Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20240402 REGULAR MEETING ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 2, 2024 COMMISSIONERS IN ATTENDNCE: Maryann Pitt, Tracy Sutton, Marcus Blue, Eric Knight, Jason Suazo, Tom Gorman, Ken Canfield, Christine Benedetti, and Teraissa McGovern. STAFF PRESENT: Jeff Barnhill, Planner II Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Luisa Berne, Assistant City Attorney Tracy Terry, Deputy City Clerk COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: None STAFF COMMENTS: None. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None. MINUTES: Mr. Knight mo�oned to approve the minutes for November 21st, 2023, Ms. Suton seconded. Ms. McGovern asked for an all in favor vote, Ken Canfield abstained, all other commissioners agreed. 6-0 mo�on carried. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: No Conflicts. SUBMISSION OF PUBLIC NOTICE FOR AGENDA ITEMS: Ms. Johnson said that notice was provided. OTHER BUSINESS: Kate Johnson brought forth the first agenda item, elec�on of new Chair and Vice Chair. Ms. McGovern and Ms. Benede� both agreed to stay in their current posi�ons unless someone else wanted to be nominated, no one spoke up. Ms. Benede� nominated Ms. McGovern for Chair. Ms. McGovern nominated Ms. Benede� for Vice Chair. Mr. Canfield motioned to elect Ms. McGovern for Chair and Ms. Benedetti for Vice Chair and the motion was seconded by Mr. Knight. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ms. Pit, yes; Ms. Suton, yes; Mr. Blue, yes; Mr. Knight, yes; Mr. Canfield, yes; Mr. Suazo, no; Mr. Gorman, abstained; Ms. Benede�, yes; Ms. McGovern, yes. 7-1 vote, mo�on passes. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Burlingame Early Childhood Educa�on Center - Major Public Project, Planned Development and Related Reviews Recommenda�on to City Council Jeff Barnhill, City Planner, explained that this is a major public project review and has many different review criteria, including planned development reviews. It is a recommenda�on of P&Z to City Council; P&Z is not the final decision-making body. APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Glen Horn, Land Use planner represen�ng the City of Aspen Mr. Horn introduced himself, he represents the applicant, the City of Aspen. He entered an affidavit to the public record, exhibit D. He introduced his team, Andi Korber, the team lead and project architect, Jen Phelan the project manager for the City of Aspen, Megan Monahan and Nancy Nichols of Kids first whom they worked with to come up with a plan and concept for the center. They are seeking approval for the Burlingame Early Childhood Center. They started the project several years ago with neighborhood outreach and a survey of Burlingame residents and residents of the upper valley, they did research of childhood centers around Colorado and held community mee�ngs. He described the loca�on of the site and the Burlingame plat. The center will have 94 children including 16 infants, 20 toddlers and 58 preschool children. There is a low child to teacher ra�on that is lower than the industry standard. The REGULAR MEETING ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 2, 2024 building will have 15,260 square feet of floor are including mechanical and subgrade space. They are seeking Land use approval for Planned Development, Growth management quota system allotment, commercial design review, public projects approval, transporta�on and parking management, subdivision boundary adjustment, and extended vested property rights for a 10-year term. He said they have reviewed the staff report and condi�ons of approval, and they are acceptable to the applicant. Mr. Gorman asked what age children will be eligible? Staff answered all ages, star�ng at 6 weeks old. Mr. Gorman asked how big the geographic area is they intend to serve and if it constrained by geography or is enrollment limited. Ms. Monahan said the residents of Burlingame could have priority but all residents of the Colorado River Valley, if they work up here and there is space, could enroll. Mr. Gorman asked how kids first is funded. Ms. Monahan said it is funded by a city sales tax passed in 1989 that is split between affordable housing and childcare. Mr. Gorman asked if it is considered a city agency. Ms. Monahan replied yes, it is a department of the city of Aspen. Ms. Johnson clarified that the city owns it and is the applicant but is not exempt from the land use code, so like any other applicant they have hired Mr. Horn to represent them, but Mr. Barnhill is staff like in any other applica�on situa�on. Mr. Gorman asked how many children are served by kids first. Ms. Monahan replied 350-400 children in Pitkin County. Ms. Nichols verified 350 children. Mr. Gorman asked how big the annual budget of Kids First is. Ms. Monahan replied around 1.5 million and most of it goes to suppor�ng the 13 childhood centers in Pitkin County, financial aid, professional development, and grants. Mr. Gorman asked if that includes financial aid. Ms. Monahan answered yes for those who qualify for financial aid. Mr. Gorman asked if they have oversight over mul�ple facili�es. Ms. Monahan replied they are not oversight or regulatory they are a support organiza�on. They choose to par�cipate in the kids fist programs and they must qualify. Mr. Gorman asked about 10-year ves�ng and if there is a budget for this facility. Ms. Phelan said they had some ini�al cost es�ma�ng and what she recalls is $15 million. Ms. McGovern said the 10 years ves�ng sounds long and asked if they have a fundraising plan and if there a reason it is 10 years. Ms. Phelan said 10 years is permited by code. In discussing with the city manager’s office, they asked that we request the max allowed. Ms. McGovern asked if there is a fundraising plan? Ms. Phelan said they have been looking at some grant money and revenue streams, but she has not been party to that discussion. Ms. Pit asked if there has been a sales tax since 1989, where is the rest of that money going or if it is lost every year if not u�lized. Ms. Johnson said that is a legal ques�on, and that when they pass taxes there is a purpose statement and the money can only be used for that purpose. To the extent that money is not used it will roll over. STAFF PRESENTATION: Jeff Barnhill-Planner II Mr. Barnhill introduced himself and gave an overview of the site and project. Project consists of 3 parcels and sits on a litle over an acre of land. Applicant proposes an infant to preschool early childhood educa�on center with gross floor area a 15,362 sq � and a max height of 39.5 �. Accommodate roughly 94 children and a projected staff of 24. Playground for each age of children, 41 total parking spaces. Development will require realignment of the trail that runs through the parcel. REGULAR MEETING ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 2, 2024 Considered an essen�al public facility which is a facility that serves an essen�al public purpose, is available for use by or benefit of the general public and serves the needs of the community. This project is going through a streamlined review know as major public project review. An applica�on of this scope generally goes to P&Z for recommenda�on and later to council for conceptual review. Following the ini�al review the applica�on will be required to submit a second applica�on within 1 year from conceptual approval for final review which goes to P&Z for final approval. For this project, conceptual and detailed review are packaged into a single app to P&Z for recommenda�on and Council for final approval. By structuring the review this way P&Z, council, and the public gain a beter clarity and con�nuity as the en�re applica�on is discussed all at once and avoids a piece meal approval that can be difficult for the public to engage with. He spoke about the dimension varia�ons and said staff finds the proposed dimension are suitable for the project. This project has been contemplated in this loca�on since at least 2011. He went over the other reviews including growth management, commercial design, public amenity space, transporta�on impact analysis, and gave defini�ons for some of those. A typical commercial facility would be required to provide 3 units of parking per 1000 sq � of net leasable area, this comes out to 42.75 parking units for a similar size development. This is a public facility, so parking is decided by special review. The 41 parking spaces meet the needs of the facility, in total the applicant proposes 46 total spaces. Staff does not support the phase parking plan or the 5 on street parking spots on Harmony Rd. Some recommenda�ons are to build all parking spaces in one phase, eliminate the 5 on street parking spaces, build less parking and incorporate more mobility measures on site and contemplate a shared parking agreement for some spots when the facility is not in use. Currently they are providing 100% of the parking requirement with the 41 spaces. Staff recommends approval of the project with the condi�ons outlined in the resolu�on. Addi�onally, they recommend the on-street parking and phase parking be removed from the proposal and a shared parking agreement is contemplated for some of the spaces outside of opera�ng hours. Ms. McGovern said the numbering of parking spaces in the packet versus the presenta�on is different, she asked if it 41 or 40 spaces. Mr. Barnhill said that is an error on the sheet, he confirmed before the mee�ng it is 41 spaces. Mc McGovern asked if those playgrounds are open to the public when not in use. Mr. Barnhill said it doesn’t have to open to the general public. Ms. Johnson said the program itself provides a service open to the public, the opening of the property to the public is not a requirement of a public facility. Mr. Gorman asked if the number of trips per hour at the light cycle at that intersec�on on Highway 82 will have an adverse effect on traffic. Greg Schrader with McDowell Engineering, traffic, and transporta�on engineers out of Eagle Colorado asked if the ques�on being asked is if we see degrada�on at the traffic signal. Mr. Gorman said yes, if we add travel at peak hour to the traffic on 82 which is at peak also will there be an adverse effect. Mr. Schrader replied the net difference is negligible. Mr. Gorman said in the report it is stated mul�ple �mes that traffic delays are considered an offsite deficiency beyond the scope of this project. Mr. Schrader replied that highway 82 is four lanes up to where the project is and it narrows to two lanes, that is already causing delays and that represents a regional issue to work on. Mr. Gorman asked what the effect of adding more traffic to that problema�c intersec�on will be. Mr. Barnhill replied that is what the traffic impact analysis and mi�ga�on measures are trying to get at, how to try to reduce trips. Mr. Gorman said it is a complicated situa�on. Future traffic projec�ons say there are no known land development projects in the vicinity of Harmony Road that will affect the assump�ons of this this and the Lumberyard comes to mind, that will pour a bunch more traffic into that stretch of 82. Mr. Schrader replied we defined our study area with the Harmony Rd intersec�on at REGULAR MEETING ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 2, 2024 Highway 82, side access, and the always stop at Burlingame. We acknowledge there is background traffic which consists of traffic up and down the valley and those are modeled as background growth. Mr. Gorman said he doesn’t see that in the 2045 projec�ons. Mr. Schrader replied they are included, the calcula�ons in the 2045 backgrounds have a built-in growth factor. Mr. Gorman asked how 73 trips per hour gets to 53. He said there are credits but are those realis�c es�mates of changing usage paterns that will take off 20 hourly trips. Mr. Schrader replied it is based upon the traffic toolkit. If there are certain elements in the site plan you get to deduct the credit, so you don’t have the fee in lieu. Knowing there is a long ves�ng period and �me to find other solu�ons. Mr. Horn said part of the 10-year vested property right term allows for �me to come up with new ideas to mi�gate traffic. Mr. Gorman asked isn’t that specula�ve. Mr. Horn said yes but if it is a condi�on that needs to be sa�sfied before you submit for building permit there is a hook to it. Ms. McGovern replied that condi�on is in the memo already. They are required to work with engineering prior to issue of building permit to get that number lower. Mr. Gorman asked how that is sa�sfied at post permit issuance. Ms. McGovern replied that is not P&Z purview, it is their job to make sure that is writen in our recommenda�on, and it is on page 4 or 5 of the resolu�on. Ms. Benede� asked if they have a sense of how many families will be served from Burlingame. Mr. Schrader replied about 27 % of the traffic generated at the site will be to and from Burlingame so they would not access 82 for the sole purpose of taking children to the site. That is 27% of the facility size. Ms. Benede� said she’s on the board of the Early Learning Commitee and it is the largest childcare provider in the upper valley and have 97 students with 30 full �me and 4 part �me teachers. She’s curious about the difference because they have to approve the FTE’s. Ms. Phelan clarified that this can be designed for up to 94 children, mee�ng state requirements. The city of Aspen provides a higher level of service than the state requires so even though the building could be designed for 94 children the number will probably be more in the low 80s to provide that level of service. The number of teachers would be based on the needs for each room. Ms. Monahan said the way they calculated the number of teachers is that there would be 3 teachers for every classroom with 2 infant rooms, 2 toddler rooms, and 3 preschool rooms plus a couple of admins ending up with 24. Mr. Barnhill said APCHA has a condi�on of approval for an audit of employees in 5 years. Ms. Pit asked if someone could speak to the soils report, she is curious about the numbers, are they safe levels for the kids. Mr. Horn said the soils report was to develop specifica�ons for the founda�on of the structure, not looking at whether there are minerals that would adversely affect the kids. Typically, there will be other surfaces over the soil. It is not a mining site like in town, so it has not been inves�gated. Ms. Korber said the building has been designed for best prac�ces for child welfare. It has a good ven�la�on system. Ms. Pit asked what the defini�on of shared parking is and how many addi�onal units will there be. Mr. Horn said the 2 units have parking requirements on site. Ms. Pit ask if anybody has thought about underground parking. Ms. Korber said we brought three schemes to council. One was underground parking and we moved forward with this one through a series of mee�ng with our design group, council, and staff. The issue with underground parking is ge�ng your toddler out of the car and then ge�ng in an elevator, it was imprac�cal. REGULAR MEETING ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 2, 2024 Ms. Pit asked if there were other parcels this facility would have poten�ally been built on. Ms. Monahan replied this is a city owned parcel and that is why it was selected. Mr. Barnhill said the development of a childcare center on this parcel has been contemplated since 2011. Ms. Pit asked what other building use they were contempla�ng in this zone. Mr. Horn replied when the Burlingame original plat was approved in 2011 the City of Aspen approved condi�onal use approval for this site and said it would be a good site for an early learning childcare center, so it has always been contemplated there and it is owned by the City. Mr. Canfield said in his experience parking in Burlingame is always tricky and that having the five extra spaces might be a benefit to not only this project but also visitors and residents at Burlingame. He’s interested in knowing the city’s reason for disagreeing with the proposal to add those five spaces and is the applicant fine with the city’s recommenda�on of removing the spaces. Mr. Barnhill replied that the Parks department was concerned about those spaces in their rela�on to the shared use trail as they would be directly adjacent to the trail. The Engineering department was concerned about how those spaces would be used and accessed. Mr. Horn said they liked the original plan, but they don’t want to hold the project up over 5 parking spaces. Mr. Canfield asked if the mi�ga�on process is a formulaic process that if you add 5 bike spots it mi�gates x number of trips or is there site-specific analysis that is done about the effect a par�cular mi�ga�on will have on the number of trips in the area. Mr. Barnhill replied that the Engineering department controls how much each mi�ga�on measure counts for, but essen�ally the toolkit is set up where you pick how you are going to mi�gate and those are assigned certain values. The same values apply for all projects. Mr. Canfield asked if there has been any considera�on for specific needs of a childcare center as opposed to some other development that won’t trigger the same burdens. He said if you go by a school at pick up �me it is a mess because of the par�cular burden. He asked if that has been considered. Ms. Korber said that there are staggered drop offs for early childhood educa�on so it’s not like elementary where everyone starts at the same �me. The considera�on is formulaic. Mr. G orman asked if there is a trail that runs between the Lumberyard and Burlingame or if one is being contemplated. Mr. Horn said there is a trail that goes along Deer Hill to the AABC and will be accessible to the Lumberyard housing project. You can also go out on Harmony Road and get on the down valley trail to the business center. Ms. McGovern said the reloca�on of the trail that cuts through the Lumberyard is included in the Lumberyard development. Mr. Gorman asked if cars going from the Lumberyard will have to go out on Highway 82 and come back in. Ms. McGovern replied correct. Mr. Gorman asked if the city would be willing to survey neighborhood residents and see if they want this project there. Mr. Barnhill replied that this project has been contemplated in this loca�on for a long �me and it meets the land use code. Mr. Horn said they have met with the people in the neighborhood and sent 137 no�ces to all of them, none of the no�ces were returned no one is there to fight it. It has been an extensive public process and fact that no one is here to comment or cri�cize is significant. Mr. Gorman ask who from the city had studied the survey answers. Ms. Korber said the survey was conducted by the design team, and something to keep in mind is that although the facility would give priority to Burlingame it has a broader service area. The city went through this whole process, if it REGULAR MEETING ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 2, 2024 doesn’t move forward because of a concern about adding something to Burlingame that is different than whether requirements of the land use code have been met. Ms. McGovern said their purview is not whether the neighbors want it to be built but rather whether the proposed building meets the land use code. Ms. Korber said when they did the survey and heard the comments about parking and traffic, they were trying their best to mi�gate those. They are designing to answer those ques�ons. Ms. Pit asked how the surveys were sent. Ms. Korber said it was emailed, on the city website, sent to the HOA, sent in the city Eblast, and posters were put up. People have been inundated with the outreach. They put door knockers on every door in Burlingame for the open houses along with signs along Paepcke Road. Ms. Pit asked what the overwhelming response was. Ms. Korber said the people who showed up with kids were in favor. No one who came to the open house was opposed, a few survey respondents were concerned with parking and traffic. Ms. Pit asked what the percentage of posi�ve response versus nega�ve was. Ms. Korber said it was mixed. BOARD DISCUSSION: Ms. McGovern said they were given a succinct overview of what they are being asked for. Please keep the discussion centered around the recommenda�ons not just an opinion. Ms. Suton said traffic is a bigger problem and her ques�ons had been answered. Mr. Knight said it’s not perfect, but he is in support if the project and staff recommenda�ons. Ms. McGovern asked what everyone thinks about the 10-year ves�ng. Ms. Pit said she thinks three to 5 years would be beter. Ms. Suton agreed and said fast tracking would be more advantageous all the way around. Mr. Gorman agrees with them about 10-year vesting and said if the project is that necessary a fire should be lit. Regarding transportation, with Lumberyard going in this project is going to make it worse, that is his principal concern. Mr. Blue is very much in support, he said it meets land use code. It is one of the most necessary things to go in and as far as land use code, it has been met. Ms. Pitt said it would be beneficial. Ms. Benedetti said she’s thrilled this is finally coming and is willing to approve everything, but she is concerned with the FTEs. She is glad the number is revisited in 5 years. She would be in favor of adding the 5 parking spaces on the street and asked if there if there is a way to deed restrict some of the housing for teachers, so they are not commuting. Mr. Suazo said he brought that same conversation up with another project and staff is adamant no. Staff has a history of saying no. Ms. McGovern said this may be different as this is a public amenity not a private project. Mr. Canfield said he’s in support of the project and he’s impressed with all the work that has gone into it. REGULAR MEETING ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 2, 2024 Mr. Suazo said he thinks this is half baked and for such a dire need he thinks they are behind the eight ball. He would like to see the vesting decreased by three years. He added that the FTE’s are probably way off, traffic is being ignored and he doesn’t think Burlingame should have priority. Ms. McGovern asked Jason if he would he support a recommendation to council? Mr. Suazo said with some changes to the resolution, and he would defer to Tom about changes. Mr. Gorman said getting this before Easter and having to digest before today was short. He would appreciate more lead time. Ms. Johnson said by law they only have to have it 24 hours in advance, and we do our best to get them to you sooner. She said they can continue if they need more time to review it. Mr. Gorman said with respect to traffic, mitigation can be applied only so far and then has to be paid for. He asked if there is a cash in lieu option if they can’t get below 53 trip per hour. Ms. Johnson said this is a unique review and council if the final decision maker, they can continue the hearing, approve the resolution as written, approve the resolution and amend the language in the resolution. They can decline to adopt the resolution and technically say they don’t recommend the approval to council if they are not in favor of the project because their questions have not been answered. MOTION: Mr. Canfield moved to adopt the resolution that has been proposed. Ms. McGovern said she is not ready to vote. She thinks the 10 years vesting is too long. She said they gave 10 years vesting to the lumberyard project. She would like to see the vesting changed to 5 years and then come back and ask for an extension. She thinks it meets the land use code but would like to see the vesting changed. Ms. Johnson said vested property rights is solely council approval only, they don’t have to give your recommendation any weight. Mr. Knight seconded the motion. ROLL CALL VOTE: Mr. Blue, no; Knight, yes; Canfield, yes; Mr. Suazo, no; Mr. Gorman, no; Ms. Benedetti, no; Ms. McGovern, no. Motion not passed. Mr. Blue motioned to accept with the amendment of a reduction of five years in the vesting. Mr. Canfield seconded Mr. Blue’s motion. Mr. Gorman motioned to amend the amended motion to further study the traffic mitigation for this project. Mr. Blue does not accept friendly amendment. Mr. Suazo seconded Mr. Gorman’s motion to amend the current motion on the table to include an addition condition of approval under section seven part two, to add to this section concerning final mitigation that additional studies be performed on the available methods of mitigation. REGULAR MEETING ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 2, 2024 Ms. McGovern opened it up to the applicant for response. Mr. Gorman withdrew his motion to amend. ROLL CALL VOTE: On the motion to approve the resolution with the amendment to reflect a reduction of 5 years in the vesting. Mr. Blue, yes; Mr. Knight, yes; Mr. Canfield, yes; Mr. Suazo, no; Mr. Gorman, yes; Ms. Benedetti, yes; Ms. McGovern, yes. Motion passes 6-1. Ms. McGovern requested a work session with council. Ms. Johnson asked if the rest of the board is in support of that. Unanimous yes ADJOURN: Mr. Blue motioned to adjourn; Mr. Canfield seconded. All in favor. Tracy Terry, Deputy City Clerk