Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20180515 AGENDA Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission REGULAR MEETING May 15, 2018 4:30 PM Sister Cities Meeting Room 130 S Galena Street, Aspen I. SITE VISIT II. ROLL CALL III. COMMENTS A. Commissioners B. Planning Staff C. Public IV. MINUTES V. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 465/557 N. Mill Street, Rezoning VII. OTHER BUSINESS A. 2019-2019 Planning Work Program Update VIII. BOARD REPORTS IX. ADJOURN Next Resolution Number: Typical Proceeding Format for All Public Hearings 1) Conflicts of Interest (handled at beginning of agenda) 2) Provide proof of legal notice (affi d avit of notice for PH) 3) Staff presentation 4) Board questions and clarifications of staff 5) Applicant presentation 6) Board questions and clari fications 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 1 1 ) 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 o r not met. Revised April 2, 2014 Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting April 3, 2018 Chairperson Skippy Mesirow called the meeting to order at 4:30 PM. Commissioners in attendance: Teraissa McGovern, Scott Marcoux, Rally Dupps, Ruth Carver, Skippy Mesirow, Spencer McKnight. Absent: Ryan Walterscheid, Kelly McNicholas Kury, Jimmy Marcus Staff present: Jeannine Stickle, Records Manager Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director Ben Anderson, Planner COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Mr. Mesirow welcomed Ms. McGovern to the Planning and Zoning Commission. He wished everyone a happy Easter or Passover. STAFF COMMENTS None PUBLIC COMMENTS None APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ms. Carver moved to approve the minutes from March 6th, 2018. Ms. McGovern seconded. All approved. Motion carried. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST None. PUBLIC HEARINGS 465/557 Mill Street Rezoning. Ms. Phelan stated the need to continue the 465/557 North Mill Street Rezoning – Public Hearing – to the May 15th meeting. Mr. Mesirow motioned to continue the meeting. Mr. McKnight seconded. All in favor. Motion carried. 405 Castle Creek Road, Ambulance Barn. Mr. Mesirow asked for disclosure of conflicts of interest. There were none. He asked if public notice was given. Ms. Bryan stated that it had been. Mr. Anderson, Planner with the City of Aspen, introduced himself and the Ambulance Barn project. Mr. Anderson explained that this project qualifies as major public project review. By a new law, this requires us to get a decision from council within 60 days within the date of application. APCHA has met and their P1 IV. recommendation is in the packet. Your role on this project as the P&Z Commission is project review and to make a recommendation to the City Council. City Council is seeing this on the first reading. The public hearing will be on April 30th. This is an expedited process. Mr. Mesirow asked if Mr. Anderson knew more details of the litigation history on this new law. Mr. Anderson stated that he was not sure. Mr. Mesirow stated that he could see how this could be seen as an attempt to push something through, which it’s not. Mr. Anderson stated that this lot has a bus stop on it. The property is owned by the Aspen Valley Hospital district and is part of the master plan for the Aspen Valley Hospital. He described the location of the lot as being located at Castle Creek Road at Doolittle Drive. The bus comes in to this lot at the hospital loop road. There are two parts to this project. The first is the redesign of the parking area and circulation to accommodate parking spaces being lost and improve features. The second is the new ambulance facility itself. The lot itself is 2.8 acres. Currently the only square footage is the Health and Human Services building. It is currently zoned as a Public Use Zone district. The dimensions are required to be set by a Planned Development Approval, and that’s something that commissioners are making a recommendation on this evening. Mr. Anderson stated that there were two primary staff concerns when city staff met with the County on this project. The first concern was the height of the building. The second concern was parking access and circulation. The height from finished grade is at 32 feet. Staff had a lot of discussion with the County about reducing mass and scale. This lot is near to residential use buildings, the Health and Human Services building, the hospital across the street. Staff’s concern is that the highest part of the building is on this unarticulated, flat façade facing hospital loop road. It does seem to be a fairly significant mass. In most other design scenarios in Aspen, that’s something that we tend to discourage. Staff has landed on a recommended height of 28 feet. Regarding parking access and circulation, there were initial concerns from staff. For this project, we used a five-year-old TIA, which we typically don’t accept. As we started to look at the design, staff had concerns about fire access. The design had some parking spaces being eliminated, and being added back in different places. Staff had concerns about pedestrian access and safety. Fire hydrant location is a concern. The location of the waste facility was not defined. There are not a lot of details about bicycle parking. Staff concerns were addressed by the applicant this morning to staff’s satisfaction. Regarding growth management, typically employee housing mitigation is based on square footage. Due to the large amount of unoccupied space in the plan used for vehicles and storage space, APCHA recommended waving the growth management mitigation. They recommended a five year and ten-year audit to determine growth. There is some concern about housing mitigation should the facility change P2 IV. hands down the line, should the facility have another use. Moving forward, staff is working on a mechanism for such a situation. Commissioners will be making their recommendation to City Council regarding this project, which can include specific clauses. Such as: P&Z recommends this project as long as the 28-foot height requirement is met. Mr. Anderson concluded his presentation. Mr. Mesirow stated that this is the time for the Commissioners to ask questions. Ms. Carver asked how a big truck gets to the waste to empty the trash. Mr. Anderson stated that the initial proposal had this at 16 feet wide. But there was concern from the fire department about fire access. The access will be widened to 20 feet per fire truck recommendations. Ms. Carver asked how the truck turns around if it’s backing up. From the public seating, Kevin Heath answered. He introduced himself as being from Studio B and stated that it’s a front-load truck and dumpster. There’s no backing up. Ms. Mesirow asked for an explanation of the phasing for this project, within the context of all the other development going on with the hospital. Mr. Anderson answered that the hospital project has been approved as a standalone development. The applicant can talk more about that. The Aspen Valley Hospital project was a long term set of approvals and phases to get to the project. Mr. Mesirow asked about the current number for mitigation for employee housing. Mr. Anderson replied that the structure is roughly 13,000 square feet. If it were purely office space, which it’s not, it’s 5.1 FTE per thousand square feet. That would be roughly 60. Since this is not a pure office use, the ability to do an audit of current employees seems to be more reasonable. Mr. Mesirow stated that we’ve changed way you could mitigate for employees over time. How are we expecting this facility to mitigate for those at year five and year ten? Mr. Anderson stated that this is similar to the City of Aspen project. Pitkin County spends a lot of money on housing employees. Those projects build credits. If this facility were to add three employees at year five, APCHA would do an analysis. Ms. Carver asked if the parking lot has the same number of spaces as the original parking lot had. Mr. Anderson stated that the requirement is 57 spaces. Fourteen spaces are being lost. The plans for this are in flux, but we will end up with roughly the same number. P3 IV. The applicants presented their portion of the hearing. Jon Peacock, County Manager for Pitkin County, introduced himself. He stated that as an essential public service, this project goes through as slightly different review process. He gave background on the public process they have gone through with the project. This process included engaging the local community to learn their concerns. We brought multiple design concepts back to the community and asked them to prioritize which ones they thought best addressed their concerns. We revised the designs again based on that, then brought them back again to talk about why we think we’ve met the community’s needs. This is an essential community service. We don’t benefit personally by doing this. We believe it’s at the right place and design to meet the community’s needs. Mr. Peacock explained that the ambulance district is a dependent special district with the County Commissioners as the board and a border that’s different from the County border. The County will be sponsor and owner on this project, which is paid for by funds set aside specially for the project. Mr. Peacock introduced Rich Englehart and Gabe Meuthing, who will be taking the lead on the presentation. Mr. Englehart introduced Daniel Gartner, Architect of Record for the project. Mr. Englehart gave some background on the need for the project. The current ambulance barn is undersized for modern ambulances. The living space and sleeping quarters are inadequate. Properly securing medications is a challenge. The current building is in poor condition and not all vehicles can be stored there. In 2014, the voters approved a ballot initiative to replace or remodel the existing facility, which passed with 62%. After a study, it was determined that the best option was to expand at the current location. There was also a possibility of combining services with the fire district, but after careful consideration, it didn’t make sense at that time. Gabe Meuthing introduced himself as the Director of the Ambulance District. Mr. Meuthing explained that his goal regarding location is to be able to get an ambulance as close as possible to you when you have an emergency. To do that, the Ambulance District puts the ambulances in the center of their District, which is the current location. Additionally, the District provides an ALS level of service, with paramedics aboard ambulances. The way we keep up that level of service is to have a good partnership with the hospital. This is also important in terms of efficiency. Every time we pick up a patient, it ends at the hospital. Coming back to one location gives ability to restock them quickly. The ambulance has to be cleaned out after every call. If we get another call quickly, can abandon the ambulance at the hospital and grab a different ambulance. Mr. Englehart explained that they went to two different meetings with the Twin Ridge and Meadowood HOAs. We went in without any design and took input. The HOA representatives were concerned about HVAC noise issues adding to what’s going on at the hospital now. They were also concerned about future growth and plans for phasing. Since then, they have done many more public presentations. The reason for this design is based on the neighborhood input. Daniel Gartner, Chamberlain Architects, introduced himself. He stated that the starting point for the design were the comments the county had received from the community in the summer. Noise, rooftop units, light, and visibility were the parameters for the design. I worked with Gabe and his staff to look at what functional requirements the building had. I came up with four different design options and presented all of those at a meeting that was open to the public in October 2017. Over 50 people showed up to give feedback. What we’re presenting is the most voted for option. P4 IV. Mr. Gartner pointed out that the canopy over the front door is the sort of marker for the entrance to the facility. It is a fairly flat front façade. It’s important that nothing get hit by the ambulances as they are down at the ground-floor level. On the ground-floor level, there are six ambulance bays, four for ambulances, two for first responder vehicles. When you enter the main entrance, there are restrooms, stairs, and an elevator to take you upstairs to where the offices are. There is a training room to be used by ambulance personnel and can be used by HHS personnel as well. There is a ready room in the back. The medical supplies can be kept back in there. There is a decontamination and a fitness room. On the second floor, there is a waiting area. There are offices, a conference room, and a communal library work station. The mechanical room is buried here, not on the roof. There are support spaces. The main living space has a balcony facing out back towards the HHS building. Buried up against the hillside are the living and sleeping quarters. The top of the HHS building includes pieces that are 45 feet. The highest point of the hospital, more or less, is 50 feet above the main floor level. At the main entry, this height is at about 30.5 feet. There are things that lead up to that height at the hospital. With all of that context, here’s our building. This is actually the elevator overrun requirement at 30 foot 6. We have very little chance of getting less than that. The building needs an elevator by code. Because the mechanical units are inside the building, need to supply duct work and exhaust to those units. I don’t see a good way to reduce the roof height and get duct work to fit. All in all, the ground floor height is 16 feet with a 16-foot roof. It stands at 10 foot 5 above second floor. The ambulance facility is at 42 foot, still less than the HHS building including the piping. Regarding the parking lot, I was very happy to have the meeting this morning with Planning and Engineering. We talked about ways to make the parking lot work better for everyone. We talked about adding a pedestrian walkway between the existing islands and shifting rows of parking down. We eliminated eleven spaces that were for compact cars only and turned them into 4 parallel parking spaces. We will lose seven parking spaces but will end up with a couple more than we currently have. We will increase the pedestrian accessibility which will allow people to walk to either of the two county facilities. Regarding the trash and recycling, we provided this information to Ben just today. There is a little bit of storage for both the HHS building and the ambulance building including dumpsters and compost. There will be a manned gate to be able to get into recycling area. This seemed to largely address the concerns that had been addressed to us about trash and recycling. Mr. Mesirow asked if the Commissioners had any questions. Mr. Marcoux asked how tall the trees will be once they’re fully matured. Mr. Gartner answered that that would vary by type. The idea is taller trees in the back to obscure the view of the building from the neighborhood. P5 IV. Mr. Marcoux commented that, when he pulled up in the gate for the site visit, he thought that a 20 foot building would look large. Then after an hour, I just got used to it. I’m wondering how landscaping would take away from the visuals. I don’t want to lower the ceiling and have first responders feel uncomfortable inside. I don’t know how you’re going to get five feet lower. Mr. Gartner replied that it will be tough. 28 foot on the plat, that was the height established in 1990. The HHS building is significantly taller than that. The height may have been met by the midpoint of the slope of the roof. It is all sort of relative to the context. Ms. Carver asked how many feet they are taking out of the parking lot to put in that sidewalk. I don’t know what the use of that parking lot is. Is it employees parking there all day? Why do you need the sidewalk down the middle? Mr. Gartner replied that there was a request from the city to try to create as safe zone for pedestrians. When you’re in a parking lot, you often have to walk in a zone that is unsafe because cars are driving. It’s safer if you concentrate pedestrians. Ms. Carver replied that she doesn’t see a need for that. Unless you’re omitting something special about that parking lot. Mr Anderson replied that what’s special is that there’s a RFTA drop off. Ms. Carver responded that the sidewalk’s in the wrong place if they’re looking for pedestrian use. I think the sidewalk should go a totally different direction. Mr. Gartner replied that there’s going to be sidewalk all the way across so you can get around the perimeter. Ms. Carver asked who’s going to use that sidewalk down the middle of the parking lot. Ms. Phelan replied that the people who go to and from the RFTA bus stop. Mr. Mesirow asked how they are defining local community and how they did the outreach. Mr. Peacock explains that they reached out locally and did open house events in August 2017, Oct 2017, and January 2018. Mr. Mesirow asked how they invited people to those. Mr. Peacock stated that they advertised in both local papers. They did radio spots, and used Facebook and other social media. Mr. Mesirow asked if they had direct contact with neighbors. Mr. Peacock replied that they did. They had direct contact with the HOAs. They did press outreach. Mr. Mesirow asked to clarify the ballot initiative. Was that just the go ahead? Did it establish a funding mechanism? Was the question posed to the full county or just residents within the ambulance district? P6 IV. Mr. Peacock replied that the ballot question addressed the operating deficit and the need for a new ambulance facility. The funding would be used to support financing. Mr. Mesirow asked if people within the county but outside the ambulance district voted on it. Mr. Peacock replied no. Ms. Carver asked how tall the current ambulances are. Mr. Meuthing responded that they are ten feet. Occasionally, we add rescue baskets on the top of the ambulances. Mr. Gartner added that the design needs four feet on top of that. Mr. McKnight thanked thank the applicants for their presentation. This all seems like a no-brainer. What kept coming up was the 33 feet versus the 28 feet. Is the 33 feet versus 30 design, functional, or both? Mr. Gartner replied that they are trying to be responsive to the public’s chosen design motif for the building. We’re trying to be less prominent in the back, more in the front. It is also to accommodate mechanical equipment. Mr. Peacock stated that the number one concern of neighbors was noise being generated from the building and having rooftop units. A lot of the design concern was how do we get that into the building. Mr. McKnight asked if they had another meeting after the final plan and what the reaction was. Mr. Englehart stated that they brought the final plan back to the public. The Board approved that. Then we brought it back to the community. It’s a real success. We listened. We didn’t go in with a real pre- conceived idea. Any concessions are really going up against the height requirement. Mr. McKnight stated that, in the Commissioners’ experience, the public is never 100% thumbs up. Mr. Peacock replied that there are going to be public concerns with every project. At the first meeting, very few people were excited about this project. As we went through this project and brought back designs, we mitigated a lot of those concerns. We’re in a community in which you don’t mitigate 100% of those concerns. The HOA representatives were supportive. Ms. McGovern stated that the mechanical pieces will be visible from the pedestrian side. Mr. Gartner asked what Ms. McGovern was referring to as the pedestrian side. He mentioned that the mechanical pieces will be obscured by a gate. Ms. McGovern stated that the gate is not on the plans made available to the Commissioners. Mr. Gartner apologized for that and stated that the plans have continued to develop. P7 IV. Ms. McGovern asked about resizing the building. Mr. Gartner responded that there isn’t a need for more floor area. Mr. Peacock commented that this was the preferred floor plan option at the public meetings. Mr. Gartner commented that they had an option that had pull through ambulance bays, which Mr. Meuthing would have really liked. That option was nixed because it would have been a big impact on the HHS building. Ms. McGovern asked about the size of the trash enclosure. Mr. Gartner answered that the total is around 500 square feet. The total height to tallest part of the roof is ten or eleven feet. Ms. Carver commented that this was a very nice presentation. It’s definitely needed. I think that the sidewalk should be along the street. Mr. Garner said he would be totally game for that. Mr. Mesirow commented that, to keep everything on track, this is the time for questions. Later is the time for discussing opinions. Ms. Carver asked if they can lower the height of the building. Mr. Gartner commented that the problem is the mechanical equipment. If we do that, I’m concerned about these ducts. Mr. Dupps excused himself at 5:51. Ms. Bryan commented that Mr. Dupps recused himself since his wife works for Studio B. Mr. Dupps commented that he didn’t know that Studio B was involved in this project until he saw them in the audience. He left the meeting. Mr. Mesirow asked about the protocols for ambulances coming in and out of the parking lot. Mr. Meuthing answered that the sound and lights ambulances use are safety devices. When the ambulances come to the hospital, they keep the sirens on as long as necessary to get to the ER. The second problem is leaving the facility. Again we use lights and sirens to provide a safe route for us. Coming up to a hospital with lights and sirens is not good, so we use them judiciously when coming into the hospital. Lights are less obtrusive than the sound, so we may move slowly up to the building and use the lights, maybe not the sound. Mr. Mesirow clarified that the default setting leaving for a call is light without sirens, but if there are a lot of people around, the sirens will be on for the safety of the pedestrians. Mr. Meuthing stated that this was correct. P8 IV. Mr. Mesirow asked where that setback starts from and how need relates to pulling out. Mr. Meuthing answered that 25 feet is important to be able to pull the ambulances out of the bays. Mr. Mesirow asked if the setback is really 30 feet, as it appears in the drawings. Mr. Gartner stated that there is close to 15 feet between the property line and the building. Mr. Anderson commented that in terms of setback, they’re talking about the property line. 25 feet or so away from the loop road. Mr. Mesirow commented that, in terms of height, the back of the building has 8-foot ceilings. If you don’t need higher ceilings, 8-foot ceilings are functional for most uses. What is the extra ceiling height for? Mr. Gartner commented that the height is related to the top of the elevator shaft at 30.5 feet. Mr. Mesirow commented that part of this reflects a desire for extra height and light. Mr. Gartner commented that he guessed that is true. An applicant who did not introduce himself commented from the public seating that the height accommodates the structural thickness of the roof, the insulation, and the duct work. The biggest duct we have is 30 inches tall. 9 inches, 24, plus 30. Mr. Gartner commented that that is 5.25 feet there. The man from the public seating commented that the mechanical room is the tightest. Five feet is needed. Mr. Gartner commented that the floor has internal roof drains. It has a parapet above to hold the water in. It’s maybe something like 6 feet from the 8-foot ceiling. 30.5 feet, something like that. Mr. Mesirow commented that he had a few more questions, but asked if anyone had any additional questions. I don’t want to monopolize. Do we only have four ambulances? Mr. Meuthing answered that that is correct. For our volume, four ambulances are about right. Mr. Mesirow asked if there is an extra bay if we need another ambulance. Mr. Meuthing said that they did consider the possibility of adding add extra bays. We could theoretically add a couple of extras if need be. We haven’t changed our volume significantly each year. Eventually we’ll reach the point where we’re size limited in town. We are building this building for now and the future. It will meet our needs for quite some time. Mr. Mesirow asked how many total employees they have when they’re running at peak. P9 IV. Mr. Meuthing replied that they have a total of eight employees at any given time. Mr. Mesirow asked how many people ride in the ambulance. Mr. Meuthing replied that there are two people in the vehicle at each time. We have 32 people on our roster. Most of them are part time. Because we have such variability in our volume, we keep a pretty good staff of part time people. For the most part, fourteen FTE is the way we stay. Mr. Mesirow asked about the adequacy of the trash facility for the extra development. Mr. Meuthing replied that all of their biohazardous trash goes to the hospital. Mr. Anderson replied that ultimately, it’s a determination that’s made by environmental health. Liz Chapman is evaluating. We just received some plans for enclosure. I have not had a chance to get her response. The final design of this enclosure is to be determined. Mr. Mesirow asked the commissioners if they had any final questions. Ms. Carver asked how noisy the mechanicals are. It’s most unusual to vent things out the front. Mr. Gartner said that they’re not anticipating any unusual noise. Any intake or exhaust will have the sound of rushing air. That’s a normal mechanical sound. Mechanical units often have additional sounds. Hoping to enclose those in the building as much as possible. Mr. Mesirow asked if the plan is to grade these so that the building is into the hill. Mr. Gartner responded that that is correct. One side of the building is basically a retaining wall. Mr. Mesirow gave instructions on how the public comment part of the hearing should go. From the audience, Mike Lions introduced himself as a Twin Ranch HOA member and a fireman and paramedic with Aspen Fire. I come with a unique perspective and information that is interesting. This is a unique building in that it’s an ambulance building. Overlooking that Pitkin County is going to be the owner and operator of this facility, Aspen Valley Hospital runs all this for Pitkin County. It’s a tangled web that’s hard to unravel. This is the first opportunity I’ve had to voice concerns about this facility. The reason I say this is that the Aspen Ambulance District has not met since 2014. It’s very hard to come to a public meeting and the County commented on their public outreach. I went to this dot survey and we were only allowed to vote for a building. We were not allowed to vote for a non-building. John Peacock said that this is an essential public service. What they’re not telling you is that the Aspen Fire Protection District has tried to reach out and they are stonewalling us. I tried to get on the agenda and heard nothing. I contacted John Peacock and I have heard nothing. There’s a lot of misinformation out there and lies coming from the County. They want to use the current building for storage. There is also discussion on the street that they’re going to turn this over to a homeless shelter or a battered women’s shelter. Right behind the building, there’s a lot of scrub oak. Homeless guys go to the parking lot and bus station to smoke. They’re going to go right into a wildland area. Homeless people go back there to make camps and smoke pot. They’re going to light our neighborhood on fire. I suggest to the commissioners that you deny this application. P10 IV. Another thing that John Peacock talked about is the need for this building. One of the ways to determine the need for this building is a heat map. You contact Pitkin County and ask them to give you information about calls, then go to GIS and put that information on top of a map. The County never asked for GIS information up until last week. His presentation to our HOA described two zones: city and county. 33% of calls were in the county and 66% in the city. Two calls were two blocks away. Mr. Mesirow interjected to say that he needed to direct the comment in the interest of time. Is it fair to say that this building is not required based on the evidence as you read it? Mr. Lions replied that yes, that is the case. Mr. Mesirow thanked Mr. Lions for coming and commenting. Our job on the Planning and Zoning Commission is to look at code. You should go to the City Council meeting when the applicant presents there. Mr. Lions commented that Mr. Anderson had already let him know about the City Council meeting and he was very grateful for that. Nancy Hall commented from the public seating and introduced herself as a neighbor living in Meadowood and member of the Meadowwood Metropolitan Board. I went to the design meetings where we chose preferences. I think they did a great job of making the right choice. I went to a meeting with Mr. Lions and some people from the Fire District. At that meeting, I got to hear where they could absorb this and I’d never heard that before. We didn’t know that there were any options. It’s a great deal. If there’s a way to save tax payer money, we should do that. Mr. Mesirow commented that he’d like to hear that side and he is curious about a response from the applicants about it. But that’s not really our place. I’d love to go to City Council to hear about it. Mr. Mesirow asked if there were any further public comments. There was no response. He closed public comments. He asked if the applicants would like to respond. The applicants declined to respond. Mr. Mesirow commented that the Commissioners didn’t receive any public comments in their packets. So with that, he turned the meeting over to the commissioner discussion. Ms. Carver commented that she does not think the sidewalk down the middle of the parking lot will be used. I would like to see the building less tall. I’ve never heard of sending all the mechanical piping out the front of the building. I do believe the hillside would keep that quiet. I thought that the fire department had an ambulance. Mr. Lions responded that they do not. They do have rescue trucks for cutting cars open. Ms. Carver commented that it’s a whole different idea to combine the fire department with the ambulances. Ms. McGovern commented that from a code perspective, the only issue she has is height. Mr. Mesirow asked all the Commissioners how they feel about the height recommendation. P11 IV. Mr. McKnight commented that he would like to see the height come down, too. One thing that I can appreciate is that they’re putting the mechanics on the inside. It would make sense for it to come down to the 30.5 foot height. Seeing an effort by the applicant to do that would be sufficient for me. It ends up being a nicer project but people appreciate that more than bringing it to 28 feet with all the equipment on top. Mr. Marcoux commented that any new structure built should include solar. If we can do it, I’m with everyone. If it’s going to create an atmosphere for first responders, we want to make sure everyone’s comfortable working there. Mr. Mesirow commented that if the city’s going to be so demanding about height, to bend the rules for itself isn’t a good look. I wonder about moving the building more toward the hillside somewhat. Moving it into the hillside more will reduce the perceived mass and height of the building. Also, it would be more of a sound insulation. It’s important from a human scale that we’re not creating a cavernous feel. We would see the green space between the buildings. Ms. McGovern stated that she didn’t know how much that would reduce the perceived massing. The 10-foot setback wouldn’t really work, pushing it even further into the lot. The location, although quite in your face, is a very good use of the available space on that lot. Pushing it closer to that is going to not mitigate sound. Mr. Mesirow asked if anyone had any other thoughts. Mr. Marcoux stated that this doesn’t fall under the umbrella of a regular 12-inch build. We can’t really approach it with connecting it with other areas. We’re trying to avoid a lineup of other construction. Ms. McGovern commented that they’re not opening the door for other development. We as a community set a height limit for a reason. As a public facility, we should be the leaders in that. The HHS building was built at a different time. There is also a difference in the way you measure a sloped roof versus a flat roof. Ms. Carver commented that, when you look at the building uphill, it will look taller than it actually is. Mr. McKnight commented that he would like to see an effort for the 28-foot building. We should make a recommendation to City Council to approve the plan, but with the caveat that the applicant make an effort to the 28-foot. If they cannot, they should state their reasons. Mr. Mesirow commented that he is hearing consensus that the set back is okay, the height should be the 28-foot limit. Regarding employee housing, I would like to see the city force a mitigation now versus doing an audit. Ms. McGovern commented that she does not want to force a mitigation now. I don’t think that’s appropriate. If at some point the FTEs increase, that is an issue and that should be mitigated. Mr. Mesirow asked Mr. Anderson if they’re going to do an audit so that current use is mitigated. Mr. Anderson replied that that is correct. APCHA would make a determination that that audit accurately reflects what’s transpired. P12 IV. Mr. Mesirow asked if current FTEs are going to be mitigated for now. Mr. Anderson replied that there is no net change in terms of employee generation. Because it’s a public facility, ultimately it’s the County’s decision as to whether the mitigation is waived at this point. Mr. Mesirow commented that, in terms of the city living up to its own standards, he is uncomfortable with leaving it this lenient. Ms. McGovern commented that she is uncomfortable with leaving the mitigation out there. Mr. Anderson commented that staff has concerns about that. We do think it’s necessary that we have a mechanism to ensure that the building, whatever it becomes in the future, that the future use is somehow understood and gets brought into the mitigation process. Mr. Mesirow asked if it has ever been done before that P&Z make a recommendation to Council that includes a clause about mitigation for a future change in use of the building. That way, whatever the actual audited FTEs, they are mitigated for. Mr. Anderson replied that they could add that language and make it a condition for approval. Mr. Peacock asked if he could comment to add some clarity. Mr. Mesirow commented that it’s out of order, but that he does want to hear Mr. Peacock’s comment. Mr. Peacock commented that this property is really strange. It is owned by the hospital, and the County has a 50-year lease with the building. He recommended that Mr. Dave Brown speak to the use by the hospital. Dave Brown, the CEO of the hospital, introduced himself. He commented that, as Mr. Peacock said, they do not have any expectation to deploy staff that they already have. We have the opportunity to relocate staff. The lower bays are perfect place to relocate our equipment. Would not anticipate that building generating additional staff. Mr. Mesirow asked if they would be okay being responsible for the mitigation if a change were to happen in the future. Mr. Brown replied that they would. Mr. Peacock commented that, if for some reason if that building were to stay with the county for the remainder of the lease, the county would be conformable being responsible for the mitigation. Mr. Mesirow asked if the applicants would be comfortable with adding in specific language to that effect. Ms. McGovern commented that she would want to see something based on square footage. Mr. Brown asked if he may speak to that. P13 IV. Mr. Mesirow replied that he may, but very quickly. Mr. Brown commented that he would prefer the mitigation to be around employee generation, not square footage. Mr. McKnight replied that he would like that. Mr. Mesirow replied that he heard Mr. Brown’s request, but prefers Ms. McGovern’s plan. Square footage provides a cleaner mechanism. Ms. McGovern commented that, with the trend of open office space, organizations can make it look like they have three work spaces and then put 16 people in there. I don’t think we have enough oversight to say, at this point, their actual was this number. Mr. Anderson commented that the hospital was identified as an essential public employee facility. This is part of the phase expansion of the hospital. Understanding these issues and thinking about potential use, I don’t know that we’ve given full thought to how we can best make sure this space gets included in the hospital’s audit. We would be happy to add additional language. Thinking about coming up with the best method, I don’t know that we have a full handle on that yet. Mr. McKnight asked if the commissioners are ready to vote on this. Mr. Mesirow asked if their vote includes that 60-day period. Mr. Anderson commented that, from his perspective, the resolution is written. The conditions that are there give some conditions going forward. Mr. Mesirow asked if the Commissioners are comfortable with the square footage methodology. Ms. Carver and Mr. Marcoux both responded that they are. Mr. McKnight commented that he is not feeling comfortable right now about where to stand and how that looks regarding employee housing mitigation. Ms. Carver commented that they also have consensus on the location of the building and the set back. Mr. McKnight commented that he doesn’t want to vote against this. Can I go on the record to say that I have some concerns? Mr. Mesirow commented that he just did, since his comment will be included in the meeting minutes. Ms. Phelan commented that she can come up with language to say that if there’s a change in the use of the building, then that will trigger a review of employee housing. We just don’t know what they’re going to use it for. They’re representing that as storage. We need to work with the building department. P14 IV. Mr. McKnight commented that the Planning and Zoning Commission is going to make their recommendation to City Council, but they’re just going to do what they want. Mr. Mesirow made a motion to approve, with the conditions of lowering the building height to 28 feet. In terms of employee housing, they would accept audit based on actual FTEs. The hospital would be responsible for mitigating on the square footage. Mr. Anderson asked if the Commissioners are comfortable with staff making the best case for that. Mr. Mesirow and Ms. McGovern responded that they are. Mr. McKnight seconded the motion. Ms. Stickle called roll. All commissioners voted yes. Motion carried. Mr. Mesirow closed the public hearing portion of the meeting. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Mesirow commented that the last item on the agenda is to appoint the Chair and the Vice Chair. We appointed chair previously. Mr. Mesirow asked Ms. Stickle to read the names of the current commissioners. Ms. Stickle read the names of all current Planning and Zoning Commissioners. Ms. Carver nominated Mr. McKnight. Mr. Mesirow commented that he loves that nomination. He nominated Mr. Walterscheid, stating that he has been the vice chair and he feels it would be unfair to at least not re-nominate him. Mr. Mesirow called for votes for Mr. McKnight. Ms. Carver, Mr. Mesirow, Mr. Marcoux, and Ms. McGovern raised their hands. Mr. Mesirow called for votes for Mr. Walterscheid. Mr. McKnight raised his hand. Mr. McKnight was appointed Vice Chair. Mr. Mesirow thanked everyone for attending the meeting. Mr. Mesirow voted to close the meeting. Ms. Mcgovern seconded at 6:47 PM. All in favor. Motion carried. Jeannine Stickle, Records Manager P15 IV. Planning and Zoning Commission Page 1 of 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director RE: 465 and 557 North Mill Street Rezoning - Public Hearing MEETING DATE: May 15, 2018 UPDATE: The applicant is requesting the public hearing be continued to a date certain. Staff is working with the applicant to determine an agreed upon date and will discuss it at the hearing. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends continuation of the public hearing. PROPOSED MOTION: “I move to continue the 465 and 557 North Mill Street Rezoning application to ----------, 2018.” P16 VI.A. Com Dev Work Program Memo – May 15, 2018 Page 1 of 6 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director Phillip Supino, Principal Long-Range Planner Justin Barker, Senior Planner Stephen Kanipe, Chief Building Official MEETING DATE: May 15, 2018 RE: Community Development Department Work Program Update SUMMARY: This memo outlines the Community Development Department’s current work program, as well as other priorities previously identified by City Council, P&Z, HPC, and staff. Many of these priorities are carried forward from previous work program discussions. In addition to the projects outlined below, staff continues to focus on regular work items, such as building permits, current land use caseload, and providing walk-in services. At this time, there are approximately 150 permits waiting for review, over 25 land use cases that are in or have been pre-apped by staff, and nearly 20 major policy or code amendment items. In discussion with Council last month, staff advised that they may wish to re-evaluate the priorities, but based on the department’s staffing levels and current budget capacity, realistically the department cannot add more than one or two new work program items without deleting others. At that time, Council directed staff to pursue completion of the current work program and add the affordable housing fee-in- lieu update, development fee update, and affordable housing zone district to the 2019 program. The purpose of this meeting is to inform the Commission of the activities of the Planning staff and the direction provided by Council at the April meeting. CURRENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WORK PROGRAM ITEMS: Each item below lists the primary staff contact for the project, as well as the AACP Policies the work implements. The items have been organized into those that are anticipated for completion by the end of 2018 and those that are expected to continue into 2019 or beyond. Anticipated for completion in 2018: A. Permit Improvements: 1. Electronic Permitting System Implementation. The Community Development Department has worked with Vertiba, a contractor for the software system BasicGov, for the last year to develop a new permitting and data management system. That system is in the final construction phase, and staff expects that, following additional beta tests and revisions, that system will be implemented this summer. This is a high priority item for the department as the project affects every Community Development staff member, other City departments, and external customers. Staff has invested significant staff time and resources into the implementation of this project, and P17 VII.A. Com Dev Work Program Memo – May 15, 2018 Page 2 of 6 it represents the achievement of an important departmental and City goal. Staff: All (Primary points of contact: Jessica Garrow, Karen Harrington, Rebecca Wallace). AACP: Managing Growth Policy VIII.1 & 2. 2. Historic Preservation Permit Improvements. The Planning Department is currently working with a consultant to develop more specific standards for the submittal of Historic Preservation Land Use applications. This work is a result of the fine imposed on a project that removed historic material contrary to HPC approvals. The work includes standardized exhibits and descriptions of preservation techniques to help ensure that future preservation projects have clearly defined preservation processes and techniques. Staff is currently meeting with architects, contractors, and structural engineers to obtain feedback and will consult with HPC in late spring. Staff anticipates receiving final recommendations from the consultant by August and will shortly thereafter inform Council of the recommendations and how they will be implemented. Staff: Amy Simon, Sarah Yoon, Stephen Kanipe. AACP: Managing Growth Policy VIII.1 & 2. 3. Model Zoning Submission. Community Development has specific standards for the content of Land Use Permit application and Building Permit application submissions. These standards provide guidance to applicants as to the required content of permit applications and proper depiction of that content in plan sets. The items required for Zoning Compliance Review are specified on the Model Zoning Submission, which is a series of 24x36 inch architectural sheets. That document is outdated and does not include information and formatting reflecting current code requirements or building techniques. This is an important item that requires coordination with the permit software update and recent Land Use Code amendments. Staff: Jennifer Phelan, Bob Narracci, Denis Murray. AACP: Managing Growth Policy VIII.1 & 2. 4. Expedited Tenant Finish Permitting Process. The Community Development Department has implemented a pilot program to assist minor tenant finish permits through the process. An expedited review process ensures that more minor tenant finish applications are not placed in the queue behind large permits that require more significant review time. This can provide a significant benefit to business owners, because it can shorten the time required to start or reopen a business in the City. Staff will update Council on this item in the fall for discussion. Staff: Stephen Kanipe and Denis Murray. AACP: Managing Growth Policy VIII.1 & 2. B. Land Use Code Updates: 5. Miscellaneous Code Amendments. Throughout the year, staff keeps a “redline” version of the code that identifies areas of the code that are confusing, contradictory, or do not address emerging issues. These primarily focus is on the calculations and measurement section of the code – how buildings, fences, etc. are measured for height, floor area, setbacks, etc. The most recent update was completed at the end of 2014. Staff is working with a focus group comprised of architects and designers to discuss specific topics for amendment and anticipates bringing a code amendment forward this summer. Council supported and passed a Policy Resolution in February 2018 in support of this amendment, which staff is using to establish the scope and contents of this code amendment. Many of these changes are needed to clarify or solidify changes made during the moratorium. For instance, the definition of demolition and the determination of natural versus finished grade should be examined and updated to account for P18 VII.A. Com Dev Work Program Memo – May 15, 2018 Page 3 of 6 newer building designs and land use trends. These amendments also include the parking and mobility code section to clean up incorrect or confusing language and update the multi-family and lodge zone districts requirements, which were not covered during the moratorium. Staff anticipates completion of this work in the fall of 2018. Staff: Phillip Supino and Justin Barker. AACP: Managing Growth Policy III.1, VIII.1 & 2. 6. Historic Preservation Benefits. As one way to encourage good preservation practices, there are several benefits that may be granted to historic properties as part of a land use approval. Since new historic design guidelines were adopted in 2015, HPC and Council have expressed concerns with the size of additions proposed to historic structures and a desire to meaningfully address the problem. At a work session discussion on the benefits in January, Council directed staff to conduct public outreach regarding the benefits and to return with a policy resolution outlining proposed amendments. This outreach is ongoing. Staff anticipates being able to bring a policy resolution to Council for consideration this spring, with public hearings on specific ordinance language in June. Staff: Amy Simon and Sarah Yoon. AACP: Historic Preservation Policy II. 1- 3. 7. Housing Credit Program updates. In recent years, multiple applications for new affordable housing credits have been made with the Community Development Department. These include proposed rental and sales projects, and a mix of categories, which has some impacts on the ability for buyers to achieve conventional financing. It may be appropriate to complete amendments to either the land use code or the APCHA guidelines to address this and other emerging issues. This was discussed with Council at a work session in January with a scheduled follow-up in late spring or summer. With Council direction, work on this could be completed in- house with close coordination with APCHA and the City Manager’s Office. Staff anticipates amendments would take 4-12 months, depending on if the amendments are to the land use code or the APCHA guidelines. Staff: Jessica Garrow, Ben Anderson, and Mike Kosdrosky. AACP: Managing Growth Policy VII.2; Housing I.2, II.5, III.2, IV.5, V.1. C. Other Items: 8. Lift 1A Location Study. The City and property owners adjacent to Lift 1A are engaged in a study (phase 2) to determine the optimal future replacement location of Lift 1A relative to approved and proposed developments in the area. The study looks at four scenarios: bringing the loading platform just north of Gilbert Street, bringing the loading platform just north of the existing Lift One bull wheel, adding a mid-station scenario, and bringing the loading platform as far down the mountain as possible. As part of the project’s scope, the history and significance of the original Lift 1 will be evaluated. Staff anticipates the study will be finalized in early May and will be followed by a council work session on May 15th for final direction. Depending on the result of the study and direction provided by the Council, there may changes necessary to Willoughby Park, the entitled Lift One Lodge, and the proposed Gorsuch Haus to accommodate a new loading platform further down the mountain. Potentially, multiple projects will require final design and land use reviews. This is a high priority item for the department and will likely be the primary focus for Council this summer. Staff: Jennifer Phelan. AACP: Managing Growth Policy IV.3. P19 VII.A. Com Dev Work Program Memo – May 15, 2018 Page 4 of 6 9. Building Permit / Address File Scanning. The Community Development Department is working with a Denver-based vendor to convert all building files to electronic format. Approximately 90% of the files have been digitized, and staff from both Community Development, IT, and the Clerk’s Office, is currently working on quality control, and creating a usable and searchable file management system to enable easier use by staff and the public. The project is anticipated to be completed around the end of the year. Staff: Rebecca Wallace, Bonnie Muhigirwa. AACP: Managing Growth Policy VIII.1 & 2. Expected to continue beyond 2018: 10. Uphill Economy (Council Goal #3). One of City Council’s Goals focuses on working with strategic partners to identify priority implementation items from the Uphill Economic Plan. Implementation of this goal is two-fold: the creation of an Uphill Recreation Plan and work on economic diversification. Staff expects an RFP for the Recreation Plan to be released later this spring. The Rec Plan is a traditional planning process to inventory existing Uphill infrastructure and opportunities, work with stakeholders to assess opportunities and constraints, and the development of policies that support the Uphill Economy. The Rec Plan will include policies and outline objectives to support the City’s efforts to create a new entrepreneurial ecosystem and promote the Uphill Economy at the local, regional, and state level. The economic diversification efforts will focus on implementing an uphill symposium and educational event, continuing support of weekly uphill meet-ups, the 18/19 Uphill Ascent, and targeted efforts with companies to locate to the region. Staff: Jessica Garrow, Phillip Supino, Mitch Osur, and Nancy Lesley. AACP: Aspen Idea Policy I.3-4; Managing Growth Policy I.4. 11. Commercial Vitality (Council Goal #5). One of City Council’s Goals focuses on ensuring Aspen’s Commercial areas attract and retain vibrant and vital businesses. Some of the work on the Uphill Economy Goal supports this. In the first year, city staff has focused on existing city- owned commercial spaces, including the Wheeler restaurant space, as well as potential options for the Cooper Street Pier space. The owners of the former Cooper Street Pier space have encountered difficulty in securing a tenant to occupy the space. Staff has been meeting with the representatives to discuss potential options moving forward. Pursuing a resolution to this issue would support Council’s goals regarding affordable and local serving commercial. It may also provide a framework for the pursuit of other solutions related to those policy goals. Additionally, staff has begun researching communities that address vacant storefronts, and expects to be able to present the findings to Council later this fall. If Council desires additional work on this goal, some potential options are listed later in this memo under AACP-Coordination Process. Staff: Jessica Garrow, Justin Barker, Scott Miller. AACP: Aspen Idea Policy I.3-4; Managing Growth Policy I.4, V.1-2. 12. Small Lodge Preservation Program. In 2015, the City adopted a Small Lodge Preservation Program intended to assist small lodges in continuing to operate. In 2016, two fractional lodges joined the program, and five (5) lodges applied for and received grants through the energy efficiency program. In 2017, four lodges received permit fee reductions for improvements to their structures. Additionally, seven lodges took advantage of the Energy Efficiency program, leveraging approximately $92,600 of City and CORE funds to make efficiency upgrades to their buildings. So far in 2018, four lodges have been granted approximately $38,800 for efficiency P20 VII.A. Com Dev Work Program Memo – May 15, 2018 Page 5 of 6 upgrades. The Hotel Aspen is currently working toward submission of a building permit, which will likely take advantage of permit fee reductions. Staff is working with member lodges to utilize the other benefits in the program and anticipates lodges will continue to use the energy efficiency grants and building permit fee reduction benefits. This program is in effect until June 2020. Due to the success of this program and its popularity with member lodges, staff is requesting Council input on whether there is interest in extending the program beyond 2020. Staff: Phillip Supino. AACP: Managing Growth Policies IV.1-4. 13. Historic Property Inventorying. The City is required to periodically update the official inventory of historic properties with updates pictures and technical analysis. No changes to which properties are designated is part of this effort. This update is a requirement to maintain the city’s Certified Local Government (CLG) status with the state. Staff is currently investigating the state requirements for historic surveys and will likely issue an RFP for a consultant to undertake a re-survey of about 100 historic properties. Staff: Amy Simon. AACP: Historic Preservation Policies I.1-2 and III.1. 14. Permit Improvements Group. The Community Development and Engineering Departments are currently working with a consultant and a group of customers to identify areas to improve services, the clarity of the overall development process, and to identify areas to provide clearer on-going customer feedback by using Lean Six Sigma techniques. This work is on-going, with some expected deliverables in late 2018, and continuing work into 2019 and potentially beyond. Staff: Jessica Garrow, Rebecca Wallace, Stephen Kanipe, Mike Metheny, Justin Forman and Trish Aragon. AACP: Managing Growth Policy VIII.1 & 2. 15. Aspen Mobility Lab (Council Goal #4). The City is exploring a significant mobility experiment for summer 2019. There are a number of departments working together on this goal, including the Community Development Department. The inter-departmental team is focusing on potential test projects to demonstrate longer-term changes that could be implemented to improve connectivity, mobility, and the downtown experience. Staff: Jessica Garrow and Phillip Supino. AACP: Transportation Policies 1 and 2. 16. Pedestrian Malls Project (Council Goal #9). The City, led by the Parks and Asset Departments, is working on a master plan for the Pedestrian Malls. There are a number of departments working together on this goal, including the Community Development Department. Staff: Jessica Garrow and Amy Simon. AACP: Historic Preservation Policy III.1, Parks/Open Space/Trails Policy V.1, Transportation Policy II.3. 17. Wayfinding Project. The City, led by the Engineering and Parks Departments, is working on a wayfinding plan that implements some of the items in the City's Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan. The Community Development Department is assisting in this effort. Staff: Jessica Garrow and Justin Barker. AACP: Managing Growth I.3, Historic Preservation Policy III.1, Parks/Open Space/Trails Policy V.1, Transportation Policy II.3. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF SUGGESTIONS: Below is a list of the items staff suggests for discussion as potential additions to the department’s work program. At this time, staff suggest items 1 through 4 be added to the 2019 work program. P21 VII.A. Com Dev Work Program Memo – May 15, 2018 Page 6 of 6 1. Fee-in-Lieu Update. At a work session in January, Council expressed an interest in analyzing the fee-in-lieu option for affordable housing mitigation more comprehensively in 2019. This project would be an extension of the discussions held regarding commercial fee-in-lieu during the moratorium. It would also be in response to questions from Council regarding the relationship between commercial and residential fee-in-lieu rates, HP benefits, ADU mitigation, and the effect of affordable housing fees on development trends. The project may include an analysis of fees for the commercial and residential sectors, as well as the employment generation rate study that underpins the affordable housing fee structure. This would require consultant assistance at a cost of approximately $35,000 and would require 12 months to complete. Staff: Phillip Supino. AACP: Managing Growth Policies VII.1-2; Housing Policies I.2, II.5, III.1-2, IV.3. 2. Community Development Fee Update. The Community Development fee structure has not been updated since 2010. These fees include land use review, permit review, and building permit fees, but do not include Impact Fees. Staff is interested in a comprehensive analysis of the fee structure in 2019 to update the fees for 2020. In the interim, minor updates are scheduled for discussion later this summer, but will not include a wholesale evaluation of the fee structure. Staff anticipates that the process would require consultant assistance at a cost of approximately $75,000 and would take about 6-8 months to complete. Staff: Jessica Garrow, Stephen Kanipe, and Rebecca Wallace. AACP: Managing Growth Policy I.2. 3. Affordable Housing Zone District. Council and staff are interested in pursuing either updates to the existing Affordable Housing/Planned Development zone district or the creation of a new affordable housing zone district. Staff anticipates the process could be completed without consultant assistance and would take approximately 4 to 6 months. Staff: Phillip Supino and Justin Barker. AACP: Housing Policies II.1-3, III.2, VI.2 & 5. ATTACHMENTS: None. P22 VII.A.