The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLandUseCase.CR.233 E Airport Rd.0029.2010.ASLUTHE CITY OF ASPEN City of Aspen Community Development Department CASE NUMBER PROJECTS ADDRESS PLANNER CASE DESCRIPTION REPRESENTATIVE DATE OF FINAL ACTION 0029.2010.ASLU 2643 342 00 851 233 E. AIRPORT RD CHRIS BENDON PITKIN COUNTY 6.10.10 CLOSED BY ANGELA SCOREY ON: 6.10.10 062%• 20l0 ��.sl� File Edit Record Navigabe Form Reports Format Tab Help . ,b � _�� Clear er - Fees j Fee Summary Main Actions Attachments I Routing History I Valuation I Arch/Eng I Custom Fields I Sub Permits I Parcels I D rmit type aslu Aspen Land Use Permit # 0029.2010.ASLU I Address 1233 E AIRPORT RD •• AptjSuite City ASPEN State CO Zip 81611 •• I x Permit Information A Master permit •• Routing queue aslu07 Applied 6A Ot2010 0' Project •• Status pending _ Approved IF I Description PITKIN COUNTYAIRPORT RUNWAY EXTENTION - REFERRAL - PUB MASTER PLAN Issued 1 AMENDMENT- MEMORANDUM Final Submitted SUANNE IVOLF - COM DEV Clock Running Days Expires 615l2011 Submitted via—� Owner Last narne PITKIN COUNTY AIRPORT ••• First name 233 E AIRPORT RD Phone (970) 920-5384 ASPEN CO 81811 Address Applicant Owner is applicant? ❑ Contractor is applicant? Last name PITKIN COUNTY AIRPORT •• First name 1 233 E AIRPORT RD Phone (970) 920-5384 1 Cust # 24520 Address ASPEN CO 81611 • Lender Last name �— •• First name Phone ( ) - Address AspenGold5 (server) angelas Edit 1 of 1 Fille� �Edit Record Navigate Form Reports Format Tab Help T T i Clear er j.__�j] L I Fees I Fee Summary FMain Actions I Attachments I Routing History I Valuation Arch f Eng Custom Fields I Sub Permits Parcels 1 C Permit type jAspen Land Use Permit #70 0029.2010.ASLU — Address 233 E AIRPORT RD .. Apt f Suite i City ASPEN State CO Zip 81611 •• 0.50012 ! Permit Information Master permit •• Routing queue aslu07 Applied 6M 012010 Project •• Status pending -- Approved " Description PITKIN COUNTYAIRPORT RUNWAY EXTENTION -REFERRAL - PUB MASTER PLAN Issued AMENDMENT- MEMORANDUM Final Submitted SUZANNE WOLF - COM DEV Clock RUnnin s g Days 0 Expires 8R5t2011 Submitted via Owner Last name PITC4IN COUNTY AIRPORT ••• First name 233 E AIRPORT RD Phone (970) 920-5384 ASPEN CO 81611 Address Applicant ,❑ Owner is applicant? ❑ Contractor is applicant? i Last name PITKIN COUNTY AIRPORT •• First name 1 233 E AIRPORT RD Phone (970) 920-5384 Cust # 24520 Address ASPEN CO 81611 • Lender Last name •• First name Phone ( ) - Address AspenGold5 (server) angelas Edit 1 of 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Suzanne Wolff, Pitkin County Community Development FROM: Chris Bendon, City of Aspen Community Development Director 6W RE: Pitkin County Airport Runway Extension — Referral DATE: May 24, 2010 SUMMARY: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the runway extension. The City of Aspen supports the extension of the runway. The City believes this improvement will significantly improve the efficiency and reliability of the Aspen/Pitkin Airport. Commercial aircraft routinely fly below capacity when aircraft payload capacities are limited by reduced lift. This is especially problematic during summer months. The extension will increase efficiency and reliability of the existing airport as well as bolster passenger confidence and reduce visitor frustration. The airport is one of the "entrances to Aspen" and shapes visitor experience. Enhancing this experience is a positive. The City understands that other physical parameters limit larger aircraft from using the facility, although the County's ability to regulate the type of aircraft is very limited. - � vim_-�,� - --- -•- -- -- - -- _ T . l �. X24- r ® IJNRATJOUASPEIFPfR<W OOURTY AIRPORT®1.000.FOOT RUHilAV EkTEAS�U WO USE AoPlICA710N ®.""_•- i FJ ca+srnrsucnruwacE�.mrrPurr Figure 7 Existing and Proposed Alignments. ASPEN AREA COMMUNITY PLAN: The City finds the runway extension in compliance with the 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan. An outgrowth of the 2000 AACP was the Economic Sustainability Committee. This committee worked extensively on local and regional economic issues and identified a prioritized list of recommendations. Second on this list (after bolstering the deteriorating bed base) was making improvements to Sardy Field to enable greater efficiency and reliability of air service to Aspen. While not yet adopted or even reviewed by elected officials, the City believes the runway extension is in line with the current direction of the 2011 AACP. The joint Planning and Zoning 1 Commissions have just completed their draft of the Transportation Chapter supporting this improvement. Much appreciated is the significant public outreach on this project that the Airport has conducted through the Environmental Assessment process. CONSIDERATIONS: The City asks Pitkin County to consider the following points in reviewing the land use application: 1. The City of Aspen encourages Pitkin County Officials to continue efforts to quantify greenhouse gas emissions in the upcoming community -wide greenhouse gas inventory update and to continue working with the FAA on measures to reduce emissions. 2. The BOCC should require enhanced fugitive dust control measures as part of the construction mitigation plan including routine watering when the existing runway is in use. The City supports nighttime and weekend construction as a method to minimize disruption to ongoing airport operations. 3. The BOCC should require the Owl Creek Trail be rebuilt to either City or County design standards, including all signs and trail indicators through to the Highway 82 underpass. 4. The BOCC should require a formal detailed site restoration plan be reviewed by either City or County open space staff with special focus on repairing native vegetation and management of noxious weeds. 5. The City required special construction techniques at the Burlingame Seasonal Housing project to minimize the effects of noise considering the existing runway alignment. The BOCC should require the Airport provide adequate mitigation to insure on -site noise levels at this and the Maroon Creek affordable housing projects do not exceed a 65 DNL level. The mitigation should also insure that interior noise levels do not exceed 45 DNL. The City hopes the BOCC is sympathetic to the City's concerns about the continued viability of these two projects and the quality of life provided its residents. The City certainly appreciates and supports efforts the airport has and will continue to reduce noise and other airport impacts. 6. The City, County, and the Buttermilk Metropolitan District (BMD) have executed a memorandum of intent regarding connection of the BMD to City of Aspen water service. Several significant technical and financial considerations have yet to be resolved. The BOCC should require prior to construction the City, County, and the BMD establish an agreement regarding the physical design parameters and requirements and the financial implications of City water service to the BMD to the satisfaction of all parties. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A — Comments from City Agencies a Page 1 of 2 Chris Bendon From: Brian Flynn Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 5:00 PM 45i To: Chris Bendon Subject: RE: Airport Extension Referral Chris, not too much since it sits with in the County and County trail system but being part of our entrance and that the public doesn't know the lines or jurisdiction, the following are our Parks concerns and comments: 1) The Owl Creek Trail needs to be realigned for safety, built to county or city trail specifications, all signs and trail indicators need to be replaced and the trail realignment should provide a seamless access (connection to) to the Highway 82 underpass which is the start of the City trail system. 2) A detailed restoration plan should be reviewed by city or county staff the restoration was not successful during the first airport extension and improvements. A more detailed and formal plan will guarantee success of the native areas and better management of noxious weeds. Brian Flynn Open Space and Special Projects Manager (P)970-429-2035 (F)970-920-5128 APARSKPEN S & RECREATION From: Chris Bendon Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 4:14 PM To: Development —Review —Committee Subject: Airport Extension Referral Folks: We have a referral from Pitkin County ComDev on the extension of the airport runway. The proposal extends the existing alignment by 1,000 feet on the south end to permit a longer take -off. This is expected to address the issues they have with having to fly half -full planes in the summer due to the elevation. This is not a typical DRC because it's a County application and they have their own DRC process. So, I'm not intending on gathering a DRC meeting for this. But, I would like to gather comments in order to run them by the City Council. And, I'd like to get those by the end of the week if possible. Housing probably wants to check on the sound affects on Seasonal Housing. I'll try to look at this as well. Parks will want to look at some trail re -alignment Utilities may, have some relocates Transportation may have some comments Env. Health and Canary may have comments 5/10/2010 MEMORANDUM To: Chris Bendon, Community Development Department From: Kim Peterson, Canary Initiative Date: April 30, 2010 Re: Pitkin County Airport Runway Extension PUB Master Plan Amendment Parcel ID #2643-342-0o-851 The City of Aspen's Canary Initiative has the following courtesy comments on the referenced land use submittal. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Jim Elwood, Director of Aviation for the Aspen-Pitkin County Airport, addressed the meeting of the Aspen Global Warming Alliance on April 26, 2010. He made the following representations: a. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) doesn't want to see greenhouse gas emissions inventories and wasn't interested in partnering with County Airport on greenhouse gas impact analysis. FAA doesn't allow carbon taxes on landing fees. Jim thinks biofuels may be a good approach and are expected to be mainstream sooner than anticipated. b. Runway extension will enable commercial carriers to carry more weight, more people, more luggage. Some flights currently can't be filled because of weight limitations. In 2oo8, there were 11,774 seats unsold because of weight limits. c. The construction of the runway extension is expected to produce 16o metric tons of CO2e. The greenhouse gas effects of this project are not significant under FAA guidance. d. Appendix in land -use application discusses trade-offs — opening up additional markets, increasing demand at airport. Demand isn't expected to go up significantly. Current lodging capacities would be able to accommodate any anticipated growth in passenger numbers. e. Rick Heede asked: Will the extension impact general aviation aircraft? Jim: The airport did a fuel analysis and found no difference (less than loo,000 shift). f. Landing fees may increase marginally — paid for by go% federal funds, airport uses enterprise fund, no taxes etc. Remaining cost will be amortized over 20 years. g. There are potential impacts on Buttermilk water district wells and the airport is working to resolve the issue. h. The draft report is out for review and comment now at www.aspenairporiplanning.com and land -use application. Public meeting will be May 12th 5:30pm library conference room. All comments are due by May 24th. i. County will be working on a climate action plan and collecting data for greenhouse gas inventory. Since there are no FAA requirements to quantify the greenhouse gas emissions projected from a longer runway there is currently no way to verify whether or not the runway extension will contribute to increased greenhouse gas emissions in Aspen's inventory. The next full community - wide greenhouse gas inventory is anticipated to take place in 2011 using 2010 data and will incorporate emissions from air travel at that time. Page 1 of 1 Chris Bendon From: Aaron Reed Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 6:47 AM To: Chris Bendon Subject: RE: Airport Extension Referral Chris — 4:0: 1 P My primary concern, and this may be addressed in the plan, is dust control. I know the Deer Hill area can get very dry as we approach the summer months and would want some sort of dust control protocol. Likely there will be a water truck for this purpose, I can just see a scene from the dust bowl if they aren't on top of things. The site has a natural drainage pattern, and a depressed are near the Owl Creek intersection that could have the capacity to store water as part of their stormwater plan if they are concerned about what happens to all the water... however I'd have to check if that is in conflict with the trail. That's all I'd have to say without seeing the entire plan. Aaron Reed From: Chris Bendon Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 4:14 PM To: Development —Review —Committee Subject: Airport Extension Referral Folks: We have a referral from Pitkin County ComDev on the extension of the airport runway. The proposal extends the existing alignment by 1,000 feet on the south end to permit a longer take -off. This is expected to address the issues they have with having to fly half -full planes in the summer due to the elevation. This is not a typical DRC because it's a County application and they have their own DRC process. So, I'm not intending on gathering a DRC meeting for this. But, I would like to gather comments in order to run them by the City Council. And, I'd like to get those by the end of the week if possible. Housing probably wants to check on the sound affects on Seasonal Housing. I'll try to look at this as well. Parks will want to look at some trail re -alignment Utilities may have some relocates Transportation may have some comments Env. Health and Canary may have comments only have one physical copy and Lee has it now. I'm trying to get some more from the County to lend out and should by tomorrow. Cheers, Chris Bendon, AICP Community Development Director City of Aspen 1970.429.2765 www.aspeenpitkin.com/ 5/10/2010 Page 1 of 1 Chris Bendon From: tom@aspensan.com Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 8:37 AM To: Chris Bendon Subject: Re: Airport Extension Referral Chris, 0 V �1 AA t a a P019 nor As long as they are just lengthening the runway, we wouldn't any comments... unless they have other projects in this phase of the airport master plan. Tom ----- Original Message ----- From: Chris Bendon To: Development_ Review_ Committee Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 4:14 PM Subject: Airport Extension Referral Folks: We have a referral from Pitkin County ComDev on the extension of the airport runway. The proposal extends the existing alignment by 1,000 feet on the south end to permit a longer take -off. This is expected to address the issues they have with having to fly half -full planes in the summer due to the elevation. This is not a typical DRC because it's a County application and they have their own DRC process. So, I'm not intending on gathering a DRC meeting for this. But, I would like to gather comments in order to run them by the City Council. And, I'd like to get those by the end of the week if possible. Housing probably wants to check on the sound affects on Seasonal Housing. I'll try to look at this as well. Parks will want to look at some trail re -alignment Utilities may have some relocates Transportation may have some comments Env. Health and Canary may have comments only have one physical copy and Lee has it now. I'm trying to get some more from the County to lend out and should by tomorrow. Cheers, Chris Bendon, AICP Community Development Director City of Aspen 1970.429.2765 www.aspenpitkin.com/ 5/10/2010 MEMORANDUM To: Chris Bendon, Community Development Department From: Lee Cassin, Environmental Health Department Date: April 27, 2010 Re: Pitkin County Airport Runway Extension PUB Master Plan Amendment Parcel ID #2643-342-0o-851 The City of Aspen's Environmental Health Department has reviewed the referenced land use submittal and has the following comments. Noise: The City of Aspen's noise ordinance prohibits any activity that generates a sound level of over 50 dB at night, and 55 dB during the daytime. These comments will address areas where this level will be exceeded, even though the City of Aspen's noise ordinance may not apply to this project. The city ordinance prohibits any sound louder than the specified levels. Airports typically use a different sound standard, which considers average sound level throughout a 24-hour period. This is the industry standard, although it does not address the impacts of noise on humans, in which case an extremely loud noise has an impact, even though it may be very quiet for the remainder of a day -night period. In other words, the day -night standard is much less strict than the City of Aspen's noise standards. Noise is known to be a physiologic stressor, and the Environmental Health Department receives many noise complaints during the course of a year, indicating the extent to which citizens are bothered by noise. The application notes that the EPA has issued a guidance document indicating that a noise level Of 55 dB as a day -night averaged level, is a guideline for outdoor and residential uses. The application provides maps showing where a 6o dB limit will be reached but only shows the 55 dB contours for existing conditions. The 6o dB sound level will extend about l000 ft farther to the south than it does now. Some areas to the north will have lower sound levels when takeoffs occur farther to the south. Presumably the 55 dB levels will move south roughly the same amount. The most impacted units will be the Burlingame seasonal housing and Maroon Creek Club deed restricted housing. The sound dB scale is a logarithmic scale, which means that small increases in number represent large increases in sound level. An increase of 3 dB of sound power level results in a doubling of the sound intensity, so what seems to be a relatively small increase in numbers can be very significant. Noise level increases at these two sites are likely to be large enough that sound mitigation walls or other measures will be needed. The larger Burlingame site is behind a hill, so ground level noise may be well blocked. At the point where sound travels directly to Burlingame residences, aircraft will be higher and farther away, and impact on these residents is not known. Construction is planned to occur both during the day and at times, at night. The City of Aspen noise ordinance does not allow construction to occur at night but we assume the County ordinance does. The same housing units will be most .affected by nighttime construction activities. Air Quality: A significant air quality impact is possible from fugitive dust during construction activities. It appears that roughly 18o,000 cubic yards of material will be moved and placed. Constant attention to dust control will be challenging but crucial to mitigating the impacts. State law requires that dust control be sufficient to prevent any visible dust from blowing off the site. Air emissions from operations after the extension is complete are very complex and depend on a number of assumptions. Airlines wish to be able to carry the fuel loads that would allow them to directly serve farther markets with nonstop flights. Adding more flights would increase air emissions. Certainly some number of people would come to Aspen if they could fly direct, but would not come otherwise. However, many people would take another air route that has a longer dog -leg that would increase air pollution compared to the direct routes. Other people might drive, which would create different emissions, and more or less depending on assumptions about aircraft and auto load factors. Fuller planes would decrease the emissions per passenger. We cannot determine whether growth in air traffic would cause overall growth, or would just accommodate existing demand for travel to Aspen. 11111111111111111111111111111 433965 08/02/1999 09:06A 4 of 10 R 50.00 D 0.00 N IN 111111111111111111 IN ORDINANC DAVIS SILVI 0,00 PITKIN COUNTY CO frequency, and a relevant description of the sound levels. This informational Vocument shall be reviewed for accuracy by the Pitkin County Airport Administrator. Prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy -for the project, the measured interior sound shall meet, or be lower than, a level of 40 DNL. This is a 24-hour average sound measurement with a 10 dBa penalty for nighttime sound: Documentation demonstrating this measurement shall be provided to the Planning Department prior to the flnaI site inspection. Bicycle parking should be provided in or near the center of individual courtyards with an additional area near the commons building. 9. The buildings shall incorporate variations in the exterior materials to provide some visual identity and uniqueness to individual structures. Exterior colors should be generally mute in tone with exceptions for trim and other details. Construction materials and techniques shall riot interfere with airport users. This includes, but is not limited to, affects of dust, smoke, glare, magnetic and electronic interference, and outdoor lighting. No reflective materials shall be used for the roofs. The Airport staff shall review and comment on the construction plans prior to issuance of a Building Permit to ensure compliance with this condition. 10. The project shall be developed with parking scenario "A" as presented in the application. 84 spaces shall be provided on -site in the manner proposed and a minimum of 20 off -site spaces shall be available to the project's residents. The site grading shall be accomplished in a manner allowing the future development of additional on -site parking spaces. it, The parking management plan shall be included in the PUD*agreement with the amendments suggested by the City Transportation Department. 12. The expansion of on -site parking may be approved by the Community Development Director as an insubstantial amendment upon demonstration that the off -site parking scenario is unworkable. 13. A reduction in the number of off -site spaces required may be approved by the Community Development Director as an insubstantial amendment if the reduction will not create a significant effect on the project or the neighborhood. 14. The Iocation for the off --site spaces may be amended by the Community Development Director as an insubstantial amendment with demonstration that the alternative site is viable. 15. During construction contractor parking shall be .limited to the north side of Stage Court unless adequate space is available on -site. To the extent possible, all construction staging should be accomplished on the parcel and not within public rights -of -way. The applicant shall encourage contractors to car-pool and/or use of the daily parking lots at the airport park -and -ride. 16. Conversion of unit plans from two -bedroom to one -bedroom, or vice -versa, shall not require an amendment to the PUD as long as there is no change in the total number of units. Altering the total number of units, including combining or division of units, shall require a substantial amendment. 17. Zoning requirements for this parcel shall be those of the Residential Multi -family (RMF- A) Zone District with the following modifications: Ordinance No. 23, Series of 1999 Page 4 \ IL [O O O E�KROPD i w �5 z LLl Ada W U oI! OM�LL°Y O aQ_ ~agp Q a_� =m U Z ¢ am W bNA �,w CO 1 6�5 CLO f4 '(;-f4 SETBAiK0-0 W O N aAr MOiI IL Q li�z `-W, W OT WF� f W20` ,r, g -c EEb Ea �Nw oaf an.�l��/ P i w� ED o U w rr Y w a m x �i� amtr / w! ' _r IL o i'• / _ r 'wbwr w o ': ice' ,^ W(J) Upcz 1 Yf I o 00 IL Zi r \ (I)Nz</ ul Z. 656 out- 0 r/� Q W a o w p c 3�rlY`% y V W,z 1 ��F�A!fir O C9 W > C9 � ��'�ss ( LT i O z o �sl ,, �� r' r` �m I Flo ww Xw Sr�,,; / G way �wF."_•Wm �' di K� 1 j1 aZWz w i � r�i ♦ E � 1 rs;:�n� , J f >� `� � ♦ ♦ v �� `ter i�� :'.j / La >-4- �j o Q '/• w ¢ tr 8y UZ < < /w I I � ' ;� 1 J / _ z;i �r . � z Kw K W i PH �F �u 1 w ��be13 1 • \ _ `� \ ,'.'.�i�/ W 1h I F m u b 4 ,41pb S � � (///`.•,� / :r'! U i • j i5 ro `; } rc „9v. AvMlXvl c �P 0I ,� . �� ,•--> _III � � U = ♦ ( Ali w lD \ r LU �< e nary wUi C'V,UL BU rev .,MII'3tIS'Y,Y3:edY 35110HVTSlI�rHt3UN31f3vAV 3SVWv:h35Yr,1>r wd�l t W, Inw, INW, UK - WWI WWI iiiiiYii' W&I 7-too-lo: (NOISE VIC/ 64 Aircraft noise is clearly the primary concern in terms of land use compatibility for the area surrounding the Airport. Noise impacts related to the proposed runway extension were carefully analyzed through the Federal environmental assessment process. A copy of the Noise Report from the Draft EA is included as Exhibit 8 of this application. Section 7-100-10 of Pitkin County Land Use Code includes the following language: "All activities shall be conducted so that the level and f o pattern noise does not constitute a nuisance to the p public. No activity shall be conducted at a level that exceeds those maximum permissible noise levels established by Pitkin County Code and/or C.R.S. 25-12-1013, et. seq., whichever is more restrictive, and violation of those noise levels shall be a violation of this Land Use Code." Determining what constitutes "a nuisance to the public" is difficult given the potential for broad interpretation of what constitutes a nuisance. However, the FAA has developed a methodology for evaluated noise impacts resulting from aircraft operations in terms of the effect on human activities associated with specific land uses. Essentially, this methodology is designed to be a practical tool for defining whether a given noise condition is a nuisance depending on the kind of activity occurring in the area where the noise condition exists. The metric used by the FAA in environmental analysis is DNL (the day - night average sound level), a cumulative sound level that provides a measure of the total sound energy during a specified time period. DNL logarithmically averages the sound levels at a location over a 24-hour period, with a lo-decibel (dB) weighted penalty added to all sounds occurring during nighttime hours between lo:oo p.m. and 6:59 a.m. The to dB penalty represents the added intrusiveness of noise that occurs during sleeping hours and because ambient sound levels during nighttime hours are typically about to dB lower than during daytime hours. The FAA's land use compatibility guidelines note that land uses, including residences, are considered compatible with noise levels less than 65 DNL, but only certain uses are compatible with noise levels at or above 65 DNL. These land use compatibility guidelines are based on studies that reflect the average response of large groups of people to noise, and therefore, might not reflect an individual's perception of an actual noise environment. However, this system is recognized and used throughout the country for understanding and predicting aircraft noise impacts. The noise analysis prepared for the Runway Extension DEA found that the area affected by the 65 DN L and greater noise levels would change in the future with or without the proposed project (when compared to 2oo8 noise exposure) due to a predicted increase in operations that is not related to the runway extension (see Figure 15 ). However, the location where aircraft begin their departure roll would change with the proposed runway extension. Figure 16 shows the estimated 65 DNL noise contour for the proposed runway extension as compared to the same contour without the runway extension. This figure shows the 65 DNL noise contour shifting to the south at the south end of the Airport as a result of the runway extension. The figure also shows that there would be slight southward shift of the 65 DNL contour off the north end of the runway but this shift is not as significant as what occurs in the area to the south of the runway. The important point is that there are no housing units located within the 65 DNL aircraft noise exposure contour in the existing condition or with the proposed runway extension. I n addition, there are no other noise sensitive uses or areas within the 65 DNL noise contours. Because no incompatible land uses would be encompassed by the 65 DNL noise contour, the proposed runway extension is not considered to result in significant impacts related to noise based on the FAA's approach' to airport noise analysis. The 65 DNL contour for the runway extension does come closer to the MAA Housing project: However, aircraft noise was anticipated when these units were constructed and several noise mitigation measures Aspen/Pitkin County Airport — Runway Extension Master Plan Amendment, Site Plan/Activity Envelope & Scenic View Protection Application 52 I N 3 W S S a 5 S V I V I N 3 W N 0 8 1 R N I itv 4unoj U44!&Uadsv HIVoN -91 4) were employed both in the construction of the units and in the site design. The housing units are surrounded by a large landform that reduces the noise impact associated with the Airport and Highway 82 by approximately SdBA. In addition, the units themselves were constructed to achieve a reduction of 20 dBA from exterior to interior. The noise report in the Runway Extension DEA also includes an analysis of single event noise. The purpose of the single event noise analysis was to determine how the proposed runway extension would affect maximum noise levels in residential areas located outside the 65 DNL contour. This analysis was done in response to residents concerns regarding noise level changes that may occur in areas more distant from the Airport than the areas that are the focus of the DN L analysis which is the metric accepted by the FAA for analyzing aircraft noise. The Pitkin County Code includes a section addressing noise abatement (Title 6: Section 6.36) which is the section to which the following excerpt from the Land Use Code refers: "No activity shall be conducted at a level that exceeds those maximum permissible noise levels established by Pitkin County Code..." Section 6.36.040 of the County Codes provides a table of noise levels for each of 4 land use types. However, this section appears to be limited to noise generated by "any stationary source of sound" which does not include aircraft. In addition, in 1990, with the assistance of the FAA, the United States Congress passed the Airport Noise and Capacity Act (ANCA). The ANCA, together with Part 161 (Title 14) of the Code of Federal Regulations, puts the Federal Aviation Administration in charge of establishing the regulations for aircraft noise. The DNL methodology for evaluating aircraft noise and establishing land use compatibility criteria is one of the components of Part 161 that was developed pursuant to the authority given to the FAA for establishing aircraft noise regulations. While ANCA and Part 161 do not entirely exempt aircraft noise from local regulations, it provides an approach which is considered more effective for understanding and planning for the impacts of aircraft noise. " aif 7-50: PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES (Buttermilk Metro District Water System Changes) One aspect of the proposed project is the installation of a waterline, water storage tank and pump house to accommodate shifting the Buttermilk Metro District's water supply from the well field at the south end of the Airport to the City of Aspen's water supply system. Connection to the City's system would occur at a water main that is located in the adjacent Highway 82 right-of-way. While the City of Aspen, Pitkin County and Buttermilk Metro District have reached an agreement in principal on this solution (see Exhibit 1), there are numerous details yet to be finalized. The purpose of this application is to obtain Site Plan/Activity Envelope, Master Plan Amendment (Airport Master Plan) and Scenic View Protection approval for the physical improvements needed to accommodate the proposed change. The criteria in this section will be addressed to the extent possible given the information available at this time. 7-50-20: WATER SUPPLY AND DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS (c) Adequate Water Provision (i) COMMUNITYAND NON -COMMUNITY PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS (a) Public water systems (as defined in C.R.S. 25-1.5-201(1)), whether a community water system or a non - community water system (as such terms are defined in 5 C.C.R. 1003-1), shall comply with all regulations and permitting requirements for such systems established by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment and the Colorado Division o f Water Resources (State Engineer). (b) For new public water systems, the following must also be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the County before approval of the development: i. That there is no existing public water system that will provide the service; Aspen/Pitkin County Airport - Runway Extension Master Plan Amendment, Site Plan/Activity Envelope & Scenic View Protection Application 55 2. Current ownership of, or the legal right of acquisition or use of, existing decreed water rights sufficient in quantity and dependability (including pressure) to serve the proposed use; 3. Legal capability to accomplish any changes in the uses or points of diversion of such water rights, while maintaining the quantity and dependability necessary to serve the proposed use, without material injury to vested water rights; 4. Adequate physical facilities, or the necessary financial and technical resources and legal commitment to construct such facilities for raw water storage, water treatment, treated water storage, distribution, and water pressure maintenance adequate to serve the proposed use; and 5. The financial resources, or the legal commitment for the financial resources necessary to extend such service to the proposed development, and to adequately maintain and operate the system on a long- term basis. Response: The proposed waterline, water storage tank and pump house facilities will be designed to comply with all will regulations and permitting requirement of the State of Colorado. The proposed action is not to create a new public water system, but to connect an existing system to the City of Aspen's water supply. Therefore; Subsection (b)(1) is not applicable. Information regarding BMD's water rights is not available at this time. The specifies of what water rights BMD possess and what will happen with those rights will be addressed during the process of negotiating the agreement with the City of Aspen to supply bulk water to the BMD. All issues related to the cost and financing for the improvements necessary to convert from the well field to the City of Aspen's water supply are yet to be determined. (2) CONNECTION TO PUBLIC SYSTEMS if the property line of a development is located within a one-half mile (2,640 feet) radius of a public water system's service area, the County may require information for analysis of the environmental impacts of connecting to the public system versus use of an individual well(s) or other water source. Based upon the results of such analysis, the County may require that development connect to a public system if service is available, or that water be provided from a source other than the pubic system. In the event that connection to a public system is pursued, documentary evidence of the water or utility district's agreement to service the new development must be provided to Community Development Department prior to submission of any building permit application. (d) Water Distribution Systems Water distribution systems shall comply with the applicable federal and state statutes, regulations, policies, and procedures, and shall meet the requirements of the fire district serving the area. Response: The environmental impacts of connecting the BM D water system to the City of Aspen's water main in Highway 82 are minimal and have been fully discussed elsewhere in this application. Construction of the water storage tank, pump facilities and waterline can be accomplished with minimal impact to the adjacent wetlands. The scenic impacts of the buried water tank and pump house facilities have been addressed in the repose to Section 7-20-120 on this application. Connection to the City's water supply system has been agreed upon in principal and no further study of the impacts of this connection, other than what is provided in this application, is required. Compliance with applicable federal and state statutes will be evaluated through the process of establishing the Water Sale Agreement between the parties. Summary The Aspen/Pitkin County Airport is seeking approval for a major amendment to the 2004 Aspen/Pitkin County Airport Master Plan as well as Activity Envelope/Site Plan and Scenic View Protection approval to allow the construction of a 1,000 extension to the south end of the current runway and several associated improvements. The runway/taxiway extension project is a big part of the Airport's ongoing mission to Aspen/Pitkin County Airport - Runway Extension Master Plan Amendment, Site Plan/Activity Envelope & Scenic View Protection Application 56 provide safe, efficient and environmentally responsible airport services and facilities that meet the community's needs. Compliance with the applicable Code criteria, as specified in the pre -application summary provided by the Community Development Department, has been demonstrated in this application. With this in mind, the Airport respectfully requests that the land use approvals described in this application be granted. Aspen/Pitkin County Airport - Runway Extension Master Plan Amendment, Site Plan/Activity Envelope & Scenic View Protection Application 57 Memorandum of Intent It is hereby understood that the folloNving parties; Pitkin COUnty, the City of Aspen and the Buttermilk Metropolitan District (BIvID) agree in principle to the following general conclitions and Obligations; 1. This Nv10I is not intended to create an), legally binding obligations, express or implied. and in 110 way constitutes any form of enforceable agreement, promise or commitment with respect t0 the proposed Nvater lease, notwithstanding an), action, inaction Or fUtUre COUrSe of dealing of the parties. Partial performaIlce in reliance Upon the terms Of this N /101 IS not aUthorized. An), CIUe diligence Investigations at any time prior to execution Of the definitive agreement Shall not COI1StitUte partial performance nor Indicate any Intent to agree Upon the filial terms of the agreement. No party shall be bound by any Obligation relating t0 the proposed water system until each party has executed and Unconditionally delivered a final, definitive agreement in Form and content 111L1tUally acceptable with respect to all of the essential and non- essential terms of the proposed water agreement. This NVIOI has no independent 101-ce or effect. No extrinsic evidence shall be admissible to prove otherwise, and neither party may rely O11 any, oral promises inconsistent with this Paragraph. All of the essential terms of the proposed Nvater lease have not been negotiated. It is understood and agreed that either party may elect to terminate negotiations at any time for any reason whatsoever, and thereafter neither party shall have any right or claim against the other. 2. At the time an acceptable substitute potable water Supply is made available to BN /ID by the City of Aspen, the existing water well system located exclusively On the Pitkin County Airport, as described in the Water Sharing Agreement and not including any water pL111111S, storage facilities, pipes or other facility improvements located off of the Pitkin County airport property, owned and operated by BN /ID will be relocated, abandoned or capped as necessary at the expense Of' Pitkin COUIlty. �. To accommodate this change In the existing BMD Nvater system, the City Of Aspen 1S committed t0 negotiate in good faith for the provisloil .Of potable lvater t0 the BMD at a reasonable cost to be negotiated. 4. As time is of the essence, the relocating, capping and abandonment Of the existilg system, and file Connection t0 the City Of Aspen water System will be accomplished as soon as practicable. S. All I)al'tiCS Understand that a fol-111al Water Sale Agreement will be necessary a11cl Will negotiate i11 good faltll. Agreed upon this day of March, 2010 at Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado. Signed. City of Aspen Steve Bal'w1Ck "Title: City Manager Pitkin County Hilary Fleher Title: County Manager I3utter111ilk Metropolitan District Gar`AB 11 Title: lstrlct Manager