Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
minutes.apz.bg.19990615
Transcript Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission June 15, 1999 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (06/08/99): BURLINGAME SEASONAL HOUSING FINAL BOB BLAICH I'd like to open the regular Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting and I want to remind those people present in the audience that we have made a decision in the last some months to adjourn our meetings at 7:00 o'clock. Some of you have heard that before, unless the commission votes to extend that time frame. We have other things on the agenda tonight, there's a work session planned and as far as I can see we're never going to get to that, but I think Julie Ann has some comments. So, I'm going to open the meeting. Roll call please. JACKIE LOTHIAN Definitely, Roger Haneman ROGER HANEMAN Here LOTHIAN Tim Semrau TIM SEMRAU Here LOTHIAN Ron Erickson RON ERICKSON Here LOTHIAN Tim Mooney TIM MOONEY Here LOTHIAN Steve Buettow STEVE BUETTOW Present LOTHIAN Roger Hunt ROGER HUNT Here LOTHIAN Jasmine Tygre JASMINE TYGRE Here LOTHIAN Bob Blaich 1 Transcript Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission June 15, 1999 BOB BLAICH Also. Please go ahead with the presentation. JIM CURTIS Jim Curtis, representing the MAA, and Robert. We have no additional formal presentation and in the interest of time we want to just respond to specific questions. Two things: we agree with all of the planning office recommendations; we do have discussion of 2 of them, Item # 6, Item #23. Coming from the presentation at the last meeting, we actually would request that 3 conditions be added for clarification. That information is distributed in this sheet and at the appropriate time, we can go through this information. And then secondly simply as a courtesy to Mickey and Dave, the attorneys for the Maroon Creek Club, who patiently and diligently sat through the last meetings. TYGRE Wait, I'm missing. CURTIS I'm sorry, I apologize. TYGRE That's okay. CURTIS And once again, strictly as a courtesy to attorneys on behalf of the Maroon Creek Club, they have patiently waited through the last meeting and if they like to offer any comments. We will happen to respond to those comments at this point in time but it's really, certainly up to you. BLAICH Okay, I missed a beat here, I trying to move too fast. I forgot to ask for the approval of minutes and that's pertinent to the project because it was the last meeting. So, we should have a motion to approve. HUNT Okay, I'll move to adopt the minutes of 8 June, 1999. LOTHIAN And they are just the minutes on the Burlingame portion. BLAICH Just what we have in our hands. LOTHIAN Right. BLAICH Do I have a second on that. TYGRE I'll second. BLAICH Okay, all in favor. Aye. 2 Transcript Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission June 15, 1999 BLAICH, TYGRE, HUNT, MOONEY, ERICKSON, SEMRAU, BUETTOW, Aye. HOEFER In addition, Bob, for the record notice for this public hearing has been provided and meets the requirements of the board. BLAICH So, it's back to the commissioners. Questions to the applicant, Ron Erickson. ERICKSON You just mentioned that you are representing the MAA; what about the other 9 months, are you representing them as well. Or should you not even consider that because it's not part of this. CURTIS The City has granted the MAA consent to submit the land use application. So, depending on what the specific questions would be, if I felt I needed to defer to the City Manager, I would do that. Regarding the land use provisions, I feel comfortable representing that. ERICKSON In other words any warrants you make tonight are to be binding on your partner as the City of Aspen. Right. CURTIS They would show up in a conditions I would assume. ERICKSON Okay. BENDON Bob, I don't know how you want to proceed, we do have members of the public that are BLAICH Well, I was just waiting for the guest speakers to comment, here first. BENDON I do have additional stuff I've received from the airport, that I would like to go over. BLAICH You'll be next on the list. I want to see if there's anybody else from the commission that has questions. Yes. BUETTOW Yes, in the previous meeting you mentioned that that there was an offer from the MAA to dedicate two of these buildings in the back to be used for year-round housing. That would be presented to the City Council. Transcript Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission June 15, 1999 CURTIS Yes. BUETTOW What's that, 4 units. CURTIS It would be converting to eight 1-bedroom units on a year- round basis. The Housing Office was appreciative, or the Housing Board was appreciative of the offer. They respectfully hope City Council would consider that; that is acceptable to the MAA and that will be presented to City Council. And should this group have a position on that, it should show up as a recommendation or condition. BLAICH I think that we'll go back to staff presentation. We'd asked for it before and you hadn't spoken up BENDON Sure BLAICH So why don't you put the information in cause it might be relevant to questions being posed. BENDON One thing that I want to mention is that I've pointed out several issues under main issues. We've talked about a few of them, primarily airport noise. I would like to go over that a little bit but the commission does need to consider all relevant issues. This is a letter I just received today from the Airport. And Dave Gordon is here from the Airport to answer any specific questions. I included comments from the airport in the referral documents They are asking for 5 specific things for this parcel. Some of these you've heard before, #1 is an avigation easement; the second one is the manner in which it's constructed, the project so that it does not interfere with the navigation of the airport. This has to do with reflective materials, things that are of magnetic, provide magnetic interference. The third is the use of appropriate construction materials to deal with or to provide interior decibel sound levels. In conformance with, it just says local, state or federal rules, guidelines. We don't have in our land use code anything that provides any kind of regulation. I believe the builders association recommends a 45 dBA interior noise level as a maximum. #4 is a disclosure form, it's provided for residents that informs them before they enter into a lease that they live near an airport and they will be subject to event noise. And #5, just a thanks for the opportunity for the comments and a few of those I've already included. The #4, the disclosure form, I've not included in your recommendation. Transcript Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission June 15, 1999 CURTIS I had an opportunity to speak with Dave maybe a week ago and I'm aware of these and all of these are certainly acceptable and all prudent things anyone would want to do. BLAICH While we're on the airport, maybe these questions will come up later. Is that it from you. BENDON There was some, there was additional comments that came up at our last meeting regarding the ability of the airport to expand and how much this essentially pins them in, if you will. The current Airport Master Plan does not have an extension of the runway to the south. Speaking with Dave Gordon, he said the most practical improvement that they would ever consider there would be to extend the runway for the purpose of departures but not for landings. That would not affect the RPZ zone it would not move the RPZ zone. There was some question about whether if the airport, if the RPZ zone does change, then includes properties within it. Basically the rule of thumb is that if the noise lines exceed a 65 DNL, they are, they basically need to buy those homes. And if they include, if they're included in the obstacle-free zone, then they need to move those things. And that's what happened with highway with the other end of the airport, they needed to move the highway because of their extension of the runway. Again, there's no plans in the current master plan of the airport which has just gone through a county approval to expand on that southern side. There's no Federal regulations or recommended construction techniques or anything for noise near airports. Dave has said that 20 to 30 dBA reduction sounds are appropriate. BLAICH We'll come back to the commission. Roger. HUNT A couple of things, while we're on noise here. Okay if the, I understand that the airport protection zone doesn't get extended if they just extended south for departures. However, what that does do, is get the noise generator much closer to this project for taking-offto the north. And I still haven't seen any noise profiles for this area. I haven't seen the profile of the present take- off point to the relationship of the berm, which is basically the only thing you have protecting this project from the noise generated by the airport. On the north side of it there. So I really need to see something like that before I can get much farther along in my acceptance of this. MICHAEL HASSIG We're prepared to show that to you right now. BLAICH Let's answer your question. Please. 5 Transcript Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission June 15, 1999 LOTHIAN Michael for the record please. HASSIG Michael Hassig, Harry Teague Architects, and I have with me also, Jeff Koltkowski from David Adams Associates. He's an acoustical engineer who has provided a lot of the analysis for us in the. I'll do some introductory discussions and then ask Jeff to talk about some of more technical aspects. Roger this is a plot of the information we received through Adams from the airport regarding the DNL, day/night level, decibel contours. And based on what was furnished by the airport to Adams when we plotted it against the mapping that we have it shows that the project, in fact, lies outside this 55 DNL contour. We also used the, Isbel Associates prepared an analysis specifically addressing obstructions within the approach surface to the southern end of the runway. And we expanded upon that and added this section line which is plotted. That's the cut, this peak is the berm and the point of generation of line of sight from the take-off point is this line right here which you can see just clips the roof of the first building and passes above these other buildings. So, in fact, movement of the point of sound generation in a southward direction would, in fact, increase that angle and cause, in fact, a greater sound shadow related to the berm. This is an engineering document that is exaggerated in vertical scale as opposed to horizontal. The other information on here relates to the roadways and telephone poles and other actual spatial obstructions. Now perhaps Jeff can talk to us about DNL contours and their relationship to the various strategies for mitigation such as berming or the construction of the building. And Dave if you have any comments please jump in. Jeff if you could talk about how those contours are generated, what they mean in terms of occupant comfort, what the government considers appropriate standards and measures we're taking to deal with that. CURTIS Jeff, it may be beneficial to give a 1-minute synopsis of your background. KOLTKOWSKI Okay. I'm Jeff Koltkowski, I'm with David Adams Associates; we're in Denver. We're acoustical consultants, I'm a licensed mechanical engineer, specializing in the field of acoustics. Acoustical engineers tend to have a mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, some have acoustical engineering backgrounds. That's a synopsis of what I do, I guess I can try and give you just an over view of and try to help you understand these contours the 55 DNL. Some of you may be familiar with the term DNL but that's the day/night noise level. That is a 24 hour average, if you will, that essentially penalizes noise between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. by 10 decibels. So you take 24 one-hour averages, you 6 Transcript Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission June 15, 1999 add them up but you add 10 decibels to the nighttime average, so noise at night will tend to raise this up faster than than noise during the daytime hours. That is the measurement used by the FAA to quantify airport noise and its impact on people. It's also used by HUD in evaluating sites. Both FAA and HUD recognize that if the level is 65 or lower, then no measures are needed to mitigate the noise other than normal construction. This project is below the 55-decibel level so, in our judgement, no additional measures, no excess, or measures are needed other than what you normally do during construction. Although some measures have been taken, such as the berm to mitigate the noise level planes on the ground ... we'll ... These levels may seem low, and again that's because they are a 24-hour average based on annual airport usage, not based on any one given worse-case day, it's on annual usage. When a plane is landing or taking-off the actual noise level is higher than this. ERICKSON Does it take into account the different type of aircraft or is it all hooked together in average of different type of noises from type of aircraft. KOLTKOWSKI It's based on airport projection of what aircraft they are operating and they are operating at their airport. ERICKSON So, this is just for Aspen. KOLTKOWSKI Yes BLAICH Roger HUNT Well, we have a little problem here, and I understand this means something for a 24-hour operating airport. When the, since the airport does not operate from, let's say, 10 p.m. to 7 a.m., that averages down significantly to where these are really meaningless in our particular position. So I would like to know, what it is at the top of the berm on this project, what will be the peak noise level experienced, one, from flight 5650 in the morning, turning up for Stage III engines or a typical Stage II private jet. And most private jets are Stage II and pretty noisy. So what peak noise levels are we going to have to deal with because that's what going to rattle the cups and saucers, not this average. KOLTKOWSKI I can't answer that question I don't have the peak average at that berm location. I can tell you that the, in developing the day/night 24-hour average that HUD and the FAA have evaluated, all the different measures, including the maximum peak level. And determined this 24-hour day/night average is the best 7 Transcript Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission June 15, 1999 single number to evaluate the noise impact on people in a residential environment. But they realize also that, yes it's much louder at peak times, peak events. HASSIG Jeff, presuming that Rogers concern with noise specifically relates to these take-off on 33 in northward direction, can you talk about the decibel reduction accomplished by the berms in various locations on the site. KOLTKOWSKI The, this chart over here shows that the berm does block the line of sight between the runway and the first and second level windows of the housing. The amount of reduction that you get is dependent on how much does that block the line of sight. If it doesn't block the line of sight, there's zero reduction, as soon as it blocks the line of sight you start to get reduction. We've analyzed that berm at it provides anywhere to, from 5 to 15 decibels of reduction while the aircraft is on the runway. Depending where the aircraft is, depending on if you are in a first level window or second level window. BLAICH If the berm height were raised significantly would that have an effect on it or help the line of sight. KOLTKOWSKI If it were raised significantly it would have an effect, you're going to, at some point and I don't know what point this is, you tend to hit the law of diminishing returns. BLAICH What would you say, with you know, the height of the berm. What would be a reasonable height of the berm to serve a maximum without going over there. Can you estimate that. KOLTKOWSKI Again, I think that depends on how, are you talking about the first level windows or the second level. If you are talking about a second level window, right now we're down around the 5, worse case, 5 decibel reduction, as high as 15. So if you were going to improve that 5 up towards the 15 range, it would probably, again just speculating, it would be, just a guess, 3 to 5 feet, something like that. But it's hard to put a number on that without sitting down and to do the analysis. BLAICH Yes, because on projects out here, a similar project which is the housing adjacent to this, there was a lot of discussion about berms. They had a berm, they then reduced it because it was a visual impediment. But I'm just trying to get at, is, are we inhibiting this by keeping the berm at a certain height, if it could Transcript Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission June 15, 1999 be, if it's a matter of 3 or 5 feet would that be a major visual impact or would it be compensated by improved sound. KOLTKOWSKI I guess the answer is that it would have some benefit Mostly for the second level windows, it would have very little benefit for people on the ground or on the first level windows. BLAICH Thank you. Roger. HUNT Is there a foliage-type recommendation you could put on that berm facing it that would help absorb any of that sound. To further reduce KOLTKOWSKI Landscaping or foliage on that berm would have very little effect on it's performance. For landscaping, trees/bushes, to really significantly reduce sound transmitted, it has to be a very deep planting or a couple of hundred feet deep, fairly dense planting. HUNT Oh. BLAICH Tim. MOONEY Can you tell me what the significance again of what this line is and the line that goes through on that upper print that shows it going through KOLTKOWSKI This line. MOONEY going through actual units on the project. HASSIG Isn't that a plan view of this profile. KOLTKOWSKI That's right, that's this profile, follows that line. WOODS So what you're doing Tim, a cut through the land. HUNT Here's the project. ERICKSON That would be the point of maximum noise, that line, vector. Is that what you're saying. You've measured the line. KOLTKOWSKI No, it's not the line of maximum noise from the airport or the runway; it's simply the line of sight between the end of the runway and the 9 Transcript Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission June 15, 1999 project. If you look at these contours up here, it will give you a better idea of where the maximum noise occurs. HASSIG We basically assumed, Ron, that if the noise generator was engines at the end of the runway. ERICKSON Taking-off flights. HASSIG Taking-off in a westerly direction, that it fundamentally your perception of sound is line of sight. In other words, once a sound generator goes out of sight, it's noise, your perception of that noise begins to diminish. ERICKSON Yeah, but the line sight for this project is a fan. It is not one line. HASSIG But there is one point at which noise is being generated. ERICKSON From which is HASSIG From which is being generated and isn't funneled in one direction. HASSIG In general ERICKSON So is that line of maximum noise. KOLTKOWSKI To answer your questions that is the point which the aircraft is closest to the development, so in that respect it would be, I think I mis- understood your question, it would be the maximum. MOONEY So there are units that in this plan, that are directly in the maximum line of sight. HASSIG No, they are all shielded by the berm. BENDON I think what the line is representing is the point through the property, which they decided to draw that section line to show how the berm deflected the noise. HASSIG We tried to pick the most representative line. In other words, I think as you swing that line more parallel to the axis of the runway, one 10 Transcript Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission June 15, 1999 could argue, just by the graphics shown here, that there's a greater noise level. And that the noise level falls away as you move out in an angular direction so we've tried to pick the closest line in that hit the most number of units to try and evaluate this in a scientific manner, as we could. CURTIS Michael, is not the cone of the sound as they say conical. These as expected, the highest sound levels are almost a straight line back from the engine, ii would say that. HASSIG I asked Jeff that question; he said that's true to some extent, but these contours may also reflect noise patterns as a result of private aircraft landings. ERICKSON And that's only for a plane that's about ready to take-off, that's not for a plane that's in the taxiway, revving-up engines and checking and stuff like that. Sound goes at a 90 degree different direction for that. Right, because you're at right angles to the runway. HASSIG Right, but again that would be offthis project, the other way. ERICKSON Yeah, then you don't worry about that. HASSIG Well, there's, we recognize that there are sound issues here. The question really is, is have we taken appropriate steps to mitigate for that sound and is that an insoluble problem. I mean, we think we've got a justifiable standard here. Jeff can talk about standards for interior noise levels, the mitigation accomplished by the berm, the mitigation accomplished by conventional construction and if you would like him to talk about that. ERICKSON Your, for your consideration, this sheet we got here, you are asking a revised condition 6; which it really loosens the parameters up and where as you're held to a certain standard of the conditions of 30 dBA sound reduction between the outside, and the inside between the outside and inside of the units from whatever source, whether they be berms, materials or whatever. You asked us to reconsider or just put a sound mitigation or performance standard as part of the PUD agreement. That seems to be pretty open-ended and since most of this is conjecture, although it is by an expert, I would still consider it conjecture. I don't think you've quantified anything, the question has been asked did you ever take a 11 Transcript Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission June 15, 1999 maximum noise level from the top of the berm and you haven't. So you're just estimating what this noise is going to be based on vectors and dBAs and DNLs. HASSIG You can make, I expect, and in fact we know what the maximum these decibel level of the Stage II engine is going to be. ERICKSON What my concern is the, say, if we, say alright we agree with you. You're going to take care of it. And then we get a project that's unlivable or is less than adequately livable because of noise, what do we do about it then. It's too late. HASSIG I think that's a hell of a lot more of a problem for us as designers than it is for anybody else. ERICKSON Well, except the thing is designers design and then go onto another project and we have to live with it for the rest of our lives. So I'm concerned about it. HASSIG We are equally concerned about it, I think that fact of the matter is that the 30 dBA as a strict criteria was something that was borrowed from the conditions for the North 40. If I'm not mistaken. The question there is ?? It was suggested. HASSIG The question there is, is the situation analogous. BENDON Just to throw in, because I think Ron, I understand what your concerns are, that you hear the consultant but then you don't end up with a project that's livable at the end of the day. This suggested condition doesn't have any kind of performance built into it. And I think it would be good to say that whatever the number is, if it's 40 dBA interior, then that is a performance standard that they're aiming to meet. ERICKSON I think that we should have a specific standard that should be met and I think that it should be a strict standard. I don't want to leave it open ended, I would not just say well, we'll try to do what we can. BENDON Right 12 Transcript Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission June 15, 1999 ERICKSON This is the way I read BLAICH Maybe a more practical way to look at it, considering, at least for the MAA students in the summer, is to compare the sounds generated to what the sounds are going to be generated within the facilities themselves; kettle drums, trumpets, trombones, whatever. I would like to know is this like 10 kettle drums vs. ERICKSON We're not approving this project for 3 months, BLAICH I know, I think the conditions ERICKSON We're approving it on 12. BLAICH I know, let me change the criteria then. # ski instructors are having a wild party on Saturday night. I think, you know, I agree with what you are saying. You've got to have something a little more tangible to deal with here because we want to, I'd like to hear something from the applicants with regards to this. Because at least the MAA is here to talk to us, but the city is not. How they feel about this because they are the ones that have to put people in there and suffer the consequences if it's a problem. So I think if they would like to respond to that. Tim had his hand up first. MOONEY Well I'm concerned that this diagram, let's say, doesn't even tell us what the DNL is for the site that we're talking about. It doesn't even have the ability to have the experts make a representation as to whether or not this exhibit is going to be something that's accurate. The numbers aren't even calibrated for over the project. So, especially say, the summertime, when the windows are open, why wasn't the scale extended so that the contour lines of this cone included the project so that we have a representation on this chart that tells us what that is. Then what the berm will mitigate. Then what the construction will mitigate. We don't even have those kinds of representations. CURTIS Robert, you, I understand Ron's, and I appreciate Ron's question about specificity and I think Michael is prepared to respond to that. HASSIG Okay, in answer to Tim's question; this progression of contours implies that if you were to extend them you could find a 50 DNL contour at approximately the same spacing outbound of the contours that have been established there. This simply tells us that the project lies outside 55 and that is, 13 Transcript Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission June 15, 1999 FAA considers that some, a threshold of concern at which point you should know that you're going to be impacted to this amount. This diagram simply points out that based on the use patterns that the FAA or that the airport gave us, the project lies outside that contour; so it's somewhat less than 55. MOONEY But we've already determined that these are averages that don't pertain to this site specific. HASSIG I take issue with that entirely, the point of these contours is an attempt to quantify those impacts in a consistent way from place to place so that in fact you can apply standards. MOONEY That don't draw conclusions. HASSIG I think that they do draw conclusions. Basically what we're trying to say is if there's a 55 decibel level, what are the steps that we need to take in order to ensure that these are quality livable units. And I think I'd like Jeff to speak to what are considered appropriate decibel levels within a dwelling unit and how that relates to the noise being generated here. He was quite quick to point out to me that yes DNL levels are one thing related to averages and over-flight incidents are something else And the question is how problematic, how frequent are those over-flight incidents where they're going to be noise spikes greater than this. Nationally this is the methodology that's used for analyzing sound around airports. To speculate about the specific impacts of a given incident, I don't know how we deal with that. MOONEY Or a given location. HASSIG Roger, maybe you've got a question. BLAICH A question. HUNT The point of this whole thing is, that you could have a 120 db event right here, once a day and still be within this 55 DNL. Right. HASSIG And then the question would be, would that render that site uninhabitable. 14 Transcript Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission June 15, 1999 HUNT Because 120 dbs, whether you average that one incident over 24-hours really drops it down, my point, and this is more a landing profile then it is a take-off event from here. KOLTKOWSKI This is based on all of the events typical of the airport, it's very specific to this airport, it's not based on any kind of average usage, it's based on Aspen Airport usage. It's based on the actual aircraft and it was either developed on, and I'm not sure which, on actual measurements, survey done at this site, or was based on a computer model that's approved by FAA. To create these contours based on actual number and type of aircraft at this airport, I'm not sure which. HASSIG Could you talk about what a comfortable dwelling unit is. KOLTKOWSKI I mentioned that the FAA and HUD recognize the outside, the level of 65, extraordinary measures were not necessary for a residence. That is in turn based on recognition that a typical, conventional construction provides about 20 decibels of attenuation. 65 minus 20 is 45. 45 dBA is recognized as an acceptable decibel level for a residence. So that's what's behind those numbers and what they are trying to achieve with those guidelines. So when we look at the fact that we're here outside of 55, take 55 minus 20, you know we're in the 35 range for that home so we're HASSIG We achieve an additional, anywhere from 5 to 15 from the berm. KOLTKOWSKI That doesn't even include the effect of the berm ERICKSON You just added it up to between 25 and 35 reduction, right. So why don't you want to be held to the 30%, 30 db reduction. HASSIG I'll object to it as an overall standard cumulatively. I might simply point out that ERICKSON each unit may not have that HASSIG No, no that's to achieve a measurable 30 dBA attenuation in the construction envelope alone ERICKSON No, I, I see. 15 Transcript Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission June 15, 1999 HASSIG Is, has significant cost implications. All of a sudden we can no longer use conventional windows and that has a tremendous impact on this project. BENDON I think what Michael's pointing out is that the, the way I wrote the condition to begin with was that the construction itself, alone was at 30 dBA sound reduction, and not overall for the project including the berm. ERICKSON I'd be willing to accept 30% total. BLAICH I'm going to have to inject something that, on my watch it's 3 minutes of 7:00. If we're going to extend this meeting we have to take a motion. ERICKSON I make a motion that we extend to 7:30. BLAICH Second, is there a second. MOONEY Second. BLAICH Second. All in favor. Aye. One nay. Let's continue please. ? I would like to HASSIG We're happy to accept either a specific criteria related to an average noise level within the unit, however we may achieve it, or a specific reduction of 30 db in terms of all measures if that's acceptable to the Commission. BENDON I would say HASSIG Attenuations beyond that get problematic either in terms of precipitously increasing the height of the berm or precipitously increasing cost of the construction envelope. JULIA MARSHALL I would like to add one more thing, is that the berms that are located adjacent to the Maroon Creek Club were 4 feet higher than the ones that you've drawn in the project. Just using what Jeffwas saying about the raising of the berms 3 to 5 feet and that would give us an additional 10 decibels lower or something like that. I mean it is possible then to raise that berm up so that it's the height of the Maroon Creek Club berm in protecting this project better from sound. 16 Transcript Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission June 15, 1999 HOEFER The clerk needs you to identify yourself. MARSHALL Oh, I'm sorry. I'm Julia Marshall. LOTHIAN Julia, thank you. BLAICH Yes. Jim. CURTIS Michael, just to clarify. We have no concerns with saying what an interior livable space would be. We just want some flexibility in how to achieve that. HASSIG Ideally yes. Jeff, do you think that 35 is an achievable interior dBA given the project's construction, orientation and berm height, etc. I mean is that something you want to commit to. KOLTKOWSKI We also have the, we've been talking about aircraft noise, the berm also protects from road noise. I think the best that the interior criteria, it's probably the best way to go it's the easiest to verify; it gives you the most flexibility. 45 is a number that has been adopted in the industry; 35 would be, I would say, quite aggressive, even though what we show we're pretty close to already. As a criteria of 40 dBA, in my experience or judgement, that's quite acceptable in most cases. BENDON Just to clarify, is that an average dBA for a 24-hour period or the daytime/nighttime during events. KOLTKOWSKI It would be determined the same way that this is determined, 24-hour average. BENDON A 24-hour average. BLAICH We have everybody here, it's appropriate for this airport issue, but there's also, this the second meeting we've had and we haven't had enough opportunity for public participation. We can come back on this, I'd like to at least for the moment, if you agree to move from the table to the public and see if we have any other comments. Because there are people who have been here for the previous meetings, who have not had a chance to speak and they should have an 17 Transcript Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission June 15, 1999 opportunity. Could we agree on that then. We can certainly come back to this, okay. So I am opening up to the floor for public comment. Please. MICKEY HERRON I'm Mickey Herron; I'm representing the Maroon Creek Limited Liability Company, which operates the Maroon Creek Club and Golf Course. And we have some objections and concerns to this process and project that we would like you to consider. I'll try to be as brief as can, I've got a couple of pages of notes. I have a tendency to talk fast and I'll continue to do that. When I was here. LOTHIAN Could you speak a little louder please. HERRON I'm sorry. BLAICH Come up a little closer, Mickey, and then we can hear you. Sit down, sit down, you be Chris Bendon for a moment. HERRON I'm getting old to be sitting at this late hour. When I was here for the conceptual approval, I raised the objection about the jurisdiction over the aspect of the fact that we were having an application being handled when the annexation was in an embryonic stage. And at that point I think you all directed that your staff was going to send me some information about that which I never received. So that's one issue. Most of the issues that we're concerned about, that we'd like you to be concerned about, involve the processes themselves. We have an application that's before you tonight that involves the city, it's reviewing in a proprietary capacity, it's own application. Jim Curtis has acknowledged tonight that basically the representations that he makes are binding upon the City. There are things that are occurring tonight and through this process that would not occur when a private developer came before you. First of all, the procedure itself, the expedited process. I was on P&Z for several years and I don't' remember very many expedited processes, certainly to this extent. The second issue is access; there's a lawsuit pending right now against the City that is alleging that the access that the applicant is planning to use, is not usable. And my recollection, being a land use lawyer, and reviewing the codes is usually when there's an access issue, an application is tabled until that's resolved. That certainly hasn't been resolved. I point out to you the open space considerations. Sara Thomas' memo to staff states that based upon your definition of open space in the code, which is open space that isn't more than 4 feet below grade or 2 feet above grade. Now, I may have those reversed is not considered open space and therefore this project has no open space. There are criteria in your code is that what you can do when there are public parks 18 Transcript Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission June 15, 1999 and those criteria aren't met, that that certainly isn't being done here. The parking issues; I think that we all probably recognize that there may well be that these music students don't have cars. I'm not familiar enough with them to know that for a fact but, you know living here in town, we see most of the music students riding around on bicycles. But 9 months a year this project is going to be used by other than music students. These are going to be people who, especially in the winter have needs for food, needs to go to stores, needs to do a lot of things, and I don't think the parking is adequate, I don't think that the parking is considered, that particular aspect of it, the winter use of the project. The incremental application is another aspect of this project that we find very disturbing. This is a large project, it involves more than this 4 something acres. No private developer could come in, such as the Maroon Creek Club, and develop first clubhouse, then the golf course, then the homes, then the townhomes. Usually when you consider a project, you consider the entire project. On this particular issue, there is no concern given to that, other than the parks department recommendation that there be a trail extended for future use. The traffic issue concerns us right now. Not withstanding, the lawsuit, we don't feel that there's been any effort at all to try to find alternate accesses to this project. The lawsuit is in place at the moment but there are other accesses and they're being ignored. Last week Jim said that Dave Lennio, who's an attorney in my office, and myself would find it amusing that they've asked for a temporary right to come in through Old Stage Road for construction purposes. And we find that to be not amusing at all but very disturbing because what we've discovered is, is that Stage Road, which runs along the parameter of the project and goes further down to the Zoline property, would provide an access to come back into the project. But that the applicant plans just to go over Deer Hill. Now I don't know whether they're going to go over it by cutting a road over or cutting a road through it but we find that to be particularly disturbing. Staff says in their recommendation that this applicant has made a significant accommodation to protect the natural resources of Deer Hill. I'm not quite sure how driving construction cars and vehicles accomplishes that. There's no provision for mitigation anyplace. The Burlingame Ranch portion of the entrance to Aspen plan calls for underpasses, when this was before city council for it's conceptual, the mayor and several of the City Councilmen talked about the aspect of putting underpasses both for the highway and on Stage Road so that the traffic on Stage Road would be protected. There's a bike path that goes right across there. And no consideration has been given to this. The traffic study concerned itself with cars. What is the generation of cars at the Maroon Creek Club. What is the generation of car for this project. The traffic study didn't talk about what is the impact of these cars and these additional vehicles on golfers having to go across, on golf carts having to go across, on employees having to go across. Because the only way you can get from the golf course to the building 19 Transcript Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission June 15, 1999 where the golfers come in and whatever, is to cross this road. So we feel that that's been ignored. And although I've thrown a lot of things out tonight, and we would urge you to consider them. The primary on that I'd like you to consider is that you would impose a condition on this project, that Old Stage Road be used as the access to the project. And that's all I have to tell you. I don't know if anybody has any questions. BENDON Bob, do you want me to respond to a few of those. BLAICH If you can. BENDON I'll just, I took some notes and I'll try to go through them in order. Jurisdiction, I was not asked to provide any specific information to Mickey. I did provide jurisdiction as a issue during conceptual because it did lie in the county at that time. And all of the conceptual approvals were conditioned upon annexation to the city to become effective, which is common for reviews that we do on county parcels. As far as some of these others, expedited process that's a typical thing we do for affordable housing for both public and private projects, that's consistent with County and City policy. Access, there's several access and traffic issues that you've mentioned. Claude Morelli is here from the transportation, he's our Transportation Planner and can respond to those, if you want, Bob. We have been told, as my understanding anyway, that CDOT does not consider Old Stage Road an access to the parcel. And that the access as being presented is the access to the parcel. Open space, I did point that out in my memo, Mickey is right, technically, none of the area on the parcel qualifies as open space as it's defined. That is primarily because of the grade modification that's being done for the site to accommodate some of the noise concerns. The berming and the regrading into the site. As far as public parks, that standard goes on to describe what should be done when public parks are divided through a PUD. There is no public parking provided through a PUD. It goes on to describe the maintenance of it and so on and whether is goes to an HOA. Parking, that's a significant issue for the Planning and Zoning Commission to consider, but it's entirely within your jurisdiction. The incremental application, this is part of a the larger Burlingame parcel but it has really nothing to do with the Burlingame Village project which may or may not come forward. Traffic I talked about. Protection of Deer Hill, I pointed this out because, to the extent possible, we have tried to minimize the disturbance on the side of Deer Hill. And through their excavations it is, I think, project sensitive concerning Deer Hill. There's no access provided or being proposed through Deer Hill, over Deer Hill or any development on Deer Hill. Underpass on 82, again CDOT has described the access as it exists now, as the access to the site. That's it. 2O Transcript Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission June 15, 1999 HERREN My only comment is that it goes to the process. The process, you can argue, you can make any argument, you can make any statement of what you can do and what you can't do. The fact that CDeT says something doesn't make it the rule. There is a lawsuit pending, you certainly can condition your approval on the use of Stage Road. Just because Ralph Trapani doesn't like that, he doesn't want a fourth leg to the right, that doesn't make it the law. BLAICH I think that particular issue has come up before, it's been brought up before by Planning and Zoning and in a meeting, you probably recall, when Ralph Trapani was here. Who proposed, it was suggested that there would be a four way vs. a three way at that juncture to serve the MAA, to serve the existing housing, and in relationship to what's going to potentially happen across the street. And Trapani was very, very, very specific in that meeting. Now you say it's not the law but HERRON We've got an application pending already. BLACIH Okay HERREN Ralph Trapani does not make those rules. But he's the one implementing the current program but he's not the ultimate decider of that issue. ERICKSeN We don't even know the status is of construction on this, with the monies or anything else. I think Mickey makes a good point in terms that I don't think that we should let Ralph Trapani decide what our land use decision have to be. BENDON I think it's pointed out to, that the project is, it's not specifically dependent upon where the access comes from. But there is a desire to use a road if it has adequate capacity, to use it and not provide redundancies. It's not something that any jurisdiction wants to do, is go out and build infrastructure for no point when there's adequate capacities. And you know, legal access. CURTIS If I may, I think it's fairly clear that Mickey would like to have this group put as much leverage and pressure on Ralph Trapani as possible dealing with access. There is litigation pending; it will work itself through the court. Representing the MAA, we're completely indifferent, the courts will solve that problem one way or the other. So. Just what position you've heard from various technical people and 21 Transcript Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission June 15, 1999 ERICKSON But what happens if you build the project and you don't have access. What good does it do you. I mean you let it work through the court and if goes against you, what's your contingency for doing something else. HUNT Open up Stage Road. CURTIS I'm not an attorney, Dave Mylar and both John Worcester; Dave Mylar representing the MAA and John Worcester representing the city, has said their legal opinion, that the litigation does not involve prohibition of access. The land is not landlocked. It's just HOEFER Legally you can't land lock. So that's not a problem. ERICKSON It's, that's the worse case scenario. HOEFER It could definitely increase costs if you had to come from a longer direction. So infrastructure-wise, it could certainly make differences. BENDON And I think that's our preference for wanting to use the road that already exists there because it has the capacity to serve and would not provide a redundancy. And wouldn't provide an additional intersection on 82 which is already fairly congested. BLAICH Mickey you had your hand up. HERRON I just want to point out to you, there is a road there and it was a road that used to be there for the project and the road could be run right out. That's the application that's pending before the state. And the access for the project that you were approving, not withstanding anybody's legal opinion, including mine, is in doubt. It's before the courts and I've always understood the code to be that when you have an access problem, for a project, the project can't be approved. BLAICH Mickey could you come up here and point out on the map. Just to make sure everybody understands what you're talking about with regards to the Old Stage Road. Where you're proposing that this, on the big map up here, I think you can CURTIS Maybe I can give you a specific map if you would like. 22 Transcript Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission June 15, 1999 HERREN Well, this is fine. I think as soon as I figure out where we are here. Well I guess I can't figure out where we are. TYGRE I think your clubhouse HERREN I think this one here would work. MOONEY Here's the affordable housing and this is Old Stage Road, right here. HERRON Right, so the road exists right to here. They've asked for and received permission or looking to receive permission, to able to come right in here. This road exists up to the bike path and for maybe 40 or 60 feet in there was ground up and has now become a bike path and part of the berm. So to get back into here, you've come right here, the light from future. We've proposed to run the road down to here and access that light. It's not a question that there's not a road there already. BLAICH Jim, Tim is first. MOONEY Well I've always had this question about process and one of the reasons why I voted against this conceptually was that these charts don't even consider this intersection. They're not even discussing any more whether or not that underpass can handle the buses, the pedestrians, the golf carts, the cars, the bikes for this project and then what's proposed in the Burlingame Village. And I think that without a master plan, we've said time and time again, without knowing what is going to happen over here at Buttermilk, we can't really say that this intersection and this intersection can handle the impacts. Now what's going to happen with the highway, being up in the air, I don't know that the representations of the traffic study submitted with this plan, which were inadequate for me at that time are even more inadequate. So, it's not even on the chart where the main access problems are for this entire project. And there's no, to me, determinations they've made as to how all these interplay, and I beg Jim's pardon, but for him to say well, we're going to have a bike path or a pedestrian path that's going to connect here. And that's the biggest addition that he can make to, you know the access, we don't even know if there's going to be a light here, or when that's going to be in. There's speculation on that. So this being such a transit orientated project, to have all the variables with the transit plan up in the air, I just can't rely on whether or not the cars are going to fit through that underpass that goes past the clubhouse. 23 Transcript Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission June 15, 1999 HOEFER Bob, maybe we could have Claude give his view of it, just to get the other perspective. MORELLI If I could just comment on the BLAICH Would you come up here, please. TYGRE Who is this. HOEFER If you would introduce yourself. MORELLI I'm Claude Morelli. I'm the Transportation Planner for the City of Aspen, and a couple of things. The idea of reconnecting Old Stage Road. CDOT has spent a lot of time and effort and some money to relocate Owl Creek Road, so that intersects with highway 82 down here. Primarily because this is very awkward being the center section. So we don't want another intersection here. Putting a frontage road in to connect Old Stage Road to the light down here is problematic because what do you do about the berm and it's an awkward 90© angle turn here that any traffic engineer will tell you isn't an ideal design. The key issue is the question of capacity down at this grade-separated intersection. I think the most thing to remember is that when the golf carts are using this crossing is during the summer when the music students are living in the housing and they don't have cars. They have excellent transit access into the center of the city and they ride their bikes into town. So, the conflict with Maroon Creek Club, their primary concern is kind of a non-issue. And as far as access in the winter, again there's no conflict during the winter. Access during the winter by this ped-path isn't going to rely primarily on this trail on this side of the highway, it's going to rely on this trail and the signalized intersection. The construction period for this project is likely to coincide with the initial occupancy of the development but I've had conversations with CDOT, Jim's had conversations with CDOT about early, one of the early action items in that construction phasing would be putting this light in. And if we didn't put the permanent light in early on, we could get a temporary light installed. So I don't think that's an issue either and even if it is an issue, it's only an issue for one season. And as far as the limited parking is concerned on the use of people needing to go shopping, what I've suggested is we give residents of this development a couple of taxi vouchers every month to be included in the rent. When you want to go shopping, you call a taxi or actually, you ride the bus into town and take the taxi back with your groceries. 24 Transcript Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission June 15, 1999 ERICKSON There's one other question, and that is once again we're talking about the underpass; one right-turn; one-left turn and then another right turn. And it's the right-turn onto Highway 82 that concerns me. And that is if you're going to have RFTA buses pulling out, you're talking about an awkward 90© angle at Buttermilk. I think that the Tiehack Road 90© turn is worse. MORELLI Actually we've, I've talked to Kenny Osier at RFTA and Mike Davis and they've actually in the winter when they can't pull out of Buttermilk to go up to Snowmass, because there's no signalized intersection there currently. And they can't make that left turn at Buttermilk what they end up doing, they turn right, they come down here and they loop around how ever you do that, ERICKSON So that's fine for making a right turn off of the highway, I'm talking about making the right onto the highway for the bus. Because if I'm not, correct, mistaken Ralph Trapani told me that that spot right there is where everything goes from 4-lane down to 2. MORELLI Correct. But the advantage that the buses would have right here is that the stoplight would meter the traffic. So there are gaps, periodic gaps in the traffic that would allow the buses to turn out onto the highway and get back into town. I don't think that's an issue, the right turn. There's also going to be a slip-lane for part of the way before Maroon Creek Bridge. ERICKSON All right now, so we have a contoured enter. MORELLI I'm not sure of the geometry of the turn itself is going to be the change. ERICKSON There's a run-in or I don't know what they call it, a lane that runs-in, it's about 150 MOERLLI Acceleration lane. ERICKSON Acceleration lanes, about 150 yards long and it's completely covered by snow in the wintertime. So basically you going from 0-45 miles an hour onto 82 at that point. I do it every Saturday dropping the kids off in Buttermilk, so I know what it's like. MORELLI Again the issue with bus service during the winter into the development is only one season. So every other season is, we would expect that the winter residents would use the highway 82 bus service and there wouldn't be a need 25 Transcript Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission June 15, 1999 for a turn during the winter. And if the issue is the acceleration lane being covered with snow, that's a snow removal management question that we can easily deal with by getting CDOT to plow it. ERICKSON Well you could also deal with it by re-contouring that turn and make it a little safer. But I mean that's the solution, but I don't see it mentioned in anywhere in any of CDOT's plans or anything else. MORELLI If that's an issue, we can ad&ess it with CDOT and I can talk to Joe ERICKSON I think it should be done anyway, regardless of what happens. HERRON Just one brief point. You know the concept that the music students aren't going to come by in the summer when the golfers are there, begs the question of the incrementalization of this project. Ultimately that area ia going to have 400 or 500 units, I've heard all kinds of numbers out there. And those people are not going to be music students. So the problem exists and it's going to be only exacerbated by making, by opening the door today. And that's what the concern is that we have, as to what's going to this street, what's going to happen to a project that has been approved through a very, very expensive process and a very, very costly dedications that were made. And to turn around and say that the music students are going to go through here so approve this now, and the next time you go in and put the next 500 units in there it's going to destroy the project. And that's what the major concern is. BLAICH I have a question about that. Maybe you don't want to answer it, but if there was, not an incremental, if there wasn't another Burlingame project at lease conceptually discussed. And this was the only thing, the MAA access, what would the Club's position be. If that was it, that's the only people HERRON I don't' know that I could answer BLAICH MAA and the winter applications. HERRON It's nothing that I've ever considered because it isn't the reality, unless you're planning on sterilizing the rest of the project. And if somehow we can sterilize the rest of the project, I'd be willing to go back and discuss it with my client. But we have concerns. What happens if 5 years down the road the MAA 26 Transcript Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission June 15, 1999 finds another alternative. Or finds out that this alternative doesn't work, and this project becomes year-round Marolt Housing. It's possible. There's nothing in this approval that's going to say that the MAA's going to use this forever. I mean, there could be a vote in 5 years that would say that the Marolt open space, now that the roundabout is violated it and whatever, should be converted into more employee housing. And somehow the MAA would trade-off what they've got there for this. So, it's hard to answer the question. I understand the question. HASSIG IfI may, a question for Mr. Herron. Is New Stage Road a public right-of-way. HERREN I'm sorry. HASSIG Is New Stage Road a public right-of-way. HERREN No HASSIG It is not. HERREN No. HASSIG What is it's legal, what would it be HERREN It's a private road where there's a license agreement to it. CURTIS Oh ?? Objection ERICKSeN This is something that the HeEFER This is part of the lawsuit BLAICH Would you just clarify that. The question's on the table. Let's get an answer. ? Our position is it's a roadway that was dedicated for limited public uses subject to the reserve private easements of Maroon Creek Golf Club. 27 Transcript Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission June 15, 1999 ? He wants the legal answer BLAICH Tim MOONEY I'm wondering where the point that this quarter mile radius is measured from, where's the center. That this radius comes from because if this person in the wintertime has to walk down here, walk down here, come over, cross the highway at this light then walk to that bus stop in order to get to town. I'm wondering where the radius is measured from. HASSIG They use a simple radius MOONEY So it's this HASSIG A simple straight HUNT So you actually walk a quarter mile plus a couple hundred yards. BLAICH We're getting awfully close to 7:30. Unless there's a motion from the commission to extend it. There's no motion to extend it so we're going to have to terminate at 7:30, by my watch it gives us 2 minutes. BUETTOW Can I ask a question. Since the applicant has an audio specialist I would like to ask the question that, with no averages, at an airplane's take-off from the airport, and I was standing in the living room of one of your proposed units, what sound level would I hear in there. What's your estimate. KOLTKOWSKI If there were an aircraft on the runway taking-off and you were standing in the living room. I can't answer that accurately because the maps that are provided by the FAA guidelines don't give me that maximum noise level information. BUETTOW Can you give me an estimate. KOLTKOWSKI I could give you an estimate. BUETTOW 100 decibels, 80 decibels. HUNT Yeah, the problem though is that that contour map is not specific to take-offs. 28 Transcript Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission June 15, 1999 KOLTKOWSKI No it isn't, it just gives me some idea of mass of the contours. It seems like I've seen from other projects in the area the maximum noise levels measured and I don't know exactly if they're the same distance or not. It's mainly a functional distance. If it were in the 80 to 90 dBA range as a maximum, but if I take off roughly 30 decibels, reduction, what we're talking about for the project, that puts you in the range of 50-60. On a period of roughly 30 seconds to a minute on regular take-off. HOEFER To put that in perspective, if you're in a nightclub with a band going, what would the decibel level be in there. KOLTKOWSKI Probably in the range of 100 to 105. BLAICH It depends on the band. ERICKSON Your music is about 45. BLAICH Waltz vs. Rock. We have to terminate this so, I'm going to have to cut it off. So Jim, you have a CURTIS Actually I will hold my statements. Thank you. HUNT I do have a quick question that'll need to be answered as long as we have the acoustic person here. The highway is going to be, I understand, raised 10 feet. And the images we were given in this book were at the present highway contours. What is the raising of the highway 10 feet going to do to the berm paralleling the highway as far as getting that sound protection differences. It's a question for the next. HASSIG We were aware of that and asked them to prepare their analysis based upon the raised highway. HUNT Okay. We're going to need a motion. ERICKSON I make the motion that we table HUNT Table action and continue the public hearing. ERICKSON Right, some date certain 29 Transcript Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission June 15, 1999 BENDON We're trying to find a date, we're very busy schedule and as this is gone, we need a significant amount of time to devote to the project. If you would all look at your schedule, the 6th of July is completely full, 29th is AACP. Yeah, the 6th is completely full, there is an off date between the 6th and the 20th. LOTHIAN The 13th ERICKSON Of July LOTHIAN Yes HUNT It's a Tuesday. TYGRE It's a Tuesday HANEMAN DiMaggio didn't have a hitting streak like this one. WOODS Alternatively we could schedule a special meeting, I think that would be very helpful to help expedite the process HUNT On an unusual day. WOODS On an unusual day. SEMRAU What about the applicant's schedule. ? The applicant's ready to meet tonight or tomorrow, if you'd like SEMRAU I would assume that if it's a month delayed, that it won't help the applicant. CURTIS We will miss our construction season. SEMRAU That's what I would assume WOODS We had this scheduled before city council on Monday night. Presuming we got an action on it tonight. HOEFER But, be that as it may, it's not going to happen tonight. So 3O Transcript Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission June 15, 1999 BLAICH The only way it happens is, if we want to extend the meeting and I could ask once more if there's a motion to extend the meeting. ERICKSON I'll make the motion to extend the meeting until 8:00 o'clock. BLAICH Second. BUETTOW I'll second it. BLAICH All in favor. Aye HUNT No LOTHIAN 2 opposed. BLAICH Yes, it's passed 2-5. CURTIS Very much appreciate it, we have nothing more to say. There's a set of planning office recommendations and some suggested revisions and additions. Your pleasure. BENDON Bob, I don't know if we've beaten this noise thing to death, but I think we ought to, I propose a condition. And I think we ought to consider what is an appropriate condition concerning the noise whether it be a performance standard of an interior dBA or a target dBA reduction given construction and landscaping and berming, or a combination of those. HASSIG What's your pleasure. HUNT I would suggest a maximum acceptable noise level in the most vulnerable units. And I'm not sure exactly what that noise level should be. 15 db is something like rustling leaves, which is ridiculous. So you don't want to go that low. But BENDON The common standard was no higher than 45. Which is what the builders association uses and several groups use. We've heard that there's a possibility that might be aggressive for 35 dBA interior. I would assume anything in the range of 40 would be perfectly acceptable as far as living conditions. 31 Transcript Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission June 15, 1999 ERICKSON On an average basis. BENDON That's on an average basis. KOLTKOWSKI I'd like to BLAICH Would you comment on that. KOLTKOWSKI Subjectively, the way that most people perceive sound, at a 10 decibel difference, say from 45 to 35 most people think of it as half as loud; a 5 decibel reduction is what you'd consider a significant and easily noticeable. You can't really perceive a difference less than about 2 to 3 decibels. BENDON Then commission ought to consider to, whether that's a peak condition or if it's an average condition. HUNT Well, I was going to work towards the peak, because that's going to be the most noticeable for a Stage II aircraft taking-off. I don't think that the problem is going to be United Express, that's Stage III with 4 engines. Considerably quieter that Stage II engines. And for example, I know that somewhere a motorcycle at 25 feet is how many dB. ERICKSON With or without muffler. BUETTOW Harley or moped HUNT Exactly, so let's get some frame of reference of what we feel that people should have to deal with as a maximum in there and maybe we should have them come back with a recommendation. And ERICKSON And give us some examples of sounds HOEFER That's why I was asking that question earlier. On Club Soda the neighbors were complaining about that and they had a governor on their system and I don't remember what the noise was. It was way under a hundred and it was so loud that you couldn't hear yourself think. So that's why I was trying to get an example of what would be HUNT Exactly, to me a hundred dB inside your residence is unacceptable. That's clearly. 32 Transcript Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission June 15, 1999 KOLTKOWSKI Normal conversation would be about 60 to 65 decibels, if that helps. BLAICH Robert Harth had his hand up, Robert. ROBERT HARTH I'm just curious why the commission wouldn't want to impose the same restrictions as the Maroon Creek Club Employee Housing across the street. Why would this building be any different. We're in the same exact contours from the FAA information, why wouldn't we want to just impose the same restrictions as Maroon Creek Club housing when they built their employee housing. ERICKSON What were they, do you know. BLAICH Does anybody have that ? Good point BENDON I don't know what they were. ERICKSON Is that as acceptable. HOEFER That's difference number one HANEMAN I was just there today, if you walk along the highway there, I'm thinking, who in the world is going to be able to live on this Burlingame property with that street noise. And just as in an act of going over to my car and going in behind the berm for Maroon Creek Club at a distance of 100 feet, I realized how badly my car needed turned-up. Because that was the loudest noise I heard was the engine running. And Maroon Creek Club, where I was, is significantly closer to the highway than what these units will be. ERICKSON I have no problem with holding them to the same standards as the Maroon Creek Club Affordable HUNT Well ? There may not be any standards. Transcript Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission June 15, 1999 CURTIS I can say we will research that and provide that research to the planning office and they will certify if that's correct or incorrect. What those construction standards and noise standards are to their certification. BLAICH Robert HARTH If I could just continue for one second and believe it or not, we are in the music business. And ears are the most important thing musicians have. So I am a little curious to wonder if you don't think we're more concerned than practically anybody in the room, about how our students are going to be when they're here studying music at a tender age when their ears are still working, as opposed to some of ours that have been playing rock and roll music too long. These kids ears are their livelihood and so our concern is as great if not greater than anybody in the room. So I think that you can be assured that the building process is going to make sure that we do everything necessary to mitigate the noise issues form the airport. It's just a fact of life for us, the way we soundproof practice rooms. HAS SIG I think we'd be acceptable to either standard whichever was the stricter, in other words if the standards exist for Maroon Creek that are published, then we're happy to meet those. If we can establish criteria this evening, that people consider appropriate and they exceed what those standards are for Maroon Creek, we'll be happy to meet that. So in either case I think we're prepared to accept a condition addressing those concerns. And the question is whether it's a specific performance standard related to a noise level inside or specific noise reduction related to the cumulative mitigation efforts of berms plus construction assemblies. Again, we're maybe, Jeff can talk about which would be in fact more rigorous. KOLTKOWSKI Well I can't comment on the Maroon Creek standard, I don't know what HASSIG None of us do WOODS I think that I can only from the perspective that it went through a building permit process and we have a standard of 45 that's part of this function of acceptable standards. So if we make that presumption and they are willing to be able to live within that, that would be my recommendation for consistency purposes is to use that as what's on the table. And if it's different or a little bit more strict, then we would incorporate that alternatively. But I think that that is a standard that that was built to and that's what the expectations should be for any adjacent PUD. 34 Transcript Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission June 15, 1999 CURTIS That's completely acceptable. HUNT Now was that a peak 45. WOODS It's whatever the building department's standard requirements are. I can't say if it's peak or if it's average. My presumption is that it's probably average. BLAICH It's average. WOODS And that's the way we typically measure it. HUNT Well I understand that, but this is an unusual thing to average. BLAICH But Julie Ann said it would either be that or the applicable rules that were acceptable to the commission on the other housing. I was not involved on the commission at that time so I don't know, maybe you remember what HUNT No that was a county affair. BENDON I don't know if there was anything specific in the land use approval that addressed it outside of UBC. HASSIG The only other thing that I might add to this, not to belabor it, is that these, I'm under the impression that these peak events are over- flight events more than anything. HUNT No, I think that they'll be the take-off events. HASSIG But we have significantly better performance through the roof assembly then we do through windows in particular. So from an orientatiuon point of view, there's some benefits there. BLAICH Tim MOONEY I think it's a good observation to try and compare to what the Maroon Creek did for their specific employees. But, when it comes down to, and here we go, walking this line between a city project and an MAA project and 3 35 Transcript Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission June 15, 1999 months that the MAA's going to be in there. And 7 months that city employees and the city carry on this for the majority of the year. Is this really the kind of project that we can put on the city's back as far as building. I don't know. Can the Maroon Creek private developer make that decision for their employees. Probably. Can they create other aspects, you know, that can make up for that marginal existence. Who knows. But can we do that in the city's name. I'm not sure. I don't think that they're similar projects and I don't think that they're similar employers. BLAICH Other comments from the commission. TYGRE On this issue or other issues. BLAICH Well, we're still on this particular project. HUNT A quick question BLAICH What do you mean other issues. TYGRE Well, I mean we're acting as though this is the only thing that we have to consider. HUNT There's a lot more. TYGRE There are plenty more issues that have not even been touched in our discussions. BLAICH No, we're talking about the project not specifically the sound attenuation or anything else. TYGRE I don't want to change the subject. BLAICH No, what I was going to say, that if nobody has any further comments on that, then you can bring up any issue that is relevant to the project. HUNT Well, just a quick question. Sound attenuation in air. What is the reduction in dB with distance. What is it, a Q function of the distance. KOLTKOWSKI You double the distance; you'll have about a 6 decibel reduction. 5 to 6 decibel. 36 Transcript Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission June 15, 1999 BLAICH Do you want to start. TYGRE Sure. I'm not sure which of the issues I want to start with, but I think that Mickey made a good point about the incrementalization of what's going to be going on out at Burlingame. And I understand the applicant's unwillingness to say well, this is not really my problem, I'm just proposing my particular project. But that's the applicants' view. From a planning standpoint we're P&Z, and I don't think it's appropriate for us not to consider the impacts of the other proposed development on that area. Particularly as it affects the access, access and transportation are things about this particular project that kind of have me tearing my hair out. You're looking at somebody that does not own a car and hasn't for 20 years. So I'm a walker and a transit user. And I really don't think that this project is at all transit or walk friendly. The whole idea of walking a quarter mile and then some to get on a bus with your groceries is totally unacceptable. There seems to be an attitude on the part of all of us to say well, here are people and they are workers or students or whatever it is, and they go to work or they go to the place where they study and then come home and they stay in their house. And they don't do anything else and they never have to make trips anywhere else. And I think that we really tend to underestimate the kind of traffic that is generated by a lot of these projects. And how it affects the need for parking, housing and transit. The parking is a matter of concern to me but mostly the whole idea of how people are going to get in and out of this project and not cause tremendous impacts on any road that's chosen. I think the whole access situation has really not been thought out. There's certain variables that we really can't factor in but to me the fact that where this project is located means that perhaps more time and effort should have been planned or spent in the planning of how people get, actually get in and out of this project and live. And I don't really see that. BLAICH Tim. SEMRAU I have a question to Julie Ann. Did the urban growth boundary rings sort of land in the AACP per the last meeting planning and zoning had. The 4 rings. WOODS The outer-most ring, are you asking about the outer-most ring. SEMRAU Okay, what's the reserve ring. Did it sort of land where we set out. 37 Transcript Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission June 15, 1999 WOODS The, first of all, the concept for the reserve was discussed and debated by the oversight committee and they recognize that there are these series of rings, but they aren't calling it the reserve area. So I want to make that clear, first of all. But the outer-most ring of the growth boundary is proposed to go as far out as the Bus-barns on highway 82. The next ring inward is at Maroon Creek Bridge. SEMRAU Okay, I have a question for the commission, obviously the applicant wants a vote tonight. I don't know if we're going to get to it in the next 5 minutes unless we rush through this. I just want to know if that's our goal is try to get to a vote by 8:00. BLAICH Well I think we have to hear specifically from the applicant because if we go to a vote and it's a negative vote then, you know the consequences of that. And the other alternative is to table it, which was what we were recommending before to a date certain. We didn't resolve that, we decided to extend the meeting. So I would like to hear from the applicant. Jim, can you speak for the applicant. CURTIS Yes, we would respectfully request a vote tonight and we understand it could be a vote to deny. Basically, if the project moves froward it's very important for us to try to achieve the construction season. That the project does not move forward, we simply want to bring it to a close and stop spinning. SEMRAU Okay, then I'll sum things up in a minute instead of going over all that. As far as I'm concerned, an up-zone of this magnitude really needs to have a whole bunch of criteria and be a great benefit to the community. Fundamentally, the plan and architect have done a fantastic job trying to solve all the problems on this site. My concerns are, given our criteria, which is this development being consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. That there are a myriad of problems here that really aren't solved completely, which is the question of sprawl. You know the location of this I don't think really fits our definition of staying within our urban growth boundaries. Safety, noise, the parking, you know, there's just so many problems inherent in this site and like I said, you guys have done a great, great job, but I just think that there's a bunch of unresolved problems. And I'll leave it at that. MOONEY Do you want to just go around. I'll sum up 38 Transcript Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission June 15, 1999 BLAICH We can either MOONEY I'll sum up too. Tim said a lot my same things. I can't vote for this project, I definitely think that there are very talented mitigation efforts to an inappropriate site for a project of this mass and scale. The highway access, the highway dependability, the lack of definite determinations on how the highway is going to inter-work with this, to me is definitely sprawl. I think that there are other opportunities by the applicant, the applicant has other opportunities to in-fill what it needs. I just don't think that this is an appropriate site for this project and I, I'm very disappointed in the process. If this really is city property, and we have to consider everything that's going to happen on city property. And without it being property of the applicant it's just another balloon that isn't connected to anything. I'm very disappointed in that. I don't think it is in compliance with the Aspen Area Community Plan. I definitely think that it asked us to create affordable housing in an environment which unites and integrates throughout the existing community; this doesn't do that at all for me. HUNT Want me to speak. Well, you know, in spite of my reticence about this project, anyway I could be convinced to change my vote in favor of it by the details. If there were a specific criteria as far as peak sound levels, noise levels that vulnerable units would have to deal with. Okay, I could live with that. I can see, I personally don't like wall-type berms, if those berms, the contour lines can be spread apart. In other words shallowed-out the berms particularly towards the north, that would I think, improve it visually and everything like that. Not too much can be done with the berm parallel with the highway, however a lot can be done as it relates to parking. And the parking plan as it sits now to me is unacceptable because the parking is pulled inside the berm. For example the stacked-in parking was in effect pushed into the berm and shedded by the berm, that would make it much more acceptable and tend to open up the interior part of the property. And so, as I say, if some of these details were improved, I could get a project that would get over my threshold. However, understanding, the points that have been brought up here already about access to the property and things like that. So that's where I am on it. As of tonight I can not support this project the way I see it right now. And I would really prefer continuing it so we can get it hammered-out and get, because what's going to happen is, okay, we're going to recommend denial and they're going to go to the client, the city council. And so it's best that we get our innings in now folks as opposed to denying it now. So let's try to get the best thing we can out of this because the goddamn thing's going to happen. HOEFER Well, hopefully council will listen to what's been said. 39 Transcript Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission June 15, 1999 HUNT I won't hold my breath. TYGRE I just feel that there have been a lot that's not been discussed in a sufficient level of scrutiny for us to make a vote of approval. If I had to vote tonight I would vote for not approving it. I'm not sure whether the details would ever be worked out to my satisfaction, but there certainly has not been the level of scrutiny that I think is appropriate for a project of this type to make us vote tonight. BLAICH You've made your statement, your summary. Do you have anything further to say. Steve. BUETTOW Are you trying to mark up my shirt. I think it's a pretty nice project, I just wish it were somewhere else. The traffic access concerns me a lot, the noise level of course concerns me, the fact that 9 months out of the year we don't know anything about this project concerns me a lot. If the 9 months out of the year were the Music Associates portion of the project, the parking possibly could work. So those are just some thoughts and concerns that I had. HANEMAN I think that what Steve just went through was what I was about to mention. The best thing, everything about it is so good except the location of it. I think that is where most of us are getting hung up. I worry if sometimes we're holding this one to a higher standard on some of these issues that someone else HUNT No. HANEMAN Access, that a big hanging point, I guess. BLAICH Well, I guess I'm, I've got a different view of this project. I recognize the shortcomings. And we've recognized some of the shortcomings right from the early conceptual plan and if we felt so strongly this was an inappropriate location for this project I think that should have, you know a very strong decision not just sort of opinions. I'm not disagreeing with some of the shortcomings, I think the access is a serious question and I think it could be resolved, if we want to confront Mr. Trapani and come up with a different solution. I think hanging over this whole project is what might happen in the rest of Burlingame, because I raised that question with Mickey Herron. If that wasn't out there, it's an abstract question, I mean we're dealing with this independently, something could be worked out. The whole question that came up of allotments before, I think is a moot point because we don't know what they are. They aren't 4O Transcript Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission June 15, 1999 here. I haven't seen anything to compare with to this project. I'm looking at this project as the project. I think that we have all taken a very strong position, and particularly on this commission that we need more affordable housing. And this is affordable housing, it's defined in that category and yet we start to nit-pick and find all kinds of reasons why we're not going to support it. I think the project is based upon a real, a very real need that we have in this community, it's eminent, it's unfortunate that it's eminent. But lots of things are done under pressure in time. It seems to be doable and I would like to see it happen. I would strongly suggest that we don't bring it to a vote tonight because you're going to get a negative vote and you're going to have to take it to council. I would like to, in spite of the fact that I think we have to get on top of it very fast, and I think that would be a decision we would have to take of how fast can we do this. And try to get some of these hurdles clarified. And maybe we won't solve them all because if there's anybody here that says I don't like the location and I'm going to vote against it, for that reason. Then nothing we do is going to change it short of stopping the project. The applicant has said they wanted it voted on tonight, and we will honor that if that's what you want. But I just, I think you've heard what the vote's going to be. There's WOODS I just want to make 2 points. One is I was going to reiterate Bob what you stated is that we're basically in final now. That's if this was really an issue this should have been addressed at conceptual. I just wanted to reiterate that should have been handled that way. MOONEY I call direction BLAICH Tim is right, he did address it but it wasn't a consensus within the group and it was an individual or maybe 2 that were dealing with this. WOODS And second of all I want to make the point clear, that although we have an urban growth boundary, there's also a recommendation from the Community Plan that development within ¼ to a ½ mile walking distance are appropriate. And I want to point out that this is one piece of a larger community that we would anticipate and have identified in the community plan. Being the affordable housing that's on the club side site right now, the Buttermilk application which you'll be picking up your books and reading for next week's or the following week's meeting and now this piece as well. And do I want to caution you, that if that's a strong basis for your making this decision. I think that there is support for this project in the existing community plan as well as in the proposed community plan. 41 Transcript Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission June 15, 1999 BLAICH Thank you. Chris. BENDON I just want to point out, just a, I guess a point of procedure. And that is that first each commissioner should determine whether they have enough information to make a vote. Whether that's a vote of up or down, but whether they've had a significant presentation and a significant time to review all the relevant issues. And then, make a decision whether they feel the project deserves approval or denial. The first one is kind of a threshold issue. BLAICH Roger. HUNT Well, I sort of stated my case, I don't, I haven't talked with them sufficiently at this point to get me over that threshold. I quickly pointed out some of the things I had to deal with. There were another couple of things I didn't deal with. I would really prefer tabling this and let's get the best project we can out of it. That's where I'm coming from. TYGRE I agree. HUNT Because it's going to happen, it's going to happen. So the important thing is okay, even if it is in a miserable place, let's make it at least as good as it can be in that miserable place. That's where I'm coming from. BLAICH I have a point of law, maybe you can answer this, if we, as a commission decide not to take, make, a motion, nobody will make a motion on this. What is the status of the project, is it automatically tabled, because we don't have enough information or can the applicant say you won't take it up, now we can take it to the council. HUNT Well, I'll make a motion right now. I'll move to table action and to continue the public hearing to some date certain, determined here, because it seems like a lot of us on the commission do not have sufficient information to support this project, to make a knowledgeable vote on the project. TYGRE I'll second. BLAICH Comment, discussion. BENDON I don't know if you got an answer to your question. 42 Transcript Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission June 15, 1999 BLAICH He's already made a motion. I did not get an answer to the question. Do you want to try to answer it. ERICKSON Discussion. BENDON Yeah, the commission, if presented with a request to vote, the commission does not have to vote. BLAICH Does not have to vote. BENDON Right. BLAICH And what is the consequence of not voting. BENDON Well it would have to be tabled. I mean you can't close a public hearing. BLAICH No, but if we, if the decision was not to vote tonight because of lack of knowledge. WOODS We'll go find the attorney. LOTHIAN He's gone. SEMRAU Does it get pushed off council's agenda. BLAICH Does it, the applicant have the right then to say well, they won't make a decision and we go to council. I'd like a legal position, decision. Has that come up before. BUETTOW They will do that anyway MOONEY Yeah, they're going to do that anyway. HASSIG Bob, may I ask an imprudent question. And that is I would be curious if you were to poll the members of the commissioner, how many of, apart from Roger who shared with us some of his specific concerns. How many others think that in fact additional discussion, additional information, will this applicant, is this going to fundamentally change the way they vote. 43 Transcript Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission June 15, 1999 MOONEY I can comment on that as part of the discussion of the motion on the table. HASSIG Okay. MOONEY As far as I'm concerned nothing is going to help your design become a better project. I think you did the best you could do. I just feel like this has so many inherent problems because of the location, the airport, HASSIG Tim. MOONEY the highway, let me finish, the underpass access, the Maroon Creek complications. If you were going to bring in another application that had significantly less housing on this, would that change it for me. Maybe. Would it change it to the point where I would vote for it, not knowing that the city isn't, you know, going to, you know, what's going to happen with Zoline and the rest of this piece of property. This is still one piece of property, it's still Burlingame, still owned by the city and the city should basically should step-up here and say this is our plan. And this plan fits with what's going to go on at Buttermilk. This plan fits with what's going to go on on the highway. This plan fits, this is the city's best and highest use of this property and they should be building real affordable housing here, not seasonable housing. If you guys can use real affordable housing during the summer, great use it during the season but the city should be stepping up here and taking the responsibility to develop their property with the affordable housing dollars for the highest and best use to satisfy affordable housing needs. I think that we've got the whole process backwards here. I think they've walked you guys down the plank. And I think you're, the representation that you're trying to make to say that you'll build the project to your needs and caring specifications and then the city is going to pay 7/12ths of that cost are, I don't get that. So I don't think that this is on the right track. I don't think it's the right process, I don't think it's the right location and I basically don't think there are enough elements here to make a good project out of a bad location with this process. HASSIG I respect what you're saying. CURTIS Let Robert speak. HARTH Just to address your question Bob. If you choose to not vote today, as opposed to approved, ha-ha, or denying this which is obviously more likely. We don't really have any choice but to go to council with or without your 44 Transcript Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission June 15, 1999 blessings or your denials or whatever. Because otherwise, we're not going to build the project at all because it will be a year late. And will be out 200 beds next summer and the project will probably escalate at least a million dollars in cost from one year to the other. And the community will be without 200 beds, yet again. So I think the threshold question from my perspective is do you want to have 200 beds built in the next year or not. Because there's no other project coming in front of you that's going to bring these beds in the community in the next twelve months. And we need them really, really badly. The Music Festival does and I wager to say the community does too. So we have to go to council, we're on a critical time-cap and we have been working for 2 plus years on it. Even longer since the first time we sat with the city about this. And we tried to make ourselves available to the commission, constantly. And we tried to respond to every single aspect of this design that you've been concerned about. It's really hard for me not to believe that to continue the meetings will just delay and delay and delay which is an accomplishment in itself but not one that we really want to be part of. BLAICH Well we have a motion on the floor so we have to respect that, and it was seconded wasn't it. LOTHIAN Yes, Jasmine HUNT Do we have a date certain we can put it to. WOODS Tomorrow. Thursday. BLAICH I think in all respect to the time spent on this and the urgency of it, we ought to set it up as fast as possible. Considering the availabilty. We've done that before. WOODS Friday. HUNT I've got a conflict WOODS Thursday evening. BLAICH I have a conflict just this one time because I'm on the board of the Aspen Design Conference and it starts tomorrow night and I can't cop out on that one. ERICKSON How about during the day. 45 Transcript Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission June 15, 1999 BLAICH Yeah, I can miss some aspects of it. But we cut her out if we do it during the day. BUETTOW I can't come Thursday. BLAICH You can't come Thursday. Friday. HUNT Friday. BLAICH Friday, Saturday. HUNT I'll be gone. BLAICH Next week. HUNT Did we exclude Wednesday, tomorrow. TYGRE I can't come, what about next Tuesday. BLAICH What do we have on the agenda next Tuesday. OHLSON We've got the Buttermilk master plan and the joint meeting with the county planning and zoning commission and presentation by Ski Company on the master plan. WOODS Could we continue to 3:00 o'clock and go from 3:00 to 4:30. BLAICH You know, that's a possibility. SEMRAU That's after council, council's Monday right. BLAICH They said they weren't present it to council. BENDON Well, OHLSON It depends upon your action. BLAICH Okay, well if they take it to council and they said you don't have a meeting then. How would that work. Having it prior to the. Sneak out a little early. Okay. 3:00 p.m. next Tuesday. We've already heard that there's some 46 Transcript Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission June 15, 1999 HUNT Tuesday, that's the 22nd. BLAICH Some positions that aren't going to change because it's the site. WOODS We haven't taken a vote yet either. BLAICH We haven't take the vote, but I think that's a condition. You know normally we don't like to tell you how we're going to vote before we vote but with this project there's a lot of pressure on this from both sides of the issue. I want to give it as fair a shot as possible. HUNT Okay, I'll add BLAICH Yes. Tim. MOONEY I'm wondering maybe what the applicant is going to, they didn't come in with any changes this time, and they came in with very few changes since the last continuance. If they're not going to change anything, I mean, why are we even considering this. We should vote on it and if it's not. I mean why continue and then have them come back in and say okay we want to hear more talk about you know what's not going to happen here. I think they are going to go to city council and we should just vote on it if the project isn't going to change significantly to fit with what the site can provide them as far as the # 1 aspect transportation. It's a transit-orientated project that doesn't have a transportation plan and they can't change that. BLAICH Well there's a motion on the floor, so we better vote on that motion. And then if that doesn't pass then we can vote on the other. ERICKSON Can we ask the applicant BLAICH Unless you want to withdraw the motion. HUNT No, I don't want to withdraw. BLAICH There's a motion on the floor and it's been seconded. Then let's vote on that. 47 Transcript Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission June 15, 1999 HUNT Adding to the motion, that is to 3:00 o'clock on Tuesday the 22nd. TYGRE I'll amend my second accordingly. LOTHIAN Okay, ready. Tim Mooney MOONEY No LOTHIAN Tim Semrau SEMRAU No LOTHIAN Steve Buettow BUETTOW No LOTHIAN Ron Erickson ERICKSON No LOTHIAN Jasmine Tygre TYGRE Yes LOTHIAN Roger Hunt HUNT Yes LOTHIAN Bob Blaich BLAICH No. Now we need another motion, to vote on the project. We have a draft motion. BENDON You do LOTHIAN There's a motion in the previous memo. BENDON There's a motion in the memo, there's conditions that staff is recommending. In addition to these conditions the applicant has provided 48 Transcript Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission June 15, 1999 HUNT This is what really gets me, because there are conditions to be added and I could have ended up supporting this project but because they won't be discussed with them, I'm going to have to vote to deny the project and that's really irritating to me. MOONEY I'll make the motion if you can give it to me BENDON One other point of procedure that the motion should be posed in the positive regardless of your, the way you want to vote. LOTHIAN Regardless of your vote. MOONEY I move to recommend City Council approve the Subdivision of Burlingame Ranch Final Planned Unit Development for Lot #2, the Seasonal Affordable Housing project, Rezoning of Lot #2 to the RMFA Zone District, and approval of the Special Review for Parking with the conditions outlined by the Community Development Memo dated June 8, 1999 and all the conditions. Now, doesn't this have to state that there's a variance for open space. BENDON It's included in the conditions. MOONEY Okay. LOTHIAN And how about the conditions from MOONEY No, I'm not willing to approve the adaptations or revisions. LOTHIAN Okay. MOONEY Of the applicant to these conditions. ERICKSON I'll second. LOTHIAN Ron, second. BLAICH Discussion. HUNT Are there in those conditions what we discussed about peak noise levels in the units. 49 Transcript Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission June 15, 1999 MOONEY One of the applicant's conditioned revisions is that the applicant shall submit a sound mitigation plan and performance plan as part of the PUD agreement to be approved by city council. HUNT That's not a satisfactory ERICKSON No but under the staff conditions, it was that the building shall be constructed under the 30 dBA sound reduction between the outside and inside of the units. HUNT That by itself is not satisfactory to me. I want to have a peak sound level agreed to in the ERICKSON Why. HUNT Why. Because when either United 5620 is it or ERICKSON No, no Roger wait. You're not going to approve the thing anyway, so what difference does changing the conditions MOONEY But wait a minute they're going to have to HUNT My point is, and here we're going well over our time, my point is ERICKSON I know that, but we could spent 4 hours going through these conditions and rewriting them and everything else and what good would it do us. It's going to waste our time. And the applicant's time. BLAICH The applicant really wants to have a vote. They want to know yes or no. ERICKSON I mean I'd love to spend another 8 hours debating this issue and try to come to terms on some of the things, but it's not going to happen. HUNT There are other issues that I think city council should be able to get the benefit of our opinion on and we will not be able to 5O Transcript Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission June 15, 1999 ERICKSON Then I think that you should go to Monday night and express them BLAICH They will be in the minutes and presented to city council. We all have the right to go to that meeting and express our viewpoint. HUNT Except we haven't gotten into a whole gosh dam area of this thing. We haven't completed our job here. ERICKSON That's right. I agree with that. BLAICH We have a motion on the table and we've had discussion, we vote or we'll be here much longer. Please call the roll. LOTHIAN Okay, Tim Semrau SEMRAU No LOTHIAN Roger Hunt HUNT pass LOTHIAN Jasmine TYGRE No LOTHIAN Steve BUETTOW Yes LOTHIAN Tim Mooney MOONEY No LOTHIAN Ron Erickson ERICKSON No LOTHIAN Bob Blaich BLAICH Yes 51 Transcript Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission June 15, 1999 LOTHIAN Roger, abstain. HUNT No, it's a no. I just passed the first time. LOTHIAN Okay. One, two, three, four, five. Five to three, to two. Five nos. BLAICH Denied. The motion was to approve and it was defeated. It has to be stated that way. 52