The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.705 W Hopkins Ave.0054.2016.ASLU0054.2016.ASLU 705 W HOPKINS AVE f PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 27351259001 - 02 -01 FOLDER 1 OF 1- - . 44 f A UAkol L -11 (43 1 Q Of fl 1 7 PATH: G/DRIVE / MASTER FILES/ADMINISTRATIVE/ADMIN/LAND USE CASE DOCUMENTS THE CITY OF ASPEN City of Aspen Community Development Department CASE NUMBER 0054.2016.ASLU PARCEL ID NUMBERS 273512494001 PROJECT ADDRESS 705 W HOPKINS AVE PLANNER JUSTIN BARKER CASE DESCRIPTION APPLICATION FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REPRESENTATIVE THOMAS J TODD DATE OF FINAL ACTION 10.4.16 CLOSED BY NICOLE HENNING 10.27.16 0 054-Â·246.-Aâ‚¬u.1 0 Permits = 1 al **34 Die Edit Record Navigate Fgrm Reporis Format Iab Help ~ *d~ EEÂ®:3 38.0:Nit~ 41~]flklumpl |/~0 6~ x2*] @33 '1-' i.3'30a .4 :t â€¢1 2 *1 Custom Fields Routing Status Fee Summarx Adions ' Routing Hatory ' )1.'."'.'-r --I.'WI V.I.*i.-~ --I.....9,"I'----I- sIU V pen Land Use | "~0054 2016 ASLU Z.1 ~ 705 W HOPIqNS AVE Awsuite I l. 1-- o city ~ASPEN * '' 'Ai - . state 136-1 Zip |81611 r rmit Information .*41=.*@4;~.~11....~ 1 Master permit Routing queue .lu15 Applied |06/03/2016 . 1 Project Status Ipending Approved I ' 1 Description APPLICATION FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT - REZONING Issued | REFERRALS ENG. APCHA PARKS PARCEL IDS 273512494001 273512491002.273512400001 Closed/Final | F Submitted SUNNY VANN 925 6958 Clock IGIFI Days I--6| Expires I05/29/2017 Â· Submitted via ' tâ‚¬22 0"Mil/"&*1mlim ' Last name FORM INVESTMENTS. LLC First name |PATRICK FREEMAN | 121ALHAM8RA PLZ 1400 1~1,1 Address CORAL GABLES FL 33134 Phone (305)442-3438 , Applicant Â® Owner is applicant? Il Contractor is appfcant? Last name STARFORM INVESTMENTS. Â·Â·Â· First name IPATRICK FREEMAN 121 ALHAMBRA PLZ 1400 i Phone It'305) 442-3438 Cust # |30382 Address CORAL GABLES FL 33134 Email ~ 1 Lender Last name ~ First name Phone |l' ) - Address *spenGold5 (seniel) angeles 3F! 1 of 1 0.: 0Â£* 6% -Gol 660 fls , 960. A- PottÂ·A, 1-eclf 1/ 4 4 016 L poskS. olbox HQuick Notes | MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Justin Barker, Senior Planner RE: 705 W. Hopkins Avenue - Planned Development and Associated Reviews X[EETING DATE: October 4,2016 The Applicants have elected to withdraw the proposed land use application for 705 W. LIopkins Avenue Planned Development and associated reviews. The Notice of Withdrawal is attached to this memo as Exhibit A. There will be no public hearing. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Application withdrawal letter 10.4.16 Planning and Zoning Commission Page 1 of 1 HOLLAND&HART ~ Phone (970) 925-3476 Thomas J. Todd Fax (970) 925-9367 ttodd@hollandhart.com September 29, 2016 VIA HAND DELIVERY AND E-MAIL /4 2 r,- City of Aspen N 4 9.:'1 Community Development Department Attention: Jessica Garrow, Planning Director SEP Justin Barker, Senior Planner l. i 1.. 7 1 2 3 2016 130 S. Galena Street, (09 22< 7.. .-, Aspen, Colorado 81611 Â¢ } l.. City of Aspen City Attorney's Office Attention: James R. True, Esq. 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Notice of Withdrawal of 705 West Hopkins Avenue Annexation Petition and Planned Development-Proiect Review Application Ladies and Gentlemen: Holland & Hart LLP represents Starford Investments, LLC, Shadow Mountain Corporation and Westchester Investments, Inc., the three landowners who are the named petitioners under the above referenced Annexation Petition (the "Annexation Petition") well as the applicants under the above referenced Planned Development-Project Review Application (the "Project Review Application"). Enclosed with this letter is a formal written notice of our clients' notice to withdraw and terminate the Annexation Petition and the Project Review Application, effective immediately. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, j 2 2424< Momas J. Todd of Holland & Hart LLP TJT CC: Patrick Freeman, Cisneros Real Estate Will Hentschel, 359 Design, LLC Sunny Vann, Vann Associates, LLC 9081218_2 Holland & Hart Lip Attorneys at Law Phone (970) 925-3476 Fax (970) 925-9367 www. hollandhart.com 600 East Main Street, Suite 104 Aspen, CO 81611-1991 Aspen Billings Boise Boulder Carson City Cheyenne Colorado Springs Denver Denver Tech Center Jackson Hole Las Vegas Reno Salt Lake City Santa Fe Washington, D.C. STAR-FORD INVESTMENTS LLC 121 A]hambra Plaza, Suite 1400 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 WESTCHESTER INVESTMENTS, INC. 121 Alhambra Plaza, Suite 1400 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 SHADOW MOUNTAIN CORPORATION 121 Alhambra Plaza, Suite 1400 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 September 28,2016 Ms. Jessica Garrow, Director Mr. Justin Barker, Planner Community Development Department and to James R. True, Esq., City Attorney Deborah Quinn, Esq., Assistant City Attorney 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Notice of Termination and Withdrawal of Annexation Petition and Planned Development -Project Review Application for 705 West Hopkins Ladies and Gentlemen: The undersigned are the owners of the three (3) parcels of land that are the subject of the Annexation Petition and Planned Development-Project Review Application for the project coinmonly known as the 705 West Hopkins Avenue Property. Please consider this letter as our formal termination and withdrawal of the Annexation Petition ancl Planned Development-Project Review Application, effective immediately. Sincerely, STARFORD INVESTMENTS kLC,--a Delaware limited liability company .. *9 : p -:-.- - WESTCHESTER INVESTMENyS, INC., a Delaware corporation SHADOW MOUNTAIN CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation 7862310_1 preserve our dark night sky, preserve our pedestrian bikeway, preserve our neighborhood,just say no... Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 9/27/16 Re: 705 West Hopkins Dear Commissioners, On Tuesday you will be looking at the proposal for a large hotel at the end of West Hopkins. As a 30-year resident of 700 West Hopkins, I am extremely concerned about this proposal. I know that it is typical for a developer to start with the largest plan possible and that the City likes to work with developers to bring a project down to size. In this case, there is no size of a hotel, with the exception of something like the Lenado, that could be appropriate on this site. And based on the mix of 118 lodge rooms, 22 fractional ownership units, 4 free market units and 11,647 sq. ft. of commercial net leasable space there is just no middle ground that can work here. West Hopkins is a lively neighborhood of many full time residents, bicyclers and pedestrians. It is a success story. With a mix of employee housing and free market units, this neighborhood is a public amenity, it makes Aspen a better place. It is easy to take something that works for granted, to focus on the details of the development plan and not ask the big question; what are we trading, what more elusive benefits are we giving up for these lodge rooms. Locals and visitors alike make use of this a highly popular bikeway, I often see walkers just wandering the neighborhood, Segway tours, road and mountain bikers heading to Castle and Maroon Creek and commuters, such as myself walking and biking to and from work and town. Events like Tuesday Cruiseday are a 'happening', a special experience for anyone who participates. This type of thing will be lost or at least heavily diminished by this development. Just imagine a hotel guest trying to drive out of the complex just as the cruisers go by. Waiting for a couple hundred bikes to go by will result in complaints. Last year we learned that high end residential does not mix well with downtown restaurants and bars. Here we are being asked to introduce luxury hotel rooms into a modest residential area based on bikes and walking. Who knows what sort of compromises will be required. I could go on for another page about the problems with the detail of the plan, but for I will just implore you to look to the adjacent and underlying zoning and preserve a low key residential zone for Aspen. Please just recommend denial, stringing the developer along only makes it more difficult to deny later. Thank you, Suzannah Reid & Patrick Duffield 700 West Hopkins, unit #1 suzannahvk@gmail.com keep lodge rooms in the core,keep cars off the road,just say no... M. Bridget Bielinski 620 Independence Pl Aspen, CO 81611 Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 9/27/16 - - -- Re: 705 West Hopkins Dear Commissioners, The proposed development on West Hopkins is completely at odds with the neighborhood. Please do not ruin a lively neighborhood and a successful pedestrian bikeway. It is easy to see this town as a primarily a tourist town, but we are not. It is critical to balance the interests of the people who live and work here by choice with the desires of the tourist industry. This balance is what separates us from other resort communities and makes Aspen a desirable place to live and to visit. This development is far in excess of what should even be considered for this site. It does not serve anyone to drag out the conversation. To do so would require the developer to invest more and more and therefore become more committed to the project. The longer the project is in the city process, the more myopic the view becomes and settling for a small reduction looks like progress. The longer both ofthose things go on. the harder it is to just recognize that this project is inappropriate for this neighborhood. There is an endless list of detail that could be discussed here, but I know this is just the beginning so will save those comments for future letters, if necessary Please recommend denial of this project before it goes any further. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely. M. Bridget Bielinski SEP 2 6 2016 CY September 26, 2016 VIA HAND DELIVERY CHRISTOPHER D. BRYAN Mr. Justin Barker cbrvan@garfieldhecht. com City ofAspen Community Development 130 S. Galena Street, 3rd Floor JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, III Aspen, Colorado 81611 iee@.Rceclaw.com Re: Objections to the Project Review Application of 705 W. Hopkins Avenue Dated May 9, 2016 (the "Four Seasons Project Application") Dear Mr. Barker: Our respective clients, Look After Aspen, a Colorado nonprofit corporation C'Look After Aspen") represented by Klein, Cotd, Edwards, Citron, LLC, and Three Trees LLC, a Colorado limited liability company ("Three Trees"), represented by Garfield & Hecht, P.C., jointly submit this letter opposing the Four Seasons Project Application in anticipation of the public hearing before the Planning & Zoning Commission scheduled for October 4,2016, and subsequent public hearings before City Council. Introduction of Our Respective Clients Look After Aspen is a non-profit corporation comprised of Aspen friends and neighbors who believe the proposed Four Seasons Hotel development at 705 W. Hopkins Avenue should not be approved. They have come together to educate the public about the Four Seasons Hotel project because it threatens Aspen's popular bikeways and pedestrian access to trails, does not fit with the surrounding residential neighborhood, and would negatively impact the adjacent neighborhood's family-oriented quality of life with increased traffic, rock fall risks, and massive size. Three Trees owns a single-family residence located at 1 Toby Lane in Aspen. Because the Three Trees residence is located within the 300-foot radius of the Four Seasons Hotel project it will be directly impacted by the Four Seasons Hotel project. Because of the negative impacts o f the project on the Shadow Mountain neighborhood and the rest of Aspen, Three Trees also believes the Four Seasons Hotel project should not be allowed. Legal Analysis A. The Four Seasons Project Application Does Not Comply with the Review Criteria for Approval Contained in the Aspen Land Use Code. #I562881v4 Mr. Justin Barker City ofAspen Community Development September 26, 2016 Page 2 1. The Substantial Height and Floor Area Variation Sought by the Developer Disguised as a "Low Density" Variation Does Not Comply with the Review Criteria for Dimensional Variations Contained in the Aspen Land Use Code. In the Four Seasons Project Application, the developer purports to seek a "low density" variation asserting that the requirements of one or more lodge units per 500 sq. ft. gross lot area would unnecessarily create more impacts to the surrounding neighborhood than is necessary. The developer, however, does not need a "low density" variation because the Lodge Zone District already allows lodge projects to be constructed with less than one lodge unit per 500 sq. ft. gross lot area. Section 26.710.190.D.8 ofthe Aspen Land Use Code provides: Dimensional Requirements. The following dimension requirements shall apply to all permitted and conditional uses in the Lodge (L) Zone District: 8. Maximum height C. Lodge, and mixed-use projects, with less than one Lodge unit per 500 sq. ft. of gross lot area: 28 feet. Because the developer of the Four Seasons Hotel has elected to develop a lodge with less than one lodge unit per 500 sq. ft. gross lot area, the maximum height allowed for the buildings is 28 feet ' high. Projects with one or more lodge units per 500 sq. ft. gross lot area are allowed a much greater height of 36-40 feet (set through design review) as an incentive to build the preferred smaller unit-size i lodging, i In this case, the developer is actually seeking a variation of the height and floor area limitations ' for its project which provides less than one Lodge unit per 500 sq. ft. gross lot area in order to increase 1 the height ofthe buildings from 28 feet to 40 feet (ie., nearly a 50% height variation). The requested height and floor area variation should be denied because the Applicant has not demonstrated compliance with the review criteria for such a variation under Section 26.445.050.D of the Aspen Land Use Code, which states in pertinent part: Dimensions. All dimensions, including density, mass, and height shall be established i during the Project Review. A development application may request variations to any i dimensional requirement of this Title. In meeting this standard, consideration shall be given to the following criteria: i t 1. There exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such i variations. #1562881v5 Mr. Justin Barker City of Aspen Community Development September 26, 2016 Page 3 ... 3. The project is compatible with or enhances the cohesiveness or distinctive identity of the neighborhood and surrounding development patterns, including the scale and massing of nearby historical or cultural resources. (Emphasis added.) The developer asserts that it should be allowed the height and floor area dimensional variation because the Four Seasons project meets the goal of the Aspen Area Community Plan ("AACP") to replenish the community's lodging inventory. The developer's argument ignores, however, that the goal regarding increased lodging contained in the AACP is aimed at the development and replenishment of moderate and accessible lodging (which is generally comprised of smaller lodging units), not additional high-end, large lodge unit, five-star luxury hotels. Specifically, 2012 AACP Growth Policy IV.2 states that the City's goal is to "replenish the declining lodging base with an emphasis on a balanced inventory and diverse price points." (Emphasis added.) In addition, the developer also ignores that the AACP refers to lodging that fits in with the character of the surrounding neighborhoods. Specifically, 2012 AACP growth policy IV.4 states "zoning and land use processes should result in lodging development that is compatible and appropriate within the context of the neighborhood in order to: â€¢ protect our existing lodges and â€¢ protect our small town community character and historical heritage." (Emphasis added.) As discussed more fully below, the development of the massive Four Seasons Hotel will not protect existing lodges or the small town community character of the Shadow Mountain Neighborhood. The Four Seasons Project Application also does not comply with the review criterion in Section 26.445.050.D.3 which requires that: The project is compatible with or enhances the cohesiveness or distinctive identity of the neighborhood and suirounding development, including the scale and massing of nearby historical or cultural resources. The scale and massing of the proposed Four Seasons Hotel is incompatible and un-cohesive with the distinctive residential identity of the Shadow Mountain neighborhood. The Four Seasons Hotel project is nearly 206,000 sq. ft. of floor area on a 143,000 sq. ft. property (Lots 1 and 2 combined). In addition, it is important to note that the City's floor area calculation heavily discounts below-grade space. As a result, the gross building size, including the parking and other subgrade space, will easily exceed 400,000 sq. ft. In considering the scale and mass of the project, it is useful to compare it to other notable Aspen properties: #1562881 v5 Mr. Justin Barker City ofAspen Community Development September 26, 2016 Page 4 â€¢ The existing residence at the site is approximately 5,500 sq. ft. â€¢ The 7th and Main Street affordable housing is 9,000 sq. ft. on a 9,000 sq. ft. lot. â€¢ The County Courthouse is 15,000 sq. ft. on an 18,000 square-foot lot. â€¢ The St. Regis Hotel is 185,000 sq. ft. on a 112,000 sq. ft. lot. â€¢ The Hotel Jerome is approximately 110,000 sq. ft. on a 147,000 square-foot lot. Using the Four Seasons Project Application's floor area numbers, the building is over 4.5 acres of interior space before counting the subgrade area. This is more than four NFL football fields of interior space, and more than 13 County Courthouses. Including subgrade space, the gross building Â¢ size could approach 8 acres - over seven NFL football fields, and over 20 County Courthouses. Contrary to the arguments made by the developer, the development of a large-scale, five-star luxury hotel in a predominantly residential neighborhood is not compatible with, nor will it enhance the cohesiveness of, the Shadow Mountain neighborhood. It is also completely inconsistent with the historic development pattern in Aspen. As shown on Exhibit 1, virtually all of the large-scale, luxury five-star hotels have been historically located in the downtown commercial core (CC) zone or south of the commercial core (CC) zone at the base of the Aspen Ski Mountain. Moreover, it is disingenuous for the developer to compare the large-scale Four Season hotel project with the historic small, affordable lodges, such as the Boomerang Lodge or the St. Moritz that are located outside of the downtown and ski-base area of Aspen. It is equally disingenuous to compare with to the Aspen Meadows resort which is part of the ! non-profit Aspen Institute's educational campus. 2. The Four Seasons Project Application Does Not Comply With the Review ~ Criteria for the Requested Conditional Uses. The Four Seasons Project Application also does not meet the review criteria in Section 26.425.040.B of the Aspen Land Use Code which governs the conditional uses requested by the developer, including the restaurant, spa, and retail spaces. Criterion 26.425.040.B requires that the conditional uses requested by the developer be: compatible with the mix of development in the immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms of density, height, bulk, architecture, landscaping, and open space, as well as with any applicable adopted regulatory master plan. ' #1562881v5 Mr. Justin Barker City of Aspen Community Development September 26, 2016 Page 5 In this case, the massive, density, height, and bulk, is completely incompatible with the predominantly residential development in the Shadow Mountain neighborhood. 3. The Foul Seasons Hotel Project Circumvents the Spirit and Intent of Referendum 1. Finally, granting the developer the substantial height and floor area variation circumvents the spirit and intent, if not the letter, of Referendum 1. There is the clear expectation of the Aspen citizens that floor area and height variations would require a public vote. B. The Four Seasons Hotel Proiect Should Be Denied Because It Will Generate Unacceptably High Levels of Traffic Degrading the West Hopkins Bike and Pedestrian Corridor and the 6th and Main Street Intersection. Under Criterion 26.445.050.F titled "Pedestrian, Bicycle and Transit Facilities," the developer must demonstrate that The development improves pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. These facilities and improvements shall be prioritized over vehicular facilities and improvements. Anv vehicular access points, or curb cuts, minimize impacts on existing or pedestrian bicycle and transit facilities. The City may require specific designs, mitigation techniques and implementation timelines be defined as part of the detailed review and documented within a development agreement. (Emphasis added.) In addition, Criterion 26.310.090.B provides that the Planning & Zoning Commission should consider the following when considering a zoning amendment: Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities including, but not limited to, transportation facilities, I sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools and emergency medical ; facilities. (Emphasis added.) As discussed below, the traffic generated by the Four Seasons IIotel project will significantly degrade the West Hopkins Bike and Pedestrian Corridor and the 6th and Main Street intersection. All of the traffic from the Four Seasons Hotel project will cross into the West Hopkins Bike and Pedestrian Corridor. The West Hopkins Bike and Pedestrian Corridor is Aspen's first bike and pedestrian corridor, designated as such in the early 1990s to prevent the street from becoming "the ~ West Hopkins Highway." It remains an important element of Aspen's transportation infrastructure, Indeed, the City of Aspen Traffic Engineer has recently commented that the West Hopkins Bike and Pedestrian Corridor has been one of the most "wildly successful" bicycle transit projects in the history #1562881 v5 Mr. Justin Barker City of Aspen Community Development September 26, 2016 Page 6 of Aspen. As a result, the West Hopkins Bike and Pedestrian Con'idor is considered the "backbone" of the City of Aspen's and Pitkin County's extensive bicycle trail system, connecting downtown with neighborhoods on the west side of town through multiple bike paths that funnel through the 7th Street Bridge and that access the scenic Marolt Open Space and Castle Creek and Maroon Creek Valleys. The West Hopkins bicycle corridor allows bike commuters to avoid Main Street traffic. The traffic generated by the Four Seasons Hotel project will radically alter current traffic uses along 6th Street and West Hopkins. According to the developer's own traffic study, current peak traffic at 6th and Hopkins is 60 cars, 95 bikes, and 40 pedestrians per hour. Data compiled by the City's Parks Department show that the average daily use by cyclists was 622 bikes per day with a peak cycling usage as high as 1,080 bikes per day. Clearly, the road is heavily used by bicycles and pedestrians versus automobiles - with a more than 2:1 split. The Four Seasons Hotel project's peak traffic generation adds 103 trips to this current traffic mix. It is not clear from the traffic report how many of these additional trips will be by automobile, but given the mode split on similar high-end lodging it is likely that the majority of these trips will be by car. Therefore, the number of cars in this area may be increased by 100% to 150%. This will change the current use from mostly bicycles and pedestrians to a majority of cars and other motorized forms of transit including the proposed shuttles. The developer's own traffic report projects that 45 cars will be crossing Hopkins Avenue at 6th Street representing a significant negative change to the West Hopkins Bike and Pedestrian Corridor which under its current condition has zero cars crossing Hopkins Avenue at 6th Street. Introducing this many vehicle trips along the West Hopkins Bike and Pedestrian Corridor would degrade this important piece of traffic infrastructure in violation of the Aspen Land Use Code. The traffic generated by the Four Seasons Hotel project will also significantly degrade traffic conditions at the 6th and Main Street intersection. 6th and Main Street is already currently rated as an 'T." Turning left from 6th Street to join downvalley traffic on Main Street is virtually impossible, The traffic report admits that the 6th and Main Street intersection will degrade from the existing poor "F" rating to an even worse "overflow" condition. In addition, the Four Seasons Hotel project will also generate additional pedestrian traffic at the intersection as employees and guests would likely use the RFTA facilities along Main Street. The data contained in the developer's own traffic report belie its assertion that "the addition of project traffic trips will not change the quality of the existing bike facilities in any material way," The developer cannot seriously assert that more than doubling the number of car trips and introducing 45 cars an hour crossing the bicycle pedestrian conidor would be immaterial. Because the traffic generated by the Four Seasons Hotel project will seriously degrade the West Hopkins Bike and Pedestrian Corridor and the 6th and Main Street public transportation facilities, the project should not be approved. #1562881 v5 Mr. Justin Barker City of Aspen Community Development September 26,2016 Page 7 C. Rezoning the Site from a Low to Moderate Density Residential Zone District to a High Density Lodge Zoned District is Incompatible with Surrounding Zone Districts and Land Uses. Section 26.310.090.A of the Aspen Land Use Code provides that the Planning and Zoning Commission should consider whether "the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land uses and neighborhoods." As shown on the City of Aspen Zoning Map attached as Exhibit 1, large-scale, luxury hotels have historically been developed in the commercial core or the base of Aspen Mountain, not residential neighborhoods such as the Shadow Mountain neighborhood. Between the downtown commercial core and the proposed site for the Four Seasons Hotel, there is a progression from intense to limited development: beginning with the commercial core, and then gradually transitioning to lodge, mixed-use, multi-family, R6, then R15. See Exhibit 1. This concentric zoning pattern represents a rational lessening of density as you make your way from the commercial center of downtown towards the residential Shadow Mountain neighborhood. Rezoning of the Four Seasons Hotel project property from a very low density County residential zoning to one of the densest and intense City zone districts replaces this logical concept of linear gradation with an abrupt, severe and illogical zoning change. The proposed rezoning is inappropriate and out of context because of the complete absence of lodge zoning in the immediate vicinity. It also ignores the gradual zoning transition from the commercial core to the outlying residential neighborhood. D. The Four Seasons Hotel Project Fails to Preserve Mature Vegetation that Contributes to the Identity of Aspen. Under Section 26.445.050.C of the Aspen Land Use Code, the Applicant is required to "preserve mature vegetation that contributes to the identity of the town." The project location is located in an area which has been historically recognized by Pitkin County as a buffer zone between rural Pitkin County and the City of Aspen urban area. The intersection at 7th and Hopkins Avenue area is densely vegetated, which greatly contributes to the identity of the City of Aspen generally and the Shadow Mountain neighborhood specifically. Instead of preserving mature vegetation the project currently contemplates the removal of 562 mature trees in violation of Criterion 26.445.050.C. Therefore, project approval should be denied. E. The Avalanche Fence Is Not Compatible with the Surrounding Neighborhood. The proposed development is located in a geological hazard avalanche and rockfall zone. As proposed mitigation, the developer proposes an avalanche and rockfall fence that would run above the project for an approximately 400-foot distance. The report does not detail the expected height of the fence, Nevertheless, the erection of an unsightly 400-foot long steel avalanche fence along the base of Shadow Mountain is incompatible with the current aesthetics of the Shadow Mountain neighborhood, #1562881 v5 Mr. Justin Barker City of Aspen Community Development September 26,2016 Page 8 F. The Proposed Development Is Not Eligible For Additional GMOS Allotments In Excess of the Allowed Annual Allotment Because the Proiect Is Not "Exceptional." The Four Season Project Application seeks an excess allotment of GMQS allotments greater than that available on an annual basis. In order to qualify for such excess GMQS allotments, the project must be deemed "exceptional" under Section 26.470.090.1 of the Aspen Land Use Code. The criterion for considering whether a project is a deemed "exceptional" includes (a) minimization of reliance on the automobile, See Section 26.470.090.1(a)(10), and (1) whether the proposed development is compatible with the character of the existing land uses in the surrounding area and the purposes of the underlying zone district. See Section 26.470.090.1(a)(10). As set forth above, the project will significantly degrade one of the most impoitant transportation facilities in the City along the West Hopkins pedestrian and bike corridor and the 6th and Main Street intersection due to the expected reliance of the luxury hotel's guests on their automobiles. In addition, the proposed massive hotel is completely incompatible with the character of the existing land uses in the surrounding area and the current zone districts existing at the site. Therefore, the request for excess GMQS allotments should be denied. G. The Four Seasons Proiect Application Does Not Comply with the Annexation Plan of the City of Aspen. Pursuant to the requirements of C.R.S. Â§Â§ 31-12-101, et seq., the City of Aspen has approved an Annexation Plan dated January 2005 pursuant to C.R.S. Â§ 31-12-105(e)(i) for the 3-mile boundary around the existing City limits (the "Annexation Plan"). The Shadow Mountain area is recognized in the City of Aspen Annexation Plan as one of Pitkin County's rural areas with very limited growth potential due to their physical circumstances. These areas are particularly affected by environmental hazards and each request should include an analysis of the regulatory tools used to address such hazards. Because the Four Seasons Hotel project is located in a recognized geological hazard area with rockfall and avalanche dangers, the Annexation Plan requires that consideration be given whether the more stringent County 1041 Regulations should be applied. The Four Seasons Project Application does not address Pitkin County 1041 Regulations regarding rockfall and avalanche mitigation. The Annexation Plan also provides that any annexation should be reviewed for alignment with the AACP. As discussed above, the proposed allnexation does not comply with the AACP guidelines that lodging should provide for a balanced inventory and diverse price points. The AACP also provides that a proposed lodge should be compatible and appropriate with the context of the neighborhood in order to protect existing lodges and Aspen's small-town community character and historical heritage. #1562881v5 Mr. Justin Barker City of Aspen Community Development September 26,2016 Page 9 In addition, the Annexation Plan provides that "significant annexations" should involve discussions between the Aspen City Council and the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners. The proposed Four Season Project Application ignores decades of Pitkin County's exhaustive efforts to protect the Shadow Mountain area from commercial development. In the 1970s, Pitkin County successfully prevented the development of a commercial restaurant and gondola project on Shadow Mountain on the Gramiger Parcel through successful state appellate proceedings. As recently as 2012, Pitkin County denied a modest request for a residential development a few lots to the east of the project site in order to protect the area as a buffer between rural Pitkin County and urban City of Aspen. The Annexation Plan contemplates discussion between the Aspen City Council and Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners through joint work sessions. As part ofthat process, Planning & Zoning and City Council should develop a complete understanding of the property's development potential under the Pitkin County Land Use Code. We are unaware of any discussions to date between the City and Pitkin County regarding the proposed annexation for the purpose of developing a massive luxury hotel even though Pitkin County has always recognized the site as a buffer zone between rural Pitkin County and the City of Aspen urban area. We believe that, at a minimum, such discussions between the City of Aspen and Pitkin County should occur before annexation and any approvals are considered. Conclusion The Planning & Zoning Commission should recommend denial of the Four Seasons Project Application. Very truly yours, Very truly yours, GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C. KLgN, COT<E~DWARDS, CITRON, LLC By: )<12_~ < C 1211Â» C7 0--- FY -,c By.22 A; L-/tuo- -- r Christopher D. Brfan Jogph E. Ed*ards, III 625 East Hyman Avenue, Suite 201 1011)uth--M~11 Street, Suite 200 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: (970) 925-1936 Phone: (970) 925-8700 Attorney for Three Trees LLC Attorney for Look After Aspen Enclosure #1562881 v5 COA Zoning Map L.0 1.Ult, a_3 2.- Atima ~4 1 NORTH Residential Density Landscape 'pri Â¢ NORTH of the COA Commercial Core: Bu 11 Â·''~ flam"~0 1 The zoning continuum denotes ... #r , Red Butto mostly Medium Density (R-6) zoning towards the west (the West End neighborhood) ~4 2 ge Ed M a loon 4.~ak. Cieek Go It 12 &9 COA Commercial (lore ~h,.Clef Cre i~ D,40 ~ f GuIse .- - Many of the city's large scale - e.9. Hot-el Jerome, The.Aspen Square, ~ â‚¬ -4, hotels are located in the cbmmercial core ) EAST 6 R p.t ghby 4.46 C ~- 0 Â·~r L 4> 1 Â¥ - The Indeikendenife Scidare) / A p pe: n A ape" 0011 Z Ingtituk , C, U 1 9,3 a rid Residential D,psity Landscape1 11.,rd[ 1 1 - L ent., 1 Residential Density Landscape WEST of the GOA Commercial tore: . r... 01'll EAST of the COA Commercial Core: 1 9 - 41.14 The zoning c~ntinuum denotes~.1 1 > The zoning continuum denotes - a Medium De+ity Residential/M-6)Â· * w a fluctuation from a small transition 9 - , 1 - S 1."-/a - south and nonfh of West HopÂ¥ins. "U-I- - D area of Commercial (C-1) and - 4 - 1. A combinatio~ of Moderate lensity - - 5 01 - * i-- Mixed-Use (MU) immediately to the Residential (11Â£15) and Residbnti . 0 .c east of the CC traWkitioning 20 a f 2 2 1 -- Multi-Family Â®MF) is depi,~ted dtiflien , 1 ." 1 much larger area of Residential - CO CE 13< hoot E=~ A0047 9 3 2 ~ Multi-Family (R/MF) and Moderate south and we41 end outsklrts. I EL - (the Shadow 1~ountain neit}4~0*ood , 1 0 - - .\~SI 1/t,nld Density Residential (R-15) A single Mixeq Use zoning ruihI| along Main Stj Four Season 9 - Hotel Project ..r i--r---- 9 f 1 West Hopkins Corridor W *y. Res ential Density Landscap 7.0 1 00 SO TH of the COA Commercial Cor 1 TI~ zoning continuum denotes r -nfostly Lodge zoning (L) transitioning to i A an area of Residential/Multi-Family (R/MF) 0 to the west. Most of the city's large scale hotels 414 .doutside of the CC are located to the south of the CC at the base of Aspen Mountain (e.g. St. Regis, - Hyatt, Sky Hotel, Mountain Chalet, etc.) 1 - i SOUTH 1:36,112 0 0.3 0.6 1.2 mi ~Aspen Boundary R-6 Medium Density Residential MU Mixed Use AAcademic L Lodge ~ 14 ~ i | 1 4 11 1 1 Zoning R-15 Moderab Density Residential CL CommerclaI Lodge SKI SkiArea Base PU B P ub I ic 1.4 km 0 0.35 0.7 R-3 High Density Residential R-15-A Moderate Density Residential â€žte. CC Commercial Core C Conservation AHAffordable Housing R-15B Moderate Den sily Residential ~ 01 Commercial OSOpenSpace Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLonne, Intermap, increment P Corp. 1 GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NR(JAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, R/MF Residential/Multi-Family R-30 Low Density Residential ':7 SCI Service Commerciallndustial P Park R/M FA Residentia]AMulti-Family RR Rural Residential NC Neighborhood Commerdal WP Wild I ife P reservation Exhibit A ./ G; il />, P.} ID PL,1 ]17.j i.-, TTON CO 8 '1, 5 '14'.49' 121':211?LI,41 Â·' 4'.Re.1.~1 COMM[ INITv DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ..1.- ., 4Â·ji.. 00UTH GALENA STREET ~ 16 SEP' 2131â‚¬-Â·i, Pfut 1 i.~ â€žp'Â«'~~""~"* >~I,.~~efl~%~ ASPEN, CO 81611 I.* . 2- -9.- USAFORE\'57 kJ1 700 WEST HOPKINS CONDO 700 W HOPKINS AVE ASPEN,CO 81 M- \ .7 -2. 808 BE i 4 1 Â». 1 C 8509/26/16 1 R.272:iN ;O SENDER U 41 1- .i_ a Ut 4, '11 d 9 : Â· Â· Â· - U' - R '42 E " 1% Klf - A a a. 2. R 1 P Tn c n Fe W- 4.17 n 9400921658270420 ANK p. f" E 0,1, (: : p.1*21- *1979-19â‚¬-30,-1 F-RA lill#jl/11/tilit//1/11/3/1/91116/1/11]13 .1. .:1'0013&#M -143'â€¢Dz ;1-:': 1%5,1 3 i 'tf i. 1 4 '' .i RIÂ· â‚¬1 ' 2 .4 -2~15 'J,70 , All. &1%7tmy?.Uâ‚¬4 Ko'l'#1~PffÂ»Fter:DNÂ·--wx,eme,IeÂ« ~3-tmwl $-Â¥*CK L"Iâ€¢4 Â»" '0,Â«'54'11 r./ {31:1 le'l,1.'ll I ''t e..11~.,;!I.:~,I 1.f~.1~11}..1[@.) 14 00 8 1S /'[23. ,-'."13'.~ COMMUNITY {JEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 130 SOUTH GALENA STREET 1*-942 -, - r ..1.15 - ASPEN,CO 81611 , 1 1> SE P 21316 Prd 1, ..i~" /-\127-'11,4 . Â·Ill 1 ..... i A %9 \ OP /2/ |U S A F~E 37 A CH / f . 1 hi \11\ \V- ' 11\& / 4/7 1 1 3/ i v #43 / 1 1/ GOLDSTEIN MARC IJA u (~~ Al#\ u / 4545 NST 33* PL #100 HOUSÂ»1Â» 77027 4 <. i 1, V h. 4 9 7 - , r 1 / Al A- C .- 1 =UU=:'.2/ 2-0 1 , RETURN TO SENDER / ~ NOT DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED i 1 11 NAD., C .rA mAo 1.0 4*r, Â· 1 -ig. /:I - I- . 1 = 8. 2 + - I.-Â·21 -Z .~ .d D 7Â· A : /7- / C Â·- C 10 71 12.-0 1 1 1/ Â·# m -2 1,2 * 4 -ft - 1 . J . 2 11 W S 73 A 6 1. a 2=2 MNf .4.- 1/ 46 -W t-, 26 49'r . U I O-Â«â€ž2.12=,=2= G. '.1- V A = / 2- 11; ACLF :P- 46Â· W--e ) \J 81611>1902 Ii,ill,]1111')11!111'1111,!,til'lil;"ililli';11'lii,11,11111*111 77027$3i 32 1..''P':-~.K'Ut) 1. 9 ]L . 5'b l, ) 2 5 1}P.1 GL 1 21; 1 4 - â‚¬.1),P- .un -. 4 f'N/C,1 COMMUNITY RAE{OPMENT DEPARTMENT I. - 7.....61--' * 'Al 130 SOUTH GALENA STREET ASPEN, CO 81611 -HA. I 11 Â».l 6.,1. f 4 7 \ i rij / /1 1 1 4 \ A flu, 9 < 1 0 11 fl i Mil /~ 1 i tu #r p 177 1 / A + L BACKS CAAOL - / , m \2 /44417 , 3 11# 1 - { 3 v 3.4.j, 1 ' 1 e : p -h.A 3 5.- I. - 3 2 41 /1/ /00, 1 iÂ¥ i A I. 11 I / 1 +b : %22 0/357 E .3 7 10 1 1 . 1 / RETURtz -- 7- '1=D 3 jU af'ALÂ· 4 NOT DE L 1 V _ R AB L E AS ./ - 1- - - '- 2 4 1 * I g U L 71 - 2 3 b 6, \ 1 / 1 UNABLF TO PATWA.AD 1.9*0817591#1469978 *- n 'IÂ· % Â·9 217.f '1 2 0 A Â·~ U,r : &' W ~ U J. ,,6, A- 2 y .. P d- JÂ¥ r 2 -- .iâ€ž 27 j' 6, 6 - Â£,6 12 - .rlÂ· 2 I] 61611>1902 I . I i 3 1 g $ 1 2 Â£ 1 1 , 1 ' 1 2 1 68 ' 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 i l, 9 1 y li ll i, 1 i l 2 1 11 1 1 1 I i i u t y 1 1 i, 1 . F f "w-C :'4 -14 4 u ',â€žir:WIke,- *:'--' GRAND..1 1.., il<~111~J'.1.11'~E,Ofq CIO 81, 5 Â·Â·p:+ i. I ./ */in# COMMUNITY TIC .#'1*0. -Wt . 4.'S.5-< uc velt)PitylENT DEPARTMENT 130 SOUTH G.ALENA STREET 1 'T" ,,â€žblu"m"44 ., "#*$*1~~Ball ' I. 1.,7 0 1... ' ': '. ''. i '- i j. i ,/9, V. ~ ..., 'Fl~ F.' il' --'.WI ASPEN. CO 81611 h up'I 211- 11!' 7 USAFOREVER 724 , 1\? 40 # LITTLE CLOU - 201 N MILL S 11 0 7-1 C 808 56 1 20199/ 27 7 7/ ASPEN. CO E INSURRICIE Mi ADDRESS UNABLE TO DORWARD IA 010Â«1710805-0 '1979-01767-16-40 1 '1 5 6FD#h E le ' 111, it .iii til j 585&1303:662 113&2%11~|#'9111111,111112,;i,111'1111'1,1#111&1Itifi.fl,i,01Â§9,1 1 . I //1, ; 11 {112 1 - 130 SOUTH GALENA STREET ~~ ~ ~- ---- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT -, 2.'. 11 I' ' ".71 13~ 17 r C. 1-'. iâ„¢5 F f it"r V.- 4 I .7.. .t': -1.--. 1-7-=L I ASPEN, CO 81611 "134%,14/12:1~~ Â·WI/Â·, . r .- a...49. r .26~j .1.0 PM 1 L .- US AFOREVER STASPEN LLP 1180 PEACHTRE --r .... --- 'j. 7â€¢.' 'r & ATLANTA, GA 3( :- == 'Â·- 3 26 5 E .1 - 0999/21/15 1 4 = 14 i 5 g "11 1 INSOMIEIENTSEANDDRE S S UNABLE TO FORWARD ~ TA I m.b. 11 1. b.s, -2.19,02 3 -0 *1979-19223-16-39 1 1,11*'111!!#1121!,filifigist!!11198|5ifli;til!111'titaiM,ji,Eigil J.-'12960=3=422= 20Â£ 9 1 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT i..3 i Â·'c.,~5, IN 1,3. ....i fi~,{ i.1.t i.,'1~1.> F~ 3.W (2.:I,'.; ,9-4 1 9 , w,J,4:61.491'e. 'A'NÂ».,41,Â»*we'Â·~;~' '. ,-% "h,-,r.,4, mr~~~ ,~ ., I"..'/ I' 1.,i 130 SOUTH GALENA STREET ,â€ž~...... Â£(21, SEP ..Â· - -- ~~T, ASPEN, CO 81611 ~Â«MÂ·4'Â¢* *#+tÂ·1'%1'r. :6Â·IDÂ·i i ,:.~1 Â£ 1 i * I 1. Effhte ISIFOREHER '41' 521-523 W HOPKINS AFFORD HOUSING HO 521 W HOPIA ASPEN, CO N I tiE 808 5= 1 - 0009/24/16 f 21 N AB 1_ 2 1.- 3- O 2 ~R W 1 R 8 wi $ .a ANK 2 r. 91 41 1 1 -O 4,3 4 V 9411 5494, *1979-19599 -16 -3 9 . i , 4. - 14:2,11,11Â§~1|ifij},Allill#jiliz|litilit:111â€ž111:6~311â€žIII?]111, 1 :" F Â· :OMWWMT Â¥ DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 417-%44 JIREF*- 3**:1 1 30 SOUTH GAI.ENA STREET .G. A . 4 ~- i Â·.Un J.Lj 1,+At #-#4'm,Wi#Mi&#C ASPEN, CO 81611 '= _ h... -r ..L-'11-3-~-Â·,* OSA FOREVEP \/ t/ t.' t 1 , ISPITZBART ELLEN 9 WMAINST#101 ASPEN, CO 8161' i.. Â·- :,- ZE 808 4% 1 4 - ..â€¢- 1 0009/24316 z ATTEMP VED - AC 7 NOWN f U NAB L E -1- D POR 6 2 2 0 i 8 ..9 1: 52: 21611190230 *1979-1992,-16-39 1 6 kilin=%ARA z IN,3&1111(43-:1111"1"t:~i'i,xilli:]91 1 0 g , L 1 1~ 5 31 b, 6 13.16 'Al =-1 1;2':.2-11'11/11'& 1.- O-.Â· Â·r.Â·. p.gai.â€¢Aril~..-in.MY--=/4'g~~cceÂ·-*Ill GRAP) C> A:t.ft.1 F') /'52>Pj CO ;9 1,?i; '.9/t...'L,4/I COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 1,#m&/# 130 SOUTH GALENA STREET 16 SEP 201Â·6 PM -3 ASPEN, CO 81611 11-- ISAFOREVER 3KANDIA TOWNHOUSES CONDO ASSOC COMMON AREA 720 W HOPKINS / NIATE 808 TE 1 8 009.- Â£ 4 / -b j ASPEN, CO 8161 RETURN TO SENDER r I / C ** r. ' L M-7 KNOWN - , 2't t f 6.w :Uf- 1 6. 2 - 3. W Â£ il NAW 1 r ? u . fi R w.;AÂ¥? D ; ANK SC: 81611190230 2'1979-19629-16-39 1~ Â¥: ' %9 71 f 2,32' :A 14 1 "32 , 21 53 2 84 54 4 fl %6% 2 l3il~~12:ilritltilt't'~1211!111'11111'ift,1,11)1111!ittlilliftibl i t. 14 R# Rtz,- , ) UN(7 'i. (;344 CO '4:t ,i, F~ ,~Â·..0 k: ~1;,13:~.,~ '44,Â·4,UU '' ..,1â€ž'.:.'-w... â‚¬....*I #A ~Â·,i.Â«ri COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ~ li,-3 SEN .all{% 1- Pt 11 - 130 SOUTH GALENA STREET ... 1 ASPEN, CO 81611 USAFOREVER SMITH BRIDGER R 381 ISABEL HAY R[ NT XT R 31 6 0 za 7 2 b / 1 5 J ASPEN, CO 81611 RETURN TO SENDER , r'-1 f i 4. 0 - r 6.W LINAR LE TO PORÂ·WARD I ! ANK EC: 31611198230 *1979-19761-16 -39 1 64/ki/4/%12 i 1122'lit'21211'1#litti,ki,ili~~913%*114%1,419*iiililtil,ijitIii'l j I.."dlyv>'3.743=.%';Clf.1/~'I:-/~ --0-=. ,â‚¬-Dh>Â» IÂ·.I.-V~----7-.Ilp--x---77Aral--m.0..p---'-, -7.- -Tur..1-- 1 -I --I- *#*: 1.,124*7 L,i UN I TAM# c.,fi~Â°T ;; ? i 4 0*-0 ~-1>:,r~~r~'J'Â£7.Â·Â·:r'F'h'-'~ . ~Â·4- 0'.' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 130 SOUTH GALENA STREET 1.{.3 14 10: 2 1.3!f) f {,4 1-M f. 7- a 'Â· * ASPEN; CO 81611 . -.' r-5/4 USAFOREVER li JEMAR PARTNERS LLC 701 W MAIN ST ASPEN, CO --- N I XI E 808 73 1 0069/24/1$1 i RE LJ R N TO S EiDER A j ; aÂ·:. 3 1 co - NUT KNOWN 13 NAM L 9 7-0 F OR WARD 7: A/ 1/ =r. (1 25 5 1 =4:Â·Ct:k* *1979-20015-16-39 1 , 13 ' $ 11 6 :7 i +Ii , 'al Â¢ '.1 , 2 =CPOS'-PiA *,482 d;,1 . i 1#Plix'li~:~7.~Pli~jj~~1#9j~t}ii't-~11*humpitpa 1 ,, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT , d. E~ ..3 t. ij.~"e'.f/,11,4,11{.,1 AM//ER#ZY 130 SOUTH GALEN.4 QTREET i, 11 ~ 2 ASPEN CO 81611 -1.1.-.I- I.k.'ron Â·0 l !1 USA FOREVER BLANCHARD NATALIE M 720 W HOPKINS #B ASPEN, CO 816 808 78 1 30.0 9/24/16 i RE TURN Te SENDER } Â·7 C Â·U . : E '-4 M /-4 -p y M A 6 /: ImÂ¢ 66 -2- - 1 K /2 ' )'t 4. UÂ¥ Fl t .@ IIi A t. , '71. .., 5. - I.# p. ' P . t. ,- I 1-Â¢ R M D L ?= 1 43 7- 13 *%- TA, a n Â£/ 1 m . AN K M L. 41 4 t> 1.2- 2.- Â¥ 045 v .... ==r 2 =, e l : 6 .r ... 1,0. -1 -e '4 u kilillit'111%'11'111%?it.!11â€žlitifi:.1,111:1-1,2-1 4 '1(5115411,nt 619-47-59 6 h ~MFTn)),4 0Â£3 8 15 ,â€¢'Â· COPMUNITY DE'VELOPMENT DEPARIMENT z 1 1~ 111,~ 2 2...Al'llÂ» :ol. 3364,â€¢ 4 6 -911 j-i&â€¢"Gj Â· ':trT - .- 4. 9,â€ž, ' &-'*. ' 2,1 -~"/F/& 51*Â·.* 0.:'-4 V. Â», i.. 4 \ 24." A '0 7,/1 f. A 4' 04 4 g Er-Â·-44&3'/2- nCi Cl *UU 0:Â·J J 1 1: Dll 1 - ./ ..1 14 --EMIFIWIL- Â«*7 t-73-~ USAFOREVE R Mil SHADOW MOUNTAIN TOWNHOMES CONDO, COMMON AREA S SEVENTH ST ASPEN, CO 81611 NTUE O 170 ) C A Re 4 J ' 4 " r 1- - R E TURN TO SENDER i AT- -:EMP TED - NOT KNOWN , UNABLE TO FORWARD 1 '1 Al W Pr :1 -1*=' - Â« 4 +0, ~1979Â·-19648-16-39 1 w w. u j u. 6 .A. 1. 17 Od =e 9 - 1 & i'' 1,2 G i. I '' : 11 Â¤2903*19'132 Ii: 1/1/11:'ifili'ii'ii-;9111}'191,111,11;215}1:ti.1111/1,1:1111!/ 11 21 , 5 + ud / , 4 "/ 1 31 11 i [ A.,10 .4 1 1 11/'s:9 3 /Â© G.'32.AND JLJPULTTOÂ·Â·14 Â©1.3 815 + t.'m 'An/>W 1 '11, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT , 1, 1 rt,-p .'1 i "r"Â· 130 SOUTH GALENA STREET r,6 ' .11 1--- ASPEN, CO 81611 '- Â· ~'Â·1914 454 fOREvER 1 1 ruff 4 f.,Â« Â·- 2 0 MCFARLAND SHAYN D 00 BOX 3811 *TyTE= 883 72 1 3935,0/ 5 4 /1 A 4 ASPEN, CO 81612 --1 -- -- - - -U- -- i ATTEMPTED - NOT 1/ rd A 1.:L Al RETURN TO SENDER A 1 i W - p. UNABL F TO CORWARD I ANK :Cr 81611190235 *1979-01802-16-40 M A i C. O -Iâ€¢ %24 4 -seet~-ypc;* e z 21,11,=:ilx:411?105,"1,:111Â£11!i'!'11'*1021'1&11'illaililillit*111 1 1 1 ':'; .5 2 1 ./.'...:...: ~' I G RA M D TH...1 Fr J C TPO N C O .9-: 1. 5 /1," h " .Im/* __.Â·i)/11~W.~i' ~~~'*W#/ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT , i'x.,;"~*'3Â· ~~? -.21,4 ~~Pr<~t,~~, 130 SOUTH GALENA STREE1- ASPEN, CO 81611 US A FO REVER rll S SMB CONDO ASSOC 605 W MIAN QI ASPEN, CO G, 7 1.; T i 888 72 1 0489/24/1 2 1 RETURN TO 5 E NDE R & A i ; EMPTE D - NOT KNOWN i .-; N JR I 7 1-2 4 AR WARn ANK EC: 81513-192230 *197 9 -19667"16 -39 1 - 8151149-94 2 'ihidzÂ·ling. 1 ; 1.i,1.6...:,al,-qiâ€¢,i:â€¢t 11/#1'.. 16 1] J ..119'11â€¢i:,ilit}haiti.9,3..%-51.;C.:. i.3: I .9 93.il,7:{11,14 3 21 m Mt ; ~Ab~ ~ . AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 70 5 DoÂ· 4-6 p IGvÂ·,6 A--A. , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: adOW- , 4* -I;0A-7 44:807 20-1-4 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. County of Pitkin ) I, (name, please print) 9-*- being Bhepr@entingan Applicant to the City'of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: V Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials,Â·which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on the day of , 20 , to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the 4 1 11 0,1.!. ~.-IT', property. subject to the development application. The names and addresses of J, .~ property owners Bhall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they .'\6:94.,9Â· appeared lio more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A b.bpy of th@ Bpdkers and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach, summarized and attached, was conducted prior to the first public hearing as required in Section 26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the neighborhood outreach summary, including the method of public notification and a copy of any documentation that -was presented to the public is attached hereto. (continued on next page) Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development. The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions, SPAs or PUDs that create more than one lot, new Planned Unit Developments, and new Specially Planned Areas, are subj ect to this notice requirement. Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. Jz~ Â©t~~~~~__ Signature The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this 1,6-day ofSâ€¢01 4*,4,4 , 201,-, by â‚¬4424J 9, Se.eÂ·,elÂ« r-J 5 6:96@533 2314Â§*%3 4.#:f F 90 4Â§1% f 2 leo 2=EsÂ· 8 Ji- c==.4 i I WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL =1 -:-61Â§522 299#112. *92* N 4 12 9 =aN a.0 3.rEEEo.<920 2 c.- o = ce, 02 0 9? -am 5123' E 1 5 1 1 -2 g & 2 1 0]6 Â§-Ap.6/0,0-8 <lo Â·gzor 62=E 2223'. Ele â‚¬~ E S C P M E 2 2 - # a 5%%;E@%35â‚¬95-j# 2 :22,@ 11/1 1 H r en : My commission expires: 34 tal 40 99.8.22=al ..95Â·â€¢:EE :~%%4%2hugi ,Â·48 * *diffi 1 1 1*&2- Pdt.WÂ«Ke ~; 86*2 -*3%26#:2 2 h &2-12 22'Â®tr,a--Â®=00=i.CIO... ;9 2. @ -:cy. 8% 21 2 E 01*:1Â·192:&11Â·?1# fi: m &% a.liciefi:i-a figillii fF Notary Public KAREN REED PATTERSON 92:ew:Ab:225:â€¢23.5828.Iem:8:0. -oov-03 . ~2.--~-IN<u-cou)Â·Ea-Â¤a.02-Den-cm ja.=moao<*201Â®or--, 0-~ NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF COLORADO ATTACIIMENTS AS APPLICABLE: NOTARY ID #19964002767 â€¢ COPY OF THE PUBLICATION , My Commission Expires February 15,2020 . PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) â€¢ LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL â€¢ APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. Â§24-65.5-103.3 NOTICE O BLIC HEARING kins Avenue 13261 eMpmean o~sal alsros,~d~un~~ 1 cons r c~ f 0054Â·20 (6 -AS(11 0"Â» I- ID Â·Â·-Â·. - THE CITY OF ASPEN Â¢~ Land Use Application â€¢ .t 45 Determination of Completeness JUN 0 2 2016 r C. Date: May 15.2016 i.. . 1 Dear City of Aspen Land Use Review Applicant, We have received your land use application for 705 W. Hopkins Ave - Planned Development and have reviewed it for completeness. Â¥L~Your Land Use Application is complete: / tplease submit the following to begin the land use review process. 1) Digital pdf of the entire application. 2) Review deposit of $15,600.00. 3) Stamped survey 4) Five additional hard copies of the entire application. 5) Two copies: 24" by "36, scaled drawings Other submission items may be requested throughout the review process as deemed necessary by the Community Development Department. Please contact me at 429-2759 if you have any questions. Thank You, 01.~ 64-49Â« Jennifer Phs}an, Deputy Planning Director City o f Aspen, Community Development Department For Office Use Only: Qualifying Applications: Mineral Rights Notice Required New PD Yes ~74 No Subdivision, or PD (creating more than 1 additional lot) GMQS Allotments Residential 3>4 Affordable Housing 2<\ Yes.71 No Commercial E.P.F. Lodging 5,< >4 ..4 CISNEROS REAL ESTATE 121 ALHAMBRA PLAZA (SUITE 1400) CORAL GABLES, FL 33134 (305) 442-3438 41 , W City o f Aspen Community Development MAY O 9 2016 Ms. Jessica Garrow 130 S. Galena Street, 3rd Floor CITY GÂ· Aspen, CO 81611 Ca.,?*,â‚¬' f n.i, ..,INT 9 May 2016 Subject: 705 West Hopkins Avenue Dear Ms. Garrow, Attached, please find our land use application for a proposed lodging project loc ated at the base of Shadow Mountain in Pitkin County, Colorado, and containing 118 lodging units, 22 fractional residences, and four free market residences. From the moment this project was contemplated, we have challenged ourselves to ensure that our vision is one that contributes to the community fabric of Aspen both in the short and long term. Our organization has a strong history of community engagement and that will continue throughout our efforts in Aspen. The challenges facing this community are ones that we are committed in helping to solve through an acknowledgement of the project's impacts and thoughtful collaboration. Resp ted. /8 , i.- Patrick S. Freeman President, Cisneros Real Estate te, J '3 9102 8 0 NAf 705 WEST HOPKINS AVENUE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT - PROJECT REVIEW APPLICATION A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT REVIEW APPLICATION FOR 705 WEST HOPKINS AVENUE Submitted by: Starford Investments, LLC Westchester Investments, Inc. Shadow Mountain Corporation 121 Alhambra Plaza, Suite 1400 Coral Gables, FL 33134 (305) 442-3438 April 6, 2016 Prepared by: VANN ASSOCIATES, LLC Planning Consultants P.O. Box 4827 Basalt, CO 81621 (970) 925-6958 PROJECT CONSULTANTS OWNERS' REPRESENTATIVE PLANNER Patrick Freeman, President Sunny Vann - Cisneros Real Estate Vann Associates, LLC 121 Alhambra Plaza, Suite 1400 P.O. Box 4827 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Basalt, CO 81621 (305) 442-3438 (970) 925-6958 ARCHITECT ATTORNEY Will Hentschel Thomas J. Todd, Esq. 359 Design, LLC Holland & Hart, LLP 3630 Osage Street 600 East Main Street Denver, CO 80304 Aspen, CO 81611 (303) 884-9131 (970) 925-3476 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SURVEYOR Richard Shaw Mark Beckler, L. S. Design Workshop, Inc. Sopris Engineering, LLC 120 East Main Street 502 Main Street, Suite A3 Aspen, CO 81611 Carbondale, CO 81623 (970) 925-8354 (970) 704-0311 CIVIL ENGINEER ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS Jesse Swann, P.E. Arthur I. Mears, P.E., Inc. Sopris Engineering, LLC Natural Hazards Consultants 502 Main Street, Suite A3 555 County Road 16 Carbondale, CO 81623 Gunnison, CO 81230 (970) 704-0311 (970) 275-1548 TRANSPORTATION ARBORIST Sara Hawley, P.E. Jason Jones LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Aspen Tree Service, Inc. P.O. Box 5875 1111 Village Road Tahoe City, CA 96145 Carbondale, CO 81623 (530) 583-4053 (970) 963-3070 i TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page I. INTRODUCTION 1 11. PROJECT SITE 4 Ill. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 11 A. Project Components 18 B. Plans and Elevations 25 1 C. Development Rights 50 D. Landscaping 50 E. Public Amenity 59 F. Transportation 61 G. Utilities and Drainage 67 H. Development Data 70 IV. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS 76 A. Planned Development 17 B. Subdivision 88 C. Rezoning 92 D. Growth Management 95 E. Conditional Use 103 F. 8040 Greenline Review 105 G. Commercial Design Review 109 H. Residential Design Standards 119 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page APPENDIX A. Exhibit 1, Pre-Application Conference Summary Exhibit 2, City Council Resolution No. 71, Series of 2015 Exhibit 3, City Council Resolution No. 85, Series of 2015 Exhibit 4, Title Insurance Commitments Exhibit 5, Permission to Represent Exhibit 6, Land Use Application Form Exhibit 7, Dimensional Requirements Form Exhibit 8, Application Fee Agreement Exhibit 9, Homeowner Association Compliance Form Exhibit 10, List of Adjacent Property Owners B. Exhibit 1, Improvement Survey Plat Exhibit 2, Amended and Restated Mary B Subdivision Plat Exhibit 3, Mary B Subdivision Agreement and Restrictive Covenants Exhibit 4, City of Aspen Condemnation/Eminent Domain Proceeding Exhibit 5, Gramiger Sheehan Lot Line Adjustment Plat iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page APPENDIX Exhibit 6, BOCC Resolution No. 103, Series of 1987 Exhibit 7, Parcel 3 Existing Residence and Outbuilding Exhibit 8, Mears and Wilbur Professional Qualifications Exhibit 9, Rockfall and Avalanche Hazard Assessment Report Exhibit 10, Engineering Report C. Exhibit 1, Slope Analysis Map Exhibit 2, Public Trail Easement Agreement Exhibit 3, COMDEV Administrative Policy re: Lodge Commercial Spaces Exhibit 4, Net Livable Area/Net Leasable Area Calculation Diagrams Exhibit 5, Floor Area Calculation Diagrams Exhibit 6, Tree Survey Report Exhibit 7, LSC Level Two Transportation Impact Analysis D. Exhibit 1, Draft Subdivision Plat iV 1. INTRODUCTION The following application requests Planned Development - Project Review approval for the development of a new mixed-use lodge, fractional ownership, free market residential, and affordable housing project on three contiguous parcels of land located at the base of Shadow Mountain and adjacent to West Hopkins Avenue in unincorporated Pitkin County (see Pre-Application Conference Summary, Exhibit 1, Appendix A, attached hereto). The three parcels are collectively referred to for purposes of this application as the 705 West Hopkins Avenue properties, and are the subject of a Petition for Annexation that was submitted to the City on June 26, 2015. The parcels are depicted on the proposed Annexation Map on the following page. On July 13, 2015, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 71, Series of 2015, which determined the Annexation Petition to be in substantial compliance with the provisions of Section 31-12-107 of the Colorado Revised Statutes (see Exhibit 2, Appendix A). Resolution No. 85, which was adopted by the Council on September 28, 2015, determined the petition to be in compliance with Sections 31-12-104 and 31-12-105 of the Statutes (see Exhibit 3, Appendix A). As the Pre-Application Conference Summary indicates, final approval of the proposed annexation is contingent upon the City Council's approval of the Project Review application. In addition to Planned Development ("PD") approval, the proposed development will require a rezoning; lodge, commercial, free market residential and affordable housing Growth Management Quota System ("GMQS") allotments; and Subdivision, Conditional Use, 8040 Greenline Review, Conceptual Commercial Design Review, and Residential Design Review approval, all of which are reviewed and approved with the Project Review application. Final Commercial Design Review will occur concurrently with Planned Development - Detailed Review. Vested property rights status for the 1 ANNEXATION MAP OF: 705 WEST HOPKINS AVENUE ==G:==2/I 1 8- 494:0..4â‚¬t :-72% -o:li.,- . L.--A- ..el.>4:.-~411#fi hu lit: .10:fti:.0,3499%Â»iÂ».4 ANNEXATION PARCEL DESCRIPTION SHEET 1 OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 85 WEST OF THE 6th P.M. r-0 - -tu t--3-\1'i2~...Â·.-~n,:->i.:Â·-- -,â‚¬brl#-5=~~41*----= COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO x 0.-+ 2-&28.-9. 11.-Ai,Vkx --K--2--3-':ir<14*22)3 16 . CORNER 7 TOWNSiTE OF ASPEN , h 5 i.: % ..L . FOUND USDA ALUMINUM CAP - ..~.~o- 2~ * ~6--~4f,- rdetÂ«i<RittÂ»t, 1, Annexation Parcel Description: ASPEN TOWNSITE CORNER NO. 7 -n 9 f :'~t-Â·Â·Â·, 3 .-C -- ~i : 4"'--'~ ~ i:.:--~Â·Z' -1 . li:-- -a-- lill.,\(4 A Parcel of Land being comprised of Lots 1 and 2, Amended and Restated Mary 8 1 )~i ~T r < f. ' 01'Â·'Â·-6 .1-Â·-aâ€¢:- 1:-11::Â·41 Subdivision, according to the Plat thereof filed November 13,1992 in Plat Book , 7 1,4,1 30 at Page 6 under Reception No. 350737 and a portion of the Adjusted Gramiger \ CONTIGUOUS BOUNDARY TABLE f v. 1 --- 0.-f -'Â·-->./-Z,"2*~3,"I,A.~~jdgi-4.--7-34 .-,4, f 111 2 /2 Parcel ls shown on the Gramiger Sheehan Lot Line Adjustment Plat recorded 515> --2.2 164< rf;*Myf.9 ..Dfil# JA/*'11, August 25, 1988 in Plat Book 21 at Page 19 under Reception No. 303306; said ,, - 1-.-.- SEVENTH STREEUHOPKINS AVENUE CORRIDOR ANNEXATION MAP 556.10' Parcel of Land also being situated in Section 12, Township 10 South, Range 85 \ , ASPEN TOWNSITE BOUNDARY 48.22' Slf y.773-9'I.~Â·BITE~- ~ . '-7~--'143-el,*i..' 7-41-Nue West of the Sixth Principal Meridian and is more particularly described as follows: / LITTLE AJAX SUBDIVISION/PUD (CITY ORDINANCE NO. 26 SERIES OF 20041 659.93 1.,1/ -2.0 , LÂ»4%- /' bijinzi-999*,-t'.'.-4/~14. ty TOTAL 1,264.25' BEGINNING at the Northwest corner of said Adjusted Gramiger Parcelfrom which the Aspen City Monument GPS-21 (7th and Hopkins) bears N.03Â°56'39-,Efor a / X ANNEXATION TABLE A; 0,1,2 <-41- i-Tf'4~~1,4 ~f~ \,J '11%*24>4fli~ distance of 19.93 feet (with all bearings contained herein being tive to the .~ ~/ 141' r ..0-3-,30jz- 8. f,./1 j ?t fi-\ '1144.4*2~41;*T-<>% , bearing of S.54'28'15".E between Corners 7 and 8 ofthe Aspen Townsite \ 1 8,0 ze ~~~~ON El~TER 3ul 2,1 boundary), Thence S.74'16'27".E along the Northerly boundary of said Adjusted ~P Gramiger Parcel for adistance of 300.00 feet to the Northeasterly corner of said Â· # CONTIGUOUS BOUNDARY 1,264.25 Adjusted Gramigerparcel, saidpointalsobeingthelorthwesterlycornerofsaid Amended and Restated Mary 8 Subdivision boundary; Thence leaving said S VEN H ~REmHOP Northerly boundary along the boundary of said Amended and Restated Mary B . *ENUE CORRIDOR / Subdivrsion the following twelve (12) courses: - L l NmpUT(ON ~ ~ _ //3/ -~..4826.R49928/ 1. S.74'16'27".Efor a distance of 85.00 feet; . 2. S.15Â°43Â·33".W for a distance of 19.00 feet --1.36~5-217â„¢AND-H ' KI & j . ~ \ACINITY MAP 1 poiNTMMENCEMENT \ BLOCK 19 3. S.74Â°16'27",E for a distance of 152.10 feet; m - 4. S.54Â°28'15".E for a distance of 48.22 feet; SCALE 1'=200~ 5. S.03Â°18'44".W for a distance of 324.77 feet; - -Â·- / im / rÂ».-, ... 6. N.77Â°15'59".E for a distance of 196.21 feet; -*-/- - . /\ i -, SURVEY NOTES , 7. N.03Â°18'44".E for a distance of 138.95 feet; 1 i m i l #3-~-Â« r-~_. BLOCK 25 BLOCK 31 - 8.5.54'27'40".E for a distance of 125.60 feet; POINTOF BEGINNING 3-56 39"E 19.9 1. DATE OF SURVEY: OCTOBER - DECEMBER 2013, MAY -JULY, 2014. 9. N.68Â°06'40".W fora distance of 76.10 feet; ANNEXATION PARCEL AND PARCEL 3 .1 gpsâ‚¬ 6â„¢~ANg/HOP*INS/ - , 10. S.21Â°55'02".W for a distance of 226.93 feet; 11. N.77Â°59'41".W for a distance of 381.99 feet; - 42-/ 9-+---- -- ~ROJECT BENCHM*K EMEV=7935212 /h 2. DATE OF PREPARATION. AUGUST, 2014. 12. 5.12Â°36'16".E for a distance of 2.44 feet; ,/1 1 3. BASIS OF BEARING: A BEARING OF 554Â°28'15"EBEAVEEN CORNER 7 TOWNSITEOFASPEN AND CORNER B TOWNSITEOF ASPEN, AS 4 //999 Thence leaving the boundary of said Amended and Restated Mary B Subdivision SHOWN. /5, N.85Â°58'25".Wfor a distance of 198.14 feet; Thence 5.62Â·07'08".W for a distance =~ 3 l, j*2*tÂ«/ffi~ i-4= 4. BASIS OF ANNEXATION MAP: THE OFFICIAL MAP OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, PREPARED BY G.E. BUCHANAN, DATED DECEMBER 15, 1959, CITY of 158.84 feet to a point on the boundary of said Adjusted Gramiger Parcel; :/i //p,Z, mi 7////1 \ Thence the following three courses along the boundary of said Adjusted ~ APER' toums'TE BOPNDARÂ¥Â·t:INE 7- ~ ~ / PU D & ACTIVITY ENVELOPE PLAN PREPARED BY GRAND VALLEY SURVEYING 008 NO. 614821, DECEMBER 3, 2009); MARY B SUBDIVISION OF ASPEN GPS CONTROL MONUMENTATION MAP PREPARED BY MARCIN ENGINEERING LLC DATED DECEMBER 2,2009; PRIDE OF ASPEN Gram[ger Parcel: 1 1. N.08Â°44'16".W fora distance of 429.16 feet; 4 / .~F AREA, 1 \ LITTLE AJAX;D-JQN P.U.D. 1//51:///-, A P. U.D. LOT SPLIT RECORDED AUGUST 23, 1985 AS RECEPTION NO. 270781; GRAMIGER SHEEHAN LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT RECORDED AUGUST 25, 1988 AS RECEPTION NO. 30306; KAPLAN 1041 REVIEW PLAT RECORDED MAY 5, 1989 AS RECEPTION NO. 311256; 2. N.47Â°30'44".Efor a distance of 64.33 feet; PARCELTHREE 2 872-1Â¤8-4~8682 - ---. IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PREPARED BY ASPEN SURVEY ENGINEER'S INC. (JOB NO. 6172, APRIL 27,1990}; AMENDED AND RESTATED MARY 3. N.25Â°35'44".Ea distance of 116.40 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; 1 N i i L.UN i N 1.U N l' r 8 SUBDIVISION RECORDED NOVEMBER 13, 1992 AS RECEPTION NO. 350737; IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PREPARED BY ASPEN SURVEY 3500 ACRES <~ , / 11 lili 1 1 , 6172, FEBRUARY 8, 2000); IMPROVEMENT SURVEY OF M.S. 4610 (JOB NO. GRAM-4610, JUNE 30, 2008); BOOMERANG LOT SPLIT , Containing 287,906 squarefeetor 6.609 acres moreor less. 11/ l 1/1 i 0 1111 PARCELTWO , w- ANNEX~'PERO RDJNANCE NO. 26 SERIES OF 2004 ~ -~ /'' ~ ENGINEERS, INC. 008 NO. 61728, MARCH 4, 2003); IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PREPARED BY ASPEN SURVEY ENGINEERS, INC. (108 NO. COUNTY OF PITKIN 56,797 SQIT- ~> - STATE OF COLORADO 1.3039 ACRES. PLANS OF LITTLE AJAX AFFORDABLE HOUSING P.U.D. RECORDED MAY 13, 2008 AS RECEPTION NO. 510056; IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION PLAT RECORDED JUNE 16, 2006 AS RECEPTION NO. 525370; FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE CONDOMIN]UM MAP WETHOPKINS AVENUE OF THE LITTLE AJAX COADOMINIUMS RECORDED JULY 6,2007 AS RECEPTION NO. 539661; FINAL PLAT LITTLE AJAX SUBDIVISION P.U.D. RNMENT,~~ ~ ~~,/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Â· RECORDED APRIL 6,2005 AS RECEPTION NO. 508682; RE-PLAT OF LOT 1 AND LOT 2 LITTLE AJAX SUBDIVISION P.U.D. AND FINAL P.U.D. OF SHADOW MOUNTAIN PROPERTIES PREPARED BY SOPRIS ENGINEERING DATED JULY 08, 2014; BLM FIELD NOTES AND MINERAL SURVEYS OF SUBJECTAND ADJOINING PROPERTIES; VARIOUS DOCUMENTS OF RECORD AND THE FOUND MONUMENTS, ASSHOWN. PROPERTY OWNERSHIP DE5CRIPTION & MAP KEY 5. THE UNEAR UNIT USED IN THE PREPARATION OF THIS PLAT ]S THE U.S. SURVEY FOOT AS DEFINED BY THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT 2 PARCEL ONE Parcel Line Table b/4/ Â£<t*i, 9/ f./2 3% Â« OF COMMERCE, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY. Une# Direction Length gl *M# 4 // ilor fÂ« (Owned 100% by Starford Properties LLC) U S74' 16' 27" E 85.00' V 2 7. ADJUSTED GRAMIGER PARCEL AND AMENDED AND RESTATED MARY B SUBDIVISION HAVE BEEN ROTATED 0Â°52'44" COUNTER ) Lot 1, Amended and Restated Mary B Subdivision, according to the Plat thereof filed 6. ALL RECEPTION NUMBERS REFERENCED HEREON ARE FOR DOCUMENTS RECORDED IN THE PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO CLERK AND November 13. 1992 in Plat Book 30 at Page 6 under Reception No. 350737. Li 574Â·16'27Â·'E 300.00' -4 -/Â» 14.44 /-//9 14 RECORDER S OFFICE. PARCEL TWO 8 515-43'33-W 19.00' , I I - // 4*/,1 2-L13 11 1 CLOCKWISE TO BE CONS]STENT WITH THE CITY OF ASPEN CONTROL MONUMENT BEARING BASE AND THE BASES OF BEARING SURVEY 14 574 16'27"E 152.10' h " 15 li li /lu r (Owned 100% by Shadow Mountain Corporation) L E' 18 44"W 324.77' . 9 1. ~ / Lot 2, Amended and Restated Mary B Subdivision, according to the Plat thereof filed NOTE 3. 3 S54'28'15-E ..21' / i \3 Â»99 November 13, 1992 in Plat Book 30 at Page 6 under Reception No. 350737. * L7 N77~15'59"E 196.21' 11 SURVEYOR'S STATEMENT PARCELTHREE i 7 11/ 18' WE 188.95' % 1 1, MARK S. BECKLER, DO HEREBY STATE THAT THIS ANNEXATI ON MAP WAS PREPARED BY A portion of the "Adjusted" Gramiger Parcel as shown on the 'GRAMIGER SHEEHAN LOT LINE 19 554Â° 27' 40"E 125.60 s SOPRIS ENGINEERING, LLC FOR STARFORD PROPERTIES LLC SHADOW MOUNTAIN ADJUSTMENT" Plat recorded August 25, 1983 in Plat Book 21 at Page 19 under Reception No. m '.7- CORPORATION AND WESTCHESTER INVESTMENTS, INC. AND THAT IT IS TRUE AND 303306 being described as follows: Uo N68 8' 40"W 76.10' . CORRECTTOTHEBESTOFMYKNOWLEDGE L.11 S21-59 02L'W 226.93' * BEGINNINGS at the Northwest corner of said Adjusted Gramiger Parcel from which the Aspen Ul N77'59+41"W 381.99' 2 8Y: City Monument GPS-21 (7th and Hopkins) bears N.03Â°56'39".E for a distance of 19.93 feet 4744 H EnÂ·%.tÂ·-i-Â·. MARKS. BECKLER, L.S. #28643 (with all bearings contained herein being relative to thebearing of S.54'28'15".E between 113 Sl/36'16E 2.44' & Carne s 7 and 8 ofthe Aspen Townsite boundary); Thencealong the boundary of said U. NIS- 58' 25"W m. ~ ~ + Adjusted Gramiger Parcel the following three (3) courses: 1.5.74Â°16'27".E for a distance of ------ .Â»j ., LLit-Â« 44 1 300.00 feet; L15 S62~ 07108"W 158.84' 1 ---r , CITY ENGINEER'S REVIEW 2. 5.15'43'33".W for a distance of 410.26 feet; /6 N4/30'44 E 64.33' CORNERI>--Â·J 3. S.74'16'27".E for a distance of 132.92 feet; ASPEN DEPARTMENT ANNEXATION REQUIREMENTS THIS DAY OF , 20 TOWNSITEOF THIS ANNEXATION MAP WAS REVIEWED FOR THE DEPICTION OFTHE ENGINEERING U7 N25'35'44"E 116.40' REESTABUSHED IN Thence leaving the boundary of said Adjusted Gramiger Parcel N.85'58'25".W for a distance '8 512' 36' 16"E 79.13 RECORD LOCAION of 198.14 feet; Thence S.62Â°07'08,1.W for a distance of 158.84 feet to a point on the boundary U9 53'57'37"E 427.44' 8ASEDON PRIOR of said Adjusted Gramiger Parcel; Thence along the boundary of said Adjusted Gramiger Parcel SURVEYS USEDAS Tricia Aragon, P.E. (CITY ENGINEER) L20 S55'42' 47"E 146.93 ACCESSORY the following three (3) courses: - GUIDANCE /1 521 8'27 W 1315& ta 1. N.08'44'16".W for a distance of 429.16 feet; w 2. N.47Â°30'44".E for a distance of 64.33 feet L.22 586Â·41'16"E 51.58' 3. N.25Â°35'44".E a distance of 116.40 feettothe POINT OF BEGINNING; '23 /8 44' 16"W 4447 91 CITYCOUNCILAPPROVAL 1 -0 L24 N61-10'02"E 310 88' " THIS ANNEXATION MAP WAS APPROVED BY THE C[TY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, Containing 145.926 square feet or 3.350 acres more or less. 1 PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO THIS DAY OF , 20 AS EVIDENCED l25 N81'1544E 7.70' Ab S BY ORDINANCE NO. SERIES OF 20 RECORDED WITH THE CLERK AND (Owned 100% by Westchester Investments, Inc.) 126 NS 44' 1/W 198.01' RECORDER OF PITKIN COUNTY AS RECEPTION NO. COUNTY OF Pm<IN STATE OF COLORADO STEVESKADRONMAYOR O WITNESS MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN FOUNDUISEC 12 13 - #6 REBARS 1/r' ALUMINUM CAP 9 V 2008 LS 16129 ATTEST: GRAPHICSCALE LINDAMANNING & / g B . (IN FEET) 1 inch = 100 ft. CLERK & RECORDER'S CERTIFICATE : 51* 8 THIS ANNE>ATION MAP OF 705 WEST HOPKINS AVENUE IS ACCEPTED FOR FILING IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK AND *'19-'LODEW'.4711 ~ RECORDER OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO AT O'CLOCK-.M.,THIS DAY OF , SOPRIS ENGINEERING- LLC 201_, IN PLAT BOOK .AT PAGE , RECEPTION NO. 8Â· s CIVIL CONSULTANTS 4- PITKIN COUNT/ CLERK AND RECORDER NO~CE ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY LEGAL - 502 MAIN STREET, SUITE AB A(mON BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN â„¢m SURVe' WiTHIN THREE YEAR5 ..U CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623 AFTER YOU FjRST Di5COVER SUCH DEFECT, IN NO EVENT MAY ANY ACTiON CP. f 8ASED UPON ANY DEFE. 1/ THIS SURVEY BE COMMENCED MORE â„¢AN TEN YEA~ FROM THE DATE OF CER'n FICATION 5HOWN HEREON, / (970) 704-0311 SOPRISENG@SOPRISENG.COM GRK~b 131562015 02 18/\33.dwgs\13156\VAN BASE\ANNEX~13156 ANNEX #g .. 29.Ttz.#mk project's various approvals will be granted upon the receipt of the Detailed Review and Final Commercial Design Review approvals. An application for condominiumization approval for the proposed development's free market residential units, and condominium- ization and timeshare approval for its fractional ownership units, will be submitted upon substantial completion of construction and prior to the receipt of a Certificate of Occupancy for the project. The application is submitted pursuant to Sections 26.310,26.410,26.412, 26.425, 26.435,26.445,26.470 and 26.480 of the Aspen Land Use Regulations (the "Regula- tions") by the owners of the three parcels (collectively, the "Applicant"). Parcel 1 is owned by Starford Investments, LLC. Parcels 2 and 3 are owned by Shadow Mountain Corporation and Westchester Investments, Inc., respectively (see Title Insurance Commitments, Exhibit 4, Appendix A). Authorization for Mr. Patrick Freeman, President of Cisneros Real Estate, and for Vann Associates, LLC, Planning Consultants, to represent the Applicant is attached as Exhibit 5, Appendix A. A land use application form, dimensional requirements form, application fee agreement, homeowner association compliance form, and a list of property owners located within three hundred feet of the project site are attached as Exhibits 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, respectively. The Applicant requests that the proposed development's review process be modified as provided for in Section 26.304.060.B. 1. of the Regulations. The modified process will consolidate the approval responsibility for those ancillary approvals for which the Planning and Zoning Commission ("P&Z") has sole authority with the City Council's review of this Project Review application. These approvals include the GMQS allotments, Conditional Use, 8040 Greenline Review, Conceptual Commercial Design Review, and Residential Design Standards Review. Upon consolidation, final review authority for these approvals will lie with the City Council. 3 The application is divided into four sections. Section I provides a brief introduction to the application while Section II describes the project site. Section III of the application outlines the Applicant' s proposed development while Section IV addresses the proposed development's compliance with the applicable review criteria of the Regula- tions. For the reviewer' s convenience, all pertinent documents relating to the project (e. g., engineering report, environmental hazards assessment, transportation impact analysis, etc.) are provided in the appendices to the application. While the application is intended to address all relevant provisions of the Regula- tions, and to provide sufficient information to enable a thorough evaluation of the proposed development, questions may arise which require further information and/or clarification. The Applicant will provide such additional information as may be required in the course of the application' s review. 11. PROJECT SITE The project site consists of three separate parcels which contain a total area of approximately 6.6 acres (see Improvement Survey Plat, Exhibit 1, Appendix B). Parcels 1 and 2 are legally described as Lots 1 and 2 of the Amended and Restated Mary B Subdivision, according to the plat thereof recorded November 139 1992 in Plat Book 30 at Page 6 as Reception No. 3507373 in the Office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder (see Exhibit 2, Appendix B). The original Mary B Subdivision, which was approved by the County in 1985, was amended for the purpose of expanding Lot 1 to include a separate parcel located adjacent to its western boundary. The original subdivision also included a third parcel that was apparently conveyed by the then owner to the County for park purposes. A Subdivision Agreement and Restrictive Covenants for the Amended and Restated Subdivision were recorded concurrently with the Plat as Reception No. 350738 (see Exhibit 3, Appendix B). 4 Parcels 1 and 2 are located on the south side of Hopkins Avenue, and abut the right-of-way along the majority of their northern boundary. A portion of Lot 2 located adjacent to its eastern and northern boundaries, however, is separated from the remainder of the property by Lot lA and Lot 3 of the Little Ajax Subdivision/PUD. The Little Ajax Condominiums, a deed restricted affordable housing complex, is located on Lot lA. Lots 1 and 2 contain approximately 1.96 and 1.30 acres, respectively, and are zoned R- 15/PUD, Medium Density Residential, Planned Unit Development in the County. Both lots contain building envelopes that were designated in connection with the County' s approval of the Amended and Restated Subdivision. Lot 1 contains a single-family residence that was constructed in 1989. Existing development on Lot 2 is limited to various landscape features for the use and benefit of the residence on Lot 1. Lots 1 and 2 are encumbered with several utility easements which traverse the lots immediately above their building envelopes. A fifteen foot trail easement, which was previously dedicated to the County in connection with the 1985 approval o f the original Mary B Subdivision, encumbers both lots and is located above the utility easements. A ten foot trail easement, which parallels the eastern boundary of Lot 2 adjacent to Lot lA of the Little Ajax Subdivision/PUD, was also dedicated to the County on the original subdivision plat. An additional fifteen foot trail easement is believed to have been obtained by the City in connection with a condemnation/eminent domain proceeding in 1988 (see Exhibit 4, Appendix B). The City's easement encumbers a portion of Lot 1 and extends from the property' s western boundary to its intersection with the County' s fifteen foot trail easement. A concurrent five foot trail easement and four foot easement for right-of-way improvements also encumbers the northwest corner of Lot 1. Parcel 3 consists of a portion of the Adjusted Gramiger Parcel (a/lda, the Homestake Lode, M.S. 4211) as shown on the Gramiger Sheehan Lot Line Adjustment 5 plat recorded August 25, 1988 in Plat Book 21 at Page 18 as Reception No. 303306 (see Exhibit 5, Appendix B). The lot line adjustment was reviewed and approved by the Board of County Commissioners pursuant to Resolution No. 103, Series of 1987 (see Exhibit 6, Appendix B). As the Improvement Survey Plat illustrates, Parcel 3 is located immediately west of Parcel 1 and abuts the Hopkins Avenue right-of-way along its northern boundary. The portion of the Adjusted Gramiger Parcel to be annexed contains approximately 3.35 acres and is zoned R-15, Medium Density Residential. The remainder of the Adjusted Gramiger Parcel is zoned AR-10, Agricultural/Residential, and is to remain within the County. It should be noted that at the time the Gramiger Sheehan Lot Line Adjustment was approved, Mr. Gramiger also owned the Pride of Aspen (M.S. 7364), Copperopolis (M.S. 1759) and Extra (M.S. 4712) mining claims which adjoin the southerly portion of the Adjusted Gramiger Parcel. In a 2012 land use application submitted by the then owner of these adjoining mining claims, the Pitkin County Community Development Department questioned whether the claims had been properly separated from the Adjusted Gramiger Parcel and legally subdivided therefrom. The County took the position that the claims were merged with the Adjusted Gramiger Parcel as they were previously owned in common and, therefore, were not entitled to a separate land use approval. The 2012 application, however, was denied by the County on other grounds, and the merg- er/subdivision issue was not resolved. It is the Applicant's position that the Adjusted Gramiger Parcel is located within a legally recognized, County approved subdivision and is a separate parcel of land for regulatory purposes. Based on applicable statutory provisions, it is the Applicant' s understanding that the City, in its sole discretion, may accept the proposed configuration of annexation Parcel 3 and rezone it to an appropriate City zone district classification. The Applicant 6 has been advised that their are no statutory provisions that would enable Pitkin County to challenge the validity o f the annexation process based on any inadequacy, if any, associated with the original subdivision of the Adjusted Gramiger Parcel, or the configuration of that portion of the parcel that is included in the proposed annexation. The Applicant, however, acknowledges that the portion of the Adjusted Gramiger Parcel that is to remain within the County will be subject to the Pitkin County Land Use Code. Parcel 3 contains an existing single- family residence, an outbuilding with an attached garage, an access driveway, and various landscape features. According to Pitkin County Assessor's records, the residence was constructed in 1968. The outbuilding, which at one time housed Mr. Gramiger's real estate office, was apparently moved from its original location at Seventh and Main to the Adjusted Gramiger Parcel around the same time as the residence was constructed. The garage is believed to have been added by Mr. Gramiger in 1998. A copy of the Assessor's records and photographs of the residence and outbuilding are attached as Exhibit 7, Appendix B. Vehicular access to the residence and garage on the Adjusted Gramiger Parcel is provided via a curb cut at the western end of Hopkins Avenue and an internal driveway. While there is an additional curb cut in front of the residence on Parcel 1, primary access to the residence is provided via the driveway that serves Parcel 3. Parcel 3 is encumbered with a four foot right-of-way easement which abuts Hopkins Avenue and an easement for the Si Johnson irrigation ditch which is located in the northwest corner of the property. A ten foot utility easement, which connects to a similar utility easement on Parcels 1 and 2, traverses the central portion of Parcel 3. The lower, northernmost portions of Parcels 1,2 and 3 are essentially flat. Their topography, however, rises steadily behind the building envelopes on Parcels 1 and 2, and the existing structures on Parcel 3. The southern boundary of the three annexation 7 parcels and the project site generally follows the 8040 elevation on the adjacent Shadow Mountain hillside. Existing vegetation on the lower portion of the project site consists of a numerous coniferous and deciduous trees and various ornamental shrubs and bushes. Existing vegetation on the project site's upper portion (i.e., the Shadow Mountain hillside) consists primarily of a dense forest of Douglas fir trees. A detailed inventory of the existing trees within the portion of the project site that is proposed for develop- ment is provided on Sheet 8 of the Improvement Survey. Portions of the project site are subject to potential rockfall and avalanche hazards. These hazards originate above the project site in the steep southerly area of the Adjusted Gramiger Parcel. Both hazards have been analyzed by Art Mears o f Arthur I. Mears, P.E., Inc. and Chris Wilbur, P.E. of Wilbur Engineering, Inc, two widely recognized experts in rockfall and avalanche mitigation (see Exhibit 8, Appendix B). Their analysis is contained in the attached Rockfall and Avalanche Hazard Assessment report (see Exhibit 9, Appendix B). As Sheet 6 0 f the Improvement Survey Plat illustrates, these hazards impact the southerly portion of Parcels 1, 2 and 3, the mitigation of which has been taken into account in the design of the proposed development. The hazards, and their mitigation, are discussed in more detail in Section IV.A.2. of this application. The project site is presently served by all major utilities. As discussed in the attached Engineering Report prepared by Sopris Engineering, LLC (see Exhibit 10, Appendix B), potable water for the two existing residences located thereon is provided by the City's Water Department from two separate water mains in Hopkins Avenue. Sanitary sewer service is provided by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District ("ACSD") from a sewer main that is also located in the adjacent street. Fire protection in the immediate site area is provided from three existing hydrants that are located at the intersection of Hopkins Avenue and Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Streets. 8 Shallow utilities serving the existing residences include electric, natural gas and telephone. Holy Cross Electric currently serves the project site from two separate transformers. Transformer #3129-B19 is located along the western boundary of Parcel 3 and serves the residence thereon and neighboring properties to the west. Transformer #3129-B17 is located at the northeast corner of Parcel 2 and serves the existing residence on Parcel 1. Century Link telephone service is provided to the residences from an existing pedestal located adjacent to electric transformer #3129-B17. Natural gas service is provided by Black Hills Corporation (formerly Source Gas) to the residence on Parcel 1 from a two inch main that is located within the alley between Hopkins Avenue and Main Street. There are no gas mains in Hopkins Avenue. Comcast Cable service is currently unavailable in the immediate site area. As the Vicinity Map on the following page illustrates, the immediate site area can be generally described as the portion of the City located south of Main Street between Fourth and Seventh Streets. Existing development in this area includes various single- family and duplex residences, and several multi-family apartment and condominium buildings. The majority of these structures are located across from the project site and adj acent to Hopkins Avenue with additional residential development located to the west of the project site and adjacent to Seventh Street. Neighboring development also includes several commercial office buildings which are located adjacent to Main Street between Fifth and Seventh Streets. The Little Ajax affordable housing complex, which abuts the eastern end of the project site, is located across from the intersection of Hopkins Avenue and Fifth Street. Two additional affordable housing complexes are located at the northeast corner of Hopkins Avenue and Seventh Street and at the southeast corner of Seventh Street and Main Street. Upon construction, the new Boomerang Lodge will be located adjacent to 9 w - ... 4 114(;AV r.r.4, 4 w - .- f,I~~~*~ Xf '~~.bÂ· ;~3 ,-- 7Â·,f,1.2 -Â· 2.P 1.&. 02; ,2 4- ,. 45 24, A . :' 1 /k.. .31 ..0 Lie 4.8. di.>7.. . 1.5 .7 - '13 A *-a #t + - -- I . 1. I + I ' ...,3"C, ---- 1. Iii40 -* -E ..4 - C.1 2 --rifi Â·Â·8 :. 1341,4" .1Â¥2041 ------ ------------------------------ I . .4 1 -940 ------ . I r.. ., 1 . 1 I r , t â€¢C - R TE#Ul . ---- ----- - ..Â· 43. Ll Â·' Al 4/ 414 1 -2Â· Â·I ---- ---- 1 r - 433 ./.i"74,7 9 4 m .61 ./ .- 0 <3 fi, I 9 188 - 1*Â· - / lou ..1 192 822' 513'' ' I 1 .J,7 gip. I 11.<Alis;~ 542 + .3 - 18 ' ' ./ '1~8 I MP. , Â· 144 f . 23 ' Â£42 72 ' 62 0 .Aâ€¢ : I C . 235 . 120 . 4131/1 772 7EE iÂ·z tel-'. 513 .t , 501 1 -4.-a 51- W 1...1 , 4 . AFF 21 + 1 - * If -h . I , 8121 44 arâ‚¬31 B 5,0 .* 1 44 ..4~4 k 31*. 7- A ir, I -'91 i, --milluil .11/ , - .N - 675*/3 - TB\! 0â€¢ "ir/Nific; :,4, . S 00 ME m =30 , 1217- 4 47- i .. ' 122. - + /6 - 1 â€¢Bilrf, /1 JU 46 4513 r H 4924 291 ~81*5- *--Z~ 7 7 NE-- .4 7.*04/ili:Er a tr, 4.41 , /9414 215 , -- :. Â·Â· 2 0 135 *a, * â‚¬83 .44:44â€ž 43 , ;t Â· ' fer# I - 4.- 0 24 N i LK-39<42 /â€¢-7, r.0- 4 21 .- ' 1,-3 2 -713-* -3 6 V. Â¢ 7 : 42 . - tr 6. -143 40 . .- . 4 --11 2 f -62/44 -. m -- I .1 ' 431 e. - I - Xâ‚¬i ' Â·S z,6 . â‚¬753. , 21.1 , 4 * -F 321 U 7 3/ . Ct 21371 Â»9- f ' w W :1 - PROJECT LOCATION . .71.. O- 331 ~ ~ 705 West Hopkins Avenue 1 - Z - Aspen, Colorado 81611 > Hopkins Avenue between Fourth and Fifth Streets. The Christiana Condominiums, a fractional ownership project, is located on Main Street between Fourth and Fifth Streets. 111. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The Applicant proposes to merge the three annexation parcels and to subdivide the resulting property into four new lots for development and preservation purposes. As the Site Development and Illustrative Plans on the following pages illustrate, Lot 1 abuts the Hopkins Avenue right-of-way and includes the majority of the predominantly flatter portions of the project site. The Applicant proposes to rezone Lot 1 to L/PD, Lodge/Planned Development, and to develop a mixed-use lodge, fractional ownership and free market residential project thereon. Lot 1 will contain a gross lot area of approxi- mately 2.72 acres, or 118,428 square feet. Its net lot area for regulatory purposes after adjustment for slopes greater than 20 percent and the subtraction of an existing and proposed right-of-way and emergency vehicle easements is 94,101 square feet. Lot 2 abuts Hopkins Avenue, the eastern boundary of Lot 1, and Lot lA of the Little Ajax Subdivision/PUD. The Applicant proposes to rezone Lot 2 to AH/PD, Affordable Housing/Planned Development, and to develop the project's affordable housing component thereon. Lot 2 will contain a gross lot area of approximately 0.57 acres, or 24,906 square feet. Its net lot area after adjustment for slopes greater than 20 percent and the subtraction of a proposed emergency vehicle access easement is 11,651 square feet. Please note, however, that Section 26.575.020.C. of the Regulations limits the total reduction in floor area attributable to a property's slopes to 25 percent. As a result, Lot 2's net lot area for floor area purposes is 16,521 square feet. Lot 3 abuts and surrounds Lot 1 on its south and west sides. Lot 3 will contain a gross lot area of approximately 1.30 acres, or 56,460 square feet. The Applicant 11 0 111 1 - 1-1-J r @1@.Â®I@lÂ®1@lÂ®1Â® 1 Con v Â«Â«ff\-/ DESIGNWORKSHOP Landscape Architecture . Land Planning 1 11 + Urban Design Â· Tourism Planning 01Â« ttot 120 East Main Street / 1- Aspen, Colorado 81611 L L.1.-4 < I Li Â« ~ -1 - 1 /%%- WWW.DESIGNWORKSHOP.COM (970)-925-8354 Facsimile (970) 920-1387 rr-1 -- 441Â« f---1 F L -f 1 .h-- -% y 8 L < 0Â«Â» 1 0 - L\-f] < 4--1-JJ LÂ»a-- 1-~h-Jh 1 ~4 UL/. f - A 1 -1- l - Li L ki 1 ~ ~ Del : F /2 , 0 2 (1 L F.-.-LI F 1 7 / f - I L\J vol 1 1 ca < . / 4 f 1* 408*84) r 1----\--J L j. - 0 LOTi 1/ 1 ':h'.4 U) ...+ ' ). U... ii.* 2247-f. 1 G.t... â€ž427 ZZ 2 Q Dim,i,a 4 - 099 700 -,~-Â· , 4 . /4 0. U) 2 I I # 90 4 O5 0 44 { 0 .//03 f ZE 4 ill 11* -O / -f ji ..:.:%'Fl Gl:4.D tB J 1 *lifa il; / / STAG. 4,2 5 I t // i Pam U / / 00(.4440 .... #- 3, f 1 > U.1 f /1 27 r-- 10 J / -- + a 'fl 0 -----3 1 lili Ill -- 1 36~W ~ 01 LOT 2 , j 4 Â£ Lf\-s \ a. l 1 Â£11 > 1 i - 1 \ 1 +--50.22 / W 1 f l ..4 . 1 ...RY LOT 3 RESTORED / L / 0 - + - - *Ly' 1 LOT,,ImEAJAN . 1 - .. RCCKFALL FENCIN' $9ioSE' 1 - POTENnAL TRAIL 1 rch# [OrlA,incEAM* 1 \ _ \ ~ TC) MIDLAND- L,rnECLOUDTRA..EAD FENC~G ISSUE DATE: 08 APR 2016 CONN , 1 8.PROVIED SURFACE mIL I - GUYS . ./SING} RET.NING WALL .uys - /7 - -% RALL - - X 1 . RV - . .0?2%26.--Â°--Â·-cd#N' (PROPOSED} LOT# T---_ i i - 9 --- - 1 - 1 - p *- REVISIONS 1-7 ---cli -- @ 1 1 -- - lill*.- -- -/ . 4~< --Il DRAWN . MA REVIEWED: RWS - --- ..I 1 - 1 / --- -- - 1 - PROJECT NUMBER: 5191 SITE a DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1 SHEET ~~~~ER NORTH 0 20 40 80 1"=40'-0- OTBOUNDARY E::~All. 0 -5.42?237 01....3 1-0 .OUNO ORWABLEVEGETATIONSURFACE . PAVED .... b RGENCY 00Â¥h 0100'NadSV @1@l@ 11@1@101Â®1@ I - m l ij j Â·Â·i M I f 1 i - DESIGNWORKSHOP e 120 East Main Street f k L -3 Urban Design â€¢ Tourism Planning Landscape Architecture . Land Planning i j 1 1 1 4 Aspen Colorado 81611 *-1 L (970*925-8354 Facsimile (970) 920-1387 - / , -.. 7 Â· WWW.D E S I G N W O R K S HOP, COM B 1 4*#-Al-,l 'il F *m i .d I ./.- r -3 1 1 - lit 11 6 - f --3 k ' f #elidil CO '%9 N 1 Iitis ; , r4 90".44,3.. / <fi' i _ 99:1 k 221/*4- ~.1.~46 LOT 1 12~ 035 '1+~ 0 - + b.,# _ O. ~LI-.- I. C.0 .71 7,=*.5 6 ZZ U) - J-- ..1.-1 4 -4 k 4% --1** 2 0 0 -al-,2-9 L lic.,g * râ‚¬ 06 0-0 g r ~ La. 052 - 1 0 hp,fxem >j- 1/L I ZE9 L-\ f + 1 1% '1 141 t. ---3 U)36 --I n \ Ul U) 85 -.1 4.-2~ .â€žr 4. E . . -50 Â£ 1 I. i - 4 1 1 B IiI < NEENIOOF *irA t-11 -2 10 1 /3 : 11 - -1- r--0 J , , .%.8 r s. '1,4/ 7-2 ' . LU 11 1% i 1.7.9,1~â€ž49 I r\ LOT 2 - li - -4%94 G,%64*ock # .2 7 4 -1. 04 f' 04 i -_ nF I.rt Â£. 1 I. --.fr GREEN ROOF Lph'-zill irr 7.- K r'&' - 40*LA.-.li - - + 94%ME'Mil,L_ _ _-__YL GREEN ROOF A *1.~.Ark) 'al,SREAM #/El 8 6 BC*lt#- . ~,1- .f.r- LOT ISSUE DATE: 06 APR 2Dle + I.Il---..---0-4. REVISIONS I, ROCKFALL (PROPOSED; 95 / ''N 6Â¥<4,-s -- _- -- A. DRAWN MA REVIEWED- RWS --62,4, .92,4...6.L.r. A ---1--A.Ii .. PROJECTNUMBER: 5191 0 1 .../.I"/. -~ V -7. ILLUSTRATIVE / PLAN , / ---- -- SHEET NUF.EER 0_ EB IL I NORTH 0 15 30Â· 50' 130'47 proposes to rezone Lot 3 to L/PD, Lodge/Planned Development. Development on Lot 3 will be limited to a public trail, stormwater drainage improvements, landscaping, and the proposed development's rockfall and avalanche mitigation fencing. As a result, no net lot area calculation is required for Lot 3. Lot 4, which consists of the remainder of the annexation parcel, will contain approximately 2.02 acres, or 88,111 square feet. The Applicant proposes to rezone Lot 4 to the City' s OS, Open Space, zone district to preserve and protect its natural features. The required adjustments and the resulting net lot areas for Lots 1 and 2 are provided in Table 1, below. Table 1 NET LOT AREA CALCULATIONS Lots 1 and 2 Slopel Gross Lot Area2 Reduction Net Lot Area Proposed Lot 1 0% - 20% 92,514 None 92,514 20 % - 30 % 3,174 50 Percent 1,587 30% > 14,805 100 Percent -- Total 110,493 94,101 Proposed Lot 2 0% - 20% 10,469 None 10,469 20 % - 30 % 2,364 50 Percent 1,182 30% > 9,195 100 Percent -- Total 22,028 11,651 1 Per the Slope Analysis Map prepared by Sopris Engineering, LLC9 dated March 28, 2016 attached hereto as Exhibit 1, Appendix C. 14 2 Excludes existing and proposed right-of-way and emergency vehicle access easernents. The proposed mixed-use project on Lot 1 will consist of three separate structures that are depicted on the Site Development Plan as Buildings A, B and C. Cumulatively, these buildings will contain 118 lodge units; twenty-two fractional ownership units; four free market residential units; and approximately 11,647 square feet of commercial net leasable area. A multi-family structure containing twenty-three affordable housing units is proposed on Lot 2 and is depicted as Building D. A subgrade parking garage containing 133 parking spaces is proposed beneath Lots 1 and 2. - Building A will include a variety of amenities for lodge guests and the owners of the fractional and free market residential units on Lot 1. These amenities will include a restaurant with an outdoor dining area, a lounge bar, banquet/meeting rooms with associated pre-function areas, a spa, fitness room, ski concierge facility, children's facility, and a small retail space. The restaurant, spa and retail space will be open to the general public. The use of the remaining amenities will be limited to lodge guests and the owners of the fractional and free market units. An outdoor lap pool with an expansive deck area, cabanas, a pool bar, two spas, a firepit, and an event terrace and lawn are also proposed. An extensive water feature will traverse Lot 1 between Building A's west wing and the outdoor courtyard. The mixed-use project on Lot 1 and the affordable housing units on Lot 2 will be constructed by the Applicant and, as currently envisioned, managed and operated by Four Seasons Hotels and Resorts. Primary vehicular access to Lot 1 and the lodge, fractional and free market units located thereon will be provided from Sixth Street via a new curb cut on Hopkins Avenue and an internal cul-de-sac. The cul-de-sac will have a thirty-five foot radius to accommodate emergency vehicle access. Access to the subgrade garage will be provided 15 from the cul-de-sac via a vehicular ramp beneath Building B. A second Hopkins Avenue curb cut and a ramp beneath Building D will provide vehicular access to the affordable housing units on Lot 2. Sixteen foot emergency vehicle access lanes will be provided from Hopkins Avenue on Lot 2 between Buildings B and D, and from Seventh Street on Lot 3 along the west side of Building A. Removable bollards will be used to preclude public access to the lanes. Please note that Building A has been sited so as to accommodate the provision of additional right-of-way should the County wish to expand Seventh Street at some future point. Pedestrian access to all of the buildings will be provided from an improved Hopkins Avenue sidewalk, a new sidewalk on Sixth Street linking Hopkins Avenue to Main Street, and an extensive system of internal walkways. The Applicant proposes to construct a public trail on Lot 3 that will traverse the project site immediately south of the proposed buildings on Lots 1 and 2. As the Trail Diagram on the following page illustrates, the trail's alignment has been designed to permit its connection to a future extension of the existing Midland Trail across Lot 3 of the adjacent Little Ajax Subdivision/PUD property. An eight foot improved trail is proposed that would provide access via the emergency vehicle access lane on proposed Lot 3 to Seventh Street and the Castle Creek pedestrian bridge. Given the limited width of the proposed trail segment, its use will be confined to non-winter conditions. A fifteen foot easement for the trail will be dedicated on the proposed development' s subdivision plat. As discussed in Section II of this application, proposed annexation Parcel 3 consists of the portion of the Adjusted Gramiger Parcel located below the 8040 elevation on the Shadow Mountain Hillside. The Applicant proposes to convey the remainder of Parcel 3 (i.e., the portion located above the 8040 elevation) to the County for open space 16 11 0 0 1 @ 0 0 1 0 0 1 Â® 1 Â® 1 JLJ ..:12/L- Ch r L - Ljf j ~223 1 <~ ~f-l DES[GNWORKSHOP ~OrÂ·-> J TRAILS LEGEND Landscape Architecture Â· Land Planning tb 0000 Urban Design Â· Tourism Planning r.....n 03 FAL 80 0 ............ EXISTING BICYCLE ROUTE EXISTING PAVED TRAIL 120 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 1 4- u 9440 - -- - -- EXISTING IMPROVED SURFACE TRAIL (970)-925-Â·8354 A th 2 07 Facsimile (970) 920-1387 1 7 , > 4 Lt r....3 oru---, PJ--7 PROPOSED PAVED TRAIL (5% MAX. SLOPE) WWW.DESIGNWORKSHOP.COM m=- =- â€¢ PROPOSED IMPROVED SURFACE TRAIL < 4 ,>rÂ·-2-! Â« liu /4 0 000 (10% MAX. SLOPE) c-jj El--4 03 L Of 0 U 09 / 0 Jit fi7~* I j' U E-113[3 . O 4 4 I 4 R n Ih Q 27.00 1-1 i 0 / \ L.JULJ (f 10 1 0 41 h. ; r 0 . -r-, 1 -4 le(---7 d A d~DEP n Lf- 0 - TY LJ -iT-)#nul op-i 0-- 47 1 , U 7 0-1 0 -_7 | uff- -- 1 f"h V j 1.-JUL-J CLOID f CAJO; 11 1.11 0 4] f 1 11~ U r- L 7 4 .:- 'S Â«J r I 4-4 <00/9 0 w j 7 - - 1 "E -/wi - D-7 9, 9 32Â« 44 4- -1 5 1 -4 J ~, 211 ll'- t-1.3 2~ :/.11 , -- 1.-- 46-N. 4 3000 213 -0$% Lks,- ZZ 2 2 4 \ 3 0 / L-...r-J A.U -1000 0 0- U) O y 3- - i 7 1 - -- 1 i ~ PEDESTRIAN 14'-7 i, 0% 1-4-2 7 -00 + 7 0 < TO , 1 S, 2- .L 4 91= .... 1 7 4.J / 1.11 \ \ 0'0 2 * .4 11 7Â» 1 / =-0 ---- p-> 4 ' 0 -- .... ...................... 1 0 0 4 ~ y ':64/pl/- /Ubzft~,4- . * / 4 <1 -/L U 19Â» U) 1- 00 0 MIDLANDâ„¢AIL,r k.i ... // f 1 ' i (PAVED TRALL) 7 ......... .......... /1 LL--2 -1 eÂ»-4-UU---/ .- 1 ----. 10 0 ..... F A--72 1 =EOTENTMCIL- .2 , - O 9 Lomm-4 '-==*TÂ¥*VE,EgaTÂ·imakEEDi . - - CONNECTION 1 - SUID/VIS'ON PUD 9 94 43 -U TRAILHW / 0 430 = 0 -60 03 . / 4.-9.2 . -- r.- 93 0 \ k.-9 e . + 1 1 /0 ~ TOLITLE 0 +PA~C:EN SPACE 0 ISSUE DATE: 06 APR 2016 MIDLANDTRAEL . REV!SIONS 1 @ DRAWN: MA REVIEWED: RWS ---L.41 KOCH LUMBER PARK PROJECT NUMBER: 5191 TRAIL e DIAGRAM SHEET NUMBER NORTH 0~\ 50 100 / 207 1 Tll~0'-7 ..... 'NadSÂ¥ 3nN3AV purposes. The remainder of the Adjusted Gramiger Parcel abuts the portion of the original Mary B Subdivision that was conveyed to the County for park purposes in connection with the Subdivision's approval. The Applicant's conveyance of the remainder of Parcel 3, and its contiguity with the Mary B Subdivision park parcel, will hopefully facilitate the County Open Space and Trails Department' s proposed connection of the existing Little Cloud trail to a trail easement which the County acquired in 2005 from Dr. Billy Ray and Bonnie Jean Eubanks across the neighboring Three Trees, LLC property to the west (see Exhibit 2, Appendix C). A. Project Components The proposed development's lodge component will consist of ninety-nine standard lodge units; thirteen executive lodge units; and six 1 -bedroom lodge suites. The standard lodge units will each contain a net livable area of approximately 530 square feet while the executive units will contain an average of approximately 730 square feet. The one bedroom lodge suites will average approximately 1,100 square feet. All of the lodge units and suites will be located in Building A, and will contain a cumulative net livable area of approximately 70,365 square feet. The fractional ownership component will consist of fifteen 2-bedroom units, two 3-bedroom units and five 4-bedroom units. To facilitate their rental to the general public, seven of the 2-bedroom units and the two 3-bedroom units will each contain a lock-off bedroom. The five 4-bedroom units will each contain two lock-off bedrooms. The net livable area of the units will range from approximately 1,500 square feet to approximately 2,500 square feet. Six of the fractional ownership units will be located in Building A. The remaining sixteen units will be located in Buildings B and C. The fractional ownership units will contain a cumulative net livable area of approximately 38,873 square feet. 18 The fractional ownership units will be marketed and operated pursuant to the City's timeshare development regulations. A minimum of six timeshare estates per unit will be created as required pursuant to Section 26.590.050.A.4. of the Regulations. When not occupied by their owners, all of the units will be available for nightly rental by the general public. The Applicant will submit an application requesting condominium- ization and timeshare approval for the lodge and fractional ownership units upon substantial completion of construction. The composition of the proposed development's lodge and fractional ownership components is summarized in Table 2, below. Table 2 LODGE/FRACTIONAL OWNERSHIP COMPONENTS Units, Keys, Bedrooms and Pillows Lot 1 Unit Type Units Keys Bedrooms Pillows Lodge Units 118 118 118 236 Standard 99 99 99 198 Executive 13 13 13 26 1-Bedroom 6 6 6 12 Fractional Units 22 41 56 112 2-Bedroomi 15 22 30 60 3-Bedrooml 2 4 6 18 4-Bedroonf 5 15 20 40 Total 140 159 174 348 1 Seven of the 2-bedroom fractional units and the two 3-bedroom fractional units will each contain a lock-off bedroom. The 4-bedroom fractional units will each contain two lock-off bedrooms. 19 Pursuant to the definition of "Lodge " in Section 26.104.100 of the Regulations, fractional ownership units are considered lodge uses, and each rentable division or key within a lodge or fractional unit constitutes a separate unit for regulatory purposes. As a result, the proposed development' s lodge and fractional ownership components will contain a total of 159 keys or units (i.e., 118 lodge keys + 41 fractional ownership keys). These units will contain a total net livable area of approximately 109,238 square feet (i.e., 70,365 sq. ft. lodge net livable area + 38,873 sq. ft. fractional net livable area). Typical floor plans for both the lodge and fractional units are depicted on the following page. Based on the above, the density of the proposed development's lodge and fractional ownership components is one lodge key or unit per 745 square feet of gross lot area. The average net livable area per lodge key or unit is approximately 687 square feet. The relevant density and average unit size calculations are as follows. Density 118,428 Sq. Ft. Gross Lot Area + 159 Units = 1 Lodge Unit/745 Sq. Ft. Average Unit Size 109,238 Sq. Ft. Lodge Unit Net Livable Area + 159 Lodge Units = 687 Sq. Ft./Lodge Unit As the calculations indicate, the proposed development does not comply with the Lodge zone district's minimum density standard of one or more lodge unit per 500 square feet of gross lot area. This standard, which may be increased to one unit per 550 square feet via Special Review, must be met to take advantage of the district' s increased height and floor area provisions. As the project's lodge/fractional ownership unit density is less than the minimum required, a variation of the standard is requested and is addressed in Section IV.A.4. of this application. 20 33-91/ L FIN TO FIN, or===nE] .0" W 1 r 1 7 - | 1| CLOSET 359 A3ATHROOM DESIGN z BEDROOM = _IX .% - US- r -91-01 A El 061 - mic--231 ~ ~ A *=:==r-~EN~e L__J LIVING ROOM/ 02 IKITCHEN 08 9 E--1 j3121 ~1 UNIT PLAN - FRACTIONAL 2 BEDROOM 1477sf /' 1/8Â·=1'-0. -91. AN. TOFIN, .. -3[0 1 iUF hz/7 111 9 L=-11 LIVING local 1 0 -11 0=0 CLOSET 24'.1 , b I. ~ FIN. TOFIN. ~ b Il|gIC] CLOSET' I 1010 - - 1 -912 d ' ' ~ ~ ~ ~ OPTION 8- ENâ„¢YTO 1 FIN. TO FIN sEDROOM SUITE BEDROOM / BAâ„¢ROOM ~ El 3 0 3 Et- E no r 1%--1 1 j 404021 1600 ISSUE 0 ..9 U.NMâ€žTCHEN BEDROOM M , 33' -91/2- . N Â¥ 11 4 6= I Â· FIN TO FIN LAND USE APPLICATION ~ 4"m 2 1 1 . 03 UNIT PLAN - 1 BEDROOM SUITE 1150sf L-_ ED- RE ---r U c, AIL-1111 -411 1 1/8.=1'-0- I . 3r - 3.12 ., KEY PLAN 10.01 . FIN. TO FiN. 08 UNIT PLAN - AHU SUITE - 500SF .u 39 Kr'TCHEN 1/8Â· =1'-0- 100 k 00 0 6=41==9!==6=. .LL 71421 SHEET ITRE CLOSET b. . 24'-1 L ... LODGE J->Ea 1 IC]D 11*]1 i BEDROOM .-i Illmr i po lilb TYPICAL UNIT EXECUTME 7 7- PLANS 4. EK -- - 0-3 73 Kij~:2~~~ Im h -â„¢ROOM 7 r BEDROO. '-Â·zs' Ici |I CLOSEr f| 12 flÂ·W-] * 9& L CLOSET _~ 78ATHR00N ~~ CLOSET ~~ F.* u .... - CLOSET . I REVISION 0 2 ,--2 ICE SKI [ CLOSET 02 UNIT PLAN - LODGE EXECUTIVE 787sf 1 No. Description Date / sic I - h _.1 n- ~ Cl-OSET ' 1/8Â· = 1Â·-0Â· - CLOSET | 1-1 7 12= 11--------J E--1 11 j 130- 11.-----2 1 BEDROOM BATHROOM 11 I BATHROOM . 2=11174 ./13-- 33Â· 91/2Â· * 7 A I C-1 CLOSET 1 FIN. TDAN. ' IrBATHROOM I rÂ» 11QAW /3 22 BEDROOM BEDROOM 1 DI'-7 BEDROOM .0 4 1 STANDARD P BATHROOM ~.~,- - ~ BAâ„¢ROOM ~~~~| LODGE W= -LE CLOSET 1 - TE r 00 41101% eGo ~ O1 A . _-1I I I 1 PROJECr NUMBER 14043.000 ~ ISSUE DATE 06 APR 2016 SHEET NO 07 UNIT PLAN - AHU 4 - 720sf ~~ UNIT PLAN - FRACTIONAL 4 BEDROOM AVG. 2465sf 05 UNIT PLAN - FRACTIONAL 3 BEDROOM 1924sf 1/8~ = 1'-0Â· 1/8' -1'-0- 1/8~ =1'-Or 1/8 =1'-0 A2.20 01 UNIT PLAN - LODGE STANDARD 504sf ad/NOISIAIaanS anNEIAÂ¥ ODVEIO103 'N3dSV NIMdOH 1SBM 90Â£ Pursuant to Section 26.104.100 of the Regulations, net leasable area is defined in part as "Areas within a... mixed-use building which are... occupied for commercial purposes. This includes commercial areas within a lodge that are open to the general public". This definition was clarified in a Community Development Department ("COMDEV") Administrative Policy which was issued in November of 2015 (see Exhibit I 3, Appendix C). Based on the definition and its subsequent clarification, the proposed development's commercial net leasable area for regulatory purposes consists of the lodge component's restaurant and kitchen, spa and retail space. These uses are considered Conditional Uses in the Lodge zone district, and as such are subject to review and approval. The proposed commercial uses compliance with the Regulations' Conditional Use review criteria is discussed in Section IV.E. of this application. As Table 3, below, indicates, the lodge component's net leasable area totals approximately 11,647 square feet, all of which is located in Building A. 1 Table 3 COMMERCIAL NET LEASABLE AREA I Lot 1 Space Net Leasable Areal Restaurant and Kitchen 3,061 Retail 487 Spa 8,099 1 Total 11,647 1 1 Per the Net Livable/Net Leasable Area Diagrams attached hereto as Exhibit 4, Appendix C. The proposed development's free market residential component will be limited to four 3-bedroom units which will be condominiumized and sold. An application 22 for condominiumization approval will be submitted with the project's timeshare development application. The four units will contain an average net livable area per unit of approximately 1,500 square feet, and a total net livable area of approximately 6,000 square feet. Should any of the individual units exceed the Lodge zone district's 1,500 square foot size limitation, the Applicant will provide the required number of Historic Transferable Development Right ("TDR") certificates at building permit application. Pursuant to Section 26.710.190.D.12.a. 1) and 2) of the Regulations, each TDR certificate will permit five hundred square feet of additional net livable area that may be applied to multiple units. The free market units will be located in Building C. Building D on Lot 2 will contain the proposed development' s on-site affordable housing component which will consist of nineteen dormitory units and four studio units. The units have been designed in compliance with the relevant provisions of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority's ("APCHA") current guidelines, and will be rented to project employees pursuant thereto. The dormitory units will each contain four bedrooms, a shared bathroom, and approximately 720 square feet of net livable area. The average net livable area per employee housed is approximately 180 square feet which exceeds APCHA's 150 square foot minimum requirement. Three separate communal kitchen/dining area will be provided for the dorm units, and each occupant will be provided a minimum of twenty square feet of enclosed storage space within a dedicated area in the project's subgrade garage. The four studio units will each contain approximately 500 square feet of net livable area. All of the affordable housing units will be located at or above finished grade. As currently envisioned, the units will be deed restricted to a mix of APCHA's Category 2,3 and 4 guidelines. The specific categories, however, will be determined in connection with APCHA's review of this application. The affordable housing units 23 in Building D will be credited with housing a total of eighty-one employees, and contain a total net livable area of approximately 15,680 square feet. The composition of the proposed development's affordable housing component is summarized in Table 4, below. Table 4 AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMPONENT Units, Bedrooms, Employees Housed and Net Livable Area Lot 2 Employees Net Units Bedrooms Housedl Livable Area Dormitory Units 19 76 76.0 13,680 Studio Units 4 4 5.0 2,000 Total 23 80 81.0 15,680 1 Calculated based on one employee per dormitory bedroom and 1.25 employees per studio unit. Lot 1 will contain a cumulative floor area of approximately 181,974 square feet. The lodge and fractional ownership components located thereon will contain an aggregate floor area of approximately 163,053 square feet. The commercial component will contain approximately 3,903 square feet. The free market residential component will contain approximately 6,245 square feet inclusive of its pro-ram share of Lot l's non-unit floor area as required pursuant to Section 26.710.190.D.a.5. The proposed develop- ment's affordable housing component on Lot 2 will contain approximately 24,018 square feet of floor area. Net livable/net leasable area and floor area calculations for the proposed development are provided in Exhibits 4 and 5, Appendix C. As the proposed development' s average net livable area per lodge unit exceeds six hundred square feet, Table 26.710.109.1. in Section 26.710.190.D.a.5. limits 24 the project's maximum allowable free market residential floor area to 6,245 square feet, or five percent o f its lodge unit and affordable housing unit net livable area. The proposed development's free market residential floor area complies with this requirement. The allowable free market residential floor area calculation based on the project's proposed lodge and affordable housing net livable areas is as follows. 109,238 Sq. Ft. Lodge + 15,680 Sq. Ft. Affordable Housing = 124,918 Sq. Ft. 124,918 Sq,. Ft. x 0.05 = 6,245 Sq. Ft. B. Plans and Elevations The subgrade parking garage located beneath Lots 1 and 2 consists of two levels. As the floor plans on the following pages illustrate, parking Level 1 will contain the majority of the proposed development's off-street parking and various mechanical areas. Seventy-eight spaces will be provided on this level for the use and benefit of the lodge units, fractional and free market residential unit guests, the restaurant and spa. The spaces are accessed via Lot l's internal cul-de-sac and the garage ramp beneath Building B. An additional twenty-nine spaces, which are accessed via the ramp beneath Building D on Lot 2, will be reserved for the project' s on-site affordable housing units. This garage level will also contain a storage area for the fractional unit owners. Parking Level 2 will contain an additional twenty-six spaces for the fractional and free market residential unit owners. The lodge component's spa; a banquet/meeting room; the lower level of the project's ski concierge facility; administra- tion, housekeeping and other back-of-house areas; a loading dock/delivery area; and a central trash and recycle area will also be located on this level. Separate, conveniently located trash/recycle areas will be provided for the fractional, free market residential, and affordable housing units. Trash and recyclable material from the fractional and free 25 359 DESIGN UM 1 Z 52 / az .. z O 1- 00 11%UP - 2 .u u, F LODGE PARB. 2 1,1 P100 '=1 2 - 94 W \ INglIUK I LOBBY \\ IECHANICAL \\ 0 OZ 121-11/ P106 \\ U -108 U hui 93 \: > 0/ ~1 1 1Â· 1 j %-*1 1111 1 W.M.u//M//HA P103 ni 4 1 5 AHU l STORAGE 4 \1/4// " 4481 SF L lilli '111 Llj=4 \ - 94 : I -1 OWNER 1 - \ STORAGE ~- -U / P102 PARIONG P107 ISSUE MECHANICAL . 11 % Pie 29 LAND USE APPLICATION IL=:t= =2 1.4 F- W .104 #Fi: 1 04- \ I KEY PLAN AHU STORAGE 6, 11- \ p . 653 S. .. i. 1 \ 1 ti \ i. . PARKING 1 \ , REVISION /.r=L NO. Description I Date / 1 \ j V I 1 \ 1 . | PROJECT NUMBER 14043.000 ~ ISSUE DATE 06 APR 2016 ~ SHEET NO. 0 01 PARKING 1 - OVERALL PLAN ~ SCALE: 1Â· = 30'-0" r= 30'-W A2.B' 0' 15' 30' 60' 120' ad/NOIS 00Â¥80100 'N3dSV NOTES: THE PROPOSED TRASH ENCLOSURES LOCATED ON LEVEL PARKING 1 INCLUDE AT MINIMU~, â„¢E FOLLOWING TYPES OF 81NS Â· INE (1) GARBAGE BIN Â· ONE (1) COMINGLED CONTAINER RECYCLNG COLLECTION BIN Â· INE (1) OFFICE PAPER RECYCLING COLLECTION SIN Â· ONE (1) NEWSPAPER~MAGAZ}NE RECYCLING COLLECTION BIN Â· ONE (1) CARDBOARD RECYCLING COLLECI-lON IN OR COLLECT]ON AREA WHERE BOXES CAN BE STACKED AND CONTAINED IN AN ENCLOSED SPACE 359 DESIGN / 1 Z g '0 1 # .*G R,larre R~re RA~m . ~ ~ -9â€¢Flarffl -Heel P-19 h..... 0 21'-9tl 1 0 -914424/Ul /. -1 0. SPA Â£ I PRE.FUNCTION P203 12%UP - ) . - 1 %ON "- m 11 Fji r'Vt k . *KEr s. 1 j.1111 v LO- 1- ul U) CONCIERGE L==_il P 218 811 -g P217 - 0 FOOD r///A 553. .1&8 o ~ lit \ BEVERAGE MEETING aACK , HOUSE P208 Lrl F=; A lem- 1: i i h OF BANQUET P209 |' 1 20 ST:= ' ~VTY-L=,~ Ar=K- FRAC'nO~IAL,IFREE 1 IND Slopel \ ~ |1-, ;Ecce P219 / \ I MARKET - MECHANICAL 216 - 30 M 0 / 1305 I V-21Â· Â· 60-6 / . ~HOUSEKEEPING/1 . STAFF | LAUDNRY tl I FACIUTIES P213 * r~| r-- - --1 --*. ISSUE * ~ LAND USE APPLICATION lam/ZJ LOADING 1 - 1-25 5- 1 0 / / L -- - 2 .' , -3Â«--- 1 . 1 8 F~I~ES '' .- P221-8 STAFF TRASIV ~ KEY PLAN CLE 155 SF 2 -11_~ 1 0 H i. 4 0 Mt I F V't~ J / LOADING P223 , ADMINISTRATTVE 1 \ - 11 r . 14 i. P212 1 Ill SHEET Tm_E . L JLJ ~ \ PARKING 2 . -.. *0 i RE# 1 NO Description ~ Date I ..M<. 1 \ /3 L... 1.--.-----Ii 11 PROJECT NUMBER 14043.000 ISSUE DATE 06 APR 2016 6 oi PARKING 2 - OVERALL PLAN SHEET NO. ~ SCALE: 1" = 30'-0" 1- =30'-0' A2.02 0' 15' 30' 60' 120' ad/NOISIAIG AN3AV mmnin 00Â¥30100'NBdSÂ¥ Â·-- 12% UP 0. 1- i : CD 00Â¥210100 'N3dSV 03 .- C L/) ad/NOISIAIaanS arINEIAV - i 1 SNINdOH 1SSIM SOL 01 LU - 1 .-//;ki f W -IO a 14, f 's..~ 6'' I!~T,FriiP~lipllimq// Mlelfpir,Mil~11'. \1111~1 - . 1.,1.,1 rl, 1 11.1 1 7 1 1. :11.1, . - 1 hl il~,111'i:1:: 4 11.111. . t.. 1 11 1.Id'.1.... 1 . ' ..,4,.4 9-3 * i - % 11 0- : Â° ;i'Â·;'Â· Â·'Â· ~.Â·Â·~~[. ":-; ~t~Â·i>~ ~."Â·,Â·'. ':..'.'f:t'~ff~'Â·C.~i:Â·'Â·i'-M:. 1. 72.,~1:.94414,4IWI'~'~'#WI :n' t - 28 1 ha vfâ€¢Â· i , : ~Â·Â· i. i ,Â· 1~:.. ' â€¢I'â€¢!1 il~ .. 1!:L ' 'Â·, ' ; : ~'~ Â·~ ' i ']~, " i'Â·~,'' Â· ,~J~l'' '' Il ~ %' Â·Â· Â· ~!~~~*ild* : , 28 GES 00 Lto !Â¢0411... - â€¢ Â·Â·Â·. +Jhmk/ . , 1. 'Â· :.Â·i ::Â· 31:d ~i=' '' -i, :. Â· .. i . ' 9 20Â·â‚¬V , 'd:b 13 403|. Nji.., i -Y 1 - Â· c j' Fi'-|| ~-Wh .- - 11Â«j f\ ".MAN "brY Â·, ' Â·'Â· 743& 1:., 111: ~:1 d'.1,1: :1~62; 11 J:4111111' 1 1.11.1. ): '11,1,1, M .g Â·Â·Â·. 1-"Â·.Â·Ii,X~. i~ 'Â· '~ Â·'~' . " :'Â· .I:' Â·Â· illiÂ·'il:i. . i Â· - 11 x,1 lIC[ rk @p ,;96*:Â· Â·i' eu! 1!1 h I ... 9 /1 1,1 .11, 1.. 1 1 1 9 3/Imr&*e 2 9= 1 ,*. :' , .' ~~ ~ ~~~'~ ~~ ~| I i " <â€ž ~ ' ~ ~~~|fi~~'~~ ~ ' -'~Â· l '1~').~'*i&~81*S IM ':1 1:1 r. lk* Elf ~.1.1 1.~. ... 1. t. :1. , 1 lili:lii!,w:ifLI, 1 ..1: 11 1 . 1 1 1. lili .1.Mi r j 49. 0, 7 01-4 9 88 $ i g Â· #W Â·' |Â·~ Â·~'~.r: Â·. â€¢ ' >49'' Â·Â· Bii (11~;:~rDE..1 1 1 11 1.:tÂ· 0::'~~ !~'.glgvt. c /Â£0}'Ev :Â· : ' I ''rÂ·/ ii i' ' Â·, "" iÂ· ' i'4'i:~';"Ihli il~G tip 9.9;1 -1 9# ...:'.1.- "f~.1,11 Es' Al. L 9,Â» r. Utaf,& 1'~' Â·46Â·,~~~ Â·HIi,I;,'' 4/4,"Ilf Â·.,< r. t-21~M/Nil .... 01,4 1,1 1 c FÂ·J lÂ· 'f I I" Il 4 inolv : 4 '; 'Â· 4 4'Â·.,~ ~' ~1: . 0'; ~ !1~1 >:11 - 11 4.-M,#1 -14%:," 1 - 1.1 1 -1 n. 1 1.111.Ii 1 :111, D ~11 ,"Upp ac ip 71[[Url 0 4 - 3 ; ' ~fi im/1 #"Al':'1:'7~' ~~:~ ~ .:b~b'4,11' '':.Â· ; "-' 1 .' . 'tiO'Â·66. (41).. ~MK-, 3 < 07. C '1 ,< '- Â»11,1'PI 1 0. ..1.111.4. 1 Â·Â·fro~r..11, 1.11 - - ' 1 b~ ./ I- - I # 1 f n n i Â·, iv, Â·~n~~iim .,ii 1. '-91 (L, L '- 31 111 .r 18 8 g _12= -ji-i 1 / Z .I '1~ g r. 5 44. (l 1 k) 11 /9 1'1 Im' - 4 A mol U. â€¢- 41 @0 Ff'9~ i i - l 1 h 7/9 'CE=11 ad'llull'til-gottfko*Qâ‚¬390--k.-,1.Ll , ~ L i .-4 ...3 thht./9, :; ,1Â·Â·(; ,Â·.': '~.14%!* C 15 Oil' . 19 * , i:.'.'â€¢ Â· Â·I 'Â· - ' ' Â·Â·Iâ€¢~I ~hi?,i . '*Il,i, . I 1.1.., -1 ! 11.1,~ 1 - '::, 1 1$14. CE< ET : m lFE 4â€ž ,-,1,4,6.', /â€ž4#-' 1 11. 1 .IE I b .*||Am'Â·8 . , 15 ~i:, 1Â£4 -1 1 11.- 3/ 11.,4 U.Z+-319 r il. : lA'l rvi rvi' ivlrvi ry, rvi . ~ r lai= r. Â· .Â·,411 ill=111. l' -r> 1 , Eme ges ha Ue he lv ke 81 ri . A ' /61 :.4> *Go=~"'Ria_ -~ E 4 P '88 18: HEE J /. 0 73 0 n i:'.Â·i:6Â·/~~~~,0 ," c 11-32- lAi 611 [Al,ft LA-1 lAI I ' ' / Bor . 4 - 0 Pri 'LAI . d= 1 --. -â€¢ 1 ./ ..0.Li I h ..U . 1 ~i ma Â·' -Er-=t=Â·U..917;7~Q Af.4411~' v A .1 1., 1 .~1 Â·' : 911.Â¢:fil / / . J ..... / I T /1/. J:?AE / *'71 lili lilli!}1 DESIGN NOI19011ddÂ¥ 3Sn CINV-1 NV-Id 11Vhl3A m .dV 90 Â£0'ZV Ell,l 133WS kl3GINnN,LOBrOUI , NOISI,32 ON 133HS NV-Id 1-IVM3AO- k 13Aal ~0 LOUNGE LOUNGE BANQUET 7940Â·-0Â· 39(301 30001 Â·0-,0Â£ = Â·t 31VOS 7 . 359 DESIGN UM 1 Z g Aa 01/ 1 a. 0 Z -= = - =-7-- F. 00 /30/1 --- 0 :2 1,1 U, ~ 4 ~ ~ ~ -6 79-1 ~~MI d jÂ«1 I-F+4 IM-1--11 74 L F r--- r-CL \EN. 2 ul LODGE LODGE 1 i Ai.04# - ST[} STD 1- b .r i L 233 231 LODGE LO LOG. 229 Z. LODGE LODGE LODGE LOOGE LODGEE DGE LOG. SUITE STD STD STD STD STD EXEC EXEC FR, 3 l< A- --97. 10 , 221 219 217 215 213 211 209 223 201B 2028 j. ~E ~p 1 W LODGE f A 1 =4 0 AL.D.~ ..62 -Uâ€¢ 11 M h 2120 , h ./4 4 216 ' LODGE 1 6#T- 9 f 2050 STD 2008 â€ž=# 1 207 1 -9 *b-\ \ --y \ 1 - J l=E L=El = = LeE T ~ 1~~E ' 19 1-. 212 210 LODGE -7 0 N U .,4 4 732*3 I L 235 214 E \ 13 1 1 2100 \ V ni t 9 vu ~ AN 114' ~11.tj Lir 7371 LODGEE FR 2 FR 2 204/ 203B 7 .4/4 li ) a 1 2030 W A, LLJ 3 - I. =\ 1 â‚¬ LODGE LODGE ''i ~ '.i ~'~~7~ r- LODGE , LODGE .iii ~ = R ,\"il - = 0 1 6 = 4 r i 11 I_- A302/ 3 , AH' ' 2 1#4=-75 Â· /- ISSUE 1 1 0!h ~5~ ': p 2080 -\ \\ 1-1, LODGE LODGE 7 ~ 1 1 . --/-3-- STD STD ~ / 07 1 AHU 4 at-0-+NE37 LAND USE APPLICATION 5 L 1 1 1 241 220 4, /1 1- - 1 FRZ l, J ~-- i- U \5 2010 Mlit 203C k*-- --- 0 _ r- 4 13 lODGEE LODGE y .1 .f . 56 -Â· - - LODGE 1 - sm- -1 ' 0/<'' lit r==3 U E = i 1 ./ KEY PLAN 1 1.2.-1 - n r \\La \ L STD , i --- 1 L 243 C -) 1\._ / 2-1 ,\ U AH' 4 ' ' 2 L..E LODGE LOOGE TE* 41-i-7 [7-1 LODGE 1 - 'A, U Il 2060 i -i \\ - 3 STD m . 240 - L=-L--1 0.949\ i sTD 255 04:*00 \ - -- =*~an n 'l A .â‚¬ i 1 \ â‚¬M 4 Ir 6'.r L.-1-Â·UFTE, , HSKP > LODGE ~ m /fF ,/ \ ipCHENf ~ 226 -- 7- L STD DINING Pmer E- L - m 257 0 7956-11/44 FR 3 - I. /2 \NA#/.&) i L_OB Â»Jt LODGE I ,/ mt i 2070 \1 14 i I 202C L mmo V / f ~Â· 1.1133[-2..Im LODGE LODGE STD 228 -1-223 - - STD STD - \\ ABU- H AHU Â· 'A 4 . -- FR 4 244 259 e 201CI HU STUDIO 111'*.0~0 \~ \ LODGE L.l~E ~ 7 " 2020 11 I . I 9-=CAÂ»//3-2 - EXEC 4 LODGE U=. 2 IiI â€¢/ y SHEET TITLEE , . 230 2 5- . 0 . =Et -1 - --91 - . LA--00- N ~ ' - - .- = -t ./ i . 0 â‚¬ . 246 e- LEVEL 2 - - .... . . I--,Â£- . 1,7 1 Lt E .lci 1 1%*1 -= / . . /f \ .. 1 4 V .1 LODGE , : Th/).- ' 3 z.----.. . - --'....... 14* M-=0.- pÂ·'32* I SUITEE ... .i Â«11177.9.-- < OVERALL PLAN -- Ill 11.1 m L.14*- .1 T 1 - r 4_iÂ£ 1' Â·11/Z< .. LODGE . LODGE #pw.-r . SUITE : ' \\ i - ---24 -' .11.-2&-t u~ 250 253 *--I-- 754-vÂ·--c 1 No. 1 Description Dite /.////2mt I / .t 7.-4.1 1 1 ,% ,Â·.427 , -Â·r Â·Â·-Â· )7Â· ---Â·.. . : Â·*.... 1 11...2.1 - -IF -Â· -Â·Â·Â·- 1//HZ -- :.0,,an.1-A*ro-343.il '- -21,11"pi' PT.-3-' 7.:-: - Lf"9*f-i.-tk.- ... 2 :. 2 ,Â· t.Â·~*i=~RL- - 2 * ..Â·..2-:-5.-:imEDÂ«6*4- C. . . US ....Â· ..i...#I ::/ 9*141>Â·Â·~-1 -52*=12- .*- A- :. -Â·~Â»45 -3149:' .4.K Â·Â·.:12=K-:.:Â·; :Â·29- â€¢ 9 4 3314.3â‚¬A-- ~ 0 ~ ~' VW=' . :afaI~0*- - -- -=21Ftf:J,.. - ..IRTÂ·Â·r= 21-jÂ·3 ...Â·1>Â·- ..:......~91.- . 1-13 1=2L:Â·,= . ~ 2 -aÂ·-99 1 1 ....i..................,~&/~I'll'll./.Ill-- --1,------'r"-Adill//INg" 33&8#'/il"illilik=#;.~JAI//Min//Willimil PROJECT NUMBER 14043000 | CD 01 LEVEL 2 - OVERALL PLAN 1 ISSUE DATE 06 APR 2016 ~ 1- = 30'-00 SHEET NO. SCALE: 1" = 30'-0" A2.04 0' 15' 30' 60' 120' ad/NOISIAIa NBAV OaÂ¥230100 'N3dSV E Â£0 tv 359 DESIGN U, Z g A301/1 .-- - 06 0 -=Z Z A--- -to 8 El LL =71 0 -- 1 <13'-; ~--- 1 '.1* 1 U, p 141 . z 2 .1 0- 1 [<41 IrÂ·n iJÂ»11 1 71.1 I MMI 1-VI I I ry-1._, '-PI =7 - ~ u,1 LDG- LODGE LODGE 1 3 EXEC STD STD 1- C LEÂ»Jo f 9\13 333 331 329 327 LODGE LODGE LODGE LODGE LODGE LODGE LODGE STD STD m LDG- LDG- 0 EXEC EXEC ~~ j ~'- C - ), gir~I:18 -I i H 'M~ A L .4 \\ \ 311 STD STD I I -- -JULz~ 321 319 317 315 313 7966* -*.7.-41 A-tÂ·--/UL..4L...16 , -"\ 1 h 7966.- .Ae' 5. IifT-6.---fr<9.---tr.6.--Iu.--Ir 316 1 i LODGE LODGE LODGE LODGE LODGE L~E LEft =GE| F = 3050 LODGE ST' i | RSTDSTOSTDSTO i f I=E ~ sn) -7 ~ , 3 1 4% Lj . . 304 LODGE 314 312 1 LODGE 1 318 3 . FRZ 3048 - n.-4 1 ~0~04 1 \ LODGE * LODGE - \('9 - 2 \\ + \ \ f A4 1 - ~11 LEE g STD STD -'* 4 339 322 K ' 1 \ ' /--2 .0/3 1 1-1 1 .2 1 151 1 1 - 4 De' 1 3080 \ \1 -i ISSUE 1 '\1 STD , 4 LODGE -- ---__ 4 301 e LODGE LODGE E ~ 1 | ~_.A---1 ./ :1 11 1 LE=I - a L STD - AL Â· i :IJ LODGE ~ sip -A ;OBC I ; _- -- , / 2 -4 ~\ 1 LAND USE APPLICATION - 341 324 ii, ~1 ~7/1 *- -- , 1 340 . I--- =4 Â· r / / 3010 1 1 KEY PLAN' 3 L~E LODGE j ~ 0' i #Â§8 7 --, - 1 --1 -Â» 1 2 * 124 ,~ 7 E LODGE 5 :r k Ht i'GUA -i .-, 2 ~E ~ - 345 1 I 328 344 1 1. re-Of// 1 - FREE FR 4 1501 SF L= 353 44 I \ 7968'-11/ 4 M *0_-4 L sÂ·rumo ll \\ LODGE 4 1 \ 9 \\\\\ 1 f 674 = , -,Â· .6 -lkI*43=%.LEE= E FN FREE L i I i U STUDIO - L---- 7 1506 IF Age ~ Â£9 ~ FREE ~ L:La=:r t- 334 - MRKT I SHEET nilE m ~0 ' LODGE - 0 1489 IF 1 *, LEVEL 3 - STD 2=2=1 \1.11 LODGE MIKI OUTDOOR 349 sUiTE : E TERRACE - %--Â°Â«X i -%--0..1 .--- - 336 .1 1|Â·~8//in.a ~ 1 1 N -r OVERALL PLAN LODGE Am. \ sme .2- ------4226 -- 22 -22- C. 3 P -Â«-2921â‚¬- --Il =L= REVISION - ./f, , .+0*-+ No. Description Date ILÂ»7/- hu\--- -- / -, / .-0- \\ \ ...0-.- . \ .. U \ PROJECT NUMBER 14043.000 001 LEVEL 3 - OVERALL PLAN iSSUE DATE 06 APR 2016 1- =30Â·-0Â· SHEET NO. 1=- SCALE: 1' = 30'-0" A2.05 0' 15' 30' 60' 120' ad/NOISIAIa nNaAV oaÂ¥260100 ' E /CO EV '3.0314 359 DESIGN - \ 4 I --EE~ f--3-=C I - ~-- M 4. H -i 1 %- fi - i L=1 1 1.. o ELEVATOR-=L-7 f CeL>44 0 OVERRUN 1 . STAIR -1 _77 6 2_-f--9 \11 0 I' / 0- LU L STAIR 0 ~tE/ELEVATOR COREELEVATOR 0,9\ m 3 OVERRUN i ./I ~-I~Y OVERRUN fr ll ' â€¢ a\.-I < E . U,-I -:Ii J., E b. 1 . %- 1 4.0.-=\ i 1 GREENROOF -0 --11...,- ' 6 ' ' \ \"\ .. . -7-1 ---9-'a l r 1 1 - .----+ -I 1r 1 1-1.... OVERRUN 1 ,-- STAIR ril'-ORM \ ISSUE \:\\ IJ ELEVAÂ¥07 - Â· Â· \ ~~~ ~ - - ~~~~.= .~; ; ,~ ~~5 - - LAND USE APPLICATION <+7Â¢RUN . Â· Â· Â·~ 1 GREENROOF. 'T Â· Â·Â·r STAR 1 ~I~2.'; Â· Â· i I Â·Â· ~ hREEN ROOF .. p....BA ' Â· 1 ~ ' ~ ~ COREIELEVATOR . Â· . I Â· K~ PLAN t :' 1 U: 3. 7~' - '. %% 44 L../.. -i. SHEETT[TLE OVERALL ROOF \ * X + H Q - *.. : -.. . PLAN :-S -I n \.. L--<*- REVISION 1 No Description 1 Date 1 \ --*+* PRaJECT NUMBER 14043.000 | ISSUE DATE 06 APR 2016~ SHEET NO. | SCALE: 1" = 30'-0" CD o i OVERALL PLAN - ROOF A2.06 0' 15' 30' 60' 120' ad/NOISIAIaanS BANBAV SNIMdOH .1.SCIM SOL NOTES: ALL GROUND SURCE ACCESSIBLE AISLES WILL BE A MIN OF 3- WIDE ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALLS ARE LOCATED CLOSEST TO â„¢E PARKING LOT PEDESTRIAN ENRANCES ALL CURB RAMPS TO COMPLY WITH FT.36, APPASECTi ON 4.7 OF â„¢E 2010 ADA HANDBOOK SURFACE OF ALL RAMPS TO COMPLY WITH PT 36. APE' A SECTION 4.5 OF â„¢E 2010 ADA HANDBOOK i - 359 A 1 - /1- DESIGN -r EXE) - 1 ! 11 (3(3 a â‚¬)(Dj - BANQUET/LOUNGE ~ ~ ... ENTRY AT GRADE LEVEL 7540-7 794Cy-0'IA ...... .71 U 0 CONCIERGE ENTRY AT GRADE ~ 1 W ZIGE/RESTAURANT ) LEVEL- 7940* P 2:8 020 06 LODGE/RETAIL/REST. ENTRY _=2[---U 1 '' Â° A 2~31 r E--- /0 2 f fi.>31 LOUNGE god 4-4#'i@@ 11 - 103 100 i â‚¬ 2 : \(4.....g Â» 2// - o u I , 1.,t : 4 2 7 % 02 7 A Ng/*imfAT -6EEr/ FR 2 FR 2 1~Â·Â·-+-_FF~CTIONAL 0- ~ M 'LI 1 GRADE 7940'-1 1/4Â· ~ 4 / . ENTRY AT GRADE / 4 L| C.:.-A _- h (4 -. 2 1 7944'-1 1/4- % I LODGE'FRACT.NAL NE - 7940. CiO GRADE LEVEL a. /\A I t'IdL ENTRIATGRADE U 73= -1 A LEVEL 794CM i. r<------~ -1 In < 4 # 1 1 i El 9 I '000 14:% m :bk. 7344.. Ll__38 1 ~7 1 1 79/0.1 1/4 ral= 13 90.0.11 0 102C f v r L... LFEr fa 1==2~.a,il F ; - - _I ~-9 FR 4 11 ---11 -- 7~ JI i RETAIL --I----------- FR 4 lolc LII || ,--/--k-- 3â‚¬yA-##et*359-I...--- 4 '..a.I - \ -. 05 LODGE/FRACTIONAL ENTRY 04 LODGE/FRACTIONAL ENTRY 03 LODGE/FRACTIONAL ENTRY 02 LODGE/RETAIL/REST. ENTRY 3/640= 1Â·-0~ 3/64" = 140Â· 3/64- =1'-0 3/64- = 1Â·-0Â· ISSUE LAND USE APPLICATION KEYPLAN ~1 'Al mir-11 - 1-1-14 1 Ir====11 11 ~ , 1 11_96 ,Â·6---WTEal Ir'==Â£ 1. #A DN '~~,J L~ 17 - '* .2 ---3 3 1 '4 1 ~ ._,| BUILDING A -621 L-'-1 ---A ..1 IE_ .---i=,T=.017 C 1- -' effit, A SHEET TITLE -' ADA BUILDING B ACCESSIBILITY 1 -- , , 6'Â· MPLOYE . 1.- f, Â·Â·4:-1-- 1,42 HOUSING <9 PLAN - .'Â·2I 05 REVISION t L GI.01 1 No. Description Date 1 n. 0 ~ -- I=.Elem%Ep, R U 1 A _~~~-4 04 ) I- - 1 . . .. - % . . - -- I S,- Â·414~.14.-- .-2%/r/_r-Ir .:=7 - PROJECT NUMBER 14043.000 | ISSUE D ATE 06 APR 2016 ~ SHEET NO. 01 SITE PLAN - ADA ACCESS PLAN 1'=40'-0 G4.01 ad/NO an BANBAV market collection areas will be transported by project employees to the central trash/recycle area for pickup and disposal. Vehicular access to the project's central trash/recycle area will be provided via the garage ramp beneath Building D. The project's trash/recycle areas have been sized to meet or exceed the minimum area requirements of Section 12.10.040 of the Aspen Municipal Code. As the trash/recycle areas do not abut an alley, Special Review approval pursuant to Section 12.10.080 will be required from the Environmental Health Department. The required application will be submitted with the Applicant' s Planned Development - Detailed Review application to permit the inclusion of any revisions that may be requested in connection with Project Review. Multiple elevators and internal stairways will provide convenient access from the project's above grade components to the parking spaces on both garage levels and the trash/recycle collection areas located on Parking Level 2. The proposed development's two subgrade parking levels will contain a total of 133 spaces. Eighty spaces, or 0.5 spaces per unit, are required to accommodate the project's lodge and fractional ownership components' 159 keys or units. Twelve spaces, or one space per 1,000 square feet, are required for the commercial component's 11,647 square feet of net leasable area. Twenty-seven spaces, or one space per dwelling unit, are required for the project' s four free market residential units and twenty-three affordable housing units. An additional fourteen spaces, however, are proposed for the dormitory units as each unit will house four employees. While measures will be undertaken to minimize employee vehicular usage (e.g., subsidized transit fares, etc.), it is reasonable to assume that some of the project' s employees will own cars and that an oil-site storage alternative is appropriate. Buildings A, B and C on Lot 1 and Building D on Lot 2 will each contain three floors. Building A's entrance lobby, lounge bar, restaurant, retail space, fitness 33 center, children's facility, ski concierge, and an additional banquet room will be located on the ground floor of Building A. This level also contains thirteen standard lodge units and three fractional ownership units. Arriving guests, unit owners and the general public will access the lobby from the adjacent cul-de-sac and pedestrian sidewalk. Valet parking will be provided in the subgrade garage for lodge guests and members of the public accessing the restaurant. Building A's public areas abut the Hopkins Avenue streetscape and the building' s outdoor courtyard and associated amenities (i.e., dining area, lap pool and pool deck). The lodge and fractional units, fitness room, retail space, ski concierge, and children's facility will be contained in the U-shaped building's east and west wings which flank the courtyard amenities. The ground floors of Buildings B and C will each contain an entrance lobby and two fractional ownership units. Building B will also contain one executive lodge unit. Pedestrian access to the units will be provided from Lot l's internal cul-de- sac via a system of exterior walkways, and from the subgrade garage via elevators and stairways in each building. Building B is located adjacent to the Hopkins Avenue streetscape while Building C is tucked into the base of the Shadow Mountain Hillside. ' The ground floor of the project's affordable housing component in Building D on Lot 2 will contain five dormitory units and a common kitchen/dining area. As noted previously, residents will access their dedicated parking via the garage ramp beneath the building. Pedestrian access to the building from the garage will be provided via an internal elevator and stairways, and from the Hopkins Avenue sidewalk via an external walkway. Building D is located adjacent to the Little Ajax affordable housing project, and extends from the Hopkins Avenue streetscape to the base of the hillside. The second floor of Building A will contain forty-seven standard lodge units, seven executive lodge units, and two lodge suites. The second floor of Building 34 B will contain four fractional ownership units while Building C will contain two fractional units. An additional fractional unit will link Buildings B and C on their second levels. The second floor o f Building D will contain seven dormitory units, two studio units and an additional common kitchen/dining area. The upper level, or third floor, of Building A will contain thirty-nine standard lodge units, five executive lodge units, two lodge suites, and three fractional ownership units. Building B, and the Building B/Building C link will contain the project's five remaining fractional units. The third floor of Building C will contain the project's four free market residential units. Building D's third floor will mirror its second floor and contain the same number of dormitory and studio units and a common kitchen/dining area. As the roof plan illustrates, several o f the buildings will incorporate green roofs. These roofs will filter, absorb and retain/detain stormwater runoff. The water quality benefits of green roofs include biological uptake of stormwater runoff, evapotranspiration, and reduced peak runoff rates and volumes due to a reduction in the amount of impervious area typically associated with traditional roof systems. The incorporation of green roofs will also reduce rooftop temperatures and air and noise pollution; provide heating and cooling effects for the building; and provide an aesthetic improvement over a traditional rooftop. The green roofs will be an integral part of the proposed development's stormwater management improvements. The proposed development's architectural vocabulary is established with the massing of Building A. As the elevations and perspective on the following pages illustrate, the building' s is grounded by a tactile and pedestrian friendly stone base. The building's second and third story elements are stepped back a minimum of four feet to form a facade that is vertically active, and to provide an opportunity for terraces, decks and landscape treatments. The upper two stories of Building A, which contain the 35 44 NOTE: AL UOUTS AREE TAKEN FROM MO ;TIVE GRADE (NATIVE GRADEOR .ED GRADE) j h 2/3 i f f < /\ C il noM - (164 1 16 i 01 2 1 S ; ,+ 40' O FROM PROPOSEDGRADE I '1 1 p-ID GRADE TOWN STAMP ifll J f) c.-1/1 / f (1.-0 1 1-6--,+2.. 1~1~~1~#i~ I~abiJ1I1 359 fl-'f--A < il21,#1* 1 1> If~ ,~~44 2* 11_2.LEC.ti er-. â€¢ % r R,l /*Â·2 J d. AG DESIGN _/ f,=:1.veâ€¢r t .. L _ _1[ -_1{ 1.11 1 1,. 1| 14~~,~U#JE49 - 1 -BUILDING.8-_NORTH_ELEVATION = 1/16.=1'-0Â· R\,f\ DISCIPLINE STAMP il IR 1 1 : 1 1 40'-0- FROM - r ' A } A , i PROPOSED GRADE b l , ~ 1 1.1 r; 1 0 rr~1 ----. lili 4 --1, it i i 4 I. U FÂ»~ Â£4 1 1 7 - /1 , .4~4~~nt LÂ»f--2.--7 .91--2 6 ~ 5-=2141 L.. - 2, 1 , - :Â» 74, C - )-T- I li 6 - I 9-. 79~11 , -- - 1 . a . 11 - 11:11Â« 1 - 21 I A = m I i i ffi 34..Ii ' det'm -#'r --~ 1 1 -tÂ·[ m f 9 BUILDING A - WEST ELEVATION - SIDE 1 /6 1/16"=1'-0' -- f. i vt =imNATiVE ISSUE LAND USE APPLICATION in 1 2.IM-8-!lin--Ii= '1Â· 4 2. '-4 .1-blMlllrlllli%dlill~-Â·*1! KEY PLAN Â»* 7 --X-- Jazz-. t 9 f ~7-7-777~7- 1- ps -22~ 930 \ -2 \ 9// I m. EXTERIOR g -SUILDINGA-WESTELEMATION-Â§!REA___ ELEVATIONS ' i 1 'b// 1/16'= 1Â·-or REVISION ' 11' 474 18'-10-FROMNATIVE - J .4 .2 r ..1 N /11 /1 ''111,1 j\ F 400-FROMPROPOSEDGRADE GRADE Â»Q'N"Iwk / rÂ»1 - No. Description Date ~ - - r. ., e-, j .. \ /77 <.1/b. 4'- Â·072% 21 4 '.3.4. ~---------------------------- 511 \ ,/, e MAX VERTICAL HEIGHT LIMI - W 14 -' 9-M j E i 1 1 9 - E Â«a / 1 1- Â·i * : Â·Â·r ' 42-14, ta- 14,0.- 1 1 1 % 223==3 1 1 1 11- 1,1 1 ; 11 Ltd' 2-7 j 02.ir-P 4 .4 â‚¬ trÂ» - \1 tx=== ~ 1 FÂ®*f**LILLIZEROJECTNLMBER ISSUE DATE 06 APR 2016 I SHEET NO. A3.01 A - EAST ELEVATI N - SIDE ad/NOISIAIaanS anNEIAÂ¥ NIMdOH JLSEIM SOL 00Â¥80100 'N3dSV NOTE: ALL UOUTS ARE TAKEN FROM MO' 1-IVE GRADE (NATIVEE G//EOR DGRADE) 35'-8 FROM - PROPOSED GRADE - TOWN STAMP 1 W.il 359 I tr. 1 4 /225.1 9-f DESIGN 1 -?W~ING-AINMERCOURL-EAST-ELEMATION-.SIDE1 DISCIPUNE STAMP 4 ~i 2 -'Y~:ING-AINNER-CRUBL:-EASIELEVATION-SIDE-2 - -FIN\, A- 1,1 1 / 4/Â·0Â· FROM ' ISSUE L. / pROPOSe GRADE g LAND USE APPLICATION - Ir--1 - --1 U U 1 0.1 11 111 1 1. I , 4 4 Â« , I ft; 1 .. 60 . 1 COU . 1 -~,1-L .1 1 j.'f- 1 ' 1-] | , E-.11 .r h '1: 1 -L 44 0 1 u I. 2457 1 -1-Ll SHEET TITLE EXTERIOR BUILDING A INNER COURT - SOUTH ELEVATION ELEVATIONS 3 - 1/16--1'-0- 2) REVISION F-N,6,I=000.-62.~ 30'.10- FROM - PROPOSEDGRADE \ *trA 1,4.1. - _ L.=p.-0,.24 F r 1 _~ ~ 1.tkj ' ' 772-1 P/1 14 1 1 dÂ«61 ~ 1 j ~ I!__]i- - 1 -1~3L~L1F U --4 ISSUE DATE 06 APR 2016| SHEET NO. 4 -~MgING_AINNER-COMET--WEST-ELEVATION A3.02 NIMdOH 1SSIM SOL ad/NOIS,AlaanS anNaAV 00Â¥hl0100 'NBdSÂ¥ [223.i] IZZ2 0 NOTE: AU 11-OUTS ARE TAKEN FROM MOS rIVE GRADE (NATIVE GRADEOR ) GRADE) TOWN STAMP 359 DESIGN /9\ 4/101, F,3 10\1 /-j~rl r->, i, r j'< $* 2, /}: 2.46 r# 2 1 . V \ 3 4,412.. 6-94:44 24 / 7 4 C 7 1- 3.-FROM 15Â·4-FROM - .4 , 9.14 f 4 .3 ; I) NATIVEGRADE PROPOSED GRADE 1 3=/hm.Imeâ€¢MWA5 'MIA.'-Al[.,QV U ' 5 - 1,#Pr:'3~L'/2///ME"/A- re, 12- b.flid/"/Firibi,kn#Fri,8//1 11 W WN-=i ......11~ DISCIPUNE STAMP 1 ~ 1~ ~ .. ~I ET-[11 4 ...Id{> M ?91 Fl .2-1 L Â¢J ---E=\1 ~- f =1- a~ - fkffÂ» I~-p,_m (' 1~~t 359 --I- 0*0:, 5 1&4 w 1 1 1 44= 1 Z 0~ BUILDING B - NORTH ELEVATION - FRONT ~ BUILDING B - WEST ELEVATION - SIDE 2 1/16Â·= 1%0Â· 1/lrâ€¢ 17 Â¤ Z 1- m 111Â», Ul W UM :2 1 90 n 3 -) - -FROM 1 2 gl / PROPOSED GRADE r 39%6' FROM NATIVE G./DE 'e--4 - 1<~~.. ).-i. 1_. . b 10 2 1 3 {1 >1.,2.-1*#J ~ ~ Uls 1 77*-1#///~YNT~~/3~'AL#ALLMS=14.--7 7,31 L* 31 /1 OZ ./6.Mum, 1 /ihir-k"d.21,510746:u!811~~ Untlu ilitia hui - - =9 0 6,-pÂ« mar R 9 Â¤JI 22 > --1 94 6.7 3.9*~,/M /91.- ISSUE 27-Â·7~q., 2 8 -, Â·2, 9 a=>Cy r] 111 N 4-44 i 4 U '/ 4 LAND USE APPLICATION *~Â·Â·i 9. 1 02/ 1 Â·C_, n "M KEYFLAN 9 BUILDING B - SOUTH ELEVATION - BACK g BUILDING B - EAST ELEVATION - SIDE 1 (96 & 1/16 - 1'-0. ~/ 1/16~ = 1'-0' (@_ _1 4// SHEET TITLE EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS r ) - 40-0-FROM fl 0, A 1 / 1\ Ij , 1 ~ 40..0- PRO!~1! 11. 3 REVISION 39 0* FROM / FI NATIVE GRADE ' w - -' ~' -- - ~- ~P~ED GRADE ~ PROPOSED GRADE C 1~ 3 1 / 'll NATIVE GRADE 1 NO. Description Date b <4 7 '.1./ 1 f i 1 1 1 1~u.W.'=:9.,. 4OMAX VERTICAL HEIGHTLIMIT L~'r-PFIWI 1Ii#Ir--g~ 1 --. Eg Li - 1- a=-"'ada~//3,2:91 i t iDr-r--i --7--i=.16- 1 N # '. 40.ti' gil 647 Il /1*UlÂ£%21//E//El//grlm/,2%/EN=Em 4 . /. I_. ///T~,BA = b#JTS.4. 4 ~77-1 33 1-,p-,râ‚¬ 1 El=al 9- i, 5 r~ 1/,rh 1 9 11d 1Â»'-1 9 0.%:- 6_kiz E | Ii--'r '1, F: 11 ge*i: 34 *g .. I 1 1 3 L j H . 1 4 ,- - --14 I a' 4, 4,k, 12&262,4 4 PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT NUMBER ISSUE DATE 06 APR 2016 41 BUILDING B -WEST ELEVATION - SIDE 1 e BUILDING B - EAST ELEVATION - SIDE 2 SHEET NO. /// 1/16=1'-Or ~ 1/16' =1'-0' A3.03 ad/NOISIAIa 00Â¥k10100 'NEIdSÂ¥ NOTE: AU I .OUTS ARE TAKEN FROM MOST ,â‚¬ GRADE (NATAE GRADE OR PR GRADE) F EÂ·Cy FROM .ll--0.-O. ~ 4 2 1 PROPOSED GRADE PROPOSEDGRADE 1 1 11 1 ,-* 11_ Imml - 1 1-] i ..E~ - TOWN STAMP / // //////// 1//5/1%/-----14<~~-.-7/5</~/----- =///-F,tra *WER/:1 dabi Ettll 1*-71-lit-011-10â€¢*1 32//f-4 1214/21 234 #04 1 * 4222 Â»49 L - Ii--I- 8 1 -6,?4.9 1 .1;12 42 Â£ ium r l/Cl ~ 171 EN# Cipaw 359 22 =- E 1 42 41323 --=== - 2 5 - - DESIGN 0~ BUILDING B - NORTH ELEVATION - MIDDLE 1/le = 1-(7 DISCIPUNE STAMP 38-1 FROM - NATIVE GRADE I NAT[VE GRADE Im""Ic'i-mâ€¢t ---6- =3~ 37'-V FROM .ErT'"14 . -31181 ..3*411,=6,31,1A I I-// %/â€¢.1.-=1-ull.al ~li../ %~-- 1: 51=/R' EO k...NesÂ«1 f Vi ifid"r AMPLI: 4121 *22* . :i A 0k 4 ZO *g 9 BUILDING D - NORTH ELEVATION - FRONT ~ 1/16-=10 37-1" PROM - NATIVE /*DE 40 MAIVERTICAL HEIGHTLIMFIL _-____ -- ----- ISSUE -4 j=aaÂ·â€¢+0 91} PIE:*tD*42 y ' 10. LAND USE APPLICATION t. .- --N~ 1*Lialt 1 r /_201; ~ 124 - Â·-2 *U 2 1,- Â·Â· I 33 2 ' 6.9/</4//0-%1+F,4 ;91 1 - -4 KEY PLAN 9 _12*4-â€¢" 14 # 4 K . . *=4 |11:.I â€¢~36 r /*~47 1 Â£Â¥, :39m '*Pm -Wlk'i. YZ-. -* L . 1.* 1 LA 9..77-' .12 0 44 4 2 121 ~ 21* 41 -L, 1 ift. . ri Z K 4 7 . 1, EL ~,' A U. C + *f *-3 7 /8{4 ... 9 E 4.- 4 @5 ' 71 .Â·* \23 - ~ BUILDING D - WEST ELEVATION - SIDE SHEETT1TLE 1/16.=1'-0. EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS REVISION No. 1 Description 1 Date , 4. 3 .~ -,1 3 . 18'.FROM PROPOSED GRADE F 38Â·-1- FROM '*. jr...6 .//3.9 t..!f- wf1 ;,1~ NATIVE GFIE ~ --912.-'Â·,--:1/ a k.|'*Â·'1 9 2:63 1 f? 51 4.â‚¬ 9.1- 9*R:: 1:Â·AMT/HM /Â· :MEL 40.46 'Ad tu ji ,*r.~Uipt!Â»1. m .4, 412.- 5 1 1 Â· -# -- . #' 'â€¢Ul/8 [-i ' # *La:-0, E o 2--2.41 '31 5Â·31:62 9>~ 5 '44 IM#~0 1-lilk bÂ· A , 7 5% â€žIC , 3/ I'l :- i./1 - "-Â· *r -01 i.tl ~ FY' 1 4 5 --. rt.*14%1-1 0~ C '92 -t?r-m//1 8 1 ItM' if 3 l f- 1 L --Il - 1 1 34 1 8-%,/1 4. ti - i :iwidill# 1 b i f â‚¬'. 6 -1- -4> b : I I I + 11 0 2 4 1 1 1 7-J r I . J ? 1, , PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT NUMBER | Â· c- .- U q # ISSUE DATE 06 APR 2016 I SHEETNO ~ BUILDING D - EAST ELEVATION - SIDE 1/16~ =17 A3.04 OCIVN0100 'NBdSÂ¥ SIM SOL S BIANCIAV 359 DESIGN Ul Z 0 a. <C [X 0 .J $3- i'.4 ft 4 A 0 0 2- -fuft 0 4-hi> Ul U) , lu 4 5 I --1...../WHaW'- Â·'L r.3, 441 .:,-i OZ 191@11-1 â€žI'lillimil 1 r. mevy ' h U.1 4 0 4 -. I V L~ i *1 > 4 11 3 1 04. I ilimrt $ 1~11 7. '.8 16';4 ' Il L: Ill r 'NIENE-]~ ti ~ @Im , - ' Â·[17llilllilgâ€žâ€ža,14, # . -1 1% -1 11 &1 1 Â·,10 111 111111 j E 'M -< 111 1 11 1 FIJI I iSSUE 1 I 11 1 , 1, -9 -3.-9.1-0 LAND USE APPLICATION 41 r, r& Â» 4 1, lai:11 1.11 â€¢141 - . 1 lu , Fl */~ 44/ KEY P- ' qbi *117- ~. 17 9 , - :v . A ' & - SHEET TITLE BUILDING A - RENDERED EAST ELEVATION EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - COLOR REVISION NO. Description Date PROJECT NUMBER 14043.000 ISSUE DATE DSAPR 2016 SHEETNO A3.05 ad/NOIS,Ala 0100 N3dSV 359 DESIGN Z 0 2 2. i - r h':0*1 4~2,1.,e ./. " ' 325 Â·1 Â· 2 1 I D,t r. 1-- - r 0 - 46.i. 4044*41* Z Â¤ 2 V : .1 I . I. a 112'~0 9 2//5.p. ..-*.vebrb.7/84 r 11. 1 * 16 726 â‚¬.- hka.S { . ..4. r ,~AN '11 F 'J'., $ 1 - 0 /6 . . t. I. IMME,072'<9&,T 4 .gy.,11 110*9Â£. ".I/"""1#. . *1 . T. 4â€ž1FQ .-r filiÂ¢kgri -IT~119.Z.B.~9Â· I 4 L I - I 0 I * L 'llill E 'llirliTI C.~ ~i.... 1 1-Mt 1Â©111 ~'ill ...& 1 + 2 -'I'--' t~ **k .r ~.Â· ~ 1 /////b.1113- r Â»f'li MLI'll" a.4 1, 4 ISSUE LAND USE APPLICATION 41.4.ll 4,2~ 2*:,&44't.:.....2.-1 ,.Â·S ,,2. - ,}Im'1111 , i==li~ - 1-1-=- KEY PLAN *- - --le- Ra~aft>te..--.----- -----7--~-I .-----pwuir---F----y-;--Iio-~ #,9 -- mtpt 1//95.= 1/'ll'llil//18/9/&1.16&21/raifi:= 12.c I'.Ii///5/illigl/EZ'*/11//i/WMwkiwaugilililb1*Mililiffh/Z'--- Â·i 9 . .:.tt....i.-, LI , SHEET TITLE BUILDING A - RENDERED NORTH ELEVATION EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - COLOR REVISION NO. Description Date PROJECT NUMBER 14043.000 ISSUE DATEE DSAPR 201G SHEET NO A3.06 ad/NOISI AS ar,NaAV 00'NadSÂ¥ SaM SOL 359 DESIGN 1 -I<'977â€¢ -*, . . ~7-ST :, -I ~5iY3#i~'lt.Ji~-32.-y.EÂ«4 3,42"Â£:~'tij#&*Aplita \'H A-' 7.'* M.Fi-~i~grk-*0 -â€¢.e*1*.â€¢E.*IL//~ja,i~.I'~~"Lfk<4- ~~e~, ~;~~St~ (~-1.: - 1 9 ./ 4. 0. _~r -I. ..., ReÂ· 7 ..,4 4, Ace, i-= . 7,4 1 al#St.va 22 4 . 2...9,1 L .. ! '41./1/..ti,f'~'hil Â·. I ke I ..1/ .. - Â·t. 4,,#*% , -4 . .12 A a. rav~' .-/ . Z . 1 1,7: r. fl â‚¬ Â». I r - Â·12 * I &* I ... ..' Y7 Â· Eoo P. - E : 9 . h,44. * 1*,A - .. '. 1,1,8 ifilf 96 - Â· 6,0, 4 - 1:-- h.,- h 4- . O2 . 4-4 2/4 e B.L. .lu :-6 - I. / 15- 4 -Â» 'I=// Liv.: I. '2 Z...9~~ : ./72.ir-.43/*44.- 6, 31 + A- . t, . 1- <$ ./ , A,Vt.. X:1Â¥Â· 42%77 â€ž ,/ A<'.4- 2 Â¥ 41 - lan g. .,t.-l'.1 1=JI~ 1 6~ ~'4 C. . PR E C, .1 E # 4 9Â¥07 R Ul 4*le . I. I . 4 T .9.1 . ./I"'11//Â£e /1 'Â· , i 1 , 1.4 - ~~ ls g~,A ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ . 3 4 L . -- Ir, Â·rÂ© -- Il t / R! i 71./.././.ht Â· .ii .--- 1 , 1* 5 91 1 ' jt 4 ....Al. -. 3- J 9*., $ W .Â¢I : i J k, 1 E . =- - -T=Til,L I =72-- = = =- 1 1. &94 1 t- - - 1 0- 4 - , . al , 6 5/3 k.1...1 ; ~I liz 0 ..4 .. ;tf *. ..1 11/ ISSUE 1. 14 ' ' Â· LAND USE APPLICATION .... , '4 # 0* -2. r - - / ..F: .r~~ 4.4 3,1 2 ..2- ..6 - 4,8 93,7- KEY PLAN ,/*R:r,:p .~ - 4> Ar,* ,-I~/ 9/Â£/4.4 4 \F 1//04/. I . +1 7~ 7 â‚¬* SHEET T]TLE EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - COLOR REVISION No. Description Date BUILDING B - RENDERED NORTH ELEVATION PROJECT NUMBER 14043.000 ISSUE DATE /APR 2016 SHEETNO A3.07 bl0100 'N3dSV H 193 SOL agns n NBAV 1 I...-I...... ......I. $ 1 % , 1, , , ./ ..' '': *'1 ~- /'9:.414 4 3' .23 â€¢'A Z $ 1 - 1 90-4-*.1 414. 3.350â‚¬44 litr# Â· 1 , . ~''M. V# 4 ' ' 'P. -, + 'Â¢r"C> - L . r>., .t...iN .1 %*4&4 Â¢>Â»" - ~0~~~~~~~Â·.~+.... 1:Â¢ il.~ ..> "e:p ~= .<6' 4 - 1 I -1- -..:''IV..'.- r - lig /1...1 , 1-1 '} 1 r 111'1 5-====E- . -2,Â» 4 .... n.:. , 5,.,1. Â·'.*,+45 Â·: ' *C' .2'*,~Â¥5 r:.9 1. -/ TH 1.4.- ,4 ..ftÂ·, 4% li 1.2.â‚¬16 ,4 . . 4 7/- :144 .*/Irirl le'P' . ..1. '14.,4 1%.4 ..7 4 1.1 * ,6"4 + . Fallif.' W'14 p<' 'lili IA Â· ..,17r:' 1.0% 1 '.I b .....1, 1 â€¢ . . 53:.1 1 .1 \ liN'...$r~<.4 - *hz/*Â£. ~ '" :- . 1 ' 4.& vit.*4. 1 i. 4?Tl'~tÂ· -Â· I ' Â· - .2-rl,libi /4. M ' Â¥ .4 ''1 f â€¢4..1. fl 71:41 , c}Â· I.) '7,4,1 7.9*~W,..:Â·. ''Â·' Â·Â·Â·4 1~~~~ 4--28' 4 ~ 1/, ............... ' .1 6 .0 1 ..,jil 1 4 ' 1 ....4.le: ,/* 34*pr 11 M T 'I f.,1 1 . 1 kit' ~1 .Vh'.4,-7-1 Â»44. a ....4, . 44% 4 4.7 4,4 '' 9 kna' br r *1 4 14- f - x). .4 2 + Â·r'34 ' + 94._ I li .-All .r* ., % 3 1 .gy 4 .14 F C,â€ž*: . 1> 1/0,# 21'. b *.~ z.*4#49, t>., - 41?, . 1 1 ,â€ž-/1 ' 1, 44 .5,7 1. 4. 1 ' 7-0 - 9Â».: ti. 4 1. k â€¢ 4Â«4 =FR, I I U *.-.1 I .4 *'.Â· 99 19 -Uf i ./f ,/ 2,9.4 v " f... , ....7,1- . - - 91,0 --2- . I - - 9-===1 .3---$.- L ' 1 -,f'' m. 1 '*37,2,/ . . 6 - ' 4 '. - 2,0 %01 h I. I. 141 , h -1 . .. #:,1, 1 1. 1 9.- , 4 1 Â· 311>Â·m . , 1.-X 4 '. i ; ' 4 L 4,44 1â€ž.-,- . 44~- li - t...1.425+1..:4+1.: 4 - Ar ..' 4 4.- Â· , .. ,.. â€¢ ~44 A '11 4011, **46 r' 1 4~.2 ., U" 1/ 11. 1 ' r â‚¬ &* *\4\4141 , ...Li.. 'I: . . 'I 'I' --4---f---2-94Lg4&SMM~ & re;W/Y-- , Â·Â·1~ ..6- 2-2 - , Â·- f,/..8/%93' ' 164~ 05 :~.1.'*93'Â·3(71(t,tk 1.,41.,1 1 I lij- *1 .16 â€¢ hY 2 -riÂ· c' ~* *42.14 2 ..:1 JA 3 1.'.9441'fr- - 14 7. :gy '1), 4/. 4. . ., t'.47* At,U . I , , 1.0,4. 4-tat, a 142' z -- 1 1.' ..ly I 0. - 0. - . A . ....... . ...4.* 359 DESIGN '3 j j il hh 7982 -0 9 . T O STEP UP OF (BUILD A) A Ch TO. IBUILOA, Â· 0. , L ~ 7978'.0- 4 FR 2 b â„¢2 N LODGE E E STORAGE [11-8 14E E 1 I m 4 LEVEL 3 (BU~LD Al LODGE b 313 ~ LEEVE.35(8/10â„¢ *|1 0 348 346 300 797.-0- 9 P ?i l___ -991-~Fl LEE -31[1- 41 1 137 LEVEL 2 5 (BU~LD A~ A r:E L://1 2. - 02 . b STD STD EXEC ~ORAGE 1 ' 7958 0~ 2 N 1 - 4 LEVEL 2 PLAN (BUILD Al . 7WF 1 213 200 1 1 '954Â·.0- 6 ... 6 E 4 -. i . 1272' -=i 11.11 JI | C.ECK ti.. mo F 41118 Ill fl _ 1-1 m /Â·6 LEVEL'mu,LOA, Fi . -'~ 4'f ' * LCEJu 1~ .~ 1 CON LEVEL 1 -1LD A~ A %11 137 7944Â·Â·0* Â£' V 7940.01 3 E FOOD FOOD AND 6 AND -- ZO= BEVERAGE b 'ACK % SPA Circul,tion BACK OF *79~5 HOUSE $ PARKING 2 .~ ~ 203 ! p~Â°g [1] --~ P209 :F.P LOADING MECHANICAL PARKING 2 7915./ TO SERVICE PARKING 7914Â·-/ 7914'.6 36 HOUSE SERVIC. 7918Â·-6 TO SERVICE PARKING 1-11 Fl 1-1 -1 4 6, GUEST; PARKING P102 OWNEN 32 OWNER PARK]NG STORAGE 2/ PARKI NG 1 . . PARKING 1 4 P 7903 6 I 7903Â· 5- ~ 02 BUILDING A - SECTION 2 1/16' =1'-Or ISSUE LAND USE APPLICATION I 2,1\ A KEYPLAN l t i \1 1 i k , 4 + e U )\F j 5 211, Â·Â· ...'. , i T O STEP UP OF (BUILD' A A TO fBUILD A) , . , 1 -1 ~ 4'- b - 1- LODGE I b -11 1- L~E FJE L: p..~ ~T T 191 N EXEC CIRCULAnON 7 ~CGE LODGE 2 - 349 i LEVEL35(8UILDA) b /~ LEVel 3 (BUILD Al r 1 U - 1 | ~ 579 1 1.3-: -,I- --I---- SHEET TITLE 331 51?1 1.37 7977 - 0, LI. 7 7966' ./ - --------- 6 6 9 r~; 1 BUILDING 66 Mi 6 LOG. LOD&-1 LOCGE . ale .012 - I F le: Â¥~~1 ~ CIRCU-ON 7 | LOUGE , LEVEL 2 5 (BUILD A) 4 EXEC A LEVEL'LgtfB212,8L - -*---- /1 Ill 1 1 St' Sm 1 1 7958Â· -0 Â£' SECTIONS 231 1 4-k 23*I , FC 01 1.12 7.1 -1.--- 11 1. LODGE .... _LODGE LO RNESS -' 4 ~ I -2, CULA ON 12! I 1127 A LEVEL 1 (SUILON .. .. .. : 2â‚¬I- #I EL=r Â£ 1 7944'-0- C' LEVEL 1 5 mUILD A) ~ 7 7940%0Â· REVISION NO. Description Date h MEETING +RE.FUNCTION [T] ,7-F-1 i | FACIUMES AD~N15rRATWE i A* PARKING. . '210 . 1 PARKING 2 ~ , V 791/Â·6Â· ~ 7918'-. \.,10 --- , 1 0 1 =r--1 - PARKING 130 /~ PARKING 1 . 0 Eli IE(~HANICAL 1 7903'.6- 1-KING 1 8.4 . I .7903'./ ~ 1 |PROJECTNUMBER 14043.000 ISSUE DATE /APR 2016 01 BUILDING A - SECTION 1 1/16~ =1'-Or SHEET NO. A4.01 ' .0-2/ Â·' /-2/ ODVEIO OO'N3dSV 1SSIM SOL anS anNEIAV '0-2, 1 Â·0-21 t .0.'~ 359 DESIGN A TO. (BUILD m 7 7970'- 11/4Â· ~ ' r-I. 7 0 (BUILD 0~ 0 7970Â·-1164- 9 - - - rl laTCHEN, 6 9 UM C~ LEVEL 3 (BUILD 01 9. 3100 f . LEVEL 3 (BUILD m ~1 Z ~ 79/- 1 1/4 b b AHU 4/7 AHU 4 r-, ~UTCHE. -Â·---- U F 7 ~ 6, 4 tr ..0 + 206D DINING 7960'- 11/4- Â£' 1 *5 . b r 1 2040 - n ~ 7~ Â· 11/4- ~ LEVEL 2 (BUILD D1 ~7 m-4 . 9 7950'- 11/4 9 1 1 AH' 4 DINING| b ::1040 102[) 1 ~ LEVEL 1 (BUILD WO) . 7 7940.11/4- ' ~ 1 . . LEVEL- 1 (BUILD 6/0, 4 1 I . . 7-Â·11/'4' 3CYCLI P223-8 RKINÂ¢2--. PARKING32 ~ - TRASH/ 7 79.-6 7918'-6 Ap b EHU , PARKING 140 9 C~ PARKING 1 .. . PARK!Â£ 1 ~ 7 7903 - 6- 1 - - =, 02 BUILDING C - SECTION 1 1/167=1'# ISSUE LAND USE APPLICATION 1 KEY PLAN 1 44 . TO 8UILD C 0 798.- ~ 1/4- Ap A TO =DB1 ~. . _________ -lWiL'LiSL- --1 Ef' m l. r/-- SHEET TITLE ~ 7974'Â· 1 W 4 FR 2 LOBBY .22'1 LEVELiIBUILIC) Al BUILDING 300/ 7968Â·.1 1/4- LP r~ LEVEL 3 BUILD m . -_-_-___ -_-_- , 11 ---- 1 #FIa-G;~3 b 7 7--11/4. 4 1 1 1321/20-5/| u '-- SECTIONS lia"" Fi-1 r =6:Â¥ Â·fl =c * LEvEL 2 (BUILD 01 ~h 79567.1 1/4 V A LEVEL 2 (BUILD 8/ , -7===--====r.,===I 7 7952*Â· 11/4- 1- 0-11 =%â‚¬r=g 6 REVISION r, ~g- 102C . , LEVEL 1 fBUILO CD A 1 NO. 1 Description Date * 7944'-11/4' Lp 4 LEVEL 1 (BUILD 80, ' , -- 7 7940 -11/4 i I I 1 TRASH# g ~ & RECYCLEE .Al-En DEUVERY' 1 OWNER FRACTIONAL/FREE m PARKING 2 A Lm,% P223 i 1605 P219 0 '77112 2 , ~ .' 7918'-6- C, 1 1 . 6 0 , LOBBY - Ellu .Â· 1 1 PARKING ~ 140 A PARKING 1 , P 7903Â· -6Â· ' â€¢ : ' DARKING 1 0 7903 -6- p PRCUECT NUMBER 14043,000 i ISSUE DATE 06APR 2016 ~0~ BUILDING B - SECTION 1 I 1/le= 1'-0. SHEET NO, A4.02 ad/NOISIAIaanS anNaAV 00Â¥80100 'N3dSV IMdOH 1S3M SOL Â·' .0. Â·' .0-2, Â·' .0-2, project's lodge component, are broken into framed elements with glass windows and doors that are set back within the building's mass. Vertical wood elements will be used to screen the terraces and decks, and to truncate outward escaping light. Inspiration for the design is taken from the tree filled Shadow Mountain hillside where sunlight, landscape and snow interact in their natural habitat. The massing of Building A's Hopkins Avenue facade is further broken by recessed glass elements that locate a public entry point at the west end of the building and help to organize its facade. Building A's east facade is a more porous, glass filled expanse that is intended to provide a welcoming experience for arriving guests, and to reveal the interior of its ground floor public spaces. Buildings B and D to the east, which contain the proposed development's fractional ownership and affordable housing components, continue the architectural vocabulary of Building A. The buildings, however, incorporate more deliberate massing to better serve and facilitate their proposed use. Their facades will incorporate wood, stone, zinc and steel elements. Adjacent to the vehicular cul-de-sac, the stone base on Building B is broken to reveal its pedestrian entrance, and to facilitate entry to the project's subgrade garage. Along Hopkins Avenue, positive and negative elements set up a playful interaction along the street. The design of Building C, which contains both fractional ownership and residential units, further extends the proposed development's basic architectural vocabulary. The building is nestled into the Shadow Mountain hillside, and contains walkout elements to both the landscaped courtyard on its north side and to the proposed public trail to the south. The material treatment of Building C is intended to help blend it into the adjacent hillside. All of the buildings are designed to facilitate public access, reconnect Shadow Mountain within the City' s community fabric, and to enhance the i visual corridor along Hopkins Avenue. The height of the proposed buildings will limited 49 to a maximum of forty feet when measured from the lower of existing or finished grade. Commercial Design Review approval for the proposed forty foot height limit is requested as provided for in Section 26.710.190.D.8.d. of the Regulations. C. Development Rights All of the proposed development's components will require the receipt of growth management allotments in their respective GMQS categories. A lodge GMQS allotment of 348 pillows will be required as the lodge component's 159 keys or units will contain a total of 174 bedrooms (i.e., 174 bedrooms x 2 pillows/bedroom). As the required lodge allotment exceeds that which is currently available, a multi-year allotment is requested as provided for in Section 26.470.090.1. of the Regulations. A GMQS allotment for the proposed development's 11,647 square feet of commercial net leasable area, twenty-three affordable housing units, and two of its four free market residential units will also be required. Pursuant to Section 26.470.130 of the Regulations, the replacement after demolition of the project site's two existing free market residential units does not require a GMQS allotment or the provision of affordable housing mitigation. The project site's residential credits will be verified with the City's Zoning Officer prior to demolition, and reconstruction will occur on the same property on which the units are currently located. The proposed development's compliance with the GMQS provisions of the Regulations is discussed in detail in Section IV.D. of this application. D. Landscaping The project site's existing landscaping consists of a mixture of planted landscape trees, native forest trees, and streetscape plantings that vary greatly in age, size and condition. The majority of these trees will have to be removed to accommodate the 50 proposed development. As discussed in the attached Tree Survey Report prepared by Jason Jones, a Board Certified Arborist with Aspen Tree Service, Inc. (see Exhibit 6, Appendix C), the landscaped portion of the project site is in only fair condition. Many of the ornamental trees appear to have been planted sporadically and randomly over time resulting in a varied density and appearance. The majority of the trees appear to have been irrigated but to have received minimal care over the years resulting in the presence of dead limbs, poor overall structure, and indicators of secondary type pathogens. In many areas, trees were planted in high-density groupings, resulting in less than optimal health and structure as trees have competed for space and light. A Tree Removal Plan based on Sopris Engineering's mapping of the project site's existing vegetation is provided on the following page. The plan depicts the trees that are to be preserved and removed from within the Hopkins Avenue right-of-way and from proposed Lots 1, 2 and 3. No trees will be removed within proposed Lot 4. As the Tree Survey Report indicates, the portion of the Hopkins Avenue right-of-way bordering Lots 1 and 2 contains eighteen young trees with diameters less than six inches. All of these trees will require removal in order to implement the Applicant's proposed streetscape improvements. The trees in this area are in good condition, and consist of a variety of landscape/shade trees that were installed by the City. The trees, however, can be easily relocated within the project site. Lot 1 contains approximately 349 existing trees, all of which will require removal. According to the Tree Survey Report, these trees consist primarily of planted landscape trees that are generally of relatively low quality. The condition of 265 of the trees is rated as poor while eighty-one trees are rated as being in good to fair condition. Only three trees are rated as excellent. The primary landscape feature on Lot 1 consists of the dense spruce tree hedge located adjacent to Hopkins Avenue. The report states 51 0 1 @ 1 @ 0 1 Â® 1 Â® 0 1 @ 1 0 /\\-,-7 Â«Â«Â» // lo j fÂ« 4 - 1 3 / TREEREMOV L LEGE.9 - DESIGNWORKSHOP Urban Design Tourism Planning , SYMBOL/NAME Landscape Architecture . Land Planning F ' [t RIGHT OF WAY ~ 120 East Main Street 9 1 - L--7 1 Aspen, Colorado 81611 (REMOVED) L 1 07 Facsimile (970) 920-1387 (970)-925-8354 4 -0 .1. El â€¢ WWW.DE S I G NWOR K SHOP.COM 1 1. \-1 1 1 1 - hAr' [PRESE } 1 1,1 9 - - .0-,M,â‚¬3 . 1 L\\Jl Â» 55 N tÂ¥3 6-COHI ROUSTREE I 0 00 1 b LOT 2 93 DO 97 .63 2 -~ 09 f (PRES*/ 01 -- 3 / 3 03 , I g Eys s - ~ 31 4 51 & HOP/ONSAVENUE DECIDUOUSTREE 04 11 4 f /2931 7~ Ug 00 - .4 4 5% 6 1 J\ 7 26 [REMOED} 28 . 3 11 2< , - ' - 0-\-2 1 CONIFEROUSâ„¢EE 3 2 ' 35 6.38 2/ 0.17 9 $ 4 43 45 4 + LOT 3 / 47 49 5 6 9 / LOT 1 - 60 6 PRESERVED} 3.- c /9 //4723 h 0 6-I--9 K & N - N- DECIDUOU TREE O 2 ./ 2.M , 73 74 , 97 '4, , Clu . CXÂ·$ flEMOVE Ld-0 11 . 1 - 8 till r.- /1 ' , '1. 93 - 1 -19Â«Â»//fl CON OUSTREE (0 - 4 2 6 -Alk ~ x.e;.rEZ:X -3. 95 9 9 /71\Â» (P~~ RVED) Sm: L-''' 99 i -6- ZZ aF 12 ~ 02 -- â‚¬Ip ) US ME 2 9 3 ) 67 03 , 4 -4 0. U) - 11 05 2 - 8 - 65 fÂ« '77 .--959* t > 7 - / 83 - - - 0 79 84 - /3 r.- 42 i h I 1/ 49 2 , 3 4 (1,Â·{i] 1 86 44 50 7 3 h. 0 6 e'%--12 8 Â· 02 ' Ad"Ba .' :11 - -. NED--2 ' ' 1 01 . %079 77*F"f. 04 / 4 1-- 4 -' IJ %-1 - 06 -291.- -7 477/10- i:t i / n -- / ' ..2 2 -424.30 1.- -Â» f. 7/11- -al Il 88 8 11 I 1 13 1 = 6.\-0 7 2-3. 5 1 1 ..4 0-4 1 ~\ /\U-/ :5 - , 1 ~ -* . ..0*=>211 - # 1. \- ' 71 1 -- --- - -6. 7 \ 266 ---4 ' 1 26- - -X / 23 4 - 0 - X / -3 - E P ]- 53-2347 1% ' 80 / Â· 0- , \ -#Z ---, 6 63 r 33 '..- -1 // 34 , - 42- _ 1- , 36 '--2 ' I --ID -- -- --21 23 9/ / 1-yvt A.. 1 U 35 -7 %%/57=212.----Â«527 1 -_- - /10.55 - - /82 =_i- -iI 0 -- - 1 _ 3Â·76~ 78 / LOT lA LITTLE /AX r~ nrj- 0-4420 5, __ LOT 3 UTTLE AIAX - -- 7. Â£ 1/ %2=r-*#- - ---27 3 , 8 1 '-cy---- S< 2/855-%296'9~*--?5 435 --itat'#Z-- I - Itilr- Lf-~~ ISSUE DATE: 06 APR 2016 1 5Â«IrKS--1-U=~~~337-=Ip~~ED -- Â· 5 1 ' 4 -- / ---; * -4 2- 12-=--- 9 / /5/ 7 60\-1 Le 894 1 33.,0 m. i ./. I. - - -7 - i M1'W . REVISIONS - -9 01 Â·-228-- ~ . 422 - 40 1 -' 2~%~~ - -10 . bCÂ·Â«I ..101 l.,2.27 . 4 9 -21- 1 1 V-'535:1Â»3>1%335SN-/-*12 -'~~ 1/ 3- - -Un - \ 1 libls/LEL&6321*234*%%.1--SM-----/$-------422/-- Â«B /,321&fah---, 8 / DRAWN: MA REVIEWED: RWS -- 9<<,/-=-thEREE=====~~~UE-~~EFE '*__/7--Ea-EF===Â»:s33k| --7 \ 1 tiFifti~*~~~~g~~~i----6**%3-----------------A) ---=---9-9~-ut---------------t------2-Z+~~1 3 1,0-4.. ieER*.,+40?E---9-....-3332=k=EEE----=IR Â§*F--EEEEg*E*E====5523. -- ---2-=aa===a~i-- --.2' - I / 7/23-6-<zv=----F-------;Ex--Ii#1 , PROJECT NUMBER: 5191 . , / TREE REMOVAL , -4-Tr--*-93*29- .---- -=.52~~~ 0 + , .-. / --, PLAN / 1 E FLI 1 -UM~~~ ~ ---1 NORTH o 15 30 60 1-=30'.0' OH 1SBM 90 00VM0100'NadSV anS BANBAV that the hedge is not sustainable as the tree species has a mature size and shape that will not allow it to perform well over the long term as presently used for screening purposes. The trees in the center area of the lot vary in health and condition, but are generally of low quality and small diameter, and have numerous defects. There are several larger trees that are moderately healthy that are located in the vicinity of the existing residence. Many of the trees, however, are planted very close to the residence or to existing infrastructure and are reaching their maximum potential in these locations. Existing trees on Lot 2 are located primarily in the northeast corner of the lot. The trees consist of planted landscape spruce and cottonwood and some native oak and fir trees. There are approximately seventy-four trees on Lot 2 that will require removal. According to the report, twenty-four of the trees are in poor condition, forty- seven are in good to fair condition, and two small diameter trees are in excellent condition. Lot 3 contains a variety of tree types that are located on both the portion of the lot located immediately south of Lots 1 and 2, and on the lot's western portion adjacent to Seventh Street. There are approximately 226 trees on Lot 3 of which approximately 128 will require removal. Of the trees to be removed, thirty trees are in poor condition, ninety-two are in good to fair condition, and six are rated excellent. The group of trees located along the western portion of Lot 3 is in the overall best condition, and contribute most to the project site and the surrounding neighborhood. The trees in this area consist primarily of a mixture of spruce, aspen and cottonwood, with cottonwood being the most significant tree in the group. While density is high in some areas, and deadwood and structural flaws are evident in many individual trees, many of these trees are considered of high value, and can be pruned and thinned to ensure their retention following construction. The proposed development has been designed to avoid to the extent practical the existing trees in this area of the project site. 53 The existing trees on the upper portion of Lot 3 are located at the base of Shadow Mountain, and include the fringe area of the large native Douglas fir stand that covers the mountain above. Tree density is relatively high in this portion of Lot 3 with the exception of those areas where avalanche activity has either naturally thinned or denuded existing vegetation. As the Tree Survey Report indicates, the tree stand is generally healthy with its high density being the only potential negative attribute. The density of the stand has caused shading and individual tree competition resulting in less than optimal shape, taper and individual tree structure. The area affected by the proposed development, however, represents a very small percentage of the forested hillside and contains only a minimum number of its trees along its lower edge. In all, approximately 562 trees will need to be removed to accommodate the proposed development. As the Tree Survey Report indicates, many of these trees do not significantly contribute to the site or the surrounding neighborhood. Due to factors related primarily to placement and density, many of the trees are likely not sustainable as landscape features or as urban forest over the long term. While there are pockets of more valuable trees in certain areas, the overall loss of significant trees will not be considerable especially in relation to size of the project site and the proposed develop- ment's construction footprint. The trees along the southern boundary of Lots 1 and 2 offer a significant neighborhood benefit while the forest trees on the hillside above are visually significant for the community at large. The proposed development, however, will only effect a narrow band along the lower edge of the forest, and will likely cause little if any impact on the overall aesthetic or health of the stand as a whole. Assuming the Applicant were to pay the applicable mitigation fee for the removal of the trees in question, the Tree Survey Report indicates that the fee would total approximately $790,833.00. This amount, however, is based on a preliminary evaluation 54 of the trees in winter conditions, and changes in the amount based on a detailed analysis under more optimal conditions will likely occur. The amount of any fee mitigation payment will also be offset by the extensive landscaping to be installed within the project site. A tree removal permit based on a more detailed analysis of the trees that are proposed for removal and the project's final landscape plan will be submitted for the Parks Department's review in connection with the Applicant's Planned Development - Detailed Review application. As the Hopkins Avenue Improvements plan on the following page illustrates, the Applicant proposes to make significant improvements to the project's Hopkins Avenue streetscape. Proposed improvements will include a new streetscape planting design, an expanded 8.5 foot sidewalk, and a planting area with linear rain gardens. The planting area will vary in width from approximately 5.5 feet to six feet. The improvements will replace the dense spruce hedge that currently shields the project site from view with a more traditional and historically appropriate streetscape that will utilize regular spaced tree plantings. Proposed trees will likely include cottonwoods and/or ash which are found throughout the immediate neighborhood and the City. The proposed streetscape improvements are intended to create a more pleasant pedestrian environment and complementary neighborhood aesthetic. The new design will create transparency both from within the proposed development and from Hopkins Avenue. The proposed rain gardens will capture and cleanse stormwater from the sidewalk. Benches and bike stations will be located along the new sidewalk. Landscaping between the sidewalk and the buildings on Lots 1 and 2 will consist of simple plantings of shrubs and perennials in combination with various turf areas. Lots 1, 2 and 3 will be extensively landscaped. The proposed landscaping responds to and integrates the Shadow Mountain plant geography, including Colorado 55 01@1@ Â®1@1Â®101Â®10 J 1 1 Me. 1 Itt DESIGNWORKSHOP Landscape Architecture â€¢ Land Planning ------ ENHANCED CROSSWALK CE Urban Design â€¢ Tourism Planning NEWTHEE PLANTINGS<20'0.C ) - 1, 'I~~ co NEW CURBAND GUTTER I 120 East Main Street RAIN GARDEN IBELOW) All \ ta Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970)-925-8354 INTEGRATED BENCH SEATING Facsimile (970) 920-1387 - VIEW FROM RIGHT OF WAY INTO COURTYARD W. HOPKINS AVE. - VEN FROM RIGHT OF WAY - VIEW FROM RIGHT OF WAY . WWW.DESIGNWORKSHOP.COM TO SHADOW MOUNTAIN TO SHADOW MOUNTAIN, ~81 .t i . E ' . 1 3 -0.- *--1.----- . a .Â·- - 6-----L re,0.,t. A rei,qv=ur 4- . I ll#- ifl~; *Il u L PB'-I 11 /. 41- hes @ i :, 11 90 -211~~.- .fl ~ GENOACCE$ KNOCK DOWN BOLLARDS ~- PROPOSED WE CYCLE BIKE STATION \A ILJ 1# 1 1% \,2 ... 1 r/*t rY \ 4 11 .1 5 ID -_6- 4611, *. 1 1 11 + FL| 1 HOPKINS AVE. IMPROVEMENT PLAN NORTH 0 5 10Â· 2V ORIGINAL SCALE: 1Â·=1)-00Â· SCALE- 1'=10Â·-DÂ· â‚¬ PROPERTY .INE FRONT YARD SEm~CK - 91,4,1/ip.. EXISTING SPAUCE HEDGE ----7 REVISIONS ./W A - ISSUE DATE: 03 31 7016 \ -j66â‚¬!!~6~500- .4%4. ,-1 STREETTREE PLANTIO - r--- PROPOSED BUILDING 7 PROPERTY LINE t ~ ~1~~~~~~.~~~ ~~~ -~~~~~~~~~G~40ENNETAININGED(le . 1% 1"C,~ PEDESTRIAN ACCESS CROSSE -- FRONT~GE --5 07---- ~~ R-G-DENPLANT-BED -<21*61*k -iifill.ZIIIIII(IIA:GrrR / FRONT YARD SETBACK - p- ROADWRCENTERUNE . PARKING EDGE , -3 i#16/.Mill illihg..y. EX]STING BOULDER iâ€¢/Al.~ 1/ . / - .......EK - i / DRAWN MA REVIEWED- RWS 9 - - 9 r-- ROADMY CENTERUNE IF - . il PARK]NG EDGE - C.-=- ..r ./41./.piwil-LJ...m i ,-12 i r..-V / I. -Illp * ./p.-L~- - .....' ' 'Er. p- J PLANTING r../ 2.2 ......9.' AREA SIDEWALK AREA PAR<NG I ' 1 VEGETATED PEDESTRIAN TRAVEL TRAVEL il RAIN INFORMAL BUILDING OFF-STREET Tr 10* . M ' re ' 11Â· Â· 12' . FRONTAGE SIDEWALK H G~EN LANE LANE PARKING PROJECT NUMBER; 5191 1 1 U. ir or . 00 5 , g , .. 1~ 11 , 11. HOPKINS AVE. 5 leÂ·SON 2 IMPROVEMENTS ~ HOPKINS AVE. - EXISTING SECTION SCALE 140 HOPKINS AVE. - PROPOSED SECTION SIEEr r,LUUBER SCALE: 1-=4Â·Â·OÂ· S. 7TH STREET 39 0380dOUd SNI>idOH 193M 90Â£ ad / NOISIAIaanS 3nN3AV OOVbl0100 'N3dSV Spruce, Douglas fir and Quaking Aspen, into the project site. Three linear tree corridors will extend into Lot 1, restoring historic planting patterns and providing vegetated separations between the buildings. The removal of the existing spruce hedge which borders Hopkins Avenue will open up views to Shadow Mountain from both the adjacent streetscape and from the intersection of Main Street and Sixth Street. Extensive tree plantings will also occur on Lots 2 and 3 to help moderate the scale of the proposed buildings and to screen the rockfall/avalanche fencing on Lot 3. Existing mature trees along Seventh Street and the western edge of Lot 3 will be preserved where possible, and additional plantings of cottonwoods and willows will be installed along the existing irrigation ditch. As the Conceptual Landscape Plan on the following page illustrates, it is anticipated that over 500 new trees will be planted throughout the project site. These trees will help to offset the existing vegetation that is to be removed. The Applicant will make a cash-in-lieu payment to the City's Parks Department for any shortfall in the amount of the required mitigation. Any shortfall, and the monetary value of any remaining mitigation requirement, will be determined in connection with the Parks Department' s review of the proposed development' s final landscape plan which will be submitted with the Applicant's Planned Development - Detailed Review application. The final landscape plan will utilize regional hardscape materials in the construction of the project's walkways, terraces, and walls that are high quality; durable; contextually appropriate; and specifically detailed for their proposed use. Tree species and ornamental plant materials will be specified that will provide year-round visual interest including color, texture and pattern. Water consumption will be reduced through the use of smart irrigation systems and the specification of primarily native plantings. A comprehensive exterior lighting strategy incorporating dark-sky fixtures will be 57 @1@i@.@lÂ®lÂ®l@lÂ®l@ 1 --1-----_i U ~ 1 3 1 4- TREE PLANTING LEGEND DESIGNWORKSHOP ~ SYMBOL/NAME SIZE QTY. Landscape Architecture . Land Planning Urban Design â€¢ Tourism Planning 1 83' /1/ C 7 ' / \ DECIDUOUS STREET TREE 41" CALIPER 22 120 East Main Street 0 1 1 1 1 Of:q ZI Facsimile (970) 920-1387 t j Exact Species to De Determined, Likely Aspen, Colorado 81611 \ / Narrowleaf Cottonwood or Patmore Ash (970)-925-8354 i + / 21.7/; / QUAKING ASPEN I MULTI STEM 3- CALIPER 35 1.1 1 1 1 1---N 1 1 WWW.DESIGNWORKSHOPCOM 1 , h ~ TOTAL 160 0-33 1 1\\\..1 + 3.5- CALIPER 85 i mil 1 H. 1 - - 4" CALIPER 40 0 ~i ' 1 * # . 11 QUAKING ASPEN I SINGLE STEM r CALIPER 65 , 0:11 5 1 1 1 RESTORED STREET LANTINGS (SPACED 2/ON CENTER) AVENUE * N :1' I /1 5 1 h'-' - --7.6 p ,/ 0 3/ NJI. ~' .... A.J./ 4.J / 2 3.5" CALIPER 85 ~ L --7 ~ TOTAL i10 '1. - . -0-24% *D;- 3*- 44 /' 0 4" CALIPER 60 -6 --) " C 4% j>-:-9~Â·;%3;41616*r..6 I C# 5' SETBACK (TYP.) 0 272 55% S.1.- h 9 6 + 23 4 3 Â®g COLORADO SPRUCE 8' HEIGHT 5 . CD 4- 1 0 1* HOP/ONS 16' HEIGHT 20 @ 4 .2 .,-i,7. 1&.2â‚¬tf:" -33*1 -~:I...,V .E- 1\Â«f 1/1 2 12' HEIGHT 12 10' HEIGHT 8 -fj: :al~,- m.p '1:. rxvi.:~~..4~).7.- 14'HEIGHT 16 . y , --+ + 18'HEIGHT 21 LOT 1 I .....I=.~-9fl i.-I-~~% . < i;k~,3/ 20' HEIGHT 15 22' HEIGHT 8 24' HEIGHT 4 " - 114-Â·0 X?N-%21{~i--IQ~ Â· A ;, LE- 1 -1 - - 26'HEIGHT 1 L. - TOTAL 113 * UNDERSTORY SHRUBS AND PERENNIALS TO BE SELECTED -- 0 r: r.... ---â‚¬2*6~ ..9.. 14.. -9 . -=:t - IN FUTURE SUBMISSION . .....h2 or-72 Z I ./- - I ..Â·k.I: L . A *## I t... ./ . . O '. LBIC33*Â¥ - --" -r- -22. -2-.4144:~.-' - ~-~1*i I.Ii- 1- 4/3 xt-37 - 9 2 0.../ - 4./ . %92Â£=ia*9_ 1 -2 L 4 . lue4%* @ - 6.-Cal--1.5..27.- p -Ir,gual / /0 0 > 1 4 0 . -- 4 1 3.-1 - 0==AB*=- I Â· Â· - - 1- Do h- 1 -- r- = U) 1/ . :'23 .2, '. - =PÂ£/sl'/"/~. . . 1 .~~ 7. . \ -1, 6 -- . > 1.1.1 Â» IC:6 -~22*2.4 ~- - -4.,~: , my ' + / 4 - 2 ~ * ' 10 J \ X1.Â»Â·~-i-%--f .. , --- . 3 -&-1 7.4. -1 -- -- > 1.% 1 Â£-. =Â· * 1322'terzz. =- . - , t-k I &*. 4 1 -- - - r. Â¥ . - -7* .... i --F/&- I' ./A0-- I /=04% :,/.Â·2 - * .%4 f ./Â»44 1,- . ---- -- .~1. -1.... $223 . rCh AD-- .. -.. 0 64/ - (--117 LiP 1 TEr â€¢ 0-' Ch t --~' 97 3:k /7* r=.34%. + 1, .*F l ./ 3--::*14,.'Â·iÂ· i. _ 11 6 1" P 19 , -23. - - Lityer:. 736.23 .p l ROCKFALL FENCING (PROPOSED) $.- LOT * r =-- 6 - 0,~ VE@ 148 Â· i REVISIONS 1225â‚¬ - ---- - - i.+%-- ... â‚¬ 1 ISSUE DATE: 06 APR 2016 ./ .. 1 .0 / IMPROVED SURFACE r Â· *le s (ES m.* + , 0 - - FENCING ...# {PROPOSED) --* 1 - LOT 4 ----------- 1 @ --- -Ill--- --1 - ---- 1 \1 DRAWN: MA REVIEWED: RWS 1 1 ~~_ ~ ~ PROJECT NUMBER: 5191 CONCEPTUAL / el - + - LANDSCAPE / PLAN / l... B L I SHEET NUMBER NORTH 0 15 30 60Â· 1"=30'.0. SNI>IdOH OTBOUNDARY =======UÂ« OVM0100'NadSÂ¥ employed to minimize light pollution. To enhance human comfort, the project' s public spaces and amenities have been located in areas that will receive ample natural light and protection from winter winds. E. Public Amenity Pursuant to Section 26.575.030.B. of the Regulations, 25 percent of parcels located within the Lodge zone district when used for commercial, lodging and mixed-use development must comply with the City's public amenity requirements. As Lot 1 will contain a lodge/mixed-use development, 25 percent of its gross lot area must be retained as public amenity space. Lot 2 is exempt from the provision of public amenity space as it will be used entirely for residential purposes. No such provision is required on Lots 3 and 4 as no commercial, lodging or mixed-use development is proposed thereon, and Lot 4 is to be zoned Open Space. Based on Lot l's proposed gross lot area of 118,428 square feet, a minimum of 29,607 square feet of public amenity space is required. As the Public Amenity Diagram on the following page illustrates, approximately 17,151 square feet, or 14.5 percent, of Lot 1 complies with all of the design standards contained in Section 26.575.030.F. This on-site public amenity area is depicted as " Primary Areas" on the Diagram and includes those areas of Lot 1 which are open to view from Hopkins Avenue at pedestrian level. An additional 3,017 square feet on Lot 1 complies with all of the standards except Section 26.575.030.F.5., Grade Limitations, which requires that the public amenity space be no more than four feet above the existing grade of the adjacent street. This additional area is depicted on the Diagram as " Secondary Areas". Approximately 8,984 square feet, which is depicted as "Tertiary Areas", complies with all of the standards except the 59 e 1 @ l @ 0 td' L-fÂ«--~ L PUBLIC AMENITY DIAGRAM DESIGNWORKSHOP 0 0 1 Â® 1 @ j C Â«-1 U d ' /l , 5 1 Landscape Architecture . Land Planning Urban Design . Tourism Planning ON LOT AREAS 1 1/ l.2 4 0/ - LOT 1 Primary Areas 120 East Main Street 0 ---7 ~ 0. ~ ~r~:~ ~gned with City of Aspen Code) (970)-925-8354 Aspen, Colorado 81611 1 J:' I Facsimile (970) 920-1387 Secondary Areas - ~. (Areas aligned with City of Aspen Code, but above 4' from road) 44/ 3,017 sf WWW.DESIGNWORKSHOPCOM Tertiary Areas 1 1 1 111#1. 1 a"44 (Areas which provide additional public value) 8,948 sf -- 42*1 -I 1 fl TOTAL I 29,116 Square Feet 2. I - -- j '' 5Â·. OFF LOT AREAS 1/7 /1 7, - * L -I , E- LOT 2 (ALL RESIDENTIAL USE) 4 11 1 / Â· 8 M X Primary Areas 21- I '.).ows 4 .....lia,2 -1 ~ 5:~~~ligned with City of Aspen Code) / / i i ~. ~ - 3 AVENUE :*- r- + 4 9-246 1..94: : ..41211 \ 1 - Â· W<'i. 1 ' laijjlli Secondary Areas /1 11 (Areas aligned with City of Aspen Code, but above 4' from road) 1 -1 -2 5 //4/25 6,427 sf l \ 1/ 4 4 4 . - 4 Tertiary Areas / / 0 J'' , 11$ 2 1- . . - 1~- 1- 1 -771\--74-\Â«\\\.-- t- - - -~.~ funrhich provide additional public value) - / / ~ 0,42 #ft- - - -,?,eur0,44.. - ~h~\ 0.1 . 1 .A. li~'44 Â»Â«7 1,31*9:.J-,1-t:~. . * -7 LOT 3 U) - | Areas ZZ 7 i jotÂ«>54 (Areas aligned with City of Aspen Code) 2 0 C 3 11 & . 1-3,1 --- ~ 9,210 sf TERTIARY ' - r 4 1~ r ~-Â·M)1 L AREA t' 1,9 1- 4 i Ali 0, t 7//1//, Secondary Areas o. u) - f .Â· i i /5*552Â· (Areas aligned with City of Aspen Code, but above 4' from road) O> p 4 le. - 3,596 sf IE - ''.. 4 % 04 -<- - L- 7 Ter\jaw Areas 1- Do .1~1 1 1 1 . _ i (Areas which provide additional public value) r " - 1 20,982 SF U) J 11 1 .-AA -N - -- r 4 It . r 1 ' 3 ..0.2. -B ; LU U.1 U) i , tr - *' 1 4: i . I - RIGHT OF WAY 44 027Â¤,7 - I -* i 1 111'll'r Right of Way 10 J 65502/ 9,768 sp - 2 Z ;= TOTAL 173,735 Square Feet LU 2 1 ...#-2Â»4 i -r W j 1 1/1 j LOT2 , ~ ' '" ~W;~ 4 ! 1.---- AREC- r 4 1 t, , ' t 22 0321 09-0.7 li 4 64 ,/ 4 . 3 4 ~~ ~~~~~~~-=~-=~--- . 43 1 hndicatesViewconesfrom Public ROW Areas 0 . A ,//,If # L *Eco~ : ''Rel CO,w- 1- I ~ " UL-21.. / 444449 :,, e. 85001"D ~ 444499 1 1 5 ) --#> 4 4 1[ - -Â·"lla - ISSUE DATE: 06 APR 2016 ==ZEÂ»=4= --2 39/ - _ REVISIONS ..,--9. -- ....444. ......6.'.- Â«=2*R /4 A - -861%~BAA'~ -* *CON=. ..7264 - - 44Er, LOT 4 - - ---- e \1/ - 1 ./ DRAWN: M,A REVIEWED: RWS l 1 / 1 --- L + + PROJECT NUMBER: 5191 - 0 - -- ./. / --. PUBLIC el'' -----Ill--- AMENITY / + - DIAGRAM / / I-. ~ 11 1 EnNUMBER NORTH 0 15' 30' 60' 1.=30'-0- 4REET 00980103 'NadSV requirement that the public amenity space be open to view from the street. While these two additional areas technically cannot be counted, they nonetheless provide attractive environments which enhance the visual appearance of the project and the enjoyment of both guests, owners and the general public. As the Public Amenity Diagram illustrates, Primary, Secondary and Tertiary public amenity areas are also provided off-site on Lots 2 and 3 which further contribute to the project's visual appearance when viewed from Hopkins Avenue and/or - the proposed trail at the rear of the project site. The "Primacy Areas" on these two lots (i.e., areas that meet all public amenity standards) total approximately 11,435 square feet. As discussed previously, the Applicant proposes to make significant improvements to the Hopkins Avenue streetscape, an area encompassing approximately 9,768 square feet. When combined with the approximately 17,151 square feet of public amenity space on Lot 1, and the approximately 11,435 square feet on Lots 2 and 3 meeting all of the applicable standards, a total of 38,354 square feet, or 32.4 percent of public amenity space will be provided when the project is viewed in its entirety. Pursuant to Section 26.575.030.C.2., the P&Z may accept the off-site provision of public amenity space in connection with Commercial Design Review. Given the Applicant's proposed improvements to the Hopkins Avenue streetscape, and the off- site public amenity space meeting applicable requirements that will be provided on Lots 2 and 3, approval is requested to allow inclusion of these areas in the calculations of Lot 1' s required public amenity space. F. Transportation In order to assess the potential impacts of the proposed development on the surrounding roadway infrastructure, a Level Two Transportation Impact Analysis 61 ("TIA") was undertaken by LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. (see Exhibit 7, Appendix C). The LSC analysis concluded that the Applicant's implementation of various Transportation Demand Management ("TDM") and Multi-Modal Level of Service ("MMLOS") measures will mitigate approximately 118 vehicle trips which exceeds the proposed development's total trip generation of approximately 103 trips. The Applicant will agree to condition the project's approval upon implementation of the TDM and MMLOS measures in the LSC analysis. While the specific measures to be implemented are discussed in detail in the analysis, several MMLOS measures warrant particular attention. As the Sixth Street Improvements plan on the following page illustrates, the Applicant will install a new detached sidewalk on the west side of Sixth Street to facilitate pedestrian access from the project site to Main Street and the Roaring Fork Transit Authority's ("RFTA") bus stops located thereon. The proposed 5.5 foot sidewalk, which will be constructed within the existing right-of-way, will connect to an existing sidewalk that currently extends from Main Street to the alley in Block 19 of the Aspen Townsite. The new sidewalk will include a eight foot landscape buffer. In connection with the installation of the new sidewalk, the Applicant will work with the appropriate City staff to provide a new protected pedestrian crossing at the Sixth Street/Main Street intersection. Either a pedestrian hybrid beacon or a Rapid- Rectangular-Flashing-Beacon will be installed to facilitate access to the RFTA transit stops on the north side of Main Street. In addition to the above two MMLOS measures, the Applicant proposes to commit to the implementation of a direct transit link between the project site and the City' s downtown area. This link would supplement RFTA' s extensive Main Street service. While the proposed development could easily implement an on-demand shuttle 62 @I@I@ @l@l@lÂ®lÂ®lÂ® CONNECTS TO EXISTING - SiDa',ALK TO PROVIDEE ALLEY DESIGNWORKSHOP PEDESTRIAN ACCESS TO MAIN STREET 1 1 4 1, I Landscape Architecture . Land Planning Urban Design â€¢ Tourism Planning , - 120 East Main Street *Ak<!Ad:Elit-/1/194* - Aspen. Colorado 81611 1 1 di - *94:.26. (970)-925-8354 Facsimile (970) 920-1387 PARALLEL PARKING . W WW.D E S I GN W O RK S HOP.COM PLANTING SWALE - EXISTINGDITCH - ~ ~ < ., PROPOSED SIDEWALK m f \ 09 - . P .4 0,; L ' EXISTING COTTONWOOD TREES 7//1, - 1. -I. 3 : 4 . 47 - 1 \ \ ..1 -54 = < feff w/Pla*,t I *9 11* 00 1 ' CO 1 1 RELOCATED DITCH GATE ~0--- PROPERTYLINE ..1. f F MIE.4 PROPOSED CROSSWALK ; EXISTING COTION#000 -TREE -- L ' J ~HAW= folidiop r-7 EXISTING m - ./ r-EXISTENG DITCH ~ 3.-1,L-/- / O.01 0 = r....' 60 69-/..."d P. W. HOPI<IN~Â¥E~ dia .1 . 4 121 .FtegMe-~ 1=1 -4 1.A Â£. *& */b & 0- V .4 1 'S. 1 ag O I. fille/3.94... 1/ d ----Au- rferrect r,Fr- v 72.5 ASPHALT W10711 SECTION - 03' E rr-'Cr L - ... d. 4 - ~ S. 6TH STREET - EXISTING SECTION SCALE 1Â·=4.4- ' /1- - . 24% 1. 0 1 /4 4Â» 3 ...374' a- 4 gr' 41~.m-Â¥1 -46# ;3521* â€ž '74 .Le .' - iam - . l.14*94 11 ..'. 1176 n / 1 4.. - carillillillitiwiliews/+)0225,/:I'%' *.#1 4 ... 4 ,- ..i - ISSUE DATE: 05 AP' 201/ . 0 1Â©24 2 - 1 ~~34~~ REVISIONS F4**02'Rek ___ ____ 0 -/141 1 at.ir'4â€¢ ~-6 , 4 '19 , D. $ . - â€¢17 ./1. I -I (0 i /~AM~m-- - ~~. PROPERTY UNE - - .Op/fib EXISTING COTTONWOOD TREEE r- ROWCENTER.11â‚¬ ' DRAWN: MA REVIEWED: RWS - Am. .10. - EXISTING Â·. I J K FI- =i *-111 / a DITCH I.#-- ../* L -.4 21 1 I- 21. r..905*m*=~4*vATAH*~4#.54*///*415WN 1=1 \ PROJECT NUMBER: 5191 , 7, 1 I1-"4'= 3 S. 6TH STREET â‚¬ . 32.5- .Â·,critÂ·LT v.,Dn i 1 7=1 1 IMPROVEMENTS C11 S. 6TH STREET IMPROVEMENT PLAN ORIGINAL SCALEÂ· 1%10'+00- 20 /'4) S. 6TH STREET - PROPOSED SECTION SHEET NUMBER 5 10 SCALE: 1-=10Â·-0 SNI>idOH 193M 901 IAIDanS 3nN3AV 910100'NadSÂ¥ service for project guests and residents, it would not provide a substantial benefit to the Community at large. Instead, the Applicant proposes to implement a high-frequency shuttle service that will be open to the public and coordinated with RFTA's transit program. As currently envisioned, the new shuttle service would consist of the following. A seasonal summer and winter transit route would be implemented and funded by the lodge operator. The proposed route would consist of bi-directional travel along Hopkins Avenue from the project site (turning around in the cul-de-sac) along with a clockwise loop downtown consisting of Spring Street, Durant Avenue and Monarch Street. The proposed route map is depicted on the following page. Assuming a round trip route length of two miles and an modest average speed of twelve miles per hour, transit service could be provided every ten minutes on a continuous basis. At this frequency, passengers would likely simply wait at a designated transit stop for service. â€¢ A small van containing ten to fifteen seats would be used. Optimally, this would be an electric vehicle. Two vehicles would be purchased to provide backup and to allow mid-day recharging is necessary. â€¢ Real-time location information could be provided through the RFTA Bus Tracker application. A separate application could be provided for lodge guests and the fractional unit owners. The application would allow guests and owners to make specific requests for pickup, allowing the driver to double back along the route when possible to improve passenger convenience and to allow pickup confirmation. â€¢ Given the low traffic volumes on West Hopkins Avenue, passengers could simply flag down the vehicle at any location. Signed stops could potentially be provided if desired which would help to increase public awareness of the service, particularly among guests at other lodging properties along the route. On the route's streets in the downtown core, the shuttle would serve all existing RFTA stops. â€¢ The service would be "branded" as part of the City's existing transit services. As such, it would be included in printed maps and brochures and on City and RFTA web sites. To the general public, it would look and feel like any other transit route. As part of the comprehensive system, the transit vehicle would have convenient access to Rubey Park. 64 ~~,'6~'*Â«4Â·44*FLdiA 93'~- P.' t' j.l- . . 1 ' rd' fi j tÂ¥ 3 ' Â¢4.;,t' 4 7 ..AÂ· 1 S. - . Nh4.X.j'<3 4*Â·~+wpÂ»*goÂ».:+jr shÂ·*>07>2:Â·:1~i., Â·ig*Â« '*.....4/...Â» .I , ~ :I.t#*/ M!,Â·'- 4~ ~~~,h~. - 3 : &1&1,4 , 1 7 1 rit '.1 /2. 1 2'.4 & .9 ed .2/2 %$3 . 2 . . 4- , c./ -y Â· - p.â€¢ 25 -- .,V . -#<8 .- Â·4~~~, 1r f# %1.* 4 . * 46.~>j 4. , *91~~~41~q~~ ,~4~' x<~4* 41, .7,i?t,-144,4 1>4' iw,~Â·.Â» 1 ~,1 ' 1.Z 21 it'. Â¥ (D Â», ! I , , m + 7 I " zot? Riti:Tilipir Tmpill e-il//fil'ABIR/1,7 1440#/1#/ 0/ , - f 1..1,2 4:t,i.:.2 - /4*L , ..4 *I.' - ertÂ£% t. I I m~ ..1,-- .'ll'.-IWI. I. + Fe,a f.., illillillillillillillillillilillilillilmlizilitili6ll jiftilenttli 4 37 - . 4 - i ~ Ye, .,- 141.~ ... ..p:'dof.LF# Ii,le'l,rEL,ki~,7,/1/ 1//m~*//M --....%- .-.."I.I---1,-,1,4.4..plir-, ,. *145-* . -- r 2 . 'd .*"a#:gri ..i' 91 '1.Â¢~ - ; 1 . . ' CY'| 9 Vt, â€¢12 1 239 - 44*fite lc'*966*1666:Z%TATA/6/321/4/6ilpilimllhimid#Zilimmilwifil Figure 7: Proposed Hopkins , b.* .0 (2#111",IEieiG'ill.... allpm'll:'ll/0//Il//"/ell *I#All#*AL/maL Ir~4.Â·Ill.., D.-Â» UÂ». Shuttle Transit Route '7 1, d p:4 Â· 1. . 01 1 ; 14Â·34. . . 0 4. . , t C.<; al../ 14 r 3.1 , . *4 1 ..4.. I -- â€¢ Winter service would be provided from Thanksgiving day to approximately the third Sunday in Easter. Summer service would run from approximate- ly the second Saturday in June through the second Sunday in September. In both seasons, service would be provided from 7:30 AM to 10:30 PM. If desirable, the lodge operator could also operate the service in the off-seasons or beyond these hours for , guest/owner transportation purposes. â€¢ Drivers would be required to have a Commercial Drivers License which would help to ensure a high level of professionalism. Drivers would be required to attend classes in appropriate ways to accommodate passengers with disabilities. â€¢ The lodge operator would be responsible for operating the service consistent with City standards including driver appearance and conduct, vehicle cleanliness, etc., and for keeping ridership records for reporting purposes. â€¢ Finally, the service vehicles could limited to a specific speed limit to ensure compatibility with bicycle and pedestrian traffic along Hopkins Avenue. The proposed privately funded and operated Hopkins Avenue shuttle service, in combination with the numerous additional TDM and MMLOS measures to be undertaken by the Applicant, is expected to significantly reduce the impact of the automobile on both the immediate neighborhood and on the Community's overall roadway infrastructure. It should be noted that the LSC Transportation Impact Analysis determined that the proposed development will degrade the worst movement at the Main Street/Sixth Street intersection from Level of Service ("LOS") E to LOS F during the AM peak hour. 1 During the PM peak hour, the worst movement will continue to operate at LOS F with an increase in average vehicular delay time. Similarly, the worst movement at the Main Street/Fifth Street intersection would degrade from LOS D to LOS E during both the AM and PM peak hours. According to City standards, LOS D, E and F may be acceptable for left turns or minor street unsignalized movements. However, in instances where the existing LOS is less than LOS C (e.g., the Main Street/Sixth Street and Main Street/Fifth 66 Street intersections), mitigation should be provided to maintain the existing LOS and not degrade it further. As discussed in the TIA, one potential option for addressing the degraded level of service at the Main Street/Sixth Street intersection would be to reconfigure the median striping along Main Street between Sixth and Seventh Streets to provide a two- way left turn lane. This would allow northbound drivers turning left from Sixth Street onto Main Street to make a two-stage left turn movement (i.e., first into the median and then into a gap in the westbound traffic stream). With this striping modification, the TIA indicates that the Main Street/Sixth Street intersection would operate at a worst movement LOS D during the AM peak hour and at LOS E in the PM peak hour. These changes in the intersection' s level of service represent a significant improvement over both existing conditions and the degraded LOS that will occur as a result of the proposed development. The Applicant will work with the City and/or CDOT staff to pursue the proposed restriping in more detail. No mitigation is proposed for the Main Street/Fifth N Street intersection as the TIA indicates that the project will increase its peak hour traffic by less than three percent. G. Utilities and Drainage As the attached Engineering Report indicates (see Exhibit 10, Appendix B), all required utilities are available in the immediate site area or can be extended to serve the proposed development. Domestic water will be provided from one or both of the two existing water mains located in Hopkins Avenue. Existing service taps will be abandoned at the mains in accordance with the Water Department' s standards and new taps installed as may be required. The number of taps and their locations will be based on the number of water entry rooms and meters that will be required to efficiently distribute potable water and fire flows to the proposed buildings. Sopris Engineering is 67 currently working with the Aspen Fire District to determine the adequacy of the existing hydrants in the immediate site area for fire protection purposes. Additional hydrants will be installed by the Applicant in the event required. While an ability to serve letter has been requested from the Water Department based on the project' s estimated water demand, no response has been received to date. Sanitary sewer service to the proposed development will be provided by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District via connections to the existing sewer main in Hopkins Avenue. The District has indicated that there is a downstream constraint within - the existing sewer system between First and Fourth Streets. Improvements to this existing sewer segment will be undertaken and paid for by the Applicant in the event required. The ACSD has also indicated that the District has sufficient wastewater collection and treatment capacity to the serve the project. Their ability to serve letter is attached to the Engineering Report. All shallow utilities (i.e., Holy Cross Energy, Comcast Cable, Century Link Telephone, and Source Gas) have indicated that service can be provided to the proposed development. Ability to serve letters from these utilities are also attached to the Engineering Report. A Conceptual Utility Plan is attached to the Report as Exhibit B which depicts approximate locations for the various utility connections. A more detailed utility plan will be prepared based on further discussions with the various utility providers and included in the Applicant's Planned Development - Detailed Review application The project site is located within Drainage System 3 as described in the City's Surface Drainage Master Plan. Drainage System 3 currently consists of street curb and gutter, roadside ditches, and a network of storm sewer pipes. The primary storm water interceptor is located in Garmisch Street and includes lateral lines that extend 68 along Main Street, Hopkins Avenue, and other City roadways. The main interceptor terminates within the Jennie Adair wetland water quality treatment area. Stormwater is routed from there to the Roaring Fork River. While the Garmisch Street interceptor is potentially undersized, the Engineering Department has indicated that they are considering upgrading the interceptor as a capital improvement within the next few years. As the Engineering Report indicates, Sopris Engineering is considering two options that would permit the conveyance of storm water runoff from Shadow Mountain -~- and the proposed development to the City's storm sewer system. Anticipated improvements include an extension of either the Hopkins Avenue or Main Street lateral storm sewer to the project site. In addition, a bypass drainage system is being evaluated that would intercept runoff from Shadow Mountain and safely route captured storm water to the proposed extended storm sewer system in Hopkins Avenue. These storm water collection and conveyance to an extended storm sewer system options are discussed in more detail in the Engineering Report. On--site storm water mitigation infrastructure will include water quality treatment facilities and an extensive system of storm pipes, swales and inlets. On-site detention will not be required as runoff will be directed to the City's storm sewer system. The on-site drainage system will include the integration of water quality treatment "Best Management Practices" which will likely consist of a combination of green roofs, bio- retention cells, and sand filter treatment vaults. more detailed discussion of these mitigation measures is contained in the Engineering Report. The design of the proposed on-site storm water mitigation infrastructure will be addressed in detail in the Applicant' s Planned Development - Detailed Review application. Sopris Engineering, however, has indicated that a storm water management and treatment system can be designed that meets the requirements of the City's Urban Runoff Management Plan. 69 H. Development Data The proposed development's lodge, fractional ownership, commercial and free market residential components on Lot 1 comply will all of the dimensional requirements of the L, Lodge zone district with the exception of its minimum lodge unit density requirement. A minimum of one or more lodge units per 500 square feet of gross lot area is required in order to take advantage of the district's increased height and floor area provisions. The proposed lodge unit density on Lot 1 is one unit per 745 square feet. While the amount of on-site public amenity space on Lot 1 is less than the minimum required, the Applicant proposes to include the project's significant amount of off-site amenity space to meet the applicable requirement. The AH, Affordable Housing zone district's dimensional requirements are established in connection with the approval of a Planned Development - Project review application. The OS, Open Space zone district contains no dimensional requirements. The proposed development's dimensional requirements are summarized in Table 5, below. Table 5 DEVELOPMENT DATA Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 1. Gross Lot Area/Proposed Annexation Parcelsl Parcel 1 (Parcel ID No. 273512494001) Acres 1.96 Square Feet 85,182 Parcel 2 (Parcel ID No. 273512494002) Acres 1.30 Square Feet 56,797 Parcel 3 (Parcel ID No. 273512400001) Acres 3.35 Square Feet 145,926 70 Total Acres 6.61 Square Feet 287,905 2. Minimum Required Gross Lot Area (Sq. Ft.) Lodge Zone District 3,000 AH Zone District Established via PD Open Space Zone District No Requirement E 3. Gross Lot Area/Proposed Subdivision 287,905 Lots (Sq. Ft.)2 Lot 1 118,428 Lot 2 24,906 Lot 3 56,460 Lot 4 88,111 4. Net Lot Area/Proposed Subdivision Lots (Sq. Ft.)3 Lot 1 94,101 Lot 24 16,521 Lot 3 Not Applicable Lot 4 Not Applicable 5. Existing County Zoning Parcels 1 and 2 R-15/PUD, Medium Density Residential/ Planned Unit Development Parcel 3 R-15 Medium Density Residential 6. Proposed City Zoning Lot 1 L/PD, Lodge/Planned Development Lot 2 AH/PD, Affordable Housing/ Planned Development Lot 3 L/PD, Lodge/Planned Development Lot 4 OS, Open Space 7. Existing Development 2 Free Market Residential Units 8. Proposed Development Lot 1 71 Lodge Units I 18 Keys 118 Pillows 236 Fractional Ownership Units 22 Keys 41 Pillows 112 Free Market Residential Units 4 Commercial Net Leasable Area 11,647 Lot 2 Affordable Housing 23 9. Minimum Required Net Lot Area/Dwelling Unit (Sq. Ft.) Lodge Zone District Lodge No Requirement Multi-Family Residential 3,000 AH Zone District Established via PD 10. Minimum Required Net Lot Area (Sq. Ft.) Lot 1 Free Market Residential 12,000 Lot 2 Affordable Housing Established via PD 11. Minimum Required Lot Width (Feet) Lodge Zone District 30 AH Zone District Established via PD Open Space Zone District No Requirement 12. Proposed Lot Width (Feet) Lot 1 478.35 Lot 2 50.01 Lot 35 180.73 Lot 4 Per Subdivision Plat 72 13. Minimum Required Setbacks (Feet) Lodge Zone District Front Yard 5 Side Yards 5 Rear Yards 5 AH Zone District Established via PD 14. Proposed Minimum Setbacks (Feet)6 Lot 1 Front Yard 5 Side Yards 5 Rear Yard 5 Lot 2 Front Yard 13 East Side Yard 15 West Side Yard 21 Rear Yard 10 Lot 3 Not Applicable Lot 4 Not Applicable 15. Minimum Required Trash/Recycle Area (Sq. Ft.) Lodge7 400 Free Market Residentials 120 Affordable Housing8 140 16. Proposed Trash/Recycle Area (Sq. Ft.)9 Lodge 2,348 Free Market Residential 504 Affordable Housing 155 17. Maximum Allowable Height (Feet) Lodge Zone Districtio 36 AH Zone District Established via PD 18. Proposed Height (Feet)11 Â£ 40 73 19. Minimum Required Public Amenity Space (Percent) Lot 1 Percent 25 Square Feet 29,607 Lot 212 Not Applicable 20. Proposed Public Amenity Space 13 Percent 32.4 Square Feet 38,354 21. Maximum Allowable Floor Area (Sq. Ft.) Lot 1 Cumulative @ 2.5:1 235,252 Lodge/Fractional Units @2:1 188,202 Commercial Uses @ 0.25:114 23,525 Free Market Residential Units15 6,245 AH Zone District Established via PD 22. Proposed Floor Area (Sq. Ft.) Lot 1 Cumulative 181,974 ' Lodge/Fractional Units 163,053 Commercial Uses 3,903 Free Market Residential Units16 6,245 Non-Unit Area 8,773 Lot 2 Affordable Housing Units 24,018 23. Maximum Allowable Free Market Residential 1,500 Net Livable Area/Unit (Sq. Ft.) Lot 117 1,500 24. Proposed Net Livable/Plet Leasable Areas (Sq. Ft.)18 Lot 1 74 Lodge/Fractional Units 109,238 Commercial Uses 11,647 Free Market Residential Units 6,002 Lot 2 Affordable Housing Units 15,680 25. Minimum Required Parking Spaces 119 Lodge Units @ 0.5 Spaces/Unit 80 Commercial Uses @ 1 Space/ 12 1,000 Sq.Ft. Free Market Residential Units @ 4 1 Space/Unit Affordable Housing Units @ 23 1 Space/Unit 26. Proposed Parking Spaces 133 Lodge/Fractional Units 80 Commercial Uses 12 Free Market Residential Units 4 Affordable Housing Units 37 1 Per the Annexation Map prepared by Sopris Engineering, LLC dated June 16, 2015. 2 Per the draft Subdivision Plat prepared by Sopris Engineering, LLC attached hereto as Exhibit 1, Appendix D. 3 Per the Slope Analysis Map prepared by Sopris Engineering, LLC dated March 15, 2016 and attached hereto as Exhibit 1, Appendix C. 4 Section 26.575.020.C. of the Regulations limits the total reduction attributable to a property' s slopes to 25 percent. 5 Per Section 26.575.020.B., Lot 3's lot width is measured adjacent to Seventh Street. 6 Measured to the closest building face and rounded to nearest foot. 1 Per Section 12.10.040.A.a. of the Aspen Municipal Code. Per Sections 12.10.050.A.a. and b. of the Aspen Municipal Code. 75 9 Trash/recycles areas are located on parking Level 1 and are depicted on the floor plan thereof. 10 Increasable to 40 feet via Commercial Design Review. 11 Measured to the top-most portion of the building from the lower of natural or finished grade. 12 Pursuant to Section 26.575.030.B. of the Regulations, development consisting entirely of residential uses is exempt from Public Amenity requirements. 13 Consists of 17,151 square feet on Lot 1, 11,435 square feet on Lots 2 and 3, and 9,768 square feet within the adjacent Hopkins Avenue streetscape. 14 May be increased to 0.5:1 via Special Review. 15 Pursuant to Section 26.710.190.D.11.a.5) of the Regulations, the project's maximum allowable free market residential floor area is limited to 5 percent of its total lodge and affordable housing net livable area. 16 Includes its pro-rata share of the project's lodge, fractional ownership and commercial non-unit space. 17 May be increased to 2,000 square feet via the extinguishment of a Historic Transferrable Development Right Certificate. 18 Per the Net Livable/Net Leasable Area Calculation Diagrams attached hereto as Exhibit 4, Appendix C. IV. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS The proposed development is subject to the City's Planned Development regulations and various provisions of its growth management quota system. A rezoning and the receipt of Subdivision, Conditional Use, 8040 Greenline Review, Commercial Design Review, and Residential Design Review approval are also required. As noted previously, the Applicant requests that the review process be modified to provide the City Council with final approval authority for all review requirements for which the P&Z currently has sole responsibility. Each of these review and approval requirements is addressed in the following sections of this application. 76 A. Planned Development - Project Review The Applicant proposes to develop the project site as a Planned Development pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 26.445 0 f the Regulations and the dimensional requirements of the L, Lodge and AH, Affordable Housing zone districts. Pursuant to Section 26.445.050, an application for Planned Development - Project Review approval must comply with the following review standards. Compliance with Adopted Regulatory Plans. The proposed development complies with applicable adopted regulatory plans. To the best of the Applicant's knowledge there are no adopted regulatory plans that require compliance. 2. Development Suitability. The proposed Planned Development prohibits development on land unsuitable for development because of natural or man-made hazards affecting the property including flooding, mudflow, debris flow, fault ruptures. landslides, rock or soil creep, rock falls, rock slides, mining activity including mine waste deposit, avalanche or snowslide areas, slopes in excess of 30 percent, and any other natural or man-made hazard or condition that could harm the health, safety, or welfare of the community. As noted previously, portions of the project site are subject to potential rockfall and avalanche hazards which originate in the upper reaches of the Adjusted Gramiger Parcel. The extent of the hazards and the feasibility of effectively mitigating them have been analyzed by Art Mears, P.E. and Chris Wilbur, P.E. As their Rockfall and Avalanche Hazard Assessment report concludes (see Exhibit 9, Appendix B), the kinetic impact energies of a potential rockfall and/or a Blue Zone avalanche will be relatively low in the area where the proposed buildings on Lot 1 are located. As recommended, the mapped Red Zone avalanche area has been completely avoided. To mitigate these energies, the report recommends the installation of a rockfall fence which will arrest both the design rockfall event and the design avalanche. The fence, the 77 specific design of which will be addressed in detail in the Applicant' s Planned Development - Detailed Review application, will be installed on Lot 3 above the proposed trail and Buildings A, B and C. The rockfall/avalanche fence will consist of a specially designed cable net barrier which will reduce avalanche runout distances and stop rocks above their natural runout. The fence, which will be designed and installed in accordance with the consultants' recommendations, will effectively change the project site's rockfall and avalanche boundaries and, as stated ill the report, provide a high level of protection for the project's buildings, their occupants and persons outdoors. The report's recommenda- tions with respect to such matters as window placement, etc. will be strictly adhered to in the ongoing design and engineering of the proposed development. It should be noted that similar fences have been approved and installed above the neighboring Little Ajax Condominiums and within the Little Cloud Subdivision. The project site's potential rockfall/avalanche hazards do not impact Lot 2 and the affordable housing structure proposed thereon. To the best of the Applicant' s knowledge, the project site is not subject to flooding, debris flow, fault ruptures or landslides. While the presence of mine waste deposits, if any, are believed to be minimal, any such areas will be removed in connection with the excavation required to accommodate the proposed subgrade garage. A soils analysis will be provided with the Applicant's Planned Development - Detailed Review application. In the event required, a disposal plan for any mine waste will be provided therewith. While development will occur in some areas of the project site containing slopes greater than 30 percent, excavation in these areas will not result in the creation of a man-made hazard. 3. Site Planning. The site plan is compatible with the context and visual character of the area. In meeting this standard, the following criteria shall be used. 78 a) The site plan responds to the site's natural characteristics and physical constraints such as steep slopes, vegetation, and any natural or man- made hazards and allows development to blend in or enhance with said features. The proposed Site Development Plan locates the majority of development on the project site's existing flatter areas. A portion of Building A's east wing, and portions of the ground and second floors of Buildings C and D, nestle into the base of Shadow Mountain and will require the excavation of a portion thereof. Excavated areas, however, will be regraded and landscaped such that the adjacent slope will appear to naturally descend into the project site. The proposed trail is located on the hillside immediately above the rear of the buildings and below the proposed rockfall/avalanche fence on Lot 1. While a significant amount of existing vegetation will require removal to accommodate the proposed development, extensive revegetation is proposed that will help to effectively blend the project into the Shadow Mountain landscape. b) The project preserves important geologic features, mature vegetation, and structures or features of the site that have historic, cultural, visual, or ecological importance or contribute to the identity of the town. The project site' s most significant natural characteristic consists of the Douglas fir stand that is located within the upper portion of Lot 3 and on the Shadow Mountain hillside on Lot 4. While a number o f trees will require removal from this portion of Lot 3, the area affected by the proposed development is a vary small percentage of the forested hillside. As the Tree Survey Report indicates, the project will effect only a narrow band along the lower edge of the forest, the removal of which is expected to have little if any adverse impact on the overall aesthetic or health of the forest as a whole. No trees will be removed on Lot 4. c) Buildings are oriented to public streets and are sited to reflect the neighborhood context. Buildings and access ways are arranged to allow effective emergency, maintenance and service vehicle access. 79 The proposed development's buildings are oriented to Hopkins Avenue and are sited appropriately given the size of the project site. Emergency vehicle access is provided via the internal cul-de-sac on Lot 1 and the two access lanes located on Lots 2 and 3. Maintenance and service vehicle access will be provided via the garage entrance beneath Building D and accommodated within the project's subgrade parking 5 garage. 4. Dimensions. AR dimensions, including density, mass and height, shall be established during the Project Review. A development application may request variations to any dimensional requirements of Title 26, Land Use Regulations. In meeting this standard, consideration shall be given to the following criteria. The proposed development's lodge, fractional ownership, commercial and free market residential components on Lot 1 comply with all of the dimensional requirements of the Lodge zone district with the exception of its minimum lodge unit density requirement. The project's lodge unit density of one unit per 745 square feet of gross lot area exceeds the district' s minimum requirement of one unit per 500 square feet. As a result, a variation from this requirement will be required. While the amount of on-site public amenity space on Lot 1 is less than the minimum required, the Applicant proposes to include the project's significant amount of off-site amenity space to meet the applicable requirement. The Affordable Housing zone district's dimensional require- ments are established in connection with the approval of this Planned Development - Project review application. Pursuant to Section 26.575.020.E.5.k) of the Regulations, uncovered porches, landscape terraces, slabs, patios, walks, landscape walls, retaining walls, steps and similar features are allowed within required setbacks provided they do not exceed thirty inches vertically above or below natural grade or finished grade, whichever is more restrictive. Given the relative complexity of the Site Development Plan and its associated 80 landscape improvements, various such features likely do not comply with the thirty inch rule. A variation from this requirement is requested for such features located within the project's internal setbacks. All such features located within the project's external setbacks will comply with the thirty inch rule. The specific features which will require a variation, and their locations within the Site Development Plan, will be identified in the Applicant' s Planned Development - Detailed Review application. a) There exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such variations. The stated overall theme of the Aspen Area Community Plan ("AACP") is to "preserve and improve the elements of the Aspen Area that make it such an attractive place to live and a compelling place to visit'. More specifically the AACP further states that the Community should "replenish our lodging inventory to encourage a diverse visitor base". The replenishment of the Community's lodging inventory is essential to the sustainability of Aspen' s visitor-based economy. Approval of the requested variation in the proposed development's required minimum lodge unit density will result in a more appropriately scaled project that will help to replenish the Community' s lodging inventory. b) The proposed dimensions represent a character suitable for and indicative of the primary uses of the project. The proposed development' s minimum lodge unit density represents a character suitable for and indicative of the primary uses of the project. Lot 1 will contain a gross lot area of approximately 2.7 acres. Compliance with the Lodge zone district' s minimum density requirement of one lodge unit per five hundred square feet of gross lot area would require approximately 237 lodge units. A lodge project of this size would be approximately 50 percent larger than that which is proposed. A reduction 81 in the minimum required density is appropriate in that it results in a smaller project that is more appropriate for the project site. It should be noted that the current lodge unit density standard and its appropriateness for large parcels was addressed by COMDEV in Ordinance No. 19, Series of 2014 which was subsequently rescinded by the City Council. While there was widespread Community objection to various parts of the Ordinance, there was little, if any, discussion regarding the lodge density standard. The issue that COMDEV sought to address was the number of lodge units that would be required on larger parcels in order to meet the minimum density requirement, and the scale and appropriateness of the resulting projects. Ordinance No. 19 reduced the density requirement to one lodge unit per 1,500 square feet for parcels of one acre or greater. If applied to the proposed development, the minimum number of lodge units required to meet the standard would be approximately seventy-nine units. It is unfortunate that this revision was lost when the Ordinance was rescinded. If available today, the project's density of one unit per 745 square feet of gross lot area would easily comply. c) The project is compatible with or enhances the cohesiveness or distinctive identity of the neighborhood and surrounding development patterns, including the scale and massing of nearby historic or cultural resources. Existing development in the immediate site area includes various single- family and duplex residences, and several multi- family apartment and condominium buildings. The majority of these structures are located across from the project site and adjacent to Hopkins Avenue with additional residential development located to the west of the project site and adjacent to Seventh Street. The Little Ajax affordable housing complex abuts the eastern end of the site. While the single-family and duplex structures are limited to one or two stories, several o f the apartment and condominium buildings, including the Little Ajax complex, contain three story elements. The new Boomerang 82 Lodge, which is to be constructed adjacent to Hopkins Avenue between Fourth and Fifth Streets, will also be a multi-story structure. The proposed Boomerang Lodge is only one of numerous lodging operations that historically have bene located in the Community's residential neighbor- hoods. Additional significant examples include the Aspen Meadows Resort, the Gant Condominiums, the St. Moritz Lodge, and the new Aspen Club fractional ownership project, all of which contribute to the distinctive identity of the neighborhoods in which they are located. The proposed development continues this historic development pattern. There are no historic or cultural resources in the immediate vicinity of the project site. d) The number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the probable number of cars to be operated by those using the proposed development and the nature of the proposed uses. The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed develop- ment, and the potential for joint use of common parking may be considered when establishing a parking requirement. Sufficient parking meeting the requirements of Section 26.525.030 of the Regulations will be provided oil-site to accommodate the proposed development's lodge, fractional ownership, commercial, free market residential, and affordable housing components. As discussed in Section III.F. of this application, the Applicant has committed to an extensive array of TDM and MMLOS measures which are designed to reduce reliance on the automobile. A new sidewalk on the west side of Sixth Street and an associated controlled pedestrian crossing at Sixth Street and Main Street are proposed to facilitate pedestrian access to RFTA' s Main Street transit routes. In addition, a privately funded and operated shuttle service is proposed on Hopkins Avenue that will link the project site and neighboring residential areas to downtown Aspen and Rubey Park. The shuttle will serve both the project's occupants and the general public. 83 e) The Project Review approval, at City Council's discretion, may include specific allowances for dimensional flexibility between Project review and Detailed Review. Changes shall be subject to the amendment procedures of Section 26.445.110 - Amendments. Given the conceptual nature of the proposed development's Site Development Plan and floor plans, some flexibility with respect to its dimensional requirements is requested. More specifically, the Applicant requests approval to make minor adjustments to Lot l's component floor areas (i.e., lodge, commercial, free market residential and non-unit) provided that the adjustments do not exceed the Lodge zone district's applicable floor area limitations, and the resulting changes, if any, in its cumulative floor area does not exceed one percent. This flexibility would appear - reasonable as Lot l's proposed cumulative floor area is only approximately 77 percent of that which is allowed. Similar flexibility is requested with respect the to the affordable housing structure on Lot 2. 5. Design Standards. The design of the proposed development is compatible with the context and visual character of the area. In meeting this standard, the following criteria shall be used. a) The design complies with applicable design standards, including those in Chapter 26.410, Residential Design Standards, Chapter 26.412., Commercial Design Standards, and Chapter 26.415, Historic Preservation. The proposed mixed use project on Lot 1 is subject to the Regulations' Commercial Design Standards. The proposed affordable housing units on Lot 2 are subject to its Residential Design Standards. Compliance with the Regulation' s Historic Preservation review criteria is not required. Compliance with the Commercial and Residential Design Standards is addressed in Sections IV.G. and IV.H. of this application, respectively. b) The proposed materials are compatible with those called for in any applicable design standard, as well as those typically seen in the immediate 84 vicinity. Exterior materials are finalized during Detailed Review, but review boards may set forth certain expectations or conditions related to architectural character and exterior materials during Project Review. As the Exterior Materials exhibit on the following page illustrates, the proposed development's building materials will include stone, wood structural members and siding, with zinc and steel panels. 6. Pedestrian. Bicvcle and Transit Facilities. The development improves pedestrian, bicycle and transit facilities. These facilities and improve- ments shall be prioritized over vehicular facilities and improvements. Any vehicular access points, or curb cuts minimize impacts on existing or proposed pedestrian, bicycle and transit facilities. The City may require specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review and documented within a Development Agreement. As discussed In Sections III.D. and F. of this application, sidewalk improvements are proposed on both Hopkins Avenue and Sixth Street that will significantly improve the pedestrian experience in the immediate site area. A significant addition to the Community's transit system is also proposed in the form of a privately funded and operated Hopkins Avenue shuttle service that will provide both project occupants and the general public convenient access to downtown and Rubey Park, thereby reducing the need for personal automobile use. The proposed development will not increase the number of existing curb cuts on Hopkins Avenue, and proper signage will be installed at all sidewalk crossings. The proposed trail segment, when connected to the existing Midland Trail, will allow a convenient seasonal alternative pedestri- an/bicycle connection to Seventh Street and the Castle Creek pedestrian bridge. 7. Engineering Design Standards. There has been accurate identification of engineering design and mitigation techniques necessary for development of the project to comply with applicable requirements of Municipal Code Title 29 -Engineering Design Standards and the City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management plan (URMP). The City Engineer may require specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of Detailed Review. 85 ........................................................................................I-~-lill-liAilil----al~il-MMM1MI- 'V ' â€¢ I.' 359 DESIGN i i :4*Bi'.. '1= i . "1-0 r ' 4"*. 7, 1 -ir 1 11 i.- r 1 ' el . ... I I'lt . Â·1~jiff et ' O' //. 2 1: 1 .Eit . =f %, 1 W 1 ' i' 1 1 1 t '0 , 911 I N i , 4.1 1 'sll. 1 ~ 1 :Â»â€¢ $ P , .4 'It:/1 1. I 1 1 i 4 . ------- 1*2 I . ' N 1 46 ' a. 6'.4112 44. AL - 1 11.i. - .* iR ' 6. -%0 iIi J i 'R . '41 'p, 1 ? 1 . 1, a '6# 4, ..4 , I s;Â·Â·44Â»t~ 1 519 â€¢ Â¢>21 - 1.* 24:1. 7% 9 h I , *6 â€že >Pil g to I J : $ ri~ ; ' 44 1 i P iiI; q .* f ''I . ' ' -Ay y 1 ,%. 1 . f. 1.1 .. . k 12 4 mâ‚¬ ~X~* ~~ ... . %â‚¬ . 1 , .-4 11/1 ISSUE ' 1 L_ ; Â£ LAND USE APPLICATION ~ .~ 1/ + 4 114. 6 44-441 I. ..-r---175=J&7rif~-- 4J#t-*.Le. , i .. I 4 lip..V Â· ~Â£...~.--... . --Ea 32~..~.. -....1-'~ ' Â· Â· ~e,- -i_i-~-tÂ£7 .- . ....-r/-, I. . ...... . .- ---a , 2, -- -1- ./------- -*-I----- -i - KEYPLAN -4 . 4 c. - y 1 E- Â£. Â·.~illÂ·. 1 . ' â€¢ 24'in Â·~ -Â·-' I #. 1. . - 3. t' ..44&.-4 -- --ke=3@ter;*~2~0Â· 4- . - P -1-f -- - - - I ' Z.Â£ 1. EL 1--QJ/-4.â€¢. â€¢ 1 aw ,~ - - 4 - â€¢b r -f 4-r- - t.:.2- - - ----- 91 --1 2--/ in:p Â·-t ' ,; I J /33/4 ' tlfÂ« ' 4 . . -.- p .2..0Â£/1-EZZ.EC 2, B .0 SHEET TITLE 171~11 1.+ F .< %. .t' Â· â€¢ .2 ~~~~~~OJ'~ EXTERIOR 1 1 * ' MATERIALS gI~r-OQU743*63Lry 'f -2.. 40/ : 4 Â» ... I . u REVISION *' t ..~ 1.= =e:. I *Z.*â‚¬3/462---4 2+ 7 '14;,â€¢fy b., ---A -- 1 1 ~ i 1 19 . d " 1 I L.2- 4â‚¬, 591. I /4 1 6 -47 62 - - . ... . V.t 5. L N P G -~--- t #. F >. ..3.=-p r,rin,"Â·..â€¢,...2.-41,'l.,7-=%3) CA :76- c .<4 O - '04.el'.4 9Â«1444.-igi Â»Â»9"'. 14\1 .... 0.34 At===14 F*GEME- IRRI~ BUILDING B - ENLARGED WEST ELEVATION SHEET NO. A3.20 ad/NOISIAIGERS anNEIAÂ¥ 00Â¥bl0100 'N3dSV SNIMdOH 1SBAA SOL The proposed development will comply with the applicable requirements of the City's Engineering Design Standards and its Urban Runoff Management Plan. The project's ability to comply with the applicable requirements is addressed in the Engineering Report attached hereto as Exhibit 10, Appendix B. 8. Public Infrastructure and Facilities. The proposed Planned Development shall upgrade public infrastructure and facilities necessary to serve the project. Improvements shall be at the sole costs of the developer. The City Engineer may require specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of Detailed review and documented within a Development Agreement. The various public infrastructure improvements required to serve the proposed development are discussed in the attached Engineering Report. The required improvements will be identified and addressed in more detail in the Applicant' s Planned Development - Detailed Review application. All costs associated therewith will be borne by the Applicant and identified in the Development Agreement to be recorded with the project's Final Planned Development documents. 9. Access and Circulation. The proposed development shall have perpetual unobstructed legal access to a public way. A proposed Planned Develop- ment shall not eliminate or obstruct legal access from a public way to an adjacent property. All streets in a Planned Development retained under private ownership shall be dedicated to public use to ensure adequate public and emergency access. Security/privacy across access points and driveways are prohibited. The proposed development will have perpetual unobstructed vehicular access to a public way via a Hopkins Avenue curb cut located across from the existing Hopkins Avenue/Sixth Street intersection. The location of this curb cut is designed to reduce vehicular traffic on Hopkins Avenue as arriving guests and owners will access the project from Sixth Street. The internal cul-de-sac on Lot 1 will provide vehicular access to the proposed subgrade garage. A second curb cut located in front of Building D on Lot 2 will provide additional access to the garage, and to the proposed emergency vehicle 87 access lane between Buildings B and D. Emergency vehicle access will also be provided from Seventh Street along the west side of Building A. The proposed development does not contain internal streets. Non- exclusive access easements for the use and benefit of the fractional, free market and affordable housing unit owners; emergency and service vehicles; and, where appropriate, utility providers will be dedicated on the subdivision plat to be recorded with the various documents memorializing the project's receipt of Final Planned Development approval. The easements will encumber the project's internal cul-de-sac and the two proposed emergency vehicle access alignments. B. Subdivision Pursuant to Section 26.480.070 of the Regulations, the proposed development is considered a "Major Subdivision". As such, it is subject to review by the P&Z and approval by the City Council. The applicable review criteria, and the proposed development's compliance therewith, are addressed below. 1. General Subdivision Review Standards. Pursuant to Section 26.480.040, the proposed development must comply with the following general requirements. a) Guaranteed Access to a Public Way. AU subdivided lots must have perpetual unobstructed legal vehicular access to a public way. A proposed subdivision shall not eliminate or obstruct legal vehicular access from a public way to an adjacent property. Lots 1 and 2 of the proposed subdivision will have perpetual unobstructed vehicular access to a public way. An emergency access easement is provided on Lot 3 which is accessed from Seventh Street. Vehicular access to Lot 4 is not required. The proposed subdivision will not eliminate or obstruct legal vehicular access from a public 88 way to any adjacent property. This review criteria is also addressed in Section IV.A. 9. of this application. b) Alignment with Original Townsite Plat. The proposed lot lines shall approximate to the extent practical, the platting of the Original Aspen Townsite, and additions thereto, as applicable to the subject land. The lot lines of Lots 1 and 2 approximate to the extent practical the platting of the original Townsite. Lots 3 and 4 are essentially non-development parcels and consist of the remainder of the proposed annexation parcels. The creation of typically dimensioned Townsite lots is inappropriate given the property' s proposed use. c) Zoning Conformance. All new lots shall conform to the requirements of the zone district in which the property is situated, including variations and variances approved pursuant to this Title. A single lot shall not be located in more than one zone district unless unique circumstances dictate. Lots 1 and 3 both comply with and exceed the applicable dimensional requirements of the L, Lodge zone district. The dimensional requirements of Lot 2, which is proposed to be zoned AH. Affordable Housing are established via the PD process. There are no dimensional requirements in the OS, Open Space zone district. dj Existing Structures, Uses and Non-Conformities. A subdivision shall not create or increase the non-conformity of a use, structure or parcel. The proposed subdivision will not create or increase the non-conformity of a use, structure or parcel. 2. Maior Subdivision Review Standards. Pursuant to Section 26.480.070.A., the proposed development must also comply with the following requirements. a) The proposed subdivision complies with the requirements of Section 26.480.040 - General Subdivision Review Standards. 89 The proposed development complies with the requirements of Section 26.480.040., General Subdivision Review Standards. b) The proposed subdivision enables an efficient pattern of development that optimizes the use of the limited amount of land available for development. The proposed development is efficient in its design and optimizes the use of the project site. - c) The proposed subdivision preserves important geologic features, mature vegetation, and structures or features of the site that have historic, cultural, visual, or ecological importance or contribute to the identity of the town. This review criteria is addressed in Section IV.A. 3.b) of this application. d) The proposed subdivision prohibits development on land unsuitable for development because of natural or man-made hazards affecting the property, including flooding, mudflow, debris flow, fault ruptures, landslides, rock or soil creep, rock falls, rock slides, mining activity including mine waste deposit, avalanche or snowslide areas, slopes in excess of 30%, and any other natural of man-made hazard or condition that could harm the health, safety, or welfare of the community. Affected areas may be accepted as suitable for development if adequate mitigation techniques acceptable to the City Engineer are proposed in compliance with Title 29 - Engineering Design Standards. This requirement is addressed in Section IV.A.2. of this application. e) There has beenanaccurateidentification of engineering design and mitigation techniques necessary for the development of the proposed subdivision to comply with the applicable requirements of Municipal Code Title 29 - Engineering Design Standards and the City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP). The City Engineer may require specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined and documented within a Development Agreement. The proposed development will comply with the applicable requirements of the City's Engineering Design Standards and its Urban Runoff Management Plan. The 90 project's ability to comply with these requirements is addressed in the Engineering report which is attached hereto as Exhibit 10, Appendix B. The project will also comply with the avalanche and rockfall mitigation recommendations outlined in the Rockfall and Avalanche Hazard Assessment report attached hereto as Exhibit 9, Appendix B. f) The proposed subdivision shall upgrade public infrastructure and facilities necessary to serve the subdivision. Improvements shall be at the sole cost of the developer. The various public infrastructure improvements required to serve the proposed development are addressed in the Sopris Engineering report. All costs associated therewith will be borne by the Applicant. g) The proposed subdivision is exempt from or has been granted all growth management approvals pursuant to Chapter 26.470 - Growth Management Quota System, including compliance with all affordable housing requirements for new and replacement development as applicable. All required growth management exemptions and allotments are requested in this application. Approximately 88 percent of the proposed development's required affordable housing mitigation will be provided on-site. The Applicant proposes to mitigate the remaining 12 percent through the provision of off-site units within the Urban Growth Boundary and/or the surrender of Affordable Housing Certificates as provided for in Section 26.470.090.3. of the Regulations. h) The proposed subdivision meets the School Land Dedication requirements of Chapter 26.620 and any land proposed for dedication meets the criteria for land acceptance pursuant to said Chapter. The proposed development' s free market residential and affordable housing units are subject to Regulations School Lands Dedication requirements. The Applicant will make a cash payment in lieu of land dedication at building permit issuance which complies with the requirements of Section 26.620.070.B. of the Regulations. 91 i) A Subdivision Plat shall be reviewed and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder pursuant to Chapter 26.490 - Approval Documents. A draft subdivision plat meeting the requirements of Chapter 26.490 is attached hereto as Exhibit 1, Appendix D. Please note that the subdivision plat will reflect the vacation of the existing utility and trail easements that currently encumber proposed Lots 1 and 2. The plat will depict a new trail easement for the proposed trail on Lot 3, and such access, utility and drainage easements on Lots 1, 2 and 3 as may be required. j) A Development Agreement shall be reviewed and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder pursuant to Chapter 26.490 - Approval Documents. A development agreement meeting the requirements of Chapter 26.490 will be submitted with the Applicant's Planned Development - Detailed Review application. C. Rezoning As discussed previously, the Applicant proposes to rezone Lots 1 and 3 to L/PD, Lodge/Planned Development; Lot 2 to AH/PD, Affordable Housing/Planned Development; and Lot 4 to OS 9 Open Space. The proposed Planned Development overlay on Lots 1, 2 and 3 is required to vary the minimum lodge unit density on Lot 1 and the extent of allowed projections into its internal setbacks; to establish the dimensional requirements of the affordable housing project on Lot 2; and to permit a unified approach to development. A rezoning requires that an amendment to the City's Official Zone District Map be approved pursuant to Section 26.310.060 of the Regulations. The applicable review criteria, which are contained in Section 26.310.090, and the proposed rezonings 92 compliance therewith, are summarized below. 1. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. This review criteria is addressed in part in Section IV.A.4.c) of this application. The project site's surrounding zone districts are indicative of the area' s various land uses, and include the City's R-6, Medium-Density Residential; R-15, Moderate-Density Residential; AH, Affordable Housing; and LP, Lodge Preservation, zone districts. The properties zoned AH also have a Planned Development overlay. The proposed AH zoning on Lot 2 is clearly consistent with existing zoning in the immediate site area as evidenced by the three existing affordable housing projects located therein. While there is currently no Lodge zoning in the immediate site area, there are several lodging operations in the Community' s various residential neighborhoods, and the new Boomerang Lodge is being developed a few short blocks away. The proposed zoning of Lot 1 to Lodge is based upon the project site's unique ability to accommodate new lodging development, and the Applicant's ability to develop such lodging while minimizing its adverse impacts on both the immediate site area and the Community at large. 2. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities including, but not limited to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. All required utilities are either available in the immediate site or can be extended to serve the proposed development. All costs associated with improvements to required utilities and the installation of drainage facilities sufficient to comply with the City's Urban Runoff Management Plan will be borne by the Applicant. To reduce 93 vehicular traffic, the Applicant has committed to the funding and operation of a new public transit route on Hopkins Avenue that will serve the project' s occupants and the general public. To improve pedestrian circulation in the immediate site area, the Applicant has further committed to the installation of an improved sidewalk on Hopkins Avenue and a new sidewalk on Sixth Street linking the project site to Main Street. As the attached LSC Level II Transportation Impact Analysis indicates, the various TDM and MMLOS measures to be implemented by the Applicant will mitigate 100 percent of the proposed development' s trip generation. The installation of the proposed Sixth Street sidewalk and the implementation of the proposed Hopkins Avenue shuttle in combination with the additional TDM/MMLOS measures, will significantly reduce the impact of the automobile on both the immediate site area and the Community at large. 3. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. The proposed development will not have a significant adverse impact on the natural environment. While a significant number of existing trees will require removal, the majority are landscape trees located on the flatter portions of the project site. These trees, and the Douglas fir that will be removed from the lower Shadow Mountain hillside on Lot 3, will be replaced on-site. As stated in the attached Tree Survey Report, the fir trees to be removed on Lot 3 represent a very small percentage of the forested hillside, and their removal will likely cause little if any impact on the overall aesthetic or health of the stand as a whole. When landscaped, the proposed development will effectively blend into Shadow Mountain landscape. 4. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with community character in the City and in harmony with the public interest and intent of this Title. 94 While the review criteria is obviously subjective in nature, the Applicant believes that the proposed development is consistent and compatible with the City's Community character; in harmony with the stated goal of expanding its lodging inventory; and complies with the basic requirements of the Regulations. D. Growth Management The proposed development will require a 348 pillow, multi-year lodge GMQS allotment; a commercial net leasable area allotment of 11,647 square feet; a two unit free market residential allotment; and a twenty-three unit affordable housing allotment. The applicable allotment requirements are addressed below. 1. General Requirements. Pursuant to Section 26.470.050.B., all applications for a growth management allotment must comply with the following general requirements. a) Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the expansion, pursuant to Section 26.470.030.D. Sufficient GMQS allotments are believed to be available to accommodate the proposed development' s commercial net leasable area and free market residential units. There is no annual limit on the number of affordable housing units for which an allotment may be granted. Insufficient allotments, however, are available to accommo- date the project' s lodge component. A multi-year allotment is requested pursuant to Section 26.470.090.1., and is discussed in Section IV.D.4. of this application. b) The proposed development is compatible with land uses in the surrounding area, as well as any applicable regulatory master plan. This review criteria is addressed in Section IV.A.4.c) of this application. No regulatory master plans are believed to apply to the project site. 95 c) The development conforms to the requirements and limitations of the zone district. The proposed development on Lot 1 complies with all of the dimensional requirements of the L, Lodge zone district with the exception of its minimum lodge unit density requirement. A variation from this requirement is requested as provided for in Section 26.445.050.D., Project Review Standards. The nature and extent of this variation is addressed in Section IV.A.4. of this application. The dimensional requirements of Lot 2 which is proposed to be zoned AH, Affordable Housing are established via the PD process. d) The proposed development is consistent with the Conceptual Historic Preservation Commission approval, the Conceptual Commercial Design Review approval and the Planned Development - Project Review approval, as applicable. Conceptual Commercial Design Review approval and Planned Develop- ment - Project Review approval are requested in this application. Historic Preservation Commission review is not required. Unless otherwise specified inthis Chapter, sixty percent (60%) e) of the employees generated by the additional commercial or lodge development, according to Subsection 26.470.100.A., Employee Generation, are mitigated through the provision of affordable housing. The proposed development's lodge/fractional ownership units and its commercial net leasable area are subject to the requirements of Section 26.470.070.8., 1 Lodge Development. Compliance with these requirements is discussed in Section IV.D.2. in this application. 1 f) Affordable housing net livable area, for which the finished floor level is at or above natural grade, whichever is higher, shall be provided in an amount equal to at least thirty percent (30%) of the additional free market residential net livable area, for which the finished floor level is at or above natural grade, whichever is higher. 96 The proposed development's free market residential component is subject to the requirements of Section 26.470.070.8.,Lodge Development. Compliance with the ./ applicable requirements is discussed in Section IV.D.2. in this application. g) The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure, or such additional demand is mitigated through improvements proposed as part of the project. Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment, energy and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection, solid waste disposal, parking and road and / transit services. As discussed in Section IV.A. 8 of this application, all required public utilities are available in the immediate site area or can be extended to serve the proposed development. Existing utilities will be upgraded as necessary, and all costs associated therewith will be borne by the Applicant. The proposed development's drainage systems will be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the City's URMP. New ' sidewalks are proposed along Hopkins Avenue and Sixth Street that will significantly improve the pedestrian experience. A privately funded and operated shuttle service will provide convenient access between the project site, downtown and Rubey Park. As the LSC Transportation Impact Analysis indicates, the TDM and MMLOS measure to be implemented by the Applicant will mitigate 100 percent of the vehicle trips generated by the proposed development. 2. Lodge Development. Pursuant to Section26.470.070.8.b.,mixed- use projects containing less than one lodge unit per 500 square feet of gross lot area are required to provide affordable housing mitigation for 60 percent of the employees generated by the additional lodge/fractional ownership units and associated commercial development. Affordable housing net livable area equaling 30 percent of the project's 4 additional free market residential net livable area is also required for mitigation purposes. The applicable affordable housing mitigation requirements are calculated as follows. 97 Required Mitigation - New Lodge/Fractional Ownership Units j 118 Lodge Unit Bedrooms x 0.6 Employees/Bedroom = 70.80 Employees 56 Fractional Unit Bedrooms x 0.6 Employees/Bedroom = 33.60 Employees 70.80 Employees + 33.60 Employees = 104.40 Employees Generated 104.40 Employees x 60% = 62.64 Employees Jj Required Mitigation - New Commercial Net Leasable Area 3,548 Sq. Ft. At Grade Net Leasable Area + 1,000 Sq. Ft. = 3.55 3.55 x 4.7 Employees/1,000 Sq. Ft. = 16.69 Employees Generated 8,099 Sq. Ft. Below Grade Net Leasable Area + 1,000 Sq. Ft. = 8.10 8.10 x 3.525 Employees/1,000 Sq. Ft. = 28.55 Employees Generated r 16.69 Employees + 28.55 Employees = 45.24 Employees 45.24 Employees x 60 % = 27.15 Employees Required Mitigation - New Free Market Residential Units 2 New Units x 1,500 Sq. Ft. Net Livable Area/Unit = 3,000 Sq. Ft. 3,000 Sq. Ft. Net Livable Area x 30% = 900 Sq. Ft. Based on the above, the proposed development's lodge, fractional ownership and commercial components will generate a total of 149.64 employees of which 60 percent or 89.79 employees must be mitigated. An additional nine hundred square feet of affordable housing mitigation must also be provided for the project's two new free market residential units. Pursuant to Section 26.470.100.A.4., the required nine hundred square feet equates to 2.25 employees (i.e., 900 Sq. Ft. + 400 Sq. Ft./Employee). In total, the proposed development will require the provision of affordable housing mitigation for 92.04 employees. 98 3. Affordable Housing. Pursuant to Section 26.470.070.4., the I development of affordable housing deed restricted in accordance with APCHA guidelines is subject to compliance with the following criteria. a) The proposed units comply with the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. The proposed affordable housing units have been designed to comply with applicable APCHA requirements. The project's nineteen dormitory units will each contain approximately 720 square feet of net livable area, or approximately 180 square feet of net livable area per resident, which exceeds APCHA's minimum requirement. j Common kitchen/dining areas and individual storage areas meeting APCHA requirements will be provided for the dormitory units. The project's four studio units will each contain approximately 500 square feet of net livable area. b) Affordable housing required for mitigation purposes shall be in the form of actual newly built units or buy down units. Off-site units shall be provided within the City limits. Units outside the City limits may be accepted as mitigation by the City Council pursuant to Section 26.470.090.2. If the mitigation requirement is less than one (1) full unit, a cash-in-lieu payment may be accepted by the Planning and Zoning Commission upon a recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. If the mitigation is one (1) or more units, a cash-in-lieu payment shall require City Council approval pursuant to Section 26.470.090.3. A Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit may be used to satisfy mitigation requirements by approval of the Community Development Department Director pursuant to Section 26.540.080., Extinguishment of the Certificate. Required affordable housing may be provided through a mix of these methods. The majority of proposed development's affordable housing mitigation requirement will be met on-site via the construction of new deed restricted units. Eighty- one employees, or approximately 88 percent of the project's mitigation requirement, will ' be housed in the dormitory and studio units that will be located in Building D on Lot 2. The Applicant proposes to mitigate the remaining 12 percent, or approximately eleven employees, through the provision of off-site units within the Urban Growth Boundary 99 and/or the surrender of Affordable Housing Certificates as provided for in Section 26.470.090.3. of the Regulations. c) Each unit provided shall be designed such that the finished floor level of fifty percent (50%) or more of the unit's net livable area is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher. This dimensional require- ments may be varied through Special Review pursuant to Chapter 26.430. The finished floor level of the proposed affordable housing units is located at or above finished grade. d) The proposed units may be rental units, including but not limited to rental units owned by an employer or nonprofit organization, if a legal instrument in a form acceptable to the City Attorney ensures permanent affordability of the units. The City encourages affordable housing units required for lodge development to be rental units associated with the lodge operation and contributing to the long-term viability of the lodge. As presently envisioned, the affordable housing units will deed restricted to a mix of APCHA's Category 2, 3 and 4 guidelines and offered for rent to the proposed development's employees. The specific categories to which the units will be deed restricted, however, will be determined in connection with APCHA's review of this application. 4. Multi-Year Development Allotment. The proposed development will require a 348 pillow lodge allotment. As the annual allotment is insufficient, a f . multi-year allotment is required to accommodate the project' s lodge component. Pursuant to Section 26.470.090.1.a. of the Regulations, the receipt of such allotments requires that a project be considered "Exceptional" based on compliance with one or , i more of the following criteria. a) The proposal exceeds the minimum affordable housing required for a standard project. 100 b) The proposed project represents an excellent historic preservation accomplishment. k c) The proposal furthers affordable housing goals by providing units established as priority through the current Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines and provides a desirable mix of affordable unit types, economic levels and lifestyles (e.g., singles, seniors, families, etc.). d) The proposal minimizes impacts on public infrastructure by incorporating innovative, energy-saving techniques. e) The proposal minimizes construction impacts to the extent practical both during and after construction. f) The proposal maximizes potential public transit usage and minimizes reliance on the automobile. g) The proposal exceeds minimum requirements of the Efficient Building Code or for LEEDS certification, as applicable. h) The proposal promotes sustainability of the local economy. i) The proposal represents a desirable site plan and an architec- tural design solution. j) The proposed development is compatible with the character of the existing land uses in the surrounding area and the purpose of the underlying zone district. As discussed previously, the stated overall theme o f the Aspen Area Community Plan is to preserve and improve the elements of the Aspen Area that make it such an attractive place to live and a compelling place to visit". More specifically the AACP further states that the Community should "replenish our lodging inventory to encourage a diverse visitor base". The replenishment of the Community' s lodging inventory is essential to the sustainability of Aspen's visitor-based economy. The proposed development will significantly add to the Community lodging inventory. Its 101 site development plan and architectural character have been carefully designed to complement the diverse land uses in the immediate site area and the Community at large. The site plan is welcoming in its layout, and the architecture is contemporary, attractive and clearly indicative of its lodging use. The proposed development complies with all of the dimensional requirements of the Lodge zone district with the exception of the district's minimum required lodge unit density. While additional lodge units could likely be accommodated on the project site, the resulting density would unduly burden the immediate site area. The project's development program represents a viable lodging proposal that can reasonably be accommodated on the project site while maintaining compliance with applicable regulatory requirements. No variations in the project's floor area, height, parking or required affordable housing mitigation are proposed. Approximately 88 percent of tho project' s required mitigation will be provided on-site. All required infrastructure improvements will be undertaken and paid for by the Applicant. The ' proposed buildings will exceed existing energy code requirements to the extent required to achieve LEEDS Silver certification. The proposed development will implement a privately funded and operated extension of the Community's transit system. The Applicant's proposed Hopkins Avenue shuttle system, which will be available to both project guests and residents and to the general public, will both reduce the impact of the automobile on this area of the Community and provide a convenient link to downtown and Rubey Park. The proposed enhanced Hopkins Avenue streetscape and the new sidewalk to be installed on Sixth Street will benefit both the project and the neighborhood as a whole. The proposed trail link facilitate the extension of the Midland Trial to Seventh Street and the Castle Creek pedestrian bridge. Finally, the Applicant proposes to convey the remainder of the 102 Adjusted Gramiger Parcel to the County for open space purposes. Based on the above, the Applicant believes the proposed development to be "Exceptional" and therefore eligible for the requested multi-year lodge GMQS allotment. E. Conditional Use The lodge component's restaurant, kitchen, spa and retail space are conditional uses in the Lodge zone district which are subject to review and approval. The applicable review criteria, which are contained in Section 26.425.040, and the 1 1 proposed development's compliance therewith, are addressed below. 1. The conditional use is consistent with the intent of the Zone District in which it is proposed to be located, and complies with all other applicable requirements of this Title. The proposed conditional uses are consistent with the intent of the Lodge zone district, are typically found in similar lodge structures, and will comply with all applicable regulatory requirements. 2. The conditional use is compatible with the mix of development in the immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms of density, height, bulk, architec- ture, landscaping and open space, as well as with any applicable adopted regulatory master plan. The conditional uses are located within the interior of the proposed development's lodge component, and have been sized to serve the needs of its guests; the fractional unit and free market residence owners; and the general public. The project site is not subject to any adopted regulatory plans. 3. The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the mix of development in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and surrounding land uses and enhances the mixture of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity proposed for development. - 103 This review criteria is addressed In Section IV.A.4.c) of this application. 4. 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. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed conditional uses will have little if any adverse impact on surrounding land uses. All o f the conditional uses are located within the interior of the proposed development's lodge i component. Adequate on-site parking will be available, and all service deliveries and trash pickup will occur within the project's subgrade parking garage. Vehicular access to the project will be provided directly from Sixth street which will help to minimize traffic on Hopkins Avenue. A new shuttle service will provided convenient access to both project occupants and the general public to downtown and Rubey Park. 5. 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. All required public infrastructure is believed to be available or will otherwise be extended and/or upgraded by the Applicant as may be required in connection with the development of the project. A more detailed discussion of the project's infrastructure requirements is provided in Section III. G. of this application and in the Sopris Engineering report. 6. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the incremental need for increased employees generated by the conditional use. The proposed development will comply with all applicable affordable housing mitigation requirements. Approximately 88 percent of its mitigation requirement will be met on site. The Applicant proposes to mitigate the remaining 12 percent 104 through the provision of off-site units within the Urban Growth Boundary and/or the surrender of Affordable Housing Certificates as provided for in Section 26.470.090.3. of the Regulations. F. 8040 Greenline Review Pursuant to Section 26.435.030.C. of the Regulations, development above or within 150 feet below the 8040 Greenline is subject to review and approval. As the 8040 Greenline exhibit map on the following page illustrates, all o f the proposed development on Lots 1 and 2 is located outside the 150 foot boundary. A small segment of the proposed trail and rockfall/avalanche fence on Lot 3, however, is located just 3 inside the boundary. As a result, review pursuant to the Regulations' 8040 Greenline criteria is required. The applicable review criteria, and the proposed development' s compliance therewith, are addressed below. 1. The parcel on which the proposed development is to be located is suitable for development considering its slope, ground stability characteristics, including mine subsidence and the possibility of mudflow, rock falls and avalanche dangers. If the parcel is found to contain hazardous or toxic soils, the applicant shall stabilize and revegetate the soils or, where necessary, cause them to be removed from the site to a location acceptable to the City. The portion of the proposed trail and rockfall/avalanche fence that is subject to 8040 Greenline review is located entirely outside of the avalanche Red Zone. A short segment of the trail, however, is located in the avalanche Blue Zone, and all of the trail is located within the mapped rockfall hazard area. As the attached Rockfall and Avalanche Hazard Assessment Report indicates, the proposed rockfall/avalanche fence which is to be installed immediately above the trail is expected to effectively mitigate these potential hazards. The area of Lot 3 in which the trail and rockfall/avalanche fence , is to be installed will be extensively landscaped to both replace removed vegetation and to screen the fence. 105 EXHIBIT MAP OF f 8040 GREEN LINE/150' SETBACK @ \ -4- -fl 1 - 1,11 -y fill ~, I #P...... i :42 70*&, 20 /0 COOF 00 0-3 In :O 2 41 \ M\ 4 2/1 /23 1'(4 Y U -m .m a 07 0 4 07-dj / P 1â€¢ t \\2:1~ 1 11 1 1 111 LO,3 Q ' <; 1 1- . 1 : t r.u,0, -. --- T----- - 1 --/1 --- 1 ----- L - --- // / li - 9-' ~JAN, ED,h,PJ,0,4'EMr Wir?,IN 1.5,*al. ...... 1 1 11 8040 .......INE....TE.0.4 N9I" 1) THE CONTOUR LINE WAS DERIVED FROM THE PITKN COUNn' G 1 5. DEPARTMENT TOPOGRAPHY AND IS ON THE 1929 VERTICAL DATUM THE CONTOUR HAs BEEN RAISED BY 9 TO aE CONSISTENT WITH THE 1988 VERTICAL DATUM CURRENTLY 8EINGUSED-THEcrrY US .RVEYFEET ERFLTI ~ ..111 0 ID I: 80 1-=4V. I 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 Â® 1 0 1 0 1 I SOPRIS ENGINEERING - LLC CIVIL CONSULTANTS 502 MAIN STREET, SUITE A3 Â·/SGU CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623 (970) 704-0311 SOPRISENG@SOPRISENG,COM .01*Â·/017 'UOIMGolnÂ»..Aâ€¢r'WGi.....17~0UNIA~wd. 2. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse effect on the natural watershed, runoff, drainage, soil erosion or have consequent effects on water pollution. As discussed in the Engineering Report, the proposed development's drainage facilities will be designed in compliance with the City's Urban Runoff Management Plan. These facilities will include a drainage feature located above the trail on Lot 3 that will be designed to intercept runoff from the Shadow Mountain hillside and to convey it to the Applicant's proposed extension of the City' s stormwater collection system. All disturbed areas will be extensively landscaped to prevent soil erosion. As a result, the proposed development will not have a significant adverse effect on the natural watershed, runoff, drainage, soil erosion, or have consequent effects on water pollution. 3. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse effect on air quality in the City. The construction of the proposed trail and rockfall/avalanche fence is not expected to adversely effect the City's air quality. The construction of these improve- ments will comply with all applicable regulatory requirements. 4. The design and location of any proposed development, road or trail is compatible with the terrain on the parcel on which the proposed development is to be located. The proposed trail and its associated retaining walls will be designed with Â· consideration given to the terrain in which they are located. A plan and profile of the trail and its retaining walls will be provided with the Applicant' s Planned Development - Detailed Submission application. 5. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practical, disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and natural land features. 107 The grading required to accommodate the proposed trail will be minimized to the extent practical. The area of Parcel 3 in which the proposed trail and rockfall/ avalanche fence is to be located will be extensively landscaped. 6. The placement and clustering of structures will minimize the need for roads, limit cutting and grading, maintain open space and preserve the mountain as a scenic resource. The grading required to accommodate the proposed trail will be minimized to the extent practical. Retaining walls and extensive landscaping will be installed in the area o f Parcel 3 in which the trail is proposed. This landscaping will shield the proposed rockfall/avalanche fence and help to preserve the visual appearance of the this area of Shadow Mountain. 7. Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be designed to blend into the open character of the mountain. This review criteria is not believed to be applicable as no buildings are proposed within 150 foot of the 8040 Greenline. 8. Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are available to service the proposed development. This review criteria is not believed to be applicable as no buildings are proposed within 150 foot of the 8040 Greenline. 9. Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed develop- ment and said roads can be properly maintained. This review criteria is not believed to be applicable as no buildings are proposed within 150 foot of the 8040 Greenline. 10. Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed development so as to ensure adequate access for fire protection and snow removal equipment. 108 This review criteria is not believed to be applicable as no buildings are proposed within 150 foot of the 8040 Greenline. 11. The adopted regulatory plans of the Open Space and Trails Board are implemented in the proposed development to the greatest extent practical. The proposed trail on Lot 3 will provide an important missing link in the Community's trail system. The trail's alignment has been designed to permit connection to a future extension of the existing Midland Trail across the adjacent Little Ajax Subdivision/PUD property. An eight foot improved trail is proposed that would provide access via the emergency vehicle access lane on Lot 3 to Seventh Street and the Castle Creek pedestrian bridge. G. Commercial Design Review Pursuant to Section 26.412.020 of the Regulations, all commercial, lodging and mixed-use development with a commercial component is subject to Commercial Design Review. As a result, Commercial Design Review approval is required for the proposed mixed-use development on Lot 1. Pursuant to Section 26.412.050, Commercial Design Review applications must meet the design standards of Section 26.412.060 and comply with the applicable guidelines contained in the City's Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Objectives and Guidelines (the "Guidelines"). These review and approval requirements are addressed in this section of the application. 1. Section 26.412.060.A. Public Amenitv Space. The applicable public amenity standards, and the proposed compliance therewith, are addressed below. a) The dimensions of any proposed on-site public amenity sufficiently allow for a variety of uses and activities to occur, considering any expected tenant and future potential tenants and uses. 109 The proposed development's public amenity space consists primarily of landscape areas which are designed to enhance the visual appearance of the project; reduce its perceived scale both from within the project itself and from Hopkins Avenue; and to restore the public's view of lower Shadow Mountain when viewed from the adjacent street and from Main Street. b) The public amenity contributes to an active street vitality. To accomplish this characteristic, public seating, outdoor restaurant seating or similar active uses, shade trees, solar access, view orientation, and simple at-grade relationships with adjacent rights-of-way, and uses, contributes to an inviting pedestrian environment. The Applicant's proposed Hopkins Avenue streetscape improvements will significantly enhance the pedestrian environment in the immediate site area. Extensive landscaping, public seating, and bicycle parking facilities will be provided throughout the project. Pedestrian access to Building A's restaurant and courtyard seating area will be provided from both the proposed cul-de-sac and from the Hopkins Avenue sidewalk via the entry at the west end of the building. c) The public amenity and the design and operating characteris- tics of adjacent structures, rights-of-way and uses contributes to an inviting pedestrian environment. The Applicant's proposed streetscape improvements will significantly contribute to the pedestrian environment in the immediate site area. d) The proposed amenity does not duplicate existing pedestrian space created by mails, sidewalks or adjacent property, or such duplication does not detract from the pedestrian environment. The proposed streetscape amenity does not duplicate existing pedestrian amenity space created by malls, sidewalks or adjacent property, rather it will create a pedestrian experience unique to the immediate site area. 110 e) Any variation tothedesign and operational standards forpublic amenity, Subsection 26.575.030.F., promotes the purpose of the public amenity requirements. As discussed in Section III.E. of this application, the area of Lot 1 meeting the specific design and operational standards of Section 26.575.030.F. is 17,151 square feet, or approximately 14.5 percent. The Applicant, however, proposes to include significant off-site public amenity space that is located on Lots 2 and 3 in order to meet the 25 percent requirement. In addition, credit is requested for the proposed Hopkins Avenue streetscape improvements and for the installation of the proposed sidewalk along Sixth Street. 2. Section 26.412.060.B. Utility, Delivery and Trash Service Provision. The applicable utility, delivery and trash service standards, and the proposed mixed-use development on Lot l's compliance therewith, are addressed below. a) A trash and recycle service area shall be accommodated on all projects and shall meet the minimum size and location standards established by Title 12, Solid Waste. of the Municipal Code, unless otherwise established according to said Chapter. The proposed development' s trash and recycle service areas have been designed to comply with the applicable requirements of Section 12.10.040 of the Municipal Code. As discussed in Section III.B. of this application, separate trash/recycle service areas will be provided for the project's fractional ownership, free market residential and affordable housing units on parking Level 1 of the subgrade garage. A central trash/recycle service area, that will serve the lodge and commercial uses in Building A, will be provided in convenient proximity to the Level 1 loading dock/delivery area. Trash and recyclable material from the fractional, free market and affordable housing service areas will be transported by project employees to the central area for pickup and disposal. 111 b) A utility area shall be accommodated on all projects and shall meet the minimum size and location standards established by Title 25, Utilities. of the Municipal Code, the City's Electric Distribution Standards, and the National Electric Code, unless otherwise established according to said Chapter. Site specific utility areas meeting the requirements of Title 25, the City's Electric Distribution Standards, and the National Electric Code will be depicted on the detailed utility plans to be submitted with the Applicant's Planned Development - Detailed Review application. While it is difficult to discuss exact locations given the conceptual nature of the project, utility areas will likely be located both within the subgrade garage's mechanical areas and throughout the project site as may be required. c) All utility, trash and recycle service areas shall be co-located and combined to the greatest extent practical. , This standard is believed to apply primarily to projects with co-located utility, trash and recycle service areas that abut an alley. As discussed previously, the proposed development's trash and recycle service areas will be conveniently located within the project's subgrade parking garage. Exact location of required utility areas will be provided in the Applicant' s Planned Development - Detailed Review application. d) If the property adjoins an alleyway, the utility, trash and recycle service areas shall be along and accessed from the alleyway, unless ' otherwise approved through Title 12, Solid Waste. of the Municipal Code, or through Chapter 26.430, Special Review. The project site does not abut an alley. An application for Special Review approval will be submitted to the Environmental Health Department as provided for in Section 12.10.080 of the Aspen Municipal Code. The Special Review application will be submitted with the Applicant' s Planned Development - Detailed Review application. e) All utility, trash and recycle service areas shall be fenced so as not to be visible from the street, unless they are entirely located on an alleyway or otherwise approved through Title 12. Solid Waste. of the Municipal Code, or 112 through Chapter 26.430, Special Review. A\\ fences shall be six (6) feet high from grade, shall be of sound construction, and shall be no less than ninety percent (90%) opaque, unless otherwise approved through Chapter 26.430, Special Review. The proposed development's trash and recycle service areas will not be visible from the street as they will be located in the project's subgrade garage. All exterior utility meter and trans former locations will be screened from view. f) Wherever utility, trash and recycle service areas are required to be provided abutting an alley, other portions of a building may extend to the rear property line if otherwise allowed by this Title, provided that the utility, trash and recycle area is located at grade and accessible to the alley. This standard does not apply to the proposed development. g) All utility service pedestals shall be located on private property. Easements shall allow for service provider access. Encroachments into the alleyway shall be minimized to the extent practical and should only be necessary when existing site conditions, such as a historic resource, dictate such encroach- ment. All encroachments shall be properly licensed. All utility service pedestals will be located within the project site. In the event required, easements for service provider access will be dedicated on the subdivision plat to be recorded with the Final Planned Development Approval documents. h) All commercial and lodging buildings shall provide a delivery area. The delivery area shall be located along the alley if an alley adjoins the property. The delivery area shall be accessible to all tenant spaces of the building in a manner that meets the requirements of the International Building Code Chapters 10 and 11 as adopted and amended by the City of Aspen. All non- ground floor commercial spaces shall have access to an elevator or dumbwaiter for delivery access. Alleyways may not be utilized as pathways (pedestrian rights-of- way) to meet the requirements of the International Building Code. Any truck loading facility shall be an integral component of the building. Shared facilities are highly encouraged. The proposed development's delivery area is an integral component of Building A, is located beneath Building A on garage parking Level 1, and is accessed 113 from Hopkins Avenue via the garage ramp beneath Building D on Lot 2. The delivery area will be accessible to all project components via the project's various internal elevators. i) All commercial tenant spaces located on the ground floor in excess of 1.500 square feet shall contain a vestibule (double set of doors) developed internal to the structure to meet the requirements of the International Energy Conservation Code as adopted and amended by the City of Aspen, or an air curtain. The main lobby entrance to Building A, which is located adjacent to the proposed vehicular cul-de-sac, and its Hopkins Avenue entrance located between the banquet room and the lounge bar area at the west end of the building, will contain an entry vestibule equipped with a double set of doors. Entry vestibules are not believed to be required in Buildings B, C and D as they do not contain commercial uses. j) Mechanical exhaust, including parking garage ventilation, shall be vented through the roof. The exhaust equipment shall be located as far away from the street as practical. All mechanical exhausts will be vented through building roofs except the subgrade garage' s ventilation which will be vented via the garage ramp entrance openings. k) Mechanical ventilation equipment and ducting shall be accommodated internally within the building and/or located on the roof, minimized to the extent practical and recessed behind a parapet wall or other screening device such that it shall not be visible from a public right-of-way at a pedestrian level. New buildings shall reserve adequate space for future ventilation and ducting needs. Mechanical ventilation equipment and ducting will be located internally within the buildings. 1) The trash and recycling service area requirements may be varied pursuant to Title 12, Solid Waste, of the Municipal Code. All other 114 requirements of this subsection may be varied by special review (see Chapter 26.430.040.E., Utility and delivery service area provisions). As noted previously, an application for Special Review approval for the proposed development's trash/recycle areas will be submitted pursuant to Section 12.10.080 of the Aspen Municipal Code with the Applicant's Planned Development - Detailed Review application. 3. Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Obiectives and Guidelines. The project site is not located within a designated Character Area. The Community Development Department, however, has indicated that the proposed development will be reviewed pursuant to the Small Lodges Character Area guidelines. These guidelines are intended primarily to address the preservation and/or the redevelop- ment of various small lodges that are dispersed throughout residential and mixed-use neighborhoods. Specific design objectives for new development include i) compatibility with the neighborhood in which it is located; ii) the creation of a distinctive lodge experience that relates to the neighborhood context; iii) the provision of a street edge that is visually pleasing and that invites pedestrian activity; and iv) the minimalization o f on- site parking. The applicable Small Lodges Character Area guidelines to be addressed at Conceptual Commercial Design Review, and the proposed development's compliance therewith, are addressed below. a) Street and Alley Systems 5.1 The network of streets and alleys should be retained as public circulation space and for maximum public access. â€¢ They should not be enclosed or closed for public access, and should - remain open to the sky. â€¢ This applies to a lodge property that may include lots on both sides of an alley. 115 This criteria does not apply to the proposed development as the project site does not contain an existing internal street or an alley. b) Parking 5.2 Minimize the visual impact of parking. â€¢ Parking shall be placed underground wherever possible. â€¢ Where surface parking is permitted, it shall be located to the interior of the property. â€¢ Surface parking shall be externally buffered with landscaping, and internally planted and landscaped to soften design of parking areas and provide solar shade. All of the proposed development' s off-street parking is provided in a subgrade parking garage. 5.3 Minimize the visual impacts of surface parking. â€¢ On small lots where limited surface parking in front of the building might be considered, it should be designed and screened to minimize the visual impacts. This review criteria does not apply to the proposed development. c) Building Placement 5.4 Front, side and rear setbacks should generally be consistent with the range of the existing neighborhood. â€¢ These should include landscaping. The proposed development front, side and rear setbacks are generally consistent with those of the existing neighborhood and are landscaped. 5.5 Within an established residential context, a lodge building should reflect traditional lot widths in more than one of the following ways: 116 â€¢ The variation in building height. â€¢ The modulation of the building elements. â€¢ The variation in facade heights. â€¢ The street facade composition. â€¢ The variation in design and materials to emphasize the building module. As discussed in Section III.B. of this application, the architectural vocabulary of Building A incorporates facade setbacks on its upper floors; framed elements with glass windows and doors that are set back within the building mass; and vertical wood elements that screen terraces and decks, all of which are designed to modulate and break up the building's facades. The building's massing is further broken up by recessed glass elements that help to locate building entrances and organize the facades. The resulting building modules re fleet typical lot widths within the Aspen Townsite. The north elevations of Buildings B and D are narrower in width and utilize a similar architectural vocabulary to reduce their mass and scale. All of the buildings will have a rich palette of materials including stone bases, wood structural members and siding, and zinc and steel panels which are intended to help blend the buildings into the lower Shadow Mountain hillside. d) Height and Height Variation 5.6 Building height should generally fall within the range established by the setting of adjacent buildings and the nearby street blocks. â€¢ If two stories are predominant a third story portion may be permitted if located in the center or as an accent on a corner. â€¢ Higher sections of the building should be located away from lower adjacent buildings. â€¢ A minimum 9 foot floor to ceiling height is to be maintained on second stories and higher. All of the proposed development's buildings will be less than or equal to forty feet in height measured from existing or finished grade whichever is lower. 117 The street facing three story facade of Building A consists of a base, middle and upper elements with the middle and upper elements setback from the base. Within the interior courtyard and on the building's sides, the base level is treated differently from the middle and upper levels. Building B is also three stories with the upper level slightly recessed to present a lighter architectural vocabulary and treatment. 5.7 A building should respect the traditional lot width and scale of the context in the form, modulation and variation of the roofscape. â€¢ On sites exceeding 60 feet in width, the building height and form should be modulated and varied across the site. â€¢ The width of the building or an individual building module should reflect traditional facade widths in the area. The three buildings fronting Hopkins Avenue are modulated in form and varied in height from east to west. Given the overall width of the project site, it is obviously challenging to design a lodging project with uniform floors and corridors whose building elements emulate the immediate site area's typical residential facade widths. Buildings B and D come closest to achieving this objective as the width of their north elevations is modest, and is broken into multiple planes that will incorporate several o f building materials. The upper floor of Building B is setback from its lower two floors to further relieve its mass. Building A is considerably wider and its height is essentially uniform which reflects its lodge use. Its north elevation, however, is broken into several distinctive modules and its upper two floors are setback from its ground floor. The upper floors are broken into framed elements with glass windows and doors that are set back within the building's mass. These features, and Building A's terraces, decks and landscaping, will help to effectively reduce its massing. 5.8 Building height adjacent to a historic single story residential building should fit within a bulk plane which: 118 â€¢ Has a maximum wall height of 15 feet at the required side yard setback line, and â€¢ Continues at a 45 degree angle from this wall plate height until it reaches the maximum permitted building height. This criteria does not apply to the proposed development as no historic single story residential buildings are located adjacent to Lots 1 and 2. 5.9 Building height adjacent to a residential zone district should fit within a bulk plane which: â€¢ Has a maximum wall height of 25 feet at the required side yard setback line, and â€¢ Continues at a 45 degree angle from this wall plate height until it reaches the maximum permitted building height. Building D, which will contain the proposed development's on-site affordable housing component, is located adjacent to the Little Ajax affordable housing project. Building D contains three stories and is set back approximately fifteen feet from the adjacent common property line. The neighboring Little Ajax buildings contain two and three stories and are setback approximately five feet from the property line. Given the multi-family nature and heights of Building D and the adjacent Little Ajax project, this standard would not appear to apply on the proposed development's eastern boundary as Building D is not located adjacent to more traditional single-family/duplex structures. To the west, Building A is located adjacent to Seventh Street and is separated therefrom by portions of proposed Lot 3. No residential structures are located adjacent thereto. H. Residential Design Standards Pursuant to Section 26.410.010.B.ofthe Regulations, the City's Residential Design Standards apply to all residential development requiring a building permit. As a result, Building D on Lot 2 which contains the proposed development's affordable housing units is subject to Residential Design review and approval. For multi-family 119 housing, only those standards contained in Section 26.410.040.A. 1., Building Orientation; Section 26.410.040.C.1.a), Garage Access; or, if not applicable, Section 26.410.040.C.2.b), Garage Setback; and Section 26.410.040.D., Building Elements, as outlined in said Section for multi- family buildings, apply. The applicable review standards, and Building D's compliance therewith, are addressed below. 1. Section 26.410.040.A.1., Building Orientation. The front facades of all principal structures shall be parallel to the street. The north facade of residential Building D is at a slight angle to the street which reflects the angle of Lot 2' s eastern property line. The front facades of both lodge Buildings A and B, however, parallel the street. 2. Section 26.410.040.C.1.a), Garage Access. For all residential uses that have access from an alley or private road, the following standards shall apply. a) Parking, garages and carports shall be accessed from an alley or private road. This review criteria does not apply as the project site does not contain an alley. The proposed development' s subgrade garage is accessed from Hopkins Avenue. b) If the garage doors are visible from a street or alley, then they shall be single-stall doors or double-stall doors designed to appear like single-stall doors. This review criteria does not apply as the project site does not contain an alley. As presently envisioned, Building D's Hopkins Avenue garage entrance will not contain an overhead garage door. c) If the garage doors are not visible from a street or alley. the garage doors may be either single-stall or normal double-stall doors. 120 Building D's Hopkins Avenue garage entrance will not contain an overhead garage door. 2. Section 26.410.040.C.2., Garage Access. For all residential uses that have access only from a public street, the following standards shall apply. a) On the street facing facades(s), the width of the living area on the first floor shall be at least five (5) feet greater than the width of the garage or carport. Pursuant to Section 26.410.010.B.I., the criteria does not apply to the proposed development. b) The front facade of the garage or the front most supporting column of a carport shall be set back at least ten (10) feet further from the street than the front-most wall of the house. Based on the examples provided in the Regulations, this standard is believed to apply primarily to single-family and duplex structures in traditional residential neighborhoods. A variance from this standard is requested as the Building D's street facing elevation is dictated by the irregular shape of Lot 2's front lot line. c) On lots of at least fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet in size, the garage of carport may be forward of the front facade of the house only if the garage doors or carport entry are perpendicular to the street. Pursuant to Section 26.410.010.B.1., the criteria does not apply to the proposed development. d) When the floor of a garage or carport is above or below street level, the driveway cut within the front yard setback shall not exceed two (2) feet in depth measured from natural grade. Pursuant to Section 26.410.010.B.1., the criteria does not apply to the proposed development. 121 e) The vehicular entrance width of a garage or carport shall not be greater than twenty-four (24) feet. Pursuant to Section 26.410.010.B. 1., the criteria does not apply to the proposed developrnent. f) If the garage doors are visible from the a public street or alley, then they shall be single-stall doors or double-stall doors designed to appear like single-stall doors. Pursuant to Section 26.410.010.B. 1., the criteria does not apply to the proposed development. 3. Section 26.410.040.D., Building Elements. a) Street Oriented Entrance and Principal Window. Multi-family units shall have at least one (1) street-oriented entrance for every four (4) units and front units must have a street facing principal window. Building D's pedestrian entrances will be located on the east side of the building, and are dictated by the shape of Lot 2 and the internal layout of the proposed dormitory style units. Its north facade will contain multiple street facing windows. A variance from this standard is requested in the event required. 122 0054.2016.ASLU 705 W HOPKINS AVE -__--~ PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 27351259001 - 02 - 01 1 FOLDER 2 OF 2 - 4 1 4 2 6-6- 33 11 3,of A PATH: G/DRIVE / MA, rER FILES/ADMINISTRATIVE/ADiuiN/LAND USE CASE DOCUMENTS THE CITY OF ASPEN City of Aspen Community Development Department CASE NUMBER 0054.2016.ASLU - Folder 2 of 2 PARCEL ID NUMBERS 27351259001 PROJECT ADDRESS 705 W HOPKINS PLANNER JUSTIN BARKER CASE DESCRIPTION PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REPRESENTATIVE Patrick Freeman DATE OF FINAL ACTION 10.4.16 CLOSED BY Nicole Henning 11.2.16 APPENDIX A EXHIBIT CITY OF ASPEN [7-1 PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Justin Barker, 429.2797 DATE: 3.16.16 PROJECT: 705 W. Hopkins Avenue REPRESENTATIVE: Sunny Vann, 925.6958 REQUEST: Planned Development DESCRIPTION: The subject property is approximately 6.6 acres and currently consists of three (3) separate parcels. This includes Lots 1 &2 of the Mary B Subdivision and the Gramiger Parcel. There are two existing single-family homes located on the properties: one on Lot 1 of the Mary B Subdivison and the other on the Gramiger Parcel. Additionally, there is a barn strucure located on the Gramiger Parcel that may have historic significance. A historic analysis of the structure will be required. Access for both homes is currently from a private drive at the comer of 701 Street and Hopkins Avenue. These parcels are currently located in Pitkin County, but are in the annexation process with the City of Aspen. The annexation into the City would occur concurrently with receiving a land use approval for the below described project. The proposed project for this site includes a lodge with 112 lodge units, 22 timeshare units, commercial spaces (e.g., restaurant, spa, etc.), various associated hotel uses, four free market residences, and 26 affordable housing units. The project also includes the development of a public trail on the south side of the property. The Open Space and Trails Board will be referred on this application regarding the public trail. Subdivision - The applicant is proposing to combine the existing three lots into one, and subdivide the combined lot into four (4) new lots. Both the combination and creation of lots require Major Subdivision approval. Major Subdivision requires public hearings before P&Z and City Council. Rezoning - Upon annexation, the applicant is proposing to zone two of the lots as Lodge (L) with a Planned Development (PD) overlay, one of the lots as Affordable Housing/Planned Development (AH/PD), and the remaining lot as Open Space (OS). Surrounding zoning consists of AH/PD, LP, R-15, and R-6. The zoning of property requires public hearings before P&Z and City Council. P/anned Deve/opment - The applicant is requesting a Planned Development Overlay for the entire property. A Planned Development allows for variations from the uses and dimensional requirements of the underlying zoning. Additionally, rezoning a portion of the property to AH/PD requires the adoption of a Final Planned Development Plan. The process to adopt a Final Planned Development Plan includes public hearings with P&Z and City Council for Project Review and an additional public hearing with P&Z for Detailed Review. There are two proposed free-market units that are larger than 1,500 sq. ft. net livable area, which is the maximum free- market residential unit size permitted in the Lodge zone district. The maximum size for each unit may be increased to 2,000 sq. ft. net livable area through the purchase and extinguishment of Transferable Development Rights (TDRs). Growth Management - There are several aspects of the proposed project that require Growth Management review. ASLU Planned Development 705 W. Hopkins Avenue 1 Affordable housing: The proposed project includes 26 on-site affordable housing units. The proposed affordable housing is intended to serve as mitigation for the rest of the development. The development of affordable housing requires P&Z review and a referral from APCHA. Lodge/Timeshare: The proposed project includes 170 lodge/timeshare bedrooms, or 340 pillows. The annual allotment for pillows is 112, so the proposed project will require a multi-year development allotment. Multi-year allotments require City Council approval, with recommendation from P&Z. The applicant will need to demonstrate that the proposed development is considered "exceptional", as defined by the review criteria in Section 26.470.090.1. Required affordable housing mitigation for the lodge/timeshare component will depend on the density and average size of the units, in accordance with Section 26.470.070,8 and Section 26.470.100. Commercial: The proposed project includes approximately 12,000 sq. ft. of commercial net leasable area. The development of new commercial area requires P&Z review. Required affordable housing mitigation for the commercial component is 60% of the employee generation, and will be calculated based on the employee generation rates found in Section 26.470.100 for Lodge (L) commercial space. Free-market residential: The proposed project includes 4 free-market residential units. The properties currently contain 2 free-market residences, which can be used as allotment credit toward the new units. The project is therefore required to obtain 2 free-market residential allotments. Required affordable housing mitigation for the free- market residential component is 30% of the additional free-market residential net livable area at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher. Commercial Design - The proposed project includes both lodging and commercial components, and is therefore subject to ~ Chapter 26.412, Commercial Design Review. The project is required b provide 25% of each parcel zoned Lodge as public amenity space. Public amenity can be provided through a combination of methods including on-site, off-site and cash-in-lieu. The provision of public amenity is reviewed by P&Z. Because the property is not currently in the City, it is not located within any of the Character Areas as defined by the "Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines". The project is subject to the Guidelines and will be reviewed in the Small Lodge Character Area. 8040 Greenline - The subject property is located within 150 feet of the 8040 Greenline (8040 feet above mean sea level) ~ and is therefore subject to 8040 Greenline review. This requires a public hearing before P&Z. Timeshare - The proposed project includes 22 timeshare units. Timeshare development is an administrative review unless a , variation from the standards located in Section 26.590.050 is requested, If a variation is requested, P&Z review will be required. 1 Cond#iona/ Use - Part of the proposed project includes retail and restaurant uses, which would be open to the public. Retail f and restaurant uses that are not exclusively for the on-site lodge guests are considered conditional uses in the Lodge zone district. A Conditional Use request requires P&Z review. Residentia/ Design Standards - The affordable housing units are proposed as standalone buildings, and are subject to the Residential Design Standards for multi-family development. Compliance with the standards will be verified through the land use application. Any variations from the standards require P&Z review. Transportation impact Ana/ysis (T/A) - As part of the initial annexation review, Council determined that a Level Two TIA is I required. This was due to the location close to the s-curves and entrance to town, where it would have a significant impact 2 on the transportation network. A TIA requires that the trips associated with the new development be mitigated through MMLOS and TDM measures. The applicant is encouraged to discuss the best MMLOS mitigation measures with the Engineering Department prior to application submittal. ~ Neighborhood Outreach is required for this application, prior to the public hearing, The applicant must choose one or more of the forms of outreach as identified in Section 26.304.035.C. The project will also need to comply with the requirements for trash and recycling in Title 12, Solid Waste. Impact fees will be assessed for the project, including School Lands, TDM/Air ~ Quality, and Parks. These are due at the time of Building Permit. Review Process: The applicant requests a consolidated review process pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.304.060.8.1, such that City Council shall have final review authority for all conceptual level reviews. The anticipated review process is as follows: Step 1: Planning and Zoning Commission recommendations â€¢ Planned Development Project Review â€¢ Major Subdivision Review - â€¢ Rezoning Review â€¢ Growth Management Review â€¢ Commercial Design Conceptual Review â€¢ Residential Design Standards Review â€¢ 8040 Greenline Review â€¢ Conditional Use Review Neighborhood Outreach is required prior to the first public hearing at P&Z. City Council reviews shall constitute Council's call-up of the Conceptual Commercial Design Review Step 2: City Council â€¢ Planned Development Project Review â€¢ Major Subdivision Review â€¢ Rezoning Review â€¢ Growth Management Review â€¢ Commercial Design Conceptual Review â€¢ Residential Design Standards Review â€¢ 8040 Greenline Review â€¢ Conditional Use Review Step 3: Planning and Zoning Commission â€¢ Planned Development Detailed Review â€¢ Commercial Design Final Review ' Below are links for your convenience: Land Use App: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Portals/0/docs/City/Comdev/Apps%20and%20Fees/2013%20land%20use%20app%20form.pdf / Land Use Code: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community-Development/Planninq-and-Zoninq/Title-26-Land-Use-Code/ Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines: 3 http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community-Development/Planning-and-Zoning/Current-Planning/ Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Portals/0/docs/City/Comdev/Lonq%20Range%20Planning/Trasnportation%20Mitigation/Aspen%20TIA %20quidelines 4.2015update.pdf Land Use Code Section(s) 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.304.035 Neighborhood Outreach 26.310 Rezoning 26.410 Residential Design Standards -# 26.412 Commercial Design Review n 26.425 Conditional Use 26.435.030 8040 Greenline Review 26.445 Planned Development 26.445.050 PD - Project Review Standards 26.470 Growth Management 26.470.070.4 GMQS - Affordable Housing 26.470.070.6 GMQS - Expansion or new commercial development 4 26.470.070.7 GMQS - New free-market residential units within a multi-family or mixed-use project 26.470.070.8 GMQS - Lodge development 26.470.090.1 GMQS - Multi-year development allotment 26.480 Subdivision 26.480.070.A Major Subdivisions - Land Subdivision 26.490 Approval Documents 26.515 Off-street Parking 26.535 Transferable Development Rights 26.575.020 Calculations and Measurements 26.590 Timeshare Development 26.620 School Land Dedication 26.630 Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines 26.710.110 Affordable Housing/Planned Development (AH/PD) zone district 26.710.190 Lodge (L) zone district 26.710.260 Open Space (OS) zone district Review by: Staff for complete application Staff for recommendation Referrals: Engineering, APCHA, Parks, Environmental Health, Open Space and Trails Board, Pitkin County Public Hearing: Planning & Zoning Commission City Council Neighborhood Outreach: Required prior to public hearing Planning Fees: Planning Deposit - Planned Development ($10,400 for 32 hours) ' Referral Fees: Engineering (per hour) - $325 APCHA (flat fee) - $1,625 ' Parks (flat fee) - $1,625 4 Environmental Health (flat fee) - $1,625 Total Deposit: $15,600 (additional Planning and/or Engineering hours over deposit amount are billed at a rate of $325/hour) To apply, submit the following information: D Completed Land Use Application and signed fee agreement. O Pre-application Conference Summary (this document). 0 Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current (no older than 6 months) certificate from a title insurance company, an ownership and encumbrance report, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner's right to apply for the Development Application. 1 Applicant's name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant that states the name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. Il HOA Compliance form (Attached) Â£ Documentation showing the proposal meets all Transportation Mitigation Requirements as outlined in the City's Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines and Mitigation Tool, available online at: http:Uwww.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community-Development/Planninq-and-Zoning/Current-Planning/. A copy of the tool showing trips generated and the chosen mitigation measures should be included with the application. Il A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model form of how the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application and relevant land use approvals associated with the property. O A site improvement survey (no older than a year from submittal) including topography and vegetation showing the current status of the parcel certified by a registered land surveyor by licensed in the State of Colorado. 0 An architectural character plan showing the use, massing, scale and orientation of the proposed buildings, and outlining the suitability of a building for its purposes, legibility of the building's use, the building's proposed massing, proportion, scale, orientation to public spaces and other buildings, and other attributes which may significantly represent the proposed development. O A description, and depiction as necessary, of the proposed development including a statement of the objectives to be achieved by the Planned Development and a description of the proposed land uses, densities, natural features, traffic and pedestrian circulation, parking, open space areas, landscaping, and infrastructure improvements. 0 A statement prepared by a Colorado registered Professional Engineer, and depiction or mapping as necessary, regarding the presence of natural or man-made hazards affecting the property, including flooding, mudflow, debris flow, fault ruptures, landslides, rock or soil creep, rock falls, rock slides, mining activity including mine 5 waste deposit, avalanche or snowslide areas, slopes in excess of 30%, and any other natural or man-made hazard or condition that could harm the health, safety, or welfare of the community. Areas with slopes in excess of 30% shall require a slope stability study reviewed by the Colorado Geologic Survey. El A statement prepared by a Colorado registered Professional Engineer, and depiction or mapping as necessary, describing the potential infrastructure upgrades, alignment, design, and mitigation techniques that may be necessary for development of the site to be served by public infrastructure, achieve compliance with Municipal Code Title 29 - Engineering Design Standards, and achieve compliance with the City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP). The information shall be of sufficient detail to determine the acceptable location(s) and extent of development and to understand the necessary upgrades and the possible alignments, designs, or mitigation techniques that may be required. Specific engineered solutions and design details do not need to be submitted for Project Review. Â£ A Draft Plat meeting the plat requirements of Chapter 26.490 - Approval Documents. O An "ability to serve" letter from public and private utility providers that will service the proposed project with potable water, natural gas, electricity, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and roads stating they can service the proposed development. Ability to serve letters shall be substantially in the following format: J The [utility provider] has reviewed the proposed [subdivision name and date of application] subdivision and has adequate capacity to serve proposed development, subjed to compliance with the following adopted design standards [reference] and subjed to the following adopted tap fee or impact mitigation requirements [reference]. Â¤ A statement regarding School Land Dedication requirements of Section 26.620.060 and a description of any lands to be dedicated to meet the standard. O Written responses to all review criteria. O An 8 1/2" by 11" vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen. Il 1 Complete Copy. If the copy is deemed complete by staff, the following items will then need to be submitted: Â¤ 1 Additional copy of the complete application packet and associated drawings. O Total deposit for review of the application. 0 A digital copy of the application provided in pdf file format. Il A sketch-up or other 3-D model will be required for the public hearing. Disclaimer: The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current * zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right. 6 EXHIBIT [-71 , RESOLUTION NO. 71 (Series of2015) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ASPEN, COLORADO, RELATIVE TO THE PETITION FOR ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF ASPEN, COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE "705 WEST HOPKINS AVENUE ANNEXATION;" FINDING SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 31-12-107(1), C.R.S.; ESTABLISHING A DATE, TIME, AND PLACE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING TO DETERMINE COMPLIANCE WITH SECTIONS 31-12-104 AND 31-12-105, C.R.S.; AUTHORIZING PUBLICATION OF NOTICE OF SAID HEARING; AND AUTHORIZING THE INSTITUTION OF ZONING PROCEDURES FOR LAND IN THE AREA PROPOSED TO BE ANNEXED. WHEREAS, on June 26, 2015, Eduardo L. Hernandez, on behalf of Starford Investments LLC. Shadow Mountain Corporation, and Westchester Investments. Inc., the owners of the property proposed to be annexed, C'Petitioners"), did file with the City Clerk of the City of Aspen a Petition for Annexation of territory to the City of Aspen, whereby real property described in Exhibit "A" appended to the Petition for Annexation, is being petitioned for annexation to the City of Aspen: and WHEREAS. on July 6, 2015, Eduardo L. Hernandez, on behalf of Petitioners. did file with the City Clerk of the City ofAspen an Amended Petition for Annexation ofterritory to the City of Aspen (The Petition and the Amended Petition are hereinafter collectively referred to as the --Petition"); and WHEREAS. the City Clerk of the City of Aspen has re ferred the aforesaid Petition as a communication to the City Council for appropriate action to determine if the Petition is substantially in compliance with Section 31-12-107, C.R.S.; and WHEREAS, the Petition, including accompanying copies of an annexation map, has been reviewed by the City Attorney's Office and the City Engineer and found by them to substantially comply with the technical submission requirements set forth in paragraphs (c) and (d) of subsection (1) of Section 31-12-107, C.R.S., as set forth in the staff memorandum dated July 6, 2015; and 1 WHEREAS, Westchester DevelopmenL Inc.: owner of Parcel 3 as described in Exhibit A o f the Petition, has consented in writing to the division of Westchester's property by the proposed boundary for the annexation. as required by C.R.S. Â§31-12-105(1)(a):and WHEREAS, the Petitioners own one hundred percent ( 100%) of the affected property and have signed the Petition: and WHEREAS, C.R.S. Â§31-12-107(1)(g) mandates that the City of Aspen initiate annexation proceedings in accordance with Â§Â§31-12-108 to 31-12-110, C.R.S. whenever a petition is filed and found to be in substantial compliance with subsection 31-12-107(1); and NOW, THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1 That the Petition for Annexation of territory to the City of Aspen is hereby found and determined to be in substantial compliance with the provisions of subsection (1)of C.R.S. Â§31-12- 107. Section 2 That the City Council hereby determines that it shall hold a public hearing to determine ifthe proposed annexation complies with C.RS. Â§Â§31-12-104 and 31-12-105, and to establish whether or not said area is eligible for annexation pursuant to Colorado s Municipal Annexation Act of 1965, C.R.S. Â§Â§31-12-101 et seq., as amended; said hearing to be held at a regular meeting of the City Council ofthe City ofAspen at 5:00 0'clock p.m. on the 241h day of August 2015 in Council Chambers at City Hal 130 S. Galena. Aspen. Colorado 81611. 2 Section 3 That the City Clerk shall give public notice as follows: A copy of this resolution shall constitute notice that, on the given date and at the given time and place set by the City Council, the City Council shall hold a hearing of the City of Aspen for the purpose o f determining and finding whether the area proposed to be annexed meets the applicable requirements of Â§Â§31-12-104 and 31- 12-105, C.R.S., and is considered eligible for annexation. Said notice shall be published once a week for four consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the area proposed to be annexed. The first publication o f such notice shall be at least thirty days prior to the date of the hearing. The proof of publication of the resolution shall be returned when the publication is completed. and the certificate of the owner, editor, or manager of the newspaper in which said notice is published shall be proof thereof. A copy of the resolution and petition as filed. shall also be sent by registered mail by the clerk to the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners and to the County Attorney of Pitkin County and to the Aspen School District at least twenty days prior to the date fixed for such hearing. Section 4 That pursuant to Section Â§31-12-1 15, C.R.S., the City Manager is hereby directed to initiate appropriate zoning procedures with regard to the territory proposed to be annexed. INTRODUCED. READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council 9fthe City of Aspen on the 13'h day ofJuly, 2015. i i /1 ' i / Steven Skadrc~, Mayor 3 1, Linda Manning. duly appointed and acting City Clerk, do certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy ofthat resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado. at a meeting held on the day hereinabove stated. Fik_ 14~~a Linda Manning, City Clerk ~ r EXHIBIT RESOLUTIONNO.85 (Series of2015) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ASPEN. COLORADO. DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY FOR ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF ASPEN, COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE"705 WEST HOPKINS ANNEXAT1ON" WHEREAS, on June 26, 2015, Eduardo L. Hernandez. on behalf of Starford Investments LLC, Shadow Mountain Corporation, and Westchester Investments. Inc., the owners of the property proposed to be annexed, ("Petitioners"), did file with the City Clerk of the City of Aspen a Petition for Annexation of territory to the City of Aspen, whereby real property described in Exhibit "A" I appended to the Petition for Annexation, and attached hereto and incorporated by this reference (the "area to be annexed" or the "area proposed to be annexed" or the "Propertf:) is being petitioned for annexation to the City ofAspen; and WHEREAS. on July 6, 2015. Eduardo L. Hernandez. on behalf of Petitioners, did file with the City Clerk of the City of Aspen an Amended Petition for Annexation of territory to the City of Aspen (The Petition and the Amended Petition are hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Petition"); and 1 7/ WHEREAS, on July 13, 2015, the City Council did adopt Resolution No.0 Series of 2015, finding that the Petition was in substantial compliance with Section 31-12-107(1). C.R.S.: establishing the date for a public hearing to deternine eligibility for annexation under Sections 31- 12-104 and 31-12-105, C.R.S.; and authorizing publication of said hearing: and WHEREAS. a public hearing was opened on August 24, 2015 and continued and finalized on September 28, 2015; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to adopt its findings and determinations following said hearing in the form of a resolution. 1 J NOW. THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF I ASPEN, COLORADO: 1 Section 1 That having heard and considered the testimony, comments. exhibits and arguments of all persons appearing at the public hearing. the City Council of the City of Aspen makes the following findings and determinations in accordance with the Colorado Constitution and the Colorado Municipal Annexation Act, as amended: 1. The City Clerk. in accordance with Resolution No. 71. Series of 2015 and pursuant to Section 31-12-108. C.R.S., did give public notice of the public hearing. by causing notice to be published once a week for four consecutive weeks in The Aspen Times, a newspaper of general circulation in Pitkin County, the first publication being at least thirty (30) days prior to the date of the public hearing. In addition. the City Clerk did send to the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners. to the County Attorney of Pitkin County, to those special districts with temtory within the area proposed to be annexed and to the Aspen School District. a copy of the a foresaid resolution and the Petition. Such notice was received less than twenty-five days prior to the August 24,2015 hearing date, but more than twenty-five days prior to the September 28. 2015 hearing date. Petitioners agreed to the continued hearing date. 2. The Petition is signed by persons comprising one hundred percent of the area to be annexed. thus meeting the requirements of the Colorado Constitution. article II, section 30. C.R.S, Section 31-12-107(2) is thus not applicable. No election is required. 3. As required by Section 31-12-104(1)(a). the area proposed to be annexed consists of unincorporated area which has more than one sixth boundary contiguity with the City of Aspen. 4. As required by Section 31-12-104(1)(b). a community of interest exists between the area proposed to be annexed and the City of Aspen; the Property is urban or will be urbanized in the near future; and the Property is integrated with or is capable of being integrated with the City of Aspen. The basis of compliance with the foregoing includes the finding by City Council that the area to be annexed exceeds the one-sixth contiguity requirement and: a. None ofthe area proposed to be annexed is agricultural; and, b. It is physically practicable to extend to the area proposed to be annexed those urban services which the City of Aspen provides in common to all of its citizens on the same tenns and conditions as such services are made to such citizens. 2 5. The property proposed to be annexed is divided into separate parts or parcels from other tracts or parcels of real estate with the written consent of the landowners thereof to establish the boundaries of the property described in the Petition. Such consent is in the Amended Petition. , The limitation set forth at Section 31-12-105(a) is not applicable. 6. The area proposed to be annexed, when considered with property under identical ownership. does not comprise twenty acres or more. Accordingly. the limitation set forth at Section 3 1-12-105(b) does not apply. 7. There is no other annexation proceeding. other than the one under consideration herein, which has been commenced either in the City of Aspen or any other municipality which affects the property proposed to be annexed. Accordingly, the limitation set forth at Section 31-12- 105(c) does not apply. 8. Annexation of the property proposed to be annexed would not result in the detachment of any area from any school district and the attachment of the same to another school district. Accordingly, the limitation set forth at Section 31-12-105(d) does not apply. 9, Annexation of the property proposed to be annexed would not have the effect of extending the boundary of the City of Aspen more than three miles in any direction. Accordingly. the limitations set forth at Section 31-12-105(e) relating to the extension of municipal boundaries by more than three miles in any one year does not apply. 10. The property proposed to be anneked is within the Urban Growth Boundary, is within the planning area of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and is included in the City's 2015 Annexation Plan. Zoning and a more specific development plan for the property to be annexed will be addressed in an annexation agreement acceptable to the City and the Petitioners, prior to approval of any annexation ordinance for the Property, as set forth below. Accordingly, the requirement set forth at Section 31-12-105(e) relating to the requirement that a "plan" be adopted for the property proposed to be annexed prior to completion of any annexation has been and will be met. 11. In establishing the boundaries of the area to be annexed. no portion nor any entire width of a platted street or alley is proposed to be annexed. Accordingly. the limitation set forth at Section 31-12-105(f) does not apply. 12. The City of Aspen does not intend to deny reasonable access to landowners. owner of an easement, or the owner of a franchise adjoining any street, alley. or highway, upon annexation. Accordingly. the limitation set forth al Section 31-12-105(g) does not apply. Section 2. 13. The Property described in the Petition is eligible for annexation. 3 14. Any annexation of the Property is conditioned upon the approval of an Annexation Agreement between the Petitioners and the City setting forth the particular terms and conditions upon which the annexation will be acceptable to the City. INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 28th day of September 2015. Â«-ircle L SteverIMkadk~.Nifyor I, Linda Manning, duly appointed and acting City Clerk, do certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of .Aspen. Colorado, at a meeting held on the day hereinabove stated. 046 kfaul -Linda Manning, City Clerk 5 EXHIBIT r.- COMMITMENT for TITLEINSURANCE issued by of the rockies ~|~~ TITLE COMPANY as agent tbr WESTCOR LAND TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY Reference: Commitment Number: 0704656-C3 Commitment Ordered By: Inquiries should be directed to: Tom Todd Susan Hass Holland & Hart, LLP Title Company ofthe Rockies 600 E. Main St. 132 W. Main Street, Suite B Aspen, CO 81611 Aspen, CO 81611 Phone: 970-925-3476 Fax: Phone: (970) 920-9299 Fax: (970) 920-5352 email: ttodd@hollandhart. com email: shass@titlecorockies.com Reference Property Address: 705 West Hopkins Avenue, Aspen, CO 81611 SCHEDULE A 1. Effective Date: February 01,2016, 7:00 am Issue Date: February 22, 2016 2. Policy (or Policies) to be issued: ALTA Owner's Policy (6-17-06) Policy Amount: Amount to be Determined Premium: Amount to be Determined Proposed Insured: A Buyer to be Determined 3. The estate or interest in the Land described or referred to in this Commitment is: Fee Simple and Title to said estate or interest is at the Effective Date vested in: Starford Investments LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, formerly known as Starford Properties N.V., a Netherlands Antilles corporation 4. The Land referred to in this Commitment is located in the County ofPitkin, State of Colorado, and is described as follows: Lot 1, AMENDED AND RESTATED MARY B SUBDIVISION, according to the Plat thereof filed November 13, 1992, in Plat Book 30 at Page 6, Reception No. 350737. Alta Commitment - 2006 Schedule A 4, Commitment No. 0704656-C3 Schedule B-II Exceptions COMPITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE SCHEDULE B - SECTION H EXCEPTIONS Schedule B ofthe policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following matters unless the same are disposed ofto the satisfaction ofthe Company. Any loss or damage, including attorney fees, by reason ofthe matters shown below: 1. Any facts, rights, interests, or claims which are not shown by the Public Records but which could be ascertained by an inspection of said Land or by making inquiry of persons in possession thereof. 2. Easements or claims ofeasements, not shown by the Public Records. 3. Any encroachment encumbrance, violation, variation, or adverse circumstance affecting the Title that would be disclosed by an accurate and complete land survey ofthe Land. 4. Any lien, or right to a lien for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the Public Records. 5. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any created, first appearing in the Public Records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof, but prior to the date of the proposed insured acquires ofrecord for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. 6. (a) Taxes or assessments that are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the Public Records; (b) proceedings by a public agency that may result in taxes or assessments, or notices o f such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the Public Records. 7. Right ofthe Proprietor of a vein or lode to extract and remove his ore therefrom, should the same be found to penetrate or intersect the premises hereby granted, as reserved in United States Patent recorded April 23, 1894, in Book 39 at Page 35. 8. Right ofway for ditches or canals constructed by the authority ofthe United States, as reserved in United States Patent recorded August 29, 1917, in Book 136 at Page 401. 9. Easement and right ofway for trail purposes, as granted by Dorothy Koch Shaw, by Harry E. Shaw as Personal Representative to the Board of County Commissioner ofthe County of Pitkin, by instrument recorded August 23,1985, in Book 493 at Page 480. 10. Easements and rights ofway for electric transmission or distribution line and related appurtenances, as granted to Holy Cross Electric Association, Inc., by instrument recorded August 23, 1985, in Book 493 at Page 515, August 23, in Book 493 at Page 517, October 27,1986, in Book 521 at Page 384 and September 16, 1988, in Book 573 at Page 539, said easements being more particularly described therein. 11. Restrictions, which do not contain a forfeiture or reverter clause, but omitting any covenants or restrictions, if any, including, but not limited to those based upon race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, familial status, marital status, disability, handicap, national origin, ancestry, or source of income, as set forth in applicable state or federal laws, except to the extent that said covenant or Alta Commitment - 2006 Schedule B-II Exceptions Commitment No. 0704656-63 Schedule B-II Exceptions (continued) restriction is permitted by applicable law, as contained in instrument recorded August 19,1987, in Book 544 at Page 145 and September 15,1988, in Book 573 at Page 421. 12. The effect ofthe easement or claim of easement now claimed or adjudicated in that certain action entitled "City of Aspen, Colorado, a municipal corporation, petitioner, vs. Christopher Sheehan, et al., respondents/defendants", Civil Action No. 88CV303, District Court in and for Pitkin County, Colorado. Notice of Lis Pendens recorded September 27, 1988, in Book 574 at Page 211. 13. Resolution No. 92-32, by the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado, recorded June 11, 1992, in Book 680 at Page 393. 14. Resolution No. 92-244, by the Board ofCounty Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado, recorded August 6,1992, in Book 685 at Page 554. 15. Terms, agreements, provisions, conditions, obligations and restrictions, which do not contain a forfeiture or reverter clause, but omitting any covenants or restrictions, if any, including, but not limited to those based upon race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, familial status, marital status, disability, handicap, national origin, ancestry, or source of income, as set forth in applicable state or federal laws, except to the extent that said covenant or restriction is permitted by applicable law, as contained in Subdivision Agreement and Restrictive Covenants for the Amended and Restated Mary B Subdivision recorded November 13,1992, in Book 694 at Page 421. 16. Resolution No. 99-112, by the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado, recorded August 17, 1999, at Reception No. 434491. 17. Easements, rights ofway and all other matters as shown on the following Plats: 1) Mary B Subdivision, filed August 23,1985 in Plat Book 17 at Page 61, Reception No. 270787, and September 6, 1985, in Plat Book 17 at Page 74, Reception No. 271150; 2) Gramiger Sheehan Lot Line Adjustment, filed August 25, 1988, in Plat Book 21 at Page 19, Reception No. 303306; 3) Kaplan 1041 Review Plat, filed May 5,1989, in Plat Book 22 at Page 50, Reception No. 311256; and 4) Amended and Restated Mary B Subdivision, filed November 13, 1992, in Plat Book 30 at Page 6, Reception No. 350737. Alta Commitment - 2006 Schedule B-II Exceptions (continued) COMMITMENT for TITLEINSURANCE issued by TITLE COMPANN Or ine rockied as agent for CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY Reference: Commitment Number: 0704618-C2 Commitment Ordered By: Inquiries should be directed to: Tom Todd Susan Hass Holland & Hart, LLP Title Company of the Rockies 600 E. Main St. 132 W. Main Street, Suite B Aspen, CO 81611 Aspen, CO 81611 Phone: 970-925-3476 Fax: Phone: (970) 920-9299 Fax: (970) 920-5352 email: ttodd@hollandhart.com Reference Property Address: 719 West Hopkins Avenue, Aspen, CO 81611 SCHEDULE A 1. Effective Date: February 01,2016,7:00 am Issue Date: February 22, 2016 2. Policy (or Policies) to be issued: ALTA Owner's Policy (6-17-06) Policy Amount: Amount to be Determined Premium: Amount to be Detennined Proposed Insured: A Buyer To Be Determined 3. The estate or interest in the Land described or referred to in this Commitment is: Fee Simple and Title to said estate or interest is at the Effective Date vested in: Westehester Investments, Inc., a Delaware corporation 4. The Land referred to in this Commitment is located in the County ofPitkin, State of Colorado, and is described as follows: "Adjusted" Gramiger Parcel, GRAMIGER SHEEHAN LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, according to the Plat thereof filed August 25, 1988, in PLat Book 21 at Page 19, at Reception No. 303306. Alta Commitment - 2006 Schedule A .*1 Commitment No. 0704618-C2 Schedule B-Il Exceptions COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE SCHEDULE B - SECTION II EXCEPTIONS Schedule B ofthe policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following matters unless the same are disposed ofto the satisfaction of the Company. Any loss or damage, including attorney fees, by reason ofthe matters shown below: 1. Any facts, rights, interests, or claims which are not shown by the Public Records but which could be ascertained by an inspection of said Land or by making inquiry of persons in possession thereof. 2. Easements or claims of easements, not shown by the Public Records. 3. Any encroachment, encumbrance, violation, variation, or adverse circumstance affecting the Title that would be disclosed by an accurate and complete land survey ofthe Land. 4. Any lien, or right to a lien for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the Public Records. 5. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any created, first appearing in the Public Records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof, but prior to the date ofthe proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. 6. (a) Taxes or assessments that are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the Public Records; (b) proceedings by a public agency that may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records ofsuch agency or by the Public Records. 7. Right ofthe Proprietor of a vein or lode to extract and remove his ore therefrom, should the same be found to penetrate or intersect the premises hereby granted, as reserved in United States Patent recorded April 23, 1894 in Book 39 at Page 35, at Reception No. 40947. 8. Right of way for ditches or canals constructed by the authority ofthe United States, as reserved in United States Patent recorded May 6, 1918 in Book 136 at Page 405, at Reception no. 79329. 9. Easement and right of way for electric lines and related appurtenances, as granted by Hans R. Gramiger to Holy Cross Electric Association, Inc., by instrument recorded September 16,1988 in Book 573 at Page 539, at Reception No. 304040, said easement being more particularly described therein. 10. Easements, rights of way and all other matters shown on Gramiger Sheehan Lot Line Adjustment recorded August 25, 1988 in Plat Book 21 at Page 19 as Reception No. 303306. 11. Terms, agreements, provisions, conditions and obligations as contained in Quitclaim Deed, Mutual Restrictive Covenants, Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release recorded October 9,2008, at Reception No. 553462. 12. Resolution No. 6, Series of 2009, by the City Council ofthe City of Aspen, Colorado, recorded Alta Commitment - 2006 Schedule B-II Exceptions Commitment No- 0704618-C2 Schedule B-LI Exceptions (continued) August 6,2009, at Reception No. 561701. 13. Terms, agreements, provisions, conditions and obligations as contained in Master Agreement recorded August 6,2009, at Reception No. 561702. 14. Terms, agreements, provisions, conditions and obligations as contained in SI Johnson Ditch Approach Road Construction and Pipeline Repair Agreement recorded August 6,2009, at Reception No. 561706. 15. Resolution No. 82, Series of 2010, by the City Council ofthe City of Aspen, Colorado, recorded February 7, 2011, at Reception No. 577446. 16. Resolution No. 80, Series of2011, by the City Council ofthe City ofAspen, Colorado, recorded December 12,2011, at Reception No. 584986. Alta Commitment - 2006 Schedule B-[I Exceptions (continued) COMMITMENT for TITLEINSURANCE issued by ~|~ TITLE COMPANY ~~11~ of ine .ucK of 1 as agent for WESTCOR LAND TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY Reference: Commitment Number: 0704617-C2 Commitment Ordered By: Inquiries should be directed to: Tom Todd Susan Hass Holland & Hart, LLP Title Company ofthe Rockies 600 E. Main St. 132 W. Main Street Suite B Aspen, CO 81611 Aspen, CO 81611 Phone: 970-925-3476 Fax: Phone: (970) 920-9299 Fax: (970) 920-5352 email: ttodd@hollandhart.com email: shass@titlecorockies.corn Reference Property Address: 615 West Hopkins Avenue, Aspen, CO 81611 SCHEDULE A 1. Effective Date: February 01,2016,7:00 am Issue Date: February 22, 2016 2. Policy (or Policies) to be issued: ALTA Owner's Policy (6-17-06) Policy Amount: Amount to be Determined Premium: Amount to be Determined Proposed Insured: A Buyer To Be Determined 3. The estate or interest in the Land described or referred to in this Commitment is: Fee Simple and Title to said estate or interest is at the Effective Date vested in: Shadow Mountain Corporation, a Delaware corporation 4. The Land referred to in this Commitment is located in the County ofPitkin, State of Colorado, and is described as follows: Lot 2, AMENDED AND RESTATED MARY B SUBDIVISION, according to the Plat thereof filed November 13, 1992, in Plat Book 30 at Page 6, Reception No. 350737. Alta Commitment - 2006 Schedule A Conimitment No. 0704617-C2 Schedule B-II Exceptions COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE SCHEDULE B -SECTION U EXCEPTIONS Schedule B of the policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following matters unless the same are disposed ofto the satisfaction ofthe Company. Any loss or damage, including attorney fees, by reason ofthe matters shown below: 1. Any facts, rights, interests, or claims which are not showÂ·n by the Public Records but which could be ascertained by an inspection of said Land or by making inquiry of persons in possession thereof. 2. Easements or claims of easements, not shown by the Public Records. 3. Any encroachment encumbrance, violation, variation, or adverse circumstance affecting the Title that would be disclosed by an accurate and complete land survey ofthe Land. 4. Any lien, or right to a lien for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the Public Records. 5. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any created, first appearing in the Public Records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof, but prior to the date of the proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. 6. (a) Taxes or assessments that are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the Public Records; (b) proceedings by a public agency that may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the Public Records. 7. Right ofway for ditches or canals constructed by the authority ofthe United States, as reserved in United States Patent recorded May 6, 1918, in Book 136 at Page 405. 8. Resolution No. 84-48, by the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado, recorded July 10,1984, in Book 469 at Page 259. 9. Easement and right ofway for trail purposes, as granted by Dorothy Koch Shaw, by Harry E. Shaw as Personal Representative to the Board of County Commissioner ofthe County ofPitkin, by instrument recorded August 23, 1985, in Book 493 at Page 480. 10. Mary B Subdivision P.U.D. Improvements Agreement recorded August 9, 1985, in Book 493 at Page 484. 11. Easements and rights ofway for electric transmission or distribution line and related appurtenances, as granted to Holy Cross Electric Association, Inc., by instrument recorded August 23, 1985, in Book 493 at Page 517, said easements being more particularly described therein. 12. Resolution No. 85-91, by the Board of County Commissioners ofPitkin County, Colorado, recorded September 4, 1985, in Book 494 at Page 292. 13. Terms, agreements, provisions, conditions, obligations and restrictions, which do not contain a Alta Commitment - 2006 Schedule B-II Exceptions Commitment No. 0704617-C2 Schedule B-II Exceptions (continued) forfeiture or reverter clause, but omitting any covenants or restrictions, if any, including, but not limited to those based upon race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, familial status, marital status, disability, handicap, national origin, ancestry, or source of income, as set forth in applicable state or federal laws, except to the extent that said covenant or restriction is permitted by applicable law, as contained in Subdivision Agreement and Restrictive Covenants for the Amended and Restated Mary B Subdivision recorded November 13,1992, in Book 694 at Page 421. 14. Resolution No. 99-112, by the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado, recorded August 17, 1999, at Reception No. 434491. 15. Easements, rights ofway and all other matters as shown on the following Plats: 1) Mary B Subdivision, filed August 23, 1985 in Plat Book 17 at Page 61, Reception No. 270787, and September 6, 1985, in Plat Book 17 at Page 74, Reception No. 271150; 2) Amended and Restated Mary B Subdivision, filed November 13, 1992, in Plat Book 30 at Page 6, Reception No. 350737. Alta Commitment - 2006 Schedule B-H Exceptions (continued) EXHIBIT STARFORD INVESTMENTS LLC (fka: STARFORD PROPERTIES N.V.) 121 Alhambra Plaza, Suite 1400 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 WESTCHESTER INVESTMENTS, INC. 121 Alhambra Plaza, Suite 1400 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 SHADOW MOUNTAIN CORPORATION 121 Alhambra Plaza, Suite 1400 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 June 25,2015 Ms. Jessica Garrow Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Permission to Represent 1 1 Dear Ms. Garrow: The undersigned are the owners of the three (3) parcels of land that are the subject of the annexation petition, rezoning request and land use application for the project commonly known as the 705 West Hopkins Avenue Property. Please consider this letter authorization for Mr. Patrick Freeman, President of Cisneros Real Estate, and for Sunny Vann o f Vann Associates, LLC Planning Consultants to represent the undersigned in the processing of our petition and application for annexation, rezoning and land use approvals covering these three (3) parcels of land. Mr. Freeman and Mr. Vann are hereby authorized to act on our behalf with respect to all matters reasonably pertaining to the aforementioned petition and application for annexation, rezoning and land use approvals. Sincerely, STARFORD INVESTMENTS LLC (fka: STARFORD PROPERTIES N.V.), a Delaware limited liability comppy i i ri 9/1 -Â£4 ~ lt---p--7 Ed Jardo L. Hernaf~dez,p~*terS;Id Secretary 1 / Â£2/ WESTCHESTER INVESTMENTS, INC., a Del vare corporation By: /~0 Eli63O L. Hernandezâ€žMrector and Secretary SHADOW MOUNTAIN CORPORAr 'ION, a Delawam-Gorporation ByÂ· kXffi - -*-s;&* [96,1 630 L. Hernandez, Ffirectgaf@e. Pregident and Secretary 7862310_1 Â£3>- - 6 ATTACHMENT 2 - LAND USE APPLICATION 1 PROJECT: Name: -psâ‚¬ \,4 64- *F19,41> rÂ£41+16Â© pgue-en-/a-1-r Location: -7016 \Waâ‚¬r Ment,We Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) 2-7752494â‚¬a ~27592999<0Â£32 , 2736l 2-4-Â©000/ APPLICANT: Name: AFTÂ«Fur,n t th/650 461-1721% CU.' 1 Address: 1 ZA Â«UA H ite<4 t=66@A ,â‚¬r. 140 %6 er;4444,rita= FL 905)1> 13 Phone #: 2259/4*Z-- 35<AS REPRESENTIVATIVE: / Name: 8*11* Nj41 A-1 94-1 14-,â‚¬+Â«JÂ«MA .U-52- Address: P.O. MÂ« 482-7 , ts/64.4. 61Â£1 &6-â‚¬/ & 6 Phone#: 9 73/929 -4982 CE'~GMQS Exemption LE Conceptual PUD 2 Temporary Use CET GMQS Allotment 7-1 Fjpal PUD (& PUD Amendment) Special Review V'lubdivision L_2 Conceptual SPA ESA -8040 Greenline, Stream U Subdivision Exemption (includes Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, Condominiumization) ountain View Plane 2 Final SPA (&SPA Commercial Design Review En Lot Split Amendment) U Residential Design Variance 2 Lot Line Adjustment 2 Small Lodge Conversion/ Expansion ; CY, Conditional Use Other:/'565:;00$447 EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) 1-066 ArruÂ«rtel-1 PROPOSAL: (Description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) 48Â£Â°r-610Â°05,4 Haayou attached the following? FEES DUE: $ FE,>â‚¬1.Â£kl>- CE>*e-Application Conference SummarY EyLAttachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement [35 Response to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requirements Form [P-Response to Attachment #4, Submittal Requirements - including Written Responses to Review Standards ~ 3-D Model for large project All plans that are larger than 8.5" X 11" must be folded. A disk with an electric copy of all written text (Microsoft Word Format) must be submitted as part of the application. Large scale projects should include an electronic 3-D model. Your pre-application conference summary will indicate if you must submit a 3-D model. January, 2016 City of Aoen I 130 S. Galena St. I (970) 920 5050 t]Ht rÂ·==-1 71 4 ATTACHMENT 3 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM P roject: 106\Ueâ‚¬r J.icsrn, 41Â£-0 rhNV,-16:f-D r-=eleci=740-1-r Applicant: Location: 766 viefâ‚¬r Nerr-#*-p Zone District: ri-iza tu 7142Â£ cczurn' Lot Size: 6 -61 -<~<S/~92-7 torge. drfLEÂ£*arr,d,4 Lot Area: (For the purpose of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high-water mark, easement, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable: Existing: Proposed: 1l/lc*-1 Number of residential units: Existing: ,2-- Proposed: 0- Number of bedrooms: Existing: Droposed: Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): DIMENSIONS: 4936 ArrucÂ«El<*1 Floor Area: Existing: Allowable: Proposed Principal bldg. height: Existing: AllowableÂ·. Proposed Access. Bldg. height: Existing: AllowableÂ·. Proposed On-Site parking: Existing: RequiredÂ·. Proposed % Site coverage: Existing: Required: Proposed % Open Space: Existing: RequiredÂ·. Proposed Front Setback: Existing: Required Proposed Rear Setback: Existing: Required-. Proposed Combined F/F: Existing: Required Proposed Side Setback: Existing: Required.Â· Proposed Side Setback: Existing: Required Proposed Combined Sides: Existing: Required Droposed Distance between Bldgs. Existing: Required: Proposed Existing: Required: Proposed: Existing non-conformities or encroachments: 6*30-le variations requested: ~924;f/-/2-20Â£0 227525,26~ d->447-/'-~259%Â£79' eye#-1PT'04-4 Frt#Â»4 9-5> :6124 1181Â£.6 ,=2:St '4-raj'UAL- c-Ce:T r+41Â£6= January, 2016 Citv of ADen I 130 S. Galena St. I (970) 920 5050 EXHIBIT M <rs 3 CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTIk Agreement to Pay Application Fees An agreement between the City of Aspen ("City") and Property tarvre,90 Phone No: -~2- 30 32 Owner ("1"' Email: - - r- / 66/ 9257Â»1 Ett[*b, 4-01 rr~nedE++8+1~14/4442#Â¥sket, Address of 70 6 9/667- Billing / t.1 #U-1,94 #'SMA *24*1 Property: Address: 48-VE, le- (Subject otionicus *te . (send bills here ~ 0644* Â£11/Sies/ Fu Â»8/35Â£ application) I understand that the City has adopted, via Ordinance No., Series of 2011, review fees for Land Use applications and payment of these fees is a condition precedent to determining application completeness. I understand that as the property ownerthat I am responsible for paying all fees for this development application. For flat fees and referral fees: I agree to pay the following fees for the services indicated. 1 understand that these flat fees are non-refundable. $. flat fee for . S. flat fee for $. flat fee for . $. flat fee for For Deposit cases only: The City and I understand that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to know the full extent or total costs involved in processing the application. I understand that additional costs over and above the deposit may accrue. I understand and agree that it is impracticable for City staffto complete processing, review and presentation of sufficient information to enable legally required findings to be made for project consideration, unless invoices are paid in full. The City and I understand and agree that invoices mailed by the City to the above listed billing address and not returned to the City shall be considered by the City as being received by me. I agree to remit payment within 30 days of presentation of an invoice by the City for such services. 1 have read, understood, and agree to the Land Use Review Fee Policy including consequences for no-payment. I agree to pay the following initial deposit amounts for the specified hours of staff time. I understand that payment of a deposit does not render and application complete or compliant with approval criteria. if actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, 1 agree to pay additional monthly billings to the City to reimburse the City for the processing of my application at the hourly rates hereinafter stated. $ /29 522XS deposit for 3,2 hours of Community Development Department staff time. Additional time above the deposit amount will be billed at $325.00 per hour. $ 5215 deposit for / hours of Engineering Department staff time. Additional time above the deposit amount will be billed at $325.00 per hour. ATO-'A,1,<aA r>,4,9Â» 0,cet BEN. #464:TM 4 42*5 A 2-A City of Aspen: prowN>,pf#ErÂ·. / ~ Chris Bendon Community Development Director N~Q let,!/- â‚¬0~ ,AE~kj City Use: /t;'-c.X_, Title: Fees Due: $ Received $ january, 2016 Citv of Aoen 1 130 S. Galena St. I (9701 920 5050 ~ 11 EXHIBIT 9 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Homeowner Association Compliance Policy All land use applications within the City of Aspen are required to include a Homeowner Association Compliance Form (this form) certifying the scope of work included in the land use application complies with all applicable covenants and homeowner association policies, The certification must be signed bv the property owner or Attorney representing the property owner. Name: Property Starford Investments, LLC Owner ("ID: Email: Phone No,: Address of Property: 705 West Hopkins Avenue (subject of Aspen, CO 81611 application) I certify as follows: (pick one) 60 This property is not subject to a homeowners association or other form of private covenant. Il This property is subject to a homeowners association or private covenant and the improvements proposed in this land use application do not require approval by the homeowners association or covenant beneficiary. 0 This property Is subject to a homeowners association or private covenant and the improvements proposed in this land use application have been approved by the homeowners association or covenant beneficiary. I understand this policy and ! understand the City of Aspen does not interpret, enforce, or manage the applicability, meaning or effect of private covenants or homeowner association rules or bylaws. 1 understand that this document is aliubliglocument. 2 / 1 Owner signature: Â¢7-7â‚¬ 05- date:_0~0/!19*' \1 4 \, -1, Owner printed name: 'Patdck Freeman, Authorized Signatory or, Attorney signature: date: Attorney printed name: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT --- - ---- - -- 1./.1 Homeowner Association Compliance Policy All land use applications within the City of Aspen are required to include a Homeowner Associatioo Compliance Form (this form) certifying the scope of work included in the land use application complies with all applicable covenants and homeowner association policies. The certification must be signed by the propertv owner or Attorney representing the property owner. Name: Property Shadow Mountain Corporation Owner ("111): Email: Phone No.: Address of 615 West Hopkins Avenue Property: Aspen, CO 81611 (subject of application) I certify as follows: (pick one) El This property is not subject to a homeowners association or other form of private covenant. Â£ This property is subject to a homeowners association or private covenant and the improvements proposed in this land use application do not require approval by the homeowners association or covenant beneficiary. E This property Is subject to a homeowners association or private covenant and the improvements proposed in this land use application have been approved by the homeowners association or covenant beneficiary. I understand this policy and I understand the City of Aspen does not interpret, enforce, or manage the applicability, meaning or effect of private covenants or homeowner association rules or bylaws. 1 understand that this document iy public document. Owner signature: /54/4;- date: 79,en /6 1./1 Owner printed name: Patrick Freeman. Authorized Signatory or, Attorney signature: date: Attorney printed name: 1 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT i Homeowner Association Compliance Policy ~ All land use applicatjons within the City of Aspen are required to include a Homeowner Association Compliance Form (this form) certifying the scope of work included in the land use application complies ~ with all applicable covenants and homeowner association policies. The certification must be signed by i the Dropertv owner or Attorney representing the property owner. Name: Property Westchester Investments, Inc. 1 Owner ("1"): Email: Phone No.: Address of 719 West Hopkins Avenue Property: (subject of Aspen, CO 81611 j application) ' I certify as follows: (pick one) 1 Gl This property is not subject to a homeowners association or other form of private covenant ; 0 This property is subject to a homeowners association or private covenant and the improvements proposed in this land use application do not require approval by the homeowners association or covenant beneficiary. 3 C] This property is subject to a homeowners association or private covenant and the 1 improvements proposed in this land use application have been approved by the homeowners association or covenant beneficiary. I understand this policy and I understand the City of Aspen does not interpret, enforce, or manage the applicability, meaning or effect of private covenants or homeowner association rules or bylaws. 1 understand that this documentlm public document. datet 29#Al /6 Owner signature: Owner printed name: Patrick Freeman, Authorized Signatory or, Attorney signature: date: Attorney printed name: EXHIBIT 173 j0 3 Pitkin County Mailing List of 300 Feet Radius From Parcel: 273512494001 on 03/28/2016 ),THIN Lou rv Tr 4 Instructions: This document contains a Mailing List formatted to be printed on Avery 5160 Labels. If printing, DO NOT "fit to page" or "shrink oversized pages." This will manipulate the margins such that they no longer line up on the labels sheet. Print actual size. Disclaimer: Pitkin County GIS presents the information and data on this web site as a service to the public. Every effort has been made to ensure that the information and data contained in this electronic system is accurate, but the accuracy may change. Mineral estate ownership is not included in this mailing list. Pitkin County does not maintain a database of mineral estate owners. Pitkin County GIS makes no warranty or guarantee concerning the completeness, accuracy, or reliability of the content at this site or at other sites to which we link. Assessing accuracy and reliability of information and data is the sole responsibility of the user. The user understands he or she is solely responsible and liable for use, modification, or distribution of any information or data obtained on this web site. http //www.pitkinmapsandmore.com NALEZNY C GERARD & PENNIE M BLANCHARD NATALIE M DART ELIZABETH RODWELL 4251 MORNING GLORY RD 720 W HOPKINS #B 633 W MAIN ST FORT COLLINS, CO 80526 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 BERR LLC WINGSTONE TOY COMPANY LLC MARSHALL ELLEN M & THOMAS M REV TRU ' 611 W MAI N ST 2023 WAYNESBOROUGH RD 300 RIVERSIDE AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 PAOLI, PA 19301 ASPEN, CO 81611 BLUE GLEN T BLUE MARCUS ASPEN FSP ABR LLC PO BOX Q PO BOX Q 11921 FREEDOM DR #950 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 RESTON, VA 20190 HAISFIELD MICHAEL D & LISA Y REID BETSY M 2007 QPR TRUST BRYAN SHEILAH JUDITH 616 W HOPKINS PO BOX 10443 PO BOX 976 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 LANG JACQUELINE WARBLE ERIC WOOD TANA R 15 WENTWORTH ST 124 SPRING PL 5532 STURBRIDGE DR COTTESLOE WESTERN AUSTRALIA 6011, EDWARDS, CO 81632 HOUSTON, TX 770561623 KELSO DOUGLAS P CION IAN MARTIN BARBER EDGAR F 627 W MAIN ST 501 WOODIAND ST PO BOX 9678 t ASPEN, CO 81611-1619 HOUSTON, TX 77009 ASPEN, CO 81612 CHRISTENSEN CAROLINE CUMMINS RICHARD THROM DOUGLAS H 617 W MAIN ST #A 617 W MAIN ST#B 617 W MAIN ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 JAS CAPITAL LLC ALLEN DOUGLAS P JOHNSON STANFORD H 617 W MAIN ST #E 403 LACET LN PO BOX 32102 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 TUCSON, AZ 85751 ONEIL BRIAN & SUZANNE RODRIGUEZ JOANN HAYMAX HOTELS LLC PO BOX 199 605 W MAIN ST #00A 605 W MAIN ST #2 TAVERNIER, FL 33070 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 REVA LLC RUFUS CAMI CAMI LLC MILIAS ELIZABETH A PO BOX 1376 1280 UTE AVE #7 PO BOX 4662 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 UMBA ENTERPRISE LLC CORD AMY SPITZBART ELLEN 605 W MAIN ST #103 719 W MAIN ST #100 719 W MAIN ST #101 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 816111657 ASPEN, CO 81611 BULICZ KEITH & LEANN GRUETER PAUL ERICH BRINKMEYER THOMAS K ' 719 W MAIN#102 719 WMAIN ST#103 719 W MAIN ST #200 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 VINES CRAIG KEERY RICHARD LYLE ALEXANDER T 719 W MAIN ST #202 719 W MAIN ST #203 719 W MAIN ST #204 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 TAYLOR JOHN W WEIEN J ROBERT DEANE LANDON 31050 W THOMPSON LN 709 W MAIN ST PO BOX 508 HARTLAND, WI 53029 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 HISPATEL CORP PATERSON CHARLES & FONDA CHRISTOPHER MARIDEE 121 ALHAMBRA PLAZA STE 1400 1104 E WATERS AVE 13571 N 92ND WAY CORAL GABLES, FL 33134 ASPEN, CO 81611 SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85260-4327 WESTCHESTER INVESTMENTS INC WEST ALFRED P JR & LORALEE S SHADOW MTN CORP 121 ALHAMBRA PLAZA STE 1400 2023 WAYNESBOROUGH RD 121 ALHAMBRA PLAZA STE 1400 E CORAL GABLE, FL 33134 PAOLI, PA 19301 CORAL GABLES, FL 33134 THREE TREES LLC SINKINSON ELIZABETH & MARK C STURT DAVID B 1 LANDMARK SQUARE 22ND FLR 724 W HOPKINS AVE 728 W HOPKINS AVE #A2 STAMFORD, CT 06901 ASPEN, CO 816111664 ASPEN, CO 81611 NELSON JOHN AUSTIN & TARA KENNINGTON BRAD & GARSKE GINGER PETERS DAWN 732 W HOPKINS ST #A3 736 W HOPKINS AVE 126 S SEVENTH ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 LAMPING RICHARD YULE BRADLEY A GARSKE CORY J & LAURA 126 S SEVENTH ST 130 S 7TH ST #B2 134 S 7TH ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 PLATEK DIANE MCFARLAND SHAYN D KRAHE SHARON 138 S SEVENTH ST #B4 PO BOX 3811 PO BOX 8615 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 KNIGHT GLENDA C WEST HOPKINS CONDO ASSOCIATION MADSEN MARTHA W PO BOX 328 144 S SEVENTH ST 608 W HOPKINS AVE APT 9 SNOWMASS, CO 81654 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 NECHADEIM REALTY LLC THE PRIDE LLC PITKIN COUNTY PO BOX 4950 PO BOX 770196 530 E MAIN ST #302 ASPEN, CO 81612 STEAMBOAT SPRINGS, CO 80477 ASPEN, CO 81611 DAGGS JAMES K TELAMON HOLDINGS LLC MENENDEZ LUIS A REV TRUST 715 WMAIN ST#101 715 W MAIN ST #204 PO BOX 8036 ASPEN, CO 81611-1659 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 MENENDEZ NASRIN N REV TRUST JEROME OFFICE ASPEN CO LLC SILVERLODE INVESTORS LLC PO BOX 8036 715 W MAIN ST #201 715 W MAIN #201 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 SHADOW MOUNTAIN OFFICES LLC SMITH COLTER H 50% SMITH BRIDGER R 50% 715 W MAIN ST #201 PO BOX 1307 381 ISABEL HAY RD ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN MAIN ST LLC LITTLE AJAX CONDO ASSOC LITTLE AJAX CONDOMINIUM ASSOC 715 W MAIN ST #201 605 W HOPKINS AVE 605 W HOPKINS #006 , ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ROLAND DANIEL P & LEAH S AMAYA JOSE ANTONIO ARGUETA BLANCA EDITH 605 W HOPKINS AVE #102 605 W HOPKINS AVE #103 605 W HOPKINS #103 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 KURKULIS PATSY & PAUL R SHEA LAYNE & MICHAEL GOLDSTONE JONNA A 605 W HOPKINS AVE #201 605 W HOPKINS AVE #202 805 E HOPKINS AVE # 203 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 VOSS NATALIE SUSAN REV TRUST WASHBURN SERENE MARIE V FRANSEN ERIN M & GREGORY H 605 W HOPKINS AVE #204 605 W HOPKINS AVE #205 605 W HOPKINS UNIT 206 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 MCCLURE KEVIN & MARY BLACK BENJAMIN F & ALICE M ANGELOV DIMTAR S & DANIEL D 605 W HOPKINS AVE #207 605 W HOPKINS AVE #208 605 W HOPKINS AVE #209 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 CARROLL MEREDITH C & ARTHUR R ERICKSON A RONALD MARSHALL ALISON J & JOSHUA W 605 W HOPKINS AVE #210 605 W HOPKINS AVE #211 605 W HOPKINS AVE#212 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 OLSEN MARSHALL G GOLDSTEIN MARC 50% SACKS CAROL 50% 705 W MAIN ST 4545 POST OAK PL #100 4545 POST OAK PL #100 ASPEN, CO 81611 HOUSTON, TX 77027 HOUSTON, TX 77207 JEMAR PARTNERS LLC 617 MAIN ST PROF BLDG CONDO SKANDIA TOWNHOUSES CONDO ASSOC 701 W MAIN ST 617 W MAIN ST COMMON AREA ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 720 W HOPKINS AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 700 WEST HOPKINS CONDO 715 WEST MAIN CONDO ASSOC 7TH & MAIN AFFORDABLE HOUSING 700 W HOPKINS AVE COMMON AREA COMMON AREA ASPEN, CO 81611 715 W MAIN ST 719 W MAIN ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 SMB CONDO ASSOC NIX ROBERT JR TODD SHANE ~ COMMON AREA PO BOX 3694 PO BOX 2654 605 W MIAN ST ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 01037H TRUST REID SUZANNAH V K LENIO TED 715 N SIERRA DR PO BOX 10443 737 W BLOOMFIELD BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90210 ASPEN, CO 81612 ROME, NY 13440 ROJAK JOHN MAHONY KAITILIN BRYAN SHEILAH 25 CIMARRON RD 170 W 74TH ST #809 PO BOX 976 PUTNUM VALLEY, NY 10579 NEW YORK, NY 10023 ASPEN, CO 81612 MEYER MARY ANNE & OLVIN LELAND COREY J BODURTHA SUSAN M PO BOX 11238 719 W MAIN ST#205 719 W MAIN ST #206 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 SUNTKEN JERI L LARY LANCE R PRINCE ANNMARIE 719 MAIN ST #207 719 W MAIN ST #301 719 W MAIN ST #301 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 Pitkin County Mailing List of 300 Feet Radius From Parcel: 273512494002 on 03/28/2016 4).iT KIN Lour,i T< -3.0\Q) Instructions: This document contains a Mailing List formatted to be printed on Avery 5160 Labels. If printing, DO NOT "fit to page" or "shrink oversized pages." This will manipulate the margins such that they no longer line up on the labels sheet. Print actual size. Disclaimer: Pitkin County GIS presents the information and data on this web site as a service to the public. Every effort has been made to ensure that the information and data contained in this electronic system is accurate, but the accuracy may change. Mineral estate ownership is not included in this mailing list. Pitkin County does not maintain a database of mineral estate owners. Pitkin County GIS makes no warranty or guarantee concerning the completeness, accuracy, or reliability of the content at this site or at other sites to which we link. Assessing accuracy and reliability of information and data is the sole responsibility of the user. The user understands he or she is solely responsible and liable for use, modification, or distribution of any information or data obtained on this web site. http://www.pitkinmapsandmore.com DEANE L*bON HISPATEL CORP PATERSON CH~[ES & FONDA PO BO)(08 121 ALHAMBR~PLAZA STE 1400 1104 E WATER~AVE ASPE08O 81612 CORAL GAB/~S, FL 33134 ASPEN, CO ,6611 1 1 1 CHRISTOPHE~MARIDEE WESTCHEST~INVESTMENTS INC WEST ALFRED JR & LORALEE S 13571 N 92N~WAY 121 ALHAM~A PLAZA STE 1400 2023 WAYNE~OROUGH RD SCOTTSDA~E, AZ 85260-4327 CORAL G~LE, FL 33134 PAOLI, PA ~6301 1 1 1 STARFORD PR~PERTIES NV STASPEN LLP MADSEN MA 01AW 121 ALHAM~ PLAZA STE 1400 1180 PEACHTREE ST NE 608 W HOP~RS AVE APT 9 CORAL G~LES, FL 33134 ATLANTA, GA 303093521 ASPEN, C 81611 1 1 CITY OF A EN NECHADEIM~EALTY LLC THE PRIDE~C 130 S GyENA ST PO BOX 49~ PO BOX 7,196 ASPEN~CO 81611 ASPEN, EL 81612 STEAME~AT SPRINGS, CO 80477 1 1 1 PITKIN COUNTY WHIPPLE JOHN TAGGART STERTZER ELIANE C 530 E MAIN ST #302 400 E HYMAN AVE #A202 PO BOX 9686 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 FELER LAURIE & CLAUDIO CORTALE ITA CHRISTIANA A105 LLC 550 FOX RUN PO BOX 12346 PO BOX 542 CARBONDALE, CO 81623 ASPEN, CO 816129237 SAN MATEO, CA 94401 TOMS CONDO LLC KINGEN DAVE & CHRISTINE WERLIN LAURA B TRUST 132 MIDLAND AVE #4 6500 E CHOLLA DR 2279 PINE ST BASALT, CO 81621 PARADISE VALLEY, AZ 85253 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94115 CORONA VANESSA LOPEZ CARTER RICHARD P MONARCH 111 LLC PO BOX 3670 PO BOX 2932 PO BOX 30476 ASPEN, CO 81612 TELLURIDE, CO 81435 KANSAS CITY, MO 64112 HESSIAN ASPEN LLC FINE FREDRIC N & SONDRA POWDERDAYSKIING LLC 807 W MORSE BLVD #105 412 MARINER DR 9 E LOOCKERMAN ST #215 WINTER PARK, FL 32792 JUPITER, FL 33477 DOVER, DE 19901 SCHULMAN WILLIAM PAUL KATZMAN LORI ANN TUCKER LUCY LEA 301 MERCER BLVD 301 MERCER BLVD PO BOX 1480 CHARLEVOIX, MI 49720 CHARLEVOIX, MI 49720 ASPEN, CO 81611 ALPINE BANK LITTLE AJAX CO~O ASSOC LITTLE AJAX CON~IVIINIUM ASSOC PO BOX 10000 605 W HOPKIN~VE 605 WHOPKINS ~6 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81602 ASPEN, CO ~11 ASPEN, CO 81,~1 1 1 ROLAND DANIEL,~& LEAH S AMAYA JOSE~ITONIO ARGUETA BLA A EDITH 605 W HOPKIN~VE #102 605 W HOP~S AVE #103 605 W HOPI~S #103 ASPEN, CO ~11 ASPEN, (/ 81611 ASPEN, C 81611 KURKULIS PA Y & PAUL R SHEA LAYNE~MICHAEL GOLDSTONE~NNA A 605 W HOP;~IS AVE #201 605 W HOP~hIS AVE #202 805 E HOPI~S AVE # 203 ASPEN, ~81611 ASPEN, Q~ 81611 ASPEN, ~ 81611 1 1 1 VOSS NATALI~USAN REV TRUST WASHBURN)ERENE MARIE V FRANSEN ERI & GREGORY H 605 W HOPK~ AVE #204 605 W HOP~NS AVE #205 605 W HOPKIAS UNIT 206 ASPEN, CC*1611 ASPEN,~D 81611 ASPEN, CE 81611 , MCCLURE K IN & MARY BLACK BEN.~MIN F & ALICE M ANGELOV DI~AR S & DANIEL D 605 W HOI~INS AVE #207 605 W HO'7~IS AVE #208 605 W HOP~IS AVE #209 ASPEN, ~ 81611 ASPEN, ~ 81611 ASPEN, ~ 81611 1 1 1 CARROLL ME DITH C & ARTHUR R ERICKSON A~UNALD MARSHALL ,~SON J & JOSHUA W 605 W HOPI~S AVE #210 605 W HÂ°lyNS AVE #211 605 W HOP~NS AVE #212 ASPEN, C~81611 ASPEN, ~ 81611 ASPEN, 9~ 81611 1 1 1 OLSEN MAR~ALL G GOLDSTEIN IV~C 50% SACKS CA~L 50% 705 W MAI~ST 4545 POST~K PL #100 4545 PO~OAK PL #100 ASPEN, ~ 81611 HOUSTO/,TX 77027 HOUS~N, TX 77207 1 1 1 JEMAR PAI~VERS LLC R D OLSON INVESTMENTS 11 LLC 617 MAIN ST G'OF BLDG CONDO 701 W MA~ST 520 NEWPORT CENTER DR #600 617 W MAI~T ASPEN,~O 81611 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 ASPEN, ~ 81611 1 1 SKANDIA TOWI~OUSES CONDO ASSOC 700 WEST HO~KINS CONDO LINDAUER REBECCA F COMMON AR~ 700 W HOP~IS AVE 1115 ELM ST 720 W HOP~\IS AVE ASPEN, 9~ 81611 AUSTIN, TX 78703 ASPEN, ~ 81611 1 SMITH ANDREW C & DONNA G PERRY EMILY V BROOKS NORMAN A & LESLEE S 3622 SPRINGBROOK ST 1497 ISABELLA LN 16311 VENTURA BLVD #690 DALLAS, TX 75205 SANTA BARBARA , CA 93108 ENCINO, CA 91436 CHRISTIANA UNIT 0101 LLC SCHALL FAMILY TRUST PERRY IAN MICHAEL 795 LAKEVIEW DR 3841 HAYVENHURST DR 426 E HYMAN AVE MIAMI BEACH, FL 33140 ENCINO, CA 91436 ASPEN, CO 81611 PROMISE LAND LLC WENDT ROBERT E 11 501 WEST MAIN LLC 6412 S QUEBEC ST 350 MT HOLYOKE AVE 532 E HOPKINS AVE ENGLEWOOD, CO 80111 PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272 ASPEN, CO 81611-1818 SMB CONDO~SSOC NIX ROBER JR TODD SH~VE COMMON~REA PO BOX ~94 PO BO~654 605 W ~N ST ASPD,CO 81612 ASP , CO 81612 ASPE~CO 81511 521-523 W HOPKINS AFFORD HOUSING HOA LOT 2 BOOMERANG LOT SPLIT NAVIAS CRAIG & ESTHER TRUST 521 W HOPKINS AVE 533 E HOPKINS AVE 3RD FL PO BOX 4390 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 01037H TR~T REID SUZAI~AH V K LENIO TED 715 N SI[~RA DR PO BOX 1~43 737 W BL~AIFIELD BEVE~Y HILLS, CA 90210 ASPEN~O 81612 ROME, 1~ 13440 1 1 1 ROJAK JOHN MAHONY Kyrl LIN BRYAN SHE~H 25 CIMARRO/RD 170 W 74-~ST #809 PO BOX 971 PUTNUM~~LLEY, NY 10579 NEW Y K, NY 10023 ASPEN, 81612 li 1 MEYER MAI~ANNE & OLVIN PO BOX 1 038 ASPEN,20 81612 Pitkin County Mailing List of 300 Feet Radius From Parcel: 273512400001 on 03/28/2016 4kT KIN louNT* -3.04) Instructions: This document contains a Mailing List formatted to be printed on Avery 5160 Labels. If printing, DO NOT "fit to page" or "shrink oversized pages." This will manipulate the margins such that they no longer line up on the labels sheet. Print actual size. Disclaimer: Pitkin County GIS presents the information and data on this web site as a service to the public. Every effort has been made to ensure that the information and data contained in this electronic system is accurate, but the accuracy may change. Mineral estate ownership is not included in this mailing list. Pitkin County does not maintain a database of mineral estate owners. Pitkin County GIS makes no warranty or guarantee concerning the completeness, accuracy, or reliability of the content at this site or at other sites to which we link. Assessing accuracy and reliability of information and data is the sole responsibility of the user. The user understands he or she is solely responsible and liable for use, modification, or distribution of any information or data obtained on this web site. http://www.pitkinmapsandmore.com NALEZNY C GE!~D & PENNIE M BLANCHARD,'ATALIE M ZACHAR GEORGE R QPR TRUST 4251 MORNIN~LORY RD 720 W HOI~NS #B 1120 PARK AVE #6A FORT COLL-11~, CO 80526 ASPEN, 0~ 81611 NEW YORK, NY 10128 1 1 LAZAR NANCY R QPR TRUST DART ELIZAB~EH RODWELL BERR LUf 1120 PARK AVE #6A 633 W MAIN,~r 611 V\~|Alt\I ST NEWYORK, NY 10128 ASPEN, C/81611 ASP61, co 81611 1 1 WINGSTONE TO COMPANY LLC MARSHALL ~[EN M & THOMAS M REV TRU BLUE Gl~ T 2023 WAYNES~DROUGH RD 300 RIVER~E AVE PO BO~ PAOLI, PA 1Aol ASPEN, CL 81611 ASP~, CO 81612 1 1 1 BLUE M CUS HAISFIELD 1~HAEL D & LISA Y REID BETS~ 2007 QPR TRUST PO B~ Q 616 W HO~INS PO BOX 1~43 AS~N, CO 81612 ASPEN,,06 81611 ASPEN,/b 81612 1 1 BRYAN SHEI H JUDITH LANG JACQ~ELINE WARBLE,~RIC PO BOX 97~ 15 WENT~RTH ST 124 SP~NG PL ASPEN, i ~ 81612 COTTESLE WESTERN AUSTRALIA 6011, ED~DS, CO 81632 1 1 WOOD TAN~ KELSO DO~LAS P CION IAN RTIN 5532 STUR~RIDGE DR 627 W MA~ST 501 WO~LAND ST HOUST~ TX 770561623 ASPEN,/b 81611-1619 HOUS~N, TX 77009 1 1 1 BARBER E ARF CHRISTENSE~AROLINE CUMMINS 1~HARD PO BOX ~78 617 W MAIN 1- #A 617 W IVI~~ ST #B ASPEN O 81612 ASPEN, Cl 81611 ASPEN O 81611 1 1 , THROM DOLI~LAS H JAS CAPIT~L LLC ALLEN DOU AS P 617 W MA~ST 617 W M04 ST #E 403 LACE-~N ASPEN, 081611 ASPENVCO 81611 ASPEN, 81611 I JOHNSON S~NFORD H ONEIL BR~' & SUZANNE CORD AMY PO BOX 3~82 PO BOX,~9 719 W IVI~ ST #100 TUCSO AZ 85751 TAVE IER, FL 33070 ASPD'CO 816111657 1 1 SPITZBAR~/ELLEN BULICZ K~EH & LEANN GRUETER 1~UL ERICH 719 W M~N ST #101 719 W I\~N #102 719 W MA~ST #103 ASPEI~CO 81611 ASPE~,CO 81611 ASPEN,A 81611 BRINKMEY~ THOMAS K VINES CRA KEERY RI,ARD 719 W M~M ST #200 719 W M~ ST #202 719 W M~l ST #203 ASPEN~60 81611 ASPEN/~O 81611 ASPE~,CO 81611 1 1 1 LYLE ALEX DER T TAYLOR JOHNJQ WEIEN J ROART 719 W M~1~ ST #204 31050 W TH~PSON LN 709 W M ~AST ASPEN /O 81611 HARTLAN ~A/1 53029 ASPEN/~60 81611 1 1 1 DEANE LA ON HISPATEL Cgp PATERSON 90ARLES & FONDA PO BOX ~8 121 ALHAI\~RA PLAZA STE 1400 1104 E W,0RS AVE ASPEN~O 81612 CORAL ~BLES, FL 33134 ASPEN/b 81611 1 1 CHRISTOPH~ MARIDEE WEST Al,-FRE~ JR & LORALEE S KARA CREEK LLC 13571 N 9~) WAY 2023 WAYN~BOROUGH RD 533 E HOPKINS AVE SCOTTS~LE, AZ 85260-4327 PAOLI, PA~9301 ASPEN, CO 81611 , SAWMILL COURT LLC STARFORD PROPERTIES NV SHADOW MT ~CORP 2711 N HASKELL AVE, STE 1650 121 ALHAMBRA PLAZA, STE 1400 121 ALHAM~A PLAZA STE 1400 DALLAS, TX 75204 CORAL GABLES, FL 33134 CORAL G/LES, FL 33134 FURLOTTI ALEXANDER A & NANCY S THREE TRE 5FLLc CITY OF ASPEN PO BOX 1187 1 LANDMA~ SQUARE 22ND FLR 130 S GALENA ST ASPEN,CO 81612 STAMFO96, CT 06901 ASPEN, CO 81611 SINKINSON ELIZA~TH & MARK C STURT DA B NELSON JOHN~USTIN & TARA 724 W HOPKINS~VE 728 W H~KINS AVE #A2 732 W HOPK~ ST #A3 ASPEN, CO 81~11664 ASPENLO 81611 ASPEN, C~1611 1 1 1 KENNINGTON D & GARSKE GINGER PETERS 0WN LAMPING RI 9'ARD 736 W HOPK~ AVE 126 S S~ENTH ST 126 S SEVI~TH ST ASPEN, C 1611 ASPyi CO 81611 ASPEN,~ 81611 YULE BR~LEY A GARSKE C~Y J & LAURA PLATEK D NE 130 S 7~ ST #82 134 S 7TH~T 138 S SE~NTH ST #84 ASPd. CO 81611 ASPEN~O 81611 ASPEN/60 81611 1 1 MCFARLAN~HAYN D KRAHE SH DRON KNIGHT Gl#NDA C PO BOX 381 PO BOX 81[5 PO BOX 318 ASPEN: ~ 81612 ASPEN,~O 81612 SNOWI~SS, CO 81654 1 1 WEST HOPKIN~CONDO ASSOCIATION MADSEN MAR~A W NECHADEIM~EALTY LLC 144 S SEVEN~H ST 608 W HOPK~ AVE APT 9 PO BOX 4~0 ASPEN, C~81611 ASPEN, C~81611 ASPEN/b 81612 1 1 1 DEES ASPEN LLC THE PRIDE Lit PITKIN CTNTY 601 E HYMAN AVE PO BOX 77~6 530 E 1\~IN ST #302 ASPEN, CO 81611 STEAMB~T SPRINGS, CO 80477 ASPE~ CO 81611 J I MS 4610 LLC DAGGS J fES K TELAMON~LDINGS LLC ONE LANDMARK SQUARE 22ND FL 715 W I~IN ST #101 715 W M~Ill ST #204 STAMFORD, CT 06901 ASPEI~,CO 81611-1659 ASPEN/6,0 81611 1 1 MENENDEZ L~A REV TRUST MENENDEZ N~BRIN N REV TRUST JEROME OFI~E ASPEN CO LLC PO BOX 8031 PO BOX 8031 715 W MAI~BT #201 ASPEN, ~81612 ASPEN, C~81612 ASPEN,~ 81611 SILVERLOD~VESTORS LLC SHADOW ~UNTAIN OFFICES LLC SMITH CO 9&R H 50% 715 W MA~#201 715 W MA~ ST #201 PO BOX ~07 ASPEN,/0 81611 ASPEN.~O 81611 ASPEN~O 81612 ill SMITH BRID ~R R 50% ASPEN MAI~ST LLC LARKSPUR CG LLC 381 ISABE'~MAY RD 715 W MA~ST #201 PO BOX 1860 ASPEN, G~ 81611 ASPEN,/b 81611 BENTONVILLE, AR 72712 1 1 LITTLE AJAX~UNDO ASSOC LITTLE AJAX~ONDOMINIUM ASSOC ROLAND DAI~'L P & LEAH S 605 W HOPI~S AVE 605 W HOP~%IS #006 605 W HOP~NS AVE #102 ASPEN, C/81611 ASPEN, 1 81611 ASPEN, C/81611 1 AMAYA JOSE A~1-ONIO ARGUETA Bl~CA EDITH KURKULIS PA~Y & PAUL R 605 W HOPKI~AVE #103 605 W HOP~VS #103 605 W HOP'VMS AVE #201 ASPEN, CO~1611 ASPEN, C~ 81611 ASPEN, C/81611 1 1 1 SHEA LAYNE~MICHAEL GOLDSTONE NNA A VOSS NATAVE SUSAN REV TRUST 605 W HOPI~S AVE #202 805 E HOP'lr AVE # 203 605 W HOP~1%IS AVE #204 ASPEN, C~81611 ASPEN, C(~81611 ASPEN, G~ 81611 1 1 1 WASHBURN~RENE MARIE V FRANSEN ER~ M & GREGORY H MCCLURE K IN & MARY 605 W HOP~NS AVE #205 605 W HOPI~146 UNIT 206 605 W HOP~IS AVE #207 ASPEN, ~ 81611 ASPEN, C/ 81611 ASPEN, ~ 81611 BLACK BENJAMIN F & ALICE M ANGELOV DIMTAR S & DANIEL D CARROLL MEI~DITH C & ARTHUR R " 605 W HOPKINS AVE #208 605 W HOPKINS AVE #209 605 W HOPKI~ AVE #210 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN. C~1611 ERICKSON,~ONALD MARSHALL ALI~N J & JOSHUA W OLSEN MAR~ALL G 605 W HOP~I\IS AVE #211 605 WHOPKIN~AVE #212 705 W MAI~ST ASPEN,(~ 81611 ASPEN,CO ~611 ASPEN, Ci~ 81611 / 1 GOLDSTEI ARC 50% SACKS CAR~50% JEMAR PA ~NERS LLC 4545 POS-~OAK PL #100 4545 POST ~AK PL #100 701 W MA~ ST HOUST~,TX 77027 HOUSTO TX 77207 ASPEN~O 81611 617 MAIN S~PROF BLDG CONDO SKANDIA Tot,HOUSES CONDO ASSOC 700 WEST H~KINS CONDO 617 W MAI~ ST COMMON Al;~A 700 W HOF~[NS AVE ASPEN, ~ 81611 720 W HOI~INS AVE ASPEN, ~ 81611 ASPEN, CÂ£) 81611 1 715 WEST,~IAIN CONDO ASSOC 7TH & MAIN ~FORDABLE HOUSING SHADOW MOUNTAIN TOWNHOMES CONDO, COMMO~AREA COMMON 7EA COMMON AREA 715 W ~\IN ST 719 W MA~ ST S SEVENTH ST ASP7 CO 81611 ASPEN, Ub 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 REID SU~NNAH V K LENIO TE ROJAK JO~ PO BO)~10443 737 W tPOMFIELD 25 CIMAI~ON RD ASPEI~CO 81612 ROME~NY 13440 PUTNUI<VALLEY, NY 10579 MAHONY K~TILIN BRYAN S~E ILAH MEYER MARY~NNE & OLVIN 170 W 74-~ ST #809 PO BO~76 PO BOX 11ip NEW YO~K, NY 10023 ASPE/,CO 81612 ASPEN, C/81612 1 1 SHARPE DESIGNS LLC WESTERN INVSTMT UNLTD GP GERBAZ JAMES E PO BOX 1860 W240 N1221 PEWAUKEE RD PO BOX 72 BENTONVILLE, AR 72712 WAUKESHA, WI 53188 ASPEN, CO 81612 OATES CHERIE G LELAND C~REY J BODURTH~USAN M PO BOX 72 719 W My ST#205 719 W MA~ ST #206 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN~O 81611 ASPEN~O 81611 SUNTKE JERIL LARY LAN~ R PRINCE Al~ARIE 719 MAI~ST #207 719 W M~N ST #301 719 W MA~ ST #301 ASPy CO 81611 ASPEN~O 81611 ASPENA 81611 1 1 NEWBERGER DAVID USDA FOREST SERVICE 2905 SAN GABRIEL #218 ASPEN-SOPRIS RANGER DISTRICT 620 MAIN ST AUSTIN, TX 78705 CARBONDALE, CO 81623 APPENDIX B IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT OF: EXHIBIT 705 WEST HOPKINS AVENUE PROPERTIES CulÂ·JÂ¢34...2 ..2.-2 2.-2 ', _--- -4 4 2 20' .. & Â·- Â« Â·:71Â·11>431 -*zuz 3 1- if'..J.../4.: f.-2-4. t..2-RwiNAr..7-fR:Â« 5 SECTION 12 & 13, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 85 WEST OF THE 6th P.M. 26-y'- '"- ->2".'..... ef,. =42:U'a.ite.f42419.1 1- *g-f--Â·- --).50*1 L:Fli~.'1 40%~24<. COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO 11Â·'~/f : ::/:Â·i:,*.:. 1-Â·\ t<42.e--:4%-Â·Â· 4-=--~-%*i SHEET 1 OF 8 '~ VV4~-~~U CollRs,- SHEETINDEX 69/4-\ 5 r ---14.g< 1 -. L 'r /.Â·t. 2,---Â· B u.- 6, :---' -* 99641.4-4.:~,~.~~ SHEET 1 - OVERALL PROPERTY, CERTIFICATES AND NOTES q., SHEET 2 - MINERAL SURVEY BOUNDARIES & ANALYSIS SHEET 3 - EXISTING LOTS AND EASEMENTS ....* ,--*69* 44<54#r-~~~,bj~*b J><,1,\M SHEET 4 - BOUNDARY, EASEMENTS & TITLE EXCEPTIONS ON PARCELS 1&2 (6? 7 -1- - Pe=a .- -/AY,t:ketil~&*t,/9.21(:3?ficirt i. SHEET 5 - BOUNDARY, EASEMENTS AND TITLE EXCEPTIONS ON PARCEL 3 SHEET 6-TOPOGRAPHY & EXISTING CONDITIONS 1- e.7'." ', 27 . . 6,~ h ...A SHEET 7 - TOPOGRAPHY & EXISTING CONDITIONS fF #e~-bÂ·-0-45;â‚¬4*~,4 ~19-9-0*~6.4-2.L...j ..'Â·-r SHEET 8 - EXISTINGCONDITIONS & TREES | Oe# r f 64*a-:314,;OKe>~rff@*19*fiyl 1 F -- ff- - 2 -/--39,91.~< ~ -~Â·2:Â·~~ /Â· Ilt'Wf'$.111Â¥11.\ (f, r7~~~~~~Â·~ r.,fK 0 }/0? 11 b 111'V'.= .0 / 4 /6 / 077 - lill Lf--7-94 ' 1 1 - ,, 1!11111)11 tkid-i i i ~-T j I Trl Jff l j _l 11 Â»fti I -fi 4 21-fri d '111!jlj L'1,1~~ 11 C - lA 1 6.-1 - .24* , 44.41 / . -Â«CU / . rhle:f Â»1 ~ 0 9 f.,Trprf.1.-1.1-1 11.. L 07- f 1/,ttl , Â»117 L 037-7 ~- 0--* -fif-3~-~~ *~~,--;t - -1 1U 111|11 1 r It .7.- '02.469*'./4 331- - 4 l1li1l' :7 1,4//2.-Â· 1 ' 1 1/ /// '~:/ 1 *71 , 1 --1 0-li 424-iNtl f.ffiriTIT WES/NAL,4444984'02 1Â»4-f 2 DATE oF PREPARATION: OCTOBER, DECEMBER 2013, FEBRUARY - JUNE 2014. ]UNE. 2015 AND FEBRUARY - MARCH, 2016 T-1--1-3 ~19' "rl I JIHI riTT- ~ ~ ~ {J FT)7,&41 fl VICINITY MAP 65\-J / /1,/ th '11 - CORNER 7 TOWNSITE OFASPEN -/â€ž10\ CruQ//AftÂ¢Â« ///777-- l/Â«04 1Â°-7-~ 99Â» 4-/~~ SCALE: V = 2000 FOUND USDAALUMINUM CAP Ill ASPEN TOWNSITE CORNER NO. 7 *9>KZ-r~-pr_, -arn, 694 v<* f..1-1.-9 l--14-Â£~-~~~L, 12- L-Lr ,;113r;7,--T-r~ l--l-Â« . / %*I * 1 J frrd-N.- OFFi SURVEY NOTES 1 \ 44 / EST BLEEKER AVENUE M k- 1. DATE OF FIELD WORK: OCTOBER - DECEMBER 2013, JANUARY, APRIL- MAY AND JULY, 2014, JUNE, 2015 AND FEBRUARY - MARCH, 2016. 1 1 T-f q f-T-7-1-3 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION & MAP KEY (SHEETS 1 -3) U-Jlili Ill &441.-l i 28261 ; / Ptl -va--L U A in. (4141-2140 li l 3. BASIS OF BEARING: A BEARING OF 554Â°28'15"E BETWEEN CORNER 7 TOWNSITE OF ASPEN AND CORNER 8 TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, AS SHOWN HEREON. TITLE COMMITMENT: TITLE COMPANY OF THE ROCKIES, COMMITMENT NO. 0704656-Cl WITH AN V///##h EFFECTIVE DATE OF FEBRUARY 1, 2016. 4 BASIS OF SURVEY: THE OFFICIAL MAP OF THEC]TY OF ASPEN, PREPARED BY G.E.BUCHANAN DATED DECEMBER 15.1959, CITY OF ASPEN GPS 4 H %.~f 1#r# ELLE ~Ffl- N mit ~4* r Tr~tibl) 4#1 Â· -EwopiEM~==wvGpRE~=%M*==M=r=6~6*fvr~~DED~vivAppuDD& 23 OWNER: STARFORD INVESTMENTS LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, FORMERLY KNOWN AS STARFORD PROPERTIES N.V., A NETHERLANDS ANTILLES CORPORATION. GPS-21 7TH AND HOPKINS RECORDED AUGUST 23, 1985 AS RECEPTION NO. 270781: GRAMIGER SHEEHAN LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT RECORDED AUGUST 25, 1988 AS RECEPTION NO. 30306; KAPLAN 1041 REVIEW PLAT RECORDED MAY 5, 1989 AS RECEPTION NO. 311256; IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PREPARED BY MAIN STREET PROPERTY DESCRIPTION (PER COMMITMENT): LOT 1, AMENDED AND RESTATED MARY B A5PEN SURVEY ENGINEERS INC. (JOB NO. 6172, APRIL 27,1990):AMENDED AND RESTATED MARY B SUBDIVISION RECORDED NOVEMBER 13, SUBDIVISION, ACCORDING TO THE PLATTHEREOF FILED NOVEMBER 13, 1992, IN PLAT BOOK 30 AT GPS-7 6TH ,'D , 1992 AS RECEPTION NO. 350737; IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PREPARED BY ASPEN SURVEY ENGINEERS, INC. (JOB NO. 61728, MARCH 4,2003); 2-1 i j iTIT-~ PAGE 6, RECEPTION NO. 350737. PROJECT BENCHMA <16 -, . 1% 4610 (JOB NO. GRAM-4610, JUNE 30, 2008); BOOMERANG LOT SPLIT SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION PLAT RECORDED JUNE 16, 2006 AS RECEPTION r /<444/4 , / /~ IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PREPARED BY ASPEN SURVEY ENGINEERS, INC. (JOB NO. 6172, FEBRUARY 8, 2000); IMPROVEMENT SURVEY OF M.S. NO. 525370; FIRSTAMENDMENTTO THE CONDOMINIUM MAP OF THE LITTLE AJAX CONDOMINIUMS RECORDED JULY 6,2007 AS RECEPTION PARCEL 2 NO. 539661; FINAL PLAT UTTLE AJAX SUBDIVISION P.U.D. RECORDED APRIL 6,2005 AS RECEPTION NO. 508682; RE-PLAT OF LOT 1 AND LOT 2 TITLE COMMITMENT: TITLE COMPANY OF THE ROCKIES, COMMITMENT NO. 0704617<2, WITH AN WE5T HOPKINS AVENUE LITTLE AJAX SUBDIVISION PU.D. AND FINAL P.U.D. PLANS OF LITTLE AJAX AFFORDABLE HOUSING P.U.D. RECORDED MAY 13, 2008 AS EFFECTIVE DATE OF FEBRUARY 1, 2016 -- RECEPTION NO. 510056; 81-M FIELD NOTES AND MINERAL SURVEYS OF SUBJECT AND ADJOINING PROPERTIES; VARIOUS DOCUMENTS OF RECORD AND THE FOUND MONUMENTS, AS SHOWN. OWNER: SHADOW MOUNTAIN CORPORAT]ON, A DELAWARE CORPORATION. 9- V'%!tj RECORD. FOR ALL INFORMATION REGARDING EASEMENTS, RIGHTS OF WAY AND/OR -TITLE OF RECORD, SE REUED UPON THE ABOVE SAID BE>EK 61 7/ f~n,-7-- ~ /~/ , /// 7 # 5. THIS SURVEY DOES NOT CONSTITUTE ATITLE SEARCH BY SOPRIS ENGINEERING, LLC (SE) TO DETERMINE OWNERSHIP OR EASEMENTS OF PROPERTY DESCRIPTION (PER COMMITMENT): LOT 2, AMENDED AND RESTATED MARY B dr .<f N ~Â»rÂ»21 / f /-0777- SUBDIVISION, ACCORDING TO THE PLATTHEREOF FILED NOVEMBER 13, 1992, IN PLAT BOOK 30 AT / X - #/ PLATS DESCRIBED IN NOTE 4 AND THE FOLLOWING TITLE COMMITMENTS PREPARED BY TITLE COMPANY OF THE ROCKIES: PAGE 6. RECEPTION NO. 350737. FOUND B.LM WITNESS CORNER / 3/, 4/3 91//9 /~~/~g~-~...~~7 rpr7.-h-Lud-j ~1~1~-~1,/.~-~2~ ~1; 3,3. COMMITMENT NO. 0704656-0, WITH AN EFFECTIVE DATE OF FEBRUARY 1, 2016 (PARCEL 2). 5.1. COMMITMENT NO, 0704618â‚¬,WITH AN EFFECTIVE DATE OF FEBRUARY 1, 2016 (PARCEL 1). PARCEL 3 NORTH 1/4 I~ lilgallll-A~p66 jf ~/ ,/, 5.3. COMMITMENT NO. 0704617-C2, W[TH AN EFFECTIVE DATE OF FEBRUARY 1, 2016 (PARCEL 3). (660.0') ~~~~'Et"OI:ENDIN~7'272 OF THE ROCKIES, COMMITMENT NO. 0704618-C2. WITH AN ... L.L., 6. THE UNEAR UNIT USED IN THE PREPARATION OF THIS PLAT IS THE U.S. SURVEY FOOT AS DEFINED 8Y THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF SECTION 13 COMMERCE, NATIONAL INISTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY. 7/4 14 *- 1\ --U-ld.j l-~ F~f~tttz' i i i FT-fiÂ·-rÂ·Â·Â·J* . WEST HYMAN AVENUE OWNER: WESTCHESTER INVESTMENTS, INC. A DELAWARE CORPORATION. 7 U Bib/Â£Â·*- Ulati 4642%l / 7)- 7. ALL RECEPTION NUMBERS REFERENCED HEREON ARE FOR DOCUMENTS RECORDED IN THE PmaN COUNTY, COLORADO CLERK AND 1114 1 7, 1 11.3 - U LltilliT-Tj U. I i RECORDER'S OFFICE. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION (PER COMMITMENT): "ADJUSTED" GRAMIGER PARCEL, GRAMIGER SHEEHAN 082/ / PÂ·Â»gy- 8. BASIS OF ELEVATION: AN ELEVATION OF 7937.57 FEET ON THE CITY OF ASPEN/NGS CONTROL MONUMENT GPS-21, AS SHOWN ON THE CITY LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF FILED AUGUST 25, 1988iN PLAT BOOK 21 AT PAGE 19, AT RECEPTION NO. 303306. ' In OF ASPEN 2009 MARCIN CONTROL MAP. COUNTY OF PITKIN L-Â£-41.-1. 9. THE HOLY CROSS ENERGY EASEMENTS RECORDED DECEMBER 1, 1977 AS RECEPTION NO. 199749 (BOOK 339 PAGE 499, NOT FOUND IN TITLE ~ | STATE OF COLORADO COMMITMENTS PROVIDED), RECORDED AUGUST 23, 1985 AS RECEPTION NO. 270802 (BOOK 493 PAGE 515, COMMITMENT NO. 0704656<3, 9 /Â«27 /9 (1441-fil 8 % EXCEPTION NO. 9)HAVE BEEN RELINQUISHED AND VACATED PER THE DOCUMENTS RECORDED , 2016, , 2016 AND ___, hÂ«Â»01-0 01~7-- 022 EXCEPTION NO. 9) AND RECORDED AUGUST 23, 1985 AS RECEPTION NO. 270803 (BOOK 493 PAGE 517, COMMITMENT NO. 0704656-(3, WEST COOPER AVEND GOVERNMENT LOT 21 2016 AS RECEPTION NOS. , AND OF THE PITKIN COUNTY RECORDS. /f-//,f fi/t - - -~-- - - - - - 4 -- - 1- - --43 jlÂ« ZONE. - - Fallal/4~C - --Â«a 10. ACCORDING TO THE FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP NUMBER 08097C0203C (JUNE 4, 1987) THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES ARE NOT WITHIN A FLOOD 12 LL~--i 11. THE NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM HANS R. GRAMIGER TO CHRISTOPHER SHEEHAN RECORDED AUGUST 19,197 #6 REBAR 3 1/2 il 'ill ALUMINUM CAP 2008 IS 1612 PER THE DOCUMENT RECORDED , 2016 AS RECEPTION NO. OF THE PITKIN COUNTY RECORDS. - AS RECEPTION NO. 292099 (BOOK 544 PAGE 145,COMMITMENT NO. 0704656-C3, EXCEP-nON NO. 11) HAS BEEN RELINQUISHED AND VACATED GOVERNMENTLOT 34 / Â« WiRÂ·li 'jiiill 49d~>1-u SURVEYOR'S STATEMENT 9 GPS- 3 GARMISCHANDOURANT- ~ i ANDOURNIT -1,1.- 1, MARK S. BECKLER, HEREBY CERTIFY TO: WESTCHESTER INVESTMENTS, INC., STARFORD ER-1 COPPERIPD\IMI.1/59 ~ A LODE M.S. 4712 4 /--7-1-7.-7-724"'4.2/~ -,-z~ //f-, ROCKIES, AND STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY INVESTMENTS LLC, A DELAWARE UMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, TITLE COMPANY OF THE THAT THIS IS AN "IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT' AS DEFINED BY C.R.5. Â§ 38-51-102(9) a...3 1,r-p-hÂ» 2 - - L-11-,L-t=. i EX~ / f AND THAT IT IS A MONUMENTED LAND SURVEY SHOWING THE LOCATION OF ALL SETBACKS, STRUCTURES. VISIBLE UTILITIES. FENCES, OR WALLS SITUATED ON THE CONFLICTING BOUNDARY EVIDENCE OR VISIBLE ENCROACHMENTS, UTILITIES MARKED BY DESCRIBED PARCEL AND WITHIN FIVE FEET OF ALL BOUNDARIES OF SUCH PARCEL, ANY czz-21 44/ Frfittj O CORNER Y< 2 CLIENT AND ALL DEPICTED EASEMENTS DESCRIBED IN TITLE COMPANY OF THE ROCKIES -74 KLL// 77 4 TOWNSITE OF COMMITMENT ORDER NOS. 0704618-C2, 0704656-0 AND 0704617-C2, EFFECTIVE DATE ASPEN REESTABUSHEDIN FEBRUARY 1, 2016, OR OTHER SOURCES AS SPECIFIED ON THE IMPROVEMENT SURVEY ti RECORD LOCATION PLAT. Lf 11--l-Fy-r 7-7-Â·h BASED ON PRIOR SURVEYSUSEDAS THE ERROR OF CLOSURE FOR THIS PLAT IS LESS THAN 1/15,000. MARKS. BECKLER Li #28643 GRAPHIC SCALE 200 0 100 200 400 800 ( IN FEET) CLERK & RECORDER'S CERTIFICATE FOR INFORMATIONAL LAND SURVEY PLATS 1 inch = 200 ft. DEPOSITED THIS DAY OF 201_, AT M., IN THE PITK]N COUNTY INDEX FOR INFORMATIONAL SOPRIS ENGINEERING - LLC LAND SURVEY PLATS UNDER RECEPTION NUMBER CIVIL CONSULTANTS DATE: 502 MAIN STREET, SUITE A3 FILING INFORMATION: SECTION 12 &13, TOWNSHIP :~g SOUTH, RANGE Â§~ WEST, THE 6TH P.M. NOTICE: ACCORDING TO COLORADO lAW YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY LEGAL ACBON BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY WITHIN â„¢REE YEARS CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623 AFTER YOU FIRST DIKIVER SUCH DEFECT. IN NO EVENT MAY A.Y ACTION WED UPON ANY DEFECT IN TH155URVEY BE COMMENCED MORE THAN TEN YEARS FROMTHEDATEof CERTIFICAnON SHOWN HEREON (970) 704-0311 SOPRISENG@SOPRISENG.COM GRK sb 16017 3/16/2016 G \201'U60171,5URVEr,Sur.ey DWGs\!SP COA VRN BASE\16017 13156 ISP SHEET 1.dwg GRD, 133Â¥15 HiB OB{H Hl 139W1S 0 4100' \ R 7 ToWNSITE oF ASPEN --Uh. IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT OF: D USDAALUMiNUM CAP ~~px / ASPEN TOWNSITE CORNER NO 7 r FOUND #5 REBAR dENT / ~ CORNER 7 TOWNSITE OF ASPEN --_.,ch 1 FOUND USDA ALUMINUM CAP ~86 ASPEN TOWNSITE CORNER NO. 7 \ 1.<-fE~ Ns RA~.*NT // / 6 , 705 WEST HOPKINS AVENUE PROPERTIES k / ~ , SECTION 12 & 13 TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 85 WEST OF THE 6th P M 1 .. LEGEND -~ ~w ~-FOUNDÂ»REBARICAPLS#1.,471 ,/ / / , 1 /// COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO f 53~ 56 39Â·Wi \ ' > ~ Â© MONUMENT REPORT FILED THIS SURVEY PER COLORADO STATE 45<\ Â£ 493' mE) / I li \ BLOCK 8 STATUTE REQUIREMENTS. t.d 1 2/\- , GPS-217TH AND HOPKINS Â«/--fL - Sl,Â·i&'27"\Â«t---0-12 i FOUND #5 REBAR CAP IUEGIB Â® ACCESSORIES ANDMONUMENTSFOUND PER THIS SURVEY 1 : .- --L j ; SHEET 2 OF 8 MINERAL SURVEY NOTES: j l MINERAL SURVEY BOUNDARIES & ANALYSIS 1 1 \404 lÂ» _ Ll.~d ll~~ 1 HOMESTAKE LODE M\NING CLA\M, M.S. #4211, CONSISTENT WITH MONUMENT REPORT FILED WITH THE STATE OF 48- *41 34, 1 / / lili 1 1 COLORADO. 385.OOP FOUND #5 REBAR & CAP LS #25947 1 \ 4-/ /0 43 1 f CORNERS 1 AND 2 ESTABLISHED CONSISTENT WITH MONUMENTS IDENTIFIED ON THE 30~.00' ~~ NOORIGINALEVIDENCE FOUND IN THIS SURVEY'S FIELD RETRACEMENT. CORNERS' \ Â«2492ygIE~, / ~ ~ ~ ~ e F--$64<1,-t~._t l i ~4<~ < REFERENCED 1980 BLM SURVEY PLAT AND ASSOCIATED FIELD NOTES. CORNERS 3 AND 4 - MINERALSURVEYCORNERNUMSER(#) S47Â°30'44"W 4 , 8 E B~~~ ~T~~ - N /0 /7 / N1~13 33 t..4 / i' / / Ilir- fll' i !1 ' 11 0 1 / 1/ / St/*Lt /V741!6'27~'I,V~ ' / / 1 1 1 .hh- % PRIDEOFASPEN, COPPEROPOLISAND EXTRA LODECLAIMS. FOUND #5 RE8AR N54Â°28715"W 48.22 POSITION REESTABUSHED BASED ON RECORD MINERAL SURVEY RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN 1 - 1 -/ 21/ / F 5 1Â¤Â»i-340-_ I l I j 1 'j ' 1'. 19 1 /13 -- Ij 11 /0,1 r FOUND SPIKE j f PRIDE OF ASPEN LODE MINING CLAIM. Mi #7364, toRNER51 AND 2 ESTABLISHED CONSISTENT WITH MONUMENTSIDENTIFIEDON THE PROPERTY DESCRIPTION&MAPKEY (SHEETsl-3) 4 --_: i NO ORIGINAL EVIDENCE FOUND IN THIS SURVEYS FIELD RETRACEMENT. CORNER 3 FOUND #S REBAR & CAP LS :14111 U--- 1/ ill '1~ U #25947 BENT & LOÂ©15Â£ ilill|il r 1 REFERENCED 1980 BLM SURVEY PLATAND ASSOCIATED FIELD NOTES. CORNERS 3 AND 4 - . i / 1-37Â» 1 ~-7-- AS FAITHFUL RETRACEMENT. CORNER 4 POSITION REESTABL]SHED BASED ON RECORD . 0/ /41/ fi,fr Â« Gk /FOUNC~REBAR,LC,Al, 1 POSITION REESTABLISHED BASED ON DATA/REFERENCES/ACCESSORY EVIDENCE -- CONTAINED ON 1970 PESMAN SURVEY OF SAID CLAIM, RECOGNIZED BY BLM (1980 SURVEY) 11 Ill;'Ii"f TITLE COMMITMENT: TITLE COMPANY OF THE ROCKIES, / / ' MINERAL SURVEY RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COPPEROPOUS. MARY B. AND LITTLE CLOUD /IhiNii,iilif COMMITMENT NO. 0704656-C3, WITH AN EFFECnVE DATE OF / â€ž, ~ LODE CLAIMS. 4/.~ 1/ 1 / / / / i--- WEST HOPKIN5 AVENUE FE8RUARY 1, 2016. M / 1~,~~~~\l ~ FOUND #15 REBAR & CAP ILDSG<LE , ~ FOUN~/#5 RESAR & CAP ~ #20133 -i --1 I.j I i i i 6~-' fOUND IS REBAR'& aP ILLEGi8LE 4 -1 /// OWNER: STARFORD INVESTMENTS LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED FOUND B.LM. 11 1 REFERENCED 1980 3LM SURVEY PLAT AND ASSOCIATED FIELD NOTES. CORNERS 3 AND 4 - COPPEROPOLIS LODE MINING CLAIM, M.5. #1759, CORNERS 1 AND 2 ESTABLI5HED CONSISTENT WITH MONUMENTS IDENTIFIED ON THE WITNESS CORNER (660.0') LIABILITY COMPANY, FORMERLY KNOWN AS STARFORD PROPERTIES NORTH 1/4 CORNER ,/ R P 191510 N.V. A NETHERLANDS ANTILLES CORPORATION. , FOUND#5 REBAR& CAP LS#2376 4---Â»- POONDISREBAR & CAP I /376 / NO ORIGINAL EVIDENCE FOUND IN THIS SURVEY S FIELD RETRACEMENT. CORNERS' SECTION 13 EXTRA LODE MINING CLAIM, M.5. #4712. POSITION REESTABLISHED BASED ON RECORD MINERAL SURVEY RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PRIDE OF ASPEN, HOMESTAKE AND LITTLE CLOUD LODE CLAIMS. 64 Â«5 1 - THEREOF FILED NOVEMBER 13, 1992, IN PLAT BOOK 30 AT PAGE 6, 1-42 . li~h RECEPTION NO. 350737. 1 ~ TBI=:7. 06,40.,489,~424Â¢.- --,&------â€ž: i 1 11 3 1 ~ 1 -T-71 NO ORIGINAL EVIDENCE FOUND IN THIS SURVEY'S FIELD RETRACEMENT. CORNERS' //lit POSITION REESTABLISHED BASED ON PRIOR GLO AND PRIVATE SURVEYOR PLATS AND N 7/15'59-E 196.21 ,/ft,-r///- s?4. ~ f.0//1/Â« 1 N01'15'34"E 19.28' *._ !~&55~ ~~~ 4;FOUND#5 REBAR &CAP LS â€¢13166 Nitu / / 73Â«12 FOUND MONUMENTS AND ON RECORD MINERALSURVEY RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TITLE COMMITMENT: TITLE COMPANY OF THE ROCKIES, GOVERNMENT LOT 21 ---21 1 1 Â©~*~ ~ ~-* HOMESTAKE AND COPPEROPOLIS LODE CLAIMS. COMMITMENT NO. 0704617-(2, WITH AN EFFECTIVE DATE OF N88Â°56'18"W F~:3055552>, / MARY B LODE MINING CLAIM, M.i #4211, fa'\ /~ 6*TwwpfmP * ~---#g.- FEBRUARY 1, 2016 Slr'' ' Â· ' R fâ€¢ 38 \41* fr ~ - (.,~~- N54~28+15;'W 38.09'/ 1 CORNERS 4 AND 5 - NO ORIGINALEVIDENCE FOUND IN THIS SURVEY'S FIELD 36'16i'E 4 / ~ .46..4/ / e, FOU.I~#5 REB;,R & CAP #2376 .\ GOVERNMENTLOT19â€ž$,ir<LJJ I Z I / 1-3 - 41 \41 2 FOUND #5 REBAR & CAP LS #2376 / --myduND,5 REBAR & CAP d #13166 -- RETRACEMENT. CORNERS' POSITION (LINE 4-5) REESTABLISHED BASED ON RECORD OWNER: SHADOW MOUNTAIN CORPORATION, A DELAWARE PESMAN 2P DlM 1 MINERAL SURVEY RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HOMESTAKE, PRIDEOF ASPEN AND CORPORATION. 1 FOUND 3.9' BLM BRASS CAP -JI3) , COPPEROPOUS LODECLAIMS. 1/ -~\- N49*41:46"E 77.07' PROPERTY DESCRIPTION (PER COMMITMENT): LOT 2, AMENDED 0 FOUNb #5 REBAR & CAP LS #2376 ~ ~ ~L N24'36'24"E 24.48'\ AND RESTATED MARY B SUSDIVISION, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF FILED NOVEMBER 13, 1992, IN PLAT BOOK 30 AT PAGE 6, GPS:444!*IA AND DURANT 1 ~ /~ ' FOUNDISREBARICAPTS#13166-~ 1 CH PESMAN 2POD IM RECEPTION NO. 350737. 1 4,9 <441/.tof' /// I x /.4 =w PARK PARCEL (DEDICAtED TO COUNTY) ~ - - WEST HYMAN AVENUE ~~~<~~ PARCELA WN.10, MARY B SUBC~VISION / /~ - - -~ ~ ~~~ TITLE COMMITMENT: TITLE COMPANY OF THE ROCKIES, ff-,Hy/4 / h / / 3/\ 1 /--7- // - /~ ' 4~fÂ· 1 PLAT BOOK 17 rAGE 61 ~ - FOUND 3 5" 8LM BRASS CAP j \F\>-,rn /.8 COMMITMENT NO, 0704618-C2, WITH AN EFFECTIVE DATE OF Â»-11 1 FEBRUARY 1, 2016. FOUND 3.5" BLM BRASSCAP--_.- / 4 ~ FOUND METAL PIPE NO CAP airt--1 1 Â·i~*+Re. ' 6/1 1 1 ~ j -7-%. - ~ORNP~RRATIO~ESTCHESTER INVESTMENTS, INC., A DE[AWARE ~ ~1~~~f /0 / , 3 \/f 7 a /7/// / 1 ft -p-'-Â·xâ‚¬=i~~--LE <1 1 PROPERTY DESCRIPTioN (PER COMMITMENT): "ADJUSTED" / GRAMIGER PARCEL, GRAMIGER SHEEHAN LOT UNE ADJUSTMENT, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF FILED AUGUST 25, 1988 IN PLAT ' /~ ~ / ~ 1~ COR,4~6~fOWNSIZE ~- BOOK 21 AT PAGE 19, AT RECEPTION NO. 303306. COUNTY OF PITKIN 0 STATE OF COLORADO 699#52,49554&7/ 512-#N &m ~ , Tw' ,#fa,-i ': *7*- ~025 -7 i 1 -22-2.1- i i 1 1 n I /1 // 13.34'(nEI S Â«Â« 0 9:,*)2 ---Lf/-----/1 1 -Â»- 209/ 243, ,/ /Jj> 49 /2 CORNERS TOWUEI,5PEN REESTABUSHED IN RECORD LOCATION 8ASE D ON PRIOR SURVEYS USED AS ACCESSORY EVIDENCE GOVERNMENTLOT. r/7/0 480. ' S* ,/6 1 FOUND REBAR & CAP SEE DETAIL A ~~> ,!:1'jj I i L FOUND 3,5" BLM,RASS CAP LS#25947 , r posrRa-'p 11 Ch 12 FOUNDISREBARICAPOS#116129 /~ ~ ~39 -N /1 MONUMENT I it'jil/Il 1, , \11/ ELI M 1845 El--4 , CONSTRUCTIQN ~ FOUND 3 1/2"q~~-13~- FOUND 1/4 SEC 12 BLM 1978 #SREBAR 31/2-ALUMINUMCAP 12 /; OBLITERATED I 11 mill . - 8RASSCAP 2008 15 16129 EL FOUND#S REBAR ICAP LS #16129 45+ f / 13/ uu -1.- i ~99;~ 1~~1â‚¬77'f /1</ f// 990~ ALUM1kIUM/ FduND,3.257 t. :: C /, f...34Â» 1 /,: POUND ZOOS \ e & 7/ 2009328643\*~ ~ ~ ~ ~ AEFERENCE CAP oN *14 1 / / / 3 18.11 i // 1~: 7~ GOVERNMENT LOT 34 &/ ~-REBAR SOPRIS ~lm / i / / ENGINEER,NG REF 1144.18 - f\REFERÂ£NCECAP ON / --- FOUND 3.25" -I ALUMINUM / ~ 1 -,-I REBARSOPRIS- - FOUND 14" PlNE WITH BLAZE4 '3' ~T ill/l 2009 15 ZI'k / ENG!~ERING REF CARVED FOR PESMAN PEPERDANTI X \ 1 RETRACEMENTSURVEY~ 8 FOUNDSPIKE / N81Â°15'44"E 7.70' / / FOUND#5 REBAR & CAP LS #161291 / Â®41 4 -/4/4 4712 4 At, / EXTRA LIli M 1 626 MA :Al r.l i 4\\ 9/ r 1 14\ 1% 534 44'34-E- .54 353.33'(TIE} I '\ l j , 1 1 \\\ / / 1 GRAPHIC SCALE f\-le 50'41"E 1065.16' 8107 , 1\ ./ // 1~ 200 4Co 1 \\\ / Â«r (IN FEET) 0 1 inch = 100 ft, N61'10'02"E 95.23' / 4....~ 511Â°55'02"W 80.25' 1 -~JNDSPIKEIN CLIFF 12.30'(TIE) -- -- -Nor~LIM!!iwivEY -1,- - ---Â¢ SOPRIS ENGINEERING - LLC Cl/45EC~~-~VM _ _ W 1/4 SEC 13 FOUND BLM 1978 8RASS CAP FOUND 3 1/4" BRASS CAP J CIVIL CONSULTANTS ON METALPOST NOTICE: ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY lEGAL 1/4 SEC 13 SEC 24 -~ 1/4 SEC 13 SEC 18 1954 502 MAIN STREET, SUITE A3 ACTION 8ASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THI SURVEY WITHIN THREE YWS CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623 AFTER YOU FIR. D,5COVER 5UCH DEFECT . /O EVENT MAY ANY ACTION FOUND U.S. DEPT. OF THE 14 BA5ED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVE,' . COMMENCED MORE THAN TEN INTERIOR BLM (AIR.) 1978 h<ja (970) 704-0311 SOPRISENG@SOPRISENG.COM YEARS FROM THE DATE OF CERTIFICAT~ON SHOWN HEREON. r GRK sb 16017 3/16/2016 G\2016\1601ASURVEY\Sunrey'WGs\I5P COA VRN BASE\16017 13156 ISP 5HEET 2 d/g 133~!19 Hli d lin S 133319 IMMi HinOS BET 3,n,8{.EON - - MPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT OF: ~pi~UEEE---*Â» /l /li CORNER 7 TOWNSITE OF ASPEN -1 .*il__J illic 705 WEST HOPKINS AVENUE PROPERTIES FOUND USDAALUMINUM CAP ~Fl ASPEN TOWNSITE CORNER NO. 7 \ BLOCK 19 4 ~ 4 -_1>44L_i ---1_i ~ 1 ~ -2 N /7/-- ' l ~ , ' f-- =42-_-2 ,--t-l~ / / / 1 SECTION 12 &13 TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 85 WEST OF THE 6th PM LEGEND , V . 1, - 2'56'39"W I " MONUMENT REPORT FILED THIS SURVEY PER COLORADO STATE 19.93' (TIE) t>\ Â· 8 01- ; COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO STATUTE REQUIREMENTS. 1//11 . , i -7---~Â·E*~i-l.-1-44 1 / #/ ' ' SHEET 3 OF 8 GPS-21 7TH AND HOPKINS 1, Â· \* 1 ACCESSORIES AND MONUMENTS FOUND PER THIS SURVEY OVERALL BOUNDARY & ANNOTATION 574'16'27 1 \ , 1 71-p--1 3 L._ L i i , CONSISTENT WITH MONUMENT REPORT FILED WITH THE STATE OF COLORADO. ..0 - / // / 00 ; 1148- 34' 34-W I 300. . I , 1 1 1 385.00' Â® MINERALSURVEYCORNERNUMBER (#) N15Â°43433 k liff/# %Â»342/ ~ 1 / / / 1 1 i ~f--7.-0.-654-rl/ 1 1 1 2, I./ ./1 / 547Â°30'44"W j / >Et 0,42 49+00 O SET NO. 5 REBAR W/1.25" PLASTIC CAP, L.S. 28643 ffil//1 64.33'' 1 11 \ \< lilli L.-l 'lit N 74'16'27 W54Â·*19'\4 48.n ~ ~ ~ < ~f--n -u frilim j 8LOC 38 11 1 1// \\ / 1 /7 . 1--1 2 r 41 ' 1 , 1 /1 i! 1 1 0 1,- K 1 1 -4 ~ f -r-_ xÂ« 4 j / / f r-39 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION & MAP KEY (SHEETS 1 - 3) 4-1.... il~/1 1 9-, /2 - \C f WE 5T HOPKINS AVENUE /7 / PARCEL 1 -Llilli - , 4/ . 1 3- -1 j I 1 i i 6 t' 11 //1/1 1 TITLE COMMITMENT: TITLE COMPANY OF THE ROCKIES, //~ 11 4 . 1 +M / 1 21 U //i////, COMMITMENT NO. 0704656<3, WITH AN EFFECTIVE DATE OF FEBRUARY 1, 2016. Nul 1 j 6 .t,Jr// -4- d w' 75Â»~r' i 9 / / Â»30 /' 06 /*804*4... i / , 1 11,-- .1 - m OWNER: STARFORD INVESTMENTS LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED ws' ' " 1 '9 E LIABILITY COMPANY, FORMERLY KNOWN AS STARFORD PROPERTIES /// I W \ 4 9 Â»12-42'-- / f N.V. A NETHERLANDS ANTILLES CORPORATION. 1 --4 f 11 j 1 1 1 1,1111 1 409+40 Â· Bo 061 9 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION (PER COMMITMENT): LOT 1, AMENDED / 144.2/ // / ~ / L*J| ~ ) '19 AND RESTATED MARY B SUBDIVISION, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT 51236'161 15 59' E 196.21 THEREOF FILED NOVEMBER 13, 1992, IN PLAT BOOK 30 AT PAGE 6, liz 541 tl dpr' 1 '27 // . RECEPTION NO. 350737. 11 7 V PARCEL 2 81.554 /// \\ / /2, ip / -LÂ»\44 111 11 GOVERNMENT LOT 19--- ~~ ~EE'lcnE/~02.M~~TH~ETFFEE~EKIDE~EoF Nft; 13 b -f I -- 48- ' ----M-- n 46 -4 / / ,/ / /1 ill j OWNER: SHADOW MOUNTAIN CORPORATION, A DELAWARE 1" 19'11 Iii 1 PARK PARCE!. (DEDICATFD TO COUNTY) ~ CORPORATION. PLAT BOOK 17 PAGE 61 GPS+GAEr AND DURANT 1 / C i ddlilh: 1.11 ' MARY 8 SUBDIVISION /4 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION (PER COMMITMENT): LOT 2, AMENDED GOVERNMENT LOT 21 Â»*39> - -- - WEST HYMAN AVENUE AND RESTATED MARY B SUBDIVISION, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT WS - / N0I~15'34"E 19.28' nÂ®:t324'43 ~~~~I~, ~~V~~,BER 13. 1992, IN PLAT BOOK 30 AT PAGE 6, \ 1 ,/4,47- 7-7-0 j-- - - fi#Â»:. 4//./ N88~57%.~* 404 fte \ \\ 1 \ 1 i 1 1 /l PARCEL 3 TITLE COMMITMENT: TITLE COMPANY OF THE ROCKIES. Tlet -' \ i-- ' .24J / / , COMMITMENT NO. 0704618<2, WITH AN EFFECTIVE DATE OF 4/' 6479 / FEBRUARY 1, 2016. 1 1%9 1 -,L -4Â« i / - 49 j U- ill ill OWNER: WESTCHESTER INVESTMENTS, INC., A DELAWARE / if /Â»/ \ CORPORATION. / T \ PROPERTY DESCRIPTION (PER COMMITMENT): "ADJUSTED" e // 0-1 Z i I h ;; CORNER.d.14=E?Hert*---\34- GRAMIGER PARCEL, GRAMIGER SHEEHAN LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, DETAIL ~~ ~ 0 ~ ~ , A-Â·Â©< 1 ,: #*zo~421 -77 ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF FILED AUGUST 25, I988 IN PLAT Sz=r=20' ' BOOK 21 AT PAGE 19, AT RECEPTION NO. 303306. COUNTY OF PITKIN CORNER 8 TOWNSITE (FRXSPEN STATE OF COLORADO SEEDETAILTHISSHEET 41.2.-- -fr-T T / 1-z-zi / 1 ~17- //- ACC~~~ORYE---1.-IC~ BASEDON PRIOR SURVEYS USE-AS \ REESTAISHED IN RECORD LOCATION - 4 4 4.-1 1 c 11 &COVERNMENT LOT 21 7 - / / POSitiON Ik --- 11 1 12 FOUND 2005 , / - i/ 1 lili ,~ MONUMENT , - FOUND 3 1/2" 14 13 r .Ea,13 1Yt}1223- 44'7 7 / 707 1% \ /1/l ltE?ZI.1 t~ I~ Tr-i BLM 1978 ~ / / OBUTERATED BY ; % I Uke~~41E-~ l.-i rRuct, 6 BRASS CAP i ~ 11?.014ILE) Â£*-- / / \ 9. 4 1 /4 1 1 2 444*N - 1-4 GOVERNMENTLOT 34 ,!'' Â£#6868AR SOPRI; ~~~ / ~' ~ / 11 / ENGINEERINGREF /ZIS LS 28643 x U 1.10-__ 1 1 - ./ 1 i i j 1 , 4 \/ -- LFOUND 3.25"- 1 1 11 REFERENCECAEON f // -~L#!INUM 0 #GREBARSOPRIPÂ·- 1 1 ffÂ»h,ENGINEERING REF N81'15'44"E 7.70 / 'llil / 2009 G28643 PPEROPOUSMS \\ le / SAA'44'34-1 - 1Â§~ Â£,~ // EXTRA LODE M.S. 4712 4/4/ 9/ 1 \\ 42 1 1\ 5\4 // f 1 1\0\ /j GRAPHIC SCALE 1 11 1 0 1 \1/ / A- ~13// *NA,4,6, --4 @ \ //- ( IN FEET ) 1 56r.'311\ N)/ 1 inch = 100 ft 12.30' (TIE) C 1/4 SEC 13 31 *2-- - - - --- -- - --- - --- - ---- - -=Qâ„¢LT,5Ug=-14- ------ - -~ - ---- _ -4---- - -f SOPRIS ENGINEERING - LLC -- W 1 /4 SEC 13 FOUND BLM 1978 BRASS CAP FOUND 3 1/4" BRASS CAP 7 civic-CONSULTANTS 6 ON METALPOST NOTICE ACCORDiNG To COLORADO LAw YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY LEGAL 1/4 SEC 13 5EC 18 1954 502 MAIN STREET, SUITE A3 ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY WITHIN THREE YEARS 1/4 SEC 13 SEC 24 1 ~ AFTER YOU FIRST D!5COVER SUCH DEFE. IN NO EVENT MAY ANY ACnON CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623 FOUND U.S. DEPT. OF THE \~ BASED UPON ANY DEFECr IN THIS SURVEY I COMMENCED MORE THAN TEN 1NTERKOR BLM (AIR.) 1978 ~ (970) 704-0311 SOPRISENG@SOPRISENG.COM YEARS FROM THE DATEOF CERT!FICATION SHOWN HEREON GRK / 16017 3/16/2016 G \2016\1601/5/RVEY'durvey D.Gs'.P CIA vRN BAS.16017 13156 'P SHEET 3.dwg 5449 133815 H18OO3 Hin S 133WiSON Hl HinOS TITLE EXCEPTIONS IMPROVEMENTSURVEY PLAT OF: PARCEL 2 (PER COMMITMENT NUMBER 0704656-C3) /05 WEST HOPKINS AVENUE PROPERTIES 7. RIGHT OF THE PROPRIETOR OF A VEIN OR LODE TO EXTRACT AND REMOVE HIS ORE THEREFROM, SHOULD THE SAME BE FOUND TOPENETRATEOR INTERSECT THE PREMISES HEREBY GRANTED, AS RESERVED IN UNITED STATES PATENT RECORDED APRIL 23, 1894, IN BOOK 39 AT PAGE 35. PATENT DEED FOR HOMESTAKE LODE MINING CLAIM. PORTIONS OF SUBJECT PROPERTY ARE WITHIN CLAIM, AFFECTS SUBJECT PROPERTY. SECTION 12 & 13, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 85 WEST OF THE 6th P.M. 8, RIGHT OF WAY FOR DITCHES OR CANALS CONSTRUCTED BY THE AUTHORIT, OF THE UNITED STATES, AS RESERVED IN UNITED STATES PATENT RECORDED AUGUST 29, 1917, IN BOOK 136 AT PAGE 401. COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO PATENT DEED FOR LODE MINING CLAIMS. PORTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTYARE WITHIN CLAIMS. AFFECTS SUBJECT PROPERTY. SHEET 4 OF 8 g. EASEMENT AND RIGHT OF WAY FOR TRAIL PURPOSES, AS GRANTED BY DOROTHY KOCH SHAW, BY HARRY E. SHAW AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE TO THE BOUNDARY, EASEMENTS AND TITLE EXCEPTIONS ON PARCELS 1&2 . - BOARDOFCOUNTY COMMISSIONERSOF THE COUNTY OF PITKIN, BY INSTRUMENT RECORDED AUGUST 23, 1985, IN BOOK 493 AT PAGE 480. r . AFFECTS SUBJECT PROPERTY, SHOWN HEREON. 1 1 1 i j L , 1 81 1 1 f i ,-/ 1Â°~ EcNnajml,uNO:.,UmuMm-'12:NDSMOJSAJLF 03IS19~, 2Tlc~2~9AFATRp=~PAPUG~SNT 23,CENS ~OGKRAN~TO TAGHE 5~1/(R~BER / ~~1' ~/ ,Â·'.Â·' kVIg SE,4CMMP~ELÂ©&79,% 4 127<. A ~ RECEPTION \ ~ A&16 / ///~418008 f / ,(00 $ / -1 1 27,1986, IN BOOK 521 AT PAGE 384 AND SEPTEMBER 16, 1988, IN BOOK 573 AT PAGE 539, SAIDEASEMENTS BEING MOREPARTICULARLY DESCRIBED 4.... 02~97,7,0 / THEREIN. BOOK 493 AT PAGE 515 AND BOOK 493 AT PAGE 517 AFFECTS SUBJECT PROPERTY, SHOWN HEREON. BOOK 521 AT PAGE 384 AND BOOK 573 AT PAGE 539 1 I /731 -- ,~ f to~ ~ mi~ (10,0 / f f 1 ~-p-- LOCATED ON GRAMIGER PARCEL DOES NOTAFFECTS SUBJECT PROPERTY. i ,/ <09 / 11. RESTRICTIONS, WHICH DO NOT CONTAIN A FORFEITURE OR REVERTER CLAUSE, BUT OMITTING ANY COVENANTS OR RESTRICTIONS, IF ANY, INCLUDING, BUT < // //1 Â«~ 2*#,6 . + > L~UND#5RESAR&0~pia*:4.2-- ;~6, ~ ~ : -r-- NOT LIMITED TO THOSE BASED UPON RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEX, SEXUAL ORIENTATION. FAMILIAL STATUS, MARITAL STATUS. DISABILITY, HANDICAP, NATIONAL ORIGIN, ANCESTRY, OR SOURCE OF INCOME, AS SET FORTH IN APPLICABLE STATE OR FEDERAL LAWS, EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT THAT 5AID 5Â· EASEMENT FOR FUTURE COVENANT OR RESTRICTION IS PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, AS CONTAINED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED AUGUST 19, 1987, IN BOOK 544 AT PAGE 145 PEDESTRIAN BICYCLE AND NORDIC TRIL USE GRANTOF RIGHT OF WAY FOR 4 E j j 1 1 1 AND SEPTEMBER 15,1988, IN BOOK 573 ATPAGE 421. AFFECTS SUBJECT PROPERTY. RIGHT-OF-WAY SHOWN HEREON. DEEDS CONTAIN RESTRICTIONS TO LAND USE AND SALE. SE~ 2271.tL SH~Er 1 U M le \ > 11~ 12. 1 1 111 liliÂ· 1 THE EFFECT OF THE EASEMENT OR CLAIM Of EASEMENT NOW CLAIMED OR ADJUDICATED IN THATCERTAIN ACTION ENTITLED "CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, l- ~ ~ ~ / - 1 A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION. PETITIONER, VS. CHRISTOPHER SHEEHAN, ET AL., RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS", ClVIL ACTION NO. 8801303. DISTRICT COURT '111~ 1111111 11 1 1 , * Iot ~ Â£30 ' IN AND FOR PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. NOTICE OF LIS PENDENS RECORDED SEPTEMBER 27, 1988, IN BOOK 574 AT PAGE 211. 1 1 , 1 / If EP/, ' 315'43'0-/ 19 CO . I 1 65 00' * --- AFFECTS SUBJECT PROPERTY, SHOWN HEREON. . 0 . ~ GOVERNMENT LOT 17 , /r//0~f / 1 71 - \IP / 13. RESOLUTION NO. 92-32. BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, RECORDED JUNE 11,1992, IN BOOK 680 AT PAGE 393. \ 1 1 5 1 AFFECTS SUBjECT PROPERTY, CANNOT BE GRAPHICALLY SHOWN. CA ., 474.16,27 62,431 14111111 1111111 111 1 1 1,~f~~' NOT PART OF PROPERTY 1 I it / 1 / :i llilli 1 illi'IN ORIGINAL MARY 8 PLAT m 14. RESOLUTION NO. 92-244, BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, RECORDED AUGUST 6, 1992, IN BOOK 685 AT PAGE BUILDING ENVELOPE ,Â· - 1 111,11 SHOWN ON AMENDED PLAT 1// 1 1.1 Ill'.h BOOK 17 PAGE 61 1 j 554. PLAT BOOK 30 PAGE 6 9 BOOK 30 PAGE 6 11 1 A" 60 4750' LABELED OUTPARCEL" ON THE IMPROVEMENT SURVEY AFFECTS SUBJECT PROPERTY, CANNOT BE GRAPHICALLY SHOWN. 152.10 - PREPARED BY ASPEN SullvEY ENGINEERS 3/4/2003 15. TERMS, AGREEMENTS, PROVISIONS, CONDITIONS, OBUGATONS AND RESTRICTIONS, WHICH DO NOT CONTAIN A FORFEIT'URE OR REVERTER CLAUSE, BUT 2 ----1 OMITnNG ANY COVENANTS OR RESTRICrIONS, IF ANY, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO THOSE BA5ED UPON RACE, COLOR, RELIGION,SEX, SEXUAL 0 4 4 - 49 / \ -.-- - 4 te â‚¬ 1 ORIENTATION, FAMILIAL STATUS, MARITAL STATUS, DISABILITY, HANDICAP, NATIONAL ORIGIN, ANCESTRY, OR SOURCE OF INCOME, AS SET FORTH IN CD , -" _ 8UILOING ENVELOPE - APPLICABLE STATE OR FEDERAL LAWS, EXCEPTTO THE EXTENTTHATSAID COVENANTOR RESTRICTION IS PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, AS CONTAINED IN 0 0 Â· 0 - - PlAT BOOK 30 PAGE 6 6 SUSDIVISION AGREEMENTAND RESTRIaVE COVENANTS FOR THEAMENDED ANO RESTATED MARY B SUBDIVISION RECORDED NOVEMBER 13,1992, IN rv /~ . 22 BOOK 694 AT PAGE 421. ry, 75.g-- .~~ ,to AFFECTS SUBET PROPERP, CANNOT BE GRAPHICALLY SHOWN. 4.23*-*- - *--- FFOUNDSPIKE 16. RESOLUTION NO, 99-112, BYTHE 8OARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, RECORDED AUGUST 17, 1999, AT RECEPTION NO. / D , 1 9 -~ ~ECTS SUBJECT PROPERTY, CANNOT BE GRAPHICALLY SHOWN. 1 1 ' / 17. EASEMENTS,RIGHTS OFWAYAND ALL OTHER MATTERS AS SHOWN ON THE FOLLOWING PLATS: -,4 1 ; tf *_ PER BOOMERANG LOTÂ» - 4' TRAIL EASEMENF 10' HOLY CROSS - 1) MARY B SUBDIVISION. FILED AUGUST 23. 1985 IN PLAT BOOK 17 AT PAGE 61. RECEPTION NO. 270787. AND SEPTEMBER 6.1985. IN PLAT BOOK 17 AT 4 BOOK 339 PAGE 499 ~~ ?n %(HATCHED) - 6 UNDERGROUND EASEMENT , I .4, 25 ACCESS SPLIT SUSDIVISION PAGE 74, RECEPTION NO. 271150; 0 ~ REI#199749 AND UTILITY - U , PLAT BOOK 79 AT PAGE 74 EASEMENT , -.â€¢ 2) GRAMIGER SHEEHAN LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, FILED AUGUST 25,1988, IN PLAT BOOK 21 AT PAGE 19, RECEPTION NO. 303306; SEE NOTE NO 9, SHEET 1 ii , 3) KAPLAN 1041 REVIEW PLAT, FILED MAY 5,1989, IN PLA-1 BOOK 22 AT PAGE 50, RECEP-nON NO. 311256: AND 2 25' ELECTRIC EASEMENT g.,1 0 \ i 43Â¢,> f 1 -\ III# 1 4) AMENDED AND RESTATED MARY B SUBDIVISION, FILED NOVEMBER 13, 1992, IN PLAT BOOK 30 AT PAGE 6, RECEPTION NO. 350737, _ SEE NOTE NO 9. SHEET 1 ~ 10Â· WIDEE TRAIL \ / ' , -06 i i ~ ~ BOOK 493 PAGE 517 EASEMENT .' , AFFECTS SU8JECT PROPERM, SHOWN HEREON. 5917'36-'f 88 67 585Â°23'29"E 106.53 PLAT BOOK 17 PAGE 61 ' #' 9 >97 7- 0., -, PARCEL 3 (PER COMMITMENT NUMBER 0704617-C2) , 4, ,<20 9 PERITTLEAJAX ~ C ~ AND BOOK 493 PAGE 480 /// 4 TRAIC EASEMENT , -__- 9_ -t~_-~Â°yogg, _ __ 11Â« 7. RIGHT OF WAY FOR DITCHES OR CANALS CONSTRUCTED BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED STATES, AS RESERVED IN UNITED STATES PATENT RECORDED - --16-66 ---=64?b'-=----d -04--- -- - p r _N * / PLAT BOOK 73 AT PAGE 3 ; 41â‚¬94Â£02 583=0846"E 81 36' - - T- - i. / \-a SUBDIVISION/PUD #0 ---74 Ch.â‚¬X (HATCHED) 442 84Â°49 16 '3+27"W_96.63 MAY 6, 1918, IN BOOK 136 AT PAGE 405. - -L-' Clth- 1- -- ; 4 1 / >- -/. ' 7---3 zz...=UÂ»â‚¬23 -- AD - - 4/7- Muly PATENT DEED FOR THE MARY B. NO. 2 LODE MINING CLAIM. PORTIONS OF SUBJECT PROPERTY ARE WITHIN CLAIM, AFFECTS SUBJECT PROPERTY, AND UTILITY , A 585Â°24'05"E 161.96' h - buti - * - r -hol / s;,#, .I't 8. R==~RovESUSHBAYWT~~~C~tuETR:YalÂ©A/NRSSPOOFRPTUJ~THRUCRO~AP~OOP~RK~,RK:El~ylzrWANSBNOEOVE~~EC~RP~E~.259. 2/ 14031.4 .- - 1â€¢ p ft /FOUND#5 REBARICAP,15#20133 i M \1 -539%5 - 85 2'i- ((~1- - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - -41\00= EASEMENT n . % \ 1 / - 37.21 - - - - - - --1, 0 , i %_ - --1 10 HOLY CROSS EASEMENT -. 9- - 9. EASEMENT AND RIGHT OF WAY FOR TRAIL PURPOSES, AS GRANTED BY DOROTHY KOCH SHAW, BY HARRY E. SHAW AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE TO THE 8OOK 493 PAGE 515 J~t- CONNEC-nNG To TRAILS 4' TRAIL EASEMEN' 5' GCE WALIVAY 1 REC#270802 ~ .-FOUNDIS REBAR & CAP ILLEGI BLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER OF THE COUNTY OF PITKIN, BY INSTRUMENT RECORDED AUGUST 23, 1985, IN BOOK 493 AT PAGE 480. SEE NOTE NO 9. SHEET 1 \ .0 \ PER BOOK 84 PAGE 55 PER UTTLE AJAX I * TRAIL EASEMENT GRANTED TO COUNTY. SHOWN HEREON. ..\ % 2492' REC#539661 "9661 PI.A~~8O~~I~~IN~~~E - i ~~ 10. MARY B SUBDIVISION P.U.D. IMPROVEMENTS AGREEMENT RECORDED AUGUST 9, 1985, IN BOOK 493 AT PAGE 484. IDEN-r]FIED IN RECORD NOTICE BOOK F PAGE 61 3... x f&/f ' -'-. -+ --TÂ· -.. . \ -Â·-1 \ LOCATION OF 15' TRAIL EASEMENT 207 UTILITY EASEMENT Â·. - '*w. <t"=7--FOUNDISREBAR ~ SUBJECT PROPERTY IS WITHIN MARY B. SUBDIVISION, AFFECTS. OF CONDEMNATION/EMINENT ----S83'3â‚¬1CEL.____331- - --~ 1 FOUND #5 REBAR & CAP ILLE LE 1 - .-3-- f , L . REC#270781 DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS 11. EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS OF WAY FOR ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION OR DISTRIBUTION LINE AND RELATED APPURTENANCES, AS GRANTED TO HOLY CROSS BOOK 574 PAGE 211 el m-t\- 1 ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION. INC. BY INSTRUMENT RECORDED AUGUST 23, 1985, IN BOOK 493 AT PAGE 517, SAID EASEMENTS BEING MORE PARTICULARLY 15Â· TRAIL EASEMENT . -r--- - 7 : REC#304307 -- \ 3474. r - DESCRIBED THEREIN. PLAT BOOK 17 PAGE 61 S78'09'46"E 15.61Â· 15---1. 5' TRAIL EASEMENT \ \ 024 RECEF IOCK 32 25' EASEMENT, SHOWN HEREON. PARCEL 1 AND BOOK 493 PAGE 480 PLAT BOOK 17 PAGE 61 AMENDED & RESTATED 9 FOUND #5 REBAR CAP ES #2376 ~ S 96-7 --- 12. RESOLUTION NO. 85-91. BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, RECORDED SEPTEMBER 4, 1985, IN BOOK 494 AT MARYBSUBDIVISION 4 1 , \ \ .- -k \P.... - PAGE 292. LOT 1 80 BOCC APPROVES THE MARY B. SUBDIVISION, AFFECTS SUBJECT PROPERTY. 1.955 ACRES o PARCEL 2 76,10' C LITTLEAJAX CONDOMINIUM ASSOC LITTLE AJAX PUD Lot: 3 FOUND #5 REBAR I g PER PLATBOOK 72 PAGE 59, BOOK 73 PAGE 3 AND 80OK 84 PAGE 55 4Â· ' AMENDED & RESTATED /V68Â° 13. TERMS, AGREEMENTS, PROVISIONS, CONDITIONS, OBUGATIONS AND RESTRICTIONS, WHICH DO NOT CONTAIN A FORFEITURE OR REVERTER CLAUSE, BUT W * MARY B SUBDIVISION LOP 3 OMITTING ANY COVENANTS OR RESTRICT]ONS, IF ANY, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO THOSE BASED UPON RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEX, SEXUAL ANNEXATION RIGHT-OF-WAY KEY (THIS SHEET) = LOT 2 06'40'1* ORIENTATION. FAMILIAL STATUS, MARITALSTATUS, DISABILITY, HANDICAP, NATIONAL ORIGIN, ANCESTRY, OR SOURCE OF INCOME, AS SET FORTH IN m 1.304 ACRES LITTLE AJAX 121. 45Â·55 APPLICABLE STATE OR FEDERAL LAWS, EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT THAT SAID COVENANT OR RESTRICTION IS PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, AS CONTAINED IN I 1 1 I il PLAT BOOK 17 PAGE 61 FOUND :15 REBAR & CAP LS #2376 f. SU BDIVISION AGREEMENTAND RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS FOR THE AMENDED AND RESTATED MARY B SUBDIVISION RECORDED NOVEMBER 13,1992, IN 15 FOUND #5 REBAR & CAP LS #9018 BOOK 694 AT PAGE 421- ORIGINALLY DEDICATED TO PITKIN COUNTY. CURRENTLYWITHIN AFFECTS SUBJECT PROPERTY, CANNOT BE GRAPHICALLY SHOWN. t1111111 i 11111111i1#/ THE CITY OF ASPEN RIGHT-OF-WAY. 14. RESOLUTION NO. 99-112, BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, RECORDED AUGUST 17, 1999, AT RECEPTION NO. 434491. AFFECTS SUBJECT PROPERTY, CANNOT BE GRAPHICALLY SHOWN. 'I11l1l1III1IlF BOOK 359 PAGE 107 15. EASEMENTS, RIGHTS OF WAY AND ALL OTHER MATTERS AS SHOWN ON THE FOLLOWING PLATS 'ill/j//j//j/1,2 ORIGINALLY DEDICATED TO PITKIN COUNTY. CURRENTLY WITHIN 1) MARY B SUBDIVISION, FILED AUGUST 23,1985 IN PLAT BOOK 17 AT PAGE 61, RECEPTION NO. 270787, AND SEPTEMBER 6, 1985. IN PLAT BOOK 17 AT %3~L~L~'~4 THE CITY OF ASPEN RIGHT-OF-WAY. PAGE 74, RECEPTION NO. 271150; 1 * 2) AMENDED AND RESTATED MARY B SUBDIVISION, FILED NOVEMBER 13, 1992, IN PLAT BOOK 30 AT PAGE 6, RECEPTION NO. 350737. AFFECTS SUBJECT PROPERTi SHOWN HEREON. PROPERTY DESCRIPTIONS ROARING FORK MINING DISTRICT MINE THE PRIDE LLC PARCEL 1 FOUND #5 REBAR & CAP LS #2376 FO UND#5 REBAR & CAPLS~~1#132,92 PER QUITCLAIM DEED AS REC #586060 TITLE COMMITMENT: 11TLE COMPANY OF THE ROCKIES, COMMITMENT NO. 0704656-0, WITH AN f EFFECTIVE DATE OF FEBRUARY 1, 2016. N77'15'590' 196.21' 512 36 16"E 2.44 140.00, OWNER: STARFORD INVESTMENTS LLC. A DELAWARE LIMITED UABILITY COMPANY. FORMERLY KNOWN AS 381.99 , FOUND #5 REBAR STARFORD PROPERTIES N.V., A NETHERLANDS ANTILLES CORPORATION. - _ N77 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION (PER COMMITMENT): LOT 1, AMENDED AND RESTATED MARY B SUBDMSION, 59'41~'W ACCORDING TO THE PLATTHEREOF FILED NOVEMBER 13. 1992, IN PLAT BOOK 30 AT PAGE 6, RECEPTION NO. 350737 PARCEL 2 241.99 PARK PARCEL 7 TITLE COMMITMENT: TITLE COMPANY OF THE ROCKIES, COMMITMENT NO. 0704617<2, WITH AN EFFECTIVE DEDICATEDTOCOUNTY DATE OF FEBRUARY 1, 2016. PER PLAT BOOK 17 AT PAGE 61 ~ PARCEL 1&2 1 OWNER: SHADOW MOUNTAIN CORPORATION, A DELAWARE CORPORATION. GRAPHIC SCALE SOPRIS ENGINEERING- LLC \.4 LOT 1 AMENDED & RESTATED MARY B (PARCEL 1) AREA 1.955 ACRES k PROPERTY DESCRIPTION (PER COMMITMENT): LOT 2, AMENDED AND RESTATED MARY 8 SUBDIVISION, CIVILCONSULTANTS ~.MMII-~I.-~. 44 LOT 2 AMENDED & RESTATED MARY B (PARCEL 2) AREA 1.304 ACRES + ACCORDING TO THE PLATTHEREOF FILED NOVEMBER 13, 1992, IN PLAT BOOK 30 AT PAGE 6, RECEPTION NO. 350737. 2: 502 MAIN STREET, SUITE A3 8 TOTAL 3.259 ACRES t NOTICE: ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY lEGAL [ IN FEET ) ACTION 8ASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY WITHIN THREE YWS . COUNTYOFPITKIN AFTER YOU FIRST DISCOVER SUCH DEFECT. IN NO EVENT MAY ANY ACTION I inch =30 ft. CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623 STATE OF COLORADO 8,UED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THI5 SURVEY 8E COMNIENCED MOREâ„¢AN TEN YEARS FROM THE DATE OF CERTIFICATION 5HOWN HEREON. (970) 704-0311 SOPRISENG@SOPRISENG.COM GRK5816017 3/16/2016 G.\2016\16017\SURVEf\Survey 0/Gs\!5 P COA VAN BASE\16017 13156 6 P SHEET, dwg Â£33415 H.1313 ,96 BEE 3. #,8I.EON .ES.922 ,62-65[ :Ei IMPROVEMENTSURVEY PLAT OF: - --4 //p -13 /05 WEST HOPKINS AVENUE PROPERTIES SOUTH FIFTH STR~ SECTION 12 & 13, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 85 WEST OF THE 6th P.M. COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO M-F 76 24Â· R.O.W. SHEET 5 OF 8 -* b f...-0- u BOUNDARY, EASEMENTS & TITLE EXCEPTIONS ON PARCEL 3 --1 6-'* - 7 GRAPHIC SCALE 0 I -Ii / 9.- (f , (INFEET) u 1 75 00' R.OW NOT PART OF ROPERTY ~ Â·~ // any t-Q \ 1 / U ORIGINAL MA Y B PLAT j 1 inch = 50 ft. ON\ / 24 BOOK 17 PAG 61 49 GOVERNMENT LOT 17 / L SHOWN ONA ENDED PLAT An/ ~~~-----/ f--~~ LABELED"O TPARCECONTHEIMPROVEMENTSURVEY f ..0 PLAT BOOK 3 PAGE 6 ~ \ ..344- i / PREPARED ASPEN SURVEY ENGINEERS 3/4/2003 1 10Â· \AnDE TRAIL /0---19 mulÂ« 02 'L- f,i -Â©f ~ EASEMENT l r .1, i PLAT BOOK 17 ~ PAGE 61 1 1 '' --/ REC #270781 | / i / j 25 ELECTRIC EASEMENT | l ...1 i L__ 15' TRAIL EASEMENT PARK PARCEL (DEDICATED TO COUNTY) ~ ~- BOOK 493 PAGE 517 1 ~ i i PLAT BOOK 17 PAGE 61 MARY B SUBDIVISION 1 \ ~__ _ SEE NOTE NO. 9. SHEET 1 ~ -----1 0-Â°r-ff ~ ~ PLAT BOOK 17 PAGE 61 0 -- 1 1 1 OVERNMENT LOT 34 4Â«72- 4, ~ 137.99 N21*55'02"E 9 1 ., v/ 20' UTILITY EASEMENT 1 /, /' 1 7 k - PLAT BOOK 17 PAGE 51 512Â°36'16"E REC #270}781 ~ Â· 81.55' *j' SOUTH SIXTH STREET ~ 3--' t~-_72 1 1 // . 10'HOLY CROSS EASEMENT 44 NE@~41'16"W 51.58' BOOK 493 PAGE 515 - - Â· REC #270802 SEE NOTE NO. 9. SHEET 1 -, 1 1. Al 77.65' R.O.W. H jÂ¢ 5' EASEMENT FOR FUTURE ; 'i BOOK 339 PAGE 499 10' HOLY CROSS EASEMENT 1 1 *W. 1 :./. S 4, A 50357'37"E 427.44 GRANT OF RIGHT OF WAY FOR . 1 A l REC#199749 508Â°41'40"E P-- PEDESTRIAN. BICYCLE AND NORDIC TRAIL USE AN x / SEE NOTE NO. 9, SHEET 1 44.47' 1 1--A 4 3 f / ... \4 SEE NOTE NO 11, SHEE 1 l ~~ RIGHT-OF-WAY KEY (THis SHEET} BOOK 544 PAGE 145 79.13' - - - - PLATBOOKUPAGE 61 F -14 f ~/ - . LOCATION OF 15Â· TRAIL EASE.ENT 1 49/ 1, ilâ€¢ IDENTIFIED IN RECORD NOTICE 2 44' 4 -2~12-122 ORIGINALLY DEDICATED TO PITKIN COUNTY. CURRENTLY WITHIN r. 208.01 OF CONDEMNATIONEMINENT %/ DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS â€¢2 - - - - THE CITI OF ASPEN RIGHT-OF-WAY. Sls -43 033 "11/ R 1 1 t '\ REC #304307 4 BOOK 574 PAGE 211 4 PARCEL 3 1 ---bf/,Â·a ~7~3,~ , 0 4 j R.0 W. ~ PR '4 1 1 Â» ~ 14 BOOK 359 PAGE 107 ( ADJUSTED" GRAMIGER PARCEL) to 8359-P107-4209621 r't#4%4 - \~~~ ~ GRAMIGER TO BOCC 16.66' 410.26 7 l// 444Â· ORIGINALLY DEDICATED TO PITKIN COUNTY. CURRENTLY WITHIN 9.851 ACRES t 202.25 - Â·THE CITY OF ASPEN RIGHT-OF-WAY. 4* 1, 8/1 I -* / f /X\77 4 41 1 6 BOOK 513 PAGE 889 \ I \ to. / THE CITY OF ASPEN RIGHT-OF-WAY. 1 1% 49/ ORIG NALLY DEDICATED TO PITKIN COUNTY. CURRENTLY WITHIN I 1 6-4 54/- 913./ BOOK 359 PAGE 107 REC #209621 GRAMIGER TO SOCC ~ 1 ~ 11111,1 BOOK 359 PAGE 107 / 6 -12 6.4 14Â«/ n ORIGINALLY DEDICATED TO PITKIN COUNTY. CURRENTLY WITHIN -t PITKIN COUNTY RIGHT-OF-WAY. jillmil 1 - 4 \ .1 19 / 4' ROADWAY EASEMENT 44Â© 1 -4- PLAT BOOK 21 PAGE 19 50874'16"E 198.01 10' HOLY CROSS EASEMENT 19.57' - BOOK 339 PAGE 499 >O<XXXXX BOOK 513 PAGE 889 REC #199749 STREET fift .4 2-t-ff-~ ;- St JOHNSON DITCH EASEMENT 6 8Â£56-18"-f----- ~-- - -BOOK 21 PAGE 19 REC #303306 ~ SEE NOTE NO 9, SHEET 1 .-A A .2/2< ORIGINALLY DEDICATED TO PITKIN COUNTY. CURRENTLY WITHIN 1534-E 19 28 466..3 44'16"E 1087.18' 80.50 3.40' / (TRACED FROM GRAMIGER 1 yf~- PITKIN COUNTY RIGHT-OF-WAY. GOVERNMENT LOT 21 75.00' R.O.W. ~<~~~4 43 f ~ ~ SHEEHAN LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT) " ROW ~ 1 B359-P107-R209621 r, \ \44 45> ''%52,- 0 / GRAMINGER TO BOCC | ~ I /0/11â‚¬4411"E.0 - 1 1 U sos' j 547'30'44"W TITLE 8-2 EXCEPTIONS (PER COMMITMENT NUMBER 0704618-C2} 1 64.33 N72' 52' 44"E 12 621 ' 7. RIGHT OF THE PROPRIETOR OFA VE,N OR LODE TO EXTRACT AND REMOVE HIS ORE THEREFROM, SHOULD THE SAME BE FOUND TO PENETRATE OR INTERSECT THE PREMISES HEREBY GRANTED, AS RESERVED IN UNITED STATES PATENT PROPERTY MAP KEY RECORDED APRIL 23,1894 IN BOOK 39 AT PAGE 35. AT RECEPTION No. 40947. {PATENT DEED FOR HOMESTA<E LODE MINING CLAIM. PORTIONS OF SUBJECT PROPERTY DEDICATED WITHIN PATENT. AFFECTS SUBJECT PROPERTY.] -Na PARCEL 3 8. RIGHT OF WAY FOR DITCHES OR CANALS CONSTRUCTED BYTHEAUTHORIP OF THE UNITED STATES, AS RESERVED IN UNITED STATES PATENT RECORDED MAY 6.1918 IN BOOK 136 AT PAGE 405. AT RECEPTION NO. 79329. [PATENT DEED 0-) - 4OOK 513 PAGE 889 0 i FORMARY 8 NO. 2 LODE MINING CLAIM. PORTIONS Of SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN PATENL AFFECTS SUBJECT PROPERTY.] REC #27933~ADAMj/FO COUNTY R.O.W. -1 RIGHT-OF-W<*EASEMENT EFFECTIVE DATE OF FEBRUARY 1, 2016. 9. EASEMENT AND RIGHT OF WAY FOR ELECTRIC INES AND RELATED APPURTENANCES, AS GRANTED / HANS R. GRAMIGER TO HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION. INC BY INSTRUMENT RECORDED SEPTEMIR 16, 1988 IN BOOK 573 AT HOLY CROSS UNDERGROUND Tin E COMMITMENT: TITLE COMPANY OF THE ROCKIES, COMMITMENT NO. 0704618<2, WITH AN CURRENTLY CITY OF ASPEN R.O.W. PAGE 539. AT RECEPION NO. 304040, SAID EASEMENT BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED THEREIN. [AFFECTS SUBJECT PROPERTY, SHOWN HEREIN 1 1\ BOOK 521 P,4.84 =j 04/ \/ 94-1 j -Â©\ 4 REC #28263*9~~ ~-= OWNER: WESTCHESTER INVESTMENTS, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION. 10. EASEMENTS. RIGHTS OF WAY AND ALL OTHER MATTERS SHOWN ON GRAMIGER SHEEHAN LOT INE ADJU STMENT RECORDED AUGUST 25. 1988 IN PLAT BOOK 21 AT PAGE 19 AS RECEPTION NO. 303306. [AFFECTS SUBJECT PROPERTY, BOOK 573 RA*539 \ SHOIN HEREIN.] In REC #304*0 4 PROPERâ„¢ DESCRIPTION (PER COMMITMENT): "ADJUSTED" GRAMIGER PARCEL, GRAMIGER SHEEHAN LOT UNE r 00 h p ~ ~ ~ ADJUSTMENT, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF FILED AUGUST 25, 1988 IN PLAT BOOK 21 AT PAGE 19, AT 11. TERMS, AGREEMENTS. PROVISIONS. CONDIT]ONS AND OBUGAT[ONS AS CONTAINED IN QUITCLAIM DEED, MUTUAL RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS, SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND MUTUAL RELEASE RECORDED OCTOBER 9,2008. AT 4 RECEPTION NO. 553462. [CONCERNS WATER RIGHTS IN ST JOHNSON ITCH BENEFITING SUBJECT PROPERTY, [HTCH SHOWN HEREIN.I O 80OK 513 PAGE 889 RECEPTION NO. 303306. '1 12 RESOLUTION NO. 6, SERIES OF 2009, BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, RECORDED AUGUST 6,2009, AT RECEPTION NO. 561701 [CONCERNS WATER RIGHTS IN 51 JOHNSON DITCH BENEFITING SUBJECT PROPERTY, ~EC #279234 ADAMS To coul~ R.O.ti. \ ~bt --- 4 \ 04\ 44 / \ STATE OF COLORADO COUNTY OF PITKIN DITCH SHOWN HEREIN.] 13. TERMS, AGREEMENTS, PROVIS]ONS. CONDITIONS AND OBLIGATIONS AS CONTAINED IN MASTER AGREEMENT RECORDED AUGUST 6, 2009, AT RECEPION NO. 561702. [CONCERNS WATER RIGHTS IN SI JOHNSON DITCH BENEFITING DITCH NOTE: SUIECT PROPERTY, DITCH SHOWN HEREON.1 1 /1 ---f 1 0 4 - 3 14. TERMS. AGREEMENTS, PROVISIONS, CONDITIONS AND OBLIGATIONS AS CONTAINED IN 51 JOHNSON DITCH APPROACH ROAD CONSTRUCT1ON AND PMPEUNE REPAIR AGREEMENT RECORDED AUGUST 6, 2009, AT RECEPTION NO. 561706. PER GRAMIGER SHEEHAN LOT UNE ADJUSTMENT [CONCERNS WATER RIGHTS IN SI JOHNSON DITCH BENEFITING SU/ECT PROPERTY, DITCH SHOWN HEREON.] "THE OWNERS OF THIS DITCH EASEMENT SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO WHATEVER IS 15. RESOLUTION NO, 82. SERIES OF 2010, BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, RECORDED FEBRUARY 7, 2011, AT RECEPTION NO. 577446. [CONCERNS WATER RIGHTS IN St JOHNSON DITCH BENEFITING SUBJECT REASONABLY NECESSARY FOR THE ENJOYMENT OF THIS IRRIGATION DITCH EASEMENT, INCLUDING PROPERTY, DITCH SHOWN HEREON.] X r/// REPAIRS, INGRESS AND EGRESS, WITH SPACE THEREFORE AS EXIGENCY MAY SHOW." 16, RESOLUTION NO. 80, SERIES OF 2011, BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE Cl[Y OF ASPEN, COLORADO. RECCRDED DECEMBER 12, 2011, AT RECEPTION NO. 584986. [CONCERNS WATER RIG HTS IN 51 JOHNSON DITC H BENEFITING SUBJECT 11 t k 9/ PRODER17, DITCH SHOWN HEREON.] 9 9 d V S , SOPRIS ENGINEERING - LLC CIVILCONSULTANTS NOnCE: ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY LEGAL 502 MAIN STREET, SUITE A3 ACTION 8.ED UPON ANY DEFECT IN TH~S SURVEY WITHINâ„¢REE YEARS CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623 AFTER YOU FIRST DISCOVER SUCH DEFECT liNo EVENT MAY ANY AC-nON 8A5ED UPON ANY DEFECT IN â„¢15 SURVEY BE COMMENCED MORE THAN TEN YEARS FROM THE DATE OF CERnFICATioN SHOWN HEREON. (970) 704-0311 SOPRISENG@SOPRISENG.COM GRK. 16017 3/16/2016 G \2016\16017\SURVEY\Surfey .....P COA VRN BASE\16017 13156 ISP SHEET 5 dwE CK 25 SPEN 4.0=0 BLOCK 19 #02â€¢%3%00 4323 1 3 7 1 i BLO~13 RECEPTION #438648 1 1 f\Â«r IMPROVEMENTSURVEYPLATOF: /05 WEST HOPKINS AVENUE PROPERTIES SECTION 12 & 13, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 85 WEST OF THE 6th P.M. lill/jil COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO SHEET 6 OF 8 1 1 1 ' 1 / TOPOGRAPHY & EXISTING CONDITIONS i ..1 I --4-,-,1,99<zE-Lzz_ r I i 1 1 1 1 0-\\ & 1 f NATURAL HAZARDS NOTE ! ni~~EYHEAPHS HO~ERSDS~0SRAWNILLPRO~UTHEUT'JUNRESJISCHUCED THUY(630) 1 1/ J 1 141 0-% i N lilli /1 6 POUNDS PER SQUARE FOOT (PSF) OR MORE. THE HIGH HAZARD ZONE IS CHARACTERIZED 8Y EITHER HIGH t..~4 FREQUENCY, HIGH IMPACT PRESSURE, OR BOTH HIGH FREQUENCYAND HIGH IMPACTPRESSURE. / /, GPS-21 7TH AND HOPKINS ~ - AVALANCHE MODERATE HAZARD ZONE IS AN AREA WITHIN WHICH AVALANCHES WILL OCCUR AT RETURN / ELEV=7937.57 1 1 0 1.1 1 1 1 1 1 PERIODS IN EXCESS OF THIRTY (30) YEARS AND WILL HAVE IMPACT PRESSURES OF LESS THAN SIX 1 1 ./1 1 1 HUNDRED THIRTY (630) POUNDS PER SQUARE FOOT. AVALANCHE FREQUENCY AND IMPACT PRESSURES - /1 / 1/\ 44, f / 1 / 1 4 / DECREASE TOWARD THE OUTER LIMITS OF THIS ZONE. WHEN LARGE AVALANCHES OCCUR AND RUN TO 1 1 THE OUTER BOUNDARIES OF THIS ZONE, THEY CAN BE VERY DESTRUCTIVE IN SPITE OFTHEIRREDUCED PROBABILITYAND PRESSURES. 1 1 / i / i i / ROCKFALL MITIGATION LINE IS THE ESTIMATED LOWER ELEVATION LIMIT OF ROCKFALL EVENTS WITH AN ... --792#15Jit:6/*Â«2- / -L- 1 - 3% 1 E -ft il I 1 l l l 2-2iLogs)~NOOFE~E~REENN~~OUNTDi~ONOS1ATPERECT~~~COF1}I'~REPETRU~.~NPO~~loutiOF . -6 - ... ..... 1.i ..... ROCKFALL EVENTS CAN INCREASE OR DECREASE THE PROBA8ILITY OF SUBSEQUENT ROCKFALL EVENTS. 1-9 1 .1 - .-.--\ -6-7.- Â«ILKZ =. CURBCUT ---\ Â».4*444*%. ~.0*Z-2.--4-4.-K TOPOGRAPHY, AERIAL IMAGERY AND PLANIMETRIC DATA PROVIDED BY ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY (15 L j 11 DEPARTMENT. PROPERTY UNES ARE APPROXIMATE. -4 1 ' ARTHUR I. MEARS. P.E., INC. AND WILBUR ENGINEERING, INC. DATED MARCH 21, 2014 -1 1 Â·:-h I~zillilli'' 23- Â·4-4Â·Â©1_-t~_c-Li' ORIGINAL MAP SCALE 1 INCH EQUALS ZOO FEET SUBJECT TO LIMITATIONS DESCRIBED IN REPORT BY 1 1 1 - i // f / i // 11. im 1 -7=2220.24>~ 2 -1.2 .Â·I ---t- 4, I il 2 - 1 1,4-12/4--Â«3 1 \ \42 07Â»- 1 1 1 i 1 483 /---- HOPKINS AVE. = 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS LEGEND . -- 1 0 - I A I ..% 1 ' 31*327 1 SEWERCLEANOUT lit.. le . =;..1: Â® - f jj l -Â»23-2~3-- f r i I I * 1 24". 4 1 Â«f / \\ I GRASS /7| 0 CATV PEDESTAL TELEPHONE PEDESTAL ELECTRIC METER / 1 1 1 1 \ r*ZE>t - Ug 1 ,-' ~. , 6 l. / -- , *. r / --Gli\(El. --.- 6/ 1 1- 1 1 1 1 1 1 ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER C,-1 / -9.1 , ..Â»7... 1- P Â»Â·1*.- #~) .6- .- 1 j 1 1 1 1 SEWER MANHOLE .2/0 '4Â«I> 0 '/ , . 3.: ..733'n ~7234Â§Â· .24{:3313,2 i h" , /1 \ 79 . I - 1 1 1 WATER VALVE . - .â‚¬.51 3.-1,13/ - ELECTRIC MANHOLE IRRIGATION P M ~S F 4 LLJ' , 1 1 SIGN .. ' ' -2..2 -1 1 MAIL BOX - AIR CONDITIONING UNIT '....' 7 -7G.Â«5 g \ ant-- ff t --hj--).1Z,W IRRIGATION VALVE 4/4 .. - $ b-/2.-2955Â·-:-2 A 11 0, /7 0 C m )- .t 1.VIC - P #=- -06â€¢=E / -1 \ - ue DRYWELL le ~GROUNV e. B A ~*tOW~ BED ~ L ~ , W-332 .- - UT]IllY POLE uc - UNDERGROUND CABLE h .- , 1 \ r / 419 1 ' 7- On \\ - w - WATER UNE i ut - UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE \ ~ ~r~ ~~ ~ ~/ ~ . 1% \1 1.2/ 0 V f Â« STE r- - UC UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC 13 30 L Â·e.k'- .- - i.: 1 BUILDING ROOFUNE PER ~ % 1 1 -ss - 3 \ 6.-t<<<f--+A<4 0-- 4 'Â·- / 0 / ' i AERIAL IMAGERY ' 1 - - le 4-iZZ~~--~ 1 / - ug - GAS LINE / \\ 6% \ - // 1 - // / / 1 j 1-0Â« IliS- 0 - CHA[NUNK FENCE . G.VM . 1 . $- 9 -$ ... I ...) - 1 / - O - WOODEN FENCE . 700 1 1 1 1 f fiji M WIRE FENCE . ~ - - - - 7955 III 2/ / / 1 CO 4/--377-7 - Â«9 \\\ \\Â« 2- Â» (03-2-L--4 21" 1 7'7520& Â»11Â»6Â»t-___- Â«=----~~ ~ Â»~ 7980 7990 7 NY:-- .// 7995 / ~5 -I A 1010,~ 0-2=====A 0015 -M502 _-Ul#- I- - i - W- / Â» -- I. 50/ -<N==8060 --== 807Â«**r *#/%5 - GRAPHIC SCALE * SOPRIS ENGINEERING - LLC . CIVIL CONSULTANTS [ IN FEET ) 1 inch = 40 ft. 502 MAIN STREET, SUITE AB NOnCE: ACCORDING TO COLORADO .W YOU MI. COMMENCE ANY lEGAL ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFE. iN THIS SURVEY .BIN THREE YEA. CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623 AFTER YOU FIR5T D6COVER SUCH DEFECT. IN NO EVENT MAY ANY ACION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT INT}HS SURVEY BE COMMENCED MOREâ„¢AN TEN YEARS FROM THE DATE OF CERnaCATION 5HOWN HEREON. (970) 704-0311 SOPRISENG@SOPRISENG.COM GRK sb 16017 01/28/16 G.~2016\16017\SURVEÂ¥\Survey DWGs\ISP COA VRN BA5E\16017 13156 EP SHEET 6 dw' ~*INÂ®leD@008Â¤08 G WESTERLY SIDE FIELD LOCATED) EXISTING CONDITIONS LEGEND r.N o/7 IMPROVEMENTSURVEY PLAT OF: SEWER CLEANOUT CATV PEDESTAL 411 8 TELEPHONEPEDESTAL ~ SECTION 12 &13, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 85 WEST OF THE 6th P.M. Lf - /05 WEST HOPKINS AVENUE PROPERTIES ELECTRICMETER 20,4 2Â·1 ..4 ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER mÂ·:t. %3**, ...... COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO SEWER MANHOLE - ' SHEET 7 OF 8 WATER VALVE / = :'F..o. :-Â·-b'Â·~--eâ‚¬?1-, Â·,Â·fg I ... - .n.~ - ELECTRIC MANHOLE TOPOGRAPHY & EXISTING CONDITIONS SIGN , c NO G TTER GRAPHICSCALE 1 1 MAIL BOX AIR CONDITIONING UNIT --'/ 1 / IRRIGATION VALVE f 1 l i ( IN FEET ) -cr ~rnÂ» _-e;T 4-7-*4~:'6-= :Â·Â·Â· 4 ... - linch = 20 ft DRYWELL UTILIT~ POLE - UIC - UNDERGROUND CABLE A . w- ' ffiI~ 4,~ .. 1 - 3,Â¥7#43: Thu I : .~*:. / 2~- 4 -:Â· ./.Â·91:-9. - w - WATER LINE I.-1.L~ 6 -N-ziri.~Â·, -* .- ..;; ... .2.1.> 1 9-3. ...I - - // .4,8"- 1-4-3 1 R -7 -K- 1 1 / Cu ~- t- i ' I - ut - UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE / --124 -1 - - 10 - MBER OPTIC 0 14'~ C M\P. - ue - UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC 7- Ph) *C 1.4.- 0 3 7.4 - b.. - APE. ) HOPKINS 53 SEWERUNE , Â«Imen=-4-Lut --14" CMP 1 1 1 - ug - GAS UNE 0, 14"C M P . c CHAINLINK FENCE 1 l 711 4 6:VVJ 1 1 j - WOODEN FENCE ~ 1 7 / -f. i.*42 4 ; . 1 1 / i ....' 1Â·..Â»----ame..5â€¢ R~. . x WIRE FENCE / --2 / a -rÂ·- - , GRAVEL~ 0 :...45Â·'3:3=- 1 7,0 - - 11 , I i 1 j ~ .,-12.24 9 ; 1 1 - -fi ~~4%Â£js---2-2~ Â· v ~~ ' L -- 1 -f ~ - 00 /47 - ------ t - / --. *- - 47-t:**Al#k *1 / -% . 7<4%4:a- Â·- % - - clt: N.MI Â·5&4Â· â€¢r . 1 1 - .7 *9---SI JOH@SON. TEH / m ..1/Z - 44.--, 4 , 24Â· 704 ' M ... Ty' 3~~FL gy A-a , T 45> =r h - .. Ue -.-.1 3. 4:- Â· -77 Â»~Â·Â· - ~~ . 24''~0*f tel~Â·~ ~ ~-- - \ 0. f A. -1 -3- 4Â¢:Â·- 2 i 1 - ~ _-1 '~ Â·~~~\ ~ ~ ~ 5 US - I \40 ..1 - 46.9 -\ r - --~ -2 -i,-=-:-' 464Â¥Â· 1 - 4-2 -1 1, , - ue ---71 -941~~~f ":6,7.:..2. 724-- 1 --h 3<446.-/ --~ j An f -6 *%-E.23:,6.715>..i'-93 ---33(31' y) S. 5 -1 11 ~~~ ~' ~'1 - Afit -rgÂ·&~*Ue; ' rÂ·!*;4%4~ . 2 \,1 /1 1 1-1, f f / ---4 . , ey ./ / , I / .- UP 0 2 -p- LS-zjÂ¥ 4- . k 72" 1.5.<5..: J ./x ~RAVEL --- - --\C~ /~- - 0 2 0\ I 1 -/ \ 7 6 ./) _-- -2 j i /ZOO_)- L WOOD CH!Â¢ PAâ„¢ -~90- - 22Â· --.646 - r\\ 1 \ --9-----26 3<,4. \ x 705 w, HOPONS emgo h 4 3 7 GRAVEL - - MULD-LEE 2 v\. 1 ---x#. ~ \ -8112.-k/494- 9%99 i g,/ - -- - -- -16-1 7- -- 12444 , Â»000 FRAME 2 - - 01. SINGLE FAMLY 3 'Â«r-ff- -z , 1 L DWELUNG . 8 I j I - % 1 -,1.--1-f.e - Ue -)--i f /0 120 Er' -~ ,/ ~93 C0 _AAE#-/W-PU I /- aa-E.3 .202'-= Â· 39' 3%3 6 \ i-: 1- 7 -- 43/ 000/pae.â‚¬ 3-2-&.3 I *333-23Â«EX=C-~3-' 7 ~ ~ ue 6 -45/9&#ab~*,4 f-----7 * s'-u'32- d F 1 '- )1 7 . 4 4.42Â»*g--.~~ ~ V 0 41.1 '' 4& -,1 . I 1 -9* 1, 7.0 â€ž a*397&23Â«~~~26~ -~*': 21 -1 1~4'T- 1 ~ ~ 71* W HOPK.,9 07 1 ~~ 3274; -h_~~ 1 / PLAYGROUND / ) . ~ I . 0 -37-2.4 46 &823Â»il,27*7341 5.4. 4 1/ 200#el qi AC ~ AC . I 09 UNG A. 2Â£81821 Ll--1 8,3792 29.5Â· X \ 4/ 1 L f.- r --- 1 4 WOOD FRAME 9 A-i:" fl--t> MUL 77-LEJEL * 22 /. ~ 1 '4>~ AVALANCIE *DERATE HAZARD ZONEm.-_. ..1 7.141/ - 'r STEPS * GARAGE & Ut OUTBILDING STE~PS - \ Â· ..(SEE U*,jRD NOTESON SHEET 6/ . AN . --- - - - 2\ 2 51' 9.6 4 9-0 , 11 /\02:2 6.5' /~ L A 4 2/ / 1 /W - - - .6, ~ -l LROCKFALL MITIGATION LINE . j. 2- - .~1. ~Â«Â«=EER - -~---=-><a-_.._TH~S SIDE (SEE HAZARDNOTES-ON SHEE~.6Â«: . -1 - ./1 20.9' %~-~ ~ ~t**z:zE== L\\\Â«A U TOTEM/POLE < ~ *\Un-ur / 1, f 4&E)ve --7 Ue 0 Oe -@ 4.1. 0.-f - 0; / 01 A Â«f 7950 4 RE IRnNGÂ·W)%[t------~ 7955 - -If E //affleÂ« 0 ~~~%45 SOPRIS ENGINEERING - LLC -~33- - CIVIL CONSULTANTS NonCE. ACCORDINGTOCOLORADO.W.OUMUSTCOMMENCEANYLEGAL 502 MAIN STREET, SUITE A3 ACTION ~ED UPON ANY DEFEC IN â„¢15 5URVEY WITHIN THREE YEARS ty 2:3:%:'':.'NASEASRVE 6'EC./2~~J'Z:/TA:... - CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623 4Â«- .----irrz.-% /.-016~~~'~-01713156 ISP 5HEEr 7 dw' Â¥EAR5 FROM THE DATECF CERTIFICATION SHOWN HEREON. (970) 704-0311 SOPRISENG@SOPRISENG.COM delÂ®@1*Deeima.0. Il 7--- EXISTING CONDITIONS LEGEND IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT OF: SEWER CLEANOUT A-fF-TIEr-m 7-:mfrÂ¥*BLE,7-T-Er?XEE CATV PEDE5TAL *ENIWF*EZEHE] IKE,TFIE-Â¥*t#Eim*ial *9*fffÂ¥*mEEFil WEST HOPKINS AVENUE PROPERTIES ri-T--irr-a-1-31 [18 7-fE-TIrrm-I [*Ii-Â¥2rTiET=-1 TELEPHONE PEDE5TAL rEI-TE-1-2-rirl [82)031-flrig-1 cirl--fRE-irrm-1 ELECTRIC METER Â©Plti ERNEE Â®129% SECTiON-12 &133:OWN-SHIP-16-SOUTHI--RANGE 85-WEST-OFTAttih-FIMI IlilL_IRC_11114 ] I?33I TRr I f lial INIF~%7**i&4 T ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER 1 6.1 Il' I ~132CJTE-, 6,12, ~34| TRC ~ 8 |161 !276! TRI I 4 I R I 4 4 T SEWER MANHOLE Cy-Â¥0-43-El [ 24-TE-T-a-Tirl GIT-1*rT-AITT-1 COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO I,QRI TRI"L ' 1/ i .1./. rorÂ·/ I . A . I [I'.r-Â¥lillI.. ==rrl--My-1 |2â„¢Ztttal 1*'W-rttel m I WATER VALVE 1 g 1 md-T-Â«Ii-1 [26 -FRET10 -16-1 GiETE-TIB-T-131 4 4 T ELECTRIC MANHOLE LISZLIRC-12_ L 4 1 8 &232ti*3=tÂ¥1 rm-ik-6-1-Ii-ri-1 GIC-TE-ryll-ir] 1-41--fEn-33-rm-1 SHEET 8 OF 8 SIGN [Iy23ic-I-53Tii-1 1-iil-Thâ‚¬-I-irrirl G~lnE-PE-5-116-1 EXISTING CONDITIONS & TREES *IfEZIZEPil ~2~-2&Â¤-ZILIZI=1124-IBCs.i_~lpa.~ 7 IZmLILLI IMZL__IRC_1_5 1.10 1 ~zziEZ,ttyl MAIL BOX AIR CONDITIONING UNIT 15 TRC 4.3 8.32 TRO 22 0. 40.49 12Qi.IE:ULCI11 4 Â· 16 TRC 4 5 8.33 TRD 5.3.10.50 PalkA--Ll-iiI - IRRIGATION VALVE . 17 TRO 4.7 9.34 TRO 5.3.10 = R -4 m 4 DRYWELL UTILITY POLE T 24 12911 TRC 16 112| 4 R T - uc - UNDERGROUND CABLE 1292[ TE'34-1 7-- 1-9 - w - ~GROUND TELEPHONE Â· ~ NMEttilt] o-7 119LIE_Lill,L| T T @?1 3 1 3 1391 T T ..2... 6-4 'P.. EL - 7 01 4 12971 135. I s I liz 1 4 T 4 4 - f. --Â·~ FIBER OPTIC + 5 22#ne.. . 4- - :1,=: Be= |21.29 1 71 112 11*FIWEEHEBE R 39 I M IN! 1 ~12#_LaL-1-14.Ll , 44 7 - we - UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC c D-t,Â·-2.07 --Â©9h..GO. Â· . Ik .1,4 --Â· -rtc. c - 1 TR' 4 T 13001 TRI~71 7 1141 R 7 T 4 - ss - SEWER LINE 0 - -Al- 1......1 -- - 4 L&11___IRCL_1- 16 I 20 I I97I TRI I S I 10 18: -C 1 104 1161 71 Â· 13011 235, | 6 |17| 7 T Lal-LIRQ_.La_Lin_1 BIR~CI)IM 111EL-LAc_1-1-LILI 4 4 -ug - GASUNE ~' . TR R 4 8931 3 1 f 191 TR 44 4 1 .4 T T - 0 - CHAINUNK FENCE 4 Â· T TR TR 4 TR 4 3051 TIC 1 8 116 - m - WOODEN FENCE . , T- ..031. 2- --*RA .â‚¬t.k 4'4 ' T TR 4 - x - WIRE FENCE --Â· Â·-Â£ - -=*-5-Â·caL ~ -3 - -- TR' 1/7 R 7 TR R' 4 7 4 :-- '84.>41 - 14-9 --3.-;..L-41 - IT -4/4, TR ' 4 Â·7 6 T = TR TR 4 47 4- T 1 ., T 4 T 4 TR 4 R 4 09 . + g C. I 1 '44 7T T 444 4 T 74 1 TR 7'R 3 -4 I 47 T . A 1 12 03 0 4 4 1 7 " 11 , 1 . 4 - 47 TR _ I _ ..-T 4 4 R - --- --- T 4Â·T f11_19--72. - 22 47 T 7 4 7 TR' 4 TR 4. 47 T 7. 4 , e = i ~ 9-'0%4 5..f-- Â« t RT,1- it - T - 33 - - Â«-Â·~"Â£~*. ~. i~~ -Â· y.~- - 1/1/EST , 6 T' 4 T 4. 47 4 4 1 47 3 2 r St Â»INSO~DITCH 4. C.: T 4 4 '9 1 .1. .. 54- 24 Â·~ ~ ~~ - ~~; . ~~7.-Â·Â·Â· 4 R HOPKINSAVENUE 4 TR 4 TR' 7 0 60 / 6 I - -/ 4 7 6)-) 1 1.* TR 4 7 4 6 GRASS /.1/// f 7 r ' 6 4. 71 - 11- le Â· 4 = 7 T 7 1.2/ 8 i L , It I 4 +9.044/1 ue I - 63 I - 9 1-1 I C. 1 , 44*/ U. Ir ' . ' .8/E '' i , 0 h,c Ft.. . 44 9 03% 4.wÂ· /-.Â· . 1, - I 1~~ 77 / WOOD CHIP PATH j "Crb 4-1 . . T .4. 7 3. 01 . FINN. lt~ F~E , --u~ , 6711 - 304- / ~ :.: -'- - - kh?116:4,Â·119. ---â€¢ Â£-4, 1.74 77 i Â» - 4 1 /2. 0 5 - . ..E.*2.752. ~1-714rap 47'32=:55 \ 79 i ' le ---\12-21 f-fitpi~tyj ~ ~t 99,2 1.4 0 - 78 \ 9 h r--_ Ue __~ -f~ M/4 -'. -23 en di '44/:.' 41 8- 1- pr- 'IN + 1'/ 7 - f~* ~ 48 /1' ~ ~1.45 43 & 9Â«k 3L- ... / 45 *-- / 7- 7.- 21 P~AY GRouNp 71 0. 47 44 1 r -1- ~~F / 5,7 1401 - - .- C- 33<r' / 6 . 14 - t j 4. a 70 - 72 1 00\,-- 1.- 0 -4 -R@ 1 1 51 f? I \\ S k AC 5 4 kqmy= Tr-Â·r.z *re / 1 Allrl?knEl Â» 22, Ca#de \ 6,7 21 1 ./ 0~ .-be - '- .-l $.M 9.49 6 j ,~M)-)-1-1.j~- -% ' M...Ea J, 3 BUIDING ROOFLIN E PER AERLAL IMAGERY 2 ' 44 \- - 3 38*ME 00 - 74 k- 4~4\ , '' A t 1jj 06 ., 08 ' 15*e~ STEPS 49/z -NT<n-'A 45 lili 1576 ' - 9 8 j111 STEPSy . \\/\ 3 17 12 .... .. .1 --- ~ _<<It--12~-~7731_1-~ ~- ~~~ = 2~' *-"ILIT_ ue -__2>- 3 TOTEM POLE 1 C -zf 6~#~44*:6,6 15 p es=EE 1. j -6 ---- -----1 // 9 4~ brmi .vr- -j2WF'Â» 66/ ..0 - 0, D %92 f ,%' 1 1 1 ~ 1 2 0 1 2 -*L UN---1@ 1 UT11+Â«POLE CUT OWN 1 . L --\/7= - 6 4 ~ ~ -' '- ~ ~ -~GRAVEL -~ -< clk, + 96,/ 91~ 25 2.0. 5 6 7 / ' / 11Â»-4 u 3 ------ 1 2 '' 2 6 1 : **4- RETAINING WALL 1 DITCH %%- 3.32 4 - 5 , t5333k@ P~/.41 ~<KETAINING vOJ 4.X,= 1 3 94 1- 1,4"~ < f fl 62" 4Â¥m I INÂ»Lâ‚¬f-41 / 7 raPe ~20 f . ng :31/h 2 , â‚¬I=.1 ---\---//- , ~-o hâ‚¬*230Â·4 2 2117/8 92 0140 2 - 4.--2 9 te,0 1 / 123 /.fmp 53 47 / . â€¢ 4ALAIWE FENCE W/GUY WIRES 1 1 . 0 *T @fim@ 27PMUWEr 7~Â« -9E9, K I ,(dabfw 91.52 ,- ---- A 1 23=5?fR~ 1 \~/ - 61 1 7469296. 1 \Il 58 .5 \Â« 9 n 411 / f GRAPHICSCALE bABLJIM.0 SOPRIS ENGINEERING - LLC (IN FEET) CIVILCONSULTANTS- 1 inch = 30 ft. NOnCE: ACCORDING To COLORADO LAW YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY LEGAL 502 MAIN STREET, SUITE A3 ACTION BASED'PON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY .mill THREE YEARS CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623 AFTER YOU FIRST /15COVER SUCH DEFECT IN NO EVENT MAY ANY ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THI SUR...COMMENCED MORE THAN TEN YEARS FROM THE DATEOF CERnFICATION SHOWN HEREON (970) 704-0311 SOPRISENG@SOPRISENG.COM GRKsb 16017 3/16/Z/16G \2016\16017\SURVEASurvey DWGs\I5P COA VRN BASE\16017 13156 iSP SHEET 8 -g dolÂ®Â® ~ exleamenoi BO)8.Ul ADJOINING BUIDING (WESTERLY SIDE Fl LD l. CITE ) EXHIBIT 1500â€¢. |1 IUE A CERTIFICATE OF OINNER SHIP ANO DEDICATION -- P. O.8 MARY 6 5UODIVIS IO N KNON ALL MEN BY THESE. PMESINTS THAT HAARY E. SHAM, AS PEKS,ONAL. MEPRESE OP THE= aSTATE. OP OoMoneÂ¢ MOCH SHAW, DECEASEO, 82+NG THC OWNEM OP CERTAIN LANO5 //fl tN PIT lit N COUN79. COLOMAOO, De.se.R,85/0 AS FOLLOWS Â· A PAACEL OP LAND IrruATED WiTH/N 7-#4Â£ MIA-1 6 NO. 2 LOOE. M/NEAAL SURVEY NO. Â£96,0, 4,1 0.- a A P. U. D. LOT SPLIT PATENT-2,0 PEBFKUAKY, 14* UNot# NO. 667442, SECTKON fl., Â¥OWNS+UP M SOLITH, 8ANSE 86 V,!EST * WIllia .0.-, OP THE GTA PRINCIPAL MEFIO,IN , 34% PAACEL REâ‚¬.0%08.0 IN Â©OOM n<., PAGE 405 OP THE P{TAN COUNTY , COLOAMOO CLEAK AND RECOADERâ€¢ S OFFICE, LY<NG NESTEAL.N OP -rla PR,Oa OP ASPEN LF. OF A) M#NaKAL SURVEY NO. 75,4 WasraM,-9 500742ML:V AND N EASIMLY OF 7>/2 MAR7-HA WASH/Nale/v 6/â€¢1 +Â¥2 Lo,ot MINE~~~I~V~~V NO. 5793 502/7-W- 0 4.09,",2 \ - #ID EFKLN ANO EASTEKLY ZOUNCANES, AND SOUTHEALY OP -rHE crry oP ASParl SOUTHEALN - EFul BOUNDAM To COFKNEA NO 5 OF Salf)Â· M W LOOE- , A AabAA ANA CAP POUND IN PLACE., 4 ' f j S. /13 --44> f & 09,/, BOUNOAR1, LOCATEÂ·O IN SA, O SECTION, 15 NIORE PA~TICULAAL.N OESC,~i,beD AS POLLOWS 90/7/2Ifly 4.20 9 21+OPMINS 1.0 If N-- 50 S7 ./ Beâ‚¬.INNING AT THE INTEASECT#ON OP SAJO ASPEN DOUNÂ©AlÂ©f AND THE SOUIHEM*LY arraN- 46/7 S, ON OF TNE EASTEJUN A,SHT -OP -vÂ·,A-( O% SOUTH SIXTH STRCET, LOCATED IN SAIC) Ci-TY, 'Y - 4- -1 soUTHE=Mul BOONOAFOf oP SAL M.N. LODE Â·, -rHENCE N Â·,G' 2.345" a., 199.2.f PT. ALOrâ€¢le SAID EPUTA- 0 0/06 lf\ -THENCE S. 5571'OV E., 231.53 PT. ALONG Sâ€¢,0 ASPEN BOUNDARY To 7-Ia n47--2-kt,EC:7-/ON oP 0 6 J ~ 2//VEL ALING SA,0 LINE 2-5 4 THENCE N.55* 20â€¢24â€¢Â¥i.4.74'; TMENCE S 02â€¢ 2.4'00' r# , 3,2.04 FT. 7-0 7-Ha LINE 2.-3 OF Sain M. W. LOOE ; THENCE LEAVING 64,0 ASPEN BOUNMAKY S -7<2 38Â·00" A t425 FT. 8,00 27 aQ n 1,24 :6 5.-06 -9 I ,\1\ 4 ---- 4 -, 02 L.5. 90,8, TWINCE LEAVING SA,0 SoLITHEAN BOLINOâ€¢Al' , N or 2(1' 00" C., #58.95 FT. ALONG SAND M W. 120 11 / /N /0 2.VEL - 1 _506,7. 126 5 CALE : t"=50' LEAVING SAIO EASÂ·reALN Ood/04,Â« , S 55â€¢ 20â€¢24" e.., fle.65 pr. ALONG. 34,0 NOZIREAL-9 BOLIN OARN 8,0/ .2 59 ....\ I.Qua EAS-ra.ACY DOUNOARY TO A POINT ON THE MAKY 8 NO 2 Nogr,428,J BOUNOARW;Â· THER- 1 1 lo r TO A PO,MT ON SA, O 2 0/ A . NORTHE.a~24 BOUNOAAN , THENCE Le.AV,NG. SA,0 MARV 8 NOA- __ <25,7- 1~6 2 54/D F Of A. Afob,7-HEALY 604/NORAY, 5 21*02'/e'W., 775.90 Pr ALOA/e 94/0 .' 0, A. ,/25,2,9,3/ THEAN OCUROAffy, N â‚¬4- 97Â·41-" IV , Â·76.34 FT. 7-0 SA,D P. oP A. COÂ£*42Â£A NO 4 , THENCE LEAVWGI 1 R tri BOUNOAFâ€¢.9 TO A POINT ON THE MAKY B NO. 2 SOUTHERLH BOUNOAKY , Â¥HENCE LEAVING SA,O 20 r r ../-2.. Â®oUNOARY , N 04-50' 2-1â€¢ W, 411.44 PI A=>NG, SAN) WIAMÂ·4.25 Â¥Â·faSTE.ML-4 BOUNDA,ly 70 <LOAAEF~ 1 O2AKING LLÂ£762 82,2,0 5. /29/' W , 7 39 /77, 7,/ENCE LEAVING 54/Â£7 /0AAÂ¥ 4~ SOL'TIERZ-9 Â¥ 4 /5 ' TgA/4 - *t PÂ· OF A. ,/48-SleAL-4 60/NOIFY, N 67 .sâ€¢ s,â€¢4 W., 144.93 P-r. ALONG, SAID MARY 2, SOUIHEMLW SOUNOAAN 70 MA,Â« e NO. 2 CORREA NO, G, WHENCE A PoUNO AND M PLACE CH,Sal.10 X b eAEâ€žeNT 1 * THE Â®OUTHEAL.24 EXTENSION OP SA,0 en<TH S-TME.ar M,WT- of- WAN b THENCE LEAWNe SAIO 41, 41> ,Â». 1Â£\ . I 44 4. NO. S ,Â· THENCE N {3' 29'00" r!, feo ff PT. AL.orte SA,O -ESTEMLW HOUNCAAN TO A PotNT AT ~ . 7"0270# S 4 N a.=/, I 6 t- 4= 1.- 200/ aSf WaS-reFUN boUNOAFTW,N. 14-50'49" e.,857.70 PT. AL.Or.15 SAID EX78*SION To A poiNT or4 SAto '~ LOT i 4~ LOT 2 & -GE 920-29 (tri BOUNDARY, THE POINT or BEGINNING CONTA,N/NQ 5.38 acRES , MOKE. O# LESS, RAVE BY 0 77/252 PMESENTS LAI D OUT FLATTED AND SubsiNIOE[) THE SAME !410 LOTS AS SHOAA ON 1/ " AG r 1-3 0 Ac.t $ TFUS PLAT UNOD, THE NAr,Ae ANO STÂ·VL_a op NIARN B. SLIOON,siON ANO 00 HE.REDÂ·Â·/ 02101- 2 J g . k. Lijwth ----- -- CATE TO THE. PUfbiac ALL_ FIGHTS-OP- IVAN, EASEMENTS AND 7142 PARM PAITC.al- SHOMIJ HERE.ON poâ€¢ puetic UIE ;, ~,9 1' tz/Â£7Â£ 0/ ASPEAI : 4 410 k y. 00* EXECUTEO TH,5 21=_DAN OF- 6.1,2 , A. 0. 19 12- 4 i : 4-~- '~ p J'. 1-p-r- -K r.~t- 6 2,=-1- 42 a -- 4 0,4,12.M - 0 i J - & 1 1 $A~/ OP COLORA 00 /' 3 1 COW/Â·N OF P,-771#N ~ S.S. MORVGAGEE OR LIENHOLDER 04 75-38" 2. fl*.052) \ t.*14,/ ~ 52' 29 COP S N. 7,01,1,5.8 4 COA 5/ THE FOREGOING INy,RUP+ENT vl43 ACINOMILE.0680 eepoRE Me -7-Hul -2 OAY OF- 42.Â«3 140.00' M.W. 11*(fulk'Â»4 6*-9,\â€ž1 14/EliT- - ir= L--~- a 2~ w hi 4 2.- Â·i.L 31Â£.2.04532- , VVITNESS MY HAAO ANO OFFICIAL- SEAL . My COMMISSION Expjaas Â· .1 4 - 242 60 I foliO 888.2 1 ---- 382 00' FOU/0 SroNE ---) * a SET m /0///0/7-2 A NO CAP NOÂ¥AMY PU SUC SURVEVOR'S CEATIFICATE 0 BAX 1 8 A I 1 4400 W. me 8810â‚¬ , A Ma.6#STEREO LANO 5.MVEÂ·908, 00 HERESV Cell, PY THAT I HAVe No. 2 ~ Plf LPAr</O -THIS PLAT OP -THe MARN B. SUBONISION , THAT THE LOCA-TION OP 7,48 oilÂ¥5102 BILINOAKY, ROAOS ANO /TWER PEATURES APE ACCURA-ral-24 AAO (088807-Â£21 SHE),4,4 HEAEON , 7047 718 SAME AME BASED ON Fte-LO SURVEÂ© ANO THAT THE PLATTED S,TE N AND THE ROADS CONPORM -70 THOSE /'TAM/O ON THE GROUND. g 0 m W,774255 THEREOF, I WAVE SET Mly HAND ANS SEAL TRIS I~-tkt-~AY OF Irmâ‚¬27-12-0-0, Awe#, , fies. INL A 1 r-- -raÂ·b.__ Hor.,r- Ave 5 1 SUM\,6408 11 .//-~ L K 0 PA F A - B0A80 OF COUNEÂ¥ COMMISSIONERS APPMOVALL AND 080ICATION \\\ T-44 f f -1,9,5 PLAT oP 7,48 MARY 8. Sueolvision NAS BEEN REVia,VES AN O 'AP,MIYED 6-4 -THE P,-77,1 N PAACEL COUNT-f 80/ZO oP Colll}55,0*EMS TH#S 32"1- COAW OF ~\ 9Vj2-/ /98-5- -THE APP RINAL op Â¥,4,5 PLAT 89 TAL P,TAN COUNT-1 00Â£89 OP COMMISSLONE,<5 16 sh.JacT TO 7+42 CON - 1 De oicA-re 9 DITiONS ser POArM IN THe MAMY 5. SUBON,SioN IMPMOVEMENTS AGREEMENT AECIAOED <N BOOK AT PACIa OF THE Prrfitri COUNTy MEAL P..FLIT + RECOADS THE. /.I # 050104-TioN OF THE PARa PAMCEL, AteHT .OF Â· WA-4 , AND 7-AAIL EASEMEN-TS AS THE SAMa .0 LEGEND AND NOTES AME- Sm# AND NOÂ·reD RegeoN ~ AR ACC,aPTU SoeJECT To THE OoNK)]Â¥ioNS -THAT 1 I. 1/ AND -TMAIL EASEMENÂ·TS *IMEN THE bOA&[D OP P/-7'MIN COUNTY 00#AMISSIONERS HAS ty A ' COUTITV . I. . MONUMENT FOUNO M PLACE As tÂ·10Â¥.gO PITNN COUN-rl SHALL UNDERTAKE MAINTENANCE OP SUCH PA#Vt PA RCAL, AGHT Â· OP - WAN, 0 8EBAA AND CAP 52-7- 45 2376 SUBSEQUENT /faSOLUTioN AaitaaO 7-0 UNDERTAKE MAINTENANCE OP 5AMe?' -7-//5 APPROVAL 59 THE P/TAI N COUN-Ty 80AAD Op- c,OMMISS,0142.FWS DOES NOT EXTEND TO UT/L- 2.98 Ac Z I Cora80/ POINT -Fli MAILS A-/ 4 HopliNS ST,tarr 4/CIN ITY MAP n 4% Wi// P'-7-AN CO. ROAD SPIC,/Â«-A-rool r .STÂ·AN DARDS. tb . POWEM POLE SHALL UNOâ‚¬irKE Math/TENAN,ZE C>/ 56/CH ROACS ONLY A,r-refLS=79ucnoN HAS EbEEN Cle'Â«PLE-TED iN Af=ZoaDA:Ner /71/5, MAS-TEE DISPOeAL 5-HSTEMS, Off ANY SEMViCâ€¢a FAC,/L/Tial!5. *As-ro Sucil RoACS, P,-re,/ C.O. SCALE 11' = 400' i - 82 3- 41 % 1 Â¢ P,7../.V COUNT-1 8OApto OP COMMiSS,ONEAD - CINarAAN. -02/17-881-1.Na I K C ) CALLS PRowl gecoRK) ACCEPTANCE FOR MECOROING O OWNER HEREBY RESTRICTS THAT NENTHER LOT LN THE SUBDIV;SJON 7-HE PLAT OP -THE MAKY 6 5080#NfRON 15 ACCEP-TED POT< ALINe IN THE OrrICE OF- 4 2 MAY BE FUTHER SUBDP//DED SO AS TO CREATE MORE LOTS OR | 4 1 ANY LOTS OF SMALL AREA THAN ARE INDICATED HEREON. 0 1 ./I. I. , '985 /N PLAY BOOK A , ON PAGE Lâ€ž - 7>/4 CLEMP< AND FECof.oaa oP PIT-KIN COUNTN, COLOAADO, THIS 133 t.:*-9/g 41 4*12 i TRANSAMER1CA TITLE COMMITTMENT POLICY - ORDER NO. 7302304 r. 11Â» /0.Â«fa / f USED IN PREPARATION OF T RE SURVEY. . 9 -,7 CLEAM ANG Reco,oep, 0 ..:.3 *F ACCEPTANCE OF MIGHTS Â·OP-WAY FOM UTILITY PUMPOSES 1 CO,1 G ALL UTILEA EASEMENTS, AS WELL AS ALL PUBLIC ANO PKNATE MiGHTS -OF - WA-9, SHOWN 4 /MAH & % HEMEON, AKE DED,CATED 70 THE raAPE-r-UAL USE OP ALL UT/L#-1--9 COMIPARES, POR -rwa . 5.12* ftÂ· W. BASIS OP BEAMING /3.39' NO Z MAPJAG DEM'Â¥20 .Pt.* 4 COAMELATION ae:rivaarl C/T-/ p SEAkiNG 1 5.79 09â€¢ f f" E PMOM 1995 2*UGWANAN PLAT (_P'rt PURPOSE OF INSTALLING CONSTRUCTING REPLACING, REFAIM#NG, Arto MAIN-TAINING UNDag- o NAILS AT TME C-eNTEÂ·PUriE W-TEASECTTON OF f sT/MOP,gr45 AND GMOONO U-TILITte.S AND' DAAINAGE FAd,Len as , ANO THe EXIST/496 ASOVE-G.PrOUND U-7-/L!-7*'9 /0//0 CHeELE. 4* f 1,40 HOPM,#53. ANO WITA THE 1978 bUREAU OF LAND MANAGE- LINE, INGLUDiNG CeuT NUT LIMITED -ro) WATE-A, sawapt, ELECTA,C, 646, 7-2=arAONe - **" 0,4 4' /16% LEO/6 4 13- AND TELEW/5/ON LINES , -TOG,ELTHER MIT+4 -TH e 8/GHT OF /4688.55 AND 265/55 Fo,f â€¢x" e' H,6/ 4 MENT RE-SURVE) OF THE ASPEN C'1-9 SOUTHEALY DOUNPAF.9 eo- 4 oP 5.55- 17' 09" a. CA egASS CAP FOR COAMaa f LITTLE CLOUD SUCA IASTALL.*T,ON, coNSTRUG-TION , BEPLAGEMEN-7, AE-PAiR AND MANNTE.AANCE, AS NaLL MINEAAL SURVEY AND AN i MON PIPE AT -rle iNTEASECTION AS 7}-la FijapIT -TO TAJM 1,1-Te:MpaKING 78Â£ 85 AND DRUSH. IN NO EVEN-7- SMALL 7Ht PO K E S T oF -1-Re ASPER BOUNDARY ANO Noarn BOUNDARY OF THE UTILMY COMPAAIES EXETic/52 -THE 8 CONTS WEME.IN GM,AN-Te.P sO As -TO ,#7 EMPEME HOMEITAME Mt/a/'AL SURVEY. WITH -1-HE USE 0/ -THE Fle,NT - OP - WA-1 POM. ROAD WA-4 porÂ«â€¢poses EXCEPT TO THE 52AV'/02 EXTENT MEASONA;5Â£_9 Ne.CaSSARY To EA|JOW THE GRAN-7- Hamet-4 MADE, i f/. cO A THE REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED HERE]N 13 SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWrNG 4 DOCUMENTS RECORDED IN THE RECORDS OF THE CLERK AND RECORDER OFFICE OF PITKIN COUNTY,COLORADOÂ· DETAILED SUBMISSION RESOLUTION 85-20. BKitO, ---2 02 S. 89= 46' 09" E. I PG. kh_,-FINAL PLAT RESOLUTION 85-___,~K-,PG-,Â· SUBDIVISZON 1 < 3 IMPROVEMENTAGREEMENT. SK-SZ'-.PG.~-9--,AND PITKIN COUNTY TRA/4 EASEMENT BK -31. PG. 44, Joe NO. 14 t79 M .ID *9.1,0 N C ar .540, EXHIBIT 1 0 24 11350738 11/13/92 14:27 Roe $40.00 SK 694 PG 421 -14. Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doe *.00 1 1* SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT -=2>6& Â· .0-0 -~18@ AND >09 M~| ~â€¢'.tâ€¢ ~ - 42*1 45/Â·j RESTRICTIVE COVENAN'IS .Â¥..a. FORTHE im#a /1** -23*p. 946&44Â·:. 41* 909. AMENDED AND RESTATED MARY B SUBDIVISION 114 THIS AGREEMENT b made ud entered Apto and 1*13 BESTRICnVB fiffie..1 n V.j... . COVENANTS ard published and declared as of the t'Z)09 day of ~40"2'45*/ , 1992, -897.3 by and between Starford Propeftles, N,V., a Netherlands AnUlles corporation and Shadow .4.4!.1 <42 V 7Â«-afw Mountain Corporation, a Delaware corporation (herÂ¢inaftÂ¢rcollectively referted to as 'Owner') + N,01Â§.1 and Tho Board of County Commissioners of Pltkin County as the governing body of Pitkin 231.1.ilÂ¢ Counly Colorado (the 'County') with Teference to the following: 1?.1- Z - '9*i ..D *0.3 %444*f'- REC1TALS X ..'3111.: '. 4 8% - A. Shaliow Mountain Corpontion, a Delaware corporation, is the Owner of Lots 1 and ~ ., .Poelv 2, Mary B Subd!Â¥!sion as shown on the Plat Ihereof recorded in Plat Book 17 at Page 61. 4 44& .'Â·UR:Z, B. Starford Properlieg, N.V,, is the Owner of the 'Adjutted Sheehan Parcel", 2' - tâ‚¬*; Gramlger\Sheehon Lot Une Adjuslment, according to the Map filed In Plat Book 21 al Page 19, 4 \ upon which a single family residence has been built. #42. C, Starford now destrw to expand the existing resldence on the Adjusted Sheehan Parool F 1â‚¬..â‚¬iâ‚¬ onto Lot l of the Mary B Subdivision. The proposed expansion is hereinafter referred to as the NE* Addition'. "471% ' Ii.4.11 D. The exisling resldence and the Addition are hereinafter referred lo as the "Expanded 41 Ruidence". 1.:- =.9 ,004.1 E, In order to combine the Adjusted Sheehan Parcel and Lot 1 of the Mary B , 392Â·ir Subdivision, the Owner has submitted to the County for approval, executton and recordallon an S. n t *.,i AP.- Amended and Restated Final Plat of the Mary B Subdivlsion (the 'Final Platt, providing for . 3. 9%11:--, the merger of the Adjusted Sheehan Parcel with Lot 1 of the Mary B Subdivision and tile ) ?PA,1 r creation of a new building envelope for such merged lots. 1 33*k. , t- F. The County has fully coniidered the Final Plat and all attendant issues, has found the 1- $ Final Plat to be In compliance with the Plikin County Land Use Code, and ts willing to grant 1.4 final approval for the FInal Plat and execute the Final Plat upon the agreement of the Owner to 10 - -95Â·>f Mt- the terms, condillons and approvals herein contained and upon tho declaration by the Owner of Wj * ..dx. e â€¢, Â». tl tho Restrictive Covenants hereinafter At fodh, 4Â·1 -1*51 int 1 44,4.>1 2-,~.1 14Â«41 84.1 , . . .P.:. 14#.** # 41/*: 4 y -- ': : .; A )7 1 4/. . .1 I 1*!E i . 22::Â· .F' Â· *t./ , . . f .'.1. '.. -b....4141.1 Â·F, h. I. ic.'E 5 . t.- .. - - 6 liÂ·t 1.9.'.1.71â€¢â€¢ Â·Â·Â· 4./t . 0 . ...... I z pleÂ¥'50:19-,?ti~344 , -. C 0350738 11/13/92 14:27 Rec $40.00 BK 694 PO 422 1 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Enty Clerk, Doc $.00 417 6* G,'rhe Ovmer it willing to accept tho terms, Â¢ondilions and provillons of the Subdivision 1 ft Agreement and to declare thÂ¢Â·36 Reatrictive Covonants, 44% ier,-i AGREEMENT AND DECLARATION 221 *917.. 14Â« NOW THEREFORE, in condderation of the foregoing Recitah mid the mutual covenants herein contained, the Owner and County agreeas set forth below and the Owner J~?1~.- hereby declares that the following shall be covenants ,hal allach to and run with the property -442/â€¢ Â¢ 8%*i reflected on the Final Plat and shall be Wnding upon the Owner, the Owner's sucÂ¢cs:ort 126Â·10. grankes and wignj, as well u any party acquiring any mulner of intemst, recorded or #4k.:; 482.J otherwise, in all or any portion of the property. This Agreement and Covenants shall be for the 439. 6.99. benefit of and shall be specifically enforceable by the County by all lawful and appmpriate :c:-' :e' - A:9 1 mcans. PAP' 1 . *ki fify 1. Einal-Bill_AppmMal. The County hereby grants and confirms Final Plat Approval Rf.. for the Amended and Reslated Mary B Subdivision (including th& merger of Lot 1 of the Mary 10,1. B Subdivision with tho Adjusted Sheehan parcel depicted on the Gramlger\SheehAn Lot I~78 - 0- ..43 Adjustment Plat) all as ! s more particulatly set forth in Resolution number 9 &- 14 gift ~ recordtd in Book 6 8Â·6 ot Page .559-457of the real property records of Pilkin , County Colorado. 2, No FurtherSubd[vislon. No funhersubdivision of Lots l or 2 shall bopermitted. ts. In addition, except for the dvvolopment of a single family homo on Lot 1 and a single family * ~ home on Lot 2, and such caretaker dwelling units and acassory structure& as may bo permitted Â·*.4- by the County, no further development of Lots 1 and 2 shall be permitted. .'42,4 3, nujlding.Enx*lzg. In the absence of further review and approval by tho County . AW /6. purauant !0 provisiont therefor in effect at any timo under the Pitkin County I.alld Ilse Code, no devolopment of Lot 1 or Lot 2, or either of them, shall ocour outsida the respective buildlng .C:43 1 envelop,5 for tho Lors as depicted on the Final Plat, ' 09,1 1 4. , 94- FAR-RedÂ®ioni. Tho floor afea ratio (FAR) for (he Addition on Lot 1 :hall bo ' 36. limited to 5180 square feet a measured puffulnt to tile Aspen Municipal Codo in effect at the - 3.2: .-9 * 11, 7? the time of the building permit application, the floor a,ea of the Addition shall be calculated 89 - .01:.: Indicated above, 'Illozoning officeshall also determlne the difference batween 5,180 square feet z 4 1:.Id- the 'remaining square footage for Lot 1 At the tims of the Issuance of a certificate of k : 416 oÂ¢cupancy, the zoning office shall calculate the Goor area of the Expanded Residence according 92.*I time of the recondatton of the original Plat of (he Mary B Subdiviston, September 6, 1985. At and the actual square footage of the Addition, and difference shall hereinafter be referred to a Aitâ‚¬. . to County floor area regulations in the R-15 zona district, Thereafter, this Subdivl:!on ACE- Improvements Agreement shall be amended to reffect that tho maximum floor area for .Â· IÂ·I.f Â·f improvements on Lot 1 3hall be equal to the floor Rea for the Expanded Reildence as calculated ~, above, plus the remaining square footage for Lot 1. Such Amendment shall thereafter be i executed by 9-Â·Â·Â·ier and the County and shall be recorded in the mal properly records of th* â€¢ 'i . 444 . 0 2 14. .micj . i..% 4 80.1 f*'4Â·KÂ· / .4 33.. 5Â·49-:64.1 -- ;r ' i224 , I Â·Â·-7 11 .1 i , >C.. 1. I '64.,:- . . 1. .ff' 4 7. - A ' ~CA I ,~ P . 1 >44>I *s--2.,inr.= . .=:,-; ' 1 ' 4 .. . F t. I '.. I. Â£ 24- ' 0 i . - 4 V .4 . :A I I &4#hu, ./ I. -.r -.6 ...I ...~ImP: . 1 h , . Â»350738 11/13/92 14:27 Rec $40Â·00 BK 694 Pe 423 3-4 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Cl erk, Doc *.00 County. The FAR for Lot 2 shall be limited to 6,633 square feet as calculated by the Aspen U . .. at?.*.0. September 6, 1985 :a â‚¬.3 , 1020 .fi.:A ./.: 5. Maximum Height and Natural Grads Calculation. The maximum height of the Addition shalt belimited to 25 fetz meaiured at tight angles from the natutal undisturbed ground fi*- -41â€¢---21 stope and natural gradc to the mean haght between the edÂ¥05 and ridgo of the roof. 'Ille ridge j?699. aÂ«* of tho roof shall not extend more than 5 feet abovo Ihc specified maximum heighl limit, All t...., + 41.36.1.{ L**,9 su/;h calculations shall be made pursuant to the Aspen Municipal Code and the mgulations 280\' therÂ¢under, Natural Crade for height calculations shall be agteed upon by tho Owner and ths S>a,StÂ·- a.:fit. Zoning Department prior to bullding permit application. If disagreement occurs, natural grade de. shall bo determined by the Board of Adjustment, 247:,Â· I :?SI. 437 6, Water_Service, Any resldence constructed on the Lot: shall be serviced by the -44. City of Aspen water system and shall meet the requirements for water service established by the 01\ City of Aspen. Owner shall pay tap fees for addition water services provided to the Addition Irâ€¢ - .: or mly Iesidence on Lot 2 In accordancd with the Aspen City Code. Et. -4 Â· ' 7. SoweLS*nice. All resldenÂ¢cs on tile Lots shal[ connect to the Aspen * ..â‚¬P.... Consolidated Sanitation Distriers sewer sys(em. Ths existing septio tank located on the Lots *24 Â· 9%1 shall bc pumped dry and either removed from the ground or filled wilh dirt and left in place, 24*%2 Simultaneously with the submission of any building permit application, the Owner shall submit mechantcal plans for sewer connections to tho Sewer District'j system, which plans shall be -'11 4,1 subject to the review and approval of the Sewer Dis{rict to Insure thal surface run-off, roof '1'lit t',1 drains, foundation drains and any other clear water dmins are not tapped into the Sanitation *Mi,b~ / District's lines. If floor drains In parking areas ar* to bo tied to the sewer, adequate oil and L IN ' .44.3.:,} grease interceptors shalibe installed. Payment for tap fees shall be required prior to connection Â· 1 -,Â»,a $ to Sanltation District linn la?-1 1 t:.â‚¬t* 8. Landscape. Plan & Revegetallon, Prior to excavallon or building permit 44 applicallon, Owner shall submit a landscape plan Oncluding a plant material schedule) to the Planning Deputment and lha County Eogineer for their review andapproval, Thointent ofsuch the connecting corridor contemplated as part of the Addltion. Upon approval of such plans by plan shall be to ineorporale sufficient landscaplng (to include evergreens) to thoroughly screen 4 i *64* the Planning Deparlment and the County Engineer, Owner shall submit to {ho Planning 1 47,1 Departmentan e:timate of cost to Â¢omplets the landsÂ¢dping depicted on the approved landscaping ..1.2331Â·; plans. 1 *i -'INÂ·* 1 Owner agreet that all landscaping depicted on the approved landscaping plan shall k , ;@fi...1 completed within one growing season following complelion of construction of the Expanded , I. 564/ Residenco. rn order to assure the obligation of the Owner to complete the landscaping , requirements within one growing season of construction, no building permit for any such 'tiâ‚¬: constructton or development activities shall be issued unless and until such time as the Owner -~3 shal[ first have deposiled wilh the County, forits benefit, ellher a good and sufficient irrevocable ?p *# 1 ./ 3 jk:*.{ 4:*44 - A.,1 DI i \7.1 441:R Â· 45 *0Â· .1 ettlâ€¢.' Â· y -Ra.44 417,2 2 -Â· '4*f-**64' '*6+&40**P#9+St,77'TE?71~.rpÂ®q~W*n"9,53'~77.'0919 ' .. 1 4270, .: 1 1.:.' 2.151.1 Â· F, 1 -6 , U r..,,.9 ...4. I . $ ,h -. .Ine :i 12 ..: . s .4 , . . .. I ./ .. Muntclpal Code at tho time of rwordation of the original Plat of the Mary B Subdlvision, 'A't, 4 4.49 Â· 4 94.* ..r-* r .. 4 %9 1 6.1 4 I ... I / , , -I -6.9.. - 1 4 91 -ru ;r Aâ‚¬Â·:, li;*49 *t 4/44 44 4*,6. . ..2 1 q #350738 it/13/92 14,27 Rec $40.00 Bk 694 PG 424 Silvia Davia, Pitkin Crty Clerk, Doc *.00 4% -ricii letter of credit Issued by a financially reiponsible instkution, fash, or other form of security ...70 1 acceptable to the County in its reasonable determination, In an amount equal to the Â¢31[mated Mb -2:44 t;-1 cost of completing such landmps As e.,tabllshod by th# County Engineof in Iho exercho of h[, 754 or her honest and reasonab!6 ditretion. The form of the finincial al:Danco ,haN be left to the 11;09: ': -Lffal 613Â¢fetion of the Owner, so long a uch form mee:.5 1118 criteria $et forth above. At such time 18:Â·:.2 ..22-0 as tho landscaping shut be completed and accepted by the County Engincer In his or her 0*:. .dS:23 reaionable detennination, tho finanolal murance shall 50 releax:d by the County or othel,411Â¢ ik~-cÂ· relumed to the Owner. In tho event (hs Owner shall fail to completo Otc landscaping u k*15.. IMe* Cluired, 03 determined following a thirty day notice to the Owner and a hearing in which tho County shall have 30 delermlned conducted In the manner Mt forth In 11: Pitkin County Land Uss Code), tho County #hall have the unconditional rfght lo draw upon the financle! aswrance al.4 del; poited to pay for (1) the compledon of the landscaping In an economically efflclcot manner, (11) any ouutandIng bm forany landscapÂ¢ work R]mdy oompleled by any puly, and (111) the normal ./,-f and reasonably Incidentat administrative oosts and fee, incurred M Â¢ompleting such landscaping, F..4 ' 64%1'Â· 9. Geolo@Ic Mitigation Conditions. Solly Tests and Drainage. With tho repect to : VY '915 i each of the Lots, Ovmer shall comply wlth each of the following goologic or solls midgation .4.427.4 : measures: < 4 A, Samples of sol! shall bo taken by the Owner from the surfaco and at the depth of any planned excavationk These samples shall bo analyzed for heavy metals, 1 . 244 7 L ..e *specially INd, cadmium, zinc, and arsenic. This antlys!$ shall be done prior to the .:44. issuanc, of any building perm[15. 7110 resu!(s of this anal,313 shall bo reviewed by the fÂ·Â· 1(4;< County Environmental Health Officer who may requlte additional miligating measures 4.\ . prior to any building permits being issued, *li & B. Owner shall lubmit to the Building Depulment with any building permit 4-. . 311 application, a site specific solls investlgatien for the proposed area of construct[on, -1-it~fli C. Any residences constructed on the I.ols shall be designed to precludo the ~ 24 l C i accumuiation of radon gal Â· 399Â·.1 f.-- 1 D. Any resldences constructed on tho LoM shall be dulgned to comply with .ef43 tho Uniform BuIWIng Code requirements for Seismic Zone If, ./to: H B. Residential deyÂ¢opment of the Lots shall provide for on-stto rcknition of . 4.4 - surface drainage gencrated from paved surfamand toofareas. Simultaneously, with the r I 1.41!51 submission of abult,ling permilapplicatton, Owner shall submitaprofessional enginecri , Â·V:yz Â·, , ~13.1 report and drainage plan demonstrating positive drainage from ihs proposed 2*Â·j improvements. Pdor 0 the issuance of a building perm[(, such plans shall be reviewed .1 Â· 1 4.:*-: and approved by the County Englnesr. The existing berm at tho rear of Lot 1 shall bo utillzed (even W modined for Inetuslon into the footprint of tho Addition) for its c 22 24... protective Influene. 411 3 ~ .. 62Â·Â· 4 . 4 REA' 1.t&#l J 1.81 304 641 '01 MEA* --474:N auum: .,)49 1-~p.%4~041*Rifwism,#aFMfW~:7F' 272.-2... 1 . E)*E'Â·716*t?aÂ¥~0:.w-#p:.Ctr 4 -4,4- 1-.Â·*t..9:f fi':~ - ~~,ci ty ...: , Â·11.Â· . 0 3 2- .. ..1. ., . I. y. - , ..Â·Mr M ' ./ 44 1.it 51 . S:% 4 7.. 'Of.â€¢ . 4' 41 1 /8.1-2 44350738 11/13/92 14127 Rec $40.00 BK 494 PO 425 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00 . 42 4>:Â· 10, Lighting. AN exterior lighting associated with the Expanded Residence shall 1.0/2 ~4% comply with Mtkin County Ughting and illuminalloa regulation: (currently Section 5-502) in effect at the time of building permil application, Erterlor lighting and inumination of the 61. 44*j connecting corridor of the Expanded Residence shall bo reviewed by th* Pitkin County Planning -â€¢Â·11 4.. i 33*f Department prior to issuanoe of a building permit in order to insure that such extorior lighting 0%4 2.Â·4: and IUum[nalion will not accentuate visibility of the connecting corridor. GS.* I 1 .1% 11. Building_Materialt. Owner agrws that the building materials Iged in construction Â¥PRE of tho Addition shall be chosen so al to creato the appcannce of two gapantÂ¢ structures (i,Â¢â€ž --1-/ r ./Â¢44-:. th* Addition being one structurÂ© and the Existing Ruidence being the xcond) rather than one 11540 Â£ - /1- 3.33 contint}ous structum. tv millit 12. Kit,h:n. Owner agrecs that the Expanded Restdence sha]1 be limited to onie f*t 14.9-:. kitchen. 'U.9-2 'le.Â· h. 13. Underground_Uttiltles, Alt Utl]ItiCS SefYICing the Lots shall be undergrounded, ~ t#. i 0 37â€¢* . Â· The County acknowledges that there are currently existing overhead olectric lines that do not 1 Â»-2 a 63'>I: 1 1. service tho Lots. The County acknowledges that Owner shall have no obligation for 1 4% 21 undugounding such elecuic line. iÂ» 9 . f.#ii 14. Alri)uality. Owner shall comply with al! Pltkdn County air quality standards in effect at the tlme of issuance of a building permit, including, but not limited to all County Codo Â¢Â·-)6271Â· provislons and regulalions conceming fireplaces that may be in effo:t at tho (ime of application . ~ ~ r i-rs.. for an*kilding permit for a Lot. *.%%,t:IÂ· ( 15. / Relmtion_of-Tmit_Easemen!, Trail easements over the Lots have previously been . Â»ALD. grant#d-torÂ·Pitkin County by way of that certain Trail Easement Agreement recorded in the real propezty records for Pitkin County in Book 493 al Page 480 and Ilte Maiy B Subdivbton dy:Zli recorded in Book 493 at Page 484 and trall easement reflected by adjusted Sheehan lot recorded in Book 574 al Page 211, Owner agrees that at the option of the County, tho foregoing tral[ 14*2% easement may be relocated uphill of its existing location. If the County shall elect to relocate such easement, the County shall cause such new propowd location to be staked. Owner shall *-2.. ... have thirly (30) days after written notice of such 3taking to review tho location of the relocated T,3.. 7:.2.. trail easement, Owner shall then be en[Itled to adjust such alignment in a reasonable manner ' -; :- 4 9.417 so as to minimize tha impact of such trial easement. Upon establishment of the final tra]I 1 Â·Â·r C location (he County shall cauw to be prepared a suray of the new trall usement and an dÂ« .7 Easement Deed whtch shall be executed by Owner and then recorded, Any cost of preparing 13{** tho survey and the Deed and recording auch Deed shall be borne by the County. Upon the recordation of tho relocated Trail Eassment, the existing trail casÂ¢ment shall automatically be 1 *01 deemed to have been vacated, r. 7 ' 02Â»Â·Ii A:*id : 16. Sid*~alk. Upon the formation of a stdcwalk improvement district for West 49*94 Hopkins Street, Owner shall joll the district and shall pay its fair,hare for hnprovements. In 'Â·'- the event that an additional easement Is required for a sidewalk along West Hopkins as Et abuts R, 'te:.. E ).. , h /"<14 Wat, 5 I ~ 1 11*e. ./..4...i/1 XÂ· 41*#3#194' t.1 + .V .11 ., .- r , Alr . ., ~23[2 ' :- i *4 ' 0.74 7 â€¢ ~- - .. 5. R. , ..b .. , 1 1 . I r ~ I , , . 4 . :'23* --Â·.~~T J.'Â·F;~fi.214â‚¬:-iÂ·~ d 9*44****i<...,i.r *~aj,-r,1,14 . Â· ~.i:. -i..'~9:72-:*4:,6.*4.**64$..sÂ¢kb;:22,1-4--4,>Â·1*m.*.4. simra*Mpx-*4:ve , urÂ· . w ' ~ Â·De' '.3:' -4'2'21 ji:, s,pr.. . 4. ..4::,a 1 ~ '/3/im/he/~rww#Tek,0Â£61,1.,AWAAi!4;i#WWâ€¢~74*teiGG.*0~ 4 P Â·Â·Â·vy' #350738 11/13/92 14:27 Rec $40.00 BK 694 PG 426 '24% .silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00 :wâ€¢'8â€¢*% 2.-0.,. *43 the Adjusted Sheehan Parcel, th: Owner shall convey an easement to accommodate the walk at 9711/. I , C ..>f Ihe tlme the District Is formed, 1 17. Park.Dedication Foo, County acknowledges that the park dedication fee for the 9;94 subdivhion has ben met with tho pfwious dedications of approximately 2.0 acres of land to &.2. : ti*.1 Pitldn Couty. *Â· Y A~'09 19Â· :924 18. Plint-APPIDÂ¥&15 12.2*da, All prior approvals given by (he County (or, u tile case may be appllÂ¢able) any Inferior adminlstrattvo body or functionary, shall remain in full tmme forÂ©o and Â¢fkct, shall survive and All not be affecled by the execution and recordation of this 445 Agaement and th#o Covenants and the Final Plat until such t|me as the approval: evidenced Alt<ny %149+ & 72#FA. , by the Pinal Plat and this Agreement shall be Judicially unauallable, Thmafter, such approvals .**,<C. . ty ' i - shall be deemed mergÂ©d into these approvals end the Final Plat. Specifically, upon expiration ~~~~'- - Fli of the foregoing pestod, the Maly B Subdivision P.U.D. Improvements Agrecmeni recorded in 1 24.2 :...44 Book 493 at Page 484 shall be deemed terminated and shall bo of no further force or effect. 4 ' GiA -; r.,3.*l .1 19. S~aptignUniEam:aNUInding:.Titles or captions ofparagraphs conta!ned in g ..2*tÂ·t i this Agreement and these Covenants am inserted only for corweatent reference and in no way define, limit, extend or describe the scope or this Agreement or these Covenants and shall not TEBSil, Â·D be utilized in tho Interpretation thereof. 4 h ./<01. L te,i#ill 20. Enti,0 ABrccment, Modification and Amendment, This Agmment and thsso ,-3 f. Covenants set forth and consti{ule Ihe full and complete agreement and understanding of *he ....al part!6Â¥ hereto wlth respect to the subject matter hereof and may not be modified or amended other than through a written instrument executed by the pades hefeto. ....9 1. M.AN:M. 4249..TI: 21. NQIi=. Any notice, rÂ©queator other communication, required or permitted to ba glven, made or aÂ¢cepted by elther party Io the other party shall be in writing and shall be , deemed given either when personally ser,ed or three days after iu deposlt in the Unlted State, 1 W>a Â£ 34 mail, postago prepaid, wgislored or cerlifted with relum rooeipt requested, and addressed tolha < ~OR?j recipient party at the following address: IF TO COUNTY: Board of County Commissioner:, - r..Â·/btÂ·. do Pitkin County Manager 4 h *22 Pitkin County Courthouse 338%44 506 El Main Street Asyhen, CO 81611 .*96%9 I 14 1 18'10 OWNER: Slarford Propertits, N,V., a Netherland, Antilles â€¢Â·t'/I Â¢0!pora,tion i.it' 4 1 Attn: William T. Xeon, III 4 550 Bil(more Way, 9th Fl. ; g....... 1 Estple < Coral Gables, PL 33134 :1*01'. .29#5Â·. -32?31 I i #6$1311 6 - i '#Mt 48. . p im* *trif. pl##TTA.*vkpy: ,- t I -~-4 . -.4 i.~ Â· , i).,Â·r-- rif~k..f-?'ib'~4,-{ J...:1 2' ~j 'Â°-:Â· .i-2.4* 3)j#~~ 14~ Â· ~ i - :-~Is-,r. Â·r/tf.ft... Â·i.t..i.:fÂ¢14..:i.~tr. i .. ~.:.- Â·Â· ... ... -- ./. tp â€¢ . . Â£ 9/w . 2.fi:./t ~ " .: 1 1.f .7.. .tn-'7..: 25. 1 - :Â·f,'Â·i' .04'2',3Â· ~+7 Â·t fÂ· . Â·a-.-o~ I i .-0 .Brp- .,1.1.5. 14 042 ..7 ...7....t + C .- )89Â· -1,-514: Â·yi vi.I,:ff-Â· ~.A -,-:i~il Â·- 2 - 9 Â·k~"Â«If C 'Â·21*1. 2 :. I - ~,t,}MÂ·/bâ€¢A~,*--1,%â€¢a,â€¢4*4**~4!â€¢ttere-'Â»- r 9 V ir 1.h 1 11 1,1 1 -*iv .DÂ»% 4,3. 0350738 11/13/92 14:27 Ric *40.00 BK 694 PO 427. i *24 &-ilvia Davio, Pit:kin Cnty Clerk, 00( 0.00 -5 â€¢ i. t.>r . 1 :-1:W WITH COPY TO: Richard A. Knezevich 44*-ft Oates, Hughes & Knczevich, P.C. -223 .Â·-4 â‚¬+5: I 533 E, Hopkins Avenue Third Floor . P#/Â· 4,1 1.A Aspen, CO 81611 :,~,~~iÂ·'71 F Ltle#'7 Either party shall have theight, from tims to time, to change their respective addresses, . and to include their succes:ors, granteu and alsigns u patties entitled to notice. by giving ~Â· ,~~. : written notice thereof in Um manner above specified. azik.iÂ· â‚¬:Â· 111*41: Â· 1 *124 .~=Ce'23 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, thepartle, haveexccuted this Agreementand th@Owner has -~ --Â· ~~4 4%0 declared thesÂ© Covenant, as of the day and year first above written. ./A ..2.9 iâ‚¬~iÂ· ..--j.-- ~-- 9- :*1 4,3 . , . b 1 0.... Starford Propertles, N.V., a Nelhertand: 4321 Antilles coÂ®oration -LU.,t : .-=3/54. 4 2 A . ny i&*0 72â€¢Â· AurcÂ» . f .... :Â·'Â·.14 Â· Â¢fmam T. Keon, ~t 03 AttomeyinÂ·Fact U -'Â·~--'SÂ·f Z.. 4* ./ ./40 Shadow Mountain Corporation, a Delaware ab>â€¢,4> corpoyatlk , 4Â£98.611 t.%48Â© .. By U84 -TA- 26.- 40- 3 2 3. C.*01 William T. Keon, FI = Attorney-in-Fact ' U 1 I %*P'- . .- ' :1 7. Whd - ' - - Â¢1432 .Â· . BOARD OF COUNTY - COMMISSIONERS 0444&' , OF PITKIN COUNTY COLORADO .2.3 2*1 3,48% . Pt,b '42440.1 ~airperson . v 4%*-g :*asÂ·:hlk (Notary Acknowledgements on Following Yage) 9 & :Ii. 1 "SF/*t Â· 2 , I : :râ€¢ ~ 7 0 - 60*47 0 . -1 ?tu .: m.1:0 . . , .. ga 1 4 f# , . U 040 4 . 7 . . $4342Â·Â· '~ - 4 . .Â·Â· 1.9 4.1 1111't, 1 - 1 Â· 4' r . . ;31#--21; 9'Aâ‚¬7*t~ ~~7.1-1132,-Â·,p 14 I.,h;.C,tr'-Lai-47:.2 9923 3.1 2. 0 ...21 4 - I. <6-Â·.i~49. . , . 94 I J 1.-r , 1 .4~:.2&4':,#<92..:d- 22 .-, 9 , . -4-3 ~.JET-A Z#. .5-.- ~:r ,* 4 *- :~:,6 .A~~.~- '-930#-'F..0 '* ..~c, ' 4..'. 11/# ug#: 120 :-4:-sir. 6- . , . I 0 4 7. W...A â‚¬<22- 12 .... -- . .1 . S , .. re:. 2.-,1.deak- Â¢ 4 Id4'I-FrÂ·514â‚¬91Â· 9'3% ..1Â«91 *Et. #350738 11/13/92 14,27 Râ€¢c *40.00 EK 694 PG 428 , *f'Mâ‚¬*Ile .filvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc *.00 41* 9 1Â»72 ....Â» 314.. STATE OF FLORIDA ) f.4.49, 1.:61>44 *' pr.Â¢:4... COUNTY OF DADE ) Tho foregoing instrument wa, acknowledged before me thi:42-fday o;Â¢~NiAe'~'" I**:Â· by William T. Keon, 111, as Attorney-in-Fact for Starford Properties, N.V., alkherlands iLKÂ¥Â£13 11/ 4. ./ Antilles corporation, and as Attorney-In-Fact for Shldow Mountain (3~ 2@ts: IN corporation, . i ...... ff& Witness my hand and official seal. ** My commiuion expires: /79/ .A A iF*ar..t *t ijolary-Fublic - ' , . ;;4# STATE oP COLORADO ) 2. 1 1207 ) M. e * ./ ' . COUNTY OF PrEKIN ) 6 MÂ·- I Â£ Tha foregoing insuument was acknowledged before me this /2/ day of/lb/, 1992, .1 ' as Chairperson for the BOARD OP COUNTY 3 ff 4.1 COMMISSIONERS OF PrrKIN COUNTY COLORADO. A 6. tk\9Nâ‚¬ Witness my hand and official seal -27*'h My commiuton expires:: a. 309 4 J~*C .46 . 1 =,sa'Â« - f I. 1.10*1 , Notary Pdblic C... 0, .,et,Ji l. n. 9 tilim&.4*9 ?41 -4<.. : 1 4*/41 Â·; 2:., 1,9,6.415, ( . 92$64% -V Â·94*zi WA+A<,Â·i ... . 1. r - n $93* Â·Â· . - Â· - .All) Â·52*N : " 9 f .... </1. 8. . ,~MA# - -.5- 5~. 4./ TRetmp . , . A- I t...qv . - Â·Â· I .- 1 1 .6. . '' - . ~ .442 4 , .4/,~b.I-'IW,~4 --Af~ttiÂ°~ffi't4~;31"C -I , 1 .7.**' '~91' 345 ?-5.-,â€¢.-di)Ze37Ey,Â· 1.'. 1... Â·Â· 1 Â»*12['Â·NfOrain/+4 ~jAifla-*21.,I':Â·0 :,Cri ~4.Â· tuÂ·Â·, a .f *6.4,rt 1988 ..to .?Va 44*Lt.: ..:il....::..:,4. ) -- i- -7 Â·Â·~.>.t '...1 ..L:.1:14 ~4 .Â»2-â‚¬'.. +i .f'-iII(6 1... i... - 49.%491-312-911 ... Â· 'bÂ·. Â· r.)?t'- 'Â·16%. Â·Â·p d ..... %'. 42 - il...â€¢4Â· *. 4 -- 9 a PX - - *l ....... 1 Â·r '4.49:76,â€¢ Â·Â· ~'Â· , ttâ€¢ Â· *5- 'I 1., , EXHIBIT , -. coox 574 PAGf211 DISTRICT COURT, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 88-CV-303 LIS PENDENS CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, a Municipal Corporation, , Petitioner, V. CHRISTOPHER SHEEHAN, HANS R. GRAMIGER, PITKIN COUNTY BANK & TRUST COMPANY, PARK TRUST, LTD., and THE TREASURER AND PUBLIC TRUSTEE OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, all as their interests may appear, ' Respondents/Defendants. Notice is hereby given, pursuant to 1973 C.R.S. 38-6-121, that a condemnation/eminent domain proceeding has been commenced in the above-entitled Court by the City of Aspen, Colorado, against the above-named Respondents/Defendants to acquire for c public use the real property described below: A permanent, exclusive fifteen-(15)-foot-wide easement for a pedestrian, bicycle and nordic cross county ski trail over and across a tract of land situated in the southeast quarter of Section 12, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6th P.M., Pitkin County, Colorado, comprising Easement No. 1 and I Easement No. 2 as more particularly described on that plat and property description appended hereto and incorporated herein collectively as Exhibit "An, together with such i temporary, non-exclusive easements as may be necessary to construct, repair and replace said trail. Dated: 52â‚¬ct- 7. -1 , 1988. OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY City of Aspen, Colorado 02 = By \ 25--9 2, y O Paul J. Taddune #10824 2W i Special Counsel 130 South Galena Street E5 Aspen, Colorado 81611 - r-- 0 1 N (303) 925-2020 M & 4,19-,0 0 304307 . i ' .. 1 , -- - *79270 1 --, Ul rÂ·-1 A Pollx .ar, PAM 21- *-- 1. . 27931.0 HOPKINS ~ -28,4 - N - N 750 09' 2>25* --.--1 IL 4-7930-- P '014:Ut ~ 1; L J ' I , U \ SHEEHA 1 L V ---- ------I -Â«--- ~ GRAMIGEM AFTER \ 1--1 - \ i LOT LINd AobUSTMENk SHEEHAN PROPEIRTY It \ BEFORE ~O1Q 1.11â‚¬7| ! Bull,~01'q j 801 2 N Â·iNÂ»~7 ADJUSTMLN11 - ' i . 1 101 1 PAGE 145 BOOK 544 i l NORDIC TRAIL EASEMENTS TO BE CONDEMNED -7 1 - / LOT 1 - -- ---- MARY -8 ," ~---UGW,1 Â£- -- -11 -STAKE LODE 7 ~EXISTING.,Xâ„¢*i~ ~ --/- -eÂ«*%*%32' LO \ON.-T 1 . 1 '-------------------SUBDIVISIO,1 1 -- 2/1 /-e~Kij' I-.4/#Ae- MI- r --4 1 - 1 - J / -- 90-----I------ 91/1 , 1 ER' TO : / / //// /// />19--3-/dEPAN #TE#' - INe-AOJUSTMpLI-- ~Â«9*04.33 I / //r /// /7/ ~-~-0~ EXA~BIT "A" PAGE 1 OF 2Â©29 991 1/1/ / , \.6 00- ... /--- -1.-------- ~~ : 1..&11 KFI Â«- :.9-7 1 , -ROO i- + %$*--% - //- /// 1 ---/- V 4. 4 -I . ;. 1 !:CON 5 74 992-13 Easemenl No. 1 A 15 foot easement, being 7.5 feet on each side of a centerline, for a Pedestrian, bicycle, and Nordic cross-country ski trail, 1 over and across a tract or land situated in the southeast. quarter ' of Section 12, Township 10 South, Range 85 Wes t. of the 61Â». i, Principal Meridian, Pilkin County, slate of Colorado, said tract being a portion of the USMS 19640, Mary 8 Lode no. 2, Rearing Fork Mining District. The centerline of the easement is more ' particularly described as follows: Commencing at a point on the southerly extension of the easterly i line of South Gth. Street in the City of Aspen, being the same as f lhe southerly extension of the westerly line Of Block 25, i Original Aspen Townsile, whence the 1959 City of Aspen monument. i set for the southwesterly corner of- said Block 25 bears North 14 degrees 50 minutes 49 seconds East a distance of 257.32 feel; thence South 78 degrees S2 minutes 29 seconds West a distance of ~KÂ· 57.33 feet- to the terminus of this easement. 1 Easement No. 2 k A 15 foot easement, being 7.5 feet on'each side or a centerline, r. i for a pedestrian, bicycle, and Nordic cross-country ski trail, 1, over and across a tract of land situated in the southeast quarter .1/. .3 of Section 12, Township 10 South. Range 85 West Of the 6th. Principal Meridian, Pitkin County, state of Colorado, said tract being a portion of the USMS 19640, Mary B no. 2 Lode, Rearing ttal Fork Mining District. The centerline of the easement is more particularly described as follows: Commencing at a point on the southerly extension of the easterly line of South 6th. Slreet in the City of Aspen, being the same 1. 1 as the soulherly extension of the westerly line Of Block 25, Original Aspen Townsile, whence the 1959 City of Aspen monument set for the southwesterly corner of said Block 25 bears North 14 14'i degrees SO minutes 49 seconds East a distance of- 257.33 feet; and thence South 78 degrees 52 minutes 29 seconds West a distance of 57.33 feet to the true point of beginning; thence Soulh 78 degrees 52 minutes 29 seconds West a distance of 37.22 feel to the terminus of this easement. .l EXHIBIT UA" PAGE 2 OF 2 I . . + I ,â€¢ 1 ,~0, 574 m,211 DISTRICT COURT, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 88-CV-303 LIS PENDENS CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, a Municipal Corporation, Petitioner, V. CHRISTOPHER SHEEHAN, HANS R. GRAMIGER, PITKIN COUNTY BANK & TRUST COMPANY, PARK TRUST, LTD,, and THE TREASURER AND PUBLIC ~ TRUSTEE OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, all as their interests may appear, 1 Respondents/Defendants. Notice is hereby given, pursuant to 1973 C.R.S. 38-6-121, that a condemnation/eminent domain proceeding has been commenced 1- in the above-entitled Court by the City of Aspen, Colorado, against the above-named Respondents/Defendants to acquire for public use the real property described below: A permanent, exclusive fifteen-(15)-foot-wide easement for a )0) ' pedestrian, bicycle and nordic cross county ski trail over and across a tract of land situated in the southeast quarter of Section 12, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6th P.M., Pitkin County, Colorado, comprising Easement No. 1 and !~ Easement No. 2 as more particularly described on that plat and property description appended hereto and incorporated herein collectively as Exhibit "A", together with such ' ~ temporary, non-exclusive easements as may be necessary to I construct, repair and replace said trail. Dated: 92(31- 7. -1 -/.6 , 1988. I-Wl OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY City of Aspen, Colorado Â®i 0 5 - f F 1-2-3 1 1 r: -- NE :12 By a=, -1 l I Paul J. Taddune #10824 5 W Cl I ac r4 Special Counsel , ZE C (.7 130 South Galena Street 35 Aspen, Colorado 81611 2% 53 (303) 925-2020 ' C & L C.D j \TAV t.y... 1 304307 . 1 , 1 j t. - Iii 1 W 8013 574 9,19212 ~-1-â€ž 12]44 - 179270 r----- IC 1 -B . 41 . 4 III- 1- . 1793!.O HOPKINS ~ \ N 750 09' -- -ASPe 1 4 --793-- -r..4 , \, \ f U ' 111 1 \1/11 4 0'91 USTMEN~ SHEEHAN PROP491 1 1 TER \ N I 1 -1 I i 1 BEFORE 1~-01; LINE 1 Bulvoll i ~ Bul ' \ A~JUSTM[Â¤11 - -' | ENV~L~P ENV BOOK 544 - 1 PAGE 145 - 1-%- 6 : 1 0/ ll_ NORDIC TRAIL EASEMENTS TO BE CONDEMNED ' ';L-~---g--r----.-2 2!EETTE ~ , 1 -1- --< j # LOT MARY -8 - Â·'k~ SUBDIVIÂ« '~ NO. 1 , '96%741 -/ GRAMIGER ~ , -44*31' a -- ------ ./JAI Â«27Â« ESTAKE LOOE l _- -- 2,=~ .4/~~~~__-1______-___49â‚¬b \ON -r . ~ \_. EXISTINtAr#*iiI 7- i -~2-< i. ,-------------------3055%i .----Ipp # ____-- --I li~~li~l li -': /.Al - -/31331 - - CE- 70/-44Â»33- - / 14,53/.3/ ue-1DJUSTMj21*-- -/--i ~ -EXABIT "A" PAGE 1-OF 2199- --f-Â« i - --c----- 4 Ye. 1 to . .rÂ©0 /// / / 1/ / -//// /// - .. d '' i 1 - !:0!"X 574 ..,si 213 Easement No. 1 A 15 foot. easement, being 7.5 feel on each side of a centerline. for a Pedestrian, bicycle, and Nordic cross-country ski trail, over and across a Lracl of land situated in the southeast quarter of Section 12, Township 10 South, Range 85 Wes L Of the Gth. Principal Meridian, Pilkin County, slate of Colorado, said tract being a portion of Lhe USMS 19640, Mary B Lode no. 2, Roaring i Fork Mining District. The centerline of the easement is more particularly described as follows: Commencing at a point on the southerly extension of the easterly line of South Gth. Street in the City of Aspen, being the same as the southerly exlension or lhe westerly line or Block 25, Original Aspen Townsite, whence the 19S 9 City of Aspen monument set for the southwesterly corner of said Block 25 bears North 14 degrees 50 minutes 49 seconds East a distance of 257.32 feet; thence South 78 degrees 52 minutes 29 seconds West- a distance of 57.33 feet to the terminus of this easement. Easement No. 2 A 15 foot easement. being 7.5 feel on'each side of a centerline. for a pedestrian, bicycle, and Nordic cross-country ski trail, over and across a tract of land situated in the southeast quarter of Section 12, Township 10 South. Range 85 West of the 6th. Principal Meridian, Pilkin County, state of Colorado, said tract being a portion of the USMS 19640, Mary B no. 2 Lode, Roaring Fork Mining District. The centerline of the easement is more particularly described as follows: Commencing at a point on the southerly extension of the easterly line of South 6th. Street in the City or Aspen, being the same as the southerly extension of the westerly line of Block 25, Original Aspen Townsite, whence the 1959 City of Aspen monument *i set for the southwesterly corner of said Block 25 bears North 14 degrees 50 minutes 49 seconds East. a distance of 257.33 feeL; and thence South 78 degrees 52 minutes 29 seconds West a distance of 57.33 feet to the true point of beginning; thence South 78 degrees 52 minutes 29 seconds West a distance or 37.22 feel to c the terminus of this easement. , EXHIBIT "A" PAGE 2 OF 2 fv,/ f i i 'Dr ..' ' --92,% i 4,11. 0 'BooK ZI fAGE 191'-1 GRAMIGER SHEEHAN LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT BEING A PORTDN OF THE MOMESTAKE LODE M.S. 42-11. M.S. 5794 AND MACY 8. NO. 2- LODE M.%Â· MG 40 ALL St/UATED IN sECTIONS %2 f. Vb /IOS. R.235*/ GRM..PORN CO., COLO OWNER'S CERTIFICATE coRÂ· 46).2-\\ ' 1/low ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS THAT HANS R. GRAMIGER AND CHRISTOPHER SHEEHAN REING THE OWfIERS Ot TMAT CERTAIN REAL Awn. 0/ 'Pl.'ER'* DESCRIFED A!*ol L OWS: ' â€¢- Â· Â·~ , 8. 2-G.â€¢+ -r - GRAM\GER-Â· ~ .il.rniN UF -M.5. /97 0~11â€¢'ER- SANIVEY P~~Tr{IN Q~'~â‚¬ .~rln~~A~ THAT .."l]N OF .* -*.ITAKE louâ‚¬ ..ING ./. M. s. Init ./i. AND LOÂ¥ 18 '2 ALL .rn-U} ,â€¢ , .(f; 9,g' Ng-4-7 'Ia- . ilili , =RADO 4Â¥r,48 S011'*18.L OF .// *BTE;144 ' -*i Enâ„¢91* OF '",4 1- AMMIE AND THE VI,THER,1 E.itAY" M 'th ' SCALE 9,REET C~TY-OF ASPEN Â¥ DESCRIaED [N NOOK 16~ AT * W* 9â‚¬â€¢ 1 ft' .9,-L. 1 ....1018 U / 11: 't-9./ .0 ..TH. I... el ./AF ...... 1 Â»104.. 5/5 FEET i 1- 3. L.... SHEEHAN: A .act of lind ....ted 1/ th' S.4 0, ...0. 12. ..- hip 1â€¢ Sou di, Ralga 8 5 -~t 0 2 th, /thY.M., Pitkin Co-4. EMâ€¢ 00 _/._:./ , rr. ROAO Ri,â€¢Al--0,-9"'42 / e Colorado. Said t,ace' -ing pagt oh- U~it,d St,t- 11.5. 1~6- - T. Ail P - AÂ·L,â‚¬1- D~ D~ PJ.0 04 \ .ses- --9-in - MAHÂ¥ D.NO.2, Roaclng 110~k ug Ula trict.*/ ing -- M. : ., d 75 ~225 9 0 .vÂ· ..e,-0- -300Â·-. ,#â€¢0 /Ge=o) ~Â£~ 8,9'Â·1=2 j ,lescrk~-1 a~ follow#: Lib , negi~ning o~ the point on 0~ â€¢cut~rly *-9 4 - A '.3 + le â€¢1 t. of A,p- Ibeing th~ - a, Weutherly -t*-len . I 4-3 7//AN. NOTE e~~terlY lin, of South SixU, StreK 02 t- City d n- r li ch' ./.Cer. Una o f /1... 25, City IndÂ· r~-i.* 0. ./plfâ€¢> whain ti- 1958 City of *â€¢p# Honum,nt *et Dor & Southwdâ€¢t corn'r of nlock 25. City â€¢- 70â€¢nlit' ge ......../ c~f .O -r.. 0......5 col -nueS -ircA ..... MENT .,ey- / SMALL ,Â·AVE 7,42 Reâ€¢47 -ne, 00 W.,herEVER %5 I N. 14.UÂ®" g. a Olâ€¢Unclof 56.00 feelp Pcoot .3 O,1 ] ine 60'7Â· CO"Ver. 1 4 al., 1 5 02 M~*. 1%40 MART I. 22'12215.7,22124.':7:.. .IENCE ..1//0,4. W. a distance cÂ¢ 321<25 feet toi 001.. â€ž =ENC: â€¢Â·13.29'00-w. -0.4 .ald zin. bet...Aornâ€¢:â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ Â£~se=. +PA,RS. â€¢NG-â‚¬.5/ A.~0 ICâ€¢a. ES, -In-4 SPACE .r~ 1 5 of Elle M.1 19640 MARY I. 1,0. 2 ~ 46â€¢tâ€¢râ€¢â„¢ of 1* 4- I Â· ... t. I ./.t .... 8-th 1.- 0, ./.5 Uepkin/ Av=./- / ,rhe:,c. th. we,terly â€¢*teâ€¢â€¢lor, of th, nerth lin, of 14,t ' mEf/%< Ab =X, GENC' M.â€¢er b.+02. P.3 85Â·0 1 SL J#..0- 4<24%. Ilopkill= AÂ¥-ue of th- City â€¢nd 'NÂ»~-ite o~ A~p- -r~ I.iiI-'49- I. I distance 0Â£ ..00 f-ti Di T~c,1 DECUIED #__W_ SAN Â©E_-i.,~-7.7-1/0 A r mo s.'SÂ°09â€¢11â€¢ 8. *ic,9 -id South 11.- 01 wt IR)piM ff I .44 Ave,â€žle a d~stanc~ of 173.25 f-e te the POII,r M IlÂ®GINNING, CÂ·A (con.ining 27..7 -u,re fell -- O/ 1--I. 'VaG 2- NAVE BY THESE PRESENTS RESUBDIVIDED AND AMENDED Triâ‚¬ COMMON 0 Nk POLINDARY LINE AS SHOWN HEREON UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF "ADJUSTED" ~ A 4, 414 GRAMIGER SHEEHAN LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 41 .g. 2/; . VICINITY MAP SCAL.2 1"- 900 F- 4/\ 4 4 0,4 1% 6 /41&441~.~_=L- _ ,/_42'242:bkikek -- ---LEGEND AND NOTES MHM STOPHER SHEEHAN. OWNER m \ ty*R. blt#35*'Â·ifER -0 -Ii . 1/f/< 4 S rATE OF COLORADO, .- .101 19 lei 2.6 14-21-11 .41 /\ 2 IN / FOUND 2 5 ZleAR 4 CAP 237<0 ./8 UNAESS No-rÂ£O fi--:F=740&1_ MAIL 9. F .07 12 ME Fo~:EGOTNG OWNERÂ·S, CERTIFICATE WAS ACI NOWLEDGED BEFORE ME 1.31]NTY OF PITKiN A MO'KiNS AVE Â· 1 /euND STONIE CORiall AS SHOIN THIS./.90)AY OF. .44Â·,Â·,eÂ«CLÂ·198Â¥ BY, HANS R. GRAMIâ‚¬*R AND ~ 4-0 1 - I @029/41 / CHRI STOPHER SHEEHAN AS OWNERS. 8 .,C'. O SET *6 REIRR *CAP 6,27 - WITNESS Mi HAN!0 & OFFICIAL SEAL ' 5060: . MY COMMTSS,UN EXPIRES:__i 3*9-1-'L- ---I_;8------1-1 SUPKVE. CZASED ON 1 9/0 BL W. PLAT-S ) r...__iÂ»hn_- -_; R~ i -- 2. 1 843 ASPEN, MARY 21 SUID . M S. 9/1 1 1959 OF/1/3AL. PLAT- 0/ THE CiTY O% CO. 2.ELLAX'ON BETWEEN In-v ORGS. G R AMIG E R BEAr2ANGS DE.NED ElaCM A SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE Pool ' HOPKNO, AW~ 3 AND BLÂ»\ BRGS. - t. DAVID W McIRIDE. A REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR. 00 HEREBY (.675--099!* ALONG MINS. FOUNO ON L.J 0 69Â· CERTIFY THAI 1 HAVE PREPARED THIS GRAMIGER SHEEHAN LOr LrNE Ccoll LITÂ·r-Le Ct_000 1- ),4-rIA-SEC-1-10/ TOWN.enE 7-/ 1 NOUCM WNE ...A.STAIE AND OTHER FFATURES AKE ACCURATELY AND CORRECTLY SHOWN HEREIN. ADJUSTMENT FÂ·LAT. THAT THE LOCATION OF THE OUTSIDE BOUNDARY: ROADS ..DEEC,~ 7 ; THAT THE SAME ARE BASED ON FIELD SURIEYS AND THAT THE PLATTED CALLS 1.k.i i > FRIM Cb u. M PLATS SITE CONFORMS TO THOSE S I AF ED ON tHE GROUND AS SHOWN. ou.4-0 Le/4 :'tr/6%4 /0 CALLS iN C ) /IE,CORED AS 3,40*/61 h 3 E._/3Â»RT- â‚¬ PARCEL 771 ExcHANCE Pa.CELS . Cou~ry a: COMMISSIONERS v PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF i '41/r 1 gel' 4 / : M Ld LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS AS "ADJUSTED" ill :% - W. 00 FINCEL ON Plc>.E.EN' LIN= r SHEEHAN: A TRACT OF LAND SITUA.0 IN ./ SE~l/4 ./SET[C]/ 12. TO--Ill 1/ - 1 1:1 4,0 PAR K W I. M.. STATE y MARY B , CONDITIONS OF RESOLUTION 87- THIS PLAT OF THE GRAMIGER SHEEHAN LOT LINE ADJUSTMENr'ERS'BEEN REVIEWED AND APPROVED_SY THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS cokcÂ»u,oc. -0 TApÂ£:, a,E,n A pA,IT M M. 9. 446~0 MARÂ¥ e. NOÂ· 2â€¢ ' 3/ ID ...C . A OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY THIS /4- DAY OF 4214<14â€¢â€¢-6Â£-r. 1987, BY RESOLUTION No. 81-03 atS'InICT. -ID ~Et- ~~CRE ~U_LY DUCME- AS F~_LOWS, AND THIS APPROVAL IS Â§UBJECT TO- THE CONDITIONS OF SAID RESOLUTION. Z ~tit ,Â£~~LINE Of -51*â„¢ Sâ„¢T~â„¢Â£ Cirf- -ITE~ 6/. COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN - / 4 S6.00 FEC, l~ cr,-11 1,Â©,r7(,5- M 12 Le--- M< COUNTY, COLORADO /yEORGâ‚¬ W. MADSEN 1-RY 'Â· NO. 2, â„¢ENCE N75 MÂ·.91 132.92 .m, 1 LU No' 0 THENCE 9- 09~11-E as.00 FEE. TO â„¢E POIN. OP .01*11.8 CONTAINING O.. ACRES -OR LESS. . U 4 FASFMFNT DEDICATION: 4 KNOWN ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS THAT HANS R. GRAMIGER AND GRAMIGER: 1/2 0. ANÂ©lN THE O 5 4 CHRISTOPHER SHEEHAN BEING THE OWNERS OF THAT REAL PROPERTY H 1/2 OF SECTIM .1- DESCRIBED HEREIN. DO HEREBY DEDICATE TO THE CITY OF ASPEN THE BEINO I f'OR.ON OF MEWT# 4 -- 9 TO PITKIN COUNTY THE 4 FOOT WIDE ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENT LODE M.5. 4211, LOr t, SECTiON 12. M.S. 5792. AND TME MARÂ¥ B. No. I IRRIGATION DI'rCH EASEMENT ALONG THE "CITY DITCH' LATERAL AND 1,!OPKINS AVENUE * T-#-/ E~(~1* OF 7th STAEET Ctn OP ~ ,\/ l'' ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF HOPKINS AVENUE AS DESCRIBED IN CLERK AND RECORDERS ACCEPTANCE TIâ‚¬ PITKIN COUNrÂ¥ 8 BOOK 362 AT pAGE 80 OF THE PITKIN COUNTY RECORDS. Al N '0 A V TMENCE 1489 23 E 0.70 FEE~ AL_<DO LDâ‚¬ 3-4 - /Â·S. 4211 TO nE : 9 0 â€¢ DFVFIRPMENT RFSTRICTION TH[S PLAT OF THE GRAMIGER SHEEHAN LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT TS ACCEPTED INTEASECT~CÂ», WITH /[NE 2-3 (le .,~ co-01. LCCE .... 1759Â· 0~ FOR FIL 1 NI: IN THE OFF ;CE OF THE CLERIC _BND RECORDER OF FIrKIN 318.59 FUT ALCE Lâ„¢E 2-3 OF THE COPPE'OPOL_t/ .00â‚¬ 1 9.76 + AC 1~FZ#*441" THE ~ADJUSTED" -SHEEHAN PARCEL IS HEREWITH RESTRICTED IN TOTAL COUNTY AT 4:190 Â·CLOCK 11 M.. TH I. 25-DAY DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL LIMITING ITS USE TO THE CONSTRUCTION AND OF_ -_. Alk?C55[__-IIT~*F~ IN PLAT Book -24.-AT PAGE__Ll._ AS 4-1 OF M.S. 42~1 . 7141 SOUTI~,:LY 'fi~F M.9. 5792: USE OF ONE (1) SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. RECEPT[ON MUMBER__-=-1-lf-#2 TMâ‚¬MCE ./7 M PRIDE OF ASPEN LODE M.S. 73.4, .1-9 ' EXECUTED THIS 8/ DAY OF 7,9- 151 FEEr ALONG LDâ‚¬ 3-4 OF TbE PRIDE ..- W ASPEN LOOE .... 7364 10] â„¢E .OUTIERLY BCUMO-/ aF B 1 --1 2= Ml..=-60â€¢v , I. -AÂ¥.. =. 2 + ' , 198% 4.. 29.-7Â« /-44.7-9~.1- ' O ERk & RjECORDER (~2 ~6 35'~1-%* 14~.9Z FEET, N04 50Â·2t-,1 427.44 FEET, ~JANS R. GRAMICIEL-,BRIER --CHRISTOPHER SHEEHAN, OWNER --Dâ€ž-4.7 , STATE OF COLORADO ) BO(* 362 AT PAGE 60. ) SS AS ~&LOWS, 64 1 1/ County of Pitkin ) PREPARED BY -< Aspen Survey Engineers, Inc. %24 :Â·I .6.4/ FEEr, . S44 30 61 64.th FEEr To LlNE 2-3 OP THE ~Ofâ€¢EaT~<E LOOE The foregoing EASEMENT DEDICATION and DEVELOPMENT RESTRICTION was acknowledged before me this (2+~ day of Clu---4-, 1981, 210 S. GALENA SL THENCE Sol - E 1.27/. Z2 FEET ALONO Hn-STAKE LOOE M.S. 421 ' TO .4 PO~NT OF gâ‚¬Of-ING CONTAIM~NG O 6 ' by HANS R. GRAMIGER and CHRISTOPHER SHEEHAN, AS OWNERS. P. O. BOX 2506 9.76 ACRES M(]RE OR LESS. ASPEN, COLORADO 8:6!2 Witness nly hand & official seal. iL#47/4-/ (303) 925-3816 lim: n[Mil IG [otatlm Ll a 161 CaILF I l[,1 I lIC,1 W Ill I IFIT Ill [[IS gial Illol IM n.me, U Im P. O.B. - My Commission expires: 1-37-03 M IDIJ[, 10 EE[L ]1 le DEm. 90LL flr,E,111 ~[0 1,11, I ~Im IN 1,[15 5!EUT i amED mi M lEi 1[1,5 cox. 3/- 1 Notary,Â·1?Auce.:. 0 DATE 12-11-87 Joi MO. 6172 1 TE E 1 11 CEETIFI[~!01 mi Ill, Â» ./- <N.0.2-3'/ .3Â¥2 ILIZEÂ»I- 2 -=<z====. 14: EXHIBIT I '' .. 4. ... 4 (1194 X Recorded at_Allio'clockIE.M 12 16-W 000* 553 p,wd.91 Reception No O-96664.9- SILWA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY RECORDER Ing:OTAJ'{ION OF '1'NE I]DARD OF COUNTY COMM [SE;TONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, GRANITING A SUBDIVISION EXEMPPTON FOR A TOT LItiE AIUUS,iliENT TO HANS R. GRAMIGER AND .t ./ CHRISTOPHER SHEEHAN ~ - Ranolution No. 874/ f WHER[Ms, Hans R. Graniger and Christopher Sheehan (hercin- after "Applicants") have applied to the Board of County Commis- 9 sioners of Pitkin County Colorado (hereinafter Â¥'Board") for i approval of a Subdivision Exemption for a Lot Line Adjustment 1-1 pursuant to Section 4-2,2(al (2) of the Land Use Code; anc] WHEREAS, the Board heard this application at their regularly scheduled public meeting on October 27, 1987, at which time evidence and testimony was presented with respect to this application; and WlIEREAS, the Applicants have agreed not to utilize the resulting new lot sizes or configurations to increase the development potential of their properties in conformance with Section 4-2.2 (a) (2) (B) of the Land Use Code; and NOW, TlrEREFORK, DE IT RESOLVED by the Board that it does hereby grant approval of the proposed lot line adjustment subject to the following conditions: 1) The Applicants shall submit a subdivision exemption plat for recording which meets the approval of the county Attorney and the Planning Office. 2) The plat-shall reflect the dedication of an easement of four (4) feet Of additional right-of-way on West '7 Hopkins Avenue for a distance of 385 feet along the northerly boundary of the "adjusted" Gramiger and -1 Sheehan parcels. r.i 1 t.3. '5 3 -' 9 . . 1 tabbies* 11- le - . 1 â€¢ coox 553 PA5Â£192 Resolution No. 07- Page 2 3) The plat shall delineate the "Si Johnson'f irrigation , 1- ditch (and the lateral ditch thereof known as the "city f ditcht which traverses the "Gramiger-parcel" and the i plat shall contain an acknowledgement by the applicants j i that the owners of the ditch easement shall have a : right to do whatever is reasonably necessary for tile 2 enjoyment of the easement, including repairs, ingress and egress, with space therefor as exigency may show. 1 4) The now parcels are precluded from utilizing the 1 increased development potential (if any) arising from the approved Lot Line Adjustment, as follows: (a) The "Sheehan-parcell' shall be deed restricted limiting its use to the construction and use of one (1) Single family residence; (b] The "Graniger-parcel" shall not be permitted to increase in development potential as a result of this approval. APPROVED by the Board at its regular meeting on December 15, 1987. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY/ COLORADO 97 /1 ny 4 64/(c /46Â·A 4-6- .......4~....-1-:4.4. Gdofge *Adson, Chairman ~ Lj --â„¢-- 41 <jj i PA-> Vanetta Jones/60eptity ..3 ~tounty Clark g/' APPROVED AS 7,9 FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: 1 Â»Â«12/1 Thomas #. Smith, County Alan Richman, Planning and Attorney Development Director FK.GSRESO 1 i i Ct-*1-1-5 , 2 11-Jk '2 el Detail http://pitkinassessor.org/assessor/Parcel.asp?AccountNumber=R011815 EXHIBIT Pitkin County Assessor Parcel Detail Information Assessor Propertv Search I Assessor Subset Query I Assessor Sales Search Clerk & Recorder Reception Search 1 Treasurer Tax Search Search GIS Map I GIS Help Basic Building Characteristics I Value Summan Parcel Detail I Value Detail I Sales Detail I Residential/Commercial Improvement Detail Owner Detail I Land Detail I Photographs Tax Account Parcel 2015 Mill Property Type Area Number Number Levy 008 R011815 273512494001 RESIDENTIAL 27.076 Primary Owner Name and Address STARFORD PROPERTIES NV 121 ALHAMBRA PLAZA, STE 1400 CORAL GABLES, FL 33134 i Additional Owner Detail Legal Description Subdivision: MARY B Lot: 1, Subdivision: GRAMIGER SHEEHAN LOT LINE ADJ E 1/2 OF LOT 1 W 1/2 IS PART OF GRAMINGER SHEEHAN LOT LINE ADJ Location Physical Address: 705 W HOPKINS AVE ASPEN Subdivision: MARY B Land Acres: 1.950 Land Sq Ft: 0 Inf 1 1/17/70164Â·1RPM 2 el Detail http://pitkinassessor.org/assessor/Parcel.asp?AccountNumber=R011815 2015 Property Value Summary Actual Value Assessed Value Land: 3,000,000 238,800 Improvements: 5,086,000 404,850 Total: 8,086,000 643,650 Sale Date: 1/3/1991 , Sale Price: 1,900,000 Additional Sales Detail Basic Building Characteristics Number of Residential 1 Buildings: Number of Comm/Ind 0 Buildings: Residential Building Occurrence 0 Characteristics 1/2 STORY: ~1,056 2ND FLOOR: ~2,209 ROOF DECK: ~351 OPEN PORCH: ~165 CARPORT: ~243 FINISHED BSMT: ~944 FIRST FLOOR: ~2,282 WOOD DECK: 72 FINISHED GARAGE: ~1,056 Total Heated Area: ~6,491 Property Class: ~SINGLE FAM RES-IMPROVEMEN - Actual Year Built: ~1989 Effective Year Built: 1995 Bedrooms: ~4 Baths: ~4.5 ) nfl 1/17/On,AdÂ·1RPAA 2 el Detail http://pitkinassessor.or~assessor/Parcel.asp?AccountNumber=R011815 Quality of Construction: ~EXCELLENT Exterior Wall: ~WOOD SD GO Interior Wall: ~DRYWALL Floor: ~BASE Heat Type: ~RAD WATER Heating Fuel: ~GAS Roof Cover: ~WD SHINGLE Roof Structure: ~GABLE/HIP Neighborhood: ~MAIN WEST OF CORE SOUTH OF Super Nbhd: ~CITY OF ASPEN Top of Page Assessor Database Search Options Assessor Home Page Pitkin County Home Page The Pitkin County Assessor's Offices make every effort to collect and maintain accurate data. However, Good Turns Software and the Pitkin County Assessor's Offices are unable to warrant any ofthe information herein contained. Copyright Â© 2003 - 2015 Good Turns Software. All Rights Reserved. Database & Web Design by Good Turns Software. . .4 ./17-Al. i.ion/l 4 ALI , fr . y. & 5. 1 * ,Â· 2~41.17 fic. Â· m~' , I , ?t 4 1 #*El . 39 5 ,/7 4 1 .4Â· 1 44>. : - 14' 1 1** s i Â·6 Ir . 2'6Â°Â°~ ~ it f 4 5 ' F . 1, 'b 3 plil *<44. J . /4/ r. A Ir, '' *27 *'4 4-.%Â».- UelÂ»-9 -. /7 1 ,Â·Â·Â¥r 41 Â· 2,4 49\16 - . 1,5, ; 1-2 1 Â£31/7 . ... -.61-. t 4% t- ... + , 1, 1, . -- . 1%Â§ 1 , . . - Â·- % 2,=SA r Â·Â·-* 10 + . -2._.UÂ· 77â€ž - I'. ,~ .~ ..... - . t . 1, . 4 -- ' -Â»-4-Â«-2.- , 4 16.-1-- , i .-44.1- .5-f-.r < -/11- 4 - # - U., ~ L 2 4 I - f . 1 -/02 /7.. --ib *a 10Dv - .ar- . â€ž 0 . ...4,15.- 1. -'--....'.41:.~ 1.2 40 + - Z- -2.-91%*-&79"Â£32.<It--J~-<T- 1*kilf#~ 0 0- -0.1- .d#F# .-4 .P.~ .1 P.- , 542â€ž4 21<14.- .A : .pi â€ž , 2.94-. 4-3,r" 4 -4. . Â© ,!1'2 14 0 '6.1 X t. A . Â«,p' 44 74.-4 r . 4 - 44,6 2 L . I ... 5. I I I . fet <' I k:;~ i. id./ U 0, 404Â·; r:i,!Â£Â·: 4 %$ gi-1/2,*=9-4'8.7 2 U,44/y ev Â· 1 1 Â¥,rT., 22.,54. *ts.C ..r; 4)~::~:~ V. Bit. ,-9 444Â¥ 462-8, 14' 41 -O v ... .UAI-fv 5: .UK o>proMT-AA I -7 42. - =971,14-T' ' U-- 57*,9:74 2:'1 - 34 23&38, ~Â· f~Â·41 --Â£-- '24 -, . --6,0Â£...4491-4,;Mt,.*." -- â‚¬ . 4- 97,8*.1"U- 1, -1 , I=. 1Â£1 3 11~ a* 12. ijk93#/1't'; 04 3. li: . . rt-37 I , 1 -0/A + I. 1.9- . 1 , P ty; .%1 _ _ --- I. , - e. - -487-4,Â· 9- 2/,t:.*FOOFA/ 4-1 4 = .. 1 I *11Â¢ ; 1 18, 1 - - - 'ID - 1 7-1& -triv#-*4+9 - - 04.-~ .... r * - r Â·.,9 A- ... â€¢ 1 n~:77:Â·51 iÂ°4 ' e +V Â¢ty f.f :re . 440:lik 'tit l.fit W 44) 4%2 N 44 , ut,.-T'%,f: r J.%Â»3- r r ./ . 'll 1 |,| 1Â¢1 ' * 8,01 fl~'*0,Â·11479~ 3~~0~ '21~ ...0 Â» â€ž 0 4 - -V .f .2 .S 2. +I -I- , U.. ' I 01 n . ... -1 I I -C -6-*I. - IFÂ·tÂ» t. flroce,LiT- ~ 24 -7.8< , 1 I - 1 1 rw . I /â€ž2 4 , * & . ' .~ ~4- . 92 -41 P,â€ž IR ~ -.....I=.*#2 - - 333 ~... If ~ '-001:13 ,- I T 4 6-I -0.46' Z = ~312 209 .* :r: :..//BAFY i.-1 - 6, .0'th... 9 4-9 - 4 ."DS?â‚¬99 1 / Â·Â· 4 '. 61. /4:-I *. I h. . ,- - 2 1 ..I .- '. .t *. :.37 I ~~7 V el* f . â‚¬Â¥. - . &'. -- .*' 1 1. v .%1 4/Â· 1 - /01' 33* .0,2&-42. k# . 'll/,9 010,6 'rt 77- ..4 - ta07*r : e 4.51 a \'. C~ f. /052 23Â»~ Â¥ /9 ip/' I *. -5 pgr/.Ii ' 5 -&ft #P . 4, . . - 7 Â· - - .- V. YÂ¥ - . rt U.** - . . 4.- 4.: -nri< Fit.r 114Â»+A,1~S-=~ :~R.- C- .j ~2g-~Antâ‚¬,9: . -â€¢MillÂ·EL -; 2<-. vif.3Â·~t*:0.- *PA .Â»1 06.. 4 . 1. W. 4 , . - 1% 7.4 4 , .12 442:7 . V ,=ry Z.:.1 - )- '~ 0 â€ž ..4*6-~' ...0:. . .. . ., .- -1 4 th j '2. :1. .r./-.WE 1 1 4 /Â» 7. /916 .L* .4 -,- - 64- Â·34>471 444/, 44**,1.. f ju \ * 1, s #*< 0. 1 '\7*04 â‚¬ i>. 2 1 ./34- 5-3 i . ..424 , *eN.+907/ . A< 4Â¥,4*. f *' I :0 ./.4// 44 0 , :i#fL a :~2%@r ...Ii f. ; 17 '*bi#LTE# 4 ~Â£~~1~~E~4.74 - u, 1/11Â«491*24*64 e.30:. . -,w.., ' f.k ..,~. L,6..917-'mimp.:. Â· .â€žâ€ž1 4 , r.{f,Ul.f*,~t.~32 lf-t*4,44 rij~ 44*M, ~f~ ftif 4*, 1 i1+ZO'94*EMPJFWA/ma.'** }301â€ž,RÂ¢*23*&%4:AL 1 ... e. not-Â¥2411:3*fm 1443%- ri~l~'IN,~*Er,:4~L~,3:*~JFE~ i~ 4 -.. --t 9 -i- ..6 /// 81'W â‚¬-~*&*A.Â¥14.1 9 -42// fir ./1/th'%3 9%'1*41:/41:1:. i :,0 . * . 1 j .4 CE...Â·'i,49~11, j - I I ./' I.'- ' , # 3- yogrt 43 2.4 -~ " 1, 47 - p-4.-4.Ii l J i. . 1 1. It 4 1 1 i lit . ---1--- F f 99'39;rin 4 ' f 49% -t - -1.b y Â£ W - 7 - rah ->,24 43*â€¢' ,~, I â€¢ -Â£ ;.- )* 2, '- 4 *3r- . ,.4/ . re, I- 4- 'e ~--151,1 . , I 4, I' = -_ /*. j .. H-r Â·C I -_~ -r. < _. * - _I /* .- - -f - ,,= L+.B-&$'-Ili--4 0. . ..1. - T,Â® -t 4-436-8.Â»-C. Xi' Uy.0 6, 0 6.4 - I .6 t -" %>13Â»*a-Â». - ->:, &.-< ' : a It.~ .-Â·.1-: C â€¢ 001â€¢ v 4 /-4 090 W. ..P -' .- te --- - 1-â€ž - m - I - . - - -rm .. -- 1 V. -B -2 + -*- -U x-1-1/-+.I--f ~-- -44.* D' .â€¢.8** e - *. - W - - 1.-- - I 4. r '34?La, r ~ Cr Â¢ , ?f D - '. , J e. - C. . LA - - -- C. - 4 I ' 1-4, r -" V r.3-".1 1.- - ... 4.. + 1 4 -I- -' -. m _/ I.. . . '* - 1/ R 3,16 :.'-" ~---ti --:.- .. 4-2 *44 Aâ‚¬<.4-*-w.I-'-~ . 1- < z .1- . . .k .t~ . - --1.wek. AL .'- :#/* A - 1 . '*.7 C- ~ ~r' I 7/' - - Â», ' 1% 1<Â· 1 2_ 9 . : :9.:994 - . .*1. ... 0 - 3.-'-= m u I ./. *4 . - i ~ '/ r. I * , 6 -le I -,h:-' a..0..7 4 9 6* :-40,>rj~,Fl ~'~-Â·Â·~~c. -- -- 'Â· ''- -* - .. - , A - 7 - Â¢127 . - I ... . - ... -1 - f -**744,-42:4Â·,-- 43 .. ='g * 542- :y?:- 9-2 --:i 6 . 4.-94%59-3-_ .33 - 1*Â·-Â»~~*P Â·6 - :e- 1~....= 4-1:5i.,+ f.%11(foff>3-49*tiIi-74*,-t,-1 1.>Coltvtti,** -3* 6~cs 625)fjI#hifkki--: 2r~tf>-246&704#3Â« . -M ti<Ckh; 2,; ~ e r .- 4' . 4, -4-f 41-Â·12.-=Â·-. 9--i-..0"12< -6 -~-* :7-431'0 e '2:74.32~:..>r- Â· - . tv 443'-Pit<.-411<4*karc D' 4.- . - - 41"..b ./- 3% 4-271*, /J . A~/ Â» 1L 1. r - - 1.7 , -ft -r.4 . A E -. .... .r.--, 8.- ~,I''i :,r,Ott ?Puf, *'i---4---for~- -** ~, k:1733â‚¬'~~4,04-12Â»%3*Â«i-~ : t.: .40- ?j -: '~ ="~ th :d f.4 Ir rÂ·: *.6-+.th'CA.3.- 32~- . 3.7 -6 4 I. - - 1 = . . . 10'L 7 . + = - i: . . â€žc. ,I.6,2.:i-30.0: 10411:3'- 1:u,rit;4â‚¬:ttifrie ow.(,Â¥0pijy~ Â·:tic -4-0 7.:. - - - Sivt#: ,&1~44; i 4 *fiLL:vi*,#,4*LA, e. 69*Me-*41 0 /1///OBL'* ?2 F 4. 1 - ..2......44 l /4,5,4507 , -4%~9â‚¬ 0., 1 .Â£19 k 1 :eÂ· I -43,9*- F- 9. 12*r.,t*.RA'*6 t,444Â·M: Â·4}~':2'Â·J /94*%4, A.11/*SW04&44%/61x 4. <f ,.*4,$1~f(~L~~3~IA11*+97 2~",~'244*4.X-:4# WigrwjÂ£4 f i - . 243 Re ~ Id?.Ers j Â·~~' *#EwLttinD;~'ittidG,4.< 14-:*5.~ 0.. Itâ‚¬' ..72,1-71"Wi .Â· .Â£ ' ..lt , 1 41Fil 'tep26.440-: ~4;0:1+CJ46'-Â·1 -jif"*m:2 1. r .Â· ,~ Al ~Lâ€¢;.c. - -- - --13 , I I 44 203 , + -.- -y ; Â· â€¢ '4 i, AvÂ·. 7 1 fl~* ~Â· 9 - 44 1# i ..3*4 -C i i .#A.1 16... 99 - I .~ ~V ~/L& 4/ 1 - irj# * e : *i . 1:4. . -.f - -- -4.41 ~<:Tht/,1 1 10~C- 1,i :i.. R C ~Â·'~1 1 ~~*-1 ~'.0 + 94.i Â· , 0 44 + 14140*,11~ 10.tiv 1.Â· #94 2;4% . .4 1 . . y. 3 - i 4 . 4 2 4 , 1 . I I *14 .1 1 / 04 . # Ur .~- i U.-W - 1.'m.- ist)&/'.----t Â·+ Mean and Chris Wilbur http://mearsandwilbur.com/about-us.html 0/ENTiÂ¥Tin-u.,irill'"PF 4...../-*r# . .--..... ... . 0 . Home Who we are What we do Our projects Links Contact us Topics About us Identifying Avalanche Terrain Mears and Wilbur Sm 19 3/~-'- 97- i Avalanche Mitigation is a partnership of Structural Defenses civil engineers Avalanche Zoning specializing in A///PL/II/9 Acceptable Risks natural hazards in ...8 CGS Bulletin 49 alpine Climate Change & environments, including Avalanches avalanches, debris flows, and rockfall. We Avalanche Dynamics & combine our technical experience and resources Modeling to provide clients with high quality mapping, risk Publications assessment, mitigation strategies, and Presentation Slides ASCE engineering design parameters to protect people SWColo. 2012 - - -- ~ - -- - --~ - ---- ---- and infrastructure. Presentation Slides ISSW 2012 Anchorage W-,a~.--7, Art Mears, RE. was raised in upstate New York, but has spent most of his life in Colorado, and much of his time in mountains of the Western United States. He has a B.S. in Civil Engineering and an M.S. in Geology from the University of Colorado, Boulder. Based in Gunnison, he formed Arthur I. Mears, RE., Inc. in 1981. Mr. Mears has been an avalanche I, consultant on over 1000 projects in 9 states and 8 countries. He has published over 35 ~ technical and research papers and works with international colleagues from Canada, Switzerland, Norway and Austria. Chris Wilbur, RE. moved from Oregon to Colorado to study engineering and ski. He has a B.S. in . Geological Engineering from the Colorado School of Mines and an M.S. in Civil Engineering from 1 - the University of Colorado, Boulder. Mr. Wilbur applies his background in geotechnical engineering and fluid mechanics to analyze and understand natural hazard processes. He established Wilbur Engineering, Inc. in 1995 and has provided engineering services to clients ~i'' bit' throughout the mountain west. He is a registered professional engineer in Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Washington. Home Who we are What we do Our projects Links Contact us Copyright 2013, Arthur I. Mears, P.E., Inc. & Wilbur Engineering, Inc. - irs and Wilbur - Avalanche Engineering Specialists http://mearsandwilbur.com/what_we_do.html .GIERT/:AIRrri/lawlillinrill'.F'.* - 0. f M. -. 1. 1-- 1. ... Home Who we are What we do Our projects Links Contact us Topics .........li Identifying Avalanche What We Do Terrain t.1 Avalanche Mitigation We provide hazard mapping, risk analysis, mitigation strategies and 1 -a'.El. Structural Defenses ---- design parameters to protect people Avalanche Zoning ------ -- - -- -u--- ----- and infrastructure from avalanches, Acceptable Risks 4. .1.-1. - - Â·--- Â· ------- debris flows, and rockfall. We work lilli 27'.-V7. CGS Bulletin 49 - * - - - -- throughout the western United States Climate Change & illillillikil:5/ - i:Al and with international colleagues. Our Avalanches . 7 . 'Al clients include utilities, transportation, ~. 9/1 r.. Avalanche Dynamics & mining, municipalities, engineers, Modeling Â·- -------- - --Â·- --Â·Â·-Â·---- ---- planners, land developers and Publications -----------...-..---â€ž------ --- homeowners. We also provide I.1 4, Presentation Slides ASCE consultation and expert witness SWColo. 2012 Battleship Avalanche Path, SW Colo. -------------- services. Presentation Slides ISSW Tim Lane photo 2012 Anchorage Home Who we are What we do Our projects Links Contact us Copyright 2014, Arthur I. Mears, RE., Inc. & Wilbur Engineering, Inc. 1 1 1- I . i EXHIBIT ROCKFALL AND SNOW AVALANCHE HAZARD ANALYSIS for 705 W. HOPKINS AVE. PROPERTIES ASPEN, COLORADO Prepared for: Mr. Sunny Vann Vann Associates LLC P.O. Box 4827 Basalt, CO 81621 Prepared by: Arthur I. Mears, P.E., Inc. Gunnison, Colorado and Wilbur Engineering, Inc. Durango, Colorado March 17, 2016 Arthur I. Mears, P.E., Inc. Natural Hazards Consultants 555 County Road 16 Gunnison, CO 81230 (970) 275-1548 March 17,2016 Mr. Sunny Vann Vann Associates LLC P.O. Box 4827 Basalt, CO 81621 RE: Rockfall and Avalanche Hazard Assessment, 705 West Hopkins Avenue Properties Aspen, Colorado Dear Mr. Vann: This report presents the findings of a rockfall and avalanche hazard analysis at the 705 West Hopkins Avenue Properties consisting of the three parcels adjacent to Aspen shown in Figure 1. The information in this report can be used to develop site plans that avoid and reduce exposure to rockfall and avalanche hazards, and identify areas where hazard mitigation will be necessary. Detailed mitigation designs and performance standards for mitigation can be provided at the appropriate stage of project design. Please contact us if you have any questions or if we can be of further service. Sincerely, 0249â€ž 4 . YA.ece Arthur I. Mears, P.E. Contents Objectives 1 Limitations .............1 Avalanche Hazarrl 3 Rockfall Hazard.....................................................................................................6 Rockfall Simulation with 2D Model CRSP 4.0 8 CRSP-3D Rockfall Simulation Model ...........10 RAMMS 3D Rockfall Simulation Model 11 Conclusions i Rockfall and Avalanche Mitigation Recommendations.......................................14 Tables Table 1 - Summary of CRSP 2D Rockfall Simulations ..................................8 Table 2-RAMMS Rockfall Model Sizes and Shapes .................................12 Figures Figure 1 - Site Location on Pitkin County 2009 Aerial 2 Figure 2 - Photo of Site looking south . 3 Figure 3 - Red and Blue Avalanche Zones .............5 Figure 4 - USGS Geologic Map of Site 6 Figure 5 - Profile View of Slope above Sitp 7 Figure 6-CRSP-2D Maximum Velocity for 2 ft. Rock..........................................9 Figure 7 - CRSP-2D Maximum Bounce Height for 2 ft. Rock.. 9 Figure 8 - CRSP-3D Rockfall Trajectories with Bounce Heights.........................10 Figure 9 - CRSP-3D Rockfall Runout for 100 Rocks (each size/shape) .............11 Figure 10 - RAMMS:Rockfall Trajectories and Velocities for 70 Rocks..............12 Figure 11-Rockfall Mitigation Line....................................................................14 Figure 12 - Conceptual Alignment for a Cable-net Combination Rockfall/Avalanche Mitigation Fence..................................................................16 Appendix A - Climate Data Appendix B - RAMMS:Avalanche Input Data Appendix C - CRSP-3d Assumptions & Results Appendix D - RAMMS:Rockfall Assumptions & Results Rockfall & Avalanche Arthur I. Mears, PE, Inc. Hazard Assessment Wilbur Engineering, Inc. 705 West Hopkins Avenue Properties i March 17, 2016 Objectives This report has the following objectives: a. Describe the rockfall and avalanche hazards at the site, including estimates of rockfall and avalanche sizes, runouts, probabilities and constraints on development. b. Develop quantitative models to simulate rockfall and avalanche processes using three-dimensional terrain based on a digital elevation model (DEM) from the Pitkin County GIS department. c. Apply rockfall models to simulate rockfall energies, bounce heights, and stopping positions. d. Apply avalanche dynamics simulation models to quantify design avalanchel characteristics, including runout distances, flow heights, flow velocities and energies. e. Describe the methods and findings of the above tasks. f. Provide general recommendations about mitigation and avoidance of rockfall and avalanche hazards at the site and describe their effectiveness. Limitations This report also has the following limitations which must be understood by all persons relying on the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report: 1. Avalanches larger than the design-magnitude 100-year return period avalanche are possible, will travel farther, and possess greater impact and static pressures. 2. Rockfall events occur sporadically and their size and timing cannot be reliably forecasted. Individual rockfall events can influence the size and frequency of future rockfall events, and may have either a stabilizing or destabilizing effect on adjoining rock masses. 3. This report is site and time specific. Rockfall and avalanche hazards vary widely with location and the findings of this report should not be applied to other sites. New data and methods will improve our understanding of rockfall and avalanche processes and mitigation measures in the future. 4. We have assumed existing forest, terrain and climatic conditions. Changes to these conditions could increase or decrease the hazards. 1 Pitkin County Land Use Code defines the design avalanche as having a return period of 100 years, or a constant annual probability of 1 %. This is a best half order of magnitude estimate of the true return period which lies between 30 and 300 years. Rockfall & Avalanche Arthur I. Mears, PE, Inc. Hazard Assessment Wilbur Engineering, Inc. 705 West Hopkins Avenue Properties 1 March 17, 2016 5. This report does not include any rockfall or avalanche mitigation design parameters. The recommended location of a combined rockfall/avalanche mitigation barrier fence and its effectiveness is provided, but its height and energy capacity have not been determined. . Â» . r. Pa 'i- , .,N .r . Ly p '3 0 1% =4Â» $%S 4, Vt. 1 4 24 - 4 e -t . . ./. p Â¥ 4 ~-*~ ~ 3 2 i I f 6 'i. . . ,Â· @l /7. . 47. "i 0. r. 4 L 4 - 6. ' i . e =r . Â£ 4 4 48 1., I 3.16 W. 1 5-I ' 41 . 0 100 200 ft. :,Â« 1 original scale 1"=200' contour interval 10 ft. -1- - 1 .- Figure 1 - Site Location on Pitkin County 2009 Aerial Rockfall & Avalanche Arthur I. Mears, PE, Inc. Hazard Assessment Wilbur Engineering, Inc. 705 West Hopkins Avenue Properties 2 March 17, 2016 y Avalanche Hazard Figure 2 shows a photo of the slope above the site that can produce snow avalanches. The linear clearing in the trees was created for a proposed tramway to serve a restaurant. The upper smooth rock slopes form the 1.1 acre starting zone2 with a slope angle of about 48 degrees between approximately 8,700 and 8,350 feet elevation. The track) includes the forest clearing and adjacent areas between about elevation 8350 feet and the valley floor at 7940 feet. The track varies in slope angle between about 38 degrees and 28 degrees. The runout zone4 is the gently sloping valley floor. L / 4 + .1*)r'/.irk/ .-. I ..i .fi . 4 , 4 -,t~ ' . t...4 .... f - I 1 2jui 3 -4 : 1 1 - Figure 2 - Photo of Site looking south 2 The starting zone \s where avalanches detach from the stable snow, increase in mass and accelerate. 3 The avalanche track is where avalanches reach and maintain maximum velocity. In this case, maximum velocity will approach 30 m/s (- 65 mph) in the track. 4 Avalanches decelerate and stop in the runout zone where a deposit of snow and entrained debris (trees, rocks, etc.) is left behind. Rockfall & Avalanche Arthur I. Mears, PE, Inc. Hazard Assessment Wilbur Engineering, Inc. 705 West Hopkins Avenue Properties 3 March 17, 2016 The avalanche hazard was evaluated using a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods, including: 1. Site observations of terrain, vegetation and surface conditions by Art Mears in October 2013 and February 2014; 2. Terrain analysis using high quality topographic maps and aerial photos from Aspen/Pitkin County GIS Department; 3. Study of Google Earth images dated 1999,2003,2004, 2005, 2006, 2010, and 2011; 4. Avalanche dynamic simulations using the Swiss program RAMMS: This program used two-dimensional depth average flow with a three- dimensional digital elevation model (DEM); 5. Our experience with snow avalanches in Pitkin County and throughout the Rocky Mountains. Figure 3 shows the Moderate (Blue) and High (Red) Avalanche Hazard Zones based on definitions in the Pitkin County Land Use code. Development is prohibited in the Red zone in Pitkin County. Development is restricted in the Blue zone. Different restrictions may apply if annexation to the City of Aspen occurs. 5 RAMMS - Rapid Mass Movement User Manual, Version 1.6 Avalanche, WSL - Institute for Snow and Avalanche Research SLF, Davos, Switzerland. Rockfall & Avalanche Arthur I. Mears, PE, Inc. Hazard Assessment Wilbur Engineering, Inc. 705 West Hopkins Avenue Properties 4 March 17, 2016 4.- - 4 . 74 1*.. c*~: 7.764.W),~5-,-2 44 4 4.- 4 f'er * ..~ 4 - - A<4*4c < )44.j@/~ 4' .7.- , 4, I , It<,34--t,t:f# 94f, A i~..9 16>X,-Â· 1 : L 2 P.ah:Itt . I I. â‚¬ -L~" . *.nyÂ£. ..../. , ./ 2, I 32.2 -04 . 3-- - 3 -Â»34+414,9, E â‚¬ .V - Ily.. -P==. i ' , ... .1, .,5 -&... .. . 1 p Vt-*4, ' 4'.4 , .5.. 7 .0%0 4/-2 E l â‚¬11. I I 4, C ... g.-'.li'Ji A-O .1.-Â» . 4174 $1*4930Â· 11 &0:$*:Mism, 9 rÂ»no; 4,4 40.,i ''0Â» f.Â« 4#Ft~~ - 5 : *I.*61' :T, p*%1Â»414+19. Â£ 2 . 96&,B-1 ft t<FLB~$~,7~~~+~46~'-6 - /43 1 . r. Â·4*,fir-9 "*+444* T.- w01 ,*Aiti,~2H,1:lii:,f.#I & 2-4.6 - T- 'BI, 1 241.1& 4,/3/lifictutr /:e i~Wee l ii yRIFE~.9-1,2 w*ki * 1-*ip 4 1% . f:*.rf;44.,AkÂ»%Â»6< 4*,...4*a*409 <teÂ¥*9*.0 AVALANCHE HIGH (RED) HAZARD ZONE is an area within which avalanches have return periods of thirty (30) years or Ie5s and/or will produce impact pressures of six hundred thirty (630) pounds per square foot (PSF) or mme. The high hazard zone is characterized by either high frequency, high impact presgre, or both high frequency and high impact pressure. AVALANCHE MODERATE (BLUE) HAZARD ZONE is an area within which avalanches will occur at return periods in exces of thirty (30) years and will have impact pressures of less than six hundred thirty (630) pounds per square foot Avalanche frequency and impact pressures decrease toward the outer limits of this zone. When large avalanches occur and run to the outer boundaries of this zone, they can be very destoctive in spite of their reduced probability and pressures. Topo and aerial provided by Aspen/Pitkin County GIS Department. 0 100 200 ft. Property Lines ale approximate, Original Scale 1" = 200' Arthur 1. Mears, P.E., Inc. Contour Interval 10 ft. Wilbur Engineering, Inc. March 18, 2016 Figure 3 - Red and Blue Avalanche Zones 5 ;-41 pl Ility ~ * 31 . j ~4 Rockfall Hazard Rockfall Source: The steep north-facing slopes can also produce rockfall events that affect portions of the site. The USGS Geologic Map indicates that the source rock is the dip slope of the Ordovician Manitou Dolomite (Figure 4). The predominant rock joint set runs N20'E and is near vertical. This well-defined widely spaced joint set defines the cliffs to the east of the site. A secondary joint set runs roughly east-west perpendicular to the bedding. This joint set forms several steps or "brows" from 1 to 4 feet high. Spacing for this less developed joint set varies from a few feet to 20 feet or more. The rock mass discontinuities formed by the jointing and bedding combine to form mostly tabular rock masses that are constrained to a sliding detachment mode. Blocky equi-dimensional rocks along the steps or brows that would be most prone to detachment are rare. Where present, these rocks are typically between one and three feet in average diameter. These rocks tend to be angular to sub-angular, so they generally stop within a short distance of their detachment location. j:.4 4 0,4 : (; / 1 24 't tr.*pqi.,P., ~fi,'......2:,..,14- L..1#,1,L,, Â»l Â»K' . 14, 1 ' 1 ..0 - â€¢11/4.> .Â«' :3.:70*-$14/,A SITE 3 ; 1 1 .-0 1%\ i fj 4 ./ 4 . E. 4 '14 j 44.4.. ' . 'Â·.1,1 . " ..5 6-* J..vjf:/ -*S'.: iiÂ·*i.:;Pa .~.E~..4/ . Â¢ i .0 P. 9.'.- 4:('.. X â€¢61. 14. . Vt.i It 1, â€¢%4)â‚¬]4; 4 54 ..3 .41 % 1 13Â¥ktâ€¢ Â·#27 22~ â€¢' 11 1 U t. t . 0 fi .., 4 L .P. /1. %7' . . ..4 crY .~ i ,~. ,/ r, i fl. r.im~ nu *1*&=91. : i At/ . , 2%4 . D. I $ '<. ' -~- } 4 ); 1.' 1 iÂ·<Â· 4; 03*#4 0 V , ,% .5 .. m k 4. 1; 1 1/ i #55 '.. M, 1 2 /7 1 ~ju< ,to z i? rÂ·\ ~Â· ~ i~ 1 *' 1 1/,N Z v 211 & 44/ . 0 AN~ E ~1 QtÂ£ 4 lij-K, 1 ..Nvai.T 2 . GEE Figure 4 - USGS Geologic Map of Site From: 1:24,000 scale Geologic Map of the Aspen Quadrangle by Bruce Bryant, USGS, 1971 Rockfall & Avalanche Arthur I. Mears, PE, Inc. Hazard Assessment Wilbur Engineering, Inc. 705 West Hopkins Avenue Properties 6 March 17, 2016 Slope Description: Below elevation 8500 feet, thin soil is developed and forest cover becomes denser. The size and number of trees increases further below elevation 8350 and the soil thickness becomes significant and is expected to dissipate rockfall energy. Any rocks that reach the valley floor will impact soils at adverse angles. As a result, rock runouts on the valley floor are expected to be short. â€¢el * , 7 U<6412#J)&. -/'=.'*nÂ£-/j*.*11 9. 0/51 - Figure 5 - Profile View of Slope above Site The rockfall hazard was evaluated using a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods, including: 1. Site observations of terrain, vegetation and surface conditions by Art Mears in October 2013 and February 2014; 2. Terrain analysis using high quality topographic maps and aerial photos from Aspen/Pitkin County GIS Department; 3. Study of Google Earth images listed previously; 4. Rockfall dynamic simulations using the 2-dimensional Colorado Rockfall Simulation Program (CRSP), version 4.0, the 3-dimensional programs CRSP-3D and RAMMS:Rockfall; and 5. Our experience with rockfall assessment and mitigation in Pitkin County and throughout the Rocky Mountains. Rockfall & Avalanche Arthur I. Mears, PE, Inc. Hazard Assessment Wilbur Engineering, Inc. 705 West Hopkins Avenue Properties 7 March 17,2016 Rockfall Simulation with 2D Model CRSP 4.0 Rockfall Simulations: \Ne performed computer simulations with the two- dimensional rockfall simulation model CRSP, Version 4.06. This model was used to quantify rockfall properties, including runout, bounce height, velocities and energies. Sensitivity studies were performed using a range of reasonable input parameters based on field observations of slope and source rock properties. The results of the 2D simulations are summarized in Table 1. Figure 6 and Figure 7 show the predicted maximum velocity and bounce height along the path for 100 2-ft. diameters rocks released. Details of the rockfall simulations are provided in Appendix C. Table 1 - Summary of CRSP 2D Rockfall Simulations base of 50 ft past 100 ft. base of base of base of base of slope base past base slope slope slope slope size wt. x=963 x=1013 x-1063 v-max vavg ht-max ht-avg (ft) shape (lb) % reach % reach % reach (lt/s) (ft/s) (ft) (ft) 1.5 sphere 300 100 2 0 56 33 7.5 2.3 2 sphere 700 100 36 0 62 43 8.3 2.8 3 sphere 2300 100 94 16 71 55 8.4 2.7 2x3 disc 2300 100 95 5 67 52 7.7 2.4 2x4 disc 4100 100 100 51 73 59 6.1 1.9 The CRSP 2D model predicts that spherical rocks will reach the valley floor and larger rocks (2-ft and 3-ft diameter) will roll 50 to 100 feet beyond the base of the steep slope. Field observations indicate that equi-dimensional rocks 1 to 2 feet diameter are the most common. Due to their blocky shape and the vegetation density, they stop on the steeper slopes of the site, consistent with the model predictions. Rocks larger than 2 feet tend to be blocky and short in one dimension. Since these rocks do not fall or topple from significant heights, they tend to stop near their release location of the 45 to 50 degree dip slope. The model results in Table 1 must be interpreted recognizing that the larger rocks are released with much lower frequency than smaller rocks. Thus, the annual probability of a large rock reaching the valley floor is estimated to be very low - probably between 0.2% and 1 percent (100 to 500 year average return period). 6 Colorado Rockfall Simulation Program, Version 4.0, Colorado School of Mines Dept. of Geological Engineering, May 1999. Rockfall & Avalanche Arthur I. Mears, PE, Inc. Hazard Assessment Wilbur Engineering, Inc. 705 West Hopkins Avenue Properties 8 March 17, 2016 150 100 Ma,dmum Velocity (ft/see) 50 0 0 205 410 615 820 1025 1230 Horizontal Distance AlongSlope (ft) Figure 6 - CRSP-2D Maximum Velocity for 2 ft. Rock (base of slope is x=963 ft.) 25 20 Maximum 15- Bounce Height (ft) 10 fÂ«,44 0, 0 205 410 615 820 1025 1230 Horizontal Distance Along Slope (ft) Figure 7 - CRSP-2D Maximum Bounce Height for 2 ft. Rock (base of slope is x=963 ft.) Rockfall & Avalanche Arthur I. Mears, PE, Inc. Hazard Assessment Wilbur Engineering, Inc. 705 West Hopkins Avenue Properties 9 March 17, 2016 CRSP-3D Rockfall Simulation Model Rockfall simulations were also completed using the CRSP-307. This software was developed between 2008 and 2012. CRSP-3D differs from the two- dimensional CRSP Version 4.0 in that it incorporates 3-D terrain into the modeling, and the underlying equations better represent the physical rockfall processes. Sensitivity studies and calibration procedures similar to those described for the CRSP 2D model were applied. Assumptions and input values for our CRSP-3D modeling are presented in Appendix C. Figure 8 shows the predicted rockfall trajectories along with bounce heights and energies for 100 spherical 2-foot diameter rocks rolled from the rockfall source area shown in Appendix C. Figure 9 shows a histogram of predicted runouts. None of the rocks are predicted to reach the valley floor. The runout predictions are consistent with site observations and the site history. No reported or documented rockfall events have reached the site. 1 k j 1- 1, 1 3 1 j . -- 1,2.-t-,~ 0 100 20C It. 0 100 200 ft. _ ori///cale l"-2/ ....al.ale 1'Â·-200 9: . .. .. conto,irintera !01, 1__1 _ ro~to"â€¢Inter~Pllolt 2, W 01 4 -- . - r. . . i. 1Â§ i - eN - i M. ; 1 - ....i I G k 1 8 . 1 C 0 S Li 1 9/ 1- , /1,1 1 IL lim Â§ 1 0 f , 2 00' oot 00: 00,,:~. 11~ 000 00Â£ 00~ (a) 2 ft. sphere (b) 4 ft. sphere Figure 8 - CRSP-3D Rockfall Trajectories with Bounce Heights (height scale is on left side of figure) 7 CRSP-3D User's Manual, Colorado Rockfall Simulation Program, by Rick Andrew, Howard Hume and Ryan Bartingale, Yeh and Associates, Inc,; Alan Rock, Summit Peak Technologies L.L.C.; and Runing Zhang, Advanced Numerical Modeling, Publication No. FHWA-CFUTD-12- 007 February 2012 Rockfall & Avalanche Arthur I. Mears, PIE, Inc. 1 Hazard Assessment Wilbur Engineering, Inc. 705 West Hopkins Avenue Properties 10 March 17, 2016 60Â£ DI ~" Â°fw oric U '#'11Â·41 ~,2.-,u'uii Â·i.â„¢, Ull/'~4Pells 00@b 00â€¢l Ot don 0,1, Con' 008 / 000 -4 1 ja ry I-le,glb 1 0 1 . 20 ,[ ft) lcOO 1200 1400 50 45 40 1 35 i 30 i 25 j , 2 ft sphere 1 20 ~- 14*3dsc . .-r -C- -1- , 795C 8050 815C 8250 8350 8450 8550 8650 8750 Figure 9 - CRSP-3D Rockfall Runout for 100 Rocks (each size/shape) (Valley floor is approximately elevation 7940 ft.) RAMMS 3D Rockfall Simulation Model Rockfall simulations were also completed using a newly developed Swiss program, RAMMS:Rockfal'8. This software is under development, but provides a fully three-dimensional tool to assess rockfall trajectories at the site. Unlike CRSP-3D, RAMMS does not include a statistical output, but instead produces a single unique trajectory for each set of rock, friction and terrain parameters modeled. RAMMS uses a hard contact rigid-body method that allows detailed realistic rock shapes and accounts for physical rockfall processes, including rock- ground impacts with sliding, ground deformation and energy losses. Table 2 summarizes the rock shapes and sizes analyzed with RAMMS and the percentage of rocks predicted to reach the valley floor (elevation 7940 ft.) Figure 10 shows the predicted rockfall trajectories and energies for 70 discoidal and 70 cylindrical rocks listed in Table 2. The runout predictions are longer than those predicted by CRSP-3D. The influence of the forest is apparent because the longest runouts coincide with the forest clearing. Despite the long runouts, the predicted energies and bounce heights are relatively low and well within the 8 RAMMS:Rockfall User's Manual, by SLFAA/SL: Perry Bartelt, Yves Buehler, Marc Christen, Lisa Dreier, Werner Gerber, James Glover, Maike Schneider, Centre of Mechanics ETH Zurich: Christoph Glocker, Remco Leine, Adrian Schweizer, September 13, 2013. Rockfall & Avalanche Arthur I. Mears, PE, Inc. Hazard Assessment Wilbur Engineering, Inc- 705 West Hopkins Avenue Properties 11 March 17, 2016 capacities of commercially available rockfall barriers. Assumptions and additional results for RAMMS:Rockfall modeling are presented in Appendix C. Table 2 - RAMMS Rockfall Model Sizes and Shapes Approximate Weight Volume Reach Shape Dimensions (lb.) (C.y.) valley Spherical 2.3' 1160 0.15 8% Discoidal 1.8' x 2.2' 1160 0.15 3% Cylindrical 2.3' x 2.0' 1160 0.15 0% p .6 #V 1/ 2â€¢3 1., 1 ., ..1 4 1 . ..1 + & .. h .r 14 /01'ER- *4 %1 -- -.....F 1 1. ./ . L 24. 11 4 . -1 4#/FiÂ·â„¢P 10 ht ' 9. 12 . p .S. 51 (a) cylindrical (b) discoidal Figure 10 - RAMMS:Rockfall Trajectories and Velocities for 70 Rocks Conclusions Based on the analyses and observations described in this report, we draw the following conclusions: Avalanche Hazards 1. Snow avalanches can reach the site and must be considered for site designs. 2. No development should take place in the High (Red) Avalanche Hazard Zone shown in Figure 3. Rockfall & Avalanche Arthur I. Mears, PE, Inc. Hazard Assessment Wilbur Engineering, Inc. 705 West Hopkins Avenue Properties 12 March 17, 2016 3. Development in the Moderate (Blue) Avalanche Hazard Zone is possible, but all structures must be designed to mitigate avalanche impacts. 4. Mitigation strategies for avalanches within the Blue (Moderate) Avalanche Hazard Zone are described below. Rockfall Hazards 1. The rockfall hazard at the site is low, but rocks from rare rockfall events can reach the valley floor. Factors that cause the rockfall hazard to be low include source rock size, shape, forest density, and the lack of tall cliffs that would enable toppling or falling initiation of events. 2. Rockfall events that reach the valley floor at the site will be of low energy (less than 500 KJ or 185 ft-tons) and have low bounce heights (less than 6 feet). Rocks are expected to stop near or above the Mitigation Line shown in Figure 11. 3. Artificial and natural clearings in the forested slopes influence rockfall runout and energy. Rockfall & Avalanche Arthur I. Mears, PE, Inc. Hazard Assessment Wilbur Engineering, Inc. 705 West Hopkins Avenue Properties 13 March 17, 2016 I. - I . ../.-Â· I a 31- ..44 4-,fâ‚¬6 Rockfall ---.444â‚¬ . f I 41 '2~_-3V-E- ,- Mitigation Â»*:,p T~ .EL,$4...~~ 1.9 47 . 7& I//1///--- Line , N e V. , 0 *~,~~2 14 -Â·g ./ 3+ 4/Wic,6.&'.. * I ellill 0. 'r I.I.--)*....J/. . A-d i.-0 7. . .~'* P i .... *,Â¢,01% ,- 0 0%, r" ' iÂ»â€¢2, 4'11*,th Py - . ./Â£d..'.'i ~4 *t * ff .:,4 e#{r: I'l.*4%91, 416 'ff/647Â£~19-1-Â¥ 2.Â¢6 0 0 100 200 ft. 1.. 6 + Original Scale r = 200 Con:cur Interval 10 ft, Figure 11- Rockfall Mitigation Line Rockfall and Avalanche Mitigation Recommendations Because both avalanche and rockfall kinetic energies will be relatively small on the flat terrain near the proposed buildings, we recommend a rockfall fence located as shown in Figure 12. This fence will arrest the design rockfall events described and also stop the design avalanche as well as providing storage for avalanche debris. After this fence is built to specifications that we will provide, the fence alignment shown on Figure 12 will also become the downhill boundary of both rockfall and avalanche hazards, as defined in this report. The following mitigation measures are recommended to ensure reasonably safe development of the site: 1. Site Designs - Avoidance of the avalanche and rockfall hazard zones is the most reliable form of mitigation. High occupancy areas, especially outdoor living spaces should avoid hazard zones. Rockfall & Avalanche Ar-thur I. Mears, PE, Inc. 1 Hazard Assessment Wilbur Engineering, Inc. 705 West Hopkins Avenue Properties 14 March 17, 2016 2. Architectural Designs - Minimizing building openings (doors and windows) on the uphill sides of structures within hazard zones will hazard reduce exposure. 3. Structural Designs - Buildings can be designed to resist rare impacts from rockfall and avalanches and protect occupants to a high degree. 4. Mitigation Structures - The relatively low energy rockfall and avalanche impact energies can be further mitigated with specially designed cable net structural barriers (fences). These barriers would shorten avalanche runout distances and stop rocks above their natural runout distances. If properly constructed and maintained, these barriers would effectively change both rockfall and avalanche hazard boundaries and enable a greater portion of the site to be developed safely. This method is recommended and the alignment is shown on 5. Figure 12. 6. Mitigation measures described above would offer a high level of protection against rockfall and avalanches to buildings, occupants and to persons outside of the buildings. 7. The north-facing forest above the site provides some protection against both the rockfall and avalanche hazards. The forest should be preserved and protected for this purpose. Rockfall & Avalanche Arthur I. Mears, PE, Inc. Hazard Assessment Wilbur Engineering, Inc. 705 West Hopkins Avenue Properties 15 March 17, 2016 Rockfall mitigation zone _~~ I -- - ' Moderate (Blue) Avalanche _~ ~ -i -al-=2- Hazard Zone limit 17 25/'m.: ,- f G 94 4 1 4--2.4 4 i 2 '... :P-J k Conceptual Alignment for , 1 Avalanche/Rockfall Fence 1 Mitigation - Hazard Zone limit --Â« 4/1 1 41 ' \- 8.Â·Lil.~Â£ â€¢â€¢ S.,Iltâ€¢/2/RDSâ€¢~ cr 'â€¢untâ€¢m-'.ch-#./.* ieicâ€¢c-â€¢Ae'l..,r.râ€¢,â€ž12,1,1,~-10, dl~*~.Câ€¢ 90â€¢-TIâ€¢Â·Â·i.â€¢$Â¢J,$â€¢ '.â€¢...........1/Ir;........IcÂ·......#....m~el ~ ... ..... ...'..i .....cueâ€¢c, .1. ;râ€¢,p.:i ...wi, .â€¢ toth 't .....-:Y *'r Â·ip.Â·TCâ€¢â€¢t$4. + AVALANCHE MODERATE (BLUE) H~ARD ZONE is aM area within which avalanches will occur at return periods in excess of tbirty (30) yearsand will have impad pressuresof lessthans,xhundredthirty(630)pound'persquarefuot Avalanche frequen~ and impact pressures decrease toward the 0Lner limitsof this zone. When large avalanches occurand run to the outer boundaries of th m zone, they can be ver,Â· 1 1 destructweinspiteoftheirreducedprobabil~andpressures Topo and aerial provided by Aspen/Pitkin CountyGE Department. Property/nesareapproximate 0 100 200 ft. Original Scale 1' = 200' Arthur I Wears PEr inc Wilbur Engineering, Inc March 17, 2016 Contour Interval 10 ft. Figure 12 - Conceptual Alignment for a Cable-net Combination Rockfall/Avalanche Mitigation Fence - (Height and strength of this fence has not been determined.) Rockfall & Avalanche Arthur I. Mears, PE, Inc. Hazard Assessment Wilbur Engineering, Inc. 705 West Hopkins Avenue Properties 16 March 17, 2016 Appendix A Climate Data ASPEN, COLORADO (050370) Period of Record : 8/ 1/1899 to 11/30/1979 25 20 15 ~ 1~ j#A...1#ilkl~ ~i~ ~ ~~A,?0 i Jan 1 liar 1 Mag 1 JuI 1 Sep 1 Nov 1 Dec 31 Feb 1 Apr 1 Jun 1 Aug 1 Oct 1 Dec 1 Day of Year Weltern - Extreme - Average ) Cliwte Reg ioâ€ž,7 1 Center ASPEN, COLORADO (050370) Period of Record : 8/ 1/1899 to 11/30/1979 100 95: 90 Â· 60 3 ./ 50 i 05 Uf. r 4 ./*Â·.-'.Z:rnÂ·-' 3 0 : 9 iv L.-<r-'-:-. 6.. ' A ./ . A Jan 1 Mar 1 May 1 Jul 1 Sep 1 Nov 1 Dec 31 Feb 1 Apr 1 Jun 1 Aug 1 Oct 1 Dec 1 Day of Year Western r Â·~ Regional - Extreme -- Average - Center eli,41 te Rockfall & Avalanche Arthur I. Mears, PE, Inc. Hazard Assessment Wilbur Engineering: Inc. 705 West Hopkins Avenue Properties A-1 March 17, 2016 Snowdepth (in.) /2633 '111: 1 =El Appendix B RAMMS:Avalanche Input Data --/ - 9- JACÂ« - k. 44**+Ar.L~ - LiÂ·h,A 4 . c.Billri i~ji# Illi:I /i,imdial/EN'**11:6:/11'll"LZ40"16 RAMMS:Avalanche Friction Assumptions Left is dynamic friction, Xi Right is basal (Coulomb) friction, Mu 14- U---rJ--1-1- -di.In="gul 21= lillimMillirbjililril.Allillik ~/&J~~/~i~~/ 1 11 5.f 1,4'. li~ q I RAMMS:Avalanche Dense Forest Areas (increases dynamic and basal friction) Rockfall & Avalanche Arthur I. Mears, PE, Inc. Hazard Assessment Wilbur Engineering, Inc. 705 West Hopkins Avenue Properties B-1 March 17,2016 -3.3.,2,1,1111-M' ~- ~Silmj:*Bra.67.**INA - - --1 ...1-Â· 21:p*mi*di ..*4 . ~ ...iirlmillller'lillllahifÂ·:A A-- lei .-1* ./imifil//4..3- 1/ - , ' 4 , p 0 1*s h. h 1 442 " - 4 i ,. ''L ~ C 1 i. thi 4 0 - 20Â¢. RAMMS: Avalanche Release Area & Height â€¢ 9 h P... , . A P . E- Â£ > 1 4...1 4 ' - lit aa<. 4 1,1 Â·34~*f TA- Jmf'Â· .-4 Â·I.14 i.fi I i. 1 3 4. RAMMS: Avalanche Predicted Flow Heights for 0.8m release Rockfall & Avalanche Arthur L Mears, PE, Inc. Hazard Assessment Wilbur Engineering, Inc. 705 West Hopkins Avenue Properties B-2 March 17, 2016 (2? 44 30.00 25.00 ./.St,- 'r - 4 2 20.00 0 1500 2 4 5.00 IA A ...0 -0 -0 - 0 1: .. 31.47 7 1 - 26.22 .. 1 -G 20.98 52 15.73 5.24 - ,=r--%/baimii'pl I 0.00 \ l, e, 1 4, 14..,9 4 W I. A -=-O -O"0 -O 0; .... .. 0 - .... . Ila . .. A. 8 . 0 . . 1- . 0 - 00 . * * I 00- - : - 0. Appendix C CRSP-3d Assumptions & Results 0 100 200. * Origin.Ilirale r -200 -or.:ou'ir.lenÂ·alto f i & 1, 0 I , fil- 1,4.4 4 1/r 3 1 61 11'4:Â· Â· NFAA, i ' 1- 1 112 1 i::4., : j/46 ~ ./ ./ Col .Ol. *.4 â‚¬42 1 I . 1 CRSP-3D Rockfall Slope Material Properties CRSP-3D Rockfall Slope Input Parameters Slope Material Color Hardness Roughness Release area - hard Red 0.9 2.0 Rock outcrop - hard Blue 0.7 1.5 Upper soil slopes Green 0.6 1.0 Lower soil slopes G rey 0.4 1.0 Valley floor Yellow 0.3 1.0 Rockfall & Avalanche Arthur I. Mears, PE, Inc. Hazard Assessment Wilbur Engineering, Inc. 705 West Hopkins Avenue Properties C-1 March 17, 2016 10' 11!-10 11""42 r q,I, 00~1 OOP[ 9 dry' (011 20â‚¬1 B ' . ODS unr cor m Shador,Mtn fly. . 1 - t i j 1 1. f 1 1 0 102 200 7 'J :oc 200 k C'glaÂ·â€¢cae ~--Xo O.,maiscer ; ertcur,rtchÂ·, ]0 fl --- - contoillteral./ C: 2 f I : 2% 5 8 m C 2 i C g 7Â£3 1. 1 1,1 6 1 4 . , I . I 1 lo. lir Co~ â€¢0,.. A * 0,Â·Â£ 1~4 (a) 2 ft. sphere (b) 4 ft. sphere CRSPJD Rockfall Trajectories with Energies (energy scale is on left side of figure) Rockfall & Avalanche Arthur I. Mears, PE, Inc. Hazard Assessment Wilbur Engineering, Inc. 705 West Hopkins Avenue Properties C-2 March 17, 2014 DIDI (Ji~ 1 ,)11,1 0.0 WZI 001 m IX, '>~ te~ 0)â€¢ oot 00~ 200 400 60 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 398 472 'T'%40 2201'~ Shad Mtn Appendix D RAMMS:Rockfall Assumptions & Results =-//9,~Li#/4 ' . 4*r 0 100 200 1 RAMMS:Rockfall Release Lines along "brows" (3 ft. spacing; 70 rocks) UL. L... .via- -I-'- -- --elt .i * 5 -b 2 . 71 4 '1 t.21 /: . I I - , $ C C . Â¤/ a * /0/ RAMMS Hardness Zones left = 'hard" rock; right = valley floor "soft" soil; area between is "medium-soft" soil Rockfall & Avalanche Arthur I. Mears, PE, Inc. Hazard Assessment Wilbur Engineering. Inc. 705 West Hopkins Avenue Properties D-1 March 17, 2016 1.99 /4 :- ..A ' Â«44 . A 42 , 4. 3 1 4 >j h. 9, 2 ;11!: I: 'I I ': .1 r .. N 7 1 O 100 2Do ft RAMMS:Rockfall Medium-dense forest areas .INVE j Mlitifil,7,98*. -?~i"amwir..;.*:711.- . -77;Fi~I .Ili~*Cl,ill:l 231V.#3i :I - . r ' . 1, 3*94 Â· 1 pÂ·I U- :-71. Spherical sub-angular rock bounce height and energy Rockfall & Avalanche Arthur I. Mears, PIE, Inc. Hazard Assessment Wilbur Engineering, Inc. 705 West Hopkins Avenue Properties D-2 March 17, 2016 P. -~Ii. 271.'9131,11- Ilill'lliallil..................AL:jgi:Flilrii#Mmillilill liallillillivl:lill'IllillisE Viltiw :Elillilli& .-*#- 4*7013/// C e. - ~(11,3 1~ ~//:%51 Discoidal sub-angular rock bounce height and energy Ill, 4~Â£2 *i~~ ;8-4 B 1'.1,%)/Il).'- 1~1. 17# ~. -ji - -r '2/194 WL-A - ........Mill - .LID â€ž0. .................5," ,1 nol Cylindrical sub-angular rock bounce height and energy Rockfall & Avalanche Arthur I. Mears, PIE, Inc. Hazard Assessment Wilbur Engineering, Inc. 705 West Hopkins Avenue Properties D-3 March 17, 2016 EXHIBIT Engineering Report: 705 West Hopkins Avenue Properties- PD Proiect Review 2 Engineering Report for 705 West Hopkins Avenue Properties Planned Development Project Review Aspen, Colorado Submitted To: City of Aspen Engineering Department 517 E. Hopkins St. Aspen, CO 81611 Prepared by: Sopris Engineering, LLC 502 Main Street Suite A3 Carbondale, Colorado 81623 SE Project Number: 16020 March 30, 2016 Engineering Report: 705 West Hopkins Avenue Properties- PD Proiect Review March 30. 2016 Table of Contents A. Introduction 2 B. Project Overview 2 C, Site Utilitip.9 4 D. Site Access 7 E. Drainage Analysis 8 F. Summary of Nature Hazards 11 G. Conclusion .12 Engineering Report: 705 W. Hopkins Avenue Properties-.PD Proiect Review March 30, 2016 A. Introduction This report has been prepared in support of the Planned Development Project Review Application associated with the proposed improvements located at 705 W. Hopkins Avenue. The information within this report presents our summary of engineering analysis and findings associated with the existing utilities serving the property, conceptual stormwater mitigation recommendations for the proposed site improvements as well as a brief discussion of the natural hazards and their impacts to the proposed redevelopment. Exhibits have also been provided as attachments to this report for illustrative support of this document. Further analysis and design of proposed utilities and stormwater mitigation infrastructure will be pursued in connection with the preparation of the Planned Development Detailed Review Application with final designs being provided in support of any future Building Permit Application. B. Project Overview The project site consists of three parcels totaling 19.6 acres of land; all of which are currently located within Pitkin County and include the Adjusted Gramiger Parcel and Lots 1 &2of the Amended & Restated Mary B Subdivision. Existing improvements include a 6,500 square foot home which is located on Lot 1 of the Amended & Restated Mary B Subdivision. According to the City's Assessor this building was constructed in 1989. An existing 1,500 square foot outbuilding and a 3,400 square foot residence are both located on the Gramiger Parcel and were constructed in 1968 based on the City Assessofs webpage. Both developed lots are currently accessed via two separate curb cuts along W. Hopkins Avenue. The project will include subdividing the existing three parcels into four separate lots with approximately 6.6 acres being annexed into the City of Aspen. The remaining acreage will be conveyed to Pitkin County for open space purposes and restricted from further development. Lot 1 will encompass the primary lodge and commercial components of the project made up of Buildings A, B&Cas identified on the attached Conceptual i Site Plan (Exhibit A). Lot 2 will include the affordable housing (Building D) segment of the project. Lot 3 will consist of a proposed trail, retaining wall, rockfall & avalanche mitigation and offsite drainage infrastructure proposed up-gradient from Lots 1&2 while Lot 4 will be dedicated as open space and restricted from further development. The proposed redevelopment contemplates a mixed use project with the primary component consisting of a luxury lodge. The lodging component of the project will contain 118 lodge units, 22 fractional lodging units and 4 free market residences. In addition, a restaurant, spa and retail space will be included as well as onsite , affordable housing and a below grade parking structure. The site is broken into 4 building clusters which all share a common underground parking garage which can be accessed along the west side of Building B and the north side of Building D as illustrated on Exhibit A. Right-of-way improvements are anticipated along W. - Hopkins Avenue and include streetscape improvements, detached sidewalk and landscaping. The Midland Trail is also proposed to continue through the project which will provide a more direct connection with the Marolt Trail System located along the west side of the project. Several easements have been identified on the Improvement Survey Plat and are described below: â€¢ Book 339, Page 499 (Rec. # 199749) is a 10-ft wide underground electric easement. This easement passes through a portion of Lot 1 of Mary B. Subdivision and the entirety of the Gramiger Parcel. Coordination with the Grantee (Holy Cross Energy) has taken place and it has been determined that 21Page Engineering Report: 705 W. Hopkins Avenue Properties- PD Proiect Review March 30. 2016 this easement is no longer required and can be retired. A quitclaim deed is currently being pursued and the abandonment of this easement through both parcels will be reflected on the Plat. ' â€¢ Book 493, Page 517 is a 25-ft wide electric easement that passes through a portion of Lot 1, Mary B Subdivision and entirely through Lot 2 of the Mary B. Subdivision. Coordination with the Grantee (Holy Cross Energy) has taken place and it has been determined that this easement is no longer required and can be retired. A quitclaim deed is currently being pursued and the abandonment of this easement will be reflected on the Plat â€¢ Book 493, Page 515 is a 10-ft wide electric easement that passes through a portion of Lot 1, Mary B. Subdivision. Coordination with the Grantee (Holy Cross Energy) has taken place and it has been determined that this easement is no longer required and can be retired. A quitclaim deed is currently ' being pursued and the abandonment of this easement will be reflected on the Plat. ' â€¢ Book 17, Page 61 describes several easements on Lot 1 & Lot 2 of the Mary B Subdivision Plat. o A 20-ft Utility Easement passes through Lot 2 and partially through Lot 1. No utilities are residing within this easement based on the improvement survey and therefore will be vacated per the Final Plat. 0 10-ft Trail Easement is located along the eastern boundary of Lot 2. This easement will be vacated and replaced with a trail easement proposed along the south side of the proposed development. 0 15-ft Trail Easement passes through Lot 2 and partially through Lot 1. This easement will be amended to encompass the proposed trail located along the southern end of the developable area. â€¢ Book 574, Page 211 is a 15-ft wide trail easement located within Lot 1. This trail easement will be vacated and replaced with a continuous easement along the southern end of the proposed improvements in support of the proposed trail improvements. â€¢ Book 544, Page 145 refers to a 5-ft wide easement located along a portion of Lot l's north boundary. This easement provides for future right-of-way improvements along W. Hopkins Avenue. This easement will be maintained â€¢ Book 21, Page 19 is a 4-ft wide easement intended for future roadway improvements for W. Hopkins Avenue. This easement lies along the north property boundary associated with the Gramiger Parcel and will be maintained. â€¢ Book 521, Page 384 is a Holy Cross easement in support of an existing transformer and is located along the western boundary of the Gramiger Parcel. The transformer provides service to the existing onsite residence built in 1968 as well as the southwest adjacent property. This easement and transformer will be maintained. â€¢ Book 21, Page 19 refers to the centerline of the existing irrigation ditch that passes through the western portion of the Gramiger Parcel known as the Si Johnson Ditch. The primary shareholder of this system is the City of Aspen. Three Trees Residences, Westchester Investments, Inc and the Forest Service also carry water rights in this ditch. Modifications to this existing ditch system will be required based on the current site plan to include adjustments to an existing head gate and open ditch that falls within the center of the West Emergency Access Lane. Any improvements to the existing ditch will be designed by a registered engineer and returned to a state equal or better than what exists today. 3lpage Engineering Report: 705 W. Hopkins Avenue Properties- PD Proiect Review March 30, 2016 C. Site Utilities This section describes our findings based on our coordination with utility providers. In addition, a Conceptual Utility Plan has been prepared and is included as an attachment to this report. The routing of proposed utilities will be further pursued as the project progresses towards Planned Development Detailed Review Application with final designs and alignments being provided in support of any future Building Permit Application. Water The City of Aspen Water Department is the provider of potable water for the subject property, Based on the ' existing conditions mapping there appears to be two separate water mains running along W. Hopkins Avenue. Water service to the existing residence located on Mary B Lot 1 appears to be extended from the water main running along the south side of W. Hopkins while the water service to the older building seems to be tapped to the water main that runs along the north side of W. Hopkins. These existing services will not be adequate to provide the required potable and fire suppressant demands that are anticipated with the proposed improvements. As such, these existing service lines will be abandoned at their respective water mains in accordance with City of Aspen (CON Water Department standards and new service taps will be required. The number of taps and locations will be determined based on the number of water entry rooms and meters that will be required to efficiently distribute potable water and fire flows to the proposed buildings. Preliminary Water Demand Estimates In support of gaining an understanding of the anticipated water demands for the proposed development preliminary estimates have been performed to estimate domestic water and fire flow demands as outlined below: Preliminary Domestic Water Demand Estimate A preliminary estimate for domestic water demand has been performed for this project in support of the Planned Development Project Review and coordination with the City's Water Department. The analysis was based on Equivalent Residential Units (EQRs) and a demand per EQR equal to industry accepted value of 350 gallons per day (GPD). EQR schedules based on the anticipated uses were referenced from Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) and Snowmass Water & Sanitation District. The results indicate an average day demand for the entire project of approximately 40,000 gallons per day. This value assumes irrigation will be supplied from the potable water supply system; however raw irrigation may be available via the existing Si Johnson Ditch that pass through the west side of the property. There are several entities who carry water rights within this ditch system to include City of Aspen, Westchester Investments, LLC (applicant) and Three Trees Residences with the City of Aspen being the primary shareholder. Further coordination with the Water Department and ditch company is anticipated as the project progresses. If raw irrigation is determined to be available then the domestic water demand estimated above will be found to be conservative. Table 1, provided as an attachment to this report summarizes the assumptions and results of this analysis. Preliminary Fire Flow Requirements Preliminary fire flow requirements were also estimated in support of the proposed development. The estimates were based on National Fire Protection Association requirements and the anticipated structure types proposed for the project. The results are illustrated within Table 2 below. 41Page Engineering Report: 705 W. Hopkins Avenue Properties- PD Proiect Review March 30, 2016 Table 2: Preliminary Fire Flow Requirements IFC :IRE FLOW REQUIRED SIZE STRUCTURE FLOW RATE 75% REDUCTION' DURATION BUILDING ISF) TYPE GPM GPM HR A 139,780 TYPE 11!A 5,500 1,500 4 8 26,285 TYPE 111B or TYPE Ver 4,250 1,500 4 C 20,431 TYPE Il IB orTYPE VIZ 3.750 1,500 4 D 24.018 TYPE WB or TYPE VE' 4,250 1,500 4 PARKING 222,300 TYPEI 5,000 1,500 STRUCTURE 4 1. Minimum Fire Flow Requirements #5 1,500 GPM. tri cases where 75% reduction results in flows lessthan 1,500 GPM, that minimum applied. 2. Type ve construction was used for Buildings B, C & D which provides for a more conservative estimate. Based on the preliminary estimate outlined within Table 2 fire flow requirements for this project are anticipated to be 1,500 gpm for 4-hours. Three existing fire hydrants have been identified on the existing conditions mapping that can assist in providing the required fire flows. These fire hydrants are all located along the north side of W. Hopkins Avenue and at the intersections of 5th & Hopkins, 6th & Hopkins and 7th & Hopkins. Further coordination with Aspen Fire District is being pursued to determine if and where additional fire hydrants might be required based on the proposed site plan. A request to obtain an ability to serve letter has been issued to the City's Water Department along with the estimated water demands outlined herein. Further coordination with the City's Water Department is anticipated as the project progresses towards Planned Development Detailed Review Application with final designs being provided in support of any future Building Permit Application. Sanitarv Sewer Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District (ACSD) is the supplier of sanitary sewer service to the subject property and surrounding area. An 8-inch sanitary sewer main runs along W. Hopkins and is installed at approximately 8-ft bury depth. 4" PVC sanitary sewer services are extended to each of the existing residences based on GIS ' mapping provided to us by ACSD. It is our understanding based on discussions with ACSD that there is a downstream constraint within the existing sanitary sewer main between 4th Street and 1st Street. This segment of sewer main consists of clay pipe that has already been lined. Improvements to this section of existing main may be required if it is determined that the sanitary sewer demand for the project exceeds the capacity of the existing main. In support of further discussions with ACSD preliminary sanitary sewer estimates have been prepared and are based on 1 EQR = 300 gallons per day. The reduction in gallons per minute as compared to water demands accounts for irrigation and consumptive use of the potable water demand which will not be conveyed to the District's system. The total number of EQRs estimated for water demands were used for estimating average daily sewer demands. The results indicate approximately 34,300 gallons per day. Further coordination with Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District is currently underway b determine the overall impacts this might have on the existing system. Final demand estimates will also be used to determine the sewer service sizes required to serve the project. The following are other items to consider as the project progresses towards final design: â€¢ Future landscaping plans shall require ACSD approval where soft and hard landscaping may impact public right-of-ways where existing sanitary sewer mains exist. â€¢ All existing service lines shall be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line in accordance with specific ACSD requirements and prior to any micropiling/shoring. 51Page Engineering Report: 705 W. Hopkins Avenue Properties- PD Proiect Review March 30,2016 â€¢ Below grade development will likely require the installation of a pumping system. Above grade development shall flow by gravity. â€¢ Plumbing plans for pool and spa areas shall require ACSD approval of the drain size. â€¢ Glycol snowmelt and heating systems shall have containment provisions and must preclude discharge to the public sanitary sewer system â€¢ Oil and grease interceptors shall be provided for all food processing establishments. â€¢ Oil and sand separators/interceptors shall be provided for all vehicle parking garages and elevator shaft drains. Plans for interceptors, separators and containment facilities require ACSD review and approval prior to building permit submittal. â€¢ All ACSD total connection fees must be paid prior to issuance of a building permit. Further discussions and coordination with ACSD will be required as the development progresses through the design and review process with final designs being provided for any future building permit applications. An ability to serve letter from ACSD has been provided as an attachment to this report. Shallow Utilities Shallow utilities serving the existing lots include electric, gas and telephone. The information provided within this section includes utility locates obtained during the improvement survey as well as discussions with the individual utility providers. Holy Cross Energy currently serves the site from two separate transformers. Transformer #3129-Bl 9 is located along the west property boundary and also serves the adjacent property to the west. This transformer will be maintained or will be replaced with a larger transformer capable of providing service to the proposed development as well as the neighboring property. The other transformer (#3129-817) is located along the northeast corner of Lot 2, Mary B Subdivision. This transformer provides power to the residential building constructed in 1989. A minimum of two transformers are likely going to be required to serve the project. The location for these transformers is currently proposed adjacent to the existing transformer #3129-Bl 9 located along 7th Street. Service can simply be pulled from the existing vault located within the area. The new vaults will be 6'x6' with a 7'xT pad. A 3-ft minimum separation shall be maintained between the vaults and a minimum separation of 4-ft shall be provided around the sides and back of each transformer. A 10-ft clear space shall also be provided at the front of each of the transformers. Easements will be provided for these proposed transformers and all electric improvements shall comply with Holy Cross Energy's standards and specifications. Comcast Cable does not currently provide service within this area; however based on conversations with staff it would not be difficult to extend service to serve the proposed development, Further discussions with Comcast will take place to better understand the work required to extend service to the project. Century Link Telephone currently provides service to the property via a pedestal located at the northeast corner of the site. Additional copper lines may be required to serve the development. These additional lines can be extended from an existing pedestal (Ped # 709) located near the alley along 6th Street. Fiber Optic service is not currently available in the immediate area and the nearest location is at the N. 6th Street and W. Hallam Street intersection. 61Page Engineering Report: 705 W. Hopkins Avenue Properties- PD Proiect Review March 30,2016 Black Hills Corporation (formerly Source Gas) currently provides gas service to the property via a 1.25" polyethylene service extended from a 2" steel main line that runs along the alley located between Main Street and W. Hopkins Avenue. This 2" steel main also runs along 7th Street which may provide for an additional location for future service lines. There are no gas mains running along W. Hopkins Avenue. Further discussions on size and service alignments will develop as the site plan progresses. Will serve letters from all shallow utility providers are included as attachments to this report. Further coordination and refining pedestal, transformer and service alignments will occur as the project progresses into final design. D. Site Access The site has integrated several pedestrian and vehicular access points into the site plan. These access points are further defined below and are illustrated on the attached Conceptual Site Plan (Exhibit A). Pedestrian Access The site design allows ease for pedestrians to access the property from a variety of locations. At Building A as identified on the attached site plan, the primary entry into the site occurs through an extension of 6th Street. A secondary entry has been located further west, with a tertiary entrance located on 7th Street, access by a sidewalk from Hopkins Avenue. At Building B, the primary entry occurs to the east of the drop-off area with secondary entry located along Hopkins Avenue, with a tertiary entrance located on the interior green space. At Building C, the entry has been located off this interior green space. Finally, at Building D (affordable housing), the primary entry has been located off Hopkins Avenue, with secondary and tertiary entrances located on the east and west sides of the building. All of these access points are integrated and connected with pedestrian circulation routes. Vehicular Access Aiming to extend the urban fabric of Aspen's grid, the projects primary vehicular entrance is designed as an extension of 6th Street. The extension includes a turnaround, designed with a 35' radius which will include valet service and the arrival/departures of guests and residents for Buildings A, B, and C. The parking garage may be directly accessed from the cul-de-sac, eliminating additional traffic on Hopkins Avenue. A secondary vehicular entry, planned for service and employee housing, is located at the eastern edge of the property which coincides with the lowest elevation of the site. Emergency Access Preliminary discussions have taken place with Aspen Fire Protection District as it pertains to access and fire protection infrastructure. Fire protection and emergency access has been considered and integrated from the initial site design of the project. The plan includes three access points for emergency vehicles; an access drive off of 7th Street (west end), the utilization of the 6th Street extension/drop off area (central) and an access drive off of Hopkins Avenue adjacent to the service entry (east end). Emergency Access Easements (20-ft) have been provided for these areas with minimum 16-ft maintainable drivable surfaces per discussions with Aspen Fire. 701 Street Improvements Currently the portion of 7th Street, south of W. Hopkins Avenue falls within a narrow right-of-way owned and maintained by Pitkin County. The applicant is interested in working with the County and City to determine what improvements might be desired to enhance the pedestrian experience and improve safety and drainage 71Page Engineering Report: 705 W. Hopkins Avenue Properties- PD Proiect Review March 30, 2016 conditions within this existing narrow corridor. The site plan currently accommodates widening of the available corridor to 40-ft. This will provide an opportunity to install two 11-ft travel lanes, an 8-ft wide detached sidewalk with 5-ft landscaping buffer as well as curb and gutter. Further discussions of what is preferred along this existing stretch of roadway will take place with the County and City as the project design progresses through the City's review process. Trail Improvements An 8-ft wide seasonal trail is being proposed as part of the development and will carry through proposed Lot 3 as illustrated on Exhibit A. This trail alignment is still being evaluated but retaining walls and some drainage improvements are anticipated. This proposed trail will provide an opportunity to create a trail connection to the Midland Trail System which could potentially reduce pedestrian and bicycle traffic on W. Hopkins Avenue by creating an alternative connection between the Marolt Trail System which currently terminates along 7th Street southwest of the project and the Midland Trail System which currently terminates at the southeast corner of the Little Ajax Townhomes. In order to complete this connection the City will need to continue the trail improvements through Lot 3 of the Little Ajax Townhome Subdivision which is currently encumbered by a conservation easement granted to the City of Aspen and Aspen Valley Land Trust (AVLT). The purpose of this existing conservation easement is to assure that the property will remain forever predominantly in its open space condition and to provide the grantee the ability to construct, maintain and repair one or more public trails on the property. Further coordination with the City Parks Department and AVLT is anticipated to ensure the design of both trail systems are seamless and the connection at the adjoining property line are well coordinated. E. Drainage Analysis The intent of this Section is to provide a brief outline of the existing drainage conditions as well as provide drainage mitigation concepts in support of the proposed development. Further analysis of stormwater routing i and water quality treatment will be required as the project progresses through the City's review process. Final details, construction documents and drainage report(s) will be submitted with any future building permit applications. Existing Drainaqe Description The project site is located at the base of Shadow Mountain and falls within Drainage System 3 as described within the City's Surface Drainage Master Plan (SDMP), dated November 2001 prepared by WRC Engineering, Inc. Drainage System 3 currently consists of street curb and gutter, roadside ditches and a network of storm sewer pipes. The primary storm interceptor pipe runs along Garmisch Street and includes several lateral lines that extend along Francis Street, Main Street, Hopkins Avenue, Aspen Street and Cooper Avenue. The main interceptor line terminates within the Jennie Adair wetland water quality treatment area next to Puppy Smith Street and the start of the Rio Grande Trail. Stormwater is then routed to the Roaring Fork River. Based on the capacity analysis described within the SDMP, Drainage System 3 is undersized; however this previous study was based on National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Atlas 2 rainfall data which included a period of record from 1948-1973 (roughly 25 years). NOAA recently released new hydrology rainfall records for the Aspen area. The new NOAA Atlas 14 provides data for this area through 2010 which is 40 more years of rainfall record that wasn't previously available. The new data shows approximately a 30% reduction in one hour rainfall depths than what was used in the SDMP and therefore there is likely more capacity within Drainage System 3 than what was previously considered. It should also be noted that based 81Page Engineering Report: 705 W. Hopkins Avenue Properties- PD Proiect Review March 30. 2016 on preliminary discussions with the City Engineering Staff the City is considering upgrading the primary interceptor storm pipe that runs along Garmisch Street as a capital improvement project within the next few years. Our study of existing site conditions, existing survey and aerial topography indicates that the site generally drains to the north and east towards W. Hopkins Avenue which slopes to the east. Stormwater runoff is then intercepted by curb and gutter, irrigation ditches and/or roadside swales located along the north side of W. Hopkins Avenue. According to FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map panel number 08097C0203C with effective date of June 4, 1987 the property falls entirely within the Zone X flood hazard area. FEMA designates Zone X as an outside the 0.2% (500 year storm) annual chance floodplain. URMP Requirements & Stormwater Mitigation Recommendations The City of Aspen's stormwater mitigation requirements are outlined within the Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP), dated December 2014. In summary, this document states that any development that disturbs more than 1,000 square feet shall be classified as a "Major Design" project. A project under this classification is required to design and implement onsite water quality treatment facilities and stormwater detention as well as onsite stormwater infrastructure that is capable of conveying stormwater through the site and to the City's storm sewer system without causing adverse impacts downstream. It should be noted that the City does not require onsite detention if the proposed development is directly connected to the City's storm system; provided the downstream system has adequate capacity to accommodate the increase of peak runoff associated with the proposed development. The proposed offsite and onsite stormwater mitigation improvements anticipated for this project are discussed below. Potential Offsite Improvements Offsite stormwater improvements are anticipated in order to safely convey stormwater runoff generated from Shadow Mountain and the proposed development to the City's storm sewer system. Anticipated improvements include an extension of one of the existing lateral storm systems that connect to the main storm interceptor line along Garmisch Street. In addition an offsite bypass drainage system is also being evaluated along the south side of the proposed trail connection. Each of these systems is discussed further below: Extending the City's storm system will likely be required in order to provide a direct point of connection to the City's storm sewer system. Two alternatives are currently being considered and include either the extension of the Hopkins Avenue lateral sbrm system (Option A) or extending the Main Street lateral storm system (Option B) to the subject property. These options are described below and anticipate the City will be moving forward with their Garmisch Street storm sewer capital improvement project. Exhibit C has been provided for illustrative support. Option A considers extending the W. Hopkins Avenue storm lateral system to the subject property. This existing lateral storm pipe system currently terminates just west of 1 st Street and therefore would need to be extended to serve the project. As illustrated on Exhibit C the extension of this storm sewer pipe would require the installation of approximately 1,980 lineal feet of new storm pipe. In addition, upgrades to the existing 500 lineal feet of existing lateral storm pipe running from 1 st Street to the main interceptor storm pipe along Garmisch Street might also be required. 91Page Engineering Report: 705 W. Hopkins Avenue Properties- PD Proiect Review March 30, 2016 Option B considers extending the Main Street (State Hwy 82) lateral storm pipe to the subject property. This lateral storm pipe currently extends from Garmisch Street to the west side of 5th Street and runs along the south side of the highway. As illustrated on Exhibit C extending this storm lateral pipe to serve the project would require the installation of approximately 970 feet of new storm pipe that would likely run south along 5th Street and then west along W. Hopkins Avenue to 7th Street. In addition, upgrades to the existing 1,750 lineal feet of existing lateral storm pipe running along Main Street might also be required. As mentioned above the City is currently planning on upgrading the Garmisch storm sewer interceptor line. Further coordination with the City is anticipated as it pertains to the potential upgrade of this main interceptor line as well as options for extending existing laterals to serve the project. An additional offsite drainage improvement that is being evaluated entails the installation of a bypass drainage system between the proposed trail and Shadow Mountain on Lot 3. The purpose of this drainage system is to intercept stormwater runoff generated from Shadow Mountain and safely route captured stormwater runoff to the proposed extended storm system along W. Hopkins described above. This bypass drainage system would consist of a concrete or grouted riprap lined channel integrated into the hillside and retaining wall with strategically located inlets along the back side of the proposed retaining wall associated with the proposed trail. Storm pipes could then be used to direct collected runoff around the development and towards the extended storm system proposed along W. Hopkins Avenue. Given the existing topography of Shadow Mountain and proposed alignment of the trail two separate bypass drainage collection systems will likely be required. These systems are identified as West Bypass Drainage System and East Bypass Drainage System as illustrated on Exhibit A. Conceptual Onsite Stormwater Improvements & Recommendations Onsite stormwater mitigation infrastructure will include water quality treatment facilities and onsite stormwater infrastructure primarily consisting of storm pipes, swales and inlets. As noted above onsite detention is not required if the site is directly connected to the City's storm sewer system and the downstream receiving system is capable of conveying runoff to the Roaring Fork River. Since the project is proposing to extend the City's storm system to the site onsite detention is not currently being considered. An onsite drainage system consisting of inlets and storm pipes is anticipated for this project. In addition, the project will include the integration of water quality treatment Best Management Practices (BMPs). BMPs will likely include green roots, bioretention cells, sand filter treatment vaults and possibly dry wells. A description of each of these potential BMPs are provided below: Green Roofs are structural roof components that filter, absorb and retain/detain stormwater runoff. The water quality benefits of green roofs include: biological uptake of stormwater runoff, evapotranspiration, moderates stormwater runoff temperatures, and reduces peak runoff rates and volumes by decreasing the amount of impervious area typically associated with traditional roof systems. Other advantages green roofs offer include reduced temperatures of rooftops, reduces air pollution, extends life of rooftops, provides heating and cooling effects for the building, presents an aesthetic improvement from a traditional rooftop and reduces noise pollution. The project is currently proposing green roofs to assist with reducing overall site impervious areas. The green roofs will consist of intensive systems (soil depth 6+ inches) which will be more associated with the roof of the below grade structure. This will provide opportunities for larger plantings to include trees. Extensive green roofs (soil depth 3-6 inches) will also be provided for some of the roofs associated with the 10IPage Engineering Report: 705 W. Hopkins Avenue Properties- PD Proiect Review March 30,2016 above grade structures. Collectively these systems will assist with reducing overall impervious areas as well as the other benefits outlined above, Bio-retention Cells are depressed landscaping areas designed to capture and filter and/or infiltrate the water quality capture volume from a contributing drainage basin, The soil matrix and plantings remove pollutants through a variety of physical, biological and chemical treatment process. Bioretention cells are potential water quality treatment facilities for this project and will likely need to be integrated into portions of the extensive green roof areas given the depth of grow media required for this type of BMP. Underground Sand Filter Treatment Vaults (SFV) are underground multi-chambered water quality treatment facilities designed to reduce total suspended solid levels of stormwater runoff through sand filtration. SFV design components consist of a pretreatment sedimentation vault, water quality treatment storage volume, sand filter media with integrated underdrain, and overflow compartment. Collected and untreated stormwater is routed to the pretreatment vault where large particles and floatables are removed by an integrated baffle wall prior to discharge to the filtration vault. Flows then begin to stage up within the filtration chamber to the designed water quality treatment water surface elevation providing driving head above the filtration media. Stormwater is then filtered through the 18" sand media layer before being collected in a perforated pipe underdrain. An orifice cap is attached to the underdrain collection pipe to ensure a12 hour drain time is achieved. Treated stormwater is then discharged into the overflow chamber. Stormwater flows larger than the water quality event bypass the sand media and are directly conveyed into the overflow chamber via a rectangular weir located at the top of the baffte wall. Sand filter vaults are anticipated for this project and will likely be installed within the below grade parking structure which will require the design of pumps to convey collected stormwater flows to the gravity storm sewer system. Dry Wells are a BMPs that incorporates manhole structures with perforated barrels at the deeper depths. Washed screened rock is installed around the exterior of the perforated sections. When sub- soils are capable of moderate to high infiltration rates, dry wells are considered to be a viable BMP. They dramatically reduce the increased runoff and volume of stormwater generated from surrounding impervious areas and promote infiltration; thereby improving the water quality of stormwater runoff. The required water quality capture volume for a dry well shall be 150% of the design water quality capture volume as outlined within Chapter 8 of the City's URMP. The design of all onsite stormwater mitigation infrastructure and water quality treatment facilities to include type, location and size will be further analyzed as the project design progresses with final designs being provided with any future building permit application. F. Summary of Nature Hazards A rockfall and avalanche assessment of the subject property was conducted by Arthur I. Mears, Inc. This document is titled Rockfall and Snow Avalanche Hazard Analysis for 705 W. Avenue Properties dated March 2016. In summary this report concluded the following: â€¢ Snow avalanches can reach the site and must be considered for site design â€¢ No development shall take place in the High (Red) Avalanche Hazard Zone 11IPage Engineering Report: 705 W. Hopkins Avenue Properties- PD Proiect Review March 30, 2016 â€¢ Development within the Moderate (Blue) Avalanche Hazard Zone is possible provided structures are designed to mitigate avalanche impacts. â€¢ Rockfall hazard at the site is low, but falling rocks could potentially reach the valley floor. Events that reach the valley floor will be low energy and have low bounce height (less than 6 feet) â€¢ Combined rockfall and avalanche mitigation is possible and could consist of installing rockfall barriers modified to resist avalanche impact loads. The proposed site plan currently complies with the study by removing all development from the Red Avalanche Hazard areas. A combined rockfall and avalanche fence is also proposed above the proposed trail lying along the south side of the development area. Further analysis of this mitigation infrastructure as well as additional measures will be conducted as the project progresses towards Planned Development Detailed Review Application with final design of all mitigation measures being provided in support of any future Building Permit Applications. G. Conclusion The information provided herein offers an overview of the proposed project. Utilities currently serving the properties include electric, sanitary sewer, water, telephone and gas. Cable service will be extended from 6th Street and fiber optic will also need to be extended to the subject property. Electric improvements will include new transformers that are currently proposed at the west end of the property. Gas, telephone and cable services will be further evaluated once the project demands are better understood. An existing 8-inch sanitary sewer main runs along W. Hopkins. A downstream constraint has been identified and will likely need to be addressed if the project is granted approvals. Further coordination with Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District is anticipated to understand other possible impacts the project might have on the existing system based on the preliminary demands. Estimated water demands have also been provided in support of further coordination with the Water Department to determine potential impacts the project and water demands might have on their existing system. Pedestrian, vehicular and emergency accesses to the site have been identified and rockfall/avalanche hazard mitigation and avoidance has been integrated into the proposed site plan. Furthermore, an overview of the anticipated drainage mitigation infrastructure has been provided in support of complying with the requirements as outlined within the City's URMP. Further analysis of site improvements will be evaluated as the project progresses towards Planned Development Detailed Review Application with final designs being provided in support of any future Building Permit Application. Prepared by: Jesse K. Swann, PE 12[Page Engineering Report: 705 W. Hopkins Avenue Properties- PD Proiect Review Attachments â€¢ Exhibit A: Conceptual Site Plan o Exhibit B: Conceptual Utility Plan â€¢ Exhibit C: Storm Sewer Extension Options â€¢ Water Demand EQR Summary â€¢ Will Serve Letters - L\---f f f f f ~ ~ ~ ~ , '~ ft:k.If- * 1, i / 73. r :4 8 ////f - l , Unf 423 - Uj Fi--3 . i e P.Â·' f Â·1 Â¥ 64 - f.1. -â€¢L 5LOCK 25 14.4 . -_L;-'T'lly Â¥ 2 PRO.... MtoBm.. -H'.Iff. 2 1 FRC,;05Â£DLOT.~IIA,C_AN 8&,1LOOAF=W F{* 71,151.,Irl,AM,Ovi*W..W' L.- â€¢4~fl~Ok,Ul,0*1â‚¬J~,liCâ€¢,uwaY' coio .M I.I.....0 '/ I. 'tiv,i --~~-0, 44*G"464 16.%-W, 0,0,10~D -,- -- -: 9. Pf,)(IÂ«,AriÂ»,ImMMfNIS .5~WER....=.. ILLIJSTRATM liA...~,AlrilrofÂ·WAÂ¥....]I / UN...TION~.0.ION' N ~tut - : d EAR 5!JOH.O.DITC}1 ' OPEN[.1(~-&.4 7. 1*T 6.1 . . CE " ~ ~~~~~~~~7---- L.1~ A N 15 HOC$,10*etAA-)iT ; 7 POR. Ii,SIRfET m.*.*HI.'415-~ %PiTI~4C- - , O iu~gclcTIor~ Â»-/ - k L ,/ Â· / 44 j\-- HOP=S Flluh nion,/ bE 'ERUIE~lory co - A. S.E. 6â„¢Sâ„¢rTTO / 1 12 ,' j I-- -f EXNBIreFORF~TMEnâ„¢F ON I 40/ FROUDE,0.17 CIWIAGE.,IMT.5 En./ TO 1 /11#\\11 /,~ h / 6 BU//INGA b BUILDINGS 41 11 ' f 'Ci C~NIRAiEMEAG~Nef fÂ»Â«46-/ / 72 j ~_~\09.,\ ;1 + li l_,r--z....1 1 -122.1Â» - L ' ' // 1 \/1 j ' 4HYAâ€¢.2/ ~I,UCEnc,ACCESS n -3 PRGPOSE'.6 viPRO.[Cl /10-*011~oa u~iur,i-iii .... H...i....Me** ---14 OPTIO' A 5rSâ„¢ Sh.,En'#86N PCINT ,d,IrCTION 101'ROPO~DE(~~~4~ ~ MITHEN..wnoN i~mINKLTQ UN~tAG :i 1 , BUILDINGC / LOT 1 4-, \ 1 1 ~94efantÂ£1~ =1 WÂ® AC 561 , 1- BUILDING D 1 LOT. \ 1 9 LITIEAJAX LOT. F 1 ; TOWNHOMESUBDIVISION N Â£; 2 q#li g ' L. - m /3 ~MIRY 1 % i . HI, f I mg 5 2 .El"PA. I . 0~INAGEsurâ„¢a / 2- -~ I LCINCE...../..., # , A -~034552: 8 i L ~|i ki ~T[~I.)ILA-WWTI~-* - /f /Â«\ \ 8 --1::/51 1....T LU LnT~ ,[TTLEUA* F~]WNâ€žDME ~ / %\ PROPOSED 8Â·#f Wl[]E rAAE A P~OPOSWAVALANCI~ 4--**.,A.ir,~.&-1 PlloPOSED150[1 _______________2:5/ i LOT4/- I PltOF.]SED 'CTNN,da WAIl #~-F ==â€žn i , 1 .,4. NOTES , -- 1 Lon - LIMI'504AOIE(lj ~OCK#UkAZARD 2ONE .RQUIED~,~1-I \ 1 'gl~TI,~S NOC~All j , f .,4.A'kil. I....7:-' ---- 1 Â£)A,1,1,~LECh,11*~in,1 MITIOATION FENCE .' ' I I 1 1/ 7------ 1.\ LOT 4 %.PROICT 'I - LOT 3 C .4.'*.....1 ' LITTLE AJAX , / I '0 Av.ANCIE , \ I H.....S / . 1 TOWNHOME SUBDIVISION / \ 3 2 ~'al '' 1 12 Ill' '/1 , 'AÂ·~ ~7 ./.â€¢ Â·Â·, iliw Ill J ..PHIC SCALE /- 1 \ 6 ; 1 'IN'kE,J OATE: 03-1/ i EXHIFT A JOB No, 100. {REDUCED FOR SUBIUITTAL) livo %70,1. Â·311 '9NIM AN dOH -M SOL ...Gwlro d 31IS 1Â¥nld30100 :V 1181+4X3 14 *,1 81,8 HIS S 3930100'N)dS'V 30 kLIO 1031'Wd [N31'yd013A30 C3NNÂ¥ld *-<Lif f - - I 1/ / I 'OCK 19 *LOCK 26 1~ M-*' a W r . 1 1 1 6 1)1511~14Waf MNNEI4/ '' 5=M .=1 1 60 'PART 2~INGWATE MaTO~M WM.g ll /*q.Y F A ' .. mN0.01 I f i r, ,/2.-46* : 1 -W,1 ATWIG*.1 W' I / .-~/.ICE Â·./CO'liD.~TE . a V B* Em ' 1~ PRO AP * t..... ......... S ' .4 - - 7.C -h. fl~â‚¬ *B. SYS 'BlU~FC~ I " m./6 4K j )%3,1- l;*4Â£0 Of p'*FEP C-i.WIN~ ..~INATiO,~1111= #41 wATERW.1,4~*DÂ«1[EPAR!6~1.1 ~*,s~,rue - 48 ;En,la Al~eglt*Â«65A BA C Fl,W ./.I~C.:I' 3 lu4Nil,YTO./.1/im APP~0, ,if tl' flk-~ v LE Ami* IN. I M,UN 75,2. ./kwATER'%'TO. 'D"/IN"Gil,5 .Ar.gs,Â«OA, :,4, Iiâ€¢.UNPEAOrÂ¥. ~PPILOX L .11(}NOFCDW0 -AlÂ£A- 7.7 + A!PrN WATE.....El.#I. UN,SuFPR mMS[ LD.110 \/ATIRM- ,DCA Or**/11~ ING -- G[} MAI# \ \ / U. h :112* 161 3 7.- c E.Wit, COAWA n. fIkS,NEIMIl r./ SI J....1. IEAOGATE .9 f if .VS JEJ U --1 * 11 - ~~ PROI,OSED~~TAÂ«~ 51%'ifER i./.=Ill=:I'Irce, /~STO 5EWE"m'.' 44.A~* INV I MI,IN 7921. APPRD)~1.t~IE~OC~ION~ 9% 4 'll ~-~ /1,15TIUG 0'4,~MA~, 101 - =fieÂ£ ' fÂ© 4/ .N{A i* ' t---- - - -- *_+ BUILDINGS 2-3- - - (]~5* V&).T 41 7 3 2 37 - 7'*x - AVAC22.1. r.h- Â»Str Â».92.1 9.1 1 0.4-- 1 1.1 a=-1190.~cwÂ«_ \ ,-r\\-7-7/ u MiRCh -- 9 -,1 . J I PRÂ¤PO D~PAil PROPD5,0grO-E.~RIO~trÂ®MOB-. ' ... 'SnUM _ I.W.. Ton'a>/10,0,Â©p..I -- BUILDING' ; Â¢ di P - 1-42 1 1 " 1 1 11 \ I - 9-7 / 2 ~ ~ Â«*A-~-~fOffÂ»-~ ~~ ~ tU\LD\NGC~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ LOMA LOT' ~-.-~ r~ 1 TOWNHOMESUBDIVISION | U.LEAJAX 1 ht 'u~=qi u r i_ - 1 r N W ./ fli =1 - WeST..AUD.NA025.m'J goâ€¢.C,piuA,4IGN~,f 'In i b Â· % \ h '-r.*-2/Il'",9,%#<-'%//m/~.-I../L---I--I---I-././52*%%SL-------------62/6/I . i LOT 4.L. ----- --1--- -=............m~- - -,-_-22.-4113 ---- -----244< - r J 1 W HOPKiNS --S=46- 14- 6, f 1 - CPTICUAOROMIDUBSTDAM...m./11 3- < 1 ./3 1 / --- -- ' i I' LOT 4 . 1 LOT: LITTLE..AX 1 -- GIUPHICS..LE , TOWNHOME SUBDIVISION / i,/ ~IN FEt[ 0 'Al: 03Â·UM I 1 Inch â€¢ 20 k JOBNO. 180. (REDUCED FOR SUBMITTAL, EXHIaff B arÂ¥[ 51Â¥111. Â·Dll 'BNIM33NIE)N3 5'ldos 93IlkEdeld 3AN3AV SNI>IdOH 'M SOL AgO.EXSam 1 S.1-Nvl-InSNOD HAID I 3'N3dSÂ¥ 30 Al!0 31Â¥0 AS NOLLVOrlddl A'Gl/,3B 103082 -iN31'ydoll/GO (]3NNÂ¥ld r Vld Al-Iltln 1Â¥11430NOO Â£3 ll8IHX3 . 1 4- "" ' 4 -9 â„¢ .0 2~ . ~ . n.34- Â·~ '~.H.I#*. :v F â€¢Ide. PROPOSED STORM SEWER EXTENSION OPTIONS - EXHIBIT C 0 100 200 400 e 1 inch = 200 feet ( at 11" x 17" reproduction) r UN. a - EXISTING STORM UNEâ€¢ - HOPKINS AVE. OPTION A -, 2 - SSâ„¢ ST. OPTION B 4~,~ 2 ~4~ ,-m~~ .,2 Fara<G~*~2*vt*~1*7.2. [~* OPnONA ,Â»EN- '.9 47$:kir/.1// m,;r~, ,_, -4,441* . OPTIONS f ~~9 ' 'i=<0'* A-~.a Ap -. *. Â«- ~CAPITALIMPROVEMENT 4 . 4mt Â£1 F- *EÂ·-Â® 9W ** 4~ 4.4 . b, hic,12-9. ... 4 g~ UPGRADE TO EXISTING LINEE h* 0 Â¥*04"*_ cm"ZIE;4" - --13* ~MW,qty- 4 .... 41 - , , Aaza, h>+ 9 8 .Â·es /915 4.%..awa# 4% A i 2.:22'll/JI' 4/Ir, Luillilimmi" ./ 31/7/1/Ad<r -- -Â· --4 :/* i *fil *1"/Flm:kef j;~2, ir/*1/8/kiLT:M*'% 68 f.-~%42-4~ .*,# 67914 9<2%'. 247 0: 7*9 17~31 1/pell.WI/61 4- L 4 +9 W . 4 4.39 4 . 2 9 -/.////.- L C tÂ». -- ':5 t -4.- '*01 I.. 4 4 1-- 4Â¢- S.AN:U=2 -13gis - 7 -7-,22 -- POTE .... . @::.lh.*2.- 14403* , At f-- 94 , 0 Z Lk , 4 g*/4- .4 - 6-99: 910 1 e.,9 IÂ» - 2 4-a M 4 4 kia . 24 *01, 1/2, 4/Â£.sÂ« N .-/F<1..; Mg"im .... 4 :-1 -V t . 44 29? formt 1, 1 '2 - 4- #Il-/fl E r> T A re/Â«- 5/67//48 12. Â»4414 '4*11- 6 - f / 2 -0.- #'.1~4~ S i -... bU f. Â·r., 4/T-/.- 2,4 a. 754= , - --34/#I. 7.2/"li , ). ./.9/7 * M 5*.MA#AL-9 -~ li 'ft, . Â¥23' .04 3.IA~, .... L OPTIO *EXISTING STORM LINES DIGITIZED FROM ASPEN/PITKIN GIS ~ .,al _ - 4/*1 4 isÂ»Â·Â· Ach 4.-'Â·Â·Â·Â·:2.7.2Â·. ~~RMI N~:599'1 12:~c'tt~Tl~ENTZTN 3/13/20;~~r ~ ~6*~#8~42 *22, ,~~~.~~~4 16020Storm160318 :Il~lll ; '/ 3 ' g BLE 1-Estimated Water Demand EQR Si Bry IRAFT PRELIMIINARY WATER DEMAND ANALYSIS JOB # 16020 March 15, 2016 Section A Section B Section C 6020 - 705 WhopkIns-Water Demand-1 Water Use per CDPHE, Reg. 43, Table 6-2 EQR per SNSD, Appendix A EQR schedule Unit Type Unit size Units Total Area Per capita Average Daily Total Unit Seats Unit Total Average Per capita 1 Description S.F. # S.F. gpd/capita gpd EQR EQR EQR EQR gpd gpd/capita (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) m (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) Lodge (unlimited) itandard 530 91 48230 75 6825 19.50 0.21 0.25 22.8 7963 88 Standard DD 575 0 0 0 0 0.00 ~Executive 795 13 10335 75 975 2.79 0.21 0.25 3.3 1138 88 '1-bedroom (kit & 1 bath) 1155 6 6930 75 450 1.29 0.21 0.40 2.4 840 140 -bedroom (kit & 2 baths) 2166 2 4332 150 300 0.86 0.43 0.40 0.8 280 140 -bedroom (kit & 2 baths) 3210 0 0 225 0 0.00 0.55 0.0 0 ,Jub Total lodging Facilities 112 69827 8550 24.43 29.20 10220 ractional Residences -bedroom (kit & 2 baths) 1605 14 22470 300 4200 12.00 0.86 0.8 11.2 3920 280 -bedroom (ki. & 2 baths) 2200 3 6600 350 1050 3.00 1.00 1.0 3.0 1050 350 ,4-bedroom (kit & 3 baths) 2541 5 12705 400 2000 5.71 1.14 1.4 7.0 2450 490 ]Sub Total Fractional unit Facilities 22 41775 7250 20.71 21.20 7420 dforable Housing -bedroom Dormitories (share bath) 712 13 9256 200 2600 7.43 0.57 0.4 5.2 1820 140 ~1-bedroom (kit & 1 bath) 725 10 7250 250 2500 7.14 0.71 0.6 6.0 2100 210 'Studio (kit & 1 bath) 500 3 1500 250 750 2.14 0.71 0.6 1.8 630 210 ;ub Total Afforable unit Facilities 26 18006 5850 16.71 13.00 4550 ;ub Total Lodging Facilities 160 129608 21650 61.86 63.4 22190 ~Lodging Office Service Staff Capita )nice (13) (14) obby Lodge 12 8597 15 180 0.51 0.04 0.20 1.7 602 50 obby Fractional 8 985 15 120 0.34 0.04 0.20 0.2 69 9 ~Ski Concierge 0.04 0.65 0.7 5 982 15 75 0.21 0.04 0.20 0.2 69 14 1Administration 3 1006 15 45 0.13 229 76 louse Keeping 15 501 15 225 0.64 0.04 0.20 0.1 35 2 tanquet 3 3048 5 15 0.04 0.01 0.20 0.6 213 71 ;ub Total Office Service Staff 46 15119 660 1.89 3.48 1217 1 .odging Amenities 4tness 120 2802 5 600 1.71 0.01 0.35 1.0 343 3 ipa 70 8404 35 2450 7.00 0.10 2.00 16.8 5883 84 (15) ~Lounge/Bar 250 2660 15 3750 10.71 0.04 266.00 0.40 10.64 3724 15 ;ub Total Lodge Amenities 440 13866 6800 19.43 28.43 9950 'otal Lodge Facilities 158593 29110 83.1714 95.3052 33356.82 ~Free Market (2) 010) 13-bedroom Single Family residences 1670 4 6680 350 1400 4.00 1.00 1.00 4.0 1400 350 (13) (16) , Dhild Facilities 30 2136 15 450 1.29 0.04 per 50 1.50 09 315 11 lassociated Commercial (15) testaurant 400 2756 25 10000 28.57 0.07 275.60 0.40 11.024 3858 10 (14) IRetail 8 487 15 120 0.34 0.04 0.35 0.2 60 7 iub Total Commrl Facilities 408.0 3,243.0 10,120.0 28.9 11.2 3,918.1 41,080.0 117.4 111.4 38,989.9 Notes Section A Project uses and square footage provided by others. Section B Standard unit water use per CDPHE, Table 6-2, Regulation 43. This table was used to calculate EQR's from the given unit flows of the associated classification. (l EQR=350 gpd Section C Snowmass Water and Sanitation District (SWSD), Rules and Reguiations, Appendix A, EQR Schedule dated November 22, 2013. This schedule was used to calculate unk flows from the given unit EQR's of the associated classification. (1 EQR=350 gpd (1) Various dwelling unit square footage from the Aspen Working F~ctiona Program Sheet dated 3-9-lâ‚¬ (2) Various dwelling facilities number of units, from the Aspen Working Fractiona Program Sheet dated 3-9-16 or assumed capita (note 13 (3) (Col 1 times Col 2) Given or calculated sub total and total square footage areas per classification (4) Unit gallons per day per capita from CDPHE, Table 6-2, Regulation 43. (5 (Col 2 times Col 4) sub totals of average water use in gallons per day per dassification (6 (Col 5 divided by 350 gal/EQR) sub totals of calculated EQR's per classification (T (Col 6 divided by Col 2) Calcuiated Unit EQRs per classification (8 Number of seats caculated based on 10 quare feet per seat per total facility square footage or per number of seats by classification (9 Unit EQR per classification from SWSD, Rules & Regulations, Appendix A, EQR Schedule CIO (Col 2 times Col 9) or (Col 9 times other EQR schedule-unit areas or seats formulas) sub totals of total estimated EQR's per classification (11 (Col 10 times 350 gal/EQR) sub totals of estimated water use in gallon per day per classification (12 Ceolll tdivided by Col 2) sub totals of calculated unit water use flow per classification (13 Assumed capita (number of person per facility description) (14 (Col 9 times Col 3 divided by 1000 5.F.) sub totals of total estimated EQR's per classification (15 (Col 9 times Col 8 divided by 10 seats) sub totals of total estimated EQR's per classification (16 {Col 9 times Col 13 divided by 50 seats) sub totals of total estimated EQR's per classification Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District John Keleher - President Stoney Davis - Member Joe Zanin - Vice President Jeff Yusem - Member Roy Holloway - Secretary/Treasurer Bruce Matherly - Manager March 18, 2016 Jesse Swan Sopris Engineering 502 Main Street Suite A-3 Carbondale, CO 80623 RE: 705 W. Hopkins, Aspen CO Dear Jesse, The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District currently has sufficient wastewater collection and treatment capacity to serve this project. Service is contingent upon compliance with the district's rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office. There are downstream constraints in the District's collection system to be mitigated and paid for by the developer. Once detailed plans are made available to the district, we will be able to comment specifically about this proposed project. Sincerely, ..Â·,7 .~ 0-7 Thomas R. Bracewell Collection Systems S uperintendent CC Bruce Matherly, ACSD District 565 North Mill Street Aspen. Colorado 81611 970.925.3601 FAX 970.925.2537 i lit j il! .1 13/7 W- D ; 4 All-3 . 2 212 i W- 11 :.: I .... SMH5 Private System *2Â»71. ~â‚¬â€¢ I L â€¢r,1 â€¢~, A-A- ~ 4ICA-Â·0Â·tr~. 2,0/ w - . .. .,1.t- 0 SM.H3 2 k -./- -747 rt SMH2 1 6~â€¢eâ€¢ C.-Il' Sâ€¢.â€¢114 2 .-*. CO Ar 'A * .1-. f. '- A-11.2 0~ J ~Â·/-$ SMH~ 42Â·00. â€¢.... ./.611Â·t ..â‚¬, =2=n..C 7 -L .../-q#Le- V J . 0 ..'/%401*n'-t.:1 .1 -. AÂ·11-1 ./0 A-11.1. c Â·ui % f - 2-4 - 205 W -â€¢ 51 2.'kâ€¢ 8.'wil-4 7 /2.-1 I - X.,12"I...... Â£2' D, A.1 â€¢Â·' 4Â· pvc 13Sw ).I 3/. c 4 31 W Hop"n, Avi. r.* -Ap..4.-- - CO SAWD, Co-ceon Â· Ily D A-12-3. r Â¥50 :415* HICÂ»ene AVI -- Se.te Cenrecton 180 0. A-12.3 4+ , 20 205 5 Thâ€¢/St 222 * *'I= A- -3 SeÂ¥U Cor-ckn 5,01Â¢~ Co~-tcrr 228 0. 4-1 2-3 â€¢Â· ice 133 I ~4*dri, 462 28' D 4.11-1. r â€žP 5--4 'â€¢L . U. Â·12Â·2Â· 4- pw - ibriaten. rs . M=..9. Aid 673 C A-â€¢ 1.1,4- vtp) 1.0./.2 4 0-0.rt :1,W ,*e,,..Â· S,rÂ¥. COFâ€¢Â·â€¢drl -0C-â€¢-- 218 2 Third 51. (314Â· C A., 1 1 ' VIP) 71.5 O~A,"A-â€¢ 4. ' ....cm'In: ' W D A.12-1 C Up 315 W Hool- Ave St'. I. C %,Al'A f ' Aâ€¢4 2Â·2 0 A-12-2 4"pvÂ¢ 3031" '40"'..2 ' 22 W , g: 219 S Tried St ...le' ccr......V Ser.,co C...Kt' 2. D A.122./ Pfc 0â€¢6'=â€¢ Cewa 265 0. LU-3 / Ho 237 W '10... Ave , ._ 00 i I.5 Z. Ce"Â«mer 221 W Mockâ€¢Â·. A, 0,6-12- r. w SI-Â» Col'-Cto' % D, A- ! t 736 * He~..Av. 125 D A-12.A â‚¬ ,-t 02 J 3,4 w /Tr:an 4 .5.v,0.co- ' 21 1 W )â€¢cÂ¢kh ./. 1/1/ NOF ./0.-/*â€¢-cl .~rA:- C----c'.â€¢re Ser,eICeÂ·nactionÂ· - 2-1 22/ D 4124< Â¥ N 06Â· D. A.,2-2 vq 5*r,/ Co-ectron; le D A-'2Â·2: 4' pvc luÂ· D A.12,2 4 ~ICP Â°A 2016 * /0144-4 Ave 5.r-, Ocr"=15=fl 350 W Hye,-1 * * 277" 3 A.12Â·A, 4 vip I ./.rÂ» Ccl.Â«.9 SUV.â€¢,~,Mâ€¢,1,4â€¢.: =D..c:tf.CA,Â¢p 5,~12' Ce.-c~A - =,Â¢ 0..2.~., 2:50, /Â·12Â·k.CM ~ ~~*~ 232 W Hyman Aie ... 6'1*' I- SerÂ«' con.'coon 12/0 612-1 8- CP " -12 /15-'41 51 - -*' .....St- Â»O:>AÂ·12-A 'Â·=P *ic, Ckâ€¢â€¢--/ Ir C A .2-1 .= ' ) Zj. W 'Ir.. A. 0-Vt C-- Ill ....1. r ./ 315. '+~*â€¢A'll 5-,4/ ./.Il'.. SeÂ·-vt, C--tÂ·=rv 125 0. OC>1 Â£ pvcklp/4 25*0 4,2. rup =21.- SHAREOSEI'ICE 3/W 14--/4 , 5.f... C*-.Ile. MO. Ill / -Uo SP'.RED .ICE 78 1/4 Cio/ TI i.v,CO Cconâ€¢J4 -1 INTO SCJA: 6- Yâ€¢$:~nÂ®, 1/1/ Hy SHAR ED 0 ERVICE1 233 W Hyman Bq-4 AÂ®in Ice Garden :== f /WAN 4 I D 80, / r- --Il') 121â€¢Â·.Ir- -1 31 U .,3 I M i LBARED SE"Ve 24 U:Me Cloud Tr , t,7.19.- Ge.Â·r, Cor,~â€¢Min: EC.3 .-Â£/.* 1 INTO E-3.A: 5 Yckv,-e 129 0 I.,â€¢ r c. ... 88-51 / ..0 6,4.... ..G 1-,- C-~-e S $ A--13 - - 5.-0 ...KE . f I ,0 ' 632-Â·199: v 4 â€ž it -. 1S 1 *AL peuq ueeq sew LUeaj]SUAAoCI ~ Bullsisuoo sjuie#S Je4; add Xep , 1-' m:*,nth St. Â· ,/ --1 - T 7 .....1-Â¥ h #.0'1287217 f--] 1 4/ jo:) 1 lafÂ«Cl c -F -. ~ 2, .-: I- -1 1, i L -f ho,as,4.~ ~B -Elz-2-22 ,#r--922~2L-//f -4--1 \ # r 1 /3.f Itt 11 ,/ ?ervIÂ¢â€¢ Conr,6Â¢Uon . 1=15.1 0 -<id/74- f f 4- -- - - 41: t D. All.5.1,4-pvc / - INN / r )3 . ' Sg-2 ~ - .--9-42[.919-9 4 1, 9 Â°s-n~/ 00 N_: 3- id_ 4-i i 2 -b d Â·: i.' d / - 1 1 h. 2--2- 4460-. 1-rE- \/ ,/ Ir-- nzigâ„¢'..- -- -207&215_South 940' %/3 4 l 71 I ..14 L r-j U Sir,fke 621,//en=L:~ / ,/8-4 *-cu~ j'~~ Lf--+Â©--1--_._4_11-5A 'U 41 ,37.-l.th # f 194Â·0,/Â·11/1.44 ' / 1/ t\ r-1 11 1 L INTOA-11-5*.6"pvc'- /'7 - i ~ .., i i j Ih - i j-Â·- j --1 co i- SHARED SERVICE , 201 8. Sovenel Str- / SS-1 -- U.1 Â»-4,1 1 1 H 11%12=%.m j Service Connection: 1 1 1 0 ' L - N r \ l 22 U, SS-1 Â· T 11 r.- --Cy -I.-- f 1 / E-7 r-1 - x 1/ i 1 , - ' 1 :,f -2.2.-1% #_i-l-- l,l-- .---4: l/v Nop ; i f g*10 r- #-1 . r 1 ho D.A.,14.1,0Â·010 e34 ~ ,;6,~r, ~# / // â‚¬*v.**= 71 i Jw~*~A--f_TYFf o u ~ :Jii l 1, \ 1; 1 r---- Â£ 1 I 7 - --411< i idir# 1 7 /2/ -------(tps AVE?-8 -~ t-rhM: 4 $ ~ \ 22,1 596th Seventh St 4 14'~ 0 - 4 / .......t Sarvice Connection: , f / --- - -- . I -LL Lt -- -r---c.,1-w. 1 92.9-SV-2 4~' pvc -- 1,0 A-tlÂ·1.rpâ€¢G k ~ ~Â·3 --i\\ -- ---4 L.--t7227;7T....4. A-12-7 1 -u-.* i / 1 ---121. -..ezzi 1 â€¢204. v / f ,- j,o. 47.*Ave 1 . 100. Hop# -- j>r' /Â· 1 e //rE/Lita"/44/w -i< --- - 0,01Â·Â·~rq Lodgi Cor,"~<: \ Stut'W .I.:bâ€¢:' 1,Â®. \.4.-4. 10~ 0. A-12-8. IÂ· pvc - 1- \-9 / l*-,43 A-10-6 --- 1 P .... 1 1 -Â·-j -/. .N.- - A-12-5 -J S&4 . 0------1 71@W.HopkInDAy.. *nt. Connct,on 26 C.A.12.8.4 /0 - 1 i h 1 \ 1 -, \ i L_-1 f 4 4 1 0 2---El -- - __. , Sy,WI /2*- i / \ , 11 27'D.,1,-12-5,5.1.8 -21.-1 ..........Il .le C ./1/ ' I. i 4 4, u 1 3$-2 f' PÂ¥0 / / -42- -- -9-1,1 =0=7.0,3,7/Â·"1 --- a 1 1 -Â·Â·Â· , 11 -U---3 1 2-:/ 300 5 .%.51 \ /1 /'l - *& Conr,cÂ®fL \ j ' OQI.Â·43.j.g..16 U.:ISÂ·4, 4- pu 1/ / / M~b, HA:,1 11Â§ U.50Â«4-A 1 L-*5 / r f 308 S. Seventh St I / -I K 1 Service Connec~on: _ 157' D, SS-5 4"pvc l ~ - l- 1 -1 -/ 1 1 4--0- 3 0 / f--- -JMN / , \ i - --91.1-.-I----7 2 \ 1 1 i \ 3 f , \ \\ 1 1 DOA / 1 / / Vowmine tcp Connection ~ ~ , 1 1 1 1 1 \ 1 1 - L_-Fl Black Hills Corporation b#;I/tol/#,f' 6/l. t LUL'.fc, 'C 51 March 11, 2016 From: Carla Westerman Black Hills Energy 0096 County Rd. 160 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970-928-0407 To: Jesse K Swann, P.E. Project Manager Sopris Engineering, LLC 970-704-0311 ext 43 RE: 705 W Hopkins, Aspen, CO Dear Jesse: The above mentioned development is within the certificated service area of SourceGas. SourceGas has existing natural gas facilities located on or near the above mentioned project. At this time it appears that these existing facilities have adequate capacity to provide natural gas service to your project, subject to the tariffs, rules and regulations on file. Any upgrading of our facilities necessary to deliver adequate service to and within the development will be undertaken by SourceGas upon completion of appropriate contractual agreements and subject to necessary governmental approvals. Please contact us with any questions regarding this project, and with a timeline of when you would like to proceed with your project. Sincerely, Carla Westerman Construction Coordinator Black Hills Energy : 4 CenturyLinkâ„¢ 44 6, Stronger Connectedâ„¢ 03/09/2016 Attn: Patrick S. Freeman Cisneros Real Estate Coral Gables, FL. 33134 RE: 705 W. Hopkins Avenue Properties To whom it may concern: Your request for facilities to your property at 705 W. Hopkins Avenue and within CenturyLink's serving area will be provided in accordance with all the rates and tariffs set forth by the Colorado Public Utilities Commission. Connections to CenturyLink facilities are contingent upon the customer meeting all the requirements of the Utilities tariffs that are in effect for each requested utility service at the time the application for service is made by the customer and formally accepted by CenturyLink. Connection requirements may include provisions for necessary line extensions and/or other system improvements, and payment of all applicable system development charges, recovery agreement charges and other fees or charges applicable to the requested service. Although CenturyLink diligently seeks to expand its facilities as necessary to meet anticipated growth, CenturyLink services are provided to eligible customers at the time of connection to the facilities on a "first come, first served" basis after acceptance of the customer's application as described above. In certain instances, our facilities and capacities may be limited. Accordingly, no specific allocations or amounts of CenturyLink facilities or supplies are reserved for service to the subject property, and no commitments are made as to the availability of CenturyLink service at future times. Sincerely, Jason Sharpe Senior Field Engineer 970-328-8290 @omcast July 14, 2014 705 W Hopkins Ave Attn: Patrick S. Freeman Cisneros real Estate Coral Gables, Fla. 33134 RE: 705 W Hopkins Ave Aspen, Colorado Please accept this letter as confirmation that Comcast of Colorado/Florida, Inc. has the ability to provide cable service to the captioned location. The provision of service is contingent upon successful negotiations of an Agreement between the developer and Comcast Cable Communications, Inc. Should you require additional information, please contact Michael Johnson. I can be reached at (970) 930-4713 or by email at Michael_johnson@cable.comcast.com Sincerely, Â»il~ cu-Â§) BOM- Michael Johnson Construction/Engineering Comcast Cable Communications This letter is not intended to give rise to binding obligations for either party. Any contractual relationship between the parties will be the result of fomlai negotiations and will only become effective upon execution of the contract by representatives of the parties authorized to enter into such agreements. During any negotiations, each party will bear its own costs and will not be responsible for any costs or expenses of the other party, unless separately agreed to in writing- 03/21/2016 RE: 705 W. Hopkins Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Mr. Swann: The above mentioned development is within the certificated service area of Holy Cross Energy. Holy Cross Energy has adequate power supply to provide electric power to the development, subject to the tariffs, rules and regulations on file. Any power line enlargements, relocations, and new extensions necessary to deliver adequate power to and within the development will be undertaken by Holy Cross Energy upon completion of appropriate contractual agreements and subject to necessary governmental approvals. Please advise when you wish to proceed with the development of the electric system for this project. Sincerely, HOLY CROSS ENERGY Chris Bilby, Engineering Department C C h Â« dA Z APPENDIX C SLOPE ANALYSIS MAP OF: EXHIBIT 705 WEST HOPKINS AVENUE PROPERTIES 1 / S SECTION 12 &13, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 85 WEST OF THE 6th P.M. - - COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO 1 OF 1 - PROPERTY AREA(SQ. FT.) SLOPE RANGE (%} SLOPE AREA {SQ. FT.) 34 1 LOT 1 (GROSS) 118,428 0-20 92,514 1 AUTOCOURT -6,430 20-30 3,174 4'ACCESSALONG HOPKINS -1,505 30+ 14,SOS LOT 1 (NET) 110,493 SLOPE AREA TOTAL 110,493 \\+ LOT 2 (GROSS) 24,906 0-20 10,469 1 1 1. EMERGENCYACCESS EASEMENT -2,878 20-30 2,361 30+ 9.195 LOT 2(NET) 22,028 SLOPE AREA TOTAL 22,028 - \4 44 1 -C tl .,1< 7 #-- LOT 1 (ZONED UPD) 118,428 SQ. FT. +/- \ \ 2.719 AC +/- - 242\ h. N*%44 - 1 ..~ix U . \ I \ < h /f - ~ 1 ~-)~,~~il < ./ li IOT1 4 4/ 6 Slopes Table 7 ~1 Â« I. Number Minimum Slope Maximum Slope Area Color -1 229 - . 1 3- 1 0.00% 20.00% 92514 ~ - 1 Jl -Wft -/Iv r- + 2 20.01% 30.00% 3174 5.-\ ... 1; I i 3 30.01% 99999.00% 14805 ~ , 4% / 2\ //ff [OT 2 r Slopes Table /1 Â° M ~ /0~ Number Minimum Slope Maximum Slope Area Color 111 \\ 1 4-k 1 0.00% 20.00% 10469 . 2 20.01% 30.00% 2364 % 9,1 \, T 2 (ZONED AH/PM~ ' M P.9 4 7 04~- /1;/45/0 ,906 SQ. FT. +A 3 30.01% 99999.00% . 0.572 AC. +A 62\~ LIrr Â« -i-- \ </0. b 4 LOT 3 ' (ZONED UPD) 4 \\%. 56,460 SQ. FT. 1.30 1296 AC. +/- -71 L)45 -- $ 1 j .21#~iÂ«..../3 fjj i.ll'.&-Â»~Â¤::~ 9 -9~~ y.-% - ayea------V-23\\ C~ 11 f %23-6-J - GRAPHIC SCALE 30 0 15 30 120 (IN FEET 1 SOPRIS ENGINEERING - LLC 1 inch = 30 ft. CIVIL CONSULTANTS 502 MAIN STREET, SUITE A3 NOTICE: ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY LEGAL BON BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY WlTIIll THREE YEARS CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623 AFTER YOU FIRST DISCOVER SUCH DEFECT. IN NO EVENT MAY ANY ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECr IN THIS SURVEY BE COMMENCED MORE THAN TEN YEARS FROM THE DATE OF CERT'ICAION SHOWN HEREON (970) 704-0311 SOPRISENG@SOPRISENG.COM GRK 16017 3/28/2016 G \2016\16017\SURVEY\Suruey DWGs\TOPO 2016\13156 SLOPE ANALY5!5 srrE REVIEW 2016.dwg -- --, PUBLIC TRAIL EASEMENT AGREEMENT THIS PUBLIC TRAIL EA.;EMENT AGREEMENT (the "Easement Agreement"), is made and entered into this 3 *Elay of Jet , 2005, by and between Dr. Billy Ray Eubanks and Bonnie Jean Eubanks (collectively "Grantor"). and the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF PITKIN, COLORADO. a body corporate and politic ("Grantee"), RECITALS: 1, Grantor is the record owner of certain real property known as Lot 2 of the Hefner Subdivision, according to the plat recorded April 15, 1985 in Plat Book 17, at Page 11, in the real property records of the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County, Colorado (the "Property"); and 2. Grantee manages public trails in the Aspen, Colorado area and desires a trail easement across the Property to complete the connection of a soft surface pedestrian trail from Shadow Mountain to the Music Associates o f Aspen Campus located on Castle Creek Road in Pitkin County; and 3. Grantee desires by this instrument (a) to accept said trail easement subject '* Â® to the restrictions set forth herein, and (b) to assume certain responsibilities in tur,Â® 4 connection therewith. 0 (21 AGREEMENT 2 NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants and ~ agreements set forth herein, and for other good and valuable considerations, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, Grantor and Grantee agree as follows: 1. Grant of Public Trail Easement. Grantor hereby grants, transfers and conveys unto Grantee and its successors and assigns forever, for the use and benefit of - the general public, a perpetual non-exclusive easement and right-of-way over and along a fifteen (15) foot wide strip of real property which lies seven and one half (7.5) feet on either side of the centerline alignment generally depicted on attached Exhibit A (hereinafter referred to as the "Public Trail Easement"). Said easement may be used by Grantee for the construction and maintenance of a soft surface trail. Not less than thirty (30) days prior to construction of the trail, Grantee shall have the trail alignment staked on the Property. Grantor shall have the right to verify that the alignment of the trail shown by the staking is substantially in the location shown on Exhibit A. Upon completion of construction of the trail by Grantee, Grantee shall have a centerline description of the as-built trail alignment prepared by a licensed Colorado surveyor, shall attach said as-built centerline description as an Addendum to this Easement Agreement, and shall re-record this Easement Agreement with the Addendum attached. 1 03/200 02: 471 510925 AL& A DRE PITKIN CCLNTY CO Grantee hereby accepts the Public Trail Easement in an "as is" condition, subject to the restrictions herein contained, and subj ect to all patent or latent defects or problems of any kind or nature. Such acceptance does not preclude improvement or maintenance activities within the Public Trail Easement insofar as such activities may be allowed or required by this Easement Agreement. 2. Trail Use Restrictions. The Public Trail Easement shall be used exclusively for non-motorized travel by the public, and for no other uses or activities whatsoever. No motorized vehicles of any kind shall ever be permitted on the Public Trail Easement, excepting equipment used to construct, enhance or maintain the trail, and emergency vehicles when necessary. The trail shall not be paved. (a) No camping, fires, firearms, no stalking or harassment o f wildlife, no noisy or otherwise offensive behavior, no trespass onto adjacent private lands, and no commercial uses shall be permitted on the Public Trail Easement. (b) The trail may be used only between the hours of 7 am and 9pm. (c) The Public Trail Easement is hereby declared to be part of the City of Aspen and Pitkin County Trail Systems, and the use of the Public Trail Easement shall also be governed by the rules and regulations and other provisions of the Pitkin County Code addressing trails, as such rules and regulations may be amended or recodified from time to time, provided always that the provisions of this Public Trail Easement shall control wherever they are more restrictive than the provisions of said rules and r- Â® e regulations. Ir, 4- LA Q N Â°26 al N Co (d) Grantor shall have the right to name the section of the trail that is included 0 12 in this easement. Grantor shall inform the County of the selected name and County shall r- T A post one sign at each end of the easement setting forth the name selected by Grantor. LD a s S - 0 (e) Grantee shall provide and maintain in good condition, reasonable signage : = along the portions of the trail crossing the Property that shall alert trail users of bear - activity and include the following language: "Private Property, No Access, Wildlife Protected". -=-8 3. Public Trail Easement Care and Maintenance. Grantee hereby assumes responsibility for and agrees to maintain the Public Trail Easement in a " clean and attractive condition at its sole cost and expense, unless the need therefor is c caused by Grantor or its successor in interest in the ownership of the Property, in which -,- case Grantor or its successor in interest shall perform the maintenance or care so required. Grantee's maintenance responsibilities shall include, but not be limited to, trash and debris removal, keeping the trail clear of obstructions incompatible with its purpose, grooming as needed, controlling erosion and water runoff, and general care and maintenance. Grantee may contract with a responsible third party to carry out these care and maintenance requirements, which contract will not change or alter any of these 2 2:471 SILVIA DAVIS PTN (Cl NTY requirements or relieve Grantee of any of its responsibilities under this Easement Agreement. Grantor hereby informs Grantee that the trail easement crosses areas which are susceptible to avalanche and rockfall hazards and Grantee shall construct, maintain and operate the trail and provide warning signs in an appropriate manner taking such hazards into consideration both for the users ofthe trail and the protection of persons and property below the trail. 4. Enforcement. Grantee agrees to enforce diligently all covenants and use restrictions set forth herein. Notwithstanding the foregoing, uses by the public that violate the restrictions contained herein or in other applicable trail regulations may be considered a trespass and Grantor retains the right to pursue a civil claim in trespass and/or for injunctive relief against those who violate such restrictions. 5. Grantee' s Obligations to Defend, Hold Harmless and Insure. The parties expressly acknowledge that the Public Trail Easement is granted for a "recreational purpose" under C.R.S. Section 33-41-101, M. seq., and that Grantor is entitled to the benefits, protections and limitations on liability afforded by Colorado law governing recreational easements, including without limitation said Section 33-41-101, Â£1Â· seq. By granting the Public Trail Easement, Grantor shall have no obligation to repair, clear or otherwise maintain. the area within the Public Trail Easement, or to insure or indemnify Grantee or the public for ally injury, claim or damage to any person or property, whether alleged to have occurred as a result o f use of the Public Trail Easement for public non-motorized travel or otherwise, or due to the condition of the public trail. 5 Grantee further agrees, as a material provision o f this Agreement, to add Grantor LD % 9 (and its successors and assigns in the ownership of the Property traversed by the Public g m - ~ Trail Easement, or any part thereof) as additional named insureds on its comprehensive S Â¥ 2 General liability insurance policy, which insurance shall be maintained by the Grantee to LO a.Â® provide protection against liability from claims arising out o f the use o f the Public Trail 8 Easement. Such insurance shall be carried in amounts not less than the liability limits 4 specified in C.R.S. Section 24-10-1140), as it may be amended from time to time, and u shall provide Grantor and its successors and assigns with thirty (30) days advance written notice prior to cancellation or termination. Grantee shall, upon written request therefor from Grantor or any successor or assign, provide a Certificate of Insurance as verification of compliance with these requirements. 6. Attorneys' Fees. In the event the interpretation or enforcement of this Public Trail Easement Agreement should ever become the subject of litigation between Grantor (or its successors and assigns in the record ownership of the Property traversed by the Public Trail Easement, or any part thereof) and Grantee, the prevailing party shall be entitled to an award of its reasonable costs and attorneys' fees incurred in connection C--= therewith. 3 2005 02: 471 -L#.A DAGS #ITKIN COLK-Y CO 1 7. Binding Effect. This Easement Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns forever including all future record owners of the Property traversed by the Public Trail Easement, or any part thereof. The benefits and burdens hereof shall also run with the title to the Property and all parts thereof traversed by the Public Trail Easement. This Easement Agreement may only be amended by a writing 1 signed by Grantee and by the then record owners ofthe Property traversed by the Public Trail Easement. 1 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands and seals as of the day and year first above written. 1 07Â£ a (0-44,4 DE..Billy Ray Eu a s 1 Bonnie Jean EÂ® anks STATE OF 23%&7,9426<27 ) ) SS: COUNTY OF /9-41,.,_6531//%,1 The foregoing instrument j~ me thi~Bailay of~~1Â£/Of--40 2005, by Dr. Billy Ray E#panis and Bon*@ime~n Eubanks. Witn~s my hand and ottlp Â·:i y My,~mmission4@~* zgÂ¢E~ - I 3Â»j~f 1 NKtary Public 510925 06/03/2005 02: 471 Page: 4 of 7 SILLIA DAVIS PITKIN CO_ Tr 0 R 0.00 D 0.00 1 4 1 GRANTEE: 1 A, T ST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PIT COUNTY, COLORADO Â· atti 16-1 - 8- ...............44..M....a......P'........................... By: .....1..............................'................1- .... Jean#tte Jones # Patti Clapper, Chai# De*ty Clerk and Recorder STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this Br-d' day of Juxe ,2005, by 9 rAM /4Â£64<- C. Cole ?fi My grulmssion El@ras ./1#1*u""i ig)uess my hand and official seal. 6- 3/ M~ ission expires: 061141207 :41 ...~. 3%111 : 2 -,CS.1-3.-Jaj!:9- r ~-a- - coaÂ£3 .. N~96 Public 1 i ll-}# 11[. -lilli lilli -1 1 -ill l. Ill ill Ill'll'll'll 510925 Page: 5 of 7 06/03/2005 02:47; SILVIA D VIS PITKIN CO_..TY - 1 R 0.00 D 0.00 1 EubanksTrailtemplate -final (3 1805).wpd 1 5 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PUBLIC TRAIL EASEMENT 510925 imillm 111 mil il 11 ittitimmi 06/03/2005 02: 471 Page: 6 of 7 SILL .A DAL.S PITKIN CCL.TY CO R 0.00 D 0.00 6 =2 ..' 4 16'*V=-*/Z~ 6 67~g&.5.Mmu4**44 -. Mt?i! Er=. - A- *aCORSu>k=-2>42 _ - -:/ 1 6 \.\ . 1 ---7, --1 - ... - - -I - rew ' a. ---- 22. t.-G+S#47:ft 1.--0- 3-- 41-1:-- L.-4* - ...ty'.fi-I Â· Â· . 1 e*373- a v.~4222. -03--tâ‚¬ 321,0 0.-rlyGEX-k:*t~ " A 4%59# :,93<r,qf +T~~5%~Sf# =.2,=g>tp#. 8-3.13* eff -N- i, th *SA-, i-E:Z.e=. ..1- --: *6~4-:/2 -:M:ask: " 54*f' :75:.2. .-NigA9EJ- *764 9 M#.fifi..4-46 -*_ -ik3Â£ -34223-f<Â©42=: 0-0: F.33~' ,Â·-2-2r --2Â·'p --4, - - - -1 .-- . -- -9- -- . 4 ./ * St'.- 44 -'8-*34~ -:. 5-9 ' .Â·- 'I.VAÂ¢3?4%1*22il21455.91:9*~ , 4-- _Â«jÂ¢iC- 1%- ..14/4,4ft .6,!f-' . .- ...A 's*f 6-~13-*~.At~â‚¬ . Nevii 2= 6 jBON,1 3~" 1%/KREg)*9:5JikET-/~-eat Â·LÂ·-,<- J.-2*~airw-#zi~.~~I*#W,~M. 'L .-. 13+Z)Â£*r: 2'/~.-:~~igr~E GWE)-74.~ ~*FL#8*41--911~~,44&r&- $ W ,- ....2,&-7- v . - kN~-P~7~~7:6~ f< 0 & 27*7H #,5p~&~~~.2-Â·*4~4**2*. -9.2*W'-Vr 'dj~W-, 4*,Ad?~-Â» - .E-4 ' - A ~~/~ir~~0*4-~~~~~~04 1-/ . -6 1 u ~5, 1 -' -'/ *. Â· /# I I - tâ‚¬299 Fc -* . A# 4 / 1 Â£ 47 4 4 -- '-7.42**~0'- t ' . W , . I jil 14Â£ " ' - A . p . , , - . ,8 1 + '.% ~Â£32354- wy Â· te . . y -1.13 '1.-9 71-9.. ' e - Â· C 4.44 I 11- _ .../A.9=r .* Â·Â· -e '4, 1 1. STâ‚¬yZ fll- .. 9 - ~-1 - 0 . 4 7 70 r I Â£71. r ' I - _ a .:. â€¢ & 3 -10 - ... n y. 9 - 1,1. C , M'. 1 I '04Â·Â· .//1- I . Â· .-rÂ» . . -5. C A k-- . 41"â€¢ .. , - = Â¤-r ;Ii-Ii! ' 4-Â· - Â·: 4 94 -- 9 4. 711 Ul . . 4/6. ' ~Ai~;1~1 F.A - .F 1 4 I ' I . 7 . g - 1 - -19, rr -Â» 9:..... ' ' ./ I~ he ID 5 9 9 =62 (acces f 4 .:05, acÂ£9 . - 7 - 9! t.. 2 0 ' . -0 1,-4* -rÂ·, " :,~.~ff Zi- L ~:4- ." 4 A 1 2 0 = rlÂ· 44.. 6%~M~ <w-Â· LEA. , 4-446 . - *5 4%42 i--657 Â· r & .' I-. - U; El. Â® .1 .teitim ~):al, .*t .Â· E 5 " . 1. - - . .4.,- 0 f . 1 - , .#p 4 - . , .1 . Ce~ .4 ./ 15 ..Â·4.1-- .771//AE'.-â€¢. ..5. . 74 .... 4 '. - 1 -19e= . m . 4 -a ---7...04'B+5Â£*. .. ' K. 1. 1 + - 1. . i. 1 9..2, 1 ,1 I 29 * 6 69/ + #~1 - - spr-aa>i#r- . - - -' 44#Rfar .4 -' - Eitijac"/6/*8:3124%94Â£62 'L . -3/9bsalgiatfp - 50< 29:E3,gfi.~3:=.p,...I.â€ž44~S-~,M-MN.VOFILNX,$L<Lpm#+EJER&U# re,- t iÂ»*TY#R,E~htht~2~ -26<-1-â‚¬ewi-*#f ri.Â·.':,- -.0 PMEPF#Â£4#tomwvt, 69 1 9*sm* This map was prepared by the EXHIBIT t| This map/drawing is a graphical representation City of Aspen-Pitkin County GIS Department. of the features depicted and is not a legal representation. The accuracy may change February 7,2005 depending on the enlargement or reduction. Â¢ 32Â¢00 lllllllll S 2004 City of Aspen-Pitkin County 0 125 250 500 Feet ' 1 *Â·1,!1'J 1 2 141 2:47 [ t.6 FITKIN CCLNTY -J R 0.00 1*4 --4 6,%44Â¥ . EXHIBIT CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY COMMERCIAL SPACE IN LODGES JURISDICTION: City o f Aspen EFFECTIVE DATE: November 9,2015 WRITTEN BY: Jessica Garrow 4 Long Range Planner 6 APPROVED BY: Community Development Director ~ Chris Bendon, COPIES TO: James R True, City Attorney Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Purpose: The purpose of this Administrative Policy is to clarify how commercial spaces within a lodge are counted for purposes of net leasable calculations. Applicability: This policy applies to all properties and land use applications in the City of Aspen. Background: The Cormnunity Development Department often receives inquiries from project applicants wondering how to count certain common or commercial spaces within a lodge. These questions arise when projects include a com-mon area for the lodge, such as a breakfast room or lounge, or include more commercial- style spaces such as a bar, spa, or restaurant. Policy: Commercial spaces within a lodge are considered net leasable area for the purposes of all calculations and mitigation. To be considered a commercial space, it must have one (1) or more ofthe following: 1. A distinct or proprietary identity separate from the lodge. This identity can be established through unique advertising, branding, logos, etc. 2. Separate ownership or a separate lease from the lodge that make the commercial operation distinctly different. 3. An entry from the street that is distinct and separate from the lodge entrance. 4. A contained space that primarily functions for food and beverage service. 5. Be larger than what is typically expected as an amenity in proportion to the lodge. A final determination for each individual space shall be made as part of the land use application. Administiative Policy - Land Use Code Reliance Page I of3 Examples: Sky Hotel.- The 39 Degrees bar at the Sky Hotel is considered a separate commercial entity from the lodge operation. It is accessed through the lodge lobby and the pool area, but it has a separate identity from the lodge and is a separately contained space. St. Regis: The St. Regis includes a number of internally accessed stores that are considered commercial spaces, including an outdoor outfitter~ retail spaces, a spa, and separate restaurants. These spaces have their own commercial identity. While they are associated with the lodge, they are set up to function separately from the lodge. In addition, the spa area is larger than would be typical for a standard lodging amenity. There are common lounge areas and meeting rooms throughout the lodge that are considered "associated lodge" spaces as they are sized proportionate to the lodge use and are. access from within the lodge. Some of-these areas serve food and beverages to guests and the general eblic, but their main function and purpose is an amenity for the lodge guests. Little Nell: The Little Nell includes a number of internal and external commercial spaces. The Ajax Tavern and all the spaces located along Durant Ave are considered commercial spaces. They have unique identities and have separate access from the street. Element 47, the restaurant in the hotel, is also considered a commercial space. Like 39 Degrees at the Sky Hotel, it is only accessed through the lodge, but it has a separate identity and is a separately contained space. The lounges, conference rooms, and interior bar areas are considered "associated lodge" as they are of a size expected for a hotel, primarily intended for the lodge guests, and are only accessed from within the lodge. Hotel Jerome: The J-Bar at the Hotel Jerome is considered a separate commercial entity from the lodge operation. It has a separate entry from the street and has a separate propriety identity from the lodge. This is in contrast to the hotel bar in the center of the building that is considered "associated lodge" space. While the space is accessible by the public, this area is accessed only through the hotel, does not have a separate commercial identity from the Hotel Jerome, and is not a contained space like 39 Degrees or Element 47. Base 1 Lodge: The Basel Lodge currently has Project Review approval for a lodge with two commercial spaces on the ground floor. These were considered commercial spaces separate from the hotel because they have separate entrances off the street and are designed to be the leased to another tenant, or at least operate as separate entities from the lodge. The basement includes a bowling alley, which was considered "associated lodge" space because it is intended as an amenity for the lodge guests, much like a fitness room or conference room might be. At the time of approval it was not intended to function as a separate commercial space - while some public use may occur, it is primarily intended for use by lodge guests. Hotel Aspen: Hotel Aspen was approved with an updated breakfast area. This is accessed through the lodge, is not a contained space, and is intended as an amenity for lodge guests. In addition, it does not have its own distinct commercial identity. Limelight Hotel: The Limelight includes a large common area by the check-in facilities. This area functions as the breakfast area and lounge for the hotel, and provides food and drink to the general public. It is considered "associated lodge" space because it is primarily an amenity for lodge guests, and Administrative Policy - Land Use Code Reliance Page 2 of 3 does not have an entrance or identity that is separate from the lodge. It is also not a separately contained space, similar to the Hotel Aspen breakfast area. The Gant: The Gant includes a building called the Molly Campbell Conference Center. This stand- alone building includes meeting spaces, an area for catered meals and a grab-and-go station for lodge guests. The building remodel and expansion was considered C'associated lodge" because it is primarily intended for and used by lodge guests and the conference center is proportionate in size to the lodge use. Policy Effective Date: This Administrative Policy was provided on November 9,2015, and shall become effective on November 9, 2015 and is valid until such time as the land use code is amended to implement this clarification or for other purposes. Administrative Policy - Land Use Code Reliance Page 3 of 3 OVERALL LEVEL 3 PLAN LODGE NET LIVABLE AREA = 41,241 , NET LEASABLE AREA = 0 SF OVERALL LODGE NET LIVABLE AREA =- 9,238 SF, OVERALL NET LEASABLE AREA 11,647 SF NET AFFORDABLE AREA = 6,038 SF NET AFFORDABLE AREA = 15,680 SF ' 705 West Hopkins Proposed LOT 2 ILOT 2 14 i~i- 04 ~ AFFORDABLE HOUSING - 6,038 SF r AFFORDABLE HOUSING - 15,680 SF r 11 \ - TOTAL . 15,GAO SF 1 =Wl :3:A e lkS 1 LOT 1 ~ 1 k~ ~~ W ,-1 ~ FREE MARKET - 6,113 ILOT 1 ** (Per net lot area of 94,101 sf) 359 316- i i - LODGE - 28,128 SF . FREE MARKET - 6,002 SF DESIGN 1 i L=.26,9 F=- ANK F rÂ« a dt~. - LODGE - 70,365 SF -7 M fwri: -P'. FRACTIONAL - 38,873 SF | .d.Irj/--- 1 11=- 1, 1 CL- COMMERCIAL - 11,647 SF / 1 -*%- 1 / \ OVERALL LEVEL 2 PLAN LODGE NET LIVABLE AREA = 46,766 SF, NET LEASABLE AREA = 0 SF PARKING LEVEL 2 NET LIVABLE AREA = 0 SF, NET LEASABLE AREA = 8,099 SF EE9 Â¤25 NET AFFORDABLE AREA = 6,038 SF / 1 ZOJ LOT 2 9 COMMERCIAL - 8,099 SF : *I 131Lk.,1-311*~ - '. m 8 1 1-1-2~ 0 0 - AFFORDABLE HOUSING -6,038 SF / 1//d/al IIi=Il 1,1 0 E --' 100% SUBÂ·GRADE alâ€¢~ rm-- , fl 03 49\ 1 1 CO / M// ~~ ; Mâ€¢ prl,-1 F.3\ U, < 2 US 0 FREE MARKET -OSF ~ if - 11111111 4 k- O ~ LODGE 34,647 SF 4--7 .,1-1 J 0- - A 0=1----JbL~ CH\ - r-7 -=61/1 41 \..\ FRACTIONAL - 12,119 SF i- \ I COMMERCIAL-OSF |' ' 1 6 -=- El FtÂ· rpiat' 1 \ 9% 1 2 01 , . . U Le \ 1"1 . 1 \ 4....%27 . *..*../- ...1 1 #'IMFE,51 -- L....j Lu<--\ ../. - 1SIUE - ---------- 2.- \ ./ LAND USE APPLICATION / \C / KEÂ¥ MAN OVERALL LEVEL 1 PLAN LODGE NET LIVABLE AREA = 21,232 SF, NET LEASABLE AREA = 3,548 SF PARKING LEVEL 1 NET LIVABLE AREA = OSF, NET LEASABLE AREA = 0 SF NET AFFORDABLE AREA = 3,604 SF LOT 2 : I [Il[Illilli IlillITI]TUTTL -0 - SMEET TITLE f iltil 1--1 n n-1 ~ AFFORDABLE HOUSING - 3,604 SF \\ , NET LIVABLE / "' 100% SUB-GRADE / -2--3~1 Â« MLÂ» 27-1 \ 44 ' 18 ~|_IM|-11111 2'f '"" D -1 9 1 NET LEASABLE LOT 1 CALCULATION tia- â€ži.i-z_. 41.1~11JI~I1 up Pul- 2 -1 1 /11'..4 faa fu2-*rl wn I ./FREE MARKET 0 SF l--- 1 1 \ DIAGRAMS .) 9.111111 -Alillim.El.17Â»20 L 1 1 1 1 1 91 1 1 Al --1 ~:=A i ati - LODGE - 7,590 SF < ~ _ : NEVISIC)4 I No. Descrip#In Date 1 1/ - r- FRACTIONAL - 13,642 SF ~ Â· -1 --Ef: 1 1 -Ul-1 I 1-110 1 11 1 -rm.3 \ 3-9.7 r==a==mmrâ€¢r 1 --~--7 r u.- COMMERCIAL.3,548 SF . 11-r . '..11 i \it \ i If*41 - -- .-*. . 1. L - 14043000 1-lk / .. / 06 APR/6 [SkE: ATE /1 .. ..ak.6- U - SMEET AO G3.01 ad/NO nNaAV OVERALL LEVEL 3 PLAN LOT 1 - OVERALL AREA = 60,303 SF, I 2 - OVERALL AREA = 8,974 SF LOT 1 - OVERALL FLOOR A = 181,974 SF, LOT 2 - OVERALL AREA ,018 SF r-Emmr-1 f =fÂ«bflt --Â«rÂ»agÂ»Â»Â«99-_---, 91RCE2921.-- -- ~ --.Ch LOT 2 705 West Hopkins Proposed 705 West Hopkins Allowed" 6 1 -.-----38 1 -12 1:LUL -_ 3 ,ill IRE:Ealrvil 1 liwiuil rv,ING 7-611-4, 52,3 00' iDC) e ILOT 2 1 2~_ti.-Â«L[1121=I m ; -1 , n'=611 >Col AFFORDABLE HOUSING -8,974 SF ~ ~~ P Iqi~ ~ L 17 '1 Laill LOT 1 . AFFORDABLE HOUSING -24,018 SF AFFORDABLE HOUSING - PER PUD F T 1 Q .-1 - , 1 . rc. fyh . FREE MARKET - 6,216 SF . -A \WE- th TOTAL - 24,018 SF TOTAL PER PUD ~ 35 9 ~ LODGE - 53,183 SF ILOT 1 ** (Per net lot area of 94,101 sf) - GROSS AREA i<:i-3-- ~-y, 3*FTE----3 .--- 1-0.-1 1 . m 1- (UK 7,-1 \\,\2 FREE MARKET - 6,245 SF (6.015 SQ Fr + 230 ALLOCATED NON-UN/TAREA) ./ FREE MARKET - 6,246 SF DESIGN NON-UNIT AREA - 904 SF 0.1 .. 1 1.L 1 - .1 . I 7141\ r..1,0 1 -4--4 k.,.:-- .r-3=r==I~~ t- :41~ LODGE-163,053 SF LODGE (@2.1) - 188,202 SF ~=7 -â€¢ ~ COMMERCIAL -OSF i... \ -2.'Â· Ill - Â·0.-.t I 45.4-2.-11 1-0.-3. L~+41 t, ..9.,~El~Â¥BMIME-fo L \ Fi--,i-1 f, '91\FE~**Apkja~2 -p- D~r NON-UNIT AREA -8,773 SF . 11 <gÂ«LL.tr-0 \ \ \ #391&1 1 COMIVIEERCIAL - 3,903 SF: FTEm COMMERCIAL (@0.251) = 23,525 SF FLOOR AREA TOTAL - 181,974 SF CUMULATIVE TOTAL (@ 2 51) = 235,252 SF 0 ---O - '> / \ -Â». AL'O v -r... -64== C~ 241-0, -- --i V.6 U ../. \ \>UJ \.-.-- OVERALL LEVEL 2 PLAN LOT 1 - OVERALL AREA = 63,599 SF, LOT 2 - OVERALL AREA = 8,974 SF PARKING LEVEL 1 100% Subgrade -LOT 1 - OVERALL AREA = 92,321 SF ,~jEEPET>fE-3 ---,C ..OCEN A./-3Â«--Â·~ ~,0--~ ~ Â«2- . -\CÂ».--1/-- i.-\ 3-7-. LOT 2 4 A 1. ''1 / t\-3 -1=-2/JÂ»,Al-=f -2~L,T-Irrl-i =1 1Â£ ~~y- 1 . .. - ... ~ LOT 1 . i **1 ill.L~ ' A;1 rE, U 6 - â‚¬63 Gui ~ AFFORDABLE HOUSING - 8,974 . / l.t=L,-16.r.Â·6_1~ . LOT 1 : r .1 MU 1 r - : - LODGE - 39,485 SF L 7 - FREE MARKET o s~ r=:=--=~41~-, -r 5--fi i i TTTTOE-f, 33 1 '31 9 FREE MARKET - O SF /:Â« 1-7' c L -7 1 161 :9 ~ NON-UNIT AREA - 43,927 1 %:fe 48" 2= i' 1111; rpe' 1 L â‚¬L--3 49/2--=- ---j[* 8&301<11- -ro;.Â» ft* 1Â¥-U\>~ - ,-a I r ,-r---1 4- ~ LODGE - 63,201 SF 1,1 - -ze, 1 ,-L li rt 1 1 El. - , r~~||~34||-n*- I 4 IL -14-1 - NON-UNIT AREA - 398 SF "* 100% SUB-GRADE 2.___ Nt. f Z COMMERCIAL - 8,909 SF 6%Â·94*1 -7.- 21 1 6 ..i;%#:â€¢ Le < - '. IlÂ· r J ' vie 1 --1 4 tr---~ ~ ", 1~ VEa--1 \C..31 ,\ 322 5 r-1 ,-- ~ ~ COMMERCIAL - OSF Ip U.- 7 -714- I ,.: , I. -- \ -Â·----' ---tal- t. rt ~ 15.0.I .03*F ;7 BE'*7 \ I 1 31 - -0-J / 1 -111 1 - L--1: 3--1 /f~ 0 . , i.56'-0" ,> '- 1 i ;*4 ji, -0, - 1 -- -.-1 ISSUE \ 6--/ , LAND USE APPLICATION 3 /'~h - ~ Â· L \ I KEY PLAN OVERALL LEVEL 1 PLAN Lot 1 - OVERALL AREA = 58,273 SF, Lot 2 - OVERALL AREA - 6,070 SF PARKING LEVEL 2 100% Subgrade - LOT 1 - OVERALL AREA = 87,758 SF - 7 fnf~9Â«*19-Â»6Â«~93.9~Â»-3-197--Â»7~Â»Â».- : 141111111111111111111111'llilli LOT 1 LOT 2 SHEET TITLE AFFORDABLE HOUSING . 6,070 SF / 4 1' AFFORDABLE HOUSING - 9,103 SF ~AP =fil. w.. r711 --3 .,fEI t1-I-111-1I-1-[-F-I-I--1--1 M~ I 1 LI~I [j--' _~- ped= "El 41 â€ž Â· CALCULATION FLOOR AREA 14 L- - - Lt LOT 1 1 + lilli p.lilli 8.8. / AI'-Ii,1 "Ii'E Description Date M H 11-1].1-=i LI ~Al j i If + ...~& A \ \ . FREE MARKET - 0 SF DIAGRAMS Re,MN, 533-- 11 - 1 i \ \ i .R ,-Â·.J FREE MARKET - O SF 1. r -fR' 1,7, -.1 W P. L -'p- ----- ~*ru'lt Â· t.g> --- LODGE - 13,392 SF REVISiON ~'.3,0 'T74 21, ~43 -I-F L.4 + ~- ~ ~~~~ ~~*~ - L_, ~ ~ ~ NON-UNIT AREA - 65,263 SF ~ LODGE - 46,669 SF (1 * M a F A NON-UNIT AREA - 7,701 SF ' ~ 1211' E -lt--43 4-5 11.-- 1 I 11-:k L...31 ~yf-)2'2 * -0 95. , i El-4 [> COMMERCIAL -OSF . â€¢*â€¢ 100% SUB-GRADE COMMERCIAL- 3,903 SF fl--9 1 1 1 r- 9/00-3245 3% 1 1/ A ry '' 1 1 -- -- -3 1 161 . 1 r---1 I 0 -- ./ \ al .-- I - . 4 \ / -4 \ L... PROJECT NUMBER -4043 000 .. ISSUE DATE 21 TAAR 2016 /./ 'SHEET NO Gl.01 . SNIMdOH .LSEIM SOL ad/NOIS,AlaanS anNEIAÂ¥ 00Â¥hl0100 'N3dSÂ¥ 705 West Hopkins Floor Area 3/31/16 LODGE Commercial Free Market Non-Unit TOTAL AFFORDABLE 2nd Level Sub Grade 13,392 0 65,263 78,655 0 Parking 1 1st Level Sub Grade 39,485 8,909 0 43,927 92,321 0 Parking 2 Level 1 46,669 3,903 0 7,701 58,273 6,070 Level 2 63,201 0 0 398 63,599 8,974 Level 3 53,183 0 6,015 904 60,102 8,974 TOTAL 215,930 12,812 6,015 118,193 352,950 24,018 TOTAL ABOVE GRADE 163,053 3,903___* 6,015 9,003 181,974 9, Free Market Allowable Lodge Net Livable Afforable Housing Net Livable Total Lodge/Affordable 109,238 15,680 124,918 SF Free Market = 5% of Total 6,245 SF ' ProRata Share of Non Unit Area (Below) 230 SF Allowable Free Market 6,015 Non-Unit Allocation to Free Market Free Market/Total Floor Area- Lodge + Fractional+Free Maket Free Market Cumulative Free Market + Lodge + Fractional Percentage of Allocation of Non Unit 6,015 234,757 2.56% 1 Non Unit Area above Grade % Allocation of Non Unit Non-Livable Allocated 230 SF 9,003 2.56% EXHIBIT 1771 Tree Survey Report 705 West Hopkins, Aspen CO March 17, 2016 PROVIDED BY: Jason Jones Board Certified Master Arborist #RM-0734B Aspen Tree Service Inc. Carbondale, CO 81623 (970) 963-3070 mtnjones@gmail.com Summary I have been asked by Design Workshop to analyze and comment on the tree resource located at 705 West Hopkins in Aspen. The site is being considered for re-development, and there are numerous trees on and around the property. Initial review of the site and proposed construction activity indicate that some of the trees will require removal and others can be retained. I have visually observed the trees from the ground and discussed the conceptual planning of the new construction as it is still in the design phase. I have provided an inventory and evaluation of all of the significant trees to be used in determining planning and in applying for necessary tree removal permits from the City of Aspen. I met with the design team on February 3, 2016 at the offices of Design Workshop and reviewed plans for the site. I was informed that the property was under consideration for development and that there would be a need to remove trees from the site to accommodate the proposed construction. We also discussed the fact that the property currently exists outside of the Aspen city limits and would be subject to tree removal regulations pertaining to Pitkin County, but that if the project were approved, would need to be ultimately annexed into the City. Therefore, it was determined that the tree survey report and mitigation assessment would be most appropriately performed in relation to the City guidelines. I then visited the site on February 10 to initially assess the property and trees. I was provided a map of the site with locations of the proposed buildings shown and was able to understand some of the impacts that might be incurred as a result of this proposed construction activity. It was then determined that the surveying team at Sopris Engineering would label, measure and number each tree on the site and measure diameter breast height (DBH), and that our arborist team would be responsible for determining the species and condition of each tree. The area being proposed for the project consist of nearly 7 acres and includes a total of 4 lots and the City right of way area along West Hopkins Avenue. Trees will be impacted on 3 of the lots and within the right of way with a total of 667 significant tree stems within these areas, 562 of these trees would require removal to complete the proposed project. Upon my review of each tree, I did not find that any of the individual trees being proposed for removal would be considered specimen trees, were extremely old, or held any unique value that would constitute a significant loss individually if removed. Utilizing the City of Aspen's formula pertaining to tree mitigation values, a total of $790,833.00 in value has been calculated if all of the trees proposed for removal were valued at full mitigation. Due to factors relating to tree health, structure, aesthetics, placement and contribution to the site, it is my opinion that the individual values of many of the trees that are designated for removal would likely be reduced or eliminated upon review from the City Forestry Department. Once a final site plan is developed, trees that are required for removal are finalized, and review of the permit application by City Forestry department is performed, a precise mitigation cost could be determined. Methodology The staff at Sopris engineering mapped each individual tree on the site, measured tree Diameter Breast Height (DBH) and located each tree on the map with a corresponding number. Trees that were multi-stemmed or trees that were similar and in close proximity share the same number on the map and tree inventory spreadsheets. My associates and myself reviewed the site and performed a visual inspection on each tree that had been labeled on the site map provided by Sopris Engineering. Individual trees were entered into the attached tree inventory worksheet with DBH, condition rating and a maximum mitigation value based on the formula provided in the City of Aspens Title 13 ordinance pertainingto health and quality environment section 13.20.020. This ordinance states that gambel oak, serviceberry and chokecherry trees over 3 inches DBH, other deciduous trees over 6 inches DBH and conifertrees over 4 inches will require a permit from the forestry department and may require mitigation based on the formula: Basic Value = $41.00 x 3.14 x (D/2)2 Where: D = the diameter of the tree in inches. Trees that were multi-stemmed were measured at 4.5 feet above ground and calculated as if they were two individual trees and then added together. Condition values were assigned as a result of visual indicators such as the presence of dead limbs, signs or symptoms of disease/insects, or structural defects. Details of the condition scale are as follows: 1) Excellent-A healthy, vigorous tree, reasonably free of signs and symptoms of disease, with good structure and form typical of the species. 2) Good-Tree with slight decline in vigor, small amount of twig dieback, minor structural defects that could be corrected. 3) Fair-Tree with moderate vigor, moderate twig and small branch dieback, thinning of crown, poor leaf color, moderate structural defects that might be mitigated by regular care. 4) Poor-Tree in decline, epicormic growth, extensive dieback of medium to large branches, significant pathogen activity or structural defects that cannot be abated. 5) Dead/Dying-Tree is in severe decline, highly hazardous or is dead. Limits of the Assignment My investigation is based solely upon the information noted on my visits to the site in February and March of 2016. It should be noted that there were no leaves on the deciduous trees at the time of my visit and indicators of health and vigor relating to foliage were not available for my analysis. There was also approximately 1-2 feet of snow in most areas of the site during our review and evaluation of tree root collar areas and stems was precluded as a result. I have not performed any laboratory examinations, studied soil composition or employed any other diagnostic techniques beyond visual examination of the trees and the site. I have developed general conclusions of tree health and provided recommendations based upon these observations. This document is strictly a tree survey report and a separate tree removal/protection plan could be provided once the trees to be retained and removed are finalized. Observations Site Description The property, which is located at 705 West Hopkins in downtown Aspen, currently consists of 3 parcels that will be subdivided into a total of 4 residential lots with a primary home and several smaller outbuildings. The landscape consists of a mix of planted landscape trees, native forest trees, and streetscape plantings that vary greatly in age, size and condition. Overall, the landscape is in fair condition and many of the ornamental trees appearto have been planted sporadically and randomly over time resulting in a varied density and appearance overall. The majority of the trees appear to have been irrigated but appearto have received minimal care over the years resulting in the presence of dead limbs, poor overall structure, and indicators of secondary type pathogens. In many areas, trees were planted in high- density groupings resulting in lessthan optimal health and structure as trees have competed for space, light and other resources in these areas. The property consists of 5 specific areas that are denoted on the site map as, right of way, and lots 1 through 4. I have provided information pertaining to each in order to address their specific characteristics and contributions to the site. Right of Way- These trees are located along West Hopkins on the north border of the lot and were installed and maintained by the City of Aspen. The trees consist of a variety of landscape/shade trees that are in overall good condition. These are a total of 18 young trees that are less than 6 inches in diameter and could easily be relocated or replaced if the city allowed, as they could not be maintained in this location of the property with the proposed construction plans. Lot 1 -Lot 1 consists of the lower flat portion of the site where there is currently a home, outbuildings and landscape plantings. There are a total of 349 significant trees in this portion of the site with a need to remove all of these trees. This area includes primarily trees thu !re installed as landscape plants. In gener iese trees are of relatively low quality overall with 265 trees being rated as condition 4 or poor, 81 trees rated as 2-3 or good to fair and only 3 trees being rated as 1 or excellent. The primary landscape "feature" in the lower portion of the lot consists of a large spruce tree hedge that covers the entire street side of the property. While this feature currently provides good screening and privacy for the lot, it is not sustainable asthis tree species has a mature size and shape that will not allow it to perform well overthe long term in this use. The trees in the center area of the lot, which take up the majority of the space on the lot vary in health and condition but are generally of low quality, small diameter and have numerous defects. There are several largertrees that are moderately healthy in these areas and these trees are located close to the existing home on the site. Many of these trees are planted very close to the building and/or infrastructure and are reaching their maximum potential in these locations. Lot 2-This lot consists of a segment along the northeast corner of the properties. The trees in this area consist of some landscape installed spruce and cottonwood as well as some native oak and fir trees. There are a total of 74 trees in this area of the site all of which would require removal to complete the proposed project. There are a total of 24 trees that are in poor condition, a total of 47 treesthat are in good to fair condition and 2 small diametertrees that are in excellent condition in this lot. Lot 3- This lot consists of a narrow strip that runs along the back of the property to the south from the east to the west borders of the entire site including a narrow strip along the boundary of 7th street to the east. There are numeroustrees , in this segment and there is a variety of topography, vegetation and tree types within this lot. This area contains a total of 226 trees with a total of 128 trees that would require removal to complete the proposed project. Of the total trees requiring removal, 30 trees were in poor condition, 92 were classified as good to fair and 6 were rated as excellent. The groups of trees along the west border of this lot are providing a good contribution to the property and surrounding 1 community. These trees consist primarily of a mix of spruce, aspen, cottonwood trees with cottonwood being the most ' significant tree in the groupings. While density is high in some areas and deadwood and structural flaws were evident in many individual trees, this grouping would likely be a long-term feature to the site if some routine maintenance in the form of pruning and thinning were provided. Many of these trees have been designated as high value to the site and the community, and the site planning has been designed to accommodate the retention of many of these trees through the construction activity. This lot also contains treesalongthe bottom of the slope atthe base of Shadow Mountain and includesthe fringe area of the large native Douglas fir stand that covers the mountain above. Initial construction plans were requiring many more trees to be removed than the current plan shows but the footprint was subsequently brought down the hill slope allowing for significantly more trees to be retained in this location. Areas where avalanches have slid in past years are evident where trees do not exist or are sparse; otherwise the density is very high in this area. The stand overall appears generally healthy with the high density of the stand being the only potential negative attribute. This density has caused shading and competition of individual stems resulting in less than optimal shape, stem taper and individual tree structure in some instances. While signs and symptoms of some pest issues were noted in this area, overall no significant pathogen was noted to be aggressively impacting the stand at this time. The area affected by the proposed activity is a very small percentage of the forested hill slope and consists of only a minimal amount of trees along the lower edge. Lot 4- Lot 4, the largest lot of the group, consists of a strip of land along the bottom portion of Shadow Mountain. This segment of the site is very steep and densely forested. No impacts to any of the trees on this lot would be incurred as a part of the proposed development therefore; it was not assessed or included as part of the tree survey report. Discussion The City of Aspen code pertaining to tree removal is among the strictest in the nation, is intended to protect highly valuable trees on private and public property, and to maintain a good urban forest coverage over the long term. While it states that trees may be permitted for removal in some instances to allow for site improvements or redevelopment, it does not guarantee any tree can or will be permitted regardless of mitigation provided. Generally, this code allows for reasonable removal to allow for development but in many instances, this language has halted significant development projects in the past. There are clearly many components that would be evaluated by the various City departments and council when evaluating the feasibility of the project with the tree removal component being only one. Overall it appears that while many tree stems would need to be removed to complete the proposed project, it is my opinion that many of these trees are not providing significant contribution to the site orto the surrounding community. Due to factors related primarily to placement and density, many of the individual trees are not likely to be sustainable urban forest or landscape features overthe long term. While there are pockets of more valuable trees in certain areas, it appears that overall loss of significant trees would not be considerable especially in relation to the overall lot size or construction footprint as a whole. The trees alongthe south border of the site are offering the most significant community resource while the forest trees above are significant visually for the City of Aspen in this iconic area. The fact that proposed impacts would only affect a narrow band along the lower edge of this forest would not likely cause little if any impact on the overall aesthetic or health of the stand as whole. Conclusion Upon my initial assessment of the property as a whole and the individual trees, I feel that it is possible that a tree removal permit could be obtained if appropriate mitigation was deemed as viable. However, It is the ultimatelythe decision of the City of Aspen forestry department and the community as a whole as to whether or not such trees will be permitted for removal. The City of Aspen places a very high value on individual trees, especially larger and older specimens that contribute significantly to the community forest cover. My initial review of the proposed plans indicate that the many of the most valuable trees on the site as a whole could be successfully retained It should be noted that I cannot speculate upon the opinion of the City of Aspen Forestry department orthe community and that the trees that I have mentioned would ultimately be permitted for removal. If so, it is likelythat a significant mitigation cost may be associated. When analyzing the site and potential layout of the new construction, the retention of as many trees as possible, where excavation could be limited to outside dripline areas of trees will be helpful in acquiring permits of trees that must be removed to meet design objectives. It is for this reason that careful thought and consideration should be continued to be given into the realistic impacts of the design and construction techniques and that the maximum amount of trees be retained throughout the construction process. Recommendations With the information contained within the spreadsheet attached, a tree removal permit application can be filed with the City of Aspen. This information will allow the City to review each tree, and the site in an organized manner. If preliminary approval of the project is granted, it may also be prudent to re-assess some of the individual tree details more carefully to ensure DBH measurements and exact tree placements are precise in all areas as site conditions made access difficult in some instances during the initial review. I would be available to meet with the design team orthe City and to review individual trees or to discuss the project and any impacts pertaining to the trees on the site. 705 West Hopkins Condition Scale March 17, 2016 Tree Survey Report 1-Excellent 2-Good 3-Fair 4-Poor 5-Dead LOT 1 Location Tree # Species D.B.H. Remove/ Condition Comments Mitieation 1 Spruce 4 Remove 4 multipletops $515 LOT 1 LOT 1 2 Fir 6 Remove 2 $1,159 leaning, 3 Aspen 6 Remove 3 wildlife $1,159 LOT 1 damage leaning, 4 Aspen 6 Remove 3 wildlife $1,159 LOT 1 damage LOT 1 5 Bristlecone 4 Remove 2 $515 LOT 1 6 Bristlecone 4 Remove 2 $515 LOT 1 7 Cottonwood 4.3 Remove 2 $0 LOT 1 8 Cottonwood 4.3 Remove 2 $0 LOT 1 9 Cottonwood 4.3 Remove 2 $0 mechanical 10 Cottonwood 4.3 Remove 3 $0 LOT 1 damage LOT 1 11 Spruce 6 Remove 2 $1,159 LOT 1 12 Spruce 5.5 Remove 2 $974 LOT 1 13 Aspen 4.1 Remove 2 $0 LOT 1 14 Aspen 4.5 Remove 2 $0 LOT 1 15 Spruce 4.3 Remove 2 $595 LOT 1 16 Spruce 4.5 Remove 2 $652 LOT 1 17 Aspen 4.7 Remove 2 $0 LOT 1 18 Aspen 5 Remove 2 $0 LOT 1 19 Aspen 7.4 Remove 3 $1,762 19 Aspen 7.4 Remove 3 $1,762 LOT 1 LOT 1 20 Aspen 4.6 Remove 4 $0 mechanical 21 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 damage LOT 1 22 Aspen 7.5 Remove 3 $1,810 LOT 1 23 Aspen 7.8 Remove 3 $1,958 LOT 1 24 Aspen 6 Remove 3 $1,159 Cytospora, 25 Aspen 5.8 Remove 4 scale $0 LOT 1 damage LOT 1 26 Spruce 8 Remove 3 $2,060 LOT 1 27 Spruce 7 Remove 3 $1,577 LOT 1 38 Spruce 5.6 Remove 3 $1,009 LOT 1 39 Spruce 6.1 Remove 3 $1,198 LOT 1 40 Spruce 6.1 Remove 3 $1,198 LOT 1 41 Aspen 4.1 Remove 2 $0 LOT 1 42 Spruce 4 Remove 3 close $515 LOT 1 49 Cottonwood 16.2 Remove 4 broken top $8,447 Maximium mitigation values based on the City of Aspen formula. 705 West Hopkins Condition Scale March 17, 2016 Tree Survey Report 1-Excellent 2-Good 3-Fair 4-Poor 5-Dead LOT 1 50 Aspen 13 Remove 3 strong lean $5,439 LOT 1 52 Spruce 12 Remove 4 $4,635 LOT 1 53 Spruce 5 Remove 4 $805 LOT 1 54 Spruce 5 Remove 4 $805 LOT 1 153 Spruce 5 Rennove 3 $805 LOT 1 156 Aspen 8.5 Remove 2 $2,325 LOT 1 157 Aspen 8.5 Remove 2 $2,325 LOT 1 158 Aspen 6.5 Remove 2 $1,360 wildlife 159 Aspen 5.3 Remove 3 $0 LOT 1 damage LOT 1 161 Fir 15 Remove 2 $7,242 LOT 1 162 Aspen 4 Remove 1 $0 Co-dominant 163 Fir 6 Remove 2 $1,159 top LOT 1 too close to 164 Spruce 4 Remove 3 $515 LOT 1 house too close to 165 Spruce 4 Remove 3 $515 LOT 1 house too close to 166 Spruce 4 Remove 3 $515 LOT 1 house large conifers 167 Spruce 14.4 Remove 3 $6,674 close to LOT 1 house large conifers 168 Spruce 14 Remove 3 $6,308 close to LOT 1 house LOT 1 169 Aspen 8.3 Remove 2 $2,217 LOT 1 170 Aspen 8.7 Remove 2 $2,436 tight Aspen 171 Aspen 5.3 Remove 3 $0 LOT 1 group tight Aspen 172 Aspen 5.3 Remove 3 $0 LOT 1 group tight Aspen 173 Aspen 5.9 Remove 3 $0 LOT 1 group tight Aspen 174 Aspen 4.1 Remove 3 $0 LOT 1 group LOT 1 175 Bristlecone 5 Remove 1 $805 LOT 1 191 Spruce 7 Remove 3 $1,577 LOT 1 192 Spruce 6 Remove 3 $1,159 LOT 1 193 Spruce 5 Remove 4 $805 LOT 1 193 Spruce 5 Remove 4 $805 LOT 1 193 Spruce 5 Remove 4 $805 LOT 1 194 Spruce 6 Remove 4 $1,159 Maximium mitigation values based on the City of Aspen formula. 705 West Hopkins Condition Scale March 17, 2016 Tree Survey Report 1-Excellent 2-Good 3-Fair 4-Poor 5-Dead LOT 1 195 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 196 Spruce 6 Remove 4 $1,159 LOT 1 197 Spruce 4 Rennove 4 $515 LOT 1 197 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 198 Spruce 5 Remove 4 $805 LOT 1 199 Spruce 6 Remove 4 $1,159 LOT 1 200 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 200 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 201 Spruce 5 Remove 4 $805 LOT 1 201 Spruce 5 Remove 4 $805 LOT 1 201 Spruce 5 Remove 4 $805 LOT 1 201 Spruce 5 Remove 4 $805 LOT 1 201 Spruce 5 Rennove 4 $805 LOT 1 202 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 203 Spruce 8 Remove 4 $2,060 LOT 1 204 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 205 Spruce 5 Remove 4 $805 LOT 1 205 Spruce 5 Remove 4 $805 LOT 1 206 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 206 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 206 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 206 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 206 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 206 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 207 Spruce 5 Remove 4 $805 LOT 1 207 Spruce 5 Remove 4 $805 LOT 1 208 Spruce 6 Remove 4 $1,159 LOT 1 209 Spruce 5 Remove 4 $805 LOT 1 209 Spruce 5 Remove 4 $805 LOT 1 209 Spruce 5 Rennove 4 $805 LOT 1 209 Spruce 5 Remove 4 $805 LOT 1 209 Spruce 5 Remove 4 $805 LOT 1 209 Spruce 5 Remove 4 $805 LOT 1 209 Spruce 5 Remove 4 $805 LOT 1 209 Spruce 5 Rennove 4 $805 LOT 1 209 Spruce 5 Remove 4 $805 LOT 1 210 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 210 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 211 Spruce 5 Remove 4 $805 LOT 1 211 Spruce 5 Remove 4 $805 LOT 1 212 Spruce 4 Rennove 4 $515 LOT 1 212 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 212 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 - LOT 1 212 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 212 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 213 Spruce 5 Remove 4 $805 Maximium mitigation values based on the City of Aspen formula. 705 West Hopkins Condition Scale March 17, 2016 Tree Survey Report 1-Excellent 2-Good 3-Fair 4-Poor 5-Dead LOT 1 213 Spruce 5 Remove 4 $805 LOT 1 213 Spruce 5 Remove 4 $805 LOT 1 214 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 214 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 214 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 214 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 214 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 214 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 214 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 214 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 215 Spruce 5 Remove 4 $805 LOT 1 216 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 216 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 216 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 217 Spruce 5 Remove 4 $805 LOT 1 217 Spruce 5 Remove 4 $805 LOT 1 217 Spruce 5 Remove 4 $805 LOT 1 217 Spruce 5 Remove 4 $805 LOT 1 217 Spruce 5 Remove 4 $805 LOT 1 218 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 218 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 218 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 218 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 218 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 218 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 218 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 218 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 218 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 218 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 218 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 219 Spruce 5 Remove 4 $805 LOT 1 219 Spruce 5 Remove 4 $805 LOT 1 220 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 220 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 220 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 220 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 221 Spruce 5 Remove 4 $805 LOT 1 221 Spruce 5 Remove 4 $805 LOT 1 221 Spruce 5 Remove 4 $805 LOT 1 222 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 222 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 222 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 222 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 222 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 222 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 222 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 Maximium mitigation values based on the City of Aspen formula. 705 West Hopkins - Condition Scale March 17, 2016 Tree Survey Report 1-Excellent 2-Good 3-Fair 4-Poor 5-Dead LOT 1 222 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 222 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 222 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 222 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 222 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 222 Spruce 4 Rennove 4 $515 LOT 1 222 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 222 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 222 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 223 Spruce 8 Remove 4 $2,060 LOT 1 224 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 224 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 224 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 225 Spruce 5 Remove 4 $805 LOT 1 225 Spruce 5 Remove 4 $805 LOT 1 226 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 226 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 226 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 226 Spruce 4 Rernove 4 $515 LOT 1 227 Spruce 5 Remove 4 $805 LOT 1 227 Spruce 5 Remove 4 $805 LOT 1 227 Spruce 5 Remove 4 $805 LOT 1 228 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 228 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 228 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 228 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 228 Spruce 4 Rennove 4 $515 LOT 1 228 Spruce 4 Rennove 4 $515 LOT 1 228 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 228 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 229 Spruce 5 Remove 4 $805 LOT 1 229 Spruce 5 Remove 4 $805 LOT 1 229 Spruce 5 Remove 4 $805 LOT 1 230 Spruce 4 Rernove 4 $515 LOT 1 230 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 230 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 230 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 231 Spruce 5 Rennove 4 $805 LOT 1 232 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 232 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 I LOT 1 233 Spruce 5 Remove 4 $805 LOT 1 234 Spruce 8 Remove 4 $2,060 LOT 1 235 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 235 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 235 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 235 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 Maximium mitigation values based on the City of Aspen formula. 705 West Hopkins Condition Scale March 17, 2016 Tree Survey Report 1-Excellent 2-Good 3-Fair 4-Poor 5-Dead LOT 1 236 Spruce 5 Remove 4 $805 LOT 1 237 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 237 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 237 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 237 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 238 Spruce 6 Remove 4 $1,159 LOT 1 239 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 239 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 239 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 240 Spruce 5 Remove 4 $805 LOT 1 241 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 241 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 241 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 242 Spruce 5 Remove 4 $805 LOT 1 243 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 243 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 243 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 243 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 244 Spruce 6 Remove 4 $1,159 LOT 1 245 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 245 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 245 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 245 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 245 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 245 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 246 Spruce 6 Remove 4 $1,159 LOT 1 247 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 248 Spruce 5 Remove 4 $805 LOT 1 248 Spruce 5 Remove 4 $805 LOT 1 248 Spruce 5 Remove 4 $805 LOT 1 248 Spruce 5 Remove 4 $805 , LOT 1 248 Spruce 5 Remove 4 $805 LOT 1 249 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 249 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 249 Spruce 4 Rennove 4 $515 LOT 1 250 Spruce 6 Remove 4 $1,159 LOT 1 250 Spruce 6 Remove 4 $1,159 LOT 1 251 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 251 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 251 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 251 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 252 Spruce 5 Remove 4 $805 LOT 1 252 Spruce 5 Remove 4 $805 LOT 1 253 Spruce 6 Remove 4 $1,159 LOT 1 254 Spruce 5 Remove 4 $805 LOT 1 254 Spruce 5 Remove 4 $805 Maximium mitigation values based on the City of Aspen formula. 705 West Hopkins Condition Scale March 17, 2016 Tree Survey Report 1-Excellent 2-Good 3-Fair 4-Poor 5-Dead LOT 1 255 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 255 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 255 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 255 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 256 Spruce 5 Remove 4 $805 LOT 1 256 Spruce 5 Remove 4 $805 LOT 1 257 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 258 Spruce 6 Remove 4 $1,159 LOT 1 259 Spruce 5 Remove 4 $805 LOT 1 259 Spruce 5 Remove 4 $805 LOT 1 260 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 260 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 260 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 260 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 260 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 260 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 260 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 261 Spruce 5 Remove 4 $805 LOT 1 261 Spruce 5 Remove 4 $805 LOT 1 261 Spruce 5 Remove 4 $805 LOT 1 261 Spruce 5 Remove 4 $805 LOT 1 262 Spruce 4 Rennove 4 $515 LOT 1 262 Spruce 4 Rennove 4 $515 LOT 1 262 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 266 Spruce 8 Remove 4 $2,060 LOT 1 267 Spruce 6 Remove 4 $1,159 LOT 1 268 Spruce 5 Remove 4 $805 LOT 1 269 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 270 Spruce 8 Remove 4 $2,060 LOT 1 271 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 272 Spruce 6 Remove 4 $1,159 LOT 1 273 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 274 Spruce 8 Remove 4 $2,060 LOT 1 275 Spruce 5 Remove 4 $805 LOT 1 276 Spruce 4 Rernove 4 $515 LOT 1 277 Spruce 6 Remove 4 $1,159 LOT 1 277 Spruce 6 Remove 4 $1,159 LOT 1 277 Spruce 6 Remove 4 $1,159 LOT 1 278 Spruce 5 Remove 4 $805 LOT 1 279 Spruce 10 Remove 4 $3,219 LOT 1 280 Spruce 6 Remove 4 $1,159 LOT 1 281 Spruce 5 Remove 4 $805 LOT 1 282 Spruce 8 Remove 4 $2,060 LOT 1 282 Spruce 8 Remove 4 $2,060 LOT 1 282 Spruce 8 Remove 4 $2,060 LOT 1 282 Spruce 8 Remove 4 $2,060 Maximium mitigation values based on the City of Aspen formula. 705 West Hopkins Condition Scale March 17, 2016 Tree Survey Report 1-Excellent 2-Good 3-Fair 4-Poor 5-Dead LOT 1 283 Spruce 5 Remove 4 $805 LOT 1 284 Spruce 6 Remove 4 $1,159 LOT 1 285 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 1 286 Spruce 6 Remove 4 $1,159 LOT 1 287 Spruce 8 Remove 4 $2,060 LOT 1 288 Spruce 6 Remove 4 $1,159 LOT 1 288 Spruce 6 Remove 4 $1,159 LOT 1 288 Spruce 6 Remove 4 $1,159 LOT 1 288 Spruce 6 Remove 4 $1,159 LOT 1 288 Spruce 6 Remove 4 $1,159 LOT 1 288 Spruce 6 Remove 4 $1,159 LOT 1 288 Spruce 6 Remove 4 $1,159 LOT 1 288 Spruce 6 Remove 4 $1,159 LOT 1 289 Spruce 8 Remove 4 $2,060 LOT 1 290 Spruce 7 Remove 4 $1,577 LOT 1 290 Spruce 7 Remove 4 $1,577 LOT 1 291 Spruce 6 Remove 4 $1,159 LOT 1 292 Spruce 7 Remove 4 $1,577 LOT 1 292 Spruce 7 Remove 4 $1,577 LOT 1 292 Spruce 7 Remove 4 $1,577 LOT 1 292 Spruce 7 Remove 4 $1,577 LOT 1 311 Aspen 4 Remove 3 $0 LOT 1 313 Aspen 4.1 Remove 3 $0 LOT 1 315 Aspen 4.3 Remove 2 $0 LOT 1 316 Aspen 4.5 Remove 2 $0 LOT 1 319 Aspen 4.9 Remove 2 $0 LOT 1 320 Aspen 5.2 Remove 2 $0 LOT 1 320 Aspen 5.2 Remove 2 $0 LOT 1 322 Aspen 5.6 Remove 4 $0 LOT 1 322 Aspen 5.6 Remove 4 $0 LOT 1 323 Aspen 5.7 Remove 2 $0 LOT 1 324 Aspen 5.8 Remove 2 $0 LOT 1 325 Aspen 5.9 Remove 2 $0 LOT 1 337 Fir 14.1 Remove 3 $6,399 LOT 1 339 Fir 24.1 Remove 1 $18,693 LOT 1 353 Fir 8.9 Remove 3 $2,549 LOT 1 364 Cottonwood 4.4 Remove 3 $0 LOT 1 365 Gamble Oak 4.5 Remove 3 $652 LOT 1 367 Gamble Oak 4.8 Remove 3 $742 LOT 1 369 Gamble Oak 4.9 Remove 3 $773 LOT 1 465 Gamble Oak 6 Remove 3 $1,159 LOT 1 466 Aspen 4.5 Remove 2 $0 LOT 1 467 Aspen 5.1 Remove 2 $0 LOT 1 468 Fir 4.5 Remove 3 $652 LOT 1 469 Aspen 6.7 Remove 3 $1,445 LOT 1 470 Aspen 7.1 Remove 3 $1,622 LOT 1 471 Fir 4.4 Remove 3 $623 Maximium mitigation values based on the City of Aspen formula. 705 West Hopkins Condition Scale March 17, 2016 Tree Survey Report 1-Excellent 2-Good 3-Fair 4-Poor 5-Dead LOT 1 471 Fir 4.4 Remove 3 $623 LOT 1 474 Aspen 4.6 Remove 3 $0 LOT 1 475 Aspen 4 Remove 3 $0 LOT 1 476 Aspen 7.3 Remove 3 $1,715 LOT 1 476 Aspen 7.3 Remove 3 $1,715 LOT 1 477 Fir 4 Remove 3 $515 LOT 1 478 Aspen 4.3 Remove 3 $0 LOT 1 479 Aspen 4.2 Remove 3 $0 Maximium mitigation values based on the City of Aspen formula. 705 West Hopkins Condition Scale March 17, 2016 Tree Survey Report 1-Excellent 2-Good 3-Fair 4-Poor 5-Dead LOT 2 Remove/ Location Tree # Species D.B.H. Condition Comments Mitigation Retain LOT 2 142 Cottonwood 7.3 Remove 3 $1,715 LOT 2 143 Cottonwood 8.2 Remove 3 $2,164 LOT 2 144 Cottonwood 6 Remove 3 $1,159 LOT 2 145 Spruce 10.4 Remove 4 $3,481 LOT 2 146 Spruce 8 Remove 3 $2,060 LOT 2 147 Spruce 8 Remove 3 $2,060 LOT 2 148 Spruce 8.8 Remove 3 $2,492 CO- 149 Cottonwood 5 Remove 4 dominant, $0 LOT 2 thin crown 1 LOT 2 150 Cottonwood 4 Remove 3 $0 LOT 2 151 Cottonwood 5 Remove 3 $0 LOT 2 152 Cottonwood 4 Remove 3 $0 LOT 2 176 Spruce 6 Remove 2 $1,159 Co-Dominant 177 Cottonwood 16.2 Remove 3 $8,447 strong lean LOT 2 LOT 2 178 Cottonwood 19.6 Remove 2 $12,364 LOT 2 179 Cottonwood 20 Remove 2 $12,874 LOT 2 180 Spruce 5 Remove 2 $805 LOT 2 181 Spruce 5 Remove 2 $805 LOT 2 182 Spruce 5 Remove 1 $805 LOT 2 183 Spruce 6 Remove 3 planted too $1,159 Maximium mitigation values based on the City of Aspen formula. 705 West Hopkins Condition Scale March 17, 2016 Tree Survey Report 1-Excellent 2-Good 3-Fair 4-Poor 5-Dead planted too 184 Spruce 5 Remove 3 $805 LOT 2 close LOT 2 185 Spruce 6 Remove 3 $1,159 LOT 2 186 Spruce 7.6 Remove 4 cytospora $1,859 LOT 2 187 Spruce 9.5 Remove 3 $2,905 no lower 188 Spruce 7.4 Remove 4 branches, $1,762 LOT 2 thin crown LOT 2 189 Spruce 8.5 Remove 3 unbalanced $2,325 LOT 2 190 Spruce 9 Remove 4 dead top $2,607 LOT 2 293 Spruce 6 Remove 4 $1,159 LOT 2 294 Spruce 5 Remove 4 $805 LOT 2 295 Spruce 6 Remove 4 $1,159 LOT 2 296 Spruce 7 Remove 4 $1,577 LOT 2 296 Spruce 7 Remove 4 $1,577 LOT 2 297 Spruce 6 Remove 4 $1,159 LOT 2 298 Spruce 7 Remove 4 $1,577 LOT 2 298 Spruce 7 Remove 4 $1,577 LOT 2 299 Spruce 8 Remove 4 $2,060 LOT 2 300 Spruce 7 Remove 4 51,577 LOT 2 300 Spruce 7 Remove 4 $1,577 LOT 2 301 Spruce 6 Remove 4 $1,159 LOT 2 302 Spruce 7 Remove 4 $1,577 LOT 2 302 Spruce 7 Remove 4 $1,577 LOT 2 303 Spruce 6 Remove 4 $1,159 LOT 2 304 Spruce 7 Remove 4 $1,577 LOT 2 305 Spruce 8 Remove 4 $2,060 LOT 2 358 Cottonwood 4.1 Remove 3 $0 LOT 2 358 Cottonwood 4.1 Remove 3 $0 LOT 2 359 Gamble Oak 4.5 Remove 3 $652 LOT 2 359 Gamble Oak 4.5 Remove 3 $652 LOT 2 363 Cottonwood 4.1 Remove 2 $0 LOT 2 364 Cottonwood 4.4 Remove 3 $0 LOT 2 365 Gamble Oak 4.5 Remove 3 $652 LOT 2 366 Gamble Oak 4.7 Remove 3 $711 LOT 2 368 Gamble Oak 4.8 Remove 3 $742 LOT 2 368 Gamble Oak 4.8 Remove 3 $742 LOT 2 370 Gamble Oak 5.1 Remove 3 $837 LOT 2 370 Gamble Oak 5.1 Remove 3 $837 LOT 2 371 Gamble Oak 5.4 Remove 3 $939 LOT 2 371 Gamble Oak 5.4 Remove 3 $939 LOT 2 372 Gamble Oak 6.1 Remove 3 $1,198 LOT 2 372 Gamble Oak 6.1 Remove 3 $1,198 LOT 2 373 Cottonwood 6.8 Remove 4 $1,488 LOT 2 374 Cottonwood 6.8 Remove 3 $1,488 LOT 2 375 Cottonwood 7 Remove 2 $1,577 Maximium mitigation values based on the City of Aspen formula. 705 West Hopkins Condition Scale March 17, 2016 Tree Survey Report 1-Excellent 2-Good 3-Fair 4-Poor 5-Dead LOT 2 376 Cottonwood 7.1 Remove 3 $1,622 LOT 2 377 Cottonwood 7.5 Remove 4 $1,810 LOT 2 378 Aspen 9.4 Remove 3 $2,844 LOT 2 379 Fir 10.3 Remove 2 $3,415 LOT 2 383 Fir 14.8 Remove 3 $7,050 LOT 2 387 Fir 5.3 Remove 3 $904 LOT 2 388 Fir 5.6 Remove 2 $1,009 LOT 2 389 Fir 6.2 Remove 2 $1,237 LOT 2 472 Fir 5.1 Remove 3 $837 LOT 2 473 Fir 5.2 Remove 1 $870 LOT 2 480 Fir 9.8 Remove 3 $3,091 Maximium mitigation values based on the City of Aspen formula. 705 West Hopkins Condition Scale March 17, 2016 Tree Survey Report 1-Excellent 2-Good 3-Fair 4-Poor 5-Dead LOT 3 Remove Remove/ Location Tree # Species D.B.H. Condition Comments Mitigation Retain LOT 3 28 Spruce 5.3 Remove 3 $904 LOT 3 29 Spruce 6 Remove 3 $1,159 CO- dominant, 30 Cottonwood 22.6 Remove 3 $16,439 epicormic LOT3 growth LOT 3 31 Cottonwood 21 Remove 3 $14,194 LOT 3 32 Cottonwood 22 Remove 2 $15,578 Not 33 Cottonwood 5.3 Remove 2 relocatable $0 due to ditch LOT 3 Not 34 Cottonwood 5.3 Remove 2 relocatable $0 due to ditch LOT 3 Multiple dominant stems from ground, 35 Cottonwood 20 Remove 3 $12,874 girdling roots, possible LOT 3 decay Multiple dominant stems from ground, 35 Cottonwood 20 Remove 3 $12,874 girdling roots, possible LOT 3 decay Multiple dominant stems from ground, 35 Cottonwood 20 Remove 3 $12,874 girdling roots, possible LOT 3 decay Maximium mitigation values based on the City of Aspen formula. 705 West Hopkins Condition Scale March 17, 2016 Tree Survey Report 1-Excellent 2-Good 3-Fair 4-Poor 5-Dead Multiple dominant stems from ground, 35 Cottonwood 20 Remove 3 $12,874 girdling roots, possible LOT 3 decay Multiple dominant stems from 35 Cottonwood 20 Remove 3 $12,874 ground, girdling ' roots, possible LOT 3 decay Multiple 4 dominant stems from ground, 35 Cottonwood 20 Remove 3 $12,874 girdling roots, possible LOT 3 decay LOT 3 36 Cottonwood 5.3 Remove 3 $0 1 3 LOT 3 37 Cottonwood 5.6 Remove 3 $0 LOT 3 43 Spruce 5 Rennove 3 $805 LOT 3 44 Spruce 5 Remove 2 $805 1 LOT 3 45 Spruce 5 Remove 3 $805 LOT 3 46 Spruce 5 Remove 2 $805 1=11 4 __? L j Maximium mitigation values based on the City of Aspen formula. 705 West Hopkins Condition Scale March 17, 2016 Tree Survey Report 1-Excellent 2-Good 3-Fair 4-Poor 5-Dead 47 Spruce 5 Remove 2 $805 LOT 3 48 Spruce 16.5 Remove 1 $8,762 LOT 3 LOT 3 51 Spruce 5 Remove 3 $805 LOT 3 55 Spruce 6 Remove 4 $1,159 LOT 3 56 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 3 57 Spruce 6 Remove 4 $1,159 LOT 3 58 Spruce 5 Remove 4 $805 LOT 3 59 Spruce 9 Remove 4 $2,607 LOT 3 60 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 3 61 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 3 62 Spruce 5 Rennove 4 $805 LOT 3 63 Spruce 5 Remove 4 $805 LOT 3 64 Spruce 5 Remove 4 $805 LOT 3 65 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 3 66 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 3 67 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 3 68 Spruce 5 Remove 4 $805 LOT 3 69 Spruce 10 Remove 3 $3,219 LOT 3 70 Cottonwood 6 Remove 3 $1,159 LOT 3 71 Cottonwood 5 Remove 3 $0 LOT 3 72 Cottonwood 5 Remove 3 $0 LOT 3 73 Cottonwood 5 Remove 3 $0 LOT 3 74 Cottonwood 7.2 Remove 3 $1,668 LOT 3 75 Cottonwood 6 Remove 3 $1,159 LOT 3 76 Cottonwood 5 Remove 3 $0 LOT 3 77 Cottonwood 4.5 Remove 3 $0 LOT 3 78 Cottonwood 7.1 Remove 4 $1,622 LOT 3 79 Cottonwood 4 Remove 3 $0 CO- dominant, 80 Cottonwood 16 Remove 4 $8,239 decay upper crown LOT 3 LOT 3 81 Cottonwood 16 Remove 4 $8,239 LOT 3 82 Cottonwood 24 Remove 2 $18,539 LOT 3 83 Cottonwood 5 Remove 4 $0 LOT 3 84 Cottonwood 16 Remove 3 $8,239 LOT 3 85 Cottonwood 16 Remove 3 $8,239 LOT 3 86 Cottonwood 18 Remove 2 $10,428 Large wound 87 Cottonwood 16 Remove 3 $8,239 at 20' LOT 3 1 LOT 3 88 Cottonwood 16 Remove 3 $8,239 LOT 3 89 Aspen 4 Remove 3 $0 Maximium mitigation values based on the City of Aspen formula. 705 West Hopkins Condition Scale March 17, 2016 Tree Survey Report 1-Excellent 2-Good 3-Fair 4-Poor 5-Dead LOT 3 90 Aspen 5 Remove 3 $0 LOT 3 91 Aspen 7 Remove 3 $1,577 LOT 3 95 Spruce 8 Remove 3 $2,060 LOT 3 96 Aspen 6 Remove 3 $1,159 LOT 3 97 Aspen 5 Remove 3 $0 LOT 3 98 Spruce 6 Remove 3 $1,159 planted too close 102 Spruce 8 Remove 3 $2,060 together, LOT 3 thin canopy LOT 3 105 Spruce 8 Remove 3 $2,060 LOT 3 106 Cottonwood 6 Remove 3 $1,159 LOT 3 107 Cottonwood 6 Remove 3 $1,159 LOT 3 108 Cottonwood 9 Remove 3 $2,607 LOT 3 111 Aspen 9 Remove 4 Cytospora $2,607 LOT 3 112 Spruce 8 Remove 3 $2,060 LOT 3 114 Aspen 8 Remove 3 $2,060 LOT 3 115 Aspen 6 Remove 3 $1,159 LOT 3 117 Spruce 7 Remove 3 $1,577 LOT 3 118 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 mechanical 119 Aspen 5 Remove 3 $0 LOT 3 damage LOT 3 120 Spruce 4 Remove 4 $515 LOT 3 126 Aspen 5 Remove 2 $0 LOT 3 128 Aspen 4 Remove 3 $0 LOT 3 130 Cottonwood 5 Remove 3 $0 LOT 3 141 Fir 6 Remove 1 $1,159 4 LOT 3 154 Aspen 4 Remove 2 $0 LOT 3 155 Aspen 6 Remove 2 $1,159 LOT 3 160 Spruce 5 Remove 3 $805 LOT 3 312 Aspen 4.8 Remove 2 $0 LOT 3 314 Aspen 4.2 Remove 2 $0 LOT 3 314 Aspen 4.2 Remove 2 $0 LOT 3 316 Aspen 4.5 Remove 2 $0 LOT 3 317 Aspen 4.6 Remove 3 $0 LOT 3 318 Aspen 4.7 Remove 3 $0 $0 LOT 3 321 Aspen 5.4 Remove 2 LOT 3 323 Aspen 5.7 Remove 2 $0 LOT 3 326 Aspen 6.5 Remove 2 $1,360 LOT 3 327 Aspen 7.4 Remove 3 $1,762 LOT 3 328 Aspen 7.6 Remove 2 $1,859 LOT 3 329 Aspen 8.1 Remove 3 $2,112 LOT 3 329 Aspen 8.1 Remove 3 $2,112 LOT 3 340 Fir 4 Remove 1 $515 LOT 3 384 Fir 22.2 Remove 3 $15,862 LOT 3 385 Fir 4.7 Remove 5 dead $711 Maximium mitigation values based on the City of Aspen formula. 705 West Hopkins Condition Scale March 17, 2016 Tree Survey Report 1-Excellent 2-Good 3-Fair 4-Poor 5-Dead LOT 3 390 Fir 7.1 Remove 3 $1,622 LOT 3 392 Aspen 4 Remove 3 $0 LOT 3 393 Aspen 4.2 Remove 4 $0 LOT 3 395 Aspen 4.5 Remove 4 $0 LOT 3 396 Aspen 4.6 Remove 3 $0 LOT 3 397 Aspen 4.7 Remove 3 $0 LOT 3 398 Aspen 5.2 Remove 3 $0 LOT 3 399 Aspen 5.4 Remove 3 $0 LOT 3 401 Aspen 5.7 Remove 3 $0 LOT 3 402 Aspen 6.1 Remove 4 $1,198 LOT 3 403 Aspen 6.6 Remove 3 $1,402 LOT 3 404 Aspen 6.7 Remove 3 $1,445 LOT 3 405 Aspen 7.1 Remove 3 $1,622 LOT 3 406 Aspen 7.4 Remove 4 $1,762 LOT 3 407 Aspen 7.8 Remove 4 cytospora $1,958 LOT 3 408 Aspen 9 Remove 3 $2,607 LOT 3 412 Fir 13.2 Remove 1 $5,608 LOT 3 418 Fir 4.6 Remove 1 $681 LOT 3 420 Fir 4.8 Remove 2 $742 LOT 3 425 Fir 5.8 Remove 3 $1,083 LOT 3 426 Fir 7.4 Remove 3 $1,762 LOT 3 428 Fir 8.9 Remove 3 $2,549 LOT 3 430 Fir 7.1 Remove 1 $1,622 LOT 3 463 Fir 12.8 Remove 3 $5,273 LOT 3 464 Fir 9 Remove 3 $2,607 LOT 3 481 Fir 4.8 Remove 3 $742 LOT 3 482 Fir 9.7 Remove 4 $3,028 LOT 3 482 Fir 9.7 Remove 4 $3,028 LOT 3 482 Fir 9.7 Remove 4 $3,028 Maximium mitigation values based on the City of Aspen formula. 705 West Hopkins Condition Scale March 17, 2016 Tree Survey Report 1-Excellent 2-Good 3-Fair 4-Poor 5-Dead LOT 3 Retain Remove/ Location Tree # Species D.B.H. Condition Comments Mitigation Retain LOT 3 92 Spruce 6 Retain 3 $0 LOT 3 93 Aspen 5 Retain 3 $0 , LOT 3 94 Aspen 5 Retain 3 $0 LOT 3 99 Aspen 6 Retain 3 $0 LOT 3 100 Aspen 6 Retain 3 $0 LOT 3 101 Aspen 8 Retain 3 $0 LOT 3 103 Cottonwood 8 Retain 3 $0 LOT 3 104 Cottonwood 8 Retain 3 $0 j LOT 3 109 Spruce 6 Retain 4 $0 LOT 3 110 Spruce 8 Retain 2 $0 LOT 3 113 Spruce 6 Retain 3 $0 LOT 3 116 Spruce 6 Retain 3 $0 LOT 3 121 Aspen 5 Retain 3 $0 LOT 3 122 Spruce 4 Retain 4 $0 LOT 3 123 Spruce 4 Retain 4 $0 LOT 3 124 Spruce 4 Retain 4 $0 LOT 3 125 Spruce 4 Retain 4 $0 LOT 3 127 Spruce 4 Retain 3 $0 LOT 3 129 Spruce 4 Retain 3 $0 Maximium mitigation values based on the City of Aspen formula. 705 West Hopkins Condition Scale March 17, 2016 Tree Survey Report 1-Excellent 2-Good 3-Fair 4-Poor 5-Dead 131 Spruce 4 Retain 3 $0 LOT 3 LOT 3 132 Spruce 4 Retain 3 $0 LOT 3 133 Cottonwood 5 Retain 3 $0 LOT 3 134 Cottonwood 5 Retain 3 $0 LOT 3 135 Cottonwood 5 Retain 3 $0 LOT 3 136 Cottonwood 5 Retain 3 $0 LOT 3 137 Cottonwood 5 Retain 3 $0 LOT 3 138 Cottonwood 5 Retain 3 $0 LOT 3 139 Fir 16 Retain 2 $0 LOT 3 314 Aspen 4.2 Retain 2 $0 LOT 3 332 Fir 11.8 Retain 3 $0 LOT 3 334 Fir 12.4 Retain 3 $0 LOT 3 335 Fir 12.5 Retain 3 $0 LOT 3 336 Fir 13.1 Retain 3 $0 LOT 3 340 Fir 4 Retain 1 $0 LOT 3 340 Fir 4 Retain 1 $0 LOT 3 350 Fir 7.4 Retain 3 $0 LOT 3 355 Fir 9.4 Retain 3 $0 LOT 3 361 Fir 6.3 Retain 2 $0 LOT 3 361 Fir 6.3 Retain 2 $0 LOT 3 380 Fir 10.4 Retain 3 $0 LOT 3 381 Fir 11.4 Retain 3 $0 LOT 3 381 Fir 11.4 Retain 3 $0 LOT 3 382 Fir 13.1 Retain 3 $0 LOT 3 394 Aspen 4.4 Retain 3 $0 LOT 3 395 Aspen 4.5 Retain 4 $0 LOT 3 400 Aspen 5.6 Retain 3 $0 LOT 3 409 Fir 10.4 Retain 3 $0 LOT 3 410 Fir 10.9 Retain 3 $0 LOT 3 411 Fir 11.7 Retain 4 $0 LOT 3 413 Fir 14.1 Retain 2 $0 LOT 3 414 Fir 14.8 Retain 4 $0 LOT 3 415 Fir 15 Retain 2 $0 LOT 3 416 Fir 16.8 Retain 2 $0 LOT 3 417 Fir 4.1 Retain 2 $0 LOT 3 417 Fir 4.1 Retain 2 $0 LOT 3 417 Fir 4.1 Retain 2 $0 LOT 3 419 Fir 4.7 Retain 3 $0 LOT 3 421 Fir 4.9 Retain 3 $0 LOT 3 422 Fir 5 Retain 3 $0 LOT 3 423 Fir 5.1 Retain 3 $0 LOT 3 424 Fir 5.3 Retain 3 $0 LOT 3 427 Fir 7.5 Retain 3 $0 LOT 3 429 Fir 9 Retain 3 $0 LOT 3 431 Fir 9 Retain 2 $0 Maximium mitigation values based on the City of Aspen formula. 705 West Hopkins Condition Scale March 17, 2016 Tree Survey Report 1-Excellent 2-Good 3-Fair 4-Poor 5-Dead LOT 3 432 Fir 7.4 Retain 3 $0 LOT 3 433 Fir 9.3 Retain 3 $0 LOT 3 434 Fir 9.2 Retain 3 $0 LOT 3 435 Fir 9.4 Retain 3 $0 LOT 3 436 Fir 10.5 Retain 3 $0 LOT 3 437 Fir 8.2 Retain 3 $0 LOT 3 438 Fir 6.8 Retain 3 $0 LOT 3 439 Fir 6 Retain 3 $0 LOT 3 440 Fir 7.1 Retain 3 $0 LOT 3 442 Fir 7.3 Retain 3 $0 LOT 3 444 Fir 7.3 Retain 3 $0 LOT 3 445 Fir 7.5 Retain 3 $0 LOT 3 446 Fir 8.8 Retain 3 $0 LOT 3 447 Fir 7.4 Retain 3 $0 LOT 3 448 Fir 14.5 Retain 3 $0 LOT 3 449 Fir 12.5 Retain 3 $0 LOT 3 450 Fir 13.8 Retain 3 $0 LOT 3 451 Fir 6.1 Retain 3 $0 LOT 3 452 Fir 10.3 Retain 3 $0 LOT 3 453 Fir 7.6 Retain 3 $0 LOT 3 454 Fir 7.2 Retain 3 $0 LOT 3 455 Fir 6.2 Retain 2 $0 LOT 3 456 Fir 5.1 Retain 2 $0 LOT 3 457 Fir 6.9 Retain 2 $0 LOT 3 458 Fir 5.1 Retain 3 $0 LOT 3 459 Fir 9.8 Retain 3 $0 LOT 3 460 Fir 5.2 Retain 3 $0 LOT 3 461 Fir 6.7 Retain 3 $0 LOT 3 462 Fir 5 Retain 3 $0 LOT 3 483 Fir 9.7 Retain 4 $0 LOT 3 483 Fir 9.7 Reta in 4 $0 LOT 3 487 Aspen 6.3 Retain 3 $0 LOT 3 490 Aspen 5 Retain 3 $0 LOT 3 493 Aspen 16 Retain 3 $0 Maximium mitigation values based on the City of Aspen formula. 705 West Hopkins Condition Scale March 17, 2016 Tree Survey Report 1-Excellent 2-Good 3-Fair 4-Poor 5-Dead ROW (Right-of-Way) Remove/ Location Tree # Species D.B.H. Condition Comments Mitigation Retain ROW 263 Ash 4 Remove 2 $0 ' ROW 263 Ash 4 Remove 2 $0 i ROW 263 Ash 4 Remove 2 $0 ROW 263 Ash 4 Remove 2 $0 ROW 263 Ash 4 Remove 2 $0 ROW 263 Ash 4 Remove 2 $0 ROW 264 Elm 5 Remove 2 $0 ROW 264 Elm 5 Remove 2 $0 ROW 264 Elm 5 Remove 2 $0 ROW 264 Elm 5 Remove 2 $0 ROW 264 Elm 5 Remove 2 $0 ROW 265 Elm 4 Remove 2 $0 ROW 306 Boxelder 4 Remove 3 $0 ROW 307 Boxelder 4.5 Remove 3 $0 ROW 307 Boxelder 4.5 Remove 3 $0 ROW 308 Boxelder 5 Remove 3 $0 ROW 309 Ash 4 Remove 2 $0 ROW 310 Ash 4.5 Remove 2 $0 Maximum Mitigation $790,833 Value Maximium mitigation values based on the City of Aspen formula. EXHIBIT K; El 705 WEST HOPKINS LODGING PROJECT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Prepared for 359 Design 710 W. Colfax Avenue Denver, CO 80204 303 â€¢ 884-9131 Prepared by 1-SC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2690 Lake Forest Road, Suite C P.O. Box 5875 Tahoe City, California 96145 530 â€¢ 583-4053 March 31, 2016 LSC #147160 ~Â©;24 83; Â»49(91 ~~0 NAL U~Â§~ 44,<41111#tm,WN TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1 INTRODUCTION . 1 Project Description . 1 Scope of Study 1 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS - Existing Roadway System Existing Transit Services and Facilities Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Conditions Existing Traffic Volumpq Historic Crash Data 5 Existing Vehicle Level of Service _ 8 3 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS 11 Trip Generation, Distribution, and Assignment 11 Existing Plus Project Vehicle Level of Service 12 Signal Warrant Review ... 12 Existing Plus Project Multimodal Level of Service (MMLOS) 12 Findings of Project Impacts 14 Access and Circulation Design 16 4 FUTURE CONDITIONS 71 Future Background Traffic Volumes 0 1 Future No Project Vehicle Level of Service 21 Future Plus Project Traffic Volumes 71 Future Plus Project Vehicle Level of Service 21 5 PROPOSED MITIGATION PROGRAM 75 TDM Meagrireâ‚¬ 9 MMLOS Meagilreq 75 Enforcement & Financing 26 Scheduling and Implementation Responsibility of Mitigation Measures....................................... 26 Proposed Significant Impact Mitigation 06 6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................ 27 LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE 1 Crash Data along Highway 82 6 2 Historical Crash Data in Study .A rea 7 3 Existing Intersection LOS 10 4 705 W. Hopkins - Trip Generation 12 5 Existing Plus Project Intersections LOS 13 6 Transit LOS Analyqiq 15 7 Trip Generation for Future Backgroundq 22 705 West Hopkins Lodging Project LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. TraiRe Impact Analysis Pagei er en rr =f =f 8 Future Intersection LOS 23 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1 Site and Location Map 2 Lane Configuration and Intersection Control 3 Bike and Pedestrian Mid-Day Peak-Hour Volumes 4 Existing No-Project Peak-Hour Volumes 5 Project Generation Peak Hour Volumes and Trip Distribution 6 Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Volumes 7 Proposed Hopkins Shuttle Transit Route 8 Future Background Peak Hour Volumes from Approved Projects and Trip Distribution 9 Future No Project Peak Hour Volumes 10 Future Plus Project Peak Hour Volumes LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 705 West Hopkins Lodging Project Page ii Traffic Impact Analysis Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION The purpose ofthis traffic engineering study is to assess the potential transportation impacts of this proposed development on the surrounding roadway infrastructure. This study will determine if mitigation is required to keep the roadways operating safely and at capacity levels acceptable under the current code. This report is prepared in accordance with the City of Aspen's Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines for a "Level Two TIA." Full build-out of the site- generated traffic volumes is examined, as well as the operational analyses of study intersections located within the study area. This report documents the findings and conclusions of a Transportation Impact Analysis conducted for a proposed site plan for property proposed to be annexed into the City of Aspen area o f Pitkin County, Colorado. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed lodging project is located at 705 West Hopkins Avenue on the south side of West Hopkins Avenue between 7th Street and 5th Street. The two existing residences would be removed with implementation of the project. A total of 27 residential units, 159 lodging keys, and commercial amenities are proposed, as follows: â€¢ Free Market Residences (4 proposed minus 2 existing, or a net increase of 2 units) â€¢ Employee Housing (23 units) â€¢ Hotel Units (118 keys) â€¢ Fractional Ownership Units (22 units/41 keys) â€¢ Commercial Amenities (11,647 square feet) The site will include amenities, such as on-site food and beverage uses, banquet/meeting space, ski concierge, pool/spa, and fitness facilities. According to the project proponent, the meeting/event space is not intended to be used for public events. As such, this floor area is not included in the commercial square footage for purposes of traffic generation. Primary access to the site would be provided on Hopkins Avenue via a driveway opposite 6th Street. This driveway provides access to the main entry turnaround and the resident/guest parking structure. A second driveway is proposed immediately east of the main driveway, serving the loading area and employee housing parking structure. The proposed site plan is contained in Appendix A. SCOPE OF STUDY The scope ofthe study was defined by LSC Transportation Consultants, City of Aspen staff, Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) staff, and the City' s Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines.The following intersections were identified for analysis: 1. Main Street / 7th Street 2. Main Street / 6th Street 705 West Hopkins Lodging Project LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Traffic Impact Analysis P age 1 3. Main Street / 5th Street 4. Hopkins Avenue / 7th Street 5. Hopkins Avenue / 6th Street 6. Hopkins Avenue / 5th Street 7. Highway 82 / Cemetery Lane The project location and study intersection locations are shown in Figure 1. The results of this study are used to develop recommendations to mitigate project transportation impacts. This analysis considers four scenarios: 1. Existing Conditions 2. Existing Plus Project 3. Future Background 4. Future Background Plus Project Transportation-related issues addressed in this report are consistent with City of Aspen requirements. The issues are as follows: 1. Existing transportation conditions 2. Site generated traffic volumes and their distribution and assignment 3. Vehicle Level of Service analysis with and without the project 4. Multimodal Level of Service analysis 5. Recommendations for mitigation of significant impacts LSC Transportation Consultants. Inc. 705 West Hopkins Lodging Project Page 2 Traffic Impact Analysis Figure 1 Site and Location Map . Â· ..â€¢4: Â·, â€¢,_ 44 Â·4Â·6 9 Icir 3 r>'. . 0 t" N. 4 , 4 ft.intel 1- y D I. C Â¢ . I I' CK 0 I. /. , Ci -I, 4 047,1 9% 5 9 W '44> /4 5, 3 5 A.'â€žAl-,- I i, Sp'.1.-C .... 2 C S,#. 11- f....j 0 0 4 6 2 r '>5* IM V #.4 2 2 -, 2 (, 449 : ..4 1-,.itt. 0,17 fe A + 9 2 Â£ 2 7 1,19 2 A ' 0 Â·'Â»DC.,5 FB f 1 2 W H 4 - St 9 Lifoon CteÂ» Rd N . I 1 , at . 1 0 6 Â®44- 0,4, 0,4 4 k. t,rDâ€¢,1 I 2... t'i-' '/ " Ad. G" E- R/reke, St 0 h 'a Proposgd 142 2 2474 Â¢ 4. . Site 9 , . "ljif': 'I, U A r,"/ 0 . 19.. A 'pen Â£ 0, 0 5 r t CA .. / 6 0 Ve 1 e f z iff 0 4' 49 2rt -7. 3 4 6 5 a ~f" 4 6 r, 0 â‚¬71 .4 0 1Â£*tgou,4,4,4.e I .....1 F 4, L.'7 ,+ COO... ' :., -kne Ort j Â»â€¢.014â€¢tâ€¢ 8 2 - 1 04.,9 1% /11 h 9 4. e A i.'" Â·I L.~+ T~ ~â€ž.1. 4:De"* f VIt LEGEND ": 2 ..2 4 "{:id" 2 04 9 91 0 W e: tv: e. 0, r A Ic l..' 4,7 e. g 9 * Study Intersections "' IRM Aj. 9 - 16.,4 00et K..t 0 Pall ,-1. 1-4, b 0 .Â© 44 1% 10 A./ 5$:&,g'/ 'Ae C, 4' fli N Chapter 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS The existing infrastructure and operational traffic conditions in the vicinity ofthe site were documented. The following discussion presents information regarding the project site, existing transit services and facilities, existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and existing traffic conditions in the study area. EXISTING ROADWAY SYSTEM The key roadways in the vicinity of the site area are described below. Highway 82 runs generally in a north/south direction through the Roaring Fork Valley from Glenwood Springs in the north to Aspen in the south then extends over Independence Pass. Near the project site Highway 82 goes through the "S curves" as it runs north/south along 7th Street and east/west on Main Street. The roadway configuration varies between two lanes at its intersection with Cemetery Lane to four lanes east of 5th Street. There is a dedicated transit lane in the westbound direction along Main Street east of 6th Street. On-street parking is provided along the north side of Main Street between 6th Street and 7th Street. The posted speed limit on this road within the vicinity ofthe project site is 25 miles per hour. West Hopkins Avenue is a local road adjacent to the project site. As this roadway is a designated through travel route for bicyclists and pedestrians, through vehicle traffic is limited to one block only. That is, through travel is only allowed for non-auto (bicycle and pedestrian) modes. On-street parking (2-hour parking) is currently allowed along this roadway, with the exception of the south side along the project frontage. 7th Street is a two-lane roadway that runs from North Street on the north to a residential neighborhood south ofHopkins Avenue. For two blocks, (Hallem Street to Main Street) 7th Street has the Highway 82 designation. On-street parking is allowed (2-hour parking). 6th Street is a short, local road that extends north/south between Hopkins Avenue on the south and Gillespie Avenue on the north. On-street parking is provided (2-hour parking). 5th Street is also a short, local road that extends from Hopkins Avenue on the south to Gillespie Avenue on the north. Two-hour, on-street parking is allowed on 5th Street. Figure 2 shows the study intersections, lane configuration, and intersection controls. EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICES AND FACILITIES Extensive transit services exist in the vicinity ofthis project. All services are provided by the Roaring Fork Transit Authority (RFTA). Five routes pass near the site including three local City of Aspen routes and two regional Roaring Fork Valley routes. 705 West Hopkins Lodging Project LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. TraFic Impact Analysis P age 3 1. Figure 2 Lane Configuration and Intersection Control < Al:S-Â£. ... $0, quv Hopkins Ave./7th St. '~p Main St./7th St. Main St./6th St. Main St./5th St. 1*4 6 + 4 + 16 PM, :r Main St. 0 ~~ . 2 4 W. Main St. ,|~r Main St. Main St, Hopkins Ave. 7* f= 1/ it +JI U) co - th -C L - 79 5 -r K ; 10 4' c q Â¢~ Hopkins Ave./6th St. -8444 St 15*a~tuld P.1, .2 P 4- 2 - 010 (D Hopkins Ave~ 4, CO .2 4 O Hopkins Ave./5th St. t{.?111,/3 51 'N . M 41 , n N . 12 - I. Â£ 1 LEGEND J - p 2 Hopkins Ave.' | % Â·4Â· Blel* A~ Lane Configuration 0 - U V 4 41 - c - I I Stop Sign ./ 2 f ' : Ki| 1 92/ 1, rTh Study Intersection w 4 (~ Hwy 82 /Cemetery Ln. * I 1~E Traffic Signal 4-ILL+ A L Right-Turn Divider f ful, I- Hwy 82 12- 13 SawÂ·m,j, cr .C L eme f et y 'LO "trt'o"lf t:, .- 41, ul BeleweD â€¢ The Local Valley Bus operates 7 days a week and provides service between Aspen and Glenwood Springs from 4:00AM through 2:21 AM every 30 minutes. The closest stops to the project site are located at Hwy 82/8th Street and Main Street/4th Street. â€¢ The VelociRFTA Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) operates 7 days a week and also provides service between Aspen and Glenwood from 4:28 AM until 2:00 AM every 10 minutes. The closest stop to the project site is located at Hwy 82/8th Street. â€¢ The local Burlingame route operates between the Burlingame Ranch Housing area and Ruby Park from 6:42 AM through 2:00 AM every 30 minutes. The closest stops to the project site are located at Bleeker Street/7th Street and Main Street/6th Street. Note the Main Street/6th Street stop is only available in the out of town direction as the in-town direction stop was removed within the past few years due to passenger safety issues. â€¢ The local Castle Maroon route operates between downtown Aspen and Highlands Ski Area from 6:20 AM till 2:00 AM every 20 minutes. The closest stops to the project site are located at Bleeker Street & 7th Street and Main Street & 6th Street (outbound only). â€¢ The local Cemetery Lane route operates between the Cemetery Lane area and Downtown Aspen from 6:42 AM till 2:00 AM every 30 minutes. The closest stops to the project site are located at Bleeker Street & 7th Street and Main Street & 6th Street (outbound only). A dedicated bus lane runs in the westbound direction along Main Street east of 6th Street. EXISTING BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN CONDITIONS West Hopkins Avenue provides a 24-foot paved bicycle/pedestrian through travel route, with limited vehicular access. The bicycle route continues south along 7th Street. An 8-foot sidewalk is provided along the south side of West Hopkins Avenue in the site vicinity. Sidewalks are also provided along both sides o f 7th Street, along a portion of the west side of 6th Street, and along a portion ofthe east side of 5th Street. Bicyclist and pedestrian counts were conducted by LSC staff at the six study intersections near the site during the intersection traffic count periods (7:00 AM to 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM on Thursday, August 21, 2014). In addition, mid-block bicycle and pedestrian counts were conducted from 10:00 AM to noon on Wednesday, August 20,2014. The count data is contained in Appendix B. The results indicate that the peak periods of bicyclist and pedestrian activity generally occur in the mid-morning (around 10- 11 AM), with a maximum of 40 pedestrians and 95 bicyclists observed to travel along West Hopkins Avenue adjacent to the project site during the busiest hour. The maximum observed peak-hour bicycle and pedestrian volumes on the six blocks near the site are shown in Figure 3. EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES Existing vehicular traffic volume data is the basis for the analysis of the capacity and safety of the roadway network. LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 705 West Hopkins Lodging Project P age 4 Tragic Impact Analysis Figure 3 Bike and Pedestrian Mid-Day Peak-Hour Volumes ' 51 V, 49 -1 CO-82 :22' I 11/ Alain St r- S LI> ~10. 20 4 - ,- .3 I X GO ~k!41!I X W }i opkins A Proposed Site * 6, r. LEGEND 11/35 Bike Volume/Pedestrian Volume e 19 140 '41 Existing Intersection Volumes Peak>hour turning-movement counts were conducted at the Highway 82/Cemetery Lane intersection on Tuesday July 7, 2015 from 6:30 AM to 8:30 AM and from 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM. All other study intersections were counted on Thursday August 21, 2014 between 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM and between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM. Additionally, 24-hour continuous traffic counts were conducted on Highway 82 at the Castle Creek Bridge during the count period in 2014. The count data is included in Appendix B. Finally, the Main Street/6th Street intersection was video- taped for two 1-hour periods (7:30 AM to 8:30 AM and 4:30 PM to 5:30 PM). In order to conservatively estimate the peak-hour traffic volumes, the raw counts were adjusted to represent the peak summer peak-hour traffic volumes. The Average Daily Traffic volume (ADT) at the Castle Creek Bridge on the count day (August 21,2014) was compared to the Peak Month (July) ADT, and the results indicate the Peak Month ADT is approximately 3.3 percent higher than that on the day of the counts. The count data was therefore increased by 3.3 percent to reflect peak summer conditions. The resulting 'existing no project' AM and PM intersection volumes are shown in Figure 4. Existing Roadway Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Existing Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) is provided on Highway 82 by CDOT at two locations near the project site. The existing AADT ranges from, is 23,000 vehicles per day at the Castle Creek Bridge on the west to 29,000 vehicles per day east of 4th Street. HISTORIC CRASH DATA Existing crash data was acquired from CDOT's Crashes and Rates on State Highways (2012), the most recent year available. All crashes reported on Highway 82 near the site (from Castle Creek Road to 1 st Street) are shown in Table 1. As shown, a total of 38 crashes were reported in the study area, including 4 injury accidents. To the east of the study area, a total of 11 crashes were reported, with no injuries. No fatalities were reported on either segment. Actual crash rates (crashes per million vehicle miles) were calculated and compared with the applicable statewide average rates. All crash rates for both segments of Highway 82 were higher than the statewide average rates for this type of facility, except the fatality crash rate. In addition, historical crash data for the most recent 10-year period available (2005-2015) was obtained from the City Police Department. Table 2 summarizes the data by intersection. As shown a total of 401 accidents were reported in the study area, with almost one-quarter ofthe accidents occurring at or near the intersection of Ilighway 82/Cemetery Lane (approximately 23 percent), and approximately 21 percent of the accidents occurring at or near the Main Street/7th Street intersection. Most of the incidents reported were non-injury accidents. Note that "Hit & Run" does not necessarily indicate an injury accident. Although limited incident details are available, a common occurrence along West Hopkins Avenue appears to be a moving vehicle hitting a parked vehicle, resulting in property damage only. 705 West Hopkins Lodging Project LSC Transportation Consultants. Inc. Trafic Impact Analysis Page 5 1 -Ill' 1. Figure 4 Existing No Project Peak Hour Volumes :~) F.. Main St./7th St. 4~*~f Main St./6th St. Main St./5th St. , 9 Hopkins Ave./7th St. , j, CO) ~598(1143) m (5) (4) (3) 26 (817) (36) 2 0) L~4 (5) (8) 0 ~(31) 8 (3) L.1 (14) LJ~, 1082 -0 (21 F6(17) ~ ~~ ~ ~1 (52) (L ..Ult-- 17:~r'096) ..DIe- - 609 (1094) Main St Main St. Main St. Hopkins St. co) o _f (1 0121-t (2)11~ (8) 6 ---- 65 2~ r-~ (825)1069---- ed' -I-11 (-r- (829)1058---- E -*;'11(:- t E (8) (14) (4)4~~ (14) 0 (4) (4)El E (5) A (11) 1 (5) 4*. r Bugâ€ž " '4 ~ Hopkins Ave./6th St. BaffÂ¥â€¢4 ,- ":24. .: P.*, A I 0 . m (0) t.2 (7) ..U lE. 05 12-- 19 (57) e -= Hopkins Ave, (8) 3j 54 L. 7' 4 r G CO..2 I 'fir, - f (20) 41-_+ 1 <~ Hopkins Ave./5th St. "LEGEND 2 1, T W ?1.,Ii .. 6 1 (4) U (5) 138 AM Volumes - 0 4. U teeke, * tutell et -214 3 - 25(63) 6, S (138) PM Volumes , 4 I -7 Turning Movement 2 4% Hopkins St. 0 + 3/. 0-1 4, 4 (23)40 --0. 4,1 Ste * Mal. ~ 1 Hwy 82 /Cemetary Ln. St Cl (234) (80) i A tz) U.2 2 125(58) V E 16--479(1253) p. Hwy 82 Proposed S.4% c, s.. Site (772) 56_~ (807)981 --- â€¢te,Â¥ v, TABLE 1: Crash Data along Highway 82 Year 2012 (most recent year available) Crashes Crash Rates3 Mile Post Description MVMT AADT PDO2 Injury Fatal Total PDO Injury Fatal Total From Castle Creek Road/Maroon Creek Road to 5th 40.62 5.84 20,990 34 4 0 38 5.79 0.68 0 6.47 Street 40.88 .From 5th Street to 1 st Street 2.15 23,528 11 0 0 11 5.19 0 0 5.19 Statewide Average Rates4 2.47 0.27 1.38 2.76 From Castle Creek Road/Maroon Creek Road to 5th 40.62 Percent of Statewide Average5 234% 252% 0% 234% Street 40.88 From 5th Street to 1 st Street Percent of Statewide Average5 210% 0% 0% 188% Note 1: Data found in Colorado Department of Transportation's "Crashes and Rates on State Highways" 2012 p. 99 Note 2: PDO = "Property Damage Only" Note 3: Rates are in Million Vehicle Miles Traveled, except Fatal Rate is in 100 Million Vehicle Miles. Note 4: Statewide Average Rates for "Other Principal Arterial" Classification. Note 5: Any percentage above 100% means the statewide average has been exceeded. sls*uy looduiI 31Â£0Â·11 9 3%Dd 13)fold Butfpol suqdoli ls,Al SOL .Jul 'sluollnsuoD uoilm.todsup,1 DS,I - - 1-- - TABLE 2: Historical Crash Data in Study Area Incident Type Non-Injury Intersectionl Accident Accident H it & Ru n Other Total HWY 82 and Cemetery Lane 49 33 2 9 93 HWY 82 and 8th Street 6 6 0 0 12 7th and Hallam 7 8 0 1 16 7th and Bleeker 35 9 2 1 47 Main Street and 7th Street 39 35 11 0 85 Main Street and 6th Street 43 22 5 0 70 Main Street and 5th Street 36 19 1 1 57 Hopkins and 7th Street 7 5 2 0 14 Hopkins and 6th Street 1 0 4 0 5 Hopkins and 5th Street 2 0 0 0 2 Total 225 137 27 12 401 Note: Crash data reported for the period from 2005-2015. Note 1: Mid-block crashes were assigned to the nearest intersection. L abd slskinuy podull bil Dul 'slumplsuo j uollowodsupti DS:] 10)fold Nu?Xpol su?ldoH lE EXISTING VEHICLE LEVEL OF SERVICE The AM and PM peak-hour Level of Service (LOS) was evaluated at the study intersections. Description Traffic operations were assessed in terms of LOS. LOS is a concept that was developed by ' transportation engineers to quantify the level of operation of intersections and roadways UIighway Capacity Manual, 2010). LOS measures are classified in grades "A" through "F" indicating a range of operation. LOS A signifies the best level of operation, while F represents the worst, with very long delays. LOS at unsignalized intersections is also classified in grades A through F. These grades of LOS are quantified in terms of average delay per vehicle. A LOS A reflects full freedom of operation for a driver while a LOS F represents operational failure. The delay criteria are based on the theory of gap acceptance for side-street stop sign-controlled approaches. A detailed description ofLOS criteria is provided in Appendix C. Level of Service Standards Applicable roadway standards are provided in the City's Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines, as d follows: â€¢ LOS C or better during peak hours is acceptable within the City of Aspen. â€¢ For individual turning movements, LOS D, E and F may be acceptable for left-turns or for minor street unsignalized movements; however some mitigation may be necessary. â€¢ In instances where the existing LOS is already less than LOS C, the project should include mitigation to maintain the LOS and not degrade it further. Mitigation preferences should focus on reducing vehicle trips, improving the bicycle and walking network, improving transit services orfacilities, and modifying traffic control operations (i. e., signal timings). i Analysis Methodology The current LOS at the study intersections were evaluated for the peak hours by utilizing the . Synchro 8 software, based upon the procedures presented in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (Federal Highways Administration, 2010). The Synchro output and calculations are provided in Appendix D for further reference. Level of Service Analysis , Intersections in the project area were evaluated to determine existing operational conditions for summer peak-hour conditions. Table 3 summarizes the results of the LOS analysis for existing conditions. As shown, all study intersections currently operate at LOS B or better during the AM and PM peak hours without the proposed project, with the exception ofthe following two intersections: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 705 West Hopkins Lodging Project Page 8 Traffic Impact Analysis â€¢ Main Street/6th Street â€¢ Main Street/5th Street The minor street unsignalized movements at these two intersections currently operate at LOS E and LOS D, respectively. 1 . 705 West Hopkins Lodging Project LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Traffic Impact Analysis Page 9 TABLE 3: Existing Intersection LOS Without Project Total Intersection Worst Movement Delay Delay Intersection Control Type 1,2 (sec/veh) LOS (sec/veh) LOS AM Main Street / 7th Street Unconventional 0.2 A 13.0 B Main Street / 6th Street Side-Street Stop 0.6 A 48.0 E Main Street / 5th Street Side-Street Stop 0.2 A 34.8 D Hopkins Avenue / 7th Street All-Way Stop 7.0 A 7.4 A Hopkins Avenue / 6th Street Side-Street Stop 1.1 A 8.7 A Hopkins Avenue / 5th Street Side-Street Stop 02 A 7.3 A Highway 82 / Cemetery Lane Traffic Signal 8.9 A -- -- PM Main Street / 7th Street Unconventional 0.1 A 11.5 B Main Street / 6th Street Side-Street Stop 2.8 A 176.4 F Main Street / 5th Street Side-Street Stop 0.5 A 33.6 D Hopkins Avenue / 7th Street All-Way Stop 7.3 A 7.5 A Hopkins Avenue / 6th Street Side-Street Stop 1.9 A 9.0 A Hopkins Avenue / 5th Street Side-Street Stop 0.6 A 9.0 A Highway 82 / Cemetery Lane Traffic Signal 15.5 B -- -- BOLD text indicates exceedance of LOS standards. OVF = Overflow. Overflow indicates a delay greater than 300 seconds per vehicle, which cannot be accurately calculated using HCM methodology. NOTE 1: Level of service for signalized intersections is reported for the total intersection. NOTE 2: Level of service for stop-controlled intersections is reported for the worst movement. Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 91 sqi)uy iondull Olfft)11 O I azod pafoid Bulspol supldoll 193*1 gOL .OUI 'SluminsuoD uounwodsuoll, 2)g-1 Chapter 3 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS 5 The proposed development will add traffic to the roadway system. The project location and the size ofthe project are important elements that need to be considered to determine the impacts of this development on safety and capacity. It is also important to examine how the project will operate with the existing transportation system, estimate how much new traffic will be generated, and predict where traffic generated by the site will be distributed. In addition, the project impact on vehicular and multimodal LOS is evaluated. TRIP GENERATION, DISTRIBUTION, AND ASSIGNMENT Trip Generation The first step in the analysis of future traffic impacts is to prepare an estimate of the number of trips generated by the proposed project. Trip generation is the evaluation ofthe number of vehicle-trips that will either have an origin or destination at the project site. Peak-hour vehicle trips must be determined in order to analyze the potential impacts from the proposed project development. The trip generation analysis is based on the methodology provided in the City's TIA Guidelines using the City ofAspen specific trip generation rates. Both AM and PM peak-hour trip generation rates are provided. The results are summarized in Table 4. Considering the proposed amenities, this project qualifies for the standard mixed-use reduction of 4 percent in the AM peak hour and 14 percent in the PM peak hour. The resulting total trip generation is approximately 82 AM peak-hour trips (48 entering and 34 exiting) and 103 PM peak-hour trips (50 entering and 53 exiting). In the busiest hour (PM peak hour) this equates to less than two vehicle-trips per minute (or approximately one vehicle every 35 seconds, on average). Trip Distribution and Traffic Assignment The distribution of traffic arriving and leaving the project site is identified based upon regional access patterns, existing turning-movement volumes, and the location of complementary land uses within the area. The distribution of the proposed project traffic is summarized in Figure 5. As shown, the trips to the east and west are expected to be fairly equal. The project-generated turning-movement volumes are calculated by applying the distribution to the trip generation. The lodging and commercial trips are assigned to the main access driveway opposite 6th Street, and most of these trips are expected to use 6th Street to access Main Street. The employee housing trips are assumed to use the proposed driveway located east of 6th Street. About half of these trips are expected to access Main Street via 6th Street, and the other half via 5th Street. The resulting project-generated turning-movement volumes are provided in Figure 5. The project-generated traffic volumes were added to the existing volumes to create the 'existing plus project' intersection volumes displayed in Figure 6. 705 West Hopkins Lodging Project LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Traffic Impact Analysis Page 11 Figure 5 Project Generated Peak Hour Volumes and Trip Distribution L ea ~ ,~~ Main St./5th St. ~1 43. Hopkins Ave./7th St. 94,9 Main St./7th St. 4**~ Main St/6th St ty (24) LE (0) 0 (0) t.9 0) (0) (0) 0 (23) (0) 0 (0) 1 11(0) 0) -Ulll *i--0 (0) -Uze* --- o (Â°) -1114 - 21 (21) (30)) Fi el) 6 (6) $(1- i O (0) J Main St. Main St. ' Main St Hookins Ave. .~ Co, o_J n c (21 (0)0 -- M 05' 161lf 13 (25)13 - 2 -31â‚¬- tri- co) 03 (23)22~ 2 (24) 0 (25) (0) 07 iS ~ ~ (o) (0) 1 0) Co) 4 k " 1 ~ Hopkins Ave./6th St. b,94 w J.Ar tjaug d (39) (0) 39 (5) -U JU~ ~ ti (4) Â¥.2, 0 - 0 (0) f.3 co) Hopkins Ave. (0) 0 11 r f 51, el i co 02 Co) O (0)25 0 (0 Co) O -+- Dtr- (45) ~ Hopkins Ave./5th St. LEGEND 1% H.U.lm SI (6) (0) U (0) Wn, 0 5,10 - 138 AM Volumes ., - Â·Â» S - O (O) (138) PM Volumes e - 4 . 2 Hopkins St. 1 -3 Turning Movement e â€ž ,~, Trip Distribution 0 -- (5) 6...} + ftÂ¢.â€¢Â·/e' 9/ Â·. U ..,4 4 4, c ca $ (0) O --)- Â·,, Ch \9* j b9 2 r, led 6911 ., .- ~~ Hwy 82 /Cemetary Ln. 1 (0) (1) 2 .e.~ 01 {1 2 U (l) tÂ»~Il , 16~ *+ @ 14---15 (23) CAW) i I e W o Proposed 41- 4, . 4 <~~ v -C Site * 3 A,A:,H Ct .2 (o) o _1 (22) 21 - e mtter v '' 3 - Figure 6 Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Volumes 4 ibir#FÂ·' 4- $ lia 4.41 \mo> Main St./7th St. 2/ Main St./6th St. FRI Main St./5th St. 1,â‚¬/ Hopkins Ave./7th St. (5) (0) t,612(1166) (0) (7) 13) 22 (837) (36) 0 (4) .402) (8) 0 (5) 12.(31) 7 (o) 0~~11101 ' -0 (22) .Ult- +- 583 (1096) DIllÂ» *-628(1112) ~ C- G L (13) L.- f~(l) ~311 (271 ~11(23) Main St. Main St. Main St. Hopkins St, E 0 (. J} i (10)21.j (2)11 J 2~ r-:- (822)1066-Bi 06 -;;21~('7; (849)1071----- 0;' ~~'~|~~~~~~ 2 (6) (14) , (27)26~ ~ (37) 0 (29) (4) i~ 3% in w (16) 0 (6) 1 - !2)1 ~ Hopkins Ave./6th St. t,uli, 1 4## Fo (m [:grit:Nd -' -1, 1 111, S l.,1,/ 7 (6) 39 (13) -41#U- 0 U (11) 4---1 (12) i.1 .gh*â€¢Y Ul Â·4$0 : Hopkins Ave, 'li (8) 3 ~ dr -310 I CO 4 Â· 6: 1, , co) 9 (0)(11) (0) El) Hopkins Ave./5th St. ~'1, 4.. LEGEND }17,1!811, 0) (40) U (2) A' 4, 00 138 AM Volumes A ..eekâ€ž. C (138) PM Volumes - ut - 02 *7 Turning Movement 0 Hopkins St. * f'de.:kw 91 - (6) 8_f 4 2 (6)1 --1- C M.,iii â€¢5: 2 2 el#ka we ' ~~- 0~ Hwy 82 /Cemetary Ln. U. 04 041 - + (234) (81) 2 5 - U 4. 4.- 1~Lil l.112 2 IL.36 (59) Â£ -â€¢-494(1276) 4 - Hwy 82 0 _f Proposed * . 4/2 St. .am' 0, 7 Site .2, 0 (72)56 -1 (829)1002-- ~ cO *2N 7 TABLE 4: 705 W. Hopkins - Trip Generation AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Quantity Unit In Out Total In Out Total Free Market Housing 2 Units 0.39 0.95 1.34 0.92 0.72 1.64 Affordable Housing 23 Units 8.28 8.97 17.25 11.26 9.21 20.47 Lodging 159 Keys 22.66 17.09 39.75 25.63 23.66 49.29 Commercial 11,647 sf 18.24 8.2 26.44 19.29 28.93 48.22 Total 49.57 35.21 81.39 57.1 62.52 102.87 Multi-Use Reduction 4% 14% Total (rounded) 48 34 82 50 53 103 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT VEHICLE LEVEL OF SERVICE The AM and PM peak-hour LOS under 'existing plus project' conditions was evaluated at the study intersections. The results are shown in the far right columns of Table 5, and the LOS calculations are provided in Appendix D. As shown, implementation of the proposed project would degrade the worst movement on the Hopkins Avenue/6th Street intersection from LOS A to LOS B. In addition, the two intersections with minor movements currently operating below LOS C would degrade. Specifically, the worst movement on the Main Street/6th Street intersection would degrade from LOS E to LOS F during the AM peak hour. During the PM peak hour, the worst movement would continue to operate at LOS F with an increase in average vehicular delay. The worst movement on the Main Street/5th Street intersection would degrade from LOS D to LOS E during the AM and PM peak hours. According to the City standards, LOS D, E and F may be acceptable for left-turns or for minor street unsignalized movements. In instances where the existing LOS is already less than LOS C (such as at Main Street/6th Street and Main Street/5th Street, the project should include mitigation to maintain the LOS at these intersections and not degrade it further. SIGNAL WARRANT REVIEW Traffic signal warrant criteria are provided in the Federal Highway Administration' s Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). A review of the peak-hour intersection volumes at the Main Street/6th Street and Main Street/5th Street intersections indicates the criteria for the peak-hour volume signal warrant (MUTCD Warrant Number 3) are not met under any existing year scenario, with or without the proposed project. EXISTING PLUS PROJECT MULTIMODAL LEVEL OF SERVICE (MMLOS) Transit, bicycle, and pedestrian LOS were evaluated under 'existing plus project' conditions. LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 705 West Hopkins Lodging Project P age 12 Traffic Impact Analysis r P TABLE 5: Existing Plus Project Intersection LOS Without Project With Project Total Intersection Worst Movement Total Intersection Worst Movement Delay Delay Delay Delay Intersection Control Type 12 (sec/veh) LOS (sec/veh) LOS (sec/veh) LOS (sec/veh) LOS AM Main Street / 7th Street Unconventional 0.2 A 13.0 B 0.2 A 13.2 B Main Street / 6th Street Side-Street Stop 0.6 A 48.0 E 2.4 A 91.6 F Main Street / 5th Street Side-Street Stop 0 2 A 34.8 D 0.3 A 37.5 E Hopkins Avenue / 7th Street All-Way Stop 7.0 A 7.4 A 7.0 A 7,4 A Hopkins Avenue / 6th Street Side-Street Stop 1.1 A 8.7 A 5.2 A 9.9 A Hopkins Avenue / 5th Street Side-Street Stop 0.2 A 7,3 A 1.3 A 8.5 A Highway 82 / Cemetery Lane Traffic Signal 8.9 A - - 9.4 A - - PM Main Street / 7th Street Unconventional 0.1 All.5 8 0.4 All.6 B Main Street / 6th Street Side-Street Stop 2.8 A 176.4 F 17.9 C OVF F Main Street / 5th Street Side-Street Stop 0.5 A 33.6 D 0.6 A 36.9 E Hopkins Avenue / 7th Street All-Way Stop 7.3 A 7,5 A 7.3 A 7.5 A Hopkins Avenue / 6th Street Side-Street Stop 1.9 A 9.0 A 5.6 A 10.1 B Hopkins Avenue / 5th Street Side-Street Stop 0.6 A 9.0 A 1.4 A 8.9 A Highway 82 / Cemetery Lane Traffic Signal 15.5 8 - -- 17.3 8 BOLD text indicates exceedance of LOS standards. OVF = Overflow. Overflow indicates a delay greater than 300 seconds per vehicle, which cannot be accurately calculated using HCM methodology. NOTE 1 : Level of service for signalized intersections is reported for the total intersection. NOTE 2: Level of service for stop-controlled intersections is reported for the worst movement. Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Â£1 32Â¤d sts<puy loodull 31#Dil .Jul 'SJUD,Instiol uounwodsuvil 351 Jogfoid Sulypol sunldo]-1 190,~1 IOL Transit Level of Service Analysis Transit LOS was determined based on the City's Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines (the "TIA Guidelines"). As shown in Table 6, of the four LOS metrics the current transit system near ' the project site meets all four metrics. Therefore, the overall transit system performance is LOS A under existing conditions. Note that the travel time factor was calculated based on the average of the three popular locations listed. Implementation ofthe proposed project is not expected to disrupt existing or planned transit facilities or degrade the quality of the transit service. The overall transit system performance is estimated to remain at LOS A under 'existing plus project' conditions. Bicycle Level of Service Analysis The existing bicycle facility along Hopkins Avenue provides connectivity from 7th Street on the west side ofthe project to Garmisch Street on the east. The project would eliminate the existing on-street parking areas along portions of the site frontage on West Hopkins Avenue. Elimination of these spaces would improve safety conditions for bicyclists traveling along West Hopkins Avenue. The project would not change the existing number of curb cuts (two), both of which would be used to access the site on a regular basis. Traffic volumes along any one segment of Hopkins Avenue would increase by up to 6 vehicles per hour per direction. The National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) has published a Bicycle Level Of Service methodology that reflects a wide range of factors, including traffic volume, bicycle lane width, pavement condition, and speed: The resulting value then is used to identify the Bicycle LOS. As an example, Bicycle LOS A is identified for any situation where the total calculated value is 1.5 or less. Applying the formula, the net effect of adding 6 vehicle-trips would be an increase in the value of 0.065. It can be concluded that the overall impact of the project traffic on Bicycle LOS would be minimal. Implementation of the project is therefore not expected to disrupt existing or planned bicycle facilities or conflict with adopted City non-auto plans, guidelines, policies, or standards. Pedestrian Level of Service Analysis Sidewalk and pedestrian path LOS is characterized by sidewalk continuity, sidewalk width, presence of a landscape buffer and ADA compliance. The existing sidewalk along the project frontage is 8-feet wide with a 5-foot landscape buffer separating it from the vehicular travel lanes. These widths meet minimum width for commercial uses. The project proposes to provide an 8.5-foot sidewalk along the project frontage. In addition, a landscape buffer approximately 5.5 to 6.5 feet wide will be provided along the project frontage. Assuming the proposed sidewalks are ADA-compliant, the pedestrian LOS would be characterized as LOS A under 'existing plus project' conditions, according to the City's MMLOS guidelines. FINDINGS OF PROJECT IMPACTS The following findings are made regarding potential impacts of the proposed project, based upon the comparison of existing conditions vs. existing plus project conditions: ' Available at www.nacto.org LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 705 West Hopkins Lodging Project P age 14 Traffic Impact Analysis According to the City's design standards, a minimum of 25 feet shall exist between any two curb cuts whether on one or more properties, except when common driveways may be used on adjoining properties. As the proposed driveway spacing exceeds 25 feet, the proposed driveway spacing is considered to be adequate. The City's design standards generally discourage curb cuts. The standards indicate that for commercial and lodging properties that do not have alley or private road access (such as the proposed project site), one curb cut will be considered after an evaluation of site access is performed. The proposed project provides separate lodging and service driveways, in order to fully satisfy on-site truck turning maneuvers. Driver Sight Distance There are two types of driver sight distance criteria to consider in the study area: stopping sight distance and comer sight distance. Stopping sight distance is the minimum distance required by the driver of a vehicle to bring his vehicle to a stop after an object on the road becomes visible. This is the minimum distance needed for a driver on the main roadway approaching an intersection or driveway to see an object in their travel path (such as a vehicle exiting the project site) and safely come to a stop. The American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials' (AASHTO) "A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets" specifies minimum stopping sight distance requirements as a function ofroadway design speed. Corner sight distance is the minimum distance that a driver waiting at a cross street should be able to see in either direction along the main roadway in order to accurately identify an acceptable gap in through traffic. A clear line of sight should be maintained between the driver pulling out ofthe minor street and any approaching vehicle on the major street. AASHTO specifies corner sight distance values as a function of roadway design speed. The AASLITO design value for corner sight distance, based on a speed of 25 miles per hour, is 280 feet. Adequate driver sight distance is expected to be provided with implementation ofthe proposed project, so long as the final landscaping plans do not hinder the corner sight distance at the site access points. Internal Circulation No safety deficiencies are identified regarding the site circulation design, assuming the circulation plans will be designed to comply with City design standards. The project driveways provide adequate storage for traffic queues, although queuing (stacking) at site access points is expected to be minimal. Pedestrian Circulation System The proposed internal circulation system provides continuous pedestrian connections throughout site. No undue safety concerns are identified regarding the proposed pedestrian circulation , system on-site and along the project frontage. However, the existing sidewalk along 6th Street is discontinuous, as it only runs along a portion of the west side ofthe street. As such, there is no 705 West Hopkins Lodging Project LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Traffic Impact Analysis Page 17 i ................... TABLE 6: Transit LOS Analysis Level of Service Metric Standard Provided at Project Site Standard Met? 20 hours peak/ 18 hours Of the 5 routes, 19.3 to 21 hours of service per Hours of Weekday Service Yes off-peak day is provided to the site 15-30 minutes peak / 60 All local and valley buses at least every 30 min in Season Frequency of Service Yes minutes off-peak peak and at least every 60 min off-peak Locations = Aspen High School, Ruby Park and Travel Time Factor 2.0 X Yes Buttermilk Ski Area Average TTF = 1.92 Peak Load Factor (# of <1.2 Winter 0.25, Summer 0.26 Yes passengers/# of seats) Note 1: Source: Aspen TIA Guidelines Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. and RFTA,2014 S I 38Dd Sts#ouy 131)duq 31Â£(1)11 Jul .slumlnsuoD uoupliodsupil DiI pafoid Sudpog supldoH ls,Al Â§02. â€¢ According to the City standards, the project should include mitigation to maintain the LOS and not degrade it further (as compared to 'existing no project' conditions) at the following two intersections: - Main Street/6th Street - Main Street/5th Street â€¢ Implementation of the proposed project is not expected to disrupt existing or planned transit facilities, degrade the quality ofthe transit service, degrade the overall transit system performance, or conflict with adopted City non-auto plans, guidelines, policies, or standards. As such, the project impact on transit is not considered significant, according to the City' s significant impact criteria. â€¢ The addition of project traffic trips would not change the quality of the existing bicycle facilities in any material way. Implementation of the project is not expected to disrupt existing or planned bicycle facilities or conflict with adopted City non-auto plans, guidelines, policies, or standards. Therefore, the project impact on bicycle facilities is not considered significant. â€¢ The addition of project traffic trips would not change the quality of the pedestrian facilities in any material way. The proposed main access driveway is located appropriately in order to minimize the traffic impacts along the designated bicycle/pedestrian corridor. The project would also improve pedestrian conditions by providing a sidewalk along 6th Street between Hopkins Street and Main Street. Implementation of the proposed project is not expected to disrupt existing or planned pedestrian facilities or conflict with adopted City non-auto plans, guidelines, policies, or standards. Considering all ofthe above, the project impact on pedestrian facilities is considered to be beneficial. ACCESS AND CIRCULATION DESIGN The site plans are reviewed with respect to proposed driveway locations, driver sight distance, internal circulation, pedestrian circulation, and transit impacts. Proposed Driveway Locations Primary vehicular access to the site is proposed to be provided via a new driveway on Hopkins Avenue directly opposite 6th Street. This is an appropriate location for the main driveway, as vehicular access to/from the site focuses on movements along 6th Street from Main Street directly to the site. A new driveway serving the employee housing units and service/loading area is proposed to be located at the eastern end ofthe parcel, about 200 feet east of the main driveway (centerline to centerline distance). The spacing between this driveway and the adjacent driveway to the east (serving 605 West Hopkins Avenue) is about 145 feet. With implementation of the project, the existing driveway on West Hopkins Avenue immediately east of 7th Street would be eliminated. LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 705 West Hopkins Lodging Project Page 16 Traffic Impact Analysis pedestrian connectivity from the project site to Main Street via 6th Street. However, there is an existing pedestrian connection from West Hopkins Avenue to Main Street via the sidewalk along 7th Street. The provision by the project applicant of a sidewalk along 6th Street between Hopkins and Main Streets would benefit pedestrian access to the transit stops along Main Street. There would therefore not be a significant impact on pedestrian circulation, and would instead provide a beneficial impact. Most project vehicle trips would cross Hopkins Avenue (to/from 6th Street) rather than travel along Hopkins Avenue, thereby minimizing the traffic impacts along the pedestrian corridor. Transit Impacts The site plan will not impact existing transit routes, as there are no transit stops or routes directly serving the site. The proposed site along the south side of West Hopkins Avenue between 5th Street and 7th Street is one block off of Main Street, which has very high levels oftransit service, both for regional and for Aspen City service. This provides high transit accessibility in the "downvalley" direction. For transit travel within the city, the Aspen City transit program consists of a total of five routes. While three routes (Castle/Maroon, Cemetery Lane and Burlingame) operate along Main Street near the Retreat site, none directly serve the hotel site. Another route (Crosstown Shuttle) connects downtown with the northern portion of the West End (including the Music Tent), crossing Main Street on Monarch Street. West of Monarch Street, there is no transit service for the neighborhood south of Main Street that does not require crossing Main Street on foot to access a bus stop in one direction or the other. The fact that the westernmost signal along Main Street is at Aspen Avenue limits the ability oftransit services to cross Main Street to serve the southern portion of the West End. The project applicant proposes to operate a new summer and winter transit route to serve both the project travel needs, as well as the community as a whole, providing a direct link between the southern portion o f the West End (including the lodging site) and the downtown area: â€¢ A seasonal (summer and winter) transit route would be implemented and funded by the lodging operator. A recommended route map is shown in the attached Figure 7. As shown, it consists of bi-directional travel along Hopkins Street from the proposed lodging site (turning around in the porte cochere) along with a clockwise loop in downtown consisting of Hopkins Street, Spring Street, Durant Avenue and Monarch Street â€¢ The route is 2 miles in length (round-trip). At a modest average of 12 miles per hour, service could be provided every 10 minutes. At this frequency, passengers typically do not consult a schedule, as it is easier to simply get to a stop to wait for the service. Instead, the shuttle will run continuously. â€¢ A small van (10 to 15 seats) will be used. Optimally, this would be an electric vehicle. Two vehicles will be purchased, both to provide one as backup and to allow mid-day recharging ifnecessary. LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 705 West Hopkins Lodging Project Page I 8 Traffic Impact Analysis Â¥ 3 Â¥Â¥21 a ... 1 - W, , e. D. e . 14 I. ~â€¢~ 0 /1;32* I: If" 4 1 - 4../ <r 4 0. 1 . . ... W. 04 '' 1 -25 2.*.1.0 2,>wa:~ 5 + , . -1 4 2 1, 9 .-. - 061& .r ill"J 3*1~3 Ug i :. 1/ . 4- ~ th RE 6 - , 0- 0: 0 3 - 4 - - lillillelizilliw 1.2.1. 3 1 . 1 . p. LÂ· 1 . -- . ..1 -k. 1 1 - , 1 -1 12 -- , I t'fa*' ~ 37 ..R *Â·tijag *.62*:t <4:*9'14~ 0 - - .; "* i ..i C ' '. J ' 1< Â¥ 3.1 6* 3*2*1 **â„¢ mi,em..4 M. 2* a .':' ~ ~ .iI-t â€¢,6 3 : .A . Sm . .'[1 ' LÂ»hÂ· a +02.-I, ~ ~u~,~~ ,~C)4~Â·.# 4 Â» ~ Â· .. 4 Figure 7: Proposed Hopkins *WI.* '1 71 .... - D -T -Fi~u I.U.I 'â€¢AR" i r LE ; 1.-232 1.. & e O. huttle Transit Route . 0 - .. -31% 5 - 14 Â·24 . , â€¢ Real-time location information will be provided through the RFTA Bus Tracker app, as well as a separate app for hotel guests. The app would also allow guests to make a specific request for a pickup, allowing the driver to double back along the route when possible to improve passenger convenience as well as allowing messaging to confirm a pickup. â€¢ Along Hopkins Street, passengers could simply flag down the vehicle at any location (given the low traffic volumes). The City could potentially provide signed stops, if desired, which would tend to increase public awareness of the service (particularly among guests of other lodging properties along the corridor). On the other streets within the downtown core area, the shuttle will serve all existing bus stops along the route. â€¢ This service will be "branded" as part of the Aspen City service. As such, it would be I included in printed maps and brochures, City and RFTA websites, and City and RFTA social media. To the general public, it would "look and feel" like any other City route. As part ofthe comprehensive system, the vehicle would have convenient access to Rubey Park. â€¢ The service will operate in the following periods: o Winter service - Thanksgiving Day through the 3rd Sunday in April (approximately 143 days) o Summer service - 2nd Saturday in June through 2nd Sunday in September (approximately 98 days) In both seasons, service will be operated from 7:30 AM to 11:00 PM. This "span of service" is beneficial in that it addresses the periods of relatively high demand. It exceeds the hours of service ofthe Cross-Town Route, which operates from 8 AM to 9 PM. (There would be nothing to stop the hotel operator from using the vehicle in the "off seasons" or beyond these hours for guest transportation.) Over the course of a year, this service would operate a total of 3,425 vehicle-hours. â€¢ Drivers will have Commercial Drivers Licenses (CDL), which ensures a high level of professionalism. Drivers should also attend classes in appropriate ways to accommodate passengers with disabilities. â€¢ The lodging operator will be responsible for operating the service consistent with the City's standards (such as for driver appearance and conduct, as well as vehicle cleanliness), as well as for keeping ridership records needed for the City's reporting to state and federal agencies. â€¢ If desired by the City and neighborhood residents, the vehicles could be limited to a maximum speed of 25 miles per hour to ensure compatibility with bicycle and pedestrian travel along Hopkins Avenue. Overall, the project will provide a net benefit to the transit program. 705 West Hopkins Lodging Project LSC Transportation Consultants. Inc. Traffic Impact Analysis Page I 9 This page left intentionally blank. LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 705 West Hopkins Lodging Project Page 20 Trafic Impact Analysis Chapter 4 FUTURE CONDITIONS FUTURE BACKGROUND TRAFFIC VOLUMES Future traffic volumes are estimated based on 'all approved project plus pending or expected development' near the project site. Based on input from City of Aspen Engineering staff, the only nearby approved or pending project is the Boomerang Lodge project located north o f West Hopkins Avenue between 4th and 5th Streets. Estimation of volumes generated by this project was accomplished by first estimating its trip generation, as shown in Table 7. These trips were distributed based on the same patterns as the proposed project, considering the similar location and composition ofthe projects. The trip distribution and resulting turning-movement volumes for the Boomerang Lodge are shown in Figure 8. Adding this future background traffic to the 'existing no project' volumes results in the 'future no project volumes' illustrated in Figure 9. FUTURE NO PROJECT VEHICLE LEVEL OF SERVICE The AM and PM peak-hour LOS under 'future no project' conditions was evaluated at the study intersections. The results are shown in Table 8, and the LOS calculations are provided in Appendix D. The level of service is expected to remain the same as existing no project conditions, with a minimal increase in average delays, except the worst movement on the Main Streeâ‚¬5th Street intersection degrades from LOS D to LOS E during the AM peak hour (due to a slight increase in average delay of approximately 0.3 seconds per vehicle). FUTURE PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES Adding the project-generated traffic shown in Figure 5 to the Future No Project traffic volumes shown in Figure 9 yields the Future Plus Project traffic volumes shown in Figure 10. FUTURE PLUS PROJECT VEHICLE LEVEL OF SERVICE The AM and PM peak-hour LOS under 'future plus project' conditions was evaluated at the study intersections. The results are shown in the far right columns of Table 8, and the LOS calculations are provided in Appendix D. Implementation of the proposed project would degrade the LOS on the worst movement at the Hopkins Avenue/6th Street intersection from LOS A to LOS B. In addition, the worst movement on the Main Streeâ‚¬5th Street intersection degrades from LOS D to LOS E during the PM peak hour, and the worst movement at Main Street/6th Street would degrade from LOS E to LOS F during the AM peak hour. The increase in delays at the remaining study intersections would be relatively minor. According to the City standards, the project should include mitigation to maintain the LOS and not degrade it further at the two intersections on Main Street. 705 West Hopkins Lodging Project LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Traffic Impact Analysis P age 21 Figure 8 Future Background Peak Hour Volumes from Approved Projects and Trip Distribution L 54,31 ...b.. - lill' . 7 kia Main St./7th St. 1. -/ Main St./6th St. ~Â£~ Main St./5th St. 4*i/ Hopkins Ave./7th St. 1 (0) (0) (0) (0) 0 (7) t.2 (6) (o) 0 (0) U (0) (0) 0 (0) 12(0) (0) 0 (0) 129 (0) : -u'll -O (0) Â£ fo (o) -UIL - 6 (63) -DIC -*-- 2 (3) 1(1- CO - Main St . Main St. Main St. Hopkins Ave. (0)03 ntrr Mt * ok- Pr (0)0 -- N nc (7) 5 - 3 co) 0 7 2 co) (o) co) 03 Â£ 0) 0 0) (4) 2 ; a (3) (0) (0) (0) CO) (0) 9 4, c Â·('3~ Hopkins Ave./6th St. k 4 @ {, ,- \4/ Maf#U:/1.Â· Â· P.W. 9% (0) t.2 cÂ°, Â¢ 2) F. 0 -- O (O) fl (0) CD Hopkins Ave, (0, 0 t -atr- 3 CO .2 W f '11 , C , r. / i U 0 0 (0)07 co) co) co) Q Hopkins Ave./5th St. 7--Il h ...i@* LEGEND Â«eÂ« 4.21!ain St 0) CO) 4 0 CO) 138 AM Volumes 9 43 L ...-- 0 (0) N 131 I. * ef k. ! C (138) PM Volumes o *3 Turning Movement 2 * Hopkins St. 2 61' 4,44,1 ~ Trip Distribution Co) O_0~ r 2 0 . (~ Hwy 82 /Cemetary Ln. S' 0 Y 40 C 90) (0) 2 1,11 - + e 1- -9 lo 2 Loco) e Hwy 82 0 Proposed ,~' 49Â«' 29 Site ' 6 Â·,0/,1,1 Ct f (0 0 -1 ..te!,1 #. - Figure g Future No Project Peak Hour Volumes ~ Main St./7th St. <~ Main St./6th St. ~~ Main St./5th St. : 1~ Hopkins Ave./7th St ~ 2'23\ .A' (9) (1) (3) 26 (821) t,602(1148) (36) 2 (6) Q4(5) (8) 0 (J) U<31) 8 (0) 12 (14) (4) ~ LJ {11084 -0(2) -WIL : *- 591 (1102) Otc- - 611 (1097) le- 51 L- F(1) 2 0 (6) 9 (17) r ;31 (52) Main St. Main St. : Main St.. Hopkins St. co) o _f (101 21-7 (2) ~ C 8)6 --- 05 ~ rr (832)1074-- 55 (832)1061--- 41 01(3 1 0 Rt (6) (14) (4) 4 '~1 E ' (14) 0 ,4, (8)3 Â£ (8) A (11) : 3 (23) (5) (31 O 4 1-1 1(~~ Hopkins Ave./6th St. 8145, U Hain,4 1 9 (7) (9) ---19 (57) t..2 (7) 'tighâ€¢fay â€¢'17 ... Hopkins Ave. "04, 1 % 9 (20) 41---* ~ Hopkins Ave./5th St. 1 LEGEND a. (2) (4) do (5) . N 91 138 AM Volumes teke' , ULL G '31 S ...... 25(63) (138) PM Volumes Â· 0 47 Turning Movement w B,eek'.7 2 1 - . Hopkins St. (8) 3 J A N.ina,t, 51 (1) 2-j '; t, . 4-Â· 4 (23) 40 -+ 2 - 7 4/.â€ž , 673 Hwy 82 /Cemetary Ln. C 4: - (80) 4 A .--b. (234) u J 1~ ~ ~ L,55 (58) 21 Â£ +-485(1259) ut Hwy 82 0 Proposed * 4 S 4,Â· 'Â· (72)56-~ Site (814)986 --* &44 1 H.whâ€¢Dia kn 20 WN 7 51 -- Figure 10 Future Plus Project Peak Hour Volumes .4*% =44 1~* Main St./7th St. -4~~i~ Main St./6th St. *~? Main St./5th St. ~~~ Hopkins Ave./7th St. ... ( 5 ) (0) 63) 22 (844) t218(1172) (0) (36) 2 (4) 1 L,14 (2) (8) 0 (5) U(31) (7) f ~) C (13) 0-J I Cr -0 (?) .ult- 4-- 589 (1102) A~ 630(1115) (31 Â¢27) ~ 11(23) = 6(1) h 2 (5) 4 - U) Main St. Main St. Main St. . .... .- . Hopkins Ave. (2)114 f (10) 2~ (852)1074--- e -Dle !(r rn rT (829)1071--- 03 20 '1 1 1 17 (o) o-1 A (6) (14) (24)2~ (80 0 (6 ) 07) 0 (29) : (8) &4 (16) (4) (2) 10 , ~ Hopkins Ave./6th St. ru..4 11 0, 'Tyâ€¢tifulte, S' B.,tri, .1 6 + (29) 1,0 8 4 -2.J ~U- M (61 39 (13) U (11) 1-- 1 (12) - 61, Whway 4-0 co, Hopkins Ave, 61, r. 1 - cO.*2 f 7,11 ntr- W 25 0 mon (0) (0) (45) (~~ Hopkins Ave./5th St. *LEGEND M VallanÂ· St (8) (4) 4 n en W 8, e 138 AM Volumes 2- e....4, ~ZJLZ~ 2 ......6 (18) (138) PM Volumes toi 4 : *-j Turning Movement 2 Hopkins St. 2 2 A Afteke, 61 0 . .. (6) 8.-f 0 .7 4 " 4 6 (6)1 -- . /, 41/ 'r, 1. ''Pm ./ 61 Hwy 82 /Cemetary Ln. C 5 (234) (81) 41 A .. \. f C 12, 1 -- 107 1 1 159 2' l.36 (59) '4 Â» 104 60 % -- 500(1282) Hwy 82 0 e Proposed z Site * 7 S &67"In r.,r ..: (72)56 ~ (836) 1007 - TABLE 7: Trip Generation for Future Background (Approved and Pending Project in the area) AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips Boomerang Lodge Units In Out Total In Out Total Free Market Housing 16 3.11 7.61 10.72 7.35 5.77 13.12 Affordable Housing 5 1.80 1.95 3.75 2.45 2.00 4.45 Lodging 48 6.84 5.16 12.00 7.74 7.14 14.88 Total 11.74 14.72 26.46 17.54 14.91 32.45 Multi-Use Reduction 4% 14% Total (rounded) 11 14 25 15 12 28 sisKinuy looduti MUD.1 ZE 28ud pafoid Budpou sugdoll ls,Al IOL .oul 'SlumlnsuoD uounwodsuvil DS-1 TABLE 8: Future Intersection LOS Without Project With Project Total Intersection Worst Movement Total Intersection Worst Movement Delay Delay Delay Delay Intersection Control Type 1,2 (sec/veh) LOS (sec/veh) LOS (sec/veh) LOS (sec/veh) LOS AM Main Street / 7th Street Unconventional 0.3 A 13.1 B 0.2 A 13.2 B Main Street / 6th Street Side-Street Stop 0.6 A 49.0 E 2.5 A 95.5 F Main Street / 5th Street Side-Street Stop 0.4 A 35.1 E 0.5 A 37.8 E Hopkins Avenue / 7th Street All-Way Stop 7.0 A 7.4 A 7.0 A 7.4 A Hopkins Avenue / 6th Street Side-Street Stop 1.1 A 8.7 A 52 A 99 A Hopkins Avenue / 5th Street Side-Street Stop 02 A 7.3 A 1.3 A 85 A Highway 82 / Cemetery Lane Traffic Signal 9.0 A -- -- 9.5 A -- -- PM Main Street / 7th Street Unconventional 0.6 A 11.6 B 0.4 A 11.7 B Main Street / 6th Street Side-Street Stop 2.9 A 183.4 F 18.4 C OVF F Main Street / 5th Street Side-Street Stop 0.6 A 34.1 D 0.7 A 36.9 E Hopkins Avenue / 7th Street All-Way Stop 7.3 A 7.5 A 7.3 A 7.5 A Hopkins Avenue / 6th Street Side-Street Stop 1.9 A 9.0 A 5.6 A 10.1 B Hopkins Avenue / 5th Street Side-Street Stop 0.6 A 9.0 A 1.4 A 8.9 A Highway 82 / Cemetery Lane Traffic Signal 15.8 8 -- -- 17.7 8 - -- BOLD text indicates exceedance of LOS standards. OVF = Overflow. Overflow indicates a delay greater than 300 seconds per vehicle, which cannot be accurately calculated using HCM methodology. NOTE 1 : Level of service for signalized intersections is reported for the total intersection. NOTE 2: Level of service for stop-controlled intersections is reported for the worst movement. Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. EZ 32Dd SlsADUV lot)duq 01#0Â·41 oul 'Slunlinsuo D uoumiodsuvil DS'I pafoid Bul*Pol supldoll Jsa,H gOL SIGNAL WARRANT REVIEW A review of the peak-hour intersection volumes at the Main Street/6th Street and Main Street/5th Street intersections indicates the criteria for the peak-hour volume signal warrant are not met under any future year scenario, with or without the proposed project. FUTURE PLUS PROJECT MULTIMODAL LEVEL OF SERVICE (MMLOS) Transit, bicycle, and pedestrian LOS were evaluated under 'future plus project' conditions, and the results are the same as under 'existing plus project' conditions. FINDINGS OF PROJECT IMPACTS The findings made regarding potential impacts of the proposed project, based upon the comparison of'future no project' conditions vs. 'future plus project' conditions, are identical to those under 'existing plus project' conditions. LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 705 West Hopkins Lodging Project Page 24 Tra#ic Impact Analysis Chapter 5 PROPOSED MITIGATION PROGRAM The project proposes to mitigate the approximately 103 PM peak-hour trips through site design, MMLOS measures, and transportation demand management strategies. The project already inherently has some mitigation points through factors such as the mixed-use nature o f the land uses and the location along a bike/pedestrian corridor with direct access to downtown. An evaluation of TDM and MMLOS measures indicates that the new trips will be fully mitigated through these measures, as discussed below. In addition, mitigation is considered regarding the significant impacts on traffic operations at the Main Street intersections. TDM MEASURES Implementation of the following TDM strategies would mitigate approximately 18.54 trips: â€¢ Onsite amenities â€¢ Transit access improvement (within project and connecting off-site) â€¢ Participation in Transportation Options Program (employer trip reduction service) â€¢ Transit fare subsidy â€¢ Employee parking cash-out â€¢ Carpool matching â€¢ Self-funded emergency ride home â€¢ Trip reduction marketing/incentive program The completed TDM toolkit spreadsheet is contained in Appendix E. MMLOS MEASURES ' Implementation of the following MMLOS measures would mitigate 100 trips: â€¢ Construct a new detached sidewalk on west side of 6th Street to connect to the existing sidewalk. â€¢ Work with City staff to provide a new protected pedestrian crossing on Main Street, such as with a pedestrian hybrid beacon or Rapid-Rectangular-Flashing-Beacon (RRFB), on the east leg of the 6th Street Main Street intersection. This crossing would help get pedestrians to the skier shuttle bus heading down valley at the Hickory House. It would also encourage people to walk to the music tents and the hotel. â€¢ Provide bicycle parking. â€¢ Provision of a new bus stop with basic and enhanced amenities. The completed MMLOS toolkit spreadsheet is contained in Appendix E. The measures would mitigate approximately 118 trips, which would more than offset the 103 project trips. 705 West Hopkins Lodging Project LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Traffic Impact Analysis Page 25 ENFORCEMENT & FINANCING To be determined in discussion with City staff SCHEDULING AND IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBILITY OF MITIGATION MEASURES To be determined in discussion with City staff PROPOSED SIGNIFICANT IMPACT MITIGATION According to the City's significant impact criteria, the project should include mitigation to maintain the LOS and not degrade it further (as compared to 'no project' conditions) at the following two intersections: â€¢ Main Streeâ‚¬6th Street â€¢ Main Street/5th Street Main Street/6th Street One potential option is to reconfigure the median striping along Main Street between 6th and 7th Streets to provide a two-way left-turn lane, allowing northbound drivers turning left from 6th onto Main Street to make a two-stage left turn movement (first into the median, and second into a gap in the westbound traffic stream). With this striping modification, the intersection of 6th Street/Main Street would operate at worst movement LOS D during the existing AM and PM peak hours with the proposed lodging project. This would improve the LOS compared to existing conditions. Similarly, this striping modification would improve the future LOS to LOS D in the AM and LOS E in the PM with the proposed project. Not only would this be an improvement over 'future no project' conditions, but also over 'existing no project' conditions. The potential striping modifications may not be consistent with the City's mitigation preferences. Whether this improvement is required or even desired needs to be determined through discussions with City and/or CDOT staff. Note that installation of a new traffic signal is not evaluated, due to the fact that the peak-hour volume signal warrant criteria are not met. Main Street/5th Street The proposed project would increase the total peak-hour intersection traffic volumes through this intersection by less than 3 percent under existing and future year conditions. As this impact is minimal, no mitigation is recommended. LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 705 West Hopkins Lodging Project Page 26 TraFic Impact Analysis Chapter 6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The proposed lodging project is located at 705 West Hopkins Avenue on the south side of West Hopkins Avenue between 7th Street and 5th Street. The two existing residences would be removed with implementation ofthe project. A total of 27 residential units, 159 lodging keys, and commercial amenities are proposed. The analysis can be summarized as follows: â€¢ All study intersections currently operate at LOS B or better during the AM and PM peak hours without the proposed project, with the exception of the Main Street/6th Street intersection (minor street movement LOS E) and Main Street/5th Street (minor street movement LOS D). â€¢ The project will increase vehicle trip generation by approximately 82 AM peak-hour trips (48 entering and 34 exiting) and 103 PM peak-hour trips (50 entering and 53 exiting). In the busiest hour (PM peak hour) this equates to less than two vehicle-trips per minute (or approximately one vehicle every 35 seconds, on average). â€¢ Implementation of the proposed project would degrade the worst movement on the Hopkins Avenue/6th Street intersection from LOS A to LOS B. In addition, the worst movement on the Main Street/6th Street intersection would degrade from LOS E to LOS F during the AM peak hour. During the PM peak hour, the worst movement would continue to operate at LOS F with an increase in average vehicular delay. The worst movement on the Main Street/5th Street intersection would degrade from LOS D to LOS E during the AM and PM peak hours. â€¢ There are no driver sight distance problems at the proposed access points, so long as final landscaping plans are consistent with standards. â€¢ The project will not have a significant impact on bicycle conditions. â€¢ The project will have a beneficial impact on pedestrian conditions, through construction of a sidewalk along 6th Street between Hopkins Street and Main Street. â€¢ The project will have a beneficial impact on the City transit network, through provision of a new Hopkins Shuttle route between the project site and downtown Aspen, open to the public and operated in coordination with the City network. â€¢ The project will implement a package of Transportation Demand Management and Multimodal Level of Service mitigation measures to offset traffic impacts, consisting of the following: o Onsite amenities 705 West Hopkins Lodging Project LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Tra#ic Impact Analysis Page 27 o Transit access improvement (within project and connecting off-site) o Participation in Transportation Options Program (employer trip reduction service) o Transit fare subsidy o Employee parking cash-out o CarI)001 matching o Self-funded emergency ride home program o Trip reduction marketing/incentive program o Construct a new detached sidewalk on west side of 6th Street to connect to existing sidewalk. o Work with City staff to provide a new protected pedestrian crossing on Main Street, such as with a pedestrian hybrid beacon or Rapid-Rectangular-Flashing-Beacon (RRFB), on the east leg of the 6th Street Main Street intersection. This crossing would help get pedestrians to the skier shuttle bus heading down valley at the Hickory House. It would also encourage people to walk to the music tents and the hotel. o Provide bicycle parking. o Provide a new bus stop (such as the proposed on-site shuttle stop) with basic and enhanced amenities. LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 705 West Hopkins Lodging Project Page 28 Traffic Impact Analysis Instructions: 1. Trip Generations: Enterthe project's new square footage and or unit counts under the "Size" column. 2. MMLOS: Answer "yes" or "no" under each of the pedestrian, bike and transit sections 3. TDM: Choose the mitigation measures that are appropriate for your project. = input = calculation DATE: Today PROJECT NAME: Some Hotel PROJECT ADDRESS: Some Where Is this a major or minor project? Major Trips Generated A VI Peak-Hoir P VI Peak-HowÂ· Proposed Land Use Size Entering Exiting Total Entering Exiting Total Commercial (sf) 11647.0 sf 18.24 8.20 26,44 19.29 28.93 48.22 Free-Market Housing (Units) 2.0 Units 0.39 0.95 1.34 0.92 0.72 1.64 Affordable Housing (Units) 23.0 Units 8.28 8.97 17.25 11.26 9.21 20.47 Lodging (Units) 159.0 Units 22.66 17.09 39.75 25.63 23.66 49.29 Essential Public Facility (sf) 0.0 sf O.00 O.00 O.00 O.00 O.00 O.00 TOTAL NEW TRIPS 49.57 35.21 81.39 57.10 62.52 102.87 *For mixed-use (at least two of the established land uses) sites, a 4% reduction for AM Peak-Hour and a 14% reduction for PM Peak- Hour can be applied to the trip generation. ASSUMPTIONS ASPEN TRIP GENERATION AM Peak Average PM Peak Average Land Use Trip Rate %Entering %Exiting Trip Rate %Entering %Exiting Commercial 2.27 0.69 0.31 4.14 0.4 0.6 Free-Market Housing 0.67 0.29 0.71 0.82 0.56 0.44 Affordable Housing 0.75 0.48 0.52 0.89 0.55 0.45 Lodging 0.25 0.57 0.43 0.31 0.52 0.48 Essential Public Facility 0.86 0.62 0.38 1.66 0.4 0.6 -lin.' MMLOS Input Page ;** - ~ Â·. | 1.tructioniMMLOS Answer -yes or 1,0-unde, eachil (hipedesman bikeandtrai'/5ed,0 Citegch' Sub. Question Ar,5/ver Points IslhepToposeds,dewalkdetached? Yes 5 E the proposed ettectw s,dewalk width greatertl~an the 5tandard MI'll./../*I'l-f-"â„¢ 1,10 0 1, Alâ€¢â€¢,41.;.,i,~â€ž*.g,im:,Mmic- m: ~~ minimum width? h proposed landscape buffer gieater than the standard minirnum No 0 widli Subtotal 5 ],the proposed sid/:alk dejac hed? 4 5 Is the proposed eifective sidewalk width greater than the 5tanda~d 1.0 0 minimum width? 15 proposed landâ€žape buffer gleater thanthe standard min,mum vi,dth? No 0 Subtat~ 5 Â¥es 0 2/Elialm#74/Li#â€¢LÂ© I lopes between back of curb and sidevalk equal to or less than 5%? j , Are curbs equal to (or less than) 6 inches? Yes O ~- New pedestrain access poinh that allow access w,lboirt crossing a stree/ No O Is new landscaping that improvesthe pedestnan expelience, Yes 5 proposedattheaccess point? ~r~I,S~~IS~f~.17/roved crosswalk. that im p.oves accm to Yes 5 :,111 Do changes to pedestrian access points pre":rve or enhance Ya 5 pedelial expeT,{mce? - Is padestnan access enhanced to address existing deficiencies? 8 5 1.1.--Il- { â€¢ 'F'- 20 Are 8/1511ng dilveway' re,noved irom the s,reet? Yes 5 Pedestrian and/or vehicle v,slbilry inchanged by new /n.,cture or Yes 0 -r,-Trâ€¢,rla Grade (/here pedatrians cross) on cross-slope of dr,veway 2% or Yes 0 -"1 t less? ~ 11 J It V Signage. striping, miriors, and other approved davies to address NO 0 pedestrian-vehicle conilicts at d/veways?â€¢ 411 Enhanced pedestron or b~clist entance thatm/gate5 conflict/at No 0 dfiveway(s)7 - Subtout 5 Is the piojed's pede/ran d~rectness factor les&than 13? Yes 0 - ..-Ill-~ Is the prqueces pede/nan directness facto, between 1 and 1.2? Yes 5 19; Are planned baffic calm inf features imptementedâ€žthemudy Ye, 5 area?Â· Are ba~ctraffic calming preposedthat are part of an approved p/" No 0 (speed hum;a [urbe~ensions. and signale)? Areextengetraffic calming features proposedthat are part of an No 0 apprmed plan (raised aossialk')? 15 le project propes,rigan olf srteimprovement that result' in a Yes 5 podestrian drectnes~ factor below 1.2?Â· S/btowl 15 -r Question .. A,15 wer Points ca~egory EP- Â· - .O 0 ls a new a'Jess /2 being implemenEed witfcity approved / desigl~? 0 2 Fe. access points allow access Wit~~Out crossing a street? NO 0 B Landscaping, striping, or signage improvements to the path at No 0 acce'pcint? p / 3 Implementation of crosswalk 01 other treatment that improves I No 0 d kf access to proposed access point?' Additional improvements *ad upon with City of Aspen .aff? No 0 - Subtot' 0 Yes 5 1!.the p'OJed providing bicycle parkin97 Subtotal 5 Categor], 5ub. ~~~ Que5tion Answer Point , 15 se#g/bed proposed? Yes 3 'iMM li atrashreceptacle /oposed? les 3 , 4 Istransitsystem information (signage)propo.ed? Yes 3 - .. a.-= rMM=ma 15 shelter/shade proposed? Yes 4 1 -!r-3/Pil b enhanced pedeirman-scale lighting proposed? Yes 4 Is leal-time transit information 'oposed? Yes 4 Is bkyde parking/storageproposed? Yes 4 Ale ADA â€ž,provements p,oposed7 Yes 5 ./.77 6.. 1-2 1''Ell/lifir/3/5/921.SIU.WI 5ubtotal 30 [s a bus pull-out at proposed / existing stop? iNo 0 -- --j.. .7,//1,1, -...I-/IFIMMUd/9/. Is .lo.tion of busstopto in,prove tra.1,/ acessibili9or roaavay No 0 operations proposed? Yes 15 Isa neA bus stop proposed (wrth minimum of two bauc amenrtles' Subbil 15 1 --- Lli~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~PO~measores mu~ be approved by the City of Aspen (included in Conditions of Approval or plan approved by ~taff). _i Blocks Frontage i Sidewalk Sidewalk Enlianced , Traffic Calming and Pede,trian Condition on Condition on Amenities Network Access Considerations Ad,ent Preject Drive/45, Park,ng, and Pedestrian Routes Transit Ped e5trians 67,1 L Basic Aingnities i TDM Input Page r f."!1-I /9. -- Mill/billk 7/I - .6 Instruction5: 1. Trip Generations: Enter the project's new squaTe footage and oF unit count~ under the r'Size" column. 2. MMLOS AnswerÂ·'yes" or "no" undereach of the pedetrian. bike and transi sections 3. TOM: Choose rhe mitigation measures that are appropilate for your project 4 Summary: A summary of the projectls mitigated taps. Strategy VMT Category Yes Sub. Question Answer Reductions Will an 0-teammenlid strater be,molemented? Onsite Servicing 10.0096 Which onsite ammonies wil! be implemented? Hole] with Retail Servicing Will a shared shuttlese/ce strategy be trnplemented? No What is the degree of implementation? o oc' Shared Shuttle Service What is the company size? What percentage of customers are eligible? Non notor,zed Zones ~Will a nonmotor:zed zone& strategy be implementedi |No 000% Strategy VMT category _ __ NO Sub. Question Answer Reductions Will a network expansion stragtegy be implemented' Network Expansion What is the percentage inciease of transit network coverage? 0// What 8 6 existing transit mode share as a % of total dailytrips? W,il a service frequency/speed straregÂ¥ be inplemented' What is the percentage reduction in headways (Increae in frequency}? Service Frequency/Speed 000% What is the existing transâ€ž mode share as a % of total daily trips? Whal is the level of implementation? ~ Willa transitaccess improvement strategy be Implemented' Yes Troisit Access Improvement 2 00. What 8 the exteot of access improvements? Within Project and Connecting Offi.,te Interceot Lot |Will an intercept lot grategY be implemented' |No O 00Â·.6 - Strategy VMT Category Question Sub. Reductions - - Answer Will there be participation inTOP? Ye5 Participation in TOP 2.0(v. What percentage of employei are eligible? 10092 15 a transit fare subsidy strategy implemented, Yes Trongt Fare Subsidy What percentage of employees are eligible/ 10/6 13 8050 Whi is the amount of transit subs,dy per passenger Wally equivalent)? 100Â°6 M an employee parking cashÂ·out strategy bemg implemented? Yes 7.70Â°8 Employee Parking Cash Out What percentage of emplowes are eligible? 100 15 aworkplace parking pricing /trategy implemented, No Workplace Parking Pricing What is the daily parking charge? CooCD What percentage of emploveesare 5ubject to pnced parking? 13 a compressed work weeks stategy implemented? No Compressed Work Weeks What percentage of employeesare participating? 0 I. What i. the workweek schedule? Is an employer sponsered shuttje program implemented? NO Employer Sponsored Vanpool What isthe employer size? 0 004 What percentage of employeâ‚¬5 are e!,giblei Is a carpool matching strategy Implemented' Yes Carpool Matcning 7.5036 What percentage of employees are e[IgbieD 1009/ Is carshare participation being implemented? NO CarshaTe Program Ilow many employee membership, have been purchased? 0,00% What percentage of employees are eligble) ts a bikeshare program partic/ation being implemented? No Bikeshare Program How many memberships have been purchan/ 0.00. What percentage of employees/guests are eligble? i [sanendoftrip facilibesstrate/being,mplemented? NO End of Trip Facmmes What 15 the degree of implementation? 0.00. What is the employer size) IA a self-funded emergency ride home stralegv being implemented? 0 25': Self-funded Emergency Ride Home What percentage of emplovees are eljgible? 10096 Isa carpool/van/"1 priority parking strategy being implemented? NO 0.0006 Carpool/Vanpool Pnority Parking What 15 the employer size? What numberof parking 'Dots are am*le forthe program? 15 a private employershuttlestrategy being implemented? NO Private Employer .uttle What isthe employer size? DOD.,6 What percentage ofemploÂ¥ees are eligible? Trip Reduction Marketing/Incentive M a trip reduction marketing/incentive program implemented? .5 4 00% Program What percentage of emplovees/guests are ejigible) 1005 I//I'll'll'll////I////////I//////Rimm~7,mu,rnÂ·Ti,rvm li""""Ill/"Il//I///I//Illill"/IFET///// %*/**Ii/#2Â·rewatgYâ‚¬24-&*M-=r-=rmn= 1 \ 1 magi:-W14*Mt*Wif*;t'3**%*kl*3'~t*gm~ *Aity**aa,ft*,1*4 1.22% work trips represents a nlged- used see {SF Bay Area Trove[ Survey) See Assumptions Tob for more detail TransitSystem Improvemenls Neighborhood/Slti Strategies Enhancement55:rate,1. Commute Trip Reduction Program, Strategies DATE: Today PROJECT NAME: Some Hotel PROJECT ADDRESS: Some Where SUMMARY Trip Generation Trip Mitigation NET TRIPS TO BE Peak Hour Max Trips Generated MMLOS TDM Total Trips Mitigated MITIGATED PM 102.8719788 100 18.54 118.54 -15.66 APPENDIX D EXHIBIT CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP AND D TION: FINAL PLAT OF: KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, THAT THE UNDERSIGNED, BEING THE OWNERS OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY SITUATED IN THE CITY 0F ASPEN, PITK[N C0UNTY, C0L0RAD0, T0 WIT: 705 WEST HOPKINS AVENUE SUBDIVISION/PD LL PROPERTY DESCRIPTION (FROM TITLE COMMITMENTS REFERENCED IN SURVEY NOTE 5 HEREON) SECTION 12 & 13, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 85 WEST OF THE 6th P.M. PARCEL 1 (COMMITMENT NO. 0704656-C3) CITY OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO LOT 1, AMENDED AND RESTATED MARY B SUBDIVISION, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF FILED NOVEMBER 13, 1992, IN PLAT BOOK 30 AT PAGE 6, RECEPTION NO. 350737. SHEET 1 OF 4 SURVEY NOTES SHEETINDEX 1. DATE OF FIELD WORK: OCTOBER - DECEMBER 2013, JANUARY, APEIL- MAY AND JULY, 2014, JUNE, 2015 AND FEBRUARY - MARCH, 2016. PARCEL 2 (COMMITMENT NO. 0704617-C2) SHEET 1 - OVERALL PROPERTY, CERTIFICATES AND NOTES 2. DATE OF PREPARATION: OCTOBER - DECEMBER 2013, FEBRUARY - JUNE, 2014, JUNE, 2015 AND FEBRUARY - MARCH, 2016. LOT 2, AMENDED AND RESTATED MARY B SUBDIVISION, ACCORDING TO THE PLATTHEREOF FILED NOVEMBER 13, 1992, IN PLAT BOOK 30 AT PAGE 6, SHEET 2 - OVERALLBOUNDARY & ANNOTATION RECEPTION NO. 350737. SHEET 3 - EXISTING LOTS AND EASEMENTS 3. BASIS OF BEARING: A BEARING OF 554 28'15"E BETWEEN CORNER 7 TOWNSITE OF ASPEN AND CORNER 8 TOWNSITE OF ASPEN. A PORTION OF SHEET 4 - PROPOSED LOTS, EASEMENTS AND REMAINING EXISTING EASEMENTS 4. BASIS OF SURVEY: THE OFFICIAL MAP OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, PREPARED BY G.E. BUCHANAN, DATED DECEMBER 15. 1959, CITY OF ASPEN GPS CONTROL MONUMENTATION MAP PREPARED BY MARGIN PARCEL 3 (COMMITMENT NO. 0704618-C2) ENGINEERING LLC DATED DECEMBER 2.2009; PRIDE OF ,UPEN PUD & ACTIVITY ENVELOPE PLAN PREPARED BY GRAND VALLEY SURVEYING (JOB NO. 6148Z1, DECEMBER 3, 2009); MARY B SUBDIVISION A P.U.D. LOT SPLIT RECORDED AUGUST 23, 1985 AS RECEPTION NO. 270781; GRAMIGER SHEEHAN LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT RECORDED AUGUST 25, 1988 AS RECEPTION NO. 30306; KAPLAN 1041 REVIEW "ADJUSTED'r GRAMIGER PARCEL, GRAMIGER SHEEHAN LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, ACCORDING TO THE PLATTHEREOF FILED AUGUST 25, 1988 IN PLAT BOOK 21 PLAT RECORDED MAY 5, 1989 AS RECEPTION NO. 311256; IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PREPARED BY SOPRE ENGINEERING (PROJECT NO. 16017, DATED MARCH. 2016) BOOMERANG LOT SPLIT SUBDIVISION jAT PAGE 19, AT RECEPTION NO. 303306. PURPOSE STATEMENT: EXEMPTION PLAT RECORDED JUNE 16, 2006 AS RECEPTION NO. 525370; FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE CONDOMINIUM MAP OF THE LITTLE AJAX CONDOMINIUMS RECORDED JULY 6,2007 AS RECEPTION TO SUBDIVIDE EXISTING PARCELS 1, 2&3 INTO LOTS 1, 2, 3,4OF NO. 539661; FINALPLAT Ln TLE AJAX SUBDIVISION P.U.D. RECORDED APRIL 6,2005 AS RECEPTION NO. 508682; RE-PLAT OF LOT 1 AND LOT 2 LITTLE AJAX SUBDIVISION P.U.D. AND FINAL P.U.D. PLANS OF SAID PORTION OF PARCEL 1 AND PARCELS 2 AND 3 BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: LITTLE Alix AFFORDABLE HOUSING P.U.D. RECORDED MAY 13, 2008 AS RECEPTION NO. 510056; BLM FIELD NOTES AND MINERAL SURVEYS OF SUBJECT AND ADJOINING PROPERTIES; VARIOUS 705 WEST HOPKINS AVENUE SUBDIVISION/PD DOCUMENTS OF RECORD AND THE FOUND MONUMENTS, AS SHOWN. A PARCELOF LAND BEING COMPRISED OF LOTS 1 AND 2, AMENDED AND RESTATED MARY B SUBDIVISION. ACCORDING TO THE PLATTHEREOF FILED 5. THIS SURVEY DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A TITLE SEARCH BY SOPRIS ENGINEERING, LLC (SE) TO DETERMINE OWNERSHIP OR EASEMENTS OF RECORD. FOR ALL INFORMATION REGARDING EASEMENTS, NOVEMBER 13, 1992 IN PLAT BOOK 30 AT PAGE 6 UNDER RECEPTION NO. 350737 AND A PORTION OF THE ADJUSTED GRAMIGER PARCEL AS SHOWN ON THE GRAMIGER SHEEHAN LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT PLAT RECORDED AUGUST 25, 1988 IN PLAT BOOK 21 AT PAGE 19 UNDER RECEPTION NO. 303306; SAID RIGHTS OF WAY AND/OR TITLE OF RECORD, SE RELIED UPON THE ABOVE SAID PLATS DESCRIBED IN NOTE 4 AND THE FOLLOWING TITLE COMMiTMENTS PREPARED BY TEE COMPANY OF THE ROCKIES PARCEL OF LAND ALSO BEING SITUATED IN SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 85 WEST OF THE 5IrrH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN AND IS MORE : Al,...4'. 'Â· iN ---:64, g.rts*6.-LJ .firli 5.1. COMMITMENT NO. 0704618-C2, WITH AN EFFECT/E DATE OF FEBRUARY 1, 2016 (PARCEL 3). 5.2. COMM[TMENT NO. 0704656<3, WITH AN EFFECTIVE DATE OF FEBRUARY 1, 2016 {PARCEL 1) PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: 5.3. COMMITMENT NO. 0704617-C2, WITH AN EFFECTIVE DATE OF FEBRUARY 1, 2016 (PARCEL 2). BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID ADJUSTED GRAMIGER PARCEL FROM WHICH THE ASPEN CITY MONUMENT GPS-21 (7TH AND HOPKINS) 6. THE LINEAR UNIT USED IN THE PREPARATION OF THIS PLAT IS THE U.5.SURVEY FOOT AS DEFINED BY THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND 2 2\ 20(F 74 00.Â·=Â·723Â§>~4~*j:;. ~.'3.- BEARS N.03'5639".E FOR A DISTANCE OF 19.93 FEET (WITH ALL BEARINGS CONTAINED HEREIN BEING RELATIVE TO THE BEARING OF S.54'28'15".E TECHNOLOGY. BETWEEN CORNERS 7 AND 8 OF THE ASPEN TOWNSITE BOUNDARY); THENCE 5.74Â°16'27".E ALONG THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID ADJUSTED - for-/2...3.2. C.-4-i''N~-44220.-'.h{-2 Cl,3 GRAMIGER PARCEL FOR A DISTANCE OF 300.00 FEET TO THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID ADJUSTED GRAMIGER PARCEL, SAID POINT ALSO BEING THE Laj P Â· . a. -2--1-14.4,4--r.'.431-~01-:6~ rf:1.14Â»1 7. ALL RECEPTION NUMBERS REFERENCED HEREON ARE FOR DOCUMENTS RECORDED IN THE PITKIN COUNTY, COLOUDO CLERK AND RECORDER'S OFFICE. NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID AMENDED AND RESTATED MARY B SUBDIVISION BOUNDARY; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTHERLY BOUNDARY ALONG THE BOUNDARY OF SAID AMENDED AND RESTATED MARY B SU BDIVISION THE FOLLOWING TWELVE (12) COURSES: 1. S.74Â°16'27".E FORA DISTANCE OF 85.00 FEET; PLAT NOTES 2. S.15'43'33".W FOR A DISTANCE OF 19.00 FEET; 3. S.74'16'27".E FOR A DISTANCE OF 152.10 FEET; ,)4 4 /Â· - - ;/ Â·- -b -Â·Â· Â· Â·.-- -I, 1. 705 WESTHOPKINSAVENUE SUBDIVISION/PD HAS BEEN APPROVED PURSUANTTOTHE PROVISIONSCONTAINED IN ORDINANCE NO. - (SERIES OF 201_), AN ORDINANCE OF THE CiTY OF ASPEN CITY 4. 5.54Â°28'15".E FOR A DISTANCE OF 48.22 FEET; COUNCIL GRANANG PLANNED DEVELOPMENT-PROJECT REVIEW APPROVAL FOR THE 705 WEST HOPKINS AVENUE SUBDIVISION/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT RECORDED - 201_ AT //2 -0 4--13 .t 'I-~ .~21,44(1.,fr,-.,~ *p:wifÂ·- .-,---4 -ilz. 81 5. 5.03Â°18'44".W FOR A DISTANCE OF 324.77 FEET; RECEPTION NO. ; PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN RESOLUTION NO.-(SERIES OF-), A RESOLUTION OF THE CITYOF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 6. N.77'1559".E FOR A DISTANCE OF 196.21 FEET; GRANTING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT-DETAILED REVIEW APPROVAL FOR THE 705 WEST HOPKINS AVENUE SUBDIVISION/PLANNED DEVELOPMENL RECORDED 201__ AT RECEPTION 4% ~:244-~ri -Â·:.- i.-rect b <si.*294 4Â¢ti-99< -1:t 7. N.03'18'44".E FOR A DISTANCE OF 138.95 FEET; Â·144 . NO. ; ASFURTHER DESCRIBED IN THE 705 WEST HOPKINS AVENUE SUBDIVISION/PI DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, RECORDED AT RECEPTION NO. - AND THE 705 WEST HOPKINS AVENUE SUBDIVISION/PD APPROVED DEVELOPMENT PLAN SET, RECORDED AT RECEPTION NO. 8. S.54'27'40".E FOR A DISTANCE OF 125.60 FEET; 9. N.68Â°06'40".W FOR A DISTANCE OF 76.10 FEET; 1; rL.-1 - if. -4 6 . '.-c.fiftâ‚¬-4;ial.* 10 S.21Â°55*02".W FOR A DISTANCE OF 226.93 FEET; 11. N.77'59'41".W FOR A DISTANCE OF 381.99 FEET; lf->ti~%-1 422# ja 9~~1~.e=,--Â·: :I. - U V.. 12. 5.12'36'16".E FOR A DISTANCE OF 2.44 FEET; ,Â·., , 744Â¥521*-2 S.62~07'08".W FOR A DISTANCE OF 158.84 FEET TO A POINT ON THE BOUNDARY OF SAID ADJUSTED GRAMIGER PARCEL; THENCE THE FOLLOWING THREE THIS FINAL PLAT OF 705 WEST HOPKINS AVENUE SUBDIVISIONJPD WAS APPROVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCILON THE - DAY OF - 201-BY ORDINANCE NO. - SERIES OF 20- AÂ«Â»9191~Â»bleloÂ»Â»vag-Â«uyÂ»uÂ« ASPEN CITY COUNCILAPPROVAL THENCE LEAVING THE BOUNDARY OF SAID AMENDED AND RESTATED MARY B SUBDIVISION N.85'58'25".W FOR A DISTANCE OF 198.14 FEET; THENCE COURSES ALONG THE BOUNDARY OF SAID ADJUSTED GRAMIGER PARCEL: r -0 0, I. 1.-522.=22242% ) .18#43 404911-n- 104 0*.9-10* - RECORDED , 201 IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK AND RECORDER OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO AS RECEPTION NO. 1. N.08'4416".W FOR A DISTANCE OF 429.16 FEET; 1 , tz.44**M14/>.11?Â©4419.Â»140-4:4../3. 2. N.47'30'44".E FOR A DISTANCE OF 64.33 FEET; , 9 2 -eeÂ»m,+441.44%-*3 9-.-2~-4~~-,1.-7 3. N.25"35'44".E A DISTANCE OF 116.40 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; STEVEN SKADRON, MAYOR DATE f--1.-i.2230 S.E-/072Â·~'30;0>.,ig~:G\<,4'UAÂ» Â·. Â·. -t:-961 CONTAINING 287,906 SQUARE FEET OR 6.609 ACRES MORE OR LESS. . I ... eÂ·-- -Â· / Â·Â· -=2 1' ,f?~~:At ' -1Nd>- ATTEST: CITY OF ASPEN VICINITY MAP CIr,'CLERK COUNTY OF PITKIN SCALE 1 . 2000 TITLE CERTIFICATE STATE OF COLORADO THE UNDERSIGNED, A DULY-AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF TITLE COMPANY OF THE ROCKIES, REGISTERED TO DO BUSINESS IN PITKIN COUNTY. COLORADO. DOES HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE PERSONS HAVE BYTHESE PRESENTS LA]D OUL PLATTED AND SUBDIVIDED THE SAME INTO LOTS 1,2,3 AND 4, AS DEPICTED AND DESCRIBED HEREON UNDER THE LISTED AS OWNERS ON THIS PLAT DO HOLD FEE SIMPLE TITLE TO THE REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN. FREE AND CLEAR OF ALL LIENS AND ENCUMBRANCES EXCEPT THOSE USTED ON THE TITLE NAME AND STYLE OF 705 WEST HOPKINS AVENUE SUBDIVISION/PD; AND COMMITMENTS ISSUED BY TITLE COMPANY OF THE ROCKIES, UNDER COMMITMENT NOS. 0704618-(2 (FEBRUARY 1, 2016}, 0704656-C3 (FEBRUARY 1, 2016), AND 0704617-C2 (FEBRUARY 1, 2016). CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP AND DEDICATION (CONTINUED): 1. DO HEREBY DEDICATE AND GRANT FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF EMERGENCY SERVICE PROVIDERS, A PERPETUAL, NON-EXCLUSIVE EMERGENCY ALTHOUGH WE BELIEVE THE FACTS STATED ON THIS PLAT ARE TRUE, THIS CERTIFICATE IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS AN ABSTRACT OF -TITLE. NOR AN OPINION OF TITLE. NOR A GUARANTY OF TILE, AND IT IS ACCESS EASEMENT OVER, UPON, AND BENEATH THE "EMERGENCY ACCESS EASEMENT" SHOWN AND LABELED ON SHEET 4 HEREOF, FOR THE PURPOSE OF UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED THAT TITLE COMPANY OF THE ROCKIES, NEITHER ASSUMES NOR WILL BE CHARGED WITH ANY FINANCIAL OBLIGATION OR LIA 81LITY WHATSOEVER ON ANY STATEMENT PROVIDING EMERGENCY SERVICE FROM TIME TO TIME TO THE PUBLIC AND THE OWNERS OF SAID LOTS AND THEIR RESPECTIVE SUCCESSORS, ASSIGNS, PARCEL 2 OWNER: SHADOW MOUNTAIN CORPORATION, A DELAWARE CORPORATION. CONTAINED HEREIN. AFFIUATES, AGENTS, CONTRACTORS, AND EMPLOYEES; BY: 2. DO HEREBY DEDICATE AND GRANT FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF UTILITY COMPANIES OWNING, OPERATING OR OTHERWISE MANAGING THE UTILITY BY: DATE 201_. ,ITS LINESANDSYSTEMS WITHIN LOTS 1,2,3, AND/OR LOTA AND FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT FROM TIME TO TIME OF THE OWNERS OF SAID LOTS AND THEIR RESPECTIVE SUCCESSORS, ASSIGNS, AFFILIATES, AGENTS, CONTRACTORS, AND EMPLOYEES, A PERPETUAL, NON-EXCLUSIVE UTILHY EASEMENT OVER, UPON, STATEOFCOLORADO ) AND BENEATH THE "UTILITY EASEMENT" SHOWN AND LABELED ON SHEET 4 HEREOF, FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTION, INSTALLATION, STATE OF COLORADO) )ss ENLARGEMENT, USE, OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, REPAIR, REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES INCLUDING WATER, SEWER, )SS. COUNTYOF PITKIN ) ELECTRICITY, TELEPHONE AND CABLE TV, TOGETHER WITH ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT REQUIRED ABOVE GROUND IN LOCATIONS APPROVED IN ADVANCE BY COUNTY OF PITKIN ) THE OWNER OF THE IMPACTED LOT(5), TOGETHER WATH A REASONABLE RIGHT OF ACCESS FOR THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF SUCH PURPOSES: THE TITLE CERTIFICATE WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME THIS DAY OF 201_, BY AS TITLE OFFICER OF 3. DOHEREBY DEDICATE ANDGRANTA PERPETUAL, NON-EXCLUSIVE PUBUC TRAIL EASEMENT OVER ANDUPON A STRIP OF LAND FIFTEEN (15)FEET IN THE FOREGOING IN5TRUMENT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME THIS DAY OF , 201-,BY AS WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL WIDTH ACROSS LOT 3, ALONG THE "PUBL]C TRAIL EASEMENT" SHOWN AND DEPICTED ON SHEET 4 HEREOF, FOR PURPOSES OF NON-MOTORIZED INGRESS OF SHADOW MOUNTAIN CORPORATION, A DELAWARE CORPORATION. AND EGRESS TRAVEL THROUGH SAID EASEMENT. THE DEDICATION IN THIS PARAGRAPH 3 IS MADE SUBJECT TO THE USE AND ENJOYMENT OF THE PUBLIC TRAIL EASEMENT DURING NON WINTER CONDITIONS ONLY (LOCATIONS AND WIDTHS TO BE DEFINED AT DETAILED REVIEW SUBMISSION); WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL- NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES 4. DOHEREBY DEDICATEANDGRANT FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT FROM TIME TO TIMEOF THEOWNERS OF LOTS 1,2,3, AND 4 AND THEIR RESPECTIVE ~----~- SUCCESSORS, ASSIGNS, AFFILIATES, AGENTS, CONTRACTORS, AND EMPLOYEES, A PERPETUAL NON-EXCLUSIVE "UTILITY SERVICE LINE EASEMENT" OVER AND UPON SAID LOTS ALONG THE ENTIRE COURSE OF ALL UTILITY SERVICE LINES THAT MAY BECONSTRUCTED BETWEEN OR OTHERWISE CONNECTTO THE UTILITY MAINS ON LOT 1, 2, 3 AND 4 TO THE IMPROVEMENTS THEREON, IN THE AS-8UILT LOCATION OF SUCH UTILITY SERVICE LINES, FOR PURPOSES OF CITY ENGINEER'S REVIEW CONSTRUCTION, INSTALLATION, USE, OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, REPAIR, REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF SUCH UTILITY SERVICES LINES, TOGETHER NOTARYPUBLIC DAY OF WITH A REASONABLE RIGHT OF ACCESS FOR THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF SUCH PURPOSES AND TOGETHER WITH A REASONABLE RIGHT OF ACCESS FOR THE ADDRESS THIS FINAL PLAT OF 705 WEST HOPKINS AVENUE SUBDIVISION/PD WAS REVIEWED FOR THE DEPICTION OF THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT SURVEY REQUIREMENTS THIS PURPOSE OF RELOCATING SAID UTILITY SERVICE LINES; ,201_. PARCEL 3 OWNER: WESTCHESTER INVESTMENTS, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION. 5. DO HEREBY DEDICATE ANDGRANT FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT FROM TIME TOTIMEOF THEOWNERS OFLOTS 1,2,3 AND 4 AND THEIRRESPECTIVE CITYENGINEER SUCCESSORS, ASSIGNS, AFFILIATES, AGENTS, CONTRACTORS, AND EMPLOYEES, A PERPETUAL, NON-EXCLUSIVE DRAINAGE EASEMENT ON THOSE PORTIONS BY: OF LOTS 1, 2, 3 AND 4, OVER, UPON, AND BENEATH THE "DRAINAGE EASEMENT" SHOWN AND LABELED ON SHEET 4 HEREOF, FOR PURPOSES OF ,ITS CONSTRUCTION, INSTALLATION, USE, OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, REPAIR, REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF A PRIVATE ON-SiTE STORM WATER DRAINAGE SYSTEM AND NECESSARY SURFACE IMPROVEMENTS, TOGETHER WITH A REASONABLE RIGHT OF ACCESS FOR THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF SUCH PURPOSES CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW (COLLECT]VELY. THE "DRAINAGE EASEMENT"). THE ,ACTUAL LOC,ATION OF SUCH DRAINAGE EASEMENTSHALL BE DEEMED AUTOMATICALLY AMENDED TO STATE OF COLORADO) COINCIDE WITH THE AS-BUILT LOCATION OF SUCH DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS. )55. THISFINAL PLATOF 705 WEST HOPKINS AVENUE SUBDIVISION/PD WAS REVIEWED BY THE CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THIS - DAY OF , 201 COUNTY OF PITKIN ) EXECUTED THIS DAY OF , A.D., 201 SIGNED CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME THIS DAY OF , 201-BY AS PARCEL 1 OWNER: STARFORD INVESTMENTS LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, FORMERLY KNOWN AS STARFORD PROPERTIES N.V., A OF WESTCHESTER INVESTMENTS, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION. NETHERLANDS ANTILLES CORPORATION. SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL BY: , ITS MY COMMISSION EXPIRES 1, MARK S. BECKLER, A PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR LICENSED IN THE STATE OF COLORADO, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT IN MARCH 10, 2016 A SURVEY OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED PROPERTY WAS PERFORMED UNDER MY SUPERVISION AND DIRECTION. IN ACCORDANCE WITH COLORADO REVISED STATUTES 1973, TITLE 38, ARTICLE 51, AS AMENDED FROM TIME TO TIME, AND THAT THIS FINAL PLAT OF ASPEN ALPS SUBDIVISION/P D ACCURATELY AND SUBSTANTIALLY DEPICTS SAID SURVEY. THE CONTROL SURVEY PRECISION IS GREATER THAN 1/15,000. RECORDED EASEMENTS, IGHTS-OF-WAY AND RESTRICTIONS ARE THOSE SET FORTH IN THE TITLE COMMITMENTS REFERENCED IN SURVEY NOTE 5 HEREON. STATE OF COLORADO) )SS. NOTARY PUBLIC COUNTY OF PITKIN ) ADDRESS DRAFT THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME THIS DAY OF , 201_,BY AS MARK S. BECKLER, PLS #28643 OF STARFORD INVESTMENTS LLC A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, FORMERLY KNOWN AS STARFORD PROPERTJES N.V., A NETHERLANDS ANTILLES CORPORATION. CLERK AND RECORDER'S ACCEPTANCE WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL SOPRIS ENGINEERING - LLC MY COMMISSION EXPIRE5 THIS FINAL PLAT OF 705 WEST HOPKINS AVENUE SUBDIVISION/PD IS ACCEPTED FOR FILING IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK AND RECORDER OF PJTKIN COUNTY, COLORADO THIS- DAY OF CIVIL CONSULTANTS ,201 IN PLAT BOOK AT PAGE -,AS RECEPTION NO. 502 MAIN STREET, SUITE AB NOTICE: ACCORDING TOCOLORADO LAW YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY LEGAL NOTARYPUBUC ACJION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVE, WNIN THREE YEARS CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623 PITKIN COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER ADDRESS AFTER YOU FIRST DISCOVER SUCH DEFEC. IN NO Even MAY ANY ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT iN THIS SURVEY BE COMMENCED MORE TWAN TEN (970) 704-0311 YEARS FROM nâ‚¬ DArE OF CERT]FICATiON SHOWN HEREON 16017 GRK 3/16/2016 G.\2016\1601/SURVEr.SURVEY DW/5'â€¢PLAT\16:17 PLAT SHEET 1 DWG ER 7 TOWNS[TE OF ASPEN- FINAL PLAT OF: No USDA ALUMINUM CAP F. 1 _PEN TOWNITE CORNER NO. 7 \ *40~// ~i 705 WEST HOPKINS AVENUE SUBDIVISION/PD CORNER 7 TOWNSITE OF ASPEN--41 FOUND USDA ALUMINUM CAP 91> Â·1 . )/ ASPENTOWNSITECORNER NO. 7 \\ - 5 , , , SECTION 12 & 13 TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 85 WEST OF THE 6th P M 1 LEGEND 1 4.1,39"W/ 2 1/ f f ....'- :=EIJEL-fli ///// MONUMENT REPORT FILED THIS SURVEY PER COLORADO STATE 14 1 .19.93'{TIE) f ~ 2 \, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO Â© STATUTE REQUIREMENTS. SHEET 2 OF 4 GPS-21 7TH AND HOPKINS - * CFR~ETSWAit~ZoNNUUZ~~PREE~ORTOrd~~â„¢~STATEOF # 374Â°16'27'2 31-1.-111.-/ 3/\ OVERALL BOUNDARY & ANNOTATION COLORADO. !448' 34734"W 385.00 1 % >44,43Â· ltmi U 1 1 J / I ..1 4 :f ..4- //// // 1, . i / f kj Â® MINERALSURVEYCORNERNUMBER(#) 547Â°30'44"M -81 0* ;t>.4 , 64.33 ,4 ~.~/1~,1,~~~1~~~~~~~~Ff~),~< 25.- 2.16,27. 1 -L. i 1 1 j j j Â»Â»Â»74\1 1 1 1 / 1 1 1 1 1 1 - L. 1 1 , 1 j j / 1 I i REa M NS Â°28'415. 48 12 li11 7----r-~ 1SN \L/ / / 1/ !.#11111:.:;i: 1 . 15:4'Xy*,35 > 1/Ill// '4* >23%/#*92 - / 244* . efeÂ© 0 -/ lilli t':Ujj'lf 11:lit f.. i i 1 v fuit~ - -1. 3 WES' PROPERTY DESCRIPTION & MAP KEY (THIS SHEET) ./1... 1 / j ./ 4 4 .â€¢ U--0 ' f /Â·1â€¢â€¢wr/m 1/ , /7 . 9.PA E HOPKIMAVENUE 9.4:1,1.,10 . %11 PARCEL 1 1.\4 jr 1- 1 . /1/* 7- 11 1 11 11 1 If TITLE COMMITMENT: TITLE COMPANY OF THE ROCKIES, Id Â·-4-Â·,7...52Â«>4"oÂ·7 .,p'.1 - 1 M*b~ tm'te'*A 2, m 86-coy~.4 568Â°06'40"4 IIi COMMITMENT NO. 0704656-0, WITH AN EFFECTIVE DATE OF FOUND B. LM. FEBRUARY 1, 2016. WITNESS CORNER I660.0') .Ps NORTH 1/4 CORNER ...11.11/zi.. 4 ,â€ž,1111.1:Ddm!#lti,Allt,f, -â€¢6â€¢ - r t,0081 i J--v 1 < ~ 1 1-- 44,--a-it--~--_3 1 4 / A 1 Â«Â»r ' ! 1 1 1 ~ Il 4-1 \\ I r' 1/1 1 4/7//6. Â»Â« 1 \1 - -444 i j - f rIO t**Â·4;*0'I'i.Â£'::#:24044*~'r'~ : ., rf-,Â£, \3:%*A I C "-} 0 / f 44 1 K :40~42 1: .k i,1.11;fâ€¢;Â·I#.!1 -*, f.8, J + P . 1 If tt .t *1 1 11 - p fr I - 11 11- OWNER: STARFORD INVESTMENTS LLC A DELAWARE UMITED WagAU ~ 4~~.'.4 //,Zq//d.7/4 /. V,, , \ './.f.4 49:-9>,4*5,~i -PlÂ« / L)944 0 - 0427. 4,-34 . m 966 LIABILITY COMPANY, FORMERLY KNOWN AS STARFORD PROPERTIES .10Â· Â·,1.,â€¢11]!1';4-!fe.; 1 1 2, ./..1. . 80 4.01 89, -w i t . . 4. * , N,rÂ» 1 - 2 . 3- lilli 1., . . -947\ 1 7Â»9<1 lit i i ~7-3 N.V., A NETHERLANDS ANTILLES CORPORATION. 8+ I X Â· a PROPERTY DESCRIPTION (PERCOMMITMENT): LOT 1, AMENDED AND RESTATED MARY B SUBDIVISION, ACCORDING TO THE PLATTHEREOF ,;Â·97'2'2Â·Â·~-'.9 / J i 2% <-EK ,. 41't if, ~ - - Â·t ~ 11Â·.= 11 .17~19~9 E 1964 4 42-2.:' 2 4 < f.'-,4 21*55 . 0 11 &/ 1, FILED NOVEMBER 13, 1992. IN PLAT BOOK 30 AT PAGE 6. RECEPTION "../ 9./ .'h ... NO. 350737. . r 441\01* -011~ - 454Â°28'15;'W 3*.09'/ / , . 2> I. 7â‚¬M-fi) , /1 PARCEL 2 ,,1 / ' ' 512'36'16"E , / Ifil j il-1 lu UEE GOVERNMENT LOT 19 --313Â« / 677Â· 59* 41 E 381.99 'il/fil TITLE COMMITMENT: TITLE COMPANY OF THE ROCKIES, 1 9 COMMITMENT NO. 0704617-C2, WITH AN EFFECTIVE DATE OF FEBRUARY 1,2016 ANNEXATION . - N494E16"E 77.07 ~ L N24Â°36'24"E 24.48'\~ \4/ /1 / BOUNDARY .~~ / 7~ ~, PARK PARCEL. (DEDICA~ED TO COUNTY) /L ANNEXATION BOUNDARY G'34Â·G*&81A AMD DURANT I / # OWNER: SHADOW MOUNTAIN CORPORATION, A DELAWARE u 1 MARY B SUBDIVISION 4 K' / -% CORPORKnON. PLAT BOOK 17 PAGE 61 'Ver - / ' 4/ 11\ . .11111 + 11 RESTATED MARY B SUBDIVISION, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF GOVERNMENT LOT 21 ~ * N01'15'34"E 19.28' -,%49~ // 37Â«/50 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION (PERCOMMITMENT): LOT 2, AMENDED AND . /e/9 5 810Â¢K 4 HYMANAVBNUE - FILED NOVEMBER 13, 1992, IN PLAT BOOK 30 AT PAGE 6, RECEPTION N88-56'18"W MÂ»40/0. NO. 350737. 3.40' ~Elt*i, 1j/~NNUNN/1- PAREL3 4931kf,/f#DJUSTED GRAMIGER.e~#gE j/ 11 1 1/11 1 1 10/ll, i TITLE COMMITMENT: TITLE COMPANY OF THE ROCKIES, AP 1-PCOjtryNj$Op ~Â·~.Â·r *1* /~ Fi---~~>~ COMMITMENT NO. 0704618-C2, WITH AN EFFECTIVE DATE OF ~flit~ls X59~' 2 /, / \ 24 - \ f\,Â»m i ... - --L / f / /1 , FEBRUARY 1, 2016. 444 1 11|11111 - 42/ 4/ / , ) f \ OWNER: WESTCHESTER INVESâ„¢ENTS, INC., A DELAWARE , /99 - CORPORATION. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION (PER COMMITMENT): "ADJUSTED" GRAMIGER DETAIL Â·6554300397 0 1-- r ~ ~~ j CORttâ‚¬~~mISIE ~~HUN ---- 1 PARCEL, GRAMIGER SHEEHAN LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, ACCORDING TO SEAErr=20 # 040 6, 0 -<4 3 ~APT~~CTEHPET~~~FNF~L~D03A3U0G6UST 25,1988 IN PLAT BOOK 21 AT PAGE \ CORNERSTOWNSITEonspEN-3 L..J_/ / 7-70 COUNTY OF PITKIN (4 REESTABLiSHED IN RECORD LOCATION STATE OF COLORADO SEE DETAIL THIS SHEET ,/, /,5, , 4% / 1 8ASED ON PRIOR SURVEYS USED AS ACCESSORY EVIDENCE ~GOVER N MENT LOT 21 DEVELOPMENT PARCEL WITHIN THE CITY OF ASPEN, THIS A-9 442 / \\. // f , /45~ f#" 31.~*f- APPLICATION 11 - 12 i '~ ~ ~ ~ positidA $ / 34 , -. ~ 1, FOUND 2005 , / ~â‚¬~~_u-vir'r FOONall ISEC12 - \X.., ,' / /1 MO,NUMEM / \ , / v 115.OfREE)--44-4 42 i / j OBLITERATED AY 1 #6 REBAR 31/2~AL~NT@k..,.._~~5>ly' /~ 1 .41 '61 ~ 41 1 7 / - A Ah.58Â§95'22Â·IE '/ / CONSTBUCTIpi / 3- l ild b Ill ':il / 07 / / / / , /'i 5 - / BUMINUM/ <16 / M .1 /1 /,/ 92//f~ 9 4- / ..44. :<t.SKB.lf'14 + 3/f ...27\--GOVERNMENT LOT 34 A / REFERENCE GP ON u:~1, ~ 1 'â€¢egBAR SOPRIÂ¥ :F: / *-/72731--4-4/, ENGINEERINQREF Z - / / tb 1 //0/~4Â» 0 7 1 - FOUND 3.25" Â· - -ALUMINUM 1126-07' ~ f 7----3Â»7- 1 .~#6 REBAR SOPHS- '~%1~15'44'~E/70' i~ /~ 1 ~ Â»51~33 1/ , / ENGINEERING REF 1/ 1/ 1 1 1 534-44'34"E-Â·.- \UJ EXTRAICE M.S. 4712 353.33(TIE) - -- 'h cgpI?Â°POUS M 5.1759 434, / 1 rp,~% 9 474'/ / 1 i LFOUND 3.25Â· 1 1, t / /---~:Â·~ REFERENCECAtol @ 592 / //// 1 GRAPHIC SCALE \ r / 1 ( IN FEET ) NelÂ·10'02"E 95.20-/ 4 ~ 1 inch = 100 ft. 521'55'02"W 80.25' j ..1*44Â·WiN - 12-- MEMIMJE(1222â‚¬_ 12.30'(TIE) C 1/4 SEC 13 -Nx \-All -------- . - _ ~RIESUBMEL___2b.I ~'REC- <- ------ --4-- - -9 SOPRIS ENGINEERING - LLC DRAFT FOUND BLM 1978 BRASS IP FOUND 3 1/4Â·BRASS CAP -1 CIVIL CONSULTANTS ON METAL POST MARK S. BECKLER LS. #28643 NOnCE: ACCORDING TOCOLORADO LAW YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY LEGAL 1/4 SEC 13 SEC 18 1954 502 MAIN STREET, SUITE A3 ACTION 8ASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN â„¢15 SURVEY WITHIN THREE YEARS CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623 1/45EC13 SEC 24 1 AFTER YOU f IRST DISCOVER SUCH DEFECT IN 1'40 6'ENT MAY ANY ICON FOUND U.S. DEPT. OF THE ~ BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY 8E COMMENCED MORE THAN TEN INTERIOR BLM (A8 BR ) 1978 ,A (970) 704-0311 SOPRISENG@SOPRISENG.COM YEARS EROM THE DATE OF CERMICATION SHOWN HEREON ./ GRK. 16017 3/1//2016G \2016\16017\SURVelsurveÂ¥ D.Gs\PLATU6017 PLAT SHEET Z dw' ~~~~H STR 13//5 1 ,56'8EI IL,t, 3215 H]MAM HiAOS 13381SOHIH1 HlnOS 3, LE.Â£5.Â£05 teEL S IN ld SV dO 30ild - .IO-86I 3.9IÂ».SOS ' 112%5 -7~ 9 // FINALPLATOF: GP/21 7TH AND HOPKINS ::. 4'../ /ili 9 5 %f~409.Â·t.Â· ~~ 70 WEST HOPKINS AVENUE SUBDIVISION/PD 1 1 1 1 fl1 SECTION 12 & 13, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 85 WEST OF THE 6th P.M. / /// CITY OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO - ~ 1 T-- 1 1 ALENC E 9 -A SHEET 3OF4 / / - 1 ----- "~~ 008 / /- / '56 ' 4' ROADWAY EASEMENT EXISTING LOTS AND EASEMENTS ~ 8 8681 // / / ~ A'/ 1. 90 I lili BOOK 21 PAGE 19 2%/2 *.F ' RECEPTION 1 1 1 -/ >...2 0 , BOOK 513 PAGE 889 - ><, $}if , REC#279234 ADAMS TO COUNIR.0 W t #27110 f li j' cift * 1 / 50/ / \2 - ----4--/1,//1/~33/IffÂ« 417.:(-~ 3%079 1Â» / k 1 1 1 / 4/ / f 19 ,- 1 'C0KS59?Aait(ill -7-- 51 JOHNSON D/CH EASEMENT REC #209621 GRAMIGER TO BOCC %3~ f f , BOOK 21 PAGE 19 REC #303306 (HATCHED) 1/1 1 SHEEHAN LOTUNEADJUSTMENT) flâ€¢1/1 -- ---- / (TRACED FROM GRAMIGER ,3 : - /: / //.1 111 ~r\ 2 / f /90 F RIGHT-OF.WAY DEDÂ¢(71Â·ED TO COUNTY PER PLAT BOOK 17 AT PAGE 61 -4.- I / f / .1/41{0 1 1 1 1 \ ki~NO 115 A~YAP LS #25947 30' -_4 Â¢r / 7--L / 1 / f 9 4 430 ~ 4 %ff IO 5,/1 1 6Â§33/-,\.- lilli 1111111 Ill 111 13+4 / / 1~ FOUND#5 REBAR / 77 x' ~ I~'~Ii'~ ~I~~91 / < *~u fr/ f ' 2 4 1 ~ 16'27"W I,I 111 2 BUILDING ENVELOPE ; - -4-- i 111'P\ PUT BOOK )0 PAGES Â· ~l i VACATED BY THIS PtAT 60' 1 \ HOLY CROSS UNDERGROUND RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENT 8001<573 PAGE 539 4Â· PLAT BOOK 30 PAGE 6 f -. ---- - L R L - 44,42..IN / BOOK 521 PAGE 384 13 2 REC#282637 BUILDING ENVELOPE FOUND #5 RE8AR REC#304040 - VACATED BY THIS PLAT ~ R k & CAP LS #14111 "ADJUSTED" GRAMIGER PARCEL ;.~ ~ IO4.53 = GRAMIGER SHEEHAN LOT L]NE ADJUSTMENT - FOUND SPIKE 1/ r.. -7 \\\\ 3.350 ACRES (WITHIN ANNEXATION BOUNDARY) NO RECORDED BUILDING ENVELOPES FOUND , 1 \ 1 27 ACCESS & UTILITY EASEMENT 1 \ j PLAT BOOK 72 PAGE 59 RIGHT-OF-WAY KEY (THIS SHEET) \ PLATBOOK 17 PAGE 61 0/ 3 1 , 1 ORIGINALLY DEDICATED TO PITKIN COUNTY. CURRENTLY WITHIN /~ ' 0 11 ile'111111 THE CITY OF ASPEN RIGHT-OF-WAY. 4 1 10' WIDE TRAIL l 585Â°23'29"E 106.53 AND SOOK 493 PAGE 480 PLAT -~GE 61 'jill//jf-- ORIGINALLY DEDICATED TO PITKIN COUNTY. CURRENTLY WITHIN L . 21Â·051Â£59.28 . -5- x..__ VACATED BY THIS PLAT / BOOK 359 PAGE 107 LITTLE AJAX CONDOMINIUMS Lot: :A 04 j J \ ,-- b / 3 49/~*M~ 1.00 . 648, THE CITY OF ASPEN RIGHT-OF-WAY. ; I . 44I1Â·Â·4~41-114.r 3.57 33' 2Â«UL'ftÂ«*3 --- - - - l PER PLAT BOOK 34 PAGE 55 1.6.. h .45, --- ' 11 li BOOK 513 PAGE 889 . ~b FOUND#5 REBAR & CAP LS #20133 .-b- 1,444 ---L r. 0 11 11 f ORIGINALLY DEDICATED TO PITKIN COUNTY. CURRENTLY WITHIN / ,// //' THE CITY OF ASPEN RIGHT-OF-WAY. BLOCK 32 4Â· ./L EASEMENT i ~ FOUND #5 REAAR & CAP IUEGIBLE - ....... 2 -~ f?Gs - PER LITTLE A-IAX SUBDI#/PUD . 1 I PLAT BOOK 73 AT PAGE 3 1 LOCATION OF 15 TRAIL EASEMENT 20Â· UTILITY EASEMEIÂ» Â·L-x -Â· , I. BOOK 359 PAGE 107 IDENTIFIED IN RECORD NOTICE BOOK 17 PAGE 61 _1 ./--4. -Â·..._... ~ X o L ~ ' - FOUND #5 REIR / 491 PITKIN COUNTY RIGHT-OF-WAY. OF CONDEMNATION/EMINENT REC#270781 -Â·. xt_ _*36;1 ORIGINALLY DEDICATED TO PITKIN COUNTY. CURRENTLY WITHIN DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS VACATED BY â„¢IS PLAT Â·. ~' -0 Â·- '_ -~- - / BOOK S74 PAGE 211 -* ---H___._____80.71' REC#304307 15Â· TRAIL EASEMENT 7-- Â·-Â· ---,+ \ , VACATED BY THIS PLAT PLAT BOOK 17 PAGE 61 3 578Â·09Â·46 '~?51'254~ j. 1 432/4 ----- AND BOOK 493 PAGE 480 FOUND #5 REBAR & CAP IUEGi BLE XXXXXXX. BOOK 513 PAGE 889 4,r 2~,~S~~~ - - AMENDED AND RESTATED VACATED BY THIS PLAT 2 . 7'XXXXXX MARY B SUBDIVEON 9 15'TRAIL EASEMENT LOT 1 PLAT BOOK 17 PAGE 61 V>:3<9~2%24 ORIGINALLY DEDICATED TO PITKIN COUNTY. CURRENTLY WITHIN r! 9%/.-:r..' PITKIN COUNTY RIGHT-OF-WAY. AMENDED AND RESTATED LITTLE ALAX PUD Lot: 3 1.955 ACRES @ FOUND #5 REBAR PER PLAT BOOK 72 PAGE 59 AND PLAT BOOK 73 PAGE 3 & 761. j MARY B SUBDIVISION E LOT 2 : 0640+ 1.304 ACRES y 14LB 43 FOUND #5 REBAR & CAP LS #2376 FOUND#5 REBAR & CAP LS #9018 4 FOUND #5 REBAR & CAP LS #2376 . - THE PRIDE LLC % T N VACATED BY THI PLAT 2 G m E 19621r ROARING FORK MINING DISTRICT MINE *'11Â®1559 PER QUITCLAIM DEED AS REC #586060 FOUND #5 REBAR & CAP LS #2376 FOUND #S REBAR &CAP LS #2376 '1286'16"E 2.44' FOUND #5 REBAR BOUNDARY 1# 21* N77*5941"W GRAPHIC SCALE PARK PARCEL 381Â·99Â· DEDICATEDTOCOUNTY 30 0 15 30 60 120 PER PLAT BOOK 17 AT PAGE 61 7 + 0 DRAFT -2 (IN FEET) 1 inch= 30 1 S SOPRIS ENGINEERING - LLC a CIVILCONSULTANTS MARK S. BECKLER LS.#28643 4 502 MAIN STREET, SUITE AB 4 NO~CE: ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY lEGAL ACnONSA5EDUPONANY DEFECT IN TH,gURVEY WrTIMN THREEYEARS CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623 AFTER YOU FIRST DISCOVER SUCH DEFECT IN NO EVENT MAY ANY AcnON BASED UPON ANY DEFECr !N THIS 5URVEY BE COMMENCED MORE THAN TEN YEARS FROM THE DATE OF CERTLHCANON SHOWN HEREON (970) 704-0311 SOPRISENG@SOPRISENG.COM GRKSB 16017 3/16/2016G \2016\16017'SURvEASurveÂ¥ DWGs\PLAn,6017 PLAT SHEET 3.dwg .INE VACAIDBÂ¥ r HIS PLAT LOT LINE VACATED BY THIS PLAT 503Â°52'51"E FINAL PLAT OF: 7-705 WEST HOPKINS AVENUE SUBDIVISION/PD 56.00 SECTION 12 & 13, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 85 WEST OF THE 6th P.M. AREA TABLE SUMMARY CITY OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO EXISTING PROPERTY ACRES SQUARE FEET PROPOSED PROPERTY ACRES SQUARE FEET GRAMIGER/SHEEHAN (WITHIN ANNEXATION BOUNDARY) 3.354 145,924 LOT 1 2.719 118,428 SHEET 4 OF 4 1.955 85,182 LOT 2 0.572 24,906 PROPOSED LOTS, EASEMENTS AND REMAINING EXISTING EASEMENTS LOT 2, MARY B. 1.304 56,799 LOT 3 1.296 56,460 LOT 1, MARY B. 88,111 e (0 , , \ 5, 4 1 LOT 4 2.022 1 1 1 I --------04*16,278 / TOTAL= 6.609 287,905 TOTA L = 6.609 287,905 1 1 1 1 1 // / / / f ff .4 ' - - - -32&126?85,00' WEST HOPKINS AVENUE R.O.W. ~ \ 1-- 1 i I i It 1 1 2 19 , L_ 4' ROADWAY EASEMENT CITY OF ASPEN (WIDTH VARIES) \ 8E! ill 111 \ 1 3 JOHNSON DITCH EASEMENT BOOK 21 PAGE 19 \ \LK l 1 % 2 l / 1 8002 21 PAGE 19 REC #303306 -\ 40 ~ (TRACED FROM GRAMJGER ---- . --B Ill - 1 $ 1 1 SHEEHAN LOT UNE ADJUSTMENT \ -1 1 1 1 2 1 515Â°43'33"W 19.00' El PARCEL 1 (ZONED L/PD) /0-- \. \ 1-4- f / 8 1 1 1 1 ey'l 0 118.428 SQ. FL +6 0 N \ \ f \ \U $ i 2.719 AC, +A EMERGENCY ACCESS EASEMENT Y lip j 6 i .11>& r 01/&' .55~,r . SEE DEDINEZ~RAPHNO. 1 - /40099 474 1 --1 :'//A tDiNG ROOFLINE '16'27"W 499491 102.09' 1 1 1 1 \/r \ Â« f~/ /9,4 152.10~ ~ 1 1 1 Vl , . //1 -/ i / UTILITY EASEMENT PER THIS PLAT 14/44/1 s ' f..42 1 I 1 1/.1 // - *50.01 ' SEE DEDICATION PARAGRAPH NO. 2 \,Â«B C 1219 1 i ~ - ff.2324 44 4 - 75.00 SEE DEDICATION PARAGRAPH NO. 1 , \ 20' EMERGENCY ACCESS EA5EMENT PER THIS PLAT '' / 1,//2/-/f,Ott ~ ; ACCESS EASEMENT , i % 1 \ 20'EMERGENCY 11\ - HOLY CROSS UNDERGROUND 15' PUBLIC TRAIL EASEMENT PER THIS PLAT 1 PER THIS PLAT , 1 \ SEE DEDICATION PARAGRAPH NO. 3 1 RIGHT OF-WAY E'ASEMENT , / SEE DEDICATION j \ BOOK 321 PAGE 384 7- -- REC :282637 ~ ~ PARAGRAPH NO. 1 ~ ~ \ 3 BOOK 5~n:LE: '1~ ~ i / \ 1 5 Fl 1 11 iti ;j / 1 \ 1,-:/ / \ 11 1 1, // 94 ' PARCEL 2 (ZONED AH/P) i < 4 / 24,906 SQ. FT. +/- 1 1 f / 0.572 AC. +6 < , LTTLE AIAX CONDOMINIUMS Lot: 1,4 . \ 0 / / 4 1 1-LJ 4 ---- -<\ ' /,. / , L RE'l PLAT 8OOK 84 PAGE 55 I. 1 1 1 L-9 -----lill-H<$~ Â» , 7\ 1 1 / / b Â·-BUL | PARCELB PER UTTLELAX 5 % j 4Â· TRAIL EASEMEN-11 1 (ZONED UP[) 1 PLAT-BOOK 73 AT PAGE F * SUBDIVISION/PUDI 56,460 SQ. FT +6 BLOCK 32 15' PUBLIC TRAIL EASEMENT PER THIS PLAT 10' DRAINAGE EASEMENT PER THIS PLAT ' 1.296 AC. +/- -- - SEE DEDICATION PARAGRAPH NO. 3 SEE DEDICATION PARAGRAPH NO. 5 l -- '- , -t f e.>:h -9-- -,4- -EsÂ»0% - - - \ 10.4. , 76.10' 15' TRAIL EASEMENT 1 1 1 - PLAT BOOK 17 PAGE 61 W cn I VO, - * -Ill- I - . LITTLE AJAX PUD Lot: 3 m 468 PER PLAT BOOK 72 PAGE 59 AND PLAT BOOK 73 PAGE 3 .M *06'40" t* 1 U.1 : PARCEL 4 CO (OPEN SPACE) 88.111 SQ. FT. +A 2.022 AC.+A 0 Z N850 58' 25"W 198,14 â‚¬ 196.21' ROARING FORK MINING DISTRICT MINE THE PRIDE LLC N77'15'59' PER QUITCLAIM DEED AS REC #586060 #f \ 2-0 4 \ TION BOUNDARY 156' rkem \ 24 381.99' & 561 S12'36'16"3 2.44' \ N77'59'41"W GRAPHICSCALE 1 PARK PARCEL (DEDICATED TO COUNTY) SOPRIS ENGINEERING - LLC i MARY B SUBDIVISION [ IN FEET ) CIVILCONSULTANTS PLAT BOOK 17 PAGE 61 DRAFT 1 inch = 30 ft. 502 MAIN STREET, SUITE AB NOTrCE: ACCORDING To COLORADO LAW YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY LEGAL ACTION ~ED UPON ANY DEFECT IN TH15 5URVEY WITHIN THREE YEARS CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623 AFTER YOU FIRST DISCOVER SUCH DEFECT IN NO EVENT MAY ANY ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECr IN THIS SURVE( 8E COMMENCED MORE THAN TEN MARK S. BECKLER LS.#28643 YEARS FROM THE DATE Of CERTIFICATION SHOWN HEREON (970) 704-0311 SOPRISENG@SOPRISENG.COM GRKS8160173/16/2016..\2016\16017\SURvEASurveÂ¥DWGs\PLAT\16017 PLATSHEET 4 dwg COUNTY PITION W 44' 16"E 429.16 M.W,BI.EDS