Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20210119Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission January 19, 2021 Page 1 of 6 Chairperson McKnight called the special meeting to order at 4:30 PM. Commissioners in attendance: Brittanie Rockhill, Rally Dupps, Scott Marcoux, Teraissa McGovern, Ruth Carver, and Spencer McKnight Commissioners not in attendance: James Marcus, Kimbo Brown-Schirato and Don Love Staff in Attendance: Amy Simon, Planning Director Kevin Rayes, Planner Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Cindy Klob, Records Manager COMMISSIONER COMMENTS None STAFF COMMENTS Ms. Simon noted it is time to elect a chair and vice-chair for 2021 and Kate Johnson will provide options for this at the end of this meeting. PUBLIC COMMENTS None APPROVAL OF MINUTES None DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST None PUBLIC HEARING Gondola Plaza Clock Tower & Master Sign Plan Amendment Mr. McKnight opened the hearing and asked if proper notice was provided. Ms. Johnson stated the published notice was found sufficient for the meeting. Mr. McKnight then turned the floor over to staff. Mr. Kevin Rayes, Planner, explained the applicant will present first and then staff will present. Mr. McKnight and Ms. McGovern requested the proceeding format provided in the packet be modified to reflect this change in procedure. Mr. McKnight then turned the floor over to Mr. Gert Van Moorsel, Aspen Skiing Company (ASC). Mr. Van Moorsel identified the Aspen Mountain Plaza as the main portal to the Aspen Mountain Ski Area and discussed its location on existing land owned by the ASC. He noted the upper and lower plazas have a combined 467 SF of approved allotted signage area. He also discussed the existing inventory and future signs identified under the Master Sign Plan approved in 2013. He reviewed the application for a new clock tower to replace the existing clock tower. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission January 19, 2021 Page 2 of 6 He stated the proposal includes two signs at this time. One being the re-imagined clock tower with a partner. The second being a new sign for the remodeled locker room located in the west wing of the Little Nell Complex. The applicant is not planning to exceed the allotment of 467 SF. Mr. Van Moorsel displayed a picture of existing clock tower and noted it wasn’t included in the original inventory because they did not realize it was a sign. Mr. Van Moorsel displayed a site plan of the lower Gondola Plaza and reviewed the existing Master Sign Plan. He also reviewed a sign plan for the upper Gondola Plaza. Mr. Van Moorsel next displayed exhibits of the proposed new clock tower sign to show its size and scale, the outer and inner panels and the clock face display. He provided an example of the clock face noting their corporate partner, Hublot, would like to put their name on the face along with the ASC name on the face. He stated both sides of the sign will have a frosted, etched acrylic panel behind a perforated, opaque, brushed aluminum panel. Another slide represented the structural frame supporting the clock tower including the location of light source in the base of the sign. He also provided a slide showing the construction detail and dimensions. He noted it will be 13.0 FT in height which is 6 IN shorter than the existing clock tower, 2.5 FT in width and 1 FT 3 IN in depth. He stated he is still working with staff regarding how much of the panels should be counted toward the allotment. He stated the sign will be lighted from the bottom, but it is encased. Mr. Van Moorsel discussed the detailed review standards. He reiterated the new clock tower will be in the same location and orientation. He also noted the new sign is in four mountain view planes but does not infringe on any of them. He stated they feel confident the clock tower illumination will comply with the City’s lighting standards. Mr. Van Moorsel provided examples of how the tower will look with under front-lit natural light and under back-lit artificial light. He reiterated ASC supports the arts. He then discussed the design stating it will be an abstract sculpture with panels allowing natural light to pass through the structure and cast shadows. At night, its soft glow it will provide an anchor to the plaza and ski portal. He stated the clock tower will have two sides and they believe it will be back-lit. The inspiration for the geometric shapes on the tower comes from the fusion of the crystalline structure of snow and ice combined with the precision of technology involved with a fine timepiece. He also noted the existing electrical supply will support the proposed tower without any new utilities required. And if a new foundation is required, the existing pavers in the plaza will be salvaged and reused as much as possible. Mr. Van Moorsel the provided a display of proposed new Aspen Mountain Club sign. He identified the proposed location of the cast bronze entry sign and dimensions of the sign as less than 1 SF of area. Mr. Van Moorsel asked if there were any questions. Mr. McKnight asked the commissioners for questions of Mr. Van Moorsel. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission January 19, 2021 Page 3 of 6 Mr. Marcoux asked if there was an agreement between Hublot and ASC to ensure the existence and prevent future design changes to the clock should the partnership end. He believes many believe the City of Aspen owns the clock and doesn’t believe many changes will go over well. Mr. Van Moorsel noted corporate sponsorships do change over time and believes the acrylic panel can be replaced if necessary and the clock face could be replaced. ASC hopes the keep the structure and base for a long time. Mr. Dupps asked how visible is the Hublot logo in the panel. Mr. Van Moorsel doesn’t believe a lot of people will even notice it. He displayed an example of the panels and pointed out the Hublot logo etched in the acrylic panel. He believes the logo is subtle and suspects the general public won’t recognize it. Ms. Carver asked if there will be a service door on the side of the panel. Mr. Van Moorsel stated they will need to provide access to the light for maintenance purposes but was not sure how it would be done. Ms. Carver thought it would be nice if the light could be different colors for holidays or other occasions similar to the Sardy House. Ms. Carver then asked if Hublot is a corporate partner with ASC other than this project. Mr. Van Moorsel stated they are, but he only knows it is companywide and runs across all their business lines. He stated the Hublot logo will be placed on clocks located at various locations including the lift shacks on the mountains. Mr. McKnight then turned the floor over to staff. Mr. Rayes stated the application is before the P&Z Commission as it is a minor amendment to the Detailed Review for the Planned Development (PD). Mr. Rayes then reviewed the site location of the existing clock tower. Ordinance 53, Series 1985 originally approved the PD. It has been amended several times and the most recent being the 2013 Master Sign Plan. He stated there are a couple of sites in town with master sign plans but typically they are only used when there are a lot of different businesses and uses within a single PD. He noted the original clock tower does not have any signage, so it wasn’t included in the 2013 plan. This review will memorialize the clock tower as a sign and any future changes will be reviewed by staff only. Mr. Rayes reviewed the dimensions of the clock tower and the designs of the metal and acrylic panels. He staff will continue to work with the applicant regarding the signage and lighting to ensure it complies with the code. He stated the impact for installing the tower should be minimal because the existing utilities will be used. Mr. Rayes then displayed the proposed Aspen Mountain Club sign and its proposed location. He added there is no lighting associated with this sign. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission January 19, 2021 Page 4 of 6 Mr. Rayes displayed the relevant review criteria: Compliance with Project Review Approval. The proposed development, including all dimensions and uses, is consistent with the Project Review approval and adequately addresses conditions on the approval and direction received during the Project Review. Mr. Rayes stated it is unclear if the existing tower was previously approved in its current location. It has been there for many years and staff would like to memorialize it as part of the approval. This has no impacts to project dimensions, growth management, floor area. He stated there is a condition of the approval to ensure all the signage approved as part of this new tower will not exceed the allotment from the 2013 master plan. Design Standards and Architecture. The proposed architectural details emphasize quality construction and design characteristics. In meeting this standard, the following criteria shall be used: • Exterior materials are of high quality, durability, and comply with applicable design standards… (Staff found this criterion met) • All structure lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. All exterior lighting shall comply with the City’s outdoor lighting standards. (Generally, internal illumination is not allowed. Staff will ensure light does not trespass onto the surrounding area and on a right-of-way. A lighting plan will be required to be submitted with the sign permit.) Mr. Rayes concluded his presentation stating staff recommends approval of a Minor Amendment to a Planned Development for Detailed Review. He stated within 180 days of approval, a new site plan will need to be reviewed and recorded. Mr. McKnight asked if the commissioners had any questions of staff. Ms. McGovern asked if the existing tower is located within a setback. Mr. Rayes replied the tower’s location is part of the Conservation Zone District and he does not believe there are setbacks associated within the zone district. Ms. Simon added those would have been established in the original PD approval and the new clock will be in the same location as the current clock. Ms. McGovern stated because it is not known when the existing tower was approved, she wanted to confirm the replacement is not creating a bigger issue and if it should be memorialized in the approval. Ms. Simon responded it may not be a bad idea to add a condition or some language to recognize that the clock was not previously represented but understood to be part of the PD now. Ms. Carver believes the new clock will have more mass and asked how much more space than the old clock. Mr. Van Moorsel stated he included the footprint of the new tower in a drawing of the plaza within the application. She asked how large the base is on the new clock. Mr. Van Moorsel estimated the size of the current base at 1.5 ft and the new base is about 1 ft wider. Mr. Van Moorsel estimated the size of the current face is 2.5 ft in diameter and the new clock is only 2 ft in diameter. Mr. McKnight then opened for public comment. Seeing none, he closed public comment. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission January 19, 2021 Page 5 of 6 Mr. McKnight then opened for commissioner deliberation. Mr. Dupps believes the design is striking and it will be an attractive clock. He feels it is appropriate and noted the only qualm he has is whether or not it is appropriate to have a permanent company logo within the public realm. He wonders if this is something the other commissioners wanted to discuss. Mr. McKnight asked staff if this is appropriate or not. Ms. Johnson cautioned the commission from looking at the content of the sign adding the application will need to meet the existing sign code. She stated the commission is to look only at the requested amendment to the detailed review. She noted there are some first amendment issues if the commissioners delve into the content of the sign. Mr. Dupps stated he supports the application. Ms. Simon noted although the gondola plaza feels like a public space, the plaza and sign are on private property. Mr. Rayes wanted to clarify the commission is able to review the signage allotment for a PD perspective. It is his understanding the approved allotment amount was based on the previous assessment. Ms. Johnson agreed noting the current amendment request is primarily because the clock, although it existed, was not originally accounted for in the master sign plan. Mr. Van Moorsel stated the application proposes to eliminate a previously proposed sign on the upper plaza that was never built and instead include the clock tower. Ms. McGovern stated the application does not change the approved amount and meets the materials and fit criteria. She feels as long as the conditions are right in the resolution and they are to file an updated plan, she does not see why it should not be approved. Mr. McKnight agreed with Ms. McGovern. He asked if anyone else had additional comment to which no one commented. He then asked for a motion and asked Ms. McGovern if she wanted something added regarding the site-specific approvals. Ms. Simon stated it may be a simple follow-up with Ms. Johnson to ensure the clock tower is recognized as part of the PD. Ms. Johnson responded because this is a PD, which set the dimensional requirements. And if it didn’t, the underlying zone district would be followed. Ms. Simon suggested the following amendment to the first bullet in Section 1 if anyone feels it is necessary. Ms. Johnson agreed this would be a good change to the proposed resolution. Ms. Carver suggested adding that the new clock will be in the same location. • Recognize the existing clock tower as part of the PD and replace with a new clock tower, and, … Ms. Carver moved to approve the proposed resolution with Ms. Simon’s proposed modification. Ms. Rockhill seconded the motion. Mr. McKnight requested a roll call for Resolution 1, Series 2021: Mr. Dupps, yes; Mr. Marcoux, yes; Ms. McGovern, yes; Ms. Rockhill, yes; Ms. Carver, yes; Mr. McKnight, yes; for a total of six (6) in favor – zero (0) not in favor. The motion passed. Mr. McKnight thanked staff and the applicant and then closed the hearing. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission January 19, 2021 Page 6 of 6 OTHER BUSINESS Mr. McKnight noted it was time to elect a chair and vice-chair for 2021. Ms. Johnson stated because the commission is not meeting in person, they could vote by secret ballot or they could vote orally for the record. Mr. Marcoux motioned to keep the same chair and vice-chair. Ms. Carver feels everything is going well and agreed with Mr. Marcoux. Mr. McKnight asked Ms. McGovern is she is okay remaining vice-chair and she replied she was fine with it. Mr. McKnight replied he okay with it as well. Ms. Rockhill motioned for Mr. McKnight to be chair and Ms. McGovern to be vice-chair. Ms. Carver seconded. Mr. McKnight requested a roll call: Ms. Rockhill, yes; Mr. Dupps, yes; Mr. Marcoux, yes; Ms. Carver, yes; Ms. McGovern, yes; Mr. McKnight, yes; for a total of six (6) in favor – zero (0) not in favor. Ms. McGovern then motioned to adjourn and was seconded by Ms. Rockhill. All in favor, meeting adjourned. Cindy Klob, Records Manager