HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.1450 Cyrstal Lake Rd.A27-97DATE RECEIVED:
DATE COMPLETE:
PARCEL ID #
PROJECT NAME:
Project Address:
APPLICANT:
Address/Phone:
OWNER:
Address/Phone:
REPRESENTATIVE
Address /Phone:
CAS -PAD SUMMARY SHEET - CITY O SPEN
4/8/97
2737 - 181 -32 -021
CASE # A27 -97
STAFF: ` ra; h Y►'� as
Aspen Club Insubstantail Amendment to Approved Parking Plan
1450 Crystal Lake Rd
Michael Fox
'1450 Crystal Lake Rd, Aspen 81611925-8900
Cottele & Graybeal
510 E. Hyman, Sutie 21 Aspen, 925 -2867
RESPONSIBLE PARTY: Applicant Other Name /Address:
FEES DUE
lleetng;Date .. `;
FEES RECEIVED
PLANNING
$450
PLANNING
$450.
# APPS RECEIVED 1
ENGINEER
$0
ENGINEER
$
# PLATS RECEIVED 1
HOUSING
$0
HOUSING
$
GIS DISK RECEIVED:
ENV HEALTH
$0
ENV HEALTH
$
CLERK
$
CLERK
$
TYPE OF APPLICATION
TOTAL
$450.
TOTAL RCVD $450.
Staff Approval
Review Body.
lleetng;Date .. `;
Public Hearing �r
" •
❑ City Attorney
❑ City Engineer (DRC)
❑ Zoning
❑ Housing
❑ Environmental Health
❑ Parks
DATE REFERRED:
❑ Aspen Fire Marshal
❑ City Water
❑ City Electric
❑ Clean Air Board
❑ Open Space Board
❑ Other:
INITIALS:
APPROVAL: Ordinance/Resolution #
taff Approval
CLOSED/FILED ' DATE: �` INITIALS: _l
ROUTE TO:,., �.rl�
❑ CDOT
❑ ACSD
❑ Holy Cross Electric
❑ Rocky Mtn Natural Gas
❑ Aspen School District
❑ Other:
DATE DUE:
Date:
Date: .2 - -7 —
Book , Page
Colonial
Savings
J. S. DUBOSE
Chairman
March 6, 1996
Aspen/Pitkin Planning & Zoning
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
' . MAIR
9
Private Line
8171390 -2222
ASPEN CLUB ACCESS CHANGE
I wish to go on record as opposed to the proposed changes to the Aspen Club. Specifically, I
oppose the closure of the current access via Highway 82, and the use of the new access via Ute
Avenue.
The increased traffic along Ute Avenue would be inconvenient to people who use the Club, and
would ruin the quiet residential atmosphere of Ute Avenue. One of the main reasons we decided
to build at Ute Place was the fact that it was in a nice, quiet area and not on one of the main
streets of town and we will be very unhappy if this situation changes.
Thank you for your consideration.
J MES S. DUBOSE
Aspen Address: #1 Ute Place, Aspen, CO 81611
me
2624 West Freeway P.O. Box 2988 Fort Worth, Texas 76113 817/390 -2000 Metro 817/429 -9333
Fort Worth Arlington Lewisville Garland Hurst
•
•
Henrik & Christina Vanderlip
35 Ute Place.
�. Aspen, CO 81611
March 4, 1996
Aspen /Pitkin Planning & Zoning
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Commissioners:
In regard to the proposed changes to the Aspen Club, my wife and
I strongly believe Ute Avenue would not be able to support the
increase in flow of traffic. I urge you, before making your
decision to imagine yourself as a homeowner in this area, if these
proposed changes are enacted they would absolutely ruin this quiet
residential area. You must understand how your decision will
effect . the lives of every homeowner currently living in this
beautiful area.
My wife and I would like to go on record as opposing the closure
of the current access via Highway 82 and the new access via Ute
Avenue.
Sincerely,
HNV /lp0304
Phyllis S. Hojel
72 Ute, Place
Aspen; Colorado 81611
February 29, 1996.
Aspen, Pitkin County.
Planning & Zoning Dept.
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado. 81611.
RE: MARCH 19. 1996 _MEETING
ASPEN CLUB PUD AMENDMENT
Dear Commissioners,
V
UT;. � 7,
I recently learned that the City of Aspen is considering allowing
the Aspen Club to eliminate their current parking lot and to
provide parking access via Ute Avenue. I am horrified!
Not too long ago a few Ute Place families donated to the City of
Aspen property across the river from our houses, (which are along
the river) , to build a bike path, and park area.: The purpose was
for the preservation of green areas and family areas for Aspen
proper. How can you allow the Aspen Club to add more residences
to their property by eliminating their parking lot? Was our
donation in vain? Did we make a dreadful mistake?
One only has to spend one day in the Summer in Aspen to observe
the `life" on Ute Avenue. There are two parks ... the Children's
Park and the one across the street from the Ute Place entrance to
see the. number of children playing in them. One only has to
observe the number of cars and bicycles parked across from Ute
Trail to see the daily- use by visitors and locals who use Ute
Trail. One only has to observe a game of mini - soccer along the
street by a group of boys, and a children's lemonade stand on the
corner. There is a daily stream of .bikers, skate - boarders, roller -
skaters and strollers along the street. In the Winter we find
cross- country folks going down the bike path, neighbors walking to
the Aspen Club, children walking into town, the horses and buggy
route, neighbors walking to the gondola.
Ute Avenue is the epitome of a dead -end residential street. Isn'_t
this what Aspen is all about? Does every space of concrete or
green HAVE to be invaded and converted into residences?
Granted I, too, live in a home in a space, (Ute Place), that more
Phyllis S. Hojel
72 Ute Place
Aspen, Colorado 81611
page 2
than likely many locals were.not happy about when the construction
took place. Now, as someone who spends a great .deal of time in
Aspen and loves our little town, and desperately wants to preserve
what Aspen was; I can't bear the°.thought of Ute Avenue being
converted into a thoroughfare... that is what Highway 82 is for.
Should not the Aspen Club maintain their parking lot on the
present location? Should not the access to this parking affect as
few people as possible? To allow the access to be on Ute Avenue
would be a crime to a neighborhood,-:..a family- oriented street.
Highway 82 is what it is .... a highway. Cars come and go at all
times of day and even into the night; this movement should take
place on the highway. -
My heart tells me that surely the county commissioners are going
to put the well -being of a quiet neighborhood street, with all its
families and children, before the financial greediness of the
Aspen Club, whose sole purpose is to build MORE houses, (which we
do not need) , and invade Ute Avenue with an unattractive parking
lot.
PLEASE PLEASE GIVE /'THI"S ISSUE YOUR MOST SERIOUS CONSIDERATION.
� 1
Mostincer Y.
Phyllis- S-_Hoje1
P. S. Let's be honest, mistakes have been made in the past, but
they do not have to continue to be made such as even in my own
little haven of .Ute Place. Quite frankly when Ute Place came to
the commissioners table ever so many years ago ... you should have
allowed eight (8) homes NOT 16!! Don't we always learn from
hindsight ? ? ?!!!
HARRY AND SUSAN WELSCH
10 Ute Place
Aspen, CO. 81611
(970) 920 -2003, Fax: (970) 920 -2066
February 29, 1996 111 6
Commissioners
Aspen /Pitkin Planning and Zoning.i
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Commissioners:
We have just learned that the Aspen Club plans to use Ute
Avenue as. its main entrance to a newly remodeled club. We are
quite concerned since we live year round at 1010 Ute Place: The
traffic on this small residential road is quite heavy. In our
opinion, any increased traffic on Ute Avenue would be a safety
hazard.
As you are aware,- there are two City, parks along this road
with children playing in the summer. The popular Ute Trail also
begins on Ute Avenue with heavy pedestrian traffic walking along
the road from town or crossing the'road from the trailhead parking
.area.
:During the winter when there is snow piled up.on both�'sides
of Ute Avenue, the road often becomes only large enough for a
single lane. People coming and going from the rear entrance of the
Aspen Club drive very fast, and at the corner of Ute Avenue and
Original ice is nearly always present. We ourselves have more than
once not ,been able to. brake :at this corner due to the icy
conditions.
The present front entrance to the Aspen Club also serves as
an access with parking for people wishing to walk or ride bikes
along the Roaring Fork River Trail. There are very few such access
points in the city for which people can enjoy the trail and also
be able to park their cars.
We, wish to go on record as being opposed to the proposed
changes to the Aspen Club's main entrance and wish the main
entrance to remain from Highway 82.
Thank you for your consideration as to this matter.
Sincerely,
-Q Harry and Susan Welsch
. AGENDA .
June 10, 1996
5:00 COUNCIL MEETING
I. Call to order
II. Roll call
III.. Scheduled Public Appearances
a) Cynthia Heelan - CMC Update
IV. Citizens Comments & Petitions (Time for any citizen to address Council on issues
NOT on the agenda. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes)
V. Special Orders of the day
a) Mayor's comments
b) Councilmembers' comments
c) City Manager's comments
VI. Consent Calendar (These matters may be adopted together by a single motion)
a) Minutes - May 28, 1996
b) Resolution #34, 1996 - Contract Lower Rio Grande
c) Resolution #33, 1996 - Acceptance Zoline Easements
d) Request for Funds Aspen Mountain Bicycle Festival
VII. Public Hearings
a) Ordinance #19, 1996 - Mall Performers (To be continued)
VIII. Action Items
a) Resolution #26, 1996 = Hines Water Agreement'Continue to June 24
b) Ordinance #20.- Aspen Club PUD amendment.
IX. Information Items
X. Executive Session - Potential Property Acquisition
XI. Adjournment
Next Regular Meeting June 24, 1996
COUNCIL MEETS AT NOON FOR AN INFORMAL PUBLIC DISCUSSION, BASEMENT MEETING
ROOM
TO: Aspen City Council
THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager
Stan Clauson, Community Development Director ,
FROM: Dave Michaelson, Deputy Director
DATE: June 10, 1996
RE: Aspen Club PUD - PUD Amendment' - First Reading of Ordinance No. 20,
Series of 1996.
SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting approval to.modify the access and parking areas that
serve the Aspen Club (Club). Access to the Club, is presently provided from State Highway 82
via Crystal Lake Road, as specified in the Callahan Subdivision and PUD agreement. In
addition, the PUD agreement restricted the use of the Ute Avenue parking lot to service,
deliveries or emergencies. Over time the Ute Avenue lot has been used for additional
membership parking in violation of the PUD Agreement.
The applicant initially proposed to access the Club exclusively from Ute Avenue, to expand the
Ute Avenue lot to 138 parking spaces, and to convert Lot 14A, which is currently used for Club
parking, to a single family lot. The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the application
at a public hearing on March 19, 1996, and recommended denial by a vote of 4 -1, based on the
adjacent land uses along Ute Avenue, the level of pedestrian /bicycle traffic in the area, and the
physical constraints of the Ute Avenue roadway.
The applicant has since revised the application, and is currently proposing to retain the existing
parking lot on Lot 14A but reduced in size to accommodate a total of 20 vehicles, and to reduce
the proposed number of parking spaces on the Ute Avenue side of the property from the original
proposal,of 138 spaces to 80 spaces. This represents a 42 percent reduction from the original
proposal; but also would increase available parking in the Ute Avenue lot by 70 percent when
compared to the existing spaces. The applicant is also committing to operate a shuttle service
between the Aspen Club and the Aspen Club Lodge during peak traffic hours in- season to reduce
traffic on Ute Avenue.
The original application is attached as Exhibit A, referral memos are attached as Exhibit B, and
letters from adjacent land owners in response to the public notice are attached as Exhibit C. The
revised illustrative site plan of the proposed modificati(Ims to the Ute Avenue parking lot is
attached as Exhibit D. An amendment to the applicati -on is attached as Exhibit E, and minutes
from the March 19, 1996 minutes are attached as E- hibit F.
Staff notes for Council that a determination has been made .that the applicant does not require .
either conditional or special review because the underlying parking and access requirements
were established through the PUD process. A conditional use review is not necessary for the
Ute Avenue parking lot due the recognition within the PUD agreement that limited_ parking was
approved by the City. The applicant has agreed to return to the Planning and Zoning
Commission prior to second reading to allow the Commission an opportunity to comment on the
proposed amendment.
Staff recommends approval with conditions, with a recommended modification of the proposed
parking configuration. The concept advocated by staff would attempt to hold traffic levels on
Ute Avenue to current levels.
APPLICANT: Dick Butera (Aspen Club International), represented by Alan Richman
ZONING: Lots 14A and 15, Callahan Subdivision. The Aspen Club facilities are located on Lot
15, and Lot 14A is the current location of the parking lot approved in 1976. Lots 15 and 16 are
zoned Rural Residential (RR), while the remaining lots in the PUD are zoned Moderate- Density
Residential (R -15); with all lots in the development having a PUD overlay. The proposed PUD
amendment would route additional traffic from State Highway 82 /Cooper Street, and then
continue to the rear of the club on Original Street/ Ute Avenue. Zoning through this, section
includes single and multi - family residential (R -15 and RMF) along SH 82, transitioning to
tourist - oriented land uses (NC PUD and L /TR) along the west side of Original, and returning to
residential use (R -15 PUD) near the terminus of Ute Avenue.
BACKGROUND: The requirement for limited access to the Aspen Club property was defined
in the Subdivision and Planned Unit Development Agreement for the Callahan Subdivision. The
specific condition addressing access reads as follows:
"The subdivider agrees, for himself and his successors and "assigns, that he will not authorize
any vehicular traffic to enter the area of the condominium units or recreational facilities of the
Callahan Subdivision from Ute Avenue unless such vehicles are for the purpose of construction,
providbig services to or dealing with emergencies of. the Callahan Subdivision. Furthermore,
neither the subdivider nor his successor or assigns sall provide for any parking spaces along
the border of Ute Avenue within any portion of the Callahan Subdivision.
Since that time, the area behind the Aspen Club off of Ute Avenue has been used by employees
and members of the Club for .parking, in violation of the requirement of the PUD. Currently;.
approximately 47 spaces are being used for these purposes.. Consistent with the enforcement
policy of the City, staff has not taken action to remove the Ute Avenue parking pending a final
decision on the application by City Council.
SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD: The Aspen- Club property includes the recreational
facilities on Lot 15, and also created Lots 1 thru 12, ach of which was approved for a single
family home, except for Lot 10, which was approved for a duplex. Lots 13 and 13A were
condominium lots, which were built -out as the existing 20 -unit Aspen Condominiums. Lot 14,
which contained the Benedict residence, was originally approved to be converted into a
clubhouse and residence. Lcf 14A was approved for parking facilities for the recreational uses
on Lots 14 and 15. Lot 1t6, the existing Benedict Office building, was designated for office use.
Subdivision and PUD Agreement, Callahan Subdivision, dated May 13, 1976 (Book 312, Pages 115 -116).
The existing access pattern requires that all east and westbound club patrons use State Highway
82 to Crystal Lake Road. The 'PUD approval included the development of a north lot, and
visitors approach the Club via a walkway of approximately 1000 feet in length crossing the
Roaring Fork River. The proposed access amendment would route additional traffic south on
Original Street, continuing south on Ute Avenue to an existing entrance near the rear of the
Aspen Club facility. Land uses along the proposed access route include commercial and multi -
family residential along Cooper, continuing along Original. between Cooper and Durant, and
transitioning to single- and multi- family lots towards the terminus of Ute Avenue.
TRAFFIC IMPACTS: Excerpts from the traffic analysis provided with the original application
are included within Exhibit A. Based on Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) methodology, the
study concluded that the traffic volumes projected for Ute Avenue, assuming approval, would be
at an acceptable Level of Service (LOS) based on the assumed carrying capacity of the roadway,
estimated at 3,000 vehicles per day. This estimate assumes the following cross - section: two
eleven -foot driving lanes, an eight -foot parking lane, and an eight -foot separated bike path. 2'
Field work conducted by Planning, Engineering and Streets Departments at different times from
mid- February to mid -March found that the actual cross - section of Ute Avenue tapers from 19' at
the Ute Avenue /Aspen Alps Road to nearly 14' at the curve adjacent to Ute Park. The majority
of the rest of Ute Avenue is restricted to 15' of passable road due to snow. This is primarily due
to the directional orientation of Ute Avenue. Portions of the roadway are shadowed by Aspen
Mountain as early'as 1:30 pm, and completely shaded by 3:30 pm. For comparison, the existing
access to the club via State Highway 82 remains in open sunlight until sunset at approximately
6:00 pm. Staff suggested that the 3,000 figure was flawed by assuming a cross section that is not
possible 5 months out the year, and did not consider the horizontal and vertical alignment of Ute
Avenue or the presence of significant pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Photographs taken during
this period of time are attached as Exhibit H.
The proposed peak period trip distribution, based on the original application, would have
increased traffic by 18% on Ute Avenue south of Durant, and 104% (doubling traffic) at the far
end of Ute Avenue adjacent to the proposed access and, existing dwelling units. Based on the
revised proposal to maintain 20 parking spaces in the existing north lot and to provide weekday
peak -hour, peak- season shuttle service to the Club, weekday traffic on Ute Avenue south of
Durant would increase by 4.8 %, and at the far end of Ute Avenue by 26.3 %.3
The intersection analysis of the original proposal also indicated that no adverse impacts are
projected for Cooper /Original or Original /Durant, and the impacts would be less under the
proposed amendment. Staff notes that traditional traffic studies do not account for the level of
pedestrian and bike traffic in the immediate area, nor the sight distance issues addressed by the
Engineering Department. Table 1 summarizes the conclusion of the traffic analysis for an
average weekday for the initial application and the amended proposal, assuming a 30 percent
reduction as represented by Leigh, Scott & Cleary.
February 6th, 1996 cover letter from Leigh, Scott & Cleary, Inc. to Dick Butera (included in Exhibit A)
3 May 15, 1996 cover letter from Leigh, Scott & Cleary, Inc. to Dick Butera (included in Exhibit G)
3
Table 1
Aspen Club PUD Access Amendment
Existing and Proposed Average Weekday Traffic
�Road�vay Lein `
E tang 0=
®rigrrtalPropo
as l
Current
ropo
al
(March
Aspen
Proposed
%
Aspen
Proposed
1996)
Club
Weekday
Change
Club
Weekday
Change
3,280
220
3,500
+6.7
55
3,335
+1.6
Cooper at Original
Original
1,800
210
2,010
+11.6
53
1,853
+2.9
Lower Ute
1,250
230
1,480
+18.4
56
1,306
+4.5
Upper Ute
220
230
450
+104.5
58
278
+26.3
REFERRAL COMMENTS: Referral comments from Streets, Parks and Engineering are
attached as Exhibit B, and are summarized below:
Streets: The Streets Department was opposed to the original submittal due to the horizontal and
vertical alignment that constrain site .distance, and the reduced lane width caused by snow
storage during the winter.
Engineering: The Engineering Department was also opposed to the original submittal; due to
sight constraints, potential conflicts with adjacent land uses, the residential character of the
southern sections of Ute Avenue, and the potential conflicts with existing public uses of the three
parks and trail crossings. A detailed analysis of the traffic study assumptions and findings are
included in Engineering's comments. Revised comments have not been submitted.
Parks: The Parks. Department questions the adequacy of the traffic study in addressing winter
driving conditions, including the narrow lane width and sight constraints due to snow storage.
Environmental Health : Environmental Health. did not identify any significant air quality issues
or conflicts with the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Aspen Area.
STAFF COMMENTS: Section 24 -7 -907 B. provides that any amendment to an approved PUD
which is not insubstantial "shall be reviewed and approved pursuant to the terms and procedures
of the final .development plan, provided that the proposed change is consistent with or an
enhancement of the approved final development plan." The following section evaluates the
R proposal according to these standards.
_4. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan.
Response: The applicant's response notes that the retention of the Aspen Club is a consistent
with the intent of "revitalizing the community" and the desire to "encourage land uses,
businesses and events that serve the local community and tourist base." Staff does not agree
4
that this.policy can be used to justify the requested amendment. The proposal should be
reviewed independently of the financial situation of the Aspen Club, and instead assessed by its
relative impact on the community and consistency with applicable regulations.
The Aspen Area Community Plan placed particular emphasis on the implementation of the
Pedestrian Walkway and Bikeway Plan. The Proposed Pedestrian System map identified Ute
Avenue, Original and the portion of State Highway 82 west of Crystal Lake Road as a "Primary
(Commuter)" route. Staff did not consider the original proposal to redirect additional vehicular
traffic onto these streets, even if the roadway geometry can theoretically absorb additional
capacity, to be consistent with the pedestrian plan approved. within the . AACP. The revised
proposal would increase traffic along the Ute /Original corridor only slightly, and greatly reduces
the impact on pedestrian and bicycle use of this area when compared to the original submittal.
.The City has also committed to enforce a 25 mph speed limit along Ute Avenue, as well as,
heightened enforcement of the "No Parking" zone on the north side or Ute Avenue.' Staff.would
suggest that if there was no net increase over current traffic levels on Ute Avenue, the PUD
amendment would be consistent with the AACP.
B. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in-
the surrounding area.
Response: The applicant has stated that the existing parking lot is "incompatible" with the
existing residential units. The same argument holds true for the proposed access to the parking
lot off of Ute Avenue, which is,also residential in nature and includes significant bicycle and
pedestrian traffic. The concept of SH 82 access for the -Aspen Club residences and recreational
facilities was to minimize conflicting turning movements and concentrate through traffic onto
roadways designed for such volumes. The existing access from State Highway 82 has wider.
shoulders, longer site distances and is more consistent in character with the existing traffic
patterns when compared to the Ute Avenue alternative. The revised plan dramatically reduces
potential volumes on Ute Avenue, but would increases traffic over, existing levels.
C. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the
surrounding area.
Response: The. surrounding area has developed to the point where very few vacant, developable
parcels remain. The applicant may develop a single- family home on Lot 14A, and is also
considering deeding the remaining land not used for 'the 20 space parking lot to the adjacent
owners.
D. Final approval shall only be granted to the development to the extent to which GMQS
allotments are-'obtained by the applicant.
Response: This amendment does not require any GMQS allotments. The conversion of Lot 14A
to a single family home, would be considered exempt from GMQS, based on its existence prior
to November 14, 1977, and compliance with the Requirements of the Housing Replacement
Program.
E. The maximum density shall be no greater than that permitted in the underlying zone
district.
F
Response: The amendment does not propose any changes to the underlying zoning or the
density allowed in the R -15 zone district.
F The land uses permitted shall be those of the underlying zone district. Detached
residential units may be authorized to be clustered in a zero lot line or row house configuration,
but multi family dwellings shall only be allowed when permitted by the underlying zone district.
Response: The Club's parking lot is not permitted in the R -15 zone district, but rather was
approved within the PUD. Reducing the amount of parking on Lot 14A will lessen the non=
conformity as it relates to underlying zoning. .
G. The dimensional requirements shall be those of the underlying zone district, provided
that variations may be permitted for the maximum distance between buildings, height,
front /rear /side yard, minimum lot width, minimum lot area, trash access area, internal floor area
and minimum open space requirements.
Response: No variations_ from the dimensional requirements of the underlying zone districts are
proposed.
H. The number of off street parking .spaces may be varied from that required in the
underlying zone district based on the following considerations:
1. The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development.
2. The parking needs of any non - residential uses.
3. The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed.
4. The availability of pubic transit and other transportation facilities, including those for
pedestrian access and /or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the
proposed development.
5. The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core or public recreation
facilities in the'City.
6. Whenever the number of off- street parking spaces is reduced, the City shall obtain
assurance that the nature of the occupancy will not change.
Response:
Existing Parking: There are currently 101 parking spaces available on Lot 14A, which exceeds
the 38 required by the PUD. Observations by the applicant indicate that the existing number of
spaces are adequate for existing club users, and that parking is currently split between the
approved parking and the Ute Avenue parking. The applicant notes that the parking lot on Lot
14A rarely contains more than 20 vehicles of members, guests and employees, and, therefore,
asserts that maintaining 20 spaces on Lot 14A and providing shuttle service to the Club will only
slightly increase existing traffic levels on Ute Avenue. Staff does note that the original
application states that the lot on Crystal Lake Road is.usually occupied by approximately 20 -50
cars (pg. 9).
0
Parking Demand: The City of Aspen parking standards require 2.0 spaces per 1000 square feet
of net leasable for a recreational club .4 Based on the existing square footage of the recreational
facilities (approximately 32,000 sq. ft.), the Club, if approved today, would be required to
provide 64 off - street parking spaces. At the time the application was approved in 1977 for the
original, the standard in effect at the time suggested only 38 spaces were needed to serve the
Club. Other commonly used sources would have suggested a factor of 3 to 5 spaces per 1000
square feet, requiring 128 spaces.5 Staff notes that the concentrated land use pattern of Aspen,
as well as the implementation of policies to encourage alternative transportation modes would
suggest a parking demand below traditional urban factors. Demand estimations not
withstanding, the project was approved with the north lot containing 101 parking spaces. The
lot off of Ute Avenue provides 37 spaces, for a total existing parking count of approximately 138
spaces.
Original Proposal: The original site plan indicated 138 spaces: 105 along the west side of the
building, including an expansion of the area currently used for member parking and a conversion
of the two tennis courts closest to the existing pedestrian bridge into parking, 12 spaces at the
rear of the building for employees in an area currently used for parking, and 21 spaces for the spa
and therapy area, which would have required the removal of the tennis /volleyball court along the
eastern side of the Club. The proposal would have held available parking at existing levels, but
would redistribute traffic onto Ute Avenue, far beyond the current levels.
Amended Proposal: The revised site plan indicates 80 spaces on the Ute Avenue side of the
property: 38 on two existing tennis courts directly to the north of the building, 27 along the west
side of the building, 9 to the south of the building for therapy patients, and 6 to the southeast of
the building. 20 parking spaces will be maintained on Lot 14A, for a total of 100 spaces for the
Club.
The proposed parking would be more than adequate, particularly in, light of the representations
that the north lot rarely contains more than 20 -50 cars.b. The applicant also proposes to provide
a shuttle service for guests and members from the Aspen Club to the Aspen Club Lodge from 8-
10 AM and 5 -7 PM, Monday through Friday, from December to March and June to August, to
reduce the need for parking and traffic impacts along Ute Avenue.
Staff is not in favor of any increase in traffic above the levels currently using Ute Avenue to
access the Club. In order for levels to remain status quo, no additional spaces, beyond those
provided today,' should be developed off of Ute Avenue. This would allow approximately 40
spaces to be developed off of Ute Avenue, including paving, striping, and landscaping.
Assuming a mean of the observed occupancy of the north lot, staff would recommend that 35
spaces be retained. This would allow for 75 off - street parking spaces for Club use, and allow
for the existing 12,000 foot north lot to be reduced to approximately 60 %, leaving
approximately 7,500 square feet of parking. This would also represent a decrease of available
parking by 45 percent, discouraging traffic on Ute. Avenue from exceeding current levels.
' A Recreational Club is a permitted use in the Commercial Core (CC) zone district, which requires 2
spaces per 1000 sq. ft. of net leasable. It is also an allowed use in the Commercial (C) zone district, which
requires 1.5 spaces per 100 sq. ft. net leasable. Staff has used the higher parking generation factor.
Planning Advisory Service, Off-Street Parking Requirements Publication 432 May 1991.
6 Development Application for PUD Amendment, page 9.
7
• •
I The Open Space requirement shall be that of the underlying zone district. However, a
variation in minimum open space may be permitted if such variation would not be detrimental to
the character of the proposed PUD, and the proposed development shall include open space for
the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD through a common park or
recreation area.
Response: Neither the Rural Residential (RR) or the Moderate - Density Residential (R -15) zone
district have any minimum open space requirement nor was such a requirement established in the
original PUD. The site plan submitted with the application still retains significant open space as
it is currently defined in the code.
i
J. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan a landscape plan, which
exhibits a well designed treatment of exterior spaces. It shall provide an ample quantity and
variety of ornamental plant species that are regarded as suitable for the Aspen Area climate.
Response: The Parks Department has reviewed the application, and indicated that the Club has
always retained adequate landscaped areas around the facility. Staff was concerned that a number
of trees adjacent to the Benedict Building to the west would have to be removed to accommodate.
the access to the parking area. According to the revised site plan, the trees adjacent to the
Benedict Building remain undisturbed. If required, tree removal permits shall be obtained by the
applicant, if the proposal is approved by Council.
K. There shall be approved as part of the Final Development Plan an architectural site
plan, which ensures architectural consistency in the proposed development, architectural
character,' building design, and the preservation of the visual character of the City. It is not the
purpose of this review that control of architectural character be so rigidly enforced that .
individual initiative is stied in the design of a particular building , or substantial additional
expense is required. Architectural character is based upon the suitability of a building for its
purposes, upon the appropriate use of materials, and upon the principles of harmony and
proportion of the building with other and surrounding uses. Building design should minimize
a
disturbances to the natural terrain and maximize the preservation of existing vegetation, as well
as enhance drainage and reduce soil erosion
Response: No changes to the architectural design of the structures are proposed, however some
green space will be eliminated.
L. All lighting shall be arranged so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of
any kind to adjoining streets or lands.
Response: Any required lighting of the parking areas will be designed to match the existing
lighting within the PUD, which is currently low profile, with no glare on adjoining properties.
A7 Cluster of dwelling units is encouraged.
Response: No dwelling units.are proposed within the application. A single - family home could
be developed on Lot 14A with an easement.granted for the parking area.
1V The proposed development shall be designed so that adequate public facilities will be
available to accommodate the proposed development at the time development is constructed, and
that there will be not net public cost for the provision of these public facilities. Further,
buildings shall be arranged such that structures are accessible to emergency vehicles.
Response: The primary physical constraint to access from Ute Avenue is the tapering lane
width due to snow storage, and the horizontal and vertical curves that compromise sight distance.
Streets Department staff has indicated that significant additional snow removal along Ute
Avenue would be necessary to address the lane width constraints. The applicant has addressed
this concern in the revised proposal by providing fewer parking spaces off of Ute Avenue and by
committing to provide a shuttle service to lessen traffic going to the Club.
D. Every dwelling unit, or other land use permitted in the PUD shall have access to a
public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way, or other .
dedicated to public or private use.
Response: The Club access, as proposed, would have direct access to Ute Avenue and to State
Highway 82 via Crystal Lake Road, a previously approved private road.
P. Principal vehicular access points shall be designed to permit smooth traffic flow with
controlled turning movements and minimize hazards to vehicular or -pedestrian circulation.
Minor streets within the PUD shall not be connected to streets outside the development so as to
encourage their use by traffic.
Response: The applicant has submitted a traffic analysis that concluded that the parking entry
and exit points, and internal circulation design meets accepted traffic engineering standards.
Q. The proposed development shall be designed so that it will not create traffic congestion
on the arterial and collector roads surrounding the proposed development, or such surrounding
collector or arterial roads shall be improved so that they will not be adversely affected.
Response: The revised proposal suggests that vehicle trips along Ute Avenue will increase by
30 trips each way, which represents. an increase over current levels. In addition, traffic routed
through the central core is faced with increased pedestrian and vehicular movements, as opposed
to the existing traffic patterns using State Highway 82 access to the Crystal Lake Road lot.
R Every residential building shall be farther than sixty feet from any access roadway or
drive providing vehicular access to a public street.
Response: The potential residence on Lot 14A would meet this standard. Staff notes that the
potential conversion to a dwelling unit is completely independent of the proposed PUD
amendment.
S. All non - residential land uses within a PUD shall have direct access to a collector or
arterial street without creating traffic hazards or congestion on the street.
Response: Staff would suggest that this criteria is based on distributing traffic in a hiearchial
fashion,. with traffic and associated movements placed on appropriate streets in the system.
Although Ute Avenue is considered a collector street, it by no means can carry the amount of
P
S
traffic that State Highway 82 was designed for. The revised access plan greatly reduces these
potential traffic impacts, but does represent additional traffic.
T. - Streets in the PUD may be dedicated to public use or retained under private ownership.
Said streets and associated improvements shall comply with all pertinent City Regulations and
Ordinances.
Response: There are no new streets proposed within the PUD, nor is any change proposed with
regard to ownership or maintenance of the existing streets.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff would suggest that the staff recommends approval
based on the following conditions:
1. All representations of the applicant before the City Council are considered conditions of
approval, unless otherwise amended by subsequent conditions or amendments.
2. _ The proposed configuration shall be refined to allow for the retention of 35 spaces in the
north lot, and 40 spaces shall be allowed off of Ute Avenue.
3. The applicant provide an elevation of the west side of the proposed parking lot to ensure
that headlights can be deflected from the adjacent property by the use of berming or vegetation.
4. The approved parking area off of Ute_Avenue shall be paved and stripped, .and a final
landscaping plan shall be approved the City of Aspen Park's Department prior to planting. Any
removal of trees will require a tree removal permit.
5. Prior to completion of the parking facility, the applicant shall submit documentation to
the City Engineer to ensure that the distance between the two western access points meet
standard engineering standards and will not result in an unsafe traffic situation for members and.
guests entering or exiting the Ute Avenue parking facility.
6. By July of 1997, the applicant shall provide the Community Development Department
and the City Council with a report assessing the effectiveness of van service from the Aspen
Club and the Aspen Club Lodge. The report shall include ridership data sufficient to determine
if the program will continue to be a condition of approval.
Recommended Motion:
1. "I move to approve on first reading Ordinance 20, Series of 1996. approving an
amendment to the Callahan Subdivision PUD Agreement, with conditions."
Alternative Motions. A summary of other options open to Council include:
1. Approve the PUD amendment as presented;
2. Deny the amendment outright, which would require that the Ute Avenue lot be
abandoned and revegetated, consistent with the original PUD approval;
E
3. Allow an amendment for continued use and improvement of the Ute Avenue Lot
and the retention of the north lot in its existing configuration.
CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS:
Exhibits:
A - Original Application
B - Referral Memos
C - Letters from.Adjacent Property Owners
D - Modified Site Plan
E - Amended Application .
F - Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
G - Amended Traffic Impact Assessment
H - Photographs of Ute Avenue
I - Ordinance 20, Series of 1996
1;
Il
LEONARD M. OATES
ROBERT W. HUGHES
RICHARD A. KNEZEVICH
TED D_ GARDENSWARTZ
DAVID B. KELLY
OF COUNSEL:
JOHN THOMAS KELLY
•
�J
LAW OFFICES OF
-OATES, HUGHES & KNEZEv'ICH
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
THIRD FLOOR. ASPEN PLAZA 8UILDING
533 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE
ASPEN. COLORADO 81611
March 18, 1996
Mr. Dave Michaelson
City of Aspen
Department of Community Development
130 South Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
AREA CODE 970
TELEPHONE 920 -1700
TEL ECO PIER 920 -1121
Re :. Application for- PUD Amendment, Conditional Use Amendment Parking
Special Review
Dear Dave:
. This office represents Jack and Caroline Davis and Thomas & Dathel Coleman, who own
homes on Ute Avenue. Our clients, along with. others in the neighborhood, are extremely
concerned with the application filed by Aspen Club International which would effectively move
all vehicular traffic from the existing and approved North Parking Lot accessing off Crystal Lake
Road to parking accessing off Ute Avenue. Our clients oppose approval of the application based
on the following:
1. Existing Approvals. It is clear that the 1976 P.U.D. approval as well as
the 1977 amendment thereto forbid vehicular access off and parking adjacent to Ute Avenue.
This was undoubtedly due to the fact that the City wished to maintain a "rural" feel to Ute
Avenue and, in addition the physical constraints of the road, many of which exist to this day.
In any event-the P.U.D. Agreement specifically provides:
"The subdivider agrees for himself and his successors and assigns
that he will not authorize any vehicular traffic to enter the area of
the condominium units or recreational facilities of the Callahan
Subdivision from Ute Avenue, unless such vehicles are for the
o..vi'I?N, urt-(.;IfFs cam. KNE7E ,\ 'ICt -f. P.c.
Mr. Dave Michaelson
Department of Community Development
March 15, 1996
Page 2
purpose of construction, providing services, or dealing with
emergencies of the Callahan Subdivision. Furthermore, neither the
subdivider nor his successor or assigns shall provide for any
parking spaces along the border of Ute Avenue within any portion
of the Callahan Subdivision."
Clearly the City felt it was important that there be no access other than service or
emergency access be permitted off of Ute Avenue. It is our clients' position that these
restrictions were well founded and should be continued. As discussed in more detail below, Ute
Avenue is still, particularly in winter, a narrow, dangerous road which does not need additional
traffic. In addition, in our view, the Aspen Club has been clearly violating its Land Use
Approval by permitting its employees, guests and members to park i.n areas accessing off of Ute
Avenue. This violation of the parking restrictions is conceded in the Land Use Application.
It does not seem correct to permit a clear violation of an existing PUD Agreement to exist and
then, present it to the P.Z. as a Fait'Accompli. The "informal use" (parking accessing off Ute
Avenue) referred to in the application is really a violation of an existing P.U.D. Agreement.
2. Existing Conditions on Ute Avenue. Despite the apparent results of the
traffic study .prepared by Leigh, Scott and Cleary, Inc., it is still obvious that Ute Avenue is a
narrow, dangerous road. We agree with the positions taken in both the_ February 29, 1996
memo from-George Robinson of the Parks Department and the Jack Ried February 22, 1996
memo from the Street Department that the traffic impacts, particularly at Ute and Original, are
understated. Even if the numbers compiled and assumed to be accurate, the report does not take
into account several important safety issues:
a. The study does not adequately address the impact of the heavy
snowfall during the winter months. Since Ute Avenue does not get
a great deal of sunlight, snow and ice tend to linger. Plowing
results in a narrowing of the road and also impedes vision. During
heavy snowfall, Ute Avenue becomes little more than a one -lane
road on the upper end. The intersection of Ute and Original is
extremely icy and dangerous and has been the site of numerous
accidents.
b. The road is a "dead end" which increases traffic intensity as a
result of Club visits. i
jtk\mjchac1.kr
LJ
11[-Gllr;S &� K_NF'Z[?v[CH. P.C.
Mr. Dave Michaelson
Department of Community Development
March 13, 1996
Page 3
c. There are at least three areas where the driver's line of site is
impaired due to curves in the road.
d. The road, as well as the bike path, is used by rollerbladers,
bicyclists, and runners. It is also regularly used by the horse and
carriage tours and there are two city parks, including Children's
Park, on the upper end of the Avenue. Ute Avenue is also the
inception of the popular Ute Trail. All of the foregoing creates
heavy use and safety issues. .
3. 1994 Upgrade of Ute Avenue.. The applicant, and for that matter the
traffic study, make much of the City upgrade of Ute Avenue in 1994. It should, be noted,
however, that the upgrade was not intended to handle increased traffic. As the Feruary 22,
1996 Road Department memo states, the primary focus was to create a consistent road surface,
address drainage problems, widen the road in some places, and to provide some skier parking
on the west end of Ute Avenue. A major part of the improvements also involved
undergrounding of utilities and beautification of the area. The intent was not to create an
atmosphere for 'significant increase in traffic.
To summarize, Ute Avenue is a narrow, dangerous road with areas of limited line of site.
Even assuming that the traffic study figures are correct, the study does not address the unique
and dangerous conditions as a result of winter weather. It may be true that significant numbers
of cars can travel on Ute Avenue without traffic jams. Whether they can do so safely is another
issue. That Ute Avenue is dangerous is evidenced by the fact that 26 accidents occurred on Ute
Avenue between 01/24/93 and 02/14/96, including 11 accidents at the Ute and Original
intersection. A copy of the computer printout from the Aspen Police Department indicating
these accidents is attached.
4. Declining Use of the Club. The Application and the traffic study also
make much of the declining use of the Club, which apparently have fallen forty percent (40 %)
over the last seven years. The real issue is, however, that shifting all access to Ute Avenue will
place a significant additional burden on Ute Avenue and its residents regardless of past use of
the Club. Emphasis should be placed on current use rather than what has gone on in the past.
jtk\E ichael.hr
OATES, Hu(',].IES & .KNEZEVTCH, P.C.
Mr. Dave Michaelson
Department of Community Development
March 13, 1996
Page 4. -
In closing, our client would urge denial of the P.U.D. Amendment as same is presently
configured, for the reasons stated above, particular by the safely issues. They feel Ute Avenue
parking access should be limited to service emergency and handicapped persons using the
facilities. This is in keeping with the original approvals, which my clients believe were based
on concerns still valid today.
Very truly yours,
OATES, HUGHES & KNEZEVICH, P.C.
By:
John T. Kelly
JTK/sh
enclosures
4
OAPD •
Mar .6,
1996
/SO COMBINED RECORDI
INCIDENT REPORT
PAGE: 1
SUBFILE: DONNA.
93000291
1/24/93
ACCIDENT
STEVE R SMITH
1093 UTE AVE
93000458
2/10/93
ACCIDENT
ROCKY WHITFORD
UTE AVE /ORIGINAL
93.000581
- 2/20/93
ACCIDENT
LISA RUSSELL
UTE /ASPEN ALP RD
93000679
3/01/93
ACCIDENT
LISA RUSSELL.
ORIGINAL /UTE AVE
93001447
6/11/93
ACCIDENT
141BR
ORIGINAL /UTE AVE
94000450
2/11/94
ACCIDENT
CHARLIE MARTIN
-SOUTH RD /UTE AVE
94000454
2/11/94
ACCIDENT
141BR
700 UTE AVE /S ALPS.RD
94000455
2/11/94
ACCIDENT
141BR
800 UTE AVE
94000456
2/11/94
ACCIDENT
CHARLIE MARTIN
SOUTH RD /UTE AVE
94001080.
"4/08/94
ACCIDENT
ROCKY WHITFORD
UTE AVE /ASPEN ALPS RD
94002013
8/04/94
ACCIDENT
ROCKY WHITFORD
700 UTE AVE
94002381
9/10/94
ACCIDENT
RICHARD PRYOR
UTE /ORIGINAL
94003070
12/08/94
ACCIDENT
SHAWNA MINARD
ORIGINAL /UTE
94003109
12/12/94
ACCIDENT
RICHARD PRYOR
S.ORIGINAL /UTE AVE
94003205
12/20/94
ACCIDENT
WALTER CHI
ORIGINAL /UTE
95000111
1/11/95
ACCIDENT
ROCKY WHITFORD
UTE /ORIGINAL
95000443
2/13/95
ACCIDENT
CHARLIE MARTIN
UTE AVE /ORIGINAL
95000625
3/02/95
ACCIDENT
C BROWN
1271 UTE AVE
95000947
3/31/95
ACCIDENT
WALTER CHI
1300 UTE AVE
95002758
11/06/95
ACCIDENT
CHARLIE MARTIN
UTE ST
95002767
11/04/95
ACCIDENT
CHARLIE MARTIN
UTE AVE
95003084
12/16/95
ACCIDENT
ALAN SHINDERMAN
DURANT /UTE
4
Mar. 6, 1996 �APD /SO COMBINED RECORDt •
INCIDENT REPORT PAGE: 1
SUBFILE: DONNA '
960OA234 2/01/96 ACCIDENT RICK MAGNUSON ALPS RD /UTE AVE
960OA265 2/05/96 ACCIDENT CHARLIE MARTIN UTE /ORIGINAL
960OA291 2/09/96 ACCIDENT VICKI NALL UTE /ORGINAL
9600A325 2/14/96 ACCIDENT CHARLIE MARTIN UTE AVE
a .
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Direct
FROM: Dave Michaelson, Deputy Director
DATE: March 19, 1996
RE: Aspen Club PUD - PUD Amendment, Conditional Use Amendment, Parking
Special Review
SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting approval to change the access that serves the Aspen
Club. As approved, access to the Aspen Club is from State Highway 82 via Crystal Lake Road,
as specified in the Callahan Subdivision and PUD agreement. The applicant proposes to access
the Club exclusively from Ute Avenue, and the area currently used for "bandit" parking off of
Ute Avenue would be expanded and would be the designated parking area for the Club. -Lot
14A, currently used for parking, would be converted to a single family lot. The following
specific approvals are required to accomplish the project:
1) Amend the approved Callahan PUD to allow for all parking and access from Ute
Avenue;
2) Conditional Use Review to allow an amendment to the prior conditional use granted for
the recreational club in the Rural Residential (RR) zone district;
3) Special Review to amend the parking for the facility. All non - residential uses in the RR
zone district are set by special review.
The application is attached as Exhibit A, referral memos are attached as Exhibit B, and letters
from adjacent land owners in response to the public notice are attached as Exhibit C. An
illustrative site plan of the proposed modifications to the Ute Avenue parking.lot is attached as .
Exhibit D. The AACP Pedestrian and Bikeway Plan is attached as Exhibit E.
Staff_ recommends denial of the request to transfer all parking access to Ute Avenue, and
recommends approval with conditions for the PUD amendment, Special and Conditional
Reviews to allow for the legitimization of the existing 35 spaces off of Ute Avenue.
APPLICANT: Dick Butera (Aspen Club Intern ational), represented by Alan Richman
ZONING: Lots 14A and 15, Callahan.Subdivision. The Aspen Club facilities are located on Lot
15,. and Lot 14A is the current location of the parking lot approved in 1976. Lots 15 and 16 are
zoned Rural Residential (RR), while the remaining lots in the PUD are zoned Moderate - Density
Residential (R -15), with all lots in the development having a PUD overlay. The-proposed PUD
amendment would route traffic from State Highway 82 /Cooper Street, and the continue to rear of
the club on Original Street/ Ute Avenue. Zoning through this section includes single and multi=
family residential (R -15 and RMF) along SH 82, transitioning to tourist- oriented land uses (NC
PUD and L /TR) along the west side of Original, and returning to residential use (R -15 PUD) near
the terminus of Ute Avenue. (Staff will have both an existing zoning map and land use map with
the proposed access route for reference.at the hearing).
BACKGROUND: The requirement for limited access to the Aspen Club property was defined
in the Subdivision and Planned Unit Development Agreement for the Callahan Subdivision. The
specific condition addressing access reads as follows:
"The subdivider agrees, for himself and his successors and assigns, that he will not authorize
any vehicular traffic to enter the area of the condominium units or recreational facilities of the
Callahan Subdivision from Ute Avenue unless such vehicles are for the purpose of construction,
providing services. to or dealing with emergencies of the Callahan Subdivision. Furthermore,
neither the subdivider nor his successor or assigns shall provide for any parking spaces along
the border of Ute Avenue within any portion of the Callahan Subdivision.
Since that time, the area behind the Aspen Club off of Ute Avenue has been used by employees
- and members of the Club for parking in violation of the requirement of the PUD. Currently,
approximately 47 spaces are being used for these purposes.
SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD: The Aspen Club property includes the recreational
facilities on Lot 15, and also created Lots 1 thru 12, each of_ which was approved for a single
family home, except for Lot 10, which- was approved for a duplex. Lots 13 and 13A were
condominium lots, which were built -out as the existing 20-unit Aspen Condominiums. Lot 14,
which contained the Benedict resident, was originally approved to be converted into a clubhouse
and residence. Lot 14A was approved for parking facilities for the recreational uses on Lot 14
and 15. Lot 16, the existing Benedict Office building, was designated for office use.
The existing access pattern requires that all east and westbound club patrons to use State
Highway 82 to Crystal Lake Road. The PUD approval included the development of a north lot,
and visitors approach the Club via a walkway that crosses the Roaring Fork River. The proposed
access amendment would route traffic south on Original Street, continuing south on Ute Avenue
to an existing entrance near the rear of the Aspen Club facility. Land uses along the proposed
access route include commercial and multi - family residential along Cooper; continuing along
Original between Cooper and Durant, and transitioning to single- and multi- family lots towards
the terminus of Ute Avenue.
TRAFFIC IMPACTS: Excerpts from the traffic analysis are included within Exhibit A. Based
on Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) methodology, the study concluded that the traffic volumes
projected for Ute Avenue, assuming approval, would be at an acceptable Level of Service (LOS)
based on the assumed carrying capacity of the roadway, estimated at 3,000 vehicles per day.
This estimate assumes the following cross - section: two eleven -foot driving lanes, an eight-foot:
parking lane, and an eight -foot separated bike path.'
1 Subdivision and PUD Agreement, Callahan Subdivision, dated May 13, 1976 (Book 312, Pages 115 116.
February 6th, 1996 cover letter from Leigh, Scott & Cleary, Inc. to Dick Butera (included in Exhibit A)
Field work conducted by Planning, Engineering and Streets at different times from mid- February
to mid -March have found that the actual cross - section of Ute Avenue tapers from 19' at the Ute
Avenue /Aspen Alps Road to nearly 14' at the curve adjacent to Ute Park. The majority of the
rest of Ute Avenue is restricted to 15' of passable road due to snow. This is primarily due to the
directional orientation of Ute Avenue. Portions of the roadway, are shadowed by Aspen
Mountain as early as 1:30 pm, and completely shaded by 3:30 pm. For comparison, the existing
access to the club via State Highway 82 remains in open sunlight until sunset at. approximately
6:00 pm. Staff would suggest that the 3,000 figure is flawed by assuming a cross section that is
not possible 5 months out the year. The applicant's traffic engineer has submitted additional
information regarding the carrying capacity of Ute Avenue, attached as Exhibit F.
The proposed peak period trip distribution, which staff supports as valid, would increases traffic
by 18% on Ute Avenue south of Durant, and 104% (doubling traffic) at the far end of Ute
Avenue adjacent to the proposed access. The intersection analysis also indicates that no adverse
impacts are projected for Cooper /Original or Original /Durant. Staff notes that the "perceived"
doubling of volumes along Ute Avenue would have a significant neighborhood impact on the
residential development that has occurred since the Aspen Club was approved, which is not
apparent when reviewing the LOS assumptions or intersection analysis. In addition, traditional
traffic studies do not account for the level of pedestrian and bike traffic that the immediate area
experiences.. Table 1 summarizes the conclusion of the traffic analysis for an average weekday.
Table 1
Aspen Club PUD Access Amendment
Existing and Proposed Average Weekday Traffic
Roadway Link Existing Weekday Proposed Weekday Percent Change
Cooper at Original 3,280 3,500 6.7 %
Original 1,800 21010 11.6%
Lower Ute 1,250 . 1,48.0 18.4%
Upper Ute 220 450 104.5%
REFERRAL COMMENTS: Referral comments from Streets, Parks and Engineering are
attached as Exhibit B, and are summarized below:
Streets: The Streets Department is opposed the proposed amendment due to the horizontal and
vertical alignment that constrain site distance, and the constrained lane width caused by snow
storage during the winter.
Engineering: The Engineering Department is also opposed to the proposed amendment due to
sight constraints, potential conflicts with adjacent land uses, the residential character of the
southern sections of Ute Avenue, and the potential conflicts with existing public uses of the three
parks and trail crossings. A detailed analysis of the traffic study assumptions and findings are
included in Engineering's comments.
3
• 4
Parks: The Parks Department questions the adequacy of the traffic study in addressing winter
driving conditions, including the narrow lane width and sight constraints due to snow storage.
Environmental Health : Environmental Health did not identify any significant air quality issues
or conflicts with State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Aspen Area.
STAFF COMMENTS: Section 24 -7 -907 B. provides that any amendment to an approved PUD
which is not insubstantial "shall be reviewed and approved pursuant to the terms and procedures
of the final development plan, provided that the proposed change is consistent with or an
enhancement of the approved final development plan". The following section evaluates the
proposal according to these standards.
A. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan.
Response: The applicant's response notes that the retention of the Aspen Club is a consistent
with the intent of "revitalizing the community" and the desire to "encourage land uses,
businesses and events that serve the local community and tourist base ". Staff does not agree
that this policy can be used to justify the requested amendment. The proposal should be.
reviewed independent of the financial situation of the Aspen Club, and instead assessed by its
relative impact on the community.
Staff does not support the proposal from this perspective, due to the tapering of the driving
surface on Ute Avenue during winter months, the horizontal and vertical curves of the street
alignment, the residential character of the neighborhood and the level of pedestrian/bike use of
Ute Avenue.
The Aspen Area Community Plan placed particular emphasis on the implementation of the
Pedestrian Walkway and Bikeway Plan. A copy .of. the Proposed Pedestrian System map is
included as Exhibit E, and identified Ute Avenue, Original and the portion of State Highway 82
.west of Crystal Lake Road as a "Primary (Commuter)" route. Redirecting additional vehicular
traffic onto these streets, even if the roadway geometry can theoretically absorb additional
capacity, is not consistent with pedestrian plan approved within the AACP.
B. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in
the surrounding area.
Response: The applicant has stated that the existing parking lot is "incompatible" with the
existing residential units. The same argument holds true for the proposed access to the parking
lot off of Ute Avenue, which is also residential in nature. The concept of SH 82 access for the
Aspen Club residences and recreational facilities was to minimize conflicting turning movements
and concentrate through traffic onto roadways designed for such volumes. The existing access
from State Highway 82 has wider shoulders, longer site distances and is , more consistent in
character with the existing traffic patterns when compared to the Ute Avenue alternative.
The proposal to amend the PUD to eliminate the north parking lot and develop a single family
house is a benefit to the existing residential development for the Aspen Club, but. at the expense
of deflecting additional traffic into another residential neighborhood.
EXHIBIT #2
C. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the
surrounding area.
Response: The surrounding area has developed to the point were very few vacant, developable
parcels remain.
D. Final approval shall only be granted to the development to the extent to which GMQS
allotments are obtained by the applicant.
Response: This amendment does not require any GMQS allotments. The conversion of Lot 14A
to a single family home would be considered exempt from GMQS, based on it existence prior to
November 14, 1977 and compliance with the Requirements of the Housing Replacement
Program.
E. The maximum density shall be no greater than that permitted in the underlying zone
district.
Response: The amendment does not propose any changes to the underlying zoning or the
density allowed . in the R -15 zone district.
F. The land uses permitted shall be those. of the underlying zone district. Detached
residential units may be authorized to be clustered in a zero lot line or row house configuration,
but multi family dwellings shall only be allowed when permitted by the underlying zone district.
Response: The Club's parking lot is not permitted in the R -15 zone district. Moving the parking
onto Lot 15 will eliminate the non- conformity, however the impacts to the adjacent
neighborhood do not warrant the requested amendment.
G. The dimensional requirements shall be those of the underlying zone district, provided
that variations may be permitted for the maximum distance between .buildings, height;
front /rear /side yard, minimum lot width, minimum lot area, trash access area, internal floor area
and minimum open space requirements.
Response: No variations from the dimensional requirements of the underlying zone districts are
proposed.
H. The number of off street parking spaces may be varied from that required in the
underlying zone district based on the following considerations:
1. The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development.
2. The parking needs of any non - residential uses.
3. The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed.
4. The availability of pubic transit and other transportation facilities, including those for
pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the
proposed development.
G
5. The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core or public recreation
facilities in the City.
6. Whenever the number of off - street parking spaces is reduced, the City shall obtain
assurance that the nature of the occupancy will not change.
Response: There are currently 101 parking spaces available on Lot 14A, which exceeds the
requirement established by the PUD of 38. Observations by the applicant indicate that the
existing spaces are adequate for existing club users, and that parking is currently. split between
the approved parking, and the "bandit" Ute Avenue parking. The site plan indicates 138 spaces,
105 along the west side of the building, including an expansion of the area currently used for
member parking and a conversion of two tennis courts into parking. 12 spaces are provided at
the rear of the building for employees, in an area currently used for parking. Finally, 21 spaces
are provide for the spa and therapy area, which will require the removal of the tennis /volleyball'
court along the eastern side of the Club.
The applicants have also include two options for phasing the proposed parking (see Page 10 of
the application).
Staff finds that the project meets the requirements of the above -cited criteria, which are primarily
addressing parking demand.
1. The Open Space requirement shall be that of the underlying zone district. However, a
variation in minimum open space may be permitted if such variation would not be detrimental to
the character of the proposed PUD, and the proposed development shall include open space for
the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD through a common park or
recreation area
Response: Neither the Rural Residential (RR) or the Moderate - Density Residential (R -15) zone
district have any minimum open space requirement nor was such a requirement established in the
original PUD. The site plan submitted with the application still retains significant open space as
it is currently defined in the code.
J. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan a landscape plan, which
exhibits a well designed treatment of exterior spaces. It shall be provide an ample quantity and
variety of ornamental plant species that are regarded as suitable for the Aspen Area climate
Response: The Parks Department has reviewed the application, and indicated that the Club has
always retained adequate landscape areas. around the facility. However, Staff was concerned
about the number of trees likely to be removed by the western entrance. The Aspen Club will be
responsible to go through the tree removal process, if the proposal is approved by the
Commission and Council.
,K. There shall be approved as part of the Final Development Plan an architectural site
plan, which ensures architectural consistency in the proposed development,. architectural
character, building design, and the preservation of the visual character of the City. It is not the
purpose of this review that control of architectural character be so rigidly enforced that
individual initiative is stifled in the design of a particular building , or substantial additional
a building for its
on the suitability of harmony and
aired. Architectural character is based up principles of
expense is req materials, and upon s. the
uilding design should minimize
on the appropriate use of
purposes, upon with other and surrounding use s. vegetation, as well
proportion of the building reservation of existing g
disturbances to the natur . duce lsoil erosion
mtze the p
as enhance drainage and r
ral design Of the structures are proposed, however some
Response: No changes to th e . architectu
green space will be eliminated.
L All lighting shall be arranged so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of
any kind to adjoining streets or, lands.
of the parking areas will be designed to matchthe fiting
re wired lightmb profile, with no glare on adjoininb properties.
Response: Any q which is currently low p
lighting within the PUD,
M Cluster of dwelling units is encouraged.
within the application, with the exception of a single -
Response: No dwelling units are proposed arking lot.
family home proposed for the former p public facilities will. be
ment shall be designed so that adequate p
develop ment at the time development is constructed, and
N Theproposed ro osed develop f these public facilities. Further,
available to accommodate the p cost for the provision. o emergency vehicles.
that there will be not net public
' s shall be arranged such that structures are accessible to emerg lane width due to
building
The primary constraint to access indicated Athat signif cant tapering
dd additional so P op °Sed
Response:- artment staff has width constraints
snow storage. Streets DeP to address the lane licant. Additional
ro osed by the app
along Ute Avenue would be necessar ro osal is,approyed.
net ublic cost to the community if the proposal
mitigation to address these Pconcerns have been p
snowplowing is clearly
permitted in the PUD shall have actor o her
dwelling unit, or other land use roved private road, a pedestrian way,
0. Every an aPP
public street either directly or through
dedicated to public or private use.
as proposed, would have direct access to Ute d, Avenue. Prviously The
The Club access, P ahwa 82 via Crystal Lake Road, p
Response: Q unit will have access to State Hib Y
proposed dwelling with
approved private road.
points shall be designed to permit smooth traffic flow
P. Principal vehicular access p
pedestrian circulation.
movements and minimize hazards to vehicular or
controlled turning hall not be con
encourage their use by nected to streets outside the developm, ent so as to
Minor streets within the t QUD s
sis that concluded that the parking entry
oineering standards. A
The applicant has submitted a traffic analy venue
Response: design access from Ute A
and exit points and internal circulation o meets
necessitated traffic by b Qeometry of State
secondary issue related to traffic and
staff s opinion, the design speeds . an
as opposed to State Highway 82.
7
Highway 82 are clearly more appropriate to address Club and resident traffic than routing traffic
through town and onto a road with the physical constraints of.Ute Avenue.
Q. The proposed development shall be designed so that it will not create traffic congestion
on the arterial and collector roads surrounding the proposed development, or such surrounding
collector or arterial roads, shall be improved so that they will not be adversely affected.
Response: The applicant has indicated that the traffic study did not identify substantial impacts
along the proposed Ute Avenue access route. Staff has taken issue with the assumption that Ute
Avenue can carry 3,000 vehicles per day, as well as the geometric assumptions used in the
analysis. As mentioned earlier, the driving conditions on Ute Avenue are dramatically different
during the winter months, primarily due to the fact that this area of town is in shadow much
earlier than the valley floor. In addition, traffic routed through the central core are faced with
increased pedestrian and vehicular movements, as opposed to the existing traffic patterns using
State Highway 82 access to the Crystal Lake Road lot.
R Every residential building shall be farther than sixty feet from any access roadway or
drive providing vehicular access to a public street.
Response: The proposed residence on Lot 14A will meet this standard.
S. All non - residential land uses within a PUD shall have direct access to a collector or
arterial street without creating traffic hazards or congestion on the street.
Response: Staff would suggest that this criteria is based on distributing traffic in a hiearchial
fashion, with traffic and associated movements placed on appropriate streets in the system.
Although Ute Avenue is considered a collector street, if by no means can carry the amount of
traffic that State Highway 82 was designed for.
T. Streets in the PUD may be dedicated to public use or retained. tinder private ownership.
Said streets and associated improvements shall comply with all pertinent City Regulations and
Ordinances.
Response: There are no new streets proposed within the PUD, nor is any change proposed with
regard to ownership or maintenance of the existing streets.
CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW
A conditional use review was granted to the original owner of the property to develop a
recreational club on Lot 15. Section 26.60.080 of the Code states that an amendment to an
approved conditional use which is not insubstantial shall be approve by the Commission subject
to the standards described below.
A.. The conditional use review is consistent with . the purposes, goals, objectives and
standards of the AACP, and with the intent of the Zone District which it is proposed to be
located.
Response: The consistency of the Aspen Club with the policies and recommendations of the
AACP have been discussed under -ihe responses to the review criteria for a PUD.
8
B. The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the character of the immediate
vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and surrounding land uses, or enhances the
mixture of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for
development.
Response: The applicant has indicated that the existing parking lot is inconsistent with the
character of the surrounding residences. Staff notes that all of the residences have been
constructed since the Club and parking lot were established in the 1970s, and potential
purchasers and residents were well aware of the location of the parking lot prior to purchase.
Staff would suggest that the impacts associated with access exclusively from Ute Avenue is not
consistent with the residential character of Ute Avenue.
C. The location, size design and operating characteristics of the proposed conditional use
minimizes adverse effects, including visual impacts,. impacts on pedestrian and vehicular
circulation, parking, trash, service delivery, noise, vibrations and odor on surrounding
properties.
Response: As summarized throughout staff's comments, the proposal will have an adverse
impact on pedestrian and vehicular access on Ute Avenue, as opposed to.the existing access plan.
Impacts on trash and service delivery are riot changed by the proposal.
D. There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the conditional use including
but not limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire protection,
emergency, medical services, hospital and medical services, drainage systems, and schools.
Response: No impacts on public services (water, sewer, solid waste, police, fire protection,
emergency, medical services or schools) are expected by the proposal. However, staff does have
significant concerns regarding the ability of Ute Avenue to handle additional traffic during the
winter, as well as additional snow plowing that would be necessary to widen the roadway.
E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the incremental need for
increased employees generated by the conditional use.
Response: No additional employees will be needed, and, no mitigation is required.
F. The proposed conditional use complies with all additional standards imposed on it by .
the AACP and by all applicable requirements of this chapter.
Response: Staff has responded to the AACP issues in earlier comments.
SPECIAL USE REVIEW FOR PARKING
Parking requirements for a . recreation club in the Rk zone district are established by the
Commission by special review. Section ?6.64.040 of the Code states that an amendment to, }
parking requirements established by special review which is not insubstantial shall be approved
by the Commission subject to the following standard:'
t
3
9
In all zone districts where the off - street parking requirements are subject to establishment or
reduction by special review, the applicant shall demonstrate that_ the parking needs of the
residents, guests and employees of the project have been met, taking into account potential uses
of the parcel, its proximity to mass transit routes and the downtown area, and any special
services, such as vans, provided for residents, guests, and employees. ,
Response: There are currently 101 spaces provided in the north parking lot approved in the
PUD. This number far exceeds the 37 spaces required in 1977. The applicant has indicated that
the 101 spaces are more than adequate; and that these spaces are typically no more than 50%
occupied. The two areas utilized off of Ute Avenue include 35 graveled spaces on the west side
of the Aspen Club, and 10 graveled spaces parallel to Ute Avenue. These 45 spaces are generally
occupied by club members and employees.
The proposed site plan accommodates 138 spaces, 105 are along the west side of the building,
and includes an expansion of the area currently used for member parking and a conversion of
two tennis courts. The entire area would be paved, striped and landscaped. The proposed
parking represents an increase of 33% from the original parking lot approved by the PUD. The
applicant has indicated a phasing plan (Option A and B on page 17 of the application).
The proposed parking configuration provides ample parking, and is consistent with this criteria.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on the adjacent land uses along Ute Avenue, the level
of pedestrian traffic in the area, and the physical constraints of the Ute Avenue roadway, staff
cannot support the access modification as proposed. Although staff agrees that the parking
configuration as approved is less than optimal for members, guest and residences of the Aspen
Club site, the impacts associated with the parking modification are significant to the community,
and far.outweigh the benefits to users of the Club.
The AACP identified improvements to the pedestrian system as a priority of the community.
This policy directive has led the development of a Downtown Pedestrian Enhancement Plan, and
includes as an overall concept the reduction of vehicles entering the central core. Although the
proposed access plan only skirts the area identified in the Enhancement Plan boundaries, staff
suggests that the re- routing of ,the entire Aspen Club access trips is not consistent with AACP
policies and recommendations, or the intent of improving the pedestrian experience of Aspen.
Staff also recognizes that the "informal parking" along Ute Avenue has in part been brought
about by the growth of the clientele who come to the club to rehabilitate. Staff is in support of
formally modifying the PUD to allow for these existing spaces to be legitimized, with the
following conditions:
1. That the existing parking along Ute Avenue is approved for employees and users of the
spa for rehabilitation, and shall be signed accordingly. The areas approved for such parking are
shown on the site plan submitted with the application as "Existing Gravel Parking to Be Paved ",
and represent approximately 35 spaces along the west side of the building, and 12 employee
parking spaces.
2. The approved parking area shall be paved and stripped, and a final landscaping plan shall
be approved the City of Aspen Park's Department prior to planting.
10
•
•
3. Prior to completion of the parking facility, the applicant shall submit documentation to
the City Engineer to ensure that the distance between the two western access, points meet
standard engineering standards and will not result in an unsafe traffic situation for members and
guests entering or exiting the Ute Avenue parking facility.
Recommended Motion:
1. "I move to deny the PUD amendment, conditional use and special use as presented
by the applicant, and for reasons described in the March 15, 1996 memo from Planning
Staff."
2. "I move to recommend approval of the PUD amendment, conditional use, and
special use with the conditions outlined in the staff memorandum dated March 15, 1996."
Exhibits:
Exhibit A - Application
Exhibit B - Referral Comments
Exhibit C - Letters from Adjacent Land Owners
Exhibit D - Illustrative Site Plan
Exhibit E - AACP Pedestrian and Bikeway Plan
Exhibit F - Explanation from Traffic Engineer regarding Ute Avenue Capacity
11
•
MEMORANDUM
To: Dave Michaelson, Deputy City Planning Director
Thru: Nick Adeh. City Engineei/A-Z"
From: Ross C. Soderstrom, Project Engineer
•
Exhibit B
Date: March 11, 1996 (Revised)
Re: Aspen Club PUD Amendment, Special Review for Parking & Conditional Use Review
After reviewing the above referenced application and making a site visit I have the following
comments:
1. Traffik'Study Analysis: -
A) The applicant must verify the basis for justifying the 3,000 VPD capacity, i.e., travel lane
width, shoulder type and width, speed, and LOS for a local road.
D) The applicant is asking for too many curb cuts with less than adequate acceleration -
deceleration distance between the first and second proposed driveways a the west end.
C) Note that the traffic consultant's projected traffic impacts on page 3 of its report
(found in the application appendix) are based on a re- distribution of existing traffic volumes
that equals 105% rather than 100 %. This would imply that the Aspen Club received an
immediate 5% increase in member attendance due to using Ute Avenue. rather than Hwy. 82
although this is not a demonstrated fact. More likely the entire traffic analysis is incorrect if
the vehicle volumes shown are the actual values used in the traffic modeling analysis. In that
case, the analysis and conclusions of this section are incorrect to the extent that the traffic
modeling is also incorrect.
In looking at the traffic consultant's re- distribution of the traffic leaving the proposed south parking
area on the intersections of South Original with E. Durant Avenue and E. Cooper Avenue it appears
that the actual waiting time for the peak morning and afternoon traffic periods will slightly increase
overall at the two intersections.
1 OF 2
3/12/96
DRC1%42a96.D0C
•
MEMO - Aspen Club PUD Amendment
1]
D) The traffic study provided by the applicant primarily focuses on the LOS at the intersections
and does not adequately consider the shorter sight distances along Ute Avenue, (particularly during
the winter months) and does not give any consideration to the residential character of the
neighborhood and number of residential driveways along Ute Avenue; the actual driving width of
Hwy. 82 verses. Ute Avenue during the winter; the planned improvements along E. Cooper Avenue
(Hwy. 82); nor the potential conflicts of added vehicle traffic with public use of the three (3) parks,
three (3) trail crossings and the carriage horse stables at the east end of Ute Avenue.
On February 28. 1996 during my site review the passable road width on Ute Avenue varied from 19
ft. at the intersection of Ute Avenue and Aspen Alps South Road to only 14 ft. at the curve
immediately east of Ute Park (a playground) while the passable road width on Hwy. 82 and Crystal
Lake Road varied. from 21.5 ft. on Hwy. 82 to 11.5 ft. at the. one -way Centennial Circle around and
into the existing sports club parking lot. It was also observed that Ute Avenue was partially
shadowed by Aspen Mt..at 1:30 p.m. and entirely shadowed by Aspen Mt. by 3:30 p.m. while Hwy.
82 remained in open sunlight until sunset at approximately 6 p.m. This results in larger snowdrifts
along the sides of Ute Avenue (3 -4 ft. along Ute Avenue vs. 2 -3 ft. along Hwy. 82) which obstruct
sight distances at driveways, narrower passable road widths and causes more ice on the roadway.
Furthermore, re- directing vehicle traffic from the present entrance to Ute Avenue would be contrary .
to the intentions of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and the character that the community has
sought to develop.
2. Impact on Neighborhood:
We assume.the additional traffic will be passenger cars driven by club members and customers, and
no additional commercial vehicles will travel on Ute Avenue.
3. Drainage Impacts:
The current surface run -off flows are not known to us and- there is no report, nor mitigation
proposed. The applicant must perform this work and determine the entire site's drainage basin and
it's conveyance system, the sediment transport control. and the overall site erosion control
improvements for our review and approval.
2OF2
DRCM2a96.DOC 3/12/96
To:
From:
Date:
Subject
Dave Nlichealson
Jack Reid
February 22, 1996
Aspen Club PUD /Conditional Use Amendment and Parking Special
Review
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - - - - --
The Street Department feels .it is inappropriate to increase the traffic on Ute Ave. The
upgrade of Ute Ave., in 1992, did not address a great increase in traffic. There were
drainage improvements, and the .road was widened in some places. That widening was
primarily to develop a consistent road width for the length of the road, and was not at all
substantial. The road was overlaid with a 2 inch asphalt mat. There are some curves on
the road that do inhibit sight distance. There was no attempt, during the upgrade, to cure,
this problem.
The enclosed pictures are of Original, south of Durant, and Ute Ave. Both are very
narrow. Obviously, Ute Ave. has restricted sight distances in both directions.
It is a true that in the summer, additional traffic might not be a problem. However, the
traffic calc's done by Leigh, Scott & Cleary, do not reflect the special conditions we
experience in the winter. The pictures reflect a fairly typical condition for Original and
Ute Ave., for most of the winter months.
MEMO-
To: Dave Michaelson, Deputy Director
From: Ed Van Walraven, Fire Marshal
Subject: Aspen Club Parcel ID# 2737 - 181 -32 -021 .
Date: March 1, 1996
Dave,
This project shall meet all of the codes and requirements of the Aspen Fire Protection District.
This includes but not limited to providing and maintaining adequate fire department access.
If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me.
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Dave Michaelson, Community Development
THRU: George Robinson, Parks Director
FROM: John D. Krueger, Trails Supervisor
Rebecca Baker, Parks Department
DATE: February 29, 1996
•
RE: The Aspen Club, Development Application For PUD Amendment,
Conditional Use Amendment, Parking Special Review (parcel ID
No.2737- 181 -32 -021)
We have reviewed the Aspen Club Development Application For PUD Amendment,
Conditional Use Amendment, Parking Special Review and offer the following comments:
1. Landscaping:
The Aspen Club has a good reputation for creating beautifully landscaped areas around
the club. A more in -depth landscaping plan for the impacted areas would make
evaluation easier. We are concerned about the area to the west of the club that will
become the driveway to the new parking lot. This area has many trees that will be lost
when the driveway is constructed. The Aspen Club needs to go through the tree removal
permit process for this and any other areas that will incur tree loss and abide by the city
ordinance.
2. Drainage:
We have concerns about site drainage that will change or increase as a result of the new
driveway and parking lot. The area below the new parking lot has a history of drainage
problems that result in unsafe ice build up during the winter and standing water during
the summer. The application should address the drainage for this area.
The proposed parking lot could also create drainage problems during the winter with
snow storage and drainage down the hill onto the trail.
3. Crystal Lake Road Access to the Trail:
Will pedestrians and bikers retain access to the Aspen Club Trail via Crystal Lake Road
off of Highway 82 or surrounding properties?
page 2
Aspen Club Application
4. Snow removal /storage:
How will snow removal be accomplished in the new parking lot and where will it be
stored? The close proximity of the proposed parking lot to the trail below could cause
problems during snow removal of the,lot. Snow should not be pushed or blown from the
parking lot onto the trail. The snow needs to be managed in such a way that it does not
create any unnecessary problems.
5. Traffic Impacts on Ute Avenue and Original St.:
We feel that the traffic impacts to Ute Avenue and Original St are understated. During
the. winter, the snow, lack of exposure to sun and parking significantly narrow the road
from its summer width. These factors will increase the impact of additional traffic on this
road. The intersection of Ute Avenue and Original is a problem area during the winter
because of its unique layout. The Alps pedestrian trail also intersect s the corner of Ute
Ave. and Original St.. Additional auto traffic at this corner will add to the existing
problems. We do not feel that these factors are adequately considered in the traffic study.
SUMMARY:
The application appears to have a minimal impact on the surrounding area and trail.
Our main concerns are landscaping, drainage, snow management and traffic impacts.
im
To Dave Michaelson,. Deputy Director
Community Development Department
From: Nancy MacKenzie, Environmental Health Department
Date:- March 8, 1996 .
Re: Aspen. Club. PUD Amendment, Special. Review for Parking.
and Conditional Use Review. -.
Parcel ID "# 2737- 181 -32 -02.1
The Aspen /Pitkin Environmental Health. Department has reviewed. the
Aspen Club land use submittal under authority of the Municipal
- ,Code of the City of Aspen, -and has.the following comments-'.
The proposal is to change the access and parking which serves the
.Aspen Club:..so -that access to the Club is instead .from .Ute Ave.
Lot 14A would cease to function as a- parking,area and would
instead be used as a single - family residential lot'..
wATER QUALITY IMPACTS • Section 11-1.3 For the purpose of maintaining and
protecting its municipal water supply from injury and pollution, the .city shall exercise 'regulatory and
supervisory jurisdiction within the incorporated limits of the City of Aspen ' and over all streams and sources
contributing to municipal water supplies for a.distance of five (5) miles above the points from which municipal
water supplies are diverted." "
A drainage plan to mitigate the water quality impacts .from drive
and parking area will be .evaluated by the ,City: Engineer.. This
application is not expected to impact.down stream' water quality.
AIR OUALITY • Sections 11-2.1 "It is the purpose of [the air quality section of the
Municipal Code] to achieve the maximum practical degree of air purity. possible by requiring the use of all
available practical methods and techniques to control, prevent.and reduce air pollution throughout.-the city -:."
The Land Use Regulations seek., to "lessen congestion" and "avoid transportation demands that cannot be met" as,
well, as to "provide.cleen air by protecting the natural air sheds and reducing.pollutarits ".
The major concern of our.department is the impact of,increasin.g
traf.fic in a. non - attainment area designated by.the.EPA. Under the
requirements of the State Implemen.tation.Plan'for the Aspen area,
. 1.
J
PM -10 (which comes almost all.from traffic dr.i ving. on pave d roads)
must.be -teduced by 2 S. by 1997. In,order,to achieve.that
-reduction, traffic -increases that. ordinarily would occur as a
result of development must be mitigated, or else the.gains brought.
about by community control measures will be.lost., In addition, in. ,
Order to comply 1 with the- municipal code requirement-to achieve the
maximum practical.degree of air. purity.by -using all available. .
practical methods to reduce. pollution, -traffic increases of
development must be offset. In order to do.this., the appli-cant
w.ilI-need.to determine the traf.f ic incre.ases..generated by the.,.,,.
project, commit: to. a set of control measures, and show that*t h e
ntrol.mea' at as
:-traffic decreased by-the. co measures is least as.*grec
-.
the traffic. increases of the project withdut mitigation.
Traffic. Impact Analysis by Leigh, Scott & Cleary,.Inc. states
that this proposal.wi-1l..Primarily. affect traffic flows. "No
additional traffic generation is projected." At the same time,
pedestrian /bicycle access routes have been developed and a peak-
hour van service, has.b6en. added in order to further reduce Aspen
Club Automobile traffic."
Membership has declined 40-. between 1988 vs 1995. They feel that
improving access to, the*Club -by providing -a more convenient.
..parking area will 'be an.i.mportant.step to stabilite. their
membership. They do not see this as an.action. that..will lead to
growth. Howevef if there is any increased growth that would
increase traffic, this -increase would have to be.m.itigated.
Th . e application, states.that the present parking area is-gravel
and .that the entire new parking area will be paved. Our
-o be one method of mitigation.
Department would c.onsidered . this t.
It. appears that there..are pres'ently 146 parking spaces.and the
proposed plan is.to have 138. spaces.
A conditAonal* of approval is that the overall.numberof
parking spaces.does not -increase over. the present number.
The proposal to change the use of Lot 14 from the.- existing
parking lot and develop it as a single family home is not
considered'to make a significant change to air quality.
FUGITIVE DUST <A' .:fugitive -dust control.. p. an is required which
includes; but is not limited to. fencing, watering of .haul roads
and disturbed areas, daily cleaning.of` adjacent paved roads. to
remov mud.: that has been carried out; speed limits, "o_r other
e
,
measures necessary to prevent windblown ..dust from. crossing the
property line or causing a. nuisance.
CONFORMANCE WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH LAWS
NOISE ABATEMENT: 'Section 16 -1 "The city council finds and declares that. noise is a
significant source of environmental pollution that represents a present and increasing threat.'to the public
the of the City of Aspen, and it its"visitors.
peace and to the health, safety and welfare. of residents
it is the policy of council ..to provide, standards for permissible noise levels in various
..Accordingly,
areas an &.manners and at various times and to prohibit noise in.excess.of those levels."
During construction, noise' can not exceed maximum permissible .
sound level. standards, and construction cannot . be done except
between the hours of 7.a.m. and 10 p.m.
It. is-- ver y that noise generated during the construction..
Base of. this project will have some negative impact on the
P.
neighborhood: The applicant should' be aware of this and take .
measures to minimize the predicted high noise '.levels.
i
i.
'
a
Exhibit C
ROBERT J. LOWS T:
11777 SAN' VICENTE BOULEVARD
SUITE 900
LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90049
(310) 820 -6661
March 5, 1996
Planning Commission
Aspen /Pitken Planning & Zoning
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Commissioners:
I wish to go on record .as opposed to the proposed changes to the
Aspen Club. Specifically, I oppose the closure of the current
access via Highway 82, and the new access via Ute Avenue.
The increased traffic along Ute Avenue would be inconvenient to
people who use the Club, and would ruin the quiet residential
atmosphere of Ute Avenue.
Sincerely,
Robert J. Lowe
86 Ute Place
Aspen, CO 81611
•
Bindley Western Industries, Inc.
10333 North Meridian Street, Suite 300, Indianapolis, IN 46290 (317) 298 -9900 Fax (317) 580 -9753
1Y Li J w\
•d
William E. Bindley —
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer MAR
- -� Bindley
VtiB
March 7, 1996 r �`'= ` ; ' ; ' • �!'rt
Commissioners
ASPEN/PITKIN PL -Ni NING & ZONING .
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Commissioners:
As a resident of the Ute Place subdivision. I wish to go on record as opposed to
the proposed changes to the Aspen Club. Specifically, I oppose the closure of the
current access via Highway 82, and the new access via Ute Avenue.
The increased traffic along Ute Avenue would be inconvenient to people who use
the Club and would ruin the quiet residential atmosphere of Ute Avenue.
Very truly yours,
William E. Bindley
90 Ute Place
Aspen, CO 81611
WEB:pb
MAR. -14"96 (THU) 10 :16 HM INTE OVAL INC TEL :918 664 •
PETER C. ME114IG
74 Ute Place.
Aspen, Colorado 81611
9701920 -9093 - Telephone.
March 14, 1996 By Facsimile
9701924 -5439
Asipen /Pitkin Planning 8t Zoning
130 South Galena Street
,Aspen, Colorado 6161 1
Dear. Commissioners:
I wish to go an record as apposed to the proposed changes to the Aspen Club. Specifically, I
Oppose the closure of the current access via Highway 82, and the new .access via Ute Avenue.
The increased traffic along the Avenue would be inconvenient to people who use the club, and
would ruin the quiet residential atmosphere of late Avenue.
Sincerely,
Peter G I~Teinig
74 Ute Place
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P, 002
61
03/14/1996 17:55
3039254
WILSON BRIAN •
BRIAN AND CATHY WILSON
38 Ute Place
Aspen, CO 8161
(970) 925 -6747, Fax C970) 925 4200
March 13, 19%
Commissioners
AspenfPitkin Planning and Zoning
138 South 'Galena Street
Aspen, Co 81611
Dear Commissioners:
PAGE 01
As registered voters in the city of.Aspen, we would like
to go on record dosing the. changes regarding the entrance
to the Aspen Club. Re- routing traffic away from a highway and
onto a narrow residential street causes concern.
During the printer the street is often made one lane due
to snow fall. During the warmer months it is much traveled by
pedestrians and bicyclists enroute'to the Ute Troi1 the
Roaring Fork River Trail, and the old Ute Cemetary, not to
mention the neighborhood children. We are raising three
school age daughters here ourselves.
We feel the impact would would ruin the neighborhood
atmosphere m-id create traffic congestion.and hazards. ,
Sincerely, r
Brian and Cathy Wilson
•
•
GAEL -NEESON & STEFAN EDL!S
Aspen /Pitkin Planning &
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, Co. 81611
Dear Commissioners:
Re:
March 9, 1996.
Zoning
March.19, 1996 Meeting -
Aspen Club PUD Amendment
SJ
.y`: ✓. fir,.:
We are writing to express our opposition to the proposed changes to
the Aspen Club. Specifically we object to the closure of the access
via Highway 82, and the proposed new access via Original Street and
Ute Avenue.
Both these streets are used by skiers to park their cars during the
winter months and the streets are often filled with pedestrians
carrying their skis to and from the mountain. And in fact, because
of the cross country trail,many skiers ski down from Aspen mountain
and ski along Ute Avenue. Cross country skiers are also found along
the streets It is also a particular favorite of dog walkers.
Because of the cars that park on Original and Ute the roadway is
often reduced to one lane in winter.which requires extremely
cautious driving. The intersection of Original and Ute is also of
great concern as this is a particular icy spot and the scene of
many a fender - bender and near miss.
Summer transforms the area into a rural playground filled with
bikers, hikers, rollerbladers and people seeking to escape the
busyness of city streets to enjoy Gloryhole Park, Ajax Park, the.
Y ,.
Ute Cernentry, Ute Park and t.�e Children' s, Playground and 111,x-
the most popular Ute Trail.
As this is a street that is used extensively by pedestrians it would
be a shame to see the efforts of the city to encourage such foot
and bike traffic to be diminished.
Please, we need your help to preserve our rural and contented
walking.neighborhood and not to.transform it into a busy
thoroughfare to the Aspen Club.
Yours sincerely,
MAR. -14' 96(THU). 10:15 HM INT TONAL ]NO TEL:918 6641
Phy& S. Hojel
72 ute Place
Aspen, Colorado S 1611
470/920 -2012 - Telephone
March 14, 1996
J
By Facsimile
970/920 -5439
AspenlPitkin Planning, U Zoning
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Commissioners:
I wish to go on record as opposed to the proposed changes to the Aspen Club. Specifically, i
appose the closure of the currerrt access via Highway 82, and the new access via Ute Avenue.
The increased traffic along Ute Avenue would be inconvenient to people who use the dub, and
would .ruin the quiet residential auriosphere of Ute Avenue.
Sincerely,
Phyllis S. Hojel
72 Ute Place
Aspen, Colorado 81611
J�
P., 001
AL AL
monk
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
T14RU: Amy Margerum, City Manager JAN 0 8 199/
Stan Clauson, Community Development Director —.�
FROM: Dave Michaelson, Deputy Director
DATE: June 10, 1996
RE: Aspen Club PUD - PUD Amendment - First Reading of Ordinance No. 20,
Series of 1996.
SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting approval to modify the access and parking areas that
serve the Aspen Club (Club). Access to the Club is presently provided from State Highway 82
via Crystal Lake Road, as specified in the Callahan Subdivision and PUD agreement. In
addition, the PUD agreement restricted the use of the Ute Avenue parking lot to service,
deliveries or emergencies. Over time the Ute Avenue lot has been used for additional
membership parking in violation of the PUD Agreement.
The applicant initially proposed to access the Club exclusively from Ute Avenue, to expand the
Ute Avenue lot to 138 parking spaces, and to convert Lot 14A, which is currently used for Club
parking, to a single family lot. The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the application
at a public hearing on March 19, 1996, and recommended denial by a vote of 4 -1, based on the
adjacent land uses along Ute Avenue, the level of pedestrian /bicycle traffic in the area, and the
physical constraints of the Ute Avenue roadway.
The applicant has since revised the application, and is currently proposing to retain the existing
parking lot on Lot 14A but reduced in size to accommodate a total of 20 vehicles, and to reduce
the proposed number of parking spaces on the Ute Avenue side of the property from the original
proposal of 138 spaces to 80 spaces. This represents a 42 percent reduction from the original
proposal, but also would increase available parking in the Ute Avenue lot by 70 percent when
compared to the existing spaces. The applicant is also committing to operate a shuttle service
between the Aspen Club and the Aspen Club Lodge during peak traffic hours in- season to reduce
traffic on Ute Avenue.
The original application is attached as Exhibit A, referral memos are attached as Exhibit I3, and
letters from adjacent land owners in response to the public notice are attached as Exhibit C. The
revised illustrative site plan of the proposed modificati(pris to the Ute Avenue parking lot is
attached as Exhibit D. An amendment to the application is attached as Exhibit C, and minutes
from the March 19, 1996 minutes are attached as E,11hibit F.
• kALt� Staff notes for Council that a determination has been made that the applicant does not require .
ovQ 0'^k"1 either conditional or special review because the underlying parking and access requirements
Q�A-0;� were established through the PUD process. A conditional use review is not necessary for the
9 ti \A si
A
h�,NAp n
Or
Ute Avenue parking lot due the recognition within the PUD agreement that limited parking was
approved by the City. The applicant has agreed to return to the Planning and Zoning
Commission prior to second reading to allow the Commission an opportunity to comment on the
proposed amendment.
Staff recommends approval with conditions, with a recommended modification of the proposed
parking configuration. The concept advocated by staff would attempt to hold traffic levels on
Ute Avenue to current levels.
APPLICANT: Dick Butera (Aspen Club International), represented by Alan Richman
ZONING: Lots 14A and 15, Callahan Subdivision. The Aspen Club facilities are located on Lot
15, and Lot 14A is the current location of the parking lot approved in 1976. Lots 15 and 16 are
zoned Rural Residential (RR), while the remaining lots in the PUD are zoned Moderate - Density
Residential (R -15), with all lots in the development having a PUD overlay. The proposed PUD
amendment would route additional traffic from State Highway 82 /Cooper Street, and then
continue to the rear of the club on Original Street/ Ute Avenue. Zoning through this section
includes single and multi- family residential (R -15 and RMP) along SH 82, transitioning to
tourist - oriented land uses (NC PUD and L /TR) along the west side of Original, and returning to
residential use (R -15 PUD) near the terminus of Ute Avenue.
BACKGROUND: The requirement for limited access to the Aspen Club property was defined
in the Subdivision and Planned Unit Development Agreement for the Callahan Subdivision. The
specific condition addressing access reads as follows:
"The subdivider agrees, for himself and his successors and assigns, that lie will not authorize
any vehicular traffic to enter the area of the condominium units or recreational facilities of the
Callahan Subdivision from Ule Avenue unless such vehicles are for the purpose of construction,
providing services to or dealing with emergencies of the Callahan Subdivision. Furthermore,
neither the subdivider nor his successor or assigns shall provide for any parking spaces along
the border of Ute Avenue within any portion of the Callahan Subdivision.
Since that time, the area behind the Aspen Club off of Ute Avenue has been used by employees
and members of the Club for parking, in violation of the requirement of the PUD. Currently,
approximately 47 spaces are being used for these purposes. Consistent with the enforcement
policy of the City, staff has not taken action to remove the Ute Avenue parking pending a final
decision on the application by City Council.
SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD: The Aspen Club property includes the recreational
facilities on Lot 15, and also created Lots I thru 12, each of which was approved for a single
family home, except for Lot 10, which was approved for a duplex. Lots 13 and 13A were
condominium lots, which were built -out as the existing 20 -unit Aspen Condominiums. Lot 14,
which contained the Benedict residence, was originally approved to be converted into a
clubhouse and residence. LcA 14A was approved for parking facilities for the recreational uses
on Lots 14 and 15. Lot 116, the existing Benedict Office building, was designated for office use.
Subdivision and PUD Agreement, Callahan .Subdivision, dated Allay 13, 1976 (Book 312, Pages 115 -116).
2
Exhibit B
MEMORANDUM
TOI Aspen City Council
FROM: Alan Richman Planning serbices,"
SUBJECTI. Aspen Club Transportation Management'Program.
DATE :. July. 151. 1996
we have prepared .a transportation management ...program for the
proposed Aspen Club shuttle and parking .lots, taking into account
the comments we received at the'two prior Council meetings. It is
our understanding that the recommended Ute Avenue traffic calming
measures will be submitted to you under separate cover by staff.
our program includes three elements, as follows:
1. Shuttle service provided.by Club;
2. Shuttle service provided by hotels;;and
3. Parking facilities.
Shuttle - Service Provided By Club
1. Nature of service. The service will be point to point,
between the Aspen Club•Lodge andtthe Aspen club:. The shuttle
will also have at least one cross -town pick up point.
26 Route. Along Highway 82 and Crystal. Lake Road, but may
deviate to Ute Avenue for-therapy. patients.
30 Timing. The service will.operate during the morning (8:00 AM
to 9:30 AM) , mid-day a hours, on the half hour and hour. inIt(will
PM to 6:00 PM) p ,
be a year round service.
4. vehicle Type. Van service.
5.. Public Information. Members and employees will be given
materials describing the shuttle service and encouraging them
to use.it. Members and employees will also be reminded that
RFTA operates a shuttle along Highway 82 that they can use.
A sign will be posted in a conspicuous place on the property,
describing the time and place of the Club's shuttle.service.
6. Duration. The shuttle "experiment" will be for a two year
period after the completion of construction.
7. Report. The Club••will submit a report to the. City within one
year after the completion of construction addressing the
effectiveness of the Transportation Management Plan, for
review by the City Council. Information in the report will
include. parking lot counts sufficient to determine the
adequacy of available parking, ridership data for the vanpool
program, or Dial -A -Ride ridership, if that program is instead
implemented with RFTA. If Council finds the transportation
program to be unsuccessful, the applicant will propose other
options for managing traffic.at the Aspen Club, the approval
of which shall be at the sole discretion of.City Council -,
8. RFTA Alternative. - The Club will explore with RFTA whether the
current Dial -A -Ride service could be expanded to serve the
Club.,, instead of having the Club operate a shuttle.
Shuttle Service Provided By Hotels
1. Nature of Service. Hotels will pick up and drop off their
guests.at the.Club, as they do today.
2. Route. Along Highway 82 and Crystal. Lake Road, but may
deviate to Ute Avenue for therapy patients.
3. Timing. Vans will operate on demand from hotel guests. The
service will be year round.
4. vehicle Type. 'Generally van service.
5. Information. spa guests will be mailed materials with their
reservation describing the availability, of shuttle service and
explaining that they do not need a car to get to the Club.
Parking Facilities
1.. Sine of Parking Facilities.
a. There will be 30 parking spaces on Lot 14A, plus an
additional S spaces available for future use.
b. Th °ew ez --wi1.1 be- 4-7 -- parking-- spaces on Lot 15,,,, . plus.. an
additional 9 spaces for therapy /handicapped patients.
2. Design. The parking areas will be paved and striped. Their
layout will conform to the site plans we have submitted.
Deliveries will continue to occur at the rear loading dock;
trash pick -up will occur within our property, along the Ute
Avenue right -of -way. There will be minimal use of outdoor
lights; those used will be low to,'the ground. (similar to
current path lighting).
3. Use. Parking spaces will be made available on'a first come,
first served basis. No fee will be applied to either parking
area. Employees will receive written encouragement to take
the shuttle, or to walk /bike to work.
2
4 Public Information. Signs will be posted on the property
explaining that there are two parking areas available and
encouraging use of the parking area on Lot 14A. Members will
be sent materials explaining that the parking spaces on Lot 15
should be used by persons who have a reason (physical or
otherwise) for parking close to the door and by those who have
come.to the club with two or more persons in the car.
3
APR. 8.1997 10 51AM GARFIELD & HECHT N0.2e9 P.16
ORDINANCE NO. 20
(Series of 199+6)
ORDINANCE. OF TIM CI'T'Y COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN APPROVING AN
AMENDMENT TO THE CAIJ4APLAN SUBDIVISION PUD AGREEIMM FOR LOTS
1¢A AND 15, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN
WHEREAS, Section 26.84.080. of the. Municipal Code provides that the City Council, based on
the recommendation of the Planning Commission may amend a PUD agreement based on
compliance with the review criteria established for Final PUD approval; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen Club was approved as a PITD, and the PUD agreement explicitly limits
the parking plan of the Club to allow parking on Ute Avenue for the use of employees amd service
deliveries to the facility; and
W19EREAS9, the City of Aspen received a PUD amendment application for the expansion of
parldng off of Ute Avenue from Aspen Club Intemational; and
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning Commission reviewed the project on March 19, 1996,
and recommended denial to the City Council based on neighborhood impacts and the impacts of
the proposed traffic increase on Ute Avenue; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Office received an am,emdmcmt to the original application that
modified the number of parking spaces to remain on Lot 14A, proposed a van service to address
impacts on Ute Avenue, and reduced the taW number of spaces proposed for the Ute Avenue lot;
and
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the PUD amendments under
the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as ideutifted herein, has reviewed and considered
those recommendations as granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the City Council -finds that the proposed PUD amendments, with modifications
suggested by staff, meet or exceed all applicable development standards and are consistent with
the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and
iuimiuii��im�m�lid�w��dii ,
APR. 8.1997 10:51AM CARFIELD & HECHT N0.289 P.17
0 0
WEEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordivanoe furthers and is necessary for public
health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THER)WRE BE IT 00DAINED BY TEM CITY COUNCIL OF TFM CITY OF
.ASPEN COLORADO:
SW A=L Pursuant to Section 24-7 -907 of the Municipal Code, the City Council finds as follows
in regard to the PUD amendment;
1. That the proposed amendments are consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan.
2. The proposed development is consistent with the character of existing land uses in the
surrounding area.
3. The proposed development does not adversely affect the future development of the
surrounding area.
4. No additional GMQS allotments are mecessary for the project.
5. The maximum density is no greater than that permitted in the underlying zone district.
6. The proposed amendments will promote the public interest and character of the City of
.Aspen.
Pursuant to the findings set forth in Section I above, the City Council grants a PU,D
amendment, subject to the following conditions_
1. All representations of the applicant before the City Council are considered conditions of
approval, unless otherwise amended by subsequent conditions or amendments.
2. The proposed configuration shall be refined to allow for the retention of 30 spaces in the
north lot, and 56 spaces sWl be allowed off of Ute Avenue. An area suitable for 5 additional
spaces will be reserved for use in the future. The rear lot shall include a sign that the back lot
shall be given prefereum to handicapped patrons. In addition, no parking can occur the delivery
area located at the Utie Avenue parking lot.
31. Prior to completion of the parking facility, the applicant shall submit documentation to
the City Engineer to ensure that the distance between the two western access points meet standard
engineering standards and will not result in an unsafe traffic situation for members and guests
entering or exiting the Ube Avenue parking facility.
4. All representations contained in Alan Richhim's July 15th, 1996 memo to Council
addressing a Transportation Plea for the Club are. considered conditions of approval of the PUD
amendment. The shuttle service shall include at feast one cross-town pick -up point.
i i�a � nii� urt nip min mn iii mii n m�
APR. 8.1997 10:52AM GARFIELD & HECHT N0.289 P.1e
5. All improvements, including landscaping, -to Oe Ute Avenue Lot will be constructed as
shown on Exhibit A of the stab memorandum dated July 22, 1996.
6. All improvements, including landscaping, to the Crystal bake Lot shall be constructed as
shown on Exhibit C of the staff memorandum dated Yuly 22, 1996. If changes occur to the
configuration of the parking spaces, these changes shall be reviewed and approved by Community
Development Director prior to eonmetion. If the Community Development Director considers
these changes significant, the changes shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning and
Zoning Commission.
7. The applicant shall sign the Crystal Lake Lot as "Members Only" to discourage adjamat
residences from utiE;dng the parking lot, and will be enforced by the applicant.
S. The applicant shall provide evidence, suitable to the City Attorney, that the parking
spaces in the Crystal Lake Lot are perpetually ensured for use by the Aspen Club if the lot is
conveyed to adjacent property owners.
9. The applicant shall- submit for review by the City Attorney and reeard a revised F D and
Subdivision Agreement addressing the amendment and conditions of approval.
10. The applicant shall submit documentation regarding the ef%ctiveness of the
Transportation Management Plan for review by the City Council after one year of operation.
Inforrmation in the report shall include parking, lot counts sufficient to determine the adequacy of
available parking, ridership data for the vanpool program, and Dial -A -Ride ridership if the
program is implemented with RFTA. If the program is not deemed successful by Council, the
applicant shall propose other options for managing traffic at the Aspen Club, which shall be at he
sole discretion of the City Council_
S.taon 3: All material representations and commitments made by the developer pursuant to the
PUD amendment. as herein aw:ded, whether in a. public meeting or documentation presented
before the City Council, are hereby incorporated in such approval and the same shall be complied
with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by other specific conditions.
Section 4• If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance is for
any reason held invalid or unconstitutional i a a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall
be deemed separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions thereof.
Skslian S: That the City Clark-is directed, upon the adoption of this ordinance, to record a copy
of this ordinance, in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder.
11111 IM IN
402936 03/31!1997 83:80r ORDINANCE
3 of 4 R 21.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 P UIR COUNTY CLERK
APR. 8.1997 10 :52AM GARFIELD & HECHT N0.289 P.19
Tr] MODUCED, READ AND 0RDF,9ED PUBLISHED as providA by law, by the City
Council of 'the City, of Aspen on the f1' day of
1995.
John Bennett', Mayor
ATTEST.
Kathryn S. Pchq City Clem
MALLY, adopted, passed and approved this
1996.
A'T'TEST:
Kathryn S. ch, City Clerk
III III IIIiI 111111 IIII I III 111111 II I III Illl IIII IIII
4029311913131/1997 03:00T ORDINANCE
4 of 4 R 21.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CLERK
day o
John Bennett, Mayor
4
j.U!ff :UEUk'U AL c : _)J E1.1 nay 17, LJ /D LCeCelJLlulL ILU
COOK312 rAGrJ 10
SUBDIVISION AND PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
CALLAHAN SUBDIVISION
THIS AGREEMENT, made this,/ ay of ,
1976,:.by and between THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO (hereinafter
sometimes called "City "), and BENEDICT LAND & CATTLE COMPANY,
FREDRIC BENEDICT and FABIENNE'BENEDICT (hereinafter sometimes
collectively called "the owner "), and ROBERT S. GOLDSA4T or
the assignee of Goldsamt (hereinafter sometir.►es called "the
subdivider ").
W•I T H E S -S E T
WHEREAS, the subdivider with the consent and approval of
the owner has submitted to the City for approval, execution,_
and recordation,.the final plat and development plan of a.tract
of land situated in the east one - half of Section 18, T. 10S,
Range 84 west of the Sixth Principal Meridian, Aspen, Colorado,
designated as Callahan Subdivision ( "the plat "); and
AREAS, said Plat encompasses land located.within an area
in the City zoned RR and R -15; and
& MEREAS, the City has fully considered such Plat, the pro-
posed development_ and the improvement of the land therein, and
the burdens to be imposed upon other adjoining or neighboring
properties.by reason of the proposed development and improve -
ment of land included in the Plat; and
WHEREAS, the City is willing to approve,.execute, and
accept for recordation that Plat upon agreement of.the owner
and the subdivider to the matters hereinafter described, and
subject to all the requirements, terms`, and.conditions of the
City of Aspen Subdivision Regulations.now in effect and other
laws, rules and regulations as are applicable; and
WHEREAS, the City has imposed conditions and requirements
in.connection with its approval, execution and acceptance for
Boa= t Gr ill
f the Plat, and that such matters are necessary
romote. and enhance the public welfare: and
Municipal Code of the City, the City is entitled to assurance'
that the matters hereinafter agreed to will be faithfully
performed by the subdivider.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, the
mutual covenants herein contained, and the approval, execution
.and acceptance of the Plat for recordation by the City, it is
agreed.as follows
.1.. All references to lot numbers. hereinafter set forth
are as described on Sheet No. 1 of the Final Plat and Develop-
ment Plan of the Callahan Subdivision ( "Plat ") -
A. Fee simple -title to Lots No. 13 and 13 -A will
be conveyed in undivided interests to the condominium
owners, subject to existing easements and road and
utility easements contemplated by the Plat and
additional utility easements as may be required,' Lots
No. 13 and 13 -A will be used.for'condominium units
B. Lot.No. 13 -B shall be conveyed in-fee simple
to a. corporation to be organized by the purchaser of
such property from the owner or by such purchaser's
assignee. Such corporation is hereinafter referred to as
"Holding Corporation ". The Holding Corporation shall grant
to all condominium and homesite owners a non- exclusive
easement for the recreational use of Lot 13 -B so long as
such lot is not hereafter authorized for improvement or.
-commercial use by P.U.D. amendment or other appropriate.
governmental approval and shall grant such easements
as are necessary for the roads and utilities reflected
on the Plat.
C. Lot No. 14 will be owned in fee simple title
by the holding Corporation or another corporation con- -
trolled _by or under common control with the Holding
BOOti`1 2
Corporation or its or their assignees. The Benedict
residence situated on this lot will be converted to
a clubhouse. The owners of condominium and homesites will
be granted an irrevocable non- exclusive.license.for passage
by foot only, throughout those portions of Lot 14 on which
�\
there are no improvements currently or .hereafter existing.
D. Lots No. 14 -A and 15 will be conveyed in fee
simple title to the Holding Corporation or .,a corporation
controlled by or under common control with the Holding
Corporation or-its or their assignees Lot 14 -A will
contain parking facilities for use of the clubhouse and
recreational facilities contained.in the Plat, and Lot
15 will contain recreational facilities
E. Lots No. 1 through 10 shall be conveyed in
fee sample title to the purchasers of these ten home -
j sates. Lot No. 10 is designated as a duplex for occupancy
by two families; the other lots are for single- family
homes.
F. Lot No. 11, is designated as asingle- family
10-t.
G. hots 12 and 12 -A are collectively designated as a
single - family lot. Lot 12 -A is the guesthouse.for,
Lot 12.
H. Lot No. 16 is designated as an existing office
building for such uses as have heretofore been approved
by the City of Aspen.
I. All roads as reflected on the Plat and the
rights of way on which such roads are.to be constructed
Shall be.owned.by the Holding Corporation or a. corporation
controlled by or under common control with the Holding
-3
80AU PALS 113
Corporation or its or their assignees, and such corpor
ation shall grant an irrevocable non - exclusive license
to the owners of the condominiums and homesites for
their use. The owner shall retain a non- exclusive
cost -free easement on Crystal Lake Road. for access,•
ingress, and egress to and from Lots 11 12 and 12 -A.
ownership of.those lots is being retained by the owner.
J. Easements for utility improvements and rights
of way shall be` granted to the Public Utilities as
shown on the Plat.
K. Maintenance of the property and structures in-
cluded within the Plat shall be.the. responsibility of
the owners of the.fee simple title to such property
and improvements; provided, however, when hereunder'
any easement is granted with respect to any such land'
or improvement, the cost of maintenance shall be borne
by all grantees of such easements
L. The City shall provide up to a maximum of 0.65 cfs.-
of water as needed from the Nellie Bird Ditch as hereinafter
set forth in Paragraph 8(e)(1) for the maintenance of a
water level not lower than the.lowest water level in
Crystal Lake as shown on Page 3 of the Plat. The Holding
Corporation or a corporation controlled by or under. common
control with the Holding Corporation or its or their assignees,
shall make provision for supplying such water to crystal take
in order to insure its use for recreational activity.
2. Subject to the conditions contained in this paragraph,
the subdivider shall provide for the estimated costs for construc-
tion of all common improvements.which.include construction of
. roads, utilities, drainage improvements, landscaping, moving
and paving if required by subdivider (the recreational'
trail), as described in the agreement between Pitkiri County
and Be.nedicts and irrigation ditch crossings through
the subdivision as shown on.the Plat and supplemental
engineering plans.. Also included'shall be street lighting
800K�� f�;GE1
sufficient to illuminate subdivision roads and traffic signs "to
comply with City regulations. The installation of those improve-
ments shall commence in.the spring-of the year in which construction.
on Lots 13, 13A or 15 is to commence hereunder, or any homesites
are sold, whichever event occurs sooner-, and•shall be constructed
with due, diligence thereafter until completed. In order to
.secure the performance of the.construction and installation of
the improvements herein agreed to by the subdivider and the
City, and to guarantee one.hundred- (100 %) percent of the current.
estimated cost of the improvements agreed by the City Engineer to
be $ 271,000.00. , the subdivider, shall.guarantee through a
conventional lender, or by sight draft or letter of commitment
from.a financially responsible lender .(irrevocable until the.
construction is completed) that funds of the estimated costs.of
construction are held by it for the account of the subdivider for
the.construction and °installation of improvements hereinabove
described. In the event, however, that any portion of the improve-
ments have not been installed according to the conditions contained
herein,' then, and in `that event, the City may have such remaining
work and improvements completed by such means and in such manner,
by contract with or without public letting, or otherwise, as it may
deem advisable, and the lender agrees to reimburse the City out
Of thle funds held by it for the account of the subdivider for
the City's costs incurred in completing said work and improve
ments; provided, however, in no event shall the lender be
obligated.to pay the City more than, the aggregate estimated
sum for these improvements, *less those amounts previously paid
and approved by the City,by reason of default of the subdivider
in the performance of the terms, conditions, and.covenants con
tained in this paragraph.2. However, the City waives no right
.to claim full compliance with the improvements required in ex
cess of the estimated costs. From time'to -time as work to.be
performed and improvements to be constructed herein progress,
the subdivider may request that the office of City Engineer
inspect such work and improvements as are completed and may
submit to City the costs of such completed work and improvements.
-5-
. BOOK312 rucE I15
When the City Engineer is satisfied that such work and improve
ments as are required by the subdivider to be completed in fact,
have been completed in accordance with.the terms hereof, the
City Engineer will submit to the lender its statement that it
has no objection to the release by the Guarantor of so much
of the above - specified funds as is necessary to pay the costs
of work performed and.improvements* installed pursuant. to.the
terms of this Agreement, except that ten (10 %) percent of the
estimated cost shall be withheld by the lender until all pro-
posed improvements are completed and approved by the City
Engineer. Subdivider shall prepare and be.responsible.for the
preparation of engineering plans, specifications, and construction
drawings for all improvements included in Paragraph 2 above. These
plans and..specifications shall be submitted to 'the City Engineer
't .
and shall be approved prior to the commencement.of an y construction
by the Subdivider. Subdivider shall also be responsible for pro
viding all necessary engineering and /or surveying services in con-
junction with the construction of said improvements. The City_.
Engineering Department shall be notified prior to the commencement
of construction so that the work may be -inspected during.construction.
3. Site.Data Tabulation (see Exhibit "A" attached:hereto
and incorporated herein by this reference.)
.4. The subdivider agrees to line the Riverside Ditch
for the full length of Lots 8 and 9 with a rubberized material to.
prevent seepage onto Lots 8 and 9 if the subdivider finds that
use,of the rubberized material is not feasible, a. feasible alternativ.
lining shall be used, provided the subdivider shall use best efforts
to find an alternative to concrete lining.
5. The subdivider agrees, for himself and his successors
and assigns, that he will not authorize any vehicular traffic to
enter the area of the condominium units or.recreational facilities
-6-
BOOKK2 PAGE 11E
of the Callahan Subdivision from Ute Avenue unless such vehicles
are for the purpose of construction, providing services,to or deal -
ing with emergencies of the Callahan Subdivision. Furthermore,
neither the subdivider nor his successor or assigns shall pro
vide.for any parking spaces along the border of Ute Avenue.
within any portion of the Callahan Subdivision. The prohibition
contained in this paragraph shall. not apply to the parking lot
which presently exists on Lot 16 nor to any expansion thereof.
6. The subdivider agrees to relocate at subdivider's
expense ,a portion of the recreational trail which will be moved
to a location approximately as showdon -the plat.;.Such relocation
shall be done as follows: By June 15 of the year in which
construction is to commence on Lots 13, 13A or 15, subdivider
shall cause such trail to be roughed in place. The easement
to that trail shall be granted to the City.and shall be restricted
to the following uses pedestrian, equestrian, bicycling,.and
cross- country skiing. No motor vehicle of any kind shall ever
be allowed.to use the trail, excepting only such vehicles as are
E absolutely necessary at the initial construction and subsequent
maintenance and repair of the trail.
7... The subdivider agrees not to.pave any of the roads in
the subdivision until at least six months after all utilities are
in place.
8. It is acknowledged by the owner that certain land areas
included within or adjacent to the subdivided land have'
previously been used for agricultural uses or as meadow lands and
have been irrigated by waters owned by the owner. and carried in the
Nellie Bird Ditch. The City of Aspen has established a policy of
acquisition of those water rights beneficially used by annexed and
subdivided lands at the time of annexation and subdivision approval, .
when,.the proposed development will be serviced by the City owned.
water. utility:
a. So as to avoid.the establishment of.competitive
water utilities.
b. To insure that all water used for domestic
purposes meets minimum sanitary and health standards.
-7-
. BOOKK2 PAGE 17
c. To prevent the abandonment of water rights by
discontinuation of their beneficial use.
d. To provide for the acquisition of more senior
rights to guarantee water service to Aspen area users
in time of low supply.
e. To reduce the costs of condemnation for acqui-
sition of water rights in the future. Therefore, it is
agreed as a condition of subdivision approval.'
1. That upon recording of the final plat of the
Callahan Subdivision the owner will convey to the City.
of Aspen, without further consideration, 0.65 cfs. of
the Nellie Bird Ditch, Priority 3136 (Source.: Roaring
Fork.River; adjudicated August.25,. 1936), which cor-
responds to the ratio of the subdivided lands to all
lands.irrigated by this water right. In the event
use of part of such water granted to the City shall
I become necessary to retain the lowest level of Crystal
Lake (as described in Paragraph 1L of this Agreement)
the City of Aspen agrees to make available so much of
the water right necessary to maintain the lowest water
level;. provided, however, that nothing herein shall be
construed to require the City to supply ditches; rights.
of way, pumps, or other facilities neces'sa-ry to- transfer
water to Crystal Lake.
2. That owner* hereby grants to the City of
Aspen a right of first refusal on the balance of.the
water right described in subparagraph (1). in the event
such water right is offered for 'sale independently of
a sale of the lands irrigated by said right. To the
extent permitted by law;'this right of first refusal
shall be deemed a covenant running with said irrigated
lands, and bind the owner,, his heirs, assigns and
BOOK K2 rnr 118
successors in interest.
3. That the owner does further agree to negotiate.
in good faith with the city of Aspen.for the grant to
the City (or its nominee) for a nominal fee of a
revocable license to make beneficial use (as allowed
by law). of part or all of the water.right described
in subparagraph (1) retained by owner, without jeop-
ardizing owner's interest in said decreed water
right.
8.1 It is further acknowledged that owner owns a high priority
right on Hunter Creek, namely, the Red Mountain Ditch, Priority No.
.90 (Source: Hunter Creek, adjudicated May 11, 1899; headgate trans
ferred to Huston. Ditch by decree recorded in Book 252, Page 575,
records of the Pitkin County Clerk.and Reocrder) hereinafter called
Hunter Creek water right, the acquisition.of which is also of in-
terest to the City of Aspen. Owner agrees, as a further condition
E of this subdivision approval and with reference to said right:
a. That Owner hereby grants to the City of Aspen a right
of.first refusal on the Hunter,Creek.water right in the event
such right is offered for sale independently of a sale
of the lands irrigated by said water right; and to the
extent allowed by law, this right of -first refusal shall
be deemed a covenant on the lands so irrigated, and bind.,
the owner, his heirs, assigns, and successors in interest.
b. To negotiate with the City of Aspen in good faith
for the acquisition of this right to facilitate the con-
struction of a package filter plant on Hunter Creek. Ne
gotiations will be deemed to be proceeding in good faith
when the City seeks such right only for.construction of
said package plant and owner attempts to achieve only
(i) domestic water.service for potential homesites on
his lands above Hunter Creek and below the Red Mountain Road
(on the Red Mountain side), (ii) provision for the future
irrigation of owner's meadow lands below the Huston
Ditch and above Hunter Creek, and (iii) a total consider-
ation on the sale of.the water right which is equivalent
to its fair market value, with proper credit and allowance
being given for the fair market value of any exchanges,
concessions,,promises, undertakings or other consideration
received pursuant to (i) and (ii)
9. In satisfaction of the dedication fee required to be
paid to the City under Section 20 -18 of the City of Aspen Muni
cipal Code for the purposes set forth therein, the subdivider
agrees that upon recording of the final plat of the Callahan
Subdivision, that he shall make a cash payment to the City in
the amount of $901000.00.
la. Notwithstanding anything contained herein or. referred
to the contrary, the owner and the.subdivider, in developing the
property contained within the Plat and the improvements as herein
described, shall fully comply with the applicable rules, regulations,
.standards and laws'of the City and.other governmental agencies and
bodies'having jurisdiction.
11. The City agrees.that since the townhouse- condominiums
as designed do not exceed two and one -half stories in height, and
the total height of. each unit is constant, that a vertical envelope
be created around each unit module allowing a maximum.of.two and
.one -half feet above elevation shown on the PUD building plans to.
accommodate possible grade elevation variations. The intent of
this Agreement is to provide the best possible relationship between
buildings, between buildings and tops of carports, as.well as'the -
best :utilization of existing terrain within the development zone.
Prior to application for the building permit, the permit applicant will sub
a ground survey, showing final building layout and floor elevations,
noting any variations in the contour.
-10-
800M2 P, E
12. Subdivider agrees to pay the City,in addition to its.
dedication fee the sum of $250.00 which represents the agreed
upon costs for the City to tap into the sewer line in Ute
Children's Park.. The $250.00 shall be -due and payable upon the
granting of the easement across Ute Children's. Park and Ute
Cemetery for sewer lines by the City.
13. Subdivider agrees to provide at his expense shuttle
bus services consisting of van- type.vehicles for the recreation
facilities and the clubhouse of the.Callahan Subdivision upon
the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth...•The expenses of
the acquisition, mairitenance and,operation of such vehicles shall
be borne by the subdivider, and such service may be supplied by
the purchase of appropriate vehicles, the leasing thereof, or
any other available means which shall be.adequate.
The subdivider agrees to provide such vehicles in a
number sufficient to serve the need therefor based upon year around
operation between the Callahan Subdivision clubhouse and recreation
facilities and downtown Aspen, provided, however, that such vehicles
shall not number less.than one. The term of this service shall
be until the earlier' of. the following occurs:
1.. Such van service shall no longer be needed; or
2. Until the transportation services provided by
this Agreement are fulfilled by other public, or private
means.
3. Until the expiration.of five years.from the
date hereof.
14. Upon execution of this Agreement by the parties hereto
and provided all other conditions as herein contained have been
met by the owner and the subdivider, the City agrees to execute
the Plat of the Callahan Subdivision and accept the same for
recordation in the Recording Office of Pit'rin County, Colorado,
upon payment of the recordation fees and costs to the City by
-11-
subdivider.
15. Failure of the subdivider to pay dedication fee
or to provide the requisite guaranty for roads and utilities
and other improvements prescribed hereunder, shall carry only
the sanction of prohibition of recording the subdivision plat
and.final development plan herein. If the foregoing sanction
is imposed by the City upon the subdivider, it shall release
the owner of all obligations.under'Paragraphs 8 and 8.2 hereof.
16. The subdivider agrees to furnish City with an as -built
survey description for sewer, water and trail easements.
17. The subdivider agrees to -allow the City to install ,a
water line in Ute Avenue at the time subdivider constructs his
eight -inch line greater in size than that.eight -inch line,.provided,
however, that the City shall,pay for the extra cost above the cost.
of installing an eight -inch line.
18. The stages for the development of the'subdivision
improvements.shall be according to Exhibit B attached hereto
and incorporated herein by this reference.
19. At such time as and to the extent Goldsamt has -assigned
any,of his rights hereunder or under any agreement with owner and
such - assignee has assumed any obligation hereunder, Goldsamt shall
have no further obligation for such assumed obligation.
..IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have hereunto set their
,h nas,.axiclseals the day and year first above written.
::Y ATTEST, _ CITY OF -S N, �J.orado
Munic'pa or ration
12 f-11 'City,rk`c Lam. Mayor
ATTEST: BENEDICT LAND & CATTLE COMPANY, .Owner
,- Secretar
ee
. wo:
- Presiid jnt
si����L�
4'rJedr.ic At Benedict, . Owner
4 abi.enne Benedict, O "ner f
Robert Goldsamt, Subdivider
The fore goin g instrument was acknowledged before me this
•day of. yr..t�,� , 1976, by Stacy Standley, Mayor of
the City of Aspen, A Colorado municipal corporation.
•. Witness. my hand and official seal.
rT My commission expires : w
Expires January 24, 1978
- Notary
Public _
= ~'STATE OF COLORADO )
)- ss.
County of Pitkin A
The Eforegoing instrument was a knowledged before me this
day of 1976, by edr�n.
� of. Benedict Land,/& Cattle Company ,- a.Colorado_ corporation.
Witness my hand and official seal..
hiy commission expires
4ly. Commission. expires January 24, 1978 -
'.ti ' z`' nom- ,•y
Notary
Public
PU
STATE OF COLORADO
.7 4a o7.t Aor�Iec - %h -�� �Tr d0
County of Pitkin ) �%
T e oregoing instrument.wa acknowledged before me this
day of� 1,�.L , 1976, by Fredric A.. Benedict and
Fabienne Benedict. _ -
�T' ness"m hand and official seal.
i �.t
Y-
I�ly . commission ' expires
;.•�` "�YAy'Commission expires J'anuary. 24, 1978
• Notary
Public
sooK312 p cr.2
STATE OF COLORADO:
).
ss.
County.of Pitkin
)
The foregoing
this day of
instrument
;``,-976,
was acknowledged before me
��
i�t— Facet --o Robert
S.
by
Goldsamt..
And-r-aw— v,-- Recht'; Attorney-
Witness my
hand and official seal. '-
My Commission
expires:
"•• ,
'expires
My Commission Nov. 14, 13 7'a = ''- �y '
•
Not y Pub11 ...
-14-
EXHIBIT A
SITZ
DATA TABULATION
Town-
Club
Rec
Office &
Lots
houses
house
Facility
Parking
Totals
Acres
. Lot or, parcel no.
#1 through #:
#13
#14
#15
#16
20 parcels
#11
#13A
#.14A
#10, #12, &.12-A
_
#13-B
'.
Acreage
6.751
6.594
2.696
4.941
2.000
22.982
22.982
minimum
15,06.0 sq.ft.
No. single family
12
No. duplex
1 (Lot #10)
No. bedrooms
60
Average.sq..ft. unit
2,115
Approx. grd. coverage
l
of buildings
N/A
28,040 sq.
ft. 91400 sq. ft.
39,530 sq;
ft.
76,970 sq.
ft.
(includes
in-
door .pool)
Approx. grd. coverage
of tennis ct. & outdoor
-.
pool
N/A
57,300 sq.
ft.
57,300 sq,
ft.
cm
Approx. sq. ft.
.
of buildings
g
N A
/
43,560 sq.
ft. 9,400 sq. ft. '
46,000. sq.
ft.
98,9.60 sq.
ft.
EN?
".Approx. sq. ft.
of basement
2,000 , .
s .ft
q
.21000 sq.
ft...
CP
rrT
EXHIBIT A. - SITE DATA TABULATION
Page 2
;
Town- Club- ' Rec Office &
Lots
houses house Facility Parking. Totals
Acres
•
Approx. sq. ft. of
parking
underground
16,224 sq. ft. 16,224
sq.
ft.
surface
12,000 sq. ft. 12,000
sq.
ft.
Approx. grd. coverage
of streets (ROW)
85,680
sq.
ft.
1.967
Approx. grd. coverage for
bike trail easement
23 450.
sq.
ft.
•
24.949 TOT7`
ACREA -;
PA
EXHIBIT "B'r
DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE - CALLAHAN SUBDIVISIOPI
A. Condominiums. Subdivider will commence the construction
of condominium units contained on the Plat in the 1976 or 1977
construction season, with the completion of'such units contemplated
'in 1977 or 1978.
B. Clubhouse situated on Lot 14: Construction of any improve
ments to the existing structure and any alterations thereto shall
be completed by December 31, 1979.
C. Recreational facilities contained on Lot 15. The facilities
situated on this Lot shall be constructed by.December 31, 1979.
D. Roads and Utilities. Subdivider will commence construction
of all.roads and utilities provided for on the Plat prior to commencing
the cdnstruction.of any other facilities or sale of any single
family or duplex lots.provided for on the Plat.
E. Subdivider shall have the right to construct, by staging,.
any. .portion of any of the facilities provided for on the Plat at any.
time he -decides within the development schedule heretofore set forth
for such facilities.
F. No certificate of occupancy will be issued for any im
provements until all roads and utilities servicing those improve-
:. ments shall have been.completed. Construction of utilities
and roads to all lots except lots 15 and 16, must be completed
before a certificate of occupancv will issue for any improve-
ments thereon. The certificate of occupancy for the improve -
ments on Lot 15 shall in-no wav be tied to the certificate of
occupancy for anv other improvements. Further, subdivider shall
complete all landscaping shorn on the Plat by December. 31, 1978.
G. Subdivider will be deemed to have complied with the
previsions of the Plat for improvements on Lot 15, if such improvements
si
3x8568 11/01/1996 10.49A PG 1 OF.3 REC DOC NOT .
S7LU.IA DAVIS RITKIN COUNTY CLERK & RECORDER 16.00
AMENDMENT TO SUBDIVISION AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT CALLAHAN SUBDIVISION
This Agreement, made thls,22,� day of Septe...Nffy 1996, by and between the
City of Aspen, Colorado (hereinafter sometimes called "City"), and Aspen Club
International, LLC and.T. Richard Butera (hereinafter sometimes collectively. called the
«Owner").
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, the Owner applied to the City for approval, execution, and-
recordation of an Amendment to the Final Plat and Development Plan of the Callahan
Subdivision, original ' plat recorded at Book 5 at Page 7 of the real estate records
of- Pitkin County, together with any previous amendments thereto ( "the Amended
Plat "); and
WHEREAS, the Amended Plat encompasses land located within Lots 15, :owned
by Aspen Club International, LLC and Lot 14A, owned by T. Richard Butera (the.
"Property "); and
WHEREAS, the City has fully considered such Amended Plat, and a change of
use of portions of the. Property and the improvement of the land therein, and the
burdens to be imposed upon other adjoining or neighboring properties by reason of
the proposed change of use and development of land included in the Amended Plat;
and
WHEREAS, the City is willing to approve, execute, and accept for recordation
that Amended Plat upon agreement of the Owner to the matters hereinafter described;
and
WHEREAS, the City has imposed conditions and requirements in connection
with its approval, execution and acceptance for recordation of the Amended Plat, and
that such matters are necessary to protect, promote, and enhance the public welfare;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, the mutual covenants
herein contained, and the approval, execution and acceptance of the Amended Plat
for recordation by the City, it is agreed as follows:
1. The Owner has submitted a revised site plan for Lots l 4A and 15 of the-
Call . ahan Subdivision, which depict the approved configurationr of the parking areas
required for the uses on Lot 15.. The site plan for Lot 15 shows that there will be
398668 11/01/1996 10:49A PG 2 OF 3
Fifty -Six (56) parking spaces on Lot 15 accessed from Ute Avenue. The site plan for
Lot 14A shows that there will be thirty (30) parking spaces for use by Lot 15
recreational uses; and the creation from Lot 14A of a new Lot 1.7 of Callahan
Subdivision. The site plan also shows an area for Five (5) additional parking spaces on .
Lot 14A that have been reserved for use in the future if required by Lot 15.
2. The Owner agrees that all improvements shown on the Amended Plat,
including landscaping shall be constructed as delineated thereon: .
3. The Owner agrees that they will not authorize parking within the "dellvery
area off of Ute Avenue as delineated on the Amended Plat. -
4. The Owner agrees to Install signs on Lots 15 and 14A as. follows:
a. A sign shall be installed in the parking area located on Lot
15, stating that preference for parking shall be given to therapy patients
and handicapped persons.
b. A sign shall be installed in the parking area.locate&on. Lot
14A, stating that parking is for members only, and not for the adjacent
residences.
The enforcement of such restrictions shall be the obligation of the Owner.
5. Exhibit A attached hereto .and incorporated herein by this reference
represents an Easement Agreement that restricts the use of the spaces located on Lot
14A for the use of members of the Owner of Lot 15, recreation facility and is binding
on the heirs,,�ysuccesso- rs and assigns ..of „the,, Owner of Lot, 14A.
6. Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, is
a memorandum from Alan Richman to the Aspen City Council dated July 15, 1996.
The Applicant agrees that all representations contained in Exhibit B for conditions of
the approval of the 'Amended Plat. The Owner of Lot 15 agrees to submit a report
to the City of Aspen within one year after the completion of construction of the
parking areas on Lot 15 and 14A addressing the effectiveness of the Transportation
Management Plan, for review by the City Council
7. The Applicant hereby agrees that all representations made by the Owner
before the City Council. are conditions of this approval unless otherwise amended by,
subsequent conditions or amendments.
0
398668 11/01/1996 10:49A PIG 3 OF 3
8. If the Owner desires to modify the Amended Plat, such modification shall
be reviewed and approved by the Community Development .Director of the joint City
of Aspen, Pltkln . County Planning Department. if the Director considers such
modifications to be significant, such modifications shall be reviewed and approved by
the City of Aspen Planning 8t ZonIng Commission with the right of the Applicant to
appeal, such review to the. City Council.
9, if there are any conflicts or inconsistencies between this Amendment to
Subdivision and Planned Unit. i Development Agreement and .the Subdivision and
Planned Unit Development Agrement for the Callahan Subdivision recorded May 197
1976 at Book 312 at Page 110 at Reception No. 183890 and any amendments
thereto, the provisions of this Amendment shall control.
10. At such time as and to the extent that Owner of either of Lots 14A, Lot
17, or Lot 15 have assigned any of their rights hereunder such Assignee has assumed
any obligations hereunder, such owner shall have no further obligation for such
assumed obligation..
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands and seats the
day and year first above written.
avh \bucera \doa \callahan.am d
CITY OF ASPEN
By:
ASPEN CLUB INTERNATIONAL, LLC
By:
7mich ox, ager
T. Ri�Ja{d Bbte,a(, individually
• Exhibit A
RECORDING REQUESTED BY:
WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO:
Andrew V. Hecht, Esq.
Garfield 8z Hecht, P.C. .
601 East Hyman Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 8161.1
EASEMENT AGREEMENT
THIS EASEMENT AGREEMENT ( "Agreement ") is made this ►O day of
September, 1996 between T. RICHARD BUTERA ( "Butera ") whose address is 1450
Crystal Lake Road, Aspen, Colorado 81611 and ASPEN CLUB INTERNATIONAL,
INC., a Colorado corporation, whose address is 1450 Crystal Lake Road, Aspen,
Colorado 81611 ( "ACI ").
RECITALS
A. Butera is the owner. of certain real property described hereafter ( "Lot
14A ") which is legally described as:
Lot 14A, Callahan Subdivision, according to the maps .thereof
recorded May 19, 1976 in Plat Book 5 at Page 7, and as
amended August 17, 1977 in Plat Book 6 at Page 16, with all its
appurtenances.
B. Butera is the owner of certain real property described hereafter ( "Lot
14 ") which is legally described as:
Lot 14, Callahan Subdivision, according to the maps thereof
recorded May 19, 1976 in Plat Book 5 at Page 7, and as
amended August 17, 1977 in Plat Book 6 at Page 16, with all its
appurtenances.
C. ACI is the owner of certain real property described in hereafter ( "Lot
15 ") which is legally described as:
Lot 15, Callahan Subdivision, according to the maps thereof
recorded May 19, 1976 in Plat Book 5 at Page 7, and as
c: \mlh\aspenc1b \easemnt.009
�7_1
amended August 17, 1977 in Plat Book 6 at Page 16, with
all its appurtenances.
D. Subject to the terms and conditions hereof, Butera grants to ACI, for the
benefit of Lot 15, an access and parking easement over and across. Lot 14A, as shown
on the map attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and a pedestrian access easement over the
existing foot path on Lot 14 to Lot 15.
. WITNESSETH -
FOR GOOD AND VALUABLE CONSIDERATIONS;` the receipt and
sufficiency of which are hereby confessed and acknowledged, the. parties agree as
follows:
1. Grant of Easement on Lot 14A. Butera hereby grants, conveys, assigns
and transfers unto ACI, over and across Lot 14A, an exclusive access and parking
easement (the "Lot 14A Easement") * -The Lot 14A Easement shall be -used for ingress
and egress and for the parking provided for of no more than thirty -five (35) parking
spaces fog vehicles used-by invitees, licensees and customers of ACI in connection with
its operation of the "Aspen Club" which is located on Lot 15.
2. Approved -Plan for Parking and Access. .After a ,parking lot has been
constructed on Lot 15 and at such time as Butera obtains from the City of Aspen an
approved plan (the "Approved Plan "). for parking thirty -five (35) automobiles on Lot
14A and reflecting access to such parking spaces, a copy of such Approved Plan shall
be attached to this Agreement and shall reflect the portion of Lot 14A, which is
subject to the Lot 14A Easement, such Approved Plan to constitute Exhibit "A" and
then this Agreement shall be recorded in the Pitkin County real estate records. Butera
shall, at his sole expense, reconfigure and /or construct that portion of Lot 14A, which
is the subject matter of the Lot 14A Easement, in accordance with the Approved Plan.
This construction may require the temporary closing of access to Lot 14A and a
temporary suspension of the right of the owner of Lot 15 to use the parking spaces
located thereon during such construction periods, which Butera shall endeavor to keep
to a minimum.
3. Restrictions on Use of Lot 14A Easement. The Lot 14A Easement and
its use by the owner of Lot 15 shall be subject to the following restrictions:
c:\mih \xsoenclb \e.uemnc.009 2
(a) The real property subject to the Lot 14A Easement, as reflected
on Exhibit "A," shall be maintained in good condition and repair including, but not
limited, snow removal and shall be kept debris and trash free at the sole expense of the
owner of Lot 15.
(b) The Lot 14A Easement or any. portion of it may be required'to. be
paved by the owner of Lot .14A. In the event the owner of Lot 14A elects. to require
the portion of tot 14A subject to the Lot 14A Easement to be re- paved, notice shall
be delivered to the. owner. of Lot 15 who shall then be required to, as expeditiously as
possible under the circumstances,.. arrange for such paving.
(c) No illumination of any nature whatsoever shall be allowed on the
Lot 14A Easement without the express written consent of the owner of Lot 14A other
than downcast type lighting approved by the City of Aspen building code.
(d) The owner of Lot 15' shall use reasonable efforts to, prevent vehicles
of any nature whatsoever from being parked overnight on the real .property which is
subject to the Lot 14A Easement. The owner of Lot 15 shall post a notice to all
Aspen Club members in a convenient location within the. club advising them of, the
preceding restriction.
4. Grant of Easement on Lot 14. Butera hereby grants, conveys, assigns and
transfers unto ACI, over and across Lot 14, an non - exclusive pedestrian. access
easement over the existing foot path to Lot 15 (the "Lot 14 Easement "). The Lot 14
Easement shall be used solely for the purpose of ingress and egress by pedestrians only
of the existing foot path through Lot 14 to Lot 15. The easement on Lot 14 shall
become effective immediately. upon the execution of this Agreement.
5. Restrictions on Use of Lot 14 Easement. The Lot 14 Easement and its
use by the owner of Lot 15 shall be subject to the following restrictions:
(a) The existing foot path through Lot 14, which constitutes the real
property, subject to the Lot 14 Easement, shall be maintained in good condition and
repair, including, but not limited'to, snow removal and shall be kept debris and trash
free at the sole expense of the owner of Lot 15.
(b) No illumination of any nature whatsoever shall be allowed on the
Lot 14 Easement without the express written consent of the owner of Lot 14 other
than downcast type lighting approved by the City of Aspen building code.
3
c \mih \aspens 1b \eas emn..009
6. Restrictions on Use of Lot 14A Easement and Lot 14 Easement.
(a) The owner of Lot 15. shall be obligated. to provide to the owner(s)
of Lot 14A and Lot, 14 and their mortgagees a certificate of comprehensive liability
insurance insuring the owner of Lot 15 and naming as an additional insured the
owner(s) of Lot l 4A and Lot 14 and their mortgagees, which comprehensive liability
insurance shall be in an amount of not less than. Two Million Dollars and No/ 100
($2,000,000.00) per person for bodily injury or death to any one person and not
less than Three Million Dollars ,.and-.No/ 100 ($ 3,000,000.00) per person for bodily
injury or death to any number. of persons arising out of any occurrence which may
occur on Lot 14A pursuant to the use of the Lot 14A Easement and which may occur
on Lot 1.4 pursuant to the use of the Lot. 14 Easement, which policies shall also
provide not less than. Five Hundred Thousand. Dollars and No/-I 00 ($ 500,000-00)
for roe damage coverage. ''All All such policies of insurance shall be issued b
property ►rtY g y ,. _ .
companies who shall be acceptable to the owners) of Lot 14A and Lot 14 in the
exercise of. its reasonable discretion. Such insurance shall provide that same shall not
be cancelled without at least thirty (30)-days' prior written notice to the owner(s) of
Lot 14A and Lot 1`4.
(b) The owner of Lot 15 shall indemnify the owner(s) of Lot 14A and
Lot 14 to the full extent allowed bylaw from any claim; judgment, damage or cause
of action of any nature whatsoever.arising out of the use of any.portion of Lot- 14A
pursuant to the use of the Lot 14A Easement and any portion of Lot, 14 pursuant to
the use by the owner of Lot 15 or its invitees, licensees and customers of the Lot 14
Easement regardless -of whether, such claim, judgment,. damage or cause of action,
results from any direct or indirect action -of the owner of Lot 15 or his invitees,
licensees and customers.
(c) - =: The owner(s) of Lot 1.4A,:or Lot l 4 shall have the right, from time
to time, to landscape and /or screen the real property subject to the Lot 14A Easement
or the Lot 14 Easement from the balance of Lot 14A or Lot 14.respectively. The
owners) of Lot l 4A and Lot 14 shall be obligated to maintain all landscaping and
screening placed thereon and such landscaping and screening may be placed upon the
Lot 14A Easement and the Lot 14 Easement so long as it does not unreasonably
interfere with.: the purposes thereof.
cAmihUsoenc1b\eliemn :.009 _ 4
Ll
7. Enforcement.
L]
In the event the owner of Lot 15 or his invitees, licensees or customers fail to
comply with any of the above provisions or breaches any of the obligations contained
in this Agreement, the owner(s) of Lot 14A•or Lot 14 shall deliver written notice .
specifying such failure or breach and the owner of Lot 15 shall then have thirty' (30)
days within which to. cure. same, unless the nature of the failure or breach is such that
it would reasonably require more time to effectuate such a cure, in which event, the
owner of Lot 15 shall. have sixty (60), days to accomplish same. If at the end of the
time periods called for in the preceding sentence, the owner of Lot 15 has failed to
cure such breach, then the owner(s) of Lot 14A and Lot 14 shall have -the right to,
at their election, either: (i) effectuate a cure of such. breach at the expense of the,
owner of Lot 15 and /or (ii) institute injunctive proceedings against the owner of Lot
15 to enforce the provisions of this Agreement. Any sums expended by the owner(s)
of Lot 14A or Lot 14 to enforce the provisions of this Agreement, not reimbursed by
the owner of Lot 15, shall constitute a lien on Lot 15. Such lien shall be inferior to
the lien of any first deed of trust financing,. encumbering Lot 15..To .evidence such
lien, the owner(s) of Lot 1.4A or Lot 14 shall record a statement of lien, under oath,
certifying. the expenses incurred in enforcing this Agreement and upon such
recordation,, same shall encumber Lot 15. Thirty (30) 'days after. the recordation of
a lien, the owner(s) of Lot 14A or. Lot 14 shall be entitled to foreclose same in the
same- manner provided for under the laws of the State of Colorado for the foreclosure
of mortgages or deeds of trust.
8. Perpetual Easement Subiect to Termination..- The Lot 14A Easement and.
the Lot 14 Easement shall be perpetual until such time as the owner of Lot 15 ceases
to use the improvements located thereon" for athletic /health club or fitness, wellness
or health center or related purposes and accessory uses or constructs new
improvements sq that Lot 15 is then used for residential purposes only, in which event,
the Lot 14A Easement and the Lot 14 Easement granted- herein shall- terminate.
9. Modification of the Lot 14A Easement and the Lot 14 Easement.. The
owner of Lot 14A and Lot 14 reserves the right, subject to first obtaining the consent - -
of the owner of Lot 15, which consent will not be unreasonably withheld, to, from
time to time, relocate the easements granted in paragraphs 1 and 4 above; provided
that such relocated easement(s) shall provide adequate access, parking for at least
thirty -five (35) vehicles and an adequate footpath to Lot 15.
c:\mib\asoenclb \easemrs.009 5
10. Representations of Butera. Butera represents to ACI that it is well seized
and has good title to Lot 14A and Lot 14 free and clear of all liens, taxes (other than
property taxes for the calendar year hereof), encumbrances or other matters that could
impair the Lot I 4 Easement or the Lot 14 Easement or result in said Lot 1, 4A
Easement or the Lot 14 Easement being extinguished. Butera further represents that
ACI shall. have quiet and peaceful possession and use of the Lot 14A Easement and the.
Lot 14 Easement for the purposes herein set forth.
11. Miscellaneous.
(a) This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the laws of
the State of Colorado. .
(b) The parties agree to perform such further acts and execute and
deliver such- further agreements or. other documents as may reasonably necessary to
effectuate and carry out the provisions of this Agreement.
(c) All the provisions of this Agreement, including the benefits and
burdens created thereby, shall run with the .land and be binding upon all persons who
hereafter acquire any interest in Lot(s) 14A or 14 or.Lot 15 whether as an owner,
renter, trust deed or mortgage beneficiary, or. otherwise. For purposes of this
Agreement, Lot 15 shall be deemed the "Benefitted Property" and the "Dominant
Estate" and Lot 14A or Lot 14 shall be deemed the "Burdened Property" -. and the
"Subservient Estate." All provisions, of this Agreement inure to the benefit of and be
binding upon the parties hereto, their heirs, successors, devisees, tassigns, and. personal
representatives.
(d) This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding and
Agreement between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof. All preceding
agreements relating to the subject matter hereof, whether written or oral, are hereby
merged into this Agreement.
(e) As to the Lot 14A Easement and the Lot 14 Easement granted -
herein, Butera reserves the right to use and enjoy the .property burdened by such
easements, including the land beneath and the airspace above, for all purposes and uses
which do not unreasonably interfere with such Lot 14A Easement and the. Lot 14
Easement.
c:4nlh \uo enclb \euemn t 009
no
(f) This Agreement may be executed in counterparts and, as executed
shall constitute one Agreement binding on all of the parties hereto notwithstanding that
all said parties are not signatory to the original or same counterpart.
(g) In the event of any action for breach of, to enforce the provisions
of, or otherwise involving this Agreement, the court in such action shall award a
reasonable sum as attorneys' fees to the parry who, in light of the issues litigated and
the court's decision on those issued, was the prevailing party in the action. If a party
voluntarily dismisses an action, a reasonable sum as attorneys' fees shall be awarded to
the other party.
(h) The failure of either party to insist upon the strict performance of
any provisions of this Agreement or to exercise any right or option available to it, or _
to serve. any notice or to institute any action, shall not be a waiver or a relinquishment
for the future of any such provision.
(i) This Agreement may not be amended nor may any rights
hereunder be waived except by an instrument in writing executed by the parties hereto
and recorded in the real estate records of P.itkin County, Colorado.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement on the day
and year first written above.
BUTERA:
A, P IN CLUMNTERNATIONAL, INC.,
a lora o �orooration
T. Richard Butera T. Richard Futera, President
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ON FOLLOWING PAGE _
a \mMasoencib \easemnl.009
7
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss.
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
The foregoing Easement Agreement was acknowledged before me this rD day
of September, 1996 by T. Richard Butera.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
My commission expires: t loo lad
Notary Public
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss.
. COUNTY OF PITKIN )
The foregoing Easement Agreement. was'acknowledged before me this [D. day
of September, 1996 by T. Richard Butera as President of Aspen Club International,
Inc.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
My commission expires: 101-0 Iq 9
c: \mjh\up enclb \easemn L 009
� � I , , - � - - . . ��. � � � � . . . I .
-- .,. ;..
. - I I , I I � . . I I I I . — - ___
I .1 : 4�.. I v A�V1ENfJivhENT; T UBDIVISION ,AND PLAT.:
,
.
. �DEVr 1- OPMENT AGREEMENT; .CALLAFIAI1 1.
- ttt--- I... 'S214 'E _ 751.81' -
P 2494 . \ 172 3T. ..` 179 T4 - - : _ _ 124 40 -_.__
\ ,
I 1
l \\ . x 1 .; _ N
_ \, s ' 1' "a e T1 A A . 1 LOT
+ ` \ /', y - I..OT 8- 1 --t 1 B.�eve ra 15� /19sgft r I V LOT Fi
I rya F T'T+! r rr 9a2l sr•h
\ e lA tS>; rL IT 812sq It r c x K r s
t , , , \r!.%µ Z a� AIllk� 7 ) 1' ° ' TT a" '\ s ��t .x ? I ,
L , z \ _ t r E s, „� ' r i , a r ,. s''S 7 ,.rY _
s 5 h a ,t r y.♦ '` a `. "w s MKS saC:j`"�ha'kr "M1ry �x i ro�'O ^�',.p�t`l�- '.ON,'r,,s•A'ti" a+ Ya,�\ -* t s'I- t
It :.. L ' = _ a a1 - i` c'. y ap r 4 " i 7",�k' pq y j i 1 5,-Ta I t -t f1 '1'.; \ i'WI- "t#�'f•�"•t' �� d "f"'i' { tr,+ •v y- } ,� � "rt' Iff s vC q,}, s� ri r r $ >_.fr`'t,i'a �,t > =4.,s ,I s
i ,° r z, t •t`y `s r \ t i Yyx� .hF F }' er.r £, 4 . z fs [' s3'L
ft <f t J 7 r� 'Y Yr- - : -�/
"� s .p F I:, / x .I \ £.. �O t tt tcl � 3 s � 7 t3 C x`},;: x `x CS I t s / //
f, v I .s - ,s \ s P +' a ,t I '1 .1 ra ti r a - .s I - m.
ro _ Y \ , \t 1 4i C:.1 16 sR�t'iO L 1 y.` ; ( \ /1pq\ y- \T t yl
/ T .. L�) N. fill •
1 u �•a ua.` rs . / r t z � ,, �- Ot is - /i'
LOT 9: t cB !! �' -� s p�L. c1 ry . 1.
% ,y ..: 19075Wh s. \ r^;w' .�i ; / 1"TC ^f[7F'��,i/ 3 4.9T�\ -
js
/'�
r
`. O 0
1 . - ,_.,
ty
_ .. r. 161 w)1 I�� •2�.t. C27 C \ yr, / , \
. .' : TO LOTS., 9 4 + N 11
j 2i a C s I rye , - 7 (PARCEL Dl � ° ;-
+ - I , ` ' [ 30 766 3q t \ . / �Fw\ 2
�.
-! /CIO \ q�
'.
a y N -' t i f /' \ 6/ ... Ci C'r
BO.iB' - N 26 65 5 18.17' \ r 1 m vq
WEST 12300 = \ t � • � � --'�`��-7'. �,.�t.:t,�`�:� �.`�,: -, �. . - &: �.-.:!.' - -�',,,'..� �.,_, _ \ { ` CI \ ,�
- - �, ��, .��i� ,:
�"";`_ -,,,�-.,:.�I,i ,;: I.. �. - ,,.,. — , 11 I . ",_', . _ —, _ i_.. , <2 \ I _< %- -�,�:;�';��',.",,..�,_., �.�,�. I ".. �11. , _ - . / - � -,_.�.�:,: - , , ,
.1-
'_ -�!'i-�,.-"'.-."_-.,.:' ll��,,_.L_._:��' -�--:.��.�*.,-+��!":.,�,-'-.'i�-.,�-� -1 �_-_��.,��;_ .1 " . , , �: , , "."e, � ��-:.,.: -- 7,", 1,1 al . * ': ;,-,, � - �_____-, _... ;.-.z - � -1 . . , — . �;".*,' . .
.,X.. * . i �`,'+; - .. �;� - , ... —, 1: . I
x e r ,.--t �,- �--`-�::�, 'CFA•.. ND ° �J \\ a�>, , .�I ?, ,.. ,< 1 -. 1 ✓ [s t s,,' _ot'"l` 1` 1,'1" - ..
I '��:�;. ;:,! r y - r f tt 3• r - �S — - 1 .y a"r 1. i
7
I - I ♦9DE A .. ALtZ W t T': �" \- M2 •'1 L 1� ..
3 t a\ ' r F` r 19\ ?9 1 CEL CI
..t <: FI : T"- \ m t \. v "1' S a 3 .� ` 19 E..f P R '/
r rR -.. a[slvE11 De - - \ .;
' ati k C'PpfO- is re i �,i7g0
E L ® q \ r \ ? 1 R1VAr µ D
P l
4, SITE r r 4CIS\ • ?� I --
\ i 4
_ I.v,W \ t i 41 _ _ _ 1. �e t / 13 N
`'��v 17 ' 0 ..1
v
`� \ K
Y , P
VICINITY MAP (N TS) h
,. _ „\
BASIS OF BEARING:: WEST BETWEEN FOUND NO S REBAR AND PLASTIC CAPS L3 72707 AT - '
:I HE SOUTIIWEST. CORNER OF. LOT S AND S- Mg! EAST OF v10 SOUTHWEST CORNER OH THE t -
SOUTH LINE OFSAID LOT S. -” - ` --
N , - . 1. , .- . : R . . , '. j .
O` 13 /
W:.: ' ::p — ., w.:,.: "wrt , LOT "mw m o . .& .
-,KALE 1 .50 . �10 1. 3345gs.f\ LOT 14E
'_\ ' .� m .. 42.215 sq ft.
_ .11.
- n .. - -
`.: _ _ _ -
Se�1• �\ a w 11 .. ,l . N
\ II \ \ oL .`ln
LEGEND. '. : ' i - ^••, `�^
I, a ,. DLNOTES REC(M LOT CORNER OF CALLA -AN SUBDIVISION IN _ �!cr ��
I ' BOOK S AT PAGE 7 -HOT FOUND OR SET DURING THIS SURVEY 199 A3 \ \`
L ® CENOTES FOUND NO, S REBAR AND PLASTIC CAP LS 12107 _ , „
-] ® "DENOTES FOUND NO. S REBAR AND PLAS7!C'CAP PLS 25917 t i- N 8B 23 N 20S IS 13 66 �'1
f -♦ * - DENOTES SET NO. S REBAR AND RED PLASTIC CAP PLS 24303; _ 1 : \ �� -.
'4 T, 'DENOTES UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE UNE•f0' WOE EASEMENT , v -: , -• li
P �Q.r ►- DENOTES,UNDERGROU14D -POWER LINE•10• VAOE EASEMENT; .... .I__ .. r t f a " •:
,,.L 41,,, T =•- DENOTES UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE AHD POWER LINE•f0'. W10E EASEMENT as . %LOT IJ -
H ::
& J '/ DENOTES EXIS71NO !r O.I.P.. WATER UNE -70' WIDE EASEMENT t ,E : ; _ c " (PARCEL A f 4 I _ '- : J' /�
I ,& .� DENOTES NEW PROPERTY LINE CREATED BY THIS PUT / • , W
4Y 0 DENOTES UNDERGROUND GAS IINE 1P WIOE EASEMENT 4. MINIMUM OIME.ISICGS FOR PARKING SPACES SHOYM HEREON ARE 8 S' WIDE BY 78' LONG • ,
I - : C S. THERE ARE NO BOUNOl,RY- DIMENSION GN CONFIGURATION. ChU11GE5 BY TH13 PUT IN /2J
r ;' Y NOTES : -, t;_, �:_ at_, -,^e . �.;.,. �, !j d.+dry.: _ s- i :.LOTS,'S,8,7;8,9,11A,11W 11E,40R:PARCEL"[C FROM dTHOSEi OEFWED .BY, -THE RECGROED Lc 9A
S., r j 1. A '•' SYMBOL INDICATES INFORMATOH REGARDING, ITEMS.- EASEMENTS .OR OTHER ORICINAL'AND AMENDED PtATS'OF CALlAI1AV SUBOIVISICN EXCEPTING THE ADOITICN CF - :w j '
,y, fiH�: INFORMATION'TAKEN FROM THE FRAT OF ULLAHAN.SUBOMStON A3 RECORDED IN PLAT _.PORT70N3'OF PARCEL C=A PRIVATE ROAD. TO LOTS 7,'8 AtID 9 AS SHOVN HEREON - "F �'1
1,: �- iBOOK S AT PAGE.? OR AS AMEL'DEO IN PLAT BOCK 6 AT PAGE I0.' :i"� {c7.., t- [ t E. -THE' PARKING SPACES SHO' /r. ON LOT I W AHE ALLOWED BY AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN ; ' - f ,
t -" ��2. THIS SURVEY WAS PERFORMED; USING FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY 7: RICHARO',BUTERA AND'JHE OWNER OF LOT. i1W TNE`TcRLIS OF LVHICN ARE DESCRIBEO.ytY } - : - - ' z,- /
_ - ��"DF CALIFORNIA COMMITMENT ISSUED BY PITKIN COUNTY:SITLE, INC:�CASE' NO.`PCT1W16C8 ;IN; THAT. CERTAIN�DOCUMENTpRCCOROED ;,IN;,800K�:L, :;'AT PAGE. Q34 AS .NOTE ;..
I � ,Z FOR INFORMATION REGARDING ENCUMBRANCES.CF,EASEMENTS ANO RIGHTS:Of•VWY OR fiECEPT10N N0-!,3_y(Q -^_+7 Q 7 „t^ OF THE PITKIN COUNTY.RECORDS ":a- \} Yv; i".'UNAUTHCPSED BY THE SURVE ,CR '.'
` :OTHER MATTERS WMICH MAY AFFECT.THIS PROPERTY:`,.1•.•u' a:>l s:' ;�f k�7',e..` *! ;^ T ,g•,T.; •THE PL,RPOSE CF THIS FIAT IS iO GRAPHICALLY DEPICT AND DELINEATE THE TEMPORARY r6 CH}2L
�x - ACCESS AND'FARKING EASE"ENYACREEMEN'r BETWEEN T: R:CHARO BUTENA AND ASPEN " ? - '.STAMP CF CARL'. R. CAR A t
J, THERE EXISTS A 10 FCOT PU6l C UTILITY EASEMENT ALONG THE SUBDIVISION BOUNDARY . i• WTHCUT A S:GNATURf ANU :.E T
f LINES AND A S FOOT UTILITY EASEMENT ALONG EACH SIOE OF_EACH INTERIOR.LOT UNEAi >CLUB INTERN,(TION..Ci .INC' AS LR RIBED ANO OEFtNED IN THE DOCUMENT RECORDED AS °z,; INFOR.MATICW .SHOV,N THE R..::N ]L:
-y'^ l�- ?:. -.:. - e:r.: -:�. I,'rAsiv y! ,,'+- J .- ..i.. %,, T,;/ 7r ?st. v..FECEP710N Y0: 989.73 OF41,1 i1*N COUNTY RECORD Yc'�. •. .r.,y, :._ .
4 �. t.gTCt Amr.wy a __ - M a."�'IwsM rye, '�'l aK i.,. •v . -2! ° 'r �^ s :1 P s rV73.�" ! 3.�Y. r a - SlY%
'a'?•''`�$v i' L.,r -,•• .r..A."' tY )g. 'Yi. sE.+ar;Rvc Apc _ r
.,•w...•...n..........., ..» w. w.. I { -`�. sz .r L . ea`siR'S.+' a r .i - " Dra.'..
a...M.,.... ......... ..... n L CAF?L R CASY ilCHnr L.PLS
w•. w,w.,..�n. ,.,....., w. -..... ;; dH wss?', trclri'gt tr."Srr!"kttr'.'47�'t �� kl` ".z. '�Irs..r�or ''v-6 a., 3- �itP.O SOX -1361 .0 a,S -
-...,; :- ,,.. _.,., ;., r. •,�..r r• ,,, ..,ems+ .
)LANNED UNI-1
'EM Eli
r cost
r'FPC no" ONO '"upapat
u0n;
w t, Not sn"T,
ilia Alf
P.
!7*-1;,:
m this,
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
W.-T Ton T>n4 M A MAO
t -.1,;
An 04
n"
C
Fr., t
"4. 1 0, -j4QQQnw i 'L 1 Dr T
R SF "'i.
M.-
TO;
A 3
1.:
C' iTy
0 U EI Von R
'-3
QUO,
loss ym &I
vi (A I
car
OKA WON
W& OSUMI
CONSL.i T 0 -I�j%.
V
TWA 40
ATE OF CfAC
c ITY
;—
D Ij T
A:jD OFF:Cj'k�'�[.AL
............... ............
...........
c4y C �A
C13
TN
A 14 VENT I
c'
'd A. CAttA�AN SUBO.VISCS
�'=TA�
Z'
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEN 1. LIIR Ec TOR APPROVAL
CTC 4, 0— t D-
ur1�c
mENT TO SUPO�AS;CN A .
'L c EATIFICATE
SURI, Y9i 'S
CLERK AND RECORDERS ACCEPTANCE-��,,-, C
—"io RAM CIA, C."'i;.;"
t.4 P�
A &jlllf�` .&Y. r
C xM*.1 k' F•'*j o. V'A or <e d V. CWk aro Re?or,sg, d P�� COW I'd ocr rvJ.tn•er:f fi. f."d b t. loc.!44 2- tu.
d
of C P.1
p ts•cf
SURVEYCIA . r'
rs FT BEARS THE CA=-IAL SIGM
ulcSv-I !Pr Z .
00CUMEWS'PREPARED Er,(THE
-xho-'AET STA).#P.,AFM To BE v%•jEO AS PRELIL
-1-1, No •96 511
ahl j RATMA
e
cur 13 j
/
i
4 i
i
1
/ � I
LOT 14 E
s '
i
i
♦ i
/ s i
/
i
r (
I
W1
Y I
1
I .
I
I
I
i
i
1
1
1
1
I
i
i�
7 1
1
t
I
r
v
I
r
I
✓I
i
r -
I
I
I 1
.I
I �
I !
._i \
21 1 HL 2 C
r 1 L! 22 r'sa}rs BiC 2
7 1
lA u
' s
3 . n
u
4 V Is 26
P r
LOT 16
m.. -- - - - - --
lit I
I
I
I
I
I
I
THE ASEN CLUB '
_NAM EMW N� JiC! SrfIET 1, J
0
77, Wpm
sGGSrar�>,omo
I I
I !
1
i I �
I � 1 / � ^ � • i �� I r '
1
I
I rrE ASPFj1 CLUB i• 1 v O
L wEttr�s cAaoal >�T L ss 1 ,
i 1 i
d
1 1
i i a
� 1 \
rw•>mrr
PAREM
Oseo1. 1 1
i I-
/
(✓Z _-i
� I
ILI
\ �!r`I
i \
n n
i'
/ .fNb P • 9p�P .
/
i
1 t
n n n a s
n
n
� 1i p 38i Vrojser
s w
w Q
1 N N N
CLIIB YARSID7G �.
eAes�y SPACn
TOTAL CS a PARMIM t7
TAVSR PAM3CM '4
IOTY. lA LXDOG SPA6 S6
•
mv4vwvw t � - P.).- I
I
i�
I t
I
Ij d
I u
I-
i
O
�
i
r -
I
I
I 1
.I
I �
I !
._i \
21 1 HL 2 C
r 1 L! 22 r'sa}rs BiC 2
7 1
lA u
' s
3 . n
u
4 V Is 26
P r
LOT 16
m.. -- - - - - --
lit I
I
I
I
I
I
I
THE ASEN CLUB '
_NAM EMW N� JiC! SrfIET 1, J
0
77, Wpm
sGGSrar�>,omo
I I
I !
1
i I �
I � 1 / � ^ � • i �� I r '
1
I
I rrE ASPFj1 CLUB i• 1 v O
L wEttr�s cAaoal >�T L ss 1 ,
i 1 i
d
1 1
i i a
� 1 \
rw•>mrr
PAREM
Oseo1. 1 1
i I-
/
(✓Z _-i
� I
ILI
\ �!r`I
i \
n n
i'
/ .fNb P • 9p�P .
/
i
1 t
n n n a s
n
n
� 1i p 38i Vrojser
s w
w Q
1 N N N
CLIIB YARSID7G �.
eAes�y SPACn
TOTAL CS a PARMIM t7
TAVSR PAM3CM '4
IOTY. lA LXDOG SPA6 S6
•
mv4vwvw t � - P.).- I
o o
1 w
Z
e LANDSCAPE AREAS ARE TO HAVE M r\
pp• A MINIMUM OF 6' TOP SOIL o o
•OF �
/ cj�
LIMITS OF WORK DETAILED BY CIVIL DRAWINGS m j 00
SEE ARCHITECTUAL DRAWINGS (TyP') ? z w
++ r o
1/0.9
I4 t
rir
ICJ
le 0
10,00
0 00' ,
r.g08 8 90 a 2
� .
O$ o ,
A _ \� 76-t F B" ADS N -1
TE 5
IN 93.4 SLOPED ®
CURB INLE STRUCTURES
S ASPEN CLUB / ARE TO B TYPE 13
STAND
�- PER CDOT M & S STANDARDS
Proposed Parking Lot
Mar. 28, 1997 1/8 " =1' -0" L
Design Workshop
q'
s- 4oWA GAPINCP
ASPEN CLUB -
Pro osed Parkin Lot Section
Mar 8 "9'9 1/8" ='0
DesigrrWbrksho� = __._ . _.._
L�Cl05G�P1'kCo
0
ExisriK&
24
3111
rr
3
I vr.__
COTTLE
GRAYBEAL
YAW
ARCHITECTS
LTD
JOHN COTTLE, AIA
DOUG GRAYBEAL, ALA
LARRY YAW, AIA
MARK HENTHORN, AIA
510 EAST HYMAN, SUITE 21
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
PHONE (970) 925 -2867
(FAX) 925 -3736
P.O. BOX 3507
107 NORTH FIR STREET
TELLURIDE, COLORADO 81435
PHONE (970) 728 -3037
(FAX) 728 -3236
MEMORANDUM
•
TO:
Stan Clauson
CC.:
Michael Fox
FROM:
Susan Havward
RE:
The Aspen Club:
Insubstantial Amendment to Approved Parking Plan
DATE:
April 3, 1997
Attached please find documentation in support of the Application for Insubstantial
Amendment to the Approved Parking Plan for The Aspen Club:
Attachment 1: See attached Land Use Application Form.
Attachment 2: (as follows and attached)
1. Applicant Name:
2. Street Address
Legal Description:
Michael Fox c/o
The Aspen Club
1450 Crystal Lake Road
Aspen, Colorado 81611
970 925 8900
140 Crystal Lake Road
Aspen Colorado 81611
1 sA i
Iq
► r i`
PARCEL A: Lot 15, Callahan Subdivision. According to the maps thereof recorded
May 19, 1976 in Plat Book 5 at page 7, August 17, 1977 in Plat Book 6 page 16.
PARCEL B:
A pedestrian access easement through Lot 14, Callahan Subdivision and part of
Crystal Circle within the Callahan Subdivision, City of Aspen, Colorado being 12
feet in width, lying westerly of and abutting the following described line: Beginning
at a point on the southerly line of Lot 14, Callahan Subdivision, whence the
southwest comer of said Lot 14, Callahan Subdivision bears N 88 degrees, 25
degrees W 199.49 feet: thence N 07 degrees, 39 degrees W, 125.28 feet: thence N 13
degrees, 15 degrees E 69.49 feet to a point on the south line of Lot 14 -A, Callahan
Subdivision.
3. Disclosure of Ownership, see attached.
4. Vicinity map, see attached.
5. Proposal Description:
The proposed parking plan shows modest variations in the landscaping and the
orientation of parking spaces from the approved plan. Please see attached
documentation for clarification.
w'
C
Attachment 3:
A. Approved Plan:
1. Ordinance No. 20
2. Callahan Subdivision Amendment.
3. Approved Parking Plan.
B. Proposed Plan
1. Proposed Parking Plan Summary.
2. Partial Proposed Parking Lot.
3. Proposed Parking Lot Section.
4. Proposed Handicap Access
n:wpdocs: aspenclb: memo- 3:9688
LAND IISE AP=CAT'ZON FOFM
1) Project Name CI u6
2) Project Location d CYt+NI 4 e Rood CC,164(,h SVWIVISIOh Wt k6. 15
(indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where
apprrpri.� ;z)
3) Present Zoning F-IZ 4) Lot Size •' 9' I OIG reS
S) Applicant's Name, Address & Phone z
%1nic�+a�el Fox cf, t, A-r Clul, V so Cryhl 6 c ?-.d� A ,�Co. ��11 n-US -MOO
6) Representative's Name, Address & Phone c
7) Type of Application (please check all that apply)
Conditional Use tzial. SPA Conceptual Historic Lev.
Special Review Final SPA Final H storic Day.
8040 Online ,,or>�tual KTD Minor Historic DUV-
rg
Stream Main Final PUD Historic LLnolition
MoLmtain View Plane Subdivision
Condcminii mi,motion
r-at Split/1 at Line
Adjustment
Ttxt/Map Amend'
Historic Designation
CM��� gnu- •t
8) Description of Eydst1n g Uses (fir and typ- of e,C€Stlnrf stxG' res;
app=dm to sq. ft-; number of bedrooms; any prevzoc��s approvals granted to the
property) .
Atyox . (00, 000 floor QIg!1 AN41, Club w/ W- ItAcirni4 par�tbc, .
o
9) Descriptidn of Davelapment Application
W%br c�+pv,o�es -� a,pPvovea �e►r�Ci ►,o, plat, Su6rni�itd AS o►t-h►cl,Meh�' iro
Si1�IVl�j10h i�f'riCMQYY1Ch� �o1TCQ J�l� �., (991 •
fy:
10) Have you attached the following?
R-esponse to Attachm ant 2, Mi n i m; m, Smssion Contents
i<
Response to Attad merit 3, Specific Submission Contents
Response to AttaCtmmerrt . 4 ,. Review Standards f6r Your Application
V1b IYv( , I ) -
-STANDARD SPACES. 45
_HANDICAP SPACES 2
_TOTAL CLUB PARKING 47
THERAPY PARKING 9
TOTAL PARKING.SPACES 56
❑6
cs
93
Do
als Iti
CD
LU
Wks
-Te-
REVISIONS
APR. 1.199' 11 :59AM GARFIELD & HECHT,,.., N0.192 P.2
Ay,. ,. i��1 ii..IQAIVI riOiv �IvulvII IIILE . (V a, h86Q P. 1/5
CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP
Pitkin County Title, Inc., a duly licensed Title Insurance Agent in the
State of Colorado hereby certifies that ASPEN CLUB SPA, LLC, A COLORADO
LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY is the owner in fee simple of the following
described property:
AS SET FORTH IN DEED RECORDED SEPTEM$ER 12, 1996 AS RECEPTION NO. 396949
A'T'TACHED HERETO.
COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO.
Subject to encumbrances, easements and rights of way of record.
This certificate is not to be construed to be a guarantee of title and
io furnished for informational.purposes only.
PITK COUN ITLE, INC.
fA BY:
autho d signature
CERTIFIED TO. CH 3, 1997 ® 8:30 A.M.
��ib►G��,,,thi' �. �
JAPR. 1.1997 11:59AM IGARFIELD o HECHTr�E 60.192 P.3,S
' • � � �SSc•z
Recorded at o'clock M.
396949 09/12/96 12t2Sp pG 1 OF 4 REC UCC
DOt:
SILVIA DAVI$ DITKIN COUNTY CLERK & RECORDER el.00 530, 0g
0
0
.1n
0
O�
C�i]OZ�
a .+
U�Ec�
j
T
0
v�
o�
to
ao
0
RECORDING REQUESTED BY:
WHEN RECORDED, RMRN TO:
Andrew V. Hecht, Esq.
Garfield St Hecht, P.C.
601 East Hyman Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
ASPEN CLUB INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Colorado corporation, as Grantor,
whose address is 1450 Crystal Lake Road, Aspen, Colorado 81611, for TEN
DOLLARS (B 10.00) and other good and valuable coadderation, in hand paid, hereby
sells and conveys to ASPEN CLUB SPA, LLC, a Colorado limited Habltity company,
whose address Is 1450 Crystal Lake Road, Aspen, Colorado 81611, the following
Property in the County of PWdn, State of Colorado, to wit:
See Exhibit "A" attached hereto
with all appurtenances and warrants tide against all persons claiming under Grantor
SUBJECT TO AND EXCEPTING: General and special taxes for 1996, payable
January 1, 1997 and the exceptions sec forth on Exhibit "B" attached hereto.
SIGNED this iU - day of
By:
STATE OF COLORADO )
), ss.
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
6.
a�
B Ti0
a Co ado ' n '%C A, t
T. Richard Butera, President
The foregoing Special Warranty Deed was acknowledged before me this 10
day of September, 1996 by T. Richard Butera as President of Aspen Club
International, Inc., a Colorado corporation.
WITNESS my hand and.official sea. .
My commission expires: I laohq
APR. 1..159 12:OOPM GAR'FIELD�& HECHiTLE {0.19' P.»
_._i o. 5
EXHIBIT "A"
PARCEL A:
LOT 15, CALLARAN SUBDIVISION, according to the maps thereof recorded M;
19, 1976 in Plat Book 5 at Page 7, August 17, 1977 in Plat Book 6 at
Page 16.
PARCEL B:
A pedestrian access easement through Lot 14, Callahan Subdivision and
part of Crystal Circle within the Callahan Subdivision, City of Aspen,
Colorado being 12 feet in width, lying westerly of and abutting the
following described line: Baginning at a point on the Southerly line o:
Lot 14, Callahan Subdivision whence the Southwest corner of said Lot 1,
Callahan Subdivision bears N 88 025' W 199.49 feet; thence N 07 039, W
125.28 feet; thence N 13 015' E 69_.49 feet to a point on the South line
of Lot 14 -A, Callahan Subdivision, as set forth in Deed of Access
Easement recorded January 11, 1985 in Book 479 at Page 661.
PARCEL C:
A right of access and vehicular access described as follows: a 24 foot
wide private road adjacent to the most northerly point of Lot 14, bein,
the road that circles Lot 14A, Callahan Subdivision; thence following
said private road Easterly through Centennial Circle. to Crystal Lake
Road, and Northeasterly along the Westerly arm of said Crystal Lake Ao.
to Colorado State Highway No. 82 as shown on the final plat and
development plan of the Callahan Subdivision, recorded May 19, 1976 in
Plat Book 5 at Page 7, and as amended on August 17, 1977 in Plat Book
at Page 16.
PARCEL D:
A Temporary Access and Parking Basement to use access and parking
facilities as set forth in Temporary Access and Parking Easement
recorded September /I, 1996 as Reception No.L'i.
396949 09/12/96 12425p PG a OF 4
EXHIBIT "B-
1_ Taxes for the year 1996 not yet due or payable.
2. Reservations and exceptions as set forth in Patent recorded ,Tune 17,
1949 in 175 at 246 which recites the following:
First:
That the grant hereby made is restricted in its exterior limits to
the boundaries of the said mining premises and to any veins or lodes
of quaartz, or other rock in place bearing gold, silver, cinnabar,
lead, cin, copper or other valuble deposits which may have been
discovered within said limits subsequent to and which were not known
to exist on the twenty -third day of March A.D. one thousand eight
hundred and eighty -five.
Second:
That should any vein or lode or other rock in place bearing gold,
silver, cinnabar, lead, tin, copper or other valuable deposits be
claimed or 'known to exist within the above described premises at said
late -named date, the same is expressly expected and excluded from
these presents.
Third:
That the premises hereby conveyed may be entered by the proprietor of
any vein or lode of quartz or other rock in place bearing gold,
silver, cinnabar, lead, tin, copper or other valuable deposits, for
the purpose of extracting and removing his ore from such vein, or
lode, should the same or any part thereof , be found to penetrate or
intersect, pass through, or -dip into the mining ground or premises
hereby granted.
Fourth:
That the premises hereby conveyed shall be held subject to any vested
and accrued water rights for mining, agricultural, manufacturing or
other purposes and rights to ditches and reservoirs, used in
connection with such water rights as may be recognized and
acknowledged by local laws, customs and decisions of courts.
Fifth;
That in the absence of necessary by Congress, the legislation of
Colorado may provide rules for working the mining claims or premises
granted involving easement, - drainage and other necessary means to
complete development thereof.
3_ Easement and right of way for pipeline; flume & ditch as set forth in
Book 93 at Page 527 as shown on Survey by Carl R. Carmichael L.S.
dated September 1, 1996.
4. Easements and restrictions as shown..on Plats of ca.11ahan Subdivision
recorded May 19, 1976 in Plat Book 5 at Page 7, and as amended by Plat
recorded August 17, 1977 in Plat Book 6 at Page 16, affecting the
property insured hereunder.
S. Terms, conditions, obligations and restrictions as set forth in
Subdivision and Planned Unit Development Agreement recorded May 19,
1976 in book 312 at Page 110, and as modified by Notice recorded
April 29, 1977 in Book 328 at Page 79.
Terms and conditions of Pedestrian Access Easement granted to Aspen
Club International, Inc., as set forth in Dead of Access Easement
recorded January 11, 1985 in Book 479 at Page 661_
7. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in Shared
Expense Agreement for Callahan 9udivision Roads and Pond recorded
August 28, 1992 in Book 687 at Page 365 and Modification Agreement
recorded August 2s, 1992 in Book 697 at Page 409.
.APR. 1.155. 12 :01Pri GARFIEL.D 3 HECHTTLE hf 0 JON
9. Encroachment of Tennis Court and Cement walkway onto the 10 foot
utility easement as disclosed by Survey of Carl R. Carmichael,
PLS, dated September 1, 1996.
10. Deed of Trust from : ASPEN CLUB INTERNATIONAL, INC., A COLORADO
CORPORATION
To the Public Trustee of the County of Pitkin
For the use of : ASPEN SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION
Original Amount : $3,000,000.00
Dated September 17, 1987
Recorded September 19, 1987 in Book 546 at Page 261
Reception No. 292988
Ass:,gnment of Rents and Leases given in connection with the
above Deed of Trust recorded September 18, 1987 in Book 546 at
Page 286,
11. Security interest under the Uniform Commercial Code affecting
subject property, notice of which is given by Financing
Statement from ASPEN CLUB INTERNATIONAL, INC., A COLORADO
CORPORATION, debtor to ASPEN SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION,
secured party, Recorded September 18,1987 in Book 546 at Page
295.
The beneficial interest of the above Deed of Trust was assigned
to BANK OF AMERICA NATIONAL TRUST, TRUSTEE by instrument
recorded April 26, 1993 in Book 709 at Page 961 & 964.
12_ Deed of Trust from : ASPEN CLUB INTERNATIONAL, INC., A COLORADO
CORPORATION
To the Public Trustee of the County of Pitkin
For the use of NORWBST BANK.OF ASPEN
Original Amount $300,000.00
Dated December 13, 1993
Recorded December 15, 1993 in Book 735 at Page 420
Reception No. : 364625
396949 09/12J96 12:2SD PG 4 OF
APR. 8.1997 10: 45AM
RONALD GARFIELD*
ANDREW V. HECHT"*
MICHAELJ.HERRON"
DAVID L. LENYQ
MATTHEW C. FERGUSON*
KRISTI S. FERRARO ****
'also aft imd to
New York gar
• •also ad.intd to
Dissrinprcoivthbi, Sim
••• also admiued 1p
r1orida Bar
• "° also admitted to
P6edaylraaia Bar
GARFIELD R HECHT NO.289 P'1
GARFIELD & REGHTP P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Please take the fbRDwing actlan_
For iufor=tion
TELEPHONE
VICTORIAN SQUARE KILDING
(970) 925.1936
601 EAST HYMAN AV ENUC
TELECOPIER
As requested
(970) 92j-3008
AS P I:N, COLORADO 81611
E -mail
garhechr @rof.net
:FAICSEURE Cry VER 9BE Y
DATE: � E-9-7
IN
Business Phone NQ.
Facsimile No. 01
ClienVMattev
No. of Pages (including this one);
Hard Copy to Follow: yes no
FROM: Andrew V. Becht
r
D4PMTANT.- THIS COMMUNICATION IS INTENDED SOLELY FOR THE USE OF THE PERSONS
NAMED ABOVE OR OTHRAS AUTHORIZED TO RECEYVR rT. THIS COMMUNICATION MAY
INCLUDE PRIVYLF.GED AND CONFIDENTIAL FORMATION AND ANY USE, DISSEMINATION OR
REPRODUCTION BY UNAUTHORIZED PERSONS IS ABSOLUTELY PROMITED. IF YOU HAVE
RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY THE SENDER IMMEDIATELY,
These are traumnitted_
Please take the fbRDwing actlan_
For iufor=tion
Return
For your signature
Call upon receipt/review
For review and comment
CaH if you have questions
As requested
None
'Plr'e are transmitting from a Ricoh PAX 3100L or FAX 2100L. U you do not receive all of the pages,
please call Kann at (970) 925 -1936, ext. 203 as soon as possible.
14
ANk
MEMORANDUM
TO: Stan Clauson, City Community Development Director
FROM: Sara Thomas, Zoning Officer ®v�
RE: Insubstantial Amendment to the Aspen Cldb'WD to allow for the
reconfiguration of 56 parking spaces and to allowtf Joction of an
entry element.
U'6
DATE: May 5„ 1997 cow�uw
SUMMARY: In July, 1996 the Aspen Club received approval from City Council to
amend their PUD in order to expand the parking facility located off of Ute Avenue to
allow for 56 spaces. In March, 1997 the Aspen Club submitted a building permit which
reflected a modified version of the approved parking configuration, and which included a
dramatic entryway element. Staff determined that the proposed changes were
inconsistent with the original representations and would require an insubstantial
amendment to the PUD.
Staff directed the applicant to modify the proposed entryway in order to provide an
element which was more fitting with the existing structure and surroundings. A copy of
the revised, approved entry element is attached.
FINDINGS:
Section 26.84.080 of the Aspen Municipal Land Use Code states that:
A. An insubstantial amendment to an approved development order for a final
development plan may be authorized by the Community Development Director. The
following shall not be considered an insubstantial amendment:
1. A change in the use or character of the development.
2. An increase by greater than three (3) percent in the overall coverage of structures on
the land.
3. Any amendment that substantially increases trip generation rates of the proposed
development, or the demand for public facilities.
4. A reduction by greater than three (3) percent of the approved open space.
5. A reduction by greater than one (1) percent of the off - street parking and loading space.
6. A reduction in required pavement widths or rights -of -way for streets and easements.
7. An increase of greater than two (2) percent in the approved gross leasable floor area of
commercial buildings.
0 0
8. An increase by greater than one (1) percent in the approved residential density of the
development.
9. Any change which is inconsistent with a condition or representation of the project's
original approval or which requires granting of a further variation from the project's
approved use or dimensional requirements.
Staff has reviewed the proposed plans for the parking area and the entry element and
finds that the above criteria have been satisfied.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Community Development Director
approve the insubstantial amendment to the Aspen Club PUD for the reconfigured
parking area and the revised entry element finding that the criteria of Section 26. 80.040
have been met.
I hereby approve the Insubstantial Amendment for the Aspen Club PUD for the
reconfigured parking area and entry element as represented in the attached
application documents.
,> I
lilt
Stan auson, City Co ' munity Development Director D to
re�
Attached: Parking Summary, Revised Therapy Parking Sused E try
Element, Proposed Parking Lot Section, Handicap Parking Section
�1P►,� � .� 1597
COMM�N1i�C� pF PSP�N
i
I r
jl-- THE�tl OF—ASPEN,
— IMEMO 'FROM- STAN CLAUSON A I C:P ;
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
,
s
--
_ �V,
tIt
-� o
#
I '
i 1
i I r
t '
t: 3
_ t t
1 t i f
a
t ! �--7 W
,
f
i ~
i
,
t
,
- --_ -- -- _ _. —1'30 SOUTH GALENA STREET - -_4 — —
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 1975`
2 .PHONE- 970. - 920:5099 —
FAX 970.920.5439
_ -e- mail.- stanc@ci.aspen.co:us
.1EMPACT IV9ALLYSIS
ASPEN, %COLO_RADO
Leigh, Scott & Clear7, Ina.C.
.February 6, 1996
Mr. Dick Butera
c/o Alan Richman Planning Services
P.O. Box 3613
Aspen, CO 81612
Dear Mr. Butera:
LEIGH, SCOTT & CLEARY, INC.
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
& TRAFFIC ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
1889 York Street
Denver, CO 80206
(303) 333 -1105
FAX (303) 333 -1107
Re: Aspen Club Parking
(LSC #960030)
In response to your request, we have completed a traffic impact analysis related to the proposed
redesign of parking facilities for the Aspen Club health club and spa in Aspen, Colorado.
Figure 1, enclosed, illustrates the location. of the Aspen Club site. As indicated,. the site is located
at Crystal Lake Road between Ute Avenue and Highway 82.
The Aspen Club,.which.was approved for development bythe City: in-conjunction with the 1975
Callahan PUD application, consists of 12 single-family- homes and 24 condominium homes on
the north side of the Roaring Fork River, and health club /spa facilities on the south side of the
river. The development's original plans also envisioned construction of a high quality restaurant
along the north side of the river. In addition, a large parking lot was constructed in the center
of the north side residential area to serve non- resident guests of both the health club (a foot
bridge was provided across the river) and the proposed restaurant. It is important to note that
the plans for the restaurant have been dropped and a single - family home is constructed on the
restaurant site.
All vehicular access to and from the Aspen Club was planned via Highway 82 at Crystal Lake
Road. Health club access via Ute Avenue was not provided since Ute at that time was only a
narrow oiled gravel roadway.
Over the years, the character of Ute Avenue has changed significantly.. Most of the vacant lots
along Ute were developed during the 1980's and 1990's and few undeveloped lots remain. The
1994 Ute Avenue Improvement District project upgraded the roadway cross - section to include
asphalt. paving, two eleven -foot driving lanes, an eight -foot parking lane, and an eight -foot
separated bike path. As a result, the safety of the roadway was enhanced and its estimated
comfortable capacity (Level of Service "C ") was increased from about 500 to 3, "ehicles per
day.
Mr. Dick Butera Page 2 February 6, 1996
Vehicular access. to and from the Aspen Club's health club /spa facilities via Ute Avenue has also
been developed in order to minimize traffic impacts on the 36 homes within the northern
residential area. Over the last several years, health club attendance and related traffic activity
has continued to decline. For example, annual visits declined from 100,696 in 1988 to 60,453
in 1995, a 40 percent reduction in seven years. At the same time, pedestrian/ bicycle access
routes have been developed and a peak -hour van service has been added in order to further
reduce Aspen Club automobile traffic.
As a result of the changes discussed above, there now exists an under - utilized parking lot located
within the Aspen Club residential area north of the river. It is therefore proposed that the north
parking lot be. replaced by upgraded parking facilities adjacent to the health club /spa on the
south side of the river.
Existing Traffic Activity[
The proposed improvements to the health club /spa parking facilities, including the proposed
closure of the north lot and expansion of the south parking facilities, will primarily affect traffic
flows on nearby sections of Highway 82 and Ute Avenue, and at the key Original Street inter-
sections with Cooper and Durant Avenues. No additional traffic generation is projected.
As part of this analysis, 7:00 to 9:00 AM and 4:00 to 6:00 PM peak period turning movement
traffic counts were conducted at the Original /Cooper and Original /Durant intersections on
Tuesday, January 23, 1996. In addition, similar peak period counts of entering and exiting
health. club /spa parking lot traffic were conducted on January 24. Figure 1, enclosed, illustrates
the peak one hour traffic activity data for all four count locations. As noted, peak -hours were
found to occur between 8:00 and 9:00 AM and between 4:30 and 5:30 PM. In addition, the data
reflect the fact that current health club /spa traffic activity is about equally split between the
north lot and the southerly facilities. All count data information is enclosed including shuttle
bus activity to and from the north lot. Figure 1 also illustrates estimated average weekday count
totals in the vicinity of the count locations. These data have been extrapolated from the peak -
hour counts and can be compared to capacity estimates of 6,000 on Highway 82 and 3,000 on
Original south of Highway 82. The following tabulation reflects 1995 monthly attendance data
for the health club /spa:
Mr. Dick Butera
Page 3
Table 1
1995 MONTHLY ATTENDANCE
Aspen Club International
Month
Attendance
January
5,841
February
5,280
March
6,537
April
-. 4,696
May
4,483
June
4,187
July
4;862
August
.5,005
September
3,603
October
4,024
November
4,822
December
5,118
Total
60,453
Average 5,038
February 6, 1996
Of significance is the fact that monthly health /spa activity during January is the second highest
total for the year and represents 16 percent more traffic than the monthly average. By
comparison, Highway 82 traffic is higher during the summer when health club traffic is low. For
instance, 1993 peak season counts on Highway 82 east of Original indicated 24 -hour totals of
5,200 vehicle -trips (vs. 3,500 on Figure 1). Furthermore, it is concluded that the health club/
spa today contributes about 18 percent of the total Original /Ute daily traffic south of Durant (220
out of 1,250), and the 220 trips represent about seven percent of the roadway's existing capacity.
Protected Traffic Impacts
In order to assess the impacts of closing the north parking lot, a reassignment of the north lot
traffic has been estimated for the key Original street intersections at Cooper and Durant. These
estimates were made based on the assumption that north lot traffic is distributed as follows:
• Highway 82 east of Aspen Club = 5%
• Main west of Original = 55%
Cooper west of Original = 35%
• Durant west of Original = 10%
Total
These estimates are based on measured traffic patterns at the two Original Street intersections,
and estimates from Aspen Club representatives. Application of these distribution estimates to -
I
Mr. Dick Butera Page 4 February 6, 1996
the existing peak -hour counts shown on Figure 1 results in the redistributed peak -hour traffic
shown on Figure 2.
Finally, comparative peak -hour capacity analyses have been computed which evaluate before and
after Levels of Service at the two key intersections. The methodology used is that presented in
the current edition of the Highway Capacity Manual (Special Report 209), published by the
Transportation Research Board of the National Academy of Sciences. The concept of Level of
Service (LOS) is used as a basis for computing combinations of roadway operating conditions
which accommodate various levels of traffic activity. By definition, six different Levels of Service
are used (A, B, C, D, E; and F) with "A' being a free -flow condition and "E" representing the
capacity of a given intersection or roadway. More detailed definitions of the six Levels of Service
are enclosed on Appendix Page A -9 to this report. The following tabulation summarizes the
results of these LOS analyses which are also included with the appendices to this report. As
indicated, the projected redistribution of traffic is not expected to adversely impact either inter-
section.
Table 2
PEAK -HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE COMPARISONS
Aspen Club Parking Redesign
1.6
A
0.6
Original /Cooper
Original /Durant
4.5
A
Average Level
Average
Level
Peak-
Intersection
Delay of
Delay
of
Assumed Traffic How:
roach
(Seconds Service
Seconds
Service
Existing AM
Eastbound
1.5 A
0.6
A
3.3
Westbound
4.7 A
0.1
A
5.7
Northbound
1.7 A
4.5
A
3.4
Southbound
2.5 A
3.9
A
4.0
-otal
3.17 A
2.0
A
PM
Eastbound
3.2 A
0.7
A
Westbound
6.4 B
0A
A
Northbound
3.5 A
5.4
B
Southbound
4.1 A
4.5
A
Total
4.44 A
2.4
A . .
Redistributed
AM Eastbound
1.6
A
0.6
A
Westbound
4.5
A
0.1
A
Northbound
1.8
A
4.5
A
Southbound
2.5
A
4.0
A
Total
3.05.
A
2.1
A
PM Eastbound
3.3
A
0.6
A
Westbound
5.7
B
0.1
A
Northbound
3.4
A
5.6
B
Southbound
4.0
A
4.8
A
Total
4.17
A
2.7
A
Mr. Dick Butera
Summary and Conclusions
Page 5 February 6, 1996
Based on the information and analyses presented herein, we have reached the following
conclusions with respect to the traffic impacts of the Aspen Club North parking lot:
1. Traffic conditions have changed significantly since the Aspen Club was approved for
development during the mid- 1970's.
• A restaurant, which was planned to be served by the north parking lot, will
not be developed. As a result, an under - utilized commercial parking lot
exists within the residential portion of the Aspen Club development.
•
Traffic activity associated with the health club /spa has declined significantly
during the past several years. Since 1988, annual visitation totals and
related traffic have declined 40 percent. In addition, enhanced pedestrian
and bicycle facilities together with shuttle bus service have further reduced
health club /spa generated traffic.
• Initially, access to and from the health club /spa via Ute Avenue. was not
permitted due to inadequate roadway characteristics. Ute Avenue, however,
was paved and widened in 1994 with significant improvements to both safety
and roadway capacity. As a result, recent health club /spa access via Ute
Avenue has not resulted in adverse traffic impacts.
2. A comprehensive count of peak- season, peak - period traffic associated with the health
club /spa at the nearby key intersections of Cooper /Highway 82 and Original, and at
Durant and Original have been conducted. This data has been redistributed to
account for the proposed closure of the north parking lot. Computerized peak -hour
capacity analyses of this data reflected the fact that all approaches to the study inter-
sections will continue to operate at Level of Service "A" or "B" with no significant change
resulting from the redirected existing traffic.
3. Implementation of the proposed access and parking changes is projected to increase
weekday traffic on Ute Avenue by about 230 vehicle -trips including about 25 entering
and 14 exiting vehicles during the evening peak- hour. This total represents less than
eight percent of the roadway's estimated 31000 vehicle - per -day comfortable capacity.
Furthermore, the projected total amount of health club /spa traffic is projected to be
450 average weekday vehicle - trips, which is about 15 percent of Ute Avenue's
comfortable capacity.
4. During the summer months when Highway 82 traffic in the vicinity of Original Avenue
is higher, the benefits of this proposed access change will be even greater than that
indicated herein. This fact is primarily due to reduced peak- season southbound to
eastbound left -turn traffic at the Original/ Highway 82 intersection.
Mr. Dick Butera
Page 6
February 6, 1996
We trust that this report will assist with further discussions and planning for the Aspen Club
proposal. Please call if we can of additional assistance.
Respectfully submitted,
LEIGH, SCOTT & CLEARY, INC.
By:
Philip N. Scort III, P.E.
PNS /wd
Enclosures: Figures 1 and 2
Traffic Counts (Pages A -1 through A -8)
Level of Service Definitions (Page A -9)
Capacity Analyses (Pages A -10 through A -33)
Ci \PROJECTS \960030 \ASPENCLB.REV
Mq�N
CHWy 8 ?) _L7_
s3
22 41 / 89
66 6!j
HOPK�N 16 2 6 60
S qVe to� / 12 z4
66 24
Approx. Scale
1 = 400'
HyMgIV A� f
(3,900) LEGEND:
3280
C00peR q�e (3,500) (220) = ESTIMATED AVERAGE WEEKDAY TRAFFIC
(2,150) 16 8:00 -9:00 AM TRAFFIC
-
Q 24
(1,800) 4:30 -5:30 PM TRAFFIC
°URgNr q<F (1 , 600) SOURCE: COUNTER /MEASURES INC.
(2,400) "'�Hwgr a2
(1,250)
I
j
34 I 43 25
24 42 12 \
76 17
36 �` 2u .\ ENTER EXIT
60 -5 14��
2 4
GTF �
1-5
9L xx I _
a' S
NORTH
LOT
ASPEN
EXIT
,o
/CLUB
/HEALTH
CLUB /SPA
ENTER
(220)
FIGURE 1
SITE LOCATION AND
EXISTING PEAK -HOUR TRAFFIC --
LEIGH, SCOTT & CLEARY, INC.
/ 66 \
98
22 41 / 81
i9 6J�iLez
,07
18 102
25 ~ s8
15 �7 62
92 , t' 24
\ 93 23 /
(3,900)
3 S-5
Ve. (3,280)
(2,150) e
(2,010)
o�RgNr 4Vf. (1,600)
(2,400)
1(1,48 0)
/ 41 \
42 4s
23 41 12
42 43 �1 //
76 ` 17
2Q
31 2 4
�7
� 66 2 /
.i
NA
0
I
I
I
gi
&. t
EXIT
17
33
Approx. Scale
1 ' = 400'
LEGEND:
(450) = AVERAGE WEEKDAY TRAFFIC
23 _ 8:00 -9:00 AM TRAFFIC
43 — 4:30 -5:30 PM TRAFFIC
OPT
ASPEN
Z3ov,G, CLUB/SPA
FIGURE 2 (450) E WER
REDISTRIBUTED EXISTING 'J�/
PEAK -HOUR TRAFFIC
ASSUMING CLOSURE OF ASPEN
CLUB NORTH PARKING LOT
LEIGH. SCOTT & CLEARY. INC.
� CLUB
1J1 L1_
COUNTER MEASURES, INC.
Site Code :
I
PAGE: 1
N-S Street:
ORIGINAL \SH -82
FILE: SH82COOP
E -W Street:
COOPER \SH -82
Movements by:
Primary
DATE: 1/23/96
------------------------------------------------------------------------------I---------------------------------------------------
Tise
From North
From
East
From
South
From
West
Vehicle
Begin
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RT
THRU
LT
RT
THRU
LT
RT
THRU LT
RT
THRU
LT
Total
7:00 AM
2
6
9
6
6
0
1
3
0
1
1
4
39
7:15
3
8
10
10
8
0
1
2
0
0
3
0
45
.7:30
6
10
15
17
14
1
1
6
0
3
4
1
78
.1:45
4
16
12
17
12
2
1
8
0
3
7
7
89
HR TOTAL
15
40
46
50
40
3
4
19
0
7
15
12
251
8:00 AM
6
13
13
25
19
4
2
11
1
0
7
2
103
8:15
1
16
14
42
14
5
5
7
1
3
5
5
118
8:30
4
16
21
18
12
5
0
15
0
2
6
7
106
8:45
6
20
17
26
15
4
5
15
0
8
8
8
132
HR TOTAL
17
65
65
111
60
18
12
48
2
13
26
22
459
---------------=--------------------------------------
- - - -
-- Break
------------------------------------------------------------
4:00 PM
6
17
30
29
12
8
5
20
8
11
15
7
168
4:15
9
17
24
28
19
4
6
23
1
4
24
8
167
4:30
12
12
25
26
13
4
6
16
1
3
14
14
146
4:45
6
11
28
27
24
7
4
19
2
4
22
22
176
HR TOTAL
33
57
107
110
68
23
21
78
12
22
75
51
657
5:00 PM
10
20
28
25
12
7
8
27
4
2
25
15
183
5:15
13
10
14
31
18
6
6
24
3
7
27
18
177
5:30
10
10
23
16
11
5
4
20
3
3
20
10
135
5:45
6
14
23
16
10
3
2
11
7
2
22
13
129
HR TOTAL
39
54
88
88
51
21
20
82
17
14
94
56
624
7
I)AY TOTAL 104 216 306
359 219 65
A -1
57 227 31
------------------------
56 210 141 1991
ite Code
-S Street: ORIGINAL \SH -82
-W Street: COOPER \SH -82
'------------------------------------------ - - - - --
COUNTER MEASURES, INC.
PAGE: 1
FILE: SH82COOP
Movements by: Prieary DATE: 1/23/96
----------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
PEAK PERIOD ANALYSIS FOR THE PERIOD: 7:00 AM - 9:00 AM
DIRECTION
START
PEAK HR
........ VOLUMES
........
....
PERCENTS ...
FROM
PEAK HOUR
FACTOR
Right
Thru Left
Total
Right
Thru
Left
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
North
8:00 AM
0.85
1 17
65 65
147
12
44
44
East
8:00 AM
0.77
111
60 18
189
59
32
10
South
8 :00 AM
0.77
12
48 2
62
19
77
3
West
8:00 AM
0.64
13
26 22
61
21
43
36
Entire
Intersection
North
8:00 AM
0.85
17
65 65
147
12
44
44
East
0.77
111
60 18
189
59
32
10
South
0.77
12
48 2
62
19
77
3
West
0.64
13
26 22
61
21
43
36
COOPER \SH -82
22
26
61
13
J
111
189 60
.L 18
F62 7
96;•...
2 48 12
ORIGINAL \SH -82
A -2
COOPER \SH -82,
COUNTER MEASURES, INC.
ite Code : PAGE: 1
-S Street: ORIGINAL \SH -82 FILE: SH82COOP
-W Street: COOPER \SH -82
Movements by: Primary DATE: 1/23/96
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------=---------------------------- - - - - --
PEAK PERIOD ANALYSIS FOR THE PERIOD: 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM
DIRECTION
START
PEAK HR
........ VOLUMES
........
....
PERCENTS
...
FROM
PEAK HOUR
FACTOR
Right
Thru Left
Total
Right
Thru
Left
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
North
4:15 PM
0.87
37
60 105
202
18
30
52
East
4:00 PM
0.87
110
68 23
201
55
34
11
South
4:45 PM
0.79
22
90 12
124
18
73
10
West
4:45 PM
0.84
16
94 65
175
9
54
37
Entire
Intersection
North
4:30 PM
0.81
41
53 95
189
22
28
50
East
0.86
109
67 24
200
54
34
12
South
0.11
24
86 10
120
20
72
8
West
0.83
16
88 69
173
9
51
40
>: COOPER \SH -82
ORIGINAL \SH -82'
41 53 95
L 189 ___.__1
69
109
88
173
J
L
16 � 120
.........................
; ..
10 86 24
93
ORIGINAL \SH -82
A -3
109
200
67
L
24
COOPER \SH -82
A -3
COUNTER
MEASURES,
INC.
ite Code
PAGE: 1
-S Street:
ORIGINAL
FILE: ORIGDURA
-W Street:
DURANT
Movements
by: Primary
DATE: 1/23/96
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ime
....
From
North
....
From
East
....
....
From
South
....
....
From
West
....
Vehicle
UTURN
egin
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UTURN
RT
THRU
LT
UTURN
RT
THRU
LT
UTURN
RT
THRU
LT
UTURN
RT
THRU
LT
Total
Total
7:00 AM
0
1
4
2
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
2
14
0
7:15
0
3
2
3
.0
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
5
2
20
0
7:30
0
6
6
2
0
3
6
1
0
0
2
2
1
2
4
2
36
1
7:45
0
10
4
7
0
4
9
0
0
1
3
2
0
3,
9
2
54
0
IR TOTAL
0
20
16
14
0
8
18
1
0
1
7
4
1
8
19
8
124
1
8:00 AM
0
7
7
3
0
1
13
2
0
0
5
0
0
6
11
8
63
0
8:15
0
10
10
4
0
4
12
0
0
1
4
5
1
3
10
5
68
1
8:30
0
10
3
3
0
6
13
2
0
0
5
1
0
7
8
4
62
0
8:45
0
16
14
2
0
6
14
0
0
1
7
8
0
6
13
7
94
0
IR TOTAL
0
43
34
12
0
17
52
4
0
2
21
14
1
22
42
24
287
1
-----------------------------------------------------
- -
- - --
Break ------------------------------------------------------------
4:00 .PM
0
17
13
6
0
4
17
4
0
2
16
7
2
9
17
17
129
2
4:15
0
12
7
6
0
5
12
1
0
1
11
6
1
7
20
14
102
1
4:30
0
9
4
6
0
6
17
0
0
1
8
8
3
15
23
9
106
3
4:45
0
11
5
6
0
7
15
0
0
0
10
8
0
3
21
8
94
0
IR TOTAL
0
49
29
24
0
22
61
5
0
4
45
29
6
34
81
48
431
6
5:00 PM
0
13
8
8
0
5
18
2
0
1
18
8
0
11
19
16
127
0.
5:15
0
9
8
6
0
2
10
2
0
0
19
6
1
7
13
12
94
1
5:30
0
7
6
5
0
7
15
0
0
0
11
5
1
11
17
9
93
1
5:45
0
7
7
5
0
4
11
0
0
1
10
4
0
2
18
6
75
0
TOTAL
0
36
29
24
0
18
. 54
4
0
2
58
23
2
31
67
43
389
2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Y TOTAL
0
148
108
74
0
65
185
14
0
9
131
70
10
95
209
123
1231
10
COUNTER MEASURES, INC.
.itm Code :
|-S Street: ORIGINAL
:-W Street: DURANT
�
___________'-----____-----_---____________--_____--_______------------
Movwmonto by: Pri ~
PEAK
PERIOD ANALYSIS FOR THE
PERIOD: 8:00
AM -
9:00 AN
DIRECTION
START
PEAK H8
.......'...
VOLUMES ...........
...... PERCENTS
.......
PEAK
HOUR
FACTOR
��
UTUKN Right
Thru Left
Total
UlUKN Right
Thnu
Left
------------------`----------------------------------------------------------------------------
North
0:00
AM
0 .70
O 43
34 12
09
- 40
30
13
East
8:00
AN
0.07
O 17
52 4
71
' 23
71
5
South
V:OV
AN
0.58
O 2
21 14
37
- 5
57
38
West
V:OO
AM
0.85
t 22
42 24
88
- 15
40
27
Entire
Intersection
North
8:00
AM
V'/O
V 43
34 12
89
- 40
38
13
East
0.87
V 17
52 4
73
- 23
71
S
South
0.58
0 2
21 14
37
- 5
67
38
DURANT
43
\
/
24
---- |
42 88
22 —�
PAGE: 1
FILE: ORIGDURA
DATE* 1/23/96
________
17
73 52
L A
37
14 21 �
��—' .
U | [
������......�«
ORIGINAL
&-5
'
to Code-:
•S Street: ORIGINAL
,W Street: DURANT
-------------- - - - - --
COUNTER MEASURES, INC.
Movements by: Primary
----------------------------------------- - - - - --
PAGE: 1
FILE: ORIGDURA
DATE: 1/23/96
-------------------------------------------- - - - - --
PEAK PERIOD ANALYSIS FOR THE PERIOD: 4:30 PM - 5:30 PH
DIRECTION
START
PEAK HR
...........
VOLUMES
...........
...... PERCENTS .......
4
FROM
PEAK HOUR
FACTOR
UTURN
Right
Thru
Left
Total
UTURN Right
Thru
left
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
North
4:30 PM
0.80
0
42
25
26
93
- 45
27
28
East
4:30 PM
0.84
0
20
60
4
84
- 24
71
5
South
4 :30 PM
0.81
0
2
55
30
87
- 2
63
34
West
4:30 PM
0.84
4
36
76
45
157
- 23
48
29
Entire
Intersection
North
4:30 PM
0.80
0
42
25
26
93
- 45
27
28
East
0.84
0
20
60
4
84
24
71
5
South
0.81
0
2
55
30
87
2
63
34
West
0.84
4
36
76
45
157
- 23
48
29
[UTURN] 0 42
............. ............................... L
DURANT
45
76 157
36
J
0 FUTURNI
65•:..
30
ORIGINAL
A -6
87-7
55 2
DURANT .........
20
84
60
4
87-7
55 2
DURANT .........
C 1 b i - 7-14 - 1�
Awl
N
O y
3Z)
3
4
1 -
�y'.1
- .q S-
I
l
OvT
�,i�
y 1
OPEN c1010
15-7. ' -0
3v- <i-, � s q 3
3
- - 3
A -8
INTERSECTION
LEVEL OF SERVICE
DEFINITIONS
Level of Service A: Describes a condition where no vehicle waits longer than a few
seconds for a gap in traffic. Typically, the intersection approaches appear quite open,
turning movements are easily made, and nearly all drivers find freedom of operation. At
a signalized location, the driver's primary concern is the chance that the light will be red
when they approach.
Level of Service B: Represents stable conditions where occasionally there is a delay
before a gap appears in the traffic on the through roadway. Many drivers begin to feel
somewhat restricted within groups of vehicles.
Level of Service C: Stable conditions continue. Occasionally drivers may have to wait for
more than a minute or so for gaps to appear on the through roadway or through an
entire red signal indication, and backups may develop behind turning vehicles. Most
drivers feel somewhat restricted, but not objectionably so.
Level of Service D: Encompasses a zone of increasing restriction approaching instability.
Delays to approaching vehicles may be substantial during short peaks within the peak
period, but enough signal cycles or gaps in traffic coupled with lower demand occur to
permit periodic clearance of developing queues, thus preventing excessive back -ups.
This level is typically used for design purposes in urban areas such as Denver.
Level of Service E: Capacity - represents the most vehicles that an intersection can
accommodate. At capacity, there may be long queues of vehicles waiting upstream in the
intersection and delays may be substantial.
Level of Service F: Represents jammed conditions. Back -ups from locations downstream
or on the cross street may restrict or prevent movement of vehicles out of one or more
approaches; hence, volumes carried are not predictable.
Source: "Highway Capacity Manual," Highway Research Board Special Report 209, Third Edition, 1994.
A -9
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1
File Name ................
AC1AM95.HC0
Streets:
(N -S) ORIGINAL
(SH 82)
(E -W)
COOPER
Analyst ...................
MRM
Date of
Analysis..........
1/30/96
Other Information.........
BEFORE NORTH
LOT
CLOSURE,
AM
PEAK
All -way
Stop - controlled
Intersection
Eastbound
Westbound
---------------------------
Northbound
Southbound
L T
- - -- - - --
R
L T
R
L T
R
L
T
R
No. Lanes
-
0> 1<
- --
0
- - -- - - -- -
0> l<
- --
0
-
- -- - - --
0> 1<
- - --
0
- - --
0>
- - --
1<
- - --
0
Volumes
22 26
13
18 60
111
2 48
12
65
65.
17
PHF
.95 .95
.95
.95 .95
.95
.95 .95
.95
.95
.95
.95
Grade
0
0
0
0
MC's (o)
0 0
0
0 0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
SU /RV' s(
o)
0 0
0
0 0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
CV's (o)
0 0
0
0 0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
PCE's
------------------------------------------------------------------
1.1 1.1
1.1
1.1 1.1
1.1
1.1 1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
- -
1.1
- - --
A -10
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2
********************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Volume Summary and Capacity Analysis WorkSheet
- - - - - - - -
- - - - - -
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
EB
WB
NB
SB
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
LT Flow Rate
23
19
2
68
RT Flow Rate
14
117
13
18
Approach Flow Rate
64
199
66
154
Proportion LT
0.36
0.10
0.03
0.44
Proportion RT
0.22
0.59
0.20
0.12
Opposing Approach Flow Rate
199
64
154
66
Conflicting Approaches Flow Rate
220
220
263
263
Proportion, Subject Approach Flow Rate
0.13
0.41
0.14
0.32
Proportion, Opposing Approach Flow Rate
0.41
0.13
0.32
0.14
Lanes on Subject Approach
1
1
1
1
Lanes on Opposing Approach
1
1
1
1
LT, Opposing Approach
19
23
68
2
RT, Opposing Approach
117
14
18
13
LT, Conflicting Approaches
70
70
42
42
RT, Conflicting Approaches
31
31
131
131
Proportion LT, Opposing Approach
0.10
0.36
0.44
0.03
Proportion RT, Opposing Approach
0.59
0.22
0.12
0.20
Proportion LT, Conflicting Approaches
0.32
0.32
0.16
0.16
Proportion RT, Conflicting Approaches
0.14
0.14
0.50
0.50
Approach Capacity
-----------------------------------------------------------------
557
488
452
646
- - - - --
A -11
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3
********************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
Intersection Performance Summary
A -12
Approach
Approach
V/C
Average
Movement
Flow Rate
Capacity
Ratio
Total Delay
LOS
- - --
---- - - - - --
EB
---- - - - - --
64
--- - - - - --
557
- - - - - --
0.11
----- - - - - --
1.5
A
WB
199
488
0.41
4.7
A
NB
66
452
0.15
1.7
A
SB
154
646
0.24
2.5
A
Intersection Delay
= 3.17
Level of
Service (Intersection)
= A
A -12
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1
File Name ................ AC1PM95.HC0
Streets: (N -S) ORIGINAL (SH 82) .(E-W) COOPER
Analyst. ****** :**'** ..... MRM
Date of Analysis.......... 1/30/96
Other Information......... BEFORE NORTH LOT CLOSURE, PM PEAK
All -way Stop - controlled Intersection
A -13
Eastbound
Westbound
Northbound
Southbound
L
T
R
L
T
--
R
L
T
R
L
T
R
No. Lanes
- - --
0>
- - -- -
1<
- --
0
- - -- -
0>
- -
1<
- --
0
- - --
0>
----
1<
----
0
- - -- -
0>
- --
1<
- - --
0
Volumes
69
88
16
24
67
109
10
86
24
95
53
41
PHF
.95
.95
.95
.95
.95
.95
.95
.95
.95
.95
.95
.95
Grade
0
0
0
0
MC's (°s)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SU /RV' s( °s )
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CV's (o)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
PCE's
------------------------------------------------------------------
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
-
1.1
- - - --
A -13
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2
Volume Summary and Capacity Analysis.WorkSheet
---------------------------------------------------------------
EB WB NB SB
LT Flow Rate
73
25
11
100
RT Flow Rate
17
115
25
43
Approach Flow Rate
183
211
127
199
Proportion LT
0.40
0.12
0.09
0.50
Proportion RT
0.09
0.55
0.20
0.22
Opposing Approach Flow Rate
211
183
199
127
Conflicting Approaches Flow Rate
326
326
394
394
Proportion, Subject Approach Flow Rate
0.25
0.29
0.18
0.28
Proportion, Opposing Approach Flow Rate
0.29
0.25
0.28
0.18
Lanes on Subject Approach
1
1
1
1
Lanes on Opposing Approach
1
1
1
1
LT, Opposing Approach
25
73
100
11
RT, Opposing Approach
115
17
43
25
LT, Conflicting Approaches
111
ill
98
98
RT, Conflicting Approaches
68
68
132
132
Proportion LT, Opposing Approach
0.12
0.40
0.50
0.09
Proportion RT, Opposing Approach
0.55
0.09
0.22
0.20
Proportion LT, Conflicting Approaches
0.34
0.34
0.25
0.25
Proportion RT, Conflicting Approaches
0.21
0.21
0.34
0.34
Approach Capacity
-----------------------------------------------------------------
593
430
388
539
- - - - --
A -14
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
.HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3
Intersection Performance Summary
A -15
Approach
Approach
V/C
Average
Movement
Flow Rate
Capacity
Ratio
Total Delay
LOS
EB
183
593
0.31
3:2
A
WB
211
430
0.49
6.4
B
NB
127
388
0.33
3.5
A
SB
199
539
0.37
4.1
A
Intersection Delay
= 4.44
Level
of Service (Intersection)
= A
A -15
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1
********************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
File Name ................ AC1PM98.HC0
Streets: (N -S) ORIGINAL (SH 82) (E -W) COOPER
Analyst ................... MRM
Date of Analysis.......... 1/30/96
Other Information......... AFTER NORTH LOT CLOSURE, AM PEAK
All -way Stop - controlled Intersection
A -16
Eastbound
Westbound
Northbound
Southbound
L
T
R
L
T
R
L
T
R
L
T
R
No. Lanes
- - -- -
0>
- -- -
1<
- --
0
- - --
0>
- - -- -
1<
- --
0
- - --
0>
- - --
1<
- - --
0
- - -- -
0>
- --
1<
- - --
0
Volumes
22
23
16
17
58
107
4
52
11
61
69
17
PHF
.95
.95
.95
.95
.95
.95
.95
.95
.95
.95
.95
.95
Grade
0
0
0
0
MC's (o)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SU /RV' s( °s )
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CV's (o)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
PCE's
------------------------------------------------------------------
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
-
1.1
- - - --
A -16
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2
****************************************************************
Volume Summary and Capacity Analysis WorkSheet
LT Flow Rate
RT Flow Rate
Approach Flow Rate
Proportion LT
Proportion RT
Opposing Approach Flow Rate
Conflicting Approaches Flow Rate
Proportion, Subject Approach Flow Rate
Proportion, Opposing Approach Flow Rate
Lanes on Subject Approach
Lanes on Opposing Approach
LT, Opposing Approach
RT, Opposing Approach
LT, Conflicting Approaches
RT, Conflicting Approaches
Proportion LT, Opposing Approach
Proportion RT, Opposing Approach
Proportion LT, Conflicting Approaches
Proportion RT, Conflicting Approaches
Approach Capacity
A -17
EB
WB
NB
SB
----------------------------
23
18
4
64
17
113
12
18
64
192
71
155
0.36
0.09
0.06
0.41
0.27
0.59
0.17
0.12
192
64
155
71
226
226
256
256
0.13
0.40
0.15
0.32
0.40
0.13
0.32
0.15
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
18
23
64
4
113
17
18
12
68
68
41
41
30
30
130
130
0.09
0.36
0.41
0.06
0.59
0.27
0.12
0.17
0.30
0.30
0.16
0.16
0.13
0.13
0.51
0.51
551
486
476
646
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3
Intersection Performance Summary
Intersection Delay = 3.05
Level of Service (Intersection) = A
A -18
Approach
Approach
V/C
Average
Movement
---- - - - - --
Flow Rate
---- - - - - --
Capacity
--- - - - - --
Ratio
- - - - -
Total Delay
----- - -
LOS
- --
EB
64
551
--
0.12
- - --
1.6
-
A
WB
192
486
0.39
4.5
A
NB
71
476
0.15
1.8
A
SB
155
646
0.24
2.5
A
Intersection Delay = 3.05
Level of Service (Intersection) = A
A -18
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1
File Name ................ AC1PM98.HC0
Streets: (N -S) ORIGINAL (SH 82) (E -W) COOPER
Analyst ................... MRM
Date of Analysis.......... 1/30/96
Other Information......... AFTER NORTH LOT CLOSURE, PM PEAK
All -way Stop - controlled Intersection
A -19
Eastbound
Westbound
Northbound
Southbound
L
T
R
L
T
R
L
T
R
L
T
R
No. Lanes
- - --
0>
---- ----
1<
0
- - --
0>
- - -- -
1<
- --
0
- - -- -
0>
- --
1<
- - --
0
- - --
0>
- - -- -
1<
- --
0
Volumes
69
79
25
24
62
102
15
.93
23
82
66
41
PHF
.95
.95 .
.95
.95
.95
.95
.95
.95
.95
.95
.95
.95
Grade
0
0
0
0
MC's (o)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SU /RV' s( %)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CV's (a)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
PCE's
------------------------------------------------------------------
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
- -
1.1
- - --
A -19
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS.: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2
-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Volume Summary and Capacity Analysis WorkSheet
---------------------------------------------------------------
EB WB NB SB
LT Flow Rate
73
25
16
86
RT Flow Rate
26
107
24
43
Approach Flow Rate
182
197
138
198
Proportion LT
0.40
0.13
0.12
0.43
Proportion RT
0.14
0.54
0.17
0.22
Opposing Approach Flow Rate
197
182
198
138
Conflicting Approaches Flow Rate
336
336
379
379
Proportion, Subject Approach Flow Rate
0.25
0.28
0.19
0.28
Proportion, Opposing Approach Flow Rate
0.28
0.25
0.28,
0.19
Lanes on Subject Approach
1
1
1
1
Lanes on Opposing Approach
1
1
1
1
LT, Opposing Approach
25
73
86
16
RT, Opposing Approach
107
26
43
24
LT, Conflicting Approaches
102
102
98
98
RT, Conflicting Approaches
67
67
133
133
Proportion LT, Opposing Approach
0.13
0.40
0.43
0.12
Proportion RT, Opposing Approach
0.54
0.14
0.22
0.17
Proportion LT, Conflicting Approaches
0.30
0.30
0.26
0.26
Proportion RT, Conflicting Approaches
0.20
0.20
0.35
0.35
Approach Capacity
-----------------------------------------------------------------
587
431
428
540
- - - - --
A -20
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3
********************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
Intersection Performance Summary
Intersection Delay = 4.17
Level of Service (Intersection) = A
A -21
Approach
Approach
V/C
Average
Movement
Flow Rate
Capacity
Ratio
Total Delay
LOS
---- - - - - --
EB
---- - - - - --
182
--- - - - - --
587
- - - - - --
0.31
----- - - - - --
3.3
- - --
A
WB
197
431
0.46
5.7
B.
NB
138
428
0.32
3.4
A
SB
198
540
0.37
4.0
A
Intersection Delay = 4.17
Level of Service (Intersection) = A
A -21
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1
********************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
File Name ................
Streets: (N -S) ORIGINAL (S
Major Street Direction....
Length of Time Analyzed...
Analyst ...................
Date of Analysis..........
Other Information.........
AC2AM95.HC0
H 82) (E -W) DURANT
EW
60 (min)
MRM
1/30/96
BEFORE NORTH LOT CLOSURE, AM PEAK
Two -way Stop- controlled Intersection
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes
Stop /Yield
Volumes
PHF
Grade
MCI s (°s)
SU /RVIs M
CVIS (a)
PCEIs
0>
1<
0
14
21
N
24
42
22
.95
.95
.95
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.1
1.1
1.1
0>
1<
0
14
21
N
4
52
17
.95
.95
.95
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.1
1.1
1.1
0>
1<
0
14
21
2
.95
.95
.95
Right Turn Minor Road
0
2.60
0
0
0
0
0
0'
0
0
0
1.1
.1.1
1.1I
Adjustment Factors
0>
1<
0
12
34
43
.95
.95
.95
Right Turn Minor Road
0
2.60
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.1
1.1
1.1
Vehicle
Critical
Follow -up
Maneuver
Gap (tg)
Time (tf)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Left Turn Major Road
5.00
2.10
Right Turn Minor Road
5.50
2.60
Through Traffic Minor Road
6.00
3.30
Left Turn Minor Road
6.50
3.40
A -22
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2
WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection
---------------------------------------------------------
Step 1: RT from Minor Street
NB
SB
--------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
53
60
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
1302
1291
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
1302
1291
Prob. of Queue -free State:
1.00
0.96
--------------------------------------------------------
Step 2: LT from Major Street
. WB
EB
--------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
64
69
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
1598
1589
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
1598
1589
Prob. of Queue -free State:
1.00
0.98
TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
1700
1700
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
1700
1700
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue -free State:
1.00
0.98
--------------------------------------------------------
Step 3: TH from Minor Street
NB
SB
--------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
150
152
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
910
908
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements
0.98
0.98
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
891
889
Prob. of Queue -free State:
0.97
0.96
--------------------------------------------------------
Step 4: LT from Minor Street
NB
SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
180
153
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
833
863
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor:
0.93
0.95
Adjusted Impedance Factor:
0.95
0.96
Capacity Adjustment Factor,
due to Impeding Movements
0.91
0.96
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
--------------------------------------------------
761
830
- - - - --
A-23
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3
Intersection Performance Summary
F1owRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay
Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay LOS By App
-- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- ------ - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - - --
NB L 17 761 > > >
NB T 24 891 > 846 > 4.5 > A 4.5
NB R 2 1302 > > >
SB L 14 830 > > >
SB T. 40 889 > 1034 > 3.9 > A 3.9
SB R 50 1291 > > >
EB L 28 1589 2.3. A 0.6
WB L 4 1598 2.3 A 0.1
Intersection Delay = 2.0
A -24
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1
********************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
File Name ................
Streets: (N -S) ORIGINAL (S
Major Street Direction....
Length of Time Analyzed...
Analyst ...................
Date of Analysis..........
Other Information.........
AC2PM95.HC0
H 82) (E- W).DURANT
EW
60 (min)
MRM
1/30/96
BEFORE NORTH LOT CLOSURE, PM PEAK
Two -way Stop - controlled Intersection
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes
Stop /Yield
Volumes
PHF
Grade
MC's (o)
SU /RVIs (o)
CVIs (o)
PCEIs
0>
1<
0
30
55
N
45
76
36
.95
.95
.95
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.1
1.1
1.1
0>
1<
0
30
55
N
4
60
20
.95
.95
.95
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.1
1.1
1.1
0>
1<
0
30
55
2
.95
.95
.95
Right Turn Minor Road
0
2.60
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.1
1.1
1.1
Adjustment Factors
0>
1<
0
26
25
42
.95
.95
.95
Right Turn Minor Road
0
2.60
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.1
1.1
1.1
Vehicle
Critical
Follow -up
Maneuver
Gap (tg)
Time (tf)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Left.Turn Major Road
5.00
2.10
Right Turn Minor Road
5.50
2.60
Through Traffic Minor Road
6.00
3.30
Left Turn Minor Road
6.50
3.40
A -25
• Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2
********************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection
--------------------------------------------------------
Step 1: RT from Minor Street
NB
SE
--------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
94
70
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
1241
1276
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
1241
1276
Prob. of Queue -free State:
1.00
0.96
--------------------------------------------------------
Step 2: LT from Major Street
WB
EE
--------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
112
80
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
1516
1570
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
1516
1570
Prob. of Queue -free State:
1.00
0.97
TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
1700
1700
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
1700
1700
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue -free State:
1.00
0.96
--------------------------------------------------------
Step 3: TH from Minor Street -
NB
SB
--------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
223
231
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
833
825
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements
0.96
0.96
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
801
793
Prob. of Queue -free State:
0.92
0.96
--------------------------------------------------------
Step 4: LT from Minor Street
NB
SB
--------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
246
242
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
763
767
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor:
0.93
0.88
Adjusted Impedance Factor:
0.94
0.91
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding.Movements
0.91
0.91
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
--------------------------------------------------
693
698
- - - - --
A -26
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3
Intersection Performance Summary
A -27
FlowRate
MoveCap
SharedCap
Avg.Total
Delay
Movement
-- - - - - --
v(pcph)
- - - - --
Cm(pcph)
- - - - --
Csh(pcph)
- - - - --
Delay
------ - - - - --
LOS
- --
By App
--- - - - - --
NB
L
35
693 >
>
- - -
>
NB
T
64
801 >
765
> 5.4
> B
5.4
NB
R
2
1241 >
>
>
SB
L
30
698 >
>
>
SB
T
29
793 >
913
> 4.5
> A
4.5
SB
R
48
1276 >
>
>
EB
L
52
1570
2.4
A
0.7
WB
L
4
1516
2.4
A
0.1
Intersection
Delay =
2.4
A -27
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1
********************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
File Name ................
Streets: (N -S) ORIGINAL (S
Major Street Direction....
Length of Time Analyzed.:.
Analyst ...................
Date of Analysis..........
Other Information.........
AC2AM98.HC0
H 82) (E -W) DURANT
EW
60 (min)
MRM
1/30/96
AFTER NORTH LOT CLOSURE, AM PEAK
Two -way Stop - controlled Intersection
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes
Stop /Yield
Volumes
PHF
Grade
MCIs (o)
SU /RV I s (OW)
CVIs (o)
PCEIs
0>
1<
0
15
27
N
23
42
23
.95
.95
.95
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.1
1.1
1.1
0>
1<
0
15
27
N
4
52
17
.95
.95
.95'
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0li
0
0
0
1.1
1.1
1.1
0>
1<
0
15
27
2
.95
.95
.95
Right Turn Minor Road
0
2.60
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.1
1.1
1.1
Adjustment Factors
0>
1<
0
12
41
42
.95
.95
.95
Right Turn Minor Road
0
2.60
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.1
----------
1.1
-
1.1
- - - --
Vehicle
Critical
Follow -up
Maneuver
Gap (tg)
Time (tf)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Left Turn Major Road
5.00
2.10
Right Turn Minor Road
5.50
2.60
Through Traffic Minor Road
6.00
3.30
Left Turn Minor Road
6.50
3.40
A -28
•
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2
WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection
--------------------------------------------------------
Step 1: RT from Minor Street
NB
SB
--------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
54
60
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
1300
1291
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
1300
1291
Prob. of Queue -free State:
1.00
0.96
--------------------------------------------------------
Step 2: LT from Major Street
WB
EB
--------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
65
69
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
1596
1589
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
1596
1589
Prob. of Queue -free State:
1.00
0.98
TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
1700
1700
RT Saturation Flow Rate: ( pcphpl)
1700
1700
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue -free State:
1.00
0.98
--------------------------------------------------------
Step 3: TH from Minor Street
NB
SB
--------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
150
152
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
910
908
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements
0.98
0.98
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
892
890
Prob. of Queue -free State:
0.97
0.95
--------------------------------------------------------
Step 4: LT from Minor Street
NB
SB
--------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
182
156
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
831
860
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor:
0.93
0.95
Adjusted Impedance Factor:
0.95
0.96
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements
0.91
0.96
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
--------------------------------------------------
756
823
- - - - --
A -29
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 211 Page 3
Intersection Performance Summary
Intersection Delay = 2.1
A-30
FlowRate
MoveCap
SharedCap
Avg.Total
Delay
Movement.
v(pcph)
Cm(pcph)
Csh(pcph)
Delay
LOS
By App
NB
L
18
756 >
>
>
NB
T
31
892 >
849
> 4.5
> A
4.5
NB
R
2
1300 >
>
>
SB
L
14
823 >
>
>
SB
T
47
890 >
1019
> 4.0
> A
.4.0
SB
R
48
1291 >
>
>
EB
L
26
1589
2.3
A
0.6
WB
L
4
1596
2.3
A
0.1
Intersection Delay = 2.1
A-30
0
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1
File Name ................
Streets: (N -S) ORIGINAL (S
Major Street Direction....
Length of Time Analyzed...
Analyst ...................
Date of Analysis..........
Other Information.........
AC2PM98.HC0
H 82) (E -W) DURANT
EW
60 (min)
MRM
1/30/96
AFTER NORTH LOT CLOSURE, PM PEAK
Two -way Stop - controlled Intersection
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes
Stop /Yield
Volumes
PHF
Grade
MCIs (a)
SU /RVIs ( %)
CVIs (o)
PCEIs
0>
1<
0
31
68
N
43
76
38
.95
.95
.95
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0'
1.1
1.1
1.1,
0>
1<
0
31
68
N
4
60
20
.95
.95
.95
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.1
1.1
1.1
0>
1<
0
31
68
2'
.95
.95
.95'.
Right Turn Minor Road
0
2.60
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.1
1.1
1.1
Adjustment Factors
0>
1<
0
26
48
41
.95
.95
.95
Right Turn Minor Road
0
2.60
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.1
1.1
1.1
Vehicle
Critical
Follow -up
Maneuver
------------------------------------------------------------------
Gap (tg)
Time (tf)
Left Turn Major Road
5.00
2.10
Right Turn Minor Road
5.50
2.60
Through Traffic Minor Road
6.00
3.30
Left Turn Minor Road
6.50
3.40
A -31
I
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2
WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection
--------------------------------------------------------
Step 1: RT from Minor Street
NB
SB
--------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
95
70
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
1239
1276
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
1239
1276
Prob. of Queue -free State:
1.00
0.96
--------------------------------------------------------
Step 2: LT from Major Street
WB
EB
--------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
114
80
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
1513
1570
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
1513
1570
Prob. of Queue -free State:
1.00
0.97
TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
1700
1700
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
1700
1700
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue -free State:
1.00
0.97
--------------------------------------------------------
Step 3: TH from Minor Street
NB
SB
--------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
222
231
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
834
825
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements
0.96
0.96
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
803
794
Prob. of Queue -free State:
0.90
0.93
-=------------------------------------------------------
Step 4: LT from Minor Street
NB
SB
--------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows.: (vph)
256
247
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
753
762
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor:
0.89
0.87
Adjusted Impedance Factor:
0.92
0.90
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements
0.89
0.90
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
--------------------------------------------------
667
684
- - - - --
A -32
a
0
• Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3
********************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
Intersection Performance Summary
Intersection Delay =
A-33
2.7
LOS
> B
> A
A
A
Delay
By App
5.6
RU
0.6
0.1
F1owRate
MoveCap
SharedCap
Avg.Total
Movement
v(pcph)
Cm(pcph)
Csh(pcph)
Delay
NB
L
36
.667 >
>
NB
T
79
803 >
760
> 5.6
NB
R
2
1239 >
>
SB
L
30
684 >
>
SB
T
56
794 >
879
> 4.8
SB
R
47
1276 >
>
EB
L
50
1570
2.4
WB
L
4
1513
2.4
Intersection Delay =
A-33
2.7
LOS
> B
> A
A
A
Delay
By App
5.6
RU
0.6
0.1