The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutlanduse case.AP.Silverlode Dr.A19-96CAW-T-OAD SUMMARY SHEET - CITY O,P-,�SPEN DATE RECEIVED: 3/19/96 CASE # A19 -96 DATE COMPLETE: STAFF: Suzanne Wolff TIARCEL ID # 2737-074-30-004... +005 + 006 + 008 + 009 + 010 + 012 + 013 ,; PROJECT NAME: Silverlode Subdivision (in Williams Ranch) PUD/Plat Amendment Project Address: Silverlode Drive (see attached Plat map) APPLICANT: Williams Ranch Joint Venture Address/Phone: 312 AABC, Aspen, CO 81611; 925 -6717 REPRESENTATIVE: Stevens, Tom Address/Phone: 312 AABC, Aspen, CO 81611; 925 -6717 FEES: PLANNING $450 # APPS RECEIVED 3 ENGINEER $260 # PLATS RECEIVED 3 HOUSING $0 ENV HEALTH $0 TYPE OF APPLICATION: TOTAL $710 Staff Approval ❑ City Attorney B City Engineer ❑ Zoning ❑ Housing ❑ Environmental Health ❑ Parks DATE REFERRED: `gym ❑ Aspen Fire Marshal ❑ City Water ❑ City Electric ❑ Clean Air Board ❑ Open Space Board ❑ Other: INITIALS: & APPROVAL: Ordinance/Resolution # Staff Approv Plat Recor e CLOSED/FILED DATE: ROUTE TO: ❑ CDOT ❑ ACSD ❑ Holy Cross Electric ❑ Rocky Mtn Natural Gas ❑ Aspen School District ❑ Other: DATE DUE: INITIALS: S&/ M Date: Date: g Book Page June 2, 1994 Mr. Chuck Roth, P.E. City of Aspen Engineering Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Mr. Roth: LEIGH, SCOTT & CLEARY, INC. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING & TRAFFIC ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS 1889 York Street Denver, CO 80206 (303) 333 -1105 FAX (303) 333 -1107 Re: Williams Ranch Traffic (LSC #940340) In accordance with our March 31, 1994 proposal, we have completed a traffic impact analysis of the proposed Williams Ranch residential project in Aspen, Colorado. Figure 1, enclosed, illustrates the location of the 12.7 -acre project site. Ih general, the site is located within the northeast corner of the City with access planned to and from Park Circle via Smuggler Mountain Road, Brown Lane and Spruce Street The project's land use plan envisions a total of 54 homes including 18 single - family homes, 20 duplex homes and 16 "free market" lots. For purposes of this analysis, the "free market" lots have been assumed to be developed with. single-family homes. The remainder of this report presents our findings and recommendations related to the probable traffic impacts associated with buildout of the proposed development. Existina Transportation Facilities and Traffic The transportation system which would serve the Williams Ranch site is primarily characterized by the somewhat dendritic roadway network which generally conforms to the hillside topography of the surrounding area. Road- ways in the vicinity of the site are generally paved, two -lane routes with 20 or 25 mph posted speed limits. Exceptions include the northern section of Spruce Street, which is narrow gravel route, and two eastbound, one- way streets (King Street and Nicholas Lane). The amount of existing peak -hour and 24 -hour traffic activity is shown on Figure 1 for several study area locations. As noted, these counts were conducted during mid -March of this year (data printouts are enclosed). Inspection of these traffic activity levels and patterns together with on -site observations reveal that the Gibson/ Park Avenue corridor functions as an important collector route between Red Mountain Road and Cooper Avenue. Similarly, the South Avenue/Park Circle route functions as a minor collector route for the surrounding neighbor- hood. All other nearby streets function as local access roadways. Figure 2 illustrates the major transportation elements associated with travel within the study area. in addition to the roadway system itself, intersection traffic controls, designated pedestrian routes and bus stops are shown. It is noted that the Roaring Fork Transit Agency (RFTA) provides a high level of public transit service to the neighborhood via its Hunter Creek shuttle with 20- minute headways between vehicles from 7:00 Attic to 12:00 midnight Mr. Chuck Roth, P.E. Page 2 June 2, 1994 Estimated Traffic Generation r The preparation of traffic generation estimates for the Williams Ranch development requires an approach which takes int6 account the unique characteristics of the Aspen community. First of all, the majority of the proposed homes are, intended to serve as employee housing. Secondly, the site and surrounding area is provided with excellent transit service with a track record of good ridership. In addition, the Town's plans for implementation of a new on- street pay parking program later this year is expected to further promote the use of alternative (non- automobile) modes of transportation. As a result, we have applied traffic generation rates to the Williams Ranch project which are significantly less than the ten and six vehicle -trips per day which are typically applied to single- and multi - family homes, respectively, based on national averages published by the Institute of Trans- portation Engineers (ITE). The current Pitkin County Road Standards and Specifications document suggests average weekday generation rates of four trips per single - family dwelling and three trips per multi- family dwelling, assuming strong transit service. For the "free market" lots, we have increased the single - family rate by an additional 2.9 daily trips as recommended by ITE for households with more than two vehicles. Finally, we have calculated peak -hour rates for each housing category by applying the peak -hour to average weekday ratio cited under Category 210 of the ITE "Trig Generation" document. For purposes of this analysis, we divided the site into the three traffic access zones illustrated in Figure 3. As indicated on the project's site plan, one "free market" lot would have access off of Spruce Street (Zone 1), eight duplex homes would access off of Brown Lane (Zone 2), and the remaining 45 homes would have access via Smuggler Mountain Road. Table 1, enclosed, illustrates the expected traffic generation characteristics of each of these zones. As indicated, buildout and full occupancy of Williams Ranch is projected to generate 242 average weekday vehicle -trips (121 in and 121 out). Of these, 16 would enter and nine would exit during the peak -hour. Estimated Traffic Distribution The directional distribution of project - generated traffic is a key element in the determination of impacts of a given development. The distribution itself is influenced by a number of factors including the site's relative location within the surrounding community, the type of proposed land use, existing roadways and travel patterns, and the specifics of the project's access plan. In this particular instance, the traffic patterns exhibited in the existing counts shown on Figure 1 give a good indication of the probable Williams Ranch distribution. Figure 3 presents the percentage traffic distribution which is expected to be applicable to this development. As indicated, about 50 percent of the Williams Ranch traffic is projected to be oriented towards the west via Gibson Avenue with the remainder towards the south via Park and Neale Avenues. Figure 3 also illustrates the general distribution of average weekday traffic onto the surrounding roadway system. As indicated, the maximum concentration of project - generated traffic is expected on Smuggler Mountain Road where about 106 additional vehicle -trips per day in each direction are forecasted. Estimated Traffic Assignment Figure 4 illustrates the assignment of peak -hour traffic generated by Williams Ranch to several intersections throughout the study area. These estimates were derived by application of the Figure 3 distribution percentages to the Table 1 generation estimates. Mr. Chuck Roth, P.E. Page 3 June 2, 1994 Proiected Traffic Impacts Figure 5 illustrates the peak -hour, combination of project - generated traffic (Figure 4) and existing traffic (Figure 1) at four key intersections in the vicinity of the site. In order to assess the impact of the proposed residential development, peak -hour capacity analyses have been prepared for the four key intersections for both existing and existing plus site - generated traffic conditions. 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 along with the threshold values applicable to this analysis are included on Page A -20 in the Appendix. The following tabulation summarizes the results of these LOS analyses which are also included in the Appendix section to this report. As indicated, all four intersections can be expected to operate a high Level of Service after full buildout and occupancy of the proposed development. Furthermore, these calculations are somewhat conservative since existing traffic activity has not been reduced to account for anticipated traffic decreases associated with the Paid Parking Plan. Table 2 LEVEL OF SERVICE COMPARISON Williams Ranch AM Peak - Hour PM Peak - Hour Minimum Level Minimum Level Reserve of Reserve of Intersection Assumed Traffic Capacity Service ' Capacity Service ' Spruce/Park Circle Existing 804 A (404) 785 A (385) Existing + Project 815 A (415) 737 A (337) Brown/Park Circle Existing 877 A (477 812 A (412) Existing + Project 871 A (471) 800 A (400) South /Gibson Existing 656 A (256) 796 A (396) Existing + Project 652 A (252) 783 A (383) Gibson/Park Circle Existing 861 A (461) 810 A (410) Existing + Project 855 A (455) 796 A (396) Note: Numbers in parenthesis represent the amount of peak -hour reserve capacity remaining (above 400) at each intersection in order for traffic operations to remain at Level of Service "A" Mr. Chuck Roth, P.E. Page 4 June 2, 1994 VMT Analysis Another perspective related to the traffic impact of Williams Ranch relates to its contribution to total Vehicle Miles of Travel (VNM within the Aspen Air Qualiay non - attainment area. In order to calculate such impacts, the following assumptions have been made based on our experience with similar analyses for the Aspen area: • Average Daily Traffic = 90 percent x (Average Weekday Traffic) Average one -way trip length in Aspen non - attainment area = 3.0 miles. • Average one -way trip length for Down- Valley employees within Aspen non - attainment area = 4.9 miles. • Down - Valley employees who use bus = 30 percent • No. of employees per employee home = 1.5 • Down- Valley employee auto occupancy = 1.5 Based on the above assumptions, the daily VMT associated with Williams Ranch is calculated as follows: L Free Market Home VMT = 2. Proposed Employee Housing VMT = 3. Down - Valley Employee Loss VMT = Net VMT increase = 110x90 %x3.0= +297 132 x 900/c x 3.0 = +356 38x1.5x701110 /•1.5x2x5 /7x4.9= -186 +467 As it relates to this projected VMT increase, the following calculations apply to particulates (PMro emissions) associated with Williams Ranch: 1. Major Arterial = (30% x 467) 0.0064 = 0.90 2. Minor Arterial = (40% x 467) 0.01.10 = 2.43 3. Local Streets = (30010 x 467) 0.0184 = 2.52 4. Wintertime Sanding = 467 x 0.001 = 0.47 Total Pounds of Particulates added per day = 632 Recommended Transportation Improvements As discussed earlier in this report, present traffic patterns in the vicinity of the study area indicate that the Gibson/Park Avenue route between Red Mountain Road and Cooper functions as a neighborhood collector corridor. Similarly, the South Avenue/Park Circle route functions as a minor collector. Figure 6 illustrates these roadway routes together with various recommended transportation improvements throughout the study area. The following discussion presents these recommendations by category of improvement 1. South Avenue. The most obvious roadway deficiency within the study area is the poor intersection designs found along South Avenue at Gibson and in the vicinity of Spruce Street. Vehicular paths through these intersections are poorly defined, and the Spruce intersection is further complicated by the adjacent Oak and Cottonwood roadway connections. As a result, traffic accident potential for both vehicles and pedestrians is higher than it should be. Figure 7 illustrates three recommended projects which clearly Mr. Chuck Roth, P.E. Page 5 June 2, 1994 define the preferred vehicular paths along South Avenue. Conceptual cost estimates for this work are $4,100, $4,250 and $4,900 for projects 1, 2 and 3, respectively. 2. Roadwav Widths. The width of the two -lane, two -way rotadways within the study area varies from about 12 feet to about 29 feet, with 24 being somewhat typical. Even though a 24 -foot width is desirable under "ideal" conditions (without on- street parking), we recommend that a 20 -foot minimum width be applied to the collector routes in the study area, and an 18 -foot minimum be applied to the remaining local streets. Figure 6 identifies three short roadway sections where the 20 -foot minimum does not presently exist Widening in these areas is estimated to cost about $5,000. In addition, Spruce Street adjacent to Williams Ranch currently has a narrow unpaved cross - section of as little as 12 feet The Williams Ranch plan envisions one free- market lot to have access via Spruce, and emergency access is also proposed off of this route. We recommend that this 600 -foot reach of Spruce be widened to an 18 -foot cross - section. 3. Speed Limits. We recommend that a uniform 20 -mph speed limit be applied to all streets north of the Gibson/Park Avenue corridor. 4. Speed Bumps. At the present time, the only speed bump within the study area is located on the east side of South Avenue at Oak and Cottonwood Lanes. As indicated on Figure 7, it is recommended to be relocated. In addition, the two cross - gutters located across the Spruce/Park Circle intersection serve to slow "through traffic. No additional speed reduction measures are recommended at this time. 5. Warning Signs. As indicated on Figure 6, a "Stop Ahead" warning sign is recommended for installation along Gibson in advance of Neale Avenue. Visibility of this three -way Stop is somewhat restricted for eastbound drivers. No other warning signs are recommended 6. Pedestrian Facilities. Adequate pedestrian access is a key part of the transportation system serving the Williams Ranch area. Existing pedestrian sidewalk locations are shown on Figure 2. In addition, future sidewalk extensions are planned along the east side of Neale Avenue and the south side of Gibson. It is strongly recommended that this expanding pedestrian walk system be extended into Williams Village along two routes: the northerly extension of Brown Lane and along the project's eastern access road to Smuggler Mountain Road. Existing crosswalk locations across Spruce at South Avenue and along Gibson at Lone Pine are adequate. 7. Smuggler Mountain Road/Park Circle Intersection. As of this time, the specific location and design of this key access intersection has not yet been finalized. As indicated on Figure 6, however; the two -lane access road should intersect Park Circle at about a 90- degree angle and a Stop sign should be posted facing southbound motorists. 8. Transit Service. As previously indicated, public transit service is presently excellent within the study area. An existing bus stop, located along Park Circle at Brown Lane, will provide service within about a quarter mile of the Williams Ranch site. There have Mr. Chuck Roth, P.E. Page 6 June 2, 1994 been discussions with RFTA concerning the possibility of adding bus stops on Park Circle at Smuggler Mountain Road and at the traffic circle within the adjacent Cent nnial residential development However, RFTA is also considering increasing the size of vehicle (from 30' to 40') which serves the Hunter Creek route in orderito meet the anticipated patronage increase resulting from implementation of the Paid Parking Plan. The aforementioned Centennial traffic circle, however, is not designed for the larger bus turning radius. Table 3, enclosed, summarizes the above projects and their estimated costs. Conclusions Buildout of the proposed Williams Ranch residential development is projected to increase average weekday traffic along portions of Park Circle and Gibson by 50 to 60 vehicle -trips in each direction. Such increases can be safely accommodated by the area's existing roadway system, given implementation of the numerous improve- ments recommended herein. In addition to upgrades of the existing roadway system, the proposed development does provide potential benefits related to provision of a substantial amount of new employee housing. t s x We trust that this report will assist with further discussions and planning for the Williams Ranch proposal. Please call if we can be of additional assistance. Respect ally submitted, LEIGH, SCOTT & CLEARY, INC. B Y Philip NI Scott III,/P.E. PNS /wd Enclosures: Tables 1 and 3 Figures 1 through 7 Traffic Counts Capacity Analyses (Pages A -1 through A-68) QTRO3ECT5)9Q340\W n1rAMSREV 1 Page 7 CD U N O r 7 CO (3) 1 tt X W m ro O m U) o p 9 N N r r = Q O O 0 0 0 s co N a.. N O N r O N) O La � a > L d W m n 0 n rl 0 ' V: V N r CC C O O C C N �? N O N t0 d• NI 'Ir Z cl T L > F N OV m OV N W O ? m Q � o O C Ci C Zd V N O O N r C7 W C dH @3 ¢ > r ci L6 m iz W U. N � O O p -. LL � o 0 000 R W N W O N o n m W v L C r N m W O d O) O MOO L as (6 C15 C6 li CIS cc Q O U O -O - m r CO )n CON N C (D O T T N Z 0 C N a W m N s Y % f0 co LL x x a) N m O N m O. C m m y .0.. J , _t IL d LL O LL (A 0 F 0 N r ol ol O. N Z r. N ' M C 71 N ¢ O O� N Z Page 7 Table 3 PROJECT COST SUMMARY DESCRIPTION South Avenue - Project #1 (Oak/Cottonwood) • Remove Curb, Gutter & Asphalt • Install Curb, Gutter & Asphalt • Remove /Re- install Speed Bump • Add Stop Bar Lane Markings, Stop Sign and Relocate Stop South Avenue - Project # 2 (Spruce) • Remove Curb, Gutter, Sidewalk & Asphalt • Install Curb, Gutter, Sidewalk & Asphalt • Install Handicap Ramp • Add Stop Bar, Sign, Crosswalk & Lane Markings South Avenue - Project # 3 (Gibson) • Remove Curb, Gutter & Asphalt • Install Curb, Gutter &Asphalt • Install Stop Bar, Sign and Lane Markings • Landscaping Roadway Widening (Gibson, Park Circle & Park Avenue) • 500' @$10.00/ft. Widen Upper Spruce • Excavation • Stabilization Miscellaneous Regulatory & Warning Signs TOTAL Page 8 Incremental Project Cost Cost $400 $2,600 $850 $250 $4,100 $400 $2,700 $650 $500 $4,250 $550 $3,350 $500 $500 $4,900 $5,000 $2,400 $1,000 $3,400 $150 $21,800 SPRWE S1 — _\ 1 \ 9 G � m \' APPROX. SCALE 1'-40Y 1 ` P� OAK ClJ. SMUGGLER MT. RD. BIKE PATH O I ER OOTrONN,O i, </y M�p�F GB <N q� t r e v Iz KING ST. c M m e F 9L m LEGEND: SIDEWALK M STOP SIGN * RFTA BUS STOP FIGURE 2 MAJOR TRANSPORTATION' ELEMENTS Leiah_ Scott & Cleara_ Inc_ 10 1 i t 1 LEGEND: O = TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE 12% PERCENT TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION (24) = AVERAGE WEEKDAY TRAFFIC Leigh. Scott & Cleary Inc 11 N )X. SCALE ' -400' SMUGGLER MT. RD. FIGURE 3 ESTIMATED TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION WILLIAMS RANCH / ° !:,2 36 f 36° (152) 0 0 r 0° 29 ° 0 `�-°0 90 20�f-70 1_7 5� ,�irroz 1. 6 2 1 2 4 821 0 0 4 y +J 9 \ p 9 C O m 5 O /eSCN � AVE, OU H PVE OA \v/ K lN, / \ \ 73 69 22 (2.S25)CCTT 7 it 79 ON 6 16 \� 35 wp0 29 `// 17 4fA 26 33 SO F 4,V 16 \ ] 9 •� 31 8 L 34 1\ 17 F 16 / ROARING e v E. MAIN ST. I \\ tye v~i r � FORK PROPOSED \ PROJECT SITE \ � 1 a � / a, SMUGGLER MT. RO.1 (t,914) J ryl J < W p F N E. HOPKINS AVE y j 2 i a 2 r N n y y w N ¢ Z O E. HYMAN AVE. r N 3 ai APPROX. SCALE E. COOPER AVE. 1' =500' LEGEND: (129) = 24 —HOUR ROAD .TUBE COUNTS r N 1 ( 1,015) (129) (1,045) N,10 PNG PVE.. INS AVE. e 2 16 AM PEAK —HOUR TRAFFIC FIGURE 1 34 3 PM PEAK —HOUR TRAFFIC SITE LOCATION AND EXISTING TRAFFIC ACTIVITY SOURCE COUNTER MEASURES COUNTS ON MARCH 2:3,1994 WILLIAMS RANCH & COOT COUNTS IN FEBRUARY', 1994 1 ui.h Srntt k Claarv_ Inc_ J O `K svmoc �\ \ N I \ \ m � \ 9 \G � m r^ v a \ APPRO X. SCALE p f ` 1' -4W 0 z a 0 o , r s �— 1 7 7 0 \ 5 8 4 2 q p9'T 0 S 0 SOUT'r P� C�9 OAK LN 2 C r � O)) avw000 SMUGGLER MT. RD. e to z J 7 4 i 0 MA..tF <N 6 3 r \ O A 1 1 0 r� z 0 2 U 4 2 I yT KING 4 r \ fJ�2 S7-. ^� I 4 o r t 4 9G F LEGEND: 3 AM PEAK —HOUR TRAFFIC 2 z PM PEAK —HOUR TRAFFIC FIGURE 4 ESTIMATED PEAK -HOUR TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT WILLIAMS RANCH Lefah_ Scott &Cleary Inc. `K 1 t r t t e I 5eauc5 �. N m� \ APPROX. SCALE z o f \ \ l' -4W so i 2 ZO 12 r 40 35 /17 90 i C,9 50 P� OAK Uy, 51 SMUGGLER MT. RE). CO ONH'G t0 36/ 2 64 OC Ilk 5� 9 74 T3 23 7 20 20 MqCp P 5 _0 2� 333 19 `r0 4,V. 4,V. 61 �� 9 27 62 32 Q. U Qr Qe 15 'r1NG y7 27 / 14 38 R 10 c \ 16 21 2� 99 18 9G m LEGEND: 7 AM PEAK —HOUR TRAFFIC 2 PM PEAK —HOUR TRAFFIC FIGURE 5 TOTAL PEAK —HOUR TRAFFIC ACTIVITY Laiah Scutt & Clearer_ Inc. 13 z 'Ik N APPROX. SCALE 1' =400' WIDEN ROADWAY TO 18 -FEET REFER TO FIGURE T FOR RECOMMENDED - IMPROVEMENTS WIDEN ROADWAY TO A� 20 FEET INSTALL "STOP AHEAD'/ WARNING SIGN LEGEND: NEIGHBORHOOD COLLECTOR ROUTE MINOR COLLECTOR ROUTE 1 - ; -k c...... Y. ri-. —, In, PROPOSED \ PROJECT SITE EXTEND , \ PEDESTRIAN ` WALK \ O m SMUGGLER MT. RD. ' INSTALL ' °AK LN. CHANGE 25mPh STOP SIGN SIGN TO 20mph ONWOOD rAPC CN. P CN CONSTRUCT 90° ACCESS INTERSECTION WITH STOP SIGN ON NORTH LEG —WIDEN ROADWAY TO 20 -FEET? c. _` AVE M1O000 WIDEN ROADWAY TO 20 -FEET \ KIN$ AVE. e 0 z E. COOPER AVE. FIGURE 6 RECOMMENDED TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENT PLAN PROJECT #1 RELOCATE CURB, STOP SIGN AND SPEED BUMP. ADD STOP BAR & LANE MARKINGS. PROJECT #2 RELOCATE CURB, PEDESTRIAN RAMP & CROSSWALK. ADD STOP SIGN, STOP BAR & LANE MARKINGS. APPROX. SCALE 1 " =50' I J� �P OJ 5 PROJECT #3 RELOCATE CURB & STOP SIGN. ADD STOP BAR & LANE MARKINGS. REMOVE STOP SIGN G�eS ON9 v� i Leigh, Scott & Cleary, Inc. I` 15 ADD STOP SIGN & STOP BAR. C2 FIGURE 7 RECOMMENDED SOUTH AVENUE INTERSECTION MODIFICATIONS Site Code : 00000001 N-S Street: BROWN LANE E-W Street: PARK CIRCLE Time Begin 6:30 6:45 HR TOTAL 7:00 AM 7:15 7:30 7:45 iR TOTAL 8:00 AM 8:15 ------------------ i !4:00 PM 4:15 14:30 14:45 HR TOTAL 15:00 PM 5:15 5:30 15:45 MR TOTAL AY TOTAL I From North RT THRU LT 6 0 0 8 0 0 14 0 0 5 0 0 1 0 1 12 0 1 16 0 2 34 0 4 9 0 1 12 0 3 ------------------ 5 0 0 5 0 1 9 0 0 6 0 0 25 0 1 7 0 1 12 0 0 10 0 1 6 0 0 35 0 2 129 0 11 COUNTER MEASURES Movements by: Primary From East From South RT THRU LT RT THRU LT ------------------------------------------ 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 2 6 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 7 0 0 0 0 -- ---- --- - -- -- Break -------------------- 1 5 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 4 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 3 8 0 0 0 0 7 16 0 0 0 0 16 49 0 0 0 0 A -1 From West RT THRU LT - --- -- --- - -- - -- 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 0 4 0 2 1 0 1 1 0 5 7 0 1 3 0 0 5 0 3 11 0 1 11 0 2 12 0 2 10 0 8 44 0 6 14 0 1 9 0 3 15 0 4 10 0 14 48 PAGE: 1 FILE: BROWNPAR DATE: 3/23/94 --------------- - Vehicle Total ---------------- 12 13 25 9 7 19 22 57 17 30 25 21 24 22 92 30' 27 34 31 122 0 30 108 343 Site Code : 00000001 N -5 Street: BROWN LANE E-W Street: PARK CIRCLE -- -- ---- ---- --- --- ----- COUNTER MEASURES Movements by: Primary -------------------------------------------------------- PEAK PERIOD ANALYSIS FOR THE PERIOD: 6:30 AM - 8:30 AM DIRECTION START PEAK HR ... I.... VOLUMES ........ FROM PEAK HOUR FACTOR Right Thru Left Total ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- North 7:30 AM 0.78 49 0 7 56 East 7:30 AM 0.45 3 15 0 18 South 7:30 AM 0.00 0 0 0 0 West 7:30 AM 0.70 0 4 10 14 Entire Intersection North 7:30 AM 0.78 49 0 7 56 East 0.45 3 15 0 18 South 0.00 0 0 0 0 West 0.70 0 4 10 14 F PAGE: 1 FILE: BROWNPAR DATE: 3/23/94 .... PERCENTS ... Right Thru Left ----------------- 88 0 12 17 83 0 0 0 0 0 29 71 88 0 12 17 83 0 0 0 0 0 29 71 N Wes. � S F 3 18 15 L0 PARK CIRCLE 0 - 0 0 COUNTER MEASURES Site Code : 00000001 N -S Street: BROWN LANE E-W Street: PARK CIRCLE ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Movements by; Primary PEAK PERIOD ANALYSIS FOR THE PERIOD: 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM I DIRECTION START PEAK HR ........ VOLUMES ........ q FROM ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- PEAK HOUR FACTOR Right Thru Left Total North 4:45 PM 0.77 35 0 2 37 East 5:00 PM 0.52 7 16 0 23 South 5:00 PM 0.00 0 0 0 0 West 5:00 PM 0.77 0 14 48 62 Entire Intersection North 5:00 PH 0.77 35 0 2 37 East 0.52 7 16 0 23 South 0.00 0 0 0 0 West 0.77 0 14 48 62 PARK CIRCLE 48 14 62 0 37 J PAGE: 1 FILE: BROWNPAR DATE: 3/23/94 .... PERCENTS ... Right Thru Left ----------------- 95 0 5 30 70 0 0 0 0 0 23 77 95 0 5 30 70 0 0 0 0 0 23 77 F 7 23 16 L 0 F 0-7 0 0 0 ANE A -3 N w S PARK CIRCLE Site Code : N -S Street: GIBSON E -W Street: SOUTH AVE Time From North Begin RT THRU LT -------------------------------------------- 6:30 0 17 , l 6:45 0 16 0 HR TOTAL 0 23 17 7:00 AM 0 10 13 7:1S 0 IS 20 7:30 0 20 14 7:45 0 16 26 HR TOTAL 0 61 73 8:00 AM 0 12 23 8:15 0 9 20 -- ---- ---- -- ----- 4:00 PM - ----- - 0 - -- --------------- 1 - 3 4:15 0 3 7 4:30 0 4 4 4:45 0 6 2 HR TOTAL 0 14 16 5:00 PM 0 7 4 5:15 0 6 5 5:30 0 8 3 i 5:45 0 5 6 HR TOTAL 0 26 18 DAY TOTAL 0 145 167 i COUNTER MEASURES Movements by: Primary From East 0 From South 0 0 RT THRU LT RT THRU LT 20 0 5 6 15 0 11 0 5 8 14 0 31 0 10 14 29 0 12 0 8 9 14 0 16 0 4 7 18 0 18 0 5 8 13 0 12 0 5 9 16 0 58 0 22 33 61 0 8 0 7 10 4 0 11 0 4 8 8 0 ----- --- -- - --- Break ------------------ 3 0 3 1 2 0 7 0 6 1 3 0 10 0 7 7 2 0 14 0 2 2 3 0 34 0 18 11 10 0 18 0 7 1 3 0 16 0 10 1 10 0 24 0 11 4 10 0 21 0 7 2 8 0 79 0 35 8 31 0 221 0 96 84 143 0 A -4 PAGE: 1 FILE: GISSOUTH DATE: 3/23/94 ----------------------------- From West Vehicle RT THRU LT Total 0 0 0 80 0 0 0 44 0 0 0 124 0 0 0 66 0 0 0 80 0 0 0 78 0 0 0 84 0 0 0 308 0 0 0 64 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 27 0 0 0 34 0 0 0 29 0 0 0 103 0 0 0 40 0 0 0 48 0 0 0 60 A 0 0 49 0 0 0 197 0 0 0 856 Site Code : N-S Street: GI8SON E -W Street: SOUTH AVE ----- -- -- - --- -- - --- -- COUNTER MEASURES Movements by: Primary PEAK PERIOD ANALYSIS FOR THE PERIOD: 6:30 AM - 8:30 AM DIRECTION START PEAK HR ........ VOLUMES ........ FROM PEAK HOUR FACTOR Right Thru Left Total ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- North 7:15 AM 0.87 0 63 83 146 East 6:30 AM 0.81 59 0 22 81 South 7:00 AM 0.94 33 61 0 94 West 7:00 AM 0.00 0 0 0 0 Entire Intersection North 7:00 AM 0.80 0 61 73 134 East 0.87 58 0 22 80 South 0.94 33 61 0 94 West 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 61 73 L 134 PAGE: 1 FILE: GIBSOUTH DATE: 3/23/94 .... PERCENTS ... Right Thru Left ----------------- 0 43 57 73 0 27 35 65 0 0 0 0 0 46 54 72 0 28 35 65 0 0 0 0 . F 94 —7 0 61 33 A -5 COUNTER MEASURES Site Code : 4-S Street: GIBSON - --W Street: SOUTH AVE --------`--- ---- ---- ----- --- ------ -- - --- Movements ------------------------------------ by: Primary PEAK PERIOD ANALYSIS FOR THE PERIOD: 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM DIRECTION START PEAK HR ........ VOLUMES ........ FROM PEAK HOUR FACTOR Right Thru Left Total ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ North 5:00 PM 1.00 0 26 18 44 East 5:00 PM 0.81 79 0 35 114 South 5:00 PM 0.70 8 31 0 39 West 5:00 PM 0.00 0 0 0 0 Entire Intersection North 5:00 PM 1.00 0 26 18 44 East 0.81 79 0 35 114 South 0.70 8 31 0 39 West 0.00 0 0 0 0 SOUTH AVE 9 0 26 18 L 44 1 01 0 0 0 GIBSON .... PERCENTS ... Right Thru Left ----------------- 0 59 41 69 0 31 21 79 0 0 0 0 0 59 41 69 0 31 21 79 0 0 0 0 N W —f —E S r-- 79 PAGE: 1 FILE: GIBSOUTH DATE: 3/23/94 - --- - --- ---- -- F 39-7 0 31 8 A -6 Site Code : N-S Street: PARK CIRCLE E -W Street: KING ST /PARK AVE Time From North 0 Begin ----------------------------------- RT THRU LT 6:30 0 0 2 6:45 1 0 1 HR TOTAL 1 0 3 7:00 AM 2 0 2 7:15 2 0 4 7:30 2 0 3 7:45 5 0 2 HR TOTAL 11 0 11 8:00 AM 2 0 4 8:15 2 0 2 4:00 PM 3 0 3 4:15 2 0 3 4:30 4 0 2 4:45 3 0 4 HR TOTAL 12 0 12 5:00 PM 8 0 4 5:15 1 0 4 DATE: 3/23/94 4 0 2 +5:30 5:45 2 0 4 HR TOTAL i 15 0 14 PAY TOTAL -------------------- 43 0 46 9 COUNTER MEASURES 45 52 0 0 0 0 0 83 42 311 A -7 PAGE: 1 FILE: PARKKTNG ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Movements by: Primary DATE: 3/23/94 From East From South From West vehicle RT THRU LT RT THRU LT RT THRU LT Total -----------------------------------------------1------------------------------------ 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 I 1 0 0 0 Cq 0 1 1 6 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 11 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 8 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 10 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 10 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 15 2 8 0 0 0 0 0 9 2 43 2 6 0 0 0. 0 0 7 3 24 7 S 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 21 --- ---- --- ---- Break ------------------------------------------------- 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 18 4 6 0 0 0 0 0 7 4 26 3 5 0 0 0 0 0 7 4 25 3 8 0 0 0 0 0 6 3 27 13 22 0 0 0 0 0 25 12 96 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 11 11 43 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 10 5 27 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 9 2 22 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 8 4 24 18 9 0 0 0 0 0 38 22 116 45 52 0 0 0 0 0 83 42 311 A -7 j PARK i 11 0 11 x L 22 i is KING ST /PARK AVE i i 7 16 23 r Jo PAGE 1 FILE: PARKKING DATE: 3/23/94 -- --- --- --- -- --- I .... PERCENTS .:. . Right Thru Lefg ----------------- 46 0 54 36 64 0 0 0 0 0 70 30 50 0 50 36 64 0 0 0 0 0 70 30 1 9 25 16 L 0 KING ST /PARK AVE i A_R COUNTER MEASURES Site Code N -S Street: PARK CIRCLE E-W Street: KING ST /PARK AVE ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Movements by: Primary PEAK PERIOD ANALYSIS FOR THE PERIOD: 6:30 AM - 8:30 AM DIRECTION START PEAK HR ........ VOLUMES ........ FROM PEAK HOUR FACTOR Right Thru Left Total ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- North 7:15 AM 0.86 11 0 13 24 East 7:30 AM 0.52 9 16 0 25 South 7:30 AM 0,00 0 0 0 0 West 7:30 AM 0.57 0 16 7 23 Entire Intersection North 7:30 AM 0.79 11 0 11 22 East 0.52 9 16 0 25 South 0.00 0 0 0 0 West 0.57 0 16 7 23 j PARK i 11 0 11 x L 22 i is KING ST /PARK AVE i i 7 16 23 r Jo PAGE 1 FILE: PARKKING DATE: 3/23/94 -- --- --- --- -- --- I .... PERCENTS .:. . Right Thru Lefg ----------------- 46 0 54 36 64 0 0 0 0 0 70 30 50 0 50 36 64 0 0 0 0 0 70 30 1 9 25 16 L 0 KING ST /PARK AVE i A_R PARK CIRCLE 16 I 0 I 14 L 30 1 23 COUNTER MEASURES 34 57 Site Code 0 N -S Street: PARK CIRCLE E-W Street: KING ST /PARK AVE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Movements by: Primary 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 --- --- 0.63 ------ ----- - ---- ---- 17 0 13 ----- --------------- 30 57 ---- ---°-- 0 43 East 4:15 PM 0.86 16 22 0 38 42 58 0 South 4:15 PM 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 West 5:00 PM 0.68 0 38 22 60 0 63 37 Entire Intersection North 4:30 PM 0.63 16 0 14 30 53 0 47 East 0.80 17 18 0 35 49 51 0 South 0.00 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 West 0.65 0 34 23 57 0 60 40 PARK CIRCLE 16 I 0 I 14 L 30 1 23 34 57 0 PAGE 1 FILE: PARKKING DATE: 3/23/94 --- ---- ---- -- - --- F �17 35 18 F 0 —.l 0 0 0 RCLE A -9 M i Site Code : 00000004 . N-S Street: SPRUCE ST E-W Street: SOUTH AVE /PARK CIRCLE Time From North 0 Begin RT THRU LT ----------------------------------- 6:30 1 0 0 6:45 2 0 1 HR TOTAL 3 0 1 7:00 AM 2 0 0 7:15 3 0 0 7:30 5 0 0 7:45 8 0 2 HR iO1 18 0 2 3:00 AM 12 0 0 8:15 4 0 0 4:00 PM 6 0 0 4:15 6 0 0 14:30 5 0 0 `4:45 7 0 0 HR TOTAL 24 0 0 15:30 PM 4 0 0 5:15 5 0 0 5:30 4 0 1 5:45 3 0 0 HR TOTAL i 16 0 1 1AY TOTAL 77 0 4 COUNTER MEASURES A -10 PAGE: 1 FILE: SPRUPARK Movements by: Primary DATE: 3/23/94 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From East From South From West Vehicle RT THRU LT RT THRU LT RT THRU LT Total - --- --- - -- --- 0 -- ------ 0 ------ ------ 0 --- - ----- 0 ------------------ 0 0 -- ----- 0 --- 0 ------ 1 ----- -- - - - ----- 2 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 16 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 19 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 17 0 18 0 0 1 0 0 4 1 29 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 29 0 54 —0 0 1 0 0 16 3 94 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 4 5 36 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 24 - ---- ----- --- --- --- - ---- Break ------------------------------------------------------------ 1 8 0 0 0 0 0 10 6 31 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 9 4 26 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 7 3 19 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 17 4 41 1 32 0 0 0 0 0 43 17 117 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 30 10 54 2 7 0 0 0 0 0 22 13 49 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 13 8 32 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 8 4 20 2 28 0 0 0 0 0 73 35 155 ------------------------ 3 155 0 ------------------------------------------ 0 1 0 0 139 -------------------- 63 442 A -10 1 „py +� i L % 0 2 31 'i SOUTH AVE /PARK CIRCLE COUNTER MEASURES 15 2S Site Code c 00000004. 0 N -S Street: SPRUCE ST E -W Sheet: SOUTH AVE /PARK CIRCLE ------- -- -------- ----- ---- ----- - - - - --- --------------------------------------------`------------------------ Movements by: Primary PEAK PERIOD ANALYSIS FOR THE PERIOD: 6:30 AM - 8:30 AM DIRECTION START PEAK HR ........ VOLUMES ........ .... PERCENTS ... FROM ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PEAK HOUR FACTOR Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left North 7:30 AM 0.65 29 0 2 31 94 0 6 East 7:30 AM 0.85 0 61 0 61 0 %100 0 South 6:45 AM 0.25 0 1 0 1 0 %100 0 West 7:30 AM 0.69 0 15 10 25 0 60 40 Entire Intersection North 7:30 AM 0.65 29 0 2 31 94 0 6 East 0.85 0 61 0 61 0 %100 0 South 0.25 0 1 0 1 0 %100 0 West 0.69 0 15 10 25 0 60 40 1 „py +� i L % 0 2 31 'i SOUTH AVE /PARK CIRCLE 10 15 2S 0 SP PAGE: I FILE: SPRUPARK DATE: 3/23/94 -- -- ----- --- ---- F '7 0 1 1 0 SPRUCE ST A -11 COUNTER MEASURES Site Code : 00000004 - N -5 Street: SPRUCE ST E-W Street: SOUTH AVE /PARK CIRCLE Movements by: Primary --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PEAK PERIOD ANALYSIS FOR THE PERIOD: 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM DIRECTION START PEAK NR ........ VOLUMES ........ .... PERCENTS ... FROM ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PEAK HOUR FACTOR Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left North 4 :00 PM 0.86 24 0 0 24 2100 0 0 East 4:45 PM 0.73 2 36 0 38 5 95 0 South 4 :45 PM 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 West 4:45 PM 0.73 0 82 35 117 0 70 30 Entire Intersection North 4 :45 PM 0.75 20 0 1 21 95 0 5 East 0.73 2 36 0 38 5 95 0 South 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 West 0.73 0 82 35 117 0 70 30 ;. SOUTH AVE /PARK CIRCLE 3S 1 82 117 0 F 0 3T 0 7 0 1 0 PAGE: 1 FILE: SPRUPARK DATE: 3/23/94 ------ ---- - - -- -- F 2 38 36 Site Code : 00000004 N -S Street: COTTONWOOD E-W Street: OAK Time Begin 6:30 6:45 HR TOTAL 7:00 AM 7:15 7:30 7:45 HR TOTAL 8:00 AM 8:15 4:00 PM 4:15 4:30 4:45 HR TOTAL 5:00 PM 5:15 5:30 5:45 HR TOTAL IDAY TOTAL s j i --------------- From North RT THRU LT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COUNTER MEASURES Movements by: Primary ----------------------------------------- From East From South RT THRU LT RT THRU LT --------- -- --- --- -- ---- -------- --- -- - ---- 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 0. 0 0 2 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 8 0 0 2 9 0 3 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 3 PAGE: 1 FILE: COTTOAK DATE: 3/23/94 ------------------------------ From West Vehicle RT THRU LT Toiai 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 : 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 5 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 5 1 0 0 21 1 1 0 9 0 1 0 5 ------------ ---- ---- ---- ----- ------ - - --- -- Break ------------------------------------------------------ 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 1 1 5 0 14 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 0 9 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 2 2 0 9 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 2 3 0 10 0 2 I 0 11 0 0 0 7 10 11 0 42 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 1 1 3 0 9 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 1 0 5 0 11 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 1 8 0 14 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 3 0 6 0 0 0 0 11 2 2 1 3 2 19 0 40 0 3 1 0 37 2 2 3 26 14 33 0 121 A -13 COUNTER MEASURES Site Code : 00000004 N -S Street: COTTONWOOD E -W Street: OAK Movements by: Primary -- ---- ---- --- ---° --------------- ---- -- ------- ----- ---- --- --- --- --------------- - -- --- PEAK PERIOD ANALYSIS FOR THE PERIOD: 6:30 AM - 8:30 AM OIRECTION START PEAK HR ........ VOLUMES ........ FROM PEAK HOUR FACTOR Right Thru Left Total --------------------------------------------------------------------------- North 6:45 AM 0.25 0 1 0 1 East 6:45 AM 0.75 0 9 0 9 South 7:30 AM 0.75 0 1 14 15 West 7:15 AM 0.38 2 1 0 3 Entire Intersection North 7:15 AM 0.25 0 1 0 1 East 0.75 0 9 0 9 South 0.65 0 2 11 13 West 0.38 2 1 0 3 M 13 -7 11 2 I 0 PAGE: 1 FILE: COTTOAK DATE: 3/23/94 .... PERCENTS ... Right Thru Left ----------------- 0 %100 0 0 %100 0 0 7 93 67 33 0 0 %100 0 0 %100 0 0 15 85 67 33 0 02 E 0 L COTTONWOOD 0 0 0 PAGE: I FILE: COTTOAK DATE: 3/23/94 -- ---- ---- ---- F 0 13 11 2 OAK A -15 COUNTER MEASURES Site Code : 00000004 ,N-S Street: COTTONWOOD E-W Street: OAK ------------------------------------------------------------------ Movements by: Primary ---- --- -- --- --- --- ---- --- - - ----- --- - ----- 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 4:00 PM 0.38 0 2 1 3 0 67 33 East 4:30 PM 0.65 0 11 2 13 0 85 15 South 4:45 PM 0.50 2 0 6 8 25 0 75 West 4:45 PM 0.64 4 19 0 23 17 83 0 Entire Intersection North 4:45 PM 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 East 0.65 0 11 2 13 0 85 15 South 0.50 2 0 6 8 25 0 75 West 0.64 4 19 0 23 17 83 0 0 L COTTONWOOD 0 0 0 PAGE: I FILE: COTTOAK DATE: 3/23/94 -- ---- ---- ---- F 0 13 11 2 OAK A -15 A -16 ## Weekly Summary for week of March 20, 1994 # ## Face: 1 Data File MO'94001.PRN ration O00nDil0000UO2 Lane (s) 1 Jentification 0000OOr.i00002 Direction : West /East Combined Zity /Town : ASPEN County : FITK:IN ocation PARK CIRCLE E/0 KING STREET ' eF# 4:f ############## iF## ######## i4#% F####? F: 4##### 4k#•1 p##•{###?f ##? F # #!F # # # # # # # # # # #ii#- H- #dF # #-:## 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Wkdav Daii_v Time Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Avc. Ava. - 1: 0 i l 10 - 1 r - -- ` 19 19 14 00 9 9 6 };00 4 4 _ J5: 00 0 0 . 2 r` • 00 l i +. i 8 - `9::10 56 5,L, 40 Vii 66 66 47 .: )o 65 65 46 12:00 61 61 44 Ol D 65 65 46 t: fill 7Z 7 J.. 80 00 ��•flii 70 T.D _' 77 77 55 00 S4 R4 60 1Z :i,)O 85 85 61 b: 00 4Q 40 29 51 51 06 j � � Avg Wkday 71.3 28"7 '!Avg Day 99^6 40^2 1 AM Peak Hr 09:00 im Count 12 Peak Hr 13:00 04 Count 16 � ! &~l7 ' *** Weekly Summary for week of March 20, 1994 *** Page 2 Data File : M0394002.PRN !tation : 000000000001 Lane(s) : 1 |dertification : 00()000000001 Direction : North/South Combined City/Town : ASPEN County : PITKIN 'ocatibn : SMUGGLER MTN N/O PARK CIRCLE i � 20 21 22 27 24 25 26 Wkday Daily Time ----- Sun Mon ----- ----- Tue Wed Thu Fri --~~~ ----- ----- Sat Avg" ----- Avg. !—_~— |I:30 0 _~_~~ 0 ----- 0 02:00 2 2 1 13:00 0 O o 14: 0(:) 0 0 0 05:V0 O 0 � -()o c-j 0 O i0() S 0 0 JE: 00 2 2 1 ()9:0() 12 12 9 00 8 8 6 | 00 , 6 6 4 12:0V 7 7 5 00 16 16 11 1 :00 4 4 3 � �~:()0 14 14 10 16: 00 15 15 11 :O0 3 3 2 00 9 9 6 19:00 12 12 9 :00 3 3 2 4:00 6 6 4 � --2:00 4 4 3 � Q. 4 4 3 �:0V 2 2 1 Totals 92 ----- ----- ----- 37 _____ _____ 129 _____ 92 � � Avg Wkday 71.3 28"7 '!Avg Day 99^6 40^2 1 AM Peak Hr 09:00 im Count 12 Peak Hr 13:00 04 Count 16 � ! &~l7 ' *** Weekly Summary for week of March 20, 1994 *** Page` 4 Data File ; M0374004.PRN 35.2 } Avg ay D ^ 907 /f9 . 3 � !M Peak Hr 7tation ; 000000000003 AM Count Lane(s) : I ! M Peak Hr 18:00 �nntification : 000000000003 240 Directicn : West/East Combined City/Town : ASPEN County : PITKIN |,ocation : NOUTH AVENUE E/O GIBSON AVENUE ` 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Wkday Daily Time �---- ----- Sun Mon Tue ----- ----- Wed ----- Thu Fri ----- Sat Avg. Avg. ! 11:00 46 ----- ----- ----- 46 ----- 33 02:00 3:3 33 24 o3:00 25 25 1E, 4: 00 14 14 10 V5: O0 13 13 9 6:00 8 g 6 17:O0 36 36 26 ! .6:OO 103 lOz 74 39:00 186 1S6 137, 0:04 147 147 105 i1:V0 130 130 93 12:0o 142 142 101 ^3:0() 1l1 !11 79 :0(> 147 147 105 15:0o 141 141 10i 6;00 217 217 155 0 :50 21� � ' 210 150 |�:0() 240 240 171 1 ?:0() 229 229 164 �00 169 169 121 0o 142 142 101 22:V0 139 139 99 r 00 116 116 83 09 81 ----- ~____ 81 53 ----- 7otals _____ _____ 1631 994 _____ ----- _____ 2825 _____ 2013 ' 1 Avg Wkday 64°8 35.2 } Avg ay D ^ 907 /f9 . 3 � !M Peak Hr 09:00 AM Count 186 ! M Peak Hr 18:00 13:00 PM Count 240 111 Weekly Summary for week of March 20, 1994 Page Z ?ata File M0ZT40O7.PRN Olation 000000000004 Lane (S) I lend f i cat ion 000000000004 Direction North/South Combined lsty/TowrI AZFEN County PITKIN .=cation SPRUCE ST. AT Wj RANCH ACCESS 20 21 1 22 27 24 25 26 —Wk day Dai 1,,, Time Sun Man Tue ----- ----- Wed Thu Fri ----- ----- ----- -Sdt Avg. ----- Avg. 06 12:00 ,7: 00 2 2 1 ;: 0") 2 2 1 Oo 0 0 0 Oo 0 0 o is co I I 1.0o 7 2 Q) 14 14 10 00 15 I S Ii 00 2 2 1 2:00 16 16 11 7: 00 7 7 5 ':Obi iz 12 9 A ): 00 7 7 5, _:O0 11 il E 01) 17 13 C- A) 12 12 9 -:00 9 5 6 00 9 9 6 Oo 7 7 5 00 5 5 4 00 1 1 1 i)o I I I ,L-- ----- ctals ----- --- 67 ----- - - - -- ----- 65 ----- 152 109 Avg Wkday 57.2 42.r-- On Day 80.1 59.9 i a Peak Hr 12:00 1 Count 16 'Peak Hr 17:00 17:00 Count is 7 A"19 DEFII mONS APPLICABLE TO LEVELS OF SERVICE AT UNSIGNAI=D INTERSECTIONS Level of Service A: Describes a condition where no vehicle waits Ionger than a few seconds for a gap in traffic. Typically, the intersection approaches appear quite open, turning movements are easily made, and nearly all dribers find freedom of operation. 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. Under typical rural conditions, this frequently will be suitable operation for rural design, purposes. Level of Service C: Stable conditions continue. Occasionally drivers may have to wait for more than a minute or two for gaps to appear on the through roadway, and backups may develop behind turning vehicles. Most drivers feel somewhat restricted, but not objectionably so. Level of Service D: Encompasses azone ofincreasingrestriction approaching instability. Delays to approaching vehicles may be substantial during short peaks'within the peak period, but enough gaps in traffic, coupled with lower demand, occur to permit periodic clearance of developing queues, thus preventing excessive back -ups. This level is often used for design purposes in areas such as Denver. Level of Service E: Capacity - represents the most vehicles that an intersection an accommodate. At capacity, there maybe Iong queues ofvehicles waiting upstream in the intersection and delays may be great. 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. LEVEL OF SERVICE 771RESHOLD VALUES Maximum Critical Lane Volume Sum Level of Reserve Service Capacity A 400 or more B 300 to 399 C 200 to 299 D 100 to 199 E 0 to 99 F less than 0 Source: "Highway Capacity Manual." Highway Research Board Special Report 209, 1985. FWIi; 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page -1 I IDENTIFYING INFORMATION AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ..................... 1 AREA POPULATION ...................... 10000 NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET......... South /Spruce NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET....... Park Circle NAME OF THE ANALYST .................. PMY DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm /ddlYY)...... 05 -27 -1994 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ................. AM Peak OTHER INFORMATION.... Existing Traffic INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL --------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: T- INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH /SOUTH CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES ---------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NS SB LEFT -- 61 0 2 THRU -- 0 12 30 RIGHT -- 0 16 0 NUMBER OF LANES EB WB NB SB LANES -- 1 1 1 i 't A -21 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS ---- --- ----- - - - --- Page -2 PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS - -- - - -- --- - - - - -- -- ----- --- - - - - -- -- - -- - -� -- - -- EASTBOUND - - - -- - -- - -- - WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION ------------------------------------------------------------------- % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND - -- - -- - -- WESTBOUND 4 1 0 NORTHBOUND 4 1 0 SOUTHBOUND 4 1 0 CRITICAL GAPS ------------------------------------ ------- ----------- -- --- - - - - - -- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10 -2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP ---- ---- - - -- -- - -- -- - -- - ---- - - - --- ------ - -- - -- MINOR RIGHTS WB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MAJOR LEFTS SB 5.00 5.00 0.00 MINOR LEFTS WB 6.50 6.50 0.00 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET...... South /Spruce NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET.... Park Circle DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 05 -27 -1994 ; AM Peak OTHER INFORMATION.... Existing Traffic A -22 6wero7 6.50 CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF- SERVICE Page -3 --------------------------------------------------------------------- POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS P M SH R SH - - - - - -- -- - - - - -- - -- -- -- -- - --- ----- - -- ------ -- - - -- - -- MINOR STREET WB LEFT 63 868 867 > 867 > 804 > A > 867 > 804 >A RIGHT 0 999 999 > 999 > 999 > A MAJOR STREET SB LEFT 2 1000 1000 1000 998 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET...... South /Spruce NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET.... Park Circle DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 05- 27- 1994 ; AM Peak OTHER INFORMATION.... Existing Traffic A -23 I 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page -1 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. PEAK HOUR FACTOR ..................... AREA POPULATION ...................... NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET......... NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET....... NAME OF THE ANALYST... ............... DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm /dd /yy)...... TIME PERIOD ANALYZED................. OTHER INFORMATION.... Existing Traffi INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL INTERSECTION TYPE: T- INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH /SOUTH CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN 30 1 10000 South /Spruce Park Circle PMY 05 -27 -1994 PM Peak TRAFFIC VOLUMES --------------------------------------------------------------- ES WB NB SB LEFT 36 0 1 THRU -- 0 35 20 RIGHT -- 2 82 0 NUMBER OF LANES ---------------------------------------------------------------- EB WS NS SB LANES -- 1 1 1 A -24 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS --------------------------------------------------------------------- Page -2 PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE - - - - --- --- - - - - - -- FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS --- ------- - -- - -- --------------- EASTBOUND - - - -- - -- --- -- WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND 0100 90 20 N SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION ------- ---- ------ ----- -- -- - - -- -------------------------------------- e SU TRUCKS e COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES e MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND - -- --- - -- WESTBOUND 4 1 0 NORTHBOUND 4 1 0 SOUTHBOUND 4 1 0 CRITICAL GAPS TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10 -2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP MINOR RIGHTS WB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MAJOR LEFTS SB 5.00 5.00 0.00 5.00 MINOR LEFTS WB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET...... South /Spruce NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET.... Park Circle DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 05 -27 -1994 ; PM Peak OTHER INFORMATION.... Existing Traffic A -25 CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF- SERVICE Page -3 --------------------------------------------------------------------- POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS P M SH R SH - - - -- -- -- - - - --- ----- - - - -- ------------ --- --- - - - - -- --- MINOR STREET WB LEFT 37 823 822 > 822 > 785 > A > 830 > 791 >A RIGHT 2 996 996 > 996 > 994 > A MAJOR STREET SB LEFT 1 997 997 997 996 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ---------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET...... South /Spruce NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET.... Park Circle DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 05 -27 -1994 ; PM Peak OTHER INFORMATION.... Existing Traffic A -26 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page -1 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ..................... 1 AREA POPULATION ...................... 10000 NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET......... South /Park NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET....... Spruce NAME OF THE ANALYST.................. PMY DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm /dd /yy) ...... 05-27 -1994 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ................. AM Peak OTHER INFORMATION.... Existing Plus Site Generated Traffic INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL -------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: T- INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST /WEST CONTROL TYPE SOUTHBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES EB WS NB SB LEFT 12 0 -- 2 THRU 17 68 -- 0 RIGHT 0 0 - 30 NUMBER OF LANES --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB LANES 1 1 -- 1 A -27 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page -2' ---------------- ---------------------- - -- - -- ------------------ - - - - -- PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS --- --- - -- - - ---- ------ -- - --- — -- ----------------- EATBOUND 0.00 90 20 N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND --- -- - -- - -- SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION ----------- ---- ------ --- -------- - -- - - -- ----------------------------- % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND 4 1 0 WESTBOUND 4 1 0 NORTHBOUND - -- --- --- SOUTHBOUND 4 1 0 CRITICAL GAPS --------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10 -2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP -------- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- ----- -- - - -- ------ - - - - -- MINOR RIGHTS SB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MAJOR LEFTS EB 5.00 5.00 0.00 5.00 MINOR LEFTS SB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET...... South /Park NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET.... Spruce DATE AND TIME.OF THE ANALYSIS..... 05-27 -1994 ; AM Peak OTHER INFORMATION.... Existing Plus Site Generated Traffic Fd04:3 CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF- SERVICE --------------------------------------------------------------------- Page -3 I POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS - -- - - -- P -- - - -- -- M --- - -- --- ----- SH R SH - - - - - -- ---- -- - - - - -- --- MINOR STREET SB LEFT 2 823 817 > 817 > 815 > A > 983 > 950 >A RIGHT 31 997 997 > 997 > 966 > A MAJOR STREET EB LEFT 12 1000 1000 1000 988 A IDENTIFYING. INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET...... South /Park NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET.... Spruce DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 05- 27- 1994 ; AM Peak OTHER INFORMATION.... Existing Plus Site Generated Traffic A -29 I I 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page -1 f IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------4------------------------------------------ AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR.— .................. 1 AREA POPULATION ...................... 10000 NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET......... South /Park NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET....... Spruce NAME OF THE ANALYST .................. PMY DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm /dd /yy) ...... 05 -27 -1994 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ................. PM Peak OTHER INFORMATION.... Existing Plus Site Generated Traffic INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL -------------------------------------- ------- ------- -------- --- - - - - -- INTERSECTION TYPE: T- INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST /WEST CONTROL TYPE SOUTHBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES ES WB NB S8 - --- - - -- -- -- --- LEFT 35 0 -- 1 THRU 90 40 -- 0 RIGHT 0 2 -- 20 NUMBER OF LANES ----------- ----- --------- --- -------- - - - - -- EB WB NB LANES 1 1 -- A -30 SB 1 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS --------------------------------------------------------------------- Page -2 PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS - - - - - -- ---- -- - - -- EASTBOUND 0.00 90 ---------- - - - - -- --------------- 120 N -- WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND - -- -- --- --- - SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION --------------------------------------------------------------------- % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES - ------ -- - - -- ---- -- -- --- -- -- --- - - ---- EASTBOUND 4 1 0 WESTBOUND 4 1 0 NORTHBOUND --- --- --- SOUTHBOUND 4 1 0 CRITICAL GAPS --------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10 -2) - - -- VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP -- - -- - -- ----- - - - - -- ------ - - - - -- ----- --- - - MINOR RIGHTS SB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MAJOR LEFTS EB 5.00 5.00 0.00 5.00 MINOR LEFTS SB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET...... South /Park NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET.... Spruce DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 05 -27 -1994 ; PM Peak OTHER INFORMATION.... Existing Plus Site Generated Traffic A -31 CAPACITY AND LEVEL- OF-SERVICE --------------------------------------------------------------------- 754 Page -3 21 POTEN- ACTUAL I FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED@ RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS - - - - - -- P -- - - - - -- M - -- - - - - -- - SH R SH ----- - - - - -- ---- -- - - - - -- - -- MINOR STREET $6 LEFT RIGHT MAJOR STREET ES LEFT 1 754 738 21 998 998 36 1000 1000 > 738 > 737 > A > 981 > 960 >A > 998 > 977 > A 0941010, IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ---------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET...... South /Park NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET.... Spruce DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 05 -27 -1994 ; PM Peak OTHER INFORMATION.... Existing Plus Site Generated Traffic A -32 rte' 1985 HCM= UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page -1 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ..................... 1 AREA POPULATION ...................... 10000 NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET......... Park..Circle NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET....... Brown Lane NAME OF THE ANALYST.................. PMY DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm /dd /yy) ...... 05 -27 -1994 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ................. AM Peak OTHER INFORMATION.... Existing Traffic INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL ------------------------=-------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: T- INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST /WEST CONTROL TYPE SOUTHBOUND STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB LEFT 10 0 -- 7 THRU 4 15 -- 0 RIGHT 0 3 -- 49 NUMBER OF LANES --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB - - - - - -- - - ----- - - - -- -- -- - - --- LANES 1 1 -- 1 A -33 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page -2 PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS - - -- -- ---- - - -- -- --- ------- - - - - -- --------------- -- EASTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND - - - -- - -- - -- SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 -N VEHICLE COMPOSITION --------------------------------------------------------------------- % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND 4 1 0 WESTBOUND 4 1 0 NORTHBOUND - -- - -- - -- SOUTHBOUND 4 1 0 CRITICAL GAPS TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. (Table 10 -2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT MINOR RIGHTS SB 5.50 5.50 0.00 MAJOR LEFTS EB 5.00 MINOR LEFTS 5.00 0.00 FINAL CRITICAL GAP 679&711#1 5.00 SB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET...... Park Circle NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET.... Brown Lane DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 05 -27 -1994 ; AM Peak OTHER INFORMATION.... Existing Traffic A -34 CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF- SERVICE --------------------------------------------------------------------- Page -3 POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (Pcph) c (Pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS - - - - - -- P -- -- - - -- M --- - - - - -- SH R SH -- ---- - -- - -- ------ - - - - -- - -- MINOR STREET SB LEFT RIGHT MAJOR STREET EB LEFT 7 890 884 > 884 > 877 > A > 983 > 925 >A 50 999 999 > 999 > 949 > A 10 1000 1000 1000 990 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET...... Park Circle NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET.... Brown Lane DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 05 -27 -1994 ; AM Peak OTHER INFORMATION.... Existing Traffic A -35 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page -1 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ..................... 1 AREA POPULATION ...................... 10000 NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET......... Park Circle NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET....... Brown Lane NAME OF THE ANALYST.................. PMY DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm /dd /yy) ...... 05 -27 -1994 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ................. PM Peak OTHER INFORMATION.... Existing Traffic INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL --------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: T- INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST /WEST CONTROL TYPE SOUTHBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES ES WB NB SB - --- -- -- - - -- - --- LEFT 48 0 -- 2 THRU 14 16 -- 0 RIGHT 0 7 -- 35 NUMBER OF LANES -------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB - - - - - -- -- - - - -- - - - - - -- - -- -- -- LANES 1 1 -- 1 A -36 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page -2 PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS t-- - - -- ---- - - - - -- ----- ----- -- -- -- ----------------- EASTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND - - - -- - -- - -- SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION --------------------------------------------------------------------- % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES ----- - - - --- ------- - - - - -- --- ---- - - - - -- EASTBOUND 4 1 0 WESTBOUND 4 1 0 NORTHBOUND - -- - -- - -- SOUTHBOUND 4 1 0 CRITICAL GAPS --------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10 -2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP -------- - -- --- -- - - - - -- -- --- - - ---- ------ - - - - -- MINOR RIGHTS SB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MAJOR LEFTS EB 5.00 5.00 0.00 MINOR LEFTS SB 6.50 6.50 0.00 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET...... Park Circle NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET.... Brown Lane DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 05 -27 -1994 ; PM Peak OTHER INFORMATION.... Existing Traffic A -37 5.00 6.50 CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF- SERVICE --------------------------------------------------------------------- i Page -3 POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS - - --- -- P -- - - - - -- M --- - -- - -- ------ SH R SH - -- - -- ------ - - - - -- - -- MINOR STREET SB LEFT RIGHT MAJOR STREET ES LEFT 2 839 814 > 814 > 812 > A > 987 > 949 >A 36 999 999 > 999 > 963 > A 49 1000 1000 1000 951 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET...... Park Circle NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET.... Brown Lane DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 05 -27 -1994 PM Peak OTHER INFORMATION.... Existing Traffic A -38 f i 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page -1 f IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ------------------------q--------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ..................... 1 AREA POPULATION ...................... 10000 NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET......... Park Circle NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET....... Brown Lane NAME OF THE ANALYST.. ................ PMY DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm /dd /yy) ...... 05 -27 -1994 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ................. AM Peak OTHER INFORMATION.... Existing Plus Site Generated Traffic INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL --------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: T- INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST /WEST CONTROL TYPE SOUTHBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES EB WB NB 58 -- -- - - -- - - -- - - -- LEFT 10 0 -- 7 THRU 5 20 -- 0 RIGHT 0 3 -- 51 NUMBER OF LANES ES WB NB SB LANES 1 1 -- 1 A -39 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page -2 --------------------------------------------------------------------- i PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FORIRIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS - - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- - --- -- ---- - - - - -- --------------- -- EASTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND - - - -- - -- - -- SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION ---------------------- --- ---- ----------- --- - - --- — ------------------- % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES ----- - - -- -- ------- - -- - -- ----- -- - - - - -- i EASTBOUND 4 1 0 WESTBOUND 4 1 0 NORTHBOUND --- - ° --- SOUTHBOUND 4 1 0 I CRITICAL GAPS --------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10 -2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP -------- - - -- -- -- - -- --- - ---- - - - - -- - ----- - -- --- MI'NOR RIGHTS SB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MAJOR LEFTS EB 5.00 5.00 0.00 5.00 MINOR LEFTS i SB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION -------------- -------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET...... Park Circle NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET.... Brown Lane DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 05 -27 -1994 ; AM Peak OTHER INFORMATION.... Existing Plus Site Generated Traffic I 1 A -40 CAPACITY AND - --- --- ---- - LEVEL -OF- SERVICE - - - -- — ------------------------------------------------- Page -3 1 POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS - - -- --- P -- - - - - -- M --- - - - --- ------ SH - - - - -- R SH - ---- - - -- - -- - -- MINOR STREET SB LEFT 7 884 878 > 878 > 871 > A > 983 > 923 >A RIGHT 53 999 999 > 999 > 946 > A MAJOR STREET EB LEFT 10 1000 1000 1000 990 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET...... Park Circle NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET.... Brown Lane DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 05 -27 -1994 ; AM Peak OTHER INFORMATION.... Existing Plus Site Generated Traffic A -41 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page -1 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION -------------------------------------------------------------------- t AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ..................... 1 AREA POPULATION... ................... 10000 NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET......... Park Circle NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET....... Brown Lane NAME OF THE ANALYST .................. PMY DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm /dd /yy) ... .... 05 -27 -1994 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ................. PM Peak OTHER INFORMATION.... Existing Plus Site Generated Traffic INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL INTERSECTION TYPE: T- INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST /WEST CONTROL TYPE SOUTHBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES ES WB NS SB LEFT 50 0 -- 2 THRU 20 19 -- 0 RIGHT 0 7 -- 36 NUMBER OF LANES ---- - - - - - -- - J ES WS NB SB - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- LANES 1 K s A -G? ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page -2 ----------------- I-------------------- ----- -- --------------- --- - - -- -- % SU TRUCKS AND RV'S EASTBOUND 4 WESTBOUND 4 NORTHBOUND - -- SOUTHBOUND 4 CRITICAL GAPS --- --------- ------ - - - - -- MINOR RIGHTS S8 MAJOR LEFTS EB % COMBINATION VEHICLES 1 1 1 TABULAR VALUES (Table 10 -2) 5.50 5.00 % MOTORCYCLES 0 0 0 ---------------- - - --- ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST VALUE ADJUSTMENT 5.50 0.00 5.00 0.00 FINAL CRITICAL GAP 5.50 5.00 MINOR LEFTS SB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ---------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET...... Park Circle NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET.... Brown Lane DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 05 -27 -1994 ; PM Peak OTHER INFORMATION.... Existing Plus Site Generated Traffic A -43 PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE -- -- - - - - -- FOR RIGHT TURNS -- -------- - -- - -- FOR RIGHT TURNS --------------- -- EASTBOUND - - - ---- 0.00 90 20 N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND - - - -- - -- - -- SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION % SU TRUCKS AND RV'S EASTBOUND 4 WESTBOUND 4 NORTHBOUND - -- SOUTHBOUND 4 CRITICAL GAPS --- --------- ------ - - - - -- MINOR RIGHTS S8 MAJOR LEFTS EB % COMBINATION VEHICLES 1 1 1 TABULAR VALUES (Table 10 -2) 5.50 5.00 % MOTORCYCLES 0 0 0 ---------------- - - --- ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST VALUE ADJUSTMENT 5.50 0.00 5.00 0.00 FINAL CRITICAL GAP 5.50 5.00 MINOR LEFTS SB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ---------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET...... Park Circle NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET.... Brown Lane DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 05 -27 -1994 ; PM Peak OTHER INFORMATION.... Existing Plus Site Generated Traffic A -43 CAPACITY AND LEVEL- OF-SERVICE - --------- Page_3 ----------------- ---- -- ---- ------ ---- --- -- - - - - -- - -- POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS P M SH R SH - - - - --- -- - - -- -- --- - - - - -- ---- -- - --- -- ------ - - - - -- --- MINOR STREET SB LEFT 2 828 802 > 802 > 800 > A > 986 > 947 >A RIGHT 37 999 999 > 999 > 962 > A MAJOR STREET EB LEFT 52 1000 1000 1000 949 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET...... Park Circle NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET.... Brown Lane DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 05 -27 -1994 ; PM Peak OTHER INFORMATION.... Existing Plus Site Generated Traffic A -44 I 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page -1 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ..................... 1 AREA POPULATION ...................... 10000 NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET......... Gibson Ave. NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET....... South Ave. NAME OF THE ANALYST .................. PMY DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm /dd /yy) ...... 05 -27 -1994 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ................. AM Peak OTHER INFORMATION.... Existing Traffic INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL INTERSECTION TYPE: T- INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST /WEST CONTROL TYPE SOUTHBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES -------------------------------------------- ---------------- - -- - -- -- EB WS NB SB LEFT 73 O -- 22 THRU 61 61 -- 0 RIGHT 0 33 -- 58 NUMBER OF LANES --------------------------------------------------------- ------ - - - - -- ES WB NB SB LANES 1 1 -- 1 A -45 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page -2 -------------------------------------------------------- % PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE AND RV'S GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS EASTBOUND - -- - - -- 0.00 ---- - - ---- 90 -- -- -- ---- - -- - -- 20 --------------- -- N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND - - - -- - -- - -- CRITICAL GAPS -------------------------------------------------------- SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION SIGHT DIST. (Table 10 -2) -------------------------------------------------------- % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES `; MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND 4 1 0 WESTBOUND 4 1 0 NORTHBOUND - -- - -- - -- SOUTHBOUND 4 1 0 CRITICAL GAPS -------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. (Table 10 -2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT MINOR RIGHTS SP, 5.50 S.So 0.00 MAiCiR I_F.FTS EB 5.00,,(k MINOR I_FFT` �B 6.50 6.8C 0_00 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET...... Gibson Ave. NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET.... South Ave. DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 05 -27 -1994 ; AM Peak OTHER INFORMATION.... Existing Traffic A -46 FINAL CRITICAL GAP S.So r) CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF- SERVICE Page -3 --- --- -- -------- -- -- --- - -- — ---------------------------------------- POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS P M SH R SH - - --- -- -- -- - --- --- - --- -- --- --- - - - --- - ----- - - - - -- - -- MINOR STREET SS LEFT 23 710 678 > 678 > 656 > A > 882 > 800 >A RIGHT 60 996 996 > 996 > 936 > A MAJOR STREET EB LEFT 75 1000 1000 1000, 925 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET...... Gibson Ave. NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET.... South Ave. DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 05 -27 -1994 ; AM Peak OTHER INFORMATION.... Existing Traffic A -47 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ..................... 1 AREA POPULATION ...................... 10000 NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET......... Gibson Ave. NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET....... South Ave. NAME OF THE ANALYST .................. PMY DATE OF THE ANALYSTS (mm /dd /yy) ...... 05 -27 -1994 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ................. PM Peak OTHER INFORMATION.... Existing Traffic INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL INTERSECTION TYPE: T- INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST /WEST CONTROL TYPE SOUTHBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES EB WE NB SB LEFT 18 0 -- 35 THRU 26 31 -- 0 RIGHT 0 8 -- 79 NUMBER OF LANES --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WE NB SB - - - -- -- - - - - --- - - - -- -- - -- - - -- LANES 1 1 -- 1 A -48 4 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page -2 PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS - - - - - -- - ---- -- - -- ------ --- - - --- -- --------------- -- EASTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND - - - -- - -- --- SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION --------------------------------------------------------------------- % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND 4 1 0 WESTBOUND 4 1 0 NORTHBOUND - -- --- --- SOUTHBOUND 4 1 0 CRITICAL GAPS ---------------------------7----------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10 -2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP MINOR RIGHTS MAJOR LEFTS SB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 ES 5.00 5.00 0.00 5.00 MINOR LEFTS SB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ---------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET...... Gibson Ave. NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET.... South Ave. DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 05 -27 -1994 ; PM Peak OTHER INFORMATION.... Existing Traffic A -49 CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF- SERVICE --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 841 Page -3 81 POTEN- ACTUAL 19 FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) C = c - v LOS - - - - - -- P -- - - -- -- M --- - - - - -- -- SH R SH --- -- - -- -- - ----- - - - --- - -- MINOR STREET S8 LEFT RIGHT MAJOR STREET EB LEFT 36 841 832 81 998 998 19 1000 1000 > 832 > 796 > A > 940 > 823 >A > 998 > 917 > A 1000 981 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET...... Gibson Ave. NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET.... South Ave. DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 05 -27 -1994 ; PM Peak OTHER INFORMATION.... Existing Traffic A -50 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page -1 I IDENTIFYING INFORMATION -------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ..................... 1 AREA POPULATION ...................... 10000 NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET......... Gibson Ave. NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET....... South Ave. NAME OF THE ANALYST .................. PMY DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm /dd /yy) ...... 05 -27 -1994 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ................. AM Peak OTHER INFORMATION.... Existing Plus Site Generated Traffic INTERSECTION ---------------------------------------------------------- TYPE AND CONTROL INTERSECTION TYPE: T- INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST /WEST CONTROL TYPE SOUTHBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES EB WB NB SB - --- - - -- - - -- - - -- LEFT 74 0 -- 23 THRU 61 62 -- 0 RIGHT 0 33 -- 64 NUMBER OF LANES - ---- ---------------- --- - - -- EB WB NB $B - -- -- -- - - - - -- - -- - --- - - - - - -- LANES 1 1 -- 1 A -51 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page -2 -- -- -- ------ --------- - -- - -- ------------ - - - - -- - -- -- - - - - - -- — -- - - - - -- PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE fog RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS - - - - -- ---- -- - - -- --------- - - -- - -- ----------------- EASTBOUND 0.00 90 4 20 N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND - -- -- --- - -- - SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION ----------------------------- ---- --------- ----- - - - - -- — ------ -- - - -- % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES ----------- -- -- --- - - - - -- -- ----- - - - - -- EASTBOUND 4 1 0 WESTBOUND 4 1 0 NORTHBOUND - -- - -- - -- SOUTHBOUND 4 1 0 CRITICAL GAPS -------------------------- ---- ---- ------------ ----- - - - - -- - - - - -- -- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10 -2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP MINOR RIGHTS SB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MAJOR LEFTS EB 5.00 5.00 0.00 5.00 MINOR LEFTS SB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET...... Gibson Ave. NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET.... South Ave. DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 05 -27 -1994 ; AM Peak OTHER INFORMATION,... Existing Plus Site Generated Traffic t A -52 CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF- SERVICE Page -3 ---------------------------------------- -- ------- ----------- ---- ---- -- POTEN- ACTUAL R' FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS P M SH R SH - - - - - -- -- - -- - -- --- - - - --- ------ - - - - -- ------ --- - -- - -- MINOR STREET SB LEFT 24 709 676 > 676 > 652 > A > 885 > 796 >A RIGHT 66 996 996 > 996 > 930 > A MAJOR STREET EB LEFT 76 1000 1000 1000 924 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET...... Gibson Ave. NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET.... South Ave. DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 05 -27 -1994 ; AM Peak OTHER INFORMATION.... Existing Plus Site Generated Traffic A -53 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page -1 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ..................... 1 AREA POPULATION ...................... 10000 NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET......... Gibson Ave. NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET....... South Ave. NAME OF THE ANALYST .................. PMY DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm /dd /yy) ...... 05 -27 -1994 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ................. PM Peak OTHER INFORMATION.... Existing Plus Site Generated Traffic i INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL --------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: T- INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST /WEST CONTROL TYPE SOUTHBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES ------- -- - - - - -- EB WE NB S8 - -- - - -- - - -- -- -- LEFT 25 0 -- 35 i THRU 27 32 -- 0 k RIGHT 0 9 -- 83 NUMBER OF LANES EB WE NB SB LANES 1 1 -- 1 I A -54 ADJUSTMENT --------------------------------------------------------------------- FACTORS Page -2 PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE - - - - - -- -------- -- FOR RIGHT - ------- -- TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS - - EASTBOUND 0.00 90 20 -- -- --------------- -- N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND - - - -- --- - -- SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION --------------------------------------------------------------------- e SU TRUCKS e COMBINATION AND RV'S ----- - - - - -- ------- VEHICLES - - - - -- e MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND 4 1 ------- - - - --- 0 WESTBOUND 4 1 0 NORTHBOUND - -- - -- - -- SOUTHBOUND 4 1 0 CRITICAL GAPS --------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10 -2) -------- - - - --- VALUE -- - - - - -- ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP MINOR RIGHTS ----- - -- - -- ------ - - - --- SB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MAJOR LEFTS EB 5.00 5.00 0.00 S.00 MINOR LEFTS SB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION. ---------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET...... Gibson Ave. NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET.... South Ave. DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 05 -27 -1994 ; PM Peak OTHER INFORMATION.... Existing Plus Site Generated Traffic A -55 CAPACITY AND - - - - -- — LEVEL -OF- SERVICE -------------------------------------------------------- Page -3 I----- POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS - - - - - -- P -- - - - --- M --- - - - - -- --- SH --- - -- - -- R SH ------ - - - - -- - -- MINOR STREET SB LEFT 36 832 819 > 819 > 783 > A > 937 > 816 >A RIGHT 85 998 998 > 998 > 913 > A MAJOR STREET EB LEFT 26 1000 1000 1000 974 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET...... Gibson Ave. NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH.STREET.... South Ave. DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 05-27 -1994 ; PM Peak OTHER INFORMATION.... Existing Plus Site Generated Traffic A -56 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page -1 IfDENTIFYING INFORMATION ----------------------------------------- -- ---- ----- ---- -- ----- - - - - -- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ..................... 1 AREA POPULATION ...................... 10000 NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET......... King Street NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET....... Park Circle NAME OF THE ANALYST .................. PMY DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm /dd /yy) ...... 05 -27 -1994 I TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ................. AM Peak OTHER INFORMATION.... Existing Traffic INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL ------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: T- INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST /WEST CONTROL TYPE SOUTHBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES ------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- LEFT 7 0 -- 11 THRU 16 16 -- 0 RIGHT 0 9 -- 11 NUMBER OF LANES ------------------------------------------------- EB WB NS SB LANES 1 A -57 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page -2 % PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE AND RV'S ----- GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS -- - 1 - a'- - -- ---- -- - - -- -- -- - --- — - - - - -- --------------- -- EASTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND - - --- - -- - -- - SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION ----------------------------------------- -- --- -- ---------- ------- - - -- -- % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S ----- VEHICLES - - - -- % MOTORCYCLES --- EASTBOUND -- - - -- -- 4 -- - 1 --- -- -- - - - - -- 0 WESTBOUND 4 1 0 NORTHBOUND - -- --- - -- SOUTHBOUND 4 1 0 CRITICAL GAPS -------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. (Table 10 -2) ----- - - - - - -- VALUE -- - - - - -- ADJUSTMENT -- -- - - - - - -- MINOR RIGHTS -- SB 5.50 5.50 0.00 MAJOR LEFTS EB 5.00 5.00 0.00 MINOR LEFTS SB 6.50 6.50 0.00 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET...... King Street NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET.... Park Circle DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 05 -27 -1994 ; AM Peak OTHER INFORMATION.... Existing Traffic M&II.1 FINAL CRITICAL GAP 5.50 5.00 6.50 CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF- SERVICE -----------------------------------------°--------------------------- I 877 Page -3 11 PO ,EN- ACTUAL 7 FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS - -- - - -- P - -- -- - -- M - -- - - ---- - SH R SH --- -- - - -- -- --- -- -- - - - -- - -- MINOR STREET SB LEFT RIGHT MAJOR STREET EB LEFT 11 877 873 11 999 999 7 1000 1000 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION > 873 > 861 > A > 932 > 909 >A > 999 > 988 > A 1000 NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET...... King Street NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET.... Park Circle DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 05 -27 -1994 ; AM Peak OTHER INFORMATION.... Existing Traffic i 5 A -59 993 A 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page -1 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION {' ---------------------------------------- --- --- --- -- ------ ----- - --- -- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. PEAK HOUR FACTOR ..................... AREA POPULATION ...................... NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET......... NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET....... NAME OF THE ANALYST .................. DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm /dd /yy) ...... TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ................. OTHER INFORMATION.... Existing Traffi INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL INTERSECTION TYPE: T- INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST /WEST CONTROL TYPE SOUTHBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES ---------------- ---- --- -- ---- - - - - -- EB WB NB SB LEFT 23 0 -- 14 THRU 34 18 -- 0 RIGHT 0 17 -- 16 30 1 10000 King Street Park Circle PMY 05 -27 -1994 PM Peak NUMBER OF LANES EB WB NS SB LANES 1 1 -- 1 A -60 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Page-2 PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE - -- - - -- - - - - - -- -- FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS -- ------ -- -- ---- EASTBOUND 0.00 90 ------------------ 20 N 9 WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND - - - -- - -- --- - SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION --------------------------------------------------------------------- o SU TRUCKS e COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES e MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND 4 1 0 WESTBOUND 4 1 0 NORTHBOUND - -- --- - -- SOUTHBOUND 4 1 0 CRITICAL GAPS -------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10 -2) -------- -- - - -- VALUE ADJUSTMENT -- - -- --- --- CRITICAL GAP MINOR RIGHTS -- - - - - -- --- --- - - - - -- SB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MAJOR LEFTS EB 5.00 5.00 0.00 5.00 MINOR LEFTS SE 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET...... King Street NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET.... Park Circle DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 05 -27 -1994 PM Peak OTHER INFORMATION.... Existing Traffic A -61 CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF- SERVICE Page -3 --------------------------------------------------------------------- POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS P M SH R SH - - - - - -- -- --- - -- - -- - - - - -- ---- -- - - - - -- ------ - - -- -- - -- MINOR STREET SS LEFT 14 837 825 > 825 > 810 > A > 909 > 878 >A RIGHT 16 999 999 > 999 > 982 > A MAJOR STREET ES LEFT 24 1000 1000 1000 976 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET...... King Street NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET.... Park Circle DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 05 -27 -1994 ; PM Peak OTHER INFORMATION.... Existing Traffic A -62 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page -1 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ..................... 1 AREA POPULATION ...................... 10000 NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET......... King Street NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET....... Park Circle NAME OF THE ANALYST .................. PMY DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm /dd /yy) ...... 05 -27 -1994 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ................. AM Peak OTHER INFORMATION.... Existing Plus Site Generated Traffic INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL --------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: T- INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST /WEST CONTROL TYPE SOUTHBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES ES WB NB SB LEFT 8 0 -- 14 THRU 17 16 -- 0 RIGHT 0 10 -- 15 NUMBER OF LANES EB WB NB SB - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- LANES 1 1 -- 1 A -63 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page -2 PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS - - - -- -- ---- - - - - -- ---- ------ -- - - -- --- - -- -- -- — - - --- EASTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND -- - -- - -- - -- SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION --------------------------------------------------------------------- % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES ----- - -- - -- ------- --- - -- -- - -- - -- - - -- EASTBOUND 4 1 0 WESTBOUND 4 1 0 NORTHBOUND - -- - -- - -- SOUTHBOUND 4 1 0 CRITICAL GAPS TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. (Table 10 -2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT - --- ---- -- -- -- -- - - - --- ----- - -- - -- MINOR RIGHTS SB 5.50 5.50 0.00 MAJOR LEFTS ES 5.00 5.00 0.00 MINOR LEFTS FINAL CRITICAL GAP 5.50 5.00 SB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET...... King Street NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET.... Park Circle DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 05 -27 -1994 ; AM Peak OTHER INFORMATION.... Existing Plus Site Generated Traffic A -64 4 CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF- SERVICE Page -3 --------------------------------------------------------------------- POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (Pcph) c = c - v LOS P M SH R SH - -- - - -- -- - - - - -- - -- - - -- -- ------ - -- - -- ---- -- -- -- -- - -- MINOR STREET SB LEFT 14 874 870 > 870 > 855 > A > 932 > 902 >A RIGHT 15 999 999 > 999 > 984 > A MAJOR STREET EB LEFT 8 1000 1000 1000 992 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET...... King Street NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET.... Park Circle DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 05- 27-1994 ; AM Peak OTHER INFORMATION.... Existing Plus Site Generated Traffic A -65 1985 HCM= UNSIGNALSZED INTERSECTIONS Page -1 I ID NTIFYING INFORMATION ----- -- --- --- ----- ------ -- - - -- ------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ..................... 1 AREA POPULATION ...................... 10000 NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET......... King Street NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET....... Park Circle NAME OF THE ANALYST .................. PMY DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm /dd /yy) ...... 05 -27 -1994 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ................. PM Peak OTHER INFORMATION.... Existing Plus Site Generated Traffic INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL --------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST /WEST CONTROL TYPE SOUTHBOUND STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES ES WB NB SB - - -- - - -- -- -- -- -- LEFT 27 0 -- 16 THRU 38 18 -- 0 RIGHT 0 21 -- 19 NUMBER OF LANES --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB - - --- -- - -- - - -- - - - - - -- - -- - - -- LANES 1 1 -- 1 0 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page -2 ------------- -------- -- - - -- -- -------------------------------------- PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS --- - --- -- - - - - - -- - -------- - -- - -- -- - - -- - -- — - - - -- EASTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND - - - -- --- --- SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION --------------------------------------------------------------------- % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES ----- - - - --- ----- -- - - - - -- ----- -- - - - - -- EASTBOUND 4 1 0 WESTBOUND 4 1 O NORTHBOUND - -- _ --- - -- SOUTHBOUND 4 1 0 CRITICAL GAPS --------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10 -2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP --- ----- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- ----- - - - - -- ------ - -- - -- MINOR RIGHTS SB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MAJOR LEFTS EB 5.00 5.00 0.00 5.00 MINOR LEFTS SB 650 6.50 0.00 6.50 i IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET...... King Street NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET.... Park Circle DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 05- 27-1994 ; PM Peak OTHER INFORMATION.... Existing Plus Site Generated Traffic a t a A -67 CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF- SERVICE ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 827 Page -2 20 1 POTEp'- ACTUAL 28 FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS - - - - - -- P - -- - ---- M --- --- - -- SH R SH -- --- - - - - - -- ----- - - - - - -- --- MINOR STREET SB LEFT RIGHT MAJOR STREET EB LEFT 16 827 813 20 999 999 28 1000 1000 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION > 813 > 796 > A > 904 > 868 >A > 999 > 979 > A 1000 NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET...... King Street NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET.... Park Circle DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 05 -27 -1994 ; PM Peak OTHER INFORMATION.... Existing Plus Site Generated Traffic m 972 A i 381.1 53 B -780 P -370 015/09/95 02:5BI =`1 PS 1 OF 84 RF,C DO SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN couN`Fy CLERK & RE=CORDER 480,00 WILLIAMS RANCH - CITY OF ASPEN * ANNEXATION AGREEMENT THIS ANNEXATION AGREEMENT, hereinafter referred to as "Agreement ", is made and entered into, pursuant to §31 -12 -101 et seq. C.R.S., this ) I'day of March 1995, by and between the WILLIAMS RANCH JOINT VENTURE (a Colorado general partnership) hereinafter referred to as "WRJV" and the CITY OF ASPEN, (a Colorado municipal corporation) hereinafter referred to as "ASPEN ". 1 RECITALSE 1.1 Smuggler Consolidated Mines Corporation, hereinafter referred to as "SCMC" obtained the right, pursuant to a Real Estate Contract, to purchase certain real property described in Exhibit "N', (attached and incorporated by reference) hereinafter referred to as the " WILLIAMS RANCH" and has filed a petition to annex that property to the City of Aspen. 1.2 By Resolution No. 4 (Series of 1991) ASPEN accepted a Petition for Annexation for the WILLIAMS RANCH and found it in substantial compliance pursuant to §31- 12- 107(1), C.R.S., after a duly noticed public hearing to determine compliance with §31 -12 -104 and §31 -12 -105, C.R.S. 1.3 SCMC has assigned all its right title and interest in and to the WILLIAMS RANCH including the Development Application and the Annexation Petition to WRJV and ASPEN has consented to such assignment. 1.4 WRJV and ASPEN mutually agree that the annexation of the WILLIAMS RANCH to the City of Aspen „shall not create any additional cost or impose additional burden on the existing residents of ASPEN to provide public facili- ties and services to the property after annexation. 1.5 SCMC has submitted to ASPEN and received final approval for a PUD (planned unit development) to construct and sell thirty -five (35) affordable housing units and 15 free market lots, conditioned on enactment of an annexation ordinance. 1.6 WRJV will submit to ASPEN for review, approval, execution and recording a Final Planned Unit Development and Subdivision Plat, hereinafter referred to as the "PLAT') pertaining to the development proposed by WRJV. 1.7 Prior to entering into this Agreement, ASPEN has fully considered the development applications dated 8 November 1993 and 2 August 1994 filed by SCMC with City Planning Office and the Proposed Plat for WILLIAMS 1 AMV'IN- D0(M\ANN FX.D08 381193 8 -780 F-371 05/09/95 02:58P F'6 2 OF' 84 WILLIAMS RANCH - CITY OF ASPEN ANNEXATION AGREEMENT RANCH and the anticipated benefits and burdens to neighboring or adjoining properties by reason of the annexation and completion of the approved development. 1.8 Further, ASPEN has considered the requirements, terns and conditions of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen and such laws, rules and regulations as are applicable. 1.9 ASPEN by its Planning Office staff, Planning and Zoning Commission, Historical Preservation Commission and City Council has reviewed and approved SCMC's application dated 2 August 1994 which requested Detailed Submission and Final Plat, including: Annexation, Final Planned Unit Development, Text/Map Amendment, Subdivision, Growth Management Quota Exemption, Vested Property Rights, Park Development Impact Fee, Special Review and 8040 Greenline Review for the WILLIAMS RANCH. These approvals were expressly conditioned on enactment of an annexation ordinance and a grant of AH zoning. 1.10 ASPEN has and will impose on WRJV certain conditions and requirements in connection with the approvals described herein; such conditions and requirements being necessary to protect, promote and enhance the public health, safety and welfare. 1.11 ASPEN is, pursuant to Chapter 24, Section 7 -904 and Section 7 -1005 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, hereinafter referred to as the "Land Use Regulations entitled to assurance that the matters agreed to between WRJV and ASPEN pursuant to the development of the WILLIAMS RANCH will be fully, faithfully and timely performed by WRJV the successor in interest to SCMC. 1.12 WRJV is willing to enter into this Agreement with ASPEN to provide the assurances set forth herein to ASPEN. 1.13 ASPEN has accepted the Petition of SCMC for annexation and has found that it complies with the relevant Colorado Statutes and is otherwise complete. 1.14 ASPEN and WRJV wish to enter into this Agreement to set forth and document their respective rights and duties for the development of the WILLIAMS RANCH. 1AM\F1N- D0CS%ANNEX.008 3!3119:3 B -760 P--.372 05/09/95 02.:58P PG 3 OF 84 WILLIAMS RANCH - CITY OF ASPEN ANNEXATION AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, WRJV and ASPEN, hereby covenant and agree as follows: 2 AGREEMENT RE: ZONING: 2.1 WRJV and ASPEN agree that the WILLIAMS RANCH property as more particularly described in the exhibit to Resolution No. 4 (Series of 1991) will, after annexation into the City of Aspen, be zoned "AH' (Affordable Housing). The requirements for the "AH" zone, in effect on 1 May 1994 will be applied to the WILLIAMS RANCH PUD Application approved by ASPEN. 3 DESCRIPTION OF WILLIAMS RANCH PROJECT: 3.1 The WILLIAMS RANCH project shall have the characteristics and features set forth in Ordinance 52 (Series of 1994) of the City Council of the City of Aspen, enacted November 14, 1994, and all the attachments and representations made in connection therewith, which ordinance is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit B. 3.2 WRJV agrees to be responsible for the prompt and timely construction of all thirty-five (35) affordable housing units described in Exhibit B. WRJV further agrees to use reasonable diligence to maintain an expedient and orderly construction schedule to minimize the effects of construction on the surrounding areas. ASPEN and WRJV agree that it is important to complete the construction of all affordable housing units as soon as possible. 4 DEVELOPMENT ISSUES: 4.1 PLAT. As part of Final PUD Approval for the WILLIAMS RANCH by ASPEN, WRJV agrees to submit the FINAL PLAT for approval by the Engineering Department and Planning Office. ASPEN agrees to approve, and execute the FINAL PLAT for the WILLIAMS RANCH so long as it fully and completely conforms to the require- ments of Section 24-7 -1004 of the Municipal Code and Exhibit B. ASPEN agrees to accept the FINAL PLAT for recording in the offices of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder upon payment of the recordation fee and costs to ASPEN by WRJV and ASPEN'S review 7AMTIN- OOMANNEX.WS 381193 D -7$0 P-373 05/09/95 0'2 :58P PG 4 OF 84 WILLIAMS RANCH • CITY OF ASPEN ANNEXATION AGREEMENT and approval of the following listed Exhibits. In addition, WRJV shall provide the following documents, representing plats and plans, for approval as part of the Final PUD Application: 4.1.1 Exhibit "N' - Legal Description 4.1.2 Exhibit "B" Ordinance No.6Z (Series of 1994) 4.1.3 Exhibit "C" - Reduced Copy of FINAL PLAT 4.1.4 Exhibit "D" - Master Deed Restriction of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority 4.1.5 Exhibit "E" - Deed of Trust, (ASPEN DOT) to secure the AH CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT 4.1.6 Exhibit "F" Affordable Housing Construction Cost Estimate from Vannice Construction, Inc. 4.1.7 Exhibit "G" - Reduced Final PUD Development Plan 4.1.8 Exhibit "H" - Reduced Final Grading and Drainage Plan 4.1.9 Exhibit "I" Reduced Final Landscape Plan 4.1.10 Exhibit "J" Landscape Improvements Cost Estimate from the Stevens Group, Inc. 4.1.11 Exhibit "K" - Reduced Private Utilities Plan 4.1.12 Exhibit "L" Utilities Installation Cost Estimate from Banner Associates, Inc. 4.1.13 Exhibit "M" - Reduced Water Plan 4.1.14 Exhibit "N" - Reduced Sanitary Sewer Plan and Profile 4.1.15 Exhibit "O" - Executed Water Service Agreement 4.1.16 Exhibit "P" - Sample General Warranty Deeds to all 35 Af- fordable Housing on WILLIAMS RANCH 4.1.17 Exhibit "O" - Qualification Criteria for no asset or income restriction RO units 4.1.18 Exhibit "R" - AH CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT 4.2 CONSTRUCTION AND PHASING. ASPEN and WRJV mutually acknowledge that exact construction schedules cannot be determined for the development of the Affordable Housing to be constructed on the WILLIAMS RANCH. Therefore, simultaneously with the recording of the FINAL PLAT, WRJV shall provide financial assurances to ASPEN for the construction of the Affordable Housing. 4.2.1 WRJV shall provide ASPEN with financial assurances for the completion of the Affordable Housing Units in the form of their Affordable Housing Construction Agreement, hereinafter "AH CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT", which agreement shall be secured by a second priority deed of trust, hereinafter referred to as the "ASPEN DOT ", for the use and benefit of ASPEN, encumbering IAWF[N- DOCMANNEX.008 381193 B -780 P374 05/09/95 02:585 PG 5 Ot 64 WILLIAMS RANCH - CITY OF ASPEN ANNEXATION AGREEMENT eight (8) of the Free Market Lots.' WRJV will also place in escrow, for the use and benefit of ASPEN, general warranty deeds for the lots for all thirty -five (35) of the Affordable Housing Unite situated on the WILLIAMmS RANCH. The ASPEN DOT shall be subordinate and junior only to Deeds of Trust given by WRJV to secure a purchase money promissory note or construction loans. 4.2.2 The AH CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT provides the terms and conditions for the substitution, release and partial release of the Free Market Lots and the deeds to the Affordable Housing Units. 4.2.3 The AH CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT provides for ASPEN's rights and remedies against WRJV in the event that WRJV has not commenced construction of the Affordable Housing Units within two (2) years from the recording of the FINAL PLAT and has not completed construction of one -half (1/2) of the Affordable Housing Units within four (4) years and all of the Affordable Housing Units within six (6) years of recording the FINAL PLAT. 4.3 LANDSCAPING PLAN. WRJV agrees that it shall, at its sole cost, landscape the WILLIAMS RANCH in accordance with the Final Landscape Plan attached to the Final PUD Application as Exhibit "P', which plan shows the extent and location of plants to be installed, all landscape features, flowers and shrub definition, the proposed treatment of all ground surfaces including paving and the other elements of the landscape plan, including associated irrigation systems and re- vegetation of all disturbed areas. The landscaping is anticipated to be installed no later than the first planting season for the type of plants involved following the completion of the construction of all thirty-five (35) of the Affordable Housing Units. WRJV will promptly replace any plants which have not survived for a period of one growing season following the final Certificate of Occupancy for the last Affordable Housing Unit in WILLIAMS RANCH. ' The Fifteen Free Market Lots in SilverLode Subdivision have an average appraised fair market value of approximately Four Hundred Ninety Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($490,000.00) each. The eight SilverLode Free Market Lots to be encumbered by the ASPEN DOT shall have a total value combined value of approximately of Three Million Five Hundred Thousand and 00 /100 U.S. Dollars ($3,500,000.00). z These thirty-five (35) Affordable Housing Units have an estimated fair market total value, based on 1994 Housing Authority Guidelines, of Six Million Five Hundred Thirty -nine Thousand and 00 /100 U.S. Dollars ($6,539,000.00). IAMON- DOMANNFX.008 ;3119 :5 13° 7F3N f. ::;7:a 05/09/95 02:58P FAG 6 Or 84 WILLIAMS RANCH - CITY OF ASPEN ANNEXATION AGREEMENT 4.3.1 WRJV has provided ASPEN financial assurances for the Landscaping in the AH CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT as described in paragraph 4.2. above, which financial assurance shall be in an amount equal to the total value of the landscaping improvements described in Exhibit 1, which value shall be determined in Exhibit J. 4.4 PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS. WRJV agrees that it shall, at its sole cost, construct all the roads, hydrants, sidewalks, trails, water lines, sewer lines and common areas as shown and depicted on the Final PUD Application Exhibits. 4.4.1 WRJV has represented to ASPEN that not more than five (5) free markets lots will be sold and conveyed to third -party purchasers until after all Public Improvements have been substantially completed. Based on such representation which shall also be a covenant, WRJV shall provide ASPEN financial assurances for the Public Improvements, in the AH CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT described above in paragraph 4.2, which financial assurance shall be in an amount equal to the total value of the public improvements described in Exhibits B and I, which value shall be determined in the reasonable discretion of the Aspen Public Works Department. Financial assurances for the construction of the potable water system shall be as set forth in Exhibit O. 4.4.2 The AH CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT shall give ASPEN the unconditional right, upon default by the WRJV in its obligations specified herein and therein, to complete and pay for installation of Public Improvements and resort to the applicable financial assurances for the payment of the costs of such work. For work performed by WRJV or its contractors, as portions of the improvements are completed, the City Engineer shall inspect the same and, upon approval and accep- tance, the City Engineer shall authorize the partial release of the ASPEN DOT as provided in the AH CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT. WRJV shall require all contractors to provide a warranty that all improvements were constructed to accepted standards of good workmanship for the benefit of ASPEN for the installation of the public improvements described herein for one (1) year from the date of acceptance. In the event that any existing municipal improvements are damaged during the Project construction, on request by the City Engineer, suitable security for the repair of those municipal improvements shall be provided by WRJV to ASPEN. 4.5 PARKING. WRJV agrees to construct all parking spaces as depicted on the Final PUD Development Plan, attached as Exhibit "G ", as parking for the Affordable Housing Units of the WILLIAMS RANCH. 1AWFIN- DOMANNEKOW 381193 P -780 {';..-376 125/09/9 02'::58r' R6 7 OF 84 WILLIAMS RANCH - CITY OF ASPEN ANNEXATION AGREEMENT 4.6 SEWER TAP FEES. WRJV agrees to pay connection and capacity fees to the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, hereinafter referred to as the "ACSD ", in the amount equivalent to _ EQR's and the same equivalent EQR's for downstream constraints. 4.7 WATER TAP FEES. WRJV agrees to execute a Water Service Agreement in the form attached hereto as Exhibit O and perform all obligations thereunder. 4.8 PRIVATE UTILITIES. WRJV agrees to extend the utility lines to provide connections through the site as shown on the Private Utility Plan, Exhibit "K" as attached to the Final PUD Application. All installations shall be according to established City standards. Electric service will be provided by Holy Cross Electric Association and consequently no connection charges are due from WRJV to ASPEN for electric service. 4.9 ROAD IMPROVEMENTS. WRJV will continue to coordinate road and driveway designs with City staff. Any improvement work will be performed in accordance with Land Use Regulations and City specifications. 4.10 DUST CONTROL PLAN. Prior to construction, and as a condition of building permit issuance, a fugitive dust control plan shall be obtained by WRJV from the Colorado Pollution Control Division and the Planning Office. 4.11 SITE GRADING AND DRAINAGE. WRJV agrees to perform the necessary work to complete the Grading and Drainage Plan, attached to the Final PUD Application as Exhibit "H" which shall be submitted to ASPEN in accordance with Section 24-7 - 1004(C)(4)(f) of the Land Use Regulations and shall be approved by the Engineering Department. WRJV will continue to coordinate drainage and snow storage design and plans with City staff. Any improvement work will be performed in accordance with Land Use Regulations and City specifications. Separate Drainage Plans will be prepared for each individual Affordable Housing duplex or single family home prior to the issuance of its respective building permit. 4.12 PARK DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE. Pursuant to Section 5 -601, et seg., Aspen Municipal Code, ASPEN is entitled to a Park Development Impact Fee of One Hundred Fifty -seven Thousand Three Hundred Sixty Dollars ($157,360.00) for construction of new residential units. 4.12.1 As a credit against the payment of the Park Development Impact Fee, WRJV agrees to do the Remediation work necessary to prepare the Mollie Gibson Lode site (owned by Pitkin County) for a public park and to pay for all on -site costs to complete the EPA required work necessary to remediate soils allegedly contaminated with lead. WRJV shall also take all steps necessary to obtain from 1 A W IN- DOCNIANNEX.OD8 381193 B784 P -377 03/09/95 V.12,58P rU 8 OF 84 WILLIAMS RANCH - CITY OF ASPEN ANNEXATION AGREEMENT Pitkin County a deed of dedication to the Mollie Gibson Park dedicating such property to public park purposes. The failure to obtain a dedication of the portion of the Mollie Gibson Lode remediated and improved by the WRJV as a public park or public open space shall act to prevent WRJV receiving any credit against the Park Development Impact Fee for monies expended at the Mollie Gibson Lode. 4.12.2 WRJV shall document to ASPEN the amount expended to remediate the Mollie Gibson Park which amount shall specifically include all remediation or other work required by the EPA and any landscape and planting. WRJV's obligation shall be deemed satisfied by the expenditures for park amenities such as picnic tables, swing sets, or similar amenities as approved by the director of the City Parks Department. The specific amenities shall be based on the recommendations of the Parks'Department, subject to input from neighborhood meetings. 4.123 As a requirement of annexation, ASPEN has required and WRJV has agreed to dedicate certain public trail, recreation and open space easements on the Williams Ranch. These easements are depicted on the Plat Map. WRJV shall not receive any credit against the Park Development Impact Fee as a result of such dedications. 4.12.4 The public recreation easement depicted on the Plat Map adjacent to Williams Ranch Lots 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, and 32, is an encumbrance against a portion of certain real property which shall be owned by the Williams Ranch Homeowners Association. The public recreation easement may be cancelled by the Homeowners Association with City Council approval in the event members of the public abuse their right to reasonable use or fail to clean -up after themselves and their pets. 4.12.5 WRJV has provided ASPEN financial assurances for the Park Development work in the AH CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT described above in paragraph 4.2., which financial assurance shall be in an amount equal to One Hundred Fifty -seven Thousand Three Hundred Sixty Dollars ($157,360.00) the total value of the Park Development Impact Fee applicable to the project under the provisions of the Aspen Municipal Code, 4.12.6 In addition, WRJV has offered to dedicate and create a passive public park approximately one -half (112) acre in size in the vicinity of Spruce Street. ASPEN has accepted this offer and not conditioned annexation or any other approval on the dedication of this park. WRJV will determine the value of the Spruce Street Park by an appraisal and ASPEN will complete the forms such that WRJV may 1AMWIN -DO(S ANNLXAOR 581193 B -780 P-378 05/09/95 02.58P PG 9 OF 84 WILLIAMS RANCH - CITY OF ASPEN ANNEXATION AGREEMENT receive a charitable contribution credit for the voluntary donation of the Spruce Street Park. 4.13 AFFORDABLE HOUSING IMPACT FEE. Pursuant to Section 7- 1007(a)(c)(2), Aspen Municipal Code, the affordable housing impact fee applies to the WILLIAMS RANCH project. The deed restricted Affordable Housing Units in the WILLIAMS RANCH will be separately sold to qualified purchases. However, because WRJV has demonstrated the net effect of the WILLIAMS RANCH Project is to increase the square footage number of bedrooms available as Affordable Housing in the community this Project will have a positive impact on the availability of Affordable Housing in the community. The WILLIAMS RANCH Project will be exempt from the affordable housing impact fee. 4.14 EXEMPTION FROM ORDINANCE NO. 1 (SERIES OF 1990). Pursuant to Ordinance No. 1 (Series of 1990), it is the determination of the City Planning Office Director that the proposed AH development will have already accomplished multiple deed restricted units prior to or concurrent with the free market development and there will be no affordable housing mitigation required for the fifteen (15) Free Market Lots. 4.15 WOOD BURNING DEVICES. Any combustible devices for the WILLIAMS RANCH Affordable Housing Units shall be built in accordance with the regulations in effect at issuance of their respective building permits. The use of City of Aspen approved gas appliances is contemplated. 4.16 AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS DEED RESTRICTIONS. WRJV has attached to the Agreement as Exhibit "D" a the final Master Deed Restriction approved by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority's Occupancy and Resale Deed Restriction, Agreement, and Covenant to be used for the thirty-five (35) Affordable Housing Units of the WILLIAMS RANCH Project. Prior to issuance of a building permit, WRJV shall execute and record in the Pitkin County Real Property Records a Master Deed Restriction of the APCHA's Resale Agreement and Deed Restriction. Prior to sale of any individual unit in the Project to a purchaser, such purchaser shall be required to execute a Memoran- dum of Acceptance of the APCA Resale Agreement and Deed Restriction, which shall then be recorded in the Pitkin County Real Property Records and placed on file with the APCHA. 5 RO CRITERIA FOR WILLIAMS RANCH: 5.1 Since the City of Aspen and Pitkin County have been meeting for over one (1) year to consider the recommendation of Aspen/Pitkin Housing Board regarding the 1AWFiN- DOCSWNNEXOD8 381193 N -780 P -379 05/09/95 02:58P PG 10 OF 84 WILLIAMS RANCH - CITY OF ASPEN ANNEXATION AGREEMENT restrictions and it is essential for WRJV to have fixed criteria prior to recording the Plat Map, ASPEN and WRJV have expressly agreed that: 5.1.1 Ten (10) of the RO single family homes will have income and asset limitations of $150,000 and $400,000 respectively'. 5.1.2 The remaining five (5) RO single family homes will have no income or asset limitations on their purchasers and will be otherwise subject to the restrictions set forth on Exhibit "O ". 5.1.3 In no event shall any owner of any RO single family home be required to move or sell their home as a result of any adjustment in income or asset restrictions revisions made by ASPEN or an increase in their income and assets subsequent to their purchase of any RO single family home. 6 GMOS EXEMPTION: 6.1 Based on the totality of the situation and the community good served by WRJV's construction of Affordable Housing Units, ASPEN agrees that WRJV's GMQS Exemption for the WILLIAMS RANCH project will be based on the GMQS provisions in effect at the time WRJV submitted its Conceptual Review Land Use Application to ASPEN .4 7 OFF -SITE IMPACT FEE: 7.1 WRJV will pay ASPEN One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00) to address and mitigate off -site traffic impacts. One -half (1/2) of WRJV's payment under this section shall be paid to ASPEN only after WRJV has sold one -half (1/2) of the Affordable Housing Units or one -third (1/3) of free Market Lots, whichever shall first occur. The remaining one -half (1/2) of WRJV's payment under this section shall be paid to ASPEN only after WRJV has sold three - quarters (3/4) of the Affordable Housing Units or two- thirds (2/3) of free Market Lots, whichever shall first occur. WRJV's financial obligation for the off -site impact fee shall be secured by the ASPEN DOT and AH CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT described in paragraph 4.2 above. ' Subject to annual adjustment by the Aspen/Pitkin Housing Authority. ° 8 November 1993. IAMON- DOMANNEX.008 10 381193 B -780 P-•380 05/09/95 02:�"8P F'G 11 OF 84 WILLIAMS RANCH - CITY OF ASPEN ANNEXATION AGREEMENT 8 RAFTA IMPACT FEE: 8.1 WRJV will pay to RFTA a public transportation impact fee in the amount of Six Thousand ($6,000.00) to mitigate impacts of increased public transportation ridership resulting from the project. WRJV's payment under this section shall be paid to ASPEN only after WRJV has sold three- quarters (3/4) of the Affordable Housing Units or two- thirds (2/3) of free Market Lots, whichever shall first occur. WRJV's financial obligation for the off -site impact fee shall be secured by the ASPEN DOT and the AH CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT described in paragraph 4.2 above. 9 SCHOOL IMPACT FEE 9.1 WRJV shall pay to ASPEN, for the benefit of the Aspen School District, the sum of Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000) to mitigate the impacts of the projected increased school enrollment resulting from the Project. WRJV's payment under this section shall be paid to ASPEN only after WRJV has sold all of the Affordable Housing Units. The payment made hereunder shall be secured by the ASPEN DOT and the AH CONSTRUC- TION AGREEMENT described in paragraph 4.2 above. 10 10.1 WRJV shall forever indemnify, defend and hold ASPEN harmless against all claims, administrative actions, and any other form of action for relief arising out of or related to any environmental condition existing on the WILLIAMS RANCH at the time of its annexation or resulting from any development thereof. This indemnification is intended to be broadly and inclusively construed for the benefit of ASPEN and shall not be limited to claims for personal injuries or damages. 10.2 WRJV is by law afforded the protection of § 33 -41 -101 et seq of the Colorado Revised Statutes. 11 GENERAL PROVISIONS: 11.1 Recitals. All the recitals set forth above in paragraphs 1.1 through and including 1.15 are true and correct. IAWIN- DOMANNEX.008 11 36i 19:3 I3. -.760 381 05!09195 0 : :58p p(3 12 OF 84 WILLIAMS RANCH - CITY OF ASPEN ANNEXATION AGREEMENT 11.2 Material Representations. All material representations made by the WRJV on record to ASPEN in accordance with all aspects of the approval of the WILLIAMS RANCH shall be binding upon WRJV, its successors and assigns. 11.3 Assignment . SCMC has informed ASPEN that it has assigned all of its rights and duties pursuant to this Agreement to the Williams Ranch Joint Venture (a Colorado general partnership). The Williams Ranch Joint Venture is comprised of Mark IV, Inc., a Colorado corporation, Albouy & Albouy, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company and White River Management Group, LLC, also a Colorado limited liability company . 11.4 Notice. Notices as desired or required, to either ASPEN or WRJV shall be sent by the U.S. Mail, Return Receipt Requested, Postage Prepaid, to the addressees set forth below or to any other address which the parties may substitute in writing. Notices shall be deemed received, four (4) days after the date of mailing if mailing takes place within Pitkin County, Colorado. Otherwise, ten (10) days shall be allowed. To ASPEN: Aspen City Manager 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 To WRJV: Williams Ranch Joint Venture 3214 Campanil Drive Santa Barbara, California 93109 Copy to: Aspen City Attorney 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Copy to: Gary A. Wright, Esq. Wright & Adger 201 North Mill Street, Suite 106 Aspen, Colorado 81611 11.5 Applicable Law. This Agreement shall be subject to and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado and the Land Use Regulations of the City of Aspen, Colorado. Jurisdiction and Venue for any dispute arising hereunder shall be the District Court for Pitkin County, Colorado. 11.6 Severabilitv. If any of the provisions of this Agreement are determined to be invalid, it shall not effect the remaining provisions of this Agreement. 11.7 Bindin Effect. ffect. The provisions of this Agreement shall run with and constitute a burden on the land on which the project is located and shall be binding on and inure to the benefit of WRJV, its successors and assigns and ASPEN, its successors and assigns. 11.8 Enforcement. In the event ASPEN determines WRJV is not in substantial compliance with the terms of this Agreement or any of the Exhibits set forth in section 4.1 1AMON- DOCSIANNEKOM 12 381193 R -780 P - -382 @5/09/9,:, 02.!.58P PG 13 OF 84 WILLL01S RANCH - CITY OF ASPEN ANNEXATION AGREEMENT above, ASPEN may exercise the remedies as set forth in the AH CONSTRUCTION Agreement. 11.9 Subdivision Improvements Agreement. This Agreement and its exhibits shall serve as a Subdivision Improvements Agreement for the Williams Ranch Subdivision. 11.10 Recordine. This Agreement shall be recorded in the records of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, ASPEN and WRJV have caused their duly authorized officials to place their hands and seals upon this Agreement. 0 RANCH JOINT VENTURE , If 6. Managing General Partner CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO By: - 1 -- 5. E. � John S. Bennett, Mayor CITY OF ASPEN - ATTEST: i� 1AWF1N-D0CSVC4NEX008 13 3-81193 B -780 I- '--383 05/09/95 02:58P PG 14 OF' 84 WILLIAMS RANCH - CITY OF ASPEN ANNEXATION AGREEMENT State of Colorado ) ) ss. County of Pitkin ) The foregoing Annexation Agreement was executed and acknowledged before me this �Lhday of May# 1995, by John S. Bennett as Mayor of the City of Aspen, Colorado. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: My Comm expires f.olliroR�li�t State of G&WR46 ) ) ss. County of ) Public - OTA 2�The oing Annexation Agreement was executed and acknowledged before me this day of= 1995, by John D. Markel as the President of Mark IV, Inc. the managing general partner of the Williams Ranch Joint Venture. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: 15do it ANDREA C. FCNTES cow. 010=00 mw.cwin 1AMON- AOCSNNNEX.008 14 LwAda6- Notary 38119,.3 A -780 F =, -384 05/09/95 02: "N8p GCa 15 OF 84 WILLIAMS RANCH - CITY OF ASPEN ANNEXATION AGREEMENT EXHIBIT "A" (legal description) A parcel of land consisting of 12.774 acres, more or less as shown described as the SilverLode - Williams Ranch Parcel on the Smuggler Mine Subdivision Plat Map, which was recorded on the IS4Vay of March 1995 in Plat Book 36 at Page-7-1 . 1ANf F /N.D0CSkANNEN.EXA U H O 0 r I r-i ei %��)�v o � Nil 5p nNpSN br 31y / I �v� / OF s / / 2 (i � / � • 'C y Aq� °g,` ,0 9' •' q '¢ a ��b •� §sz ✓•Y yy,� as i bd JS ;L • ��. a m w � _ e ... a k co � b y d�ysOF'o r J I umm�� •s� o z° u° ! • I � i!i �u p. z 5� m "sp kk0rtl 3�g4 a o 1 I z3A / §3y ��li m$9 •v°'• sell 4 N R 1 n 3 •s� o z° u° ! • I � i!i �u p. z 5� m "sp kk0rtl 3�g4 a o z3A / §3y ��li m$9 •v°'• sell 4 N R 1 n 3 •s� o z° ! a 1 p. z 5� m kk0rtl 3�g4 a o 1 / / pb g F to tau Ii �i G ti lV C'J LL TI L'7 rj 5 J7 9 .41 ry 4J n M M m co 117 381193 B -780 R -397 05/09/95 02:531" pC 28 OF 84 DEED RESTRICTION OCCUPANCY AND RESALE AGREEMENT FOR WILLIAMS RANCH AFFORDABLE HOUSING THIS DEED RESTRICTION, OCCUUNFYAND RESALE AGREEMENT (herein the "Agrecment ") is made and entered into this Z. day of 1995, by the Williams Ranch Joint Venture, a Colorado general partnership (herein the "Declarant "), for the benefit of the parties and enforceable by the ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY (herein "APCHA'), a duly constituted multi - jurisdictional Housing Authority established pursuant to the AMENDED AND RESTATED INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT by and between the City of Aspen, Colorado (herein the "City") and Firkin County, Colorado Cn ;rein the "County"), dated September 26, 1989 and recorded in Book 605 at Page 751 of the records of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Declarant owns the real property described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein (herein the "Real Property"). For purposes of this Agreement, the real property and all dwellings, appurtenances, improvements and fixtures associated therewith shall hereinafter be referred to as the "Property "; and WHEREAS, as a condition of the approval granted by the City Council of Aspen, Colorado for subdivision approval of the Property, the Declarant is required to enter into this Agreement; and WHEREAS, Declarant agrees to restrict the acquisition or transfer of the Property to "Qualified Buyers" under the Category 2 (herein "C -2 "), Category 3 (herein "C -3 "), Category 4 (herein "C -4 ") and Resident Occupied (herein "RO ") definitions, as those terns are defined in this Agreement and established by the City of Aspen from time to time in APCHA's Affordable Housing Guidelines, In addition, the Declarant agrees that this Agreement shall constitute a resale agreement setting forth the maximum sale's price for which the Property may be sold ( "Maximum Sale's Price"), the amount of appreciation and the terms and provisions controlling the resale of the Property should Declarant's purchaser desire to sell its interest in the Property at any time after the date of this Agreement. Finally, by this Agreement, Declarant agrees to restrict the Property against use and occupancy inconsistent with this Agreement. WHEREAS, "Qualified Buyers" are natural persons meeting the income, asset, residency and all other qualifications for C -2, C•3, C•4 or RO as applicable and as set forth in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines (herein "the Affordable Housing Guidelines "), or its substitute, as adopted by the City of Aspen upon the recommendation of APCHA, or the successor thereof, and in effect at the time of the closing of the sale to a Qualified Buyer, who must represent and agree pursuant to this Agreement to occupy the Property as his or her primary residence (as defined in the Affordable Housing Guidelines), not to engage in any business activity on the Property, other than that permitted in that zone district or by applicable ordinance, not to sell or otherwise transfer the Property for use in a trade or business, and to otherwise be bound by the Agreement of applicable provisions of the Affordable Housing Guidelines. WHEREAS, an "Owner" is a person or persons who is /are a Qualified Buyer who acquires an ownership interest in the Property in compliance with the terms and provisions of this Agreement; it being understood that such person or persons shall be deemed an "Owner" hereunder only during the period of this, her or their ownership interest in the Property and shall be obligated hereunder for the full and complete performance and observance of all covenants, conditions and restrictions contained herein during such period. J WHEREAS, a "Unit" is any and all of the residences constructed on Lot I through Lot 35 of the Williams Ranch Subdivision. tAM APCHA.OJ5 38YY9 8° -78121 P398 05/09/95 02:563r' F'C; ?_9 OF 84 DEED RESTRICTION, OCCUPANCY AND RESALE AGREEMENT FOR WILLIAMS RANCH AFFORDABLE HOUSING NOW, THEREFORE, for value received, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Declarant hereby represents, covenants and agrees as follows: 1. The use and occupancy of the Property shall henceforth be limited exclusively to housing for natural persons who meet the definition of Qualified Buyers and their families. 2. An Owner, in connection vi- N the purchase of this Property or Unit, must: a) occupy any Unit within this Property as his or her primary residence during the time that such unit is owned; b) not engage in any business activity on or in such Unit, other than permitted in that zone district or by applicable ordinance; e) sell or otherwise transfer such Unit only in accordance with this Agreement and the Affordable Housing Guidelines; and d) not sell or otherwise transfer such Unit for use in a trade or business; and e) not permit any use or occupancy of such Unit except in compliance with this Agreement. 3. Default in Payment: a. It shall be a breach of this Agreement for Owner to default in payments or other obligations due or to be performed under a promissory note secured by a first deed of trust encumbering the Property or a Unit. Owner must notify the APCHA, in writing, of any notification received from a lender, or its assigns, of past due payments or default in payment or other obligations due or to be performed under a promissory note secured by a first deed of trust, as described herein, within five calendar days of Owner's notification from lender, or its assigns, of said default or past due payments. b. Upon notification from Owner, as provided above, or other notice of such default, the APCHA may offer loan counseling or distressed loan services to the Owner, if any of these services are available, and is entitled to require the Owner to sell the Property or a Unit to avoid the commencement of any foreclosure proceeding against the Property or a Unit. In the event that the APCHA determines that sale of the Property or a Unit is necessary, Owner shall immediately execute a standard Listing Contract on forms approved by the Colorado Real Estate Commission, providing for a 30 -day listing period. If a sales contract has not been executed within the initial 30 -day period, the Owner shall extend the listing period for an additional Igo days, provided such extension does not conflict with the statutory rights of any secured creditors. The listing agent shall promptly advertise the Property for sale to Qualified Buyers. The Owner shall, upon closing, pay a fee to the APCHA in an amount equal to one percent (1 %) of the sales price. In the event of a listing of the Property or a Unit pursuant to this Paragraph 3, the APCHA is entitled to require the Owner to accept the highest of any qualified bids which satisfies the Owner's financial or other obligations due under the promissory note secured by a first deed of trust and deed of trust in favor of the APCHA, as described herein, and to sell the Property to such qualified bidder. C. Upon receipt of notice as provided in paragraphs 3a and 3b, APCHA shall have the right, in it's sole discretion, to cure the default or any, portion thereof. In such event, the Owner shall be personally liable to APCHA for past due payments made by the APCHA together with interest thereon at the rate specified in}the promissory note secured by the first deed of trust, plus one percent (1 %), and all actual expenses of the APCHA incurred in curing the default. The Owner shall be required by APCHA to execute a promissory note secured by deed of 1AM\AMIA.005 ::811'3,?, B - -780 P.-399 05/09/95 02:38P PG :30 OF 84 DEED RESTRICTION, OCCUPANCY AND RESALE AGREEMENT FOR WILLIAMS RANCH AFFORDABLE HOUSING trust encumbering the Property in favor of the APCHA for the amounts expended by the APCHA as specified herein, including future advances made for such purposes. The Owner may cure the default and satisfy it's obligation to the APCHA under this subparagraph at any time prior to execution of a contract for sale, upon such reasonable terms as specified by the APCHA. Otherwise, Owner's indebtedness to the APCHA shall be satisfied from the Owner's proceeds at closing. 4. This Agreement shall constitute covenants running with the Real Property, as described in Exhibit "A ", as a burden thereon, for the benefit of, and shall be specifically enforceable by the APCHA, the City Council for the City (herein the "City Council "), and their respective successors and assigns, as applicable, by any appropriate legal action including but not limited to specific performance, injunction, reversion, or eviction of non - complying owners and/or occupants. 5. Pertaining to RO units, in the event that an Owner desires to sell the Property or Unit, the Owner shall execute a standard Listing Contract on forms approved by the Colorado Real Estate Commission providing for a 180 -day listing period, or such other time period as required by the APCHA Affordable Housing Guidelines in effect at time of listing. The listing agent shall promptly advertise the Property or Unit for sale by to Qualified Buyers. The Owner shall, upon closing, pay a fee to the APCHA in an amount equal to one percent (1 %) of the sales price. If FNMA type financing is used, there may be a fee charged by the APCHA based on the amount financed. The amount of this fee to be paid by the subsequent Owner shall be as set forth in the current Affordable Housing Guidelines and will be distributed to the APCHA Mortgage Fund Account. If the Housing Office markets and sells the Deed Restricted Unit, then the Owner shall contribute a two percent (2 %) fee [on the total sales price] to the overall housing program. Pertaining to the C -2, C -3 and C -4 Units, in the event that an Owner desires to sell the Property or Unit, the Owner shall execute a standard Listing Contract on forms approved by the Colorado Real Estate Commission with the APCHA providing for a 180 -day listing period, or such other time period as required by the APCHA Affordable Housing Guidelines in effect at time of listing, At this time, the Owner shall deposit with APCHA an amount equal to one percent (1 %) of the estimated value of the Unit. The APCHA shall promptly advertise the Property or Unit for sale by competitive bid to Qualified Buyers. At the time of closing, the Owner shall pay to APCHA an additional one percent (1 %), for a maximum fee of two percent (2 %). If FNMA type financing is used, there may be a fee charged by the APCHA based on the amount financed. The amount of this fee to be paid by the subsequent Owner shall be as set forth in the current Affordable Housing Guidelines and will be distributed to the APCHA Mortgage Fund Account. MAXIMUM SALE PRICE 6. The Maximum Sale Price for the units specified as RO shall be as follows: a. The initial sales prices bf the Properties by the Declarant shall be as set forth on Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (herein the "initial Sale Price"). Fifteen (15) of the Properties are designated RO. By specific authorization of the City Council, five (5) of these RO Units do not have any asset or income limitations for a IAMIAPCHAAa5 :;61119. B- -780 P -400 05/09 /9ri 0cd5t51'- PG 01 OF 84 DEED RESTRICTION, OCCUPANCY AND RESALE AGREEMENT FOR WILLIAMS RANCH AFFORDABLE HOUSING Qualified Buyer or subsequent Qualified Buyers. However, all other RO restrictions as determined by the APCHA do apply. b. Except as specified in Paragraph 3b above, the Maximum Sale Price of the Property in the event of any resale thereof more than three (3) years from the date of the initial sale by the Declarant, shall be limited to the initial sales price plus four percent (4 %) annual simple interest based on the initial sales price, for each year that the unit is owned by a Qualified Buyer, including years one through three. The Maximum Sale Price for the units specified as C -2, C -3 and C -4 shall be as follows and in no event shall the Property or a Unit be sold for an amount ( "Maximum Sale's Price ") in excess of the lesser of: C. *(the owner's purchase Drice goes here) *, plus an increase of three percent (3 %) of such price per year from the date of purchase to the date of Owner's notice of intent to sell (prorated at the rate of .25 percent for each whole month for any part of a year); or d. an amount (based upon the Consumer Price Index, All Items, U.S. City Average, Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (Revised), published by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics) calculated as follows: the Owner's purchase price multiplied by the Consumer Price index last published prior to the date of Owner's notice of intent to sell divided by the Consumer Price Index current at the date of this Agreement. In no event shall the multiplier be less than one (1). For purposes of this Agreement, "date of intent to sell" shall be the date of execution of a listing contract when required by this Agreement, or if a listing contract is not otherwise necessary, the date shall be determined to be the date upon which a requirement for the Owner to sell is first applicable. NOTHING HEREIN SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO CONSTITUTE A REPRESENTATION OR GUARANTEE BY THE APCHA OR THE CITY THAT ON SALE THE OWNER SHALL OBTAIN THE MAXIMUM SALE'S PRICE. a. For the purpose of determining the Maximum Sale Price in accordance with this Section, the Owner may add to the amount specified in Paragraph 6 above, the cost of Permitted Capital Improvements (as defined in Exhibit "C ") in a total amount not to exceed ten percent (10 %) of the initial listed purchase price set forth on Exhibit "B ". In calculating such amount, only those Permitted Capital Improvements identified in Exhibit "C" shall qualify for inclusion. All such Permitted Capital Improvements installed or constructed over the life of the unit shall qualify. However, the allowance permitted by this subsection is a fixed amount, which shall be calculated on a cumulative basis applicable to the owner and all subsequent purchasers, and shall not exceed the maximum dollar amount set forth in this subsection 7a. b. Permitted Capital Improvements shall not include any changes or additions to the Property made by the Owner during construction or thereafter, except in accordance with Paragraph 7a above. Permitted Capital Improvements shall not be included in the APCHA's listed t nurchase price, even if made or installed during original construction. IAM\APCHA.005 381193 B -780 8-401 03/09/9; 02 :56p f-"'G 3Ln OF 84 DEED RESTRICTION, OCCUPANCY AND RESALE AGREEMENT FOR WILLIAMS RANCH AFFORDABLE HOUSING C. In order to qualify as Permitted Capital Improvements, the Owner must furnish to the APCHA the following information with respect to the improvements which the Owner seeks to include in the calculation of Maximum Sale's Price: 1) Original or duplicate receipts to verify the actual costs expended by the Owner for the Permitted Capital Improvements; 2) Owner's affidavit verifying that the receipts are valid and correct receipts tendered at the time of purchase; and 3) True and correct copies of any building permit or certificate of occupancy required to be issued by the Aspen/Pitkin County Building Department with respect to the Permitted Capital Improvements. d. For the purpose of determining the Maximum Sale's Price in accordance with this Section, the Owner may also add to the amount specified in Paragraphs 6 and 7a, the cost of any permanent improvements constructed or installed as a result of any requirement imposed by any governmental agency, provided that written certification is provided to the APCHA of both the applicable requirement and the information required by Paragraph 7c, 1) - 3). C. In calculating the costs under Paragraphs 7a and 7d, only the Owner's actual out -of- pocket costs and expenses shall be eligible for inclusion. Such amount shall not include an amount attributable to Owner's "sweat equity" or to any appreciation in the value of the improvements. 8. All disputes between the Owner and the administrative staff of the APCHA shall be heard in accordance with the grievance procedures set forth in the Affordable Housing Guidelines. 9. Owner shall not permit any prospective buyer to assume any or all of the Owner's customary closing costs nor accept any other consideration which would cause an increase in the purchase price above the bid price so as to induce the Owner to sell to such prospective buyer. 10. In the event that title to the Property or a Unit vests by descent in individuals and/or entities who are not Qualified Buyers as that term is defined herein (hereinafter "Non- Qualified Transferees) "), and subject to the option specified in Paragraph 10 c. below, the Property or Unit shall immediately be listed for sale as provided in Paragraph 5 above (including the payment of the specified fee to the APCHA), and the highest bid by a Qualified Buyer, for not less than ninety-five percent (95 %) of the Maximum Sale's Price or the appraised market value, whichever is less, shall be accepted; if all bids are below ninety-five percent (95 %) of the Maximum Sale's Price or the appraised market value, the Property or Unit shall continue to be listed for sale until a bid in accordance with this section is made, which bid must be accepted. The cost of the appraisal shall be paid by the Non - Qualified Transfer - ee(s). In the event of more than one (1) qualified bid as specified herein, Non - Qualified Transferee may select the Qualified Buyer. a. Non - Qualified Transferee(s) shall join in any sale, conveyance or transfer of the Property to a Qualified Buyer and shall execute any and all documents necessary to do so; and SAWAPCHA.005 5 381193 B780 P -402 05/09/95 i't12:58P P6 33 OF' 84 DEED RESTRICTION, OCCUPANCY AND RESALE AGREEMENT FOR WILLIAMS RANCH AFFORDABLE HOUSING b. Non - Qualified Transferee(s) agree not to: 1) occupy the Property or said Unit; 2) rent all or any part of the Property or Unit, except in strict compliance with Paragraph 15 hereof; 3) engage in any other business activity on or in the Property or Unit; 4) sell or otherwise transfer the Property or Unit except in accordance with this Agreement and the Affordable Housing Guidelines; or 5) sell or otherwise transfer the Property or Unit for use in a trade or business. C. The APCHA, the City, the County, or their respective successors, as applicable, shall have the right and option to purchase the Property or Unit, exercisable within a period of fifteen (15) calendar days after receipt of any sales offer submitted to the APCHA by a Non- Qualified Transferee(s), and in the event of exercising their right and option, shall purchase the Property or Unit from the Non- Qualified Transferee(s) for a price of ninety-five percent (95 %) of the Maximum Sale's Price, or the appraised market value, whichever is less. The offer to purchase shall be made by the Non - Qualified Transferee within fifteen (15) days of acquisition of the Property or Unit. d. Where the provisions of this Paragraph 10 apply, the APCHA may require the Owner to rent the Property or Unit in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 15, below. OWNER RESIDENCE 11. The Property and all Units shall be and is/are to be utilized only as the sole and exclusive place of residence of an Owner. 12. In the event Owner changes domicile or ceases to utilize the Property or Unit as his or her sole and exclusive place of residence, the Property or Unit will be offered for sale pursuant to the provisions of 'Paragraph 10 of this Agreement. Owner shall be deemed to have changed Owner's domicile by becoming a resident elsewhere or accepting permanent employment outside Pitkin County, or residing on the Property or Unit for fewer than nine (9) months per calendar year without the express written approval of the APCHA. Where the provisions of this Paragraph 13 apply, the APCHA may require the Owner to rent the Property or Unit in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 15, below. 13. If at any time the Owner of the Property or Unit also owns any interest alone or in conjunction with others in any developed residential property or dwelling unit(s) located in Eagle, Garfield, Gunnison or Pitkin Counties, Owner agrees to immediately list said other property or unit for sale and to sell Owner's interest in such property at a sales price comparable to like units or properties in the area in which the property or dwelling unit(s) are located. In the event said other property or unit has not been sold by Owner within one hundred twenty (120) days of its listing, then Owner hereby agrees to immediately list this Property or Unit for sale pursuant to the provisions of Paragraph 10 of this Agreement. U is understood and agreed between the parties that, in the case of an Owner whose business is the construction and sale of residential properties or the purchase and resale of such properties, the properties which constitute inventory in such Owner's business shall not constitute "other developed residential property" or "dwelling units" as those terms are used in this Paragraph. 1AAAPCHA.005 :81193 R -780 P -403 05/09/95 02.58P PI, 34 OF 84 DEED RESTRICTION, OCCUPANCY AND RESALE AGREEMENT FOR WILLIAMS RANCH AFFORDABLE HOUSING 143IN ." 14. Owner may not, except with prior written approval of the APCHA, and subject to APCHA's conditions of approval, rent the Property or Unit for any period of time. Prior to occupancy, any tenant must be approved by the Homeowner's Association, if applicable, and the APCHA in accordance with the income, occupancy and all other qualifications established by the APCHA in its Affordable Housing Guidelines, The APCHA shall not approve any rental if such rental is being made by Owner to utilize the Property or Unit as an income producing asset, except as provided below, and shall not approve a lease with a rental tens in excess of twelve (12) months. A signed copy of the lease must be provided to the APCHA prior to occupancy by any tenant. Any such lease approved by the APCHA shall be the greater of Owner's cost or the monthly rental amount specified in the Affordable Housing Guidelines for units which were constructed in the year in which the subject unit was deed restricted at the appropriate income category. Owner's cost as used herein includes the monthly expenses for the cost of principal and interest payments, taxes, property insurance, condominium or homeowners assessments, utilities remaining in owner's name, plus an additional twenty dollars ($20) and a reasonable (refundable) security deposit. The requirements of this paragraph shall not preclude the Owner from sharing occupancy of the Property or Unit with non - owners on a rental basis provided Owner continues to meet the obligations contained in this Agreement, including Paragraph 12. 15. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE OWNER CREATE AN ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNIT, AS DEFINED IN THE PITKIN COUNTY OR CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODES, IN OR ON THE PROPERTY. 16. NOTHING HEREIN SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO REQUIRE THE APCHA TO PROTECT OR INDEMNIFY THE OWNER AGAINST ANY LOSSES ATTRIBUTABLE TO THIN RENTAL, INCLUDING (NOT BY WAY OF LIhIITATION) NON - PAYMENT OF RENT OR DAMAGE TO THE PREMISES; NOR TO REQUIRE THE APCHA To OBTAIN A QUALIFIED TENANT FOR THE OWNER IN THE EVENT THAT NONE IS FOUND BY THE OWNER. BREACH 17. In the event that APCHA has reasonable cause to believe the Owner is violating the provisions of this Agreement, the APCHA, by it's authorized representative, may inspect the Property or Unit between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m, Monday through Friday, after providing the Owner with no less than 24 hours' written notice. 18. The APCHA, in the event a violation of this Agreement is discovered, shall send a notice of violation to the Owner detailing the nature of the violation and allowing the Owner fifteen (15) days to cure. Said notice shall state that the Owner may request a hearing before APCHA within fifteen (15) days to determine the merits of the allegations. If no hearing is requested and the violation is not cured within the fifteen (15) day period, the Owner shall be considered in violation of this Agreement. If a hearing is held before the APCHA, the decision of the APCHA based on the record of such hearing shall be final for the purpose of determining if a violation has occurred. JAWAPCHA005 361193 B -780 F -404 05/09/95 02:58P PIG 35 OF 84 DEED RESTRICTION, OCCUPANCY AND RESALE AGREEMENT FOR WILLIAMS RANCH AFFORDABLE HOUSING REMEDIES 19. There is hereby reserved to the parties hereto any and all remedies provided by law for breach of this Agreement or any of its terms. In the event the parties resort to litigation with respect to any or all provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover damages and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees. 20. In the event the Property or Unit is sold and /or conveyed without compliance herewith, such sale and/or conveyance shall be wholly null and void and shall confer no title whatsoever upon the purported buyer. Each and every conveyance of the Property or Unit, for all purposes, shall be deemed to include and incorporate by this reference, the covenants herein contained, even without reference therein to this Agreement. 21. In the event that the Owner fails to cure any breach, the APCHA may resort to any and all available legal action, including, but not limited to, specific performance of this Agreement or a mandatory injunction requiring sale of the Property or Unit by Owner as specified in Paragraphs 3, 10, 13, and 14. In the event that a sale is required as a result of a breach of this Agreement, the sales price shall be calculated in accordance with Paragraph 10, and a qualified bid under Paragraph 10 must be accepted. The costs of such sale shall be taxed against the proceeds of the sale with the balance being paid to the Owner. 22. In the event of a breach of any of the terms or conditions contained herein by the Owner, his heirs, successors or assigns, the APCHA's initial listed purchase price of the Property or Unit as set forth in Paragraph 6 of this Agreement shall, upon the date of such breach as determined by APCHA, automatically cease to increase as set out in Paragraph 6 of this Agreement, and shall remain fixed until the date of cure of said breach. 23. If FNMA -type financing is used to purchase the Property or Unit, as determined by the APCHA, the APCHA and the Board may, pursuant to that certain Option to Buy executed and recorded of even date berewith, the terms of which are incorporated in this Agreement by this reference as if fully set forth herein, agree to release and waive their ability to enforce the resale deed restrictions contained herein, in the event of foreclosure, provided that said Option to Buy grants to the APC14A and the Board, as the designee of the APCHA, the option to acquire the Property or Unit within thirty (30) days after the issuance of a public trustee's deed to the holder (including assigns of the holder) of the promissory note secured by a first deed of trust for an option price not to exceed the redemption price on the last day of all statutory redemption period(s) and any additional reasonable costs incurred by the holder during the option period which are directly related to the foreclosure. In the event that APCHA or the Board, as the designee of the APCHA, exercise the option pursuant to the terms of that certain Option to Buy, described above, the APCHA and/or its designee, may sell the Property or Unit to Qualified Buyers as that tern is defined herein, or rent the Property or Unit to qualified tenants who meet the income, occupancy and all other qualifications, established by the APCHA in its Affordable Housing Guidelines until sale to a Qualified Buyer is effected. IAM\APC.H&005 381193 B-780 P -405 05/09/95 O4:.58P PG 36 OF 84 DEED RESTRICTION, OCCUPANCY AND RESALE AGREEMENT FOR WILLIAMS RANCH AFFORDABLE HOUSING GENERAL PROVISIONS 24. Notices. Any notice, consent or approval which is required to be given hereunder shall be given by mailing the same, certified mail, return receipt requested, properly addressed and with postage fully prepaid, to any address provided herein or to any subsequent mailing address of the party as long as prior written notice of the change of address has been given to the other parties to this Agreement. Said notices, consents and approvals shall be sent to the parties hereto at the following addresses unless otherwise notified in writing: To Declarant: Williams Ranch Joint Venture 3214 Campanil Drive Santa Barbara, California 93109 Copy to: Gary A. Wright, Esq. Wright & Adger 201 North Mill Street, Suite 106 Aspen, Colorado 81611 To APCHA: Executive Director Aspen/Atkin County Housing Authority 530 East Main, Lower Level Aspen, Colorado 81611 25. Exhibits. All exhibits attached hereto (Exhibits "A", "B" and "C ") are incorporated herein and by this reference made a part hereof. 26. Severability. Whenever possible, each provision of this Agreement and any other related document shall be interpreted in such a manner as to be valid under applicable law; but if any provision of any of the foregoing shall be invalid or prohibited under said applicable law, such provisions shall be ineffective to the extent of such invalidity or prohibition without invalidating the remaining provisions of such document. 27. Choice of Law. This Agreement and each and every related document is to be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado. 28. Successors. Except as otherwise provided herein, the provisions and covenants contained herein shall inure to and be binding upon the heirs, successors and assigns of the parties. 29. Section Headings. Paragraph or section headings within this Agreement are inserted solely for convenience of reference, and are not intended to, and shall not govern, limit or aid in the construction of any terms or provisions contained herein. 30. Waiver. No claim of waiver, consent or acquiescence with respect to any provision of this Agreement shall be valid against any party hereto except on the basis of a written instrument executed by the parties to this Agreement. However, the party for whose benefit a condition is inserted herein shall have the unilateral right to waive such condition. IAMWPCHA.005 361193 B• -760 F1 -406 05/09/95 02e56P PGP 37 OF 84 DEED RESTRICTION, OCCUPANCY AND .RESALE AGREEMENT FOR WILLIAMS RANCH AFFORDABLE HOUSING 31. Gender and Number. Whenever the context so requires herein, the neuter gender shall include any or all genders and vice versa and the use of the singular shall include the plural and vice versa. 32. Personal Liability. Owner agrees that be or she shall be personally liable for any of the transactions contemplated herein. 33. Further Actions. The parties to this Agreement agree to execute such further documents and take such further actions as may be reasonably required to carry out the provisions and intent of this Agreement or any agreement or document relating hereto or entered into in connection herewith. 34. Modifications. The parties to this Agreement agree that any modifications of this Agreement shall be effective only when made by writings signed by both parties and recorded with the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County, Colorado. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the APCHA reserves the right to amend this Agreement unilaterally where deemed necessary to effectuate the purpose and intent of this Agreement, and where such unilateral action does not materially impair the Owner's rights under this Agreement. 35. Owner and Successors. The term "Owner" shall mean the person or persons who shall acquire an ownership interest in the Property or Unit in compliance with the terms and provisions of this Agreement; it being understood that such person or persons shall be deemed an "Owner" hereunder only during the period of his, her or their ownership interest in the Property or Unit and shall be obligated hereunder for the full and complete performance and observance of all covenants, conditions and restrictions contained herein during such period. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this instrument on the day and year above first written. DECLARANT: Williams Ranch Joint Venture by Mark , Inc. By: J 7e..ldent ACCEPTANCE BY THE ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY The foregoing Deed Restriction, Occupancy and Resale Agreement for Williams Ranch Affordable Housing Units and its terms are hereby adopted and declared by The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. THE ASPENWIXIN CO HOUS AUTHORITY Cindy L. Chri ensen, Office Manager IAMIAPCHA.005 10 381193 B -700 P -•407 05/09/95 02 :58P PG 38 OF 84 DEED RESTRICTION, OCCUPANCY AND RESALE AGREEMENT FOR WILLIAMS RANCH AFFORDABLE HOUSING State of Colorado ss. County o£,Pitkin ) The forgoig instrument was acknowledged before me this � day of• 1995 by John D. .'`Mukel as Fresi4r 1of Mark IV, Inc. and managing general partner of the Williams Ranch Joint Venture. rWitnew 8iy hand and official seal. MX•eom#nission expires: 4 -7 -96 Notary Public State of Colorado ) ss. County of Pitkin } The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before m thisaK day of -Merch 1995 by Cindy L. Christensen the Office Manager of the Aspen/Pitkin Housing 'Au hority. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: AWaLv,. f s Me: Nl IAMIAPCHA.005 381.193 B -780 P- -408 05/09/95 08-.58P PG 39 OF 84 DEED RESTRICTION, OCCUPANCY AND RESALE AGREEMENT FOR WILLIAMS RANCH AFFORDABLE HOUSING EXHIBIT "A" Legal Description Lot 1 through Lot 35 inclusive, of the Williams Ranch Subdivision, according to the Plat thereof, recorded on �k Z 1995, in Plat Book3-7 at Page ; City of Aspen, PiWn County, Colorado. MM i EXHIBIT "B" Address Category Type Initial Sales Price (unit #) 1 RO -5 4 BR SF to be determined by Declarant & Buyer 2 RO 4 BR SF to be determined by Declarant & Buyer 3 RO -5 4 BR SF to be determined by Declarant & Buyer 4 RO -5 4 BR SF to be determined by Declarant & Buyer 5 RO -5 4 BR SF to he determined by Declarant & Buyer 6 RO 4 BR SF to be determined by Declarant & Buyer 7 RO -5 4 BR SF to be determined by Declarant & Buyer 8 RO 4 BR SF to be determined by Declarant & Buyer 9 RO -5 4 BR SF to be determined by Declarant & Buyer 10 RO 4 BR SF to be determined by Declarant & Buyer 11 RO 413R SF to be determined by Declarant & Buyer 12 C -4 4 BR SF $ 205,000.00 13 RO -5 4 BR SF to be determined by Declarant & Buyer 14 RO -5 4 BR SF to be determined by Declarant & Buyer 15 RO-5 4 BR SF to be determined by Declarant & Buyer 16 C -2 1 BR DP $ 70,800.00 17 C -4 4 BR DP $ 198,000.00 18 C -4 4 BR DP $ 198,000.00 19 C -2 1 BR DP $ 70,800.00 20 C -3 3 BR DP $ 115,000.00 21 C -2 2 BR DP $ 81,000.00 22 C4 4 BR SF $ 205,000.00 23 C -3 3 BR DP $ 115,000.00 24 C -2 2 BR DP $ 81,000m 25 C -2 I BR DP $ 70,800.00 26 C -4 4 BR DP $ 198,000.00 27 C -4 4 BR DP $ 198,000 -00 28 C -2 1 BR DP $ 70,800.00 29 RO -5 4 BR SF to be determined by Declarant & Buyer 39 C -2 2 BR DP $ 81,000.00 31 C -3 3 BR DP $ 115,000100 32 C -2 2 BR DP $ 81,000.00 33 C -2 2 BR DP $ 81,000.00 34 C -2 2 BR DP $ 81,000.00 35 C -3 3 BR DP $ 115,000.00 IAW\APMAANIS 12 381193 13 -780 P -409 05/09/95 02:;SP PG 4e OF 84 DEED RESTRICTION, OCCUPANCY AND RESALE AGREEMENT FOR WILLIAMS RANCH AFFORDABLE HOUSING EXHIBIT "C" Permitted Capital Improvements 11 The term "Permitted Capital Improvement" as used in the Agreement shall only include the following: a. Improvements or fixtures erected, installed or attached as permanent, functional, non- decorative improvements to real property, excluding repair, replacement and /or maintenance improvements; b. Improvements for energy and water conservation; C. Improvements for the benefit of seniors and/or handicapped persons; d. Improvements for health and safety protection devices; C. Improvements to add and /or finish permanent/fixed storage space; f. Improvements to finish unfinished space; and/or g. The cost of adding decks and balconies, and any extension thereto. 2. Permitted Capital Improvements as used in this Agreement shall not include the following: a. Landscaping; b. Upgrades of appliances, plumbing and mechanical fixtures, carpets, and other similar items included as part of the original construction of the unit; C. Jacuzzis, saunas, steam showers and other similar items; d. Improvements required to repair, replace and maintain existing fixtures, appliances, plumbing and mechanical fixtures, painting, carpeting and other similar items; e. Upgrades or addition of decorative items, including lights, window coverings, and other similar items. 3. All Permitted Capital Improvement items and costs shall be approved by the APCHA staff prior to being added to the Maximum Resale Price as defined herein. IAWA�A M< FecePlion Nv. gvewdv DEED OF TRUST MIS INDENTURE, Mede this dry d March ,19 95 , W. the Williams ranch Joint Venture WM1OK eddKlP lr 3214 Canpanil Drive, Santa Barbara, California 93109 Aere'Inder mfemd W n Stutter, evd the PuHie Trusme of lbe •Cwdrd Pitkin ,Sues d Coluend9. bcrclnNmr Kkrtcd W a Public Meshes. WITNESSETH, THAT, WHEREAS, the Williams ranch Joint Venture !In aeeumd • .Oeuing even dme MlewW, WMmyrhr�emrtuf an Annexation Agreement and AH Construction Agreement edrm,"- wm- rnenramr for the use and benefit of the City of Aspen NWK addles u 130 South Galena Street, aspen, Colorado 81611 7f the delehcn Vue itll a mum thchmef.I littl3w MeretF *11»wu -d ye e- 1 Put en ne . parbin as set forth in those agreenwnts AND WHEREAS, TbegKnWrudcefrwedsecutin ¢gymentdtheprialpal eM ivmastdseiggnfswylweelnmiwKbuW raew 0lvseW tom ardnyeflhun stay h. NOW.THEREPORE,TlmgrdneL W eansNudtialdtMpmmisesevd WrMe PwPmm1sM N,dtmsb wbySrset, letWin, sdlutdewuey sees the mW Public 4uRw is trust Isevee to RibwinS dawricil pmperty, situela in the City of Aspen Cvutsy or Pitkin , Sw d Cd4adn. W wit: IAtin , 1 .Iqt —, IUt _, Lot _. lot iqt and lot _ < Subdivision, according to the Plat recorded on _ March 1995 in t t..yI . Page W -if in Demer. i.1-City n d.. N0. 3etR. Pee. 73-85. OFfYOPTnrM IMMkRmININaR PewSNelYw •-•. —^,__. BNYd M1tlibbl, H!) W mMtl„ LMesel. CD eRI, _.1ri113]>w.O' When lIXerded. K[W11 W 11 Lee N �9 G; !C 07 9 n i F r 5 f� ,D t0 9 4' in rt Q T 381193 5--/$0 "11 05/09/95 02:58P PS 4a of " those of record, particularly the purchase Maley peed of Trust recorded in Hook 772 at Page 666 and re- recorded in Book 773 at Page 546, and the Deed of Trust given for the use and benefit of Alpine Hank to secure a construction loan to illprove the real property, recorded in Hook _ at page _. am The abme bettmam Fop" an The what am peaeable po..ien offt MknLrac, hamccomossm",ne,agahat aamct w ,emaandr persons lawfbny claiming mwclaim the emak manyput theme& tle gta eTshall am Tell] Wamnt and Far.Dd d. anrsuehteemme, aawm am such lameme. am alt made wmid wish interest dwmna Temed 1b.amumatellbeaddedweal am that it fomcbwm he made by The Mh: ThwTm, m i fae dthe wet or a rearormbp a amount wmaa- rmauvknintMwperviaionduidfucclomepmcadiugasMllbea[ kxed by the Nblk Tuna as a put dNecoa affe K)moa. and irrenchemebe nude thawgh The courts a masomble atlmmyS fee shall be at by the ewn as a pan of the met d such Qaelosca pt iap. The sin tar mein. "I iechm, the plaol, the yhmm, the sfingular em Ne use of any Teeter shall be oppk.NT mall genie s. Eaecusd this Op'�^ day d}}arett�iV 19 95 ATRlt! IMSAC.FC M3 MEM Oar4 ea tmew ■ptl/h'ltrm.owaw Ma reg..ay��aaar sa efiftl lb ip4 Canard aStlata��` The by UI KV �CJI T1GrD brae trc this Wizen my Net am seal. pq My eommiuion wk% L4Ae lfj'It 111 F 0 fl w a William Ranch Joint Venture a Colorado genera partner sftIP) w Jo Markel, President of rk IV, Inc. in IA g general partner 3 8 � a d ` g 1� z° z E T W MAR 07 '95 06 :iSPM STEVENS GROUP VANNiCE ENTERPRISES, INC. 41 MARTINOALS PLACE POST OFFIOi SOX 6478 SNOWMASS VUME, CO 81615 (30 923-4728 FAX (303} 9234717 February 28, 1995 John D. Market Wililams Rench Joint Venture do Mark IV, Inc. 3214 Campanii Drive Santa Barbara, CA 93109 Dear John, P.i Vannice Enterprises, Inc. has produced many employee projects such as Fairway Three Townhomes (30 units) and West Hopkins in Aspen (10 Units). Because of this past experience we feel we can produce the Williams Ranch 34 single and duplex units within the some budget as the other protects, The total square footage of the single units is 37,124 square feet. The total square footage of the duplex units is approximately 18,562 square feet. The garages total 9,632 square feet. The total square footage will result in a construction budget of approximately $3,800,000 to $3,900,000. Sincerely, W� P. William R. Vannice President C•; a it! J 9 n r0 5 LR s LnL? c °. P r, rho O T, m t� P a a• C7 � H / d r o�} 0 1 i XB 3 - e. ! 2p jj e 69. Elf S tlQQ'yg '¢ "��k a6� +S 64u J y •$a i��d,. ` -R� °gym-' }�!F - • m m i zz�� f/l li4 Z IL � it Ar 4.i .v J [G r 5 6 Uw€ m c- 11 0 N ' is w W is t 9 in y 00 T r !1 CA i 3 0 i ro W U , ;l1II � � .. .. 11 0 N ' is w W is t 9 in y 00 T r !1 CA i 3 r M W T _ 1 41. � � f m� N �.A i i i i + a f ' e f R i UP Fj(1 t' I fl l t v p g, a Ii �� K Ch s � 5 1 � 1 Q1, Lin TT 4J 4 14 00 Pip CD 44 lip I LL Q1, Lin TT 4J 4 14 00 Pip CD 44 lip I M 0 M H .0 N 0 N� a 1 � I i r -- \ n_ 0 A ai'e ii6rr -1 � ! C e d£ 4i It a 3� ! Il • ` ��i }�� sz X32: 3 N A $ C f.•i r Ww Y m V F f Q l m VJ fn m v t r 3 N A $ C f.•i r Ww Y m V F f Q l m VJ fn m v t February 23, 1995 Mr. Gary Wright r Wright & Adger 201 North Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: WILLIAMS RANCH LANDSCAPE COST ESTIMATE Dear Gary, t Fl- The following construction oast estimate is based on the Final Plat Landscape Plan dated February 24, 1995. This estimate includes all construction items not included in building or infrastructure construction costs. I. Finish Grade: 170,000 s.f. @ .06 /s.f. $10,200.00 2. Irrigation: 26 structures @ 4,000.00 1ea. 104,000.00 w 3. Semi'. t 115,000 s.f. @ .12/s.f. 13,800.00 4. Sod: 55,000 s.f. @ .28 /s.f. 15,400.00 R 5. Plant Material: 119 Aspen @ 200.00 1ea. 23,800.00 34 Spruce @450.00 /ea. 15,300.00 8 Cottonwood @ 450.00 /ea. 3,600.00 330 Shrubs @ 25.00 /ea. 8,250.00 6, Trails: c+ 480 11 @ 5.0011.f. 2,400.00 7. Boulder Walls: f 450 s.ff. @ 15.00 /s.f.f. 6,750.00 rat N 8. Concrete Retaining Walls: 600 s.ff. @ 20.00 1s.ff. 12,000.00 m 9. Site Stairs: Lump Sum 5,000.00 10. TOTAL $219500 00 z» r. Acnen Airport Business Ccnter, Aspen, Colorado 81611 r.., M V V r•, I= -4 m m 9 6 ,P tn r. �n r G: T. January 25, 1995 Mr. Gary Wright 201 North Mill Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: MOLLIE GIBSON LANDSCAPE CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE Dear Gary, The following construction cost estimate is based on the Final Landscape Plan dated January 25, 1995, reviewed and approved by the City Parks Department and attached herein. This estimate includes all construction elements not included in the Banner Associates, Inc. infrastructure construction cost estimate. 1. Finish Grade: 70,000 Square Feet @ .06 /s,f, $4,200.00 2. Irrigation: Lump Sum 15,000,00 3. Seed: Seed Type 1 - 30,000s.f, @ ,10 /s.f 3,000.00 Seed Type 2 - 40,000s.f. @ ,12/s.f 5,000.00 4, Plant Material: 25 Deciduous @ 3001ea. 8,700.00 32 Coniferous @ 500 /ea. 16,000.00 11 Deciduous @ 450 1ea. 4,950.00 30 Shrubs @ 45 /ea. 2,700.00 5. Site Furnishings: 3 Picnic benches @ 1,0001ea. 3,000.00 5 Seating benches @ 500 /ea. 2,500.00 Play area - lump sum @ 2000 2,000.00 6. Trails 1000 It @ 5/a.. 5,000,00 7, Sidewalks: 1,500 If @ 10.0011.E 15.000.00 8. TOTAL 85,700.00 H ygH N yM. Ui p� R n 1 N 0 M N N C•i p W Aj p �a n w^ s 9 cn 5 !C; C] Sa T sa C.; 9 u F"1 0 . s fti ;r _g \ _ r Y a^ sS?; --- �i.. 1 \ a 11 EEE �s m• `\ is \ `ki rte. It pit 1 i N N IMt ID W C4 "C! 1` fo 9 r� 5 ie U TS 1SJ D i 85/04/1995 13938 FROM Banner Fasociales Imo 0 m m U r 0 v m �Zm Z ?q 0 LL o 0 25w- y 0 Lu p a a w UJ x _z .54 LL � ? W g 30 T abed .%, JISM2 co LLI W a X. I ya El as Ico TO 9255663 acZOMxOY NDzyVXR0rT JDNV9 SMITI M ci $ 4R 4 1 Np� ti GO co fi�N(�A fl3H W3, ` qp pppp fw% 44 aj l -LLJ �ti�47 a$LL 0Go 0 0 �A N I�N Ne-�� N 0 '°' I%vav8oAx &zw�g25iH s m P.01 TOTRL P.01 a c �u cL CL LL to cc u� w 0 L7 9 d 5 n 1`7 ti 05iO4i1995 13:20 It CO LL u r•� 0 0. 47 5 G7 d` m 5 \ s N i u 9 01 n I S� 1°) +-tl -1 FROM Banner Associates Inc. y Cr 0 V J a TO 9255663 v 6* sr i�a � 22 -- => ow-lox-aN pp 6Ot AX'S Q° f iCiY W Id 09 cn e m g Cr W V N pN m w 0.A C+17mo NOSIVV A-► NDtrnDDD3ADDDZr i z �' ntrn +tea) �+ pq�� N OpNp tyfl O pw OcAmc 1V 40 is yy� 0. so WOOD OD. 0 0 C2, 0 S C 0 0 0 0 S S S S S cog �WiA .CV/WW �a tp �M 2 � "6l N_M M� -04 BfiRa OwScnooN� o SSggg�gggSgg °ov °oQ °oo °c =a N n X A C a C Z 1 Z q m O r P.02 A mm T m0 m Z N Y Y Y �y H r" N M rn ca m0 q73 � / .� / � � 2 - $ ) � \ \ FROM .� _ �.Q._� Inc. TO � _.� § ca C3 -n n� �A 0 ¢ �_ ■ ƒ40 e a 0 ��.§ gQ 1■ \kJ . §Q k , 7 |z $ CD | .!m § \ | «. V 3 2. nl k ) 2 § ° % ow ¥ $ a��■a6CD � .��222q�� |§ ® Q ! | | \ W"# � | Q k ) Cap _ �#•�� ( .B |#8880,888. . ca m0 q73 � / .� / � � 2 - $ ) � \ \ 95i84�1995 13 :29 FROM Banner Rssociatps Inc. TO 9435663 F• 04 . r A It CLI LU 0 io C3 S a 5 m m ell I 6 all 1` I f'7 m m ro !A mz � q r 0 0 m a N I V1 ' m ' 0 m T n a 4/! w v OhQQQ 09 -4m gm m m mi- - - qj o C1 u O 6 @m"6pp po W N W OONONaAOA.��.► DDD'�T►-r+17��i'rnViyrn��Ty 4R in va 1�u O °OC O $ CV71 t in i V O A O! N N 40 ~ 4 °°�N° PO nO $Q :+ ,a ao.0 4 cnO U40 40 40D t:40 ogc~ire�i�.v °�AiZSv�°aw�'rn�`� o °ga$aaoSP.a °vooac`'s+a m x m 0 z 0 a'. R vm c v� Fn c xm Y • Y � y C z r' M Q 1 ^1 ' Imo— I 85/04,1995 13129 1 lv LL 0 10 U1 0 CL lrF n} 9 m m 5 IZ Cs rj li S, s rv3 C, ro FROM Banner Rssoolates Imo, TO 9255663 44 v IC lit ��A oc, j m g�' a•�� m 3�_ to O C*) i€ � CL y y� � a w m v •p+ C O W�CJ1 .rONf710� fflOOACP -+-+ � JD �Z�ar/1In In 'rfl'flpyTrl�rl7 z i i C {� O0 V147i�31 pAdd!O NOf CCN7100 A v"bc~i1$�cNr�gg$g�b'g$g0000 I m MgIM MM M � l:lnv owam�.'ww�_cd'i+�' Sms�NOSAiotvilo 0&mw i�tOfC71' -i corocn000ppp,igp8S,`8.Bo i 88$$$88888888H88SoI P.85 H n m L r� MM a 1 N 9 H r cn a, 03�04i199S 13,30 FROM Bann#r Associates Inc. TO 9253663 P.86 o o° zm a of aI I m g > n m z—r� �f ' `' g > i m mcn I m Ca i m Nv rn m z m zI I i m I m a + Co � o s me m ui CO j ul f G ij N m ! 6 � � Ln ! ! C-j PQ 5 I I W i 4/ 0C <I: Oi AAC i V O V H Q t! I n a A7 0� V3 4 91 r] l H t� m M §� \ §� k \ § .4J. \ \ } 2 / * x } � IWI �\ 2 2\ ,m. 7 | Zd. ! � .'!■ � \ < { .�, §/• � z }` ! || � \ CL \ / \ 2 \ / \ H W U I F�N G5 J t a �j i ♦ T f5 � � I' \' > s v. c yQ i (1 fef- _ IIIIj r ti° L'i EY pig Ada •r CO LL 3 S l: nj �Z 5' 9 lu v I u 9 w t lA G� 381193 8--780 P--429 05/09/95 02',58P PO 613 ilf" 84 CITY OF ASPEN WATER SERVICE AGREEMENT WILLIAMS RANCH SUBDIVISION & SI LVERLODE SUBDIVISION (New Development) This Water Service Agreement is entered into thisz( day of April 1995, in Aspen, Colorado, between THE CITY OF ASPEN, a Colorado municipal corporation and home rule city whose address is 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (hereafter the "City"), and The Williams Ranch Joint Venture, a general partnership organized under the laws of the State of Colorado, whose address is 3214 Campanil Drive, Santa Barbara, California 93109 (hereafter "Developer "). WITNESSETH WHEREAS, the City owns and operates the City of Aspen water system in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado, and in accordance with the charter, ordinances, rules, regulations, policies and resolutions of the City of Aspen, and this Agreement is entered into in conformity with, and subject to, all such laws, charter, ordinances, rules, regulations, policies and resolutions; and, WHEREAS, Developer is the owner of certain real property comprising approximately 12.774 acres situated in Pitkin County, Colorado, as more particularly described in Addendum 1, and referred to in this Agreement as the "Subject Property"; and, WHEREAS, Developer seeks to construct on the Subject Property the project described on Addendum 2 hereto (referred to herein as the "Project "); and, WHEREAS, Developer seeks to obtain municipal water service from the City for the Project on the Subject Property; and, WHEREAS, the Subject Property is located outside the corporate limits of the City and the Developer desires that the Subject Property be annexed into the City of Aspen; and, WHEREAS, approval for the Project has been granted by the City Council subject to the negotiation and execution of a mutually acceptable pre - annexation agreement between the City and Developer, a copy of the approval is attached as Exhibit A; and, WHEREAS,water service for the Project will require the construction and installation of certain water mains, lines and related facilities as described in this Agreement; and, WHEREAS, the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado (the "Code "), requires that the extension of water service outside the boundaries of the City shall be made only pursuant to a written agreement with the City, that the City shall not be obligated to extend such service, and may provide such service only upon a determination that it is in the best interests of the City, and that the City may impose such requirements by agreement as it deems necessary to protect its best interests; and, WHEREAS, the City's Water Service Extension Policy permits water service extension only upon demonstration that such extension will meet the policy goals and requirements of Resolution No. 5 (Series of 1993) as amended June 28, 1993, pursuant to Resolution No. 49 (Series of 1993), as the same may be further amended from time to time; and, WHEREAS, the City requires a loop system or a cross -tie system (at Developer's expense) such that when water main extensions are made, such extensions shall be made in a manner that will allow cross - connection with another of the City's treated water mains to create a looped system; and, 311193 B -780 P -430 05/09/95 02:58P PG 61 OF 84 CITY OF ASPEN - WATER SERVICE AGREEMENT WILLIAMS RANCH SUBDIVISION & SILVERLODE SUBDIVISION WHEREAS, the City has determined that this Agreement and all covenants herein are necessary to comply with the Code and the City's water policies, and the City is not entering into this Agreement as a public utility nor holding itself out to the public in general as capable of or intending to provide water service extraterritorially; and, WHEREAS, the Code provides for the rating of new or expanded water service based on potential water demand as expressed in equivalent capacity units (hereafter "ECU "); and, WHEREAS, the City desires to encourage the use of raw water supplies for the purposes of lawn and other outside irrigation so as to reduce the dependence on treated water for this purpose and to minimize the costs of providing treated water service to the Project and the Subject Property; and, WHEREAS, Developer has submitted its Application for Water Service Extension (the "Application ") and has paid all fees required in connection with the Application. The Application, and all attachments, addenda and exhibits thereto have been relied upon by the City in authorizing this Agreement; and, WHEREAS, the City has approved the Application, and is willing to provide water service to Developer on the terms and conditions of this Agreement. THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual promises and covenants contained herein, the City and Developer agree as follows: PURPOSE OF AGREEMENT 1. Water Service to Proiect and Subiect P=grt . The City hereby agrees with Developer to provide treated water service to the Project and the Subject Property under the terms of this Agreement in such quantities and to the extent herein provided so as to serve the structures and uses authorized by the City under the approvals granted to Developer as shown on attachments to Exhibit A. Pursuant to this Agreement, the City shall provide treated water service to the Project and the Subject Property in an amount not to exceed 130 ECUs, provided, however, that the maximum volume of treated water the City shall be required to provide to the Project and the Subject Property pursuant to this Agreement shall not exceed 53.3 acre -feet per year. Only those structures and uses approved for the Project and the Subject Property may be served under this Agreement. 2. Limitation of Time to Provide Service. The City's obligation to provide water service to the Project and the Subject Property pursuant to this Agreement shall terminate if Developer has not completed construction of the water transmission and distribution mains, lines, and related facilities described on Exbibit A by 30 November 1997, unless completion of construction is delayed by force majeure as defined in paragraph 30 below, in which case the deadline shall be extended by the same number of days as the force majeure delay that prevented completion of construction. CONSTRUCTION BY DEVELOPER 3. Mains. Lines and Facilities. Developer will design and construct the water transmission and distribution mains, associated facilities and internal distribution lines for the Project in accordance with and subject to the City's design, materials and construction specifications and approval, at Developer's own expense; provided, however, that to the extent the City desires any mains, lines or facilities with capacities 381193 8 -780 P431 05/09/95 02:58P CMG 6P OF 84 CITY OF ASPEN - WATER SERVICE AGREEMENT WILLIAMS RANCH SUBDIVISION & SILVERLODE SUBDIVISION larger than necessary to meet the needs of the Project, the City will be responsible for the incremental cost of such enlarged or additional mains or facilities. "incremental costs" shall be defined as the difference between the total cost of a particular facility designed and constructed solely to meet the needs of the Project and the total cost of such facility as enlarged at the City's request. 4. Preconstruction Exhibits. The following exhibits concerning the Project will be prepared and submitted by Developer not less than 60 days prior to the commencement of any construction of any part of the water system for the Project: Exhibit B: a. Final plans for the water mains, interconnecting mains (loop system), and lines and facilities to be constructed pursuant to this Agreement, as approved by the City. b. Schedule for completion of the Project water mains, lines and associated facilities to be constructed pursuant to this Agreement as approved by the City. Exhibit C: a. Operational impact statement containing information necessary to permit Aspen to determine the operational impact of Applicant's proposed extension on Aspen's existing facilities and water supply. The information provided should include requested water flow rates, impact on water quality, incremental costs for capital items, incremental expense items (such as electric power and treatment chemicals) and electrical consumption. Said information shall also include estimated man hours for operation and maintenance of the proposed facilities. Exhibit D: a. Estimated gross water requirement (gpd) and water flow requirements for the Project for in- building use at full development (including water requirements for any existing uses that will be continued upon completion of the Project), and estimated treated water irrigation requirements, including number of square feet to be irrigated with treated water. b. Fireflow provisions, including location, size and description of fireflow storage to serve the Subject Property. C. Description of general location of easements to be conveyed to the City. Exhibit E: a. Other circumstances, if any, affecting the cost or type of construction required for the water mains, lines and associated facilities to be constructed pursuant to this Agreement. � e wiv_ a.fnv nna 381193 S -780 G -432 05/09/95 02:58P PG 63 OF 84 CITY OF ASPEN - WATER SERVICE AGREEMENT WILLIAMS RANCH SUBDIVISION & SILVERLODE SUBDIVISION The parties agree that the Exhibits to this Agreement [Exhibits A through E] will not be recorded with the Agreement due to their length and bulk and because they are not required until 60 days prior to the commencement of any construction of any part of the water system. S. Final Plans. Upon receipt, the City will review and, if approriate, approve the final plans and specifications for the water mains, lines and facilities to serve the Subject Property. No substantial changes shall be made to the approved final plans and specifications without the City's prior written approval. Developer's registered professional project engineer shall inspect and certify the design and installation of all water system mains, lines and facilities to be constructed pursuant to this Agreement. 6. Bond Reauirements. Prior to commencement of construction of any part of the water system, the Developer shall have furnished the City with performance security in form of an Annexation Agreement, AH Construction Agreement and Deed of Trust as approved by the City Attorney in the amount of one hundred percent (100 %) of the water service system construction costs (less those incremental costs for enlarged or additional facilities to be borne by the City). These instruments shall ensure the completion of the construction, and hold the City harmless for payment to the contractor or any subcontractors, materialmen, or others involved in the construction of the water transmission and distribution mains, interconnecting mains (loop system), lines and associated facilities, or for the provision of materials therefor. The Anexation Agreement, AH Construction Agreement and Deed of Trust shall also secure to the City the Developer's maintenance obligations in an amount equal to one hundred percent (100 %) of the water service system construction costs (less those incremental costs for enlarged or additional facilities to be borne by the City), ensuring the proper condition and operation of such water service system for a period of two (2) years from the date of completion and acceptance of the system by the City. 7. Conveyance of Water Rights and Structures. Developer shall, within thirty (30) days after execution of this Agreement, convey (by quitclaim deed acceptable to the City Attorney) to the City the any and ail water rights of Developer in and to the Subject Property. The Developer shall contemporaneously convey to the City (in form acceptable to the City Attorney) any ditches, flumes, headgates or other structures and easements necessary to utilize such water rights, and all existing wells located on the Subject Property, along with the well permits and water rights pertaining thereto, except for the Salvation Ditch to which the Developer has no water rights. Such conveyance shall be a prerequisite to provision of water service to the Subject Property. The Developer will also contemporaneously provide to the City all information in its possession, or available to it, regarding the historic use of these water rights, including well pumping records, diversion records, irrigation records, aerial photographs, affidavits, and all other available information concerning the use of these water rights, and shall cooperate fully with the City in all water court proceedings brought to change or defend these water rights. The Developer shall pay City, on or before 1 April 1996, Ten Thousand and 00/100 U.S. Dollars ($10,000.00) for the express purpose of City obtaining an Engineering investegation of the feasability of developing the groundwater under the Subject Property. 8. Construction. Upon completion of the prerequisites described in paragraphs 3 through 7 above, Developer shall proceed with due diligence to construct the water transmission and distribution mains, lines and associated facilities in accordance with the plans and specifications and the construction schedule. No construction shall occur between November 1 and April 1 without written permission of the City's Department of Public Works. 381191" 13- 7801 P -433 05/09/95 412-58P PS 64 OF: 84 CITY OF ASPEN • WATER SERVICE AGREEMENT WILLIAMS RANCH SUBDIVISION & SILVERLODE SUBDIVISION inspection fees. Developer shall also be responsible for timely acquiring and paying for all permits and permit fees from entities other than the City (such as Pitkin County and/or other regulatory agencies) necessary for construction of the mains, lines and associated facilities. 10. Inspection of Construction. Construction must be inspected by the City's engineers or other designated personnel prior to burial or final installation. Developer shall give the City reasonable advance notice when the mains, lines and/or associated facilities are ready for burial or installation, and the City's engineer or agent shall inspect said mains, lines and /or associated facilities within twenty-four (24) hours of such notice. 11. Easements. Developer shall obtain at its own cost and convey in perpetuity to the City as- built non - exclusive easements for water mains, lines, tanks and other water facilities, along with all necessary access easements for maintenance and repair purposes ( "easements "). The water main and water line easements must be large enough to provide the City with at least ten (10) feet on either side of water mains and lines and must specify that (1) sewer lines must be located at least ten (10) feet from any water main or line, and (2) other utilities must be located at least five (5) feet away from any water main or line. Access easements and easements for tanks and other facilities shall be of a size determined by the City to be reasonably necessary for the operation, maintenance and repair of the tank or other facility to be Iocated on such easement. Each party shall be solely responsible for any injury or damages, including costs and attorneys' fees, to persons or property arising from its own negligent acts or omissions occurring on or resulting from its use or occupation of any easement premises. Nothing contained herein, however, shall constitute or result in any waiver or diminishment of any defense or limitation available to the City under the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act or other applicable law. 12. Testing - Conveyance: As -Built Drawings. Upon completion of construction and before any water is delivered pursuant to this Agreement, all distribution and transmission mains and all associated water lines and facilities shall be tested and, upon approval by the City, conveyed (excluding individual service lines) with all necessary non - exclusive easements to the City, free and clear of all liens and encumbrances, by deed in form acceptable to the City Attorney. Performance and payment bonds provided by Developer pursuant to paragraph 6 above shall be adjusted to reflect the final actual construction costs. The maintenance bond required by paragraph 6 above must be in place and must reflect the actual construction costs prior to the City's acceptance of any main, line or facility. As -built drawings of the Project, including the water system and all other utilities, shall be provided to the City on reproducible sepias with a maximum size of 24" x 36, and on an "auto cad disk data transfer file" tied into one (1) set of state plane coordinates. WATER SERVICE 13. Treated Water Service. Upon completion of construction and acceptance of the water distribution and transmission mains and lines, the associated facilities and easements by the City, the City will provide treated water service to the Subject Property to no more than the total number of ECUs provided for by the approved final design drawings, provided that the maximum volume of water the City shall be required to supply each year shall not exceed the amount (in acre -feet) set forth in paragraph 1 above. Any change in the treated water service requirements for the Subject Property will require approval by the City, and amendment of this Agreement. The treated water to he delivered by the City pursuant to the terms of this Agreement may be used for all lawful in- building municipal purposes, and for fire protection, swimming pools and the normal and reasonable outside irrigation of trees, lawns and gardens. Maximum outdoor irrigation shall not exceed 3,000 381193 B-760 P -434 05/09/95 4.12.5 P PIG 65 OF' 64 CITY OF ASPEN - WATER SERVICE AGREEMENT WILLIAMS RANCH SUBDIVISION & SILVERLODE square feet per each of the fifteen free market residential units, 750 square feet per each of the fifteen RO affordable housing units or 250 square feet per each of the thirty-five category 2, 3 and 4 affordable housing units. Notwithstanding the foregoing, all water use will be consistent with the City's Water Policy Resolution (Resolution No. 5, as amended, Series of 1993), and water conservation ordinances. 14. Raw Water Service. The City may provide raw water for irrigation purposes on the Subject Property to the extent it is able to do so utilizing its existing ditch system, or the water rights and structures conveyed to the City by Developer pursuant to paragraph 7 of this Agreement. 15, Tan Fees - Computation and Payment: Scheduling of Taps. All tap fees for treated water service herein provided shall be assessed utilizing the following schedule: Housing Tyne % waived by City. Tap Fee per ECU )rafter waiver) Affordable Housing Category 2 70 %n $ 2,217.00 Affordable Housing Category 3 40% $ 4,434.00 Affordable Housing Category 4 & RO 0 %v $ 7,390.00 SilverLode Subdivision Free Market Units 0% $ 7,390.00 All tap fees under the above schedule are due at the time of application for a building permit for the structure for which service is sought. No water service shall be provided to any structure absent payment of the appropriate tap fee and any applicable hookup charges. Tap fees and hookup charges shall be paid at the time of building permit issuance. The City Water Department shall determine scheduling of all physical taps or connections to the main lines. 16. Service Lines. Each service line shall be metered in accordance with the Code at the sole expense of Developer and cross- connection and backflow prevention devices will be installed at Developer's expense. 17. Limitations on Provision of Water Service. This Agreement is only for the supply of treated water service as herein described and no expansion of uses, connections, or water service beyond those set forth herein and in the Addenda and Exhibits hereto is in any way authorized by this Agreement. The City is not by this Agreement prejudging, certifying or guaranteeing its ability to provide treated water service to any use or structure except as provided herein, nor may this Agreement be used as evidence of approval of any land use requests, or as evidence of approval of water service for any land use request, except as provided herein. 18. Service Subject to the City Charter, Codes, Rules. Regulations and Policies. Developer and its successors in interest shall be bound by, and all water service provided hereunder shall be subject to, all applicable provisions of the Charter of the City of Aspen and the Aspen Municipal Code, as well as all applicable rules, policies or regulations of the City now in effect or as may be hereafter adopted. iemv ois. '388.193 9-780 A--435 05/09/95 02:5ap Pti 66 OF 04 CITY OF ASPEN - WATER SERVICE AGREEMENT WILLIAMS RANCH SUBDIVISION & SILVERLODE SUBDIVISION 19. Rules Regarding Water Use. Developer agrees to adopt all provisions set forth herein as rules and regulations governing the use of water on the Subject Property and for the Project, and agrees that this Agreement and the Addenda hereto shall be recorded as covenants running with the land and shall be as fully enforceable on the Subject Property as if the same were situated inside the City. Developer agrees to assist the City in every manner reasonably possible to enforce the City's ordinances, rules and regulations made to protect purity, safety and supply of the water delivered pursuant to this Agreement, including curtailment during times of shortage, elimination of any potential cross - connections, and the utilization of water conservation devices as set forth in the Code. Developer also agrees to prohibit all unnecessary or unreasonable waste of water on the property served by this Agreement, and to make reasonable efforts to enforce such prohibition. The unreasonable or unnecessary waste of water shall be defined as set forth in the Code. 20. Source of Water Sunoly. The parties to this Agreement recognize that the City's water supply is dependent upon sources from which the supply is variable in quantity and quality and beyond the City's reasonable control; therefore, no liability shall attach to the City under this Agreement on account of any failure to accurately anticipate availability of water supply or because of an actual failure of water supply due to inadequate runoff, poor quality, failure of infrastructure, or other occurrence beyond the City's reasonable control. 21. No Guaranty of Water Ouality. Ouantity or Pressure, The City makes no promise or guarantee of pressure, quantity or quality of water supply for any purpose, including fire suppression, except as specifically provided herein or as is required by applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations. The City agrees to treat its water to meet all mandatory local, state and federal potable water standards and to exercise reasonable care and foresight in furnishing water hereunder equal in quality to that furnished inside the City. 22. Property Rights in Water. All water furnished under this Agreement is provided on a con- tractual basis for use on the Subject Property as described in this Agreement, and all property rights to the water to be furnished hereunder are reserved to the City. Water service provided under this Agreement does not include any right to make a succession of uses of such water, and upon completion of the primary use of the water on the Subject Property, all dominion over the water provided reverts completely to the City. Subject to the prohibition against waste and any other limitations on water use imposed in this Agreement, Developer shall have no obligation to create any particular volume of return flow from the water furnished under this Agreement. Developer agrees to cooperate with the City in measuring and reporting return flows to the extent such measuring and reporting are required by the Colorado State Engineer or his agents. VIOLATIONS 23. Enforcement by the City. The parties to this Agreement recognize and agree that the City has the right to enforce its rules, policies, regulations, ordinances and the terms of this Agreement by the disconnection of the supply of water provided hereunder. Additionally, in the event that Developer or any user who has purchased or leased a portion of the Project or the Subject Property violates the rules, policies, regulations or ordinances of the City, the City shall have all remedies available to it at law or in equity, or as provided in the Code: Without limiting the foregoing rights and remedies, Developer agrees that the City may also enforce such violations by injunction, the parties agreeing That the damages to the City from such violations are irreparable, and there is no adequate remedy at law for such violations. The City shall be free from any liability arising out of the exercise of its rights under this paragraph. 361193 B -780 P•-436 05/09/95 02:58P PG 67 OF C44 CITY OF ASPEN - WATER SERVICE AGREEMENT WILLIAMS RANCH SUBDIVISION & SILVERLODE SUBDIVISION TERMINATION 24. Termination by Agreement. Except as provided to the contrary herein, this Agreement shall only be terminated in writing by mutual agreement and the term of this Agreement shall continue until such termination. 25. Termination if Illegal. The parties agree, intend and understand that the obligations imposed by this Agreement are conditioned upon being consistent with state and federal laws and the Code. The parties further agree that if any provision of this Agreement becomes in its performance inconsistent with the Code or state or federal laws, or is declared invalid, the parties shall in good faith negotiate to modify this Agreement so as to make it consistent with the Code or state or federal laws as appropriate, and if, after a reasonable amount of time, their negotiations are unsuccessful, this Agreement shall terminate. The City agrees that its contractual obligations hereunder will not be impaired by any amendment to the Code unless such amendment (or impairment) is mandated by State or Federal law. GENERAL PROVISIONS 26. Annexation. The service to be provided hereunder is entirely contingent upon the negotiation and execution of a mutually acceptable agreement for the annecation of the Subject Property into the corporate limits of the City of Aspen. Such annexation shall not divest or diminish any land use approvals or development rights awarded by the City of Aspen for the Projector the Subject Property, to the extent such approvals and rights are legally vested on behalf of Developer prior to annexation to the City. Land use approvals or development rights not vested in accordance with law prior to the annexation shall be subject to the terms, conditions, and regulations of the Aspen Municipal Code upon annexation. Failure of Developer or its successors in interest to commence and complete annexation proceedings as herein required shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement authorizing the City to terminate the same. Alternatively, failure of Developer or its successors in interest to commence and complete annexation as herein required shall authorize the City to commence and/or complete such annexation on their behalf, in which event the City shall charge, and Developer and/or its successors in interest shall pay, all costs and fees associated with such annexation. 27. No Public Utility Status. The parties agree that by this Agreement the City does not become a public utility compelled to serve other parties similarly situated. Developer agrees that neither it, nor its successors in interest or assigns shall at any time petition the Colorado Public Utilities Commission to acquire jurisdiction over any water rate set by the City. The parties agree that in the event the City is held to be a public utility by virtue of this Agreement, this Agreement shall terminate and be of no further farce or effect. 28. No Waiver. Failure of a party hereto to exercise any right hereunder shall not be deemed a waiver of any such right and shall not affect the right of such party to exercise at some future time said right or any other right it may have hereunder. 29. Notices. All notices required to be given shall be deemed given upon deposit in the United States mail, first class postage prepaid, properly addressed to the person or entity to whom directed at his or its address shown herein, or at such other address as shall be given by notice pursuant to this paragraph. Copies of all such notices shall also be sent in the same manner to the City Attorney, City of Aspen, 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 and to Gary A. Wright, Esq., 201 North Mill Street, Suite 106, Aspen, Colorado 81611. 361193 B -780 P -•438 05/09/95 02:58P Pb' 69 OF 84 CITY OF ASPEN - WATER SERVICE AGREEMENT WILLIAMS RANCH SUBDIVISION & SILVERLODE SUBDIVISION APPROVED 4S TO FORM: r Aspen City Attorney DEVELOPER: WILLIAMS RANCH JOINT VENTURE a Color eneral Partnership By: John el, President Ma V, Inc. corporate general partner !ANX- HOH.003 10 N ::81193 B --780 P- -437 05/09/95 02:58G Pf' 68 ill'= 34 CITY OF ASPEN - WATER SERVICE AGREEMENT WILLIAMS RANCH SUBDIVISION & SILVERLODE SUBDIVISION 30. Force Maieure. No party shall be held liable for a failure to perform hereunder due to wars, strikes, acts of God, natural disasters, drought or other similar occurrences outside of the control of that party. 31. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement shall be or become invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of the provisions shall not be affected thereby, and each and every provision shall be enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law. 32. Amendment: Assignment. Neither this Agreement, nor the obligations of either party hereto, nor the right to receive water service hereunder, may be amended or assigned without the written consent of the parties hereto. 33. Entire Agreement. Except as otherwise provided herein, this Agreement, including its Addenda and Exhibits, supersedes and controls all prior written and oral agreements and representations of the parties and is the total integrated agreement among the parties governing the matters provided for herein. 34. Interpretation. Neither the titles to this Agreement nor the recitals appearing prior to paragraph 1 of this Agreement shall be used to alter the meaning of this Agreement and in the event of a conflict, the terms and conditions of the numbered paragraphs shall govern. 35. Binding Agreement - Recording. This Agreement is binding upon the parties hereto, their successors and assigns, and any sale of the Project, the Subject Property, or any portion of either shall be subject to this Agreement as provided herein. This Agreement and the Addenda hereto (but not the Exhibits, which are lengthy, illustrative and technical in nature) shall be recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder, and shall impose covenants running with the land upon all of the Subject Property. Deeds to subsequent owners shall provide notice of this Agreement and the obligations contained herein. 36. Governing Law: Venue: Attorne e Fees. This Agreement and the rights and obligations of the parties hereunder shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado. Venue for all actions arising under this Agreement shall be Pitkin County, Colorado. In the event legal remedies must be pursued to resolve any dispute or conflict regarding the terms of this Agreement or the rights and obligations of the parties hereto, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover costs incurred in pursuing such remedies, including expert witness fees and reasonable attorneys' fees. 37. Authorization of Signatures. The parties acknowledge and represent to each other that all procedures necessary to validly contract and execute this Agreement have been performed and that the persons signing for each party have been duly authorized to do so. 38. Counterparts. This Agreement may be signed using counterpart signature pages, with the same force and effect as if all parties signed on the same signature page. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement the date and year first above written. ATTEST: THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO A Municipal Corporation and Home Rule City By: By: City Clerk Mayck !ANX- HO14.003 381193 B °780 F -439 05/09/95 02:58P 1='G 70 OF 84 QUIT CLAIM DEED FOR WATER RIGHTS THIS DEED, made this day of April 1995, between Williams Ranch Joint Venture, a Colorado general partnership, whose address is 3214 Campanil Drive, Santa Barbara, California 93109 ( "GRANTOR") and The City of Aspen, whose address is: c/o Water Department 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611, ( "GRANTEE"); WITNESSETH, That the GRANTOR, for and in consideration of the sum of ($10.00) TEN DOLLARS and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, has remised, released, sold, conveyed and QUIT CLAIMED, and by these presents do remise, release, sell, convey and QUIT CLAIM unto the GRANTEE, its successors and assigns, forever, all u.c right, title, interest, claim and demand which the GRANTOR has in and to the below described real property, situate, lying and being in the City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado, described as follows: any and all water rights of the Grantor, in and to the real property described as the SilverLode - Williams Ranch Parcel of the Smuggler Mine Subdivision, according to the Plat thereof, recorded on 15 of March 1995, in Plat Book 36 at Page 77, consisting of 12.774 acres, more or less. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same, together with all and singular and appurtenances and privileges thereunto belonging or in anywise thereunto appertaining, and all the estate, right, title, interest and claim whatsoever, of the GRANTOR, either in law or equity, to the only proper use, benefit and behoof of the GRANTEE, its and assigns forever. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The GRANTOR has executed this deed on the date set forth above. Williams Ranch Joint Venture a lbr al partnership by: cel, resident M , Inc., managing general partner State of Colorado ) )ss. County of Pitkin ) The fore oing Quit Claim Deed for Water Rights was executed and acknowledged before me this day of April, 1995 by John D. Markel, as president of Mark IV, Inc., managing general partner of the Williams Ranch Joint Venture, a Colorado general partnership. Witness my hand and official seal.. My commission expires: ITAitY .,.t; L, unne etubcswox-QM.00, h �q� 381193 B-°780 P -440 05/09/95 02.58F.' P(3 71 OF84 GENERAL WARRANTY DEED JA M � LL THIS DEED, is made this _ day of March 1995, between the WILLIAMS RANCH JOINT VENTURE, a Colorado General Partnership, whose legal address is Go MARK IV, Inc., 3214 Campanil Drive, Santa Barbara, California 93109, ( "Grantor ") and the City of Aspen, a Colorado Municipal corporation, ( "Grantee "): WITNESSEfH, That the Grantor for and in consideration of the sum of TEN DOLLARS ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, has granted, bargained, sold and conveyed, and by these presents does grant, bargain, sell, convey and confine, unto the Grantee, its successors and assigns forever, that parcel of real property togetherwith improvements, if any, situate, lying and being in the City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado described on the Final Plat of the Williams Ranch Subdivision, recorded on _ March 1995 in Plat Book 31 at Page 3, as Lot * "•. TOGETHER, with all and singular the hereitaments and appurtenances thereto belonging, or in anywise appertaining, and the reversion and reversions, remainder and remainders, rents, issues and profits thereof, and all the estate, right, title, interest, claim and demand whatsoever of the Grantor, either in law equity, of, in and to the above bargained premises, with the bereditaments and appurtenances. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the premises above bargained and described, with the appurtenances, unto the Grantee, its successors and assigns forever. And the Grantor, for itself, its successors, does covenant, grant, bargain, and agree to and with the Grantee, its successors and assigns, that at the time of the ensealing and delivery of these presents, it is well seized of the premises above conveyed, has good, sure, perfect, absolute and indefeasible estate of inheritance, in law, in fee simple, and has good right, full power and lawful authority to grant, bargain, sell and convey the same in manner and form as aforesaid, and that the same are free and clear from all former and other grants, bargains, sales, liens, taxes, assessments, encumbrances and restrictions of whatever kind of nature soever, and expressly subordinant and subject to that certain deed of trust to secure the Grantor's construction loan to Alpine Bank of Aspen which was recorded on March 1995 as Reception No. in Book _ at Page This conveyance is further subject to the following liens and encumbrances: The general taxes for 1995 payable in 1996 The right of proprietor of a vein or lode to extract and remove his ore therefrom should the same be found to penetrate or intersect the premises as reserved in United States patent recorded December 22, 1909, in Book 136 at Page 365, recorded May 20, 1949 in Book 175 at Page 162, and recorded December 24, 1902 in Book 55 at Page 116. The right of way for ditches or canals constructed by the authority of the United States as reserved in United States patent recorded November 22;1910, in Book 136 at Page 373, and recorded December 24,1902 in Book 55 at Page 116. The effect of rights of way for roads, ditches, tunnels, drainage and the rights of the public, if any, to use the same, including, but not limited to the Salvation Ditcb. The perpetual right of way and easements to extend or drive levels or tunnels through the subject property as set forth an reserved in deed recorded March 30, 1895 in Book 131 at Page 425. The easement for Smuggler Mountain Tunnel and tunnel site as set forth in instrument recorded July 9, 1889 in Book 68 at Page 404. The terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as contained in Agreements recorded August 30, 1988 in Book 572 at Page 70 and recorded August 30, 1988 in Book 572 at Page 72. The teams, conditions, provisions, obligations and easements as contained in instrument recorded January 25, 1985 in Book 480 at Page 494 and recorded April 2, 1986 in Book 508 at Page 312. !':VAM\WRJV- COA.GWD 381193 B- 780 P-441 05/09/95 02:58P PG 7,E! OF L14 GENERAL WARRANTY DEED Grantor: WILLIAMS RANCH JOINT VENTURE Grantee: THE CITY OF ASPEN Legal: Lot * * *, Williams Ranch Subdivision The casement and right of way for overhead utility lines as constructed and in place as set forth on the survey prepared by Banner Associates, Inc., dated July 27, 1994. The terms, conditions, provisions, easements and rights of way as contained in instruments recorded April 24, 1974 in Book 268 at Page 415, recorded November 14, 1988 in Book 578 at Page 453, recorded November 17, 1988 in Book 578 at Page 774, recorded May 25, 1989 in Book 593 at Page 352, and re- recorded May 26, 1989 in Book 593 at Page 429, and roads as constructed and in place, all as set forth on the survey prepared by Banner Associates, Inc., dated July 27, 1994. The terms, conditions, provisions, obligations and restrictions as contained in Ordinance No. 94-15 recorded June 27, 1994 in Book 754 at Page 194, and Resolution No. 94 -110 recorded September 9, 1994 in Book 760 at Page 909. The terms, conditions, provisions, obligations and effects of partial consent decree recorded May 11, 1994 in Book 750 at Page 227, and any and all unrecorded instruments pertaining to case in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado entitled the United States of America (Plaintiff) vs. Smuggler- Durant Mining Corporation, et. at. (Defendants), and the State of Colorado (Plaintiff) vs. Maxxam, Inc., et al. (Defendants), Civil Action Numbers 89 -C -1802 and 92 -C -620. The terms, conditions, provisions, obligations and effects of the Annexation Agreement between the Williams Ranch Joint Venture and the City of Aspen dated ! March 1995 and recorded in the Pitkin County records in Book _ at Page _ The Grantor shall and will WARRANT AND FOREVER DEFEND the above - bargained premises in the quiet and peaceable possession of the Grantee, its successors and assigns, against all and every person or persons lawfully claiming the whole or any part thereof. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor has executed this deed on the date set forth above. Williams Ranch Joint Venture, a Colorado General Partnership By: John D. Markel, President Mark IV, Inc. a Colorado corporation, managing general partner State of Colorado ) ) ss. County of Pitkin ) The foregoing General Warranty Deed was acknowledged before me this _ day of March 1995, by John D. Markel as President of Mark IV, Inc. the managing general partner of the Williams Ranch Joint Venture. WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL. My commission expires: Notary Public C:VANAWRJV.COA.GWD 381193 & -780 R- -442 05/09/95 02:58F, PG 73 OF 84 WILLIAMS RANCH - CITY OF ASPEN ANNEXATION AGREEMENT EXHIBIT "Q" RESIDENT OCCUPIED CRITERIA FOR WILLIAMS RANCH: There shall be two (2) separate types of Resident Occupied ( "RO ") homes at the Williams Ranch. 1. Ten (10) of the RO single family homes will have income and asset limitations of $150,000 and $400,000 respectively' for purchasers. 2 Five (5) of the RO single family homes will have no income or asset limitations on their purchasers. 3. All fifteen (15) will be otherwise subject to the restrictions set forth from time to time by the Aspen/Pitkin Housing Authority for RO Category units. 4. In no event shall any owner of any RO single family home be required to move or sell their home as a result of any adjustment in income or asset restrictions revisions made by ASPEN or an increase in their income and assets subsequent to their purchase of any RO single family home. ' Subject to annual adjustment by the Aspen /Pitkin Housing Authority. IAMON- DOCAANNEX.EM Mar, 7. 1995 2 :58PM PRICE POSTEL & PARMA No. 1419 P, 3/13 381193 9 -780 P -443 05/09/95 02:58F" PG 74 OF 84 WHIJAMS RANCH — CITY OF ASPEN AR CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT AVIA THIS AHCONSTRUCTTON AGREEMENT ( "Agreement ") is entered intoiAmeh 1995, by and between Williams Ranch Joint Venture, a Colorado general patmership ( "WRIV "), as the successor in interest to Smuggler Consolidated Mines Corporation, a Colorado corporation ( "SCMC "), and the City of Aspen, a Colorado municipal corporation ( "Aspen"). RECITALS: A. WHEREAS, SCMC submitted an application to Aspearequesting approval of the development of certain property known as the "Williams Ranch Property," which development consists of 35 deed restricted affordable housing units ( "Affordable Housing Units "), 15 free market lots ( "Free Market Lots "), Plan Unit Development, Subdivision, Rezoning, GMQS Exemption, Annexation. 8040 Greenline Review and special review ( "Development Application "); B. WHEREAS, the Williams Rauch Property is located immediately adjacent to Aspen in the AF-1 zone district of Pitkin County; C. WHEREAS, SCMC also filed with Aspen a Petition for Annexation to annex the Williams. Ranch Property to Aspen ( "Annexation Petition "); D. WHEREAS, as set forth in Aspen Ordinance No. 52 (Series of 1994), which was finally adopted, passed and approved by Aspen on November 14, 1994 ( "Ordinance No. 521), Aspen approved the Development Application; E. WHEREAS, SCMC has assigned its entire right, title and interest in and to the Development Application and the Annexation Petition to WR1V; F. WHEREAS, Aspen's approval of the Development Application is subject to (i) adoption by the Aspen City Council of an Annexation Ordinance annexing the Williams Ranch Property to Aspen; (ii) the terms and conditions of an Annexation Agreement to be entered into by the applicant and Aspen ( "Annexation Agreement "); and (iii) the terms and conditions set forth in Ordinance No. 52; G. WHEREAS, pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Annexation Agreement, WRJV must enter into tbis Agreement to secure its performance of certain obligations as set forth in this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, WR3V and Aspen hereby agree as follows: 0< ... 1134734\sht w%..hmt3- &M;3spm ' 1 - Mar. 7. 1995 2:58PM PRICE POSTE:, & PARMA No, 1419 P, 4/13 381193 P -780 F' -444 05/09/95 02.58P PIG 75 OF 84 1.. OLIGATIONS OF 3W. WRJV, at its sole cost, agrees to perform and complete the following obligations ("WRJV Obligations "): 1.1 Con=k n Schedule. WRJV shall construct the Affordable Housing Units in accordance with the following schedule: 1.1.1 The construction of the Affordable Housing Units shall commence within two (2) years after the date the Final Planned Unit Development and Subdivision Plat for the Williams Ranch Property, as shown on Exhibit "C" to the Annexation Agreement ( "Final Plat "), is recorded; 1.1.2 The construction of eighteen (18) of the Affordable Housing Units shall be completed within four (4) years after the date the Final Plat is recorded; and 1.1.3 The construction of all of the Affordable Housing Units shall be completed within six (6) years after the date the Final Plat is recorded. 1,2 Landscaning Plan. WRJV shall landscape the Williams Ranch Property in accordance with the Final Landscape Plan attached to the Annexation Agreement as Exhibit "I," which landscaping shall be installed not later than the first planting season for the type of plants involved following the construction of all of the Affordable Housing Units; 1.3 Public Improvements, WRJV shall construct all roads, hydrants, sidewalks, trails, water lines, sewer lines and common areas set forth on the Final PUD Development Plan, as shown on Exhibit G to the Annexation Agreement ( "Final PUD Plan "). 1.4 Parking. WRJV shall construct all parking spaces as shown on the Final PUD Plan as parking for the Affordable Housing Units. 1.5 Site Grading and Drainage. WRJV shall perform the necessary work to complete the Grading and Drainage Plan, as shown on Exhibit "H" to the Annexation Agreement. 1.6 Park Develotameni Impact Fee. Subject to a credit being provided to WRJV, as described below, WRJV shall pay Aspen a park development impact fee of One Hundred Fifty Seven Thousand Three Hundred Sixty Dollars ($157,360.00) ( "Park Development Impact Fee "). 1.6.1 WRJV shall be given a credit equal to the Park Development Impact Fee when it performs the remediation work necessary to prepare the Mollie Gibson Lode site (owned by Firkin County) for a public park ( "Mollie Gibson Park "), pays all oa -site costs to complete the EPA required work necessary to remedu to soils located within the Mollie ac ... 113473- 3W"eoafe..Lm�36AS3:31pm ' 2 'Mar. 7, 1995 2,59PM PRICE POSTE? & PARMA No, 143 P, 5/13 3H1193 B -780 P -445 05/09/95 oet58G pQ 7& OF 84 Gibson Park and completes all improvements required by the Aspen Parks Department, as set forth in the following Section 1.6.2, WRJV shall take reasonable best efforts to obtain from PWdn County a dead of dedication to the Mollie Gibson Park dedicating such property to public park purposes. 1.6.2 WM shall provide documetuation to Aspen of the amount expended to rcmediate the Mollie Gibson park, which amowit shall specifically include all remediation and other work required by the EPA and say landscape and planting and any additional expenditures for park amenities such as picnic rabies, swing sets, or similar amenities requested by the director of the Aspen Parks Department. The specific amenities shall be based upon the recommendations of the Aspen Parks Department, subject to input from neighborhood meetings. 1.7 OffoSite Impact Fee. WRIV shall pay Aspen One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00) to address and mitigate off -site traffic impacts, Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000) of which shall be paid to Aspen after WRIV has sold either eighteen (18) of the Affordable Housing Units or five (5) of the Free Market Lots, whichever shall first occur, and the remaining Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000) of which shad be paid after WRIV has sold either twenty six (26) of the Affordable Housing Units or ten (10) of the Free Market Lots, whichever shall first occur. 1.8 RFTA Impact Fee. WRJV shall pay to RFTA a public transportation impact fee in the amount of Six Thousand Dollars ($6,000,00) to mitigate impacts of increase public transportation ridership, which amount shall be paid after WRJV has sold either twenty six (26) of the Affordable Housing Units or ten (10) of the Free Market Lots, whichever shall first occur. 1.9 School Impact Fee. WRIV shall pay to Aspen, for the benefit of the Aspen School District, the stem of Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000,00) to mitigate the impacts of the projected increase school enrollment resulting from the Project, which amount shall be paid after WRIV has sold all of the Affordable Housing Units. 2.1 Project Fitlaneiug. Alpine Bank will provide the loans for the construction of the Affordable Housing Units and to enable WRJV to perform the other obligations included within the WRJV Obligations. Alpine Batik's loan to WRIV will be secured by a first priority deed of trust which covers the 35 deed restricted lots and ten (10) of the Free Market Lots ( "Alpine Bank First Deed of Trust -). Alpine Bank will also have a second priority deed of trust on five (5) of the Free Market Lots ( "Alpine Bank Second Deed of Trust ") which are covered by the first priority purchase money deed of trust ( "Smuggler- Durant Purchase Money Deed of Trust ") given to Smuggler- Durant Mining Corporation ( "Smuggler- Durant "). rk ... t 13473- 3WtcAwL..hMJ3- "52t3tPM • 3 - Apr. 3. 1995 9:24AM PRICE POSTEL & PARMA No. 1961 P. 2/2 381193 B - -780 P - -446 05/09/95 02:58P PS 77 OF 84 2.2 Engineer and General Conizactor. WRIV has entered into contracts with Baker Fallin Architects ( "Baker Fallin "), Banner and Associates, Inc. (" Bamrer ") and Vanoice Enterprises, Inc. ( "Vance "). Baker Fallin will be the supervising architect for the project. Banner will provide civil engineering and surveying services to the project. Vance will serve as the general contractor for the project. 2.3 Construction Loans. All construction loans provided by Alpine Bank will be controlled by and disbursed by Alpine Bank pursuant to its standard construction loan disbursal procedures, which will assure that such construction loan pro=ds shall be paid only to those persons and entities which have provided services and supplies to the project. No portion of the construction loans will be paid to WRTV. 2.4 Aforrdablet, Housing Units_Sales Proceeds. All procxds from the sale of the Affordable Housing Units will be disbursed from the sales escrow directly to Alpine Bank. The sales proceeds disbursed to Alpine Bank will be used either to pay off the constriction loans or to construct the remaining Affordable Housing Units and to otherwise complete the WR1V Obligations. No portion of the sales proceeds from the Affordable Housing Units will be paid to WRJV. 2.5 Free Market Lot SalesBroeeeds. All proceeds from the We of Free Market Lots will be disbursed from the sales escrow directly to Alpine Bank to obtain the release of the lot from the Alpine Bank First Deed of Trust. Any excess sales proceeds shall be retained by Alpine Bank to fund the performance of the WRJV Obligations. No portion of the sales proceeds will be paid to WRN until (i) the WRIV Obligations are fully and completely performed to the reasonable satisfaction of Aspen; (ii) the Alpine Bank construction loans are paid in NU; and (iii) the purchase money note secured by the Smuggler- Durant Purchase Money Deed of Trust is paid in full. 16 Aspen as Aummy-In-Fact, WRIV hereby irrevocably appoints Aspen as its agent and attorney -ln -fact for the Baited purpose of requiring Alpine Bank to disburse proceeds from the sale of Free Market Lots and Affordable Housing Units only in accordance with provisions of Sections 2.4 and 2.5 of this Agreement. 3. DEED OF TRUST (RWZ a W RRAM DEEDS. WRJV's performance of the WRJV Obligations, as described in Section 1, and the covenants of WRIV, as described in Section 2 ( "WRiV Covenants "), shall be segued as follows: 3.1 As= Deed of Trust. WUJV shall execute and deliver to Aspen a deed of trust which encumbers eight (8) of the Free Market Lots ( "Aspen Deed of Trust "), which Free Market Lots shall have a value of not less than $3,500,000.00, as valued in the appraisal of the Free Market Tats which was prepared by Aspen Appraisal Group, Inc., dated October 1, 1994 (the "Appraisal "), The Aspen Deed of Trust shall be subordinate and junior only to the Smuggler - Duram Purchase Money Deed of Trust, the Alpine Bank First Deed of Trust and the Alpine Bank Second Deed of Trust, as the case may be. Mar, 7, 1995 2:59I'M PRICE POSTEL & PAR.tA N-3. 1419 P. W13 38 119 3 B-780 P-447 0S/09/95 02.518P PG 78 OF 84 3.1.1 Uz Aspen Deed of Trust shall provide that one (1) or more of the eight (8) Free Market Lots shall be released from the Aspen Deed of Trust upon satisfaction of one (1) or more of the following torts and conditions: (a) WRJV shall have the right to have one (1) or more of the encumbered Free Market Lots released from the Aspen Deed of Trust by substituting as collateral therefore the same number of the other Free Market Lots which are not then encumbered by the Aspen Deed of Trust; (b) After the sale of eight (8) Free Market Lots, WRJV, at its sole discretion, may substitute in place of the Aspen Deed of Trust, a General Warranty Deed to two (2) of the remaining Free Market Lots, which General Warranty Deed shall be deposited into the Escrow described below for the use and benefit of Aspen and to segue WWV's performance of the balance of the WRN Obligations and the WR1V Covenants, Upon deposit of the General Warranty Deed into Escrow, all of the encumbered Free Marker hots shall be released from the Aspen need of Trust; (c) For each three (3) Affordable Housing Units for which certificates of occupancy are issued, together with substantial completion of each one - eighth (118) increment of the WRJV Obligations, Aspen shall release one (1) of the encumbered Free Market Lots from the Aspen Deed of Trust; (d) Upon the sale of a Free Market Lot, such Free Market Lot shall be released from the Aspen Deed of Trust if all of the sales proceeds resulting from such sale are paid in accor. dance with Section 2.5 (Free Market Lot Sales Proceeds) and no portion of such asks proceeds are paid to WRJV; or (e) Upon WRJV's complete performance of the WRJV Obligations, all of the encumbered Free Market Lots shall be released from the Aspen Deed of Trust; 3.1.2 Aspen agrees to release the Fsce Market Lots from the Aspen Deed of Trust in accordance with the terms and conditions of Section 3.1.1. To obtain the release of a Free Market Lot, WRJV shall provide a written request ( "Release Request ") to Aspen which: (a) identifies the Free Market Lot to be released; qe ... %13a73.3Uh- nu..Afmj3fr952;31pm $ " Mat. 7, 1995 3:OOPM P °,ICS POSTEL & PAKMA No. I419 P, 8/13 381193 P -780 P• -448 05/09/95 02.58P PG 79 OF 64 (b) identifies which condition set forth in Section 3. 1.1 the request is based upon ( "Release Condition"); and (c) includes proof to the reasonable satisfaction of Aspen that the Release Condition has been or will be satisfied. 3.1.3 Upon receipt of a Release Request, the Aspen City Attorney wilt promptly and in good faith review such request and determine if the Release Condition has been or will be satisfied. Within ten (10) business days after such receipt, Aspen shall inform WR1V in writing that (a) the release will be granted, or (b) if the release will not be granted, the reasons why it will not be granted, If the release will be granted, Aspen shall execute and deliver to the Escrow Holder and the public trustee under the Aspen Deed of Trust such documents as may reasonably be required to release the Free Market Lot from the Aspen Deed of Trust ( "Release Documents "), which Release Documents shall be delivered by Aspen upon such terms and conditions are may be reasonably necessary to insure Aspen that the Release Condition will be satisfied. 3.2 Qeneral Warranty Deeds. Aspen and WRJV shall also establish an escrow ( "Escrow ") at Land Title Guarantee Company ( "Escrow Holder "), 533 E. Hopkins Street, Suitt No. 102, Aspen, Colorado, WR1V shall deposit into the Escrow one (1) general warranty deed for each of the lots upon which the Affordable Housing Units shall be constructed ( "Affordable Housing Lots "), or a total of thirty -five (35) general warranty deeds ( "General Warranty Deeds "), and if applicable, the General Warranty Deed described in Section 3.1.1(b) above ( "Free Market Lets General Warranty Deed"). Each General Warranty Deed shall provide for the conveyance of the Affordable Housing Lot described therein to Aspen, and each General Warranty Deed shall contain an exception for the Alpine Bank Deed of Trust. The Free Market Lots General Wamuty Deed, as described in Section 3.1.1(6), shall provide for the conveyance of two (2) Free Market Lots to Aspen. The purpose of the General Warranty Deeds and the Free Market Lots General Warranty Dead is to secure WRN's performance of the WRJV Obligations and the WRJV Covenants. 3.2.1 WRJV and Aspen shall execute and deliver escrow instructions to the Escrow Holder which provide as follows: (a) WRJV shall deliver the General Warranty Deeds to the Escrow Holder who will hold the General Warranty Deeds subject to the terms and conditions of the escrow instructions. (b) The Escrow Holder shall not record the General Warranty Deeds or the Free Market Lots General Warranty Deed unless and until it has received from Aspen a written notice that WRJV has defaulted in the perfa mane of the WR1V Obligations or the WRJV Covenants. The default notice shall specify the manner in which WRJV has defaulted. Promptly after the Escrow to ... \13473 31ak wm.Am13.&M31pm .6— Mar, i. 1995 3:OOPM PRICE POSTEL & PARMA No, 1419 P. 9/13 381193 8 --780 P - -449 05/09/95 021-58P P6 80 OP 84 Holder's receipt of Aspen's default notice, it shall forward a copy of the default notice to WM. WPJV shall have ten (10) business days to forward a written reply to the Escrow Holder which shall contain one (1) of the following two (2) responses: (i) WRJV agrees that it has defaulted in the performance of the WRJV Obligations or the V V Covenatts, in which event, the Escrow Holder shall record the Generai Warranty Deeds and the Free Market lots General WaD=V Deed; 21 (ii) WM denies that it has defaulted in the performance of rile WRJV Obligations or the WRJV Covenants, in which event the Escrow Holder shall not record the General Warranty Deeds and the Free Market Lots General Warranty Deed and Aspen and WRJV shall each have the right to have the dispute resolved by arbitra- tion under the American Arbitration Association's then current rules for commercial arbitration. The arbitration hearing shall take place in the City of Aspen within sixty (60) days after the date of delivery of WRJV's response to Aspen's notice of default. Before arbitration commences, each party shall pay the American Arbitration Association one -half of the expected cost of the arbitration proceeding. At the conclusion of the arbitration proceeding, the arbitrator shall award to the prevailing party aB of its arbitration costs and its attorneys' fees and costs, which shall be paid by the losing party. 3.2.2 The escrow instructions shall direct the Escrow Holder to deliver to WRJV the deposited General Warranty Deed for each Affordable Housing Unit for which a Certificate of Occupancy bas been issued to allow WRTV to sell such unit. 3.2.3 Upon WRJV's performance of all of the WRJV Obligations to the reasonable satisfaction of Aspen, Aspen, within ten (10) business days of being requested to do so, shall itlstrlrct the Escrow Holder to return to WRJV each General Warranty Deed and the Free Market Lots General Warranty Deed which remains in Escrow at that time. 4.1 WRJV Oblintions. WRJV shall be in default of its WRJV Obligations upon the occurrence of any of the following events: gc.,, 113473�31ah <om1...Umj3b9S2:31pm -7- Mar. 7, 1995 3:OOPM P"IOE POSTEL & PARMA No. 1419 P. 10/13 381193 H - -780 P- -450 05/09/95 OP.58FI FAG 81 OF 84 4. 1.1 Failure 19 Pay. If WRJV fails to pay any amount set forth in Sections 1.7 (Off-Site Impact Fee), l . g (RF TA Impact Fee) or 1.9 (School Impact Fee) when due and such failure continues for ten (10) business days after written notice has been given to WRJV by Aspen; 4.1.2 Failure to Perform Obli¢ation. If WRJV fails to perform when due any non-monetary obligation included within the WRJV Obligations (i.e.. Sections 1.1 (Construction Schedule), 1.2 (Landscaping Plan), 1.3 (Public Improvements), 1.4 (Parking), 1.5 (Site Grading and Drainage) and 1.6 (Park Development Impact Fee)) when due and such failure continues for thirty (30) days after written notice has been given to WRJV by Aspen; provided, however, if the nature of the obligation is such that the same cannot reasonably be performed within such 30-day period, WRJV shall not be deemed to be in default if WRJV, within such 30-day period, commences to perform such obligation and thereafter diligently and in good faith continues to perform such obligation until the performance thereof is completed, 4.2 WRIV Covenants. WRJV shall be in default of its WRJV Covenants if WRIV fails to perform as agreed in Section 2 (Covenants of V V) and such failure commites for thirty (30) days after written notice has been given to WRJV by Aspen; provided, however, if the nature of the obligation is such that the same eamiot reasonably be performed within such 30 -day period, WRJV shall not be deemed to be in default if WRIV, within such 30-day period, commences to perform such obligation and thereafter diligently and in good faith continues to perform such obligation until the performance thereof is completed. 5. REMEDIES. If WRJV is in default in the performance of the WRJV Obligations or the WRJV Covenants, Aspen may exercise any right or remedy it has under the Deed of Trust, the Fscxow Instntctions, this Agreement or which may otherwise be available at law or in equity and all of Aspen's rights and remedies will be cumulative. 6. ASPEN APPROVALS. At appropriate times during the performance of the WRIV Obligations, WRIV will notify Aspen in writing that such obligation has been completed and request Aspea to approve the work so performed ( "Approval Request "). Aspen agrees to promptly and in good faith proceed to review such work within five (5) business days of receipt WRJV's Approval Request and thereafter to promptly notify WRIV if such work is approved or not approved. If such work is not approved, Aspen will specify the reasons why the work was not approved. If Aspen fails to notify WRJV within thirty (30) days after its receipt of WRN's Approval Request, such work shall be deemed approved. Ceti il�iD (s):� 7.1 Notices'. Ali notices, requests, demands, and other communications required to or permitted to be given under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be conclusively deemed to have been duly given when hand delivered to a party; or three (3) business days after the same have bees deposited in the United States Mails, from within the continental United States, as certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, postage ge ._1!9473- 3VEumt..fom�36ASi•31pm .8— Mar. 7. 1995 3:01 PM PRICE POSTEI. & PARMA No. 1419 P. 11/13 381193 L{ -7.90 G -451 05/09/95 02:58P Pf.; 82 OF 84 prepaid and addressed to the parties as set forth below; or the second business day after the same has been deposited with a national overnight delivery service reasonably approved by the patties (Federal Express and WS being deemed approved by the patties), costs prepaid. addressed to the parties as set forth below with second - business -day delivery guaranteed: If to Joint Venture: Williams Ranch Joint Ventre 3214 Campanil Drive Santa Barbara, California 93109 With a copy to: Gary A. Wright, Esq. Wright & Adger 201 North Mill Street, Suite 106 Aspen, Colorado 81611 If to Aspen: Aspen City Manager 130 South Garen Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 With a copy to: Aspen City Attorney 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 7.2 Chun of Address. Any party may change an address set forth in this Agreement by compliance with the notice provisions contained in Section S.I Notice, above. 7.3 integration. This Agreement, the Williams Ranch • City of Aspen Annexation Agreement, City of Aspen Ordinance No. 52 (Series of 1994), and all exhibits and addenda to said agreements and ordinance shall constitute a single integrated agreement. 7.4 SeveraWiV, If one or more of the provisions of this Agreement is hereafter declared invalid or unenforceable by judicial, legislative or administrative authority of competent jurisdiction, the all parties agree that the invalidity or uoenfomeability of any of the provisions shall not m any way affect the validity or enforceability of any other provisions of this Agreement. 7.5 Amerdmems and Modifications. No change or modification of the terms or provisions of this Agreement shall be deemed valid unless in writing and signed by all parties. 7.6 Choice of IAw. This Agreement shall be constsred, interpreted and applied in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado, regardless of such state's choke- of -law principles. Jurisdiction and venue are deemed proper solely in the District Court for Pitidn. County, Colorado. �a...\ 13a7 }31�h�can6t..lamf36�951:31pm � 9 Y Mat. 7. 1995 3:01PM PRICE POS^,'EI, & PARMA No, 1419 P. 12/13 391193 B -780 P- -45a 05/09/95 02:58P PG 83 OF 84 7.7 Attorneys' Fees, In the event of any controversy, claim or dispute between the parties to this Agreement, arising out of or in any manner relating to this Agreement, the prevailing party in any such action or proceeding, as determined by the court or by an arbitrator in case of arbitration, shall be emitted to recover its reasonable attorney fees, and costs. The parties shall execute and deliver such & ther documents and instruments and shall take such other actions as may be reasonably required or appropriate to carry out the intent and purposes of this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each party has executed this Agreement as of the date first set forth above. , , ja.. . .10- Williams Ranch Joint Vex=, a Colorado general partnership $y; Mark IV, Inc., a Colorado corporation President City of As Colorado John S. Bennett, Mayor i I Mar, 9. 1995 3:01P11 PRICE PCSTEL & PAVIA 381193 B -780 P -453 05/09/95 02 :58P Pr, 84 OF 64 Stare of Colorado ) )as, County of Pitkin ) No, 1419 P. 13/13 The forcg0ft Ali Consttuction Agreement was executed and acmowledged before me this day of ` ` 1995, by John S. Beutte t as Mayor of the City of Aspen, Colorado. •..•�ky�..,. Witness my hand and official seal. ��.pyC7, ?fit�a; My commission expires: In1138�et1 �� Il � _ n . 1 l.... � ,S, l�, .n, `r,, •Oj• of C Q �4� °; Nly i2fW1W Notary Public State of Colorado ) )ss. County of.Pitkin ) foregoing Cons =tion A�rnent was executed and acknowledged before me this day of 1995. by John D. Markel as the President for Mark IV, Inc., general p of WiUiatns Ranch Joint VenAire, a Colorado general pamersbip �..GHO 4' my hand and official sell. My commission expites:, 4f —I —J�1& F Notary Public { jc... U3473+31e1KOn% ... iemj33932:31pm -11- September 29, 1995 Mr. Stan Clausen Aspen — Pitkin Community Development Department 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE:. Williams Ranch /SilverLode Subdivision Dear Stan, Thank you for your letter regarding the effect of Ordinance 30, 1995 on prior approvals dated September 22, 1995. I very much appreciate your timely response. There are, however, two items which require correction and one additional item of clarification. In you second paragraph you state "free market residences will be allowed a maximum of ninety (90 %) percent of the otherwise available FAR for the R -15 zone ". As this project received a rezoning from R -15 to AH, it is my understanding that the FAR requirements of the AH zone district now govern. These, by the way, are more restrictive than R -15. In the third paragraph, while addressing the provisions of Ordinance 30 which will apply to this project, you state "current definitions of height ". Ordinance 52, Condition 8 states "Development of Lot 15 is limited to eighteen feet in height (plus 5 feet to the mid- point), as calculated by Pitkin County's Land Use Code. All other lots are subject to the 25 foot height limitation of the City of Aspen, and are calculated using Pitkin County's definition for height ". Based on this condition, please eliminate "current definitions of height" from the letter. Lastly, an area of confusion has arisen in the Department's review of the building permit application for Lot 15, SilverLode Subdivision which will continue to be a point of confusion until clarified. While your letter states very clearly that the free market units would not be burdened with further restrictions imposed by Ordinance 30 with respect to FAR, the Zoning Department has made a distinction between calculation of FAR for any given lot and calculation of FAR for the structure itself. As both areas of calculation have been redefined in Ordinance 30, your letter should specify that we are in fact exempt from both areas of calculation and that the method of calculation in affect at the time of approval (November 14, 1994) as well as the specific provisions of Ordinance 52 shall govern. rf� Sincerely, i � Oct ;.. Thomas G. Stevens 1996 312 E, Aspen Airport Business Center, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925 -6717 FAX: (303) 925 -6707 / /lam G' /�l/Fif(fr"�Urd _"- I N C O R P O RAT E D September 29, 1995 Mr. Stan Clausen Aspen — Pitkin Community Development Department 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE:. Williams Ranch /SilverLode Subdivision Dear Stan, Thank you for your letter regarding the effect of Ordinance 30, 1995 on prior approvals dated September 22, 1995. I very much appreciate your timely response. There are, however, two items which require correction and one additional item of clarification. In you second paragraph you state "free market residences will be allowed a maximum of ninety (90 %) percent of the otherwise available FAR for the R -15 zone ". As this project received a rezoning from R -15 to AH, it is my understanding that the FAR requirements of the AH zone district now govern. These, by the way, are more restrictive than R -15. In the third paragraph, while addressing the provisions of Ordinance 30 which will apply to this project, you state "current definitions of height ". Ordinance 52, Condition 8 states "Development of Lot 15 is limited to eighteen feet in height (plus 5 feet to the mid- point), as calculated by Pitkin County's Land Use Code. All other lots are subject to the 25 foot height limitation of the City of Aspen, and are calculated using Pitkin County's definition for height ". Based on this condition, please eliminate "current definitions of height" from the letter. Lastly, an area of confusion has arisen in the Department's review of the building permit application for Lot 15, SilverLode Subdivision which will continue to be a point of confusion until clarified. While your letter states very clearly that the free market units would not be burdened with further restrictions imposed by Ordinance 30 with respect to FAR, the Zoning Department has made a distinction between calculation of FAR for any given lot and calculation of FAR for the structure itself. As both areas of calculation have been redefined in Ordinance 30, your letter should specify that we are in fact exempt from both areas of calculation and that the method of calculation in affect at the time of approval (November 14, 1994) as well as the specific provisions of Ordinance 52 shall govern. rf� Sincerely, i � Oct ;.. Thomas G. Stevens 1996 312 E, Aspen Airport Business Center, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925 -6717 FAX: (303) 925 -6707 3 January 1996 Mr. Thomas G. Stevens The Stevens Group, Incorporated 311 E, Aspen Airport Business Center Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Williams Ranch/Silverlode Subdivision Effect of Ordinance 30, 1995 on prior Approvals Dear Tom: It has been brought to my attention that an advertising brochure for the Silverlode home sites asserts that they are not subject to the architectural design restrictions of Ordinance 30. I would remind you of the letter of 7 November 1995 from John Worcester, City Attorney, to Robert W. Hughes, Esq., who was representing your interests with respect to the applicability of Ordinance 30 provisions. I have attached a copy of the letter which states: "The design review requirements of Ordinance No. 30 should apply to the free market lots as no rights with respect to this issue were vested by the approvals." The advertising is, therefore, misleading with respect to the applicable design review requirements of the City of Aspen. I would add that the emphasis in the text of the brochure on the additional FAR which may be available because of vested fights has engendered complaints to members of City Council. In promoting the potentially larger house sizes for your free market lots, which as you know, occupy a visible location on a sloping site, the advertising flies in the face of the community values which engendered Ordinance 30. The text further fails to mention the required 8040 Greenline review for projects exceeding 80 % of allowable FAR. Recapitulating our response to the questions posed by yourself, Bob Hughes, and Jon Gates at our meeting of 1 November 1995, and based upon consultation with the City Attorney, please be advised of the following: 1. Provisions of Ordinance 30 which seek to further regulate or redefine FAR will not be applicable to the free market lots. Staff has determined that FAR requirements were addressed in the context of the code existing at the time, of those approvals, and that code provisions with respect to FAR, in force at the time of your development approvals, should remain in effect during the period of vested rights; 1. Mr. Thomas G. Stevens 3 January 1996 Page Two 2. Provisions of Ordinance 30 which set up the Design Standards, the process for review under those standards, and the appeal process, all represent regulations which are general in nature and applicable to all property subject to land use regulation by the City of Aspen. As such, these Design Standards and the associated process shall be applicable to the free market residences irrespective of the period of vested rights, except for those standards which directly address FAR measurement. Please let me know if you require any additional clarifications or information. I hope it will be possible for you to amend your advertising to reflect the actual review requirements and the community values on which they are based. Very truly yours, Stan Clauson, AICP, ASLA Community Development Director CITY OF ASPEN cc: Robert Hughes, Esq. Jon Gates, Architect Amy Margerum, City Manager - John Worcester, City Attorney William Drueding, Zoning Enforcement Officer I o��-- I N C 0 R P 0 R A T E D January 12, 1996 Mr. Stan Clausen k = {> Aspen Pitkin Community Development 130 South Galena Aspen, Cc 81611 WAN 1 7 1996 RE: SilverLode Subdivision .)r,, Effect of Ordinance 30, 1995 „E' " - -M &N r Dear Stan, I am in receipt of your letter dated January 3, 1996 with respect to the above referenced project. While I am not involved in the project advertising, I have reviewed the brochure and offer the following comments. The effect of Ordinance 30, 1995 on the project is very clear. As the letter from John Worcester to John Hughes dated November 7, 1995 states, the floor area and its method for calculation are rights vested prior to Ordinance 30, while the design review requirements will apply. This letter will be provided to each purchaser of a SilverLode lot to avoid any mis- communication. As Project Manager, I have been meeting with real estate companies as well as prospective buyers and have been abundantly clear on this, as well as the 8040 Greenline Review requirements. It is very important for the City to understand that the restrictions imposed by Ordinance 30 on un- developed properties is seen as a significant hindrance by the real estate community. Rights vested in the calculation of FAR prior to Ordinance 30 then become a significant benefit in the sale of undeveloped property. While this may "fly in the face" of the values of the Ordinance 30, it is an economic reality. As the allowable FAR for each lot was set during the approval process, what was advertised was correct. While the wording used in the brochure explaining the vested rights prior to Ordinance 30 may not be to your, or Council's liking, and while I have respect for your opinion, this is clearly not an area of City review. However, your point is well taken and you have my word that every effort has been, and will continue to be made to keep clarity with regards to this issue. It is not only my responsibility as Project Manager, but the listing broker's responsibility as well to provide full disclosure of all information pertaining to the property. For this reason, the Worcester letter will be a part of the extensive information package given to all purchasers. All purchasers will be required to submit for a building permit at which time the City will have the opportunity to review each home plan. Given the allowable FAR for the lots and the methods of calculating FAR prior to Ordinance 30, no home in the SilverLode Subdivision will be what is considered a "monster home" with FAR in the range of 3,000 to 3,500 square feet. At the time of approval, Council did not feel that this was inconsistent with the goals of the City. 312 E, Aspen Airport Business Center, Aspen, Colorado 87617 (303) 925 -6717 FAX: (303) 925 -6707 Mr. Stan Clausen January 12, 1996 Page Two It seems to often be forgotten that we are on the same side with the ty's goals and our goals being to produce the very best project possible. The only wayis is possible is for us to understand the parameters under which the City operates as was the City understanding the parameters under which we, as developers, opera The last thing that the Williams Ranch Joint Venture, or I want is to is anything to ender the now long standing and favorable relationship with the City. Believe me, we an the same page with this issue. As you will notice, I have cross copied those people copied on yonuary 3 1996 letter. If you have any questions or comments on this matter pleal free to contact me. Sincerely, Thomas G. Stevens cc: Robert Hughes, Esq. Jon Gates, Architect Amy Margerum, City Manager John Worcester, City Attorney William Drueding, Zoning Enforcement Officer Mr. Stan Clausen January 12, 1996 Page Two It seems to often be forgotten that we are on the same side with the City's goals and our goals being to produce the very best project possible. The only way this is possible is for us to understand the parameters under which the City operates. as well as the City understanding the parameters under which we, as developers, operate. The last thing that the Williams Ranch Joint Venture, or I want is to is anything to endanger the now long standing and favorable relationship with the City. Believe me, we are on the same page with this issue. As you will notice, I have cross copied those people copied on your January 3, 1996 letter. If you have any questions or comments on this matter please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Thomas G. Stevens cc: Robert Hughes, Esq. Jon Gates, Architect Amy Margerum, City Manager John Worcester, City Attorney William Drueding, Zoning Enforcement Officer i e3 Memorandmn f r TO: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director FROM: Mary Lackner, Planner RE: Williams Ranch Agreements DATE: March 18, 1996 As you requested this memorandum summarizes the agreements that Williams Ranch has made with the City of Aspen. Annexation Agreement - Book 780, Page 370 This agreement specifies various conditions of annexation. It calls out construction phasing, landscaping plan, public improvements, park development impact fee, Resident Occupied criteria, off -site road impact fee, RFTA impact fee, and the school district impact fee. Timing and collection of these fees are specified in each category. Ordinance 52. Series of 1994 - Final Ordinance approving Williams Ranch Project Identifies the conditions of approval for the subdivision and specifies requirements for building permit submission. Master Deed Restriction - Book 780, Page 397 Specifies the occupancy and resale agreements for the Williams Ranch subdivision. Water Service Agreement - Book 780, Page 429 Specifies required improvements and stipulations for water service for the Williams Ranch project. AH Construction Agreement - Book 780, Page 443 Outlines the construction schedule and payment schedule of various impact fees. Williams Ranch and Silverload Subdivision Plats - Plat Book 37, Page 3 Recorded plat maps for the Williams Ranch and Silverload Subdivisions. Note: The $100,000 to be collected for off -site traffic impacts is to be spent according to the recommendations of the Leigh, Scott and Cleary Traffic Report and addendum prepared for this project. MEMORANDUM To: Dave Michaelson, Planner Thru: Nick Adeh, City Enginee� From: Ross C. Soderstrom, Project Engineer L9"; Date: May 21, 1996 ��"" Re: Salvation Ditch and William's Ranch Development (Salvation Ditch, City of Aspen, CO) After reviewing the above referenced application and making a site visit I have the following comments: Discussion: Michael Erion of Wright Water Engineers, representing the Salvation Ditch Co., attended the DRC meeting of May 9, 1996 to discuss a "previously unknown" drainage area above the Centennial Condominiums that drains into the Salvation Ditch in the portion of the ditch which is to be encased in a buried conduit for the William's Ranch development. Mr. Erion discussed several concerns of the - Salvation Ditch Co. including: • The proper discharging of the drainage flows from this + -0.5 acre drainage basin above Centennial Condominiums which has been piped to the Salvation Ditch unbeknownst to the Salvation Ditch Co. per Mr. Erion. With the proposed enclosure of the ditch, there is presently no plan for the routing and discharge of these drainage waters. (See notes below from site visit.) • The Salvation Ditch Co. was not consulted during the planning and review phases for the William's Ranch development and the Ditch Co. has recently rejected the proposed designs for a water feature, required in the Subdivision approvals, along the present route of the open ditch. • Nick A. and Jack R. expressed their concerns about surface drainage from this + -0.5 acre drainage basin being directed onto the public rights -of -way without an adequate storm drainage system to receive the flows. Extending this concern to a larger area, the entire drainage basin including the Centennial condominiums, William's Ranch, and the undeveloped area above William's Ranch needs to be comprehensively reviewed rather than approach the topic of drainage in a piecemeal approach. • The down gradient impacts of grading and disturbing the native vegetative cover in the William's Ranch development need to be reviewed with attention given to erosion and surface drainage and subsurface drainage impacts in the developed area below the William's Ranch project. • The City holds water rights to the water of the Cowenhoven Tunnel which lies appro,,:imately below the Salvation Ditch at the point where the ditch is proposed to be encased above Centennial Condominiums. As such, what impacts, if any, will encasing the ditch, diverting surface flows, or performing other work create for the sub - surface aquifer? DRCM1096.DOC Memo - Salvation Ditch Co. and William's Ranch Development • The developers of William's Ranch have not adequately addressed the issue of creating a water feature in their project, routing the Salvation Ditch flows through the project, and satisfying the requirements of the Salvation Ditch Co. and the City of Aspen. Given these concerns, Nick suggested that a neighborhood meeting be held to discuss the drainage concerns and solicit input of the interested parties in this drainage area. Attendees in this meeting should include representatives of the Salvation Ditch Co., Water Dept., Engineering Dept., Community Development Dept., William's Ranch development, Centennial Condominiums; and the neighborhood residents at large. One of the primary topics will be establishing the historic drainage patterns and then how to manage the drainage flows in light of current and foreseeable future development. Notes from Site Visit: The description of the "previously unknown" drainage area and 12 inch diameter PVC pipe given by Mr. Erion does not accurately describe the field conditions. The cut slope above the parking lot of the Centennial Condominiums ( +- 0.5 acre drainage area) drains into a ditch that traverses the hillside and intersects the Salvation Ditch roughly perpendicular and about 8 ft downstream of the existing culvert outfall above the intersection of Free Silver Court, Teal Court and Brown Lane. Based upon the existing vegetation, erosion patterns, stone rip- rapping and 24 inch CMP culvert, it appears that this drainage area has drained to the Salvation Ditch since at least the construction of the Centennial Condominiums. The hillside ditch drains to the 24 inch culvert that now contains heavy silt deposits that have buried all but the top 6 inches of the culvert. Based upon the property line stakes for the lower side of William's Ranch project property, the drainage ditch serves the lower portion of the William's Ranch property and the upper portion of the Centennial Condominium property. I did not follow the ditch further southeast past the Centennial Condominium property although it appears to follow the contour of the hillside past the condominium property and dwindle in size. The 12 inch PVC pipe which Mr. Erion described intersects the Salvation Ditch in the 8 ft section between the culvert outfall and the above described drainage ditch. Looking in the opposite direction of the opening of the exposed section of this pipe ( + -3 ft), the pipe appears to come from the end of the Centennial Condominium building although there is no readily visible inlet to this line within a 200 ft arc of its terminus. It does not appear to drain the subject hillside, Free Silver Court nor the condominium building due to grades and lack of inlet structures. Since the pipe is buried in a man-made knoll which contains an electrical transformer and irrigation control valves, there is no visible surface evidence to suggest which direction the pipe lies beyond the exposed end. Considering that the Salvation Ditch at this location lies above the existing developed properties, rather than being a drainage outfall, the exposed pipe section may instead be the upstream end of a diversion pipe or siphon to provide irrigation water to the properties below. I did not review the area to locate a possible downstream outfall of this pipe. Future correspondence on this topic shall be addressed direthtly to Ross Soderstrom, 920 -5087, Engineering Dept. Distribution: DRC members Stan clauson, Community Development Director i,- uzanne Wolff, planner 2 DRCM1096.DOC S�CktkCkjWCk(kC5,5 sz- May 28, 1996 Mr. David Chase, P.E., Senior Vice President Banner Associates, Inc. 2777 Crossroads Boulevard Grand Junction, Colorado 81506 Re: Williams Ranch Subdivision Dear David: � -7 0-7 mm THE CITY OF ASPEN OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER It has come to our attention that the Williams Ranch Subdivision construction has proceeded without meeting the following conditions of approval by which the project was approved: Ordinance No. 52 (Series of 1994), items 14.b and 14.f. A copy of the ordinance is attached for your reference. Please also note item 19 which states that no certificates of occupancy shall be issued until all public improvements are completed, in place, and accepted by the City. Please remedy the project's compliance at your earliest convenience. This letter is not intended to provide a full examination of all of the project's approvals by the City, but only those conditions of approval of special concern to the City Engineering Department at this time. If you have any questions, please call me at 920 -5088. Thank you. Sincerely, Chuck Roth, P.E. Project Engineer cc: Williams Ranch Joint Venture, c/o Tom Stevens, 312 E Aspen Airport Business Center Nick Adeh, City Engineer (w /o attachment) e Ross Soderstrom, Project Engineer Dave Michaelson, Planner Suzanne Wolff, Planner L96.51 130 Soum GALENA STREET . AsPEN, COLORADO 81611 . PHONE 303.9205088 . FAx 303.920.5197 PMnd�a�y�awEn MESSAGE DISPLAY TO Suzanne Wolff CC Nick Adeh CC Stan Clauson CC Stephen Kanipe CC Ross Soderstrom From: Ross Soderstrom Postmark: May 28,96 4:38 PM Status: Previously read Subject: Forwarded: Williams Ranch -------------------------- ---- ---- ----- ------- -- - --- -- Comments: From Ross Soderstrom: Pls read the letter from Chuck to William's Ranch developers. They have violated terms of the approving Resolution 52, do not have paved rd, water, utilities, nor approval or acceptance all which are required before ANY C.O.'s are issued per the Subd. Agreement incorporated in Resolution 52, series 194. See WR -2. Message: From Suzanne Wolff: 9 of the homes have had or are having final inspections this week, and they are starting the Certificate of Occupancy process now in order to be able to turn over the units to the owners on 6/10. Tom Stevens would like to meet with us to make sure everything is taken care of so the COs can be issued. Would you be able to meet Thurs before the DRC meeting - 10 AM? Should any other depts be involved? If that time doesn't work, we would like to set up another time this week in order to keep things moving... Thanks SALVATION DITCH CO. April 13, 1996, Hans E Aspen Projects rManager Banner Associates, Inc. 605 E. Main Suite 6 Aspen, Co. 81611 Re: Williams Ranch PUD: Salvation Ditch issues Dear Hans, Today, the Salvation Ditch Co. held its annual Shareholder /Board meeting and the issues of Williams Ranch were discussed at length by the Board. I appraised the board of the current status of the project and the additional issues which were new to me until I received a copy of the BOCC Resolution at our last meeting. I refer to ORD 52/94, Sec 1, 16a, concerning the easement for a trail; Sec 1, 18, concerning the small water feature; and Sec 1, 26, concerning the public recreation easement, and further, in Resolution 94/24 "subject to" condition # 7 concerning the public trail. All things considered, I am not happy with the way our Ditch Company has been communicated with starting from the lack of our inclusion in the planning process through the latest revelations which I feel have been glossed over and withheld making it difficult for me to evaluate the real impacts to our Ditch. I have consulted the Board of Directors and we are unanimous in our position after input from various sources legal and otherwise. The Board's position is as follows: 1. As agreed, the Ditch will be placed in culvert in its entirety throughout the Williams Ranch property. This will be done to the specifications approved by our engineers, Wright Water Inc., ensuring the conduit used will be sufficient to carry the maximum amounts given our water rights. If the Ditch is not to be placed in culvert, NO FURTHER ALTERATIONS OR INVASIONS WITHIN OUR EASEMENT AND THE DITCH WILL BE PERMITTED! 2. Any PUBLIC OR PRIVATE water features, trails, recreation areas, open space, or public accesses created by design, easement, plat or any other conveyance will have to be situated and occur OUTSIDE THE EASEMENT OF THE SALVATION DITCH. 3. No water from the Salvation Ditch will be available for any use, public or private, or for any water feature or other use for the benefit of the Williams Ranch or anyone else. 4. If there are other "subject to" conditions in either of these Resolutions which affect the Salvation Ditch in any way but do not reference the "Ditch" by name and are therefore not identifiable to us at this time, those same should be considered NON - PERMISSIBLE until we have the opportunity to review them. If this be the case full disclosure to the Ditch Company at this time would be appropriate and appreciated. One further comment: It should be anticipated by the developer that if the Salvation Ditch is in fact placed in culvert (which it will have to be if you wish to continue with the plans now on the table) the casual water which drains off the hillside above the Ditch and has historically ended up in the Ditch, will (after sealing the Ditch) now continue on down the hillside until it finds another drainage conduit. It might be a good idea to figure out where it is likely to end up as the Ditch will no longer be catching it. I realize that this may be a problem for both the developer and the City of Aspen Planning Office that may seek to enforce the above referenced Resolutions but had we been contacted by either party, as is appropriate for any adjacent land interest holder, this could have been cleared up in the general submission phase. Yours Sincerely, Mike n erwood President, Salvation Ditch Co. cc: Michael Erion, Scott Balcomb, Michael Owsley, tan ,__GlaiTs—on Aspen /itPc3n F &Z.- ; MESSAGE DISPLAY TO Ross Soderstrom CC Nick Adeh CC Suzanne Wolff From: Stan Clauson Postmark: May 28,96 3 :58 PM Status: Previously read Subject: Salvation Ditch /Williams Ranch Message: I'd appreciate knowing when you have scheduled the "neighborhood meeting" referred to in memo of 5/21. Further could you investigate whether we have any control over the culverting of Salvation Ditch or is the Ditch Company free to undertake any activity relating to the ditch within their easement. We may have an interest in regulating or preventing full culverting. Suzanne- -since it has been alleged by Salvation Ditch Co. that they never were informed of the permit process, could you check the original notifications for Williams Ranch hearings to confirm this. Memorandum TO: David Partain, Vannice Enterprises Hans Brucker, Banner Associates Tom Stevens, Stevens Group FROM: Rebecca Schickling, City of Aspen Parks Department DATE: May 3, 1996 RE: Tree Removal Permit - Williams Ranch CC: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director 602G6 ''0&1/601 J43 'ceS f filet c ire Nick Adeh, City Engineer Jeff Potter, 1 st Choice Properties, Centennial Homeowners Association We have reviewed the tree removal permit for Lots 13 -15 and the Salvation Ditch culverting project for Williams Ranch Subdivision Development. As a condition of approval for this permit, because so many trees are being removed, we would like a revised landscape plan showing additional trees (Aspens) re- planted in the open space between Centennial and Williams Ranch. A minimum of 46 caliper inches of trees must be planted in the open space and additional trees must be replaced in that area if future tree removal permits are applied for. During excavation of these lots, every attempt will be made to relocate all trees possible into the open space area. We do realize that most of these trees are connected by the root system, however, some trees can and must be relocated if dug carefully. A minimum of 20 caliper inches of trees should be relocated into the open space area. Even if the trees eventually die, the relocated trees still provide wildlife habitat and cover. The Certificates of Occupancy for these units will be held upon these conditions. Additionally, fencing will be placed a maximum of 10 feet west of the property line of Lot 13 to allow for grading on Lot 13 to match existing grades. No excavation shall occur beyond this fenced area. It appears from the grading and utilities plan, the Cottonwood trees near Lots 32 -35 may also need a tree removal permit. A separate permit will be necessary for these trees, however, every effort should be made to save these trees. The building envelopes and other improvements should be staked when the permit is applied for to see how the grove of trees will be impacted. Again, as stated above, these trees must be mitigated in the open space area between Centennial and Williams Ranch and a revised landscape plan will need to detail this area. If there are any questions regarding trees during excavation of any of the lots or questions on this tree removal permit, I can be reached at 920 -5120. THE CRY Of ASPEN RECEIVEC APR 3 ' 1996 Parks Depart,-ncnt Parks Office 920 -5120 TREE REMOVAL PERMIT APPLICATION The following is an outline to assist in the preparation of a tree removal permit. 1) Outline/Sketch/Drawing of property to include: (please attach 2 copies) a) Property address. b) Property boundaries. c) Locations of buildings on the property. d) Location, diameter, and species of trees on property and designate with arrows or circles which trees are to be removed. Lot�i3 = 920 SiLvE�LoDff D2. 2) Site address Lo7' /9 = 410 " 3) List trees to be removed, species and diameter at 4.5' above grade. -c1Yz" Cc t- brtviocc� _ Lot 1 I Cp Asper • -�( 1 - � z ,, n ? C6rd4r; 4 ) Reason for Removal _ � �7 !6' ✓l O' v1 -tC�, RE-LocFYh� c�FSPrLV/xFio -t Dti�i�'LO45�17J'144iS 5) Mitigation Plan (relocation of trees or replacement of comparable worth trees as referenced in Aspen Municipal Code Sec. 13 -76, (e)). Add to Property Drawing. a) Location of replacement/relocation trees. b) Size and species of trees to be replaced. 6) Completion Date of Project L7 I ` 1�1 ? 7) Person responsible for project (applicant): Property Owner Name of Architect or Construction Representative VPrNnttce Sric��z 5t s `iZr -b785 Address & Phone Number Company name Phone Number f 4 -30 -J7 Signature Date Signat ire Date 1 8) Comments: The following is to be completed by the City of Aspen Parks Department. Comments: dI1 GcJOc C&ZA � � / �S c,/ /4 77//�C 17 Property/Free Inspection: Inspected by Date signature \J Date Comments: 5i�� a" 0 Accepted Denied George O. Robinson Parks Director, City of Aspen l / u e Date /� Permit Valid for one year after completion date of project (line 6). 2 LOT 4 m� 9� s 0.340 ACa 4 o, 14814 SO. FT. g 2 w sJ. a \p / °O. k � 4V.\ w• P 06 °�1 o LOT \ 0.416 ti 18108 S0. FT. �p 00 \pb �� • o" �0e` o a \'OJT `r0 N O LOT 2 ° uq� 569.2 96 0.422 AC.t 0 A3' <, s 18366 SO. FT. ? s NO. •1 b 9. \ o bti b AT > ob o3 / a 6% 929 v'ry v r, g2j wor LOT 14 ---�n �✓8u> ^ tD �0 0.149 AC.t y9o< J _ 1 s v 6504 SO. FT. 1T2 u1 y LOT 13 c,'o 0147 '0 0 0 422 SO. 6° E � A EL 'ION b\ y LOT .36 3 OPEN 'SPACE 0 30624 SOYT 5:926 A C.± W c 0.703 AC. WOOS ZD M � _ y ml a =NNIq� CoNooM1 MUMS .0 poid Opp Wo 0� m.lp 9 Y� -A L33-n"--, N LOT 15 E` ° 0.154 AC.t ,_ 6691 SO. FT. LOT 14 ---�n �✓8u> ^ tD �0 0.149 AC.t y9o< J _ 1 s v 6504 SO. FT. 1T2 u1 y LOT 13 c,'o 0147 '0 0 0 422 SO. 6° E � A EL 'ION b\ y LOT .36 3 OPEN 'SPACE 0 30624 SOYT 5:926 A C.± W c 0.703 AC. WOOS ZD M � _ y ml a =NNIq� CoNooM1 MUMS MESSAGE DISPLAY TO Chuck Roth CC Stephen Kanipe From: Mary Lackner Postmark: Apr 23,96 9:17 Status: Previously read Subject: Reply to: Forwarded: CC Suzanne Wolff AM Williams Ranch Reply text: From Mary Lackner: I am no longer involved with this project. However, CO issues would be answered by Stephen Kanipe, the Chief Building Official. Preceding message: From Chuck Roth: Are you still involved with Williams Ranch? Can you help with this question? John said CO is UBC matter. There are other items tied to CO, but all I could find for infrastructure completion was prior to the sale of not more than 5 free market lots. Thanks. From Chuck Roth: I received a call from a bank that wants to know if a loan maker can receive a C.O. on a house in Williams Ranch before the infrastructure is all in. I read Ord. 52 -94 and found no reference to timing of infrastructure improvements. I read your memo of June 28, 195 and found only that all of infrastructure improvements must be completely constructed before no more than 5 free market lots are sold. So shall I tell the bank that yes, a person can get a C.O. on a residence? M Memorandum TO: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director FROM: Mary Lackner, Planner RE: Williams Ranch Agreements DATE: March 18, 1996 As you requested this memorandum summarizes the agreements that Williams Ranch has made with the City of Aspen. Annexation Aareement - Book 780, Page 370 This agreement specifies various conditions of annexation. It calls out construction phasing, landscaping plan, public improvements, park development impact fee, Resident Occupied criteria, off -site road impact fee, RFTA impact fee, and the school district impact fee. Timing and collection of these fees are specified in each category. Ordinance 52. Series of 1994 - Final Ordinance approving Williams Ranch Project Identifies the conditions of approval for the subdivision and specifies requirements for building permit submission. Master Deed Restriction - Book 780, Page 397 Specifies the occupancy and resale agreements for the Williams Ranch subdivision. Water Service Aereement - Book 780, Page 429 Specifies required improvements and stipulations for water service for the Williams Ranch project. AH Construction Agreement - Book 780, Page 443 Outlines the construction schedule and payment schedule of various impact fees. Williams Ranch and Silverload Subdivision Plats - Plat Book 37, Page 3 Recorded plat maps for the Williams Ranch and Silverload Subdivisions. Note: The $100,000 to be collected for off -site traffic impacts is to be spent according to the recommendations of the Leigh, Scott and Cleary Traffic Report and addendum prepared for this project. MEMORANDUM TO: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director FROM: Suzanne Wolff RE: SilverLode Subdivision Insubstantial Subdivision/PUD Amendment and 8040 Greenline Exemption DATE: July 3, 1996 SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting to amend the recorded plat and PUD Development Plan for the SilverLode Subdivision to revise the access easements which allow for construction of driveways to the individual lots. An 8040 Greenline Exemption is also requested to accommodate the proposed driveway amendments. The application, driveway plans, and amended plat are attached as Exhibit "A ". APPLICANT: Williams Ranch Joint Venture REPRESENTATIVE: Tom Stevens LOCATION: SilverLode Subdivision ZONING: AHl/PUD BACKGROUND: By Ordinance No. 52, Series of 1994, the City Council granted Subdivision and PUD approval for the development of 35 deed - restricted affordable housing units (Williams Ranch Subdivision) and 15 free - market lots (SilverLode Subdivision). The Final Plat was recorded on March 15, 1995, in Plat Book 36 at Page 77. REQUEST: Access easements for the SilverLode lots were provided on the plat only where it was anticipated that driveways would have to cross adjacent lots. During infrastructure and Phase One construction, the applicant determined that the approved access easements did not represent the most efficient, and least disruptive access routes to the individual SilverLode lots. The applicant intends to construct the driveways prior to sale of the remaining lots (Lot 15 has already been sold, and construction is in progress) in order to control and minimize the impacts of the alignment, grading, drainage and retainage of the driveways. The following revisions are requested: The existing easement to access Lot 4 across Lot 3 will be extended to provide access to Lots 5 and 6. This amendment will eliminate an additional steep cut off of SilverLode Drive. W r A combined driveway will be constructed between lots 8 and 9. The easement to access Lot 10 across Lot 11 will be eliminated. A combined driveway will be constructed between Lots 12 and 13. Curb.cut permits have already been issued for Lots 1, 2, 3, 7, 11 and 14, as no revisions were required for these access easements. REFERRAL COMMENTS: Comments from the Parks and Engineering Departments are attached as Exhibit "B ". Parks De ent: One of Rebecca Baker's concerns is the encroachment of the proposed driveway to Lot 10 across the Open Space Easement. This issue is addressed below with the PUD amendment standards ( #4). Ms. Baker's concern regarding the portion of the open space easement between SilverLode Drive and Williams Ranch Drive was addressed by the applicant; pedestrian access will be provided to Brown Lane and the nearby RFTA bus stop. Engineering Departinent: Ross Soderstrom states, "the overall alignment and grading of the driveways for Lots 1 -14 has been improved by the proposed design and the potential for erosion has been minimized by the inclusion of this work prior to selling the subject lots." Engineering has approved the proposed alignments and grading plans, subject to clarification of certain issues addressed in the attached memo. These issues include: • The common driveway to Lots 3 -6 appears to exceed the maximum allowed grade of 12% where it departs from Reciprocal Easement No. 2. • Conveyance of drainage through and/or around the proposed boulder walls adjacent to the driveways to Lots 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 14. • A final grading plan and drainage plan shall be approved by Engineering. • The required 3' radius at the driveway intersection with the street shall be depicted on the site plans. • The curb cut shall not exceed 18' in length. A revised subdivision plat shall be approved and recorded to reflect the changes. STAFF COMMENTS: Insubstantial Subdivision Amendment: Section 26.88.060 authorizes the Community Development Director to approve an insubstantial amendment to an approved plat, provided the amendment is limited to technical or engineering considerations first discovered during actual development which could not reasonably be anticipated during the approval process, or the change has no effect on the conditions and representations which limit the approved plat. During the course of infrastructure and Phase One construction of the Williams Ranch/SilverLode Subdivisions, the applicant determined that the easement and driveway alignments could be improved to lessen the impacts of driveway construction. 2 Insubstantial PUD Amendment: Section 26.84.080 of the Aspen Municipal Code authorizes the Community Development Director to approve an insubstantial amendment to an approved PUD, if the amendment does =: Change the use or character of the development; Response: The use and character are not being changed. 2. Increase the overall coverage of structures on the land by more than three percent (3 %); Response: The amendment will lessen the amount of retainage required for the driveways. 3. Substantially increase trip generation rates or the demand for public facilities; Response: The amendment will not increase trip generation rates or demand for public facilities. 4. Reduce the approved open space by more than three percent (3 %); Response: The applicant represents that the open space will actually increase slightly due to the revised driveway alignments. The applicant determined that the approved access easement across Lot 11 to Lot 10, which crossed the entire width of the 40' open space easement between the lots, is unnecessary. The proposed driveway to Lot 10 will encumber only half (20') of the open space easement. The applicants represent that it is not feasible to construct a driveway on Lot 10 which would entirely avoid the open space easement. 5. Reduce the off-street parking and loading space by more than one percent (191o); Response: Off - street parking will not be reduced. 6 Reduce the required pavement widths or rights -of -way for streets and easements; Response: No pavement widths or rights -of -way will be reduced. Increase the approved gross leasable floor area of commercial buildings by more than 2 %; Response: Not applicable. 8. Increase the approved residential density of the development by more than I%; Response: The residential density will not be increased. 9. Create a change which is inconsistent with a condition or representation of the project's original approval or which requires granting a further variation from the project's approved use or dimensional requirements. 1 Response: Condition #lg of Ordinance No. 52, Series of 1994, grants a PUD variance for the front yards of Lots 3 -15 which permits driveways or cut slabs greater than 30" below grade within the required yards. The proposed driveway amendments comply with this requirement. 8040 Greenling Review Exemption: Section 26.68.030 exempts development from 8040 Greenline Review if the following standards are met: 1. The development does not add more than 10% to the floor area of the existing structure or increase the total amount of square footage of areas of the structure which are exempt from floor area calculations by more than 25 %; and Response: The driveway alignment revisions will not affect floor area or exempt square footage. 2. The development does not require the removal of any tree for which a permit would be required pursuant to Section 15.04.450 or the applicant receives a permit pursuant to said section; and Response: The applicant agrees to obtain permits if tree removal is necessary. 3. The development is located such that it is not affected by any geologic hazard and will not result in increased erosion and sedimentation. Response: The new alignments will lessen the impact on steep slopes and reduce the number of driveway cuts. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of an insubstantial amendment to the SilverLode Subdivision/PUD and 8040 Greenline Exemption, subject to the following conditions: The applicant shall adhere to all conditions of approval as required by Ordinance No. 52, Series of 1994. 2. The applicant shall submit an amended plat within 180 days of this approval, for review and approval by the City Attorney, City Engineer, and the Community Development Department. The applicant shall provide the grading and drainage information requested by the City Engineer prior to submission of the amended plat for recording. I hereby approve the insubstantial amendment to the SilverLode Subdivision/PUD and 8040 Greenline Exemption, subject to the conditions noted above. Stan Cla son, Co unity Development Director Date Exhibits: A. Referral Comments B. Application APPfkO \JeD c�tiL 0 z GOMM�N1��m OF PS N91FEOON MEMORANDUM To: Suzanne Wolff, Planner Thru: Nick Adeh, City Engineer A ,� From: Ross C. Soderstrom, Project Engineer to Date: May 21, 1996 (Revised) ss✓/ Re: Silverlode Subdivision PUD/Plat Amendment No. 1 (Lots 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, and 13, SilverLode Subdivision, City of Aspen, CO) " 0 A a:} After reviewing the above referenced application and making a site visit I have the following comments: Discussion: The overall alignment and grading of the driveways for Lots 1 -14 has been improved by the proposed design and the potential for erosion has been minimized by the inclusion of this work prior to selling the subject lots. The proposed driveway grading of Lots 3 - 15 is also consistent with the condition Lg, Ordinance 52, 1994, Final Review for Subdivision, PUD, GMQS Exemption and Vested Rights for this project. Driveway permits for Lots 1, 2, 3, 7, 11, and 14 have been previously approved by the Engineering Dept. as noted on the detail sheets for each driveway. A revised Subdivision Plat recorded with the County Clerk and Recorder will be required to memorialize these changes to the original subdivision plat. 1. Driveway Easements and Grading Plan: The proposed alignments and grading plans for the several residential driveways proposed in this application are approved with the following exceptions and comments. Lots 3, 4, 5, and 6: Although previously approved, it appears that the proposed alignment for the driveway to lot 3 (and lots 4, 5 and 6) will produce a grade greater than the maximum permitted 12% noted on the detail sheets, where it departs from the Reciprocal Easement No. 2. The applicant is requested to meet with the Engineering Dept. to discuss the feasibility of raising the finished grades in the upper portion of Reciprocal Easement No. 2, approximately the last 100 ft immediately below the Silverlode Drive cul -de -sac, in order to reduce the grade into theecommon driveway serving lots 3 -6 inclusive. What utilities have been or will be located in the utility easement on the west side of Lot 5? DRCM6a96.DOC Memo - Silverlode Subdivision PUD /Plz endment No. 1 How is the drainage from the drainage easement on the east side of Lot 5 conveyed through and/or around the proposed boulder wall placed at the intersection of the driveways serving Lots 5 and 6? Where is the discharge point on to the public right -of -way of this concentrated drainage discharge? What is the impact upon the approved building envelopes of realigning the driveways and the proximity of the driveways to the building envelopes? Lot 7: How will the drainage be conveyed through and/or around the proposed boulder wall to be placed on the uphill side of this driveway? Where is the discharge point on to the public right -of -way of this concentrated drainage discharge? Lots 8 & 9: How will the drainage be conveyed through and/or around the proposed boulder wall to be placed on the uphill side of this driveway? Where is the discharge point on to the public right -of -way of this concentrated drainage discharge? Otherwise accepted. Lot 10: The proposed alignment of this driveway violates condition Lb, Ordinance 52, that states that no development shall encroach into a dedicated easement, i.e., the Pedestrian Access and Utility Easement on the eastern portion of Lot 10. Given the design grading of Silverlode Drive, the proposed driveway location provides the best access to Lot 10 without violating the maximum driveway grade adjacent to a public right -of -way. The applicant will need to meet with the Engineering Dept. to discuss the feasibility of leaving the driveway intersection point in its proposed location although making the westerly traverse with the driveway alignment to reach the building envelope of Lot 10. In either case, mitigating landscaping and trail access will be required. The former Lot 10 access easement originating on Lot 11 and crossing the Pedestrian Access and Utility Easement will be abandoned from the Lot i l side. Any disturbance of the native vegetation or topography will be re- stored to pre - construction conditions. What utilities have been or will be placed in the utility easement between Lots 10 and 11? Which utilities have not been placed in Silverlode Drive? Lot 11: How will the drainage be conveyed through and/or around the proposed boulder wall to be placed on the uphill side of this driveway? Where is the discharge point on to the public way of this concentrated drainage discharge? Otherwise accepted as proposed. Lots 12 & 13: The debris interceptor, culvert in -let and a new manhole have been positioned to intercept the drainage flows in the natural drainage between these lots where the common driveway is proposed. These structures, if properly sized and constructed, will suffice for conveying the historic drainage flows through the site. Accepted as proposed. DRCD46a96.D0C Memo - Silverlode Subdivision PUD /Plendment No. l !�!o Lot 14: How will the drainage be conveyed through and/or around the proposed boulder wall to be placed on the uphill side of this driveway? Where is the discharge point on to the public way of this concentrated drainage discharge? Otherwise accepted as proposed. 2. Revised Subdivision Plat: The revised subdivision plat must be submitted for review and acceptance by the Engineering Department prior to recording. 3. Design and Construction Requirements and Standards: The applicant has agreed to the following design and construction requirements and standards: • The 3 ft radius at the driveway intersection with the street is not accurately noted nor depicted in the site plans. This requirement applies to the placement of fill material upon which the finished surface of the driveway is constructed as well as the finished surface itself. • The curb cut at the pavement edge will not exceed 18 ft in length, regardless of the angle of intersection of the driveway to the street or public right -of -way. 4. Final Grading Plan: We require that the applicant meet with the Engineering Dept. and receive approval prior to changing the approved grading plans and that a revised final grading plan be submitted by the applicant whenever there is a change from the previously approved grading plan. 5. Construction Plans: The applicant has yet to submit construction plans for this project and formalize permission to proceed with construction as required in Ordinance 52, (Series of 1994). 6. Drainage Plan: The drainage plans submitted to date are insufficient to completely evaluate the effectiveness of the design and review the construction details. Additional detailed plans and specifications are needed before continuing with the construction. 7. Dependence of Certificates of Occupancy Upon Acceptance of Public Work: Per the requirements of Ordinance 52, (Series 1994), M Certificates of Occupancy will be issued until all public improvements are completed, in place and accepted by the appropriate agency (Condition 19, Ordinance 52, Series 1994). S. Salvation Ditch: The several unresolved issues impacting the Salvation Ditch, including historic drainage patterns, required water feature along the ditch alignment, pedestrian trail along the ditch alignment, recently discovered drainage basin and conduit into the existing open (ditch, and the adequacy of the drainage study and proposed improvements will be discussed and reviewed in a separate meeting of the concerned parties. DRCM6a96.D0C Memo - Silvedode Subdivision PUD /Pla' ndmen[ No. 1 Except as noted above, this application for establishing and revising residential driveway easements and alignments is accepted. Future correspondence on this application shall be addressed directly to Ross Soderstrom, 920 -5087, Engineering Dept. DRCM6a96.DOC ra MEMORANDUM TO: Suzanne Wolff, Community Development APR 0 2 3996 FROM: Rebecca Baker, Parks Department r DATE: March 29, 1996 RE: Silverload Subdivision, PUD/Plat Amendment #1 We have reviewed the proposed driveway locations and have particular concern about Lot # 10 and it accessing across the 40 foot pedestrian access /utility easement. This is not acceptable and the proposed design negates the use of this easement as an access easement. From inspecting the site there should be no problem using the existing lot boundary that fronts the street for a driveway for Lot # 10. The grades are not extreme (appears to be 5 -7 %) and could be workable for a driveway. In addition, the 20' driveway easement from Lot 11 that goes half way into the 40' pedestrian/utility easement must be abandoned. It dead ends into the middle of the 40' area and is not usable. As it appears from the drawing of the driveway location on Lot 11 it seems as though there is no need for this easement anyway. The final comment is the lower portion of the 40' easement that crosses through the affordable housing section between Silverlode Drive and Williams Ranch Drive should also have access through it. The grades should be made along Lots 9 & 10 to allow for pedestrian access through this area. CC: Ross Soderstrom, Engineering Department WmRnchDR.doc go MESSAGE DISPLAY TO Suzanne Wolff cc ross soderstrom From: Ross Soderstrom Postmark: May 17,96 9:42 PM Status: Previously read Subject: Willie's Place Message: I finished reviewing the Williams Ranch application for the driveways and found my major concerns resolved or addressed with a few small details that I want to discuss w/ Rebecca, Jack & Nick and Tom Stevens. Nick will be gone until next Thursday, 5/23//96 so I will try to have everything else finished before he returns then get his blessing. Tom S. brought by a copy of the drainage report today and Nick & I both have copies to review. Hopefully will have the big picture by next Thursday & then look at details. I will recommend to Nick that we treat this separately from Driveways. Good nite. W TO Suzanne Wolff CC Ross Soderstrom MESSAGE DISPLAY From: Ross Soderstrom Postmark: May 16,96 10:44 Status: Previously read Subject: Reply to: SilverLOde CC Nick Adeh fM Driveways Reply text: From Ross Soderstrom: I am working on the response. Most of the small details have been resolved but still reviewing legal descriptions of easements and working on the bigger question of the over -all drainage system for the development. As we look at it closer we still see details that leave questions unanswered. Grading of driveways is related to drainage impacts since it will change the routing of drainage thru the project. Also looking at conflicts betw. proposed easements and other features & existing easements. Preceding message: From Suzanne Wolff: Don't want to be a pest, but want to get this DONE - do you have revised comments yet? Thanks Facsimile Transmittal Date # of Pages Af e- f (- I `1 1996 j G cr � TO From TP wt S TE-V FN 5 � 14 ZF-NN �-w b Lr—F Co.lDept. Co./Dept. z S ASPEN/PTTKIN COMMUNITY 'u— C" VC —d.. DEVELOPMENT Phone # Phone # 970- 920 -5090 / g Z 0 `� 3 Fax # Fax # 2 s' (A � Di 970 -920 -5439 NOTES VLC: home/adm3o/foms/FAX.doc -r— z S 'u— C" VC —d.. VLC: home/adm3o/foms/FAX.doc MEMORANDUM To: Suzanne Wolff, Planner Via: Nick Adeh, City Engineer,�� j� From: Ross C. Soderstrom, Projecct'EEnngineer�'� Date: April 5, 1996 j�'� Re: SilverLoad Subdivision PUD/Plat Amendment No. I (Lots 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, and 13, SilverLoad Subdivision, City of Aspen, CO) After reviewing the above referenced application and making a site visit I have the following comments: 1. Final Grading Plan: We are requesting a final grading plan from the applicant before making final comments about the proposed revised access easements since it is unclear from the submittal package the total impact of the proposed changes. In a telephone conversation with Hans Brucker, applicant's engineer, he stated that the road alignment and elevations of SilverLoad Drive had been changed in the field from those originally approved in the subdivision plat and that he had not prepared a comprehensive final grading plan for the entire subdivision. During our site visit it was very obvious that the intent of the 40 ft. drainage and access easement which bisects the Williams Ranch / SilverLoad Subdivision had already been severely compromised by the grading of the building envelopes of the lots fronting Williams Ranch Drive and the proposed re- alignments of the access easements would further degrade the aesthetic and functional purpose of this easement. 2. The applicant's engineer did not adequately address nor respond to the requests and requirements stated in Chuck Roth's letter of January 3, 1996 addressing this application. • The 3 ft radius at the driveway intersection with the street is not accurately noted nor depicted in the site plans. • The curb cut a the pavement edge will not exceed 18 ft in length, regardless of the angle of intersection of the driveway to the street. • The revised drainage plan for the entire subdivision must be submitted prior to approval of the proposed changes in grading, drainage paths and easements. Lots 5 & 6. • The requested letter from the ACSD is a requirement of the City Engineering Dept. prior to further consideration of changing the easements on Lot 7. • The requested letter from a Colorado registered civil engineer clarifying the drainage design impacts due to these changes has not been received by the Engineering Dept. DRCM0696.DOC Memo - Silverload Subdivision PUD /P" lendment No. 1 • The submitted lot diagrams for Lots 11 and 12 are still mis- labeled as pointed out previously. 3. The applicant's engineer did not address the obvious problems of cutting two (2) driveways in the natural drainage corridor between lots 12 and 13 in his written response nor with any drainage design in the plans. 4. To date the proposed design and response from the applicant's engineer have not been adequate to address the questions presented by the Engineering Dept. Of particular concern is the partial responses and inattention to detail and completeness in the designs. Future correspondence on this application shall be addressed directly to Ross Soderstrom, 920 -5087, Engineering Dept. DRCM0696.DOC NIF77e:eO R P O R A T E D March 12, 1996 Mary Lackner Suzanne Wolf Aspen Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: SilverLode Subdivision Insubstantial PUD Amendment Dear Mary and Suzanne, Attached is an application for an Insubstantial Amendment of the PUD Plan for the above referenced project: This amendment is initiated due to required revisions in driveway layout and the subsequent access easement revisions for the lots. These revisions comply with the provisions of the Land Use Regulations as set forth in Sections 26.84.080, 26.88.060 and 7 -503 (b) and have been reviewed in detail in the application. I have attached the approved and recorded Plat maps for your reference as well as the proposed amendments to facilitate your review. Should you have any questions or comments or require further information during your review of the application, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely,, aim'._ Thomas G. Stevens Project Manager, Williams Ranch Joint Venture attachments: Amendment Application Revised Plat/PUD Drawings 312 E, Aspen Airport Business Center, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925 -6717 FAX: (303) 925 -6707 W ASPEN/PITKIN COM[VIUMUNrrY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone (970) 920 -5090 FAX (970) 920 -5439 MEMORANDUM TO: City Engineer FROM: Suzanne Wolff, Community Development Department RE: Silverlode Subdivision (in Williams Ranch) PUD/Plat Amendment Parcel ID #2737- 074 -30 -004 DATE: March 21, 1996 Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted by Williams Ranch Joint Venture. Please return your comments to me no later than April 5, 1996. Thank you. SilverLode Subdivision PUD/Plat Amendment #1 March 15, 1996 Submitted By: Williams Ranch Joint Venture c/o The Stevens Group, Inc. 312 E Aspen Airport Business Center Aspen Colorado, 81611 (970) 925 -6717 I. INTRODUCTION: This application seeks to amend the approved and recorded Plat and PUD Development Plan for the SilverLode Subdivision. The purpose of this amendment is to revise the access easements which allow for driveway construction. During the course of infrastructure and Phase One construction of the Williams Ranch/SilverLode Subdivisions, it became apparent that the approved access easements did not represent the most efficient and least disruptive access route to the individual SilverLode lots. Within the approved application for this project (Ordinance 52, Series 1994), no driveways were represented for the SilverLode lots, only access easements where access across adjacent lots were required. However, at this time, the Applicant is submitting for review the actual driveway layouts with grading as well as easement revisions (see attached driveway plans). It is the intention of the Applicant to construct the driveways prior to sale of the lots. This will ensure that the impacts to the site of driveway construction are absolutely minimized. At this time, only one lot within the SilverLode Subdivision has sold, Lot 15. A building permit has been issued for this lot and construction has begun. The balance of the lots are still within ownership of the Applicant. SilverLode Drive provides access the all SiverLode lots and has been conveyed to the City of Aspen via recordation of the Final Plat. Subsequently each driveway requires an individual curb cut permit. At this time, permits have been issued for Lots 1, 2, 3, 7, 11, and 14 as these lots required no revisions to any access easements. Specifically, this application for amendment requests access easement revisions for the remaining lots, lots 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, and 13. YL Review Criteria: The specific areas of review for this requested amendment are as follows: 1. Insubstantial change to Subdivision, Section 26,88.060 2. Insubstantial change to PUD, Section 26,84.080 3. 8040 Exemption, Section 7- 503(b) (old Code) I. Amendment to subdivision development order, Section 26.88.060 This section provides the ability for an Applicant to seek an insubstantial amendment to a subdivision plat to be approved by the Community Development Director based on technical or engineering considerations first discovered during actual development which could not reasonably be anticipated during the approval process. , As stated above, the subdivision approvals granted to this project did not include driveways to the free market (SilverLode) lots. Instead, access easements were provided where it was anticipated that future owners would locate driveways and only if they needed to cross adjacent lots. Upon completion of SivlerLode Drive road grading, it became apparent that the anticipated alignments of driveways could be improved. Additionally, the Applicant felt that by constructing the driveways prior to sale of the lots, the impacts of construction could be controlled and thus minimized. The new alignments require access easement revisions. These revised easements have been depicted on the attached Plat maps and PUD plan as well as the individual driveway plans. The easements as well as the actual driveways will require less grading, less paving and less retainage than previously anticipated. In the case of several lots,. access will combined to limit the quantity of driveway intersections with SilverLode Drive. In summary, the precise location and alignment of drivow/ays was not provided at final approval of the subdivision, only easements based on anticipated alignments. Upon completion of road grading, alignments which represent less grading, less pavement, less retainage and increased undisturbed ground have been designed. II. Amendment of PUD development order, Section 26.84.080 Section 26.84.080 (A) provides the Community Development Director the ability to authorize and insubstantial amendment to a development order for a final development plan providing the following criteria is not met or exceeded: I. A change in use or character of the development. No change in use or character are proposed, only driveway alignment revisions. 2. An increase by greater than three (3) percent in the overall coverage of structures on the land This proposed amendment will affect on overall coverage of structures on the land. It will however, reduce the amount of coverage on the land by driveway pavement. 3. Any amendment that substantially increases trip generation rates of the proposed development, or the demand for public services. No increase of trip generation nor demand for public services will result from this amendment. 4. A reduction by greater than three (3) percent of the approved open space. This proposed amendment will actually increase very slightly, the amount of open space. 5. A reduction by greater than one (l) percent of the off street parking and loading space. The proposed amendment will have no effect on the off street parking or loading space. Parking was established by Special Review for SilverLode Subdivision during the approval process and will remain the same. 6. A reduction in required pavement widths or rights of way for streets and easements. No pavement widths or rights of way will be varied by this amendment. A copy of the approved subdivision plat as well as the proposed revisions has been attached. 7. An increase of greater than two (2) percent in the approved gross leasable floor area of commercial buildings. Not applicable. 8. An increase by greater than one (1) percent in the approved residential density of the development. The proposed driveway alignments will have no effect on development density. 9. A change which is inconsistent with a condition or representation of the project's original approval or which requires granting a further variation from the project's approved use or dimensional requirements. Condition 1 (g.) of Ordinance 52, Series 1994 which granted this project's approval provides a PUD variance for driveway grading. This variance will still be required but needs no revision. No other conditions or representations of the approvals address driveways for SilverLode. M. 8040 Greenline Review, Section 7 -503 (B.) Exemption The expansion, remodeling or reconstruction of an existing development shall be exempt from the 8040 Greenline review if the following standards are met: 1. The development does not add more than ten (10) percent to the floor area of the existing structure or increase the total amount of square footage of areas of the structure which are exempt from floor area calculations by more than twenty five (25) percent. The proposed driveway alignment revisions will have no effect on allowable FAR for a lot not the method of calculating FAR an a lot. 2. The development does not require the removal of any tree for which a permit would be required pursuant to section 13 -76 or the applicant receives a permit pursuant to said section. The Applicant agrees that if the removal of w any tree requiring a permit is necessary, said permit shall be obtained prior to construction/ 3. The development is located such that it is not affected by any geologic hazard and will not result in increased erosion and sedimentation. See attached engineering report. City of Aspen Pre- Application Conference Summary lzlia -4 6yel"Ii Plan er Date Project �S �vp� lour% ' ��ir•J <P� yn/ Applicant's Representative _ ti s z. Renresentative's Phone d,5-- G, 7/ 7 Type of Application Description of the pr The applicant has been requested to respond to the following items and provide the following reports: Land Use Code Section Comments b 2 6. F,/• 0610 - 41 /hPly /A/41 r -f. ou /i �f 7-6 50f Er&wfzon Referral Agencies The review is: (P &Z only) (CC only) (P &Z and CC) e/i Public Hearing: (yes) (no Deposit for the Application Review: 'r 9S0 Referral agency flat fees: If .11 TOTALDEPOSIT t 1, d.S hrs' . 5 «' (Additional hours are billed at a rate of ' /hr.) 7;0 To Apply Submit the Following Information: Proof of ownership. Signed fee agreement. Applicant's name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant which also states the name, address and telepho a number of the representative. Total deposit for review of the application $ 7I4 copies of the complete application packet and maps. (((�� Summary letter explaining the request (existing conditions and proposed uses), including street address and legal description of the property. An 8 1/2" by 11" vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen. Site plan shall include property boundaries, lot size, proposed access, and physical features (drainageways, streams, rivers, etc.) These items need to be submitted if circled: List of adjacent property owners within 300 feet of the subject property with addresses. k. Site photos. 19. Proof of legal access to the parcel. Historic Preservation Commission review /approval. Z, l ATJA' 1 P^"4wm USE APPLIQ►7= Pam i) project Name �Ji /iv�L�bo1/ yrsravi 2) Pmject l tiara C[ liilsr /moo Ogv7b . 3) PieSWt Zoning 4 L 4) Lot Size 5) Ap Lica tIs Name. Addrss & Pbme # �'1r1��L�ti✓!'s 'liY1�i11 �Y `Y /7' yG�+L7rr. 6) FaX8sMt3tive's Name. Address & REM # STy�,Jltil� 8040 Greenl, m- Final SPA Final PUD _ lzmt2kin View Plane _ Subdlvisim lot ••r aut /lot Line AdJtsbwnt •r �- a f •. 1,55- /D �yL1l /�5CllYl , '7� ! Yli 1J ✓�" ? ° 1;' 1 "/✓✓G 9) Des=iptim of jug / /LppLi[ation / 1 �J'�/ /f /� ��/ G -'� /� f- -/ /.r. ��% G%✓ C 4':7 ✓7 r'� '/ r �•,...:J}�.: :2 �:/ v:.% �./�! J / : �U�l NIWX 9'.1 0,, ASPEN /PITKIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT City of Aspen Development Application Fee Policy The City of Aspen, pursuant to Ordinance 53 (Series of 1995), has established a fee structure for the processing of land use applications. A flat fee or deposit is collected for land use applications based on the type of application submitted. Referral fees for other City departments reviewing the application will also be collected when necessary. One check including the deposit for Planning and referral agency fees must be submitted with each land use application. made payable to the Aspen /Pitkin Community Development Department. Applications will not be accepted for processing without the required application tee. A flat fee is collected by Planning for Staff Approvals which normally take a minimal and predictable amount of staff time to process. The fee is not refundable. A deposit is collected by Planning when more extensive staff review is required, as hours are likely to vary substantially from one application to another. Actual staff time spent will be charged against the deposit. After the deposit has been expended. the applicant will be billed monthly based on actual staff hours. Current billings must be paid within 30 days or processing of the application will be suspended. If an applicant has previously failed to pay application fees as required, no new or additional applications will be accepted for processing until the outstanding fees are paid. In no .-ase will Building Permits be issued until all costs associated with case processing have been paid. After the final action on the project, any remaining balance from the deposit will be refunded to the applicant. Applications which require a deposit must include an Agreement for Payment of Development Application Fees. The Agreement establishes the applicant as being responsible for payment of all costs associated with processing the application. The Agreement must be signed by the party responsible for payment and submitted with the application in order for it to he accepted. The complete fee schedule for land use applications is listed on the reverse side. ASPENTITHIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Agreement for Payment of City of Aspen Development Application Eees CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and _9 -006 I' (i77�4 f 1/40 1Uy (hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for M (hereinafter, THE 2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance No. 53 (Series of 1995) establishes a fee structure For Planning applications and the payment of all processing tees is a condition precedent to a determination of application completeness. 3. APPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size. nature or scope of the proposed project. it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing the application. APPLICANT and CITY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties to allow .APPLICANT to make payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to be billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis. APPLICANT agrees he will be benefited by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments upon notification by the CITY" when they are necessary as costs are incurred. CITY agrees it will be benefited through the greater certainty of recovering its full costs to process APPLICANT'S application. 4. CITY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for CITY staff to complete processing or present sufficient information to the Planning Commission and /or City Council to enable the Plannina Commission and /or City Council to make legally required findings for project approval. unless current billings are paid in full prior to decision. March 13, 1996 Ms. Suzanne Wolff Community Development City of Aspen/Pitkin County 130 South Galena, 3rd Floor Aspen. Colorado 81611 BANNER CONSULTING ENGINEERS 6 ARCHITECTS RE: WILLIAMS RANCH SUBDIVISION SILVERLODE SUBDIVISION LOTS 1 THROUGH 14 Dear Suzanne: BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC. 2777 Crossroads Boulevard Grand Junction, Colorado 81506 (303) 2432242 FAX (3031243 -3810 605 East Main, Suite 6 Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925 -5857 This letter is written in response to the relocation of the driveways on the subject property. The proposed driveway revisions to the SilverLode Subdivision Lots 1 through 14 have been designed to reduce overall impacts to the site. By having the developer construct the driveways rather than the purchasers; alignment, grading, drainage and retainage will be controlled and subsequently minimized. For this reason, any erosion and sedimentation originally associated with driveway construction will be minimized if not eliminated. During the approval process all geological hazards associated with this development program and the development site were addressed. The proposed alignment of driveways will have no effect on the only hazards which are steep slopes (slopes of 15 to 25% gradient). On the contrary, the proposed driveway alignments and grading will benefit the overall site by minimizing grading on steep slopes. If you have any further questions concerning this matter, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Hans E. Brucker Aspen Projects Manager BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC. HEB:jal C: \heblette \silver.let eo%, January 22, 1996 Mr. Chuck Roth City of Aspen Engineering Dept. 130 S. Galena Street, 2nd Floor Aspen, Colorado 81611 ("') BANNER CONSULTING ■NOINSSRS C ARCHITECTS RE: SILVERLODE SUBDIVISION DRIVEWAY CONSTRUCTION Dear Chuck: BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC. 2777 Crossroads Boulevard Grand Junction, Colorado 81506 (303)243.2242 FAX (303)243-3810 605 East Main, Suite 6 Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925.5857 This letter is written in response to your letter dated January 3, 1996 as it relates to construction of the driveways on the subject project. Radius of driveway flare at road edge - City specifications provide for a radius of Y -0 ". Many of the plot plans show larger radii which are not approved. This is acceptable since we will not be paving the driveways at this time and therefore the radius of the asphalt will not apply. Grading for driveway within public right -of -way and emergency access pedestrian utility easements - No grading of driveways is permitted. The driveway grade within the public right - of -wav and the easements must be the same as the roadway and the topography in order to permit pedestrian and utility construction use. You and I agreed that we can grade the driveways from the easterly side of the proposed ditch or from 5 feet inside the public right -of -way. This is because we are providing a pedestrian walking hard - surface path on the other side of SilverLode Drive and because all of the utilities for this project are already in place. As far as the grading of driveways across easements, we discussed that we have not installed any utilities in any of the easements, and therefore, no utilities will be affected by the driveway construction. We realize that Parks must comment on the 40 foot wide pedestrian access and utility easement. Drivewav width - The maximum width permitted for a driveway is 18' -0 ". This is the width of the curb cut, not the transverse width of the driveway. That is, for driveways entering the street at an angle and not perpendicularly, the width is not the width of the driveway but the length of the curb cut. We do not anticipate that the driveways will exceed 18' -0" measured transverse along the edge of SilverLode Drive. Lots 1.2.14,11 - The plot plans are approved by Engineering as revised. We recognize that these have been approved by you. BANNER January 22, 1996 Mr. Chuck Roth Page 2 of 3 Lots 5.6 - The plot plans are approved by Engineering except that: a. That plat easement sheet (sheet 4 of the recorded plat) must be amended, or easement documents provided, that permit access across Lots 3,4 and 5 for Lots 5 and 6; and We will provide recordable easement documents (descriptions) and record said documents as discussed to mitigate this concern prior to producing an amended plat. We understand that a P.U.D. Amendment may be required as part of this process. b. The driveway crosses a drainage easement. You indicated that alternate plans for drainage are in effect. This must be documented by a letter from a registered engineer and the drainage easement must be deleted by a revised plat sheet or other document. A letter from a Professional Engineer has been provided under separate cover. c. The driveway crosses a utility easement. Are the utilities in place? Provide discussion of this in the letter from the engineer. Letters that approve your design may be needed from the utilities. As discussed; no utilities have been installed in the subject utility easement locations. Since all utilities will be installed in these easements after the driveways have been constructed, any potential conflicts will be avoided. As we discussed, we do not feel that a letter should be required from the utility companies since their facilities have not yet been installed. Lot 7 - The Plot plan is approved by Engineering except the driveway crosses a sewer easement. Please provide a letter from the Sanitation District approving the design. As we discussed, the sanitary sewer easement shown on the plat is specifically dedicated to Mr. Albert Timroth. A private sewer service will be constructed in the easement after the driveways have been constructed and therefore, Mr. Timroth's sewer service will not be affected by the proposed driveway construction. We, therefore, do not feel that a letter should be required from the Sanitation District as suggested. Lots 8 and 9 - The plot plan is approved by Engineering except that the plat easement sheet must be amended. or easement documents provided, that permit mutual access across the lot or else the driveways must be widened to function as a common driveway as anticipated in Section 19 -101. We will provide recordable easement documents (descriptions) and record said documents as discussed to mitigate this concern prior to producing an amended plat. We understand that a P.U.D. Amendment may be required as part of this process. BANNER January 22, 1996 Mr. Chuck Roth Page 3 of 3 Lots 12 and 13 - No plot plan was provided for Lot 12. I copied the plot plan for Lot 13 and relabeled it for Lot 12. The plat easement sheet must be amended. or easement documents provided, that permit mutual access across the lot or else the driveways must be widened to function as a common driveway as anticipated in Section 19 -101. The driveways are shown on a utility and drainage easement. The plot plan is unclear by not indicating that the easement that the driveways cross in also a utility easement. The drainage easement encompasses a natural drainage. Drainage may need to be piped under the boulder wall and driveways. Provide discussion of this in the letter from the engineer. Letter that approve you design may be needed from the utilities. We will provide recordable easement documents (descriptions) and record said documents as discussed to mitigate this concern prior to producing an amended plat. We understand that a P.U.D. Amendment may be required as part of this process. Please refer to Engineer's letter regarding natural drainage. As discussed, no utilities have been installed in the subject utility easement locations. Since all utilities will be installed in these easements after the driveways have been constructed, any potential conflicts will be avoided. As eve discussed, we do not feel that a letter should be required from the utility companies since their facilities have not yet been installed. Lot 14 - The driveway crosses a utility easement. Are the utilities in place? Provide discussion of this in the letter from the engineer. Letters that approve your design may be needed from the utilities. As discussed, no utilities have been installed in the subject utility easement locations. Since all utilities will be installed in these easements after the driveways have been constructed, any potential conflicts will be avoided. As we discussed, we do not feel that a letter should be required from the utility companies since their facilities have not yet been installed. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please contact me. Sincerely, U11 C Hans E. Brucker Aspen Projects Manager BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC. HEB:heb /jal c1hebletteWrives.let Silmer qd Lot nj 7n 010 cp4 LLJ SilverLode.,� Lot 2 30 0 I inch LOT . 1 I I--� 6010 �� , I SilverLode Lot 3 � FEET 30-- b FEET ;7�4 A61 C _ 8020 ` U \` ` U> ` ^ ! -`-`-'-^ I 090 SilverLode Lot 7 FEET 30 0 30 FEET GRAPHIC SCALE I inch = 30 ft. 8070 ------------------ . ......... 20 0p. -T i N \ I I'm 004w, 7rr��\ it LOT 10 FNpF 110 r SilverLode Lot 10 T 3Q O 30 FEET \NQ Q O / LOT 11 4o y a 5 Z�:A%h / �iWw ,�, • elo�l lmwmm� ill erL 1 nT "I t 1110 LOT 14 0 CD