Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20170905 AGENDA Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission REGULAR MEETING September 05, 2017 4:30 PM Sister Cities Meeting Room 130 S Galena Street, Aspen I. SITE VISIT II. ROLL CALL III. COMMENTS A. Commissioners B. Planning Staff C. Public IV. MINUTES A. April 18, 2017 Draft Meeting Minutes B. May 16, 2017 Draft Meeting Minutes C. August 1, 2017 Draft Meeting Minutes V. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS VII. OTHER BUSINESS A. Community Development Post-Moratorium Clean Up Ordinance and Long-Range Check-In VIII. ADJOURN Next Resolution Number: 12, Series 2017 Typical Proceeding Format for All Public Hearings 1) Conflicts of Interest (handled at beginning of agenda) 2) Provide proof of legaJ notice (affi d avit of notice for PH) 3) Staff presentation 4) Board questions and clarifications of staff 5) Applicant presentation 6) Board questions and clari fications of applicant 7) Public comments 8) Board questions and clarifications relating to public comments 9) Close public comment portion of bearing 10) Staff rebuttal /clarification of evidence presented by applicant and public comment 1 1 ) Applicant rebuttal/clarification End of fact finding. Deliberation by the commission commences. No further interaction between commission and staff, applicant or public 12) Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed among commissioners. 13) Discussion between commissioners* 14) Motion* *Make sure the discussion and motion includes what criteria are met o r not met. Revised April 2, 2014 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission April 4, 2017 04/04/2017 Page 1 Mr. Skippy Mesirow, Chair, called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order for April 4th, 2017 at 4:30 PM with members Jasmine Tygre, Keith Goode, Spencer McKnight, and Skippy Mesirow. Mr. Mesirow noted Rally Dupps would be arriving a bit late to the meeting. Rally Dupps arrived at 4:34pm. Kelly McNicholas Kury, Jesse Morris and Ryan Walterscheid Rally Dupps were not present for the meeting. Also present from City staff; James R True, Jennifer Phelan, Justin Barker and Reilly Thimons. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Mr. Goode noted the Parks and Recreation Department did an amazing job with the park after the World Cup events. STAFF COMMENTS: Mr. Barker noted there are new hard copies of the land use code available for each board member if they wish to have one. He stated it is also online. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments. MINUTES There were no draft minutes. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST There were no declarations. PUBLIC HEARINGS Public Hearing – 54 Shady Ln – Stream Margin Review and Dimensional Variance Request Mr. Mesirow asked if there were any conflicts of interest to be noted to which there were none. Mr. Mesirow asked if the affidavits of notice had been reviewed. Mr. True replied he reviewed the notices and found them sufficient. Mr. Mesirow opened the hearing and turned the floor over to staff. Ms. Reilly Thimons, Planner Technician, displayed a vicinity map and noted the project is located along Red Mountain Rd and Shady Ln. She also pointed out the location of Hunter Creek, the existing structure P1 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission April 4, 2017 04/04/2017 Page 2 and the property boundary. She stated the property is zoned Low Density Residential (R-30) and is AspenModern eligible. The existing structure was built in 1971 along the Hunter Creek Stream Margin. A carport currently exists along Red Mountain Rd which is the impetus for the dimensional variance request. The applicant originally requested a stream margin review residential design variation and a setback variance. Upon review of the application by staff, it was discovered the residential design variation was not applicable so the hearing will only cover the stream margin review and dimensional variance requests. She then reviewed the purpose of stream margins and the variance standards. Ms. Thimons then displayed photographs of the existing conditions of the current structure describing the current residential building consisting of three separate buildings connected by a patio and area ways. Another picture was provided of the existing structure and another displayed a view of the property from Red Mountain Rd. She listed a few items unique to the site: 1. The tree inventory is quite dense consisting of both deciduous and coniferous trees. 2. The grading of the site is steep in some areas of the lot. She noted because the adjacent property owner owns the portion along the southern end of the lot before it meets the road, the property currently does not have access to Shady Ln. Ms. Thimons stated the existing structure infringes upon the top of bank. She pointed this out on a site map as the orange line as shown on page three (3) of the packet. The top of slope setback was shown in blue on the same map. She noted these were agreed upon in June of 2016 after meeting with the Engineering Department. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing structure and build a new single-family residence. The new residence will be moved outside the top of slope and setback areas. Several trees will be removed and significant landscaping will be done as a result of the new residence. Ms. Thimons then discussed the stream margin review. She noted the applicant has met all the review standards. They are not proposing to change the grade or damage any vegetation along the Hunter Creek stream margin area or interfere or pollute the natural water course. She added any notices or guarantees necessary will be addressed during the building permit process. She stated the proposal also meets the progressive height requirement. In regards to the dimensional variance request, Ms. Thimons stated the applicant has shown staff three different renderings in the application, of which two alternatives have been discussed with the Engineering Department. The alternatives are described below. Alternative A · Sloped drive entering from existing carport location which would infringe on the stream margin and top of slope as it ‘S’ curves down to the southern set back line where a garage would be built. · This option would require the most amount of landscaping and removing of approximately 60 trees. P2 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission April 4, 2017 04/04/2017 Page 3 · Engineering and Parks could not support this alternative due to the most significant impact of the three options in terms of landscaping and encroaching towards the stream margin. Alternative B · Elevated tiered driveway and auto-court accessed from Red Mountain Rd and leads into the second story of the residence with the garage (approximately 76 ft wide). This would require a dimensional variance along the driveway to exceed 24 in within the setback and would also require the removal of approximately 60 trees. · Engineering and Parks do not feel this alternative is not appropriate for this site because it would also require extensive landscaping and regrading. · This option infringes toward the stream margin as well. · Applicant has proposed new trees and additional plantings to partially remedy the removal of mature trees. Preferred Alternative · Elevated bridge and auto-court accessed from Red Mountain Rd and crosses to the second story of the residence. · A dimensional variance would still be required to allow the driveway to exceed 24 in within the setback. · This option would require the least amount of tree removal and landscaping. Staff estimates about 20 trees would be removed for the driveway. · Engineering and Parks support this option in that it shifts of the house away from the stream margin and has the least impact on the riparian area along the stream margin. She noted Mr. Ben Carlson, City of Aspen Forester, was present if anyone had additional questions. She provided a view of the site plan for the preferred option and photos of the proposed elevated driveway. The applicant has requested the dimensional variance specifically for the driveway to project higher than 24 in into the setback. The underlying zoning has a 25 ft setback from the front yard or street facing façade. Staff was not able to agree with the variance causing a hardship on the applicant due to the existing carport which has been in use since the late 1980’s. Therefore, staff recommends denial of the dimensional variance. She pointed out the packet includes two draft resolutions. The first recommends approval of the stream margin and denial of the dimensional variance request. The second draft recommends approval of both the stream margin and the dimensional variance request. Mr. Mesirow asked for questions of staff. Mr. Dupps asked by how much would the driveway exceed the 24 in limit. Ms. Thimons asked Mr. Johnston to respond, who stated it is about 15 ft from the road to the bottom of the site so it would exceed it by 13 ft on average. Mr. McKnight asked Mr. Ben Carlson to expand on the notes in the packet. Mr. Carlson described the trees regulated by their type and size. Specifically, he is concerned for the mature cottonwood trees along the right of way, along the stream margin and the perimeter of the property. In regards to the P3 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission April 4, 2017 04/04/2017 Page 4 code, every deciduous tree over 6 in in diameter and evergreen tree over 4 in in diameter on the site are regulated by ordinance. In order to remove them, you need a permit from the City Forester and Parks Department. There are a couple of cottonwood trees that are 30 plus inches in diameter which the City would prefer they be preserved as they provide stability to the slope as well as enhance environmental and aesthetic needs of the property. Mr. Mesirow asked Mr. Carlson for the bridge option, how many trees were of concern as compared to the other alternatives. Mr. Carlson believed there were fewer in this option as compared to the other two alternatives. Mr. Mesirow asked given the third option does not meet the criteria according to staff, what was their suggestion for an egress to the house. Ms. Thimons replied staff suggested keeping the existing carport. Ms. Phelan added this would be reasonable use of the property and the noted the commission might determine there is some unnecessary hardship by removing all the trees and unique conditions to the parcel. Mr. Mesirow asked if the existing carport would be left, how would they get from the carport to the structure. Ms. Thimons replied there is an existing path that may be used, but would need to slightly reconfigured to access the new house. Mr. Mesirow then turned the floor over to the applicant. Mr. Alan Richman, Alan Richman Planning Services, introduced himself and then introduced the applicant’s representatives including Mr. David Johnston, David Johnston Architects and Mr. Rick Neiley, Neiley & Alder. Mr. Richman stated they are comfortable with the conditions of approval listed by staff in the draft resolutions. He stated they wanted to focus on the front yard setback issue and believe the application meets the standards of the land use code for a variance to be granted by the planning commission. He then discussed the stream margin noting there are three factors: 1) Stream margin – The mapped the floodplain and top of bank to ensure they were outside these environmental features. 2) Driveway – They wanted to see if they could appropriately provide vehicular access to the property. 3) Dense tree canopy on the property – The applicant also wants to preserve it as well. He noted the property had previously received stream margin approval from P&Z in 2004 for some additions. He stated as they worked with the Engineering department on the map of the floodplain and top of bank, it was determined a portion of the house is within the stream margin on two aspects. It falls within the 15 ft margin and the 45-degree angle. The proposed site plan fully complies with the stream margin review standards. Many applicants would look for ways to retain this footprint in order to remain close to the stream. The applicant proposes shifting the footprint towards the center of the property. Once they decided where to place the new house, they looked at how to access the house and the unusual challenges. The first issue is there is only one way to get in to the property. He pointed out on a P4 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission April 4, 2017 04/04/2017 Page 5 map the location of Shady Ln in relation to the applicant’s property noting the applicant does not own the land next to Shady Ln. He stated there is no ability to bring the driveway across Hunter Creek and no ability to bring a driveway in from the Rio Grande Trail side. The only option is from Red Mountain Rd. He stated the second challenge for access is the approximately 15 ft drop between Red Mountain Rd and the location of the proposed house. He pointed on a map where the existing carport exists and stated currently you need to drive head-in to the carport and to leave you need to back out onto Red Mountain Rd which he believes is not a safe situation. He stated both they and the Engineering department feels it should be corrected. He added the current carport directly conflicts with the City’s Residential Design Standards (RDS) which stated the garage should not be prominent from the street. In 1987, Pitkin County was looking to widen and elevate Red Mountain Rd. The prior owners of this property conveyed to the County an area of land measuring about 4,000 sf of land at no cost and the County built the carport platform and a set of stairs down towards the house. The applicant team has determined the least impact to the property to resolve the safety issues and provide access to the home is an elevated driveway which requires a variance from P&Z to be allowed. Mr. Richman then reviewed how the application meets the standards outlined by staff earlier in the hearing: · Provides the least environmentally impactful solution to access the property. · Promotes public safety by eliminating the backing out configuration and providing access for an ambulance or other emergency vehicles. · Provides access with persons with disabilities – a picture was shown of the existing stairs and path. · Provides a new design is consistent with RDS as the garage will point away from the street. Mr. Richman believes the application complies with the hardship criteria and discussed the three tests to be met. 1. Not self-imposed 2. Result of the unique physical circumstances on the property 3. Must deny something commonly enjoyed by others in the neighborhood He continued stating the hardship is caused by the 15ft topographic change between the road and the bottom of the property and the fact the other three sides of the property cannot be used for access. Mr. David Johnston spoke to the location of the proposed home. The driveway is slated to be 16 ft wide. They’ve studied minimum radiuses to get in and out of the garage to ensure vehicles can pull forward into the garage and back out before pulling forward on to Red Mountain Rd. He then discussed the home structure noting they are trying to leave as many trees as possible on the south side. He provided concept drawings of the structure and described the elements of the elevated driveway. He discussed how the design of the driveway and small footprint for the house will aid the drainage on the property. P5 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission April 4, 2017 04/04/2017 Page 6 He noted because they pushed the house back for the stream margin, an additional 25 to 30 ft of distance between the existing carport and the home making it more challenging to connect to the proposed home and improve the existing pathway. Mr. McKnight asked if there were any pictures or renderings of what the new entrance would look like with the existing path. Mr. Johnston responded he did not, only those of the proposed elevated option. He noted some of the trees were purposefully left off the rendering to allow the structure to be visible. He pointed out where some of the larger trees are located on the lot. He stated Engineering wanted the access to be located a minimum of 25 ft from Shady Ln and the current design places the access closer to 40 ft away to allow the elevated access to be placed away from trees and in a safe place. Ms. Tygre asked if the carport would go away if the other access was built and Mr. Johnston replied it would be removed. Mr. Rick Neiley feels they have come up with an innovative design. He feels they are at odds with City Staff regarding the elevated driveway. He feels the design is innovative and is the least impactful of the site and trees. He is troubled by staff’s conclusion in their memo stating it is an inconvenience rather than a condition precluding their ability to successfully develop the site with the existing carport. He does not feel it is a question there could be some successful development based on a design scheme, but a question if there is a hardship associated with the site not caused by the applicant’s conduct and it deprives the applicant of an amenity commonly enjoyed. He feels the hardship of the property is more than an inconvenience. Mr. Dupps asked staff to respond to the three hardships identified by Mr. Richman. Ms. Phelan replied P&Z may determine there are special circumstances exist. She noted comments from other departments have been made available. She feels there is an existing condition that provides reasonable use of the property currently for parking and not necessarily convenient access to the house. She also noted the Parks department is concerned about the tree canopy which is important to the city overall. She stated the board has the latitude to determine those are strong enough to create special conditions on the property. Mr. McKnight asked how many trees would be removed. Mr. Richman replied the application speaks to about two dozen trees for the preferred option vs. about five dozen trees for options A or B. He added the landscape plan also replaces the trees to be removed. Mr. Mesirow then opened for public comment. Mr. Chris Bryan, attorney for Garfield & Hecht, stated he is in attendance representing the homeowners to the south at 17 Shady Ln. He stated the homeowners feel they will be the most impacted by whatever the commission decides. They have concerns about the redevelopment itself. It will cause large scale, multi-year construction activity right off Red Mountain Rd. The applicant has not asked homeowner for access from Shady Ln which is a private road. The feel it is interesting they have an address of 54 Shady Ln when they don’t have access from Shady Ln which they feel was a mistake made in the past. They also have had issues preserving the tree canopy. About two years ago, the LLC owner of the applicant’s property entered the homeowner’s property unauthorized and cut trees down using Aspen Tree Service. It is his understanding the LLC membership has since changed. Therefore, his clients are reluctant to sign off on a large-scale tree removal and building an elevated driveway to the home. Mr. Bryan believes P&Z should look at what is really necessary and feels the existing carport is a self-imposed aspect of the property. In regards to the safety issues, he is not aware of accidents or public safety concerns. He feels they could simply back into the carport. He would like the board to consider another alternative not P6 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission April 4, 2017 04/04/2017 Page 7 included in the application which is to keep it status quo with the existing house and carport, creating an ADA ramp from the carport. He hears the applicant would prefer not to have to walk an additional 25 ft to their home, but does not feel it is a hardship. His client feels staff’s opinion is correct. He pointed out on p. 5 of staff’s memo stating the proposed design would infringe on the southern property setback. His client feels the property can be enjoyed as is without the proposed structures. Ms. Thimons wanted to clarify in regards to the infringement on the southern property’s setback, it was only for the sloped, curved driveway access alternative (Alternative B). She added staff, Engineering and Parks do not support this alternative. She reiterated the preferred alternative does not infringe on the setback. Mr. Johnston asked if he could respond to Mr. Bryan’s statements. He stated their goal was to not have access off Shady Ln as to not disturb the neighbor. Mr. Mesirow then closed the public comment portion of the hearing and opened for commissioner discussion. Mr. McKnight feels the stream margin review is straight forward. He is not sure the access could be defined as a hardship but feels they have a right to have a driveway with the property. He does not feel safety is an issue. The biggest issue for him is the removal of two dozen trees and is not sure what that means but will listen to staff and the Parks department. Mr. Mesirow assumed the board is okay with the stream margin review. He feels the site constraint is unique to the property and asked the others for their thoughts. Ms. Tygre stated her concern is with the hardship issue because the applicant bought the property as is. The access has not changed since they purchased the property. To state the access is not acceptable and therefore a hardship does not seem to follow the code precisely to her. She feels in some way the proposed solution is much better, especially if the Engineering department has stated it is better. She cannot find the justification in the code itself to allow the variation for the construction of the elevated driveway. She would love to see the applicant come up with a better solution. Mr. Goode agreed with her comments. Mr. McKnight stated he thought the same thing, but just because they purchased the property as is, they would not necessarily obtain the variance prior to purchasing it. Ms. Tygre feels she is stuck on the definition of hardship. Mr. Mesirow believes the access could cause a hardship as it relates to other homes and their access. Mr. Richman read the code language regarding variances. Mr. Dupps stated he feels it is a threshold issue and not clear. He noted the house as it currently exists, is in the wrong location and believes Red Mountain Rd is very busy causing a hazardous situation. If he considers this, he is in favor of granting the variance. Mr. Neiley asked to respond to Ms. Tygre’s comments regarding purchasing the property with hardships. He stated the case law in Colorado is clear noting if you buy a piece of property with a hardship, it does not preclude you from being able to seek a variance. The hardship is incidental to the nature of the property itself and not a basis for denying a request for a variance. Mr. True responded Mr. Neiley’s statement was correct in that you may purchase something knowing there was a hardship but the question is have you done something to create the hardship. He feels this is set forth in the code and the P7 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission April 4, 2017 04/04/2017 Page 8 board can still make the determination if this is in fact a hardship vs an inconvenience and is factual determination for the board. Mr. Mesirow asked Ms. Tygre if this changes her decision to which she replied yes, but she would still like to see a different solution. Mr. Richman asked them to consider the situation when an ambulance needs to access the home, not just personal vehicles. Mr. Goode asked about a fire truck accessing the property. Mr. Johnston replied the structure is within 150 ft of the road. They are designing the bridge such that it could handle a firetruck pulling into the driveway. Mr. Goode moved to approve Resolution 8, Series 2017 to approve the stream margin review and the variance request. The motion was seconded by Mr. McKnight. Mr. Mesirow then requested the roll call vote. Mr. Goode, yes; Mr. McKnight, yes; Mr. Dupps, yes; Ms. Tygre, yes; and Mr. Mesirow, yes for a total of five Yes votes to zero No votes (5-0), motion carried. Mr. Mesirow then closed the hearing. OTHER BUSINESS None. Mr. Mesirow then closed the meeting at 5:41 pm. Cindy Klob City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager P8 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission May 16, 2017 1 Mr. Skippy Mesirow, Chair, called the May 16, 2017 meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members Ms. McNicholas Kury, Mr. Jesse Morris, Ms. Jasmine Tygre, and Mr. Mesirow present. Mr. Ryan Walterscheid and Mr. Spencer McKnight recused themselves from the hearing. Mr. Keith Goode was not present. Also present from City staff; Ms. Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney, Ms. Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director and Mr. Ben Anderson, Planner. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Ms. Tygre asked they are doing more work in front of the Aspen Art Museum and taking away more parking spaces, including half the block on Hyman Ave and half the block on Spring St. Ms. Sara Gardner from the audience noted they are changing out the snowman sculpture with a new one and it takes a week. Ms. Tygre noted the parking bans appear to be permanent. Ms. McNicholas Kury stated she was aware of a petition circulating regarding the City Offices which was reviewed by the board and asked when everyone would know if it would be on the ballot or not. Ms. Klob replied the City Clerk has received the petitions on the previous day and the City Clerk has 30 days to review them. STAFF COMMENTS: There were none. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were none. MINUTES There were none. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Ms. McNicholas Kury stated she had received some unsolicited input from neighbors of the project that was forwarded to staff. Ms. Bryan noted Mr. McKnight recused himself because he lives within 300 ft of the project. Public Hearings – 404 Park Ave – Amendment to a Growth Management Development Order Request Mr. Mesirow asked if the public notice affidavits had been reviewed. Ms. Bryan replied the affidavits appears to be in order. Mr. Mesirow then turned the floor over to staff. P9 IV.B. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission May 16, 2017 2 Mr. Ben Anderson, Planner, noted P&Z approved this property back in December, 2016 with P&Z Resolution 11, Series 2016. The review for tonight is for a substantial amendment to a growth management development order under the affordable housing chapter. He then reviewed what was previously approved. He noted the whole project wasn’t up for review at this hearing, only one aspect of the project. He provided a rendering of the approved project and reviewed the location of site and noted a couple of previous approvals: 1. Ordinance 20, Series 2016 approved the removal of the existing planned development (PD) for the parcel subject to the eventual redevelopment with a 100% affordable housing project. 2. P&Z Resolution 11, Series 2016 approved a 28-unit affordable housing development with a subgrade parking garage. With the removal of the PD, the project becomes subject to the multi-family residential zone district. Based on the unit density provided, the project remains significantly under the maximum floor area allowed as well as the maximum height allowed. He added the setbacks are good and noted they are not proposing any changes to the dimensions or number of units. The approved project consists of 28 units consisting of 1, 2, 3 bedroom units with most of the units having 1 or 3 bedrooms. The units would be split between Category 3 and 4 and described as owner occupied. One of the 28 units is a resident occupied unit also described in the approval as owner occupied. One parking space per unit in the subgrade garage was also included in the approval. The project is subject to receiving 64 affordable housing credits with the creation of the units. The proposed amendment to be reviewed is about the tenancy of the units. The applicant would like some flexibility as the project moves forward toward a different balance of occupancy types between owner-occupied and renter-occupied. Mr. Anderson then referenced the land use code section as noted in the Affordable Housing and Housing Credits sections which states the proposed units shall be deed restricted as for sale units, transferred to qualified purchasers according to the guidelines, or the proposed units may be rental units including but not limited to rental units owned by an employer or a non-profit organization if a legal instrument in a form acceptable the City Attorney ensures permanent affordability of the units. Staff’s perspective is there is some preference in the code because of the use of the words “shall” and “may” regarding the preference to ownership units with discretion to approve rental units. Mr. Anderson noted the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) reviewed this request. Mr. Anderson noted the sections in the draft resolution in the memo include conditions directly from APCHA in response to the most recent approval. He believes they pull these from their guidelines and from their staff’s expertise of the current conditions and challenges of managing affordable housing. Mr. Anderson noted Ms. Cindy Christensen, APCHA Operations Manager, will be attending the hearing and available for questions. Mr. Anderson noted a couple of the conditions were heavily discussed by APCHA, Planning Staff and the APCHA board. Should the project be a mix of both owned and rented units, there are some Federal P10 IV.B. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission May 16, 2017 3 Housing requirements that deal with condominimized multi-family residences. Should the balance of rental units become the majority of the units in the complex or if a single entity owns more than 10% of the units in a complex, the applicants for mortgages will have difficulty successfully applying for conventional mortgage products. He stated the list of conditions are important for the board to consider in their review of a possible mixed project of both rental and owned units. Mr. Anderson stated several comments have been received from neighbors in addition to those included in the packet. He has also received one phone call from a neighbor. He stated the comments have been varied. Some are supportive of the ownership project as presented and are concerned of a transition to rental units in whole or in part. There were also letter which raised questions about the original approval in December, 2016. Others raised issues regarding parking and other issues that have already been approved which are not necessarily in consideration of this hearing’s request. He stated the overall tone shows general support of the project and pretty clear support of ownership of the units, but some reluctance towards changing to rental units. Mr. Anderson wanted to identify one minor correction to the draft resolution in Section 4 regarding the vested rights. He stated the vesting period is actually January 5, 2017 to January 5, 2020. Mr. Anderson also wanted to clarify Sections 8 and 9, both relate to the parking question. He reiterated the recommended conditions submitted to the Community Development Department from APCHA were included as-is, but tonight’s hearing does not involve parking. Mr. Anderson stated staff is supportive of the applicant’s request for flexibility in the tenancy for the approved units. If P&Z approves the request, the proposed conditions are recommended to ensure permanent affordability and help APCHA avoid unintended enforcement issues with the units. The conditions will be included in the deed restriction created at the completion of the project. Mr. Anderson closed stating Ms. Christensen was available for questions. Mr. Mesirow asked if there were questions of staff. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked Ms. Christensen if APCHA uses any metrics for parking of deed restricted versus own occupied to which she replied they do not and most of the recent projects have been ownership projects, not necessarily rental projects. She added for owned properties, they require the car to be registered in Pitkin County but not for other types of property. She added they have this condition only for properties managed by APCHA and is not sure they can add it as a condition. Mr. Mesirow asked if there is an optimal mix from APCHA’s perspective to which Ms. Christensen replied it would be what had been approved. She continued stating APCHA recognizes there is a need for both rental and ownership projects. APCHA is concerned with a mixed project. She added most of the rental projects are owned by one owner and easier to deal with, but this is unknown with this project and APCHA anticipates it being more challenging from an administration viewpoint. Mr. Mesirow asked if the need for one type is higher than the other. Ms. Christensen replied there will be people lined up no matter which type. Mr. Mesirow asked her to explain the management structure for this project. Ms. Christensen replied APCHA qualifies everyone for all the units. APCHA works with the landlords to make sure tenants are P11 IV.B. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission May 16, 2017 4 qualified. Currently, renters must qualify every two years and this will be changed to every year. APCHA requires those bidding on units to requalify on a yearly basis. Mr. Morris asked staff if they can identify the conditions to apply based on the type of ownership. Ms. Phelan confirmed the conditions approved would be applied upon completion of the project when the deed restriction is put in place. Mr. Mesirow then turned the floor over to the applicant. Ms. Sara Adams, BendonAdams, introduced herself and the applicant, Mr. Peter Fornell. Ms. Adams reviewed the existing structure onsite as well as the approved project noting to-date, Mr. Fornell has housed 37 families through the award winning affordable housing credit program. She stated their request is to amend the approval to allow for flexibility between a possible mix of rental units and owned or 100% of either rental or owned. The flexibility will allow the market to dictate what the demand is for affordable housing. After receiving the approval, Mr. Fornell heard from the community and lodge owners regarding their needs which shifted his thinking regarding the project. Ms. Adams noted the code provides allows for along with review criteria for the requested flexibility. She read a portion of the code stating the City encourages affordable housing units required for lodge development to be rental units associated with the lodge operation contributing to the long-term viability of the lodge. She stated Mr. Fornell has been speaking with a lot of lodge operators and the troubles they have keeping employees in town. Ms. Adams stated they appreciate APCHA’s time to write the conditions of approval as well as their patience as the applicant reached out to the lending community to figure out potential financing issues. The applicant does not wish to create hurdles for potential unit owners and are in favor of the proposed conditions in the resolution. She added they are committed to meeting the adopted housing guidelines noted in the draft resolution. They believe allowing for rental units within the project provides an opportunity to meet more than one city and community goal in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP). Ms. Adams then addressed the three concerns raised by staff in their memo (p 3 of the agenda packet). Her response to each is as follows. 1) The applicant is sympathetic to the issue and believes APCHA would benefit from additional staff and they do not want to make it worse. They agree to the conditions of the approval and want to respond to the market needs. 2) The applicant proposes one home owner association (HOA) and the owners of the units would be part of the HOA. She referred to the AACP policy 4.6 and notes it provides guidance regarding consistency within a neighborhood despite the mix of residents. 3) The applicant is happy to meet the percentages. Ms. Adams wanted to point out the APCHA Board gave a unanimous approval with the previously discussed conditions and meeting the needs of the market. Ms. Adams then pointed out a couple of items to be addressed in the draft resolution. P12 IV.B. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission May 16, 2017 5 1) She wanted to ensure the criteria listed in number 4 in under the 100% ownership project (Section 3) follows the housing guidelines as adopted. 2) Under the 100% rental project (Section 3), she wanted to point out number 9 which discusses the notice of enforcement including a fine of $500 per day. She stated this is not in the guidelines, but the applicant is fine with it being included in the resolution as long as the fines are assessed with the adopted guidelines. She closed stating they had read the letters from the neighbors and sent a letter to Midland Park stating would be sharing additional information once they have it available. Mr. Peter Fornell feels the certificate program is still maturing. He said he has been approached by a lot of people to purchase the affordable housing certificates for the project in particularly hotel developers. He notes two of the three hotel projects would need his entire project in order to mitigate their requirements. For them to only purchase the certificates serves them far less than if they can purchase and have units available for staff. He believes having some for rent units will benefit the community. Mr. Mesirow asked for questions for the applicant. Mr. Mesirow asked in this case would the hotels purchase the units and then rent them out to their employees. Mr. Fornell confirmed this is the case and noted APCHA has protections in place to ensure the owners are in Pitkin County. He also feels if the market shows we need more rental units and the city wants to manage them, they need additional staff to manage them. Ms. McNicholas Kury noted as the conditions currently read, Mr. Fornell could own two of the units. Mr. Fornell replied if it was 100%, he would own all. He said the 10% rule is for Freddie and Fannie. If it was all rental properties, the Freddie and Fannie rules would not apply. Mr. Mesirow asked if the 49% and 10% number could move and Ms. Christensen replied no they would not. Mr. Fornell stated if you want to borrow from Freddie or Fannie, the building must conform to those two rules. Mr. Morris asked with all the detailed conditions in the approval, what happens if something needs to be changed. Ms. Phelan replied if it was something defined in the resolution, then it would have to be amended. Mr. Mesirow then closed that portion of the hearing. Mr. Mesirow opened the public comment and asked them to limit the comments to items pertaining to the current request, not previous hearings. Ms. Sara Gardner, Midland Park Resident, reiterated the letters received lean toward 100% ownership. She asked if it is 100% ownership, could there be any rentals and Ms. Christensen replied no. She noted the conditions requiring a closet and appliances appears to have been dropped on the 100% Rental Project section. She asked if there is a maximum number of residents per unit. Ms. Christensen stated even the building code does not specify a maximum. Ms. Phelan added the City land use code states you can have up to five unrelated people in a dwelling unit. Mr. Fornell stated he would be willing to have something in the rules and regulations preventing this situation. Ms. Judy Kolberg, Midland Park Resident, is concerned the project keeps changing. She believes tying ownership to renting the units is a bad idea. She does not feel turnover is a good thing. She is concerned P13 IV.B. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission May 16, 2017 6 a mixed approach will lead to higher turnover and possibly absentee landlords. If there are to be rentals, she would prefer they be controlled by APCHA. Mr. Mesirow asked what the impact would be to the community if there were rentals. She feels there will be higher turnover which means the residents don’t buy into the neighborhood. She feels the nearby Aspen Hills and Park Circle projects should address the rental needs. Ms. Kolberg would like to see some maintenance on the existing building. Mr. Bryan Semel stated he supports the project no matter the mix. Ms. Heidi Hoffman agrees with what Ms. Cindy Houben and Ms. Judy Kolberg included in their letters. She does not want any rentals. Mr. Mesirow noted the letters received raising concerns regarding the rentals. Mr. Mesirow then closed the public comment period. Mr. Morris asked Ms. Christensen about the current mix of rentals vs owned units in the APCHA program. She replied there are 2,900 units with approximately 1,600 ownership and 1,300 rentals. Mr. Mesirow then opened for commissioner discussion. Ms. Tygre believes it is actually better to have a rental project because if you have a bad renter, you can get them out at the end of the lease. If you have a bad owner, you are stuck. She does not object to ownership or rental units and believes they can be mixed. Her sticking point is the employer being the landlord. She has had experiences where a business owner gouged their tenants. Mr. Mesirow asked Ms. Christensen if there are restrictions on what rent can be charged. She replied APCHA requires copies of leases. Ms. Tygre stated there could be a double lease. Mr. Morris remarked he has gone through the process twice, once being an APCHA housing through employer controlled housing and also the sublease program and felt it was pretty robust. Ms. Tygre stated she witnessed issues in the free market, but imagines managing the units will be a challenge for APCHA. Mr. Morris feels APCHA can handle it. Ms. McNicholas Kury does not feel personally qualified to make decisions on affordable housing for the community. She prefers if APCHA makes a clear recommendation to the board. She feels there have been concessions made for the project already and is perhaps making her more sensitive to this request. Mr. Mesirow asked the board members if they have a strong distinction in terms of a livable community environment based on owning vs renting. Ms. Tygre stated where she lives the residents are long-term and it’s not employer controlled so there isn’t a lot of movement. She believes there is a difference between seasonal vs long-term renters. Mr. Morris is supportive of the proposal as it is now including the amendments for the appliances. He believes the request for flexibility makes sense. Mr. Mesirow agrees and sees APCHA working on their enforcement efforts. Ms. McNicholas Kury stated she is uncomfortable assessing APCHA’s enforcement capacity. Mr. Mesirow feels both rentals and owned units are needed and APCHA can do their job. P14 IV.B. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission May 16, 2017 7 Ms. Tygre is uncomfortable with the possible multiple employer owned scenarios. Mr. Morris asked Ms. Christensen for examples of employer owned rentals in the same project currently. She replied there are none at this time. She stated APCHA received approval for a full-time compliance officer and working to put fines and penalties in place within their guidelines. They are working on additional processes of notification and enforcement of land lords who are out of compliance. A new requirement for the deed restriction will state if they are out of compliance for a certain period of time, they will turn over the management of the units to APCHA. If it is a mix, APCHA will tell the owner they must sell the unit and if it is 100% rental, APCHA will take over the management with a fee set in the guidelines. APCHA is putting more mechanisms in place to control rental products. Mr. Fornell noted the Ullr Lodge is owned by multiple owners and is a rental property to which Ms. Christensen agreed. Mr. Anderson believes the content for condition number 4 in the 100% ownership project is a bit murky when the applicant is selected by the developer. Ms. Phelan disagreed and believes APCHA is making a specific recommendation and it should either get approved or not or the board can ask for a change. Mr. Fornell stated the primary reason he is asking for this change so he can place his daughter in one of the units. Ms. Christensen noted it is nice when an applicant can get a brand new unit. She suggested one change could clarify what happens if a unit promised by the developer does not become available. Mr. Fornell replied that addition makes sense. Ms. Adams suggested modifying the content of condition number 4 on p 3 of the draft resolution. Mr. Anderson, Ms. Phelan and Ms. Christensen discussed possible changes to the condition and suggested stating an existing affordable housing unit is owned by the developer selected buyer, the owner must place their unit in the lottery once they are under contract. Ms. Adams suggested clarifying this in the development agreement. Ms. Phelan believes it should be listed prior to closing. Mr. Morris motioned to approve Resolution 9, 2017 as drafted and including the two amendments described at this hearing. Ms. Tygre seconded the motion. Mr. Mesirow requested a roll call. Roll call: Mr. Morris, yes; Ms. Tygre, yes, Ms. McNicholas Kury, yes; and Mr. Mesirow, yes for a total four yes and zero no (4-0). The motion was approved. Mr. Mesirow then closed the hearing. OTHER BUSINESS None. A motion was made to adjourn and seconded. All in favor, motion passed. Cindy Klob City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager P15 IV.B. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission August 1, 2017 1 Mr. Skippy Mesirow, Chair, called the August 1, 2017 meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members Mr. Jesse Morris, Ms. Jasmine Tygre, Mr. Keith Goode, Mr. Rally Dupps and Mr. Mesirow present. Mr. Mesirow noted Mr. Spencer McKnight may arrive late to the meeting. Mr. Ryan Walterscheid recused himself from the hearing. Ms. Kelly McNicholas Kury and Mr. Spencer McKnight were not present. Present from City staff were Ms. Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney, Ms. Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director and Mr. Ben Anderson, Planner. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Mr. Goode asked if there was any update to Ms. Tygre’s previous questions regarding the Galena St Shuttle not going through the mall area beside the courthouse. Ms. Tygre believes tourists coming up from the garage may be confused as to where to board the shuttle. She believes there needs to be a connection between the parking garage and street level more obvious and accessible to those parking in the garage. Ms. Phelan replied she will ask the Transportation department. Ms. Tygre commented there seems to be unprecedented number of bicycles riding on the sidewalk. She feels the signage on the streets is confusing as to the location of the bike lanes with some in the middle, some on the side of the road and some that end abruptly. Mr. Goode agreed there are more bicyclist on the malls. Mr. Mesirow commented he recently visited other ski towns in Colorado and wanted to express his gratitude to past planners and commissioners. STAFF COMMENTS: There were none. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were none. MINUTES March 31, 2017 & July 18, 2017 Draft Minutes – Mr. Dupps motioned to adopt both minutes and was seconded by Ms. Tygre. All approved, motion carried. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Mr. Mesirow noted Mr. Walterscheid’s previous recusal. P16 IV.C. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission August 1, 2017 2 PUBLIC HEARNIG – 718 S Galena St; 800 S Mill St– Special Review & Exemption, 8040 Greenline Review Mr. Mesirow asked if the affidavits of public notice had been reviewed. Ms. Bryan replied it was submitted, noting the published notice states the hearing starts at 4:39 PM but it is her opinion it does not make the notice defective. There is also a date field on the notice that needs to be filled in by the applicant. Mr. Mesirow then turned the floor over to staff. Mr. Ben Anderson introduced the applicant representative, Mr. Randall Henrie, Z-Group Architects. Mr. Anderson then identified the project location involves both the Durant and Fifth Avenue Condominiums. The applicant is looking to replace the non-conforming pool area shared by the two condominiums which requires a special review. Due to its location, it is also subject to an 8040 greenline review for an exemption. He then reviewed the existing site, pointing out the location of the condominium buildings and the shared pool area. The nonconforming aspects include the following. · Spans property line for the two condominiums · Pool and hot tub located in the front yard (not currently allowed per the land use code) · Height of features including retaining walls (greater than 30”) located in setback · Height of the fence in the front yard (greater than 42”) · Existing mechanical shed is nonconforming in size and location (applicant proposes removal) · Floor area for each condominium exceeds the maximum Mr. Anderson stated the applicant wishes to replace the pool because it is in significant need of repair. The land use code provides two mechanisms for dealing with nonconforming structures. 1. A cumulative amount of normal maintenance 2. Remodel or repair can go up to 40% without it being considered demolition He continued stating if the maintenance exceeds normal maintenance or demolition percentage, the code typically expects these structures to be brought into conformance. He provided slides of the existing and proposed remodel and noted the applicant is proposing to maintain the nonconformity. They propose to maintain the existing footprint, moving the hot tub into the existing foot print of the pool, remove the mechanical shed, install planter boxes, and modify the dimensions of the fence to comply with the code. The special review required to allow their proposed replacement of the nonconforming structure includes the following excerpts. · Enhance characteristic of the zone district · Consistent with purposes of the underlying zone district · Will not have adverse impacts on the neighborhood · Special aspects of the property encouraging the replacement of the structure · If replaced, no increases in the dimensional variances · Variances should be minimal to allow reasonable, continued use of the property · Literal enforcement causing unnecessary hardship P17 IV.C. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission August 1, 2017 3 Mr. Anderson stated in looking at the project in total, it clearly meets both the intent and the language of the review standards. Mr. Anderson then discussed the 8040 Greenline review. The Engineering department evaluated the application and had no concerns with the criteria. Staff finds the project meets the review criteria for an exemption. He noted the applicant initially pursued a mountain view plane review exemption as well but due to recent changes to the land use code in addition to the location and nature of this project makes it automatically exempt, so no review is necessary. Staff decided to remove this from the review. Staff finds the proposal addresses many safety and aesthetic issues and recommends approval of replacement of the pool area. Mr. Mesirow asked for questions of staff. There were none so he then turned the floor over to the applicant. Mr. Randall Henrie introduced himself and provided a vicinity map showing the two properties. He then reviewed the existing conditions including the following. · Poor soils · Continuous leaks within the pool · Age and weathering in an extreme environment · Unsafe conditions with multiple trip hazards · Fences mounted on deteriorated timber retaining walls · Potential spa and pool water quality issues due to cracking · Deteriorating appearance of inferior materials He displayed pictures of the existing conditions including the following. · Soil erosion causing cracks and depressions in the decking surrounding pool and hot tub · Equipment shed with deteriorating appearance and allows unsafe access to pool area · Unstable, deteriorating fence · Deck has lifted and separated from pool and hot tub causing trip hazards in some areas · Cracks on the decks extend into the pool and hot tub · Deteriorating timber retaining walls He said both complexes have gone thru extensive exterior upgrades in past few years. The pool area is the last feature remaining to be rehabbed. They are proposing the following: · Install a new pool shell in its existing footprint · Move the hot tub within the pool area footprint to share the mechanical resources · Replace fencing · Replace and repair decking · Remove nonconforming shed · Add planters providing greenspace and also address floor area Mr. Henri then reviewed the City’s concerns as previously identified by Mr. Anderson. Mr. Henri stated assuming the project is approved, there are some features they can make conforming. P18 IV.C. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission August 1, 2017 4 1. Mechanical shed elimination and the functions moved to an existing mechanical room already located in the Durant Condominiums. 2. Address the retaining wall violating the 30 in requirement. He provided a site plan of the proposed upgrades indicating where the mechanical functions would be located and where the retaining walls would be modified to address the violation. He then identified the features to remain non-conforming. 1. Pool will still reside in the front yard 2. Pool will still span the property lines within setbacks 3. Existing floor area will be greater than allowed even though they are reducing the amount in the pool areas. Mr. Henri provided a survey of the site and described the location of the current pool and the access points. He described what would be demolished including two trees. They met with Mr. Ben Carlsen, City Forester, regarding the two trees who agreed it would be best to remove the trees and replace them. He then provided a picture depicting the new layout with the modified access points, new trees, and new planter boxes. He provided a slide detailing the reduction in floor areas showing the decrease in floor area for each condominium. He also provided pictures of the design of the pool fence which will mimic the handrail design of the Fifth Ave Condominiums and one of the stone for the planter boxes which will mimic the stone used in the Durant Condominiums. Existing and proposed elevations of from the street and each condominium were displayed. A sectional was shown of the pool show the reduced depth of 4 ft, planter walls and graded wall. He noted the pool area is well within the backdrop of the buildings and not subject to the view planes. Mr. Henri then discussed 8040 Greenline exemption request. He stated the project does not create anything new, it simply replaces what was already there in regards to structures and grading and drainage patterns. There are no increases to the floor area. The City Forester noted the two trees are in a planter which is too small for them and one is touching the Durant building so he supports replacing them. He noted when the Durant building was remodeled all the geologic and drainage issues were considered with the rehabilitation project. He feels they meet all the exemption criteria for the 8040 Greenline review criteria. He provided pictures of the Wheeler Mountain View Plane and one showing the approximate location of the pool area which is not seen from the Wheeler Opera House which is screened by the St. Regis Hotel. He closed by summarizing why he feels the application should be approved. Mr. Mesirow asked for questions of applicant. P19 IV.C. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission August 1, 2017 5 Mr. Goode asked staff why the exterior remodel of the buildings did not appear before P&Z. Ms. Phelan replied it was only a new skin and was probably an administrative approval. She stated a non-conformity may remain as long as they meet the building code. Mr. Mesirow opened for public comment. There was none so he closed that portion of the hearing. Mr. Mesirow opened for commissioner discussion. Mr. Goode stated he has no problem with the application and others agreed. Mr. Morris moved to approve Resolution 11, Series 2017 as drafted and was seconded by Mr. Goode. Mr. Mesirow requested a roll call: Mr. Morris, yes; Mr. Goode, yes; Ms. Tygre, yes; Mr. Dupps, yes; Mr. Mesirow, yes for a total of five yes and zero no (5-0). Mr. Mesirow then closed the hearing. OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business. ADJOURN A motion to adjourn was made by Mr. Goode and seconded. All in favor, motion passed. Cindy Klob City Clerks Department, Records Manager P20 IV.C. Code Amendment – Post-Moratorium Clean-Up P&Z Check-in – 9/5/2017 Page 1 of 5 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Justin Barker, Senior Planner Phillip Supino, Principal Long-Range Planner THRU: Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Community Development Director RE: Post-Moratorium Clean-Up & General Long-Range Check-In DATE: September 5, 2017 REQUEST OF P&Z: The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to provide input on proposed amendments to the Land Use Code prior to bringing those amendments to City Council for consideration. This memo outlines these clean-up needs, as well as discusses other general long-range updates, including the recently passed sign code and Council’s new Top Ten Goals. BACKGROUND: In February of 2016, City Council adopted a commercial development moratorium to provide Council and staff with the time required to look comprehensively at a variety of code sections. Council’s stated goal was to “coordinate the Land Use Code with the Aspen Area Community Plan, so the LUC delivers what the AACP promises.” To achieve this goal, City Council and the Community Development Department were engaged in a comprehensive re-write of many of the regulations governing commercial development within the City’s commercial zone districts for much of 2016. That process concluded in February, 2017 with the adoption of Ordinances 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 and, three months later, 34. As staff and the consultant team stated during the moratorium process, code amendments of that size, and under those time constraints will require a subsequent follow-up to address any unintended oversights, incorrect references and general scrivener’s errors. In the case of the proposed post-moratorium clean-up, those items include Definitions in section 26.100, Growth Management Quota System in section 26.470, the parking standards in section 26.515, Commercial Design Standards in section 26.412, and zoning standards in 26.710. The following memo outlines those proposed code amendments. Staff requests input and guidance from Planning and Zoning prior to presenting Policy Resolution and First Reading documents to Council on September 25, 2017. CODE AMENDMENT OVERVIEW: Use Categories and Zone Districts As part of Ordinance 30, 2016, Use Categories were developed to supplement the definitions in 26.100 and the zoning standards in 26.710. The use categories were designed to provide more guidance to planners and applicants as to the uses appropriate in various zone districts, as well as to provide a framework for assessing the appropriateness of proposed uses that are not explicitly P21 VII.A. Code Amendment – Post-Moratorium Clean-Up P&Z Check-in – 9/5/2017 Page 2 of 5 called-out in the zone districts. In some cases, the zone districts in 26.710 do not list the use category, merely some specific uses, which are a holdover from the previous iteration of the code. Some of the changes planned for this aspect of the ordinance are: 1. Rewording the Permitted Uses section in the Commercial Lodge zone district to make clear those uses allowed as conditional uses on upper floors. 2. Remove Neighborhood Commercial and other outdated uses, and separate retail, restaurant and entertainment uses to reflect the new use categories in various zone district sections. 3. Fix missing references to Lodge and Hotel in Part 100, as well as updating the Lodge Use category description. 4. Differentiate between General and Specialty Retail and account for Formula Retail in those zone districts not included in the original moratorium code amendments. There are other examples of this type of discrepancy between Part 100 and Part 700. Staff will identify and fix them as part of the proposed code amendment. This code amendment is a good opportunity to look at the Examples, Accessory Uses and Exceptions in each use category and determine whether there are additions which may make the code section more robust, reflect business uses and trends in the community or make the sections more user friendly. Staff welcomes P&Z’s input on any potential additions or revisions to achieve those ends. Typos, Errors and Omissions Given the length and complexity of the Land Use Code, it is inevitable that there will be typos, incorrect cross-references, and missing words or references in the code. Staff keeps a running list of these errors and intends to include them in the ordinance presented to Council. To the extent that P&Z members see errors in their interaction with the Code, staff welcomes their suggestions for fixes to include in the ordinance. Lodge Auditing Requirements & Growth Management The lodge audit requirements contained in the Miscellaneous Regulations of code section 26.575 are in place to provide Community Development with a tool to ensure that lodge uses operate according to the standards for lodge uses and the requirements of site specific approvals. There are a variety of lodge use types in Aspen, from traditional small lodges to timeshares and condo hotels. Each was developed in response to consumer preferences at that time, which often means that the operations and occupancy of the lodges differ widely. The lodge audit provision ensures that, to the extent that Community Development requires information about the current operations of a lodge to inform a future land use decision, it has the tools to get that information. Staff proposes making the audit provision more robust by adding to the list of metrics which may be included in a lodge audit request. Those may include employee information, contractor and service provider information, and ownership details to ensure that the lodge is not held as a privately-owned residential property. In addition to strengthening the audit provision, staff seeks guidance from P&Z on how best to refine and strengthen the definition of lodge. As the line blurs between private residence, short- P22 VII.A. Code Amendment – Post-Moratorium Clean-Up P&Z Check-in – 9/5/2017 Page 3 of 5 term vacation rental and lodge, it is increasingly important to have definitions and regulations that reflect City policies and Council priorities. This amendment is intended to confirm that the lodge use category and definition reflect the current use patterns of lodges in the community, as well as ensure that future proposed lodge uses meet the needs of the community in terms of adding to the bed base, providing a variety of lodging options and price points. There are also several sections which may require amendment within 26.470 Growth Management Quota System governing lodge development and uses. For example, section 26.470.080.D establishes a lodge affordable housing mitigation rate of 65%. But section 26.470.100.H provides a more detailed sliding scale of lodge mitigation rates depending on the average size of the units within the lodge development. While not contradictory, the language is confusing and will be addressed through the proposed code amendments. Parking Standards Ordinance 32, 2016 was the most comprehensive of the ordinances passed under the moratorium. It constituted a complete re-write of the parking section of the Land Use Code, changing the City’s approach to parking by integrating mobility and transit policies and regulations into the parking requirements for commercial, lodge and mixed-use development. The most substantive change was converting requirements for hardscaped parking spaces for individual projects into parking impact units. A project’s parking impact unit requirement can be met through the provision of parking spaces, cash-in-lieu, mobility improvements, and off-site or shared parking. The amendments of Ordinance 32, 2016 addressed the parking requirements for commercial and lodge zone districts, but it failed to convert all zone districts properly. For instance, the Commercial Lodge zone is not included in a key table and would be added as part of this amendment. A handful of typos will also be remedied. Commercial Design Review The current Commercial Design administrative review process for non-historic properties requires a previous Commercial Design approval from P&Z. Without a previous commercial design approval, the Code requires these to go to P&Z, which can be a lengthy and expensive process for small changes. There are several non-historic buildings in town that were constructed prior to Commercial Design Review, which was adopted city-wide in 2007. Owners of these buildings often like to make minor changes and improvements, such as replace a window with a door or add an awning. Staff is interested in adding a process similar to the Certificate of No Negative Effect used for historic properties. This is an administrative process that includes several detailed parameters for what qualifies for this review. This change would lower barriers for minor remodels, which Council expressed preferences for throughout the moratorium process, and reduce staff workload for such projects. Pedestrian Amenity When P&Z and Council supported the development of new Commercial Design Standards, one of the substantive changes included in the new standards was changing the term public amenity to pedestrian amenity. This semantic change reflects the use and intent of those spaces on private property in commercial areas: the spaces are created as open space within a development to enhance the pedestrian experience, not necessarily provide unfettered access to the public in P23 VII.A. Code Amendment – Post-Moratorium Clean-Up P&Z Check-in – 9/5/2017 Page 4 of 5 all circumstances. A good example of this functional distinction is an outdoor restaurant seating area. Outdoor seating on private property is accessible for customers only, but it meets the intent and standards for pedestrian amenity. There are various sections of the Land Use Code which reference public not pedestrian amenity, which need to be updated. COUNCIL TOP TEN GOALS: Along with City staff from a wide range of departments, City Council is in the process of developing its next round of Top Ten Goals. These goals provide direction and structure to staff’s efforts to deliver for Council their policy and programmatic priorities for the subsequent two years. Attached as Exhibit A is the draft goal language for nine goal areas that Council developed during their retreat in August. There are a handful of goals that P&Z may be interested in tracking and will be asked to provide input on as there are developed and implemented. Goal number nine speaks to Council’s desire that the City’s Boards and Commissions, including P&Z, operate effectively, have the support of Council and staff, provide opportunities for citizen participation, and continue to play an essential role in Aspen’s governance. Staff expects that, as the process for achieving the goal is developed and implemented, P&Z will be invited to meet with Council, provide input on how to support and improve the work of the commission, and comment on any changes to the enabling legislation that may impact the role and function of P&Z. The ongoing Pedestrian Malls improvement project is goal number eight. Given the importance of the Malls to the built environment and commercial success of downtown, P&Z will be asked to review and comment on the plans and proposed process for the improvements. The timeline for the next phases of the project has not yet been established, but P&Z will be kept abreast of developments until an agenda item is scheduled in the future. Another goal of interest to P&Z may be goal number five related to small and local business. Goal five is an extension of the discussions initiated under the 2016 development moratorium related to use mix and related AACP policies addressing economic sustainability and local serving businesses. This policy area was a focus of Council’s work and resulted in substantial changes to uses and zoning in commercial areas. Council’s focus for this goal may include how to support the establishment of new locally owned and serving businesses, the potential for affordable commercial space and how to prevent the loss of additional local businesses. To the extent that some of Council’s policies to achieve this goal may result in land use code amendments, P&Z may be involved in future discussions of this and other goals. SIGN CODE UPDATE: On Monday August 28th, Council passed Ordinance 22 amending the sign regulations in section 26.510 to be compliant with federal legal requirements. Commission members were informed of this mandatory code update at the P&Z meeting on June 20, 2017. The code update amended numerous aspects of the sign regulations to remove any content-based language, which the U.S. Supreme Court deemed to be unconstitutional limitations on free-speech, affecting municipalities across the country. P24 VII.A. Code Amendment – Post-Moratorium Clean-Up P&Z Check-in – 9/5/2017 Page 5 of 5 Some of the noteworthy changes to the ordinance include: · Sandwich board signs were eliminated as an allowed sign type. Sandwich board signs with an approved permit may remain in use until September 28, 2018. · Marijuana businesses are no longer permitted to use full-coverage window wraps to meet state-required visibility and separation requirements. New marijuana businesses or those seeking to modify their signage will use window displays to meet their state requirements to ensure display and sales areas are not visible from rights-of-way. · The brightness of backlit signs using LEDs has been restricted to ensure that the light emitted meets specific standards and does not create a nuisance for adjacent property owners. · The allotment of sign area for each business remains the same as under the previous code. · Televisions used for signs continue to have to be set-back 15 feet from windows and rights of way, unless they are below 32 inches. Smaller television signs may be visible from rights-of-way but must be at least 15 feet back as well. The ordinance goes into effect on September 28, 2017. Planning staff will conduct follow-up outreach throughout the month with stakeholders and the public to inform them of the changes to the sign regulations. QUESTIONS FOR P&Z: 1. Are there any additional post-moratorium amendments that P&Z suggests staff pursue? 2. What other aspects of the Lodge definition, use category, auditing and GMQS provisions should staff consider in this amendment process? 3. Does P&Z have any questions about the impact of Ordinance 22, 2017? ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Council Top Ten Goals Work Session Memo Exhibit B: Ordinance 22, 2017 – Reed Compliant Sign Code P25 VII.A. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION August 29, 2017 4:00 PM, City Council Chambers MEETING AGENDA I. Council Top Ten Goals: Review goal language P1 P26 VII.A. City Council Top Ten Goals 2017-19 Goal Area #1 Topic: APCHA / Housing Goal Council Thoughts: · Technology / modernization / data management · Mitigation review · Capital reserve policy · Governance Keys to Success: · Census to populate database · In re: goal for housing Aspen’s workforce – how to deal with retirements? · Efficient utilization of housing stock · Defining and prioritizing the problems Team Leader: Mike Kosdrosky Team Members: Barry Crook, Karen Harrington, Paul Schulz, DRAFT Goal Language Implement a Housing Information Management System to improve system- wide data collection, information, reporting, and analytics. Begin to populate this system with accurate, reliable and real-time data. P2 I. P27 VII.A. Goal Area #2 Topic: Regionalism Council Thoughts: · Relationships · Aspen’s role and responsibilities Keys to Success: · City and County align values . . . values or approaches? · How to support other agencies/jurisdictions in the valley? · School District / TOSV · How and where for discussions about “successful regional cooperation”? · RFTA · Increase communication and idea sharing · Time with other elected officials · Knowing other’s “hot button issues” to see if we have a role to play Team Leader: Sara Ott Team Members: Steve Barwick, Mitzi Rapkin, Jim True, John Krueger DRAFT Goal Language Facilitate increased networking between elected and administrative officials to foster meaningful conversations and identify regional topics for maintaining a high quality of life in the Roaring Fork Valley P3 I. P28 VII.A. Goal Area #3 Topic: What’s Next for the Uphill Economy? Council Thoughts: · “Economic development without the development” . . . jobs that preserve our mountain character · “Exploration Phase” Keys to Success: · Establishment of short/medium/long-range goals · Technical Committee direction begins to happen · Events / Regional activity / Business opportunities · “Viable career options” emerging · Take the pressure off a “boom/bust” real estate focus Team Leader: Jessica Garrow Team Members: Sara Ott, Barry Crook, Don Taylor, Steve Barwick, Mitch Osur DRAFT Goal Language Work with strategic partners to identify priority implementation items from the Uphill Economic Plan that will balance and preserve Aspen’s unique place, traditions and economy. P4 I. P29 VII.A. Goal Area #4 Topic: Mobility Lab / Pedestrian Experience Downtown Council Thoughts: · The transportation landscape is forever changed · NOT “more lanes / more parking garages” · Intercept Lot to Downtown / High School to the Roundabout / In-town movement Keys to Success: · Prioritizing pedestrians in the downtown · Main Street pedestrian crossings / bike crossings · Explore expansion of the pedestrian malls · Increase mobility options to the single occupied vehicle · Use results of the Lab to plan for the future Team Leader: Ashley Perl Team Members: Barry Crook, Sara Ott, Scott Miller, Mitzi Rapkin, Richard Pryor, Jessica Garrow, John Kruger, Mitch Osur DRAFT Goal Language Use an extended experimental period to look at the possible futures of mobility in our community that will provide viable alternatives to the single- occupied vehicle and the need to park those vehicles in Aspen. Consider ways this experiment can put emphasis on the pedestrian and bicyclist experiences in the downtown core. Use this experiment to consider more permanent mobility solutions that leave the transportation field forever changed. P5 I. P30 VII.A. Goal Area #5 Topic: Small / Local Business Council Thoughts: · Getting paid – help from predatory business interactions · Affordable rent · Mix of “cool and unique places” · Retaining dining options Keys to Success: · Is there a path forward for more government intervention in the market place? · Is there a priority between “locally owned” or “locally serving”? · “Protecting” or “managing the mix” or both? · Educating on best practices · 3rd party buys building and provides subsidized rent · Look at mitigation and regulatory burdens · Define what the community wants and how you might achieve it Team Leader: Jessica Garrow Team Members: Barry Crook, Don Taylor, Steve Barwick, Jim True, Linda Manning, Scott Miller, Mitch Osur DRAFT Goal Language Analyze opportunities to retain and attract small, local and unique businesses in order to provide a balanced, diverse and vital use mix supporting the community. P6 I. P31 VII.A. Goal Area #6 Topic: “People Focus” Council Thoughts: · Access to services · Wealth divide · Social cohesion · Community table Keys to Success: · Use of social sustainability dashboard · Service availability (e.g. safe spaces for children) · More city money or reallocation of current expenditures (maximization of the effectiveness of our contributions) · Conversation about creating a stronger, connected community Team Leader: Sara Ott Team Members: Karen Harrington, Linda Manning, Richard Pryor, Mitzi Rapkin, C.J. Oliver, Alissa Farrell DRAFT Goal Language Strengthen the Aspen community by · Facilitating community conversations · Enhancing community spaces · Supporting community livability P7 I. P32 VII.A. Goal Area #7 Topic: Focus on our Carbon Footprint Council Thoughts: · Focus on the Supply Side (i.e. Holy Cross) Keys to Success: · Natural gas hook-ups? · City buildings and the use of natural gas (except for cooking) Team Leader: Ashley Perl Team Members: Dave Hornbacher, Jim True, Jessica Garrow, C.J. Oliver DRAFT Goal Language Decrease the carbon footprint of the community’s energy supplies by maintaining Aspen Electric’s 100% carbon free electric generation portfolio, working with other electric providers to increase renewable energy in their generation plans, and planning for a reduced need for natural gas in Aspen buildings. P8 I. P33 VII.A. Goal Area #8 Topic: Refurbishment of the Pedestrian Malls Team Leader: Jeff Woods Team Members: Barry Crook, Jessica Garrow, Scott Miller, Don Taylor, Mitch Osur Goal Language Develop a master plan that guides development and the use of the pedestrian malls with a goal of maintaining and improving the pedestrian experience. P9 I. P34 VII.A. Goal Area #9 Topic: Boards and Commissions Council Thoughts: · Policy direction · Development and Training · Communication · Effectiveness · Their role in community outreach Keys to Success: · Define the purpose of each Board or Commission Team Leader: Linda Manning Team Members: Sara Ott, Jessica Garrow, Karen Harrington, Mitzi Rapkin, Alissa Farrell, Jim True, Jeff Woods DRAFT Goal Language Determine and improve the effectiveness of each board and commission by: · evaluating the enabling legislation, purpose, history and activity, · affirming expectations of attendance and role in decision-making, · improving communication between council and boards, · clarify the appointment process and requirements, and · encouraging citizen participation through recruiting and training. P10 I. P35 VII.A. ORDINANCE No. 22 Series of 2017 AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING CODE AMENDMENTS TO LAND USE CODE CHAPTER 26.510 – SIGNS AND PART 26.100.104 – DEFINITIONS. WHEREAS, in accordance with Sections 26.208 and 26.310 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code, the City Council of the City of Aspen directed the Community Development Department to craft code amendments to amend the City’s sign regulations; and, WHEREAS, the City has conducted an extensive public outreach process on its sign regulations, including a project page on AspenCommunityVoice.com, individual meetings with stakeholders and regulating agencies including the Aspen Resort Chamber Association, the Aspen Board of Realtors, the Commercial Core and Lodge Commission, the Historic Preservation Commission, and the Planning and Zoning Commission to disseminate information about Reed, describe some of the amendments that may be required under Reed, and gather feedback on those aspects of the sign code that are within their expertise; and WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council met in work sessions on April 18, 2017 and June 13, 2017; and provided general direction on the City’s sign regulations; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(2), during a duly noticed public hearing on July 10, 2017, the City Council approved Resolution No. 101, Series of 2017, by a five to zero (5 – 0) vote, requesting code amendments to the Land Use Code to implement the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City regulates signs to: · Protect the rights of all persons to freedom of expression; and, · Protect the unique aesthetics and visual heritage of the City; and, · Maintain public health, safety, and welfare by preventing sign clutter, distractions from roadways and obstructions from signage; and, · Provide opportunities for commercial and non-commercial signs in commercial and residential zone districts; and, · Limit the proliferation of excessive signs in commercial and residential zone districts; and, · Ensure that sign regulations are adequate to accommodate the informational, advertising, wayfinding and speech needs of residents, businesses and visitors. WHEREAS, signs are a form of speech protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and a 2015 United States Supreme Court decision (Reed v. Town of Gilbert) requires local governments to review and revise their sign regulations to ensure P36 VII.A. that those regulations emphasize the dimensional, design and location of signs rather than their content; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department and consultants White & Smith, LLC conducted research into national best practices regarding sign code compliance with First Amendment principles to aid in the drafting of revised sign regulations; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(1), the Community Development Department conducted Public Outreach with community members and stakeholders, the Planning & Zoning Commission, the Historic Preservation Commission, and City Council regarding the amendments to the sign code; and, WHEREAS, amending the Land Use Code to comply with First Amendment principles will ensure the ongoing effectiveness and viability of the sign regulations within the City of Aspen Land Use Code; and, WHEREAS, City Council has reviewed the proposed code amendment policy direction, and finds it meets the criteria outlined in Section 26.310.040; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health safety and welfare; and NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN COLORADO THAT: Section 1. Chapter 26.510 shall be rescinded and readopted as follows: TITLE 26 LAND USE REGULATIONS PART 500 — SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS Chapter 26.510 SIGNS Sections 26.510.010 Purpose 26.510.020 Applicability and scope 26.510.030 Prohibited signs 26.510.040 Signs not requiring a permit 26.510.050 Procedure for sign permit approval 26.510.060 Sign measurement and location 26.510.070 Sign illumination 26.510.080 Sign lettering, logos and graphic designs 26.510.090 Definition, sign types and characteristics 26.510.100 Signage allotment 26.510.110 Sandwich board signs P37 VII.A. 26.510.120 Policies regarding signage on public property 26.510.010 Purpose In order to preserve the City as a desirable community in which to live, vacation and conduct business, a pleasing, visually attractive environment is of foremost importance. Toward this end, the City Council finds that the City is an historic mountain resort community that has traditionally depended on a tourist economy. Tourists, in part, are attracted to the visual quality and character of the City. Signage has a significant impact on the visual character and quality of the City. The purpose of this Chapter is to promote a comprehensive system of reasonable, effective, consistent, content-neutral and nondiscriminatory sign standards and requirements. These sign regulations are intended to: A. Enhance the attractiveness and economic well-being of the City as a place to live, vacation and conduct business. B. Work with businesses to preserve and maintain the City as a pleasing, visually attractive environment. C. Address community needs relating to upgrading the quality of the tourist experience, preserving the unique natural environment, preserving and enhancing the high quality human existence, retaining the City's premier status in an increasingly competitive resort market, preserving the historically and architecturally unique character of the City, fostering the "village style" quality of the City and preserving and enhancing scenic views. D. Enable the identification of places of residence and business through an appropriate balance of signage and community aesthetics. E. Allow for the communication of information necessary for non-commercial and commercial purposes. F. 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. G. Permit signs that are compatible with their surroundings and aid orientation and preclude placement in a manner that conceals or obstructs adjacent land uses or signs. H. Preclude signs from conflicting with the principal permitted use of the site or adjoining sites. I. Protect the public from the dangers of unsafe signs and require signs to be constructed, installed and maintained in a safe and satisfactory manner. P38 VII.A. J. Lessen hazardous situations, confusion and visual clutter caused by proliferation, improper placement, illumination, animation and excessive height, area and bulk of signs which compete for the attention of pedestrian and vehicular traffic. K. Regulate signs in a manner that does not interfere with, obstruct vision of or distract motorists, bicyclists or pedestrians. 26.510.020 Applicability and Scope A. Generally. This Chapter applies to all signs within the City, except for signs permitted through an approved Planned Development. B. No Restriction on Content. No provision of this Chapter shall be construed to regulate or restrict sign content or message. Any sign authorized in this Chapter may contain any commercial or non-commercial copy in lieu of any other copy. C. Signs Required by Law. The City of Aspen is subordinate to the laws of the federal government and state of Colorado. This Chapter does not prohibit signs, sign locations, or sign characteristics that are required by state or federal law. 26.510.030 Prohibited Signs The following signs are prohibited for erection, construction, repair, alteration, relocation or placement in the City. A. "A" Frame, Sandwich Board and Sidewalk or Curb Signs as defined in section 26.100.104. B. Permanent Banners and Pennants except as approved by the Special Events Committee per Section 26.510.120. C. Billboards and Other Off-Premise Signs. Billboards and other off-premise signs are prohibited, except as a temporary sign as provided for in Section 26.510.040.A, Signs Not Requiring a Permit. [Note: this prohibition includes security company signs, which do not comply with the regulations set forth in this Title.] D. Flashing Signs. Signs with lights or illuminations which flash, move, rotate, scintillate, blink, flicker, vary in intensity, vary in color or use intermittent electrical pulsations except as permitted per Section 26.575.150, Outdoor lighting. E. Moving/Variable Message Signs. Electronically controlled copy changes, or any other signs that move or use movement to emphasize text or images are prohibited. Objects independent of a sign or objects on a sign that move, rotate, or revolve and do not include text or images are permitted (see also Section 26.510.030.S, Television Monitors, and Section 26.510.070, Sign Illumination). P39 VII.A. F. Neon and Neon Appearing Signs. Neon lights, similar gas-filled light tubes, and lighting made to appear as neon are prohibited, except when used for indirect illumination and in such a manner as to not be directly exposed to public view. This includes technology that simulates or mimics neon signs through the use of LED lights or other methods. G. Portable and Wheeled Signs except as allowed elsewhere in this section. H. Roof Signs. A sign mounted on a roof. I. Search Lights or Beacons except as approved per Subsection 26.575.150.H, Outdoor Lighting, Exemptions. J. Signs Causing Direct Glare. A sign or illumination that causes any direct glare into or upon any public right-of-way, adjacent lot or building other than the building to which the sign may be accessory. K. Signs Containing Unprotected Speech. Signs containing material that advocates and incites imminent lawless action, obscenity, defamation, speech integral to criminal conduct, child pornography, or threats to the public health, safety and general welfare are not protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution or Article II, Section 10 of the Colorado Constitution and are prohibited. L. Signs Creating Optical Illusion. Signs with optical illusion of movement by means of a design which presents a pattern capable of reversible perspective, giving the illusion of motion or changing of copy. M. Signs Obstructing Egress. A sign which obstructs any window or door opening used as a means of ingress or egress, prevents free passage from one part of a roof to any other part, interferes with an opening required for ventilation or is attached to or obstructs any standpipe, fire escape or fire hydrant. A sign which obstructs the free movement of pedestrians on sidewalks, pedestrian malls, trails or any other public access way. N. Signs on Parked Vehicles. Signs placed on or affixed to vehicles and/or trailers, including bicycles, which are parked on a public right-of-way, public property or private property so as to be visible from a public right-of-way where the apparent purpose is to advertise a product or commercial service or activity, or direct people to a business or commercial activity located on the same or nearby property. However, this is not in any way intended to prohibit signs placed on or affixed to vehicles and trailers, such as lettering on motor vehicles, where the sign is incidental to the primary use of the vehicle or trailer for transportation. O. Street Blimps. 1. Prohibition. Street Blimps are prohibited. A “Street Blimp” means any advertising display that is attached to a motorized or non-motorized vehicle, device, or bicycle that carries, pulls, or transports a sign or billboard, and is for the primary purpose of advertising. P40 VII.A. 2. Exemption. A “Street Blimp” does not include a sign that is permanently affixed to the body of, an integral part of, or a fixture of a motor vehicle for permanent decoration, identification, or display and that does not extend beyond the overall length, width, or height of the vehicle. Examples include license plates installed in accordance with state law. “Permanently affixed” means any of the following: (a) painted directly on the body of a motor vehicle, (b) applied as a decal on the body of a motor vehicle, or (c) placed in a location on the body of a motor vehicle that was specifically designed by a vehicle manufacturer, in compliance with both state and federal law or guidelines, for the express purpose of containing an advertising sign. A “Street Blimp” does not include “Human Street Blimp,” which is a sign carried by a person for a fee. There shall not be more than one (1) Human Street Blimp displayed at any one time in the City, and the signs shall not exceed six (6) square feet in area. P. Strings of Light and Strip Lighting. Strip lighting outlining commercial structures and strings of light bulbs used in any connection with commercial premises unless the lights are shielded and comply with Section 26.575.150, Outdoor lighting. This does not preclude the use of holiday and decorative lighting in accordance with this Section and Section 26.575.150, Outdoor lighting. Q. Unsafe Signs. Any sign which: 1. Is structurally unsafe; 2. Constitutes a hazard to safety or health by reason of inadequate maintenance or dilapidation; 3. Is not kept in good repair; 4. Is capable of causing electrical shocks to persons likely to come into contact with it; 5. In any other way obstructs the view of, may be confused with or purports to be an official traffic sign, signal or device or any other official government regulatory or informational sign; 6. Creates an unsafe distraction for vehicle operators or pedestrians; 7. Obstructs the view of vehicle operators or pedestrians entering a public roadway from any parking area, service drive, public driveway, alley or other thoroughfare; 8. Is located on trees, rocks, light poles or utility poles, except where required by law; or 9. Is located so as to conflict with the clear and open view of devices placed by a public agency for controlling traffic or which obstructs a motorist's clear view of an intersecting road, alley or major driveway. U. Temporary Signs. Except as otherwise provided for in this section, temporary signs are not allowed. P41 VII.A. 26.510.040 Signs not requiring a permit The following signs or sign activities do not require a sign permit. This exemption does not relieve the applicant and owner of the sign from the responsibility of complying with all applicable provisions of this Title. The exemption applies only to the requirement for a sign permit under this Section. A. Ordinary Maintenance. Ordinary preventive maintenance including repainting of a lawfully existing sign, which does not involve a change of placement, size, lighting, height, or appearance. B. Temporary Freestanding or Wall Signs During Construction. 1. In addition to signs allowed for any residential or commercial property elsewhere in this code, one (1) freestanding or wall sign is allowed along each property lot line facing a street while a site is under construction with the specifications provided by the Building and Engineering Departments. This sign may be erected and maintained after the building permit is issued and while the permit for the property is active. 2. In addition to the signs listed in subsection 1 above, up to six (6) signs displayed for the purposes of public safety and wayfinding may be located on site during the period the building permit for the property is active. These may be mounted on a screening or security fence or gate, on a job site trailer, or as stand-alone signs. The total sign area may not exceed 40% of the dimensions of the gate, fence, trailer, or structure on which the sign is affixed. These regulations do not prevent the display of signage required for local, state and federal safety and regulatory compliance. C. Designated Public Posting Signs. Signs in the public right of way (examples include concert announcements, special event notifications, and grand openings) can only be placed on designated public posting areas such as the ACRA kiosk adjacent to the pedestrian mall and designated areas of public buildings. D. Incidental Signs. Signs, not exceeding two (2) square feet in area for an individual sign or occupying a cumulative area of no more than 10% of the front building façade. (Note: Typical uses of these signs include those providing essential wayfinding and facilities information, identifying restrooms, public telephones, public walkways, public entrances, accessibility routes, restrictions on smoking or solicitation, delivery or freight entrances, affiliation with motor clubs, acceptance of designated credit cards and similar signs providing direction or instruction to persons using a facility including courtesy information such as “vacancy,” “no vacancy,” “open,” “closed,” and the like.) Advertising is prohibited on incidental signs. The maximum size established above does not apply to signs affixed to (and not hanging from or projecting above) ski lifts. E. Temporary Announcement Signs. During the thirty (30) days prior to and after a new tenant occupies a leasable space in the CC, C-1, NC, SCI, MU, EBO, L, CL, and SKI zone districts a sign or sign box not exceeding six (6) square feet in area may be P42 VII.A. displayed along the street-facing façade of the building. This temporary sign shall not be permanently affixed to the building façade. F. Additional Temporary Signs. 1. Applicability. Additional temporary signs containing any message may be displayed on any property from April 1 through June 15 and October 1 through November 15. 2. Number and size. There shall be no more than three (3) additional temporary signs not to exceed six (6) square feet each during the time period referenced in subsection F.1 above. Signs which comply with this subsection do not count against the maximum allowable sign area, or the maximum number of signs allowed under this Chapter. 3. Locations. The additional temporary signs shall not be located in any area prohibited for the sign type. (For example, a wall sign placed during an election period may not be located above the eave line of a building (see § 26.510.090.G) or in the public right-of-way.) 4. Structural and Design Standards. Each additional temporary sign erected during the time period referenced in subsection F.1 above must meet the standards and limitations for the sign’s structural category, except as follows: a. They need not be affixed permanently to the ground or building. b. They may not be illuminated, or digital signs. G. Flags. Flags that are displayed for noncommercial purposes. H. Yard Signs. Yard signs may be displayed: 1. Except as provided in subsection 2 and 3 below, one yard sign may be displayed no more than twice per year per dwelling unit for a period not to exceed three days. This sign shall not exceed 4 feet in height or four square feet in sign area, shall not be located in any right-of-way, and shall not be illuminated. 2. During the following time periods, an additional yard signs may be displayed and the total permitted area may increase by 50 percent: a. the fourth Thursday in November to the second Monday in January, and b. the first week in July. 3. When a property is actively for sale or rent and seven (7) days after the sale or rental, an additional yard sign not to exceed three (3) square feet is permitted. When multiple units or parcels are available, the yard sign area may be combined, but no one development or property shall have more than twelve (12) square feet of sign area. These signs may not be located in the right-of-way. 4. Yard signs must be removed at the conclusion of the time periods listed above. P43 VII.A. 5. Yard signs are not permitted in rights-of-way, shall be maintained in safe condition, shall not constitute a fire hazard, and (where internal illumination is permitted) shall comply with Section 26.575.150, Outdoor Lighting. I. Government Signs. Signs placed or erected by governmental agencies or associations (such as signs that control traffic or that provide other regulatory or informational purposes, street signs, official messages, warning signs, railroad crossing signs, signs of public service companies indicating danger, or aids to service and safety which are erected by or for the order of government). These signs may include a variable message display. J. Historic Designation. Signs placed or preserved by a public agency on or in front of a historic building or site, which sign shall not exceed six (6) square feet in area, as approved by the Historic Preservation Officer in accordance with the Commercial, Lodging, and Historic District Design Standards and Guidelines. K. Incidental Signs on Vehicles. Signs placed on or affixed to vehicles or trailers and that are not defined as a “Street Blimp” in Section 26.510.030. This does not permit signs placed on or affixed to vehicles or trailers which are parked on a public right-of-way, public property or private property so as to be visible from a public right-of-way where the apparent purpose is to advertise. L. Interior Signs. Signs which are fully located within an enclosed lobby or courtyard of any building, which are not visible from the public right-of-way, adjacent lots or areas outside the building. M. Engraved Signs. Plaques, tablets, markers, or statuary when copy is cut into any masonry surface or when constructed of bronze or other incombustible materials. Such signs shall not exceed twelve (12) square feet. N. Sign Boxes. An exterior surface mounted or pole mounted sign box in the CC, C-1, MU, L, CL, P, GCS, LO, LP, SKI, and EBO districts as follows: 1. One (1) sign box is permitted per use, 2. the sign box shall not exceed four (4) square feet in area, 3. the height shall not exceed four feet from the point of attachment to principal building in which the use to which the sign applies is located, and 4. the sign box shall be located on or in front of a building within which a restaurant is located. O. Theater Signs. To allow displays that are consistent with the traditional design of theater building forms, signs not to exceed thirty inches by forty-two inches (30" x 42") may be located within the inner or outer lobby, court or entrance, window display, or interior or exterior poster box of a theatre. Variable message displays, televisions, or other forms of digital marquees, which may be visible from the exterior may be used if they comply with the following: only one variable message display, television, or similar P44 VII.A. digital marquee may be designed to be visible exclusively from the exterior, and may be up to thirty-two (32) inches in size, and the screen shall not be mounted on the exterior of the building. P. Machine Signs. Permanent, potentially internally illuminated but non-flashing signs on vending machines, gasoline pumps, ice or milk containers or similar machines. Machine signs that are internally illuminated must be located inside of a building or in a space that is not visible from the public right-of-way. Q. Television Signs. 1. A “television sign” means a television monitors, or any other electronic device that emits an image onto a screen. 2. Television signs shall be placed at least fifteen (15) feet set back from the storefront window. 3. Television signs less than one-hundred and eighty (180) square inches may be located five (5) feet from the storefront window only if oriented to not face the public right of way. 4. Television signs one-hundred and eighty (180) square inches or greater in area shall not be oriented to face the public right-of-way. 26.510.050 Procedure for sign permit approval A. Permit Required. 1. It is unlawful to erect, place, construct, reconstruct or relocate any sign which requires a permit without first obtaining a sign permit from the Community Development Director. 2. Existing signs on private property that are authorized by an approved sign permit may be maintained after the adoption of this Chapter. B. Application. A development application for a sign permit shall include the following information: 1. That information required on the form provided by the Community Development Director; 2. A letter of consent from the owner of the building; 3. Proposed location of the sign(s) on the building or parcel and material; 4. A Net Leasable calculation of the applicant’s commercial space per the definition in 26.575.020, along with an explanation of how this information was obtained. 5. Any information needed to calculate permitted sign area, height, type, placement or other requirements of these regulations. P45 VII.A. C. Determination of Completeness. After a development application for a sign permit has been received, the Community Development Director shall determine whether the application is complete. If the Community Development Director determines that the application is not complete, written notice shall be provided to the applicant specifying the deficiencies. The Community Development Director shall take no further action on the application unless the deficiencies are remedied. If the application is determined complete, the Community Development Director shall notify the applicant of its completeness. A determination of completeness shall not constitute a determination of compliance with the substantive requirements of this Chapter. D. Determination of Compliance. After reviewing the application and determining its compliance and consistency with the purposes, requirements and standards in this Chapter, the Community Development Director shall approve, approve with conditions or deny the development application for a sign permit. E. Appeal. An applicant aggrieved by a determination made by the Community Development Director, pursuant to this Section, may appeal the decision to the Administrative Hearing Officer, pursuant to the procedures and standards of Chapter 26.316, Appeals. 26.510.060 Sign measurement and location A. Sign Setback. Signs are not subject to the setback requirements of the Zone District where they are located. B. General. In calculating the area allowance for signs in all Zone Districts, there shall be taken into account all signs allowed. See Section 26.510.060.D, Sign Area for the method of measuring signs. C. Two or More Faces. 1. Where a sign has two or more faces, the area of all faces shall be included in determining the area of the sign. 2. Where two faces are placed back to back and are at no point more than two feet from one another, the sign area is: a. the area of one of the faces if the two faces are of equal area, or b. the larger face if the two faces are of unequal area. P46 VII.A. D. Sign Area. Sign area shall be the area of the smallest four-sided geometric figure which encompasses the facing of a sign including copy, insignia, background and borders. For residential monument signs, as provided for in section 26.510.100(B), the measurement of sign area shall include the lettering and backing, as well as the monument upon which the sign is affixed. For residential monument signs mounted on landscape walls or fences within setback areas, the wall must comply with the standards of section 26.575.020(E)(5)(k), and the sign area shall include that area of the feature upon which the lettering and backing is located and the wall area above and below the lettering and backing. Sign Area Measurement Sign area enclosing a four-sided shape. Monument sign. Residential monument sign on landscape wall. P47 VII.A. E. Cut-Out Letter Signs. Cut-out letter signs shall be credited toward allowable sign area at one-half (1/2) the measured area (see Figure 1 on the following page). The cut-out letter sign credit is given because these types of signs encourage transparency in regards to building materials and store windows, or lessen the impact of signage on awnings. To receive the credit on sign area, cut-out letter signs shall include the following: 1. Cut-out wall signs made out of wood, metal, stone or glass. 2. Cut-out window signs (such as laminate adhesive lettering) 3. Cut-out window signs that primarily contain text. If the cut-out letter sign contains graphics it will not receive the sign area credit. 4. Lettering on awnings that use the awning’s primary color for the backing, for example, white lettering placed on an awning that is completely red. The credit would not be given to white lettering in front of a black background on an awning that is otherwise completely red. 5. Cut-out wall or window signs shall not exceed twelve (12) feet in width, or half of the total width of the street facing-building façade of the building on which it is located, whichever is smaller. 1. Window sign with cut-out letters. 2. Window sign with solid backing. 3.Sign with irregular shape. *Note: For the purposes of calculating cut-out letter signs for compliance with Section 26.510.100, Signage Allotment, the size of the cut-out letter sign shall be the final area after the reduction has been applied. For example, a two by six-foot (2’ x 6’) cut-out letter sign shall be permitted on the wall of a retail use, given that after the reduction has been applied it is only considered a (6) square foot sign. P48 VII.A. D. Sign Location and Placement. 1. When possible, signs shall be located at the same height on buildings with the same block face. Signs shall not obstruct or hide architectural features. Signs shall be consistent with the color, scale, and design of the building on the same lot or façade, and be proportionate to the scale of the facades. The location of a sign on a building shall correspond with the interior tenant space associated with the sign. For example, a business on the first floor of a building shall not place a sign on the second floor of the building. No sign shall be placed above the second floor of the building, or 28’ above the street level, whichever is less. However, businesses on upper levels may place signage on the ground level to indicate the entrance for the business. 2. Signs and sign mounting hardware placed on historic buildings shall not undermine the integrity, character or historic materials of the building as provided in the Commercial, Lodging, and Historic District Design Standards and Guidelines. Signs on historic masonry buildings should be mounted in the mortar, not the brick, and should be placed to maintain the integrity and health of historic materials. Applicants shall consult with P49 VII.A. the Historic Preservation Officer prior to receiving a sign permit to ensure the proposed sign and mounting materials do not undermine historic resources. 26.510.070 Sign illumination A. Allowed Illumination. Illumination of signs shall be designed, located, directed and shielded in such a manner that the light source is fixed and is not directly visible from and does not cast glare or direct light upon any adjacent property, public right-of-way, or motorist's vision. Illumination shall comply with Section 26.575.150, Outdoor lighting. One backlit sign is permitted on buildings in which a Retail, Restaurant and Lodge uses in located if the emitted light does not create excess glare or light trespass onto other properties. Backlit signs shall be constructed of an opaque material. Illuminated channel-letter signs are allowed if the face and sides are constructed of an opaque material. Sign lighting shall be controlled by a light sensor, timer, or equivalent system in order to minimize the duration of illumination. Businesses are allowed no more than one backlit or illuminated channel-letter sign. B. Brightness 1. Illuminated signs shall not operate at brightness levels of more than 0.3 footcandles above ambient light at the property line, as measured using a footcandle meter. 2. Prior to the issuance of a sign permit, the applicant shall provide written certification from the sign manufacturer that the light intensity has been factory pre-set not to exceed seven thousand (7,000) nits and that the intensity level is protected from end-user manipulation by password-protected software or other method as deemed appropriate by the director. C. Prohibited Illumination. No sign shall be illuminated through the use of internal, oscillating, flickering, rear (excluding permitted backlit illumination), variable color, fluorescent illumination or neon or other gas tube illumination except when used for indirect illumination and in a manner, that directs the lighting away from the public right-of-way. 26.510.080 Sign lettering, logos and graphic designs A. Lettering. No lettering on any sign, including cut out letter signs, shall exceed twelve (12) inches in height, except that the first letter in each word shall not exceed eighteen (18) inches in height. B. Logos. No logo on any sign, including cut out letter signs, shall exceed eighteen inches in height and eighteen inches in length (18" x 18"). 26.510.090. Sign types and characteristics A. Awning Signs. No sign placed on an awning may project above, below, or off an awning. Signs may only be placed on awnings that meet the definition for Awning in Section 26.104.100, Definitions. P50 VII.A. B. Freestanding Signs. The highest point of any part of a Freestanding sign shall not be higher than the principal building or six (6) feet, whichever is less, and cannot project into the public or pedestrian right-of-way. C. Materials. Except for the Temporary Announcement Sign provided for in Section 26.510.040.E, signs shall be made primarily out of wood, glass, metal, or stone. Sandwich board signs must contain a fixed message or be made out of chalkboard. Dry erase boards are prohibited. D. Monument Signs. The size and design of a monument sign shall meet the use requirements for that type of sign. The sign face must be directly connected to the base of the sign. Landscaping shall be provided so that the sign transitions naturally into the ground. E. Projecting Signs. Projecting signs, also known as hanging or blade signs, shall not be higher than the eave line or parapet wall of the top of the principal building, shall have a minimum clearance of eight (8) feet above grade when located adjacent to or projecting over a pedestrian way and shall not extend more than four (4) feet from the building wall to which they are attached, except where the sign is an integral part of an approved canopy or awning. F. Variable Message Display. An electronic traffic sign, which may contain a changing message, often used on roadways to give travelers information on special events or road conditions. G. Wall Signs. Wall signs shall not be higher than the eave line or parapet wall of the top of the principal building and no sign part, including cut out letters, shall project more than six (6) inches from the building wall. H. Window Signs. Window signs may be made of adhesive vinyl material. I. Window Displays: Window displays (for example, the display of merchandise and representations thereof) are not subject to this Chapter, except as provided in this subsection N, and do not require a sign permit. Businesses required to shield product displays and sales areas from public rights-of-way in order to comply with State of Colorado regulations regulating the visibility of products and sales areas must use window displays, as opposed to window wraps or other methods. These window displays shall be constructed to comply with all State requirements for visibility, shall be constructed in a good and workmanlike manner, and shall comply with the requirements of this section. Illumination of window displays shall be provided from full cut-off fixtures, shall not exceed 3 footcandles at the building exterior, and shall be directed inward towards the business to minimize excess glare or light trespass on adjacent properties and public rights-of-way. The following types of illumination and signs are prohibited within window displays: 1. Televisions, computer monitors or other similar technological devices that create oscillating light. P51 VII.A. 2. Neon or other gas tube illumination, rope lighting or low-voltage strip lighting, except when used for indirect illumination and in such a manner as to not be directly exposed to public view. 3. Backlit or internally illuminated displays or graphics. 26.510.100 Sign allotment A. General Sign Allotment Rules. 1. Allotment. Sign allotment for all commercial businesses is based on the size of the Net Leasable Space the business occupies. How to calculate Net Leasable Commercial Space can be found in Section 26.575.020.I, Measurement of Net Leasable Commercial Space. 2. Projecting Sign. The area of a Projecting sign is exempt from sign allotment if: a. The sign is installed perpendicular to the front façade of the building. b. The sign is no larger than six (6) sq. ft. per side. 3. Interior Signs. Interior signs placed within fifteen (15) feet of storefront windows count towards a business’s signage allotment. Signs placed perpendicular to the public right- of-way or more than fifteen (15) feet from the storefront window are exempt from sign calculations. 4. Multi-Tenant Buildings. Buildings with four (4) or more tenants may create two (2) signs of up to ten (10) square feet in addition to the sign allotment for the individual tenants. One of the signs may be in the form of a freestanding sign. 5. Window Signs/Displays. Window signs and window displays are allowed only in the CC, C1, NC, SCI, CL and L zones, as follows: a. Window Signs and Wraps. A Window sign shall not exceed 50% of a window’s area. Text and logos shall not exceed 25% of the window sign or wrap area. b. Window signs and wraps which conform to the standards in subsection 5.a above do not count towards a business’s or building’s sign allotment. For window wraps and signs which exceed the standards of subsection 5.a, the entirety of the window sign or wrap area shall be included in the calculation of sign area for the business or building. 6. Sandwich board signs, where permitted, do not count towards a business’s sign allotment. B. Sign Allotment. 1. Non-Residential and Mixed Use Districts. The following allotments apply to the CC, C-1, S/C/I, NC, MU, A, P, PUB, T, GCS, SKI, and EBO zone districts: a. The sign allotment for individual businesses is as follows: Net Leasable Space Sign Allotment per tenant or occupant P52 VII.A. < 2,500 square feet 6 square feet 2,501 – 23,999 square feet 8 square feet > 24,000 20 square feet b. No single sign may be larger than six (6) sq. ft. in area. c. Essential Public Facilities are calculated using the methodology for Net Leasable Area. 2. Residential Locations: a. Generally. A multi-family complex, subdivision entrance, or mobile home park is allotted one wall, freestanding or monument sign with a maximum area of 16 square feet. b. Bed and Breakfast or Home Occupation. In addition to the yard signs provided for in Section 26.510.040.H, a building that includes a Bed and Breakfast or Home Occupation is allotted one (1) sign with a maximum area of six (6) square feet. c. Non-residential Uses in Residential Zone Districts. A non-residential use (other than a home occupation) located in a residential zone district (R-6, R-15, R-15A, R-15B, R-30, RMF, RMFA, APHD, R-3, or RR), is allotted one monument sign with a maximum area of 12 square feet. 3. Lodge Districts. Buildings in the L, CL, LO, LP, shall receive a sign allotment of twelve (12) square feet per business. 26.510.110 Sandwich board signs The display of sandwich board and similar free-standing, two sided signs on public or private property is not permitted. 26.510.120 Policies regarding signage on public property The purpose of these regulations is to establish reasonable regulations for the posting of temporary signs, displays and banners on certain public property. These regulations include signs on public rights-of-way, banners and flags on light posts on Main Street, signs in City parks, displays in City parks, signs hung across Main Street at Third Street, and signs on public buildings. These regulations shall be read in conjunction with this Chapter and are not intended to supersede this Chapter’s regulation of signs. Temporary signs and displays provide an important medium through which individuals may convey a variety of noncommercial and commercial messages. However, left completely unregulated, temporary signs and displays can become a threat to public safety as a traffic hazard and detrimental to property values and the City's overall public welfare as an aesthetic nuisance. P53 VII.A. These regulations are intended to supplement this Chapter and to assist City staff to implement the regulations adopted by the City Council. These regulations are adopted to: 1. Balance the rights of individuals to convey their messages through temporary signs or displays and the right of the public to be protected against unrestricted proliferation of signs and displays; 2. Further the objectives of this Chapter; and 3. Ensure the fair and consistent enforcement of the sign and display regulations specified below. This Section, “policies regarding signage on public property,” states: "It shall be unlawful to erect or maintain any sign in, on, over or above any land or right-of-way or on any property, including light posts, belonging to the City without the permission of the City Council." Sign permits issued by the City Manager or his or her designee, that are in conformance with these regulations shall constitute City Council permission within the meaning of this Section, Signs on public rights-of-way. Applications for sign permits that do not comply with these regulations shall be forwarded to the City Council for consideration if requested by the applicant. A. Definitions. 1. Unless otherwise indicated, the definitions of words used in these regulations shall be the same as the definitions used in this Chapter, Signs. In addition, the following definitions shall apply: 2. Banner means any sign of lightweight fabric, plastic or similar material that is attached to any structure, pole, line or vehicle and possessing characters, letters, illustrations or ornamentations. 3. Banner, Light Post means any sign of lightweight fabric, plastic or similar material that is attached to a light post and possessing characters, letters, illustrations or ornamentations which meets the dimensional requirements for and is intended to be installed on municipal light posts. 4. Display means any symbol or object that does not meet the definition of a sign as defined in this Code, but like a sign is intended to convey a message to the public. 5. Flag means any fabric or bunting containing distinctive colors, patterns or symbols, which meets the dimensional requirements and is intended to be installed on municipal light posts. 6. Public Right-of-Way means the entire area between property boundaries which is owned by a government, dedicated to the public use or impressed with an easement for public use; which is primarily used for pedestrian or vehicular travel; and which is publicly maintained, in whole or in part, for such use; and includes without limitation the street, gutter, curb, shoulder, sidewalk, sidewalk area, parking or parking strip, pedestrian malls and any public way. P54 VII.A. 7. Sign means and includes the definition for sign as contained in Section 26.104.100, Definitions, of this Code. The term shall also include displays as that term is defined above. 8. Sign, Inflatable means any inflatable shape or figure designed or used to attract attention to a business event or location. Inflatable promotional devices shall be considered to be temporary signs under the terms of this Chapter and, where applicable, subject to the regulations thereof. B. Signs on Public Rights-of-Way. 1. Purpose: The purpose of this policy is to regulate signs permitted to be located temporarily in the public right-of-way. Temporary signs are permitted in public rights- of-way if the following policies and procedures are followed. These regulations do not apply to banners on the Main Street light posts or hanging across Main Street that are subject to different regulations and criteria. 2. Size/Number/Material: Only two signs per person/event/organization are permitted. Signs shall not exceed ten square feet each and banners shall not exceed fifty square feet. Banners must be made of nylon, plastic or similar type material. Paper signs and banners are prohibited. 3. Cost/Fees/Procedures: Applicants shall be required to pay the necessary fees for approval from the Special Events Committee. Any event not requiring review by the Special Events Committee shall submit a sign plan to the Community Development Department for review and approval for a fee as outlined in Chapter 26.104.072, Zoning Fees, of this Code. Applications must be received a minimum of thirty days prior to the event. The applicant shall also submit a refundable security deposit as outlined in the current fee schedule to be applied to any damages, repairs or the cost of removal if not corrected/removed by the applicant within three days. 4. Duration: Temporary signs authorized pursuant to this Section shall be erected and maintained for a period not to exceed eighteen (18) days. 5. Maintenance: All signs and banners shall be maintained in an attractive manner, shall not impede vehicular or pedestrian traffic and shall not pose a safety risk to the public. 6. Exceptions: Any exceptions from the above requirements shall require City Council review and approval. C. Banners and Flags on Main Street Light Posts. 1. Purpose: Banners and flags hung from light posts on Main Street have traditionally been permitted to further a variety of interests, such as to celebrate special events of community interest. The purpose of these policies and regulations is to clarify the manner of displaying banners or flags hung from the City-owned light posts on Main Street. 2. Eligibility: Only City-owned flags or banners are permitted on Main Street light posts. P55 VII.A. 3. Size/Number/Material: All proposed banners or flags should meet the City's specifications for size, mounting and material. Banners shall be two feet wide and four feet high (2' x 4') to be compatible with mounting system on the light posts. Banners and flags must be made of nylon, plastic or similar material. Paper is not allowed. 4. Copy: The City reserves the right to request changes to the design, color or copy in order to assist the applicant in complying with this policy. 5. Cost/Fees/Procedures: The cost of installation is outlined in the current fee schedule as amended from time to time. A refundable security deposit as outlined in the current fee schedule shall be required to assure replacement of damaged banners and retrieval of the banners from the City (see Section g below for maintenance requirements). The applicant shall submit an application to the City Manager's office showing the dimensions, design and colors of the proposed banners or flags at least three (3) months prior to the event. Flags are required to be delivered to the City Parks Department one (1) week prior to the event. Banners shall be delivered to the Utility Department on Fridays at least two (2) weeks prior to their installation. 6. Duration: The display of banners and flags on the Main Street light posts shall not exceed fourteen (14) days or the duration of the event, whichever is less. 7. Maintenance: Prior to the placement of banners or flags on City street light posts, the applicant shall provide to the City a number of replacement flags or banners to be determined by the City. These replacement flags or banners shall be used by the City to replace banners or flags that are stolen or damaged. The cost of replacing banners or flags shall be deducted from the security deposit. Once banners have been removed, the applicant shall be required to pick up the banners from the City within three (3) days. D. Signs in City Parks. A. Purpose: Unattended signs are generally prohibited in City parks. The purpose of this policy is to regulate unattended temporary signs that are permitted in limited circumstances in City parks. B. Size/Number/Material: Unattended temporary signs located in City parks shall be limited in size to three feet by six feet. Two (2) signs per person, organization or sponsor are allowed to face towards the event venue, and five (5) signs are allowed to face towards the public rights-of-way. These signs are not allowed to extend more than ten (10) feet above grade. Banners must be made of nylon, plastic or similar material. Paper banners and flags are prohibited. The Special Events Committee may approve one (1) inflatable per event of no more than twenty (20) feet in height if a suitable on-site location can be provided and if there is a demonstrable community benefit. C. Location: Signs shall be set back at least ten (10) feet from the public right-of-way. D. Cost/Fees/Procedures: Applicants shall be required to pay the necessary fees for approval from the Special Events Committee. Any event not requiring review by the Special Events Committee shall submit a sign plan to the Community Development P56 VII.A. Department for review and approval for a fee as outlined in the current fee schedule. The applicant shall also submit a refundable security deposit as outlined in the current fee ordinance to be applied to any damages, repairs or the cost of removal if not corrected/removed by the applicant within three (3) days. The applicant shall receive the necessary approval prior to the installation of any signs. Applications must be received no later than thirty (30) days prior to the event. E. Duration. Unattended temporary signs may be erected and maintained only for the duration of the event or forty-eight (48) hours, whichever is less. All signs must be removed immediately following the event. F. Maintenance: All signs must be maintained in an attractive manner, shall not impede vehicular or pedestrian traffic and shall not pose a safety risk to the public. A fifty dollar ($50.00) refundable security deposit will be required to insure compliance. F. Signs Across Main Street at Third Street. 1. Purpose: The purpose of this policy is to regulate signs permitted to be located temporarily across the Main Street right-of-way at Third Street. Temporary signs shall be permitted in this location if the following policies and procedures are followed. These regulations do not apply to banners on the Main Street light posts or signs other than those hanging across Main Street at Third Street. 2. Eligibility: Only City-owned banners are permitted on signs extending across the Main Street right-of-way at Third Street. 3. Size/Number/Material: Banners must consist of the following specifications: a. Any type of durable material; b. Semicircular wind holes in banner; c. Metal rivets at all corners and every twenty-four (24) inches along the top and bottom of the banner; d. Size will be twelve (12) feet in length and three (3) feet in width. 4. Cost/Fees/Procedures: a. Main Street banner application and banner policy and procedure form must be obtained from the City Manager's office and completed by the party making the request and returned to the City Manager's office no less than 30 days prior to the date requested to hang the banner. b. The exact legend of the banner must be indicated in writing (see specific area on application form). Sponsors are advised that banners are most visually effective when kept simple: i.e., event, date organization and logo. c. The cost of installation is outlined in the current fee schedule as amended from time to time, and must accompany the application form and be reviewed in the City P57 VII.A. Manager's office 30 days prior to the date the banner will be hung. All organizations will be charged the same rate, accordingly. d. All banners should be delivered directly to the Electric Department, which is located in back of the Post Office at 219 Puppy Smith Road, by noon the Friday prior to the Monday hang date. Any banner not delivered by noon the prior Friday is subject to an additional fifty-dollar ($50.00) charge. e. Please pick up the banner from the Electric Department within 30 days after the display week(s). The City assumes no responsibility for banners, and any banners left more than 30 days may be discarded. 5. Eligibility: The City provides space to hang four (4) single-sided banners and two (2) double-sided banners across Main Street. Reservations will be taken each year on November 1st for the following year. The first organization to have their contract negotiated, signed and paid will be offered the banner space on a first come, first serve basis. 6. Duration: One (1) banner, per event, may be hung for a maximum of fourteen (14) days, as per Subsection 26.510.040(A)(1). Banner approvals are not guaranteed and will only be hung upon availability of the Electric Department staff. The length of time that a banner is to be hung is not guaranteed and may be shortened at the discretion of the City. Based on his/her judgment as to the best interest of the City, the City Manager may determine which banners are to be given priority when there are multiple requests for the same time period. 7. Maintenance: All banners shall be maintained in an attractive manner. 8. Exceptions: Any exceptions from the above requirements shall require City Council review and approval. G. Signs on Public Buildings. 1. Purpose: This subsection establishes a policy for the installation of sign on public buildings owned by the City. 2. Eligibility: Only City-owned signs are permitted on public buildings. 3. Size/Number/Material: All proposed signs should meet the City's specifications for size, mounting and material. 4. Copy: The City reserves the right to request changes to the design, color or copy in order to assist the applicant in complying with this policy. 5. Cost/Fees/Procedures: The cost of installation is outlined in the current fee schedule as amended from time to time. A refundable security deposit as outlined in the current fee schedule shall be required to assure replacement of damaged banners and retrieval of the banners from the City (see Section g below for maintenance requirements). The applicant shall submit an application to the City Manager's office showing the dimensions, design and colors of the proposed signs. P58 VII.A. 6. Duration: The display of signs on public buildings shall not exceed fourteen (14) days or the duration of the event, whichever is less. 7. Maintenance: Prior to the placement of signs on public buildings, the applicant shall provide to the City a number of replacement signs, which matching the existing signs, to be determined by the City. These replacement signs shall be used by the City to replace signs that are stolen or damaged. The cost of replacing signs shall be deducted from the security deposit. Once signs have been removed, the applicant shall be required to pick up the signs from the City within three (3) days. Section 2: The following definitions shall be added to Section 26.140.100, Definitions, and the following definitions are repealed: Logo; Sign; Sign, "A" frame or sandwich; Sign, free standing; Sign, off-site; Sign, portable or wheeled; Sign, projecting; Sign, roof; Sign, temporary; Sign, wall. Title 26 LAND USE REGULATIONS PART 100 — GENERAL PROVISIONS 26.104.100. Definitions. Advertise or Advertising. To make something known, or to announce publicly, a commercial message directing attention to a business, product, service, profession, commodity, activity, event, or any other commercial message. Footcandle. A measure of illumination on a surface that is one foot from a uniform source of light of one candle and equal to one lumen per square foot. Illumination. An artificial light source incorporated internally or externally to emanate light from, or direct light to, a sign’s surface. Light sources may include exposed tubing, electrical bulbs, fluorescent lights, neon tubes, light emitting diodes (LED), liquid crystal displays, or other artificial sources of light. Illuminated Sign. Any sign that incorporates illumination over all or part of its surface, or that is created by the projection of illumination onto a surface (such as a building wall). Individual Business. A commercial operation with a proprietary or distinct identity. This identity can be established through unique advertising, branding, logo(s), operations, ownership structure, inventory, products, services, location, physical separation, or other characteristics that make the commercial operation distinctly different. An operation shall qualify as an Individual Business if it has a preponderance of these characteristics. Distinctions created for the sole purpose of increasing signage shall not be accepted. Logo. A symbol or other small design adopted by an organization to identify its products, uniform, vehicles, etc. Nit. A unit of illuminative brightness equal to one candle per square meter, measured perpendicular to the rays of the source. P59 VII.A. 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. The following are not considered signs, and are not subject to the sign regulations in Chapter 25.510: 1. Window displays of merchandise and representations thereof (See Section 26.510.140, Signs-window displays), or 2. Signs carried or worn by a person. Sign Box. A freestanding or wall sign consisting of a cabinet with transparent or translucent material (such as glass) that allows the display of posters, placards, or similar printed material located inside the cabinet. Sign, "A" frame or sandwich. A portable sign which is ordinarily in the shape of an "A" or some variation thereof and which usually has no wheels. Sign, free standing. Any sign which is permanently affixed to the ground, which is self- supported by a standard or legs or other self-supporting structure used solely for that sign and which is physically separated from any building or structure. Sign, incidental. See 26.510.040.D. Sign, monument. A sign which has a bottom that is permanently affixed to the ground rather than a building. Sign, off-site. A sign which directs attention to a business, commodity, service, entertainment, attraction or product sold, offered or existing elsewhere than upon the same lot where such sign is located. The term shall include outdoor advertising signs (billboards), unless otherwise preempted by state or federal law. Sign, portable or wheeled. A sign not permanently affixed to the ground, a building or other permanently affixed structure which may be moved from place to place and which may be mounted on wheels. Sign, projecting. Any sign, other than a freestanding sign, affixed to or supported by a building or structure, which projects beyond the surface of that portion of the building or structure to which it is affixed or supported by more than six (6) inches. Sign, roof. A sign created, placed or maintained in whole or in part upon, against or directly above the roof or parapet line of a building. Sign, Sandwich Board. Sandwich board signs are two-sided self-supported a-frame signs, or any other two-sided portable sign, and must comply with those requirements found within Section 26.510.110. P60 VII.A. Sign, temporary. A nonpermanent sign erected, affixed or maintained for a short, usually fixed, period of time. Sign, wall. Any sign painted or placed on, incorporated in or affixed to, a building wall, window or canopy or any sign consisting of cut-out letters or devices affixed to a building wall, window or canopy with no background defined on the building wall, window or canopy, with the exposed face of the sign located in a place substantially parallel to the wall, window or canopy surface on which it is placed. Sign, Window. A sign placed in a window. Sign, yard. Freestanding sign accessory to the primary use of land that is located in the yard of a lot, may be permanent or temporary, and may be either an on-premises or off-premises sign. For illustrative purposes only, examples may include signs posted by a realtor or home improvement company, sign expressing an opinion, and garage sale advertising. Structural Category. With regard to signs, a structural category refers to the sign’s characteristics that qualify the sign as a: free standing sign, incidental sign, monument sign, off- site sign, projecting sign, sandwich board sign, temporary sign, wall sign, or window sign. Window Wrap. A window wrap is a non-permanent window covering placed directly on a window that consists predominately of graphics. Section 3. The display of sandwich board and similar free-standing, two sided signs on public or private property is not permitted. Sandwich board signs with a valid City of Aspen permit may be displayed until the annual permit expires, or September 28, 2018, whichever is later. Expired sandwich board permits will not be renewed and sandwich board signs displayed without a permit must be removed in accordance with the City of Aspen Municipal Code. Section 4: Any scrivener’s errors contained in the code amendments herein, including but not limited to mislabeled subsections or titles, may be corrected administratively following adoption of the Ordinance. Section 5: Effect Upon Existing Litigation. This ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 6: Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 7: Effective Date. P61 VII.A. In accordance with Section 4.9 of the City of Aspen Home Rule Charter, this ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days following final passage. Section 8: A public hearing on this ordinance was held on the 28th day of August, 2017, at a meeting of the Aspen City Council commencing at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, a minimum of fifteen days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 28th day of August, 2017. Attest: _____________________________ ____________________________ Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 28th day of August, 2017. Attest: _____________________________ ____________________________ Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor Approved as to form: _____________________________ James R. True, City Attorney P62 VII.A.