Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20200218Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission February 18th, 2020 Chairperson McKnight called the meeting to order at 4:30 PM. Commissioners in Attendance: Ryan Walterscheid, Scott Marcoux, Ruth Carver, Teraissa McGovern, Brittanie Rockhill, Rally Dupps, Spencer McKnight Absent: Don Love, James Marcus Staff Present: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Ben Anderson, Planner STAFF COMMENTS None COMMISSIONER COMMENTS None PUBLIC COMMENTS None APPROVAL OF MINUTES None DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST None PUBLIC HEARING None OTHER BUSINESS Wireless Communications Facilities Ben Anderson stated that this is an update for P&Z on the status of wireless regulation in city. He gave an overview of why the city is working on it, inclusive of federal and state regulations that affect the city’s ability to regulate wireless. The draft regulations can: regulate look, height, identify preferred and discouraged locations, and FCC compliance. They can look to location (such as streetlights) to include in existing locations, potential city buildings, and encourage co-location. The draft content for design guidelines has been developed with input from: work with P&Z, HPC, Council, consultant services, members of wireless community, and the public. The draft proposes limitations to new/additional infrastructure in the right-of-way by encouraging replacement of existing streetlights. Also limitations to height. Staff have suggested a max height of 25 feet, similar to the residential zones. The minimum distance between facilities is 600 feet. The pole design features include a fluted pole and paint to match existing streetlights. The base of the pole cannot be more than 18” in diameter, lighting fixture is similar to a hockey puck. Mr. Marcoux asked if the light fixture could be supplemented with solar. Ms. Carver stated that she finds the puck fixture somewhat boring. She asked if there is a way to ensure light is cast light downward. Mr. Marcoux asked if only two carriers can be co-located in one pole. Mr. Anderson responded that wireless carriers are saying it may be impossible to have two on one pole and that they want higher poles. Mr. Dupps mentioned that he thought the puck design was good and that he would like to see more installation of the fixture as current light fixtures do not meet outdoor lighting requirements. Some concern on impacts to the right-of-way were raised. Justin Forman noted construction in right-of-way allowances. A majority of commissioners appreciated providing a fixture that is downcast. Mr. Walterscheid asked where the streetlights are generally located throughout town. Does Utilities have a plan for location of streetlamps, where are they needed? If a monopole goes up, can they be retrofitted with a streetlight if necessary? Ms. McGovern asked how many applications are in. Mr. Anderson noted that two companies have submitted and have been relatively patient with the work being undertaken. Ms. Carver asked Mr. Anderson to clarify if all wireless facilities are within the pole. Mr. Anderson noted that it will be in the pole or underground in a vault. If an alternative to the guidelines is proposed, it would then become a board approval vs. an administrative approval. Turnaround will need to be quick due to approval timeline requirements. Facilities could be developed on private property, although a number of properties and districts are protected. Mr. Dupps and Ms. Rockhill stated that designated properties should be protected. Mr. Anderson noted city recommendation on notification: on-site poster, mailed to neighbors within 300 feet, and a newspaper notice. All the responsibility of noticing is on the applicant. Further, an NIER report will be required as well as post installation testing annually. The wireless guidelines will be a standalone document and clarification of application and review process part of the land use code. This will be going back to Council in mid-March. Mr. Marcoux asked what the recourse is if a facility does not meet the standards via a report. Mr. Anderson stated that it would need to be shut down. He is unsure if the range, allowances, etc. would change if a facility is co-located with two carriers. Staff would need to refer that to the IT Director. Mr. McKnight stated that he likes the puck and fluted designs. Several commissioners commented that the design is “clean.” Ms. McGovern stated that it’s important to keep the parts in the cabinet and underground. Others agreed. With feedback provided, a motion was made, with all in favor, to close the meeting. Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director Jeannine Stickle, Records Manager