The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.apz.201912181 AGENDA ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION December 18, 2019 4:30 PM, Sister Cities Meeting Room 130 S Galena Street, Aspen I.SITE VISIT II.ROLL CALL III.COMMENTS IV.MINUTES IV.A.Draft Minutes 12/3/2019 minutes.apz20191203.pdf V.DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST VI.PUBLIC HEARINGS VI.A.835 E. Durant- Residential Design Standard Variation for Garage Placement 835 E. Durant_Memo.pdf 835 E. Durant_Resolution.docx Exhibit A_835 E. Durant Review Criteria.docx Exhibit B_Application.pdf VII.OTHER BUSINESS VII.A.Wireless Facility Design Standards PandZ memo_12_18_wireless.pdf Exhibit A_Design list_12_18.pdf VIII.BOARD REPORTS IX.ADJOURN Typical Proceeding Format for All Public Hearings 1)Conflicts of Interest (handled at beginning of agenda) 2) Provide proof of legal notice (affidavit of notice for PH)1 2 3) Staff presentation 4) Board questions and clarifications of staff 5) Applicant presentation 6) Board questions and clarifications of applicant 7) Public comments 8)Board questions and clarifications relating to public comments 9) Close public comment portion of bearing 10) Staff rebuttal/clarification of evidence presented by applicant and public comment 11) Applicant rebuttal/clarification End of fact finding. Deliberation by the commission commences. No further interaction between commission and staff, applicant or public 12) Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed among commissioners. 13) Discussion between commissioners* 14) Motion* *Make sure the discussion and motion includes what criteria are met or not met. CODE OF CONDUCT FOR CITIZEN COMMENTS DURING CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETINGS: Planning and Zoning Commission meetings shall be conducted in a fair and impartial manner. Citizen comments shall respect the need for civility for effective public discussion of issues. Citizen comments regarding any matter not on the agenda will be allowed during the designated time on the agenda and may be disallowed at other times during the meeting. Those wishing to address the Commission on any matter not on the agenda will be allowed a three-minute presentation per speaker. This “three minute rule” shall also be applicable to citizens wishing to address the Commission during the public comment portion of public hearings for agenda items. The Chair or presiding officer retains the discretion to allow or disallow public comment on any agenda item that is not designated as a public hearing. All citizen comments should be directed to the Commission, and not to individual members of the public. Defamatory or abusive remarks, shouting, threats of violence or profanity are OUT OF ORDER and will not be tolerated. Persons violating these policies may be asked to terminate their comments. In the event of repeated violations or refusal to abide by these policies or directives, the Chair or presiding officer has authority to request the individual to leave the meeting or direct a peace officer to remove the individual from the Commission meeting. Revised July 8th, 2019 2 Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission December 3, 2019 Chairperson McKnight called the meeting to order at 4:35 PM. Commissioners in attendance: Spencer McKnight, Teraissa McGovern, Scott Marcoux, James Marcus, Brittanie Rockhill, Ryan Walterscheid, Ruth Carver, Don Love Absent: Rally Dupps Staff present: Jeannine Stickle, Records Manager Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Mike Kraemer, Interim Deputy Planning Director Ben Anderson, Planner STAFF COMMENTS Mr. Kraemer stated that the December 17th P&Z meeting has been canceled and moved to the December 18th date due to a conflict with City Council Meeting. There will two hearings. One will be a land use hearing and the other will be a small cell update. He asked if anyone wants an update on small cell from Mr. Anderson now. Mr. Love asked for an update. Mr. Anderson stated that this Small Cell project is in response to changes in FCC rules and State of Colorado Rules about the use of the right-of-way by the telecommunications industry. The City has hired the engineering firm HR Green to help with design guidelines. Staff is starting to draft a document. The City has been engaged in a public outreach effort to talk to people. Most of the people who have shown up and commented are people who are concerned about health issues and the new 5G technology. Qualitatively, staff have had really good conversations with the public. The next step in process is drafting the set of design guidelines. On the 18th, staff will come with a short set of slides to introduce the topic and what their thinking has been. They also will present a bulleted list with some of the design parameters they’re landing on, just to get feedback. Staff will be talking to HPC as well. They’re going to take the boards’ feedback to City Council in January. From that, if everybody says that sounds good and makes sense, staff will have a finalized set of design guidelines and some changes to the land use code some time in mid to late February. Staff will be asking for a formal recommendation sometime in February with the hope that it all gets adopted prior to right-of-way opening in the spring. The City has already received applications from AT&T. Before there are more, staff would like to have these design guidelines in place. The Commission’s input will be really helpful. Mr. Kraemer stated that there are land use items scheduled for the month of January. January 7th, there will be one land use item. That meeting, the Commission will also need to elect a chair and vice chair. He suggested that they add an item onto this meeting’s agenda to discuss potential candidates. The land use code does state that the chair can be re-elected but is silent to the vice chair being re-elected. He will check on that. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS None. PUBLIC COMMENTS 3 None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Marcoux voted to approve the minutes from November 19th, 2019. Mr. Walterscheid seconded. All in favor, motion carried. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Mr. Dupps had previously recused himself from attending the meeting due to a conflict of interest. He was not present at the meeting. PUBLIC HEARING Mountain Chalet Lodge – Elevator Extension Insubstantial Amendment to a Planned Development, Commercial Design Review Mr. Anderson introduced himself as a planner with the City. He stated that there are only two reviews that apply to the project. Those are Commercial Design Review and an Insubstantial PD Amendment Review. He stated that Mountain Chalet Enterprises is the applicant and Mr. Bacheldor is the president of Mountain Chalet Enterprises. He will be making a change to that part of the resolution to make that more clear. He introduced Scott Smith from Charles Cunniffe Architects as the representative. He stated that the proposed project is the extension in height of a proposed elevator by one story to provide direct access to a lounge and common area on the top floor. He showed the location of the Mountain Chalet Lodge on a map on the slide. This elevator is on the front façade of Mountain Chalet Lodge on Dean Street, facing the entrance to the St Regis. The applicant can say more to the importance of this project to the functioning of the building, but there was a major addition renovation and Planned Development established for the Mountain Chalet in the early 2000s. There was an existing elevator there, the additions were made, and the elevator remained unchanged at that time. The elevator didn’t make it up to the new top floor. He showed the existing configuration on a rendering on the slide. It’s confusing for guests and requires navigation that’s perhaps unnecessary. This would extend the elevator to provide access to the top floor and add a little floor area, but well within the allowable floor area for the Planned Development. Mr. Anderson showed an image of the proposed elevator compared to the existing. He stated that the new elevator extension is proposed to be consistent with the height of the roof of the existing lounge space. The maximum height in the Planned Development is 51 feet and the land use code allows for an additional five feet for elevator overruns. This is well within the height limits that the land use code allows for the elevator tower. Mr. Anderson showed the south elevation looking from the entrance of the St Regis. He stated that one of the important review criteria for design guidelines is around materiality. There’s going to be an effort to match existing stucco and paint color, bring the window and shutters in consistency with the windows that are below, make timber and roof beams consistent, fashion materials consistent, and shingled roofing consistent with the rest of the facility. Mr. Anderson showed renderings of the existing conditions. He stated that there is an addition of mass and height on the south elevation. This project is in the mid-ground of the Wheeler view plane and that allows these kind of things to get exemptions from view plane review. There’s also a requirement that it sets back an additional 20 feet from the property line. Under those conditions, staff determined that it 4 was exempt from view plane review. He showed an image on the slide from in front of the Wheeler and showed that you can’t really see the top of the Mountain Chalet. He stated that Commercial Design Review is primarily related to materiality. Architectural character that’s consistent with the mountain base. Staff finds that, in both cases, both architectural character and materiality, it’s meeting the list of review criteria. He included the comprehensive list of those in the packet as an exhibit to the memo. If this building was being designed today, staff would probably not want this elevator as the defining part of the front façade of the building, but as an existing feature, the elevator is being incorporated nicely into the project. Mr. McKnight entered the meeting at 4:47 pm. Mr. Anderson stated that this property is subject to a Planned Development. Any changes of any significance are required to go through the amendment process. In this case, this is an Insubstantial Amendment. If it was being done by itself, it would be an administrative process, but it was combined with a Commercial Design Review for P&Z consideration. To meet the criteria, the change has to be consistent with the use and character of the development. Staff found that to be true. The changes do not significantly alter original representation. There are no changes to dimensional requirements or allowed heights or floor areas. Staff is recommending approval of both of these reviews and the extension of the elevator. With that, Mr. Anderson turned the hearing over to commissioner questions. Mr. Love asked why the elevator was not put in when they did the remodel. Mr. Bacheldor stated that the elevator was built when the St Regis was built. There was no fourth or fifth floor at that time. Robert Melville put in four floors. There is no discernable reason why they didn’t extend the elevator then. They are due for a modernization to go digital on the elevators, so it’s a good time to do it all. Ms. Carver asked if the front façade is really in the back of the building. Mr. Anderson stated that there are two access points to the lodge. But it is the back. Ms. Rockhill asked if there are any other items in the 2001 approval on top of the elevator that they’re considering doing. Seeing no further questions, Ms. McGovern turned the hearing over to the applicant presentation. Mr. Smith stated that what Mr. Anderson showed was a good description of what they’re trying to do with the minimal addition to the top level. Currently, people have to get off the elevator on the outside, enter on the floor below and go back into the building to get to the lift which goes to the level below. It’s a roundabout way of trying to get someone up there who can’t use the stairs. That’s the reason for this project. The only other thing to add is, in terms of the massing for the extension up to the top floor with the elevator shaft, the applicants are trying to keep that as small as possible. The height is dictated by the minimum overrun by the elevator company. They are allowing for a minimal roof structure and trying to keep the roof slope matching the other roof slopes on the property. They are trying to make it fit as well as they can and provide a badly needed service for the public meeting room that is heavily used. 5 A man from the public seating stated that this is one of the most heavily used spaces in town for public meetings. It is affordable. Credit goes to the ownership of Mountain Chalet for being that kind of community partner. Ms. McGovern turned the meeting over to commissioner questions. Ms. Carver stated that she has noticed that there is sometimes a tent over the back patio. She asked if they are planning to put a roof over that. Mr. Bacheldor stated that they are not planning on it. Ms. McGovern asked if there are any more questions for the applicant. Seeing none, she turned the meeting over to public comment. PUBLIC COMMENT None. Commission Discussion Ms. Carver stated that she thinks it’s a great idea and really needed. Mr. Marcoux stated that he agrees. Mr. Anderson stated that the resolution will be amended to give clarity to ownership and applicant. Mr. Waltersheid motioned to approve Resolution 13 with the staff change. Ms. Rockhill seconded. All commissioners voted to approve Resolution 13. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Kraemer stated that he thought they might want to have discussion about election of chair and vice chair coming up in January since there are eight P&Z members here. Mr. Marcoux stated that he would like to see Mr. McKnight and Ms. McGovern be re-elected. Ms. Carver asked for clarification on the purpose of this discussion. Mr. Kraemer stated that this would only be a discussion about if Mr. McKnight and Ms. McGovern would like to continue in their roles or if there is a desire for a change. There is no decision point at this meeting. Mr. Marcus asked if Mr. McKnight and Ms. McGovern if they would want to stay. Mr. McKnight and Ms. McGovern stated that they would love to continue. Mr. Kraemer stated that he forgot to follow up on the Com Dev Director interviews. He stated that Ms. McGovern could not make it so Mr. Dupps will be attending. ADJOURN 6 Mr. McKnight motioned to adjourn the meeting at 5:04 PM. Ms. Carver seconded. All in favor, motion carried. Jeannine Stickle Records Manager 7 Page 1 of 4 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Kevin Rayes, Planner THRU: Mike Kraemer, Senior Planner RE: 835 E. Durant- RDS Variation for Garage Placement MEETING DATE: December 18, 2019 APPLICANT: Tory Thomas, 835 E. Durant St. REPRESENTATIVE: Kim Raymond, Kim Raymond Architects LOCATION: Aspen Townhouses East; 835 E. Durant St. Aspen, CO 81611 CURRENT ZONING: Residential Multi-Family (R/MF) SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting a variation from the Garage Placement Residential Design Standard to construct a street- facing covered carport along Dean Street. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the request for a variation from the Garage Placement Residential Design Standard. Figure 1: Vicinity Map Figure 2: Street View- Looking North from Dean Street 8 Page 2 of 4 REQUEST OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: The Applicant is requesting the following approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission: Residential Design Standards Variation (Section 26.410.020.C, Variations): To grant a variation of the Garage Placement standard to construct a street-facing covered carport along Dean Street. Applications that do not comply with the standards contained in the Residential Design section of the code, in which an applicant is applying for a variation, require approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Planning and Zoning Commission can approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application after considering a recommendation by the Community Development Director based on the standards outlined in section 26.410.020.C, Variation Review Standards. BACKGROUND: 835 E. Durant is a townhome complex located within Residential Multi-Family (R/MF) Zone District and within the Infill Area. The lot is 15,000-square feet and has frontage with three streets- Durant Street to the North, West End Street to the East, and Dean Street to the South. There are two buildings on the property, located perpendicular to each other. The buildings house 11 units, all of which are accessed from Dean Street. The applicant plans to construct a carport along Dean Street over the existing parking area. The proposed location is between the street and the principal buildings, requiring a variation from the Garage Placement (Non-flexible) Residential Design Standard. As a non-flexible standard, no Alternative Compliance is permitted. The applicant is seeking a Residential Design Standard variation pursuant to Section 26.410.020.C, Variations. Additionally, the proposed work may impact some mudflow patterns as a mudflow boundary crosses this area. Prior to issuing a building permit, the applicant will need to coordinate with the Engineering Department regarding potential impacts to mudflow. REVIEWS: Staff Comment: An application requesting a variation from the Residential Design Standards shall demonstrate and the Planning and Zoning Commission shall find that the variation, if granted would: 1. Provide an alternative design approach that meets the overall intent of the standard as indicated in the intent statement for that standard as well as the general intent statements in Section 26.410.010.A1-3; or 2. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints. The general intent statement of the Residential Design Standard code section states that buildings should “Connect to the Street” by establishing “a visual and/or physical connection between residences and streets and other public areas. The area between the street and the front of a residential building is a transition between the public realm of the neighborhood and the private realm of a dwelling. This transition can strongly impact the human experience of the street. Improve the street experience for pedestrians and vehicles by establishing physical and visual relationships between streets, and residential buildings located along street.” Consistent with the general intent statement, the Garage Placement Residential Design Standard requires the front-most supporting column of a carport be set back at least ten feet further from the street than the front façade of the principal building. The intent of the standard is to “ensure garages are subordinate to the principal building for properties that feature driveway and garage access directly from the street. Buildings should seek to locate garages behind principal buildings so that the front façade of the principal building is highlighted.” All of the subject residential units are accessed via Dean Street, with Six of the eleven entries oriented towards Dean Street; the other five are oriented towards the courtyard, which is accessed via Dean Street. Most of the buildings’ fenestration relates to Dean Street. Conversely, the building facades’ facing Durant Street and West End Street contain few connecting elements relating to those streets; none of the residential entries are oriented 9 Page 3 of 4 towards either street and fenestration is limited compared to the fenestration facing Dean Street (See Figures 3- 5). It is worth noting that although traffic patterns along Dean Street may be vary from neighboring corridors, it is still considered a street. Pursuant to the Residential Design Standards, a street is defined as “a way or thoroughfare, other than an alley, containing a public access easement and intended for vehicular traffic. The term street shall include the entire area within a right-of-way. Street shall also include private streets and vehicular access easements serving more than 1 parcel.” Dean Street provides vehicular access to several condominiums within this single block. Given these facts, staff is recommending denial of this request. Figure 3: Street View- Looking South from Durant Street Figure 4: Street View- Looking West from West End Street Figure 5: Street View- Looking Northeast from Dean Street 10 Page 4 of 4 RECOMMENDATION: Community Development staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the request for a variation from the Garage Placement Residential Design Standard as the proposal places a carport between the street and the principal buildings’- disrupting any connection between the buildings’ and the street. PROPOSED MOTION: The resolution is written in the affirmative, approving the request. If the Commission supports staff’s recommendation, a motion to deny, as suggested below should be used. “I move to deny the request for Variation from the Garage Placement Residential Design Standard.” ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A- Residential Design Standards Review Criteria Exhibit B- Application 11 Page 1 of 4 RESOLUTION NO. 14 (SERIES OF 2019) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING A RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD VARIATION FOR A PROPERTY LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS COMMON AREA, ASPEN TOWNHOUSES “EAST” CONDOMINIUMS, ACCORDING TO THE MAP THEREOF RECORDED OCTOBER 20, 1965 IN PLAT BOOK 3 AT PAGE 49, AND FIRST AMENDMENT THERETO RECORDED JULY 9, 1982 IN PLAT BOOK 13 AT PAGE 70 AND AS FURTHER DEFINED AND DESCRIBED IN THE CONDOMINIUM DECLARATION FOR ASPEN TOWNHOUSES “EAST” CONDOMINIUMS RECORDED OCTOBER 20, 1965 IN BOOK 216 AT PAGE 260. COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO. Parcel No. 2737-182-58-802 WHEREAS,the Community Development Department received an application from Tory Thomas, Aspen Townhomes East HOA President, 835 E. Durant Street, Aspen, CO 81611, requesting approval for a Residential Design Standard Variation for the property at 835 E. Durant Street; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department Staff reviewed the application for compliance with the applicable review standards; and, WHEREAS,upon review of the application and the applicable Land Use Code standards, the Community Development Director recommended denial of Residential Design Standard Variation; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, and took and considered public comment at a duly noticed public hearing on December 18, 2019; and, WHEREAS,the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets the applicable review criteria and that the approval of the request is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Land Use Code; and, WHEREAS,the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare; and, WHEREAS,the Planning and Zoning Commission approves Resolution 14, Series of 2019, by a X to X (X-X) vote, granting approval of the Residential Design Standard Variation as identified herein. 12 Page 2 of 4 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission: Section 1: Residential Design Standard Variation Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves the request for a Residential Design Standard variation to install a carport along Dean Street, covering 10 of the 11 existing parking spaces (Chapter 26.410.020.C, Variations), varying from the Garage Placement standard. All other dimensional standards including height and setbacks shall be met. Section 2: Engineering Standards The approved structure will comply with all Engineering standards, and will not negatively impact mudflow, drainage or snow removal in the area. The structure will be reviewed by Engineering prior to issuing a building permit. Section 3: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission, are hereby incorporated in such site development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 4: This resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 5: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED by the Commission at its meeting on December 18, 2019. 13 Page 3 of 4 APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: _________________________________________________________ Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Spencer McKnight, Chair ATTEST: ____________________________ Jeannine Stickle, Records Manager Exhibits: Exhibit A: Approved Site Plan 14 Page 4 of 4 Exhibit A: Approved Site Plan Approved Carport Area 15 Exhibit A Residential Design Standards Review Criteria Section 26.410.020.D, Residential Design Standard Variation Review Standards.An application requesting a variation from the Residential Design Standards shall demonstrate and the deciding board shall find that the variation, if granted would: 1. Provide an alternative design approach that meets the overall intent of the standard as indicated in the intent statement for that standard, as well as the general intent statements in Section 26.410.010.A.1-3; or 1. Provide an alternative design approach that meets the overall intent of the standard as indicated in the intent statement for that standard, as well as the general intent statements in Section 26.410.010.A.1-3; or Staff Response: The intent of the Garage Placement standard is to ensure that garages are subordinate to the principal building for properties that feature driveway and garage access directly from the street. Garages should be located behind principal buildings so that the front façade of the principal building is highlighted. The intent of the Garage Placement Standard is consistent with the Residential Design Standard general intent statement of “Connecting to the Street,” which aimsto establish “a visual and/or physical connection between residences and streets and other public areas.The area between the street and the front of a residential building is a transition between the public realm of the neighborhood and the private realm of a dwelling. This transition can strongly impact the human experience of the street.” The building facades oriented towards Dean street contain the most prominent street-connecting elements of all the building facades, including unit entrances and fenestration. Granting a variation to construct a carport between these building facades and Dean street would obstruct any visual or physical connection that the building currently has with Dean Street. Staff finds this criterion not met. 2. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints. Staff Response: The Garage Placement standard was written for properties that have alley access. 835 E. Durant is located on a lot with no alley access. Instead, the property has frontage with three different streets on three different sides. While each street maintains varying traffic volumes and patterns, each is considered a street. Dean Street may support the lowest traffic volumes of all three streets, but it is the only street that maintains a significant visual connection with the dwelling units. It is important to maintain this connection as it strongly impacts the human experience of the street.A lack of alley access is not considered an unusual circumstance or site-specific constraint that is unique to a parcel. Many other properties in Aspen do not have alley access and are still required to comply with design standards. There are no site-specific constraints or unusual circumstances that would prevent the applicant from complying with this standard.Staff finds this criterion not met. 16 17 18 19 20 CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT November 2017 City of Aspen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 50ϵ0 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT GENERAL LAND USE PACKET Attached is an Application for review of Development that requires Land Use Review pursuant to The City of Aspen Land Use Code: Included in this package are the following attachments: 1.Development Application Fee Policy, Fee Schedule and Agreement to Pay Application Fees Form 2.Land Use Application Form 3.Dimensional Requirements Form (if required) 4.HOA Compliance Form 5.Development Revieǁ Procedure All Application are reviewed based on the criteria established in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code. Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code is available at the City Clerk’s Office on the second floor of City Hall and on the internet at www.cityofaspen.com, City Departments, City Clerk, Municipal Code, and search Title 26. We require all applicants to hold a Pre-Application Conference with a Planner in the Community Development Department so that the requirements for submitting a complete application can be fully described. dhis meeting can happen in person or ďy phone or eͲmail͘ Also, depending upon the complexity of the development proposed, submitting one copy of the development application to the Case Planner to determine accuracy, inefficiencies, or redundancies can reduce the overall cost of materials and Staff time. Please recognize that review of these materials does not substitute for a complete review of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. While this application package attempts to summarize the key provisions of the Code as they apply to your type of development, it cannot possibly replicate the detail or the scope of the Code. If you have questions which are not answered by the materials in this package, we suggest that you contact the staff member assigned to your case, contact Planner oĨ tŚe ay, or consult the applicable sections of the Aspen >anĚ Use oĚe. 21 CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT November 2017 City of Aspen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 50ϵ0 Land Use Review Fee Policy The City of Aspen has established a review fee policy for the processing of land use applications. A flat fee or deposit is collected for land use applications based on the type of application submitted. A flat fee is collected by Community Development for applications which normally take a minimal and predictable amount of staff time to process. Review fees for other City Departments reviewing the application (referral departments) will also be collected when necessary. Flat fees are cumulative – meaning an application with multiple flat fees must be pay the sum of those flat fee. Flat fees are not refundable. A review fee deposit is collected by Community Development when more extensive staff time is required. Actual staff time spent will be charged against the deposit. Various City staff may also charge their time spent on the case in addition to the case planner. Deposit amount may be reduces if, in the opinion of the Community Development Director, the project is expected to take significantly less time to process than the deposit indicates. A determination on the deposit amount shall be made during the pre-application conference by the case planner. Hourly billing shall still apply. All applications must include an Agreement to Pay Application Fees. One payment including the deposit for Planning and referral agency fees must be submitted with each land use application, made payable to the City of Aspen. Applications will not be accepted for processing without the required fee. The Community Development Department shall keep an accurate record of the actual time required for the processing of a land use application requiring a deposit. The City can provide a summary report of fees due at the applicant’s request. The applicant will be billed for the additional costs incurred by the City when the processing of an application by the Community Development Department takes more time or expense than is covered by the deposit. Any direct costs attributable to a project review shall be billed to the applicant with no additional administrative charge. In the event the processing of an application takes less time than provided for by the deposit, the department shall refund the unused portion of the deposited fee to the applicant. Fees shall be due regardless of whether an applicant receives approval. Unless otherwise combined by the Director for simplicity of billing, all applications for conceptual, final and recordation of approval documents shall be handled as individual cases for the purpose of billing. Upon conceptual approval all billing shall be reconciled and past due invoices shall be paid prior to the Director accepting an application for final review. Final review shall require a new deposit at the rate in effect at the time of final submission. Upon final approval all billing shall be again reconciled prior to the Director accepting an application for review of technical documents for recordation. The Community Development Director may cease processing of a land use application for which an unpaid invoice is 30 or more days past due. Unpaid invoices of 90 days or more past due may be assessed a late fee of 1.7% per month. An unpaid invoice o f 120 days or more may be subject to additional actions as may be assigned by the Municipal Court Judge. All payment information is public domain. All invoices shall be paid prior to issuance of a Development Order or recordation of development agreements and plats. The City will not accept a building permit for a property until all invoices are paid in full. For permits already accepted, and unpaid invoice of 90 days or more days may result in cessation of building permit processing or issuance of a stop work order until full payment is made. The property owner of record is the party responsible for payment of all costs associated with a land use application for the property. Any secondary agreement between a property owner and an applicant representing the owner (e.g. a contract purchaser) regarding payment of fees is solely between those private parties. 22 CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT November 2017 City of Aspen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 50ϵ0 Agreement to Pay Application Fees An agreement between the City of Aspen (“City”) and I understand that the City has adopted, via Ordinance No. 30, Series of 2017, review fees for Land Use applications and payment of these fees is a condition precedent to determining application completeness. I understand that as the property owner that I am responsible for paying all fees for this development application. For flat fees and referral fees: I agree to pay the following fees for the services indicated. I understand that these flat fees are non-refundable. $.___________flat fee for __________________. $.____________ flat fee for _____________________________ $.___________ flat fee for __________________. $._____________ flat fee for _____________________________ For Deposit cases only: The City and I understand that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to know the full extent or total costs involved in processing the application. I understand that addit ional costs over and above the deposit may accrue. I understand and agree that it is impracticable for City staff to complete processing, review and presentation of sufficient information to enable legally required findings to be made for project consideration, unless invoices are paid in full. The City and I understand and agree that invoices mailed by the City to the above listed billing address and not returned to the City shall be considered by the City as being received by me. I agree to remit payment within 30 days of presentation of an invoice by the City for such services. I have read, understood, and agree to the Land Use Review Fee Policy including consequences for no-payment. I agree to pay the following initial deposit amounts for the specified hours of staff time. I understand that payment of a deposit does not render and application complete or compliant with approval criteria. If actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, I agree to pay additional monthly billings to the City to reimburse the City for the processing of my application at the hourly rates hereinafter stated. $________________ deposit for_____________ hours of Community Development Department staff time. Additional time above the deposit amount will be billed at $325.00 per hour. $________________ deposit for _____________ hours of Engineering Department staff time. Additional time above the deposit amount will be billed at $325.00 per hour. City of Aspen: ________________________________ Jessica Garrow, AICP Community Development Director ^iŐnatƵre͗ ______________________________________ͺͺͺ PZ/Nd Name: _______________________________________ Title: _____________________________________________ͺCity Use: Fees Due: $____ͺͺͺReceived $_______ Case ηͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ Please type or print in all caps AĚĚress oĨ Property͗ ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ Property Kǁner Name͗ ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ Zepresentative Name ;iĨ ĚiĨĨerent Ĩrom Property KǁnerͿͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ illinŐ Name anĚ AĚĚress Ͳ ^enĚ ills to͗ ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ ontact inĨo Ĩor billinŐ͗ eͲmail͗ ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ PŚone͗ ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ 23 November 2017 City of Aspen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 50ϵ0 CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT LAND USE APPLICATION Proũect Name anĚ AĚĚress:_________________________________________________________________________ Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ APPLICANT: Name: ______________________________________________________________________________________________ Address: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Phone #: ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ email͗ ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ REPRESENTIVATIVE: Name: _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Address:________________________________________________________________________________________________ Phone#: ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ email͗ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ Description: ǆistinŐ anĚ ProposeĚ onĚitions Revieǁ: AĚministrative or oarĚ Zevieǁ Have you included the following?FEES DUE: $ ______________ Pre-Application Conference Summary Signed Fee Agreement HOA Compliance form All items listed in checŬlist on PreApplication Conference Summary Required Land Use Revieǁ(s): 'roǁth Danagement Yuota System ('DYS) required fields͗ Eet Leasaďle square footage ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ Lodge Pilloǁsͺͺͺͺͺͺ Free DarŬet dǁelling units ͺͺͺͺͺͺ Affordaďle Housing dǁelling unitsͺͺͺͺͺ ssential Puďlic Facility square footage ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ 24 CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT November 2017 City of Aspen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 50ϵ0 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Project anĚ >ocation __________________________________________________________________ͺͺ Applicant: ____________________________________________________________________________ 'ross Lot Area͗ ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺone one District͗ ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ Eet Lot Area͗ ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ Please fill out all relevant dimensions ^inŐle Family anĚ Ƶpleǆ ZesiĚential ǆisting Alloǁed Proposed 1Ϳ Floor Area ;sƋƵare ĨeetͿ 2Ϳ DaǆimƵm ,eiŐŚt 3Ϳ Front ^etbacŬ 4Ϳ Zear ^etbacŬ 5Ϳ ^iĚe ^etbacŬs 6Ϳ ombineĚ ^iĚe ^etbacŬs 7Ϳ й ^ite overaŐe ϴͿ DinimƵm Ěistance betǁeen bƵilĚinŐs ProposeĚ й oĨ Ěemolition ͺͺͺͺͺͺ ommercial ProposeĚ hse;sͿͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ ǆisting Alloǁed Proposed 1Ϳ FAZ ;Floor Area ZatioͿ 2Ϳ Floor Area ;sƋƵare ĨeetͿ 3Ϳ DaǆimƵm ,eiŐŚt 4Ϳ KĨĨͲ^treet ParŬinŐ ^paces 5Ϳ ^econĚ dier ;sƋƵare ĨeetͿ 6Ϳ PeĚestrian Amenity ;sƋƵare ĨeetͿ ProposeĚ й oĨ Ěemolition ͺͺͺͺͺͺ ǆisting nonͲconformities or encroachments͗ sariations requested͗ ΎΎPlease reĨer to section 26.575.020 Ĩor inĨormation on Śoǁ to calcƵlate Net >ot Area DƵltiͲĨamily ZesiĚential ǆisting Alloǁed Proposed 1Ϳ NƵmber oĨ hnits 2Ϳ Parcel ensity ;see 26.710.0ϵ0..10Ϳ 3Ϳ FAZ ;Floor Area ZatioͿ 4Ϳ Floor Area ;sƋƵare ĨeetͿ 4Ϳ DaǆimƵm ,eiŐŚt 5Ϳ Front ^etbacŬ 6Ϳ Zear ^etbacŬ 7Ϳ ^iĚe ^etbacŬs ProposeĚ й oĨ Ěemolition ͺͺͺͺͺͺ >oĚŐe AĚĚitional hse;sͿͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ ǆisting Alloǁed Proposed 1Ϳ FAZ ;Floor Area ZatioͿ 2Ϳ Floor Area ;sƋƵare ĨeetͿ 3Ϳ DaǆimƵm ,eiŐŚt 4Ϳ Free DarŬet ZesiĚential;sƋƵare ĨeetͿ 4Ϳ Front setbacŬ 5Ϳ Zear setbacŬ 6Ϳ ^iĚe setbacŬs 7Ϳ KĨĨͲ^treet ParŬinŐ ^paces ϴͿ PeĚestrian Amenity ;sƋƵare ĨeetͿ ProposeĚ й oĨ Ěemolition ͺͺͺͺͺͺ Complete only if required ďy the PreApplication checŬlist 25 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT November 2017 City of Aspen | 130 S. Galena St. | (970) 920-5090 Homeowner Association Compliance Policy All land use applications within the City of Aspen are required to include a Homeowner Association Compliance Form (this form) certifying the scope of work included in the land use application complies with all applicable covenants and homeowner association policies. The certification must be signed by the property owner or Attorney representing the property owner. Property Owner (“I”): Name: Email: Phone No.: Address of Property: (subject of application) I certify as follows: (pick one) □This property is not subject to a homeowners association or other form of private covenant. □This property is subject to a homeowners association or private covenant and the improvements proposed in this land use application do not require approval by the homeowners association or covenant beneficiary. □This property is subject to a homeowners association or private covenant and the improvements proposed in this land use application have been approved by the homeowners association or covenant beneficiary. I understand this policy and I understand the City of Aspen does not interpret, enforce, or manage the applicability, meaning or effect of private covenants or homeowner association rules or bylaws. I understand that this document is a public document. Owner signature: _________________________ date:___________ Owner printed name: _________________________ or, Attorney signature: _________________________ date:___________ Attorney printed name: _________________________ 26 November 2017 City of Aspen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 50ϵ0 CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURE 1.Attend pre-application conference. During this one-on-one meeting, staff will determine the review process which applies to your development proposal and will identify the materials necessary to review your application. 2.Submit Development Application. Based on your pre-application meeting, you should respond to the application package and submit the requested number of copies of the complete application and the application and the appropriate processing fee to the Community Development Department. 3.Determination of Completeness. Within five working days of the date of your submission, staff will review the application, and will notify you in writing whether the application is complete or if additional materials are required. Please be aware that the purpose of the completeness review is to determine whether or not the information you have submitted is adequate to review the request, and not whether the information is sufficient to obtain approval. 4.Staff Review of Development Application. Once your application is determined to be complete, it will be reviews by the staff for compliance with the applicable standards of the Code. During the staff review stage, the application will be referred to other agencies for comments. The Planner assigned to your case or the agency may contact you if additional information is needed or if problems are identified. A memo will be written by the staff member for signature by the Community Development Director. The memo will explain whether your application complies with the Code and will list any conditions which should apply if the application is to be approved. Final approval of any Development Application which amends a recorded document, such as a plat, agreement or deed restriction, will require the applicant to prepare an amended version of that document for review and approval by staff. Staff will provide the applicant with the applicable contents for the revised plat, while the City Attorney is normally in charge of the form for recorded agreements and deed restrictions. We suggest that you not go to the trouble or expense of preparing these documents until the staff has determined that your application is eligible for the requested amendment or exemption. 5.Board Review of Application. If a public hearing is required for the land use action that you are requesting, then the Planning Staff will schedule a hearing date for the application upon determination that the Application is complete. The hearing(s) will be scheduled before the appropriate reviewing board(s). The applicant will be required to nail notice (one copy provided by the Community Development Department) to property owners within 30 feet of the subject property and post notice (sign available at the Community Development Department) of the public hearing on the site at least fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing date (please see Attachment 6 for instructions). The Planning Staff will publish notice of the hearing in the paper for land use requests that require publication. The Planning Staff will then formulate a recommendation on the land use request and draft a memo to the reviewing board(s). Staff will supply the Applicant with a copy of the Planning Staff’s memo approximately 5 days prior to the hearing. The public hearing(s) will take place before the appropriate review boards. Public Hearings include a presentation by the Planning Staff, a presentation by the Applicant (optional), consideration of public comment, and the reviewing board’s questions and decision. (Continued on next page) 27 CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT November 2017 City of Aspen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 50ϵ0 6.Issuance of Development Order. If the land use review is approved, then the Planning Staff will issue a Development Order which allows the Applicant to proceed into Building Permit Application. 7.Receipt of Building Permit. Once you have received a copy of the signed staff approval, you may proceed to building permit review. During this time, your project will be examined for its compliance with the Uniform Building Code. It will also be checked for compliance with applicable provisions of the Land Use Regulations which were not reviewed in detail during the one step review (this might include a check of floor area ratios, setbacks, parking, open space and the like). Fees for water, sewer, parks and employee housing will be collected if due. Any document required to be recorded, such as a plat, deed restriction or agreement, will be reviewed and recorded before a Building Permit is submitted. 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Scale: AS NOTED ISSUE - -ASPEN TOWNHOUSES EAST835 DURANT STREET1" ACTUAL IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1") EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES. ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS INDICATED BY THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE WHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE P R E C E D E N C E O V E R S C A L E D DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED AT THE SITE . ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. A.1.01 9/24/19 SITE PLAN DATE - -KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.| 300 E. HYMAN AVENUE, SUITE 100 || www.kimraymondarchitects.com || 970-925-2252 |TRASH ENCLOSURE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 11 PARKING SPACES 8'-9" X 19'; 10 UNDER THE NEW CARPORT, ONE FURT H E S T E A S T I S N O T I N T H E C A R P O R T PARKING SPACE 11 IS NOT COVERED CARPORT ROOF EXTENDS INTO SETBACK 1'-5" (1'-6" IS ALLOWED) EXISTING SIDEWALK TO REMAIN EXISTING FENCE TO BE REMOVED SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 SITE PLAN N SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"46 47 MEMORANDUM TO: City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Ben Anderson, Planner II THROUGH: Mike Kraemer, Senior Planner MEMO DATE: December 12, 2019 MEETING DATE: December 18, 2019 RE: Wireless Facilities Design Standards – Discussion Item REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION: At the meeting on December 18th, staff will provide a brief presentation on the technological innovations and corresponding rule changes related to wireless telecommunication facilities. The City of Aspen has already responded to these changes with an amendment to the Land Use Code, the creation of a new application procedures for wireless facilities, and a basic set of design requirements. Earlier this year, City Council approved a contract with HRGreen, an engineering firm with expertise in the telecommunications realm, to assist City staff in the creation of a more robust set of design standards for wireless facilities, particularly those that are defined as “small cells.” The City of Aspen has long established rules for telecommunications facilities located on private property. But we had no basis on which to evaluate small cell facilities that are now allowed by right in City right-of-way, due to changes to state and federal regulation. As part of this presentation on the 18th, P&Z will be asked to review and make comment on the attached document. (Exhibit A). The document is an itemized list of proposed design and process elements that staff has identified through public outreach efforts, consultation with HRGreen, and analysis of the current state and federal regulations that have created limits on local authority to regulate. P&Z comments on this document (along with comments from HPC) will be presented to City Council during a work session on January 21, as decisions will be made related to the final design standards. P&Z’s comments on the list will not be part of a formal resolution of support at this point – but will serve to inform Council’s eventual direction to staff. In February, staff will return to P&Z with a draft of the final design standards document and a proposed amendment to the Land Use Code that will incorporate the design standards into the LUC. It will be at that stage in the process that P&Z will be asked for a formal recommendation of support. Exhibit A – Proposed items for Wireless Design Standards 48 Aspen Wireless Design Standards – Recommended Elements ***These are recommendations to be considered by HPC, P&Z, and City Council before being included in the draft design standards document. These ideas result from a combination of three sources of information: • Public Engagement efforts and corresponding feedback • City of Aspen staff expertise • HRGreen – Wireless consultant expertise Preferred installations for all wireless facilities – in order of preference 1) Co-located on the rooftop of private property 2) Co-located on the rooftop of a City of Aspen building 3) New facility on the rooftop of private property 4) New facility on the rooftop of a City of Aspen building 5) Co-located on an already established or future small cell facility in the right of way. 6) New small cell facility established on the site and in replacement of an existing City of Aspen street light and including an attached luminaire or contained within the structure of existing or redesigned traffic signals, with cooperation of CDOT. 7) New stand-alone facility in a new location – this may or may not include a luminaire Small Cell specific Height Small Cell facilities within the City of Aspen’s Right of Way are limited to 25 feet in height. Minimum Distance between facilities Small cell facilities shall not be located closer than 600 feet from any wireless facility that has the same provider’s equipment attached to it. Pole Design Small cell facilities shall have a fluted pattern on the shaft of the facility – in reference to the existing street light design. 49 Pole Diameter Small cell facilities shall be contained in a pole with a base diameter of no more than 18 inches. The maximum diameter indicated shall extend no more than four (4) feet from the point of attachment. Above the base, the diameter of the pole shall be reduced from this maximum before terminating with the antenna facility. Antenna Dimensions and Color Antenna and related shroud at the top of the facility are limited to three (3) cubic feet in volume. The antenna and shroud shall be painted to match the related pole. Caisson Design (the underground concrete foundation and conduit connection) HRGreen is working with City of Aspen Engineering and Utilities to define caisson standards. Pole Color The small cell facility shall be painted to match Aspen’s existing street lights. The color is identified as “________________________”; from the common federal paint selection number ______________________. Electric Meter The City strongly encourages site operators to use flat-rate electric service when it would eliminate the need for a meter. If, however required by utility provider, a related electric meter shall not be contained within or adjacent to the small cell facility but will instead be located proximate to the transformer or underground with other related equipment. Luminaire Design Luminaires attached to small cell wireless facilities shall have the following characteristics: a. A LED, “hockey puck” design b. The fixture shall be of the following dimensions and have the following light quality: Recommended fixture – Manufacturer/Product number c. The fixture shall be mounted at a height that is consistent with best practices and requirements in street lighting design d. The fixture shall be painted to match the pole to which it is attached. e. The fixture shall be designed to be modular – in that it could be easily replaced with an alternative fixture in the future. f. The fixture shall comply with City of Aspen B.U.G. Standards. g. The fixture shall be dark sky compliant. Concealment of related equipment All equipment related to small cell facilities shall be located within the facility’s pole structure or in an underground vault. Beyond the antenna, related shroud, and luminaire, no equipment may be attached to the exterior of the pole. 50 Prohibition on above ground electrical or fiber optic cable connections All related cabling shall connect to the small cell facility underground. Above ground connections to the facility are prohibited. Engineering Requirements Small Cell facilities and their installation shall be compliant with City of Aspen Engineering Standards and Right of Way permit requirements. Other Utility Requirements Small Cell facilities shall have an on/off switch that is accessible to City of Aspen Utilities and Holy Cross Energy employees for use during emergencies, maintenance to the small cell facility or attached luminaire, or adjacent tree trimming or other similar activity. HRGreen will work with City of Aspen Engineering and Utilities to identify any other requirements that would fit under the utilities and engineering sections. Prohibited Locations Relationship to Designated Historic Properties and Districts No small cell facilities are allowed in the right-of-way adjacent to any street facing façade of these iconic Aspen buildings: • Wheeler Opera House • Elks’ Building • Independence Building • Pitkin County Courthouse • Hotel Jerome • City Hall (Armory Building) • St. Mary’s Church • Sardy House No small cell facilities are allowed in the Aspen Pedestrian Malls. These areas are described as Hyman and Cooper Avenues between Mill and Galena Streets, and Mill Street between Copper and Hyman Avenues. Relationship to Designated Mountain View Planes No small cell facilities are allowed in the foreground of a designated Mountain View Plane. See Aspen Land Use Code 26.435 for the identification of these areas. Relationship to designated Open Space No small cell facilities are allowed in the right-of-way adjacent to any designated Open Space parcels. 51 NIER Reporting Requirements Certification of compliance with applicable FCC regulations, which includes a non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation (NIER) report for the small cell facility equipment type and model endorsed by a radiofrequency engineer licensed in the State of Colorado, including a certification that the small cell facility complies with all radiation and electromagnetic standards. The report shall specify approach distances to the general public and occupational workers at the ground and antenna centerline levels. The report shall include instructions regarding powering off the equipment or contact information for a person who can power off the equipment. Notice Requirements – at complete application At the issuance of a completeness letter for an application for a new, small cell facility installation, the following procedures for public notice will be followed by the applicant: Within 15 days of the completeness letter being issued, the following notice materials are required: 1) A 24x36 poster will be placed at the location of the proposed facility. The poster will include the following information: • A photo simulation of the proposed facility. • A brief description of the type of equipment and RF signal that is emitting from the facility • Contact information for the applicant. • Contact information for city staff. 2) A mailed notice to all property owners within 300 feet of the proposed facility. The mailed notice will include the information required by the on-site poster – and shall additionally include text that better explains what a small cell facility is. (See example from Denver). 3) Newspaper Notice – City of Aspen Community Development will facilitate. 4) Location information shall be provided so that City of Aspen GIS can update the location in a layer on Map Aspen identifying Existing and Pending Wireless facilities City of Aspen Community Development Department will assist the applicant in the provision of notice. Any delays in the provision of necessary materials for public notice by the applicant will result in a hard stop on the shot clock tolling. All costs associated with the issuance of public notice shall be the responsibility of the applicant. 52