffic onto these streets, even if the roadway geometry can theoretically absorb additional capacity, to be consistent with the pedestrian plan approved within the AACP. The revised proposal would increase traffic along the Ute/Original corridor only slightly, and greatly reduces tile impact on pedestrian and bicycle use of this area when compared to the original submittal. The City has also committed to enforce a 25 mph speed limit along Ute Avenue, as well as heightened enforcement of the "No Parking" zone on the north side or Ute Avenue. Staff would suggest tliat if there was no net increase over current traffic levels on Ute Avenue, the PUD amendment would be consistent with the AACP. B. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. Response: The applicant has stated that the existing parking lot is "incompatible" with the existing residential units. The same argument holds true for the proposed access to the parking lot off of Ute Avenue, which is also residential in nature and includes significant bicycle and pedestrian traffic. The concept of SH 82 access for the Aspen Club residences and recreational facilities was to minimize conflicting turning movements and concentrate through traffic onto roadways designed for such volumes. The existing access from State Highway 82 has wider shoulders, longer site distances and is more consistent in character with the existing traffic patterns when compared to the Ute Avenue alternative. The revised plan dramatically reduces potential volumes on Ute Avenue, but would increases traffic over existing levels. C. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Response: The surrounding area has developed to the point where very few vacant, developable parcels remain. The applicant may develop a single-family home on Lot 14A, and is also considering deeding the remaining land not used for the 20 space parking lot to the adjacent owners. D. Final approval shall only be granted to the development to the extent to which GMQS allotments are obtained by the applicant. Response: This amendment does not require any GMQS allotments. The conversion of Lot 14A to a single family home would be considered exempt from GMQS, based on its existence prior to November 14, 1977, and compliance with the Requirements of the Housing Replacement Program. E. The maximum density shall be no greater than that permitted in the underlying zone district. 5 .. Response: The amendment does not propose any changes to the underlying zoning or the density allowed in the R-15 zone district. F. The land Uses permitted shall be those of the underlying zone district. Detached residential units may be authorized to be clustered in a zero lot line or row house configuration, but niulti-family dwellings shall only be allowed when permitted by the underlying zone district. Response: The Club's parking lot is not permitted in the R-15 zone district, but rather was approved within the PUD. Reducing the amount of parking on Lot 14A will lessen the non- conformity as it relates to underlying zoning. G. The dimensional requirements shall be those of the underlying zone district, provided that variations may be permitted for the maximum distance between buildings, height, front/rear/side yard, minimum lot width, minimum lot area, trash access area, internal floor area and minimum open space requirements. Response: No variations from the dimensional requirements of the underlying zone districts are proposed. H. The nuniber of off street parking spaces may be varied from that required in the underlying zone district based on the following considerations: 1. The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development. 2. The parking needs of any non-residential uses. 3. The varying time periods ofuse, wheneverjoint use ofcommonparkingis proposed. 4. The availability of pubic transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. 5. The proximity ofthe proposed development to the commercial core or public recreation facilities in the City. 6. Whenever the number of off-street parking spaces is reduced, the City shall obtain assurance that the nature Of the occupancy will not change. Response: Existing Parking: There are currently 101 parking spaces available on Lot 14A, which exceeds the 38 required by the PUD. Observations by the applicant indicate that the existing number of spaces are adequate for existing club users, and that parking is currently split between the approved parking and the Ute Avenue parking. The applicant notes that the parking lot on Lot 14A rarely contains more than 20 vehicles of members, guests and employees, and, therefore, asserts that maintaining 20 spaces on Lot 14A and providing shuttle service to the Club will only slightly increase existing traffic levels on Ute Avenue. Staff does note that the original application states that the lot on Crystal Lake Road is usually occupied by approximately 20-50 cars (pg. 9). 6 .. Parking Demand: The City of Aspen parking standards require 2.0 spaces per 1000 square feet of net leasable for a recreational club.4 Based on the existing square footage of the recreational facilities (approximately 32,000 sq. ft.), the Club, if approved today, would be required to provide 64 off-street parking spaces. At the time the application was approved in 1977 for the original, the standard in effect at the time suggested only 38 spaces were needed to serve the Club, Other commonly used sources would have suggested a factor of 3 to 5 spaces per 1000 square feet, requiring 128 spaces.5 Staff notes that the concentrated land use pattern of Aspen, as well as the implementation of policies to encourage alternative transportation modes would suggest a parking demand below traditional urban factors. Demand estimations not withstanding, the project was approved with the north lot containing 101 parking spaces. The lot off of Ute Avenue provides 37 spaces, for a total existing parking count of approximately 138 spaces. Original Proposal: The original site plan indicated 138 spaces: 105 along the west side of the building, including an expansion of the area currently used for member parking and a conversion of the two tennis courts closest to the existing pedestrian bridge into parking, 12 spaces at the rear of the building for employees in an area currently used for parking, and 21 spaces for the spa and therapy area, which would have required the removal of the tennis/volleyball court along the eastern side of the Club. The proposal would have held available parking at existing levels, but would redistribute traffic onto Ute Avenue, far beyond the current levels. Amended Proposal: The revised site plan indicates 80 spaces on the Ute Avenue side of the property: 38 on two existing tennis courts directly to the north of the building, 27 along the west side of the building, 9 to the south of the building for therapy patients, and 6 to the southeast of the building. 20 parking spaces will be maintained on Lot 14A, for a total of 100 spaces for the Club. The proposed parking would be more than adequate, farticularly in light of the representations that the north lot rarely contains more than 20-50 cars.. The applicant also proposes to provide a shuttle service for guests and members from the Aspen Club to the Aspen Club Lodge from 8- 10 AM and 5-7 PM, Monday through Friday, from December to March and June to August, to reduce the need for parking and traffic impacts along Ute Avenue. Staff is not in favor of any increase in traffic above the levels currently using Ute Avenue to access the Club. In order for levels to remain status quo, no additional spaces, beyond those provided today, should be developed off of Ute Avenue. This would allow approximately 40 spaces to be developed off of Ute Avenue, including paving, striping, and landscaping. Assuming a mean of the observed occupancy of the north lot, staff would recommend that 35 spaces be retained. This would allow for 75 off-street parking spaces for Club use, and allow for the existing 12,000 foot north lot to be reduced to approximately 60%, leaving approximately 7,500 square feet of parking. This would also represent a decrease of available parking by 45 percent, discouraging traffic on Ute Avenue from exceeding current levels. 1 A Recreational Club is a permitted use in the Commercial Core (CC) zone district, which requires 2 spaces per 1000 sq. ft. ofnetleasable. It is also an allowed use inthe Commercial (C) zone district which requires 1.5 spaces per 100 sq. ft. net leasable. Staffhas used the higherparking generationfactor. i Planning Advisory Service, Off-Street Parking Requirements, Publication 432, May 1991. 6 Development Applicationfor PUD Amendment, page 9. 7 .. 1. The Open Space requirenient shall be that of the underlying zone district. However, a variation in niinimuni open space niay be permitted if such variation woidd not be detrimental to the character of the proposed PUD, and the proposed development shall include open space for the niutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD through a common park or recreation area. Response: Neitherthe Rural Residential (RR) or the Moderate-Density Residential (R-15) zone district have any minimum open space requirement nor was such a requirement established in the original PUD. The site plan submitted with the application still retains significant open space as it is currently defined in the code. J. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan a landscape plan, which exhibits a well designed treatment of exterior spaces. It shall provide an ample quantity and variety ofornamental plant species that are regarded as suitable for the Aspen Area climate. Response: The Parks Department has reviewed the application, and indicated that the Club has always retained adequate landscaped areas around the facility. Staff was concerned that a number of trees adjacent to the Benedict Building to the west would have to be removed to accommodate the access to the parking area. According to the revised site plan, the trees adjacent to the Benedict Building remain undisturbed. lf required, tree removal permits shall be obtained by the applicant. if the proposal is approved by Council. K. There shall be approved as part of the Final Development Plan an architectural site plan, which ensures architectural consistency in the proposed development, architectural character. building design, and the preservation Of the visual character of the City. It is not the purpose of this review that control of architectural character be so rigidly enforced that individual initiative is stifled in the design of a particular building, or substantial additional expense is required. Architectural character is based upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, upon the appropriate use of materials, and upon the principles Of harmony and proportion of the building with other and surrounding uses. Building design should minimize distitibances to the natural terrain and maximize the preservation of existing vegetation, as well as enhance drainage and reduce soil erosion r Response: No changes to the architectural design of the structures are proposed, however some green space will be eliminated. L. jill lighting shall be arranged so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. Response: Any required lighting of the parking areas will be designed to match the existing lighting within the PUD, which is currently low profile, with no glare on adjoining properties. M Cluster ofdwelling units is encouraged. Response: No dwelling units are proposed within the application. A single-family home could be developed on Lot 14A with an easement granted for the parking area. 8 .. N. The proposed development shall be designed so that adequate public facilities will be available to accommodate the proposed development at the time development is constructed, and f hat there will be not net public cost for the provision of these public facilities. Further, buildings shall be arranged such that structures are accessible to emergency vehicles. Response: The primary physical constraint to access from Ute Avenue is the tapering lane width due to snow storage, and the horizontal and vertical curves that compromise sight distance. Streets Department staff has indicated that significant additional snow removal along Ute Avenue would be necessary to address the lane width constraints. The applicant has addressed this concern in the revised proposal by providing fewer parking spaces off of Ute Avenue and by committing to provide a shuttle service to lessen traffic going to the Club. O. Every dwelling unit, or other land use permitted in the PUD shall have access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way, or other dedicated to public or private use. Response: The Club access, as proposed, would have direct access to Ute Avenue and to State Highway 82 via Crystal Lake Road, a previously approved private road. P, Principal vehicular access points shall be designed to permit smooth traffic flow with controlled turning movements and minimize hazards to vehicular or pedestrian circulation. Minor streets within the PUD shelli not be connected to streets outside the development so as to encourage their use by traffic. Response: The applicant has submitted a traffic analysis that concluded that the parking entry and exit points, and internal circulation design meets accepted traffic engineering standards. Q. The proposed development shall be designed so that it will not create traffic congestion on the arielÂ·ial and collector roads surrounding the proposed development, or such surrounding collector or arterial roads shall be improved so that they will not be adversely affected. Response: The revised proposal suggests that vehicle trips along Ute Avenue will increase by 30 trips each way, which represents an increase over current levels. In addition, traffic routed through the central core is faced with increased pedestrian and vehicular movements, as opposed to the existing traffic patterns using State Highway 82 access to the Crystal Lake Road lot. R Every residential building shall be farther than sixty feet from any access roadway or drive providing vehicular access to a public street. Response: The potential residence on Lot 14A would meet this standard. Staff notes that the potential conversion to a dwelling unit is completely independent of the proposed PUD amendment. 1 S. All non-residential land uses within a PUD shall have direct access to a collector or arterial street without creating traffic hazards or congestion on the street. i Response: Staff would suggest that this criteria is based on distributing traffic in a hiearchial fashion, with traffic and associated movements placed on appropriate streets in the system. Although Ute Avenue is considered a collector street, it by no means can carry the amount of 9 .. traffic that State Highway 82 was designed for. The revised access plan greatly reduces these potential traffic impacts, but does represeiit additional traffic. T. Streets in the PUD may be dedicated to public use or retained under private ownership. Said streets and associated improvements shall comply with all pertinent City Regulations and 01Â·dinances. Response: There are no new streets proposed within the PUD, nor is any change proposed with regard to ownership or maintenance of the existing streets. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff would suggest that the staff recommends approval based on the following conditions: 1 All representations ofthe applicant before the City Council are considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by subsequent conditions or amendments. 2. The proposed configuration shall be refined to allow for the retention of 35 spaces in the north lot, and 40 spaces shall be allowed off of Ute Avenue. ~. The applicant provide an elevation of the west side of the proposed parking lot to ensure tliat headlights can be deflected from the adjacent property by the use of berming or vegetation. 4. The approved parking area off of Ute Avenue shall be paved and stripped, and a final ~ landscaping plan shall be approved the City of Aspen Park's Department prior to planting. Any removal of trees will require a tree removal permit. 5 Prior to completion of the parking facility, the applicant shall submit documentation to the City Engineer to ensure that the distance between the two western access points meet standard engineering standards and will not result in an unsafe traffic situation for members and guests entering or exiting the Ute Avenue parking facility. 6. By July of 1997, the applicant shall provide the Community Development Department and the City Council with a report assessing the effectiveness of van service from the Aspen Club and the Aspen Club Lodge. The report shall include ridership data sufficient to determine if the program will continue to be a condition of approval. Recommended Motion: 1. "I move to approve on first reading Ordinance 20, Series of 1996. approving an amendment to the Callahan Subdivision PUD Agreement, with conditions." Alternative Motions. A summary of other options open to Council include: t 1. Approve the PUD amendment as presented; i 2. Deny the amendment outright, which would require that the Ute Avenue lot be abandoned and revegetated, consistent with the original PUD approval; 10 .. 3. Allow an amendment for continued use and improvement of the Ute Avenue Lot and the retention of the north lot in its existing configuration. CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS: Exhibits: A - Original Application B - Referral Memos C - Letters from Adjacent Property Owners - Modified Site Plan - Amended Application - Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - Amended Traffic Impact Assessment - Photographs of Ute Avenue I - Ordinance 20, Series of 1996 11 M O *,M 0 .. LAW oFFICES OF OATES, HUGHES & KNEZEVICH PROFESSIONAL. CORPORATION THIRD FLOOR ASPEN PLAZA BUILDING 533 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 LEONARD M OATES AREA CODE 970 ROBERT W HUGHES TELEPHONE 920Â·1700 RICHARD A KNEZEVICH TELECOPIER 920-1121 TED D GARDENSWARTZ DAI i D B KELLY OF COUNSEL JOHN THOMAS KELLY March 18, 1996 Mr. Dave Michaelson City of Aspen Department of Community Development 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Application for PUD Amendment, Conditional Use Amendment Parking Special Review Dear Dave: This office represents Jack and Caroline Davis and Thomas & Dathel Coleman, who own homes on Ute Avenue. Our clients, along with others in the neighborhood, are extremely concerned with the application filed by Aspen Club International which would effectively move all vehicular traffic from the existing and approved North Parking Lot accessing off Crystal Lake Road to parking accessing off Ute Avenue. Our clients oppose approval of the application based on the following: 1. Existing Approvals. It is clear that the 1976 P.U.D. approval as well as the 1977 amendment thereto forbid vehicular access off and parking adjacent to Ute Avenue. This was undoubtedly due to the fact that the City wished to maintain a "rural" feel to Ute Avenue and, in addition the physical constraints of the road, many of which exist to this day. In any event the P.U.D. Agreement specifically provides: 1 "The subdivider agrees for himself and his successors and assigns that he will not authorize any vehicular traffic to enter the area of the condominium units or recreational facilities of the Callahan Subdivision from Ute Avenue, unless such vehicles are for the .. O.,7 ICH. 1-[l-Gl ! Et & K X lizE-\'len. P.C. Mr. Dave Michaelson Department of Community Development March 15, 1996 Page 2 purpose of construction, providing services, or dealing with emergencies of the Callahan Subdivision. Furthermore, neither the subdivider nor his successor or assigns shall provide for any parking spaces along the border of Ute Avenue within any portion of the Callahan Subdivision." Clearly the City felt it was important that there be no access other than service or emergency access be permitted off of Ute Avenue. It is our clients' position that these restrictions were well founded and should be continued. As discussed in more detail below, Ute Avenue is still, particularly in winter, a narrow, dangerous road which does not need additional traffic. In addition, in our view, the Aspen Club has been clearly violating its Land Use Approval by permitting its employees, guests and members to park in areas accessing off of Ute Avenue. This violation of the parking restrictions is conceded in the Land Use Application. It does not seem correct to permit a clear violation of an existing PUD Agreement to exist and then, present it to the P.Z. as a Fait Accompli. The "informal use" (parking accessing off Ute Avenue) referred to in the application is really a violation of an existing P.U.D. Agreement. 2. Existing Conditions on Ute Avenue. Despite the apparent results of the traffic study prepared by Leigh, Scott and Cleary, Inc., it is still obvious that Ute Avenue is a narrow, dangerous road. We agree with the positions taken in both the February 29, 1996 memo from George Robinson of the Parks Department and the Jack Ried February 22, 1996 memo from the Street Department that the traffic impacts, particularly at Ute and Original, are understated. Even if the numbers compiled and assumed to be accurate, the report does not take into account several important safety issues: a. The study does not adequately address the impact of the heavy snowfall during the winter months. Since Ute Avenue does not get a great deal of sunlight, snow and ice tend to linger. Plowing results in a narrowing of the road and also impedes vision. During heavy snowfall, Ute Avenue becomes little more than a one-lane road on the upper end. The intersection of Ute and Original is extremely icy and dangerous and has been the site of numerous accidents. b. The road is a "dead end" which increases traffic intensity as a result of Club visits. jtk\michael.11.r .. C) \TES. Ill.-(MIES & Kxi:na.racti. P.C. Mr. Dave Michaelson Department of Community Development March 13, 1996 Page 3 c. There are at least three areas where the driver' s line of site is impired due to curves in the road. d. The road, as well as the bike path, is used by rollerbladers, bicyclists, and runners. It is also regularly used by the horse and carriage tours and there are two city parks, including Children' s Park, on the upper end of the Avenue. Ute Avenue is also the inception of the popular Ute Trail. All of the foregoing creates heavy use and safety issues. 3. 1994 Upgrade of Ute Avenue. The applicant, and for that matter the traffic study, make much of the City upgrade of Ute Avenue in 1994. It should be noted, however, that the upgrade was not intended to handle increased traffic. As the February 22, 1996 Road Department memo states, the primary focus was to create a consistent road surface, address drainage problems, widen the road in some places, and to provide some skier parking on the west end of Ute Avenue. A major part of the improvements also involved undergrounding of utilities and beautification of the area. The intent was not to create an atmosphere for significant increase in traffic. To summarize, Ute Avenue is a narrow, dangerous road with areas of limited line of site. Even assuming that the traffic study figures are correct, the study does not address the unique and dangerous conditions as a result of winter weather. It may be true that significant numbers of cars can travel on Ute Avenue without traffic jams. Whether they can do so safely is another issue. That Ute Avenue is dangerous is evidenced by the fact that 26 accidents occurred on Ute Avenue between 01/24/93 and 02/14/96, including 11 accidents at the Ute and Original intersection. A copy of the computer printout from the Aspen Police Department indicating these accidents is attached. 4. Declining Use of the Club. The Application and the traffic study also make much of the declining use of the Club, which apparently have fallen forty percent (40 %) over the last seven years. The real issue is, however, that shifting all access to Ute Avenue will place a significant additional burden on Ute Avenue and its residents regardless of past use of the Club. Emphasis should be placed on current use rather than what has gone on in the past. jtk\.michael.ltr .. O.-\TES. HUGHES & KNEZETJTCH. P.C. Mr. Dave Michaelson Department of Community Development March 13, 1996 Page 4 In closing, our client would urge denial of the P.U.D. Amendment as same is presently configured, for the reasons stated above, particular by the safely issues. They feel Ute Avenue parking access should be limited to service emergency and handicapped persons using the facilities. This is in keeping with the original approvals, which my clients believe were based on concerns still valid today. Very truly yours, OATES, HUGHES & KNEZEVICH, P.C. *la John T. Kelly JTK/sh enclosures - jtk\michael.ltr Mar 6, 1996 c WAPD/SO COMBINED RECORDÂ£ INCIDENT REPORT PAGE: 1 SUBFILE: DONNA 93000291 1/24/93 ACCIDENT STEVE R SMITH 1093 UTE AVE 93000458 2/10/93 ACCIDENT ROCKY WHITFORD UTE AVE/ORIGINAL 93000581 2/20/93 ACCIDENT LISA RUSSELL UTE/ASPEN ALP RD 93000679 3/01/93 ACCIDENT LISA RUSSELL ORIGINAL/UTE AVE 93001447 6/11/93 ACCIDENT 141BR ORIGINAL/UTE AVE 94000450 2/11/94 ACCIDENT CHARLIE MARTIN SOUTH RD/UTE AVE 94000454 2/11/94 ACCIDENT 141BR 700 UTE AVE/S ALPS RD 94000455 2/11/94 ACCIDENT 141BR 800 UTE AVE 94000456 2/11/94 ACCIDENT CHARLIE MARTIN SOUTH RD/UTE AVE 94001080 4/08/94 ACCIDENT ROCKY WHITFORD UTE AVE/ASPEN ALPS RD 94002013 8/04/94 ACCIDENT ROCKY WHITFORD 700 UTE AVE 94002381 9/10/94 ACCIDENT RICHARD PRYOR UTE/ORIGINAL 94003070 12/08/94 ACCIDENT SHAWNA MINARD ORIGINAL/UTE 94003109 12/12/94 ACCIDENT RICHARD PRYOR S ORIGINAL/UTE AVE 94003205 12/20/94 ACCIDENT WALTER CHI ORIGINAL/UTE 95000111 1/11/95 ACCIDENT ROCKY WHITFORD UTE/ORIGINAL 95000443 2/13/95 ACCIDENT CHARLIE MARTIN UTE AVE/ORIGINAL 95000625 3/02/95 ACCIDENT C BROWN 1271 UTE AVE 95000947 3/31/95 ACCIDENT WALTER CHI 1300 UTE AVE 95002758 11/06/95 ACCIDENT CHARLIE MARTIN UTE ST 95002767 11/04/95 ACCIDENT CHARLIE MARTIN UTE AVE 95003084 12/16/95 ACCIDENT ALAN SHINDERMAN DURANT/UTE k - Mar 6, 1996 ~APD/sO COMBINED RECORDL ~ INCIDENT REPORT PAGE: 1 SUBFILE: DONNA 9600A234 2/01/96 ACCIDENT RICK MAGNUSON ALPS RD/UTE AVE 9600A265 2/05/96 ACCIDENT CHARLIE MARTIN UTE/ORIGINAL 9600A291 2/09/96 ACCIDENT VICKI NALL UTE/ORGINAL 9600A325 2/14/96 ACCIDENT CHARLIE MARTIN UTE AVE - j .. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Directdkfi~~/ FROM: Dave Michaelson. Deputy Director DATE: March 19,1996 RE: Aspen Club PUD - PUD Amendment, Conditional Use Amendment, Parking Special Review SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting approval to change the access that serves the Aspen Club. As approved. access to the Aspen Club is from State Highway 82 via Crystal Lake Road, as specified in the Callahan Subdivision and PUD agreement. The applicant proposes to access the Club exclusively from Ute Avenue, and the area currently used for "bandit" parking off of Ute Avenue would be expanded and would be the designated parking area for the Club. Lot 14A, currently used for parking, would be converted to a single family lot. The following specific approvals are required to accomplish the project: 1) Amend the approved Callahan PUD to allow for all parking and access from Ute Avenue; 2) Conditional Use Review to allow an amendment to the prior conditional use granted for the recreational club in the Rural Residential (RR) zone district: 3) Special Review to amend the parking for the facility. All non-residential uses in the RR zone district are set by special review. The application is attached as Exhibit A, referral memos are attached as Exhibit B, and letters from adjacent land owners in response to the public notice are attached as Exhibit C. An illustrative site plan of the proposed modifications to the Ute Avenue parking lot is attached as Exhibit D. The AACP Pedestrian and Bikeway Plan is attached as Exhibit E. Staff recommends denial of the request to transfer all parking access to Ute Avenue, and recommends approval with conditions for the PUD amendment, Special and Conditional Reviews to allow for the legitimization of the existing 35 spaces off of Ute Avenue. APPLICANT: Dick Butera (Aspen Club International), represented by Alan Richman ZONING: Lots 14A and 15, Callahan Subdivision. The Aspen Club facilities are located on Lot 15, and Lot 14A is the current location of the parking lot approved in 1976. Lots 15 and 16 are zoned Rural Residential (RR), while the remaining lots in the PUD are zoned Moderate-Density Residential (R-15), with all lots in the development having a PUD overlay. The proposed PUD 1 .. amendment would route traffic from State Highway 82/Cooper Street, and the continue to rear of the club on Original Streed Ute Avenue. Zoning through this section includes single and multi- family residential (R-15 and RME) along SH 82, transitioning to tourist-oriented land uses (NC PUD and L/TR) along the west side of Original, and returning to residential use (R-15 PUD) near the terminus of Ute Avenue. (Staff will have both an existing zoning map and land use map with the proposed access route for reference at the hearing). BACKGROUND: The requirement for limited access to the Aspen Club property was defined in the Subdivision and Planned Unit Development Agreement for the Callahan Subdivision. The specific condition addressing access reads as follows: "The subdivider agrees, for himself and his successors and assigns, that he will not authorize any vehicular trajfic to enter the area of the condominium units or recreational facilities of the Callahan Subdivision from Ute Avenue unless such vehicles are for the purpose of construction, providing services to or dealing with emergencies of the Callahan Subdivision. Furthermore, neither the subdivider nor his successor or assigns shall provide for any parking spaces along the border of Ute Avenue within any portion of the Callahan Subdivision: Since that time, the area behind the Aspen Club off of Ute Avenue has been used by employees and members of the Club for parking in violation of the requirement of the PUD. Currently, approximately 47 spaces are being used for these purposes. SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD: The Aspen Club property includes the recreational facilities on Lot 15, and also created Lots 1 thru 12, each of which was approved for a single family home, except for Lot 10. which- was approved for a duplex. Lots 13 and 13A were condominium lots, which were built-out as the existing 20-unit Aspen Condominiums. Lot 14, which contained the Benedict resident, was originally approved to be converted into a clubhouse and residence. Lot 14A was approved for parking facilities for the recreational uses on Lot 14 and 15. Lot 16, the existing Benedict Office building, was designated for office use. The existing access pattern requires that all east and westbound club patrons to use State Highway 82 to Crystal Lake Road. The PUD approval included the development of a north lot, and visitors approach the Club via a walkway that crosses the Roaring Fork River. The proposed access amendment would route traffic south on Original Street. continuing south on Ute Avenue to an existing entrance near the rear of the Aspen Club facility. Land uses along the proposed access route include commercial and multi-family residential along Cooper, continuing along Original between Cooper and Durant, and transitioning to single- and multi-family lots towards the terminus of Ute Avenue. TRAFFIC IMPACTS: Excerpts from the traffic analysis are included within Exhibit A. Based on Instimte of Traffic Engineers (ITE) methodology, the study concluded that the traffic volumes projected for Ute Avenue, assuming approval, would be at an acceptable Level of Service (LOS) based on the assumed carrying capacity of the roadway, estimated at 3,000 vehicles per day. This estimate assumes the following cross-section: two eleven-foot driving lanes, an eight-foot parking lane, and an eight-foot separated bike path.2 ~ Subdivision and PUD Agreement, Callahan Subdivision, dated May 13, 1976 (Book 312, Pages 115-1 16. 2 February 6th, 1996 cover letter from Leigh, Scott & Cleary, Inc. to Dick Butera (included in Exhibit A) 2 7 .. 4 Field work conducted by Planning, Engineering and Streets at different times from mid-February to mid-March have found that the actual cross-section of Ute Avenue tapers from 19' at the Ute Avenue/Aspen Alps Road to nearly 14' at the curve adjacent to Ute Park. The majority of the rest of Ute Avenue is restricted to 15' of passable road due to snow. This is primarily due to the directional orientation of Ute Avenue. Portions of the roadway are shadowed by Aspen Mountain as early as 1:30 pm, and completely shaded by 3:30 pm. For comparison, the existing access to the club via State Highway 82 remains in open sunlight until sunset at approximately 6:00 pm. Staff would suggest that the 3,000 figure is flawed by assuming a cross section that is not possible 5 months out the year. The applicant' s traffic engineer has submitted additional information regarding the carrying capacity of Ute Avenue, attached as Exhibit F. The proposed peak period trip distribution, which staff supports as valid, would increases traffic by 18% on Ute Avenue south of Durant, and 104% (doubling traffic) at the far end of Ute Avenue adjacent to the proposed access. The intersection analysis also indicates that no adverse impacts are projected for Cooper/Original or Original/Durant. Staff notes that the "perceived" doubling of volumes along Ute Avenue would have a significant neighborhood impact on the residential development that has occurred since the Aspen Club was approved, which is not apparent when reviewing the LOS assumptions or intersection analysis. In addition, traditional traffic studies do not account for the level of pedestrian and bike traffic that the immediate area experiences. Table 1 summarizes the conclusion of the traffic analysis for an average weekday. Table 1 Aspen Club PUD Access Amendment Existing and Proposed Average Weekday Traffic Roadway Link Existing Weekday Proposed Weekday Percent Change Cooper at Original 3,280 3,500 6.7% Original 1,800 2,010 11.6% Lower Ute 1,250 1,480 18.496 Upper Ute 220 450 104.5% REFERRAL COMMENTS: Referral comments from Streets, Parks and Engineering are attached as Exhibit B, and are summarized below: Streets: The Streets Department is opposed the proposed amendment due to the horizontal and vertical alignment that constrain site distance, and the constrained lane width caused by snow storage during the winter. Engineering: The Engineering Department is also opposed to the proposed amendment due to sight constraints, potential conflicts with adjacent land uses, the residential character of the southern sections of Ute Avenue. and the potential conflicts with existing public uses of the three parks and trail crossings. A detailed analysis of the traffic study assumptions and findings are included in Engineering's comments. 3 .. Parks: The Parks Department questions the adequacy of the traffic study in addressing winter driving conditions, including the narrow lane width and sight constraints due to snow storage. Environmental Health : Environmental Health did not identify any significant air quality issues or conflicts with State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Aspen Area. STAFF COMMENTS: Section 24-7-907 B. provides that any amendment to an approved PUD which is not insubstantial "shall be reviewed and approved pursuant to the terms and procedures of the final development plan. provided that the proposed change is consistent with or an enhancement of the approved final development plan". The following section evaluates the proposal according to these standards. A. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Response: The applicant' s response notes that the retention of the Aspen Club is a consistent with the intent of "revitalizing the community" and the desire to "encourage land uses, businesses and events that serve the local cornmunity and tourist base". Staff does not agree that this policy can be used to justify the requested amendment. The proposal should be reviewed independent of the financial situation of the Aspen Club, and instead assessed by its relative impact on the community. Staff does not support the proposal from this perspective, due to the tapering of the driving surface on Ute Avenue during winter months, the horizontal and vertical curves of the street alignment, the residential character of the neighborhood and the level of pedestrian/bike use of Ute Avenue. The Aspen Area Community Plan placed particular emphasis on the implementation of the Pedestrian Walkway and Bikeway Plan. A copy of the Proposed Pedestrian System map is included as Exhibit E, and identified Ute Avenue, Original and the portion of State Highway 82 west of Crystal Lake Road as a "Primary (Commuter)" route. Redirecting additional vehicular traffic onto these streets, even if the roadway geometry can theoretically absorb additional capacity, is not consistent with pedestrian plan approved within the AACP. B. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. Response: The applicant has stated that the existing parking lot is "incompatible" with the existing residential units. The same argument holds true for the proposed access to the parking lot off of Ute Avenue, which is also residential in nature. The concept of SH 82 access for the Aspen Club residences and recreational facilities was to minimize conflicting turning movements and concentrate through traffic onto roadways designed for such volumes. The existing access from State Highway 82 has wider shoulders, longer site distances and is more consistent in character with the existing traffic patterns when compared to the Ute Avenue alternative. The proposal to amend the PUD to eliminate the north parking lot and develop a single family house is a benefit to the existing residential development for the Aspen Club, but at the expense of deflecting additional traffic into another residential neighborhood. 4 .. EXHIBIT #2 C. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Response: The surrounding area has developed to the point were very few vacant, developable parcels remain. D. Final approval shall only be granted to the development to the extent to which GMQS allotments are obtained by the applicant. Response: This amendment does not require any GMQS allotments. The conversion of Lot 14A to a single farnily horne would be considered exempt from GMQS, based on it existence prior to November 14, 1977 and compliance with the Requirements of the Housing Replacement Program. E. The maximum density shall be no greater than that permitted in the underlying zone district. Response: The amendment does not propose any changes to the underlying zoning or the density allowed in the R- 15 zone district. F. The land uses permitted shall be those of the underlying zone district. Detached residential units may be authorized to be clustered in a zero lot line or row house configuration, but multi-family dwellings shall only be allowed when permitted by the underlying zone district. Response: The Club's parking lot is not permitted in the R-15 zone district. Moving the parking onto Lot 15 will eliminate the non-conformity, however the impacts to the adjacent - neighborhood do not warrant the requested amendment. G. The dimensional requirements shall be those of the underlying zone district, provided that variations may be permitted for the maximum distance between buildings, height, front/rear/side -yard, minimum lot width, minimum lot area, trash access area, internalfloor area and minimum open space requirements. Response: No variations from the dimensional requirements of the underlying zone districts are proposed. H. The number of off street parking spaces may be varied from that required in the underlying zone district based on the following considerations: 1. The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development. 2. The parking needs of any non-residential uses. 3. The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed. 1 4. The availability of pubic transit and other transportation facilities, including those for ; pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize alltomobile disincentive techniques in the l proposed development. 1 5 .. 5. The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core or public recreation facilities in the City. 6. Whenever the number of ojf-street parking spaces is reduced, the City shall obtain assurance that the nature of the occupancy will not change. Response: There are currently 101 parking spaces available on Lot 14A, which exceeds the requirement established by the PUD of 38. Observations by the applicant indicate that the existing spaces are adequate for existing club users, and that parking is currently split between the approved parking, and the "bandit" Ute Avenue parking. The site plan indicates 138 spaces, 105 along the west side of the building, including an expansion of the area currently used for member parking and a conversion of two tennis courts into parking. 12 spaces are provided at the rear of the building for employees, in an area currently used for parking. Finally, 21 spaces are provide for the spa and therapy area, which will require the removal of the tennis/volleyball court along the eastern side of the Club. The applicants have also include two options for phasing the proposed parking (see Page 10 of the application). Staff finds that the project meets the requirements of the above-cited criteria, which are primarily addressing parking demand. I. The Open Space requirement shaN be that of the underlying zone district. However, a variation in minimum open space may be permitted if such variation would not be detrimental to the character of the proposed PUD, and the proposed development shall include open space for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD through a common park or recreation area Response: Neither the Rural Residential (RR) or the Moderate-Density Residential (R-15) zone district have any minimum open space requirement nor was such a requirement established in the original PUD. The site plan submitted with the application still retains significant open space as it is currently defined in the code. J. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan a landscape plan, which exhibits a well designed treatment of exterior spaces. It shall be provide an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species that are regarded as suitable for the Aspen Area climate Response: The Parks Department has reviewed the application, and indicated that the Club has always retained adequate landscape areas around the facility. However, Staff was concerned about the number of trees likely to be removed by the western entrance. The Aspen Club will be responsible to go through the tree removal process, if the proposal is approved by the Commission and Council. K. There shall be approved as part of the Final Development Plan an architectural site plan, which ensures architectural consistency in the proposed development, architectural character, building design, and the preservation of the visual character of the City. It is not the purpose of this review that control of architectural character be so rigidly enforced that individual initiative is stifled in the design of a particular building , or substantial additional 6 expense is required. Architectural character is based upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, upon the appropriate use of materials, and upon the principles of harmony and proportion of the building with other and surrounding uses. Building design should minimize disturbances to the natural terrain and maximize the preservation of existing vegetation, as well as enhance drainage and reduce soil erosion Response: No changes to the architectural design of the structures are proposed, however some green space will be eliminated. L. All lighting shall be arranged so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous intederenee of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. Response: Any required lighting of the parking areas will be designed to match the existing lighting within the PUD, which is currently low profile, with no glare on adjoining properties. M. Clusterof dwelling units is encouraged. Response: No dwelling units are proposed within the application, with the exception of a single- family home proposed for the former parking lot. N. The proposed development shall be designed so that adequate public facilities will be available to accommodate the proposed development at the time development is constructed, and that there will be not net public cost for the provision of these public facilities. Further, buildings shall be arranged such that structures are accessible to emergency vehicles, Response: The primary constraint to access from Ute Avenue is the tapering lane width due to snow storage. Streets Department staff has indicated that significant additional snow removal along Ute Avenue would be necessary to address the lane width constraints. No proposed mitigation to address these concerns have been proposed by the applicant. Additional snowplowing is clearly a net public cost to the community if the proposal is approved. O. Every dwelling unit, or other land use permitted in the PUD shall have access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way, or other dedicated to public or private ase. Response: The Club access, as proposed, would have direct access to Ute Avenue. The proposed dwelling unit will have access to State Highway 82 via Crystal Lake Road, a previously approved private road. P. Principal vehicular access points shall be designed to permit smooth traific flow with controlled turning movements and minimize hazairds to vehicular or pedestrian circulation. Minor streets within the PUD shall not be connected to streets outside the development so as to encourage their use by traffic. Response: The applicant has submitted a traffic analysis that concluded that the parking entry and exit points and internal circulation design meets accepted traffic engineering standards. A secondary issue related to traffic and turning movements necessitated by access from Ute Avenue as opposed to State Highway 82. In staff' s opinion, the design speeds and geometry of State 1 .. Highway 82 are clearly more appropriate to address Club and resident traffic than routing traffic through town and onto a road with the physical constraints of Ute Avenue. Q. The proposed development shall be designed so that it will not create trajyic congestion on the arterial and collector roads surrounding the proposed development, or such surrounding collector or arterial roads shall be improved so that they will not be adversely affected. Response: The applicant has indicated that the traffic study did not identify substantial impacts along the proposed Ute Avenue access route. Staff has taken issue with the assumption that Ute Avenue can carry 3,000 vehicles per day, as well as the geometric assumptions used in the analysis. As mentioned earlier, the driving conditions on Ute Avenue are dramatically different during the winter months, primarily due to the fact that this area of town is in shadow much earlier than the valley floor. In addition, traffic routed through the central core are faced with increased pedestrian and vehicular movements, as opposed to the existing traffic patterns using State Highway 82 access to the Crystal Lake Road lot. R Every residential building shall be farther than sixty feet from any access roadway or drive providing vehicular access to a public street. Response: The proposed residence on Lot 14A will meet this standard. S. All non-residential land uses within a PUD shall have direct access to a collector or arterial street without creating traffic hazards or congestion on the street. Response: Staff would suggest that this criteria is based on distributing traffic in a hiearchial fashion, with traffic and associated movements placed on appropriate streets in the system. Although Ute Avenue is considered a collector street. it by no means can carry the amount of traffic that State Highway 82 was designed for. T. Streets in the PUD may be dedicated to public use or retained under private o-wnership. Said streets and associated improvements shall comply with all pertinent City Regulations and Ordinances. Response: There are no new streets proposed within the PUD, nor is any change proposed with regard to ownership or maintenance of the existing streets. CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW A conditional use review was granted to the original owner of the property to develop a recreational club on Lot 15. Section 26.60.080 of the Code states that an amendment to an approved conditional use which is not insubstantial shall be approve by the Commission subject to the standards described below. A. The conditional use review is consistent with the purposes. goals, objectives and standards of the AACP, and with the intent of the Zone District which it is proposed to be located. Response: The consistency of the Aspen Club with the policies and recommendations of the AACP have been discussed under the responses to the review criteria for a PUD. 8 .. B. The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and surrounding land uses, or enhances the mixture of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The applicant has indicated that the existing parking lot is inconsistent with the character of the surrounding residences. Staff notes that all of the residences have been constructed since the Club and parking lot were established in the 1970s, and potential purchasers and residents were well aware of the location of the parking lot prior to purchase. Staff would suggest that the impacts associated with access exclusively from Ute Avenue is not consistent with the residential character of Ute Avenue. C. The location, size design and operating characteristics of the proposed conditional use minimizes adverse effects, including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular circulation, parking, trash, service delivery, noise, vibrations and odor on surrounding properties. Response: As summarized throughout staff' s comments, the proposal will have an adverse impact oIl pedestrian and vehicular access on Ute Avenue, as opposed to the existing access plan. Impacts on trash and service delivery are not changed by the proposal. D. There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the conditional use including but not limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire protection, emergency,medical services, hospital and medical services, drainage systems, and schools. Response: No impacts on public services (water, sewer, solid waste, police, fire protection, emergency, medical services or schools) are expected by the proposal. However, staff does have significant concerns regarding the ability of Ute Avenue to handle additional traffic during the winter, as well as additional snow plowing that would be necessary to widen the roadway. E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the incremental need for increased employees generated by the conditional use. Response: No additional employees will be needed, and no mitigation is required. F. The proposed conditional use complies with all additional standards imposed on it by the AACP and by all applicable requirements of this chapter. Response: Staff has responded to the AACP issues in earlier comments. SPECIAL USE REVIEW FOR PARKING Parking requirements for a recreation club in the RR zone district are established by the Commission by special review. Section 26.64.040 of the Code states that an amendment to parking requirements established by special review which is not insubstantial shall be approved by the Commission subject to the following standard: 9 .. In all zone districts where the off-street parking requirements are subject to establishment or reduction by special review, the applicant shall demonstrate that the parking needs of the residents, guests and employees of the project have been met, taking into account potential uses of the parcel, its proximity to mass transit routes and the downtown area, and any special services, such as vans, provided for residents, guests, and.employees. Response: There are currently 101 spaces provided in the north parking lot approved in the PUD. This number far exceeds the 37 spaces required in 1977. The applicant has indicated that the 101 spaces are more than adequate. and that these spaces are typically no more than 50% occupied. The two areas utilized off of Ute Avenue include 35 graveled spaces on the west side of the Aspen Club, and 10 graveled spaces parallel to Ute Avenue. These 45 spaces are generally occupied by club members and employees. The proposed site plan accommodates 138 spaces, 105 are along the west side of the building, and includes an expansion of the area currently used for member parking and a conversion of two tennis courts. The entire area would be paved, striped and landscaped. The proposed parking represents an increase of 33% from the original parking lot approved by the PUD. The applicant has indicated a phasing plan (Option A and B on page 17 of the application). The proposed parking configuration provides ample parking, and is consistent with this criteria. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on the adjacent land uses along Ute Avenue, the level of pedestrian traffic in the area, and the physical constraints of the Ute Avenue roadway, staff cannot support the access modification as proposed. Although staff agrees that the parking configuration as approved is less than optimal for members, guest and residences of the Aspen Club site, the impacts associated with the parking modification are significant to the community, and far outweigh the benefits to users of the Club. The AACP identified improvements to the pedestrian system as a priority of the cornmunity. This policy directive has led the development of a Downtown Pedestrian Enhancement Plan, and includes as an overall concept the reduction of vehicles entering the central core. Although the proposed access plan only skirts the area identified in the Enhancement Plan boundaries, staff suggests that the re-routing of the entire Aspen Club access trips is not consistent with AACP policies and recommendations, or the intent of improving the pedestrian experience of Aspen. Staff also recognizes that the "informal parking" along Ute Avenue has in part been brought about by the growth of the clientele who come to the club to rehabilitate. Staff is in support of formally modifying the PUD to allow for these existing spaces to be legitimized, with the following conditions: 1. That the existing parking along Ute Avenue is approved for employees and users of the spa for rehabilitation, and shall be signed accordingly. The areas approved for such parking are shown on the site plan submitted with the application as "Existing Gravel Parking to Be Paved", and represent approximately 35 spaces along the west side of the building, and 12 employee parking spaces. 2. The approved parking area shall be paved and stripped, and a final landscaping plan shall be approved the City of Aspen Park' s Department prior to planting. 10 .. 3. Prior to completion of the parking facility, the applicant shall submit documentation to the City Engineer to ensure that the distance between the two western access points meet standard engineering standards and will not result in an unsafe traffic situation for members and guests entering or exiting the Ute Avenue parking facility. Recommended Motion: 1. "I move to deny the PUD amendment, conditional use and special use as presented by the applicant, and for reasons described in the March 15, 1996 memo from Planning Staff." 2. "I move to recommend approval of the PUD amendment, conditional use and special use with the conditions outlined in the staff memorandum dated March 15,1996." Exhibits: Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Referral Comments Exhibit C - Letters from Adjacent Land Owners Exhibit D - Illustrative Site Plan Exhibit E - AACP Pedestrian and Bikeway Plan Exhibit F - Explanation from Traffic Engineer regarding Ute Avenue Capacity 11 .. Exhibit B MEMORANDUM To: Dave Michaelson, Deputy City Planning Director Thru: Nick Adeh, City Engineer,,A~657 j. From: Ross C. Soderstrom. Project Engineer D ate: March 11, 1996 (Revised) Re: Aspen Club PUD Amendment. Special Review for Parking & Conditional Use Review After reviewing the above referenced application and making a site visit I have the following comments: 1. Traffic Study Analysis: A) The applicant must verify the basis for justifying the 3,000 VPD capacity, i.e.. travel lane width. shoulder type and width, speed, and LOS for a local road. B) The applicant is asking for too many curb cuts with less than adequate acceleration- deceleration distance between the first and second proposed driveways a the west end. C) Note that the traffic consultant's projected traffic impacts on page 3 of its report (found in the application appendix) are based on a re-distribution of existing traffic volumes that equals 105% rather than 100Â°/o. This would imply that the Aspen Club received an immediate 5% increase in member attendance due to using Ute Avenue rather than Ilwy. 82 although this is not a demonstrated fact. More likely the entire traffic analysis is incorrect if the vehicle volumes shown are the actual values used in the traffic modeling analysis. In that case, the analysis and conclusions of this section are incorrect to the extent that the traffic modeling is also incorrect. Ill looking at the traffic consultant's re-distribution of the traffic leaving the proposed south parking area on the intersections of South Original with E. Durant Avenue and E. Cooper Avenue it appears that the actual waiting time for the peak morning and afternoon traffic periods will slightly increase overall at the two intersections. 1 OF 2 DRCM2a96.DOC 3/12/96 .. MEMO - Aspen Club PUD Amendment D) The traffic study provided by the applicant primarily focuses on the LOS at the intersections and does not adequately consider the shorter sight distances along Ute Avenue (particularly during the winter months) and does not give any consideration to the residential character of the neighborhood and number of residential driveways along Ute Avenue; the actual driving width of Hwy. 82 verses Ute Avenue during the winter; the planned improvements along E. Cooper Avenue (Hwy. 82); nor the potential conflicts of added vehicle traffic with public use of the three (3) parks. three (3) trail crossings and the carriage horse stables at the east end of Ute Avenue. On February 28.1996 during my site review the passable road width on Ute Avenue varied from 19 ft. at the intersection o f Ute Avenue and Aspen Alps South Road to only 14 ft. at the curve immediately east of Ute Park (a playground) while the passable road width on Hwy. 82 and Crystal Lake Road varied from 21.5 ft. on Hwy. 82 to 11.5 ft. at the one-way Centennial Circle around and into the existing sports club parking lot. It was also observed that Ute Avenue was partially shadowed by Aspen Mt. at 1:30 p.m. and entirely shadowed by Aspen Mt. by 3:30 p.m. while Hwy. 82 remained in open sunlight until sunset at approximately 6 p.m. This results in larger snowdrifts aIong the sides of Ute Avenue (3-4 ft. along Ute Avenue vs. 2-3 ft. along Hwy. 82) which obstruct sight distances at driveways, narrower passable road widths and causes more ice on the roadway. Furthermore, re-directing vehicle traffic from the present entrance to Ute Avenue would be contrary to the intentions of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and the character that the community has sought to develop. 2. Impact on Neighborhood: We assume the additional traffic will be passenger cars driven by club members and customers, and no additional commercial vehicles will travel on Ute Avenue. 3. Drainage Impacts: The current surface run-off flows are not known to us and there is no report nor mitigation proposed. The applicant must perform this work and determine the entire site's drainage basin and it' s conveyance system. the sediment transport control. and the overall site erosion control improvements for our review and approval. 2 OF 2 DRCM2a96.DOC 3/12/96 4,~ ~~|~~~~~~~,iâ€¢ rr,4.'.'. 6'J"ri,1'...N",9..r t' ..r,-'1.....,1." . .1- F F 7 3 - r MEMORANDUM & To: Dave Michealson - From: Jack Reid 6;, Date: February 22, 1996 Subject: Aspen Club PUD/Conditional Use Amendment and Parking Special Review The Street Department feels it is inappropriate to increase the traffic on Ute Ave. The upgrade of Ute Ave., in 1992, did not address a great increase in traffic. There were drainage improvements, and the road was widened in some places. That widening was primarily to develop a consistent road width for the length of the road, and was not at all substantial. The road was overlaid with a 2 inch asphalt mat. There are some curves on the road that do inhibit sight distance. There was no attempt, during the upgrade, to cure this problem. The enclosed pictures are of Original, south of Durant. and Ute Ave. Both are very narrow. Obviously, Ute Ave. has restricted sight distances in both directions. It is a true that in the summer, additional traffic might not be a problem. However, the traffic calc's done by Leigh, Scott & Cleary, do not reflect the special conditions we experience in the winter. The pictures reflect a fairly typical condition for Original and Ute Ave., for most ofthe winter months. i .. MEMO To: Dave Michaelson, Deputy Director From: Ed Van Walraven, Fire Marshal Subject: Aspen Club Parcel ID# 2737-181-32-021 Date: March 1, 1996 Dave, This project shall meet all of the codes and requirements of the Aspen Fire Protection District. This includes but not limited to providing and maintaining adequate fire department access. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. 14~Â« 1 .. MEMORANDUM TO: Dave Michaelson, C ommunity Development THRU: George Robinson, Parks Director FROM: John D. Krueger, Trails Supervisor Rebecca Baker. Parks Department DATE: February 29, 1996 RE: The Aspen Club, Development Application For PUD Amendment, Conditional Use Amendment, Parking Special Review (parcel ID No.2737-181-32-021) We have reviewed the Aspen Club Development Application For PUD Amendment, Conditional Use Amendment. Parking Special Review and offer the following comments: 1. Lands.caping: The Aspen Club has a good reputation for creating beautifully landscaped areas around the club. A more in-depth landscaping plan for the impacted areas would make evaluation easier. We are concerned about the area to the west of the club that will become the driveway to the new parking lot. This area has many trees that will be lost when the driveway is constructed. The Aspen Club needs to go through the tree removal permit process for this and any other areas that will incur tree loss and abide by the city ordinance. 2. Drainage: We have concerns about site drainage that will change or increase as a result of the new driveway and parking lot. The area below the new parking lot has a history of drainage problems that result in unsafe ice build up during the winter and standing water during the summer. The application should address the drainage for this area. The proposed parking lot could also create drainage problems during the winter with snow storage and drainage down the hill onto the trail. : 3. Crystal Lake Road Access to the Trail: Will pedestrians and bikers retain access to the Aspen Club Trail via Crystal Lake Road off of Highway 82 or surrounding properties? .. page 2 Aspen Club Application 4. Snow removal/storage: How will snow removal be accomplished in the new parking lot and where will it be stored? The close proximity of the proposed parking lot to the trail below could cause problems during snow removal of the lot. Snow should not be pushed or blown from the parking lot onto the tril. The snow needs to be managed in such a way that it does not create any unnecessary problems. 5. Traffic Impacts on Ute Avenue and Original St.: We feel that the traffic impacts to Ute Avenue and Original St are understated. During the winter, the snow, lack of exposure to sun and parking significantly narrow the road from its summer width. These factors will increase the impact of additional traffic on this road. The intersection of Ute Avenue and Original is a problem area during the winter because o f its unique layout. The Alps pedestrian trail also intersect s the corner of Ute Ave. and Original St.. Additional auto traffic at this corner will add to the existing problems. We do not feel that these factors are adequately considered in the traffic study. SUMMARY: The application appears to have a minimal impact on the surrounding area and trail. Our main concerns are landscaping, drainage. snow management and traffic impacts. .. 4 MEMORANDUM To: Dave Michaelson, Deputy Director . Community Development Department From: Nancy MacKenzie, Environmental Health Departrnent hi~- Date: MarchÂ· 8, Â·19Â·96 Re: Aspen Club PUD Amendment, Special, Review for Parking .and Conditional Use Review Parcel ID. #Â· 2737-181-32-021 The Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department has reviewed the Aspen Club land use submittal under authority of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen,.and has the following.comments-. The proposal is to change the access and parking Which serves the Aspen Club so Â·that access to the Club is instead from Ute Ave. Lot 14A would cease to function as aÂ·parking area and would instead be used as a single-family residential lot. WATER OUALITY IMPACTS: Section 11-1.3 "For the purpose of maintaining and protecting its municipal' water supply frcm injury and pollution, the city shall exercise regulatory and supervisory jurisdiction within the incorporated limits of the City of Aspen and over all streams and sources contributing to municipal water supplies for a distance of five (5) miles above the points Â·from which municipal water supplies are diverted." A drainage plan to mitigate the water quality impacts from drive and parking areas will be evaluated by the City Engineer. This application is not expected to ;impact down stream water quality. AIR QUALITY: Sections 11-2.1 â€¢It is the purpose of [the air quality section of the Municipal Code] to achieve the maximum practical Â· degree o f air purity possible by requiring the use .of all available practical methods and techniques to control, prevent and reduce air pollution throughout the city..." The Land Use Regulations seek to "lessen congestion" and "avoid transportation demands that cannot be met" asÂ· well as to 'provide cleah air by protecting the natural air sheds and reducing pollutants" The major concern of our department is the impact of increasing traffic in a non-attainment area designated by the EPA. Under the requirements of the State Implementation PlanÂ· for the Aspen area, 1 PM-10 (which Â·comes almost all from traffic driving on paved toads) must beÂ· reduced by 25% by 1997..In order to achieve that reduction, traffic.Â·increases that ordinarily would Occur as a *resu.lt ofÂ· development must -be mitigated, or else the. gains brought about by communityÂ·control measures will be. lost.. In addition, in 7 order to comply with the municipal code requirement to achieve the maximum practical degree of air purity .by Â·using all available z practical methoddÂ· to reduce. pollution, Â·traffic iricreases of development must be offsat. In order to do this., the applicant will need to determine the traffic increases .generated by the project, commit to a set of control measures, and show that the traffic decreased by the control,measures is. at least as great as the traffic increases of the project withdut mitigation. Traffic Impact Analysis by Leigh, Â·Scott & Cleary, Inc. states that this proposal will primarily affect traffic flows. "No additional traffic generation is projected." At the same time, pedestrian/bicycle access routes have beenÂ·developed and a peak- hour van service has been added in order to further reduce Aspen Club Automobile traffic. " Membership has declined 40% between 1988 vs 1995. They feel that. improvihg access to the Club by providing a more convenient , parking area will be an important step to stabilize. their membership. They do not see this as an action that. .will lead to growth. However if there is any increased growth that would increase traffic, this increase would have to be mitigated. ..The application states that the present parking area is gravel and that the entire new parking area will be paved. Our Department would considered this to be one method of mitigation. It. appears that there are presently 146 parking spaces Â·and the proposed plan is to have 138 spaces. A condittonal of approval is that the overall number of parking spaces does not increase over the present number. , The ptoposal to change the use of Lot 14 from the existing parking lot and develop it as a single family home is not considered to make a significant change to air quality. i 2 ...1 .4...':All, 6 'rair .7-q, i. , 1/ v .-- -....--- A.-....Vâ‚¬â€žW----.~-' i .. FUGITIVE DUST A . fugitive dust control. plan is required which includes; but is not limited to fencing,. wateking of haul roads and disturbed areas, daily cleaning. of adjacent paved roads to remove mud. that has been carried out, speed limits, or other measures necessary to prevent windblbwn ..dust from crossing thie property line or causing. a. nuisance:. CONFORMANCE WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH LAWS: NOISE ABATEMENT: Section 16-1 .The city council finds and declares that noise is a higni'ficant source of environmental pollution that represents a present and increasing threat 'to the publ:[c peace and to the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the City of Aspen 'and it its Â· visitors. .Accordingly, it is the policy of council to provide standards for permissible noise levels in various areas and manners and at various times and to prohibit noise in excess of those levels. " During' Â·construction, noise can not exceed maximum permissible sourid level standards, and construction cannot Â· be done except between the hours of 7.a.m. and 10 p.m. It is veryÂ·likely that noise generated during the construction phase of this project will have some negative i.mpact on the neighborhood. The applicant should be aware of this and take measures to minimize the predicted high noise levels. 3 ' â€¢ 0 0 - Exhibit C ROBERT J. LOWE 11777 SAN VICENTE BOULEVARD SUITE 900 LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90049 , (310) 820-6661 -tÂ· March 5, 1996 Planning Commission Aspen/Pitken Planning & Zoning 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Commissioners: I wish to go on record as opposed to the proposed changes to the Aspen Club. Specifically, I oppose the closure of the current access via Highway 82, and the new access via Ute Avenue. The increased traffic along Ute Avenue would be inconvenient to people who use the Club, and would ruin the quiet residential atmosphere of Ute Avenue. Sincerely, Robert J. Lowe 86 Ute Place Aspen, CO 81611 .. Bindley Western Industries, Inc. 10333 North Meridian Street, Suite 300, Indianapolis, IN 46290 (317) 298-9900 Fax (317) 580-9753 ./Â«E 1 24% 'Ze William E. Bindley m Chairman and Chief Execurive Officer ~ ~ MA_R 1 1 19:0 i R 4 I 1 V-1 Bindley V*stem March 7. 1996 , Commissioners ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING & ZONING 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Commissioners: As a resident of rhe Ute Place subdivision. I wish to go on record as opposed to tile proposed changes to the Aspen Club. Specifically, I oppose the closure of the current access via Highway 82, and the new access via Ute Avenue. The increased traffic along Ute Avenue would be inconvenient to people who use the Club and would ruin the quiet residential atmosphere o f Ute Avenue. Very truly yours. =94 William E. Bindley 90 Ute Place Aspen, CO 81611 WEB:pb MAR.-14' 96<THUI 10:16 HM INTER~ONAL INC TEL:918 664 ~ P 002 PETER C. MEINIG 74 Ute Place Aspen, Colorado 81611 970/920-9093 - Telephcne March 14,1996 By Facsimile 970/920-5439 Aspen/Pitkin Planning et Zoning 130 South Salena 51reet Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Commissioners: I wish to go on record as opposed to the proposed changes to the Aspen Club. Specifically, 1 oppose the closure ofthe current access via Highway 82, and the new access via Ute Avenue. The increased traffic along Ute Avenue would be inconvenient no people who use the club, and would ruin the quiet residential atmosphere of Ute Avenue. Sincerely, Peter C Meinig 74 Ute Place Aspen, Colorado 81611 03/14/1996 17:55 30392542- WILSON BRIAN PAGE 01 .. BRIAN AND CATHY WILSON 38 Ute Place Aspen, CO 8161 (970) 925-6747, Fax (970) 925 4200 March 13, 1996 Commissioners Aspen/Pitkin Planning and Zoning 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Co 81611 Dear Colmrissioners: As registered voters in the city of Aspen, we would like to go on record opposing the changes regarding the entronce to the Aspen Club. Re-routing traffic away from a highway and onto a narrow residential street causes concern. During the winter the street is often made one lane due to snow fall . During the warmer months it is much traveled by pedestrians and bicyclists enroute to the Ute Trail the Roaring Fork River Trail, and the old Ute Cemetary, not to mention the neighborhood children. We are raising three school age daughters here ourselves. We feel the impact would would ruin the neighborhood atmosphere and create traffic congestion and hazards. Sincerely, 651AFF<&0Â£>LjjkcL< ic/,LAyid,6,1R77 Brian and Cathy Wilson .. GAEL NEESON S STEFAN EDLIS ~ix 1 March 9, 1996. 1 2 1996 ,~ C *B- j 1 ..44. - ..4.9. hy,OG Aspen/Pitkin Planning & Zoning ~ I... 130 S. Galena St. ps Aspen, Co. 81611 <3 -13:1~31->~ Dear Commissioners: Re: March 19, 1996 Meeting - Aspen Club PUD Amendment We are writing to express our opposition to the proposed changes to the Aspen Club. Specifically we object to the closure of the access via Highway 82, and the proposed new access via Original Street and Ute Avenue. Both these streets are used by skiers to park their cars during the winter months and the streets are often filled with pedestrians carrying their skis to and from the mountain. And in fact, because of the cross country trail,many skiers ski down from Aspen mountain and ski along Ute Avenue. Cross country skiers are also found along the streets. It is also a particular favorite of dog walkers. Because of the cars that park on Original and Ute the roadway is often reduced to one lane in winter which requires extremely cautious driving. The intersection of Original and Ute is also of great concern as this is a particular icy spot and the scene of many a fender-bender and near miss. Summer transforms the area into a rural playground filled with bikers, hikers, rollerbladers and people seeking to escape the busyness of city streets to enjoy Gloryhole Park, Ajax Park, the Ute Cementry, Ute Park and the Children's Playground and to hike the most popular Ute Trail. As this is a street that is used extensively by pedestrians it would be a shame to see the efforts of the city to encourage such foot and bike traffic to be diminished. Please, we need your help to preserve our rural and contented walking neighborhood and not to transform it into a busy thoroughfare to the Aspen Club. Yours sincerely, 4 f-,2/1 A 1.6.... . 42 i /f .0- fl. 7/4,2 ''Â·r <,4# 14 5.5,~L LA o f . t MAR.-14' 96(THU) 10:15 HM INTEIIATIONAL INC TEL:918 664~1 P. 001 Phyllis S. Hojel 72 Ute Place Aspen, Colorado 81611 970/920-2012 - Telephone March 14,1996 By Facsimile 970/920-5439 Amen/Pitkin Planning 2< Zoning 130 Soudi Galena Street Amen, Colorado 81611 Dear Commissioners: i wish to go on record as opposed w the proposed changes tÂ» the Aspen Club. Specifically, 1 oppose the closure of the current access via Highway 82, and the new access via Ute Avenue. The increased traffic along Ute Avenue would be inconvenienc to people who use the dub, and would ruin the quiet residential aunosp here of Ute Avenue. Sincerely, A*-desl.-1.11 Phyllis S. Hojel 72 Ute Place Aspen, Colorado 81611 .. 4-4 a B ci Pek-5 0 0~ . Vttlb MEMO1tANDUM ro: Aspen City Council .*7 22 . JAN n 8 1 93 1 11 1R1!: Amy Margerum, City Manager j I L:27' Stan Clatison, Community Development Directdro FROM: Dave Michaelson, Deputy Director DATE: June 10,1996 RE: Aspen Club PUB - PUD Amendment - First Reading of Ordinance No. 20, Series of 1996. SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting approval to modify the access mid parking areas that serve the Aspen Club (Club). Access to the Club is presently provided from State Highway 82 via Crystal Lake Road, as specified iii the Callahan Subdivision and PUD agreement. Iii addition, the PUI) agreement restricted the use of the Ute Avenue parking lot to service, deliveries or emergencies. Over time the Ute Avenue lot has been used for additional membership parking in violation of the PUD Agreement. The applicant initially proposed to access the Club exclusively from Ute Avenue, to expand the Ute Avenue lot to 138 parking spaces, and to convert Lot 14A, which is currently tised for Club parking, to a single family lot. The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the application at a public hearing on March 19,1996, and recommended denial by a vote of 4- 1, based ort the adjacent land uses along Ute Avenue, the level of pedestrian/bicycle traffic in the area, and the physical constraints of the Ute Avenue roadway. The applicant has since revised the application, and is currently proposing to retain the existing parking lot on Lot 14A but reduced in size to accommodate a total of 20 vehicles, and to reduce the proposed number of parking spaces on the Ute Avenue side of the property from the original proposal of 138 spaces to 80 spaces. This represents a 42 percent reduction from the original proposal: but also would increase available parking in the Ute Avenue lot by 70 percent when compared to the existing spaces. The applicant is also committing to operate a shuttle service between the Aspen Club ancl the Aspen Club Lodge during peak traftic hours in-season to reduce traffic on Ute Avenue. rhe original application is attached as Exhibit A, referral memos are attached as Exhibit B, and letters from adjacent land owners in response to the public notice are attached as Exhibit C. The revised illustrative site plan of the proposed modificaticms to the Ute Avenue parking lot is attached as Exhibit D. An amendment to the application is attached as Exhibit E, and minutes from the March 19,1996 minutes are attached as Elhibit F. i>Ji A- 0. %2,48 Staff notes for Council that a determination has been made that the applicant does not require 1.e_ 06.1 either conditional or special review because the underlying parking and access requirements P D+Ul.. AAÂ»\ were established through the PUD process. A conditional use review is not necessary for the A Â¥04 -ev 1 PIA Ail .. Ute Avenue parking lot elite the recognition within the PUD agreement that limited parking was approved by the City. The applicant has agreed to return to the Planning and Zoning Commission prior to second reading to allow the Commission an opportunity to comment on the proposed amendment. Staff recommends approval with conditions, with a recommended modification of the proposed parking configuration. The concept advocated by staff would attempt to hold traffic levels on Ute Avenue to current levels. APPLICANT: Dick Butera (Aspen Club International), represented by Alan Richman ZONING: Lots 14A and 15, Callahan Subdivision. The Aspen Club facilities are located on Lot 15, and Lot 14A is the current location of the parking lot approved in 1976. Lots 15 and 16 are zoned Rural Residential (RR), while the remaining lots in the PUD are zoned Moderate-Density Residential (R-15), with all lots in the development having a PUD overlay. The proposed PUD amendment would route additional traffic from State Ilighway 82/Cooper Street, and then continue to the rear of the club on Original Street/ Ute Avenue. Zoning through this section includes single and multi-family residential (R-15 and RMF) along SH 82, transitioning to tourist-oriented land uses (NC PUD and L/TR) along the west side of Original, and returning to residential use (R- 15 PUD) near the terminus of Ute Avenue. BACKGROUND: The requirement for limited access to the Aspen Club property was defined in the Subdivision and Planned Unit Development Agreement for the Callahan Subdivision. The specific condition addressing access reads as follows: "The subdivider agrees, for himself and his successors and assigns, that he will not authorize any vehicular traffic to enter tile area of the condominium units or recreational facilities of tile Callalian Subdivisioii from Ute Avenue unless such vehicles are for the purpose of constritction, provicling services to or dealing with emergencies of tile Callahan Subdivision. Furthermore, neither the subdivider nor his successor or assigns shall provide for any parking spaces along the border of Ute Avemie within any portion of the Callahan Subdivision: Since that time, the area behind the Aspen Club off of Ute Avenue has been used by employees and members of the Club for parking, in violation of the requirement of the PUD. Currently, approximately 47 spaces are being used for these purposes. Consistent with the enforcement policy of the City, staff has not taken action to remove the Ute Avenue parking pending a final decision on the application by City Council. SHIkROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD: The Aspen Club property includes the recreational facilities on Lot 15, and also created Lots 1 thru 12, each of which was approved for a single family home, except for Lot 10, which was approved for a duplex. Lots 13 and 13A were condominium lots, which were built-out as the existing 20-unit Aspen Condominiums. Lot 14, which contained the Benediclt residence, was originally approved to be converted into a chibhouse and residence. Lot 14A was approved for parking facilities for the recreational uses on Lots 14 and 15. Lot 1'6, the existing Benedict O flice building, was designated for office use. 1 Subdivision ami PUD Agreement, Callahan Subdivision, dated May 13,1976 (Book 312, Pages 115-116). 2 Exhibit B MEMORANDUM TOI Aspen City Council rROM: Alan Richman Planning Services SUBJECT: Aspen Club Transportation Management Program DATE: July 15, 1996 We have prepared a transportation management program for the proposed Aspen Club shuttle and parking lots, taking into account the comments we received at the two prior Council meetings. It is our understanding that the recommended Ute Avenue traffic calming measures will be submitted to you under separate cover by staff. our program includes three elements, as follows: 1. Shuttle service provided by Club; 2. Shuttle service provided by hotels; and 3. Parking facilities. Shuttle Service Provided By Club 1. Nature of service. The service will be point to point, between the Aspen Club Lodge and the Aspen club. The shuttle will also have at least one cross-town pick up point. 2. Route. Along Highway 82 and Crystal Lake Road, but may deviate to Ute Avenue for therapy patients. 3. Timing. The service will operate during the morning (8:00 AM to 9:30 AM), mid-day (12:00 PM to 1:30 PM) and evening (4:00 PM to 6:00 PM) peak hours, on the half hour and hour. It Will be a year round service. 4. Vehicle Type. Van service. 5. Public Information. Members and employees will be given materials describing the shuttle service and encouraging them to use it. Members and employees will also be reminded that RFTA operates a shuttle along Highway 82 that they can use. A sign will be posted in a conspicuous place on the property, describing the time and place of the Clubls shuttle service. 6. Duration. The shuttle "experiment" will be for a two year period after the completion of construction. 7. Report. The Club will submit a report to the City within one year after the completion of construction addressing the effectiveness of the Transportation Management Plan, for rnÂ·. . r,~ L F. .. review by the City Council. Information in the report will include parking lot counts sufficient to determine the adequacy of available parking, ridership data for the vanpool program, or Dial-A-Ride ridership, if that program is instead implemented with RFTA. If Council finds the transportation program to be unsuccessful, the applicant will propose other options for managing traffic at the Aspen Club, the approval of which shall be at the sole discretion of City Council. 8. RFTA Alternative. The Club will explore with RFTA whether the current Dial-A-Ride service could be expanded to serve the Club, instead of having the Club operate a shuttle. Shuttle Service Provided By Hotels 1. Nature of Service. Hotels will pick up and drop off their guests at the Club, as they do today. 2. Route. Along Highway 82 and Crystal Lake Road, but may deviate to Ute Avenue for therapy patients. 3. Timing. Vans will operate on demand from hotel guests. The service will be year round. 4. Vehicle Type. Generally van service. 5. Information. Spa guests will be mailed materials with their reservation describing the availability of shuttle service and explaining that they do not need a car to get tc the Club. Parking Facilities 1. Size of Parking Facilities. a. There will be 30 parking spaces on Lot 14A, plus an additional 5 spaces available for future use. b. There will be 47 parking spaces on Lot 15, plus an additional 9 spaces for therapy/handicapped patients. 2. Design. The parking areas will be paved and striped. Their layout will conform to the site plans we have submitted. Deliveries will continue to occur at the rear loading dock; trash pick-up will occur within our property, along the Ute Avenue right-of-way. There will be minimal use of outdoor lights; those used will be low to the ground (similar to current path lighting). 3. Use. Parking spaces will be made available on a first come, first served basis. No fee will be applied to either parking area. Employees will receive written encouragement to take the shuttle, or to walk/bike to work. 2 .. 4. Public Information. Signs will be posted on the property explaining that there are two parking areas available and encouraging use of the parking area on Lot 14A. Members will be sent materials explaining that the parking spaces on Lot 15 should be used by persons who have a reason (physical or otherwise) for parking close to the door and by those who have come to the club with two or more persons in the car. 3 APR. 8.1997 10:51AM GARFIELD & HECHT NO.289 P.16 .. ORDINANCE NO. 20 (Series of 1996) ORDINANCE OF THE CITÂ¥ COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN APPROV[NGAN AMENDMENT TO IBE CALLAHAN SUBDIV[SION PUD AGREEMENT FOR LOTS 14A AND 15, CITY AND TOWNSrrE OF ASPEN WHEREAS, Section 26.84.080 of the Municipal Code provides that the City Council, based on the recommendation of the Planning Commission may amend a PUD agreement based on compliance with the review criteria established for Final PUD approval; and WHEREAS, the Aspen Club was approved as a PUD, and the PUD agreement explicitly limits the parking plan of the Club to allow parking on Ute Avenue for the use of employees and service deliveries to the facility: and WHEREAS, the City of Aspen received a PUD amendment application for the expansion of parking off of Uto Avenue from Aspen Club International; and WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning Commission reviewed the project on March 19, 1996, and recommended denial to zlie City Council based on neighborhood impacts and the impacts of the proposed traffic increase on Ute Avenue; and WHF,*EAS, the Planning Office received an amendment to the original application that modified the number of parking spaces to remain on Lot 14A, proposed a van service to addresg impacts on Ute Avenue, and reduced the total number of spaces proposed for the Ute Avenue lot; and WBEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the PUD amendments under the applicable provisions ofthe Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered those recommendations as granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission; and WIEREAS, the City Council -finds thai the prnposed PUD amendments, with modifications suggested by staff, meet or exceed ali applicable development standards and are consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen A.rea Community Plan; and 111111111% 11111' llil 111111 zill'l lilli 11 11'll Ill Ill 1 402938 03/31/1997 03:00P ORDINANCE 1 of 4 R 21.00 0 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CLERK APR. 8.1997 10:51AM GARFIELD & HECHT NO.289 P.17 .. WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for public health, safety, and welfare. NOW. THEREFORE BE N ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF TE[E CITY OF ASPEN COLORADO: Segiell: Pursuant to Section 24-7-907 of the Municipal Code, the City Council finds as follows in regard to the PUD amendment 1. That the pmposed amendments are consistent with lile Aspen Area Community Plan. 2. The proposed development is consistent with the charaoter of existing land uses in the surrounding area 3. The proposed development does not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. 4. No additional GMQS allotments are necessaty for the project. 5. The maximum density is no greater than that permitted in the Underlying zone district. 6. The Proposed amendments will promote the public interest and character of the City of Aspen. S=ti=-11 Pursuant to the findings set forth in Section I above, the City Council grants a PUD amendments subject to the following conditions: 1. All representaiions of the applicant before the City Colmeil are considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by subsequent conditions or amendments. 2. The proposed configuration shall be refined to allow for the retention of 30 spaces in the north lot and 56 spaces shall be allowed off of Ute Avenue. An area suitable for 5 additional spaces 411 be reserved for use in the future. The rear lot shall include a sign thai 1110 back lut shall be siven preferenoe to handicapped patrons. In addition, no parking can occur the delivery area located at the Ute Avenue parking lot 3. Prior to completion of the parking facility, the applicam shall submit documentation to the City Engineer to ensure that the distance between tile two western access points meet standard engineering standaids and will not result in an Imsafe traffic situation for members and guests entering or exiting the Ute Avenue parking facility. 4. All representations contained in Alan Richman's July 15th, 1996 memo to Council addrÂ©ssing a Transportation Plan for the Club areconsidered conditions of approval of the PUD amendment. The shuttle service shall include at least one cross-town pick-up point. I lilli lim Illill lili lilli mli Elli ful,ul NII Im 2 402838 03/31/1997 03:00P ORDINANCE 2 of 4 R 21.00 0 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CLERK APR. 8.1997 10:52AM GARFIELD & HECHT Â· NO.289 P. 18 .. 5. All improvements. including landscaping, to the Ute Avenue Lot will be constructed as shown on Exhibit A ofthe staff memorandum dated July 22, 1996. 6. AU improvements, including landscaping. to the Crystal Lake Lot shall be constructed as shown on Exhibit C of the staff memorandum dated Juty 22. 1996. If changes occur to the configuration ofthe parking spaces, tbese ehanges shall be reviewed and approved by Community Development Director prior to construction. If lile Community Development Director considers these changes significant, the changes shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. 7. The applicant shall sign the Crystal Lake Lot as "Members Only" to discourage adjacent residences from utilizing the parking lot, and will be enforced by the applicant. 8. The applicant shall provide evidence, suitable to the City Attorney, that the parking spaces in the Crystal Lake Lot are perpetually ensured for use by the Aspen Club if the lot is conveyed to adjacent properly owners. 9. The applicant sliallÂ· submit for review by the City Attorney and record a revised PUD and Subdivision Agreement addressing the amendment and conditions of approval. 10. Thc applicant shall submit documentation regarding tile effbetiveness of the Transportation Management Plan for review by the City Council after one year of operation. Informalion in the report shall include parking lot counts sufficient to determine the adequacy of available parking ridership dati for the vanpool program, and Dial-A-Ride ridership if the program is implemented with RFTA. If the program is not deemed successful by Council, the applicant shall propose other options fbr managing traffic at the Aspen Club. which shall be at he sole discretion ofille City CouuÂ©il- Secjion 3: All material representations and commitments made by the developer pursuant to the PUI) amendmentÂ· as herein awarded, whether in a public meeting or documentation presented before the City Council are hereby incorporaied in such approval and the 5ame shall be complied with as if fuIIy set forth herein, unless amended by other specific conditions. Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed separate. distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the * remaining portions thereof. Sgglion 5: That the City ClerkÂ·is directed, upon the adoption ofthis ordinance, to record a copy of this ordinance, in the office ofthe Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 lili , 402930 03/31/1997 03:00P ORDINANCE 3 of 4 R 21.00 D 0,00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CLERK 3 APR. 8.1997 10:52AM GARFIELD & HECHT NO.289 P.19 0 0 BTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as providA by law, by the City Council of the Cie of Aspen on the 10 day of <2,Â«-e 1995. 60 1 John Bennett, Mayor ATTEST: 31) 4_. Kathryn S. *6ch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this t=;74:t day 0-1-- T 1996. 61 9 Â¢.Â£-, a'.0.*.5,46 / John Bennett, Mayor ATTEST: *3 4 04-L Kathryn S. 80ch, City Clerk 111111111111111111 lili 111111 lilli lilli 111 lilli lili lili 402938 03/31/1987 03:00P ORDINANCE 4 of 4 R 21.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CLERK 4 j.u'JUL{Le'-1 AL Â£ Z JJ 1'21 Mdy 13, 19/0 tacepll-UN HU loODUU JuiL= .1.-lit! - tiLe UL U .. v . BOOK 312 PAGE 110 SUBDIVISION AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ~0 0~ CALLAHAN SUBDIVISION THIS AGREEMENT, made this )-9 day of //7 0-2-7 , . 1976, by and between THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO (hereinafter sometimes called "City"), and BENEDICT LAND & CATTLE COMPANY, FREDRIC BENEDICT and FABIENNE BENEDICT (hereinafter sometimes collectively called "the owner"), and ROBERT S. GOLDSAMT or the assignee of Goldsamt (hereinafter sometimes called "the subdivider"). W.I TNESSETH: ----------- WHEREAS, the subdivider with the consent and approval of the owner has submitted to the City for approval, execution, and recordation, the final plat and development plan of a tract of land situated in the east one-half of Section 18, T. 10S, Range 84 west of the Sixth Principal Meridian, Aspen, Colorado, designated as Callahan Subdivision ("the plat"); and WHEREAS, said Plat encompasses land located within an area in the City zoned RR and R-15; and WHEREAS, the City has fully considered such Plat, the pro- posed development and the improvement of the land therein, and the burdens to be imposed upon other adjoining or neighboring " . properties by reason of the proposed development and improve- ment of land included in the Plat; and WHEREAS, the City is willing to approve, execute, and accept for recordation that Plat upon agreement of the owner and the subdivider to the matters hereinafter described, and subject to all the requirements, terms, and conditions of the City of Aspen Subdivision Regulations now in effect and other laws, rules and regulations as are applicable; and WHEREAS, the City has imposed conditions and requirements in connection with its approval, execution and acceptance for .. 04 0 BOOK,)15 rAGE 111 recordation of the Plat, and that such matters are necessary to protect, promote, and enhance the public welfare; and WHEREAS, under the authority of Section 20-16(c) of the Municipal Code of the City, the City is entitled to assurance that the matters hereinafter agreed to will be faithfully performed by the subdivider. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, the mutual covenants herein contained, and the approval, execution and acceptance of the Plat for recerdation by the City, it is agreed as follows: 1. All referenbes to lot numbers hereinafter set forth are as described on Sheet No. 1 of the Final Plat and Bevelopi ment Plan of the Callahan Subdivision ("Plat"). A. Fee simple title to Lots No. 13 and 13-A will . be conveyed in undivided interests to the condominium owners, subject to existing easements and road and utility easements contemplated by the Plat and additional utility easements as may be required. Lots No. 13 and 13-A will be used for condominium units. B. Lot No. 13-B shall be conveyed in fee simple to a corporation to be organized by the purchaser of such property from the owner or by such purchaser's assignee. Such corporation is hereinafter referred to as "Holding Corporation". The Holding Corporation shall grant to all condominium and homesite owners a non-exclusive easement for the recreational use of Lot 13-B so long as : such lot is not hereafter authorized for improvement or -commercial use by P.U.D. amendment or other appropriate. : governmental approval and shall grant such easements as are necessary for the roads and utilities teflected 'on the Plat. C. Lot No. 14 will be owned in fee simple title by the Holding Corporation or another corporation con- trolled by or under common control with the Holding .. 80~312 PAGE 112 4 . Corporation or its or their assignees. The Benedict residence situated on this lot will be converted to a clubhouse. The owners of condominium and homesites will 4. be granted an irrevocable non-exclusive license for passage by foot only, throughout those portions of Lot 14 on which .''pr $4 - 4 there are no improvements currently or hereafter existing. 17 11 / Cf / lliu 0 \ D. Lots No. 14-A and 15 will be conveyed in fee simple title to the Holding C9rporation or a corporation . controlled by or under common control with the Holding Corporation or,its or their assignees. Lot 14-A will contain parking facilities for use of the clubhouse and recreational facilities contained in the Plat, and Lot 15 will contain recreational facilities. E. Lots No. 1 through 10 shall be conveyed in fee simple title to the purchasers of these ten home- I sites. Lot No. 10 is designated as a duplex for occupancy by two families; the other lots are for single-family homes. F. Lot No. 11 is designated as a single-family lot. G. Lots 12 and 12-A are collectively designated as a single-family lot. Lot 12-A is the guesthouse for Lot 12. H. Lot No. 16 is designated as an existing office building for such uses as have heretofore been approved by the City of Aspen. I. All roads as reflected on the Plat and the rights of way on which such roads are to be constructed shall be owned by the Holding Corporation or a. corporation controlled by or under common control with the Holding -3- . ~~ - BOOK 312 pAGE1 13 Corporation or its or their assignees, and such corpor- ation shall grant an irrevocable non-exclusive license to the owners of the condominiums and homesites for their Use. The owner shall retain a non-exclusive cost-free easement on Crystal Lake Road for access,. ingress, and egress to and from Lots 11, 12 and 12-A. Ownership of those lots is being retained by the owner. J. Easements for utility improvements and rights of way shall be granted to the Public Utilities as ~ shown on the Plat. K. Maintenance of the property and structures in- cluded within the Plat shall be the responsibility of the owners of the fee simple title to such property and improvements; provided, however, when hereunder any easement is granted with respect to any such land or improvement, the cost of maintenance shall be borne by all grantees of such easements. , L. The City shall provide up to a maximum of 0.65 cfs. of water as needed from the Nellie Bird Ditch as hereinafter set forth in Paragraph 8 (e) (1) for the maintenance of a water level not lower than the lowest water level in Crystal Lake as shown on Page 3 of the Plat. The Holding Corporation or a corporation controlled by or under common control with the Holding Corporation or its or their assignees, shall make provision for supplying such water to Crystal Lake in order to insure its use for recreational activity. 2. Subject to the conditions contained in this paragraph, the subdivider shall provide for the estimated costs for construe- tion of all common improvements which include construction of roads, utilities, drainage improvements, landscaping, moving and paving if required by subdivider (the recreational trail), as described in the agreement between Pitkin-County and Benedicts and irrigation ditch crossings through the subdivision as shown on the Plat and.supplemental engineering plans. Also included shall be street lighting BOOK312 MoÂ£114 sufficient to illuminate subdivision roads and traffic signs to comply with City regulations. The installation of those improve- ments shall commence in the spring of the year in which construction on Lots 13, 13A or 15 is to commence hereunder, or any homesites are sold, whichever event occurs sooner, and shall be constructed with due diligence thereafter until completed. In order to secure the performance of the construction and installation of the improvements herein agreed to by the subdivider and the City, and to guarantee one hundred (100%) percent of the current estimated cost of the improvements agreed by the City Engineer to be $ 271,000.00 , the subdivider shall guarantee through a .. conventional lender, or by sight draft or letter of commitment from a financially responsible lender (irrevocable until the construction is completed) that fuhds of the estimated costs of construction are held by it for the account of the subdivider for the construction and installation of improvements hereinabove described. In the event, however, that any portion of the improve- ments have not been installed according to the c6nditions contained herein, then, and in that event, the City may have such remaining i work and improvements completed by such means and in such manner, - by contract with or without public letting, or otherwise, as it may deem advisable, and the lender agrees to reimburse the City out of the funds held by it for the account of the subdivider for the City's costs incurred in completing said work and improve- ments; provided, however, in no event shall the lender be obligated to pay the City more than the aggregate estimated sum for these improvements, less those amounts previously paid and approved by the City, by reason of default of the subdivider in the performance of the terms, conditions, and covenants con- tained in this paragraph 2. However, the City waives no right to claim full compliancb with the improvements required in ex- cess of the estimated costs. From time to time as work to be performed and improvements to be constructed herein progress, the subdivider may request that the office of City Engineer inspect such work and improvements as are completed and may submit to City the costs of such completed work and improvements. -5- .. Boox312 PAGE 115 When the City Engineer is satisfied that such work and improve- ments as are required by the subdivider to be completed in fact, have been completed in accordance with the terms hereof, the City Engineer will submit to the lender its statement that it has no objection to the release by the Guarantor of so much of the above-specified funds as is necessary to pay the costs of work performed and improvements'installed pursuant to the terms of this Agreement, except that ten (10%) percent of the estimated cost shalf be withheld by the lender until all pro- posed improvements are completed and approved by the City Engineer. Subdivider shall prepare and be responsible for the preparation of engineering plans, specifications, and construction drawings for all improvements included in Paragraph 2 above. These plans and specifications shall be submitted to the City Engineer and shall be approved prior to the commencement of any construction by the Subdivider. Subdivider shall also be responsible for pro- viding all necessary engineering and/or surveying services in con- junction with the construction of said improvements. The City Engineering Department shall be notified prior to the commencement of construction so that the work may be inspected during construction. 3. Site Data Tabulation (see Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.) 4. The subdivider agrees to line the Riverside Ditch for the full length of Lots 8 and 9 with a rubberized material to prevent seepage onto Lots 8 and 9. If the subdivider finds that use, of the rubberized material is not feasible, a feasible alternativ, lining shall be used, provided the subdivider shall use best efforts to find an alternative to concrete lining. 5. The subdivider agrees, for himself and his successors and assigns, that he will not authorize any vehicular traffic to enter the area of the condominium units or recreational facilities -6- .. BOOK 312 pAGE 11( of the Callahan Subdivision from Ute Avenue unless such vehicles are for the purpose of construction, providing services to or deal- ing with emergencies of the Callahan Subdivision. Furthermore, neither the subdivider nor his successor or assigns shall pro- vide.for any parking spaces along the border of Ute Avenue within any portion of the Callahan Subdivision. The prohibition contained in this paragraph shall not apply to the parking lot which presently exists on Lot 16 nor to any expansion thereof. 6. The subdivider agrees to relocate at subdivider's expense a portion of the recreational trail which will be moved to a location approximately as shown on the plat. Such relocation shall be done as follows: By June 15 of the year in which construction is to commence on Lots 13, 13A or 15, subdivider shall cause such trail to be roughed in place. The easement to that trail shall be granted to the City and shall be restricted to the following uses: pedestrian, equestrian, bicycling, and cross-country skiing. No motor vehicle of any kind shall ever be allowed to use the trail, excepting only such vehicles as are absolutely necessary at the initial construction and subsequent maintenance and repair of the trail. 7. The subdivider agrees not to pave any of the roads in the subdivision until at least six months after all utilities are in place. 8. It is acknowledged by the owner that certain land areas included within or adjacent to the subdivided land have previously been used for agricultural uses or as meadow lands and have been irrigated by waters owned by the owner and carried in the Nellie Bird Ditch. The City of Aspen has established a policy of acquisition of those water rights beneficially used by annexed and subdivided lands at the time of annexation and subdivision approval, when the proposed development will be serviced by the City owned water utility: a. So as to avoid the establishment of competitive water utilities. b. To insure that all water used for domestic purposes meets minimum sanitary and health standards. -7- .. 800K 312 iMci117 c. To prevent the abandonment of water rights by discontinuation of their beneficial use. d. To provide for the acquisition of more senior rights to guarantee water service to Aspen area users in time of low supply. e. To reduce the costs of condemnation for acqui- sition of water rights in the future. Therefore, it is agreed as a condition of subdivision approval. 1. That upon recording of the final plat of the Callahan Subdivision the owner will convey to the City of Aspen, without further consideration, 0.65 cfs. of the Nellie Bird Ditch, Priority 3136 (Source: Roaring Fork River; adjudicated August 25, 1936), which cor- responds to the ratio of the subdivided lands to all lands irrigated by this water right. In the event use of part of such water granted to the City shall i become necessary to retain the lowest level of Crystal Lake (as described in Paragraph lL of this Agreement) the City of Aspen agrees to make available so much of the water right necessary to maintain the lowest water level; provided, however, that nothing herein shall be construed to require the City to supply ditches; rights of way, pumps, or other' facilities necessary toÂ· â‚¬r-ansfer water to Crystal Lake. 2. That owner' hereby grants to the City of Aspen a right of first refusal on the balance of the water right described in subparagraph (1) in the event such water right is offered for sale independently of , a sale of the lands irrigated by said right. To the extent permitted by law this right of first refusal shall be deemed a covenant running with said irrigated lands, and bind the owner, his heirs, assigns and -8- . -1 1 BooK 312 PAGE 118 successors in interest. 3. That the owner does further agree to negotiate in good faith with the City of Aspen for the grant to the City (or its nominee) for a nominal fee of a revocable license to make beneficial use (as allowed by law) of part or all of the water right described in subparagraph (1) retained by owner, without jeop- ardizing owner's interest in said decreed water right. 8.1 It is further acknowledged that owner owns a high priority right on Hunter Creek, namely, the Red Mountain Ditch, Priority No. 90 (Source: Hunter Creek, adjudicated May 11, 1899; headgate trans- ferred to Huston Ditch by decree recorded in Book 252, Page 575, records of the Pitkin County Clerk and Reocrder) hereinafter called Hunter Creek water right, the acquisition of which is also of in- terest to the City of Aspen. Owner agrees, as a further condition of this subdivision approval and with reference to said right: a. That Owner hereby grants to the city of Aspen a Fight of first refusal on the Hunter Creek water right in the event such right is offered for sale independently of a sale of the lands irrigated by said water right; and to the extent allowed by law, this right of first refusal shall be deemed a covenant on the lands so irrigated, and bind the owner, his heirs, assigns, and successors in interest. b. To negotiate with the City of Aspen in good faith for the acquisition of this right to facilitate the con- struction of a package filter pMant on Hunter Creek. Ne- gotiations will be deemed to be proceeding in good faith ' 0 : when the City seeks such right only for construction of said package plant and owner attempts to achieve only . (i) domestic water service for potential homesites on his lands above Hunter Creek and below the Red Mountain Road -9- .. 000012 PAGE119 (on the Red Mountain side), (ii) provision for the future irrigation of owner's meadow lands below the Huston Ditch and above Hunter Creek, and (iii) a total consider- ation on the sale of the water right which is equivalent to its fair market value, with proper credit and allowance being given for the fair market value of any exchanges, concessions, promises, undertakings or other consideration received pursuant to (i) and (ii). 9. In satisfaction of the dedication fee required to be paid to the City under Section 20-18 of the City of Aspen Muni- cipal Code for the plfrposes set forth therein, the subdivider agrees that upon recording of the final plat of the Callahan Subdivision, that he shall make a cash payment to the City in the amount of $90,000.00. 10. Notwithstanding anything contained herdin or referred to the contrary, the owner and the subdivider, in developing the property contained within the Plat and the improvements as herein described, shall fully comply with the applicable rules, regulations, standards and laws of the City and other governmental agencies and bodies having jurisdiction. : 11. The City agrees that since the townhouse-condominiums as designed do not exceed two and one-half stories in height, and the total height of each unit is constant, that a vertical envelope be created around each unit module allowing a maximum of two and one-half feet al ove elevation shown on the PUD building plans to accommodate possible grade elevation variations. The intent of this Agreement is to provide the best possible relationship between buildings, between buildings and tops of carports, as well as 'the best:utilization of existing terrain within the development zone. Prior to application for the building permit, the permit applicant will sub a ground survey, showing final building layout and floor elevations, noting any variations in the contour. -10- .. BOOK 312 PAGE 120 12. Subdivider agrees to pay the City in addition to its dedication fee the sum of $250.00 which represents the agreed upon costs for the City to tap into the sewer line in Ute Children's Park. The $250.00 shall be due and payable upon the granting of the easement across Ute Children's Park and Ute Cemetery for sewer lines by the City. 13. Subdivider agrees to provide at his expense shuttle bus services consisting of van-type vehicles for the recreation facilities and the clubhouse of the. Callahan Subdivision upon the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth. The expenses of the acquisition, mairitenance and operation of such vehicles shall be borne by the subdivider, and such service may be supplied by the purchase of appropriate vehicles, the leasing thereof, or any other available means which shall be adequate. The subdivider agrees to provide such vehicles in a number sufficient to serve the need therefor based upon year around operation between the Callahan Subdivision clubhouse and recreation facilities and downtown Aspen, provided, however, that such vehicles shall not number less than one. The term of this service shall be until the earlier of the following occurs: 1. Such van service shall no longer be needed; or 2. Until the transportation services provided by this Agreement are fulfilled by other public or private means. 3. Until the expiration of five years from the date hereof. 14. Upon execution of this Agreement by the parties hereto and provided all other conditions as herein contained have been met by the owner and the subdivider, the City agrees to execute the Plat of the Callahan Subdivision and accept the same for recordation in the Recording Office of Pitkin County, Colorado, upon payment of the recordation fees and costs to the City by -11- .. sooM 312 PAGE121 subdivider. 15. Failure of the subdivider to pay dedication fee or to provide the requisite guaranty for roads and utilities and other improvements prescribed hereunder, shall carry only the sanction of prohibition of recording the subdivision plat and final development plan herein. If the foregoing sanction is imposed by the City upon the subdivider, it shall release the owner of all obligations under Paragraphs 8 and 8.2 hereof. 16. The subdivider agrees to furnish City with an as-built survey description for sewer, water and trail easements. . 17. The subdivider agrees to allow the City to install a water line in Ute Avenue at the time subdivider constructs his eight-inch line greater in size than that eight-inch line, provided, however, that the City shall pay for the extra cost above the cost of installing an eight-inch line. 18. The stages for the development of the' subdivision improvements shall be according to Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 19. At such time as and to the extent Goldsamt has assigned any of his rights hereunder or under any agreement with owner and such-assignee has assumed any obligation hereunder, Goldsamt shall have no further obligation for such assumed obligation. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have hereunto set their hd'ilds *pd-:.seals the day and year first above written. ~--4924 i i.-p Nr[PEST-: -- : - CITY 0]>AS~N - ~-rlorado Munic,i:*91 - tratÂ«-10.-3 32/ 24=u Bv- ~Mayor ip,> J '' C~BI~ ATTEST: . BENEDICT LAND & CATTLE COMPANY, Owner -7 r:f=fÂ·.7 Secretary'' F.redaire A. . Benedig-t .fGÂ£1Â£. - President . C-* ?%, 1 i L ,~ 1 I ' t, 23~&.(LU~ 62. 62*&.,66&-6 I. IA: -I........ j : ...0 f, Alc-320,69>7. a d<tale->c- - 074-, - ir. /.?Â· ct I. - 4 k ; li .. 4'nâ‚¬dric AC Benedict,, Owner 6/ . 1 2 : Cl :,Â·- i ... r I I ~, Â£21512-, c--:-4.4:-~-91.~tic-c-â‚¬>CLL- jiLEDA-t,95> AA<4.1 f e-: to--- . 0-Ef< .1.-,It - JGIE- ...... . 4. 01Â·'abienne Benedict, Oiner /., 8 4 i ,1 1 - f 11 :-~ 1 - 1,Fl.,L 2.. 44 Rbbert Goldsamt, Subdivider .. . BOOK312 PAGE 122 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. County of Pitkin ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this )*@Aday of. 93< h.Â£,A , 1976, by Stacy Standley, Mayor of the City of Aspgn, & Colorado municipal corporation. Witness.my hand and official seal. . . ./ ATE/; f My commission expires: . 2.: :k~r'O6mmission expires January 24, 1978 C 1 /7<)(769 - 0 -Notary t14- 20--eZ>.-,7 MnDj, 1 . 7,\, t . 5, 1 \9 ..1 . public t 0 . I . .. STATE OF COLORADO ) ), SS. County of Pitkin ) P~ &1 Makbitne- s Vile -Prejir?k I . The foregoing instrument was atknowledged before me this /9 day ot LfTÂ»/ 61,4 , 1976, by/Br-ed=i-ar.-Pene44ebÂ·rfres&- - nÂ·b of Benedict LancV & Cattle Company, a Colorado corporation. .. .... 1 - - Witness my hand and official seal. , ' Â·*-" Al /./ My commission expires: .. : I. >f / 7.- , .. 2 - ''*.-My Commission expires Jinuary 24, 1978 N B J - Â· 0,0 UU %42,) . - Notary =Â·. Public . .. .... STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. Jo, Plek ,&10*t 25 Mornty i'n-434 -f> 60Â¥4 County of Pitkin ) \L . .. The foregoing instrument wak acknowledged before me this /9 day of>-5/i~~)(),s.6/ . - , 1976, byi Fredric A. Benedict and Fabienne Benedict. 4 - Witness my. hand and official seal. My commission expires: ,<,~'0ly,C~ommission expires January 24, 1978 .~~0.1 -/ ~-2~ ~/ 1 'Â· 2 LAJU. 11-) (7-1 0 \_-AIUM. 1/1.-Â·V Notary 44:foii'... 2 Public ,. -13- 1 .11" r*65: .. . Booi<312 PAGE 123 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. County of Pitkin ) I I ihe foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 13 day of Apri:Â·Â¥21976, by Andiew-U.--Heehti-Attopney- in-Fact-for- Robert S. Goldsamt. 0 . - Witness my hand and official seal. '611.1,1 f#,i:/, â€¢1,1- '> My Commission expires: My Commission expires Nov. 14, 1872Â·* , . r c % 5 - i. 00 803....9, .Â·. . 2,-taL.9 m KÂ·E*g i...:. - i'~ 0-- Nota:ty Publ* .,,Â· ....... I .1 '-4 . .. 4,0.41 _ . .. .. 0 - I . . 0 - . - *. I I . . :. I . .. ,.. .. . -14- .. .. EXHIBIT A SITE DATA TABULATION Town- Club Rec ' Office & Lots ~ houses house Facility Parking ~ Totals Acres Lot or parcel no. #1 through #S #13 #14 #15 #18 20 parcels #11 #13A #14A #10, #12, & 12-A #13-B Acreage 6.751 6.594 2.696 4.941 2.000 22.982 22.982 minimum 15,000 sq.ft. No. single family 12 No. duplex 1 (Lot #10) E No. bedrooms 60 Average sq. ft. unit - 2,115 Approx. grd. coverage ~ of buildings N/A 28,040 sq. ft. 9,400 sq. ft. 39,530 sq. ft. 76,970 sq. ft. (includes in- door pool) Approx. grd. coverage of tennis ct. & outdoor pool N/A 57,300 sq. ft. 57,300 sq. ft. Approx. sq. ft. of buildings N/A Â· ,43,560 sq. ft. 9,400 sq. ft. 46,000 sq. ft. 98,960 sq. ft. Approx. sq. ft. of basement 2,000 sq. ft. 2,000 sq. ft. BooK 312 rAGE1.24 EXHIBIT A - SITE DATA TABULATION Page 2 1 Town- Club- Rec . Office & Lots houses house Facility Parking Totals Acres - Approx. sq. ft. of parking - 16,224 sq. ft. underground 16,224 sq. ft. surface 12,000 sq. ft. * 12,000 sq. ft. Approx. grd. coverage of streets (ROW) 85,680 sq. ft. 1.967 Approx. grd. coverage for bike trail easement Â· 23,450 sq. ft. . 24.949 TOT; ACREA . BOOK312 rACE125 0 . BOOK 31-2 -PAGE126 4 EXHIBIT "B" DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE - CALLAHAN SUBDIVISION A. Condominiums. Subdivider will commence the construction of condominium units contained on the Plat in the 1976 or 1977 construction season, with the completion of such units contemplated in 1977 or 1978. B. Clubhouse situated on Lot 14. Construction of any improve- ments to the existing structure and any alterations thereto shall be completed by December 31, 1979. . . C. Recreational facilities contained on Lot 15. The facilities situated on this Lot shall be constructed by December 31, 1979. D. Roads and Utilities. Subdivider will commence construction of all roads and utilities provided for on the Plat prior to commencing the construction of any other facilities or sale of any single family or duplex lots provided for on the Plat. E. Subdivider shall have the right to construct, by staging, any portion of any of the facilities provided for on the Plat at any time he decides within the development schedule heretofore set forth for such facilities. . F. No certificate of occupancy will be issued for any im- provements until all roads and utilities servicing those improve- ments shall have been completed. Construction of utilities- and roads to all lots except lots 15 and 16, must be completed before a certificate of occupancy will issue for any improve- ments thereon. The certificate of occupancy for the improve- ments on Lot 15 shall in-no way be tied to the certificate of occupancy for any other improvements. Further, subdivider shall complete all landscaping shown on the Plat by December 31, 1978. G. Subdivider will be deemed to have complied with the previsions of the Plat for improvements on Lot 15, if such improvements ,-4 n SOOK 316 PAGE 127 do not exceed the footprint or vertical elevations contained on such Plat for such improvements. H. The only sanction for failure to construct any portion of any of the improvements on the Plat within the times provided for their construction hereunder shall be withdrawal of approval by the City for those improvements not so constructed and shall in no way affect the validity of the approval for those improvements constructed within the times provided for hereunder, or in any way give rise to any claim by the City of Aspen or by' any party claiming under or through the City of.Aspen against subdivider for the construction . of any such improvement or for damages for failure to construct any of them. I. To the extent of any conflict between the provisions of this Exhibit B and any other portion of the Subdivision Agreement, the provisions of this Exhibit B shall prevail. ' i . -2- 4 / 398668 11/01/1996 10:49A PG 1 OF 3 REC DOC NOT SJ'LVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CLERK & RECORDER 16.00 AMENDMENT TO SUBDIVISION AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT CALLAHAN SUBDIVISION ST /y, This Agreement, made this.22- day of veptemeer, 1996, by and between the City of Aspen, Colorado (hereinafter sometimes called "City"), and Aspen Club International, LLC and T. Richard Butera (hereinafter sometimes collectively called the "Owner"). WITNESSETH WHEREAS, the Owner applied to the City for approval, execution, and recordation of an Amendment to the Final Plat and Development Plan of the Callahan Subdivision, original plat recorded at Book S- at Page 7 of the real estate records of Pitkin County, together with any previous amendments thereto ("the Amended Plat"); and WHEREAS, the Amended Plat encompasses land located within Lots 15, owned by Aspen Club International, LLC and Lot 14A, owned by T. Richard Butera (the "Property"); and WHEREAS, the City has fully considered such Amended Plat, and a change of use of portions of the Property and the improvement of the land therein, and the burdens to be imposed upon other adjoining or neighboring properties by reason of the proposed change of use and development of land included in the Amended Plat; and WHEREAS, the City is willing to approve, execute, and accept for recordation that Amended Plat upon agreement of the Owner to the matters hereinafter described; and WHEREAS, the City has imposed conditions and requirements in connection with its approval, execution and acceptance for recordation of the Amended Plat, and that such matters are necessary to protect, promote, and enhance the public welfare; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, the mutual covenants herein contained, and the approval, execution and acceptance of the Amended Plat for recordation by the City, it is agreed as follows: 1. The Owner has submitted a revised site plan for Lots 14A and 15 of the Callahan Subdivision, which depict the approved configuration of the parking areas required for the uses on Lot 15. The site plan for Lot 15 shows that there will be NULL+10 3 - 6.9- .. 398668 11/01/1996 10:49A PG 2 OF 3 Fifty-Six (56) parking spaces on Lot 15 accessed from Ute Avenue. The site plan for Lot 14A shows that there will be thirty (30) parking spaces for use by Lot 15 recreational uses; and the creation from Lot 14A of a new Lot 17 of Callahan Subdivision. The site plan also shows an area for Five (5) additional parking spaces on Lot 14A that have been reserved for use in the future if required by Lot 15. 2. The Owner agrees that all improvements shown on the Amended Plat, including landscaping shall be constructed as delineated thereon. 3. The Owner agrees that they will not authorize parking within the delivery area off of Ute Avenue as delineated on the Amended Plat. 4. The Owner agrees to install signs on Lots 15 and 14A as follows: a. A sign shall be installed in the parking area located on Lot 15, stating that preference for parking shall be given to therapy patients and handicapped persons. b. A sign shall be installed in the parking area located on Lot 14A, stating that parking is for members only, and not for the adjacent residences. The enforcement of such restrictions shall be the obligation of the Owner. 5. Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this re ference represents an Easement Agreement that restricts the use of the spaces located on Lot 14A for the use of members of the Owner of Lot 15, recreation facility and is binding on the heirs, successors and assigns of the Owner of Lot 14A. 6. Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, is a memorandum from A[an Richman to the Aspen City Council dated July 15, 1996. The Applicant agrees that all representations contained in Exhibit B for conditions of the approval of the Amended Plat. The Owner of Lot 15 agrees to submit a report to the City of Aspen within one year after the completion of construction of the parking areas on Lot 15 and 14A addressing the effectiveness of the Transportation Management Plan, for review by the City Council. 7. The Applicant hereby agrees that all representations made by the Owner before the City Council are conditions of this approval unless otherwise amended by subsequent conditions or amendments. .. 398668 11/01/1996 10:49A PG .3 OF 3 8. If the Owner desires to modify the Amended Plat, such modification shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director of the joint City of Aspen, Pitkin County Planning Department. If the Director considers such modifications to be significant, such modifications shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Aspen Planning a Zoning Commission with the right of the Applicant to appeal such review to the City Council. 9. If there are any conflicts or inconsistencies between this Amendment to Subdivision and Planned Unit Development Agreement and the Subdivision and Planned Unit Development Agreement for the Callahan Subdivision recorded May 19, 1976 at Book 312 at Page 110 at Reception No. 183890 and any amendments thereto, the provisions of this Amendment shall control. 10. At such time as and to the extent that Owner of either of Lots 14A, Lot 17, or Lot 15 have assigned any of their rights hereunder such Assignee has assumed any obligations hereunder, such owner shall have no further obligation for such assumed obligation. 1N WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands and seak the day and year first above written. CITY OF ASPEN By: ASPEN CLUB INTERNATIONAL, LLC By: Mich#yox,jM~ager T. RQhafd Ateri individually avh\butera\docs\callahan.amd ~ Exhibit A RECORDING REQUESTED BY: WHEN RECORDED RETU RN TO: Andrew V. Hecht, Esq. Garfield g[ Hecht, P.C. 601 East Hyman Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 EASEMENT AGREEMENT THIS EASEMENT AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made this l O day of September, 1996 between T. RICHARD BUTERA ("Butera") whose address is 1450 Crystal Lake Road, Aspen, Colorado 81611 and ASPEN CLUB INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Colorado corporation, whose address is 1450 Crystal Lake Road, Aspen, Colorado 81611 ("ACI"). RECITALS A. Butera is the owner of certain real property described hereafter ("Lot 14A") which is legally described as: Lot 14A, Callahan Subdivision, according to the maps thereof recorded May 19, 1976 in Plat Book 5 at Page 7, and as amended August 17,1977 in Plat Book 6 at Page 16, with all irs appurtenances. B. Butera is the owner of certain real property described hereafter ("Lot 14") which is legally described as: Lot 14, Callahan Subdivision, according to the maps thereof - recorded May 19, 1976 in Plat Book 5 at Page 7, and as amended August 17,1977 in Plat Book 6 at Page 16, with all irs appurtenances. C. ACI is the owner of certain real property described in heiyafter ("Lot 15") which is legally described as: Lot 15, Callahan Subdivision, according to the maps thereof recorded May 19,1976 in Plat Book 5 at Page 7, and as c:VnlhUspenctbie,semn<.009 .. amended August 17,1977 in Plat Book 6 at Page 16, with all its appurtenances. D. Subject to the terms and conditions hereof, Butera grants to ACI, for the benefit of Lot 15, an access and parking easement over and across Lot 14,4 as shown on the map attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and a pedestrian access easement oAr the existing foot path on Lot 14 to Lot 15. WITNESSETH FOR GOOD AND VALUABLE CONSIDERATIONS, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby confessed and acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: 1. Grant of Easement on Lot 14A. Butera hereby grants, conveys, assigns and transfers unto ACI, over and across Lot 14A, an exclusive access and parking easement (the "Lot 14A Easement"). The Lot 14A Easement shall be used for ingress and egress and for the parking provided for of no more than thirty-five (35) parking spaces forÂ· vehicles used by invirees, licensees and customers of ACI in connection with its operation of the "Aspen Club" which is located on Lot 15. 2. Approved Plan for Parking and Access. After a parking lot has been constructed on Lot 15 and at such time as Butera obtains from the City of Aspen an approved plan (the "Approved Plan") for parking thirty-five (35) automobiles on Lot 14A and reflecting access to such parking spaces, a copy of such Approved Plan shall be attached to this Agreement and shall reflect the portion of Lot 14A, which is subject to the Lot 14A Easement, such Approved Plan to constitute Exhibit "A" and then this Agreement shall be recorded in the Pitkin County real estate records. Butera shall, at his sole expense, reconfigure and/or construct that portion of Lot 14A, which is the subject matter of the Lot 14A Easement, in accordance with the Approved Plan. This construction may require the temporary closing of access to Lot 14A and a temporary suspension of the right of the owner of Lot 15 to use tile parking spaces located thereon during such construction periods, which Butera shall endeavor to keep to a minimum. 3. Restrictions on Use of Lot 14A Easement. The Lot 14A Easement: and its use by the owner of Lot 15 shall be subject to the following restrictions: 2 C:knih\aspenclb\easemn t.009 .. (a) The real property subject to the Lot 14A Easement, as reflected on Exhibit "A," shall be maintained in good condition and repair including, but not limited, snow removal and shall be kept debris and trash free at the sole expense of the owner of Lot 15. (b) The Lot 14A Easement or any portion of it may be required*to be paved by the owner of Lot 14A. In the event the owner of Lot 14A elects to require the portion of Lot 14A subject to the Lot 14A Easement to be re-paved, notice shall be delivered to the owner of Lot 15 who shall then be required to, as expeditiously as possible under the circumstances, arrange for such paving. (c) No illumination of any nature whatsoever shall be allowed on the Lott 4A Easement without the express written consent o f the owner of Lot 14A other than downcast type lighting approved by the City of Aspen building code. (d) The owner of Lot 15 shall use reasonable efforts to prevent vehicles of any nature whatsoever from being parked overnight on the real property which is subject to the Lot 14A Easement. The owner of Lot 15 shall post a notice to all Aspen Club members in a convenient location within the club advising them of the preceding restriction. 4. Grant of Easement on Lot 14. Butera hereby grants, conveys, assigns and transfer's unto ACI, over and across Lot 14, an non-exclusive pedestrian access easement over the existing foot path to Lot 15 (the "Lot 14 Easement"). The Lot 14 Easement shall be used solely for the purpose of ingres and egress by pedestrians only of the existing foot path through Lot 14 to Lot 15. The easement on Lot 14 shall become effective immediately upon the execution of this Agreement. 5. Restrictions on Use of Lot 14 Easement. The Lot 14 Easement and its use by the owner of Lot 15 shall be subject to the following restrictions: (a) The existing foot path through Lot 14, which constitutes the real property subject to the Lot 14 Easement, shal[ be maintained in good condition and repair, including, but not limited to, snow removal and shall be kept debris and trash free at the sole expense of the owner of Lor 15. (b) No illumination of any nature whatsoever shall be allowed on the Lot 14 Easement without the express written consent of The owner of Lot 14 orher than downcast type lighting approved by the City of Aspen building code. 3 c:\mih\aspenclb\euemn..009 .. 6. Restrictions on Use of Lot 14A Easement and Lot 14 Easement. (a) The owner of Lot 15 shall be obligated to provide to the owner(s) of Lot 14A and Lot 14 and their mortgagees a certificate of comprehensive liability insurance insuring the owner of Lot 15 and naming as an additional insured the owner(s) of Lot 14A and Lot 14 and their mortgagees, which comprehensive libbility insurance shall be in an amount of not less than Two Million Dollars and No/100 ($2,000,000.00) per person for bodily injury or death to any one person and not less than Three Million Dollars and No/100 ($3,000,000.00) per person for bodily injury or death to any number of persons arising out of any occurrence which may occur on Lot 14A pursuant to the use of the Lot 14A Easement and which may occur on Lot 14 pursuant to the use of the Lot 14 Easement, which policies shall also provide not less than Five Hundred Thousand Dollars and No/100 ($500,000.00) for property damage coverage. All such policies of insurance shall be issued by companies who shall be acceptable to the owner(s) of Lot 14A and Lot 14 in the exercise of its reasonable discretion. Such insurance shall provide that same shall not be cancelled without at least thirty (30) days' prior written notice to the owner(s) of Lot 14A and Lot 14. (b) The owner of Lot 15 shall indemnify the owner(s) of Lot 14A and Lot 14 to the full extent allowed by law from any claim, judgment, damage or cause of action of any nature whatsoever arising out of the use of any portion of Lot 14A pursuant to the use of the Lot 14A Easement and any portion of Lot 14 pursuant to the use by the owner of Lot 15 or its invitees, licensees and customers of the Lot 14 Easement regardless of whether such claim, judgment, damage or cause of action results from any direct or indirect action of the owner of Lot 15 or his invitees, licensees and customers. (c) The owner(s) of Lot 14A or Lot 14 shall have the right, from time to time, to landscape and/or screen the real property subject to the Lot 14A Easement or the Lot 14 Easement from tile balance of Lot 14A or Lot 14 respectively. The owner(s) of Lot 14A and Lot 14 shall be obligated to maintain all landscaping and screening placed thereon and such landscaping and screening may be placed upon the Lot 14A Easement and the Lot 14 Easement so long as it does not unreasonably interfere with the purposes thereof. 4 c.\,mihbsoenclbleasemn: 009 .. 7. Enforcement. In the event the owner of Lot 15 or his invitees, licensees or customers fail to comply with any of the above provisions or breaches any of the obligations contained in this Agreement, the owner(s) of Lot 14A or Lot 14 shall deliver written notice specifying such failure or breach and the owner of Lot 15 shall rhen have thirtÂ¢(30) days within which to cure same, unless the nature of the failure or breach is such that it would reasonably require more time to effectuate such a cure, in which event, the owner of Lot 15 shall have sixty (60) days to accomplish same. If at the end of the time periods called for in the preceding sentence, the owner of Lot 15 has failed to cure such breach, then the owner(s) of Lot 14A and Lot 14 shall have the right to, at their election, either: (i) effectuate a cure of such breach at the expense of the owner of Lot 15 and/or (ii) institute injunctive proceedings against the owner of Lot 15 to en force the provisions o f this Agreement. Any sums expended by the owner(s) of Lot 14A or Lot 14 to enforce the provisions of this Agreement, not reimbursed by the owner of Lot 15, shall constitute a lien on Lot 15. Such lien shall be inferior to the lien of any first deed of trust financing encumbering Lot 15. To evidence such lien, the owner(s) of Lot 14A or Lot 14 shall record a statement of lien, under oath, certifyingÂ· the expenses incurred in enforcing this Agreement and upon such recordation, same shall encumber Lot 15. Thirty (30) days after the recordation of a lien, the owner(s) of Lot 14A or Lot 14 shall be entitled to foreclose same in the same manner provided for under the laws of the State of Colorado for the foreclosure of mortgages or deeds of trust. 8. Perpetual Easement Subiect to Termination. The Lot 14A Easement and the Lot 14 Easement shall be perpetual until such time as the owner of Lot 15 ceases to use the improvements located thereon for athletic/health club or fitness, wellness or health center or related purposes and accessory uses or constructs new improvements so that Lot 15 is then used for residential purposes only, in which event, the Lot 14A Easement and the Lot 14 Easement granted herein shall terminate. 9. Modification of the Lot 14A Easement and the Lot 14 Easement. The owner of Lo[ 14A and Lot 14 reserves the right, subject to first obtaining the consent of the owner of Lot 15, which consent will not be unreasonably withheld, to, from time to time, relocate the easements granted in paragraphs 1 and 4 aboxe; provided that such relocated easement(s) shall provide adequate access, parking for ar leaSt thirty-five (35) vehicles and an adequate footpath to Lot 15. 5 c:\mihlaspencID\easemn[.009 .. 10. Representations of Butera. Butera represents to ACI that it is well seized and has good title to Lot 14A and Lot 14 free and clear of all liens, taxes (other than property taxes for the calendar year hereof), encumbrances or other matters that could impair the Lot 14A Easement or the Lot 14 Easement or result in said Lot 14A Easement or the Lot 14 Easement being extinguished. Butera further represents that AC! shall have quiet and peaceful possession and use of the Lot 14A Easement ind the Lot 14 Easement for the purposes herein set forth. 11. Miscellaneous. (a) This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado. (b) The parties agree to perform such further acts and execute and deliver such further agreements or other documents as may reasonably necessary to effectuate and carry out the provisions of this Agreement. (c) All the provisions of this Agreement, including the benefits and burdens created thereby, shall run with the land and be binding upon all persons who hereafter acquire any interest in Lot(s) 14A or 14 or Lot 15 whether as an owner, renrer, trust deed or mortgage beneficiary, or otherwise. For purposes of this Agreement, Lot 15 shall be deemed the "Benefitted Property" and the "Dominant Estate" and Lot 14A or Lot 14 shall be deemed the "Burdened Property" and the "Subservient Estate." All provisions of this Agreement inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the parties hereto, their heirs, successors, devisees, assigns and personal representatives. (d) This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding and Agreement between the parties relating to the subject mailer hereof. All preceding agreements relating to the subject matter hereof, whether written or oral, are hereby merged into this Agreement. (e) As to the Lot 14A Easement and the Lot 14 Easement granted herein, Butera reserves the right to use and enjoy the property burdened by such easements, including the land beneath and the airspace above, for all purpqses and uses which do not unreasonably interfere with such Lot 14A Easemen-[ and The Lot 14 Easement. c:\,mjh\,aspenclb\easernn[-009 .. ( f) This Agreement may be executed in counterparts and, as executed shall constitute one Agreement binding on all of the parties hereto notwithstanding that all said parties are not signatory to the original or same counterpart. (g) In the event of any aCtiOn for breach of, to enforce the provisions of, or otherwise involving this Agreement, the court in such action shall aWard a reasonable sum as attorneys' fees to the party who, in light of the issues litigated and the court's decision on those issued, was the prevailing party in the action. If a party voluntarily dismisses an action, a reasonable sum as attorneys' fees shall be awarded to the other party. (h) The failure of either party to insist upon the strict performance of any provisions of this Agreement or to exercise any right or OptiOn available to it, or to serve any notice or ro institute any action, shall not be a waiver or a relinquisliment for the future of any such provision. (i) This Agreement may not be amended nor may any rightS hereunder be waived except by an instrument in writing executed by the parties hereto and recorded in tile real estate records of Pitkin County, Colorado. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement on the day and year first written above. BUTERA: - ACI: - 16 ~*P~ CLU~NTERNATIONAL, INC., 11, 1 \ )ragto Â¢orporation \i. .// T. Richard Burera T. Richard Rutera, President ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ON FOLLOWING PAGE c:\ntih\aspenclb tealenin i.009 E. .. STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The foregoing Easement Agreement was acknowledged before me this R) day of September, 1996 by T. Richard Butera. :\ WITNESS my hand and official seal. My commission expires: 030 Ill Notary Public /1 \ STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The foregoing Easement Agreement was acknowledged before me this to day of September, 1996 by T. Richard Butera as President of Aspen Club International, Inc. WITNESS my hand and official seal. My commission expires: i jao lq9 4344 - Notary Public y) J 8 c:\mih\aspencibleasemnt.009 . AMENDMENT T~SUBDIVISION AND PLAN: DEVD.OPMENT AGREEMENT-CALLAHAN : N.89'52'14" E 531.61' ~ C 2414' f 172.55 179.74' ~ 124 48 1\. 1 \4 1. 1 1 I 4 ' 0 33 - /,Al /'A.-1. LOT - . /2 I I r LOT 6 LOT 8 ' .AL E ./. r I 15,71951 ft N / 4/ 15,82/5(:'1 ... . . 0 - . . .4 1 1 . .191 1.1 - /4 1Â·, I.Â·T' ' 2 -Â·- 17,812:q ft..,r.Â·..'.:... ~Â· :-A . .~ ....., 1.10 i Â·1; e. 7 i)<06&f.vi,-iÂ·ftki.*Â·Â·923),A- 1/\*'l'f4-Qift.-tti...Â·~~0:#IT:ri_: 37-:7 II 4 . .....7. 4. 01.' ~'-. Â·i.,< 9>0'â‚¬....1.-Â·.A: Â·, jÂ·. 1 i ' 1..: ' 12.3,7-:J .1 .6. 32.-- -- 9. /1 //- / u . =19.-- 0~367.431,.foror~_Â»--,'/'.5 320 P.Irl--3'UT ./. thtÂ·:ri'(T,P;. / fh re LOT 9 445% Â· :P+Nl (17.\ 19,075 4.5, --- 1, -541\ / 31 ' 2' - .4*t *~*3:-123::Â«273.2.-. ... Â«22.0.01 , / f.h /4 /9 // ./ 9 4.4, 5,4,/ 1/ . .. 11 '\/- "Sf Kqj 1 - 1:Inf,3Â» / ./,f 719.. 9-6 W ' Cg<:*69 .4..7-'.28 \ 1~':4Â¢'. IÂ·Y~Â·.'~ (2,4/?CEL 01 -. , F / \\ t. / i ~ - 11 4 00\\ Â¥ . \1 1/4 38,768 oq.ft. .Â· .Â·Â· %:i~ A 9 9 \) I Al *,4,;37\- 9 tx â‚¬9 .< \ \ L~ - i . . - / 1,4 C./ciri. f / 80.18' . 0/ 26 65'4/ 18 17 U v. n .1 /1 WEST 125.00/ \ 1 :.5 OF BEAAINg / - / c,5-*\ 4 1 / 1. . - U--4, 6 1, r--1 \ O Â·*4* lil-\/ u . M D-%D-1\Â§Â· I ' _ r <-1<; - I , / -PE / 1 , . r- 1 , 6- ' 1.-1.--'-- 1- r I -' ' , '---- - f.l \ - I 1, . 31-I:.iLLLY-/ 1 1 7. tl . ' -- . -A ze A.* A - ,O \ 1 ,â€¢ ,--- .Â· 2.00 4' 2 -t< oâ‚¬ - rju. C ) .~ (20 . - - ,â€¢,9 - 1.. ( 8/Rve P ' ' I . . - . ''68' rk/vfc/ // L-6 1 .1 ... A ''I:.k . .Cll 11 1-~ \ 4.-~ /. i.-44 orâ€¢ Cry- 1~1 - - - 17.004 ., D.Â»K VICINITY MAP (N.T.S.) BAMS OF BEARING:Â·: WEST BETWEEN FOUND NO. 5 REBAR AND PLA SnC CAPS Lf 12707 AT - . ~, 1 HE SOUTHÂ·â€¢Â¥â‚¬iT CORNER OF LOT 3 A ND 33.13 ' f AST OFF 9 /10 SOgTHWEST CORNER ON THE 9 - -~-- 4~ C f 5OUTH LINE OFSAID LOT 9. . \ ~ 12 1- 2 /' 0 15 30 60 IFÂ° 150 11?0 FEET '7' 0 -Â· ;- . "* b m 1. -LOT 14\V 0 1 . I a 33,45414 Â·Â·Â·,1 . SCALE: iâ€¢ 30 1-LI J LOT 14E -4, M 42,21'519 n 2: 1 U. - " \~-~~ ~937â‚¬sc/â„¢E CE,-1-â€¢.t CP 7-thEâ€¢S CEO"CM ' LEGEND: 1. â€¢ Oc.NOTES RECORD LOT CORNER OF CALLAHAN SUBDIVISION IN / BOOK 5 AT PAGE 7 -NOT FOUND OR SET DURING THIS SURVEY ~ I99.13 UtoÂ«Â»:22Â«-\ 2. CENOTES FOUND NO 5 REBAR AND PLAST:C CAP LS 12707 - 1 0 DENOTES FOUND NO 3 REBAR AND PLASEC C.1.P PLS 25947 , . 7--N.88'23'*.-203.Ij' I DENOTES SET NO. 5 REBAR AND RED Pt,ASTÂ·JC CAP PLS 24303 t ..., ' :4 \\ -T-DENOTES UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE LINE-10 'MOE EASEMENT .. 6. 9 -P-DENOTES UNDERGROUND POWER LINEÂ·17 WIDE EASEMENT : -~ ~Â· ' . . . .- 0 6 \ 7. -T-â€¢ -DENOTES UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE AMO PCWER LINEÂ·10' WIDE EASEMENT ... LOT 15 . 8. ' - l - DENOTES EXISDIG 8- 0 I P. WATER LINEÂ·:Cr WIDE EASEMENT , Â· '" (PARCEL A ) '.12. 9. - Â·-Â· - DENOTES NEW PROPERTY LINE CPEATED BY TMS PLAT _. ' 3 ' . .Â· ~1 Â· , - 4, , a.. - 0 - DENOTES UNDERGROUND GAS LINE-IV VIOE E.ASEVENT Â· i Â·Â·Â·- 4 WMMUM DIMENSIONS FOR PARKING 37'ACES SHOWN HEeRECN ARE 8 5Â·YAOE BY 19Â· LONG , Â·, Â·Â· .Â·Â· - i~Â·Â·. 5 THERE ARE NO BOUNDARY DIMENSION OR CONFIGURATION CHANGES BY TH,3 PLAT IN , n..,44, NOTES: u . 41 .1 .1 i,.... j ....1 r ..1 - jp'.. :-- ,Â· Â· LOTS 5,6,7,3.9.14.3,14W,14E OR PARCEL C FROM THOSE DEFINED BY THE RECORDED . Â·f ~Â· 1. A -0~ Sâ„¢BOL INDICATES INFORMATION REGARDING ITEMS. EASEUENT3 ' OR OTHER ORIGINAL AND AMENDED PLATS OF CALLA}IAN SUBOMSICN EXCEPTING THE ADOInCN CF Â· . 4~â‚¬*~:' INFORMATION TAKEN FROM THE PLAT OF CALLAMAN SUBOMSION AS RECORDED IN PLAT PORTIONS OF PARCEL C. A PRIVATE ROAD. TO LOTS 7,8 AND 9 AS SHOWN HEREON , 1 r..173,- 8OOK 5 AT PAGE 7 OF:1 AS AMENDED IN PLAT BOCK 8 AT PAGE 18. Â·Â·Â·â€¢- Â·Â· " -'~ 8 THEE PARKING SPACES SHOAN ONLOT 14'.V AHE ALLOWED BY AN ACREEMENT BErAE EN 144. :*I 1 â„¢13 SURVEY WAS PERFORMED USING FIDELITY NAT1ONAL TnTLE INSURANCE COMPANY T. RICHARD BUTERâ€¢, AND THE OANER OF LOT 14W THE TERMS OF WHICH ARE DESCRIBED . :'42 .0~1. OF CALIFORNIA COMMITMENT ISSUED BY PITKIN COUNTY nTLE INC CASE NO. PCT104!BC6 , IN THAT CERTAIN DOCUMENT RECORCED IN BOOK-66(0_ AT PAGE 434 AS.Â· : 7.' NOTE: .' IHIS MAP IS INVALID 43 A lEGAL 4-1. 2~:==1=1271~Mct~23,~11Â£77tmtnrY-.9~f ;E~EEP~ORNP~E~~H~S~A~1S-TO~~HUVE ~2Â©ligL.,REE~EAtH-E TEMPORARY '-; 4-7. UNAUTHOPÂ·ZED BY THE SURVEÂ·CR - * f ' 3 THERE EXISTS A 10 FCOr PUBLÂ·C UTILIT'Y EASEVENT ALONG THEE SUBDIVISION BOUNDARY ~~~BE~UST~k~,~?~2NK,~~~~fI:~'YA'th&~'1;~TO~EE~tHINTT~EC'~~~EUNTTE~E~~~CAESOPTVS ~-2., - ~If;t~J?',J:&5~:T{%1~"'11:2 9E. ; . ~ LINES ANO A 5 FOOT UTILITY EASEMENT AL.~'1G EACH SIC~ fF t'91 INTV~ER.LOT ~NE..6. RECEPT,ON NO 396943 OF FHE PitÂ«IN COUNTY RECORDS - - , Â· INFCRATION SHOâ€¢IN THTRE 3. 4 â€ž ,Â·tzÂ·gzz LANI\1ED UNIT {590 P 3/ 'Co<â€¢,;31'iÂ·'Â·1'.4. ,Â·-c-'. ;., ,.~,Â·.0. . '. itÂ·Â·'~-C-i' KNOÂ·N Alt '04â€¢ 9/ b.i .4 2': . Â·Â·i' , IAN SUBDIVISZON 74 c, , ~ .Arâ€¢ 1 Ik .I qâ€¢â€¢câ€¢0 â€¢-1 Uâ€¢<2â€¢. . : 4 PAPS,t A L:tâ€¢,7 0.: 4, ..3..-Â·Â·Â·,Â·, i Â·Â·,-;Â·Â· Â·pÂ· Â·Â· ' '. tâ€¢.0.: 'Â·i â€¢, - 21 7, :'.>i ... .r,â€¢'11.'/, 4, 1121 .*. ~' , 244-â€¢5*P..;-7 *Â·J'., .Â· '; Â·,;'r: 3 04$ 4 '92; /2 â€¢J . .PARCEIB A-Â·>i' /.râ€¢.74.1.f ..- 'l''tri -- /9,4 49 3.) Dj. 3 74' %/ Â·IÂ· MÂ·4:~-â€¢ Â·)â€¢~ 0 .3 -2 MAS C, :-; 11. .4; 11 .â€¢., 1â€¢ 't >-1, '..+ 't .... 1 -, - '.-- 't. ,â€¢ ' =4.' 1 IÂ·' Â·â€¢.2. 17 W . 2. 41.3.-1Â·.I â‚¬1 â€¢2 . --â€¢â€¢2 51-1 â€¢â€¢},r P..201Â£1'(ik"a' 4 . %'.Â·Â·Â·Â· .." =.4 :- ......:Â·.I Â·./ '2 3-/ I '.' 19.1,17,0 42Â·fr- w..St#, .,< 4-7 ,6 4'. LOT 5 ' d 2.4 . Â· ... . ..... 1â‚¬,-6+EkkNO,.9.-Af' 9% Â·TAQUIL.'34 Â·i Â· Al :di~'1Â· ',CRU-~ 19 . TITLE CEkllf,CAfE a ..s:. . 41 J 30 2.-- :Â· Â·j Pe:Â·â€¢,wrt.- ./PtÂ·, Cc,-2, T-Â·e Irc f.i':eâ‚¬,1 to Sitâ€¢.-,11 . i ,Â·.. Â·. . Â·: A-,Â· 1 . Â·Â·., 34,1!(. â€¢C-,r,y. 1 crÂ·.: 1 1 Â·, CiÂ·., Â·.Â·,.Â·i Â· ... 0--â€¢7-,2:'.'C.1~tâ€¢'~12*-*,-7-21"y.'0"D~:T-.W-:.-.,~ 1- 2'.7 .r *-7. -..-'./. ,--C,2..trrit..12; . 2.52. cfle -7 r x.Â·:.-Â· . ,r St/.t .' t' ' 1-'*/9 3 3 - 7. 9 6 -1.4;t.~ t..'~ 0 9â€¢<.. CtÂ·.,te JUS; fa-knt; in *Wdri'<.. ..j ~cu.,rfr~~-~~A,~f i": ; A,1. 19 .tâ€¢,TIÂ·â€¢-18.4-.1 40: E-,-1 ''Â» I 1. f.. . ALÂ·, 1. Ca.Â·r!. 3;;1; ' 4-0 7 , r--1, ~ . . 16.2 -.2 -Ly,-2'y,>t ' ' S </1 C.; C..â€¢ el,-Â·:71 Â· 49 -. Ctâ€¢.â€¢.T / CD, } st,Â·,i' CE Cri' 'LÂ·Mr,3 } 7-1 02 7' 7 ir.'Â· J" er: H. 3~AD.'Â·2~.,81 1.' â€¢. ne !'-i., '21 . 0.., I }ss -17 .- .. .... -f-irit,t-,4:4,4. 1)_'._..~, t,VE'~~1;r T . (~)1.''.*< 6| -~~~':': } ; ..4 1/I...4'Â·[) cl I iL 4L SEAL -~h c,13 . '31101 Â»11.- - 1-, 13/ -f no fu,-uwu â€¢1 3'iurr.Â·=f.t /,3, 3./>r.cÂ·Â·,redgid befo,e me thtÂ·& ..(274 . 2/4 Of CONSL:â€¢r Or 1271 W ENT HOLDEN '43 AD, 19_55..b,Vince lieggens. Pres .: Â·' : Ai>, Ci.:, RA. 1.6, a Ceâ€¢-fo l--5-3 L'An C-reÂ·, 0- Pâ€¢Â»â€¢ 0, a Â»:7 â€¢i., F... 3 â€¢ Â· E.= 1.1,4 'ct .44. A.cÂ·-.Â· 2.t. S-S+Â·MT. c,rer:, h :â€¢e 2-Â·'. Â«,s 9..e '"4 â€¢ ..p ; Â·Â·Â· ?.â€¢, coÂ·-1,<0; Â»'i /,2.-'24 ' L VAIN' 35 1,"):AND AND ORICIAL SEAL. 2 -'.Â· ..r,/.,<iÂ·. 2.7, .2. . A A " 4-1 - ":'30'24Â·,'' 2 -4.Â·â€¢ -1 i.ke'/, Â·i Â·Â·rÂ·:f:' STATE OF CaG.AD) } :....L Â· 2. $.,1 Cll - Mw &Â·#,7,4 -:-pg-2--*,0-73-7-E.T ''Â·1, 7 4 - iÂ· ' . X . 7 :.3 . f ~-9 Â«tff:14?29~.Â·fh::ffÂ·.92~' 7 I ,.i< 70:r -s:,teâ€¢int -1 ~D:knoâ€¢'el;,1 tetÂ·â€¢. me thâ€¢* i,~tff'I-4 4., G, ........4.2, 13-2-4 T C Â· '- . I..#: To,n..Ap i.2. . :, 4 .- : Â·.Â· Â· ....Â·Â·~ Â·Â·... , Â·Â· .- I. 1 6,Â·. ,Â·..Â·Â· t,1, ce-,-21Â·.v, tâ€¢7Â·â€¢e, ~92.'1 i CITY COUNCIL- APPROVAL 'Â· Â·- ' Â· Â· Â· . ---'- -â€¢,Â·,ipiESÂ·i 'Â·1~(21~Xo AND OFF-:CIAL SEAL ti>,1 I -1 .~ C.Â·f Â·.2-ViNT To sterâ€¢y>Â·Cl hO PLANâ€¢.EJ 'MT Câ‚¬'/fice/Eâ€¢iT ,-.p, EVEÂ·â€¢r . 02;.'23~2.,1.- 7-3.~ a â€¢00Â¢: t, tâ‚¬ Ct, C//<1 -1 94 24 0 A.4. 0. 1& L .4 . 7- ---/.* 17...23.Â·-:.INÂ·-t--2*__ s.-* *-1CL_la, 10 fl.2 Al.Itt Â»70-2//e- /~i:13 (7/ F E.~'O/,~7Â·7.'R 'N A V/'A'n;:l L \X The Cty E~yeef te :te Cfy of Aterâ€¢. Ceâ€¢y,40 6.,i Fe.d, 2,%,Ae :fâ€¢, ,â€¢&â€¢24CVENT TO SCECIVGCN AND PLANNED U,â€¢II DEVELOâ€¢ Â·.Vâ€¢r ACÂ·Ri , 'Â·0Â· NT (Alt APAN SURDÂ·,[S,C,% . , 0:e /0 - 29-1 4 Li-__(12.k _ 4 Al , :A..~ . N.CK *21. CON Eri-er ' 11 -1. , i COMMUNITY DEVELOP,MINT D!RECTOR APPROVAL â€ž Iii I i Ti C,<,pit, DepeÂ·cirer{ D-Â«!./ b n C 9 cf As:Â·.1 C-ki 21 *et tect, 3:pe.- Â·- i j / AMENOMENT TO SURDr/.S.04 Al.-0 r:/t,*14:, 6,09--~Â·,1 t /.4 .'F Â·,T C/i : /}4;N 5:,B)/3,2. 92,~CÂ·*11-C~--v,t, Ce.eâ‚¬'-. Câ‚¬-câ€¢,4 i /ff~* CLERK ANO RECORDER'S ACCEPTANCE SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE I. C-1 A C,â€¢râ€¢â€¢iia,0 he,et, te,â€¢ 4, :â€¢M 41 4-.9 *i. 2**'/'y'-1 0-3-, râ€¢v, + â€¢-c:-:4 i-j â€¢Â·.r-*r.Â· * --11* 2,5 Abii.ouri,T TO Sueorâ€¢,12,04 AND PLANNED UMT CEVELOPMENT ASPEEVENT . Â·Â·.. ~ SA rteâ€¢. 9/5 1 7,>41*y, 3â€¢,cÂ·:â€¢4 707,Â¥1 Câ€¢/ 40 AN-4. P,A C<W'i C.-,4-1â€¢0 li '-DI CALL;mil 5,62*AS.04,1 5 YzemÂ·,1 4,04,Â·.3 8 -â€¢ cie of:DI CÂ·eck /,3 Reâ€¢xyder c,f PRI Cairly. 44. 54 D,.**91 -Â·1 xyeâ€¢ ec,7,-er:, M e 'B.-d io te Â·<coll :ert>, D, cÂ· ..r. C- 5.. :4.1 7.1 7-- Ail Ccpole ar ICED,ckÂ«- _A_ 11. :ha_1__dâ€¢/ 0'...A~1.~thlOPL--A S, 195Â£1, P,. 1.t , 10Â¢/M -d <~â€¢rev-~S C~I Â».,Â«-7 YY, '-fÂ·t-* I v,Se'e e,<â€¢rKCa ~f~~94â‚¬r=f$ 2*.-f~ri Sock ..kiL.j pn .21 - , - Â· , Â· ,-1 . 11 9/*... . eveerÂ« v kx:Â·41 b Â·r~ ,"d efÂ·â€¢23â‚¬~Â·7-eÂ·:1 5, CN c,I trese :Â«Â·.1.sci iÂ·e xc.~1Â·4 ' " ' Â· ~ -'â€¢' -' Â·Â·Â»Â¥&- Â£*t--.'.tÂ·U-AZ:7Â·Slâ€¢'.ty prec,â€¢<- islieafeâ€¢ 0Â·- 1 10010 ..1 jf .,â€¢1717> '7 , - ~2Â·:7~*fA/44: 7~PIC~7~1~ 021/j.,74..;-'.f th /~:,Q>4,4.% D./~ b - 6.*R*.v..'|_ j Â·Â·. .......... Ca/ LON*; PLS Â·24*11 " .4 3 A LEGAL DCCUVENT AMO ESSESSiON OR USE CI THIS â€¢X-P :S': 39:I:0 -- . ...,1 -11'>. ..~ . .1, '4.2 .'t.?"' -"-â€ž ' -:tffiÂ¥,t.-+~'Â·il.kif-';. )2. Â· . . tliwi:24]Cl .:111 -NO 9â€¢ET ST,up AKE TO BE vW Â·Â£0 AS PRELtu:LARY BNO ALL-'4'2.2.,â€¢Â·f'.-,4,TÂ·.':-4.4,.L-y.':11Â·6<.9-40:...ru='4...... - MIRMN REECT FO CÂ»NGE , - . -Â· ;Â·4Â·7. :Â·Â·Â· . :,,r-Â· .Â· Â·.- Â·Â· '. . Â· ' 'iÂ·Sl~07'MAUG'.07â€ž1996.- R#WA~;~rÂ· i;:3,(L~~~~~~~'~-~~114 724:4Â·Â·74542;14,--nt)0.-â€žÂ£**â‚¬*f-44AflloS,0-c-- -Â· e...4' , . Â·' '- Jch No 95-60 CHart BUTERA I .TI : 5./6, /9/40 1 S./ Iff.~ 0 0 = 741% . 37. CLERK AND RECORDER'S ACCEPTANCE 1 Ca" This AMENDMENT TO SUBDIVISION AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT .* in Se; CALLAHAN SUBDIVISION is accepted for filing in the office of the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin Counri, 4, the bi, Colorado at IC)Mao'clock, 0 fr.M.l'this* 1 day'of _-AlÂ»CCA+Qf ,A.D., 195 An P:at *3 Yocabo Bock LtD at Pagg >5/ -.'.;Ak...'.1 ..~11.1â‚¬., r~ :k. 2. nghts -9... v'B. Shown Recepbon No ~.'~C) ~Â£37'~,.t '33~ 2,t?~~fttYE:Yt432~' 9.3->Ff~;I~ 0- 1.Â·" ~~~'~ ~Ii This 5 .Cste>Â· Sur. c , 9 Sylvia Davis, Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder ->jk,Â£2' By: Deputy Â·, ON OR USE OF THIS M.AP IS .%.UI GINAL . .//Bill'.../.Il SIGNATURE AND WET RED BY THE SURVEYOR AND ) AS PRELIMINARY AND ALL Re,islons - Â· Title 4,r - fia'-9888'JAZA:=:463:51:EL##=LD,Ma=2;Jacew:.i.'SU--0 . Â·Â·Â·,wry't -mt ~711/'$&13693:71~'36~yÂ¥~ , 90 VIy ..u....$#Fll--Ak~,4..wA I .Â· - ~ -I . -0Â·Â·-Mt*P.-- â€¢I--6.r, I .1/ & I I I - ae A:.IC<-2- I .,Â· 4.m.< - :,t 1 .t, 4 1 :49 r--- -.71~ *F@5"aâ€¢ql'br~0118#9WF~~5> .,4,-I .id '. 1 4. *Â· . 112. W.I. r *.7. .. . .- I . . 710 . 9 p., JI@54;##.'Q./..#aÂ£'ki'tz . -rE... .. - ........ .1 ./&' L r rrÂ·:Ir Fidpr~,~ ?b 93 70"#At Â· 4 6.-2.,912-p $ '4 . A A .N. 1- / ,6.'' {;-jft/i# 1 11.4 / 94.1 t-â€¢u=am. -Â» , .. i '<. . LOT 13 / I -- . . I'll.'- .- 1.0 1 ...- P/ f ' f - -- e // - =ar=-- 1 - St.*........ --- , , O -- - -- - =-9-ev- t 8 - 59=- F f h r - , 1 . i - ....... 1 i 7 1 e . i I , ; - 2 1 j ./mr - .i LOT 14 E / 4 . 1 8--! - 1 / 1 lo. 2 ,/ .3 1 W ..< *- 1 IN ! 1 1 I 14 i -il- 1.1 1 1 11 */ 0 -- 11 '. 1 1.1 -./- : 1 / i 1 1 -. - --KIL~./ Il I 11 , 11 una -/Nx' 4 .-e 9 -4/\- . \\ ' 7- / . J - ... O , iÂ·' ~Eg-~. 6; 1 - TK ASPEN CLUB 1. A f t -- e--='.,1,/;2â‚¬-- -/ *Ell//ESS GARDEN 0-1*ENCE DIEET L U 1 / Ii- -i ..pl. ...I.-- -il- .. - --- 4 1 , rl \Â« 1 < 0, <i ~r- 9 , 1 k-/ 4 4 . tl 1 11 f 1\; . .54 1 1 - ;! 11 â€¢ , nâ‚¬ ASPEN =UN , , & . ; 1 I A<** Â· 1 Un q i t. Â» 1 , f 23->~ am t 1' MAIN ENTRÂ¥ 0~FEBIENCE SHEET L 11 PATI}err 1 i iâ€¢ f f 1 - - =m ; 1 1 0 7 h\\ ac 2 1 1 1 1 1 J 3 1 1 1 S i . \ , 3(l X & 1 , -se'l z ,/ -- . I ,\ t . 1 1 ' I ./ 1 -' /1 'i 0 /.1 , 9 4 I -l 2-/'1~ 1 REd/kiDÂ©amm=, . / .1 4 6 91 â€¢ , 40/9-2 6 -7% L_- It -- - _ -Ln ...... 11" / , --7- r -4- I. I i Â«06 /1 4 n \ .:I , 32 33/1 Â£57 - / M I ./. â€¢ . am .40'ect 4, p / / / . \. I _ 41 C v / CLUB PARKING 0 ,\ / 441.45 / ' 4 4 % i , I , - TOTAL al- Pll*Di 47 -*. -1 &471 =Ele-f FAZZING , / LOT 16 TOTAL /AmEING SPADU , , 4i 2-' . 4,/1 1 Â£ 1 ....95 45 - DO....92'16.'/.*9. . .. /*MVIAh<wt- 3 - 1* 1 UNLITY EASEMENT Hal) NadSV op,10[00 guodev -.4. ,<OODPLAIN 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN 4 0 \ 1 4 x l. 4 0 00. LANDSCAPE AREAS ARE TO HAVE 9 1 A MINIMUM OF 6" TOP SOIL .0 7 /1 ~ LIMITS OF WORK DETAILED BY OVIL DRAWINGS SEE ARCHITECTUAL DRAWINGS (TYP.) - / 1 21 11 li 5 1 4212622 / 71 \ / f \1 fr 9\ f 6 X N *trt O r .~ d. i A .0 .-15 -- \ - - 1 1101 5.3% Â·-14Â¢'t*Â· - 410.9 6...Â» '. .al- , X. - fita AVE -1// 2. .: F,I~f.:hoe#%;ILL. :S . .40% ' 2396<33 p;.5,\<1 1. - :Ififf \ -. t. . . SO y.- 13 --- . . 4.~ ..3Â» Â· 19,1 0 - /11 - - A fr-lf *Â«kint-- -Eff , \ . ADS Â» . (0 . . . 2 0 2 . .016..51* 4 % 7 , . 40 ,\6. -1 1 1 . 5% 0 6 r\n C ~Â«4Â· -~- Â· 1. a- 4 1 \ G. B. 0=kf . G. Mi. ... k I 49.10.14 i>-4- 4-1 - 1 1---< .1 . 1, 4,1 -- 10.00'4 30' Neâ€¢4.8.00' Â·Â·Â·-- \ - -*.- 00 44 - Â·>~ ~:~ ' 4 co 87.8 A -0 x. - -~Â«644- . _123\Nzr-LIZE*IlIZI--/- - - I Ip ' 9 0 1 33. .'. 1 . - ~~.---bl/\ . ------*- 'r 1 - .C---T'------1-,5~'.~~---t .09.0'....pli 21% ~- Â· C 2 47UE--Â»r. .).*/ /7. 11 %--*.4 \\ D 'CGRATE =125 1722.f...18" ADS N-12 \ \\ORA -E = 4.2-5--Â·Â·--Â·2~~~~rÂ·-_ \~~ ~ IN V.14 93.4 \ \\h 99.0/ ,\\ \ I * Lh 1LL ) - AS PEN CLUB 1 0- ARE TO BE TYPE M-604-13 CURB INLE - STRUCTURES U//440/ / / i PER CDOT M & S STANDARDS Proposed Parking Lot < r Mar. 28, 1997 1/8"=1'-0" 2 Design Workshop HNV NIVMO 4 / ./ k~ h â€¢ - 03- 1-- - -- - I tri; - . to LANDbcAM NG LANDSCAMNG EAISTING 2.W Plk,Ve NAT , AAEA 150!U>/MOL 2 ARA 2 18' B#AMN 6 - . ASPEN CLUB Proposed Parking Lot Section Mar. 28,1997 1/8"=1'-0" ---IDesign-Workshop -- -- - PP-OP LI NE â‚¬;11 -t 44+911Miv \ \I l \\ / \3 \ \\ - \.1 \ \ C \ I 9 '5 ,\ 44 1 . -0 41\ \ 5 1 - 9,1.- - - b 21/*.-M Iq . 1 9 4 -\\ 0 , \\ 4 - i \ , A. : 1 161 9 / 1. F F. 2- : 6 \ L i . CONE. RETAINING WALL /. I / I - - -y ./ C. -Â· 5 CONCWALK : 3 ~~#-R] -- *9 clk_TAIN(NO ~ .0 W a Icl ' .3 _ 4 V IL< * 1 1 S 2 - te : ! .U- --- -- --I jf \, L- 1. - r, 22 1 1 - . C \1 1 - G A , 9 31 - - 1 06 - _ 0n f ASPEN CLUB 4 a 73 m Handicap Access \0 0 - ' Mar. 28,1997 1"=20'-0" C c r- I 2 F i ' Design Workshop Uj L 1 WOOD DE - - -- ----i --- - -- 0, i #. % #4 441*14 -gu*,2 1 - i *- fMVÂ·Nt A *44 I + 1 0 Atatâ€¢l-, G 7 -1 / 1 25*AF+F I ,Â·Mrl#1,4 21= -1Â»taN_mnerri -1**1 AA CI,*racr-f Nk- *- ABIEFF- 100WQ-*JA#dEAdi. 2iAXAK1Â«-- -tfu( 10> 4.Â»11 142,1 - Set i <22_ 5,-9 -ph.7. d Â¢55'22$592?44'll'IIkEY/: .- iÂ·ofÂ°-LE~ 4 . 0 ... :-1.- ...1 ..Ti .fi:.7-1~~t,7'*T.22-46.~~:'~~ : 1 1 11 15 -I 1-r-r ------ 1 , r 1 .r- -9 1--,- i ;., 114 i 1/1 !1 4 1 11 11; 1 1 11 4 / 11 It 'l l ~- f :5 14 8 1 1 lili 11 47 . 0 - p i i , 11! : 4 Â· 1 i 74 -. 1 1 11 1; 1 il .I' . . 1,11 ' Â· 44 k 1 . rf. 11 -U'. . 1 , 1 + 5 1 i . t! f Â· 1 14 --.-- IX 1 1 , /4 i 11 1 11' 1 1 , 11 11 .8 0 -t / & 11 k 1 1\ 1 1 21 - Il 1. f 1! 1 P'rm CW , E':trUf~ CUT)/ F,or, U f 7Â©14 4Â·24- cby p.l, !. . COTTLE GRAYBEAL YAW MEMORANDUM ARCHITECTS LTD TO: Stan Clauson CC. Michael Fox PRO.W: Susan Hayward RE: The Aspen Club: Insubstantial Amendment to Approved Parking Plan DATE: April 3,1997 Attached please find documentation in sig)port of the Application for Insubstantial Amendment to the Approved Parking Plan for The Aspen Club: Attachment 1: See attached Land Use Application Form. Attachment 2: (as follows and attached) 1. Applicant Name: Michael Fox c/o 8 10* The Aspen Club 1450 Crystal Lake Road 46 Â¢, Aspen. Colorado 81611 970 925 8900 / f 'AftÂ¢f#j #.'.. 2. Street Address: 1450 Cn-stal Lake Road 1 Fe. Aspen Colorado 81611 Legal Description: PARCEL A: Lot 15. Callahan Subdivision. According to the maps thereof recorded May 19,1976 in Plat Book 5 at rage 7. August 17, 1977 in Plat Book 6 page 16. PARCEL B: A pedestrian access easement through Lot 14, Callahan Subdivision and part of CIystal Circle within the Callahan Subdivision, City of Aspen, Colorado being 12 feet in width, lying westerly of and abutting the following described line: Beginning at a point on the southerly line of Lot 14, Callahan Subdivision, whence the southwest corner of said Lot 14, Callahan Subdivision bears N 88 degrees. 25 degrees W 199.49 feet: thence N 07 degrees, 39 degrees W, 125.28 feet: thence N 13 degrees, 15 degrees E 69.49 feet to a point on the south line of Lot 14-A. Callahan JOHN COTTI-E, AIA Subdivision. DOUG GRAYBEAL, ALA LARRY YAW'. ALA 3. Disclosure of Ownership see attached. MARK HENTHORN, AIA 4. Vicinity map, see attached. 510 EAST IHYMAN, SUITE 21 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 PHONE (970) 925-2867 (FAX) 925-3736 5. Proposal Description: The proposed parking plan show-s modest variations in the landscaping and the P O BOX 3507 orientation of parking spaces from the approved plan. Please see attached 107 NORTH FIR STREET TELLURIDE, COLORADO 81435 documentation for clarification. PHONE (970) 728-3037 - (FAX) 728-3236 0 . Attachment 3: A. Approved Plan: 1. Ordinance No. 20 2. Callahan Subdivision Amendment. 3. Approved Parking Plan. B. Proposed Plan 1. Proposed Parking Plan Summar>. 2. Partial Proposed Parking Lot. 3. Proposed Parking Lot Section. 4. Proposed Handicap Access n:wpdocs:aspenclb:mem+3 :9688 AiTAL.liMENi 1 IAND USE APPLICATION FORM ' 1) Project Maine . 2) Proj ect Locntion 1456 Cytp+Al Upe Pod 1 0.11.\0- Gv61,*vi'0, 61- h,. 15 (indicab- street address, lot & block number, legal description ~here appropri.' te) 3 ) Present Zoning 34~ 4 ) Lot Size _121 acres Â· 5) Applicant's Name, Address & Phone # h,Ael Fox % 11, Aerâ€ž CU . It'&6 Crystal 63 Yod , P'bp*,Co. 8611 996Â·115Â·3300 6) Representative' s Name, Address & Phone # '7) Type cf Application (please check all that apply): Conditional Use - OonceÂ»lal SPA Conceptual Historic Dev. Special Review Final SPA Final Historic Dev. 8040 Greenline ~ Coreeptual FUD - Minor Historic Dev- Stream Margin ~ Final FUD Historic Demoli'tien Mountain View Plane ' Subdivision Historic Designation Cordaniniumization Tet/Map Amendment (2Â·135 Allatment Int Split/Iat Line - CIQS EaEmitian 6 Adjustment 8) Description of Existing Uses (rumber and type of existing structures; approximate sq. ft. ; rumber of bedroans; amr previous approvals grarrted to the property). Arrox. 60,000 5F CoÂ¥09;floor a..3 Atallt Ct; 7 ofHcl,Mled r.yriâ‚¬ . 9 ) Descriptidn of Develognerrt Application hafeDY (6*795 % A?proved pArri~ plah subbilki As **bv~*ed- tv %,Wi~,o~ A.,whA,ne,1- 4,44 54 2.2-1 1934 10) Have you attached the following? X Response to Attachment 2, Mi nimum Submi c:sion contents Response to Attachmerrt 3, Specific Submission Contents Response to Attact-~errt 4, Review Standards for Your Application Al\IKA *fet 1. - N-- --~944'Ne. ----\0-CS:=~ k---\--COAR - - rb..~ lk; u ' 4 V. r A,Â» -11 9 -1-i--pWI â€¢ccesâ€¢ - 4003 - -%71,2 Y ' eÂ» 46/4 40â€¢- ~ .1- f I-4/ \, 4 i 4. I..4 4" ' 6,<U<.1 6441 tx-J . ip.i . 4..-*Al:/fÂ· 1, 1 \ 11,40/ kf- LM Â·Â·4 3>46 7,264 - Â·Â· â‚¬,5 0 =19 \ b . . 4.4,2 a ", . \ 42 -105 6 , ' -- r **r, 1 1 ->14 9*hy . 8%Q 4, 7 f C~9 7 / 1 -1 kfsÂ· :'4 4 :&2 - ~ d E k: Â·' 0 0 0 Z 0. \ V EEÂ· A,Â·' \f\%\*n 49&9 8 8 1 %==A- \ 1 1-----Â·tmxlkfalel Z /fig \Cre\4WV ,- 1 ~41 \ 0\ 1 w %r \ ' ,\ \ 1% j..1. ~,19 1 \ . ZE' 1 9,/ 0 li > Ir 0 /1 1 - 2 * 2 1% 1 -tr,&-ADA I ./. - --\Art# 5 .0 :Â«,3 .1 1 - -Â·r:-i e 4-54 -Ir , 1 1 1- I 4 -0 ' O I , ; CZ 1 2 i I [.---- . - 8~ - 1 1111 1 -1.0 1 Iz . 7- - 'IR Mvir=ey 1-9 1-<2=49 :.:.:1 #2*4:- z A--ret 1 M A.(4]% 1 - P #--- 19Â»tylrty f ---lf - 1Â·- 4.7 + i -A T-- - -1 -1 1 11 *=f, 0 im =-11 Ace: AE H -121 N -f-- - E tâ‚¬K--SISCEL'' 411-14 ' 43 .2 4 1 1 I lilw / 3. MYN*-40 1 1 739/ '\+325. ~ 4-f-& 0 1 ; 6-1 .d-i_. KÂ»r9 --".- 440 - C ' 87 'g.1 - , 340.zy , I 0 ' m 1 . _I -._ - _._ .:1*12,1 Mi:.20rl 1 4.Â«4#4*h 4 m ez H 4% 1 1 " <epe 42# - EEK ' , RRE 1, J Â£ VI + 0 P - L - -- -2 4- - . lt- m i 0 191 1 1 1 10 ROBERT TROWN & ASSOCIATES INC. R R.Al Y A TOTAL CONCEPT DENGN FIRM ASPEN GLUB 1- 00 -3 1415 CRYSTAL LAKE DRIVE 1 4 00 ~11.4 440 5 ASPEN, COLORADO , m=111.,1 11 I",11,Â·ill 11 '11 2â€¢ Â·A.. Road. Slit, 104 '1816 E. 9 SE]OVdS UND)41Â¥d -1V1O1 9Nt)(Uvd Adva)Hl DNE>IMVd 871 EXISTING EXISTâ€¢NG DECK Â£ #v~T~Â·Hy Ul CITY Or At,rEN 4/1 rl LNE FOUNDS SNiCâ‚¬51DNE MC*.1. >' 7 2 X 11 1 \ 111 \\ 4/ : .4, 0 LOT -2-94Â· / \ ~1 L. , f 557'40' E 5 .0 P 1-:000 k.t * FIZE HYDKANT 05*5TIN E?, i.. t:Â·Â·1 N 00'49'21'5 23- 1 5 - Nko - L.6.2-376 \ \ 738* 920'.-- \\ G .00 4/ s 240, *s~ 0 /O.56 ...I ./. 2 0 0 47' 68 i . -1 24' 'MOE. Ul-\Ltry, -->f ~73. \ cb, ~ W ACCESS AND , SERVICE- EASEMENT \ C 93.9,24&,5:3Â»_ FIRE Boot<.31 Z. 'Bea lâ‚¬/1_ > . EAEÂ£ -4?/ afb ..9.\ 46. 9 \\AP Â«98.\ ,-1 r SAL\Al-1 C 4.6 A P 1-TO-1 EAS ON EACH S 24-rf HALL - SAID- CENT-[ / 0. FOLLOWS> 6 I EKLY LINE ERLy CORN 1 n 2-45 FEETE ; \13.457 FEET 3~ LEFT HA/1 IN 5 65.30' E 3 2 631 ALONe THE h A RADIUS 0 -li A 46,00 FEET 7 0 ARC oP A c x f 'HEKE AE AED CE HA,1 NGART 61Â»al. MTO . W PEET - ALOWI - THE LEFT TMENCE 911 FEET Al_ot TO A POINT OPEN SPACE. tveN-F. LOCATION MAP ... C , . .. - AM-t k t APR. 1.1997 11:59AM GARFIELD & HECHT,7 - NO.192 P.2 Ap/1 1. 123 F 11,10."LIU No, 5880 P. 1/5 LAK ~t 11.-2 CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP Pitkin County Title, Inc., a duly licensed Title Insurance Agent in the State of Colorado hereby certifies that ASPEN CLUB SPA, LLC, A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY is the owner in fee simple of the following described property: AS SET FORTH IN DEED RECORDED SEPTEMBER 12, 1996 AS RECEPTION NO. 396943 APTACHED HERETO. COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO. Subject to encumbrances, easements and rights of way of record- This certificate is not to be construed to be a guarantee of title and im furnished for informational purposes only. l PITKIN CO'[I~ LE, INC. autho]~ ignature CERTIFIED TO. 1-1 1.Ll CH 3, 1997 @ 8:30 A.M. ALL,-th K. b jAPR. 1.1997 '11:59AM pARFIELD & HECHT,Â· T NO. 192 .p. 4/- vw wAâ€¢ 4 1 .i.Lu 10.0660 f. .-1 . . 455(.a Recorded at o'clock .M. 396949 09/12/96 12:250 PG 1 OF 4 REC DOC UCC SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CLERK & RECORDER 21. 00 550.00 RECORDING REQUESTED BY: WHEN RECORDED, RETURN TO: Andrew V. Hech~ Esq. Gadeld ( Hecht, P.C. 601 East Hyman Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 SEEgALWARRANIâ„¢En 0 ..1 0, 0, ASPEN CLUB INTERNATIONAL, INC, a Colorado corporation, as Grantor, 4A 8 @% whose address Is 1450 Crystal Lake Road, Aspen, Colorado 81611, for TEN DOLLARS ($10.00) and other good and valuable condderation, in hand paid, benEby ~ I Â¢ sells and conveys to ASPEN CLUB SPA, LLC a Colorado limited Iiabl!!cy company E~ 4 whose address Is 1450 Crystal Lake Road, Aspen, Colorado 81611, the following d + property in the County of Pltkin, Swte of Colorado, to wit: See Exhibit "A" attached hereto with att appurtenances and warrants tide against 311 penons claiming Under Grantor SUBJECT TO AND EXCEPTING: General and special taxes for 1996, payable January 1, 1997 and rite exceptions set forth on Exhibit 9 attached hereto. SIGNED this 11) . day of September+9Â«6. ..........1 ASPB~VB~*A-~ONAI~46~~G a ColotadoWmdratton - f gr : 0 0 < 100 23 By: UU T. Richard Butera, President , 7 3 u >al g ~ STATE OF COLORADO ) ), SS. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) &0 The foregoing Spedal Warranty Deed was acknowledged before me this 10 _ day of September, 1996 by T. Richard Burera as President of Aspen Club International, Inc., a Colorado corporation. WITNESS my hand and official sea. My commission expires: 1 |Dol99 , 4%93/ama, Notary Publi~j - W.. a Ok 80 CITÂ¥ OF l'Crjo416 AfR. 1.1997 12:WOF'M GARFIELD & HELHT'~LE ;10.192. P. 1 /: ....'â€¢. 14 h0 3000 f' 3 - .. EXHIBIT "A" PARCEL A: LOT 15, CALLAHAN SUBDIVISION, according to the mapt thereo f recorded Mi 19, 1976 in Plat Book 5 at Page 7, August 17, 1977 in Plat Book 6 at Page 16. PARCEL B: A pedestrian access easement through Lot 14, Callahan Subdivision and part of Crystal Circle within the Callahan Subdivision, City of Aspen, Colorado being 12 feet in width, lying westerly of and abutting the following described line; Beginning at a point on the Southerly line o Lot 14, Callahan Subdivision whence the Southweet corner of said Lot 1, Callahan Subdivision bears N 88Â°25' W 199.49 feet; thence N 07Â°39t W 125.28 feet; thence N 13*15' E 69.49 feet to a point on the South line of Lot 14-A, Callahan Subdivigion, as set forth in Dead of Access Easement recorded January 11. 1985 in Book 473 at Page 661. PARCEL C: A right of access and vehicular access described as follows: a 24 foot wide private road adjacent to the most northerly point of Lot 14, bein: the road that circles Lot 14A, Callahan Subdivision; thence following said private road Easterly through Centennial Circle to Crystal Lake Road. and Northeasterly along the Westerly arm of said Crystal Lake Ro. to Colorado State Highway No. 82 as ahown on the final plat and development plan of the Callahan Subdivision, recorded May 13, 1976 in Plat Book 5 at Page 7, and as amended on August 17, 1977 in Plat Book at Page 16. PARCEL D: A Temporary Access and Parking Easement to use access and parking facilities as set forth in Temporary Access and Parking Easement recorded September/2, 1996 as Reception No.412Â£~E- 396949 09/12/96 121250 06 2 OF 4 Ill UU* I I lor-1/:r ..2. I. r 1.01 il, I , lu. liLi -1 1,9. Jood F. 1/5 .. EXHIBIT nBâ€¢ 1. Taxes for the year 1996 not yet due or payable. 2. Reservations and exceptions as set forth in Patent recorded June 17, 1949 in 175 at 246 which recites the following: First: That the grant hereby made is restricted in its exterlor limits to the boundaries of the said mining premises and to any veins or lodes of quaartz, or other rock in place bearing gold, silver, cinnabar, lead, sin, copper or other valuble deposits which may have been discovered within said limits subsequent to and which were not known to exist on the twenty-third day of March A.D. one thousand eight hundred and eighty-five. Second: That should any vein or lode or other rock in place bearing gold, silver, cinnabar, lead, tin. copper or other valuable deposits be claimed or known to exist within the above described premises at said late -named date, the same is expressly expected and excluded from these presents. Third: That the premises hereby conveyed may be entered by the proprietor of any vein or lode of quartz or other rock in place bearing gold, silver, cinnabar, lead, tin, copper or other valuable deposits , for the purpose of extracting and removing his ore from such vein or lode, should the same or any part thereof , be found to penetrate or intersect. pass through, or dip into the mining ground or premises hereby granted. Fourth: That the premises hereby conveyed shall be held subject to any vested and accrued water rights for mining, agricultural, manufacturing or other purposes and rights to ditches and reservoirs, used in connection with such water rights as may be recognized and acknowledged by local laws, customs and decisions of courts. Fifth: That in the absence of necessary by Congress, the legislation of Colorado may provide rules for working the mining claims or premises granted involving easement, idrainage and other necessary means to complete development thereof. 3. Easement and right of way for pipeline, flume & ditch as Met forth in Book 93 at Page 527 as shown on Survey by Carl R. Carmichael L.S. dated September 1, 1996. 4. Easements and restrictions as shown on Plats of Callahan Subdivision recorded May 19, 1976 in Plat Book 5 at Page 7, and as amended by Plat recorded August 17, 1977 in Plat Book 6 at Page 16, affecting the property insured hereunder. 5. Terms, conditions, obligations and restrictions as set forth in Subdivision and Planned Unit Development Agreement recorded May 19, 1976 in book 312 at page 110. and as modified by Notice recorded April 29. 1977 in Book 328 at Page 79. 6. Terms and conditions of Pedestrian Access Easement granted to Aspen Club International, Inc., as set forth in Dead of Access Easement recorded January 11, 1985 in Book 479 at Page 661. 7. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as get forth in Shared Expense Agreement for Callahan Sudivision Roads and Pond recorded August 28, 1992 in Book 687 at Page 365 and Modification Agreement recorded August 28, 1992 in Book 687 at Page 409. A. Tarm= ,--nA 4 1- 4 -ne .APR. 1.1997 -1Â¢:81 PM GARFIELD & HELHTILE ,i 40.1 14 ,- N u. :003 9 3.' 7 1 - .. 9. Encroachment of Tennis Court and Cement Walkway onto the 10 foot utility easement as disclosed by Survey of Carl R. Carmichael, PLS, dated September 1, 1996. 10. Deed of Trust from ASPEN CLUB INTERNATIONAL, INC. , A COLORADO CORPORATION To the public Trustee of the County of Pitkin For the use of : ASPEN SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION Original Amount : $3,000,000.00 Dated : September 17, 1987 Recorded : September 19, 1987 in Book 546 at Page 261 Reception No. : 292988 Assignment of Rento and Leases given in connection with the above Dead of Truwt recorded September 18, 1987 in Book 546 at Page 286. 11. Security interest under the Uniform Commercial Code affecting subject property, notice of which is given by Financing Statement from ASPEN CLUB INTERNATIONAL, INC., A COLORADO CORPORATION, debtor to ASPEN SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATIoN, secured party, Recorded September 18, 1987 in Book 546 at Page 295. The beneficial interest of the above Deed of Trust was assigned to BANK OF AMERICA NATIONAL TRUST, TRUSTEE by instrument recorded April 26, 1993 in Book 709 at Page 961 & 364. 12. Deed of Trust from z ASPEN CLUB INTERNATIONAL, INC. , A COLORADO CORPORATION To the Public Trustee of the County of Pitkin For the use of : NORWEST BANK OF ASPEN Original Amount : S300.000.00 Dated : December 13, 1993 Recorded : December 15, 1993 in Book 735 at Page 420 Reception No. : 364625 396949 09/12/96 12:25P PG 4 OF 4 2. 8.1997 10:45AM GARFIELD & HECHT MO.289 P.1 .. GARFIELD & HECITT, P.C. ATTORNEYS Kr LAW RONALD GARRELD* TELEPHONE ANDREW V. HECHT" VICTORIAN SQUAREBU[LDING (970) 925-1936 MICHAEL J. HERRON**â€¢ 60! EAST HYMAN AVENUE TELECOMER DAVIDL. LENYO (970) 925-3008 MATTHEW C. FERGUSON+ ASPEN, COLORADO 8!611 E-inail KRISTI S. FERRAROâ€¢Â®â€¢ 0 garhechc@rof.net I abi admiged .i 1 FACS]M[LE COVER SHEET Kew York 303 * '120 admin*d / 0 Disfrici or 01014*Im BAr â€¢â€¢â€¢ also adinizled w Floridi Bar .9.. :]=, aci=,lued to FC'na,lvaiia Bar DATE: 48-9 -7 To: <21(24 Business Phone No. Facsimile No. O. 5439 Client/Matter: No. of Pages (including this one): Hard Copy to Follow: yÂ¢S L-m/* no FROM: Andrew V. Hecht MESSAGE: bgrad dOOD IMPORTANT: THIS COMMUNICATION IS INTENDED SOLELY FOR THE USE OF THE PERSONS NAMED ABOVB OR OTHERS AUTHORIZED TO RECEIVE IT. TIUS COMMUNICATION MAY INCLUDE PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION AND ANY USE, DISSEMINATION OR REPRODUCTION BY UNAUTHORIZED PERSONS IS ABSOLUTELY PROHIBITED. [F YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR. PLEASE NOTIFY THE SENDER IMMEDIATELY, These are transmitted: Please take the following action: For infon:oation Return For your signature Call upon receipt/review For review and conunent Call if you have questions ~05 As requested None We are transmitting from a Ricoh FAX 3100L or FAX 2700L. U you do not receive aU of the pages, please call Karen at (970) 925-1936, ext. 203 as soon as possible. 0 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Stan Clauson, City Community Development Director FROM: Sara Thomas, Zoning Officer ApFROWED RE: Insubstantial Amendment to the Aspen Clu~PUD to allow for the reconfiguration of 56 parking spaces and to allow fu{ 999'uction of an 9 . entry element. DATE: May 5â€ž 1997 09'Nut- ru . COMMUM,i c MT DIHCA ; Ort , * 4. 8 cODI SUMMARY: In July, 1996 the Aspen Club received approval from City Council to amend their PUD in order to expand the parking facility located off of Ute Avenue to allow for 56 spaces. In March, 1997 the Aspen Club submitted a building permit which reflected a modified version of the approved parking configuration, and which included a dramatic entryway element. Staff determined that the proposed changes were inconsistent with the original representations and would require an insubstantial amendment to the PUD. Staff directed the applicant to modify the proposed entryway in order to provide an element which was more fitting with the existing structure and surroundings. A copy of the revised, approved entry element is attached. FINDINGS: Section 26.84.080 of the Aspen Municipal Land Use Code states that: A. An insubstantial amendment to an approved development order for a final development plan may be authorized by the Community Development Director. The following shall not be considered an insubstantial amendment: 1. A change in the use or character of the development. 2. An increase by greater than three (3) percent in the overall coverage of structures on the land. 3. Any amendment that substantially increases trip generation rates of the proposed development, or the demand for public facilities. 4. A reduction by greater than three (3) percent of the approved open space. 5. A reduction by greater than one (1) percent of the off-street parking and loading space. 6. A reduction in required pavement widths or rights-of-way for streets and easements. 7. An increase of greater than two (2) percent in the approved gross leasable floor area of commercial buildings. 8. An increase by greater than one (1) percent in the approved residential density of the development. 9. Any change which is inconsistent with a condition or representation of the project's original approval or which requires granting of a further variation from the project's approved use or dimensional requirements. Staff has reviewed the proposed plans for the parking area and the entry element and finds that the above criteria have been satisfied. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Community Development Director approve the insubstantial amendment to the Aspen Club PUD for the reconfigured parking area and the revised entry element finding that the criteria of Section 26.80.040 have been met. I hereby approve the Insubstantial Amendment for the Aspen Club PUD for the reconfigured parking area and entry element as represented in the attached application documents. (-h ---i; lit -9 (Ula l \ 99 T Stan Clauson, City Coftlmunity Development Director Date Attached: Parking Summary, Revised Therapy Parking Su *p. 22*4 EIement, Proposed Parking Lot Section, Handicap Parking Section h\PY 0 71987 COMMUNITY DEVEL,A ME' 41 DIHel; 1OR C\TY OF ASPEN Ly" ---3,3 01Â·(1 4.-,/\ 0/) Li,12 U. , O Â·Uoi p 114 3 / ,Â» O, :X 9Â» 2-f~ t.c , .. Â»-0-4 THE CITY OF ASPEN MEMO FROM STAN CLAUSON; A.I.C.P. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR 9 -A /1,\ b,F C/%}P 1 75&0211 1~-uil, 40421 4-k 41Â« ... 0 Â« 30 [99 4 3 LU~t -to Lt CIA% 46-144 l U l V.>--1 (5-- d 6 2- 01.2* eug/\UALL ctil-m- 2 .&O-- LULAâ€žL-lu 4 o Q-9 t. ltlÂ·Jkeil' 1 . ik0ak-~hÂ· 4 22~ d._*2 1 kta_lt~19 Vi - 130 SouTH GALENA STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611-1975 PHONE 970.920.5099 FAx 970.920.5439 e-mail: stanc@ci.aspen.co.us 1 , 0 1 j IRZ 193 ' ts. 1/ 1 / 1 Il / I 1 1 f . 1 1 1%' ,/1 y - ip"...LI CD 0,1.>y E â€¢â€¢ t Vi Â· W 0 . Â· f - - no..9/1//rl-- i Â·-- / I I --F - bi A ./4,*L---- , 1 --- .... OF -=ks*e 'D 1 y. 114-'- - - -1 -.~Â£4)0:47lf 2.1 :1 -6/4 1*tu'. -, 1 Â· 161\ 41 / , Â·6% 1 2 5 "Why.412 -3 â‚¬- -~ h ..... 4-: , - Wy/)01 7-1 hr---~, r.r'm._ _,, 3-1/m . ' 1, U--=62:b-4 -1 -16 - 1, r~- 7~009*frjdti/%~#fant e 4/ /1-\L , L f.i '7,6.- , / 04A1)Â·WD 'F- A b EXISTING Jul I IN 4/ ed 0 0 46$ mEl ~ ~ TENNIS , N= 129 1 7, . 4 . Flkk /-111 IiA 0 1 r It 1 COURT - ---4.Lird i. - 3 17 t941 - - ~ ~ ~ ENTRY U CU , \ "- - -A 4 - . 7 1 -i - , \.. -.... -- 0 Â£2 2 EXISTING $ 4%4 . I ...<i"al /27>< I EXHIBITION , I %\ .1 * <6* , a. i 4 00, __ < EXISTING DECK % ' i, ,;; LA~ ~ COURTS v --41 / X 4 ' k-~C~- 7-1 2. 1[ 87 - ; b O + 1. 7 EXISTING 45~ O 0 f .. LA, MAIN ENTRY - 1 5 , 1 - ... 9 ' Â¢ 74 ..Al / 414> .. E,.- 7: Â£-Â·Â·42Â·*~~~5,4,Â» , 4 LY.Y. ~ \~ tw, - - T .â€¢-7 -4,4 / / 4: \T THERAP . .=6- 3 - PARKIN .9 PATIENT 1 I- EE_,CISTING ...0,. V .- irb I.\- ek 1 8 71 'Â¢:3. 421 ASPEN CLUB 1 4Â£*i ~731<_ ~.11 --*--3-- - . A/G . "10 4 -'.-0 ' I.'.1 - IÂ·, 9- Yi\, :L> 9 AeR 1 6 : /.~ 2 4 Ip ISTING .i\- ; i . r , d HA DICAP . , 4 J ' AMP . L - -41 \11 1 , - 0~ A *- -- 1-1 4. 4. 1 -1 J L + N-:- to ;75 - ~W~8 64#% 32- 't Â·. ii! , UN.x - 1 4 - Â· BaNGE | *â‚¬f ~ \ 29- 94 49.2 , ./ m 1 *A %---4- \ 31-0-\ A EXISTING Â»Atit . 4 Â¢ TENNIS *1%Â«y - DELIVERY < 5 '33/1 , 1 -- h - COURT 2/5 1 t V w~--' EXISTING ROCK , i b OUTCROPPING ,- .. V. 4/ 4 6,444-r- I Â· , : ,-t-_ _ &.r,e=ty ,~~ Ht[Y'&.Z'L, i],1 1 , --4/7=Â¥r,r=Â¥,- / :Pr A .rk 4..r lw..Ul-=-1 TRASH 3 , Imn} &g.- 1 -C.f> F Wi'W , Itm@*~ 117 0 M + +I 4243444E - V.VRAP'f 4 9 - 1 . - A 11 ic -0~= -4 '' - RAMP ,<~-6- / -- -6. 1 --- /:FÂ» -Li 4 BALatgr&M' 11'- i.-1 --r/991.(Al. i,tn42&564%774214111 . 111. Ch UN; r . .. 1 .. /9- 6 i,4 0-/ / ~ ;- ~t ~~~,(=~ 4~-11~1-5-,~.~LE~,bkIL+-i AM..2 1. 0 (Â£1 / 5 4 24/4 .,,0 - ENTRY 3-:* ./ 755#YA V - / . .~ g . T.â€¢ . up-16- r---~L-- F $-7 . ~1*18 c t.9-N.*,r k- , DATE, 1 -16- 70 tf .1 1 / A W <1/Â£-41& , A Â¢ * N~ M '11 > / -- O% - .1...Y ' . - b, / 1,7 - '-lavv 14",9. 411 HINLZ_klik . ilill li; P *~AbÂ·'45 - .\ '0/ likffÂ£14- '114~ -- 4 . t 32 -3 4, Pla. NUL.0 6Â£. ji.' -- REVISIONS Â£ 4- / - .. . f 2117'h , :/ Pht 197 24.-g~har Â»~V~â€¢/ 4 ./ i i C .2. 4>4324.4 ~ 4 1 11 f -- -- 4 Â¥\i 4/ 1 1 - 1 9+LF. Â¥ ..lÂ».1 , , , , rte -*/, 1 // i i / -0 111- t , 1 9 , Il 1 CLUB PARKING 8/1 1, 1 _STANDARD SPACES 45 ' - i I ./1::DERia I ...... I 2 -HANDICAP SPACES -TofAL CLUB PARKING 47 .*.' THERAPY PARKING -- 9 SCALE: 1"=30' TOTAL PARKING SPACES 56 t-:rif zi:=~: t-~--5--#. - Fl~:ti=~~ji /51.#-:-1 r Â£**i~ f2333] lfi---~til NMOM.1. 1.HaE[OM ME]13 ND1630 .LdHONOO lv.LO.L V 401 @Uns 'PROH f :6.*6 4*â€ž 4 *969#Ne =51,1 cacces. * . I . . 11 E. 4 -ty. 4629..44: Â· .. ~i .. I % , \U M.-- b Ei!8%~.immw:mi *mmll **rl 77' J*iti!Â£ist'â€¢Eiliiiiliti#k Sivds 0 1 r"./.auw.-inan. 64 Ili 6 -S - - V muL. 01$2~ ... ./i' -' . Â¥44 - i.er:1 VV I 47..4/..1 -l, ... \...1 .. I.,0- ..,-P 0-9-/51 . - . :061/qi-1 :- 1 . =6. -~- I - 0. .-1 r: Â¥*11': 443*,4 V . -1 - 4.4 4 Wr * â€žk 7$*~F 4 , --e~ 40 - 9 . . ' 0 0 ., .. - 0 - .. -- .0 -0 I. . 8 0 3