Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20190205Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission February 5, 2019 1 Staff Comments ............................................................................................................................................ 2 Commission Comments ................................................................................................................................ 2 Minutes ......................................................................................................................................................... 2 Public Comment not on the Agenda ............................................................................................................. 2 1011 E. Hopkins Ave – Special Review – Replacement of ADU ................................................................ 2 331-338 Midland Ave – Aspen Hills – Growth Management and Associated Reviews .............................. 2 Wireless Regulations – Code Amendment Referral ..................................................................................... 6 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission February 5, 2019 2 At 4:30 p.m.; Teraissa McGovern called the regular meeting to order with Commission Members Skippy Mesirow, Ryan Walterscheid, Jimmy Marcus, Ruth Carver and Scott Marcoux present. Rally Dupps arrived a few minutes late. Also present were Andrea Bryan and Linda Manning. Staff Comments Jennifer Phelan, community development, told the commission there may be a runoff election in April. The regular meeting on April 2 will need to be canceled. The next regular meeting will be April 16th. We could do April 23 or 30 for a regular meeting. The State planning conference will be in Snowmass Village on September 18 through 20. If any commissioners are interested in attending let us know. What if any topics would you be interested in hearing about. They do a commissioner track at the conference. Commission Comments None. Minutes Mr. Marcus moved to approve the minutes from January 22, 2019; seconded by Ms. Carver. All in favor, motion carried. Public Comment not on the Agenda None. 1011 E. Hopkins Ave – Special Review – Replacement of ADU Garrett Larimar, community development, stated the public notice was not provide pursuant to the code. There was an error with the paper noticing. We need to continue the hearing to March 26. Ms. McGovern moved to continue the public hearing for 1011 E Hopkins Avenue to March 26, 2019; seconded by Mr. Walterscheid. All in favor, motion carried. 331-338 Midland Ave – Aspen Hills – Growth Management and Associated Reviews Mr. Larimer said he would like to add to the record letters of public comment received after the packet was uploaded. The proposal is Aspen Hills condo redevelopment. The original hearing was on December 4, 2018 and was continued to January 22. The property is located at 331-338 Midland Avenue. Currently it contains 8 units in a free market residential building. It is located in the RMF zone outside the infill area. The current proposal is to redevelop to contain 14 units, 8 in the existing and 6 free market in a new building. The proposal triggers demolition. Reviews include GMQS – general review, affordable housing and multi family demo replacement. The applicant is asking for a dimensional variance for parking in the setback. Mr. Dupps arrived at 4:35. Since the last hearing, additional changes have been made to comply with the code. Additional amenities to allow for below grade conditions for the affordable housing. The applicant went back and added two amenities including additional storage below the parking and a rooftop deck. Additional storage is below the affordable housing covered parking, 23 x 22 feet. Each unit will have 32 feet of storage accessed by a stacked stair. He showed renderings of the storage. To the east of the existing building is a bump out in the property line where they will locate stairs to provide access to the rooftop deck. The deck measures approximately 20 x 20 square feet. The application design shows the deck set in to the existing roof. Interior roof height is 9 feet below the roof top units. He showed a rendering of the roof top space. The code requirement is for a one hour fire enclosure rating. One of staff’s main concerns of the application as a whole, is the lack of buffer between the development and the adjacent properties. It does have negative impacts on the Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission February 5, 2019 3 neighboring properties. We are in favor of adding amenities for the affordable housing units but not at an increased negative impact for the neighbors. The applicants submitted option B for a stacked stair to the north of the existing structure to provide access to the rooftop deck. Staff feels the alternative is preferable because the access does not have negative impacts on the neighbors and the deck is entirely outside the setback. The reviews required include special review for the replacement of the non conforming structure. There is a below grade condition. More than 50% of A7 and A8 are below grade. This requires special review and approval. There are four elements for approval. 1st is significant storage included. 2nd is above average natural light provided. 3rd is the net livable needs to be above the minimum required in the APHCA guidelines. 4th is outdoor living space must be provided. Staff feels that significant storage has been provided with overhead storage and with the addition of the below grade storage. Light tubes and sky lights are provided. APCHA recommended the size and the addition of the roof top deck. Staff feels these are met. Dimensional variance for the parking in the setback. Transportation complies with the requirements of the code. RDS are the same and would comply with administrative review. Staff feels the review criteria are met and would approve the special request for below grade with the condition of option B for the stair location. Staff is supportive of approving the application and requested reviews with the option B. Mr. Mesirow said the option that puts the stairs in the enclosure what is the requirement. Mr. Larimar replied it is a fire code. Ms. McGovern stated because of the proximity to the property line it is required to be enclosed. Applicant presentation Chris Bendon, representing the applicant, said the nature of the property and the ways the lines are drawn is from a 1969 plat filing prior to the county and city having subdivisions. It didn’t account for setbacks. Phase 1 is 8 units in the existing building. Phase 2 is 6 additional units. We do have interest in pursuing mechanical lifts in the free market units to provide one additional car parking space in each unit if we can have them count towards our parking. Unit 7 is below grade according to the pre development topography. In reality, the 1st floor is above grade. Last meeting we were discussing the additional amenities. Parking and light tubes. Staff had a concern about the storage being accessible only from one end. Our plan is to use attic reach down ladders. The additional storage is below grade under the car parking. 4 x 8 dimension per unit. They are much more accessible for every day use. The deck and stair enclosure does have to be fire rated. It could include windows. It is our preference that it is in this area. We feel it works best here but are amenable to the option B. He showed images of the back notch. While staff is concerned about the aesthetic it is parking for the neighboring projects. We do comply with the setbacks if it is in the back. On parking, we had the conversation with the commission a few times. It is not a negotiable point. You either meet the requirements or you don’t. Our project exceeds the requirement for on site parking. We are sensitive to the issue. There has been a lot of discussion about the management and operation of street parking and issues of long term car storage. We are sensitive and supportive of more operational requirements from the city and street management program. Second is the mechanical lifts. If we can accommodate it within the budget we will provide a mechanical lift for the free market for a second car. It is additional cost to do the excavation and provide the mechanism. What would persuade us to do that is if it would count towards or parking mitigation. Mr. Marcus said if you were to add the lifts what is the total count with them. Mr. Bendon said it is 17 now, we have the ability to add as many as 6 to take us to 23. Each one will have their own engineering issues so we can’t promise we could get all 6. Ms. Phelan said they can provide more parking but it does not meet the technical requirements of a parking space so they can’t get a waiver of a parking space. It is not allowed to be exempted. They are supposed to have unobstructed access. They can do it, it just doesn’t count towards the parking requirement. Ms. Carver asked how many spaces are required and how many will be mitigated. Mr. Bendon replied 26 is the requirement. The minimum onsite is 16. We have Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission February 5, 2019 4 17 on site with the potential additional 6. We would suggest it is not as obstructed as we are thinking. There are other obstructions like garage doors you have to go through to get to a parking space. It does come down to a budget consideration. If we add them and have to pay the 38,000 we would be going backwards. Mc. McGovern opened the public comment. 1. Barbara Lee, 327 Midland Ave, said the issue I have is 14 units but how many bedrooms. Mr. Bendon said we haven’t done the final layouts but they will be 3 or 4 bedrooms each. Ms. Lee said as much as we wish Aspen could be a no parking town many of these units will be a 2 or 3 car unit. Midland is a 16 parking space street and it is maxed out. Many of us are concerned about the impact of the parking. This neighborhood cannot absorb another 50 parking spaces. The requirement doesn’t solve the problem. How will you absorb the 50 extra cars on a public street. 2. Ann Marie McVey said the parking is a huge problem. Our neighborhood is not part of the infill area but this is infill to the max. The affordable housing is taking the brunt. All of us will be taking the brunt to maximize the free market units. We will also lose our view plane. The project is also extending over the property line and not compatible with the overall neighborhood. 3. Helen Phillips 326 Midland said she has been an owner since 1970’s, our parking spaces will be used by people who are visiting. It doesn’t make sense to me to build this huge development without parking. The stairs are in a bad location and are ugly to look at. 4. Erick Phillips, ditto on the parking. Asked how many guest parking spaces there are. Mr. Bendon replied none. 5. Jeff Bestick, 301 Midland Park said I can see the mountains now but the view will be gone when this is built. He mentioned safety and the driveway will be in a canyon for 6 months of the year if this is built. Spoke about light pollution. While the project may meet all the requirements is it an asset to the neighborhood. 6. Steve Hach, said parking issues in the east end have been around long before this application. There is not enough parking in the neighborhood. The units are not an asset. We are digging a hole with the parking. 7. Elise Eliott said she objects to the project. Not only will it impact Midland but Park Ave too. She asked the commission to reject this proposal. 8. Warren Cohen, 55 Smuggler Grove Rd, asked what the developers are needing to have approved. Concerned with the parking and traffic in the neighborhood. Will only get worse if these developments go through. 9. Sasha Simple, 821 midland Park Pl, 10 years ago there was no stop sign where current bus stop is. Complained and a partial stop sign was installed. With snow and cars and bus stop it is very dangerous and a safety issue. 10. David Harris, 117 Neale, asked who owns the property where the bump out is located. Mr. Bendon replied we do. Mr. Harris said staff represented that the parking meets the code. I take issue with that since you are asking for a variance. The building is going to be torn down. The review standard requires certain things to be met. This project has adverse impact including shading. There are excessive impacts and it doesn’t meet the code because the review criteria to reconstruct require the demolition code be met. Staff recommendation of approval says based on feedback from Jan 22 and additional amenities staff recommends approval. There were a lot of things that didn’t meet the code form the 1st hearing. As proposed the amount of development on the site and the parking within the setbacks and the burden is placed on neighboring properties. Going further into the setback increases the nonconformities. Approving this application is not consistent with the code. I’m not opposed to this just do it right. 11. Cindy Houben, Midland Park Place, ditto, this really is taking a small lot and placing way to much on it. It is too much of a burden to the rest of the community. Do the right thing and don’t allow poor planning to take place. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission February 5, 2019 5 12. Dennis Wolcott, manager of midland park place. We have 37 units and 72 bedrooms, we have a parking place for every bedroom and 12 guest spaces. We do have a serious parking issue with this plan. The road will be shaded and is at a 5% grade. There will be a safety issue. 13. Jane Demar said the street is not safe in its current condition and agrees with the safety issue. 14. Shale Johnson, lives at Midland Park. Likes the non conformity of the east end. Would like to see that kept in mind in the design. Agrees with everything else that has been said. Mr. Larimar said he received letters from Carrie Brooks, Greg Mcpherson, Marcia Corbin, Midland park Home owners board and Carrie brooks. Ms. Phelan said there is an existing building with 8 units proposed for demolition. When a building that has housed local working residents is proposed to be redeveloped we require mitigation. The path they chose is to replace the units as deed restricted housing. Once provided they can develop with up to 8 free market units with the intent of meeting height, setbacks and parking. That is where we are getting the 14 total units. It is a final review by the P&Z commission. There are a few requests. The existing building contains some non conformities. They are asking to replace an existing non conforming building. It is an allowed request. Due to some of the historic and finish grade there is a requirement to some of the affordable housing units where the finish floor is required to be at or above grade. It is a technical review where two of the units don’t meet the 50%. That is one of the requests. With the parking there is a 5 foot minimal setback. Some of the parking is within the setback. It is allowed through a site specific approval by the board. Those are the big reviews. Mr. Walterscheid said council and staff went through a code rewrite last year. This board doesn’t make parking legislation. Council is the avenue to change parking. While we can talk about parking related to this project to change parking for your neighborhood requires this amount of attention at a council level. Ms. Phelan said this project is locked into the standards at the time of the application. Even changing the code would not affect this application. Ms. McGovern closed the public comment. Mr. Bendon stated the number of affordable housing units is 8. Ann Marie mentioned 5. There are 3 legacy tenants that would be rehoused. Commissioner discussion Mr. Mesirow said from the last meeting, conceptually this is a really important project. Parking is something we are learning about. We are not reviewing the other projects. Looking at this project from the last time I was clear on my position. The applicants made significant strides with the additions. I could have and will continue to vote yes on it. I prefer the side entrance for the stairs, option B. It is less of an impediment for the neighbors. Mr. Marcoux said he also prefers option B as well. He loves the underground storage. He is fine with the size of the roof deck. He has concerns with the CMP during construction to mitigate the construction impacts. Mr. Dupps said this project meets the parking. I think zone parking needs to happen in the east end. Council needs to take responsibility for it. We don’t have control over it. I supported the project last time and continue to support it. Option B for the stairs. Mr. Marcus said there are legitimate concerns and frustrations I am hearing. No one here wants to discount those. This is not the right venue for those concerns, condition of the street, stop sign, what the code requirement for parking is, monitoring of the parking, enforcement of parking. My concern is it is not relevant to this application and this isn’t the right venue for those concerns. There are less compelling concerns for me including the view plane. There are codes with height limits and densities. There has to be some level of understanding and respect for this is what the code is. When there is legitimate frustrations there has to be some level of standard that people can depend upon. There is a young generation of people that has no where to live. While I respect there are people who bought homes 30 years ago things are going to have to change regarding density. Things are naturally going to change. Historically Aspen has a hard time for that. There will be 8 new residents that will be affordable. Additionally, parking will need to be figured out. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission February 5, 2019 6 Mr. Mesirow said he would allow the stacked parking to be allowed in the exception. Ms. Carver said she thinks the developers have bent over backwards to make this building work. It is a better building than it was. APCHA is in support of it. Everyone wants more affordable housing in this community. I cannot vote for this because it doesn’t meet the setbacks. Parts of it are over the property line. We are working so hard to change something that isn’t right. I don’t think we should do it. Mr. Walterscheid said he left here at the first hearing in favor. I think I’m going to side more closely with Ruth. Because it is technically a demo it needs to conform. I’m held to that standard and leaning against this. For the demo and dimensional variance. Exhibit F clearly outlines a few things that aren’t met. Ms. McGovern said she is really happy to see the additional amenities but they didn’t tip me over the edge. This is a full demo it should come in to compliance. There is enough space to build the 8 units and get a free market project. Mr. Marcoux said I’m for it. We asked you to make some changes and you did it. APCHA is for it. My concern is in getting the project done. Ms. Phelan said we would do drawings that show the stair. Mr. Bendon said they have some changes to the wording of the resolution. Page 3 of the resolution dimensional variance for south setback, Section 3 notes that there are 3 legacy tenants we’ve talked about. Page 4, Subsection D talks about 8 units with storage up above, the foot print above space 1 and 5 are smaller than these dimensions because they don’t have as much space. Ms. Phelan said to note for 1 and 5 reduced dimension. Section 4 talks about free market housing, the application shows a lay out with kitchen and bedrooms they need to go through the design process, the internal layout needs to change. Ms. Phelan stated we would remove the bedroom count. Mr. Bendon said Section 5 non conforming structures and easements, they would like the 2nd sentence to say unless the encroachments are removed. Section 7 page 6, encroachments to south and west parking, same language as above. Section 9, repeats former comment. Number 6 overhead storage same comment for 1 and 5. Last paragraph talks about building permit having to be canceled and withdrawn and all fees not refunded. Ask to allow that to default to whatever policy is. Ms. Phelan said the director asked for that to be included. Mr. Bendon said Section 12 – parking, repeating to ask to have mechanical lift spaces count. Ms. Phelan said the code doesn’t allow that. Mr. Bendon said it mentions 4 parking spaces there are actually 5. The code allows us to provide additional TIA points to provide mitigation for up to 1 space. Section 15 – EH review for trash and recycling – from our standpoint we think we met it with Liz. Mr. Dupps moved to approve Resolution #2, Series of 2019 for Aspen Hills, Growth Management and associated reviews with amendments and option B for stairs; seconded by Mr. Marcus. Roll call vote. Commissioners Mesirow, yes; Carver, no; Marcoux, yes; Dupps, yes; Waltersheid, no; Marcus, yes; McGovern, no. Motion carried 4 to 3. Wireless Regulations – Code Amendment Referral Paul Schultz, IT, told the commission wireless infrastructure globally is evolving rapidly. The goal is to have the best possible service with the least amount of impact. The worst case scenario is unsightly impact. Often work is performed by the lowest priced contractor. Typically, this means densification. Small cell antennas have wireless infrastructure and involves digging and trenching. Best case involves camouflaging and stealthing to make them look like they fit within the building. There are a variety of ways to conceal in light poles and around them. Another example for dense and small geographic areas are underground. There are also other creative camouflage solutions. These are coming and a push from federal and state regulations. Ideally, we can make this the least worst because it is coming. We can’t prohibit carriers from not providing services. We can co host infrastructure. We want to have the best wireless service with minimal impact. Ms. McGovern asked can we say how many can go in a certain area. Andrea Bryan, assistant city attorney, said so far we’ve seen at least one provider has shown a general location. There is a requirement they be 600 feet apart. Jessica Garrow, community development, said a block length in Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission February 5, 2019 7 Aspen is 270 feet. It is about 2 full block lengths. Mr. Schultz said where the carriers are today is 4G. That continues to evolve. 5G is a new set of standards. In the future 4 G will still be there but 5 G is coming. Mr. Marcoux asked are you anticipating pushback from the community with health related concerns. Ms. Bryan said that is what is driving a lot of this. State law changed in late 2017 and creates a use by right for small cell facilities in any zone districts. It also shortens the time frame in which we have to act within 90 days. It gives them the right to locate or co locate on city infrastructure in our right of way’s. Mr. Schultz said all these devices create electromagnetic radiation. 5 G moves to different wavelengths. It has prompted people to look at this technology. The FCC provides guidelines on that. Ms. Bryan said the new FCC rules did prohibit municipalities from using health concerns from regulating small cells. We have some parameters where we can regulate other aspects like design. She said a small cell is defined as something that can fit within three cubic feet. Mr. Mesirow said there are three separate issues being discussed; the health concerns, aesthetic concerns and the efficacy of it. Mr. Schultz said there is coverage and capacity. There is already coverage problems here. I would like to think the commercial interests would drive them to improve both coverage and capacity. 4G is evolving and advancing and getting better. I think us having worse wireless coverage in town will probably be minimal. I would like to think it is going the other way. Ms. Garrow asked what level of oversight does P&Z want to see on this. Ms. Bryan said we are required to act on an application within 90 days. The new federal rules require a 90 day shot clock of the date in which the application is submitted for a new stand alone facility. We have 90 days to act and 60 days for facilities co located within a right of way. We are limited on the permitted fees in which we can charge. We also can’t materially inhibit deployment. We have to be reasonable and no more burdensome to other types of infrastructure. We have a pretty strict land use code and that also apply to this. Most of the review for small cell facilities has to be administrative. Requests for locating on historic buildings may still be subject to HPC review but they would have to act within this time frame. A lot of communities for locating in the right of way cities have done master licensing agreements where they come up with guidelines and approved designs with the various providers and basically agree this is what the designs would look like. Ms. Garrow said what we would like to talk about is not the stuff in the right of way or on city buildings but ones located on private property. We can’t really deny these things. We can set up some parameters about distance and specific locations on a building about roof top setback and maybe some design elements. Those seem like administrative type things that staff could do but there is maybe a way to incentivize certain types of deployment over others. As a board, do you want to see something knowing you are going to have to say yes to it or do you want us to do it as an administrative review. Mr. Dupps replied administratively. Mr. Marcoux said it is here he just wants to make sure the providers are separated from the city. Ms. McGovern said she would like to see the design guidelines but would like it handled administratively. Ms. Carver said it sounds like controlled compliance. Mr. Mesirow said he would prefer the aesthetics as invisible as can be for a pedestrian but not to inhibit the efficacy. Ms. Garrow showed examples of residential deployments including fake chimneys. From a design perspective she asked about allowing these types of things. Ms. McGovern asked can they be screened like we screen other mechanical equipment. Ms. Garrow replied absolutely. We already have pretty strict regulations for setbacks on roofs and height restrictions. Mr. Walterscheid said they should follow the same rules. Ms. Garrow said we will go back and talk about what type of distance requirement we can and should have for private property. Ms. Carver asked what the process would be. Ms. Bryan said we would have a master licensing agreement. The provider would submit an application with the community development department. They would do an administrative review to check the boxes to make sure it met the requirements of the master licensing agreement and the aesthetic requirements of our code. They would then get the approval. The current height in the code, and we expect to get some pushback from the carriers, is 25 feet. Mr. Dupps moved to extend the meeting until 7:17; seconded by Mr. Mesirow. All in favor, motion carried. Ms. Garrow said what she heard is whatever we can within legal bounds. Clearly communicate that it is not the city that we are responding to the carriers. Camouflage as much as possible and follow the current code regulations in regard to other types of mechanical equipment. Mr. Marcoux asked if there is a city that has already deployed this. Mr. Schultz said Sacramento and Huston have somewhat deployed but Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission February 5, 2019 8 a full deployment does not exist. Ms. McGovern asked what happens if we go live with this and it is clear we made a mistake. Ms. Garrow said we met with council and requested money for the design guideline process. They supported that. We think this will get us through the first period of time. We can change the review process if it is clear it is not working. Ms. Garrow said we will do some site visits to manufacturers of light poles. At 7:12 p.m. Mr. Mesirow moved to adjourn; seconded by Mr. Dupps. All in favor, motion carried. Linda Manning City Clerk