Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandUseCase.CR.233 E Airport Rd.0029.2010.ASLU0029.2010.ASLU 233 E. AIRPORT ROAD 2643 342 00 851 AIRPORT EXTENTION REF xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx `J THE CITY OF ASPEN City of Aspen Community Development Department CASE NUMBER PARCEL ID 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 AIRPORT REFERRAL PITKIN COUNTY 6.10.10 CLOSED BY ANGELA SCOREY ON: 6.10.10 0 0 2�4a - � 42- 00 - ?51 oo 2- 1.2o I C) ­tASLL4 f At Ail LI, File Edit Record Navigate Form Reports Format Tab Help d) 16 f!j Cl!lW j Fees Fee Summary. Main Actions Attachments Routing History Valuation ArchjEng Custom Fields Sub Permits Parcels PWM& type A@W LorW Un Pwnik * 03MMIG ASI Address 1233 E AIRPORT RC ... A0P3,ft City IASPEN state CO Z-ip 81611 Permit Information Master permit .. Routing queueApplied Pr oject F ..] status Approved Description PITKIN COUNTYARPORT RUNWAY EXTENTION - REFERRAL - PUB MASTER PLAN issued AMENDMENT -MEMORANDUM mom Final Submitted IClock Days [_7 SUZANNE WOLF - COM DEV 1 0] Expires Submitted via Owner Last name IPITKIN COUNTY AIRPORT ... First name 11111 E AVIPM RD &SIPEN CO 81811 Phone Address Applicant k Owner is applicant? = Contractor is applicant? Last name IPITKIN COUNTY First name j AfVIM FtD Phone "=&M Cust #F24520 GQM&I Mew Lender Last name First name Phone 1( Address AspenGoid5[servei) angelas Edit 1 of 0 0 - J File Edit Record fyavigate Form Reports Format Tab Help vJ,x, -j `b' >` 1_j.IL ,, ,; del© h Ile A2 Char A Feed Fee Summary I I Actions Attrn adents Routnq History V_alwt on Arch/Enq CustomFields Sub Permits Parcels _ 0 Panit 4" ®— permit t -- --- — Address 233 E AIRPORT RD •• Apt/Suite City ASPEN State CO . zo 81611 Permit Information Master permit Routing queueNVJ AP*d $Z Pro)ect Status d$ l Description PITKIN COUNTYAIRPORT RUNJVAY EXTENTION - REFERRAL - PU8 MASTER PLAN Approved Issued �1 AMENDMENT- MEMORANDUM Final Submitted ISUZANNE WOLF - COM DEV Dock ® Days r 0 Expires 615l2011 Submitted via Owner Last name PITKIN COUNTY AIRPORT • First name Phone Address Applicant ❑� Owner is applicant? Contractor is applicant? Last name PITKIN COUNTY AIRPORT First name Phone Cust*t 124520 •• Address Lender Last name First name Phone ( ) - Address AspenGold5 (server) angelas Edit 1 oil P MEMORANDUM TO: Suzanne Wolff, Pitkin County Community Development FROM: Chris Bendon, City of Aspen Community Development Director 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. 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 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: 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 7 0 Chris Bendon Page 1 of 2 From: Brian Flynn • Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 5:00 PM To: Chris Bendon .440000M 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 0 ARKS 6 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 0 MEMORANDUM NKQA1 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-oo-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, 201o. 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 ii,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 ioo,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.aspenairportplanninz.com and land -use application. Public meeting will be May 12th 5:3opm library conference room. All comments are due by May 24th. 0 0 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 2olo data and will incorporate emissions from air travel at that time. 0 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 — 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. \aron 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 I 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 l� J 0 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, 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 I 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 #2643-342-00-851 The City of Aspen's Environmental Health Department has reviewed the referenced land use submittal and has the following comments. Nnise. 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 impVt 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. 0 • 111111111111111111111a 11111111111111111111111111111 IN 433965 08/02/19" 09:WA ORDINANC DAVIS SILVI 4 of 10 R 50.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO frequency, and a relevant description of the sound levels. This informational document 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 final site I7. e inspection. 8. Bicycle parking should be provided in or near the center of individual courtyards with anj���.}' additional area near the commons building. 9. The buildings shall incorporate variations in the exterior materials to provide some visual ' ✓"' '1 I identity and uniqueness to individual structures. Exterior colors should be generally muted in tone with exceptions for trim and other details. Construction materials and techniques shall not 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 Y ►'` l 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. 11. 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 location 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 (RNtF- A) Zone District with the following modifications: Ordinance No. 23, Series of 1999 Page 4 o F— Z m \ ; C�U X 0 Z Z W O 5 o �, mI I p Q X < �Y .. 8,1LL, .-,,.. o Z" �wUZ ww ii E a Z�JQ m oa3 LLY ,Qd� v O a3 a 4u Qz<L MM w -73 "` y a0Z LL QEL o CIO i11yZjN�V0135; ! �.. j rj Vr�1, I EL ���Q F (� • t' /ill,' W Wx� b� i I t\ �a O w •'%� Lr mWz 2 aAt 1 oNF aa� Oo�l�/ ...1 3a '�. Q I S apN -.Z one 1 a w S OU�ZW = ;>Z faJ< p'W ;z z �I flt ft z� Jp 1 S a�-77Q—A°—EW— IN P 1` dfL ANl Crh !1/ •• I F aa✓ / FOtc YI/ MNvl / Ed ww m .< x I t 3 got I gW $ \ .FIV. AVNUXVl 41 �kk W 7 I� o 7-100-10: NOISE 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 pattern of noise does not constitute a nuisance to the 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 io-decibel (dB) weighted penalty added to all sounds occurring during nighttime hours between lo:oo p.m. and 6:59 a.m. The io dB penalty represents the added intrusiveness of noise that occurs during sleeping hours and because ambient sound levels during nighttime hours are typically about io 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 DNL and greater noise levels would change in the future with or without the proposed project (when compared to 20o8 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. In 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 DN L 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 1 N 3 N i S 3 S S V l V 1 N 3 N N O V 1 A N 3 podi.V 4unoj uu�1i&uadsV Af I - A F FL �• .ass �,�, I' 0 0 W C O tu z 0 cG 0 0 coo 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 DNL 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 199o, 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. " VW 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) COMMUNITY AND 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 of 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: 1. 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 public 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 BMD 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 0 • 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 11 0 Memorandum of Intent 1p,Mti 4 0 It is hereby understood that the following parties; Pitkin County, the City of Aspen and the Buttermilk Metropolitan District (BN1D) agree in principle to the following general conditions and obligations; I. This MOI is not intended to create any legally binding obligations. express or implied, and in no way constitutes any form of enforceable agreement, promise or commitment with respect to the proposed water lease, notwithstanding any action, inaction or future course of dealing of the parties. Partial performance in reliance upon the terms of this MOI is not authorized. Any due diligence investigations at any time prior to execution of the definitive agreement shall not constitute partial performance nor indicate any intent to agree upon the final terms of' the agreement. No party shall be bound by any obligation relating to the proposed water system until each party has executed and unconditionally delivered a final, definitive agreement in f'ornn and content nuitually acceptable with respect to all of the essential and non- essential terms of the proposed water agreement. This MOI has no independent force or effect. No extrinsic evidence shall be admissible to prove otherwise, and neither party may rely on any oral promises inconsistent with this Paragraph. All of the essential terns of the proposed water lease have not been negotiated. It is understood and agreed that either party may elect to terminate negotiations at any tine for any reason whatsoever, and thereafter neither party shall have any right or claim against the other. 2. At the tine an acceptable substitute potable water supply is made available to BMD 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 pumps, storage facilities, pipes or other facility Improvements located off of the Pitkin County airport property, owned and operated by BMD will be relocated, abandoned or capped as necessary at the expense of Pitkin County. 3. To accommodate this change in the existing BMD water system, tine City of Aspen is committed to negotiate in good faith for the provision of potable \rater to the BMD at a reasonable cost to be negotiated. 4, As time is of the essence, the relocating, capping and abandonment of the existing system, and the connection to the City of Aspen water system will be accomplished as soon as practicable. r 0 5. All parties understand that a formal eater Sale Agreement will be necessary and will negotiate in good faith. Agreed upon this day of March, 2010 at Ashen. I'itkin COMM'. Colorado. Signed, City of Aspen Steve Barwick Title: City Manager Pitkin County Hilary Fl t her Title: County Manager Buttermilk Metropolitan District Garh Title: ►s rut Manager 4" o3U ATC CAMERA I V / i- j y. J Q Q \� F \ o^ QaOD v <F�waoo \_ w a� Qa�b • ` - \ SpR� w yb \\ ACTIVITY ENVELOPE \ \ I n --, VEHICLE SERVICE ROAD R/W 15/33 EXTENSION RUNWAY 15/33 / L EXISTING LOCALIZER X TO BE ,---ANTENNA RELOCATED m VEHICL SERVICE ROAD - PATH- N`I'li PROPOSED --1 I LOCALIZER EQUIPMENT i' SHELTER PROPOSED O Vie:. _. BIKE PATH z REALIGNMENT 13a r oo PROPOSEDr- �O BMD PUMP PROPOSED BURIED HOUSE BMD WATER TANK 1 h WETLANDS AREA AIRPORT PROPERTY _ PROPOSED BRIDGES OVER WETLANDS WETLANDS AREA i� (\ 00— ACTIVITY`._ i I -- -_ _ , - - -, _ PROPOSED BIKE PATH (j / ENVELOPE =- ..... REALIGNMENT REALIGNMENT , OWL CREEK ROAD 11' I � 1 I I PROPOSED VSR REALIGNMENT PROPOSED 1 LOCALIZER / ANTENNA / EXISTING BIKE PATH TO BE -REALIGNED EXISTING VSR TO BE REALIGNED J / — yyltm� �� CDOT RIGHT-OF-WAY RIGHT-OF-WAY �^^ SETBACK / = LEGEND EXISTING SAGE PROTECAREA w\_\� ASPEN-PITKIN COUNTY AIRPORT TO BE PROTECTED V DURING PROJECT JVIATION® 1,000-FOOT RUNWAY EXTENSION 3 i SIGNIFICANT VEGETATION -""':: � RIGHT -OF WAY SETBACK (SAGE AREAS) WETLANDS IMPACT AREA LAND USE APPLICATION AIRPORT PROPERTY 3 VEGETATION TO BE BOUNDARY GRAPHIC SCALE REMOVED © O ACTNRI'ENVELOPE ASPEN-PITKINCOUNTY AIRPORT SITE PLAN BUSHES 8 TREES 100 0 100 200 900 S. BROADWAY SUITE 350 DENVER, COLORADO 80209 O DISCLAIMER. ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARD AREAS EXIST THAT A PEN COLORADO PHONE: 303-524-3030— FAX: 303-524-3031 Figure 3 WETUND AREAS RIGHT -OF WAY MIGHT AFFECT THE PROPERTY. ANY IN FEET) � WWW.JVIATION.COM DATE: AP RI 9, 2010 EXHIBIT 4A IMPROVEMENTS AND OCCUPANCY THEREOF. o �"mATC CAMERA I I r 5. •A• i Q Q x RUNWAY 15/33 W R/W 15/33 EXTENSION L I - sp lr I ACTIVITY • \I %r L7I � 92�0 PSP EN LOCALIZER EQUIPMENT SHELTER PROPOSED == BIKE PATH REALIGNMENT r �. - C) ). 89Lu t _. m �- -- + y -- /- \ PROPOSED"° 1 11 1 O BMD PUMP PROPOSED BURIED a HOUSE, BMD WATER TANK �\ � F CK %AREA WETLANDS �A SEt� PROPOSED _BRIDGES OVER i ETLANDS' VEHICL ERVICE ROADi'" ---- :y AIRPORT WETLANDS —,,IT AREA E BIKE PATH a �� � I I `�. � ... %.��^ ---m._�_�_-._ ----•"� - CDOTRIGHT-OF-WAY TIVITY !I _ E PAT .-- --• REALIGNMENT RIGHT-OF-WAY KAY ENVELOPE �- —SETBACK OWL CREEK ROAD LEGEND EXISTING SAGE AREA TO BE PROTECTED �® ASPEN-PITKIN COUNTY AIRPORT DURING PROJECT IMPACT JTIATION® SIGNIFICANT VEGETATION -�""'-�'-- RIGHT-0f WAY SETBACK � 1,000-FOOT RUNWAY EXTENSION USAGE AREAS) WETLANOSIMPAGi AREA BOUNDARY GRAPHIC LAND USE APPLICATION REMOVED VEGETATION TO BE BOUNDARY O ACTIVITY GRAPHIC SCALE ASPEN-PITKIN o ©v BUSHE58TREE5 too 0 t00 200 900S BROADWAY — SUITE350 — DENVER.COLORAD080209 SITE PLAN s COUNTY AIRPORT DISCLAIMER: ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARD AREAS EXIST THAT ASPEN,COLORADO PHONE: 303-524-3030 FAX: 303-524-3031 WETLANC AREAS RIGHT -OF WAY IMPROVLE MIGHT EMENTS AND OCCUPANCY WWW.JVtATION.COM DATE: APRIL 9, 2010 Figure 3 EXHIBIT 4A IMPROVEMENTS AND OCCUPANCY THEREOF. IN FEET ) q i G i C I � HWY D2 TO SP INGS GLENWOO _—_-- _--_—_--___=== — J—\=r HWY 82 TO _ ;� 1 ASPEN I I ■ IL . rr - II IF RUNWAY 15/33= s — RUNWAY SAFETY AREA 250' RT. RUNWAY OBJECT FREE AREA 400' RT. VEHICLE SERVICE ROAD O- �►,� . J __411 7/ A A-1 I1 - LEGEND ®POTENTIAL ON -SITE FILL MATERIAL LOCATIONS low s L� CONTRACTOR STAGING AREAS 77 TAXIWAY'A' CONTRACTOR'S STAGING AREA AND CONSTRUCTION ACCESS. STANDARD VEHICLES & LIMITED EQUIPMENT. TEMPORARY GATE ACCESS RUNWAY OBJECT FREE AREA 400' RT.:�Z, .a l•. y RUNWAY SAFETY AREA 250' RT. _ ; tt 1 • —VEHICLE SERVICE ROAD= =i OWL CREEK ROAD FILL MATERIAL HAUL ROUTE. _ APPROXIMATELY 160,000 C.Y. OF FILL —_ AVAILABLE. ESTIMATE 10 C.Y. HAUL PER LOAD' TOTAL ESTIMATED TRIPS=16,000 GRAPHIC SCALE ASPEN-PITKIN 300 0 300 600 COUNTYAIRPORT ASPEN, COLORADO ( I\ FEET ) JVIATION° 900 S. BROADWAY — SUITE 350 — DENVER, COLORADO 80209 PHONE: 303-524-3030 — FAX: 303-524-3031 — WWW.NIATION COM — ASPEN-PITKIN COUNTY AIRPORT 1,000-FOOT RUNWAY EXTENSION LAND USE APPLICATION CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: APRIL 9, 2010 Figure 7 EXHIBIT10B ..OW -a "+ two .tea f 0 • -WO .dW • TGMALLOY CONSULTING, LLC LAND USE PLANNING • SITE DESIGN • NATURAL SYSTEMS ANALYSIS • PUBLIC PROCESS MEMORANDUM To: Chris Bendon, City of Aspen Community Development Director FROM: Tim Malloy, Ryk Dunkelberg DATE: May 21, 2010 RE: City Referral Comments on County Land Use Application for Airport Runway Extension We appreciate the time you and other members of the City Staff took to provide referral comments on the Airport's land use application for the proposed runway extension. We have reviewed your memo and those of the other staff members and would like to offer a few clarifying comments for the record. Our comments will focus primarily on two of the six items listed under the recommendation section of your memo, as follows: Item z - Regarding Dust Control Measures: This comment suggests routine watering be done when the existing runway is in use. While dust control is a major priority for the County and the project team, watering is not the only solution and may not be practical for some portions of the construction area given the size of the project, limited water resources and FAA restrictions related to the runway safety area. A fugitive dust permit is required for the project and best management practices for dust control will be utilized to manage particulate pollution. Watering is one method which may be used in some areas during construction. Others include completing the work in phases, revegetating in phases and using temporary tackifiers during periods when the runway is shut down. Other methods may also be employed as appropriate. All dust control methods will be described in the Construction Management Plan and Fugitive Dust Control Plans, which are required in association with the County's earthmoving permit process. Item 5 - Noise Mitigation for Levels Exceeding 55 DNL: This item references an "EPA guidance level" for noise in support of a recommendation that the BOCC require that the Airport provide adequate mitigation to ensure that on -site noise levels do not exceed 55 DNL at the Burlingame Seasonal Housing and Maroon Creek Employee Housing sites and that interior noise levels not exceed 4o DNL, as was required of the original development. The "EPA guidance level" referred to comes from a document published by the EPA in 1974. It is important to understand that this EPA document does not constitute a standard, specification or regulation, and was published prior to the adoption of several key Federal documents which now govern aircraft noise abatement and land use compatibility throughout the Country. Important Federal policy documents include the Aviation Noise Abatement Policy (ANAP -1976) and the Airport Safety and Noise Abatement Act (ASNA - 1979)• These documents led to the promulgation of FAR Part 150 (Airport Noise and Land 402 PARK DRIVE • GLENWOOD SPRINGS • COLORADO • 81 601 (P) 970.945.0832 • (F) 970.945.0833 •E-MAIL: TGMALLOY@SOPRIS.NET • • 2 Use Compatibility Planning), which was adopted by the FAA in January, 1985. In addition to requiring the FAA to develop noise and land use compatibility standards, ASNA required that all federal agencies utilize those standards for land use compatibility issues associated with aircraft noise. FAR Part 15o established a set of land use compatibility guidelines that recommend acceptable noise levels (using the DNL average metric) for various land uses including residential and recreational uses. Residential land use is deemed appropriate for noise exposures up to 65 DNL under the Part 150 guidelines. The noise levels established under the Part 150 guidelines were derived from actual case histories involving aircraft noise conditions at civilian and military airports. While the proposed runway extension results in a shift in aircraft noise towards the south such that portions of the Burlingame Seasonal Housing and MCC Employee Housing areas are located partially within the 55 and 6o DNL contours, the projected noise level for these neighborhoods does not reach the 65 DNL exposure level. As indicated in Item 5 in your summary memo, the Burlingame Seasonal Housing units were built to achieve an interior sound level of approximately 40 DNL, given existing airport and highway noise conditions at that time. However, some additional information regarding the review and approval process related to the Burlingame Seasonal Housing Project should also be considered. Importantly, the Airport opposed the project due to concerns over aircraft noise and other impacts associated with current, and future, airport operations. Notwithstanding their opposition, it was the Airport that requested that noise reduction measures be incorporated in the construction of the housing units for the project. in addition, since forecasting showed aircraft operations would likely increase in the future, the Airport obtained avigation easements from the City of Aspen/MAA (Burlingame Seasonal Housing) and the owners of the Maroon Creek Club proRerty in order to prQte�t�gainct future complaints related to growing aircraft operations and possible changes to airport facilities. One of the purposes of thg aviation easements was to seek formal acknowledgement from all parties that the Burlingame and Maroon Creek Club properties would be subject to noise, fumes and vibration associated with aircraft operations, not only related to the current flight tracks and runway but to any future flight tracks or runway facilities. It's also important to understand that the interior sound level for the units in the Burlingame Seasonal Housing Project was set at 40 DNL despite information available during the City's review process that the recommended threshold, provided by HUD and the Builder's Association, was 45 DNL. For comparison, normal conversation falls in the 55 to 58 dBA range. Given the Airport's stated opposition to the project during the approval process, it seems onerous to now require the Airport to meet an arbitrarily low standard when all parties h_ ayg�greed in writing that aircraft noise would be off limits as grounds for objecting. to future airport improvements. 402 PARK DRIVE • GLENWOOD SPRINGS • COLORADO • 81 601 (P) 970.945.0832 • (F) 970.945.0833 *E-MAIL: TGMALLOY@SOPRIS.NET • 0 3 We recognize that aircraft noise is one of the unhappy consequences of the service we provide to the community, and we continue to work towards a quieter future for our neighbors. However, we are very concerned that Item 5 in your memo represents a potentially costly and complicated approach to mitigating aircraft noise on a site -by -site basis and sets an inappropriate precedent for other land owners in the vicinity of the Airport. We believe our efforts and resources are best directed more broadly toward programs and initiatives that help reduce aircraft noise and other airport impacts for everyone in the surrounding area rather than pursuing off -airport solutions on a case -by - case basis. Toward this end, the Airport is currently involved in the following efforts to reduce noise and other airport impacts: • Voluntary Fly Quiet Program to identify owners of louder aircraft and encourage them to phase out those aircraft. • Voluntary Fly Quiet Program to identify operators of louder aircraft and encourage them to phase out those aircraft. • Voluntary Fly Quiet Program to identify owners and operators whose aircraft operate in a manner that produces more noise than other aircraft and encourage them to be sensitive to the community. • Develop voluntary ground noise procedures to reduce ground noise associated with aircraft ground power equipment. • Preparing an FAA Grant to purchase electric ground power sources to reduce noise. • Preparing plans for noise berms in association with terminal area development to reduce aircraft ground noise. • Working with Congress and the FAA on national agenda to require the phase out of older, louder aircraft, known as Stage z aircraft. These efforts and others have resulted in a significant reduction in per -aircraft noise (DNL metric) over the last io years. We remain optimistic that similar reductions will be achieved in the coming years. Regards 402 PARK DRIVE • GLENWOOD SPRINGS • COLORADO • 81 601 (P) 970.945.0832 • (F) 970.945.0833 •E-MAIL: TGMALLOY@SOPRIS.NET