New Application Admits Infrastructure Failure & Seeks Safety Waivers

The Strategy Shift: From "It Works" to "Grant Us a Variance"

The applicant has submitted new technical documents (Exhibit G and Exhibit M) that fundamentally change their argument. 

Previously, they claimed the project would fit seamlessly into our current infrastructure. Now, their own data proves the opposite.

Instead of proposing solutions to fix our failing roads, the new application formally requests permission to break the rules.

Here is a summary of the critical changes and admissions in the new filing:

1. The Traffic Code "Shell Game" (Old vs. New)

The Old Claim:

The applicant originally used ITE Code 223 (Affordable Housing) to model traffic for the entire project. This code assumes very low car ownership and fewer trips, artificially shrinking their traffic impact numbers.

The New Reality (Exhibit G):

They have conceded this was incorrect. The new report applies ITE Code 220 (Low-Rise Multifamily) to the majority of units.

• Why this matters: They are finally admitting the traffic volume will be higher than originally stated.

** The Catch:** Despite this change, they still calculate only 46 AM peak trips. This ignores the reality of "workforce housing," where shift workers (like Aspen One staff) often leave simultaneously, creating a concentrated surge that their average-based models still hide.

2. Admitting Failure: The Request for a "VIS"

The Old Claim:

The intersection of JW Drive and Highway 82 is sufficient to handle the growth.

The New Reality (Exhibit G):

The applicant’s engineering report now explicitly states the intersection operates at Level of Service (LOS) F—a failing grade.

• The "Fix": There isn't one. Instead of building a roundabout or traffic signal, they are applying for a Variance from Improvement Standard (VIS).

• Translation: They are asking the County to officially lower its safety standards to accommodate the project because the road is "already failing."

3. Downgraded Access: The "Three-Quarter Movement"

The Old Claim:

The project will maintain neighborhood connectivity.

The New Reality (Exhibit G):

The report rejects a traffic signal and instead proposes a "Three-Quarter Movement" restriction.

• The Impact: Residents may be restricted from turning left out of JW Drive (towards Glenwood/Carbondale). You would be forced to turn right and make a dangerous U-turn further down the highway. This is a restriction of movement, not an improvement.

4. The "Single Point of Failure" (Exhibit M)

The Old Claim:

The project will have adequate secondary access for safety and convenience.

The New Reality (Exhibit M):

The legal team confirms that JW Drive is the sole legal access point for daily traffic.

• Landlocked: They admit that connecting to Jaci Lane or Gillespie Avenue for daily use is "not feasible" or legally barred.

• Emergency Only: They are scrambling to secure a "minimum" emergency-only gate on Gillespie, but the memo admits they do not yet have permission from the landowners—only a promise of "good faith efforts."

Summary: The "Double Variance" Ask

The new application effectively asks the County for two major safety waivers:

1. Traffic Waiver: Permission to build on a road they admit is failing (LOS F) without fixing it.

2. Access Waiver: Permission to build without "optimal" dual access, relying instead on a "minimum" emergency path they don't legally own yet.

Call to Action:

We need the Planning Commission to see this for what it is: an admission that this location cannot safely support this density. 

Notice: This information was prepared using Artificial Intelligence to synthesize and organize public records from published data, CORA responses, and other relevant documents.  While this tool assists in identifying patterns and structuring data, users should perform their own independent verification of quotes, dates, and technical data points against the official Eagle County case file before using this information in formal testimony or legal filings.