HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ca.Sign Code.A060-99
/
~,
~.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor and City Council
THRU:
Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director
Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director
FROM:
Sarah Oates, Zoning Officer
RE:
Code Amendment, Second Reading-Section 26.104.100, Definitions,
"Sign" and Section 26.510, Signs
DATE:
September 13, 1999
SUMMARY: This proposed code amendment is in response to City Council's direction
to differentiate between window/merchandise display and store signage. The Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval by a vote of 6 to 0, and City
Council passed the code amendment on first reading by a vote of 5 to O. Community
Development Department staff recommends that City Council adopt the code
amendment to Section 26.104.100, Definitions, "Sign" and Section 26.510, Signs as
proposed herein.
APPLICANT: The City of Aspen Community Development Department.
PROCEDURE: Pursuant to Section 26.310.020, 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.
DISCUSSION: Currently, Section 26.04.100, Definitions, of the Municipal Code defines
"Sign" as follows:
Sign. An object, device, symbol, light or structure fixed to, painted on, placed on,
or incorporated into the surface of a building or structure, or displayed from or
within a building or structure, or freestanding, constructed, designed, place or
intended to convey information or to advertise.
This definition is so broad in scope that window displays, as well as any merchandise that
is visible to the public, can technically be considered signage. The conflict arises when
the staff is asked to enforce and regulate window displays under the sign code criteria.
As the sign code prohibits moving parts, neon lighting or backlit lighting we have been
asked to regulate items such as: a moving bicycle wheel in the window of the Hub, a
small rotating "chef' in the window of Charcuterie, and a backlit panel in the window of
Gucci.
,~,
n
Staff is concerned that if merchandise is actually considered as signage, then all aspects
of the sign code must <ipply to displays, not just the regulations regarding lighting and
moving parts. However, if we were to apply all provisions of the sign code to window
displays, and create equity with all window displays, then virtnally every business in
town would be violating the sign code in that they would be exceeding the allowed size
and number of signs. Our goal.is to amend the code to more clearly define "sign" for the
business person and staff to be able to more fairly and consistently apply regulations.
Staff is also concerned about the use of several sources of illumination that may be used
inappropriately in window displays, which has been addressed in Section 26.510, Signs.
The sign chapter does not currently address window displays. The proposed changes are
outlined below.
PROPOSED AMENDMENT: Staff proposes amending the ,above-cited definition to
read as follows. The wording of the original definition has been rearranged and the text
to be added is bold:
Sign. An object, device, symbol, light or structure that is intended to convey
information or to advertise, that is freestanding or fixed to, painted on, placed on,
or incorporated into the surface of the structure, or that is displayed from or within
a structure. Window displays of mercbandise, and representations tbereof,
are not considered signage and sIiaIl no be subject to sign regulations (see
Section 26.510.140, Signs"Window Displays).
26.510.140 Window displays. Window displays of merchandise, and
representations thereof, are not subject to sign regulations, sign square
footage, and do not require a sign permit, except the following are prohibited
in window displays: '
a) Televisions, compnter monitors, or other similar technological
devices that create oscillating light.
b) Neon or other gas tube illumination, rope lighting or low-voltage
strip-lighting.
REVIEW STANDARDS: Chapter 26.92, Amendments To The Land Us~ 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 staff's 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: The proposed amendment would not be in conflict with any applicable
portions of the Aspen Municipal Code.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen
Area Comprehensive Plan.
2
1"""\
'-r
RESPONSE: None of the proposed amendment would be in conflict with any elements
of the AACP.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone
districts and land uses, considering existing land uses and neighborhood
characteristics. .
RESPONSE: The code amendment primarily impacts the commercial zone districts, in
which creative window displays are important to activity in those zone districts.
D. The effict of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety.
RESPONSE: The proposed code amendment is not anticipated to have any effect on
traffic generation or road safety.
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 code amendment is not anticipated to have an effect on
infrastructure or infrastructure capacities. Further, it is staffs hope that this amendment
will reduce some enforcement time that it takes when complaints come in regarding
certain "displays" in store windows.
F Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment.
RESPONSE: The proposed code amendment is not anticipated to 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: The ability of business owners to creatively display their merchandise is
consistent and compatible with the community character of Aspen. Window displays
have long been a tradition of Aspen's commercial core retailers. In actuality, window
displays add to the interest and enjoyment of our streetscapes for visitors and residents
alike, especially adding to the vitality of our downtown area,
H Whether there have been changed conditions ajftcting the subject parcel or
the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment.
RESPONSE: With the competitive nature of Aspen business, it is important that the
business owners are able to attract consumers into their shops, restaurants, etc. This
condition is a supporting factor to the proposed amendment.
3
~
I"""\,
1 Whether the proposed amendment would be in coriflict with the public
interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title.
RESPONSE: Staff believes the proposed amendment would be in harmony with the
public interest in allowing all businesses to have window displays and display their
merchandise in a manner they see fit.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council approve on second
reading the amendments to Section 26.104.100, Definitions, "Sign," and Section 26.510,
Signs, as proposed herein.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to adopt on second reading the amendments to
Section 26.1 04.1 00, Definitions, "Sign," and Section 26.510, Signs as proposed in the
Community Development Departroent memorandum dated September 13, 1999."
CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS:.
c:\home\saraho\planning\code amendments\signcc.doc
4
I"'.
"i
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor and City Council J
Julie Ann Woods, Community Deyelopment DirectorW .
Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director~ V:.
Sarah Oates, Zoning Officer>D
THRU:
FROM:
RE:
Code Amendment, First Reading --- Section 26.104.100, Definitions, "Sign."
Section 26.510, Signs
DATE:
August 9, 1999
SUMMARY: This proposed code amendment is in response to City <:;ouncil's direction to
differentiate between window/merchandise display and store signage. The Aspen Planning
and Zoning Commission recommended approval by a vote of 6 to O. Community
Development Department staff recommends that City Council adopt the code
amendment to Section 26.104.100, Definitions, "Sign" and Section 26.510, Signs as
proposed herein.
APPLICANT: The City of Aspen Community Development Department.
PROCEDURE: Pursuant to Section 26.310.020, 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.
DISCUSSION: Currently, Section 26.04.100, Definitions, of the Municipal Code defines
"Sign" as follows:
Sign. An object, device, symbol, light or structure fixed'to, painted on, placed on, or
incorporated into the surface of a building or structure, or displayed from or within a
building or structure, or freestanding, constructed, designed, place or intended to convey
information or to advertise.
This definition is so broad in scope that window displays, as well as any merchandise that is
visible to the public, can technically be considered signage. The conflict arises when the
staff is asked to enforce and regulate window displays under the sign code criteria. As the
.sign code prohibits moving parts, neon lighting or backlit lighting we have been asked to
regulate items such as: a moving bicycle wheel in the window of the Hub, a small rotating
"chef' in the window of Charcuterie, and a backlit panel in the window of Gucci.
Staff is concerned that if merchandise is actually considered as signage, then all aspects of
the sign code must apply to displays, not just the regulations regarding lighting and moving
parts. However, if we were to apply all provisions of the sign code to window displays, and
create equity with all window displays, then virtually every business in town would be
violating the sign code in that they would be exceeding the allowed size and number of
signs.
,....,.,
~
But, staff is also concerned about the use of several sources of illumination that may be used
inappropriately in window displays, which has been addressed in Section 26.5 10, Signs. The
sign chapter does not currently address window displays. The proposed changes are outlined
below.
PROPOSED AMENDMENT: Staff proposes amending the above-cited definition to read
as follows, with text to be added in bold:
Sign. An object, device, symbol, light or structure fixed to, painted on, placed on, or
incorporated into the surface of a building or structure, or displayed from or within a
building or structure, or freestanding, constructed, designed, place or intended to convey
information or to advertise. Window displays of merchandise, and representations
thereof, are not considered signage and shall not be subject to sign regulations (see
Section 26.510.140, Signs - Window Displays).
26.510.140 Window displays. Wiudow displays of merchandise, and representations
thereof, are not subject to sign regulations, sign square footage, and do not require
a sign permit, except the following are prohibited in window displays:
a) Televisions, computer monitors, or other similar technological devices
, that create oscillating light.
b) Neon or other gas tube illumination, rope lighting or low-voltage strip-
lighting.
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 tothe
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: The proposed amendment would not be in conflict with any applicable
portions ofthe Aspen Municipal Code.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan.
RESPONSE: None of the proposed amendment would be in conflict with any elements of
the AACP.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and
land uses, considering existing land uses and neighborhood characteristics.
RESPONSE: The code amendment primarily impacts the commercial zone districts, in
which creative window displays are important to activity in those zone districts.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety.
2
r"
~,
RESPONSE: The proposed code amendment is not anticipated to have any effect on traffic
generation or road safety.
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 code amendment is not anticipated to have an effect on
infrastructure or infrastructure capacities. Further, it is staffs hope that this amendment will
reduce some enforcement time that it takes when complaints come in regarding certain
"displays" in store windows.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment.
RESPONSE: The proposed code amendment is not anticipated to 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: The ability of business owners to creatively display their merchandise is
consistent and compatible with the community character of Aspen. Excluding window
displays from the sign regulations will also eliminate the feeling of being "picked on" by
some businesses because their window displays are being regulated while others are not.
H Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the
surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment.
RESPONSE: With the competitive nature of Aspen business, it is important that the
business owners are able to attract consumers into their shops, restaurants, etc. This
condition is a supporting factor to the proposed amendment.
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 proposed amendment would be in harmony with the public
interest in allowing all business to have window displays and display their merchandise in a
manner they see fit. '
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council approve on first reading
the amendments to Section 26.104.100, Definitions, "Sign," and Section 26.510, Signs, as
proposed herein.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to adopt on first reading the amendments to
Section 26.104.1 00, Definitions, "Sign," and Section 26.510, Signs as proposed in the
Community Development Department memorandum dated August 9, 1999."
c:\home\saraho\planning\code amendments\signcc.doc
3
,'-'"
n~~~~:",,~~
~~~~?:~~
~~~:4~~(J)
[c~~if~~~
::S:ii';r::::rUl~
i:?.~ ~~: F:;r
. ....'0 '" 0 t"l."
rJ)i~ c= 0: "0
(g~'5' e:
;0 Cl.;'t:: II>
~;~S ~
f=8g ~ ....
; g.~ ~ ." :;0:;
,--::I ?i
:[~ ~
:. Q N
.-
g;]
:e.o:J
:a.
~.
ii"~
N
~
N
~
N
~
~
NN
_0
o~
~~N
s
~
~
s
0;
~ S
;e ~
~ ~
;: 9
0. 3
;;
~
:?
~
o
o
;;
g:
'"
g,
~
;;
00
~
~
~
"
o
~
o
o
;;
;e
;;
o
00
~
tOtO
~2l
"'i!'
'""~
,,;.
c
~
g:
~
~
~
ill
~
~
;;
n
~
:!l;i=
Sl-3g
.~
"'.
.
'""
o
M
"
'<
'"
c
ii'
~
H
'"
'"
11
'"
"
"';;
~~
~
q~ ~g[
. 0
3 M
0'<
~n
~;:r
'"
~
~
"
'" '" ~
~ ~ '"
'"
~
'"
~
Ii'
.
~
"
Q
~
.
~
.
"''''''
~ ~g
. -~
:l,;r'"
n
'"
o
N
g
-,
&1
~
-;
"'
l:
;;
::;
S
N
C,
~
~
~
.[
~
~
~Qj!
00 ~_
c .
o
Ii
c
00
~
o
8
~
'"
:;s
"
Ii
!ij
iiij1
~O
NO
~~
81;;
->
-~
3J>
~o
~~
:g>\
~N
~
N
o
~
o
'"
~
~
~
~
o
~
<:;
'"
~
:;
1.l
,,;
~
~
o
00
<5
~
~
>1
i"-
n
~
s
~
<.
liiO
~~
~.
0-
00
~~
N;)
~$:
NO;
"'Ii
'"
'"
~
~
~
~
N
o
t"'!::!::l
,",,00
"'o~
~E~
-'"
NOO-
~-<=
g8~
'08::;
>1l0
0; ~
1,j 8
$ ~
~ ~
~ S
~ ~
'"
~ ~
~ ~
o ~
~ ~
~.~
o
N
:;s
N
~
"
;1
<
'"
;:!
;;,
~
~
1'1
8i
~
~
s
~
~
~
'"
~
~
~
'"
~
ill
N
~
!l
'ii
1;
$
~
~
N
N
~
o
""
;<
g;
'"
~
N
'1
'"
>
'"
~
~
~
~
<5
'"
c,
s
<;;
"
~
~
~
~
.0
:;;!
<
2
'"
ii!
1::
8
N
~
:::s ~5'if"2?~Q~,"",go&,.!:!!~
o 5::l3Q~;:~~=srtg~.w
~ ~l~aoao~~;::!a~o
o zrt>a.O:;l ~=:l=.:-ln~::::
,",ON." ~t>=gQ..
c; !!. N ...... 0 0;
>-
~
~~i~~=gQ~W~~~~~;g~~
~f;~~;i!~~!~~~~~~~1
~:::sng:::Snnc ~."."p." ~."o
g g ~ '0 tl ,"< N g."'....,
~ c.'" c-
. . ~
"';:'
c_
o-
.:; if
~~
"
~
g-
.
"
~
~>--~"'--'O2 "'=n-~o----~c ~~="'O-~~3=~ "'n""'z t
g 1:;.5 a ~~ ;~~ ~;!a g.g r~ -g'~~~~g ~J5 a~ ~q~~:g g~:g;l2' gg~ ~;!"O
g ~ ~ ~ '" _:I .!: a: r- ('ll a. :e'tl = a- c a.; 5' Q ~ o~ ('ll :: ~ til.s _.;;- a ,'"' j;;;' a (\l ,q, o.oe, =. g (\l g
;~~:eIQaNl~g~~S3s~S:ea~i=-l~iQ.wg('ll~ii~;a~~.~>=
~,,~ ~s..:?o (;';:1 ",~.::: g~~ ~ iii'~ O::l:~.'" i~~so.S~:e ('ll P-o (n ~'S.'C:I ;:I'~ ..,,~€
a~g~Cl'~~('ll~~ _~oBS='tl~~.3~:~~M~=~~'C~=~~Cl'=oO('ll~
~q=Q.s@o:e~~ ~-~~=g~:~-o~E~~~~_~~2~~~~g~~;=g
i[~5~~~ag.[ i~[:3_53~~~~S;~~~~~~~~~(\lgS~o*F~~
:;y.Cl'Cl'(\loo.. ~oS" o"'5,(\lo~"'''''''Co,..._-",-",-,.;:;;=_II>''Og_g'
~lS('ll~~=~uE o.~~i~Q.a~-~~i~=Sig(\l~S&_w-ii~~"'~o
~=Q. ~~~~- ,... O~ _. --~(\l~Q.o=-- s=. (\l~o Cl'o
~siaf=~=~~ oi;-~i~ii5S~D=~~~iil~tia~~~RI~i
J:":'....~~~g:eg."o g' ~~('ll..~o.(\la~ g:r"-'Q8':3~(to..,...::g;s=,:;:s;o ,
~io3~00....~3 ,=asa 1=S&oEiQ.(\li~-'CS"~...~!~~",~n=~~
~_-~--c;~~ ~Q..(\l>Q.~~;'~~m=;Cl'(\li_a(\la~oCl'g"'-~~~;
gfig.~~2~:3a ~~~~~~~;~g~:e~~~~~~~~~a~~:~~;~~~
3~(\lQeoc.'C:gg= ~_~~Qf=('llO=z~ ~&3~S"(\l"'S~2c~ts=- ;
g~~~~~~o~; ~~ax _3gg~3Q. ~3o~a~~~=@o.~~=;~~Cl'
s~~~~S"~~..,.; S3.oxlg~Q.'CII>.., ,:;:.Q=",~s=;;._z......&g~~~
ij I!~,~ ~i~ ~ ~~~~~iii~'i~!, !:!~ ~i i! ~o ~~'~ ~~i;~~o
:;l:;l",(\l"'''' ~o go. ::10"" _"'1:;l1ll Il>('l:>:' _0 '1:;l:e 0""=;:1':;:-
[ii~'I'i~~[ i,~aia~i~,g~ i~~'ii~~?g~ i;~~~a
OO~
~
~i
~~
~~
~
~
00
~
3'
a.
&~
Ii'
.
~ tp~
~ ~:.,
;; g
"'.
,",,0
Gl~
~.
~z
~2
~>
,,;;;
~~
~"'
~~
c,
'l:
'"
'"
N
~
~
;;
~
~
~
:I:
i:l
~
:I:
>
~
'"
Q
o
~
~ ~
;;
~
'"
g 9
~ ~
1J
'"
"
~
~
1)
"'
'""
"
"
~
~
31
n
l;
~
r-V'd~v..'-
3~~os:
o ~ ~ ~;::;o,
;; ~3';
~ (\l !!.
,t""1',
~
N
"6'26'=o=~?3C>Cz
~3~t'i~~~,:-,2:S:en
o'(\l5'~~o:Z-l~2:"'lo
='1:;l:::>9.~ X""'lO::02
>::.<:;;., ~==;:;;:;;g:"l~~-ld
Z"O~.. :ZC""co,:s9::t;;>::l
"'2:~ oc::;..>o>t>'l:::,
s:f:t~ u;""'l:l;::;"<~=f
~s.'" >~t-~~55~-<
(\l;;;::g 55~-<P2Ca~
S$ -i<:",,~r-t"1;::g5:!
~b ~Cl~~~f3~~
c:l<~ ~ ='ZQ:I::l6"
g.~~ :s ?"~18~zg
'<~.g P ~~~c~'2:
",g Bl >>-l~-lS;;:
~~ -l 23:J::::t:~Q
"'; 0 o. :''It>ln~
~~!l' g; :id8d?28~ ""!j
~"C3 VJ \'<l::oc:::t-ooC:::Qc::
:1.3" 0 ;;:-~5;;::r""l~~t::I
. ~ r- "",2 -c>-;- r
s.g 0 '"::l~ :::::oxnOn
"'(\l= > g~oZO("'li;""':z
~~g ~ 'Z!:4~~~~n?;~
"3~ ...; o_",:::<C:::l~_
('ll~ ("'l ~~23u;~ozQ
....frO; ~ Sjo2c8~:Z
~':< s:. VI ~"'"t"'l~(nf;
Q;.I? ~ ?::i~!Tls;1r"i
;;:i:S .-~ro20
"''? tI:l<&lo~-l~
0= tr!("'l::E el
~:- O:Stl"ld_~
~ ~P;~P;g::l-l
~. zi]o~.~~
C' ""l::I:CI>
~:jt;;0~O
r=m~t?::l:;!
N>2 Oc
.. c:o~:z."
~Q:z~~~
~6:E1:::l.f>.~
::ZQt"l1=z
. :t_o'
~~>;1!l~!;
,l=~b~o
[g
~
~'"
~;:j
99
00
~~
~
~
c
~
"
~
.
.
~
"
c;;;
~,
0'"
!!.&;
,-
< 0
o.
<:;
~
I;:
'"
"
c
gi
:ol
~
:;
~
@
"
~
~
<
c,
"
Cl
~
,,;<
~~
~~
~~
~8
~~
_N
~c
"'-
~~
~e
N-
;(l
N
~
"
"
"
0;
~
0;
~
'"
~
C-l.a:3:o:lno~
[~.~ ~.~ ~i
gj;;;'o;:;g,r;
" '"
~ ~~g5~=~o~~~Q9~~1z~~ ~
~ "'SgQ~g~~~g~~~g~=Q.,,'~ ~
~ ~~;~a-g~:g~:3~==~S~n20r"i ~
~ ~~~O ~-~ Cll>"~~ ~~- -
~~ 5~~a~gggo~s~~~gi~g~ ~
~i f~q[[~~Mtq=i~l!g=~~ 5
-lQ ~'l;:: ;?cno g.~;...-ii'", Y'_N g~..t"I -l
g~ ~~<~:e~~2~~&C-l~Q~-l~~~ ~
~~ g- ~l>>Q.=? ~_",Il>(Il.... c C-l"", >-
/1.0 _ l""Jo -J-~ ,- ~ :.;-v..,j,j)o(\l -<2;>", 1",
@~'. P;~s'E.-;l$a3;:;~ ~fr9 'se I~
-J~ ;~ga~~l'OI~'8ac..::a~g'1:;l~~ ~~~~
-'s. $,",~"'Q.-g=>~ ;:1">r:,~32' oCE-
~~~ ~~a~~~~o.~~~~~~q~ ~~ ~~
oa~ i~_E&og~n~",a~~- 1~ o~
=:lg. ",(\lco~5lo.3;::;'. 3d50....~ ::l $ =q'-
2'~~ -~~~~8:.Cl'~'<~&D;~g. ~ s Er"i~
;i~E:!. ~ag~-o.~~:*agS'q:;.l>>~ ~. ;g,a
~S? ~~_a~(\l~g~ ~~n~;~ ~ ~~r;,
_,;;-n (\lW~g~SaQo.3.g~&,S'g2:-3;! ~ -n~
<o~:r 30-:3 <11I_ (lI~...o='tlIl>'" _ <0-,;5
~g~ ~~s~o~g[~g~?~g~~ ~ ~~~
<om.....
~~~;;:
;S:::S'~
'?~...~
:::J5;~
~saO~
. m.~o
. 0"
>o~
" -c
-g;.g
o on
gft~'
Q~~
g,~a
o ~o
~~:..
=g~
~.~f:;
gt3~
!'Ii: cO
gg~~~~g~~[~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~
Il>~ ~~.., 1lI~"- ~~~~~O~ZZ;;>::l>~ ~....>~ 2Z~~t"'l~2 ~~m 2
g~~~~~~~~~~Q~[n~~~~~o~rn~~~2Z;~mz~p~~2~~~~~ z~o
ai~~gn~~-('ll~~~~it~"'~~~~ ~cwoowz~~~ ~~ C~-lO~~Q~~
:i a:..@,Q.dl~;r~~s::g-. ~ ii. ~~~~g~~@~~g~~O~:e~i!;o~~;;~~-rj~~:e;g2
P-~~x~~~~=~~"':o~~ ~ ~a~~~~~~~ wZ~~ n~C~~~2~Z> .
~ ~g ~- g p.p.;:c g 1lI'g,;;.S. @C!2itlg~~C;~es~'I:;;~a$'::IC'Z~t"l~~:I:,~2!:@S2:0tli 0
... W'" ~-l~ .;:1'= Ql nlll (\l.. ... ~, -l-..O -.;l.... ~ 2::l~Ul:;>::l . _mwC-lOQ::l~.-.,~"'ll
'''<'':5'-'@' a:;oli'~"O ':;:~O2' ;EO ~C.NzO::amo;gm~2SCC!~>~8~~N ;::tI"tlC ;foe
~g~~~~~~Q]~~~~~ ~~ ~rn~~;~~:~~~~~~~~2>~~~~~~rn~~2~
~ 8.?~~~'~R>~ ~.~~ [g ffi ~~. ~~~~t:~~~~~~~~~~~:~~~~~~~~~=~5
~~ l~s~~a[~~ ~g ~~ S~~Q~az~~O~~~a~~~~~~~;::tI~o~a~B~
~.. Q-~~g'C"02i 3~ ~~ C~~~'I:;;~O> ~Fm~co ~~~O;::tl~::a~~~ "'~
~~ ~~!;~~~~~ ]~ ~~ ~~~~~6~~~~~g~~~ia~~~~~~~~~ N
w~ l~~i"'o=~~~ ~~ z~ ..,,'I:;;~~~a~~F~~~2Ro>oQi_~C-l~~ ~:'9
..~ ~~..... ~Cl'- ~ ~~~.-;::tIn~_ ~> ~ ~~ ~, - c ,.,
;a A:~~~~;~~ ~~ o~ ~! ~~-rj~~2 ~~~~~~~~~~J~~~i~
!j; ~ ,g E.E.;' g.fT 5 ~? .'E.S ~~ 8;;8~~z~;;::rz:zo~~z~~oo f;~~5~-lZ~
_';' o.,,~. (tI Q.,... If'IlI 0::' .. ";"""l7C)oZiC)o..,.,9, 'f'rrlt""'3:"I"l~t"I"':;S7.. o'f'r--
~
c
s:
..
"
il.i;
...,.
-1'
,,~
~[
".
~..
o'
.00
-1.
-.:::1 '"
. ~-
ON'"
..0
0'"
~ 3"~
~~~
5g~
~3;:r
.:o3?'
~;'9
;;gg ~.
~i~s~~~~;ag~cog~~~~~~
~~~;'i~~"'=~~-o~a:::l -~~~
~~a~~~~(\lNo(\l~~~a~O~~~~
~~~amig~~;~@~~~~~~~n~
~fS~~~falgj~!~~~~~im
~ ;9~~ ~~$~~Il>~~~g~gr
o =~,",~W(\lg.:lS""~~N--l~~m~
~n$~~~i~Il>~~e~~g~~~~~~
~~S~~~~~~aga~~S!a~~~C
gga~gi~~~@~~g~~"O~mc~~
Il>=~- Q."00@1'II;;::-.'>$nna'-'ZVJc
=-2:- ~31l>_~g",~oo ~~m~-l
:a,<: Q"C ~"Oo 3 0.;; 1lI1l1"O ~~ ~ _-...: ~ ~Q'l:=:
. -~ (\lQ~-('ll3-"'-~""<"
~ aF~~~~~~~~~i~~~~~~~
16 Og'Or"i:::l ~[~;; =~ 8[VJa.~ g-g ~~
QCl'Q Cl'__Cl' ~Il> -=~;:1' ~
"ni!.g.~o.g5'Q.~~::g~O">' g~~ t:tl
c.g=~$;.g..So;:r~olt>'<~li ~o;:r ~
~8aN ~"'~3-~~~~~~3~ m
~Cl'-":"l1:::lV1~_0~-:g::::.. ::l't;l(ll:!. ?':
Sa~gg~~~@~o~[o~~~~ ~
~o ~-~~"O-=:::I="-~~Q.Q.Q.llI"''''=O''-ll>no;:r''':e~M 0""> o-=n Ul-~ 0- ~ n:-- on23n-~n~~~n ~-~-o
--.~;:::;:e:""Il>~;':::-Cl" =::l~ . Cl'(lI~' o--~. oooo;:rC::>';Vl..~ "'1il('ll~O,o~-:r='9=:r'i'(lIIJJ-"'O~IJJ~:=OIl>-,:r3-''''5-'C-:EC:O'1:;l='''
a;n(\l0=:::Iw~~~5'0~llIn~<C=~3('ll-l~~:l~=~c;~Q~ ~Mi('ll=c6~(\l0~W(\l~;;Mq~Il>~K ~~=q(\lIllQ(lI~'1:;lq~c~~Sg
~ g f~3~ ~~'g.g.g;'=: [~[ (\l.~Jg ;t~] 1rg,;~~.~::r a sg.~% 9..~g.g 9a % oi~~i S'6~.oi~g.9..g s:~g. t)~!ii ~~ s.~~;~ ",.~~ *"~ =-5'
H:iHH1U~ iHiH!UUiUHHE ~ iU;~!~fU~IHHi~Uf~~n!~ ~HniH~~H3i
;!is~i J~~ i ~~IB~:i~i!~I~iitl~!i 1~~;~;i~i9Ii!~~1!3tl~!~ ~J i~i~f~~~S i~fi
~!r~r~ ~~J f ~fi!~:~i~i!i~flt~;irl~!if!!~~ ~~~~I~f!~~~~~ ~~ ~;!~:~I~f. I!i;
~~2.~~~ ;i~ S' ~=.~* 8;,gsgg.~:~~a~3:~2. "'~~g~~s3c.. 1fg8;;g'g .... ~,c;...,:: :;:Q O'~~s""i~"tJ;: Sg;;~
?Sq~~$ s~~ ~ ~~og ~:e~g~[ ~~~~(\lgo~ ~~g~~~~~~ g~[qo~ ~ ~~~g o~ ~aE=~g~~~ ~8~~
~I~i~ i~~ ; I;~~ !;III~ tll!:ilr :i~~~I!~1 !i~it;3- ~ lili i~ li!i!!lil i!~~
:Cl'0 "0 ~ _ ~ Q~'''O Cl'QQ ::::'('ll S' g~3::::(lIO _0 Q 1lI~0 _~\n(t(\l"" il:' c..o"':!, S!= .8' \Ol~C~"'= ~..,~~
?3~ gii gg* ::I ;;:5'"Sl ~:l.-~;-c = ~~g~3'g ~5gQ;:S.'1:;lg:; :!!~~?=j''O 'C o~~i wg"': :1;):.2~iiogo~ [~A.g
5" ...;. "'';'" 0. 'O!l~ s.~.:e~a~ 0 C-"'S';O _o.;:;''<G.~~(lI= -S:~Q _~. ~ _::l;::Q. ~ "'Oc~~S;ll'~ g"'cCl'
~I i~!~ i ~~l ii~' ~a : ~ag@g; ~~~a?i~'~ ?~, i~ w igls ~~ ~;is~i~~f Q.S=a
i!'
c
a.
~
'"
"
"
"'-
~
io
"
"
~
""
~
(g
<c
.
~
"
,.
{3
~
~
ii5
~
J-'
,-.,
ASPEN PLANNING",", LONING COMMISSION
r1
]I.
JUNE 29. 1999
^
COMMISSIONER AND STAFF COMMENTS..............................;........:.............................................................. 1
DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST .................................................................................................. 1
ASPEN MOUNTAIN Pun CONCEPTUAL. LOT 3 AND LOT 5......................................................................... 1
10
.~
ASPEN PLANNIN(; ZONING COMMISSION
~
JUNE 29. 1999
Jasmine Tygre, Vice-Chairperson, opened the Special Aspen Planning & Zoning
Commission Meeting at 4:35 p.m. with the following members present: Roger
Hunt, Roger Haneman, Ron Erickson, Tim Mooney and Tim Semrau. Steve
Buettow and Bob Blaich were excused. Staff in attendance were: David Hoefer,
Assistant City Attorney; Mitch Haas, Joyce Ohlson and Julie Ann Woods,
Community Development; Nick Adeh, Engineering; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City
Clerk.
COMMISSIONER AND STAFF COMMENTS
Roger Hunt stated that when they voted against an approval it did not give City
Council any reason why P&Z denied the project. He suggested that a second
motion be made to give the reasons for that denial. David Hoefer, Assistant City
Attorney, suggested a second motion with a resolution stating the reasons for
denial. Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Community Development Director, noted that
would convey a message to Council for the reasoning behind denial. Jasmine
Tygre concurred that would be a good approach. Ron Erickson stated that the
planners have summarized the commission's reasoning; a formalized format
would be beneficial.
DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
No conflicts were disclosed.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (06/15/99):
ASPEN MOUNTAIN pun CONCEPTUAL. LOT 3 and LOT 5
Jasmine Tygre, Vice-Chairperson, opened the continued public hearing on the
Aspen Mountain PUD and requested the proof of notice. David Hoefer, Assistant
City Attorney, stated this was previously noticed and met the jurisdictional
requirements allowing the commission the authority to proceed.
.
Tygre stated that staff did a good job separating the issues. Lots 3 & 5 were part
of the samePUD, but were not contiguous parcels with very different applications.
Mitch Haas recommended, for organizational purposes, they begin with Lot 5
tonight and proceed with it until concluded. Lot 3 would be discussed after Lot 5
was concluded.
Sunny Vann, applicant's planner, stated this was a completely different proposal
for Lot 5. Tygre noted the primary focus was the conceptual review criteria.
1
^
r-"\
ASPEN PLANNING "'-LONING COMMISSION
~
,
JUNE 29. 1999
Haas said there were many review processes to go through and the hotel proposal
would go through GMQS exemptions, scoring for growth management
allocations, rezoning, special review and final PUD. He noted that the proposal
for Lot 5 of the PUD was the Grand Aspen site. Lot 1 was the Ritz Development,
Lot 2 was Summit Place Development, Lot 3 was the Top of Mill (part of this
PUD), Lot 4 was Galena Place and Lot 6 was the Ice Rink. Roger Hunt stated this
was the Aspen Mountain PUD Master Site Plan.
Haas summarized the proposal with the lot size at 86,610 square feet, of which
13,540 square feet lie within vacated Dean Street, leaving a net lot area of73,070
square feet. There were 150 hotel units (13 2 standard rooms and 18 suites) and
on-site housing for 12 employees (4 one-bedroom and 4 studio units); 8,000
square feet of meeting space; 2,750 square feet of restaurant and 800square feet of
bar space; 2,400 square for the kitchen; 500 square feet of accessory commercial
space; lobby and support space with a total of 106,780 square feet off AR; 22,000
square feet of open space on Lot 5. A total of 106 below grade parking spaces
were accessed off Galena Street, just north of the Tipple Development.
Haas said the hotel was described in the application as a 3Y2* moderately priced
up-scale hotel with a 4* restaurant. The primary mass was located on the Dean
Street frontage and the elevation slopes from front to backwith the height
remaining consistent cutting into the slope. The Main Entrance was in the center
on Dean Street where Dean Street was vacated and becomes one-way for
passenger drop-off and valet parking area; there was pedestrian entrance on the
corner of Dean and Galena Streets.. Dean Street and all the front area would be
landscaped and planted with trees along the southern property along the trail.
Haas noted the standard rooms were about 390 sf each and the average suite about
650 sf. The proposal committed the rooms be maintained as 150 units even
though suites could be more than one room. There would be 8 affordable deed
restricted employee units on the southern side at the garden level in the building.
Along the street frontage on the first level was the restaurant space at Mill and
Dean; the lobby occupies the central area and the one shop on the Dean Street
frontage as well. The parking was subterranean with 106 spaces accessed off
Galena Street. Haas stated the main issues were outlined below:
Density and Lodging Growth
Haas explained the anticipated or theoretical approach to growth management
quota approach was that after the development of the Ritz (St. Regis), there was to
be no new lodging growth with the exception of the 50 credit units from the Grand
2
~
~
ASPEN PLANNIN<.. ~ ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 29. 1999
Aspen. Originally the Grand Aspen was to be demolished with no new hotel built
in place of it. Haas said these 50 credit units were included in the PUD and would
be considered new growth with new impacts. He said that from another
perspective, the community has more or less accepted the impacts from the Ritz
(St. Regis) while the Grand Aspen continued to operate in different capacities over
the years. The Grand Aspen capacities, prior to winter 1995-96, provided 150
unrestricted lodging rooms while the Ritz was in operation beginning December
1992. Since then, 50 rooms have been unrestricted in the winter and 38 were
reserved for Savannah employees and 62 rented to groups needing a minimum of
20 rooms. In the summer instead of the groups, there have been 75 rooms.
reserved for music students.
Haas said the proposed density for the new hotel would be considered a wash (150
rooms), with an increase of8 employee dwelling units, 520 square feet of food
and beverage space and 8000 square feet of meeting space. He said the other part
of the growth analysis was that the Grand Aspen continued to operate since 1990,
. while 264 additional lodge rooms have been added (7 L' Auberge & 257 Ritz) and
at the same time at least 317 units have been lost (see memo). He said these
figures did not include the demolition of the Grand Aspen this fall, which would
add 150 rooms to the total loss. Haas stated that staff supported the proposed
density on Lot #5 provided that all housing mitigation requirements were met.
Ron Erickson stated that the liked it but voiced concern for the project in
maintaining the level of approval. He said that the moderate price was needed.
Roger Hunt said the density was fine and liked it so much better than the
condominium proposal. He said that the moderate price was important. He
agreed that the density belonged in this zone.
Tygre summarized the commissioners comments on density and number of rooms
by stating they were not a problem. She said this was the appropriate place and
location.
Housing
Haas stated there was agreement with Housing and the applicant that there were
40.9 net new employees created by the development. There would be a series of
audits in the future. Haas quoted the applicant from the 1990 ballot language that
the Bavarian Inn was proposed by the applicant as an additional benefit unrelated
to any mitigation of Phase I or Phase II. The Bavarian Inn was additional
affordable housing inducement to the voters to pass the amended Aspen Mt. PUD
3
1"""'-.
ASPEN PLANNING ~_ ZONING COMMISSION
~
i. [}
~E 29. 1999
subdivision. The ballot language as approved stated suitable affordable housing
project must be built at the Bavarian Inn site regardless whether or not anything
was built in Phase II. There was nothing found in the record regarding the use of
the Bavarian Inn for future mitigation, therefore the Bavarian Inn site should not
be available for use of any employee mitigation; the Housing Board and Staff
agreed that the Bavarian Inn was part ofa long over due obligation to the
electorate and recommends denial of the use of the Bavarian Inn for any kind of
mitigation. Haas noted that Savannah had a different opinion of the issue, which
would be covered in their summary. In summary, if City Council and City
Planning & Zoning should accept the Housing Board recommendation, Savannah
would then be required to provide housing for 40.9 employees. If decided that the
Bavarian Inn could not be used to house these employees, then Savannah would
need to house them either on site or in another off-site location approved by City
Council. Haas noted the current proposal would provide housing for 12
employees in the hotel and suggested the additional employee requirement for
housing be met at the Bavarian site. Haas said there would be a reduction of hotel
units if the employee housing mitigation were required on site and the employee
generation would therefore also be reduced. He noted that on-site housing was a
goal ofthe AACP and staff felt the entire employee mitigation for housing could
be met on site, by eliminating some hotel rooms and converting the space to a mix
of studio and one bedrooms. Haas stated these were included in the conditions of
approval.
Haas noted that in the recommended conditions P&Z would concur with the
Housing Board. There was discussion of the Bavarian Inn as an off-site housing
mitigation plan and the appropriateness of that site at all for mitigation.
Tim Mooney asked how many employees were being housed at the Grand Aspen
now. Haas said there were 7 or 8 now. Vann noted an agreement with the small
lodges that restricted rooms rented at certain times of the year to the general public
and could only be rented to employees. Mooney said as long as the employee
mitigation was met, then he was happy. Roger Haneman stated a preference for
on site employee housing. Erickson said he favored housing all employees on site
and supported the Housing Office conditions. Hunt stated that it was admirable
accommodating the net additional employees and would not want to loose rental
rooms to house on-site. Tygre stated they wanted everything, but on-site
employees might be better for attaining the requests of the guests and a smooth
operation of the hotel.
4
~ ,r~
ASPEN PLANNIN( ; ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 29. 1999
Traffic and Parking
Haas stated that RFTA recommended that any off-site employees should be
provided bus passes. Staff was provided traffic report from IDA Inc. and after
review from Engineering, it was suggested a new traffic study be done using
Pitkin County trip generation standards. The traffic analysis only included
lodging rooms; the conference and restaurant space did not appear to be called out
in the study. There were auto disincentives with fewer amounts of parking spaces
than required. Staff was not sure about that reduction because the code called for
.6 spaces per lodge room, calculated at 106 spaces for this proposal. The 9 spaces
for the Silver Circle Ice Rink would also have to be replaced as well as the 8
spaces for employees. Haas said the proposal should be augmented for the
accessory uses and contractors.
Haas noted the proposals for Dean Street were to become a one-way drop offwith
an enforcement mechanism (which was still needed) and that valet drop offbe
frequent. Staff recommended that only left turn movements be available. He said
that a plan was also needed for delivery vehicles.
Tim Semrau said that the traffic/parking has been worked on and with some more
tweaking it will work. Mooney said the portico and design of the center of the
building was nice but maybe did not function, as it should. Mooney stated the
number of parking spaces needed to be met for all of the needs. Haneman said
that with his experience, the Snowflake did not have enough parking spaces in the
summer. He said there needed to be more than 106 parking spaces. Erickson said
that 170 parking spaces seemed to be the number needed, plus a courtesy van to
and from the airport was essential. Erickson noted there were short term parking
spaces needed for the shops, restaurant or having a drink in the hotel. He said
there was a circulation problem but on the whole they have done a great job. Hunt
asked how you got from the portico area to the parking. He inquired about cars
turning under the building. Sarpa and Vann responded that there were utilities,
storm drains and the like underground. Tygre summarized the commissioners
comments with additional parking and circulation needed more thought.
Design and Height
Haas commented that the architecture was victorian type in nature and described
. the uses ofthe levels, areas and street frontages. The height remained uniform as
the grade climbed the building became shorter. He noted there was a height
variance request from the 28' limit on Dean Street frontage to 40.6' at the peak.
Haas noted that story poles were suggested to illustrate the proposed height.
5
I"""'-
ASPEN PLANNING _ ZONING COMMISSION
r)
JUNE 29. 1999
The 8 employee units would be exempt from GMQS and under the terms of the
Savannah PUD agreement, there were 50 unit credits and therefore an additional
100 allocations for the growth management scoring competition needed to be
applied for from the growth management scoring procedures.
Haas explained the GMQS provides for two types of allotment buckets: CD the .
number of allotments available in a given growth management year @ the total
number of allotments for full build-out in the year2015. Lodge units have a
build-out cap set at 253 units and only 11 have been used to date by Hines Aspen
Highlands Development leaving 242. There were 44 available for this year's
bucket but there would be another 11 added to this year's bucket bringing the
number to 55 for this year. The 45 needed would be applied and taken off the
future year allocations if approved. That would require a multi-year allocation for
a project that was found to be an exceptional project as defined in the code;
requiring compliance with the community planning criteria by City Council. If
granted the proposal would still need to be fully contingent upon Savannah's
obtaining necessary GMQS allotments.
Haas noted that staff recommended approval with the conditions of approval listed
in the memo. He said thos would have to be fulfilled.
John Sarpa, applicant, stated that this project was first applied for in 1996 as a
condominium which has evolved into a moderately priced hotel ($200-$300 a
night), which was what our market needed. He explained that many consultants
were utilized in the planning of the hotel keeping it as small as possible (150
rooms). He cited from ARACA that there were 232 pillows lost (beds) with 14%
less business. Sarpa stated that they would house 100% of the net new employees
to go beyond the requirement for employee housing. Sarpa commented that there
would be a big hole in the ground for some time with the Grand Aspen coming
down this fall.
Sunny Vann stated the conditions were acceptable and explained the history
behind the present proposal including the GMQS competition. He said the
parking, traffic and access issues would be satisfied.
Bill Poss, architect, explained the site design being an inverted "j" which allowed
a reduction of mass. He said that Dean Street would be a quasi-mall pedestrian
area with a tree-lined arcade including the restaurant, shops and main entrance
with access to the gondola. He noted the Alpenblick owners have been contacted
regarding the proximity of the windows facing them. PDSS said the articulated
6
~
~.
ASPEN PLANNINl ; ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 29. 1999
roof provided interest with a victorian feel. He complimented Haas on the
presentation. He said the 9 Ice Rink parking would be kept off Dean Street.
Ron Erickson asked how the 8,000 square foot conference spaces compared to
other rooms in town. Poss explained that it was more in line with the Little Nell
conference rooms. Sarpa noted there was currently 3,000 square feet of existing
meeting room space. Erickson inquired how many people the hotel would house
in terms of rental rooms. Haas explained that the tourist accommodation
allocations were one room to one unit without specifying size or type. Erickson
said that the $200-$300 a day in the winter would be acceptable, but not in the
summer.
Tim Semrau asked if the employee housing was below grade. Poss responded that
it was located on the back side, garden level with an opening. Vann replied that if
the Bavarian was not allowed for employee housing mitigation, then more units
would be added above the garden level units.
Roger Hunt asked about the equipment plan; if it would be located on the roof.
Poss utilized a blueline to indicate the location of the mechanical equipment and
air handling units. The elevator shaft would not rise above the roof and were
located in the center. Vann said the next meeting would include a roof plan.
Tygre asked what the heights of the roofs were at what points. Poss explained the
41 feet dropped down to 34-35 feet for the major portions; the building sloped
back. Tygre asked specifically on one part what the height was. Poss replied that
it was 47 feet to the center and then 30 feet.
Roger Hanemen inquired about cars returning to the garage. Poss responded that
they make a left and go around.
Semrau stated that the articulation of the roofs was well done; he requested a bulk
and mass model including the Ritz, for comparison. Mooney said it was better
than the Ritz and the condominiums; he said this was a tough site, which was
being handled well. Mooney asked if part of that 8000 square foot conference
space was really needed or could it be better utilized as employee housing.
Hanemanconcurred with Semrau on the model. Erickson stated it was a good
design and seconded the need for additional parking. Hunt said the architectural
design was good with the diminishment of height and the Dean Street fa((ade was
good. Tygre also agreed with having a model. She stated the architecture in
general was good with the central spine of the building stepping down was very
attractive. Tygre said that 47' and 41' seemed too tall.
7
,
r-"\
ASPEN PLANNING '- LONING COMMISSION
~
,. ~
JUNE 29. 1999
Public Comments
Jack Crawford, Tipple Inn owner and president of the board, requested the front
entrance be moved to over the parking garage so it wouldn't produce the
kaleidoscope lights on their windows. He noted the parking in the area was a
problem and felt strongly there be enough parking for the restaurant, hotel guests,
ice rink and employees. He said if there was more parking than needed, then the
extra spaces could be rented.
Ron Krajian, Tipple Inn and Aspen Square, stated there was a need for more
parking. He said that 150 more hotel rooms were probably more rooms than
needed because in that general area there were over 600 rooms.
David Booth, Aspen Lodging Company, introduced Doug Nehasil and Breck
Overall, also from the Aspen Lodging Company. Booth stated that they
represented almost 200 owners.
Doug Nehasil, Aspen Lodging Company, asked if story poles could be placed on
the site. He said that he agreed with Jack Crawford on the lights from cars. He
requested that P&Z do a site visit.
Ann Murchinson, 5th Avenue, stated serious concerns about parking and the
access. She said that the stre.et was narrow and the streets above were steep
without a view plane. She said that more parking for service people, retail
shoppers, etc., should be provided. Murchinson requested story poles and felt that
the building was too tall.
Brian Leisure, 5th Avenue, asked the height of the buildings. He asked if the flow
oftraffic from the parking garage could go the other way. Vann replied that there
were two different levels involved.
Ziska Childs, 5th Avenue, said this did not impact her personally as much as the
Top of Mill. She said the traffic was horrible now and with the number of
accesses from the garage, it would be worse. She asked if there could be only a
pedestrian access, above ground, to this hotel. Sarpa stated that those hotels were
in urban settings. Childs said there were fewer heads on fewer pillows and asked
why more were needed. Tygre suggested that she be given a copy of the memo
listing the numbers of rooms.
8
r-,
ASPEN PLANNIN<. ; ZONING COMMISSION
.~
JUNE 29. 1999
David Booth noted the letter from Steve Fallendar. Tygrestated that letter was
part ofthe public record. He asked for the demolition schedule and a traffic study
with pedestrian access to the gondola.
MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to extend the meeting until 7:30 so
that the commission could finished discussions of Design and Height
and the AACP. Roger Huntsecond. APPROVED 5-1. (Semrau, no)
Consistency with the AACP
Semrau stated this was the spirit of Aspen. Mooney stated he could not find fault
with it and found compliance with mitigation. Mooney said this proposal was in
the spirit of the AACP. Haneman noted it placed tourists downtown, close to
transit and the market was a desirable attribute. Erickson said the project probably
came closer than anything that he has seen so far in meeting the goals of the
AACP. Hunt and Tygre concurred with their fellow commissioners.
Vann requested the conditions be addressed to obtain a general feel from the
commissioners at the next hearing. Vann said the only problem was the wording
for the condition on the Bavarian Inn. Haas suggested that Savannah and staff
review the conditions and then return to the commission.
MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to continue the Public Hearing on the
Aspen Mountain Conceptual PUD, Lot 3 and LotS, to July 13, 1999.
Jasmine Tygre second. APPROVED 7-0.
Meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m.
. ackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
9
lo.
-~ r-,
~
MEMORANDUM
'TO:
THRU:
The Mayor and City Council
4to (J' p~
FROM:
RE:
Amy Margerum, City Manager
John Worcester, City Attorney
Julie Ann Woods, COll1{llunity Development Director 0/ .
Appeal of Code Interpretation: Section 26.04.100, Definitions, "Sign",
and Section 26.36.030, "Procedure for sign permit approval, (B) Exempt
signs, (6) Fine Art."
DATE:
May 10, 1999
SUMMARY: Section 26.04.1 00, Definitions, of the Municipal Code defmes "Sign" as
follows:
Sign means any object, device, display, symbol, light or structure,
fixed to, painted on, placed on or incorporated in, the building
surface of structure, or displayed from or within a building or
structure, or freestanding upon the site which is designed to be
visible from outside and used, intended or designed to conveyor
direct information or d message to the public concerning the
identification of the premises or to advertise or promote the
interests of any private or public firm, person, organization,
service or product. .
This definition is broad and encompassing and could be interpreted in a multitude of
ways. Herb IQein, esq:,repr~sep?~g~~~l~s.s~~e. and Charles Cuntliffe Ar~hitects
rre: \ \ ~.;i!~~I::: ::(.'.~ ., :1' . i';:'~~l,';'~ . "for';kintetp~tatioa:ar~i($that:the ',;bfiCklitJiP1i:b'fO'W#
idll~!:;'!~'~:'lci.:~ Cl:' i:~:'~',:, 0'1' ,i. <i'!";' W...J;h.C;i~4g.iY::\)IQh;l.fI;~fi~~Itf~.i9ffi:~~$iiUj)f'-
:l~l.!iitos~~i!h 11.' Wi ;:i'::I \hm'~. :H:,tJlmt~~lj,]ire'OJ)je'cfShO'fl1d,ii6tDe~~';@:~~.
He further states that "Furthermore, without conceding that the photos are a sign, CCA
believes that the photographs it displays are a form of art and may be considered to be an
exempt sign under 26.36.030(B)(6)." This cited section of the code identifies signs that
may be exempt from obtaining a sign permit, but must stiII comply with all other
applicable provisions of the code. Section 26.36.030(B)(6) does identi~~'Stti~~
considered exempt from obtain a sign permit, and reads as follows: . .
6. Fine art. f!f.qf~'{Of'1!n~:!..o/(~'ff.~ic~dnno~ay{dentify':()t'{.
udvertise a person p,.oduct, service or ou.\''iile.\fs. .
.~'~.~.~,,'.')""" . ,..'1. .:.".....:.".;.Io! .....~.~..~..~,'l.::'. ....., '
Mr. Klein purports that the photos simply represent the art that has been created, and that
since they do not have any written words on them, they do not conver any message that.
.~~~ w?u1d ttPiC~J.li:~~~~~"'~t;c..?,;;t~,;;::,~~.~hi. "~-t,~,~~pna':'f1~~.~;2~&.1iiiG:~~
_.>iI> ...' . .~eipfetl{t1oJW))'.'","e""'lanmng"Dlrec or,.an .1 ,necessal:Jt;,w~. "l.~~,
e.-ef:or'northey15NieveTth1F'tCA'spl1bt6WapnS"are.,?'~1gh:9r:::mJ:P.jl~t'!fatixe>
-'S~'1he' hotos areasi<i?!thatth-:?"-e;exe-"ras'iift.',l.?& """"""
~....~p__.~^.,,~,"..~..~gI).'"""'_ --,_ey,A\'".__~.mp_.__.__,_,..7
...
I"""'-
~
INTERPRETATION: Photo display boxes, such as the one located at the Charles
Cunniffe offices, Myif;iJii~t9B9!llly.been: vie\Ved.l:ly .the C~unity Development
Department as signs and have been required to meet all standards of the sign regulations,
including the provision in Section 26.36.070 prohibiting signs from being illU1ninated by
the use of internal or rear illumination. Staff has not interpreted photo displays of this'
kind as fine art as they are used to specifically identifY a product or business. The)
community Development Director has concluded that the photo display board is a sign;
and therefore must comply with all provisions of 26.36, including obtaining a sign permit
and complying with the sign illumination requirements. (See Exhibit B).
BACKGROUND: Based on a complaint from a resident, the Zoning Enforcement
Office followed up with a citing of a violation to the sign code for an internally
illuminated (backlit) display board located in the window of Charles Cunniffe's offices
located at 610 E. Hyman Ave. The Zoning Officer concluded that the display box, which
displayed residences designed by the architectur.e office, was indeed a sign, and was in
violation of Section 26.36.070 Sign Illumination. She informed the owner that the sigh
c6uldremain,.~ut a permit must be applied for and the sign could not~e internally
1;'rfiuriinated;! The owner then requested an interpretation from the Community
Development Director (see Exhibit A) requesting that the sign be considered "fine art"
and therefore be exempt from the necessary permits. Upon advise of legal counsel, the
Director also concluded that the backlit display is indeed a sign, as defmed in the code,
and is subject to the requirement that signs not be internally illuminated. Exhibit B is a
copy of the Community Development Director's interpretation. Upon receipt of thi~
interpretation, the applicant, through his attorney, has petitioned the City council to
consider an appeal from the Director's decision (Exhibit C).
DISCUSSION: A number of "signcode"ellforcemell.t complaintsybave been received
by the Community DeveloPtnent Department in recent months, which pertain, not to
actual signage,'b~er;to;:9iindowiiisplays andme\'!;h~pQi~ing. Staff does agree that
the definition of sign is so broad in scope that window displays, as well as any
merchandise that is visible to the public, can technically be considered as signage. The
conflict arises when staff is asked to enforce and r::gulate window displays under the sign .
code criteria. As the sign code prohibits moving parts, neon lighting or backlit lighting
we have been asked to regulate items such as a'iiiovingbicycle\V!1eel in.the \'{ip.dowof
"",..".":~~,o"~~",;.,,,:-:,,,,,;~,,c,,,,.~""..._f'
'Ilifhe:HlJ.b,'astna11ro~Png'~<:hef'iIl th.e windoW ofGharcllt~e; and a. backlit pap,~J ipths
-'Q.QwbfGu(1ci.! At a recent City Council meeting, a neon cowboy located at a gallery
dn Hyman Avenue was also discussed as a possible violation of the sign code.
Staff is cqg!~Cj}th.at if i:merchandise"is acl:l.1iilly considered ~sJgngge,.!4,en all aspects
of the sign code should apply to displays, not just the regulations regardmg'lighting and
moving parts. However, if we were to apply all provisions of the sign code to window
displays then virtually every business in town would be violating the sign code in that
most would be exceeding the allowed size and number of signs.
I~=~",~",l~XIDS!~.di~gt~Y$~ni,,~lll"lRll!l~~.Q!iSiq~redas''Sigriilge,~e current
Sign definitIOn could be arnen~to be more narrowed in scope. If it is determined that
window displays still need to be regulated in regards to lighting, moving parts, etc., a
code section could be added that is specific to window displays and merchandising,
separate from the sign code regulations. Adding language to the upcoming code
2
"
.'
~..
~
f. r
arn.eQclment for lighting standards which would address the use of neon or backlighting
in commercial window displays, could also be considered.
CONCLUSION: While statI is comfortable basing its conclusions on the current
definition of "signs", we do recognize that an amendment to more specifically address
signs vs. window displays may be appropriate. The interpretation of photo display boxes
being considered signs has been consistently applied in the past.
Thus, while staff stands by its. interpretation, staff also feels it might be worthwhile to
pursue a simple code amendment that would allow for the a more specific definition of
sign, separate from window display of merchandise, as well as new language under the
new lighting standards that would address illumination of window displays, if City
Council agrees. City Council should also consider whether it wants to regulate moving
parts within a window display.
RECOMMENDATION: _ Staff..~~$iRmm~!lds that City ~ouncil uphold the Comm1.1lJ.i!Y
Dey~IQpm~!lt Dire~<<tQr:s.interpreta:tiono.fS~fljQn 46.04.100, Definitions, "Sign" finding;
thaCthe':tei;in~srgn";'liS"usea ili"the":S'UbjeCf 'deflnitiQI]. does refer to the backlit photo 'J
~splay.case located within the Charles Cunniffe office, that is designed to be visible
from the outside and intended to convey information or to promote the interests of the
Charles Cunniffe Architectural firm's product. F@h,;ir, that the subject sign should ~ot
'be~9!l~i4~redfine art under Section 26.36.030(B)(6) which would be exempt from a SIgn
permit.
In addition, it is recommended that '~9Imcil.directstaff to. pursue il. _. ~imple,~Q9:~;'
~en~~!lt,~L~QH14..@Q}:YJQr.!l1.s:dLmorespecific definition of sign, seParate fI?ffisi#
~4q.Vv'4iSPl!lYo!?f~~l1lmdise, -as'well.asnew language under the new: lighting' .
staiidittds that would address illuriiinatioii'of window displays)
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to uphold the Community Development
Director's March 15, 1999, Code Interpretation regarding the definition of "Sign," as
provided in. Section 26.04.100 of the Aspen Municipal Code, and find that the subject
sign should not be exempt under Section 26.36.030(B)(6) as fine art."
"I also move to direct staff to pursue a simple code amendment that would allow for a
more specific definition of sign, separate from window display of merchandise, as well as
new language under the new lighting standards that would address illumination of
window displays."
G:/planninglaspenfmemos/signintrp.doc
.y~~
.r" ........~ '.
-...~~ ~'
.~.;y:.,.- ~ ~ "', ~4
O. / ~ q',
;':;W..J...o 4.te~ ;) S"4..4.J.
r ""f' . ()f!.' ;) ~ ~.
\1'3 . w;,JfJc ~
fv\~Jo...r.<...~ W'II~ c44~....f~Q ~ .
--h.....-\- W"If..... v- tJ .~. r fa.....
EXHIBITS:
Exhibit A --- Request for Interpretation
Exhibit B --- Director's Interpretation
Exhibit C --- Request for Appeal ofInterpretation
"......
r-"\.
r-"\
i~;a
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Amy Margerum, City Manager
THRU:
Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director
FROM:
Sara Thomas, City Zoning Officer
RE:
Sign Code Enforcement
DATE:
April 9, 1999
BACKGROUND: A number of "sign code" enforcement complaints have been
received by the Community Development Department in recent months, which pertain,
not to actual signage, but rather to window displays and merchandising. The current
definition of sign reads as folJows:
Sign means any object, device, display, symbol, light or structure,flXed to, painted on,
placed on or incorporated in, the building surface or structure, or displayedfrom or
within a building or structure, or freestanding upon the site which is designed to be
visible from outside and used, intended or designed to conveyor direct information or a
message to the public concerning the identification of the premises or to advertise or
promote the interests of any private or public firm, person, organization, service or
product.
This definition is so broad in scope that window displays, as well as any merchandise that
is visible to the public, can technically be considered as signage. The conflict arises
when we are asked to enforce and regulate window displays under the sign code criteria.
As the sign code prohibits moving parts, neon lighting or backlit lighting we have been
asked to regulate items such as; a moving bicycle wheel in the window of The Hub, a
small rotating "chef' in the window of Charcuterie, and a backlit panel in the window of
Gucci. At a recent City Council meeting, a neon cowboy located at a gallery on Hyman
Avenue was also discussed as a possible violation of the sign code.
Staff is concerned that if merchandise is actually considered as signage, then all aspects
of the sign code must apply to displays, not just the regulations regarding lighting and
moving parts. However, if we were to apply alJ provisions of the sign code to window
displays then virtually every business in town would be violating the sign code in that
they would be exceeding the allowed size and number of signs.
It should also be noted that the Community Development Director was recently requested
to do a code interpretation for Charles Cunniffe Architects to determine if their backlit
photo' display board was a sign. Our office concluded that the photo board was a sign and
needed to comply with the sign code. Charles Cunniffe is apparently intending to appeal
I"""'-
r>.
,.-
that interpretation to Council within the next 30 days. Based on Staff's current
frustration with attempting to differentiate displays and merchandise from signage, we
may need to reconsider our code interpretation since this photo board could certainly be
considered as a window display ofCwmiffe's "merchandise".
SUMMARY: Staff is hoping for some direction in regards to the enforcement of
window displays, given the broad nature of the current sign defmition. If it is determined
that window displays are not to be considered as signage, the current sign definition
could be amended to be more narrowed in scope. If it is determined that window
displays still need to be regulated in regards to lighting, moving parts, etc., a code section
could be added that is specific to window displays and merchandising, separate from the
sign code regulations. We could also consider adding language to the upcoming code
amendment for lighting standards which would address the use of neon or backlighting in
commercial window displays. .
Any feedback or direction that can be provided to Staff would be greatly appreciated.
"
,
("""..
~
\.1.
February 22, 1999
.
'THE CITY OF ASPEN '
. OFFICE OF THE-em ATTORNEY
. Julie Ann Woods
Community Development Director
City of Aspen
130 South Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Ht:('EiV~O
RE: Request of Herb Klein
For a Code lliterpretation
. Regarding the Sign Code
F~~ 'l Ci 1999
,-r.~) L '.. .
I\SPEN / PiTKJ!\:
. COMMUNITY DEVELOr'U:::NT
Dear Julie Ann,
Please find enclosed a letter from Herb Klein requesting a code interpretation regarding
the alleged sign code violation 'by Charles Cunniffe Architects. .
The request is explained in detail in the encIQsed letter. Please proceed ""ith the
requested interpretation.
. Thanks.
avid Hoefer
Assistant City Attorney
cc. Herb IQein
Sarah Oates
130 SOUTH GALENA SIli.EET . ASPEN, COLORADO 81611-1975 . PHONE 970.920.5055 . FAX 970.920.5119
'Pt.inted on Recyded Paper
~-
, ,
I""'"
March 16,1999
Mr. Herb Klein ,
20.1 North Mill Street, Suite 203
Aspen, Colorade_81611
Dear Mr. Klein,
r"\.
,. I'
..
ASPEN . PITKIN
COMMUNITY OE\"ElOP~lE:-:T DEPART.ME:'>JT
Please find enclosed a code interpretation from the Community Development Department
in response to your recent request regarding the Charles Cunnife Architects backlit photo
display box. It is the opinion of this office that the photo display box is indeed a sign,
and cannot be considered as "tine art". Therefore, our .office requests that the sign be
brought into compliance with all applicable sign regulations, including the submission of
. a sign permit application and removal of'the backlit lighting, by no later than March 30,
1999.
Feel free to contact me ifvou need any additional information.
. ..
Sinceret~ , , .
""0~tGt./a. 0 IVcad
Sara Thomas, City Zoning Officer
cc: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director'
David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney
130 SoUTH' GALENA STREET . ASPE1\', COLORADO! 81611.1975 . PHONE 970.920.5090 . FAX 970.920.5439
Pnn!ed on RO'Cyded Paper
.1"""'"
~,
JURISDICTION:
A.PPA
OVE;O
ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEP ARTMENT(;Q,u M4R 1. :; 1999
CODE INTERPRETATION 'MUN/~DEi;i:10,"W
flYOF Asio;;TDIHtr;(o/-r
City of Aspen
.,"
APPLICABLE CODE SECTION:
Section 26.36 (Signs), Section 26.04.100
(Definitions - Sign)
EFFECTIVE DATE:
March 5,1999
WRITTEN BY:
('~
APPROVED BY: 'JL~
Jl
Sara Thomas, City Zoning Officer
DATE: S;JS/.9J
SUMMARY: Mr. Herb Klein submitted a code interpretation request to the Community
Development Department on February 22,1999 to determine if the sign code regulations
were applicable to the backlit photo display box that was recently erected outside the Charles
Cunniffe Architects office building.
. BACKGROUND:
Section 26.04.100 of the Municipal Code reads as follows:
Sign means any object, device, display, symbol, light or structure, fIXed to, painted on, placed
on or incorporated in, the building surface of structure, or displayed from or within a
building or structure, or freestanding upon the site which is designed to be visible from
outside and used. intended or designed to conveyor direct information or a message to the
public concerning the identification of the premises or to advertise or promote the interests
of any private or public firm, person, organization, service or product..
Mr. Klein states in his interpretation request that the Community Development Department
should consider the photo display as fine art, and not as a sign.
Section 26.36.030 (B) (6) - Exempt Signs - defines "fine art" as follows:
6. Fine art. Works of fine art which in no way identifY or advertise a person, product,
service or business.
Exempt signs, including fine art, are exempt from having to obtain a sign permit, but are still
required by Section 26.36.030 to comply with all other provisions of the sign regulations.
INTERPRETATION: Photo display boxes, such as the one located at the Charles
Cunniffe offices, have historically been viewed by the Community Development Department
~.~
~
I"""'-
~I
as signs and have been required to meet all standards of the sign regulations, including the
provision in Section 26.36.070 prohibiting signs from being illuminated by the use of
internal or rear illumination. Staff has not interpreted photo displays of this kind as fine art
as they are used to specifically identify a product or business. Staff concludes that the
photo display area at the Charles Cunniffe Architects office is a sign and therefore must
comply with all provisions of Section 26.36, including obtaining a sign permit and
complying with the sign illumination requirements.
1:;'.,<-".. :)
1"""'\
~,
...
LAW OFFICES OF
"
HERBERT S. KLEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.c.
OF COUNSEL:
JACQUELINE L. GARDNER
201 NORTH Mill STREET
SUITE 203
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
(970) 925.8700
TELECOPIER (970) 925.3977
TELLURIDE OFFICE:
P.O.80X21S
r. '1,,1611187.9<. 300 WEST COLORADO AVENUE
"","I '" i?"" SUITE'.
l\~ T ~ EI..LURIDE, COLORADO 81435
1999 ~. 9 ~, (970) 728-5151
Q FEB 19S ~ ELECOPIER (970) 925.3977
;::; City Attomey's !Il
'J Office t1I
",. f!J
\ 0,''''' OJ
'\~~., (lJ
\"":;'! d1/"
"-";'2'/1 ~t.!.t;'iJ
~,'" '-.~ ~80t.)[)
HERBERT S. KLEIN
MILLARD J. ZIMET*
* also odmi~ed irl New York
February 16,
David Hoefer, Esq.
Assistant City Attorney
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Charles Cunniffe Architects - Alleged Sign Violation
Dear David:
This office represents Charles Cunniffe and Charles Cunniffe
Architects ("CCA"). Mr. Cunniffe referred to me your letter of
February 5, 1999, wherein your office alleges that CCA is in
violation of !l26. 36.070 (A) of the City Code which relates to
prohibited illuminated signs. This allegation relates to CCA's
placement in the window of its office of back-lit photo
transparencies of homes which it has designed. The photos do not
have any written words on them and are simply photos of homes
designed by CCA.
Apparently, Sarah Oates, the City Planning Technician,
believes that these photographs constitute a "sign" under the City
code. I have reviewed the Code definition of "sign" found in
!l26.04.100 and also the relevant sections of the sign code found in
!l26.36.010, et. ~ I have also walked by CCA's offices at night
and observed its photographs as well as the appearance of
storefronts nearby and in other parts of town. Quite frankly, I
find it difficult to agree with your assertion that CCA's
photographs constitute a sign. It is true that the photographs are
illuminated from the rear because they are transparencies and can
only be viewed in this manner. However, simply having an object
illuminated from the rear does not make it a sign.
When the definition of "sign" is scrutinized, it appears to be
extremely broad and possibly unenforceable because of its breadth.
In particular, the definition of "sign" states, generally, that any
object which conveys information to advertise or promote any firm,
person, service or product is a sign. Does this mean that the
sweatshirts in the window of the Gap are signs? How about the
lamps lit up at night in the window of the Aspen Lighting Studio,
are they signs? What about the photos of homes for sale in every
realtor's office in town, are they signs? Is an antique urn
displayed in a shop window and illuminated from all sides a sign?
Is that diamond necklace in the Hyde Park window, illuminated from
the rear a sign? Is a photograph of a house designed by an
architect a sign? As you can see, the City'S definition of sign is
. .
.--
1""'1
....,_"'.0
~
-.
David Hoefer, Esq.
February 16, 1999
Page 2
so broad that it could include all of these objects. Historically,
the City has not treated these objects as signs even though they
seem to fit within the definition. Why then, is CCA being singled
out?
~ Furthermore, without conceding that the photos are a sign, CCA
f tY believes that the photographs it displays are a form of art and may
A~~r'P & be considered to be an exempt sign under !l26. 36. 030B6. It is well
IV recognized that architectural work is an art form. These photos
,- . simply represent the art that has been created. Since these
JA~ ;1 photographs do not have any written words on them, they do not
~~ convey any message that one would typically expect to be contained
within a sign. The photographs are attractive and certainly not
f/'-." offensive in any respect. Simply walking down the street at night
";:X o~ ought to provide you with an appreciation of the "stretch" that the
~'.~1 City Planning Technician has attempted in order to include CCA's
~~' '~fBphotographs within the definition of sign and then to assert a code
~~f~~ violation based upon the prohibited illumination of a sign.
.~~r~.~ It seems that rather than precipitously taking this matter to
~frN1 ourt, it might be better to seek an interpretation under
J:'l1'J).I{' !l26 .112.010 by the Planning Director and if necessary, the City
()~ Council, as to whether or not they believe that CCA's photographs
are a sign or in the alternative, that if the photos are a sign,
that they are exempt as art. We, therefore, request that such
interpretation be made by the Planning Director. I would think
your office would support such determination so that if the
Planning Director or, on a subsequent appeal, the City Council
determines that CCA's photographs are not signs or are exempt as
art, a prosecution will be avoided. On the other hand, if through
the appeal process the City Council determines that CCA's
photographs are signs, we will at least have had an opportunity to
discuss and fully evaluate how council interprets the definition of
a sign in light of the breadth of the current code section.
Thank you very much for your anticipated cooperation in this
matter. I would appreciate a response to this letter and an
indication as to whether or not the City will process this response
as a request for an interpretation.
Very truly yours,
HERBERT S~. KLEIN ASSOCIATES,
By: ~
Herb t S. Klein
P.C.
sg\cunniffe\102.1tr
cc: Charles Cunniffe