HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19990615 AGENDA
GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
TUESDAY JUNE 15, 1999, 4:30
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
I. COMMENTS
A. Commissioners
B. Planning Staff
C. Public
H. MINUTES (3/16/99)
IH. LIC HEARING
PUB .
n:3o-~:oo A. Burlingame Seasonal Housing, Chris Bendon .~49 ~'~'~
IV. ADJOURN
AGENDA
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, JUNE 15, 1999, IMMEADIATE FOLLOWING GMC
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
I. COMMENTS
A. Commissioners
B. Planning Staff
C. Public
II. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
IH. P~BLIC HEARING
~:oo.~:o5 A. Aspen 1V~oun. tain PUD., .P_ub_lic ~g.~ring (continued to June 29, 1999), Mitch
Haas C~:"~ ~ ~'~-~¥~"~
5:05-6:00 B. Burlingame Seasonal Housing, Final, Chris Bendon ]~lxilg3~ ~ -2.
6:oo-6:ts C. Code Amendment, Modification of__Conservation (C) Zone District Related to
Julle-- Ann Woods co~n-~/C~
FAR,
IV. WORK SESSION
A. Aspen Area Community Plan, Julie Ann Woods
6:15-7:00
V. ADJOURN
TIMES ARE APPROXIMATE. WE RECOMMEND APPLICANTS ARRIVE AT LEAST
~ HOUR PRIOR TO THE SCHEDULED TIME.
6/28 City Council (5:00)
City Notice 6/8
Burlingame Seasonal Housing Final PUD, Subdivision, Rezoning, GMQS Exemption, Fee
Waivers and Appeal of Code Interpretation, 2nd Reading Public Hearing, Peenotice, (CB)
Appeal of HPC Decision-134 W. Hopkins, Public Hearing (SO)
2 Williams Way, Inventory, 2nd Reading Public Hearing (con't from 6/14) (SO)
6/29 City Council (3:00)
Joint Meeting with BOCC
Aspen Area Community Plan, Work Session (SM)
6/29 City Planning and Zoning (4:30)
City Notice 6/8
Aspen Mountain PUD, Conceptual, Lots 3 and 5, Public Hearing (MH)
7/6 City Planning and Zoning (4:30)
City Notice 6/ 16
Williams Ranch Substantial ' PUD Amendment, Public Hearing (CB)
Mittel Europa Conditional Use Review, Public Hearing (CB)
488 Castle Creek Road, Rezoning, Public Hearing (CB) Renotice
LUC Definitions, Public Hearing (ST)
308 N. Is`, Inventory, Public Hearing (con't from 6/1) (AG)
Djuna Conditional Use Review,. Public Hearing (JO)
Bavarian Inn, Conceptual PUD, Public Hearing (con't from 6/1-con't to 7/20) (JO)
7/12 City Council (5:00)
City Notice 6/23
Burlingame Ranch Rezoning, 2nd Reading Public Hearing (CB)
LUC Definitions, 1 st Reading (ST)
Code Amendment, Section 26.04.100, Definitions, "Floor Area G. Accessory Unit or Linked
Pavilion," 2nd Reading Public Hearing (MH)
7/14 HPC (5:00)
City Notice 6/23
400 W. Smuggler, Minor
121 N. Fifth (con't from 6/9)
302 E. Hopkins (con't from 6/9)
135 W. Hopkins, Public Hearing (con't from 6/23)
520 E. Durant, Minor
Hughes, Amendment
7/20 City Planning and Zoning (4:30)
City Notice 6/30
Bavarian Inn, Conceptual PUD, Public Hearing (con't from 7/6) (JO)
Lodge Preservation Text Amendment, Public Hearing (con't from 6/8) (CB)
Minor PUD, Public Hearing (con't from 6/8) (CB)
2
' �L .. '.) . �• _. .:..i.My:,.t,':.v -i.e, ... .�Y..,'S: -j{ �tir..1 .:-., :� .`.?„l.-.'..JSS..i:si,:��L:1•..iii -./i'itsi, .-XW,),,*ea,-E.itt k:'AA. Ah u'.hr. Pk
_
Reaching Consensus on Affordable Housing Sites
Establishing Priorities and Phasing
During discussion with the Oversight Committee in Februar;% of 1999 consensus was
established on a number of sites identiued`as beinv "High Priority" for affordable housing in the
near future. T'ne Committee determined that we should focus our c .zr gv on developing
affordable liousin(u), on these sites.
PRIORITY SITES
Type of Projectpproxi;3true
'Number of AH Units
1. Snvde: (in progress) I Public I t5
7"',&: tilain Streets ( Public
1�
ICore and in -town infill Parmership i 50-100
4.'North 40 (in progress)
Private 72
4. Buttermilk Base Housing Privar, Nlitigation j 70-38
6. Truscott Expansion
Pubiic 80-120
7. Stillwater —Lot 1
P';nliC 12
8. Grarnina-er Property
Pnvate
40
9. Park Apartments
( Public buy -down ( 5.
10. NLA.A Seasonal Housing
Parmership 50
11. Moore Proper:
Private
' 30
12. Hines/Highlands (in progress)
Private Nlitiamon
112
13. tiloore PL"D (in progress)
Private Nlideation
31
14. US Forest Serrice Site
Public
( 40
15. AABC Intill
Parmenhip
25 - 50
6. Woodv Creek Trailer Park
Public buy -down
54
17. Aspen Country Inn (in progess)
' Public
31
It is understood that the appro.=ate numbers of units on these sites may vary with
community planning processes, land use constraints and f=cial constraints, therefore, the plan
also calls for the community to continue to discuss the following potential affordable housing
sites:
1. Burlingame
2. Moore Open Space
3. Additional Density on City Golf Course
4. Aspen Mass (in conjunction ivith USFS Site and Transit Oriented Development)
5. Cozy Point
6. Bass Parcel
These sites may become more important if the community is unable to meet affordable
housing needs at the agreed upon locations.
13 ' 05"99
Qmc�
P*�a:
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen/Pitkin County Growth Management Commission
/y
THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director. ; >
Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director
FROM: Christopher Bendon, Planner
RE: Burlingame Seasonal Affordable Housing — Public Hearing
DATE: June 15, 1999
SUMMARY:
The Aspen Music Festival and School (a.k.a. the MAA), represented by Jim
Curtis and Harry Teague Architects, has applied for an exemption from the
"scoring" and "competition" procedures of growth management for an affordable
housing project to include 100 two -bedroom seasonal units and 1 two -bedroom
manager's apartment to be located just. north of the Maroon Creek Club affordable
housing units. The City of Aspen owns this property and has authorized the MAA
to submit a land use application. This area has been commonly referred to as
"Parcel B" during discussion about the Burlingame Ranch, and is the smaller of
the two projects being contemplated for the parcel. This memorandum does not
contain any recommendations regarding the larger "Burlingame Village" project.
The project received conceptual PUD approval pursuant to City Council
Resolution 99-7. This approval document is included in the application packet.
The applicant was directed to amend the site plan after a joint work session with
the City P&Z and the City Council. The plan has since progressed through a series
of modifications which staff believes have benefited the project in a positive way.
The expected users of the seasonal housing are students of the Aspen Music
Festival and School during the summer season and the general public the rest of
the year. There have been some discussions concerning the possibility of re-
designing a few of the units as one -bedroom units and also using a few units for
longer -term occupancy periods.
Staff recommends the Growth Management Commission recommend the
City Council exempt 101 affordable housing units from the scoring and
competition procedures of GMQS, with conditions.
APPLICANT:
The City of Aspen, owner. Represented by Jim Curtis on behalf of the Aspen
Music Festival and School.
EXHIBIT
14) 1: Z7
LOCATION:
Owl Creek Road and State Highway 82. See location maps included in the
application.
LOT SIZE:
The seasonal housing parcel Lot #2 (a.k.a. Parcel B) of the proposed Burlingame
Ranch Subdivision, is approximately 3.92 acres. Lot # 1 of the proposed
subdivision is approximately 181.3 acres.
CURRENT LAND USE:
Vacant.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
Seasonal affordable housing and accessory uses. 101 residential units consisting
of 202 beds (100 two -bedroom units and 1 two -bedroom manager's apartment).
Accessory uses include a common facility with a lounge, laundry machines, and
practice rooms for music students.
The Final PUD is being considered by the City Planning and Zoning Commission
under a separate public hearing. This application is requesting the property be
rezoned to the Residential Multi -Family (RMF-A) Zone District. Once a
recommendation is made by the P&Z, the project will proceed to the City
Council.
PREVIOUS ACTION:
The project received conceptual approval pursuant to Council Resolution 99-7, a
copy of which has been included in the application. The Growth Management
Commission has not previously considered this case.
PROCEDURE: Affordable Housing
Affordable housing projects are eligible for an exemption from the scoring and
competition components of growth management by the City Council. - The
application must first, however, be reviewed and considered by the Growth
Management Commission at a public hearing. Affordable housing projects are
deducted from the annual allotment. Please refer to Exhibit "A" for the applicable
criteria.
BACKGROUND:
The City of Aspen purchased the Burlingame Ranch parcel in January of 1997.
The subject area of this proposal was generally referred to as "Parcel B" in
discussions about the Burlingame Ranch.
There are two Burlingame projects currently being discussed. The "Seasonal
Housing" and the "Burlingame Village." This is the seasonal housing project and
N
does not include any review or recommendation concerning the larger Burlingame
Village project. That project is still in its infancy and, while there are still public
meetings on occasion and much public discourse, there has been no formal
application made for Burlingame Village. Staff does emphasize, however, that
the Seasonal Housing project does not preclude or supercede development
opportunities on the remainder of the Ranch.
GROWTH:
While "exempted" from certain procedures of growth management, affordable
housing units are deducted from the pool of annual development allotments. The
growth management "year" begins every June 1 ". The number of allotments
currently available in this category is:
Standard Maximum Allotment Pool = B + A
Where:
AH Pool
B = base allotment
A = accumulated allotment deficit/surplus (from preceding years; as
compared to base allotment
43
Base allotment
- 0
Development allotted in current year
+60
Allotments not used through 1998
103
Affordable Housing Allotments
The applicant is requesting 101 units of the 103 available.
As an aside to this project; staff does want to emphasize the significant reduction
in the allotment pool for affordable housing. This is a crucial element for the two
P&Z's to consider in relation to the update of the. AACP. There are a significant
number of affordable housing projects being considered in the short-term: 7`' and
Main, Truscott, Stillwater, Burlingame Village, Bavarian, Aspen Mountain PUD,
and other private projects in the metro area. These projects are subject to.
significant delays in a time when the provision of affordable housing is what
many community members have described as "a crisis situation."
Staff believes the two Commissions should consider whether the deliberate
metering of affordable housing units remains in the public's best interest. The
oversight committee of the AACP has contemplated whether growth impacts
could be considered in relation to the eventual build -out of the community and the
total number of affordable housing units that the upper valley can, and is willing
to, support rather than on a per year basis. The two Commissions should consider
the balance of community goals in relation to the inadequate yearly allotment pool
to accommodate the projects being considered.
3
RECOMMENDATION:
City Staff recommends that the Growth Management Commission .recommend to
the Aspen City Council the exemption of one -hundred -and -one (101) affordable
housing units for "Burlingame Seasonal Housing," with the following conditions:
1. The project shall consist of 100 seasonal two -bedroom units and 1 two -
bedroom manager's apartment deed restricted in accordance with the
recommendations of the Housing Authority Board.
2. The applicant is fully subject to all reviews and approvals by the Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission and the Aspen City Council as required
in the Municipal Code. In no way shall this recommendation imply
approval of any other required approval.
3. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and
during public meetings with the Growth Management Commission shall be
adhered to and considered conditions of this recommendation, unless
otherwise amended by other conditions.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to recommend to the Aspen City Council the growth management
exemption of 101 affordable housing units for the "Burlingame Seasonal
Housing" project, with the conditions listed in the Community Development
Department memo dated June 15, 1999."
ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit "A" — Review Standards and Staff Comments
Exhibit "B" - Agency referral comments
Exhibit "C" - Application
2
Exhibit A
GMC
Staff Comments: Burlingame Seasonal Housing
The exemption by City Council is subsequent to review and consideration by the GMC.
There are, however, no specific review criteria for this review other than the more
general criteria listed below. To the extent possible, staff has incorporated general
observations of the project in relation to the Community Plan, the update to the AACP,
and pertinent criteria of PUD and Subdivision requirements.
"Approval of the method by which the applicant proposes to provide affordable housing
shall be at the option of the City Council, upon the recommendation of the Growth
Management Commission. In evaluating the applicant's proposal, the advice of the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be sought in considering the following
factors:"
1. Whether the city has an adopted plan to develop affordable housing with
monies received from payment of affordable housing dedication fees.
2. Whether the city has an adopted plan identifying the applicant's site as
being appropriate for affordable housing.
Staff Finding:
The City, through the Housing Authority, has developed an affordable housing plan for
both public and private monies. The site is not identified in the 1993 AACP. However,
the ongoing update of he Community Plan describes this site as a "priority."
3. Whether the applicant's site is well suited for the development of affordable
housing, taking into account the availability of services, proximity to
employment opportunities and whether the site is affected by environmental
constraints to development or historic preservation concerns.
Staff Finding:
The site is located in close proximity to existing development, similar affordable housing,
and to existing transit. The Buttermilk intersection, when completed, will provide viable
access to up- and down -valley transit service in addition to the proposed shuttle service
for summer student use.
The Pitkin County Airport has "formally objected] to the proposed project." (Please
reference the comments from the Airport.) The development is proposed outside of the
Runway Protection Zone and in compliance with all local and federal guidelines for
development near airports. The current sound levels on -site are approximately 60 dba
with no mitigation measures. Normal construction techniques typically reduce this figure
by 18-20 dba and the proposed berm is expected to reduce this figure by approximately
staff comments page 1
5-10 dba, depending on the exact location within the development. The expected
resulting sound level will be below the recommended 65 dba outdoors and 45 dba
indoors. Staff believes this site is suited for development and is not adversely affected by
natural, man-made, or historic constraints.
4. Whether the method proposed will result in employee housing being
produced prior to or at the same time the impacts of the development will be
experienced by the community.
Staff Finding:
The project is 100% affordable and is not iAresponse to other growth impacts.
S. Whether the development itself requires the provision of affordable housing
on -site to meet its service needs.
Staff Finding:
The application does include one manager's apartment to house an on -site employee.
This unit is necessary to accommodate the day-to-day management, maintenance, and
service needs of the project and its residents. Upon consultation of the Housing
Authority and their experience with the Marolt seasonal housing project, staff believes
this unit is sufficient to accommodate the demands of the project.
The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community
Plan (requirement of PUD and Subdivision).
Staff Finding:
Community Vision: The proposed development increases housing
opportunities for seasonal workers in a location close to town and transit,
and within a short commute. Compact development around transit stops is
consistent with the community's desire to efficiently use a limited land
supply in an efficient manner.
Community Vitality: The proposed development is 100% affordable,
addressing the community's desire to provide affordable housing
opportunities. The seasonal rental units will help the local economy and
local employers. The additional, and permanent, housing opportunity for
the Music Festival students will help ensure that this symbol of modern
Aspen will continue with greater self-sufficiency.
Open Space and Environment: While the proposed development would
take place on an area that is undeveloped, it is compact, clustered, and
provides a significant amount of density within walking distance to
reliable transit. This allows for the preservation of open space on parcels
with greater open space value, less adequate for this type of development.
staff comments page 2
AACP: The proposed development site is not specifically identified in the
1993 Community Plan. Nevertheless, two sites which provide some
guidance for this parcel were identified with the following
recommendations:
The Zoline parcel: 1 ("great" rating), deed restricted lots via the growth
management process. If this property ever submits a growth management
application for development this would be an appropriate location for
deed restricted lots.
Pfister (Maroon Creek Club AH): 2 ("good" rating), if in the event the
Development Corporation cannot put the 39 deed restricted units in the
location as approved at the intersection of Stage Road and Highway 82,
the location should be re-evaluated and perhaps units should be dispersed
throughout the property in a less -dense manner.
The Zoline parcel is somewhat removed from this specific parcel and has
more relevance on the possible "Burlingame Village" project. The Pfister
parcel (Maroon Creek Club) was developed in the original development
pattern (not re-evaluated). The affordable housing units were a mitigation
requirement by the County and the property is now within the City of
Aspen.
The draft update of the community plan (the 1998 AACP) specifically
identifies the Seasonal project as a location to concentrate affordable
housing efforts. It is important to note that the 1998 plan is a draft plan,
has not been adopted, and has no binding effect. Following are statements
relevant to this project from the draft AACP:
■ ". . . we again call for a critical mass of permanent residents and
employees to be housed within the urban area. Our goal is to reverse the
tide and bring back the ebbing balance of our community/resort." Excerpt
from Managing Growth Philosophy.
■ "We should discourage sprawl and recognize its cost to the character of
our community, our open spaces, and our rural resources." Excerpt from
Managing Growth Philosophy.
■ "To conserve our rural resources, we recommend that an Aspen
Community Boundary be identified... A Community Growth Boundary
will focus and reduce infrastructure expenditures, reduce the spread of
development into the countryside and maintain a rural character between
communities, while at the same time promoting concentrations of
staff comments page 3
development supportive of transit and pedestrian accessibility." Excerpt
from Managing Growth Philosophy.
■ "Local and regional land use and development patterns should enable and
support travel by alternative modes of transportation. New development
should take place only in areas well served by transit, and only in compact,
mixed -use patterns that are conducive to walking and bicycling." Excerpt
from Transportation Philosophy.
■ "We still believe that a `critical mass' of local working residents is needed
to sustain our economy." Excerpt from Affordable Housing Philosophy.
■ "Housing sites should be rated with emphasis placed on living within
walking distance of transit, employment areas and social connections."
Excerpt from Affordable Housing Philosophy.
1_1
■ "Development of affordable housing within the traditional town site
should be encouraged so as to protect our open and rural lands." Excerpt
from Affordable Housing Philosophy.
■ "Evaluate opportunities for publicly held properties to be developed or
redeveloped to include or be replaced by affordable housing. The public
holds properties that could be redeveloped with affordable housing
without impeding the existing use. These parcels should be evaluated for
their qualities as affordable housing sites and their ability to contribute to
our town's affordable housing dilemma without .consuming our valuable
rural lands or open space." Excerpt from Affordable Housing Action Plan.
Staff believes the proposed development plan and this zoning is consistent
with the AACP. The parcel is virtually identical to the Maroon Creek
Club Affordable Housing site and both the Housing and Growth sections
of the revised AACP (under review and not adopted) depict this parcel as a
site for affordable housing.
staff comments page 4
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
MEMORANDUM
Chris Bendon, Community Development Dept.
Cindy Christensen, Housing Office
May 18, 1999
BURLINGAME SEASONAL HOUSING FINAL PUD & SUBDIVISION
Parcel ID No.
REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval for a 200-bed seasonal residential
project proposed for an approximately 3.92 acre parcel known as Parcel B, Burlingame
Ranch.
BACKGROUND: The applicant reviewed the proposal with the Housing Board on June
2, 1999. The Board was very pleased with what was being presented.
RECOMMENDATION: The Housing Board recommends approval with the following
conditions:
1. That at least two of the buildings be converted to one -bedroom, long-term units,
with the possibility of a third building. If a third building is included, the Board is
willing to review the possibility of master leasing a few of the units to the MAA or
possibly some other. entity. If master leasing is allowed, the other entity should be
required to buy into that unit or units at 100% to allow a unit to be tied to a specific
employer.
2. The rents for the seasonal units go no higher than $350 per bedroom and go no
higher than $700 for the one -bedroom units. This relates to the mid -point of
Category 2.
3. The Board was not unanimous regarding the parking for this project. However, the
Board did feel it was a good idea to provide less amount of parking, with the ability
to expand at a later date. The Board also recommends reviewing ways to provide
incentives for not using cars and disincentives for using the cars.
4. A deed restriction shall be recorded prior to building permit approval.
5. A site visit shall be done by staff prior to Certificate of Occupancy.
Veferranbuding.mit
MEMORANDUM
To: Chris Bendon, Planner
Thru: Nick Adeh, City Engineer
From: Chuck Roth, Project E ineer I
Date: May 21, 1999
Re: Burlingame Seasonal Housing — Final P.U.D.
1999
The Development Review Committee has reviewed the above referenced application at their May 5, 1999
meeting, and we have the following comments:
General — (1) These comments are based on the fact that we believe that the submitted site plan is accurate,
that it shows all site features, and that it is feasible. The wording must be carried forward exactly as written
unless prior consent is received from the Engineering Department. This is to halt complaints related to
approvals tied to "issuance of building permit." (2) If there are any encroachments into the public right-of-
way, the encroachment must either be removed or be subject to current encroachment license requirements.
1. P.U.D. Plat —
a. Revise certificate of ownership to include Mayor's signature for City as owner and attestation by City
Clerk. Also include in dedication language to re -dedicate public rights -of -way as shown.
b. Lot 2 must be fully monumented before final plat approval and so indicated on the final plat sheet
titled "Detailed Plat". This sheet would also show any easements dedicated to utilities for primary
facilities, including transformers and switch gear as well as line extensions. Easements are not
required for service lines.
c. §26.88.040.D.2.a(1) specifies the size of unencumbered margins for each plat sheet. It is preferable
to have borders drawn on each sheet at those dimensions in order to ensure this section.
d. The drainage plan sheet needs to be sealed and signed by an engineer registered to practice in the
State of Colorado. .
e. The boundary plat needs to indicate the "Old" Stage Road public right-of-way.
f. There are various blanks in the submitted plat that need to be filled in for the final plat.
g. Indicate the property zone district. Complete the basis of bearings statement.
1
h. Refer to §26.88.040.D.1 and 2 for plat requirements. The vicinity map needs to appear on the first
sheet. Show the City limit line. The word "Aspen" is illegible due to the street grid.
i. On sheet 2, the line symbology is unclear and inconsistent. As of this writing, the Burlingame
Annexation is in effect. Indicate adjacent subdivisions with dotted lines of abutting lots or
indicate if adjoining land is unplatted. Beneath the Lot 1 and Lot 2 labels, indicate the area to the
nearest 0.001 acres.
2. Parking — Because the project is a planned unit development, the number of parking spaces is
determined based on the specific project. The Engineering Department has no comment for this application
concerning parking requirements, except no part of public right-of-way shall be considered as exclusive
parking space to serve this development.
3. Site Drainage - The site development approvals need to include the requirement of meeting runoff
design standards of the Land Use Code at Sec. 26.88.040.C.4.f and Engineering Department's interim
design and construction standards. The final plat should include drainage mitigation plan (24"x36" size plan
sheet or on the lot grading plan), as well as a temporary sediment control and containment plan for the
construction phase. These and a report must be signed and stamped by an engineer registered in the State of
Colorado. The drainage plan must be reviewed and accepted by the City Engineer prior to issuance of
building permit and signing the final plat.
4. Trash & Utilities - All utility meters and any new utility pedestals or transformers must be installed on
the applicant's property and not in the public right-of-way. For pedestals and transformers, easements
must be provided and should be indicated on the final plat. Meter locations must be accessible for reading
and may not be obstructed by trash storage. Any units that may be condominiumized must have separate
utility service connections and meters.
The applicant indicated that existing overhead utilities along the southwesterly property will be ✓
undergrounded in conjunction with the proposed development. This is consistent with other developments
in the City.
5. Fire Protection District— The following are the comments from the conceptual review:
"Various fire protection details are not yet clear on the draft plat and need to be remedied for the final
plat. ' These will relate .to access around the perimeter, hose lengths, hydrant locations, sprinklering,
turning radii, turn arounds. Any gates across emergency access routes must be locked with Knox box or
lock.
"Emergency access width is required to be 20 feet and to be maintained and drivable, free of snow
and obstructions, on a year round basis. This should be documented in the project approvals,
subdivision improvements agreement and any other agreements, such as declarations or covenants, that
may be drafted for the project."
The final plat is not clear on these fire protection details. There should be -a specific sheet in the final plat
titled "Fire Protection Plan" with the signature block for the Fire Marshal on that sheet.
There was discussion if there should be an activated fire system in place when the pre -fabricated
buildings arrive. The Fire Marshal replied that the issue would be addressed at the time of building permit
application.
N
6. City Water Department — The concern was renewed about the number and space requirements of
backflow preventers. The applicant's water engineer will work with the City Water Department on design
details.
7. Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District — The utility plan does not contain enough detail for sanitary
sewer. There should be a separate sheet with the approval certificate thereon. The applicant needs to initiate
a line extension request and a collection agreement in a timely manner to avoid project delays.
8. Parks Department — It is preferable that temporary access to the site not cross a trail. There was
discussion about the applicant constructing trail sections which could allow for a reduction of park
dedication fees. [Engineering comment: Note that developments are generally required to construct
sidewalk, curb and gutter in adjacent public rights -of -way. This needs to be balanced with trail construction
costs.] The Parks Department agrees with the proposed dedication fee, but it must be approved by Council.
The trail needs to be protected from having highway snow plowed onto it
9. Environmental Health — (a) Replacement traffic mitigation measures are needed. (b) The City Attorney
is researching the legality of using washing machine gray water for irrigation. (c) As provided for by the
newly enacted ordinance, the dumpsters or enclosures need to be bear -proof.
��
10. Snow Storage - The applicant needs to designate snow storage areas on the final PUD site plan.
11. Improvement Districts - The applicant should be required to agree to join any improvement districts
that are formed for the purpose of constructing improvements in adjacent public rights -of -way and to
provide a signed and notarized agreement with recording fees prior to the final building inspection.
12. Work in the Public Right-of-way - Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and
development in public rights -of -way adjacent to private property, we advise the applicant as follows:
The applicant must receive approval from city engineering (920-5080) for design of
improvements, including landscaping, within public rights -of -way, parks department (920-5120) for
vegetation species, and streets department (920-5130) for mailboxes , street and alley cuts,'and shall obtain
permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within public rights -of -way from the city
community development department.
DRC Meeting Attendees
Staff: Torn Bracewell, Ed VanWalraven, Chris Bendon, Cindy Christensen, Lee Cassin, Phil Overeynder,
John Krueger, Rebecca Schickling, StephanieLevesque, Chuck Roth
Applicant's representatives: Jim Curtis, Michael Hassig, Julia Marshall, Eric Hendricks
99M59
3
M �IURINM'slim
TO: Chris Bendon
FROM: Sara Thomas, City Zoning Officer
RE: Zoning Analysis for Burlingame Seasonal Housing Final PUD &
Subdivision
DATE: May 18, 1999
VARIANCES:
The Burlingame Seasonal Housing proposal appears to comply with the R/MFA zone
district dimensional requirements with the exception of setback and open space criteria.
Floor area calculations were not verified at this time as the drawings included in the
application packet do not contain adequate detail for this level of review. All
dimensional requirements will be re -verified at time of building permit submittal.
Section 26.04.100 'Yards (A)(5)(6) of the Municipal Land Use Code permits uncovered
slabs which do not exceed thirty inches (30") above or below natural grade to project into
the required setbacks without restriction. The proposed access roadway will be requiring
a cut in excess of 30" within the front and side yard setbacks.
In addition, only fences, hedges and walls that are less than six feet (6') in height, as
measured from natural grade, are permitted within setback areas. There are two retaining
walls indicated on the Site Development Plan in excess of six feet in height within the
required rear and side yard setbacks.
Section 26.04.100 Open.Space (E) of the Municipal Land Use Code excludes from open
space calculations areas more than four (4) feet above, or two (2) feet below the existing
grade of the street which abuts the open space. Due to the proposed significant regarding
of the parcel , the entire parcel does not technically meet the open space criteria.
PUD variances for open space and setbacks will be required in order to address these
issues.
IMPACT FEES:
1. A Park Development Impact Fee is assessed on all development in the City of
Aspen that creates additional bedrooms in residential dwellings. The fee is based on
the number of bedrooms per dwelling unit and is assessed as follows:
Studio: $1,520.00 per unit
One -bedroom: $2,120.00 per unit
Two -bedroom: $2,725.00 per unit
Three bedroom or larger: $3,634.00 per unit
The proposed units are configured as two bedroom units and would therefore be
assessed at $2,725.00 per unit, $275,225 total for the 101 units.
Section 26.44.060 permits the applicant to request city council to reduce or waive this
fee for development of affordable housing.
2. School Land Dedication Standards apply to all new subdivisions within the City of
Aspen which contain residential units. The land dedication is assessed based on the
unit type and may be provided either with a land dedication to the city or by making a
cash payment in lieu to the city. The applicant is requesting that the city make a
determination that the proposed seasonal housing units are dormitories, thereby
exempting the project from the land dedication standard.
A dwelling unit is defined by the Land Use Code as: a separately enterable, self-
sufcient room or combination of rooms which contain kitchen and bath facilities and
which are designedfor or used as a residence by a single family or guests,
independent of other families or guests.
A dormitory is defined as: a structure or portion thereof under single management
that provides group sleeping accommodations for guests or residents in one or more
rooms for compensation. Occupancy of a dormitory unit shall be limited to no more
than eight persons. Each unit shall provide a minimum of one hundred fifty (1 5 0)
square feet per person of net living area, including sleeping, bathroom, cooking and
lounge used in common.
The proposed units are configured to be self sufficient, separately enterable and may
be used independently. They each contain their own kitchen and bath facilities and
do not offer facilities which are common to all residents. The units clearly meet the
definition of dwelling unit and do not comply with the standards applicable to
dormitory units as defined by the Land Use Code.
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
MEMORANDUM
To: Chris Bendon, Community Development Department
From: Lee Cassin , Environmental Health Department
Date: May 19,1999
Re: Burlingame Seasonal Housing — Final PUD and Subdivision
PID # 2735-023
The Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department has reviewed the land use submittal under
authority of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, and has the following comments, which are
in addition to the comments made during the conceptual review.
SEWAGE TREATMENT AND COLLECTION: Section 11-1.7 :
"It shall be unlawful for the owner or occupant of any building used for residence or business purposes within the city to construct or
reconstruct an on -site sewage disposal device."
The plans to provide sewage disposal for this project through the central collection lines of the
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District (ACSD) meet the requirements of this department. The
applicant would like to use the wastewater from the washing machines to irrigate either berms or
common areas or both. From a resource and environmental point of view, this would be a very
beneficial process, since water consumption would be greatly reduced and it would not be
necessary to.use treated water for irrigation, which requires chemicals and energy to produce.
Unfortunately, state regulations effectively prohibit use of gray water for irrigation. However,
state regulations DO allow drip irrigation systems for disposal of sewage. We would like to work
with the applicant to see if such a system can be installed for the washing machine waste. This
does not need to be resolved for approval, since if it is not feasible, the applicant can connect the
washing machines to the sanitary sewer lines.
ADEQUATE PROVISIONS FOR WATER NEEDS: Section 23-55:
"All buildings, structures, facilities, parks, or the like within the city limits which use water shall be connected to the municipal water utility
system."
The provision of potable water from the City of Aspen system is consistent with Environmental
Health policies ensuring the supply of safe water. The City of Aspen water supply meets all
standards of the Colorado Department of Health for drinking water quality. There are no
additional conditions.
WATER QUALITY IMPACTS: Section 11-1.3:
"For the purpose of maintaining and protecting its municipal water supply from injury and pollution, the city shall exercise regulatory and
supervisory jurisdiction within the incorporated limits of the City of Aspen and over all streams and sources contributing to municipal water
supplies for a distance of five (5) miles above the points from which municipal water supplies are diverted."
A drainage plan to mitigate the water quality impacts from drive and parking areas will be
evaluated by the City Engineer. This application is not expected to impact down stream water
quality.
AIR QUALITY: Sections 11-2.1:
"It is the purpose of (the air quality section of the Municipal Code] to achieve the maximum practical degree of air purity possible by requiring
the use of all available practical methods and techniques to control, prevent and reduce air pollution throughout the city..." The Land Use
Regulations seek to "lessen congestion" and "avoid transportation demands that cannot be met" as well as to "provide clean air by protecting
the natural air sheds and reducing pollutants".
The municipal code requires developments to achieve the maximum practical degree of air purity
by using all available practical methods to reduce pollution and utilize automobile disincentive
measures. Using the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Report, Sixth Edition,
approximately 446 trips per day would be generated by the proposed project. The applicant has
proposed a number of measures that have the potential to successfully reduce automobile use.
This department agrees that eventually this project will be transit -oriented when the pedestrian
underpass at the Old Stage Road area and the signalized crosswalk for pedestrians at Buttermilk
are constructed. These two features will enable pedestrians to cross the highway safely to access
bus service into town. However, at this time the dates for construction of the underpass and the
signalized intersection are not certain and will likely not be in place when the development is
completed. If residents have to cross Highway 82 at this location to catch a bus, especially when it
is icy, a very large disincentive for bus use exists.
To allow access to town without use of cars, the applicant has agreed to provide a shuttle
bus service if the project is ready for occupancy before the traffic light and underpass are
completed "to ensure that residents will be able to safely cross SH 82. This shuttle bus will
operate until there is safe crossing infrastructure across SH 82, including off-seasons." It
will operate in the summer and in the winter. This safe crossing infrastructure needs to a
include the traffic light and crosswalk in the middle of the site, and the underpass at the
NW end of the project but as close to the middle of the site as possible.
In addition, we support the recommendations made by the Transportation and Parking
Department. In particular, Parking Plan A would reduce trips much more effectively than
would Parking Plan B. It also should be more convenient for residents to walk to the bus stop or
bike path than to their parking area. An effective pedestrian refuge is crucial at the crosswalk
area. The underpass should be as far to the east as possible. If people have to walk a few
2
hundred feet to a bus stop and then wait, compared to having much easier access to their cars,
there is a significant disincentive for bus use, especially from October through April: A
condition of approval should also be that a connecting trail be constructed between the
underpass and Buttermilk.
We also recommend that the applicant make every attempt to place the bicycle parking spaces
in areas that will be covered. This could include bike hanging hooks, or putting the posts or
racks under overhangs. This will make people more likely to use their bikes, since they will not
be damaged or in need of maintenance due to exposure to rain and snow.
Finally, we recommend that the conditions of approval include the strategies to which the .�
applicant committed earlier.
FUGITIVE DUST As described in our earlier comments, a fugitive dust control plan is required.
It must include, but is not limited to fencing, watering of haul roads and disturbed areas, daily or
more frequent cleaning of adjacent paved roads to remove mud that has been carried out, speed
limits, or other measures necessary to prevent windblown dust from crossing the property line or
causing a nuisance.
Dust control will be crucial -for this project due to its proximity to SH 82, the Maroon Creek Club
and residences.
NOISE ABATEMENT: Section 16-1:
"The city council finds and declares that noise is a significant source of environmental pollution that represents a present and increasing threat
to the public peace and to the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the City of Aspen and it its visitors ...... Accordingly, it is the policy
of council to provide standards for permissible noise levels in various areas and manners and at various times and to prohibit noise in excess of
those levels."
During construction, noise can not exceed maximum permissible sound level standards, and
construction cannot be done except between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. By the time
construction begins on this project, the City's noise law will have been revised to allow
construction to continue only until 7 PM, and not to occur on Sundays. We would recommend
these hours in any case for this project, given its proximity to neighbors.
We recommend that the applicant notify neighbors who might be affected, before any time when
there will be especially loud noise from the construction.
3
ME.4I0RAND UYI
TO: CRIS BENDON, COM11UNITYDEVELOPMENT
FROM: TIMANDERSON, RECREATION DIRECTOR
DATE: MAY 19, 1999
RE: PARKING FOR SEASONAL HOUSING'
Summary: In discussions with Lee Novak of the housing authority and Jim Curtis of
Curtis & Associates, the golf course has agreed to the use of up to 80 parking spaces for
seasonal housing. These 80 spaces would be used by seasonal housing only during the
winter months. The seasonal housing will be required to cordon off the spaces and gate
the access as to provide control of the area and assure the space is utilized for seasonal
housing only. The remaining 40 spaces will be maintained by the golf course for the
purpose of Cross Country Skiing guests. The seasonal housing will be paying the golf
course for the use of these parking spaces over the winter months.
Other Considerations: The gates and security improvements will be removed following
winter so that parking lot may serve both the golf course and the tennis complex to be
constructed.
Currently a taxi service utilizes the parking lot for their winter storage of vehicles. This
service is no longer going to do so and the seasonal housing will simply replace existing
winter parking. In fact with the winter improvements the seasonal housing is proposing I
believe the lot will be better maintained and regulated through the winter months than it
is currently.
In short this scenario should be a win win situation for both the golf course and seasonal
housing while creating literally no more impact than that which is felt currently.
IARING FORK TRANSIT AGENCY
PEN, COLORADO
To: Chris Bendon, Community Development Depart ent
From: Mike Davis, Roaring Fork Transit Agency
CQ Jim Curtis, Project Manager
Date: 05/19/99
Re: Burlingame Seasonal Housing Final PUD & Subdivision
Summer Transit Service
Alternative transportation issues for Burlingame Seasonal Housing were discussed in
a memo dated December 11, 1998 by Claude Morelli and Mike Davis. This memo
analyzed extending the existing MAA buses to serve Burlingame. This scenario was
found to cause a reduction in service which in turn, reduced transit passengers.
After meeting with the MAA recently, a better transit solution was discussed. This
included keeping the existing MAA bus system, adding a new route which would
travel between Burlingame and Campus, and adding a route from Burlingame to the
music tent for concerts on Wednesdays, Fridays, and Sundays. (See Figure A.)
The route from Burlingame to Campus would run between 7:00 A.M. and 11:00 P.M.
on a headway of 30 minutes (frequency of 30 minutes). Using RFTA's service
Analysis Form, this service would require 2.3 buses and 6 drivers for an annual
operating cost of $94,788 in 1999 dollars (See Attachment A). Capital costs were
estimated to be $115,693 ($11,390 annually.)
Service from Burlingame to the concerts on Wednesdays, Fridays, and Sundays
would depend on driver availability. If RFTA can provide this service the cost could
be around $5,350 annually depending on the number of concerts. (See attached
Table A.)
0 Page 1
The bus scenario, previously described, should be able to achieve high transit
ridership. RFTA has estimated that the development will average 224 one-way
transit trips per day if the same level of transit service currently provided to MAA
students is provided to Burlingame students. (See Table B)
Winter Transit Service
RFTA has estimated that ridership for Burlingame winter and off-season service will
range from 151 a day during January to four a day during May with the winter
average being 143 passengers a day. This ridership was calculated by comparing
the land use quantities of Burlingame to the land use quantities of Aspen (See Table
C). RFTA realizes that this ridership estimation is low since the Burlingame
development is entirely employee housing, however, we feel it is a good base from
which to estimate costs.
The subsidy requirements needed to serve these additional passengers can be
calculated by assessing existing subsidy requirements and passenger activity levels.
As passenger activity peaks during the winter season, average winter daily transit
ridership is a valid measure of passenger activity. In 1998, RFTA's Downvalley
services incurred a total operating subsidy requirement (total operating cost minus
fare revenues) of $2,887,519. Over the average winter day, the Downvalley service
carried 5,825 passenger -trips. Operating subsidy required to operate this service
therefore equaled $495.71 per winter daily passenger -trip. Multiplying this figure by
the increase in passenger -trips created by MAA Burlingame winter service, the total
impact of the proposed development on operating subsidy needs is estimated to
equal $70,886 per year in 1998 dollars.
In addition, the increase in ridership associated with the proposal will increase capital
costs associated with the Downvalley service. RFTA's projection of capital needs
over the next twelve years indicates an annual average capital funding requirement
of $2,862,956. However, some of these funds can be expected to be generated from
federal transit funding programs; a review of federal capital funding received over the
last 10 years indicates an average revenue of $650,000. The difference of
$2,212,956 represents the local funding required for RFTA capital needs.
An equitable way of allocating capital costs to the Downvalley service is by the
proportion of annual vehicle -hours of service. The Downvalley services currently
comprise 54.27 percent of all RFTA services. Using this proportion, the estimated
local capital subsidy required for RFTA equals $1,200,979, or $206.18 per winter
daily rider. Multiplying this latter figure by the number of additional daily riders
generated by the proposed development and a capital impact of $29,484 per year is
identified.
• Page 2
Conclusion
Summer service as described in this memo would require 2.3 additional buses and 6
drivers to operate at a cost of $94,788 per year, not including concert runs. Since
RFTA does not have adequate resources to ran this service, RFTA will need an
annual payment of $94,788 from the developer before services can be provided. In
addition, the capital costs associated with this service will be $115,000 ($11,390
annually). RFTA is interested in receiving housing units as part of the mitigation for
capital costs.
Winter and off-season transit service for Burlingame will add additional riders onto
the valley bus service requiring and estimated annual subsidy of $71,000 for
operating costs and $29,484 for capital costs. RFTA feels these costs should be
mitigated for by the developer. Again, RFTA is interested in receiving housing units
as part of the mitigation for the capital costs.
• Page 3
ROARING FORK TRANSIT AGENCY
Attachment
tt a c h m e n t w ASPEN, COLORADO
H LL��1 SERVICE CHANGE ANALYSIS FOR 1999
Planner Mike Davis Hours of Service 7:00 A.M. to 11:00 P.M.
Route MAA Burlingame Days of Service Mon -Sun
A. DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE CHANGE:
Cost of MAA Burlingame Route
B. OPERATING LEVELS: source - Winter 1998/99 ATC 33
by Mike Davis
Date 19-May-99
Effective Date
One -Way
Daily Service
Miles/Trip Running Min.
Trips Days/Year
3.00 20.0
64 68
@ Revenue Miles
14,362 * Total Miles 1 14,994
@ Revenue Hours
1,596 # Platform Hours 1 2,127
@ Revenue miles and hours plus budget factor of:
10.0%
" Revenue Miles plus deadhead factor of:
4.4%
# Revenue Hours plus deadhead/layover factor of:
C. GROSS GUS IS: source - 7 Jyy KI- I A f (nal budget (11 /zwvd) - txninit L
Op. Cost/Plat Hour $26.85 Maint. Cost/Total Mile $0.86
Annual Operating Cost $57,113 Annual Maintenance Cost $12,894
Direct Annual Operating Costj $70,007
Fixed Cost/Plat Hour: $11.65 Direct Annual Fixed Costj $24,781
Total Gross Costj $94,788
Unit Costs:
Gross Cost/Total Mile $6.32 Gross Cost/Passenger #DIV/01
Compare RFTA'99 System Ave. _ $3.25 RFTA'99 System Ave. = $2.69
E. PASSENGER REVENUE: source - 1999 RFTA.Final Budget (11125/98) - Exhibit L
Average Passenger Fare
Annual Passenger Revenue $0
Revenue Recovery Ratio of Direct Operating Costs:
RFTA'99 System Average = This Change 0.0%
/EHICLE REQUIREMENTS:
Round Trip 40.0 EOL (min) 20 Required Buses ]
Travel Time (min.) Spare Ratio = 15% 0.30
Total _
Headway (min.) 30 EOL (%) 33.3% Required Busesl 2.30
G. DRIVER REQUIREMENTS:
H. NET COSTS:
I. Total Costs:
L BUS REPLACEMENT COSTS:
$94,788 Passenger Revenue:
Driver Requirementsl5.76
$0
Net Annual Costj $94,788
Type of Bus 40' Transit Cost Per Bus: $270,000.00
Takes into account service days per year Total Bus Replacement Costsl $115,693
A
Costs of Burlingame Concert Buses
k'99.9 any oft - ate`S�Po -�
ery c
$38.50 Per Hour
$0.86 Per Mile
Eurin ale oncert111Ct3.�aete�is[cs..
W �
Hours Miles
Per Day Per Day
Days
4.5 6
30
Hourly Cost $5,197.50
Mileage Cost $154.80
Total Cost $5,352.30
[OE
Burlingame Seasonal Housing MAA Ridership - Summer
One -Way
Average*
MAA
Average
Daily
opulation Trip
Daily
MAA
Generation
Burlingame
Burlingame
Monthly
Ridershipj
950 Rate
Population
Ridership Days
Ridership
June 1042
1.09705293
200
219 21
4608
July 1151
1.21191751
200
242 31
7514
August 1002
1.05525155'
200
211 16
3377
Average
224 Total
15498
* Student ridership was estimated by subtracting tent passengers.
Table C:
Burlingame Seasonal Housing Ridership Off -Season and Winter
Average* Aspen
Average
Daily Population
Trip
Daily
Aspen
Generation
Burlingame Burlingame
Monthly
Ridership
Rate
Occupancy
Ridership
Days
Ridership
January
4,162
0.7534687
200
151
31
4,672
February
4,082
0.7390413
200
148
28
4,139
March
4,098
0.7419063
200
148
31
4,600
April
2,470
0.4470734
200
89
30
2,682
May
1,172
0.2122527
20
4
31
132
September
1,689
0.3058231
60
18
30
550
October
1,510
0.2733994
140
38
31
1,187
November
2,120
0.3838161
200
77
30
2,303
December
3,423
0.6196538
200
124
31
3,842
Winter Average
143 Annual Total
24,106
Note: Source RFTA 1998 Ridership Information
NIEMORA,NDUNI ASPEN i PITKIN
TO: Chris Bendon, Community Development Department
FROM: David Bravdica, Assistant Director of Aviation:`
DATE: Monday, May 17, 1999
SUBJ: Burlingame Seasonal Housing Final PUD &
Subdivision
CC: Suzanne Konchan, County Manager
Airport staff has reviewed the Final P.U.D. Application and offers the following
comments:
It appears that several concerns and requirements as noted in past comments from the
airport has either been omitted or not considered in the Final P.U.D. Application.
I reiterate the following comments and concerns:
1. Noise impacts from arriving and departing aircraft will be significant.
2. The proposed development lies within the airport high hazard zone.
3. The proposed development is directly adjacent to the Runway Protection
Zone.
Each of the above listed items is explained in more detail in the attached documents. The
documents attached are comments and concerns, dated January 19, 1998 and November
27,1998, of the Burlingame Seasonal Housing development from the airport as solicited
by Community Development.
In addition to the comments above, it is required by the airport and subsequently Pitkin
County that the sponsor of the development execute an avigation easement. Again, this
requirement is absent from the language in the final application.
Lastly, the proximity and location to the airport combined with the intended utilization of
the proposed development does not adhere to the principles of compatible land use. As a *7
result, the airport staff does formally object to the proposed project.
t
DATE: November 27, 1998
To: Aspen Community Development Department
Aspen City Council, Pitkin County Board of County
Commissioners
FROM: Scott Smith, Pitkin County Director of Aviation j
RE: Conceptual PUD Application, Burlingame Seasonal Housing
CC: Suzanne Konchan, County Manager
I have again reviewed the above referenced project, .and notwithstanding the
airport's previous review memorandums dated July 25, 1997 and January 19,
1998, offer the following concerns:
1. Construction on this parcel will require submission of FAA Form 7460,
Notice of Construction or Alteration, by the applicant. The proper form for the
notice has been forwarded to Tom Baker by the airport.
2. Due to the reality of airport noise impacts on the proposed development, I
continue to strongly recommend that construction standards be implemented
which will result in a exterior/interior noise reduction of 30 dBA for the sake of the
future residents in these buildings. Materials detailing the additional standards
necessary to achieve this reduction are available to the applicant from the airport
and from the applicant's own resources.
3. An avigation easement should be executed with the County before the
development takes place. A current avigation easement with exhibits has been
forwarded to Mr. Baker,
3. The runway protection zone (RPZ) for runway 33 extends approximately
100 - 150 ` beyond highway 82 from the airport into this parcel. I recommend
that no development take place on that portion of the property that lies within the
RPZ, with the exception of the construction of a landform berm and the proposed
pedestrian underpass.
M E M 0 R A N D U M
DATE: January 19, 1998
To: Aspen City Council; Dave Tolen; Jim Curtis •-----
it
FROM: Scott Smith, Director of Aviation
RE: Burlingame Ranch, Parcel "B", Potential Airport
Impacts on Affordable Housing Project
CC: Suzanne Konchan, County Manager
I have again reviewed the above referenced project, and offer the following
concerns:
1. Single -event noise impacts from Stage 2 aircraft departures will be
significant (85-90 dBA). For comparison, a 90 dBA event is similar to the sound
level of a motorcycle at a distance of 25 feet. Airport statistics indicate that the
property is subject to 850 -1,000 Stage 2 departures annually. Compatible land
use around airports is defined by the local community, and this definition usually
places noise tolerant uses closer to flight paths than noise sensitive ones.
Housing is viewed as one of the more sensitive uses. Airport staff strongly
recommends that housing not be located on this parcel.
2. The property lies within the airport high hazard zone, defined as a zone
within which encompasses the majority of flight paths/patterns used at the
airport which subjects the property to flight hazards.
3. The runway protection zone (RPZ) for runway 33 extends approximately
100 - 150 ' beyond highway 82 from the airport into this parcel. This places
proposed development directly adjacent to the RPZ. The RPZ is an area created
for "the protection of persons and property on the ground". The airport questions
the appropriateness of placing housing directly adjacent to the RPZ.
4. In addition to potential problems of development on this parcel related to
dust, smoke, glare, radio magnetic interference and lighting, any future
improvements related to Stage Road intersection will create potential for lighting
issues with airport operations.
It is the. airport's recommendation that Parcel "B" be withdrawn from
consideration for housing development and that other parcels ("D", "A") which
are more suitably located for airport operations be considered for housing
development.
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
Sy Kelly * Chairman John Keleher
Paul Smith * Treas �' �� Frank Loushin
Nlichael Kelly * S ecy Bruce Matherly, Nigr
May 10, 1999
Chris Bendon
Community Development
00 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Burlingame Final PITD
Dear Chris:
The Burlingame Seasonal Housing project is located within the District's service area. The
application proposes two short line extensions in order to provide service to this area. A line
extension request and collection system agreement will be required and -must be approved by our
Board of Directors. Both forms are available at our District office. Shared service line agreements
will be required if individual buildings containing multiple units are served by a single service line.
The detailed on -site collection system plan will need to be. reviewed and approved by our
engineers once it becomes available. We would also like to review the detailed landscape,
irrigation, and drainage plans to ensure compliance with the District's regulations.
Treatment facility capacity is currently available but collection system capacity will need to be
reviewed through a downstream flow study. If downstream constraints exist then they would be
eliminated through a system of proportionate additional fees.
The total connection fees for the project can be estimated when the detailed plans are approved,
and tap permit is completed at our office. We would request that all of the total connection fees
be paid prior to the issuance of building permits. "
As usual, service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and
specifications which are on file at the District office.
Sincerely,
Bruce Matherly
District Manager
565 N. Mill S t.,Aspen, CO 81611 / (970)925-3601 / FAX (970) 925-2537
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chris Bendon, Community Planner
FROM: Claude Morelli, Transportation Planner
DATE: 14 May 1999
RE: Burlingame Seasonal Housing -- Final PUD & Subdivision
This memorandum responds to your request for referral agency comments on the final'
application for the Burlingame Seasonal Housing PUD. The Transportation and Parking
Department's recommendations regarding this project are as follows:
1. Transportation & Parking Department staff strongly prefers parking Plan "A" to
Parking Plan "B". Plan "A" offers much greater potential for project residents to
choose alternative travel modes over driving alone. Research on travel behavior
shows a strong positive correlation between the availability of automobiles and the
number of "solo" trips made by car. Separation of a residence from its parking
effectively reduces automobile availability for most types of trips.
2. Pedestrian connections between the housing units and the "trail head" for access to
the Highway 82 bus stops are not sufficiently clear, distinct and safe to promote high
rates of transit use. Ironically, this is in stark contrast to connections between the
housing units and the parking area. Our interpretation of the"Site Development Plan
- Technical" is that pedestrian access to the Highway 82 bus stops would require
cutting through the circular drive just south of the Commons Building. This creates
an unacceptable conflict between pedestrians, automobiles and the MAA shuttle
buses. Pedestrian paths between the Highway 82 bus stops and housing units in the
proposed development should be uninterrupted, pleasant, and easy to navigate and
use. At a minimum, a curbed sidewalk at least six feet wide should be provided along
the edge of the circular drive.
3. Access between the housing units and the parking need not be direct. The area
between the parking lot and the common area needs to be appropriately landscaped.
Thus, the northernmost pedestrian connection between the housing and the parking
lot should be eliminated, and some sort of low fence or low vegetation provided to
separate the parking lot from the common area (while continuing to keep the parking
lot visible to residents for safety and security purposes).
4. The intersection of the pedestrian trail leading to the Highway 82 bus stops and the
BUR-REF2 Page 1 of 2
driveway leading to the parking area should be designed to ensure safety and give
priority to pedestrians. For example, the intersection could be designed as a raised
crosswalk with flared curbs on both sides to slow motorists.
5. The title of and all references to "Parking Management Plan" in the application
(especially on pages 8 and 9) should be changed to "Transportation and Parking
Management Plan."
6. Item 97 in the list of transportation management techniques shown on pages 8 and 9
should be amended as follows: `Bicycles will be made available for free to project
residents on a `use and return' basis or other system. Such system will be monitored
closely and adjusted periodically (if need be) by the Property Manager working in
close consultation with Transportation & Parking Department staff."
7. Add a new item to the list: "At least two secure bicycle parking spaces (e.g., ribbon
racks, lean posts, bike hanging hooks, etc.) will be provided close to the front door of ,
every unit in the project. At least eight `visitor' bicycle parking spaces will also be
made available near the entrance to the Commons Building."
8. Add a new item to the list: "As a means of monitoring and evaluating the
Transportation and Parking Management Plan, the property manager will cooperate
with Transportation & Parking Department staff to conduct summer and winter
surveys of resident travel patterns and preferences."
9. Add a new item to the list: "The project manager will ensure that all residents
periodically receive updated transportation options information from the City
Transportation & Parking Department. Means of distributing the information may
include mailbox inserts, bulletin boards, outdoor signs, etc."
10. Add a new item to the list: "All project residents will receive one taxi voucher per
month for shopping travel. The cost of the voucher will be included in the rent."
BUR-REF2 Page 2 of 2
4-4
4-1
cd "o 4�-4 +� U O � O cd
7�-� U ,� U U 0 4 � � ,SUS' • � C� � � U rJ U � � • �--i • � � O
cd
� 't� ¢, ' � cd U cd
rcl cd
� , � U O �-' c U cd cd cd cd U U
-14 cd
O �, +, Ur-4 UC/)
O O O U ,� O ,� 1-4
= p O U
4� U U c� U ' U ++� U p y 'd +.� •� cd Co
Oi O U 'b UUQN� U -�-4� y7i cd U) aj) "-4
Ucd
a N cd •'-' }cd tip � O � i-, bb
,cd
a+ a, .d . • r-4 � --4 Cd
Ens, .� '"� �, �,+'v� �•.� bAOprd �U
B .
cd
00 cd
Cd vs bi) cis Mr
U �; .� C'n. ,.., U)+� ,� 00 O " • �' ,� 00 O p4 }' U s-, bA >, .
�' cd • ,-+ +� O "o cd cd cd U U by cd �, c� ��+ +
cd U ^' ,� U CA �' -� �+ U .�' cn O cd
O O O O O
O (� �O� NOS NOS NOS OS
Ucd 4 En
� ItU�
Sardy Field
Aspen/Pitkin County Airport
June 15, 1999
City of Aspen
Chris Bendon
Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Dept.
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Re. Burlingame Seasonal Housing Final PUD & Subdivision
Dear Chris:
0233 East Airport Road
Aspen, Colorado 81 61 1
970/920-5384
FAX 970/920-5378
RECEIVED
J u N 1 5 1999
ASPEN / s-'iTKIIJ
iP�IIT`d DEVFLOPKAFNi'r
Thank you for allowing the Aspen/Pitkin Count Airport this opportunity to submit comments regarding the
above mentioned project.
As you are aware, the Airport has submitted numerous written and verbal comments regarding this
development over the past two years. Our position and concern with the residential units being located in
close proximity to the runway and runway protection zone, RPZ, are on record with the City. I have attached
copies of earlier correspondence regarding this project for your information.
I would like to reiterate the following comments that the airport feels should be included as conditions for
annroval. It is our opinion that following these suggestions will help mitigate adverse impacts on the
inhabitants from aircraft noise exposures. Except for condition #4, all of these items have been previously
suggested. I feel condition #4 is a good suggestion because it will serve to advise people, prior to their
moving in, that the airport is in close proximity and may cause adverse effects, such as noise. This
notification helps advise the public and can also provide some liability protection for the City and County.
1. The property owner will execute and record a standard form avigation easement over the entire
development. This document will be recorded in the County records. The airport's standard form easement
agreement has been supplied to City representatives and it is our understanding that this condition is
acceptable.
2. Construction materials and techniques will be employed to prevent and protect airport users against
problems of dust, smoke, glare, radio magnetic interference and light and any other potential problems that
could affect the navigation of aircraft arriving and departing the airport.
3. Utilization of appropriate construction materials, products, techniques and landscaping will be used that
reduces the interior decibel sound levels to a level that is acceptable or in conformance with local, state or
federal rules and guidelines. The airport will assist the City in this goal by providing available studies that
Chris B endon
June 15,1999
Page 2
forecast future airport growth, fleet mix, current and future noise curves/footprints and any other data that
might be of use. The City should analyze the noise impacts of future airport conditions and factor this
information into a noise mitigation plan.
4. A public disclosure form should be developed that clearly advises all inhabitants of the housing project
that the airport is in close proximity ' and might have varying degrees of effect on the property. This
disclosure should be signed . prior to anyone moving in. The airport will assist in preparation of this
document, if so desired.
5. The airport would appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on the specific site development
plans prior to construction.
Please advise me if you have any questions concerning these comments or if you would like to discuss them
further. Thank you again for allowing us this opportunity
Sincerely,
David C. Gordon E.
Interim Airport Dire for
cc: Suzanne Konchan
Jim Curtis
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: February .18, 1999
TO: BOCC, Aspen City Council
THROUGH: Suzanne Konchan
FROM: Scott Smith, Director of Aviation`.
RE: FAA Objection to MAA Seasonal. Housing Site
This memo is to inform you that the Denver Airports District Office of the FAA, in response
to the filed "Notice of Construction or Alteration" for the above referenced project, is
recommending to the FAA regional office that the FAA file an objection to this project.
Said objection will be based on several issues, as follows:
1. NOISE: Residential land use is generally noise sensitive. The site lies just
outside of the 60 dNL noise exposure contour. As such, it is considered compatible with
airport operations under normal as well as County -adopted guidelines. However, future
increases in air traffic may result in the 60 dNL contour moving farther out from the
airport, potentially placing the site within the 60-65 dNL contour (marginally compatible
with airport operations) or even within the 65 dNL contour (incompatible). If this were to
happen, based on a filed objection from FAA, the County would not be able to secure
future FAA funds for noise mitigation projects such as property purchase or
soundproofing, related to this site. The current national noise policy within DOT
emphasizes prevention of incompatible uses rather than remediation.
2.. Critical Zone: The structures would be just outside the Runway Protection Zone,
which means they are within the Critical Zone as defined by the CO House Bill 1041
Model Land Use Regulations, Chapter 10, Article 10-102(4). The referenced section
describes a Critical Zone as "areas 2,000 feet wide extending 5,000 feet horizontally from
a point 200 feet from each end of visual runways" (runway "33" is a visual runway). The
model regulations describe single family dwellings, mobile homes, multiple family
dwellings, dormitories, etc. located within the critical zone as being incompatible with
airport operations.
pointed out to the FAA representative that 1) the model land use regulations also specify
that local governments may wish to designate critical zones with smaller boundaries,
provided the critical zone is no smaller than the RPZ established by FAA design
standards, and 2) the County land use code does not prohibit residential uses in the
Critical Zones per se, but rather lists specific prohibited uses/activities, none of which
specifically exclude residential uses. Furthermore, in examining the County Land Use
Code, I do not find any definition of the size of critical zones, nor do I find any record of
the County establishing a critical zone smaller in size that that described in 1041.
So what does the filing of an objection really mean? It means that the airport will likely
never be eligible for federal funding to soundproof these units in the event that either the
existing noise contours move outward or the filing of significant complaints from the
residents about noise.
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: January 19, 1998
TO: Aspen City Council; Dave Tolen; Jim Curtis
FROM: Scott Smith, Director of Aviation
RE: Burlingame Ranch, Parcel "B", Potential Airport
Impacts on Affordable Housing Project
CC: Suzanne Konchan, County Manager
have again reviewed the above referenced project, and offer the following
concerns:
1. Single -event noise impacts from Stage 2 aircraft departures will be
significant (85-90 dBA). For comparison, a 90 dBA event is similar to the sound
level of a motorcycle at a distance of 25 feet. Airport statistics indicate that the
property is subject to 850 -1,000 Stage 2 departures annually. Compatible land
use around airports is defined by the local community, and this definition usually
places noise tolerant uses closer to flight paths than noise sensitive ones.
Housing is viewed as one of the more sensitive uses. Airport staff strongly
recommends that housing not be located on this parcel.
2. The property lies within the airport high hazard zone, defined as a zone
within which encompasses the majority of flight paths/patterns used at the
airport which subjects the property to flight hazards.
3. The runway protection zone (RPZ) for runway 33 extends approximately
100 - 150 ` beyond highway 82 from the airport into this parcel. This places
proposed development directly adjacent to the RPZ. The RPZ is an area created
for "the protection of persons and property on the ground". The airport questions
the appropriateness of placing housing directly adjacent to the RPZ.
4. In addition to potential problems of development on this parcel related to
dust, smoke, glare, radio magnetic interference and lighting, any future
improvements related to Stage Road intersection will create potential for lighting
issues with airport operations.
It is the airport's recommendation that Parcel "B" be withdrawn from
consideration for housing development and that other parcels ("D", "A") which
are more suitably located for airport operations be considered for housing
development.
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: November 27, 1998
TO: Aspen Community Development Department
Aspen City Council, Pitkin County Board of County
Commissioners
FROM: Scott Smith, Pitkin County Director of Aviation,``,,r
RE: Conceptual PUD Application, Burlingame Seasonal Housing
CC: Suzanne Konchan, County Manager
I have again reviewed the above referenced project, .and notwithstanding the
airport's previous review memorandums dated July 25, 1997 and January 19,
1998, offer the following concerns:
1. Construction on this parcel will require submission of FAA Form 7460,
Notice of Construction or Alteration, by the applicant. The proper form for the
notice has been forwarded to Tom Baker by the airport.
2. Due to the reality of airport noise impacts on the proposed development, I
continue to strongly recommend that construction standards be implemented
which will result in a exterior/interior noise reduction of 30 dBA for the sake of the
future residents in these buildings. Materials detailing the additional standards
necessary to achieve this reduction are available to the applicant from the airport
and from the applicant's own resources.
3. An avigation easement should be executed with the County before the
development takes place. A current avigation easement with exhibits has been
forwarded to Mr. Baker.
3. The runway protection zone (RPZ) for runway 33 extends approximately
100 -150 ` beyond highway 82 from the airport into this parcel. I recommend
that no development take place on that portion of the property that lies within the
RPZ, with the exception of the construction of a landform berm and the proposed
pedestrian underpass.
P
Attachment 8
County of Pitkin } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT
} SS. TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATIONS
State of Colorado } SECTION 26.52.060(E)
I, �-� Z� , being or representing an
Applicant t th City of Aspen, personally certify that I have complied with the public notice
requirements p rsuant to Section 26.52.060(E) of the Aspen Municipal Code in the following
manner:
1. By mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached hereto, by first-class postage prepaid U.S.
Mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property, as indicated
on the attached list, on the 0 day of , 199a (which is [,� days prior to the public
hearing date of L).
2. By posti,4 a sign in a conspicuous place on the subject property (as it could be seen fr
I
the earest public way) and that the said sign w s posted and visible continuously from the � day
of (�l/ 199 to the 7 VA
a of 199 Must be posted for at least
GI y ( p
ten ) full days before the hearing date). A tograph of the posted sign is attached hereto.
(Attach photograph here)
Iwo
Si e before me this //' day of J (A k1 �-
199 by
JJ L (?ur4
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
M C issi ere �t&ftNO-
Notary Public
Q �ti..•
�C�LORA►40
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: BURLINGAME SEASONAL HOUSING GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA
SYSTEM EXEMPTION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, June 15, 1999, at a
meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen/Pitkin County Growth Management Commission,
Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application requesting an
exemption from the "scoring" and "competition" procedures of the Growth Management Quota
System (GMQS) for a project submitted by the Aspen Music Festival and School, 2 Music School
Road, Aspen, CO 81611 for 101 affordable housing units located near Old Stage Road and State
Highway 82, as shown in the site map below. The property is part of the Burlingame Ranch parcel
which is legally described as Lots 6 and 18, Section 2, and Lots 1, 7, 8, 9, 10, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and
21, Section 3, TS105, R85 W of the 6th PM, with exceptions. For further information, contact
Chris Bendon at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen,
CO (970) 920-5072, chrisb@ci.aspen.co.us.
sBob Blaich, Chair
Aspen/Pitkin County Growth Management Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on May 29, 1999
City of Aspen Account
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chris Bendon, Community Development Department
Sarah Oates , Community Development Department
FROM: Jim Curtis , Project Manager
DATE: May 17, 1999
RE: Addendum II
Updated Exhibit #8
Property Owners Within 300' of Burlingame Ranch
Burlingame Seasonal Housing PUD
Final PUD Application, Dated April 28, 1999
Submitted herein is an updated Exhibit 8, ("Property Owners Within 300'
of Burlingame Ranch") to replace the Exhibit 8 submitted as part of the Final
PUD Application. The updated Exhibit 8 is true and correct to the best
knowledge of the applicant as of May 17, 1999, based on the records of the
Pitkin County Assessor's and Treasurer's Offices. Multi -mailing addresses have
been used for property owners where the applicant is aware that the property
owner has a local representative or attorney.
Please use this update Exhibit 8 for all public notices, mailings, etc. for
the above referenced project. Please feel free to call on any questions
(920-1395.) Thank you.
UPDATED EXHIBIT S
BURLINGAME SEASONAL HOUSING PUD
PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300' OF BURLINGAME RANCH
1. Parcel No. 273 5-03-400040
Craig R. Stapleton
Stapleton Associates
P.O. Box 1576
Greenwich, CT 06836
2. Parcel No. 2735-02-309052
Maroon Creek Apt. LP
Pearce Equities
10 Club Circle
Aspen, CO 81611
3. Parcel No. 2735-02-309051
Maroon Creek LLC
Maroon Creek Club House
Pearce Equities
10 Club Circle
Aspen, CO 81611
5/17/99
Craig R. Stapleton
C/O Stapleton Property
Dave Myler
Freilich, Myler, et. al, Attorneys
106 South Mill Street, Suite 202
Aspen, CO 81611
Maroon Creek Apt. LP
Pearce Equities
C/O Andrew V. Hecht
Garfield & Hecht, Attorneys
601 E. Hyman Ave.
Aspen, CO 81611
Maroon Creek LLC
Maroon Creek Club House
Pearce Equities
C/O Andrew V. Hecht
Garfield & Hecht, Attorneys
601 E. Hyman Ave.
Aspen, CO 81611
4. Parcel No. 2735-02-309051
Maroon Creek Club Lot 51
Arthur O. Pfister
P.O. Box EE
Aspen, CO 81612
5. Parcel No. 2735-112-209053
Maroon Creek LLC
Golf Course
Pearce Equities
10 Club Circle
Aspen, CO 81611
6. Parcel NO. 2735-112-209055
Maroon Creek LLC
Common Area
Pearce Equities
10 Club Circle
Aspen, CO 81611
7. Parcel No. 2735-02-300005
Soldner Family Partnership
Paul Soldner
P.O. Box 90
Aspen, CO 81612
8. Parcel No. 2735-02-300006
Joseph T. Zoline
Zoline Family Ranch
624 N. Canon Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Maroon Creek Club Lot 51
Arthur O. Pfister
C/O Andrew V. Hecht
Garfield & Hecht, Attorneys
601 E. Hyman Ave.
Aspen, CO 81611
Maroon Creek LLC
Golf Course
Pearce Equities
C/O Andrew V. Hecht
Garfield & Hecht, Attorneys
601 E. Hyman Ave.
Aspen, CO 81611
Maroon Creek LLC
Common Area
Pearce Equities
C/O Andrew V. Hecht
Garfield & Hecht, Attorneys
601.E. Hyman Ave.
Aspen, CO 81611
Soldner Family Partnership
C/O Stephanie Sullivan
P.O. Box 2238
Frisco, CO 80443
Joseph T. Zoline
Zoline Family Ranch
C/O John Lifton and
Pamela Zoline Lifton
P.O. Box 997
Telluride, CO 81435
2
9. Parcel No. 2735-02-409851
City of Aspen
City Manager
130 S . Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
10. Parcel No. 2735-02-200802
Park Trust Ltd.
P.O. Box 940
Aspen, CO 81612
11. Parcel No. 2735-02-400004
Connie Harvey
42 D AABC
Aspen, CO 81611
12. Parcel No. 2735-02-400005
Joy Caudill
P.O. Box FF
Aspen, CO 81612
13. Parcel No. 2735-03-100045
Dale Eubank
0498 Rose Lane
Carbondale, CO 81623
14. Parcel No. 273 5-03-101001 &2
BMC Holdings, Inc.
P.O. Box 7006
720 Park Blvd, Suite 200
Boise, ID 83707
Park Trust Ltd.
C/O Reid Haughey
1228 Kings Row Ave.
Carbondale, CO 81623
Connie Harvey
1100 Stage Road
Aspen, CO 81611
3
15. Parcel No. 2735-03-101003
U.S. West Communications
6300 S. Syracuse Way
Suite 700 N
Englewood, CO 80111
16. Parcel No. 2735-02-200001
Robert Lorton
Tulsa World
P.O. Box 2008
Tulsa, OK 74101
17. Parcel No. 2735-03-400039
Norwest Bank Des Moines, Trustee
Friedl Pfeifer Trust
P.O. Box 837
Des Moines, IA 50309
18. Parcel No. 2735-03-100004
Otto Studhalter & Patricia K. Jt.
3 Seven Oaks Road #L4
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
19. Parcel No. 2735-03-100851
Pitkin County Property
Pitkin County Manager
530 E. Main Street, Ste 302
Aspen, CO 81611
20. Parcel No. 2643-343-20085
Pitkin County Airport
Airport Manager
233 E. Airport Road, Ste A
Aspen, CO 81611
Pitkin County Airport
C/O Pitkin County Manager
530 E. Main Street, Suite 302
Aspen, CO 81611
El
21. Parcel No. 2735-03-400948
Buttermilk Mountain Skiing Company
C/O Chris Kiley
ASC, Planning Department
P.O. Box 1248
Aspen, CO 81612
Footnote:
This Updated Exhibit #8 is true and correct to the best knowledge of the
applicant as of May 17, 1999, based on the records of the Pitkin County for
Assessor's and Treasurer's Offices. Multi -mailing addresses have been used
property owners where the applicant is aware that the property owner has a
local representative or attorney.
5
Maroon UreeK UIUD.
9-
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: BURLINGAME SEASONAL HOUSING GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA
SYSTEM EXEMPTION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, June 15, 1999, at a
meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen/Pitkin County Growth Management Commission,
Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena. St., Aspen, to consider an application requesting an
exemption from the "scoring" and "competition" procedures of the Growth Management Quota
System (GMQS) for a project submitted by the Aspen Music Festival and School, 2 Music School
Road, Aspen, CO 81611 for 101 affordable housing units located near Old Stage Road and State
Highway 82, as shown in the site map below. The property is part of the Burlingame Ranch parcel
which is legally described as Lots 6 and 18, Section 2, and Lots 1, 7, 8, 9, 10, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and
21, Section 3, TS 105, R85 W of the 6th PM, with exceptions. For further information, contact
Chris Bendon at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen,
CO (970) 920-5072, chrisb@ci.aspen.co.us.
s/Bob Blaich, Chair
Aspen/Pitkin County Growth Management Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on May 29, 1999
City of Aspen Account
0
WITNESS LIST*
AGENDA ITEM:
ig9S
2 LGti,I frlrrrL � -- � /YI
i
NAME OF WITNESS:
1. s�ni0p�1 - Staff Person
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
* Includes staff persons, but excludes staff attorney and board members.