Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19960604 **SITE VISIT - TOP OF MILL - 3:30 PM (MEET AT ASPEN SKI CLUB BLDG.) . AGENDA TUESDAY, JUNE 4, 1996,4:30 PM SISTER CITIES MEETING ROOM, CITY HALL - GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION I. Metro Residential GMQS Scoring A. North 40, Rick Magill II. ADJOUR.1\l - ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR :r-,,ffiETING TUESDAY, JUNE 4, 1996 ~ "re-"-' .. SISTER CITIES MEETING ROOM, CITY HALL ~ I. COMMENT3 A. Commissbners B. Planning Staff C. Public II. MINUTES m. NEW BUSIl''ESS A. Aspen Redhead Tours, GMQS Exemption, Suzanne Wolff IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Power Properties Conditional Use for ADU, Suzanne Wolff' " I I B. Lot 3, Aspen Mountain Conceptual PUD (Applicant's Presentation) . -,-~.....y Geraldine (GG) L. Heyman P.O. Box 4724 Aspen, CO 81612 (303) 925-1249 1 d D 7 E,t-I L/MWA-%- Y�1 hT* f- C'o M b31N3d'dVD -rdnD ,l9 9661 O NE)ISM sn8 9133n4S 3o`1 3da:)Aa3ul wa d sV qjL Z8 43'ed al:)dalg 1 G- ,(J ( J !i r i ssaulsns 4.i od.uV uadsNf .1 A.io4:)a.ji(3 18 diew A.ao33aala ig dEW f�ir`L7 c', 4.jod.gV A4uno3 uPPld Plaid APaus 4�J dons L• • kiopam(3 9 �g dew j I - re I j I ,1 _ \ t j 173 � j '///---� / l(✓ 1. rr;; ► 1 . • 1 7 ;7 rri AMS sn MOM El a!?Ell!A SSPWM0US 13112su8 0-L Z8 (a3S0dO'Id) x4joj 114JON Plald aaa:)os V A saPiyanPazi.'O1OW ON ® glvd OV9 apuEa!D ON 04 ll'eal bOZZ-OZ6 bu!ddiyS/61JIBB lOed wniuuall!W 8 LOE ZZ8Z-9Z6 'dJoO uadsy-alo0 dd OLZ L6EZ-gZ6 uollonJlsuoO shleJe4-u!ueZ WW OLZ Z69 L-9Z6 uo!ssusueJl 0 L LE 9998-9Z6 'oossy )1J08 p!nea/dJoO y000 L L L b98L-9Z6 Auedwo0 !� s ap!M PROM a ZOb 9Z9L-OZ6 sOlJ10013 0JPAH !P!weoaW L44 9ZOZ-9Z6 uadsVIo saNe0 olssel0 LW 90E b999-9Z6 Jalpue4O'spooM L44 9EOb-OZ6 fulea ploOMopeaW y 17LZ 6L96-9Z6 uads auue t1--9 L I y0 H EO£ 7`^'-OZ6 dnoJO 6uM L44 OZ6L-9Z6 sJ9aul6u JaleM ul fine o 3 ly � W `d i r^r'-9Z6 J1e-4`d P9Jale0 W 90E 'Z6 qe-1 asnoH lnuleM 8 644 LLL8-9Z6 '1w6W AlJadaJd A@uPeOoW J Z6 AgdeJ60l0yd llesse0 8 02 26 'pl-l'saovuaS 96ell!n v ZOb 8£LE-9Z6 suapJeO ulvueIN Lb' 26 'o0 olping olejn8 0 444 OuuL-OZ6 IaneJl �4!0 am [S LOb Z888-9Z6 dnoJO m0peW r Lcv 98yL-OZ6 aluuy'uMoJB L44 69LZ-OZ6 anb!sftjanb!un f 90E 9EEZ-9Z6 'oui'sluellnswooeW r 6LE LZ9L-OZ6 lJago8'uiNAo8 L44 Z9L9-9Z6 u0011e8 woolun Z8 OOE 809b-9Z6 saleloossy suo/(-1 2] Lob 9b9L-OZ6 uollonJlsuoO V08 L44 069L-OZ6 Aaw0lly-->{ PJeyol�{ 'JauJnl LLL 6Z69-OZ6 sale!oossv we!llM'sa� nj 190f, Z9Zt-9Z6 lsaM OWB v £04 L LZ£-OZ6 saV8 aupaqu i v 90b Z698-9Z6 fulsed ss!MS ,s!nol y EOE b996-9M 'oossy �R Jawool8 N L LE 6L98-9Z6 'oul 'uolsmyl ZOZ 06b8-bbg o!pnlS bu!lgbn 8 90b OL98-9Z6 sales pela�j bu!gwnld doys!8 8 LOb 9b9L-OZ6 Jalueo u011e!paW ayl LLL L869-9Z6 weyly6l-1 d Coe 09LZ-OZ6 sJoloW poylJao a 174£ LE17L-OZ6 qJOmweal 0 02 049Z-OZ6 salelo0ssy)R80-1 l LOE MC -OM swiojpuelIlaPaB f 60E 860b-gZ6 u01slnalge0 I01 LOZ LE L L-gM 00 Japuane-1 0 60E gZb8-9Z6 lsuoi.j s,uedsy Zy OOb 9LO9-9Z6 sJa66eMp -L Z LZ E LZ6-gZ6 u6!saa'8 uo!leJlsnlll auel Za OOE 66bb-OZ6 tialle0 MopuM uadsy ZW OLZ L8Z9-9M snld eulysJadnS 3 LL£ 8886-OZ6 uadsyJano�j PUB-1 60L 98L9-9Z6 Aialsloydfl uadsy Q LOb 8ZLZ-9Z6 sJoloW ly6!lunS a 94£ E8EL-gM ONSN 8 LZb Z969-9Z6 bunpsaclAi uadsy gob Z6Z6-OZ6 suo!lonpoJd aJRunS W 02 LL69-9Z6 sJoualul yOlnazau>{ N 60E 6b0L-9Z6 31= apunllal uadsy L44 a al u a' Z099-9Z6 HE)GAMOlue6J0s,AepunS 0 94E ZL00-£99-008 MJau3 NN ELL 990L-OZ6 slnoJdSuadsy 948 9bbb-gZ6 'oul 'lsaM sa!lJadoJd sjawwnS N LL4 880L-9Z6 81els3 1e9�1 Jalsl>i LLL Z8001119 Auedwo0 6ul!�S uadsy NN OLZ S S a u S n 8 LEb6-EZ6 IaeyolW 'ueyeueJlS d 90b 68Z8-9Z6 1oel!gojy—ja6o�:l ' u@N H 90b 98Z£-9Z6 Ilv-lua�j uadsy 80Z LLbL-gZ6 sVO PIPS f L 4E 0OZ6-bb9 'O08>i 80b 6b8 L-9Z6 sies!ejddy elels3 lead uadsy N LOE 1.jOd.' ZOOL-OZ6 lVN—lJago�:I'suanalS 00 OLZ 0996-gZ6 LlWeasa�{ -JW6W luauJlsanul 0 444 b946-9M edS'8 food uadsy r 04Z V L4L9-9M dnoJO suanalS 3 ZL£ b9OL-9Z6 'oul 'ssaJd aouepuadapul N LOb 88£E-9Z6 dnoJO aouemopeci uadsy 3 60E d bb9L-OZ6 luawa6euew OJd spodS LLL 9E08-bb9 'oul 'sawoH uasu@r f ME LZO9-9Z6 saoldS 6ullinW uadsy ZO£ u a SV 09O9-9Z6 j@AeuuagO }JodS 9 L L 9LL L-OZ6 Auedwo0 2iMH 11 OLZ 99bZ-9Z6 sJo!Jalul uadsy 8 gob 608L-9Z6 'ou I 'suo!leopgnd JauJnofoS 807 66£b-gZ6 saOINGS lelOueuU pJeMOH -11 OLZ 999b-OZ6 sNJoM y11e9H uadsy H 90E 969L-OZ6 uep'6JagJapOS L44 6806-OZ6 luawabeueW POOH H LL£ LE98-9Z6 aloA3uadsy 3 90b 888E-0Z6 sJapl!n8 wolsn0 o0'8 yl!wS >i LOE L LEL-9Z6 o!Jloal3 ssoJO Al0H 92 9b9E-gZ6 6ull8na8 wolsn0 uadsy A Lob _ Z808-gZ6 Jalsewep!1S a 90E OLOL-OZ6 Adejayl1e0lsAydy6iH 3 6LL 809L-9Z6 siolorulsuo0uadsy d3 OLZ 999L-OZ6 leuo!lewalul dnoJO @A(S LLL b6Z8-9Z6 !xel ulelunoW y61H 0 L44 69L9-9Z6 'ou sai adoJ olsse uads ' � d 10 `d H LOE L864-9Z6 Aawolly—ue4'dd!yS f Lob 99Z9-gZ6 6u!s!}JanpywnpaOH v ZLE LOZL-gZ6 sJaJaleOuadsy 3 00£ 88-9Z6 sa!unoaS apseaS a!uuo0'A9/ueH a Z 9£Z-OZ6 y 9fO -9Z6 u6!saa/6uls!IJanpVJauaMgOS NN OLZ 4944-gZ6 uoponJlsuoO uBwIJJeH b' `" ,-gZ6 sJolleaZllo pJeog uadsy W 9017 Z6 analS'geMyOS L44 E9bZ-9Z6 fn0Jen'uelpageneH E Z6 lJyuadsy P 90b jZ6 laeyo!W 'Ja 'Jap!euyoS 0 9017 8098-9Z6 01409131I Me6!0 jZ6 lel!dsOH lew!uy uadsy LOE OE98-9Z6 uollonJlsuoOJa6JagwnlgoS D LOb E9Zb-OZ6 pal!goJy—sawef '�(Je0 Z0 b4£ ZOLZ-9Z6 Jalueo ssaulsng podny uadsy 3 EOE I- I 0869-OZ6 d!ysieu}Jed ssob L0 b4E 804b-OZ6 AjuoseW soballe0 3 444 98ZL-gZ6 AouebVuadsy 00 OLZ Obbb-gM swalsAS J00Id ulelunoW ANoo�l N OLZ 8E89-9Z6 lsaM dJeyS Jagbelle0 8 ZOZ E60b-OZ6 buunol !CIS lloJoysy 8 Z L£ 0086-OZ6 suo!loauuo0 ulelunoW At oo�j d ON 8606-gZ6 lueJnelsa�j s,lpaud y 6LL 6E9L-OZ6 seslJdJalu3 '4'2�'b' LLL 98E9-gZ6 sJnolllam�oo�l S Lob 699E-9Z6 buuale0alAlseeid d LLL bbg£-9M leuo!lewalul0�j`d LLL 886b-OZ6 sJaulJed �Jod buueo�I gob 60ZE-9Z6 Jalndwo0 pJeMJo3 OLZ 8ZL6-gZ6 aJe>{ eouellddy f LLL 6L04-OZ6 sJall!pnO awoH y0ue�1 y LZb 00L6-9Z6 aJeM40S JJosa�l lsJI3 v 00£ bZbZ-9Z6 6ulgwnld uosJapuy 3 LO£ bbbp bb9 sayol�j of sbe�1 0 LOE £OEZ-gZ6 A90 aJld 0 60b EZ9L-OZ6 '00 V uosJapuy LLL LgZZ-gZ6 oaP!n-OJd v LOZ bLL6-EZ6 oJeW 'alNu!d LLL LL68-9Z6 eouemsul Al!wed ueo!Jawy �] LLL m 886b-OZ6 bu!llnsuo0'8 yOJeasa�l A:padoJd gob E LL9-9Z6 saleloossy !R wloyu!d I 444 LLLE-OZ6 suo!lonpoJd aJnluanpy ueoP9WV O ZLE Lb08-9Z6 Ja6pa-1alen!Jd L4E EELE-OZ6 Vd0—ullJeW`eleld Zdd 02 gbLL-9Z6 sloal!yoJywoJlslb' d ZLE duyy 969L-gZ6 ouloel3 ys!dod v gob 99E9-8£Z-008- L ssejdx3 leJapad 60Z 9 L L8-gZ6 6u!lJoMpooM au!dly 8 OOb 9909-9M L L 4 ezeld L L L Z89L-OZ6 (jeo-y-luea 1s6pne) saJnluanpy aageJed LLL 6£L L-OZ6 suo!leeolunwwooalal au!dly d 6 L 4 88Lb-9Z6 sa101yan peOH }1O 00I!d v L LE 969 L-OZ6' sJoualul suaJy3 a 60£ LLOb-OZ6 IaNJen ulelunoW au!dlV H 6 L 4 LZZL-9Z6 5UIJ91EO anlleaJO s,Jalad d We L609-9Z6 ao!o40 sJau6lsaa N OLZ OOb6-bbg uadsy �Iueq euldly y LLL b9bZ-9Z6 IelaW laayS o!lloed y LOb 080L-OZ6 'oul'dnoJO yoJeasaq.I Januaa d LO£ 889L-OZ6 edS 12lood leuolssaloJd xefy LLL 8E6 L-OZ6 sele!oossy'8 fuinW H LLL 6ZE L-gZ6 J!edaZl olny �R buimol a'8 a 0 90b ELb6-9M ou10913 xefy 4 02 849 L-gM bulgwnld ulelunoW d 4 LE 089L-OZ6 anb!unwwo0 LLL LbLE-gZ6 sJaueel0 xefy 0 L LE 9Z6£-gZ6 dogS 1199 ulelunoW 90Z 117099-9Z6 sls!le!oadSJalndwo0 0 64E 9ZLZ-OZ6 Jonb!q lJodJ!y 0 6LL 60 L9-9Z6 sele!oossy IlapoW d LZb LOZZ-9Z6 xauuy a6eJolS eulgwnlo0 L Lb 499E-gZ6 000wv podJ!y LZ L gb017-OZ6 saleloossy �R oaulW d LLL 8098-gZ6 lens!n o!pny opeJoloO d OLZ 88617-OZ6 'dJoO � epuoJlpy gob E98b-9Z6 solpnlS jell!" y LOE 680Z-9Z6 sJaaul6u3 su!IloO 80b ZZ9L-OZ6 6JagJapoS a08`d LLL b31N3d'dVD -rdnD ,l9 9661 O NE)ISM sn8 9133n4S 3o`1 3da:)Aa3ul wa d sV qjL Z8 43'ed al:)dalg 1 G- ,(J ( J !i r i ssaulsns 4.i od.uV uadsNf .1 A.io4:)a.ji(3 18 diew A.ao33aala ig dEW f�ir`L7 c', 4.jod.gV A4uno3 uPPld Plaid APaus 4�J dons L• • kiopam(3 9 �g dew j I - re I j I ,1 _ \ t j 173 � j '///---� / l(✓ 1. rr;; ► 1 . • 1 7 ;7 rri AMS sn MOM El a!?Ell!A SSPWM0US 13112su8 0-L Z8 (a3S0dO'Id) x4joj 114JON Plald aaa:)os V A saPiyanPazi.'O1OW ON ® glvd OV9 apuEa!D ON 04 ll'eal bOZZ-OZ6 bu!ddiyS/61JIBB lOed wniuuall!W 8 LOE ZZ8Z-9Z6 'dJoO uadsy-alo0 dd OLZ L6EZ-gZ6 uollonJlsuoO shleJe4-u!ueZ WW OLZ Z69 L-9Z6 uo!ssusueJl 0 L LE 9998-9Z6 'oossy )1J08 p!nea/dJoO y000 L L L b98L-9Z6 Auedwo0 !� s ap!M PROM a ZOb 9Z9L-OZ6 sOlJ10013 0JPAH !P!weoaW L44 9ZOZ-9Z6 uadsVIo saNe0 olssel0 LW 90E b999-9Z6 Jalpue4O'spooM L44 9EOb-OZ6 fulea ploOMopeaW y 17LZ 6L96-9Z6 uads auue t1--9 L I y0 H EO£ 7`^'-OZ6 dnoJO 6uM L44 OZ6L-9Z6 sJ9aul6u JaleM ul fine o 3 ly � W `d i r^r'-9Z6 J1e-4`d P9Jale0 W 90E 'Z6 qe-1 asnoH lnuleM 8 644 LLL8-9Z6 '1w6W AlJadaJd A@uPeOoW J Z6 AgdeJ60l0yd llesse0 8 02 26 'pl-l'saovuaS 96ell!n v ZOb 8£LE-9Z6 suapJeO ulvueIN Lb' 26 'o0 olping olejn8 0 444 OuuL-OZ6 IaneJl �4!0 am [S LOb Z888-9Z6 dnoJO m0peW r Lcv 98yL-OZ6 aluuy'uMoJB L44 69LZ-OZ6 anb!sftjanb!un f 90E 9EEZ-9Z6 'oui'sluellnswooeW r 6LE LZ9L-OZ6 lJago8'uiNAo8 L44 Z9L9-9Z6 u0011e8 woolun Z8 OOE 809b-9Z6 saleloossy suo/(-1 2] Lob 9b9L-OZ6 uollonJlsuoO V08 L44 069L-OZ6 Aaw0lly-->{ PJeyol�{ 'JauJnl LLL 6Z69-OZ6 sale!oossv we!llM'sa� nj 190f, Z9Zt-9Z6 lsaM OWB v £04 L LZ£-OZ6 saV8 aupaqu i v 90b Z698-9Z6 fulsed ss!MS ,s!nol y EOE b996-9M 'oossy �R Jawool8 N L LE 6L98-9Z6 'oul 'uolsmyl ZOZ 06b8-bbg o!pnlS bu!lgbn 8 90b OL98-9Z6 sales pela�j bu!gwnld doys!8 8 LOb 9b9L-OZ6 Jalueo u011e!paW ayl LLL L869-9Z6 weyly6l-1 d Coe 09LZ-OZ6 sJoloW poylJao a 174£ LE17L-OZ6 qJOmweal 0 02 049Z-OZ6 salelo0ssy)R80-1 l LOE MC -OM swiojpuelIlaPaB f 60E 860b-gZ6 u01slnalge0 I01 LOZ LE L L-gM 00 Japuane-1 0 60E gZb8-9Z6 lsuoi.j s,uedsy Zy OOb 9LO9-9Z6 sJa66eMp -L Z LZ E LZ6-gZ6 u6!saa'8 uo!leJlsnlll auel Za OOE 66bb-OZ6 tialle0 MopuM uadsy ZW OLZ L8Z9-9M snld eulysJadnS 3 LL£ 8886-OZ6 uadsyJano�j PUB-1 60L 98L9-9Z6 Aialsloydfl uadsy Q LOb 8ZLZ-9Z6 sJoloW ly6!lunS a 94£ E8EL-gM ONSN 8 LZb Z969-9Z6 bunpsaclAi uadsy gob Z6Z6-OZ6 suo!lonpoJd aJRunS W 02 LL69-9Z6 sJoualul yOlnazau>{ N 60E 6b0L-9Z6 31= apunllal uadsy L44 a al u a' Z099-9Z6 HE)GAMOlue6J0s,AepunS 0 94E ZL00-£99-008 MJau3 NN ELL 990L-OZ6 slnoJdSuadsy 948 9bbb-gZ6 'oul 'lsaM sa!lJadoJd sjawwnS N LL4 880L-9Z6 81els3 1e9�1 Jalsl>i LLL Z8001119 Auedwo0 6ul!�S uadsy NN OLZ S S a u S n 8 LEb6-EZ6 IaeyolW 'ueyeueJlS d 90b 68Z8-9Z6 1oel!gojy—ja6o�:l ' u@N H 90b 98Z£-9Z6 Ilv-lua�j uadsy 80Z LLbL-gZ6 sVO PIPS f L 4E 0OZ6-bb9 'O08>i 80b 6b8 L-9Z6 sies!ejddy elels3 lead uadsy N LOE 1.jOd.' ZOOL-OZ6 lVN—lJago�:I'suanalS 00 OLZ 0996-gZ6 LlWeasa�{ -JW6W luauJlsanul 0 444 b946-9M edS'8 food uadsy r 04Z V L4L9-9M dnoJO suanalS 3 ZL£ b9OL-9Z6 'oul 'ssaJd aouepuadapul N LOb 88£E-9Z6 dnoJO aouemopeci uadsy 3 60E d bb9L-OZ6 luawa6euew OJd spodS LLL 9E08-bb9 'oul 'sawoH uasu@r f ME LZO9-9Z6 saoldS 6ullinW uadsy ZO£ u a SV 09O9-9Z6 j@AeuuagO }JodS 9 L L 9LL L-OZ6 Auedwo0 2iMH 11 OLZ 99bZ-9Z6 sJo!Jalul uadsy 8 gob 608L-9Z6 'ou I 'suo!leopgnd JauJnofoS 807 66£b-gZ6 saOINGS lelOueuU pJeMOH -11 OLZ 999b-OZ6 sNJoM y11e9H uadsy H 90E 969L-OZ6 uep'6JagJapOS L44 6806-OZ6 luawabeueW POOH H LL£ LE98-9Z6 aloA3uadsy 3 90b 888E-0Z6 sJapl!n8 wolsn0 o0'8 yl!wS >i LOE L LEL-9Z6 o!Jloal3 ssoJO Al0H 92 9b9E-gZ6 6ull8na8 wolsn0 uadsy A Lob _ Z808-gZ6 Jalsewep!1S a 90E OLOL-OZ6 Adejayl1e0lsAydy6iH 3 6LL 809L-9Z6 siolorulsuo0uadsy d3 OLZ 999L-OZ6 leuo!lewalul dnoJO @A(S LLL b6Z8-9Z6 !xel ulelunoW y61H 0 L44 69L9-9Z6 'ou sai adoJ olsse uads ' � d 10 `d H LOE L864-9Z6 Aawolly—ue4'dd!yS f Lob 99Z9-gZ6 6u!s!}JanpywnpaOH v ZLE LOZL-gZ6 sJaJaleOuadsy 3 00£ 88-9Z6 sa!unoaS apseaS a!uuo0'A9/ueH a Z 9£Z-OZ6 y 9fO -9Z6 u6!saa/6uls!IJanpVJauaMgOS NN OLZ 4944-gZ6 uoponJlsuoO uBwIJJeH b' `" ,-gZ6 sJolleaZllo pJeog uadsy W 9017 Z6 analS'geMyOS L44 E9bZ-9Z6 fn0Jen'uelpageneH E Z6 lJyuadsy P 90b jZ6 laeyo!W 'Ja 'Jap!euyoS 0 9017 8098-9Z6 01409131I Me6!0 jZ6 lel!dsOH lew!uy uadsy LOE OE98-9Z6 uollonJlsuoOJa6JagwnlgoS D LOb E9Zb-OZ6 pal!goJy—sawef '�(Je0 Z0 b4£ ZOLZ-9Z6 Jalueo ssaulsng podny uadsy 3 EOE I- I 0869-OZ6 d!ysieu}Jed ssob L0 b4E 804b-OZ6 AjuoseW soballe0 3 444 98ZL-gZ6 AouebVuadsy 00 OLZ Obbb-gM swalsAS J00Id ulelunoW ANoo�l N OLZ 8E89-9Z6 lsaM dJeyS Jagbelle0 8 ZOZ E60b-OZ6 buunol !CIS lloJoysy 8 Z L£ 0086-OZ6 suo!loauuo0 ulelunoW At oo�j d ON 8606-gZ6 lueJnelsa�j s,lpaud y 6LL 6E9L-OZ6 seslJdJalu3 '4'2�'b' LLL 98E9-gZ6 sJnolllam�oo�l S Lob 699E-9Z6 buuale0alAlseeid d LLL bbg£-9M leuo!lewalul0�j`d LLL 886b-OZ6 sJaulJed �Jod buueo�I gob 60ZE-9Z6 Jalndwo0 pJeMJo3 OLZ 8ZL6-gZ6 aJe>{ eouellddy f LLL 6L04-OZ6 sJall!pnO awoH y0ue�1 y LZb 00L6-9Z6 aJeM40S JJosa�l lsJI3 v 00£ bZbZ-9Z6 6ulgwnld uosJapuy 3 LO£ bbbp bb9 sayol�j of sbe�1 0 LOE £OEZ-gZ6 A90 aJld 0 60b EZ9L-OZ6 '00 V uosJapuy LLL LgZZ-gZ6 oaP!n-OJd v LOZ bLL6-EZ6 oJeW 'alNu!d LLL LL68-9Z6 eouemsul Al!wed ueo!Jawy �] LLL m 886b-OZ6 bu!llnsuo0'8 yOJeasa�l A:padoJd gob E LL9-9Z6 saleloossy !R wloyu!d I 444 LLLE-OZ6 suo!lonpoJd aJnluanpy ueoP9WV O ZLE Lb08-9Z6 Ja6pa-1alen!Jd L4E EELE-OZ6 Vd0—ullJeW`eleld Zdd 02 gbLL-9Z6 sloal!yoJywoJlslb' d ZLE duyy 969L-gZ6 ouloel3 ys!dod v gob 99E9-8£Z-008- L ssejdx3 leJapad 60Z 9 L L8-gZ6 6u!lJoMpooM au!dly 8 OOb 9909-9M L L 4 ezeld L L L Z89L-OZ6 (jeo-y-luea 1s6pne) saJnluanpy aageJed LLL 6£L L-OZ6 suo!leeolunwwooalal au!dly d 6 L 4 88Lb-9Z6 sa101yan peOH }1O 00I!d v L LE 969 L-OZ6' sJoualul suaJy3 a 60£ LLOb-OZ6 IaNJen ulelunoW au!dlV H 6 L 4 LZZL-9Z6 5UIJ91EO anlleaJO s,Jalad d We L609-9Z6 ao!o40 sJau6lsaa N OLZ OOb6-bbg uadsy �Iueq euldly y LLL b9bZ-9Z6 IelaW laayS o!lloed y LOb 080L-OZ6 'oul'dnoJO yoJeasaq.I Januaa d LO£ 889L-OZ6 edS 12lood leuolssaloJd xefy LLL 8E6 L-OZ6 sele!oossy'8 fuinW H LLL 6ZE L-gZ6 J!edaZl olny �R buimol a'8 a 0 90b ELb6-9M ou10913 xefy 4 02 849 L-gM bulgwnld ulelunoW d 4 LE 089L-OZ6 anb!unwwo0 LLL LbLE-gZ6 sJaueel0 xefy 0 L LE 9Z6£-gZ6 dogS 1199 ulelunoW 90Z 117099-9Z6 sls!le!oadSJalndwo0 0 64E 9ZLZ-OZ6 Jonb!q lJodJ!y 0 6LL 60 L9-9Z6 sele!oossy IlapoW d LZb LOZZ-9Z6 xauuy a6eJolS eulgwnlo0 L Lb 499E-gZ6 000wv podJ!y LZ L gb017-OZ6 saleloossy �R oaulW d LLL 8098-gZ6 lens!n o!pny opeJoloO d OLZ 88617-OZ6 'dJoO � epuoJlpy gob E98b-9Z6 solpnlS jell!" y LOE 680Z-9Z6 sJaaul6u3 su!IloO 80b ZZ9L-OZ6 6JagJapoS a08`d LLL Prepared by: TMK Centennial Engineering April 2, 1996 Traffic Impact Analysis North Forty Housing and Commercial Development Project INTRODUCTION The North Forty mixed use development is a 21 acre project is located in Pitkin County along the east side of State Highway 82 between the Roaring Forks Transit Agency (RFTA) and the Aspen Airport Business Center (AABC) sites, shown on the map below. The North Forty development is proposed to be a mix of affordable single family housing, commercial and retail, a new Colorado Mountain College campus, an existing soccer field, located adjacent to the existing Aspen Airport Business Center. The following analysis examines the existing roadway and traffic conditions, the traffic generated by the proposed North Forty development, and the impact the newly generated traffic will have,on the intersections which function as the access points to the proposed North Forty site. Sardy Field i i RFTA ------------------------ 1 r i 1 ----� 1 1 j L ► r Proposed ��� ► i CMC �% i i 1 I i % 1 1 i Existing i ; 1 Soccer Field 1 i � r Proposed r Comercial 0 r - L-—-—-— - — - — -—-— - — - — -— Residential Existing Roadway Proposed Roadway Page 1 Traffic Impact Analysis North Forty Housing and Commercial Development Project EXISTING ROADWAY AND TRAFFIC CONDITIONS The proposed development site has one existing access point, the signalized intersection of State Highway 82 and the north AABC access road, an additional possible access could be the unsignalized intersection of State Highway 82 and the RFTA access road. For the purpose of this analysis, access to the RFTA intersection at State Highway 82 is considered for comparison purposes. State Highway 82 is Aspen's primary north/south arterial route and provides the proposed development site with access to and from Aspen as well as to down valley destinations towards the north. The State Highway 82 and AABC signalized intersection provides for one lane of through traffic in each direction together with separate lanes for intersection left and right turns. The AABC access east -west roadway has one through lane and left turn bays in both directions, with a right turn lane in the westbound direction. Figures 1 and 2 illustrate the most recent counts taken at the State Highway 82 and AABC north access road. The counts were conducted by Counter Measures, Inc. On Tuesday, April 4, 1995. The peak hours at this location were found to be between 7:30 and 8:30 AM and from 4:30 to 5:30 PM. According to the 1994 actual traffic counts conducted as a part of the Entrance to Aspen DEIS project, the first week in April should represent 97.5% of annual average daily trips on SH 82. The figures and subsequent calculations reflected in this study use the actual intersection traffic counts as they reasonably reflect the annual average daily trips. Figure 1 - AM Peak Hour 7:30 - 8:30 Page 2 'traffic Impact Analysis North Forty Housing and Commercial Development Project Figure 2 - PM Peak Hour 4:30 - 5:30 ESTIMATED TRAFFIC GENERATION The proposed North Forty development would consist of four traffic generating components; single family housing, commercial/ retail, a community college, and an existing soccer field. The following assumptions have been made for each component to estimate the amount of traffic each would generate: Mousing The North Forty residential component contains 71 single family units within an affordable housing zone district. Section IV, Road Design Standards, of the Pitkin County "Road Management and Maintenance Plan" requires that all trip generation rates be based on the ITE Trip Generation Manual, Fifth Edition. All affordable housing units, including single family detached, town houses, condominiums, and apartments will use the trip generation rate for ITE Land Use Code 210, single family detached housing. The ITE Trip Generation Report, Fifth Edition Land Use Code 210 lists an average rate of 9.55 trips generated per dwelling unit. Traffic Impact Analysis North Forty Housing and Commercial Development Project Allowable trip reductions: The Pitldn County "Road Management and Maintenance Plan" Section IV, (4.01.01, c.) identifies several pre -approved trip -making reductions which can be used with the affordable housing land use category. Section IV, (4.01.01, c.,(c)) of the Pitkin County "Road Management and Maintenance Plan" allows for a transit ridership reduction for homes located within one half mile of a transit stop. We are using a reduction of 2.0 because the affordable housing lies within close proximity to a RFrA transit stop. The reduction for free- market dwelling units is 1.5 and the reduction for affordable housing is 2.0. We are assuming the 2.0 reduction because the proposed housing fits into the affordable housing category. Section IV, (4.01.01, c.,(b)) of the Pitkin County "Road Management and Maintenance Plan" allows for a support services reduction for homes located within one half mile of support services. We are using a reduction of 1.5 because the proposed single family homes are located within one half -mile of a variety of support services ( as defined by Pitkin county Land Use Code, Article 3, Sections 3-416 ans 3-417). This reduction reflects the potential for people to walk or bike to nearby service destinations in the new commercial/retail area or existing AABC. Trip generation: Using the Average ITE trip generation rate of 9.55 trips per dwelling unit and taking the allowable deductions as identified by Pitkin County yields a rate of 6.05 trips per dwelling unit. 9.55 ITE average weekday trip generation rate per dwelling unit -2.00 Transit reduction for affordable housing -1.50 Support services reduction 6.05 6.05 average daily trips per unit X 71 units = 430 trips per day To calculate the AM and PM Peak trip rate reductions allowed by Pitkin County we have reduced the AM and PM total trips generated by the same percentage with which the average daily rate was reduced. 9.55 average daily trips per unit X 71 units = 678 trips per day 6.05 average daily trips per unit X 71 units = 430 trips per day difference = 248 248/678 = 37 % reduction in average daily trips based on allowable deductions. Average daily trips were reduced by 37% because of the transit and support services reductions. We assumed the same proportional reduction in the AM and PM Peaks. The following chart details the housing trips generated by the proposed North Forty development. Trip Generation For North Fo Area ITE Trio Generation Rates Vehicle Tri s units Average AM PM Reduction Average Reekday AM Daily PM Daily Housina 71 -Weekdav d 1.01 37% 427 3.3 4 Sub Totals 1 71 1 entering::=exAing : 26% 01 er>terfng OXRic 65% 0 1 1 4 srttering sx�ing enter�g ,: ax ing Page 4 Traffic Impact Analysis North Forty Housing and Commercial Develovmer. ?roject Commercial The commercial/retail area is oriented towards providing for the needs of the future North Forty Residents and students of the CMC campus. It is currently planned to be 36,000 square feet. The commercial/retail area will consist of a number of local support services such as specialty retail, health center, day care, retail/wholesale, and restaurants. The trip generation is based on the following commercial/retail uses: 9,000 sq. ft. Specialty Retail 12,000 sq. ft. Health Center 3,000 sq. ft. Day Care 5,000 sq. ft. Retail/Wholesale 4,000 sq. ft. Restaurant - Quality 3,000 sq. ft Restaurant - High turnover (sit down 36,000 sq. ft. Allowable trip reductions: The Pitkin County "Road Management and maintenance Plan" section IV,( 4.01.01, e) allows for a trip reduction of up to 75% based on the surrounding communities ability to support the commercial property. We have taken a 65 % reduction in trips for Specialty Retail, the health center, retail/ wholesale, and quality restaurants. We believe this is a reasonable deduction because of the proposed developments close proximity to housing and the AABC. This close proximity will enable many of the current users of the AABC commercial area to utilize the additional services proposed at the North Forty commercial/retail site. The availability of a variety of commercial services nearby will reduce the need of AABC shop and store owners, their employees, and customers to drive from the AABC to other Aspen destinations to eat, pick-up dry cleaning, or take care of other daily tasks. These trips will be made internally, either by car, walking or on a bicycle. Many of the trips to North Forty will not be new trips but will be pass -by trips or the second stop on a trip to the AABC. An example of such a trip would be a person stopping to pick up a child at the day care center may also stop at the- grocery store in the AABC before going home. We have taken a 75% reduction for traffic using the Day Care Facility and High Turnover Restaurant. Trips to the Day Care, and High Turnover Restaurant are closely associated with work trips and these services are likely to be used by area residents as they are traveling to and from work, therefore most of these trips have already been accounted for in the housing trip generator. The specific trips generated by each proposed commercial and retail use are listed in the table on the following page. Page 5 Traffic Imrrac- Analysis North Forty Housing and Commercial Development Project Trip Generation Trip Generation For North Fo Area ITE Trip Generation Rates Vehicle Tri s Sauarg Ft. Average Weekday AM PM Reduction Average Weekdav AM Daily PM Daily SpecialtyRetail 9,000 40.67 6.41 4. 128 20 16 staring,.xg..:ti8..xtiigtg..:ex!ti..< 48% 52% . 57% 43% 10 10 4cttecttl9€. Ong:; 9 7 Health Center 12,000 34.17 2.69 4.08 75% 103 8 12 i3t►s;erii� .t3xit�g 46% 4° atitar .�xiti� 4° �teritlg...ex�tirtg.. 4 4 e�erti�...eit�iig: 7 5 Day Care 3,000 79.26 15.7 15.56 1 7 11 11 ante�rir..:axiting... 54% 46% ent0ring:exitirtg> 46% 54% etxtexing€..;exltirtr. 6 5 :estterig...extg;: 5 6 Retail 5,000 167.59 4.19 15.14 ! 65% 293 7 26 eir�:. exiting . ° ai�terfng:.axftir� 5 % eritarfng. ;exiting . 3 4 'e�er&g. ;exfiii�g: 13 13 Quality Restaurant 4,000 1 0.92 7. 135 2 11 ettti irtg .exiting.. 94% 6% e[iferutg.:exiting:> 70% 30% entering... exiting:-.I8nteriitg...e 1 1 Mg: 8 3 High Turnover Rest. 3,000 205.36 15.7 16.26 75% 154 12 13 entering.. x ing„. 5 % entering; exiling:: 54° 46° gI. 6 6 entering. xifln 7 6 Sub Totals 36000 872 60 entering exiting ` 30 30 89 entering eacifing 49 40 Colorado Mountain College The ITE Trip Generation Manual concedes that for community colleges " the acreage, floor space, staff, and parking accommodations vary widely with populations served and the social and economic characteristics of the area." Also, the ITE trip generation studies for community colleges were conducted in the 1970's and therefore a more reliable and realistic approach would be to interview the college and understand the trip generation of this particular institution. MK Centennial spoke with Anne Harris the Dean of the Aspen Campus for the Colorado Mountain College (CMC) and was given the following information about the proposed North Forty site of the CMC site and class schedules: _ • The proposed facility would have approximately 27,000 - 36,000 sq. ft. of building space. • 124 parking spaces. • The Aspen campus hosts 200 classes a semester, however, many of the classes are offered on weekends or for just one night or as a workshop. • The campus conducts approximately 17-22 classes on a weekday, and each class lasts around 3 hours. • 40% of classes are daytime and 60% are evening (after 4 pm) • 13 classes in the evening: Starting at 4:00, 5:00, 6:00, 7:00 and each class lasting approximately 3 hours. Of these 13 evening classes 70% are 6 pm or later. • 9 classes in the daytime starting at 8 am • Each class has approximately 8-22 students. An average of 15 is assumed. Trip Generation Page 6 Traffic Impact Analysis North Forty Housing and Commercial Development Project Based on the above information we have developed the following trip making matrix for the proposed North Forty CMC site: Peak hour number of trips generated by CMC AM PM (7:30-8:30) (4:30-5:30) Class times Students in out in out 1 class at 8 am 15 15 2 classes at 9 am 30 15** 2 classes at 10 am 30 2 classes 12-2 pm 30 2 classes 2-3 pm 30 30 2 class at 4 pm 30 2 classes at 5 pm 30 30 3 classes at 6 pm 45 23** 6 classes at 7 pm 90 S taff * 11 5 5 4 330 35 0 58 34 Generating approximately 35 AM Peak inbound trips, approximately 38 inbound trips and 34 outbound trips during the PM Peak. *Additional trips during AM and PM peaks will be generated by college staff members of which there are 2 at the aspen site. This number also includes an instructor for each class that affects the Peak period traffic generation. ** Assume half of the students arrive at least 1/2 hour before class starts. The dynamic of a college is such that a number of students may be taking more than one class and would not be driving in and out of campus for each class, thus creating fewer actual trips. Students may also be using the college facilities at times other than scheduled class times, trips to the library or tutoring sessions. We will assume these factors cancel each other out and use the trips generated per student per class listed above. Allowable Trip Reductions We have assumed that there will be a 25 % reduction in trips due to the use of transit. With transit facilities available and reasonably timed to coincide with class schedules this 25% figure is a reasonable reduction to the overall trip generation for the CMC campus. We have assumed a new bus stop to serve this development to serve this development and the CMC campus. Trip Generation For North Forty Area I Vehicle Tri s Average Weekday AM PM Reduction Average IWeekdU AM Daily PM Daily Sub Totals ectteririg: ezi g: 100% 0% en#eiing...exitint� 63% 37%/0 248 arnetir� ..exiiirtg: 26 0 srA ring .axi h 44 25 Page 7 Traffic Impact Analysis North Forty Housing and Commercial Development Project Soccer Field An existing soccer field with 25 usable parking spaces, is currently used three days a week, weather permitting. Assuming that all the available parking spaces would be occupied for a game and that games would begin during the evening peak hours an additional 25 inbound trips would be generated by the facility. TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY TABLE A chart follows which describes each land use and the traffic it generates. Trip Generation For North Fo Area ITE Trip Generation Rates Vehicle T ios Ullits; Average Weekd AM PM Reduction _ Average Weekd" AM Daily PM Qaely Housiog 71 9.55 0.74 1.01 37% 427 33 45 dXiWd.*. ante JeWfinal fit Sub Totals 71 26%_ 740 65% 35% 1 497 Commercial/ Retail Square Feet— Speciat Retail 9,000 40.67 5AI 4.93 1 85% 128 2Q 16 "I'OrIte 480 52% 57 4�30 g ox 10 10 t rV1.1.1oX IV,. on on 9 7 Heafth Canter 12 000 1 34.17 2.69 4,08. 750 103 12 Wh 46% 54% 60% 400 im tow 4— -4 e_enngexff na,�: 7 5 Day Care 3,000 79.26 15.7 15.56 75% 59 11 entedn jOng"* 54% 460* we -460 54% 1 - ... . enteft .... ..exift. entering�: exifing. Retail 5,000 167.59 4.19 15.14 65% 2913 1 7 26 50% 50% 50% 50% 3 4 13 13 Quali Restaurant 4,000 96.51 092 7.66 650 135 211 Ax 940/a 6% 1 erderkld��w g.­ 70% 30% g* 1 1 :..ex e nng_*. Wng:�: 8 3 Hloh Turnover Rest, 3.000..- 205.3,6 15.7-- - 16.26 75% 154 12 13----- Wit'(301nd 500 50% entering ddffn9'** 54% 460 g Wenn" Ing 60 n tb nna 89 Sub Totals 6000 30 30 49 40 Colorado Wuntla Ileca 35 1 92 25% 2d8 267.-1 69 IantestQ ED(Wha, IWO 1 Sub Totals 1000 063% 37% 1 2,18 0 44 2 Soccer Field 35 - - ------ Sub Totals 0 -0 --25— 10 Totals 1582 enter g f 65 54 6inted ding - 147 91 Page 8 Traffic Impact Analysis North Forty Housing and Commercial Development Project ESTIMATED TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT To determine a reasonable assignment and distribution of the site generated traffic a number of conditions need to be considered. • The relative location of the site within the area. • The type of land uses proposed and nearby land uses. • The nearby roadway system and access points to the proposed development site. • The specific access plan designed to serve the site. The site access would be the signalized intersection at State Highway 82 and the north AABC access. The current traffic patterns and volumes at this location were collected and we assumed that the distribution of traffic will remain the same for our analysis. Figures 3 through 6 illustrate the distribution of AM and PM peak site generated traffic. We have analyzed the site impact on State Highway 82 using two scenarios: 1) the north AABC intersection would be the only access point and receives all of the site generated traffic - Figures 3 and 4 , and 2) access to the site via the RFTA intersection would be available and 20% of the site generated traffic would use the RFTA access. Under the second scenario we assigned 80% of the site generated traffic to the north signalized AABC access intersection - Figures 5 and 6. _ _ _ _ _ +e - - - - t i--_--------- i - ♦ I t Residential Existing Roadway Proposed Roadway Figure 3 - AM Site Generated Traffic - No Access at RFTA Intersection - Scenario 1 Page 9 Traffic Impact Analysis North Forty Housing and Commercial Development Project N . 00 c�G .0 Sardy Field RJ v] el � 't 47 40 '4. 39 XXXX XX 1 i RFTA ------------------------ 1 1 1 Proposed i CMCi� i r—T 1 Existing) 1 1 Soccer Field i 4 i i Proposed C omercial or 1 —--------------------- -1 - i 1 � 1 Aspen Airport Business Center Site Generate Traffic Assume 100% Site Gen. of Traffic Uses the Signalized Intersection Residential Legend: �� Existing Roadway -----, Proposed Roadway Figure 4 - PM Site Generated Traffic - No Access to RFI'A Intersection - Scenario 1 Page 10 Traffic Impact Analysis North Forty Housing and Commercial Development Project / a o o 't. 2 44 19 Site Generate Traffic Assume 20% Site Gen. of Trafj`ic Uses the Unignalized Intersection i RFTA ------------------ 1 1 t 1 Proposed CMC 1 1 Existing] 1 1 Soccer Field i s e Proposed °.� ,��� 1 Comercial \tom -;-------------------- - 1 Aspen 4 Airport a Business 41 � 30 Center Site Generate Traffic xx '� Assume 80% Site Gen. of Tra)) c xx �" Uses the Signalized Intersection xx '1 Residential Legend: �■ Existing Roadway ----- Proposed Roadway Figure S - AM Site Generated Traffic - With Access at RFTA Intersection - Scenario 2 Page 11 Traffic Impact Analysis North Forty Housing and Commercial Development Project Site Generate Traffic Assume 20% Site Gen. of T,-qj c Uses the Signalized Intersection i i RFTA 1 1 i 1 1 Pro d � ose �i t p i � MC ; C 1 % Y} N 00 Sardy, Field V,d,d - 38 a --0— 4 �31 xx 1 , Existin g ! � 1 1 1 Soccer Field 1 � t � 1 J ! Proposed Comercial < -----J i 1 •�"' I l--------------------- ! Aspen Airport _ Business / Center Site Generate Traffic Assume 80% Site Gen. of Traffic Uses the Signalized Intersection Residential Legend: Existing Roadway — Proposed Roadway Figure 6 - PM Site Generated Traffic with Access at RFTA Intersection - Scenario 2 Figures 7 through 10 illustrate the combination of existing and site generated AM and PM peak traffic at the north AABC signalized intersection under scenario 1) where 100% of site generated traffic is assigned to the north AABC intersection. Figures 7 and 8 - Scenario 2 illustrates the assignment of 80% of the site generated traffic to the SH 82 north AABC intersection and 20% to the SH 82/RFI'A intersection - Figures 9 and 10. Page 12 Traffic Impact Analysis North Forty Housing and Commercial Development Project 1 ------------------------ 1 1 Proposed CMC 1 Existing 1 1 1 1 Soccer Field ! 1 Proposed Comercial A,*`0 i Residential Existing Roadway Proposed Roadway Figure 7 - AM Existing and Site Generated Traffic - No Access at RFTA Intersection - Scenario 1 Page 13 Traffic Impact Analysis North Forty Housing and Commercial Development Project N 00 S ardy, Field 1 i RFTA ------------------------ 1 ! 1 1 1 1 ! I ♦ � i Proposed I 1 CMC ♦♦ ! 1 1 Existing + 1 i Soccer Field ' + I e `% ♦I e + Proposed i Comercial - ---—-— - — - — -—-------- 1 - 1 1 � 1 O0, Aspen tn 283. 14 251 Airport Business Center ............................... .........__...__........ .............................. 31 \ 22 24 Residential Legend: —� Existing Roadway Proposed Roadway Figure 8 - PM Existing and Site Generated Traffic - No Access at RFTA Intersection - Scenario 1 Page 14 Traffic Impact Analysis North Forty Housing and Commercial Development Project 1 _ _ _ 1 1 ! (I Proposed CMC ; T 1 1 ! Existing r , I Soccer Field 1 ! r % ,I r Proposed 1 Comercial Residential Existing Roadway Proposed Roadway Figure 9 - AM Existing and Site Generated Traffic with Access at RFTA Intersection - Scenario Z Page 15 Traffic Impact Analysis North Forty Housing and Commercial Development Project 1 — - — - — - — - — - — - — -••��---ems --- i i--—— — — — — —� Proposed CMC ♦♦ 1 1 r _t Existing ; o I 1 Soccer Field s�♦ 1 Proposed "N e Comercial �% 1 1 ,_s Residential Existing Roadway Proposed Roadway Figure 10-PM Existing and Site Generated Traffic with Access at RFTA Intersection -Scenario 2 Page 16 Traffic Impact Analysis North Fortv Housing and Commercial Development Project ESTIMATED TRAFFIC IMPACT. The proposed development's primary traffic impact will be during the PM Peak commuter hours at the north AABC signalized intersection. In order to assess this impact, capacity analyses have been completed to compare existing traffic operating conditions with those reflecting the additional site generated traffic. The standard method for determining the operating conditions of an intersection with and without the addition of site generated traffic is the Highway Capacity Manual, HCM, published by the Transportation Research Board of of the National Academy of Sciences. HCM uses the concept of Level of Service, LOS. LOS is measured and graded by the amount of total delay experience by motorists at an intersection. There are six different possible Levels of Service (A, B, C, D, E, and F ) A being the best "grade" and F being the worst. LOS A represents the most desirable "free -flow" condition with little if any delay per automobile. LOS F represents significant delay for all motorists using the intersection. Table 2 summarizes the results of our LOS analyses for the North Forty proposed development at the SH 82 signalized intersection. The timings used in the analysis are the current CDOT signal timings in operation. The printouts of the actual HCM analysis are included as attachments to this document. The delay listed in the following table represents the estimated average amount of time in seconds a vehicle will wait at each approach before clearing the intersection. The unsignalized RFTA intersection carries very little traffic and therefore the impact of the additional North Forty Development traffic is minimal. The primary use for this intersection is the access point for the RFTA bus maintenance and operations facility. RFTA operates 70 buses from this location. Most of the buses are dispatched prior to the automobile traffic AM Peak Hour and most buses return to the facility after the automobile PM Peak Hour. The buses begin leaving the facility at 4:30 am. There is a great deal of in and out bus traffic during the afternoon and most buses do not return to the facility until after 6:00 pm. Our analysis indicates that with the distribution of 20% of the site generated traffic to the RFTA intersection at SH 82, the existing signalized intersection operates at an LOS C in the AM and LOS D in the PM. Page 17 Traffic Impact Analysis North Forty Housing and Commercial Development Project Table 2 Level of Service SH 82/ AABC North Signalized Intersection AM Peak Existing Traffic Existing + North 40 Traffic Existing + North 40 Traffic No Access at RFTA intersection Access at RFTA intersection Intersection Average LOS Average LOS Average LOS Approach Delay (seconds) Delay (seconds) Delay (seconds) Northbound 13.4 B 12.9 B 13.1 B Southbound 21.3 C 20.4 C 21.2- C Eastbound 18.6 C 18.6 C 18.6 C Westbound 18.4 C 18.2 C 18.2 C Intersection Total 19.2 C 18.5 C 19.0 C Level of Service SH 82/ AABC North Signalized Intersection PM Peak Existing Traffic Existing + North 40 Traffic Existing + North 40 Traffic Existing Traffic No Access at RFTA intersection Access at RFTA intersection Intersection Average LOS Average LOS Average LOS Approach Delay (seconds) Delay (seconds) Delay (seconds) Northbound 52.5 E 48.4 E 52.9 E Southbound 14.6 B 14.1 B 14.2 B Eastbound 18.9 C 19 C 18.9 C Westbound 11.9 B 12.2 B 12.8 B Intersection Total 34.4 D 31.7 D 33.5 D Summary The close proximity of the proposed development to an existing commercial and business center helps to reduce the number of additional automobile trips that the North Forty development would generate. The proposed mixed use of this site adds to the areas ability to develop without appreciably increasing traffic, by placing single family housing adjacent to potential employers and support services. The analysis shows that through traffic on SH 82 near the proposed North Forty site is currently operating in the peak hours at a level of service C in the AM and D in the PM. The additional trips generated by the proposed development when added to the current traffic flow will impact the operation of the signalized intersection primarily by adding additional westbound left turn vehicles. This additional traffic will not change the AM or PM peak hour LOS. It is important to note that the HCM LOS analysis is extremely sensitive to changes in traffic signal operation. Currently, the traffic signal at SH 82 and the north AABC intersection is operating on a 110 second cycle. 45 seconds of that time is allocated to north and south bound, 35 seconds is allocated to east and west bound, by redistributing 7 seconds from the east/west phase to the north/south phase, all phases will operate at a level of service C. This analysis includes North Forty site generated traffic. Page 18 Traffic Impact Analysis North Forty Housing and Commercial Development Project The signal at SH 82 and the north AABC intersection is semi -actuated and that makes duplication of the intersections actual operation difficult. At times the cross street traffic will not hold its full green time and the SH 82 directions will receive the extra time and their operations will be improved. We believe that is why existing real -world operations at this intersection in the PM are not consistent with the HCM analysis Page 19 Gunter Measures it Code : 00000001 PAGE: 1 -5 Street: HIGHWAY-02 FILE: ASACHOR -� Street: 8USINESS CTR NORTH ACCESS Movements by: Primary DATE: 4/04/95 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PEAK PERIOD ANALYSIS FOR THE PERIOD: 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM 0IRECTI[ON START PEAK HR ........ VOLUMES ........ .... PERCENTS ... FROM ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PEAK HOUR FACTOR Right lhru Left Total Right Thru Left North 4:00 PM 0,86 9 368 96 473 2 78 20 East 4:10 PM 0.35 236 9 212 457 52 2 46 South 4:10 PM 0.92 141 924 45 1110 13 83 4 West 5:00 PM 0.89 28 21 44 93 30 23 41 Entire Intersection North 4:a PM 0.81 7 353 81 447 2 79 19 East 0.35 236 9 212 457 52 2 46 South 0.92 141 924 45 1110 13 83 4 West 0.14 24 22 31 77 31 29 40 1 I I ! ! � � I ! 1 7 353 .......... .. ... �. 44 7 S................... BUSINESS CTR NORTH ACCESS 22 24 —� H I GHWAY-82 N W f.......... ..................... . 5 ... a 8 7 ...:............. Z36 9 212 77 BUSINESS CTR NORTH ACCESS HIGHWAY-82 7 1110-7 as 1924 ! 141 250 Counter Heasures iite Code : 00000001 PA6E: 1 4-5 Street: HIGHWAY-62 FILE: ASACHOR .-q Street: BUSINESS CTR NORTH ACCESS AOVe0ent3 bY: PTiaarY DATE: 4/04/95 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PEAK PERIOD ANALYSIS FOR THE PERIOD: 6:30 AM - 8:30 AM DIRECTION START PEAK HR ,....... VOLUMES ........ .... PERCENTS ... FROM PEAK HOUR FACTOR Right Thru Lett Total Right Thru L:ft ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- North 7:30 AM 0.85 82 776 215 1071 8 72 20 East 7:10 AM 0.30 36 17 119 172 21 10 69 South 7:30 AM 0.80 49 292 43 384 13 76 11 West 7:20 AM 0.77 8 14 9 31 26 45 29 Entire Intersection North 7:30 AM 0.85 82 116 215 1013 8 72 20 East 0.80 36 17 119 172 21 10 69 South 0.80 49 292 43 384 13 76 11 Wesc 0.11 8 14 9 31 26 45 29 HIGHWAY-82 N ..... S 1 .. . ,33.7. 82 77S 1 2i 5 ::.. , ............... _ —1073 36 4 2 .... .Y: BUSINESS CTR NORTH S 14 31 172 17 BUSINESS CTR NORTH ACCESS zee r 384 ........... 43 1292 I 49 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Center For Microcomputers In Transportation ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Streets: (E-W) BUSINESS CTR NORTH (N-S) SH 82 Analyst: DRW File Name: D82EXAM.HC9 Area Type: Other 3-3-96 AM Peak Comment: EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R No. Lanes ---- ---- ---- 1 1< ---- ---- 1 1 ---- 1 ---- ---- ---- 1 1 1 ---- 1 ---- ---- 1 1 Volumes 9 14 8 119 17 36 43 292 49 215 776 82 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 RTOR Vols 5 25 30 20 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Signal Operations Phase combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 EB Left * NB Left Thru * Thru Right * Right Peds Peds WE Left * SE Left Thru * Thru Right * Right Peds Peds NB Right * EB Right SE Right * WE Right Green 35A Green 15A 45P Yellow/A-R 5 Yellow/A-R 5 5 Lost Time 3.0 Lost Time 3.0 3.0 Cycle Length: 110 secs Phase combination order: #1 #5 #6 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/c Approach: Mvmts ----- Cap Flow ----------- Ratio ----- Ratio Delay LOS ----- ----- --- Delay LOS ----- --- EB L 1504 506 0.02 0.34 18.5 C 18.6 C TR 1931 650 0.03 0.34 18.6 C WE L 1534 516 0.24 0.34 20.1 C 18.4 C T 1980 666 0.03 0.34 18.6 C R 1515 1432 0.01 0.95 0.1 A NB L 1787 276 0.00 0.61 0.0 A 13.4 B T 2178 931 0.33 0.43 16.0 C R 15151157 0.02 0.76 2.4 A SB L 1787 276 0.00 0.61 0.0 A 21.3 C T 2178 931 0.88 0.43 28.8 D R 1515 1157 0.06 0.76 2.4 A Intersection ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Delay = 19.2 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = C HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Center For Microcomputers In Transportation ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Streets: (E-W) BUSINESS CTR NORTH (N-S) SH 82 Analyst: DRW File Name: D82XSGA2.HC9 Area Type: Other 3-3-96 AM Peak Comment: EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES + SITE GENERATED VOLUMES 1000 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R No. Lanes ---- ---- ---- 1 1< ---- ---- 1 1 ---- 1 ---- ---- ---- 1 1 1 ---- 1 ---- ---- 1 1 Volumes 9 14 8 154 25 47 43 292 64 265 776 82 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 RTOR Vols -- 5 25 30 1 20 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Signal Operations Phase combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 EB Left * NB Left Thru * Thru Right * Right Peds Peds WB Left * SB Left Thru * Thru Right * Right Peds Peds NB Right * EB Right SE Right * WE Right Green 35A Green 15A 45P Yellow/A-R 5 Yellow/A-R 5 5 Lost Time - 3.0 Lost Time 3.0 3.0 Cycle Length: 110 secs Phase combination order: #1 #5 #6 -------------------------------------------------------_--------------- Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/c Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS ----- EB L ----------- 1456 490 ----- 0.02 ----- ----- --- 0.34 i8.5 C ----- --- 18.6 C TR 1931 650 0.03 0.34 18.6 C WB L 1534 516 0.31 0.34 20.7 C 18.2 C T 1980 666 0.04 0.34 18.7 C R 1515 1432 0.02 0.95 0.1 A NB L 1787 276 0.00 0.61 0.0 A 12.9 B T 2178 931 0.33 0.43 16.0 C R 1515 1157 0.03 0.76 2.4 A SB L 1787 276 0.00 0.61 0.0 A 20.4 C T 2178 931 0.88 0.43 28.8 D R 1515 1157 0.06 0.76 2.4 A Intersection ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Delay = 18.5 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = C HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Center For Microcomputers In Transportation Streets: (E-W) BUSINESS CTR NORTH (N-S) SH 82 Analyst: DRW File Name: D82EXSGA.HC9 Area Type: Other 3-3-96 AM Peak Comment: EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES + SITE GENERATED VOLUMES ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R No. Lanes ---- ---- ---- 1 1< ---- ---- 1 1 ---- 1 ---- ---- ---- 1 1 1 ---- 1 ---- ---- 1 1 Volumes 9 14 8 149 21 45 43 295 61 255 785 82 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 RTOR Vols 5 25 30 20 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Signal Operations Phase combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 EB Left * NB Left Thru * Thru Right * Right Peds Peds WB Left * SB Left Thru * Thru Right * Right Peds Peas NB Right * EB Right SB Right * WB Right Green 35A Green 15A 45P Yellow/A-R 5 Yellow/A-R 5 5 - Lost Time 3.0 Lost Time 3.0. 3.0 Cycle Length: 110 secs Phase combination order: #1 #5 #6 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Intersection Performance Summary = Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/c Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS ----- EB L ----------- 1471 495 ----- 0.02 ----- ----- --- 0.34 18.5 C ----- --- 18.6 C TR 1931 650 0.03 0.34 18.6 C WB L 1534 516 0.30 0.34 20.6 C 18.2 C T 1980 666 0.03 0.34 18.6 C R 1515 1432 0.01 0.95 0.1 - A NB L 1787 276 0.00 0.61 0.0 A 13.1 B T 2178 931 0.33 0.43 16.1 C R 1515 1157 0.03 0.76 2.4 A SB L 1787 276 0.00 0.61 0.0 A 21.2 C T 2178 931 0.89 0.43 29.5 D R 1515 1157 0.06 0.76 2.4 A Intersection ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Delay = 19.0 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = C HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Center For Microcomputers In Transportation Streets: (E-W) BUSINESS CTR NORTH (N-S) SH 82 Analyst: Drw File Name: D82EX.HC9 Area Type: Other 3-3-96 PM Peak Comment: EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R No. Lanes ---- ---- 1 ---- ---- ---- 1 < 1 1 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 1 1 1 1 1 ---- ---- 1 1 Volumes 31 22 24 212 9 236 45 924 141 87 353 7 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 RTOR Vols -- 5 45 45 2 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Signal Operations Phase combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 EB Left * NB Left Thru * Thru Right * Right Peas Peds WB Left * SB Left Thru * Thru Right * Right Peds Peds NB Right * EB Right SB Right * WB Right Green 35A Green 15A 45P Yellow/ A-R 5 Yellow/A-R 5 5 Lost Time 3.0 Lost Time 3.0 3.0 Cycle Length: 110 secs Phase combination order: #1 #5 #6 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/c Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS ----- EB L ---- 1064 ------- ----- 358 0.09 ----- ----- --- 0.34 19.0 C ----- --- 18.9 C TR 1842 620 0.07 0.34 18.9 C WB L 1471 495 0.45 0.34 22.2 C 11.9 B T 1980 666 0.01 0.34 18.5 C R 1515 1432 0.14 0.95 0.1 A NB L 1787 276 0.00 0.61 0.0 A 52.5 E T 2178 931 1.05 0.43 60.2 F R 1515 1157 0.09 0.76 2.5 A SB L 1787 276 0.10 0.61 6.8 B 14.6 B T 2178 931 0.40 0.43 16.7 C R 1515 1157 0.00 0.76 2.3 A Intersection ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Delay = 34.4 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = D HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Center For Microcomputers In Transportation Streets: (E-W) BUSINESS CTR NORTH (N-S) SH 82 Analyst: DRW File Name: D82EXSG2.HC9 Area Type: Other 3-3-96 PM Peak Comment: EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES + SITE GENERATED VOLUMES 1000-. Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R ---- No. Lanes 1 ---- ---- ---- ---- 1< 1 1 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 1 1 1 1 1 ---- ---- 1 1 Volumes 31 22 24 251 14 283 45 924 236 138 353 7 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 RTOR Vols 5 45 45 2 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Signal Operations Phase combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 EB Left * NB Left Thru * Thru Right * Right Peds Peds WB Left * SD Left- Thru * Thru Right * Right Peds Peds NB Right * EB Right SB Right * WB Right Green 35A Green 15A 45P Yellow/A-R 5 Yellow/A-R 5_ 5 Lost Time 3.0 Lost Time 3.0 3.0 Cycle Length: 110 secs Phase combination order: #1 #5 #6 --------------- ------------------------------------------------------- Intersection Performance Summary = Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/c Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS ----- ---- EB L 931 ------- ----- 313 0.11 ----- ----- --- 0.34 19.1 C ----- --- 19.0 C TR 1842 620 0.07 0.34 18.9 C WB L 1471 495 0.53 0.34 23.3 C 12.2 B T 1980 666 0.02 0.34 18.5 C R 1515 1432 0.18 0.95 0.2 A NB L 1787 276 0.00 0.61 0.0 A 48.4 E T 2178 931 1.05 0.43 60.2 F R 1515 1157 0.17 0.76 2.7 A SB L 1787 276 0.29 0.61 7.9 B 14.1 B T 2178 931 0.40 0.43 16.7 C R 1515 1157 0.00 0.76 2.3 A Intersection Delay ----------------------------------------------------------------------- = 31.7 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = D HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Center For Microcomputers In Transportation ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Streets: (E-W) BUSINESS CTR NORTli (N-S) SH 82 Analyst: DRW File Name: D82EXSG.HC9 Area Type: Other 3-3-96 PM Peak Comment: EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES.+ SITE GENERATED VOLUMES Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R No. Lanes ---- ---- 1 ---- ---- ---- 1< 1 1 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 1 1 1 1 1 ---- ---- 1 1 Volumes 31 22 24 242 13 245 45 927 153 172 362 7 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0. 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 RTOR Vols 5 45 45 2 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Signal Operations Phase combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 EB Left * NB Left Thru * Thru Right * Right * ` Peds Peds WB Left * IS Left Thru * Thru Right * Right Peds Peds NB Right * EB Right SB Right * WB Right Green 35A Green 15A 45P Yellow/A-R 5 Yellow/A-R 5 5 - Lost Time 3.0 Lost Time 3.0 3.0 Cycle Length: 110 secs Phase combination order: #1 #5 #6 =------------------------------------- ---------------------------------- Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/c Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS ----- EB L ---- 1028 ------- ----- 346 0.10 ----- ----- --- 0.34 19.0 C ----- --- 18.9 C TR 1842 620 0.07 0.34 18.9 C WB L 1471 495 0.52 0.34 23.0 C 12.8 B T 1980 666 0.02 0.34 18.5 C R 1515 1432 0.15 0.95 0.1 A NB L 1787 276 0.00 0.61 0.0 A 52.9 E T 2178 931 1.05 0.43 61.3 F R 1515 1157 0.10 0.76 2.5 A SB L 1787 276 0.42 0.61 9.2 B 14.2 B T 2178 931 0.41 0.43 16.8 C R 1515 1157 0.00 0.76 2.3 A Intersection Delay ----------------------------------------------------------------------- = 33.5 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = D AIR SCIENCES INC. AIR QUALITY AND ODOR IMPACT ASSESSMENT - NORTH FORTY PROJECT NORTH FORTY PROJECT PROJECT 112-01 MARCH 1996 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................... 1 2.0 ESTIMATION OF EMISSIONS..................................................................................... 4 2.1 Activity Rates...........................................................................................I ............ 4 2.2 Emission Factors................................................................................................... 5 2.3 Emissions Quantification....................................................................................... 5 3.0 MODELING ALGORITHM AND ESTIMATED IMPACTS ............................................ 7 3.1 Modeling Approach............................................................................................... 7 3.2 Meteorological Data Set......................................................................................... 7 3.3 Building Wake Algorithms..................................................................................... 13 3.4 Impacts................................................................................................................... 14 4.0 QUALITATIVE COMPARISON TO RUBY PARK ........................................................ 16 5.0 QUANTIFICATION OF ODOR..................................................................................... 17 5.1 Methodology r 5.2 Hydrocarbon Constituents................................................................ 18 5.3 Impacts and Comparison to Odor Thresholds .......................................... 19 5.3.1 Hydrocarbons............................................................................................. 19 5.3.2 Nitrogen Dioxide......................................................................................... 20 5.4 Uncertainty............................................................................................................. 21 5.4.1 Impacts for Known Hydrocarbon Species with Unknown Odor Thresholds............ :..................................................................................... 21 5.4.2 Impacts for Unknown Hydrocarbon Species ............................................. 21 5.5 Conclusions........................................................................................................... 22 LIST OF TABLES PAGE 2.1 RFTA ASPEN BUS BARN EMISSIONS ..................................................................... 6 3.1 FREQUENCY OF WINDS BY DIRECTION AND SPEED FOR AIRPORT MONITORING SITE.......................................................................... 8 3.2 FREQUENCY OF WINDS BY DIRECTION AND SPEED FOR THE KSNO MONITORING SITE 11 3.3 ESTIMATED IMPACTS AT THE NORTH FORTY PROJECT .................................. 14 5.1 PERCENTAGES OF CHEMICAL SPECIES IN DIESEL HC EXHAUST .................. 19 5.2 IMPACTS FOR ODOROUS HYDROCARBONS FROM DIESEL EMISSIONS AND ODOR THRESHOLDS ....................................................................................... 20 LIST OF FIGURES PAGE 1.1 PROJECT LOCATION 2 1.2 ORIENTATION OF RFTA BUS BARN WITH RESPECT TO THE NORTH FORTY PROJECT 3 3.1 WIND FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION BY DIRECTION AND SPEED FOR THE AIRPORT MONITORING SITE 9 3.2 WIND FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION BY DIRECTION AND SPEED FOR THE KSNO MONITORING SITE ................................................................................ 12 1.0 INTRODUCTION The North Forty Project (North Forty) is a proposed housing development to be located immediately north (approximately 30 feet) of the Roaring Fork Transit Authority (RFTA) transportation center. The project is located along Highway 82, approximately 1,100 feet west of the Pitkin County Airport (Sandy Field) in the Roaring Fork River valley. The Aspen/Pitkin County Environmental Health Department has requested that North Forty estimate air quality and odor impacts on residents at the proposed project resufting from emission sources at the RFTA facility. Figure 1.1 shows the project location in the Aspen area and Figure 1.2 shows the location of the RFTA bus bam relative to the proposed project site. The RFTA bus bam is a large building which can accommodate approximately 42 buses, with additional parking areas outside. Buses associated with this facility range in size from large (50 passenger) coaches to smaller (15 passenger) maxivans. (For purposes of this document, the term "buses" is used to refer to all l types of passenger -carrying vehicles not for personal use.) Approximately 61 passenger vehicles regularly ---'✓ operate out of the RFTA facility. Normal operations include a moming peak of activity during which the majority of the buses are idled to warm up the engines, filled with fuel, and cleaned inside and out. The buses then leave the station for their moming routes. A secondary peak of activity occurs in the aftemoon, when approximately 22 buses are dispatched for additional routes. Buses are stored ovemight both inside and outside at the RFTA bus bam. Emissions and impacts from this facility are expected to be highest in the winter months due to peak bus demands, cold temperatures, and stable air conditions. Combustion by-products from the RFTA facility quantified in this report include particulate matter less than. 10 microns in aerodynamic diameter (PM10), nitrogen oxides (NOO, carbon monoxide (CO), and hydrocarbons (HC). Impacts of PM1o, NO,,, and CO at the proposed project site are estimated using a modeling algorithm for comparison to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Hydrocarbons are estimated in order to quantify odorous constituents in the combustion emissions. Impacts of these constituents are estimated and compared to constituent -specific odor thresholds. Odor impacts due to NOX emissions are also investigated. 1 • 'I m V1 E 319 ' Z M C �t7 ' o �o -o 0za 4 L f � ! o as i n s e� -mac r N A C a - z a� 0 ac ao r 6 �\ 1 FIGURE 1.1 PROJECT LOCATION NORTH FORTY PROJECT AIR SCIENCES INC L6M vOOu QXORAoO 2 BUS _ �\ �\ NORTH PROPOSED PROJECT = — F'►—nc�:r ti �a V FIGURE 1.2 ORIENTATION OF RFTA BUS BARN WITH RESPECT TO THE NORTH FORTY PROJECT Alit SCIENCES INC. LAKEWOOD. COLORADO I 2.0 ESTIMATION OF EMISSIONS 2.1 Activity Rates Based on information provided by RFTA, an inventory of the vehicles regularly operating out of the Aspen bus bam was established. A maximum of 61 buses are available to operate out of the RFTA facility. However, at any given time, only 85 percent of the total fleet is operating due to repair activities. Limited information and varying schedules require that several assumptions be made: • Two major peaks of activity are assumed. The morning peak assumes all operating vehicles start up and idle at the same time. A second peak assumes 22 buses idle simultaneously in the afternoon. (In reality, buses may be dispatched over several hours. These conservative assumptions allow for estimation of maximum short-term emissions.) • Specific vehicles are not removed from the inventory to account for repair activities. Instead, all vehicles are assumed to operate and the total idling time is reduced by 15 percent. • Morning idling times vary depending on whether a vehicle is stored overnight inside or outside of the RFTA bus bam. It is assumed that buses housed inside overnight require 10 minutes of idling for purposes of engine warming while buses stored outside overnight require 60 minutes of idling. An additional 20 minutes of idling time is added to both inside and outside times to account for vehicle servicing. Total idling times, therefore, are estimated to be 30 minutes for buses housed inside and 80 minutes for buses outside. • Based on the bus bam storage capacity of 42 buses, it is estimated that two-thirds of the 61-bus fleet (or 41 buses) are housed inside overnight. The remaining buses are assumed to be stored outside. Using this information and the idling times above, a weighted average idling time of 0.8 hours for all buses is used to estimate morning emissions. • Afternoon idling times assume that the buses have already been operating and/or are starting up inside. A 10-minute idling time is assumed. No additional idling time is assumed for servicing. • Daily emissions are assumed to equal twice the sum of morning and afternoon peak emissions. This assumption is to account for all non -peak bus activity. Annual emissions are quantified assuming that daily emissions occur 365 days per year. 4 2.2 Emission Factors Emissions factors used to quantify emissions are based on EPA emission standards for diesel vehicle engines. These standards are based on the transient test procedure (as stipulated in 45 FIR 4181, January 21, 1980, and 40 CFR 86, Subpart N, July 1, 1984) that includes two 20-minute running cycles. The first is a "cold start test" in which the engine has been allowed to sit for at least 12 hours at 68 - 86°F. The engine is idled and then taken through a range of speeds. After allowing the engine to remain off for 20 minutes, a "hot start test" takes the engine through the same cycle. The two cycle results are combined, with cold -start emissions contributing 14 percent of the final emission standard. Standards exist for emissions of particulate matter (PM), NOX, CO, and HCs. In this report, PM is considered to be equal to PMjo since all particulate combustion emissions are typically less than 10 microns in diameter. The standards are reported in units of grams per horsepower -hour (g/hp-hr), and the rated horsepowers of the engines (provided by RFTA) are used to quantify emissions. The standards are model - year specific, so appropriate factors have been selected depending on model year information (provided by RFTA). (Engine rebuild information is not readily available and is not accounted for in determining which standard to use.) • Where the rated horsepower of an engine is not provided, the EPA emission standard cannot be used. Instead, emission factors (in g/hr) from EPA's Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (AP-42, Vol. II) for idling emissions at high altitude are used. Appendix A contains the spreadsheet tables used to estimate emissions including activity rates, emission factors, assumptions, and references. Idling emission factors for specific engine types were obtained from diesel engine manufacturers. A comparison of EPA standards, AP-42 emission factors, and manufacturer information indicates that using EPA standards to estimate emissions results in the highest and most conservative emission estimates. Note, however, that information on emissions from engines idling at very low temperatures for long periods of time was unavailable. 2.3 Emissions Quantification Daily and annual emissions are summarized in Table 2.1 below. For purposes of comparing impacts with short-term ambient standards, it is necessary to estimate one -hour and eight -hour emissions for CO. One - hour CO emissions include emissions from the moming peak only, while eight -hour emissions include both moming and aftemoon peak emissions distributed over eight hours. TABLE 2.1 RFTA ASPEN BUS BARN EMISSIONS Hourly (Ibs) Eight -hour (Ibs) Daily (Ibs) Annual (tons) PM10 NOx 23.0 426.0 4.2 77.7 CO HC 407.9 — 445.5 — 891.0 64.7 162.6 11.8 3.0 MODELING ALGORITHM AND ESTIMATED IMPACTS Traditional Gaussian dispersion models that utilize source and receptor locations, emission estimates, and meteorological data as input are available to generate predictions of downwind impacts caused by sources of air emissions. For this project, the "traditional' modeling approach was modified to account for the effect of the source (i.e., the 50,000 square foot RFTA bus bam) on impacts at nearby receptors C.e., the North Forty Project). This section describes the modeling approach, input data, and dispersion algorithms used to estimate air quality impacts from the RFTA bus bam. 3.1 Modeling Approach Buildings and building complexes generate a non -uniform flow field, enhancing turbulence around the building complex. This turbulence can change the dispersion patterns in the vicinity of the building (Hatcher, 1977). As some residences of the proposed North Forty Project may be within 10 meters of the RFTA bus bam, the traditional Gaussian dispersion model must be modified to simulate the effect of the existing building on the dispersion of air emissions to 'he surrounding area. Algorithms that account for this effect have been developed based on wind tunnel studies and other experiments and are utilized in this analysis to estimate impacts near the bus bam. 3.2 Meteorological Data Set Meteorological data are routinely collected at the Aspen Airport, which is located directly across Highway 82 from the proposed project site. Wind speed and wind direction data are recorded by hand approximately once per hour at this site, typically from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. Data is reported daily to the National Weather Center. One year (1995) of airport data has been downloaded from the. Western Regional Climate Center and evaluated for this analysis. The airport meteorological data for calendar year 1995 are summarized in Table 3.1 and are represented as a wind rose in Figure 3.1. The most frequent winds (33 percent) come from the sectors of south southwest through south southeast. The second most frequent wind directions are northwest through north (approximately 29 percent). This up- and down -valley wind flow pattern is typical of river valleys such as the Roaring Fork River Valley. The least frequent winds come from the sectors of north northeast through east northeast, occurring less than 2 percent of the year. 7 TABLE 3.1 FREQUENCY OF WINDS BY DIRECTION AND SPEED FOR AIRPORT MONITORING SITE January 1995 - December 1995 (percent of occurrence) Speed Class Intervals (knots) Direction 1.<3 3,<6 6,<10 10,<16 16.<21 z21 All N 0.0 4.5 4.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 9.9 NNE 0.0 1.1 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.7 NE 0.0 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 ENE 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 E 0.0 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.9 ESE 0.0 1.3 0.8 0.5 0.0 0.0 2.7 SE 0.0 1.8 1.3 0.8 0.0 0.0 4.0 SSE 0.0 2.4 1.8 1.1 0.0 0.1 5.5 S 0.0 8.6 7.7 1.4 0.1 0.0 17.9 SSW 0.0 4.0 4.5 0.6 0.0 0.0 9.1 SW 0.0 1.7 0.8 0.5 0.0 0.0 3.0 WSW 0.0 1.5 0.7 0.4 0.0 0.0 2.5 W 0.0 2.2 0.7 0.4 0.0 0.0 3.4 WNW 0.0 2.5 1.3 0.6 0.0 0.0 4.5 NW 0.0 3.5 3.6 1.6 0.1 0.0 8.9 NNW 0.0 4.1 4.0 2.1 0.1 0.0 10.3 All 0.2 40.7 32.4 11.5 0.4 0.2 85.4 Calm (<0.87 knot) = 14.6 % Mean wind speed = 7.0 knots Data presented as direction wind is from. Mean Speed 7.0 6.2 5.8 5.6 6.2 7.8 7.4 7.4 6.8 7.0 6.6 6.8 6.4 6.8 7.6 7.6 7.0 WNW W WSW Sl N NNW NNE SSW SSE S LEGEND < 6 KNOTS Z 6 KNOTS CALMS ARE WINDS WITH SPEEDS LESS THAN 1 KNOT SHOWN AS DIRECTION FROM WHICH WIND IS BLOWING E ENE ' 2 15% 0x A ESE AVERAGE WIND SPEED = 7.0 KNOTS FIGURE 3.1 WIND FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION ASPEN AIRPORT JANUARY199v - DECEMBER 1995 AIR SCIENCES INC. LAKEWOOD, COLORADO The airport data set has been utilized to evaluate whether or not meteorological data collected at the nearby KSNO radio tower are representative of the project site. The KSNO data set is preferred for this analysis because it is comprised of 24-hour data (rather than daytime data only, as is the case with the airport data set) and because hourly average data were calculated from continuous readings reduced to 15-minute interval averages (rather than discrete, once -per -hour readings as in the airport data set). In addition, the high frequency of calm conditions monitored at the airport (14.6 percent) indicates that the KSNO instrumentation may be more effective at recording low wind speed conditions, conditions that are likely to have the poorest dispersion potential and create the highest impacts at the North Forty Project. Meteorological data were collected (by Air Sciences Inc.) at the KSNO radio tower, located along Highway 82 in the Roaring Fork River Valley, northwest of the Aspen Golf Course and approximately 1.3 miles southeast of the proposed project site. Wind speed and direction were monitored continuously and recorded digitally from November 26, 1986, through April 10, 1987 (a ' wintertime" monitoring program totaling 136 days). Note that the Roaring Fork River Valley extends from southeast to northwest, and includes the KSNO monitoring location, the Aspen Airport monitoring location, and the proposed North Forty Project. The approximate elevation of these sites are 7,800 feet above sea level. The KSNO meteorological data have been summarized in Table 3.2 and are represented as a wind rose in Figure 3.2. The most frequent winds (38 percent) come from the sectors of south through southeast. The second most frequent wind directions are west northwest through north northwest (approximately 32 percent). The least frequent winds come from the sectors of north northeast through east northeast, occurring less than 2 percent of the monitoring period (136 days). Mi TABLE 3.2 FREQUENCY OF WINDS BY DIRECTION AND SPEED FOR THE KSNO MONITORING SITE November 26, 1986 - April 10, 1987 Speed Class Intervals (knots) Mean Direction 1.<3 3.<6 6.<10 10.<16 16.<21 >_21 All Speed N 0.7 0.9 4.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 6.5 7.3 NNE 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 2.8 NE 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 2.2 ENE 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 2.7 E 0.7 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.6 ESE 1.5 0.9 1.4 1.4 0.0 0.0 5.1 6.5 SE 3.0 2.7 6.3 1.3 0.0 0.0 13.3 6.3 SSE 4.5 5.3 3.7 0.8 0.2 0.2 14.6 5.3 S 3.2 3.9 2.4 0.6 0.1 0.1 10.2 5.1 SSW 2.5 0.7 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.0 3.9 3.8 SW 1.5 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 2.5 WSW 1.6 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 2.6 W 1.9 1.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 3.0 WNW 2.7 4.6 1.7 0.2 0.0 0.0 9.2 4.5 NW 3.3 6.4 3.5 0.7 0.0 0.0 13.9 5.0 NNW 1.3 4.0 3.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 8.9 5.6 All 29.6 31.6 27.5 6.1 0.3 0.3 95.3 5.2 Calm (<1 knot) = 4.7 % Mean wind speed = 5.0 knots Data presented as direction wind is from. WNW �� WSW M 2 mm, NNE SSW SSE S LEGEND Do Da < B KNOTS Z 6 KNOTS CALMS ARE WINDS WITH SPEEDS LESS THAN 1 KNOT SHOWN AS DIRECTION FROM WHCH WIND IS BLOWING LAC 20% 59fi E ESE AVERAGE WIND SPEED = 5.0 KNOTS FIGURE 3.2 WIND FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION KSNO MONITORING SITE ASPEN, COLORADO NOVEMBER 26, 1986 - APRIL 1.0, 1987 Alp, SCIENCES INC. LAKEWOOD, COLORADO 12 Comparison of the overall wind patterns of these two sites indicates that meteorological data from the KSNO site are representative of the project site. Particularly, the winds of concern (i.e., winds from the northeast through northwest that blow from the bus bam toward the project site) are comparable for both data sets (approximately 30 percent). The distinctive northwest/southeast valley -flow winds are captured in both data sets as is a lack of winds from the east or west. The intensity of winds, measured as wind speed, is higher at the airport site (7.0 knots compared to 5.0 knots of the KSNO site). This may be an artifact of the airport data set due to the data collection method, instrumentation, or the fact that the KSNO data set only includes winter months. Regardless, use of the lower wind speed data from the KSNO site will produce more conservative impact estimates for the North Forty Project. For these reasons, the KSNO monitoring data set is considered to be complete, conservative, and representative of the project site and these data are used to estimate impacts at North Forty. 3.3 Building Wake Algorithms Two different modeling algorithms are used to estimate impacts near the bus bam. The area immediately downwind of the bus bam (called the cavity) can trap pollutants due -to wake effects from the building. The distance included in the cavity depends on building dimensions and includes the nearest houses to be built at the North Forty Project (to be located within 10 meters of the bam). The concentration of pollutants within the cavity is estimated using Wilson's wind tunnel study results (1979). For pollutants beyond the cavity, Gifford's equation is used (1982). Dr. Meroney's work (1977) on the nearby source equation is also used to calculate the initial vertical and horizontal dispersion coefficients. Based on the bus bam orientation relative to the proposed project site, it is anticipated that winds from the directions of northwest through northeast could carry air pollutants from the bus bam to the site (see Figure 1.2). The frequency of winds blowing from the northern section (i.e., northwest, north-northwest, north, north- northeast, and northeast) totals 30 percent of all winds during the monitoring period. The frequency of winds blowing from each of these directions from the bus bam toward the proposed project is accounted for in estimating PMIO and NOX long-term impacts. Dispersion algorithms were run for each of the five possible directions affecting the proposed site (northwest, north-northwest, north, north-northeast and northeast). For each wind direction, the mean wind speed for that direction is used to estimate impacts. Daily impact estimates are based on a reasonable maximum daily emission rate and meteorological conditions (wind speed and wind direction) that are assumed to occur throughout a 24-hour day. For each wind direction scenario, downwind impacts only occur as often as `he wind blows in that specific direction. Therefore, for each wind direction scenario, the period average concentrations of PMIO and NOX are calculated by multiplying the 24-hour average by the percentage frequency of winds from that direction. While these frequencies are strictly representative of the monitoring period only (late November through early April), it is expected that dispersion conditions are poorest during this 13 period. It is, therefore, reasonable to assume that period impacts are likely to represent worst -case annual impacts. 3.4 Impacts Maximum impacts for the North Forty Project are summarized in Table 3.3. Impacts presented represent maximum impacts during the winter months (the period for which meteorological data was available). These impacts are added to baseline concentrations for comparison with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The annual average baseline PM10 concentration for Aspen in 1994 was estimated to be 22 11g/m3 (AIRS, 1995). Baseline concentrations for other pollutants are not available at Aspen. Concentrations representative of rural locations are used as baseline concentrations for NOX and CO. TABLE 3.3 ESTIMATED IMPACTS AT THE NORTH FORTY PROJECT - Total Impact Baseline Conc. NAAQS Increment Case /m /m / /m PM10 24-hour NE 111.4 22.0 133.4 150 annual NW 5.0 22.0 27.0 50 NOX annual NW 92.2 6.0 98.2 100 CO 1-hour NE 47,415 2,280 49,695 _ 40,000 8-hour NE 6,473 2,280 8,753 10,000 In all cases except for one -hour CO concentrations, comparison to the NAAQS indicates that impacts at the proposed project site plus baseline concentrations are expected to be below the health -based standards. It is expected that these wintertime impacts are representative of maximum impacts since, during these months, busing activities are at a maximum and winds are generally low speed with stable atmospheric conditions (resulting in poor mixing conditions). In addition, using EPA standards combined with a conservative set of activity rate assumptions provides a conservative estimate of emissions for input into the dispersion algorithms. Spreadsheets used to calculate impacts are included in Appendix B. Emissions of CO are predicted to exceed (by approximately 25 percent) the 1-hour CO NAAQS at a distance of approximately 40 meters from the RFTA bus bam. It is important to note the characteristics of the meteorological data that are used to predict this results. There is only one wind direction scenario under which this prediction occurs: winds from the northeast. These winds are expected to occur at total 0.3 percent of the time (a total of 26 hours throughout the year). All winds recorded in the data set from this direction are below 3.0 knots (1.5 m/s) with an average wind speed of 2.2 knots (1.1 m/s). These conditions occur infrequently and are representative of the worst dispersion conditions that are likely to occur at the project site. 14 It is also important to consider the conservative nature of the emissions impact estimation techniques employed for this analysis. Particularly conservative is the assumption that all buses idle at the same time during the moming peak. (In reality, busing activities may be distributed over several hours of the moming, making the one -hour maximum emission estimates two to three times higher than actual peak emissions may be.) Prediction of an exceedance of the one -hour CO NAAQS is an indicator that, under extremely poor dispersion conditions and during periods of heavy and concentrated RFTA bus activity, downwind impacts of combustion emissions could approach the levels of the health -based standards. As a planning tool, this information could be used by RFTA/Pitkin County to concentrate bus idling activities inside and/or to stagger bus idling activities during prolonged periods of stagnant meteorological conditions. 15 4.0 QUALITATIVE COMPARISON TO RUBY PARK For purposes of providing a qualitative comparison with a familiar busing depot, a description of the city's main bus pick-up/drop-off location, Ruby Park (located in downtown Aspen), is included. The Ruby Park facility includes 12 spaces for buses to load and unload passengers, as well 6 parking spaces (which may be used for loading and unloading during peak schedules). An additional 1-2 parking spaces on the street are utilized during peak winter activities. All types of buses (passenger vehicles) frequent the facility, including large buses and small maxivans. Buses service this depot from approximately 6:30 in the morning to 2:30 the following morning. Peaks in busing activities are common from 8 a.m. to 10 a.m. and from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. During these peak times, approximately 50 buses an hour pass through the depot. During non -peak times, approximately 30 buses stop at Ruby Paris. RFTA attempts to restrict the idling of buses at Ruby Park to less than five minutes (excluding loading and unloading time). Idling times at the RFTA bus barn are significantly longer than at the Ruby Park station. If total idling time at Ruby Park is assumed to be 10 - 15 minutes per bus, then during a peak hour of activity, buses may idle for a total of 500 - 750 minutes (8.3 - 12.5 hours for 50 buses). This estimate can be compared to the peak morning activity at the bus bam, when total idling time is estimated to be 40.3 hours. This indicates that idling times (and resulting emissions and impacts) from the RFTA bus bam are estimated to be 3 - 5 times higher than those at the Ruby Paris station. 16 5.0 QUANTIFICATION OF ODOR The primary contributors to diesel exhaust odor intensity are a smoky-bumt odor and an oily -kerosene odor. It has been estimated that 2,000 distinct chemicals may contribute to the smoky-bumt odor and 200 chemicals may contribute to the oily -kerosene odor. Hydrocarbons constitute the majority of odorous compounds in diesel emissions (CDH, 1983). In addition, nitrogen dioxide, an odorous combustion gas, also contributes to odors from diesel exhaust. Impacts of HCs and NOx have been estimated using the algorithms described in Section 3. These impacts are, used herein to provide a quantitative estimate of odors present at North Forty. In order to quantitatively determine whether a certain pollutant will be present in sufficient quantity to cause nuisance odors, odor threshold values for various odorant chemicals have been compiled (National Academy of Science, 1979; Air Pollution, 3rd Ed., 1976; Linnell and Scott, 1962; U.S. EPA, 1992; Zagey, AWMA, 1991). There are two types of odor thresholds: a detection threshold and a recognition threshold. The detection odor threshold refers to the minimum concentration (usually listed in parts per million (ppm) by volume) of an odorant necessary for a person to notice its existence through sense of smell. The recognition odor threshold refers to the minimum odorant concentration necessary for .6 person to recognize a characteristic odor quality. Since individuals have varying sensitivity to odors, the odor thresholds are usually defined as the minimum concentrations necessary for detection or recognition by 50 percent of the population (U.S. EPA, 1992). Regulation 2, Odor Emission Regulations, of the Colorado Air Regulations prohibits sources from emitting odorous air contaminants if such air emissions result in detectable odors exceeding specified limits. For residential and commercial areas, a violation occurs if odors are detected after the odorous air has been diluted with seven or more volumes of odor -free air. 5.1 Methodology Impacts for HCs and NOx are calculated using the algorithms discussed in Section 3, and impacts of specific HC constituents are estimated based on their percent composition in diesel exhaust. Impacts are then compared to the corresponding odor threshold to determine whether concentrations of odorant species emitted from the bus barn can be detected at the North Forty Project site. Detection thresholds are used to compare to impacts for all but two of the odorous HC constituents in the following analysis. For the two exceptions, formaldehyde and ethylene, the only odor thresholds available are the thresholds for recognition by 100 percent of the population tested. Two different approaches are taken in the comparison of odor impacts to odor thresholds. The first approach compares odor thresholds to odor impacts averaged over one hour, the shortest averaging period of 17 modeled impacts. If impacts at the North Forty site are less than the applicable odor threshold, then detection of the odorous compound is not expected. Since odors have their effect with very brief exposure time (on the order of several minutes (Feldstein et al., 1973)), the one -hour averaging period may not be short enough to represent the maximum odor intensity. Therefore, a second approach employs the results of Feldstein et al. (1973) indicating that a three -minute average concentration is not expected to exceed the odor threshold more than once per year if the annual arithmetic mean concentration is less than or equal to five one -thousandths of the odor threshold: If the annual average impact exceeds five one -thousandths of the odor threshold, then the odorous compound could be detected at least once during the year for the three -minute exposure time. The advantage to using this second approach is that the exposure time considered is on the order of minutes as opposed to hours. The disadvantage, however, is that the statistical analysis used to derive this approach assumes a lognormal distribution for the three -minute concentrations over a year's time. Given the intensity of the early moming and aftemoon peaks in activity at the RFTA bus'-bam, a lognormal distribution of three -minute concentrations may not provide a maximum estimate of odor impacts from the bus bam emissions. 5.2 Hydrocarbon Constituents To quantify the impacts from specific odorous hydrocarbons in diesel exhaust, the percent composition of individual odorant species that comprise diesel exhaust emissions is required. While this information is not readily available for all emission constituents, the EPA's Air Chief database provides the percentages of specific chemical species in diesel hydrocarbon emissions for a limited group of constituents. This list of chemical constituents is presented in Table 5.1 with the associated percentage of total hydrocarbons in diesel exhaust. M TABLE 5.1 PERCENTAGES OF CHEMICAL SPECIES IN DIESEL HC EXHAUST NORTH FORTY PROJECT Percentage of Percentage of Pollutant' HC Emissions (%) Pollutant2 HC Emissions f%) Acetaldehyde 2.91 Acetylene 11.3 Benzaldehyde 0.55 Benzene 7.9 Crotonaldehyde 1.01 Butadiene 7 Formaldehyde 8.61 Butene 13.4 Hexanal 0.08 Ethane 2.8 Propionaldehyde 1.77 Ethylene 28.7 Propene 17.3 From the light -duty diesel vehicles profile (Air Chief, May, 1992). 2 From the reciprocating diesel engines profile (Air Chief, May, 1992). This list represents a small fraction of the over 2,000 distinct chemicals that may contribute to diesel exhaust odors. However, summation of the 13 constituents in Table 5.1 suggestsrthat the majority of diesel hydrocarbon emission mass may be accounted for by these 13 constituents. (The sum of the percentages in Table 5.1 is actually greater than 100 percent because the data comes from two separate VOC profiles, one for light -duty diesel vehicles and the other for reciprocating diesel engines.) Impacts for each of the pollutants listed in Table 5.1 can be estimated by multiplying the impact for HCs by the percentages in Table 5.1. (The modeling algorithms are linear with respect to emission rate.) Odor thresholds are available for seven of these pollutants (see Table 5.2 below), and impacts for these pollutants can be directly compared to their associated odor thresholds. 5.3 Impacts and Comparison to Odor Thresholds 5.3.1 Hydrocarbons As mentioned above, odor thresholds were available for seven of the constituents in Table 5.1. Table 5.2 lists the estimated impacts and odor thresholds for the seven compounds. One -hour impacts are compared to the corresponding odor thresholds, while annual average impacts are compared to five one - thousandths of the odor thresholds. 19 TABLE 5.2 IMPACTS FOR ODOROUS HYDROCARBONS FROM DIESEL EMISSIONS AND ODOR THRESHOLDS NORTH FORTY PROJECT Maximum 1-Hour Odor Threshold Annual Average 5/1000 of Odor Pollutant Impact (ppm (ppm) Impact (ppm) Threshold (ppm) Acetaldehyde 0.051 0.067 2.10 x 10' 3.35 x 10' Formaldehyde 0.22 1.03 9.12 x 10' 5.00 x 10' Propionaldehyde 0.024 0.04 9.69 x 10' 2.00 x 10' Acetylene 0.33 445 1.38 x 10' 2.23 Benzene 0.078 1.9 3.22 x 10' 9.5 x 10' Butadiene 0.10 0.45 4.12 x 104 2.25 x 10' Ethylene 0.79 7003 3.25 x 10-3 3.50 3 Threshold for recognition by 100% of the population tested. Predicted one -hour HC impacts at the proposed North Forty site are highest when the wind is from the northeast, and maximum one -hour impacts are below the corresponding odor thresholds for all seven of the hydrocarbons in Table 5.2. Predicted annual average HC impacts are highest when the wind is from the northwest, and annual average impacts are less than five one -thousandths of the odor threshold for each of the seven pollutants. Nuisance odors would not be expected to be detectable as a result of emissions of these species. Odor impacts are included in Appendix C. 5.3.2 Nitrogen Dioxide The maximum one -hour impact for NOX is estimated to be 10.7 ppm and occurs when the wind is from the northeast. This predicted short-term maximum exceeds the published odor threshold for this substance of 3.4 ppm (Linnell and Scott, 1962; note that geometric mean of listed odor thresholds is used). If the predicted maximum one -hour average concentration of 10.7 ppm is diluted with seven volumes of odor -free air, however, the resulting NOX concentration of 1.5 ppm is below the odor threshold, and compliance with Regulation 2 is expected. The predicted maximum annual average impact for NOX is 4.55 x 10"2 ppm and occurs when the winds blow from the northwest. This annual impact exceeds five one -thousandths of the odor threshold (1.70 x 10-2 ppm). As a result, concentrations of NO2 at the estimated emission rates are likely to be detected at the North Forty Project. 20 5.4 Uncertainty 5.4.1 Impacts for Known Hydrocarbon Species with Unknown Odor Thresholds No odor thresholds have been found for six of the major constituents of diesel HC emissions listed in Table 5.1. The absence of these species from numerous sources of odor thresholds suggests that these species may not be significantly odorous. However, in order to provide a conservative prediction of the odor - causing potential of the bus-bam, it is assumed that these six species have odor thresholds equal to the lowest odor threshold available for the species listed in Table 5.1 (i.e., propionaldehyde, 0.04 ppm). If the predicted one -hour impact for a given species is above the odor threshold, the impact is divided by seven to determine if, after dilution with seven volumes of odor -free air, the odor would exceed the detection threshold. If the odor no longer exceeds the threshold after dilution, impacts for that species are expected to be in compliance with Colorado Regulation 2. Of the species for which odor thresholds are not available, three (propene, butene, and ethane) have predicted one -hour impacts that are above the assumed odor threshold of 0.04 ppm, and it is possible that these odorous constituents may be detected at North Forty. Of these three, the maximum one -hour impact is associated with propene (0.32 ppm). Diluting this impact with seven volumes of odor -free air results in a oncentration of 0.045 ppm. This diluted concentration is still slightly above the assumed detection threshold of 0.04 ppm. If the odor threshold for propene is as low as 0.04 ppm, it is possible that violations of Regulation 2 would result under certain wind conditions. However, the winds(from the northeast) associated with this one- _ hour maximum impact only occur 0.3 percent of the time in the on -site meteorological data. The next highest one -hour impact for propene is 0.24 ppm, and occurs when the wind is from the north-northeast. Diluting this impact with seven volumes of odor -free air results in a concentration of 0.034 ppm, in compliance with Regulation 2. The maximum one -hour impacts for butene and ethane are 0.18 and 0.072 ppm, respectively. Diluting these concentrations with seven volumes of odor -free air results in concentrations of 0.026 and 0.010 ppm, both of which are below the assumed odor threshold, and compliance with Regulation 2 would be expected for butene and ethane. 5.4.2 Impacts for Unknown Hydrocarbon Species There are approximately 2,190 additional hydrocarbon constituents from diesel exhaust emissions that 'ould potentially contribute to odors at the North Forty Project. Since the species listed in Table 5.1 represent roughly 100 percent of the hydrocarbons in diesel emissions, it is probable that any one of these unknown hydrocarbons makes up a very small percentage of the total hydrocarbons. However, there is uncertainty associated with the speciation in Table 5.1 (i.e., two different source profiles are represented). In addition, it is 21 possible for a constituent comprising a small percentage of the total hydrocarbons to have a very low odor threshold. if this were the case, even negligible impacts might be detected at North Forty. A hypothetical "worst -case" scenario can be considered in which some unknown hydrocarbon constitutes 30 percent of the hydrocarbons in diesel exhaust emissions. (Thirty percent is assumed since it roughly equals the percentage for ethylene, the most abundant constituent listed in Table 5.1.) If this were the case, this unknown hydrocarbon would have a predicted maximum one -hour impact of 0,82 ppm. Assuming the lowest of the odor thresholds for the species listed in Table 5.1 (0.04 ppm), the odor of the unknown compound would be detected. After diluting with seven volumes of odor -free air, the resulting concentration of the unknown odorant would be 0.12 ppm. This value is still above the assumed odor threshold, and compliance with Regulation 2 is questionable in such a "worst case" scenario. 5.5 Conclusions For the known hydrocarbons in diesel exhaust emissions with available odor thresholds, all impacts are below the corresponding odor thresholds. It is not expected that odors would be detected due to emissions of these seven hydrocarbons. For the known hydrocarbons for which odor thresholds are not available, it is possible that odors would be detected, depending on how low the actual odor thresholds are. If the odor threshold for propene is as low as 0.04 ppm, violations of Regulation 2 may be expected for this constituent, although the model results only show such exceedances during wind conditions that occur 0.3 percent of the time in the meteorological data. Violations of Regulation 2 are not expected for other known HC species in diesel exhaust. Detectable odors can be expected from NO2 in diesel emissions, but these odors are also not expected to be in violation of Regulation 2. On -site observations have confirmed the existence of nuisance odors near the bus bam. A logical first step would be to look to NO2 as the cause of these odors. However, the existence of over 2,000 hydrocarbon species not quantified in diesel emissions implies a significant source of uncertainty in this analysis. The percentage contribution of any of these 2,000 species is most likely very small, perhaps not greater than 1 percent. But if any of these 2,000 species have very low odor thresholds, it is possible that odors could be detected from the unknown species. 22 REFERENCES 1. Colorado Department of Health, Air Pollution Control Division, Diesel Emissions., Their Formation, Impacts, and Recommendations for Control, 1983. 2. Gifford, F.A., Jr., Atmospheric Dispersion Models for Environmental Pollution Applications, Air Pollution and Environment Impact Analyses Conference, pp. 35-58, American Meteorological- Society, Boston, Mass., September 29 - October 3, 1975. 3. Hatcher, R. V., Meroney, R. N., Dispersion in the Wake of a Model Industrial Complex; Colorado State University FDDL Report No. CER76-77RVH-RNM-JAP-KK35, Fort Collins, Colorado, January 1977. 4. Hosker, R. P.,Jr., Empirical Estimation of Wake Cavity Size Behind Block -Type Structures, Fourth Symposium on Turbulence, Diffusion, and Air Pollution; Reno, Nev., pp. 603-609, American Meteorological Society, Boston, Mass., January 15-18, 1979. 5. Environmental Protection Agency, Aerometric Information Retrieval System: Quick Look Report, AMP450, 1995. 6. Environmental Protection Agency, Air CHIEF Database, May 1992. 7. Environmental Protection Agency, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume 11, 1986. 8. Environmental Protection Agency, New Vehicle Standards Summary - Diesel -Cycle Heavy -Duty Engines. 9. Environmental Protection Agency, Reference Guide to Odor Thresholds for Hazardous Air Pollutants Listed in the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, 1992. 10. Feldstein, M., D.A. Levaggi and R. Thuiller, Odor Regulation by Emission Limitation at the Stack, Air Pollution Control Association Annual Meeting, paper 72-273, Chicago, Illinois, June 1973. 11. Linnell, R.N., and W. E. Scott, Diesel Exhaust Composition and Odor Studies, J. Air Pollution Control Association, 12:510-515, 545, 1962. 12. Nagy, George Z., The Odor Impact Model, J. Air and Waste Management Association, pp. 1360-1362, 1991. 13. National Academy of Sciences, Odors from Stationary and Mobile Sources, 1979. 14. Personal communications with K. Osier of Roaring Fork Transit Authority, 1/12/96, 1/17/96, 1/23/96 and 1 /30/96. 15. Stem, Arthur C. (ed.), Air Pollution, Third Edition, Academic Press, 1976. 16. Wilson, D. J., Flow Pattems over Flat -Roofed Buildings and Application to Exhaust Stack Design; ASHRAE Trans., 85(2):284-295, 1979. �.. 1 0 A Emissions Inventory orth Forty Project r2FTA Emissions Inventory Project 112-01 Table 1: RFTA Equipment List' Aspen Make/mnrial 9 Yanr Mn Dncc� f,%AAr S&S Villager 29 14.5 5 1989 DDA 8.2T 0 0 5 Neoplan Transliner 44 20 4 1983 DDA 6V92TA 0 4 0 11 1984 DDA 6V92TA 0 11 0 Senior Van Turtle Top 18 7.8 1 1985 International 4.2 Diesel 0 0 1 S&S Villager II 44 18.5 10 1989 DDA 6V92 DDEC 11 0 0 10 Dodge Maxivans 15 3 1988 Dodge 360 1 0 2 1 1989 Dodge 360 0 1 0 4 1990 Dodge 360 4 0 0 S&S Starship Shuttle 15 13 3 1990 Cummins 6BT 0 0 3 Neoplan Metroiiners 49 20 4 1986 DDA 6V92 TA 0 0 4 Neoplan AA416 48 20 11 1981 DDA 6V92 TA 0 0 11 Startrans Candidate 13 6.75 2 1993 Ford 350 0 0 2 1 1994 Ford 350 0 0 1 Dodge Boyertown Trolley 44 11 2 1981 Dodge 440 0 2 0 Chevrolet Open Air Shuttles 15 7.5 2 1994 Chevy 350 0 0 2 Neopian Metroliners 43 22 4 1994 DDA Series 6011.81- 0 0 4 Neoplan AN440 Transliner 41 20 16 1994 DDA Series 50 0 8 8 Neoplan N98012 Carbon fiber 35 7.5 3 1995 Cummins 66T 0 0 3 Neoplan 440 Transliner 42 20 5 1983 DDA 6V92TA 0 0 5 otal 92 5 26 61 ' Information on vehicles and operating location provided by RFTA (1/12/96 fax and 1/17/96 phone comm. with K. Osier). North Forty Project-RFTA Bus Barn Inventory Air Sciences Inc. 3/14196 q:\projects\112\01 \01 \RFTAINV2.XLS\equplst North Forty Project RFTA Emissions Inventory 1 b Project 112-01 Table 2a: RFTA Aspen Bus Barn Sources and Activity Rates -Morning Peak Average Average Source (Engine Type) No. Idling Time2 Availability Total Idling Time DDA Series 60 4 0.8 85% 2_6 DDA Series 50 8 0.8 85% 5.3 DDA 6V92 TA 20 0.8 85% 13.2 DDA 6V92 DDEC II 10 0.8 85% 6.6 Cummins 68T 6 0.8 85% 4.0 DDA 8.2T 5 0.8 85% 3.3 International 4.2 Diesel 1 0.8 85% 0.7 Dodge 360 2 0.8 85% 1.3 Ford 350 3 0.8 85% 2.0 Chevy 350 2 0.8 85% 1.3 4U.3 ' Only includes units that operate out of the Aspen Bus Barn (see Table 1). 2 The weighted average idling time per bus per morning is estimated as follows: No. of Total Idle Total A.M. Buses' Warm-up Idle' Servicing Idles Time/Bus Idling Time (hrs) (hrs) (hrs) (hrs) 2/3 Buses inside 41 0.17 0.33 0.50 20.3 1/3 Buses outside 20 1.00 0.33 1.33 ZZA Total 47.4 Average idling time per bus 0.8 ' Estimate based on bus barn capacity -phone comm. with K. Osier, RFTA (1/23/96) ` Phone comm. with K. Osier, RFTA (1/17/96) s Phone comm. with J. Knowlton, N40 (1/30/96) Phone comm. with K. Osier, RFTA (1/23/96) Table 2b: RFTA Aspen Bus Barn Sources and Activity Rates -Afternoon Peak No. of Total Idle Total P.M. Buses' Warm-up Idle' Servicing Idle' Time/Bus Idling Time r_ hrs hrs hrs hrs Buses inside' 22 0.17 0 0.17 3.7 ' Based on 1/17/96 phone comm., K. Osier and RFTA pull-out sheets. ' All afternoon buses are assumed to warm-up inside and to require no servicing time. Air Sciences Inc. North Forty Project-RFTA Bus Barn Inventory q:\projects1112\011RFTAINV2.XLSVnvb 3/14196 North Forty Project RFTA Emissions Inventory 1 b Project 112-01 Table 3: Emission Factors Engine Type Horsepower PM NOx HC CO Reference ft) (a/hr) (n/hrl (n(hrl /nlhrl DDA Series 60 325 32.5 1,625 423 ,� �� 5,038 EPA 1994 emission standard x h DDA Series 50 300 30.0 1 500 390 4 650 EPA 1995 emission standard x h DDA 6V92 TA 277 19"6 2 2 964 416 6,925 EPA 1979-84 std x hp, PM: 1988-90 std DDA 6V92 DDEC II 300 180.0 3 210 390 4,650 EPA 1989 emission standard x h Cummins 613T 200 120.0 1,200 260 3,100 EPA 1990 emission standard x h DDA 8.2T 210 126.0 2,247 273 3 255 EPA 1989 emission standard x h Generic hddv 0985+) 6.01 13.2137.2 82.2 AP-42, Vol. II, Table N-1 for PM and AP-42 Vol. II Table 2.7.3 & 2.4.3 114 Generic hd 1985+ 2 6.0 0.6 7.21 365.4 ' Generic emission factors for heavy duty diesel vehicles applied to International 4.2 Diesel engine. 2 Generic emission factors for heavy duty gasoline vehicles applied to Dodge 360, Ford 350, and Chevy 350 engines. ' AP-42 factors: Idle Emission Rates for High Altitude Heavy Duty Diesel & Gas Powered Vehicles ` CO level increases with mileage according to the equation: IER = ZML + (dr * (M/10,000)) where: IER = idle emission rate ZML (zero mile level) = 1.17 for diesel 0.49 for gasoline dr (deterioration rate) = 0.01 for diesel 0.28 for gasoline M (avg. cumulative mileage) = 200,000 estimate Air Sciences Inc. North Forty Project-RFTA Bus Barn Inventory 3/14/96 q:\projects\l12\01\RFTAINV2.XLS\invb North Forty Project RFTA Emissions Inventory 1 b Project 112-01 Table 4: Estimated Particulate Emissions Source (Engine Type) Total Idling Time PM Factor' Emissions hrs/en ine DDA Series 60 e r 2.6 rams DDA Series 50 32.5 5.3 85.9 DDA 6V92 TA 30.0 13.2 158.7 DDA 6V92 DDEC 11 166.2 6.6 2197.5 Cummins 613T 180.0 4. 1190.0 8.2T 120.0 3.3 476.0 IntemDDA ational 4.2 Diesel 126.0 416.5 Dod a 360 1.7 6.0 1 4.0 Ford 350 0 6 0 2'0 7 g Che 350 6.0 1.3 119 6.0 7.9 Total 4,556 g/morning Generalized Afternoon/Evenin Emissions 10.0 lb/morning An � 3 7 180.0' 660 g/afternoon 1.5 lb/afternoon Peak Daily Emissions 23.0 lb/day s Peak Annual Emissions 0.12 g/s' 4.2 tons/yr S Table 5: Estimated Oxides of Nitrogen Emissions Source (Engine Type) Total Idling Time NOx Factor 2 Emissions hrs/en ine a DDA Series 60 /hr 2'6 rams DDA Series 50 1 625.0 5.3 429 DDA 6V92 TA 1500.0 13.2 7 933 DDA 6V92 DDEC 11 2 963.9 6'6 39189 - Cummins 68T 3110.0 4.0 21 222 DDA 8.2T 1,200.0 3.3 4 760 2247.0 International 4.2 Diesel 0.7 742 Dod a 360 13.2 1.3 8 7 Ford 350 0.6 2.0 0.8 Chevy350 0.6 1.3 1.2 0.6 0.8 Total 84,841 g/moming 23.6 g/s (1-hr avg) Generalized Afternoon/Evenin Emissions 187.0 lb/morning An 3.71 3210.04 11 770 g/afternoon 25.9 lb/afternoonPeak Daily Emissions 426.0 lb/day s Peak Annual Emissions 2.24 g/s' 77.7 tonstyr s ' See Table 2a 'See Table 3 ' See Table 2b 'Uses DDEC II factor. s Daily = (morning + afternoon emissions) x 2. This doubling of emissions is an effort to account for emissions occuring throughout the remainder of the day for which no specific information was available. Annual emissions = (daily and, therefore, also account for non -peak activities. emission x 365) Bold Values = model algorithm inputs. North Forty Project-RFTA Bu Barn Inventory 3/14/96 Air Sciences Inc. q: kproI"%1121011R FTAINV2.XLSUnvb North Forty Project RFTA Emissions Inventory 1 b Project 112-01 Table 6: Estimated Carbon Monoxide Emissions Source (Engine Type) Total Idling Time' CO Factor Emissions DOA Series 60 hrs/en ine a 2 6 /hr rams DDA Series 50 5 5 037.5 13 321 DOA 6V92 TA 13.2 4,650.0 24 593.3 DDA 6V92 DDEC II 6.6 6 925.0 91 564 Cummins 6BT 4.0 400.0 30 742 DDA 8.2T 3.3 3,100.0 12 297 International 4.2 Diesel 0.7 3 22 10 760 Dod a 360 82 82.. 54.3 Ford 350 2.0 365.4 483 Che 350 1.3 365.4 725 365.4 483 Total 185,022 9/moming 61.4 9/3 0 -hr avg) Generalized Afternoon/Evening Emissions 407.9 Ib/moming 3.7 4 650.0 ' 17 050 g/aftemoon 37.6 lb/afternoon 7.0 g/a (8-hr avg) Peak Daily Emissions Peak Annual Emissions 891.0 lb/day S 162.6 tons/yr s Table 7: Estimated Hydrocarbon Emissions Source (Engine Type) Total Idling Time ' HC Factor 2 Emissions Total 13,244 g/moming 3.7 9/3 (1-hr avg) Generalized Afternoon/Evenin Emissions 29.2 Ib/moming An3.7 3 390.0 1 430 g/aftemoon 3.2 Ib/aftemoon Peak Daily Emissions 64.7 lb/day 5 Peak Annual Emissions 0.34 g/s I 11.8 tons/yr s ' See Table 2a 2 See Table 3 See Table 2b Uses DDEC II factor. S Daily = (morning + afternoon emissions) x 2. This doubling of emissions is an effort to account for emissions occuring throughout the remainder of the day for which no specific information was available. Annual emissions = (daily and, therefore, also account for non -peak activities. emission x 365) Bold Values = model algorithm inputs. North Forty Project-RFTA Bus Sam Inventory 3114/96 Air Sciences Inc. 9: \projects1112%O 11RFTAiNV2.XLSVnvb Quantification of NAAQS Pollutant Impacts North Forty Project Estimation of Impact - RFTA Bus Barn Table 1: Algorithm Inputs and Equations Description Units Symbol Equation Value Wind direction — --- = NE Windspeed m/s u = 1.1 Frequency (days) -- 1 Frequency ratio (days/period) N = 0.0074 Building height m h = 8 Building length m 1 = 30 Building width m w = 90 Variable A --w*h = 720 Variable Cl =w/h = 11.3 Constant (avg. of reported values) A, = 0.7 Constant (avg. of reported values) A2 = 1.3 Cavity distance (m) Xr =1.75*h*c,/((1+0.25)*cl) - 41.3 Sigma Y (cavity edge) ay =0.16*(Xr h) .9'h = 5.6 Sigma Z (cavity edge) az =0.08*(Xr/h)0.9'h = 2.8 Constant n = 3.14 Emissions /s see Table 2 Grams to micro rams conversion factor / F = 1,000,000 Algorithm Equations: Concentration (within cavity) (beyond cavity) (µg/rn) (µg/m3) C C =Al*q/(A*u)*F =q/(n*oy*oz+A2*A)/u *F ' Annual impacts = daily impacts x N Table 2: Estimated Impacts for Winds from=the NE Averaging Impacts Within Impacts Beyond NAAQS 2 Pollutant Emission Rate Period Cavity Cavity /s /m3 m3 /m3 PM 0.12 24-hour 106.7 111.4 150 Annual 0.8 0.8 50 NOx 23.6 1-hour 20,829 21,742 --- 2.24 24-hour 1,977 2,063 -- Annual 3 14.5 15.2 100 CO 51.39 1-hour 45,425 47,415 40,000 7.02 8-hour 6,201 6,473 10,000 HC 3.68 1-hour 3,251 3,394 — 0.34 24-hour 300.2 313.4 -- Annual3 2.2 2.3 --- 2 National Ambient Air Quality Standards 3 Annual impacts are based on maximum daily emissions in g/s (i.e., the annual calculation assumes maximum daily emissions occur 365 days per year). Air Sciences Inc. q:\projects\112\001 \01 \RFTAINV2.XLS 3/14/96 North Forty Project Estimation of Impact - RFTA Bus Barn Table 1: Algorithm Inputs and Equations Description Units Symbol Equation Value Wind direction — --- = NNE Windspeed m/s u = 1.4 Frequency (days) - 1 Frequency ratio (days/period) N = 0.0074 Building height m h = 8 Building length m 1 = 30 Buildin width m w = 95 Variable A =w*h = 760 Variable c, =w/h = 119 Constant (avg. of reported values) A, = 0.7 Constant (avg, of reported values) A2 = 1.3 Cavity distance (m) Xf =1.75*h*cl/((1+0.25)*c,) = 41.9 Sigma Y (cavity edge) Qy =0.16*(X,/h) -'*h — 5.7 Sigma Z (cavity edge) az =0.08*(X,/h)0.9h = 2.8 Constant it = 3.14 Emissions /s see Table 2 Grams to micro rams conversion factor ! F = 1,000,000 Algorithm Equations: Concentration (within cavity) (beyond cavity) (µg/m3) (µg/rn) C C =Al*q/(A*u)*F =q/(n*oy*Qz+A2*A)/u *F ' Annual impacts = daily impacts x N Table 2: Estimated Impacts for Winds from the . NNE Averaging Impacts Within Impacts Beyond NAAQS Pollutant Emission Rate Period Cavity Cavity /s /m3 /m3 /m3 PM 0.12 24-hour 79.4 83.0 150 Annual 0.6 0.6 50 NOx 23.6 1-hour 15,505 16,207 -- 2.24 24-hour 1,471 1,538 -- Annual 3 10.8 11.3 100 CO 51.39 1-hour 33,812 35,345 40,000 7.02 8-hour 4,616 4,825 10,000 HC 3.68 1-hour 2,420 2,530 --- 0.34 24-hour 223.5 233.6 --- Annual 3 1.6 1.7 2 National Ambient Air Quality Standards 3 Annual impacts are based on maximum daily emissions in g/s (i.e., the annual calculation assumes maximum daily emissions occur 365 days per year). Air Sciences Inc. q:\proiects\112\001 \01 \RFTAINV2.XLS 3/14196 North Forty Project Estimation of Impact - RFTA Bus Barn Table 1: Algorithm Inputs and Equations Description Units Symbol Equation Value Wind direction --- --- = N Windspeed m/s u = 3.8 Frequency (days) --- g Frequency ratio da s/ eriod N = 0.0662 Building height m h — 8 Building length m 1 = 30 Building width m w = 120 Variable A =w*h = 960 Variable c, =w/h = 15.0 Constant (avg. of reported values) A, = 0.7 Constant (avg. of reported values) A2 = 1.3 Cavity distance (m) Xr =1.75*h*c,/((1+0.25)*cl) = 44.2 Sigma Y (cavity edge) ay =0. 1 6*(X\rlh )0.9h = 6.0 Sigma Z (cavity edge) az =0.08*(Xdh) ' — 3.0 Constant it = 3.14 Emissions /s see Table 2 Grams to micro rams conversion factor ( / F = 11000,000 Algorithm Equations: Concentration (within cavity) (beyond cavity) (µg/m3) (µg/m3) C C =A,*q/(A*u)*F =q/(n*cry*az+A2*A)/u *F ' Annual impacts = daily impacts x N Table 2: Estimated Impacts for Winds from the N Averaging Impacts Within Impacts Beyond NAAQS Pollutant Emission Rate Period Cavity Cavity /s /m3 /m3 /m3 PM 0.12 24-hour 23.2 24.4 150 Annual 3 1.5 1.6 50 NOx 23.6 1-hour 4,522 4,757 — 2.24 24-hour 429 451 — Annual 3 28.4 29.9 100 CO 51.39 1-hour 9,862 10,373 40,000 7.02 8-hour 1,346 1,416 10,000 HC 3.68 1-hour 706 743 — 0.34 24-hour 65.2 68.6 — Annual3 4.3 4.5 — 2 National Ambient Air Quality Standards 3 Annual impacts are based on maximum daily emissions in g/s (i.e., the annual calculation assumes maximum daily emissions occur 365 days per year). Air Sciences Inc. q:\proi ects\ 112\001 \01 \R FTAI NV2.XL5 3/14/96 North Forty Project Estimation of Impact - RFTA Bus Barn Table 1: Algorithm Inputs and Equations Description Units Symbol Equation Value Wind direction — — — NNW Windspeed m/s u _ 2.9 Frequency (days) 13 Frequency ratio ' da s/ eriod N = 0.0956 Building height m h = 8 Building length m 1 = 30 Building width m w = 135 Variable A =w*h = 1080 Variable c, =w/h = 16.9 Constant (avg. of reported values) A, = 0.7 Constant (avg. of reported values) A2 = 1.3 Cavity distance (m) Xf =1.75*h*c,/((1+0.25)*cl) = 45.3 Sigma Y (cavity edge) 6y =0.16*(Vh)° 'n = 6.1 Sigma Z (cavity edge) Qz =0.08*(Vh) ' 'n = 3.0 Constant it = 3.14 Emissions /s see Table 2 Grams to micrograms conversion factor / F = 1,000,000 Algorithm Equations: Concentration (within cavity) (beyond cavity) (µg/m3) (µg/m3) C C =Al*q/(A*u)*F =q/(n*(3y*az+A2*A)/u *F ' Annual impacts = daily impacts x N Table 2: Estimated Impacts for Winds from the NNW Averaging Impacts Within Impacts Beyond NAAQS Pollutant Emission Rate Period Cavity Cavity !s /m3 /m3 /m3 PM 0.12 24-hour 27.0 28.5 150 Annual 2.6 2.7 50 NOx 23.6 1-hour 5,267 5,558 — 2.24 24-hour 500 527 -- Annual 3 47.8 50.4 100 CO 51.39 1-hour 11,487 12,120 40,000 7.02 8-hour 1,568 1,655 10,000 HC 3.68 1-hour 822 868 -- 0.34 24-hour 75.9 80.1 -- Annual3 7.3 7.7 --- 2 National Ambient Air Quality Standards 3 Annual impacts are based on maximum daily emissions in g/s (i.e., the annual calculation assumes maximum daily emissions occur 365 days per year). Air Sciences Inc. gAprojects\112\001 \01 \RFTAINV2.XLS 3/14/96 North Forty Project Estimation of Impact - RFTA Bus Barn Table 1: Algorithm Inputs and Equations Description Units Symbol Equation Value Wind direction — -- = NW Wind speed m/s u = 2.6 Frequency (days) --- 19 Frequency ratio (days/period) N = 0.1397 Building height m h = e Building length m 1 = 30 Building width m w = 120 Variable A =w*h = 960 Variable Cl =w/h = 15.0 Constant (avg. of reported values) A, = 0.7 Constant (avg. of reported values) A2 = 1.3 Cavity distance (m) Xr =1.75*h*cl/((1+0.25)*c,) = 44.2 Sigma Y (cavity edge) oY =0.16*(X,/h) - = 6.0 Sigma Z (cavity edge) az =0.08*(X,-/h) ' *n = 3.0 Constant n = 3.14 Emissions /s see Table 2 Grams to micrograms conversion factor (/ F = 1,000,000 Algorithm Equations: Concentration (within cavity) (beyond cavity) (µg/m3) (µg/m3) C C =At*q/(A*u)*F =q/(n*6y*az+A2*A)/u *F ' Annual impacts = daily impacts x N Table 2: =Estimated Impacts for Winds from the NW Averaging Impacts Within Impacts Beyond NAAQS 2 Pollutant Emission Rate Period Cavity Cavity /s /m3 /m3 /m3 PM 0.12 24-hour 33.9 35.6 150 Annual 4.7 5.0 50 NOx 23.6 1-hour 6,609 6,952 -- 2.24 24-hour 627 660 -- Annual 3 87.6 92.2 100 CO 51.39 1-hour 14,414 15,161 40,000 7.02 8-hour 1,968 2070 10,000 HC 3.68 1-hour 1,032 1,085 -- 0.34 24-hour 95.3 100.2 --- Annual 3 13.3 14.0 -- 2 National Ambient Air Quality Standards 3 Annual impacts are based on maximum daily emissions in g/s (i.e., the annual calculation assumes maximum daily emissions occur 365 days per year). Air Sciences Inc. q Aproiects11121001101 \RFTAINV2.XLS 3/14196 APPENDIX C Quantification of Odor Impacts •ty Project n of Impact - RFTA Bus Barn Maximum One -hour Impacts: Odorous HC Species for Winds from NE Pollutant Molecular Weight Percentage of HC Emissions Impacts Within Cavity (ppm)m Impacts Beyond Cavity Odor Threshold m , Reference for Odor Threshold Acetaldehyde 44.1 2.91 % 0.0488 0.0509 0.067 EPA Ref. Guide to Odor Thresholds, 1992 Benzaldeh de 106.1 0.55% 0.0038 0.0040 N/A Crotonaldeh de 70.1 1.01 % 0.0106 0.0111 N/A Formaldehyde 30.0 8.61 % 0.2118 0.2211 1.0 National Academy of Science, 1979 Hexanal 100.2 0.08% 0.0006 0.0006 N/A Pro ionaldeh de 58.1 1.77% 0.0225 0.0235 0.04 EPA Ref. Guide to Odor Thresholds, 1992 Acetylene 26.0 11.30% 0.3206 0.3346 445 Nagy, AWMA, 1991 Benzene 78.1 7.90% 0.0747 0.0780 1.9 EPA Ref. Guide to Odor Thresholds', 1992 Butadiene 54.1 7,00% 0.0956 0.0998 0.45 EPA Ref. Guide to Odor Thresholds, 1992 Butene 56.1 13.40% 0.1764 0.1842 N/A Ethane 30.1 2,80% 0.0688 0.0718 N/A Ethylene 28.1 28,70% 0.7559 0.7890 700 Air Pollution, 3rd Ed., Academic Press, 1976 Propene 42.1 17.30% 0.3037 0.3170 N/A Air Chief CD-ROM, May 1992. Lowest listed detection threshold for Benzene is used. um One -hour Impact: NOx for Winds from the NE rvrolecular Impacts Within Impacts Beyond NO2 Odor Weight Cavity Cavity Threshold Reference for Odor Threshold (NO2) (pPm) (PPm) (ppm) 46.01 10.3 10.7 3.4 Linnell and Scott, 1962 (geometric mean from Table VI) Air Sciences Inc. q:\projects\112\001 \01 \RFTAI NV2.XLS 3/14/96 Nor Project Est. of Impact - RFTA Bus Sam Annual Average Impacts: Odorous HC Species for Winds from the NW Pollutant Molecular Weight Percentage of HC Emissions Impacts Within Cavity (ppm Impacts Beyond Cavity m 5/1000 of Odor Thres. m . Reference for Odor Threshold Acetaldehyde 44.1 2.91 % 2.00E-04 2.10E-04 3.35E-04 EPA Ref. Guide to Odor Thresholds 1992 Benzaldeh de 106.1 0.55% 1.57E-05 1.65E-05 N/A Crotonaldeh de 70.1 1.01 % 4.36E-05 4.58E-05 N/A Formaldehyde 30.0 8.61 % 8.67E-04 9.12E-04 5.00E-03 National Academy of Science 1979 Hexanal 100.2 0.08% 2.42E-06 2.54E-06 NIA Pro ionaldeh de 58.1 1.77% 9.22E-05 9.69E-05 2.00E-04 EPA Ref. Guide to Odor Thresholds 1992 Acetylene 26.0 11.30% 1.31 E-03 1.38E-03 2.23E+00 Nagy,AWMA 1991 Benzene 78.1 7.90% 3.06E-04 3.22E-04 9.50E-03 EPA Ref. Guide to Odor Thresholds , 1992 Butadiene 54.1 7.00% 3.91 E-04 4.12E-04 2.25E-03 EPA Ref. Guide to Odor Thresholds, 1992 Butene 56.1 13.40% 7.22E-04 7.60E-04 N/A Ethane 30.1 2.80% 2.82E-04 2.96E-04 N/A Ethylene 28.1 28.70% 3.09E-03 3.25E-03 3.50E+00 Air Pollution, 3rd Ed., Academic Press, 1976 Propene 42.1 17.30% 1.24E-03 1.31E-03 N/A Air Chief CD-ROM, May 1992. Lowest listed detection threshold for Benzene is used. An,, ` .Average Impact: NOX for Winds from the NW Molecular Impacts Within Impacts Beyond 5/1000 of Weight Cavity Cavity Odor Threshold Reference for Odor Threshold (NO2) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) 46.01 4.33E-02 4.55E-02 1.70E-02 Linnell and Scott, 1962 (geometric mean from Table VI) Air Sciences Inc. q:\projects\112\001 \01 \RFTAINV2.XLS 3/14196 NNRTH FORTY A TIME WHOSE PLACE HAS COME March 19, 1996 Rick Magill Community Development 130 So. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Supplemental Information on "Acoustical Assessment for Proposed North Forty Development" Dear Rick: Attached please find a drawing outlining four (4) alternatives to mitigate acoustical encroachment. The Drawing titled: "North Forty-RFTA Sound Studies" illustrates the following: 1. 20' high wall on property line. This wall would begin due south of the RFTA facility and continue to within 60-70 feet of the eastern property line, where it could be scaled down to 12' high . The wall would need to be "softened" on the N-40 side with a berm at least 30' wide at approximately a 30 degree angle. 2. 12-16' high wall extending from the existing RFTA Barn out 80' to block sounds from buses in the warm up area. 3. 80' roof and wall extension which would totally enclose 16 additional buses and thereby mitigate noise and air pollution. A. 100' diameter turning circle on the NE corner of,the property which would allow for all buses to arrive at the south entrance from the Northern side of the Bus Barn -rather than along.the property line between the N-40 and RFTA thereby eliminating parked buses along this common property line.,, Very truly yours, J sAnowlton 303E ASPEN AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTER ASPEN COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE 970 925 7320 FACSIMILE 970 925 2104 March 14, 1996 Mr. Jamie Knowlton North Forty 303E-AABC Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: ACOUSTICAL ASSESSMENT FOR PROPOSED NORTH FORTY DEVELOPMENT Dear Mr. Knowlton: Fax: 1-970-925-2104 Voice: 1-970-925-7320 Engineering Dynamics' has completed an Environmental Acoustical Assessment for the proposed North Forty residential development. This assessment addresses noise over the property from; a. Noise from the Roaring Fork Transit Authority (RFTA) Bus Barn operations, b. Traffic noise along State Highway 82, and C. Single Event Level (SEL) Aircraft noise . 1.0 Background The North Forty site is located adjacent and Northeast of State highway 82 (SH82), and between the RFTA Bus Barn Facility and the Aspen Airport Business Center; the RFTA Bus Barn is located along the Northwest edge of the property. The Aspen/Pitkin County Airport is located directly across SH82 from the site. The development is configured with commercial buildings along SH82, the existing soccer field in its current location and residential plats on the Northeast half of the site (the portion of the site furthest from SH82 and the Airport). The topography of the site slopes uniformly away from SH82, with the Northeast edge of the property being about 70, below the Southwest edge (the side along SH82). 1.1 Noise Descriptor Definitions Statistical Noise Descriptors - the noise levels associated with the exceedance percentiles in Table 2 and 3 are the levels that are exceeded X percent of the time. For example the Lmex is the maximum noise level sampled during the measurement period, the L50 is the noise level that is exceeded 50 percent of the time (similar to the class average), and the L90 is the noise level that is exceeded 90 percent of the time. Average or Energy Equivalent Noise Level - during a sample period the noise level fluctuates up and down, if we were to perform an average of the sound energy in these fluctuating levels throughout the sample period (i.e.; find the area under the curve), then the Average or Energy Equivalent Noise Level, Le , is simply the constant noise level, that would have the same area under t�e curve, over the same time period. The Leq is calculated by taking the logrithmmic average of all the sampled noise events within the measurement period. Day Night Average - the Ldn is the logarithmic average of the daytime (lam to 10pm) and the nighttime (10pm to lam) Leq's, with a ten dB(A) penalty added to the nighttime Leq. This 10 dB penalty is added to account for the reduced background noise levels at night, which subjectively makes other 3925 south kalamath street englewood, colorado 80110 ngineeiing dynamics Mr. Knowlton March 14, 1996 Page 2 noises from cars, dogs, etc. seem louder during the night than during the day. 2.0 Applicable Ordinance/Regulations Each of the following Ordinances'and Regulations apply to a specific type of noise source; a. The Pitkin County Noise Ordinance 92-06 applies to stationary sources, a classification under which the Bus Barn falls. b. The CDOT, FHWA and HUD Regulations apply to traffic noise. C. The HUD regulations apply to Aircraft Noise. d. The Pitkin County Noise Ordinance 89-03 and Amendment 94-27 applies to aircraft operations. Currently Pitkin County does not have a any Ordinance's pertaining to aircraft operations that specify Single Event Level limits or criteria. 2.1 Pitkin County Noise Ordinance 92-06 The Pitkin County Noise Abatement Ordinance 92-06, Title VIII, Section 4: Use District Noise Levels' is the applicable noise requirement that will be used to determine compliance in the following analysis. Section 4 defines maximum permissible sound levels from stationary sources when measured at the property boundary or any point within the property. The maximum permissible noise levels for various use districts are shown in Table 1. Table 1: Maximum Permissible Noise Levels per Use District Use Nighttime Daytime District 10pm to lam lam to 10pm Residential 50 dB(A) 55 dB(A) Business 55 dB(A) 65 dB(A) Industrial 55 dB(A) 65 dB(A) Construction 70 dB(A) 80 dB(A) 2.2 State/Federal Highway Department Regulations, CDOT and FHWA Acceptable noise levels Outside occupied buildings are specified in 23 CFR 772 Sec. 772.5(G) "Procedure for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise". 23 CFR limits to hourly Leq's to 67 dB(A) or below outside residential buildings. 2.3 Department of Housing and Urban Development U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Affairs (HUD) defines acceptability of land used for residential development to be Normally Acceptable when the measured Ldn < 65 dB(A). Residential areas with an Ldn < 65 dB(A) comply with the Normally Acceptable Criteria for residential development, areas that have. Ldn's ? 65 and < 75 dB(A) are considered Normally Unacceptable, and areas that have Ldn's >_ 75 dB(A) are considered Unacceptable. Mr. Knowlton March 14, 1996 Page 3 2.4 Pitkin County Noise Ordinance 89-03 The Pitkin County Noise Abatement Ordinance 89-03 limits airport use by general aviation aircraft to between the hours of lam and 30 minutes after sunset. No use of the airport by Stage 1 aircraft and limits commercial aircraft to departures between 7am and 10:30 pm and arrivals to between lam and llpm. The amendment 94-27 relaxes this limitation so that Stage 3 general aviation aircraft have the same hours of operations as commercial aircraft. 3.0 Measured Noise Levels On Wednesday January loth through Friday January 12th, 1996 EDI personnel performed three types of sound level measurements on the proposed site. One, existing A -weighted statistical background noise level measurements, Two, Bus Barn activity related noise level measurements, and Three, SEL Aircraft flyover noise level measurements. The results of these measurements are given below. 3.1 Existing Background Noise Levels Existing background noise levels were measured continuously for 24 hours from 12pm on Wednesday the loth to 12pm Thursday the 11th, at two locations on the site. The data recorded is the hourly and 1 minute Leq's for the entire measurement period. The hourly Leq noise measurements are given in Table 2, the 1 minute data is used below as needed and has been archived. Location One - midway along the Northwest property line 100' Southeast from the Northwest property line (see Figure 1). Location Two - at the center of the site 100' Northeast of the center of the soccer field (see Figure 1). Table 2: Existing Background A -weighted Noise Levels at measurement Locations 1 and 2 Hourly Time A -weighted Leq Interval Date Location 1 Location 2 12pm to lam 1-11-96 50.0 44.4 lam to 2am 1-11-96 50.4 43.2 2am to 3am 1-11-96 48.4 43.4 Sam to 4am 1-11-96 48.3 45.1 4am to 5am 1-11-96 49.5 45.5 Sam to 6am 1-11-96 56.0 49.7 6am to lam 1-11-96 56.0 53.5 lam to 8am 1-11-96 56.4 54.4 8am to gam 1-11-96 53.6 53.4 9am to loam 1-11-96 54.3 56.4 loam to llam 1-11-96 68.3 66.4 llam to 12am 1-11-96 53.3 50.4 12am to 1pm 1-11-96 63.6 57.7 1pm to 2pm 1-11-96 53.1 47.5 2pm to 3pm 1-11-96 53.4 49.9 3pm to 4pm 1-11-96 61.9 63.7 ngineeing dynamics Mr. Knowlton March 14, 1996 Page 4 Table 2: Continued Hourly Time A -weighted Le Interval Date Location 1 Location 2 4pm to 5pm 1-11-96 66.5 63.0 5pm to 6pm 1-11-96 64.6 52.3 6pm to 7pm 1-11-96 67.6 56.6 7pm to 8pm 1-11-96 67.7 48.1 __8pm to 9pm 1-11-96 52.7 50.9 9pm to lOpm 1-11-96 61.6 47.6 lOpm to 11pm 1-11-96 51.9 48.7 llpm to 12pm 1-11-96 54.3 45.6 Ldn 63.1 58.0 Examination of the data in Table 2 shows that measurement Location One is typically louder than Location Two as a result of several causes; first, Location Two is farther from the Bus Barn than Location One, and two the topography of Location Two gives it a less direct exposure to traffic noise on SH82. 3.2 Bus Barn Noise Levels Noise levels on the site from Bus Barn activity were measured between 4am and 6am on the mornings of 1-11-96 and 1-12-96. Measurements were made at this time so that the Bus Barn Operation noise levels at critical areas of the site could be measured without contamination from other noise sources; i.e., noise from Bus activity only could be measured. The bus related noise levels were measured for bus; activity in two areas of the Bus Barn complex; One, for buses idling in the warm-up/staging area at the beginning of the day, and Two, for buses idling and taxing through the holding loop prior to entering the Barn through the East entrance. Both of these areas are identified in Figure 1. During the noise measurements the following operations were observed; a. Warm-Up/Staging Area: Buses would be started inside the Barn and Taxied to the Warm-up/Staging Area. During the measurements approximately 15 buses were idling. On cold days buses may idle in this area for up to 1 hour. b. Holding Loop: Buses operations in the Holding Loop were limited to start-up and taxi into the Barn, the Holding Loop was not used as a Warm-up area and buses in the loop waiting to enter the barn were not left idling. The typical scenario was, the bus would be started and immediately taxied into the Barn. Results of these bus activity noise measurements are given in Table 3. NOTE: The noise levels presented in Table 3 are not average or Leq levels, they reflect instantaneous maximum noise levels. Instantaneous noise levels are generally louder than the Leq levels. MEN Mr. Knowlton March 14, 1996 Page 5 Table 3: Bus Activity Noise Levels Bus Bus Activity Measurement A -weighted Location and Number of Buses Location Level, dB(A) Holding Loop Holding Loop Warm-up Area Warm-up Area Idling (1) Taxing (1) Idling (15) Idling (15) Warm-up Area Idling (15) 3.3 Aircraft Noise Location 1 52 Location 1 58 Location 1 59 North Corner Soccer Field 54 East Corner Soccer Field 41 Noise from aircraft departing and arriving at Aspen/Pitkin County Airport were measured at a point 100, Northeast of the Northeast side of the soccer field; approximately 800, from the centerline of SH82. The noise metrics measured for aircraft noise were the Single Event Level (SEL) and the Le, also noted was the type of aircraft, whether it was arriving or departing, and the time. The results of these measurements are shown in Table 4. Table 4: Aircraft SELs Aircraft Type Arriving or Departing Date & Time dB(A) SEL Single Engine Prop Departing 1-11-96 4:30pm 72.0 Twin Prop Departing 1-11-96 4:35pm 70.8 Twin Prop Arriving 1-12-96 11:26am = 72.3 BAE-146, Jet Departing 1-12-96 11:27am 77.7 Single Engine Prop Arriving 1-12-96 11:31am 73.4 Business Jet Arriving 1-12-96 4:24pm 73.3 Business Jet Arriving 1-12-96 4:26pm 77.3 Business Jet Arriving 1-12-96 4:27pm 77.5 Business Jet Arriving 1-12-96 4:41pm 81.5 Root Mean Square Average of Aircraft SEL events 75.1 3.3 Traffic Noise Noise from traffic on SH82 was measured at a point 100' Northeast of the Northeast side of the soccer field (the same location were aircraft noise was measured). Results of these measurements showed that noise from automobile traffic was in the range of 45 to 49 dB(A) and noise from truck traffic was in the range of 50 to 59 dB(A). NOTE: The traffic noise levels presented above are not average or Leq levels, they instantaneous maximum noise levels. However, the Leq data in Table 2, are dominated or controlled by traffic noise during the daytime hours. Mr. Knowlton March 14, 1996 Page 6 3.4 Calculated Traffic Noise Levels 4.0 ngineering dynamics Traffic noise levels across the site were calculated using the Federal Highway Administrations (FHWA) STAMINA 2.0 Traffic Noise Computer Model. The STAMINA model uses as input hourly traffic volumes and the geometry of the site. Existing and estimated (after completion of development) traffic volumes along SH82 were obtained from a Traffic Impact Analysis of the North Forty development performed by Leigh, Scott & Cleary, Inc., Denver, Co, dated 5-4-95. Inputing the Peak am and pm traffic volumes into the STAMINA model yielded the hourly Leq traffic noise levels shown in Table 5. Table 5: A -weighted Hourly Leq Traffic Noise Levels Calculated using STAMINA 2.0 Distance from Peak AM Pea:- PM CL of SH82 Existing Estimated Existing Estimated 400, 52.5 53.7 53.8 54.8 800, 47.4 48.5 48.6 49.7 1000, 45.6 46.8 46.9 47.9 Noise Environment/Contours The overall noise environment across the site is a combination of Traffic noise from SH82, Aircraft noise and Bus Barn noise. The hourly Leq data presented in Table 2, shows the combined effect from all three noise sources. The following generalizations can be summarized from this data; a. Referring to the data in Table 2, the minimum noise level at any point on the site is expected to be in 40 dB(A) range. Review of the 1 minute Le data confirms this. This noise level will occur when traffic acl ivity on SH82 is a minimum and when no buses are idling or operating outside the Bus Barn building. Additionally, review of the data in Table 2 also shows that while Leq noise levels are greater than 50 or 55 dB(A) at measurement locations 1 and 2 this exceedance does not fall under the provisions of the Pitkin County Noise -Ordinance 92-06, Section 4.0, which limits noise emissions from Stationary Sources from one land use to another. b. Instantaneous and 10 minute average noise levels at distances up to 400, from the Bus Barn property, due directly from Bus Barn operations, will be in the range of 55 dB(A); 5 dB(A) above the 50 dB(A) nighttime residential noise limit. c. Noise levels at distances up to 200, of the Bus Barn property are in the range of 59 dB(A), 4 dB(A) above the 55 dB(A) daytime residential noise limit. d., A consequence of Item a, b and c, is that noise mitigation measures to reduce Bus Barn noise will not effect the overall noise levels from traffic and aircraft noise. This, however is not a problem because Traffic related noise levels at the residential plats are igineering dynamics Mr. Knowlton March 14, 1996 Page 7 below the Ldn limits for residential properties of CDOT, FHWA and HUD. f. The airport closes to take -offs at 10:30 pm and landings at 11:OOpm and opens at sunrise. 4.1 Existing Noise Contours Based on the measured and calculated data given in Section 3, the existing noise contours across the site are shown in Figure 1. Separate contours are shown for Bus Barn noise and traffic noise. These noise contours can be interpreted as follows; For Buses in the Holding Loop - No lots are within the 55 dB(A) contour, and 7 lots are within the 50 dB(A) contour, either fully or partially. For the Warm-up/Staging Area - 18 lots are within the 55 dB(A) contour, either fully or partially and roughly 1/2 of the lots are within the 50,dB(A) contour. For Traffic - No lots are within the Ldn 55 dB(A) contour and only one lot is partially within the Ldn 50 dB(A) contour. NOTE: The Holding Area 50 dB(A) Contour and the Warm -Up Area 55 dB(A) contour are nearly on top of one another. Therefore, Figure 1 shows them as being the same line. 5.0 Noise Mitigation Scenarios 5.1 SH82 Traffic Noise Traffic noise will be reduced over portions of the site from the proposed commercial building along the Southwest edge of the property. Based on the proposed plans for the commercial development portion of the project, which are one story buildings, preliminary calculations show noise level reductions of traffic noise that will be in the range of 3 to 10 dB(A) across the site. When a final design for these buildings is specified, a more precise estimate of attenuation of traffic noise from these structures will be performed. 5.2 Aircraft Noise Data from the report "Analysis of the Existing Noise Environment, Aspen/Pitkin County Airport", dated September 1991. Shows that the site is completely outside the 60 Ldn contour, and that the residential portion of the development is outside the 55 Ldn contour. The highest SEL measured was 81.5 dB(A), with the Root Mean Square Average SEL of 75.1 dB(A) or less. There is no noise mitigation for aircraft design. Mr. Knowlton March 14, 1996 Page 8 5.3 Bus Barn Noise Bus noise from the Holding Loop and the Warm-up/Staging Area produce significantly different noise levels as can be seen from the noise contours in Figure 1. The difference in these contours is a result of the number of buses at each location; there are more buses in the Warm-up area, therefore the noise contours extend out further. Noise mitigation options to reduce bus noise include, a noise barrier along the Northwest property line and enclosures over the Holding Loop and Warm-up areas. The Goal of mitigation designs is to reduce bus noise at residential lots to below the 50 dB(A) nighttime residential noise limit. Since, a noise barrier along the Northwest property line will be significantly less expensive than structures to enclose bus operations, this scenario is investigated first. Examination of the noise contours in Figure 1 shows that for bus noise in the Holding Area a 5 to 6 dB(A) noise reduction is needed to move the 50 dB(A) contour off all residential lots, and for the Warm-up Area an 8 to 10 dB(A) reduction is needed. 5.4 Noise Barrier Requirements The existing topography of the site along -the Northwest property line is higher than the Bus Barn property by approximately a 10, to 12, at the West end and tapers down to 3' to 41 elevation difference at the North end. Using Standard Engineering calculations and the FHWA STAMINA 2.0 model the minimum noise barrier heights were determined and are shown in Table 6. Table 6: Noise Barrier Heights Required to Achieve the 50 dB(A) Nighttime Residential Limit Bus Minimum Noise Barrier Calculated Noise Area Reduction Needed Height Reduction Holding Loop 5 to 6 dB(A) 12, 6 dB(A) Warm-up Area 8 to 10 dB(A) 20, 9 dB(A) The data in Table 6 indicates that to achieve the 50 dB(A) requirement at a height of 5' above the ground at all residential lots a noise barrier along the Northwest property line that varies from 20, to 12, high is needed. Figure 2 shows the barrier height as a function of distance along the Northwest property line. The height of this barrier is from the grade of the Bus Barn paved parking lot and Holding Loop. 5.5 Noise Barrier Design Construction of the noise barrier can be an earthen berm, concrete wall, a combination of earthen berm and concrete wall, a commercial building, or the back side of a residential row -house building. The actual construction of the barrier is not as important as the height of the barrier. As the site plan is further developed and economic alternatives are investigated EDI shall evaluate the acoustical characteristics of the specific designs. ngineenng dynamics Mr. Knowlton March 14, 1996 Page 9 6.0 Conclusions Conclusions of this analysis are; 1. Traffic noise at all residential lots on the site either now or after build out of the commercial portion of the site, will comply with both the FHWA/CDOT 67 Ldn and the HUD 65 Ldn acceptability criteria. Therefore, no noise mitigation is required for traffic noise. 2. Aircraft noise on the site while clearly audible is not signifi- cantly obtrusive. Since the site is outside the Ldn 65 contour there are currently no County, State or Federal ordinances or laws that apply to aircraft noise. Pitkin County airport is currently is the process of developing Single Event Level criteria as part of FAR Part 161, however the date when these criteria will be ready for implementation is unknown. 3. Bus Barn noise can be effectively reduced to below the 50 dB(A) Nighttime residential limit by installation of a noise barrier as described in Section 5.5. If you have any questions, please contact me at our Englewood office. Sincerely, ENGINEERING DYNAMICS, INC. Stuart D. McGregor Vice President of i taoeary ------------- NU m i k' .lY yt. • JT - - .� �. -_. ---�.r t �/ -. .�.4. � I�RTt�ii eo(ON OW911- .- T� ` 1 INltltlfr '` - ISM Ica fnCo o — ' ZC Y�3g r r� m ' OS u -sloe( 1(BrvR I ' "Nam CA cz MC 2c Cb Fri � / i — • I t ewelrysa Jnojuop (y)9P OS 90-OV 15uI5s;S/dn-wjl3m 1:ILLiL1mw inoluoo (V)8P SS e9jy Bujo,4 :lummm" MUa (43SOdOUd) ilo/d,n -1uaEAA � I -- �p doo*l BuIPIoH OS dool BuIPioH l MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Dave Michaelson, Deputy Director (\-\ FROM: Suzanne Wolff, Planner RE: Aspen Redhead Tours GMQS Exemption DATE: June 4, 1996 SUMMARY: The applicant requests GMQS Exemption to book scenic and four wheel drive tours from a booth located on the property of the Popcorn Wagon from June 1 to October 1. APPLICANT: Susan Thomas, Aspen Redhead Tours LOCATION: Popcorn Wagon; at the intersection of Hyman Avenue and the Mill Street pedestrian mall ZONING: CC - Commercial Core BACKGROUND: City Council Ordinance 13, Series of 1993, amended the Land Use Code to allow the Community Development Director to exempt from the Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) an expansion of less than 250 net leasable square feet to an existing commercial or office uses. Prior to the adoption of Ordinance 13, the Director could only exempt an expansion of an existing commercial or office use in a building which does not increase its net leasable square footage, and the Planning Commission could exempt an expansion of less than 500 net leasable square feet. When the revised Growth Management Quota System was adopted by Council (Ordinance 54, Series of 1994), the amendments made in Ordinance 13 were inadvertently omitted. Therefore, the Code has reverted to the language that was in place prior to the adoption of Ordinance 13, and the Planning Commission must review and approve this application. This discrepancy has not yet been corrected in the current Land Use Code. STAFF COMMENTS: Pursuant to Section 26.102.040, an expansion of a commercial may be exempted from the Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) by the Planning Commission, provided that the expansion will have minimal impact upon the city. A determination of minimal impact shall require demonstration that: 1. a minimal number of additional employees will be generated; Response: The applicant proposes to use one full-time employee to operate the booth. 2. employee housing will be provided for the additional employees generated; Response: The booth will occupy a space of 12 net leasable square feet. Net leasable space requires mitigation based on the generation rates established for the zone district. The standard used to calculate the number of full-time equivalent employees generated by a development within the Commercial Core is 3.5-5.0 employees/1,000 net leasable square feet. The employee mitigation required for this use is calculated below: 12 s.f. at 3.5 employees/1000 s.f. = 0.042 gross employee generation 0.042 employee X 60% (minimum GMQS mitigation) = 0.025 employee to be mitigated 0.025 X $79,000 (Category 1 payment -in -lieu fee) = $1,975 payment -in -lieu $1,975 - 12 months X 4 months of operation = $660 net payment -in -lieu The applicant will be required to pay this amount for employee mitigation to the City Finance Director within 15 days of approval by the Commission. 3. a minimal number of additional parking spaces will be demanded and that parking will be provided; Response: The booth will not create any additional demand for parking. The booth is intended to attract and serve visitors on the pedestrian malls. 4. there will be minimal visual impact on the neighborhood; Response: The UPC will review the booth and any signs to ensure compatibility with the Commercial Core historic district. S. minimal demand will be placed on the city's public facilities. Response: The booth will not impact public facilities. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request for a GMQS Exemption to allow a booth for booking of tours on the Popcorn Wagon property, subject to the following conditions: 1. All representations made in this application shall be adhered to as conditions of approval. 2. Within 15 days of this approval, the applicant shall pay an affordable housing mitigation fee of $660 to the City Finance Department. Proof of payment shall be provided to the Community Development Department. 3. If the booth is in use for a period of more than 4 months (June 1 to October 1) of each year, the applicant must pay additional employee mitigation in effect at the time of review. 4. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I moFe to approve the GMQS Exemption to allow 12 square feet of new net leasable area to allow a booth for booking of tours on the Popcorn Wagon property from June 1 to October 1 of each year, subject. to the conditions listed in the Community Development Department memo dated June 4, 1996." 0 MEMO 4i,/,l TO: Drueding and St n Clauson FROM: Susan Tho RE: Table stand mall Bill, I am confirmi conversation this morning about space I will be renting for a small stand on the pedestrian mall this summer. It is for my company that provides scenic and four wheel drive tours around Aspen. After being in this business a year, it has become a necessity for me to compete on a more equal level with two of the companies that also offer tour services. These companies are Blazing Adventures and Colorado Riff Raft. They are able to book a significant amount of their scenic and four wheel drive tours from their table locations on the mall. They are also rafting companies but, hundreds of thousands of dgllars in tour business is booked by them from these locations. am enclosing information about these companies " tour aspects" of their businesses, as well as my brochure and business background. As you can see, they are booking tours that are directly competitive with mine. My business plans are to add two vans and two, 7 person open top jeeps, this summer. In order to fill these vehicles, that are a significant investment, it is essential for me to have the opportunity to compete "head to head" with these other tour and booking businesses. After completing an extensive marketing analyses, over the past year, these are the additional number of vehicles that the visitors need for this type of business in the Aspen area. My plans are to locate a private property spot, as they have, and lease space for a small table on the private property only. One very possible spot is on The Popcorn Wagon property. Prior to Jack Stanford leaving town for vacation, he and I spoke and have a general meeting of the minds on the location and the rent on his Popcorn Wagon property. He will return the end of this month, when we will formalize Qur agreement. In order for me to move forward, for the 1st week of June opening, would you please let me know as soon as possible, if this is alright? Thank you for your assistance on this matter Post Office Box 1886, Aspen, Colorado 81612 • (970) 925-7565 • (800) 560-3451 • Fax (970) 920-1755 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Dave Michaelson, Deputy Director FROM: Suzanne Wolff, Planner RE: Power Properties Conditional Use Review For an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) - Public Hearing DATE: June 4, 1996 SL NEVIARY: The applicant is requesting conditional use approval to construct an ADU within a proposed new residence at 939 E. Cooper Avenue, Unit B. The ADU is below -grade and contains approximately 415 net livable square feet. The application packet is attached as Exhibit A. Staff recommends approval of the conditional use for an ADU with conditions. APPLICANT: Power Properties, represented by John Davis LOCATION: 939 E. Cooper Avenue: Unit B, 'East Cooper Court Condominiums ZONING: RMF, Residential/Multi-Family LOT SIZE: Parcel 1, which includes Units A and B, contains 6,000 square feet. Two dwelling units are located on Parcel 1: the historic residence and the proposed Power Properties residence. The RMF zone district allows two detached residential dwellings on a lot containing a historic landmark with a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet as a conditional use. FAR: Section 26.28.090 of the Code, the RMF zone district, states that the FAR "for two detached residential dwellings on a lot between 6,000 square feet or greater containing an historical landmark shall not exceed the floor area allowed for one duplex." A duplex on a 6,000 square foot lot is allowed 3,600 square feet of floor area. The applicant represents that the proposed floor area of Unit B is 1806 square feet. BACKGROUND: By Ordinance No. 2, Series of 1995, the City Council approved subdivision of the property into two parcels, rezoning of the new parcel to the Affordable Housing zone district, and GMQS Exemption for the deed -restricted units. The property was designated a historic landmark pursuant to Ordinance No. 9, Series of 1995. The Final Plat was recorded at Book 36, Page 96. The setbacks for the two parcels were varied by the Historic Preservation Commission as part of the Conceptual Development approval granted on November 9, 1994. REFERRAL COMMENTS: Please see the attached comments from the Engineering Departments and the Housing Office (Exhibit B). Summaries are provided below. Engineering Department: Chuck Roth's comments include the following: The approved 12' wide driveway shall be aligned to access the ADU parking space and the garage. All drainage shall be retained on -site. Construction of sidewalk, curb and gutter, and the driveway cut, and relocation of the existing street light, shall be completed by the City as part of the East Cooper Avenue Street Improvements Project and shall be billed to the applicant. Any work or development, including landscaping, within the public right-of-way requires submission of a permit from the Community Development Department. Housing Office: Cindy Christensen states that the unit meets the Housing Guidelines, but recommends reconfiguring the kitchen, bathroom and closet area, in order to make the kitchen more usable. The kitchen as shown has less than 3' of width between the counter and the wall. STAFF COMMENTS: The proposed unit complies with the basic standards for ADUs: the ADU exceeds the minimum net liveable requirement of 300 square feet; natural light is obtained from a light well which contains 3 windows of 3' by 4' each; the unit has a separate entrance at the rear of the residence; and one parking space is provided for the ADU to the east of the garage. The unit is located directly below the garage, and will have to comply with U.B.C. 35 sound attenuation requirements. Planning staff agrees with the recommendation of the Housing Office that the kitchen and bathroom be reconfigured to be more usable. Pursuant to Section 26.60.040, the criteria for a conditional use review are as follows: A. The conditional use is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and standards of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, and with the intent of the Zone District in which it is purposed to be located; RESPONSE: A fundamental goal of the Aspen Area Community Plan is to "Create housing opportunities for 60% of the workforce to live up -valley of the Aspen Village Trailer Park". A short-term goal with the Housing Action Plan was to develop "650 new affordable housing units, including employee -occupied ADUs to achieve the identified current unmet need to sustain a critical mass of residents". The proximity to the downtown core is consistent with long-term policies of community revitalization. The RMF zone is intended for "intensive long-term residential purposes," and is an appropriate zone for the development of ADUs. B. The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and surrounding land uses, or enhances the mixture of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development, - RESPONSE: In staff s opinion, the proposed ADU is compatible with the surrounding single and multi- family development. C. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed conditional use minimizes adverse effects, including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular circulation, parking, trash, service delivery, noise, vibrations and odor on surrounding properties; RESPONSE: The proposed unit will not create additional impacts on the surrounding area. The footprint of the structure is within the approved "residential building site" which is shown on the recorded plat, and complies with the setback variances granted by the HPC, which allowed a front setback of 7', a side setback of 3 % a rear setback of 5' (with a 2' setback to the decks), and a combined front and rear setback of 8'. D. There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the conditional use including but not limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire protection, emergency medical services, hospital and medical services, drainage systems, and schools; RESPONSE: No additional infrastructure is required for the ADU above and beyond what is in place for the existing neighborhood. E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the incremental need for increased employees generated by the conditional use; RESPONSE: The ADU must comply with the Housing Guidelines and must be deed restricted as a resident occupied unit for working residents of Pitkin County. If the unit is rented, it must be used to house a qualified working resident of Pitkin County. E The proposed conditional use complies with all additional standards imposed on it by the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and by all other applicable requirements of this chapter. RESPONSE: The proposed unit is required by Section 26.100.050, GMQS Exemptions, (Ordinance 1 - 1990) and must be deed restricted. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the ADU with the following conditions: 1. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall comply with the following: A. The owner shall submit the appropriate deed restriction to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Office for approval. Upon approval of the deed restriction by the Housing Office, the applicant shall record the deed restriction with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorders Office with proof of recordation to the Planning Department. The deed restriction shall state that the accessory unit meets the housing guidelines for such units, meets the definition of Resident Occupied Unit, and if rented, shall be rented for periods of six months or longer; B. Kitchen plans shall be verified by the Housing Office to ensure compliance with specifications for kitchens in ADUs; C. If the floor plan for the ADU is revised based on the recommendations of the Housing Office, a revised copy shall be submitted to the Housing Office. 2. The ADU shall be clearly identified as a separate dwelling unit on building permit plans and shall comply with UBC 35 sound attenuation requirements. 3. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the Community Development Department shall inspect the unit to ensure compliance with the conditions of approval. 3 4. The applicant shall comply with the following requirements of the City Engineer: A. All new surface utility needs and pedestals must be installed on -site. B. The applicant shall obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within public rights -of -way from the Community Development Department. C. The approved 12' wide driveway shall be aligned in the middle of the ADU parking space and the garage to permit access to both parking spaces. D. All drainage shall be retained on -site. E. Construction of sidewalk, curb and gutter, and the driveway cut, and relocation of the existing street light, shall be completed by the City as part of the East Cooper Avenue Street Improvements Project and shall be billed to the applicant. Payment shall be made within 30 days of receipt of the bill. Any public improvements damaged by the applicant during construction shall be replaced prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless amended by other conditions. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the conditional use for an ADU at 939 E. Cooper Ave., Unit B, with the conditions as outlined in the Community Development Department Memo dated June 4, 1996". Exhibits: "A" - Application Packet "B" - Referral Comments 4 Exhibit B MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Dave Michaelson, Deputy Director FROM: Suzanne Wolff, Planner RE: Power Properties Conditional Use Review For an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) - Public Hearing DATE: June 4, 1996 SUlVDVIAR'Y: The applicant is requesting conditional use approval to construct an ADU within a proposed new residence at 939 E. Cooper Avenue, Unit B. The ADU is below -grade and contains approximately 415 net livable square feet. The application packet is attached as Exhibit A. Staff recommends approval of the conditional use for an ADU with conditions. APPLICANT: Power Properties, represented by John Davis LOCATION: 939 E. Cooper Avenue: Unit B, East Cooper Court Condominiums ZONING: RMF, Residential/Multi-Family LOT SIZE: Parcel 1, which includes Units A and B, contains 6,000 square feet. Two dwelling units are located on Parcel 1: the historic residence and the proposed Power Properties residence. The RMF zone district allows two detached residential dwellings on a lot containing a historic landmark with a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet as a conditional use. FAR: Section 26.28.090 of the Code, the RMF zone district, states that the FAR "for two detached residential dwellings on a lot between 6,000 square feet or greater containing an historical landmark shall not exceed the floor area allowed for one duplex." A duplex on a 6,000 square foot lot is allowed 3,600 square feet of floor area. The applicant represents that the proposed floor area of Unit B is 1806 square feet. BACKGROUND: By Ordinance No. 2, Series of 1995, the City Council approved subdivision of the property into two parcels, rezoning of the new parcel to the Affordable Housing zone district, and GMQS Exemption for the deed -restricted units. The property was designated a historic landmark pursuant to Ordinance No. 9, Series of 1995. The Final Plat was recorded at Book 36, Page 96. The setbacks for the two parcels were varied by the Historic Preservation Commission as part of the Conceptual Development approval granted on November 9, 1994. REFERRAL COMMENTS: Please see the attached comments from the Engineering and Parks Departments and the Housing Office (Exhibit B). Summaries are provided below. Engineering Department: Chuck Roth's comments include the following: 0 The approved 12' wide driveway shall be aligned to access the ADU parking space and the garage. • All drainage shall be retained on -site. • Construction of sidewalk, curb and gutter, and the driveway cut, and relocation of the existing street light, shall be completed by the City as part of the East Cooper Avenue Street Improvements Project and shall be billed to the applicant. • Any work or development, including landscaping, within the public right-of-way requires submission of a permit from the Community Development Department. Housing Office: Cindy Christensen states that the unit meets the Housing Guidelines, but recommends reconfiguring the kitchen, bathroom and closet area, in order to make the kitchen more usable. The kitchen as shown has less than 3' of width between the counter and the wall. Parks Department: Rebecca Schickling notes that the original subdivision approval required relocation of a 30 foot blue spruce to accommodate the Power Properties driveway. The tree did not survive, and the funds put in escrow shall be used to replace the tree. STAFF COMMENTS: The proposed unit complies with the basic standards for ADUs: the ADU exceeds the minimum net liveable requirement of 300 square feet; natural light is obtained from a light well which contains 3 windows of 3' by 4' each; the unit has a separate entrance at the rear of the residence; and one parking space is provided for the ADU to the east of the garage. The unit is located directly below the garage, and will have to comply with U.B.C. 35 sound attenuation requirements. Planning staff agrees with the recommendation of the Housing Office that the kitchen and bathroom be reconfigured to be more usable. Pursuant to Section 26.60.040, the criteria for a conditional use review are as follows: A. The conditional use is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and standards of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, and with the intent of the Zone District in which it is purposed to be located; RESPONSE: A fundamental goal of the Aspen Area Community Plan is to "Create housing opportunities for 60% of the workforce to live up -valley of the Aspen Village Trailer Park". A short-term goal with the Housing Action Plan was to develop "650 new affordable housing units, including employee -occupied ADUs to achieve the identified current unmet need to sustain a critical mass of residents". The proximity to the downtown core is consistent with long-term policies of community revitalization. The RMF zone is intended for "intensive long-term residential purposes," and is an appropriate zone for the development of ADUs. B. The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and surrounding land uses, or enhances the mixture of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development; RESPONSE: In staff s opinion, the proposed ADU is compatible with the surrounding single and multi- family development. C. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed conditional use minimizes adverse effects, including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular circulation, parking, trash, service delivery, noise, vibrations and odor on surrounding properties; RESPONSE: The proposed unit will not create additional impacts on the surrounding area. The footprint of the structure is within the approved "residential building site" which is shown on the recorded plat, and complies with the setback variances granted by the HPC, which allowed a front setback of 7', a side setback of 3', a rear setback of 5' (with a 2' setback to the decks), and a combined front and rear setback of 8' . D. There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the conditional use including but not limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire protection, emergency medical services, hospital and medical services, drainage systems, and schools; RESPONSE: No additional infrastructure is required for the ADU above and beyond what is in place for the existing neighborhood. E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the incremental need for increased employees generated by the conditional use; RESPONSE: The ADU must comply with the Housing Guidelines and must be deed restricted as a resident occupied unit for working residents of Pitkin County. If the unit is rented, it must be used to house a qualified working resident of Pitkin County. F. The proposed conditional use complies with all additional standards imposed on it by the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and by all other applicable requirements of this chapter. RESPONSE: The proposed unit is required by Section 26.100.050, GMQS Exemptions, (Ordinance 1 - 1990) and must be deed restricted. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the ADU with the following conditions: l . Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall comply with the following: A. The owner shall submit the appropriate deed restriction to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Office for approval. Upon approval of the deed restriction by the Housing Office, the applicant shall record the deed restriction with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorders Office with proof of recordation to the Planning Department. The deed restriction shall state that the accessory unit meets the housing guidelines for such units, meets the definition of Resident Occupied Unit, and if rented, shall be rented for periods of six months or longer; B. Kitchen plans shall be verified by the Housing Office to ensure compliance with specifications forlkitchens in ADUs; C. If the floo?• plan for the ADU is revised based on the recommendations of the Housing Office, a revised copy shall be submitted to the Housing Office. 2. The ADU shall be clearly identified as a separate dwelling unit on building permit plans and shall comply with UBC 35 sound attenuation requirements. 3. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the Community Development Department shall inspect the unit to ensure compliance with the conditions of approval. 4. The applicant shall comply with the following requirements of the City Engineer: A. All new surface utility needs and pedestals must be installed on -site. B. The applicant shall obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within public rights -of -way from the Community Development Department. C. The approved 12' wide driveway shall be aligned in the middle of the ADU parking space and the garage to permit access to both parking spaces. D. All drainage shall be retained on -site. E. Construction of sidewalk, curb and gutter, and the driveway cut, and relocation of the existing street light, shall be completed by the City as part of the East Cooper Avenue Street Improvements Project and shall be billed to the applicant. Payment shall be made within 30 days of receipt of the bill. Any public improvements damaged by the applicant during construction shall be replaced prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 5. The escrow account established to ensure the survivability of the relocated spruce tree shall be released, since the tree did not survive the relocation. The funds shall be used to replace the tree. 6. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless amended by other conditions. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the conditional use for an ADU at 939 E. Cooper Ave., Unit B, with the conditions as outlined in the Community Development Department Memo dated June 4, 1996". Exhibits: "A" - Application Packet "B" - Referral Comments n 2) ATTACIRIEgr 41 LAND USE APFIjIOCION FORK Proj ect Name - Owd 6Z Proj eat Location] (i,d c ata street address, lot & block number,, legal description where aporopri.:::e) 3) Pint Zoning 4) Lot Size 0 `J ©6 5) Applicant's Name, Address & Phone y b I i> 0�0 6-3103 6) Representative's Name, .Address &one ,� A JW) cf� -q2Q2 3IL-Y362- d4 7) Type c f Application (please check all that apply) Conditional Use Cxvx�qt l SPA Conceptual- Historic Dev- SQeci.al Review Final SPA Final Historic Dev_ 8040 Greenl..ine Conceptual PUD Minor historic Dev- S'�ream Margin Final PUD Historic Demolition M-<xmtain View Plane Subdivision historic Designation Cora c i ii-t nn i Ta ti-on Text/Map Amendment G QS Allotment Lot Sp1.i_t/1-ot Line Gt QS Ipti (n Adjustment istment 8) Des,—iption of Ex; -ti rig Uses (rAm�s and type of eras,-ix-g ; approximate sq_ ft_ ; number of bedro ms; afy previous approvals granted to the L0" 2, 9) De✓.:.. iption of Development Apolicatiion C 410AAL/ peoieu--) La owl 14Pc N a c�eve- 10) Have you attached the folloving? Response to Attacthm nt 2, Mi n i =m Si miss ion Caqtents Resaortse to Attachment 3, Specific Submission ResDonse to At-tachme-rrt 4, Review Standards for Your Apo licat.ion MEMORANDUM To: Suzanne Wolff, Planner Thru: Nick Adeh, City Engineer From: Chuck Roth, Project Engineer C- Date: May 28, 1996 Re: Power Properties Conditional Use Review for an Accessory Dwelling Unit (939 East Cooper Avenue; Unit B, East Cooper Court Subdivision; Parcel ID No. 2737-182-52- 002) Having reviewed the above referenced application, the Engineering Department has the following comments: 1. Parking & Driveway - This parcel has already been reviewed as one of the lots of the East Cooper Court Subdivision. The lot was approved with a 12 foot wide driveway. The driveway will have to be aligned in the middle of the ADU parking space and the garage in order to permit access to both parking spaces. This will be done by the City contractor for the East Cooper Avenue Street Improvements Project and billed to the applicant. 2. Site Drainage - It must be a condition of approval that the building permit plans provide for storm runoff to be maintained on site and not discharged to East Cooper Avenue or to neighboring properties as well as providing erosion and sediment control both during and after construction. 3. Utilities - Any new surface utility needs for pedestals or other equipment must be installed on an easement provided by the applicant and not in the public right-of-way. The existing street light was identified as needing to be relocated at the applicant's expense during the review of the East Cooper Court Subdivision. This will be also be performed by the City contractor for the East Cooper Avenue Street Improvements Project and billed to the applicant. 4. Landscaping in the Public Right-of-way - The final development plan must indicate proposed landscaping in the public right-of-way which must conform with City Code as discussed below and without encumbrances such as boulders and fences. Tree canopies extending into the right-of-way must be pruned up for the 9' minimum vertical clearance. 1 6. Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter - One of the conditions of approval for the East Cooper Court Subdivision was to construct sidewalk, curb and gutter. As with the above mentioned improvements, this will be done by the City contractor for the East Cooper Avenue Street Improvements Project and billed to the applicant. 7. Payment for Public Improvements - Please provide a specific condition of approval that the applicant shall pay for the sidewalk, curb, gutter, driveway, and street light relocation within 30 days of receiving the bill from the City. This is based on the conditions of approval provided in the City review of the East Cooper Court Subdivision. Note that any public improvements damaged by the applicant during their construction must be replaced prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 8. 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: M96.167 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 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. 2 TO: Suzanne Wolff, Community Development Dept. FROM: Cindy Christensen, Housing Office DATE: May 21, 1(396 RE Power Properties Residence Review for an ADM Parcoll ID No. 2737-182-34-001 ISSU : The applicant is requesting to build a studio ACLU to be located in the lower level, under the garage, of a single-family residence specified as Unlit 8, located at 939 East Cooper. BACKGROUND: The size of the accessory unit falls within the guidelines of the Code, as it is 460 net liveable square feet: A=essory dwelling units shall oontain not less than thme hundred (300) square feet of allowable floor area and not more than seven huncked (700) square feet of allowable floor area. The unit shmill be deed restricted, Meeting the housing authority's guidelines for resident occupied units and shall be limited to rental periods of not Ifts th$M six (6) MOntl% in duration. owners of the principal residenoe shall have the right to place a qualified employee or employees of his or her Choosing in the acoessory dwelling unit. The kitchen must also be built to the following specifications: LQto - For Amessory Dwelling Units and Caretaker Dwelling Units, a minimum of a twop-burner stove with oven, standard sink, and a 6-cubic fbcrt refrigerator plus freezer. Although this unit falls within the Guidelines, the bathroom and kitchen are extremely small with no light. Staff recommends enlarging the bathroom and the kitchen. This could be done my relocating the kitchen to the area where the closet is located. The kitchen would also be exposed to more light if it were moved to this location, The coat close could then be expanded into a closet and another type of closet could be located in the expanded bathroom. Should the ADU be approved, the following conditions must be met: 1 should the floor plans be changed, a new set of plans need to be submitted to the Housing office; and 2. an accessory dwelling unit deed restriction needs to be recorded before building permit approval (this form is provided by the Housing Office). I G7 70 7- C_DrIl'i t Memorandwm TO; Siizamo Wormy Conunwiity Dovolopment FROM: Rebecca Schickling, Parks Deparfmcw. DATE: May 29, 1996 Powers Properties, 939 E. Cooper CO. Engineering Department The Parks Deep rtment has reviews the application submitted for 939 E. Cooper. As park of thoir original approval for subdivision and affordable howling designation a thirty (30') foot Blue Spree was rncvod to accommodate the Power Properties drivervmy, An escrow account was set up to ensure the survivability of this trees. However, the tree has since died. And the eserow account should be r:lcascd and the funds used for mritigidon of tWa tree. AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING I have complied with the notice requirements of Section 6- 205 (E) (3) (C) of the Aspen Land Use Regulations of the Aspen Municipal Code 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 on 'a STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS COUNTY OF PITKIN ) .The foregoing Affidavit of mailing was signed before me this day of MOL WITNESS my hand and official seal. My commission expires: J I P 10ILC Notary Public Attachment 8 County of Pitkin } } SS. State of Colorado } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATIONS SECTION 6-205.E. I ,� Vl ill `oy IS being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements pursuant to Section 6-205.E. of the Aspen Land Use Regulations 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 ( 3 0 0 ) feet of the subject property, as indicated on the attached list, on the ��� day of 1996 (which is 1 days prior to the public hearing date of UiL 1q ). 2. By posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the subject property (as it could be seen from the nearest public way) and that the said sign was posted and visible continuously from the ' day of _,M, 19961 to the f day of 19 (Must be posted for at least ten (10 ) full days before the hearing date). A photograph of the posted sign is attached hereto. (Attach photograph here) Signa re Sig d before me this day of 19 9_, . by WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My Commission expires: T10 111y Notary Public GERALD A. & ANNETTE C KRANS TED A. KOUTSOUBOS PATRICIA M SEIFERT 6,/0 FOURTH FINANCIAL MORTGAGE CO. 419 EAST HYMAN AVE. P.O. BOX 2262 P.O. BOX 2385 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 VENICE, CA 90294 A BELKOVA REVOCABLE TRUST JOHN R. VAVREK PENELOPE R.M. SOMPLE uo DASHA BELKOVA, TRUSTEE 819 E. HYMAN AVE. APT. 4 3035 CALLA DRIVE 3410 GALT OCEAN DR. APT. 1508 ASPEN, CO 81611 SANTA CRUZ, CA 95062 FT. LAUDERDALE, FL 33308 KAREN L. HAYWOOD MICHAEL VICTOR GOLDMAN HARRIET S. DAVIS P.O. BOX 12115 GLORIA ANNA GOLDMAN HERBERT S. DAVIS ASPEN, CO 81612 1603 WEST INA RD. 1050 GEORGE ST. APT. 9M TUCSON, AZ 85704 NEW BRUNSWICH, NJ 08901 ROBIN MICHAEL MOLNY S.J. GLAUSER ALFRED BRUCE CRUMLEY 835 E. HYMAN AVE. APT. E BARBARA GLAUSE MICHAELA GAME-CRUMLEY ASPEN, CO 81611 230 HALMOR DR. 835 E. HYMAN AVE. SARASOTA, FL 34242 ASPEN, CO 81611 CHERYL L. & MARY LOU SCHMIDT CHRISTOPHER T. HOKE ADRIAN C. DORWORTH MICHAEL R. OLANDER 5721 N. COUNTRY CLUB TERRACE P.O. BOX 2694 P.O. BOX 2768 EDMOND, OK 73034 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 JUDITH A. TAYLOR ARMOND J. CHAPUT E. SAWYER SMITH, JR. F.HOPKINS "B" SUSAN C. CHAPUT 835 E. HYMAN AVE. APT. L "N, CO 81611 3426 WESTCLIFF ROAD SOUTH ASPEN, CO 81611 FORT WORTH, TX 76109 GALEN A. MARTIN 312009 ONTARIO LIMITED 757253 ONTARIO LIMITED MARY LOU MARTIN 180 STEELES AVE W, STE. 206 C/O LANDAWN SHOPPING CENTERS 5001 HOPEWELL RD. THORNHILL, ONTARIO, CANADA L4 L4J 2 11 POLSON ST. LOUISVILLE, KY 40299 TORONTO, ONTARIO, CANADA M5A 1 M5A 1 EDWARD WACHTMEISTER TRUST DENNIS L. THOMPSON WESTON T. ANSON ROUTE 6, BOX 279 SHARON K. THOMPSON SUSAN ANSON WARRENTON, VA 22186 314 SO. GALENA ST. STE. 202 P.O. BOX 8472 ASPEN, CO 81611 LAJOLLA, CA 92038 NELIGH C. COATES ASPEN SKIING COMPANY JAMES L. & RUTH SHERMAN 720 E. HYMAN P.O. BOX 1248 JAMES R. LAUGHLIN ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 4032 LINDEN AVE. WESTERN SPRINGS, IL 60558 MARION S. ROBERTS CARLOS BRANIFF ARCHIE M. & ELLA C. FRAME TANIA ROBERTS REHA BRANIFF CHARLES I. SKIPSEY ' MOPAC CIRCLE, STE. 21 BOSQUE DE OMBUE, 135 17 HIDDEN VALLEY IN, TX 78746 ' BASQUE DE LAS LOM, MEXICO, D.F., CLEVELAND, OH 44116 MEXICO JOHN J. CADY COSBAY REALTY CO. RONALD RUSHNECK, JR. 8121 KILLARNEY COURT EMIL STENGER GARY & SUSAN RUSHNECK ; WICHITA, KS 67206 28-11 210TH ST. 480 SOUTH BROADWAY BAYSIDE, NY 11360 TARRYTOWN, NY 10591 RT S. SHERMAN ESTHER KARTIGANER CARLOS A. ABEL L-_.�ABETH J. SHERMAN 333 EAST 53RD ST. AMALIA M. ABEL 1025 MISTWOOD LANE NEW YORK, NY 10022 523 CRAGMONT AVE. DOWNERS GROVE, IL 60515 BERKELEY, CA 94708 FRIEDERIKE STENGER MAGNER CHILDREN'S MINOR TRUST RICHARD PAUL WALTER STENGER C/O T. GERALD MAGNER, JR., TRUSTEE SUZANNE PAUL 117 CENTER POINT DR. STE. 300 73 INDIAN HILLS RD. 1210 INVERNESS AVE. NEPEAN, ONTARIO, CANADA K2G 5X WINNETKA, IL 60093 PITTSBURG, PA 15217 K2G 5 JOHN P. FINNEGAN PHILIP M. COHEN CHARLES D. TOWER SANDRA H. FINNEGAN LILIANA M. COHEN P.O. BOX 3014 84 RILLING RIDGE 35 SHAKER RIDGE DR. ASPEN, CO 81612 NEW CANAAN, CT 06840 CANAAN, NY 12029 HELDA ENTERPRISES, INC. CHADVALE REALTY, INC. MELVIN BOYER C/O JOE KRABACHER P.O. BOX 11976 P.O. BOX 295 201 NO. MILL ST. ASPEN, CO 81612 KEEGO HARBOR, MI 48320 ASPEN, CO 81611 RONALD C. KANAN MARK C. TACHE JOYCE K. MURRAY �' ^ .BOX 649 CHRISTEN COOPER TACHE P.O. BOX 352 N, CO 81612 840 CEMETARY LANE ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 DAVID BLUEFIELD PEARLSTEIN PHILIP J. O'CONNELL PETER HERSHORN 1006 E. COOPER AVE. NANDINI O'CONNELL 555 EAST DURANT AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 4260 CENTRAL AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 ST. PETERSBURG, FL 33711 PENNY L. WHITE HELEN NEWELL RICHARD J. MEEKER 1007 EAST HYMAN AVE. #2 C/O REGENTS ROW ALLISON D. MEEKER ASPEN, CO 81611 203 SO. GALENA ST. 0752 MEADOWOOD DR. ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 GERALDINE L. HEYMAN JOELLE MC DONOUGH PAUL F. AHERN 1007 E. HYMAN AVE. #8 1007 E. HYMAN AVE. 23501 PARK SORRENTO, STE. 103 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 CALABASAS, CA 91302 ANTHONY S. PODELL PODELL INDUSTRIES CHARISSE D. LAYNE 1930 E. 65TH ST. 1930 E. 65TH STREET 1012 E. COOPER AVE. #3 1 ^" ANGELES, CA 90001 LOS ANGELES, CA 90001 ASPEN, CO 81611 WILLI DEAN ELLIS MARNY B. NEDLIN FRED VENRICK 1012 E. COOPER AVE. #2 80 CENTRAL PARK WEST, STE. 21 D 1746 N. LARRABEE ASPEN, CO 81611 NEW YORK, NY 10023 CHICAGO, IL 60614 V G. HUMPHREY RONALD N. KRAJIAN JOHN & CHRISTINE CHAMBERS BOX 3725 747 SO. GALENA ST. T.I. #1 FRANKLIN & KAREN CHAMBERS ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 224109TH AVE, BOX 98 PLAINWELL, MI 49080 DON D. CRAWFORD MELVYN A. ANHALT MARK TYE 3401 E. OCEAN BLVD. MILDRED L. ANHALT RAYMOND A. TYE LONG BEACH, CA 90803 11 WILLIAMSBURG LANE P.O. BOX 8992 HOUSTON, TX 77024 ASPEN, CO 81612 CARLOS OLIVARES BOCA CHICA, INC. MICHAEL P. HUBBARD MONIKA S. DE OLIVARES C/O RIDOGAL FLORIDA, INC. 920 EAST HYMAN AVE. 826 HYMAN AVE. 3750 NW 87TH AVE, #560 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 MIAMI, FL 33178 DENNIS P. CIRILLO MARY ANN ROBINSON CHARLES R. WICHMAN ALICE P. CIRILLO 689 EAGLE WATCH LN. JEANNE R. WICHMAN 980 EAST HYMAN AVE. #3 OSPREY, FL 34229 P.O. BOX 656 ASPEN, CO 81611 HONOLULU, HI 96809 KEITH CARLSON CHARLES W. HOOD BARBARA GAMEROFF ""'TORIA CARLSON 980 E. HYMAN #5 990 EAST HYMAN AVE. #1 . HYMAN AVE. #4 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 EN, CO 81611 ANITA M. PIERCE JOAN MARGUERITE SPARLING TRUST ART REALTY P.O. BOX 3202 C/O JOAN MARGUERITE SPARLING, C/O MARK TYE ASPEN, CO 81612 TRUSTEE P.O. BOX 8992 300 PUPPY SMITH ST. 205-220 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 GARY HIRSCHFIELD KELLEY & KENDALL JONES JULIE M. LAMPTON C/O DOUGLAS P. ALLEN JOHN KYLE JONES P.O. BOX 12111 225 NO. MILL ST. STE 210 1406 W 13TH ST. ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 AUSTIN, TX 78703 SHARON E. MEAGHER ROB ERT A. KOZLOW JOSEPH V. MYERS, JR. P.O. BOX 2187 CAROL KOZLOW 265 BRIGHTON ROAD NE ASPEN, CO 81612 6764 KNOLLWOOD CIRCLE WEST ATLANTA, GA 30309 WEST BLOOMFIELD, MI 48322 LYNNE M. STACKER EDWIN Y. WEINROT OLOF H. HEDSTROM 694 MAPLE PARK DRIVE IRENE WEINROT CAROLYN C. HEDSTROM -T PAUL, MN 55118 P.O. BOX 48128 P.O. BOX 4815 LOS ANGELES, CA 90048 ASPEN, CO 81612 SUSAN MCC GUBELMANN MARVIN GORDON 1900 E. DURANT #108 SYLVIA GORDON ASPEN, CO 81611 25862 HERSHEYVALE FRANKLIN, MI 48025 RISTOPHER J. BRUMDER DAVID B. MELTZER FIRSTAR TRUST 36 SOUTH STATE STREET 777 E. WISCONSIN AVE. CHICAGO, IL 60603 MILWAUKEE, WI 53202 KENNETH E. QUINTENZ WILLIAM J. MORSE SUSAN L. QUINTENZ EUDICE MORSE 91 NORTH STANBERY AVE. 14851 COUNTY LINE ROAD COLUMBUS, OH 43209 CHAGRIN FALLS, OH 44022 GLENN EUGENE LAW SAVANAH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP P.O. BOX 2537 515 SO. GALENA ST. ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 ROBERT LANGLEY HEALTHCARE FOR WOMEN DARNELL LANGLEY 250 SAN JOSE 1001 E. COOPER AVE. SALINAS, CA 93901 ASPEN, CO 81611 BUTCH & SUNDANCE INVESTMENTS MARK KWIECIENSKI ^'O BELLOCK CONSTRUCTION RICHARD MILES 28TH ST. 730 E. DURANT .jLDER, CO 80303 ASPEN, CO 81611 WENDY WILLMAN WEAVER CAROL A. BAYLEY P.O. BOX 2477 P.O. BOX 1427 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 SUSAN V. ROLLES SCOTT C. ROLLES 218 KAIVLANI AVE. 2ND FLOOR HONOLULU, HI 96815 BILLY & HANNALORE SMART C/O COATES, REID & WALDRON 720 E. HYMAN ASPEN, CO 81611 INDIANHEAD FARMS, INC. P.O. BOX 623 MASON CITY, IA 50402 KENTCO LIMITED PARTNERSHIP ONE NORTHFIELD PLAZA NORTHFIELD, IL 60093 NEIL ROSS 100 SO. SPRING ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 PAUL ANDERSON 1004 EAST DURANT AVE. #3 ASPEN, CO 81611 950 DURANT LLC 408 A.A.B.C.#202 ASPEN, CO 81611 JOHN D. GRAY ANN MILLIGAN GRAY 1416 N. ASTOR ST. CHICAGO, IL 60610 PUBLIC NOTICE RE: POWER PROPERTIES CO NDITIONAL USE FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT will be held on Tuesday, June 4,1996 at a ublic hearing NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a p and Zoning Commission, Sister Cities meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning consider an application submitted by Sandy Meeting Room, City Hall,130 S. Galena St., Aspen t for an Accessory Dwelling Unit within a Schonwald, requesting Conditional Use Review approvalUnit B and is residence. The property is located at 939 E. Cooper AveenT l�oation, proposed single family Residential Site "B", East Cooper Court Condominiums. For 130 S. Galena described as R Development Dep contact Suzanne Wolff at the Aspen/Pitkin Community p St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5093. s/Sara Garton Chair Commission — Aspen Planning and Zoning ------ ---- MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Dave Michaelson, Deputy Director j✓� RE: Aspen Mountain PUD Lot 3 (Top of Mill Site) Planned Unit Development (PUD) Conceptual Review - Public Hearing DATE: June 4,1996 SUMMARY: Savanah proposes to subdivide Lot 3 of the Aspen Mountain PUD into eight development parcels and two open space parcels, for a total of 17 units. Six townhomes are proposed for Parcel 1, which is located adjacent to Mill Street on the northernmost portion of the site. Each of the 3-story units will contain four bedrooms and approximately forty-five hundred square feet of floor area. Two duplexes are proposed for Parcel 2, which is located in the vicinity of the Black Duplex. Parcel 3, located immediately south of Parcel 2, will contain a single duplex of a similar size and configuration as the two lower duplexes. Parcels 4,5, 6, 7 and 8, located at the southernmost portion of Lot 3, will each contain a detached, single family dwelling unit. The Commission has copies of the application for Lot 3. Staff has not received a Geotechnical Report for the site, which will be a critical element to the review. In addition, the report will require review by both the City Engineering Staff as well as the Colorado State Geologist. The applicant has requested that this hearing be devoted to a presentation and overview of the Top of Mill site. Staff will submit a full memorandum following submittal and review of the Geotechnical Report. PROCEDURAL OVERVIEW: The development of Lot 3 is being processed as a four -step application, with reviews occurring at different steps. Staff has summarized the timing of specific requests below. Step 1- n&Z Step 2 - Council ConceptConceptual P UD SubdivisSubdivision Notes: Italics represent public hearings Step 3-P&Z Final PUD Text Amendment Rezoning Conditional Use 8040 Greenline Viewplane Step 4 - Council Final PUD Text Amendment Rezoning APPLICANT: Savanah Limited Partnership, represented by Sunny Vann and John Sarpa 1 LOCATION: Lot 3, Aspen Mountain PUD is located at the southern end of Mill Street and adjacent to the base of Aspen Mountain. The parcel lies between two fingers of ski terrain which extend to Lift I to thett west and to the Little Nell gondola to the east. The parcel is bound on the north by the Fifth Avenue and 700 South Monarch condominium complexes and Lot of the Aspen Mountain PUD, which contains the Summit Place project. The Mountain Queen condominiums are located immediately west of the Lot 3. The Aspen Mountain Ski Area borders the parcel on the south, east and west. An unnamed ski run traverses the southeast corner of the parcel. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff would recommend that the Commission table the application until the first possible meeting in July assuming submittal of the Geotech Report by June 7, 1996. This would allow review by both Engineering and the State Geologist. 2 • ! • • r-LiNn• AOIS3H S31JLU3dOUd H3MOd .33N o 'U3d000 ISV3 8A3 • �' Suluueld ajnqoeq!t4oje 'VIAK •S3mLVlWVAA OON SOrj OOVHO-103 IN3dSV8 IINni Buiuueld S(31 El3dOdd 83MOd FF 'VIAK SaMLVI SSW Pue tJVAF% i i i i •n3s 3iva "ON sor �w d T • . -�l .03 ° 33N3alS3d S3llH3d0Hd H3MOd- • / • io 'w3ainos• 44 S3=LVI0 SSW Pue WVAA suluuelcl 13 a i nq 0 J e s H 0 10 3 'N3dSV El I I Nn -jumoo H-�WOOO JLSV7 i i eA3t 3 1da 'ON aor "A3tf i7 31VO *ON BOr J zIL LD 0(3VUO'100 'N3dSV El I I INn -jLuno3 8-�JdOOD 30N30IS38 S,3llU3dO8d d3MOd- L ocos oavao-ioo 'u3a-inos v 3.Lins 'jLun03 N33HS H31N33 SlV6 Z Suiuueld 9.jn:to9ai4,oje SajLVIC) SSVpue tIVAA mi� MIN > 7 I V-- - Jim