Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20191218 Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission December 18, 2019 Chairperson McKnight called the meeting to order at 4:30 PM. Commissioners in attendance: Brittanie Rockhill, James Marcus, Teraissa McGovern, Scott Marcoux, Spencer McKnight Absent: Ryan Walterscheid, Rally Dupps, Ruth Carver, Don Love Staff present: Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Mike Kraemer, Senior Planner Ben Anderson, Planner Kevin Rayes, Planner STAFF COMMENTS Mr. Kraemer stated that there is a Planning and Zoning meeting scheduled for January 7th. They will be electing a chair and a vice chair at that meeting. There will be one land use item on the agenda. Their second meeting in January will be the 21st. There is one land use item scheduled for that agenda. Mr. Kraemer also stated that he has a gift to thank the commissioners for their service. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS None. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ms. McGovern stated that she was the chair of the meeting on December 3rd, not Mr. McKnight as stated in the minutes. With that correction, Mr. Marcoux motioned to approve the minutes. Mr. Marcus seconded. All in favor, motion carried. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Ms. Rockhill stated that she currently represents the owner of #3 in this building. She recused herself from the public hearing. Mr. Dupps had also previously recused himself and did not attend the meeting. PUBLIC HEARING 835 E Durant – Residential Design Standard Variation for Garage Placement Mr. Rayes introduced himself as a Planner with Community Development. He introduced the hearing. He stated that the request is to construct a carport façade along Dean Street. The property is located on Durant Street and S W End Street. It has frontage with three streets: Durant, S W End Street, and Dean Street. There are two buildings on site, located perpendicular to each other, and there are eleven units within those buildings. The property is located in the residential multi-family zone district. Mr. Rayes showed a photo on the slide depicting the property from Dean Street at the location where the applicants are requesting to install the carport. The request is to cover ten of the eleven spaces. He showed a rendering of what that would look like. Mr. Rayes stated that this proposal does not comply with the garage placement residential design standard, which states that “the front of a garage or the frontmost supporting column of a carport should be set back at least ten feet farther from the street than the front façade of the principal building.” The carport is proposed to be located in front of the building instead of set back ten feet. The intent of the standard is to prevent large expanses of unarticulated facades close to the street and ensure garages or carports 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. This standard is important in all areas of the city where alley access is not an option. Mr. Rayes showed renderings of the surrounding streets compared to Dean Street to give perspective. Staff finds that the view from Dean Street, the relationship that it has with the building, has the most pedestrian and street-oriented elements. Six of the eleven entries to the units are oriented towards Dean Street. In the perpendicular building, five of the units are located perpendicular to Dean street but are accessed via Dean Street. A large portion of the fenestration, which is a major contributing street- oriented element, is facing Dean Street. When you look at S W End Street or Durant Street, those connecting elements are limited. There are no entrances on those facades and the fenestration is much more limited compared to Dean Street. Staff is recommending denial of this request based on those factors. Mr. Rayes stated that the next question involved is: what defines a street pursuant to RDS standards? Mr. Rayes stated that the definition of a street is: “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 one parcel.” Dean Street is clearly accessing more than one parcel. There are several apartment complexes on this street and they are also accessed via Dean Street. Staff finds that Dean Street should be considered as a street and not treated any differently than the surrounding streets. Mr. Rayes stated that, regarding the Residential Design Standard variations, when it comes time for P&Z to consider whether something should receive a variation, there are really two standards. The first is: does the design 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 statement? Mr. Rayes stated that he wanted to highlight some specific parts of the Residential Design Standard. “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.” This is a direct quote from the general intent statements of RDS. The building facades that are 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 currently exists with Dean Street. Staff finds that this criterion is not met. The second criterion is: “it must be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints.” This property is located on a lot that has no alley access. It has frontage with three different streets on three different sides. While each street maintains different traffic levels, volumes, and patterns, each is still considered a street. Staff finds that this criterion is not met. For the reasons mentioned, staff recommends denial of this request. With that, Mr. Rayes turned his presentation over to commissioner questions. Mr. Marcoux asked if there have been other carports approved in the surrounding area. Mr. Rayes stated that there is a carport across the street, across from Dean Street to the south. Looking at files, he could not find any land use approvals for that. A staff member from the Building Department mentioned that they had permitted that structure, but it didn’t appear to have gone through a land use review. Applicant Presentation Kim Raymond introduced herself as the representative of Aspen Townhouses East. She introduced Tory Thomas, the president of the HOA. Ms. Raymond showed the city map of where the property is located. She stated that Dean Street services the parking for several apartment complexes and two houses. The placement of Dean Street puts it in the middle of the block, serving as an alley, which it always has on the East side of town. Ms. Raymond presented a letter from one of the original owners of one of these townhomes. It states that, in 1965, when the two buildings were constructed, the lane on the south side was an unpaved alleyway. It was paved some years later and, even later, it was officially named Dean Street. She stated that the alley came to be named a “street” because the Dean family donated property to the City of Aspen and requested that this alley be named Dean Street. Ms. Raymond showed a rendering of the property to the west on a slide. She showed the location of their parking. She showed a rendering of the Aspen Townhouses. She showed the location of the utilities along Dean Street and stated that it’s consistent with an alley. She showed a rendering of the carport across the street and the two houses directly across. She stated that they have their trash, transformers, their entry, and their covered parking facing Dean Street. She showed a rendering of the complex on the west end of the block and showed that their transformer, trash, and parking face Dean Street. Most of the block houses parking. Ms. Raymond showed a rendering of the 900 block of Dean Street and stated that it’s basically an alley. It ends at a dead end in a trash enclosure. She showed a rendering of the south side of the block. She stated that it’s a fair thing to grant this request. This building was developed in 1965, before the RDS Standards came into play. This building is a bit of an anomaly because the living part of the units face towards the south for good lighting and heating. This pushed the building back from Durant Avenue. The parking was also located off the alley with a green space creating a transition between the cars and the building. For all the other buildings along Dean Street, it’s the backs of the buildings that face Dean. The applicants’ predicament is that they are between the avenue and the street and they have no access. There’s no way to put a carport on the other side. The proposed carport would still be subordinate to the building. It’s not fair to hold the property to standards that were adopted after the construction of that property. Dean Street was an alley when the Aspen Townhouses East were constructed. Dean Street is used as an alley by all the residents on the east side of town and it’s in the same location as alleys on the east side of town, in the middle of a block. Going back to definitions, an alley is “a narrow street, especially a thoroughfare through the middle of a block, giving access.” It’s really kind of a downzoning for the applicants if they can’t do this because they didn’t build this, they bought into it. Other properties get carports, like the one across the street, just because of different standards that were applied. Ms. McGovern asked what the setback off the alley is. Ms. Raymond stated that it’s five feet. The overhang of the carport can go into the setback or they could move it up and pull it forward. Ms. McGovern asked how wide Dean Street is. Ms. Raymond stated that she has not checked the right-of-way. There is a change to their original application, if they get approval, the carport would cover all spaces. Ms. McGovern asked if that’s how the application is written. Mr. Kraemer stated that that’s not how the application or resolution is written currently. Staff would have to amend that resolution, granting 11 spaces. Mr. Marcoux asked if any employee living in that area ever approached the City about removing Dean Street and turning it into an alley. That would be the proper approach. Mr. Kraemer stated that, to the best of their knowledge, the City has not been approached with that request, but staff could check with Engineering. Mr. Marcus asked if Dean Street is the front entrance for the homes across the street. Ms. Raymond stated that it is. Mr. Marcus stated that that would be awkward. Ms. Thomas stated that that’s how they were built. Both of those houses were built before 1965 when that was a dirt road. Mr. Marcus asked if they have spoken to the neighbors about having a carport. Ms. Thomas stated that she has and no one seemed to have an objection. Mr. Marcus asked which neighbors the applicants talked to. Ms. Thomas stated that she talked to the neighbors from the Alps. Also, one of the houses looks at the backs of their cars. Under this proposal, the only difference is that they will look at the backs of their cars and the cover over them. Most of the structure is actually in the front of it, so it’s not like they’re going to be seeing something in the back. Mr. Marcus asked if they talked to the neighbors in the development to the west. He stated that they have a similar situation. Ms. Thomas stated that she believes that structure actually encroaches on the alleyway. Ms. Raymond stated that the one across the alley, right to the west, has the same situation. PUBLIC COMMENT None. Mr. Marcus stated that he is not feeling favorable towards this. Ms. McGovern agreed. They do not provide enough proof of hardship that meets the Commission’s guidelines. Dean Street serves multiple properties that don’t have public access to any other street. That makes it a street. Mr. Marcus stated his agreement. The other properties have a different primary entrance. Mr. McKnight stated that he agrees. Mr. Marcoux’s question about whether anyone has asked the City to reconsider whether Dean Street is a street or an alley was an interesting one. Mr. Marcus stated that he’s not sure that would work. There are some residences along there whose addresses are Dean Street. He is concerned that putting structures there is going to make it feel more cramped than it already is. Then it’s a slippery slope to other residences along this street putting these structures in. Mr. Kraemer stated that he wanted to add a little more for the Commissioner discussion and clarify a point that was made in the applicant’s presentation. Ms. Raymond did provide a definition of an alley, but what she used is not the land use code definition. The land use code definition is: “a pubic or private way for vehicular traffic having less width than a street and used as a secondary access to abutting property, normally at the rear.” Pursuant to the land use code and the definition of a street and how an alley was defined, this is most certainly a street. This is not an alley. In consideration of the applicant’s request, that is very firm in the land use code. If P&Z is going to make a determination or grant a variance, consideration should be given to the two land use code standards that the commission has. The first one for their consideration is: “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 general intent statements in” the RDS section. The second criteria that they have for this consideration is: “be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific circumstances.” Staff feel that the definition of an alley is very firm in the land use code. If they’re going to make a determination on this, these two criteria should be considered. Mr. McKnight asked if someone would like to make a motion. Mr. Marcus moved to deny Resolution 14. Ms. Bryan stated that the commissioners can make a motion to approve Resolution 14 denying the applicants’ request for a variance. The resolution would actually then be rewritten as a denial. They can vote to deny the resolution to approve the request, but staff would have to draft a resolution memorializing the denial. Mr. Kraemer asked what Ms. Bryan would prefer. Ms. Bryan stated that she can talk with staff about that after. She has seen it done both ways. Ms. McGovern seconded the motion to deny the resolution approving the request. Mr. Kraemer held a vote. All commissioners voted to deny the resolution approving the request. OTHER BUSINESS Wireless Facility Design Standards Mr. Anderson introduced himself as a Planner with the City of Aspen. He introduced Justin Forman with the Engineering Department. He has been the project manager on the City’s efforts to respond to some changes to federal and state law around wireless communication. Staff is asking for comments from P&Z on some decision points that staff has landed on in consultation with an engineering consultation group, HR Green, staff’s own expertise, and public outreach. He also welcomed the commissioners to reach out to him via email with any other comments they might have. Mr. Anderson stated that the City has re-written its land use code to accommodate these changes. They have changed the land use application creating a wireless-specific land use application in response to this. Staff have come up with a basic set of design guidelines to avoid the worst outcomes that they were concerned about. It was clear to staff that that wasn’t enough. This summer, the City engaged the engineering firm, HR Green, to work with staff in the creation of a more robust set of design guidelines. Applications for wireless communication facilities are rare. To this point, it’s been about private property. The City has a clear set of rules that aren’t really changing. Ms. Rockhill reentered the meeting at 5:06 pm. Mr. Anderson stated that the big change is that the FCC granted access to municipalities’ right-of-way for wireless facilities, specifically a type of wireless facility called small cell facilities. Small cell facilities are designed as any tower that’s less than 50 feet. The antenna portion, which is at the top of the pole, has to be less than three cubic feet in area. If it meets that, it qualifies as a small cell and it can be located within the right-of-way. The City didn’t have any rules about this because they never would have considered granting access to the right-of-way to this facility. They’ve also shortened the review time, limited the fees that the City can charge for these kinds of facilities, and really they’ve only given municipalities the ability to review aesthetic and location preferences. Small cell facilities are allowed by right in all of the City’s zone districts. The City cannot prohibit these facilities. Mr. Anderson stated that communities around the country are having to respond to this in the same way. This technology is being driven by desires within the telecom industry to increase speeds. That’s important because the facilities that currently exist run off of macro towers. They use a radio frequency, they can travel long distance. It’s fairly reliable but has limits on the number of phones that can be connected at any given time. It’s really limited in terms of high data-intensity information. Aspen has some of these facilities already in town, but they’re on private property, generally rooftops. Mr. Marcus asked if they rent that. Mr. Anderson stated that they do. This is why they were so desirous of getting access to the right-of- way. The small cell technology is a part of coming 5G technology. The big difference is that there is a macro tower and small cells that are much more densely located, smaller facilities. Because of the amount of data, the facilities are connected underground by fiberoptic cabling. Mr. Anderson showed some renderings of some small cell facilities. The City is proposing a limit of 25 feet. The telecommunication companies will have to follow the City’s design guidelines if they want to get their requests approved. Mr. Marcoux asked what the chances are that they’re going to follow the guidelines. Mr. Anderson stated that it’s one of the things that the City has some power on. The City can’t treat these requests differently than any other development application. Mr. Marcus asked if they can make the limits more difficult for the applicants. Ms. Bryan stated that the FCC has been very clear that they cannot enact regulations that have the effect of actively prohibiting them from providing service. Mr. Anderson showed a rendering of what the new system will look like. There is a lot of concern and question about these facilities related to health concerns. There is a rule from 1996 that municipalities cannot regulate any kind of cellular facilities based on environmental or health effects. As long as these facilities are compliant with FCC rules in terms of radio frequency emissions, the City can’t say no to them just because they’re concerned about the kind of waves that are being produced. Staff’s response to this is that people are asking fair questions. There’s not a lot of good research or data on this. Staff are trying to keep up with information as it’s being made available. No organization that we typically rely on for public health information has come out definitively on this topic. There is not a lot of research that’s been done. Staff are taking an additional step to require them to provide a report so that the City clearly understands the equipment that’s going into these facilities and the radio frequencies that are coming out of them and how that relates to maximum permissible exposure. What the City can do is deal with height and aesthetics, identify preferred and discouraged locations, require compliance with FCC rules related to radio frequency emissions, and collocate these facilities with existing streetlight and traffic signal infrastructure so that, rather than creating new vertical infrastructure, they’re replacing stuff that already exists. This is where staff have landed after thinking about this. The City owns the streetlights, which is a huge advantage. Ms. McGovern stated that the streetlights are pretty low. She asked if they will end up being taller. Mr. Anderson stated that the City has control over the location of the luminere. It’s going to be best practices in terms of heights, which they are working to establish. The light itself will be 12 to 15 feet off the ground. The facility itself will be 25. Staff really feels imposed upon. Aspen has worked hard to get rid of vertical clutter and put all utilities underground. Now these things are popping back up in perhaps large numbers. Ms. McGovern asked if staff have received any applications. Mr. Anderson stated that they have. Ms. McGovern asked if they are on hold until this gets done. Mr. Anderson stated that they are on hold because the City sent them a five page letter listing all the things they haven’t given the City. They are responding to those now. Ms. Rockhill asked what would happen if they went with a private property. Mr. Anderson stated that it would be a land use application and there are already very clear rules about that. Whether they are a standalone tower or a rooftop, there are rules that aren’t changing very much. The change are these facilities that are going in the right-of-way that the City had no rules about. One of the things that the City is requiring is that any related facilities that go along with these poles go underground. There is often a lot of equipment that go along with these poles that is often adjacent in a cabinet. The City is not allowing those cabinets to be in the right-of-way. One of the things to reduce the number of poles is to try to encourage collocation, meaning that multiple carriers will be on the same facility. The City can’t require that but is trying to create incentives to do that. The City is also contemplating giving access to City of Aspen buildings and providing an electricity hookup and fiberoptic connection on top of the armory building as a mechanism to try to keep these out of the right-of-way. Mr. Anderson stated that the City has received an application. AT&T has been the most active. They’ve submitted applications for two facilities and had talked with staff about applications for an additional eight. Verizon is coming soon. Ms. McGovern asked what locations are currently candidates for these facilities. Mr. Anderson showed a photo on the slide of a rendering provided by AT&T for a facility at the corner of Lone Pine and Gibson. Ms. McGovern asked if the decorative street lamps will be going away. Mr. Anderson stated that there is an option to add fluting to the pole. They can also paint them. The diameter can also be changed. Mr. Marcoux asked if it was ever discussed to fully embrace 5G technology. He stated that this could help traffic. Mr. Anderson stated that there’s a balance that the City is trying to strike. A lot of people see a huge advantage to this and want to encourage better service. When there are a lot of tourist in town, cell service becomes poor. At the same time, the City has worked very hard on the aesthetic of this community. The City has been told that, worst case scenario, there could potentially be 100 towers per carrier in a square mile. Mr. Marcus asked if there is an opportunity to partner with private property owners and go back to rooftops and areas that aren’t in the right-of-way. Mr. Anderson stated that it used to be that the companies had to go to private property owners and negotiate. Now, with access to the right-of-way, they don’t need to do that anymore. Staff tried to come up with incentives to incentivize private property owners to get on board with providing space for this. They asked Verizon about this and their response was: “why would we?” Mr. Marcus asked if the City could go to the private property owners and negotiate the leases ahead of time. Mr. Anderson stated that the City signed a contract last week with a neutral host provider. This is a third-party facility builder. They operate all over the country and do this. The idea is that the City works with them to make it easy to put up these facilities either on rooftops or private properties on strategically-located buildings in the right-of-way. They then approach carriers. That is in place. It’s an experiment right now. Mr. Anderson showed a rendering of the second proposed location on Main Street. He stated that there is a larger conversation that needs to happen about what the streetlight system should look like and how it functions. The streetlights now are not historic. They were brought here from San Francisco in the ‘70’s. They’re not built particularly well so small cell facilities can’t be located within the poles because they are not structurally sound. Staff are trying to identify something that is pretty low-key as a placeholder until they can have a larger conversation about what the streetlight system should look like. Staff have landed on something nondescript and as small as possible. The Historic Preservation Commission did not like staff’s choice. Mr. Marcoux asked if staff have looked in to smart lights. Mr. Anderson stated that there are different kinds of sensor options that could be used. He is not sure how much support there is in the Utilities Department. Mr. Marcoux stated that, with the amount of construction, they might as well go all-in now. Mr. Anderson stated that staff have a list of bulleted list of things that they’ve landed on to this point. He asked for feedback from staff. He will send out an email to the commissioners. January 21st, staff are going to City Council with the list and with the comments from P&Z and HPC. They will get feedback from City Council. Then that will go to HR Green to write the document. It will sit outside the land use code and there will be a section of the land use code that talks about how to use this document. Staff will come back to P&Z in February with the design guidelines and amended land use code, looking for a recommendation to Council for their adoption. The first thing that staff have talked about is preferred installation for these wireless facilities. Staff would like them to be on rooftops collocated on rooftops where they’re already present. Staff’s second choice would be new facilities. Collocated on one of the facilities in the City’s right-of-way is the fifth choice. Staff thinks that most of this stuff is going to be preference number six. Staff wanted to state clearly that they have other preferences before that. Twenty-five feet for height, which is about as restrictive as the City can get. There is a minimum distance between facilities between carriers of 600 feet. The City will get pushback on this as it goes forward. Staff have heard as low as 150 feet between these facilities. A fluted pattern to emulate the existing streetlight design. Pole diameter, no more than eighteen inches. Staff heard that any less than that would preclude a collocated structure. Antennas will be painted to match the rest of the pole. After that, there is more technical direction about what happens underground. Staff are working with Engineering and Utilities Departments to come up with the standard for how that looks. Staff have landed on matching the color of the poles to the existing infrastructure. Staff is discouraging or possibly prohibiting electric meters. If there does need to be a meter, it will have to be offsite, related to the transformer that they’re connected to rather than on the pole sitting in the right-of-way. Right now staff are using a hockey-puck design as a placeholder for a better luminere design. Mr. Anderson stated that one of the important things that adds to the expense of the facilities for the carriers is that staff are requiring everything to be concealed within a pole or underground. That is something that staff are getting pushback on because of the expense associated with that, but staff feel strongly about it. It is the same thing they expect of other utilities that are operating in the right-of-way. Mr. Anderson stated that the City can, with specific language, prohibit these things in protection of iconic historically-designated buildings. They are working with HPC and Amy Simon to create that list. Staff are proposing to prohibit these in the Aspen pedestrian malls and prohibiting them in the foreground of a designated mountain view plane. These are things that the City can justify with the way other utilities and development are treated. Similarly, to designate an open space within the right-of- way adjacent to, say Marolt Open Space, so that we don’t have one of these blocking the view up to Castle Creek. Mr. Anderson stated that there are reporting requirements. Every facility would require a report, which talks about the radio frequency that is coming out of them so that the City would have a clear understanding and know that they are compliant with FCC regulations. This is not something that currently exists for the facilities that are in town and it’s a good idea for these, especially as the technology is changing. If these meet the design guidelines, it will be a fully administrative process. If they do not, they would have to appeal to P&Z and HPC. Because of that, as an administrative process there’s no public hearing which also means no public notice. Staff have decided to notice these facilities as soon as they have a complete application. They will notice it the same way they do for a public hearings with a poster on site, a mailing to neighbors within 300 feet, and a newspaper notice. This is a change from normal procedure but staff think that it’s good to let people know what’s coming to the neighborhood. With that, Mr. Anderson turned the meeting over to commissioner comments. Ms. McGovern stated that alleyway placement should be prioritized. Mr. Forman stated that staff will definitely look into alleys, but it does seem like they might be too tight to begin with. Mr. Marcus stated that, just a few people own over half of the downtown core. It would be easy to talk to that small group to figure out how to get these things on rooftops. There is probably a way to incentivize the property owners to figure out a way to get it out of the right-of-way and up on the roofs. Mr. Anderson stated that the conversation is about getting the telecom companies figuring out what’s in their benefit to have a conversation with the owners of private residences. Right now, they don’t have an incentive. It’s probably the neutral host provider that is the conduit for something like that. Mr. McKnight stated that he sat in on one of these meetings and he was very proud of staff for tackling this. It sounds like it’s hitting other communities in a way that they’re not going to be on top of this in time. He thanked staff for taking the initiative to get ahead of this. Mr. Anderson stated that Ms. Bryan and Jessica Garrow were very on top of this. Mr. Forman and Paul Schultz have been very helpful. There are a lot of staff trying to get their arms around this in a way that they can understand. It’s challenging. Mr. McKnight stated that this is a quick process, so he plans to respond as quickly as possible. Mr. Anderson stated that City Council is going to be looking at this same list on the 21st of January. Staff will be coming back to Planning and Zoning quickly after that with a draft of land use code update. ADJOURN Ms. McGovern motioned to adjourn the meeting at 5:45 PM. Ms. Rockhill seconded. All in favor, motion carried. Jeannine Stickle Records Manager