Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19990608ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 8, 1999 Bob Blaich, Chairperson, opened the special Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting at d~30 p.m. with Jasmine Tygre, Tim Mooney, Roger Hunt, Tim Semrau and Roger Haneman present. Ron Erickson and Steve Buettow were excused. Staff in attendance were~ Chris Bendon, Mitch Haas, Joyce Ohlson, Community Development; and Kathryn Koch, City Clerk. COMMISSIONER AND STAFF COMMENTS Tim Mooney stated that he had a lot of problems with the rezoning of Burlingame. He said that he voted in favor because he did not want to be an obstructionist and was not against the project, but the design, purpose and process of the development had a conflict of interest. Mooney stated this commission had requested an opinion from the City Attorney's office about Jim Curtis working for the City and MAA. He reiterated the request for a master plan for the entire highway corridor; an overview of the long-range impacts of these projects. He said that that he was interested to see what new information was available. He also expressed concern with the small amount of information for the projects and impacts in relation to the impacts and the code. Chris Bendon stated there was no information on Burlingame Village to be judged on its own merit at this time. Jasmine Tygre stated that there was discussion at the last meeting about the design team selection for public projects and suggested that staff provide the disclosure for the process of selection of the design team as a part of the public record. She said this was part of the responsibility since public monies were being used for these projects; it may provide a better comfort level to the public for the selection of these design teams. Joyce Ohlson responded that currently the code did not require that type of affidavit as a part of the public hearing process. She noted that a private developer was not required to disclose how they selected their consulting team. Ohlson said this issue was brought up in the work session with Housing and P&Z; P&Z was the quasi-judicial commission that publicly reviewed Housing's projects as it would any other private developer's projects. Tygre said when dealing with public funding, full disclosure was necessary. Ohlson agreed and said that maybe it should take place at the Council level. Tim Semrau stated that he would second Jasmine's comments and it was a good idea especially from the "PR" viewpoint. He encouraged staff to pursue even informally. Ohlson cautioned there was no criteria or standards in the land use code to judge the project based upon the architect chosen by the applicant. Mooney noted that the only applicant that was ever denied since he had been on the commission was a project done by Housing. 1 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 8, 1999 Ohlson reviewed the P&Z schedule with some major projects. There were meetings every Tuesday in June. ©hlson said that Council requested a member kom P&Z and I-tPC to serve on the oversight of the 7th & Main project for the issuing of contracts for certain portions. Semrau volunteered to serve. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Roger Haneman disclosed that he was an employee of a small lodge but did not feel he had a conflict. PUBLIC HEARING: TEXT AMENDMENT, SECTION 26.04. t00, DEFINITIONS, FLOOR AREA, G. ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT Bob Blaich opened the public hearing. Mitch Haas explained the code amendment was simple. He recalled the review for 855 Bay Street with an ADU above the garage. The 2-car garage was too large to accommodate the 450 sfADU above it. Council upheld the staff interpretation to the building footprint or where the building meets the ground but requested a simple code amendment. The maximum building footprint, not just footprint, and increase the number of square feet from 450 to between 550 and 625. P&Z would determine the appropriate number. This would allow a standard 25' x 25' garage as measured to the outsides of the walls. Haas said there were no other issues or conflicts with other parts of the code. He noted that the entire ADU program would be revised and this was an interim measure. Haas stated that all ADUs would still be subject to Conditional Use Review. Staff recommended approval. David Muckenhirn stated that he was the architect on the 855 Bay Street property. MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to adopt Resolution #99-15 recommending City Council approve an amendment yto Section 26.04. tOO, definitions, "floor area, G, Accessory Dwelling Unit or linked pavilion" of the Municipal Code finding the standards provided by the legal department have also been met. Jasmine Tygre second. Roll call vote: Semrau, yes; Haneman, yes; Mooney, yes; Tygre, yes; Hunt, yes; Blaich, yes. APPROVED 6-0. ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 8, 1999 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (05/18/99): LODGE PRESERVATION TEXT AMENDMENT Chris Bendon stated that information was sent to lodge owners and it was re-noticed in the paper. He noted there were work session on the 2 code amendments: a minor PUD and lodge preservation. He provided a summary of the April 19th work session and requested a continuance. Public Comments: David Tash, Mollie Gibson Lodge, stated they had a 3 unit proposal and were waiting for this amendment to be approved in order to come forward with their review. Larry Ledingham, Snow Queen Lodge, asked about some of the terminology for the long term and short-term rentals. He said the summer housed the music students, sometimes for two months even though the winter was for skiers. He asked if the summer would disqualify them from being a lodge. Bendon stated there were several lodge owners in the same situation of one week at a time rentals in the winter and longer in the summer. He said it was not meant to preclude that but to close a loophole in the long term rentals. Bob Blaich asked if the interpretation would be spelled out or if every time the lodge owner would have to come in for review. Bendon replied that they would not have to do that and asked for help from the lodging community in drafting the language. Herb Klein, representing the Christiana, suggested the use of the term "seasonal" which seems to be what the lodges are doing. He said there were issues with the affordable housing/lodge uses where people were here for the winter also. Fonda Paterson, Boomerang Lodge, asked what the problem was with someone staying at a hotel for a year if they were willing to pay for it. She said that many years ago, Maude Twining stayed in the Hotel Jerome as a year round resident. She expressed concern for all of the restrictions because the price would dictate stay except for exceptional circumstances. Bendon agreed that if someone paid hotel rates year round, they would probably just rent a house instead. He said when a hotel was sold and turned into condos was when the lodging base becomes effected. Paterson asked why the standards are not done, because of the reverse, for houses in the West End that rented on a day to day basis. ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 8, 1999 MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to continue the Public Hearing on the Lodge Preservation Text Amendment to July 20, 1999. Tim Semrau second. APPROVED 5-1. PUBLIC HEARING: MINOR PUD CODE AMENDMENT MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to continue the Public Hearing on the Lodge Preservation Text Amendment to July 20, 1999. Tim Semrau second. APPROVED 5-1. PUBLIC HEARING: BURLINGAME SEASONAL HOUSING FINAL Bob Blaich opened the public hearing and noted the hour with the option to continue past 7:00 p.m. Chris Bendon, Staff, stated the proof of notice was provided and met the jurisdiction. Bendon requested a five-minute overview and then refer to Jim Curtis for a 10 or 15 minute presentation of the project. Bendon noted the project received conceptual approval in January and required the applicant to meet with P&Z and Council in work sessions on the site plan. He said that staff felt the process worked with the changes. He said this was final PUD which included subdivision of the Burlingame Ranch into two parcels (Seasonal housing and the remainder of the Ranch). Also considered in the final PUD was all the site planning, parking, design of the housing and rezoning of Lot #2 of the Burlingame for affordable housing. The Growth Management Commission will also review the project. Jim Curtis stated that he represented the MAA with the consent of the property owner, the City of Aspen. He noted that Edward Sweeney and Robert Harth, Music Associates of Aspen (MAA), were also present. Curtis said that based upon the reviews over the last several months, quite a few positive changes have been made. He said there were 4 items of minor discussion. There were two alternate parking plans with stacked parking. Curtis stated the property was purchased in 1997 and annexed into the city recently. He said the land directly north of the Maroon Creek Club Housing was Parcel B. He noted there were questions about the relationship to the highway and there were 4 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 8, 1999 a series of improvements between the Airport and Buttermilk. Curtis utilized maps to illustrate the improvements. The 1 st improvement was the relocation of Owl Creek Road with West Buttermilk Road in a single intersection with a signal. There will be a pedestrian crosswalk with an island of the crossing movement. There was a proposed pedestrian recreation use underpass to the relocated Owl Creek Trail. These improvements were part of the Basalt to Buttermilk ElS and not the Entrance to Aspen ElS but were ~nded under the ElS. He said the ElS construction schedule was planned for spring of 2000 to be completed by 2001. Curtis stated the trail was not part of the ElS or the city parks budget. Curtis stated the MAA project was proposed as a 200 bed seasonal housing project jointly by the MAA and City of^spen. The SkiCo was no longer part of the wintertime project and will be run similar to an improved upon Marolt situation. Curtis said the bulk and mass of the project has been revised to small cottages arranged around individual courtyards and the entire project around a central commons. There would be a commons building and separate parking. The design was low with the high point at 22 feet 4.75 inches with an excavated average of 7 to 12 feet. The structures were about 14 feet above grade. There was individual privacy with the designed arrangement. There was a 2 bedroom property manager unit on the project site. Curtis stated there were 2 parking plans. This was so the parking could grow, if need be, without changing the building layout or unit count. Plan A included 84 cars, stacked and gated. Plan B included 106 cars with some additional parking tucked into the berm on the west. He said the preference was Plan A, to experiment without paving to begin with. He gave a comparison to the Marolt Ranch and a scenario for a gate card limiting the number of times the card can be accessed. Curtis stated the MAA, with the City's blessing, would like to convert two units into year round housing with the consent of the Housing Board and Council. He said they were open to that conversion of eight one-bedroom units. Housing was cooperative with this idea. Curtis stated they have requested a temporary construction access from CDOT to allow the heavy equipment not to interfere with the Maroon Creek Club this summer. He said CDOT needed additional information. Curtis said the trail connection crossed the tip of the commons area of the Maroon Creek Club and they would work with them for the necessary connections. He said this was to discourage auto usage and promote transit use. He said they have done a 5 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 8, 1999 site visit with the Maroon Creek Club and hope to achieve an agreement with them within the next 90 days. He said the other conditions as written were acceptable. Bendon pointed out the site plan evolved kom conceptual and the model was very help~l £or the massing based upon the comments kom the work sessions. Staff pre£erred parking Plan ^ and encouraged the current day to day parking need and not needing your car everyday with the encouragement o£ transit use. Bendon said there was no storage site available £or cars as it stood now, but there may be opportunities in the ~ture. Bendon noted that RFT^ service will continue the loop £or the MAA; the winter condition will have a protected crossing at Buttermilk. He said there was no £ormal prohibition against the development because o£ airport impacts; the noise impacts could be mitigated with the lowered building and landscaping. Bendon said the current noise levels on site were within HUD guidelines £or what was acceptable in residential areas. Jasmine Tygre asked if the residents got into town by taking the trail to the up-valley bus stop. Curtis replied that was correct. Roger Haneman asked who decides if parking Plan A doesn't work and who will build the extra parking. Curtis answered the property manager would be the one to meet with the MAA and the City. Haneman questioned where the money for the additional parking lot would come from. Curtis responded that there could be an escrow account but the additional parking would not be needed by the MAA. He said it would be the winter parking for the city. Haneman asked the height of the berm. Roger Hunt responded that it varied between 15'-24'. Julia Marshall, Landscape Architect, stated that they decided not to bring the berm down anymore because of the proposed underpass and the Maroon Creek Club. Haneman inquired about the noise from the airport and that berming was mentioned as a possible mitigation. Michael Hassig, Architect, responded that the pitch of the valley gained a benefit from being up-valley from the Airport; acoustic consultants did field measurements on the site and there was a published map of sound contours generated by the Airport with a fifty-five decibel limit of concern. He said this project fell outside that measurement and the highway sounds, 250 feet from the centerline, were at sixty decibels. Hassig said that normal construction cut out twenty more decibels and the berm added an additional decibel reduction. ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 8, 1999 Curtis introduced Dave Gordon, Interim Airport Director, and Dave Bravdica, Assistant Airport Director. Curtis said they had concerns. Curtis noted that a sound consultant, David Adams & Company kom Boulder, has been retained and has provided information kom their field readings. He stated that they wanted to meet with the two Dares kom the Airport about the sound issue. MOTION: Tim Semrau moved to extend the meeting to 7:20. Jasmine Tygre second. APPROVED 5-1. Bob Blaich noted the prevalent landing pattern was from the north and asked the percentage of commercial landings that come over town. He asked the number of private jets in the winter as opposed to commercial. Gordon replied that he did not have those figures. He said the average lies outside the 65 DNL in this area. He said the occupants of the area would be subject to single event noise, which can be from 65-90 decibels and quite disturbing. He said there was a restriction on Stage 2 Aircraft, the louder generally private aircraft. He noted they can operate from 7:00 am to 30 minutes after sunset. Gordon stated there was a prohibition on Stage 1 Aircraft. Roger Hunt requested the noise profile from take-off runway 15. Hunt said the takeoff sounds were higher than 55 decibels. He said that since the runway was extended, he could now hear planes taking off from his house at Fourth and Hallam. He said before that he never heard the planes, which gives you what line of sight does. Tim Semrau asked how someone was to cross Highway 82 prior to the improvements being done to the highway. Curtis said the MAA was running bus service for the Music students and they have asked CDOT for a temporary crossing with a safe median break for next summer. Blaich stated that in previous meetings it was stated that CDOT was committed to putting in a temporary crossing or light for the safety of the students, which was an important issue. He asked if the position was changed. Marshall replied that CDOT changed their schedule. Curtis responded that he can follow up on the information with Ralph Trapani, CDOT, to put in a temporary light by June 1, 2000. Blaich asked if it were a condition of approval if that would that help. Semrau stated they were all concerned about the music student flight across the highway. Curtis said that would be acceptable and then he could take it to Trapani. John Kane, Buttermilk Homeowners, stated concern for the taking of the open space. He said he was all for the MAA housing but there was a placement question. He said the proximity with the Airport was a concern and not to preclude the extension of the airport for this project. 7 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 8, 1999 Curtis stated that in 1997 City Council and Scott Smith, then the Airport Manager, did a site inspection on Burlingame. He said there was a work session on April 2g, 199g with the BOCC regarding the concerns about the site. Bravdica stated there were concerns about an extension to that runway to accommodate the passenger loads and ~ture aircraft becoming £aster requiring more distances £or landings. He said there was not enough in£ormation to comment on that today, but it was something they reviewed. Blaich said it might give value to project drawings o£ what the runway length would be and how it impacts this project or maybe other housing. Gordon said it could change the dimensions £or approach on that runway £or a GPS approach, which would cause the dimensions to become bigger. Mooney stated to document this with a condition o£ approval that the landing zone won't be expanded in the ~ture. He said the County Commissioners were aware that this project would not allow that expansion. Bendon stated that he would find out the ability of expansion or change to that runway. Mickey Herron, representing the Maroon Creek LLC, stated that he would like to comment at the next meeting. Blaich asked to allow enough time for the next session so that everybody's input can be recorded. Bendon suggested continuing to June 15th. Mooney asked if there could be a condition of approval on the Airport issue. Joyce Ohlson stated they would check into that and get a legal evaluation of governing another piece of property from another. She said the commissioners concerns and issues were heard loud and clear. Gordon said that a week would be tight to obtain the consultants, but two weeks would be possible to gather the data and do research. MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to continue the public hearing on the Burlingame Seasonal Housing to June 15, 1999. Tim Mooney second. APPROVED 6-0. Meeting adjourned at 7:25 p.m. Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk COMMISSIONER AND STAFF COMMENTS ................................................................................................. 1 DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST .............................................................................................. 2 TEXT AMENDMENT, SECTION 26.04.100, DEFINITIONS, FLOOR AREA, G. ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT .............................................................................................................................................. 2 8 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 8, 1999 LODGE PRESERVATION TEXT AMENDMENT ........................................................................................... 3 MINOR PUD CODE AMENDMENT ................................................................................................................. 4 BURLINGAME SEASONAL HOUSING FINAL .......................................................................................... 4 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 8, 1999 10 Transcript · Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission June 8, 1999 PUBLIC HEARING: BURLINGAME SEASONAL HOUSING FINAL BOB BLAICH Chris, please start the presentation. CHRIS BENDON Bob, this is a public hearing and I have the public noticing requirements which meets the jurisdictional requirements. They were noticed in the paper, mailed to ,land owners and posting of the site. At your approval Bob, I'd like to gi;ve a five-minute overview and then defer to Jim for a 10 or 15 minute presentation of the project. And then come back to me and kind of discuss some issues that I've pointed out. This is a project that has received conceptual approval that you saw about four months ago, five months ago. Part of the conceptual approval, while it accepted the general land use and density for the area, required that the applicant come back for a work session with the commission and council for the site plan, which they have done. They also, based on those comments at the work sessions, they have gone through several iterations of the site plan and have come up with something that staff feels works fairly well. They have involved staff through that process and it is a little bit different than what you saw at conceptual which if you remember had essentially two plans presented. One that was kind of a crescent shaped parking lot with the housing orientated around a central courtyard. The second was an essential courtyard with the fairly large housing buildings orientated around it and there was really no consensus on either plan and that- was the requirement for the work session. This is final PUD which also considers subdivision of the Burlingame Ranch into two parcels. One parcel would be the seasonal-housing parcel and the second parcel would be the remainder of the Ranch. The, also considered is the final PUD which considers all the site planning, parking, the design of the project for the seasonal-housing and rezoning of Lot #2 of the Buflingame Ranch, which is the seasonal-housing through the RFMA zone district. And also a special review of the parking, which is required for all affordable housing projects. This is 100% affordable housing, they are seeking an exemption from the Growth Management Commission or from the Growth Management Quota Systems, which you will also be sitting on Growth Management Commission next week. You will be considering these reviews, your recommendations to city council. With that, I would like to turn it over to Jim. JIM CURTIS Jim Curtis, I here representing the Music Associates -tonight who are the applicants with the consent of the City of Aspen who is the property owner. Also Robert and Edward are here. And I think that they are just simply here to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the MAA and to cheer if need be. Basically, based on all of the comments and the reviews we've heard over the last 1 Transcript Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission June 8, 1999 six to eight months, we've made several changes to the project. I personally think they are quite positive and we will take you through those tonight. What I would like to do is about a 10-minute presentation and then at the appropriate time, Bob, relative to the planning office recommendations, there's 4 items where we would like to have some minor discussion. And really as appropriate. BLAICH I can't guarantee it would be minor discussion, but CURTIS We only have discussion on four of them. Also probably one of the, I think one of the biggest improvements we felt we've made, is going back to the notion that Tim mentioned at one of the last P&Z meetings, which was the concept of stacked parking. As you know, in the application, we're proposing two alternative parking plans for discussion. Both of them incorporate stacked parking and we think that achieves two things. One, it achieves placing more cars on the property and secondly, it also is a disincentive to use those cars on a daily basis. And I will go through that in more detail. But we have incorporated that. The first thing that I would like to do is basically go back and re-look at the big picture. The proposed property or the proposed parcel is part of the Burlingame Ranch property that the city purchased. That purchase was done in January of 1997, subsequently to that there's been a huge planning meeting about the property and concurrently the property has been annexed into the city within the last month. The parcel that we are talking about, is this parcel, which over the last two years has been referenced as Parcel B which is the land directly north of the Maroon Creek Club Housing. Needless to say, one of the key issues relating to this parcel is how does it fit in to the highway improvements proposed by CDOT and what is the status of those improvements. To be able to update everyone tonight, I've spoken with Ralph Trapani within the last couple of days, even as of this morning and Claude is here on behalf of the city transportation department. And he can give you more information. Basically there's a series of improvements proposed for this portion of the highway and for this discussion, lets say between the airport and buttermilk, just to orient you: highway 82, the existing ABC trail, the existing Maroon Club affordable housing 42-units, the proposed MAA project. And then, let me just quickly go through the series of improvements. The first improvement is the proposed relocation of Owl Creek Road to combine with West Buttermilk Road into a single intersection that will be signalized. This intersection will have a pedestrian crosswalk with a island as a break in the crossing movement. Secondly, there's 2-lanes, all of the highway is proposed to be 4 lane up to a point roughly in here, turning movements here, turning lanes here, etc. There's a proposed pedestrian underpass that is primarily for recreational use, 2 Transcript Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission June 8. 1999 when I say that is primarily for bicycle use, roller blades, essentially it's kind of a split between continuing out to the ABC and getting on the relocated Owl Creek Trail. There's a proposed sidewalk that comes off of the existing ABC trail down to a new down-valley bus stop, that proposed to be located here. And then there's a proposed new bus stop, lets call it up-valley bus stop, in this location and then conceptually over time the Buttermilk Base Area is proposed to be a major transit facility and interchange facility. So the first question is what is the construction status of there improvements. Basically, these improvements are a part of the Basalt to Aspen EIS. They are not part of the Entrance to Aspen EIS, what does that mean. These improvements are approved under the EIS, budgeted under the EIS and funded under the EIS. What is the schedule of these improvements. There are various improvements CDOT is completing working drawings or construction drawings that they hOPe to be complete in the next month or so. They plan to go out to bid in September of '99. They plan to review and award the contract in probably the later part of October into the first part of November. Most likely, weather permitting, they will not be able to initiate any improvements in 1999. If they feel that they can begin some minor improvements in '99 they would be prepared to do that. Basically, they hope to start the improvements as soon as possible in the spring of 2000, have a goodly amount of the improvements completed by the winter season of 2000 for this discussion, let's say October of 2000 and complete all of the improvements by spring of 2001. Basically, that's my knowledge of those improvements based on the discussion with Ralph within the last 24 hours. I think the big point of clarification is these improvements are part of the Basalt to Aspen EIS, they are not part of the Entrance to Aspen EIS, where there is quite a bit of confusion; These improvements are approved, budgeted and funded. The additional thing that I would like to point out, if you notice in our PUD application, we suggested a pedestrian trail that would link from the exit of the pedestrian underpass and to the Buttermilk transit facility. We think that is a very important pedestrian and transit incentive. That trail is not part of the' approved EIS at this point in time, even though CDOT fully supports it and it's not part of the city parks and recreation budget, even though they also agree that it would be a nice benefit to have in conjunction with these two projects. In discussing that with the parks and recreation staffpeople, this project is proposed to pay approximately $187,000.00 in park dedication fee. What we have suggested and what is, certainly appears to be a minimal to the parks and recreation department is, basically to have this project construct this trail, depending on the timing of the allocation of the easements, if we're not able to do it within the expanded right-of-way. And then simply take the cost of the trail and apply it as credit against the $187,000,00. Basically the parks and recreation department said well no that money is for parks and trails and this is a trail that benefits the usability in the transit nature of the project, it benefits the transit nature of this. 3 Transcript Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission June 8, 1999 There is, the Maroon Creek Club has a commitment to extend a trail on the south side, I'm sorry, on the west side of the highway to this point, and then that would allow being able to connect into this trail and then connect back to Owl Creek Trail. I personally just think that makes a lot of sense and we would hope to be able to work something out in that arrangement. So, here's the context of how the project fits within CDOT improvements, the timing of those improvements, as best we know. Those improvements are more critical for the winter of 2000 situation then for the summer of 2000. The summer of 2000 would be MAA use, the MAA is proposing to do an internal shuttle that will pick up students at this location. So, that's my understanding of the big picture. Now we would like to kind of move back to the specific changes we've made in the individual project or the specific project. Once again, as a brief reminder, the project is proposed as a 200 bed, seasonal housing project. It's basically a seasonal dormitory project. At this point in time the project is proposed as a joint venture between the City of Aspen and the Music Associates. The SkiCorp is no longer the wintertime parmer in the project. So basically the project is proposed to be operated virtually identical to Marolt Ranch, where the MAA would have access to the units in the summertime and the general resort employee population would have access to the beds in the wintertime. What we've tried to do is basically look at the Marolt Ranch model and both learn from it and improve upon it. Marolt Ranch has been in operation for 10 years and with the benefit of hindsight, we just simply feel there are certain things that we have done that we've learned from Marolt Ranch. The first thing is s~mply the unit configuration. Marolt Ranch has shared bedrooms, no real kitchen facility. In the summertime the MAA, there's two students sleeping back here, one student sleeping in the living room in a bunk bed or a pull-out sofa bed situation, once again no true kitchenette/cooking facility. So the first thing we wanted to do was give everyone more privacy. To do that we've looked at various modules and building systems and I think, you know, all of you participated. And where we are today is a modular building system where only 2 people will share a unit, there's two small private bedrooms, there's a small kitchenette with a refrigerator, a sink, a oven-top. There's a single bathroom for only two people and a small living room. So the first thing is, we've created a living space, individual bedrooms, a small kitchenette and a much smaller roommate compatibility situation. The second thing we've straggled with, and maybe go to this, is looking at the bulk and the mass of the project and working with the bulk and the mass of the project. As you know, we've gone through many different plans and many different model sketches, at this point we've come up with a proposal that I actually find quite attractive. I'm very excited about it. Where essentially we've taken the project and we've created what we call these 4 Transcript Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission June 8, 1999 small cottages. This cottage is about 1900 square feet and this is a series of building modules. But we've taken these cottages and there's 4 units, 8 people per cottage, and we've arranged these cottages around individual courtyards and then we've have arranged the total project around a central commons, and then we've done parking that is removed. Then we have a commons building and allocated for future practice room. With the individual cottages, we feel it really breaks the bulk and the mass of the project and it also allows two additional things. These cottages are very low to begin with, to the high point is 22 feet 4 and ¼. inch, which is a relatively low building to begin with. Based on the grading, we're proposing to excavate on average anywhere from 7 to 12 feet to further sink the building into the landscape and to do some sound buffering with the berming. SO basically these structures are roughly, I think, 14 feet above existing grade, if you wanted to look at it that way. So we've broken this into small pods, the individual pods have a lot of privacy and we've arranged the pods into a series of courtyards and then all of the courtyards fill in to a bigger common. Then as I say, the accessory buildings is a common building with a central laundry facility, a bus stop facility, a bus waiting area, a property manager's office and 2 bedroom, a 2 bedroom, property manager apartment. One of the other things we've learned.from Marolt is, that we feel is very beneficial to have a year,round property manager or family, individual, or whatever to make arrangements for that household on the project. The second thing we've done is we've looked at 2 parking scenarios. And in the application they are called Parking Plan A and Parking Plan B. And basically what we wanted to do was to take the same unit count and same building configuration, which you see here and design a parking plan, one at a lower number of cars and second one at a higher number of cars: But we wanted to do that predicated on the parkingcould, if need be, the parking could grow without changing the building layout or unit count. Parking Plan A shows 84 cars, combination of stacked parking and gated parking, some visitor guest' parking. And Plan B shows 106 cars with some additional parking tucked into the berm on this side of the project, primarily to provide additional parking here. So this shows 106-car parking. What we would like to propose, or what our preference is, basically to go with Plan A to begin with. And why we suggest this is, one, we would like to experiment without paving the face of the earth up front. Now, correctly if you will say Marolt Ranch has demonstrated that Plan A will be a mistake. May or may not be true. The argument I will make is there's two differences in Plan A than the situation at Marolt Ranch. The first difference is we are parking significantly more cars in Plan A then what's being parked in Marolt Ranch. Marolt Ranch is 300 beds and they are providing 49 parking spaces. This a lesser number of beds and even under Plan A, we are providing 84 spaces. So we are providing 35 additional spaces than Marolt Ranch. Secondly, and this is really the main thing we learned from Marolt 5 Transcript Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission June 8. 1999 Ranch, or at least in my position, understanding is, Marolt Ranch was not designed initially to allow expansion of parking. Therefore, basically to come back in and re-configure that you've got to come back in and re-configure the existing parking lot and figure out how to expand it at the same time. What we would propose to do is to actually show on the PUD plan in dash lines where this future parking would go if the experiment of the next two to three years proves we actually need that additional parking. Everybody knows about front, we've planned it up front, I still think we want to try to achieve the initiative of making this thing as transit incentive as possible. And really there's probably various ways to do that, but the most important ways, once again, coming from discussion with Marolt Ranch. Is, we're proposing to have a gate here, and we're proposing to have an additional fee for parking. And that fee would be allocated on what type of space you had and if, we,re proposing off-site p~king at Truscott Golf Lot and that parking would be at no cost. The second thing that we're going to be looking into, and this is actually a suggestion from Rachel Richards, can these gates be set-up basically with, what I will call a debit card, where you charge a base fee to allow parking but then you also have a card that everytime you go through that gate, it's going to cost you a buck or whatever. And if your card is $25.00, or $50.00 when you get done you've got to come back in and get a new card otherwise the gate will not open. That's just one possibility. I actually found that intriguing. Moving. So that's pretty much where we stand relative to the design ofthe project. We've done the individual cottages, we've tried to make them as low key as possible, and we tried to work them into landscape courtyards and a common courtyard. Three closing points, ifI may. We met, we met with the housing board last week and on a cooperative basis because we really would like everybody to be in favor of this project and get full cooperation. The MAA with the city's blessing has said that if the city council and the housing board would like to convert these two units to year-round housing, we are open to doing that. And basically, probably what would make sense, is to convert this into 8 one-bedroom units. The housing board was very appreciative of that sign of cooperation and they basically said hey, sounds pretty good to us, but we will defer that decision to city Council. That cooperation was still on the table and we will ask city council to see how they want to rule on that. The second thing is, and Mickey and Dave Lennio may chuckle with this, we have requested from CDOT a temporary construction access. And that is basically to allow the heavy equipment with this project not to interfere with the Club this summer. Basically, we initiated communications with CDOT to do a right-in, right-out construction access into the project and based on working with Ralph and their permit people, they are inclined to allow us to do that, we've got to 6 Transcript Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission June 8. 1999 get additional information back to them. And we are proceeding to get that package of information back to them and we think it as a good neighbor, we would like to see if we can do temporaryconstruction access. The third closing point, is if you notice, or I wish to bring to your attention, this trail connection which ties in to the Airport Business Center Trail crosses the Maroon Creek Club property. It crosses the tip of what is platted as their commons area, and I can show you their plat. Basically we would hopefully work with Maroon Creek Club in a cooperative basis, to get the necessary easements for this trail connection. Really for two, really for one reason, we think it's in both our interest and in the interest of the Club to try to encourage as much transit use out of this as possible, and discourage automobile use out of the property. We're doing many things to achieve those goals. Clearly the most direct connection to this bus stop and then eventually over to this bus stop through the signalized crosswalk, is coming through here, getting on this CDOT sidewalk and coming down and going oven If we're unable to achieve a cooperative arrangement on that trail connection, there's a possibility we may have to go around or elbow back to our ..... or whatever the comment would be. The, at this point we've done a site visit with representatives from the Maroon Creek Club and we've brought them up to speed on the status of our discussions with CDOT concerning the temporary construction access and we are hoping we can work in a cooperative fashion to achieve that. The second thing you will notice is, once again, I personally feel to the benefit of both projects, we're proposing about 6 feet, 6 to 8 feet of additional berming and additional landscaping in here. Both for sound buffering for this project, but surprisingly that will also create some additional sotmd buffering for the Maroon Creek Club property. And once again, we would hope on a cooperative effort to work with the Maroon Creek Club to achieve the additional berming and landscaping. If you go out there today, the trail alignment and the additional berming primarily comes through here, so it cuts a small sliver of the affordable housing parcel but I would say 90% of those improvements or what is platted under the Maroon Creek Club Plat as their commons. And actually if you go back and look at the plat, their platted trail alignment is virtually identical to the trail alignment we're proposing or the trail connection we're proposing. If we are not able to achieve these, what we feel to be mutually beneficial improvements, we will modify this plan and come back at the appropriate time in the next 45 or 60 days. With that I would like to close my part of the presentation, and as I say, I have comments on four of the recommended conditions, all of the other conditions as written are completely acceptable. Thank you. BENDON Bob, I don't know how you want to proceed. I do have ~some 7 Transcript Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission June 8, 1999 BLAICH You said that you wanted to make some further comments, so why don't you do that. It's quarter to seven. BENDON It is quarter to seven. BLAICH Why don't you make your comments and we'll make a decision. BENDON Okay, I would like to just ppint out, I'm sure that you've all read my memo, I did pick out, just highlighted some points from the staff comments. Site plan, the site plan has evolved from conceptual, I think it's very beneficial to look at the model. I found it very helpful as opposed to just looking at the illustrative. You get a real sense of the massing which I felt was fairly good evolution based upon the comments from the work sessions and the plans that were presented at conceptual. It's well the architecture, I raised the issue of architecture during conceptual, so the applicant had to the opportunity to respond to, if there were concerns about the architecture being different than the Maroon Creek Club. There was no concerns brought up in fact that, maybe a board member said they did appreciate the architecture as being proposed. There are a couple of really minor things that we proposed as far as conditions to modulate some of colors and so on, on the exterior. MICHAEL HASSIG We can address that later. BENDON Parking, again staffprefers the alternate A; this is something we encouraged the applicant to consider and encourage the commission and council to consider. That there isa difference between the current parking need, the day to day use of your car, and the need to put your car somewhere while you're here for the winter, here for the summer, whatever, but you don't need it everyday. And we felt that there should be a minimal amount of space, spaces available for current day to day need and that was both in consideration of the compressed site and also in consideration of trying to encourage transit usage. This is a TOD in the classic sense ora transit oriented development sites, within a ¼ mile of a full range of transit services, with the improvements that are proposed for Buttermilk and the light; where off-site storage is desirable. You probably don't like, and I also don't like the idea of parking them at the golf sito. I don't think that's the best location, however, we don't have a place to store cars and this has come up on several other development applications. 7th and Main is the same, the same thing. Truscott's the same thing, the way I proposed it is, that there's 20 spaces, and that the unit number, the number of cars is something would require substantial amendment to change, but the location of where those off-sito parking 8 Transcript Aspen Planning & Zoning Con~nission June 8. 1999 spaces go, could be amended if we do find a place for off-site parking, that's better '~ than the golf site. There is plenty of capacity there, and it's on the bus line, so on, so it functionally works very well. There may be other opportunities in the future that come up, that we can re-locate that off-site demand. Transit. During conceptual there's a little bit more complicated transit discussion. It sounds like the Buttermilk improvements are going to fit in to this project fairly well. I had included a condition that requires transit provision similar to the summer service that's being proposed be extended year-round if the Buttermilk, for whatever reason, is not implemented or is delayed so that people aren't necessarily stranded out there. The summer usage, the MAA, they proposed a loop as part of their RFTA loop that goes m the campus and to the tent, to service the students needs. And the winter condition, condition if you remember from conceptual, the plan was essentially, well, they'll run across the road, they're old enough, they're smart enough, they'll get there; which we said it's not a plan. CURTIS Did we actually say that. BENDON Someone said it. ~ CURTIS Oh, it had to be someone in the audience. BENDON Because at that time the Buttermilk improvements were 2, 3, 4 years maybe down the line. And the winter condition will actually work out well because of the protected crossing at Buttermilk, which allows you to get to transit in a safe way. Airport. The airport raised some concerns, if you read your referral letter that the. Although development is outside the runway protection zone, which is a kind of formalized area where developments not allowed. It's outside of that area, they're still concerned about impacts of the airport. The way we approached that is that there's no formal prohibition against the development there, there's no even recommended types of development practices outside of that RPZ and the noise impacts, we believe, could be mitigated. It's not only the extent of the berming, it's the lowering of the buildings, the landscaping, possible noise reduction in the units. There's a repot that I got today, that details noise levels on site. The current noise levels on site were within HUD guidelines for what was acceptable in residential areas. Those are the points that I've picked out and kind of highlighted, so that with that I'll go to'the commission. BLAICH All right. Open for discussion. 9 Transcript Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission June 8. 1999 JASMINE TYGRE I have a question. I'm not sure that I'm interpreting this correctly. If somebody lives, in let's say this unit, and wants to come into town by bus they come along this trail to this up-valley bus stop, here. Is that correct. CURTIS They would come, yes, and go through the pedestrian crosswalk and be able to catch this stop. TYGRE This is the closest up-valley bus stop. CURTIS That's correct. TYGRE Thank you. BLAICH Rogen ROGER HANEMAN Okay. Option A for parking is your choice. Let's say option A doesn't work; who decides that option A doesn't work and who's going to build that extra parking. CURTIS The, probably the property manager will be the.person in here bitching. That's basically what happens at Marolt Ranch. And then the MAA and City, we can create a trigger mechanism so that it comes back for a amendment to the PUD plan. Or some trigger mechanism on who makes the final decision on expanding that parking and who initiates the request for expanded parking. Clearly the property manager would probably initiate the request and that request I would assume that they go to the planning office initially. HANEMAN Where would the money come from. Because I can see yes, everyone decides that it has to be built but no one wants to put the money up. We've done our part, you need to do yours. CURTIS The, well the, Roger at this point I don't have a specific answer, we could either escrow that money or just put it in the partnership agreements between the city and MAA. And let me clarify, the MAA has no need for the amount parking that's already there. So, basically as I take one second to think about this, that parking would be for the city for the winter use and be paid by the city. The MAA at Marolt Ranch has 300 students and they never fill the existing 49-car parking lot there, much less the ability to make a dent' into 84. 10 Transcript Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission June 8. 1999 HANEMAN As long as the city will agree to that, that's fine. As long ~ as they're willing that it is their responsibility. Also on the berming between the highway CURTIS Yes. HANEMAN and the housing. CURTIS Yes HANEMAN What is the current planned height, for the berming CURTIS Julia, do you want to give the specifics on that. Ooops, sorry. Laughter HUNT It varies between 15feet and 24 feet according to the cross-section. JULIA MARSHALL Just to give you a relative field position, the berm over here is at about something 54 and we will be 4 feet lower than the berm that is now .,,--~, shielding Maroon Creek Club Housing, so we're about 50 on top in here. One of the things that we were asked to do was look at the berm and see if we could bring · it down. And we have decided not to do that because one of the things we've learned in working with CDOT since we went through the initial presentation, is that by doing this proposed inter-pass, the proposed underpass, I mean, here, will go down about two feet because of different utilities that are coming through there, they cannot actually excavate any lower. So this underpass and the whole road will be about ten feet higher at this point. So where we originally thought that the road was, that's where our berm would be, about 50. And the road will be down here some 15 feet lower, 20 feet loWer, its now coming up so its now coming up so, it's about the top of this road which is now at 40 and the top of our berm is at about 50. HANEMAN Noise from the airport. Berming was mentioned as a possible mitigation. HASSIG Yes, because of the pitch of the valley, we do gain some benefit simply of being up-valley from the Airport. Our acoustic consultants did field measurements on the site. There is also a published map of sound contours generated by the Airport and essentially they use a fifty-five decibel contour as the limit of their concern. And this project, in fact, falls outside that fifty-five decibel sound contour and so we have discussed the measurements on the site right now 11 Transcript Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission June 8. 1999 from the highway range in approximately 60 at 250 feet from the centerline. As typical standards for housing units, you try and achieve decibel range probably 45 inside and that is considered acceptable. Conventional construction reduces sound by about 20 decibels so if we are seeing 60 there now and we cut it by 20 we are finding 40 within the units without extraordinary expense. So that's, what that has accomplished without the berm, the berm adds an additional decibel reduction from 5 to 11 decibels depending where you are on the site. BLAICH Jim, do have something further on that. CURTIS The two Daves from the Airport are here. And I apologize, Dave Gordon, is the new Interim Director of the Airport, DAVE GORDON I guess, new interim director. TYGRE New, improved. CURTIS And. Dave is the Assistant Airport Manager. I met with both of them this morning and what they, they have some concerns that they wish to express tonight. And their concerns, I've been aware of for two years. Basically one of the things we said we would do, we did retain a sound consultant, David Adams & Company out of Boulder. And we have their preliminary technical information. We have their field readings, from the sound meters and stuff and they would like to sit back down with the two Daves and go through all that technical stuff, and figure out really what is the best, what is the best way to the biggest bang for your buck to deal with the sound issue. We acknowledge this is an issue. BLAICH I'm going to have to jump in here, it's seven o'clock. And as I forewarned you, we have to do a decision to extend this meeting or terminate it. So I need a motion and a second if we're going to extend it. SEMRAU I moved to extend to 7:20. TYGRE I'll second. BLAICH All in favor BLAICH, TYGRE, SEMRAU, HUNT, MOONEY, HANEMAN aye BLAICH Thank you 12 Transcript Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission June 8. 1999 HUNT Now BLAICH I have a question, while we are on this same subject, you can probably answer this. Of the landing patterns, the prevalent landing pattern is coming in out of the west. Isn't that correct. GORDON Out of the north, actually. BLAICH North, north I'm sorry, it's coming in down the runway. And what is the percentage of, do you know the percentage of commercial landings that come that direction vs. those that come in over town. GORDON No, we've never done a study on percentage of aircraft using runway 33, coming from the south for landing or actually depa~'mg towards the south. BLAICH You don't have an answer to that. The reason I'm asking is because when aircraft do come in the other way they do go over my house and I don't notice it very often, it's not that often. HUNT' Because they're descending. BLAICH They're descending, of course, you don't hear it. And also I play a lot of tennis out at Maroon Creek and the courts are on that side and I think there's more disturbance from private aircraft during landing tests on Saturday and Sunday mornings, or Sunday mornings seem to be a lot of them doing that. But it's never to a point where it's really disturbing. I just wondered if there was a percentage of, you know, how difficult this might be and also the other part of my question is in the, what is the percentage of private aircraft in the winter vs. the summer. You don't have that either. GORDON No. BLAICH You're both new. You were asked a couple of tough questions. GORDON Those are tough. I can actually give you those numbers. BLAICH It would be interesting to 13 Transcript Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission June 8. 1999 GORDON Now, I could tell you at this point, but I would like to add this, the day/night level of noise contours. We have done, and this is an average, in this particular area it does lie outside the 65 DNL, which the FAA has set-up as a number that's incompatible if it lies within inside that 65 DNL, it's incompatible for this type of use. This development does lie outside of the 65 DNL. However, the occupants will be subject to, what we call, single event noise, which is those aircraft that do occasionally use runway 33 for arrival and 15 for departure which can get rather loud depending on the type of aircraft that is used. In that case they are subject m decibel levels of 65-90, which can be a disturbance, quite a disturbance at that point. In reference to your questions, I can get some numbers for you, but at this point, no. BLAICH I just, you know if it might have some bearing on who is occupying those, if it's winter or summer residency and so forth and when the noise level's the highest, at what part of the day and so forth. Because music students are there at different times rather than the winter occupancy would be, so I think any statistics might be helpful. If that gets to be a problem. GORDON. As you know, we do have a restriction on Stage II Aircraft, which are the louder jet aircraft, they tend to be the private aircraft. During the summer, that the restriction is, they can operate from 30 minutes after sunset and of course during the summer that can be up to about 8:30 or 9:00 o'clock in the evening. So you have a much larger or longer period of time that those aircraft can operate, and that is 7:00 o'clock A.M. to 30 minutes after sunset. We do have prohibition on Stage I Aircraft, which are the loudest aircraft, but sometimes on those Stage II's and Stage I Aircraft you really can't tell the difference. HUNT In other words they're both loud. GORDON Yes BLAICH Roger HUNT I wanted to continue on this noise issue, because I want to see the profile like you have f~om the highway only ! want it from runway 15, the take-off point when, what is it 5606 or something like that in the morning. At 7:05 runs up to 100% on four jet engines. I don't believe it's 55 db, and if it's a Stage II Aircraft I know it sure as hell it isn't 55 db. So I know it's probably well over 55 db and as far as I'm concerned the only thing that will attenuate that satisfactorily is a berm high enough to in effect protect the highest unit. So I 14 Transcript Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission June 8. 1999 would like to see that profile, I would like to see the data from your sound engineer because I'm an old Navy pilot and I know what a jet engine sounds like at 100% on take-off, especially a Stage I and Stage II. CURTIS It sounds like we should invite the sound engineer to our next meeting, which we are happy to do. HUNT That's all I'll go on this, this sound thing at this point. But I'm very skeptical of those figures because, you know line of sight sound does not attenuate. Incidentally, since they extended the runway to the north, I can now hear planes taking offat Fourth and Hallam. Where before that, I never heard the planes, that give you what line of sight does. And what is it at 2 miles. So, you know, it's there. And I'm very skeptical of this project if that is not considered, so I'11, that's my thing on sound at this poem. BLAICH Tim SEMRAU I have a question. This is intended to be occupied beginning next summer, correct, about a year from right now. ~-~, CURTIS We would hope to achieve that, yes. SEMRAU How is someone to get across 82 to come to Aspen during that summer before those improvements are finished. CURTIS We are, first of all, the Music Associates is running a bus service for their students and then secondly we're beginning to, having discussion with CDOT to see if this permanent crossing is not in place to see ifa temporary crossing can be in place and/or a temporary stop light. And we're looking, most likely for next summer, it would be the internal bus service and the safe median break in the highway there, on a temporary basis. BLAICH In previous meetings, you said, I'm pretty sure, that that was, you're saying now, it's in discussion with CDOT and that was a fact that they were committed to putting in a temporary crossing or light, quote un-quote. I am not correct. Or have you changed your position or have they changed their position. Because this has been an issue, Jim, for quite some time, the safety of the students. ~ MARSHALL They changed their schedule. 15 Transcript Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission June 8. 1999 BLAICH They changed their schedule, but Trapani in a meeting here, said we'll have that solved. CURTIS Based on my discussion with Ralph in the last 48 hours, and we will get it writing. [ cannot represent that Ralph will put in a temporary light by June 1, 2000. He said he would work with us based on where they think they will be at that point in time. I can follow up and give information and the like. BLAICH Do you think it would help if we made that a condition of approval. CURTIS From our point of view, we would like to see it, yes. BLAICH Just stating that we've heard it before, that they were going to do it and of course we know that CDOT changes its mind on certain things. So I think that we are all concerned with the public safety aspect for those students and the winter employees of course. SEMRAU Would you be acceptable if that was a condition for C.O. Because we are all very concerned about the, you know, music student flight across the highway, getting run over. CURTIS I'm clearly as concerned about and by being in a resolution, I can go back to Ralph and say, you know we really need to make this thing happen. And that's all I can communicate at this point. HASSIG We're not in the position. SEMRAU Is that acceptable as a condition to you. CURTIS Oh. as a true applicant we would prefer not to have it there but it's your resolution. SEMRAU It's not going to break your back, is what I'm saying. HASSIG If it means we loose a season of occupancy, yes. BLAICH Please, would you identify yourself, please.. 16 Transcript Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission June 8, 1999 JOHN KAYNE My name is John Kayne, I'm the president of the Buttermilk Homeowners. There's a couple areas of concern that I have. One is that that we're taking some open and building on it, which is a limited item along our corridor into town. And I'm all in favor for MAA housing, I know we have a tremendous need, I know we're under a very tight time schedule to get that implemented. It's just a question of placement. And the design I think is fine, I know the landscape folks and they can do a wonderful job as well, but beyond their control is the fact that road is now ten feet higher. This is going to be that much more visibly impactive of those riding up and down 82. I mean we know it's 22 and 4 inches and ¼ whatever high, but when you raise that road we're visibly going to be seeing a lot more. So my first concern is the placement of it and open space and then having it in such a fashion that we're going to see a lot of it. My second area of concern is it's placement with relationship to the Airport. was a concern and not to preclude the extension of the airport for this project. As we know, this time of the year and for the next 3 months, planes are going to be going out at less than capacity every time we have a day like today. It gets a little warm, the winds come from the south, people have to get off the flight. I mean it's happened probably to everybody in this room, maybe more than once. It happens to me quite a bit, anyway one of the solutions that occur is the extension of that runway. I don't know that's ever going to be on the drawing board but I would like to make sure that that's not going to be precluded because of this development. If we stifle our airport, because of something we can foresee at least, you know, prevent at this point, I think it's very foolish on our part. Because that, we know is very close to clear zone area and you know, may not be technically impinging on it but it certainly going to be impactive on it. And if that as I say precludes extending, not bringing any different aircraft than we have today. We cannot take- offwith a compliment of passengers that have bought tickets on a plane on a day like today, we just can't do it. And we have a way of preventing that problem, I just want to make sure we don't shut the door to the solution. Thank you. CURTIS Robert, ifI may, relative to the airport, just, I think this would be beneficial background information. When the City purchased the property in January of 1997, as you know there was a feasibility study and looked at many, many sites that could be suitable for development. Roughly, not roughly, on August the 5th 1997, City Council and the then present Airport Manager, Scott Smith, did a site inspection. And we went around all of Burlingame, some of the neighbors were with us and said this, this, this. Scott Smith, correctly, at that point in time, expressed his concerns about airport, many of the concerns you are hearing today. And City Council directed myself and Dave Tolen to go before the County Commissioners, who are the owner of the airport. And to give Scott Smith the 17 Transcript Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission June 8.1999 opportunity to represent his concerns to the County Commissioners. And give the '"'" MAA the ability to respond to those concerns and represent their needs in the community context. That meeting, that work session, took place on Tuesday, April the 25th. And unfortunately I've checked, at that work session or any of the County Commissioner work sessions, there are no minutes or there are no tapes. But in a follow-up memo, that went out to City Council, basically the County Commissioners said yes we understand the concerns, yes we acknowledge this a marginal site, yes we don't wish to or we're not prepared to preclude development on this site. So those two series of meetings did take place, basically before the city authorized the MAA to expend significant funds on preparing the conceptual PUD application. BLAICH I have a question with your question about expanding the runway. That would be expanded to the south. BRAVDICA That's correct. BLAICH If you expand it to the south and use the same runway protection zone, then it would overlap the existing Maroon Creek facility housing and probably create a problem also for the whole ski development. So any, extension of that's going to impose because, you're right on the border already. Right. That's the way the plans BRAVDICA The last I saw it just came to that area and I didn't have the benefit of being able to BLAICH You know, it flanges out, I'm looking at the plan, I don't know how far into that it would extend it. You would obviously extend your whole protection zone the same amount of distance, right. GORDON Exactly, the use of that runway would extend out BLAICH So any extension is going to impact existing housing and potential or future development of the KAYNE May I ask a question then, are we precluded from ever lengthening that runway in the future. Is that what I'm heating. BRAVDICA There's a couple of different areas that we are concerned with and that is if there's any extension to that runway to accommodate, just as you said, the passengers, the passenger loads that we have on the current aircraft that 18 Transcript Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission June 8, 1999 operate into and out of the airport today. We are also concerned about future aircraft. We see aircraft not getting larger but becoming faster and that would also increase their landing speed which increases the distances that we need to have from objects. So we do look at developments such as this that may boot us from accepting future aircraft, better technology that sort of thing and of course, I don't think we have the right.information to comment on that today, but it's certainly something we do look at. Again, it's being something that precludes us from accepting that type of aircraft. BLAICH It might be of value to just at least sketch this out on a plan to show what would happen if you project what that runway length would be and how it impacts this. Because just doing it here isn't very accurate but it seems to me that it wouldn't impact this particular project but it would impact other existing housing and other projects, right. If you look at it. So I think it would be interesting to have a plan to show that it directly effects this project. BRAVDICA Again that trapezoid, that trapezoid could increase in size depending on mix of aircraft leads and so on so forth. HANEMAN Do the angles on it. BRAVDICA Proportionately it would just become larger, essentially. HANEMAN Okay, so the distance. Proportionately it would be increased but not flange out. GORDON It could also change in dimensions in the future if a precision approach on that runway end could technically is possible for a GPS approach. And possibly get in there and if you've got that kind of approach then the dimensions for this can also change, become bigger. HANEMAN Bigger. BLAICH Well that's this decision that has to be taken when it comes forward as a proposal, if it starts to effect existing housing. GORDON Jim CURTIS I guess that I would just like to repeat all of those concerns were expressed by Scott Smith, the Airport Manager, back in April 28~, 1998 to the county commissioners. And we, basically, we said if you want to kill 19 Transcript Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission June 8, 1999 this, now is the time to do it. You know we're not spending huge amounts of money, it's at a conceptual stage, here's both sides of the issue, thumbs-up or thumbs-down. And they said we understand it's marginal, we aren't going to kill it, deal with mitigating the sound, do berming, do the sound-proofing. And that's the way we've proceeded. BLAICH Tim. MOONEY Well, I don't know if we should talk to staffabout another condition of approval or of occupancy in order to get this documented that that landing zone won't be expanded in the future. And the now County Commissioners know what the circumstances are and they're willing to sign-offon ever extending that runway and ever extending that abatement zone at the end of the runway. And if it overlaps with the housing that's going to be built there it .basically it can't be expanded because of the living conditions that are in this housing unit. BLAICH Well I wish our lawyer were here, but it seems to me if this project's approved and goes ahead, it would have great difficulty expanding because they'd have to buy that property and condemn it or something, I suppose. That plus the housing that exists at Maroon Creek, if you just look at the plans. I think that information should be forthcoming, what your project could be. BENDON And I'll find out too, what the airports ability to expand or change that when what we have impacted or what your are. BLAICH We have questions from the back and it's just 7:20 and allow your question. MICKEY HERRON I don't have a question. BLAICH Could you identify yourself please HERRON My name's Mickey Herron and I represent the Maroon Creek Limited Liability Company. And my question was you're going to adjourn this to a future date, I have some comments that I think I would be better off making at that meeting. It could take a few minutes and I might be fresher .... BLAICH Well, the, unless somebody wants to move and we get an approval on another extension, that's always a possibility. But it requires a motion. 20 Transcript Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission June 8. 1999 MOONEY My comments can wait. BLAICH So we're going to have to have another session. I would like to suggest that staff for that next session, because we've had so many, that we allow ourselves enough time. If we didn't allow ourselves enough time, we had to extend it. I think in all fairness to this project which is so significant and so important that we get everybody's input on it and take anything else off the agenda or put this on the agenda first and do it and if something else has to suffer, we can deal with it that way. BENDON I would like to suggest that the commission continue this to the 15th' that's next week. You are considering the Growth Management side of it, in joint with county, under a separate hearing. This a current project, it is affordable housing and there's a certain desire to accelerate it on our schedules. HUNT I'll move to continue the public hearing and table action on the Burlingame Seasonal Housing to 15, June 1998, 1999 MOONEY One last discussion, is anybody else interested in asking staffto pursue this Airport issue on a condition of approval level, so that we really can make a decision on it. BLAICH Do you want to comment on it. JOYCE OHLSON We certainly could check into that and I think we want to legally evaluate our abilities to in a sense govern another piece of property by virtue of an application or proposal that's before you on a separate piece of property. But, I think that both Chris and I heard loud and clear what your issues and concerns are. I think it would be helpful for us to get together with the airport management and find.out where FAA would come into play. If this is approved does it then limit by virtue of FAA regulations that expansion. So we'll give you some. BLAICH Do you have something that's pertinent. GORDON Mr. Chairman I would like to say if in light of the data I think the commission would like to look at, I know we do have some data based on current studies that we can get our'consultants who are very verse in these issues to put together some information but to do it within a week might be a push. If we could have two weeks to gather the data, do some research, if that's possible that would help us out a great deal. 21 Transcript Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission June 8. 1999 TYGRE Do we have other issues that we could discuss next week, we may not get to closure next week anyway. But I think we should get this, some of the other issues, which are equally important. BLAICH I think that we should continue it and if that's still an open issue, get what you can to us by then and see where it's going. We need a second. MOONEY second. BLAICH All agreed to the 15th BLAICH, TYGRE, HUNT, HANEMAN, MOONEY, SEMRAU