Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20180821 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION 4:00 PM I. 3:00 PM Site Visit: 500 W. Main St. II. Sandwich Board Discussion CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION August 21, 2018 4:00 PM, City Council Chambers MEETING AGENDA 3:00 PM Site Visit: 500 W. Main St. P1 TO: Mayor Skadron and City Council FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer MEETING DATE: August 21, 2018 RE: 500 W. Main Street REQUEST: Please meet at 500 W. Main August 27th Public Hearing regarding a proposed Transferable Development Rights, Special Review and Variations APPLICANT /OWNER 500 W. Main Street, LLC, Represented by Rowland + Broughton LOCATION Street Address: 500 W. Main Street Legal Description: Lots R and S, Block 30, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado Parcel Identification Number: 2735-124-43-007 CURRENT ZONING & LAND USE MU, Mixed Use Office PROPOSED LAND USE: Office MEMORANDUM Mayor Skadron and City Council Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer , 2018 500 W. Main Street- Site Visit meet at 500 W. Main at 3:00 p.m. for a site visit in preparation for the Public Hearing regarding a proposed Historic Landmark Lot Split, Transferable Development Rights, Special Review and Variations at this property. S, Block 30, City and SUMMARY: The applicant proposes subdivision of a 6,000 square foot lot into two 3,000 square foot lots. The eastern lot will contain the Mesa Store a large Victorian-era false front commercial building parking, bike racks, and trash/recycling for the business. The western half of the lot proposed to be developed other than as a garden. Some or all of the allowed floor area from the west lot in the form of Transferable Development Rights to be constructed town. To facilitate the proposal, Commercial Design Review and Setback and Parking Variations are requested to accommodate the Mesa Store on its new, smaller parcel. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval with conditions. Page 1 of 1 for a site visit in preparation for the Historic Landmark Lot Split, at this property. ant proposes subdivision of a 3,000 square foot lots. The eastern lot will contain the Mesa Store a large era false front commercial building, as well as parking, bike racks, and trash/recycling for the western half of the lot is currently not other than as a garden. allowed floor area is to be removed in the form of Transferable constructed elsewhere in To facilitate the proposal, Special Review, Setback and Parking accommodate the Mesa P2 I. TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Phillip Supino, Principal Long THRU: Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director RE: Reed-Compliant Sign Code MEETING DATE: August 21, 2018 _________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ REQUEST OF COUNCIL: The purpose of this work session is for Council to provide direction sandwich board provisions of Ordinance 22, 2017, the Supreme Court code. Based on previous Council direction and the regulations contained in Ordinan scheduled to begin enforcement of the sandwich board sign regulations on September 28, 2018. This memo provides background information on the development of Ordinance 22, 2017, a and the public’s views regarding the direct staff to continue to enforce the Reed 22, 2017. BACKGOUND: Council adopted Ordinance 22, 2017 Council meeting and the 8/14/17 First Reading hearing amendments were in response to the Ariz. (Reed) that municipal sign code regul regulations must be focused on the size, type, location and appearance of signs, not the content of or entity displaying the signage. Simply stated, the Supreme Court ruled that if one must rea determine if it complies, then the regulation Staff first met with Council on April 18, 2017 to discuss these amendments. minutes.) Subsequently, staff began AspenCommunityVoice.com, individual meetings Aspen Board of Realtors, the Commercial Core and Lodge Commission, the Historic Preservation Commission, and the Planning and Zoning Commission to disseminate information feedback and direct outreach to every business in the downtown core. were memorialized in a report, which included in this packet as Exhibit B. Memorandum Mayor and City Council Phillip Supino, Principal Long-Range Planner Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director Compliant Sign Code: Sandwich Board Signs , 2018 _________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ session is for Council to provide direction regarding the enforcement of provisions of Ordinance 22, 2017, the Supreme Court-mandated Reed code. Based on previous Council direction and the regulations contained in Ordinan scheduled to begin enforcement of the sandwich board sign regulations on September 28, 2018. This memo provides background information on the development of Ordinance 22, 2017, a and the public’s views regarding the enforcement of the sandwich board sign provisions. direct staff to continue to enforce the Reed-compliant sign code or propose amendments to Ordinance Council adopted Ordinance 22, 2017 on August 28th by a vote of four to one. (The minutes from that and the 8/14/17 First Reading hearing are attached as Exhibit C.) The code amendments were in response to the June 2015, U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Reed v. Town of Gilbert, code regulations must be “content neutral”. This means regulations must be focused on the size, type, location and appearance of signs, not the content of or entity displaying the signage. Simply stated, the Supreme Court ruled that if one must rea regulation is not content neutral. Staff first met with Council on April 18, 2017 to discuss these amendments. (See Exhibit C for meeting Subsequently, staff began public outreach efforts. Those efforts included: a individual meetings with the Aspen Resort Chamber Association, the Aspen Board of Realtors, the Commercial Core and Lodge Commission, the Historic Preservation Commission, and the Planning and Zoning Commission to disseminate information ch to every business in the downtown core. The public outreach findings were memorialized in a report, which included in this packet as Exhibit B. _______________________________________________________________________________________ regarding the enforcement of the mandated Reed-compliant sign code. Based on previous Council direction and the regulations contained in Ordinance 22, 2017, staff is scheduled to begin enforcement of the sandwich board sign regulations on September 28, 2018. This memo provides background information on the development of Ordinance 22, 2017, and outlines staff enforcement of the sandwich board sign provisions. Council may mendments to Ordinance to one. (The minutes from that The code in Reed v. Town of Gilbert, This means sign regulations must be focused on the size, type, location and appearance of signs, not the content of or entity displaying the signage. Simply stated, the Supreme Court ruled that if one must read the sign to (See Exhibit C for meeting included: a project page on with the Aspen Resort Chamber Association, the Aspen Board of Realtors, the Commercial Core and Lodge Commission, the Historic Preservation Commission, and the Planning and Zoning Commission to disseminate information and gather The public outreach findings P3 II. 2 Staff used the public outreach data and the consulting services of Mark White, a national leader in the development of Reed-compliant sign codes, to guide the development of Ordinance 22. As shown in Exhibit C, Council consideration of the ordinance focused on a handful of specific topics: construction site signs, yard signs, Main Street banners, and sandwich board signs. Council’s over-arching policy objective was to “maintain the status quo” to the extent possible. Using public outreach data and best practices from other communities, staff presented Council with options for addressing each of these topics at the August 14th and 28th hearings. No public comment was received at either meeting. Council’s consideration of the regulatory options for sandwich board signs focused on a handful of key issues: · controlling the proliferation and total number of sandwich board signs; · providing an opportunity for some businesses to have sandwich board signs based on location and perceived need; · ensuring that sandwich board signs are not “rented”, becoming de facto off-site signs (billboards); · ensuring equity between business types and location with respect to the signs available to them. Ultimately, staff provided Council with four options for addressing sandwich boards. Each option created challenges for meeting Council’s policy directive to “maintain the status quo” relative to the old sign regulations. Those options were: 1. Eliminate sandwich board signs; 2. One per 30 linear feet of building frontage; 3. One per building; 4. One per second tier commercial unit. Each option presented opportunities and challenges. Those are outlined in detail in Exhibit D, along with data supporting the analysis of each option. Following discussion about the possible consequences of each option, Council directed staff to include option one, eliminate sandwich board signs as a permitted sign type, in Ordinance 22. Council approved that ordinance 4-1 and directed staff to delay enforcement of the new regulations until one year from the ordinance effective date, September 28, 2018. Beginning in June 2018, staff began reaching out to the business community to remind them of the pending change in sign regulation enforcement. (Details about the feedback received during those efforts is outlined below.) Those efforts were successful at informing the business community. The current conversation about the sandwich board sign regulations is a direct outcome of staff’s early efforts at outreach. Which brings Council and staff to this work session, providing Council with another opportunity to hear from the public, review the decision of a year ago, and discuss the best course of action as September 28th approaches. PUBLIC OUTREACH: Beginning in July 2018, Parking and Downtown Services Director Mitch Osur and Zoning Enforcement Officer Jim Pomeroy walked door to door in the commercial core. Their task was informing business of the regulatory change and offering one-on-one consultations for business owners on options available to them to meet their signage needs within the current sign code. To date, no businesses have taken advantage of those consultations. Staff has also appeared this summer on the Grassroots T.V. broadcast City Matters to discuss the issues and remind the public of the 2017 code amendment process. This is in addition to the robust, four-month outreach process conducted in spring and summer 2017. The extensive outreach conducted over the last 16 months is in recognition of the P4 II. 3 perceived importance of the issue to the business community and exceeds the outreach requirements in the Land Use Code. The over-riding sentiment from the business community during the 2017 and 2018 outreach effort was about equity; businesses prefer a level playing field with equal access to signage, rather than preference given to one business type or location over others. This sentiment manifests in sandwich board sign enforcement over the previous 10 years since they were permitted as a sign type. When competing businesses with proximity to one another perceive inequity in the sign regulations it frequently leads to conflict between the businesses and difficulty for staff enforcing the sign code. On August 1, 2018 staff met with the Commercial Core and Lodging Commission. Members of the commission were provided with background information on the process by which Council adopted Ordinance 22 and provided feedback to staff. The focus of the discussion was sandwich board signs. The commission was interested in options that would allow sandwich boards for second tier spaces, as well as other approaches to allowing them under certain circumstances while limiting proliferation. Commissioners commented that Council ought to align its sign regulations with its second-tier space policies and regulations and support the business community. The commission voted unanimously in favor of creating an exception to the sandwich board sign regulations for second tier spaces. They also unanimously supported alternatives such as the development of a mobile app and wayfinding signage in the core to guide users to businesses. DISCUSSION: Council requested this work session to hear from the public about the impacts of Ordinance 22, hear from staff about the options available to possibly address public comments, and the consequences of those options. Staff continues to believe that there are four viable, Reed-compliant options available to Council to address sandwich board signs. (See Exhibit D for detailed analysis of those options.) Each option should be viewed through the lens of Reed-compliance and with the potential outcomes in mind. The analysis in Exhibit D includes discussion about the potential outcomes from the different options. Aside from keeping the elimination of sandwich board signs in place, each of the options presented include unknows which may result in undesirable aesthetic outcomes, a lack of equity in the regulations, and the potential for a significant increase in the number of sandwich boards on the sidewalk. For example, allowing sandwich board signs for second-tier spaces will result in real estate offices (and other office uses) displaying them. Allowing one per building may result in businesses in prime locations having access to sandwich boards but not the second-tier space businesses. Allowing any business in a given zone district will result in a significant proliferation of sandwich boards on sidewalks. Some basic questions that Council may consider for each option include: · Is an increase in the number of sandwich boards on the sidewalk acceptable? · Is the use of sandwich board signs by businesses other than those in the building associated with the sandwich board acceptable? (E.g. a trunk show in the Lodge zone district being advertised on a pedestrian mall in the CC zone.) · Is Council concerned with which business within a building has access to a sandwich board? · How many sandwich board signs per block is too many? As part of the outreach to businesses this summer, staff has conveyed the options available to businesses other than sandwich boards. Anecdotally, staff has observed several businesses who do not take full advantage of the signs allotted to them. Exhibit E outlines the signage available to a P5 II. 4 theoretical downtown business. Staff believes that the current code offers sufficient flexibility and signage options to help all business types and locations achieve its visibility goals while complying with the Supreme Court mandate. Given that Ordinance 22 is already in effect, a formal code amendment would be required to change regulations in the sign code. Staff is prepared to respond to any direction provided by Council in response to discussion at this work session. However, provided Council’s previous direction to staff, the outreach conducted to date, and the legal strictures of Reed, staff does not recommend changes to the current sandwich board regulations. QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL: 1. Does Council wish to create exceptions to the sandwich board regulations in the sign code? 2. What policy goals would Council wish to support through such an exception? 3. Are there other sign regulations Council wishes to discuss? ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Sandwich Board Regulatory Options Analysis Exhibit B: 2017 Sign Code Policy Resolution Exhibit C: 2017 Public Outreach Report Exhibit D: Council Meeting Minutes – 8/14/17 & 8/28/17 Exhibit E: Example Business Sign Allotment Under Current Code P6 II. 1 Exhibit A: Sandwich Board Sign Regulatory Options The following options were presented to Council in a memo for the August 28, 2017 consideration of Ordinance 22, 2017. At that time, Council selected option one. However, each remain a viable alternative for regulating sandwich board signs in Aspen. Each option listed below includes brief analysis of some of the potential outcomes for each option. 1. Option One – Eliminate Sandwich Board Signs This option would eliminate sandwich board signs as an allowed sign type. It goes without saying that this would result in zero sandwich board signs on public and private property. However, the timing and manner of removing those signs warrants discussion. The draft language would allow existing, permitted sandwich board signs to remain in place until one year from the effective date of the ordinance or the expiration of the permit, whichever is later. The expiration of the permits will ensure they are no longer placed on public property, and the elimination of the sign type from the approved list will ensure they are no longer permitted on private property. Eliminating sandwich board signs will upset some business owners while addressing some community concerns about clutter and aesthetics, as well as equity between businesses. 2. Option Two – One per 30 linear feet Option two would allow for one sandwich board sign per 30 linear feet of street frontage. Based on preliminary analysis, this metric may increase the number of sandwich board signs present in commercial zones from 92 to 107, or 16%, if the 20% participation rate continues. Zone District Number of Signs* MU 206 CC 218 NC 36 C1 73 TOTAL 533 Sandwich Board Signs (20% Rate) 107 * This estimate does not account for limitations on total number of sandwich board signs per building (no more than 3 per building) or the allowance that corner buildings may include linear feet measurements from both street facing sides of the building (resulting in more signs in some cases). 3. Option Three – One per building Option three would permit one sandwich board sign per building in approved zone districts. A preliminary analysis of the number of buildings in the CC, C-1, NC, and MU zone districts found that there are approximately 256 buildings which may be eligible for a sandwich board sign. At the 20% participation rate, there may be 51 sandwich board signs, with approximately 25 of those in the commercial core. There are currently 92 sandwich board signs in the city. The new regulations may result in a 48% decrease in sandwich board signs at the 20% participation rate. P7 II. 2 Zone District Number of Buildings C-1 29 CC 89 NC 6 MU 117 TOTAL 241 Sandwich Board Signs (20% rate) 48 4. Option Four – Second tier space The forth option available to Council is the second-tier space language presented in the First Reading Draft. Given that there is no exact count of the number of second tier spaces in commercial zones, it is challenging to develop estimates for the number of sandwich board signs that may be present under the proposed code amendment. To provide some context for discussion of the effectiveness of the proposed regulations, staff counted the number of second tier spaces on the pedestrian malls, which may serve as an informative case study for other commercial areas. Under the current code there are 20 active sandwich board sign permits on the malls. There are approximately 54 second tier spaces on the pedestrian malls, all of which could have a sandwich board sign under the draft second tier space option. Based on the 20% participation rate, the second-tier space scenario may result in 11 sandwich board signs (assuming current permits are revoked). However, this estimate is not based on the number of second tier spaces throughout the commercial zone districts. As was noted by Council on 8/14, it is possible that the participation rate could be higher than the current 20%, because businesses located in second tier spaces may choose to leverage opportunities for additional signage at higher rates. Certain business types tend to concentrate in certain areas (“restaurant row” on Hyman Ave. or retail on Galena St. between Cooper and Hyman Aves.), which could result in concentrations of sandwich board signs on some blocks but not others. Also, the total number of sandwich board signs under the draft code could be compounded by a Council decision to allow existing sandwich board signs to remain. Another important caveat to the sandwich board discussion is that under the Reed framework, any sign could be rented to an off-site advertiser. This is byproduct of the requirement that regulations may not be content based. (If you must read the sign to determine its compliance with the regulations, they are not content neutral.) A possible concern with sandwich board signs, as opposed to other sign types, is that they are typically located on public property, and they have an immediate wayfinding characteristic that other signs do not; they draw pedestrians into the adjacent storefront. The concern expressed by Council at the August 14th meeting was that off-site advertisers could pay for the right to use sandwich board signs, which may result in inappropriate or undesirable advertising. Additionally, if off-site advertisers use sandwich board signs, the effect of the sign drawing pedestrians into the business where it is located is lost. There is some question as to whether the City ought to make public property available for these types of activities. Council may consider these factors in the discussion of sandwich board sign options. P8 II. Reed Compliant Sign Code Amendments Resolution No. 101, Series 2017 Page 1 of 3 RESOLUTION NO. 101 (SERIES OF 2017) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL REQUESTING CODE AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY’S SIGN REGULATIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF REED V. TOWN OF GILBERT, ARIZ., 2015. WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(A), a Policy Resolution is required to initiate the process of amending the City of Aspen Land Use Code; and, WHEREAS, the United State Supreme Court found in the case of Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Ariz. (2015) (Reed) that commercial and non-commercial signage are forms of speech protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and, WHEREAS, the Reed ruling requires that governmental sign regulations be content neutral, and that the regulation of commercial and non-commercial signage be limited to those aspects of signage related to the physical and locational characteristics of signs in the community; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department and consultants White and Smith, LLC conducted research into national best practices regarding sign code compliance with Reed to aid in the drafting of revised sign regulations; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(1), the Community Development Department conducted Public Outreach with community members and stakeholders, the Planning & Zoning Commission, the Historic Preservation Commission, and City Council regarding the amendments to the sign code; and, WHEREAS, amending the Land Use Code to comply with the requirements of Reed will ensure the ongoing effectiveness and viability of the sign regulations within the City of Aspen Land Use Code; and, WHEREAS, City Council has reviewed the proposed code amendment policy direction, and finds it meets the criteria outlined in Section 26.310.040; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(2), during a duly noticed public hearing on July 10, 2017, the City Council approved Resolution No. 101, Series of 2017, by a XXX vote, requesting code amendments to the Land Use Code; and, WHEREAS, this Resolution does not amend the Land Use Code, but provides direction to staff for amending the Land Use Code; and, P9 II. Reed Compliant Sign Code Amendments Resolution No. 101, Series 2017 Page 2 of 3 WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Code Amendment Objective The goals and objectives of these code amendments are to: 1. Comply with the requirements of Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Ariz. (2015); and, 2. Ensure the appropriate balance of signage and community aesthetics; and, 3. Maintain public health, safety, and welfare by preventing sign clutter, distractions from roadways and obstructions from signage; and, 4. Provide opportunities for commercial and non-commercial signage in commercial and residential zone districts; and, 5. Limit the proliferation of excessive signage in commercial and residential zone districts; and, 6. Ensure that sign regulations meet the informational, advertising, wayfinding and speech needs of residents, businesses and visitors. Section 2: Sign Code Amendment Direction from Council City Council provided the following general direction in work sessions related to these code amendments: 1. To the extent possible, maintain the status quo when it comes to commercial and non-commercial signage, particularly with regard to the size, quantity, and types of signs available. 2. Continue to allow for the use of light poles and banners over Main Street by developing a licensing system for the use of city property (e.g. light poles and banners over Main Street) for the display of non-commercial signs. 3. Develop a single, government-required, comprehensive construction sign inclusive of public safety and commercial copy for display on permitted construction sites. 4. Continue to allow real estate for sale and rent signs on properties in residential areas for the duration of the property listing. 5. Ensure the continued, limited availability and use of sandwich board signs in appropriate commercial zone districts while preventing the proliferation of such signs. To the extent possible, use sandwich board signs to support Council’s second tier space policies. 6. Limit the time that vehicle signage may be displayed to ensure that Street Blimps and other forms of vehicle signage, where the primary purpose of the vehicle is advertising, is controlled, while not precluding commercial speech on vehicles that is incidental to the primary use of the vehicle. 7. Ensure that marijuana businesses are provided a means other than full-coverage window wraps to comply with State of Colorado requirements for the separation of displays and sales areas from rights-of-way. P10 II. Reed Compliant Sign Code Amendments Resolution No. 101, Series 2017 Page 3 of 3 8. Limit the use of window wrap signs to the following zone districts: CC, C-1, NC, SCI, L, CL, EBO. Ensure that an appropriate proportion of such signs is available for commercial copy. 9. Continue to allow for the non-commercial display of televisions by commercial uses while preventing the proliferation of television displays with commercial content. 10. Eliminate the special allowance for signs in Paepcke Park, and include Paepcke Park in the process for sign permitting in other parks in association with a special event. 11. Ensure that halo lighting and other backlit signs do not create a public health nuisance by controlling the brightness of such signage in accordance with the City’s existing lighting regulations and industry best practices. Section 3: This resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the resolutions or ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior resolutions or ordinances. Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. FINALLY, adopted this 10th day of July, 2017. _______________________________ Steven Skadron, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: _______________________________ ______________________________ Linda Manning, City Clerk James R True, City Attorney P11 II. C O M M U N I T Y O U T R E A C H S I G N C O D E A M E N D M E N T S U M M A R Y R E P O R T The Community Development Department is amending the Sign Code (Chapter 26.510 of the Land Use Code) to bring the chapter into compliance with the requirements of the Supreme Court decision in Reed v. Town of Gilbert (2015).  This report summarizes the results of surveys gained from various outreach efforts from April 23 -  June 2, 2017.  The public outreach process will continue until the Policy Resolution is adopted in July, 2017.  Unique website visits Visual preference votes 3 Open House Community Meetings 50+ 302  132  48  Surveys completed P A R T I C I P A T I O N S N A P S H O T    Join the conversation at www.aspencommunityvoice.com Visited at least one project page  118 S U R V E Y #1 : B U S I N E S S C O M M U N I T Y S U R V E Y #2 : G E N E R A L C O M M U N I T Y   Total survey participants P R O F I L E R E S P O N D E N T   Two discrete surveys were created to elicit specific information from the perspectives of the community as well as Aspen's business community.   26 Total survey participants 22  81.5% 18.5% Have owned business for over 11 years Have owned business for 6-10 years 76.9% 15.4%  7.7% Are located in the MU zone district Are located in the CC zone district Are located in the C-1 zone district 65 years + years of age 50 - 64 years of age 30 - 49 years years of age 18 - 29 years of age City of Aspen residents 27.3% 36.4% 22.7% 13.6%  52% D I R E C T O U T R E A C H   ACRA Aspen Board of Realtors CCLC Door-to-door business outreach (Downtown Service Coordinator) HPC P&Z P12 II. A . F I N D I N G S F R O M T H E B U S I N E S S C O M M U N I T Y S U R V E Y    Retail 23% Restaurant 19% Lodge 4% Service 15% Office 27% Non-Profit 8% Other 4% 0 0.75 1.5 2.25 3 Hanging SignsSandwich BoardWall SignWindow DecalVisibility 62% Location 15% Materials/Appear 23% Finding: Professional Office use comprised the majority of survey respondents, closely followed by retail and restaurant businesses. Finding: Hanging signs were the least important sign type for the business community. Finding: The business community indicated visibility was the most important factor for signage. B U S I N E S S T Y P E S   S I G N T Y P E S   F A C T O R S   Question: What signs are most important to your business? Please rank in order of importance. Question: What is the most important factor for your signage? Question: What type of business are you?Responses 16%  32%  26% 25% P13 II. 0 2 4 6 More signsFewer signsNo sand boardsMore sand boardsLimit sign/bldg8 10 0 5 10 15 More signsFewer signsNo sandwich boarMore sand boardsLimit sign/bldgA . F I N D I N G S F R O M T H E B U S I N E S S C O M M U N I T Y S U R V E Y (C O N T I N U E D )    Finding: Business owners indicated the strongest detriment to their business would be limiting the amount of signage per building. However, large numbers of respondents indicated that more signs would be detrimental to business. D E T R I M E N T   B E N E F I T   Finding: 32% of respondents indicated the greatest benefit to their business was largely the ability to have more signage. However, 31% responded that limiting the amount of signage per business in some way would be beneficial. Question: What change to Aspen's signage would be the most detrimental to your business? Please check all that apply: Question: What changes to Aspen's signage would be most beneficial to your business? Please check all that apply: ResponsesResponsesMore signsFewer signsNo sandwich boardsMore sandwich boardsLimit the amount ofsigns per buildingMore signsFewer signsNo sandwich boardsMore sandwich boardsLimit the amount ofsigns per building 32%  15% 15%  12%  16%  21% 21% 21%  13%  26% P14 II. B . F I N D I N G S F R O M T H E C O M M U N I T Y S U R V E Y    0 5 10 15 20 Hanging SignsSandwich BoardWall SignWindow DecalFinding: Consumers of Aspen businesses favored hanging signs and wall signs equally, with window decals a close second. Consumers found sandwich board signs to be the least appropriate for the City of Aspen. L O C A T I O N F A C T O R S Question: As a consumer in Aspen, what types of signs do you find most appropriate in Aspen? Please check all that apply. P R E F E R R E D S I G N A G E Locate Specific 39% Locate New 27% Civic/Rec/Cult 31% Other 4% Question: Business signage is important for (check all that apply): 1) Finding a specific business; 2) Finding new businesses; 3) Finding Civic, Recreational, and/or Cultural facilities; and 4) Other Finding: Respondent were most concerned with using signage to locate specific businesses within the City of Aspen. Hanging Signs 15% Sandwich Board 34% Wall Sign 25% Window Decal 26%Question: What signs do you feel are most important to being able to find stores? Rank in order of importance. Finding: Sandwich boards were ranked as most important for consumers to locate businesses. Hanging signs were ranked as the least important. S I G N A G E F O R L O C A T I N G Finding specific businesses Finding new businesses Civic/ Recreational/ Cultural  29% 27%  15%  29% P15 II. B . F I N D I N G S F R O M T H E C O M M U N I T Y S U R V E Y (C O N T I N U E D )    Finding: 41% of respondents felt the existing amount of signage too much, leading to a cluttered appearance. A M O U N T O F S I G N A G E Question: The amount of signage in Aspen's commercial areas is: 1) Not enough; it is hard to find businesses, services and amenities I want to visit. 2) Just right, I know where businesses are located and how to get there. 3) Too much; buildings are sidewalks appear cluttered. C . S T A F F A N A L Y S I S A N D C O N C L U S I O N S Not enough 23% Just right 36% Too much 41% There are common themes between the results of the Community and Business survey, which reflect some of the comments received in open houses and the direct outreach process.  In general, the community seems happy with the status quo when it comes to signage.  Businesses feel that the amount of signage available to them is adequate.  Residents generally feel that the amount of signage in town aids in finding what they need. There are two noteworthy contradictions.  First, community members felt that sandwich board signs are both the least appropriate sign type for Aspen and the most important sign type for finding businesses and amenities.  This may be due, in part, to the clutter associated with sandwich boards in the right-of-way contrasted with the proximity of those signs to building entrances and the relevance of the information provided on a sandwich board sign. Second, the business community is split on whether more signs would be beneficial or detrimental to the success of their business.  This may be attributed to the perceived individual benefit of more or highly visible signs for a specific business, but the over-all detriment to aesthetics and way-finding caused by too much signage in commercial areas. P16 II. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 14, 2017 5 said she thinks the architecture needs to be reviewed. It is somewhat overbearing to the historic resource. She would like to see more discussion about that. She would like more discussion about depressing the ground floor. She would like more discussion about using cedar. She supports the 1,500 square foot maximum. Councilman Hauenstein asked have they extended the vesting. Ms. Phelan said it was approved in 2006. The recession hit and there were requests for extension of vesting for multiple projects in town. An extension was granted. During the court process the vesting was extended again. Councilman Hauenstein asked for more information on the employee mitigation and the loss of the one parking space. Councilman Frisch asked for more explanation in the pillow counts. He said it isn’t really changing much. The proposed layout works better than building much of the same units. The cap size is a worthy discussion. As long as it feels like it is a lodge and it is going to be a lodge is easier to focus on than a lodge in name only. He appreciates they are trying to take advantage of some of the small lodge incentives. It is a great project to utilize them. Mayor Skadron said he is interested in the relationship between programming and market expectation. It addresses the increased room size you are asking for. I would require a deed restriction to prevent conversion to condos but we can’t do that. He would like to discuss at the public hearing conditions of approval that speak to conversion in the future as well as expectations of transportation and parking. He asked about the escrow agreement of $250,000. Is that for the city’s protection. Mr. Bendon replied yes. Mayor Skadron asked for discussion on the benefits of the small lodge preservation program and more discussion on the contract purchaser agreement. At what point are you committed and moving forward. Councilman Frisch moved to read Ordinance #21, Series of 2017; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE NO. 21 SERIES OF 2017) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AND AN INSUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT TO A GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT ORDER, WITH CONDITIONS, FOR CHANGES TO A MIXED USE PROJECT CONTAINING LODGE, FREE-MARKET RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING RESIDENTIAL UNITS ON THE PROPERTY LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, AND S, BLOCK 31, ASPEN TOWNSITE AND COMMONLY KNOWN AS 500 W. HOPKINS AVE, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO Councilman Frisch moved to adopt Ordinance #21, Series of 2017 on first reading; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Frisch, yes; Mullins, yes; Hauenstein, yes; Myrin, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #22, SERIES OF 2017 – Reed-Compliant Sign Code Update Jessica Garrow, community development, stated this update is mandated by the Supreme Court to make us Reed Compliant. There are two significant issues that staff needs more direction on including construction and sandwich board signs. Philip Supino, community development, said we are in month five of the Reed Compliant process. Second reading is scheduled for August 28. The goals are to comply with the court requirements, balance of community esthetics, maintain public health, commercial and non commercial opportunities, limit proliferation of excessive signage and meet informational, advertising, wayfinding and speech needs. Yard signs - The proposal contains one temporary sign, one holiday time, one real-estate and up to three election signs. Television displays – 180 square inches or larger must meet 15 foot set back requirement. P17 II. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 14, 2017 6 Added lighting standards for back lit signs. Window wraps and displays – allow up to 50 percent coverage. 25 percent may be text and logos. Full covered wraps are no longer permitted. No change to overall sign allotments. Banners would be made City property prior to being displayed. Construction site signs would be a uniform sign including City permitting info, contact info, project partners and visuals. Up to six safety, state and federally compliant signs would also be permitted. Construction site screening is not in the current draft. Example of the hotel Jerome. Staff asked for more direction from Council. What is art and what is signage. We can eliminate text and logos. Councilman Myrin said he likes what the Jerome has done. We can’t regulate the content. What is the downside if it is a content we don’t like. They are not up for a long time. If it was going to be there forever I would be concerned. I guess it is a risk I’m willing to take acknowledging we may get art we don’t like. Jim True, city attorney, said there are cases that suggest you can’t make the distinction between art and signage. Councilwoman Mullins said it is a risk to allow these to go up. We stick with the construction signs and leave it to that. She supports not to allow art work on the screening. Councilman Frisch said on one hand he is a supporter of the visual arts but it is a can of worms of epic proportions while it would be fun to do. We could take the aspen tree and this is what you get. A standardization is best. What is shown should be low heart burn to many and away from the brown paper bag. As much as I love to see variety and creativity I can see people making their art right now and it will not be pretty. I think we take a pretty picture and put it up there. Mr. True said I think you can clearly do that. Standardizing something like you are suggesting, I think we can handle and would be allowed. Councilman Hauenstein said he is tending more towards Adam. Would it be possible to have a few approved options if you want to display art. Mr. True said there is nothing wrong with having options. My initial reaction is there is nothing wrong with it. Legally I think we are covered. Mayor Skadron said he can live with the options. Sandwich boards Tied to second tier space and specific zone districts. One per tenant in the CC, C1, NC and MU. Staff mapped the locations of approved permits currently. If allowed for all businesses it could be almost 1,200 signs. In CC and C1 807 possible business could have one. In NC and SCI it could be 99. Second tier spaces on the malls are 54. Currently there is a 20 percent participation rate for businesses that can have a sandwich board. Staff feels there are different types of businesses in second tier spaces that may take advantage than those in prime spaces. Councilwoman Mullins said we have no control on the content. Mr. Supino replied that is correct. Councilwoman Mullins said during election season they could all become political signs. Mr. Supino said that is also correct. Ms. Garrow said we did a good deal of outreach on this. The business community wants everyone to be treated the same. Either everyone gets it or no one gets it. Councilman Frisch said having 800 or 1,200 is not beneficial. We are trying to figure out how not to ban them. I think the business owners are short sighted in wanting everyone treated the same. If we do need to do something the second tier space is of interest to me. Mr. Supino said on the malls it is 54 second tier spaces. We don’t have a good count everywhere else. If the participation rate were to stay the same it would be 11. If it were to double that would feel like a lot more signs. Councilman Frisch said we do need to be concerned about people thinking they could make revenue from renting their sign. Councilman Myrin asked can we do one per building or 30 feet of street frontage. That would maintain the feel of the quantity. The content would be up to the tenants of the building. Mr. True said we have P18 II. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 14, 2017 7 thought about one sign per building. I suppose you could fashion something around frontage along the right of way. Councilwoman Mullins asked if currently can we control the content. Ms. Garrow said it is tied to the business. Councilwoman Mullins said I thought there was no way we could restrict it the way Bert and Adam are suggesting. Mr. True said there is a little distinction between what they are suggesting and saying there are 30 signs here’s who gets them. Councilwoman Mullins said that is better than 800 signs. The bigger concern is we can’t control the content. Mayor Skadron said he would experiment with none for now. It creates a level playing field and slowly roll out a new program. Councilwoman Mullins agrees. Councilman Hauenstein asked if it is possible to limit the total number. He likes the second tier as a way to level the playing field and help find the business. Is there a way to limit the number of permits. Councilman Frisch said if we are not under the gun and the wheels of government turn slowly. I’m happy to focus on other stuff. Why don’t we focus on other stuff and let this brew a little. There are a lot of other things we have to work on. Mr. Supino said we can attempt to draft a few things for second reading to have a more informed discussion. Councilman Hauenstein said there are a lot of different sized signs out there can we uniform the size. Mr. Supino said there is a maximum size. Councilman Myrin asked if we could do it with a duration. Ms. Garrow replied it is a possibility. Councilwoman Mullins said for the construction wraps would it require a graphic and what is the additional cost to the contractor. Councilman Frisch said his preference is two or three choices if one is the brown my choice is no. Ms. Garrow said at a minimum we would need to phase in the art. Councilwoman Mullins said she would support brown as an option. Councilman Frisch moved to read Ordinance #22, Series of 2017; seconded by Councilman Myrin. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE NO. 22 SERIES OF 2017) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING CODE AMENDMENTS TO LAND USE CODE CHAPTER 26.510 – SIGNS AND PART 26.100.104 – DEFINITIONS. Councilwoman Mullins moved to adopt Ordinance #22, Series of 2017 on first reading; seconded by Councilman Frisch. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Hauenstein, yes; Myrin, yes; Mullins, yes; Frisch, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #18, SERIES OF 2017 – Callahan Subdivision Lots 12 and 12A, Minor Subdivision, Lot Split; Minor Amendment to a Planned Development; and Removal of an Accessory Dwelling Unit. Ben Anderson, community development, told the Council the property is located on 1449 /1452 Crystal Lake Rd. This is for a lot split and two additional reviews including a minor amendment to the PD. It is an interesting shaped lot, double flag lot with a drive entrance. The main house is on lot 12 with a guest house on 12A. The property is currently considered a single lot and has been since 1976 when the subdivision was created. 1449 where the main house is located has a single family residence. 1452 with the guest house has two dwelling units including the ADU. The lots were drawn and labeled separately. The subdivision agreement has language where the lots are collectively designated and lot 12A is the guesthouse for lot 12. In 1976 we did not have the language for a guesthouse. P19 II. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 28, 2017 7 is the special review process. Mr. Barker said it is an additional review for requests associated with particular variations built into the Mixed Use zone. They are based on the context of the surrounding zone. He gave the example of additional parking provided within the site or surrounding vicinity. Councilman Hauenstein said for the parking reduction he generally does not like cash in lieu. He would rather see alternate mobility. Mr. Barker said they are not paying cash, HPC just reduced the parking by one. Councilman Frisch said he knows the existing building and it is in need of any in Aspen. This has basically been affordable housing just run by the free market. There is no doubt that if anyone wanted to build a free market condo they would have a hefty bill. There is some value in wheeling and dealing a bit. He is not sure he wants to get involved in calling this up based on the special review process. Councilman Myrin said he does not have much to say on the box. Mayor Skadron said he supports the HPC recommendation and is not desirous of a call up. Councilwoman Mullins said yes we want affordable housing but it seems like through the special review we would get a 1,500 square foot floor area increase and one foot higher and the elimination of one parking space. It is a really big package of incentives. It is also in the Main Street historic district. She would like to see it looked at again. Mayor Skadron said the mass and scale are in line with the neighboring properties. Councilman Frisch asked if the FAR has to do with the livability or did they capture more units. Mr. Barker said there would be less units on site. Councilman Frisch said APCHA has minimum units. Without the increase they wouldn’t meet them. Mr. Barker said there would be fewer units. The replacement requirements make them provide 8 units in one form or another. Ms. Garrow said this is under the old code. This is likely the last project you will see under these parameters. Councilman Frisch said he is fine with it as proposed. Mayor Skadron said this will not be called up. ORDINANCE #22, SERIES OF 2017 – Reed Compliant Sign Code Updates Phillip Supino, community development, stated this code amendment is a result of the Supreme Court decision Reed versus the Town of Gilbert in 2015 requiring sign codes to be content neutral. If you have to read the sign to determine if it complies with the code it is not content neutral. What can be regulated includes size, material, portability, commercial vs residential, number, time restriction and things like that. The policy goals include does it comply with the requirements of first amendment. Ensure appropriate balance of community ascetics. Maintain public health and safety. Limit the proliferation of excessive signs. Meet informational, advertising, wayfinding and speech needs. Direction received from Council to date. Unify construction site content. Develop concept and process for construction site screening art. Both of these live in the Construction Management Plan and will be a subsequent discussion. Provide options for sandwich board signs. Maintain the status quo or eliminate them. Mr. Supino provided four options: Eliminate sandwich boards which would result in zero. One per 30 linear feet of building frontage: There could be a possibility of 533 or 107 at the 20 percent participation rate. One per building: There could be a possibility of 241 or 48 at the 20 percent participation rate. One per second tier space tenant: There could be 1,197 or 240 at 20 percent participation rate. P20 II. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 28, 2017 8 Ms. Garrow said in analyzing this we took public feedback from businesses that they want to be treated fairly. Based off of that we recommend the eliminate option. It makes most sense because we can always ramp it back up. At this point, given what we have been trying to balance, we are at option one. Councilman Frisch said his direction is we drop the direction of sandwich boards for further study. His preference is to put it aside for the foreseeable future while we get more community input. Councilman Myrin asked on the Main Street banners, what happens to them at the end of the year. Ms. Garrow said they become property just for that time. We are maintaining the status quo. Councilman Hauenstein said for number six I think we can be flexible on the brightness on the new signs. He is good on most of these. For construction wraps use Maroon Bells or aspen trees. For all the other for construction make them minimal. The argument that everyone should be treated the same is a valid argument but people in the basement don’t have a window so they aren’t being treated equal. I want people in second tier businesses to be able to survive. I don’t want to open that can of worms at this point. I think sandwich boards have a valuable place in the community in getting people to businesses. We could always go back to option one. Councilwoman Mullins asked to have a sandwich board do people pay a fee. Ms. Garrow said they pay a sign permit. Councilwoman Mullins said she is ok with everything. The brown bag thing, I’ll go along with Council if they want the graphics. In terms of sandwich boards, I’ve never been crazy about them because they clutter the pedestrian way. There are several reasons why to eliminate them completely. Now they are used as a wayfinding tool. If they are rented out they are no longer a wayfinding tool. There is a big risk in trying to monitor the content. There are real inequality. How do you divide up the signs for a building with multiple tenants. They have lost their original function. She supports eliminating them. We can always review it again depending on the backlash. Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. There was none. Mayor Skadron closed the public comment. Mayor Skadron said there is some support for the second tier space and some to eliminate. The prudent thing is to follow option one and eliminate them. The issue as Ann said is it is hard to manage. He is concerned about proliferation of signage. We could have hundreds or thousands of signs. It is easier to allow more should we find a way to let that happen appropriately. He supports option one. There is also a suggestion to drop them from the entire discussion and pass the ordinance without them. Mr. True said the sandwich boards that are out there now have approval. If you eliminate them they are grandfathered and we would say they are good for one year from approval. Councilman Myrin said page 419 says September 28, 2018. He will support where Ann and Steve are. Mayor Skadron said that with great sensitivity with the issues it may cause to our small businesses. Ms. Garrow said the pieces related to construction signs will be flushed out related to construction management plan. Councilwoman Mullins moved to adopt Ordinance #22, Series of 2017; Seconded by Councilman Myrin. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Hauenstein yes; Myrin, yes; Frisch, no; Mullins, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried. EXECUTIVE SESSION – C.R.S. Section 24-6-402(4)(b) Conference with attorneys regarding pending litigation, Castle and Maroon Creek Diligence cases, C.R.s. 24-6-402 (e)(i) Determining positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations; developing strategy for negotiations, and C.R.S. 24-6- P21 II. Exhibit E: Example Sign Business Allotment The Land Use Code specifies the type, design, quantity, and location of signage by zone district. The sign allotments are based on the size of the unit in which the business is located, and factors such as the number of tenants in the building, the size of the windows for each unit, and the directional needs of individual units. There are a wide variety of signs available to businesses, some of which can provide the same directional information as sandwich boards. Community Development staff has made itself available to any business seeking to maximize their signage allowed under the current code. To date, no business has taken advantage of this program. The following outlines the signage available to a theoretical business with the following characteristics: Location: CC zone district Size: 2,500 square feet Building type: multi-tenant Unit type: second tier, subgrade courtyard Sign Details Projecting Blade Sign: 6 square feet (not included in sign allotment) Wall Sign: 6 square feet Window Wrap: 24 square feet (not included in sign allotment) Directory Sign: 2 square feet (10 square feet shared between tenants) Identification Sign: 2 square feet TOTAL: 40 square feet P22 II.