HomeMy WebLinkAboutlanduse.code amendment.Sign Code 1998
/
/ .
'~.W;"", . ";
'.
,~
(""0
ur.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
The Mayor and City Council
THRU:
Amy Margerum, City Manager
John Worcester, City Attorney cr
Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director _:
Mitch Haas, PlannerA%:
Sign Code Amendments --- Security Signs -.- Second Reading of Ordinance
No. 50, Series of 1998.
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
January 25, 1999
SUMMARY: Chapter 26.36, Signs, of the Aspen Municipal Code does not permit the
security company signs commonly seen throughout the City. As the sign code is
currently written, only temporary real estate signs, temporary construction site signs, and
home occupation signs are permitted within residential zone districts. Further, off-site
signs (i.e., signs which identify a business, but are not located at the place, of business) are
prohibited in all zone districts. Staff received complaints about the security signs and
commenced enforcement of the sign code when Apex Security requested that, City
Council direct staff to initiate a code amendment process where the proposed
amendments would allow for security signs. Council then directed staff to carry out this
request.
Thus, the purpose of thi~ memorandum is to suggest adopting an amendment to Chapter
26.36 that would allow but regulate the siting and design of security signs in the City of
Aspen while minimizing the advertising element of such signs. Staff had previously
provided a set of alternative code amendments where one alternative ("Option A") would
fully eliminate advertising from security signs (originally recommended by the
Community Development Department); a second option ("Option B") that would allow
for security company signs on a wall of the residence (recommended by the Planning and
Zoning Commission and approved on First Reading by City Council); and the final
option ("Option C") that would allow for security company signs anywhere on a piece of
property provided the sign is placed within the defined setback limitations of the
underlying zone district (as recommended by Apex Security Company).
Based on direction from City Conncil at their first reading on December 7, 1998,
Community Development Department staff recommends that City Council approve
the code amendments proposed herein.
APPLICANT: The City of Aspen Community Development Department.
BACKGROUND: Following up, on citizen complaints, the City contacted Apex
Security in October of 1997 to inform the company that a number of their security signs
~
"-',
were in violation of Section 26.36, Signs, of the Aspen Municipal Code, which prohibits
signs from being located in the public rights~of-way and requires that all signs comply
with the setback requirements of the zone district in which said signs are located. A
follow-up letter was sent to Apex on April 15, 1998, to inform the company that many of
its signs were still in violation of the aforementioned regulation, and to request tbat all
signs be brought into compliance by June 15, 1998.
At the July 6, 1998 City Council Brown-Bag session, Council requested that staff look
into the overall legality of the Apex signs, which seemed to have become more prevalent.
In response, City staff sent another letter to Apex Security on July 14, 1998 stating that
Section 26.36 (Signs) of the Aspen Municipal Code only permits temporary real estate
signs, temporary construction site signs, and home occupation signs within residential
zone districts. The letter went on to further state that off-site signs (i.e., signs identifying
a business in the area, but not displayed at the identified business's location) are
prohibited in all zone districts. The July 14th letter concluded by stating that the Apex
Security signs which are currently located at private residences and commercial locations
within City limits are therefore not permitted, and requested that the company remove all
such signs by no later than August 15, 1998. Finally, the letter suggested that Apex
consider pursuing a code amendment aimed at allowing their signs.
At a subsequent City Council Brown-Bag session, it was agreed that the City would
initiate the code amendment process on behalf of Apex Security. While some members
of Council felt that smaller signs of a different design would be acceptable, other
members of Council clearly expressed a desire to eliminate the advertising element of the
signs. However, at the Council's first reading, Council clearly indicated that smaller
signs, properly set back and containing a company name would be acceptable.
PROCEDURE: Pursuant to Section 26.92.030, Procedure for Amendment, a
development application for an amendment to the text of the Municipal Code shall be
reviewed and recommended for approval, approval with conditions, or disapproval by the
Planning Director and then by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing,
and then approved, approved with conditions, or disapproved by the City Council at a
public hearing. The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the proposed code
amendments at a public hearing on November 3, 1998 and recommended approval with
some revisions (see Exhibit B, Planning and Zoning Commission minutes). First
Reading before City Council occurred on December 7, 1998, at which time Council
approved Option B by a vote of three (3) to two (2).
PREVIOUS ACTIONS: At a public hearing on November 3, 1998, the Commission
discussed whether the security company name should be allowed on signs and, if so, in
what manner; whether the security company's phone number should be indicated; where
on a given property it would be permissible to locate security signs (on the residence, on
a mailbox, freestanding, etc.); size and color of signs; and, security signage on
commercial properties.
2
("'\
,,~
At the December 7,1998 first reading of Ordinance Number 50, Series of 1998, before
City Council, Council chose to move forward to second reading with Option B, as
recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
DISCUSSION: The Option B code amendment, proposed by the Planning and Zoning
Commission, would allow one six inch by six inch (6" x 6") security sign in addition to
the total allowable two (2) square feet of residential name and address signs per
residence, provided that the sign be of a neutral color, be placed on a wall of the
residence, and contain a message that alerts the general public to the presence of a
security system and provides the security company's name and phone number. The
Planning and Zoning Commission also stated that the message should not primarily
function or appear to serve as an advertising device.
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS:
Amendments Recommended bv the Planninff and Zoninff
Commission (Option BJ:
First, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the Section
26.36.040(B), Billboards and Other Off-Premise Signs, amendments as proposed by staff
under "Option A." Therefore, the portion of Option A which addresses amendments to
Section 26.36.040(B), shall also be considered to be part of Option B as indicated below.
However, the Commission voted 5-1 to recommend the following language, as refined by
staff, for Section 26.36.030(B)(17), Residential Name and Address Signs:
Proposed Amendment to Section 26.36. 030(B)(17):
17. Residential name and address signs. Every detached residential dwelling unit or
duplex unit in the City of Aspen shall have one (I) mailbox or wall sign with an area
not to exceed two (2) square feet, and said sign must clearly identify the street
address of the dwelling unit and may include the name of the occupant(s). In
addition to this square foot limitation, it is also acceptable to include a sign of
security nature with an area of up to six inches by six inches (6" x 6"), neutral in
color, to be placed upon the wall of the residence, containing a message alerting the
general public to the presence of a security system which includes the name and
phone number of that security provider and is not primarily an advertising device.
Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings or
mailboxes, whichever is more visible from the street or road fronting the property.
Numbers shall contrast with their background.
Note that specific language contained in Option B has been revised slightly since first
reading before City Council. Also, while not specifically discussed or recommended by
the Planning and Zoning Commission, staff suggests augmenting this proposal with the
addition of the following language before the "Approved numbers or addresses . . ."
sentence: "If the structure is an Historic Landmark or on the Inventory of Historic Sites
and Structures, the security sign shall be freestanding, placed within three (3) feet of and
3
(""'.
"'""
directly in front of the structure without the requirement of Historic Preservation
Commission approval." This suggested change involves a requirement that security signs
on historically significant properties be freestanding in order to avoid damaging these
structures. HPC review would be waived since the existing signs are not reviewed by the
HPC and have not been problematic with regard to historic preservation or degradation.
The attached version of proposed Ordinance Number 50, Series of 1998 includes the
above-suggested sentence regarding historically significant structures.
Proposed Amendment to Section 26. 36. 040(B):
B. Billboards and other off-premise signs. Billboards and other off-premise signs,
including security company signs which do not comply with the regulations set
forth in Section 26.36.030(B)(17), are prohibited, except as-a temporary signs as
provided for in Section 26.36.120,
This proposed amendment would not preclude businesses from alerting the public and
would-be burglars to the presence of a security system. That is, the small window decals
commonly seen on store fronts and doors (including those of City Hall) are not and would
not be regulated under the code. These decals do not count toward allowable amounts of
signage, nor are they considered to constitute "off-premise signs." However, if as a result
of these amendments, the decals are made larger or more prominent, staff will pursue a
code amendment aimed at their regulation. It should also be noted that the same is true of
these decals at residential locations.
REVIEW STANDARDS: Chapter 26.92, Amendments To The Land Use Regulations
And Official Zone District Map, at Section 26.92.020 provides nine (A-I) standards for
City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission's review of proposed
amendments to the text of the Land Use Code. These standards and staffs evaluation of
the potential amendments relative to them are provided below, with the standard in italics
followed by the staff "response."
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict With any applicable portions of this
title.
RESPONSE: Adoption of the proposed code amendment would not be in conflict with
any applicable portions of the Land Use Code.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan.
RESPONSE: The proposed amendment would not be in conflict with any elements of
the AACP, and is very much consistent with the "Intent" and "Philosophy" statements of
the Design Quality and Historic Preservation Action Plan (page 54 of the AACP).
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and
land uses, considering existing land uses and neighborhood characteristics.
4
('"
,~
RESPONSE: Considering land uses, neighborhood characteristics, and the proposed size
limitation on the security signs, staff believes the amendment would result in allowing
signage that is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety.
RESPONSE: The proposed code amendment will not have any effect on traffic
generation, but could improve road safety by mandating clear and noticeable premises
identification for all residences while lessening confusion, distraction, and visual clutter
caused by the proliferation and improper placement of signs which compete for the
attention of pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular traffic.
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands
on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment
would exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited to
transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools,
and emergency medicalfacilities.
RESPONSE: The proposed amendment would not have an effect on infrastructure or
infrastructure capacities.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment.
RESPONSE: The proposed amendment would not have an effect on the natural
environment.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community
character in the City of Aspen.
RESPONSE: Staff believes the proposed amendment presents a reasonable and sound
balance between the concerns of security sign proponents and those related to the
preservation of Aspen's small town, Victorian mountain village character and charm.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the
surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment.
RESPONSE: There has been no significant change in Aspen's general character, nor has
there been significant change in local crime rates. However, the amount, visibility and
prominence of security company signage throughout the City of Aspen has risen
dramatically in the last year and even in recent months. These increases are believed to
be negatively impacting and/or hold the potential of adversely affecting Aspen's
community character and charm. Staff believes the proposed amendment will better
address this issue.
1 Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and
is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title.
5
~
r-
.~,
RESPONSE: Staff believes the public's interest with regard to security signage is in the
ability to maintain a means of theft/crime deterrence and to make properties easily
identifiable, while not unduly permitting excessive off-site advertising or degradation of
the community's character and image. The proposed amendments would serve this public
interest and be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Land Use Code.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that City Council approve, on second
reading, Ordinance Number 50, Series of 1998.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve second reading of Ordinance
Number 50, Series of 1998."
EXHIBITS:
Exhibit A - Letter from the Aspen Alps Condominium Association
Exhibit B - Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes from November 3, 1998
Exhibit C - Letters (2) from Marc Powell, Chief Executive Officer of
Apex Security
ATTACHMENTS:
Ordinance No. 50, Series of 1998 (Option B)
c:\home\mitchh\counciI\apex3rd.doc
6
,-'
ASPEN
ALPS
CONDOMINIUM
ASSOC1ATlON
August 1, 1998
City Council of Aspen
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Mayor an~ Council,
DiSTRIBUTED TO: Jl
~AA.A..-<J'
! 11.-1 hi;-.. If?!" S
.
Response By:
8y Date-
For:
I am writing in regard to the recent decision to remove all
security signs within the city limits of Aspen. The Aspen Alps
Con~ominium Association would like it to be known that they feel
the signs are an integral part of the secur.ity system offere~ by
Apex. The signs provide our property with theft ~eterrence an~
aides the police department and fire department in finding our
property. For these and other reasons it is our request that the
decision to'remove the signs be reversed. '
Sincerely<:y~urs,
.~=<:.,;:;.,~ -.
,
....
ASpen Alp~~c~n~ominium Association
700 Ute A~1!riue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(970) 925-7820
700 Ute Avenue, Aspen, Colorado 81611
Fax (970) 920-2528
/
<,
r--.
,0
'1\ a
MEMORANDUM
TO:
The Mayor and City Council J J)
Amy Margerum, City Manager OJ!
John Worcester, City Attorney ~
Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director ../ .
Mitch Haas, Planner~
Sign Code Amendments --- Security Signs --- First Reading of Ordinance
No. 50 , Series of 1998.
THRU:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
December 7,1998
SUMMARY: Chapter 26.36, Signs, of the Aspen Municipal Code does not permit the
security company signs commonly seen throughout the City. As the sign, code is
currently written, only temporary real estate signs, temporary construction site signs, and
home occupation signs are permitted within residential zone districts. Further, off-site
signs (i.e., signs which identify a business, but are not located at the place of business) are
prohibited in all zone districts. Staff received complaints about the security signs and
commenced enforcement of the sign code when Apex Security requested that City
Council direct staff to initiate a code amendment process where the proposed
amendments would allow for security signs. Council then directed staff to carry out this
request.
Thus, the purpose of this memorandum is to suggest adopting an amendment to Chapter
26.36 that would allow but regulate the siting and design of security signs in the City of
Aspen while eliminating the advertising element of such signs and prohibiting off-site
security company signage from anywhere within the City of Aspen. One issue that will
need to be decided is whether security company names should be included in security
signs, or whether the advertising element of the signs should be eliminated altogether.
Staff is providing a set of alternative code amendments where one alternative ("Option
A") would fully eliminate advertising from Security signs (recommended by the
Community Development Department); another option ("Option B") would allow for
security company signs on a wall of the residence (recommended by the Planning and
Zoning Commission); and the final option ("Option C") would allow for security
company signs anywhere on a piece of property provided the sign is placed within the
defined setback limitations of the underlying zone district (recommended by Apex
Security Company). These sets of proposed amendments attempt to provide a reasonable
and sound balance between the need or perceived need for the signs and the character-
related impacts associated with the signs.
Community Development Department staff recommends that City Council approve
the "Option A" code amendments proposed herein.
r
'.
~
r"""':
APPLICANT: The City of Aspen Community Development Department.
BACKGROUND: Following up on citizen complaints, the City contacted Apex
Security in October of 1997 to inform the company that a number of their security signs
were in violation of Section 26.36, Signs, of the Aspen Municipal Code, which prohibits
signs from being located in the public rights-of-way and requires that all signs comply
with the setback requirements of the zone district in which said signs are located. A
follow-up letter was sent to Apex on April 15, 1998, to inform the company that many of
its signs were still in violation of the aforementioned regulation, and to request that all
signs be brought into compliance by June 15, 1998.
At the July 6, 1998 City Council Brown-Bag session, Council requested that staff look
into the overall legality of the Apex signs, which seemed to have become more prevalent.
In response, City staff sent another letter to Apex Security on July 14, 1998 stating that
Section 26.36 (Signs) of the Aspen Municipal Code only permits temporary real estate
signs, temporary construction site signs, and home occupation signs within residential
zone districts, The letter went on to further state that off-site signs (i.e., signs identifying
a business in the area, but not displayed at the identified business's location) are
prohibited in all zone districts. The July 14th letter concluded by stating that the Apex
Security signs which are currently located at private residences and commercial locations
within City limits are therefore not permitted, and requested that the company remove all
such signs by no later than August 15, 1998. Finally, the letter suggested that Apex
consider pursuing a code amendment aimed at allowing their signs.
At a subsequent City Council Brown-Bag session, it was agreed that the City would
initiate the code amendment process on behalf of Apex Security. While some members
of Council felt that smaller signs of a different design would be acceptable, other
members of Council clearly expressed a desire to eliminate the advertising element of the
signs. For instance, an article in the Aspen Daily News (See Exhibit B) quoted one
member of Council as saying the signs "were an atrocious form of advertisement," and
also 'asked if there is an international symbol for security that could eliminate the
advertising element ofthe signs.
PROCEDURE: Pursuant to Section 26.92.030, Procedure for Amendment, a
development application for an amendment to the text of the Municipal Code shall be
reviewed and recommended for approval, approval with conditions, or disapproval by the
Planning Director and then by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing,
and then approved, approved with conditions, or disapproved by the City Council at a
public hearing. The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the proposed code
amendments at a public hearing on November 3, 1998 and recommended approval with
some revisions (explained below). First Reading before City Council is scheduled for
December 7, 1998, and Second Reading will be on January 25,1998.
PREVIOUS ACTIONS: Much of the activity leading to this first reading before City
Council is explained above, in the "Summary" and "Background" sections of this
2
",
,,,.....",
,-"
memorandum. Also as mentioned above, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed
the proposed code amendments at a public hearing on November 3, 1998 and
recommended approval with some revisions. In general, Commission discussions
focused on whether the security company name should be allowed on signs and, if so, in
what manner; whether the security company's phone number should be indicated; where
on a given property it would be permissible to locate security signs (on the residence, on
a mailbox, freestanding, etc.); size and color of signs; and, security signage on
commercial properties. For greater detail, the minutes from the November 3, 1998
Planning and Zoning Commission hearing are attached hereto as Exhibit C.
DISCUSSION: Proponents of security company signs explain that the signs perform the
comforting functions of theft deterrence and making it easier for emergency response
personnel to locate their property in case of emergency, Others feel that the signs are out
of character with the small town, Victorian mountain resort village charm of Aspen.
They point out that the concept of security company signage is an import from other
communities in the country where it represents a solution to a set of problems that do not
exist in our community, and that the crime rates in Aspen do not justify the perception apt
to be created, nor the impression apt to be made on new residents and tourists. For
instance, one Councilman stated at a Brown-Bag Session that, based on comments from
citizens, the signs in front of properties reflect that Aspen is crime infested (See Exhibit
B). Still other critics of security company signage believe the signs serve little purpose
outside of advertising, and that they have the cumulative affect of a Main Street billboard.
After asking police and fire department personnel as well as communications dispatch
whether the presence of a security company sign helps them respond to a call or alarm,
staff leamed that the average response time in the city limits is between three (3) and five
(5) minutes, depending on location, for both the police and the fire department, and that
the presence or lack of a security company sign is not believed to have any affect on this
margin. Response times for emergency medical response units are not believed to be at
all affected by the presence or lack of security signs either. Staff also learned that the
police respond to all alarms, and that the adopted Fire Code requires that every residence
be clearly and noticeably addressed (identified), as further explained below. Because the
Apex guards are located at the Aspen Airport Business Center, it usually takes them
anywhere from ten (10) to twenty (20) minutes to arrive at the scene of an alarm. One
can conclude, then, that the signs are not needed for the Apex guards to locate the scene
of an alarm since, first, the Fire Code requires that houses be clearly and noticeably
addressed, and second, the guards need only look for the property with police and/or fire
department vehicles in front of it.
Staff recognizes that there are many people to which the signs provide a sort of security
blanket and in no way intends to belittle this feeling, but lacks a better way of describing
it. However, given the relative infrequency of crimes in Aspen and the apparent lack of
affect on emergency response times in the event of criminal activity, staff feels that the
significant community character issues associated with the proliferation of security
3
'.
r-
1-'
company signs and the perception of a need for deterrence the signs potentially create
outweighs the importance of the "security blanket" effect some community members
prefer. Nevertheless, in appreciation of the desire to maintain the security blanket effect
but still desiring to address the character-related issues and eliminate the advertising
element of security signs, staff is proposing a code amendment (Option A) that involves
permitting one (1) neutral-colored six inch by six inch (6" x 6") security sign as part of
the total allowable two (2) square feet of residential name and address signs per
residence, provided that if the residential name and address sign is to include security
signage, the security message would have to be placed on the building and be non-
company specific. The proposed amendment would also clearly prohibit off-site security
signage that includes advertising or identification of a specific business. This proposal
explicitly distinguishes between security signs and security company signs.
The Option B code amendment, proposed by the Planning and Zoning Commission,
would allow one six inch by six inch(6" x 6") security sign in addition to the total
allowable two (2) square feet of residential name and address signs per residence,
provided that the sign be of a neutral color, be placed on a wall of the residence, and
contain a message that alerts the general public to the presence of a security system and
provides the secnrity company's name and phone number. The Planning and Zoning
Commission also stated that the message should not primarily function or appear to serve
as an advertising device. The Option C code amendment, proposed by Apex Security
Company, is the same as Option B with the only difference being the replacement of the
requirement to locate the sign on a wall of the residence with the ability to locate the
sign anywhere on the property within the setbacks of the underlying zone district.
Properties with security systems are wired directly to the offices of the security company,
When an alarm sounds, the security company immediately notifies emergency response
(9-1-1) which, in the City of Aspen, is run by the Communications Department, Dispatch
Division. Neither neighbors, nor bystanders, nor the police need to notify the security
company of the alarm and, therefore, a phone number for the security company is not
needed. The Aspen Daily News article attached as Exhibit B, shows that in response to
comments about the advertising element of the signs, Apex Security's Executive Director
stated that the signs are "not about advertising," but that their clients "have a legitimate
expectation to have some sort of signage," and that the signs actually serve the purpose of
deterring burglars. Staff believes the amendments proposed' by the Community
Development Department (Option A) would allow for meeting the expectations of clients
"to have some sort of signage" that would serve the purpose of deterring burglars, and
that if the signs really are "not about advertising," then there should be no objection to
removing the company name and logo.
4
r",
,-.,
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS:
Amendments Recommended bv the Community Development
Department (Option AI:
In accord with the ",Purpose" of the City Sign Code, as described in Section 26.36.010 of
the Municipal Code, the intent of the proposed amendment is to regulate the design, size,
and placement of security signs in an effort to:
. "Preserve and maintain the City of Aspen as a pleasing, visually attractive
environment," (26.36.01O(A));
. "Enhance the attractiveness .., of the City of Aspen as a place to live, vacation and
conduct business," (26.36.0l0(C));
. "Enable the identification of places of residence and business," (26.36.010(E));
. "Encourage signs that are appropriate to the zone district in which they are located
and consistent with the category of use to which they pertain," (26.36.010(G));
. "Curtail the size and number of signs and sign messages to the minimum reasonably
necessary to identify a residential or business location and the nature of any such
business," (26.36.010(1));
. "Lessen ... confusion and visual clutter caused by proliferation, improper placement ..,
of signs which compete for the attention of pedestrian and vehicular traffic,"
(26.36.010(M)); and, to
. "Regulate signs in a manner so as not to interfere with ... or distract motorists,
bicyclists or pedestrians," (26.36.01 O(N)).
In consideration of the Sign Code's purpose and the concerns described in the
"Discussion" section of this memorandum, staff proposes amending Section 26.36.030,
Procedure for Sign Permit Approval, subsection (B)(17), Residential Name and Address
Signs, and Section 26.36,040, Prohibited Signs, subsection (B), Billboards and Other Off-
Premise Signs, as follows, where language striekeR em is proposed for removal and
language in bold is proposed to augment the existing regulation.
Prior to reviewing the proposed changes, it is worth noting that the adopted provisions of
the Uniform Fire Code, under Article 9, Section 901.4.4, Premises Identification,
mandate that "Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing
buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible from the street or road fronting the
property. Numbers shall contrast with their background!' The proposed amendments
include the added benefit of making the Sign Code provisions for residential name and
address signs consistent with the adopted "Premises Identification" rules of the Fire Code.
It is also worth noting that the existing security company signs throughout town are in
violation of the code and are currently prohibited. If approved, the proposed amendments
would grant rights that do not currently exist, which may be some consolation to the
security companies and their clients.
5
~
.~
Option A: Community Development's Proposed Amendment to
Section 26,36.030(B)(17):
17. Residential name and address signs. Every detached residential dwelling unit or
duplex unit in the City of Aspen shall have GBe one (1) mailbox fFeestansillg or
wall sign ]3er detashee fosieential e'llellillg lIIlit ar Eie]3lax 1Il1it, with an area not
exceeding two (2) square feet, and said sign must clearly identify whish ieentifies
the Ilame sf the assapant ane the street address of the dwelling unit and may
identify the name of the occupant(s). It is also acceptable to include another
sign on an exterior wall of the residence, with an area of up to six inches by six
inches (6" x 6"), for a message printed in neutral, muted colors alerting the
general public to the presence of a security system, provided the message is not
specifically identifying or otherwise advertising a particular business. If
security signage is used, the total, combined square footage of the residential
name and address sign and the security sign shall not exceed two (2) square feet.
Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing
buildings or mailboxes, whichever is in such a position as to be more plainly
visible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall contrast
with their background.
This amendment, proposed by the Community Development Department, has received
the full endorsement of the Aspen Area Community Plan update's "Character Focus Area
Committee." Staff believes it would provide a reasonable and sound balance between the
need or perceived need for the signs and the character-related impacts associated with the
signs. The advertising element of security signs would be fully eliminated, but the goals
of maintaining a means of deterring theft and providing easy identification of properties
by emergency response personnel would still be met.
Furthermore, when analyzing this proposal, it is important to consider that residential
security company signs have been and are now completely prohibited in the City of
Aspen. .In fact, other than the exceptions mentioned earlier in this memorandum, all
commercial signage in residential areas is appropriately prohibited in the City of Aspen.
For instance, a company that maintains the yards and landscaping at a residential property
is not permitted to place signage on said property, nor can a cleaning service, utility
provider such as TCI, or any other business place signage on a residential property.
Therefore, the amendment suggested above would be "loosening" or opening the
regulations to provide residential, property owners with signage-related rights that have
not previously existed. Conversely, while "loosening" the regulations, the proposed
amendment would neither increase nor decrease the total amount of allowable square
footage for residential signage. Staff believes this recommended "loosening" would be in
harmony with the City's adopted "Purpose" for the Sign Code, namely to "Curtail the
size and number of signs and sign messages to the minimum reasonably necessary to
identify a residential or business location and the nature of any such business,"
(26.36.01O(J)) and to "Lessen ... confusion and visual clutter caused by proliferation,
improper placement .., of signs which compete for the attention of pedestrian and
vehicular traffic," (26.36.010(M)).
6
'.
.""-'
.~
Option A: Community Development's Proposed Amendment to
Section 26.36.040(B):
B. Billboards and other off-premise signs. Billboards and other off-premise signs,
including security company signs which do not comply with the regulations set
forth in Section t6.36.030(B)(17), are prohibited, except as-a temporary signs as
provided for in Section 26.36.120,
This proposed amendment would not preclude businesses from alerting the public and
would-be burglars to the presence of a security system. That is, the small window decals
commonly seen on store fronts and doors (including those of City Hall) are not and would
not be regulated under the code. These decals do not count toward allowable amounts of
signage, nor are they considered to constitute "off-premise signs." However, if as a result
of these amendments, the decals are made larger or more prominent, staff will pursue a
code amendment aimed at their regulation. It should also be noted that the same is true of
these decals at residential locations. Thus, with the code amendments proposed above by
staff, identification of the particular security company serving a property, along with that
company's phone number, can, still be accomplished via window decals/stickers,
Amendments Recommended bv the Planning and Zoning
Commission (Option B):
First, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the Section
26.36.040(B), Billboards and Other Off-Premise Signs, amendments as proposed by staff
under "Option A." Therefore, the portion of Option A which addresses amendments to
Section 26.36.040(B), shall also be considered to be part of Option B. However, the
Commission voted 5-1 to recommend the following language for Section
26.36.030(B)(17), Residential Name and Address Signs:
Option B: Planning and Zoning Commission's Proposed Amendment
to Section 26.36. 030(B)(17):
17. Residential name and address signs. One (I) mailbox or wall sign per detached
residential dwelling unit or duplex unit, with an area not to exceed two (2) square
feet, which must identify the street address of the dwelling unit and may include the
name of the occupant(s), In addition to this square foot limitation, it is also
acceptable to include a sign of security nature with an area of up to six inches by six
inches (6" x 6"), neutral in color, to be placed upon the wall of the residence,
containing a message alerting the general public to the presence of a security system
which includes the name and phone number of that security provider and is not
primarily an advertising device. Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on
all new and existing buildings or mailboxes, whichever is more visible from the
street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall contrast with their background.
7
'.
>.
i""""
,.........,
Amendments Recommended bv the Apex Security Companv
(Option C):
The Option C code amendment, proposed by Apex Security Company, is the same as
Option B with the only difference being the replacement of the requirement to locate the
sign on a wall of the residence with the ability to locate the sign anywhere on the property
within the setbacks of the underlying zone district. Thus, under Option C, Section
26.36.030(B)(17) would read as follows:
Option C: The Apex Security Company's Proposed Amendment
to Section 26.36. 030(B)(1 7):
17. Residential name and address signs.' One (I) mailbox or wall sign per detached
residential dwelling unit or duplex unit, with an area not to exceed two (2) square
feet, which shall identify the street address of the dwelling unit and may identify the
name of the occupant(s). In addition to this square foot limitation, it is also
acceptable to include a sign (freestanding or otherwise) of security nature with an
area of up to six inches by six inches (6" x 6"), neutral in color, to be placed in a
manner that complies with the minimum setbacks of the applicable underlying zone
district, containing a message alerting the general public to the presence of a security
system which includes the name and phone number of that security provider and is
not primarily an advertising device. Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed
on all new and existing buildings or mailboxes, whichever is more visible from the
street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall contrast with their background.
COMPARISON: The primary differences between this suggested amendment (Option
B, from the Planning and Zoning Commission) and the amendment recommended by
Community Development Department staff (Option A) are as follows: (a) Option A
explicitly differentiates between security signs and security company signs while Options
B and C allow for security company signs with no differentiation; (b) Option A allows
for security signage of up to six inches by six inches as part of the total allowable two
square feet of residential signage while Options B and C allow a six inch by six inch
security company sign in addition to the two square feet of allowable residential signage;
(c) Option A would eliminate the advertising element while continuing to indirectly
allowing the identification of the security company (and phone number) on window
decals/stickers, and the Option B and C proposals, while stating an intent to reduce the
advertising effects, would require identification of the specific company and their phone
number; and (d) Options A and B would require that the six inch by six inch security
company sign be placed on a wall of the residence (only name and address signs can be
placed on mailboxes), and Option C would allow a security company sign (freestanding
or other) anywhere on a property provided the sign is located within the allowable
setbacks of the applicable underlying zone district.
REVIEW STANDARDS: Chapter 26.92, Amendments To The Land Use Regulations
And Official Zone District Map, at Section 26.92.020 provides nine (A-I) standards for
City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission's review of proposed
8
,
'.
r~;
,-,
amendments to the text of the Land Use Code. These standards and staffs evaluation of
the potential amendments relative to them are provided below, with the standard in italics
followed by the staff "response,"
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in coriflict with any applicable portions of this
title.
RESPONSE: Adoption of anyone of the three sets of the proposed code amendments
would not be in conflict with any applicable portions of the Land Use Code. The
proposed amendments of Option A may be more (as compared with the amendments
recommended in Options B and C) consistent with the "Purpose" and other provisions of
the existing sign code since no business in the City of Aspen, regardless of type or
message, is permitted to display off-site advertising on anything other than a temporary
basis. Nevertheless, none of the three sets of proposed amendments would be in conflict
with applicable portions of the code, although one might argue that Option C would not
be in harmony with the "Purpose" of the Sign Code.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan.
RESPONSE: None of the proposed amendments would be in conflict with any elements
of the AACP, and are very much consistent with the "Intent" and "Philosophy" statements
of the Design Quality and Historic Preservation Action Plan (page 54 of the AACP).
Furthermore, the amendments proposed by staff in Option A have received the full
endorsement of the "Character Focus Area Committee" of the Aspen Area Community
Plan update.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and
land uses, considering existing land uses and neighborhood characteristics.
,RESPONSE: Considering land uses and neighborhood characteristics, staff believes the
amendments proposed by the Community Development Department (Option A), would
result in allowing signage that is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses
while precluding signs that would be incompatible with the same. This is most apparent
in the attempt to eliminate commercial advertising from residential neighborhoods.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety.
RESPONSE: The proposed code amendments (all three options) are not anticipated to
have any effect on traffic generation, but could improve road safety by mandating clear
and noticeable premises identification for all residences while lessening confusion,
distraction, and visual clutter caused by the proliferation and improper placement of signs
which compete for the attention of pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular traffic. Option C
would not serve as well as Options A or B in terms of lessening confusion, distraction,
and visual clutter caused by the proliferation and improper placement of signs which
compete for the attention of pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular traffic.
9
, "
,,-.,
r-,\
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands
on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment
would exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited to
transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools,
and emergency medicalfacilities.
RESPONSE: None of the three proposed options would have an effect on infrastructure
or infrastructure capacities.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment.
RESPONSE: None of the three proposed options would have an effect on the natural
environment.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community
character in the City of Aspen.
RESPONSE: Please refer to the "Discussion" section of this memorandum, above, for a
full review of character-related issues associated with the proposed amendments. Staff
believes the amendments proposed by the Community Development Department (Option
A) present a reasonable and sound balance between the concerns of security sign
proponents and those related to the preservation of Aspen's small town, Victorian
mountain village character and charm. Staff also believes the amendments recommended
by the Planning and Zoning Commission (Option B) would provide a balance between
these competing concerns, but would not have as significant an impact on the goal of
eliminating the advertising element of security company signs. Staff does not support
Option C since it would stand the greatest chance (of the three options) of resulting in
haphazard and inconsistent placement of security signs throughout the City; that is,
freestanding signs placed within the limits of the setbacks will likely result in an
appearance of random placement due to the wide variety of building and zone district
setbacks found throughout the City and its neighborhoods.
H Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the
surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment.
RESPONSE: There has been no significant change in Aspen's general character, nor has
there been significant change in local crime rates. However, the amount, visibility and
prominence of security company signage throughout the City of Aspen has risen
dramatically in the last year and even in recent months, For instance, in a recent drive
into town, staff counted twenty-four (24) "Apex" security signs facing Highway 82
between the Aspen Country Inn and Galena Street. This count represents the Highway 82
corridor, or "Gateway to Aspen," only and does not even begin to address traditional
neighborhoods such as the West End, the Smuggler Mountain area, the Cemetery Lane
area, or others. These increases are believed to be negatively impacting and/or hold the
potential of adversely affecting Aspen's community character.
10
~, .
,-.."
,-"",,\
I Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and
is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title.
RESPONSE: Staffbelieves the public's interest with regard to security signage is in the
ability to maintain a means of theft/crime deterrence and to make properties easily
identifiable, while not unduly permitting off-site advertising or degradation of the
community's character and image. Staff further believes the Community Development
Department's proposed amendments (Option A) would not be in conflict with this
interest, and that the proposed amendments are in harmony with the purpose and intent of
the Sign Code and the Land Use Code, in general. The Commission's recommended
amendments (Option B) would also serve this public interest and be in harmony with the
purpose and intent of the Land Use Code, but would not go as far in the regulation of off-
site advertisement. The Option C amendments would also likely maintain this public
interest, but would not be as successful in furthering the public's interest in meeting and
maintaining the goals stated in the "Purpose" of the Sign Code.
STAFF FINDINGS: Please refer to the "Proposed Amendments," "Comparison," and
"Review Standards" sections ofthis memorandum, above.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that City Council approve, on, first reading,
Ordinance Number _, Series of 1998, the Option A code amendments addressing
security signage proposed herein by the Community Development Department.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve on first reading Ordinance Number
_, Series of 1998."
EXHIBITS:
Exhibit A - Letter from the Aspen Alps Condominium Association
Exhibit B - Aspen Daily News Article by Carolyn Sackariason (date not known)
Exhibit C - Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes from November 3, 1998
Exhibit D - Letters (2) from Marc Powell, Chief Executive Officer of
Apex Security
ATTACHMENTS:
Option A, Ordinance No._, Series of 1998
Option B, Ordinance No,_, Series of 1998
Option C, Ordinance No._, Series of 1998
c:\home\mitchh\council\apexlst.doc
1114A~ ~~ ~/h.1N f1~dU411~
11
1""'\
,~
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: SIGN CODE AMENDMENTS TO PERMIT SECURITY SIGNS
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Monday, January 25,1999 at
a meeting to begin at 5 :OOp.m. before the Aspen City Council, City Council Chambers, City Hail,
130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by the City of Aspen Community
Development Department on behalf of Apex Security, requesting approval for Proposed Code
Amendments revising Section 26.36.030(B), Exempt Signs, of the Aspen Municipal Code. The
proposed code amendments would exempt home security signs from the provisions of the sign
code, provided certain conditions are met. For further information, contact Mitch Haas at the
Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-
5095, mitchh@ci.aspen.co.us.
s/John Bennett, Mayor
Aspen City Council
Published in the Aspen Times on January 9, 1999
City of Aspen Account
g:\planning\aspen\notices\apexsicc
1"""'.
~
jj}')
.Rpex
SECURITY
Apex Security Group
1429 Grand Avenue, Suite 0
Glenwood Springs
Colorado 81601
Corporate Office: (970) 945-2152
Facsimile: (970) 945.7922
Date: November 3, 1998
To: City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Committee
From: Marc Powell, Apex Security Group
RE: Sign Code Amendments -Security Signs
As you may be aware, Apex Security Group provides home and commercial security services in Aspen.
Apex is the successor organization to Westec Fire & Safety Systems of Aspen, Sopris Security Systems,
and Robertson Security, Inc. Each of these organizations had security signage at residential properties
within the town limits for at least 18 years, and possibly much longer, The consolidation within the local
markets, and our distinctive logo has created the impression that more signs are in existence today than in
the past, leading to complaints regarding the visual impact of the signage in Aspen's neighborhoods.
Apex has worked diligently to ensure that our signage met both the spirit and letter of the city's requests for
moving the signs within acceptable setbacks, and making other changes as requested, and will continue to
do so. On July 6th, we met with the Aspen City Council in an attempt to work with the city to balance the
legitimate security concerns of our clieuts with the concerns regarding the visual impact of the signage.
We came away from that meeting believing that an appropriate balance between those two needs had been
met.
For some unknown reason, the city's planning staff has decided to fight what seemed to everyone present
an appropriate resolution to the quandary. In the October 6th memo from Mitch Haas, the city staff spent
much of its space arguing that signs in yards are unnecessary since Aspen has no significant crime problem.
Of course, this ignores the fact that security signs have been in the yards for many years, sending the clear
message to would-be robbers that this is a town that takes security seriously.
Other legal issues also seem to apply to this situation, including the First Amendment rights of our clients,
grandfathering issues given the long tenure of the existing signs in the yards, and good faith reliance on the
city's numerous directions over the years regarding sign placement, size, etc. In addition, statistics clearly
show that a home is substantially less likely to be burglarized if a security sign can be seen from the
street, It is this statistic upon which much of the insurance rate reductions for our clients are predicated,
Apex's position is that small (6"x6"), low-impact color signs in yards are a much more appropriate balance
between our client's legitimate security needs and the concerns about visual impact.
Finally, staff states in their October 6th memorandum that security signs are also not allowed for
commercial properties, although it has been represented to us consistently to date that commercial
properties clearly are allowed to protect their properties with signage.
We look forward to working with the Planning and Zoning Commission to reach a solution that is fair and
equitable to both sides of the is e.
Marc P. Powell
Chief Executive Officer
ASPEN: (970) 920-8538; DILLON: (910) 468-8264; EAGLE: (970) 328-0145; VAIL: (970) 949-6677
~,
~,
]!LA.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Juli, Ann Wood, Co=writy D'W'O"""'''"",,,'''W1
Mitch Haas, Planner
THRU:
FROM:
RE:
Sign Code Amendments m Security Signs
DATE:
November 3,1998 (continued from October 6,1998)
SUMMARY: Chapter 26.36, Signs, of the Aspen Municipal Code does not permit the
security company signs commonly seen throughout the City. As the sign code is
currently written, only temporary real estate signs, temporary construction site signs, and
home occupation signs are permitted within residential zone districts. Further, off-site
signs (i.e., signs which identify a business, but are not located at the place of business) are
prohibited in all zone districts. Staff received complaints about the security signs and
commenced enforcement of the sign code when Apex Security requested that City
Council direct staff to initiate a code amendment process where the proposed
amendments would allow for security signs. Council then directeq staff to carry out this
request.
Thus, the purpose of this memorandum is to suggest an amendment to Chapter 26.36 that
would allow but regulate the siting and design of security signs in the City of Aspen
while eliminating the advertising element of such signs and prohibiting off-site security
company signage from anywhere within the City of Aspen. One issue that will need to be
decided is whether security company names should be included in security signs, or to
eliminate the advertising element of the signs. The proposed amendments attempt to
provide a reasonable and sound balance between the need or perceived need for the signs
and the character-related impacts associated with the signs.
Community Development Department staff recommends that the Planning and
Zoning Commission advise City Council to approve the proposed code amendments.
APPLICANT: The City of Aspen Community Development Department.
BACKGROUND: Following up on citizen complaints, the City contacted Apex
Security in October of 1997 to inform the company that a number of their security signs
were in violation of Section 26.36, Signs, of the Aspen Municipal Code, which prohibits
signs from being located in the public rights-of-way and requires that all signs comply
with the setback requirements of the zone district in which said signs are located.. A
follow-up letter was sent to Apex on Apri115, 1998, to inform the company that many of
I
,-..,
.-,
its signs were still in violation of the aforementioned regulation, and to request that all
signs be brought into compliance by June 15, 1998.
In a more general manner, at the July 6, 1998 City Council Brown-Bag session, Council
requested that staff look into the overall legality of the Apex signs, which seemed to have
become more prevalent. In response, City staff sent another letter to Apex Security on
July 14, 1998 stating that Section 26.36 (Signs) of the Aspen Municipal Code only
permits temporary real estate signs, temporary construction site signs, and home
occupation signs within residential zone districts. The letter went on to further state that
off-site signs (i.e., signs identifying a business in the area, but not displayed at the
identified business's location) are prohibited in all zone districts. The July 14th letter
concluded by stating that the Apex Security signs which are currently located at private
residences and commercial locations within City limits are therefore not permitted, and
requested that the company remove all such signs by no later than August 15, 1998.
Finally, the letter suggested that Apex consider pursuing a code amendment aimed at
allowing their signs.
At a subsequent City Council Brown-Bag session, it was agreed that the City would
initiate the code amendment process on behalf of Apex Security. While some members
,of Council felt that smaller signs of a different design wonld be acceptable, other
members of Council clearly expressed a desire to eliminate the advertising element of the
signs. For instance, an article in the Aspen Daily News (See Exhibit B) quoted one
member of Council as saying the signs "were an atrocious form of advertisement," and
also asked if there is an international symbol for security that could eliminate the
advertising element of the signs.
PROCEDURE: Pursuant to Section 26.92.030, Procedure for Amendment, a
development application for an amendment to the text of the Municipal Code shall' be
reviewed and recommended for approval, approval with conditions, or disapproval by the
Planning Director and then by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing,
and then approved, approved with conditions, or disapproved by the City Council at a
public hearing. Therefore, the Commission is functioning in an advisory capacity with
final decision-making authority resting with the City Council.
DISCUSSION: Proponents of security company signs explain that the signs perform the
comforting functions of theft deterrence and making it easier for police or fire department
personnel to find their property in case of emergency. Others feel that the signs are out of
character with the small town, Victorian mountain resort village charm of Aspen. They
point out that the concept of security company signage is an import from other
communities in the country where it represents a solution to a set of problems that do not
exist in our community, and that the crime rates in Aspen do not justify the perception apt
to be created, nor the impression apt to be made on new residents and tourists. For
instance, one Councilman stated at a Brown-Bag Session that, based on comments from
citizens, the signs in front of properties reflect that Aspen is crime infested (See Exhibit
2
,-.,
~\
B). Still other critics of security company signage believe the signs serve little purpose
outside of advertising, and that they have the cumulative affect of a Main Street billboard.
After asking police and fire department personnel whether the presence of a security
company sign helps them respond to a call or alarm, staff learned that the average
response time in the city limits is between three (3) and five (5) minutes, depending on
location, for both the police and the fire department,. and that the presence or lack of a
security company sign is not believed to have any affect on this margin. Staff also
learned that the police respond to all alarms, and that the adopted Fire Code requires that
every residence be clearly and noticeably addressed (identified), as further explained
below. Because the Apex guards are located at the Aspen Airport Business Center, it
usually takes them anywhere from ten (10) to twenty (20) minutes to arrive at the scene
of an alarm. One can conclude, then, that the signs are not needed for the Apex guards to
locate the scene of an alarm since, first, the Fire Code requires that houses be clearly and
noticeably addressed, and second, the guards need only look for the property with police
and/or fire department vehicles in front of it.
Staff recognizes that there are many people to which the signs provide a sort of security
blanket and in no way intends to belittle this feeling, but lacks a better way of describing
it. However, given the relative infrequency of crimes in Aspen and the apparent lack of
affect on emergency response times in the event of criminal activity, staff feels that the
significant community character issues associated with the proliferation of security
company signs and the perception of a need for deterrence the signs potentially create
. outweighs the importance of the "security blanket" effect some community members
prefer. Nevertheless, in appreciation of the desire to maintain the security blanket effect
but still desiring to address the character-related issues and eliminate the advertising
element of security signs, staff is proposing a code amendment that involves permitting
one (1) six inch by six inch (6" x 6") security sign as part of the total allowable two (2)
square feet of residential name and address signs per residence, provided that if the
residential name and address sign is to include security signage, it be placed on the
building or mailbox and be non-company specific. The proposed amendment would also
clearly prohibit off-site security signage that includes advertising or identification of a
specific business. This proposal explicitly distinguishes between security signs and
security company signs.
The Aspen Daily News article attached as Exhibit B, shows that in response to comments
about the advertising element of the signs, Apex Security's Executive Director stated that
the signs are "not about advertising," but that their clients "have a legitimate expectation
to have some sort of signage," and that the signs actually serve the purpose of deterring
burglars. Staff believes the proposed amendments would allow for meeting the
expectations of clients "to have some sort of signage" that would serve the purpose of
deterring burglars, and that if the signs really are "not about advertising," then there
should be no objection to removing the company name and logo.
3
~.
,r-,
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS: In accord with the "Purpose" of the City Sign Code, as
described in Section 26.36.010 of the Municipal Code, the intent of the proposed
amendment is to regulate the design, size, and placement of security signs in an effort to:
. "Preserve and maintain the City of Aspen as a pleasing,. visually attractive
environment," (26.36.0l0(A));
. "Enhance the attractiveness ... of the City of Aspen as a place to live, vacation and
conduct business," (26.36.01O(C));
. "Enable the identification of places of residence and business," (26.36.01O(E));
. "Encourage signs that are appropriate to the zone district in which they are located
and consistent with the category of use to which they pertain," (26.36.010(0));
. "Curtail the size and number of signs and sign messages to the minimum reasonably
necessary to identify a residential or business location and the nature of any such
business," (26.36.010(J));
. "Lessen ... confusion and visual clutter caused by proliferation, improper placement ...
of signs which compete for the attention of pedestrian and vehicular traffic,"
(26.36.01O(M)); and, to
. "Regulate signs in a manner so as not to interfere with ... or distract motorists,
bicyclists or pedestrians," (26.36.010(N)).
In consideration of the Sign Code's purpose and the concerns described in the
"Discussion" section of this memorandum, staff proposes amending Section 26.36.030,
Procedure for Sign Permit Approval, subsection (B)(l7), Residential Name and Address
Signs, and Section 26.36.040, Prohibited Signs, subsection (B), Billboards and Other Off-
Premise Signs, as follows, where language striekea om is proposed for removal and
language in bold is proposed to augment the existing regulation. Prior to reviewing the
proposed changes, it is worth noting that the adopted provisions of the Uniform Fire
Code, under Article 9, Section 901.4.4, Premises Identification, mandate that "Approved
numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a position
as to be plainly visible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall
contrast with their background." The proposed amendments include the added benefit of
making the Sign Code provisions for residential name and address signs consistent with
the adopted "Premises Identification" rnles of the Fire Code. It is also worth noting that
the existing security company signs throughout town are in violation of the code and are
currently prohibited. If approved, the proposed amendments wonld grant rights that do
not currently exist, which may be some consolation to the security companies and their
clients.
Proposed Amendment to Section 26. 36. 030(B)(l7):
17. Residential name and address signs. One (1) mailbox freestanaiag or wall sign per
detached residential dwelling unit or duplex unit, with an area not to exceed two (2)
square feet which identifies the name ef tHe OCCIIflal'lt al'la the street address of the
dwelling unit. Within this two (2) square foot limitation, it is also acceptable to
include the name of the occupant and/or an area of up to six inches by six inches
(6" x 6") for a message alerting the geueral public of the presence of a security
4
~
,~
system, provided the message is not specifically identifying or otherwise
advertising a partiCular business. Approved numbers or addresses shall be
placed on all new and existing buildings or mailboxes, whichever. is more
visible, in such a position as to be plainly visible from the street or road fronting
the property. Numbers shall contrast with their background.
Proposed Amendment to Section 26.36.040(B):
B. Billboards and other off-premise signs. Billboards and other off-premise signs,
including security company signs which do not comply with the regulations set
forth in Section 26.36.030(B)(17), are prohibited, except atHl temporary signs as
provided for in Section 26.36.120.
The amendments proposed above have received the full endorsement of the Aspen Area
Community Plan update's "Character Focus Area Committee."
REVIEW STANDARDS: Chapter 26.92, Amendments To The Land Use Regulations
And Official Zone District Map, at Section 26.92.020 provides nine (A-I) standards for
City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission's review of proposed
amendments to the text of the Land Use Code. These standards and staffs evaluation of
the potential amendments relative to them are provided below, with the standard in italics
followed by the staff "response."
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this
title.
RESPONSE: Adoption of the proposed code amendments would not be in conflict with
any applicable portions of the Land Use Code. The proposed amendments are consistent
with the "Purpose" and other provisions of the existing sign code since no, business in the
City of Aspen, regardless of type or message, is permitted to display off-site advertising
on anything other than a temporary basis.
B., Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan.
RESPONSE: The proposed amendments are not in conflict with any elements of the
AACP, and are very much consistent with the "Intent" and' "Philosophy" statements of the
Design Quality and Historic Preservation Action Plan (page' 54 of the AACP).
Furthermore, the amendments proposed above have received the full endorsement of the
"Character Focus Area Committee" of the Aspen Area Community Plan update.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and
land uses, considering existing land uses and neighborhood characteristics.
RESPONSE: Considering land uses and neighborhood characteristics, staff believes the
amendments, as proposed, would result in allowing signage that is compatible with
surrounding zone districts and land uses while precluding signs that would be
incompatible with the same.
5
1""".
,1"""\
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on trqffic generation and road safety.
RESPONSE: The proposed code amendments are not anticipated to have any effect on
traffic generation, but could improve road safety by mandating clear and noticeable
premises identification for all residences while lessening confusion, distraction, and
visual clutter caused by the proliferation and improper placement of signs which compete
for the attention of pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular traffic.
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands
on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment
would exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited to
transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools,
and emergency medical facilities.
RESPONSE: The proposed amendments would have no effect on infrastructure or
infrastructure capacities.
F Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment.
~SPONSE: The proposed amendments would have no effect on the natural
environment.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community
character in the City of Aspen.
RESPONSE: Please refer to the "Discussion" section of this memorandum, above, for a
full review of character-related issues associated with the proposed amendments. Staff
believes the proposed amendments present a reasonable and sound balance between the .
concerns of security sign proponents and those related to the preservation of Aspen's
small town, Victorian mountain village character and charm.
H Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the
surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment.
RESPONSE: There has been no significant change in Aspen's general character, nor has
there been significant change in local crime rates. However, the amount, visibility and
prominence of security company signage throughout the City of Aspen has risen
dramatically in the last year and even in recent months. These increases are believed to
be negatively impacting and/or hold the potential of adversely affecting Aspen's
community character.
1. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and
is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title.
RESPONSE: Staff believes the public's interest with regard to security signage is in the
ability to maintain a means of theft/crime deterrence and to make properties easily
identifiable, while not unduly permitting off-site advertising or degradation of the
community's character and image. Staff further believes the proposed amendments would
6
r-,
.~
not be in conflict with, this interest, and that the proposed amendments are in harmony
with the purpose and intent of the Sign Code and the Land Use Code, in general.
STAFF FINDINGS: Please refer to the "Review Standards" section of this
memorandum, above.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission
forward to City Council a recommendation to approve the code amendments proposed
herein.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: . "I move to recommend that City Council adopt the
code amendments related to security signs as proposed in the Community Development
Department staff memorandum prepared by Mitch Haas and dated November 3, 1998, as
memorialized in Resolution Number 98-29."
EXHIBITS:
Exhibit A - Letter from the Aspen Alps Condominium Association
Exhibit B - Aspen Daily News Article by Carolyn Sackariason (date not known)
7
12-01-1998 3,41PM FROM APEX SCTY GRP ASPEN 970~ 6531
!""\
P.2
__ ~_ft_ ~
APEX SECURITY GROUP
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
- ~_.
~......:. J ~~~ ~_
-
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
CC:
MITCH HAAS, ASPEN CITY PLANNING OFFICE
MARC POWELL, CHIEF EXECUITVE
SECURITY SIGN ,ADDENDUM REQUEST
12/01/98
Dear Mitch -
As we have discussed, Apex is in general agreement with the recommendation proffered
by the Planning and Zoning Commission, with one major exception. Apex believes that
with the dt=tic size and color reduction oontempbted by the new code, our clients W10uld
receive abso!t,l!e[Y no prol.ecti011 from a small sign attached to the home. In addition, many
of our clients would object to having a pe;rtmnently affixed sign on their home.
Thus, Apex would propose simply that the P&Z language be changed to allow Our
clients to place the sign anywhere on the propert}' within minimum setbacks of their
applicable zone district.
Please let me know if I can be of any assistance to your process. Again, please furgive
my ta:rdy proposal. Welcome home.
very~s, /1
/~~
Marc P. Powell
4,"'.
,-...
.,-..,
EA.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
JWi, Ann WO<><>;, !.torim C.=wnly Ow,I.pm'", Dire,"'! r- '
Mitch Haas, Planner~
Sign Code Amendments m Security Signs'
THRU:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
October 6, 1998
SUMMARY: Chapter 26.36, Signs, of the Aspen Municipal Code does not permit the
security company signs commonly seen throughout the City. As the sign code is
currently written, only temporary real estate signs, temporary construction site signs, and
home occupation signs are permitted within residential zone districts. Further, off-site
signs (i.e., signs which identify a business, but are not located at the place of business) are
prohibited in all zone districts. Staff received complaints about the security signs and
commenced enforcement of the sign code when Apex Security requested that City
Council direct staff to initiate, a code amendment process where the proposed
amendments would allow for security signs. Council then directed staff to carry out this
request. Thus, the purpose of this memorandum is to suggest an amendment to Chapter
26.36 that would allow but regulate the siting and design of security signs in the City of
Aspen while eliminating the advertising element of such signs and prohibiting off-site
security signage from anywhere within the City of Aspen.
At the request of Apex Security, who would be affected by the proposed
amendments, Community Development Department staff recommends that the
Planning and Zoning Commission open and continue the public hearing to their
October 20, 1998 agenda. Staff then recommends that, at the continued public
hearing, the Commission advise City Council to approve the proposed code
amendments.
APPLICANT: The City of Aspen Community Development Department.
BACKGROUND: Following up on citizen complaints, the City contacted Apex
Security in October of 1997 to inform the company that a number of their security signs
were in violation of Section 26.36, Signs, of the Aspen Municipal Code, which prohibits
signs from being located in the public rights-of-way and requires that all signs comply
with the setback requirements of the zone district in which said signs are located. A
follow-up letter was sent to Apex on April 15, 1998, to inform the company that many of
its signs were still in violation of the aforementioned regulation, and to request that all
signs be brought into compliance by June 15, 1998.
r-,
,~
In a more general manner, at the July 6, 1998 City Council Brown-Bag session, Council
requested that staff look into the overall legality of the Apex signs, which seemed to have
become more prevalent. In response, City staff sent another letter to Apex Security on
July 14, 1998 stating that Section 26.36 (Signs) of the Aspen Municipal Code only
permits temporary real estate signs, temporary construction site signs, and home
occupation signs within residential zone districts. The letter went on to further state that
off-site signs (i.e., signs identifying a business in the area, but not displayed at the
identified business's location) are prohibited in all zone districts. The July 14th letter
concluded by stating that the Apex Security signs which are currently located at private
residences and commercial locations within City limits are therefore not permitted, and
requested that the company remove all such signs by no later than August 15, 1998.
Finally, the letter suggested that Apex consider pursuing a code amendment aimed at
allowing their signs.
At a subsequent City Council Brown-Bag session, it was agreed that the City would
initiate the code amendment process on behalf of Apex Security.
PROCEDURE: Pursuant to Section 26.92.030, Procedure for Amendment, a
development application for an amendment to the text of the Municipal Code shall be
reviewed and recommended for approval, approval with conditions, or disapproval by the
Planning Director and then by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing,
and then approved, approved with conditions, or disapproved by the City Council at a
public hearing. Therefore, the Commission is functioning in an advisory capacity with
final decision-making authority resting with the City CounciL
DISCUSSION: Proponents of security company signs explain that the signs perform the
comforting functions of theft deterrence and making it easier for poli~e or fire department
personnel to find their property in case of emergency. Others feel that the signs are out of
character with the small town, Victorian mountain resort village charm of Aspen. They
point out that the concept of security company signage is an import from other
communities in the country where it represents a solution to a set of problems that do not
exist in our community, and that the crime rates in Aspen do not justify the perception apt
to be created, nor the impression apt to be made on new residents and tourists. Still other
critics of security company signage believe the signs serve little purpose outside of
advertising, and that they have the cumulative affect of a, Main Street billboard.
After asking police and fire department personnel whether the presence of a security
company sign helps them respond to a call or alarm, staff learned that the average
response time in the city limits is between three (3) and five (5) minutes, depending on
location, for both the police and the fire department, and that the presence or lack of a
security company sign is not believed to have any affect on this margin, Staff also
leamed that the police respond to all alarms, and that the adopted Fire Code requires that
every residence be clearly and noticeably addressed (identified), as further explained
below. Because the Apex guards are located at the Aspen Airport Business Center, it
usually takes them anywhere from ten (10) to twenty (20) minutes to arrive at the scene
2
j
r-"
~
of an alarm. One can conclude, then, that the signs are not needed for the Apex guards to
locate the scene of an alarm since, first, the Fire Code requires that the house be clearly
and noticeably addressed, and second, the guards need only look for the house with police
and/or fire department vehicles in front of it.
Staff recognizes that there are many people to which the signs provide a sort of security
blanket, and staff in no way intends to belittle this feeling but lacks a better way of
describing it. However, given the relative infrequency of crimes in Aspen and the
apparent lack of affect on emergency response times in the event of criminal activity,
staff feels that the significant community character issues associated with the
proliferation of security company signs and the perception of a need for deterrence the
signs potentially create outweighs the importance of the "security blanket" effect some
community members prefer. Nevertheless, in appreciation of the desire to maintain the
security blanket effect but still desiring to address the character-related issues and
eliminate the advertising element of security signs, staff is proposing a code amendment
that involves permitting one (1) six inch by six inch (6" x 6") security sign as part of the
total allowable two (2) square feet of residential name and address signs per residence,
provided that if the residential name and address sign is to include security signage, it be
placed on the building and be non-company specific. The proposed amendment would
also clearly prohibit off-site security signage that includes advertising or identification of
a specific business. This proposal explicitly distinguishes between security signs and
security company signs.
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS: In accord with the "Purpose" of the City Sign Code, as
described in Section 26.36.010 of the Municipal Code, the intent of the proposed
amendment is to regulate the design, size, and placement of security signs in an effort to:
. "Preserve and maintain the City of Aspen as a pleasing, visually attractive
environment," (26.36.0l0(A));
. "Enhance the attractiveness ... of the City of Aspen as a place to live, vacation and
conduct business," (26.36.0l0(C));
. "Enable the identification of places of residence and business," (26.36.010(E));
. "Encourage signs that are appropriate to the zone district in which they are located
and consistent with the category of use to which they pertain," (26.36.010(G));
. "Curtail the size and number of signs and sign messages to the minimum reasonably
necessary to identify a residential or business location and the nature of any such
business," (26.36.010(1));
. "Lessen ... confusion and visual clutter caused by proliferation, improper placement ...
of signs which compete for the attention of pedestrian and vehicular traffic,"
(26.36.010(M)); and, to
. "Regulate signs in a manner so as not to interfere with ... or distract motorists,
bicyclists or pedestrians," (26.36.0l0(N)),
3
'.
~
~,
,~
In consideration of the Sign Code's purpose and the concerns described in the
"Discussion" section of this memorandum, staff proposes amending Section 26.36.030,
Procedure for Sign Permit Approval, subsection (B)(17), Residential Name and Address
Signs, and Section 26.36.040, Prohibited Signs, subsection (B), Billboards and Other Off-
Premise Signs, as follows, where language stricken out is proposed for removal and
language in bold is proposed to augment the existing regulation. Prior to reviewing the
proposed changes, it is worth noting that the adopted provisions of the Uniform Fire
Code, under Article 9, Section 901.4.4, Premises Identification, mandate that "Approved
numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a position
as to be plainly visible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall
contrast with their background." The proposed amendments include the added benefit of
making the Sign Code provisions for residential name and address signs consistent with
the adopted "Premises Identification" rules of the Fire Code.
Proposed Amendment to Section 26.36. 030(B)(17):
17. Residential name and address signs. One freestanding sr wall sign per detached
residential dwelling unit or duplex unit, located on the residential structure aud
with an area not to exceed two (2) square feet which identifies the name sf the
seelljlant and the street address of the dwelling unit. Within this two (2) square
foot limitation, it is also acceptable to include the name of the occupant and/or
an area of up to six inches by six inches (6" x 6") for a message alerting the
general public to the presence of a security system, provided the message is not
specifically identifying or otherwise advertising a particular business. Approved
numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a
position as to be plainly visible from the street or road fronting the property.
Numbers shall contrast with their background. '
Proposed Amendment to Section 26.36. 040(B):
B. Billboards and other off-premise signs. Billboards and other off-premise signs,
including security company signs, are prohibited, except as-a temporary signs as
provided for in Section 26.36.120.
REVIEW STANDARDS: Chapter 26.92, Amendments To The Land Use Regulations
And Official Zone District Map, at Section 26.92.020 provides nine (A-I) standards for
City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission's review of proposed
amendments to the text of the Land Use Code. These standards and staffs evaluation of
the potential amendments relative to them are provided below, with the standard in italics
followed by the staff "response."
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this
title.
RESPONSE: Adoption of the proposed code amendments would not be in conflict with
any applicable portions of the Land Use Code. The proposed amendments are consistent
with the "Purpose" and other provisions of the existing sign code since no business in the
4
fI"'...
,1""'\
City of Aspen, regardless of type or message, is permitted to display off-site advertising
on anything other than a temporary basis.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan.
RESPONSE: The proposed amendments are not in conflict with any elements of the
AACP, and are very much consistent with the "Intent" and "Philosophy" statements of the
Design Quality and Historic Preservation Action Plan (page 54 ofthe AACP).
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and
land uses, considering existing land uses and neighborhood characteristics.
RESPONSE: Considering land uses and neighborhood characteristics, staff believes the
amendments, as proposed, would result in allowing signage that is compatible with
surrounding zone districts and land uses while precluding signs that would be
incompatible with the same.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety.
RESPONSE: The proposed code amendments are not anticipated to have any effect on
traffic generation, but could improve road safety by mandating clear and noticeable
premises identification for all residences while lessening confusion, distraction, and
visual clutter caused by the proliferation and improper placement of signs which compete
for the attention of pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular traffic.
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands
on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment
would exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited to
transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools,
and emergency medical facilities.
RESPONSE: The proposed amendments would have no effect on infrastructure or
infrastructure capacities.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment.
RESPONSE: The proposed amendments would have no effect on the natural
environment.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community
character in the City of Aspen. '
RESPONSE: Please refer to the "Discussion" section of this memorandum" above, for a
full review of character-related issues associated with the proposed amendments. Staff
believes the proposed amendments present a reasonable and sound balance between the
concerns of security sign proponents and those related to the preservation of Aspen's
small town, Victorian mountain village character and charm,
5
.~. .
.-'+'
.'-'
1"""\
H Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the
surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment.
RESPONSE: There has been no significant change in Aspen's general character, nor has
there been $ignificant change in local crime rates. However, the amount, visibility and
prominence of security company signage throughout the City of Aspen has risen
dramatically in the last year and even in recent months. These increases are believed to
be negatively impacting and/or hold the potential of adversely aff~cting Aspen's
community character.
L Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and
is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title.
RESPONSE: Staff believes the public's interest with regard to security signage is in the
ability to maintain a means of theft deterrence and to make properties easily identifiable,
while not unduly permitting off-site advertising or degradation of the community's
character and image. Staff further believes the proposed amendments would not be in
conflict with this interest, and that the proposed amendments are in harmony with the
purpose and intent of the Sign Code and the Land Use Code, in general.
STAFF FINDINGS: Please refer to. the "Review Standards" section of this
memorandum, above.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission
forward to City Council a recommendation to approve the code amendments proposed
herein.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to recommend that City Council adopt the
code amendments related security sigris as proposed in the Community Development
Department staff memorandum prepared by Mitch Haas and dated October 6, 1998."
EXHIBITS:
Exhibit A - Letter from the Aspen Alps Condominium Association
6
.r-,
~
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: SIGN CODE AMENDMENTS TO PERMIT SECURITY SIGNS
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, October 6,1998 at
a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, City Council
Chambers or the Sister Cities Meeting Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an
application submitted by the City of Aspen Community Development Department on behalf of
Apex Security, requesting approval for Proposed Code Amendments revising Section
26.36.030(B), Exempt Signs, of the Aspen Municipal Code. The proposed code amendments
would exempt home security signs from the provisions of the sign code, provided certain
conditions are met. For further information, contact Mitch Haas at the Aspen/Pitkin Community
Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5095.
s/Sara Garton. Chair
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on September 19, 1998
----------------------------------
--------------------------------
City of Aspen Account
g:\planning\aspen\notices\apexsign
,I"",
(""\,
, ,
ASPEN POLICE DEPARTMENT - STATISTICS
- ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL %CHG %CHG
INCIDENT 1994 ~ 1996 19!!I ~ ~
Homicide 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00%
Sexual Assault
1st Dearee 0 1 0 2 0.00% N/C
2nd Dearee 2 0 0 5 150% N/C
3rd Dearee 0 3 2 0 0.00% -100.00%
Child 3 0 0 1 <66.67%> N/C
Incest 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00%
Indecent Exposure 1 2 4 2 100% <50%>
Robbery 1 1 1 0 <100%> <100%>
Assaull/Disorderlv Conduct 118 143 94 103 <12.72%> 9.58%
Buralary 82 111 90 79 <3.66%> <12.23>
Theft (inc!. theft from auto) 566 569 511 369 <34.81%> <27.79%>
Motor Vehicle Theft 40 16 22 23 <42.50%> 5% '
Arson 1 4 3 0 <100%> 100%
Foraerv Counts 33 14 17 5 <84.85%> <70.59>
Fraud Counts 51 42 55 36 <29.42%> <34.55%>
Criminal Mischief 129 117 110 97 <24.81 > <11.82>
Trespass 124 25 23 83 <33.07> 260.87%
Domestic/Civil 35 48 36 38 9% ' 6%
Child Abuse/Nealect 1 3 3 2 100% <33.34%:>
Death/Suicide 4 5 4 7 75% 75%
Druas 38 ,40 50 51 34% 2.00%
DUI/DUID 125 190 114 96 <23.20%> <15.79%>
,
CALLS FOR SERVICE %CHG %CHG
1994 1995 1996 1997 94/97 96/97
REDDI 49 72 35 65 32.66% 86%
Accidents 820 777 729 777 <5.25%> 7%
Alarms 785 608 654 619 <21.15%> <5.36%>
Fires 118 137 237 239 102.55% 1%
Ambi Calls 261 332 296 351 34.49% 18.59%
Warrant Arrests 168 166 165 157 <6.55%> <4.85%>
Other Agency Assists 167 263 193 189 <13.18%> <2.08%>
Protective Custody for 64 68 67 50 <21.88%> <25.38%>
Substance Abuse/
Mental Health
Traffic (Officer Initiated) 3455 4029 3723 1069 <69.06%> <71.29%>
,
TOTAL CASE REPORTS 2276 2226 2016 2007 <11.82%> <0.45%>
TOTAL ACCIDENT REPORTS 431 469 474 463 7.43% <2.32%>
TOTAL CALLS FOR SERVICE 15027 16955 14290 11354 <24.45%> <20.55%>
I
.1"""'1
~.
. ASPEN POLICE DEPARTMENT - STATISTICS
1997
- AClUAL ACTUAL AClUAL ACTUAL
INCIDENT 1 st atr 2nd atr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr
Homicide 0 0 0 0
Sexual Assault
1st Decree 0 0 1 1
2nd Degree ' 1 1 1 2
3rd Decree 0 0 0 0
Child 0 0 1 0
Incest 0 0 0 0
Indecent Exposure 0 1 1 0
Robbery 0 0 0 0
Assault/Oisorderlv Conduct 23 14 33 .33
Burglary 20 15 23 21
Theft line!. theft from auto) 101 86 95 87
Motor Vehicle Theft 6 3 4 10
Arson 0 0 0 0
Forgery Counts 1 0 2 2
Fraud Counts 11 9 12 4
Criminal Mischief 18 27 34 18
Trespass 32 10 ' 17 24
Domestic/Civil 17 7 8 6
Child Abuse/Neglect 0 i 0 1
Death/Suicide 1 4 2 0
Druas : 10 10 14 17
DUl/DUID 34 28 23 " 11
Calls for Service
REDDI 19 11 17 18
Accidents 260 129 205 183
Alarms 137 194 135 153
Fires 59 48 71 61
Ambi Calls 146 65 94 46
Warrant Arrests 53 38 32 34
Other Agency Assists 37 50 65 37
Protective Custody for
Substance Abusel 13 7 13 17
Mental Health
Traffic 301 196 351 221
T-Stops (officer-initiated) 744 , 583 541 431
TOTAL CASE REPORTS 579 409 519 500
TOTAL ACCIDENT REPORTS 161 86 112 104
TOTAL CALLS FOR SERVICE 3030 2271 3537 2516
-
'-",
.t"l
1994 UNIFORM FIRE CODE
901-901.4.5
PART III
GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR SAFETY
ARTICLE 9 - FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS AND WATER SUPPLY
SECTION 901 - GENERAL
901.1 Scope. Fire department access and water supply shall be in accordance with Article 9.
For fire safety during construction, alteration or demolition of a building, see Article 87.
901.2 Permits and Plans.
901.2.1 Permits. A pennit is required to use or operate fire hydrants or valves intended for
fire-suppression purposes which are installed on water systems and accessible to public highways.
alleys or private ways open to or generally used by the public. See Section 105, Pennit f.l.
EXCEPTION: A permit is not required for persons employed and authorized by the water company which
supplies the system to use or operate fire hydrants or valves.
901.2.2 Plans.
901.2.2.1 Fire apparatus access. Plans for fire apparatus access roads shall be submitted to the
fire department for review and approval prior to construction.
901.2.2.2 Fire hydrant systems. Plans and specifications for fire hydrant systems shall be sub-
mitted to the fire department for review and approval prior to construction.
901.3 Timing of Installation. When fire protection, including fire apparatus access roads and
water supplies for fire protection, is required to be installed, such protection shall be installed and
made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction.
EXCEPTION: When alternate methods of protection. as approved by the chief, are provided. the require~
ments of Section 901.3 may be modified or waived.
901.4 Required Marking of Fire Apparatus Access Roads, Addresses and Fire Protection
Equipment.
901.4.1 General. Marking of fire apparatus access roads, addresses and fire protection equipment
shall be in accordance with Section 901.4.
901.4.2 Fire apparatus access roads. When required by the chief, approved signs or other ap-
proved notices shall be provided and maintained for fire apparatus access roads to identify such
roads and prohibit the obstruction thereof or both.
901.4.3 Fire protection equipment and fire hydrants. Fire-protection equipment and fire
hydrants shall be clearly identified in a manner approved by the chief to prevent obstruction by
parking and other obstructions.
When required by the chief, hydrant locations shall be identified by the installation of reflective
markers.
See also Section 100 L 7.
901.4.4 Premises identification. Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and
existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road front-
ing the property. Numbers shall contrast with their background.
901.4.5 Street or Road Signs. When required by the chief, streets and roads shall be identified
with approved signs.
1-45
I
i
i
_,__I
>
~~
<gi
~
--.,
ACCESS
WATR SUP ,
-j
i
,
,
<
1:
I
l
I
j
1
J
4
-1